Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. California fires burn out
Speaker 1: of control and people are starting to look at the
Speaker 1: state and the blackouts and all the problems and say,
Speaker 1: what is going on. We'll get into that, and plus
Speaker 1: the latest on the VINMN testimony in closed door session,
Speaker 1: what really happened there, Epstein suicide, some new questions, and
Speaker 1: also when should bosses just get out of the way?
Speaker 1: Animore coming up on the Buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake America, You're a great American Again the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show begins. He's a great guy. No, Welcome to Buck
Speaker 1: Saxon Show. Everybody a lot to get to today. We'll
Speaker 1: have more on the process of Nancy Pelosi and Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff trying to do an impeachment behind closed doors where
Speaker 1: there's no transparency. Man, I have so many things I
Speaker 1: want to hit today. I'm not even sure we'll get
Speaker 1: to them all. Free college in New Mexico paid for
Speaker 1: by oil though, Oh that could be a problem. Almost
Speaker 1: eighty thousand unaccompanied minor children showed up the border so far.
Speaker 1: This I believe it's this past fiscal year, and were
Speaker 1: there efforts to change the transcript of the phone call
Speaker 1: between Presidents Lensky and President Trump. We have oh Is
Speaker 1: questioning Lieutenant Colonel Vinman on patriotic We'll get into that
Speaker 1: and so much more. I wanted to start, though, with
Speaker 1: a question that I posed to our our guest yesterday, Tiana,
Speaker 1: the esteemed Tiana Low of the Washington Examiner. She's a
Speaker 1: California native. Perhaps we'll get Victor Davis Hanson, one of
Speaker 1: my favorite living authors, Victor Davis Hansen, to come on
Speaker 1: and join us, because he has always had some very
Speaker 1: worthwhile thoughts about just what the heck is going on
Speaker 1: in California. Where is the political backlash to problems that
Speaker 1: now are just blaringly obvious, that are just staring everyone
Speaker 1: in the face. And I wanted to start, well, actually,
Speaker 1: let's review some of what's going on there. You right
Speaker 1: now have fires that are even threatening the Reagan Library,
Speaker 1: fires burning out of control. If the winds get bad,
Speaker 1: you could see hundreds and hundreds of homes perhaps who
Speaker 1: knows how many millions and millions of dollars have damage done,
Speaker 1: People losing all their personal belongings, and of course, most importantly,
Speaker 1: most urgently, the possibility of people in harm's way, as
Speaker 1: these fires can burn very fast, very quickly, changed direction,
Speaker 1: and you can be caught in a place where there's
Speaker 1: just no way to help, there's no one who can
Speaker 1: get to you in time. You have these fires, then
Speaker 1: you also have the blackouts. And the fires and the
Speaker 1: blackouts are related. And I'm keep in mind this is
Speaker 1: not just a state. California is the fifth largest economy
Speaker 1: in the world by itself, and because of the political
Speaker 1: monoculture that exists there, it is largely now a standard
Speaker 1: bearer of unfettered liberalism, progressivism without any speed bumps or
Speaker 1: breaks put on it. Just go all in progressive, very
Speaker 1: high taxes, tremendous regulation, left wing special interest dictating policy.
Speaker 1: Now you have the problem with the blackouts tied to
Speaker 1: the fires, because the blackouts that are currently affecting almost
Speaker 1: forty million or could effect up to forty million people
Speaker 1: in the state of California, are a result of concerns
Speaker 1: over the fires. Why do you have fires in California
Speaker 1: like this? And by the way, the fires are more
Speaker 1: devastating in recent years than had been the past. People
Speaker 1: want to point to climate change, but in fact, there
Speaker 1: were more fires overall earlier in history if you look
Speaker 1: at the data on this, So there's not it's not
Speaker 1: that there are more fires that but fires have become
Speaker 1: more devastating. Why is that they will tell us it's
Speaker 1: because of climate change. That's just they're just pointing to
Speaker 1: the thing that makes them happiest as an answer. It's
Speaker 1: much more likely that the natural state that many of
Speaker 1: the environmentalist groups in California insist on for the forested areas,
Speaker 1: meaning leave all the dead brush, leave all the stuff there,
Speaker 1: don't do any controlled burns, and don't do any active
Speaker 1: forestry management, just let everything pile up. That then results
Speaker 1: in much more devastating, fast burning fires in many areas
Speaker 1: of the state. And then you also have the blackouts
Speaker 1: that have come down. A PG and E, which is
Speaker 1: the major utility company involved here, has insisted on voluntary blackouts,
Speaker 1: at least voluntary from perspective of the company does not
Speaker 1: have to do this thing, but is doing it because
Speaker 1: they don't want liability for fires that are caused by
Speaker 1: down power lines. All right, so when there are fires
Speaker 1: going on, they're concerned about being blamed for fires that
Speaker 1: result from a down power line. Obviously, if the fire
Speaker 1: stretches in and hits some of the power lines, or
Speaker 1: if winds pick up, which is a concern about the fire.
Speaker 1: There's all these different components of risk for PG and E,
Speaker 1: and so what do they do. They say, Fine, We're
Speaker 1: just gonna turn off the power. Now, this is something
Speaker 1: that you generally associate with a third world country, having
Speaker 1: been in countries where in the middle of a day,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, all the lights go out, all
Speaker 1: the computers go blank, the air conditioning shuts off. If
Speaker 1: they have air conditioning, You say to yourself, what just happened, Oh,
Speaker 1: just you know, a blackout. They'll be on hopefully in
Speaker 1: an hour or two, and everyone just kind of goes okay.
Speaker 1: I don't think the people of California should get used
Speaker 1: to that. I don't think that they should accept this
Speaker 1: as the future, as the status quo. But I do
Speaker 1: wonder when will they wake up to what's really going
Speaker 1: on here? When will they recognize that First of all,
Speaker 1: less than ten percent of fires are started by down
Speaker 1: of these major forest fires are started started by down
Speaker 1: electrical lines, and all the all the judgments that are
Speaker 1: being made right now by PG and E are very
Speaker 1: much affected by the hyper regulatory environment that insists on
Speaker 1: by the way, having the power company extend their networks
Speaker 1: to housing developments in what are considered very high fire areas,
Speaker 1: even though the power company is like, well, that's going
Speaker 1: to be bad for us, because what happens if there's
Speaker 1: a fire caused by a downpower line in that high
Speaker 1: risk area? Up, you're going to be You're going to
Speaker 1: be held responsible. In fact, the state of California holds
Speaker 1: the power company responsible regardless of negligence. So they're trying
Speaker 1: to provide power up something bad happens, power company is
Speaker 1: responsible now, and this is part of the litigious anti
Speaker 1: corporate attitude, even though it's a utility company not really technically,
Speaker 1: it's not really a private corporation the same way, but
Speaker 1: some big depocketed corporate entity has to pay when bad
Speaker 1: things happen to people. This is another liberal idea, although
Speaker 1: sometimes it crosses party lines. California is a one party government, folks.
Speaker 1: So when we look at the exploding homeless population on
Speaker 1: the streets of California cities, when we look at the
Speaker 1: terrible water management issues where they've had stretching back for
Speaker 1: years now, concerns about drought and what are we going
Speaker 1: to do. California as a as a piece of land,
Speaker 1: as a piece of territory, should be paradise. Basically, it's
Speaker 1: incredibly rich in natural resources. You have an amazingly hospitable
Speaker 1: natural climate there for agriculture, obviously for growing wine up
Speaker 1: in Napa and Sonoma, as well as other places in
Speaker 1: the state of California. It's there's oil in California, there's
Speaker 1: natural There's just tremendous natural resources in California. But there
Speaker 1: have been mismanaged horribly by those who are blinded by ideology.
Speaker 1: And now we get into this. So so what happens
Speaker 1: now there's the flow from California of families, especially young
Speaker 1: working families, that are saying, we're done with this. We're
Speaker 1: going to Nevada, We're going to Texas, We're going to
Speaker 1: North Carolina, perhaps Tennessee. I don't know, but they're just
Speaker 1: leaving places in California because I can't take it anymore.
Speaker 1: The Golden State is no longer golden for them. They've
Speaker 1: had enough. Now that part of your mind that thinks
Speaker 1: about the federalist system that we have and the experiments
Speaker 1: of government in all the individual states. There should be
Speaker 1: a little bit of a light going off there. When
Speaker 1: will people learn the lesson? Oh, but they'll tell us
Speaker 1: California so wealthy. Look at how wealthy it is. Look
Speaker 1: at how many people live there. Well, a lot of
Speaker 1: people live there because they've been born into this state
Speaker 1: that is getting over time increasingly poorly managed. But there
Speaker 1: are also enormous concentrations of wealth in Silicon Valley and
Speaker 1: in Hollywood. Those are the two big ones that you
Speaker 1: generally think of, But remember those are now appealing to
Speaker 1: a global marketplace. They're not just local company towns. You know,
Speaker 1: they're not really responsible for the state of California. You know,
Speaker 1: they pay high taxes, or they have armies of accountants
Speaker 1: and try to avoid taxation as much as possible. And
Speaker 1: there's a lot of ways that corporatism and big government
Speaker 1: go hand in hand, go together. But you'll notice that
Speaker 1: progressives have not yet figured out. They haven't yet connected
Speaker 1: the dots here as to why are all these things
Speaker 1: happening in this state? How is it that the same
Speaker 1: state that is home to the most wealthy technology corporations
Speaker 1: in the world. Well, I mean I guess Amazon's technically
Speaker 1: not California base, but Google and Facebook and well all
Speaker 1: of them are on YouTube's owned by Google, all these
Speaker 1: different companies that are based out there. That's the same
Speaker 1: state now that has blackouts for millions of people when
Speaker 1: there's a fire going somewhere in the state. That seems
Speaker 1: to be a warning sign, doesn't it. But here's the problem.
Speaker 1: Progressives can live off this so called can live off
Speaker 1: the fat of the land for a while. They can
Speaker 1: take what they can and it over the period of
Speaker 1: time that they are running in economy in this case
Speaker 1: of state economy into a ground, into the ground. They
Speaker 1: will always come up with new excuses to why this
Speaker 1: is happening. You also have in that progressive stronghold on
Speaker 1: the left coast the wealth inequality that is looking like
Speaker 1: a third world country while they're pretending to be doing
Speaker 1: so much to help working people. At some point there
Speaker 1: may come a moment of recognition. I would hope for
Speaker 1: the people of California and for the entire Every time
Speaker 1: I say that, I think the people of California with NATO,
Speaker 1: with Schwartzenega. Schwartzenega took on the public sector unions that
Speaker 1: are politically unbeatable in the state and they just crushed him.
Speaker 1: And that was after they had the recall of that governor.
Speaker 1: So politics has been largely dysfunctional there because it's a
Speaker 1: one party state. But progressives never learned a lesson, you see,
Speaker 1: That's what you really have to take away from this.
Speaker 1: They don't see cause and effect. They just come up
Speaker 1: with theories. Oh it's climate change. Oh it's because the
Speaker 1: rich aren't paying their fair share. It's always a slogan.
Speaker 1: It's never rooted in cause and effect, the reality of
Speaker 1: what's really happening day to day, what decisions are made,
Speaker 1: and what are the consequences of those decisions, especially by
Speaker 1: the state government. These things take time, right, It takes
Speaker 1: time to ruin a city, as we see here in
Speaker 1: New York with Mari de Blasio. It takes time to
Speaker 1: ruin a state. The problem with waiting until all the
Speaker 1: results are in there's really twofold. One then things are ruined,
Speaker 1: and two they won't even take responsibility once they've destroyed
Speaker 1: the thing that you've been warning them all along they
Speaker 1: were destroying. That's really part of the lesson of mismanagement
Speaker 1: in California, in many major cities that are Democrats strongholds,
Speaker 1: whether it's Detroit or Chicago or Baltimore. It's never the
Speaker 1: fault of the people in charge, you see, there's always
Speaker 1: external factors. It's almost like the Venezuela playbook here. Well,
Speaker 1: it's not that the Majuro regime and before the Chavez
Speaker 1: regime turned a generally well off South American country into
Speaker 1: an impoverished, anarchic waste land. It's the Yankee Americans were
Speaker 1: the ones that ruin this country. You know, if you
Speaker 1: talk about Chicago, you talking about Baltimore, talking about the
Speaker 1: whole state of California. Now, it can't be the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: It can't be the policies of the left which make
Speaker 1: people feel good and can sound good, but in practice
Speaker 1: our disastrous. Whether it's water management, forestry, dealing with fires,
Speaker 1: management of utility companies, economic inequality, all these different areas
Speaker 1: where California is just a disaster. They don't learn the lesson,
Speaker 1: which is one of the reasons why we can't just
Speaker 1: allow them to play out their experiment. We have to
Speaker 1: try and come up with a counter argument, come up
Speaker 1: with an alternative that people will believe in enough to
Speaker 1: take power out of the hands of the left wing idealogues,
Speaker 1: the central planners of progressivism, and give it to people
Speaker 1: who know what the heck they're doing and will govern
Speaker 1: based on not just the will of the people as
Speaker 1: they see it, but on the results of their policies.
Speaker 1: They can tell us all day about how terrible Trump is.
Speaker 1: Look at how the country's doing, Trump's the president. Look
Speaker 1: at how California is doing. Democrats were on the whole state.
Speaker 1: I think the proof is in the pudding, as they say,
Speaker 1: my friends, but don't expect them to learn that less
Speaker 1: than any time soon. There's always a ready excuse when
Speaker 1: you're talking about leftist no matter how much they destroy
Speaker 1: what should be a great state, a great place. And
Speaker 1: that's what they're doing right now. The President's done a
Speaker 1: lot of work to strengthen the alliances that perhaps were
Speaker 1: neglected in the previous administration. And what we found is
Speaker 1: that by working with our partners in our allies throughout
Speaker 1: the world, we're able to create better burden sharing, and
Speaker 1: we're able to find ways to hopefully resolve some of
Speaker 1: the more difficult situations in the world without escalating them.
Speaker 1: And so again, all the things that the people were saying,
Speaker 1: who are against the president. Last time, we're saying would happen,
Speaker 1: that we're bad if the president want hapn't happened. And
Speaker 1: then you know, the next morning, the sun rose, in
Speaker 1: the next evening, the sun set, and Americans. America's gotten
Speaker 1: more and more prosperous, and I think people really like
Speaker 1: what the president's doing. The last part people would argue with,
Speaker 1: but the part right before it, and I was Jared
Speaker 1: Kushtier By the way, we don't hear very much from
Speaker 1: from Jared, But America is getting more and more prosperous.
Speaker 1: Things things are going well. I like to judge a
Speaker 1: politician by the results of policies and by what happens
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of their decisions, not by what the
Speaker 1: media tells me needs to happen. You know, there's all
Speaker 1: these conversations that Kenny had about healthcare, about the border,
Speaker 1: about the economy, about trade with China. These are issues
Speaker 1: that matter. But instead of what you have on the
Speaker 1: left is this obsession with just trying to come up
Speaker 1: with some excuse to impeach the president when we know
Speaker 1: they're going to impeach him no matter what they find,
Speaker 1: no matter what the excuses, doesn't matter. It's all. It's
Speaker 1: all just a ruse. It's a sham, it's a scam.
Speaker 1: Who told you? I told you, I'm not the only
Speaker 1: one that the Russia collusion thing was a joke, and
Speaker 1: then it all happened. We went through this investigation and yeah,
Speaker 1: guess what, I was right. I'm telling you again, this
Speaker 1: old Ukraine thing is ridiculous. We already have the transcript,
Speaker 1: and now they're saying, oh, maybe maybe there are changes
Speaker 1: that need to be made of the transcript, but in
Speaker 1: case you don't know, really, just how worthwhile and brilliant
Speaker 1: The mainstream media is MSNBC's Nicole Wallace, Republican administration official
Speaker 1: by the way, and the Bush administration, she's one of those.
Speaker 1: Here's what she said about Fox News Fox News conversation
Speaker 1: dealing with Alexander Vinman, who's the one who testified recently
Speaker 1: about Ukraine, played twenty three. Here we have a US
Speaker 1: national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside
Speaker 1: the White House, apparently against the President's interest, and usually
Speaker 1: they spoke in English. Isn't that kind of an interesting
Speaker 1: angle on this story? I find that astounding, And you know,
Speaker 1: some people might call that espionage, except those people aren't
Speaker 1: chicken like the three of you, and they know that
Speaker 1: he passed a background check that the president's daughter and
Speaker 1: son in latdn't. I think, I don't know jo conversation.
Speaker 1: That's right, Nicole, you heard that. In the beginning, it
Speaker 1: was Laura Ingraham, then John You talking on Fox News.
Speaker 1: But then Nicole Wallace comes in to say that they
Speaker 1: are chicken bleeps. That's the kind of astute analysis, the
Speaker 1: kind of adult conversation you can expect over at MSNBC
Speaker 1: these days. When I tell you that Trump derangement syndrome
Speaker 1: is real, that it makes people crazy, that they can't
Speaker 1: make normal, rational decisions because of their hatred for Trump,
Speaker 1: I really mean that it overrides other decision making processes.
Speaker 1: The hatred of Trump becomes the primary motivation for anything
Speaker 1: and everything. But let's talk more about this congressional impeachment
Speaker 1: situation in Men and all the rest of it. Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: among many things, has been trying to claim that this
Speaker 1: is a fair process by saying that Republicans are allowed
Speaker 1: to ask questions. Now he gets to choose all the
Speaker 1: witnesses and him and himself only, which means it's not
Speaker 1: a fair process. On the face. But even his claim
Speaker 1: now that Republicans can ask questions has been undermined because
Speaker 1: now he's directing witnesses not to answer questions that he
Speaker 1: doesn't want the witness to answer if they're asked by Republicans.
Speaker 1: He's not cut off one Democrat, he's not interrupted one
Speaker 1: Democrat and told the witness not to answer Democrat members questions.
Speaker 1: But today he started telling witnesses the witness not to
Speaker 1: answer questions by certain Republicans. That reeks. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if you want to talk about a Soviet style process again,
Speaker 1: that might be what they do in the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: not in the United States of America. We can't stand
Speaker 1: for this. The American people are being denied equal justice. Well,
Speaker 1: I've plodded the speaker for finally admitting it is a
Speaker 1: hood tire sham, but you can't put the genie back
Speaker 1: in the bottom. A due process starts at the beginning.
Speaker 1: It doesn't affirm a missham investigation all the way through.
Speaker 1: If you were in the legal term, it'd be the
Speaker 1: fruit from the poisonous tree. It'd be a mistrial. None
Speaker 1: of this said, none of this information would go forward.
Speaker 1: But what's most important to the American public. We all
Speaker 1: have the phone call, we all have the transcript, we
Speaker 1: are all able to see there was no quid pro quote,
Speaker 1: the money was released. Ukraine did nothing and no action
Speaker 1: was taken. Where's the crime, where's the impeachment? What's the
Speaker 1: impeachable offense? The American public sees that we should move on,
Speaker 1: and they continue to try to move a whole sham organization.
Speaker 1: It's not going to work. Well, we're not going to
Speaker 1: move on, not for sure. The Democrats won't allow it.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about all of us. Yeah, the process,
Speaker 1: what's going on behind closed doors? What has Shifty Shift
Speaker 1: been up to? Also this former NFC staffer Vinman and
Speaker 1: his testimony and all the brew haha over that, We've
Speaker 1: got our friend Sean Davis with us now. He is
Speaker 1: co founder of the Federalists. Go to the Federalist dot
Speaker 1: com for his latest Sean, Thank you so much, sir,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. All right, man, let's start with
Speaker 1: the process. What was this yesterday about Shift telling people?
Speaker 1: So he picks the witnesses, then he has the witnesses
Speaker 1: testifying behind closed doors, and then he tells the witnesses
Speaker 1: sometimes don't answer that how does this work? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: kind of amazing. I think the best analog would be
Speaker 1: to think of a criminal trial where the prosecutor is
Speaker 1: also the judge and also the jury. And in this example,
Speaker 1: the prosecutor can call whoever he wants, question whoever he wants,
Speaker 1: present whatever evidence he wants, but he won't allow the
Speaker 1: defense to call any witnesses, won't allow the defense to
Speaker 1: present or question evidence, and won't even allow the defense
Speaker 1: to cross examine or ask questions of witnesses. I think
Speaker 1: calling this a Soviet style show trial is probably unfair
Speaker 1: to Soviet show trials. And what happened yesterday was Vinman,
Speaker 1: this NFC staffer was asked, Hey, who did you share
Speaker 1: all this information with? Who did you share the transcript
Speaker 1: or read out information with? Who did you lead information to?
Speaker 1: And it was at that point that shift told him
Speaker 1: not to answer. That isn't just a shocking obstruction of
Speaker 1: what it's supposed to be a fact finding process? Here?
Speaker 1: What do we know about where Nancy Pelosi is on
Speaker 1: all this? They have had some vote on or there's
Speaker 1: a presentation of a process here, they've got a resolution.
Speaker 1: Where does the process stand for this impeachment? Inquiry whatever
Speaker 1: they're calling it. I mean, can you just bring us
Speaker 1: up to speed on where this is right now? Well,
Speaker 1: it's nowhere because this investigation they keep referencing is non existent.
Speaker 1: And the reason I say that is because in the Constitution,
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives is vested with the authority to
Speaker 1: conduct impeachment. Now, a single member of Congress is not
Speaker 1: the House of re Presentatives. Leadership is not the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi is not the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: The House of Representatives is clearly what it states, It's
Speaker 1: the body as a whole. And that body has never,
Speaker 1: not a single time, authorized any of these types of
Speaker 1: investigations into Trump. And so the way the process works
Speaker 1: is when you don't have the entire House delegating specific
Speaker 1: authority to a specific committee, you are left with the
Speaker 1: authority of those various committees and their limited jurisdictions. So
Speaker 1: Intelligence they can look at Intel activities, appropriations, they can
Speaker 1: look at funding activities, Defense can look at the Defense Department.
Speaker 1: But what is happening instead of the Intel Committee led
Speaker 1: by Adam Schiff, is doing things that are far outside
Speaker 1: of its jurisdiction, subpoenaing people that they have no authority
Speaker 1: to subpoena. And then you have Pelosi understanding that this
Speaker 1: is a sham process, one that's not authorized, and now
Speaker 1: facing a court challenge on that matter. She's trying to
Speaker 1: come and clean up the mess after the fact with
Speaker 1: this resolution, and has put her in a real bind.
Speaker 1: She's having to rescue a scam tainted process without actually
Speaker 1: authorizing a new, real investigation, because that in itself would
Speaker 1: prove that the previous one was in valid. So she's
Speaker 1: got a real mess on her hands nowt Now, just
Speaker 1: for everybody listening, Sean worked in Congress. He was an
Speaker 1: investigator what was for Senator Coburn, Yes, Senator Coburn. So
Speaker 1: he knows about these processes and how this stuff all
Speaker 1: goes on. He's been a part of all that. Sean,
Speaker 1: what do you expect to happen next? It seems like
Speaker 1: it seems like it's some level the Democrats don't even know.
Speaker 1: All they know is they want control of it and
Speaker 1: they want to be able to change it day to
Speaker 1: day to suit their needs. But do you have some
Speaker 1: sense of how their strategy is going to play out,
Speaker 1: what the timeline is they're working with here? I'm not
Speaker 1: even sure they have a strategy at this point, I
Speaker 1: think what they were going with was fire, aim and
Speaker 1: then ready. They're kind of the dog that caught the
Speaker 1: car at this point. Look, the Mueller investigation was a
Speaker 1: failure for them. Mueller's testimony blew up in their faces,
Speaker 1: and they've been searching ever since for an excuse to
Speaker 1: have an impeachment show trial. And so when Schiff and
Speaker 1: his team coordinated with this so called whistleblower to cook
Speaker 1: all this up, they said, oh, well, this is it.
Speaker 1: And originally as they said, oh, we're going to impeach
Speaker 1: him by November, well, I mean it's going to be
Speaker 1: November in two days. Oh we're gonna impeach him by Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's happening. Oh well, we might do
Speaker 1: it by Christmas. I think they've lost control here. They
Speaker 1: realize that there's no there there, that the public's not
Speaker 1: with him, and so I think at this point what
Speaker 1: you're going to see is them trying to drag the
Speaker 1: process out as long as possible so that the process
Speaker 1: itself is punishment against Trump, that they can use it
Speaker 1: as this cloud over his head heading into the elections,
Speaker 1: much like they used the two year long Muller investigation.
Speaker 1: The whole purpose of that was, you know, maybe we'll
Speaker 1: get lucky and he'll get thrown out of office, but
Speaker 1: if not, we're going to paralyze him for two years.
Speaker 1: And they just decided in this process here, yeah, we
Speaker 1: might not get what we actually want, but we're going
Speaker 1: to paralyze them for a year heading into the election.
Speaker 1: It's political. Is there going to be an impeachment vote
Speaker 1: in the House. I've always felt like they're going to
Speaker 1: impeach him no matter what, just because they really want to.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even if it's bad politics for them for
Speaker 1: the election. I still think they're going to do it
Speaker 1: because they can't help themselves. Is there a future in
Speaker 1: which you see the Democrat majority House not vote to
Speaker 1: impeach the president, not present articles of impeachment against him
Speaker 1: on the House floor. So I'm with you. Ever since
Speaker 1: the whole Molar thing started, I said, you know, they're
Speaker 1: it is not going to allow them to not impeach him.
Speaker 1: They're gonna ppeach him for any reason or no reason.
Speaker 1: But as this process has dragged along, and as we've
Speaker 1: watched Pelosi refused to even have a vote to authorize
Speaker 1: an actual impeachment investigation. I'm beginning to think they're concerned
Speaker 1: about their own politics here, because there's no procedural upside
Speaker 1: to them avoiding a vote just allowing an investigation, So
Speaker 1: there must be some reason why they're not doing it.
Speaker 1: I can think of two. Either they don't have the
Speaker 1: votes at all, which I don't think is the case,
Speaker 1: or they know that may King thirty or so swing
Speaker 1: district members to walk the plank his political suicide for them.
Speaker 1: So if they can't even get to a vote authorizing
Speaker 1: an investigation, I'm not sure anymore they are ever going
Speaker 1: to get to a vote for impeachment. And I suspect
Speaker 1: we may drag into twenty twenty and into the Democrat
Speaker 1: primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire with them still having
Speaker 1: not resolved it, which will be an absolute disaster for them,
Speaker 1: given that I think half their members in the Senate
Speaker 1: are currently running for president. Now let's talk about Vinman,
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel Vinman, who I've been hearing so much about
Speaker 1: from the media, and it's the usual how dare you
Speaker 1: question this military man, which reminds me of how dare
Speaker 1: you questioned James Come? And then we found out that
Speaker 1: he was the worst. And how dare you questioned, Mueller?
Speaker 1: We found out that he was basically pulled out of
Speaker 1: like the retirement home in order to pretend to be
Speaker 1: running this investigation. It really seemed like you had no
Speaker 1: idea what was going on. What do you make of
Speaker 1: this story that Vinman now may have tried to change
Speaker 1: the transcript of the phone call between the President and Zelenski?
Speaker 1: What do you see here? What should we take away
Speaker 1: from that? So I'll tell you, I'm amused by the
Speaker 1: theatrics and faux hysteria over any questioning of Vinman, given
Speaker 1: how we saw that these same people treated Michael Flynn,
Speaker 1: who was a very well decorated combat officer, three star general.
Speaker 1: I just can't take they call him a traitor, routinely,
Speaker 1: routinely called him. Yeah, Sally Yates, you know, said he
Speaker 1: had violated the Logan Act. I mean, come on, So
Speaker 1: these people are not serious. A huge part of their
Speaker 1: political operation is to shout down anyone who says or
Speaker 1: asked anything they don't like, Just like shifted when Vinman
Speaker 1: was asked, who did you leak to yesterday? You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened with him editing a transcript
Speaker 1: or not. I'll tell you I'm skeptical of any leaks
Speaker 1: that are obviously coming from Shift's office. The guy's a
Speaker 1: liar and a fabricator, and he can't be trusted. I
Speaker 1: will say that what concerns me most is, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm very thankful for Vinman's service and the sacrifices he
Speaker 1: may in the armed services for US, but I'm extremely
Speaker 1: concerned about an active duty uniform military officer going behind
Speaker 1: the President's back, trying to subvert his process, leaking to people,
Speaker 1: and taking part in what sure looks like an attempt
Speaker 1: at coup against the commander in chief. I think that's
Speaker 1: really problematic. When you have active duty military, you have
Speaker 1: Intelligence service and Security Service operatives inside the House attempting
Speaker 1: to criminalize differing foreign policy views that the president their
Speaker 1: commander has. This is really really dangerous stuff, and I
Speaker 1: worry that once you start going down this road, you
Speaker 1: can never actually go back. And in terms of what
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe from this, it seems to me that, Okay,
Speaker 1: there's that leak about maybe he wanted to change the transcript,
Speaker 1: that to me is meant to undermine what a lot
Speaker 1: of us have come away from this thinking which is, Okay,
Speaker 1: we know what was said on the call. I don't
Speaker 1: care what somebody else thinks about what was said on
Speaker 1: the call, whether they liked it or I know what
Speaker 1: was said on the call. Therefore, I don't you know,
Speaker 1: this is just more opinions of people who clearly don't
Speaker 1: like and don't agree with the president on these issues
Speaker 1: or perhaps on any issue. So that to me is
Speaker 1: maybe just to get around that problem for them. But
Speaker 1: what you know as of now, what exactly is the
Speaker 1: article of impeachment about this phone call supposed to say?
Speaker 1: What if there's not a crime, this is supposed to be?
Speaker 1: What abuse of power? That's I'm not even clear on
Speaker 1: what the line of attack is. Well, look at the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, I believe the day Trump was inaugurated said
Speaker 1: his impeachment begins now. So the real crime here is
Speaker 1: that Trump beat Hillary Clinton. That has always been the crime.
Speaker 1: It's unpardonable and they will never forgive him for it.
Speaker 1: So the last three years has been a futile fishing
Speaker 1: expedition for maybe something that they can pretend is the
Speaker 1: real reason they want to get rid of Trump, when
Speaker 1: in reality the real reason is they want to get
Speaker 1: rid of him because he beat Hillary. So looking at
Speaker 1: that call, of course, there's no crime in there. This
Speaker 1: is a president trying to enact his own foreign policy.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry when you go down into the chain
Speaker 1: of command in the military, it is not the job
Speaker 1: of an O five detail to the White House to
Speaker 1: determine what is or is not allowed by the president
Speaker 1: in conducting the foreign policy. There's a reason we have
Speaker 1: civilian control of the military and civilian control of government
Speaker 1: in this country, and it's because the founders knew that
Speaker 1: civilians needed to be accountable to the people who elected them.
Speaker 1: So when you have uniform military officers going in there,
Speaker 1: marching into these congressional rooms and saying, you know, this
Speaker 1: guy's awful. He tried to do things that I didn't
Speaker 1: agree with, that's not how this country is run. Do
Speaker 1: you think we're going to find out who whistle blower is, Well,
Speaker 1: I think shift is desperate to make sure that never happens.
Speaker 1: And I'll say, look, everyone in the media knows who
Speaker 1: it is. Everyone on the Democratic side knows who it is.
Speaker 1: Leaks were coming out about this long before it happened.
Speaker 1: In fact, the whistleblower was colluding with SHIFT before ever
Speaker 1: filing the complaints, and it was interesting, Shift before all
Speaker 1: that came out, said oh, we've got to get him
Speaker 1: in here. We've got to get his testimony. He needs
Speaker 1: to come and testify. Most of us are like, yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I want to know what this guy was up to.
Speaker 1: But as soon as it was revealed that SHIFT was
Speaker 1: colluding with him secretly before the complaint was filed, and
Speaker 1: the SHIFT lied about it, Shifted an immediate one eighty
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure we've even heard about the guy
Speaker 1: ever since, which I find fascinating. Sean Davis, everybody check
Speaker 1: out the Federalist dot com. They're doing great work over there, Sean.
Speaker 1: Always appreciate your perspective, sir. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Always a pleasure, Thank you. Buck. They can't fix it.
Speaker 1: The process is broken, it's tainted. They have gone through
Speaker 1: this process where you have seen one side of the story.
Speaker 1: It's been an effort to get one side of facts
Speaker 1: and then to selectively leak those facts in order to
Speaker 1: taint the president. The idea that we want to know
Speaker 1: through this individual may have communicated with that's important informations
Speaker 1: and the idea that when during our hour, our counsel's
Speaker 1: asking questions and Adam Shift tells the witness not to
Speaker 1: answer our questions is completely ridiculous, and it's why this
Speaker 1: should be in public. It's not possible to look at
Speaker 1: what's going on right now and come away from it
Speaker 1: thinking anything other than this is a get Trump procedure,
Speaker 1: another get Trump procedure from Democrats, unless you are so
Speaker 1: deluded with anti Trump sentiment that it's no longer possible
Speaker 1: for you to be objective. And I think, unfortunately that's
Speaker 1: a widespread problem now. I think there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people out there who have been completely and utterly
Speaker 1: their sanity on all issues of Trump has been taken
Speaker 1: away from them. They just can't find a way to
Speaker 1: step back and say, Okay, what's really true here, what's
Speaker 1: really going on. I also believe that the American people
Speaker 1: must be getting very tired of this. The ones who
Speaker 1: hate Trump, you know, the the twenty or thirty percent
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party that or maybe twenty thirty percent
Speaker 1: of voters who are Democrats. They hate Trump so much
Speaker 1: that any thing that is damaging for the president. It's
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, when the hamster hits the little
Speaker 1: pedal and gets the gets to eat the pellet or whatever.
Speaker 1: You know. They just they want more, they need more.
Speaker 1: They can't stop. And that's what CNN is set up
Speaker 1: to do. In MSNBC and New York Times and The
Speaker 1: Washington Post and many many other places, they're all just
Speaker 1: trying to feed a a brainwashed audience more anti more,
Speaker 1: a steady diet of anti Trump isn't because that's what
Speaker 1: they think their audience wants to hear and read and see.
Speaker 1: And I think that's largely true. I can't imagine that
Speaker 1: most Americans care all that much about these shenanigans. I
Speaker 1: can't imagine anybody watches Adam Schiff give these press conferences
Speaker 1: where he just has this you know, cold look in
Speaker 1: his eyes. That is, well, the President of the United
Speaker 1: States clearly violated the Constitution, and he really looks like
Speaker 1: somebody out of you know, like American horror story something.
Speaker 1: He's a creepy guy, and there's no sense of decency
Speaker 1: or warmth or anything from him. Who votes for Adam
Speaker 1: ship That's what I really want to know. Well, I
Speaker 1: just look and stare at the camera and my eyes
Speaker 1: don't blink, but I want to tell you that this
Speaker 1: president is the worst human being in the history of
Speaker 1: the planet. You're like, what is this guy doing? But
Speaker 1: we in the conservative media are forced to continue to
Speaker 1: cover his nonsense because otherwise the charges just go unanswered,
Speaker 1: The allegations are able to just linger out there, and
Speaker 1: that's unfair to the president. This stuff is just what
Speaker 1: a waste, what a waste of time. It is for
Speaker 1: all involved, whether they realize it or not. But when
Speaker 1: you've decided that government power is something that must be
Speaker 1: in the hands of the left, it's intrinsic to your
Speaker 1: sense of well being that you have libs with a
Speaker 1: lot of power to enact what you think is good
Speaker 1: for the country. I suppose then all the rest of
Speaker 1: one's judgment is tainted. And that's what we're seeing, all right,
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. I don't want
Speaker 1: to dive too deep. We've already done a lot on
Speaker 1: the Vineman testimony. But this just this caught my eye
Speaker 1: because one of the media lines about this has been
Speaker 1: about how you can't question Lieutenant Colonel Vinman because he served. Now,
Speaker 1: having seen what many leftists will say about Dan Crenshaw,
Speaker 1: a wounded veteran who served the Navy Seals having seen
Speaker 1: the way as Sean Davis mentioned that they treated thirty
Speaker 1: years of service from General Flynn and then just calling
Speaker 1: him a trader because he made a phone call when
Speaker 1: he was national security advisor to a Russian ambassador. Nothing
Speaker 1: wrong with what he said on that phone call, by
Speaker 1: the way, nothing, but they're calling him a trader. No,
Speaker 1: no problem with that. What I want to throw him
Speaker 1: in prison. That's how much they respected his military service.
Speaker 1: So we know there's a huge double standard with all this.
Speaker 1: But I would just note that former Congressman Sean Duffy,
Speaker 1: whom I know, and I will say he's a very
Speaker 1: nice guy. He's a very nice guy. But he he
Speaker 1: took a job at CNN as a commentator. Now I
Speaker 1: know what that's like. I worked as a CNN commentator
Speaker 1: for a couple of years, which was great. It was
Speaker 1: being behind enemy lines without anybody really they're knowing, although
Speaker 1: they figured they knew I was a little conservative. They
Speaker 1: initially hired me at CNN as a mostly a national
Speaker 1: security analyst. I was doing there. I did a lot
Speaker 1: of terrorism hits. I did hits on terrorism more than
Speaker 1: anything else. Right, counter terrorism issues because of my time
Speaker 1: in CIASCTC, the counter Terrorism Center as well as the
Speaker 1: NYPD Intelligence Division working on counterterism cases. But you know
Speaker 1: who needs the resume right now? You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: But as soon as I became an outspoken conservative during
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election cycle, and especially once I was
Speaker 1: willing to support Donald Trump, then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: they changed their attitude toward me very markedly. Producers, the hosts.
Speaker 1: I was a bad guy. Now. I wasn't just some
Speaker 1: curiosity of a you know, kind of prep you loooking
Speaker 1: x CIA guy that could talk about these things. Now
Speaker 1: it was something else. And then that brings me to
Speaker 1: what happens when you're a conservative at CNN. You have
Speaker 1: to remember, this is your career. If you're in the media,
Speaker 1: right you're trying to build a brand. You're trying to
Speaker 1: do things that will help you grow recognition an audience
Speaker 1: over time. That's what a media career is built on.
Speaker 1: And CNN uses that will use that to make you
Speaker 1: say things you don't really want to say. Usually it's
Speaker 1: mostly going to have you back off. You know, you
Speaker 1: can't really argue with someone the way you'd want to
Speaker 1: because at CNN they will shut you down, they'll tell
Speaker 1: you you're a banned from the show for a while.
Speaker 1: So I wish Congressman Duffy talked to me before going
Speaker 1: to CNN, because I would have told them. I would
Speaker 1: have told him that you're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to be there and get treated with respect as a conservative.
Speaker 1: Just get used to that right now. And it isn't.
Speaker 1: It is a Trump destroying organization. That is what it
Speaker 1: exists to do. And here is Sean Duffy stepping in
Speaker 1: it a little bit over at CNN Play twenty four.
Speaker 1: He's a he is a he's an advisor to the president. UM.
Speaker 1: He is a former Ukrainian. He wants to make sure
Speaker 1: the taxpayer money goes in military. Eight times where going
Speaker 1: to explain that he came up with Fox. He was
Speaker 1: he's an active duty military member, an American who was
Speaker 1: awarded I'm a I'm a virus descent UM. I still
Speaker 1: love the Irish UM and he has an affinity probably
Speaker 1: for his homeland. That's not my point, though, John. My
Speaker 1: point is that he gives advice to the president. He
Speaker 1: doesn't set policy. So the president has a lot of
Speaker 1: advisors who give different opinions in different views, but the
Speaker 1: president is elected by sixty plus million people to actually
Speaker 1: implement the policy, and that's exactly what he did. Oh,
Speaker 1: that turned into quite a feeding frenzy, A dual loyalty
Speaker 1: smear is what that became in the media, in the media,
Speaker 1: and look, it was not It was not a wise
Speaker 1: place for Congressman Duffy to go because the storyline immediately
Speaker 1: becomes wounded veteran, which is what Lieutenant Colonel Vinman is
Speaker 1: and and did fight for his country. This just turns
Speaker 1: into a session where they can club Duffy into submission
Speaker 1: because I think I know what he was trying to say,
Speaker 1: but he said it poorly, which is that there was
Speaker 1: a policy difference that that Vinman had. That manifested itself
Speaker 1: in some of the reaction to Trump's phone call. But
Speaker 1: it is not the place of Lieutenant Colonel Vinman to
Speaker 1: have a policy difference with the president. To bring in
Speaker 1: the oh he's from Ukraine thing was unwise, and uh,
Speaker 1: it was. It was a bad move. But then I
Speaker 1: just have to note that CNN, if you're in the
Speaker 1: family at CNN, if you're a liberal at CNN and
Speaker 1: you say something really stupid, which happens at CNN like
Speaker 1: every five minutes. But if you say something that they
Speaker 1: can't even begin to defend, they'll usually put you on ice,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe somebody else. You know, there'll be some
Speaker 1: public statement from CNNPR about how, oh we you know,
Speaker 1: we don't approve of what was said, and that person
Speaker 1: has been disciplined or there. They'll be off the air
Speaker 1: for a week or two, but then they'll then they'll
Speaker 1: bring you back. What they only do if you're a conservative, though,
Speaker 1: is if you say something dumb on TV, if you
Speaker 1: say something unwise on TV, then all the different anchors
Speaker 1: because you're conservative, so you're disposable to borrow from Rambo
Speaker 1: in First Blood Part two. Expendable, I think is the
Speaker 1: way that he talked about it. Right, You're expendable if
Speaker 1: you're a conservative over at CNN. And that's why Chris
Speaker 1: Cuomo pro Cuomo, you know, trying to be trying to
Speaker 1: brow out, you know, douse bro stuff. Bro Cuomo over
Speaker 1: at CNN trashed his colleague Duffy in a way that
Speaker 1: would never happen if Duffy were a Democrat, but as
Speaker 1: a former Republican congressman, this is what happens at your
Speaker 1: own network twenty five. Former Congressman Sean Duffy this morning
Speaker 1: on CNN smeared Vinman is having allegiance to Ukraine and
Speaker 1: not to the country that Vineman literally fought and bled
Speaker 1: for the United States. Quote, I don't know that he's
Speaker 1: concerned about American policy. Getting Ukraine those weapons to beat
Speaker 1: back the Russians was and is American policy. It was
Speaker 1: passed by the House and the Senate and signed into
Speaker 1: law by the President. According to someone who knows Vinman,
Speaker 1: this is someone who never complains about his wounds, but
Speaker 1: he still walks around with some of the shrapnel in
Speaker 1: his body. This vile dual loyalty smear of an Army
Speaker 1: colonel comes just days after a different smear of a
Speaker 1: different decorated war veteran, the smear by President Trump of
Speaker 1: Ambassador Bill Taylor. You see, if you disagree with even
Speaker 1: Bill Taylor, you're a bad person, You're disloyal, and you're
Speaker 1: trashing veterans. Say, look, this is one of the favorite
Speaker 1: liberal things to talk about. Now, Duffy, I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: saying Duffy didn't mess up. It was a dumb thing
Speaker 1: to say. But when I am telling you, by the way,
Speaker 1: that was not Bro Cuomo, obviously it was. It was
Speaker 1: wrong on my sheet here. You know, hey, we're doing
Speaker 1: a show. I'm sometimes we get that was Jake Tapper,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to get a really mean email
Speaker 1: telling me I'll never work in this town again. So
Speaker 1: I want to make sure I get I get it right.
Speaker 1: You make any mistake where Tapper's concerned, and you know
Speaker 1: you're you're in a whole bunch your your career all
Speaker 1: of a sudden will be will be threatened. He's a really,
Speaker 1: really lovely fellow. But Bro Cuomo over at CNN is
Speaker 1: somebody we'll talk about another time. Jake Tapper was the
Speaker 1: one who I mean, really went after Duffy. The guy
Speaker 1: works for CNN, no one. They're not giving an effort
Speaker 1: to apologize. They're just trashing him because it's necessary right
Speaker 1: now for the bit. It's give an opportunity to make
Speaker 1: it right. And I believe Cuomo Walls and there were
Speaker 1: other anchors as well that if from what I saw
Speaker 1: on the headlines, went after Duffy for this, but Tapper
Speaker 1: just tore into him, and poor guy. I'm sure Duffy
Speaker 1: he's trying to make money, you know, feed his family.
Speaker 1: He's trying to you know, think about some media apportunities.
Speaker 1: He's a I had drinks with a guy in DC.
Speaker 1: He's a really nice dude and a good guy. And
Speaker 1: does anyone think he doesn't like the mility? This is
Speaker 1: the part of this that gets to me. So does
Speaker 1: anyone think he doesn't respect the military? Of course not.
Speaker 1: Duffy's a patriot. He said he got a little caught
Speaker 1: up in something, but then they just just just trash him,
Speaker 1: just just smash him down because he's a Republican. That's
Speaker 1: the way they play the game over there. So I
Speaker 1: just want to know. This is how things are done
Speaker 1: in the media environment that we're currently in. And that's
Speaker 1: why people ask me, who, would you ever go back
Speaker 1: to CNN? Yeah? I would. I would totally go back
Speaker 1: and work for CNN when Jeff Zucker doesn't run it
Speaker 1: and the place is no longer crazy. There we go
Speaker 1: when it actually tries to be doesn't have to be conservative,
Speaker 1: it just can't be insane, and to have to put
Speaker 1: a there's I have a hard pass on working at
Speaker 1: crazy CNN. It's always been liberal, but they used to
Speaker 1: have a little bit more sense of decorum and decency
Speaker 1: about how they treated conservatives. Now the places just turned
Speaker 1: into a into a cesspool. It's grotesque. But anyway, I
Speaker 1: feel bad for I feel bad for Davie just because
Speaker 1: he's working there right now. I'm sure I'll change at
Speaker 1: some point. Eventually people will realize. I mean, maybe the
Speaker 1: CNN audience will realize that they're just being fed propaganda
Speaker 1: under the guise of journalism, which is even worse. The
Speaker 1: inspiration of leaders who are going to put people first
Speaker 1: is so important, and that's going to make people vote.
Speaker 1: Another reason why people are going to vote because Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is manipulate, manipulating the White House and has aligned
Speaker 1: himself with Ices and Saudi Arabia. I take I have
Speaker 1: to say that that is not true. But the most
Speaker 1: important thing that we can do today is vote for civility.
Speaker 1: Vote for a president who's night bring aligned himself with
Speaker 1: the most dangerous foreign nations that are the reason why
Speaker 1: we are had nine to eleven. He's almost like a
Speaker 1: Bond villain who also tells you his whole master plan
Speaker 1: before he tries to kill you, and he just says
Speaker 1: it out loud and as you say this is going
Speaker 1: to be He's a recruiting sergeant for ISIS, Chris. In
Speaker 1: so many ways. Tony mentioned the whole oil argument, which
Speaker 1: has obviously been a narrative for a long time. He
Speaker 1: also is someone who is an islamophobe, which obviously helps
Speaker 1: groups like ISIS recruit disillusion angry young men from across
Speaker 1: the world, not just from across the Middle East. He's featured,
Speaker 1: He's been featured in ISIS recruiting videos in his Muslim
Speaker 1: band has definitely been a recruiting ad for ISIS. So
Speaker 1: in many ways he helps quote unquote the enemy. The
Speaker 1: same week I just want to know, you know, we
Speaker 1: just had that Oh they're they're all, they're all trashing,
Speaker 1: you know, Duffy. The same week that the President the
Speaker 1: United States presides over the operation to take out Abubakar
Speaker 1: bah Daddy, you got people going on TV including that
Speaker 1: was the first lady. There was the Arizona Democratic Party
Speaker 1: chairman Rotalini saying Trump is aligned with the Islamic State.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there'll be any somber monologue over
Speaker 1: at CNN or MSNBC about how that's such a slander.
Speaker 1: Trump has aligned himself with ISIS. Yeah, that's right, the
Speaker 1: president United States, this is a Democratic Party official, folks,
Speaker 1: is an ally of the group that has killed tens
Speaker 1: of thousands, rapes, mutilates, murders. That's a fair thing to say, right,
Speaker 1: That's a normal rational thing to say about. So these
Speaker 1: people are out of their minds. And then some guy
Speaker 1: from the Intercept, which is really just doing the bidding
Speaker 1: of hostile for an intelligence services all the time by
Speaker 1: trying to take down different elements of United States government.
Speaker 1: The the and dis guy from the Intercept called him
Speaker 1: a recruiting sergeant for ISIS. And now I know that
Speaker 1: was a rhetorical flourish, but even still, Yeah, Trump, Trump
Speaker 1: the one who escalated the air campagn killing more ISIS
Speaker 1: guys than his predecessor, going after ISIS harder, willing to
Speaker 1: take the political risk by the way that Obama was
Speaker 1: not of civilian casualties of an escalated air campaign that
Speaker 1: could have gone awry, Trump was willing to deal with
Speaker 1: that ISIS gets eradicated, Abu bakh l Blah Daddy is dead.
Speaker 1: And you get people going on TV saying that Trump
Speaker 1: is in an ISIS recruiter, where Democratic Party official media
Speaker 1: person anyone. Is that unfair if we're gonna if we're
Speaker 1: supposed to be shocked and appalled that any criticism of
Speaker 1: Bill Taylor or vinman two people who both disagree with
Speaker 1: the president on Ukraine policy. Fine, they're allowed to do that,
Speaker 1: by the way, I just am allowed to not care.
Speaker 1: But why is it that calling the commander in chief? Well,
Speaker 1: we know they call him a traitor, a liar, a
Speaker 1: a rapist, a crazy person, a moron. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: nothing that they haven't said about Trump yet that they
Speaker 1: thought would be damaging. They hold back in no way whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So what we are supposed to continue to play the
Speaker 1: left game here? If you can't criticize whoever they put
Speaker 1: forward to be the anti Trump voice of the moment,
Speaker 1: you can't criticize. If you criticize them, you're a bad person.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about criticizing even the ideas. By the way,
Speaker 1: I have no criticism of Taylor, of Vin Menes people.
Speaker 1: I don't know them, and I don't criticize their service
Speaker 1: to the country. I don't criticize their aspirations in their
Speaker 1: roles or you know, what they're trying to do day
Speaker 1: to day. I just disagree with what they've done in
Speaker 1: this instance. But this is a very dishonest way of
Speaker 1: shutting down debate and discussion by saying, if you, in
Speaker 1: this case don't like what someone is saying, and that
Speaker 1: person has done something that's honorable, or they've been a
Speaker 1: victim of something, or this is how this is how
Speaker 1: the left argues on gun control. Oh, let's put kids
Speaker 1: from the school where there was the mass shooting out
Speaker 1: there to tell the whole country what the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: really means. And if you disagree with them, you don't
Speaker 1: care about dead kids. Oh, let's put Greta Thunberg out there,
Speaker 1: and then if you if you disagree with Greta Thunberg,
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old, he's telling us about how to
Speaker 1: rearrange trillions of dollars of wealth based on a vastly
Speaker 1: complicated scientific theory that nobody can really prove. Oh, you're
Speaker 1: tear your child back. I was called the child basher,
Speaker 1: and I will tell you I have bashed zero children.
Speaker 1: I did not bash any kid. That was a lie.
Speaker 1: There are new stories written about this. Oh, these guys,
Speaker 1: right wing pundit child basher. Those people are morons. And
Speaker 1: now we had we had the same thing with Komey.
Speaker 1: Who thinks that Komy is beyond reproach? Now nobody. Oh,
Speaker 1: we were told that though as soon as Trump fired him,
Speaker 1: people were people were crying in the hallways of the FB.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, James Kobe's not the FBI director anymore.
Speaker 1: I won't shut up to my job, like this is
Speaker 1: what we're being told. I remember reading the news stories.
Speaker 1: I meanwhile, every person, as I've told you that I
Speaker 1: know who worked with, call me. It's like, yeah, that
Speaker 1: guy is a self righteous, sanctimonious weirdo. Sank Tokomi is
Speaker 1: not cool. No Muller the same thing. If you didn't
Speaker 1: like the Mueller investigation, you were spitting on his service
Speaker 1: in Vietnam as a marine. That's that's what was being
Speaker 1: pushed out there by the allies of this thing. You see,
Speaker 1: we can we can never have a fair and open
Speaker 1: discussion about what is that issue. There's always this effort
Speaker 1: to silence, There's always this effort to shut down opposing
Speaker 1: voices by using dishonest, unfair tactics. That's what we have
Speaker 1: here once again, and this is now Unfortunately, this is
Speaker 1: the standard operating procedure for the left. This is not
Speaker 1: a one off. It doesn't just happen occasionally. It's not
Speaker 1: once in a while. They put they like to put
Speaker 1: forward somebody who either has a resume that you are not,
Speaker 1: you know, a resume that is unassailable, or has a
Speaker 1: victims status that if you challenge them on an issue
Speaker 1: of policy or an issue of fact, you are negating
Speaker 1: their victims status, and therefore you're a bad person. You're
Speaker 1: victimizing them all over again. You're a bad person. Media
Speaker 1: never holds itself to account for this, and it's on
Speaker 1: yet another reason why one of my favorite things about
Speaker 1: President Trump is that he just doesn't cave on this stuff.
Speaker 1: He doesn't bend the knee. He doesn't say, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right, I can't say anything about this person. I'm
Speaker 1: not allowed to criticize this person. No, Trump will continue
Speaker 1: his critiques. He'll continue fighting back against those who are,
Speaker 1: first of all many cases, attacking him personally, but even
Speaker 1: not attacking him personally, they're opposing his policies. We all
Speaker 1: know what it's like to have Republican leadership that just
Speaker 1: takes it, just takes it, you know, Oh yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't want to I don't want to be nasty in response.
Speaker 1: So I'm just going to be quiet about this. I
Speaker 1: think that one of the promises of the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: an implicit promise of the Trump administration, is that leadership
Speaker 1: on the right would no longer sit around and say, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: whatever whatever you guys want to do to us, We'll
Speaker 1: just accept that as the new, as the new status quo,
Speaker 1: or as the continuation, rather of the status quo, saying
Speaker 1: that's not how things should go. It's not how things
Speaker 1: would go. This vinmint thing, by the way, will be
Speaker 1: dropped this week because next week will be another witness,
Speaker 1: and then we got that another witness, and then we
Speaker 1: get that another witness. They're really just hoping to make
Speaker 1: us say, fine, impeach him, just make this stop, anything
Speaker 1: to make this stop. It's just so boring, it's so worthless.
Speaker 1: But how do we get around it? Unfortunately, the only
Speaker 1: way to get around it is to get through it,
Speaker 1: to fight through it. Trump knows that, I'm just not
Speaker 1: always sure that many conservatives do. These days. I start
Speaker 1: to worry about where the right really is on all
Speaker 1: of this. What makes a good manager? What makes a
Speaker 1: good boss? You know? The number one reason, at least
Speaker 1: when I used to pay attention to these things, but
Speaker 1: I used to always see this. The number one reason
Speaker 1: that people leave their job is that they're across all industries,
Speaker 1: no matter what you're doing, no matter where you are.
Speaker 1: The number one reason people say, you know what, I
Speaker 1: just can't do this anymore is they cannot stand their
Speaker 1: first line manager, essentially the boss that is responsible for them,
Speaker 1: not the CEO boss, right, the boss that they they're supervisor,
Speaker 1: They're immediate supervisor. And it makes sense. I remember I
Speaker 1: worked once in the government and there was someone who
Speaker 1: thought that the best way to get us to do
Speaker 1: things was to just walk around the office and I
Speaker 1: mean physically literally poke people from behind, like poke them
Speaker 1: in the back of the shoulders, say hey, what are
Speaker 1: you what are you doing? Just all a constant. It
Speaker 1: was the most anxiety producer thing you could imagine in
Speaker 1: an office environment. I mean it was, hey, hey, what
Speaker 1: are you doing? And you look at the person that'd say,
Speaker 1: my job. I think I'm working on a proposal or
Speaker 1: a project or something. Oh. It turns out that people
Speaker 1: are starting to look at this more because management culture,
Speaker 1: I think does need quite a bit of quite a
Speaker 1: bit of a look especially in large organizations, whether it's
Speaker 1: very hierarchical. The Wall Street Journal had a great, a
Speaker 1: great piece on this today. Bosses get out of the way.
Speaker 1: And the main thing is how many bosses don't understand
Speaker 1: that what they are doing is at best meaningless and
Speaker 1: perhaps counterproductive, but they think they're doing a great job.
Speaker 1: How many how many of you know exactly what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. I can tell you that one of the
Speaker 1: bosses that I have had in media at a previous
Speaker 1: company that I no longer work for, really thought that
Speaker 1: just holding meetings was in and of itself a worthwhile endeavor.
Speaker 1: That you know, if you're serious about what you're doing,
Speaker 1: you got to hold a meeting, even if we all
Speaker 1: sat there and looked at each other and thought, what
Speaker 1: is going on here? Why are we having this meetings?
Speaker 1: At this meeting? And it turns out that the reason
Speaker 1: this is getting people to pay more attention. The reason
Speaker 1: people are paying more attention this is that they're doing
Speaker 1: a lot of research that finds out that people are
Speaker 1: productive when the boss just leaves them alone, because your
Speaker 1: work product is what will be judged right, Your ability
Speaker 1: to do the job is what matters. But bosses that
Speaker 1: hover I even learned a new term from this from
Speaker 1: this piece today, and I just love it because I've like,
Speaker 1: I've had good Bassett passes. I'd like to go bass fishing. No,
Speaker 1: I've had good bosses, and I've had terrible bosses. I've
Speaker 1: had terrible bosses, and I can tell you that it
Speaker 1: does make a real difference management by walking around. I'd
Speaker 1: never heard that term before, but it's you know what,
Speaker 1: you those of you who have been in an office
Speaker 1: environment know that the boss who thinks that they just
Speaker 1: got to just be around, gotta hover, got I just
Speaker 1: make people anxious. That's that's a contribution. Oh, they're helping people.
Speaker 1: They're because you know, they're they're there in case there's
Speaker 1: a question, but also they're making sure that work is
Speaker 1: getting done. I can assure you that most of us
Speaker 1: figure out that the MBWA situation management by walking around
Speaker 1: the best way to deal with it is just to
Speaker 1: always make sure that you have one screen open that's
Speaker 1: work and one screen open that is your Amazon shopping list,
Speaker 1: and just pay attention to where that boss is. No
Speaker 1: one's like, oh, the bosses walking around, better actually do
Speaker 1: my job now that I wasn't doing before. If anything,
Speaker 1: I think resented resent that the term that we used
Speaker 1: to use when I was in government all the time,
Speaker 1: and it really does convey the irritation from the whole
Speaker 1: thing was micro management. Micro mic are just getting into
Speaker 1: that what do you do? What do you do? Where
Speaker 1: are you doing? Where's let's have a meeting, Let's have
Speaker 1: another meeting, Let's have a horrible, horrible stuff. In fact,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons I think I left government work.
Speaker 1: There are several of them, but one of the reasons
Speaker 1: was the only way to really rise was to be
Speaker 1: in charge of other people and their work product, to
Speaker 1: be a manager. I didn't want to do that. I
Speaker 1: wanted to be in charge of what I was doing,
Speaker 1: judged by my ability to produce, to make things, and
Speaker 1: you know now here I am in the media business
Speaker 1: as a content person, which is what I wanted to do,
Speaker 1: But I wanted to be a make stuff guy, not
Speaker 1: a make sure other people are making stuff guy. Now,
Speaker 1: there is such a thing as fantastic leadership and management
Speaker 1: and a corporate culture. I get that. There's a reason
Speaker 1: really good CEOs make a lot of money. There's a
Speaker 1: reason that people almost worship, you know, Steve Jobs, even
Speaker 1: though from what I understand. He wasn't a particularly nice
Speaker 1: guy a lot of the time. But bosses the old
Speaker 1: culture of the boss that walks around and holds meetings
Speaker 1: bosses or a problem. Oh but management by walking around?
Speaker 1: Here's what it says. Even leaders who use the much
Speaker 1: ballyhooed management practice of walking around, who devote big chunks
Speaker 1: of time to observing frontline work and asking employees to
Speaker 1: identify problems and solutions, may do more harm than good.
Speaker 1: You know this guy wrote this piece writes about my
Speaker 1: Stanford colleague Katherine Segovia and I have recruited our students
Speaker 1: to help new managers get out of their employees way.
Speaker 1: We arrange for student teams to attend meetings led by
Speaker 1: each boss and record the percentage of time that each
Speaker 1: leader talked, as well as counting the number of statements
Speaker 1: each leader made versus the number of questions that he
Speaker 1: or she asked. One manager, for example, was surprised to
Speaker 1: learned that he talked almost the entire time during a
Speaker 1: fifteen minute meeting and ask only one question, and that
Speaker 1: his team viewed this standing meeting as a complete waste
Speaker 1: of time. This information, along with some coaching from our
Speaker 1: students helped this new boss learn and ask more questions
Speaker 1: as people appreciated. Yeah, a lot of unnecessary meetings going
Speaker 1: on in American corporate culture. A lot of focus on
Speaker 1: process over outcomes. Outcomes are what matters. Right. Outcomes is
Speaker 1: what brings dollars in, what sends dollars. Out Outcome is
Speaker 1: what the focus should always be in a corporate environment.
Speaker 1: And I just think that I wish that there had
Speaker 1: been better management instruction, particularly, I'll be the most of
Speaker 1: the government managers I dealt with were almost buffoonish in
Speaker 1: their incompetence, most of them, not all of them, But
Speaker 1: I remember I worked in the federal government as well
Speaker 1: as local government here in New York City for the NYPD.
Speaker 1: My NYPD second line manager was a pretty good guy.
Speaker 1: My first line manager was a nightmare, a micromanaging, poke
Speaker 1: you in the shoulder, what are you doing? Why isn't
Speaker 1: this finished? Where is this thing? Nightmare? And I'm somebody
Speaker 1: who just as a general, I'm just not a bend
Speaker 1: of the knee kind of guy. I just don't like
Speaker 1: it when somebody is being unreasonable and trying to make
Speaker 1: my life more difficult. It has to be, And so
Speaker 1: I tend to be the kind of person who, in
Speaker 1: that corporate environment would then find ways to do things
Speaker 1: my way and extend a particular digit of my left
Speaker 1: or right hand in the general direction of management. I
Speaker 1: was not a good person at dealing with that, with
Speaker 1: that micromanaging culture, and that then brings me in another
Speaker 1: part of this piece, the Wall Street, which I just
Speaker 1: think is great. I'm trying. I'm let me tell you
Speaker 1: who the authors were, just to give them credit for this. Bosses,
Speaker 1: get out of your employees way. As the piece Robert Sutton,
Speaker 1: there's the one who wrote it. He writes about flexing
Speaker 1: the hierarchy. Here's another one. Another hallmark of skilled leaders
Speaker 1: that they understand that they're people and work they do
Speaker 1: so well that they are masters of flexing the hierarchy
Speaker 1: to fit the situation. Lendrid Greer, a management professor at
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan, finds that the best leaders don't
Speaker 1: hesitate to exert top down control when quick decisions and
Speaker 1: immediate actions are essential, and they switch gears and flatten
Speaker 1: hierarchy when they need to solicit everyone's opinion, develop employee
Speaker 1: buy in, and make it safe to discuss and comfortable truths,
Speaker 1: criticize others, and generate half baked and controversial solutions. I
Speaker 1: can tell you that very I dealt with a one
Speaker 1: of the more senior managers they dealt with down in
Speaker 1: DC working on the Hill TV project, had a habit,
Speaker 1: and there were several of them, so I'm not named
Speaker 1: name here, but had had a habit of We're just
Speaker 1: going to do it because I say we're gonna do it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna do it this way because I say we're
Speaker 1: going to do it this way. And his approach was
Speaker 1: such that even on minor issues where it was really
Speaker 1: a judgment call, that it wasn't important and there's no
Speaker 1: right answer but to do the because I say so
Speaker 1: routine when you're not dealing with a toddler, when you're
Speaker 1: in an office of adults, in fact, in this case,
Speaker 1: adults who kind of knew a lot more than this
Speaker 1: person about what was going on. That does not do
Speaker 1: good things for outcomes or for morale, which is another
Speaker 1: part of this too. Right management is about what the
Speaker 1: end product is, or whatever the company is, whatever the
Speaker 1: service is they're providing, of course, but it's also about
Speaker 1: how do people feel in that office environment and I've
Speaker 1: seen I've seen it where it's spree to corps is high.
Speaker 1: And when a spree to core is high, people don't
Speaker 1: have to stay they have to. They don't be told
Speaker 1: to stay late, they don't have to be told to
Speaker 1: get things done on time or to show up on time,
Speaker 1: or they do it because they're proud of what's going on.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll tell you this. In my Rock Office
Speaker 1: of the CIA, we had we had a spree of
Speaker 1: corps in that office, man, I mean, we were we
Speaker 1: were focused, We had good management, people cared about what
Speaker 1: they were doing. Um, there was a really healthy sense
Speaker 1: of competition for who was doing the most to help
Speaker 1: on the policy side, on the on the you know,
Speaker 1: on the supporting the warfighter side, whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: And that just reflected all the way down. We wore
Speaker 1: you know, we we dressed up in the sense we
Speaker 1: wore suits even though we didn't have to, because like
Speaker 1: we wore suits because we were the we're a war office,
Speaker 1: and damn it, it it was serious stuff, you know we
Speaker 1: And that was just the culture of that office. And I,
Speaker 1: like I said, I went to the NYPD, it was
Speaker 1: a very very different culture because I was dealing on
Speaker 1: the civilian side there, but flexing the hierarchy is also
Speaker 1: so important. Don't do the because I said so unless
Speaker 1: you're the lack of an immediate decision is going to
Speaker 1: have real ramifications, you know, unless the lack of an
Speaker 1: IMMO immediate change in direction for the company is going
Speaker 1: to you know, allow people to be heard, and don't
Speaker 1: just shut things down or talk over them because you can.
Speaker 1: Another another big mistake that I think a lot of
Speaker 1: managers run into is they just get lazy with it,
Speaker 1: like all right, all right, like we're done. When I
Speaker 1: say we're done, I don't care what other people say.
Speaker 1: Managing people is one of the most important skills you're
Speaker 1: going to have in any work environment. And really life
Speaker 1: is all about managing people. Your personal life, your professional life.
Speaker 1: How do you deal with other human beings? Do you
Speaker 1: bring out better things in them? Do they feel comfortable
Speaker 1: around you? Do they trust you or not? It's true
Speaker 1: of managers, true of family members, true of everybody. You know,
Speaker 1: how are you dealing with those around you? So don't
Speaker 1: do management by walking around. Don't just sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: poke people on the shoulder and say what are you doing?
Speaker 1: What are you doing? Drive them crazy, drove me crazy.
Speaker 1: Be a good boss. You need the money and to
Speaker 1: get the money we need to stop. Because Jonathan's got
Speaker 1: a vision which I agree with. But in order to
Speaker 1: pay for that, we need the money and to get
Speaker 1: the money in we need to stop. Brexcent or two
Speaker 1: percent of GDP isn't going to make a difference. Let
Speaker 1: Maria speak, Man's climate change is You know, if you
Speaker 1: are describing Jeremy Corbyn as business as usual, then you
Speaker 1: haven't been reading the newspapers or watching the television. He
Speaker 1: was green before the Greens existed. He rode a bike.
Speaker 1: He's gotten a lootman. He will do both. He will
Speaker 1: bring social justice and a green revolution. So have the
Speaker 1: vision on the Greens, but vote Labor if you really
Speaker 1: wanted to have got to be more than a lootman.
Speaker 1: And lets us look at the facts. In twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: man splaining, and Adam Hans asked me to respond, and
Speaker 1: if you continue to mansplain, I'll have to complain. Please
Speaker 1: don't resort to sexism when we're trying to have a conversation.
Speaker 1: Do you stop man splaining? I've asked you three times,
Speaker 1: Oh can you stop man splaining? Please? Could you stop
Speaker 1: the man splaining poor guys like nanny? That was very
Speaker 1: a TV interview. I don't even care whether they're talking
Speaker 1: about Brexit, I think, or core a bit or who
Speaker 1: cares British politics whatever. It's not something I really care
Speaker 1: very much about. I don't care at all. Really, I
Speaker 1: care only as much as I need to care so
Speaker 1: that I can inform you all with the facts. Right.
Speaker 1: But she's like, stop man splaining. What you do? Will
Speaker 1: you man splaining again? For what's that all about? Just
Speaker 1: I want to play well, just because I thought it
Speaker 1: was so funny. This reminds me of when the former
Speaker 1: governor of Michigan, Grand Holme, looked at me on the
Speaker 1: Bill Marshaw and went kids in cages, kids in cages?
Speaker 1: Out of nowhere, Like, lady, I didn't put any kids
Speaker 1: in cages. Like what do you even We're not even
Speaker 1: talking about that. She's like, Mic, drop kids in cages here.
Speaker 1: We had another version of just say something, say some
Speaker 1: stupid slogan to somebody you're having a political debate with,
Speaker 1: and then hope that no one calls you out of it.
Speaker 1: Stop stop your man splaining. I want to know, is
Speaker 1: it is it? Man? Splaining just for a man to
Speaker 1: try to explain something now. And also it's worth noting
Speaker 1: that the Brits have a similar language now about some
Speaker 1: of these political issues like social justice. Jeremy Corbyn was
Speaker 1: green before there was green. He was riding his bicycle
Speaker 1: making sure that the Coeo two that was you know,
Speaker 1: coming out there. It's like it's you know, it's not
Speaker 1: like the sea. It's not like the methane coming out
Speaker 1: of cowbums. You know what I mean? Uh, you know
Speaker 1: they have the same stuff going on over there that
Speaker 1: we do. You've got to stop the cow bum farts.
Speaker 1: You've got to stop it. It's important. It's gonna save
Speaker 1: the planet. All of a sudden, I've started to switch
Speaker 1: over and all the snow accent from what's that Forgetting
Speaker 1: Sarah Marshall. That's He's great. I was going to listen
Speaker 1: to your tape, but I decided to just go on
Speaker 1: living my life. He's the best part of that movie.
Speaker 1: In many ways. I did not like Get him to
Speaker 1: the Greek at all, though the Falling movie did not
Speaker 1: think that was good. You like get him. I don't
Speaker 1: even know if we're allowed we're gonna allow you to
Speaker 1: weigh in anymore on anything you like that movie that
Speaker 1: I love, Get Him to the Greek. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: it was fantastic. I love Jonah Hill. I don't even
Speaker 1: I don't even know what to say. Now. A lot
Speaker 1: of people like Forgetting Sarah Cors. Okay, well, there we
Speaker 1: can agree on that. It's a very good movie. But
Speaker 1: while I just want to know why it's producing Mark
Speaker 1: man splaining. He's just sitting there man splaining away, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, but I'm trying to do a radio show
Speaker 1: her producer, Mark, why can't you stop man splaining? I
Speaker 1: have to man explain to you that Get Him to
Speaker 1: the Greek was a good movie. Apparently, I'm wondering who
Speaker 1: the audience is with on this one. Light it up
Speaker 1: in those comments. Let us so Get in the Greek.
Speaker 1: I thought it was depressing. It's like sad at the end.
Speaker 1: Does he have like a cheats on his wife or something?
Speaker 1: It's bad he married real life with Russell Brand and
Speaker 1: Katie Perry married in real life. They were oh they
Speaker 1: will yeah, no, no, I'm in Jonah Hill. Isn't he
Speaker 1: like cheating on his wife or something in the thing.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I forget now, oh, spoilers. I am
Speaker 1: sorry about the Joker spoiler that I didn't know. Somebody
Speaker 1: wrote it in I didn't know any better, so we
Speaker 1: had a little bit of a Joker spoiler going on there.
Speaker 1: It is what it is, um, But anyway, man's plaining
Speaker 1: is a thing now, man spreading, which I try to
Speaker 1: avoid doing on the subway. Are you familiar with man spreading?
Speaker 1: You sit down on the subway? Yeah, of course, no,
Speaker 1: I never do. You don't sit on the subway. What
Speaker 1: do you like a germ, germaphol or something. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: I don't think though. I don't think the cold virus
Speaker 1: is gonna get like, you know, through your pants, into
Speaker 1: your into your thing. I'm also lonely on the subway
Speaker 1: for like four stops, so you're one of those. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's nice. I have kind of a long subway ride
Speaker 1: every day. Oh yeah, ten whole minutes. Your whole commune
Speaker 1: is ten minutes. Boo hoo, look at this. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: got it. You know, I'm a man of the people.
Speaker 1: I ride the subway. What can I tell your commune
Speaker 1: is ten minutes? Here? You still show up late? I
Speaker 1: reas don't produce the mark the show begins when the
Speaker 1: host arrives. He's like, no, technically, we have studio time.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know about this studio time
Speaker 1: thing that we're supposed to be discussing. But yeah, yes,
Speaker 1: there are clocks and there is a time we have
Speaker 1: to do the show. But I think the show happens
Speaker 1: when Buck starts talking to the team. All right, So
Speaker 1: we've been talking about the deep state efforts to subvert
Speaker 1: this president for a long time, but there is a
Speaker 1: lot more information that we need to get and there's
Speaker 1: more analysis that we need to know, especially as we're
Speaker 1: going into an election year. There's a fantastic new book
Speaker 1: out from investigative journalist and author Lee Smith, The Plot
Speaker 1: Against the President, The true story of how Congressman Devin
Speaker 1: un has uncovered the biggest political scandal in US history.
Speaker 1: Lee joins us Now, Lee, thanks so much, Ben It congrats.
Speaker 1: I see the President tweeted about how great your book is. Yes,
Speaker 1: it was very exciting, the President tweeted about the book.
Speaker 1: It's been a number one bestseller on Amazon, the number
Speaker 1: one and number one on Barnes and Nobles. So it's
Speaker 1: very very exciting, and it's no it's testament to everyone
Speaker 1: understands the historic importance of the world that Congressman Nunez
Speaker 1: and his team did investigating the FBI investigator. Now, we've
Speaker 1: had a lot of news coverage. I've talked to people.
Speaker 1: I can't even I couldn't even begin to count the
Speaker 1: hours in the days we've spent on this Russia collusion hoax,
Speaker 1: and some good books written about it. My friend Dan
Speaker 1: Bongino as a book about it. I mean, what are
Speaker 1: you focusing on in the plot against the president? And
Speaker 1: what do people need to know that they may not
Speaker 1: already know right well, I wanted to tell I wanted
Speaker 1: to tell the story, explain what happened through the perspective
Speaker 1: of Congressman Nunez and his team, some of them, some
Speaker 1: of their names that haven't really been reported that much before,
Speaker 1: like one of his leading investigators, a gentleman named kesh
Speaker 1: Yet Petel, who's a very fascinating character. And as the Congressman,
Speaker 1: Congressman said and I recorded in the book, without cash,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't be able to they would not have been
Speaker 1: able to do all the things they got done. And
Speaker 1: it's remarkable what I found reporting the book with them
Speaker 1: speaking extensively with the Congressman, with mister Petel, with mister
Speaker 1: Jack Langer, who's Congressman nun as his communications director. These
Speaker 1: guys were standing in the middle of Mayhem and they
Speaker 1: were actually the only thing for a while between between
Speaker 1: between Trump and impeachment. They were the ones who they
Speaker 1: were the only ones who are running an offense. This
Speaker 1: was while Jess Sessions was the Attorney General and he
Speaker 1: had recused himself. So had Congressman Nunez and his guys
Speaker 1: not found stuff, not requested documents, not asked for different things,
Speaker 1: not made their case on TV, we might be in
Speaker 1: a very different situation right now where where the where
Speaker 1: these deep state operatives might have actually taken down the president.
Speaker 1: What kind of things did they find out, you know,
Speaker 1: in that you said they were able to go on
Speaker 1: offense and not just allow the Democrat anti Trump coup
Speaker 1: to play out. What were some of the big eureka
Speaker 1: moments that they had. Well, the first thing that they
Speaker 1: found I was at the Clinton campaign had paid for
Speaker 1: the dossier. That was the first big thing they found out.
Speaker 1: Another thing that they found out, and another thing they
Speaker 1: found out was how assistant Deputy Attorney General Bruce Orr,
Speaker 1: who had no business participating in this investigation, was actually
Speaker 1: not only a part of the investigation the FBI's investigation,
Speaker 1: he was also former British spy Christopher Steele's back channel
Speaker 1: to the FBI. After Steele had been fired by the
Speaker 1: Bureau for speaking to the press. Bruce Or, whose wife
Speaker 1: Nelly worked for Fusion GPS, was the back channel to
Speaker 1: the FBI. So they found that they also got they
Speaker 1: were also the ones and that was the Inspector General
Speaker 1: who located the texts between FBI agent Peter Struck and
Speaker 1: his girlfriend FBI lawyer Lisa Page. There was the Inspector
Speaker 1: General who found that, and then the Special Counsel Robert
Speaker 1: Muller reassigned Struck. But it was Noonez and his guys
Speaker 1: who found out what had been going on, and they requested,
Speaker 1: they demanded these documents, these texts, and which were eventually,
Speaker 1: after many long and arduous fights, delivered delivered to the Hill.
Speaker 1: So I mean, they really when you look at what
Speaker 1: we know about the Russia investigations, the abuses and likely
Speaker 1: crimes committed during the FBI's investigation of Donald Trump, that
Speaker 1: was they who found it. The most important thing of
Speaker 1: course they found was the fact that the Clinton campaign's
Speaker 1: opposition research was the centerpiece and the FBI's portfolio of
Speaker 1: evidence to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump campaign
Speaker 1: advisor Carter Page, which of course opened up the communications
Speaker 1: for the entire Trump team. Basically, one of the important
Speaker 1: cases that my book makes is that what happened here
Speaker 1: is we often forget who was the primary beneficiary of
Speaker 1: the FBI spying on the Trump campaign. They weren't just
Speaker 1: spying to amuse themselves and to torture Trump and as advisors.
Speaker 1: The primary beneficiary of the FBI's work, the FBI's operation
Speaker 1: anti Trump operation was the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now you
Speaker 1: mentioned some of the abuses and possible illegality. What are
Speaker 1: the biggest abuses that you get into in the book
Speaker 1: that we know happened, and what are some of the
Speaker 1: ones that you think, you know, the evidence points toward happened,
Speaker 1: but we need to find out more about. Yeah, one
Speaker 1: of the things we need to find out more about,
Speaker 1: and I cite certain documents in my book that I acquired,
Speaker 1: I think one of the things we need to find
Speaker 1: out is, well, the case I make is that Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele did not write where he was certainly anything but
Speaker 1: the primary author of the dossier named after him. One
Speaker 1: of the things that one of the things that I
Speaker 1: found is they were actually doing opposition research investigating the
Speaker 1: Trump team's possible ties to organized crime. I have a
Speaker 1: document dated May twentieth, twenty sixteen, and that shows that's
Speaker 1: what they were doing, Fusion GPS investigating the Trump teams
Speaker 1: ties to organized crime. Within a month when they say
Speaker 1: they bring on Christopher Steele, the first Steel report that
Speaker 1: is written is June twentieth. At that point, there's a
Speaker 1: profound transformation. It goes from an opposition research regarding Trump's
Speaker 1: ties to alleged tized organized crime to Trump's alleged ties
Speaker 1: to a foreign power. This lays the groundwork for a
Speaker 1: counter intelligence investigation. So one of the questions that we
Speaker 1: need to ask is not when the FBI got the dossier,
Speaker 1: not when they started looking. As you know, Buck, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of controversy whether they got it in July
Speaker 1: or whether they got in September as they say. For
Speaker 1: the cover story. The question is whether or not the
Speaker 1: FBI wrote the dossier or directed the dossier said that
Speaker 1: it would help them obtain a surveillance warrant, a spy
Speaker 1: warrant on Carter page. That's an enormous question that comes
Speaker 1: out of it. Ah, So you think that there's the
Speaker 1: possibility that you know, because what we've been led to believe,
Speaker 1: at least to this point, is that the dossier was
Speaker 1: taken in good faith by the FBI and then given
Speaker 1: to the fiser Chord. What you're saying is, what if
Speaker 1: the FBI was going back through Christopher Steele. We already
Speaker 1: established Bruce Ordo Jay talking to Steele and saying get this,
Speaker 1: get this, and an active participant in that dossier process,
Speaker 1: and then turned around and acted like it was just
Speaker 1: this external intelligence source that they had in order to
Speaker 1: get FISE warrants. Is that am I on target the evidence?
Speaker 1: And my book points to that. That's certainly question that
Speaker 1: we need to have, that we need to have very
Speaker 1: solid answers about. But again, if you if you I
Speaker 1: mean Fusion GPS, the researcher Melior made these claims they
Speaker 1: were doing opposition research into Trump's ties to organized crime.
Speaker 1: That Steel Dassier has nothing to do with Russian organized crime,
Speaker 1: that has to do with the Trump teams ties alleged
Speaker 1: the Trump teams alleged tie to a foreign power. That's
Speaker 1: a counter that's a counter intelligence matter. So these are
Speaker 1: two very different things. And the idea, someone showed them
Speaker 1: how to do it, showed them what they needed to write,
Speaker 1: what they needed to claim in order to push toward
Speaker 1: a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to monitor the communications
Speaker 1: of Trump advisor Carter Page. This is an enormous issue,
Speaker 1: and this is one of the This is one of
Speaker 1: the main takeaways from from my book. Now we're speaking
Speaker 1: to Lee Smith, author of The Plot Against the President,
Speaker 1: the true story of how Congressman Devenue has uncovered the
Speaker 1: biggest political scandal in US history. Lee, Where you know,
Speaker 1: the plot is not over yet, right this, this story
Speaker 1: has not ended yet. Where do you see this going
Speaker 1: and what else do you want to focus on and
Speaker 1: find out about? Right Well, I mean, when you look
Speaker 1: at what the dossier is and what we've been going
Speaker 1: through for three years and what we see right now,
Speaker 1: would would the House Democrats pushing for impeachment? I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a terrible thing that happened. The
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign injected a conspiracy theory into the American public sphere,
Speaker 1: it's almost as though it's almost as though the Clinton's
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, cursed America because they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: She decided she would inject the conspiracy theory and the
Speaker 1: eat it there. And now at the very least our
Speaker 1: elite have not mad. You can't help but turn on
Speaker 1: CNN or read the pages of the Washington Post or
Speaker 1: Sea House Democrats like a bizarre like a bizarre cult,
Speaker 1: like a bunch of ascurantists going on. First it's Trump
Speaker 1: in Russia, and now it's Trump in Ukraine. But for
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi or the High Priestess Nancy Pelosi, it's the
Speaker 1: same thing. All reads, all roads leads of Vladimir Putin?
Speaker 1: It's madness. Do I think Trump will get impeached? This
Speaker 1: is what I hear from much more, much more informed sources.
Speaker 1: The realistic damage, however, done by the dossier and done
Speaker 1: by the Russia operation is not only to American institutions
Speaker 1: like the FBI, the dj likely, the CIA, and the
Speaker 1: US press, but it's to America as a whole, the
Speaker 1: public sphere, the way we speak with each other, the
Speaker 1: way we conduct our politics, the way we live next
Speaker 1: to each other and get along with each other. This
Speaker 1: thing has driven the country mad. My book is an
Speaker 1: effort to get to the bottom of what happened, to
Speaker 1: try to clarify some points so that someday and the hope,
Speaker 1: the lunacy that was kicked off by the FBI's Russia
Speaker 1: investigation will come to an end and we can go
Speaker 1: back to normal politics, have our debates, our partisan debates
Speaker 1: between Republican and Democrat. We can do our regular politics.
Speaker 1: That's not where we are as a country right now.
Speaker 1: As much as President Trump is doing and as much
Speaker 1: as he's succeeded, we are not in a healthy place
Speaker 1: right now. The book is the plot against the president.
Speaker 1: Author at Lee Smith lead, great workman, congrats to you
Speaker 1: so far. Thank you, Buck, thanks very thanks very kindly,
Speaker 1: and please come back and tell us when you get more.
Speaker 1: All right, I look forward to it. Thanks again for
Speaker 1: writing me on to talk all right. Take care. Oh
Speaker 1: and we are back here in the Freedom Hunt with
Speaker 1: the man himself, my fellow, the first host, mister Jess Kelly,
Speaker 1: joins in on this action now. Jesse Kelly, everybody, Thanks Jesse.
Speaker 1: What's going on? I prefer to call myself the legend Buck,
Speaker 1: but I mean if you whatever the man works, I
Speaker 1: guess I think we could do that. I think we
Speaker 1: can start just refer to as the legend Jesse Kelly.
Speaker 1: That would that would work. What's what's on the Jesse
Speaker 1: Kelly Rado right now? I mean, I know you got
Speaker 1: your show coming up. What are you gonna be talking about?
Speaker 1: What's what's top of mind? Well, we're gonna go over
Speaker 1: this Vindmin thing today and just exactly what that means.
Speaker 1: It trives me crazy when they do this, Buck, and
Speaker 1: I know you've seen this before. I know you've actually
Speaker 1: personally experienced this before. Is when they take anybody a veteran,
Speaker 1: a child, or anybody who's carrying their approved message and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden act like they actually care
Speaker 1: about that person's thing. You know what I mean, Nobody,
Speaker 1: nobody who praised Vinemin yesterday gave a crap about Vindmon
Speaker 1: or his rank or his purple heart or anything. You
Speaker 1: had the approved message. So now all of a stuff,
Speaker 1: what you can't criticize Zoom he's a veteran. That's funny.
Speaker 1: The Left never obeys those rules for me. They never
Speaker 1: obeyed those rules for you. I wonder why. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I look, I was when. I remember when I was
Speaker 1: in the CIA, the left would crash the intelligence community
Speaker 1: all the time. I mean, when the Bush administration was
Speaker 1: in charge, intel community would just get the worst and
Speaker 1: the worst from all the major media outlets. But in
Speaker 1: the era of Trump, when there are some intel people
Speaker 1: that obviously hate trumpets, how dare you? These aren't bureaucrats,
Speaker 1: these are honorable public servants, sir. That's so classic. I
Speaker 1: love it. It's so true and scared, and I mean,
Speaker 1: they do this all the time. This is just example
Speaker 1: number one thousand. I but you remember it was just
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago we were all going to die
Speaker 1: in twelve years because a sixteen year old girl said
Speaker 1: we were. And just because she wants to destroy the
Speaker 1: country's economy in your way of life, that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you have the right to criticize her. She's just a charlad.
Speaker 1: You get called a child basher because I got called
Speaker 1: in media publications a child basher. I'd't even criticize her.
Speaker 1: I criticized the stupid adults who listened to her. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: oh yeah. They called me every name in the book,
Speaker 1: and I did the same thing, you, dude, I didn't
Speaker 1: criticize her just because she's the sixteen year old girl.
Speaker 1: I didn't listen to sixteen year old girls when I
Speaker 1: was sixteen, let alone now. But it's just all the
Speaker 1: people acting like she's some kind of Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Speaker 1: So I have to go back across the Atlantic. There
Speaker 1: were there were professional journalists who were expressing their disappointment
Speaker 1: that I think it was the I forget it was
Speaker 1: the president. The Prime Minister of Era Trea got it
Speaker 1: for helping to end the conflict between Era Trade Ethiopia
Speaker 1: or something like that, or maybe it was the president
Speaker 1: of Ethiopia. I forget one of those two countries. They've
Speaker 1: been in confid long time. Point big. That's real stuff.
Speaker 1: But that individual got the of a peace prize and
Speaker 1: not sixteen year old Thunberg. And there were journalists who
Speaker 1: at least theoretically make a living from knowing about things,
Speaker 1: who were like, what an injustice? Yes, yes, well, I
Speaker 1: mean we can all put that to bed now, right though, buck.
Speaker 1: I mean that that concept that that journalists make a
Speaker 1: living by knowing things. Journalists today make a living by creating,
Speaker 1: completely manufacturing outrage from thin air. And that's that's what
Speaker 1: they do when you wake up that morning. You work
Speaker 1: for this jerkwater publication. Okay, what anti truck piece are
Speaker 1: you writing today? Oh well, there's nothing in the news.
Speaker 1: I better just invent something. And then the next guy
Speaker 1: write does something about the same thing, and on and
Speaker 1: on it goes. And that's why we've had three years
Speaker 1: of fake crap. Now, Jesse, if I had to, if
Speaker 1: I had to get an answer from you on this,
Speaker 1: which is worse MSNBC or CNN, you know what, you
Speaker 1: know what's worse, and it's actually neither of their fault.
Speaker 1: I would say CNN is worse, but only because of
Speaker 1: this book. There was a time in this country. Now,
Speaker 1: I would argue with we've never been there with these
Speaker 1: major networks. There was a time in this country where
Speaker 1: CNN was thought of to be the middle of the road.
Speaker 1: You know, you had fives who stopped me right. You
Speaker 1: have MSNBC, who's always thought to be left, and neither
Speaker 1: of those companies have really made any apologies for that.
Speaker 1: But then you know CNN is the one down the middle,
Speaker 1: and so that's what's in every airport and everything else.
Speaker 1: CNN is way left of MSNBC anymore. And I mean
Speaker 1: way left there. They're slight in digital form. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that they've turned into a hate Trump network specifically.
Speaker 1: I think it's personal from Jeff Zucker on down. I
Speaker 1: think the videos. I think that the mandate from Zucker
Speaker 1: is We're we're gonna We're gonna stop Trump. We're gonna
Speaker 1: end the Trump presidency. There's no question about it. I mean,
Speaker 1: they don't realize how much they actually aid the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: If they could, if they could set aside that hate
Speaker 1: for a minute and actually watch half these compilation videos
Speaker 1: that Trump puts out online that everybody loves in their
Speaker 1: chair and in his base loves. They contain segments from CNN.
Speaker 1: They're not they're not hurting Trump, they're writing his campaign
Speaker 1: material for it. Thin It's true. Where can folks go
Speaker 1: to watch and see Jesse Kelly, Oh, that's right, the
Speaker 1: same place they can see the first which is what
Speaker 1: I'm doing too, which is channel two forty eight on
Speaker 1: Pluto TV. Jesse. One last question we've got about a
Speaker 1: middle Left. Is the first the single greatest new platform
Speaker 1: in conservative media and perhaps of all time. It's just
Speaker 1: early stage. I think the answer is yes, Well, there's
Speaker 1: no question. I mean it's you and I on there. Buck.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's the greatest of all time. It's not
Speaker 1: the greatest new it's the greatest now and it'll be
Speaker 1: the greatest for the until the end of time. Fact check.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent pure awesome. You're the Buck Saccent Show,
Speaker 1: The Jesse Kelly Show. There is no fat on this stake.
Speaker 1: It is all just deliciousness. Good my brother, all right, Jesse,
Speaker 1: thanks so much. Man. Guys, check out Jesse Kelly on
Speaker 1: the first jump to forty eight's where some of you
Speaker 1: are watching this now. Also, if you're listening on a
Speaker 1: radio down KPRC Houston, I think he's on seven Eastern.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, Jesse Kelly. We like to just
Speaker 1: get a Jesse Jesse, you know, pop by stop in
Speaker 1: whatever whatever we can. Don't tell him. I said this,
Speaker 1: he's one of the most talented guys in the game
Speaker 1: these days. So but don't his ego is big enough,
Speaker 1: trust me. Let's talk about some crazy Democrat ideas, shall we.
Speaker 1: We didn't get to any of that today. I'm always
Speaker 1: discussing policy here on the show, and I feel like
Speaker 1: today we skipped past policy. What is the worst idea
Speaker 1: that a Democrat has put forward in the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours, or what is the most buffoonish policy mistake
Speaker 1: that they have made. That's usually a tough question. It's
Speaker 1: a lot of entrance into that race. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of different directions you could go. And by the way,
Speaker 1: is this weekend the marathon here in New York? It is,
Speaker 1: right anyway, I might I might go check that out.
Speaker 1: It's fun to be the guy who I was gonna
Speaker 1: talk policy and I'm talking about the marathon. But it's
Speaker 1: fun to go stand by the finish line or like
Speaker 1: about a mile from the finish line. Yeah, it is
Speaker 1: this weekend. Yes, what I thought, stand by a mouth
Speaker 1: from the finish line, because people sometimes will wear their
Speaker 1: name on their shirt and then you can just be like,
Speaker 1: that's right, dude, keep it, run it, keep it going.
Speaker 1: You just yell at everybody else. You just cheer people on.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of fun, especially when you see the
Speaker 1: guys who are really like it looks like guys en galis,
Speaker 1: look like there might there might fall over at any moment.
Speaker 1: You're like, come on, deep, deep, you don't even know
Speaker 1: these people. You just it's great. It's great energy. I'll
Speaker 1: love it. And then there's the amazing and also slightly
Speaker 1: depressing feat of watching the truly elite runners who are
Speaker 1: on their twenty fifth mile, or if you want to
Speaker 1: watch the finish line and they're running twenty six miles
Speaker 1: faster than you or anyone you know could run one mile,
Speaker 1: or in fact that most people could run a hundred yards. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's something. You see those guys in Galus just flying
Speaker 1: past you. It's pretty amazing. All right, back to policy.
Speaker 1: I just got exciting. Remember the marathon was this weekend.
Speaker 1: We have Oh, here we go? How do you pay?
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete? He's supposed to be the serious, sober minded one, right,
Speaker 1: He's not one of these crazy radicals. He's a Rhodes scholar,
Speaker 1: he was in the military. How crazy could he possibly be? Well,
Speaker 1: as I discussed with you yesterday, a non partisan analysis
Speaker 1: of Medicare for All makes it clear that they simply
Speaker 1: don't have the money to pay for Medicare for all,
Speaker 1: and the only ways to pay for it would involve
Speaker 1: massive tax increases, I mean, mind blowing tax increases on everybody,
Speaker 1: not just on the rich. Then rich don't have enough
Speaker 1: money to pay for this, So how does mayor peate
Speaker 1: deal with that reality. Well, he says that, oh, let's
Speaker 1: let the mayor have his say seventeen please, So the
Speaker 1: vast majority the costs of my plan can be covered
Speaker 1: by rolling back these unnecessary Trump corporate tax cuts that
Speaker 1: went mainly to the wealthy. That'll cover all but about
Speaker 1: one hundred billion dollars of our plan. You might say
Speaker 1: one hundred billion dollars sounds like a lot, and you're right,
Speaker 1: but we have a plan to cover that. Part two,
Speaker 1: that's where our prescription drug plan comes in. So I
Speaker 1: got a plan to make sure that prescription drugs become
Speaker 1: more affordable in this country. A big part of that
Speaker 1: is allowing the federal government and Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Speaker 1: And independent estimates of these kinds of policies suggest that
Speaker 1: we should be able to raise probably two or three
Speaker 1: hundred billion actually in savings to the treasury by moving
Speaker 1: in that direction over the next decade. So we're talking
Speaker 1: about something that not only makes a sense for American
Speaker 1: consumers that we have a savings individually, but also saves
Speaker 1: money for the taxpayer as a whole. And some of
Speaker 1: those savings can be applied to carry the part of
Speaker 1: the cost of Medicare for all. Who this is just unserious.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's just no way that this is true.
Speaker 1: None of this, none of this can work Medicare for
Speaker 1: all if you're gonna if you're going to take the
Speaker 1: existing Medicare program, which is not even as rich in
Speaker 1: benefits and on all the rest of it as what
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, for example, and Elizabeth Warrener suggesting we adopt.
Speaker 1: But you're gonna save. Now, it's not just we're gonna
Speaker 1: pay for it, We're going to save the treasury money.
Speaker 1: Come on, folks, at what point is it just incumbent
Speaker 1: upon voters to not be dumb government's They're going to
Speaker 1: give a massive expansion of this single part of the
Speaker 1: federal budget that is the most problematic for spending this
Speaker 1: to oblivion. Medicare. That's the single that's the one thing
Speaker 1: that we cannot continue at our current rate without major
Speaker 1: financial consequences, negative consequences in the future. We're gonna take
Speaker 1: that one thing, We're gonna make it much bigger, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna save money. Keep saying it. This is the
Speaker 1: This is the jelly donuts that are free that you
Speaker 1: can eat as much as you want, You'll never run
Speaker 1: out and we'll never make you fat. Do those jelly
Speaker 1: donuts exist? Everybody? If I told you that I could
Speaker 1: give you a dozen jelly donuts? By the way, do
Speaker 1: we producer mark? Are we? Are we jelly donut in
Speaker 1: this place? Are we? Are we French Cruller? Are we
Speaker 1: Boston Cream? What is? In fact? I'm a chocolate guy.
Speaker 1: Just chocolate straight through. Yeah, I'm a chocolate glaze. Maybe
Speaker 1: a little chocolate cream on top, maybe a chocolate stuffed
Speaker 1: respect acceptable answers, specifically crispy cream, chocolate cake. The best
Speaker 1: donut you can get? Is it from Dunkin Donuts? Or
Speaker 1: is it, in fact from that place in Canada that
Speaker 1: I can't remember what it's called, Tim Hortons. Yeah, I've
Speaker 1: never had a Tim Hortons. Because you're an American? Yeah,
Speaker 1: because he loves America. Okay. But so the jelly donuts
Speaker 1: that you're eating, guess what, There are calories. They cost money,
Speaker 1: and they're not endless the and you and you know
Speaker 1: that without me having to explain that to you. It's
Speaker 1: like if I presented you with my endless jelly donuts
Speaker 1: that cost you nothing and that won't make you fat,
Speaker 1: you'd say, buck, Come on, that is the intellectual equivalent
Speaker 1: of what it's going on here with Medicare for All.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have better care. Everyone's gonna have care, no shortages,
Speaker 1: no rationing, and it's gonna save the government money and
Speaker 1: it's gonna save you money. Who believes this? Who? Who? Who? What? What?
Speaker 1: Archimedes sword in the stone? Uh? This is just I'm sorry, man,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna this dog just won't hunt. I'd just
Speaker 1: like to say that dog just won't hunt. Say it
Speaker 1: just like that too. Oh And in case that wasn't
Speaker 1: enough for you to have to accept. But already that's
Speaker 1: that's whoa. That's way beyond what I think is reasonable
Speaker 1: or rational. What about providing health insurance to illegal immigrant
Speaker 1: Remember we've been told this stuff that's not true about
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, But what about adding illegal aliens into
Speaker 1: the Medicare for All situations? So now illegal by those
Speaker 1: of you that have Medicare. You've been paying your whole life.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just promise the government made to you,
Speaker 1: taking your money, taking money from your paychecks all the time.
Speaker 1: They're going to provide medicare for you later now, illegal
Speaker 1: aliens is just gonna get They're just gonna get that.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, I'm sorry, illegal aliens that haven't been paying
Speaker 1: into that and haven't been filing taxes. They're not going
Speaker 1: to get Medicare for All from Democrats. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: Play eighteen please. In our vision, nobody is uninsured. We
Speaker 1: make sure that you can't fall through the cracks. We'll
Speaker 1: even retroactively enroll people onto this Medicare for All who
Speaker 1: want a plan if they had been without insurance. The
Speaker 1: idea for me is the most it's important thing is
Speaker 1: making sure you get insured. It's not making sure that
Speaker 1: the government's doing the insuring. I think that the public
Speaker 1: option can can do a better job. But the most
Speaker 1: important thing is that one way or the other, you
Speaker 1: get coverage, and in our plan, everybody does. They're not
Speaker 1: even talking about insurance. That's a miss Medicare for All misnomer,
Speaker 1: not an accurate description of what is happening, what is
Speaker 1: going on. But health insurance is not what we're discussing here.
Speaker 1: This is just health. This is subsidized healthcare. This is
Speaker 1: the government with a taxpayer funded monopoly on the decision
Speaker 1: making about healthcare for every individual of the three hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty million individuals in the United States. That's what
Speaker 1: this is. It's not no insurance, there's no there's no
Speaker 1: risk pool, there's no you know, you're you're old, you're young,
Speaker 1: you're this, you're that, you're you know, you pay for this,
Speaker 1: you get this. No, it's just everyone get everyone's gonna
Speaker 1: get the SAME's gonna get whatever the government they get.
Speaker 1: And that's going to include legal aliens. I would want
Speaker 1: to ask mayor Pete, what about a legal alien who
Speaker 1: arrived yesterday would have been a legal alien who shows
Speaker 1: up next week. We still have problems at the border
Speaker 1: right now, we still have a legal crossings happening. Ye're
Speaker 1: gonna get So now America is giving away not just
Speaker 1: free healthcare, but the same level of healthcare, insurance, healthcare,
Speaker 1: rather of two people that break our law and come
Speaker 1: here from anywhereund the world. This is crazy. This would
Speaker 1: have been understood to be crazy by the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: even as recently as let's say, five or ten years ago.
Speaker 1: And yet you'll see no drop in support among Democrats
Speaker 1: really for the candidates that are saying this stuff, even
Speaker 1: though it should be recognizably well outside of what anyone
Speaker 1: would think is mainstream political thought. But it's not. Now,
Speaker 1: this is Democrat Party thought. My friends, they're going socialist.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party is a socialist party now that they
Speaker 1: can fight that definition as much as they want. They
Speaker 1: are a party of big government and central planning and
Speaker 1: redistribution of wealth. They are devoted to socialism, and in
Speaker 1: many ways their social justice approach is meant to be
Speaker 1: a rearranging of power among different groups. So they're redistributing
Speaker 1: money and they're redistributing power. That's what they think that
Speaker 1: they should be doing, all based on the whims of
Speaker 1: a central committee, if you will, the elites, the governing
Speaker 1: apparatus that makes all these decisions. This is very, very
Speaker 1: troubling stuff. But may Or Pete's supposed to be the same.
Speaker 1: They're reasonable, the smart one, and he's all in a
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, and his Medicare for All planned is
Speaker 1: just fantasy land stuff. It cannot work the way he
Speaker 1: says it's going to work. It is unserious to say
Speaker 1: that it will do the things that he says it's
Speaker 1: going to do. But no one's gonna hit him on
Speaker 1: this one. They're just gonna let it go. Rock and roll.
Speaker 1: Fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call, Roll call. All right, let's see
Speaker 1: what we got in the roll call. Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slashbox section or teambuck at iHeartMedia dot com. If you
Speaker 1: want an email today, we'll get into some of the Facebook.
Speaker 1: I feel like we've been favoring the email you've got
Speaker 1: mail from back in the day. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: to this. Darby, it's a cool name. Listen to Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris say that she isn't doing well because America isn't
Speaker 1: ready for a woman of color to be president is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: My ex wife is black and she's far more successful
Speaker 1: than I am for one very simple reason. She worked
Speaker 1: her tail off. That's it. Your analysis is one hundred
Speaker 1: percent correct that we as a country not tolerant any
Speaker 1: of the biggest behaviors the left constantly accuses of us of.
Speaker 1: If sexism, racism, or any other ism is your excuse
Speaker 1: for not succeeding, you weren't going to succeed anyway. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's just so easy for people
Speaker 1: to find some reason why things haven't gone exactly the
Speaker 1: way they wanted to because of an immutable characteristic beyond
Speaker 1: their control. When I just don't think that. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that doesn't tappen in America. I think that it
Speaker 1: happens far less frequently than we are told by the media.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, Robert Rights. Libs are jealous of Trump.
Speaker 1: He was the king of what, married and surrounded by
Speaker 1: hot women. He's rich, he's all, he's got awesome kids,
Speaker 1: he's brutally honest. Yeah, basically, this guy's saying that he's awesome.
Speaker 1: Libs hate Trump because Trump is so awesome. Well, I
Speaker 1: like where your heads. I like where your head's at
Speaker 1: on that one. Let's see here, Chris buck love the show.
Speaker 1: I hear you when you say the Orange Adonis failed
Speaker 1: to deliver on his promise of a beautiful wall that
Speaker 1: said nobody could have fully anticipated the deranged antics of
Speaker 1: the Democrats. If a mayor comes in and promises to
Speaker 1: reform the police and the entire establishment fights him at
Speaker 1: any cost and uses corrupt judges to thwart his efforts,
Speaker 1: did he fail or did the opposition prevent him using
Speaker 1: a perversion of the law and accepted norms. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: wall is stunted, but he's working with the bounds of
Speaker 1: the law. Unless he wanted to pull an Obama. You
Speaker 1: have to judge his efforts in that light. You're being
Speaker 1: a little too literal and cute on this issue, Chris Buddy.
Speaker 1: Why I wasn't there a focus on getting the wall
Speaker 1: done when Trump had a majority in the Congress? Where
Speaker 1: where was the wall? Then? Where was immigration action? First
Speaker 1: two years? I look, I'm not saying that Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: have all those problems you laid out. I think he
Speaker 1: I talk about how he has all those issues, but
Speaker 1: he kind of knew he would right got the tax
Speaker 1: cuts done. Glad we got those tax cuts, the most
Speaker 1: classic Gop maneuver of all time. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: not good, but it's not a game change. You know why,
Speaker 1: because Democrats can and say, okay, now we're gonna raise taxes.
Speaker 1: There we go. It was nice while it lasted. A
Speaker 1: wall would be forever. And we don't have the wall,
Speaker 1: and we were promised wall. We were not promised. Oh
Speaker 1: it's really hard to get a wall. Here we go.
Speaker 1: Kyle's hey, buck saw the snap about Belgians. I had
Speaker 1: one smartest, toughest dog I ever owned, not an easy
Speaker 1: dog to own. Yeah, that's what I was saying. She
Speaker 1: just roid every six sided cage we bought. Sheared off
Speaker 1: lower canines, pulling a cage door through the smaller opening
Speaker 1: so she could get out of one. She scaled a
Speaker 1: six foot privacy fence is a Belgian Malinois, folks and
Speaker 1: pulled it apart, chewed through another wooden fence. She had
Speaker 1: storm anxiety and frankly thought she was human, but was
Speaker 1: great with kids and dogs. They have a huge prey drive,
Speaker 1: so it cannot be an apartment dog, but they are
Speaker 1: a great breed. No, Kyle, that's well in line with
Speaker 1: what I've read about Belgian Malinois. Amazing companions, incredibly loyal,
Speaker 1: incredibly smart, fierce, and I think they're beautiful dogs too,
Speaker 1: But not meant to be in like a studio apartment,
Speaker 1: you know, where you have like a little bed in
Speaker 1: the corner for it and no work for it to
Speaker 1: do throughout the day. No, it's not a lot. It's
Speaker 1: definitely not a lap dog. I think I might have
Speaker 1: to get a lap dog. That'd be kind of fun.
Speaker 1: Brandy Rights, thanks for reinforcing the advertisement on owning such
Speaker 1: a high breed, high drive breed like the Malonois or
Speaker 1: Dutch shepherd malanown Dutch shepherd by the different type, but
Speaker 1: they look very it's for a lay person like me,
Speaker 1: it's not. It hasn't been a lot of time with
Speaker 1: those two breeds. They look a little similar. They're different,
Speaker 1: but there it's easy to get them confused. And they
Speaker 1: all they both also look a little bit like a
Speaker 1: German shepherd, some differences in the body and the and
Speaker 1: the coat colors. Um. Anyway, Brandy Wrights, I try to
Speaker 1: save rescue so many Malonois and Dutchies that people discard
Speaker 1: because they thought they were cool and find they cannot
Speaker 1: handle the breed. Guys. The dog breed, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I grew up with dogs. The dog breed really matters.
Speaker 1: And if you're going to get it, if you're in
Speaker 1: the city, get a city dog. If you want a
Speaker 1: lazy snuggle dog, get a dog that likes just lie
Speaker 1: around that have it's belly rubbed. If you want an
Speaker 1: animal that is going to protect your home, is going
Speaker 1: to you know, be a working dog in some capacity,
Speaker 1: you know, and you were a no dog handling, maybe
Speaker 1: think about getting a malinwaw. But do not just be like, oh,
Speaker 1: they look cool and they you know, track down bagdaddy.
Speaker 1: So I want to get a Belgian malanwaw not a
Speaker 1: good idea anyway. Seth buck love the podcast as a
Speaker 1: retired sergeant from the army. This drives me crazy. That
Speaker 1: guy was out of step. He looks confused. Seth is
Speaker 1: saying he did not like the testimony of Vinman. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: thanks Man for writing. I appreciate it. And a team
Speaker 1: that's gonna be it for the show today. I hope
Speaker 1: you have thought it was as fantastic as I do.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna keep asking you. Please tell somebody in your
Speaker 1: life if you're bored, if you've got nothing else to say.
Speaker 1: Sitting across some someone at dinner, they're like, hey, if
Speaker 1: you try the Buck Sexton Show, listen to the podcast
Speaker 1: a huge help. If everybody listening to this did that
Speaker 1: and without I hope you've enjoyed the audio, or if
Speaker 1: you're listening or if you're watching on Pluto channel to
Speaker 1: forty eight, first, thank you. She'll tie