Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt, a sham going on
Speaker 1: today on Capitol Hill. You got a few left wing
Speaker 1: professors who are saying the president should be a peach.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that. Plus Adam Schiff got phone records
Speaker 1: that include some contact with Giuliani, the president's lawyer. And
Speaker 1: yes that's right. John Solomon a journalist talking about that.
Speaker 1: Plus how Iran is in the midst of tumult? What
Speaker 1: does that tell us about Trump versus Obama on foreign policy?
Speaker 1: Add and Moore 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. Mag no mistake, America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a
Speaker 1: great guy, is no. Welcome to the Buck Sex and Show, everybody,
Speaker 1: in honor and a privilege to have you here with
Speaker 1: me today. And yes, in fact, bon Jovi is down
Speaker 1: the hall, so Brandon and I right now are living
Speaker 1: on a prayer. That's I will say. Bon Jovi's still
Speaker 1: looks good, but I think he's like one hundred and
Speaker 1: five years old now, full head of hair, full head
Speaker 1: of hair. I respect the hair game on mister Jovi.
Speaker 1: It looks like maybe you in thirty years. Well indeed, sir,
Speaker 1: well play give this man a raise. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get right into it today, folks. You have the most
Speaker 1: it's it's different emotions that keep coming up for me
Speaker 1: with this nonsense going on a capitol hill. So let's
Speaker 1: just do a quick review of where we are. Remember,
Speaker 1: you have the fate of the leader of the free
Speaker 1: world at stake here, and this whole thing is a
Speaker 1: clown show. I mean, this is absurd, it's ridiculous. That's
Speaker 1: one set of emotions. And then on the other side,
Speaker 1: I have my god, the Democrats have completely lost their minds.
Speaker 1: The media is dishonest, is to be distrusted, and wow,
Speaker 1: what we are seeing today certainly goes right to the
Speaker 1: heart of all of that. It is stunning, it is astonishing.
Speaker 1: Here's what's going on. By way of quick review. The
Speaker 1: Democrats launched their series of impeachment hearings last what was
Speaker 1: it last month, and we've been forced to sit through
Speaker 1: all this series of state department bureaucrats who have come forward.
Speaker 1: I mean, because if there's one thing that's finally going
Speaker 1: to convince Ross Belt voters and independence and purple States
Speaker 1: to turn against Trump. It's having some pompous tenured professor
Speaker 1: from Harvard Law School give America a boring lecture on
Speaker 1: the constitutional origins of Orange Man. And that's what Democrats
Speaker 1: have switched to. Now. We went from state department bureaucrats
Speaker 1: to law professors. Look, there were four. I watched the
Speaker 1: testimony this morning. I do this so you don't have to.
Speaker 1: Don't worry. It's one of my jobs here. Three of
Speaker 1: the four are rabid Democrat partisans. I mean just could
Speaker 1: not be any more frothy mouthed libs so to speak.
Speaker 1: I mean they are just they hate Trump. Oh, they
Speaker 1: hate Trump. This is completely unsurprising. It shouldn't be a
Speaker 1: surprise to anybody watching this. And I think today is
Speaker 1: also a good reminder, as we have these law professors
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill telling us why the President of the
Speaker 1: United States should be impeached and removed from office, Let's
Speaker 1: make sure we're clear on that this is not just
Speaker 1: a question of whether there should be an impeachment vote
Speaker 1: to show that Trump has aired, those who are advocating
Speaker 1: for impeachment do show with the clear understanding that the
Speaker 1: next step is supposed to be removal from office by
Speaker 1: the Senate. They want to undo the results of the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. So as we have these law professors
Speaker 1: up there on Capitol Hill today, is a good reminder
Speaker 1: for all Americans that law schools now overwhelmingly reflect the
Speaker 1: absurd left wing dominance that you see in undergraduate institutions,
Speaker 1: colleges and universities across the country, And in fact, professors
Speaker 1: at Harvard Law School usually have the same politics as
Speaker 1: gender studies and diversity assistant teaching professors at Woke You University,
Speaker 1: the University of Wokeness or wokea Stan or whatever. Oh my,
Speaker 1: that's what you're seeing today, these professors, with the exception
Speaker 1: of Professor Turley, who the Democrats don't want to talk
Speaker 1: to at all. And I'll get into Turley's argument here.
Speaker 1: And I also want to tell you something, because I'm
Speaker 1: receiving a lot of feedback from you. I am sensitive
Speaker 1: to the fact that there's more going on in the world.
Speaker 1: There's more for us to talk about than just impeachment.
Speaker 1: So every day I'm going to make a real effort,
Speaker 1: including doing deep dives in subject matter that I think
Speaker 1: is important that goes to not just the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: election and the political conversation in this country. But that
Speaker 1: is of interest, is worthwhile for us to dive into
Speaker 1: apart from this, just this impeachment cycle, impare eachment every day.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have to do some of that because
Speaker 1: we have to also not just understand what's going on,
Speaker 1: because this is the primary political story in this country.
Speaker 1: We also have to push back against the other side.
Speaker 1: We can't leave the propaganda entirely unanswered. There will be
Speaker 1: people out there who, especially if we just tire of
Speaker 1: the defense of reason, sanity, rule of law, constitutionality, rationality, decency, godliness,
Speaker 1: all of these things, if we abandon the front lines
Speaker 1: of that, then people will be some poor souls will
Speaker 1: be dragged over to the side of the left and
Speaker 1: believe all of this nonsense, believe all of this absurdity.
Speaker 1: Which reminds me my favorite part of the democrats impeachment
Speaker 1: theater is when these petty demagogues pretend they really don't
Speaker 1: want this. It just pains them to impeach Trump. It
Speaker 1: makes them so sorrowful and prayerful in fact, for the nation.
Speaker 1: Only a moron believes this, my friends, and only a
Speaker 1: fraud would say it. But here we are Pelosi chif
Speaker 1: they all Nadler, they all go through the motions, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's a solemn day for the country. We really don't
Speaker 1: want to have to impeach this man. These people are flatly, clearly,
Speaker 1: blatantly absurd and dishonest in all of this. They are
Speaker 1: power hungry and power mattered. And remember, they feel affronted
Speaker 1: by the President of the United States personally. They do
Speaker 1: take this quite personally. They think that this president is
Speaker 1: an insult to their very existence. And so it's more
Speaker 1: even than just making sure that they regain power. There's
Speaker 1: also the repudiation of everything that is trump They insist
Speaker 1: on that they need that. They don't just want victory,
Speaker 1: they want victory, and then they want to salt the
Speaker 1: earth afterwise and tear down every structure and make sure
Speaker 1: that there's nothing left of Trumpism. But here is the
Speaker 1: big problem that they face for those of us who
Speaker 1: are trying to be honest and serious about this. They
Speaker 1: keep changing. What it is they're telling us is so
Speaker 1: terrible that has occurred, and that's because it's not working.
Speaker 1: They change tactics and strategy every day because trying to
Speaker 1: convince the American people that the president did something terrible
Speaker 1: isn't working. There are about forty percent or forty five
Speaker 1: percent of Americans who will believe anything about this president
Speaker 1: because all they care about is how much they have
Speaker 1: been trained, like a bunch of seals to hate this president.
Speaker 1: You know, everybody has to hate this president, and everyone
Speaker 1: has to sort of clapped together, you know, past the
Speaker 1: beach ball on the nose, from one to another, like
Speaker 1: the seals. They have to those kinds of seals, not
Speaker 1: the elite commandos. I mean, I think that was clear,
Speaker 1: but just just to be so there's no just so
Speaker 1: media matters can't pull that out all. Is he mocking
Speaker 1: our warriors? No, I meant the the aquamarine mammals with
Speaker 1: shiny coats of fur and blubber, which I can tell
Speaker 1: you is probably very handy in this time of year
Speaker 1: for any for any mammal. All right, back to why
Speaker 1: their story, sorry as a buck diversion, not to why
Speaker 1: their story doesn't hold up here, why the Democrats are
Speaker 1: in trouble. Professor Jonathan Turley, whom I've interviewed many times,
Speaker 1: I will say, very very gentlemanly fellow and a scholar,
Speaker 1: I mean, and by the way, a Democrat. He is
Speaker 1: a Democrat. He do not vote for Trump, but he's
Speaker 1: not an absurd leftist. I do believe we have to
Speaker 1: remember that that exists. Not all Democrats are lunatics. Lunatics
Speaker 1: run the Democratic Party. Now unfortunately they've they've taken over.
Speaker 1: I mean, the inmates in the Democratic Party do run
Speaker 1: the asylum. But there are still Democrats that you can
Speaker 1: have reasonable conversations with, that will agree on some matters
Speaker 1: and disagree on others, but can also and this is
Speaker 1: the key, you can see eye to eye with him
Speaker 1: on a basic framework of what is true and what
Speaker 1: is not, what is real and what is not, what
Speaker 1: is fair and what is not, which has now been
Speaker 1: with these Democrats and the sham proceeding this has been
Speaker 1: completely abandoned. No one, no serious person thinks that that's
Speaker 1: what's really going on here. This is all meant to
Speaker 1: destroy the President of the United States. Here's what Turley
Speaker 1: points out, for example, in an editorial in The Hill,
Speaker 1: I used to be a Hill employee, lunched Hill TV
Speaker 1: in fact, so you know, NBD got that going for me,
Speaker 1: which is nice quote the knicks in it. And so
Speaker 1: this wait, hold on before I get to this quote.
Speaker 1: They're saying that and this is a common refrain that
Speaker 1: this is that which Shift. I'm not just saying, general people,
Speaker 1: this is beyond anything Nixon did. That is a line
Speaker 1: from Adam Shifts yesterday. He gave this sort of semmatia. This, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm Adam Shift, and I'm giving my grandiose closing arguments
Speaker 1: about how you should get rid of the present for
Speaker 1: the United States. He doesn't sound that cool. I was
Speaker 1: sounded way better than what Shift sounds like. But you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, a pompous jerk giving his speech.
Speaker 1: But the present should be gone. But this is beyond
Speaker 1: We've We've gone from this is Trump's water Gate to
Speaker 1: this is worse than water Gate, and back and forth
Speaker 1: many many times. But now we're in this is worse
Speaker 1: than Watergate. I mean, does anyone Does anyone really believe this?
Speaker 1: Does anyone take this seriously? I think people do believe it,
Speaker 1: which is which is troubling, which is a bad sign
Speaker 1: for their judgment of their ability to decipher basic facts
Speaker 1: and understand the world around them. But this is beyond
Speaker 1: anything Nixon did, is what Chip says. Let's just take
Speaker 1: a little momentber Nixon was not, in fact impeach and
Speaker 1: removed from office. He resigned. This is what one of
Speaker 1: the professors who's on Capital one of the four, the
Speaker 1: only saying one. The others are crazy. They're leftists. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe they know what they're doing is absurd and they're
Speaker 1: just doing it for a purpose. But here's what he
Speaker 1: writes of the Nixon impeachment. The Nixon impeachment quote began
Speaker 1: with a felony crime with the Watergate burglary, then swept
Speaker 1: to encompass an array of other crimes involving political slush funds,
Speaker 1: payments of hush money, maintenance of an enemy's list, directing
Speaker 1: tax audits of critics, witness intimidation, multiple instances of perjury,
Speaker 1: and even an alleged kidnapping. In the end, there were
Speaker 1: nearly seventy officials charge and four dozen of them found guilty,
Speaker 1: and Nixon was named as an unindicted conspirator by a
Speaker 1: grand jury. End quote, Adams ship if the point man,
Speaker 1: handpicked by Nancy Pelosi, the point man for this entire
Speaker 1: impeachment effort, is looking at you, the American people, and
Speaker 1: trying to keep a straight face. I think Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: doesn't really do much in the way of facial expressions,
Speaker 1: but he's staring at you and telling you that all
Speaker 1: that Nixon stuff, what Trump has done is worse than that.
Speaker 1: What honest reasonable person could take that statement seriously? I
Speaker 1: sit here and I tell you that Trump has committed
Speaker 1: no crime zero with this Ukraine debacle mess. Oh and
Speaker 1: by the way, no crime zero with the Mulla report,
Speaker 1: no crime zero with the Stormy Daniels payoff thing that
Speaker 1: they were obsessed. I mean, yeah, just go down the
Speaker 1: whole is the emoluments close, amoluments clause, all of this,
Speaker 1: no crime, no crime, no crime. And they say that
Speaker 1: this is worse. How is it worse? They keep making
Speaker 1: accusations and allegations that are false against Nixon. At least
Speaker 1: a lot of the stuff was true, And this is
Speaker 1: worse than that. These people are trying to throw your
Speaker 1: sense of reality into disarray. They're trying to just engage
Speaker 1: in such a fierce campaign of propaganda that you no
Speaker 1: longer understand what is true and what is not, and
Speaker 1: you just do what you're told because that's what the
Speaker 1: good people do. They are absurd, but unfortunately they are
Speaker 1: all so dangerous. What they are doing to the country
Speaker 1: right now is troubling, and it goes beyond your usual
Speaker 1: political back and forth. They are kicking at the load
Speaker 1: barren walls of this republic, and they do so with
Speaker 1: self righteous smiles. This is not a good place for
Speaker 1: the country to be in. I do think that Trump
Speaker 1: is winning this impeachment battle so far, But this impeachment
Speaker 1: battle actually is about a lot more than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: This is not about Ukraine. This is about our democracy.
Speaker 1: This is about our national security. This is about whether
Speaker 1: the American people have a right to expect that the
Speaker 1: President Nited States is going to act in their interests,
Speaker 1: with their security in mind, and not for some illicit,
Speaker 1: personal or political reason. So Americans should care deeply about
Speaker 1: whether the President Nited States is betraying their trust in him,
Speaker 1: betraying that oath that he took to the Constitution to
Speaker 1: protect our country and defend its institutions. There you go,
Speaker 1: that's classic Adam shift in his little closing argument. Shifty shift.
Speaker 1: What is he even saying betraying our institutions, betraying our
Speaker 1: national security? But just how by doing what? When they
Speaker 1: say things like demanding dirt on a political rival, or
Speaker 1: when they say things like interfering in our election. That
Speaker 1: is a lie. The president did not demand interference in
Speaker 1: the election. The president mean getting an answer about corruption
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, which is a legitimate foreign policy interest. If
Speaker 1: what he did is so bad, why do they have
Speaker 1: to lie about it. He did not say give me
Speaker 1: dirt on Joe Biden. He said, if you can get
Speaker 1: some answers about this barisma situation, Hunter Biden, let me know.
Speaker 1: I've heard bad things. Presidents allowed to say that. There's
Speaker 1: the flat I mean, is it tough politics? Yes? Do
Speaker 1: we want the president not to engage in tough politics?
Speaker 1: Do we want the president to back down from this?
Speaker 1: Because let's understand, the Democrats are used to operate in
Speaker 1: a world or Democrats don't get investigated, and if they
Speaker 1: do get investigated because what they do is egregiously criminal,
Speaker 1: like Hillary Clinton, then do you know what they do.
Speaker 1: They make sure that the system is rigged so there
Speaker 1: is no accountability, there is no justice, there is no punishment.
Speaker 1: That's what they do. So now all of a sudden
Speaker 1: Trump comes along and says, no, Hunter and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: don't have special immunity. There is plenty of reason the
Speaker 1: same people. Let's Remember this, friends who tell you that
Speaker 1: there was reason to investigate a presidential campaign, not somebody
Speaker 1: who maybe was going to be running for president in
Speaker 1: the future, an active presidential campaign, one of two people
Speaker 1: vying for the presidency based on what someone said to
Speaker 1: someone in a bar. That's someone being George Papadoppoulas. Those
Speaker 1: same people now tell you that the son of the
Speaker 1: person who is in charge of foreign policy in a
Speaker 1: country under the Obama administration getting fifty thousand to seventy
Speaker 1: five or eighty five thousand dollars a month to be
Speaker 1: on the board of some company. When the guy's an
Speaker 1: imbecile and a derelict clown, there's no basis to look
Speaker 1: into whether there's any corruption going on there. There's certainly
Speaker 1: the appearance of corruption, and whether there's the appearance of corruption,
Speaker 1: there can be an investigation of the same. These people
Speaker 1: constantly change the rules. They have no principles, they have
Speaker 1: no standards. They have a relentless pursuit for power. Don't
Speaker 1: make any mistake about that. They will do whatever they
Speaker 1: have to do in order to get the outcome that
Speaker 1: they desire. They profess that the other side is tearing
Speaker 1: down institutions while they're gathering to dynamite themselves and putting
Speaker 1: the foundations of those same institutions. They just don't care.
Speaker 1: This is the instinct of the totalitarian. Whatever they need
Speaker 1: to do to get what they want is inherently justified,
Speaker 1: because what they want is good and the people who
Speaker 1: oppose it are bad. This was the same mentality of
Speaker 1: the Bolsheviks, and, by the way, the Mensheviks leading into
Speaker 1: the Russian Revolution and then the Soviet Union. This is
Speaker 1: the same mentality you've seen with Paul pot the same
Speaker 1: you see today in North Korea. Anything that the ruling
Speaker 1: regime wants must inherently be good. Therefore any opposition to
Speaker 1: it is bad. And whatever rules you have to change,
Speaker 1: whatever injustice is you have to abide, or encourage or inflict,
Speaker 1: those are all also apparently just fine, because you are
Speaker 1: achieving a righteous ends through your much less than righteous means.
Speaker 1: That's where we are right now in this country. Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff and the Democrats are an abject disgrace, and yet
Speaker 1: they cling to this notion that they're the good guys.
Speaker 1: President Trump's conduct, as described in the testimony and evidence,
Speaker 1: clearly constitutes impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution.
Speaker 1: In particular, the memorandum and other testimony relating to the
Speaker 1: July twenty fifth, twenty nineteen phone call between the two presidents,
Speaker 1: President Trump and President Zelenski more than sufficiently indicates that
Speaker 1: President Trump abused his office by soliciting the President of
Speaker 1: Ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain
Speaker 1: personal political advantage, including in relation to the twenty twenty election. Oh,
Speaker 1: Professor Feldman, you're doing. That's a fantastic job, auditioning for
Speaker 1: MSNBC or perhaps CNN. There might be a bidding war
Speaker 1: for your services after this absurd Like I said, I mean,
Speaker 1: just just go to Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law
Speaker 1: Schools Twitter feed and you will see the grandiose idiocy
Speaker 1: that is often rewarded at the most elite institutions in
Speaker 1: this country. The elite institutions, we've found more and more
Speaker 1: exist specifically to prop up many people who don't deserve
Speaker 1: it in the least, and the second you begin to
Speaker 1: challenge that, they get very irascible. They don't much appreciate
Speaker 1: the truth being exposed, whether it's elite journalism, elite academia,
Speaker 1: go through the ranks of all of it. Frauds are
Speaker 1: plenty good people, of course, and some I assume are
Speaker 1: good people, but mostly frauds. That was Professor Noah Feldman.
Speaker 1: Notice how we have all these statements, all this conjecture,
Speaker 1: all this analysis. It certainly constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.
Speaker 1: That this guy thinks that what the president said is
Speaker 1: an abusive power based upon the supposition, based upon the
Speaker 1: assumption that there was going to be a follow on
Speaker 1: of pressure to get Zelenski to present information that was
Speaker 1: not true in order to harm a political rival here
Speaker 1: in the United States. I have a point of not
Speaker 1: a point of order that would be like can I
Speaker 1: have a bathroom break? But I have a point of discussion,
Speaker 1: and I like the parliamentary procedure stuff. And they all
Speaker 1: bang the gavels in Congress. I'm like, here, ye, hear ye,
Speaker 1: it's time for lunch. You know, they do that parliamentary stuff.
Speaker 1: I have What if just just stay with me here
Speaker 1: for a second. What if there was, in fact a
Speaker 1: corrupt arrangement involving the bides. People who tell me that
Speaker 1: this is settled are running cover. We don't know. How
Speaker 1: would we know how would President Trump know unless he
Speaker 1: asked and got a sense of the investigation. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: when you ask a foreign government about possible corruption involving
Speaker 1: that foreign government, when it's one of the most corrupt
Speaker 1: countries in the world. Guess what, Maybe you have to
Speaker 1: push a little bit. Maybe the first answer you get
Speaker 1: is not factually accurate. Oh good heavens, who could think
Speaker 1: of such a thing. Maybe you have to dig, Maybe
Speaker 1: you have to exert some pressure, use some of your
Speaker 1: connections and influence to get answers. Everything that the Left
Speaker 1: tells us has premised here upon many things, but one
Speaker 1: of them is that clearly Hunter and Joe Biden did
Speaker 1: no wrong here. We saw this with Anderson Cooper at
Speaker 1: the debates. You know, these frauds at CNN frauds, Tapper
Speaker 1: and Cooper and Lemon and Cuomo bro Cuomo, I'll wreck
Speaker 1: your bib Cuomo, that guy aka Fredo aka bro Cuomo frauds.
Speaker 1: But Cooper, just to show us that you know, he's
Speaker 1: playing for playing for Team Biden as much as he
Speaker 1: can right now, said you know, there's no evidence and
Speaker 1: it is not true. However, he phrased the question that
Speaker 1: there was anything wrong going on in Ukraine, see an
Speaker 1: end on a lot of investigating about that one. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. Also, why can't we ask questions here?
Speaker 1: We had a we had a number of people at
Speaker 1: the top level of the United States government, based on
Speaker 1: the flimsiest of evidence, using FISA procedures to go after
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, And now we are told that there
Speaker 1: can be no investigation of anything involving Democrat Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: There was investigation of lots of stuff involving President Trump
Speaker 1: when he was running. Why is that okay? But the
Speaker 1: Biden investigation is not. I mean, I fight this battle
Speaker 1: on a different level than many of mine. Oh no,
Speaker 1: but can we prove the quid pro quo? No? No, no,
Speaker 1: excuse me. There's no immunity for Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: There is nothing wrong. I don't care that there is
Speaker 1: a peripheral or secondary political benefit. There is, in fact,
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with saying can you get answers for me
Speaker 1: on whether there was corruption here? Can you look into this? Yeah?
Speaker 1: The answers, Yeah, you can look into this. Now. People
Speaker 1: have asked me this, What would make me change my mind?
Speaker 1: What would make me change my mind on this? Is
Speaker 1: if Trump had said, oh, really, there's nothing on Biden.
Speaker 1: Make something up or else you're not getting the money.
Speaker 1: Now we have a problem, Now we have abuse of power.
Speaker 1: Now we have a president. But that's not what happened
Speaker 1: at all, and no one even suggests that's what happened.
Speaker 1: The mere request to get answers about the the bidens
Speaker 1: you see, because he's the Democrat front runner, which is
Speaker 1: a complete absurd should be slapping the face to how
Speaker 1: stupid the Democratic Party has become. But anyway, because he's
Speaker 1: a Democrat frontrunner, he has a special immunity, can't ask
Speaker 1: any questions about him. He's their best hope to defeat
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, which shows you a lot about the Democrats.
Speaker 1: But we found out something very interesting when she was
Speaker 1: doing his little press conference. We found out that, for example,
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff has subpoenaed not just witnesses, and I have
Speaker 1: to come back to this witness point for you in
Speaker 1: a second, but Schiff has in fact subpoenaed phone records too,
Speaker 1: phone records of one of these associates of Giuliani. Believe
Speaker 1: it's Parness lef lev Parness, who have been in contact
Speaker 1: with who was in contact with for example, Devin Newness
Speaker 1: of Congress, and Rue Giuliani and John Solomon, my former
Speaker 1: colleague at the Hill. So now we have schiff pulling
Speaker 1: phone records. Now I understand there's we can do this.
Speaker 1: People are gonna make all this. Oh but he didn't
Speaker 1: go after the It just was you know, excuse me.
Speaker 1: It's called reverse targeting. I worked in the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: I know how this. I also worked the NYPD Intelligence Division,
Speaker 1: where we used to pull phone records all the time.
Speaker 1: It's not hard when you know some people are in
Speaker 1: contacting your like, well, we can pretextually pull this guy's
Speaker 1: phone records and maybe we see who his psychiatrist is too. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So now whether it's strictly legal as a different question
Speaker 1: from whether it is ethical and whether if the shoe
Speaker 1: was on the other foote. The Democrats would be accepting
Speaker 1: of this. I mean, of course this is absurd. So
Speaker 1: we can now see, and they released without redaction, that
Speaker 1: there was a member of Congress, that there was Giuliani
Speaker 1: and Newness all in contact with this individual, and this
Speaker 1: is now being used. So I mean they're treating that
Speaker 1: they're using the powers of a criminal investigation proceeding in
Speaker 1: order to go after their political vendetti here understand that too.
Speaker 1: This is not a minor thing. This is where I
Speaker 1: turn on and say, where are you, Senate Republicans? Why
Speaker 1: aren't you going to subpoena Adam Shift's phone records? He
Speaker 1: has no special immunity here. If Shift can subpoena of
Speaker 1: the phone records that includes members of Congress, why can't
Speaker 1: Why can't, oh, Oh, I have an idea subpoena Eric
Speaker 1: schery Mella's phone records. How about that? Let's see who
Speaker 1: the alleged whistleblower has been talking to and did talk
Speaker 1: to before the report came out. He has there's no
Speaker 1: special protection for his phone records. We don't even know
Speaker 1: if he's the whistleblower. How could they block it? Riddle
Speaker 1: me that, my friends. I'm enjoying taking a rhetorical sledgehammer
Speaker 1: to the absurdity on Capitol Hill today, and I felt
Speaker 1: like I should bring in somebody else who wields a
Speaker 1: battle axe of experience and rationality at all of these matters.
Speaker 1: Our friend Sean Davis is back in action here on
Speaker 1: the show. He is, of course, at the Federalist. He's
Speaker 1: a co founder of the Federalist. It is one of
Speaker 1: my favorite websites. He already knows that, and he joins
Speaker 1: us now to talk about all the things. Sean, thanks
Speaker 1: for making the time. Thanks for having me, Buck. I mean,
Speaker 1: I am just talking about what's going on on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill today. Try to give me your sense of what
Speaker 1: is the Democrat play here to have a bunch of
Speaker 1: constitutional law professors, three of the four who were clearly
Speaker 1: anti Trump partisans, and one who just didn't vote for Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: but it's not a wild eyed Trump pater tell us
Speaker 1: that the founding fathers, what they really meant when they
Speaker 1: wrote the Constitution was orange man bad. Yeah. I think
Speaker 1: I think he nailed it. The one thing that you know,
Speaker 1: the Federalists and the anti federalist could agree on is
Speaker 1: that the bad orange man has to go. And you
Speaker 1: know that's really what the Constitution is subordinate to, is
Speaker 1: getting rid of the orange bad man. I mean, I
Speaker 1: gotta be honest, I don't know what they're doing. I
Speaker 1: didn't really understand the purpose of all the intel hearings
Speaker 1: that Schiff ran I thought those were silly. They clearly
Speaker 1: had nothing other than leftover residual anger from how the
Speaker 1: Mohler probe blew up in their faces, and you know,
Speaker 1: inviting up three completely looney left wing law professors, one
Speaker 1: of whom said, I think a year or two ago,
Speaker 1: that you don't even need evidence to impeach Trump. He's
Speaker 1: just bad enough as is that he needs to go.
Speaker 1: But the only thing I can think of that they're
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish here is just boring America to death.
Speaker 1: And then you know, once we're all gone and there's
Speaker 1: no accountability for them, they could do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: When I was watching him this morning, I felt like
Speaker 1: there was a point at which there was at least
Speaker 1: the one of the professors made an allusion to or
Speaker 1: it made a reference to, Well, yeah, and the president
Speaker 1: with this phone call kind of committed treason, and I
Speaker 1: was I know, they said bribery, but I mean they
Speaker 1: said that he's committed effectively all of these crimes. I
Speaker 1: was waiting from a throw piracy and counterfeiting in there, Yeah, exactly. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, everything he does is treason because he's an
Speaker 1: illegitimate president. And if you're an illegitimate president, then you
Speaker 1: have no right or authority to use the presidential powers
Speaker 1: given you in the Constitution. And I got to be honest,
Speaker 1: watching this whole thing and dealing with all of this,
Speaker 1: it's like being a house guest at a at a
Speaker 1: dinner party where the food's awful, but you kind of
Speaker 1: just gotta like keep, you know, stomaching it and shoveling
Speaker 1: it down to be polite. I kind of feel like
Speaker 1: being in the political news industry. That's what we're having
Speaker 1: to do with this. We're having to like pretend that
Speaker 1: this is serious and you know, really well and put
Speaker 1: together when it's really just a complete disaster politically, legally,
Speaker 1: the Democrats I think are going to rue the day
Speaker 1: they started this, and at this point I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure they end up actually impeaching him. Giving Wow, you
Speaker 1: and my friend Rahim Kassam have both become I mean,
Speaker 1: I've been saying one hundred percent day impeached for weeks.
Speaker 1: I'm not between you and Raheem. I'm I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna wratch it down to ninety five percent certainty. But
Speaker 1: I because I can see what you're saying. I mean this,
Speaker 1: I don't know how anyone can hear. My favorite thing
Speaker 1: is when Schiff Pelosi, Nather they all do this. We
Speaker 1: really wish we didn't have to impeach this president. Like,
Speaker 1: who believes this? Nobody? But even people I know who
Speaker 1: hate Trump aren't aren't so silly that they believe that. Well, right,
Speaker 1: my my colleague Molly Hemingway actually sat behind Jerry Nadler
Speaker 1: on the Acela train shortly after the Democrats took over
Speaker 1: Congressman twenty eighteen, and he was blabbing on his phone
Speaker 1: to a close compident about how, yeah, they were all
Speaker 1: in on impeachment. This is what was going to happen.
Speaker 1: So this idea that there's somehow just doing it in sadness,
Speaker 1: not an anger, and we didn't want to have to
Speaker 1: do this, it's total poppycock. This was the plan from
Speaker 1: the very beginning. It was actually the plan with Bueller.
Speaker 1: The problem was that, you know, even with that sprawling,
Speaker 1: forty fifty million dollars multiyear investigation, even they couldn't find
Speaker 1: anything on Trump. So now they're left having to pretend
Speaker 1: that some phone call with the Ukrainian leader is impeachment.
Speaker 1: It's if these people were capable of feeling shame, they
Speaker 1: would just be horribly embarrassed now, but clearly they're not.
Speaker 1: Now here's somebody that understands from actually doing it Senate investigations. Right,
Speaker 1: you worked for Senator Tom Coburn's office. I want to
Speaker 1: ask you about shift pulling phone records, subpoenaing phone records.
Speaker 1: I know it's was for left parness, but it also
Speaker 1: has included now phone contacts with a journalist, with a
Speaker 1: member of Congress, and with the president's personal lawyer. How
Speaker 1: does that strike you that there's not going to subpoena records.
Speaker 1: And I got some follow ons on this too, man,
Speaker 1: I think that it's really really concerning. And look, in general,
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem with congressional subpoena power, and
Speaker 1: in fact, it's that power that they delegate to the
Speaker 1: executive that allows a lot of the law enforcement functions
Speaker 1: we have some in principle, I don't have a problem
Speaker 1: with committees being able to do that in practice. In
Speaker 1: this case, if indeed he did get these via subpoena,
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure he did, but if he did,
Speaker 1: it is extremely troubling to be pulling up the phone
Speaker 1: records between the president's attorneys. You know, phone calls between
Speaker 1: Jay Sekulo and Rudy Giuliani ended up on there pulling
Speaker 1: up phone calls from members of Congress from their staff members.
Speaker 1: And this is coming from a guy who secretly colluded
Speaker 1: with the whistleblower, who lied about his interactions with Shift,
Speaker 1: and then Shift later lied about those interactions, and today
Speaker 1: it is refusing to answer any questions about him. This
Speaker 1: is a huge, huge abuse of power in the midst
Speaker 1: of a process that isn't of itself a massive abuse
Speaker 1: of power. I was really really concerned when I saw that.
Speaker 1: Not it's bad that they did it with noonez and
Speaker 1: his staff, but getting the phone records between the president's
Speaker 1: attorney that get getting the attorneys of the person you're
Speaker 1: accusing of high crimes and misdemeanors, that is unconscionable. Now
Speaker 1: I want to know where's the Senate on this, Sean,
Speaker 1: and you know we have a Senate majority of republic
Speaker 1: Republican majority, Why don't they subpoena ship's records? Because I
Speaker 1: want to see if you talk in fact, is there
Speaker 1: explain Is there any legal reason why they couldn't subpoena
Speaker 1: Eric Scherremela's records? No, none at all. Procedures are a
Speaker 1: little different in the Senate. It tends to be a
Speaker 1: more bipartisan operation there. I think often you have to
Speaker 1: have a certain vote, or you have to have the
Speaker 1: the consent of the ranking member. So it's it's not
Speaker 1: as easy in the Senate to do its House, but
Speaker 1: they can do it, and the personally, I think the
Speaker 1: reason why they haven't is the two committees who would
Speaker 1: do this, Intel and Judiciary, are not run by Republicans
Speaker 1: with any sort of reputation for having a stronger work
Speaker 1: ethic or you know, really dogged investigative skills. You know you.
Speaker 1: Burr has turned over his committee to Mark Warner entirely.
Speaker 1: He's been a complete non entity and Lindsey Grahamwall We
Speaker 1: all enjoyed the show he put under in the Kavanaugh hearing.
Speaker 1: He seems much more content to expound in green rooms
Speaker 1: than he is to write letters and demand answers from
Speaker 1: the agencies he overseas. Yeah, I have to say, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm disappointed so far at what we've seen from Senate
Speaker 1: Republicans in the midst of all this in general. But
Speaker 1: maybe I just my expectations, which were low, should have
Speaker 1: been should have been even lower. What, by the way,
Speaker 1: what comes? What comes next? In your mindment after they
Speaker 1: have this Judiciary hearing today, what should we all be
Speaker 1: waiting for what's supposed to be the next trick Schiff
Speaker 1: have has up a sleeve. Well, I think next we'd
Speaker 1: actually have to see some articles of impeachment. So obviously
Speaker 1: what they all are wanting to head towards is a
Speaker 1: formal vote on the House floor to impeach the president,
Speaker 1: which is to indict him of specific high crimes and
Speaker 1: misdemeanors and then send it to a trial in the
Speaker 1: Senate where he'd either be convicted or acquitted. I think
Speaker 1: they're struggling with this because there aren't actually any specific crimes,
Speaker 1: and they're going to have to come up with more
Speaker 1: than just Orange Man bad. So that's the next step.
Speaker 1: But I really think there's a chance here we don't
Speaker 1: even get there. In fact, one of Philosophies leadership team
Speaker 1: members told a Fox News reporter Chad Program the other
Speaker 1: night that you know what did to really pack the
Speaker 1: legislative schedule from here to Christmas? And we don't even
Speaker 1: know if we can be a bit impeachment in so
Speaker 1: we might not even get to it until twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: So I think the longer they kick that can down
Speaker 1: the road and drag it on, the less likely they
Speaker 1: are to finally pull the trigger on it. Now, Sean,
Speaker 1: I want to keep you if I can, for a moment,
Speaker 1: because I did want to touch on this story involved
Speaker 1: a convicted child porn trafficker who's bundling millions for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: We're going to get to that in just a second.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is the only dual certified, veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. They are federally certified as
Speaker 1: a vetitown small business and headquartered in Chicago with offices
Speaker 1: throughout the nation. Their risk mitigation experts can work with
Speaker 1: startups all the way up to Fortune one hundred companies,
Speaker 1: and no data or client information is ever offshore. Unlike
Speaker 1: a lot of their competitors, Global Verification Network has all
Speaker 1: employees located throughout the United States and they do not
Speaker 1: outsource or offshore any of the work you give them.
Speaker 1: Give Global Verification Networker call eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. Again that's eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine. You can also
Speaker 1: go to MYGVN dot com. Again, that's m y GVN
Speaker 1: dot com. Global Verification Network for all your background investigation
Speaker 1: and inventing needs. Leave no stone on turn. Okay, we're
Speaker 1: back here with my friend Sean Davis. He's a writer
Speaker 1: for The Federalist, co founder of the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 1: If you're not already, you should be making The Federalist
Speaker 1: part of your daily read in to get up on
Speaker 1: all the day's events. Let's go now, Sean, tell me
Speaker 1: what happened here. This just there's there's an indictment that
Speaker 1: came down. This is a little complicated, some backstory, but
Speaker 1: walk us through this fellow who was a part of
Speaker 1: the Mueller probe, used against Trump, bundling millions for Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: and has a record of trafficking in child pornography. Tell
Speaker 1: give us the necessary details here. Yeah, so I'll have
Speaker 1: to start with the disclaimer that everything I'm about to
Speaker 1: say is true. It's not made up. It's not a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory. It's not a film script for a late
Speaker 1: night Lifetime movie. This all happened. So an individual by
Speaker 1: the name of George Nader was indicted with several other
Speaker 1: individuals for fraudulently funneling illegal contributions to pro Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: Superpack and to Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, so I
Speaker 1: means they were using Strawman to do donations to hide
Speaker 1: the true source of the money. Which George Nator's an
Speaker 1: interesting character because he was actually deployed by the FBI
Speaker 1: against the Trump campaign back in or i should say,
Speaker 1: the Trump transition, back in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: In fact, he was traveling around and setting up meetings
Speaker 1: for Eric Prince, who has a security business all around
Speaker 1: the world, and was rumored to have been a private
Speaker 1: back channel for Russia between the Trump transition and the
Speaker 1: Russian government. We know that none of that was true,
Speaker 1: but Nader was actually a witness for Robert Mueller and
Speaker 1: his investigation, and he was given them all kinds of
Speaker 1: dirt on the Trump transition and on Eric Prince. But
Speaker 1: the weird thing is things we never heard about while
Speaker 1: he was working for Mular was that he is a
Speaker 1: pedophile and a child porn trafficker. In fact, he served
Speaker 1: prison time in the Czech Republic for having sex with minors.
Speaker 1: He had been repeatedly arrested by federal authorities in the
Speaker 1: US and eighty five and ninety one, I think again
Speaker 1: in two thousand for child porn trafficking, and in fact,
Speaker 1: when Mular's agents picked him up during the course of
Speaker 1: their investigation, they found on his electronic devices all kinds
Speaker 1: of various illegal child pornography for which they never charged him.
Speaker 1: And it actually wasn't until Muller finally closed up shop
Speaker 1: and apparently had no more use for Mular that bars
Speaker 1: DJ finally came in and wrung him up and charged
Speaker 1: him for possession of child pornography. And then yesterday, as
Speaker 1: you said at the beginning, this guy was indicted for
Speaker 1: an illegal contribution Schome to cuff Hillary Carton. It is
Speaker 1: so wild that you have to constantly remind yourself that
Speaker 1: this isn't fiction, this is reality. This actually happened. So
Speaker 1: the part of this, I mean, there's the Hillard Clinton connection,
Speaker 1: which we'll get into in a second, but just on
Speaker 1: the Mueller side of it. So Mueller knew about all
Speaker 1: had to know about all of this, and usually, I mean,
Speaker 1: the FBI is very harsh and understandably so on anybody
Speaker 1: who is violating children and possessing and transferring child pornography.
Speaker 1: Muller just didn't think that, I mean, Mueller sent thirty
Speaker 1: armed agents to arrest It was really Weisman, as we know.
Speaker 1: But let's say it was smaller to arrest Roger Stone
Speaker 1: for like lying about a Twitter conversation you have with somebody.
Speaker 1: But they let this guy Nader. They let it go
Speaker 1: until Trump's dj actually came down on him. That seems
Speaker 1: quite strange. It's insane, and it's not the kind of
Speaker 1: thing you would expect from a sworn officer of the
Speaker 1: law to do. I mean, think about the potential for
Speaker 1: people to have been exploited and harmed by this individual
Speaker 1: while he was given a free reign by Mueller. That's
Speaker 1: not too hard to imagine that they allowed him to
Speaker 1: keep doing this just to get his cooperation because it
Speaker 1: happened previously. In fact, in previous court transcripts, his defense
Speaker 1: in previous cases argued that he should be treated leniently
Speaker 1: because he had been working with various government intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: you know, ten twenty years ago to help them with
Speaker 1: their efforts in the Middle East, and if the details
Speaker 1: of all this were to get out, if you were
Speaker 1: really to have the book thrown at him, it could
Speaker 1: really harm his relationships with various Middle East leaders. So
Speaker 1: it's clear to me that this guy, for years, if
Speaker 1: not decades, has been used as an asset by our
Speaker 1: government intelligence agencies that were more than willing to look
Speaker 1: the other way when this man was literally raping children
Speaker 1: and in trafficking child pornography. It's just stunning pickening and
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton bundling, Right, So if that's you know,
Speaker 1: that just means for everybody that that's he's pulling together donate. Well,
Speaker 1: he's illegally let's be clear, I mean essentially fraudulently bundling
Speaker 1: large amounts of money for the Hillary Clinton campaign. I
Speaker 1: just think it's worth noting Sean. I mean, what's the
Speaker 1: purpose of that. Well, so Nater is an interesting character.
Speaker 1: So he has been working at the right hand of
Speaker 1: I believe, the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates.
Speaker 1: And when he was allegedly taking part in this scheme,
Speaker 1: it was clear that he was trying to buy influence
Speaker 1: with his donations to whoever he thought was going to
Speaker 1: win the election. So if you read a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of press reports, they'll say, oh, he was Hugh was
Speaker 1: Trump connected, he had Trump Trump ties. No, no no, no,
Speaker 1: this is a guy who was very much cultivating access
Speaker 1: to the Clinton camp so that he could then go
Speaker 1: back to his Middle Eastern paymasters and say, hey, I'm
Speaker 1: really in good with these guys. You know, keep paying me.
Speaker 1: I'm so influential. And then as soon as Trump won,
Speaker 1: the guy turned on a dime in beat feet over
Speaker 1: to the Trump transition to do the same thing with them.
Speaker 1: So it's clear to me that he was absolutely part
Speaker 1: of a foreign influenced scheme meant to curry favor with
Speaker 1: whoever it was he thought was going to be in
Speaker 1: power and just and just one one more point of
Speaker 1: clarity or for everybody, and his connection to why did
Speaker 1: Muller find him useful? The child pornographer uh Nader was
Speaker 1: loosely connected to Eric Prince, the founder of the firm
Speaker 1: formerly known as Blackwater, who had been rumored falsely to
Speaker 1: have been set up by the Trump transition as a
Speaker 1: secret private back channel between the incoming Trump government and
Speaker 1: the Russians. And it was Nader who helped set up
Speaker 1: meetings overseas. Naturally, you can do certain things overseas with
Speaker 1: our government that you can't do, uh, within our boundaries.
Speaker 1: So he was setting up certain meetings overseas for Prince
Speaker 1: and in emerates and various Arab leaders, and it was
Speaker 1: at these meetings where there just happened to be Russians there,
Speaker 1: and so he said he must have set up to
Speaker 1: Seychelles meeting. Then yes, Nader set that up right, So
Speaker 1: he's this like influenced peddler because that remember that there
Speaker 1: was a time when that was oh that was where
Speaker 1: the Russian collusion really happened. Yet I view Nader honestly
Speaker 1: as an analog Stephan Helper. You had Stephan Helper going
Speaker 1: around and setting up these meetings and making sure Flynn
Speaker 1: was seated next to certain people so then he could
Speaker 1: go rapport back and say, oh, yeah, he was talking
Speaker 1: to Russians the whole time. I think he might be
Speaker 1: a traitor. It appears to me, based on the facts
Speaker 1: at hand, that Nader was doing something extremely similar. Wow.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know this is just remember everybody here, Mueller,
Speaker 1: your tax dollars at work. This is the guy that
Speaker 1: he was was leveraging in this whole process. Sean man
Speaker 1: always illuminating. Thank you so much for joining us. Everyone
Speaker 1: check out the Federalist dot com. Sean's latest will be
Speaker 1: up there shortly. Sean, thank you so much. Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me about our constitution and its values. And my
Speaker 1: review of the evidentiary record. And here, mister Collins, I
Speaker 1: would like to say to you, sir, that I read
Speaker 1: transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in
Speaker 1: life hearing, because I would not speak about these things
Speaker 1: without reviewing the facts. So I'm insulted by the suggestion
Speaker 1: that as a law professor, I don't care about those facts.
Speaker 1: But everything I read on those occasions tells me that
Speaker 1: when President Trump invited, indeed demanded, foreign involvement in our
Speaker 1: upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what
Speaker 1: makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. There
Speaker 1: you have another one. I'm probably the most hysterical of
Speaker 1: all the lawyers today, or professors, I should say, I
Speaker 1: don't know how many of them have law degrees professors
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill. This teardown Trump effort, and I got
Speaker 1: a note that she has problems with reading comprehension. It
Speaker 1: seems saying that the President demanded for an interference. That's
Speaker 1: just taking words and then pretending words mean things other
Speaker 1: than those words mean. That's all she's doing. The President
Speaker 1: did not demand, and the President did certainly not demand
Speaker 1: f interference. This is only possible if you take this
Speaker 1: expansive definition of things like foreign interference to be anything
Speaker 1: that would be good for Trump and bad for Democrats.
Speaker 1: That's now foreign interference in the election. This is absurd,
Speaker 1: it's bonkers. Well, this is where we are, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to switch gears here for a second. I know
Speaker 1: we've talked a lot about the nonsense going on in
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill and all of the Democrat hysterics around how
Speaker 1: the president's the worst president ever and the most clearly
Speaker 1: you know, impeach, impeachment worthy, and all this other stuff foreign.
Speaker 1: You know, where there is real foreign interference that has
Speaker 1: been going on in the United States in Iran. Now
Speaker 1: you won't see much news coverage of this. It's much
Speaker 1: more important to have these want to be MSNBC pundits
Speaker 1: telling you that the worst state, the greatest fear of
Speaker 1: the Founding Fathers was Donald Trump. I think they have
Speaker 1: that quite backwards, by the way, but that's much more
Speaker 1: important to most of the media than, for example, what
Speaker 1: seems to be the beginnings of the greatest challenge to
Speaker 1: the Iranian Mullahs, to that theocracy and kleptocracy in Iran
Speaker 1: in forty years, which is going on right now. Gas
Speaker 1: prices there have spiked. The economy is in bad shape,
Speaker 1: it has been contracting. They are in recession, and the
Speaker 1: next year's recession is expected to be even worse. And
Speaker 1: the Iranian people are fed up, so they have been protesting.
Speaker 1: They've been protesting in such numbers that the Iranian thugs,
Speaker 1: the regime's own version of the brown Shirts, that go
Speaker 1: around beating people and shutting down Descent. And they have
Speaker 1: killed at least two hundred people. Looks like it'll be
Speaker 1: more like three hundred here when they finally start, when
Speaker 1: they look at the body count as of today, opening
Speaker 1: fire on demonstrative live fire bullets, just just mowing down
Speaker 1: protesters in different places across the country. And as you know,
Speaker 1: you don't have to kill a lot of protesters who
Speaker 1: are peacefully expressing their feelings on something in public before
Speaker 1: other protesters get scared. So killing a few hundred protesters
Speaker 1: is meant to shut this whole thing down. But you
Speaker 1: have a hike in fuel prices about fifty percent over
Speaker 1: the last month, you have hundreds of protesters killed, and
Speaker 1: here's what. And this was a fantastic piece today in
Speaker 1: the New York Post on this issue from Leal Leibovitz.
Speaker 1: While Iran right now is perhaps closer than ever before
Speaker 1: to ousting the authoritarian, the fascistic moulocracy that's in place,
Speaker 1: Here's what the so called geniuses in our media, the
Speaker 1: policy experts in our media, were saying. Quote. Writing in
Speaker 1: February New York Times, Tehran correspond and Thomas Arnbrink described
Speaker 1: a nation standing behind its government, braving a drenching rain.
Speaker 1: He wrote, Iranians came out in droves to march up
Speaker 1: Revolution Street to the capital's Freedom Monument for a huge
Speaker 1: state backed rally commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.
Speaker 1: Erdbrink also described Iranians parading effigies of Trump, but a
Speaker 1: reader would get a little sense, a little sense of
Speaker 1: the regime's brutality and its internal crisis of legitimacy that
Speaker 1: would explode a few months later. You could hear a
Speaker 1: similar story on public radio, where PRI's popular show The
Speaker 1: Conversation warned this summer that Trump's sanctions would prove catastrophic.
Speaker 1: The president's hard measures, the show suggested, would yield the
Speaker 1: classic rally around the flag effect. Iranians are critical of
Speaker 1: their government's economic policies, but they also blamed Trump for
Speaker 1: the hardship from sanctions. Same conventional wisdom came from newsweeks
Speaker 1: David Brennan predicting just last month that Trump's treatment of
Speaker 1: Iran will ensure America remains the Great Satan for many
Speaker 1: years to come. Colum Lynch, foreign Policy senior diplomatic correspondent,
Speaker 1: touted an academic poll in October that found conclusively that
Speaker 1: Trump's sanctions had increased Iranian hostility toward the United States
Speaker 1: and boosted the popularity of Iranian hardliners. Gordon, Philip Gordon,
Speaker 1: the Council on Foreign Relations, et cetera. I mean, we'd
Speaker 1: start on this whole list. The foreign policy establishment had
Speaker 1: no idea that the Iranians were about to rise up
Speaker 1: against their own government. In fact, we're predicting the opposite
Speaker 1: would happen. And we're making that prediction clearly because it
Speaker 1: was a way of saying Trump has done the wrong thing.
Speaker 1: Here's how the thinking of the foreign policy by the way,
Speaker 1: I worked at the Council on Foreign Relations, and I
Speaker 1: know how these people do this stuff. Here's how the
Speaker 1: thinking of the foreign policy echo chamber works. A few
Speaker 1: people who almost always are left leading and Democrat shills
Speaker 1: will come out with something, and then other people try
Speaker 1: to parrot that, maybe add a little bit to it,
Speaker 1: put their own spin on it. But they want to
Speaker 1: be within that consensus because that's what the smart people
Speaker 1: are saying. That's what the dominant narrative becomes. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: in this case, what was driving the narrative. Trump got
Speaker 1: us out of the Iran nuclear Deal and put sanctions
Speaker 1: back on Iran. What was the single most important foreign
Speaker 1: policy decision of the Obama administration. The single most important
Speaker 1: move was the ironnuclear deal. Trump has gotten us out
Speaker 1: of that, I would say foolish and eventually catastrophic deal.
Speaker 1: But because they're all little Obama partisans in the foreign
Speaker 1: policy echo chamber, and do you know what happens, they
Speaker 1: have to come. They know what the conclusion must be.
Speaker 1: Trump is wrong, what Trump has done is bad. Therefore
Speaker 1: their analysis turns into well, clearly, the Iranians will rally
Speaker 1: around their regime. It'll strengthen the Iranian regime. What Trump
Speaker 1: did will strengthen the Iranian regime because what Obama did
Speaker 1: was going to somehow weaken the Iranian regime. What Obama
Speaker 1: did was through the Iranian regime and economic lifeline, give
Speaker 1: it access to foreign currency reserves, much better economic prospects,
Speaker 1: international banking system, selling its oil, of it, all these
Speaker 1: things that need that the Iranian regime needs to stay
Speaker 1: in power. How could anybody not see that Obama's catastrophically
Speaker 1: stupid Iran deal was going to do only one thing,
Speaker 1: help the Mullahs. Whereas Trump putting sanctions, what I'm saying, sorry,
Speaker 1: we're out of this thing. You guys are a pariah
Speaker 1: state again. The people in that country are going to
Speaker 1: look around and say all this because we have a
Speaker 1: regime that refuses stop being a terrorist, pursuing nuclear ambitions
Speaker 1: and violation of treaties and in violation of international law. No,
Speaker 1: the people in Iran are like, this is crazy. You
Speaker 1: have to remember Iran is a sophisticated country with you know,
Speaker 1: centuries of cultural cohesion and you know people that are
Speaker 1: very They do put a premium on education. I mean
Speaker 1: there's a sophistication. There's an urbaneness to the Iranians, and
Speaker 1: the Iranian people would be if given the chance. Allies
Speaker 1: of the West, not all of them, of course, they're
Speaker 1: people that are parts of the regime and people that
Speaker 1: are little stooges of the regime, and you know, the
Speaker 1: military and every but you know, there is this youthful
Speaker 1: movement in Iran to get something better going. Here we
Speaker 1: are at a point where perhaps the regime is facing
Speaker 1: a more direct challenge than at any points since two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine when Obama, or was the two thousand
Speaker 1: and ten when Obama basically didn't do anything to help them,
Speaker 1: the big champion of freedom but didn't do anything to
Speaker 1: help the Iranian Iranian anti Molo movement. But here we are,
Speaker 1: and the experts got the whole thing wrong all along,
Speaker 1: because what was more important to them, what made them
Speaker 1: seem more sophisticated to their peers, What was more likely
Speaker 1: to get them published in the New York Times or
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations
Speaker 1: or any of these places. What was more likely to
Speaker 1: advance them personally? Orange Man bad Trump is wrong. Iran
Speaker 1: is going to rally around its leadership now Iran Iranian
Speaker 1: police and security forces are mowing down protesters because people
Speaker 1: are so fed up with their stupid and competent regime.
Speaker 1: Nobody in our intelligencia, noboding the foreign policy establishment seemed
Speaker 1: to see this coming. Why is that, because, my friends,
Speaker 1: whether it's domestic or foreign policy, if it's any matter,
Speaker 1: trumped arrangement syndrome blinds people to what is really going on,
Speaker 1: and it becomes all encompassing. It is the gateway drug
Speaker 1: to a totalitarian mindset. That's what Trump's arrangement syndrome really is.
Speaker 1: Eleven months ago, at the launch of our campaign in Oakland,
Speaker 1: I told you all that I am not perfect, but
Speaker 1: I will always speak with decency and moral clarity and
Speaker 1: treat all people with dignity and respect. That I will
Speaker 1: lead with integrity, and I will speak the truth. And
Speaker 1: so that's what I've tried to do every day of
Speaker 1: this campaign. And here's the truth. Today, I've taken stock
Speaker 1: and I've looked at this from every angle, and over
Speaker 1: the last few days, I have come to one of
Speaker 1: the hardest decisions of my life. So here's the deal, guys.
Speaker 1: My campaign for president simply does not have the financial
Speaker 1: resources to continue and the financial resources we need to continue.
Speaker 1: I'm not a billionaire. I can't find my own campaign.
Speaker 1: And as the campaign has gone on, it has become
Speaker 1: harder and harder to raise the money. We need to
Speaker 1: compete in good faith. I cannot tell you, my supporters
Speaker 1: and volunteers that I have a path forward if I
Speaker 1: don't believe I do. Kamala Harris, my friends, the most
Speaker 1: overhyped candidate with the possible exception of Beto O'Rourke. Her
Speaker 1: campaign is no more. For some updates on that, and
Speaker 1: also look into what's going on on the Democrat campaign
Speaker 1: traw where she just was. We have our friend Tianna
Speaker 1: Lowe back in the house. She is a commentary writer
Speaker 1: at the Washington Examiner. Tiana, good to have you, Hi, Buck,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. All right, let's do a little
Speaker 1: autopsy of the Kamala Harris campaign. Shall we tell me
Speaker 1: what happened here? What happened with Kamala So, Kamala was
Speaker 1: always a paper tiger, you know she it was kind
Speaker 1: of dumb luck and good connections that enabled her to
Speaker 1: win her original district attorney reef in San Francisco, and
Speaker 1: then you know her and Newsome have been kind of
Speaker 1: backed by the same physic hype machine the catapulted him
Speaker 1: for the governorship and her to the Senate. You know,
Speaker 1: she was pretty untested politically speaking. She was who was
Speaker 1: a pop cop, an aggressive prosecutor who spent her time
Speaker 1: locking up the mothers of Truman children and incarcerating non violent,
Speaker 1: first time drug offenders. That was her legacy in California.
Speaker 1: But she had the attractive assage and the relative um
Speaker 1: you know, complicants on stage gave it good. She questioned
Speaker 1: people well. But as this on the debates, once she
Speaker 1: was the one under fire, she completely crumbled. Do you
Speaker 1: think do you think the Tulsi moment was something that
Speaker 1: she just couldn't really shake off? Oh? Absolutely. That was
Speaker 1: the turning point because you know, at early on the
Speaker 1: media was fully in the tank for Harris. You know,
Speaker 1: they were counting this this first term senator who wound
Speaker 1: up pulling sixth in her own state as as presidential material.
Speaker 1: And really, what was she famous for? What has she
Speaker 1: done in the Senate? Nothing? It's not like she was
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, where she had already had this national career
Speaker 1: thinks to incredible book writing. She was really just being
Speaker 1: counted as the next big thing because she looked the
Speaker 1: part and she could speak the part when she was untested.
Speaker 1: But she would always crumble under fire, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean she came across more looking like a bully during
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh hearings, whereas someone like Amy Klobachar used it
Speaker 1: your advantage to come across as very careful and prosecutorial,
Speaker 1: Kamalo just seemed like a cop. And so what Tolsi
Speaker 1: managed to do, she managed to take the talking points
Speaker 1: did all of us in California news for years, which
Speaker 1: is that she was deeply corrupt, deeply carceole, extremely hostile
Speaker 1: towards non violent offenders of all kinds, including sex workers
Speaker 1: and drug addicts, and she managed to force the mainstream
Speaker 1: media to address I mean, I mean, it's kind of
Speaker 1: remarkable because what I know, you're from California. Well, what
Speaker 1: you're really telling me here is she wasn't even really
Speaker 1: popular in California. She wasn't, but she was. She was
Speaker 1: very popular with a kind of champagne liberal who can
Speaker 1: sit around sipping sharpening in the middle of the day
Speaker 1: because they don't have a job to get to and
Speaker 1: moaning and fulminating that Donald Trump's president. She was not
Speaker 1: well liked by the working class in the middle of
Speaker 1: the state, by the working class in Oakland, that is
Speaker 1: not who she favored, because those of the people who
Speaker 1: was trying to lock up. Now I'm glad. I'm glad
Speaker 1: you have here because you know you you are going
Speaker 1: to be more of an expert on the particular subject
Speaker 1: of sexism than I can be because of course I'm
Speaker 1: a male, so I can't speak to it from the Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not allowed having a padio. I can't speak from
Speaker 1: the eye perspective. But I did think it was just
Speaker 1: so classic that there were there were a lot of
Speaker 1: allegations of sexism about why her campaign didn't catch on more.
Speaker 1: I even saw some allegations people were saying about well
Speaker 1: racism and other Democratic Party although Corey Booker is still
Speaker 1: in this and Tulsie Gabbert is still a minority, which
Speaker 1: I think is fascinating. Democrats kind of take that away
Speaker 1: from her too. But but I thought it was really
Speaker 1: interesting because when you look at Kamala's campaign, she wasn't
Speaker 1: even a to dent the support among African Americans that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden had. So how is her lack of success
Speaker 1: having to do with racism? It makes no sense. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, if anything, in the person with the most
Speaker 1: legitimate acts to grind about the media coverage other than
Speaker 1: Tulsea and I would say, Andrew Yang is Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Think about it, Kamala was able to instigate an entire
Speaker 1: two week media cycle about federally mandated bussing because she
Speaker 1: smeared the first vice president to a black president as
Speaker 1: racist for not mandating and endorsing forcible like federal bussing.
Speaker 1: She got all the media treatment she could have possibly
Speaker 1: asked for. Everyone was fawning over her as though she
Speaker 1: was Hillary two point zero, and thus that's how she
Speaker 1: fared out. And now the deflection acting as though is
Speaker 1: the product of racism when actually, if anything, got more
Speaker 1: favorable coverage. And I'm not sure I don't think it's
Speaker 1: because of her race, but there's no question that she
Speaker 1: in particular got more favorable coverage than let's say a
Speaker 1: Cory Booker type figure. Yeah, I mean, let's be honest. Also,
Speaker 1: like if sexism was was the issue that prevented Kabla,
Speaker 1: I mean, Elizabeth Warren is crushing her in the polls,
Speaker 1: and it's not you know, Elizabeth Warren is kind of
Speaker 1: like everybody's you know, hectoring librarian. I mean, I'm kind
Speaker 1: of amazed that she's done as well as she has,
Speaker 1: but clearly sexism is not the problem. Yeah, no, it's
Speaker 1: definitely not a sexism thing. And also consider the Democratic
Speaker 1: electorate was more than help you to make Hillary Cleansing
Speaker 1: their nominee just three years ago. So we're speaking. We're
Speaker 1: speaking to Tiana Low. She's a commentary writer for The Examiner. Guys,
Speaker 1: and Tiana, you were just up in New Hampshire covering
Speaker 1: the Yang Gang. Tell us what's going on there. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm still sawing out from the first nister and the
Speaker 1: season apparently, so that is kind of incredible that there
Speaker 1: were fat of snow and people were still driving out
Speaker 1: hours and hours and hour. Of the amount of people
Speaker 1: I saw in western New Hampshire who had driven all
Speaker 1: the way from Massachusetts just to see Yang in a brewery,
Speaker 1: just to see Yang out of college doing these town halls.
Speaker 1: You know, he is. The way he delivered as a
Speaker 1: stump speech honestly reminds me a little bit of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Like the President, Yang reads the room extremely well. He
Speaker 1: knows how to sort of incorporate a little bit of
Speaker 1: stand up while his issue, extremely dire warning is about
Speaker 1: automation and about the future of our workforce. I would
Speaker 1: be shocked if he doesn't wind up overperforming the polls
Speaker 1: in your Hampshire at least because that base is extremely
Speaker 1: motivated and they'll be opening up their tenth field office
Speaker 1: in the state this week. Now. I don't want to
Speaker 1: make you speak again from the eye perspective all this,
Speaker 1: but I guess I'm about to because I know you
Speaker 1: have some a Asian parentage. I would ask you to
Speaker 1: explain to me if you think that it's fair to
Speaker 1: criticize the Democratic Party, for it does not ever seem
Speaker 1: to me like they think of Yang as a minority,
Speaker 1: which is fascinating to me. Like when they talk about
Speaker 1: diversity and minority, Andrew Yang is never they don't get
Speaker 1: excited about the prospect of the first Asian American presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: never mind possibly president. Why is that the intersectional left,
Speaker 1: so not all liberals, but the intersectional left, has never
Speaker 1: been able to reconcile two pivotal minorities, Jews and East
Speaker 1: Asians because despite both facing wild amounts of adversity. I mean,
Speaker 1: consider it's within the century that Japanese citizens of the
Speaker 1: United States were interned without any due process, and it's
Speaker 1: well known at this point that elite institutions discriminate against
Speaker 1: Asian Americans when it comes to college admission in the
Speaker 1: same way they did to Jews one hundred years ago.
Speaker 1: They've never been able to reconcile the Despite that level
Speaker 1: of discrimination, Asian Americans and Jewish Americans outperform every other
Speaker 1: demographic on almost every measure when it comes to income,
Speaker 1: when it comes to professional achievement, and so because they
Speaker 1: see those outcomes, they just, you know, Jews don't get
Speaker 1: the minority card, Asian Americans don't get the already card,
Speaker 1: so they're just kind of left out to dry and
Speaker 1: much less. I mean, we see this a lot in
Speaker 1: corporate America too, and in academia there is sort of
Speaker 1: an expectation that Asian Americans will be successful, that they'll
Speaker 1: get the McKinsey job, but they'll never get the top
Speaker 1: McKinsey job, That they'll get into Harvard, but they won't
Speaker 1: be the head of the poly side department. Instead, they'll
Speaker 1: be relegated to a quieter field like sten. So it
Speaker 1: really is quite remarkable and I think a positive sign
Speaker 1: of progress that Andrew Gang is running for the top job,
Speaker 1: and he's doing so as an actual entrepreneurs, someone who
Speaker 1: understands how jobs are made, rather than these other candidates
Speaker 1: who have brad they haven't worked a day in their
Speaker 1: life creating another job for another American. Now, I mean,
Speaker 1: I would assume that certain I mean I know this
Speaker 1: from friends of mine who are recognizable as conservatives, particularly
Speaker 1: people who for example, work for Fox News. You're around
Speaker 1: certain Democrat constituencies and there's a there's a tremendous there's
Speaker 1: a hostility, you know, and if you're considered from a
Speaker 1: right of center publication or channel, there's a hostility from
Speaker 1: Bernie's and Er supporters, certainly from Biden supporters, from Warren supporters.
Speaker 1: Did you feel at this when Yang's people were around,
Speaker 1: did it feel a little bit more inclusive of at
Speaker 1: least alternative points of view opinions, Because one of the
Speaker 1: knocks against Yang and Tulsie from the left has been
Speaker 1: their willingness to engage at least not to agree with
Speaker 1: because they're both very left wing, but to engage with
Speaker 1: the other side. I just want to know, from your
Speaker 1: first person perspective of being out there, did you feel
Speaker 1: like you could actually talk to the Yang supporters and
Speaker 1: they weren't going to throw anything at you. Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 1: and I think it's because you know Yang's hoole pitch.
Speaker 1: He's obviously very anti Trump, but Yang's hole pitches that
Speaker 1: Trump was focusing on problems that clearly the Democratic establishment
Speaker 1: were ignoring. The correct response to make America great again
Speaker 1: was not America is always great. It's focusing on the
Speaker 1: problems that are affecting Americans. That's something that Yang really
Speaker 1: cares about. It's very interesting I met. I met a couple,
Speaker 1: a husband and a wife. She had voted for Hillary
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen and him for Trump, but they were
Speaker 1: both so disaffected by both parties. That's why they were
Speaker 1: there. There There were a lot of Bernie Bernie supporters, former
Speaker 1: Trump supporters, from Hillary supporters. It really was a hodge
Speaker 1: punch of people who just felt failed by the system
Speaker 1: and failed by the lives of politicians. And it was very,
Speaker 1: very open to media and it was not hostile at all.
Speaker 1: It was quite hurting to see people who really hadn't
Speaker 1: had a horse in the race saw a candidate they
Speaker 1: liked because of his ideas, not because of his demagoguery
Speaker 1: any predictions. As we go into the Democrat December debate,
Speaker 1: here for who you think either might really have a moment,
Speaker 1: or who you think might make it on that stage.
Speaker 1: It's a surprise, just what you know, give us anything,
Speaker 1: Gianna's look into the future of this Democrat field. So,
Speaker 1: assuming that both Yang and told Zie get their last
Speaker 1: required pole to make it to the debate, this will
Speaker 1: be an eight person debate stage, which I think will
Speaker 1: be a good thing because I'm sorry these debates with
Speaker 1: twelve people screaming at each other, no one cares, no
Speaker 1: one hears anything of substance. The eight people is a
Speaker 1: lot more manageable field. This is kind of the do
Speaker 1: or dietime. Honestly, I think for Elizabeth Warren, who's been
Speaker 1: trailing somewhat in the polls to Bernie, and Bernie's you know,
Speaker 1: had the support of the squad, and he's coming back
Speaker 1: better than ever, even though he's a seventy eight year
Speaker 1: old who just had a heart attack and he freeds
Speaker 1: to release his medical records. So Elizabeth Warren, if she
Speaker 1: wants to dominate that progressive lane, now is the time
Speaker 1: to strike. She needs to make the case that she'll
Speaker 1: do a better job actually getting something done, Unlike Bernie,
Speaker 1: who's spent forty years in Congress, doing nothing except for pontificating,
Speaker 1: as I think that's obviously a big deals. Just give
Speaker 1: me another instance of confiding. Managed to make it three
Speaker 1: hours without talking about corn Popper of Harry Legs and hopefully.
Speaker 1: I mean it's a candidate like Amy Klobucher who also
Speaker 1: could occupy that center lane. If she wants to make
Speaker 1: it to the top, she needs to start throwing some punches.
Speaker 1: Gianna Low everybody Washington Examiner for her, ladies. You can
Speaker 1: also follow her on Twitter at Tiana Low. Gianna. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, great to talk to you. We'll have you
Speaker 1: back soon. Thank you. Buck. I watched his team's jaws
Speaker 1: dropped to the floor. Monsieur Justin Trudeau says, so we
Speaker 1: would play that audio for just because it's everywhere all
Speaker 1: over the internet right now and all the news cycle.
Speaker 1: It is a number of leaders. I think it's Trudeau
Speaker 1: and Boris Johnson and somebody else who mel Macron, Macron
Speaker 1: who actually does kind of sound like this, so dude,
Speaker 1: but he's like French, He's not. Trudeau is like I
Speaker 1: am chopping down wood in a lumberjack shirt in the
Speaker 1: far north of Canada, right exactly. But but mac Cron
Speaker 1: is like I am spitting in your cafeole while I
Speaker 1: give you the most old croisson we have because we
Speaker 1: hit you American swine. You know it's a different, a
Speaker 1: different variation of the French thing. I know Trudeau doesn't
Speaker 1: have an accent. Don't send me the people sending the
Speaker 1: most of his book. You don't sound Trudeau at all,
Speaker 1: of course not, it's ridiculous. Don't sound like Hillary either. Hello,
Speaker 1: but everyone knows exactly who I'm talking about, what happened.
Speaker 1: She might still come back. Do not, do not think
Speaker 1: that Hillary is totally dunezo, because she may still will say,
Speaker 1: well whatever, We'll talk about that more another day. But
Speaker 1: you had a bunch of world leaders here who you know,
Speaker 1: count came together. It looked like they're being a little
Speaker 1: gossipy about how Trump took a forty minute press conference
Speaker 1: before they even sat down to do the real press conference.
Speaker 1: And now the president left, and he left a little
Speaker 1: bit earlier, and yeah, I don't look, he doesn't he
Speaker 1: doesn't like what he heard here from Trudeau. And I
Speaker 1: think it's a fair thing to say that this president
Speaker 1: does not look. He does not take personal insults or
Speaker 1: criticism well or lightly. That is all true. Here is
Speaker 1: what Trump says, play clip three. If you would my
Speaker 1: man Brandon, well, he's too faced, do you think deservings
Speaker 1: too name? And honestly, with true, he's a nice guy.
Speaker 1: I find him to be a very nice guy. But
Speaker 1: you know, the truth is that I called him out
Speaker 1: on the fact that he's not paying two percent, and
Speaker 1: I guess he's not very happy about it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you were there, A couple of you were there, and
Speaker 1: he's not paying two percent and he should be paying
Speaker 1: two percent. It's candidate, they have money and they should
Speaker 1: be paying two percent. So I called him out on that,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure he wasn't happy about it, but that's
Speaker 1: the way it is. Look, I'm representing the US and
Speaker 1: he should be paying more than he's paying. And he
Speaker 1: understands it, so I can imagine, I can imagine he's
Speaker 1: not that happy, but that's the way it is. And
Speaker 1: I'm troubled, but not surprised to see that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of liberals who when this happens, they take
Speaker 1: the position that, oh, isn't it great that these world
Speaker 1: leaders would be mocking Trump in this way? You know,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about the presis the United States and
Speaker 1: his counterparts for foreign countries. It would really be nice
Speaker 1: if you if your first impulse was to root for
Speaker 1: the home team a little bit libs, just a little bit.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying all the time, but you know, at
Speaker 1: some point there there does need to be this restoration
Speaker 1: of the sense of our country, our people, our guy,
Speaker 1: our leaders could be our gal at some point in
Speaker 1: the future. Um. But Democrats know they would applaud, they
Speaker 1: would laugh, they would love um mockery of the president.
Speaker 1: That's not even in a just a strictly personal sense.
Speaker 1: This is the president representing our interests at NATO and
Speaker 1: a bunch of world leaders are caught, you know. And
Speaker 1: by the way, what they said wasn't that bad. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not trying to be you know, we shouldn't
Speaker 1: be babies about this either. But you know they like
Speaker 1: mocking the President Trump a little bit. But what's so
Speaker 1: interesting is do you think any of those world leaders
Speaker 1: would ever ever have the I have to find a
Speaker 1: better word, but gall to say that to his face.
Speaker 1: I don't think Trudeau would be leg excuse me, Trump,
Speaker 1: but I want to say this to your face down.
Speaker 1: Black rifle coffee is celebrating it's fifth year anniversary. So
Speaker 1: to celebrate, they started Black Rifle Friday. Look, I know
Speaker 1: it sounds like a fictional holiday, you know, like Valentine's Day,
Speaker 1: which is just a cast grab. But you know you
Speaker 1: wouldn't be wrong. But since it's actually Black Rifles fifth
Speaker 1: year anniversary and the spirit of radical transparency, which is
Speaker 1: a think black Rifles really into. Black Rifle Coffee is
Speaker 1: making an early play for your holiday spending with new products,
Speaker 1: special discounts, and extra perks for coffee club members. Not
Speaker 1: a coffee club member, no problem, sign up and see
Speaker 1: all the great benefits you get when you belong to
Speaker 1: the most patriotic coffee club in the country. Let me
Speaker 1: tell you, I start every day with a delicious cup
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle coffee. My favorite roast is silence or smooth,
Speaker 1: but I also like Freedom Blend or caffeinated as blank.
Speaker 1: Check them all out. They're delicious. Don't choose basic batch coffee,
Speaker 1: go with America's coffee, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot com slash buck together twenty percent off your
Speaker 1: first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck again
Speaker 1: twenty percent off your first purchase Black Riflecoffee dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. The ceasfire is holding very much so and
Speaker 1: I think people are surprised, and maybe someday they'll give
Speaker 1: me credit, but probably not. But I worked out well.
Speaker 1: They've been trying to do this for one hundred years.
Speaker 1: That border is a mess for a long time. We
Speaker 1: pulled our soldiers out, We took over the oil. We
Speaker 1: have soldiers where the oil is and that's the way
Speaker 1: I like it. And they can police their own border
Speaker 1: and that's what they're doing. They can use other countries
Speaker 1: if they want, if they want to spend the time
Speaker 1: and energy, they can do. But this is a border
Speaker 1: that's been underseage for many, many decades, and it was
Speaker 1: time for us to leave, and we left and it's
Speaker 1: been holding very nicely, so we're very happy. We talked
Speaker 1: about that. So Trump was talking to Angela Merkel. Hello, everybody,
Speaker 1: I have missed you. It's Angola Coot and talk Angela
Speaker 1: Sittings out. Was Trump and are talking about Syria, And
Speaker 1: a lot of journalists, of course, decided that they would
Speaker 1: bash Trump for saying that they've they've got the oil
Speaker 1: or what Trump? What Trump is saying, and we you know,
Speaker 1: this is one of the more frustrating and childish things
Speaker 1: that you continue to see from the media. What Trump
Speaker 1: is trying to say here is is that they have
Speaker 1: secured the oil fields so that they cannot be used
Speaker 1: by the Islamic State, because the Islamic State needs money
Speaker 1: to pay its fighters, to buy weapons and supplies. So
Speaker 1: what he is saying is that the Islamic State won't
Speaker 1: be able to do that because we have soldiers that
Speaker 1: have grabbed the oil fields in eastern Syria to secure them,
Speaker 1: not to plunder them. This isn't I'm saying. You will
Speaker 1: say this is colonialist. And but one of the annoying
Speaker 1: games that the left will not stop playing is that
Speaker 1: they act like they can't understand what Trump is really saying.
Speaker 1: They pretend that they have no ability to understand intent
Speaker 1: when he speaks, and it's oh yeah, Trump, just whatever
Speaker 1: he says is what he says. And now there's all
Speaker 1: this media focus on this. This is on Drudge right now.
Speaker 1: Matchrome blasts stolen gossip footage filmed without permission. Now Trump
Speaker 1: caught on hot mic gossiping about Trudeau and Boris plays
Speaker 1: it safe, My friends, I sit here, and I say
Speaker 1: to you, nobody will remember any of this in a
Speaker 1: day or two. This is just a media This is
Speaker 1: a media obsession. What I am hoping they will remember
Speaker 1: is that there will that there will be a time
Speaker 1: at which we can go back and look at the
Speaker 1: way the Trump administration has gone about its foreign policy,
Speaker 1: and its foreign policy is just frankly superior to what
Speaker 1: we saw for eight years of his predecessor. And I
Speaker 1: would argue what we saw under the ssh administration too.
Speaker 1: The Bush administration made decisions on the foreign policy front
Speaker 1: that are very hard to defend in retrospect. And you know,
Speaker 1: Trump comes back from this NATO summit. What really matters,
Speaker 1: and this is a recurring theme whenever we talk about
Speaker 1: this country, it's politics and how President Trump plays a
Speaker 1: role in all of this. What really matters that there
Speaker 1: was this little interpersonal spat involving Trudeau and Trump. And
Speaker 1: you know, who are these other macron Macron Trudeau, I
Speaker 1: wonder which one of them if they have a contest
Speaker 1: to see who is more beloved by the left and
Speaker 1: a fancy European type, who is more I think they like,
Speaker 1: you know, Trudeau has got a little more left wing glamour,
Speaker 1: they like him a little bit more. But when you
Speaker 1: look at the way that NATO contributions are going to
Speaker 1: be up over already up over one hundred and twenty billion,
Speaker 1: I think might be one hundred and forty and will
Speaker 1: be hundreds of billions when it's all said and done,
Speaker 1: because of pressure that Trump put on the Alliance, essentially
Speaker 1: by publicly shaming them. You know what happens when you
Speaker 1: point out that people aren't doing what they're supposed to do.
Speaker 1: They tend to get a little bit upset. They tend
Speaker 1: to be unhappy with that. And so that there would
Speaker 1: be pushback from some of these leaders is not in
Speaker 1: the least bit surprising because they're the ones being called
Speaker 1: out by a president in front of their own constituencies.
Speaker 1: So you know, that's the reality that they're going to,
Speaker 1: of course be upset about this, and we should not
Speaker 1: be in the least bit surprised. So I think that
Speaker 1: Trump is doing a pretty good job when all said
Speaker 1: and on foreign policy, and he's not getting any credit
Speaker 1: for it whatsoever. He's doing a good job with NATO
Speaker 1: as well. People are saying that Trump is the biggest
Speaker 1: I want to say people I mean like the heads
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party. I mean the biggest media outlets
Speaker 1: in the country. I don't mean random you know people.
Speaker 1: They're saying that this president is at a threat to
Speaker 1: NATO and the NATO may not survive beyond him. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: NATO is actually thriving. Once. One thing that I wanted
Speaker 1: to return to here for a second, that I hadn't
Speaker 1: had a chance to spend as much time on as
Speaker 1: I did, as I as I had initially intended to
Speaker 1: remember when there was this gun case the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: heard last week. Okay, now that this hits kind of
Speaker 1: close to home for me because I'm here in New
Speaker 1: York City and i don't own a firearm here because
Speaker 1: the process is so annoying and I'm busy, And then
Speaker 1: that's that's what they hope. They hope that the process
Speaker 1: is so annoying and busy that you won't enjoy your
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights. And for those of you that say,
Speaker 1: oh buck, how bad is it, No, it's really bad.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of paperwork, it's expensive, it's time consuming.
Speaker 1: You have to show up in person to one place
Speaker 1: in the whole city, and they you gotta wait until
Speaker 1: the person that doesn't even care to see you, sits
Speaker 1: down with you and finger prints and everything else. And
Speaker 1: this is a perfect example of the way that liberals
Speaker 1: like to view the law. This was from the oral
Speaker 1: arguments about this New York City gun case. And you
Speaker 1: know you won't see you. There won't be much media
Speaker 1: coverage of this, and nobody will really nobody will really
Speaker 1: particularly care about that on the left, of course, because
Speaker 1: they don't want people to understand how absurd this is.
Speaker 1: But remember this law that New York passed at the
Speaker 1: then with Drew because I knew that the law was garbage,
Speaker 1: was that in New York City it would be illegal
Speaker 1: for you to legally own a gun and leave the
Speaker 1: city with your gun to go to anywhere else in
Speaker 1: New York State. So they're creating this little special category
Speaker 1: of law where you can only have your gun in
Speaker 1: New York City. You can't have your gun in New
Speaker 1: York State, even though New York City is a part
Speaker 1: of New York State. So you know how, and you
Speaker 1: have a Second Amendment right to have a firearm. So
Speaker 1: how do they square all this? And they pull the law.
Speaker 1: But what's so interesting is that the City of New
Speaker 1: York It's lawyers were asked the question as to whether
Speaker 1: or not would be You know what the law actually means,
Speaker 1: when you're traveling with your firearm to go to a range,
Speaker 1: you have to take the most direct route. You have
Speaker 1: to take the most director route. And so theoretically you
Speaker 1: could be arrested. You know, if you're staying at your
Speaker 1: buddy Bill's house and they find you with your locked,
Speaker 1: remembered legal firearm there, you would be in violation law
Speaker 1: and could be arrested if you said, well, no, hold on,
Speaker 1: I'm going to arrange tomorrow, you know, because that would
Speaker 1: be an end run on their bizarre law, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: if it's just you can have a premise permit to
Speaker 1: the range and back, well, what's to the range and
Speaker 1: back is it? What's the timeline? And this seems like
Speaker 1: it's in the minution of the law, but it's really
Speaker 1: not at all, because the whole notion that this is
Speaker 1: you can only have it in your home. It can't
Speaker 1: leave your home. Well, then how could you ever fire
Speaker 1: your gun? No, you need to be able to carry
Speaker 1: a weapon on you, folks. This is what this really
Speaker 1: comes down to. You need to be able to either
Speaker 1: open or concealed carry, but you have to be able
Speaker 1: to carry or you have to at least be able
Speaker 1: to transport your weapon. This in this case, it's not
Speaker 1: even opener until carry. It's just locked in a box
Speaker 1: and locked ammunition box. But Justice Gorcich asked this. This
Speaker 1: was from the transcript when the oral arguments were heard
Speaker 1: last week at the Supreme Court. I just want to
Speaker 1: circle back to the direct and continuous travel requirement of
Speaker 1: the current rule and Justice Alito's question about visiting your mother.
Speaker 1: Is it now the city's position that any reasonable stops
Speaker 1: are permissible? City's lawyer, mister Deering, that is our enforcement
Speaker 1: reasonably necessary stops in the course of travel, Justice Corsage,
Speaker 1: reasonably necessary. Mister Deering, Yeah, permissible, Justice Gorciers, Now, does
Speaker 1: that include stopping to visit your mother? Deering? I haven't
Speaker 1: Justice Corsage or used the endearing says. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: I know the answer to that, Justice Corsage. What about
Speaker 1: getting a cup of coffee? I mean, is a cup
Speaker 1: of coffee reasonably necessary? Daring depends on who you ask,
Speaker 1: But the police department has affirmed and we have made
Speaker 1: clear the enforcement position is that a stop for a
Speaker 1: cup of coffee is not a problem. Okay, what I
Speaker 1: know what I can represent because it's come up before. Coffee, restrooms, food, gas,
Speaker 1: and kinds of things that you ordinarily would stop for
Speaker 1: in the course of travel. I haven't considered the mother
Speaker 1: in law example before. I think that's going to need
Speaker 1: to play out in the courts. This is how liberals
Speaker 1: like laws to be my friends, especially in an area
Speaker 1: where they want to create a perception of possible criminal
Speaker 1: jeopardy beyond the actual text of the law, beyond the
Speaker 1: initial intent of the law. One of the ways that
Speaker 1: they prevent people like me, and this is the same
Speaker 1: you'll see in many other cities and counties across the country,
Speaker 1: One of the ways they prevent people like me from
Speaker 1: getting a firearm is because when you understand, when you
Speaker 1: really know, the way that the left approach is firearms
Speaker 1: ownership and the law, they want it to be murky,
Speaker 1: They want it to be precarious. They want it to
Speaker 1: be unclear, uncertain whether in fact you are in compliance
Speaker 1: with the law. They would prefer that it be left
Speaker 1: up to your up to their discretion, whether or not
Speaker 1: you get prosecuted, because then somebody who is cautious and
Speaker 1: especially if you're conservative and openly so and don't feel
Speaker 1: like you're going to get a fair shake in the
Speaker 1: judicial system on an issue like this, which I do
Speaker 1: not believe that. I would you just say, well, if
Speaker 1: they can't even tell me what's legal and what's not,
Speaker 1: I don't want to subject myself to well, go fight
Speaker 1: it out in court. Understand this, It needs to play
Speaker 1: out in the courts. Is the city's lawyer. This is
Speaker 1: of course a liberal city, liberal lawyer on a liberal
Speaker 1: anti gun policy. What that means is, yeah, we're going
Speaker 1: to arrest some people. And when those people, after they've
Speaker 1: been arrested, facing felony gun charge, by the way, go
Speaker 1: to prison. They can take you to prison for this,
Speaker 1: probably get processed. You can get taken down to what
Speaker 1: they call the tombs here. Maybe you get Center Rikers
Speaker 1: for the weekend, if you got to get held, if
Speaker 1: you can't get balent On and I who knows. Rikers
Speaker 1: Island is the major prison facility here in New York.
Speaker 1: It's a scary place. But you know, to play out
Speaker 1: of the courts. This is capricious judicial tyranny. Oh, this
Speaker 1: is capricious legal tyranny. This is what they want. They
Speaker 1: want you to never really know if you're in compliance
Speaker 1: or not, because then you err on the side of well.
Speaker 1: I just don't want to I wouldn't want to be
Speaker 1: involved in this. I don't want this to be something
Speaker 1: that I have to even think about that I have
Speaker 1: to deal with. It's unacceptable to me to have to
Speaker 1: make these allowances for the state to imprison me. This
Speaker 1: should be I hope the Supreme Court just slam. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's by the way, of course, it's gonna five four
Speaker 1: because the liberals in the Court don't like guns. Doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: They don't believe the second time. They don't like guns.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what the law says, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what the precedents are, anything gun related. You know, Sodomayor
Speaker 1: and Kagan and Ginsburg. You know, they're just gonna just
Speaker 1: every time. It's it's like clockwork. They hate guns, they
Speaker 1: hate gun owners, they the whole thing. But I hope
Speaker 1: that the conservative, alleged conservative majority, though Roberts yet another
Speaker 1: who are the really good judges? Thomas Alito? You know,
Speaker 1: I think you could argue that Gorshitch is really solid,
Speaker 1: and I think that we'll have to see, but I
Speaker 1: think the cabinal will be very good. We have to see.
Speaker 1: We don't know yet. But Roberts Iffy Trump's judges I
Speaker 1: think better than the judges that were appointed by Bush,
Speaker 1: which is something we should all keep in mind. But
Speaker 1: I hope that they slam this down because there's a
Speaker 1: there's a principle at work here. The states should not
Speaker 1: be passing felony statutes, or the city should not be
Speaker 1: enforcing felony city ordinances. I mean sending people to prison,
Speaker 1: or taking away people's freedom, or even just taking away
Speaker 1: their firearm or giving them a fine, doesn't matter. They
Speaker 1: should not be able to punish people under laws that
Speaker 1: they themselves do not know the extent of and are
Speaker 1: not certain about how they would be enforced. It makes
Speaker 1: a mockery of the law, and that they know is
Speaker 1: such a shaky law that they'll even pull a part
Speaker 1: of it before the Supreme Court can even review it.
Speaker 1: They shouldn't be playing these kinds of games. This is
Speaker 1: the part that the most intrusive part of the state
Speaker 1: of government in your life has to do with criminal
Speaker 1: law and regulations. With the force of criminal law, that's
Speaker 1: the one place where you should be the most concerned.
Speaker 1: You know, they talk about Trump, but Trump is not
Speaker 1: going to lock you up local police in a blue
Speaker 1: majority city in order to make a point, especially if
Speaker 1: you're like a reasonably you know, reasonably successful, middle class
Speaker 1: tax peg individual who happened to be a Republican and
Speaker 1: owns firearms, if they can make an example of you,
Speaker 1: and I know, I remember the Winnishet case in DC.
Speaker 1: I remember talking to that guy. Or they wanted because
Speaker 1: DC New York, same politics. They wanted to send this
Speaker 1: father and businessman with no criminal record to prison because
Speaker 1: he had a spent shotgun shell cartridge in his home
Speaker 1: and I think also replica fifty caliber ammunition for a
Speaker 1: you know, a flint lock or black powder rifle, so
Speaker 1: essentially a little ball like a lead ball. He had
Speaker 1: that just as a as a keepsake from when he
Speaker 1: went shooting in Virginia. They wanted seth to prison for that.
Speaker 1: This is idiocy, this is but it's intentional. It's it's
Speaker 1: viciousness too, because they know that that's what happens. And
Speaker 1: that's that's why when I saw this. You know, you're
Speaker 1: asking the city of New York, Hey, if if you
Speaker 1: have your firearm, your legal firearm that you've gone through
Speaker 1: all the hoops to get and you stop to get
Speaker 1: a cup of coffee. Can the cops arrestue if they
Speaker 1: find out that you've got a firearm and you're stopping
Speaker 1: to get a cup of because that's not going to
Speaker 1: the range. No, we've told the cops they probably shouldn't
Speaker 1: arrescue for that. Okay, what if you stop at your
Speaker 1: mother in law's house, you've got to bring your medication.
Speaker 1: Let's let that play out in the courts. Oh okay,
Speaker 1: so you get to get arrested. If you're that guy
Speaker 1: someone out there, it's going to get arrested under this policy,
Speaker 1: and then it's up to them to pay hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars in legal fees and go through all
Speaker 1: this nonsense so that eventually the city could be like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we won't ruin your life and throw
Speaker 1: you in prison, you know, with rapists and murderers because
Speaker 1: you stopped at grandma's house or your mother in law's
Speaker 1: house on your way to the range with your gun
Speaker 1: in a lockbox. Welcome to the left wing here, and
Speaker 1: that they want for all of us. I understand it.
Speaker 1: Can be a little bit awkward when you have to
Speaker 1: think about life insurance. You don't want to have to
Speaker 1: consider what would be unthinkable, but you have to prepare
Speaker 1: for an uncertain future and make sure that your family
Speaker 1: is safe and secure. I've gone through this process myself.
Speaker 1: It's something you need to do and you should go
Speaker 1: to the place that makes it easy for you, no hassle.
Speaker 1: That's Ethos Life Insurance. Ethos is modern life insurance for
Speaker 1: people who just don't want to waste time with fine print,
Speaker 1: extra appointments or fees they really just can't afford. Ethos
Speaker 1: has a simple approach. They take industry expertise and they
Speaker 1: blend it with technology so that you can find the
Speaker 1: right policy to protect your loved ones in just a
Speaker 1: matter of about ten minutes and you can apply online.
Speaker 1: You should check it out for yourself. You'll be taking
Speaker 1: the first steps to ensure that your family has the
Speaker 1: financial security they need in case of the unexpected. This
Speaker 1: is the responsible thing to do. Get a fast, free
Speaker 1: and personalized quote right now at Ethoslife dot com. That's
Speaker 1: Ethoslife dot com life insurance that actually fits your life team.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to inform you all that we let and
Speaker 1: if you're watching on Pluto TV you might have even
Speaker 1: seen it. We let producer Brandon try to set up
Speaker 1: so that he could say hi to bon Jovi. Because
Speaker 1: producer Brandon is living on a prayer right now. He's
Speaker 1: very happy about this. We had bon Jovi in the vicinity.
Speaker 1: Does have good hair, I will say, gray, but flowing, luxurious,
Speaker 1: and producer Brandon tried to get it, but he disappeared
Speaker 1: on us. Man, I'm sorry, it's okay, it's okay. You
Speaker 1: got out of here before you can get that selfie
Speaker 1: with him. You're gonna get a selfie for Team Buck.
Speaker 1: Didn't manage to get it done next time, though, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm kind of like a like a fanboy,
Speaker 1: I guess, even though I've been in radio for like
Speaker 1: fifteen years, so who I like to get photos of people.
Speaker 1: That's what I do, right, I mean, the only thing
Speaker 1: would gets me get me excited is when you know,
Speaker 1: when hopefully newly divorced Jessica Bill comes in here. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna ask for selfie' gonna ask for a phone number.
Speaker 1: She'll say no. But hey, uh, Brandon, I gotta ask you.
Speaker 1: Man if if there's one rock star that we could
Speaker 1: make appear only one in the iHeart offices here in
Speaker 1: New York City for you to meet and selfie with.
Speaker 1: Who would it be Axel Rose? No question, number one,
Speaker 1: number one. I'm talking we could what if we could
Speaker 1: even resurrect some members of the Beatles if necessary, Elvis,
Speaker 1: Presley Lennon probably wait, John John Lennon show, Okay, John Lennon,
Speaker 1: that would be your al so all time with John Lennon.
Speaker 1: But right now living would be axel Or. I will
Speaker 1: say bon jovis age better than Exel Rose. Yeah, bon
Speaker 1: Jovi gets a lot of ready fair enough man. All right, Well, anyway,
Speaker 1: I hope you're enjoying the show today. Folks, make sure
Speaker 1: you check out if you're listening to this on radio,
Speaker 1: Pluto TV, download the app. It's totally free, Channel two
Speaker 1: forty eight Pluto TV. Please do check us out. I'm
Speaker 1: on Jesse Kelly's on. We're gonna have some new shows
Speaker 1: joining in the weeks ahead. And also, if you are
Speaker 1: listening on radio and you want to listen earlier in
Speaker 1: the day and you want to always know that you
Speaker 1: can listen whenever you want on demand, subscribe to the
Speaker 1: Bucks Exton Show on iTunes or on the iHeart Radio app.
Speaker 1: We watched those podcasts. Now they're going up, up, up
Speaker 1: each month because of all of you. So please also
Speaker 1: tell somebody, Hey, check out the Buck Sexton Show. It's
Speaker 1: a huge That is my Christmas and Birthday gift this
Speaker 1: month from you guys. Tell one person to download the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. You know, I gotta say, I was watching,
Speaker 1: just trying to because I'm writing this book crushing the Commies.
Speaker 1: I can't call it that. We're gonna have to. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be something about socialism in America. But the book
Speaker 1: is more than halfway done, so it's it's coming along.
Speaker 1: I gotta write a lot this month. I took a
Speaker 1: little break and I flipped on the TV and I
Speaker 1: saw Golden Eye of the of the James Bond, of
Speaker 1: the James Bond series. And I gotta tell you something,
Speaker 1: The Golden Eye video game is better than the Golden
Speaker 1: Eye movie. The Golden Eye movie is really corny, but
Speaker 1: the Golden Eye video game, my brothers and I played
Speaker 1: that thing on ninten to sixty four. I mean I was,
Speaker 1: I was incredible. I would play as odd job, but
Speaker 1: I'm telling you I could have beaten, like at those
Speaker 1: little tournaments where they have people that actually play for money.
Speaker 1: I feel I feel like in my heyday, I would
Speaker 1: I would have been able to win a Golden Night tournament.
Speaker 1: Because of course, my little brother, if he's listening to
Speaker 1: this right now, I would claim that he's better than
Speaker 1: me at it, which might be true. But hopefully he's
Speaker 1: missing out on this part of the show today because
Speaker 1: he'll call me out because he was good at it
Speaker 1: as well. But I just was watching that and then
Speaker 1: I saw today that there is advertisement finally for the final,
Speaker 1: the Final. What's this guy? Who's this guy's name? What's
Speaker 1: his name? The One? The New Bond, Daniel Craig. I
Speaker 1: got a Daniel Craig no time to die, So that
Speaker 1: the trailer is out for it, maybe we'll have on
Speaker 1: I don't know, he'd be fun to have on Jesse
Speaker 1: Kelly later on in the week to talk to him
Speaker 1: about The One Only. Jesse Kelly is also on Pluto
Speaker 1: TV channel two forty eight. The first plug it because
Speaker 1: I think that Daniel Craig, the first James Bond he
Speaker 1: did was kind of new and fresh, and it was
Speaker 1: a nice restart of it. I think it's just gone
Speaker 1: pretty much downhill from there. I thought that they're the
Speaker 1: plots the bad guys have been kind of ridiculous. The
Speaker 1: plots have hard to follow. The one where there was
Speaker 1: like a water he's in South America. There's like a
Speaker 1: almost like a climate change theme to the whole thing
Speaker 1: was just absurd, just absurd. It wasn't a very it
Speaker 1: wasn't a very good one. But I'm hoping, do we
Speaker 1: know who the new James Bond is going to be?
Speaker 1: I remember it was going to be Idris Elba for
Speaker 1: a little bit and then they and then it wasn't right.
Speaker 1: Who's producer Brandon? Tell me who the new James Bond
Speaker 1: will be? Because I think this is a this is
Speaker 1: a series that you know, people should remember and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. It's you know, there's there's some good there's
Speaker 1: some good episode either. Is the discussion always abo whether
Speaker 1: Sean Connery or Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton. I think
Speaker 1: he was weak. It's James Bond. But do we know
Speaker 1: who the Bond's number is? Up? Wait? There is rumors
Speaker 1: that it's going to be a British actors. Was it
Speaker 1: less Shana Lynch. I didn't know who this is. So
Speaker 1: they're they're going so a theme male African American. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, pardon me, a female uh black British actor.
Speaker 1: That's the rumor right now. Okay, all right, interesting I
Speaker 1: did I did not know that, so let to see
Speaker 1: how it goes. I'm also producer, Brent. Are you gonna
Speaker 1: watch the Irishman? This is the other thing I've kind
Speaker 1: of got to think about. I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: know if I I don't like all it's like, hey,
Speaker 1: little thing with the thing you go to a place
Speaker 1: with the person. Hey, you talked to Vinnie, you talked
Speaker 1: to you know, Vinnie two fingers about about Tommy five fingers.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, I feel like I have to
Speaker 1: because everyone's time. You haven't watched it yet, not yet.
Speaker 1: I get to invest a lot of time because this
Speaker 1: isn't it like four hours or something. Yeah, people are
Speaker 1: saying that it's a real it's a haul, a long haul.
Speaker 1: They get through. They might as well have made that
Speaker 1: like a series, not a movie. I mean, I will say,
Speaker 1: I'm see I respect good Fellows like I will watch
Speaker 1: Goodfellows is on, and I feel like it's one of
Speaker 1: these movieses on TV all the time, wherever it's on.
Speaker 1: I don't watch it all the way through now, but
Speaker 1: I'm like, all right, it's good. I gotta watch like
Speaker 1: twenty minutes of this though. I've seen it so many times.
Speaker 1: And it's funny to me too, because I really don't
Speaker 1: like any of Like I don't think any of the characters.
Speaker 1: They're not good people. They're all bad people. There's really
Speaker 1: no one to root for. Like even Henry Hill's a
Speaker 1: bad guy, and if you know his story, he did
Speaker 1: bad stuff even after he kind of got out and
Speaker 1: was in witness protection and all this other stuff, so
Speaker 1: he's not These are not good people, but it's very entertaining.
Speaker 1: It's just really well written. It's like the sopranos. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's the Tony soprano. Wasn't a good parson,
Speaker 1: I guess. But now these mob guys are all really bad.
Speaker 1: This is what people kind of forgetting these antihero Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: but but they're not. They always do this thing in
Speaker 1: these movies where they have the mob guy, but he's
Speaker 1: got a code and he's really just going. It's actually
Speaker 1: not true. These mob guys like go into you know,
Speaker 1: Delhi owner's own you know, Delhi owner's place of business.
Speaker 1: If you don't pay the protection money, they like break
Speaker 1: your fingers in front of your wife. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: not good people. So I feel like there's a you
Speaker 1: know a little bit of a hero worship around the
Speaker 1: mob stifs you might like, you know, yeah, like everyone knows,
Speaker 1: Like the Russian mafia, it's like you pay or you die.
Speaker 1: Like no one no one's like, oh yeah, the Russian
Speaker 1: mafia is like no, we don't involve civilians in our
Speaker 1: you know, turf Wars or something. Italian mafia did bad
Speaker 1: stuff too, very bad stuff. This is not good people anyway.
Speaker 1: I'm a little I'm a little off the you know
Speaker 1: the tracks on that when everybody else is like, oh,
Speaker 1: I just love I just love all this stuff so much.
Speaker 1: I don't think these mom movies are made. And I
Speaker 1: think Casino is it's a very, it's a very. It's
Speaker 1: an entertaining movie. It's a really depressing movie. They're all
Speaker 1: bad people. These mobsters are bad people. I don't know this.
Speaker 1: This is what I kind of get a little, you know,
Speaker 1: I get a little bit people look at me like
Speaker 1: I'm the home monitor here of media. But I'm not
Speaker 1: saying don't watch these movies. I've seen them a ton
Speaker 1: of times. I just sometimes feel like there's not enough
Speaker 1: of an understanding that these characters are really bad guys.
Speaker 1: It doesn't remind me of how when the movie Wall
Speaker 1: Street came out, Oliver Stone was very upset to find
Speaker 1: out afterwards that people like love and idolize Gordon. Gecko's
Speaker 1: supposed to be the bad guy in the movie. It
Speaker 1: everyone's like sky walks around with suspenders and French cuff shirts.
Speaker 1: He's got fast cars, beach houses, and beautiful women at
Speaker 1: his beck and call. I think I want to be
Speaker 1: Gordon Get Go. People did not did not have the
Speaker 1: intended uh moral takeaway from that movie. I mean that is,
Speaker 1: by the way, Michael, I think Michael Douglas's best role
Speaker 1: of all time. But so I'll let you know, I'll
Speaker 1: probably bring somebody in here and maybe talk a little
Speaker 1: bit of Bond stuff, you know. I just I haven't
Speaker 1: really thought that Daniel Craig movies recently have been particularly worthwhile.
Speaker 1: I got asked, you know, what are the best CIA movies?
Speaker 1: I think the best CIA movie for me, well, the
Speaker 1: most I really like Spy Game, which was actually a
Speaker 1: Redford and Brad Pitt, right, Robert Redford and Brad Pitt movie.
Speaker 1: I think Spy Game is very entertaining for what it is.
Speaker 1: Well done. Um, I think that you the Bond series
Speaker 1: is iconics. You can't you add it together as a
Speaker 1: totality of work, it's pretty incredible. Then I would I
Speaker 1: would say Zero Dark thirty is really good, um, really
Speaker 1: good movie for what it is. I enjoyed it, and
Speaker 1: there's enough realism that it's not completely absurd. Don't even
Speaker 1: get me started on Jack Ryan season two. I haven't
Speaker 1: even finished it yet. I'm done. I can't do it,
Speaker 1: can't do it, can't do it. I've tried. It's just
Speaker 1: too bad. It's it's too crappy. John Krasinski whatever, really
Speaker 1: let me down on that one. So it makes me
Speaker 1: makes me sad. And I don't know. I don't think
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna have to just I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm gonna watch The Irishman. Don't think I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: around there Anytime's en have too much other good stuff,
Speaker 1: you know. I haven't even gotten a Peaky Blinders season
Speaker 1: five yet. Peak Peaky Blinders an amazing show. I'm a
Speaker 1: I'm a big peak. It is hard to understand them.
Speaker 1: You probably should watch it with subtitles. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit like when they interview the guys from Oasis. They're like,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Bibby Blood, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean? You know what I mean. You're like, where
Speaker 1: are you guys from? You're from England. This is where
Speaker 1: the language comes from. And this is the mumbling that
Speaker 1: you do is supposed to be English. It's absurd, you
Speaker 1: know Liam and Noel Gallagher, right, those guys, Yeah, like
Speaker 1: that don't speak English. I don't know what they speak.
Speaker 1: You watch like Lockstock too smoking barrels you don't understand
Speaker 1: or Snatched. I remember that. Yeah, I actually thought that
Speaker 1: when Brad Pitt did his accent and Snatched, I was like,
Speaker 1: this is absurd. Nobody sounds like that. And then Travelers
Speaker 1: as they prefer to be called travelers, not Gypsies, travelers
Speaker 1: in the UK. I actually heard interviews with you know,
Speaker 1: they became more of they became i think, in part
Speaker 1: well known because of that movie or better known. And
Speaker 1: then he's like series, there's like a TLC series like
Speaker 1: Travelers with you know not the gypsy. Don't say gyps.
Speaker 1: That's bad. They don't like gypsy. They they punch people
Speaker 1: over that and apparently they're very good fighters. You don't
Speaker 1: want to get into it with them, um, but they
Speaker 1: do sound that that is the accent. His accent was
Speaker 1: actually the way that he speaks. That movie is kind
Speaker 1: of the way that they speak, which is not strictly
Speaker 1: speaking English. Gets some Virgil, some version of English. All right,
Speaker 1: that's our little pop culture diversion today. Let's get to
Speaker 1: roll call Buck. It's time for roll call. Roll call.
Speaker 1: You know it, every body. Let's get to it in
Speaker 1: the roll call Tom, which is always fantastic. So let's
Speaker 1: see what we got here. All right, Well, that one's
Speaker 1: too long. Carolyn, big fan from Canada. You are so funny.
Speaker 1: You make me laugh out loud. I hope one day
Speaker 1: you do marry. You seem like a catch. Cheers well,
Speaker 1: Carolyn from Canada. Thank you very much. This is a
Speaker 1: very nice message to start the show with today. And
Speaker 1: I also hope that I marry. And I would like
Speaker 1: to thank of a catch, perhaps a handful put a catch.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that you laugh at the show. We try
Speaker 1: to have some fun. I know, we do serious stuff.
Speaker 1: We try to have fun on here too. I mean
Speaker 1: it's people spend they spend a lot of time in
Speaker 1: the Hut. I mean we hang out together a lot.
Speaker 1: And I love it when people will send me emails.
Speaker 1: Let's say they've downloaded, you know, a whole week of
Speaker 1: shows and held it until they had a long road
Speaker 1: trip or something and they just wanted to you know,
Speaker 1: they just listen to like seven or eight hours the
Speaker 1: Bucks Exton Show while they're in the car, like this
Speaker 1: is great. It's like I'm hanging album. It's like we're
Speaker 1: road tripping together, except I get to sit at home
Speaker 1: in my pajamas, watching Netflix and ordering Thai food, two
Speaker 1: of my absolute favorite activities, and going to the gym. Theoretically,
Speaker 1: let's see here, Erica, right, I like your insult of
Speaker 1: aggressively aggressively stupid, but try my favorite version, extra special
Speaker 1: kind of stupid, Erica. Perhaps I will manage to work
Speaker 1: that one into the rotation. Thank you so much, Roger.
Speaker 1: The Young Turks also deny the Armenian genocide happen. Does
Speaker 1: that make them deniers? Yeah? The Young Turks is not
Speaker 1: an honorable not an honorable organization. So do not I
Speaker 1: mean I I I do not find that Jenk is
Speaker 1: unwilling to talk and exchange the other side, and he
Speaker 1: can show manners when he chooses to. But some of
Speaker 1: his employees are are just horrible individuals, they really are.
Speaker 1: And the people that like that site are trash trash.
Speaker 1: Not all of them, of course, I'm sure there's some
Speaker 1: nice people, but like mostly bad people, and some of
Speaker 1: them I'm sure are nice people. I think it's the
Speaker 1: second time I betage to work that into the show,
Speaker 1: tod I like that. Yeah, Um, Michael Ment just came
Speaker 1: across men at work on YouTube. Now the whole team
Speaker 1: can weigh in on its merits. No, man, we know
Speaker 1: that we come from a landown under where women something
Speaker 1: in men plunder whatever, you know, whatever the whatever, the
Speaker 1: lyrics something about a vegemite sandwich. Vegemite is disgusting by
Speaker 1: the way it is. You know it's disgusting too, It's appalling.
Speaker 1: I got to see Holland Hay, who's the lead singer
Speaker 1: a minute work. He's part of Ringos All Star band
Speaker 1: this past summer. Really just a little while, just a
Speaker 1: little tidbit showing that with you real quick Ringos obviously alive.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, he's alive. He is an all star band,
Speaker 1: people with from Sticks and just like a lot of
Speaker 1: random you know, all stars in the rock and roll world.
Speaker 1: Look at that man, Look at you. We gotta put
Speaker 1: out a call. We gotta like somehow get someone in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut to get Axel Rose to come in
Speaker 1: here for an interview. Jes so we could watch Jester.
Speaker 1: We can watch Brandon's like whole universe, you know, like
Speaker 1: Cross the Street and everything. Like we won't real fine,
Speaker 1: I mean, do we have enough reach. I mean we
Speaker 1: got to. We've gotten to you know, cabinet members, I've
Speaker 1: interviewed the president. Well, well, we'll get Axel Rose at
Speaker 1: some point. I'm sure you too. What's your birthday? September?
Speaker 1: So just pasted, all right, we got time, We got time.
Speaker 1: Then maybe maybe next September. Oh, we get Axel Rose
Speaker 1: to come in here, you would man do headlines everywhere?
Speaker 1: Well of course, but also we just get him to
Speaker 1: weigh in on his face. I don't even care if
Speaker 1: he hates Trump, doesn't matter me. Just get him away
Speaker 1: it on politics for fun. Be like you know, if
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Jungle came out today. Would that change
Speaker 1: the political discourse? Sure? You know, just add like try
Speaker 1: to bring him into the conversation. Would beat all right?
Speaker 1: You know, well, we're going to work on it. I'm
Speaker 1: sure somebody out there, Axel Roses, freedom loving all American
Speaker 1: grandma probably listens to the Buck Sexton Show and right
Speaker 1: now she's like, I'll get young act should will come
Speaker 1: on into the show. We could totally get this to happen.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, I'll dream We're working on it. Rayer.
Speaker 1: We tried to get bon Jovie from the day. Bon
Speaker 1: Jovi is too fancy. You had to run out of
Speaker 1: here whatever. Uh Um, I do not have wanted me
Speaker 1: to go here. I do not have Okay, Yes, sorry, Tim,
Speaker 1: you nailed it yesterday on the social credit score Tyranny.
Speaker 1: China is all over it. Yeah, I no, Tim, I
Speaker 1: know it's It's true. Man, China is doing some some
Speaker 1: very scary stuff these days, and I wish people would
Speaker 1: pay closer attention to it. China is the real concern
Speaker 1: for US. Russia is a concern. But we could bring
Speaker 1: what we could over time. Think of where this is.
Speaker 1: I meant to bring this up yesterday. Actually, look at
Speaker 1: where Russia is now look a where the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: was thirty years ago. If you look at the trajectory
Speaker 1: of US Russia relations, we're much closer to Russia than
Speaker 1: we were in living memory. The US Russia relations have
Speaker 1: gotten leaps and bounds better. We were staring at each
Speaker 1: other talking about annihilation in living memory and for a
Speaker 1: long time. Now you know, we Yeah, we have our
Speaker 1: differences with them, but like we would like to be
Speaker 1: America in twenty years being friendly with the Russians the
Speaker 1: same way we're friendly with the French or friendly with
Speaker 1: you know, would be a good thing. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that we can just concede on everything and let the
Speaker 1: Russian do whatever they want, of course, but if you're
Speaker 1: talking about what would be in America's interest, that's in
Speaker 1: America's interest. Trying to like have this continuous showdown all
Speaker 1: the a suage the ego of Hillary Clinton and her
Speaker 1: voters from twenty sixteen is a very bad idea. But
Speaker 1: now I'm getting away from roll Call, here we go,
Speaker 1: David writes, I'm watching on Pluto TV. You and Jesse
Speaker 1: are great, but turn up the volume. Please normalize your
Speaker 1: shows to match the commercials in the channel. I hope
Speaker 1: you get this mention. Something can be done. Why don't
Speaker 1: we have all these volume issues, Producer Brandon, What is
Speaker 1: going on here? Man? They got to give me in Mark,
Speaker 1: like time stamps of when this is happening, because when
Speaker 1: I load stuff in, when you load stuff in, it's
Speaker 1: a nice brick of sound. I mean. I also, I
Speaker 1: just want to take all the complaints and just I
Speaker 1: want to print them out and then I want to
Speaker 1: air drop them on the beach while producer Mark is
Speaker 1: sunning himself with his new lovely bride. You know, he's
Speaker 1: all having fun. Who's here manning the front lines? Or
Speaker 1: Freedom Producer Brandon? That's right, this duo right here. I
Speaker 1: mean sometimes, like you know, when you watch TV, the
Speaker 1: commercials are louder than the show, and sometimes it's on
Speaker 1: our end, but on our ends, I mean, unless it's
Speaker 1: like one of your soundclips. I wish somebody could fix
Speaker 1: this time stamp. Speaking of producer Mark Stephan rights, congratulations
Speaker 1: to producer Mark. Indeed, Producer Mark, at least somebody in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hud is well you're not married yet right now?
Speaker 1: At least somebody in the Freedom HUD's married. Well, you
Speaker 1: know one of US is doing the whole adult thing. Sarah, right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: love the show, great work. My question for you is
Speaker 1: what would it take to start a social media campaign
Speaker 1: to demand an apology from the DEM's for President Trump.
Speaker 1: I know he'll never get it. Um, yes, Sarah, he'll
Speaker 1: never get it. That's never gonna happen. I gotta tell
Speaker 1: you their Uquinian quid pro quo fishing expedition is also
Speaker 1: a hoax. They got nothing, and out of pure shame,
Speaker 1: they should be compelled to apologize for the smear campaign
Speaker 1: that they have had against President Trump. Sarah, I agree
Speaker 1: with your sentiments. I am frustrated too, but it is
Speaker 1: what it is. So thank you so much. Team. That's
Speaker 1: going to be the show for today. I hope you
Speaker 1: realize this is like the best podcast slash radio sho
Speaker 1: slash simulcast on video ever. Tell your friends about it.
Speaker 1: Shield Tie