Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The walls are closing in.
Speaker 1: This time Trump is finished. This is his Watergate moment.
Speaker 1: This time he's gone too far. Just kidding. Lives are
Speaker 1: losing their minds. None of that is true. But there's
Speaker 1: another impeachment hearing today. We'll get to that coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America, You're a great American. Again the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody. Last night I was
Speaker 1: taking a break from working on the book that I'm
Speaker 1: I'm tentatively calling Crushed the Commies, but I don't think
Speaker 1: that's actually going to be the title. But you'll find
Speaker 1: out the title eventually. It's coming out. I got a
Speaker 1: draft to drafts, gotta be in full draft before Christmas.
Speaker 1: I was writing, taking a moment to think about life
Speaker 1: in the world. I turn on the TV. I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe it was seven o'clock, eight o'clock at night and
Speaker 1: seven o'clock at night, I guess it was. And this
Speaker 1: hearing had been going on still for what was it
Speaker 1: eleven plus hours sitting there. I was like, oh, who
Speaker 1: thought that this was a good idea? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is absurd, asking a million questions about an unimportant event
Speaker 1: that didn't even happen, that nobody should care about. And
Speaker 1: liberals have somehow convinced themselves this is where Trump's supporters
Speaker 1: are going to flee him. This is where independence will
Speaker 1: come over to their side, and maybe even Republican senators
Speaker 1: will vote to remove him from office, these people who
Speaker 1: have completely lost their minds. Was there? Did you order
Speaker 1: the quid pro quo? Remember that with Colonel Nathan R. Jessup,
Speaker 1: United States Marine Corps, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Remember that guy,
Speaker 1: the whole moment where he's asked, did you order the code? Read?
Speaker 1: And that's the build up in the whole movies that
Speaker 1: it's a very watchable movie, even though it's really not
Speaker 1: that interesting if you think about the storyline. But anyway,
Speaker 1: it's okay, I've watched it many times. Did you order
Speaker 1: the quid pro quote? That is the question that I
Speaker 1: suppose we're dealing with now. Even though before we get
Speaker 1: into the thick of this, before we get down into
Speaker 1: the weeds, let's keep in mind. What have I been
Speaker 1: telling you all along. I don't care if there was
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo investigating the twenty sixteen election Ukraine, Shenanigans,
Speaker 1: Biden and Bresma, is all legitimate for the president to request.
Speaker 1: I do not care. I don't know how. There is
Speaker 1: no statutory infringement here. If they don't like how the
Speaker 1: President of the United States uses his powers and his
Speaker 1: constitutional authority, that's what elections are for. That's not what
Speaker 1: impeachment is for. There is no abuse here. Just because
Speaker 1: they don't like the thing that he asked about. That's
Speaker 1: not an abuse, right. But here we are being told
Speaker 1: that this is the moment that it all turns around.
Speaker 1: This is the incident that we look at and we
Speaker 1: think to ourselves, Oh my gosh, I simply can't handle
Speaker 1: supporting this president anymore because of what I think. Maybe
Speaker 1: an ambassador said to another ambassador who heard from a
Speaker 1: guy who worked at the NSC, who talked to his brother,
Speaker 1: who talked to a lawyer who talked to the whistleblower
Speaker 1: that Trump wanted an investigation of Barisma and Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: Oh no, so what I see I see here? And
Speaker 1: I ask from the beginning of You know, we can
Speaker 1: argue about whether there was a quid pro quot and
Speaker 1: how it's even possible to be upset over a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo when nothing happened. The aid was not was
Speaker 1: not taken away from Ukraine, they got the money, and
Speaker 1: there was no investigation started of the bidens. So what
Speaker 1: are we talking about even with but that that goes deeper,
Speaker 1: that really plays the game from their side of the field,
Speaker 1: and I don't particularly want to do that. Notice how
Speaker 1: they've gone back to quid pro quot because bribery didn't work.
Speaker 1: That was what they were trying, bribery, and before that
Speaker 1: it was an abuse of power, and before that it
Speaker 1: was a campaign finance violation, and after that it was
Speaker 1: a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act according to the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit of Appeals. I don't know changing it every day.
Speaker 1: If you have a real case to make against somebody,
Speaker 1: you don't change the charge every day. Well, today this
Speaker 1: is pulling better, so we'll just say this thing. Tomorrow
Speaker 1: that one might be pulling better, so we'll say that thing.
Speaker 1: You have more testimony today, Ambassador Sonlon. I was watching
Speaker 1: it this morning. The guy actually kind of reminds me
Speaker 1: of the insurance salesman from Groundhog Day, Ned Ryerson. Oh hey, buddy,
Speaker 1: he bought whole life blah beady blah health insurance from me,
Speaker 1: remember from Groundhog Day? Or Bill Murray hugs the guy
Speaker 1: ned Ryerson. Anyway, it's Almond just kind of reminds me
Speaker 1: of that actor. Very good comedic actor, by the way.
Speaker 1: That guy was fantastic in that role. So all right,
Speaker 1: we got this solon, Let's dig in this together, because folks,
Speaker 1: and this is it's wall to wall. The journals are
Speaker 1: all fired up about this. They think this really matters
Speaker 1: so much they really want to talk about it. It's okay,
Speaker 1: So I think it's going to go on for like
Speaker 1: another twelve hours today, I mean, was endless yesterday, and
Speaker 1: then we'll get into some other components of this narrative
Speaker 1: also some other things talking about there's a Democratic debate tonight.
Speaker 1: I don't know if anyone wow, I don't know if
Speaker 1: anybody really cares, But there's a Democrat debate tonight. Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete is surging. Maybe Mayor Pete is the Democrat savior
Speaker 1: that they have been waiting for, at least in terms
Speaker 1: of their primary campaign. May Or Pete's way up in
Speaker 1: New Hampshire, way up in highways. I'm just putting it.
Speaker 1: I've been telling you along, it's not gonna be Biden,
Speaker 1: just like I've been telling you along, doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: there's a quid pro quo, stick with the buckster, I don't.
Speaker 1: We don't have to do a lot of corrections here
Speaker 1: on this show. Oh I was way Sam tonight. I
Speaker 1: was way off. So Sondlin, let's get to what he
Speaker 1: has to say. This is all about whether the storyline
Speaker 1: today they want you to take away from this. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna distill down for you, and this is, I hope
Speaker 1: why one of the reasons why I listened to this show.
Speaker 1: I will distill down for you everything that is said
Speaker 1: over you know that has that has been said today
Speaker 1: and was said yesterday, over the course of Lord knows
Speaker 1: how many hours of testimony into the very simple narratives.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are then going to try to force free,
Speaker 1: try to ram down the throats of the American public
Speaker 1: to bring about the outcome of at least a change
Speaker 1: in public opinion that will politically disadvantage Trump going into
Speaker 1: reelection and maybe in their while this dreams perhaps get
Speaker 1: some Republicans in the Senate to start to go along
Speaker 1: with the possibility of removal, but I don't think. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just it's just not going to happen. I think
Speaker 1: the Democrats have never really even thought about what the
Speaker 1: implications would be if they removed Trump in that manner,
Speaker 1: after the leveraging and the manipulation of the deep state,
Speaker 1: and all the dishonesty not just from the media, but
Speaker 1: from very senior Obama appointees trying to get an investigation
Speaker 1: and successfully getting investigation of the president going based on lies,
Speaker 1: based on the abuse of power that was seen there.
Speaker 1: If they managed to remove Trump from office, I would
Speaker 1: lose all faith in the American political system, and a
Speaker 1: lot of us who really do believe in this country
Speaker 1: in the constitution, would very quickly understand this place to
Speaker 1: be under direct threat, that the institutions that we have
Speaker 1: grown up with and that have we have defended, in
Speaker 1: some cases, for many of you defended with your lives
Speaker 1: by serving the armed forces, that they are corrupted and
Speaker 1: perhaps corrupted beyond repair. Democrats are so shrill, they shriek
Speaker 1: so loudly with their hatred of Trump They don't seem
Speaker 1: to understand what the implications would be of getting what
Speaker 1: they want if they really remove this president based on
Speaker 1: this based on a phone call that a lot of
Speaker 1: people heard, and we'll get into this didn't think was
Speaker 1: a big deal, and based on a policy dispute that
Speaker 1: didn't lead to anything. And I mean, what they really
Speaker 1: believe that will just go that that things will return
Speaker 1: to normal after that. I think that's one of the
Speaker 1: fundamental fallacies that the left indulges for itself, is that
Speaker 1: they that they'll be able to pretend this whole Trump
Speaker 1: thing never happened. And we're going to go back to
Speaker 1: a point where the elite media, the Libs, the Democrats
Speaker 1: could just sort of pat people on the heads and
Speaker 1: say this is the way this system is, this is
Speaker 1: the way the system in our government works. And a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans, of course going along with them, don't.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of machine GOP that needs to be
Speaker 1: swept away. But then that brings me to the storyline today.
Speaker 1: The one thing they're trying to get everybody to believe
Speaker 1: or to hear so many times that it will influence
Speaker 1: and affect their judgment, and that will change minds about
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. Did everybody know Mulvaney
Speaker 1: and Pompeo and well, at least everybody in the Trump's
Speaker 1: inner circle and Trump's inner circle, because we had a
Speaker 1: lot of testimony as from senior NFC guys. I will
Speaker 1: say it's Vulker and this other guy, Morrison. They're square
Speaker 1: away dudes. They kind of remind me of some of
Speaker 1: the individuals that I worked with at the CIA in
Speaker 1: terms of their demeanor, in terms of their approach to
Speaker 1: their jobs, in that they were really spot on, They
Speaker 1: really know their brief They I thought they were impressive
Speaker 1: under that pressure, and you weren't really aware of what
Speaker 1: their politics were. I even though I forget the name,
Speaker 1: but the aide depends yesterday. I don't think that she
Speaker 1: showed up as a We know who the partisans are, right,
Speaker 1: we know who the partisans are in this whole process.
Speaker 1: I mean Vinman and I love seeing yesterday. You know
Speaker 1: you had on Twitter Rob O'Neill, who's a Fox contributor
Speaker 1: guy I know a bit and has has never been
Speaker 1: shy on the Twitter, just saying all you need to
Speaker 1: know about Vinman. You found out when he insisted on
Speaker 1: being called lieutenant colonel. People, people who serve, they don't
Speaker 1: flex like that because they don't have to unless they're
Speaker 1: trying to prove something, trying to do something a little weird.
Speaker 1: So I thought that was that was a noteworthy incident.
Speaker 1: But we know who the partisans are, and we know
Speaker 1: who the people are heard just showing up and telling
Speaker 1: what they know about this. And the fact that Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff provides presides over all of this tells you really
Speaker 1: all you have to know about the legitimacy and the
Speaker 1: decency and the fairness of the proceeding, which is that
Speaker 1: there is none. But okay, you're supposed to believe that
Speaker 1: Mulvaney knew that Pompeio knew that everybody knew that the
Speaker 1: President had drawn a line in the sand about an
Speaker 1: investigate getting dirt on his political opponents. That's what they
Speaker 1: we say, which I would note is a distortion, an
Speaker 1: intentional distortion of what has even said in the phone call.
Speaker 1: On the phone call in question, can you find out
Speaker 1: about what happened here? I've heard bad things. Is not
Speaker 1: the same as manufacture lies about my opponents so that
Speaker 1: I can feed them to the press. That is what
Speaker 1: the Democrats did, by the way, with the dossier paid
Speaker 1: for by the DNC, using foreign sources, running into the
Speaker 1: fires accord, corrupting the top of the DOG and the
Speaker 1: FBI under Obama. So they already know all about that,
Speaker 1: They know how to do that. That's not what happened here.
Speaker 1: They keep saying, get dirt on your political opponent. Is
Speaker 1: there dirt? Are they are? They taking it as already
Speaker 1: established that there must be. So the only reason you'd
Speaker 1: ask for dirt is if there is dirt. So I
Speaker 1: guess the Biden situation Ukraine is perhaps shadier than they've
Speaker 1: been willing to admit up to this point. That's an interesting,
Speaker 1: an interesting admission that I don't think they intended. They
Speaker 1: keep saying this though, I'll get dirt on the opponent,
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong and I will not veer from this.
Speaker 1: Nothing will change my mind about this, because it's so
Speaker 1: obvious when you think about it. There's nothing wrong with
Speaker 1: requesting a look from a foreign counterpart at what happened
Speaker 1: in the twenty sixteen election. There are active DJ investigations
Speaker 1: right now about that matter. The Democrats all they could
Speaker 1: talk about for over two years was that, but they
Speaker 1: had they were in control of that and they knew it.
Speaker 1: They had Weissman, their little attack guy going after Trump
Speaker 1: with all those little Democrats. So they were fine with
Speaker 1: investigations then. But now the shoe is on the other foot.
Speaker 1: Now the other side maybe gets to take a look
Speaker 1: under the hood and see what's going on. H okay,
Speaker 1: But we're told that there was a quid pro quo,
Speaker 1: that the president's top advisors all knew about this, and
Speaker 1: that is Sonlin's position, Except there's one problem with that.
Speaker 1: As he is saying this, don't looks Sonlin is a
Speaker 1: You know, this is another example. Maybe we shouldn't a
Speaker 1: point ambassadors based on how much money they're raised for presidents.
Speaker 1: But that is what ends up happening. This guy who
Speaker 1: was ambassador to EU, he's a hotelier and you know,
Speaker 1: he is a Trump pointe who raised money for Trump.
Speaker 1: So Trump doesn't appoint the best people. Never gonna change
Speaker 1: my mind on that. Trump Trump does not have the
Speaker 1: best people. I don't hear him say that anymore because
Speaker 1: he doesn't. He does not have good instincts about human beings.
Speaker 1: It's just real good instincts about politics, good instincts about
Speaker 1: fighting back against the opposition. But when it comes to
Speaker 1: picking the best people, I mean, I'm sitting here in
Speaker 1: my White House Press Secretary Trumpster, you're missing out. But
Speaker 1: here's the problem with Sonlin's point of view on all this. Please, producer, Mark,
Speaker 1: would you play twenty six from this morning's hearing. Do
Speaker 1: you have any reason to doubt Ambassador Taylor's testimony, which
Speaker 1: he said was based on his meticulous contemporaneous notes. President
Speaker 1: Trump never told me directly that the AID was conditioned
Speaker 1: on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from
Speaker 1: Juliani was that the barissima in two thousand and sixteen
Speaker 1: elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The AID
Speaker 1: was my own personal you know guests, based again on
Speaker 1: your analogy two plus two equals for so you didn't
Speaker 1: talk to President Trump. When Ambassador Taylor says that that's
Speaker 1: what you told him, is that your testimony here? My
Speaker 1: testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid
Speaker 1: was conditioned on an announcement of elections. So you never
Speaker 1: heard those specific words, correct, right, but never heard those words.
Speaker 1: So the president draws, we are to believe just follows
Speaker 1: through just applot logic. Forget about it Akham's razor, my man,
Speaker 1: just go to it this way, the President draws this
Speaker 1: line in the sand, you must do these investigations. You must.
Speaker 1: But nobody has ever told this in a meaningful and
Speaker 1: straightforward way. Nobody his policy chain of command seems to
Speaker 1: remember the President saying that this must happen or else.
Speaker 1: Maybe he said he wanted them investigate me. It was important. Maybe,
Speaker 1: but you know the whole thing, here's the quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: Nobody remembers being told us. And somehow the investigations didn't happen,
Speaker 1: and there were no consequences from the investigations not happening.
Speaker 1: So if this was a quid pro quote, it was
Speaker 1: the worst one anyone has ever come up within history.
Speaker 1: And this is why you can't believe the narrative that
Speaker 1: they're trying to feed you on this one. You can't
Speaker 1: believe the story they're telling you. Don't be a quid
Speaker 1: pro quot, Schmo. Don't listen to the fake news on this.
Speaker 1: The Democrats fake outrage that President Trump used his own
Speaker 1: channel to communicate with Ukraine. Or remind my friends on
Speaker 1: the other side of the aisle that our first president
Speaker 1: George Washington directed his own diplomatic channels to secure a
Speaker 1: treaty with Great Britain. If my Democratic colleagues were around
Speaker 1: in seventeen ninety four, they'd probably want to impeach him too. Yep,
Speaker 1: probably would. This is something that has left out of
Speaker 1: the feverish media coverage. Oh my gosh, Trump and the
Speaker 1: abuse of power and all over. Really, Oliver sat Biden,
Speaker 1: they're going to do this guy. I think he's seventy
Speaker 1: eight years old today, by the way, and not going
Speaker 1: to be there their primary victor. But the president can
Speaker 1: appoint people to act on his behalf and foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Presidents have done this, as Devin Nun has pointed out.
Speaker 1: But you don't hear that. There's always this talk of
Speaker 1: the unofficial channels. Rudy Giuliani is skulking around in corners
Speaker 1: and just you knowing, wringing his hands and just how
Speaker 1: can I, how can I undermine policy? He's a policy
Speaker 1: emissary of the President of the United States. The President's
Speaker 1: allowed to do that. Presidents allowed to conduct secret diplomacy,
Speaker 1: is allowed to have people doing diplomacy in his behalf
Speaker 1: present is allowed to do this. Folks. Media doesn't want
Speaker 1: to tell you that ah, but as predictable as night
Speaker 1: follows day the better On CNN Witness implicates Trump, Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, implicates him in what ask that question? What
Speaker 1: is the crime? What is there an anti quid pro
Speaker 1: quos statute? Because all foreign policy is based on quid
Speaker 1: pro quos all the time. Their entire case hinges on
Speaker 1: whether or not the public understands the request. It's not
Speaker 1: it wasn't a demand, it wasn't enforced. The request for
Speaker 1: a look from a foreign counterpart into issues of concern
Speaker 1: to this country, including twenty sixteen and whether there was
Speaker 1: corruption going on in Ukraine and whether that corruption directly
Speaker 1: touched on the Biden relationship in Ukraine. Is that a
Speaker 1: legitimate request or not. I'm here to tell you it
Speaker 1: is a legitimate request. Do not listen to what they
Speaker 1: are trying to feed you. Oh my gosh, getting dirt
Speaker 1: on his opponent? Is that what he said? Did Trump say, Hey,
Speaker 1: can you guys just give me give me something? Just
Speaker 1: makes have one of your guys rite up a memo
Speaker 1: about how Hunter Biden took a duffel bag full of
Speaker 1: cash under the table to tell his dad not the
Speaker 1: you know, to get the prosecutor fired or whatever it was. Oh,
Speaker 1: he said, I've heard bad things. Can you look it?
Speaker 1: Can you look into this and get us some answers
Speaker 1: on the situation now in a crowd strike, the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: server situation that is perhaps not as strong a case,
Speaker 1: that's not territory that is quite as valid for this,
Speaker 1: But the twenty sixteen election in Ukraine over all is
Speaker 1: very valid, my friends. And I will get into why
Speaker 1: I'm gonna pose this question to you, and I will
Speaker 1: return to it in a moment. But and byron Yorke,
Speaker 1: who is just he's just this understated, steady hand in
Speaker 1: writing about this and covering this issue. Who just he
Speaker 1: lets his writing, He lets his thoughts do the talking
Speaker 1: for him. He's not a lot of bluster. He's not
Speaker 1: running around calling people out. He's just like, what about this?
Speaker 1: How about that? Anyone want to take a look at this?
Speaker 1: And he's very, very consistently I think, insightful on these
Speaker 1: matters of not just impeachment, but Russia collusion and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. I mean, there's a whole crew
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy, Byron York, Molly Hemingway, I mean, these people
Speaker 1: have been correct on this all along. Which I think
Speaker 1: should matter, and ones CNN and MSNBC keep putting these
Speaker 1: people on TV or are like, oh my gosh, any
Speaker 1: day now the walls are closing in on no false,
Speaker 1: it's not true. It wasn't happening, but it was I
Speaker 1: suppose good for ratings, good for ratings at the time.
Speaker 1: But I would want to take you to a piece
Speaker 1: that Byron has written where he goes through what if
Speaker 1: Trump is right about Ukraine? They just hold that thought
Speaker 1: for him because I have to get a little more
Speaker 1: of this testimony today on what they're saying, Oh qui
Speaker 1: pro quo They're back to this now because sounds shady,
Speaker 1: And I do think that the White House and the
Speaker 1: Republicans have made a rhetorical mistake by saying there was
Speaker 1: no qui pro quote. Mick mulvaney was actually right, but
Speaker 1: it was counter the narrative the White House was putting
Speaker 1: out at the time. He was right when he said
Speaker 1: the quit pro quos happened all the time in form
Speaker 1: I mean the way he said it wasn't excellent. But
Speaker 1: the truth is that Mick mulvaney was more on target
Speaker 1: here because quit pro quos aren't something that foreign policy
Speaker 1: doesn't just have it's a it's not a bug, it's
Speaker 1: a feature. It is central to how you do this.
Speaker 1: So if the President has a valid a valid request,
Speaker 1: or a valid national interest, or just an valid interest
Speaker 1: for it for the administration of the in the executive
Speaker 1: branch of the United States government, he is allowed. There's
Speaker 1: nothing improper with him asking about that matter. There's nothing
Speaker 1: improper with him requesting more information or even an investigation
Speaker 1: from a counterpart about that. You you must remember this
Speaker 1: because they want you to. They want you to forget
Speaker 1: all about that aspect of this debate and just skip
Speaker 1: right too. Well, if he conditioned aid for the you know,
Speaker 1: for the Ukrainians based on whether they would look into
Speaker 1: his political rivals. Did did President Trump make Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: take fifty thousand dollars a month while daddy was running
Speaker 1: foreign policy in Ukraine? No? He did not. Is that
Speaker 1: a legitimately shady and perhaps even corrupt arrangement? Yes, it is.
Speaker 1: Have far less credible and serious things been investigated ferociously
Speaker 1: by Democrats over the course of the two year Special Counsel,
Speaker 1: as well as you know, everything else they throw to
Speaker 1: this president. Of course, of course, look at the way
Speaker 1: they went after the Stormy Daniel hush money hush money payments,
Speaker 1: which they were trying to say might have been a
Speaker 1: non criminal campaign finance violation. That that's what they're gonna
Speaker 1: go with. It's it's it's mind boggling. There is plenty
Speaker 1: of reason to look into whether there was a corrupt
Speaker 1: situation between the Bidens and Barisma in Ukraine. It is
Speaker 1: just reality. Everyone can pretend like, no big deal, it's
Speaker 1: not illegal. Well it's a big deal because it is unethical.
Speaker 1: It was gross. That's established. What happened was gross. Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden is an imbecile. He was getting paid fifty grand
Speaker 1: a month because of who daddy was, because daddy had
Speaker 1: a lot of power in your name. The daddy in
Speaker 1: this case, Joe Biden, was acting on behalf of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, who was your president and my president at
Speaker 1: the time. He was acting on behalf of the American people,
Speaker 1: carrying that weight, carrying that power. And there was at
Speaker 1: least the appearance of corruption. So why can't we look
Speaker 1: into this and find out if there was more than that?
Speaker 1: How could we know if there was something explicitly illegal, Yes,
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo of corruption unless we asked our
Speaker 1: counterparts and found out more about what was happening here.
Speaker 1: They just wave all of this away. I tell you,
Speaker 1: there's nothing to see here. Everything is fine. Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, never have an error in judgment like that.
Speaker 1: You know, Hunter Biden, the drug addict who got kicked
Speaker 1: out of the Naval Reserves as a public affairs officer
Speaker 1: within six months of getting his commission because of who
Speaker 1: his dad was for failing a drug test for I
Speaker 1: believe it was crack cocaine. That guy would never have
Speaker 1: an error of judgment that would implicate the Vice president
Speaker 1: of the United States. No, of course not. How stupid
Speaker 1: do they think we really are? Unfortunately quite stupid, it seems,
Speaker 1: because at least today they believe they're winning. They're cheering,
Speaker 1: they think they finally got Trump. They're finally going to
Speaker 1: hammer this whole thing until we give up and Trump
Speaker 1: is in real trouble. Here is part of what Solomon
Speaker 1: said this morning. Play twenty three producer Mark Everyone was
Speaker 1: in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was in
Speaker 1: armed Via email On July nineteenth, days before the presidential call,
Speaker 1: as I communicated to the team, I told President Zolenski
Speaker 1: in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation
Speaker 1: and turn over every stone were necessary in his call
Speaker 1: with President Trump on July nineteenth, in a WhatsApp message
Speaker 1: between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated,
Speaker 1: had breakfast with Rudy this morning. That's Ambassador Volker and
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani teeing up call with your mac monday that
Speaker 1: senior Advisor Andre yourmack must have helped. Most important is
Speaker 1: for Zolensky to say that he will help investigation and
Speaker 1: address any specific personnel issues if there are any. None
Speaker 1: of that is illegitimate to me at all, assuming if
Speaker 1: that's all true, which still seems a little bit hazy.
Speaker 1: But I'm not even arguing with the truth of it
Speaker 1: as a necessary defense of Trump. I'm just saying, even
Speaker 1: if all that is true, Yeah, Ukraine's like the most
Speaker 1: corrupt country on planet Earth. The son of the vice
Speaker 1: president is getting fifty thousand dollars a month. There are
Speaker 1: prosecutors getting fired who are supposed to be rooting out corruption.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of shenanigans which I will get into
Speaker 1: of Ukrainian government officials publicly, and this is on the
Speaker 1: record speaking out against Trump during the election, but no
Speaker 1: investigations all of a sudden, Democrats, you know, investigations are kryptonite.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are vampires, and investigations are the sunlight coming
Speaker 1: out catching on fire. What's wrong with finding out what
Speaker 1: happened here? I thought they love finding out what happened.
Speaker 1: We just went through a two and a half year
Speaker 1: long special counsel debacle that in the end told us,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe some stuff happened with the obstruction of
Speaker 1: the investigation, but really the investigation never needed to happen
Speaker 1: because there was no Trump Russia collusion. Oh, that investigation
Speaker 1: was totally legitimate, totally necessary. Though it is not what
Speaker 1: a baudism to look at these issues and say, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, when you have this other concern, when
Speaker 1: there was another situation like this, did you apply the
Speaker 1: principle equally? Are democrats applying principles and rule of law
Speaker 1: and expectations of government officials equally to both sides? If
Speaker 1: someone says, yes, there are moron, that's where we are. Clearly.
Speaker 1: The principle, the regulation, the interpretation, the ethical expectation is
Speaker 1: changing every day depending on who well, is this going
Speaker 1: to affect the Democrats? It's going to affect a Republican.
Speaker 1: Is Trump the person that's going to get in trouble
Speaker 1: because of this? Or is somebody that we like as
Speaker 1: Democrats going to get in trouble because of this? And
Speaker 1: that's all the matter. Ambassador Taylor in a WhatsApp message
Speaker 1: to Ambassador Sonland Taylor, as I said on the phone,
Speaker 1: I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help
Speaker 1: with a political campaign, Sonland, Bill, I believe you're incorrect
Speaker 1: about President Trump's intentions. The President has been clear, no
Speaker 1: quid pro quos of any kind. The President is trying
Speaker 1: to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the
Speaker 1: transparency and reforms that President Zelenski promised during his campaign.
Speaker 1: I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.
Speaker 1: If you still have concerns, I can recommend you give
Speaker 1: Lisa Kenna or s a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.
Speaker 1: What what so? As the Ambassador Solan saying no qui,
Speaker 1: the President has said no quid pro quos. If a
Speaker 1: bunch of little confused bureaucrats running around in circles worried
Speaker 1: about you know who's in charge of of their portfolio,
Speaker 1: and who as the directear of the president, and who's
Speaker 1: pushing most effectively on foreign counterparts. I know how all
Speaker 1: these like State Department people talk, you know, circle the
Speaker 1: loop and circle back and close the loop, and you
Speaker 1: know all this stuff, all this bureaucrats they speak and
Speaker 1: all the time. If they were confused about the president's intentions,
Speaker 1: that's on them. And if Rudy Giuliani was running around
Speaker 1: throwing elbows and that ruffled some feathers, and maybe some
Speaker 1: people got confused about what he wanted, or maybe Rudy
Speaker 1: went a little rogue. I like Rudy, but that's on him. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: I need someone to explain to me how something that
Speaker 1: would need to be as clear for it to have
Speaker 1: any impact as a quid pro quo, you do this
Speaker 1: or else. We have all these people talking about this,
Speaker 1: but there was no real establishment of what was supposed
Speaker 1: to be done, and there never wasn't or else. And
Speaker 1: even if those things were true, I said here and
Speaker 1: I tell you fine, he's a president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Keep hearing people say, well, you know, the president was
Speaker 1: going against the interagency consensus. The president wasn't wasn't conducting
Speaker 1: the foreign policy of the United States. No, he he
Speaker 1: is when the President says, this is the foreign policy
Speaker 1: of the the United States, it is the foreign policy of
Speaker 1: the United States. That's what the Libs and the deep
Speaker 1: Staters and the mainstream media don't I believe. I just
Speaker 1: asked him an open ended question, mister chairman, what do
Speaker 1: you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different
Speaker 1: ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?
Speaker 1: And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was
Speaker 1: not in a good mood, and he just said, I
Speaker 1: want nothing. I want nothing, I want no quid pro quote.
Speaker 1: Tell lives Lenski to do the right thing, something to
Speaker 1: that effect. I want nothing, tells Lenski to do the
Speaker 1: right thing. That that's what the president. You know. I
Speaker 1: know this president is mercurial and his mind a lot
Speaker 1: and everything else. But maybe there was just some confusion
Speaker 1: about what was real here. Maybe there was some confusion
Speaker 1: about whether the president what the president's real intentions were.
Speaker 1: Here is one of the problems we run into Democrats.
Speaker 1: And you see this not just in this impeachment mess,
Speaker 1: but you see it in a new legal jurisprudence that
Speaker 1: democrats apply to this president and only to this president,
Speaker 1: where it no longer matters if what he did is
Speaker 1: strictly speaking, within his power or legal or constitutional. They
Speaker 1: decide because they can see into his heart, they understand
Speaker 1: his intentions, they know who he really is on the inside.
Speaker 1: They decide that it is de facto illegitimate because Trump
Speaker 1: is doing it. Perfect example of this would be with
Speaker 1: the so called Muslim ban. Turn out, the Supreme Court said, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can. You're allowed to ban people from these countries
Speaker 1: that your president. The statute that Congress wrote that says
Speaker 1: you can do this, and you can just do it.
Speaker 1: It's up to the president's discretion. They don't think this
Speaker 1: president is allowed to have presidential discretion because they don't
Speaker 1: accept that he's really the president. That's what is also
Speaker 1: playing out through this whole debate over what was going
Speaker 1: on in Ukraine and what he said. And you see,
Speaker 1: even if the president is legally speaking a lot which
Speaker 1: he is allowed to tell a foreign counterpart, Hey, can
Speaker 1: you look into this issue? I want answers that is
Speaker 1: the sum total of what action occurred. Can you look
Speaker 1: into the following thing twenty sixteen, You know Burisma and
Speaker 1: Ukraine and the Bidens. He is completely legally entitled to
Speaker 1: do that. There is no legal prohibition against any of this. That.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it would be bad for Joe Biden if
Speaker 1: it turned out that they found real corruption involving his
Speaker 1: son or something. Doesn't mean that Trump doesn't have that
Speaker 1: authority anymore. Oh but they just take it. The left
Speaker 1: and the Libs take it to a special place where
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump is the one making the request, it
Speaker 1: is inherently illegitimate because he is bad. He is evil,
Speaker 1: Orange Man, bad and evil. That's all. Everything else is
Speaker 1: just trying to, you know, put more more adornments and
Speaker 1: babbles on the tree, so to speak. And I'm just
Speaker 1: trying to add meat to the bone. I haven't used
Speaker 1: the word babbles in a long time. I don't know
Speaker 1: where that came from. All right, team, let's go deep
Speaker 1: down the rabbit hole here for a second together. What
Speaker 1: if Trump was right about Ukraine. This is an analysis
Speaker 1: that Byron Or has put out from the Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: and it just lays out what I have, what is
Speaker 1: essentially an argument or at least information data points that
Speaker 1: bolsters what I've been saying all along to you. Which
Speaker 1: is that looking into the Bidens and Ukraine and Barisma
Speaker 1: is an entirely legitimate exercise. In fact, it would be
Speaker 1: legitimate from my perspective, to have the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: look into those matters. Which if Trump really wanted to
Speaker 1: just go after Biden as aggressively as possible, he could do, right,
Speaker 1: he could say, you know, look, I need the attorney
Speaker 1: the Attorney general. People would say, oh, would ever publicly
Speaker 1: do this? I mean, tell the Attorney General. I want,
Speaker 1: I want answers about what happened in Ukraine, look into it.
Speaker 1: Open the investigation. There is no special immunity from investigation
Speaker 1: for Senator for issues that touch upon Senator Joe Biden
Speaker 1: or his family. There's certainly no immunity for investigation as
Speaker 1: far as Libs are concerned. When it comes to Trump,
Speaker 1: they claim there's immunity from prosecution, right, and that's what's
Speaker 1: been said now as well by the White House. We'll
Speaker 1: see if that's true. They would love to bring charges
Speaker 1: against him. But let's just go over some of the facts. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: I read to you from that Politico article and that
Speaker 1: political article, and that was at a time when there
Speaker 1: was a belief that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to
Speaker 1: be the president, and Obama's foreign policy apparatus was tightly
Speaker 1: enmeshed in situations going on in Ukraine and his ambassadors,
Speaker 1: his appointees, Obama's we're running foreign policy in that country,
Speaker 1: and political did this story though, on how there were
Speaker 1: people at the Ukraine embassy, employees of the Ukrainian government
Speaker 1: who were trying to be helpful to their American and
Speaker 1: in this case under a Democrat administration counterparts, to give
Speaker 1: information damaging that is damaging to President Trump, specifically information
Speaker 1: about Paul Manafort and his dealings in Ukraine. But that,
Speaker 1: my friends, would be for an interference in an election,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it. This is what we've always been told that
Speaker 1: even if, for example, nothing was exchange in a meeting
Speaker 1: between Donald Trump Junior and Jared Kushner and all the
Speaker 1: rest at Trump Tower, just sitting down and listening to
Speaker 1: somebody who said they had information about Hillary Clinton that
Speaker 1: they said that was treason at one point, which is insane,
Speaker 1: by the way, These people are nuts. But I got
Speaker 1: to put that aside for a moment. So the political
Speaker 1: story still stands. There were journalists at that time who
Speaker 1: were willing to look into this and find out that
Speaker 1: there were Ukrainian government officials that seem to want to
Speaker 1: help Hillary, and we should know about that. We should
Speaker 1: also know if those Democrat appointees in the State Department
Speaker 1: apparatus were perhaps even not just happy to try to
Speaker 1: get that information. But we're giving them instructions, collection requirements,
Speaker 1: if you will, saying hey, go get this for me,
Speaker 1: Go get that for me. First up Byron new York's
Speaker 1: piece here government Minister's attack. During the summer of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: candidate Trump was under constant criticism for being insufficiently critical
Speaker 1: of Russian President Vladimir Putin. From Ukraine's perspective, Trump's Crimea
Speaker 1: statements were linked to the presence of Paul Manafort in
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. First hired in March of twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: to organize delegate support, Manaport was promoted to campaign chairman
Speaker 1: in June. Trump's comments on Crimea set off a strong
Speaker 1: reaction in Ukraine. Some high ranking members of the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: government took to social media in an attempt to influence
Speaker 1: as best they could the US presidential race. Arzin Avakov,
Speaker 1: at that time, the Interior Minister, tweeted that Trump was
Speaker 1: a quote clown, and added that the Republican candidate was
Speaker 1: quote an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism.
Speaker 1: That's the Interior minister of Ukraine. Oh yeah, yeah, that
Speaker 1: seems like somebody has something to say. On Facebook, Avakov wrote,
Speaker 1: the shameless statement of you President candidate Donald Trump on
Speaker 1: the possible recognition of crimea as Russia is a diagnosis
Speaker 1: of a dangerous outcast. He is dangerous both for Ukraine
Speaker 1: and the US to the same extent, an outcast bowing
Speaker 1: down to Putin's dictatorship cannot be the guaranteur of democratic
Speaker 1: freedoms in the US and the world. Avacov suggested Manaphort
Speaker 1: was responsible for Trump's position. Where will Manafort take Trump,
Speaker 1: Avacov asked. He completed the post by adding a photo
Speaker 1: of a mural in Vilnius portraying Trump and Putin in
Speaker 1: a passionate kiss, which is popular in hashtag resistant circles
Speaker 1: around the world. End quote here from this Byron York
Speaker 1: piece in the Washington Examiner. Okay that no, remember what
Speaker 1: we're establishing here is the context the environment in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen in Ukraine and Kiev, which everyone says, now I
Speaker 1: used to be Kiev, right, But ever now all the
Speaker 1: cool kids say Kiev, just like no one says the
Speaker 1: Ukraine now ever knows it's just Ukraine was in Kiev
Speaker 1: at the embassy there. What were the sentiments like of
Speaker 1: the government before Zelenski came in? Right? What what was
Speaker 1: going on in this Ukrainian regime at the time. And
Speaker 1: the answer is that you had very, very top figures
Speaker 1: who were decidedly openly anti Trump and worried about Trump.
Speaker 1: And not just they didn't like him, but they were
Speaker 1: worried about a Trump presidency because I mean the recognition,
Speaker 1: for example, of Crimea's legitimate, that would be an enormous
Speaker 1: slap in the face to Ukraine. They would completely freak
Speaker 1: out about that. And so you start thinking, we'll hold
Speaker 1: on a second. Explain to me, then, the lengths that
Speaker 1: these different Ukrainian politicians and ministers and officials would be
Speaker 1: willing to go to to prevent an American president from
Speaker 1: winning a US election that could result in a cutoff
Speaker 1: of the aid that we've all been told is so
Speaker 1: near and dear to the Ukrainians and fighting against the Russians,
Speaker 1: a friendly voice for Putin and recognition of Crimea none
Speaker 1: of those things, by the way, I ended up being true,
Speaker 1: which also makes one think how much of the perception
Speaker 1: of these Ukrainian officials was driven by Democrat Obama administration
Speaker 1: appointees and employees in Ukraine, Americans who were telling the Ukrainians,
Speaker 1: if Trump wins, you guys are screwed. I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: just putting we're working through this together. Okay. So there's
Speaker 1: clearly motive. And we already have one individual here, the
Speaker 1: Interior minister not sting, you know, not a coffee boy
Speaker 1: that no one's ever heard of, Okay, the Interior Minister
Speaker 1: of Ukraine saying that Trump is a huge danger and
Speaker 1: it's terrible and he's awful. M interesting back to this
Speaker 1: Byron York piece. At about the same time, a former
Speaker 1: prime minister arsny yat sen Yuk it's a fun name
Speaker 1: to say, made the case that Trump's statement on Crimea
Speaker 1: and Putin made his campaign fair game for Ukrainians. Trump's
Speaker 1: comments quote go beyond any form of domestic political campaigning.
Speaker 1: Yet Saniok, Yet, Saniok wrote, an official candidate for the
Speaker 1: United States presidential election, has challenged the very values of
Speaker 1: the free world, civilized world order. And international law. This
Speaker 1: guy's a former Prime minister of Ukraine. Let's be like,
Speaker 1: I imagine if you know, George W. Bush is writing
Speaker 1: that about somebody and they're like, oh, but there was
Speaker 1: no anti sentiment from the government. M strange, isn't it.
Speaker 1: What about Donald Trump? Oh? Sorry, what Donald Trump said
Speaker 1: about crimea today? Yet, Sanioch wrote, might tamarrow extend to
Speaker 1: some other part of the world, in Europe, Asia or
Speaker 1: the Americas? And that makes it worrisome for everyone, for everyone,
Speaker 1: including apparently perhaps employees of the Ukraine embassy, or rather
Speaker 1: employees of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry working with and interacting
Speaker 1: with Americans at the embassy in Kieth. Perhaps we wouldn't
Speaker 1: really know, though, would we, unless we had a full
Speaker 1: accounting of this, unless there was an investigation of this.
Speaker 1: Number two here environs list. The ambassador takes a position
Speaker 1: at about the same time as a government minister and
Speaker 1: a former top official. We're taking to social media. Ukraine's
Speaker 1: ambassador to the US, Valerie Chalie, wrote an op ed
Speaker 1: published in The Hill. He used much more temperate language,
Speaker 1: but he said that Trump's statements on I have raised
Speaker 1: serious concerns in Kiev and beyond Ukraine, and they were
Speaker 1: in sharp contrast to the Republican Party platform, and they
Speaker 1: were in contrast to bipartisan support for sanctions against Russia.
Speaker 1: So the acting or the actual ambassador from Ukraine to
Speaker 1: the United States wrote or op ed at the Hill
Speaker 1: or I used to work saying, yeah, Trump's really bad
Speaker 1: on this stuff. Guys, We're really worried. M But I
Speaker 1: mean we think that Ukraine in the government, there no
Speaker 1: one working for it, tried to help Hillary. Right, That's
Speaker 1: that's the premise we're told, and anybody it's a debunk
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory to say otherwise. Okay. Then he goes into
Speaker 1: Leshenko and the black Ledger. He is a member of
Speaker 1: former member or I think still a member of parliament.
Speaker 1: This is Leshenko now and quote. A few weeks after
Speaker 1: Trump's statements about Crimea in August of twenty sixteen, Leshenko
Speaker 1: took on a new task. On August twenty eighth, the
Speaker 1: Financial Times publish a story Ukraine's leaders campaign against pro
Speaker 1: Putin Trump, which began for years. Sarah Leshenko, a top
Speaker 1: Ukrainian anti corruption campaigner, worked to expose kleptocracy under former
Speaker 1: president Victor Yannakovich. Now he is focusing on a new
Speaker 1: perceived pro Russian threat to Ukraine US presidential candidate Donald Trump. Okay,
Speaker 1: how many more powerful government and anti corruption and anti
Speaker 1: Russian figures in the Ukrainian government apparatus do we have
Speaker 1: to find who are openly deeply opposed to Trump winning
Speaker 1: the presidency in twenty sixteen because of his Ukraine policy,
Speaker 1: before we think well, maybe maybe Ukrainians did kind of
Speaker 1: want to help out Hillary a little bit. I'd be
Speaker 1: a little be a little strange, right, And then we
Speaker 1: get to the mysterious Alexandra Chalupa. The Trump Ukraine bruhaha
Speaker 1: has shed light on the activities of a woman named
Speaker 1: Alexander Chalupa, who worked in the Clinton White House and
Speaker 1: later with Democratic National Committee. Chalupa's parents emigrated the US
Speaker 1: from Ukraine, and she maintained strong ties to the US
Speaker 1: American sorry to the American Ukrainian diaspora, and the US
Speaker 1: Embassy in Ukraine. This was, according to a twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: January twenty seventeen article in Politico, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage
Speaker 1: Trump backfire. Politico reported in twenty fourteen Chalupa had a
Speaker 1: client or that. In twenty fourteen, Chalupa had a client
Speaker 1: interested in the Ukrainian crisis. As part of that, she
Speaker 1: began looking into Manifort's activities in Ukraine. Julupa developed a
Speaker 1: network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalist,
Speaker 1: government officials, in private intelligence operatives. When Trump was leading
Speaker 1: the Republican presidential nominating contest, Chalupa began focusing her research
Speaker 1: on him. In March of twenty sixteen, Chalupa went to
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington and shared her concerns with
Speaker 1: Ambassador Chali and one of his deputies. Not long after,
Speaker 1: Chalupa spoke again with the DNC and, according to Politico,
Speaker 1: with the d n c's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff
Speaker 1: to try to interview arrange an interview in which President
Speaker 1: Poroshenko would discuss Manaforts ties to Yannikovich. The embassy said no,
Speaker 1: but was helpful. According to Chalupa, my friends, this is
Speaker 1: a lot of evidence. It's a lot of evidence of
Speaker 1: anti Trump feelings in Ukraine from the previous Ukrainian government
Speaker 1: and involving the previous administration in this country's political appointees
Speaker 1: and even some d nc APO researchers were any was
Speaker 1: any of this investigator has an even looked into any
Speaker 1: of this What really happened here? Here's a problem for Democrats.
Speaker 1: I am quite confident that if there was a real
Speaker 1: look into all of this, we would find out that
Speaker 1: Democrat channels somehow got information from Ukrainian counterparts about Paul Manafort,
Speaker 1: who then became the single biggest target other than Trump,
Speaker 1: of course, but the single biggest criminal target of the
Speaker 1: entire Russia collusion probe. A lot of these people really
Speaker 1: hated Manafort, and people knew early on who the Manafort
Speaker 1: was going to be in a lot of trouble, which
Speaker 1: also why the Trump campaign fired him. That's a whole
Speaker 1: other thing. So what would it mean though, for this
Speaker 1: whole narrative about foreign interference and you know, getting involved
Speaker 1: in our elections if it turns out the Democrats themselves
Speaker 1: were taking a thing of value, as they call it,
Speaker 1: information about the opposing political campaign's campaign chairman from a
Speaker 1: foreign government, getting oppo research from a foreign government, and
Speaker 1: then pretending like nothing ever happened. And then what would
Speaker 1: we think about all of the things they've said about
Speaker 1: Wiki leagues and Russia and Russian interference was Ukraine, And
Speaker 1: by Ukraine I mean was the previous Ukrainian administration which
Speaker 1: was clearly terrified of Trump's reported fondness for Putin in Russia,
Speaker 1: which as we know, was not even an accurate way
Speaker 1: to describe a situation, but or describe what has happened
Speaker 1: certainly since he came into office. But was that Ukrainian
Speaker 1: government trying to help Hillary win the election? Did the
Speaker 1: Democrats invite that help and did they know about it?
Speaker 1: I can't tell you yet the answer is one hundred
Speaker 1: percent yes, But I can tell you it certainly looks
Speaker 1: more than likely that would be the case. And if
Speaker 1: that is the case, all of this stuff that they
Speaker 1: I mean, we would have to go back and look
Speaker 1: again and everything that they have said about Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. And ultimately it would
Speaker 1: mean that Trump's request to look into twenty sixteen and
Speaker 1: corruption and Barisma and the bidens, because that was all
Speaker 1: swirling around at this time in twenty sixteen, that would
Speaker 1: have been one hundred percent acceptable, legitimate, and beyond any
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, the exercise of presidential power in a way
Speaker 1: that is of benefit not just to the President, but
Speaker 1: to the United States as a whole. So they're going
Speaker 1: to have to do everything they can to suppress this.
Speaker 1: They're going to have to do everything they can to
Speaker 1: make sure that we can't even investigate where all these
Speaker 1: data points I show you, we think that they're not
Speaker 1: going to find out anything. I think that what are
Speaker 1: the Democrats things going to happen? The way won the
Speaker 1: Senate can call witnesses, can subpoena people. When they put
Speaker 1: Alexandra Chaloupa under oath, when they put Hunter Biden under oath,
Speaker 1: you reap what you sew. Democrats, it doesn't matter because
Speaker 1: right now you have a kangaroo court headed by little
Speaker 1: shifty chef where we don't have lawyers, we don't have witnesses,
Speaker 1: we don't have anything. And yet I just got to
Speaker 1: watch and the Republicans are absolutely killing it. They are
Speaker 1: doing so well because it's a scam. It's a big scam.
Speaker 1: They're doing something that the founders never thought possible, and
Speaker 1: the founders didn't want, and they're using this impeachment hoax
Speaker 1: for their own political gain to try and damage the
Speaker 1: Republican Party and damage the president. But it's had the
Speaker 1: opposite effect, because you've seen the polls and we're now
Speaker 1: the highest. I'm the highest I've ever been in the polls.
Speaker 1: You don't hear that on television because the news that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are the same. But that's the story. I
Speaker 1: certainly think the President is right that it's a scam.
Speaker 1: But I want to bring in my friend David Harsani.
Speaker 1: He is a senior writer at National Review. Has got
Speaker 1: great takes on this short form and long form. David,
Speaker 1: appreciate you coming back on the program. Always a pleasure,
Speaker 1: I think for having all. I mean, what are your takeaway?
Speaker 1: You know, Salmon today, everyone on the left, all the
Speaker 1: Democrats making a huge deal about this, which I want
Speaker 1: your your overall. So what of where we are right
Speaker 1: now in this impeachment mess? Well, I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: I'm of two minds. One is that it's very hard
Speaker 1: for me to get excited about anything that's going on
Speaker 1: because I think everyone understands that Trump asked the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: president to look into Biden's son. And if you think
Speaker 1: that that's an impeachable offense, you're for it. If if
Speaker 1: you don't, you're not. I don't think anything we're gonna
Speaker 1: hear is gonna change that basic story, right. The thing is,
Speaker 1: people ask me, do you think it's impeachable offense, and answer,
Speaker 1: of course is yes. Anything that the House wants to
Speaker 1: impeach for is an impeachable fence if they feel like
Speaker 1: it didn't have the votes. The thing is a thing.
Speaker 1: A lot of Republicans feel like there are two sets
Speaker 1: of rules that we're living by, one for Democrats and
Speaker 1: one for them, and that Democrats have been trying to
Speaker 1: impeach this president from day one, so they're trying to
Speaker 1: overturn the election. I don't like the word coup, but
Speaker 1: that's what people feel rightly so in many ways, so
Speaker 1: I think a lot of this is just political trying
Speaker 1: to weaken the president for twenty twenties not going to
Speaker 1: be removed, and it's kind of like we're just spinning
Speaker 1: our wheels of wasting our time. And yet there are
Speaker 1: so many people that I see over at some of
Speaker 1: the cable that works, for example, who like to invoke
Speaker 1: the Founding Fathers. Nancy Pelosi is practically in tears when
Speaker 1: she talks about how Solomon occasion this is. Do you
Speaker 1: think that for most of the Democrat audience that all
Speaker 1: this theater is intended for. Are they just happy and
Speaker 1: sort of eating the popcorn while they watch people skewer
Speaker 1: Trump on TV? Or do you think that they really
Speaker 1: believe that this is a fair process. I mean, I
Speaker 1: know I'm asking to kind of like assess mass opinion
Speaker 1: in a way, but but I'm just I'm just curious
Speaker 1: myself because I see this and I'm like, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't think it's possible to be an intelligent person
Speaker 1: and hear about how the president should be impeached starting
Speaker 1: right after the election, and then have all these different
Speaker 1: reasons why he should be impeached all along. But now
Speaker 1: this time around with Adam Schiff running this ridiculous like
Speaker 1: you know, make it up as you go along political process.
Speaker 1: Now this is all solemn and serious. All that other
Speaker 1: stuff was supposed to be forgotten. I just don't think
Speaker 1: it's possible. Fuck. I will speak for the people. I
Speaker 1: think that anyone with two praint cells does not believe
Speaker 1: that this is some sort of defense of a constitution.
Speaker 1: There is no constitutional imperative to impeache someone. Sure you
Speaker 1: can do it, but you know you have the same
Speaker 1: people who are who are doing everything, the counter to
Speaker 1: corrode the First Amendment, the Second, the fourth, the fifth
Speaker 1: to tenth telling me that they're protecting the Constitution by
Speaker 1: by impeaching Donald Trump. I hate to break this to everyone.
Speaker 1: I'm not a big Donald Trump fan, but he has
Speaker 1: done He's not done anything worse, and he's probably been
Speaker 1: far better in protecting the Constitution than the presidents that
Speaker 1: have come before him. Whether he did it on purpose
Speaker 1: or not, I don't really care that much, you know.
Speaker 1: So you know, an Adam Schiff I think is the
Speaker 1: president's greatest friend. I mean, yeah, sometimes it's a criminal
Speaker 1: proceeding and sometimes you know, it's not a criminal proceeding,
Speaker 1: depending on what they want to do and when they
Speaker 1: want to do it. It's all just so arbitrary that
Speaker 1: it just looks ridiculous. I mean, you watch I'm embarrassed
Speaker 1: to watch it, but not for the reasons Democrats think,
Speaker 1: and just embarrassed by the entire process. Just does seem
Speaker 1: like a sham. I mean, I you know, you've got
Speaker 1: these people who still cling to and you know, you
Speaker 1: know my feelings about Jake Tapper, her Sani. I mean,
Speaker 1: people like that. Though Don Lemon went on TV last
Speaker 1: night and said that, you know, he's not a liberal
Speaker 1: partisan democrat. I actually laughed. I mean, I don't mean
Speaker 1: I thought it was amusing. I laughed out loud as
Speaker 1: the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, you know,
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper, Oh, this is the process and the I mean,
Speaker 1: are these people do they realize how clownish this is
Speaker 1: and how absurd they are, or or you know, I
Speaker 1: just kind of wonder they think the audience expects them
Speaker 1: to go through this. Why not just say, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't like Trump, but we don't want
Speaker 1: to get rid of him. I mean, everybody knows, right, No,
Speaker 1: no one thinks that this is about anything other than
Speaker 1: attacking Trump. Yeah, I mean, listen, the corruption of the media.
Speaker 1: And I don't say that as as a means of saying, oh,
Speaker 1: oh look they're biased. I mean it's corrupt because it's
Speaker 1: it's it's not biased, it's just half truth or non truth.
Speaker 1: And CNN yesterday I saw the media guy with his
Speaker 1: name Brian skeltering about finding the truth and digging for
Speaker 1: the truth. And you know, CNN, I can, off the
Speaker 1: top of my head come up with ten mistakes they
Speaker 1: made during this Russia conspiracy hoax stuff that was like brutal,
Speaker 1: and it all skewed in the same direction, and it
Speaker 1: changed and had a huge effect and changed the way
Speaker 1: people thought about the presidency, especially on their left. They
Speaker 1: think it's all legitimate. Still, that's a that's a serious
Speaker 1: corruption I think of of media. And you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: I want to write listen, I don't want to when
Speaker 1: I'm tweeting. I want to write lol over stuff, but
Speaker 1: because I'm literally laughing out loud at what they're saying.
Speaker 1: But you know, that's a bit of a cliche these days.
Speaker 1: I think, well, but I think that that is really
Speaker 1: the rational response to a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: what we were seeing right now. It's just I mean,
Speaker 1: you know Adam Schiff saying, for example, he doesn't know
Speaker 1: the identity of the whistleblower. I mean that is that
Speaker 1: is just this absolutely this I uh, you know, I
Speaker 1: worked in a newspaper, you know, the reported things. If
Speaker 1: we would always want there is zero reason for journalists
Speaker 1: not to mention the name of the whistle blower. It's zero.
Speaker 1: They should be searching for that name. If the if
Speaker 1: the if this was a democratic uh administer stration, and
Speaker 1: Obama there was a whistle that they would be at,
Speaker 1: that name would be all over the place all the time.
Speaker 1: Everything he'd done since the second grade would be known.
Speaker 1: I've seen, I've seen. I've seen some you know, conservative
Speaker 1: leading journalists, by the way, and some outlets too, who
Speaker 1: all of a suddenly we can't say, you know, Eric
Speaker 1: Sharamella is reportedly the whistleblower. I look at them, I'm like,
Speaker 1: first of all, the anonymity thing for the whistleblower is
Speaker 1: is a fiction that's not even true. Even I believe
Speaker 1: the Washington Post gave three pinocchios to shift on this thing.
Speaker 1: There is no statutory anonymity that has to be enforced
Speaker 1: by everybody. Maybe if people say that you could go
Speaker 1: to maybe you'll go to prison for outing the whistleblower.
Speaker 1: They've got. These are the people that used to used
Speaker 1: to want to publish the Pentagon papers, published the Wiki
Speaker 1: League's trove of classified documents. I mean, I mean, I
Speaker 1: look around. I mean, I really think I think that
Speaker 1: CNN and ABC News, for reasons that are even outside
Speaker 1: of this discussion we could talk about and Emison, I
Speaker 1: think these places are an absurdity. Now, I really do.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing if you think is a publication that
Speaker 1: you're not sure that that's the whistleblower, right, that's one thing.
Speaker 1: If you're not publishing it because you don't want to
Speaker 1: out a whistle blower, that's ridiculous. As you just lay
Speaker 1: it out. It's not illegal because you know, Busfeed just
Speaker 1: put the whole dossier online for people to read. It's
Speaker 1: not you know, it's ridiculous. More information, something that's positive
Speaker 1: and something we want in a democracy, and that's what
Speaker 1: the media is supposed to be giving us. Now. I
Speaker 1: want everyone to go read your stuff, because I read
Speaker 1: your stuff, which is why I have you on the show,
Speaker 1: not just because I like you. Nancy Pelosi is already
Speaker 1: attacking the legitimacy of the twenty twenty election. That's up
Speaker 1: on nationalview dot com right now. Tell me about this one. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean she said yesterday, you know, Donald Trump tweeted something,
Speaker 1: but he had put you know, he didn't quote her exactly,
Speaker 1: so everyone dismissed what he said. But what Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: said was we need to impeach Donald Trump. And I said,
Speaker 1: I guess remove him or the twenty twenty election is
Speaker 1: in danger. The integrity of the election is in danger.
Speaker 1: She's already preemptively told us that Donald Trump runs and
Speaker 1: way that the election will be, you know, not legitimate,
Speaker 1: so legitimate. So every present election they loses a legitimate
Speaker 1: in some way, of course, but now we're preemptively saying
Speaker 1: it's going to be illegitimate. And I still don't understand
Speaker 1: why it's corroding public trust and elections, which is what
Speaker 1: Democrats have been doing for a pretty long time in
Speaker 1: various ways. And I think it's it's it's a dangerous
Speaker 1: thing to do, though not not that they'll care, But
Speaker 1: so that's what it's about. I mean, I mean a
Speaker 1: few things. First of all, we all know the name
Speaker 1: of the whistleblower, and we know the Democrats are playing
Speaker 1: games by clinging to the fig leaf that we don't know,
Speaker 1: and the journals are running around playing dumb and it
Speaker 1: does just prove what a dishonest sham this whole thing
Speaker 1: isn't also what a joke I think mainstream journalism is.
Speaker 1: But but I gotta tell you, David, I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be kind of hilarious when this Ukraine impeachment
Speaker 1: thing kind of fizzles and then the House Democrats just
Speaker 1: go ahead and impeach Donald Trump anyway, based on a
Speaker 1: laundry list of like we just really don't like him,
Speaker 1: that's what's gonna happen. Yeah, you can have the obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice is that you can put whatever you want.
Speaker 1: Did nothing that really makes me laugh out loud. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: that's great. These congressmen talk about the Ukraine and like
Speaker 1: their voice cracks with emotion about how we're leaving our
Speaker 1: friends and allies, you know, stranded, and the Russians are
Speaker 1: coming and all of that stuff. They could not care
Speaker 1: less about Ukraine. They didn't care about Ukraine when Obama
Speaker 1: wasn't giving them lethal weaponry, when Obama was allowing them
Speaker 1: to the Russians to shoot down airplanes at you know,
Speaker 1: in the Crimea and all of that stuff. It's an
Speaker 1: absolutely it's an absolute joke. It doesn't make anything right
Speaker 1: or wrong that's happening now, but it does show that
Speaker 1: just the massive double standard and hypocrisy that's at work here. Well. Also,
Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating we have to keep hearing about
Speaker 1: the risk that Trump ran by delaying the aid that
Speaker 1: was delivered, because man, those Ukrainians really need those javelin
Speaker 1: missiles and I sit here, I just want to bang
Speaker 1: my head against wall. I'm like, right, the things that
Speaker 1: Obama wouldn't give them and took away from Poland and
Speaker 1: check Republic and things like that, Right, I mean this
Speaker 1: idea that Obama was tougher on Russia. I listen. I
Speaker 1: think that it's a complicated issue. But the idea that
Speaker 1: Obama was somehow tough on Russia and that Trump has
Speaker 1: given Putin away, you know, given Europe to Putin is
Speaker 1: is just only someone who's very silly or very you know,
Speaker 1: just ridiculous would say something I mean in Russia as well,
Speaker 1: like maybe a trillion dollar economy. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: not this is not the Soviet Union all over again too.
Speaker 1: I think that Russia looms so large in the minds
Speaker 1: of so many people now as this threat that's you know,
Speaker 1: check your closet and look under your bed before you
Speaker 1: go to sleep at night. I think Putin's a bad guy.
Speaker 1: I've been talking about, reading about and involved in, and
Speaker 1: going back to even my days in the government, like,
Speaker 1: I've been very aware of the bad stuff that a
Speaker 1: former KGB thug has been doing, stretching back to the
Speaker 1: fighting in Czechia. I mean, there's a lot of stuff,
Speaker 1: but it's not like Russia's about to invade us tomorrow
Speaker 1: and overturn our elections. Of all these things we hear
Speaker 1: all the time, and I just think that they do
Speaker 1: the public a disservice by creating what is a true hysteria. Now,
Speaker 1: I mean they really democrats now really believe that Russia
Speaker 1: is a mortal adversary United States. That's actually not true. No,
Speaker 1: I mean we have different geopolitical Yeah, of course we
Speaker 1: have oppositional stuff with them, but right aims and stuff like,
Speaker 1: I mean, no one, no, no, no serious person wants
Speaker 1: to go to war with Russia over anything right now, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's it's kind of a dangerous rhetoric
Speaker 1: that even when a Democrat becomes president is never going
Speaker 1: to follow through on. It's just it's just not reality.
Speaker 1: And I do love the history that created where I
Speaker 1: you know, my my parents you know, defected to run
Speaker 1: away from the Soviet Union. But I get called like
Speaker 1: a Russian mole all the time, uh, you know, simply
Speaker 1: because I don't, you know, I defend Donald Trump. It's
Speaker 1: just such a ridiculous position to put people in and
Speaker 1: the whole debate has been sort of co opted by
Speaker 1: ridiculous people like Max Boot or whatever, you know, who
Speaker 1: are just so over the top and so silly. We're
Speaker 1: gonna keep talking to to David. David Hole on one sec.
Speaker 1: Will come right back. All right, team, We've got David Harsani.
Speaker 1: Check out his piece. Nancy Pelosi is already attacking the
Speaker 1: legitimacy of the twenty twenty election. It's up on National
Speaker 1: view dot com. Now, m David, where where do you think?
Speaker 1: I also, I want to ask you about the the
Speaker 1: Democrat election. I'm sorry, the democrat um? What do you
Speaker 1: call it? When they argue with each other? Debate? Thank you?
Speaker 1: Oh that's happening tonight. That's not getting much attention. But first,
Speaker 1: just this impeachment thing. Where where do you see it
Speaker 1: heading at this point? Because I really just believe, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the president I would bet a large sum
Speaker 1: of money and I should find a place where I
Speaker 1: could probably do that. They're gonna peach the president, doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what anyone says. Yeah, I mean I can't. I
Speaker 1: can't imagine them backing out of that now and what
Speaker 1: that would cause within their you know, the ranks of
Speaker 1: democratic activists and party activists and stuff. So I just
Speaker 1: don't see how they don't move forward on that. So
Speaker 1: I think they'll impeach and I'm almost one hundred percent
Speaker 1: sure he won't be moved, and it's going to run
Speaker 1: for president and nothing really will change, and there might
Speaker 1: be a slight I think there might be a slight
Speaker 1: backlash to all of this, and we'll see about that.
Speaker 1: But unless there's some new big piece of evidence that
Speaker 1: shows some kind of criminal wrongdoing, I just don't think
Speaker 1: this change as much at all. I meanwhile, we have gridlock,
Speaker 1: which is my favorite form of government, so I'm pretty
Speaker 1: good with that. Yeah, it's amazing, isn't that while we're
Speaker 1: fighting about a phone call, an action that was not taken,
Speaker 1: that did not result in anything because there was no
Speaker 1: action in a country I don't eat what five thousand
Speaker 1: miles away or something. I don't even I don't even
Speaker 1: know what as the crow flies, tistancy Ukraine is, and meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the country is at a time of relative peace, an
Speaker 1: economy that is booming, on employment is super low. It's
Speaker 1: pretty amazing. What do you think about it? In that way?
Speaker 1: When you think about economic growth from twenty ten till now,
Speaker 1: it's been pretty great right on almost every way you
Speaker 1: can measure. It's not perfect, obviously, and that those are
Speaker 1: the years of gridlock. Nothing is getting done in Washington
Speaker 1: except for some good Trump stuff like rolling back regulations
Speaker 1: and cutting some taxes, which I think helped this economy
Speaker 1: despite what liberals tell you, and is is something that
Speaker 1: that does you know, Trump has a Trump has less
Speaker 1: you know, headspace to make the economy growing, yet he's
Speaker 1: still done and gets no credit for it, and that
Speaker 1: presidents get too much credit for the economy. But I
Speaker 1: think Trump has been relatively good. Imagine if he didn't
Speaker 1: you know, engage in trade wars and stuff. But I
Speaker 1: don't want to argue about that right now. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: I look, I think that by the way, my theory
Speaker 1: is that Trump maybe, if he needs to do in
Speaker 1: the election year, he said, let's just put this whole
Speaker 1: trade war thing on hold for a while. I think
Speaker 1: that whether that's you know, short term long term, I
Speaker 1: think that that would actually have a stimulative effect on
Speaker 1: the economy. I agree with that, though I do think
Speaker 1: that the whole standing up to China thing is something
Speaker 1: that really endears him to many of his most you know,
Speaker 1: passionate supporters, But then again, most people will be there
Speaker 1: from no matter what he does. That's a good point.
Speaker 1: But I will say that, you know, we had Gordon
Speaker 1: Chang on and what was it yesterday and he says
Speaker 1: that it's amazing how the consensus has flipped now, at least,
Speaker 1: not not on whether the trade war is the right
Speaker 1: thing or not, or good for the economy or not,
Speaker 1: but the consensus about China is a problem. Everybody now
Speaker 1: is saying, oh, yeah, China actually was doing really bad
Speaker 1: stuff at administrations before Trump weren't doing anything about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think, I mean, I think I can agree that
Speaker 1: China was doing bad stuff, but I'm generally, you know,
Speaker 1: very I know you're a free trade but you're a
Speaker 1: consistent fellow. But I will admit that, you know, it
Speaker 1: hasn't really had the negative effect. It seems to me,
Speaker 1: at least that I thought it would. So I think
Speaker 1: that's that's something I need to concede. Um, we we
Speaker 1: have to, we gotta. I know, David, you probably have
Speaker 1: a life you have to leave. We're gonna keep you
Speaker 1: because we're going to ask you about the elect I
Speaker 1: keep saying election. I'm sorry about the debate, the debate
Speaker 1: that is going to happen tonight, and also a little
Speaker 1: bit of what you see coming up in conservative circles
Speaker 1: about capitalism. I don't know if it's if it's a
Speaker 1: capitalism or a heart that we're talking about here, or
Speaker 1: a capitalism that that brings out the best in people,
Speaker 1: but there would be some There's been some interesting discussions
Speaker 1: going on there. We're talking to David Harsani. Everybody National
Speaker 1: Review dot com check out his piece. Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: already attacking the legitimacy of the twenty twenty election. And
Speaker 1: we're back in just a second here, all right, So
Speaker 1: it's kind of Harsagny pelooza today all the buck Sextit show.
Speaker 1: But we haven't talked to David Harsani in awhile he's
Speaker 1: National Review senior writer. I want to get your take,
Speaker 1: and then I'll just tell the audience what I'm what
Speaker 1: I'm thinking after we let you go and enjoy your
Speaker 1: coffee and hang out the rest of the day. What
Speaker 1: are you expecting here for the Democrat debate tonight? I mean,
Speaker 1: the big story as I see it right now, is
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, Buddha Judge is like, it's like
Speaker 1: a thing. Bouddha Judge is actually getting some traction in
Speaker 1: places where people have to pay attention. Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1: But I think that that's also because a manifestation of
Speaker 1: concern within the Democratic Party about their candidates. They're looking
Speaker 1: for someone a little more moderate. Who isn't you know
Speaker 1: over seventy I guess, or isn't you know? It doesn't
Speaker 1: have all the faults of a long history. But the
Speaker 1: thing is, no one really knows Mayor Pete very well.
Speaker 1: And I think once you start pointing out his problems,
Speaker 1: his city is not in great shape. His city, you know,
Speaker 1: there have been a lot of problems there with race
Speaker 1: and other stuff. So a really high murder rate. But
Speaker 1: you know, I have a we're on a great station
Speaker 1: out in Indiana, and I talked to some folks when
Speaker 1: I was out there recently for a visit, and I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, I was like shocked to hear that
Speaker 1: South Bend, Indiana has a really high murder rate per capita,
Speaker 1: right right, and the Pats some shootings where you know,
Speaker 1: police shootings that are problematic, et cetera, et cetera. Now,
Speaker 1: those are things Democrat Democratic voters care about. So I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that this kind of popularity will last. But
Speaker 1: maybe he will withstand it and be wonderful and move forward.
Speaker 1: I don't know. We'll see about that. I tend to
Speaker 1: think he's overrated. I find him to be a sanctimonious
Speaker 1: and annoying but you know, I don't really have my
Speaker 1: pulse on me. Well, I think you're right about the
Speaker 1: sanctimonious thing. Especially when he's lecturing people on theology. I
Speaker 1: find that that really can't take it. I can't, I
Speaker 1: can't take any handle it. He is really smug on
Speaker 1: that stuff, and a lot of time, no, he's getting
Speaker 1: way beyond is knowledge based on that stuff. But I
Speaker 1: wanted to sort of touch on how it seems that
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party now more than ever, and this is
Speaker 1: mostly through the prism of Warren and Berney's candidacies, but
Speaker 1: it seems like there's just not just an open embrace
Speaker 1: of socialism, but trashing capitalism in the most cynical and
Speaker 1: ignorant way is really popular among the Democrats these days.
Speaker 1: It is, and unfortunately, I think it's getting to be
Speaker 1: popular among some conservatives as well. I think what you
Speaker 1: have is you know, so much success people have been afforded,
Speaker 1: so many freedoms and so many great things, that maybe
Speaker 1: new generations don't put that success into the context it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be in. And so I worry about that.
Speaker 1: Though I have to say I'm slightly heartened that the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party sort of moved away from a Warren pretty
Speaker 1: quick quickly once she embraced, you know, really big socialistic plans.
Speaker 1: I think that there's still, I hope, at least a
Speaker 1: moderate center that doesn't want to fully you know, embrace
Speaker 1: that those sorts of ideas collectivist ideas or socialistic ideas, um.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, I think when you look at polling, young
Speaker 1: people are always more open to those ideas, and that's
Speaker 1: that's that's you know. I think there are a bunch
Speaker 1: of reasons I won't get into, but I think that
Speaker 1: that's incredibly dangerous for us moving forward. Maybe the most
Speaker 1: dangerous I've been saying. And you know, of course, you
Speaker 1: should always be what one should always be careful with
Speaker 1: predictions that rely the predictions of a political nature where
Speaker 1: you're certain. But I've just I just cannot fathom a
Speaker 1: future in which Joe Biden is actually the audience is
Speaker 1: sick of me saying is I'm like, it's not going
Speaker 1: to be Biden again? Are you do you do you
Speaker 1: really do you think it could be Biden? I mean,
Speaker 1: am I am? I am? I talking crazy talk. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you this. When Donald Trump was writing initially,
Speaker 1: did you think he could win? No? No, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: I was sure he would not win. I mean, I've
Speaker 1: had to admit that many times. So me too, until
Speaker 1: the last moment, until I saw that, until I saw
Speaker 1: at New York Times page with the little you know,
Speaker 1: lever going up. But when he won Florida, it was
Speaker 1: like the entire world all of a sudden change. But yeah,
Speaker 1: everything changed forever. But um, but here's the thing that
Speaker 1: I think a similar thing can happen here where you
Speaker 1: have a bunch of you have a right left divide
Speaker 1: and people are sort of knocking each other out and
Speaker 1: if no one else sort of an outside or candidate,
Speaker 1: And I doubt there's anything like that available Michael Bloomberg whatever.
Speaker 1: I don't think that he has that kind of appeal.
Speaker 1: I think I just don't see why the Democrats wouldn't
Speaker 1: land on what they think is the surest bet to
Speaker 1: win which would be Joe Biden. I think they overrate
Speaker 1: him as a politician because before Obama saved him, I mean,
Speaker 1: he was the Delaware senator. He wasn't He's lost time.
Speaker 1: How many times says he run for president two or
Speaker 1: three times. He's never been successful. I think he got
Speaker 1: like like two or three percent of the voting when
Speaker 1: he ran before. I mean he was I remember going
Speaker 1: to see him speak in DC maybe in two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven or two thousand and eight, you know, and
Speaker 1: and that, and he was the he was there with
Speaker 1: like cous he was like in Cucinach territory. It was like, oh,
Speaker 1: he's one of the kind of also ran joke presidential candidates, right.
Speaker 1: I mean he Obama picked him too, because he has
Speaker 1: been around for a long time, and you know, he
Speaker 1: has a sort of are of white working you know
Speaker 1: that he appeals to the white working class, regular normal
Speaker 1: Joe and all of that stuff. But he's not a
Speaker 1: particular He's never been a particularly good politicians. He said
Speaker 1: a politician, he said crazy things throughout his entire career.
Speaker 1: And no, we might not care about that anymore. But
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's it's a fact. So um, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think that he might win, but I
Speaker 1: don't know that. I don't know that he's a shoe in.
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of people think, you know, the
Speaker 1: Democrats are just going to roll over Trump. I just don't.
Speaker 1: I can't say that. After the last election, I just
Speaker 1: don't believe that it's true anymore. But I don't know why.
Speaker 1: Who do you think? Who do you think could win?
Speaker 1: Other than Biden. I feel like I still think that
Speaker 1: they're gonna they'll go with Warren. I think that they'll
Speaker 1: excuse her ridiculous lack of policy math, and I think
Speaker 1: that Elizabeth Warren gives them. They feel like it's a
Speaker 1: cross between. You get a little bit of Biden, a
Speaker 1: little bit of Burnie, and a little bit of Hillary
Speaker 1: all in one package. She really really hurt herself, right,
Speaker 1: just fully jumping all in on the Medicare for all
Speaker 1: with a plan and everything else. It's like Obama. I
Speaker 1: don't know if people remember, but he was he was
Speaker 1: in for he was in for socialized medicine right initially, right,
Speaker 1: I think, and then he you know, he was able
Speaker 1: to you know, massage those things and change his mind
Speaker 1: and this and that. But once you have plans on
Speaker 1: the book, and once you've taken this stand and you've
Speaker 1: even explained how you're gonna pay for it, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Just seems like a really hard position to to sort
Speaker 1: of moderate yourself on. And do you are you gonna
Speaker 1: watch the whole thing, by the way, And also do
Speaker 1: you think that the debate at this stage even doesn't matter?
Speaker 1: I am one hundred percent not going to watch the
Speaker 1: debate at all. I would at all. I'm done. I've
Speaker 1: seen how many debates have they had her? I mean,
Speaker 1: they still have ten candidates up there. It's a waste
Speaker 1: of time, isn't it. I think it's too much. I
Speaker 1: mean I have to because I got to do the show,
Speaker 1: and you know, I watch it so that my audience
Speaker 1: doesn't have to. But like if I were to my
Speaker 1: own devices, no, I already know what all these people
Speaker 1: think about everything, because I've seen them for hours and
Speaker 1: hours and hours, and I've read the transcripts after I've
Speaker 1: watched it. It's annoying. Since the second debate, I'm like,
Speaker 1: I'm never watching and them sitting here and I will
Speaker 1: probably end up watching some of it. But here's the thing,
Speaker 1: I don't think these debates matter that much. The last
Speaker 1: big moment of the only really big moment was Tulsi
Speaker 1: taking out Kamala Harris, right, and I don't know that
Speaker 1: there'll be another moment like that. So why do you
Speaker 1: think they hate Tulsa so much? By the way, because
Speaker 1: you know she has some she's very left wing, but
Speaker 1: conservatives like myself are kind of like I kind of
Speaker 1: like Tulsie. Even though I think she's bad on a
Speaker 1: lot of policy issues. She doesn't strike me as a
Speaker 1: as an odious person. Why the why does the liberal
Speaker 1: establishment really, even not just the farm, Why do they
Speaker 1: hate her so much? That's a good question. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that she is compelling in a way, and
Speaker 1: you know, her foreign policy views seemed not far removed
Speaker 1: from what they used to be during the Bush administration
Speaker 1: on the left and so on. So I don't really
Speaker 1: understand why they're so you know, so the I hate
Speaker 1: her so much? My only thought is that they don't
Speaker 1: think she has a chance, and they feel like she's
Speaker 1: hurt people's chances. Who whoever it is that she's just
Speaker 1: playing spoiler maybe yeah, yeah, she's just not mean enough.
Speaker 1: She's a Russian asset, so yeah, I really think it's
Speaker 1: that she doesn't She doesn't view her her role in
Speaker 1: politics as trying to find I like to storm the
Speaker 1: Republican castle overrun it in Bayonett all the survivors like
Speaker 1: that's That's another thing. She doesn't have orthodox views, right,
Speaker 1: she was a little more socially conservative. She's willing to
Speaker 1: say maybe we should impeach the president initially. She's willing
Speaker 1: to say things I think that the great against the
Speaker 1: orthodoxy of the Democratic Party. So maybe it's something like that.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I find her appealing in many ways.
Speaker 1: She's smart and telegenic and you know, and I think
Speaker 1: that she thinks through her beliefs and all of that.
Speaker 1: She's a I mean, you know, she serves everything. It
Speaker 1: seems to me like she would be the kind of
Speaker 1: candidate that I that you should be excited about if
Speaker 1: they're in your party. I would think so too. But
Speaker 1: every time I defend Tulsi, people say that, you know,
Speaker 1: I just like Tulsi because I remember her visiting a
Speaker 1: side and stuff like that, and to me, you know,
Speaker 1: it's hard to get over that stuff, no matter what
Speaker 1: her excuses were. So so for that reason, I don't
Speaker 1: really like her, but I think her realist torn policy
Speaker 1: and stuff like that is actually pretty popular these days,
Speaker 1: so I don't really get it. Yep, all right, everybody,
Speaker 1: David Harsany, David, thanks for giving us so much time. Man.
Speaker 1: Check out his latest National Review dot com and we'll
Speaker 1: talk to you soon anytime. Thank you for The House
Speaker 1: is going to do what the House is going to do,
Speaker 1: and when they get through, as you all know, it
Speaker 1: comes over here, displaces all the business and we'll be
Speaker 1: on it until her senators decide it's time to reach
Speaker 1: a conclusion. I will repeat what I've said in the past.
Speaker 1: It's inconceivable to me that it'd be sixty seven votes
Speaker 1: to remove the president from office. Inconceivable to me too.
Speaker 1: But Cocaine Mitch, don't plays, you know, Cocaine Mitch is
Speaker 1: gonna be the one that oversees that whole thing. I
Speaker 1: am a little bit frustrated though, and some others have
Speaker 1: started to point this out as well. Why is it
Speaker 1: the case that the Senate Republicans aren't you know, Senate
Speaker 1: Republican of a majority that for example, runs the uh,
Speaker 1: you know, senatece Luck Committee on Intelligence. Why aren't they
Speaker 1: calling witnesses. You know, you gotta if the Democrats are
Speaker 1: going to abuse the process, you have to use the
Speaker 1: process to beat them back. You know, you gotta fight
Speaker 1: fire with fire here, and you know, having Devin Nunez say, oh,
Speaker 1: but you know, we want to enter into the record
Speaker 1: that these are the witnesses we'd want to have. I
Speaker 1: get it. I mean, I'm not saying he shouldn't do that,
Speaker 1: but that's not sufficient. Obviously, where's the Senate on this?
Speaker 1: Where are the where's the testimony under oath from Chloopa
Speaker 1: and Hunter Biden and other DNC tied officials, other people
Speaker 1: that might have some interesting things to say about all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Just just wondering when that's going to happen.
Speaker 1: I think Republicans, unfortunately, still don't really fully comprehend. A
Speaker 1: lot of elected Republicans don't really fully comprehend the nature
Speaker 1: of the left and what they're willing to do. I
Speaker 1: think they see it, but they haven't really absorbed. They
Speaker 1: haven't really internalized the lengths that the Democrat left will
Speaker 1: go to to destroy them and the games that they
Speaker 1: are willing to play in that whole process. But we
Speaker 1: shall have to see. By the way Trump had some
Speaker 1: things to say about Ambassador Kent that I wanted to play.
Speaker 1: Would you, producer, Bark, would you play fourteen please? I
Speaker 1: don't know Vinman. I never heard of him. I don't
Speaker 1: know any of these people other than I have seen
Speaker 1: one or two a couple of times. They're ambassadors. But
Speaker 1: these are names that are taught, like Taylor, like Kent
Speaker 1: with a nice boat tie, wonderful boat time. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: get work for myself someday. I don't know who Kent is.
Speaker 1: I don't know who Taylor is yet. Yesterday Vinman said
Speaker 1: that he was the President's senior. We didn't do much
Speaker 1: Vinman today because that was yesterday, and we had Sonlon
Speaker 1: this morning, and you know, this is the you know,
Speaker 1: impeachment marathon that we're stuck in the middle of. But
Speaker 1: Vinman had some Vinman did not do well yesterday. I didn't.
Speaker 1: I wanted to just return to this for a moment
Speaker 1: to give you my sense of what happened here. Vinman
Speaker 1: was not a strong witness for the Democrat, cause he
Speaker 1: was trying to be. He's clearly a partisan. But when
Speaker 1: Vinman was up there there were some moments that did
Speaker 1: not look good for him. And one of the most
Speaker 1: important had to do with Well, first of all, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of sanctimonious stuff, like here is Colonel Vinman
Speaker 1: claiming that he is not a never Trump or play sixteen.
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel. By the way, the day after you appeared
Speaker 1: for your deposition, Lieutenant Colonel President I called you a
Speaker 1: never trumper. Colonel Vinman, would you call yourself a never
Speaker 1: Trumper representative? I'd call myself never partisan, never partisan. Interesting,
Speaker 1: he's a registered Democrat, by the way, Is that a
Speaker 1: surprise to you public records guys? A registered Democrat? That
Speaker 1: a surprise to anybody? Oh no, you mean you kind
Speaker 1: of knew this guy's a Democrat all along? Oh wow,
Speaker 1: isn't that crazy? Not just just crazy? Some other stuff
Speaker 1: that came up about mister Vinman. Jim Jordan, for example,
Speaker 1: pointed out that there were people, some very squared away,
Speaker 1: very seasoned national security experts, who felt, like this Vinman guy,
Speaker 1: there were some issues there. Fifteen. Please, your boss had
Speaker 1: concerns about your judgment. Your former boss, doctor Hill had
Speaker 1: concerns about your judgment. Your colleagues had concerns about your judgment.
Speaker 1: And your colleagues felt that there were times when you
Speaker 1: leaked information. Any idea why they have those impressions, Colonel Denman, Yes,
Speaker 1: Representative Jordan. I guess I'll start by reading doctor Hill's
Speaker 1: own words, as she she attested to in my last
Speaker 1: evaluation that was dated middle of July, right before she left.
Speaker 1: Alex is a top one percent military officer and the
Speaker 1: best army officer I've worked with in my fifteen years
Speaker 1: of government service. It's like, I'm amazing, I'm a never
Speaker 1: part I'm never part of in call me lieutenant, colonel
Speaker 1: or else. This guy MM did not did not do
Speaker 1: himself a lot, a lot of favors in the in
Speaker 1: the presentation that the Democrats were trying to put on yesterday,
Speaker 1: and the worst part for him was actually, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't even know if we have this clip. I'll
Speaker 1: just tell you what happened. When he was asked about
Speaker 1: who he talked to who he talked to after the
Speaker 1: phone call between Trump and Zelenski, he said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I didn't tell my EMI. I didn't tell my superior
Speaker 1: because I was so busy. And then Jim Jordan pushed
Speaker 1: him more and got him to admit, well, you didn't
Speaker 1: talk to your superior officer. But you did go to
Speaker 1: see a lawyer, and I see lawyer who believes it brother,
Speaker 1: And you also did go to see a person that
Speaker 1: the Democrats claim we can't know who it is because
Speaker 1: we're all supposed to pretend we're a bunch of idiots
Speaker 1: and don't know that. The other person he told is
Speaker 1: the whistleblower, and the whistleblower's name, from what we are
Speaker 1: told is Eric Charamela, who was working at the NSC
Speaker 1: and who loves Biden and is a leftist and hates Trump.
Speaker 1: This is like the reality of the world that we're in.
Speaker 1: But it is to be denied, it is to be obscure,
Speaker 1: to be pushed aside in favor of this nonsense. It's
Speaker 1: just bizarro crazy town stuff that we were supposed just
Speaker 1: pretend we don't know what we know. I'm sorry, I
Speaker 1: don't I don't want to do that. I'm not okay
Speaker 1: with that. So that's why I tell you about the
Speaker 1: things that I do. I though there's some very strong
Speaker 1: witnesses that appeared for Trump and this whole thing, like
Speaker 1: Ambassador Vulker, for example. Just would you please play clip
Speaker 1: two here. At no time was I aware of or
Speaker 1: knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to
Speaker 1: investigate former Vice President Biden. I was not on the
Speaker 1: July twenty fifth phone call between President Trump and President Zelinski.
Speaker 1: I was not made aware of any reference to Vice
Speaker 1: President Biden or his son by President Trump until the
Speaker 1: transcript of that call was released on September twenty fifth.
Speaker 1: So here you have a guy who is what the
Speaker 1: envoy for Ukraine or special envoard for Ukraine, some form
Speaker 1: of an ambassador, a lot of ambassadorial titles floating around
Speaker 1: these days. He is not he is not aware of
Speaker 1: this situation. How is it possible that this guy's working
Speaker 1: so closely on this and it's so clear, and Solomon
Speaker 1: saying today everybody was in the loop. Apparently Vulker wasn't
Speaker 1: in the loop. And how seriously can we take the
Speaker 1: demand that supposedly exists from the president to do a
Speaker 1: thing if people that would have had to know about
Speaker 1: the demand to help push it didn't even know about it.
Speaker 1: It's it's just all a big circle, folks. It's just nonsense.
Speaker 1: This Democrat impeachment thing is a self looking ice cream cone.
Speaker 1: And make all these accusations, Oh, they're got all spun up,
Speaker 1: and then it kind of falls apart. The media goes,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, look at this thing. It's a sham.
Speaker 1: It's a scam, and really it's a travesty because we
Speaker 1: all have the whole country has to waste so much
Speaker 1: time on this one, and I just wish there were
Speaker 1: other things were the discussion. Oh well, I haven't even
Speaker 1: talked to you about what I think about the Democrats tonight.
Speaker 1: What I think is going to happen with the Democrat debate.
Speaker 1: Although Harsani and I on to trash the whole notion
Speaker 1: of the need to watch it, I'll watch it. I'll
Speaker 1: watch it so you don't have to. That's one of
Speaker 1: the promises that I make here for you in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt. You don't have to waste your time. So
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what happened, all right, So the Democrat
Speaker 1: debate tonight, buck style telling you about what I think
Speaker 1: is really going on here, because the buck never stops.
Speaker 1: Here's what we got. You had to qualify for this one.
Speaker 1: Candidates had to receive at least three percent in four
Speaker 1: DNC approved poles donations from at least one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty five thousand supporters. BLAHBLI blah blah blah. All right,
Speaker 1: here's what we got for the candidates. Klobashar Booker, Buddha Judge, Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris, Yang,
Speaker 1: Gabbert Stier. Castro didn't get the required numbers that as
Speaker 1: we know, Petro o'rourks like totally is not running for
Speaker 1: president anymore. He was born to do it. So I
Speaker 1: guess he's been unborned because he is not going to
Speaker 1: be president. And I just don't know. Uh, let's see
Speaker 1: who we have here. Uh, you're gonna have to be
Speaker 1: a big night, I think, or rather they're going to
Speaker 1: try to make this a big night the media to
Speaker 1: make this an interesting story. Um, they want to push
Speaker 1: for Buddha Judge. A lot of them want to push
Speaker 1: for Booda Judge, Um, Andrew Yang. I gotta say, you know,
Speaker 1: I like Yang, I like Gabbert. You all know that
Speaker 1: I'm honest with you about it. I tell you who
Speaker 1: my if I had to hear producer Mark. Actually, let's
Speaker 1: get you onto this one. If you if you have
Speaker 1: to vote forget about I ask you who the worst was.
Speaker 1: And you're good on that because you said to Blasio,
Speaker 1: which might have even better than my answer, which was
Speaker 1: better because I think the Blasio is the worst, still
Speaker 1: the worst, not even the race. Still totally agree. But
Speaker 1: if you had to vote for one of these candidates
Speaker 1: that I named, if you have to, I'm making sure
Speaker 1: gun into your head, who is it, I'd say Andrew Yang.
Speaker 1: I like it. I want to. I want to say
Speaker 1: I'm a member of the Yang gang. You know, he's interesting.
Speaker 1: I would probably, I probably, at the end of the
Speaker 1: day say say Gabbert, but I want Yang to be
Speaker 1: his veep. Again, I'm not voting for a Democrat. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, if we, if we, if we had to,
Speaker 1: and on this list, I think the worst. For me,
Speaker 1: we do best and worst here, I think the worst.
Speaker 1: It's actually not easy. I go the worst is um
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. I think Kamala Harris is the worst because
Speaker 1: the media tried so hard to just make Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: a big political thing and it's just not happening. Whore
Speaker 1: do you go? See? I want to say Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: just because you and Larry David has ruined him. For me,
Speaker 1: I can't take him seriously at all. True. Yeah, like
Speaker 1: he could just say I love puppies, and I can't
Speaker 1: take him seriously because a free puppy program, everybody's gonna
Speaker 1: get a puppy, and you know what's gonna happen. They're
Speaker 1: gonna get the puppies and they're gonna share them with
Speaker 1: other people. It's gonna be communal puppies. You know what.
Speaker 1: I take it back. If he does that, well, actually
Speaker 1: that's actually a great plan. That's a platform that I
Speaker 1: could get be here too, because I want a puppy.
Speaker 1: I just don't want to have to take care of
Speaker 1: it all the time. So if it was a communal puppy,
Speaker 1: that would be. But you're getting married soon, you know
Speaker 1: what happens, baby or puppy. Gotta make your pick, dude, puppy, Yeah,
Speaker 1: puppy can't talk back to me. Yeah, that's true, Kloba
Speaker 1: shar I gotta say. I think, is you know, just
Speaker 1: an interesting candidate for the Democrats because she's from the
Speaker 1: Midwest and female. And Booker he's just in this still
Speaker 1: because the media likes him. I mean, he just the
Speaker 1: media likes Corey Booker, and so Corey Booker gets to
Speaker 1: continue to be running for president even though I don't
Speaker 1: think anybody believes he's gonna win anything, including the primary.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden still still in the mix here, former Vice
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden. Wouldn't we call him Senator Joe Biden?
Speaker 1: Former Vice President Joe Biden. I list him here and
Speaker 1: well anyway, So I don't think it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: whole lot of change tonight from what you're used to seeing.
Speaker 1: I'll have a bunch of Democrats who come out and
Speaker 1: say blah blah blah, socialism, more spending, big government, free stuff,
Speaker 1: free stuff, free college, free healthcare. Trump is hitler. Country
Speaker 1: is gonna go to hell. Climate change is gonna kill
Speaker 1: all of us unless you vote for Democrats. That's it, really,
Speaker 1: I mean, I now I feel like you don't even
Speaker 1: do I even have to watch the debate. We've established
Speaker 1: already what the main thrust will be. I do think
Speaker 1: that the most damaging politically, the most damaging position the
Speaker 1: Democrats hold now for general election purposes. And we'll see
Speaker 1: how much this gets attention to the people. Don't talk
Speaker 1: about immigration as much right now as they had been.
Speaker 1: The border crisis has died down a little bit, oh
Speaker 1: some a fascinating thing happened. I think it was in
Speaker 1: AFP as Jan's France Press or agents France Press. I
Speaker 1: don't know. However, you were supposed to say that AFP
Speaker 1: did this story on a UN analysis of all the
Speaker 1: children that were in custody at our southern border. And
Speaker 1: it was a horrifying moment, right because, oh my gosh, Trump,
Speaker 1: kids in cages, all this really bad stuff. And it
Speaker 1: turned out that the analysis the UN did was from
Speaker 1: the kids quote in cages from the Obama administration twenty fifteen. Whoops.
Speaker 1: But you would think, hold on a second, why is
Speaker 1: that now no longer a story? It's an analysis of
Speaker 1: what had happened because AFP pulled it. So they put
Speaker 1: out a story based on an analysis, you an analysis
Speaker 1: of children being held to the southern border in detention
Speaker 1: as they're being processed to be let into this country
Speaker 1: by the way which they all were let into the country.
Speaker 1: And because it turns out that it didn't happen while
Speaker 1: Trump was president, it's no longer a story. It would
Speaker 1: be hard to find in some ways a more pure
Speaker 1: distillation of mainstream media bias. Bad thing happens under Trump story,
Speaker 1: run with it? Oh, same bad thing happened, but happen
Speaker 1: under Obama before Trump is president. Pull the story deleted,
Speaker 1: Pretend it never happened on the internet. It's it was
Speaker 1: a stunning a stunning situation. Honestly, anyway, it is. It
Speaker 1: is what it is, My friends, here we go study
Speaker 1: in un child attention. Let's see if I make sure
Speaker 1: I think I got the right. I hate I hate
Speaker 1: being wrong. I'm so rarely wrong, though. Let's see what
Speaker 1: we get here. Oh it was it was Reuters. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: it was a Router's story. I think I said AFP.
Speaker 1: It's Reuters. My bad. November eighteen story headline, US has
Speaker 1: world's highest rate of children in detention. UN study is withdrawn.
Speaker 1: The United Nations issued a statement on November nineteenth thing
Speaker 1: the number was not current, but was for the year
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. No replacement story will be issued. Router's one
Speaker 1: of the biggest news organizations in the world. Oh, it's not.
Speaker 1: It's not a story anymore because it happened when Obama
Speaker 1: was president. That pretty much describes for you the way
Speaker 1: the media approaches everything. It's only a story. A bad
Speaker 1: thing happens. If it's while Trump is president, it's a story.
Speaker 1: If while Obama, if it was while Obama is president,
Speaker 1: is no longer a story, and they wonder why we
Speaker 1: all cheer and laugh when they call it fake when
Speaker 1: Trump calls it fake news, because they are a bunch
Speaker 1: of fakers, a bunch of frauds hacks. I will I
Speaker 1: will continue on this. I will continue beating this drum
Speaker 1: until the day I die. If I, you know, stop
Speaker 1: doing media tomorrow and I was just running a hot
Speaker 1: dog stand somewhere, probably leading a very nice life of
Speaker 1: a humble but striving capitalist and enjoying myself, I would
Speaker 1: still anybody who would listen to be ranting and raving
Speaker 1: about how fraudulent the news media has become and what
Speaker 1: a bunch of totally partisan hacks they are. And the
Speaker 1: worst part is they run around, you know, strutting about
Speaker 1: and acting like they're so brave when they speak truth
Speaker 1: to power. It's complete nonsense. Yes, indeed, you know it's
Speaker 1: not nonsense, though, Roll call, for which it is now.
Speaker 1: Time ain't no party like a Team buck party, because
Speaker 1: a Team buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got buck
Speaker 1: turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call, Roll Call,
Speaker 1: Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com or Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. Let's get to emails because we've been new
Speaker 1: emails yesterday. Gary, Gary kicks off a noise. Buck and
Speaker 1: producer Mark, you are absolutely the best. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for adding email. I'm one of the twelve people
Speaker 1: that have never used Facebook. Regarding President Swallwell's gastric indiscri
Speaker 1: Russian Micro has an excellent short ten minute podcast episode
Speaker 1: that is one percent related and reveals the source of
Speaker 1: the name of a popular host on the view. Huh okay,
Speaker 1: I don't know what that's all about, but thank you
Speaker 1: my friend for writing again and saying nice things about
Speaker 1: me and producer Mark Gina. Hey Buck, somebody needs to
Speaker 1: take a picture of both Fox News and CNN just
Speaker 1: how CNN words and captions breaking news Sonlan ties Trump, Pence,
Speaker 1: Pompeo to Ukraine pressure campaign totally false. Yeah, Look, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of headline writing that goes on that is
Speaker 1: not objective. Headlines are tough because you got to grab somebody,
Speaker 1: and so to write purely objective headlines is never going
Speaker 1: to be really something that happens. But there are I
Speaker 1: think there are limits of it, and yeah, but yeah,
Speaker 1: you'll see the headlines. All you have to do anytime
Speaker 1: you want. It's just if you have on your computer.
Speaker 1: Just go to the Fox News dot com site and
Speaker 1: go to CNN dot com and just see the way
Speaker 1: that CNN talks about the way Fox talks about it.
Speaker 1: I mean the different different points of view watching the
Speaker 1: same thing. Steve Hey Bucks Shields High from the Live,
Speaker 1: Free or Die State of New Hampshire. I'm a real
Speaker 1: news longtime supporter of Team Buck. I just posted to
Speaker 1: Jack Ryan TV series the post below you ask I
Speaker 1: delivered see the post below season two. Really, that's your narrative.
Speaker 1: You're trying to sell to the fans that social justice
Speaker 1: winers are going to save a country like Venezuela. Who
Speaker 1: does your research? Maybe if you want season three to
Speaker 1: be something appealing to your true fans rather than appealing
Speaker 1: to woke snowflakes, you might want to get advice from
Speaker 1: former CI analyst Buck Sex and provide more sound direction.
Speaker 1: I love Krasinski in the role, but season two was
Speaker 1: tough to watch. All right, man, Shields, Hi, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Steve. I don't know if that's gonna get
Speaker 1: Netflix or whatever to or Amazon rather to put me
Speaker 1: in the role, but I'm sorry, not in the role
Speaker 1: to take Krasinski. That guy's very tall, very handsome, but
Speaker 1: to help with the writing behind the scenes would be good. Steve. Wait, no,
Speaker 1: we already did, Steve Robert Um Okay, nope, that was
Speaker 1: a link. And hey, Buck, I just want to tell
Speaker 1: you how much I enjoy your podcast, which I started
Speaker 1: downloading years ago when I first saw your commentary on
Speaker 1: Fox News. You are so knowledgeable for one so young, insightful,
Speaker 1: and have a soothing voice. Your impressions are hilarious. I
Speaker 1: will miss your Betto and your Bernie is perfect. Your
Speaker 1: Warren is rapidly improving. But I wish you would do
Speaker 1: Amy klobischar who should be easy to do with her
Speaker 1: nasally voice. Regarding impressions, have you seen Tom Shalou play
Speaker 1: Shifty Shift on Greg Gutfeld Show on Saturday Night. Shalu
Speaker 1: is perfect for that part. I like to watch the
Speaker 1: star Millennial on our side. At least Stephanick stand up
Speaker 1: to Shifty at the idiotic impeachment inquisitions. I've been impressed
Speaker 1: with Stephanick ever since he was the one who got
Speaker 1: sanctioned and sank to comy to admit he did not
Speaker 1: advise Congress of the existing Trump investigation, et cetera. Et Finally,
Speaker 1: about the debate over the tech issues with your podcast. Yes,
Speaker 1: the problem was really bad a few months ago. Keep
Speaker 1: up the high quality program and I'd be thrilled to
Speaker 1: hear Shields High again. What was the name of the
Speaker 1: history show? And I can't forget producer Mark. I like
Speaker 1: to hear the banner between you guys. Thanks for providing
Speaker 1: your email. Thanks for the feedback, best regards, Annam. All right, well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, appreciate it. James, hold on, it's
Speaker 1: got a load. Why is the internet here so slow?
Speaker 1: All right, that's a very long email. Enough time for
Speaker 1: that one right now, kent On Vinman, He started to
Speaker 1: say office of before he was cut off. There's only
Speaker 1: so many in the IC Office of what. Thanks Shields
Speaker 1: High On, Vinman. Yeah, I don't know. I guess that
Speaker 1: if you're telling me that happened, then I believe that
Speaker 1: that could have that could have happened. All right, now
Speaker 1: we're gonna switch to switch to the Facebook in box,
Speaker 1: which is always fun. And Edward right, Men at Work
Speaker 1: is much better as a movie than Young Guns. Oh,
Speaker 1: I see Edward taking producer Mark's part in this dispute. Oh,
Speaker 1: that will be remembered, blocked, and reported. Sir. Let's see
Speaker 1: who else we got in here. TJ. Buck. I'm not
Speaker 1: making excuses for Trump. There's no doubt he needs to
Speaker 1: do what he can to get this spending under control.
Speaker 1: But how much of this out of control spending is
Speaker 1: bureaucratic protest against him? Do you think? I don't mean
Speaker 1: to be conspiratorial, but I can't help but think that
Speaker 1: an overwhelming majority of the federal government workers are Democrats
Speaker 1: who are taking their own liberties to maximize their allowable
Speaker 1: spending every month. And unfortunately, short of shutting down the government,
Speaker 1: there's not much Trump cant to cut this deep state spending. Huh. Interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean, presidents can only do so much with the
Speaker 1: budget and with spending. That's true. How much are we
Speaker 1: gonna blame Trump for this one? I don't know, but
Speaker 1: let's be careful about never blaming Trump for anything, right.
Speaker 1: I Mean, that's why I think sometimes I just have
Speaker 1: to remind you guys he picks really bad people, because
Speaker 1: I think it's important for us to establish it. There
Speaker 1: are some things that we just need to be honest
Speaker 1: that Trump is failing on or that he's not doing
Speaker 1: a good job of We can't always say, well it's
Speaker 1: really hard. Yeah, well he took the job that was
Speaker 1: going to be a really hard job. You know. He
Speaker 1: did say they were going to build a wall, which
Speaker 1: they are now gearing up. It seems in this last
Speaker 1: year of his first term to really build wall, hundreds
Speaker 1: of miles of wall, so that would be very interesting.
Speaker 1: And by the way he builds, he builds hundreds of
Speaker 1: miles of wall, he wins re election, no question in
Speaker 1: my mind, no question, not even not even close. Carl
Speaker 1: shields high as always excellent work on the show. I
Speaker 1: recommended the show to a friend recently and now he's
Speaker 1: a daily listener. Thank you, Carl. I think of people.
Speaker 1: The more people that hear about the show and give
Speaker 1: it a listen to them, or people are going to
Speaker 1: keep listening every day to the show. We're very confident
Speaker 1: of that. A critique I'm surprised has not been aimed
Speaker 1: at Bernie is must have been nice not waiting for
Speaker 1: the necessary diagnosis treatment of his recent heart attack. No lines,
Speaker 1: no delays, no waiting list, top notch congressional care, and
Speaker 1: he thinks when we add three hundred million more Americans.
Speaker 1: This is going to improve quality and access. That's nuts. Well,
Speaker 1: you're right about if we do medicare for all of
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, everybody is put into the same system.
Speaker 1: By the way, it will never be everybody in the
Speaker 1: same system, because there'll always be people that have enough
Speaker 1: resources to pay for a private, private sector or a
Speaker 1: private market healthcare. And that's that's the case in can
Speaker 1: it's the case in the UK. We're always here. But oh,
Speaker 1: government healthcare, government healthcare. You had a lot of the
Speaker 1: people who can afford it pay for private healthcare outside
Speaker 1: the government sector. Why do we think they do that
Speaker 1: because they like throwing away money or because the government
Speaker 1: healthcare is crappy? Huh. I don't know. That's a real thinker.
Speaker 1: I gotta think on that one a little bit. Let's
Speaker 1: see here, Rick Buck, listen to a podcast here in
Speaker 1: Idaho near the Canadian border. As a FedEx corrier wanted
Speaker 1: away in on recent arcle in the Times, I received
Speaker 1: a raise as soon as the Trump TAC cut went
Speaker 1: into effect and over a billion was added to fund
Speaker 1: our pension. Aircraft and trucks were replaced with more efficient ones,
Speaker 1: free efficient ones all public knowledge hashtag fake news. Also,
Speaker 1: men at work come from a landown under where women
Speaker 1: glow and men plunder. Love the show, don't take calls.
Speaker 1: Told my daughter about you. She says, you look like
Speaker 1: Eric Foreman from that seventies show. Just watched Load of
Speaker 1: Weapon with Emilio Estevez better than the Ducks. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Boomer sooner, watch Far and Away, okay history, Shield's I
Speaker 1: blocked and reported, there we go. That's gonna be for
Speaker 1: the show today. Team always always an honor of privilege,
Speaker 1: Shield's high