Overtime – Episode #723 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Paul Begala
15m 50s
The podcast features a conversation between Paul Begawa, a CNN contributor and Democratic strategist, and Congresswoman for Florida, Polina Luna, on topics including UAPs, government transparency, and political discourse. Begawa emphasizes the urgent need for full disclosure of UAP information, arguing that elected officials have been denied access to declassified data, which undermines democratic oversight. He references credible reports from military and government sources, including ancient theories and post-nuclear era sightings, suggesting that some phenomena remain unexplained and warrant public inquiry. The discussion also addresses concerns about free speech, particularly when the FCC threatens media outlets, which critics see as a dangerous erosion of the First Amendment. Examples include the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the backlash against political satire. The conversation concludes with a comparison of potential MAGA candidates, where Rubio is lauded for foreign policy experience and approval ratings, while Vance is seen as more relatable and grounded in working-class roots. Overall, the dialogue underscores a call for transparency in government, accountability in media, and the preservation of open political discourse in a polarized era.
Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO late-night series Real Time with Bill Maugh. All right, he is a CNN contributor and Democratic Party strategist Paul Begawa, and she's an Republican congresswoman for Florida, and I'm a Polina Luna. All right. First question is for you, do you think we are headed, Congresswoman, for a full disclosure and transparency about UAPs which were used to call UFOs? I do. I mean, I think it was just this week, didn't they start a website for releasing this information? From my understanding, they're going to put it on the National Archives, but if they've booked the website, so I actually had the disclosure task force in Congress on declassification of federal secrets. And what I will tell you is that-- That's why you know so much stuff. I'm a nerd. And I'll say, since there's some things that we can't explain, and there is a problem with overclassification, but also, when you have duly elected members of Congress being denied access, that's a problem because we're supposed to be the, you know, check and balance on some of these agencies. And so, you'll see some interesting stuff. The federal government will not-- never come out and tell you what to believe in. I think they're here. Well, there's definitely stuff that we can't-- Come on, I'm not shy about it. I'm searching for intelligent life on Earth. So I'll be sure. [laughter] I'm not into that. [applause] Well, I think we're in it for the-- Well, you may not be into that, but they're into you, okay? I mean, whether you want to believe it or not, things-- Why does they always put the probes there? Well-- If you're that sophisticated, can't they just like-- Well, but you know, but see, there's, okay, but if you want to be serious about it, there was an error where we heard a lot about probing. That ended because, I mean, we'd never heard about any of it before we got nuclear weapons. But after the nuclear bomb went off in 1945, suddenly the aliens were like, maybe we ought to pay attention to these people. Well, there were reports of sightings and whatnot dating back into even, you know, for many, many, many, many centuries. If you're talking about some of the stuff like what we see in high-roglyphics and drawings, I think-- It could be, yes, it could be like they built the pyramids. That's true. Well, I think that there's a lot of theories, but based on what we're seeing evidence-wise, there is one specific agency where multiple members of Congress to include myself received a briefing from. All of that information will be declassified and the stuff that we saw in that briefing we can't explain. But I mean, I think I get back to the anal probing. On topic. It seems like there was a time where they needed to do that to find out about it. I mean, like so many people have this almost the exact same recollection. Now, maybe it's some psychological phenomenon that we don't realize, but people independently seem to have this kind of vague memory, and they lost a little track of time. Maybe it was the GHB, I don't know. But it seemed like the aliens were trying to find out what makes these people tick. Who are these humans? And then I think they got that information. And then the last 10, 20 years, it's not been that. What it's been has been very, very serious people. I'm talking about military people who are constantly saying we see things we cannot explain. If China has a weapon, we don't know about, which is unlikely. Or it's just something you're going to have to tell me what it is. Well, we've seen in the briefings, and I actually asked this question to Secretary Clinton as she was actually going to how she won her election, be in charge of disclosure and actually releasing some of this information. And she thinks that the American people, I think this is one of the most bipartisan things in Congress currently and by Caramel and the Senate as well. But we should be able to release the information that we have specifically pertaining to this and let the American people decide what it is. Look, some of it is balloons, some of it is drones, and then there is a portion of it that we can't explain where you have credible people from all walks of life confirming it, and I will tell you, based on the evidence that we have seen, there is something there. Incredible people, not just in the military, but in government, including Democrats. I was struck by what President Obama said, and I agree with it. The vastness of the universe is such that the arithmetic makes it pretty likely. Right. And the vastness of the universe is such, the universe is such. It's pretty unlikely that we're going to cross paths, and I think that's also true. I mean, it just seems to, I'm a skeptic, but I like what you're doing, Congresswoman. I put it all out. Let people decide. I'm a skeptic. Maybe you can do. Well, I think this gets into deeper, if you have time listen to the Joe Rogan podcast I did, but this gets into a deeper discussion on where you are at spiritually. And I think there's just a lot that we have and can't explain, but look, my biggest concern and why I got involved is because I had the Department of Defense at the time tell me that we were not allowed access, and I have the highest clearance possible. So if you have a duly member and elected member of government, not just myself, but other members being denied access, you have this aspect of then who is really in control? If we're writing the checks, if you have the Pentagon failing audits being denying access, this is a problem. And so there is this aspect of government transparency going back to, how do we actually fix this country and you have to start with transparency? Okay. What do you make of the, what do you, what do you make of the recent poll, it suggests California may be choosing between two Republican candidates for governor. I love that. We have, we have jungle primaries out here, right? I mean, I think that means you can have as many candidates and the top two, it doesn't have to be from different parties. It's the top two no matter what party. And the top two polling now are both Republicans. That says. Right. Join me, come on. It just means the Democrats got to get their act together. I don't live in a state that does this, but I kind of like the idea of these jungle primaries. The idea is, I think, to produce more moderate nominees. Totally, yes. It seems like a good idea. If it produces two Republicans, that's what it produces. Democrats got to get their act together and hone in on one or two of their strongest instead of having twenty. Let me ask the follow-up question. What does that information tell you about Gavin Newsom's chance to get the nomination because obviously he's running for president, and Josh Shapiro was running for president. And I mean, Josh Shapiro, he was here last week. He has a really good story to tell about his state. Now, I like Gavin a lot, but that's a lot harder story to tell. Oh, I think my party has more talent than I've ever seen. This is part of the tragedy of Joe Biden running, is that he had the best bench behind him that I've ever seen. And Gavin is part of it, and Shapiro is part of it, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, and now I'm naming people. My buddy, Rom, a manual has been on your show. He's seriously thinking about it. He's really the idea of his primary. You have a favorite among those? Well, Rom is one of my closest friends. Okay, so if he runs on four, period. I mean, he and I were like brothers, but in terms of talent, let's put him up. We don't know until they're on the track. Let's put him on the track a little bit, but I want, unlike in 2024, I want a primary and I want it to be vicious. I want fighting because he'll sharpen steel. See what? I don't. But I think, I still don't know what a mega. But when Hillary ran against Barack, I was a part of that group, no. I was for Hillary. But I was like, oh, this is terrible. It wasn't. It wasn't. The toughest primary ever saw my life was Hillary versus Barack, and it made Barack tougher and stronger and smarter. It made Hillary Secretary state a party united. So I'm now for tough primary. My uncle George, how he said this, Uncle George's law is about these kind of family fights. He's like, you know why God gave his family? So he wouldn't have to fight with strangers. Okay. I heard Gavin News this phrase culturally normal. Did you see that? I know. He was asked about, I guess, how the Democrats can win. And I think that phrase is going to bubble up. He said they have to learn to be more culturally normal. What do you think that, what do you think puts a meat on those bones? What does that mean? We used to be the culturally normal. And now we're the part of the faculty lounge. And I say this, I'm a faculty member at UVA, but this elitism, this intellectual elitism on my side is so off-putting and the sanctimony, the judgment, mentalism. I saw Andy Beshear recently. He told me that someone talked to him about, and the phrase was, just disinvolved populations. Do you have any idea what that is? Prisoners. Prisoners. I grew up in a prison town. We did not call them justice. We call them crooks, prisoners, convicts, inmates. I think Gavin made a big mistake with his reading comments. And I just think that, you know, I actually know Nikki Minaugh, she's now, as you know, very Republican. But I think that she pointed out, you know, this aspect of politicians make these comments and they're not themselves. What are you referring to? To tell them what you're referring to? Well, he was talking to the mayor of Atlanta. Yeah, I don't want to misquote him, but basically the implication was he wasn't, you know, good advice. He was trying to say, I'm one of you. Yeah. So he basically said, you know, I'm just like, I don't read very good, like you guys. Yeah. And it just came, it just was, but it's insulting, right? It's like, it's insulting, and it's also a function of, when you're on a book tour running for prison, you do a million events a day. Your brain is fried at 8 o'clock at night, and you're trying to, like, not step on the landmine, and you do. And I think we all have to show some grace when people do that. No one thinks he's really a racist. I will say this though. There have been a number of occasions. I actually reached out to him directly on helping out with the Tori Lane's case. As you know, Tori Lane's is convicted for allegedly shooting Meghan the Stallion, right? Allegedly. But there's a lot to that with evidence. Yeah, there is. This is important. And his office actually was contacted about potentially pardoning. But what I will say is that, you know, I think that there's a lot of people that had reached out to him. But he's not the only one. There's another case specifically. It's pretty high profile. And I just, you know, that'll come up if you run this rose on your list of like.
This is a very important issue. You would be surprised to get into the Megan the Stallion case. Well, we had someone reach out, and this was kind of following the whole issue of, you know, gun law, chain of custody, improper prison and prison reform. And so, yeah, it's like kind of one of our things I doubt about. Just to involve populations, Congresswoman. Yeah, prison reform, right? You're not prison reform. (applause) The CDC chairman, Brendan Carr, issued a new warning, threatening broadcasts that are running hoaxes and news distortions. Does the administration have legitimate gripes, or are they just unhappy with negative coverage? Yes, the chairman of the FCC is threatening people. Threatening, I mean, God, the hypocrisy on both sides. But really, I mean, this is the country of everything's terrible unless our side does it. Well, when Biden was president, it was terrible in front of Donald's free speech, and now this guy's ahead of the FCC, basically saying, "We're going to take your license "if we don't like the joke you do." Well, I think joking is a big difference than running foreign propaganda. And I think this gets into a bigger-- It's running for him. Well, getting it to bigger kind of discussion here. But we're finding specifically with, you know, our amazing country in having our first amendment, is that countries use it against us, and there have been instances. And I think that this ties into kind of the conversation of influencer disclosures on who they're taking money from, whether or not people are advocating on behalf of a foreign government. And so, tying to that, I read Red Loosely into this, and what I will say is that, you know, if you have someone that's knowingly engaging in pushing propaganda for a foreign country and you actually can catch them, you know, that's a little bit different case. If you have people that are knowingly making false statements, you know, drive by character assassination, different than joking. Okay, but this is not what this is about. They're threatening people. They're threatening networks. The whole point of the first amendment is to protect us from the government. Yeah. Okay, corporations, CNN could fire me tomorrow. They have a perfect right to it. Okay, fine, that's not censorship. That's just, I did a bad job, they fired me. But the government weighing in saying, "You have to fire Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Mar." That's bullshit. That's fashion. Well, I think there's a line, though. I think there's a line, like certain networks. You can't say certain things on television, right? Or else you're, you're civilly liable. And I think that this kind of ties into, look, admittedly, I have to look into it more. But what I will say is that I think the FCC, if people have licensing, I'll get into this real quick before we move on. When Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I actually contacted the FCC and I asked them to take down the videos that were being reposted of him because there were other outlets that were posting it very quickly. And they were refusing to take down, and the family wanted those videos down. And they contacted the different social media platforms and they basically said, like, your terms and conditions, say that you have to adhere to certain guideline. And if you guys are not going to do that, like, we have to reevaluate. And it did admittedly force these people to take down that assassination. And anybody who made fun of that was repulsive. Yes. And yet, in a free country, with free speech, bad taste cannot be outlawed. I mean, after he was assassinated, we basically had, basically had blasphemy laws here for a couple of months. I don't know if it's still going on, but you just could not say anything about Charlie Kirk. And, you know, to be. People said certain things, but I think there's a big difference between things and actually glorifying his assassination and weren't sure to blood on it, calling and saying that he was rightfully executed. Horrible, terrible. Just like when Donald Trump, Jr., mocked Paul Pelosi, when he was fighting for his life. Yeah, exactly. I'm going to bash it up. It's like. Pauling. Everybody criticized it. Who said those things? Everything's terrible until our side does. That's what Trump said before. And it's perfectly out there. Everybody knows what it's about. I'm not making excuses, but what I will say is there is an aspect of our own first amendment currently that's actually being exploited by places like China that's inundating with propaganda, and there are people. There are very wealthy people that are currently being investigated without saying too much that have been caught tied to terrorist networks and other countries like China pushing propaganda in an effort to break our country apart. That is a fact. I will come back and explain, and I can do the entire segment on China. No, no, no, no, no. You're all good. You're good at this. You're good at your job. I think you're not good at your job. I believe in this. No, I know you do. All right. Finally. All right. Final question for you. Who better represents the future of Maga? JD Vance or Marco Rubio? Oh, that's a journey question. That is a journey question. You can't answer. So I don't know if it's true, so I don't want to speculate. I think them as a ticket would be a winning ticket. But who's on top? Well, I think they'll have to battle it out. But I think that Secretary Rubio has done a phenomenal job in foreign policy. He really has. He was the only cabinet appointee that was actually unanimously voted into the position. And he also has, I think, one of the higher approval ratings currently. Okay. And so he's done great. But JD is also someone that I campaigned with actually in California during the presidential primary. And someone that I think has the ability to connect with people on a level. You know, his story, Hillbilly, L.A.D. He is the type of person that did come from a normal upbringing. We need more of that in Washington DC. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Catch all new episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher every Friday night at 10. Or watch him anytime on HBO on demand. For more information, log on to HBO.com.
Podcast Summary
Key Points:
Congresswoman for Florida supports full disclosure and transparency of UAPs, citing ongoing declassification efforts and access issues for elected officials.
She acknowledges credible military and government reports of unexplained phenomena, including anomalies that predate nuclear weapons and include ancient cultural theories.
Transparency is critical, especially given that high-clearance officials like herself have been denied access to information, raising concerns about government accountability.
There is growing bipartisan support for releasing UAP-related information to the public, with figures like former Secretary Clinton advocating for public decision-making on such topics.
The discussion highlights the tension between free speech and government overreach, especially regarding FCC threats against media outlets for content deemed offensive.
Critics argue that such actions undermine the First Amendment, particularly when targeting satire or political commentary.
The case of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and media response illustrates how free speech boundaries are being challenged in ways that suppress dissent.
The future of the MAGA movement is seen as a contest between JD Vance and Marco Rubio, with Rubio praised for foreign policy expertise and Vance for relatability and grassroots appeal.
Summary:
The podcast features a conversation between Paul Begawa, a CNN contributor and Democratic strategist, and Congresswoman for Florida, Polina Luna, on topics including UAPs, government transparency, and political discourse. Begawa emphasizes the urgent need for full disclosure of UAP information, arguing that elected officials have been denied access to declassified data, which undermines democratic oversight. He references credible reports from military and government sources, including ancient theories and post-nuclear era sightings, suggesting that some phenomena remain unexplained and warrant public inquiry.
The discussion also addresses concerns about free speech, particularly when the FCC threatens media outlets, which critics see as a dangerous erosion of the First Amendment. Examples include the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the backlash against political satire. The conversation concludes with a comparison of potential MAGA candidates, where Rubio is lauded for foreign policy experience and approval ratings, while Vance is seen as more relatable and grounded in working-class roots.
Overall, the dialogue underscores a call for transparency in government, accountability in media, and the preservation of open political discourse in a polarized era.
FAQs
Yes, I believe there should be full transparency. Multiple members of Congress, including myself, have received briefings on UAPs that contain information we cannot explain. Denying access to elected officials is a violation of the check-and-balance system and raises serious concerns about government transparency.
While there is no definitive proof, there is credible evidence from military personnel and government sources that report sightings of phenomena they cannot explain. These reports come from diverse backgrounds and suggest something beyond conventional understanding.
I believe overclassification and a lack of transparency are at play. As a member of Congress with high clearance, I was told I wasn’t allowed access, which raises concerns about who truly controls information and whether the public is being kept in the dark.
It highlights the growing influence of jungle primaries, where the top two candidates—regardless of party—advance. This system may lead to more moderate nominees and suggests Democrats need to strengthen their internal competition and messaging.
I find it off-putting and potentially disrespectful. The comment implies a lack of genuine connection to people, especially marginalized groups, and reflects a tone of elitism that undermines real engagement with diverse communities.
No, it’s a serious overstep. The First Amendment protects free speech, and government intervention to censor content—especially jokes or satire—undermines free expression and sets a dangerous precedent.
Chat with AI
Loading...
Pro features
Go deeper with this episode
Unlock creator-grade tools that turn any transcript into show notes and subtitle files.