Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A left wing mob
Speaker 1: surrounds Tucker Carlson's home in d C and terrifies his wife,
Speaker 1: who is trapped inside. We'll talk about how it is
Speaker 1: that we can fight back against these maniacs, and also
Speaker 1: what is going on over the d o J. What
Speaker 1: are all these calls for a refusal? Where is the
Speaker 1: Mueller probe going. We've got that and much more coming
Speaker 1: up on the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins, analysts,
Speaker 1: No girl, your home, come you? That's like, yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: people by by a hand from police rank were at night?
Speaker 1: You know where are you? Say? That night? A liberal
Speaker 1: mob gathered outside of Fox News host and dilly caller
Speaker 1: uh lum Tucker Carlson last night with a bull worn
Speaker 1: chanting we know where you sleep at night. Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: wasn't even home when this happened, but his wife was,
Speaker 1: and she was inside that house only quiet streets of
Speaker 1: d C. She was inside that house alone and terrified
Speaker 1: because there was an effort made to kick in the
Speaker 1: front door. At one point there was damage done to
Speaker 1: the door, so she locked herself in a pantry and
Speaker 1: called nine one. The couple of dozen left wing maniac
Speaker 1: stalker agitators who were outside continued to yell and make noise.
Speaker 1: They didn't care about the fact that Tucker's wife was
Speaker 1: home alone and didn't know if this was going to
Speaker 1: turn into a violent incident. I didn't care about the
Speaker 1: fact that Tucker has children who also could have been home,
Speaker 1: thankfully they were not. And they didn't care about the
Speaker 1: fact that this should never happen in this country. This
Speaker 1: should not be in anyway, you know, talked about as
Speaker 1: something that could happen no matter what Tucker Carlson says
Speaker 1: on TV, and those who do the yes butt construction
Speaker 1: need to be called that as well. It's not all
Speaker 1: right to say, all right, I don't agree with the
Speaker 1: tactics here, but what Tucker Carlson says on TV as
Speaker 1: a racist bull crap. People who say that are idiots,
Speaker 1: their cowards, and they're despicable. And a lot of journalists.
Speaker 1: The co founder of vox dot com, which is a
Speaker 1: website that for some reason a lot of idiot left
Speaker 1: wing millennials tend to read the co founder is saying
Speaker 1: he can't he can't feel any sympathy. This was proclaimed
Speaker 1: this publicly today online. Can't feel any sympathy for Rucker
Speaker 1: Carlson's wife. See, this is what's different. This is what
Speaker 1: is different about the left and the right on these issues.
Speaker 1: And I saw some of the morons today running around saying, oh,
Speaker 1: but what about the pipe bombs of CNN. Not a
Speaker 1: single person that I know in media for one second
Speaker 1: said oh, well, you know the pipe bombs sent to CNN.
Speaker 1: You know it's kind of bad, but CNN says some stuff,
Speaker 1: and no, it's illegal, it's grotesque, and the person who
Speaker 1: did it should be held accountable to the greatest possible
Speaker 1: extent under the law. Everyone I know in the media,
Speaker 1: everybody I know in conservative politics who has any kind
Speaker 1: of a following or any kind of say in the
Speaker 1: national conversation to a person took the position that, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's completely unacceptable for a loan psychopath to send pipe
Speaker 1: bombs to not just CNN, also a bunch of other
Speaker 1: people too, who were left wing democrats. Nobody was doing
Speaker 1: the oh, but you know, it's see Ann says some
Speaker 1: really bad stuff. No, no, unacceptable. And what's different here
Speaker 1: is that in a situation where there was vandalism, there
Speaker 1: were threats, there was menacing. One of the people who
Speaker 1: was gathered outside of the Carlson home mentioned a pipe
Speaker 1: bomb kicked in at the door, vandalized their driveway, wrote
Speaker 1: an anarchy sign there. I mean, this is what we're
Speaker 1: up smash racism, d C. This group calls themselves they
Speaker 1: should be shunned by any human being with a shred
Speaker 1: of decency or integrity. Anybody who works for this or
Speaker 1: works with this organization should be fired. And you know,
Speaker 1: I don't call for firings and boycotts a lot of stuff,
Speaker 1: but this is way beyond what could be acceptable. And
Speaker 1: you know what this group was doing before. This is
Speaker 1: the same group, the same group that was harassing ted
Speaker 1: Cruise in a restaurant, the same group that shows up
Speaker 1: and yells at people in front of their spouses, terrifies them,
Speaker 1: menaces them in public. And I was hearing a lot
Speaker 1: of left wing activists over the summer, a lot of
Speaker 1: left wing politicians, remember Maxine Waters, get up in their
Speaker 1: faces yell at them. She's now gonna be chairman of
Speaker 1: the Finance Oversight Committee. Oh that's a great idea. These
Speaker 1: people don't have any principles to speak of. They just
Speaker 1: say what they have to in the moment to advance
Speaker 1: their own interests and agenda. And we are dealing with
Speaker 1: a rotted left wing political culture in this country that
Speaker 1: has radicalized. This is not a one off. They've done
Speaker 1: this over and over again. They also, I know, shared
Speaker 1: some other prominent conservatives home addresses, people that include UH
Speaker 1: mentors and people I admire in this business, and so
Speaker 1: that they can be harassed. They they think this accomplishes
Speaker 1: what exactly know. All this does is allow them to
Speaker 1: vent their rage and feel righteous in the process. And
Speaker 1: this is not universally condemned on the left. This is
Speaker 1: not one person. This was about people, by the way,
Speaker 1: who got together and showed up and did this. And
Speaker 1: you know, okay, nobody was nobody was hurt this time around.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's not the case next time. I can tell
Speaker 1: you this, one of these punks would not want to
Speaker 1: try to kick in my door while I was home.
Speaker 1: And I will also say this, if some conservative was
Speaker 1: surrounded by a left wing mob like this and they
Speaker 1: decided that they were to defend their property and things
Speaker 1: got ugly. If I were on that jury, I would
Speaker 1: not I would not convict a person for defending himself,
Speaker 1: his family, and his home. I don't care what the
Speaker 1: authorities say. That's right. Jury nullification is a real thing,
Speaker 1: my friends. You cannot show up at someone's home and
Speaker 1: terrify them because you don't like their politics. It is unacceptable.
Speaker 1: It is unacceptable, and it is not universally condemned on
Speaker 1: the left. Don't let them pretend like it is. They
Speaker 1: want to bring up CNN you talk about what happened
Speaker 1: to the dozen Republican congressmen or baseball field who were
Speaker 1: actually shot, actually almost killed. Don't let them try to
Speaker 1: bully you with this victimization like it's only gone one side.
Speaker 1: The only real blood that has been shed to date
Speaker 1: when it comes to this kind of high profile political
Speaker 1: targeting in this country in the last couple of years
Speaker 1: was Republicans. They do not universally condemn this because there
Speaker 1: is a large part of the progressive left that condones
Speaker 1: this behavior, some of them publicly, a lot more of
Speaker 1: them of it. Lee. Now you take it to well,
Speaker 1: why would they think that this is okay? How could
Speaker 1: they ever be so corrupted, how could their souls be
Speaker 1: so feted that they would ever think this is okay. Well,
Speaker 1: they go around saying that we're white nationalists, folks. They
Speaker 1: go around saying that we're the moral equivalent of neo Nazis,
Speaker 1: that Trump is a racist, misogynist, basically Hitler, and that
Speaker 1: he's destroying the country and he's a threat to democracy
Speaker 1: and he must be stopped at all costs. When you
Speaker 1: use that kind of rhetoric, bad things happen. I know,
Speaker 1: people say, oh, buck, we can't blame anyone We can't
Speaker 1: blame any one politician for the actions of any one person. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: I'm calling out the entire political culture on the left
Speaker 1: which encourages this insane conspiracy theory nonsense about how Trump
Speaker 1: is undermining our demon ocracy, destroying the First Amendment, and
Speaker 1: any day now fascism is going to just overtake the
Speaker 1: country because of Trump. These people are nuts and crazy
Speaker 1: people who believe that they are righteous in their insanity
Speaker 1: can be very, very dangerous. This is the result of
Speaker 1: a radicalization that is not a one off. This is
Speaker 1: not one crazy person. This is now a coherent political ideology.
Speaker 1: This is a group. This is anti fascism, This is
Speaker 1: smash racism. This is these different entities that exist in
Speaker 1: dozens of cities across the country engaging pitch street battles,
Speaker 1: do get violent, do destroy property, and are threatening to
Speaker 1: do more. They don't hold back because of respect for
Speaker 1: the law or institutions. They hold back because they know
Speaker 1: that the country is not with them yet, and that
Speaker 1: even the left at some point would have to discard
Speaker 1: them if they became truly violent, if they really acted
Speaker 1: as domestic terrorist organizations. But they're right on the line.
Speaker 1: They are right on the line. And what happens if
Speaker 1: we do have a one off incident, what happens if
Speaker 1: something does go really wrong. I've said this to people,
Speaker 1: you know you usually you usually find that when you're
Speaker 1: discussing the possibility of real conflict in this country, that
Speaker 1: people are exaggerating. People take this too far. They're trying
Speaker 1: to get attention for themselves. Let me, let me just
Speaker 1: put this out there. Let's let's look at what's in
Speaker 1: the realm of the possible here. What would this country
Speaker 1: look like politically? What would it have looked like politically
Speaker 1: if we're the last fifteen months or so sixteen months
Speaker 1: we were still reeling from the mass assassination of about
Speaker 1: a dozen Conservative members of Congress by a Bernie Sanders supporter,
Speaker 1: because we were right the razor's edge of that happening.
Speaker 1: To be fair to our analysis here, what would the
Speaker 1: country look like if instead of one deranged lunatic who
Speaker 1: was not skilled at building bombs, what if it had
Speaker 1: been a group of people, some kind of you know,
Speaker 1: uh neo Nazi entity or whatever, some kind of right
Speaker 1: wing extremists, and they had successfully sent a number of
Speaker 1: pipe bombs in the mail to people and maimed and
Speaker 1: or killed the number of them. What would our political
Speaker 1: culture look like? Then? These things are not beyond the
Speaker 1: realm of possibility. I'm not talking about an invasion by
Speaker 1: space aliens here. It only takes one of these events,
Speaker 1: one of these incidents to go really bad before we
Speaker 1: wake up and it feels like we're in a different country.
Speaker 1: And I would just feel a little bit better if
Speaker 1: I could get the left to agree. But this is
Speaker 1: about a universally applicable standard. You don't engage in violence
Speaker 1: because you don't like someone's ideas. You don't get to intimidate,
Speaker 1: threaten harass and terrify people because you disagree with what
Speaker 1: they say on TV. You don't get to violate any
Speaker 1: public person's private space, any politicians moment of of of
Speaker 1: calm and peace because you disagree with their politics. That
Speaker 1: destroys our civil society, that destroys our political culture. And
Speaker 1: we either completely shut that down or we have to
Speaker 1: hold those responsible who continue to fan these flames. And
Speaker 1: it is not equal on both sides. It is markedly
Speaker 1: worse on the left. These people who hate Trump so
Speaker 1: much that you cannot have a rational or reasonable conversation
Speaker 1: with them about anything anymore are a danger to the
Speaker 1: republic because it doesn't take a lot of them to
Speaker 1: do something that forever transforms the country that we live
Speaker 1: in and the politics that run it. I know nobody
Speaker 1: was hurt, thank thank god, at Tucker's house last night,
Speaker 1: But also this, I I can't help but say this.
Speaker 1: This hits close to home. I've been telling you now
Speaker 1: for months. It feels strange being here in d C.
Speaker 1: There's a a sense of menace in the air from
Speaker 1: the left. You're just aware of it. There's a hatred
Speaker 1: and a desperation. It just comes across towards conservatives towards
Speaker 1: the right. The culture here has flipped, it has rotted
Speaker 1: against open and friendly dialogue between opposing sides. And I
Speaker 1: just think, how long is it before some of my
Speaker 1: close friends within the conservative movement have something like this
Speaker 1: happened to them. How long before one of my friends
Speaker 1: is notice because of his appearances. I'll be on Fox
Speaker 1: News twice tonight. How long is it before maybe I
Speaker 1: get accosted, maybe a punch thrown at me in a bar.
Speaker 1: Because I stand for the Constitution and for liberty in
Speaker 1: this country. These are real concerns now, something we have
Speaker 1: to be aware of every day, those of us who
Speaker 1: are here behind liberal lines, and especially those of us
Speaker 1: who are vocal in this fight. I've received messages in
Speaker 1: the last twenty four hours from people who are not
Speaker 1: prone to be nervous, and they're just saying, hey, just
Speaker 1: watch yourself, watch your back down there, be careful. Anybody
Speaker 1: who goes on TV now and speaks forcefully in defense
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration could be a target. And one
Speaker 1: of these incidents could go very bad, very quickly, and
Speaker 1: we will wake up in a different country the next day.
Speaker 1: And the left needs to knock it off and get
Speaker 1: a grip. I'll be right back. I'll put I'll put
Speaker 1: Mr Burgess up against Sean Hannity. I'll turn him up.
Speaker 1: How much cool aid has Sean Hannity drunk before he drowned?
Speaker 1: And what Sean Hannity says had a direct link Mayhem.
Speaker 1: We don't. We don't know who it is, we don't
Speaker 1: know the motive. But what was fascinating is you see
Speaker 1: a direct pattern between the President's attacks on Twitter and
Speaker 1: the stage being echoed and amplified by Fox News and
Speaker 1: other folks in the conservant Jensia He all but declared
Speaker 1: Fox News to be American state TV. The symbiotic relationship
Speaker 1: with the Fox News network. That's sort of state run
Speaker 1: TV now and certainly on the state run TV that
Speaker 1: Fox has become, they will pair it his talking points.
Speaker 1: It is really state run TV. It is a pure
Speaker 1: propaganda machine. Are you blaming the Hannitys of the world, Well,
Speaker 1: I think they have a share of sort of this
Speaker 1: revving up of hatred. Sean Hannity is a desperate, desperate man,
Speaker 1: desperately defending a desperate desk at President. Shawn Hannity has
Speaker 1: a show that chep Smith and the rest of the
Speaker 1: newspeople at Fox News consider to be a joke. They
Speaker 1: call it fake news. It's trash though they hate crime
Speaker 1: coincided with a rise in hateful language. Okay, so you
Speaker 1: just this is just a taste of how the media
Speaker 1: trash is unfairly Fox and specifically goes after Sean Hannity,
Speaker 1: who's on premier networks before this show airs, who everybody
Speaker 1: who works with him thinks of as a as a
Speaker 1: great guy, a family guy, a highly ethical guy who
Speaker 1: loves his country and does the best he can every day.
Speaker 1: But those are other people in the media just just
Speaker 1: trashing him, trashing Fox News. It's one channel. They're all
Speaker 1: these other lib channels just live propaganda all day. And
Speaker 1: they complained about the First Amendments under threat. Meanwhile half
Speaker 1: the country has one news channel to rely on and nothing,
Speaker 1: you know, nothing in terms of respect for it, nothing
Speaker 1: in terms of oh, maybe that's a voice that should
Speaker 1: be heard too. And then they want to complain about
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. They want to complain about the threat
Speaker 1: of democracy. They want a one party state in politics,
Speaker 1: and they want a one party state in the media.
Speaker 1: They don't want opposing voices. They can't handle opposing voices,
Speaker 1: spelter on these other clowns. Plus they're just jealous of
Speaker 1: Seawan for having a bigger audience and being more successful
Speaker 1: than any of them, including Fake Jake and the whole
Speaker 1: squad over at CNN, all of them. So they're really
Speaker 1: nasty to him. But man, you know they play the
Speaker 1: victims over at CNN and then the lib journals at ABC,
Speaker 1: and all the time their political director blocked me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: I don't even talk to the guy. What a what
Speaker 1: a whimp? Matt from Pittsburgh. Welcome to the show. Thanks Buck,
Speaker 1: How are you? I'm good, thank you for calling in. Um.
Speaker 1: You talked about Tucker Carlston's house and the protesters out
Speaker 1: front there. I have twenty plus years in law enforcement
Speaker 1: prior Marine Corps, and I want to know why those
Speaker 1: people weren't arrested, because at the very least that disorderly conduct. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think a good question. I know the police showed up.
Speaker 1: There's actually a police report that describes the vandalism, and
Speaker 1: now DC police, I see the reporter are investigating this
Speaker 1: as a as a possible hate crime, which you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know where that's really gonna go. Um, but yeah,
Speaker 1: the cops didn't arrest anybody. And if that's not disorderly conduct,
Speaker 1: I don't know what it is, just a simple level
Speaker 1: of it. And it goes back to the protests they
Speaker 1: had in Baltimore when the mayor there said you need
Speaker 1: to give them space to destroy things. No, you don't.
Speaker 1: The constitution says, peaceably assemble. I've taken an oast uphold
Speaker 1: the constitution. That doesn't mean you destroy people's property. It
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you shout other people's voices down when you
Speaker 1: don't like what they have to say. Matt I, I
Speaker 1: couldn't agree more man. And it's it's distressing to see
Speaker 1: this um getting so much traction left and people from
Speaker 1: you know, with big platforms and a lot of followers
Speaker 1: are saying, yeah, I mean, I'm not saying it's a
Speaker 1: great idea, but I'm not saying it's terrible either. And
Speaker 1: you know, they don't get they don't get shunned from
Speaker 1: public discourse. They're not told, you know, you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to go on air at MSNBC anymore. So this has
Speaker 1: really found this kind of extremism has really found a
Speaker 1: home on the left and uh, and they are not
Speaker 1: willing to clean house anyway. Thank you for your service.
Speaker 1: By the way, Matt, thank you very much for calling in.
Speaker 1: Do not let them try to pretend that this is
Speaker 1: equal on both sides. Yes, there there are crazy people
Speaker 1: of all kinds of political persuasions. I I get that,
Speaker 1: but the left has in the era of Trump. He's
Speaker 1: really scrambled their brains. I mean they they cannot have
Speaker 1: a normal rational conversation about the direction of the country,
Speaker 1: what Trump is doing. And when when you start throwing
Speaker 1: around things with a straight face, like oh, Trump is
Speaker 1: a fascist and he's like a Nazi, you know, they
Speaker 1: should really go take a walk through the Holocaust Museum
Speaker 1: here in d C. It's it's disgusting to call people Nazis.
Speaker 1: Who you know I have I have done nothing to
Speaker 1: warrant that not Nazis, I mean the Nazi I don't
Speaker 1: have to tell you. You all know them. And this
Speaker 1: is a very historically uh literate audience. But it's just
Speaker 1: this is caught on in progressive circles. I mean, they'll
Speaker 1: talk of this and for those who think, by the way,
Speaker 1: that oh, it's because of Trump and the norms not oneno.
Speaker 1: There were there were elements on the left back in
Speaker 1: the early two thousands who were referring to Bush and
Speaker 1: the wars after nine eleven as as fascist, fascistic, and
Speaker 1: and somehow akin to fascism. So this is this is
Speaker 1: a tactic for them, This is what they'll they do.
Speaker 1: They'll they'll go to this place where they will use
Speaker 1: this kind of extremist language and extreme, extreme emotional outburst
Speaker 1: stuff instead of actual argument and discourse. But man, it's
Speaker 1: but we're gonna talk about the Muller probe coming up
Speaker 1: here in just a few minutes. Sarah Carr is going
Speaker 1: to join with all the latest on what she's hearing.
Speaker 1: There so much craziness going on about how Whittaker should
Speaker 1: recuse himself over DJ protect Mueller. There's currently a vigil
Speaker 1: I've seen photos of it at the White House protect Mueller.
Speaker 1: They're all holding up these signs. And because Mueller is
Speaker 1: gonna say them, I've got news for you, lips, Guess
Speaker 1: what's not gonna happen. Mueller is not going to give
Speaker 1: give you what you want, and you're gonna look foolish
Speaker 1: for having thought all along and that was going to happen.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean we're not heading for some very
Speaker 1: dark stuff here, very scary stuff going forward. Mansion is
Speaker 1: a Democrat, but as you know, it's kind of a
Speaker 1: sort of kind of maybe democrat. This is what he
Speaker 1: said about where we are right now, Plate welve, the
Speaker 1: firing of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions. You were the
Speaker 1: only Democrat to have voted for him. Are we approaching
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis? I think we're on the on the
Speaker 1: verge of that. Here's where I think we are. First
Speaker 1: of all, just says, this is a good person. I've
Speaker 1: known Jeff and we were friends, and I was the
Speaker 1: only Democrat that voted for him. But I needed Jeff.
Speaker 1: The rule lawament everything to Jeff. I think it is
Speaker 1: a big mistake, uh, to let Jeff Sessions go. I
Speaker 1: understand the mular investigation is wrapping up. You ought to
Speaker 1: have the team in place to wrap it up so
Speaker 1: there's no questions. The president has the right to remove
Speaker 1: the Attorney general for any reason or no reason. People
Speaker 1: are allowed to say they don't like it, but to
Speaker 1: call it a constitutional crisis, they should have to identify
Speaker 1: in what way does this conflict with the Constitution. They
Speaker 1: throw around this term to libs, the Constitution is just
Speaker 1: a big fancy word they used to try to give
Speaker 1: a little extra umph to whatever they're whining about. But
Speaker 1: calling something a constitutional crisis does not make it so,
Speaker 1: And you should not use libs constitutional crisis as a
Speaker 1: stand in for I don't like something. I don't like
Speaker 1: that thing, so I'm going to call it a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with that policy. So let's say it's
Speaker 1: a You know, the the overheated and overwrought rhetoric is
Speaker 1: you're just in and it's like swimming around in this
Speaker 1: crap all the time. Can't they just talk about these
Speaker 1: things like a normal person. What's really happening or what
Speaker 1: they really want to say? What they know? It's always Oh,
Speaker 1: Trump is a Nazi, the country's collapsing, Russia stole the election.
Speaker 1: This is all. This is all in some kind of
Speaker 1: dystopian fantasy land that the left lives in. But enough
Speaker 1: people living that you get mobs showing up at people's houses,
Speaker 1: threatening them and scaring them. You get mobs showing up
Speaker 1: and rest re Remember, see, this is the thing that's different.
Speaker 1: This isn't a one office, isn't one person. This isn't
Speaker 1: some lunatic who's sending bombs to the mail, which is terrible,
Speaker 1: horrible and should be condemned by and was condemned by
Speaker 1: every normal reasonable person. This whole mob tactic thing is
Speaker 1: a mob, so it's by definition lots of people, and
Speaker 1: they've been doing it for months, four months, and a
Speaker 1: lot of them would say when they were harassing McConnell
Speaker 1: and Ted Cruz and others that you know, they're public figures,
Speaker 1: you know, so what, it's not as bad as being
Speaker 1: separated from your kids at the border. This is the
Speaker 1: kind of smarmy bs that they would say an hour
Speaker 1: at the point where they're forcing people's spouses to cower
Speaker 1: in fear, which is completely reasonable response when you've got
Speaker 1: a mob outside your home on a quiet street, yelling
Speaker 1: about how they know where you sleep. This is the
Speaker 1: America the Libs want. It's gonna get worse. Folks, keep
Speaker 1: your shield high, because this is gonna get nastier. We
Speaker 1: got more on the Muller approach day with me. I've
Speaker 1: spoken to a senior Democratic source on the Ways and
Speaker 1: Means Committee who says, tonight breaking news, they do intend
Speaker 1: to request President Trump's tax returns. Getting your hands on
Speaker 1: those Trump tax returns, as everyone knows, would be a
Speaker 1: big deal for the committee. Are you offering my way
Speaker 1: or highway scenario to the Democrats? You're saying that if
Speaker 1: if they start investigating you, that you can play that
Speaker 1: game and investigate better than them. Can you come? Can
Speaker 1: you think? And I think, can you can compartmentalize that
Speaker 1: and still continue to work with them for the benefit
Speaker 1: of the rest of the country. Are you are all
Speaker 1: bets off if they do that? And it's just all
Speaker 1: it is is a warlike posture. A warlike posture, The
Speaker 1: president says. See, one of the ways that this president
Speaker 1: is different from so many other presidents on the Republican
Speaker 1: side is that he understands the enemy. He understands what
Speaker 1: the other side plans to do here and how they're
Speaker 1: going to be playing the game. And he knows what
Speaker 1: he's in for here. I mean, they're gonna go after
Speaker 1: his tax resures, They're gonna go after everything. I mean,
Speaker 1: think about what they did to Kavanaugh. As I was
Speaker 1: telling you yesterday, I think what they did to Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: and now imagine that mentality of scorched earth. Do anything,
Speaker 1: anything goes as long as it damages the intended target,
Speaker 1: and and now putting the House. And they've already been
Speaker 1: doing that to Trump, don't get me wrong, with the
Speaker 1: media and all the Democrat politicians again. But now they'll
Speaker 1: have a legal mechanism for that harassment the House Representatives
Speaker 1: and subpoenas and the investigations that they'll be calling for.
Speaker 1: And it's going to be Soviet style show trials from
Speaker 1: in the House for the next two years, guaranteed, guaranteed.
Speaker 1: And Trump knows he's already digging his trench because we
Speaker 1: are heading for political trench warfare. Absolutely are um. By
Speaker 1: the way, to give you a sense of how crazy
Speaker 1: they're getting, here's Laurence O'Donnell going crazy about this issue.
Speaker 1: Play thirteen Democratic House of Representatives. We'll bring Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: to testify publicly about exactly how the acting Attorney General
Speaker 1: has interfered with his investigation, and the Democratic House of
Speaker 1: Representatives will move to impeach the President of the United
Speaker 1: States for instruction of justice. They will do it. They
Speaker 1: will have to do it, they will have no choice.
Speaker 1: The new members of the House of Representatives will demand it,
Speaker 1: and they will get it. Impeachment is real now, and
Speaker 1: so the president's panicked firing of his attorney general today
Speaker 1: has moved Donald Trump one step closer to impeachment, and
Speaker 1: the new Trump acting Attorney General, Matthew Whittaker, will also
Speaker 1: be investigated by the Democratic House of Representatives for obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice if he interferes with the Muller investigation in
Speaker 1: any way. Do you notice how he's talking about a
Speaker 1: whole series of events there as though they've happened. I
Speaker 1: don't look, he's on MSNBC. It's Wackoville, but he's talking
Speaker 1: about a whole series of events there as though it's happened.
Speaker 1: And then he goes and yeah, if he does it
Speaker 1: of this, it'll this is what will happen. Well, who's
Speaker 1: to say that Whittaker is going to do anything? Why
Speaker 1: would Whittaker do anything if in fact Mueller's got nothing,
Speaker 1: which I firmly strongly believe is the case, and I fact,
Speaker 1: a lot of people that are as close as anybody
Speaker 1: can be this investigation without being involved in it. Nothing.
Speaker 1: Don't you want mother then to just release his little
Speaker 1: report talk about this that the Russian troll farms and
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and then let the Democrats go well
Speaker 1: with it. But you see the Democrats will seize on
Speaker 1: whatever's in that report to continue the investigation. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if if the end of the investigation Mueller says
Speaker 1: there was really nothing to this when it comes to
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, there were some people who lie, there's some
Speaker 1: tax cheats, and there's some Russian troll farms going on here,
Speaker 1: and Trump campaign has nothing to do with it. Democrats
Speaker 1: will say, thank you for that, Mueller, but we want
Speaker 1: to make sure that we agree with your assessment. So
Speaker 1: now let's start the whole thing all over again. And
Speaker 1: here's what you have to remember. You and I know
Speaker 1: that that's just nuts. You and I know that this
Speaker 1: is a frighteningly irrational approach. But people that believe this stuff,
Speaker 1: people that think that the Trump administration really did collude
Speaker 1: with Russia, this is like a drug for them. They
Speaker 1: cannot get enough of this. They will just sit there
Speaker 1: and just want to hear more and more and more.
Speaker 1: You know, Rachel Maddow Show, from what I have seen
Speaker 1: of it, which I will admit is not that often,
Speaker 1: but you know, for for months on end, it was just,
Speaker 1: you know, we have this really big thing to tell
Speaker 1: you about, this way that somehow some guy does something
Speaker 1: involved with Russia that ties back to the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: through seven intermediaries and ten unprovable hypotheses. We will show
Speaker 1: you that over the court. I mean, it's just it
Speaker 1: was just nuts. I mean, a Matadow is actually smarter
Speaker 1: than thinking that this is any real, but knows that
Speaker 1: her audience like this is why she's actually doing pretty
Speaker 1: big ratings. Her audience wants to see this because ultimately,
Speaker 1: what this is really about is that Trump is a
Speaker 1: fraud in that he's not really the president. That's what
Speaker 1: all the Russia collusion stuff is so popular with Democrats
Speaker 1: because for them, it's not enough to beat Trump in
Speaker 1: the next election, which by the way, they have no
Speaker 1: chance of doing based on the team they've got lined
Speaker 1: up right now. None. But it's not enough to beat Trump,
Speaker 1: and it wouldn't even be enough for them to force
Speaker 1: Trump out of office, although that would make them very
Speaker 1: very happy. But what they're trying to do is force
Speaker 1: Trump out of office and erase the idea of Trump
Speaker 1: ever having been president because it was all illegitimate. He's
Speaker 1: an illegitimate president to the left. That's that's what the
Speaker 1: narrative is, which is also why I keep telling you
Speaker 1: that how Hillary is not gone, she's not down and out.
Speaker 1: Her narrative for the Democrat mind makes sense. The only
Speaker 1: way they can set this right in for these left
Speaker 1: is if you're so think about this, if you're so
Speaker 1: irrational that you really believe that there was this Kremlin
Speaker 1: conspiracy with Trump. And you know, if you believe that,
Speaker 1: you don't think it's irrational and all that Hillary could
Speaker 1: run again this time and win. You think, yeah, that
Speaker 1: probably that probably makes some good sense. It's probably a
Speaker 1: good idea. You should give that a shot. That's where
Speaker 1: the Democrats are on this. They are absolutely not countering.
Speaker 1: I mean, the polls show and she's still in the
Speaker 1: top five contenders I think based on the most recent
Speaker 1: poll I saw definitely in the top ten. This woman
Speaker 1: has run twice the last two two presidential elections. Can't
Speaker 1: can't win, can't get it done, or last two cycles
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans. You know, it just it really does
Speaker 1: drive me insane, by the way, speaking of how they
Speaker 1: they do not accept reality, and uh, and they're irrational.
Speaker 1: They're they're not they're not accepting it's not just the election. Um,
Speaker 1: now we're heading into recount territory. It looks like in Florida. Now,
Speaker 1: some of this is a function of of state law.
Speaker 1: If you're in a certain you know, if you're in
Speaker 1: a certain closeness, forty votes less than forty thousand what
Speaker 1: the Democratic governor is behind right now. Um, But they're
Speaker 1: saying that this is uh, you know that this they're
Speaker 1: they're trying to basically get there to be a you know,
Speaker 1: a way to tighten this up. By the way, Democrats cheat. Okay,
Speaker 1: the the race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. There
Speaker 1: was cheating in that race, and that's how that's how
Speaker 1: Al Franken actually want his Senate seat. I mean they
Speaker 1: were they were finding they were finding votes in the
Speaker 1: trunks of cars and the parking lot. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was just all give me a break, and that was
Speaker 1: by that was hundreds of votes that separated them. I
Speaker 1: don't think that this time around, Gillham and the people
Speaker 1: around him are unwilling to bend and even break the
Speaker 1: law of necessary to make him the governor of a
Speaker 1: critical state for the election. They know that that Florida
Speaker 1: is a lynchpin state for Trump. But you know that
Speaker 1: there's already some irregularities that I wanted to bring to
Speaker 1: your attention, like, for example, it is a law in
Speaker 1: Florida that you have to um Florida law requires This
Speaker 1: is from Marco Rubio today. The county's report early voting
Speaker 1: and vote by mail within thirty minutes after the polls closed.
Speaker 1: Forty three hours after the polls closed, two Democrats strongholds
Speaker 1: Broward County and Palm Beach County. We're still counting and
Speaker 1: refusing to disclose how many ballots they have left. This
Speaker 1: is stinky, something very very funky is going on here.
Speaker 1: And Democrats as soon is there away from you know,
Speaker 1: the public, public attention here, and they think they can
Speaker 1: get away with it. Yeah, they will. They will steal
Speaker 1: this election. Every time that they did, every way they
Speaker 1: count of the votes in Florida back in two thousand,
Speaker 1: Bush Vigor Bush was always the winner. There was no
Speaker 1: way that they were able to do the recount. And
Speaker 1: I have Bush. But then what they want to do is, well,
Speaker 1: let's only recount some places and not others. Oh, that
Speaker 1: that seems fair. And the whole thing was preposterous. Remember
Speaker 1: they thought that Bush didn't really win that election. These
Speaker 1: people are cry babies. I mean, there is a political
Speaker 1: culture of being sore losers and being hysterical cry babies
Speaker 1: on the left, and we're seeing it again. It was
Speaker 1: true in two thousand, it's true now with the Gilham race.
Speaker 1: Just wait and see watch what happens with this one.
Speaker 1: Background checks are essential no matter how large or small
Speaker 1: your business. Every employee you bring in, you have to
Speaker 1: know that that's a person that you can trust, and
Speaker 1: that's a person who has represented himself or herself accurate
Speaker 1: lee In every stage of the hiring process, You've gotta
Speaker 1: have someone doing your background checks and vetting, and that
Speaker 1: person should be Global Verification Network. Global Verification Network is
Speaker 1: the only dual certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company.
Speaker 1: They are federally certified as a veteran owned small business
Speaker 1: and all of their work is done here in the
Speaker 1: United States. Nothing is ever offshore, none of your data
Speaker 1: is ever sent to servers outside of the continental United States.
Speaker 1: A lot of the other guys in this space do that.
Speaker 1: Stay with a veteran owned, all American company Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network for your background investigations. Call eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five seven nine eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: s nine or going to my GVN dot com. Well,
Speaker 1: I can see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced
Speaker 1: with a recess appointment and that attorney general doesn't fire
Speaker 1: Bob Muller, but he just reduces budget so low that
Speaker 1: his his investigation grinds to absolute almost. So that's Matt
Speaker 1: Whittaker on CNN here. People are freaking out on the
Speaker 1: left about this now that a Whittaker is in fact
Speaker 1: replacing Sessions as an intern attorney general. What does this
Speaker 1: mean for d O J? For the Mueller special counsel,
Speaker 1: for the Russia collusion investigation, and all of these things
Speaker 1: that we've been talking about now for many, many months.
Speaker 1: We have somebody who can really shed a lot of
Speaker 1: light on this now. Sarah Carter is with us. She
Speaker 1: is a investigative journalist, Sarah A. Carter dot com is
Speaker 1: her site, go check it out, and also a Fox
Speaker 1: News contributor. My dear friend, Sarah Grady, talk to you again.
Speaker 1: That's great. So, Sarah, we're we're hearing a lot. We're
Speaker 1: hearing a lot of things about well, all kinds of
Speaker 1: things when it comes to d O J. Muller, the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, everything else. Let's start first with with you
Speaker 1: know what What are your sources telling you about when
Speaker 1: this thing is gonna end and what whether Mueller is
Speaker 1: gonna be dropping a report soon. Well, I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: right to that. I just want to touch base on
Speaker 1: Matt Whittaker really quick. I think that you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of rhetoric out there. This is political. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a big political game as far as Matt Whittaker
Speaker 1: is concerned, and the Dems are taking advantage of that.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's anything to be worried about. Um.
Speaker 1: According to my sources, Matt Whittaker is not going to
Speaker 1: get involved in Mueller's investigation now. As far as the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Robert Mueller is concerned, sources are telling me
Speaker 1: that he is in the process with his team of
Speaker 1: writing the report. So that means he is either concluding
Speaker 1: his investigation, which may include other indictments. Nobody knows. Uh.
Speaker 1: There's some suspicion that Roger Stone's wrapped up in it. Um.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of rumors out there in Vanity
Speaker 1: Fair and other places that Don Jr. Was concerned about
Speaker 1: a possible indictment. I did speak to sources very close
Speaker 1: to Don JR. And they said that there's zero truth
Speaker 1: to any at those stories. There is no concern whatsoever. UM.
Speaker 1: I spoke to others who said, look, he's testified over
Speaker 1: and over again. He's given more than twenty or more
Speaker 1: than twenty five hours of testimony. UM. There is nothing
Speaker 1: that he has to worry about or nothing that he's hiding.
Speaker 1: So everybody's anticipating Mueller's report wrapping up. One of the
Speaker 1: things we do know is that right now and with
Speaker 1: Mueller's investigation, the Dems are now charging UH and saying
Speaker 1: that they are going to open their own investigation UM
Speaker 1: once they take over the House UH into President Trump
Speaker 1: and UH Russia alleged Russia collusion. UH. We don't know
Speaker 1: if that's just more smoke and mirrors or if they're
Speaker 1: really going to push forward with that. So there's very
Speaker 1: little time left the Republicans be able to really get
Speaker 1: more witnesses on the stand to basically deposition of people
Speaker 1: for their own investigations, and they're really pushing hard to
Speaker 1: get the President to declassify the three O two, the
Speaker 1: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance War, as well as the Gang of
Speaker 1: Eight UH documents, the notebook that basically, according to my sources,
Speaker 1: has all the evidence of the exculpatory evidence that was
Speaker 1: withheld from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before. I asked
Speaker 1: what you think might be in those documents, Sarah, And
Speaker 1: obviously you know, getting your sense of how much of
Speaker 1: a a game change those could be is really important
Speaker 1: for folks. But but why hasn't the President in your estimation,
Speaker 1: released it yet? Is he holding it back for strategic reasons?
Speaker 1: Is he holding it back because of pressure from the
Speaker 1: intel community? I mean, he he could declassify them. He
Speaker 1: told me he was probably going to, but he hasn't yet.
Speaker 1: Why I know this has been such a such a
Speaker 1: gut wrenching issue for the people involved in the investigation,
Speaker 1: because remember, at one point the President did say, um
Speaker 1: that he wasn't wasn't too long ago, over a month
Speaker 1: ago that he did say, we are going to declassify
Speaker 1: these documents. I remember talking to sources on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: who were so finally relieved, um, and elated that the
Speaker 1: American public would now have a good look at what
Speaker 1: some only a few of them with with the class
Speaker 1: you know, with the security clarance, have seen and that
Speaker 1: they would be able to share that with the public
Speaker 1: and expose what they believed was extraordinary mouthias it's not
Speaker 1: part of the FBI and some members of the dj
Speaker 1: And then the very next day the President then stopped.
Speaker 1: This was in September. The very next day tweeted out
Speaker 1: that he was no longer going to declassify those at
Speaker 1: this time, that he was turning him over to Michael
Speaker 1: Horowitz for review. And apparently what happened was that in
Speaker 1: between that time, in between the time he suggested he
Speaker 1: was going to release them, uh, he had a meeting
Speaker 1: with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and there was pressure
Speaker 1: on the president. Uh. They had basically said, well, if
Speaker 1: you if you declassify these documents, now you're going to
Speaker 1: be affecting the Russia probe and uh, this could be
Speaker 1: very damaging. Um that some you know, people have always
Speaker 1: warned him about obstruction. I think the President realized that
Speaker 1: once again they were pushing on him like they had
Speaker 1: in the past, playing on him, you know, they were
Speaker 1: and remember the documents that he had declassified before, regarding
Speaker 1: Carter Page and the FISA and some other documents that
Speaker 1: he had declassified. They were trying to say, they were
Speaker 1: trying to actually scare the White House and say, look,
Speaker 1: this is going to reveal sources and methods. UH, this
Speaker 1: could be very dangerous to our national security. And then
Speaker 1: when he did it, there was nothing in there as
Speaker 1: far as sources and methods. And remember, parts of these
Speaker 1: documents can be redacted, UM if they do reveal a
Speaker 1: name or sources and methods. So they're not saying to
Speaker 1: redact everything, They're just saying on the bulk of it redacted.
Speaker 1: We want people to know what evidence was withheld from
Speaker 1: the court. Part of that exculpatory evidence, which was part
Speaker 1: of your question, Buck, is regarding UM, you know George
Speaker 1: Papadopolis from my sources, UM, apparently, and George Papadopoulis has
Speaker 1: talked about this openly. He had told the FBI UH
Speaker 1: during a meeting I guess that he had had with
Speaker 1: Stefan Helper, and I think everybody remembers Stefan Helper, the
Speaker 1: professor who was actually the spy for the FBI, that
Speaker 1: he had told him early on UH and he believed
Speaker 1: Stefan Helper was recording him that in no way, shape
Speaker 1: or form was the campaign actually colluding with Russia, that
Speaker 1: that would be treasonous. He said he had told Stephan
Speaker 1: Helper that over and over again in their private conversations,
Speaker 1: and at that point he had no idea that Stefan
Speaker 1: Helper was working for the FBI, but he became suspicious
Speaker 1: that he was actually recording those conversations because of the
Speaker 1: position that he put his iPhone in, and he became
Speaker 1: very suspicious at Stefan Helper in general. So there is
Speaker 1: a belief that that that was actually recorded, and that
Speaker 1: the FBI had that and did not turn it over
Speaker 1: to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. UH instead allowed the
Speaker 1: Surveillance Court to believe that there was suspicion and reason
Speaker 1: to believe that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia.
Speaker 1: That's astonishing. I mean, Sarah h what are what are
Speaker 1: people you know that when you're talking to them about
Speaker 1: what maybe in that this final Mueller report? What are
Speaker 1: they saying about that? I mean, I know that you know,
Speaker 1: we won't really know until we know, but there are
Speaker 1: there are people that must be close enough to have
Speaker 1: some idea of what what Mueller is going to say
Speaker 1: or at least going to going to address. Well, you're right,
Speaker 1: nobody really knows what Mueller is going to actually put
Speaker 1: in that report. Because Muller and his team have been
Speaker 1: very tight about this, particularly in the last few months.
Speaker 1: But this is talking now to Republican lawmakers and people
Speaker 1: who are very close to this investigation who believes that
Speaker 1: what Mueller is going to do is he gonna He's
Speaker 1: going to play a big hand here, right, he has
Speaker 1: to show that he did something here beyond just the
Speaker 1: very process lives that he that he got people on
Speaker 1: process lives. I mean that maybe one count of wine,
Speaker 1: George Papadopolis, one count of wine, Mike Flynn, um old
Speaker 1: uh cases against Paul Manaford, you know, on tax and
Speaker 1: bank fraud and the Michael Cohen stuff. But what but
Speaker 1: what people suspect is that Buller's gonna put in their
Speaker 1: own He's gonna allude to the fact that there were
Speaker 1: all these possible connections but that they could never actually
Speaker 1: get solid evidence to move it in that direction. Then
Speaker 1: he's definitely gonna talk about the Russians. Remember he indicted
Speaker 1: I think it was more than twelve gru agents and
Speaker 1: some other Russians which will never come to justice because
Speaker 1: the Russians will never send them here to face trial,
Speaker 1: and so they'll never come back to the United States.
Speaker 1: So he'll talk about that, He'll talk about Russia's involvement
Speaker 1: in there as far as like the Facebook ads that
Speaker 1: they posted, UM and uh and why he went after
Speaker 1: these companies. So I think what we're gonna see is
Speaker 1: um either a very political report that's going to kind
Speaker 1: of allude to things that will give some fodder to
Speaker 1: the Democrats, or maybe he'll play it straight up. Maybe
Speaker 1: he'll just right out the report exactly as we've seen
Speaker 1: with the indictments, and then he'll just wrap it up.
Speaker 1: I can't see Mueller going much further than this, and
Speaker 1: I have been hearing um from sources uh even uh
Speaker 1: today on Capitol Hill that even there's a possibility that
Speaker 1: the Democrats on the Senate side and the Republicans on
Speaker 1: the Senate side are going to wrap up the Senate
Speaker 1: investigation by December. So it looks like some people want
Speaker 1: to just get this over with, put this behind us,
Speaker 1: let us move forward. The House Democrats, of course, don't
Speaker 1: want to do that, but there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: that want to see the country move forward because they
Speaker 1: have found no evidence, absolutely no evidence of collusion between
Speaker 1: the president, the President Donald Trump's campaign and on Russia
Speaker 1: laws for you, sir. Do we do we have some
Speaker 1: real sense yet of when Mueller is going to wrap up?
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, no, we don't know the day,
Speaker 1: maybe not even the week. But do we know that,
Speaker 1: do we know the likely month or is it's still
Speaker 1: completely up in the air. I think it's still completely
Speaker 1: up in the air. We're hearing a lot of estimates.
Speaker 1: I know, people said as soon as the mid term
Speaker 1: elections were over that something could be coming down the
Speaker 1: pike from Muller. So it could have been you know,
Speaker 1: some people were even suspecting Wednesday, They were suspecting yesterday,
Speaker 1: you know, that that something would come down. I think
Speaker 1: that what we're gonna see is he's going to go
Speaker 1: through that report. He's going to review the report thoroughly.
Speaker 1: He probably has to brief a number of people on
Speaker 1: the report. And remember we're still waiting to see whether
Speaker 1: or not that report will actually be made public. Whether
Speaker 1: he'll have two reports is what we're hearing, you know,
Speaker 1: a classified version of the report and an unclassified version
Speaker 1: of the report which will be given to the public.
Speaker 1: So I think we gotta give it just a little
Speaker 1: bit of time. But remember it could come out any
Speaker 1: time because Muller has been very tight lipped about this
Speaker 1: and its team. They don't really want to jump the gun.
Speaker 1: I I think people are really afraid of of leaks
Speaker 1: right now in Washington because this is so highly sensitive.
Speaker 1: So obviously we know it could be any time. We
Speaker 1: do know that they're on the process of writing it,
Speaker 1: or they're wrapping up the final touches on this report.
Speaker 1: So any time now we could be seeing it. But
Speaker 1: I don't want to. I don't want to tell the listeners,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it'll be this week, or it'll be by
Speaker 1: the end of the month, because we could be surprised.
Speaker 1: It could be another four weeks before we see it.
Speaker 1: I doubt it, but it could be. Sarah Carter, investigative journalist,
Speaker 1: Foxes contributor, Sarah, great to talk to you. Thanks for
Speaker 1: all your work on this, and come back soon. I
Speaker 1: will think Buck. We got more on where the whole
Speaker 1: d J Attorney General Sessions, Mueller probe fiasco, all that
Speaker 1: stuff is going so still right there to you, Well,
Speaker 1: those previous comments are not recusable comments. Mr Whittaker is
Speaker 1: a fine person. Uh. He is completely independent. Uh he
Speaker 1: knows about the administration of this particular case. I am
Speaker 1: delighted that supervision of this case has been taken away
Speaker 1: from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein in light of his conduct,
Speaker 1: and I think that Mr Whitticle will handle this fine.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are doing what they always do when they
Speaker 1: don't have anything else, They just start screaming and yelling.
Speaker 1: This is an embarrassment to them. But it's going to
Speaker 1: continue and Mr Whittaker is going to be just fine.
Speaker 1: I keep hearing that Whittaker should recuse himself right the
Speaker 1: new acting Attorney General. I keep hearing he should recuse himself.
Speaker 1: And then I never get a real answer as to why,
Speaker 1: and certainly not a compelling answer as to why they
Speaker 1: like Rosenstein. We know that Rosenstein is an Obama pointee.
Speaker 1: He's cozy with some of these people that were problems
Speaker 1: at d o J, like the Sally Yates is of
Speaker 1: the world and others. You know, Rosenstein is a guy
Speaker 1: who the left. The left thinks that, you know, when
Speaker 1: push comes, the show of Rosenstein wants to shove the
Speaker 1: Trump administration under the bus, so to speak. That's why
Speaker 1: they like him. It's not because he's defending our democracy
Speaker 1: or anything else. They think that he's essentially a deep
Speaker 1: state them. So they like it when the ideology excuse
Speaker 1: to their side, but when there's just a guy who
Speaker 1: might be a little bit conservative, they've got big problems
Speaker 1: with it. But I turned to the very fair minded
Speaker 1: and astute and highly well informed on this issue, our
Speaker 1: friend Andy McCarthy, and what he says about this play
Speaker 1: clip ten. He didn't say anything that was in the
Speaker 1: nature of recusable commentary. He didn't make any prejudgments about
Speaker 1: the investigation. He didn't say anything to denigrate what Mueller
Speaker 1: is up to and what I find fascinating. And I'm
Speaker 1: not casting aspersions. I want to be clear on uh
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's ethics. But I haven't heard any
Speaker 1: of these guys complaining that Rosenstein is overseeing this investigation,
Speaker 1: notwithstanding that Mueller is investigating supposedly Trump for obstructing the
Speaker 1: investigation by firing call me a transaction in which Rosenstein
Speaker 1: is a key player. So if there's anybody in this
Speaker 1: equation that has a screaming conflict of interest, it's Rod Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: And I haven't heard these guys say a word about that.
Speaker 1: I mean, Andy just hits it out of the park here.
Speaker 1: Let's start with this second point. First, if anybody should
Speaker 1: be recusing themselves from the Russian coclusion investigation, which does
Speaker 1: deal with the firing of James Comey, as we've been told,
Speaker 1: should it be the guy who wrote the memo that
Speaker 1: was used to fire James Comey? How? How is that okay?
Speaker 1: I mean, if we're really talking about conflicts of interest,
Speaker 1: Rosenstein is a massive conflict of interest. But you see,
Speaker 1: the Left adopts the language of principles and ethics only
Speaker 1: when it suits them, and that's where they love to
Speaker 1: talk about recusal, because recusal is a gray area often
Speaker 1: in the in it's not even really in the laws,
Speaker 1: it's in the ethics of either judges or in this case,
Speaker 1: Department of Justice protocol. And they figure if they can
Speaker 1: create enough noise and enough public pressure, they can get
Speaker 1: their way on this. That's what they're hoping for. That's
Speaker 1: the way that they're planning for this whole thing to go.
Speaker 1: But it's nonsense. Rosenstein has much bigger conflicts, much bigger
Speaker 1: issues to deal with here than anything that you could
Speaker 1: say about Whittaker right now. And then on that point,
Speaker 1: as Andy was saying, and as I have been saying,
Speaker 1: all that they keep pointing to about Whittaker for why
Speaker 1: he should recuse themselves. Oh, because he said that they
Speaker 1: shouldn't go after Trump's finances. Nobody thinks that they should
Speaker 1: go after Trump's finances. No one has been willing to
Speaker 1: who knows anything about this and who's involved in the process.
Speaker 1: At least we'll say, yeah, we haven't a completely open
Speaker 1: ended investigation. Our mandate is whatever the heck we say
Speaker 1: it is at the Special Council's office. Nobody will say that.
Speaker 1: And anyone who says, well, why is he so nervous
Speaker 1: about his finances when you have massive international financial transactions
Speaker 1: going on, if somebody really wants to go through them
Speaker 1: and and they're desperate to find some impropriety, that can
Speaker 1: find something, Just like if somebody really wants to go
Speaker 1: after your taxes and drill down into them, they will
Speaker 1: find problems and they will make your life a living help.
Speaker 1: We all know this, but the Left pretends that they don't.
Speaker 1: The Left goes into a very convenient amnesia on this stuff. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know about the I R S being scary
Speaker 1: this way. There's really nothing to all this noise from
Speaker 1: the left, all this whining that you are hearing about
Speaker 1: how there needs to be a recusal. No, they just
Speaker 1: want someone that they have identified as pretty hostile to Trump, Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: to be in a position to run cover for Mueller
Speaker 1: whatever Mueller decides to do. I mean, what do they
Speaker 1: really think this is going to commis putting Whittaker in charge.
Speaker 1: If Whittaker were to do anything that was legitimately unethical
Speaker 1: toward either Rosenstein or, in this case, more likely Mueller himself,
Speaker 1: we would hear about it. They go to the press
Speaker 1: in a heartbeat. We know this, So this is just
Speaker 1: all hysteria. Once again, it's hysteria from the left. They
Speaker 1: are they are trying to create so much out of nothing,
Speaker 1: because ultimately, I think a lot of them do realize
Speaker 1: that the Mueller probe's got it's got nothing. You know
Speaker 1: what they're gonna say, By the way, the Muller probes
Speaker 1: got nothing. What about all the Russia bought farm indictments?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's that's what this was all about. Finding
Speaker 1: out that there was some fake Facebook accounts run out
Speaker 1: of an office somewhere in Russia that were supposed to
Speaker 1: sway our election. Only idiots believe this. We have identified
Speaker 1: the suspect procibly an hour ago. The suspect was identified
Speaker 1: as Iron David law Long I A N. David Long.
Speaker 1: Birthdate of March nineteen nine. He was twenty eight years old.
Speaker 1: We've had several contacts with Mr Long over the years,
Speaker 1: minor events. It's a traffic collision. He was a victim
Speaker 1: at a battery at a local bar in two thousand fifteen.
Speaker 1: In April of this year, deputies were called to his
Speaker 1: house for a subject disturbing. They went to the house,
Speaker 1: they talked to him, he was he was somewhat irate,
Speaker 1: acting a literally irrationally. They called out our crisis intervention team,
Speaker 1: our mental health specialist who met with them, talked to
Speaker 1: him and cleared him. Didn't feel that he was qualified
Speaker 1: to be taken under and he was left at that
Speaker 1: scene last April. So this was this terrible shooting that
Speaker 1: killed twelve people out in California. They had the sheriff.
Speaker 1: They're identifying the Decea East suspect the shooter here. I
Speaker 1: think we're all quite clear on who he is and
Speaker 1: what he did. This was at the Borderline Bar and
Speaker 1: Grilled in Thousand Oaks, California. The shooter apparently took his
Speaker 1: own life after opening fire in a in a bar.
Speaker 1: He threw some smoke grenades in there. He had a
Speaker 1: forty five caliber block one handgun and had an illegal
Speaker 1: extended magazine on it. And this was country music, country
Speaker 1: music night. Um at this bar, a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of college kids there. This is it's just so sad.
Speaker 1: So the whole thing is is honestly so horrific and depressing.
Speaker 1: It really is beyond words. Um. You have an instance
Speaker 1: here where the shooter of this guy ian David Long,
Speaker 1: and they kept calling him I and I don't know
Speaker 1: if maybe that's how he pronounces it. But the shooter,
Speaker 1: this guy, David Long, went in and had clearly thought
Speaker 1: this through beforehand and was just trying to kill as
Speaker 1: many people as possible. He shot security and employees. First
Speaker 1: security guard, though, who was on site, was unarmed, and
Speaker 1: there were also off duty police officers there apparently who
Speaker 1: were also not armed. Um, nobody on premises was armed,
Speaker 1: and this guy was able to shoot and shoot. And
Speaker 1: then a sheriff sergeant who had been on the force
Speaker 1: for twenty nine years arriving the scene and as he
Speaker 1: entered the bar, he went in there he answered the
Speaker 1: call went in to save lives, the shooter engaged him,
Speaker 1: shot him and killed him. A patrol officer was with
Speaker 1: the sheriff sergeant and dragged dragged him out of the
Speaker 1: bar after he had been shot numerous times, but it
Speaker 1: wasn't enough to They were not able to save his life.
Speaker 1: Six off duty officers were at the bar that night,
Speaker 1: and now those after the off was apparently shielded some
Speaker 1: of the young people from the young women and men
Speaker 1: who were there with their bodies and showed tremendous bravery.
Speaker 1: And it is a reminder of what our law enforcement
Speaker 1: does and the risk that they take day in and
Speaker 1: day out. Here's the here's the sheriff, Jeff dean Um
Speaker 1: talking about what went on here post the Columbine shooting.
Speaker 1: How we approach active shooters changed completely. Instead of waiting
Speaker 1: and surrounding and bringing our swat team, uh, the officers
Speaker 1: are to immediately engage and try to stop the target
Speaker 1: and stop the killing. And that's exactly what happened here.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt that they saved lives by going in
Speaker 1: there and engaging with the suspect. Who knows who knows
Speaker 1: there was We don't know any people there. I've heard
Speaker 1: anywhere from a hundred and fifty to two people in there.
Speaker 1: So this not that by any means, the loss of
Speaker 1: thirteen lives is good, but it could have been much
Speaker 1: much worse. So it was thirteen lives lost year, including
Speaker 1: that officer. But the officers engage, the officers went in there. Uh.
Speaker 1: And it is it is a reminder that law enforcement
Speaker 1: takes these kinds of risks and steps up and puts
Speaker 1: themselves in harm's way. And at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: and I knew this from every guy at the m
Speaker 1: Y N. Gallap the m I p D. I worked with.
Speaker 1: You know, they want to go home at the end
Speaker 1: of the day too. You know they they're they're not
Speaker 1: trying to be heroes. They're just trying to protect it
Speaker 1: us with people and make sure that everybody else uh
Speaker 1: gets home. Uh. And it's just it's uh, it really
Speaker 1: is a heartbreaking situation. And immediately it turns into all
Speaker 1: this all this call for a gun control we have.
Speaker 1: We have the same debate, the same argument over and
Speaker 1: over again every time when one of these things happens. Um,
Speaker 1: just just so we can run through what is true
Speaker 1: of calip number This occurred in California, just so we
Speaker 1: could run through what is true in California about all
Speaker 1: this right now, because people are saying, oh, well, we
Speaker 1: need to have more restrictions. Okay. California is a may
Speaker 1: issue you state, which means that they don't have to
Speaker 1: give you a firearm just if you pass the basic
Speaker 1: criteria not being a criminal or a prohibited possessor. California
Speaker 1: has a has purchased limitations, has a ten day waiting period,
Speaker 1: no reciprocity with other states, bands assault weapons or registers
Speaker 1: them um and you have to get your m OH
Speaker 1: through a firearms dealer, and you have to have registration
Speaker 1: for your firearm again if you move and as and
Speaker 1: has universal background checks. Everything that liberals want when it
Speaker 1: comes to gun control with without just an outright ban,
Speaker 1: California has I mean, all the things that I hear about,
Speaker 1: all the things they talk about that they want nation
Speaker 1: one in California has didn't stop this shooting. So so
Speaker 1: now it didn't stop this shooting, but we're told that
Speaker 1: we have to take into account these recommendations to stop
Speaker 1: the next shooting. Why if it didn't stop this one,
Speaker 1: what makes anyone think it would stop the next one,
Speaker 1: why are we supposed to believe that that will fix anything?
Speaker 1: And of course it would be infringing even further on
Speaker 1: a constitutionally protected right. And I know people get angry
Speaker 1: when you say, well, more guns would not be the answer. Well,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you if one of those off through
Speaker 1: the officers, or if if security actually had a firearm,
Speaker 1: then there would have a chance. There was no chance
Speaker 1: for anybody in that facility, none, no chance that they
Speaker 1: could have stopped this until law enforcement arrived. Apparently, this individual,
Speaker 1: who was a former marine, was pretty handy with changing
Speaker 1: out his magazines as well, so the extended magazine that
Speaker 1: he had was obviously able to increase his lethality. But
Speaker 1: even without that extended magazine, which was illegal in the
Speaker 1: state of California, that didn't stop him. He broke all
Speaker 1: kinds of laws to do this. And now the response
Speaker 1: that were the response to this were told that supposed
Speaker 1: to be, let's add some more laws onto things. All
Speaker 1: those laws will do is get people who have an
Speaker 1: extended magazine at the firing range arrested. He's not gonna
Speaker 1: stop a mass shooter, never has, never will, as I've
Speaker 1: told you, and it's something we always have to keep
Speaker 1: in mind. The debate over gun control is largely about
Speaker 1: the emotional reaction the left wing base has to it,
Speaker 1: and also it's really a proxy battle between the culture
Speaker 1: of the left and the right in this country. They Yeah,
Speaker 1: we all abhor violence. We all are heartbroken by what
Speaker 1: happened to these thirteen people in California. It's terrible. We
Speaker 1: wish there was a way that it could have been
Speaker 1: stopped and prevented. But we also know we live in
Speaker 1: a country million people, and there are a lot of
Speaker 1: deranged individuals out there, some of them very very dangerously.
Speaker 1: So this guy had gotten a visit, by the way,
Speaker 1: from the authorities because his mother, who's living with were
Speaker 1: he's living with her, was spending a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: he was a concern. He clearly had had issues. Now
Speaker 1: they're sayingle he served in Afghanistan, he might have had PTSD.
Speaker 1: I understand why there's a lot of sensitivity about that
Speaker 1: when people bring that up, because a very considerable percentage
Speaker 1: of combat veterans have some form of PTSD and they
Speaker 1: are to be honored and and help through anything that
Speaker 1: they need by the American people, not to be in
Speaker 1: any way, ostracized, shaund or treated any differently because of
Speaker 1: their PTSD. The human mind is not meant to day
Speaker 1: in and day out, have to have the fear of
Speaker 1: mortar rounds landing next to you, insider attacks, you know,
Speaker 1: somebody coming up behind you in your sleep with an
Speaker 1: a K forty seven. I mean that the human brain
Speaker 1: is not meant to handle that. And the fact that
Speaker 1: we have so many Americans who do such an incredible
Speaker 1: and admirable job in the field, on the front lines
Speaker 1: of dealing with that both in those combat zones and
Speaker 1: then when they come home. That's the real narrative. That's
Speaker 1: the real story. So I I understand why people get
Speaker 1: very touchy about Oh, well, he's a veteran with PTSD.
Speaker 1: So no, he was a crazy person. He was a
Speaker 1: crazy person. And there are people that are crazy who
Speaker 1: are just civilians. And of course there are also people
Speaker 1: who are crazy who have served in the military too.
Speaker 1: You've got millions of people have served the military and
Speaker 1: west well, millions are currently serving, many millions more have served,
Speaker 1: so they're they're going to be just like in any
Speaker 1: police force that's large enough, you're gonna have some some
Speaker 1: bad actors. So they're politicizing this right away, and we
Speaker 1: know that that always happens. There's this rush to make
Speaker 1: it about gun control on on Twitter and on Facebook,
Speaker 1: and everyone's yelling at each other over it. The only
Speaker 1: chance there really was to prevent this involved mental health
Speaker 1: laws and involuntary commitment, which the sheriff mentioned there, and
Speaker 1: they thought they didn't have enough to commit him involuntarily.
Speaker 1: It's not an easy thing when we talk about the
Speaker 1: mental health issues here. It's not easy to determine when
Speaker 1: you're gonna take away somebody's autonomy. That's right, you're taking
Speaker 1: away their freedom. When you're talking about involuntary commitment, that's
Speaker 1: a big deal. That's not a minor thing that you
Speaker 1: know you can just figure. Okay, well, you know we're
Speaker 1: just gonna make some mistakes here. No, you've got it.
Speaker 1: You better be darn sure. You get that one, right.
Speaker 1: If you're gonna take away somebody's freedom, you better be
Speaker 1: darn sure about that. So I think that's another important
Speaker 1: component of this discussion, that the only way to stop
Speaker 1: this was involve mental health laws in California, and Okay,
Speaker 1: weren't able to commit him. They had they had somebody
Speaker 1: meet with them who was a psychologist, psychiatrist, and they said, no,
Speaker 1: he doesn't have to. He doesn't pose enough of a danger.
Speaker 1: We can't involuntarily commit him. It's not easy to craft
Speaker 1: the laws to handle that. My friends. President has said
Speaker 1: some things that people want to act on, and I
Speaker 1: I have governed myself accordingly. I'm protecting myself and my family.
Speaker 1: Let's say that I know a lot of people on
Speaker 1: that list, and a lot of people are kind of
Speaker 1: talking to each other, um, just making sure each other
Speaker 1: we're we're taking care of ourselves and each other. And
Speaker 1: I'm not going to give a name, but someone who
Speaker 1: was at the press conference yesterday who was a target
Speaker 1: um of the venom from the podium, I discussed it
Speaker 1: um with them and said, you know, protect yourself and
Speaker 1: be aware of the climate, and watch yourself now in
Speaker 1: now target So that is April Ryan there, who's talking
Speaker 1: about how the media now feels. Once again, anytime Trump
Speaker 1: calls out a Costa or anyone else, the media is
Speaker 1: always They're always the victims here, always the victims in
Speaker 1: this Their their behavior is never the problem, and it's
Speaker 1: always that they we we should be worried and concerned
Speaker 1: about them. Uh, even though, as we know, the only
Speaker 1: person yesterday that really need to be worried was Target
Speaker 1: Carlson's wife that a bunch of left wing maniacs were
Speaker 1: surrounding and harassing in her home and threatening her. But
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're supposed to think that the media
Speaker 1: are the real real victims here. This all comes from
Speaker 1: that Acosta exchange yesterday. I just want to uh tell
Speaker 1: you about this this thread that I came across today
Speaker 1: by Arthur Schwartz. I don't really know Arthur Schwartz. He's
Speaker 1: a he's a blue check journalist guy. But he had
Speaker 1: this thread today that I'd really just it really really
Speaker 1: hit the mark for me. He talked about when a
Speaker 1: Daily Caller reporter, you may remember this, kind of shouted
Speaker 1: out a question to Obama. This wasn't the u LI
Speaker 1: thing at the at the State of the Union address,
Speaker 1: that's very that's a different thing. This is a Daily
Speaker 1: Caller reporter asked a question to Obama that people thought
Speaker 1: was a little too aggressive. Oh my gosh, it's being
Speaker 1: aggressive with Obama. How could he? Here's what Schwartz wrote,
Speaker 1: Remember when a conservative reporter interrupted at the hecko President
Speaker 1: Obama let's see how the media and politicos reacted. Then,
Speaker 1: kicking it off with Chris Saliza of CNN, he wrote,
Speaker 1: Neil Monroe, who is the Daily Caller reporter who asked
Speaker 1: the question? Random? Neil Monroe, guy who interrupted Obama? Fact?
Speaker 1: He and I worked together at National Journal way back when. Okay,
Speaker 1: and then he wrote, next up Politico, Obama's remarks interrupted
Speaker 1: by Neil Monroe of the Daily Caller. Uh okay, so
Speaker 1: you can't shout questions apparently if Obama is the one,
Speaker 1: and then Kevin Kate wrote future Hannity headline, Obama interrupts
Speaker 1: great American Neil Monroe. These are all journalist, folks. These
Speaker 1: are all like, you know, people with blue checks, but
Speaker 1: CNN Politics their official account here, Neil Monroe, the Daily
Speaker 1: Caller interrupted President Obama during his announcements. According to CNN's
Speaker 1: Brianna Keiler or brie Keiller whatever her name is, ABC News,
Speaker 1: Obama interrupted by heckler Neil Monroe during Rose Garden announcement.
Speaker 1: That's right, folks. Now he's not just the interrupter, now,
Speaker 1: he's a heckler. Tony Norman. These are all verified journalists, Okay,
Speaker 1: Tony Norman. Daily Caller reporter Neil Monroe turned himself into
Speaker 1: an instant punchline by heckling President Obama. Today, even Fox
Speaker 1: News is outraged. Stephen Portnoy official White House transcript quotes
Speaker 1: Monroe is on the president. No, you have to take questions,
Speaker 1: Obama said, not while I'm speaking. And then here's the
Speaker 1: actual White House transcript. Excuse me, sir, it's not con
Speaker 1: for questions, sir Monroe. No, you have to take questions, Obama,
Speaker 1: not while I'm speaking. Um. And then I mean, you
Speaker 1: just go through all those folks and you see the
Speaker 1: very different tone. Somebody asked Obama a question that Obama
Speaker 1: didn't want to answer, and it was a It was
Speaker 1: a scandal against journalism. How darey the interrupter, the heckler
Speaker 1: at the Daily Caller, Neil Monroe. This is just yet
Speaker 1: another instance of why we just don't want to hear
Speaker 1: it from live journals anymore. We know that they they
Speaker 1: weren't honest about this. They weren't honest about the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: They weren't a check on power. They were cheerleaders, embarrassing
Speaker 1: cheerleaders for the Obama administration. Even with the Obama administration
Speaker 1: was doing surveillance with the Department of Justice on a
Speaker 1: reporter at Fox News. Of course, the one outlet that
Speaker 1: was willing to criticize the Obama administration in a meaningful way,
Speaker 1: a bunch of weenies over at CNN and like we
Speaker 1: would call the president out please clowns, No you didn't.
Speaker 1: It was the Obama fan network over at CNN for
Speaker 1: eight years. Is an embarrassment, in absolute embarrassment. And you
Speaker 1: look at what they were willing to cover up. Obama's
Speaker 1: foreign policy, embarrassing, Obama's ability to manage the economy, embarrassing,
Speaker 1: Obama's honesty about Obamacare, embarrassing. I mean, you got on
Speaker 1: the line. It's just all treated so differently, and they
Speaker 1: expect that we won't remember this. They expect that somehow
Speaker 1: we will just believe whatever they tell us to believe
Speaker 1: on these issues. And at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I think it really is incumbent upon all of us
Speaker 1: to say enough is enough. I I Am not going
Speaker 1: to sit around and be lectured anymore by these journals
Speaker 1: about civility and process and the First Amendment and the
Speaker 1: need to respect norms when they're just using it as
Speaker 1: a partisan cudgel. Against this president. When they just view
Speaker 1: their day in and day out as an excuse to
Speaker 1: play politics, they need to be called out. It is
Speaker 1: a function of truth and honor to call them out
Speaker 1: on this, no matter how much they whine, no matter
Speaker 1: how much they complain. That is what we need to do.
Speaker 1: Just a few minutes before I came on air, here team,
Speaker 1: you know what I did. I posted on snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: You might have heard me talk about it, but you
Speaker 1: need to go back and check it out again. Snippy
Speaker 1: dot com is a new social media site and thousands
Speaker 1: of my listeners have already joined, and they're expressing their
Speaker 1: opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy dot com is
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform that's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: And Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees
Speaker 1: its users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression
Speaker 1: from administrators. It's a place where everyone is free to
Speaker 1: express their thoughts and share their opinions, totally free to join,
Speaker 1: open to everyone. Join us at snippy dot com again,
Speaker 1: that's s N I P p Y dot com and
Speaker 1: let your opinion matter. No shadow banning, no suppression of
Speaker 1: conservative thought. Ever, now with an updated user interface and
Speaker 1: exciting new features, all savailable in the Apple App Store
Speaker 1: and available for Android, Snippy your new alternative social media.
Speaker 1: What does Trump derangement syndrome do to people? The question
Speaker 1: certainly worth asking, considering that now we have prominent members
Speaker 1: of the media conservatives who have mobs waiting for them
Speaker 1: at their homes, threatening them and their their families, their wives,
Speaker 1: their children. So how did we get to this point?
Speaker 1: How did the left become so crazy? There was an
Speaker 1: essay that was making the rounds this week in Mary
Speaker 1: Claire that I think is a window into the deranged
Speaker 1: leftist female anti Trump mind that's worth spending a couple
Speaker 1: of moments on here the Trump administration. This is by
Speaker 1: a woman named Lisa Milbrend. The Trump administration has me
Speaker 1: worried about my daughter's future, she writes, I'm gonna read
Speaker 1: to you some of this and we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: unpack this one together, because, like I said this, if
Speaker 1: you want to understand why is it that there are
Speaker 1: these women who will march in d C with these
Speaker 1: pink hats on, act like maniacs, talk about how Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: is guilty, even though there was not just no evidence
Speaker 1: against him, but all the evidence pointed that in the
Speaker 1: direction of his complete innocence. What what what do these
Speaker 1: people think about other things? And how do they view
Speaker 1: the current moment? How does the radical feminist left view Trump?
Speaker 1: Is m right now? This piece is a pretty good
Speaker 1: overview of it. Quote. Our daughters came home from China
Speaker 1: more than a decade ago, the first time their tiny
Speaker 1: feet touched American soil. We made a big deal of it.
Speaker 1: We were so happy about everything they'd inherit as newly
Speaker 1: minted Americans are already head over heel's love for them,
Speaker 1: every opportunity we could afford, and freedom from China's oppressive government.
Speaker 1: And it's now controversial and now somewhat lifted one child policy,
Speaker 1: the same policy that was most likely the very reason
Speaker 1: they were able to join our family. But now I
Speaker 1: worry that we made a tragic mistake. I pulled those
Speaker 1: two beautiful babies away from a rising power and into
Speaker 1: a damn age democracy. I brought two girls of color
Speaker 1: into a society where it is clear that their word
Speaker 1: and their bodies are worth less than a man's. And
Speaker 1: we're open overt racism has become even more likely now
Speaker 1: than it was a decade ago. And unfortunately, my worries
Speaker 1: aren't exactly tinfoil hat wearing paranoia and quote well, uh,
Speaker 1: fortunately they are tinfoil hat paranoia. But let's just take
Speaker 1: a step back. This is a woman who adopted to
Speaker 1: Chinese babies and is now saying that she might have
Speaker 1: made a mistake in taking them from China. First of all, wow,
Speaker 1: on on so many levels, um, the notion that somebody
Speaker 1: could live in this country and think that any you know,
Speaker 1: live in this country with its freedoms and its its rights,
Speaker 1: and it's constitutional order, and yes, even it's it's culture
Speaker 1: of liberty and decency and and love of country and honor,
Speaker 1: and you know, these are all fundamental American concepts. These
Speaker 1: are very different. It's very different in China. You know,
Speaker 1: in individual liberty is not a thing. The state acting
Speaker 1: in a way that respects individual life and dignity is
Speaker 1: not really a thing. Um. You know, China is a
Speaker 1: scary place. You get on the wrong side of that government,
Speaker 1: you're done. Yes, it has a lot of shiny new
Speaker 1: buildings and these massive cities, and I understand, right, China
Speaker 1: is an economic dynamo, and the economy is huge now.
Speaker 1: But to think that because of Trump, that's what this
Speaker 1: is all about, because of Trump, a baby would be
Speaker 1: better now growing up in China than than America is
Speaker 1: just so bizarre and shows such a flawed and and yeah,
Speaker 1: deeply scarred mind. It's it's just it's just beyond any
Speaker 1: normal persons understanding. But this is where we are now.
Speaker 1: And she goes into even greater detail here about how
Speaker 1: she's worried that, you know, Trump is going to roll
Speaker 1: back Roe v Wade and this is what's so essential
Speaker 1: for her girls and their bodies and everything else. Uh,
Speaker 1: and their bodies. It's crazy. She even says this quote.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of stockpiling Plan B pills just in case
Speaker 1: my daughter's right to choose what happens to their bodies disappears.
Speaker 1: And the irony isn't lost on me that just as
Speaker 1: China started to loosen up its one child policy and
Speaker 1: allow women more control over their decision to become a mother,
Speaker 1: my daughters may lose the right to choose here. Uh.
Speaker 1: China has engaged in forced abortion and forced sterilization on
Speaker 1: a scale of tens of millions over decades. A wholesale
Speaker 1: slaughter of the unborn at the mandate of the state.
Speaker 1: And she compares that to America, where, yeah, you still
Speaker 1: do have the right, unfortunately, and to our everlasting shame
Speaker 1: to terminate a pregnancy for all nine months of the pregnancy.
Speaker 1: But the suggestion that somehow China and America are on
Speaker 1: the same moral plane here, or rather that because America
Speaker 1: may become more moral in that it might at least
Speaker 1: limit abortion in some meaningful ways, perhaps even eliminated at
Speaker 1: some point in the future, and therefore China is a
Speaker 1: better place, just shows you. That's a perversion of morality.
Speaker 1: This woman is unable to understand this, But that is
Speaker 1: a perversion of morality. She is deeply incorrect and obviously
Speaker 1: very very troubled, she writes. And so I fight, and
Speaker 1: I protest, I plan and protect. Like many of my
Speaker 1: fellow adoptive parents, I ordered a passport card for my
Speaker 1: teen so she could prove her citizenship wherever she went.
Speaker 1: I double and triple checked our paperwork and started hunting
Speaker 1: for a lawyer to do pricey readoptions so we can
Speaker 1: add a security blanket, layer of paper proof for our girls.
Speaker 1: And then I worry that a sheaf of paper can
Speaker 1: be invalidated with a stroke of a pen, and the
Speaker 1: government's brutal separation of child evergence from their parents isn't
Speaker 1: exactly inspiring confidence. This is just hysteria, folks. This is
Speaker 1: somebody who is publishing an essay about her She's worried
Speaker 1: that Trump is going to take her legally adopted children
Speaker 1: from her because they are non American. I find this
Speaker 1: kind of thinking not only scary because it's so wrong
Speaker 1: and and so it's so delusional, but also does she
Speaker 1: really think that her fellow Americans would allow that? Does
Speaker 1: she really think that people like you and me would
Speaker 1: stand idly by and would support that administration that would say, well,
Speaker 1: you legally adopted children from abroad, those are your children,
Speaker 1: and you weren't adopted adopted parents or your adoptive parents,
Speaker 1: and now the government because they're not they're not born
Speaker 1: in these countries. So does that mean that they really
Speaker 1: think Trump is gonna take all green card holders and
Speaker 1: all uh all new citizens that the country has made
Speaker 1: in recent years and and deport them. Why because the
Speaker 1: anchor baby issue has come up, Well, anchor babies are
Speaker 1: people that have done it illegally. What what do they
Speaker 1: not understand? If I walk into a store and I
Speaker 1: take a jacket and I give somebody money for that
Speaker 1: jacket that they have requested, that is a legal transaction.
Speaker 1: I'm still walking out of there with that jacket. If
Speaker 1: I walk into a store and I take a jacket
Speaker 1: and I don't pay for it, yeah, I've taken the jacket.
Speaker 1: It's the same act on my part, but it is illegal,
Speaker 1: and we'll be treated very very differently by the way. Well,
Speaker 1: that store go out of business because I took that jacket. No,
Speaker 1: will that big company that probably made that jacket go
Speaker 1: out of business because I still let jacket know? So
Speaker 1: why ruined? Why ruined my day? Maybe even my future?
Speaker 1: Over one active shoplifting over one theft? Right? What? You
Speaker 1: can play this game with anything, you know it does
Speaker 1: if it doesn't really imminently and and dramatically impact somebody
Speaker 1: as a victim right away, what's the big deal? Man? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. We live in a society of laws, and
Speaker 1: we treat things differently based upon the way the law
Speaker 1: prescribes their treatment. But then this is the craziest part
Speaker 1: of this. I mean, I've already taken you down a
Speaker 1: pretty incredible path you. But this is the craziest part,
Speaker 1: She writes, quote, I skipped my daughter's soccer games to
Speaker 1: march and spend my nights volunteering to get out the vote.
Speaker 1: I divert money from their college funds towards campaigns that
Speaker 1: might help save our democracy. And on the very worst days,
Speaker 1: I start to look at what it would take to
Speaker 1: leave the country that I love permanently. What the heck
Speaker 1: is wrong with this person? Go to your daughter's soccer games, man,
Speaker 1: nobody cares that you're like, you know, licking stamps and
Speaker 1: envelopes for you know, the Elizabeth Warren campaign, like you know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter. And this is where I start
Speaker 1: to get very concerned about the about the future of
Speaker 1: this country. And I mean that when you have tens
Speaker 1: of millions of people, you know, roughly let's call it
Speaker 1: twenty or thirty percent of the country that is so
Speaker 1: insanely anti Trump, that they lose sight of everything that's important,
Speaker 1: that they lose all sense of perspective. That's a danger
Speaker 1: to our way of life, really, because how do you
Speaker 1: reason with these people? You're you're you're diverting money from
Speaker 1: your own children's college funds to pay to throw money
Speaker 1: at politicians to quote save our democracy. This woman is
Speaker 1: just being calmed by all these left wing Charlotte is
Speaker 1: im and she's just a fool, But foolishness on a
Speaker 1: mass scale can be dangerous. Anti Trump derangement syndrome is
Speaker 1: a real thing. It's a real condition. And this woman
Speaker 1: writing and Mary Claire has laid out for you what
Speaker 1: some of the symptoms are when you will put left
Speaker 1: wing progressive causes over your own children, over your own
Speaker 1: family and the happiness of your day to day life.
Speaker 1: And I mean causes like global warming or you know,
Speaker 1: saving our democracy, these ephemeral who gives a crap? What
Speaker 1: are you even talking about? You've lost perspective, lefties. When
Speaker 1: you've done this stuff, you really have caused problems for yourselves.
Speaker 1: And it's time that we finally all look at them
Speaker 1: and say, hey, you are our fellow Americans. Like it
Speaker 1: or not, Try to just chill out a little bit.
Speaker 1: I repeat. People on the left need to stop being
Speaker 1: so crazy. On the campaign triw you called yourself a nationalist.
Speaker 1: Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists. Now people
Speaker 1: are the press, it's your racist. There are some people
Speaker 1: that say that now the Republican Party is seen as
Speaker 1: supporting white nationalists? What do you make of that? I
Speaker 1: don't believe. I just well, I don't know. Why do
Speaker 1: I have my highest poll numbers ever with African Americans?
Speaker 1: I love our country. I do you call you have nationalists?
Speaker 1: You have globalists. I also love the world, and I
Speaker 1: don't want helping the world, but we have to straighten
Speaker 1: out our country first. That passes for a question among
Speaker 1: the liberal journals these days that that's you know, Mr President,
Speaker 1: are are you essentially a neo Nazi? Just just want
Speaker 1: to ask, are you a neo Nazi? Because you know,
Speaker 1: the American people need to know that think that you
Speaker 1: give comfort to white nationalists. They are driving such a
Speaker 1: wedge in into the center of this country politically. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're creating so much ill will with this stuff. We
Speaker 1: are really all tired of being called racists, and they
Speaker 1: just don't get it. Okay, they just don't get it.
Speaker 1: It's pathetic, it's boring, it's not true. It's a slander.
Speaker 1: Stop stop running around lefties and saying everything everybody that
Speaker 1: disagrees to do is racist. Everyone's so racist. Oh and
Speaker 1: then turn around and say, oh, you're you're celebrating how
Speaker 1: much less white the country is getting. All the time
Speaker 1: that that's on the left celebrated is inherently a good thing.
Speaker 1: I like to think that I'm I'm neutral on the topic.
Speaker 1: I just want rule of law and American culture and
Speaker 1: political society to thrive. And I'm not sitting here looking
Speaker 1: at oh, well, you know, we need the country to
Speaker 1: be less white. I don't also want the country to
Speaker 1: be more white. I just don't think about it in
Speaker 1: those ways. Why is it that the left is always
Speaker 1: doing this though? Just going at this issue, it reminds
Speaker 1: me of what CNN was up to during Black Lives Matter, right.
Speaker 1: They would just use issues of race in flame actual
Speaker 1: tensions as much as they possibly could, and then say, oh, gosh,
Speaker 1: look at how much tension there is in race issues.
Speaker 1: It's tiresome. And you even here now in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of these elections where you had so many you have
Speaker 1: so many minority candidates that received just glowing and in
Speaker 1: many cases pretty you know, excessive praise. I mean in
Speaker 1: the case of like Gill Him for example, and the guys,
Speaker 1: what's so impressive about gill him? They say, he's impressive. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: but you know his resume is not something that anybody
Speaker 1: would say, Oh, it's amazing, right, but look again, it
Speaker 1: he's charismatic. They kind of like them fun they can
Speaker 1: tell whatever stories they want. But you know, they received
Speaker 1: millions and millions of votes. And then when they don't,
Speaker 1: When when some of these candidates of the media likes
Speaker 1: so much don't win, what I do? What do they
Speaker 1: turned around and say, Oh, it's it's it's about racism.
Speaker 1: Play play five. And I think for many progressive US
Speaker 1: in place like Florida and Georgia, they'll be they'll be
Speaker 1: incredibly disappointed, and they'll all be giving their white neighbors
Speaker 1: the Harry I of bal tomorrow. Right, that's right, blame
Speaker 1: white people. This is this was common. I told you
Speaker 1: about this. You actually blame white women. In fact, I
Speaker 1: heard from a friend of mine who was at the
Speaker 1: gillim uh rally. We're not really rally, it is kind
Speaker 1: of the headquarters for the event. The night that there
Speaker 1: was talk about, you know, making jokes about Becky with
Speaker 1: the good hair, which some of you will understand that
Speaker 1: reference about white women. And then she said it was
Speaker 1: pretty uncomfortable actually that This was something that was being
Speaker 1: spouted at a at a political rally for a major
Speaker 1: statewide candidate in a huge U. S. State. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we're always being told that we're racist. Were never told
Speaker 1: why and what I mean? We I just mean a
Speaker 1: name who votes for Trump. Meanwhile, the left is saying, oh,
Speaker 1: isn't it so great? The country is getting less and
Speaker 1: less white all the time. We look at them like,
Speaker 1: why is that? Are we all supposed to be that
Speaker 1: that's supposed to make us happy? Why aren't we just
Speaker 1: neutral on that stuffic, like I said, with the country
Speaker 1: is more or white or less white? That's this is
Speaker 1: not something that we should be shooting for one way
Speaker 1: or the other. The countries is what it is. We have,
Speaker 1: we have laws, and it seems very strange to me,
Speaker 1: but but they will MSNBC. They openly embrace the decline
Speaker 1: of white America. And then they turn around and then
Speaker 1: they say, you know what, why are you being so
Speaker 1: touchy white America? You know, why don't you vote for
Speaker 1: every celebrated minority political candidate based on their skin color?
Speaker 1: You know, we sit around and say, okay, well, when
Speaker 1: we put up you know, whether it's Alan West or
Speaker 1: Dr Ben Carson or you know, you put up these
Speaker 1: different Republican minority candidates and we're told that they don't count,
Speaker 1: which is you want to talk about racist, What the
Speaker 1: heck is that? But you're seeing so much of it,
Speaker 1: and it's just gonna get It's gonna get so much worse.
Speaker 1: It's gonna get so much uglier because of two things. One,
Speaker 1: this is an idiots way to feel like they're winning
Speaker 1: an argument. Just call everybody disagrees with your racist. The
Speaker 1: left loves to do this. It's the idiots way through
Speaker 1: an argument and they know it and they love to
Speaker 1: do it. Okay, So that's one part. That's one piece
Speaker 1: of this. And then the other is it does drive ratings.
Speaker 1: I mean, whenever they can do a story that that
Speaker 1: deals with race and they can inflame racial tensions, the
Speaker 1: media knows they can get people to tune in, they
Speaker 1: can get people to watch, and they don't care how
Speaker 1: destructive it is. They don't care how nasty they are
Speaker 1: being in the process. And I appreciate that Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: back down on any of this stuff. Trump is not
Speaker 1: a white nationalist. Nationalism existed before the notion of white
Speaker 1: nationalism had even ever been discussed. Nationalism, as you know,
Speaker 1: is about the nation state and one support for a
Speaker 1: nation over other nations. It has in certain contexts a
Speaker 1: bad connotation. But you know, depending on who you talk to.
Speaker 1: You know, patriotism patriot groups were singled out for additional
Speaker 1: I r S scrutiny. Anything with patriot in the name
Speaker 1: was a problem under the Obama administration's I R S.
Speaker 1: So patriotism in the in the wrong context, they'll even
Speaker 1: say is bad. Right, Patriotism can scare them. You say, oh,
Speaker 1: I belong to a patriot group out in the Midwest
Speaker 1: or something. All of a sudden, what do you mean
Speaker 1: patriot group? Well, patriots is one of loves his country. Right.
Speaker 1: They're playing games here, folks. They're they're being dishonest because
Speaker 1: that is what they do. That is what they've been taught.
Speaker 1: That is how the left operates. But I I just
Speaker 1: know that the ugliness over issues of race is only
Speaker 1: going to intensify, and it breaks my heart. In the
Speaker 1: quixotic battle against old age, some people you skincare and
Speaker 1: spin class. That is not enough for a meal. Rattle Bond,
Speaker 1: a sixty nine year old who feels like he's in
Speaker 1: his forties, the Dutch pensioners asking a court in his
Speaker 1: hometown of Arnhem, southeast of Amsterdam to change his birth
Speaker 1: certificate so that it says he took his first breath
Speaker 1: on March eleventh, nineteen sixty nine, rather than in March eleventh,
Speaker 1: ninety nine. The judges heard his case Monday and promised
Speaker 1: they would render a verdict in the next several weeks. Folks,
Speaker 1: here we are. I I mentioned this to you yesterday.
Speaker 1: I love this, man, I mean, this is just this
Speaker 1: is just great. Uh. We've been saying for a while.
Speaker 1: If if you can tell me that gender is a
Speaker 1: spectrum and that there's no defining physical characteristics of gender,
Speaker 1: then you have to apply the same logic to raise.
Speaker 1: And the left hates this because that brings down this
Speaker 1: whole construct, this whole edifice of intersectional uh and in sectionality,
Speaker 1: intersectional race relations, which is just all about oppression dynamics
Speaker 1: between the different races. So if you can just change
Speaker 1: your race at will, well then that puts a whole
Speaker 1: lot of pressure on the concept of oppression based on race.
Speaker 1: But what why can't you change your age in this way?
Speaker 1: By the way, hey, John, let me if you got
Speaker 1: to just wake up tomorrow and you could be any age.
Speaker 1: What would you be? Let me ask you that one
Speaker 1: what would you be tomorrow you wake up? Because I
Speaker 1: I wouldn't want to be a teenager again, be a
Speaker 1: teenager sucked? What would you want to be? Are you
Speaker 1: just not gonna answer my question? Are you? Are you
Speaker 1: straight up ignoring? Wow, my own team, This is what
Speaker 1: happens folks. You know, No, I couldn't hear you. I
Speaker 1: was saying I'd be again. Oh you go eighteen? Okay, no,
Speaker 1: we we did. That would have to be a reality,
Speaker 1: not just in my mind, because then I'd be crazy,
Speaker 1: no the way, and then you be a creep stir no. No, no,
Speaker 1: I mean like if, like in the Tom Hanks movie Big,
Speaker 1: you can go back and be any age you know again,
Speaker 1: but you're you know, mentally you obviously the same person,
Speaker 1: but you'd actually go back and you know, be in
Speaker 1: an eighteen year old's body. I think i'd go back.
Speaker 1: I think the peak is like, you know, I remember
Speaker 1: being five and like I could eat anything and you know,
Speaker 1: still look good and play sports and not worry about
Speaker 1: getting hurt and you know all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: So that would be for me that because I don't know,
Speaker 1: I wasn't uh, I wasn't that fond of like eighteen
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty. I don't know, it wasn't really my my
Speaker 1: my best time anyway. So this guy wants to change
Speaker 1: his age, and I gotta tell you, um, this is
Speaker 1: gonna be a thing that happens in America too. We've
Speaker 1: been saying this for a while, and it's just really
Speaker 1: a function of why not. If people feel really strongly,
Speaker 1: who are you to tell them that they can't be?
Speaker 1: Who are you to tell a seven year old that
Speaker 1: they can't legally, keep in mind, legally change their age. Now,
Speaker 1: people would say, buck, you know you can't. There are
Speaker 1: real legal implications in a whole bunch of ways. You
Speaker 1: can't be a sixteen year old if you're actually seventy it.
Speaker 1: You know, there's all I get all that. But if
Speaker 1: you're seventy you want to be fifty, why not? If
Speaker 1: you're seventy and you want to be twenty five, why not,
Speaker 1: you know, change your whole change your whole vibe, man,
Speaker 1: change your attitude age. You just stayed in mind, man,
Speaker 1: like he's just number you like whatever. By the way,
Speaker 1: do you see that the a bunch of cannabis stocks
Speaker 1: spiked after Jeff Sessions got fired. Uh, the stoner bump,
Speaker 1: the stoner bump, Mike yesterday, I said, not that Jeff's
Speaker 1: Sessions has gone dig gonna legalized national I'm gonna tell you,
Speaker 1: I'm so mad at myself for not I should have
Speaker 1: seen that coming. And as an investor, I should have
Speaker 1: just grabbed a bunch of pot stocks. And I knew
Speaker 1: Jeff was gonna be out. I didn't know what day exactly,
Speaker 1: But as soon as he's at Evans like, oh man,
Speaker 1: he's like, oh, it's like the fuzz. He's like, not
Speaker 1: on our tail anymore. Man, Like you know, they're they
Speaker 1: think they're gonna be all right now, some of those
Speaker 1: Pots stocks. But I've gone up incredible amounts in the
Speaker 1: last twelve months, like wild cryptocurrency kind of kind of swings.
Speaker 1: So anyway, a just a spectrum now, folks, you heard it,
Speaker 1: you heard it here. Legally, there's gonna be challenges to this.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna work. They're gonna come up. But but
Speaker 1: it is interesting because it forces the left once again
Speaker 1: to have to explain itself on some of these issues.
Speaker 1: It forces the left to come out and say, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: here's why there's an objective criteria to age but not
Speaker 1: an objective criteria to gender, even though the gender spectrum
Speaker 1: that they say exists allows you to be a man,
Speaker 1: a woman, a z zazo. You know all these different
Speaker 1: made up pronouns. Now, that's all psychological. They need to
Speaker 1: come up with an explanation as to as to why
Speaker 1: that is okay but not age. And I think that
Speaker 1: they they're gonna be upset by this because they'll say
Speaker 1: it's intrinsic to identity. But ages, age is a very
Speaker 1: important part of identity. So get ready for a little
Speaker 1: more of this at roll Call coming up. The show
Speaker 1: ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real, It's time for
Speaker 1: roll Call. I got the Roll Call gonna be up
Speaker 1: in New York City this weekend. By the way, I'm
Speaker 1: very excited about that. I'm gonna go see Miss Molly
Speaker 1: and have some other fun things planned. I miss my
Speaker 1: hometown and it is in fact, less full of crazy
Speaker 1: libs than d C. Believe it or not, New York
Speaker 1: City is a more normal place in terms of politics
Speaker 1: than d C. D C is insane. The moment you
Speaker 1: step out of like a Republican congressman's office or the
Speaker 1: White House, and you actually wandered around the streets here, man,
Speaker 1: I I cannot vouch for your your your emotional health
Speaker 1: if you try to engage in a conversation with any
Speaker 1: DC native about any matter of politics. But there you
Speaker 1: have it, Facebook dot Com, slash buck sex. And if
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of roll call, and
Speaker 1: you know you do, roll call is the best. It's
Speaker 1: so fun. Come off the coast, have a few laughs.
Speaker 1: Don right, it's great hair, great show shields high Well, don,
Speaker 1: you're a great American. With regard to the Democrats, Supervisor
Speaker 1: of Elections in Broward County, Florida, Brenda Snipes after the
Speaker 1: Elections and Advocacy Group requested access to the voting record
Speaker 1: as it is their right, only to find out they
Speaker 1: had been destroyed. Florida law requires maintaining them for two years.
Speaker 1: Well done. Obviously something is up here, my friend, What
Speaker 1: the heck is going on? I don't have an answer
Speaker 1: to that, but I wanted to ask the question. Yeah it, um,
Speaker 1: Michael right, so long your buddy Sessions. And also, dude,
Speaker 1: you gotta jump on this and resurrect the shagging wagon,
Speaker 1: and he sent me a link to an Oldsmobile custom
Speaker 1: Cruiser wagon. Now, Michael, let me tell you a little something.
Speaker 1: First of all, thank you for thinking of me. You're
Speaker 1: you're also a great American. Second of all, the shagging wagon,
Speaker 1: which was in fact the name of my wood paneled
Speaker 1: Buick Roadmaster station wagon, was a nineteen two with wood
Speaker 1: panels in pale blue. If memory serves, I think it
Speaker 1: was early nineties Buick Roadmaster. That thing looked like a
Speaker 1: boat and pretty much handled like one too. You know,
Speaker 1: you really, if you took a turn at more than
Speaker 1: thirty miles an hour, you were really you're gonna see
Speaker 1: your life flash before your eyes. Uh. But man, that
Speaker 1: thing was fun. In college, the shagging wagon is what
Speaker 1: my friends called it, because, of course, if that's the
Speaker 1: car you're driving, there will be no shagging. That was
Speaker 1: what they used to say. I'm just I don't make
Speaker 1: these you know, I don't make the rules here, I
Speaker 1: was telling you. And then this came up on the
Speaker 1: now discontinued But but when it was in its heyday,
Speaker 1: wonderful show Red Eye on Fox News, I once told
Speaker 1: Mr Gregg Gottfeld and company about the shagging wagon, and
Speaker 1: it became a thing. Were to discuss the shagging wagon,
Speaker 1: I'd go on Red Eye on people with hashtag shagging
Speaker 1: wagon at me so yep, Caitlin, right, whoa regarding a
Speaker 1: Costa assaulting that poor girl on national TV? Where is
Speaker 1: the outrage from the me too lefties on this? The
Speaker 1: hypocrisy is nauseating. We're keeping up the good fight here
Speaker 1: in North Idaho to stay red as ever, Caitlin. Well, Caitlin,
Speaker 1: thank you for writing in and yes, please keep up
Speaker 1: that fight in North Ideoh and please please keep listening
Speaker 1: to the Box Action show. Tell more folks in Idaho.
Speaker 1: They should they should get it on this action too.
Speaker 1: Christopher Wright's book invention software cellar phone app app sorry
Speaker 1: app gosh book technology. All cell phones can here detect
Speaker 1: gunshot sounds and send local officers went appropriate automatically, thinking
Speaker 1: out loud, Christopher. They do have some systems similar to
Speaker 1: that in New York City where they have a sonic
Speaker 1: technology that will uh essentially track gun shots and they
Speaker 1: use it particularly on certain parade days because, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, there was a big problem in New York City.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it continues, but maybe ten years
Speaker 1: ago it was still ongoing. We're on the Caribbean Day Parade.
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you the facts here. I don't know why.
Speaker 1: On the Caribbean Day Parade there would often be gunfire
Speaker 1: from rooftops in UH Brooklyn in New York, including automatic gunfire,
Speaker 1: and very few. I would imagine none of the folks
Speaker 1: that were firing automatic weapons off of rooftops in Brooklyn
Speaker 1: had the special federal license in order to have a
Speaker 1: legally owned automatic weapon. I would guess zero of them.
Speaker 1: And also to fire it off a rooftop is reckless
Speaker 1: and you could kill somebody. So they use that sonic
Speaker 1: technology to try to track down those who were firing
Speaker 1: guns off. I don't know how successful it was, but
Speaker 1: it is something that has been done in the past.
Speaker 1: Mitch writes, um, I get informed by you guys, Glenmark
Speaker 1: and others. I got no use for the news thirty
Speaker 1: minutes or so of you and the rest, and then
Speaker 1: all the other stuff is worthless. I know the station
Speaker 1: has to get money from advertising, but entertainment news, come on, man,
Speaker 1: that's a waste. Mitch was not happy about the UH.
Speaker 1: Some of the news breaks and Mitch I hear you.
Speaker 1: I don't have any control. That's your local station, though,
Speaker 1: my friend, I don't have any control over the news
Speaker 1: that are in. That's in the breaks. So I look,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you like my show, and you can just listen,
Speaker 1: and if you ever want to listen, you can try
Speaker 1: the podcast, and that way there's no news breaks. So
Speaker 1: I'm just putting that out there. Patrick writes, no, on
Speaker 1: Iron Fist, do you even kung fu? Bro? Patrick? The
Speaker 1: answer is no, of course I do not kung fu.
Speaker 1: But I like your question and it was funny. As
Speaker 1: for Iron Fist, iron Fist is terrible, dude, Patrick, I
Speaker 1: can't back you up on this. Daredevil has plenty of
Speaker 1: martial arts, but it also has real acting in a story.
Speaker 1: Iron Fist is just boring. It just sucks. It's just
Speaker 1: not a good show. And I don't know how Netflix
Speaker 1: could spend so much time and money putting together a
Speaker 1: show that's such weak sauce. It was really bad, man.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not being harsh. Iron Fish, well, well,
Speaker 1: iron Fist was a stinking fish. I guess I combined
Speaker 1: those two. Iron Fish is a very different show. Um,
Speaker 1: But yeah, look, if you like it, man, That's all
Speaker 1: that really matters. You know, I'm just a guy talking
Speaker 1: to a microphone. You know, I don't I don't get
Speaker 1: to determine reality. Uh buck, your referral peaky blinders is
Speaker 1: spot on. Bam, Thank you so much, Keith Shields. High dude,
Speaker 1: it was a blue tinkle to be followed by a
Speaker 1: blue flush in. You know, I hear you on that, man.
Speaker 1: I just I was up to my ankle in that
Speaker 1: blue wave. That blue wave got my tothys a little wet.
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, my tothis are wet from the blue wave. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, I agree, Eric Buck. Do you think there's
Speaker 1: any way to federally mandate the teaching of civics and
Speaker 1: our elementary schools? Today's leftists are screaming to abolish the
Speaker 1: electoral college at a bunch of seats, to scotus, abolish
Speaker 1: the Senate, and generally get rid of the checks and
Speaker 1: balances to protect us from dictatorship. If they understood the basics,
Speaker 1: maybe they wouldn't be ready to say such insane things. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that they would tell you that they are
Speaker 1: in fact teaching civics and schools. The problem is they're
Speaker 1: not teaching it the way it should be taught, right.
Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's what you should you
Speaker 1: should keep in mind here so you know I'm with
Speaker 1: you on it. I'm very frustrating, but it's just we're
Speaker 1: not gonna be able to win the fight over the
Speaker 1: schools anytime soon. We gotta keep fighting though. I gotta
Speaker 1: keep our shields high. Irwin Rights. I was listening to
Speaker 1: your podcast on I walked this morning, and you mentioned
Speaker 1: that you were looking for a reasonable definition of how
Speaker 1: the left would define a racist. A friend of mine
Speaker 1: said this the other day. A racist that has is
Speaker 1: a conservative that has won the argument with a liberal. Irwin.
Speaker 1: I hear you on that, my man, and uh, I
Speaker 1: know that that's not technically the definition of a racist.
Speaker 1: But I like where. I like where heads at, you know,
Speaker 1: I like I like what you're what you're putting down. Copernicus.
Speaker 1: First of all, Copernicus gets the award for coolest name today.
Speaker 1: Thank you for figuring out that the Earth rotates around
Speaker 1: the sun. Yo, good job? Is it? The takeaway from
Speaker 1: the House results last night that if you give up,
Speaker 1: you lose forty retirements just because you think there'll be
Speaker 1: a blue wave is not a way to win a Copernicus.
Speaker 1: I do think those retirements were a big part of
Speaker 1: I think the people just wanted to get out while
Speaker 1: they thought the getting was good. Because remember, you know,
Speaker 1: in the in those earlier months of the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: to a lot of Republicans thought the whole thing was
Speaker 1: gonna just collapse and it's gonna be a mess and
Speaker 1: a disaster. And you know, it really took some time
Speaker 1: before people realize, oh wait a second, Trump kind of
Speaker 1: knows what he's doing. In fact, he's doing a pretty
Speaker 1: damn good job. So there you have it. Uh hey,
Speaker 1: buck this from Alan. I read that the White House
Speaker 1: lift the credentials of any reporter. Why wouldn't they bar
Speaker 1: a Costa from attending press conferences? Are his antics actually welcome?
Speaker 1: And that it proves CNN is a biased organization. You know, Alan,
Speaker 1: you raise a very interesting point, a couple of very
Speaker 1: interesting points. One is, you know, I'm a reporter and
Speaker 1: I work a few blocks from the I'm not a reporter,
Speaker 1: I'm a media person. I take that back, but I'm
Speaker 1: in the media and I work a few blocks from
Speaker 1: the White House, and I can certainly do reporting. Will
Speaker 1: they get my what what can I walk to the
Speaker 1: White House and just say, Okay, I want to pass. No,
Speaker 1: they won't give me one. Why not? I'm way smarter
Speaker 1: than Jim Acosta and better at my job. Why why
Speaker 1: can't I have a White House pass? Oh? Because it's
Speaker 1: a privilege, and they give it out to people based
Speaker 1: on the organization's relationship with them and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. Right, It's not something you just get to
Speaker 1: demand that you can have. And I think that people
Speaker 1: should start to view it more in that sense. Now
Speaker 1: as to um CNN's and the antics of a costa
Speaker 1: whether and whether it's welcome because it proves what a
Speaker 1: clown show CNN is. I I think that the President
Speaker 1: doesn't mind that people see Acosta and CNN for what
Speaker 1: they really are because of those press conferences. I think
Speaker 1: that I think that Trump knows that the more people
Speaker 1: see of this and the more they understand what's really
Speaker 1: going on, what's really at work, the more likely it
Speaker 1: is that they will understand that CNN is a steaming
Speaker 1: trash pile of fake news. Which doesn't mean that everything
Speaker 1: they say is untrue. Okay, that's not what that means.
Speaker 1: It means that the way they present themselves as an
Speaker 1: unbiased news organization is fraudulent. It is fake. They are not.
Speaker 1: They are not an honest broker of information without partisan affiliation.
Speaker 1: That is a fraud. That is why they are fake news.
Speaker 1: Deal with a CNN. Deal with it. One more Here,
Speaker 1: Paul writes, Hey, Buck, I really believe deeply that we
Speaker 1: wouldn't have held the House if we didn't have those
Speaker 1: forty congressional retirements, because we lost all those incumbent which
Speaker 1: would have had a good chance of holding their seats.
Speaker 1: We lost the House. You know, I think, Paul, you
Speaker 1: may be right. I think your analysis is correct, just
Speaker 1: like the other gentleman who raised this issue. So those
Speaker 1: retirements did not help. Republicans don't have a great track
Speaker 1: record of standing their ground and fighting on a lot
Speaker 1: of issues, and I think there are a lot of
Speaker 1: some of them are probably just old and tired of
Speaker 1: doing it too. So there is that Tomorrow We're gonna
Speaker 1: have a little freestyle Friday action up and end y
Speaker 1: see might even have a special visit for my friends
Speaker 1: at Black Rifle, the most delicious, most fantastic coffee in
Speaker 1: the world, which I drink every morning. Black Now and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you something. I wasn't even
Speaker 1: a black coffee drinker before Black Rifle, but I felt
Speaker 1: like just the name of the coffee, black Rifle, Well
Speaker 1: I gotta try it black, right. So I'll see tomorrow
Speaker 1: from New York City, or we'll talk tomorrow from New
Speaker 1: York City. The freedom hup baby, as always shields high.
Speaker 1: This weekend, I'm gonna be on a train. You know
Speaker 1: what I don't have to do. I'm gonna have to
Speaker 1: use some public WiFi. Now that's unsecure, as you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're putting yourself out there for all kinds
Speaker 1: of hackers and third party apps and all sorts of
Speaker 1: stuff that can decide to take your information and either
Speaker 1: use it for nefarious purposes or just sell it. You
Speaker 1: know you don't want that. That's why you need Express VPN.
Speaker 1: Express VPN has easy to use apps that run seamlessly
Speaker 1: in the background of my computer, phone and tablet, And
Speaker 1: it's so easy. All I have to do is one
Speaker 1: click and my Express VPN protection is in place. If
Speaker 1: you don't want to hand over your online history to
Speaker 1: your internet provider or data resellers, Express VPN is the
Speaker 1: answer protect your online privacy today and find out how
Speaker 1: you can get three months free at express vpn dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck that's Express vpn dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: for three months free with a one year package. Visit
Speaker 1: express vpn dot com slash buck