Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. It's the day after
Speaker 1: the Mulla report, and Democrats think we've already forgotten, not
Speaker 1: just about what we found out yesterday, but what they
Speaker 1: did for the last two years. A massive campaign of
Speaker 1: lies is under way to make us think that they
Speaker 1: didn't tell us the president committed treason, They didn't say
Speaker 1: that he was a Russian asset. Nonsense. We'll break down
Speaker 1: the latest on that and everything else on a freestyle
Speaker 1: Friday buck Sexton Remission, decoding the news and disseminating information
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, America, You're a great
Speaker 1: American again. This is the buck Sexton Show activity former
Speaker 1: CIA analysts. I can speak for three hours without a
Speaker 1: phone call. Try doing that sometime. It is no. You
Speaker 1: do have the right to fight back, and I'm fighting back.
Speaker 1: Not for me, I'm fighting back for the people of
Speaker 1: this kind. No collusion, There was no collusion, no collusion,
Speaker 1: no collusion. There is absolutely no collusion. There's no collusion.
Speaker 1: The fact is, there is no collusion, no collusion. There's
Speaker 1: no collusion. This is a investigation where many many millions
Speaker 1: of dollars as would explained, and there's no collusion. This
Speaker 1: is a a win for this president who for now
Speaker 1: two years has essentially been screaming there was no Russian collusion.
Speaker 1: He is backed up by Muller. Maybe every time he
Speaker 1: said no collusion, but more than two hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: one time so far. Maybe every time he said no
Speaker 1: collusion he was telling the truth. This was an illegal
Speaker 1: takedown that failed, and hopefully somebody's gonna look at the
Speaker 1: other side. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. You need
Speaker 1: to hear that, folks, you need to hear your president's
Speaker 1: voice on this again. We need to all remind each
Speaker 1: other that the Democrats failed in their soft coup against
Speaker 1: this president, and that they're now lying about how, oh
Speaker 1: they were right all along. Sure they couldn't prove Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: but look at the obstruction case that has been created
Speaker 1: now by Muller and his team of angry Democrats. Look
Speaker 1: at all the behind the scenes shenanigans going on to
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. If you were facing the destruction of
Speaker 1: your presidency, the ruination of your reputation, and possible imprisonment
Speaker 1: for if not you, your immediate family members, because Democrats
Speaker 1: are a bunch of cry babies who can't accept that
Speaker 1: they lost the last election. I think you would lash
Speaker 1: out too. I think you would say, this is nonsense.
Speaker 1: I'm the leader of the free world and the commander
Speaker 1: in chief. I'm gonna let some little piddly bureaucrat try
Speaker 1: to destroy me because he wanted Hillary and all of
Speaker 1: the Democrats around her to be in charge. I don't think.
Speaker 1: So how do we stop this? What can we do?
Speaker 1: I've got constitutional authority to fire. This is an employee
Speaker 1: of the presidents we're talking about here. But no, no,
Speaker 1: Now they say, oh, well, it wasn't really ever about
Speaker 1: a plot between Trump and the Russians to throw the election.
Speaker 1: It was about all the other stuff. Front page of
Speaker 1: the Washington Post today. I just told the whole tale
Speaker 1: of left wing propaganda for you right now. The headline
Speaker 1: is paranoialize and fear Trump's presidency laid bare in report.
Speaker 1: You know what they don't have on here that the
Speaker 1: stories that were run night after night for two years,
Speaker 1: on six hundred days of stories dominated by this one
Speaker 1: theme that the president is illegitimate, that he stole, that
Speaker 1: he actively worked with the Russians to steal what was
Speaker 1: rightfully Queen Hilary's. And it was only a matter of
Speaker 1: time before the truth came out, and people like me
Speaker 1: and you who did not believe this, we were rubes, buffoons.
Speaker 1: We just weren't very sophisticated, you see. Oh, but it
Speaker 1: turns out we were right. So we're the smart people
Speaker 1: in this equation, aren't we. But the Democrats now moved
Speaker 1: past this and pretend like that was never the story
Speaker 1: that was. It was always about obstruction, you see. It
Speaker 1: was always about getting a window into how the president
Speaker 1: deals with his staff behind the scenes, and how he's
Speaker 1: told people to lie. How many tears am I really
Speaker 1: supposed to shed about the president trying to deal with
Speaker 1: a media that is so dishonest, that does pedal fake
Speaker 1: news all the time, that is trying to destroy his presidence,
Speaker 1: he destroy his family if they can, and so he
Speaker 1: gets a little creative with the truth sometimes. Yeah. Do
Speaker 1: I think that President Trump tells some FIBs here and there?
Speaker 1: Of course, of course he does. Does every politician tell
Speaker 1: FIBs here and there? Yes? Does President Trump tell lies
Speaker 1: about things that affect your life and mine in profound ways?
Speaker 1: That's a different question, isn't it. Remember Barack Obama, Barack
Speaker 1: Obama said that you'd be able to keep your plan.
Speaker 1: That was a lie, and it was one that he knew,
Speaker 1: he knew was untrue at the time. That's a lie.
Speaker 1: That's not an exaggeration, that's not an embellishment. That's a lie.
Speaker 1: Obama's a liar, and Obama lied about something that a
Speaker 1: lot of you listening to this show. It hurt you,
Speaker 1: it affected you. Trump, you know, saying that Jim Acosta
Speaker 1: is a clown and then saying, well, maybe I didn't
Speaker 1: say as a clown or whatever it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: all this stuff they're talking about behind the scenes, Who cares?
Speaker 1: Why is this supposed to matter to me so much?
Speaker 1: Because I know that, and we're going to talk more
Speaker 1: about some of the fair weather friend Republicans later on
Speaker 1: in the show. But I understand what the Republican Party
Speaker 1: is supposed to do here. I know what the media
Speaker 1: rules are for Republicans that are not Trump, and that
Speaker 1: is lie. I'm sorry. That is Lose with dignity, lose
Speaker 1: with grace, but lose don't don't defeat the Hillary machine,
Speaker 1: don't stand up to the open borders left to the
Speaker 1: Marxist Democrat vanguard that's trying to seize the government authority
Speaker 1: to take as much of your wealth as they want
Speaker 1: to redistribute it, to put us in this crazy green
Speaker 1: new deal to take control of your healthcare. Let's not win.
Speaker 1: Let's just all sit around and say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump's business practices were very bare knuckle back in the day.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm not going to play the game the
Speaker 1: way they want me to. It's a basic strategy I
Speaker 1: try to try to deploy. I don't take advice from
Speaker 1: my sworn enemies about how I'm going to conduct my
Speaker 1: side of the battle. And this is what the media
Speaker 1: is always trying to do, and so many Republicans fall
Speaker 1: for this. The big takeaway from yesterday is that the
Speaker 1: President of the United States did nothing wrong when it
Speaker 1: comes to Russia collusion and the election of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: and all of the efforts that he had behind the
Speaker 1: scenes to stop this machinery of destruction that the Democrats
Speaker 1: created with this special counsel that never should have been appointed,
Speaker 1: that never should have been allowed to exist. All of
Speaker 1: that is in my mind, justified by the fact that
Speaker 1: it was an illegitimate investigation. Mother never should have had
Speaker 1: the authority, never should have been in a place where
Speaker 1: he was allowed to do these things. It was all
Speaker 1: part of this plot. There was a conspiracy theory cooked
Speaker 1: up by Democrats, the media, and deep staters to stop
Speaker 1: and then destroy a presidency. That's what happened. The most
Speaker 1: fascinating part of this for me, and this is what
Speaker 1: I want to look at a lot more with you
Speaker 1: in the weeks out, because I'm not dropping this. I'm
Speaker 1: not leaving this behind. I'm not forgetting about this at all.
Speaker 1: How did this get started? As I was reading through,
Speaker 1: I've really read thoroughly through part one of this, which
Speaker 1: is the Russia collusion component. Part two. I've gone through
Speaker 1: most of it, but I have some some more that
Speaker 1: I needed to dig into. Remember, there's no criminal charges
Speaker 1: from any of it, so it's not like it's that urgent.
Speaker 1: But the parts where they describe the origins of the
Speaker 1: investigation into alleged Trump campaign Russia collusion don't wash. Doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense. Not gonna accept it. I simply do not
Speaker 1: believe that George Papadopoulos mouthing off about something that I
Speaker 1: had heard rumors. I heard a rumor from a friend
Speaker 1: of mine who's in the National Guard. In June to
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. He's like, yeah, you know, I hear someone's
Speaker 1: got Hillary's emails. This was just a thing. This was
Speaker 1: in the rumor mill. And by the way, it's not
Speaker 1: a strange rumor to come up with because Hillary had
Speaker 1: deleted thirty thousand emails, because Hillary was engaged in a
Speaker 1: massive cover up. You know, we're supposed to forget all this.
Speaker 1: They want to lecture us on the propriety of Trump
Speaker 1: in office and did you obstruct? Did you do this
Speaker 1: to you that Hillary endangered national security recklessly, and then
Speaker 1: they just gave her a pass. Not only did Trump
Speaker 1: not work with Russia to steal the election, that didn't happen,
Speaker 1: Komey and Lauretta Lynch and the Democrat establishment in the
Speaker 1: deep state, in the national security apparatus made sure that
Speaker 1: Hillary could even stay in the race. What really should
Speaker 1: have happened is Hillary should have had to step down
Speaker 1: and deal with the criminal acts, step down from the race,
Speaker 1: and it would have been Bernie versus Trump. And the
Speaker 1: great irony here is that would have actually been an
Speaker 1: interesting contest. I know a lot of you think that,
Speaker 1: you know, Bernie's a clown and all that stuff, and
Speaker 1: that's fine, but at least, Bernie is presenting ideas that
Speaker 1: are I think he believes. I think they're disastrous, But
Speaker 1: I do think he believes. I mean, the Hillary is
Speaker 1: just a fraud, just a construct. She is the liberal
Speaker 1: establishment made into a human being, completely hypocritical and phony
Speaker 1: and lacking in connection to normal people. Might as well
Speaker 1: have been a robot running programmed by the editorial board
Speaker 1: of the New York Times and the you know, the
Speaker 1: CNN newsroom. And that's why she didn't win. It's not
Speaker 1: because of Russia collusion. It's not because of a few
Speaker 1: Facebook bots. I but this is just absurd. But how
Speaker 1: did we even get to this point? We do not
Speaker 1: I'm telling you right now, we do not have answers yet.
Speaker 1: How did we get to a place where the spying
Speaker 1: on the presidential campaign could even happen? This is a big,
Speaker 1: big deal bar The Attorney General thankfully is already on
Speaker 1: This is why Democrats freaked out so much, because if
Speaker 1: the narrative finally comes together, if we can point to
Speaker 1: all the evidence we need so that it is irrefutable.
Speaker 1: Although Democrats will still refute, they'll deny any reality. At
Speaker 1: this point, it doesn't matter. But if we get to
Speaker 1: the point where we finally have answers to the questions
Speaker 1: about how did this happen? How do you pretend that
Speaker 1: carter Page is a Russian asset? Do you spend five
Speaker 1: minutes as I did. I came on this show, you
Speaker 1: know this. I interviewed carter Page, I talked to him,
Speaker 1: offset I went through his whole story, backwards and forwards.
Speaker 1: It is inconceivable that any intelligent human being in the
Speaker 1: FBI or the DOJ believe that carter Page was a
Speaker 1: Russian asset and working for Putin. It is inconceivable. But
Speaker 1: that's what they went to the FISI court three times,
Speaker 1: signed off on by a judge. Now, Democrats also usually
Speaker 1: are very critical of law enforcements, powers and authorities. But
Speaker 1: here a law enforcement of SACO saying they never make
Speaker 1: a mistake at the FISA court. No, no, no, of
Speaker 1: course not. You know, democrats default position is all cops,
Speaker 1: all law enforcement are bad, corrupt and racist. Except for
Speaker 1: Comy and everybody at the FBI who was trying to
Speaker 1: take Trump down. They're amazing, They're great. I see them
Speaker 1: for what they are, folks, you see them for what
Speaker 1: they are. There's great comfort in that there's comfort in
Speaker 1: being right. And this week we found out that we
Speaker 1: were we have been all along, or we found out
Speaker 1: more details we've known, but now we have additional information
Speaker 1: about it. But the unrepentant left wing attack dog media
Speaker 1: trying to pat itself on the back that I say, see,
Speaker 1: we got all this stuff right. Yeah, except for all
Speaker 1: the all the stories night after night that would lead
Speaker 1: any person to believe that, wow, the president must concluded
Speaker 1: with Russia. Look at all these Look at all these
Speaker 1: experts they bring on who talk about how the president
Speaker 1: is a witting or unwitting Russian agent. Look at the
Speaker 1: former senior government officials, the former CIA director they put
Speaker 1: on TV say the president did something tantamount to trees
Speaker 1: and that's a quote. I'm sorry, but if you're a
Speaker 1: news organization and you put a government official, on our
Speaker 1: senior government official of the Obama administration on air to
Speaker 1: say the presidents committed treason, you don't get to walk
Speaker 1: back in a year or two and say, well, I
Speaker 1: mean we didn't report did he committed treason? We just
Speaker 1: gave a platform to people who said that that's what happened.
Speaker 1: This is the dishonesty. This is the depths of the
Speaker 1: depravity that the Left has gone to in this because
Speaker 1: Trump broke them. Trump broke them, they still can't handle it.
Speaker 1: What are they gonna say? Just I know we have
Speaker 1: to go into a break, guys, But what are they
Speaker 1: gonna say when Trump wins reelection? There's a party that
Speaker 1: says that. The laughs and says, I mean, what are
Speaker 1: they gonna say, China stole the election? Actually? Maybe anything
Speaker 1: but recognize that the Democrat Party has a lot of
Speaker 1: really bad ideas, a lot of really shady and shifty
Speaker 1: people at the top of it, and doesn't do a
Speaker 1: good job when they're in power. Maybe that's the problem,
Speaker 1: Oh Friday, folks, which means that we got a lot
Speaker 1: more show to get too, will be right back. I
Speaker 1: think it validates the decisions that we made, certainly in
Speaker 1: July of twenty sixteen to start the initial Russia focused investigation,
Speaker 1: and then, of course the decisions that we made in
Speaker 1: May of twenty seventeen to include the president in that
Speaker 1: investigation personally. As you know, Rachel, the FBI, the standard
Speaker 1: for predication to open an investigation in the FBI is
Speaker 1: an articable factual basis to believe that a threat to
Speaker 1: national security might exist, or that a federal crime might
Speaker 1: have been committed. Andrew McCabe there still standing behind this
Speaker 1: idea that it was not completely and utterly insane. That
Speaker 1: was the acting FBI director, folks. He thinks that it's
Speaker 1: not completely crazy to still believe that there was any
Speaker 1: reasonable basis to think Trump was a Russian asset, that
Speaker 1: Trump was selling out his country, that he was a
Speaker 1: They're saying, the president's a trader. That's the acting FBI director.
Speaker 1: This isn't some you know, random internet troll. This isn't
Speaker 1: some left wing TV show host. That's the acting FBI director. Formerly.
Speaker 1: Now he got fired from the FBI. But they are
Speaker 1: completely unrepentant about this. The deep state coup plotters do
Speaker 1: not do not in any way feel chastened by the
Speaker 1: fact that now we know what they did, not the
Speaker 1: full extent of it, but we at least know that
Speaker 1: what they did was disgusting and disgraceful. They're also trying
Speaker 1: to redefine terms here to make it seem less insane
Speaker 1: that they still cling to these theories. Clapper, who was
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence, is now talking about how, well,
Speaker 1: maybe they didn't really collude but they kind of colluded
Speaker 1: play clip six. I think if there wasn't active collusion proven,
Speaker 1: then I think what we have here is a case
Speaker 1: of passive collusion where in some cases unwillingly to include
Speaker 1: the candidate Trump himself, who retweeted messages that had been
Speaker 1: planted by the Russians in social media. Passive collusion, folks,
Speaker 1: That now means that if you see a meme on
Speaker 1: the Internet and you retweeted, if someone says, you know,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton is bad, guess what if you retweet that,
Speaker 1: you're a Russian asset. That's just crazy, all right, That's
Speaker 1: just unacceptable. But that is what the D and I
Speaker 1: is saying there. You know that any kind of social
Speaker 1: media that you share or that you retweet, anything like that,
Speaker 1: if it comes from the Russians, you're a part of
Speaker 1: the Russian disinformation campaign. You're basically a Russian spy. They
Speaker 1: have defined these things in a way that any serious
Speaker 1: person knows that they're crazy, but they don't think they're crazy.
Speaker 1: All right, We all have more show coming up. Team.
Speaker 1: We are going to have Michael Knowles from the Daily
Speaker 1: Wire joining, which is going to be fun, So stick
Speaker 1: around for that. Plus take some roll call time. It's
Speaker 1: going to be a fantastic show. It's always a fantastic show.
Speaker 1: And I have a special surprise for you guys, plan
Speaker 1: for Monday. I thought it was gonna be today, but
Speaker 1: it's gonna be Monday. So let's consider that a teaser.
Speaker 1: Be right back. If the Special Counsel, as he made clear,
Speaker 1: had found evidence exonerating the president, he would have said
Speaker 1: so he did not. The evidence would have to be
Speaker 1: quite overwhelming, into monstrapole and such that it would generate
Speaker 1: bipartisan support for the idea that it renders the president
Speaker 1: unfit for office. Now many of us do it think
Speaker 1: the president's unfit for office. But unless that's a bipartisan conclusion,
Speaker 1: an impeachment would be doomed to failure. I continue to
Speaker 1: think that a failed impeachment is not in the national interest.
Speaker 1: Are they going to impeach him? Is that gonna happen?
Speaker 1: Is that where this all goes next? For the Democrats?
Speaker 1: I know that right now the general political consensus on
Speaker 1: this tends to be No, they won't impeach. They will
Speaker 1: have hearings, they'll make a lot, they'll make a big
Speaker 1: deal out of this, but they won't impeach him because
Speaker 1: they know that it will be ultimately unsuccessful and could
Speaker 1: backfire on them. Right that's the consensus opinion right now.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that that's the case. I am more
Speaker 1: along the lines of I think that the Democrat left
Speaker 1: has completely lost its mind. I think that they are.
Speaker 1: I think that they're going to have to deal with
Speaker 1: the fact that the Occasio Cortez wing of the party
Speaker 1: is ascendant, that the Bernie Sanders socialist wing is ascended,
Speaker 1: and they are going to make the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: a referendum not just on the Trump presidency but on
Speaker 1: the future economic and political trajectory of this country in
Speaker 1: ways that would have been unthinkable even ten years ago.
Speaker 1: Are we going to be a capitalist country or we're
Speaker 1: going to tend towards socialism. Are we going to be
Speaker 1: a country devoted to the protection of individual rights and
Speaker 1: limited government, or we're going to be a country that
Speaker 1: thinks the government is your best buddy and going to
Speaker 1: do everything for you and can therefore do anything at wants.
Speaker 1: This is all what's coming now. Ari Fleischer thinks that
Speaker 1: this is going to be over at this point. Here's
Speaker 1: what are He's a smart guy, and I appreciate his opinion.
Speaker 1: I think he's I think he's wrong on this one,
Speaker 1: but I do want to give you his point of view,
Speaker 1: because maybe maybe I'm wrong on this one. I'm unlike
Speaker 1: some radio hosts who think they know everything. I recognize
Speaker 1: that I'm sometimes wrong. It is rare, and so what happens,
Speaker 1: you better save with the flavor. But I leave open
Speaker 1: the possibility that I might not see this one the
Speaker 1: way that I should. Here's a different opinion from mister Fleischer.
Speaker 1: Play twelve. I think it's over unless the White House
Speaker 1: stops it from being over. That the Democrats are about
Speaker 1: to walk a plank and fall off of it into
Speaker 1: the ocean with their conspiracy theories and their Truther collusion
Speaker 1: theories and their obstruction theories. Let them walk that plank
Speaker 1: and fall into the ocean. But what I'm wrestling with
Speaker 1: this morning is the President's tweets this morning. If I
Speaker 1: were the president, I would have basically declared victory with
Speaker 1: the Muller Report and everything they came out, and move
Speaker 1: beyond it and then just let these grassy knold truthers
Speaker 1: play with it. So the president's tweet suggest that he
Speaker 1: was upset with something in the Mullah report, which only
Speaker 1: makes it look like he's got something to worry about.
Speaker 1: So that's the part I don't understand from the President.
Speaker 1: But I think the White House can't and should move
Speaker 1: beyond this. It's over except for the conspiracy theory. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's over. I think ari is. I think
Speaker 1: already thinking about this like it were. It was the
Speaker 1: Bush administration back in the day, and we're planned by
Speaker 1: a certain set of rules. I think the rules have
Speaker 1: changed now. I think Trump is broken the left. I
Speaker 1: think that they are detached from reality. I think that
Speaker 1: they are unmoored and they're gonna want their political pound
Speaker 1: of flesh here. They're gonna want the the pain, so
Speaker 1: to speak. They're gonna want to bring the Rockies to Trump,
Speaker 1: and you know that's gonna be that's gonna be difficult.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be a tough thing for them to tone down.
Speaker 1: I think that they're gonna look to I think they're
Speaker 1: gonna go to look. I think they're going to find
Speaker 1: a way to justify and peaching. I mean, look at
Speaker 1: the campaign they've got going now to undermine bar and
Speaker 1: how much bile is being heaped atop a very good
Speaker 1: and very honorable guy. I mean, they're they're just saying
Speaker 1: all kinds of crazy stuff about this. I mean, Ogan Gidley,
Speaker 1: White House Deputy Press secretary, he was on this one
Speaker 1: that they talked about Played thirteen. Saved our case was
Speaker 1: the fact that the President did nothing wrong. The media
Speaker 1: is moving to discredit Attorney General Barr, which is ridiculous
Speaker 1: because he's a has a long history of incredible, impeccable credentials.
Speaker 1: But this is not his report. It's the Mueller report.
Speaker 1: They've seen all the information. They did not have anything
Speaker 1: to get him on with as it relates to collusion,
Speaker 1: They did not have anything to get him on as
Speaker 1: it relates to obstruction. Yeah, they're acting like Bar was
Speaker 1: the one who saved Trump, when in reality, Mueller and
Speaker 1: I've read through now almost the entirety of the report.
Speaker 1: I've got a little bit left to go. It'll finish
Speaker 1: this weekend. But the truth is that Mueller did everything
Speaker 1: he could. I mean, Mueller's part two of the investigation
Speaker 1: is almost like the legal equivalent of an interpretive dance.
Speaker 1: All within I to taking down Trump. I mean, just
Speaker 1: just contort the law in whatever way you have to
Speaker 1: do the most the most tortured interpretations of different statutes
Speaker 1: possible to try to extend them just enough to ensnare
Speaker 1: the president the United States. And there's so much included
Speaker 1: in there that has nothing to do with criminal conduct.
Speaker 1: There's so much included in the report that it's just,
Speaker 1: you know, I heard this thing that you know, I
Speaker 1: heard one morning the president you know, stubbed his toe
Speaker 1: and yelled out and cursed like an idiot. You know,
Speaker 1: ha ha, I mean, there's it's just an APO research dump.
Speaker 1: This is what this report was, APO research, paid for
Speaker 1: by you, by me, by the taxpayer, using not just
Speaker 1: the resources, but the power of the Federal Investigation Authority
Speaker 1: that we give to special counsels, all the all the
Speaker 1: spy tools they could want, all the resources, couldn't come
Speaker 1: up with a criminal charge. Does anyone really doubt that
Speaker 1: the people who sent SWAT teams to arrest Roger Stone
Speaker 1: and locked George Papadopolis up for forgetting the month of
Speaker 1: a non criminal conversation that was meaningless. Does anyone really
Speaker 1: think that those people would not have pressed charges against
Speaker 1: Trump if they could have. Does anyone really think that
Speaker 1: they gave this administration they gave the President or any
Speaker 1: of his people the benefit of the doubt, of course,
Speaker 1: not that would be preposterous. But the same people, same
Speaker 1: Democrat media left that has been lecturing us for two
Speaker 1: years now about how Trump undermines institutions and undermines our
Speaker 1: system of God and the process now are willing to
Speaker 1: cast out on the entire process. Oh, the Attorney General
Speaker 1: doesn't really make the call. The Congress makes the call
Speaker 1: about what happened here. That's not true, that's not that
Speaker 1: is not what the law says, that is not what
Speaker 1: the Constitution says. But they're only in favor of institutions
Speaker 1: when the institutions do what they want and when they're
Speaker 1: in control of them. Democrats only like institutions and laws
Speaker 1: and the constitution when it works to their favor. The
Speaker 1: moment it doesn't, they're all disposable. The role of the
Speaker 1: Attorney General itself, that's coming under assault right now. We'll
Speaker 1: get into more of their anti bar efforts coming up.
Speaker 1: The sad day for the institution of the presidency, a
Speaker 1: sad day for the institution of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General did a grave disservice to the country
Speaker 1: by misrepresenting significant parts of the Mullah report. The Attorney
Speaker 1: General of the United States here was acting as the
Speaker 1: president's lawyers, not the people's. Barr's words and actions suggest
Speaker 1: he has been disingenuous and misleading. General Barr. He might
Speaker 1: as well have been in the White House a press
Speaker 1: conference room as the spokesperson for the president. This is
Speaker 1: so unfair, so dishonorable, such a smear, but you're you're
Speaker 1: hearing it from Democrats all all across the country. Now,
Speaker 1: just just ruin the Attorney general's reputation, and what are
Speaker 1: the real things that they point to here? They just
Speaker 1: lie about him. He's done nothing wrong. Everything that Barr
Speaker 1: has done has been by the book and has favored
Speaker 1: transparency and favored fairness and favored the process. Everything he
Speaker 1: has done is by the book, and he knows the process.
Speaker 1: He has done this before. You will not find a
Speaker 1: person of any reputation in DC legal circles. Because I've
Speaker 1: been asking people about this this week. You will not
Speaker 1: find anyone who's as that Bob Barr. I just said,
Speaker 1: Bob Barr, Bill Barr, sorry, and that keeps happening. Bill
Speaker 1: Barr is a highly competent, highly ethical respected member of
Speaker 1: the legal profession. Everyone says, everyone knows, everyone knows, and
Speaker 1: yet the Democrats are running around saying terrible things about it.
Speaker 1: I just want to know, if you criticize ilhan Omar,
Speaker 1: they say it's incitement to violence. If you say that
Speaker 1: Bob Barr is a terrible human being who's hurting the
Speaker 1: country by lying about the Mulla report in service to
Speaker 1: the President of the United States, you're a Democrat. You're
Speaker 1: a media star getting paid millions of dollars a year.
Speaker 1: These these people, it's so gutter and low to do
Speaker 1: what they're doing. They have the word dishonorable. I know
Speaker 1: I keep using it, but they really don't have any honor.
Speaker 1: They don't back away all those and those are some
Speaker 1: of the most prominent Democrats at the country, including Shifty
Speaker 1: shift there. I mean not that he's that prominent, but
Speaker 1: he's just oh, it's just it's just such a snake.
Speaker 1: But they're they're going around completely destroying somebody's reputation. They
Speaker 1: have no good faith argument to make on this whatsoever.
Speaker 1: He didn't spin he didn't. They would have said that
Speaker 1: no matter what. But what's amazing means there's no hesitancy
Speaker 1: in this. You don't see these Democrats who are coming
Speaker 1: forward and saying, you know, actually, actually Bill Barr is
Speaker 1: a really really ethical, reputable guy, is a good guy.
Speaker 1: And this is a this is all you know. You
Speaker 1: can say what you want about Trump and the report
Speaker 1: and everything else, but to say that Barr is a
Speaker 1: problem here is just to be a lot, just to
Speaker 1: be disingenuous, it's to be dishonest. That's just wrong, man,
Speaker 1: It's just wrong. You know. Five pinocchios. And this debate
Speaker 1: actually played out on My Hill Show, which as you
Speaker 1: know as a conservative and liberal show, and Joe Degeneva,
Speaker 1: this has gotten picked up now by some other websites,
Speaker 1: who was a well known lawyer and a confidant of
Speaker 1: the presidents, had an exchange for sure that that is
Speaker 1: a fair thing to call it with my co host
Speaker 1: on the Attorney general's credibility. And while I certainly do
Speaker 1: not I do not criticize my co host because we
Speaker 1: do a show together every day and I have a
Speaker 1: professional obligation to be always respectful and responsible and talking
Speaker 1: about my co host. Since this is making the rounds
Speaker 1: right now and getting a lot of attention, I will
Speaker 1: let you here I will play for you the exchange
Speaker 1: that they had on the issue of of Barr's credibility. John,
Speaker 1: Please play the clip. They lay out here the considerations
Speaker 1: that guided our obstruction of justice investigation. Number one. First,
Speaker 1: a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination
Speaker 1: to initiate or decline a prosecution. We determine not to
Speaker 1: make that. And the very first thing they cite is
Speaker 1: that guideline from the OLC that a sitting president had
Speaker 1: listened to Bill Barr he said, he said he asked
Speaker 1: Muller three times report Well, because Andrew Wiseman wrote the report.
Speaker 1: Bill Barr said he asked Muller three separate times, did
Speaker 1: you base your decision on the fact that a sitting
Speaker 1: president cannot be indicted? And Mueller said, I did not
Speaker 1: three separate times. I don't know what's in that report. Well,
Speaker 1: that what I taught English before I went to law school.
Speaker 1: I'd like to kind of take that sentence in parts
Speaker 1: it because it didn't make sense to me. But I
Speaker 1: can just tell you this, the decision was not based
Speaker 1: on that. It literally says, here are the considerations our
Speaker 1: instruction of justice mulation. I'm asking if Barr is a
Speaker 1: liar is really the questionnaire because it says very clearly here,
Speaker 1: you know one should have said I would have brought
Speaker 1: charges because I can't bring charge. That's exactly. So let
Speaker 1: me just say something right now about what you just said.
Speaker 1: Don't you dare suggest that Bill Barr is a liar.
Speaker 1: He's I've known him for thirty years. He's one of
Speaker 1: the finest lawyers this country has ever produced. He came
Speaker 1: back out of retirement to serve this country. There's not
Speaker 1: one shred of evidence that anything he said, either the
Speaker 1: other day or now or today was a lie. Don't
Speaker 1: ever say that in front of me about Bill Barr.
Speaker 1: You have no evidence that he lied, and you know
Speaker 1: it that I'm telling you. You said he may have lied.
Speaker 1: What I'm telling you is that what he said this
Speaker 1: today in the press conference is in insistent with what's
Speaker 1: in their facts. Not a lie. That's okay, fine, it's
Speaker 1: not fine that were on national television calling the Attorney
Speaker 1: general a liar. I didn't say that, you suggested it
Speaker 1: very strongly. All right, I think we're done here. I
Speaker 1: think we are good. Well, then that was that was
Speaker 1: a testy exchange. Yeah, I was like, whoa it's just
Speaker 1: got That was also Victoria Tensing, who was the lady
Speaker 1: who was speaking at the beginning of that clip. But
Speaker 1: that was Unrising, and some folks saw it and it
Speaker 1: is now making the rounds. So the issue of the
Speaker 1: integrity of the Attorney General does get some people very
Speaker 1: fired up. And I would note that you know, if
Speaker 1: you're going to, uh, you know, if you're gonna make
Speaker 1: claims about somebody, that you better be ready for people
Speaker 1: to make the counterclaims. And who that was? That was spicy,
Speaker 1: that was a little who. I got the vapors. I
Speaker 1: was sitting there like, oh my gosh, oh, I do declare.
Speaker 1: This is getting Usually on Rising, we have a pretty
Speaker 1: it's a morning show, and we try to be smiley
Speaker 1: and happy even though we're talking about politics and some
Speaker 1: pretty intense things. At least I try to be smiling,
Speaker 1: happy because the only way I can get through the morning,
Speaker 1: because I am not a morning person. But that definitely
Speaker 1: that the tone there got pretty intense. Joe Degeneva did
Speaker 1: not did not mince words, did not beat around the bush.
Speaker 1: But I look, I think that it is generally very
Speaker 1: bothersome to me this campaign to say that Attorney General
Speaker 1: Barr is a bad guy because we all know that
Speaker 1: the truth is that the liberals will never no attorney
Speaker 1: general who is not an anti Trump zealot, and even
Speaker 1: an attorney general who is acting Attorney general like Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: who is an anti Trump zealot, who wanted to wear
Speaker 1: a wire, who wanted to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment.
Speaker 1: Now they say that he's not trustworthy. There's no attorney general.
Speaker 1: These people on the left would be okay with none.
Speaker 1: So how can I take this the criticisms of Bar seriously. Oh,
Speaker 1: the answer is I don't, because it's just all part
Speaker 1: of the narrative, part of the undermining of the credibility
Speaker 1: of somebody who is in the administration right now and
Speaker 1: is doing a very effective job of doing the right
Speaker 1: thing and playing it by the book and not getting
Speaker 1: bullied and not backing down. I think Barr has been
Speaker 1: fantastic and we should be thankful because look, for all
Speaker 1: of Trump's great qualities, he has brought some stinkers into
Speaker 1: this administration. He just has, folks, you know it. I
Speaker 1: know it too, some stinkers into very senior positions. Barr
Speaker 1: is not one of them. Bar is rock solid. When
Speaker 1: are Republicans gonna learn that trashing their own side doesn't
Speaker 1: have the beneficial effects that they think it will. When
Speaker 1: a republic is going to learn that not having Trump's
Speaker 1: back isn't something that they'll be rewarded for by the
Speaker 1: media over the long term, it doesn't mean that they're
Speaker 1: going to be able to bring the country together. There's
Speaker 1: not some healing that happens whenever they trash Trump, whenever
Speaker 1: they attack this president. All they do is play into
Speaker 1: the hands of the deranged left wing media. That is
Speaker 1: all they are doing. They are giving the Democrats what
Speaker 1: they want, and Democrats don't do this on the really
Speaker 1: big issues. You know, this is where we have lessons
Speaker 1: to learn from the power hungry march in lockstep progressives.
Speaker 1: This is where the Democratic Party is an enviable political machine.
Speaker 1: They stay together when the going gets tough on issues
Speaker 1: that matter, and we always have the McCain factor, the
Speaker 1: Romney factor, the you know, go down the line. These Republicans,
Speaker 1: who at the key moment in the biggest political battles
Speaker 1: in the nation turn on their own side, either either
Speaker 1: leave the ideological battlefield, so to speak, or decide that
Speaker 1: they're going to fight for the other side. When do
Speaker 1: Democrats do this? Someone show me a time where the
Speaker 1: Democrats leave ranks when it really Where are the Democrats
Speaker 1: who broke ranks on Obamacare? Find them for me? Please?
Speaker 1: Oh you mean that they all with Prussian military precision,
Speaker 1: did exactly what Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, wanted.
Speaker 1: That's right, they did, even though many of them had
Speaker 1: to know that Obamacare was one being sold on false pretenses,
Speaker 1: was alive, was a desat, was a disaster waiting to happen.
Speaker 1: Why am I upset about this? I see this statement
Speaker 1: from Mitt Romney today, just trashing President Trump on Twitter.
Speaker 1: He writes a quote, it was good that Mueller's team
Speaker 1: found insufficient evidence and charge Trump. The business of government
Speaker 1: can move on. But then he went on with this quote.
Speaker 1: Even so, I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness
Speaker 1: of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office
Speaker 1: of the land, including the President. I'm also a paul that,
Speaker 1: among other things, fellows citizens working in a campaign for
Speaker 1: president welcomed help from Russia, including information that had been
Speaker 1: illegally obtained that none of them acted to inform American
Speaker 1: law enforcement, and the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian
Speaker 1: interests in Ukraine. I mean, Mitt, what do you think
Speaker 1: you're accomplishing here? Buddy? What does he really think he's doing? Oh,
Speaker 1: he went on reading. The report is a sobering revelation
Speaker 1: of how far we have strayed from the aspiration of
Speaker 1: the principles of the founders. Now I get it. This
Speaker 1: is where never trumpers would come at me with buck
Speaker 1: But what mit saying? I mean, you know, it's just
Speaker 1: this is true. Look Trump, Okay, guys, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: was in a fight for its life for two years,
Speaker 1: completely ambushed, sandbagged, undercut, and just screwed over by the
Speaker 1: media and the Democrat Party working as part of a
Speaker 1: deep state coup to destroy this presidency. And you know
Speaker 1: they they now want to want to question the manner
Speaker 1: in which Trump had to fight back against this. Remember,
Speaker 1: legally it was legal, folks. Trump did not operate the law.
Speaker 1: But now we're supposed to be so upset about the
Speaker 1: fact that, you know, Trump got angry and wanted to
Speaker 1: roll up as sleeves and fight back. We're supposed to
Speaker 1: be so upset that during the campaign. I mean, now
Speaker 1: we're revisiting this again. The Trump people heard that there
Speaker 1: was information. I mean, what if let's just say this,
Speaker 1: What if a Russian lady sat down with the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and said, I I'm a defector from the FSB,
Speaker 1: I have information that Hillary Clinton has been selling secrets
Speaker 1: to Russia. Here you go. That are they supposed to say, Oh, no,
Speaker 1: I don't know. We don't know about this, so we
Speaker 1: can't take this information about Joe. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: can't do that. Sorry. They didn't know, they didn't know
Speaker 1: what was being offered. They don't know what the information.
Speaker 1: What if it was a check for half a million
Speaker 1: dollars from a Russian government backed bank to Bill. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, that did happen. Well, we're supposed to pretend
Speaker 1: that that's not a big deal. I mean, there's such
Speaker 1: an effort to decontextualize everything that went on here and
Speaker 1: in the campaign, Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act over
Speaker 1: one hundred times, one hundred separate counts plus. Were supposed
Speaker 1: to just pretend that that was nothing. They had to
Speaker 1: rewrite the statute in real time. That's what Camy the
Speaker 1: Renol Lynch did to get Hillary off. And we're supposed
Speaker 1: to worry about Trump taking immediate information that had been
Speaker 1: illegally obtained. Journalist traffic in illegally obtained information all the time,
Speaker 1: The New York Times, the Washington Post. They traffic in
Speaker 1: illegal leaks as often as they can, as long as
Speaker 1: it hurts Republicans or hurts the country. Sometimes they just
Speaker 1: want to hurt America because they're sickos. But now we're
Speaker 1: expecting this, you know, romneyesque boy scout attitude about oh,
Speaker 1: I can't take that information during a very bitter presidential
Speaker 1: campaign because it was illegally obtained. The information was gonna
Speaker 1: get out either. They were gonna blast it on the internet. Folks,
Speaker 1: who cares at that point? What the you know what
Speaker 1: the attitude is of the campaign. They're they're gonna tell
Speaker 1: the They're gonna tell the government. Oh, they're gonna tell
Speaker 1: the Oh, I'm sorry, they need gonna tell the FBI
Speaker 1: that was already investigating Trump and his campaign. They're gonna
Speaker 1: go to the FBI to make sure that they know
Speaker 1: about this illegally obtained information. This whole thing is a joke,
Speaker 1: an unfunny joke, but that the campaign chairman was promoting
Speaker 1: Russian interest in Ukraine. Guess what Romney, not that anyone
Speaker 1: really seems to pay attention, as Manafort was actually trying
Speaker 1: to bring a Russian back political party in Ukraine more
Speaker 1: toward the Western point of view. Menaphort actually could have
Speaker 1: been pretty helpful in some way. I'm not saying what
Speaker 1: he did was ethical, but it's more complicated than people
Speaker 1: led to believe. And oh, Menaphort wasn't sharing polling data
Speaker 1: with a Russian To all the imbeciles in the media,
Speaker 1: the guy was Ukrainian. Stop saying he was Russian. Facts
Speaker 1: are supposed to matter, but they don't matter to the media. Romney,
Speaker 1: what are you doing, dude? At two? Romney at two.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of focus on justice this week,
Speaker 1: and really, I would say injustice in the case of
Speaker 1: the two year long witch hunt against Donald Trump, it
Speaker 1: was it was a witch hunt. It was all false premise.
Speaker 1: That was a very accurate description of it. And for
Speaker 1: the historically illiterate Democrats out there, witch hunts did find
Speaker 1: people guilty. There was a witch hunt fund a dozen people. Actually, yeah, yeah, JITs.
Speaker 1: Witch hunts do find people guilty of That's the whole
Speaker 1: point is that it's not about finding it guilty. It's
Speaker 1: about finding anybody because of the hysteria. But there are
Speaker 1: some other issues of justice that came up this week,
Speaker 1: and they're trending in the right direction. We have not
Speaker 1: a chief full justice yet, but for one George Mason University.
Speaker 1: I am very pleased, very proud to say George Mason
Speaker 1: University has decided to from what I see so far,
Speaker 1: this could change. It could change even you know, right
Speaker 1: after I say this on air. But they're gonna keep
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaught teaching a summer course. They're not gonna cave
Speaker 1: to the mob on this one. People. Oh, it makes
Speaker 1: me feel unsafe. Makes you feel unsafe to have a
Speaker 1: sitting Supreme Court justice. Think about how stupid that is.
Speaker 1: By the way, the allegations against him are from the eighties,
Speaker 1: so we're going on like forty years ago here and
Speaker 1: there are ridiculous allegations that did not happen, and we
Speaker 1: all know it, and these women are liars and there's
Speaker 1: all that, right, So you start with that. But that's
Speaker 1: gonna make a student feel unsafe today. This this this
Speaker 1: theory is based on you can't you can't learn from
Speaker 1: a guy who even if what the one person said
Speaker 1: was true, what was her name, Blasi Ford, and she's
Speaker 1: she's just she's I think, honestly disturbed. Um, but he
Speaker 1: tried he grabbed a girl when he was drunk in
Speaker 1: like nineteen eighty three maybe, And so college students today
Speaker 1: feel unsafe. That's and that's the only that's the only
Speaker 1: allegation that's even vaguely, even vaguely possible. I wouldn't call
Speaker 1: it credible, even vaguely possible, and it's not possible. I
Speaker 1: think it's a lie. But you're gonna feel unsafe today
Speaker 1: because of that. Oh my gosh, I can't study with
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh because of the allegations against him. These students just
Speaker 1: just a bunch of wackos. But as we know, it's
Speaker 1: also part of the they're organized groups behind this. There
Speaker 1: are these left wing groups that will use social media
Speaker 1: and will gather together online to weaponize college students for
Speaker 1: the purposes of, you know, attacking favorite targets of the left.
Speaker 1: You know, And you have to always remember there these
Speaker 1: groups out there like Media Matters, and Media Matters is
Speaker 1: one of the most disgusting and dishonorable public interest organizations
Speaker 1: in the country. It's just it's just an attack. It's
Speaker 1: an OPO research dumping ground and smear and boycott machine
Speaker 1: for the Democratic National Committee. That's all it is. And
Speaker 1: people who work at media matters should be ashamed of
Speaker 1: what they do because it is shameful. They don't they're
Speaker 1: not educating the public. They're not they're not making good
Speaker 1: faith arguments. They're not serving any honorable purpose. They're a disgrace,
Speaker 1: an out and out utter disgrace. So now that I've
Speaker 1: said my piece about that, I would just point out
Speaker 1: that George Mason sticking with Kavanaugh even though you got
Speaker 1: people like this guy Brian Fallon, who is a former
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton advised you all all these people from Clinton world,
Speaker 1: they're so bitter. Oh they're so nasty because they thought
Speaker 1: that they were just gonna just waltz right into the
Speaker 1: White House, get that big fantacy office, eight years of
Speaker 1: love from the media and all these big DC parties.
Speaker 1: Oh that's right, the clichde DC, Georgetown, COLORAMA cocktail party circuit. Baby,
Speaker 1: that's what was gonna happen for eight years when Hillary
Speaker 1: got into office. That's what they thought. Er happy learned
Speaker 1: how to put Hillary didn't win. Hillary didn't win. But
Speaker 1: Brian Fallon said here quote George Mason's Mason's decision to
Speaker 1: stick by Kavanaugh to spite student protests seems like it
Speaker 1: must be done or driven. The Cookes and the Federalist
Speaker 1: Society gave a school combined thirty million dollars in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen alone. My friends, No, I think George Mason's decision
Speaker 1: is driven by the fact that it's absurd, completely absurd,
Speaker 1: not not worthy of serious intellectual response. That students would
Speaker 1: feel triggered and unsafe. That's what they're saying. They feel
Speaker 1: unsafe and triggered by a sitting Supreme Court justice teaching
Speaker 1: them a class. They are so lucky, and I think
Speaker 1: I look to be fair, I think most of the
Speaker 1: George Mason University students know this, But they're so lucky
Speaker 1: to have that opportunity. Someone with not just the legal mind,
Speaker 1: but the background and the personal experience of dealing with
Speaker 1: the law at the very highest level of this country,
Speaker 1: at truly the highest level, lucky to be studying with them.
Speaker 1: And they're going to try to shut that down because
Speaker 1: they've watched, you know, too much of the Colbert Report
Speaker 1: or whatever at night trashing Trump. It's total total nonsense.
Speaker 1: It's just idiocy, absolute idiocy. So that's one bit of justice.
Speaker 1: They're standing by kavan Off for the course. I got
Speaker 1: another one for you, a little bit of a justice
Speaker 1: round up this week. Remember Jesse Smolette. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: he was in Hawaii recently. I'm not letting this go, folks.
Speaker 1: I know you're like, bucker, You're really that's right. I
Speaker 1: am like a pitfall that's latched onto a bone here,
Speaker 1: my friends. I'm not letting this go because the Jesse
Speaker 1: Smolette thing, the only justice that we really can get
Speaker 1: is to shame those who were part of letting him
Speaker 1: get away with it, which is what he did. He
Speaker 1: got away with it, and I don't think there's gonna
Speaker 1: be any real justice there at all. They're gonna there's
Speaker 1: not gonna be any justice for Jesse because justice would
Speaker 1: mean that he has to pay for what he did.
Speaker 1: Pay literally as in write out a check for one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty grand, which is what he should have
Speaker 1: to do, but also it should be on his record
Speaker 1: that he's a liar. I don't think he's gonna go
Speaker 1: to jail forever and all this stuff. I'm not some
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not a leftist. So I'm not a wacko,
Speaker 1: but it should be on record that what he did
Speaker 1: was wrong and that he's a liar. And then if
Speaker 1: he gets in trouble with the law again, he's gonna
Speaker 1: spend he's gonna do some real time. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think he could have spent thirty days in the county
Speaker 1: lock up for what he do. I think I think
Speaker 1: that would have been about right. If you're asking me
Speaker 1: what would be fair for what he did, Yeah, I'd
Speaker 1: say I'd say spent a spent a month in a
Speaker 1: cell that seems and have a record that seems right
Speaker 1: to me. Maybe two weeks, but maybe a month something.
Speaker 1: Some of you're probably yelling six months. Buck, You're such
Speaker 1: a whimp. I know, I know when it comes to
Speaker 1: criminal justice sometimes when it comes to non violent offenses,
Speaker 1: I and this is this is a non violent offense.
Speaker 1: Although I guess he no, that's right. The violence was
Speaker 1: done to him, but he wanted it to be done
Speaker 1: to him. But it wasn't even really violence. I think
Speaker 1: he hit himself in the face. We don't even know
Speaker 1: I did the nine er and brothers like slap him
Speaker 1: a little bit. I'm not sure. I don't know if
Speaker 1: we ever got clarity on that, but yes, when it
Speaker 1: comes to non violent crimes, I can be a bit
Speaker 1: of a softie. So maybe those are you yelling six
Speaker 1: months buck? Okay, maybe you're right, But I say two
Speaker 1: to four weeks would have been a fair sentence for him,
Speaker 1: and you know he got away with it. But why
Speaker 1: am I bringing it up other than I just like
Speaker 1: to remind you all of the media aiding and abetting
Speaker 1: that hoax from beginning to end and abetting his escape afterwards,
Speaker 1: escape from justice. Well, there's some people who still have
Speaker 1: some ethics left. This just came in today Fox News
Speaker 1: with the story two ranking executives inside the Cook County
Speaker 1: State Attorney's Office have submitted their resignation, including State's Attorney
Speaker 1: Kim Fox's chief ethics officer, April Perry, whom Fox cited
Speaker 1: as the person who advised her to recuse herself from
Speaker 1: the just Smollett case that has rocked the Chicago office.
Speaker 1: This is coring to a Fox earlier today. Mark Rochert,
Speaker 1: the director of the office his conviction integrity unit, has
Speaker 1: also submitted his resignation, according to a Fox. Now, remember
Speaker 1: this is a Fox story, but this is foxx Fox
Speaker 1: because that's the prosecutor's name. Fox spokesperson Perry and Rott
Speaker 1: are scheduled work there last days in May. Quote. While
Speaker 1: I feel lucky to have been able to spend the
Speaker 1: fifteen years of my career in public service, I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to my next endeavor. Okay, that's not exciting. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I didn't need to read that part to you, but
Speaker 1: that's from the resignation letter. Obviously they're not trying to
Speaker 1: be too caustic toward Kim Fox, the prosecutor on the
Speaker 1: way out. But I mean what she did was just
Speaker 1: just outrageous, outrageous seal the case, no penalty for Jesse.
Speaker 1: We got text messages where she's like, he's a stupid
Speaker 1: actor who lied. We all know he'll ever knows he lied.
Speaker 1: But Jess now walks around something I didn't lie. Ah. Sorry,
Speaker 1: not not letting this one go. We either all live
Speaker 1: by the same law or we don't you know the law.
Speaker 1: And this this ties into a lot of what we're seeing,
Speaker 1: ties into our discussions and UH and our our policy
Speaker 1: debates over the border right now and immigration. It ties
Speaker 1: in certainly to everything that is Russia collusion related the
Speaker 1: law is every bit as much a binding agent for
Speaker 1: our nation and for us as Americans, as our languages
Speaker 1: and as our culture is. I mean fact, our law
Speaker 1: is rooted in language obviously, and our culture is very
Speaker 1: much affected by the law, and in fact that our
Speaker 1: culture and the law really go hand in hand in anyways.
Speaker 1: You know, no one ever pulled you aside unless you
Speaker 1: went to law school and walked you through all the
Speaker 1: different statutes. And yet we all have this understanding of
Speaker 1: what's legal, what's not, you know what what what the
Speaker 1: law says? We just know. We pick it up from
Speaker 1: our from our lives, we pick it up from the
Speaker 1: culture around us what law is. And yet now we
Speaker 1: look at what's happening in this country and there's a
Speaker 1: two tiered system of justice in place. Those for the connected,
Speaker 1: the politically favored, and the politically powerful. Politically powerful and
Speaker 1: favored are not always the same thing. But for the
Speaker 1: politically favored and politically powerful, there's one set of laws,
Speaker 1: and for everyone else there's something else. And jose Smallett
Speaker 1: is a very good example of that. He was politically
Speaker 1: favored and politically connected, and so he got away with it.
Speaker 1: That there are some people for whom this was too
Speaker 1: much to stomach. At least that's somewhat reassuring for the
Speaker 1: Cook County Prosecutor's office. But it's not enough. It's not enough.
Speaker 1: I plan to stay on this story. Buck the pitbull
Speaker 1: with the bone. We'll be right back. As somebody who
Speaker 1: is very familiar for my military training with weapons of war,
Speaker 1: somebody who carried a rifle and epistle around land on
Speaker 1: the orders of the president. Um, there are some weapons
Speaker 1: that just don't belong in our neighborhoods in peacetime in America.
Speaker 1: We've already decided that this is within the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: because we've decided that somewhere in between a sling shot
Speaker 1: and a nuclear weapon, we can draw a line. And
Speaker 1: that's not unconstitutional, it's common sense. And that's why I
Speaker 1: think if all rifles need to be on the table too.
Speaker 1: Oh I love how Mayor Pete just throws that in
Speaker 1: there the end. Yeah, that's all right, gotta band them.
Speaker 1: This is part of what you're seeing play out now
Speaker 1: where the candidates are all trying to outmaneuver each other
Speaker 1: from the left, from the Democrat side, and so everything
Speaker 1: that you know, you every stereotypical far left position that
Speaker 1: they're all going to run away from when they want
Speaker 1: to try to, you know, win that last two or
Speaker 1: three percentage points of the country of the voting public
Speaker 1: in a few important states. Right, that's they're all gonna
Speaker 1: pretend like, oh no, no, we like guns. Democrats like guns.
Speaker 1: Two oho Ohioans. Democrats like guns, two Hoosiers, which I
Speaker 1: just like to say, because now I know that they're
Speaker 1: called hoosiers. Well, so whoa, whoa. You know, Democrats like
Speaker 1: guns two Pennsylvanians, But they don't. They don't. And may
Speaker 1: Or Pete's construction here, I would I would say first
Speaker 1: that he carried I mean I also carried a long
Speaker 1: gun and a side arm in a foreign country on
Speaker 1: the orders of the president. And guess what. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that I inherently know more about the Second Amendment than
Speaker 1: other people. It doesn't mean that I have different Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights than anybody else. It does mean that we
Speaker 1: should be able to have a serious discussion about what
Speaker 1: may Or Pete's really saying here. And he's just being
Speaker 1: disingenuous because he's smart enough to know. And I do
Speaker 1: give credit where it's due. I mean everything points to
Speaker 1: him being a very very bright guy. Speaks a lot
Speaker 1: of languages, you know, unlike a lot of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: you were just just kind of dumb. Honestly, a lot
Speaker 1: of the very prominent Democrats out there are just not impressive,
Speaker 1: not very bright. Mayor Petz a smart guy, and he
Speaker 1: knows better. I'd like to think he knows better than
Speaker 1: to just say, well, you know, it's like, you know,
Speaker 1: sling shot versus a nuclear weapon. Yeah, okay, there is
Speaker 1: constitutional jurisprudence that's already been that has already been decided
Speaker 1: on this, and it stretches all the way back to
Speaker 1: the American founding, stretches all the way back to the
Speaker 1: origin and the era of the Bill of Rights, which
Speaker 1: is weapons in common usage. This is what came up
Speaker 1: in the dcv. Heller case. Where here in the swamp
Speaker 1: where I in the District of Columbia, the decision had
Speaker 1: been made that by the government authorities, the local authorities,
Speaker 1: that you could not have a gun of any kind
Speaker 1: in your home, and they just would not issue permits
Speaker 1: for guns in the home. And this is where you
Speaker 1: get into Okay, well, that's just now a complete abrogation
Speaker 1: and that's an elimination of a constitution protected right which
Speaker 1: local governments can't do. They can't just say sorry, your
Speaker 1: constitutional rights don't apply. The First Amendment doesn't apply in
Speaker 1: although they do that too in this city or this town.
Speaker 1: The issue came up and Scalia wrote about this in
Speaker 1: the majority Opinion of Weapons in common Usage. And this
Speaker 1: is why even at the American Founding, Yeah, it would
Speaker 1: not have been considered common usage for you to have
Speaker 1: a foundry made cannon in your backyard. So maybe some
Speaker 1: restrictions on that would be at least something that judicial
Speaker 1: judicial review could look at. But I know a musket
Speaker 1: is a musket, and everybody had muskets. And now the
Speaker 1: common usage firearm. Really the most common rifle in America
Speaker 1: is the AR fifteen. So it is by definition, because
Speaker 1: it is the most commonly owned rifle, it is in
Speaker 1: common usage, which means that it has covered under Second
Speaker 1: Amendment jurisprudence. I just I think that may Or Pete
Speaker 1: has to know that. But he also is trying to
Speaker 1: stick out and trying to get ahead in a far
Speaker 1: left field of Democrats who are anti gun. And they're
Speaker 1: not anti gun because they think it's gonna no serious person.
Speaker 1: There is no real argument for an assault rifle band
Speaker 1: is going to stop violence in cities. It's just not.
Speaker 1: There's no data to back that up at all. You
Speaker 1: have a tiny, tiny fraction of murders in this country
Speaker 1: every year are committed with rifles, A tiny fraction. So
Speaker 1: why do they want to ban assault assault rifles? Because
Speaker 1: it makes them feel good, Because democrats feel morally superior
Speaker 1: to their political opponents, which means you and me when
Speaker 1: they can say we banned assault rifles. We don't like
Speaker 1: weapons of war on our streets. Mayor Pete's also smart
Speaker 1: enough to know that he wasn't carrying a I'm assuming
Speaker 1: he was not carrying a semi automatic rifle when he
Speaker 1: was in a war zone. He was carrying a fully
Speaker 1: automatic most likely M four when he was abroad, a
Speaker 1: weapon then I'm also very familiar with from my time
Speaker 1: training with and carrying that rifle. So that's not even
Speaker 1: it's if you're really going to be specific about this,
Speaker 1: a weapon of war, then in the context of a
Speaker 1: rifle would be a fully automatic and yes, there are
Speaker 1: restrictions on that. There are restrictions on whether you can
Speaker 1: have a fully automatic rifle. You have to get a
Speaker 1: special federal license. And you know, some of you listening
Speaker 1: to this no much more about that than I do,
Speaker 1: because you've gone through that process. But there's just a
Speaker 1: lot of disingenuousness on the talk about assault rifles and
Speaker 1: the left now trying to just they're just trying to
Speaker 1: get donations going. And Eric Swalwell one mother thing. You know,
Speaker 1: Congressman Swalwell who made his name, uh, he made his
Speaker 1: name by being part of the Russia collusion delusion and
Speaker 1: being on TV every five minutes to say that. You know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna get Trump on this, They're gonna Trump on that.
Speaker 1: It turns out that Swallowell wants to debate the head
Speaker 1: of the NRA, and that's not gonna happen. It's Ali North.
Speaker 1: But I saw Dana Lash, my old colleague and friend.
Speaker 1: Dana Lash has offered publicly to debate swallow on guns,
Speaker 1: and he goes, oh, I'm not going to debate an
Speaker 1: underling buck back. I think Swallowell as chicken, folks, because
Speaker 1: I think he knows Dana Lash would serve him up
Speaker 1: like a roast chicken in a debate and he would
Speaker 1: have no shot whatsoever to come out on top of
Speaker 1: that one. So I'm hoping Swallowell takes Dana up on
Speaker 1: her public offer to debate him. We'll see if that happens. Yo,
Speaker 1: I was really inspired to he said you were not
Speaker 1: get money from the open and you did. You took
Speaker 1: some NAX contributions from eight different fossil fuel industry CEOs
Speaker 1: and executives and lobbyists from Time March twenty nine, and
Speaker 1: that has made it hard for us to believe that
Speaker 1: you're going to keep your promises to address the climate crisis.
Speaker 1: Well you prove it today by returning that dirty money
Speaker 1: and signing the new fossil fuel Money Quedge. Thanks, really
Speaker 1: good questions, appreciate. So you're right. And I was just
Speaker 1: told as we drove in the new set it on
Speaker 1: one of the last days of the FEC filing period.
Speaker 1: HHR from a logist. You're returning nut chart from alagyist jew. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm like so excited to answer the question where you're
Speaker 1: calling the out for hypocrisy because betto is all about
Speaker 1: total authenticity, which is why I'm going to do a
Speaker 1: listening tour without a shirt on, playing guitar, going town
Speaker 1: to town, city to city and I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: steal your girlfriend. I promise American males, I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to steal your girlfriend. Um yeah. Betto caves in here
Speaker 1: says that he did take money from an oil and
Speaker 1: gas lobbyist, and now he's gonna return that dirty money
Speaker 1: because climate change. This is a frustration for me, folks,
Speaker 1: because we're gonna see all the crazy Democrats stuff because
Speaker 1: this is their primary and this is what's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: We're gonna see all the crazy climate change nonsense and
Speaker 1: see this just continue to you know, do what they
Speaker 1: do with all this stuff. And and we're thinking, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, this is gonna be such an easy pathway
Speaker 1: to victory because any normal human being who is not
Speaker 1: completely brainwashed by left wing crazy, any normal person is
Speaker 1: going to say, I can't put these people in charge
Speaker 1: of the country. These Democrats, they're they're insane. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're they're so left wing, they're so out there. Look
Speaker 1: at the stuff they say about the Green New Deal.
Speaker 1: Look at what Beto says about taking money from a
Speaker 1: lobbyist that has money the oil and gas I mean
Speaker 1: oil and gas that is so demonized by the left.
Speaker 1: Even though if you were to make a list of
Speaker 1: the wonderful things in life, if you were to make
Speaker 1: a list of the effect and I really mean this,
Speaker 1: the effect that fossil fuels have had on every aspect
Speaker 1: of our day to day lives, and how beneficial they are,
Speaker 1: that that fossil fuels are the are the necessary precondition
Speaker 1: for a modern economy that we have had people that
Speaker 1: have been saved in I mean, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: even really qualified. I was gonna say millions of lives
Speaker 1: have been saved by FOSSi it's probably it's probably more
Speaker 1: than that. I can't even begin when you add in
Speaker 1: all the products, all the productivity, all the transportation, all
Speaker 1: the heat, all the I mean all these things that
Speaker 1: are only possible because of fossil fuels, and they just
Speaker 1: treat it like it's this evil thing. It's so terrible.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is if you're trying to find a
Speaker 1: way to hate yourself, to hate your society for the
Speaker 1: prosperity that it enjoys, you won't do better than fossil
Speaker 1: fuel because it's central, central to the prosperity that we enjoy.
Speaker 1: It is central to all of the benefits of a
Speaker 1: modern economy. And the left views it as some kind
Speaker 1: of sin that we must do penance for. The left
Speaker 1: use it as some terrible scourge that has to be
Speaker 1: eliminated over time. And that's why I went betas like
Speaker 1: I'm just going to get rid of all the money
Speaker 1: from fossil fuels. You think yourself, well, this guy's just silly.
Speaker 1: But they're gonna move away from this stuff in the
Speaker 1: general election, that's the problem, and the media will try
Speaker 1: to put this stuff all down them all out of
Speaker 1: the memory banks. They're gonna do what they're gonna do,
Speaker 1: what they've done with Russia collusion. Well, this is the
Speaker 1: biggest talk about fossil fuels, the biggest gas lighting campaign
Speaker 1: I've ever seen in my lifetime. Is the media now saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we didn't really promise that there was going to be
Speaker 1: collusion proven here. Yeah, yeah you did. Yeah you did,
Speaker 1: night after night, show after show, segment after segment. You
Speaker 1: were leading your audience's mainstream media to believe that collusion
Speaker 1: was going to be proven. It was just a matter
Speaker 1: of how soon and how much. Instead, of course we
Speaker 1: know that it wasn't proven at all. But this wacky
Speaker 1: left wing Democrat party that is out in the open
Speaker 1: for us. Now, remember that it's going to get a
Speaker 1: whole new code of paint when it comes to general election.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be all about, oh, we just want to
Speaker 1: give you free healthcare and free this and free that.
Speaker 1: The Green New Deal, though, is where is where their
Speaker 1: insanity really bubbles up to the surface in a way
Speaker 1: that no one can ignore it. They're gonna walk away
Speaker 1: from a Green Deal. What's why Pelosi understands this. She
Speaker 1: knows that the smarter or it should say savvier Democrats
Speaker 1: understand that this is all just meant for public consumption
Speaker 1: within the radical left right now. This is all meant
Speaker 1: to just get This is meant to be a fight
Speaker 1: among leftists for the base of the Democratic Party. But
Speaker 1: they're gonna walk away from it. So we can't get
Speaker 1: too excited. We can't, you know, be too psyched about
Speaker 1: the prospect of running against the Democrat party that's banning
Speaker 1: cow farts and air travel and all this other stuff
Speaker 1: that we saw from the AOC Green New Deal debacle,
Speaker 1: because they're gonna act like these conversations right now or
Speaker 1: something like Betto is immediately bending the knee when someone
Speaker 1: brings up, oh you took money from a fossil fuel lobbyist.
Speaker 1: That's gonna go away. You know, that's gonna that's gonna be.
Speaker 1: They're gonna be a slightly different Democrat party. But speaking
Speaker 1: to go away, man, I mean, we talked about Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete before all these all these different stories I see here.
Speaker 1: This is in Politico why the media dumped Betto for
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete and Fox News. Betto' rourke no longer the
Speaker 1: shiny new candidate says, he's still in a good place, man, Betto.
Speaker 1: You know, he thought because he wrote it, he thought
Speaker 1: that he wrote the Democrats a song that was just
Speaker 1: about them. It's not a song that he wrote for
Speaker 1: anybody else, And he just wants to play it on
Speaker 1: his guitar in the corner of the house party. But
Speaker 1: he totally is not like making a move on you.
Speaker 1: He just wants to look in your eyes and seeing
Speaker 1: emotional lyrics that he totally wrote for you, not anybody else, promises.
Speaker 1: It turns out that wasn't enough. Betto. Mayor Pete came
Speaker 1: along with his far superior resume and actual intersectional credibility
Speaker 1: because he is a gay American, So us fall into
Speaker 1: a category that intersectional. The intersectional left views as a
Speaker 1: necessary diversity candidate. You know, they want to have different
Speaker 1: people represented from all the different groups in this country.
Speaker 1: That intersectionality focuses on Betto maybe changed his name to
Speaker 1: sound more intersectional, but nope, does not count. Does not count.
Speaker 1: And then you also the problem where Betto gave wait
Speaker 1: here here, I want to make sure I get this one,
Speaker 1: get this one totally correct. Student asked Betta O'Rourke why
Speaker 1: he gave less to charity than her sister, who just
Speaker 1: graduated at the University of Virginia. Bettos cheap. That's why
Speaker 1: Bettos a multi millionaire. He married as super gajillionaire, and
Speaker 1: Betto and his wife gave one thousand, one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty six dollars point three percent of their income to charity,
Speaker 1: by far the lowest amount revealed in any of the
Speaker 1: recent tax returns that have been shared by the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty presidential candidates. Elizabeth Warren gave fifty thousand out of
Speaker 1: an income of nine hundred and five thousand, five point
Speaker 1: five percent. Look, but Warren, I'm I'm fair minded. Warren's
Speaker 1: charitable giving is respectable. She also knew not to be
Speaker 1: overly cynical, folks. But she also knew that she was
Speaker 1: going to release her returns and she was running for president.
Speaker 1: She's been running for president in her own mind for
Speaker 1: the last ten years. But yeah, five five percent is
Speaker 1: respect I mean on a million dollars of income, so
Speaker 1: it's not like they're hurting for money. Five percent is respectable.
Speaker 1: A thousand dollars when you're worth millions and millions and millions,
Speaker 1: that is not respectable. And if it's really like World
Speaker 1: War two level sacrifice that you're calling forward, that's what
Speaker 1: he says. He says he wants world War two level
Speaker 1: sacrifice to be with the American people embrace. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: A thousand dollars of betto just doesn't cut it. That's
Speaker 1: like not even the price of a new Actually, I
Speaker 1: have no idea how much a new good acoustic guitar cost.
Speaker 1: Do you know, John, I have no what what is
Speaker 1: an acoustic guitar cost? What is a new What is
Speaker 1: a new fancy skateboard cost? Probably like three hundred bucks? Right,
Speaker 1: that's I have no idea what a skateboard cost. I'm
Speaker 1: guessing here if I do a quick skateboard search, you know,
Speaker 1: what is it? What is a new fancy skateboard. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a couple. It's a few hundred bucks, a couple
Speaker 1: hundred bucks. Okay, so betto gave the equivalent of like
Speaker 1: a couple of skateboards to charity. That's not enough, Beto,
Speaker 1: not when you try on the rest of us that
Speaker 1: we can't live the lives we're leading and we're a
Speaker 1: bunch of fat cats. Need to get more to charity.
Speaker 1: But Democrats want to be charitable with your money. See
Speaker 1: that's the way state hast always want to do it.
Speaker 1: That's the way the Marxist ideology inflicts itself on your pocketbook.
Speaker 1: Gotta give your stuff to other people. It's not their
Speaker 1: stuff they gave, it's your stuff. I have a classic
Speaker 1: get off my lawn moment to share with all of you.
Speaker 1: Some of you know, probably because I don't like excessive noise.
Speaker 1: I don't like people who are inconsiderate. I don't like fidgeting,
Speaker 1: I don't like whistling. You know, people who spend time
Speaker 1: around me know that while I'm a very gregarious and
Speaker 1: understanding and warm fellow, I also expect people to behave
Speaker 1: in a certain way, and I include strangers in that
Speaker 1: I don't just mean people that I know, I mean
Speaker 1: just everybody. And this is one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: I sometimes avoid certain public venues or activities where you're
Speaker 1: exposed to people who sometimes just act like barbarians. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna say it. And music concerts, I think, are
Speaker 1: a particularly common source of bad behavior. Live theater, Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, I hello, I'm taking a found call right
Speaker 1: now because people up on stage doing this. I think
Speaker 1: it's not kats is it? What? What my listening? Oh no,
Speaker 1: it's it's Hamilton. It's no way, it's not Hamilton. It's
Speaker 1: it's Hadwig. And they're angry. And I don't know what
Speaker 1: play I'm in, Actually, no idea, but I think people
Speaker 1: are looking at me because, you know what, this is
Speaker 1: what they do, and this is what they do in
Speaker 1: the in the theaters, you know. Actually it's forty seconds Street.
Speaker 1: I think I'm watching forty seconds Street, but I can't
Speaker 1: really see because the lights are in my eyes. Um yeah,
Speaker 1: people do things like that. I always remember when Kevin
Speaker 1: Williamson wrote a piece about how he got up at
Speaker 1: a theater and took a phone out of somebody's hand
Speaker 1: who kept taking phone calls during a play and threw
Speaker 1: it across the room. Now, aggressive might get you sent
Speaker 1: to jail for the night, not for a long but
Speaker 1: I'm with him in spirit. Well, it turns out I
Speaker 1: have a fellow ker mudgeon when it comes to the
Speaker 1: way people should act when they are at a live
Speaker 1: event of any kind. And that fellow kur mudgeon is
Speaker 1: the one and only mister Bill O'Reilly. He recently on
Speaker 1: his show The Bill O'Reilly as the o'rilly Factor, or
Speaker 1: The Bill O'Reilly Show Online, whatever whatever the specific name is.
Speaker 1: But mister O'Riley was at a Fleetwood Mac concert and
Speaker 1: let me just say that's his first mistake, because that's right.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you guys this, and I don't care
Speaker 1: how much you get mad at me for it. Fleetwood
Speaker 1: Mac very overrated. Oh I know, I've just ruined some
Speaker 1: of your youths. Youths, but Fleetwood Mac is very overrated.
Speaker 1: You are a rude, terrible person. I deserve that, and
Speaker 1: I agree. But Bill was talking about how a bunch
Speaker 1: of millennials we're not acting properly out in public place. Seventeen.
Speaker 1: The mu Zeke of Fleewood MACS classic. It's timeless, and
Speaker 1: there are some songs where you want to jump up
Speaker 1: and dance, and that's fine, that's fine, But the millennial
Speaker 1: generation Z people would never sit down. When the time
Speaker 1: it started at the time it ended, they were standing
Speaker 1: up and there were people behind them. You know. Some
Speaker 1: of these people were seventy five eighty and they couldn't see.
Speaker 1: And the millennials didn't care at at all because I
Speaker 1: saw confrontations. I actually had one, but the guard and
Speaker 1: ushers liked me all right because I've been going there
Speaker 1: for many years. But this drunken guy stands right next
Speaker 1: to me and my party on the aisle. Not he
Speaker 1: didn't have a seat. He just kind of ran down,
Speaker 1: stood on the aisle weaving like this, and I said, hey, sir,
Speaker 1: you you know blocking our vision, and you know, I
Speaker 1: gave him a look and then I stood up, all
Speaker 1: six foot four of me, and he ran away, and
Speaker 1: then the usher chemist did you want me to? I said, no,
Speaker 1: just make sure he doesn't come back. I like how
Speaker 1: bills like, all six foot four of me, like he's
Speaker 1: gonna man handle these kids. I like it. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: land base you, son, oh man. But I will look.
Speaker 1: I'm with Billow, I'm with him on this. It is
Speaker 1: very annoying. It is very annoying when you are at
Speaker 1: any live event and people fit and there are seats
Speaker 1: that human beings are supposed to sit in, but some
Speaker 1: people think they're gonna stand the whole time, you know,
Speaker 1: because guess what, some people can't stand the whole time
Speaker 1: or don't want to stand the whole time, but they
Speaker 1: also don't want to stare at your behind the whole time.
Speaker 1: So I'm with Bill on this. And this is why,
Speaker 1: this is why we can't have nice things. So I
Speaker 1: can't get nice concerts. I went to a concert some
Speaker 1: years ago and it was before the concert started and
Speaker 1: all the lights were on and it was a standing
Speaker 1: only venue, so there were no seats or anything. And
Speaker 1: I was there. I was there with a with a
Speaker 1: date at the time, and we're just standing, we're just talking,
Speaker 1: and a guy tapped me on the shoulder from behind me,
Speaker 1: I mean, and he looked like somebody who sells glassware
Speaker 1: on the road for a living. I mean, I will
Speaker 1: say that, so I probably shouldn't be surprised. But he
Speaker 1: tapped me on the shoulder. He goes, hey, can you
Speaker 1: just stop moving your head so much? And I looked
Speaker 1: at him, and I was so taken aback because there
Speaker 1: was no music. There was nothing happening. There was an
Speaker 1: empty stage and there were just people milling about. But
Speaker 1: he was standing behind me looking at the stage like
Speaker 1: the show had already started. It had not. There was
Speaker 1: not it was not a warm up band. There was
Speaker 1: nobody on the stage. And he told me to stopped
Speaker 1: moving my head, which I had not been moving. I
Speaker 1: was not dazzing. I don't know what he was smoking
Speaker 1: or injecting or crushing up and snorting, but it was
Speaker 1: some really powerful stuff. I can tell you that. Oh man,
Speaker 1: people are just you know, there's certain things, folks. And
Speaker 1: here's another one for those of you who are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go to the Fleetwood Mac concert book as
Speaker 1: Fleetwood Mac is great. Please Freetwood Mac. I know. But
Speaker 1: see then you're gonna say, Buck, you probably listen to
Speaker 1: Dave Matthews band, don't you. You probably have nostalgia for
Speaker 1: Dave Matthews. But I'll say that's true, and you know what,
Speaker 1: Dave Matthews Band is the Fleetwood Mac of old millennials
Speaker 1: and generation. Why and the Generation X. That's right, that's right.
Speaker 1: Boomers are to Fleetwood mac as Jen gen X and
Speaker 1: why and and millennials are to Dave Matthews Banner. I
Speaker 1: can't Jen, why must come after gen X? Right? So
Speaker 1: people that are born in the late seventies and early
Speaker 1: eighties and in the mid eighties, Yeah, we all, we
Speaker 1: all secretly like Dave Matthews band. I know you're saying, Buck,
Speaker 1: I don't like Dave Matthews ban but you're you're just
Speaker 1: kidding yourself. It's like people who pretend that they don't
Speaker 1: like any Nickelback songs. You like some nickel Stop lying,
Speaker 1: just stop lying, you like Nickelback songs. But the other
Speaker 1: rule that I have, don't do this thing where you
Speaker 1: go to anything that's a live event and take out
Speaker 1: your camera and take a grainy video of it. You
Speaker 1: never watch the video you take on your phone. Okay,
Speaker 1: you don't do it. No one does it. We all
Speaker 1: think we might, Oh, this will be a memory that
Speaker 1: last forever. The video looks like crap, The audio is terrible,
Speaker 1: and everybody around you behind you has to stare now
Speaker 1: at this light that you're holding up, especially if it's
Speaker 1: supposed to it's supposed to be kind of a darkened
Speaker 1: room and create an atmospheric effect, and they got to
Speaker 1: stare now at the light you're holding up in your hand.
Speaker 1: No no, no, no standing the whole time when there
Speaker 1: are seats and no holding up video camera phone mode
Speaker 1: thing when you should be enjoying a live event. This
Speaker 1: is get off my lawn and I have spoken, Bill
Speaker 1: O'Reilly style. I'll be right back. Team often talk about
Speaker 1: how crazy things get on campus here on the show.
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why we have partnered with
Speaker 1: the Leadership Institute because we want to actually fight back.
Speaker 1: But I need to tell you about the latest incident
Speaker 1: of campus craziness. And this one involves our new friend
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles from the Daily Wire. He's a senior writer
Speaker 1: over there, is also the host of the Michael Knowles Show,
Speaker 1: and he's gonna tell us what happened to him. Michael,
Speaker 1: Happy Friday, my friend. Good to talk to you, but
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on. So what happened to you?
Speaker 1: My man? You went to a college campus and they
Speaker 1: did not respect the Socratic virtues. They decided that they
Speaker 1: were going to take a different approach. That's putting it
Speaker 1: pretty mildly. I was invited to give a speech at
Speaker 1: the University of Missouri, Kansas City. The topic I was
Speaker 1: invited to speak on very very controversial. It was called
Speaker 1: men are not Women. Now this these days very apparently provocative,
Speaker 1: and you'd be like giving a speech on how the
Speaker 1: sky is blue was two equals four? I mean, I
Speaker 1: feel triggered, right I feel triggered right now. But you
Speaker 1: can keep talking. You know, I expected this to be
Speaker 1: basically the most boring speech I've ever given. I'm stating
Speaker 1: basic factive nature. And I go into the room and
Speaker 1: I notice immediately there are about a dozen left wing
Speaker 1: looking students, you know who you can kind of tell
Speaker 1: the blue hair and that sort of thing. Yes, they're
Speaker 1: both very angry facially and also very obviously based on
Speaker 1: dressing decorum in cells. But continue, Yeah, people who go
Speaker 1: together a lot, And so I started speaking. From the
Speaker 1: very moment I started speaking, they begin to scream like maniacs,
Speaker 1: screaming uselessly like banshees. You can't want to hear it
Speaker 1: in the video because the microphone is going to the broadcast.
Speaker 1: People in the room who came to hear the talk
Speaker 1: could not hear over their screaming this one on for
Speaker 1: that twentyness. Finally they decide to leave. They walk out,
Speaker 1: someone unlocked the fire doing it back, and some mask
Speaker 1: antitho weirdo jumps in and sprays me with a super
Speaker 1: circle full of some unknown chemical substance. Smells a little strange,
Speaker 1: had a weird color to it. Fortunately the police were
Speaker 1: able to get this guy down quickly. There was initially
Speaker 1: that it was chained, which is kind of what I
Speaker 1: thought it was. Then a number of people started saying
Speaker 1: that it was bleach. It looks as though it was
Speaker 1: some non toxic combination of household chemicals. But of course,
Speaker 1: either way, it's a warning shot. It's saying that if
Speaker 1: a conservative goes to campus, you're gonna get shouted down,
Speaker 1: and ultimately, if you don't shut up, you might be
Speaker 1: physically assaulted. I would I would have guessed it it
Speaker 1: might have been something else, an issue, my friend. I'm
Speaker 1: glad your thought didn't go right there, But I mean,
Speaker 1: and the and the idea that it's sterile would only
Speaker 1: have given me a tiny bit of tiny bit of brief.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you. There have been some rumors that
Speaker 1: there are many unsavory things in whatever they shot at me.
Speaker 1: I'm going to keep that out of my mind as
Speaker 1: long as I possibly can, to convince myself to go
Speaker 1: back to these campuses. The next morning, instead of getting
Speaker 1: an apology, which is what I expected from either the
Speaker 1: chancellor of the university or the people putting it together,
Speaker 1: instead of that, a letter went out from MC Chancellor
Speaker 1: Molly Aggrawall snearing me baselessly as some sort of bigot,
Speaker 1: extreme and encouraging the students who got up and screamed
Speaker 1: from the very beginning, basically endorsing the hecklers veto and
Speaker 1: saying that invited speakers on campus and harassed, perhaps not
Speaker 1: physically assaulted, but the implication being I think that I
Speaker 1: brought it on myself. You know, I was wearing a
Speaker 1: short skirt and I was basically asking for well, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you were wearing a short skirt, as we know,
Speaker 1: male female, there's no differentiation that can be made here,
Speaker 1: So it's not you know, you never know what. Probably
Speaker 1: I think I would have gotten a better reception had
Speaker 1: I've been wearing this good But nonetheless, that was the
Speaker 1: message that went out for the most chancellor basically to say, hey, listen, conservatives,
Speaker 1: we don't have your back. We're going to turn a
Speaker 1: blind eye to assaults, We're going to encourage Heckler's vetoes,
Speaker 1: and we're going to be utterly intolerant of any other
Speaker 1: point of view than our leftist orthodoxy. This is a
Speaker 1: disgrace to higher education. This chancellor certainly should resign or
Speaker 1: be fired. This is the state of liberal education in
Speaker 1: the United States. Are you going to have to press
Speaker 1: charges now, by the way, for the mysterious substance that
Speaker 1: was sprayed on you? I mean, I'm somebody who look,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm all about letting bygones be bygones. But actually
Speaker 1: I'm also someone who believes injustice and consequences for behavior
Speaker 1: like this. And if there isn't any consequence for somebody
Speaker 1: to assault it an invited campus speaker, you've just been
Speaker 1: the next person at risk, and maybe the next time
Speaker 1: it will be bleached. Right, So, so where's the legal
Speaker 1: status of this? That is my issue here. I'm with you.
Speaker 1: I would let it go. I can take a punch.
Speaker 1: It doesn't bother me personally as much. But that is
Speaker 1: the question. First of all, it's up to the prosecutors,
Speaker 1: and there is a ton of video of this guy
Speaker 1: physically assaulting a speaker and resisting arrest and the whole other.
Speaker 1: But I think are there any CNN stories yet posted
Speaker 1: where they say video appears to show I always love that,
Speaker 1: like video appears to show a guy getting punched in
Speaker 1: the face. No, no, I'm pretty sure the video shows
Speaker 1: him getting punched in the face. No no, it'll say
Speaker 1: conservative speaker pounces on video. How I came getting assaulted
Speaker 1: by that? It is your fault for pouncing after after
Speaker 1: you were sprayed, So you know that that is something
Speaker 1: to keep something to keep in mind, did you? Was
Speaker 1: it really from from your perspective? Was it the topic
Speaker 1: which is great, by the way, men or not women?
Speaker 1: Was it the topic that triggered the so much? Or
Speaker 1: is it your affiliation with the formidable fellow note as
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro that you know, you're just like you're just
Speaker 1: part of his little band of Mary Avengers and the
Speaker 1: left freaks out or is it a combination? Why why
Speaker 1: they get so Could you seem like a very you know,
Speaker 1: non threatening, nice dude who wants to have a talk
Speaker 1: with people. You know, I don't get it. I feel
Speaker 1: I've always thought I'm a genial guy. I didn't know
Speaker 1: I was no intimidating, since there is part of that obviously,
Speaker 1: that neo Nazi Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, that's due in
Speaker 1: the pression all the time. So I think probably my
Speaker 1: vegitation preceded me through that association. But I do think
Speaker 1: there's something special about this issue, this very basic fact
Speaker 1: of nature that men are not women and women on
Speaker 1: that man. There's something in particularly that inflames the Left
Speaker 1: about this because it goes to the heart of so
Speaker 1: many of their fantasies. It goes to the heart of
Speaker 1: so much of their ideology, not just not just transgenderism,
Speaker 1: but intersectionality, the questions of objective reality, of subjective feelings,
Speaker 1: of oppression, of victimhood. This basic fact, I think, cuts
Speaker 1: to the heart of that, and so they are they
Speaker 1: pass on it because if men are not women, they
Speaker 1: can convince them, they can define all of reality. Was
Speaker 1: a line in Alice in Wonderland. Humpty Dumpy says, in
Speaker 1: my language works me whatever I say they mean, And
Speaker 1: Alice says, can you do that? Can woly mean just
Speaker 1: whatever you want them to? And Humpty Dumpy says, that's
Speaker 1: not the question. The question is which is to be master,
Speaker 1: and the left is trying to be master by redefine
Speaker 1: all of reality, and we conservatives are not letting them
Speaker 1: do it. We say no, reality will re assert itself,
Speaker 1: and they go mad when we tell them. At basic truth,
Speaker 1: did anyone even try to make a case as to
Speaker 1: why women are men and men are women? Or do
Speaker 1: they just make like animal noises at you? They literally
Speaker 1: made animal noises. I mean they literally just streaked because
Speaker 1: of course there's no argument. If they had an argument,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't need to shout down in silence and censor
Speaker 1: and assault speakers who invited to campus. If they had
Speaker 1: an argument, we'd make our argument, they'd make their argument,
Speaker 1: and they would be seen to be correct. But they
Speaker 1: don't have that. They seem not even to accept the
Speaker 1: premises of logic and rational argument anyway. That obviously is
Speaker 1: at the heart of liberal education. So it's so worrisome
Speaker 1: when universities behave this way. And the most troubling aspect
Speaker 1: of all is that the chancellor of the university, who
Speaker 1: should be teaching these kids no better, he should defend
Speaker 1: liberal education. He's the one who's most loudly of all
Speaker 1: encouraging them and egging them on. And I just want
Speaker 1: to tell you something, Michael. We did. We did a
Speaker 1: pretty deep dive fact check and and your your talk
Speaker 1: men are Not Women has been awarded zero pinocchios, zero
Speaker 1: pinocchios fact check true men are not Women's. I wanted
Speaker 1: you to know that we put our resources to make
Speaker 1: sure that we got the right answer here. Well that's good.
Speaker 1: I think the Washington Post gave me about seventh pinocchios.
Speaker 1: They consulted a slew of gender theory professors, all of
Speaker 1: whom insist that men are women and women are men.
Speaker 1: Talk about an irony too. The left is always assailing
Speaker 1: the right to say that we're denying science, and because
Speaker 1: they talk about global warming or whatever. Then we go
Speaker 1: and we state the most basic fact of nature and
Speaker 1: they absolutely lose their mind. Somebody tells me I may
Speaker 1: be denying science. There we go, everybody, Michael Miles. You
Speaker 1: can check out of stuff at the Daily Wire and
Speaker 1: also listen to the Michael Knowles Show available one fine
Speaker 1: iTunes platforms all over the place. Mister Knowles, great, great
Speaker 1: to make your acquaintance, Please come back soon, but great
Speaker 1: to talk to you. Team we'll be right back. Hey,
Speaker 1: team Buck, it's time for roll call. It is bittersweet,
Speaker 1: but I come on now to tell you that it
Speaker 1: is the end of the show, the end of another week,
Speaker 1: so I won't get to talk to your team for
Speaker 1: a couple of days. But that all said, this roll
Speaker 1: call also means that everybody's been working for the weekend,
Speaker 1: and the weekend is in fact here. I'd willing to
Speaker 1: guess that a lot of you are listening to this
Speaker 1: on the weekend already because you listen via podcast, which
Speaker 1: is always a fun way to do things. So my friends, Facebook,
Speaker 1: dot com, slash box, Sexton, that's how you do roll call.
Speaker 1: You know how you roll And uh yes, indeed I
Speaker 1: am gonna get a big boy email though that will happen,
Speaker 1: Big boy email, doll for Buck, the big boy email.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get it set up for the show. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be amazing. It's gonna be fantastic and should really work,
Speaker 1: mate trips that I can say. It's gonna be amazing,
Speaker 1: the best email anyone has ever had. You gotta I
Speaker 1: gotta be able to do the facial gestures and the
Speaker 1: hand gestures for the trump that doesn't really work otherwise,
Speaker 1: all right? He uh. William sent me a photo of
Speaker 1: him outside of the Nine Line apparel store in Savannah, Georgia.
Speaker 1: Look at that very cool, William. I really like the
Speaker 1: nine Line folks, and I'm glad that you're able to
Speaker 1: go check out their very large, very cool store. Karen
Speaker 1: just made scramble eggs your way. Wow, the super low
Speaker 1: heat really makes a difference, Karen, Welcome to the scrambled
Speaker 1: egg revolution. It's true for those who don't know, your
Speaker 1: scrambled eggs will be better if you just do this
Speaker 1: very simple thing. Cook them very slowly, and the moment
Speaker 1: you think you have too much heat in that pan,
Speaker 1: you take the heat off the I mean you take
Speaker 1: the pan off the heat source. Do not try to
Speaker 1: just adjust the temperature, because any kind of direct heat,
Speaker 1: if you're already getting too high, is gonna mean that
Speaker 1: you're gonna overcook them. That's the number one thing people
Speaker 1: do that I think is a problem when it comes
Speaker 1: to their cooking of eggs, particularly eggs of the scrambled variety,
Speaker 1: which is my favorite, is that they overcook them. They
Speaker 1: turn them into those little rubbery looking things, you know,
Speaker 1: they kind of curdle up and they get all rubbery
Speaker 1: and hard, and you could throw them against the wall
Speaker 1: and they'll bounce around. You don't want that. You want delicious,
Speaker 1: perfectly cooked eggs. You want rubbery, ridiculous eggs. So go
Speaker 1: low heat. Now, some people say that, buck, if you're
Speaker 1: going to crack the eggs in the pan directly, you're
Speaker 1: you're a savage into that. I say, well, I'm a
Speaker 1: savage who doesn't have to worry about making a big mess,
Speaker 1: you know, with my whole bowl, and people to do
Speaker 1: the whole thing of the little bowl and they, you know,
Speaker 1: stir it all up in there. That's for omelets, my friend,
Speaker 1: not for scrambled egg. Scrambled egg. The way to do
Speaker 1: it is put a little piece of paper towel down
Speaker 1: on your kitchen counter next to your heat source. Obviously
Speaker 1: not on the heat source. That would be stout burn yourself,
Speaker 1: not good. And you put that paper towel, just just
Speaker 1: one sheet, and you crack the egg flats, you know,
Speaker 1: on the flat surface of the counter, and then you
Speaker 1: go right into the pan. One two three. That's the
Speaker 1: way to do it. And then you've already the cleanup
Speaker 1: is easy. You just got a little paper towel. You
Speaker 1: throw that away. If you crack it on the edge
Speaker 1: of the pan, you are much more likely to get
Speaker 1: eggshell in your egg. And folks, nobody likes that, you know,
Speaker 1: when they crunch into the no one likes that. Nobody
Speaker 1: wants that, all right, everybody wants to be eating those eggs,
Speaker 1: perfect perfectly cooked, perfectly cooked. I don't know why English
Speaker 1: got hard for me. There any cares you can tell.
Speaker 1: I'm very passionate about the subject. The other thing I
Speaker 1: try to convince people off because I know I'm right,
Speaker 1: is that they should eat thick cut bacon. Don't eat that. Look,
Speaker 1: all bacon is good. This is like all chocolate. All
Speaker 1: chocolate is good too. And whether you're eating a Hershey's
Speaker 1: bar or you're eating something from me. Which is a
Speaker 1: great place to go if you want to spend about
Speaker 1: five dollars per tiny little piece of chocolate and get
Speaker 1: you know, a dozen pieces of chocolate for sixty or
Speaker 1: seventy bucks. Chola is very famous place for the best chocolate.
Speaker 1: They have the very fancy flavor. It is mande fique.
Speaker 1: But you have to rob the bank to have the
Speaker 1: money to pay for us. At Chuck, you also could
Speaker 1: do it. I like Hershey's Hershey's American chocolate. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: all chocolate is good. All bacon is good. But thick
Speaker 1: cut bacon is better than thin bacon. Trust me on
Speaker 1: this one. And it is worth it to go find
Speaker 1: a butcher and have the butcher cut the bacon too,
Speaker 1: the thickness you desire, you know, have the butcher cut
Speaker 1: the bacon, for it's worth it. You can always freeze
Speaker 1: your bacon so you can get a whole bunch of it,
Speaker 1: you know, get get a couple, get a two pounds,
Speaker 1: and that lasts me about a day and a half. No,
Speaker 1: get two pounds of bacon and keep some of it
Speaker 1: in the fridge and keep the rest of it in
Speaker 1: the freezer, and you're good to go. And you just
Speaker 1: thought it out as you needed. But that thick cut
Speaker 1: bacon is so much better the really thin stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: it just just doesn't get it done, just doesn't get it.
Speaker 1: You don't really get the full bacon flavor. It's just
Speaker 1: grease and fat. You don't want that. Fil Right's regarding
Speaker 1: international or inspirational buildings, you overlook Washington's National Cathedral thin
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety, after eighty some years of construction. Yeah,
Speaker 1: National Cathedral is nice. That's that's a that's a fair point.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying Phil that it doesn't exist anywhere. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying that they don't make them like they used
Speaker 1: to when it comes to cathedrals, when it comes to
Speaker 1: a lot of things, they don't make them like they
Speaker 1: used to. Adam, my tay Buck in regards the investigation,
Speaker 1: could Trump sue ever involved in a Rico case, kind
Speaker 1: of like how he did the shipping of all the
Speaker 1: illegals to Nancy's home city, Shields High, Adam, I think
Speaker 1: the answers probably no, But I do appreciate the creativity
Speaker 1: that you are willing to bring to this issue. So indeed,
Speaker 1: dare you have it? Paul? All right, Buck Shields High.
Speaker 1: On this good Friday, as we remember Jesus's sacrifice, let's
Speaker 1: also celebrate the minutemen at Lexington Green and Conquered Bridge
Speaker 1: who fired the shot heard round the world. Maybe you
Speaker 1: could read disaccount of that day's battle with some appropriate
Speaker 1: marshal music behind it. Thank you Paul from Michigan. Well, Paul,
Speaker 1: at least we got a shout out for it. I
Speaker 1: don't have the time unfortune for a dramatic reading of
Speaker 1: it right now, but I do appreciate you reminding everybody
Speaker 1: that is well as good Friday first and foremost, it
Speaker 1: is also the day that the Minutemen took on the
Speaker 1: British Empire at Lexington Green and conquered Bridge. See what
Speaker 1: else we have here? Marshall writes, please book send Muller
Speaker 1: and his stooges my way signed Bigfoot. She'll tie all right, Marshall, absolutely,
Speaker 1: and let's see we can get to Tessa in on
Speaker 1: this action. Yeah, I mean look Bigfoot, sometimes writes into
Speaker 1: the show. What can I tell you? I do? I
Speaker 1: have a colleague that is going to watch the very violent,
Speaker 1: scary but entertaining Bigfoot movie, she said tonight because I
Speaker 1: told her about on the office. So I've become an
Speaker 1: evangelist for this this film. Um Mesa, all right, I
Speaker 1: tuned it on APM to catch your show. I'm away
Speaker 1: back from work and I got Glenn Beck. What's the
Speaker 1: deal News Talk ninety nine five in New Orleans. I
Speaker 1: don't know, um maybe they made a change down there.
Speaker 1: I'll have to look into that one. So Mesa, well,
Speaker 1: we'll see. Let's see what else we have here. Mike writes, hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: a longtime fan. Nice job on Fox News this evening, sir,
Speaker 1: enjoy your radio show. Well, thank you so much, Mike.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. It was a good session on Fox News.
Speaker 1: And I'll be on Fox News this Sunday as part
Speaker 1: of the panel for the Media Buzz Show with Howie Kurtz.
Speaker 1: So that will really be an interesting discussion given what's
Speaker 1: gone on this week. I can assure you of that. Katherine, right, Buck,
Speaker 1: we need you as a permanent guest on Brett Show. Oh, Katherine,
Speaker 1: And I really enjoy doing Brett Show. It's a great panel,
Speaker 1: and I think I'll be back next month on it.
Speaker 1: Usually they try to get me on once or twice
Speaker 1: a month, so we'll see if we can make that happen.
Speaker 1: But I agree with you that the more Buck on,
Speaker 1: the more Buck on the Brett panel, the better for America.
Speaker 1: How about that? And then we have here Jack, who writes, hey, brother,
Speaker 1: I'm a little mad about no jokes about Mayor Pete.
Speaker 1: Have Commie bear do it? L ol? May the wings
Speaker 1: of Liberty never lose a feather? Yeah, I I mean
Speaker 1: may Or Pete. I gotta think of funnier stuff to
Speaker 1: say about him. I have to listen to see if
Speaker 1: he's really some of thee that I could do an
Speaker 1: impersonation of that would be worthwhile. I have to work
Speaker 1: I met Rump because it's I know you guys are
Speaker 1: all a buck your trumps here, but if you can
Speaker 1: see my face and I have the swoop, I mean,
Speaker 1: I can do the Trump hair swoop. We're like separated
Speaker 1: at birth Trump and me. I mean, his hair is
Speaker 1: blonde and mine's kind of a light brown or whatever.
Speaker 1: But we've got exactly go home to mommy. He's going
Speaker 1: home to his mom, say a loo of mummy exactly,
Speaker 1: Scott hey Buck only had about time to read twenty
Speaker 1: five pages of the Muller report, but I'd love to
Speaker 1: have a scorecard and how many times publicly reported and
Speaker 1: no evidence of collusion pops up in it. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: dig back in it. Cannot wait to hear your analysis,
Speaker 1: shields high here in New Hampshire. Well, Scott, I hope
Speaker 1: you enjoyed the analysis I gave you of this whole
Speaker 1: thing today, and I'm looking forward to getting more answers
Speaker 1: for you about some of the big questions are raising.
Speaker 1: How this. What's really gonna bring the whole deep state
Speaker 1: edifice crumbling down around this whole investigation is how this
Speaker 1: thing got started. That's where they're going to have a
Speaker 1: lot of problems. I think so. I think that they
Speaker 1: were shady. I know they were shady. I just I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna be able to prove it. Roll Call
Speaker 1: Part two come up in a moment. Team stay with me.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for Roll Call. Thomas writes,
Speaker 1: another great show today, Buck, I agree with your guest
Speaker 1: who was talking about the glaring omission of the Mullah report.
Speaker 1: There was no mention of Hillary Clinton and her involvement
Speaker 1: in this Greek tragedy. I've been talking about this for
Speaker 1: six months. As it currently stands, a special counsel, aided
Speaker 1: by a gaggle of lawyers and forty investigators, spent two
Speaker 1: years in search of a crime that never happened. They
Speaker 1: spent twenty five million dollars and thousands of man hours
Speaker 1: to produce half a report. Ha only in America. I
Speaker 1: pray to God that when the DOJ and IG horror
Speaker 1: which his report is presented in May or June, that
Speaker 1: it brings a long list of indictments or this country
Speaker 1: may indeed explode. I didn't expect the Muller report to
Speaker 1: have any surprises. I did expect some mention of Hillary
Speaker 1: in the DNC involvement in it. Nothing. I can only
Speaker 1: speculate that those key elements were redacted because they are
Speaker 1: part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The Muller investigation was
Speaker 1: a counterintelligence one. I don't think Agbar sufficiently explained that
Speaker 1: in his press briefing. It was never put in context
Speaker 1: with the failure to get results, which is why many
Speaker 1: people believe the whole thing was a waste of time
Speaker 1: and the progressives feel betrayed by Muller. A prosecutor cannot
Speaker 1: exonerate anyone from a crime that never existed. It is
Speaker 1: not possible to commit obstruction of a crime that never existed.
Speaker 1: Amazing how few of these so called legal eagles in
Speaker 1: Congress knows little about how these investigations are conducted, with
Speaker 1: the goals of each type. Maybe Thomas a lot of
Speaker 1: eloquence here in this message. Thank you, sir, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Good to talk to you. Terry writes, answer your damn phone, Terry,
Speaker 1: Sorry mister call when you tried to call recently. I
Speaker 1: do want to do someday of the week where we
Speaker 1: just we do kind of an open line. I mean
Speaker 1: you'd say, Buck, what about Friday? You have a people
Speaker 1: are hanging out on Friday. It's Friday night? Do they really?
Speaker 1: And I feel like during the week might be better.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna think about that. Maybe maybe we do
Speaker 1: you know, wild Call Wednesday or something. I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's other people gonna calling like, yeah, yeah, it's wild
Speaker 1: Cale Wednesday. I'm a Buck Sexton show, getting that Get
Speaker 1: that whole radio Top forty Radio with Buck Sexton Wild Wednesday.
Speaker 1: So Bobby Newport, uh, here we go. Esther rights, will
Speaker 1: the real puppet master please stand up? Why so quiet? Barack?
Speaker 1: Thank you Sexton and you and your team for giving
Speaker 1: me my daily dose of common sense politics. Well, I
Speaker 1: will pass that a wrong along to producer Mike and
Speaker 1: DJ John John. Esther says, thank you, You're welcome. Esther exactly, John.
Speaker 1: Speaking of John Buck, one thing I don't think I've
Speaker 1: seen any evidence or alluding evidence too, is that Hillary
Speaker 1: had a part of her being let off the hook
Speaker 1: for the server and email scandal. The same goes for
Speaker 1: the attacks on Trump's campaign and presidency. It almost seems
Speaker 1: like she's innocent for just this piece, even if Obama
Speaker 1: is involved, doesn't seem to lead to Hillary unfortunately. Can
Speaker 1: you please take your share of thoughts on this one.
Speaker 1: Thank you a loyal fan. I don't think I've seen
Speaker 1: any evidence or that Hillary had a part of her
Speaker 1: being let off the hook, John, So I think you're
Speaker 1: asking me just so I'm clear on the question if
Speaker 1: Hillary exerted any influencer, did anything elicit to get the
Speaker 1: decision that she wanted, which was obviously the non prosecution
Speaker 1: decision from the Department of Justice. And I would say
Speaker 1: that the bigger problem is that I don't think she
Speaker 1: had to do that. I think that that was done
Speaker 1: for her. So in many ways that's even more concerning
Speaker 1: that the apparatus of the DOJ and the federal government
Speaker 1: and the Attorney General at the time, Loretta Lynch and
Speaker 1: James Comey they knew. And this is why Loretta Lynch
Speaker 1: had that tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton where he was like,
Speaker 1: I just want to talk about grandchildren and not whether
Speaker 1: or not you're going to prosecute Hillary, because that's not
Speaker 1: like on the front of my mind a few days
Speaker 1: from the declamation decision that you're going to give to
Speaker 1: Comey to back you up for the whole country. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I think that they they knew, I mean, Queen Hillary
Speaker 1: was never gonna get prosecuted. That was never gonna happen.
Speaker 1: They just went through the motions and that the fix
Speaker 1: was in from the beginning. So I don't think you
Speaker 1: could say that Hillary took any action to make James
Speaker 1: Coomey not prosecutor. But she did take actions to destroy evidence,
Speaker 1: to lie, to break the law. But she's a Clinton,
Speaker 1: So I guess we don't expect much more on that one.
Speaker 1: And now we have Edward who writes, this is not
Speaker 1: the way our legal system works. How do you prove
Speaker 1: a negative? You cannot. So he either obstructed justice and
Speaker 1: can prove it, or he didn't indict or innocent. That
Speaker 1: is how our legal system works. So damn tired of hearing.
Speaker 1: But we didn't clear President Trump of obstruction charters. Our
Speaker 1: courts don't clear people. They convict guilty people. Edward, you
Speaker 1: know more about the law, apparently than Bob Muller and
Speaker 1: his team of angry partisan Democrats. So there we have it.
Speaker 1: Another fantastic Buck sex and shown the books. Please team,
Speaker 1: do me a solid, do me a favor, Share the
Speaker 1: iTunes link with one friend this weekend, or at least
Speaker 1: tell somebody, Hey, have you heard the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: It's pretty awesome. The guy's got a podcast. He's kind
Speaker 1: of funny sometimes. Talk to you all Monday, Shield Hie