Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. It was a disastrous
Speaker 1: day on Capitol Hill for the Democrats. Muller seemed like
Speaker 1: someone just woke him up from a nap of about
Speaker 1: fifteen years. We'll work out the latest here, my friends,
Speaker 1: on what this means for the collusion narrative, the obstruction delusion,
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. Plus some other news
Speaker 1: stories on the buck Sexton Show. Buck Sexton Remissions, decoding
Speaker 1: the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake American Ready, you're a great American again. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. Former CIA analysts. Remember, I can
Speaker 1: speak to three hours without a phone call. Try doing
Speaker 1: that sometime. Set. He had a very good day today,
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, our country. There was no defense of
Speaker 1: what Robert Mueller was trying to defend. In all fairness,
Speaker 1: Sir Robert Mueller, whether his performance was a bad one
Speaker 1: or a good one, I think everybody understands that. I
Speaker 1: think everybody understands what's going on. There was no defense
Speaker 1: to this ridiculous hoax, this witch hunt that's been going
Speaker 1: on for a long time, pretty much from the time
Speaker 1: I came down on the escalator with our first lady,
Speaker 1: and it's a disgrace what happened. But I think today
Speaker 1: proved a lot to everybody. In fact, some of my
Speaker 1: biggest opponents wrote things today that I wouldn't have believed
Speaker 1: they would have written, and I appreciate that they did.
Speaker 1: That this has been a very bad thing for our country,
Speaker 1: and despite everything we've been through, it's been an incredible
Speaker 1: two and a half years for our country. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the buck Sex and show my friends, it's a good
Speaker 1: day for America, A good day. I've been waiting for
Speaker 1: this one, and I did not really expect it to
Speaker 1: be quite as good as it was. I thought that
Speaker 1: there would be at least more of a of a
Speaker 1: competency on display on Capitol Hill when you had Bob
Speaker 1: Muller there, Saint Muller. Let's just do a quick review
Speaker 1: that you won't get from the rest of the media.
Speaker 1: They were singing Christmas carols about this guy. Remember that
Speaker 1: producer Mike Christmas, we wish you a Muller Christmas. Big celebrities,
Speaker 1: you know, famous Hollywood people. Sat Muller was going to
Speaker 1: deliver America from the scourge of Trumpism. And also recall
Speaker 1: that just like they did with James Comey, who we
Speaker 1: were told was an unimpeachable beloved by his fellow FBI agents,
Speaker 1: super government superhero. Turned out he's a sanctimonious jerk and
Speaker 1: a lanky, unself aware weirdo. Now we were told that
Speaker 1: Muller was the sharpest of prosecutors, the smartest, the best
Speaker 1: of the best, the most ethical, and then today it's
Speaker 1: like they made mister Magoo appear on the witness stand.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, Mueller seemed to be the guy
Speaker 1: at the end of a Scooby Doo episode. Who if
Speaker 1: it wasn't for you, kid, I would have gotten away
Speaker 1: with it. Because he didn't know anything. He didn't know
Speaker 1: what was going on. He said stuff that was jaw dropping,
Speaker 1: jaw dropping. Doesn't know what fusion GPS is? What? Whoo? Who? Who? What? What? Mike?
Speaker 1: You got something for me there? What was that you wanted? Laughing? Oh,
Speaker 1: Mikea's It is truly true. It is a mix of
Speaker 1: I was laughing was it was comical, and I was
Speaker 1: laughing because it was pathetic. It was insane today's folks,
Speaker 1: it was insane, It really was. I thought that they'd
Speaker 1: be able to pull it together more than the Democrats
Speaker 1: and pull it together more than they did. Let what
Speaker 1: is this single biggest takeaway, the number one thing that
Speaker 1: I want you to remember from today's entire fiasco on
Speaker 1: For those of you who I watched it, and a
Speaker 1: lot of you I'm sure it didn't watch it. So
Speaker 1: let me just tell you what the most important thing
Speaker 1: for you to know is. This is what came out
Speaker 1: of all of this. What we saw, beyond any doubt,
Speaker 1: tells us that Muller was just a figurehead who was
Speaker 1: giving a degree of swamp gravitas to this sham of
Speaker 1: an investigation, while his deputies, who were Democrat partisans, ran
Speaker 1: this whole thing day to day as the absurd witch
Speaker 1: hunt that it was. They called it the Muller Report
Speaker 1: because it would have been too obvious if they called
Speaker 1: it what it was, which is the Weissman and Company Report.
Speaker 1: All those Democrats, all those left wing anti trumpers that
Speaker 1: Mueller hired. It wasn't that Mueller was the one calling
Speaker 1: the shots. Really they were the ones. They were the
Speaker 1: ones who were involved in the day to day. Muller
Speaker 1: was just there so that Democrats in the media could
Speaker 1: bleat like sheep. And how Mueller is a Republican, and
Speaker 1: Muller has an impeccable record, and Mueller served as country
Speaker 1: and so you can't criticize him. Muller was a cover story,
Speaker 1: I think. For giving him the benefit of the doubt,
Speaker 1: we have to say that Muller was really a fig leaf.
Speaker 1: That's why he was and he was mine to do it.
Speaker 1: He was willing to do it because he does not
Speaker 1: like this president. He's an establishment figure. He is, as
Speaker 1: it came out today, a friend of Komi's. So while
Speaker 1: I would like to feel some degree of sympathy for
Speaker 1: mister McGoo muller, I can't. And I'm a nice guy.
Speaker 1: Anybody who works in this businessill tell you I'm actually
Speaker 1: really not probably too nice, I know, and too humble.
Speaker 1: Maybe not too humble, but definitely too nice. But I
Speaker 1: can't feel bad for mister McGoo muller because he had
Speaker 1: no problem threatening, bankrupting, ruining, imprisoning people all along in
Speaker 1: this whole sham of an investigation for the most minor
Speaker 1: of crimes, in what he had to know was a
Speaker 1: politically motivated investigation, all based on a lie. He ruined
Speaker 1: people or allowed them to be ruined in his name,
Speaker 1: which is just as bad. I heard one of the
Speaker 1: congressmen I can't even remember which one say that. Well,
Speaker 1: what we really need to know here is that Muller
Speaker 1: took a that he was trying to be fair minded here,
Speaker 1: that he acted with restraint was what one of the
Speaker 1: Democrat members of Congress acted with restraint. This guy sent
Speaker 1: thirty dudes with long guns and tactical gear into Roger
Speaker 1: Stone's house at five o'clock in the morning to make
Speaker 1: sure that he didn't get any ideas when he was
Speaker 1: in his silk pajamas. I mean, let's not completely deny reality,
Speaker 1: and just remember that the Libs were in a total
Speaker 1: frenzy over how they said Attorney General Barr, who compared
Speaker 1: bars performance under scrutiny and on the press to Muller.
Speaker 1: Let me ask everybody this. You're accused of murder in
Speaker 1: a small town in the South where there was a
Speaker 1: guy driving away from the quickie mart, and you only
Speaker 1: got one phone call, and it's going to be to
Speaker 1: your cousin, a tough talking Italian American from Queens in
Speaker 1: New York City. Do you want that cousin in this case,
Speaker 1: perhaps named Vinnie, to be of the skills of say
Speaker 1: Bill Barr, or of Bob Mueller. I think all of
Speaker 1: you would want Barr defending you if your life was
Speaker 1: on the line in a court. I really do. If
Speaker 1: you're facing the chair, I think you want to have
Speaker 1: Barr and not Mueller, because Muller seemed like he had
Speaker 1: no idea what was going on today. Really, but they
Speaker 1: were in such a frenzy because they said that Barr
Speaker 1: didn't have enough time to read through the report before
Speaker 1: he gave his prescott. How could he know? How could
Speaker 1: he have known that? It turns out that Mueller definitely
Speaker 1: didn't write the report and maybe didn't even really read
Speaker 1: it all that closely two years, tens of millions of dollars,
Speaker 1: and this is where we are now, this is this
Speaker 1: is the the moments where we got backstage and we
Speaker 1: saw who was behind the Wizard of Oz and it
Speaker 1: was not impressive, unimpressive at all, Just like with Comy.
Speaker 1: Remember Comy was gonna Comey, was gonna take down Trump,
Speaker 1: and then we found out that he was sanct a
Speaker 1: sanctimonious clown. Avenati was gonna take down Trump. And now
Speaker 1: he's facing two serious federal indictments, including one in which
Speaker 1: he is alleged to have stolen millions of dollars from
Speaker 1: a paraplegic client. Avenati was talked about as a possible
Speaker 1: presidential contender to defeat Trump. This is how desperate libs
Speaker 1: are for some anti Trump figure to emerge. And then
Speaker 1: Muller was the greatest anti Trump figure of all. Certainly
Speaker 1: not the clown show they're presenting in these democratic debates.
Speaker 1: They got to do a lot better than this. But
Speaker 1: now we see that Muller is not who we were
Speaker 1: led to believe. Wow, maybe we shouldn't believe the mainstream
Speaker 1: corporate leftist media anymore. I know, if you listen to
Speaker 1: this show, you probably already know that what a what
Speaker 1: a what a disaster it was today. I mean, Mueller,
Speaker 1: for one, had had a whole bunch of moments. You
Speaker 1: just said to yourself, how exactly, how exactly did this
Speaker 1: guy get into this position? Play listen? I mean he
Speaker 1: was confused a lot. Play clip five. The president committed
Speaker 1: the crime of instruction. You could not publicly state that
Speaker 1: in your report or here today. Can you repeat the question, sir?
Speaker 1: You're gonna have to repeat that for me. Individual is
Speaker 1: in fact obligated to provide what's being demanded by the
Speaker 1: regulation or statute? Meaning you don't have any wiggle room, right,
Speaker 1: I'd have to look more closely at the statute. I
Speaker 1: just read it to you, and where are you reading
Speaker 1: from on that I'm reading for my question? Then? Could
Speaker 1: you repeat it? Okay? Is that correct on the screen?
Speaker 1: And can you repeat the question? And now that I
Speaker 1: have the language on the screen, is it correct? What
Speaker 1: was the question? Fine? Can you read the last question?
Speaker 1: What last question was? I got it accurate? Attorney number
Speaker 1: two in the Inspector General's support and Struck both worked
Speaker 1: on your team, didn't they? Can ask they both worked
Speaker 1: on your team, didn't they? I know I heard Struck?
Speaker 1: Who else are you calling about Attorney number two identified
Speaker 1: in the Inspector General's report? Okay? And the question was
Speaker 1: I heard? I watched this. I mean I was hearing
Speaker 1: all the questions. Is the audio better sitting in my
Speaker 1: living room than it was in the committee room? I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I suppose that's possible. That was actually
Speaker 1: pre Berrara, a coomy protege. By the way, That tells
Speaker 1: you all you have to know about that guy. Now,
Speaker 1: a CNN analyst, former US attorney for eight or US
Speaker 1: Attorney for for the Southern District of New York. He
Speaker 1: went on CNN and said that the real problem here
Speaker 1: was that the questions were too fast and unclear. That's
Speaker 1: how desperate that this is. CNN's like top top dog
Speaker 1: on air analysts. You know, this is their their number
Speaker 1: one legal guy other than Jeffrey Tuban, who's just like,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know what to say about that guy.
Speaker 1: You want to know what the wrong legal analysis is,
Speaker 1: watch Jeffrey Tuban on CNN. He is very consistent in
Speaker 1: how incorrect he is. But the whole thing was just
Speaker 1: it was a mess, and I think there was some disbelief.
Speaker 1: I wasn't ready for the other side to look this
Speaker 1: incompetent and oh yes, by the way, the Mullaprobe is
Speaker 1: the other side. This was not This was not a
Speaker 1: good faith effort. We're past that now, folks. We've been
Speaker 1: passed it for a while. But after today, it's crazy
Speaker 1: town to think that this was not just a get
Speaker 1: Trump effort. I haven't even gotten into some of the
Speaker 1: better moment. We got to get into some of the
Speaker 1: better moments with the with the Republican members of Congress.
Speaker 1: They did bring out some interesting, interesting questions. But wow,
Speaker 1: not a good day for mister mcgumuller. I gotta tell
Speaker 1: you did not look good for from at all. And
Speaker 1: I thought he was a legal and FBI superhero here
Speaker 1: to rid us of the scourge of Trumpism. Turns out
Speaker 1: that they used him, or maybe he allowed himself to
Speaker 1: be used. But he was just a front, a facade
Speaker 1: meant to give some degree of establishment sanctioned credibility to
Speaker 1: an effort to overturn the results of the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election using the apparatus of the government itself. It's a
Speaker 1: good thing for Democrats. It's National Tequila Day because I
Speaker 1: think they're gonna need it. We'll be right back, Director Mueller.
Speaker 1: Can you state with confidence that the Steel dossier was
Speaker 1: not part of Russia's disinformation campaign with regard to the
Speaker 1: steel That's beyond my purview. No, it is exactly your purview,
Speaker 1: Director Muller. And here's why. Only one of two things
Speaker 1: is possible. Right. Either Steele made this whole thing up
Speaker 1: and there were never any Russians telling him of this
Speaker 1: vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find, or Russians lied
Speaker 1: to Steel. Now, if Russians were lying to Steele to
Speaker 1: undermine our confidence in our duly elected president. That would
Speaker 1: seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in
Speaker 1: your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and
Speaker 1: thoroughly investigate Russia's interference. But you weren't interested in whether
Speaker 1: not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele. And if Steel
Speaker 1: was lying, then you should have charged him with lying,
Speaker 1: like you charged a variety unto other people. But you
Speaker 1: say nothing about this in your report, nothing about the
Speaker 1: Steel dossier, the basis of this whole thing. Folks, Without
Speaker 1: the Steel dossier, you don't have the fires are warrants,
Speaker 1: you don't have Carter Page. I mean, you could argue
Speaker 1: maybe based on the Papadopoulos FBI investigation, but that wasn't
Speaker 1: gonna that wasn't gonna cut the mustard, as they say,
Speaker 1: does anyone actually cut mustard? That phrase makes no s
Speaker 1: does it. I just realized this is that A Yeah,
Speaker 1: not in the sense that you're from Philly. You're probably
Speaker 1: a mustard guy. Yeah, I'm in New York. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: one of those fancy guys. All right, back to business.
Speaker 1: So Gates, Gates is right. The dossier isn't covered in
Speaker 1: this really at all. And you got to say to yourself, hmm,
Speaker 1: Muller can't talk about that now. Hopefully it'll come out
Speaker 1: of the Inspector General report. Um. But this is an
Speaker 1: important reminder. The Steel dossier may in fact itself have
Speaker 1: been Russian disinformation. And the Steel dossier and the process
Speaker 1: by which the Clinton campaign contracted, through a law firm
Speaker 1: on behalf of the DNC, to use a foreigner to
Speaker 1: go get information from foreign subsources, in this case Russians,
Speaker 1: and to not just tell the press that information, but
Speaker 1: to run that information back through our own intelligence community.
Speaker 1: That is the only foreign interference in the election that
Speaker 1: can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been
Speaker 1: on behalf of a willing and witting campaign. The Democrats
Speaker 1: colluded with a foreigner to try to destroy Trump, and
Speaker 1: not only did they go to the press with it,
Speaker 1: they went to our own intelligence community and to deep
Speaker 1: state elements therein and use them to do their dirty work.
Speaker 1: Representative Ratcliffe today he got in on that action. I
Speaker 1: was like, oh, look at Ratcliffe. High five for him.
Speaker 1: You know, he was good. Yeah, I thoughts too. He
Speaker 1: stuck the landing it was pretty solid. Play play Cliff three.
Speaker 1: Which DJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard
Speaker 1: that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence
Speaker 1: from criminal criminal conduct is not conclusively determined. Where does
Speaker 1: that language come from? Director? Where is the DOJ policy
Speaker 1: that says that? Can you let me make it easier there?
Speaker 1: Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump
Speaker 1: where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was
Speaker 1: not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined. I cannot,
Speaker 1: but this is unique. Okay, well you can't. Time is short,
Speaker 1: I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it. You can't
Speaker 1: find it because I'll tell you why it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: Not exonerated is not a standard that we use. Not
Speaker 1: only did they try and ambush Trump and create this
Speaker 1: whole hoax to go after him, but they're so shameless
Speaker 1: in their anti Trump zeal. The Democrats are so desperate
Speaker 1: to find some way to destroy this president that they
Speaker 1: have come up with it an entirely new and only
Speaker 1: applicable to Trump. Mind you, standard of jurisprudence that only
Speaker 1: applies in this situation, and that means that Trump could
Speaker 1: never could never escape the taint of this whole thing,
Speaker 1: and that was always the point, that was always the purpose.
Speaker 1: Is it really surprising you have Democrats here in New
Speaker 1: York State who are who want to change the law
Speaker 1: just so they can get Trump's tax returns. They'll do anything,
Speaker 1: they'll destroy the law as much as they need to
Speaker 1: in order to get after this president. And the fact
Speaker 1: that Trump is still standing and still doing a great
Speaker 1: job must drive them even more insane, if that is
Speaker 1: possible for Libs at this point, which is an open question.
Speaker 1: So how bad a day was it for the Democrats?
Speaker 1: The Russia collusion narrative, the anti Trump forces and all
Speaker 1: the rest of them. How bad was it? Well, Democrats
Speaker 1: had to call a little impromptu oh my gosh, how
Speaker 1: do we put out this fire press conference late in
Speaker 1: the day. It happened right before we went on air.
Speaker 1: We have some of that for you. Year. Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: aka Shifty Shift, he had things to say like this
Speaker 1: play twenty two today. The director outlined in powerful words,
Speaker 1: how Russia intervened massively in our election systematically, in a
Speaker 1: sweeping fashion. How during the course of that intervention they
Speaker 1: made multiple approaches to the Trump campaign, and far from
Speaker 1: shunning that foreign involvement in our election, the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: welcomed it, made full use of it, put it into
Speaker 1: its communications and messaging strategy, and then lied about it,
Speaker 1: light about it to cover it up, light about it
Speaker 1: to obstruct the investigation into that very attack on our democracy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we've been hearing that for months there, shifty Schiff. None
Speaker 1: of that was new. But thanks for showing up and
Speaker 1: giving us the usual talking points. Here are some key
Speaker 1: things he leaves out. There were approaches made to the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, none of which were acted on. Nothing there
Speaker 1: was there was no collusion, There was no working together
Speaker 1: and his into their messaging strategy. Oh you mean like
Speaker 1: reporting on what was dumped by wiki leaks on the
Speaker 1: internet like the rest of the world did. I mean,
Speaker 1: but Schiff has the really the the the the warm
Speaker 1: human connection of a of the you know, with the
Speaker 1: with the eyes of a mako shark and the ethics
Speaker 1: of a rattlesnake. I mean, that's really what you're dealing
Speaker 1: with with Adam Schiff. So that should not be surprising
Speaker 1: at all. Oh, Nancy Pelosi, he's a pad Why Uh?
Speaker 1: She had a she had an interesting day to day
Speaker 1: I'm sure thinking that it was going to be a
Speaker 1: big victory lap and you know MSNBC. I mean the
Speaker 1: way CNN, I really think that they're trying to set
Speaker 1: some kind of Guinness World record for how many legal
Speaker 1: analysts they can put on TV. At the same time,
Speaker 1: it looked like at it like they must have had
Speaker 1: about sixteen to them in a row. I don't know
Speaker 1: what producer thinks that that's a good look and a
Speaker 1: cool idea, but CNN's ratings seemed to suggest that maybe
Speaker 1: it's not the brilliant strategy they think it is. But
Speaker 1: here's what Pelosi, that's your hat. Here's what she had
Speaker 1: to say. Twenty three. The President likes to have his
Speaker 1: poster that said the Muller reports took this many days,
Speaker 1: because this much money, this, that, and the other. But
Speaker 1: we have a corresponding, competitive, contradictory chart. Muller investigation by
Speaker 1: the numbers, forty million dollars recovered for the US government.
Speaker 1: Remember he said how much it would cost less than that.
Speaker 1: Thirty seven people and entities charged with crimes, twenty five
Speaker 1: ongoing criminal cases referred, seven convicted, including five top Trump
Speaker 1: campaign officials. And then he had no collision. Know this event,
Speaker 1: ten instances of obstruction, Yes, no exoneration. I mean it's
Speaker 1: it's like Nancy is desperate to spoon feed the ridiculous
Speaker 1: talking points to the left, the left wing media, in
Speaker 1: advance of their primetime show. She's like, plays stay odd message.
Speaker 1: Here's what you have to say, Matt al Tapper, here's
Speaker 1: what you have to do. The thirties my favorite of
Speaker 1: all these. I mean, they're just they're just juicing the numbers.
Speaker 1: My favorite is thirty seven people and entities charged with crimes.
Speaker 1: Why isn't it just people? Oh, that's right, because what
Speaker 1: is it? Fifteen of that thirty seven, I think almost
Speaker 1: what is it? Almost half are Russians who are named
Speaker 1: in an indictment, who will never set foot in the
Speaker 1: US court. But I'm sure they're terrified. I'm sure. Oh,
Speaker 1: the long arm of Muller's justice is coming for them,
Speaker 1: if Muller can put down the sippy cup and the
Speaker 1: blankie and you know, have enough concentration in order to
Speaker 1: go after them. I mean, the whole thing was just absurd.
Speaker 1: It really was. Thirty seven people and entities charged twenty
Speaker 1: five ongoing criminal cases. Referred that that doesn't mean anything.
Speaker 1: And when you look at what the charges have been,
Speaker 1: and this is what they always leave out of it.
Speaker 1: The charges all have nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Speaker 1: The charges all have nothing to do with the the
Speaker 1: heart of the of this whole theory, the whole case.
Speaker 1: But you know that they seem to think that if
Speaker 1: you get someone who's lying about what they had for
Speaker 1: breakfast last week, that's a win for the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: Oh sure, it is about absolutely absolutely. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find where the where Muller. Oh, here's here's a little
Speaker 1: important point. They obstruction is what they're trying to hang
Speaker 1: their hat on. Now. It's oh, but there was obstruction,
Speaker 1: ten counts of obstruction. It turns out that that's a
Speaker 1: problem for them because to obstruct, you generally have to obstruct.
Speaker 1: That did not happen here. Play clip seven. And you
Speaker 1: can't confirm you're no longer special counsel. Correct, I am
Speaker 1: no longer special counsel At any time with the investigation.
Speaker 1: Was your investigation curtailed or stopped or handed No, were
Speaker 1: you or your team provide any questions Members of Congress
Speaker 1: of the Majority ahead of your hearing today? No, So,
Speaker 1: the whole theory. Now for the Democrats of why they
Speaker 1: should maybe I thought after today they'd have to they'd
Speaker 1: have to be crazy to go for impeachment. But then
Speaker 1: again I keep saying they're crazy, So maybe what I'm
Speaker 1: telling you is, of course they're going to impeach. But
Speaker 1: the whole theory now rests on obstruction. Yet when mother
Speaker 1: talks about the ten acts of obstruction, it never actually happened.
Speaker 1: There was no obstruction. If the President of the United
Speaker 1: States had wanted to shut this thing down, he could
Speaker 1: have just actually shut it down, and then there'd be
Speaker 1: a fight over whether or not he's constitutionally allowed to
Speaker 1: do that. And I think a lot of people would say,
Speaker 1: based on the hoax that this whole thing was, you
Speaker 1: cannot obstruct an illegitimate investigation. But they're now, I mean,
Speaker 1: I know you're running in these these circles. Here're like,
Speaker 1: wait a second, what how can he obstruct an investigation
Speaker 1: that he did not obstruct, and that if he had
Speaker 1: obstructed or at least stopped, he would have been justified
Speaker 1: in doing because the whole thing was a farce, And
Speaker 1: people say, oh, buck, but what about the Russian interference?
Speaker 1: There was no need for a special counsel to investigate
Speaker 1: Russian interference. The Department of Justice could have done that
Speaker 1: like a normal federal investigation. There's no need, there's no
Speaker 1: need for a special chain of command. The whole reason,
Speaker 1: the whole rationale for the Muller involvement in this form
Speaker 1: are being the figurehead, as we know for a bunch
Speaker 1: of angry Democrats to try to get at Trump was
Speaker 1: because the White House was implicated, and now they try
Speaker 1: to walk away from that. Oh no, but look about
Speaker 1: look at the Russian interference the election. By the way,
Speaker 1: has anything changed since then? Has there been any accounting
Speaker 1: for what happened in the now? Of course not, my friends,
Speaker 1: It's just all spasms of rage, seething fury from the
Speaker 1: left at Trump for winning the twenty sixteen election and
Speaker 1: then trying to find legal rationalizations for that and some
Speaker 1: legal panacea for what ails the left. It's not Russian collusion,
Speaker 1: it's not obstruction. You know what we saw today ails
Speaker 1: the left. You know what really is their ultimate problem?
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is president of the United States. So the
Speaker 1: report did not conclude that he did not commit instruction justice?
Speaker 1: Is that correct? That is correct? And what about total exoneration.
Speaker 1: Did you actually totally exonerate the president? The finding indicates
Speaker 1: that the president, uh was not that the president was
Speaker 1: not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed. In fact,
Speaker 1: you were talking about incidents quote in which the president
Speaker 1: sought to use his official power outside of usual channels
Speaker 1: un to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?
Speaker 1: That's correct? This is the new standard, folks. What does
Speaker 1: the left say? How does the left present these issues? Now?
Speaker 1: You have to be proven, not just beyond a reasonable
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt if you're charged, if you're not charged.
Speaker 1: The standard is that you have to have beyond a
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt the absence of evidence that they were not
Speaker 1: even able to find. This is from the Muller Report.
Speaker 1: All right, let me just and I think this is
Speaker 1: in many ways the single most important line other than
Speaker 1: there was no finding of collusion or conspirator, which was
Speaker 1: the basis of this whole thing. That was all lie,
Speaker 1: didn't exist, it was all farce. But if you want
Speaker 1: to get a real sense of the intellectual dishonesty at
Speaker 1: the heart of the entire Muller probe, there is a
Speaker 1: line from the report that says the following quote. A
Speaker 1: statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does
Speaker 1: not mean there was no evidence of those facts. How
Speaker 1: can Why are you including that in an investigative report
Speaker 1: about what are alleged to be very serious crimes that
Speaker 1: change the course of a presidential election and with it
Speaker 1: world history. Well, just because there's not stuff that we
Speaker 1: could show you, it doesn't mean we can tell you
Speaker 1: definitively that that stuff doesn't exist. Imagine that. Imagine that
Speaker 1: someone's accused of being a rapist and the attorney general, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not the attorney general the district. That would be
Speaker 1: quite a case. The district attorney walks out on the
Speaker 1: steps of the courthouse in whatever town. They say, So,
Speaker 1: it turns out there's absolutely zero evidence that we can
Speaker 1: present that, you know, John Doe here is a rapist. However,
Speaker 1: do not take the inability that we have to present
Speaker 1: evidence of this guy being a rapist now as definitive
Speaker 1: proof that he is not a rapist. That is what
Speaker 1: they did to Trump two years, forty million dollars or
Speaker 1: whatever it is, and the presentation of countless witnesses and
Speaker 1: documents and everything, and they weren't able to prove it,
Speaker 1: and now their line is, well, just because we couldn't
Speaker 1: prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why do we
Speaker 1: even have a justice system, then, why not just have
Speaker 1: a blind allegation system where you just get to say
Speaker 1: whatever you want about somebody and then they should suffer
Speaker 1: consequences even without the presentation of any evidence. The Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is willing to throw centuries. They've done it with Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: and now they've done it with Trump, and they will
Speaker 1: do it again. They will throw centuries of Anglo Saxon, English,
Speaker 1: American common law and jurisprudence in the incinerator if it
Speaker 1: means that they can get their way politically tomorrow. They
Speaker 1: don't care. They will the hope or the stuff that
Speaker 1: our entire system is based on. I mean, the rule
Speaker 1: of law is really one of the areas where we
Speaker 1: are most distinct, where we separate ourselves from so many
Speaker 1: other societies all over the world. System we have to
Speaker 1: protect individuals from the state and from the unfair, unjust
Speaker 1: allegations or accusations of their fellow citizens. He's one of
Speaker 1: the things that really does distinguish us from all these
Speaker 1: other countries and Democrats will they will tear the whole
Speaker 1: thing down. They will just rip all. They will kick
Speaker 1: at the load bearing walls of Western civilization. They don't care.
Speaker 1: That's how much they hate Trump. And that's what we
Speaker 1: have seen today. This is also why they've had this
Speaker 1: absolutely pathetic press conference they just held right right before
Speaker 1: I came on air, right before what was it like
Speaker 1: five fifty pm Eastern? The Democrats have this conference they
Speaker 1: hold where they get one after another. You know, you
Speaker 1: get Nadler and Schiff and Pelosi and me, and they're
Speaker 1: just you know, they're acting like they're on the Rachel
Speaker 1: Maddow Show, one after another, trying to make the case
Speaker 1: to the audience. So no, no, it's where Trump still
Speaker 1: is a you know, Trump is still really bad. He's
Speaker 1: still colluded in an obstruction and obstruction Uh no, no,
Speaker 1: fair minded person. You know, there's there's what. There's what
Speaker 1: you can take the law and expand it to include
Speaker 1: if you're willing to just not use any reason or
Speaker 1: or a good judgment. No fair minded person thinks, Oh,
Speaker 1: President Trump's reaction to a political hit and all the
Speaker 1: lies that went into that against him, his reaction to
Speaker 1: that unfair attack should be enough to destroy people always
Speaker 1: talking about Nixon and oh, Nixon and water getting to
Speaker 1: cover up. Nixon was trying to cover up doing bad stuff.
Speaker 1: The stuff wasn't even like that bad, but it was bad.
Speaker 1: It wasn't that bad, but he was trying to cover
Speaker 1: up stuff he did that was wrong. Trump didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong, and the Democrats come to you and say, oh,
Speaker 1: but he would like to have if he had been
Speaker 1: able to cover up not doing anything wrong. This is
Speaker 1: what crazy people think. This is Trump's arrangement syndrome. This
Speaker 1: is a massed illusion. This is only possible in an
Speaker 1: era of social media, echo chambers and sound bite television
Speaker 1: and all the things that have allowed the narrative on
Speaker 1: the left to become so deeply entrenched in the minds
Speaker 1: of a majority of the Democratic Party at this point,
Speaker 1: I mean a true majority of them. I mean the
Speaker 1: president was not exculpated for what he did. Okay, well
Speaker 1: guess what. He also wasn't charged with anything. Well, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: but they're big, they're big. Moment that I was supposed
Speaker 1: to be. Muller saying to Ted Lou Congressman Lou of
Speaker 1: California that the reason he did not charge was because
Speaker 1: of the Office of Legal Council opinion. Turns out that's
Speaker 1: not even not even what lou or rather, that's not
Speaker 1: even Mueller said. He said, you know, there you go.
Speaker 1: That's that's what it is. That's what's going on, folks,
Speaker 1: Just lies and lies and lies. Democrats trying to clean
Speaker 1: clean up the mess that they made today. They wanted this,
Speaker 1: remember that they wanted it. They wanted they're gonna get it,
Speaker 1: and they got it. Let's have Mueller up there. Let's
Speaker 1: create this whole circus. We'll capitalize on this one. I
Speaker 1: love it. I saw a headline on or rather a
Speaker 1: thing on CNN that ninety House Democrats, ninety House Democrats,
Speaker 1: um still want to impeach the present. They want to
Speaker 1: move to impeach. These people are nuts. They want to
Speaker 1: impeach the after today they they bell of belly, they
Speaker 1: belly flop in the shallow end of the pool, and
Speaker 1: then they want to tell us all that they're actually
Speaker 1: Olympic divers. I mean, this is just it's beyond comprehension.
Speaker 1: You know, they're trying so hard to make this about
Speaker 1: something that it's not. But you know, this is this
Speaker 1: is the problem. They've They've all tied their careers, the
Speaker 1: Democrats have tied their credibility to and they this has
Speaker 1: been a credibility self immolation for two years. There's no
Speaker 1: turning back now, there's no walking it back. Now they
Speaker 1: are what they are. Man. I gotta say it was
Speaker 1: kind of it was kind of cathartic today to watch
Speaker 1: this though what it would a preposterous joke, this whole
Speaker 1: investigation was. And who's been more correct in the substance
Speaker 1: Trump saying this was a witch hunt than it was
Speaker 1: unfair and it was Democrats or the Democrats saying this
Speaker 1: is about protecting our democracy. Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: Who had the best day to day? We know Muller
Speaker 1: had a bad day, that's for sure, But who had
Speaker 1: a really strong showing for muller time on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: I've got some ideas for you. I think Jim Jordan,
Speaker 1: you could argue, had the single most effective day of
Speaker 1: anybody on Capitol Hill, although Ratcliffe also had had some
Speaker 1: really good stuff that I didn't even know Congress and
Speaker 1: Ratcliffe very well before, but I think he did a
Speaker 1: great job. But Jim Jordan more or less put the
Speaker 1: whole Russia collusion delusion in a half nelson and made
Speaker 1: it cry uncle like that wrestling terminology. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you know this. Not only does Jim Jordan not
Speaker 1: wear suit jackets in public, it's a real thing. But
Speaker 1: he was a champion state level wrestler back in the day.
Speaker 1: But here's what Jim Jordan with a with a body
Speaker 1: slam of the collusion delusion. What's interesting. You can charge
Speaker 1: thirteen Russians no one's ever heard of, no one's ever seen,
Speaker 1: no one's ever going to hear of him, no one's
Speaker 1: ever going to see him. If you can charge them.
Speaker 1: You can charge all kinds of people who are around
Speaker 1: the president with false statements. But the guy who launches
Speaker 1: every the guy who puts this whole story in motion,
Speaker 1: you can't charge him. I think that's amazing. Certain, I'm
Speaker 1: not certain I agree with your characterizations. Well, I'm reading
Speaker 1: from your report. Miffson told Papadopolis. Papadopolis tells the diplomat,
Speaker 1: the diplomat tells the FBI. The FBI opens the investigation
Speaker 1: July thirty one, twenty sixteen, And here we are three
Speaker 1: years later, July of twenty nineteen. The country's been put
Speaker 1: through this, and the central figure who launches at all
Speaker 1: lies to us, and you guys don't hunt him down
Speaker 1: and interview him again, and you don't charge him with
Speaker 1: the crime. Yeah, why is that? M Give it some thought.
Speaker 1: What are the chances, folks, that if this investigation was
Speaker 1: really into anybody, anybody who might have colluded with the
Speaker 1: Russians or been involved in this, not a single not
Speaker 1: a single person identifiable as a Democrat was caught up
Speaker 1: in any of this. What are the chances? Oh, okay,
Speaker 1: let's look. Hillary Clinton can violate the Espionage Act over
Speaker 1: a hundred times, her staff can help cover it up
Speaker 1: and lie about and do whatever they want, and you know,
Speaker 1: no one gets charged. We're supposed to believe that only
Speaker 1: Republicans make minor misstatements of fact under oath. It seems
Speaker 1: only Republican Democrats never do that. They commit huge crimes
Speaker 1: and get away with them, but they don't do the
Speaker 1: lying under oath about little things. Who believes this? No
Speaker 1: one believes this. It's all a double standard. That's what
Speaker 1: we are seeing here. This is what and you know,
Speaker 1: it's just time that we stop pretending that this is
Speaker 1: a coincidence. Or that this just happens because it's the
Speaker 1: way that it is not true. Oh, you want some
Speaker 1: more evidence of Buck's theorem on this one, that the
Speaker 1: left gets it easy and the right gets it rough.
Speaker 1: Why hasn't Andy McCabe of the FBI been criminally charged yet?
Speaker 1: Anyone want to tell me that huh Andy McCabe lied,
Speaker 1: according to the FBI's own inspector General, at least twice
Speaker 1: under oath. Where are the criminal charges against him? Does
Speaker 1: anyone want to offer up an explanation? The FBI's own
Speaker 1: inspector General says that the FBI Acting director lied under
Speaker 1: oath about leaks about matters of importance to a major investigation.
Speaker 1: And he hasn't been charged with squat if sued, hasn't
Speaker 1: in charge with anything. You know, you got know this?
Speaker 1: Where where are the Democrats that just happened to say
Speaker 1: the wrong thing the wrong time? Oh it didn't happen,
Speaker 1: did it? Christopher Steele? They ever put him under oath
Speaker 1: and really go through every go through everything that he
Speaker 1: had to say, Well, we all know what's going on here,
Speaker 1: and it's disgusting, it's disgusted. Just allow yourself to know
Speaker 1: what you know it's unsettling. It is unsettling to think
Speaker 1: that the Democrats could be this partisan, this lacking in ethics.
Speaker 1: But that's what we are dealing with. So we need
Speaker 1: to accept what the truth is here and act based
Speaker 1: upon that truth. Here's what. By the way, Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: also talked about the need speaking of Jim Jordan's body
Speaker 1: slams they need to investigate the investigators. Here's the good news.
Speaker 1: The president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does
Speaker 1: a ten month investigation. James Cummy when we deposed him
Speaker 1: a year ago, told us at that point they had nothing.
Speaker 1: You do a twenty two month investigation. At the end
Speaker 1: of that twenty two months, you find no conspiracy. And
Speaker 1: what's the Democrats want to do? They want to keep investigating,
Speaker 1: they want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action.
Speaker 1: Maybe better course of action is to figure out how
Speaker 1: the false accusation started. Maybe it's to go back and
Speaker 1: actually figure out why Joseph Nipson was lying to the FBI.
Speaker 1: And here's the good news. Here's the good news. That's
Speaker 1: exactly what Bill Barr's doing, and thank goodness for that.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what the Attorney General and John Durham are do.
Speaker 1: They're going to find out why we went through this
Speaker 1: three years time year in Naga and get to the bottom.
Speaker 1: I would like us to get to the bottom. I'd
Speaker 1: like to know what's going on here. And I think
Speaker 1: a lot of the American people who care about this investigation,
Speaker 1: which is probably dwindling, is probably getting smaller day by day.
Speaker 1: We're all just sick of this crap. The Democrats have
Speaker 1: put us through. The sore loser I'm ready for her,
Speaker 1: whoa Hillary. They won't give it up, and so we
Speaker 1: all have to just deal with it. We all have
Speaker 1: to get dragged through their lack of psychological stability, the
Speaker 1: left's unwillingness to accept what has happened to this day.
Speaker 1: That is where we are, that is what is going on.
Speaker 1: We need answers here. I think the Inspector General report,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you this right now, my prediction. We
Speaker 1: can replay this later. I'm gonna sound very prescient. I
Speaker 1: have a feeling the Inspector General report is not is
Speaker 1: not going to result in some Hallelujah moment of justice
Speaker 1: for Trump and everything else, because they're going to try
Speaker 1: to protect the institution of the FBI, So they're gonna
Speaker 1: pull up, They're gonna pull the punches at the end,
Speaker 1: but oh, there's going to be some stuff and then
Speaker 1: Inspector General report that makes this whole thing look even
Speaker 1: dirtier than it is, and we'll watch the Democrats just
Speaker 1: make fools of themselves trying to explain it all on TV.
Speaker 1: Good news for them is they don't have any integrity
Speaker 1: to protect. In fact is we are living in this
Speaker 1: twenty first century new type of asymmetrical media warfare that
Speaker 1: we're in. It. You have a propaganda machine on the right,
Speaker 1: and let's what it is is a full fledged propaganda
Speaker 1: machine on the right that the Democrats haven't figured out
Speaker 1: how to come back very well. And I think they
Speaker 1: took the trunk day, meaning they said, oh, yeah, you're
Speaker 1: good at TV spectacles, We're gonna make a TV spectacle.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's Chuck Todd, a moron. I know, he's
Speaker 1: paid a lot of money and he's famous for reasons
Speaker 1: that I couldn't tell you. Some TV executives must really
Speaker 1: like him. At NBC, I could not explain to you
Speaker 1: what the Chuck Todd skill set is. He's, as far
Speaker 1: as I can tell, completely replaceable with about ten thousand
Speaker 1: other local news anchors who are libs across the country.
Speaker 1: I cannot tell you what Chuck Todd's particulars. He's been
Speaker 1: around the game a long time. I've never heard him
Speaker 1: say anything insightful, never heard him say anything partically interesting.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's just a lot of boilerplate lib nonsense.
Speaker 1: But I think that's fascinating, the lack of self awareness
Speaker 1: on a day like today, when the media was made
Speaker 1: to look like a bunch of complete buffoons, for Chuck
Speaker 1: Todd to then come out and say, oh, the right
Speaker 1: has a propaganda machine and the left hasn't you know,
Speaker 1: Or rather he would say, you know, the Democrats and
Speaker 1: the real the good people, the real journalists, we haven't
Speaker 1: figured out how to combat that. The right has a
Speaker 1: propaganda machine. The left has a stranglehold on ninety percent
Speaker 1: of journalism in this country, ninety percent of it. At least,
Speaker 1: the left has a stranglehold on about ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy. Based on donations in the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: campaign season to Hillary Clinton and based on my time
Speaker 1: working for the federal government when there were just libs
Speaker 1: a plenty, all over the place. Except the only place
Speaker 1: where you're like, oh, I can talk about how I
Speaker 1: love America and want to want to wave a flag,
Speaker 1: you know, on the fourth of July outside of my
Speaker 1: house and not feel weird is around people from the military. Everybody,
Speaker 1: like in the civil service or whatever. I mean, they
Speaker 1: might be cool with it, but a lot of them are.
Speaker 1: Allot of them are driving to work in a prius
Speaker 1: nice kind of you know, vomit green color with a
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren bumper sticker on, you know, because
Speaker 1: that's the ticket that they would really love to see.
Speaker 1: I mean, you get a lot of that in the
Speaker 1: federal government. Think about it's people that go work for
Speaker 1: the federal government tend to be risk averse. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying everybody, please don't send me a message about your
Speaker 1: amazing patriot. You know cousin who's who's in the FBI
Speaker 1: and is a Republican and you know, serve four tours
Speaker 1: in Iraq. Yeah, I love that guy too. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about him this and I know people
Speaker 1: like the federal government. I'm speaking about the general mass.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like talking about college campuses. Yeah,
Speaker 1: college campuses are full of libs. That's no question that
Speaker 1: professors are libs. Most of the student body or libs.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean I'm not demeaning the amazing conservatives who
Speaker 1: are standing up for themselves and their beliefs on campus
Speaker 1: across the country. Of course not. They're awesome, right, But
Speaker 1: is it wrong to say that campuses are libs are
Speaker 1: liberal just because there are some conservatives. No, we have
Speaker 1: to speak in some generalities here or else we can't
Speaker 1: have a conversation about it at all. Back to the
Speaker 1: point about Chuck Todd and the propaganda apparatus. It's so
Speaker 1: much larger on the left, but he thinks it's a
Speaker 1: problem on the right. He blames. He's blaming conservatives and
Speaker 1: blaming in a Fox News and Talk radio which you're
Speaker 1: listening to right now, Well, hello talk radio. Hey, listen
Speaker 1: to Buck Sexton's propaganda machine on the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: convincing you to love America and actually used your brain.
Speaker 1: We could probably do that, like the top of the
Speaker 1: show replaced the intro we've got right now, but hey,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. The propaganda Machine. This
Speaker 1: is where I always tell you that propaganda acquired I
Speaker 1: just think it's a fun historical tidbit. Many of you
Speaker 1: have heard me say it before, but I love you,
Speaker 1: give me a little leeway. You had. Until the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: propaganda really wasn't a necessarily a negative thing at all.
Speaker 1: It started with the Catholic Church, and the propaganda defeated
Speaker 1: the propagation of the faith, and it was supposed to
Speaker 1: be a commission within the Vatican to make sure that
Speaker 1: the proper Catholic faith was being spread all over the world.
Speaker 1: And then later on, in really the First World War
Speaker 1: and with the beginning of mass media and radio in particular,
Speaker 1: propaganda took on this negative, negative term. But I think
Speaker 1: that anybody you know propaganda, if it's just the continuation
Speaker 1: of ideas, with the spread of ideas and the hope
Speaker 1: that people will adopt them, I don't think it's necessarily
Speaker 1: a bad thing at all. I am a propagandist for
Speaker 1: America and for conservatism and for Judeo Christian values because
Speaker 1: I think that they are right, and I tell you
Speaker 1: that I think they are right, and I think everybody
Speaker 1: should adopt them, and that would make us a better world,
Speaker 1: a better country, a better world, you name it. But
Speaker 1: the left has to come up with some explanation for
Speaker 1: the dumpster fire that was the ambush of Trump over
Speaker 1: the last two years, as evident from everything that we
Speaker 1: saw today. I mean, what a what a what an
Speaker 1: abject to buckle this whole thing was, I will tell you,
Speaker 1: And I hate admitting when I don't nail something. I
Speaker 1: hate admitting it because I usually nailed things. I didn't
Speaker 1: think today would be as bad. On last night, on
Speaker 1: on Brett Bear's show, I said, I said that it
Speaker 1: would be as much about what wasn't said as what
Speaker 1: was said, which was true. But I think that's a
Speaker 1: pretty obvious point. You know, I graved myself not in
Speaker 1: a curve. I know when I say I know when
Speaker 1: I say insightful things on TV and when I'm like
Speaker 1: just another just another you know, uh schmo with a
Speaker 1: side part on air. And but the thing I did
Speaker 1: say is it was well, was that, you know, Muller
Speaker 1: didn't do so well and that last press conference he
Speaker 1: gave the one before today, So keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: I knew that it it was possible. I did not think
Speaker 1: it would be the the utter implosion that it was today.
Speaker 1: I did not think that that was the case because
Speaker 1: I figured the Democrats would have to have a better,
Speaker 1: a better plan than this. I mean, they were leaking
Speaker 1: that they were running through uh you know, they were
Speaker 1: running through scenarios, they were doing mock Muller testimony stuff.
Speaker 1: It's just just amazing, it really really is it really
Speaker 1: is that this is, this is where we are. So
Speaker 1: now they blame uh, now they blame a Probably it's
Speaker 1: Republicans fault that Muller couldn't make this sound credible. It's
Speaker 1: Republicans fault that because it's our propaganda machine. How how
Speaker 1: pathetic is that? And I also noticed that there was
Speaker 1: there's this effort to say that you can't, you can't
Speaker 1: come out and criticize that. Muller seemed like a dottering,
Speaker 1: dottering old fool. What was the thing that Kim Jong
Speaker 1: unseid about Trump? Again? He called them this before they
Speaker 1: quote fell in love? What did he call them? A heard?
Speaker 1: I think right? A Dtaard Doddard. One of the rare
Speaker 1: times I learned a word from the news cycle and
Speaker 1: international relations. I did not know the word dotard until
Speaker 1: Kim Jong unused it, at least in translation to talk
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump. But if you said that Muller was
Speaker 1: looking like he had lost a step, like he wasn't
Speaker 1: really with it, like he didn't know what's going on.
Speaker 1: There's Oh, Muller is a patriot and he's amazing. He's fantastic.
Speaker 1: He's a great man. He served his country in the
Speaker 1: military and everything I said, you know what, that's how
Speaker 1: could I do anything other than respect the man's service
Speaker 1: in Vietnam. It's fantastic, the service need in Vietnam, it's brave.
Speaker 1: A lot of people wouldn't do it, didn't do it.
Speaker 1: A lot of people in politics on both sides no
Speaker 1: interest in serving. So yeah, of course I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about that though, And if we're gonna play that game,
Speaker 1: why is it that that Muller is beyond reproach and
Speaker 1: criticism as a person because he served in the uniform.
Speaker 1: But but our our friend, General General Flynn, who served
Speaker 1: over thirty years in the United States military, he should
Speaker 1: get fed to the wolves because he misremembered something that
Speaker 1: he said to some FBI agents who he thought were
Speaker 1: on his team when he was in the White House.
Speaker 1: And it was all a set up by Sally Yates
Speaker 1: and a bunch of other left wing hacks. Oh, Flynn is.
Speaker 1: Flynn is are an agent of Russia and he's a
Speaker 1: trader because because he lied about something that wasn't illegal,
Speaker 1: that nobody should really care about. Blah blah blah. That's
Speaker 1: what they say. You'll have no standards whatsoever. You know,
Speaker 1: you can trash Flynn all day long, even though he
Speaker 1: served for thirty years. But if you if you trash Muller,
Speaker 1: you're a girl going after his service. These are just
Speaker 1: the games they play. They hope they scare you off
Speaker 1: the truth with it. But the other one is and
Speaker 1: I've seen the same journalist, the same jour knows, the
Speaker 1: same leftist activist pretending to be object active sources of
Speaker 1: news that are out there that we're saying. I have
Speaker 1: been saying that Trump is crazy, I mean actually not
Speaker 1: of sound mind, having some kind of men or not
Speaker 1: just a mental breakdown. But they'll say that he is
Speaker 1: a scenile, that he's he's an insane person. If you
Speaker 1: point out that it did look like Muller was brought
Speaker 1: out of a retirement community to give this at you know,
Speaker 1: no offense or retirement communities. But it did seem like
Speaker 1: this guy wasn't exactly at his freshest and best for
Speaker 1: the most explosive political investigation of my lifetime. Oh, disrespectful,
Speaker 1: how could you? And everything goes okay, so Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: seventy three year old Trump's state of mind and or
Speaker 1: i should say, mental faculties. That's open season for the
Speaker 1: left all the time. That's no problem. But you make
Speaker 1: the same case based on actual evidence about Muller, and
Speaker 1: you're a bad person who's being disrespectful of his service,
Speaker 1: disrespectful of his age. Sorry, I'm just not going to
Speaker 1: let them play that game. We need one standard by
Speaker 1: which we evaluate any issue of importance in public life.
Speaker 1: We need one standard. No more double standards. We need
Speaker 1: one rule of law that applies equally to both sides,
Speaker 1: left and right, Democrat and Republican. No more of this kid,
Speaker 1: gloves for Hillary and broken glass all over the gloves
Speaker 1: for anybody around Trump. All right? That, No, that cannot
Speaker 1: stand anymore. This pole society's apart. You want to talk
Speaker 1: about undermining institutions. One of the favorite complaints of the left.
Speaker 1: Double standards undermine all our institutions. And we saw that today.
Speaker 1: A lot of conservatives in particular, would say that the
Speaker 1: rise in Islamophobia is a result lot of hate, but
Speaker 1: a fear, a legitimate fear. They say of quote unquote
Speaker 1: Johnnie terrorism, whether it's Forthood or San Bernardino or the
Speaker 1: recent truck attack in New York, what do you say
Speaker 1: to them? I would say, our country should be more
Speaker 1: fearful of of of white man across our country because
Speaker 1: they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.
Speaker 1: We should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight
Speaker 1: the radicalization of white men. White people are the problem.
Speaker 1: Ilhanomar says, that's what she said. I'm not we played
Speaker 1: the audio. White man are the problem. White men are
Speaker 1: the threat. Now I thought I thought that was a
Speaker 1: racist thing to say, right, it's a stupid thing to say.
Speaker 1: But if she's gonna say it, and now we're going
Speaker 1: to give in the realm of let's have a discussion
Speaker 1: about this, okay, Ilhanomar, let's talk. I assume this is
Speaker 1: in reference. I know it's in reference to the recent
Speaker 1: report the FBI says that most of their extremist investigations
Speaker 1: terrorism investigations are of white nationalists or white supremacists or
Speaker 1: whatever that may be. I actually know something about this
Speaker 1: because unlike ninety five percent of people in the media,
Speaker 1: I worked in counter terrorism and had to day in
Speaker 1: and day out look at cases, deal with cases. This
Speaker 1: is that That was my life for years. So let
Speaker 1: me explain something to missus ilhan Omar. If she's going
Speaker 1: to talk about the threat, engaging the threat and who
Speaker 1: we should be concerned about and who we should profile
Speaker 1: or devote resources too, then you have to you have
Speaker 1: to look at the numbers, and by the numbers, let's
Speaker 1: have a discussion about jihadism versus white nationalism. Let's go.
Speaker 1: Let's let's break this down for a moment. The US
Speaker 1: population is roughly sixty to sixty five percent white. Of
Speaker 1: that population, it's roughly, let's say, thirty percent mail, thirty
Speaker 1: percent of America is white males. And you have all
Speaker 1: of the terror attacks that they talk about, and you know,
Speaker 1: you add all these numbers together and it's roughly equivalent
Speaker 1: to the number of jeehottest terror murders in the United States,
Speaker 1: assuming that you forget all about nine to eleven and
Speaker 1: the incineration and murder of three thousand people all in
Speaker 1: one day. So just cut that part of it out
Speaker 1: and assuming you forget about the hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 1: thwarted jeehottest terror attacks that have occurred or that would
Speaker 1: have occurred since nine eleven, killing untold thousands more, including
Speaker 1: blowing up a plane on Christmas Day over Detroit for
Speaker 1: Rucal Delmatalad, the underwear bomber, blowing up Times Square when
Speaker 1: I was working at the Intelligence Division, you know, look
Speaker 1: at all these major attacks where they just barely avoided
Speaker 1: a mass casualty situation or the and that's not even
Speaker 1: including the guys that get picked up while they're trying
Speaker 1: to buy the mosives are by the weapons. But even
Speaker 1: going beyond all of that for a moment, there's about
Speaker 1: one percent of America is Muslim American about one percent,
Speaker 1: So you're looking at maybe we'll even say it's two percent.
Speaker 1: Let's say it's five, five, four or five million people.
Speaker 1: Let's say half of them are about half of them
Speaker 1: are male. So you're looking at about two or three
Speaker 1: million Muslim Americans versus who are males. Right, and I
Speaker 1: know not all terrorists are mail, but let's just for
Speaker 1: the purpose of our discussion, versus about thirty to forty
Speaker 1: million white American males. And you have roughly equivalent numbers
Speaker 1: of casualties and dead from extremism minus nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: which I think is a massive concession that we should
Speaker 1: not make because it takes out of the discussion all
Speaker 1: the resources in effort of thing us what ilhan by
Speaker 1: ilhan omar logic, Muslim American males are a fifteen x
Speaker 1: roughly terror threat to White American males based on the numbers.
Speaker 1: So is this the game that she wants to play?
Speaker 1: Does she really want to you know, where does this
Speaker 1: stop and start? If she wants to open this up?
Speaker 1: Do we get to walk through this store? Do we
Speaker 1: get to actually have this discussion or not? Here you
Speaker 1: have a member of Congress who says things like white
Speaker 1: men are scary and we should pay more attention to
Speaker 1: the threat from white men. I think we're allowed to
Speaker 1: make a counter argument here that one that's a stupid
Speaker 1: and nasty way to speak about anybody. And two, if
Speaker 1: we're really going to break this down demographically, okay, let's
Speaker 1: do that. Then let's look at the white American male
Speaker 1: population and the Muslim American male population and tell me
Speaker 1: which one has been a greater threat of extremism and
Speaker 1: terrorist violence by the numbers. I mean, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know how many times I have to off the
Speaker 1: top turnbuckle crush the libs on this one. I've done it.
Speaker 1: I used to do it all the time at CNN.
Speaker 1: They all always get smoked on this because they're so
Speaker 1: desperate to believe, for whatever reason, that white Christian males
Speaker 1: in America are the real threat, whatever that means to them.
Speaker 1: They but they are invested in this Vox and HuffPo
Speaker 1: and all these different liberal websites. They really want to
Speaker 1: believe that the real threat or white Christian males. I
Speaker 1: believe the real threat are people who are radicalized. I
Speaker 1: believe that the real threat within the Muslim community are
Speaker 1: radical Islamists geehotists, so a subset. I don't think that
Speaker 1: one person from any community, based on being in that community,
Speaker 1: should be concerned a greater threat. We're looking for specific radicalization,
Speaker 1: but if we're looking for radicalization by the numbers, it
Speaker 1: is still much more likely to exist within the American
Speaker 1: Islamic community than the white male community. So let's just
Speaker 1: be honest about that, all right, everybody, I got a
Speaker 1: special treat for you today. It's been a while since
Speaker 1: we have heard from our friend Kevin william Sin. But
Speaker 1: fortunately he has a brand new book out, so we
Speaker 1: have an excuse to force him to come hang out
Speaker 1: with us. The book is the smallest minority independent thinking
Speaker 1: in the age of mob politics. Kevin, of course, is
Speaker 1: roving correspondent from National Review. Mister Kevin Williams, and good
Speaker 1: to have you back, sir. Good to be here, Bucky. Now,
Speaker 1: I wasn't going to do at the book to selling him,
Speaker 1: because I guess I'll hang out with you from that.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. So tell me what the book's all about.
Speaker 1: The book is about the way Ian Ranch social media
Speaker 1: has contributed to the destruction of our democrats political discourse.
Speaker 1: I'm making everyone a representative of Lauren Shrow rather than
Speaker 1: an individual and citizen. Okay, give me a little bit.
Speaker 1: So that's that's that's a thing. Um. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: but it says, so, you know, I want to have
Speaker 1: you heard the I've been talking about all week. People
Speaker 1: probably say of this, but the noval ravocant Joe Rogan discussion,
Speaker 1: because I think that he you know, they Joe had
Speaker 1: him on his podcast recently, and I've listened to this thing.
Speaker 1: Joe Robin a lot, he's funny. Yeah, well, well, I'll
Speaker 1: just the basic thesis that Neval has is that in
Speaker 1: the digital information agent which we now live, these massive
Speaker 1: journalistic establishments they don't really serve the purpose that they
Speaker 1: pretend to, and so they have actually become massive activism organizations,
Speaker 1: and so that has been magnified through social media into
Speaker 1: the warring factions that you're talking about. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: maybe there's a slightly different way I would talk about that,
Speaker 1: which is that people go to news media and social
Speaker 1: media for different things and they get them confused. So
Speaker 1: no one goes to Twitter really to learn about what's
Speaker 1: going on in the world. No one goes to Twitter
Speaker 1: for reporting or original perspectives or anything like that. People
Speaker 1: go to Twitter and to a lesser extent, Facebook for
Speaker 1: emotional validation. They want people to pay attention to them,
Speaker 1: to make them feel important and to say we're in
Speaker 1: the white hats and these other guys are in the
Speaker 1: black hats, and we're the good guys, and they're the villains,
Speaker 1: and we're nice and they're munch of Nazis. So the problem,
Speaker 1: of course, is that kind of emotional, emotionally driven ad
Speaker 1: hominem view of the world is not very useful for
Speaker 1: discussion to beginning information, but it's very useful for building
Speaker 1: very large audiences. So if you're someone who wants to
Speaker 1: get as many people to pay attention to you as possible,
Speaker 1: and you're not too picky about how it gets done,
Speaker 1: it's a very strong temptation to go out there and
Speaker 1: engage in this kind of emotion. Heart first, facts be damned,
Speaker 1: ad hominem. I mean the discourse, which is really why
Speaker 1: you see only that on social media. And I think
Speaker 1: that you're right that some of the major media organizations
Speaker 1: in New York Times, some of the other newspapers have
Speaker 1: grown I think a little envious of that and adopted
Speaker 1: some of that tone, which is why you have such
Speaker 1: a bad op ed page, for instance, the New York Times,
Speaker 1: and such a bad auth ed page, and a lot
Speaker 1: of other newspapers where they really want to try to
Speaker 1: vampire off that same energy. I don't think it really
Speaker 1: works for him, because if you're Paul Krugman, you still
Speaker 1: got to write a seven hundred work column. You can't
Speaker 1: just tweet something, and it's a different kind of feel
Speaker 1: as a different kind of format. Well, and also you're
Speaker 1: somebody that that dealt with the the insanity of this
Speaker 1: yourself and in a very particular way at somebody who
Speaker 1: was hired by the Atlantic, and then do we let
Speaker 1: let go or consciously uncoupled or however it went from
Speaker 1: the Atlantic because really they're they're they're little emotionally fragile
Speaker 1: readership freaked out. I think that's an honest assessment of
Speaker 1: what happened. You know, there's an interesting thing about that,
Speaker 1: And partly it was that, But these things are always
Speaker 1: a little more complicated than that. And it wasn't really
Speaker 1: so much the social media campaign that got me fired
Speaker 1: over there, that was kind of a pretext. It was
Speaker 1: really an internal staff thing. And here's I'll have a
Speaker 1: little piece an excerpt from the book in the New
Speaker 1: York Post this weekend that it gets into some of
Speaker 1: this the purpose of these mob campaigns. It's not just
Speaker 1: to get people like me fired. It's to bend these
Speaker 1: institutions to the will of these left coming idea looks.
Speaker 1: And so you know, there's nothing you accomplished by it
Speaker 1: to be fired from the Atlantic. Right. So I'm a
Speaker 1: professional writer. I get started by the Atlantic. I wrote
Speaker 1: an essay about in the Wall Street journalist goes on,
Speaker 1: you know, I just change venues. But if you are
Speaker 1: someone who's a Starbucks manager in Philadelphia, or a programmer
Speaker 1: at Google, or someone else who's not involved in the
Speaker 1: politics and writing and controversy business, you see these people
Speaker 1: being made examples of around you, and you'll learn from
Speaker 1: those examples and you never say anything that's non conforming
Speaker 1: or non approved to start with. And that's what this
Speaker 1: is really all about. You know, getting James to More
Speaker 1: fired at Google wasn't about this, you know, pinhead monkey
Speaker 1: James to More that no one really cares about all
Speaker 1: that much. It's about the mobs thing. Look, we can
Speaker 1: make Google do what we want, and that's the important
Speaker 1: takeaway from it. What would you like to see change
Speaker 1: in this whole phenomena? I mean, I actually saw last
Speaker 1: night Josh Holly, who is very involved now in the
Speaker 1: social media bias that exists. What are conservatives supposed to
Speaker 1: do now? I mean, because it's clearly biased and as
Speaker 1: you point out, there's yeah, well there there are a
Speaker 1: couple of things, and not as conservatives, but as citizens.
Speaker 1: One is to understand what you're going to social media
Speaker 1: for and what it's there to do, and I think
Speaker 1: that if you understand what it actually is, you probably
Speaker 1: might want to tend to use it less because it's
Speaker 1: kind of embarrassing thing to be involved in some ways.
Speaker 1: I mean, some writers instead use it from marketing, and
Speaker 1: some other people use it from marketing, and that's great,
Speaker 1: but really it's not a very effective way to communicate
Speaker 1: if you have any sort of substantive ideas. So I
Speaker 1: think that while you want to be involved in all
Speaker 1: forms and all media to the extent that you can,
Speaker 1: conservatives should moderate our hopes for what can be accomplished
Speaker 1: through things like social media simply because their ideas are
Speaker 1: a little more complex. And you know, we need people
Speaker 1: who understand things like supply and demand and why prices
Speaker 1: work the way they work in the constitution, which you're
Speaker 1: not going to get from tweets, not how it's going
Speaker 1: to happen. So you play in that field if you
Speaker 1: need to play in that sandbox, if you think it's
Speaker 1: useful to you culturally or from a publicity point of view.
Speaker 1: But I wouldn't have real high hopes for or moving
Speaker 1: any sort of substantive intellectual content through it. We're speaking
Speaker 1: of Kevin Williamson Roving correspondent from National Review, author of
Speaker 1: the new book The Smallest Minority, Independent Thinking in the
Speaker 1: Age of Mob Politics. I mean, I will say this, Kevin.
Speaker 1: I've noticed that social media is a very it's the
Speaker 1: immediate feedback mechanisms of it in political discourse can be
Speaker 1: interesting insofar as you see that pushing for one team
Speaker 1: is the single most effective thing, or trashing the other
Speaker 1: team that's the single most effective thing you can do
Speaker 1: trying to have any any interesting exchange of ideas or
Speaker 1: god forbid, say that something about the other side's approach
Speaker 1: to an issue or idea might be worth examining, perhaps
Speaker 1: even appropriating. That gets not just ignored but shouted down.
Speaker 1: People get angry about this. That nuance effectively is suspect. Yeah. Remember,
Speaker 1: it's always far worse to be aherretic in an anf
Speaker 1: adelt right. It's always the people on your own side,
Speaker 1: if you disagree with them a little bit, who will
Speaker 1: always be the most energetic in coming after you. For instance,
Speaker 1: I've i write this article probably every six months that
Speaker 1: Republicans need to get over the idea that tax cuts
Speaker 1: pay for themselves. I really just don't know. There's not
Speaker 1: any good evidence that they do, and every time I
Speaker 1: write that, there's just this new one normal freak out.
Speaker 1: And it's not so much about the contents, it's about
Speaker 1: aren't you supposed to be on our side? Oh? Why
Speaker 1: won't you go along with the game? Or wrote this
Speaker 1: thing earlier in the week or last week about the
Speaker 1: sender her own stuff and eleanor Mer. Not that I'm
Speaker 1: a fan of Eleanor Lmer, but it's sort of a
Speaker 1: you know, it's an ugly thing to do, and there's
Speaker 1: some legitimate criticism there, I think to make. And the
Speaker 1: woundedness of the responses to that is we're supposed to
Speaker 1: hate her. Why can't you hate her with us? We
Speaker 1: hate I just hate her better than you do, for
Speaker 1: better reasons, Yeah, I have to say. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is why it's it's so hard right now to find
Speaker 1: even legitimate debate on television. One of my complaints is
Speaker 1: that anywhere you go that's supposed to be a political
Speaker 1: exchange of ideas in a media forum is overwhelmingly the
Speaker 1: old WWF model of here's Hulk Hogan and here's the
Speaker 1: jobber who's wearing a little Neon mankini and no one's
Speaker 1: ever heard of before the guy looks like he could
Speaker 1: bench press about seventy five pounds, and he's going to
Speaker 1: get crushed. That's what if you see on TV, just
Speaker 1: in different versions of different venues. Yeah, you know, Margaret
Speaker 1: Hoover has recently turned to rest a firing Line, which
Speaker 1: is the title that's very important to us over here
Speaker 1: at National Review. But you can't imagine trying to put
Speaker 1: the original firing Line, which is two hours long of
Speaker 1: two guys having a serious conversation on the area's even
Speaker 1: on PBS, you know, even on NPR or something like that.
Speaker 1: So the culture I think has changed in a way
Speaker 1: that makes it very difficult to have those sorts of conversations.
Speaker 1: But the other thing is that people involved in my business,
Speaker 1: people who are writers, people who want to talk about
Speaker 1: more serious issues, are really guilty of the original sin
Speaker 1: of American intellectuals, which is too want to be popular
Speaker 1: in that way. You know, if you are Paul Krugman,
Speaker 1: having a Nobel prize is not enough. You want to
Speaker 1: be celebrated and to lead people and to speak for
Speaker 1: them and to act as attribute for them the way
Speaker 1: a politician does. And there are a lot of people,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a particular problem for conservative talk
Speaker 1: show hosts who are essentially campaign managers for Republican campaigns
Speaker 1: and who are so closely and so tightly identified with
Speaker 1: the politics that they can't afford to engage in an
Speaker 1: honest conversation. And that's a real problem. Is there any
Speaker 1: ray of hope you offer us in the smallest minority, Kevin,
Speaker 1: or is the minority just going to get smaller? One
Speaker 1: is the people eventually learn to hold in contempt that
Speaker 1: which is contemptible, and this is contemptible, and people eventually learned.
Speaker 1: But the other thing is that a lot of what's
Speaker 1: driving this hysteria right now on social media is boredom,
Speaker 1: and it's being used as entertainment, and it's entertainment value
Speaker 1: is not going to last forever. We will move on
Speaker 1: to the next thing. You know, there used to be
Speaker 1: a time in the history when people got hysterical about
Speaker 1: sports rivalries. Here times in the history where people had
Speaker 1: you know, there was a riot apparently after the writer
Speaker 1: Spring was first performed because people cared about series of
Speaker 1: the count of us Stravinsky reference. Look at you, yeah,
Speaker 1: Ostravinsky refinence right there. You know, we're pretty high minded
Speaker 1: over here, and I think that eventually people's interests move
Speaker 1: on from this and they go onto something else, and
Speaker 1: we're having these silly conversations about I don't know, Batman
Speaker 1: movies or something. Well, Kevin Williamson is one of the
Speaker 1: best writers on the scene, folks. So I say, you
Speaker 1: give the smallest minority independent thinking in the age of
Speaker 1: mob politics a shot. I'm gonna do the same, Kevin.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Appreciate you making the time and
Speaker 1: good luck on the book. Thank you, Buck. I appreciate
Speaker 1: it all. Right, team, we got more coming up in
Speaker 1: a big hour three in facts making social media and
Speaker 1: the bias they're in. We've got some new project Veritas
Speaker 1: Audio to share with you. Stick around for that. Senior
Speaker 1: Selfare Engineerfrengineer. My name is Greg Coopola. I'm a senior
Speaker 1: Selfare Engineer. I work on artific intelligence and the Google Assistant. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean overall, I'm very concerned to see big tech
Speaker 1: and the big media merge basically with a political party,
Speaker 1: with the Democrat Party. And I have a PhD. I
Speaker 1: have five years of experience at Google, and I just
Speaker 1: know how algorithms are. They don't write themselves, We write
Speaker 1: them to do we want them to do. I look
Speaker 1: at Search, and I look at Google News, and I
Speaker 1: see what it's doing, and I see Google executives go
Speaker 1: to Congress and say that it's not manipulated, it's not political,
Speaker 1: and I'm just so sure that's not true. I think
Speaker 1: as the election started to ramp up, of the angle
Speaker 1: that the Democrats and the media took was that anyone
Speaker 1: who liked Donald Trump was a racist, even in Nazi
Speaker 1: and I got picked up everywhere. Well, I think we're
Speaker 1: just at a really important point in human history. I
Speaker 1: think for a while we had tech that was politically neutral.
Speaker 1: Now we have tech that really, first of all, is
Speaker 1: taking sides in a political contest. So that's a Google
Speaker 1: engineer hat tip to a project very tass for giving
Speaker 1: for having the audio up here and getting this interview
Speaker 1: done with this a senior Google engineer who is saying
Speaker 1: much of what I've been telling you here on the show.
Speaker 1: And I hear from people that I know in Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: people that I know who work in the tech space.
Speaker 1: And one part of this that I do believe is
Speaker 1: important to keep to keep in the mix is that
Speaker 1: one reason why Republicans and people voted for Trump. Can't
Speaker 1: get that energized over the very, very ineffectual and minimal
Speaker 1: in the grand scheme of things, Russian interference in the election.
Speaker 1: When our main communication systems now the primary methods of
Speaker 1: day to day communication for most of us in the
Speaker 1: political sphere, the digital world, this is where most news
Speaker 1: is happening, most communication is going on, are effectively subsidiaries
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party, but pretend to be neutral. It'd
Speaker 1: be one thing if Google said Google is all about
Speaker 1: pushing left wing ideas in a left wing agenda. At
Speaker 1: least then I could I could say, all right, there's
Speaker 1: an honesty to that, and you can either use their
Speaker 1: products or not. You can either accept what they say
Speaker 1: or not. But what Google and these other companies have
Speaker 1: been saying four years, Google, Facebook, Twitter, And I actually
Speaker 1: think that Jack Dorsey's not quite as I don't think
Speaker 1: that he's as much of the problem. It's just the
Speaker 1: rest of the company. These entire corporate cultures are full
Speaker 1: of these left wing evangelist types, these these left wing zealots.
Speaker 1: But they've been telling us for years. Their publicition has
Speaker 1: been that they do not have political bias, they do
Speaker 1: not take political positions on any of this, and that
Speaker 1: they are just really trying to regulate safety and give
Speaker 1: the best products. Think that's a lie. They're lying to us.
Speaker 1: They've been lying to us systematically for years. Think about
Speaker 1: what an effect that has. I mean, I've heard I
Speaker 1: can't remember where it was, but that there was about
Speaker 1: a at least as early as or as recently as
Speaker 1: the two thousands, the Democrats media advantage was guessed to
Speaker 1: be about a ten point polling advantage for them overall,
Speaker 1: meaning that if we if we had a truly nonpartisan
Speaker 1: journalist cadre in America, if it really was the case
Speaker 1: that journalist we're not on pushing for one side, a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats would lose so badly that they would
Speaker 1: know longer even be competitive in races that are considered
Speaker 1: now to be either close or slightly leaning toward the Democrats.
Speaker 1: You know, it's worth like five or ten percentage points
Speaker 1: in major, certainly national level political races, because what do
Speaker 1: you do, how do you know about any of these people?
Speaker 1: And think about this when when you want to know about, oh,
Speaker 1: who's this politician? Maybe you watch it on TV? Okay,
Speaker 1: but how much of that do you really see on
Speaker 1: any given day, how much does any one politician come up?
Speaker 1: But when you do a Google search on somebody, you know,
Speaker 1: if you do a Google search on Donald Trump or
Speaker 1: on Josh Holly, whom I actually met for the first
Speaker 1: time last night over at Fox. If you look for
Speaker 1: one of these individuals, the information that pops up initially
Speaker 1: on them is what you're overwhelmingly going to read. And
Speaker 1: whoever determines what that what that first spate of articles
Speaker 1: may be that person, has tremendous influence on your perceptions
Speaker 1: of that individual. This is this is a really big deal.
Speaker 1: And I do think that there's some somewhat of a
Speaker 1: disconnect because the left is more tech leaning than the
Speaker 1: right generally. I just this is why Silicon Valley is
Speaker 1: a very far left place. Why. It's an interesting discussion
Speaker 1: in and of itself, But I think it's because one
Speaker 1: you are, well, it's it's a little bit like universities,
Speaker 1: and there's a self selection that goes on. All you
Speaker 1: need is, you know, some proportion of a web company,
Speaker 1: an internet company, to have some libs, and then they're
Speaker 1: going to just bring in more libs and then push
Speaker 1: out the rest of the nonlibs and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden you have a political monoculture, as James Daymore called
Speaker 1: it at Google. But this this is a huge issue,
Speaker 1: and I think that those who believe because I was
Speaker 1: asked about this on on Brett bear Show on Fox
Speaker 1: last night, or Brett brought up these investigations to the
Speaker 1: different the different social media giants whether or not their monopolies,
Speaker 1: whether they need to be broken up or not. I
Speaker 1: think the answer is quite obviously yes, they do need
Speaker 1: to be looked at, and I think they probably should
Speaker 1: be broken up. I think that it is a it
Speaker 1: is a monopoly situation with Google. These companies in many
Speaker 1: ways are more powerful than any other company that came before.
Speaker 1: They be said, oh Buck, Standard Oil and everything. I mean,
Speaker 1: does Standard Oil still have a monopoly? Folks? Does anyone
Speaker 1: think that Standard oil is still going to be it
Speaker 1: was still going to be the powerhouse in the fossil
Speaker 1: of course, in global competition everything else. Google has the
Speaker 1: ability right now to completely squelch any other company. To
Speaker 1: determine what companies can get ad revenue for their business
Speaker 1: can affect in shape perceptions in ways that look it's
Speaker 1: it's a replacement for what the traditional media ecosystem in
Speaker 1: this country was which would take us back to the
Speaker 1: Walter Cronkite days. Oh, Walter Cronkite's you know what was
Speaker 1: he the all the you know what's the and that's
Speaker 1: the way it is, right as the Cronkite. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I was too I'm too young for that stuff. But
Speaker 1: they used to be able to convince people, the mainstream
Speaker 1: media convinced people that they were just telling the facts,
Speaker 1: they had no bias. That was a lie. Always the
Speaker 1: media has always leaned left. We know the media leans left.
Speaker 1: It was never true. It was never obviously the case,
Speaker 1: or it was rather obviously the case. The media had
Speaker 1: a political agenda, but they've always pretended that that's not
Speaker 1: the case. So I mean, here we are now, this
Speaker 1: this is the new mainstream media, folks, And I do
Speaker 1: think that they need to be they need to be
Speaker 1: looked at. And you know, why is it that if
Speaker 1: someone explained to me why Sinclair Media, for example, can
Speaker 1: engage in a voluntary transaction of a merger with Tribune
Speaker 1: Media without the FCC and all the stuff getting involved.
Speaker 1: Oh but but Google can do whatever the heck it wants.
Speaker 1: You know, face what can do whatever it wants, TV
Speaker 1: and radio have all these stupid rules in place that
Speaker 1: we know favor the incumbents, and the incumbents are almost
Speaker 1: all Libs. Oh but the Internet, now that it's lib dominated,
Speaker 1: no rules for them. No, sorry, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: You're a publisher, or you're a platform. Pick Google. One
Speaker 1: of our major themes here on The Buck Saxton Show
Speaker 1: is that there are a lot of crazy libs out there,
Speaker 1: or maybe a better way of putting it is that
Speaker 1: libs are kind of crazy, that their ideology has jumped
Speaker 1: the shark, that they they've lost they've lost touch with reality.
Speaker 1: They they've gone quite a bit nutso and with that,
Speaker 1: I turn you to this obsession they have that is
Speaker 1: sure to be a political loser, is not based on
Speaker 1: the science, and it's just an American darn it, getting
Speaker 1: us to stop eating meat. This was a story recently
Speaker 1: on CNN the Communews Network to help save the planet,
Speaker 1: cut back to a hamburger and a half per week.
Speaker 1: I mean a hamburger and a half. That is not
Speaker 1: nearly enough. First of all, I'm sure that they do
Speaker 1: that whole whimpy thing and Mark you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about where they say that your protein intake is
Speaker 1: supposed to be about the size of a deck of cards.
Speaker 1: That's no one eats a hamburger that's the size of
Speaker 1: a deck of cards. Maybe four decks of cards. If
Speaker 1: you're at Whitecastle, you can do that, but then you
Speaker 1: eat like ten of them. Well, yeah, exactly right. And
Speaker 1: so if I eat ten decks of cards worth of meat,
Speaker 1: that's kind of the same thing. But the libs are
Speaker 1: obsessed with this, you know. Ultimately, I think they really
Speaker 1: just do want to control people. That they want to
Speaker 1: be in a position to tell you what to do
Speaker 1: because they know better than you. That's really the purpose
Speaker 1: of this. But here's the story in scene, and Americas
Speaker 1: will need to cut their average consumption of beef by
Speaker 1: about forty percent and Europeans by twenty two percent because
Speaker 1: we are European and we don't eat as much of
Speaker 1: as a red meat because we have so much bread
Speaker 1: and breathe and vary us fromage. Really, neither're gonna stinky
Speaker 1: cheese us like that, by the way. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: sure stinky cheese is probably bad for your arteries. For
Speaker 1: the world to continue to feed the ten billion people
Speaker 1: expect to live on this planet, in twenty fifty, according
Speaker 1: to a new report from the World Resources Institute. I
Speaker 1: bet there's a lot of tofu served at their Christmas party,
Speaker 1: which would obviously be called a holiday party, and they're
Speaker 1: saying that it's creating the We need to create a
Speaker 1: sustainable food future, and eating less beef is only one
Speaker 1: suggestion in the five hundred and sixty eight page report.
Speaker 1: Is what they say, nine point eight nine point eight
Speaker 1: billion people will live on the planet by twenty fifty.
Speaker 1: That's up from seven billion in twenty ten. Demand for
Speaker 1: food it is projected to outpaced population growth, increasing by
Speaker 1: more than fifty percent as people's incomes in the developing
Speaker 1: world are expected to increase. According to the report, the
Speaker 1: demand for meat and dairy is expected to rise even
Speaker 1: faster by seventy percent. The global demand for ruminant meat,
Speaker 1: meaning beef, sheep, and goat, is expected to be even
Speaker 1: higher at eighty eight percent. First of all, goat, when
Speaker 1: well prepared, can be pretty good. I've probably eaten more
Speaker 1: goat than mutton. Even though people think of goat, I
Speaker 1: think is a little bit more of a rarity. And
Speaker 1: ruminant meat. I'd never heard that before. I kind of
Speaker 1: like that Okay, So here's where this is another example
Speaker 1: of the Libs being crazy. What's the soul what of
Speaker 1: all this other than the fact that telling people not
Speaker 1: to eat meat is a political loser. But on climate change,
Speaker 1: the Democrats would rather be political losers, meaning that they're
Speaker 1: willing to sacrifice some degree of short term power in
Speaker 1: the hopes that they can propagandize this. They can frighten
Speaker 1: enough people, and once they've frightened all of those people
Speaker 1: to get to vote, so they'll vote for them and
Speaker 1: give them the power to come back climate change. Then
Speaker 1: they can worry about all the rest of it. Then
Speaker 1: we can be in some place where they have total control.
Speaker 1: But telling people not to eat meat as a political loser,
Speaker 1: you know what else is a loser in general? Not
Speaker 1: knowing history. See, there was this fellow Mouthis who in
Speaker 1: the nineteenth century was sure that we were going to
Speaker 1: run out of food and that there would be Now
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be, and we wouldn't run out of food
Speaker 1: in the sense that there would be no food, but
Speaker 1: that our ability to produce enough food to sustain the
Speaker 1: growing global population would be so threatened and so insuff
Speaker 1: that there would eventually be mass starvation and die off,
Speaker 1: or limitations depending on if there was disruptions to existing
Speaker 1: food supply or limitations on global population growth because we
Speaker 1: simply can't produce enough food to feed all of these people. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out that that was complete and utter unscientific nonsense.
Speaker 1: Why was it nonsense? Oh, that's right, because what we
Speaker 1: now know is that technology, involving a lot of fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: by the way, has made it so much more efficient,
Speaker 1: so much easier to produce food, and to refrigerate food,
Speaker 1: and to move it around, and to have higher crop
Speaker 1: yields and all of these wonderful things. Libs never learned
Speaker 1: their history, though, because now we're at a point where
Speaker 1: global population growth is exploding, life expectancy is longer than
Speaker 1: ever before, and we have to worry constantly about too
Speaker 1: much food. Too much food is a much greater global
Speaker 1: health risk than too little food, obesity, heart disease, type
Speaker 1: two diabetes. What we really should be concerned about is
Speaker 1: how we all convince our bodies, because look, there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of engineering of this too. It is true
Speaker 1: that companies jamming food with all this sugar and which
Speaker 1: which does become addictive and it is addictive. This is
Speaker 1: a form of slow poisoning of all of us. Right,
Speaker 1: we've there was a time when if you could get
Speaker 1: a little bit of sugar, that would be a good thing.
Speaker 1: But we're we're well beyond that time now because there's
Speaker 1: sugar in everything. It's all over the place. It's in ketchup,
Speaker 1: it's in salad dressing, it's in cereals. It's everywhere, right,
Speaker 1: it's everywhere you turn. And we're going to have more
Speaker 1: advanced technology than we've had in the next ten years,
Speaker 1: the next twenty years. They're already creating beef that is
Speaker 1: in beef, but they say a similar caloric density, nutrient density,
Speaker 1: and is much more sustainable. I've eaten some of this,
Speaker 1: by the way, Mark, I'll be honest, Beyond meats pretty good.
Speaker 1: I think I said that on the show. It's pretty good.
Speaker 1: I don't remember you saying that. Oh yeah, it's actually
Speaker 1: oh okay, maybe I just tweeted about it. But I
Speaker 1: had a Beyond Meat burger. It is gluten free, and
Speaker 1: it was it was pretty tasty, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously you don't just go with it, oh natural raal right,
Speaker 1: you don't just have a naked beyond meat burger. You
Speaker 1: gotta slap some mayo on there, a little bit of
Speaker 1: Swiss cheese, maybe some bacon. That's right. I like to
Speaker 1: put bacon on top of my vegan technologically advanced not
Speaker 1: meat burger. But this is just crazy, folks. They're wrong.
Speaker 1: I guarantee you they're wrong. Does anyone really think that
Speaker 1: the massive food companies and all the different places that
Speaker 1: are incentivized around the world to come up with new
Speaker 1: ways to grow food, to create food. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: you're talking to a guy who just had crickets in
Speaker 1: his guacamoli, and I'm sure that if you looked at
Speaker 1: at how easy and in some of you're like gross.
Speaker 1: But no, it's true. Crickets are delicious, delicious. You just
Speaker 1: throw a little bit of I'll do them sweet or savory.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, I'll have I'll have hazelnut crickets, barbecue crickets,
Speaker 1: creole crickets, you name it. Not crickets. Never happening, dude,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna bring some Producer Mark, We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: have some crickets that we bring in for you on
Speaker 1: the show. We're gonna hear the crunch. Zero chance really.
Speaker 1: Oh man, if you guys, I think if we have
Speaker 1: like a go fund me for crickets for Mark, maybe
Speaker 1: we'll actually get up to do this. But I'm telling
Speaker 1: you they're not that bad anyway. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: ways to create this protein. I think there's different insect larva.
Speaker 1: Now you guys are all turning. Everybody was with me
Speaker 1: until I started talking about crickets and insect larva. Now
Speaker 1: I sound like a total lunatic, which might might in
Speaker 1: fact be the case. But this is what I mean,
Speaker 1: these groups and seeing and of course seeing it. Why
Speaker 1: does seeing in print this, let's just work through that
Speaker 1: for a second, or why do they post it on
Speaker 1: their website? Because this goes to the whole lib catastrophis
Speaker 1: global warming nonsense. They want to believe that we're all
Speaker 1: going to starve to death or the planet's going to
Speaker 1: overheat unless government is able to intervene in everything, including
Speaker 1: what you eat. Eat less meat because meat creates climate change.
Speaker 1: Now it's eat less meat because they won't be able
Speaker 1: to create enough meat. Well, which is it? Do we
Speaker 1: not have enough meat? Or if we eat too much meat?
Speaker 1: Is the world going to going to collapse? They see
Speaker 1: it's all. It sounds stupid as I'm saying it, because
Speaker 1: it is stupid. It makes no sense. But if you're
Speaker 1: looking for sense with libs these days, you're going to
Speaker 1: be on shaky ground. Indeed, you're going to be in
Speaker 1: a difficult position. So I'm going to keep eating meat,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. I'm never listening to this is as well.
Speaker 1: Moral of the story. Keep eating meat. I'll be back teams.
Speaker 1: Sometimes there is justice in this world, and sometimes things
Speaker 1: just get a little weird. What the heck are you
Speaker 1: talking about? Buck? You might be thinking that, hopefully not
Speaker 1: so much that you're like, all right, this is where
Speaker 1: the podcast ends. But no, really. So I was on
Speaker 1: the train today. Unlike all swamp dwelling Northeastern Ascella Corridor creatures,
Speaker 1: I was on that train. I was trying to do
Speaker 1: some work, but I stepped on the train. I'm somebody
Speaker 1: who I'll give you some tips for the amtrack if
Speaker 1: you want to do work and you're on the cheap train,
Speaker 1: not the Ascella. I don't take the Assella because I'm
Speaker 1: not fancy. I'm not boogie enough for the Assella, at
Speaker 1: least not on my own dime. So I step on
Speaker 1: the train and I'm saying to myself, all right, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go to the cafe car because the cafe cars
Speaker 1: have old school four person tables. So I go to
Speaker 1: get to one of those tables and I see there's
Speaker 1: a woman who is sitting with a bunch of bags
Speaker 1: next to her on one side, and I just go, okay, well,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna sit on the other. It's a very full train,
Speaker 1: and I go to sit down and she goes, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm sitting there. And I look at her and I'm like,
Speaker 1: aren't you sitting where you're sitting because this is the
Speaker 1: other this is the other row, which has room for
Speaker 1: at least two people that's across from this table. And
Speaker 1: she goes, oh no, I mean my boyfriend is sitting there.
Speaker 1: And I go, okay, all right, you know that's I
Speaker 1: get it. Like if I were traveling with a significant other,
Speaker 1: I would want to have them sitting next to me,
Speaker 1: and I respect that. So I went and I found,
Speaker 1: you know, a nearby table, same situation, sitting across from
Speaker 1: from somebody. And let me return to that story in
Speaker 1: a moment. But sure enough, we get thirty minutes into
Speaker 1: this train ride. Thirty minutes into it, there's no boyfriend, Mark,
Speaker 1: there's no boyfriend, there's there's nobody. There's no one sitting
Speaker 1: across shocked and in fact, she puts like a like
Speaker 1: kind of a bag, you know, over there and everything.
Speaker 1: But at the Baltimore stop, we have a new arrival,
Speaker 1: somebody who comes on that train, and I hear this exchange.
Speaker 1: She walks over and she says to the seat denier.
Speaker 1: We'll call her the seat denier because she did nyed
Speaker 1: me the open seat. And for those you're saying, oh, buck, no,
Speaker 1: she was. This was not like I was going to
Speaker 1: hit on her, and she no, please, this is not
Speaker 1: like that. I just wanted the empty seat. The seat
Speaker 1: denier says, I guess no one's sitting there when she's
Speaker 1: asked if someone can sit there, So she just straight
Speaker 1: up lied to me. But then I looked with glee,
Speaker 1: with glee as the new arrival on that Northeast Regional
Speaker 1: Amtrak train proceeded to pull out just big smelly tupperware
Speaker 1: thing after smelly tupperware thing, and then put her phone
Speaker 1: up to her ear and was a super loud cell
Speaker 1: phone talker. And I just looked back and I was like, justice,
Speaker 1: That's what happens when you lie to well intentioned people.
Speaker 1: You get the smelly food, loud talker sitting next to you.
Speaker 1: Oh what was Buck like on the train? The way
Speaker 1: he always is, earbuds in laptop, out working to save America.
Speaker 1: So Mark, see there is justice in this world. Those
Speaker 1: two people deserve of each other. I think they really
Speaker 1: do deserve each other. And then the other part of
Speaker 1: the story was that I'd believe it or not. This
Speaker 1: was a one two punch. I sit down at the
Speaker 1: other table, links to the guy, and this was a
Speaker 1: really quick one. But this guy looks at me as
Speaker 1: I sit down across from him, and he goes, he goes,
Speaker 1: You're not a beautiful woman. I was hoping a beautiful
Speaker 1: woman would sit across from me. And I looked at
Speaker 1: him and I said, yeah, sorry, I guess I'm a
Speaker 1: little disappointing, and he goes, yes, disappointing. Indeed, I'm like,
Speaker 1: what is this. It's like the high school cafeteria and
Speaker 1: I'm not allowed to sit anywhere anyway. Oh the crazy
Speaker 1: life and times of an Amtrak traveler. And I was
Speaker 1: near the cafe car too. Why can't the food on
Speaker 1: Amtrak not be disgusting? That's a conversation for another day.
Speaker 1: Rock and roll, fellow patriots, we made ours go up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll call. Alrighty Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash Bucks Sexton for the roll call. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for hanging out with me here this week.
Speaker 1: I feel like I feel like it's Friday, because well,
Speaker 1: I don't know why I feel like it's Friday. It
Speaker 1: turns out it's not. It's only Wednesday. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get chew it, shall we. That's my way of stalling
Speaker 1: while I actually pull up. I've got going on here.
Speaker 1: All right, here we go, Kyle rights Buck. I thought
Speaker 1: it was cute how all the Democrats coordinator to say
Speaker 1: the line no one is above the law at the
Speaker 1: end of their questioning of Muller. I wish someone would
Speaker 1: have yelled except for bleach bit each time they said it.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry I wasted my time watching that. I bet
Speaker 1: they're exactly zero people nationwide who change their mind one
Speaker 1: or the other, which at the end of the day
Speaker 1: probably works out in Trump's favor. Attention Democrats, this horse
Speaker 1: has been beaten enough. Huh yeah, I think that that's
Speaker 1: probably true, although, as I've been saying it is, it
Speaker 1: was not a good day for the Mullers beyond reproach.
Speaker 1: And he's like a superhero patriot of unbelievable proportions. Nah,
Speaker 1: really not so much, all right, Diane, Hey, buck about
Speaker 1: the gray in your beard, you're too young for that.
Speaker 1: I believe there's a product especially for beards by Grecian formula.
Speaker 1: Give that a try. Once you hit fifty, you can
Speaker 1: go natural. I think your beard is very nice, especially
Speaker 1: since you keep it trimmed. I don't know, Mark, am
Speaker 1: i too. I'm almost forty. I think I'm allowed to
Speaker 1: have a couple of gray hairs almost at forty, right,
Speaker 1: is that? I mean? It depends on genetics. Yeah, it's exactly,
Speaker 1: thank you. Hey, depends on genetics. Is your dad graying?
Speaker 1: My dad has like a silver mane of fantastic to care.
Speaker 1: So it looks like that's what you'll get. Yeah, exactly. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it goes by your grandfather. He had great
Speaker 1: hair too, all right, so you know where you're getting.
Speaker 1: That's a good call, all right, he thanks Diane. Doug
Speaker 1: Mueller is using an interrogation tactic taught to active duties
Speaker 1: during survival school. It's a way of delaying, stall and
Speaker 1: confusing and distracting an interrogator. Watch how he does it
Speaker 1: to Republicans more often than not, repeating a question, stumbling
Speaker 1: over words, very clearly distracting. Also, he does what is
Speaker 1: known as getting back to a safe place. Every question
Speaker 1: in his mind should get him back to his report,
Speaker 1: which is safety for him. It's quite a display back
Speaker 1: to a safe place. Interesting, Doug, thanks for sharing some
Speaker 1: of the interrogation tactics knowledge. I do appreciate it. Alrighty Rich,
Speaker 1: I can't really see what he's writing here. J K Bok.
Speaker 1: I'm listening to yesterday's podcast asked for and you're joining
Speaker 1: me for a twelve mile ruck run this morning. Oh wow,
Speaker 1: twelve mile ruck march this morning. That's that's still very far.
Speaker 1: I just recently read nineteen eighty four. I had the
Speaker 1: realization when you were talking about transgenderism that this is
Speaker 1: actual two plus two equals five scenario. It was a
Speaker 1: little scary to figure this out. Well, that's that's very
Speaker 1: much correct. That is the case, and true power in
Speaker 1: the hands of the state. Ultimate power in the hands
Speaker 1: of the state is when they can force you to
Speaker 1: deny objective reality, because once they can do that, then
Speaker 1: they can make you do anything, and you don't have
Speaker 1: the intellectual means to fight back, Right, you don't have
Speaker 1: the ability. If they can make you believe things that
Speaker 1: aren't true, or in fact, they can force you to
Speaker 1: say things you know are not true, how are you
Speaker 1: ever going to hold them accountable. You sacrifice whatever credibility,
Speaker 1: whatever honesty you have in this process. Right, That's why
Speaker 1: they want you to bend the knee is also at
Speaker 1: the end of nineteen eighty four the most terrifying part
Speaker 1: of that entire novel, which, as I've said, is one
Speaker 1: of the certainly one of the ten greatest novels written
Speaker 1: in the twentieth century. I think that's without question some
Speaker 1: people would probably put in the top five. But the
Speaker 1: part at the end where there's the denunciation of the
Speaker 1: female that the main character isn't that the protagonist is
Speaker 1: in love with. That's when he's truly broken, when he's saying,
Speaker 1: you know, she's the one who did the bad thing.
Speaker 1: Sorry if I spoil it for you, but you should
Speaker 1: have already read nineteen eighty four, and if you haven't,
Speaker 1: go back and read Animal farm again. You might have
Speaker 1: been assigned it in school, but animal farm that you
Speaker 1: read as an adult is a different experience, and animal
Speaker 1: farm that you will read I'm sorry as a kid
Speaker 1: is a different experience than you'll read it as an adult.
Speaker 1: So we go. James from w G y up in
Speaker 1: New York, love you, Buck, keep up the good word.
Speaker 1: Thank you, James, and a shout out to everybody in
Speaker 1: w G y Land. Here I am a fellow native
Speaker 1: New Yorker addressing you across this great state. New York
Speaker 1: is a fantastic state, and really it's got so much here,
Speaker 1: you know, really, it's almost like we we got Long
Speaker 1: Island to add it into the bargain, which is should
Speaker 1: be its own state as well. But New York is
Speaker 1: a is a great state. And people always said that
Speaker 1: about all states, but it's not it's not always true.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to start trashing some states out there,
Speaker 1: but there's some states that are a little you know,
Speaker 1: a little May, a little May Brian. Here we go, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: you're right about Corey Booker. He's a joker. Reminds me
Speaker 1: of an eleventh grade over zealous kid constantly acting in
Speaker 1: drama class. He has no concept of the real world.
Speaker 1: Not there's anything wrong with that. Took a stab at
Speaker 1: sharing your podcast on Instagram and Facebook to my mostly
Speaker 1: liberal Massachusetts friend base. Guess what I got like one
Speaker 1: like due to tech shadow blocking. As I believe most
Speaker 1: of my good friends and family would like my post
Speaker 1: if they actually saw the subject of tonight's podcast. You're
Speaker 1: right on Chinese influence in Ecuador was down there not
Speaker 1: long ago, training their Coastguard on systems in Guayaquil, which
Speaker 1: is in Ecuador, which is where I was. China has
Speaker 1: built all the commercial residential infrastructure down there, as the
Speaker 1: cars are all Chinese, and they just built a massive
Speaker 1: deep water port for shipping. Ironically, the Coastguard and ecuadors
Speaker 1: in charge of defending the Galapagos the number one enemy
Speaker 1: of the Galapagos the Chinese factory fish processing ships who
Speaker 1: are raping this sacred area. Double edged sword, my friend
Speaker 1: Shield's high. Well, Brian, that's the when I talk about
Speaker 1: Chinese mercantilism, and I have a discussion with all of
Speaker 1: you here on air about what the Chinese are doing
Speaker 1: around the world that's using their financial influence to buy
Speaker 1: themselves essentially the ability to hillage the natural resources of
Speaker 1: different countries, so they give them financial you know, they
Speaker 1: all they have. You remember, they don't have to pay
Speaker 1: off all the people of the country. They just have
Speaker 1: to pay off the ruling party, the regime, the ruling class.
Speaker 1: So they get the government fat and happy. They get
Speaker 1: the developers, the you know, the top echelon, and these
Speaker 1: third world countries feel like, oh, the Chinese are, you know,
Speaker 1: fattening our bank accounts, and then they will just come
Speaker 1: in and take whatever they want, you know, strip mining
Speaker 1: and you name it. However they want to do it,
Speaker 1: that's what they're going to do. And that's the Chinese
Speaker 1: model all over the world. They do not care. And
Speaker 1: this is also why ultimately the debate over climate change
Speaker 1: and environmentalism in this country is an exercise in futility.
Speaker 1: Even if the left forget about whether the left is
Speaker 1: correct in the science or not, which I think they
Speaker 1: are not correct, But it's an exercise in futility because
Speaker 1: you're never going to get the Indians and the Chinese
Speaker 1: to do what you want them to do, and they're
Speaker 1: going to be billions going forward, billions of Indians and Chinese.
Speaker 1: Just take those two countries. Never mind all the other
Speaker 1: countries of the developing world that are absolutely not going
Speaker 1: to slow down their growth and use far more expensive,
Speaker 1: far less efficient technology. It's just not going to happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, they could pretend, but alrighty, let's see here
Speaker 1: in right, Hey, Buck, just trying to figure out the
Speaker 1: best way to communicate with you. Hope you got this well, Ian,
Speaker 1: I did got this so and you found out a
Speaker 1: way to communicate with me. It's pretty easy. You can.
Speaker 1: You can always send me messages via Facebook. And we're
Speaker 1: gonna I'm not even gonna say the email thing anymore
Speaker 1: because we never It's like the homework that I forget
Speaker 1: to do every night for a year. It's gonna get done,
Speaker 1: but I'm just not gonna say I'm gonna do it anymore.
Speaker 1: Tia Rights, Hey Buck, I guess you're frustrated with the
Speaker 1: whole border thing. I get it, many of us are.
Speaker 1: But I've yet to hear you encourage your listeners to
Speaker 1: write to the representatives, let them know we expect them
Speaker 1: to support Trump. Well, t I, first of all, I've
Speaker 1: seen nothing. There's nothing that I would disagree with there.
Speaker 1: I certainly think that people should, especially if because most
Speaker 1: Republican members of Congress are on board with Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. There's no
Speaker 1: question about that. So if you have a representative who
Speaker 1: is not necessarily on board with all things Trump, then
Speaker 1: I would say, you know, worth writing a letter perhaps
Speaker 1: and trying to say, hey, can you back to the the present.
Speaker 1: Remember the problem right now is the Democrats have a
Speaker 1: majority in the House. So that's not gonna it's not
Speaker 1: going to change anything. There's there's not going to be
Speaker 1: any real movement on boarder issues. This is why there
Speaker 1: was a lot. Look, Trump outsource some of his domestic policy. Folks,
Speaker 1: we live in the real world. We are not libs.
Speaker 1: We live in the real world. We are not liberals.
Speaker 1: Trump outsourced some of his domestic policy agenda to Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan in the House, which was a really, really bad idea.
Speaker 1: This is what happened. So the two years where they
Speaker 1: could have gotten a lot done on the domestic policy front,
Speaker 1: especially an immigration, were somewhat wasted because Trump. Now you
Speaker 1: could say that Trump expected that Paul Ryan would, as
Speaker 1: a career legislator, would know how to execute but he didn't.
Speaker 1: He didn't, And the buck stops with Trump. We've got
Speaker 1: to figure out a way to work that into things.
Speaker 1: The buck stops with Trump, although that doesn't really express
Speaker 1: the sentiment that I want. Michelle right, it's Buck, great
Speaker 1: to see you back. I hear a lot of talk
Speaker 1: about things agarding Trump, but the thing that concerns me
Speaker 1: the most is the information that is popping up concerning
Speaker 1: the long history between Trump and Epstein. Now do not
Speaker 1: believe Trump has ever been involved with under a girls
Speaker 1: or has sexually assaulted anyone. I'm a strong supporter of
Speaker 1: his since he came forward questioning Obama's qualifications for being president.
Speaker 1: Obama had begun dismantling the country the second he walked
Speaker 1: in the Oval office. What is true and what is not?
Speaker 1: The stories are coming up and might be enough true
Speaker 1: or not to take him down. What, as an expert
Speaker 1: in analysis, do you think will happen? Many thanks and
Speaker 1: happy you've come back. Shield's Eye Michelle, Well, Michelle, thank
Speaker 1: you for the kind words. I can't tell you exactly
Speaker 1: what's going to happen with Epstein, although I am a
Speaker 1: skeptic that Epstein will be punished the way that he
Speaker 1: should for what he has done. Andy mccarthury wrote a
Speaker 1: very compelling piece about the double jeopardy protections that Epstein
Speaker 1: probably has based on the agreement, the initial agreement that Acosta,
Speaker 1: who did step down and should have stepped down, gave him.
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of very powerful people
Speaker 1: that want the Epstein thing to go away on both
Speaker 1: sides of the aisle that said is there. Do I
Speaker 1: ever have a moment of doubt? Do I ever think
Speaker 1: to myself, Donald Trump knew that Epstein had all these
Speaker 1: underage girls around him, or even worse, Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: in any way involved with that. I have never had
Speaker 1: a moment of doubt about this present when it comes
Speaker 1: to any of that, And and that's just from my
Speaker 1: gut feeling. That's what, in my heart of hearts, how
Speaker 1: I feel about this. There's also no evidence to suggest
Speaker 1: that he knew about that. Trump knew about any of
Speaker 1: this or was involved in any of this. And in fact,
Speaker 1: Trump is the only person we've heard about, the only
Speaker 1: prominent individual who was willing to do something to take
Speaker 1: Epstein to task by kicking him out of marl Lago
Speaker 1: and essentially calling him a dirt bag that's going to
Speaker 1: be at for today. Team always a privilege and a pleasure.
Speaker 1: I'm up here in NYC. I'll be up here for
Speaker 1: the rest of the week. I will talk to you
Speaker 1: all tomorrow, same time, same place, From the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: over and out and shields Hi