- [announcer] funding for overheard with evan smith is provided in part by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation and hillco partners, a texas government affairs consultancy, and by klru's producer circle, ensuring local programming that reflects the character and interests of the greater austin, texas community. - i'm evan smith. he's a former cia officer, investment banker, and congressional staffer, running as an independent candidate for president of the united states in 2016. he's evan mcmullin. this is overheard. (audience applauds) - [evan smith voiceover] let's be honest. is this about the ability to learn, or is this about the experience of not having been taught properly? how have you avoided what has befallen other nations in africa and elsewhere? you could say that he made his own bed, but you caused him to sleep in it. you know, you saw a problem, and over time took it on. let's start with the sizzle before we get to the steak. are you gonna run for president? i think i just got an f from you actually.

(audience laughter) this is overheard. (audience applauds) - evan mcmullin, welcome. - great to be here with you. - thank you for being here. so, you're a young guy. - i'm 40. - you're 40. - it's nice of you to call me young. - well, compared to me, you're young. - you're still young too. - therefore, you were pretty young, three or four, during the 1980 presidential election cycle, when roger mudd famously asked ted kennedy, "why do you want to be president?" and he muffed the answer. i'm gonna ask you the same question. i'm gonna give you the same opportunity. why do you want to be president? - because i think it's time in this country for a new generation of leadership, leaders who will put the interests of the american people first, and leaders who can unite this country. we've been divided for too long. we have a government that believes it's unaccountable, a federal government that believes it's unaccountable to the american people. we're increasingly at risk by threats from overseas. we need leadership who knows how to handle those and who will again put the interest of the american people first, but in a way that will unite us. and i think i have the answers to those challenges,

and i believe that the two major-party candidates are woefully unfit for the responsibilities they seek. and for that reason and others, i'm running for president. - you decided to run. a new generation of leadership refers to age? or it refers to outlook on the world? - no, i think it's people who aren't career politicians, people who haven't based their entire effort in life to remain in public office. i'm talking about our need to replace politicians and elected leaders who first seek to re-elect themselves. these are people who no longer serve in the interest of the american people. - but, of course, those same people, i mean this is the argument that comes up around term limits. "i'm for term limits." but then you end up throwing out people who are often the most experienced and knowledgeable about government. so, sometimes you sacrifice experience and knowledge and qualifications simply to overturn the mulch for its own sake. - well, there is tension there. i am sympathetic to the idea of term limits, actually.

but look, we can term-limit anybody we want to. - we have term limits. they're called elections. - they're called elections, exactly. so what i'm saying in this election period, and i will be saying it after, and that is that the time has come for new leadership. our leaders now, i believe, are not committed to the interests of the american people first. i mean, i was chief policy director for the house republicans before deciding to run. i've had the conversations with them as recently as this past week about, why are you not, for example, standing up to donald trump? why are you doing this or that? - and what do they say? - they say, "well, if i don't, "then i may not be re-elected." and i've said to many of them, you need to be prepared to lose your seat over issues that are-- - goes with integrity. - that's absolutely right. stand for what is right. it's not only in this election, but it's on a range of issues. i believe we're no longer respecting our constitution these days. our system of balance of powers, checks and balances,

separation of powers between branches of the federal government. that is all out of balance, and it is largely because our members of congress have not fought to keep it more in balance. - both parties? - both parties. and i believe because it's easier that way, and it's easier to be re-elected. and in this election cycle, as people understand, i'm opposed to both hillary clinton and donald trump. on the republican side, i believe that republican leaders need to stand up to donald trump, because i do not believe he is a man who respects our constitution, our system of government, our civil rights. nor does he know anything about the challenges that this country faces. he's paid lip service to some serious challenges, but i don't think he thinks seriously about the solutions. - let me play the role of donald trump here. just imagine my hair in a different way. - you're not orange enough. - i'm not orange enough. let me play the role of donald trump and say, "wait a minute. "i've released a list of 21 very conservative judges

"from which i promise you i will nominate "future supreme court justices. "i believe that where we have gone wrong in this country "is that we've gone weak at the knees. "strength that i will bring to the table "will restore the pride and the greatness of this country. "and i can bring the country together "by making us proud of ourselves. "i'm gonna bring jobs back. "i'm gonna make us feared and respected "around the world again." what part of that don't you like? - well, this is fundamental to who we are as americans and what our country's about. our country isn't strong because one person comes in and makes it so. our country is strong because it was founded on timeless, fundamental truths, which are equality, which are the respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. these are the things that make our country strong. and our country is strongest when we have a system such as the one outlined in the constitution that respects those ideals. that's where our power comes from. that's where our strength comes from.

and donald trump, i think, doesn't understand that. he thinks it's about him. he thinks it's a reality television show. - so, when he says at the convention, "i alone can fix it," that's an emblem of his ego? - it's a dangerous emblem of his ego. this is the rhetoric, these are the ideas of the kinds of authoritarians i saw overseas in the middle east and latin america. this is not a man who understands our system. he visited us in congress a time or two while i was there. and he was asked-- - trying to sell you a steak? - yeah, i wish. i wish it were just that. but no, he was selling himself actually. and one of the members asked him about the constitution and his commitment to that. and he said that he was committed in particular to articles of the constitution that don't exist. he simply does not understand our system, our constitution. he doesn't seek to understand it. i don't think he cares about it. it's about himself. and that is a problem. we are strong in this country because of our ideals

and because, to the degree we have, we honor our constitution. i think we have gotten off track on that. but we would certainly be off track with donald trump as president. and we would continue on a dangerous track with hillary clinton, i believe. - his lack of fitness, is it about temperament? is it about qualifications in the sense of preparation and knowledge about the issues that matter? we hear a lot about fitness these days. "he's unfit to be president. "she's unfit to be." what do you mean by that? that's a word that may be defined differently by different people. - well, i think different things go into that. i think temperament is one. experience is another. and i would say judgment is the third. we need those things. i come from a national security background, but it doesn't only apply to national security. it does apply, though, very seriously when you've got the most powerful military in the world at your disposal, one that we need to invest more, i believe, in that. but we need a leader who has those three things.

and i believe, when it comes to hillary clinton for example, i don't believe she's exhibited good judgment on national security issues. donald trump certainly has horrendous judgment if we take his commentary during the election as any measure. his temperament is clearly erratic, and clearly he is not the kind of guy who has the necessary temperament to deal in a sophisticated world of complicated interests, where you have people like vladimir putin, who is a trained kgb officer, engaging with you and competing with you and trying to undermine the united states in the cause of liberty around the world. and donald trump clearly has demonstrated his lack of ability to deal effectively with vladimir putin, because he's been essentially recruited by vladimir putin. - he's been playing footsie with putin for this entire campaign. - he's been manipulated by putin, but that's no surprise. vladimir putin is a trained kgb officer, understands that he can manipulate people with large egos.

he understands that people with significant financial vulnerabilities are also vulnerable to his efforts. but in donald trump he has a willing partner in that donald trump sympathizes with putin's authoritarian leadership. - how do you know that, well, are you suggesting that financial interests as a tool for manipulation, that trump has some financial relationship with the russians? you know there's been a whole discussion about what we do know and do not know about donald trump's financial history. - what we know is that u.s. banks declined to continue funding some, many of donald trump's real estate projects because of his poor creditworthiness. and then we know that he received funding for projects from russian oligarchs associated with vladimir putin. - do you think that's why he's not releasing his taxes? - could be. i think it's probably a range of things. - should he release his taxes? - oh, certainly. we should all-- - have you released yours? - no, but i will be.

i'm preparing them, and i will be. and i'll also be releasing my medical records. i think that's important to do. that shouldn't even be a question. presidential candidates all must do that before november 8. - transparency, that's it? - it's just basic. - when you say that hillary clinton is not fit to serve and that you don't believe that she has shown good judgment, you've also said that you don't believe she's trustworthy. or you have said actually in a more affirmative way, she's corrupt. you've said that flatly. - i believe she's a corrupt politician. - because? - well, i think i'll start with the email server. she decided that she would do something that she knew was not allowed at the state department, and that is, receive her professional emails on a private server. - you don't want to help her by blaming colin powell for this? - well, look, i think it's not acceptable whoever does it. this is not acceptable. if you want to receive personal emails on your personal email account, i think that's perfectly fine. but when you want to transfer all of your work records, work email to a server that you keep outside of the government's system

in order to, and this is the kicker, and people think about it, if people ask me, "well, aren't you worried about "the compromise of national security, of secrets?" that sort of thing, yes i am. but what concerns me even more is the following. she was trying to avoid accountability to the american people while 55%, i think, of the people she met with as secretary of state made significant contributions to the clinton foundation. so this is unacceptable. this is classic corruption. this, again, is the sort of thing i saw overseas. and this isn't the sort of thing that you would expect or that i would expect or that any of us should expect or accept in america. so, i'll just point out that 70 to 80%, depending on when you ask, of americans believe this country's on the wrong track. americans feel that the government is no longer accountable to them. there are very specific reasons for that. one of them is that so much power and money are located in washington, dc, thousands of miles from most americans. how is it that the power's going to be accountable to them?

that also is a violation of our constitution. states should be more empowered. that's the way it was supposed to work. - you're a 10th amendment guy? - i'm a big 10th amendment guy. - you've critiqued donald trump and hillary clinton pretty straightforwardly. do you think president obama is fit to be president? - well, i don't agree with president obama on most policy issues. - yeah, but i asked about "fit". - fit? look, i am someone who said before he was elected that he didn't have enough relevant experience to lead our country. having served for eight years as president, he's gained, obviously, a lot of experience. - you still haven't said, "yes, he's fit to be president." - well, i guess what i'm saying is, are you asking me, right now is he prepared to be president? - yeah, i'm asking you right now, is he fit? this is a flat question. is he fit to be president? - if he could run for another four years, would he be fit? i think, given that he's been president for eight years, he passes the fitness test. - so, were he on the ballot, you would not be saying, "he's not fit to be president."

- no, he's clearly passed the fitness test. - your problem with him is that you just simply - his policies. - disagree with his policies. - yeah. - and so if one of secretary clinton's aspects of her campaign may be that she is either directly or indirectly running for his third term, that would be a disqualifier from your perspective because you didn't like the first two. - based on policy, yes, yes. but also with her i would say that she's corrupt. i don't believe barack obama is corrupt. i believe that he has overexercised, he's exceeded his executive powers in a way that it violates our constitution. - is one worse than the other? i'm going somewhere with this, i promise. trump or clinton? - look, i think they're both harmful to our country. i think hillary clinton would continue a pattern of ever-growing government and national debt that will be very destructive for our country. it will harm our ability to defend ourselves. it will harm our economic prosperity. i believe that she will not return power to the states.

i believe she will not return article one authority to congress. i also believe donald trump will do those same things. the difference is that i believe donald trump is, and i say this, and i know many people may not understand or agree with me, but i say this in all sincerity as a cia veteran, that i believe donald trump poses a true threat to our democracy. more so than she does? i believe her threat is a long-term threat, and when i say long-term, not that long. - it's more mundane, though. - it's within the normal bounds of what we've come to expect. - this is the p.j. o'rourke argument. p.j. o'rourke at the beginning of this campaign said, longtime republican, "i endorse hillary clinton "because she is the second-worst person on the ballot. "and while i disagree with her on everything, "i disagree with her in normal parameters." - yes, that's right. and i would agree with that. but then we get to the lesser-of-two-evils argument. - and that's the whole thing you've been arguing. let's give me something to vote for.

- that's right. - not vote against. and you believe you're the person to vote for. - i want to be that person for americans. i want to be somebody they can actually support, somebody who they would actually like to see run our country. that's what i would like to see. but i want to talk a little bit, if you don't mind, about this lesser-of-two-evils argument, because i think it's perhaps more important than anything else here. more important than my candidacy. more important than any of the other candidates' candidacies. we've been sold this idea that we need to make a lesser-of-two-evils decision on our votes between republicans and democrats for a long time. and i believe that severely undervalues the value of our vote. and, as a result of that, we get elected leaders without courage, without sufficient courage, and without commitment to, again, the ideals that have made this country powerful and prosperous. - i would stipulate that in a country that believes in the free market, in a country where i can go into the supermarket and choose from 18 different kinds of beefsteak tomatoes, the idea that i can only vote for two different kinds

of presidential candidates seems a little antithetical to everything we believe in. why is it not a marketplace for me? - i've said the same thing. we talk about-- - you made the beefsteak tomato reference? - no. (laughing) no, but i'd like to borrow that if that's okay. - you can have that one. - thank you. but yeah, i agree with you. even though i believe we've gotten away from a truly competitive marketplace with crony capitalism, over-regulation and regulatory uncertainty, et cetera. we have thrived, our economy has thrived, because there's been a competition, right? and our political environment, i think, has been challenged because there hasn't been that same kind of competition. we need a better competition of ideas. now, had this competition of ideas been playing out between the two major parties, you wouldn't see me here at this table. but clearly what's happening is not working. - it's not working. - it's just not working. - so, ballot access. let me talk to you about that, because i actually think this question

of why independent candidates don't show up on the ballot more, or are not more plausible as a pragmatic conversation. could an independent candidate win in this country? it's really difficult for an independent candidate to win. - it is. - in part, it's because the people in power, who are one of two parties, believe that the best way for them to remain in power is for there to be just those two parties. is that the theory here? - that's exactly right. when you speak of ballot access, the two major parties have advanced laws in many states that make it very difficult for independent candidates, or third-party candidates at times, to gain ballot access, if not essentially impossible. you look at the debates, for example. and you have the debate commission, which is a private organization. it's not a government organization. a lot of people don't know that. i learned that some years ago and was shocked to learn that the republicans and the democrats control who is on the debate stage. i mean, imagine that. why should they control who the american people get to hear from?

- what do you think the threshold should be for getting on that debate stage? - i do think there needs to be a threshold, because otherwise you'd just have everybody up there and it's unwieldy. there needs to be a threshold. but i would say that if you're registered as a write-in or appearing on the ballot of a certain number of states. and i don't have a number. - but that's an interesting idea. why make this about polls, since most polls are bs anyway? and polls are different, and they have different methodologies. and even the five polls they choose to be the deciding factor in all this, there's questions about the validity. especially since there's a question of the polling sample, and do they really know who the electorate is? are they modeling it against the right election? that's an interesting idea i haven't heard. why not have the threshold not be polling, but be number of states? - well, to be clear, i actually do think that polling, i mean we can talk about needing to make the polling a better judge, the quality of the polling itself and that sort of thing.

- i'm giving you an invitation to the ballot in this base state here. - yeah, you are. - and you won't take it. - no, i appreciate it. but still, i do think there's got to be some measurable polling progress of a candidacy, and then you appear on the debate stage. there are a lot of people running for president that you've never heard of. - but they're not on 50 states', or even 40 states' ballots. - and they're not measuring on the polls in different states. but we are. and so, i would think that we would make that threshold. but there do need to be thresholds. i agree with that. but we need to open up the process so that more can be a part of it. - it is not the case that we have not had somebody in the cia previously run for president. - that's right. - in fact, we've had successful candidates. george h. w. bush, was he not? - yes, he was. - he was. but he also had a track record of public service and visibility in the public eye long beyond that. - he did. - 10 years, one quarter of your young life was spent, 11 years, more than one your quarter of your young life was spent in the cia.

you can't tell us exactly what you did. should that be a problem? - well, i would disagree. i can say a lot about what i did. and we talked about this earlier today and didn't fully go into it. but i was an operations officer in the cia, which means that i ran clandestine operations overseas. - see, that clandestine part is what gets me. - but let's talk about 'em. we'll remove some of the smoke and mirrors, and i'll talk about what it was. - we'll redact this after. - no, no, no. this is for america. i'll hopefully not say anything that i shouldn't. but this is the thing. so, an operations officer runs covert operations overseas. what does that mean? from foreign governments of countries that are hostile especially, hostile to the cause of liberty, hostile to u.s. interests. that means that we work against terrorist organizations and we try to determine what their plans are, what their target lists are,

who their personnel are. we try to locate them, and then we try to find them so they can either be killed or captured. that is what i did for 11 years in the cia. that was the work i did. that meant i lived overseas. i was undercover. - and this is what year to what year? - i started in '99 when i was in college. i went undercover when i graduated in 2001, when into training. 9/11 obviously happened right there at the beginning. and then i went overseas. and then i ultimately resigned in 2010. so that's what i did. so i worked overseas with our special forces, with navy seals. i worked here with the fbi. i worked with our allies overseas. and i managed some of our country's most sensitive counterterrorism operations especially. i managed those. i designed them and i managed them. - in some ways, when you hire somebody for a job, what you want is references that you can check. is it too hard for us to check your references with the cia? i mean, we want to understand how did you do, not necessarily all the nitty gritty. but how'd you do? and what does this say about your capacity for leadership

and vision and all that kind of stuff? - there are people who are no longer in the agency, like me, who've retired from the agency, agency veterans who can speak to all of that. - who can check your references? - yeah. - the qualifications that you have begin with that, but they don't end there. you have done investment banking work for goldman-sachs. you had a top position on the staff of congress. do you have what we would think of as traditional management experience? if i said to you, have you run anything? not run clandestine operations, but run something. you're getting ready to run, for all practical purposes, the earth's biggest corporation. america. it's a huge machine, this sprawling land mass and parts and people and the fate of the world is at risk here. the wrong person in that job, as you say yourself. what gives me confidence? what gives everybody confidence that you can run this country? - well, i would say if you'll ask me that question, you'd need to ask that question also to senators and representatives who've run for office.

- i think we do. - well, that's fair. and i think that question should be asked, but certainly i would say that i have at least that level of experience if not well beyond that. and i'll say this. no, i haven't been the ceo of general electric. and you ask about management. but i would say it's more about leadership. and i understand leadership. and i have led people. not general electric, but i have led in some of the harshest, most adverse conditions on this planet. and i understand what leadership is about. not just leadership of a government. i'm talking about leadership of a people. leadership of the american people. what needs to be there for that. that is what i understand. i've spent my time not being a career politician. i've spent my time doing other things that i think our leader today needs to know. - and you'd offer up that leadership against any other potential "qualification" of a conventional sense? - well, i offer it on its own merits.

i think it's important. and i believe that what i've spent my life doing, which is working in national security, working in government reform as a chief policy director for the house republicans, and then working in the private sector has prepared me to lead our country in some of the areas of greatest challenge that we face today. - we have just about two minutes left. you are a registered independent? - i am. - politically. but you have voted traditionally for republicans? - i have never not voted for a republican. but i have been a registered independent for years. - but a registered independent. - i am a conservative. - that's where i was going. but you do self-describe as a conservative. - i am a conservative. and i would like to be able to talk about what that is to me if that's all right. - sure. before we end here, go ahead and tell me what your definition of conservative is, because that has been an object of discussion in this campaign. - i believe a true conservative commits him or herself to the founding principles of this nation, which are equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

right now i think the republican party has deviated both from the cause of liberty, engendering and helping to expand a federal government that deprives individuals and states of their liberties, of their powers. and i believe that they have not stood up to divisive rhetoric from donald trump, which has pit race against race and religion against religion, which has benefited from a rising, growing white supremacist movement in the united states which supports him. i, as a true conservative, repudiate that, repudiate a lack of commitment to the cause of individual liberty, as well as to their opposition to equality. and that to me is what a true conservative is. and that is what i'm fighting for here. - all right, mr. mcmullin. well, good luck with the rest of the campaign. - thank you. - thank you very much for being here. evan mcmullin, thank you. - thank you. (audience applauds) - [announcer] we'd love to have you join us in the studio. visit our website at klru.org/overheard

to find invitations to interviews, q & a's with our audience and guests, and an archive of past episodes. - in 10 years' time, think about this. i hope everyone will listen to this point if nothing else. in 10 years' time, our entitlement spending and our interest payments on our debt, not paying down the debt, just the interest payments, will reach 78% of the federal budget. - [announcer] funding for overheard with evan smith is provided in part by mfi foundation, improving the quality of life within our community. also, by hillco partners, a texas government affairs consultancy. and by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation.