Inside ‘Trump 2.0’ and the Media’s Role in Political Violence | Sean Spicer

[RUSH TRANSCRIPT BELOW] In what was the third major attempt on President Donald Trump’s life in an era of escalating political violence, this year’s White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) dinner was abruptly cut short when multiple shots were fired, and a man was apprehended for trying to breach security.

The 31-year-old suspect, Cole Allen, could face up to life in prison.

Joining us today is Sean Spicer, who previously served as White House press secretary and White House communications director during the first Trump administration. Now, he’s the host of the Sean Spicer Show and author of the newly released book, “Trump 2.0: The Revolution That Will Permanently Transform America.”

Spicer is known for being a vocal critic of the WHCA for over a decade and has long refused invitations to attend its events. At the time of the shooting incident, he was on his way to the Renwick Museum Gallery to attend Substack’s annual alternative to the WHCA dinner called “The New Media.”

In this episode, we get his reaction to what happened, his new book “Trump 2.0,” and why he argues the second Trump administration will be far more consequential for America than the first.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:

Sean Spicer, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Sean Spicer:

Thanks for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, we have to talk about the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Mr. Spicer:

Do we?

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, I think we do have to. So where were you and what’s your reaction to all this?

Mr. Spicer:

I was trapped on 17th Street right outside the White House trying to get into another event when the yellow tape got thrown out. And the Secret Service is like, you’re not going anywhere.

Mr. Jekielek:

Fascinating. So, yes, so tell me about that experience.

Mr. Spicer:

I mean, so first of all, in the book, I write about my opposition to the White House Correspondents Association [WHCA]. I believe that the organization is corrupt and sort of needs to be broken up, etc. So I have chosen to attend the Substack New Media Party alternative event, which is to me actually what the First Amendment is all about, which is acknowledging people’s freedom to write whatever they want and acknowledge that. And that party was at the Renwick Museum Gallery, which is right across from the White House, next to Blair House, 17th and Pennsylvania Avenue. And so we get out of the car. There were some of my co-hosts from our morning show called The Huddle. We had all ridden in together. We get out and we start seeing a lot of lights and sirens. Okay, well, you see that often.

And one of my co-hosts gets a text and he says, my sister’s watching on C-SPAN. She says something’s going on. Next thing you know, the Secret Service has got the yellow tape out. They’re like, stay where you are, don’t go anywhere. And we’re like, what’s going on? And then literally watching live this thing starts to unfold that we’re now sitting in the freezing cold. It’s like 40 degrees out at 17th and Penn, hearing about the shots getting fired.

But the Secret Service, I think there were a lot of questions about the president. Is he coming back to the White House? When’s he coming back to the White House? But they wanted all the routes cleared. And it was like an active crime scene. I mean, yellow tape up and down 17th Street. It was surreal. I’ve seen a lot in 30 years. That was one of the most interesting evenings of my life.

Mr. Jekielek:

And now when you’re looking back at it, this is actually my next question, right? So you had this experience on the ground. What about now, knowing what you know now?

Mr. Spicer:

It’s so fascinating that you ask that because I think of these things in like multiple things, right? So there’s a discussion about the security there. I actually think the security worked. I mean, like you were there, right? People were given the impression this guy was like running through the ballroom, firing off. It wasn’t. He was a floor up. He didn’t even get down close to the, well, he got near the stairs that would have taken him to that level. Security worked. He rushed a magnetometer, and they took him down. That’s what’s supposed to happen. That’s number one.

Number two, I think there are serious questions about the continuity of government, how we operate, because in the room were the president, the vice president, and the speaker of the House. I don’t believe the Senate pro tem, Senator Grassley, was there, but that’s who we would have been stuck with had everything gone horrifically wrong. I think that the idea that so many Republicans and conservatives were there is part of my problem. Why are we supporting this organization? Why are we complicit in adding legitimacy to this dinner and to this group of people that hate conservatives?

So there are a lot of different ways that I’ve looked at what’s going on in the night, and then obviously, even just some of the reporting about, you know, people talking about the security there, the shooter himself, no one wanted to admit. We had a manifesto. We know what his motivations were. He wrote them down, and yet most of the media just showed their true colors by saying, we don’t know the motivations. Barack Obama said, well, we don’t know much. We did.

And I think what unfolded Saturday night showed a lot of things to be true, right? Who they really are, what’s gone on in the Left. I mean, this guy was a radicalized shooter who believed the rhetoric of the Left. He said, Trump is Hitler. Trump is a tyrant. Trump is authoritarian. Trump is a threat to democracy. What did you think was going to happen? And I think the lack of accountability from the Left came really through Saturday night into Sunday and Monday.

Mr. Jekielek:

So, yes, I think on the floor, you know, as we were still figuring out whether this was going to continue or not, I saw Senator Deb Fischer from Nebraska on the floor, and she had said this is a, she believed it was a product of the rhetoric that had been happening.

Mr. Spicer:

Of course, it is. But look, I’m going to ask you a question. I mean, in its simplest terms, if somebody says, we want to get out of this room, and you say, well, that person is blocking us from getting out of the room. At some point, the only way to get out of the room is to take them and get them out of the way, right? I mean, and so when somebody says over and over again, whether it’s Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, Senator Elissa Slotkin, you name it, Trump is a threat to democracy. He’s a threat to our way of life. What do you think is going to happen?

At some point, somebody says, well, I love democracy, I love this country; if he’s a threat, I need to do something. They have radicalized these people. Chuck Schumer said that we need to get Kavanaugh. Maxine Waters said that we should surround Trump officials and make them feel it. I don’t know why any of this is a shock. I played a clip of Elissa Slotkin on my show that airs on YouTube, and it shows her saying to a crowd, we can either sit back and weather the storm, meaning Trump 2.0, or we can recognize the threat that he is.

Well, think about it. If you’re in that crowd right now, and she goes, I hope we don’t choose the first. So she’s telling people, don’t weather the storm. Don’t sit there. This guy’s an actual threat. If you’re in the audience, I don’t see how you don’t take that as I’m being called to do something. And you look at what happened to the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Not only did they applaud it, they set up a legal defense fund. They are encouraging violence, and the media is complicit in this as well.

Mr. Jekielek:

I mean, to be fair, though, I think most people that are saying the threat thing are not calling people to violence. They’re saying, no, this has to be done peacefully. I mean, I remember I was reading something from former President Obama about this specifically, like today, I think, a post that he had. I mean, I’m not trying to take away from your point, but a lot of these people would say this should be nonviolent.

Mr. Spicer:

They should, but then they don’t say it. And here’s my point: when you tell me that something’s a threat, and that’s why I went through this little exercise at the beginning. Again, this is why I’m trying to say, what do you think will happen? And then say, but don’t be violent. There’s a threat. Our country’s existence is at stake. But, oh, don’t do anything? I mean, wink, nod? I’m sorry. And the reason it’s so personal for me is I’ve had people come up to me and my family in person. I’ve had people show up to my house. I’ve had the threats online. I know what it’s like.

Do you realize that almost every senior staffer who works in the White House now needs a security detail? Staff, just for serving their country, they need a security detail. We have at least close to 10 officials, again, staffers. The White House press secretary lives on a military base. So many, I won’t go through the list because I want to preserve their privacy. Think about that. They have to live in a protected place. I’ve had people show up at my house. I’ve had my house put up for sale.

This is a real, real threat. And I think sometimes there’s a difference. If you haven’t lived through it, maybe it’s not as personal. But for me, it’s a very personal thing. And you have the president of the United States having three assassination attempts. And to have President Obama say we don’t know the motives is a lie. It’s a lie. We do know the motives. The guy literally wrote them down.

Mr. Jekielek:

At the press event, after ultimately it was decided that the event would be postponed, the president held a press event very quickly. And I don’t know, the atmosphere in the room was different than I frankly regularly see. And your impressions?

Mr. Spicer:

I give the president a lot of credit because if I had had my life, and again, he’s sitting next to the first lady, the Butler thing and the golf course thing, he was on his own, right? So, but to have your wife sitting next to you and think she could have been a target to the vice president, your press secretary, that was very different, and this guy in the manifesto says he’s going to take out everybody, as many people, everyone, according to him, everyone was complicit in that room. I thought the president rose to the occasion. I don’t know if I could have done it. Somebody threatens your life, they want to come in and kill you, and then to sit there and say, you know, be complimentary. As I said, I’m sorry. So many of these people in the press corps have encouraged this, and have failed to call it out.

Even in the wake of this on Sunday morning, countless Democrats, Jamie Raskin is on CNN saying he can’t recall a situation or an example where he or his party has used heated rhetoric. Not one. Not one time that he recalls anyone in his party calling Trump Hitler, a threat to democracy, a Nazi, an authoritarian, you name it. He couldn’t think of one example on CNN. Not one. And again, unchecked.

What upset me so much is that here we are in this event with a bunch of liberal media that’s supposed to be celebrating the First Amendment and a free press, and they didn’t even do their job covering it. They lied. Abby Phillip from CNN put a big thing out there that this is one of the most secure places. It’s not. They can’t even tell the most—I mean, that’s just simply a false and patently false statement. It was all about them. It was all about their evening.

I mean, I, as I said, you and I have talked about this prior to this. I was opposed to the president going. I wish he hadn’t gone. I hope he doesn’t go. I hope, you know, it is not a good thing. They are free. The First Amendment gives them not just the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech, but the freedom of assembly. They want to gather and give themselves pats on the back and awards for coming after conservatives; God bless them. Go for it. But I don’t think we should be complicit in it.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s interesting because the president said something, if I may paraphrase here, that the president said, you know, it’s going to be a really tough speech, or something like this. And he said maybe when it actually happens, it won’t be as tough. This is a very rough paraphrase. And then later he, he actually kind of called for unity, actually.

Mr. Spicer:

He did. And within 24 hours, with the same network that has Weijia Jiang, the president of the Correspondents Association, the president did one step further. He went on 60 Minutes, 24 hours later, and, you know, they came at him. They have a right to do that. This is a, and again, I don’t, they have, but to pretend that they are nothing more than an appendage of the liberal ideology and the Democratic Party is, I think, just, we shouldn’t be part of it. So just because he was magnanimous in the moment doesn’t mean that we should be complicit in a prop, I think, in their attempt to make themselves look like they’re fair or unbiased or what have you.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s talk about your book, Trump 2.0. You know, you’re saying this is a revolution that will transform America. Is it transforming America? I mean, we’re a year and a bit in now.

Mr. Spicer:

Oh, I think absolutely. And part of the question that I try to answer in the book is the why. Anybody could just look at Trump 2.0 and say, okay, here’s what his administration’s doing. And I’m not trying to be a stenographer of history. Part of what I’m trying to answer is the why. Why is Trump 1.0 different from Trump 2.0? I had this conversation with the president in the Oval Office when I was talking to him about the book.

You have to understand that when we came into office, this was a guy who was a businessman, a reality star, and a real estate mogul. He’d never been in government. And he was being told, this guy’s good for Secretary of Defense. This person’s good to lead the Dept. of Health and Human Services [HHS}. And he took people at their word. He met General Jim Mattis at Bedminster for about an hour to talk about being Secretary of Defense. On December 5th, we flew down with him to North Carolina and announced him at a Trump rally. He had known the man who would lead the Department of Defense in his administration for one hour.

He’s known Pete Hegseth for 15 years. He has known Susie Wiles for 11 years. He’s known Caroline Leavitt for seven or eight years. He was in the first administration and worked on the campaign. Stephen Cheung, the comms director, was on the campaign with me in 2015 and worked in 2016. You go down the list. These are people that he’s known and is familiar with in a way that he wasn’t in Trump 1.0. So they’re on board. I mean, we had people coming into the administration with the stated goal of opposing him. You remember the New York Times op-ed by anonymous? It was like, I’m serving to protect you from him.

So let me get this straight. The guy gets duly elected by the American people, and you feel so opposed to his agenda that you’re serving and writing op-eds about how you’re trying to undermine the agenda. That’s ridiculous. And so this is such a different and unique thing. But getting back to the why, and this is the important thing. He had four years out of office, and what happened in those four years? They plotted, they planned, what will we do when we get back? What will we do differently? Who do we need on our team? Who do we need to keep away from our team? How will we do this? What are the forces against us?

The way I try to liken this is to imagine you’re playing on a team or, you know, it could be an individual sport like you’re playing tennis. You play somebody, and then you play them months later. When you play them again, you think to yourself, okay, I know how they come at this, and I know what to do differently. And I know maybe if it’s a team sport, who to put in the game, who to keep out of the game, what players we need, what positions we need. And that’s exactly what Trump 2.0 did.

America First Policy Institute went around and interviewed a lot of people like me and said, if we ever get back in office, what do you think needs to be done differently? So they wrote up an entire dossier on how to run the press and communications office. So when Caroline was named press secretary and Stephen Cheung, they got that information. Now, how much of it they looked at or implemented is up to them.

But they had a starting point, a roadmap, Project 2025. It was two pages full of conservative groups that sat down and said on immigration, on health care, on national defense, on trade, what will we do if we get back into power? They had a roadmap that we didn’t have in Trump 1.0. Now that’s not to disparage any of the great work the president did in Trump 1.0. It’s just different. You have a leg up. You’re not starting at square one. They knew exactly where to start, where to go.

Tom Homan didn’t just randomly pick cities to go into. He knew how to do this. And then we look at things like MAHA. There would be no MAHA without Trump 2.0. And there would be no Trump 2.0 without MAHA. What these guys have done to transform how we look at our food, our wellness, the medical industry, Big Pharma, and Big Food has been revolutionary. I’m the perfect example. And I love the chapter on MAHA.

I always thought, like, you go to the doctor, and they say, you know, eat this many calories. Okay, so I would put a plan together, eat this many calories. And the nutritionist would say, look at this; it says heart healthy. Oh, awesome. 100 calories, heart healthy. Bobby Kennedy comes along and is like, look at the wrapper. Can you pronounce any of this crap that’s in your food?

I mean, there’s an entire thing in there about this thing called grass and generally recognized as safe. I mean, that sounds like some kind of waiver you sign when you go to the amusement park. We’re pretty certain you’re not going to get in trouble. Like you’re putting stuff in your body that we’re not sure is okay for you, but it’s generally recognized. None of this would happen without the sort of Trump 2.0 dynamic of coming back and looking at how we do things.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s talk about MAHA a little bit, because I mean, I have, let’s say I have my ear to the ground, okay, on MAHA. Actually, and it’s really quite a range of people’s opinions, right, about what’s happening here, right? Everything from the food pyramid being flipped is the best thing ever, and it’s going to transform things to, you know, we felt like we’ve had some promises which just aren’t being fulfilled around some serious issues, right? And so, and there’s even, you know, there’s even discussion about polling that suggested that the MAHA aren’t as important to the president as was thought before, but then there was counter polling created to show no, in fact, it’s very important. But so, so many, a lot of people, but generally a lot of the MAHA people feel like they’re not being listened to. How do you talk to them? That would be like a general sense I have.

Mr. Spicer:

So let’s start with a couple of things. One, what I love about the way that Bobby Kennedy is approaching MAHA is not to be your daddy. And what do I mean by that? The government’s not going to tell you what to do or not to do. You want to eat ultra-processed food and drink red dye? Go for it. He’s giving you transparency for the first time, so that you know what you’re putting in your body and you know what options are available.

To me, the approach to this, which is so great, is that it’s not the nanny state. It’s not saying we’re going to ban it. We’re not going to do this stuff. We’re going to actually just give you, the citizens, better information, more transparent information as to what’s out there.That’s what I love first and foremost about this.

Secondly, I think that, and I lay this out in the book, you can’t, the wins, the ultra-processed food, the red dyes, all the stuff that they have brought to the forefront is huge. I’ve worked in politics for 30 years; I did my first campaign in 1990. The progress that has been made on MAHA is second to none when it comes to issues: tax policy, foreign policy, defense procurement, you name it. The amount of progress that has been made in this one area alone is monumental.

And so I get that for a lot of the MAHA folks, they see stuff like the glyphosate ruling and say, oh, you’ve got to be kidding me. And I agree with them on it. I mean, that’s okay. But you have to say, look at the amount of progress that you have made in one year. Now that’s, you know, sometimes it’s like calibrating. You’ve got a child that’s getting an F in a class, and they come back to you a few weeks later and say, I got my grade up to a C. A good parent doesn’t say, well, you’re not at an A. You applaud the progress and say, look, you made great strides.

Let’s keep doing that. MAHA has to recognize, again, it’s not an excuse. Just say, hey, we’re moving the ball along. Keep it going. Keep the voices out there talking about things. But I think that I give Bobby Kennedy and Dr. Oz, Jay Bhattacharya, tremendous credit. And the MAHA movement, by the way, with MAHA Action and MAHA Institute, what they’ve been able to do to get people into this movement and become aware.

And then on the political front, let’s just be honest, like politics is additive. You win when you add more people to a cause to get them involved and motivate, activate, and vote. What Bobby Kennedy and the MAHA movement have done to Trump 2.0 and the MAGA movement is expanded. They brought especially moms into the political arena to understand that by being involved in this process in a way that many of them weren’t has been hugely additive to the party and to the movement.

And I hope nobody dismisses that regardless of whatever poll you look at. I know just personally and anecdotally how many people are involved now that were never involved in politics because of the exposure to what government had been doing to cover up some of the dangers that we face as a society in terms of our wellness and our health. I don’t think it could have happened if it wasn’t for the MAHA movement.

Mr. Jekielek:

One of the narratives I’m hearing is that basically the administration is less interested in MAHA at this point than it was before for political reasons. And that’s a narrative that has been rising. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Spicer:

So first of all, it’s true. There are some in the administration that don’t fully appreciate the benefits. I think that’s short-sighted. I think within the MAHA movement, there are certain aspects of it that some people don’t like that make them queasy. Let’s be honest, it mostly and almost entirely revolves around vaccines. But I look at the movement as a whole, and there’s no question that it’s additive. I mean, none. It’s impossible to deny that this has been a huge help to the MAGA movement and to the conservative movement writ large. To your point, it is true. I mean, there are some people that question it, and I think they are very short-sighted.

Mr. Jekielek:

I guess I’m like, I’m trying to, you are this political junkie. I am not a political junkie, right? I come from a very, very different vantage point. And you’re saying that these shifts, so you think you would say that HHS is the area where the most action has happened out of everything?

Mr. Spicer:

So like foreign policy, NATO trade, there are some policy shifts that have been made, but MAHA, what it has done to us as a society is monumental. You can, I mean, look, look, President Trump instituted tariffs to rebalance our trade inadequacies. And he was right to do that, by the way. We’ve been getting screwed for decades, but someone can undo that really quickly, right?

What the MAHA movement has done is created a level of awareness that can’t be undone. I look at a label now in a way that I’ve never looked at it before, because of what MAHA has done. I ask questions of my doctor in a way that I’ve never done before because of this movement. That’s not going to get undone. We have started to rethink.

You mentioned the food pyramid a minute ago. Again, for most people, you know, I went in, I saw the doctor, and they’d say, do this, do that. Okay, you’re the expert; I do that. The FDA would issue guidance. They’d say, well, the government says so, that makes sense.

What we’ve learned in the last year is that not all of that is 100 percent accurate or right. We were eating stuff and putting stuff in our bodies that wasn’t making us healthy. In fact, it was probably making us sicker and leading to chronic diseases. And when you think about lasting effects, I do think that probably what MAHA has done to us as a society will have the greatest impact on us.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s a conflict in the Middle East, and it’s unclear exactly how it’s going to resolve. I’ll say that the information war around this and everything is thick, and it’s kind of hard to see through it. But the gas prices, the price at the pump is higher, food is costing more, people are feeling, this is the stuff that people tend to vote on. I’m asking you now as someone who really is relatively new to this whole sphere, right, not the political, self-professed political junkie that you are, what does that mean?

Mr. Spicer:

To be honest, it means what you just prefaced the question with. But I’ll go back to the why. I think what the White House needs to do is greater and consistently more messaging. This is about our safety and security. I mean, Iran posed an existential threat to us. Full stop. No question about it. You think about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton. I mean, leaders in both parties have been talking about this for decades. And President Trump was the first one who took action. There was never going to be a political upside to doing this. Not going to happen. And he did it not because he was going to benefit politically, but because it was the right thing to do for our safety and security.

Now, when you connect that to the fact that, yes, this is a midterm election, and you’re absolutely right, you have to double down on the messaging, on what you’re doing and why, so that voters expect that. Because if I’m paying $4 for gas—and let’s be honest, Jan, I’m like a New England frugal guy—my barometer as to how the economy is doing is gas prices. I got two gas stations at the end of my street, and I will keep an eye on both of them and then drive to the cheapest one pretty regularly. My mom will probably drive halfway across the state just to get cheaper gas. So I understand that that’s somewhat of a barometer when it comes to how people judge the economy.

But one, we hope that it comes down. I mean, politically speaking, you know, July, August, they’ve got to really think about how they’re doing that or they have to double down on their messaging. But there’s no question. I think when people vote largely on economic reasons, how do I feel the economy is doing for me? Am I putting money away? Do I feel safe and secure in my job and my ability to pay my bills? So they have to do this.

Now, the upside is they at least have a series of positive things that they’re doing, the no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime. And the American people felt that at tax season time. So I do think that they need to double down on messaging. They did this stunt with DoorDash 10 days ago. I thought it was smart. They need to do more of that. They need to remind people why the policies of Trump 2.0 are making their lives better.

Mr. Jekielek:

Who is this book for? As we kind of come to a, I would love to have you for another two hours, frankly, to talk about this. I mean that sincerely because I find what you’re saying very interesting. Who is this book for?

Mr. Spicer:

At its core, if you’re a citizen and you’re not voting, then maybe it’s not interesting. But it is for anybody who’s interested in politics. As I said at the outset, Trump 2.0 isn’t just about being a supporter of President Trump, it’s about understanding why. So I always tell people, I read everything. I’ll read books and studies from both parties because I want to understand the process, what is somebody doing, right? When a team goes in and watches a film with the other team, it’s not because they’re fans. They want to know how to play that game.

If you really want to understand what’s going on in our country, whether or not you love President Trump or absolutely detest him, you want to read my book Trump 2.0 to understand the why. Why is it happening so that, you know, if you love him, you can continue those policies and know what we need to lock in. If you don’t like him, you might want to know the game, the plays that we’re running, right? So I think it is for anyone who’s got an interest in politics, who is active, who wants to understand how our country operates and why things are happening.

Again, we just talked about MAHA. Do you realize that 10 of the last 11 FDA [U. S. Food and Drug Administration] commissioners have all gone on to Big Pharma except one, David Kessler? He went into academia. That seems to me a bit nuts. I mean, I learned this, and I’m like, no wonder you suddenly have an FDA that sides with Big Pharma all the time. If that’s in, I talk about how much money is spent advocating for big food and big pharma. If you want to understand the why, I even mentioned the trade policy. I mean, think about this: our farmers, ranchers, and service providers face enormous barriers, financial and what we call non-tariff barriers, going into other countries. When those same countries ship their services and products to America, almost entirely tariff-free and non- tariff barrier-free.

But my point is that, or you look at NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], and all of this in the book explains the thing. Why does Trump care about NATO? Well, because we created NATO to make a hedge against Russia, the Soviet Union, technically. And yet none of these people are living up to their obligations—the obligations that we’ll all protect each other if something happens, and we’ll all agree to spend up to 2 percent of our own GDP [gross domestic product] on our national defense. All these other countries got a free ride.

They realized, hey, the United States will spend plenty of money. Why don’t we spend our money on social projects, welfare, roads, and bridges? Let them cover for us. And we did. Why were we spending our tax dollars when they wouldn’t spend theirs? That was their obligation. So once you understand the government better and the process better, I think you come away as a better and more informed citizen.

We talked about the media, and there’s a whole chapter on the White House Correspondents Association. When you realize that that organization determines who gets into the Oval Office, you realize that ABC and the New York Times, their goal is to ensure that you only read what they see and hear. So they have decided what you will read, see, and hear every day. The White House Correspondents Association determines who flies on Air Force One with the president, who goes into the Oval Office with the president until this administration. Why does that matter? That’s all in the book.

And so just if you want to be a more informed citizen to understand the process, and that’s what I love, hopefully I will bring to the fight, right? So after 27 years in the military, 10 different members of Congress, and two administrations in the executive office of the president, I can say, this is how your government works. You want to be more informed. You want to help make change. Here’s how to do it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, Sean Spicer, it’s such a pleasure to have had you on.

Mr. Spicer:

I appreciate you having me.

This interview was partially edited for clarity and brevity.