Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Why didn't Muller make
Speaker 1: the call? Why did he defer? And is trying to
Speaker 1: now hand it off to Congress for impeachment while the
Speaker 1: Attorney General Barr has an answer for us that I
Speaker 1: think sheds a lot of light on what's really at
Speaker 1: work here. Plus should Facebook have to take down a
Speaker 1: video that's mean about Nancy Pelosi? Journalists and of course
Speaker 1: democrats thing? So we got that and more coming up
Speaker 1: on The Buck Sexton Show. Buck SEXTONSI decoding the news
Speaker 1: and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: shows Analysts, I can speak for three hours without a
Speaker 1: phone call. Try doing that some time. It is book Sexton.
Speaker 1: No council yesterday makes that statement. He analyzed eleven instances
Speaker 1: where there were possible obstruction and then said that he
Speaker 1: really could make a decision. Do you agree with that interpretation?
Speaker 1: I personally felt he could have reached the decision. In
Speaker 1: your view, he could have reached a conclusion. Right, he
Speaker 1: could have reached a conclusion. The opinion says you can
Speaker 1: at indict a president while he's in office, but he
Speaker 1: could have reached a decision as to whether it was
Speaker 1: criminal activity. But he had his reasons for not doing it,
Speaker 1: which he explained, and I'm not going to argue about
Speaker 1: those reasons. But when he didn't make a decision, the
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was
Speaker 1: necessary for us as the heads of the department, to
Speaker 1: reach that decision. Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest
Speaker 1: yesterday that there was another venue for this, and that
Speaker 1: was Congress. Well, I'm not sure what he was suggesting,
Speaker 1: but the Department of Justice doesn't use our power of
Speaker 1: an investigating crime as an adjunct to Congress. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. Most important takeaway from today about
Speaker 1: this whole post Muller press conference mess is what was
Speaker 1: just said there by Bar which you've heard me say
Speaker 1: many times before. I'm surprised there that he very well,
Speaker 1: he being Muller, could have and should have said whether
Speaker 1: there was a crime committed. There's a difference between we
Speaker 1: believe a crime was committed here and therefore are bringing
Speaker 1: charges and what you know what Muller did, which was
Speaker 1: to just pretend like he couldn't even say that we
Speaker 1: think the law was broken. Why is it better for him?
Speaker 1: How is it more fair to the president to make
Speaker 1: this say, well, somebody else can decide whether the law
Speaker 1: was broken. Well, let's give it to Congress to decide
Speaker 1: with the law is broken. That's not That's not what
Speaker 1: Mueller was set up to do. That wasn't the mandate.
Speaker 1: It wasn't run Democrat oppo research to the tune of
Speaker 1: tens of millions of dollars for two years and then
Speaker 1: we'll decide what we're going to do with it in
Speaker 1: time for the election. That's that was never the mandate.
Speaker 1: But Muller treats that like it is the mandate. Why Well,
Speaker 1: because he is part of the get Trump chorus. He
Speaker 1: is somebody that is opposed to this president and wants
Speaker 1: to finish off his presidency. He probably thinks he's righteous
Speaker 1: in doing so. He thinks that this is helpful to
Speaker 1: the country. He's doing a great public service by wounding
Speaker 1: President Trump's chances of reelection, and he thinks this is
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. Meanwhile, you and I sit
Speaker 1: here and say the president was put through this hell
Speaker 1: based on a lie, based on a conspiracy theory fabricated
Speaker 1: by angry Democrats sore losers who can handle the fact
Speaker 1: that there was a repudiation of their politics and a
Speaker 1: repudiation of their sense of their own importance in the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election, and that Queen Hillary was not going
Speaker 1: to reign overall, they couldn't process it and handle like
Speaker 1: normal people. So what they do They had to come
Speaker 1: up with this an alternate reality and then try to
Speaker 1: voice that alternate reality and the rest of us. The
Speaker 1: President colluded with Russia. He did all this terrible stuff
Speaker 1: through such a bad bad man, and Mueller will let
Speaker 1: this thing go on and on and on, and his team,
Speaker 1: of his team of anti Trump Democrats came up with
Speaker 1: a perfect way to give maximum political benefit, which is
Speaker 1: what this was always about, maximum political benefit to the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Make it so that the only way there can be
Speaker 1: a real final answer, a final decision on this is
Speaker 1: through the Congress, which the Democrats just happened to have
Speaker 1: a majority of votes in. Let me tell you this,
Speaker 1: I do not believe that mul Or would have deferred
Speaker 1: in this way of Republicans had a majority, because then
Speaker 1: he knows they would have never been an impeachment lingering
Speaker 1: in the background. With all of this and the reasoning
Speaker 1: for Mueller not saying there was a criminal charge is
Speaker 1: he laid out or what was it ten or eleven?
Speaker 1: I think it was ten, but some people have been
Speaker 1: saying eleven recently, ten different instances where there could have
Speaker 1: been obstruction. We were past the Russia collusion fairy tale,
Speaker 1: or at least in terms of charges against the president,
Speaker 1: but these ten possible obstruction if he hones in on one,
Speaker 1: and then we really look at that, and then there's
Speaker 1: the competing legal analyzes of whether or not that's truly obstruction,
Speaker 1: and the preponderance of the evidence or of the majority
Speaker 1: of people hearing it at least don't believe that it
Speaker 1: was obstruction, and then then that's case closed and it's
Speaker 1: all over with. Much better to let this thing just linger,
Speaker 1: just like the Muller investigation itself was meant to linger.
Speaker 1: Go on. The processes, the punishment. Now the process it's
Speaker 1: gone from the Mueller probe itself to the process of
Speaker 1: the congressional should we or shouldn't we impeach him? This
Speaker 1: is all it is. It's it's narrative building, it's dirty politics.
Speaker 1: It's meant to harm this president and undermine the chances
Speaker 1: of his reelection. That's all this has been about from
Speaker 1: day one. There is no good faith, there is no
Speaker 1: honesty or integrity in this from the Democrats. It's the
Speaker 1: whole thing is an utter disgrace. But we have to
Speaker 1: keep fighting because if we don't, they will. But I
Speaker 1: do want an answer. I want Muller on the stand.
Speaker 1: I want Democrats to have to defend Muller when he
Speaker 1: won't answer the question about why didn't you just say
Speaker 1: whether a crime was committed? Because if the answer is
Speaker 1: that even Mueller doesn't really know if a crime was committed,
Speaker 1: then then there wasn't a crime. If a seasoned prosecutor
Speaker 1: who is in charge of the most politically explosive investigation
Speaker 1: certainly since the Clinton era and probably since Watergate, if
Speaker 1: that guy isn't sure there's a crime, then you're darned
Speaker 1: sure that nobody else out there could reasonably say that, yeah,
Speaker 1: there was a crime. But so he didn't say that
Speaker 1: left it open, Better leave it vague. We'll get more
Speaker 1: political mileage out of it, more damaging to Trump. Gives
Speaker 1: all these people in the Democrats side and on the
Speaker 1: left all this leeway, all this room to run. Well,
Speaker 1: you know the president. We think he probably obstructed, but
Speaker 1: we got to talk more about this. Let's talk more
Speaker 1: about obstruction. It's just a giant propaganda fight. They know that,
Speaker 1: and that's what we're going to be waiting into. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Muller should have said crime or no, crime doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that there had to be charges. He should have said it.
Speaker 1: He didn't because he is a dishonest anti Trump hack.
Speaker 1: And I will say it because it is true. Anny
Speaker 1: McCarthy's gonna join me to talk about this in a
Speaker 1: little bit. Plus, we've got a whole lot more stuff
Speaker 1: coming your way. Stay with me, now, Russian did not
Speaker 1: help me get elected. You know who got me elected.
Speaker 1: You know who got me elected. I got me elected.
Speaker 1: Russia didn't help me at all. Russia, if anything, I
Speaker 1: think help the other side. What you want to ask
Speaker 1: is this, do you think the media helped Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: get elected? She didn't make it. But you take a
Speaker 1: look at collusion between Hillary Clinton and the media, you
Speaker 1: take a look at collusion between Hillary Clinton and Russia.
Speaker 1: She had more to do in the campaign with Russia
Speaker 1: than I did. I had nothing to do. That's true.
Speaker 1: Nobody ever seems to focus in on this This is
Speaker 1: one area where I keep asking the various libs that
Speaker 1: I have to debate on all the Russia collusion hoax nonsense,
Speaker 1: keep saying, you know, if foreign interference in the election
Speaker 1: is some terrible, unpardonable sin, then what do we make
Speaker 1: of Christopher Steele, a foreigner get paid by the campaign
Speaker 1: or by the DNC on behalf of Hillary's campaign to
Speaker 1: use foreign subsources Russians, to compile a dossier and then
Speaker 1: run that dossier to the intelligence community and to the
Speaker 1: American press. Let's understand that that a standard that was
Speaker 1: set up by the media in all of this was
Speaker 1: that just the the meeting at Trump Tower, the possible
Speaker 1: acceptance of opposition research or opposition information OPO if it
Speaker 1: comes from a foreigner, that's illegal. They were saying, it's
Speaker 1: a it's a campaign finance violation. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: just they're just making this stuff up as they go along.
Speaker 1: Never mind the fact that if as I as I've
Speaker 1: told you before, Let's say that in that meeting with
Speaker 1: Vezo Niitskaya and Maniford Jared Kushner U. Let's say that
Speaker 1: at that meeting, the vesilan Sky had provided information that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton was laundering millions of dollars from her ridiculous access,
Speaker 1: selling speeches through a Russian bank. Would would that have been?
Speaker 1: Is that information that the Trump campaign should ignore? No,
Speaker 1: of course not that that would be information that very
Speaker 1: much should be a part of the discussion of who
Speaker 1: should be the next leader of the free world. It
Speaker 1: would be. It's incumbent on a campaign to look through
Speaker 1: the information they have, to take information about the opponent
Speaker 1: and try to capitalize on that. That's what the whole
Speaker 1: game is. But they set up the standard we're just
Speaker 1: taking information from a foreigner was automatically some not just
Speaker 1: unethical behavior, but was criminal. That's what they're saying. It
Speaker 1: was criminal. And yet we know it is a matter
Speaker 1: of record. It is a matter of fact that they
Speaker 1: did this on the Hillary Clinton side, that they took
Speaker 1: information from foreigners, that they use that information to try
Speaker 1: to take down the Trump campaign and even passed it
Speaker 1: on to the FBI and made its way to the
Speaker 1: intelligence community. Isn't that information? Isn't that a thing of
Speaker 1: value under their own? But see, the standards that they
Speaker 1: set up are all temporary. The narratives that they use
Speaker 1: in order to attack the president. Are you can't take
Speaker 1: them and and flip it around on the other side
Speaker 1: no matter what the facts are, because it's not about
Speaker 1: what's right and wrong, it's about what damages President Trump.
Speaker 1: Let's keep this in mind. Is today there was a whole, oh,
Speaker 1: a whole flurry of freak out over Trump deleting a tweet.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what he tweeted out. Russia, Russia, Russia. That's
Speaker 1: all you heard at the beginning of this witch hunt hoax.
Speaker 1: And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was
Speaker 1: a crime that didn't exist. So now the DEM's in
Speaker 1: their partner, the fake news media, say he fought back
Speaker 1: again this phony crime that didn't exist, this horrendous false accusation,
Speaker 1: and he shouldn't fight back, he should just sit back
Speaker 1: and take it. Could this be obstruction? No, Muller didn't
Speaker 1: find obstruction either, presidential harassment. Now. I think that everything
Speaker 1: that Trump is saying in this tweet, by the way,
Speaker 1: is true. But what did they what did the press,
Speaker 1: the anti trumpers, the left, what they what they hone
Speaker 1: in on? Right away? Russia has disappeared because I had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected,
Speaker 1: he wrote. They're saying, oh, well, see, now he's admitting
Speaker 1: that Russia helped him to get elected. No, what he's
Speaker 1: saying is that he had nothing to do with the
Speaker 1: narrative that they have been pushing, which is that Russia
Speaker 1: helped him to get elected. Now, did Russia try to
Speaker 1: help him? I'm sure? I mean, do I think that
Speaker 1: they use their social media accounts to advance Trump at
Speaker 1: the expensive Hillaryah, But it didn't matter the moment you
Speaker 1: put this into any kind of im text and add
Speaker 1: just a tiny bit of perspective to it, it is
Speaker 1: quite clear that there's no conceivable way that the minuscule
Speaker 1: Russian Facebook advisor or releasing information about Bernie Standers and
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. We already knew all this about Hillary more
Speaker 1: or less. We already knew the fix was in against Bernie.
Speaker 1: Didn't didn't tell us. This wasn't some earth shattering revelation.
Speaker 1: This wasn't all of a sudden Oh my gosh, I
Speaker 1: loved Hillary before, but now that I found out about Bernie.
Speaker 1: Absolutely not, absolutely not. But they're saying, oh, he's admitting
Speaker 1: that Russia helped him to get elected, and that's why
Speaker 1: he deleted this. You know, the president's tweeting, I generally
Speaker 1: find him using. He does open himself up though to
Speaker 1: some some problems sometimes, but look, there's always a risk,
Speaker 1: there was a risk in any communication of miscommunication or
Speaker 1: of missing the mark with what the point is that
Speaker 1: you're trying to make. And the President sometimes his tweets
Speaker 1: are spot on and they're fantastic and I really can't
Speaker 1: get enough of it. And yeah, times you see that
Speaker 1: this is a president who can be a little bit,
Speaker 1: a little bit of a loose cannon. Sometimes that's that's
Speaker 1: a true thing. He can be a loose cannon. That
Speaker 1: is a reality. But the Russia collusion thing, it's still here.
Speaker 1: We are, after the Mueller probe finishes, after all the
Speaker 1: stuff that we've been through, you still have Democrats who,
Speaker 1: most of the Democratic Party, clings to this. They act
Speaker 1: like it's true. They are impervious to facts. They do
Speaker 1: not allow, they do not allow information that has contrad
Speaker 1: this narrative to seep into their minds and change their
Speaker 1: thinking on anything. It's just still far too comfortable and
Speaker 1: far too comforting for Libs to believe that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: cheated and that that's how he won, and that we're
Speaker 1: not for Trump cheating. There would never have been a
Speaker 1: Donald Trump presidency. And you'll you cannot convince them otherwise,
Speaker 1: you cannot. We've got I know, I've been talking about
Speaker 1: bar and his very important comm that basically Mueller is
Speaker 1: full of it. Muller's full of it, and Mueller is
Speaker 1: not has not been a good guy in this process,
Speaker 1: has shown us who he really is. And we should
Speaker 1: understand that all this stuff about how Mueller is like
Speaker 1: the last honest man in America was just propaganda that
Speaker 1: the Left was thrown out there because they really, they
Speaker 1: really wanted they wanted to believe it. They wanted as
Speaker 1: many people as possible to buy into it because it
Speaker 1: just would have given more power to whatever charge Mueller
Speaker 1: did go with. But because he didn't go with charges,
Speaker 1: in a sense, we've learned even more about his motives.
Speaker 1: We've learned even more about who he is and what
Speaker 1: he's trying to do here, which is that this was
Speaker 1: all this was all men as a handoff to the
Speaker 1: Congress for impeachment. It's not Mueller's job, it's not his prerogative.
Speaker 1: And you know, you have these these partisan players that
Speaker 1: were at the top of the US law enforce in
Speaker 1: pure oxy for a long time, Kobe and Mueller, and
Speaker 1: these are not people that should have had the powers
Speaker 1: they did. They should not be trusted, They should not
Speaker 1: be treated like these paragons are virtue because they're partisans, Folks.
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy's up next. Why didn't he investigate Struck and
Speaker 1: Paige at McCabe and called me and all the lies
Speaker 1: and brand him and the lives. Why didn't comb me
Speaker 1: come clean? Why didn't Colly come clean and say the
Speaker 1: things that he knows are fact? Why didn't Muller investigate
Speaker 1: combing his best friend? President fighting back here, folks, doesn't
Speaker 1: like to take this stuff lying down? What should we
Speaker 1: make of you know, the aftermath after Muller's press conference,
Speaker 1: and now we're waiting for this IG report. Andy McCarthy's
Speaker 1: with us now, Andy, great to have you, obviously, Andy's
Speaker 1: from National Review and Fox News. What did you meet?
Speaker 1: I really want to ask you this yesterday, but we
Speaker 1: got you today. This press conference that Muller put on there,
Speaker 1: What the heck was that? Well? I think Buck that
Speaker 1: he was probably unhappy with the way that he was
Speaker 1: criticized after the report came out for not deciding the
Speaker 1: one thing that he was even arguably needed to decide.
Speaker 1: I don't think there should have been a special counsel
Speaker 1: at all, But even if you if you think there
Speaker 1: should have been one, by the time he got the case,
Speaker 1: this is mainly an impeachment investigation. I think collusion went
Speaker 1: by the boards pretty quick. So the one thing he
Speaker 1: was arguably needed for is to decide whether the president
Speaker 1: obstructed justice, and he didn't decide it. So he got
Speaker 1: a lot of criticism for that, I think rightly so,
Speaker 1: and he's not happy about it. So he's out there
Speaker 1: trying to number one, explain himself. But number two, Buck,
Speaker 1: I think this was always an impeachment investigation, and I
Speaker 1: think his parting shot going out the door was to
Speaker 1: try to make it clear that that was the way
Speaker 1: he saw it. What do you make of bars comments
Speaker 1: that there was nothing stopping Muller from saying, yeah, no
Speaker 1: laws were broken here, But the DJ guidance is that
Speaker 1: we can't bring charges. That's been my take on this
Speaker 1: all along. But am I missing something? No, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor's job, there's two levels that we need to
Speaker 1: talk about this. The prosecutor who's assigned to the case,
Speaker 1: and then there's the supervision and the special counsel regulations
Speaker 1: buck are designed to make the relationship between the special
Speaker 1: counsel and the Attorney General pretty much the analogous to
Speaker 1: any relationship between an assistant US Attorney and the US
Speaker 1: Attorney or his supervisor in a US Attorney's office. So
Speaker 1: what happens is the line prosecutor who is investigating the
Speaker 1: case comes to a conclusion about whether there's enough evidence
Speaker 1: to charge or not, and then you bring that to
Speaker 1: your supervisor, who number one decides yes or no, I
Speaker 1: agree with you about whether there's enough evidence to charge,
Speaker 1: and number two, whether there are any institutional or policy
Speaker 1: reasons who are not going forward. And that's not to
Speaker 1: say that those can't be flagged by the line prosecutor.
Speaker 1: But the line prosecutor's job is to decide do we
Speaker 1: have a case or not? And if the Justice Department
Speaker 1: as an institution at that point, if you have a case,
Speaker 1: so you think you have a case, wants to jump
Speaker 1: in and say yes, but we have these policies that
Speaker 1: don't enable us to bring the case, then that's the
Speaker 1: Justice Department's call. But there was no reason either why
Speaker 1: Muller couldn't or shouldn't have made the bottom line call.
Speaker 1: And the claim that you couldn't evaluate the sufficiency of
Speaker 1: the sidence because there was this guidance against indicting a
Speaker 1: sitting president is absurd, I would point out to people,
Speaker 1: and I have been trying to point out to people.
Speaker 1: Notice the guidance buck doesn't say that the president can
Speaker 1: never be indicted. It simply says that a sitting president
Speaker 1: can't be indicted, which means at some point he can
Speaker 1: be charged. So somebody has to decide that. And what
Speaker 1: Mueller seems to be saying is it shouldn't be the
Speaker 1: guy who just spent two years investigating it. What is
Speaker 1: supposed to happen when when Trump is out of office?
Speaker 1: Are we supposed to have another two year investigation at
Speaker 1: that point where the prosecutor who's actually going to make
Speaker 1: the decision that he's charged. To me, I mean, that's absurd.
Speaker 1: So you don't even think and I mean this is
Speaker 1: again I've taken this position for days here on the show,
Speaker 1: but it's not even really a good It seems to
Speaker 1: me like Muller's not operating in good faith here. That's
Speaker 1: he's playing politics, and his whole justification for why he
Speaker 1: wouldn't make the call doesn't hold up. Yeah, well, I
Speaker 1: think Buck, that's not only exactly true, it's obvious if
Speaker 1: you look at the record of what happened here. Let
Speaker 1: me make two points because they're a little bit schemy,
Speaker 1: but but I think it's important to understand in my view,
Speaker 1: this is what happened here. Number one, the reliance on
Speaker 1: The best you can say from Maller is that the
Speaker 1: reliance on the Office of Legal Counsel guidance that a
Speaker 1: sitting president may not be indicted is something he settled
Speaker 1: on at the last minute, long after he decided not
Speaker 1: to decide. And the reason we know that is Muller
Speaker 1: doesn't contend that Barr was wrong. When Barr said that
Speaker 1: on March fifth, which is two and a half weeks
Speaker 1: before he delivers the final report, Muller was emphatic that
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel guidance was not his reason
Speaker 1: for not making the decision, and when Barr asked him, then, well,
Speaker 1: what is your reasoning, he said that their staff was
Speaker 1: still formulating the reasoning. So I think the best interpretation
Speaker 1: here from Muller's point of view is that they're backwards reasoning.
Speaker 1: They basically are results oriented. They had already decided not
Speaker 1: to decide, and they were trying to come up with
Speaker 1: a reason, and at the time that he first talked
Speaker 1: to Bar, the OLC guidance was not the reason they
Speaker 1: wanted to rely on. But by the time they did
Speaker 1: the report, it turned out to be the reason because
Speaker 1: they couldn't come up with anything else. More Over, and
Speaker 1: this goes a little bit deeper into it, what's the
Speaker 1: reason for not deciding? And this is what I think
Speaker 1: people should focus on. If Muller had come to Bar
Speaker 1: and said, I think we have a prosecutable obstruction case,
Speaker 1: what would have happened? There would have been a brawl
Speaker 1: inside the Justice Department about what the proper standards for
Speaker 1: evaluating obstruction are. Because Barr and Mueller clearly do not
Speaker 1: agree on this. I mean, that's that's clear from not
Speaker 1: only we've seen Bar's reasoning on this in that memo
Speaker 1: that came out before he was confirmed. We've seen Mueller's
Speaker 1: reasoning in the report, and we've heard Barr say that
Speaker 1: he disagreed with Mueller and Rosenstong apparently also disagreed with
Speaker 1: Muller on what obstruction law is. So if they had
Speaker 1: come to the Justice Department, they come to Bar and said,
Speaker 1: we think we have an indictable case, what would have
Speaker 1: happened is that would have gotten bolloxed up in the
Speaker 1: Justice Department and they would have had a big brawl
Speaker 1: over whether over you know, what the correct standard was.
Speaker 1: What Mueller wanted, I think was to get this evidence
Speaker 1: to Congress. So what he did instead of provoking a
Speaker 1: big fight that would have settled this at the Justice
Speaker 1: Department level, is he said, I've decided not to decide.
Speaker 1: So what I'm gonna do is I'll give you the
Speaker 1: evidence on one side of the question, and then I'll
Speaker 1: give you the evidence on the other side of the question.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to exonerate him, wink wink. That means
Speaker 1: I might I think there may be a case here,
Speaker 1: but I won't decide. And that way he didn't provoke
Speaker 1: a fight over what are the impeachment standards in the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. In fact, when Barr decided this when he
Speaker 1: on his own, because Muller abdicated. When Barr decided there
Speaker 1: was no obstruction case, he didn't desturb Mueller's legal framework.
Speaker 1: He said that he was deciding this assuming even though
Speaker 1: he didn't agree with it, that Mueller was right on
Speaker 1: the law. But because prosecutors always have to prove corrupt
Speaker 1: intent beyond a reasonable doubt, he didn't think on the
Speaker 1: facts that no matter what the legal standard was, you
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to prove intent beyond a reasonable debt.
Speaker 1: But what Mueller accomplished your book was he end ran
Speaker 1: what would otherwise have been a big fight in the
Speaker 1: Justice Department over obstruction and got his evidence to Congress
Speaker 1: under circumstances where he now tells Congress, gee, you know,
Speaker 1: I would have charged them, or I might very well
Speaker 1: have charged them, except there was this OLC guidance. But
Speaker 1: wink wink. In this system, the way it works is
Speaker 1: the Congress is the only body that can deal with
Speaker 1: a sitting president. A federal prosecutor can't do that. So
Speaker 1: let me give you my two hundred pages of obstruction evidence.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I think there may be celonies
Speaker 1: in here. And isn't it the case though, that that's
Speaker 1: not his job. That's you know, for people who want
Speaker 1: to tell me that Muller's such a great guy. If
Speaker 1: he's making that decision, he's going well beyond his brief. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: here's the problem there, Buck, he was not given one
Speaker 1: hat to wear. You know, he should have been. He's
Speaker 1: a special castle, so he's supposed to be a subordinate
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor in the Justice Department chain of command, but
Speaker 1: at any given time, he alternatively wears the hats of
Speaker 1: counterintelligence investigator. Because this whole investigation took under the place
Speaker 1: since there was no crime to predigate a criminal investigation,
Speaker 1: it took place under the guise of counterintelligence, right, which
Speaker 1: allowed them to look for a crime without having to
Speaker 1: have one when they started out. So he's part counterintelligence investigator,
Speaker 1: he's part counseled to a congressional impeachment committee, which is
Speaker 1: what I think he ultimately wanted to be, And he's
Speaker 1: part federal prosecutor. And he switches from one hat to
Speaker 1: the next depending on what he needs to accomplish at
Speaker 1: any given moment. Andy McCarthy, everybody check him out on
Speaker 1: National Review. Also you will see him on Fox News. Andy,
Speaker 1: great stuff, and not just because I agree with everything
Speaker 1: you said, and we've agreed with each other on this one.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. We sure have. Thanks Buck, Yeah, thanks Eddie. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: I didn't even go to law school. And I'm saying
Speaker 1: all this stuff isn't that funny, but it's true. It's
Speaker 1: when you reason these things through. You see, I mean,
Speaker 1: Muller as smaller as a hack, very clear why he
Speaker 1: made these decisions, why he's done what he has done.
Speaker 1: And you know, people just need to come around to
Speaker 1: the reality of this and stop. We need to stop
Speaker 1: living in some fantasy where you know, Saint Muller would
Speaker 1: he would never Oh, I see, Muller would never do
Speaker 1: something to besmirched the office of the Special Council. Please,
Speaker 1: just like Comey was a saint until he wasn't. There
Speaker 1: were no charges none. If you look at if you
Speaker 1: look at Bill Clinton, that very nice gentleman who has
Speaker 1: been so much on my side, as you know, his
Speaker 1: special prosecutor, it was guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, so
Speaker 1: many guilty with me. There was no guilty. Comparing the
Speaker 1: Trump and Clinton Special Council situations or you know, independent prosecutor,
Speaker 1: dependent Council, all the stuff that basically the same thing, right,
Speaker 1: Comparing them is problematic for a lot of reasons. One
Speaker 1: of them is that Bill Clinton was very much guilty,
Speaker 1: and ken Starr said in his report that Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: was guilty of breaking laws. And it is as stretch
Speaker 1: at best to think that charges could have been brought
Speaker 1: against President Trump under a very expansive and I would
Speaker 1: offer to you very flimsy understanding of obstruction and obstruction
Speaker 1: is a bit like conspiracy, Isn't that interesting? They looked
Speaker 1: at conspiracy with the Russians to hack into the or
Speaker 1: you know, to mess with the election, and they looked
Speaker 1: at obstruction in terms of the investigation of that. Those
Speaker 1: are two of the most malleable statutes at the federal
Speaker 1: government that federal agencies have at their disposal. They can
Speaker 1: come up with some very novel interpretations to get people
Speaker 1: on either conspiracy or on obstruction. And often if you
Speaker 1: ask a skilled prosecutor, they'll say, well, what's what's conspiracy
Speaker 1: or what's obstruction? It's kind of whatever the prosecutor says
Speaker 1: it is. And even in that environment, even with that
Speaker 1: being true, they have not been able to come up
Speaker 1: with President Trump broke the law. And the one place
Speaker 1: where they seem to think they've got the strongest case
Speaker 1: is on telling Don McGann to fire, to fire you know,
Speaker 1: UM personnel over DJ and that didn't happen. So now
Speaker 1: you're now it's attempted obstruction. But if the president wanted
Speaker 1: to fire somebody, he could just fire them. So what
Speaker 1: was he just venting? And he was talking to an advisor?
Speaker 1: And can you even obstruct an investigation of something that's
Speaker 1: a fraud? You know, is that something that you can
Speaker 1: even do? These are all the questions that are that
Speaker 1: still remain, And yet what they offer to us is, oh,
Speaker 1: the president's so guilty they have to impeach them. We'll
Speaker 1: get an appeachment a little bit. But Bill Clinton, this
Speaker 1: was as as clear and egregious of a violator, or
Speaker 1: I shouldn't say egregious. This is as clear a violation
Speaker 1: as you're gonna find, you know, lying under oath about
Speaker 1: something that we now know. And he even admits a
Speaker 1: lot under oath about just thought that he could play
Speaker 1: these weird definition games to get around it's not going
Speaker 1: to I wasn't going to cut the mustard. But Trump
Speaker 1: also was going on offense a bit here because he
Speaker 1: realizes that this is now just a battle of narrative.
Speaker 1: This has turned into a political fight it's not really
Speaker 1: a legal fight anymore. It's really about politics involved here.
Speaker 1: And Trump said, look, Muller's a conflicted guy. You know,
Speaker 1: Muller's somebody who should never have been trusted in this role,
Speaker 1: should never have been put in this position. Placlap eight.
Speaker 1: He wanted the FBI job and he didn't get it,
Speaker 1: and the next day he was picked a special counsel.
Speaker 1: So you tell somebody I'm sorry, you can't have the job,
Speaker 1: and then after you say that, he's gonna make a
Speaker 1: ruling on you. It doesn't work that way. Plus we
Speaker 1: had a business dispute. Plus his relationship with Tomy was extraordinary.
Speaker 1: You know, he's saying that this is a guy who's
Speaker 1: opposed to him, it's a guy who doesn't like him.
Speaker 1: And I think there's a lot to you know, a
Speaker 1: lot to suggest that Komy doesn't like him, Mueller doesn't
Speaker 1: like him. You know, these are guys who are part
Speaker 1: of the establishment. These are guys who are part of
Speaker 1: what you'd consider the permanent class, the permanent bureaucracy in DC.
Speaker 1: And they have very high opinions of themselves. I think
Speaker 1: they're really important, and they're big players in history. And
Speaker 1: they both Komey and Muller have inserted themselves pretending to
Speaker 1: be these nonpartisan Oh it's just about doing what's right
Speaker 1: public servants, but they've inserted themselves in very political ways
Speaker 1: in this whole process. So, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: President's on solid ground when he's making making this case.
Speaker 1: But I also want to point out that the president
Speaker 1: I'm not going to get much in the immigration today.
Speaker 1: The President's promising a major an nowtment having to do
Speaker 1: with the border. He's saying that something big is in
Speaker 1: the works for the border. Play clip seven. This is
Speaker 1: a big league statement, but that we are going to
Speaker 1: do something very dramatic on the border. Democrats will not
Speaker 1: give us laws. They will not change laws, they will
Speaker 1: not meet, they will not do anything. They want to
Speaker 1: have open borders, they want to have prime they want
Speaker 1: to have drugs. Boring it. We have brought something to
Speaker 1: the light of the people. They see now it's a
Speaker 1: national emergency and most people agree. The Democrats agree to,
Speaker 1: but they won't give us the legislation you need to
Speaker 1: fix them. No place in the world has what we
Speaker 1: have in terms of ridiculous immigration laws. So I will
Speaker 1: be making a major statement. I would say, my biggest
Speaker 1: statement on the border, probably today or tomorrow's promising major statement,
Speaker 1: maybe his biggest statement. It's a guy who's saying, build
Speaker 1: the wall, Build the wall. Big statement coming up on
Speaker 1: the border. I don't know what it is. I'm going
Speaker 1: to call some of my White House sources and see
Speaker 1: if I can get a little bit of a you know,
Speaker 1: a little bit of an inside track to it. But
Speaker 1: President saying big things coming, So we'll have to wait
Speaker 1: and see on that one. But you know what else
Speaker 1: might be coming. Impeachment. We will discuss that coming up
Speaker 1: here in a moment. Nothing is off the table, but
Speaker 1: we do want to make such a compelling case, such
Speaker 1: an iron cloud cast case, that even the Republican Senate,
Speaker 1: which at the time seems to be not an objective jury,
Speaker 1: will be convinced of the path that we have to
Speaker 1: take as a country. I still think this goes back
Speaker 1: to democratic talking points. So what they want, and this
Speaker 1: is what the truth is. Their impeachment to their base
Speaker 1: is like the wall is to our base. This is
Speaker 1: their fundraising thing. And the truth is this is a
Speaker 1: made up, false problem in crisis, but our wall is
Speaker 1: a real crisis. I'm glad that Brad Parscal who's running
Speaker 1: the Trump re election re election effort, out of that
Speaker 1: part of the end that this is not like the
Speaker 1: wall for the base, because the base really wants the wall.
Speaker 1: That's people like me are saying, Hey, we were promised
Speaker 1: a wall, but let's let's dig in a bit more
Speaker 1: into this impeachment issue. I don't want to get diverted
Speaker 1: to a wall. You know, we haven't talked about immigration
Speaker 1: much on the show. Hasn't gotten better, folks, Still a crisis.
Speaker 1: Just I'm just reminding everyone still has not been not handled,
Speaker 1: not settled by the administration. But we have to deal
Speaker 1: with impeachment right now. Nancy Pelosi says, nothing is off
Speaker 1: the table. We want to make an ironclad case. Do
Speaker 1: they really expect does any Democrat expect us to believe
Speaker 1: that they believe they'll be able to make a more
Speaker 1: compelling case about Trump's shortcomings and the reasons for Trump
Speaker 1: being a peach than what Muller has already done. And
Speaker 1: we know Muller's a partisan. We know Muller hates Trump.
Speaker 1: He showed us this. There can be no surprise anymore
Speaker 1: about this. But Pelosi's not sure she wants to tell everybody.
Speaker 1: I think they're going to do it. They're going to
Speaker 1: impeach the president. I think they're going to do it.
Speaker 1: I don't think that they can help themselves. This isn't
Speaker 1: a normal presidency for them. This is a moment where
Speaker 1: they think that everything that the Democrats, everything the left
Speaker 1: believes and holds dear and sacred, if they really hold
Speaker 1: anything sacred, they think that that is threatened by Trump.
Speaker 1: And given that mindset, it's just I think very unlikely
Speaker 1: that they'd be able to pass the opportunity to impeach him.
Speaker 1: And they're going to do it just so they can
Speaker 1: say they did it. They think it's going to be
Speaker 1: useful tactically against the president in his reelection campaign. And
Speaker 1: there's there's a big part of this that is Catharsis
Speaker 1: for them. You know, this is they're working out their
Speaker 1: issues here. There's a sense of a vindication and validation
Speaker 1: that will come from an impeachment of the president. And
Speaker 1: that's why when when she says, you know, Republicans are
Speaker 1: going to be convinced of the path you have a day,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's this is so disingenuous. Nancy knows whether
Speaker 1: she's slowing down a few steps or not. Nancy knows
Speaker 1: Republicans are never in a million years, based on all
Speaker 1: the information we have right now, going to go along
Speaker 1: with voting against, voting to impeache Trump in the House
Speaker 1: and then certainly to remove him in the sentence. She
Speaker 1: knows that's not going to happen. Justin Amash aside, you
Speaker 1: know that guy always always kind of struck me as
Speaker 1: a smarmy grandstander. Anyway, he cares a lot about about FISA, right,
Speaker 1: He's he's been a big Oh I'm mister libertarian. I
Speaker 1: worry about spying. No spying on Americans. What about the
Speaker 1: spying on Carter Page, Amash, you got any thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: What about the spying on George Papadopoulos. The not yet
Speaker 1: has proved, Well, there was spying on General Flynn. It's
Speaker 1: just that we believe that was probably the at least
Speaker 1: the theories that that was incidental because he was speaking
Speaker 1: to the Russian ambassador. But you know, there was surveillance obviously,
Speaker 1: That's how they got that leaked conversation that they had
Speaker 1: the conversational League in the first place. But I don't
Speaker 1: see Amash raising any alarms, but any of that, and
Speaker 1: mister libertarian man seems to me that's something that he
Speaker 1: skips right past. I give Rand Paul credit at least
Speaker 1: for saying that we do need to look in it.
Speaker 1: You know, Rand Paul has always been somebody that he
Speaker 1: doesn't have the political skills needed to win the presidency,
Speaker 1: never mind I think, to run the country. But his
Speaker 1: ideas in general appeal to me because I think he
Speaker 1: comes from this place, this really rarefied place in politics,
Speaker 1: this this very and it feels like it's evaporating with
Speaker 1: every passing year. He comes to this place of you
Speaker 1: know what, I don't want to tell you what to
Speaker 1: do all the time. I don't want to make you
Speaker 1: do lots of things you don't want to do. I
Speaker 1: don't want the government in charge of every aspect of
Speaker 1: your life. And I like that. I find that comforting.
Speaker 1: I don't believe Rand Paul wants to be a benevolent
Speaker 1: dictator in some capacity. I think a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: and even some Republicans kind of do if they had
Speaker 1: their ability, if they had the ability to do so.
Speaker 1: But but Rand has been all over the FISA issue,
Speaker 1: which there's no way we're going to come out of
Speaker 1: this Inspector General report from the DOJ and all the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion origin stuff. There's no way we come away
Speaker 1: from this without realizing the FISA was abused, because it
Speaker 1: was abused, and then understanding that that means there has
Speaker 1: to be some changes so that it cannot be used
Speaker 1: for spying purposes, for political spying purposes again in the future.
Speaker 1: Here's here's a Rampaul had a real libertarian Rand Paul
Speaker 1: versus amash A. I think opt opportunistic libertarian. Here's a
Speaker 1: Rampaulsey by thirteen. I think the President has the ability
Speaker 1: to do it by executive order. He could say to
Speaker 1: the FBI that from now on, our policy is that
Speaker 1: the FBI has to go to get a court order
Speaker 1: or a warrant in a public court to search this
Speaker 1: database for an Americans information. Now it's different for foreigners.
Speaker 1: We spawn foreigners all the time and there's a lower standard.
Speaker 1: But for an American, it's extraordinary that our own intelligence
Speaker 1: community that's supposed to spawn foreigners was spying on the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. So this shouldn't happen either to President Trump
Speaker 1: but to any future president of either. This is such
Speaker 1: a profoundly important point he makes that there was spying
Speaker 1: on a presidential campaign, and we need to not accept
Speaker 1: that there's nothing okay about this. You know, we're we're
Speaker 1: lectured by Democrats and leftists about how, oh, Russian interference
Speaker 1: in the election. What about the deep state interference in
Speaker 1: the election, which is real, unlike the Russian interference, which
Speaker 1: was minimal from the Russian side. When I say minimal,
Speaker 1: I mean of minimal impact. Oh no, we could argue
Speaker 1: about this all day long. We all know it didn't
Speaker 1: do anything. It didn't change anything. It was it was
Speaker 1: really essentially the equivalent of like a Russian prank. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it was funny, but there's no serious argument
Speaker 1: that this changed the ut in the election. But the
Speaker 1: Trump team had nothing to do with it. We all
Speaker 1: know that now. But on the other side of things,
Speaker 1: there was foreign interference in the election. Christopher Steele's a foreigner.
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele used Russian therefore for in subsources and pass
Speaker 1: that information to contacts in the media to run a
Speaker 1: smear campaign, but also brought the dacier made its way
Speaker 1: into the government apparatus itself, and federal spy agencies or
Speaker 1: federal agencies with the ability to spy. In the case
Speaker 1: of the FBI, they used it. This is the big,
Speaker 1: the big fear, and this is why I think you
Speaker 1: see Komey and so many of these once incredibly sanctimonious.
Speaker 1: That's why we call him sanctatomy. Incredibly sanctimonious officials. Some
Speaker 1: of them have toned it down a little bit because
Speaker 1: I think that they realized that they're going to have
Speaker 1: some splaining to do. They're going to have to sit
Speaker 1: down and answer questions in front of the American people
Speaker 1: about why would you use OPO research for a spy
Speaker 1: a secret spying court and think that that's okay. You know,
Speaker 1: the real scandal in all this, I mean we've been told, oh,
Speaker 1: the Russian you know, the Russians and this and that.
Speaker 1: The real scandal on this is that the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: was spied on under false pretenses. We were lied to
Speaker 1: about that. We were actually told that anybody who believed
Speaker 1: they were spied on, and this was a year a
Speaker 1: year after the election, and who believe it there was
Speaker 1: spying was crazy and lying. And then it turned out
Speaker 1: there was spying where they said that it was justified.
Speaker 1: We're gonna find out very soon. This is going to
Speaker 1: come out of the Inspector General report this month. I
Speaker 1: believe that there was spying and it wasn't just to
Speaker 1: find What do we do then, we want to talk
Speaker 1: about undermining our institutions and protecting the sanctity of our democracy.
Speaker 1: What do we do when we find out, as we will,
Speaker 1: that the fires A court and the FBI, the DOJ
Speaker 1: were used as a partisan weapon in a presidential election?
Speaker 1: How do we handle that? You are the ones who
Speaker 1: will invent and define the next generation of air warfare,
Speaker 1: and you are the ones who will secure American victory
Speaker 1: all the time, victory to dominate the future, America must
Speaker 1: rule the skies. And that is what your time at
Speaker 1: this great academy has been all about. Preparing you to
Speaker 1: do whatever it takes to learn to adapt and to win, win, win,
Speaker 1: win so much you're going to get so tired of winning.
Speaker 1: But not really, not really, we never get tired of
Speaker 1: winning doing, not tired of winning yet. President Trump, he
Speaker 1: was speaking at the Air Force Academy. And you know
Speaker 1: one one aspect of this presidency that is I believe
Speaker 1: intentionally underreported on and skipped over by the psychotically hostile press.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really do have a problem. I mean,
Speaker 1: they hate this president in a way that is that
Speaker 1: is unnatural, unhealthy. It's not just about politics. It's much
Speaker 1: deeper than that. And trumped arrangement syndrome is a is
Speaker 1: a real and I would argue, and I'm sure you
Speaker 1: could get some professionals to weigh in on this an
Speaker 1: identifiable phenomenon. It is far too powerful in the minds
Speaker 1: of some people. You know, I know about some of
Speaker 1: the different mental illnesses that are out there, and a
Speaker 1: lot of it is based on the sense of exaggerated
Speaker 1: threat or And this is how people get anxiety and
Speaker 1: people get OCD. You know, they worry aboh this is
Speaker 1: this might have happened, or that might have happened. You know,
Speaker 1: somebody will think that I would they're driving a car
Speaker 1: and they they ran somebody over, but they just didn't
Speaker 1: know they ran somebody over. I mean, this is this
Speaker 1: is the way liberals think about Trump. They must know
Speaker 1: at some level that their lives are going to be fine,
Speaker 1: nothing is really going to happen. That's but Trump is
Speaker 1: destroying the world and ruining the country and undermining our republic.
Speaker 1: And they take all that stuff as some kind of
Speaker 1: personal affront, but putting that, casting that aside for a moment,
Speaker 1: Trump is very well liked. And maybe it's just because
Speaker 1: most of the military folks that I know tend to
Speaker 1: be conserved anyway. But it's very well like with the
Speaker 1: military and is certainly deeply, deeply respectful of the military.
Speaker 1: And I think that the Trump really does hold people
Speaker 1: that serve this country in incredibly high esteem, which which
Speaker 1: we would want for any commander in chief. And I
Speaker 1: think that that's that that tends to have been the
Speaker 1: case historically. But this brings me to the controversy around
Speaker 1: the USS John McCain, all right, which is a navy
Speaker 1: ship that people were saying as of what was it
Speaker 1: as of yesterday that the John McCain. I want to
Speaker 1: make sure I get some of these details right for
Speaker 1: you here. It's it's pretty remarkable that they covered up
Speaker 1: the name of the John. The initial story was that
Speaker 1: they covered up the you know, the the John McCain
Speaker 1: name on the ship with a tarp and they gave
Speaker 1: the sailors on this naval vessel the day off because
Speaker 1: when Trump was in Japan, it was it was docked
Speaker 1: in Japan, there was a sensitivity to Trump seeing this
Speaker 1: at all. I mean, I just I never believed this.
Speaker 1: I never thought that this was a real thing. I
Speaker 1: never thought that this was what happened. It was so
Speaker 1: interested to see many, including many conservatives, who were usually,
Speaker 1: if not favorable toward Trump, at least not infected with
Speaker 1: Trump derangement syndrome. Right. I mean, usually there are people
Speaker 1: that would give him some kind of benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1: But here's what they say. Officers were told to keep
Speaker 1: USS John McCain from Trump's view during Japan visit. CBS
Speaker 1: News has confirmed this. CBS News Senior Nation Security correspondent
Speaker 1: David Martin reports that a US Indo Pacific Command official
Speaker 1: wrote an email to Navy and Air Force officials before
Speaker 1: mister Trump's arrival and included instructions for the proper landing
Speaker 1: areas for helicopters and preparations for the USS Wasp, the
Speaker 1: ship on which the President was to speak. The official
Speaker 1: then issued a third instruction, the USS John McCain needs
Speaker 1: to be out of sight. According to the email, which
Speaker 1: was first obtained by the Wall Street Journal and then
Speaker 1: other news outlets confirmed its existence. The Washington Post is
Speaker 1: Josh Dawzy tweeted that administration official confirms the story request
Speaker 1: was made to make sure mccainship wasn't visible, but aid
Speaker 1: say Trump wasn't involved in the request, but it was
Speaker 1: meant to prevent any potential ire from POTUS from the
Speaker 1: president United States and the Journal reporter that when a
Speaker 1: Navy commander expressed surprise at the instruction, the US in
Speaker 1: No Pacific Command official answered, first, I heard of it
Speaker 1: as first. I heard of it as well, and the
Speaker 1: officials said he would talk to the White House Military
Speaker 1: Office to get more information. Trump has said he was
Speaker 1: not informed about anything having to do with the Navy
Speaker 1: ship USS. John McCain, during his visits to Japan, noticed, Now,
Speaker 1: this is a This is a manufactured controversy, entirely manufactured.
Speaker 1: There is nothing to indicate whatsoever. We have zero evidence
Speaker 1: of any kind, and zero indicators that President Trump himself
Speaker 1: was asking for this, that President Trump wanted this to
Speaker 1: be covered up. So then why is it Trump's fault?
Speaker 1: Why is it oh, because someone else assumed that he
Speaker 1: would be And look, it would be a very petty thing.
Speaker 1: There's no question about it. You know, if Trump were
Speaker 1: to make a scene about this or to be angry
Speaker 1: about it. It's very petty, but you can't blame him
Speaker 1: for what somebody else thought might be going on in
Speaker 1: Trump's head. This is yet again another version, another manifestation,
Speaker 1: a symptom of the Trump's arrangement syndrome that has become
Speaker 1: such a powerful force in American politics. It's not it's
Speaker 1: not the president's fault that somebody thought that he's going
Speaker 1: to be hypersensitive about this, and yet there was all
Speaker 1: this trashing of the president around it, as though this
Speaker 1: was a request that he made. Well, he didn't make
Speaker 1: the request. No one says otherwise. Yet it's just it
Speaker 1: really is just maddening. And you know, there's so many
Speaker 1: areas where I think you could have a you could
Speaker 1: have very legitimate criticism, very legitimate criticism of this president.
Speaker 1: There are things that he has not delivered on yet. Look,
Speaker 1: I think he's doing a very good job, but there
Speaker 1: are areas with any president. You know, I'm not here,
Speaker 1: not here to worship a politician. We're here to push
Speaker 1: forward agenda and try to find the truth and understand
Speaker 1: what's happening in the world around us. But what they
Speaker 1: left keeps doing is coming up with fake reasons fake
Speaker 1: news to hate Trump, and then they wonder why we
Speaker 1: take everything all their criticisms with a grain of salt. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe it's because they are not to be trusted on this.
Speaker 1: Maybe they have shown us quite clearly that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is someone who they cannot object never mind objectively cover.
Speaker 1: They can't cover him without showing venom. I'm just showing hatred, bile.
Speaker 1: Trump likes the military. There if there are some things
Speaker 1: I'm quite sure of. He takes the trade deal with
Speaker 1: China very seriously. He loves his family. He doesn't like CNN,
Speaker 1: but he really respects the military. Jerry, there's never been
Speaker 1: anything people say, oh Buck, but what about when he
Speaker 1: criticized this veteran of that veteran. Yeah, he has beefs
Speaker 1: with individuals. Does anyone really think that somebody who serves
Speaker 1: them in the military, who becomes a political opponent of
Speaker 1: someone else's is beyond is beyond being attacked? Now, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have attacked some of the people that serve the
Speaker 1: way that Trump has. You know, he looked. Trump fights
Speaker 1: dirtier than I would. But he's the president and I'm not.
Speaker 1: And there's probably a pretty good reason for that. But
Speaker 1: he does respect our military. I mean this is just
Speaker 1: also from the Air Force Academy graduation yesterday, just to
Speaker 1: hear the President talking about this play twenty one to
Speaker 1: the nearly one thousand kiddets who I have agreed to
Speaker 1: shake every single hand. They gave me a choice, hey said, sir,
Speaker 1: you don't have to shake any hands. Some people do that.
Speaker 1: Those are the smart ones too. Out of you. You
Speaker 1: can shake one hand to the one person top of
Speaker 1: the class. You could shake ten fifty or one hundred,
Speaker 1: and you could also stay for a thousand, and I'm
Speaker 1: staying for a thousand. Okay, it's your commander in chief.
Speaker 1: Everybody staying in shake a thousand Air Force graduates hands.
Speaker 1: Just remember that because the press doesn't want to talk
Speaker 1: about it. There's this fascinating lawsuit that has been filed
Speaker 1: in New York City on privilege theory or the end
Speaker 1: result of privilege theory, which ties into white privilege, and
Speaker 1: on one of these ideas that has exploded in popularity
Speaker 1: on the left. I saw some interesting statistics yesterday and
Speaker 1: a researcher had gone through and looked for things like
Speaker 1: using lexis nexus. So it just pulls up all the
Speaker 1: different times that it appears in news publications and in
Speaker 1: the media, and looked up usage of terms like white supremacy,
Speaker 1: white privilege, unconscious bias, and what you find is that
Speaker 1: these are terms that all of a sudden explode in popularity.
Speaker 1: And in the last few years there have been a
Speaker 1: number of these where this might have existed before, but
Speaker 1: all of a sudden. The left asides that it's it's
Speaker 1: almost a campaign just to use the word or use
Speaker 1: the phrase enough that it becomes seared into our minds,
Speaker 1: that there's this thing called white privilege, for example. But
Speaker 1: this is the This is a specific lawsuit in New
Speaker 1: York City against the New York City Department of Education.
Speaker 1: There are three employees who are are all white, although
Speaker 1: their names are Lois Herrera, Jay Murray, and Laura phi
Speaker 1: ju um I. Maybe Lois Herrera's maiden name isn't Herrera,
Speaker 1: but that strikes me as usually if your name is Harrare,
Speaker 1: you're Hispanic. But they're apparently white or whatever. And they
Speaker 1: have sued the City of New York because they claim
Speaker 1: that they were demoted dramatically and replaced by non white
Speaker 1: employees who had lesser qualifications for the post and that
Speaker 1: this is not something that occurred in a vacuum, That
Speaker 1: there's a lot of rhetoric and a lot of teachings
Speaker 1: and theorizing and all this stuff that they're subjected to
Speaker 1: in the New York City Department of Education, which I
Speaker 1: imagine is kind of like a time work back into
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union in terms of its bureaucracy and the
Speaker 1: assaults on truth that I'm sure are a regular part
Speaker 1: of what goes on there. But they say they had
Speaker 1: people replaced them with lesser qualifications, and they would would
Speaker 1: hear things from their supervisors like, quote, white people had
Speaker 1: to white employees had to take a step back and
Speaker 1: yield to colleagues of color and recognize that values of
Speaker 1: white culture are supremacist end quote. M. There's so much
Speaker 1: there isn't there That we usually think of the efforts
Speaker 1: at at a kind of racial equity balancing. We think
Speaker 1: of affirmative action, right, We think of fairness through race
Speaker 1: as as it's practice with different legal mechanisms, as being well,
Speaker 1: we're going to advance some people. And now I have
Speaker 1: been and always and always will be. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think affirmative action is ethically and legally wrong. I do
Speaker 1: not agree with it. I do not believe in it.
Speaker 1: And everyone who hears me say that on Lefell of course,
Speaker 1: because you would. Yeah, that's right. I'm white and everything
Speaker 1: everything has been handed to me. I've never had to
Speaker 1: work hard. My white privilege has just coasted me through everything.
Speaker 1: You know, and the people that I know who have
Speaker 1: had a really tough time in life, and I know,
Speaker 1: struggle with addiction and homelessness and who are white. You know,
Speaker 1: they just didn't capitalize enough on their white privilege. I
Speaker 1: guess you know that most of the desperately poor in
Speaker 1: this country are white. In fact, doesn't seem to matter
Speaker 1: that that's their fault. I guess the left says, because
Speaker 1: they didn't really maximize that white privilege. You know, they didn't.
Speaker 1: They didn't turn in that white privilege card to get
Speaker 1: all the goodies that come with it. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is an offensive but now very widespread and really powerful
Speaker 1: social theory that's foisted, that has been foisted on the
Speaker 1: American people. And if you don't, as a white person,
Speaker 1: if you push back, oh, of course, of course you do.
Speaker 1: You don't want to admit your privilege. This, this is
Speaker 1: a stupid idea. It's unethical to judge people based upon
Speaker 1: their skin color any context as unethical. But what you
Speaker 1: have now is not just some people get an advantage
Speaker 1: because of their non whiteness. But that's not a privilege,
Speaker 1: you see, that's just fair when you get something and
Speaker 1: you're not white. And this is explicitly what happens on
Speaker 1: college campuses, and you know you are. There have even
Speaker 1: been points systems, now they got rid of that. There
Speaker 1: have been quotas, Oh they got rid of that. Acts
Speaker 1: that's too obvious. But non white students, for example, we'll
Speaker 1: get into a school with lower grades, lower SATs, and
Speaker 1: we all know what's going on, and people pretend, oh,
Speaker 1: we can't figure this out. No, we know what's going on.
Speaker 1: But that's not privilege, that's just fair. Huh. It's a
Speaker 1: very convenient way of describing a process by which some
Speaker 1: people are given privileges over others. But as I look
Speaker 1: at this situation, the department education which you have, are
Speaker 1: people who are demoted, you know. And this is a
Speaker 1: logical extension of this white privileged theory, meaning that if
Speaker 1: you think that some people should be advanced in order
Speaker 1: to balance out the white privilege that their peers enjoy.
Speaker 1: Then you should also probably you should also prepare yourself
Speaker 1: for the possibility that some people who enjoy white privilege
Speaker 1: must be pulled back, must suffer a bit, their careers
Speaker 1: must suffer. They must be paid less than they've been,
Speaker 1: They've become a customer getting paid. They must be removed
Speaker 1: from the prestigious position or the more advanced position that
Speaker 1: they have. I mean, because you gotta make room. You
Speaker 1: gotta make room for those without the white privilege. Well,
Speaker 1: in New York this is now being fought, and I'm hoping,
Speaker 1: although I'm very skeptical that this will be the case,
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that this will be a successful a successful case.
Speaker 1: You cannot have this. You cannot have a well functioning, honest, strong,
Speaker 1: espree to core organization that's going to demote people in
Speaker 1: order to play kate this theory of well, some people
Speaker 1: have had it easy because of their skin color, and
Speaker 1: other people have had it had it hard because of
Speaker 1: skin color. Okay, how much harder? What's enough? Why? You know,
Speaker 1: if they really believe this, meaning, if the left is
Speaker 1: on board with this thinking, why not make why not
Speaker 1: say that everyone at a heart you know that Harvard
Speaker 1: needs to just go non white, No more white students
Speaker 1: at Harvard. You got to balance it out. There's been
Speaker 1: so much oppression, it's been so racist for so long.
Speaker 1: People would laugh and say, oh, Buck, that's such a
Speaker 1: dumb idea. Okay, but why is it a dumb idea?
Speaker 1: Why shouldn't there be more drama. Why shouldn't we have
Speaker 1: these more dramatic gestures, you know, why shouldn't we do
Speaker 1: things that incur obvious costs to individuals who have quote
Speaker 1: white privilege. I mean I reject. I think white privilege
Speaker 1: is not a thing. I do not think it is.
Speaker 1: It is a real it is a real concept worthy
Speaker 1: of certainly any government action, because what is it really
Speaker 1: saying that when you have a majority, Well, a majority
Speaker 1: in any culture is going to be treated in some
Speaker 1: capacity like the majority. But you can't mandate through law
Speaker 1: a change in that cultural reality. And you certainly shouldn't
Speaker 1: mandate through law changes in hiring, in college, you know,
Speaker 1: college admissions and all these things, because there's some amorphous
Speaker 1: there's some amorphous notion of this is more fair the
Speaker 1: government acting in ways that is that is unconstitutional, that
Speaker 1: is unfair, that is violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Speaker 1: That's not going to make things better. It's only going
Speaker 1: to make things worse. Teaching the whole generation coming up
Speaker 1: now through school that there is this thing called white privilege,
Speaker 1: and then not really ever addressing well, what would that
Speaker 1: mean if it were true? What are we supposed to
Speaker 1: do about that? Is just a recipe for a lot
Speaker 1: of victimology thinking and also opens the door to a
Speaker 1: lot of resentment. Let's be honest resentment on all sides.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you tell someone that that the individual
Speaker 1: sitting across from them has a lot of unearned a
Speaker 1: lot of unearned advantages, the persons sitting there, especially if
Speaker 1: they feel like they've had a they've had a tough
Speaker 1: go in life, is going to not think very highly
Speaker 1: of the individual with the unearned advantages. And at the
Speaker 1: person who is being told that he or she has
Speaker 1: these unearned advantages, looks across the table and says, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, you who does you? The person
Speaker 1: who does not enjoy white privilege in this situation, as
Speaker 1: a matter of law, have privileges that I do not have.
Speaker 1: Qualify for programs, qualify for admissions, but but I'm the
Speaker 1: one with privilege. Is this tears at the fabric of
Speaker 1: the social fabric of this country. And it really does
Speaker 1: also undermine the rule of law. You know, where are
Speaker 1: they're all equal in the odds of law or not.
Speaker 1: There is only one kind of still mandated legal racial
Speaker 1: discrimination that exists in this country, and it is punishing
Speaker 1: those who quote have white privilege. That is the only
Speaker 1: legitimate or rather legal discrimination that is still in the books.
Speaker 1: There's no other discrimination. Non white people do not get
Speaker 1: discriminated against, but white people because and you say, Buck,
Speaker 1: why do all these liberals, why do all these leftists
Speaker 1: who are many of whom the majority of whom are white,
Speaker 1: why do they go along with this? Oh? Because it
Speaker 1: is so useful for their power structure. They benefit from this.
Speaker 1: The identity politics that the left has embraced is a
Speaker 1: base of power and a base of votes. And it's
Speaker 1: a very simple proposition for any guilt guilt ridden white
Speaker 1: liberal to embrace, which is just become one. Become one
Speaker 1: of the people that says this stuff, believes this stuff,
Speaker 1: promotes this stuff, and you're not part of the problem anymore.
Speaker 1: You cleanse yourself of your white privilege sins by agreeing
Speaker 1: that white privilege needs to be confronted, and you have
Speaker 1: to do nothing beyond that. This is like from the
Speaker 1: al Gore school of just you know, make a lot
Speaker 1: of money by scaring a lot of people over climate change,
Speaker 1: don't make any changes to your own life about climate change.
Speaker 1: And you've done your part. And if you just go
Speaker 1: see the al Gore movie about climate change, you know,
Speaker 1: and say that you believe in climate change, you've done
Speaker 1: your part. It's cheap virtue the left so effectively in
Speaker 1: many ways, but it's a it's a recurring theme in
Speaker 1: all left wing politics in this country. It appeals to
Speaker 1: individual vanity. I'm such a good person. I'm such a thoughtful,
Speaker 1: care and considered person. So that's why I believe that
Speaker 1: taxes should be higher. Oh wow, that's but do you
Speaker 1: pay higher taxes? Do you send the government more money?
Speaker 1: Do you want to set an example? No? No No, no, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. You just support in the macro sense,
Speaker 1: in a theoretical way. You support, you know, taking dramatic
Speaker 1: action to back climate change. You're not going to take
Speaker 1: it yourself, but you support the idea of you know,
Speaker 1: do you confront white privilege? Well, you know a lot
Speaker 1: of rich Libs still belong to you know, private clubs
Speaker 1: that are not very interracially diverse. They send their kids
Speaker 1: to schools that are overwhelmingly white, they send their kids
Speaker 1: to universities that are overwhelmingly white. But but but they
Speaker 1: confront their white privilege. You see, they say that, and
Speaker 1: that's all they have to do. Must be nice to
Speaker 1: go through life such a self satisfied fraud. How will
Speaker 1: you protect Row v. Wade. We need a federal law
Speaker 1: to take every principle that's in the Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: and just make it federal law. Let's give women all
Speaker 1: across this country preaching the wealth gap between white families
Speaker 1: and black families, reparations or not. So I support the
Speaker 1: reparations bill that's in the House to start a commission.
Speaker 1: So we kept to look at all of the options
Speaker 1: fifteen billion dollars put into the historically black colleges and university.
Speaker 1: Speaking of frauds, racial frauds in particular, Elizabeth Warren comes
Speaker 1: to mind folk haunts herself, and I'm so I'm so
Speaker 1: happy that the President does not back down, say, oh, Pokahonas,
Speaker 1: it's racist. No, it's not racist's making fun of it's
Speaker 1: not making fun of Pokehonas I do prefer sometimes the
Speaker 1: folk hauntess to play on words, but we can call
Speaker 1: our pocahonas too. Two issues here that she tackles. Let's
Speaker 1: start first with the the reparation. The reparations component of this.
Speaker 1: Nobody really believes I think, I mean, I could be
Speaker 1: wrong here. No one who knows anything about how government
Speaker 1: programs work and the history of any of any effort
Speaker 1: like this in this country. No one really thinks that
Speaker 1: that will change it. Again, the fifty billion dollars to
Speaker 1: historically black colleges, what's that going to do? Is the
Speaker 1: is the are the historically black colleges right now? Do
Speaker 1: they not have large enough endowments for good professors and
Speaker 1: good text with the answers? No. By the way, historically
Speaker 1: black colleges have a particularly high graduation rate for African
Speaker 1: American students for four years and also in life, African
Speaker 1: American students from historically black colleges do very well relative
Speaker 1: to similarly situated colleges and universities in terms of earning
Speaker 1: power and career potential. And what do you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's no issue of affirmative action, right so this we've
Speaker 1: seen this experiment play out the university California system where
Speaker 1: they got rid of racial preferences in schools, and all
Speaker 1: it meant was that there were fewer black and Latino
Speaker 1: students at the very very very elite schools. But the
Speaker 1: graduation rate at some of the more middle tier but
Speaker 1: still very good California schools went up because you can't
Speaker 1: just force people into a program they're not prepared for.
Speaker 1: So there was a greater match of sALS in preparation,
Speaker 1: which meant greater success in getting through four years of college,
Speaker 1: which you'd think is a good thing. But no, the libs,
Speaker 1: they like the band aid approach. They like that let's
Speaker 1: just give people the fancy degree that they didn't really
Speaker 1: earn on their academic merits. But you know, white privilege
Speaker 1: needs to be confronted. Don't even get me started with
Speaker 1: Asian privilege. Is their Asian privilege? Who knows it's worse
Speaker 1: to be Asian applying to elite schools, especially a place
Speaker 1: like well, now they got rid of racial preferences, but
Speaker 1: some of these, you know, schools like Stanford, some of
Speaker 1: these very elite universities, you do not want to be.
Speaker 1: You do not want to be an Asian American that's
Speaker 1: the worst category. That's the worst category to be in.
Speaker 1: And then just so this reparations, this is just Elizaeth
Speaker 1: Warren trying to build a greater enthusiasm in the minority community.
Speaker 1: First off, isn't that this bill is going nowhere. No
Speaker 1: one's even clear on what should happen or what it
Speaker 1: should do. And ultimately, you know, the government's money is
Speaker 1: your money. So whenever they decide, whenever the Left is saying, well,
Speaker 1: we're just going to redistribute a bunch of money to people,
Speaker 1: that's coming from the American people, that's money appropriated from taxpayers,
Speaker 1: taken from you by force, and then given to people
Speaker 1: to do other things with. And that's how we should
Speaker 1: do that. Oh, then our federal law that's going to
Speaker 1: reinforce Roe v. Wade. That is never going to happen.
Speaker 1: And she knows that's never gonna happen unless they try
Speaker 1: to pull an Obamacare maneuver where by the slimmest majority
Speaker 1: when they have a supermajority, they just forced the other
Speaker 1: side to to just just stomach whatever it is that
Speaker 1: they want to jam down our throats. Um maybe they
Speaker 1: maybe that'd go that direction. But this is this is
Speaker 1: unserious stuff from Luzeth Warren. But she's an unserious candidate
Speaker 1: at this point. In my mind, she's shown us who
Speaker 1: she really is, and I think that she's uh, it's
Speaker 1: it's always it's always been about her. I think her
Speaker 1: ego is apparent with these little crusades she goes. You know,
Speaker 1: her husband. They're making close to a million dollars a
Speaker 1: year between the two of them, but she's all about
Speaker 1: class warfare. Come on, give me a break. She's not
Speaker 1: running around doing community organizing for thirty thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: year on the South side of Chicago, right. She's gone
Speaker 1: to a lead institutions, gotten paid very well, and now
Speaker 1: she wants to tell everybody else about how they need
Speaker 1: to pay higher taxes and let her determine what they
Speaker 1: can do with their money. I don't think so, e Dubbs.
Speaker 1: I think E Warren is toast in this primary. Say
Speaker 1: retweeted a misleadingly edited video of Nancy Pelosi, edited to
Speaker 1: highlighting exaggerated stuttering. Another fake video is also circling circulating online.
Speaker 1: It's been slowed down to make Pelosi per incoherent ill,
Speaker 1: perhaps drunk. The video is fake. It's manipulated. Numerous audio
Speaker 1: and video experts and fact checking organizations have confirmed that,
Speaker 1: But that video in particular has been viewed by millions
Speaker 1: of people on Facebook, and in fact, it's still up
Speaker 1: on Facebook, even though Facebook knows it's fake. They've added
Speaker 1: comments from independent fact checkers to inform people who watch
Speaker 1: it and have made it less cominent, but it is
Speaker 1: still up there, and YouTube took it down, but it's
Speaker 1: still up on Twitter. They're not even commenting about it.
Speaker 1: The CDN commentariat no longer even really pretends to be
Speaker 1: about the First Amendment. I mean, they view themselves as
Speaker 1: a kind of priesthood of truth, the journalism clergy, if
Speaker 1: you will, though a lot of them would reject the
Speaker 1: notion of being in any kind of religious organization. But
Speaker 1: they think of themselves as a cast, as an elite
Speaker 1: ordained to bring us the information we need to be
Speaker 1: informed citizens. And beyond that, our opinions, our little gripes
Speaker 1: with how they present things, that's all irrelevant to them.
Speaker 1: The video in questionnaire has to do with Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: and it all comes from the same press conference, and
Speaker 1: I haven't I can't say that I've seen all of
Speaker 1: the videos. But in one case, I saw a video
Speaker 1: that was not slowed down. It was not. I mean
Speaker 1: when they say things like edited, and they did this
Speaker 1: with the Center for Medical Progress, they kept saying heavily edited,
Speaker 1: heavily edited. Yeah, because they took twelve hours or whatever
Speaker 1: it was. I forget how many hours. Don't quote me
Speaker 1: on that, but you know, hours and hours of undercover
Speaker 1: video and edited it down so they actually had something
Speaker 1: that people could watch and see and know what's going on.
Speaker 1: All news broadcasts that you see are in some way
Speaker 1: or another edited. They've got commercial breaks, they run pre
Speaker 1: roll packages that every piece of writing you see goes
Speaker 1: through an editor to edit. Something is not, in and
Speaker 1: of itself any admission of dishonesty. But notice how they
Speaker 1: do that. Oh it's been edited. Edited video of Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: Edited video of Nancy Pelosi. I mean, she looks like
Speaker 1: a clown at any speed. The thing she says we
Speaker 1: don't have about dishonest and dumb. The things that she
Speaker 1: says are an embarrassment no matter what you do with
Speaker 1: the editing process. But here you have a prominent, wildly overpaid,
Speaker 1: famous for reasons that are beyond my comprehension journalist and
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper who is saying that Facebook should take it
Speaker 1: upon itself to police truth, and he skips right over
Speaker 1: the fact that this is well within the boundaries of
Speaker 1: what you could consider satire. And just because you taken
Speaker 1: you an edited videw should we ban everything The Daily Show? Ever?
Speaker 1: Did libs love The Daily Show? You know? The Daily
Speaker 1: Show used to do sit down with people and interview them,
Speaker 1: and they thought they're in a normal interview, but then
Speaker 1: they would add in questions that weren't asked during the interview,
Speaker 1: cut things, and the whole point was to make a
Speaker 1: mockery of and make the person, if they were a
Speaker 1: conservative in particular, look stupid, all post edited, all out
Speaker 1: of context, and the whole thing. They thought that was hilarious.
Speaker 1: Now they might say, well, buck, that's satire, that's comedy, Okay,
Speaker 1: this Pelosi thing is satire. Comedy. They think Facebook should
Speaker 1: take it down? Why should Facebook take it down? Not
Speaker 1: threatening anyone, it's not breaking any laws. But this is
Speaker 1: a window and this is a journalist, This is somebody
Speaker 1: who makes a living in the trafficking of information. Well
Speaker 1: because at CNN, the trafficking of fake news. But this
Speaker 1: is what they do they have. They have no defense
Speaker 1: whatsoever of the First Amendment comes to mind for these people,
Speaker 1: these these uh pampered multi millionaires, not just at CNN,
Speaker 1: it's some of these other places too. But they all
Speaker 1: they care about is that the ideas they don't like
Speaker 1: are suppressed. All they care about is that the other
Speaker 1: side loses, and they're a part of sticking it to them.
Speaker 1: That this would mean that Facebook is now responsible for
Speaker 1: deciding what is even just in good taste content. If
Speaker 1: Facebook is left with deciding what's in good taste, I mean,
Speaker 1: I would just say that they should probably ban CNN altogether,
Speaker 1: because CNN is a joke. As I've been telling you,
Speaker 1: CNN International is an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment to this country.
Speaker 1: It is anti American propaganda that is being blasted all
Speaker 1: over the world, and the people who are a part
Speaker 1: of it, and those who work for it should be ashamed.
Speaker 1: Of course they're not, but they should be. But no
Speaker 1: one's saying, oh, Facebook needs to takedown seeing an international
Speaker 1: Facebook needs to because this where does that end? And
Speaker 1: they're so upset about you know, they're so upset about
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi looking so foolish and dumb because Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: is getting old and she's missing a step or two.
Speaker 1: And she did stutter a lot in that press conference.
Speaker 1: I saw it. She did have a you know, doesn't
Speaker 1: seem that shark. And this the people who say, well,
Speaker 1: but you know, you can't say that about her, or
Speaker 1: you're not a psychiatrist or you're not a medical doctor. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I hear about how Trump is going to be removed
Speaker 1: by the twenty fifth MM and all the time from
Speaker 1: people that now say that Nancy Pelosi's you know that
Speaker 1: that's beyond the pale. Remember when Hillary just passed out
Speaker 1: and flopped in the back of a van and people
Speaker 1: try to cover it up during the election, and then
Speaker 1: we were told, oh, that's terrible and you can admit,
Speaker 1: Oh okay, But but Trump is crazy, they say, is
Speaker 1: actually crazy. These people have absolutely no ethics whatsoever, no decency,
Speaker 1: no honor. Speaking of no decency or honor, Hillary also
Speaker 1: jumped in on this bandwagon, slamming Facebook, saying that they
Speaker 1: should have removed this place seventeen. The big social media
Speaker 1: platforms know their systems are being manipulated by foreign and
Speaker 1: domestic actors to sew division, promote extremism and spread misinformation,
Speaker 1: But they won't get serious about cleaning up their platforms
Speaker 1: unless consumers demanded. And we saw why it's so important
Speaker 1: just last week when Facebook refused to take down a
Speaker 1: fake video of Nancy Pelosi. It wasn't even a close call.
Speaker 1: The video is sexist trash, and YouTube took it down,
Speaker 1: but Facebook kept it up sexist trash, so it should
Speaker 1: be taken down. Who's going to make those determinations about
Speaker 1: what constitutes sexist trash. Who's going to make the determination
Speaker 1: about what is just mean spirited and shouldn't be out
Speaker 1: there in the marketplace of ideas. The left likes to
Speaker 1: censor because the left must control. They do not trust
Speaker 1: individual agency and human freedom. They do not trust it.
Speaker 1: They think there must be a governing body that determines
Speaker 1: everything about what you can do, about what freedoms you have,
Speaker 1: what you can think, what you can say. They want
Speaker 1: control of all of it. They want maximum control, whatever
Speaker 1: that means. I prefer to live in a world and
Speaker 1: in a country where people get to make decisions about
Speaker 1: themselves to the maximum extent possible. I take the opposite
Speaker 1: point of view, but slant Facebook because they won't remove
Speaker 1: an embarrassing video of Nancy Pelosi. What guideline did it violate?
Speaker 1: She says, it's obviously fake because they slowed it down
Speaker 1: a little bit. It's it's obviously fake. It's not fake.
Speaker 1: It's a real video of Nancy Pelosi. And even if
Speaker 1: it were fake, you know, if they were to photoshop
Speaker 1: and image of you know, a chicken over Nancy Pelosi's face,
Speaker 1: is that something that needs to be taken down? The
Speaker 1: left says yes, you know why, because they can't stand mockery.
Speaker 1: They can't stand it. He really gets to them because
Speaker 1: they're so used to having cultural dominance. At anytime, a Democrat,
Speaker 1: a Leftist really feels like they're the butt of a joke.
Speaker 1: We realize they have no sense of humor either. They
Speaker 1: think they're the funny ones, but they actually don't have
Speaker 1: any sense of humor about themselves. Well, I think if
Speaker 1: it becomes law, it'll be very difficult producer, or rather
Speaker 1: doubt we will. Many people who work for us will
Speaker 1: not want to work there, and we'll have to heed
Speaker 1: their wishes in that regard. Right now, we're watching it
Speaker 1: very carefully. I think it's also likely to be challenged
Speaker 1: in the courts and that could delay it, and we're
Speaker 1: being careful and cautious about it. But if it becomes law,
Speaker 1: I don't see how it's practical for us to continue
Speaker 1: to shoot there. Disney CEO Bob iger on An on
Speaker 1: the abortion bill there in Georgia. This is just something
Speaker 1: that we've become accustomed to as conservatives that I don't
Speaker 1: think we should have to be accustomed to anymore. I
Speaker 1: am sick of all of us just assuming, oh, corporate
Speaker 1: America is going to lash out at the right and
Speaker 1: never lash out at the left. I mean, Disney is
Speaker 1: supposed to be a great American company. It's a huge company,
Speaker 1: controls a tremendous amount of contents, bought up all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff recently, I know. But if it's a great
Speaker 1: American company, shouldn't it represent the American people and their wishes,
Speaker 1: or at least shouldn't it be respectful of the American
Speaker 1: people in their wishes? Not half of the American people.
Speaker 1: And when you're talking about some of these abortion extremists,
Speaker 1: it's much much much less than half. You know, the
Speaker 1: the true left, I mean, the the planned parenthood version
Speaker 1: of what the law should be when it comes to
Speaker 1: abortion is supported really by only about fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: percent of the country. It's the hard left view of things.
Speaker 1: It is the ideologically rigid progressive approach, and and it's
Speaker 1: very doctrinaire. It's very based in a leftist orthodoxy. But
Speaker 1: why is it just the assumption that Bob Eiger is
Speaker 1: going to threaten the state of Georgia for doing what
Speaker 1: it's completely within its rights to do, passing a state law,
Speaker 1: and say that they're going to take business away. So
Speaker 1: they're going to punish people that are going to work
Speaker 1: on different sets and you know, as cameramen and craftsmen
Speaker 1: and key grip and all these things that you do
Speaker 1: at these at these film places. I can't even think
Speaker 1: of all the jobs you're going to punish them because
Speaker 1: you have a bunch of progressive ideologues, not just in
Speaker 1: your audience, but clearly in the company. You know. That's
Speaker 1: where this that's where the rubber really meets the road
Speaker 1: on all of this, is that the c suite at
Speaker 1: so many major corporations is full of people who are
Speaker 1: left wing ideologues and they don't have any problem inflicting
Speaker 1: their beliefs on other people and punishing people who don't
Speaker 1: agree with them. And I mean I remember, for example,
Speaker 1: being told, look, I'll even tell you where it was.
Speaker 1: It was at CNN. I remember being told by a
Speaker 1: CNN executive who was involved in the hiring of people
Speaker 1: at CNN that he would would not only oppose, but
Speaker 1: do everything in his power to sync the chances of
Speaker 1: anyone who was going to work at CNN on air
Speaker 1: who was not in favor of gay rite. Now, whatever
Speaker 1: you think about gay marriage and all the rest of it,
Speaker 1: just think about that for a moment, though you And
Speaker 1: that was years ago. That was before um what was
Speaker 1: it before? And it was right after oberg fell the
Speaker 1: decision screen court decision. But he's like, if you you cannot,
Speaker 1: this guy was like, you will not be able to
Speaker 1: work there. He will do everything he can to stop you.
Speaker 1: They went after Brendon Ike from Mozilla for his previous
Speaker 1: support Years ago, Brandon Ike of Mozilla, the CEO and
Speaker 1: founder of Mozilla, was chased out of his corporate position
Speaker 1: by other people at his company and by the media
Speaker 1: because he was supporting in California traditional marriage the same
Speaker 1: at the exact same time that Barack Obama was running
Speaker 1: as a traditional marriage candidate. But the left always makes
Speaker 1: exceptions for people on their side who are doing the
Speaker 1: head fake, or who are a trojan horse, or who
Speaker 1: who abandoned the position. As soon as they're in power,
Speaker 1: they're okay with that. In fact, they like that, They
Speaker 1: courage that, that kind of dissembling, that kind of intellectual dishonesty.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm gonna say this until I get into power,
Speaker 1: they're gonna do something else. But we have to, we
Speaker 1: have to fight back against this. This should not be
Speaker 1: something what Bob Eiger is saying here is that Disney
Speaker 1: takes a political position as a company against conservatives, and
Speaker 1: this should not be okay. This should not be something
Speaker 1: that goes without pushback and without organized dare I say, resistance.
Speaker 1: This is also just culturally on the left. They they're
Speaker 1: very comfortable doing this. They're very comfortable making examples of
Speaker 1: people for political reasons that have nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the company's business, that have nothing to do with you know,
Speaker 1: whether or not someone is going to be a good
Speaker 1: customer of theirs, just like the left will boycott. It
Speaker 1: is known. It is known throughout the media industry that
Speaker 1: leftists can say all kinds of crazy stuff and they'll
Speaker 1: still get blue chip, very uh you know, very wealthy sponsors.
Speaker 1: They'll they'll get the Coke, Mercedes, McDonald's, etc. But on
Speaker 1: the right, oh, you're all you're always put on notice.
Speaker 1: You know, if you if you step out of line,
Speaker 1: if you say something that's a little too conservative, if
Speaker 1: you you know, if you if you don't dance to
Speaker 1: the tune that the leftists tell you too, you may
Speaker 1: find yourself getting all your sponsors pulled. In fact, you
Speaker 1: might find yourself getting your bank account uh pulled. You know,
Speaker 1: they may say, sorry, you know, we're gonna give you
Speaker 1: your money back or whatever, but you can't do use
Speaker 1: our banking services. They obviously will go after people for
Speaker 1: the platform, for the platforms they use as well. They
Speaker 1: want they want they want speech police for the left,
Speaker 1: or the left wants to be the speech police on Facebook,
Speaker 1: on YouTube, on Twitter. They know how powerful these things are.
Speaker 1: For those of you that say, oh buck those platforms,
Speaker 1: isn't it over blown? No, the future generations, the cable
Speaker 1: news environment is going to go away as we know it.
Speaker 1: They'll still be shows and I mean maybe the networks
Speaker 1: will still exist, but you're gonna be watching it digitally.
Speaker 1: You're gonna be watching an ala carte, and increasingly the
Speaker 1: major social platforms are going to be determining. They already
Speaker 1: are largely determining the news cycle, but they're going to
Speaker 1: be almost entirely deciding what people see as tremendous power
Speaker 1: in it. And the left wants to use that power
Speaker 1: to censor. They want to use that power to push
Speaker 1: ideas that they not only think are correct, but those
Speaker 1: who don't hold those ideas aren't worth listening to. They
Speaker 1: are to be silenced, they are to be silenced. And
Speaker 1: it's it's a constant frustration for me that we just,
Speaker 1: you know, in half the country roughly speaking as Republican
Speaker 1: or conservative, and we don't We don't try to even
Speaker 1: the score. We don't try to hold them to account.
Speaker 1: We let them get away with this crowd, with this
Speaker 1: nonsense of politicizing corporate America, politicizing sports. It's always a
Speaker 1: one way street. We just take it, We take the abuse.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it will require for us to
Speaker 1: decide that enough is enough. You know, maybe we do
Speaker 1: have to fight fire with fire. Maybe some really painful
Speaker 1: boycotts of some companies is the only way to get
Speaker 1: them to stop this stuff. I mean, you want to
Speaker 1: know how biased they are about things like abortion. I mean,
Speaker 1: the media is the praetorian guard of abortion for nine
Speaker 1: months of a pregnancy and even after the pregnancy, on
Speaker 1: demand for any reason or no reason. The media is
Speaker 1: you know, boomers in the media, who unfortunately control the
Speaker 1: news media. The boomer generation of liberals in the media
Speaker 1: are the abortion radicals more so than any other generation.
Speaker 1: And these boomer abortion radicals do not want, especially in
Speaker 1: the waning years of their careers, to have a country that,
Speaker 1: by its actions and by the laws that it passes
Speaker 1: and by the polls that are taken, repudiates abortion as
Speaker 1: a women's rights issue and treats it as a life issue.
Speaker 1: And that's how you have someone like, for example, Alison Cama,
Speaker 1: Allison Camarada over at CNN, who makes a look just
Speaker 1: a little slip here, a little slip, but it tells
Speaker 1: you a lot, doesn't it play eighteen issue. Lots of
Speaker 1: families do have to make that decision based on the
Speaker 1: single characteristic of finding out that their children that their
Speaker 1: fetus has a severe abnormality. Oh oh gosh, I said, children,
Speaker 1: I'm in fetus. Now she had it right the first time.
Speaker 1: Fetus is a child. That's what it is. Fetus is
Speaker 1: a child. But they know they have to control the language.
Speaker 1: They know they have to use words that obscure what's
Speaker 1: really happening. They cannot discuss openly, clearly, honestly what these
Speaker 1: abortion procedures involve. And they know that they're they're paymasters,
Speaker 1: I mean, the people that determine who in the mainstream
Speaker 1: media is going to get these big fat paychecks and
Speaker 1: be important and be famous. They're all pro they're all
Speaker 1: pro choice. They're all pro choice, a whole lot of them.
Speaker 1: So that's why Camarada, how to catch yourself there right away.
Speaker 1: But it's time. It's time we fight back, my friends.
Speaker 1: We don't sit around and just let them abuse us
Speaker 1: for our beliefs anymore, because that's what they're gonna keep
Speaker 1: doing unless we put a stop to it. I guess
Speaker 1: because it's summertime and I'm gonna be spending more time outside.
Speaker 1: I've been a little more uh what's the word consistent
Speaker 1: about trying to be active. You know, you do't wanna
Speaker 1: be that guy who's running around like, yeah, if my bellet,
Speaker 1: it's huge game, my bellet at the beach, you're want
Speaker 1: to be that or maybe you do want to be
Speaker 1: that guy. You'd probably make friends with all sorts of folks,
Speaker 1: you know, wants to rub the bellet for a good look. Glad,
Speaker 1: but trying to trying to get the belly shrinking a
Speaker 1: little bit. And so I've been working out more and
Speaker 1: doing more active things for the last well last couple
Speaker 1: of months, except for when I was traveling and I
Speaker 1: got to say one thing that that's really come to me.
Speaker 1: Maybe this is a function of getting old, but I
Speaker 1: feel like my I have to get myself used. Idea
Speaker 1: of just playing hurt so to speak, right, you know,
Speaker 1: when you're when you're playing sports. I used to play
Speaker 1: organized sports back in the day. That sounds like a
Speaker 1: nerdy way of saying it, but I played basketball and
Speaker 1: soccer and tennis pretty much anything without a helmet because
Speaker 1: my head. You laugh, but it's true. My head was
Speaker 1: too big for the helmets and they'd always try to
Speaker 1: jam my head into a helmet that was too small,
Speaker 1: and it gave me. If you've ever had that happen
Speaker 1: to give you a terrible headache, that's kind of like
Speaker 1: having a shoe on. That's way too tight, you your
Speaker 1: foot will cramp. You know, same thing with a helmet
Speaker 1: that's too tight, your head will just you'll get a
Speaker 1: really vicious headache from it. So I played non helmet sports,
Speaker 1: which a lot of you are like laughing at me
Speaker 1: right now, and you should. You should laugh at me.
Speaker 1: Buck's poofy hair prevented him from ever playing football or
Speaker 1: lacrosse or ice hockey. But you know, you have to
Speaker 1: play hurt, right Like I I my senior year, broke
Speaker 1: my fifth metatarsal bone in my foot, which is very common.
Speaker 1: It's a stress fracture. You don't have to do anything
Speaker 1: to it, it'll just break. And I didn't know that,
Speaker 1: and I played an entire season of soccer with a
Speaker 1: broken bone in my foot, which later on when a
Speaker 1: doctor X rated, it was like that is insane. How'd
Speaker 1: you do that? And I was like, well, by the way,
Speaker 1: I do not recommend it, because then you have pain
Speaker 1: in your foot and you know, I limp a little
Speaker 1: bit and it's not good. You want to get your
Speaker 1: fifth metatarsal fixed if you break it. But you get
Speaker 1: used to having to play hurt, just in life in
Speaker 1: general and trying to avoid injury. I find now that
Speaker 1: I have the discipline and the knowledge to do what
Speaker 1: I need to do physically to keep myself feeling healthy
Speaker 1: and active. But now it sounds like I'm I'm almost
Speaker 1: doing an advertisement for a retirement home to keep myself
Speaker 1: feeling healthy and active. But playing hurt man, it's such
Speaker 1: a big part of it, you know, just avoid bad
Speaker 1: injury too. I saw recently that are my old colleague
Speaker 1: from The Blaze, Matt Walsh. He was tweeting out about
Speaker 1: how he ruptured his achilles tendon. I don't know what
Speaker 1: to do to of what I am. That is a
Speaker 1: fear that I have. I've thought about getting back into
Speaker 1: doing wind sprints because intermittent intermittent training and wind sprints
Speaker 1: or interval training rather not intermittent training, it's intermittent fasting.
Speaker 1: But interval training with wind sprints I have found in
Speaker 1: the past is among the most especially when you add
Speaker 1: inclines into it. So you go at very high speed
Speaker 1: at a steep incline, and then you'd go at a
Speaker 1: more resting rate run and then you keep switching back
Speaker 1: and forth. One of the most effective things for I
Speaker 1: found for weight loss and just overall health. But I
Speaker 1: feel like I'm old enough now, or if I just
Speaker 1: try to do some wind sprints, I might rupture my
Speaker 1: achilles tendon. You know, So I Mark, what's the worst
Speaker 1: injury you've ever had from sports? Birth? Birth? Yeah, when
Speaker 1: I was born. That's not that's not an injury from sports. Dude,
Speaker 1: back on your I had a friend who did that,
Speaker 1: who ruptured as achilles really yeah, and I was involved
Speaker 1: in the in the race. It was hilarious, makes a
Speaker 1: pop noise from what I understand it. Really, man, he
Speaker 1: wasn't he wasn't right for like a year. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I want to see. This is a thing like I'm
Speaker 1: at this point now where you know, I used to
Speaker 1: be able to play her, but now I just don't
Speaker 1: want to get hurt. I sound so whimpy right now,
Speaker 1: but it's true. You know, I'll do some like weights
Speaker 1: and things like that. I used to take like an
Speaker 1: Olympic bar and throw it around and you're all rare,
Speaker 1: And now I'm like, maybe I'll just use the five pounders,
Speaker 1: you know, just yeay, like get a little get the
Speaker 1: heart pumping. I gotta get. I gotta get back into
Speaker 1: beast mode. Beast mode for buck. None of this whimp
Speaker 1: mode stuff. But I'm trying so those of you who have,
Speaker 1: if you have team and exercise routine that has worked
Speaker 1: fantastically for you and you care to share it, I
Speaker 1: will tell you this. Whoever sends me the best exercise
Speaker 1: and meal plan routine at Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: we'll get a shout out on the show. How about that.
Speaker 1: We'll make this almost a little a little contest. But
Speaker 1: did you know, and don't give me one of the
Speaker 1: things we were like, you're gonna eat seven hundred calories
Speaker 1: a day and you're gonna work out for six hours
Speaker 1: a day. I got a life, I got things I
Speaker 1: gotta do. Keep it, keep it realistic, all right for
Speaker 1: those of you, and don't send me photos of your abs.
Speaker 1: For all I know there's like amateur and even some
Speaker 1: professional weightlifters who listen to this show. All right, you
Speaker 1: don't need to make the radio host feel bad. I
Speaker 1: don't need to see your six pack, but do share
Speaker 1: your meal plan and your workout tricks. I'll take all
Speaker 1: that stuff because I don't want to rupture my achilles.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for roll.
Speaker 1: Call Facebook dot com slash Buck Sex in. That is
Speaker 1: how we get the roll call action going. Very easy.
Speaker 1: Just go there, send a message. I love when people say,
Speaker 1: is this where we send the role call message? And
Speaker 1: I'll read that on air of course, of course it
Speaker 1: is where we send the roll call message. Dale is
Speaker 1: first up, Buck, What do you think the odds are
Speaker 1: that Muller's stunt yesterday was the result of negotiations between
Speaker 1: himself and Nadler as a way to avoid testifying. He
Speaker 1: essentially gave Nadler and the leftist what they wanted while
Speaker 1: avoiding being grilled by the Republicans. You know, Dale, I
Speaker 1: give you points for creative outside the box thinking. I
Speaker 1: would just say that there's the reason I think that
Speaker 1: did not happen is that it is too much risk
Speaker 1: for too little gain for Muller. There's no reason for
Speaker 1: him to put himself in a position where something like
Speaker 1: that could come out and be a big problem for him.
Speaker 1: But I can't to borrow from Muller. If I could
Speaker 1: conclusively prove that you were wrong, I would say so.
Speaker 1: I am merely saying I don't think that happened, But
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that. I'm not saying it. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it did not saying it didn't. You know, I
Speaker 1: do want to don't. So that's what I got for
Speaker 1: you on that, my friend, TJ. Right Buck, I'm kind
Speaker 1: of glad to hear you're leaving Rising, especially on days
Speaker 1: like today when Jamal fills in for Crystal. While the
Speaker 1: two of them may be of the same political bent,
Speaker 1: at least Crystal is mostly respectful of guests, especially pro
Speaker 1: life guests. Unlike the way Jamal treated Jeanie this morning despicable.
Speaker 1: At least let her talk. I've never heard more interruptions.
Speaker 1: He's got a lot to learn about hosting. T J. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I look, I called Jeanie afterwards to apologize for the
Speaker 1: way she was treated on and I did try and
Speaker 1: you know, bring the temperature down at that table a
Speaker 1: little bit. Although it's a very hard thing to get
Speaker 1: a co host to not be so riled up, I've
Speaker 1: something that I've learned. It's just because then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, you become the problem too, and you can
Speaker 1: make it much much worse. So unless you're just gonna
Speaker 1: bail on the segment, Yeah, TJ, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: disagree with you, but it was I have very rarely
Speaker 1: had to call someone to apologize for the way they
Speaker 1: were treated in my presence and the head of the
Speaker 1: March for Life. She was not given the respect that
Speaker 1: she was due as a guest, and I tried, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately it wasn't enough to make that happen. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm it's time to go for me, TJ from the Hill.
Speaker 1: So that's where it is. I am moving on and focusing,
Speaker 1: quite honestly, just focusing on this radio show. I have
Speaker 1: some other projects that are around the radio show that
Speaker 1: I'll be able to announce very soon, really exciting, very
Speaker 1: cool stuff. We're going to be jumping Team BA. We're
Speaker 1: gonna be jumping into the digital world. So that's that's
Speaker 1: the biggest preview I can give you right now. But
Speaker 1: we're going to jump in it. That doesn't change anything
Speaker 1: on radio. I'm just saying, think video, think podcasting, think
Speaker 1: things like that, all right, Benjamin, Right Buck. I enjoy
Speaker 1: your television and movie reviews. It saves me from wasting
Speaker 1: time and being disappointed when a show ends up being
Speaker 1: liberal trash propaganda. My wife and I both appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Shields high well, Benjamin' I'm so happy to provide that
Speaker 1: additional service, my friend. Thank you. Sometimes people say to me,
Speaker 1: you're not a movie critic, Well are you criticizing movies
Speaker 1: on you? Well, you know, I just talk about things.
Speaker 1: I try to share worthwhile, interesting, entertaining information. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that is what I try to manage. That is
Speaker 1: what I try to do here on the show. So
Speaker 1: that's my mandate, that is my mission. And if that
Speaker 1: means that I can also Oh man, I was trying
Speaker 1: to watch it wasn't deep Water Rising yesterday, which is
Speaker 1: a Let me see if I can pull this up
Speaker 1: real quick. Um, I think it's called is it deep
Speaker 1: Water Rising or what is it? Uh? No, deep Water Horizon? Oh,
Speaker 1: I can't remember what this is? What this is called? Um?
Speaker 1: It had man, It's it's about a it's a movie.
Speaker 1: I'm actually finding this in real time movie. But a
Speaker 1: giant squid from the ninth attacking a cruise ship. Yep,
Speaker 1: here we go. It's called deep Rising. There we go
Speaker 1: deep It's funny. We're just talking about my show rising
Speaker 1: deep Rising? Wait? Is that it? Um? I think this
Speaker 1: is right? It is? It is? It is terrible. It
Speaker 1: is terrible. Um, it's a really really bad movie. So
Speaker 1: I would not go about watching that any anytime soon.
Speaker 1: I would I think that you'll be very very happy
Speaker 1: if you skip that one. But I did think it
Speaker 1: was kind of funny that, you know, when when I
Speaker 1: was watching it, you see people who back in the day,
Speaker 1: they whenever they're firing an automatic weapon, they would shoot
Speaker 1: from the waist and kind of move the weapon back
Speaker 1: and forth, like side to side, as though that was
Speaker 1: going to make the bullets go faster. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of that in in Deep Rising. Um. Yeah, such such
Speaker 1: a yep famkagens And this is the movie such nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety eight, Such a bad movie, not not worth anyone's time.
Speaker 1: I was amazed at how cheesy and garbage it was.
Speaker 1: All right. Next up is Jeremy Buck with companies like
Speaker 1: Uber and Open Table rating their customers. Is this not
Speaker 1: a precursor to China's social rating system we've been hearing
Speaker 1: about shields high Jeremy, Well, Jeremy, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a precursor to that. I think that you know, you
Speaker 1: look at how much of your life is already determined
Speaker 1: by your record and by you know, your driving record
Speaker 1: influences how much you pay for insurance, your academic record
Speaker 1: where you go to school, what jobs you get, your
Speaker 1: employment record, your criminal record. These are all This is
Speaker 1: all data about humans. That about humans, that affects what
Speaker 1: we can do and what our options and opportunities are.
Speaker 1: So that's already happening. What China has is are you
Speaker 1: supportive of the state and doing what the state wants?
Speaker 1: And that's different than Uber in my mind at least,
Speaker 1: that's different than Uber saying this person is polite and
Speaker 1: friendly and shows up when they say they're going to
Speaker 1: show up for pickup stuff like that. Laurel all rights, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I thought you were reading an ad for podcasts or
Speaker 1: joking when you started about encouraging social credit through Uber Dude. Seriously,
Speaker 1: that is ripe for abuse, if I'm not mistaken. Wow,
Speaker 1: another person who compares this to China, you are against this.
Speaker 1: China started this nonsense. The problem we have in society
Speaker 1: isn't that people are rude, is that we force everyone
Speaker 1: to be positive, resulting an outburst when our internal emotional
Speaker 1: state gets out of hand. No one wants to be angry, mean,
Speaker 1: or rude. Empathy and compassion or how you change the society,
Speaker 1: not more punishment for things that we perceive as wrong.
Speaker 1: Watch the Black Mirror episode episode nosedive, and remember we're
Speaker 1: all human. I don't know, Laurel, I'm gonna agree to
Speaker 1: disagree with you on this one. I think that people
Speaker 1: engage in a business trends. I mean, should we not
Speaker 1: have Yelp reviews for businesses? Is that, big brother? Or
Speaker 1: is that? I like to know if a place where
Speaker 1: I'm going to conduct business has a reputation of being dishonest,
Speaker 1: doing bad work, overcharging people. So if that's true for businesses,
Speaker 1: why can't it be true for your interactions with a business.
Speaker 1: I don't understand, in fact, what is a credit score
Speaker 1: other than a compilation of your trustworthiness in paying your
Speaker 1: debts and looking at the level of debt you maintain.
Speaker 1: So this is already out there, I don't so I
Speaker 1: don't agree that this is the Chinese social credit system,
Speaker 1: which is far more invasive and intrusive and has to
Speaker 1: do with state mandated policy and the support of state
Speaker 1: mandated policy. So and then also it helps you for
Speaker 1: dating apps and stuff. I should probably read. There's a
Speaker 1: couple of good books out right now about the Chinese
Speaker 1: social credit system, and maybe I'll dig into those. Wow,
Speaker 1: a lot a lot of people, A lot of people
Speaker 1: got really thought the Uber conversation yesterday, the whole inbox
Speaker 1: is full of this stuff. Book. You talked about ranking
Speaker 1: people on niceness or nastiness. Does this sound a lot
Speaker 1: like the Chinese social ranking system? No, guys, it's not
Speaker 1: ranking you as a person in general for your niceness
Speaker 1: or nastiness. It's a it's not a totalitarian surveillance state
Speaker 1: that's assessing. It's when you ask for an Uber ride pickup?
Speaker 1: Are are you at the place you're supposed to be?
Speaker 1: And are you a reasonable person in that in that interaction?
Speaker 1: I don't know why. Oh man, Well, it's a good
Speaker 1: idea and thought. I think that if libs are a
Speaker 1: high percentage of restaurants to have, how would that work?
Speaker 1: If you're a conservative, you get a bad ranking from them.
Speaker 1: But I mean this is true of anything. I mean,
Speaker 1: any ranking system. You can get someone who wants to,
Speaker 1: you know, mess with you or mess up what's going on.
Speaker 1: So I disagree, folks, I know a lot of you
Speaker 1: are are you going right to the China thing here? China?
Speaker 1: Michelle right? Buck M good to hear your show. Thank you, Michelle,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that very much. Next up here we have
Speaker 1: Valerie who writes movie talkers. They covered your social behavior
Speaker 1: idea in the Fox series The Orville. By the way,
Speaker 1: you have an enjoyable program. Well, thank you so much, Valerie.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. We hope the program is very much enjoyable.
Speaker 1: That I'd already say, Valerie, I think maybe that was
Speaker 1: the one that Alan Rights hey Buck enjoyed seeing you
Speaker 1: on the Hill. But it's for the best that you
Speaker 1: can pursue your convictions without compromise. You'll be leaving the
Speaker 1: swamp and going back to NYC or maybe even coming
Speaker 1: out to La Alan TBD, my friend TBD. But I
Speaker 1: am leaving the Hill Fae show. So that is now
Speaker 1: out there and people know it. All that hasn't up
Speaker 1: been aficial. It'll be officially announced on Monday. Those you
Speaker 1: listen to the radio show, you get a little sneak
Speaker 1: prev because you're like my family. Debra Rights, I love it.
Speaker 1: Dems are focused on getting Trump. They cannot even run
Speaker 1: a good campaign based on that. Yes, Debra, they're not
Speaker 1: really running a campaign at all. They're just running a
Speaker 1: kind of emotional smear effort. I mean, they're just they're
Speaker 1: they've completely lost themselves in Trump hatred that knows no
Speaker 1: limitations or rationality, and they think you and I are
Speaker 1: the crazy ones. That's what's so interesting about at least
Speaker 1: to me. So what do we have tomorrow Friday? Oh
Speaker 1: that's right, man, it's gonna be a little freestyle Friday.
Speaker 1: You know. Let me know on the comments today, folks,
Speaker 1: if you want us to bring back action movie quote Friday.
Speaker 1: It's been a long time. I feel like some of
Speaker 1: you really enjoyed that we'd open the phone lines for it.
Speaker 1: Let me know, Facebook, dot com, slashbuck Sexton or anything
Speaker 1: else you think you want for Friday shows. I want
Speaker 1: to you know, I want to make sure that you
Speaker 1: guys are getting what you want on the Friday. So
Speaker 1: send me those thoughts and we'll be talking tomorrow, same time,
Speaker 1: same place. Team. You know how we roll, you know
Speaker 1: how we keep it real, shields high,