Former Republican Congressman and House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney of Ohio was entangled in the Abramoff lobbying scandal and ended up serving 17 months in prison. In his new book, Sideswiped: Lessons Learned Courtesy of the Hit Men of Capitol Hill the former Congressman offers a candid portrayal of the conflicts of interest and corruption currently damaging America’s political system.

In a 50 minute CYInterview with former Congressman Ney, featured columnist Jay Bildstein and I spoke with him about what can be done to fix the system in Washington. He provided some interesting insight on the state of America’s politics.

You can listen to the entire CYInterview or read the highlights below:

Listen to the entire Bob Ney CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio? Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Former Congressman Ney provides solutions – some that he claims could be done in a matter of hours – to decrease the corruption and conflicts of interest in Congress:

“There are some things that can actually, literally be done in a matter of hours. Not days, but a matter of hours and that could be done by John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi together as the Democrat and the Republican. And what can be done immediately, first of all, internally the Congress and this happens with both parties, I’m only familiar with my party, the Republican Party I was in, but they will assess you know if you want to be a chairman of a committee, it is no secret that you will raise a certain amount of money.

My task was $150,000 to go into the Republican Caucus for elections. Some people have to raise half a million, a million. People who don’t comply with that really don’t usually succeed. So internally, they can just say, ‘Look, we’re not gonna assess people for positions anymore.’ I mean that’s the selling of positions. Let’s put it right out where it is. The other thing that could be done is to uncodified what they have done into law when it came to people like Jack Abramoff and I. All of the meals I had with Jack, the travel, any of the alcohol I drank, whatever Jack Abramoff and I did has now been put into law…

If I’m a lobbyist, you’re a Congressman, I can take you to Alaska, we can hunt, we can have a $3000 dinner, not Jack Abramoff’s $50 sushi. We could have a $3000 dinner, I could raise you a $100,000, take you then to Las Vegas, take a member of your family, some staff, have a $2000 dinner, raise you $50,000, that’s all legal. Everything I just talked about is done. That again can be stopped.

The constant practice of taking federally paid staff members, which happens, taking them across the street to the Democrat or Republican war rooms as I call them and raising money on federal time can instantly be stopped and the internal money raising machines. You know good people are in D.C., there’s some really good people in Congress, but the system itself is so money geared that good people that want to do their job are gonna find it quite impossible because the system’s corrupt.”

Congressman Ney is candid about his challenges with alcohol abuse in his book. In Swideswiped, he calls himself a functioning alcoholic. Asked whether poor lifestyle choices by members of Congress were commonplace – things like drinking, smoking and overeating – and if it impacted their ability to do their jobs, Ney said it was not the norm, but it did exist. He also notes that damage to one’s mental health exists in America’s political landscape through such things as intimidation:

“I don’t think every member, you know, is smoking cigarettes, drinking and gaining pounds. I think most of them are gaining pounds because their habits and their lifestyle right now out there. It’s just fast paced, lot of receptions, lot of different food and some bad living habits I think. So that in general is out there. … I not only think physically some people have gotten themselves into bad situations out there in the high lifestyle, which is not a good lifestyle, but also I think mentally the attitude is you know shut up or you’re gonna get run over.”

Former Congressman Bob Ney

Over the last year and half, Jay has put forward propositions to various members of America’s political elite on how to get the nation back on track. He has proposed that the president, vice president and Congress take a 50 percent pay cut to demonstrate leadership at this time of fiscal distress. He also proposes that there needs to be a lifetime ban on lobbying by all former elected officials and that lobbyists should have their meetings with members of Congress logged, videotaped and posted on the Internet. Last but not least, there should be term limits. Bob agreed with Jay’s propositions and had some extra things to add on:

“I like what you said first of all. It’s dramatic, it’s aggressive, it may be called radical, but it’s a wonderful, wonderful beginning and you could add in there no staffer can go through the revolving door. You gonna be a staffer on the hill, you don’t take a lobby job like a member of Congress doesn’t do it either. You can do that. On top of it, when members of Congress take trips, this is a little secret, they get a per diem, so much spending money per day that’s unaccounted for. It still happens today. That can be eliminated.

If you take a trip where you’re going for some public process reason overseas, you can take three extra days and do what you want to do. Eliminate that type of thing so the trips are purely of substance. So yes there’s other little caveats that people could really dig into the bowels of the government for all the excesses, leased cars, you know on and on and on that can be done that would be I think not just trite. I think what you’re saying is very good and it’s a point of substance that can help make a dramatic change.”

With millions of Americans still unemployed and the country going through challenging economic times, including things like an enormous federal deficit, some have questioned whether or not President Obama has gone on too many vacations and, thus, not shown true leadership. The former congressman gives his thoughts:

“He [President Obama] shut down the White House tours and at that time I told friends of mine that was the worst one. He shuts down the White House tours, almost shuts down the Easter egg hunt, but he continues to take multiple vacations. That’s not leading by example. Don’t shut down the tours of the once in a lifetime for the kids coming to Washington. You know instead of 17 vacations, take three, how about three instead of 17.”

In his book he makes numerous claims about current Speaker of the House John Bohner. One of those claims was that the Speaker had lobbyists pay for his bar tabs and golf games. Beyond that, former Congressman Ney also alleges that Mr. Bohner offered him a job and assistance on his legal bills if he would resign from Congress back in 2006. Bob would end up resigning from Congress because he claims he accepted Speaker Bohner’s deal. He states the current Speaker of House never kept up his part of the deal. He tells us his side of the story below:

“The amount of people that have seen John Boehner over the years sitting there at the Republican club drinking every night and eating it’s, you’d have to have a line if somebody decided to call them in. It’s just one of those things. It’s never been pursued. … I mentioned these things with Boehner not to pick on him, but in the context that he had a staffer Barry Jackson who went to work for Karl Rove, they wanted the appointment of Alice Fisher and that all tied into me because once I did my idiocy and my criminal behavior, they saw a way to go over my back to get Alice Fisher her appointment.

She had covered up the torture when the FBI came to her and she had worked in the criminal division of the justice department. Senator Levin was after her because she was close to Tom Delay’s defense team. Alice Fisher was also being yelled at because she wasn’t doing anything about Abramoff and along I came committing my crimes, but a very convenient tool so she could get her appointment. Now that was all inside baseball. Nobody pursued that because the justice department didn’t want to pursue it. So you know it’s whoever’s guarding the hen house decides which hen’s gonna be round up and have their head chopped off. …

I mentioned that part because at the time again if we want to talk about anger, you better believe I was angry and I was also drinking at that time and that fueled the self-pity and the anger and the resentments at that time. Now at the end of the day he probably did me a favor by crossing me over because I got into a rehab program so I kind of look at the bright side of what he did. But the fact remains John Boehner did nothing different than Rod Blagojevich who is sitting in prison for 14 years right now. John Boehner said to me, ‘If you stop running’ and he said, ‘You only have 24 hours and the deals off. If you stop running.’ I’d stay in Congress for a while, but I would pull out of the election.

He said, ‘I will find you a comparable job to what you make.’ He said, ‘I know you don’t have a lot of money.’ And he said, ‘I will raise you money to help with your legal defense fund to help you put this stuff behind you.’ He offered me money to leave just as Blagojevich was offering money for seats. He offered me money to leave. He did it. That can be backed up. There’s people that know this happened, people that we’re involved in trying to secure a job and he just went back on his word. So I don’t know what, if that doesn’t smell bad, I would think it’s surely illegal, but again it depends on who wants to pursue that.”

You can find more information and purchase a copy of Bob Ney’s book here

You can follow Bob Ney on Twitter here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter here.

You can read the highlights below, as well as listen to the entire CYInterview of this compelling conversation about America’s state, with Chris Hayes:

Listen to the entire Chris Hayes CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

One of the messages in Mr. Hayes’s book is that, in America, we reward bad behavior. One of the examples he uses in highlighting this bad behavior, is how certain Major League Baseball players got bigger contracts while using performance enhancing drugs; players like Jose Canesco, over athletes who were playing the game clean.

“One of the themes of what’s in the book I refer to as the failed decade, which is the last 10 years of this sort of, this cascade of institutional failures where you see everything from you know the army core of engineers to Major League Baseball to Wall Street banks to Congress to the media you know imploding in waves of scandal and corruption and incompetence and it’s left people feeling a lot of distrust towards the traditional sources of authority, the institutional pillars in our society and a lot of anger and betrayal.

And the reason I think people feel anger and betrayal is there doesn’t seem to be accountability for people at the top when they mess up…For bankers that have brought the world economy to its knees, to politicians that were able to sell a the nation on a war based on what turned out to be a fiction, for the people that botched New Orleans’ levy system, for the people in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, there just doesn’t seem to be accountability for people at the top.”

When it comes to people like Bernard Madoff – who will be spending the rest of his life in jail after committing one of history’s biggest Ponzi schemes – Hayes believes that his is a rare example of what goes around comes goes around, after having indulged in bad behavior. He makes the case of others who seem to have gotten away scot-free:

“I think those are the exceptions by far…In some ways baseball has had more accountability than the financial system. I mean you know, how many bankers have had to face genuine criminal sanctions for what we know was essentially systemic fraud that ran through the system, very few, you can count them on one hand. Angelo Mozilo who ran Countrywide, which was the biggest purveyor of toxic loans wrote in emails to his own subordinates that we’re basically selling people toxic products.

He said of one kind of mortgage that they were selling that there could be nothing more toxic. Well he cashed in his stock options and made off before the whole thing crashed and has not had to face any criminal sanctions. So I think that the people who do face accountability are far, far rarer than those who have been able to escape accountability.”

When it comes to the future of America’s economy, Mr. Hayes believes healthcare will be America’s biggest long term challenge going forward:

“We have a long term problem in this country with the growth of healthcare spending, both private and public sector. The way it shows up on the U.S. government balance sheet is through Medicare and if nothing changes, yes, we will be in a lot of fiscal trouble, but we’ll be in much broader trouble than just the government unable to pay its bills. We’ll be in trouble because we will essentially be paying 80 cents of every dollar generally in the economy to deal with health care. So health care costs care has to change and there’s a whole long story I can go into about what I think the best way to do that is, but fundamentally I don’t think it’s about the promises we’ve made in terms of our social contract. I think it’s about the way that we pay for and deliver health care.”

The MSNBC host agreed that the media has not been doing their job when it comes to holding people in power accountable:

“I agree in terms of accountability. I think that there’s been crucial moments when the press failed to live up to that. Obviously there was an insufficient skepticism about the housing bubble. There’s been an insufficient accountability for people that talk about that. People forget Ben Bernanke was saying as late as 2007 that there’s no housing bubble and the problems of subprime are gonna be contained and he hasn’t had to pay a price for it.

I mean the guy, it’s not like his reputation is in tatters. He was reappointed by a Democratic president to head the Fed chair board. So yes, I mean, I think that it is important for the press to hold people accountable and to hold beliefs accountable and just accountable for their job for the basic contours of competence and I think that there’s a lot of instances in which the press has failed to do that.”

Back in May, Mr. Hayes faced some controversy over a conversation on his MSNBC show in which he said he felt uncomfortable calling deceased American service-people heroes. Chris explains why he apologized:

“I wouldn’t have apologized if I didn’t mean it and I apologized specifically in response to people sending me genuinely anguished emails in which, look, I’m very lucky to have a platform I have and I believe that you need to both be responsible with the platform you have and not shy away from difficult topics and you know in the next weekend we talked about the topic again and not shy away from the possibility of offense or controversy because there’s no point in having a press if it’s cowed by the possibility of offense and controversy, but at the same time to take care, to be careful, to be cognizant of the power that you wield and you’ve been invested with and I think on a sensitive topic I failed to live up to my own standards of care and empathy and that’s why I apologized…

It’s the nature of speaking unscripted for four hours more or less every week as I do particularly speaking unscripted for four hours every week sometimes about topics that are very sensitive or very charged or very loaded…At a certain level you’re going to make mistakes. You’re gonna say things in ways that you’re gonna have thoughts that are not fully formed that in their not fully formedness provoke anger or upset in people and you know that is, part of that comes with the territory and you know and you just have to be better, you have to be careful and yet not be cowed. I think that’s what we aim for on the show…I think talking about difficult topics is still what we’re charged to do and what we’re still gonna keep doing.”

You can purchase a copy and find out more information about Chris Hayes’s book Twilight of the Elites here.

You can follow Chris Hayes on Twitter here.

You can find more information about Chris Hayes’s MSNBC show here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris is available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter here.

Putting aside his baseball accomplishments, Mr. Smoltz has a bigger message in his book. It is about going for your dreams, dealing with tough situations and making the best of them. He also drives home the point that hard work is needed over a long period to truly become successful.

You can read the highlights or listen to John Smoltz’s entire CYInterview at below:

Listen to the entire John Smoltz CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

In the beginning of his book, Mr. Smoltz writes the following on page two, “Why not do what you love as long as you’re physically able. Why not take risks, as long as they’re calculated? Why not chase what some seem impossible? Why not believe in yourself? Why not dare to be great…even if it means being different.”

Besides the fact that people have fears, worry about what others think and are often cynical about achieving their desires, John Smoltz gives his thoughts on why it is so hard for people to go after their dreams:

“The overwhelming feeling from whether it’s the peer pressure or the times that we live in where information is at our hand and fingertips and you can spit out the statistical category of everything it seems. And sometimes public opinion just weighs too much on what each individual thinks about the security or significance of what they’re doing and where we live in a world that picks out the negative in everything; that points it out. It’s one thing to have fun and make fun of things; it’s another thing to deter somebody for your own self-satisfaction to say why they cannot do something.

And you know, I think because of all those things we tend to fall short of everything that we’re capable of doing including the work ethic it takes to be whatever it is that we are to be. You know, I have this belief that in this world, you know, being a great mother is not good enough for some people, that’s the hardest job in the world and to raise a family and do the things that you know make children, the opportunity to have their passions fulfilled. So yeah it’s all jumbled up into a mess that a lot of people find out years later. They go, ‘Man, I wish I would’ve done this. I wish I would’ve done this, this or that.’ I am hoping to shed some light on don’t wish, do.”

When tough times come calling, one of Smoltz’s most important messages is to make the best of a crappy situation. The Cy Young winner reflects:

“Self-worth seems to be something that’s tied with what we can give, offer or do. How much money, fame, you know, the statue of what our view is and I’m a big believer that you know apart from a faith in God, you may or may not agree with how everything goes on or as biblically written, I think we fall short in our insecurities and I think that’s the one thing that I’ve always had this rally mode you know like, ok, let’s dig out of this hole, let’s for no other ulterior motives than other than I want to be my best at all times whether it’s recreational or professionally, I want to beat you or I want to do what I can to be as good as I can and you know kind of the three Ls, live, laugh and learn. Those are things that I’ve always wanted to be part of my life. I’m not afraid to fail. I’m not afraid to make fun of myself. I’m not afraid to laugh and learn.”

With his Cy Young, 3000 strikeouts and World Series Championships among other accomplishments, Smoltz tells us what those things mean to him today:

“What they mean is that they’re moments in my life that are part of what has made me a professional baseball player. So in other words, you can point to those and go those were accomplishments, they don’t last forever, you can’t do it forever and they’re not what defines me. And so having said that, I realize that there’s a point in my life where that’s not gonna be who I am and to move on and become the man that God wants me to be beyond my playing days is probably just as important if not more important than what I’ve been able to do while I was playing for the Braves.”

Away from the baseball field, John is one of a handful athletes who are scratch golfers. He’s played over 30 rounds with Tiger Woods and is planning on making a run at the Champions Tour when he turns 50. Woods has stated Smoltz is the best golfer he’s ever seen not on the PGA Tour. John agrees that playing golf helped his career on the baseball field. Speaking of playing golf with Tiger, he said:

“Playing golf with Tiger Woods was the greatest treat in the world and yeah I came close, but I think that’s like anything, hand grenades you come close. It just doesn’t mean a whole lot until you’re able to take it to that next level. Everybody can have that one day, but not everybody can sustain a level and dominance that Tiger had done in his career and is trying, looking to get back to.”

Smoltz writes in his book regarding the personal events of Tiger Wood’s life in 2009, that led to Tiger’s divorce from his ex-wife Elin Nordegren, “Let me just say before I go any further that the events that unfolded with Tiger in November 2009 were as shocking and disappointing to me as they were to a lot of other people. We haven’t spoken since, but I am rooting for him to rally and do incredible things; I am confident he will one day regain his form as one of the best golfers in the world.”

Since he is an athlete who knows the importance of mental preparation, I asked John if he felt the things that happened off the golf course in Tiger Wood’s life impacted his performance on the course and ultimately his standing as America’s top golfer. [As a side note, Mr. Woods showed some of his old, winning magic this year:]

“One will never know. I think it’s dangerous to speculate what somebody else should or shouldn’t do or even what could lead to you know a temporary demise. I think the one thing that having been around him and seen the greatness that he has been able to put forth in the sport and how the sport kind of needs him, but nobody’s above the sport I think is an example of how quickly it can come and go. And by no means am I saying it’s gone, I just think that in life you choose to deal with things in a way where it may be counseling, advice given in one way and certainly walking through it and having to go through it will teach you lessons.”

There’s been discussion on whether or not John Smoltz will end up in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The retired MLB veteran gives his thoughts on ending up in Cooperstown:

“I don’t know. I’m asked that question a lot and it’s not up to me and the good news is I’m not confined or I’m certainly not obsessed by it. So if it happens it will be tremendous. But if it doesn’t it still will be tremendous because my career won’t be defined by entering the Hall of Fame or being part of some group. I will be honored, but like I said, life will go on well beyond those days.”

As a professional athlete of faith and someone who dealt with a lot of adversity during his playing days, Smoltz gives his thoughts on Tim Tebow and the things he’s had to overcome and deal with in the NFL:

“He defies you know the prototypical ways things go about and I’m a Tim Tebow fan. I root for him. I think the amount of attention and scrutiny that comes his way is mainly because of what he stands for and what he claims as his outward obedience to his faith and I think one thing that people you know feel like that is gonna cause a lot of discussions in areas that normally wouldn’t even come up and he’s, gonna be a lot of scrutiny and he’s handled it with all dignity and the way you could imagine is incredible.”

So what does John Smoltz want people to remember about him?

“I would like people to know that I made a difference in wherever I was, I gave it all, that I was a gamer or clutch or the fact that I just generally cared about people. My life will be viewed however somebody wants to view it, but if those things could be part of it you know that he generally cared about people and tried to make a difference in life that would be great. And as a pitcher, just the fact that I was clutch, you know that I was able to come up big when the time was needed the most and that’s all I could ever have wanted and for the most part was able to do that most of my career.”

You can find more information and purchase a copy of John Smoltz’s Starting and Closing here

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris is available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter here.

In a new book released recently titled Game Over: Jerry Sandusky, Penn State and the Culture of Silence, authors Bill Moushey and Bob Dvorchak detail numerous events in which they say Jerry Sandusky sexually abused minors. What follows are the highlights of this CYInterview, along with a complete 35 minute audio of our conversation:

Listen to the entire CYInterview with Bill Moushey and Bob Dvorchak:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

It has been reported that in 1998, Jerry Sandusky was investigated because a young boy told his mother that he had showered with the former assistant coach. Bill Moushey says the most troubling part about this is that the alleged inappropriate behavior continued:

“The most troubling part about it as I told you, we built timelines on both sides of this was that between 98 and 2011 when the charges were filed, there were at least ten more accusers or ten total accusers, two more filed lawsuits like Bob said and then there’s also an ongoing investigation which we won’t know much about because it is under, there’s a gag order on all trial participants right now.”

Bob Dvorchak added the following:

“I think what happened is that somebody comes forward with a story and the first reaction is disbelief, to not believe that this could happen to a man of Jerry Sandusky’s stature at an institution so prestigious as Penn State. But whether or not it starts as disbelief or denial or arrogance or even hubris on their part, the fact of the matter is that as they’re allowing these things to go on because of their inaction that more young people are subject to circumstances that scar them for life.”

After allegations came out that Jerry Sandusky utilized his Second Mile Organization to attract vulnerable, underage boys and with the subsequent firing of Coach Joe Paterno, Penn State decided to play their then upcoming football game against Nebraska. Why didn’t Penn State cancel that football game, as well cancel the rest of the season and, perhaps, even the following season? Bob Dvorchack answers the questions:

“Nebraska coach Bo Pelini was one of the ones who said, ‘Maybe, why is this game going on? There are kids’ lives at stake here. This is a football game.’ I think even the coaches had it in perspective. But you’re exactly right. Sports is a game, it’s a diversion. In the grand scheme of things it means nothing. The brand of Penn State University means nothing compared to the welfare of a child…It’s a great point you raise is maybe they should even cancel football for the entire next season. Not a moment of silence, but a season of silence and let’s reevaluate and reexamine ourselves and make sure our priorities are straight…

I think money plays a major part in this. But this is why I say it’s a cautionary tale for every college administrator in the country that maybe, there must, not maybe, there must be some self-examination and reexamination of these programs and these big time college revenue generating programs that have you lost your priorities? Are you sacrificing your mission as a university and are you sacrificing your responsibility to society to allow something to go on when it’s clearly wrong.”

Though there are those individuals who focus on late, former Penn State football coach, Joe Paterno, when it comes to the horrific allegations against Jerry Sandusky, Moushey says there were various people responsible for what allegedly occurred. He includes former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president of finance and business Gary Schultz, among others, who were noted in Game Over, as being culpable to some extent:

“There were many people with dirty hands in this whole thing. Joe Paterno happened to be one of them, but he’s also the brand name of the university so he probably, he got more than anybody else as far as the negative commentary, but the bottom line in that situation when you read our book you see that he could have done more, he said that himself and you know that’s the way history’s going to treat him.

As far as the other people, [Tim] Curley, [Gary] Schultz, Schultz seems like he’s getting more rap than most people because he was involved in the 98 event and the 2002 event. Both Paterno and Curley say they had no knowledge of the 98 event which many people that we interviewed found that to be highly questionable. But the Paterno family continues to insist that Joe Paterno had no knowledge of the 98 event. And the fact of the matter is that shows this culture of insularity where people repeatedly saw things, repeatedly learned of things and repeatedly failed to do anything about it.”

Bob Dvorchak adds the following on Joe Paterno:

“Joe Paterno was the biggest man on a very big campus. He was paid more than the university president. He called shots up there. He told people that he would step down when it was his call and what he thought was best for the university. I think when you look at it in total he’s certainly not maybe the central figure in this, but what happened to him and to get fired, he tried to resign and then get fired the way he did over the phone late at night, can you ask yourself did he deserve to be treated that way? The short answer is no, but did those ten young men deserve what happened to them at the same time?”

It has been reported that Joe Paterno was informed by Mike McQueary that McQueary had witnessed inappropriate behavior between an underage boy and Jerry Sandusky, in the Penn State showers in 2002. Reportedly, Joe Paterno then took the claims of Mr. McQueary to his superiors. Some people have said that Joe Paterno should have done more after hearing of that kind of behavior. In an interview after the events, Coach Paterno said he should have done more. What should he have done? Moushey explains:

“Joe could’ve seen what was happening and put his foot down and said we’ve got to make this stop, we’ve gotta vet it, we’ve gotta prosecute it if it need be etc., etc. and then in 2002 any of the allegations would’ve ended.”

Dvorchack adds:

“If he puts his foot down, there’s gonna be some, the university, the football program, which is squeaky clean is gonna be tarnished at least temporarily, but don’t you think in the long run if he takes the stand and says, ‘I cannot allow anything that threatens children to happen under my watch.’ He maybe would’ve been a more horrific figure if he had done that. You know you meet a legal obligation in reporting it to your superiors, but why report it to your superiors? Why not go to the police and say, ‘I’ve just been told that a long time assistant of mine, who’s no longer on staff by the way, was engaged in this kind of, but on campus property in the showers of the Penn State football program.’ You know if he stops it there and he has the power to stop it, it’s a different outcome altogether.”

In the book Game Over, Moushey and Dvorchak write that Mike McQueary continued to be around Jerry Sandusky after witnessing the aforementioned alleged events. He continued to partake in Second Mile events, including a flag football game Sandusky was part of and as noted on page 49 continued to see Sandusky weekly at the Penn State football facilities. Why was Mike McQueary still around Jerry Sandusky after witnessing such alleged horrific events? Moushey sheds light:

“If I saw something like that, I really wouldn’t want to be around the guy even if I decided to keep my mouth shut. But we also talked to a bunch of people that said that McQueary did not keep his mouth shut to his friends and others and in fact that’s how a state police investigator found McQueary because one of his buddies blogged a statement that McQueary knew, an assistant knew about this stuff.”

Dvorchak goes on:

“Mind boggling and mystifying isn’t it Chris that he would witness something like that and still somehow be associated with Sandusky, playing in his charity golf event and playing in these charity football games. But I think what you take away from Game Over is how isolated Penn State is…When McQueary was told by his superiors that this is what they did, they banned Sandusky from bringing young boys on campus and are you ok with this punishment? And he said, ‘Yeah. I’m ok with it.’ Then life just picked up back to normal for so many people as if they just swept it under the rug. And one of the things that hurts so much here is you have this witness seeing this happen to, you have that image of a 10 year old boy with his hands against the shower wall, yet nobody in that entire university bothered to find out who that young man was and hear his version of events, inexplicable.”

Mr. Dvorchak notes that there is now a new era of transparency at Penn State and that if someone witnesses something they should not fear reporting it:

“The new administration has promised a new era of transparency and part of that is to encourage people to say if they see something wrong or untowards to report it without fear of reprisal. Keep in mind, Penn State in Centre Country is the largest employer up there. I mean people’s livelihoods are tied to that university and I think there’s a tendency on everyone’s part to protect your own self rather than do the right thing and protect the lives of children. These children, these kids are from underprivileged backgrounds, single parent households. They’re basically invisible.”

Finally, Bill Moushey gives his thoughts on the upcoming trial of Jerry Sandusky and what he believes will happen:

“There’s a mountain of evidence that even Sandusky’s lawyer before the gag order said, ‘That he feels like he’s climbing Mount Everest.’ And that he’s gonna have to methodically go through every one of these stories and break them down. The only thing that looks like that’s going to his advantage is that a lot of the accusers stories are not time and date specific because they were young kids when it happened and they’re talking about things that happened you know as long as 10, 12 years ago. So that’s where they’re gonna focus. If Sandusky’s convicted of any of the assortment of charges, especially the felonies, he’s 68 years old and he is going to face a long sentence under any of those circumstances.”

You can purchase a copy of Game Over: Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, and the Culture of Silence here

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris is available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter here.

Below you can read the highlights and listen to the entire CYInterview for some interesting insights from one of America’s most successful fiction writers today and learn about her latest book, titled Deadlocked:

Listen to the entire Charlaine Harris CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

In October 2008, Charlaine Harris became the only author to have an entire series on the New York Times bestsellers list for her books on which the the HBO series True Blood is based. She believes fantasy fiction gets a bump in sales during challenging economic times.

“I think people particularly in economically depressed times are anxious to read something that really doesn’t bare much relationship to their daily life. So fantasy fiction also traditionally takes a bump in sales during depressed economic times…That was pretty soon after True Blood started airing and though my books had been selling very, very well before that, the screening of True Blood just gave them a huge bump and I was the beneficiary of that bump and all the books started selling suddenly even more than they had before. So it just, all the numbers just combined and that incredible week happened.”

When looking at her 30 years writing books, Ms. Harris reflects about what it takes to write good fiction and looks at how the Sookie Stackhouse series came together and what it takes to make a good series of books:

“I think you have to have a conviction that you have a story to tell and that you really think people will enjoy reading it. I think you have to have a lot of determination. I guess you just have to write what entertains you and hope that it will also entertain other people…Having started the series, there is a lot of pressure. I have to say most of it was self applied in the hopes that each book would be better than the one proceeding it. Sometimes I make my target, sometimes I don’t, but I always try. The first book was a hard sell. I’d been published many years before when I wrote conventional mysteries, but the first book was a leap for me. It was out of the genre people were use to me being in and it took a long time for my agent to sell it.”

NY Times Bestselling Author Charlaine Harris

Commenting on the latest book from the Sookie Stackhouse series titled Deadlocked, Charlaine shares with us what her goals were. The character Sookie Stackhouse is telepathic, has a vampire boyfriend and deals with many challenges in her daily life. Deadlocked opens with Sookie and her female friends at a male strip club:

“There was a lot to tie together, a certain amount of plot threads that I had to end or resolve in some way. Plus I had to show her further development as a character and the events and the various supernatural communities and human communities that comprise her world…I just thought it would be a good note to start the book on, not any blood and guts, something that has a serious undertone when one of the people there realize it’s her husband up on the stage. For research I talked extensively to a male stripper.”

With the vampire craze sweeping America in recent years, from the Twilight movies to the HBO series True Blood inspired by her books, Ms. Harris has given the most interesting answer I’ve heard to date on why vampire entertainment has been a hot sell in recent years:

“I think aside from the escape into fantasy in general, maybe vampires in particular because Americans are always trying to look younger than they are. They’re always trying to perfect themselves physically and vampires are frozen at the moment they were turned which was usually at their physical peak. I think that’s kinda the American ideal to be forever as you are. Not to age or change.”

With the age of technology continuing to move along at what some would say is warp speed, Charlaine gives her thoughts on the state of literacy in America and people reading books on electronic devices:

“I thought about it extensively as you might imagine, but as a matter of fact, I think that books being on small screens will actually encourage reading because people now are conditioned to look at screens. They love their little gadgets that they carry with them and I’m not trying to sound patronizing, I’ve got my own little gadgets, but I think since the advent of eBooks, I think reading is up. I actually think more people are reading because they can do it on a device they can carry with them in their pocket.”

With 30 years of writing fiction, NY Times Bestselling success and books translated into 20 languages, Charlaine Harris says tells us what she’s most proud of in her writing career:

“My greatest accomplishment is producing a book I’m proud of and looking back on a scene and saying I did that right. There are a handful of things in the books I’ve written in my life, maybe you know five to ten scenes when I think I just did that as well as I ever could even if I look at in ten years I’ll say, ‘I did the best on that I could ever do.’ And I’m really proud of that. I wish I could sustain that for a whole book, but writing like everything else has different levels of excellence and you just have to keep striving. Writing is never easy no matter how many years you do it, unfortunately.”

You can find more information and purchase a copy of Charlaine Harris’s Deadlocked here

The following dates are listed below for Charlaine Harris’s Deadlocked book tour:

May 4: CHARLESTON, SC @ 7 PM
Barnes & Noble, 1812 Rittenberg Blvd., Charleston, SC

May 5: LEXINGTON, KY @ 7 PM
Joseph-Beth Booksellers, 161 Lexington Green Circle, Lexington, KY

May 6: CHARLOTTE, NC @ 3 PM
Barnes & Noble, 3327 Pineville-Matthews Rd., Charlotte, NC

May 7: WINSTON-SALEM, NC @ 7 PM
Bookmarks, 2133 Bethabara Rd., Winston-Salem, NC

May 8: MEMPHIS, TN @ 7 PM
That Bookstore in Blytheville, 316 W. Main St., Blytheville, AR

May 9: JACKSON, MS @ 7 PM
Barnes & Noble, 1000 Highland Colony Parkway, Ridgeland, MS

May 10: BATON ROUGE, LA @ 7 PM
Barnes & Noble, 25900 Citiplace Court, Baton Rouge, LA

May 11: HOUSTON, TX @ 7 PM
Murder by the Book, 2342 Bissonnet St., Houston, TX

May 12: AUSTIN, TX @ 7 PM
Bookpeople, 603 North Lamar, Austin, TX

Charlaine Harris’s official website is here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris is available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter here.

In recent months, mainstream media outlets have discussed the state of the Senate, particularly its seeming lack of getting much accomplished. Members of Congress have seemed to forget the art of compromise. With this in mind, and with his new book out, we are pleased to have had the opportunity to speak with former Senator Specter. During this CYInterview, featured columnist Jay Bildstein continued to put forward his solutions to change the environment in Congress:

Below you can read the entire transcript or listen to the entire CYInterview:

Listen to the entire Alren Specter CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Chris Yandek: Senator, thank you so much for joining us today. We really, greatly appreciate it and I want to get right into it with you and say you know, looking at one of the biggest messages of the book, you talk about the lack of centrists, the lack of moderates, the lack of people in Washington willing to meet in the middle. The question I have for you as you very well know, Maine’s Olympia Snowe has recently retired because she can’t deal with not being able to be a moderate. How are we ever going to get anything accomplished in Congress? How are we ever gonna get anything accomplished in the Senate if we can’t have people meet in the middle, if we can’t have people compromising?

Arlen Specter: “The perspective answer has been supplied by what happened to Senator Murkowski in Alaska. We’ve had a situation where the extremes have taken control of both parties where you have a strong senator like Bob Bennett in Utah with a 93 percent conservative rating, can’t win a Republican primary because of a single vote. Similarly you have an outstanding senator like Joe Lieberman from Connecticut who can’t win a Democratic primary.

Well, with Senator Lisa Murkowski, she was opposed in a primary by a Tea Party candidate, she was defeated, but she came back to win a write in. And you know how hard it is to write in Murkowski. If you put a y instead of an I, your ballot’s thrown out. But that showed and she won the primary statewide, virtually unprecedented move in American political history. It shows that if you acquaint the people with the nature of the problem and motivate them, but you can get the center out to put a moderate in government. I think that could be a microcosm of what could be done in this 2012 election.”

CY: Well, I know that Jay is gonna want to talk with you about the center and he’ll have some ideas for you that we’ve been talking about with so many high profile people in politics, so Jay why don’t you go ahead.

Jay Bildstein: Well, Senator Specter first of all, thank you for being with us here today. It’s an honor to be speaking with you. To follow up on what Chris said, you know, you make this point and I really take to mean that for our nation to be led well it’s gotta be led from the center, certainly not from the far left, certainly not from the far right. But for a nation to be led well we need leaders and to me, and I think to many Americans, to be a leader means to lead by example.

Now in our current economic climate, where meaningful adjustments are gonna have to be made to insure the financial well being of the nation, I’ve put forward and I’ve spoken to this to a number of people. One of the last folks we just spoke to is somebody who I regard very highly, former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker and I put forward a three point fiscal leadership plan which consists of the following: One, the Congress, president and vice president need to take a 50 percent pay cut in salaries because after all currently, we’re practically borrowing half the money, which is being paid to them and which is using to go to fund most of the programs of the nation and they have to give up their rich after office benefits. Two, we need a lifetime embargo on lobbying. And three, there need to be term limits. I wonder what your thoughts on that type of plan are?

AS: “Well, I think that if you cut the president’s salary by 50 percent it would be symbolic, but it wouldn’t save you a lot of money. When you talk about lobbying, I think there you do put your finger on it, on an important nerve where there is too much influence by the lobbyists, too much political fundraising, too much bundling and really too much influence. Of course that’s only a fraction of the problem which you have in larger measure by the decision in Citizen’s United where now the Supreme Court is allowing corporations and unions to make unlimited and anonymous expenditures.

When you get to the subject of term limits, there I’m hesitant. You got a very tough ingrained bureaucracy. I served as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Let me tell you, it’s tough to find out what the CIA is doing. They led us astray on the weapons of mass destruction that they said Saddam Hussein found. We sent out Collin Powell, Secretary of State, former National Security Counselor, chief of staff, four star general, couldn’t find it out. I’d be reluctant to cut into term limits. I think if the voters would become informed and aroused, they could impose the proper limits on the guys who ought to be out, guys and gals.”

JB: Senator, do you think that there’s a reason that some, not all, but that some people in Congress have, at least it seems to me, a lot of people we’ve spoken to kind of act in a way that is not kind of congruent with what the average American is dealing with. I mean, I read all the time, all these different kind of fiscal plans looking to solve the financial and economic ills of the United States of America.

Don’t you think we should be in a nation where the people who lead us and have to make the tough fiscal decisions, if they ask the every man or the every woman, “Hey! Pull your belt in two notches,” shouldn’t they be willing to pull their belt in four notches to kind of say, “Look” – like a good leader in a battle, like a good platoon sergeant – “Look, guys. I’m in front of you. I’m not behind you saying take that hill. I’m in front of you saying follow me,”?

Shouldn’t we at least work to do something in Congress, where American people – David Walker said we’re gonna have to renegotiate the social insurance contract of America; I think he knows what he’s talking about – don’t you think we’re gonna have to ask our leaders somehow to do a bit more than they ask of the general public to kind of raise morale and say, “It’s not Washington hypocrisy,”?

AS: “Yeah. But what I would ask the leaders to do is to better understand the American people. I would insist that the leaders have town meetings and meet the people and listen to them and find out what is on their minds. I made it a point in 30 years to cover virtually every county, virtually every year. When I turned up for my town meetings in 2009 when the Tea Party rebellion is starting to swell, had a very famous town meeting, 1200 people, stormed of the Bastille, shaking their fists in my face.

I’d make – before I’d elect somebody – I’d make him do town meetings and face the people and then I would insist that the person not run on a platform of no compromising. The meaningful thing that the leaders could do would be to be dedicated to a discussion across the isle, to vote their consciences and not to follow the strict party line. I think that would lead to sensible decisions. I would seek leadership on those really meaningful ways. Make those demands and make them stick or vote them out.”

CY: I think more so than anything else I agree with you on many of the things you’re saying, but you know looking at the future of the Senate as someone who was there for three decades, you know if we have people on the far left and we have people on the far right and no one is willing to compromise, no one is willing to meet in the middle, no one is willing to have some taxes raised with some cuts applied to a budget plan, how are we ever going to get any meaningful legislation done in the Senate going forward. Isn’t it just dysfunctional at this point?

AS: “Well, we have people there who do have substantial wisdom and substantial experience. And if they were confident enough to express their own views, that they wouldn’t be bushwhacked by the party for casting a single vote like Bob Bennett was or like I was, they’d be willing to speak up and they’d be willing to speak their consciences and put their ideas on the line. But right now, there is timidity, there is fear that if they do that a single votes gonna cost them their job and they’re not willing to make that kind of a sacrifice and they’re not enough with the people. How many members of Congress go face the people in a town meeting and are prepared to answer questions from the floor. That to me is the real litmus test.”

CY: I think I agree with you, what you’re saying is that, but people at the same time need to hold their public officials accountable. But what I say to you is when I look at that scenario, you know if you’re in Washington and you’re concerned about one vote that’s possibly gonna get you voted out, you’re really not being a public official. A public official is someone who goes to Washington to benefit the public and that means that they’re not worried about being a career politician.

And the problem we have with Washington right now Senator is we’ve got too many career politicians. We’ve got too many people who are concerned only about you know, continuing to have this public official job that they think is supposed to be a long term career from the private sector and that’s just not the case.

AS: “Well, you and I agree. I think a public official ought to follow his conscience as to what is in the public interest, not what will protect his job. Listen, great talking to you, but I gotta move on.”

CY: Well, thank you very much for your time senator. We greatly appreciate it.

JB: Thank you senator. Thank you very much. Have a very nice day.

AS: “Good talking. Thank you.”

You can purchase a copy and find out more information about Alren Specter’s book Life Among The Cannibals: A Political Career, a Tea Party Uprising, and the End of Governing As We Know It here

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris and Jay are available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter here.

Steve Russell, a now retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, in his recently released book We Got Him! A Memoir of the Hunt and Capture of Saddam Hussein, delivers over 400 pages drawn from his journals, as well as research on his time in Iraq. Having served 21 years in the military, he gives us an up close view of the war and what the American military went through to find Iraq’s former dictator, Saddam Hussein. Lt. Col. Russell commanded the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, comprising 1000 soldiers, in the first year of the Iraq war.

Aside from the search for the former Iraqi dictator, Mr. Russell gives answers to many important questions about the Iraq war.

You can read the highlights and listen to the entire CYInterview below:

Listen to the entire CYInterview with LT. Col. Steve Russell:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Mr. Russell writes in his book that in May of 2003, “No one in the entire command from generals to soldiers knew how the Iraqi people would react following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the defeat of his army in the field it was assumed we would simply transition to better times. Neither Colonel Jim Hickey who would soon be my commander, nor I believed the theory of better times.” Steve Russell discusses the unknown part of the Iraq war:

“I think the unknown was how the Iraqi people would react to us once we occupied their country. That was the big unknown as I started in the book. We did feel that with his regime gone, if Saddam himself were captured that that would take the wind out of the sails of a lot of the resistance because as we know now, Saddam was fully intending to develop an insurgency to cause us to lose national will and to pull out and he could restore himself to power.

The odd twist in it was when al-Qaeda came in the 2004 timeframe, 2005 and they began co opt the failing insurgency under Saddam. I mean, that’s all for the historic record now…There was an insurgent effort planned even before we had fully defeated Saddam’s army. They knew that they could not keep the American forces out of the country and they planned to resist us once we occupied it…Were it not for the Iraqi people, Saddam would never have been captured and Iraq would never have been put in its path toward progress that we see today.”

With the December 2011 announcement by President Obama declaring the war was over, Lt. Col. Russell reacts to the end of the war. In 2008, Mr. Russell went back to Iraq to do research for the book. He gives us his thoughts, based on experience, about the future of Iraq.

“As we get to the pullout, it’s kind of mixed emotion. On the one hand and I’m speaking for myself as a solider who served there, I’m thrilled to see the future that Iraq has and I’m also thrilled that we go home having accomplished the mission. That’s very rewarding. To have that robbed from us from our own nation would’ve left a huge hole in us that could never be healed. So very grateful that we left Iraq on favorable terms and having had every mission that we were asked to do accomplished…

I was stunned even in 2008 at how much security had improved, how much the Iraqis already were in control of their own country and was hardened by that and that was three years ago. So I have no doubt and I have many friends in Iraq and stay in touch with them. These people are far better off than they were at any time under Saddam…We drove from Baghdad [in 2008] to Tikrit 160 miles, went there and back. You want to test security and see what it’s like? Go do that. And I was able to do that and I’m talking to you here today and I was struck by how much Iraq was in charge of their own security and in charge of their own country.”

In the last few years of the Iraq war there was less and less media coverage of the ongoing events of the conflict. Besides death announcements of fallen American soldiers there wasn’t much else. The retired military man discusses the media coverage of the war:

“You had some very good field reporters and I learned a lot about their trade, but most were not and the only news that they seemed to want to portray was another soldier killed in Iraq today. We have to get beyond this as a country. It’s like we only celebrate the antihero, the victim, the downcast, the downtrodden who’s the victim of the man somewhere. I just, I don’t understand this mentality that we are migrating through as Americans.

And I think that that’s largely responsible in how things are viewed through the lens of the camera or the printed matter as it comes. Many reporters and you’ll see in this book were very frustrated that the stories that they filed would be bumped for some latest celebrity’s shenanigans or they would be bumped because the editors didn’t feel it fit in with their political viewpoint. The reporters were very frustrated by that, the field reporters.”

To the average American, it was never truly clear what exactly the mission was in Iraq toward the end of the conflict. As the commander of 1000 men in the first year of the war, Lt. Colonel Russell lays out the mission:

“Same it was when we went in. And here’s the thing, when we were ordered to go to Iraq, we were given very clear objectives. You have to remember, I was a task force commander of 1000 soldiers so I would’ve been given at leas the operational level of what the mission was and it was pretty clear. It was defeat Saddam’s army, remove Saddam’s regime from power, kill or capture Saddam and bring him to justice, provide stability to the point where they could rebuild and restructure their own institutions and that would set the conditions for independence and we could leave. That was the objective, those five things. I remember them clear as a bell. Well, guess what? That takes a little time and the remarkable thing is that we were able to do it in just eight years.”

What about the biggest misconceptions about the Iraq War?

“Well, I think that people refused to look at the war beyond a singular president and that’s the biggest mistake. You cannot look at this war through the lens of a single president. You have to look at this war through the lens of 30 years in the past. And what I mean by that, well, the very national policy that launched us into Iraq was called the Iraqi Liberation Act and it was signed by President Clinton in 1998. It was very good policy in 1998 when it was signed and it was good when we implemented it in 2003. It called for regime removal…

He [Saddam Hussein] was trying to develop mass destructive weapons to include nuclear weapons. The record is there. We found evidence of it even in Iraq. That’s a big misconception. Oh, there was no WMD, there was no nuclear program. That is false… They were clearly on a path to develop destructive weapons. Was that the only basis for going in? No. It never was. It was never about WMD. It was about what right does one man have to defy the entire world and put it in a kilter. Every western country’s national policy and every Middle Eastern country’s national policy revolved around him and his irritation to the world. He had to be brought to account and I’m very proud to have been a part of bringing him to justice.”

To those people who believe the American military didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, the former military commander tells this story:

“Let me share a story with you. A good buddy of mine Chuck Sexton commanded Task Force 136 in Baghdad and he went on a raid. They were able to capture Dr. Mahdi Obeidi with a special operations forces team, Saddam’s nuclear physicist. When they got there he said, ‘Well, what you’re looking for is in the garden under the rose bushes.’ They began to dig and they found a western manufactured zippe centrifuge. And if you know anything about nuclear technology, you know that a zippe centrifuge is crucial to the development of nuclear weapons. Only a handful of countries have ever been able to acquire one. Let me name them, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, what do they all have in common? They all have nuclear weapons.

So to say that Saddam was never on the path to develop nuclear weapons is categorically false. The evidence is there. The facts are there. And if you read Dr. Madhi Obedi’s book, wasn’t a best selling title, it was called The Bomb in My Garden, but he lays it out and he states in that book that he was convinced that the processed the technology to develop a nuclear weapon, but what they had the problem was gaining certain key elements of raw materials, but by playing the game they would be able to smuggle in the different materials over time with the inspections and all of that and he felt that if Saddam ever got his hands on a nuclear weapon, he would actually have used it because he used every other destructive weapon he ever possessed.”

In posing the question to the retired military veteran about why American soldiers are in over 100 countries worldwide, instead of bringing them home to spend money in America, Mr. Russell provided this response:

“The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits US Military from serving in a police capacity. You don’t want US soldiers serving as policeman. That makes us a dictatorship. Let’s get back to what our republic is here and to defend our economic interests and to defend our national security interests, it necessarily requires involvement in other places in the world. Let’s wake up here. In terms of do we need the soldiers in all of these different countries, well, do we need embassies?

Do you need business transaction and people in all of these different countries? When people quote things like that, they’re counting ever soldier that stands guarding an embassy, they’re counting every soldier that is on a mission of training or partnership….I look at those statistics and I kind of laugh because they’re only intended to skew a certain viewpoint. If we have our global commitments in the world, we necessarily have global interaction with people in the world. That’s just the reality.”

There is no denying the United States military should protect the country, but it begs the question particularly in challenging economic times and with the government running massive deficits, should the military really be protecting economic and financial interests around the world? Should that be the role of America’s military? This is the retired lieutenant colonel’s response:

“They always have. Name a time they have not. From the Shores of Tripoli to the Barbary Pirates and Thomas Jefferson, go back and read your history. The military is the arm of our political government. It always has been and we don’t make and set the policy. We defend it. But with regard to defending within the borders, we never want to be viewed as a police state. Our founding fathers formed this country with a great suspicion of standing armies.

They believe the citizen soldier and the militia would be more than adequate to defend the country in time of crisis. So our own national history requires a separation between soldiers being on guard in the borders our country. I don’t think we want to constitutionally broach that. But in terms of defending different things in the world, well, should we not? Should we become isolationists? Should we pretend that we don’t have all of these economic enterprises? Do we want to shut down the entire economy, what’s left of it in our country by not being engaged in partnerships around the world? “

In closing, Steve Russell tells us what he believes the future of the American military is:

“Well, I think what we’ll see after every drawdown in a national crisis or war time is that we will see budgets slashed, we will see the troop numbers decline and necessarily so in some areas. So we’ll see a much streamline, smaller military. We’ll see contracts disappear. We’ll see civilian workers grow smaller in number and then, you know, we will reach a critical point where we just say, ‘No. We have to have this much even to defend our modest obligations.’

So there’s gonna be a lot of trials going forth in the future. One thing I do hope is that we will not get an overreliance on the technical means of fighting and absent the boots on the ground. I think one thing we’ve clearly learned in Iraq and Afghanistan is while the technical things are great enhancers to fighting, they’re not replacement. You have to have people on the ground that are willing to pull dictators out of holes and are willing to go into the mountains of Afghanistan to find bad guys in caves.”

You can purchase a copy and find more information about We Hot Him! A Memoir of the Hunt and Capture of Saddam Hussein clicking here

The We Got Him! official Facebook page is here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris is available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/chrisyandek

In our ongoing coverage of all things Michael Jackson, including speaking with his sister La Toya Jackson [see here] and [here], former choreographer for the This Is It Tour Travis Payne [see here] and our one hour interview remembering Michael in 2009 with former Sony executives Cory Rooney and Chris Apostle [see here], our CYInterview with Mr. Cascio covers MJ’s life on a day to day basis, over a period of years.

You can listen to the entire CYInterview below or read the highlights:

Listen to the entire Frank Cascio CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Frank Casci believes he was one of the few who truly knew who Michael Jackson was. Frank met Michael as a young child through his father Dominic who was an employee at a hotel Michael visited on different occasions. Because Michael formed a friendship with Frank’s father, Frank got to spend a lot of time with the gloved one and would later go from being a friend to a working employee for Michael and dealing with many different business aspects of MJ’s career.

“I think I’m one of the few who actually knew this man and got to see so many different sides of him over a long period of time and you know, I’ve been blessed because Michael doesn’t bring many people into his life, especially for that long period of a time…If it wasn’t for my father being the person who he was, this would have never even been possible. It could have been anyone, but Michael took an affection to my father.”

Frank tells a story of one of his early experiences with Michael, recounted in My Friend Michael, about Madonna inviting the king of pop back to her hotel room. Cascio gives his thoughts on the story:

“Girls would throw themselves at Michael. But yeah, Madonna, that’s right, wanted to seduce, tried to seduce Michael and I remember Michael telling us that story. He admitted he was so shy with her because she was overly aggressive and Michael’s a very sensitive man.”

Frank shows a personal side of Michael, sharing stories about him kissing and dating numerous women. He agreed that Michael’s attraction to women was something that generally wasn’t focused on.

“It was downplayed. And I’ll tell you, Michael was private about that part of his life. Michael was attracted to women. He had a very particular type and it’s funny because people wouldn’t think it, but it’s a simpleton. He was dating this girl who he really cared about and you know and she cared about him and it was great to see, but it was also kept very private because Michael did not want to, you know, expose this girl and have the media from the outside ruin a relationship that he really was enjoying and you know, he likes slender, tall, simpletons, sweet, humble, soft-spoken girls. And I’m really happy that Michael actually found that in his life later on.”

As a minor, Frank Cascio traveled the world with Michael Jackson – with his parents’ consent – and saw many his of live performances around the world. Frank says Michael is not a pedophile and didn’t have any physical attraction to young children. He says those comments are hurtful:

“Michael has never ever once ever invited a child to stay in his room, sleep in his bed. Michael’s never invited a child to stay in his room. You know, it’s different. You want to stay with him. You wanted. It’s like hanging with your buddy. It’s like having a slumber party. And Michael was a child at heart. There was nothing sexual about Michael. He had no attraction to young children. It’s just disgusting. I’m so hurtful [sic] by those misconceptions, that in particular. Michael loves children for their innocence and their purity and that was his inspiration. It just hurts me because Michael is not a pedophile and has been falsely accused and that’s hurt him.”

Regarding Michael, Mr. Cascio does get into some stories about Michael Jackson’s use of prescription drugs. For a period of time, Frank states he was monitoring Michael’s prescription drug intake. He also believes there were doctors who took advantage of him. Cascio also speaks of Michael’s chronic back pain.

“I was concerned when I saw some doctors come in, give him medicine and how he would react to it and his state of mind. And you know, for a period of time, it was something that I was concerned about. He was also going through many, many things. He had back issues. He had, who’s trying to take money from him here. Who’s trying to accuse him of this on this end? Who’s trying to, you know, friends just let him down and go sell him out.

He had all these different factors coming in and what was going on. Yes, I was concerned and Michael resorted to some medicines more than I personally think he should of, but I’m not a doctor…I also believe that Michael was also manipulated by many doctors and was taken advantage of that because they saw him as a money pit… It was bad. He had constant back pain for years…After all these years, it [performing] just took a tool on his body and that’s where the chronic pain came from…Nobody can understand it, but your body takes a beating, it takes abuse and Michael’s body was abused after all these years of working, working, dancing, dancing, dancing and it took a toll on him and it caught up with him.”

Frank agreed that it’s hard for people to accept that Michael Jackson was just another human being, who dealt with issues and troubles like everyone else:

“I think it is because you would never know; because every time Michael was performing, or in front of you, you never saw that side of, you only saw the professionalist. You only saw the genius. You saw the brilliance. You saw someone very, very special and unique. And even, and I can’t say when the cameras were off or he’s on stage he wasn’t you know, special and unique, but he was, but there’s also a human side of him that he didn’t want, you know, some people to see immediately. Later in life he wanted everyone to see the human side of his stuff, to understand. Michael wasn’t very good at communicating and explaining himself to people. “

When it comes to some people believing Dr. Conrad Murray was the fall guy in the death of Michael Jackson, Mr. Cascio states that he believes Dr. Murray is the only person who was responsible for Michael’s death.

“Dr. Murray was the ignorant doctor, selfish, manipulated Michael, portrayed himself to be a doctor that he wasn’t. And out of negligence, ignorance and selfishness, we lost Michael Jackson because of Dr. Murray.”

In a story published, not that long ago, about Marlin Brando, Elizabeth Taylor and Michael Jackson driving across country together and ending up in Ohio after 9/11, Cascio says that story is completely inaccurate. He tells me that Michael was with his family in New Jersey after the events of September 11th, 2011.

“That’s completely, completely inaccurate. After 9/11, Michael and I, his family, his kids I should say, got in a car and went to my family’s house in New Jersey and we were there for a couple of weeks, maybe two or three weeks. We were in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. And that story is completely inaccurate.”

There is a quote on page 96 of Cascio’s book claiming the gloved one said to Frank, “All you have to do is study these pictures and these words. Look in the mirror and tell yourself what you want to happen. Do that every day and it will happen.” Frank elaborates on that:

“The key to his success first was in the form of do everything from a place of love and do everything that you do the best. And before The Secret and all these documentaries and books coming out, Michael understood the secret way before The Secret. Michael understood being connected with God, the universe, whatever you may want to call it and believing in yourself and it all comes from within.”

You can find more information and purchase a copy of Frank Cascio’s book My Friend Michael here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

Numerous commentators and followers of the trial believed it was a slam dunk that Ms. Anthony would be found guilty. Many individuals posting on the Internet and calling into various talk shows shared their anger and frustration with the jury’s verdict.

Lots of people still have questions about the case, as well as dealing with something of a lack of closure regarding three year old Caylee’s death. Former prosecutor Jeff Ashton works at giving answers in his new book, Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony.

Below are some of the highlights from Mr. Ashton’s CYInterview. We discuss many of the important events surrounding the trial. However, if you really want to learn about the multifaceted Casey Anthony trial and its aftermath, listen to the complete audio.

___________________________

Listen to the entire Jeff Ashton CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Attorney Jeff Ashton opens up by explaining that he hopes Imperfect Justice will be the closure for everyone who was not happy with the decision of the jury, in addition to providing answers to their questions:

“What I’m trying to say to people is, here’s everything we know about the case, here’s as much truth as I can give you. Here’s an understanding of how the system works and I think that they need to understand that to kind of not accept the result, but at least try to understand it as best as it can be understood and then to get some closure and move on with it, move on with their lives.

And you know, the amount of anger that I was seeing out there after the verdict concerned me ‘cause I mean you know, frustration and all those things are understandable, but the last thing I ever want to see is anybody do anything or respond angrily to a juror or to defense counsel or to the defendant or anything like that. So I’m hoping that this will give people a way of kind of closing on it and dealing with it and moving on.”

After Ms. Anthony was found not guilty, some people voiced hopes that something bad would happen to her, since they believed she was responsible for the death of Caylee. Recently, there were reports of death threats against her. Attorney Ashton says this type of reaction is alarming. He hopes people will move on and resolve to save other children’s lives.

“It’s alarming. It’s not something that I ever want to see come out of a criminal case. And you know, some people I think just at some point got to, they took it too personally, it became too personal. For a lot of people I think Caylee became personal. And that’s a real tribute to the memory of that little girl, but there’s a point where you have to say, well let’s step back from this. The system operated in a certain way, we don’t agree with it, but it’s time to just accept it and move on to find ways you know to protect the next Caylee.”

Why were many people so emotionally invested in a murder trial that had no direct impact on their lives? Jeff Ashton explains:

“I think it probably started out with the fact that the original report was that Caylee was missing. I think if on July the 16th the story had been Caylee Anthony found dead, this would have not been the kind of story it was. But I think the fact that she was missing captured the imagination of so many people in hopes that she would be found. That’s what everybody always thinks…You add that to the mother’s inexplicable attitude toward her disappearance, that the whole 31 days with doing nothing and not reporting it and that sort of adds to everyone’s sort of curiosity. They just want to know how is it possible for a mother to do this kind of thing.

So you put those together, it’s like, it’s the perfect combination, a perfect recipe for people to really get involved in the case. And I think that happened here. And of course you throw in you know, I refer to them as the infotainers who kind of used this case as a way of upping their ratings and inflaming passions and things like that.”

After the trial, one of the jurors spoke out and said the prosecution didn’t show them how Caylee died. Ashton stated in his book, ‘The jurors had to put the pieces together and apply some common sense to the notion of how people do and don’t act. This jury was not willing to do that, so in a sense we lost before we started.’ Jeff explains why the jury couldn’t put the pieces together and find Casey Anthony guilty, when it seemed everything was stacked against her.

“I’m not sure what the jury’s attitude or take was on Casey’s actions during that 31 days. You know, I don’t. To me, I think to most people, pretty persuasive of the fact that this wasn’t an accident. But the jury seemed to only want to look at medical evidence for proof of that issue and that I think was ultimately where why the verdict came out is because they were limiting that view on that issue only to medical evidence. And if we couldn’t prove to them medically how she died than they weren’t really willing to look at other evidence to make that determination and that’s what our case was based on.

It was based on the circumstances and the actions and the concept of common sense. I don’t know how the jury, if the jury actually felt it was reasonable that somebody would respond to an accidental drowning by you know putting duct tape over the face, wrapping them in a garbage bag and throwing them in the swamp. That seemed to me to be unreasonable, but perhaps the jury didn’t think so…I just can’t think of anything we could’ve said that would have gotten the jury to open their minds to the proof of these issues from a variety of sources. “

In his book, the Florida attorney provides a detailed view of Casey’s parents, George and Cindy. Former prosecutor Ashton describes Casey’s mother as someone who was in denial when it came to the actions of her daughter.

“I think Cindy really wanted in a sense, wanted to be lied to. You know, she wanted to accept whatever Casey was saying. I mean, you know, a normal person wouldn’t have gone for thirty days without seeing her granddaughter. You know it wouldn’t have taken a car that smelled like a dead body to get her moving, but that’s what it took for Cindy. Cindy would rather take whatever story Casey told her no matter how ridiculous it was and run with it rather than facing the truth.”

Ashton explains why he believes Caylee Anthony became less of the focal point during the trial as many in the media switched gears and focused on Casey Anthony and the murder charges she faced:

“That’s just a natural thing that happens in trials. It just is. I mean, as much as we as prosecutors try to keep the jury’s focus on the humanity of the individual, you know eventually the case just becomes about the defendant and you hope that whatever images o f the victim that you were able to get before the jury stays with them. We really hoped that Caylee and a concern for her and a concern for the truth about what happened to her would you know, make the journey want to put the work in to try to find the truth and just apparently we didn’t reach them on that level.”

There were a lot of questions during Casey Anthony’s trial regarding her defense attorney Jose Baez. There was discussion of some of his statements, that were defined as accusations and allegations without any concrete facts or evidence to back them up. Mr. Ashton says Mr. Baez was a good salesman with the jury and reviews the defense’s case.

“He’s a good salesman and I think that’s basically what a salesman does. You make, you put a shine on the car you’re trying to sell and hope that no one looks beneath the hood. And that’s very much what this defense was. It was shiny on the outside, but if you asked more than a couple of questions about it, it fell apart. I mean, the whole idea of you know somebody taking a body, a child that died by accident and hiding it from somebody you know on the surface sounds like oh maybe.

But then you go, wait a minute, how would you actually ever do that, you know. And why would you do that. Why would you think that you could do that…It’s that kind of like sound byte mentality, something that sounds good for a 30 second sound byte, but then when you actually subject it to analysis, it falls apart…This jury was sold and wanted to be sold.”

I asked Lawyer Ashton if he thought Ms. Anthony might end up having further legal troubles in her life. This was his prediction on her future:

“I think Casey’s probably bigger danger in her life is ending up on the wrong side of someone that she’s lied to. I think that would be, if I wanted to guess on how she’s gonna end up, it would be that she’s gonna lie to somebody and they’re not gonna take it very well and they’re not gonna go to the police. But yeah it’s hard to predict what will happen with someone else. I mean, really I can say for sure about Casey is that Casey will continue to lie to people. That’s the thing I’m sure about.”

Comparisons between the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony murder trials are inevitable. Jeff talks about the comparison:

“Both of them in their own way were heavily forensic scientific cases. I think they had very different challenges in that case than our case. And I had the pleasure of meeting Marcia Clark two weeks ago when I was out in L.A. and she actually told me which really surprised me that they didn’t expect to win that case. So I guess that’s a big difference is we really did. We thought we were doing good…

It’s also an interesting comparison between sort of the trial of the television century and the trial of the Internet century. And I think this case really showed how things have changed with the advent of the Internet. I mean, hundreds of thousands of people had the ability to know everything about this case from the Internet. Every single piece of information was right out there and I think that’s a huge difference in the way people address criminal cases.”

Mr. Ashton talked about meeting OJ Simpson prosecutor, Marcia Clark and compares the trials:

“I felt like we were having a meeting of the loser’s club. It was amazing though. It’s you know, the amazing is that the reasons why her case and my case were huge were so completely different. I mean, her case was huge because of the defendant because of his notoriety and who he was and our case was really huge because of the facts and what happened and who the victim was. So it was pretty interesting meeting her.”

In 1987, Jeff Ashton says he was an attorney in the first case in the United States where DNA evidence was used, in State of Florida vs. Tommy Lee Andrews. He said it might be the first trial in the world that used DNA evidence, but he’s not sure. Before the trial of Casey Anthony, then prosecutor Ashton had only had two trials with not guilty verdicts.

“That was in the state of Florida in 1987 in a case called State of Florida vs. Tommy Lee Andrews. It was the first one in the United States and interesting enough, it probably was the first one in the world. Though I’ve never gotten the exact date of it, there was a case in England that was around the same period of time. I think it was a week or so after. So it may be the first in the world, at least surely the first in the U.S.”

A fun fact for everyone out there, Jeff Ashton went to high school with actress Angela Bassett where they acted in a play together. Some will recall my CYInterview with Ms. Bassett back in 2008 [see here]. Ashton recalls the Hollywood veteran.

“Actually I don’t recall what it was we were in. I was a senior. She was a junior. I just recall her as a friend being a very, very nice person. She was a cheerleader, you know homecoming court. One of those people that everybody wanted to be around. But just being very unassuming, very nice. And when I started, she went off to Yale after college I knew that she would be successful. But every time I see her on TV or in the movies or on stage, I’m just proud. You know she’s just – ‘cause she came from very, very modest surroundings. I think she was raised by a single mom in a not great part of St. Petersburg [Florida]. So you know she really is a credit to the fact that with the right support you can overcome anything, but yeah, every time I see her I just smile.”

There were a lot of followers of the Casey Anthony trial who were concerned about any profiting off the death of Caylee. With the writing of his book, Mr. Ashton says he didn’t have many concerns:

“I know there are people that, most people I’ve talked to sort of are angry about the possibility of the defendant or the defense counsel profiting from them because they feel like they’re dancing on Caylee’s grave. I haven’t gotten a whole lot of hostility about my book. But you know if there are people out there that don’t like the fact that I’m telling the story and that people are profiting from it, I understand that, I respect their opinion. That’s their opinion. Publishers don’t print books for free and you know I could not have spent the last four months writing this book if I wasn’t making money for it. So I don’t apologize to people for it. Not at all.”

Finally, some states have proposed Caylee’s Law, which would make it a felony for a parent not to report a missing child after 24 hours. Jeff gives his thoughts on the law and his ideas on a better solution:

“The whole issue of the Caylee’s Law to criminalize, I’m not sure that that’s really that helpful. I mean, this incident is one that is so unusual. I just don’t know that it’s gonna to be a kinda law that’s going to be applied a lot and of course there are also some I think constitutional problems with it. I mean to require someone to report a missing child potentially if that person has done something criminal in relation to that, well that’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment. So there are all those issues.

I do like some laws that I’ve heard of that are being suggested about making it a felony to lie in reference to a missing child. That I think is potentially something that could be good for society to you know to make it a little bit more serious to lie about a missing child than it would be to lie about you know a drunk driving case or a check being stolen. So I think that’s probably a step in the right direction.”

You can purchase a copy and find more information about Jeff Ashton’s book Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination has been doing double duty: out on the stump, running for president and, at the same time, touting her book Core of Conviction.

We asked our questions within the same overlapping context within which the congresswoman has been presenting herself to the American people. She wants to be president and is working at selling a book. We wanted answers on information presented in her book, as well as about her candidacy.

Our main goal was to engage Congresswoman Bachmann in a conversation about her being a – self-touted – consistent conservative. Our main point of focus was to be on fiscal issues seeing that the candidate has been amply covered when it comes to her social views.

CYInterview followers will know that featured columnist Jay Bildstein has been putting forward his set of ideas on how to effectuate positive change in the USA, both economically and otherwise. Jay’s premise is that our leaders – the president, vice-president and Congress – must lead by example. He says it would be the best way to demonstrate to the American people that our leaders in Washington are sincere about taking action in the best interests of the nation. Great things happen when people are inspired by leaders who walk their talk.

At the core of Jay’s ideas is a 50% pay cut for the president, vice-president and Congress. Certainly, this particular act of fiscal discipline would do almost nothing, dollar-wise, to reduce the federal budget deficit and debt. In the scope of the nation’s finances, it is an infinitesimal amount of money.

However, this type of action would demonstrate that the politicians in D.C. were willing to lead by example, accepting financial pain before they delivered it unto the American public. It could serve as a rallying point to deal with the nation’s budget woes.

Who better then self-proclaimed, consistent conservative, Michele Bachmann to agree with this idea?

As you will see in this CYInterview, that does not appear to be the case.

During our conversation, the congresswoman claimed she voted for and took a 5% pay cut this year (2011,) something we cannot find proof of anywhere. And we looked. Congress did cut its budget, but it is clear from Jay’s question, that he was talking about their pay. So far as we can tell there was no congressional pay cut, yet Congresswoman Bachmann claims one.

Ms. Bachmann attempted to avoid committing to Jay’s 50% congressional/presidential pay cut concept by talking around the issue, stating the need to cut everyone’s pay in the federal government by 50%, as well as removing certain governmental departments.

Logically, Jay came back and offered that whatever cuts would have to be made in Washington, it would make most sense to lead by example and immediately introduce a bill to cut congressional salaries. When Jay asked for a direct answer to his question, what followed was an interruption by one of Congresswoman Bachmann’s handlers, asking if there were any questions about the book.

The book is all about being conservative. The Congresswoman is running for president. She purports to be a fiscal conservative. Why not answer the question directly?

We could have pressed the issue, but our feeling was that the non-answer was an answer in and of itself. You decide.

The CYInterview was conducted on November 30th. Since then we researched whether members of Congress received a 5% pay cut this year. As mentioned above, we found nothing to support that assertion.

You can read and or listen to the entire CYInterview with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann below:

Listen to the entire Michele Bachmann CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Chris Yandek: This is Chris Yandek . Featured columnist Jay Bildstein is on this call with me. We are welcomed to bring to CYInterview Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Her new book out is called Core of Conviction: My Story. Congressman [sic] thank you so much for joining me today. Where are you today? I believe you’re in Iowa before we begin.

Michele Bachmann: “I am in Des Moines, Iowa right now. I just did an interview with MSNBC and some other interviews. Now I’m just about to go up to Cedar Falls, Minnesota [sic] or Iowa where I’ll be speaking at the University of Northern Iowa and I’ll hold a townhall with the students there. Then I’ll be on my way to Waverly, Iowa to the Pizza Ranch and also to Charles City, Iowa to the Pizza Ranch and I’ll hold townhall meetings there as well today.”

CY: In Core of Conviction, I think you try very hard to express your beliefs and positions, but at the same time, you try to get across that you understand other people have different points of views. Do you feel like that’s one of the things you really haven’t had a chance to show people?

MB: “I think that’s true. A lot of people don’t realize that I grew up in a Democrat home and a Democrat family. We had one Republican in my family. And when I was growing up, we just assumed that we were all Democrats and I actually worked on Jimmy Carter’s campaign when he was running for President in 1976 and it was after he was elected and I saw the effects of his policies both on foreign policy and domestically that I decided that his policies didn’t match up with what I had believed my entire life. I became a Republican. I worked on Ronald Regan’s campaign and I never looked back.”

CY: Jay.

Jay Bildstein: Uh, Congresswoman Bachmann, in your book and on the stump you portray yourself as a fiscal conservative. Now for the most part we lack individuals in Washington who are willing to lead by example, to inspire the nation by applying budget cuts to themselves first, demonstrating they’re true fiscal conservatives. Now we need shared sacrifice. If people believe Congress and the president are living the good life while the rest of the nation is suffering, nothing’s gonna get done.

Here’s the first part of my solution. We’ve discussed this with some members of Congress here on CYInterview as well as one of your opponents for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Congress, the president and the vice president must take a 50 percent pay cut. That would be leading by example. I’ve said this before, a good general leads his troops from the front and in the corporate world salespeople prosper when they do well. They suffer when they don’t. That said, Ms. Bachmann, you currently serve in the United States Congress. You don’t have to wait to become president to take action. Will you introduce a bill to Congress to cut its salary by 50 percent as well as cutting the salaries of the president and the vice president by 50 percent to demonstrate leadership. Yes or no?

MB: “Well, I’ve already demonstrated that type of leadership because I have voted and I have already received a cut in my pay this year in the amount of five percent. That’s something that we wanted to do to lead by example and that’s what we have done. The best thing that we can do to lead by example is to actually turn the economy around and grow it and that’s, those are my policies that I want to move forward. I think if we go with a pay cut for 50 percent for both the president, the vice president and the Congress, we shouldn’t stop there.

We should extend that pay cut by 50 percent to all federal employees because today, the average federal employee makes double what their counterpart makes in the private sector and I think that’s what the bill should say. The bill should say that every federal employee takes a 50 percent pay cut and also we need to have a pay cut in the benefit packages as well which aren’t in line with the benefit packages in the private sector. But I think we need to even go farther than that. I want to actually eliminate federal departments altogether, like the Department of Education, the EPA and other departments that are well beyond the Constitutional scope that was envisioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.”

JB: Well, let’s talk, though, concrete actions right now. Obviously it’s gonna be a tough sell to get a 50 percent pay cut on federal workers unless Congress, the president and vice president apply it to themselves first, to lead by example. Look, Congress people right now make about $175,000 a year. The average American makes about, under $40,000 a year. Right now the United States of America as you said borrows almost half its money to live.

Wouldn’t it be a bold and historic statement if to start this movement in a concrete way, not just talk, you went into Congress, you introduced a bill and you called it the lead by leading bill, the fiscal control by leading bill and said, ‘You know what? We do have to remove these agencies. We do have to cut down the federal payroll, but we’re gonna do it first to ourselves, we’re gonna do it with the president and vice president to prove we’re serious.

We’re not gonna be a bunch of Marie Antoinette’s saying you know they don’t have bread, let them eat cake. I mean, the president has been out on the golf course how many times in the last two and a half years, over 70 while people are suffering. Will you go to Congress and start the ball rolling and at least push for a bill that cuts Congress, the president and vice president’s salary in half, as the starting move to what you want to get done?

Alice Stewart [Michele Bachmann’s PR person]: “Hi Chris. This is Alice. Uh, um, I don’t know if there was another, a new question in there, but this interview’s about the book so if you have a question about the book, we’ll be happy to talk about that.”

CY: Yeah. Sure. I’ll be happy to finish with one question. Sure. Sure.

AS: “Ok. Do you have a question about her book Core of Conviction?”

CY: Yes. Absolutely.

AS: “Ok. Go ahead.”

CY: Congressman [sic] I want to say, you know in closing, what was really interesting in the book, you know, um, your biological farther left you and your mother, um, early on in your life and I wonder how that lesson and how that experience, you know, shaped you and the family you would later have with your husband?

MB: “Well, thank you for asking a question about the book. I appreciate it. Some of the Core of Conviction values that I learned is the importance of family and I think sometimes when you have breaking and suffering in your life, you really, you learn to appreciate what you don’t have and I’m thankful that when I was a young girl I had an intact family, but I know what it is to go through that heartbreak of a divorce and the ensuing poverty that came as a result of that and that encouraged me to want to have an intact family.

And I’m grateful that I married a wonderful man. We’ve been married for 33 years. I didn’t forget the challenges of that time in my life and so my husband and I have broken hearts for kids that go through those kind of challenges. So we reached out and brought 23 foster children into our home to love and to raise, we did and we also saw that in the midst of their difficulties; they often fall through the cracks at public school. So we decided to work together, some other families. We started the first K-12 charter school in the country for at risk children and it’s still going on. We’re very proud of that and I also saw because of my foster children, that’s why I entered public policy because I was worried about the politically correct, dumbed down federal education standards that were being imposed on them in my state.

So I led an education reform movement in Minnesota unlike any other in the United States and we actually became the only state to repeal our federal education standards and replace them with true academic standards to help kids no matter what their background so that they could succeed and compete in the marketplace of ideas. I’m extremely grateful for that success. It wasn’t Republican or Democrat. It was about helping kids and I was able to succeed and unite people under that flag of helping kids and that’s something I’m very proud of.”

CY: Last question, very quickly, are you going to seek reelection in Congress if you do not end up winning the Republican nomination?

MB: “I’m focused now on winning the presidency. We think we’re poised right now in a very good place to be victorious and I’m excited about that. And people can learn more about my plan of action by reading Core of Conviction.”

AS: “Thank you Chris. I appreciate your time.”

CY: Thank you so much.

AS: “Have a good day. Bye.”

You can purchase a copy and find more information about Michele Bachmann’s book Core of Conviction: My Story here.

Michele Bachmann’s official website is at http://www.michelebachmann.com

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com