Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Facebook CEO is down
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill answering questions from senators who don't seem
Speaker 1: to understand how a social media network works. Also fallout
Speaker 1: from the seizure of Trump lawyer Cohen's records. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that, plus an update on our possible serial response
Speaker 1: and the caravan heading for the US Mexico border. That
Speaker 1: a more coming up. This is The Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Ready, you're
Speaker 1: a great American Again? The Buck Sexton Show begins. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody. Great to have
Speaker 1: you here with me. Always a privilege and a pleasure.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of stuff to talk about today,
Speaker 1: oh my, So let's start with like I said, Like
Speaker 1: I just said, we got Facebook, We've got the Cohen
Speaker 1: lawyer record seizure fallout. Our friend Andie McCarthy, the one
Speaker 1: and only. He'll be joining us right in the middle
Speaker 1: of the show, talk about He's a former Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York assistant US attorney who is going to
Speaker 1: be talking to us about what the heck did the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York do yesterday, So he's as
Speaker 1: good a guys are gonna find a talk about that. Um,
Speaker 1: we'll get into all the latest and then also later
Speaker 1: on the show, they're attacking a part of my youth,
Speaker 1: the Breakfast Club. We'll discuss that the social justice warriors
Speaker 1: are going after it, and also a firm of action
Speaker 1: Harvard and Asian Americans. That'll be a topic you want
Speaker 1: to stay around for. So I'm I take a very
Speaker 1: different point. Producer Mike agrees with me on this one.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna assume Brandon agrees to be on this one
Speaker 1: just because they didn't ask him. So I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: the tide goes to the buck, Thank you, Brandon. But
Speaker 1: I think this whole Facebook thing is a social media
Speaker 1: show trial. I really do. I'm I'm absolutely convinced that
Speaker 1: if Trump had not won the election, nobody would care.
Speaker 1: You would not have heard anything about Cambridge Analytica. Do
Speaker 1: not be hearing about the threat that social media platforms
Speaker 1: like Facebook pose for our democracy. And I think people
Speaker 1: are getting lost in all the all the little side
Speaker 1: stories and and side shows here with what's happening. Instead
Speaker 1: of keeping an eye and the fact that this is
Speaker 1: just more liberal outrage Catharsis over Hillary's loss. Why the
Speaker 1: heck is the CEO of Facebook showing up to explain
Speaker 1: to members of the Senate how Facebook works, what it's
Speaker 1: background is. You know, don't they have Google? I mean,
Speaker 1: can't they figure this stuff out? It was incredible. If
Speaker 1: you saw some of the hearing, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of like show like Sean town I made that the
Speaker 1: people put the photos and they can send the messages
Speaker 1: to the friends. What is this with the the digital
Speaker 1: photo and the face But there's no book, so it's
Speaker 1: really lots of different screens, not pages. I mean, these
Speaker 1: people in the Senate, they're representing you and me, my friends.
Speaker 1: They are not exactly sharp when it comes to the
Speaker 1: digital world. I gotta say it was pretty There was
Speaker 1: a lot of whoa, I thought you guys were up.
Speaker 1: These are the people who are writing like cybersecurity laws.
Speaker 1: By the way, just remember that these are the people
Speaker 1: that are supposed to be protecting us from the best
Speaker 1: of the best hackers that China and Russia and you know,
Speaker 1: Iran and others can throw North Korea can throw our way.
Speaker 1: So you're telling me the photos are posted by the users,
Speaker 1: or where do we get these photos? Is there? Do
Speaker 1: we do? We call the d m V on a
Speaker 1: rotary phone. They have no idea what is going on,
Speaker 1: but they know that this is a moment to make
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of speeches. And they also know that
Speaker 1: this is a story that has a much greater residence
Speaker 1: with particularly the media, but the public at large then
Speaker 1: it would otherwise, because this is called this is holding
Speaker 1: something to account for Hillary's loss other than Hillary. And
Speaker 1: I can't help but go down the list. Okay, so
Speaker 1: we've had Hillary loss, but because Comey. Remember that Comey
Speaker 1: came out and said that we found more emails right
Speaker 1: before the Life. Hillary lost because Comy. Hillary lost because sexism.
Speaker 1: That's been a fun one. Hillary lost because Russia ran
Speaker 1: some incredible international scheme of subversion and mind manipulation. Uh
Speaker 1: and now Hillary lost because Russia did that. But also Facebook,
Speaker 1: Facebook should have done more. In fact that the ceo himself,
Speaker 1: I was out there talking about Mark Zuckerberg, who is
Speaker 1: my contemporary, unfortunately worth quite a bit more than me,
Speaker 1: got quite a bit of a bigger bank roll, which
Speaker 1: makes me sad. But nonetheless he he said that he
Speaker 1: was there, and then he was being held accountable himself personally.
Speaker 1: It's clear now that we didn't do enough to prevent
Speaker 1: these tools from being used for harm as well, and
Speaker 1: that goes for fake news, for foreign interference and elections
Speaker 1: and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.
Speaker 1: We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility
Speaker 1: and that was a big mistake, and it was my mistake,
Speaker 1: and I'm sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and
Speaker 1: I'm responsible for what happens here. Now we have to
Speaker 1: go through are all of our relationship with people and
Speaker 1: make sure that we're taking a broad enough view of
Speaker 1: our responsibility. It's not enough to just connect people. We
Speaker 1: have to make sure that those connections are positive. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to just give people a voice. We need
Speaker 1: to make sure that people aren't using it to harm
Speaker 1: other people or to spread misinformation. And it's not enough
Speaker 1: to just give people control over their information. We need
Speaker 1: to make sure that the developers they share it with
Speaker 1: protect their information too. Now, put aside for a moment
Speaker 1: that this guy who I feel like definitely got his
Speaker 1: fair share of wedgies back in the day, Do you
Speaker 1: remember that that was a thing we're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: eighties movies later. Well, what's what do you call it?
Speaker 1: When somebody takes that, puts them in the headlock and
Speaker 1: and you know, like thank you a noogie? And wedgies?
Speaker 1: Remember those that kind of no one ever talks about.
Speaker 1: I think right now you'd probably get you know, be
Speaker 1: it's some sort of code violation in schools or something.
Speaker 1: I allowed to do that anymore. Forget about code red.
Speaker 1: You're not even allowed to give people a wedgie anymore.
Speaker 1: You're gonna get in, You're gonna get locked up. But anyway,
Speaker 1: a guy who he's kind of the quintessential super nerd,
Speaker 1: as in, he's a nerd who now is like a
Speaker 1: country unto himself, who's worth like eighty billion dollars or
Speaker 1: something for Africa, whatever it is on paper, it's tens
Speaker 1: it's tens of billions of dollars. But let's just put
Speaker 1: aside all that. Let's put aside all the razzle dazzle
Speaker 1: for a second. The fact that he didn't wear his hoodie.
Speaker 1: He wore a suit and tie like a respectable gentleman.
Speaker 1: Why is he doing this? Why is you know, let's
Speaker 1: look at the why for a moment. Lets let's take
Speaker 1: a step back, because this was the biggest story on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill today. You know that it's this and it's
Speaker 1: the coin aftermath. Those are the two things that we'll
Speaker 1: dig into, both of those in a way you haven't
Speaker 1: heard anywhere else, and that will be I promise you
Speaker 1: it'll be worth your time today. Let's start with the why,
Speaker 1: ask why? Um The Democrats as I as I was
Speaker 1: mentioning before, they wanted take this story and run with
Speaker 1: it because even without having to explicitly remind the viewer
Speaker 1: all the time about this, it's all about Hillary loss
Speaker 1: because of and you know, fill in the blank. Now,
Speaker 1: it's not so much that they love Hillary, as is
Speaker 1: that they want an excuse for why they're apparatus was
Speaker 1: unable to get someone elected against Trump, who they clearly
Speaker 1: think is some kind of you know, evil monster from
Speaker 1: the deep. And then there's also Trump is illegitimate, right,
Speaker 1: anything that helped Trump win that was outside the boundaries
Speaker 1: of fair play. Further is the notion among the left
Speaker 1: and among Democrats that Trump is not really the president,
Speaker 1: which is what at the end of the day, Democrats belief,
Speaker 1: not my president. I remember the marches here in New York,
Speaker 1: not my president and not my you know, their march
Speaker 1: on the streets. And I was like, actually, actually, as
Speaker 1: your president, you might not like him. He's the president.
Speaker 1: Barack Obama was my president for eight years. Wasn't my choice,
Speaker 1: but he was my president. It's called reality. I like
Speaker 1: to live in it, right, not my president. I remember
Speaker 1: all the marches. So now we look at this, we say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we know why the Democrats like this story, and I
Speaker 1: mean the Democrat politicians and also the general media apparatus.
Speaker 1: But I just want to focus for for a moment
Speaker 1: here on because because Facebook is incredibly powerful. Look, I
Speaker 1: use Facebook every day. People are all people. Entire business
Speaker 1: huge businesses are built around using Facebook as a platform.
Speaker 1: It is a company that in many ways has more
Speaker 1: power over other companies than anything else on the planet,
Speaker 1: with the exceptions of Google and Amazon, which are probably
Speaker 1: right up there too. And you can make arguments as
Speaker 1: to which one has the most. I mean, the power
Speaker 1: of life and death over huge companies is in the
Speaker 1: hands of these other companies like Amazon and Facebook and
Speaker 1: Google not so much. Twitter. Twitter is kind of the
Speaker 1: runt of the litter with this stuff. Twitter is like,
Speaker 1: for news people to spout off and and you know,
Speaker 1: compare who can be the wittiest or the nastiest depending
Speaker 1: on how you how you catch somebody on any given day.
Speaker 1: Why is Zuckerberg showing up in the horse hair? So
Speaker 1: to speak? How many people even catch that reference? They
Speaker 1: don't teach kids anything in school anymore? Why is is
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg showing up and doing this whole maya culpa I
Speaker 1: always loved by. I've caught a couple of eggers that
Speaker 1: are like showing up for an apologia. I'm like, no,
Speaker 1: APOLOGI is not actually a a an apology. It's a
Speaker 1: defense of something. So he's apologizing. He's not doing an apologia.
Speaker 1: Like I said, I don't teach kids anything in school anymore.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't make any sense. Really, you don't after
Speaker 1: I mean, it didn't really have to do this. Why
Speaker 1: is he doing it? Why? Why? Why? And when you
Speaker 1: look at the why, you understand that, first of all,
Speaker 1: he's not taking any Always be skeptical of someone who's
Speaker 1: saying I take all the blame when they face no consequences. Right,
Speaker 1: it reminds me of who I forget that, Like the
Speaker 1: counter terrorisms are pre nine eleven I went around in
Speaker 1: this whole thing about how you know he was the
Speaker 1: first one that took blame for the US government. But
Speaker 1: I mean he didn't actually take any blame. No one
Speaker 1: really blame him for anything. It was just a way
Speaker 1: of grand standing, right, Oh, I take all the blame
Speaker 1: for the failure of nine eleven on my shoulders. Now
Speaker 1: you don't, dude, You're just grandstanding. Taking the blame is
Speaker 1: like I resign my commission. I no longer have a paycheck,
Speaker 1: and like, I know there's consequences here that's taken the blame.
Speaker 1: Taking the blame is not when you're out of government, like, oh,
Speaker 1: I could have done more. It's like the equivalent of
Speaker 1: somebody who's like, oh, my biggest weakness is there in
Speaker 1: that job interview. My biggest weaknesses, you know what they are, Brandon,
Speaker 1: I take too much of a load on my shoulders.
Speaker 1: I shared the credit far too much. I've I've really
Speaker 1: got problems. My work ethic is just crazy. I got problems, right,
Speaker 1: Look at this, Mark, Mark Zucker, Oh, we should have
Speaker 1: done more to police content. We should have done more.
Speaker 1: We should have done more. A couple of things pushing
Speaker 1: this one. This is what is demanded of him. Even
Speaker 1: someone like Mark Zuckerberg, who could retire to his private
Speaker 1: island and go inside the volcano layer and just work
Speaker 1: on like cybernetics for the future that will keep him
Speaker 1: living for the next ten thousand years, he could do that.
Speaker 1: He's got that kind of cash. Goals, by the way,
Speaker 1: goals hashtag goals. Um. But he also wants to be
Speaker 1: liked by the people that are outraged by the fact
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton lost, and those people demand some kind
Speaker 1: of of sacrifice. Right those people are demanding Wait a second,
Speaker 1: Facebook was a problem here. Facebook is supposed Facebook was
Speaker 1: supposed to be on their side. There's a particular resentment
Speaker 1: among the Democrat media, among the American left for a
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley platform, which they really take on as their
Speaker 1: own in their eyes, having been used in any way
Speaker 1: to bring about not just a Republican presidency, but the
Speaker 1: Trump presidency. They they want there to be retribution for this,
Speaker 1: and they want someone to make a public show of it.
Speaker 1: So that's one phase of this. But there's also some
Speaker 1: other stuff. Why zuckerberr. Why is Zuckerberg saying this right now? Um?
Speaker 1: What is the purpose for Facebook? What is the purpose
Speaker 1: for the left, What does this mean about the way
Speaker 1: we get information going forward? About censorship of a a possible
Speaker 1: monopoly and the breakdown of these companies by government decision
Speaker 1: in the future if and when they don't submit themselves
Speaker 1: to regulations. The anti competitive aspect of a company like
Speaker 1: Facebook calling for regulations. Oh, there's actually a lot going
Speaker 1: on here that affects That affects a company that, as
Speaker 1: you know, is one of the is changing the way
Speaker 1: we interact with not just each other, but the way
Speaker 1: we interact with everything on a day to day basis,
Speaker 1: including national political conversation. I mean, you can't even have
Speaker 1: a discussion now about a media outlet without well, what's
Speaker 1: our Facebook strategy? So but I will break down all
Speaker 1: these different layers and levels about why this matters not
Speaker 1: just a Facebook, but to all of us. But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna need a little mo thomas ours, So stay with
Speaker 1: me and I'll be right back. I don't think you
Speaker 1: have a monopoly. It certainly doesn't feel like that to me. Okay,
Speaker 1: So one way to regulate a companies through competition through
Speaker 1: government regulation, given what's happened here, while we should let
Speaker 1: your self regulate, well, Senator, my position is not that
Speaker 1: there should be no regulation. I think the Internet is increasing.
Speaker 1: I think the real question as the Internet becomes more
Speaker 1: important in people's lives is what is the right regulation,
Speaker 1: not whether there should be. You, as a company, welcome regulation.
Speaker 1: I think if it's the right regulation, then you think,
Speaker 1: look at that, a company that basically begging for the
Speaker 1: Congress to rights and regulations for them. I mean he's
Speaker 1: not actually begging, but he's he's keeping that door wide open. Yes,
Speaker 1: the right regulation. Sure, and you let us see really
Speaker 1: quickly pivot away from the whole notion of a monopoly
Speaker 1: and anti competitive practices. Isn't it fascinating, my friends, that
Speaker 1: right now you've had this media outrage, I mean, hair
Speaker 1: on fire. Oh my gosh, there are coming for us
Speaker 1: about a possible merger between Tribune and Sinclair because of
Speaker 1: all the oh my gosh, it's gonna have the stranglehold
Speaker 1: on local local news media. And there are people that
Speaker 1: are trying to oppose that based on the based on
Speaker 1: the possibility of oh my gosh, a a right of
Speaker 1: center viewpoint having more than one national level TV outlet?
Speaker 1: What a what a what a crazy mad Max world
Speaker 1: that would be um Meanwhile, Facebook does not have any
Speaker 1: real competition. To say it does is not true. And
Speaker 1: yet you're not hear anybody say we should break up
Speaker 1: Facebook if they're looking. And there's a whole other discussion
Speaker 1: we how to here abou whether monopoly is even possible
Speaker 1: in the absence of government regulation. There people say, really,
Speaker 1: the only way monopoly is possible if the government enforces
Speaker 1: a monopoly, and that's a there's a whole other discussion
Speaker 1: here that eventually there's always a way within the market too.
Speaker 1: No one can actually corner the market unless the government
Speaker 1: is complicit in that. And that's what I think Facebook
Speaker 1: wants to do because the company doesn't have any competition.
Speaker 1: And whether you think companies should be broken up or
Speaker 1: not based on size, importance and reach in a certain sector.
Speaker 1: If there is such a thing as a company that
Speaker 1: you know is too big, you know, too big to
Speaker 1: stand forget too big to fail, I think Facebook falls
Speaker 1: into the category. So they're trying to get ahead of
Speaker 1: this year by one creating a sense of political goodwill
Speaker 1: among Democrats and the Congress that you know that they're
Speaker 1: trying to build political capital here. Yes, yes, we're sorry
Speaker 1: about the Russia stuff. Oh yes, we're so so sorry
Speaker 1: about that. I mean I was picturing, like, does Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg pull a Scrooge McDuck and go back to a
Speaker 1: giant vault just full of gold coins and just swimming
Speaker 1: them great cartoon ducktails was awesome. So and I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I mean he actually could if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: That's a whole separate discussion. The point here is just
Speaker 1: they're trying to get ahead of the possible breakup of
Speaker 1: Facebook under monopoly concerns and regulation, as you know, is
Speaker 1: inherently anti competitive. Because the regulatory caught the burden of regulation,
Speaker 1: he is much heavier on smaller and emerging companies. So
Speaker 1: you see what Mark Zuckerberg is doing here is actually
Speaker 1: I give him credit. And the guy, you know, depending
Speaker 1: especially on whose version you believe, he's he's willing to uh,
Speaker 1: he's willing to shank people as they say whatn't necessary.
Speaker 1: He's willing to take people out of the corporate, corporate,
Speaker 1: competitive world around him. That's how he ended up being CEO.
Speaker 1: So but the the guy understands and I'm sure all
Speaker 1: of his advisers and his he's got the highest priced
Speaker 1: lawyers than legal advice on the planet understands that he
Speaker 1: goes there, he does a whole maya culpa thing, he
Speaker 1: gets some some uh supportive press, and he goes before
Speaker 1: the Congress, and it's basically saying, yeah, I regulators because
Speaker 1: once the once the government starts regulating them one, if
Speaker 1: you're if you're already regulating them, it's a lot harder
Speaker 1: to get the whole momentum going to actually break up
Speaker 1: a company. Right, you can say, no, they're all they're
Speaker 1: all banging the regulation and they're playing ball with what
Speaker 1: you know, the federal government demands of them. And then
Speaker 1: also if they weren't a monopoly before, they're gonna be
Speaker 1: one now because with the regulatory with the regulatory costs
Speaker 1: of say having to monitor and edit and censor content alone,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be an enormous burden, enormous challenge going forward.
Speaker 1: And that's just the one other piece of this discussion
Speaker 1: I want to have you before we move on to
Speaker 1: Cohen lawyer seizure of records and also serio response is
Speaker 1: he's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton is back. Well,
Speaker 1: Mr Zuckerberger, I will say there are a great many
Speaker 1: Americans who I think are deeply concerned that that Facebook
Speaker 1: and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern
Speaker 1: of bias and political censorship. There have been numerous instances
Speaker 1: with Facebook. In May of sixteen, Gizmodo reported that Facebook
Speaker 1: had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news,
Speaker 1: including stories about cepac, including stories about Mitt Romney, including
Speaker 1: stories about the lowest learner i r S scandal, including
Speaker 1: stories about Glenn Beck. In addition to that, Facebook has
Speaker 1: initially shut down the Chick fil A Appreciation Day page,
Speaker 1: has blocked a post of Fox News Reporter, has blocked
Speaker 1: over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump
Speaker 1: supporters Diamond and Silks page with one point two million
Speaker 1: Facebook followers after determining their content and brand were quote
Speaker 1: unsafe to the community. To a great many Americans, that
Speaker 1: appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Ted Cruise,
Speaker 1: taking the CEO of Facebook to task on the issue
Speaker 1: of censorship. Which is what I was trying The word
Speaker 1: I was trying to get out before I was so
Speaker 1: rudely cut off by the hard break that is built
Speaker 1: into our system here of the radio show. Um. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I think that's the first that that's happened in a a
Speaker 1: while where I was just so next I'm gonna tell you, oh,
Speaker 1: and we're out of time. But censorship is the big
Speaker 1: issue and the content management component of what's going on
Speaker 1: with Facebook. This is huge. This this goes towards the
Speaker 1: way that you're gonna be getting information, uh, in the
Speaker 1: years to come, for decades to come. Is it a
Speaker 1: platform or a publisher? The question we need to ask
Speaker 1: about Facebook right Is Facebook in any way endorsing or
Speaker 1: verifying the information that's put up by individuals? Are they
Speaker 1: going to separate out what is considered a news or
Speaker 1: a pub is shing u story from what it's just
Speaker 1: somebody saying stuff on their own page. I mean, how
Speaker 1: are they going to break this down? That's a huge
Speaker 1: set of problems they're taking on here, and they're doing
Speaker 1: it in part in response not to the censorship concerned
Speaker 1: the politicization concerns of conservatives, but because of the Russia
Speaker 1: Facebook stock puppet account fiasco right with the election. If
Speaker 1: Hillary hadn't lost the election, none of these discussions would
Speaker 1: be happening right now. Just remember that that conservatives have
Speaker 1: been saying for a while now, for years Hey, why
Speaker 1: is it that this person's content seems to get shared
Speaker 1: a lot more than mine and I actually have a
Speaker 1: much bigger following and much more engaged audience. Why am
Speaker 1: I banned or even shadow band as a conservative when,
Speaker 1: as we know, that doesn't happen either side, And I
Speaker 1: just would would note that on the on the censorship concern.
Speaker 1: If this weren't just happy to conservatives, I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: we would hear about some very upset liberals, some some progressives,
Speaker 1: and some left wing news sites that would be raising
Speaker 1: these problems and concerns. But we don't. We only hear
Speaker 1: about it really from right wing conservative sites. Do we
Speaker 1: think right wing is pejorative? I was thinking about that today.
Speaker 1: I was talking to somebody. We're describing a project we're
Speaker 1: working on. We're trying to come up with different taglines,
Speaker 1: and said, well, right, I think right wing has become
Speaker 1: it's it's not in vogue right now. But I feel
Speaker 1: like right wings should be fine to say we see it.
Speaker 1: I say left wing, all that was wrong with the
Speaker 1: right wing? All right wing? I don't know. I like,
Speaker 1: I don't like to let the other side manage the
Speaker 1: terms of debating discussions. So I say things like right wing. Alright, So,
Speaker 1: but back to what's going on with Facebook here. Uh,
Speaker 1: they clearly have been playing games with this. There's no
Speaker 1: question in my mind that the people writing the algorithms
Speaker 1: and and you see this even with some of the
Speaker 1: open policies about well what's uh, you know, anything that
Speaker 1: links to a site that sells guns or anything that
Speaker 1: you know. They they have taken political stands openly in
Speaker 1: the past, but I think there's a much more pernicious
Speaker 1: and a much more problematic practice of using the algorithm
Speaker 1: to shape discussion for political ends that's gonna benefit liberals
Speaker 1: at the expense of conservatives. That's what I think. I
Speaker 1: have spoken to people who say it's happen to them.
Speaker 1: I believe them. Uh. And there have been too many
Speaker 1: cases that have been publicized, and they all point the
Speaker 1: same direction. And the direction is that liberals view Facebook
Speaker 1: as a platform that they can and should dominate the
Speaker 1: same way they do Snapchat and Twitter and other other
Speaker 1: social media spaces. And they're getting help. And now, once
Speaker 1: you start putting out there that Zuckerberg and his team
Speaker 1: at Facebook are supposed to be monitoring the intent, you
Speaker 1: were really asking them and Congress, I think is asking
Speaker 1: them to take an active hand in the curation of
Speaker 1: what you're seeing every day. And it's not just going
Speaker 1: to be set by some neutral algorithm that's like you
Speaker 1: like this will show you that you like you like
Speaker 1: Republican stuff, We're gonna show you things associated with with
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. That's what we've all been led to
Speaker 1: believe is going on with this. But I think there's
Speaker 1: it's many layers more complicated than that. You know, let's
Speaker 1: understand if Russians, if we're supposed to believe that a
Speaker 1: bunch of Russians operating in some office space in in St. Petersburg,
Speaker 1: we're able to in any way influence the election using Facebook.
Speaker 1: Just think what the people running Facebook can do. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind when I say can do, I really
Speaker 1: mean it as in not just the technical capability, but
Speaker 1: they're allowed to. It is a private service. They set
Speaker 1: their own turn of service. Nobody reads them. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could be giving away your first born to them
Speaker 1: every time you click on the terms of service. But
Speaker 1: we were all just like Gerbils that want to hit
Speaker 1: that little lever and get the little little treat, you know,
Speaker 1: hit hit the pedal, hit the lever, Yeah, terms of service,
Speaker 1: sure or whatever. I mean, it's like on my iPhone
Speaker 1: every time they change the terms of service, it could
Speaker 1: say you need to walk around in a chicken suit
Speaker 1: and tell everybody that you are the worst for the
Speaker 1: next week, and I would click yes, because I didn't
Speaker 1: read it. I'm just clicking whatever they wanted the terms
Speaker 1: of service. So this is something we need to watch.
Speaker 1: This is something that will be increasingly important going forward.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if the answer is to form
Speaker 1: a more conservative friendly platform or just to try and
Speaker 1: and fight for a fair shake on this one, because
Speaker 1: people say, well another social media network, all right, Well
Speaker 1: what's gonna have? Facebook has a two billion person head
Speaker 1: start folks who wants to try to play the game
Speaker 1: of catching up to them. I mean, somebody will eventually,
Speaker 1: but I think we're a long way away from that.
Speaker 1: And in the meantime, they have so much influence on
Speaker 1: what we were thinking and what we were seeing. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, it's not just and this is no knowing
Speaker 1: a matter from the publishing standpoint and how it works
Speaker 1: with companies and businesses. I mean, I know I have
Speaker 1: friends who are building whole businesses just on using Facebook
Speaker 1: to sell their products. That's how they target but that's
Speaker 1: how they find them. It's competing with the old advertising model,
Speaker 1: right so, and it's really taking over advertising. But you
Speaker 1: also have to keep in mind that the way that
Speaker 1: Facebook chooses to police content on the side also it's
Speaker 1: it's not just like, oh, i'm you know, I'm buck,
Speaker 1: I'm posting things and I want my friend Bob to
Speaker 1: see my thoughts here. The sites that do well on
Speaker 1: the Facebook platform monetize better, and so the Facebook can
Speaker 1: decide that you're going to see a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: from BuzzFeed, for example, And also BuzzFeed will be able
Speaker 1: to monetize its content much better via face this book.
Speaker 1: Then say a conservative contender could then you know, right
Speaker 1: wing crazies dot com, could you know whatever? And you'll
Speaker 1: never know about that. You just won't see their content.
Speaker 1: You'll see BuzzFeed content in your feed. So this is
Speaker 1: getting into the tech realm. And I think ultimately that
Speaker 1: those are the important takeaways from all this. And also
Speaker 1: this is a big social media show trial. Yeah, you're
Speaker 1: giving away your data to them. You should already know that.
Speaker 1: We should all know that, we should be aware any
Speaker 1: safeguards that they put in place are not for are
Speaker 1: not really for your benefit. Okay, they're they're gonna monetize,
Speaker 1: they're gonna find it what to use the data you
Speaker 1: give them and all this, Oh my gosh, do you
Speaker 1: realize what Cambridge Analytic was doing. It's just another version
Speaker 1: of oh why did Hillary lose? So that's that's Those
Speaker 1: are my thoughts on Facebook. You got anything else you
Speaker 1: want to add into the mix, though, You've got some
Speaker 1: spice that you want to throw into the cauldron. Eight
Speaker 1: four four eight five eight four four nine Buck producer
Speaker 1: Mike loves getting phone calls. It is true. He will
Speaker 1: chat with you and chat with you, and you know
Speaker 1: he likes when you call and you have limericks to
Speaker 1: share if you have, if you have a high coup
Speaker 1: in mind, he will listen to it. So light up
Speaker 1: that I know he's looking at me. I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get a code read later. But light up
Speaker 1: that board and well we're gonna come back. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about the Cohen fallout obviously, and then also just some
Speaker 1: follow up on what's gonna happen I think with Syria
Speaker 1: and a whole bunch of other stuff. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: They were that back in with Obama eliminated, they're declared No,
Speaker 1: it's a very very loyally insertion of a word. They're
Speaker 1: declared chemical weapons program. Well, it's a good thing that
Speaker 1: work was in there, because they clearly did not eliminate
Speaker 1: serious chemical weapons program, because they are still using it
Speaker 1: to kill men, women and children. So now we look
Speaker 1: to what we should do about it. If anything, it
Speaker 1: seems to me that there's something of a bipartisan consensus
Speaker 1: right now that we have to act in response to
Speaker 1: this attack in Syrias I was saying to you yesterday. Um,
Speaker 1: keep in mind a half million people have been killed
Speaker 1: in this civil war in ways that are brutal, beyond
Speaker 1: beyond comprehension. I mean, just all kinds of terrible things
Speaker 1: have been happening in this country for years and years,
Speaker 1: and we have this line that we draw on the
Speaker 1: sand on the usage of chemical weapons. And I understand
Speaker 1: there's a good reason for that online, Um, but we
Speaker 1: should all be very clear that our response to this attack.
Speaker 1: If Trump and I'm seeing now Macrawn and and and
Speaker 1: on others are united in this notion, you know, we
Speaker 1: have to do something about this in response to Assad's
Speaker 1: chemic weapons attack east of Damascus in Syria. We should
Speaker 1: all understand that it is a gesture. It is not
Speaker 1: going to change any tactical reality. It's not going to
Speaker 1: change to anything going on in this battlefield space. They
Speaker 1: can still drop barrel bombs which are just basically crude
Speaker 1: i e. D. S dropped from the sky from helicopters
Speaker 1: in particular, uh, packed with shrapnel, massive explosion, kill as
Speaker 1: many people as possible. Um, that's what they've been doing
Speaker 1: for years. So they're they're still gonna be slaughtering civilians. This.
Speaker 1: We're not saying stop killing innocent people, or we're gonna
Speaker 1: keep hitting you. We're saying, don't use come with the weapons.
Speaker 1: And you you take this too, you know, you take
Speaker 1: this to the level of Okay, well, what are we
Speaker 1: really saying. And what we're saying is we're not gonna
Speaker 1: do anything about the murderer of innocent civilians by the
Speaker 1: Assad regime in Syria unless it's with chemical weapons. That's
Speaker 1: what we're saying. I just think we should all be
Speaker 1: quite clear on that. Um. You don't usually hear it
Speaker 1: put in those terms, but that is that is the truth.
Speaker 1: That is the reality as to what it will do. UM.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned to you yesterday, the airfields when we
Speaker 1: hit them the last time, almost exactly a year ago.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's feeling very cyclical. Um when we
Speaker 1: hit them a year ago, the airfields are back up
Speaker 1: and running quite soon after. It was a a pin
Speaker 1: prick strike you could say, didn't do didn't do anything
Speaker 1: to change anything, just showed, okay, we'll enforce this red line.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that has no merit. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying forget about that, because it was certainly critical of
Speaker 1: the Obama aministration for refusing to enforce the red years ago.
Speaker 1: But keep in mind that might have been able to
Speaker 1: actually change some of the realities we've seen play out
Speaker 1: in Syria once the Red Line was not in force.
Speaker 1: So then it was just open season for USAW to
Speaker 1: do whatever the heck you wanted. And the Iranians were
Speaker 1: in there and the Russians, and it was I mean,
Speaker 1: the Russians just had a campaign of extermination going on
Speaker 1: in Aleppo against civilians. People forget about this now, I didn't.
Speaker 1: People weren't paying attention to it. You will also know
Speaker 1: that there was not much interest in the media in
Speaker 1: showing the true level of suffering of the Syrian people
Speaker 1: because Obama was in office and we were told, you know,
Speaker 1: we that that he would not allow these things to happen.
Speaker 1: Obama's chief national security advisors on a number of issues,
Speaker 1: we're we're actually people who built their whole career, Susan
Speaker 1: Rice and Samantha Power built their whole careers on our
Speaker 1: two p which is the responsibility to protect. And this
Speaker 1: is these are people that you know, they got all
Speaker 1: the way up to National Security Advisor and US Ambassador
Speaker 1: United Nations and well, no, no duty to protecting Syria
Speaker 1: under Obama. We were like, well, I mean, that's really messy.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna do anything there, And they didn't want
Speaker 1: that to become a focus of the narrative of the
Speaker 1: media attention on the subject. So there just wasn't as
Speaker 1: much of a of an interest in Syria as there
Speaker 1: would have been if there's a Republican president with all
Speaker 1: the things happening that did. But now we also get
Speaker 1: into the unintended consequence aside of this, because it's different
Speaker 1: to have US troops in Syria as we do and
Speaker 1: a a ground force presence and also allies that are
Speaker 1: embedded and co located with the U S troops on
Speaker 1: the ground in Syria. It's different to hit Assad now
Speaker 1: than it would have been before, and the Russians, i think,
Speaker 1: feel like it's different too. Keep in mind, we've been
Speaker 1: ratcheting up because the media is saying, oh, you're a
Speaker 1: pudent puppet. You know, we've been ratcheting up pressure against
Speaker 1: Russia for a while now. We have given lethal aid
Speaker 1: to the Ukrainian government to use against Russian backed separatists
Speaker 1: in eastern Ukraine. We've been piling on the sanctions, including
Speaker 1: sanctions against oligarchs, very powerful Russians in Putin's immediate orbit,
Speaker 1: so that that stuff is rattling their cage, that's annoying them.
Speaker 1: That's not nothing. And now on top of that, we
Speaker 1: may and oh and by the way, there was about
Speaker 1: a month ago reports that we killed about a hundred
Speaker 1: Russians on the ground in Syria, but it was an
Speaker 1: accident and they weren't Russian soldiers, so that we just
Speaker 1: all agreed to pretend that nobody really knew. Nobody really
Speaker 1: knows what happened here, and the reports were that it
Speaker 1: was a hunter I've read a dozen that was a hundred,
Speaker 1: and it was a lot. Russian paramilitaries made a move
Speaker 1: on Kurdish US background forces, and those Kurdish forces called
Speaker 1: in US air strikes and just annihilated those Russian paramilitaries.
Speaker 1: That also ratchets up tensions. Right, these are things that
Speaker 1: we we got to remember. That's what's been happening. So
Speaker 1: people say take it to Assad game, but it's not
Speaker 1: the same situation now that it was a year ago.
Speaker 1: The battlefield realities have changed, the situation on the ground
Speaker 1: has changed. I'm seeing these reports about how Russia is
Speaker 1: jamming jamming US drones over Syria, and let's put out
Speaker 1: there the possibility that maybe Russia decides to interfere in
Speaker 1: some way with any US strike. I mean, what with
Speaker 1: Could the Russians try using the air defense systems that
Speaker 1: they've put in Syria to blunt to to counteract US missiles.
Speaker 1: Are they able to do it? Well, you know, we
Speaker 1: have to see, but would they try? Are are they
Speaker 1: now going to take the position that anything against the
Speaker 1: Assad regime is an attack on them? They'll respond and
Speaker 1: they'll respond in kind, at least to the immediate threat. Uh,
Speaker 1: we really don't want to wake up in a world
Speaker 1: where we have to deal where the where the president
Speaker 1: has to sit down with Madis and and the re
Speaker 1: to his team and figure out what the proper response
Speaker 1: to a Russian you know whatever, fourth generation fighter plane
Speaker 1: shooting down one of ours, What that feels like, what
Speaker 1: that looks like. So I know right now it seems
Speaker 1: like that there gathering for a response. I hope that
Speaker 1: they measure this response out very carefully. There's a huge
Speaker 1: variation in the quality and taste of tequila's out there.
Speaker 1: You've got to think of tequila's like you do wine
Speaker 1: or beer, right. You got you get familiar with what
Speaker 1: you like, and all of a sudden you know that
Speaker 1: some of them are great and some of them aren't
Speaker 1: worth your time. G four Tequila is the best you
Speaker 1: are going to get. It is the pinnacle of master
Speaker 1: distiller Felipe Camarina's passion for crafting truly great tequila. It's
Speaker 1: distilled using fifty harvested rain water and fifty spring water.
Speaker 1: The agave is age two, very clear specification. You will
Speaker 1: try it. I'm telling you it is delicious. Go check
Speaker 1: them out. Visit G four tequila dot com for more
Speaker 1: details or give them a like on Facebook at facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash G four tequilas again G four tequila
Speaker 1: dot com get more details there. So if you can
Speaker 1: have some ship, do you check them out team of
Speaker 1: telling you it is absolutely delicious. Once you try it,
Speaker 1: you're be like, Wow, this is now my tequila. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now, because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the fuck never stops. To's frankly a
Speaker 1: real disgrace and saying an attack on our country in
Speaker 1: a true sense, these people have the biggest conflicts of
Speaker 1: interest I've ever seen Democrats all or just about all.
Speaker 1: They're not looking at the Hillary Clinton horrible things that
Speaker 1: you did and all of the crimes that were committed.
Speaker 1: They only keep looking at it us so they find
Speaker 1: no collusion. And then they go from there and they say, well,
Speaker 1: let's keep going, and they raid an office of a
Speaker 1: personal attorney early in the morning, and I think it's
Speaker 1: a disgrace. You know, going after someone's personal attorney is uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a great overstep I think in the authority
Speaker 1: of the prosecutor. And this is why I have opposed
Speaker 1: really having special prosecutors for almost anything, because I think
Speaker 1: they abused their authority. So I think Mueller has abused
Speaker 1: as authority. Now they say, well he asked somebody else,
Speaker 1: another U S attorney to do it. Yes, but this
Speaker 1: is becoming at the behest of Mueller. So I think
Speaker 1: this investigation no longer has much to do with Russia.
Speaker 1: Remember what Chuck Schumer said a couple of months ago.
Speaker 1: He says, if you crossed the intelligence agencies, they can
Speaker 1: screw you six ways to Sunday. This is about enormous power,
Speaker 1: prosecutor power, but also power in the intelligence communities. We
Speaker 1: have to rein this in or every American citizen is
Speaker 1: exposed to this kind of abuse of president's right. It's
Speaker 1: a witch hunt, but it's a wide open thing. It's
Speaker 1: a mistake to ever have these special prosecutors totally agree
Speaker 1: with Senator ram Paul. They're welcome to our two of
Speaker 1: the buck sex and show everyone thank you very much
Speaker 1: for being here. And the fallout from the Cohen situation continues.
Speaker 1: After yesterday when we had the breaking news for you
Speaker 1: of the raid on Cohen's, uh well, his hotel room
Speaker 1: and his office and they grabbed all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: I note that Cohen has since made comments about this,
Speaker 1: he says, Uh, let me see what we got here.
Speaker 1: Did an interview with Don Lemon over at CNN, he
Speaker 1: said quote, I am unhappy to have had my personal
Speaker 1: residence and office rated, but I will tell you the
Speaker 1: members of the FBI conducted the search and seizure with
Speaker 1: extreme works. They were extremely professional, courteous, and respectful. Um
Speaker 1: Don Lemon then said that Cohen told him he believed
Speaker 1: everything he did in respect to Stormy Daniels was legal
Speaker 1: and it would be proven so in the end. When
Speaker 1: asked if he was worried about the investigation, he responded, quote,
Speaker 1: I would be lying to you if I told you
Speaker 1: that I am not. Do I need this in my life? No?
Speaker 1: Cohen added, Do I want to be Do I want
Speaker 1: to be involved in this? No, that's for sure. You
Speaker 1: never want to be in any way the target of
Speaker 1: the subject of near in the next room, in the
Speaker 1: next building. From a federal criminal investigation of any kind.
Speaker 1: It just destroys everything that it touches. You don't have
Speaker 1: to be guilty, they don't have to bring charges against you,
Speaker 1: necessarily bankrupt you just on legal fees. Bankrupt You know
Speaker 1: that that's people forget this, But you know Yeah, our
Speaker 1: legal system is great, but it's far from perfect. It's
Speaker 1: just better than all the other terrible ones around the world,
Speaker 1: but it's not it's not something that you can just
Speaker 1: rely on all the time and do exactly what's right
Speaker 1: and exactly what should happen here. Um. The Cohen situation though,
Speaker 1: after yesterday, I think has shown that you know, one
Speaker 1: side gets treated with kid gloves, that's Hillary Clinton's team,
Speaker 1: and our team gets treated with brass knuckles. That's it
Speaker 1: the way this goes. It's unfair, but a lot of
Speaker 1: people don't want it to be fair. They don't really
Speaker 1: care that it is unfair, that they could care less
Speaker 1: in fact. And now we have figured out what what
Speaker 1: do we do about this? And I would know that,
Speaker 1: of course there's a degree of discretion involved here, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, prosecutor can and we got Anie McCarthy
Speaker 1: joining us in just a little bit of here. He'll
Speaker 1: answer some of these questions in detail. And he worked
Speaker 1: for this other district of New York so as a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: so he knows that was who went in and grab
Speaker 1: Cohen stuff yesterday, right, So he knows the score here
Speaker 1: very very well. Um, But the choice of how to
Speaker 1: go after and who to go after is everything, you know.
Speaker 1: The power to prosecute is the power to destroy, just
Speaker 1: like you know with the I. R. S. You know,
Speaker 1: it's tax time, folks. Who gets honored it and who doesn't.
Speaker 1: It's a very powerful decision, and only people that have
Speaker 1: no familiarity with the process have no understanding what the
Speaker 1: heck they're talking about it Like, well, if you haven't
Speaker 1: done anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide. Really, you know,
Speaker 1: you can remind people can remind themselves of that after
Speaker 1: they've been hounded by federal investigators of one kind another
Speaker 1: for months on end, lost countless hours of productive time,
Speaker 1: a lot of nights sleep, a lot of stress, so
Speaker 1: that in the end you get to just go back
Speaker 1: to all your normal life problems. That's what it's like
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with anyone on the on the on
Speaker 1: the criminal investigative investigative side. Uh. I agree with R.
Speaker 1: Fleischer by the way that they better have something here
Speaker 1: or or this is just way too much for us
Speaker 1: to stomach. It's extraordinary. This is so seldom done. You
Speaker 1: have to believe that the only reason it was done
Speaker 1: because they have the goods on Cohen and that better
Speaker 1: be the case, because if Bob Muller in the U S.
Speaker 1: Attorney for New York do not, they are going to
Speaker 1: have violated the public trust in the most fundamental way.
Speaker 1: So I have to believe, knowing Bob Mueller as well
Speaker 1: as I do, that they've got the goods. There is
Speaker 1: something that led them to do this. But here's the
Speaker 1: bigger problem. This is all not predicated on You just
Speaker 1: have to believe. You have to accept the FBI's version.
Speaker 1: The time is quickly coming for Bob Mueller to come public.
Speaker 1: He's going to start abusing the public's faith and trust
Speaker 1: if they don't start to explain what they're doing and
Speaker 1: why he does not have unlimited time and otherwise, why
Speaker 1: should people just accept this at face value. It's starting
Speaker 1: to strain credibility because this is so extraordinary. Now now,
Speaker 1: I I I agree with Ari Fleischer there when he
Speaker 1: says that this is an extraordinary step. It's a big deal,
Speaker 1: and that was my initial reaction to it, and then
Speaker 1: I basically disagree with all the rest of what he said. Um,
Speaker 1: I think that it is a violation of the public trust.
Speaker 1: I think we'll find out that it was a violation
Speaker 1: of the public trust. And I think that there'll be
Speaker 1: no consequences whatsoever or Mueller and the rest of that
Speaker 1: squad for it. I think, what's going to happen? Okay,
Speaker 1: so they don't have the goods, then what the answer is? Nothing?
Speaker 1: They they did it because they could, because it sends
Speaker 1: a message, because why not, because they have the power
Speaker 1: to do it. There's no accountability that will be enforced
Speaker 1: here for uh Mueller choosing to go with hardball tactics
Speaker 1: against a Trump person. Quite the opposite. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of people who think that Mueller is a hero
Speaker 1: for doing this. This is the nature of partisan politics.
Speaker 1: This is the nature of a partisan witch hunt. It's nice. So,
Speaker 1: like I said, there's not gonna be any accountability here.
Speaker 1: And I also disagree with Fleischer in terms of his
Speaker 1: sense that this is we are fast approaching the point
Speaker 1: at which we could no longer. I think this investigation
Speaker 1: is being conducted in good faith. I'm already there. I'm
Speaker 1: way past that. I was way past that a while ago.
Speaker 1: And since I don't have any personal interaction with or
Speaker 1: relationship with Mueller, I I can't pretend that I'm gonna
Speaker 1: give him the benefit of the doubts. I think he's
Speaker 1: going to do the right thing here. When have any
Speaker 1: of these Democrats that overstepped their authority but did not
Speaker 1: flagrantly break a law, what if anything, faced consequences. We really,
Speaker 1: we really think that the government, that the Democrat deep state,
Speaker 1: is going to punish people for doing what they can
Speaker 1: using government authority to run up the scoreboard for the
Speaker 1: left at the expense of of the GOP. No way,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you mean all of the You mean, like
Speaker 1: the accountability that was enforced against Lowest Learner and Ben
Speaker 1: got I mean and uh sorry, Bend Lowest Learning the
Speaker 1: I r S. Nope, nothing happened there, It's gonna happen here.
Speaker 1: So I think that's wishful thanking. What it really is
Speaker 1: is Ari Fleischer, who was obviously a very senior guy
Speaker 1: in the Bush White House, I think hoping that the
Speaker 1: America that he wants to believe exists still exists. So
Speaker 1: I don't you know, I'm not putting him down for that.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying I think I think he is not
Speaker 1: being cynical enough here, based on the facts and based
Speaker 1: on everything that we have seen, what to do about this,
Speaker 1: Though I know that's probably the next question we we
Speaker 1: should address, right, well, what is the what is the
Speaker 1: real response that we should have to all of this?
Speaker 1: And uh, the answer is, well, a few things have
Speaker 1: been put out there. For one, um, we could uh
Speaker 1: and see m was just reporting on this that Trump
Speaker 1: is considering taking action against Rod Rosenstein. I don't think
Speaker 1: people are saying he Kennedy can't fire Mueller. My sense
Speaker 1: is he can't fire Muller. He won't fire Muller. And
Speaker 1: that's it's kind of a distraction now for most of
Speaker 1: the media to even be talking about it. It's just
Speaker 1: not not realistic, not gonna happen. I don't think that.
Speaker 1: I don't see that happening. That's said. Could I see
Speaker 1: Trump saying, you know what, screw it, I'm gonna fire Rosenstein. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I could see that happening. I can see that happening.
Speaker 1: You know. There's that professor of constitutional law, uh Presteriley
Speaker 1: down to g W. He was on Fox talking about
Speaker 1: the Cohen situation and the threat that opposes for Trump.
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say. The president has to
Speaker 1: be very careful. The greatest danger that he faces is
Speaker 1: not Michael Cohen as a defendant, but Michael Cohen is bait.
Speaker 1: In many ways, this could be as cunning as it
Speaker 1: is hostile on the part of Rod Rosenstein. You know,
Speaker 1: he expanded the mandate for Mueller to go after Manifort
Speaker 1: on crimes that were far more remote than this. So
Speaker 1: why would he refer to the Southern District. Well, it
Speaker 1: has a real threat for the president. It expands the
Speaker 1: investigation involves the Southern District that can prosecute it. But
Speaker 1: if the President reacts aggressively, he could end up triggering
Speaker 1: a far more serious problem for himself and his presidency.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I agree with that. It depends
Speaker 1: on what we mean by aggressively. I don't think firing
Speaker 1: Mueller's in the cards, but maybe, uh, maybe firing Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: I also think that isn't it interesting? You see this
Speaker 1: happening time and again, and people that can cover for
Speaker 1: the Republican or that can forget cover give the Republican
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt. They recused themselves. Sessions recused himself,
Speaker 1: the U s. Attorney in New York who originally people's like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a trumpet point. Yeah, he recused himself
Speaker 1: from this decision to raid Cohen's offices yesterday? Isn't that
Speaker 1: interesting in the original talking point? Oh, it was a
Speaker 1: Trump appointee. Nope, he recused himself. Wasn't part of the process.
Speaker 1: Wasn't part of the discussion? Uh? Who? Who in a
Speaker 1: in a in a critical uh junk at a critical
Speaker 1: point in the major investigations affecting Democrats in recent years,
Speaker 1: who are the really important Democrat prosecutors to Democrat DJ officials?
Speaker 1: Who stepped aside? Again? Did uh? Do you remember Eric
Speaker 1: Holdy recusing himself from anything that would have really affected Obama?
Speaker 1: And they No? Do you remember Lauretta Lynch saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna step aside and just kind of let justice
Speaker 1: be done here, even if it tanks the Democrats hoped
Speaker 1: for Hillard win. No, I'm just seeing a trend there.
Speaker 1: I see something playing out that looks like one side
Speaker 1: is just in it to win it, and the other
Speaker 1: side is like, wow, I think that maybe the rule
Speaker 1: book tells me and you can tell me, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's because we have principles that we okay, but just
Speaker 1: understand that the other team has has no such compunctions
Speaker 1: about about making sure that they cover for themselves. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: on our side of it, I said, from the beginning,
Speaker 1: special Council disaster, it's a terrible idea. A lot of
Speaker 1: conservatives were having a kind of moment of moral preening
Speaker 1: over that one. I gotta say, ethical preening over Oh, well,
Speaker 1: we need a special counsel. No, we we did not
Speaker 1: need a special counsel. It was it was just the
Speaker 1: Democrats dream come true of a nemesis. And that's what
Speaker 1: Mueller and this whole Council probe has turned into and
Speaker 1: has been really from the start a nemesis for the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Just to bog it all down. This by
Speaker 1: this effects not just the the enacting of policy and
Speaker 1: the Trump agenda. It affects our billity, affect what we
Speaker 1: talk about, what we spend our time on, our our
Speaker 1: our energy are psychological output is affected by all the
Speaker 1: time spent it all. Is he going to be impeached?
Speaker 1: Is he going to be by the way the answers, yes,
Speaker 1: The Democrats whin he's going to be impeached. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna be removed from office. He's going to be impeached.
Speaker 1: Uh so we'll say, oh, speaking of Muller by the
Speaker 1: way in Democrats. One more thing here, um Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: never misses an opportunity to weigh in on this issue.
Speaker 1: By his own words, it's clear the president may may
Speaker 1: be considering firing the Special Counsel. This Congress must respond
Speaker 1: forcefully and on a bipartisan basis, by reaffirming our belief
Speaker 1: that the president cannot fire special counsel without law, without cause,
Speaker 1: and by passing legislation to ensure that any attempts to
Speaker 1: remove Robert Mueller will be unsuccessful. We should not abide
Speaker 1: the president's attempted assault on the rule of law in America.
Speaker 1: The eyes of history, very serious, are upon us. Eyes
Speaker 1: of history. Who spooky Schumer? There the eyes of history.
Speaker 1: The president can't hand over his constitutionally delegated authority, and
Speaker 1: the president could fire executive branch officials. So the notion
Speaker 1: that the Congress is going to pass a statute that says, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can't fire people who work for the d o J,
Speaker 1: that's a big problem. Big problem. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: gonna happen, but just shows you that how disingenuous the
Speaker 1: Democrats are. They want to respect the rule of law
Speaker 1: by passing statutes that break down the rule of law.
Speaker 1: So there you go. That's that's not Chuck Schumer rules. Um,
Speaker 1: we gotta roll into a quick break here. We got
Speaker 1: Annie McCarthy joining us in just a few minutes. Third hour,
Speaker 1: by the way, quick preview, we'll talk about a major
Speaker 1: affirmative action showdown through Harvard University. They could affect the
Speaker 1: company you work for, the college you will you know
Speaker 1: you went to, or you go to, or your kids
Speaker 1: might go to it. It's gonna have big, big ramifications
Speaker 1: across the board. Um, So there's that. And we will
Speaker 1: also talk about the breakfast club. And I got some
Speaker 1: other stuff too, and and and what oh yeah, gosh,
Speaker 1: there's all these stories on sex robots. I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: give you a quick take on that one later on
Speaker 1: this I'm like, what is going on here? So we
Speaker 1: have quite quite a roadmap plan for you here. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. I got some of the more team
Speaker 1: Buck callers on a long let's get to it. Uh
Speaker 1: Kenny in Boston, Hey, Kenny Shield tie Buck shild listen, yes, listen,
Speaker 1: Um you know this, Maller. We we fail to mention
Speaker 1: that Mala is not only a hacking the president, but
Speaker 1: he's also and largely trying to demoralize his base, the
Speaker 1: president's base, because he you know, he wants people. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, that's never gonna end. They want it's an
Speaker 1: a war of attrition, you know. But if these guys
Speaker 1: are so brazen and unabashed with the procedural you know,
Speaker 1: the people in the the what do you call it,
Speaker 1: the intelligence cabal, the deep state intelligence cabal. If they're
Speaker 1: so brazen communities procedural acts, what's to stop them from
Speaker 1: actually completely totally fabricating some event or crime and getting
Speaker 1: away with it that you know that's supposedly Trump committed.
Speaker 1: I mean, how's that going to you know? I mean,
Speaker 1: how what's going to stop them from that? If they
Speaker 1: are so all powerful? Know, well, I would say, Kenny,
Speaker 1: let's not let's not overcomplicated. Right, There's enough damage that
Speaker 1: the molar probe can do without putting themselves in any
Speaker 1: jeopardy whatsoever. Right there, there's enough that they can do
Speaker 1: just using the powers that are that are in fact
Speaker 1: in there, uh in their arsenal right now. And so
Speaker 1: that's when you say fabricating evidence. They don't need to
Speaker 1: do that, right, So why do it? I mean they
Speaker 1: can just continue with what's going on right now. It's
Speaker 1: working pretty well. They're harassing Trump, as you say, they
Speaker 1: demoralizing the base. So I would say, and let's let's uh,
Speaker 1: let's not go to the next level until we have
Speaker 1: any evidence to show that that it's there. But I'm
Speaker 1: with you, and I'm I'm concerned too. And I appreciate
Speaker 1: the call from Boston, our friend Kenny Greg in Oklahoma City. Greg,
Speaker 1: we got it like a minute in twenty but I
Speaker 1: want to bring you in make sure we can hear
Speaker 1: from what's up, hey, Buck? Yeah? I wanted to kind
Speaker 1: of talk about Syria in something that Typer Carlson brought
Speaker 1: up last night on this show. Um, are we really
Speaker 1: sure that assad was the one that did these chemical
Speaker 1: weapons attacks this time? Um? I'm sure he Obviously he's capable.
Speaker 1: He's a genocidal maniac h that has killed a million
Speaker 1: people now so far in the last five or sixty years.
Speaker 1: I really wonder, though, why everybody's fully gung ho on
Speaker 1: essentially a ground to war in Syria, which we both
Speaker 1: know is going to end with who in power we
Speaker 1: don't know exactly. It's a quagmire. UM. I really question
Speaker 1: and we should really be skeptical before we start sending
Speaker 1: men and women, um, more men and women. I should say,
Speaker 1: it's a series to die. Um. There are too many
Speaker 1: actors in the arena that want us there. Whether it's
Speaker 1: Russia was just creating more chaos, or obviously the rebels
Speaker 1: they need our support to win, whether it's the Islamic
Speaker 1: rebels or the Kurdish rebels. UM. I just really wonder
Speaker 1: if we're being played here in some sort Um. Obviously
Speaker 1: the chemical uptance attackers evil, but who was really perpetrating
Speaker 1: use as these actions? You know, Greg, it's all, it's
Speaker 1: these are all these are important questions and very fair questions.
Speaker 1: And you know the answer is I'm not on the
Speaker 1: inside anymore. And I know you're not. You're not in
Speaker 1: uniform anymore. So all I can go on to the
Speaker 1: press reports I see, But I think we need to
Speaker 1: be much more cautious to your overall point about what
Speaker 1: we think we should be doing short term and long
Speaker 1: term in Syria. She'll tell you, my friend, team, we're
Speaker 1: gonna roll into a quick break. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: with Andy McCarthy. When lawyers think about cooperating with the prosecutors,
Speaker 1: they have to know that in exchange for cooperation, they'll
Speaker 1: get treated decently. And here you have lawyers cooperating. Trump's
Speaker 1: lawyers co operated completely, Cohen cooperated completely, and what did
Speaker 1: they get for a readingly on the office with everything
Speaker 1: being taken. So this sends a powerful message that cooperation
Speaker 1: is not going to be rewarded by Mueller, It's not
Speaker 1: gonna be rewarded by the Southern District, and I think
Speaker 1: the result may very well be far less cooperation. Not
Speaker 1: a shot across the bow, really a shot into the bow,
Speaker 1: so to speak, of Trump's inner circle. Here by going
Speaker 1: into Cohen's hotel room, his office, going through all of
Speaker 1: his stuff, season things, it has really turned up the
Speaker 1: heat quite a bit. How big a deal is this
Speaker 1: in terms of a tactic? What does it tell us
Speaker 1: about the investigation? And what does it tell us about
Speaker 1: any possible legal peril Cohen or Trump himself could be.
Speaker 1: And we have the man who could answer all of
Speaker 1: that and more with us right now, Andy McCarthy is
Speaker 1: on the line. He's a former assistant United States Attorney
Speaker 1: for the Southern District, which, by the way, was the
Speaker 1: outfit that pulled off that raid yesterday. He's also a
Speaker 1: calmist forward National Review Reader's latest, The Cohen Searches, and
Speaker 1: Trump's d mini mess I like that, Andy, Thanks for joining.
Speaker 1: Thanks are ye, I'm good. Are you you were? You
Speaker 1: were kind of what were you hanging on the beach
Speaker 1: or something. You've been gone for a while. I did
Speaker 1: actually have a nice vacation, which was great Dan in Florida,
Speaker 1: and then the week I got back. I know it's
Speaker 1: a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. We
Speaker 1: had two events in a couple of gorgeous places in
Speaker 1: California for National Reviews, so I just sort of had
Speaker 1: to do that. Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it, Andy,
Speaker 1: because now you've got a presidency to say what the
Speaker 1: heck is going on here with the Cohen raid. I
Speaker 1: see this in Derschowitz Professor Dirshwitz. I'm sure you know, well,
Speaker 1: it's run around saying that this is Yeah, it might
Speaker 1: be okay, but there's a difference between what is technically
Speaker 1: legal and what is what you would expect in terms
Speaker 1: of how the discretion to do these kinds of things
Speaker 1: is used by people like the Southern District of New York. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a big fan of Alan Dershowitz, but
Speaker 1: I've always thought he gets out over his skis when
Speaker 1: he goes into the sense lawyer mode rather than constitutional
Speaker 1: lawyer mode. And I disagreed with just about everything he
Speaker 1: said in that clip that you you played beginning with, UM,
Speaker 1: I don't think we know at all whether Colin is
Speaker 1: completely cooperated or not. Um. We know that he says
Speaker 1: he has cooperated. Um what his lawyer says that he's
Speaker 1: cooperated with all entities of government, which suggests that he
Speaker 1: was cooperating with Moller. But whether he's set down with
Speaker 1: those prosecutors or not, I have no idea. Maybe he
Speaker 1: knows things I don't. Uh. He certainly is uh given
Speaker 1: information to the congressional committee. But Buck, you know, that's
Speaker 1: the same situation Manafort was in. If you remember Manafort
Speaker 1: was in the middle of cooperating, it was that it
Speaker 1: was the night between two different appearances before congressional committees
Speaker 1: when they did the pre dawn raid on his home. So, UM,
Speaker 1: you know this is this has happened before, and I
Speaker 1: don't think that that the history bears out what Professor
Speaker 1: der dersher what says about cooperation. As we saw the
Speaker 1: you know, Muller gave a cooperation deal to Richard Gates,
Speaker 1: which I've been quite critical of because I think he
Speaker 1: you know, basically sold his case. Ats first time I
Speaker 1: ever saw somebody had somebody charged on Friday on Thursday
Speaker 1: with like a hundred million dollars in financial fraud and
Speaker 1: then on Friday you plead amount to a minor conspiracy
Speaker 1: in lion to an FBI agent. So, you know, I
Speaker 1: think there's plenty of people out there think that they
Speaker 1: can get a pretty good deal from Muller. And in
Speaker 1: my experience, people cooperate because it's in their interest to
Speaker 1: either cooperate or you know, they go down pretty hard
Speaker 1: and they can get sentenced to a lot of time. Um,
Speaker 1: So it's not a question of whether you'll be rewarded
Speaker 1: with uh, you know, whether they'll search your office and
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. But what about the lawyer component
Speaker 1: of this and the attorney client privilege relationship. Now, I
Speaker 1: know that you know, if you're like, if someone's a
Speaker 1: mob lawyer and they're and they're the guy who's like
Speaker 1: passing back and forth letters about who the next HiT's
Speaker 1: gonna be at, you know that it's not like attorney
Speaker 1: client privileges is an absolute, but isn't it kind of
Speaker 1: I mean, does this sort of fit in the same
Speaker 1: old andy is when you have someone say that, you know,
Speaker 1: the the Justice Department, they'll pull a journalist's phone logs
Speaker 1: that they really need to find a leaguer, for example,
Speaker 1: but they tend to really not do that because of
Speaker 1: the tension here. What is the tension, if any between
Speaker 1: what the Southern Issue did yesterday and hey, if you
Speaker 1: can just grab all of the lawyer's files and read
Speaker 1: through them at will, there's not really much of an
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege anymore. Yeah, well, the tension is profound, Buck,
Speaker 1: And in fact, the U S Attorney Annual Guidelines admonished
Speaker 1: prosecutors that if there's any way to deal with a
Speaker 1: lawyer who's the subject of an investigation without doing a
Speaker 1: search warrant, like if you think you can get the
Speaker 1: information by some alternative like a grand jury subpoena, that's
Speaker 1: what you're supposed to do. And that's because of precisely
Speaker 1: the constitutional concerns you talk about about the representation by
Speaker 1: counsel and the derivative the attorney client privilege. That said, um,
Speaker 1: when you do have to do these things, and the
Speaker 1: Southern District, you know, these are not usual things to do,
Speaker 1: but to the extent they're they're done with some with
Speaker 1: any frequency at all. The the Southern District has a
Speaker 1: lot of experience in this area. I had experienced in
Speaker 1: this area. Um, there's two things I think to bear
Speaker 1: in mind. One is if you're talking about the communications,
Speaker 1: and remember now, the only thing that sacrosancted the lawyer's
Speaker 1: office are the attorney client communications. So for example, if
Speaker 1: you if you break into a lawyer's office with a
Speaker 1: warrant and he's got a pile a heroine on the table,
Speaker 1: he doesn't get a pass on that because he's a
Speaker 1: lawyer's client heroine, right, right, right, So the only thing
Speaker 1: we're talking about here, or should be, is the communications
Speaker 1: that are privileged. Um, if you and your lawyer plan
Speaker 1: um a scheme that's that's criminal or fraudulent, the communications
Speaker 1: are not going to be protected under the what's known
Speaker 1: as the crime fraud exception. So you know, to the
Speaker 1: extent that they're interested in Trump Cohen communications on a
Speaker 1: theory that they were scheming, say to get around the
Speaker 1: campaign finance laws and doing this hush agreement with with
Speaker 1: the peign Star. That's the allegation. I don't know whether
Speaker 1: it's true or not. Those communications likely would not be
Speaker 1: covered by the attorney client privilege. And as as to
Speaker 1: the rest of the stuff that's in the lawyer's office
Speaker 1: in the nature of communications that's not relevant to the case,
Speaker 1: what the Justice Department does in a situation like this
Speaker 1: is a clean team has to go through everything and
Speaker 1: give back everything that's not relevant to the case before
Speaker 1: the prosecutors who are handling the case and the agents
Speaker 1: who handle the case will get to see any of it,
Speaker 1: and they'll completely litigate with the court anything that the
Speaker 1: lawyer and his clients claim is privileged before it gets
Speaker 1: given to the people who are doing the investigation. So
Speaker 1: it's you know, I can understand why a lawyer obviously
Speaker 1: is virtually put out of business if you take everything
Speaker 1: that's in his office, But there are procedures to protect
Speaker 1: the constitutional interests. Yeah, by the way, what if you're
Speaker 1: somebody that just was represented by Michael Cohen, has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with any of this, and your stuff is
Speaker 1: now in the hands and you did have privileged communications,
Speaker 1: but your stuff is now in the hands of of
Speaker 1: the FBI could could they use that just out of
Speaker 1: curiosity to start another investigation? I mean, is is there
Speaker 1: a fruit of the poisonous tree component? But they can't
Speaker 1: use it. The whole point of having the clean team
Speaker 1: is the first thing you do is go through everything
Speaker 1: and give back anything that's not relevant to the investigation
Speaker 1: they're doing, and anything that's in the nature of communications
Speaker 1: that actually is privileged. You know, it's not of prime
Speaker 1: fraud excession. It's really attorney client privileged stuff. None of
Speaker 1: that can be used to start an investigation. All right,
Speaker 1: now I want to ask him. We're speaking to Andy McCarthy.
Speaker 1: Everyone and check out his latest is always National Review
Speaker 1: dot com. Uh, Andy, what about just the this is
Speaker 1: pretty brass knuckles stuff from the southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: Uh It seems like, you know, I don't want to
Speaker 1: get into the whole Look what they did with the Hillary,
Speaker 1: Look what they did versus Trump. I've been talking about
Speaker 1: that a lot. I think that that kind of speaks
Speaker 1: for itself. But but is it unusual to go to
Speaker 1: to go to this level for I mean, as you said,
Speaker 1: a payoff that might be an f EC violation. I mean,
Speaker 1: is this is there any part of this that's troubling
Speaker 1: you just in terms of how heavy handed it is.
Speaker 1: We can't say at this point, Buck whether it's trouble
Speaker 1: or not. The the one thing that I must say,
Speaker 1: between reading the reporting on this and rereading the guideline
Speaker 1: that applies that really admonishes prosecutors not to do this
Speaker 1: sort of thing unless it's a serious case and this
Speaker 1: is the only way to get the information. It really
Speaker 1: signals to me that there's a lot more going on
Speaker 1: here than just stormy Daniels. I would be I mean,
Speaker 1: if we get to the end of the rainbow and
Speaker 1: the only thing that they were looking for here is
Speaker 1: evidence of that, uh, of that incident, I'm going to
Speaker 1: be very, very surprised. And I'll agree with anybody, including
Speaker 1: Professor Dershowitz, who wants to say it's completely outrageous. So
Speaker 1: so it would be at that point, I just I
Speaker 1: just want to this is important. I think at at
Speaker 1: that point even you'd want to say, oh no, that's
Speaker 1: maybe it's not illegal, but it's unethical. Plus what would
Speaker 1: be the reason for it, you know, I mean, you know, well,
Speaker 1: but that's what I mean, right, If it's just if
Speaker 1: they find out at the end, all they had, all
Speaker 1: they did this for. It was the Stormy Daniels FBC thing.
Speaker 1: Then they did decide to you know, theoretically law enforcement,
Speaker 1: right if if they think that there's some guy who's
Speaker 1: growing weed in in his in his closet, they can
Speaker 1: send in a squat team and you splash bangs. But
Speaker 1: usually they don't do that exactly right, Yeah, So do
Speaker 1: you think that this is you know, I know you
Speaker 1: wrote you wrote here in Nashal Review about the mini
Speaker 1: mess um? Is this? Is this a real danger to Trump?
Speaker 1: He was very upset. We actually played the audio yesterday
Speaker 1: right after he uh he was in that meeting. We're
Speaker 1: supposed to be talking about Syria, very serious national security policy.
Speaker 1: Instead he's talking about the raid on Cohen's office. Are
Speaker 1: you getting a feeling that maybe, if not Trump himself,
Speaker 1: but Cohen and some other top people are are about
Speaker 1: to get jammed up? As we used to say in
Speaker 1: the p D, I think at a minimum Cohen's jammed up.
Speaker 1: Let's remember that if if a judge issued this warrant,
Speaker 1: that means this a finding a probable cause that they
Speaker 1: were going to have evidence of crimes in the places
Speaker 1: where they were searching, right, So I'd say Cone's got
Speaker 1: a problem at a minimum. I think the president, you know,
Speaker 1: the good cast I supposed to put on it is
Speaker 1: he's so cumulatively frustrated by the Russia investigation, which really
Speaker 1: seems like it's mainly a main up, made up thing,
Speaker 1: and now this on top of it. I could see
Speaker 1: him between that and the fact that he's an intemperate
Speaker 1: type to begin with, and the fact that they know
Speaker 1: ransacked his lawyer's place, I can see him losing his
Speaker 1: cool over that. Uh. The you know, the other alternative
Speaker 1: is what we just discussed, which is there may be
Speaker 1: more here than just Stormy Daniels that they're interested in,
Speaker 1: and you know that that obviously would be a concern
Speaker 1: he He and Cone have a very close relationship. Cone
Speaker 1: is like a loyal six or for him, who seems
Speaker 1: to revel in this depiction of him as like a
Speaker 1: Tom Hayden type. As my friend Jonah Goldberg noted at
Speaker 1: National Review Today's consiliari, Yeah, he's a kind of an
Speaker 1: interesting guyn, you know, the godfather everybody the consuliary for
Speaker 1: those who might have missed the top, you know, right right,
Speaker 1: there's no spelling test here, right, Buck, I don't have
Speaker 1: to spell conciliary. Yeah, I know some people actually they
Speaker 1: actually pronounced the G because it's like an americanization of
Speaker 1: the Italian. But I like, I like, yeah, like I
Speaker 1: keep it the on the up and up. Andy think
Speaker 1: nothing that is silent? Yeah, no, I know, but I
Speaker 1: and I hear some some wise guys go a consigliari
Speaker 1: and I'm like, well, you know, if you're gonna be,
Speaker 1: if you're so attached to the homeland, you know you
Speaker 1: should probably know that it's consiliary. But Andy, thank you
Speaker 1: man so much for joining us as always, just just
Speaker 1: one last one free for you that you got a
Speaker 1: a quick one. Uh is this is this mother thing
Speaker 1: just gonna just gonna grind on forever. But go nowhere.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna grind on. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it goes nowhere. Um, it probably goes nowhere. With respect
Speaker 1: to collusion with Russia, I don't think there's a obstruction case.
Speaker 1: But I don't think Mohler's in any hurry. He's got
Speaker 1: two cases against Danaforth that that that won't be over
Speaker 1: toward the end of this year. I don't think, all right,
Speaker 1: we'll keep looking at Andy. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. Everybody, Andy McCarthy check out his latest at
Speaker 1: National review dot com. Thanks Andy, team. All right man,
Speaker 1: good to talk to you. Great to talk to you too. Good,
Speaker 1: good to have any back. Um, we're gonna roll into
Speaker 1: a quick break here. We'll be back and just a
Speaker 1: few stay with me where beefing up the border patrol
Speaker 1: who has done a fantastic job. Ice has done a
Speaker 1: fantastic job, and we will take care of that situation.
Speaker 1: We need a wall, whether you're a Republican or Democrat,
Speaker 1: we need a wall, and it'll stop your drug flow.
Speaker 1: It'll knock the hell out of the drug flow, and
Speaker 1: you'll it'll stop a lot of people that we don't
Speaker 1: want in this country from coming into our country. So
Speaker 1: right now we are to think that there's something of
Speaker 1: a stand down and effect for this caravan that was
Speaker 1: coming to the US. That remember that people keep saying, oh,
Speaker 1: that they're gonna try to sneak to the country illegally. No,
Speaker 1: it's worse than that they were going to hand themselves
Speaker 1: or over to border patrol and claim asylum in this
Speaker 1: country because they you know, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people that live in El Salvador and Honduras that are
Speaker 1: are living there, and they're fine. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: a great place to be economically and otherwise, but so
Speaker 1: if you just happen to be from that country. There's
Speaker 1: not a war going on there. There's a lot of crime,
Speaker 1: theres a lot of poverty. But if crime and poverty
Speaker 1: are the basis for asylum claims in Central America, then
Speaker 1: don't they have to be the basis of asylent claims
Speaker 1: from any Think about all the countries that all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, now you show up, Oh I'm from I'm
Speaker 1: from Somalia, I'm from Bangladesh, I'm from of you know,
Speaker 1: mean mar I mean, you know, just think of a
Speaker 1: country that's in rough shape and you're like, well, I
Speaker 1: should be able to claim asylum in the States. I
Speaker 1: think that's if nothing else, a good takeaway from the
Speaker 1: from the whole situation is that now more Americans know
Speaker 1: that that's what our policy is. The policy is crazy,
Speaker 1: it's being abused, it's being exploited. Uh. But this issue
Speaker 1: is not over at all, And in fact, I think
Speaker 1: you will see a an effort to renew that. I
Speaker 1: think this caravan will get going again, because this is
Speaker 1: a very clear visualization. It's, you know, the optics of
Speaker 1: the situation of this, of this immigration debate. You actually
Speaker 1: had CNN. I was traveling with reproducer, traveling with one
Speaker 1: of some folks from this caravan, and this is how
Speaker 1: the conversation went. We just left Pueverla well ahead about
Speaker 1: two to three hours north to Mexico City, and the
Speaker 1: plan there is to meet with immigration officials, to meet
Speaker 1: with government officials, meet with those that can give them
Speaker 1: some sort of legal aid and actually, let me just
Speaker 1: ask them, cans in Mexico, who will stay in Mexico.
Speaker 1: So these are the people who say that they will
Speaker 1: be going to the United States, and some of them
Speaker 1: not answering. Uh, Mike told me so in the in
Speaker 1: the clip of that, the video clip of that, every
Speaker 1: hand went up when it was who's going to the
Speaker 1: United States. They're not not coming to the US. They
Speaker 1: just may have realized, oh, better for us to just
Speaker 1: show up at the border as individuals and not be
Speaker 1: part of this politicized and and very publicized A better
Speaker 1: world than politicized, publicized movement. But this is not over, folks,
Speaker 1: None of these issues, nothing has been resolved, nothing has changed,
Speaker 1: nothing is better now. National garbers called down by Obama,
Speaker 1: by Bush, others have done this in the past, does
Speaker 1: not solve the problem. You get a wall there, or
Speaker 1: the illegal immigration continues, So just keep an eye on that.
Speaker 1: We'll be back on this story again um soon. And
Speaker 1: in the meantime, coming up, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about how we finally break apart the regime of affirmative
Speaker 1: action in this country, but I'll have to tell you
Speaker 1: about it after this break, so stay with me. Hey, everybody,
Speaker 1: welcome to our three of the Buck Sexton Show. Maybe
Speaker 1: we should start doing a recurring, recurring segment that I
Speaker 1: could just call under the Radar. I kind of I
Speaker 1: kind of like the ring of that where there are
Speaker 1: stories that are being reported on but they haven't really
Speaker 1: been packaged in a way, or they haven't been promoted
Speaker 1: I think as quite as important as interesting as they
Speaker 1: really are. And there's one of those that I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about it right now. Harvard is on
Speaker 1: the hot seat because there's a group of students, specifically
Speaker 1: Asian American students Students for a Fair Admission. For Fair
Speaker 1: Admission is the name of the group who are suing
Speaker 1: Harvard University over their admissions policy. Now you don't need
Speaker 1: me to tell you Harvard's probably the most famous and
Speaker 1: and elite university in the world. Sorry, yalies, but Harvard
Speaker 1: is by most folks, by perception at least, consider to
Speaker 1: be number one, which is kind of silly. All these
Speaker 1: schools are really when you get to a certain level,
Speaker 1: it's all the same. But anyway, consider number one. But
Speaker 1: here here's the problem with Harvard and the problem with
Speaker 1: the left on on all these issues of affirmative action,
Speaker 1: which this this is where this is where the things
Speaker 1: are gonna get very interesting. They are not legally allowed
Speaker 1: under under recent Supreme Court decisions, to have quotas. So
Speaker 1: you cannot say that the incoming Harvard class will be,
Speaker 1: you know, twelve percent African American, seven Hispanic, fifteen or
Speaker 1: twenty percent Asian, and the rest you know, white and
Speaker 1: whatever else they consider to be white. I can't do that. Yet, somehow, somehow,
Speaker 1: each year, for those of us who pay attention to
Speaker 1: these things, the demographic makeup of the incoming class at
Speaker 1: these schools, And it's not just Harvard. That's true at
Speaker 1: schools all the way down wherever you are in the
Speaker 1: country right now. The states school that you maybe either
Speaker 1: you want to go to or your kids are thinking
Speaker 1: about going to, this plays a role there too. They've
Speaker 1: gotten rid of race as a factor in admissions in
Speaker 1: California and so we actually have data on this and
Speaker 1: what that what that all means. But in most places
Speaker 1: they still do what is called a a holistic approach.
Speaker 1: And this comes from one of the most bizarre Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decisions of all time, in which Sandra Day O'Connor said, well,
Speaker 1: she was the designing vote was five four, and I
Speaker 1: think this was in Gruttter v. Bollinger. Was that was
Speaker 1: the case, although that might have been the precedent case before,
Speaker 1: but I think it was Gruttter v. Bollinger had to
Speaker 1: do with law law school admission and if memory serves,
Speaker 1: I could be wrong on this, and I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: the top of my head, but Santaday O'Connor, in her
Speaker 1: majority opinion was five four, said that you know, maybe
Speaker 1: in fifteen or twenty years, we won't need to do
Speaker 1: this any more, but we still think. Basically five of
Speaker 1: the nine Supreme Court justices came down in the Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's discrimination, but it's discrimination that we like and we
Speaker 1: think it's a good thing, So we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: pretend that it's constitutional when it's just flatly not. It's
Speaker 1: just not. And the argument that people like me have
Speaker 1: been hearing and making stretching back for decades now that
Speaker 1: even positive discrimination the basis of race is unconstitutional, and
Speaker 1: then it's inherently subjective and will be abused and destroys
Speaker 1: meritocracy in this country. I haven't been able to win
Speaker 1: that one quite yet. The forces of the institutional left,
Speaker 1: the media, the academy, college campuses too powerful on that
Speaker 1: to break through. And now they've got a couple of
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions that give them cover. Right, they've got
Speaker 1: a lot less leeway than they used to on this
Speaker 1: on admissions. But I understand this once. Admit always remember
Speaker 1: the colleges campuses. They are a front line in the
Speaker 1: culture war, and it spreads to the rest of siety
Speaker 1: very quickly. Right, It's not like this is just oh,
Speaker 1: it's a it's an issue of college admissions. It will
Speaker 1: also then factor into hiring policies, government hiring policies, So
Speaker 1: it's well beyond just who gets into what school. The
Speaker 1: fundamental question is is the government allowed to pick within
Speaker 1: a hierarchy of races who the beneficiaries are and who
Speaker 1: loses out Up to this point, and this is just
Speaker 1: all fact. People can they won't like the way that
Speaker 1: I put this forward, or they won't like the terminology
Speaker 1: or the framing of the subject for me, if they
Speaker 1: disagree with the infirmative action. But affirmative action is discrimination
Speaker 1: the basis of race. Suprema court justices have said this.
Speaker 1: This is very clear. You fall into one race category
Speaker 1: and don't even get me start out on the whole
Speaker 1: race is a construct and races increasingly malleable as a construct.
Speaker 1: And but you fall into a category and the school
Speaker 1: decides based on that whether you get an advantage over
Speaker 1: other applicants or not. To me, it's so flatly and
Speaker 1: obviously unconstitutional, especially when it is extended beyond as it
Speaker 1: is extended beyond African Americans. It's one thing to say
Speaker 1: that there is an institutional unfair bias against African Americans
Speaker 1: as a result of of actual laws on the books
Speaker 1: in the United States, uh throughout the twentieth century and
Speaker 1: before that, as we know that terrible period of the
Speaker 1: ownership of human beings under slavery. It's one thing to
Speaker 1: say we gotta do something about that. That's not what
Speaker 1: affirmative action says now. Predominantly, affirmative action now is all
Speaker 1: about diversity. They're not saying this is about reparations for slavery.
Speaker 1: They're not saying this is about um a debt ode
Speaker 1: to the African American community in this country. I'm actually
Speaker 1: sympathetic to that argument. I can hear that out. No,
Speaker 1: the way that affirmative action plays out now with schools is, well,
Speaker 1: you know, you're, uh, you're Guatemalan, therefore you have a
Speaker 1: big advantage over some kid who is, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: an immigrant from Romania. Why does the why does the
Speaker 1: Guatemalan have an advantage over the Romanian? Romania? For those
Speaker 1: you don't know, it is actually a pretty pretty poor country,
Speaker 1: not as poor as Guatemala, but not that far off.
Speaker 1: You know. Why is that? Oh, because one is Hispanic
Speaker 1: and one is white or Latino? I guess now is
Speaker 1: that preferred nomenclature. So it all falls into self contradiction,
Speaker 1: it can't actually sustain itself. And then you also start
Speaker 1: to look at the socioeconomic implications of this, and I
Speaker 1: saw this myself. You know, there were, uh, there were
Speaker 1: students that I would talk to at Amherst. I went
Speaker 1: to Amherst College and we were My class was forty
Speaker 1: three percent minority, and there were some students that I
Speaker 1: talked to who, you know, they were from very economically
Speaker 1: underprivileged backgrounds, who were white, and they had a much
Speaker 1: they had a very hard time getting uh getting financial
Speaker 1: aid at some places, whereas I had other friends who
Speaker 1: were minority, particularly friends who are either black or black
Speaker 1: or Latino and actually some some Native Americans too, um,
Speaker 1: because we had Native Americans in my class, and they
Speaker 1: would say, oh gosh, you know, I got there were
Speaker 1: special minority students. This is true, folks, this is what
Speaker 1: actually happened. They're minority Inclusion weekends where only minority admitted
Speaker 1: students are invited to the school, and you know they're paid.
Speaker 1: They're not paid, but you know, they're all their expenses
Speaker 1: are paid for coming onto campus and there are special
Speaker 1: set asides for for money for financial aid for minority students.
Speaker 1: And so kids that I know who are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll be the first of my family to go to college,
Speaker 1: but you know, I'm like half you know, half Irish,
Speaker 1: half Greek or something from the suburbs of Boston. They
Speaker 1: were left on the you know, they were just like
Speaker 1: left on their own, whereas other kids I know who
Speaker 1: are like, well, yes, I'm I'm African American. My father
Speaker 1: works at Goldman Sachs, and you know, they had the
Speaker 1: benefit of the of diversity, Diversity inclusion weekend and and
Speaker 1: diversity practice is in the emissions office. So I get
Speaker 1: passionate about the subjectis you can tell. I think it's
Speaker 1: an area where the conservative causes uh is just clearly
Speaker 1: in the right, and it's just a matter of time
Speaker 1: before the left loses, and then we'll have to admit
Speaker 1: to a scheme of racial spoils as Scalia called it,
Speaker 1: and propping that up for a long time. The news
Speaker 1: story here, which I know has gotten lost in all this,
Speaker 1: but I thank you for staying with me through my
Speaker 1: my diet tribe against these practice, the news stories that
Speaker 1: students for fair admissions. I've just found out that they're
Speaker 1: actually gonna get a They're gonna get a hearing before
Speaker 1: a judge in ten I think it says here right
Speaker 1: a year from now, uh in January, I think is
Speaker 1: when they're supposed to get there. They're hearing now it's
Speaker 1: taken years, right, this this case was filed back in
Speaker 1: And here's what's really an issue. These schools have been
Speaker 1: getting away with this for a long time because they
Speaker 1: lie about their policies, they lie about what they're actually
Speaker 1: doing that they pretend that they just use a holistic process,
Speaker 1: but if you look at the numbers, somehow, year in
Speaker 1: and year out, they're getting rough with the same proportion
Speaker 1: of minorities no matter what the applicant pool is. Beyond that,
Speaker 1: one reason that the argument hasn't moved all that much
Speaker 1: is because the only people that were really considered to
Speaker 1: be disadvantaged by this process are white, when in fact,
Speaker 1: the most disadvantaged in the affirmative action process because of
Speaker 1: the diversity balancing that they do for their incoming classes,
Speaker 1: the most disadvantaged are Asian Americans. This is also an
Speaker 1: important place to put put in there that for our country,
Speaker 1: that is all about white privilege. The average Asian American
Speaker 1: household has a higher income than the average Caucasian or
Speaker 1: white American household, so white privilege is apparently a thing
Speaker 1: that we all get lectured on all the time. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: is there Asian privilege because they're making more money on
Speaker 1: average and white people are. So there's that. So and
Speaker 1: these are just facts. Numbers. People can go number they
Speaker 1: just start getting all angry about it, but it's just true.
Speaker 1: This is the whole in their argument. Their argument is
Speaker 1: always that there's disadvantages against non white minorities. Meanwhile, Asian
Speaker 1: Americans do incredibly well in the school application process and
Speaker 1: also are now the highest per capita earners per household
Speaker 1: in the country. Uh, and they have much higher hurdles
Speaker 1: to get past to get entry into places like Harvard
Speaker 1: than other minorities. And they do not have quote white privilege,
Speaker 1: which I don't think exists. But that's a whole other discussion.
Speaker 1: So why do they get the short end of the
Speaker 1: stick here? Why are they left out in the cold?
Speaker 1: And the left answer is because we say so, because
Speaker 1: you're doing fine, because you don't need the help, because
Speaker 1: mostly because we say so. And so this group of
Speaker 1: students is filing suit. They're saying they're being discriminated against,
Speaker 1: and Harvard saying, well, we keep our we need to
Speaker 1: keep our it may sitions practices, sacro sanc. You know,
Speaker 1: we we can't. So a judge is gonna look at this,
Speaker 1: and this is why this is in the news the
Speaker 1: last twenty four hours. A judge is going to decide
Speaker 1: whether or not they have to make public some of
Speaker 1: their admissions practices. Now, if this were a country club,
Speaker 1: by the way, that was engaged in and keep in mind,
Speaker 1: universities get a tremendous amount of federal funding, a lot
Speaker 1: of federal support, and but you know, I doubt there like, well,
Speaker 1: we won't make our practices um public if it's were
Speaker 1: a public accommodation that was discriminating on the basis of race,
Speaker 1: which is what is going on here. They are discrimining
Speaker 1: the basis of race. There's no question that judge would say, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's let's see what you're doing here. But Harvard thinks.
Speaker 1: Harvard thinks that they should be able to make up
Speaker 1: the rules as they go along and do it their
Speaker 1: own way. And uh, I can tell you this right now.
Speaker 1: If we get a look at the most elite universities
Speaker 1: books when it comes to how they do their admissions,
Speaker 1: what we will find out is that they are doing
Speaker 1: de facto quotas, that they have been lying to the
Speaker 1: public about their admissions procedures, that they are entirely run
Speaker 1: these admissions committees by by committed progressives and social justice warriors,
Speaker 1: and that they are actively discriminating on the basis of
Speaker 1: race and violation of US law. That's what we will
Speaker 1: find out, and that's why they're desperate to keep this
Speaker 1: out of the public eye. And this is a big scandal.
Speaker 1: Is a big story that will have ramifications for you.
Speaker 1: Whether you never went to college, you don't care if
Speaker 1: your kids go to college, or that doesn't matter. It'll
Speaker 1: it'll affect all of us. It has it's going to
Speaker 1: affect what institutions across the board are allowed to do
Speaker 1: when it comes to hiring and all the rest. So
Speaker 1: that's our under the radar for today. The Harvard A
Speaker 1: Firm of Action clash keeps going on. Um, we will
Speaker 1: be back here just a few minutes. Teams, stay with me.
Speaker 1: There are some movies that if you're around my age,
Speaker 1: I think it was required that you watch many many times. Right,
Speaker 1: so I was born in eighty one, and there there
Speaker 1: are some films that you just if you're from that
Speaker 1: general time period, you know, ten years before me, maybe
Speaker 1: five or ten years after me, probably ten years after me.
Speaker 1: You saw and producer Mike knows what I'm talking about. Brandon,
Speaker 1: you defy age. I have no idea how old you are.
Speaker 1: You could be. You could be twenty five, you could
Speaker 1: be all the way up to who knows. So I
Speaker 1: don't know, but I'm gonna assume you were roughly the
Speaker 1: same age, right, what thirty? Oh yeah, okay, you're like,
Speaker 1: you're we got a whole bunch of You got a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of thirty four year old dudes here basically
Speaker 1: in this room, or thirty something year old dudes here
Speaker 1: in this room. So I saw The Breakfast Club. You
Speaker 1: guys have both seen The Breakfast Club so much because
Speaker 1: it was one of these movies. Also they put on TV,
Speaker 1: and they put on TV. In that sense, it's kind
Speaker 1: of like Blood Sport, one of the true classics of
Speaker 1: cinema because it was made for like thirty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: and they just ran it on all these different cable
Speaker 1: channels all the time. But Blood Sports very different kind
Speaker 1: of movie. We'll talk, We'll have a whole hour of
Speaker 1: a show one day just devoted to eighties martial arts movies,
Speaker 1: and it'll be kind of a retrospective on how that's
Speaker 1: actually not how people fight. But anyway, The Breakfast Club
Speaker 1: was one of them. The Fairest Bueller's Day Off is
Speaker 1: another one. You just you had to see those, you
Speaker 1: had have familiarity with them. If you hadn't seen those movies,
Speaker 1: you were kind of left out. You were gonna miss references.
Speaker 1: And and what John Hughes is the director, right, he
Speaker 1: was the one that was made a bunch of these
Speaker 1: rat pack movies. What's the other one? Oh, Saint Elmo's Fire,
Speaker 1: which I will admit it's a bad movie, actually does
Speaker 1: not hold up. It's you know, it's a little bit
Speaker 1: of nostalgia carries it for a while, and it has
Speaker 1: that very upbeat theme song saying now almost fire. I
Speaker 1: can't say it at all, but you don't know, it's
Speaker 1: very good for those of you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: If you google uh um to say almost I don't
Speaker 1: even know what you call it. By the way, Sat
Speaker 1: tell Himbo, you know it comes from actually from ships,
Speaker 1: and it has to do with the blue hue around
Speaker 1: the ship mass that it's from static electricity. That's right.
Speaker 1: Buck knows things. So back to this, Molly Ringwold was
Speaker 1: one of the actresses in the Breakfast Club, and she
Speaker 1: has now decided that she is entering into her own
Speaker 1: moment of me too, nous of the of the hashtag
Speaker 1: me too movement, by writing about how she's revisiting the
Speaker 1: Breakfast Club with our current sensibility about sexual harassment and
Speaker 1: sexual exploitation and all this kind of thing. Now, I
Speaker 1: want to be very clear about this. Now, you have
Speaker 1: an actress who, granted, look here I am talking about her,
Speaker 1: this is probably the whole purpose of this, but an
Speaker 1: actress who was in some very light kind of coming
Speaker 1: of age comedic fair back in the eighties. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think of myself as a child of the eighties.
Speaker 1: I was an adolescent of the nineties, but as a
Speaker 1: child of the eighties, you know, I saw this stuff.
Speaker 1: And she's right. She's written an essay. It was in
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair or The New Yorker, one of those very
Speaker 1: fancy journals of opinion, and she's written this essay and
Speaker 1: it's all about how she's uncomfortable with her own kids
Speaker 1: seeing the stuff from the eighties. Now, look, you can
Speaker 1: all make your own decisions about you know, and you
Speaker 1: don't need anyone to tell you that, including me about
Speaker 1: what you think your kids should watch you should not watch.
Speaker 1: But it's also part of this effort among the left
Speaker 1: too now be because they've got this problem. There's all
Speaker 1: these people who had careers that were built celebrating certain
Speaker 1: works of art, you know, if that's what we'll call films,
Speaker 1: but a certain media and entertainment properties that now are
Speaker 1: offensive by our current stand by our current PC politically
Speaker 1: correct sensibility. And I've said for a while this is
Speaker 1: like we talked with the Simpsons last night, this is
Speaker 1: a recurring theme. I've told you that people complain about
Speaker 1: Robin Williams retrospectives after he died because I thought they
Speaker 1: were offensive. Robin Williams, one of the great comedic minds
Speaker 1: of the last thirty forty years, offensive too offensive to
Speaker 1: air some of his bits on TV. And now the
Speaker 1: Breakfast Club is also in the sights of the regressive,
Speaker 1: the Soviet or the Soviet Left that likes to erase,
Speaker 1: airbrush parts of history that it finds inconvenient, to airbrush
Speaker 1: parts of its own cultural uh contributions that it now
Speaker 1: finds to be too much to be child But one
Speaker 1: of the things that she talks about is you know
Speaker 1: how how in our current in our at our current moment,
Speaker 1: there's a scene where one of the guys like looks
Speaker 1: up the skirt of one of the girls. And first
Speaker 1: of all, one, this is all fictional, didn't actually happen.
Speaker 1: It's a movie. And two, you know, they had an
Speaker 1: adult body double for the seed and there was no
Speaker 1: one was actually naked under anything. You know, it's probably
Speaker 1: wearing basketball shorts under the skirt. Like, it's just the
Speaker 1: depiction of this. But but the notion that a teen
Speaker 1: would try to sneak a peek at a at a
Speaker 1: another teen in that way is too damaging for for
Speaker 1: the eyes of the current generation apparently. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: They're not even gonna leave the breakfast club alone, folks. Nothing,
Speaker 1: nothing is sacred to these people except political correctness. Nothing.
Speaker 1: They they will find a way. Just give it time
Speaker 1: and we'll be back in a place where they wanna,
Speaker 1: you know, cover up the naughty parts of of Michelangelo paintings,
Speaker 1: you know, and sculptures. Just give it time, alright, written
Speaker 1: a quick break your team, We'll be back with a
Speaker 1: whole lot more. Stick with me. A lot of news
Speaker 1: stories popping up today about sex robots. It's one of
Speaker 1: the New York Posts, the one that was linked on
Speaker 1: the Drudge Report. So you know, part of my job
Speaker 1: what I do every day is I go through just
Speaker 1: all of the the main news sources, a lot of
Speaker 1: you would see No Fox News, the Walstreet Journal, New
Speaker 1: York Times, you know, Washington Post. I go through all
Speaker 1: that and I read up so I'm up to speed
Speaker 1: on everything. But also I look for stories that are
Speaker 1: outside of the the daily deluge of all the different
Speaker 1: news outlets that are focused on the same usually the
Speaker 1: same two or three, maybe three or four stories. But
Speaker 1: this whole sex robot thing is very weird. Um. There's
Speaker 1: this piece in the New York Post about how they're
Speaker 1: now marketing a uh, they're marketing robots, sex robots for couples,
Speaker 1: and and there are dolls out there that are that
Speaker 1: are going for seven thousand dollars. Um. You know, I
Speaker 1: tend to be a as much as I can, a
Speaker 1: live and let live guy. You know, it's like, if
Speaker 1: you're not hurting someone or taking their stuff, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're not hurting me or taking my stuff, not
Speaker 1: hurting someone else taking their stuff. I liked it, so
Speaker 1: you know, I know that's the old libertarian line, right,
Speaker 1: But I try to approach a lot of things that way,
Speaker 1: you know. Or to go back into my political science
Speaker 1: training from years past with Professor Hadley Archy's at Amherst.
Speaker 1: You gotta separate what is a question of morals, a
Speaker 1: question of of ethics, from a question of taste, you know,
Speaker 1: whether or not. For example, you could say to me
Speaker 1: that the the best ice cream flavor is strawberry, and
Speaker 1: we all know that that's just not right. That's just
Speaker 1: a crazy thing to say. But you're can't. You're not
Speaker 1: wrong who likes it? Used to be chocolate, vanilla, strawberry
Speaker 1: were like the three main stays. And I don't care
Speaker 1: anybody says nobody like strawberry ice cream that much. Um,
Speaker 1: chocolate or vanilla are the acceptable answers there. But that's
Speaker 1: a question of taste, not not morals or ethics. Right.
Speaker 1: There are some people out there that order their steaks
Speaker 1: well done. They're not bad people, they just they just
Speaker 1: don't they don't they don't fully embrace the glory that
Speaker 1: is a medium rare medium rare red meat, you know,
Speaker 1: which is those you want to go rare, that's fine,
Speaker 1: medium rare I think is the sweet spot medium. Okay,
Speaker 1: well done. I don't understand what's going on anymore now
Speaker 1: now you've lost me. But that's a question of taste,
Speaker 1: not ethics when you get into the sex doll discussion,
Speaker 1: which I I usually wouldn't, but it's becoming a story, right,
Speaker 1: It's a thing that they're now gonna be much more
Speaker 1: a part of the culture. I remember years ago people
Speaker 1: would make on sitcoms and make jokes about blow up dolls.
Speaker 1: But now these dolls are uh, these they're not dolls.
Speaker 1: These um well, robots are meant to mimic real human
Speaker 1: beings as much as they can. They respond to I
Speaker 1: believe they respond to verbal commands now, and they definitely
Speaker 1: I mean, you can look like there's this link on
Speaker 1: the Drudge Report for uh, for one from the paper
Speaker 1: The Sun in the UK, And there's also this link
Speaker 1: up on the New York Post is talking about this.
Speaker 1: And we're just going down a very weird path here,
Speaker 1: you know. And I was reading an analysis recently, and
Speaker 1: I don't mean you and me, I mean the world,
Speaker 1: because this sex robot thing is turning into a something
Speaker 1: of a global market. I'm it's just look it's just
Speaker 1: too weird. I don't know what else to say. It's
Speaker 1: just too weird. I don't get it, and and it
Speaker 1: and it crosses over into the I don't I don't
Speaker 1: know about this, but anyway, I was reading this analysis
Speaker 1: of of the problems the demographic problems that some East
Speaker 1: Asian countries are having in Japan, UM most notably, but
Speaker 1: also South Korea, they're just not having enough children. And
Speaker 1: the analysis was also going into a a discussion, ah,
Speaker 1: a deep dive on what is the role of sexuality
Speaker 1: in these cultures and and how and there's there's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that they've got to they gotta work
Speaker 1: out in Japan right now, a lot of stuff in
Speaker 1: terms of other they're not having enough kids and it's
Speaker 1: not enough a part of UM. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of people that leave these celibate lives basically and then
Speaker 1: that all but but they're celibate is and they're not
Speaker 1: with another person. But then they turned to different kinds
Speaker 1: of you know, visual stimula. I and there's a huge
Speaker 1: market for all that stuff in Japan, you know, pornography
Speaker 1: and UM. But you know, it's something that I don't understand,
Speaker 1: what enough to know anything about in the Japanese context.
Speaker 1: I just know that it's it's affected them at a
Speaker 1: national level. I think that's sexual Robots producer Mike sex
Speaker 1: robots too weird, just too weird, right, it's just too weird.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I can't say that we should. You
Speaker 1: could ban them per se, that make them illegal, But
Speaker 1: it's just too weird, man, I don't know. That's kind
Speaker 1: of my that's my analysis, just too weird. Um. But
Speaker 1: you know, then again, I'm also somebody who thinks that
Speaker 1: the only the only part of the show Billions that
Speaker 1: I just you know, the fact they gotta put all
Speaker 1: that STM stuff in there. I'm just like, really, the
Speaker 1: U S Attorneys into into S and M and me.
Speaker 1: Come on. But anyway, we'll talking about Billions in their time.
Speaker 1: And uh, I think that's probably the only analysis of
Speaker 1: sex robots, despite all the Drudge Report and other news
Speaker 1: stories on them that I'll give you for quite a while.
Speaker 1: Bottom line, I just thing too weird, just too weird.
Speaker 1: All we got to a roll call coming up? Stay
Speaker 1: with me, Well, Team Buck, you are my sanity in
Speaker 1: an increasingly insane world. And that's why it's such an
Speaker 1: important part of my day when I get to bounce
Speaker 1: in with some roll call team buck it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call, I will say, this is not part of
Speaker 1: roll call. But you know, music is just not as
Speaker 1: good now as it was for a long time. It's
Speaker 1: just true. And that's not even that's like studio produced
Speaker 1: music that we can just play over rare, but it
Speaker 1: had a little bit of a classic rock vibe to it.
Speaker 1: And this is just you know, the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is that there are not many bands that are
Speaker 1: around today that you're gonna be thinking about in five
Speaker 1: or ten years. And quite honestly, even ten years ago,
Speaker 1: there's not a lot of bands you'll be thinking about.
Speaker 1: But do you go back years, you still got bands
Speaker 1: that are selling out arenas and that I've really left
Speaker 1: left their mark. I don't know if we blame this
Speaker 1: on the digital era in which we live, you know,
Speaker 1: the the end of the record labels. And I think
Speaker 1: it's also in part because music now is just it's
Speaker 1: so everywhere, it's it's uh so accessible that it in
Speaker 1: a sense has been kind of devalued. And I think
Speaker 1: back to when I got my first MP three player
Speaker 1: that I could use in the gym right, So I
Speaker 1: guess that would have been right around. It was similar
Speaker 1: to the time of the first big iPods. But I
Speaker 1: had MP three player that you would plug into a
Speaker 1: like a desktop computer, and it was essentially a glorified
Speaker 1: flash drive that could play songs and in one direction,
Speaker 1: I think anyway. But you know, I remember doing this
Speaker 1: and this. I had like room for thirty songs on there,
Speaker 1: and I was like, man, is amazing. I'm gonna look
Speaker 1: like he Man because of all the awesome motivation I'm
Speaker 1: gonna get from this music. The he Man part didn't work,
Speaker 1: but I did listen to those same thirty songs a lot.
Speaker 1: Was there a lot of Creed in that mix. There
Speaker 1: was I'm not gonna I'm not gonna pretend, uh, there
Speaker 1: was definitely a fair amount of Creed. And there was
Speaker 1: no Matchbox twenty however, so I will just I want
Speaker 1: to get that on the record. But now I have
Speaker 1: Spotify and I could sit here and I can listen
Speaker 1: to just I could listen to music literally all day long.
Speaker 1: I mean, other than what I have to do work,
Speaker 1: stuff that I've pay attention to, but I could do
Speaker 1: I could listen to any number songs and because of that,
Speaker 1: I feel like it just has less I don't know,
Speaker 1: less appeal now because everyone either I remember when you
Speaker 1: had certain CDs and you would take care of them,
Speaker 1: right and bred you know what I'm talking about, Like like
Speaker 1: like that c D even though it was a mass
Speaker 1: produced plastic disk that you could always go get another
Speaker 1: one for ten or fifteen bucks, and one CDs are
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars, you know, seventeen an HMV sometimes if it
Speaker 1: was like the latest, if it was like the latest
Speaker 1: and greatest of Salt and Pepper or three eleven. Now
Speaker 1: I'm really dating myself here with you know, you'd pay
Speaker 1: like seventeen bucks for a CD. Alright, alright, I know
Speaker 1: this has turned into a buck a bucalogue on music
Speaker 1: instead of what I was just gonna say is that
Speaker 1: you treated that CD like it was something that you're
Speaker 1: gonna keep for decades and your you know, along with
Speaker 1: books in your library or your bookcase or whatever. And no,
Speaker 1: I do not do you own it? Do you own
Speaker 1: any CDs right now? Brandon? I have them, but they're
Speaker 1: like in my attict, I mean you basically can't give
Speaker 1: them away now, right, I mean, they're not you know,
Speaker 1: you go to some of these stores and LPs have
Speaker 1: kind of maintained a certain you know, they've maintained a
Speaker 1: certain degree of heirloom like status, I guess, but CDs
Speaker 1: not so much. Alright, alright, roll call, roll call, I know.
Speaker 1: Pardon me, I get, I get all excited. Ronnie right
Speaker 1: in regard to the left. Oh but if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of roll call, just remember Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Sexton. If you haven't heard Jersey
Speaker 1: and you sent us an email, good chance, we'll get
Speaker 1: to it tomorrow. I meant to do the email batch today,
Speaker 1: but I left that one on the cutter room floor now,
Speaker 1: Ronnie writes, in regard to the left, it's amazing how
Speaker 1: many attack options you have when morality is no longer considered.
Speaker 1: Trump arrangement syndrome seems to have dissolved their last vestige
Speaker 1: of integrity. Hey, look, Ronnie, you get You have no
Speaker 1: argument for me about how they have a lot of options,
Speaker 1: because there's a whole lot you can do when you
Speaker 1: have no integrity to to protect, when you have no
Speaker 1: principles that you have to worry about losing in a process,
Speaker 1: you have freedom of action. So that's a good thing. Uh,
Speaker 1: jen is next up here. She writes, great show, this
Speaker 1: was from last night. I'm just listening to the show,
Speaker 1: and for the first time, I'm really nervous about what
Speaker 1: the establishment is doing to Trump. This is setting such
Speaker 1: a dangerous precedent. Well, Jenna, I hope you've got that
Speaker 1: sense from our discussion today of what has happened with
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. And it is troubling to me to
Speaker 1: see that, you know, where's the Not that I'm not
Speaker 1: a fan of the A C l U at all,
Speaker 1: but it is troubling to see how quickly they will
Speaker 1: abandon whatever principles they have all of a sudden attorney
Speaker 1: client privilege. It's not really that big a deal. It's
Speaker 1: no longer sacred, So you know, that's that's a part
Speaker 1: of what's troubling. Just overall, though, I think that there
Speaker 1: is a complete lack of any willingness among those who
Speaker 1: consider themselves opposed to Trump's policies to approach any aspect
Speaker 1: of Trump in good faith. So, you know, whatever, I
Speaker 1: think there are a lot of people out there who
Speaker 1: realize And now I'm just drawing on my own context
Speaker 1: or in New York City, I know plenty of Democrats
Speaker 1: who realized that there was no Russia collusion. They know,
Speaker 1: did they know that Trump didn't come up with some
Speaker 1: plan with Putin? And then that's all crap and it's
Speaker 1: amusing to them, but they know it's but they're happy
Speaker 1: that this Muller probe is going on it because it's
Speaker 1: a a a form of hashtag resistance. It's a drag
Speaker 1: on Trump. It's a way to fight the administration, not
Speaker 1: in terms of policy and winning the argument, but but
Speaker 1: literally to sabotage it. And so I know people who
Speaker 1: are like, yeah, the Molar thing, it's it's not gonna
Speaker 1: find any Russia collusion, but you know, it's good sabotage
Speaker 1: against the administration, and they're they're okay with that. And
Speaker 1: I think that's an unprincipled approach, but that's what you
Speaker 1: see a lot of that going on. Evan. Next up here,
Speaker 1: it's Hey Buck and talking about social media and the
Speaker 1: fact that most or all large social media platforms are
Speaker 1: owned and operated liberals. Are there not any conservatives that
Speaker 1: can start up the next Facebook or Twitter? Why are
Speaker 1: they always liberal owned? What if a situation we're backwards?
Speaker 1: What conservatives try and impose their political beliefs upon the public.
Speaker 1: Thanks for the show and keep up the great work. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Evan. That's a great question. By the way,
Speaker 1: why is it that we have You know, Peter Tiel,
Speaker 1: for example, is a big Silicon Valley name. He's a libertarian.
Speaker 1: He spoke at the RNC convention. I'm sure many of
Speaker 1: you will remember that spoken favorite trump is is in
Speaker 1: good standing with Trump? Um. Why are all the social
Speaker 1: media platforms progressive left? I'd like to say it's the
Speaker 1: same reason the media is in academia, but there's something
Speaker 1: distinct about you know, to be a social media uh
Speaker 1: founder or one of these companies, you had to be
Speaker 1: in the computer science realm. You had to be somebody
Speaker 1: that was look at what would have been called the
Speaker 1: computer nerd. You know, now we don't call them computer
Speaker 1: nerds anymore because they all drive Maserati's and fly around
Speaker 1: in private jets and could buy any of us, So
Speaker 1: we we instead call them, you know, social media is ours. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know, I look at this and I think, uh,
Speaker 1: I don't have a good answer. Let me think about
Speaker 1: that one, Evan, Why is it? I could probably look
Speaker 1: into the history of it, um, But I also think
Speaker 1: that culturally speaking, conservatives are more willing to or maybe
Speaker 1: even better to say, right of center people are more
Speaker 1: willing to separate their work for their political beliefs. I
Speaker 1: think that to be on the left now, to be progressive,
Speaker 1: to be woke borrow one of their terms. To be
Speaker 1: woke is to be woke at all times. To be
Speaker 1: a social justice warrior means that you don't put on
Speaker 1: your your shield and sword, so to speak, just when
Speaker 1: you're out and about or when you're engaging with people
Speaker 1: on Twitter or Facebook. When you're in the office, you're
Speaker 1: a social justice warrior. It's it's a two seven thing
Speaker 1: I think about in my own life. I I we
Speaker 1: said laught, people said, well you were you work in politics,
Speaker 1: and they want to talk to me about politics, and
Speaker 1: but Buck doesn't play that game. I do this for
Speaker 1: a living. You know, if somebody is uh, someone who
Speaker 1: listens to me, if anyone a team Buck, Everyone's talk politics. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, right, because that's like the family. But I
Speaker 1: mean if I'm at some New York City dinner party,
Speaker 1: which I never get invited to because I'm not fancy,
Speaker 1: but occasionally or something like that, somebody will say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, you work in politics, you know, what do
Speaker 1: you think of the Trump administration? I'm like, ah, not
Speaker 1: gonna happen. You think you thank you fool me. You
Speaker 1: think you're slick with that one. But I prefer I
Speaker 1: prefer not to have my evening ruins so that you
Speaker 1: can share your share your political loathing of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration with me. So those are some of them. But
Speaker 1: I'm saying I separate out right what I do professionally
Speaker 1: from the way I am interacting in terms of discussion,
Speaker 1: at least personally. Right, I still hold my beliefs, I
Speaker 1: still have my principles, but I just don't walk around.
Speaker 1: I think that social justice the same reason they politicize everything. Right,
Speaker 1: who's politicizing sports all the time? The left? You know
Speaker 1: who politicizes entertainment media all the time? The left? They
Speaker 1: don't have a separation mechanism in their minds. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's like a an actual I don't know,
Speaker 1: something having to do with their neurochemistry. But anyway, I digress.
Speaker 1: Uh William is next up. Um Sessions is not doing
Speaker 1: good job. I'm starting to think the guy's a plant
Speaker 1: for the other side. And he also wrote that our
Speaker 1: compliance rate is less than ten percent in Connecticut. That's
Speaker 1: about turning in firearms. So I believe it uh standard.
Speaker 1: Next up here, writes buck Love, the roll call music
Speaker 1: very upbeat, helped with my case of the Monday as well.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope, so my friend, I certainly hope. So
Speaker 1: I'm glad you guys liked a little. See, it's the
Speaker 1: little thing sometimes they make the radio show that change
Speaker 1: up in music a little, just a little sprinkling of quotes.
Speaker 1: I think of what we call actually, you know what,
Speaker 1: it's not an actuality. That's when I play a news clip,
Speaker 1: it's not image. Is it imaging? When I play an
Speaker 1: action movie quote, we'll call it imaging. Yeah, Imaging to
Speaker 1: me is like spice, you know. And so you use
Speaker 1: imaging on a radio show just to give it a
Speaker 1: little a little something there. But he used too much.
Speaker 1: Any of you who have ever had the top come
Speaker 1: off the salt shaker and you're like, maybe you will
Speaker 1: just be salty. It's gonna taste gross. You know, you
Speaker 1: gotta control the spice. Um, So stay oh and then
Speaker 1: sean one more your Shawn Rights, thanks for bringing the
Speaker 1: dubstep roll call theme back. Well there you go, Sean,
Speaker 1: I'm glad some people like it. I like that one
Speaker 1: to actually, but dubstep is an acquired taste. We're gonna
Speaker 1: close up the Hot for tonight. Thank you all for joining.
Speaker 1: Please do subscribe on iTunes if you have not already.
Speaker 1: It's free and it just pops up in your inbox.
Speaker 1: If you ever missed the show live, you'll have it.
Speaker 1: They're waiting for you on iTunes to the Box Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Signed to be with you tomorrow. As always, my friends,
Speaker 1: we have our mission shields high