Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Of course, the FBI
Speaker 1: spied on the Trump campaign. The IG has crushed the
Speaker 1: liberal narrative. Plus former Attorney General Eric Holder versus Attorney
Speaker 1: General barr An NYPD unit that will look at white nationalism,
Speaker 1: and President Trump tells Greta Thunberg to chill and see
Speaker 1: a movie that is more coming up. This is the
Speaker 1: bus Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence magnor mistake American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, Remember,
Speaker 1: so the men of women at home need to know
Speaker 1: what's happening. A lawyer at the f creates fraudulent evidence,
Speaker 1: alters an email that is in turn used as the
Speaker 1: basis for a sworn statement to the court that the
Speaker 1: court relies on, am I stating that accurately. That's correct.
Speaker 1: That is what occurred. Welcome to the Buck section Show,
Speaker 1: my friends. Yesterday you had the Inspector General testifying in
Speaker 1: front of the Senate up on Capitol Hill. Ooh rough
Speaker 1: for the Russia collusion truthers. Rough for the conspiracy theorists
Speaker 1: who have spent years now doing two things making outlandish
Speaker 1: claims about the president, saying that the president is a traitor,
Speaker 1: the president worked with Vladimir Putin, fact, is now Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin's puppet because of the cheating that he did in
Speaker 1: the election, and that anybody who looked at the lack
Speaker 1: of evidence for any of this was somehow themselves a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist. And anyone who question whether the process was
Speaker 1: not just problematic but perhaps entirely biased of investigating this
Speaker 1: theory against the president, they were shouted down. There was
Speaker 1: about a ninety percent media consensus. Oh that's right, libs
Speaker 1: of the media is liberal. There's a ninety percent of
Speaker 1: media consensus that was clear on the fact that the
Speaker 1: president must have done something wrong and the FBI did
Speaker 1: nothing wrong and there was no bias. Now we know
Speaker 1: that if you still believe that you're either delusional, a liar,
Speaker 1: or dumb, there's no fourth option, and you could just
Speaker 1: be a little crazy. You could be somebody who does
Speaker 1: know that that's not true but says the opposite. So
Speaker 1: you're a liar or just really really stupid. And there
Speaker 1: are unfortunately a lot of journalists who fall into that category.
Speaker 1: Just to start, and there's so much that we can
Speaker 1: get into here, and I by the way, I know
Speaker 1: there's also we got to get into Elizabeth Warren's foreign
Speaker 1: policy today. We got to get into the possibility of
Speaker 1: this white supremacy unit getting stood up at the NYPD
Speaker 1: in the next few months. I mean, there's all these
Speaker 1: things that I want to get do. So we're not
Speaker 1: going to just just do Inspector channel today. But this
Speaker 1: is important, and you know, the media wants to skip
Speaker 1: right past it yesterday. As I told you, they pick
Speaker 1: and choose what parts of testimony they air on their channels.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's a couple of reasons for this,
Speaker 1: or there's more than one reason for it. You have,
Speaker 1: for example, the desire ta pander to the audience at
Speaker 1: sen editor MSNBC, the people that are at home. They
Speaker 1: don't want their little tender liberal sensibilities to be rattled
Speaker 1: by any of this. And then you also have the
Speaker 1: delusion among many in the press corps, many producers at
Speaker 1: the major channels, that they aren't in fact bias, they're
Speaker 1: just making sound editorial decisions. This is laughable at this point.
Speaker 1: But let's just start with what Ted Cruz said there.
Speaker 1: Here is what we know, we know that there were
Speaker 1: major errors, big screw ups in this entire situation of
Speaker 1: the report. We will get into what some of the
Speaker 1: biggest ones are, but here's where they want to focus
Speaker 1: your attention away from the single most important thing. It
Speaker 1: is simply not credible. It is not feasible, It is
Speaker 1: not plausible that all of these things happened, and that
Speaker 1: it had nothing to do with the fact that the
Speaker 1: people making these decisions at the FBI or within the
Speaker 1: DOJ absolutely despise President Trump, and we know many of
Speaker 1: them despise President Trump. That is, that is beyond dispute.
Speaker 1: But they want you to believe that all of these
Speaker 1: mistakes were made by people that we know, in many
Speaker 1: cases hate Trump. That is established, and by people who
Speaker 1: are willing to break rules for some reason in this process,
Speaker 1: including in the case of former acting FBI Director McCain
Speaker 1: lying under oath and putting himself in criminal jeopardy comey,
Speaker 1: violating FBI regulations, and defaming his own institution in the process,
Speaker 1: or at least hurting its reputation dramatically. Despite all of that,
Speaker 1: they want you to believe that this is just a coincidence.
Speaker 1: They want you to believe that there's nothing beyond just
Speaker 1: egregious errors. I've been pointing this out, and yes, some
Speaker 1: of you have seen. I've been going pretty hard in
Speaker 1: the paint on Twitter. I've been going after it. Not
Speaker 1: just because the President retweeted me six times, high five
Speaker 1: Producer Brandon. I mean, that's pretty cool. I want a dozen, though,
Speaker 1: I want a dozen retweets in one day, but because
Speaker 1: I really believe that it's important that there's counter messaging
Speaker 1: to all the lies that are out there and the
Speaker 1: mains to remediate. I mean, CNN should be torn down
Speaker 1: to the studs and rebuilt as a news organization. I
Speaker 1: mean the whole place. It's just it's just rotten to
Speaker 1: the core. Same as MSNBC. But MSNBC is just the
Speaker 1: slightly more honest version of NBC News, which is every
Speaker 1: bit as liberal, but tries to hide it a little
Speaker 1: bit more. It's a little less obvious about it. All
Speaker 1: of this going on. They don't want you to take
Speaker 1: away from this that there was biased, that there were
Speaker 1: people who did the things that they did because they
Speaker 1: don't like President Trump and because politically they had an
Speaker 1: agenda Inside the FBI. Now we're going to get to
Speaker 1: the journalists, and the journalists are a joke and all this,
Speaker 1: I mean the ones that I was having fun yesterday,
Speaker 1: you know, tweeting at Jim Shooto at CNN from twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: The dossier, according to my intelligence sources, has been largely verified.
Speaker 1: That tweets still up. That's a fun one. That's a
Speaker 1: fun one. So many of them, I mean, there's so
Speaker 1: many of them. You go back and see these people
Speaker 1: are all clowns. Do you know how many tweets I
Speaker 1: have to delete? Or any of my friends on the
Speaker 1: right who have been defending Trump because the facts were
Speaker 1: in his favor all along. Do you know how many
Speaker 1: tweets we've had to delete about this or apologize for zero?
Speaker 1: My friends, I have been wrong a grand total of
Speaker 1: zero times on Russia collusion. Who at CNN or MSNBC
Speaker 1: or the New York Times, the Washington Post that was
Speaker 1: covering this or any other liberal media outlet can say
Speaker 1: the same thing. None of them. They've all been wrong.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of degrees. It's a question of
Speaker 1: how egregious their wrongness has been. And yet many of
Speaker 1: us on the right, we haven't had to backtrack on
Speaker 1: anything Oh, sorry, I guess we missed that by a lot.
Speaker 1: Isn't that interesting one of the reasons why you're much
Speaker 1: better off coming here every day to find out what's
Speaker 1: going on in the world than you are listening to
Speaker 1: some of these talking heads at the various lib channels.
Speaker 1: You already know that not just if you agree with me,
Speaker 1: just because they're wrong, and a lot of them aren't
Speaker 1: very smart. So then that brings me to the Ted
Speaker 1: Cruise point here, why is it on this point of
Speaker 1: this is the fundamental fight right now? Was there bias
Speaker 1: or not? But aside, we all know there's mistakes and
Speaker 1: people that don't admit that. I mean, now you're you're
Speaker 1: getting into a degree of denialism or you can't you
Speaker 1: can't actually have a conversation about this with somebody like that.
Speaker 1: If someone thinks that the FBI didn't just do a
Speaker 1: total face plant on this whole thing, the most sensitive
Speaker 1: political case in its history, then there's nothing to talk
Speaker 1: about with them because they're they're delusional. They have there's
Speaker 1: no anchoring principle for them, there's nothing, there's no ability
Speaker 1: to exchange thoughts and ideas. They're just orange man bad,
Speaker 1: Orange man bad, that's all they know. They've been brainwashed.
Speaker 1: Brainwashing is a real thing that happens to people, and
Speaker 1: the liberal media has brainwashed a whole lot of folks
Speaker 1: that no matter what the actual evidence shows, no matter
Speaker 1: what the information is that comes out of this processes
Speaker 1: and matter because you already know that Trump is orange man,
Speaker 1: an orange man is bad. That's really the full scope
Speaker 1: of the argument. And by the way, we're still going
Speaker 1: through with this this orange mad bad impeachment, which we
Speaker 1: will get to that as well. But Ted Creusa, as
Speaker 1: a lawyer at the FBI, creates fraudulent evidence, alters, an
Speaker 1: email is used at the basis for a sworn statement
Speaker 1: to the court that the court relies on. Why and
Speaker 1: I want a serious, plausible explanation for this. Why would
Speaker 1: anyone do that if it was not for political bias?
Speaker 1: That can't even there is no reasonable explanation. There is
Speaker 1: no answer you can give that works in this context.
Speaker 1: What is there to say exactly? Why would a person
Speaker 1: do that? Why risk one's career, one's reputation, perhaps even
Speaker 1: one's freedom too intentionally? And by this is clear this
Speaker 1: was intentional. Someone sat there thought, you know what I
Speaker 1: need to do. I need to make sure that Carter Page,
Speaker 1: who's an ally of the United States government, looks like
Speaker 1: an enemy of the United States government for the purposes
Speaker 1: of this spying, and yes it was spying. Why would
Speaker 1: anyone do that if they didn't think that they were
Speaker 1: a part of the hashtag resistance? How could you explain that? Now,
Speaker 1: this is why it's so. There's two reasons why this
Speaker 1: is so important. One is that this could have undermined
Speaker 1: the entire case against Carter Page, And if they only
Speaker 1: got a FIZE on him once, by the way, that
Speaker 1: would have looked a bit weak, right, So they need
Speaker 1: to extend this out to keep looking This is a
Speaker 1: similar concept works when you're talking about government corruption within
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy. They double down, and they double down,
Speaker 1: they double down. Why would they do that? Well, for example,
Speaker 1: if you work at a financial firm and you deal
Speaker 1: with something called a rogue trader. This has happened many
Speaker 1: times in the past. I think actually it happened at
Speaker 1: Baring's Bank, which was I believe the oldest still functioning
Speaker 1: bank in the world, and took it down. Where someone
Speaker 1: once they've done in a few illegal trades that they're
Speaker 1: hiding they're essentially gambling money they're not supposed to, and
Speaker 1: then they lose. Guess what they do at that point
Speaker 1: They gamble more, and they gamble more, and you know why,
Speaker 1: because they figure, Hey, if I get lucky and win
Speaker 1: back the money I lost and can put it back,
Speaker 1: no harm, no foul. So the FBI here trying to
Speaker 1: get the renewals of Carter Page. They're thinking, at least
Speaker 1: it'll look like we were somewhat right if we can
Speaker 1: get these renewals, and maybe we strike jackpot where we
Speaker 1: can at least create some narrative that this wasn't all
Speaker 1: a big anti Trump operation. So this is why the
Speaker 1: fis or renewals were so important. Foreign intelligence surveillance acts
Speaker 1: supposed to be used against spies and terrorists and has
Speaker 1: always been this sensitive area of national security law, which
Speaker 1: is really effectively an end run on the Fourth Amendment,
Speaker 1: one that we accept because of national security concerns. And
Speaker 1: now a lot of people are saying, maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 1: accept that. But on this point of the changing of
Speaker 1: that vise application by this senior figure than the FBI,
Speaker 1: you have to ask the question, Okay, so maybe this
Speaker 1: was necessary to salvage to salvage the entire the entire thing.
Speaker 1: That's part one. And then you also have to look
Speaker 1: again at what was the motivation behind this. How could
Speaker 1: this person not feel terrible doing this to an American citizen,
Speaker 1: making somebody seem as though they are a spy, making
Speaker 1: somebody seem as though they're a traitor to justify your investigation.
Speaker 1: There is no way they have my friends, They have
Speaker 1: no explanation for this. And then this is the even
Speaker 1: bigger point. Now, look at all the mistakes that were made,
Speaker 1: the mistakes in quotes that were made, and mistakes. There
Speaker 1: are things not typos, things like, oh, we had exculpatory evidence,
Speaker 1: but we didn't share it. Oh we knew this source
Speaker 1: was crap, but we didn't tell them. This is like
Speaker 1: a power mad prosecutor hiding evidence of innocence and trying
Speaker 1: to create a false narrative of guilt to crush somebody.
Speaker 1: That is what the FBI was doing. There's no doubt
Speaker 1: about this. There's no dispute for a reasonable fact based
Speaker 1: intelligent human beings. But now look at that one instance
Speaker 1: of clear and egregious willful misconduct, not a judgment area.
Speaker 1: Was that just the one time that they got a
Speaker 1: little sloppy in this and were all of those other
Speaker 1: errors than omissions and mistakes and the other things that
Speaker 1: they did that the IG had to essentially come hat
Speaker 1: in hand before the Senate and say this was really bad,
Speaker 1: which is what he said yesterday. Me didn't want to
Speaker 1: cover it. That's what this was really bad, folks. What
Speaker 1: they against a presidential campaign. This should be really bad
Speaker 1: if it was against a guy who owns a bait
Speaker 1: shop down the street from you. You know, I thought
Speaker 1: he might be a spy. This is against a president
Speaker 1: fidential campaign. Now you look at all the other incidents
Speaker 1: and you think to yourself, hold on a second, were
Speaker 1: those intentional as well? But they just knew that they
Speaker 1: could hide behind the facade of poor judgment and stupidity,
Speaker 1: which is what the FBI is offering up as the explanation.
Speaker 1: But remember they have no real explanation for any of this.
Speaker 1: And this is what's going to translate into the assault
Speaker 1: on Attorney General bar It's why you've already seen that
Speaker 1: machinery going. They're going to kavanaugh him. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: get ready for it. But I want to work through
Speaker 1: some more of the points from this Inspector General report,
Speaker 1: because the bottom line is there was spying on the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, it was all based on lies. The process
Speaker 1: was abused to continue the investigation, the investigation was weaponized,
Speaker 1: and yes, there absolutely was bias in this process against
Speaker 1: a political candidate. Can't I just happen to be Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: A Republican? We believe that in the FBI's most sensitive
Speaker 1: and high priority matters, and especially when seeking court permission
Speaker 1: to use an intrusive tool such as a PISA order,
Speaker 1: it's incumbent upon the entire chain of command at the organization,
Speaker 1: including senior officials, to take the necessary steps to ensure
Speaker 1: that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances
Speaker 1: supporting and potentially undermining a PISA application in order to
Speaker 1: provide effective oversight consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility.
Speaker 1: Such oversight requires greater familiarity with the facts than we
Speaker 1: saw in this review, where time and again during our
Speaker 1: OIG interviews, FBI managers, supervisors, and senior officials displayed a
Speaker 1: lack of understanding or awareness of important information concerning many
Speaker 1: of the problems that we identified, and that is why,
Speaker 1: as you will see in the report, our final recommendation
Speaker 1: was to refer the entire chain of command that we
Speaker 1: outline here to the FBI and the Department for consideration
Speaker 1: of how to assess and address their performance failures. They
Speaker 1: screwed up. This is what the Obama appointee IG of
Speaker 1: the FBI is telling you. They screwed up big time.
Speaker 1: There can be no doubt about that. We know this.
Speaker 1: The screwups are mind blowing. This is not small potatoes stuff.
Speaker 1: These are major mess ups in the most major thing
Speaker 1: the FBI was doing at the time. This wasn't just
Speaker 1: some investigation of some drug dealers somewhere where things went
Speaker 1: awry and people, you know, were cutting around the edges
Speaker 1: a little bit. No, No, the most important thing the
Speaker 1: FBI was looking at at the time, and this is
Speaker 1: how they handled it. They have people that just don't
Speaker 1: know any better. They have people that don't know the
Speaker 1: rules and regulations. Remember, they're able to get a FISA
Speaker 1: war and they can get all of your electronic communications,
Speaker 1: everything you do, and anything they find that, by the way,
Speaker 1: that could be criminal they can use against you. This
Speaker 1: is police state tactics. This this is what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: But we just believe the FBI was honorable enough, good enough,
Speaker 1: and smart enough not to abuse that opening for police
Speaker 1: state tactics. That is what they did. They abused it.
Speaker 1: Now we're looking at the why. Here's a way to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of this. Was this standard operating
Speaker 1: procedure for a FIS in terms of the mistakes that
Speaker 1: were made. Because here's how, just like I told you,
Speaker 1: watch how the Clinton Foundation donations will crater after the election,
Speaker 1: and then we will all know that it was all
Speaker 1: just an influence peddling scam. If they were to just
Speaker 1: randomly sample some other FISA cases and see none of
Speaker 1: these kinds of errors in that process, oh, then we'll
Speaker 1: know that these were mistakes that just happened. These were
Speaker 1: all political hits. Those FISA warrants, they were renewed a
Speaker 1: number of times, correct, three times. Based on your experience
Speaker 1: and maybe your report, there's a reason why warrants are renewed.
Speaker 1: They're renewed because they are producing useful information. Correct, or
Speaker 1: they should be producing useful information, they should phrase it,
Speaker 1: and your review of those warrants would indicate that they
Speaker 1: were producing useful information. Correct. I'm not sure that's entirely correct,
Speaker 1: and I don't know how much I can say about
Speaker 1: that in this setting, Well, they were producing information. They
Speaker 1: were producing information. I'm not sure how I would characterize
Speaker 1: whether they were helpful or not. It is tough to
Speaker 1: tell whether Sydney Bloomenthal is just a complete and utter
Speaker 1: buffoon or just so desperate because of the circumstances of
Speaker 1: the Democrats that he's making a fool of himself because
Speaker 1: there's no argument here to be made. He's effectively asking
Speaker 1: the Inspector General in this moment, Hey, I'm sorry Richard Bloomenthaal,
Speaker 1: not Sydney Bloomenthall, thank you. Yeah, because this is Denang.
Speaker 1: Dick got to catch me on that one. This is
Speaker 1: the guy that said he fought in Vietnamin he didn't,
Speaker 1: And I was like, how do you get to how
Speaker 1: do you get You know, Dick comes from Richard, not Sydney.
Speaker 1: So this is a yes, this is Dnang Dick Bloomenthal
Speaker 1: saying sorry about that guy. Sidney Bloomenthal is Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: little henchman who was running around doing stuff and Libya
Speaker 1: got caught up in some of those emails. All right,
Speaker 1: But Bloomenthal here is saying, well, because the FISA warrants
Speaker 1: were renewed. They must have been good FISA warrants. Would
Speaker 1: you ever see a Democrat make this argument about any
Speaker 1: other law enforcement process. Well, because you know, law enforcement
Speaker 1: was wire tapping the suspected terrorist's home, and they did
Speaker 1: it a few times, and there were stuff on the
Speaker 1: wire taps ipso facto ergo, therefore the wire taps must
Speaker 1: have been legitimate. No, no, Dnang Dick, that is not true.
Speaker 1: That is not how this works. That is why we
Speaker 1: have oversight, because there can be government malfeasians. One of
Speaker 1: the more fascinating things that I saw, and this was
Speaker 1: a commonplace theme for years among the defenders of the
Speaker 1: deep state praetorian anti Trump effort in the FBI, one
Speaker 1: of the things you would see are people were former
Speaker 1: national security in some component. You know, they were an
Speaker 1: x NSA lawyer, or they had worked at this or
Speaker 1: that agency, but they hate Trump and they would come
Speaker 1: out and be like, oh, and Asha Rangapa is one
Speaker 1: of the best examples of this over at CNN, and she,
Speaker 1: you know, she's one of these people who's mean on
Speaker 1: Twitter and she's just an idiot, never write about anything,
Speaker 1: but sn's gonna put her on TV. Oh gosh, it,
Speaker 1: please explain things to us. Wrong about everything everything we
Speaker 1: see it. Now, these people are wrong. I've just been
Speaker 1: We've just been going through and land basing tweets that
Speaker 1: were put up by all these experts the last twenty
Speaker 1: five hours. It's so fun because they're just they don't
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about. They're just wrong. But one
Speaker 1: of the ways they got to be so wrong was
Speaker 1: to fall back on something that Libs never would normally do,
Speaker 1: which is to suggest that if the government in a
Speaker 1: law law enforce and capacity is doing something, of course
Speaker 1: you can trust the government. Of course, there's no problem.
Speaker 1: There's no concern here, there's nothing that you should be
Speaker 1: worried about. This is bizarre. Democrats don't usually feel this way.
Speaker 1: Democrats usually think that law enforcement is biased against minorities,
Speaker 1: so it's racist, think that law enforcement is patriarchical, and
Speaker 1: you know, just go on the list of all the
Speaker 1: complaints they usually have about law enforcement. You know, law
Speaker 1: enforcement carries guns. So unless they're unless the Libs are
Speaker 1: calling the shots about who has the guns all the
Speaker 1: time in their way, they don't like that show. Bloomenthal
Speaker 1: has no idea really what's going on the dossier which
Speaker 1: people were defending. I mean, I mentioned before shootout over
Speaker 1: at CNN, who was one of the big dossier defenders
Speaker 1: him and Tapper. I mean, these people, they tried to
Speaker 1: use propaganda and lies to outs to President the United
Speaker 1: States to take him down. You know what could have
Speaker 1: happened in this whole process. Trump could have just said
Speaker 1: I'm done, I'm resigning, I don't want to handle this
Speaker 1: special counsel thing. You know. He could have. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that would have been smarter. He was going to
Speaker 1: but they put so much pressure on him, They tried
Speaker 1: so hard to end this presidency and other people, I
Speaker 1: think a lesser man than Trump, at least somebody with
Speaker 1: less intestinal fortitude, might have considered just drop it out.
Speaker 1: In fact, we were hearing, we used to hear from
Speaker 1: libs he wasn't going to run again, and he doesn't
Speaker 1: even want to do this anymore. He's going to resign
Speaker 1: any day now. The end is near, the walls are
Speaker 1: closing in. We'd hear this all the time. It wasn't true,
Speaker 1: but they would say it. I think some of them,
Speaker 1: probably even I mean Joe Scarborough, perhaps the worst and
Speaker 1: most dishonest political analyst at MSNBC, although no, I can't
Speaker 1: say that there's others that are worse, but he's in
Speaker 1: like the top ten. He was one of them peddling this.
Speaker 1: There are many others as well, none of them, by
Speaker 1: the way, I apologize for any of the misinformation, the lies,
Speaker 1: the inaccuracies, the poor analysis, and I am being I
Speaker 1: am being kind. I wish we could do like a
Speaker 1: late night version of this show where I sit here
Speaker 1: and just have it would only be it would only
Speaker 1: need like three two or three ounce mescal and you
Speaker 1: know I'd be ready to rock. And you know, we
Speaker 1: could do like the salt the salty verbiage version of
Speaker 1: the Buck Sextons show late night. I kind of liked
Speaker 1: that idea. I think that'd be fun. Producer Brandon would
Speaker 1: hang out. I don't think we'd be able to keep
Speaker 1: up with the saltiness of produce user Mark. I mean
Speaker 1: that guy he is, He's a spicy a meat the ball.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that's the thought we have here. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we ever get approval to do it, but
Speaker 1: it would be kind of fun. But when talking about
Speaker 1: this FISA, it would be useful if I could say
Speaker 1: things in a more profane manner sometimes because that's the
Speaker 1: only way to describe some of these people, some of
Speaker 1: the acts they engaged in, some of the individuals. I mean, here,
Speaker 1: for example, is Lindsey Graham just asking the question of Horowitz.
Speaker 1: I mean, how bad is this stuff? How bad was
Speaker 1: this investigation? This spying on a presidential campaign. You've looked
Speaker 1: at all the data, You've looked at everything, we have
Speaker 1: the facts. Now you had all this time to go
Speaker 1: over it. How bad was it all? Please play clip six?
Speaker 1: How would you describe the behavior here of knowing that
Speaker 1: the subsource disavows the docier that was the primary reason
Speaker 1: you got to warrant finding it. A lawyer doctored an
Speaker 1: email to keep the investigation going in a way unfair
Speaker 1: to mister Page. This is not routine. Do you agree
Speaker 1: with that? It is definitely not it is it certainly
Speaker 1: better not be routine. And I don't know any reason
Speaker 1: to think it is routine. Is it kind of off
Speaker 1: the charts? Band? It's pretty bad, thank you? It's pretty bad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't say. And the Libs Democrats are walking around
Speaker 1: and they're they're in this fantasy land of oh, you
Speaker 1: know nothing. Yeah, it says there's a legitimate predicate for
Speaker 1: the investigation. By the way, attorney into a. Bar is
Speaker 1: going to crush that, and they know it. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that in a few minute. That's why they're going
Speaker 1: after the Attorney General, who's my favorite member of the
Speaker 1: cabinet at this point. Although I like my man Pompeo too,
Speaker 1: he's cool. I don't know. It's Hulk versus thing, Pompeo
Speaker 1: versus Bar. Those are my two with two dudes, my brose,
Speaker 1: but Bar is going to crush their last respite here
Speaker 1: of the never Trump dead enders in this Russia collusion
Speaker 1: situation or this anti Trump really not just never Trump,
Speaker 1: these anti Trump dead enders in Russia Clusian situation is
Speaker 1: that well, it was bad, but it was done in
Speaker 1: good faith. That's not true. This is why I started
Speaker 1: out with the most clear evidence we have that it
Speaker 1: wasn't done in good faith. Oh and speaking of the
Speaker 1: lack of good faith in all of this, here's an
Speaker 1: interesting part of this as well. Senator Kennedy asked the
Speaker 1: Inspector General about the people who were involved in this,
Speaker 1: the people that were making all of these decisions and
Speaker 1: determinations about whether to get a Fiz or warrant whether
Speaker 1: to open crossfire hurricane on George Papadopoulis, and they didn't
Speaker 1: shut it down when they had George Popadopoulis with informants
Speaker 1: talking to him being monitored in real time. I mean
Speaker 1: they were running people in spying operations against them, being like, no,
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and coordinated with Russia. That was seem
Speaker 1: to be an important little tidbit that would seem you know,
Speaker 1: if someone thinks that they're speaking to a perhaps a
Speaker 1: co conspirator or somebody they can co opt, or somebody
Speaker 1: that you know is certainly not paying monitored by law enforcement,
Speaker 1: and they're like, no, I would never do That's crazy,
Speaker 1: you think the FBI, But they didn't take notice of that.
Speaker 1: How do they get together this group of idiotic misfits
Speaker 1: at the FBI who would make so many mistakes, mistakes
Speaker 1: that all go in the same direction, mistakes that are
Speaker 1: damaging to Trump. How do they bring together this group
Speaker 1: of FBI idiot avengers. Let's hear from the Inspector General.
Speaker 1: Please play clip four. They knew the law. They should
Speaker 1: have not only known the law, they should have done
Speaker 1: every single policy that they had to deal with. You
Speaker 1: I mean they were handpicked by mister McKay right, they
Speaker 1: were hand picked. Okay, this wasn't their first rodeo. It
Speaker 1: certainly wasn't, with maybe an exception or two towards the
Speaker 1: end of relatively new agents coming on board. Well, but
Speaker 1: that that is, it should not have been an excuse.
Speaker 1: Just pretty clear. Well, it just seems to me that
Speaker 1: it has to be one or two things, either incompetence
Speaker 1: or intentional conduct. I agree, it's either sheer incompetence, intentionally
Speaker 1: or something perhaps in between. We've got so many different
Speaker 1: people here. It's first of all, wouldn't be fair to
Speaker 1: lump everybody into one because there are different actors coming
Speaker 1: in at different times. Some people have more touches of
Speaker 1: this than others. I think it's fair for people to
Speaker 1: sit there and look at all of these seventeen events
Speaker 1: and wonder how it could be purely incompetence. It's gotta
Speaker 1: be fixed. At a minimum, somebody's gotta be fired. Yeah, agreed, completely.
Speaker 1: It's gotta be a changing the culture. Also, I think
Speaker 1: Inspector General is basically saying, look, uh, you know, come
Speaker 1: at us, because we deserve it. Man, this is a
Speaker 1: disaster for the FBI a disaster, and he said there
Speaker 1: that it's an understandable why people wouldn't think that all
Speaker 1: these mistakes, So it's not a conspiracy the people the
Speaker 1: media running around. Oh but the IG said that there
Speaker 1: was a legitimate predicate and that there was no bias. No,
Speaker 1: he didn't find definitive proof of bias. But how often
Speaker 1: do you ever find definitive proof of bias. These are
Speaker 1: the same morons who run around saying that any judge
Speaker 1: who doesn't give them what they want is obviously like
Speaker 1: doing Trump's bidding. The Attorney General is doing Trump's bidding.
Speaker 1: Can't trust those people to be nonpartisan just because the
Speaker 1: outcomes are things that the Libs don't like. Bring this back, though,
Speaker 1: for a moment, to the notion of the handpicked FBI team,
Speaker 1: the best of the best. You know, this is the
Speaker 1: fantastic four, or however many there were of FBI agents
Speaker 1: and investigators who pulled them altogether. Annie McCabe, who assigned
Speaker 1: these individuals, who would have known not just from professional
Speaker 1: interaction but personal interaction, the political predilections, the political proclivities
Speaker 1: of these individuals. Annie McCabe, who had a wife that
Speaker 1: was running as a Democrat and got a lot of
Speaker 1: money from Terry mcculluff's DNC and right around the time,
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff. That's right as Annie McCabe, isn't
Speaker 1: it who lied lied under penalty of perjury during during
Speaker 1: FBIDO J investigations of this whole situation and has been
Speaker 1: referred for criminal prosecution. Former acting FBI Director Annie McCabe
Speaker 1: lied about leaking to the press and then had the
Speaker 1: unbelievable gaul to yell at some subordinates about how they
Speaker 1: were leaking to the press. That's who that guy is.
Speaker 1: Kind of sociopath, does that? Oh? Somebody who still thinks
Speaker 1: James Comey's a good guy. McCabe is like little mini
Speaker 1: me Comey. Oh, whatever Colemy does is great. Everybody in
Speaker 1: the FBI was crying when Comy had to go. McCabe
Speaker 1: had a deep personal affinity and professional linkage to Comey.
Speaker 1: He was his protege, which, by the way, I don't
Speaker 1: even need to know any of that other stuff. Anybody
Speaker 1: who's Comy's protege is radioactive, toxic as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 1: not to be trusted, not to be listened to. And
Speaker 1: yet McCabe was the one who pulled together all these individuals,
Speaker 1: including a number of individuals that we have text messages
Speaker 1: of that show any person who can read and think
Speaker 1: that they were deeply anti Trump. So a severely anti
Speaker 1: Trump now disgraced former FBI director with close ties to
Speaker 1: James Comey, who was fired by Trump and who had
Speaker 1: a personal vendetta against Trump, that same individual pulls together
Speaker 1: exactly who works on this case. Where they are all
Speaker 1: of these mistakes, egregious mistakes that undermine the very integrity
Speaker 1: and public reputation of the FBI, including a mistake that
Speaker 1: wasn't such, it was in fact intentional, the fabrication of evidence,
Speaker 1: a criminal act, all against a presidential campaign intelection year,
Speaker 1: and we are supposed to believe that it's just the
Speaker 1: way the dice landed, that all this happened. There's no conspiracy.
Speaker 1: I mean, if this was a mob case, you'd look
Speaker 1: at all this and say, oh, there's a conspiracy here.
Speaker 1: But they just keep telling you, they keep lying to you.
Speaker 1: They'll just make it all disappear, law go away. Oh
Speaker 1: that's why they're transitioning into impeachment. Some of us have
Speaker 1: been saying this all along. I was on Brett Bear
Speaker 1: Show almost two months ago, and I said, I think
Speaker 1: that their roleing with this impeachment thing now, even though
Speaker 1: it's a desperate hail Mary looking kind of impeachment, because one,
Speaker 1: they just need to impeach this president because the left
Speaker 1: wing base is insane and demands it. And two they're
Speaker 1: gonna need something else to They got to move into
Speaker 1: something else right away when this Inspector General report comes out,
Speaker 1: because this looks terrible, and the press, the lackeys, the
Speaker 1: people that are going to be telling you in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty that Elizabeth Warren isn't a fraud, that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: isn't an idiot, and that Bernie Sanders isn't a communist.
Speaker 1: They're the same people who have been telling you for
Speaker 1: three years that Russia Trump collusion was real, the FBI
Speaker 1: did its job, and Trump and the people around him
Speaker 1: are traitors. Same people, folks, You want to believe them?
Speaker 1: You know, that's that's on the people foolish enough to
Speaker 1: buy into any of that handpicked team of anti trumpers
Speaker 1: buy McCabe, and we are we are supposed to think
Speaker 1: somehow that has just happened the way that it did,
Speaker 1: that there was nothing more insidious going on than that.
Speaker 1: The FBI with the best of the best, that's what
Speaker 1: this was supposed to be. What you're spying on a
Speaker 1: presidential campaign. They knew exactly what they were doing. They
Speaker 1: used a briefing to get close to the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: The FBI used a briefing close the Trump campaign to
Speaker 1: try and prod for information to use against the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: They use their access as FBI agents supposed to be
Speaker 1: protecting a possible incoming administration, they used that access, or
Speaker 1: rather the incoming in administration to try and undermine them.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is nuclear meltdown level bad
Speaker 1: from the FBI, and there's political bias all over it.
Speaker 1: Media wants to just say, well, you can't prove everything here,
Speaker 1: can you. I understand you want to do whatever you
Speaker 1: have to do to keep your family safe and secure.
Speaker 1: But there's one thing that can feel a little strange
Speaker 1: and maybe you don't want to deal with it. Life insurance.
Speaker 1: First time I had to deal with life insurance, I
Speaker 1: was in my twenties. I was deploying overseas and I figured, well,
Speaker 1: I've got to do the responsible thing and take out
Speaker 1: a policy in case the unexpected happens, so you need
Speaker 1: to do the same to make sure your family is
Speaker 1: safe facing an uncertain future. And that's why I want
Speaker 1: you to check out my friends at Ethos Life Insurance.
Speaker 1: You see, with Ethos there's no hassle. It's modern life
Speaker 1: insurance for people who don't want to waste a lot
Speaker 1: of time and detailed contracts and people that are trying
Speaker 1: to oversell them something ethos Is approach is simple. They
Speaker 1: just take technology, industry expertise and a human touch to
Speaker 1: find the right policy for your budget. Only takes about
Speaker 1: ten nights and you can make sure your family has
Speaker 1: the financial security they need. Get a fast, free and
Speaker 1: personalized quote right now at Ethoslife dot com. Again that's
Speaker 1: Ethos Life. Here's the question that I'm struggling with, which
Speaker 1: is worse. Is it worse to have a foreign government
Speaker 1: trying to meddle in our elections or is it worst
Speaker 1: to have our own government meddling in the election? Because
Speaker 1: that's I think exactly what this report shows. It shows
Speaker 1: that our government, the most powerful law enforcement agency in
Speaker 1: the nation, the FBI, effectively meddled in an ongoing presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: And the thing that gets me is you expect it
Speaker 1: from foreign governments. I'm not saying it's good, but I'm
Speaker 1: saying that you expect it. They've been doing it for years.
Speaker 1: Russia has been doing it for years. We know they
Speaker 1: tried to do it this last cycle. China has been
Speaker 1: doing it. Others have been doing it, and we know
Speaker 1: what steps to take. We've got to take them more effectively.
Speaker 1: But when our own government does it, how can the
Speaker 1: American people have confidence? And what do we do? I mean,
Speaker 1: what do we do? And there's one actor here I
Speaker 1: think who has not gotten the credit that they collectively deserve,
Speaker 1: and that's the Democrat National Committee. I just think, you know,
Speaker 1: I've heard my friends on the other side of the
Speaker 1: I'll complain about Hillary Clinton's campaign and how ineffective it was,
Speaker 1: and how the DNC did to do a good job
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. I beg to differ. This is the
Speaker 1: most incredible. The DNC pays for the steel dossier, solicits
Speaker 1: the steel dossier, and then gets the Federal Bureau of
Speaker 1: Investigation to go get FISA warrants, surveil an American citizen,
Speaker 1: surveil a presidential campaign, all on the basis of this
Speaker 1: manufactured garbage that they paid for. I mean, that's extraordinary.
Speaker 1: I think Holly makes a good point there, everybody. I
Speaker 1: also think that we forget even if the deep state
Speaker 1: conspiracy did not manage to destroy the Trump presidency, it
Speaker 1: has been a massive hindrance to it. It has slowed
Speaker 1: it down. It has bogged it down in the nonsense
Speaker 1: of the process of the Mueller probe and everything else.
Speaker 1: And it's almost like people don't realize the countries at
Speaker 1: a time of relative peace and booming prosperity. Let's get
Speaker 1: to our friend David Harsani. He's got a piece up
Speaker 1: on National Review. The Obama administrations abuse is a massive scandal. David.
Speaker 1: Great to be back. Always a pleasure, Thank you, all right, man.
Speaker 1: I mean I have had people I spoke to it.
Speaker 1: Unnamed Democrat who goes on TV a lot of Fox.
Speaker 1: It's basically like, yeah, stop, really, you know, some mistakes
Speaker 1: are made, not a big deal. And I look at
Speaker 1: people now who say this. There are a lot who
Speaker 1: I think for professional reasons, they're just they're just pretending
Speaker 1: that reality isn't what it is. But give me your
Speaker 1: case for why. I mean, you and I agree on this.
Speaker 1: This is a huge deal. This is not a small deal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, the reality is that that Democrats don't have
Speaker 1: to worry very much because the press is not going
Speaker 1: to treat it as the massive scandal it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we if I hate to even frame it this way,
Speaker 1: but it is really no better way to do it.
Speaker 1: If if George Bush had used the FBI in this
Speaker 1: kind of way to spy on the Obama campaign, it
Speaker 1: would it would be the biggest story of the of
Speaker 1: the century. It would Washington would have melted down. You
Speaker 1: know you, I mean, you have a dossier that's made
Speaker 1: that's completely just fabricated stuff. Some of it may be
Speaker 1: coming from aren you know, intel from foreign sources. Disinformation.
Speaker 1: Let's just say it's disinformation, right. You use that it's
Speaker 1: the essential ingredient for you to get warrants from a
Speaker 1: court that already gives warrants to pent of people who
Speaker 1: ask to what I'm saying. You're lying to a court
Speaker 1: that will basically give anyone of warrant who wants one
Speaker 1: good point. What does that tell you? And then you know,
Speaker 1: you open this investigation, which it seems to me that
Speaker 1: it's very easy to do. Low, I forgot I forgot
Speaker 1: what the terminology was. But anyway, but to propel it,
Speaker 1: you need to continue to lie. And you know, I
Speaker 1: can't even believe people aren't calling for an investigation. This
Speaker 1: is just a massive deal. And I mean, just can
Speaker 1: I just add, David, I mean, you're talking about the
Speaker 1: low the low predicate for opening investigation. I told again
Speaker 1: one of these democrats, I talked to you over at
Speaker 1: Fox the other day by the FBI standards, and I
Speaker 1: was telling her that I was serious. I could open
Speaker 1: a FIZ on you speaking to her, I mean, I
Speaker 1: could open a FIES on anyone, right, And then you know,
Speaker 1: they pretend that that there was some high threshold to
Speaker 1: get this thing moving. But if that had been the case,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have needed the dossier. They wouldn't have fabricated evidence,
Speaker 1: is what they did and changed emails. What could possibly
Speaker 1: about I asked this at the top of the show.
Speaker 1: What could possibly be the justification for that? I mean,
Speaker 1: you're an FBI guy. These are all hand picked people
Speaker 1: by McKay. We've already had that testified to by the IG.
Speaker 1: How could anyone looking at this understanding that they are
Speaker 1: playing with the most politically fiscile material imaginable here within
Speaker 1: the FBI, and you're going to fabric you're gonna lie
Speaker 1: about evidence in writing people tell me, I mean I
Speaker 1: saw someone who used to be like a libertarian type,
Speaker 1: you know, who used to be very concerned about FISA
Speaker 1: warrants and the METADAT and all that stuff, saying, ah,
Speaker 1: you know, definitely, the FBI sort of screwed up here.
Speaker 1: Seventeen times they screwed up in the skewing in the
Speaker 1: same direction in the same case. Now, obviously you have
Speaker 1: prosecutors sometimes who do what they have to do, unfortunately
Speaker 1: to push a case. But you're talking about one administration
Speaker 1: which runs a dj and the FBI spying. You know,
Speaker 1: it's an independent Oregon but it's still under in that
Speaker 1: administration spying on the other opposing party, and it's in
Speaker 1: a democratic during an election. I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just I think it's it's a huge scandal, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know the way the media treats it, and they
Speaker 1: have really no choice because they can back away that
Speaker 1: it's so many of them said this was nothing that
Speaker 1: for them now to turn around and make it into
Speaker 1: a big deal. They can't even do it. If they
Speaker 1: wanted to what do you think the tone is? Like?
Speaker 1: I mean I used to sit around and hear them
Speaker 1: at CNN in the different editorial meetings talking about things sometimes.
Speaker 1: What do you think places like that? Are they just complete,
Speaker 1: completely bereft of any introspection over their role in all
Speaker 1: of this, you know, I mean, does does does my
Speaker 1: favorite over there, Jake Tapper, still think that he's a
Speaker 1: really honest and series journalist with no extra grind against anybody?
Speaker 1: I mean, how does this? How does this actually continue on? Well?
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously we both know people can fool themselves
Speaker 1: into believing things, especially when it comes to politics and
Speaker 1: it becomes tribal. And I think CNN, you know, not
Speaker 1: particularly anyone there, but just in general, that channel has
Speaker 1: positioned itself to serve the anti Trump. For them to
Speaker 1: turn around now and then help Trump to talk about
Speaker 1: this story in a real, in an honest way is
Speaker 1: just not going to happen. So everything probably just remains
Speaker 1: the way it is. But the excuses that they've given,
Speaker 1: and when you go back and read these stories about
Speaker 1: the Devin noon Az memo and all of the mockery
Speaker 1: that went on, would meanwhile, he was right about everything
Speaker 1: pertaining to the pertaining to the FISA warrants. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: I'm weren't there members of Congress who were saying that
Speaker 1: he needs to step down. He can't be the you know,
Speaker 1: he can't be on the on the intelligence community anymore.
Speaker 1: He said, they say this about everybody, They say people
Speaker 1: are Trump stooges, and the show called Trump's Huges it
Speaker 1: turns out are correct, right. I mean, I I don't
Speaker 1: remember how this went, but I went back and I
Speaker 1: was proud of myself for writing that we should just
Speaker 1: at least listen to the memo before we dismissed this guy,
Speaker 1: because it seems plausible what he's saying. But you know,
Speaker 1: this is when I still believe that, you know, there
Speaker 1: were straight reporters doing good work, and you know, places
Speaker 1: like at the Washington Post sometimes. But anyway, um, do
Speaker 1: you think that's not the case anymore? About this stuff?
Speaker 1: Oh about this stuff. I was going to actually write
Speaker 1: something about this. I mean, I can't even open that
Speaker 1: newspaper and believe anything anymore. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: to be like, you know, or you know, kind of
Speaker 1: a jerk about them. I don't know that I can
Speaker 1: believe what they're reporting about the presidency or the White
Speaker 1: House in any way anymore, because two years from now
Speaker 1: it might turn out to be false. So sometimes I'm
Speaker 1: actually upset at Trump and I'm like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: this might not even be true at all. And that's
Speaker 1: I think, how a lot of people feel about the media.
Speaker 1: So it feels to me like there's absolutely no accountability
Speaker 1: whatsoever for the people that got this incredibly wrong the
Speaker 1: whole time. I mean correct, did anyone run a correction?
Speaker 1: Did anyone think back the story? But it's a giant
Speaker 1: story about that that swears that the parts of the uh,
Speaker 1: the dossi are true and so far than so on
Speaker 1: that No, no correction, nothing, just move forward with nothing nothing.
Speaker 1: I also think it's not worthy that none of the
Speaker 1: journalists seem to have any I mean, maybe this would
Speaker 1: be happening behind closed doors, but you haven't heard about
Speaker 1: any blowback that a lot of these journalists, assuming they
Speaker 1: were not And I'll I mean, I think I'll give
Speaker 1: them this. I don't think they were entirely fabricating their
Speaker 1: government sources, because they just put them on the payroll,
Speaker 1: you know, they put Clapper and Brandon and these people
Speaker 1: on the payroll. So it's not like it's hard for
Speaker 1: them to find, you know, a high level government source
Speaker 1: to speak to them about these things. But their sources
Speaker 1: had to be lying to them. Well, I mean yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean we knew this in the middle of you know,
Speaker 1: at the beginning, because you had like CNN reporters in
Speaker 1: Washington Post reporters peddling things that turned out to be
Speaker 1: untrue very quickly we learned. And yet clearly they were
Speaker 1: going back to the same sources. I forget which reporter
Speaker 1: was one of the reporters that they might be. A
Speaker 1: CNN reporter had supposedly two sources telling him something completely wrong,
Speaker 1: the same exact wrong thing it was about about an email.
Speaker 1: I forget exactly what it was about. But clearly, you know,
Speaker 1: they don't blow their sources after they get screwed like that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's crazy. You have no reason to
Speaker 1: protect sources that undermine you in that way, and they
Speaker 1: just kept going back to them. Guys, We're gonna come
Speaker 1: back and talk to David in a second about Times
Speaker 1: Person of the Year and also this Trump policy meant
Speaker 1: to protect the Jewish community in this country, will be back,
Speaker 1: all right, we're back with our friend David Harsani here,
Speaker 1: and I just David the President. Look, I think the
Speaker 1: presidents tweets sometimes are sometimes I'm not a fan, but
Speaker 1: sometimes they're amazing. And he tweeted out this morning about
Speaker 1: about Greta. I'm trying to find the exact verbiage here,
Speaker 1: but he tweeted out about Gretteth Thunberg that she basically
Speaker 1: needs she needs to chill and go, like, hang out
Speaker 1: with some friends and see a movie. You have written
Speaker 1: on the Greteth Thunberg thing. And I just note that
Speaker 1: even people that I think are sometimes somewhat reasonable about
Speaker 1: in the media, they buy into this, Oh you can't
Speaker 1: you basically can't say anyone quite a Thumberg. Girls. People
Speaker 1: jump down your throat and say you're a bad person,
Speaker 1: who's who's bashing kids. What do you say about this situation? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know it's my colleague Charles Cook put
Speaker 1: it well when he said that you can't be both
Speaker 1: the shield and the sword, meaning you know, you can't
Speaker 1: use this person to, you know, smite all the terrible
Speaker 1: people and then stand behind her and not allow anyone
Speaker 1: to react to it. So I think there's a you know,
Speaker 1: there's a way to talk about children who are used
Speaker 1: by the by the way, I mean, I think her
Speaker 1: parents and the producers and new and officials and all
Speaker 1: the people will give her money, they are abusing this child.
Speaker 1: That's what I think. I don't blame her. So I
Speaker 1: think the way you talk about it is you don't
Speaker 1: mock her, but you mock her ridiculous ideas, because she's
Speaker 1: a ridiculous person, not the girl, just the idea of her.
Speaker 1: And you know, she's just mimicking things that other people
Speaker 1: have told her. So I mean to make her person
Speaker 1: of the year, she has literally done. And I went
Speaker 1: through all the Persons of the Year going back to
Speaker 1: the twenties or ever it started, and I had to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'd admit that time actually did a very good job,
Speaker 1: and mostly in picking people that actually molded the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: you know. And it's just really kind of impressive in
Speaker 1: a way to look at it, and then you have this.
Speaker 1: It just shows how unserious the media is and how
Speaker 1: unserious many of us are about the world these days.
Speaker 1: It's just stuff, the clown show. I mean, here CNN
Speaker 1: has their headline about this this morning, is Trump again?
Speaker 1: Mack's teen climate activist Greta Thunberg. I mean, I really,
Speaker 1: I really got to say that to any adult who
Speaker 1: listens to this girl, I think it's fair to question
Speaker 1: certainly their judgment and maybe their intelligence. Well, I mean
Speaker 1: they tell us I have to. You know, they keep
Speaker 1: saying take her seriously. So when I do take her
Speaker 1: seriously and I write about the idiotic things she says,
Speaker 1: you know, I am. You know, I get a text
Speaker 1: for being triggered by a good girl. I mean, you
Speaker 1: can not have it both ways. The same thing goes
Speaker 1: for that David Hogg or whatever is I don't pronounce. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they tried the same thing with him. I remember that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so he is allowed to basically call gun owners terrorists
Speaker 1: and murderers, but no one is allowed to react to
Speaker 1: this sort of thing. It's just ridiculous, and her her
Speaker 1: being on the covers ridiculous, especially in a year where
Speaker 1: you have young people in Hong Kong fighting for freedom
Speaker 1: and then you put this girl who was in a
Speaker 1: million dollars sailing yacht going across the ocean to the
Speaker 1: UN as a Person of the Year. It's just it
Speaker 1: shows that the media is who disconnected from history in
Speaker 1: in a really serious way. But again, I mean, David,
Speaker 1: you know you've worked at some major media outlets that
Speaker 1: have you know, actual liberals working at them. What is
Speaker 1: your what is your take on the people that put
Speaker 1: her on this platform? I mean, I remember during the
Speaker 1: UN Summit or whatever it was, you know, she was
Speaker 1: on CNN, was running story after story about her, all
Speaker 1: these different major outlets, Times, the Post are what are
Speaker 1: they thinking? I mean, I really mean, it's what what
Speaker 1: is wrong with these adults? I don't know. I mean
Speaker 1: I think they're siloed, you know, and with people who
Speaker 1: think just like them. They don't really they're not critical.
Speaker 1: They tend not to be critical thinkers. And I think
Speaker 1: that's something we all suffered with some extent. We need
Speaker 1: to look at the things that we believe and give
Speaker 1: them a good thorough you know, intellectual you know. Look,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that that happens at all in
Speaker 1: these institutions. And I think then they just see conservatives
Speaker 1: as evil people or dumb people, and anything they believe conservatives,
Speaker 1: you know, liberals quickly just to reflexively, perfunctorily push back
Speaker 1: against and think is stupid. So that to them, this
Speaker 1: because they believe in this climate apocalyptic climate change theory
Speaker 1: as if it were a religion to them. This is
Speaker 1: Joan of Arc. Basically, yeah, Greta must work on her
Speaker 1: anger management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie.
Speaker 1: What they friend, Chill, Greta chill is what Trump treated
Speaker 1: out this. Now, let me quickly say, I don't like
Speaker 1: teenagers yelling at me and telling me what to do,
Speaker 1: because that's smart. So I'm not mocking her for her
Speaker 1: problem or anything like that. But she has no basis
Speaker 1: to tell me how to live my life. She doesn't
Speaker 1: know anything. She's you know, I'm sorry to say, a
Speaker 1: high school drop out of his parents let her play
Speaker 1: act saint. I have it a zero interest in listening
Speaker 1: to what she has to say. Yeah, I've been saying
Speaker 1: this too. It does remind me. It's it's almost like
Speaker 1: some of the some of the religious groups and some
Speaker 1: of these societies where they were where they revere, you know,
Speaker 1: a child as God king, because you know, that's how
Speaker 1: the dynasty works. And that's what this is. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the elevation of a as you said, not
Speaker 1: even finished high school kid into some kind of global profit.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's just it's on its face, it's completely absurd.
Speaker 1: Can you tell me what, David, what happened here with
Speaker 1: this executive order? And there's all this pushback on Trump
Speaker 1: signing an executive order meant to protect the Jewish community.
Speaker 1: I haven't dug into this that much, but I've been
Speaker 1: seeing some chatter. What can you tell us? Well, initially
Speaker 1: it was reported by the New York Times incorrectly. It
Speaker 1: turns out that he was going to sign this order
Speaker 1: protecting college kids from anti Semitic movements and things like that.
Speaker 1: It's kind of yeah, so the BDAS, but in general,
Speaker 1: it would have re categorized Judaism as a nationality. Then
Speaker 1: this of course upset a lot of people, especially Israel
Speaker 1: haters who don't want to think of Judaism in that way.
Speaker 1: But it was wrong to begin with. That was just
Speaker 1: a language from the Obama era that was used as
Speaker 1: a way because religion, I think, is not part of
Speaker 1: title whatever it is and colleges, so you know, they
Speaker 1: used that kind of language just to make sure they
Speaker 1: can put Judaism under protection. It isn't like anything, Majors.
Speaker 1: But of course people start freaking out and actually comparing
Speaker 1: Trump to Hitler and Stalin because those people also had
Speaker 1: categorized Judaism as nation as a nation, which is actually wrong,
Speaker 1: and especially Hitler's case, it was more of a racial thing.
Speaker 1: But just nonsense and ridiculous pushback to Trump, who has
Speaker 1: been an immense friend to the Jewish people in my opinion,
Speaker 1: for all the bad things that I think he might
Speaker 1: have done, that is the great one of the greatest
Speaker 1: things I think he's done. And it was just typical,
Speaker 1: you know, just if Trump does it, it must be bad,
Speaker 1: like they have to find a way to make it bad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean everything he does, he brings, you know, makes
Speaker 1: Jerusalem the embassy, brings the embassy to Jerusalem, and everyone
Speaker 1: shouts about how that is actually anti submitted because more
Speaker 1: people are going to be mad at Jerus. I mean,
Speaker 1: imagine living your life like that. It's just it's not
Speaker 1: it's not a way that we would talk about any
Speaker 1: other people. But when it comes to Trump, everything he
Speaker 1: does is bad. It's just it's really kind of corrosive
Speaker 1: to any kind of debate or you know, or discussion
Speaker 1: or reporting everything. It's just the craziest it's ever been. David.
Speaker 1: It's just the craziest it's ever been. Yes, I think
Speaker 1: obviously it's the crazy. I once wrote a column about
Speaker 1: how if you had told me when I was fifteen
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump would be president and you know Bill
Speaker 1: Cosby would be in prison for rape and you know
Speaker 1: OJ was a murderer, I would not believe you. But
Speaker 1: but as far as politics goes, it's just it's just
Speaker 1: absolutely nuts. Some days I'm like, this is the best,
Speaker 1: this is so entertaining. And some days I'm like, I
Speaker 1: can't believe this is you know, this is the nation.
Speaker 1: That's the way I feel that. I like, what a
Speaker 1: time to be alive, and especially at time to be
Speaker 1: writing about him working in politics like we have. This
Speaker 1: is the most entertaining president in the history of the
Speaker 1: United States, in the history of the world. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's no one else who even comes close. See when
Speaker 1: he became president, I'm like, God, this he's a nut
Speaker 1: and this is going to be crazy. But then what
Speaker 1: he did was he showed us I'm not saying he's
Speaker 1: not a nut, but he showed us that everyone else
Speaker 1: are all said they're all nuts as well. Like you know,
Speaker 1: when I see someone like Adam Schiff running government, I'm like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, we are You know, these people are
Speaker 1: not serious and no more serious than Donald Trump. They
Speaker 1: just act in a way, you know, they act put
Speaker 1: they put on errors, but they're all they're all clowns.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely true, everybody. David Harsan, he check out his
Speaker 1: ladies at National Review dot com. He's got a piece
Speaker 1: there about how the fives of use is a massive scandal.
Speaker 1: David does great work. David, thanks so much for joining us,
Speaker 1: my friend. We'll talk soon anytime. Thank you. The Crossfire
Speaker 1: Hurricane team obtained information from Steele's primary subsource in January
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen that raised significant questions about the reliability of
Speaker 1: the Steel reporting. This was particularly noteworthy because the files
Speaker 1: the applications delied entirely on information from the Steel from
Speaker 1: sorry from the primary subsources reporting to support the allegation
Speaker 1: that Paige was coordinating with the Russian government on twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen US presidential election activities. However, the FBI did not
Speaker 1: share this information with department lawyers, and it was therefore
Speaker 1: omitted from the last two renewal applications. Let me unpack
Speaker 1: this for a second, and we mentioned this with David before,
Speaker 1: but this are just these are important things. And look,
Speaker 1: I want you to be able to listen to this
Speaker 1: show and know every point you need to know, so
Speaker 1: that when some lib comes up to you and says,
Speaker 1: Dacier might be kind of true, you're like, actually one, two, three,
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt, represent checkmate, You're Donzo. So that's one of
Speaker 1: my goals here is that you listen to this show
Speaker 1: and you'll know everything you need to know, so that
Speaker 1: not only you're aware of the truth, but also if
Speaker 1: you come up against somebody who still believes in the
Speaker 1: lies and still believes the dossier, for example, was founded
Speaker 1: in anything other than fantasy, opposition research and disinformation Russian
Speaker 1: Disinformatzia Disinformatzia like the Informatzia I would be a great
Speaker 1: name of, like a really ironic Williamsburg band, you know,
Speaker 1: the Disinformatzia. I think that would kind of be cool. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the Phiso situation here gets even sketch here, because what
Speaker 1: he's telling you is that there's the Steel dossier, right,
Speaker 1: This guy Steel, paid by the DNC, by Hilary's DNC,
Speaker 1: by her campaign, paid to hold together this stuff on Trump.
Speaker 1: This guy who says that he felt an urgent need
Speaker 1: to stop Trump from being president the United States. He
Speaker 1: goes around, he talks a bunch of people. He's got
Speaker 1: these sources. It's just gossip. It's there's no verification, there's nothing.
Speaker 1: He's just yeah, I know people. I know some Russian dude,
Speaker 1: some Ukrainian dudes. Whatever, We'll talk to them. And after
Speaker 1: they had gotten the FISA opened up on carter page,
Speaker 1: they go for renewal and it comes up that guess
Speaker 1: what one of the And this is where it's a
Speaker 1: little bit there's a little bit of a dodge that
Speaker 1: liberals will use here, a little bit of a game
Speaker 1: that it's not. They found that the dossier itself in
Speaker 1: this way was entirely refuted, although it is refuted, but
Speaker 1: that there was a subsource, a primary subsource of the dossier.
Speaker 1: So one of the main people giving information for the
Speaker 1: dossier told them in January twenty seventeen, Yeah, the dossier's
Speaker 1: probably all crep. Dossier's probably not something that guys should
Speaker 1: rely on. And they left that out to get a fire,
Speaker 1: to get fies and renewals. That's not that's not the
Speaker 1: kind of neglect you can explain by people being dumb
Speaker 1: or ignorant or lazy. That's intentional. That was done for
Speaker 1: a reason. And it also goes to the entirety of
Speaker 1: the dossier was a lie. I mean, they're what you
Speaker 1: have here is investigation built on lies and then perpetuated
Speaker 1: with more lies. And now they tell us well, because
Speaker 1: everybody was too stupid to know any of those lies
Speaker 1: were lies when they happened, there's really not a huge
Speaker 1: problem here. No, it's an enormous problem. I don't think
Speaker 1: they're for right thinking people, for intelligent human beings in
Speaker 1: this country. I don't think the reputation of the FBI
Speaker 1: feel you asked for a miracle. I give you the
Speaker 1: f B. I the greatest Christmas movie of all time? Barnin, Barnin,
Speaker 1: don't don't give me your Christmas story and your miracle
Speaker 1: on goal On you know, Dirty Third Street or whatever
Speaker 1: you know. No, sorry, we all know what the greatest
Speaker 1: Christmas movie of all time is. Come out to the coast,
Speaker 1: have a few laughs. You remember, you guys all know
Speaker 1: I'm gonna watch this year. I'm gonna watch it, probably
Speaker 1: with my brothers. This is what we should do on
Speaker 1: Christmas Day, have a viewing of Die Hard. So the
Speaker 1: dossier was a central source for the dossier, proved that
Speaker 1: the dossier was crap, essentially another way of saying the
Speaker 1: dossier was crap. And by the way, they hid that
Speaker 1: from the FISA court. So I think that that's an
Speaker 1: important part of all this street or No, But now
Speaker 1: I gotta move now because I know we've we've gotten
Speaker 1: deep on this stuff. But this is now forward looking.
Speaker 1: This is where all of this is going because it's
Speaker 1: not over yet. It's not over yet. Libs, Sorry, we're
Speaker 1: not done with you, because this attorney general understands exactly
Speaker 1: what the liberals have tried to do here, what the
Speaker 1: Libs have been up to. He knows, and he is
Speaker 1: the single greatest threat to the democratic establishment right now
Speaker 1: other than Donald Trump himself. Attorney General bar They're going
Speaker 1: to come at him with everything they have because he
Speaker 1: also has one of the finest prosecutors and they've all
Speaker 1: everyone has known this for a long time. Durham is
Speaker 1: a fair prosecutor. There has been no there was no
Speaker 1: deviation from that until oh wait a second, he's been
Speaker 1: appointed to look at the origins of the entire Russia
Speaker 1: collusion conspiracy. Oh no, we don't know if we can
Speaker 1: trust this guy. Oh no, he's a partisan tool. Now,
Speaker 1: this is what they're going to be saying. They're going
Speaker 1: to have to undermine bar and Durham. Durham will be
Speaker 1: a little tougher because he doesn't really play politics. They've
Speaker 1: already objected, though, to the statement from Durham's office. They've said, Oh,
Speaker 1: something must have happened now all of a sudden, Durham
Speaker 1: isn't the ethical fellow that everybody has known him to
Speaker 1: be for all of those years. Something must have happened,
Speaker 1: something must have changed. You have Dick Durbin, for example,
Speaker 1: going after Attorney General Producer Brandon, can you please play
Speaker 1: clip eleven at your convenience? This Attorney General, William P. Barr,
Speaker 1: has become a partisan tool of this administration. When he
Speaker 1: aspired to this office, he told all of us face
Speaker 1: to face, I want to stand up for the integrity
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. I want to make sure we have
Speaker 1: someone there who is going to stand up for the
Speaker 1: rule of law. And look what we have now. He
Speaker 1: is critical of an inspector General widely respected. He is
Speaker 1: critical of the FBI, for goodness sakes, an investigative agency
Speaker 1: that his department depends on and he's pursuing these wild
Speaker 1: eyed conspiracy theories traveling to Italy and other places with
Speaker 1: mister Durham. I mean, I'm afraid mister Barr's credibility is
Speaker 1: zero at this point. Nice try Durban. We know exactly
Speaker 1: what you're trying to pull here. I know what you're
Speaker 1: trying to do, and I don't like it. Critical of
Speaker 1: the FB. The FBI is critical of the FBI. Durban,
Speaker 1: You imbecile. The FBI has completely and utterly be clowned itself.
Speaker 1: Of course the Attorney General. It would be insane if
Speaker 1: the Attorney General was not critical of them, but he's
Speaker 1: now saying that that undermines his credibility. No one in
Speaker 1: the FBI is standing up saying, hey, you know we
Speaker 1: did a great job. Give us, give us a trophy.
Speaker 1: There are the people involved in this, not only that,
Speaker 1: should they be hanging their heads in shame, they might
Speaker 1: be in some trouble. Got to see as they dig
Speaker 1: into what they what? What are their professional lapses all about?
Speaker 1: How do they come to this point? But also notice
Speaker 1: how Durban calls the Attorney General's meetings abroad a conspiracy.
Speaker 1: How does Durban know that you know what Durban knows
Speaker 1: about the Attorney General traveling overseas, nothing, but he's already
Speaker 1: he's already laying the groundwork. This is propaganda. This is
Speaker 1: this is straight up malicious pr right. These are the
Speaker 1: tactics of the demagogue. Get ahead. You don't know what's
Speaker 1: going on, and you don't know what the results are,
Speaker 1: but you know that they're not They're not going to
Speaker 1: be good for your side, because we've seen everything so
Speaker 1: far shows us that. So you got to get ahead
Speaker 1: of it and say these are bad guys, bad people.
Speaker 1: Don't listen to them, you can't listen to them. And
Speaker 1: as part of that effort you have and I gotta
Speaker 1: love this. You have Eric Holder who has written in
Speaker 1: editorial in the Washington Post about how just sad he
Speaker 1: is that Attorney General bar is no longer somebody that
Speaker 1: can be trusted in this way, no longer is somebody
Speaker 1: that we can look to to tell us the truth.
Speaker 1: This is astonishing. But you have Attorney General Holder attacking
Speaker 1: him in this op ed. And William Barr is unfit
Speaker 1: to be Attorney general, that is what he has written here. Now,
Speaker 1: I just before I get into the laughable nature of
Speaker 1: the charges or the allegations or whatever you want to
Speaker 1: call them against Attorney General Barr. I just want to
Speaker 1: say that it's a it's a rich thing for Eric
Speaker 1: Holder to be the guy who is making this allegation,
Speaker 1: considering that Eric Holder famously described himself as President Obama's wingman,
Speaker 1: that Eric Holder famously was the guy who presided over
Speaker 1: a federal law enforcement operation that pushed weapons through straw
Speaker 1: purchasers into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, probably so
Speaker 1: that they could engage in some you know, sweeping gun
Speaker 1: reform and saying, oh, look that the cartels, it's all
Speaker 1: our fault, all the violence there. So they push gun
Speaker 1: dealers to sell the straw purchasers. This was Operation Fast
Speaker 1: and Furious back in what twenty eleven, twenty twelve. They
Speaker 1: pushed them to do this, and then one of those
Speaker 1: weapons ends up being used to murder Boarder Patrol agent
Speaker 1: Brian Terry. About one hundred people were killed by guns directly,
Speaker 1: I mean the serial numbers tied to that operation. Eric
Speaker 1: Holder held in contempt of Congress for not being willing
Speaker 1: to even discuss anything about it, just, you know whatever,
Speaker 1: trying to trying to be clever about ways to undermine
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment. And this is where it is, my friends,
Speaker 1: this is what we are now dealing with. And then
Speaker 1: also there's that little problem of Attorney General Holder at
Speaker 1: the time being a just a senior Department of Justice employee,
Speaker 1: but the one directly involved in getting Mark Rich under
Speaker 1: in the very last days of the Clinton administration, Mark
Speaker 1: Rich had absconded from the United States. He was a
Speaker 1: billionaire financier and he never faced justice. He fled and
Speaker 1: he was pardoned in absentia by Bill Clinton. The guy
Speaker 1: was doing illegal oil deals with the RAM and it
Speaker 1: was under sanctions. He was doing tax evasion. I mean,
Speaker 1: the guy was a crook. He was pardoned in absentia
Speaker 1: by Bill Clinton, and Eric Holder got the signatures, got
Speaker 1: it done. And you know why because Mark Rich's ex
Speaker 1: wife was a big Democrat owner. It's just it was
Speaker 1: just a just a pay to play or paid to pardon.
Speaker 1: Might as well to sell a pardon to the highest bidder,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, there's so much that was wrong
Speaker 1: with this, but you know, pardon somebody that's fled the
Speaker 1: country and never faced justice at all for crimes they
Speaker 1: clearly committed that are still crimes. It's not like he
Speaker 1: fled the country as some kind of a i know,
Speaker 1: for a conscience crime. He wasn't a conscientious objector or something.
Speaker 1: That's Eric Hold for you. Eric Holder's the guy who
Speaker 1: thought that that wasn't such a big deal. You know,
Speaker 1: he's admitted sins. You know, maybe maybe that was kind
Speaker 1: of bad. Yeah, you don't say. Eric Holder's Justice Department
Speaker 1: also refused to prosecute a member of the New Black
Speaker 1: Panther Party who was standing at a polling place threatening people,
Speaker 1: holding up baton and dressed in the uniform of the
Speaker 1: New Black Panther Party. Didn't want to prosecute him under
Speaker 1: civil rights violations, under intimidation at a polling place because
Speaker 1: you know, I just didn't want to. Yeah, that that
Speaker 1: Attorney General Eric Holder. And he's not coming out and
Speaker 1: criticizing Attorney General Bar Attorney General Bar as ten times
Speaker 1: a lawyer, Eric Holder ever was that goes without saying
Speaker 1: or I guess I just said it, So it goes
Speaker 1: with saying Attorney General Bar was already the attorney general
Speaker 1: of the George HW. Bush administration. No complaints about him
Speaker 1: being a you know, a hack right wing apologist or anything.
Speaker 1: That no, no, none of that. Considered a very competent,
Speaker 1: very solid attorney general then was in the office of
Speaker 1: Legal Counsel and the DJ and is a lawyer's lawyer,
Speaker 1: I mean as a guy that anybody who's worked in
Speaker 1: the higher echelons of the DC and New York legal
Speaker 1: profession knows this guy's the real deal. And the Libs
Speaker 1: are just gonna lie and lie and lie about him.
Speaker 1: Eric Holder is writing this. He's unfit to be Attorney general,
Speaker 1: he says of Bar and what a disgrace. All the
Speaker 1: people that were working the Obama administration. I mean they
Speaker 1: were all they were Obama loyalists, no matter what the situation,
Speaker 1: no matter what the cause that we're talking about. But
Speaker 1: they have to treat Bar like Kavanaugh because they know
Speaker 1: that Bar is a threat to them, and so they
Speaker 1: will choose to treat him like Kavanaugh as and they
Speaker 1: will do everything they can to destroy him. They will
Speaker 1: do everything they can to ruin his reputation, to intimidate him.
Speaker 1: You know, they think it's probably like John Roberts or
Speaker 1: you know, he's running enough me and editorials about John
Speaker 1: Roberts in the Supreme Court. All of a sudden, he
Speaker 1: starts agreeing with liberals, you know, it kind of wants
Speaker 1: the heat off him a little bit, you know, and
Speaker 1: can justify it by saying, we got to protect the
Speaker 1: institution of the Supreme Court. I mean, you know, Roberts
Speaker 1: is if he on his constitutional responsibilities and interpretation a
Speaker 1: lot of it. People believe it's because of the pressure
Speaker 1: that's brought to bear. They're trying to bring pressure against
Speaker 1: bar The good thing is Bars like bring it on
Speaker 1: because he knows. He knows, my friends, all that's going
Speaker 1: to take is one email on one piece of evidence
Speaker 1: to show that Brennan or Clapper or Comi or one
Speaker 1: of these deep state actors took what was a conspiracy
Speaker 1: peddled by the Hillary Clinton campaign against Trump and decided
Speaker 1: to run with it. And this whole thing and the
Speaker 1: whole thing unravels. Now, will they ever admit that they
Speaker 1: were wrong? No, of course not. They'll pull a Comi.
Speaker 1: This guy, doesn't matter how many facts come out to
Speaker 1: show that he's a lie, that he's unethical, that he's
Speaker 1: a scummy, scummy individual. Never admit that he was wrong.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that we won't have proof that
Speaker 1: he was wrong. And Barr and Durham are going to
Speaker 1: get that and then some in this investigation. I told
Speaker 1: you that there don't expect there to be fireworks, don't expect,
Speaker 1: you know, there to be quote heads rolling, so to speak,
Speaker 1: over the IG report, that the bureaucracy would always kind
Speaker 1: of protect itself. Benefit of the doubt goes to the the employees.
Speaker 1: The AG report that you're going to see with Durham,
Speaker 1: that's going to be the one where Democrats really just
Speaker 1: need to hang their heads in shame for well they
Speaker 1: won't though, because they have no shame, but they should.
Speaker 1: As we gather this afternoon, our thoughts turned to the
Speaker 1: grieving families in New Jersey. Yesterday, two wicked murderers open
Speaker 1: fire at a culture supermarket and kill for innocent souls,
Speaker 1: including a brave police officer who faced down the shooter
Speaker 1: and very bravely faced the shooter down with one hard
Speaker 1: America weeps for the lives lost with one voice. We
Speaker 1: vowed to crush a monstrous evil of anti Semitism whenever
Speaker 1: and wherever it appears. And we're working very hard on that.
Speaker 1: And I can tell you that that we have a
Speaker 1: lot of people in government working very very hard on
Speaker 1: that and we appreciate their work. It's not easy. As
Speaker 1: David Harsani was saying before, the President is a friend
Speaker 1: to Jewish Americans and also a friend to our ally Israel.
Speaker 1: I would just note that this terrible attack, this anti
Speaker 1: Semitic attack, as we know now by two members of
Speaker 1: the Black Israelites. Whatever that ideology, whatever, however we religion.
Speaker 1: I guess it's a religion interesting enough for Sheeta to leave.
Speaker 1: How did delete a tweet right after that shooting because
Speaker 1: guess what she thought? She tweeted that the attack in
Speaker 1: Jersey City was the result of white supremacy. Initially, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee is celebrating it's fifth anniversary. So to celebrate that,
Speaker 1: they decided to start a little something called Black Rifle Friday. Now,
Speaker 1: some of you may think, is that a fictional holiday,
Speaker 1: you know, like Valentine's Day, created to sell stuff? And
Speaker 1: the answers yes, because Black Rifle Coffee is all about
Speaker 1: capitalism and America. You've got to get in on the
Speaker 1: coffee club, my friends. Sign up and see all the
Speaker 1: great benefits you'll get when you belong to the most
Speaker 1: patriotic coffee club in the country. And let me tell
Speaker 1: you how do I start every day with a delicious
Speaker 1: cup of Black Rifle Coffee. This is my coffee company.
Speaker 1: You should make it yours too. This is where I
Speaker 1: get my morning jolt, This is where I get my
Speaker 1: afternoon pick me up. Black Rifle Coffee support a company
Speaker 1: that serves culture and coffee to those who love America.
Speaker 1: Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck to get twenty
Speaker 1: percent off your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck for twenty percent off your first purchase. Again,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot Calm slash But we do not
Speaker 1: have all the answers yet. Today is the start of
Speaker 1: a journey. But this is Europe's man on the moon moment.
Speaker 1: The European Green Deal is very ambitious, but it will
Speaker 1: also be very careful in assessing the impact and every
Speaker 1: single step. We're typing a European Green new deal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: does it sircut? Here we have Ursula vander Leon guten
Speaker 1: Tag talking about the need for a European Green deal. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The European Commission President. She is very precise and very
Speaker 1: committed to luring the rate of sea or two wins
Speaker 1: the world by making shows that you don't have too
Speaker 1: many cow fault or you ride too many bicycle was
Speaker 1: a little motos on a motorbike? What day? You know what?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean, I messed up a bicycle
Speaker 1: thing where you get the idea. Europe's in this thing too,
Speaker 1: a green new deal. Oh, let's let's all just jump
Speaker 1: into this insanity. Do you look at the CO two
Speaker 1: emissions from say, China and India over the last twenty years,
Speaker 1: going up, up, up. I'm not going to stop anytime soon.
Speaker 1: The US has actually gone down since the year two
Speaker 1: thousand and No one seems to care. No one seems
Speaker 1: to care about a few things. One that we're doing
Speaker 1: more than the other primary CO two emitters too, that
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what we do if they don't do
Speaker 1: a whole lot more than they're doing in India and China.
Speaker 1: And three this is all crazy. CO two is not
Speaker 1: a problem, it's not. It's just that I wish there
Speaker 1: are ways. I wish there are ways to bet on
Speaker 1: these things effectively. You know, I wish there was a
Speaker 1: market where I could say that that the prediction of
Speaker 1: the climate change. There is a market. It's called that
Speaker 1: For example, the beachfront housing market. It has not budged
Speaker 1: because of climate change. Oh it's all gonna be underwater. Nope,
Speaker 1: thirty your mortgage. You're not getting a good deal on
Speaker 1: that beach house in Florida or in California, or you
Speaker 1: name it. Moth's Vineyard. Have you every been to Martha's Vineyard, Brandon.
Speaker 1: It's pretty amazing. You know, it's nice to the Martha's
Speaker 1: Vineyard though, I'm just gonna say it, Nantuckett. It's like
Speaker 1: a little mini Martha's Vineyard. But it's even cooler. Martha's
Speaker 1: Vinyard is very, very nice. I used to go there.
Speaker 1: I went to a beach. I will tell you. I
Speaker 1: was brought there by my college girlfriend. And the beach was,
Speaker 1: in fact a beach that you needed a key to access.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you the most interesting part of
Speaker 1: that beach, Brandon, it was a nude beach. And it's true.
Speaker 1: Now you know what. You know what the reality of
Speaker 1: a nude beaches. It's not it's not what you it's
Speaker 1: not what people they here nude beach. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: they think it's gonna be a Budweiser commercial. But like
Speaker 1: old men, I saw some people on the naked Beach
Speaker 1: in the Vineyard, and there was not a single one
Speaker 1: of them I think under the age of sixty. So
Speaker 1: you know, we were all very free. We were very
Speaker 1: free at the naked Beach. There's a lot of breeze,
Speaker 1: the sea, salt air. But no, it's not not what
Speaker 1: you think it's gonna it's not. It's definitely not a
Speaker 1: beer commercial out there. I can tell you that a
Speaker 1: different meaning to freedom. Hut. I'm sure it's that's a
Speaker 1: super free freedom. Hut. Yeah, that's what it was. But
Speaker 1: I do remember being there that was did I did
Speaker 1: I wear a bathing suit or not? So this is
Speaker 1: the problem when you go to naked beach and if
Speaker 1: you don't go naked, now you're kind of the weird
Speaker 1: you know. Now you're the weirdo. Now you're the jackass.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? Why are you hiding? Exactly?
Speaker 1: And it's kind of are you hiding? Yeah, there's there's
Speaker 1: that too, and there's nerves. There's nothing to hide at
Speaker 1: the naked beach. You just let that sea breeze blow
Speaker 1: all over the place. I think producer Nick is like,
Speaker 1: what the hell are you doing? He's he's got a
Speaker 1: fair point. But I'm just telling you there is a
Speaker 1: Naked Beach and Martha's Vineyard. But you got it. Only
Speaker 1: the special people are allowed to go. You gotta have
Speaker 1: a key, you gotta be invited. I know some people.
Speaker 1: So I went to the Naked Beach. Oh what are
Speaker 1: we talking about? Real estate? Talking about coastal real estate? Sometimes,
Speaker 1: you know, I go little you a little cut up.
Speaker 1: And there's also amazing restaurants in the Vineyard and Nantucket,
Speaker 1: and it's where all the fancy, super rich, you know,
Speaker 1: journos and media types and all that. That's where they
Speaker 1: all go. You know, if you want to see where
Speaker 1: like Chris Matthews and you know, I don't know, I'm
Speaker 1: probably Anderson Cooper, and they go to the Hamptons. It's
Speaker 1: the Hamptons, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. But you're not going
Speaker 1: to get a good deal on oceanfront property in any
Speaker 1: of those places, despite the despite the warnings from the
Speaker 1: climate change alarmists that we're all going to be under
Speaker 1: water in those areas, and you know the terrible things.
Speaker 1: The wets are going to get wet, or the colds
Speaker 1: will get colder, the hots will get hotter. This is
Speaker 1: this is amazing stupidity. I'm kind of stunned that people
Speaker 1: really waste so much emotional and intellectual energy on something
Speaker 1: it's so obviously preposterous. But speaking of obviously preposterous and
Speaker 1: a waste of intellectual energy, let's talk about Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: for a moment, shall we. I thought this was as
Speaker 1: just one of these moments where you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know who's really at fault here. Is it the policy
Speaker 1: advisor that nobody's ever heard of, who decides that she's
Speaker 1: going to have to do, who has to answer a
Speaker 1: question that nobody would have a really good answer for.
Speaker 1: Or is it the person that she's supposed to be
Speaker 1: speaking on behalf of in this case, Elizabeth Warren, who,
Speaker 1: let's be real about this for a minute, wouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to answer this question her self. Really, wow, heart
Speaker 1: believed we should have a foreign policy where the corrupt
Speaker 1: and the rich aren't able to just run everything. You know,
Speaker 1: my daddy was a male man, my mom was a homemaker.
Speaker 1: I grew up thinking I was Cherokee. You know, there's
Speaker 1: all this stuff. You know, Elizabeth, it's always the same. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm so folksy, you know, I have this kind of uniform.
Speaker 1: I wear all black except from a little sweater, colorful
Speaker 1: sweater as a bit of flair. Do you when you
Speaker 1: used to go to work, Brandon back in the day,
Speaker 1: did you ever wear thirty two pieces of flair? Did
Speaker 1: you go with the minimum thirty two pieces of flair?
Speaker 1: Or did you actually want to express yourself? I just
Speaker 1: watched that this weekend. Did you really? I didn't know that,
Speaker 1: and yet here we are talking about it. That's one
Speaker 1: of the better That's one of the better moments because
Speaker 1: we've all had that. Lumberg is the best character in
Speaker 1: the movie, by the way, because that degree of soulless
Speaker 1: passive aggressive exists in office culture in so many different places,
Speaker 1: and it's very you know, you know that the guy
Speaker 1: is crushing is crushing your life and your very being
Speaker 1: with his annoying bureaucratic requests and his complete lack of
Speaker 1: respect for his human being. But unless he's being like
Speaker 1: abusive or you know, it's very hard for you to
Speaker 1: do anything about it, unless you show up wearing flip
Speaker 1: flops and you're like having a meeting with the two bobs. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that'd be great. Yeah, I'm gonna come in on Sunday. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Lumberg is amazing that. He's the best. He's the best
Speaker 1: thing I think in the whole some people like Milton
Speaker 1: Adams or whatever, he's okay, But Lumburg is a character
Speaker 1: for the ad because we've all had a lot. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean I at the CIA, I had a person
Speaker 1: just like Lumberg, just like Lumberg in terms of that
Speaker 1: approach program director. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You wanted
Speaker 1: to go. Oh oh, you think you're going away for
Speaker 1: the weekend with your girlfriend and see your family. Oh
Speaker 1: you think you're Oh no, someone has to stay here
Speaker 1: and foot and out Eustace reports all weekend. Oh oh,
Speaker 1: I've had that. It's terrible. Yeah, person didn't really sound
Speaker 1: like that, but that's what I heard. You know. It's
Speaker 1: like the mom from from the I was gonna say
Speaker 1: the Brady Bunch, Charlie Brown, baop, you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. So, yeah, the teacher from the Peanuts. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh wait, so I was to talk to you. That's right,
Speaker 1: the teacher from Pean Is it the teacher for Peanuts yet?
Speaker 1: Or I thought it was the mom. No, there's the
Speaker 1: mom from Bobby's World. There's a teacher from Peanuts. I'm
Speaker 1: getting them. I'm mixing my cartoon characters here. Okay, all right, sorry, Brandon,
Speaker 1: Brandon's on point. I'm getting a little confused. Uh, let's
Speaker 1: get back to a foreign policy, shall we. No, No,
Speaker 1: you can't. Don't run away from the board. Board Brandon
Speaker 1: as well as producer Brandon. We gotta have you because
Speaker 1: this is what happens when you ask Elishabeth Warrenge campaign staff,
Speaker 1: You ask them why is her foreign policy? You got
Speaker 1: to be different from any of these other pseudocammy foreign
Speaker 1: policies out there with these Democrats. And here's what gets said.
Speaker 1: Please play us seven listen. I think Senator warren Is
Speaker 1: is uninterested in sort of criticizing fellow Democrats, but you
Speaker 1: know where what she believes is that it won't be
Speaker 1: enough for us to just turn the clock back to
Speaker 1: pre Trump and sort of go about business as usual.
Speaker 1: She believes that we need to have fundamental shifts not
Speaker 1: only in our foreign policy, in our policies writ large,
Speaker 1: but to use foreign policy as an example so that
Speaker 1: so that our foreign healthies are actually benefiting and resonating
Speaker 1: with working Americans. And that's not nibbling around the edges,
Speaker 1: and I think that is one of the things that
Speaker 1: makes her distinct. That's amazing. By the way, even Prouser
Speaker 1: Brandon is kind of like chuckling a little. That's amazing.
Speaker 1: That is the most fantastic talking head spokesperson non answer
Speaker 1: answer to require. I mean, that's they should study that
Speaker 1: in schools about non answers from people that work for
Speaker 1: political campaigns. Here, it's like, we're not going to turn
Speaker 1: the clock back and have business as usual. We're gonna
Speaker 1: have fundamental shifts and change foreign policy. Writ large by
Speaker 1: bring it back to working people. She just does this whole.
Speaker 1: It's just like it's like anti you know, paint by numbers.
Speaker 1: It's foreign policy answer by numbers. And never rust anybody
Speaker 1: who uses the term written large and doesn't make fun
Speaker 1: of themselves for it. All right, it's a huge It's
Speaker 1: a DC tell. Everyone in DC always says, well, writ large.
Speaker 1: They also love to say close the loop, circle back.
Speaker 1: I'd love to say, uh, you know, written large is
Speaker 1: the big on optic. You know, from my optic, have
Speaker 1: just my perspective or from how I see it, or
Speaker 1: just say the thing don't have to be like from
Speaker 1: my optic. These are things that this is DC speak,
Speaker 1: and people that go to places like you know, international
Speaker 1: relations master's programs, which is pretty much I'm sure what
Speaker 1: you need to be the policy advisor for Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: on foreign policy. But I've never heard of this person before.
Speaker 1: But her answer was just amazing because one, she didn't
Speaker 1: have an answer that was you could tell she goes well, first,
Speaker 1: let's make sure that because she was asked, how is
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren's foreign policy different from the other Democrat candidates?
Speaker 1: And you know, oh, first, I just wanted to make
Speaker 1: sure that we're not you know, bashing she's stalling. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I do a ton of TV and radio and things.
Speaker 1: You guys all know this, so I know the ins
Speaker 1: and outs of this back. I mean, I could definitely.
Speaker 1: I have trained people. In fact, there are people that
Speaker 1: now host things at Fox that I trained how to
Speaker 1: do TV. But that's a story for a story for
Speaker 1: another time. And the other are friends of mine. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm so happy that they've done so very very well.
Speaker 1: But I mean I could train. I mean, am I
Speaker 1: am I the old aging samurai warrior of media that
Speaker 1: does not want to teach everybody the skills because I
Speaker 1: cannot trust them to use them for good. But when
Speaker 1: I do raise that katana sword, it is as a
Speaker 1: true master. Answer is yes, Although do samurai carry katana? Now?
Speaker 1: Do they have katana stories that only ninjas? Haven't you
Speaker 1: watched the eighties Ninja movie recently? You're my pop culture.
Speaker 1: You and producer Mark are here to make sure that
Speaker 1: I know the things I'm not sure. I mean, can
Speaker 1: you please find it? Do samurai carry? I cannot leave
Speaker 1: the audience astray on an issue of Marshall prowess and
Speaker 1: ninja skills, So I need to know if he's like
Speaker 1: running the board to all these things that I love
Speaker 1: throwing these little stupid tasks like hey, do samurai carry
Speaker 1: katana swords? They call it something else. Um. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: understand how to how the game works, especially when you're
Speaker 1: asked a question you know that you don't have a
Speaker 1: good answer to the first thing, are we Is that right?
Speaker 1: What do they carry? According to the Internet, Samurai's traditionally
Speaker 1: carried two tempered steel swords, the katana bam for fighting.
Speaker 1: And I can even this. It's a touchdown a twelve
Speaker 1: inch dagger. I can't pronounce how it's actual spelled uh
Speaker 1: wakazal w a k i z a s hi. Well,
Speaker 1: I have no I don't know what that is. Wakizashi
Speaker 1: WA's That would also be a cool name for a
Speaker 1: band in Williamsburg, the wakazashi or Pokemon shore. Um okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: the little little sta long sword, little sword, I know,
Speaker 1: I know that stuff. Okay. So now that we've established
Speaker 1: what ancient samurai carried in case you need to know, um,
Speaker 1: this is this is a perfect encapsulation of when people
Speaker 1: don't have an answer in foreign policy or don't have
Speaker 1: an answer to something and they just want to they
Speaker 1: just want to talk, you know, they just want to
Speaker 1: discuss and sound they want the listener to think that
Speaker 1: this is a smart person without the person understanding, the
Speaker 1: listener understanding that whoever's giving this answer is just completely
Speaker 1: like making it up as they go along. Like that's
Speaker 1: really the that's really the goal here, that's the real
Speaker 1: goal of this. And that was a particularly a particularly
Speaker 1: good example of it. You know, Yeah, we're just gonna
Speaker 1: like do business. We're not gonna do business as usual.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have fundamental shifts and we're gonna rit large
Speaker 1: turn back to foreign policy, that works for working people. Brendan,
Speaker 1: what does that even mean? Like do people do people
Speaker 1: sit around in Kansas saying themselves like, well, clearly, if
Speaker 1: we did just a little bit more to get this,
Speaker 1: uh you know agreement going in Latin America that will
Speaker 1: figure are out the realities of law enforce and for
Speaker 1: the tri border region, I'll be able to pay my
Speaker 1: bills more effectively. I don't think so, you know, there's
Speaker 1: something there's some foreign policy matters where like you know,
Speaker 1: Main Street neither cares nor should care. But I just
Speaker 1: I just love this though it's just to spin the
Speaker 1: talking points together. Whoever is you, I salute you, Sasha
Speaker 1: Baker for giving the most amazing non answer answer I
Speaker 1: have heard in quite some time. That was a lot
Speaker 1: of fun. I might break my no movies in the
Speaker 1: theater rule once again, you know, because I did go
Speaker 1: see Joker, which I thought was worthwhile and I enjoyed,
Speaker 1: and I like the way that they not just the
Speaker 1: way that they executed the story, but that they made
Speaker 1: it interesting. They created they added layers to an area
Speaker 1: of the Batman franchise, They added things to it that
Speaker 1: fit and that were cool, that made sense. And then
Speaker 1: of course there's just a human exploration of evil and
Speaker 1: really just you know, psychosis and the descent into evil,
Speaker 1: and it was very, very interesting. So then we go
Speaker 1: to this Richard Jewel movie, which I think I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to check out. Here's actual Now this is the
Speaker 1: the Olympic Park bomber situation. I'm gonna have to dig
Speaker 1: into this story a bit more. You know what, Preacher
Speaker 1: brand that it would be fun to maybe try to
Speaker 1: get some people from the movie. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: think Clint east Wood would do the show easily. I
Speaker 1: mean he would love the show if he listened to it.
Speaker 1: I mean Clinton I would be very sympatico obviously, but
Speaker 1: we would should we should get somebody if we can,
Speaker 1: to come on and talk about this. Because here's how
Speaker 1: I know. I want to see the Richard Richard Jewel movie.
Speaker 1: Libs hate it, so then you know, it's got to
Speaker 1: be good. You know, I used to have a teacher
Speaker 1: back in the fourth grade. It's say, if it's black
Speaker 1: and white, it's got to be good. That was his
Speaker 1: which Bodo is not true, not true. That's right. I
Speaker 1: refuse to bow to the black and white movie propaganda
Speaker 1: that says that. Oh, if it's an old movie. No,
Speaker 1: most old movies had indicating instead of acting, had cheesy dialogue.
Speaker 1: I know, Send Me or All Buck, what about you know,
Speaker 1: Gone with the Wind or whatever your favorite. And there's
Speaker 1: some good ones, you know, north By Northwest. I've seen them.
Speaker 1: I took film class. But most old movies are boring
Speaker 1: in Lane, Okay. You know, sometimes I want to see
Speaker 1: a ninja fight and you know, some some guys drinking
Speaker 1: too much and maybe some you know, some stuff happening
Speaker 1: with some ladies and not a lot of clothing off.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like this is you know, it's at
Speaker 1: our tab in folks, it's supposed but where was I? Um,
Speaker 1: I have no idea what Brandon, You're completely we just
Speaker 1: crossed the streams. I don't even remember what was Oh, Richard, Yeah,
Speaker 1: are you are you planning to go to go possibly
Speaker 1: see this movie? Would you check it out? I would
Speaker 1: like to see it that you don't know if I
Speaker 1: want to pay for it. It's not exactly a date movie,
Speaker 1: is it. I mean they could be. I guess well.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a big problem because the reporter and
Speaker 1: it's based on real people. The reporter in it. They
Speaker 1: take some dramatic license and they the reporter sleeps with
Speaker 1: a I believe either law enforcement or somebody else's I
Speaker 1: didn't see the movie yet as a source. And all
Speaker 1: the journals now people are upset because she's the journalist.
Speaker 1: As she passed away, she's not around to protect yourself.
Speaker 1: And that looks because it's based on a real person.
Speaker 1: I got on. But but I thought it was interesting
Speaker 1: because you also do the journalist whore like that never happens. Oh,
Speaker 1: yes it does, as it does. Journalists sometimes get a
Speaker 1: little close to the source. Biographers get a little close
Speaker 1: to the source. Hello, General Petreius. You know, things happen.
Speaker 1: Things happened. I just thought it was so funny that
Speaker 1: in their in their haste to bash this one aspect
Speaker 1: of the movie, that they said. Of course, they said
Speaker 1: it's sexist, it's a sexist trope that a female journalist
Speaker 1: would sleep with the source and all this stuff. And
Speaker 1: then there was that guy who I think is facing
Speaker 1: prison time from a Senate an intelligence committee for sleeping
Speaker 1: with the New York Times journalist who he was given
Speaker 1: information to. That's just one that comes to mind, and
Speaker 1: that was like two years ago. So Oh wait, but
Speaker 1: I want to just give you some of Richard Jewel's
Speaker 1: actual testimony. Hold up, So the Richard Jewel movie is out,
Speaker 1: I believe are about to be out. It's Clinicswood directed.
Speaker 1: I think Clinicswood have done some great stuff recently. I
Speaker 1: really enjoyed Grand Cerino a lot. I think it's a
Speaker 1: very good movie for what it is. I thought The
Speaker 1: Mule was a little contrived and kind of boring. To
Speaker 1: be honest with you, I really didn't like The Mule
Speaker 1: very much as a movie, but I did think Grand
Speaker 1: Cerino was excellent, and I thought American Sniper was excellent.
Speaker 1: So Clint has done some fantastic work, lots of fantastic work.
Speaker 1: But here's the real Richard Jewel testifying back in ninety simember.
Speaker 1: This guy they, you know, there was this bombing in
Speaker 1: the Olympic Park and his name was leaked by the
Speaker 1: FBI to the media. And then even though it was
Speaker 1: clear to FBI early on that this guy really didn't
Speaker 1: do it, they kind of kept putting him through the
Speaker 1: ringer play clip nine. Please before you today, not as
Speaker 1: a Republican or a Democrat. I have no political agenda.
Speaker 1: I've come before you, simply as an American citizen with
Speaker 1: rights just like everybody else. One year ago today, the
Speaker 1: FBI and the media joined together to launch an attack
Speaker 1: on me of unparalleled proportion in the history of this nation,
Speaker 1: an attack calculated to betray me to the world as
Speaker 1: some type of abnormal person with a bizarre employment history
Speaker 1: who was guilty of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. It
Speaker 1: was all a lie. Two days ago, the Justice Department
Speaker 1: issued a written report about its investigation into a few
Speaker 1: of the unlawful acts committed by the FBI and its
Speaker 1: investigation of me. You already pick up on this, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: but this movie comes at a particularly opportune time, given
Speaker 1: that it deals with FBI malfeasance, given that it deals
Speaker 1: with what is clearly an FBI that sometimes cares way
Speaker 1: too much about the press narrative, cares about the political
Speaker 1: pressure around their work. So in a sense, this has
Speaker 1: been a problem for a long time and nothing really
Speaker 1: ever changes. I think what's going on now with the
Speaker 1: FISA abuse and the deep state cougains Trump, I think
Speaker 1: that's all much worse. But at least this is a
Speaker 1: This is a way of remembering that FBI whether it's
Speaker 1: this Waco Ruby Ridge. You look at some of these
Speaker 1: different situations, high profile situations the FBI has been involved in,
Speaker 1: and we all understand that there's going to be mistakes
Speaker 1: that are made. But there are mistakes and then there's
Speaker 1: hold on a second, this is crossing a line. This
Speaker 1: is also a continuation here of Richard Jewell had to say,
Speaker 1: play clip ten. This is that same testimony. While I
Speaker 1: have not had an opportunity to study the OPR report
Speaker 1: in detail, I did read redacted summary yesterday. I submit
Speaker 1: to you that the Justice Department cannot be trusted to
Speaker 1: investigate itself because that report is also a lie. It
Speaker 1: is filled with false statements, have truth, and gross distortions
Speaker 1: of the truth. Read it. It reminded me of reading
Speaker 1: the FBI search warrn affidavits against me. Apparently, truth to
Speaker 1: the Justice Department simply is simply whatever the Justice Department
Speaker 1: wants the truth to be. Within a few days after
Speaker 1: my name was leaked to the media, the FBI knew
Speaker 1: that it had a public relations disaster on its hands.
Speaker 1: The organization that prided itself on being the best investigative
Speaker 1: agency in the world had quickly and with the world
Speaker 1: Watching pointed the federal government's finger of guilt at the
Speaker 1: wrong man, and they knew it within days. Not only
Speaker 1: did the FBI, yeah, I accused the wrong man, it's
Speaker 1: agents in Atlanta and officials in Washington actively participated in
Speaker 1: publicly humiliating me. Pretty haunting stuff to hear, given what's
Speaker 1: gone on this last week. What we've found out, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Here we have someone who did nothing wrong and whose
Speaker 1: name was leaked to the media and turned into media circus,
Speaker 1: and he was destroyed, his reputation, ability to earn a living.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so much that damage that was done
Speaker 1: to this fellow, and it was because of many of
Speaker 1: the same reasons that we see damage done today when
Speaker 1: law enforcement is far too close to the press and
Speaker 1: they're chasing a similar story, whatever that may be, instead
Speaker 1: of where the facts lead them. So I just I
Speaker 1: couldn't help but listen to that Richard Jewel testimony and think, Wow,
Speaker 1: has there really been any reformer than the FBI? Have
Speaker 1: things gotten better in any meaningful way since then? Then?
Speaker 1: Keep in mind that that was nineteen eighty six, That
Speaker 1: was before nine to eleven and the stovepiping of intelligence
Speaker 1: between the CIA, the FBI, and other national security agencies.
Speaker 1: We of course have to hold them two standards. Have
Speaker 1: to hold these different government actors to standards that are fair.
Speaker 1: We can't ask them to be perfect, but we also
Speaker 1: can't allow them to be incompetent and even worse, malicious.
Speaker 1: We've definitely seen incompetence with this whole PISA abuse. I
Speaker 1: think we've also, beyond reasonable doubt, seen maliciousness and that
Speaker 1: has to be rooted out, stem and branch. Rock and roll,
Speaker 1: fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call, all right, he heard the man.
Speaker 1: It's time for a role call. Hey, listen the bucks
Speaker 1: Xton the show where we all do radio voices. Brandon,
Speaker 1: what do you think could I be a DJ on
Speaker 1: w W K k r X tu V Hey playing
Speaker 1: the greatest hits of the nineties, the two thousands, and
Speaker 1: some stuff from nineteen forty five, just because we feel
Speaker 1: like mix it and up. As long as you hit
Speaker 1: the post, you're hired. What does that even mean? Oh
Speaker 1: so you don't know yet, You got to it's the
Speaker 1: It's the intro to a song, you know, when you're
Speaker 1: kind of talking over the instrumental and as soon as
Speaker 1: you're done talking, that's when the lyrics kick in. All
Speaker 1: of a sudden, Potawan becomes obi Wan over here. Oh yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I didn't know anything about this. It's called hit the post.
Speaker 1: That is that when you do the like so the
Speaker 1: song start playing and you're like and now step into
Speaker 1: a warm bath of jazz and like it's playing or no.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you would do it over jazz
Speaker 1: because there's not much lyrics. But if you hear I'm
Speaker 1: getting all nerdy about it. No no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: get to I want to. We want to learn. I mean,
Speaker 1: what if you know, if this whole like talk radio
Speaker 1: thing doesn't work out, maybe I get to be a DJ.
Speaker 1: I mean if you're introducing like a Tailor Swift song
Speaker 1: per se, right, you know which which I would love
Speaker 1: to because t Swift and I know there's something there.
Speaker 1: A fourteen second intro before she starts singing about whatever
Speaker 1: her boy broke her heart. So you're talking for fourteen
Speaker 1: seconds and as soon as you're done, she comes in.
Speaker 1: You ever wonder on the down on the radio people
Speaker 1: the DJs time it out so well. Hm, that's that's
Speaker 1: what you do we gotta hit the post? I gotta
Speaker 1: hit the post, all right, that's cool. I did not.
Speaker 1: I did not know that that's kind of fun. I
Speaker 1: do remember when I used to tape radio off, like
Speaker 1: tape it with a VA, you know, a cassette, you know,
Speaker 1: and I would hate because like I wanted just the music,
Speaker 1: because I wanted to, you know, basically steal the music
Speaker 1: for myself. Yeah, back in the pre MP three days
Speaker 1: and they would have the guy be like, hey, like
Speaker 1: get your tickets for blah blah blah, and you know,
Speaker 1: and they'd be talking over it, and I was like, no,
Speaker 1: I do not want to work out to DJ whatever
Speaker 1: his name is. DJ disc jockey. Quite a term that's
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of usage. You can think about it
Speaker 1: over all the years. So sure. And it's also a
Speaker 1: sacrilegious and classic rock because you're not supposed to talk
Speaker 1: over the you know, the iconic guitar solos or riffs
Speaker 1: at the beginning. I once got yelled at by talking
Speaker 1: over the beginning of a Stairway to Heaven. I was
Speaker 1: about to say, if you talk over stairway, do you
Speaker 1: get in trouble? Yeah? I got yelled at my youth
Speaker 1: I was like, He's like, it's such a long intro
Speaker 1: before Robert, that's super long intro. You can't just be like,
Speaker 1: you know, who's got his own Stairway to Heaven. Producer Brandon,
Speaker 1: That's not no, that's that you're not allowed to do that. Huh.
Speaker 1: All right, well learn something that hit the post though.
Speaker 1: We got to work that in. Gotta figure that out.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, I'm sorry I said roll call.
Speaker 1: I know I wasn't. I get I get distracted. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to leverage Producer Brandon's rock DJ by the way,
Speaker 1: produce your brand, and I'm saying it now on air
Speaker 1: so that we don't get Tomorrow we are going to
Speaker 1: talk about your podcast, which is for those who are
Speaker 1: serious metal heads out there or rock aficionados, whatever your
Speaker 1: preferred terminology may be, is about what is it? Just
Speaker 1: Just give them the one line or prayse and we'll
Speaker 1: get to appreciate appetite for distortion. So if you like
Speaker 1: anything guns and roses and fits in with our six
Speaker 1: degrees of gen R. Bacon instead of Kevin Bacon, that's
Speaker 1: what we talk about, guns and roses and everything related
Speaker 1: to the world thereof. All right, cool, we got that
Speaker 1: team buck emails. Let's do it, Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot Com.
Speaker 1: Harry right, Oh, veggie eaters, let's see, hey buck. My
Speaker 1: stepdaughter was vegetarian for about todler to about sixteen during
Speaker 1: high school. She would come home and sleep for a
Speaker 1: couple of hours, totally exhausted, change your mind, and became
Speaker 1: and began eating a couple of fast food burgers in
Speaker 1: the way home every day. Stopped crashing when she got home.
Speaker 1: Her levels of energy increase. She became less surly. Eat critters.
Speaker 1: Humans need be vitamins, which are hard to get otherwise.
Speaker 1: By the way, I read that, otters link arms so
Speaker 1: they don't float away from each other and get lost.
Speaker 1: Otters are my wife's favorite creatures from her time in Alaska.
Speaker 1: She'll tie Harry Well, Harry, thank you. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of antiotter propaganda out there. A lot of people say
Speaker 1: mean things about how otters make little otters. For example,
Speaker 1: like there's a whole no on big serious. There's a
Speaker 1: whole thing about how they're very you know, aggressive, and
Speaker 1: they're they're evil because of what they do to I'm
Speaker 1: just saying there's an otter patriarchy basically that's a bad
Speaker 1: thing from what I'm told Michelle. Good day, sir um, Well,
Speaker 1: this is something else. This is an invitation to go
Speaker 1: speak somewhere. Let's not get into that, Kevin, right, sir back,
Speaker 1: it's a pleasure to listen to broadcast. It's a sad day.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah. By the way, if you do want me
Speaker 1: to come speak at your you know, meeting of Great
Speaker 1: American Patriots or the Rotary Club or like whatever you
Speaker 1: got going on, just go. You can send it into
Speaker 1: this inbox and we'll see it. So people people like
Speaker 1: to have the Buckster come and speak. I'm a fantastic
Speaker 1: live speaker, by the way, FANTASTICA not gonna lie, fantastic
Speaker 1: live speaker, Kevin writes, buck It's a pleasure to listen
Speaker 1: to broadcast. It's sad day when Time magazine awards, which
Speaker 1: should be a well deserved award to a petulent child
Speaker 1: was only a matter of time. However, given the credence
Speaker 1: they gave to David Hogg, tell me, how can one
Speaker 1: be underwritten as a survivor when said survivor wasn't even
Speaker 1: at school at the time. Impeachment wise, I hope McConnell
Speaker 1: drags the hearings that, as long as possible, expose them all,
Speaker 1: including Obama, Lauretta Lynch, the whole troop. I hope you
Speaker 1: on the staff have a blessed the holiday season. Shields High.
Speaker 1: Kevin from Omaha listening on k f A B one
Speaker 1: of our wonderful affiliates out there in the great state
Speaker 1: of Nebraska. Shout out to all kfaby Omaha, you guys rock.
Speaker 1: Here we go, h Fiona. Oh yeah, Producer Nick just
Speaker 1: wrote the truthfulness of hog not being at school is questionable.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I don't know I start. Thank you a
Speaker 1: producer Nick for the fact check there. Producer Nick is like,
Speaker 1: he's like the eye in the sky for us, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't he's not actually in the studio with us.
Speaker 1: So that's why you don't hear me talking. Although it
Speaker 1: would be fun, Producer Nick, since you are like the
Speaker 1: Almighty and you see all you know, maybe we could
Speaker 1: create a way to sometimes have you being able to
Speaker 1: pipe in from the remote location the bunker, the Freedom Bunker,
Speaker 1: where you are currently. I'm just a thought, man, just
Speaker 1: a thought. But you and Producer Brandon could talk about
Speaker 1: the best rock bands of all time? Is punk rock
Speaker 1: its own genre of rock, or should it just be
Speaker 1: in the greater rock pantheon for example. I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to start. I'm trying to start some stuff here. Is that?
Speaker 1: Was that a good one? Is that a thing that
Speaker 1: people fight over? And I probably just made that up?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think you made it up. Yeah, alright, Fiona,
Speaker 1: all right. I'm a transgender person and support our president.
Speaker 1: Oh nice, thanks, Fionna. I feel that more LGBTQ should
Speaker 1: support our president and can't understand why they don't. When
Speaker 1: I ask my community members what potus has done to
Speaker 1: disparage us, or what policy he's enacted that takes gay
Speaker 1: rights away, they draw a blank. Now that we're on
Speaker 1: the precipice of impeachment and Mike Pence is on deck,
Speaker 1: I think it's more important than ever to try to
Speaker 1: reach the lgbt Q members. Peace baby, Fiona. Well, Fiona,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm very pleased. It's nice to have somebody
Speaker 1: not just who's LGBTQ. We do have a lot of
Speaker 1: folks from that community who listened to the show and
Speaker 1: who write in, but specifically someone who's trends and appreciates
Speaker 1: what we do here. Welcome, welcome to Team Buck and
Speaker 1: thank you for listening. And as for all your point here,
Speaker 1: I mean I totally agree. I mean Trump is he's
Speaker 1: in no way anti anti gay, he's not anti LGBTQ.
Speaker 1: And he's the first president. I mean he was holding
Speaker 1: up the gay Pride flag on stage during campaign events,
Speaker 1: you know, proudly holding it up on stage. Do you
Speaker 1: think the media ever said, oh wow, I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess he's no, of course, because there's there's so there's
Speaker 1: such deep roots to this. But you know, identity politics
Speaker 1: on the left are always a means to an end,
Speaker 1: and so it's not even it doesn't matter if somebody
Speaker 1: is good to one particular group within the identity politics world,
Speaker 1: because all the way the left brings us up, all
Speaker 1: those identity politics groups have to work together against the other.
Speaker 1: And the other in this case is you know, conservative,
Speaker 1: traditional Christian patriarchy, etc. Etc. Republicanism, conservatism, So you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to deviate from that. So even if somebody, say,
Speaker 1: even if somebody's the greatest friend ever as president to
Speaker 1: the gay and lesbian community, for example, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: as far as much of the left or as far
Speaker 1: as the left is concerned because it's about mobilizing that
Speaker 1: community for other purposes. I mean, this is classical. It's
Speaker 1: about mobilizing the LGBTQ community not just for their own rights,
Speaker 1: but for all the rest of the left wing agenda.
Speaker 1: So you're not allowed, it's not allowed to be identity
Speaker 1: politics policies a la carte, they do not allow that.
Speaker 1: That is a distinction. So any Fiona, thanks for writing
Speaker 1: in RC right. Buck wondering if you read your mail
Speaker 1: aside from at the end of your show. If so,
Speaker 1: do you have time or interest in chatting? Thanks Randy, Randy, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I read. I read all the mail that I can,
Speaker 1: everything that comes in, pretty much. He has kind of
Speaker 1: an interesting little thing at the bottom here, Shield's eye, sweeplow,
Speaker 1: thrust once, drink black rifle, stand and repeat. All right, cool, Randy,
Speaker 1: Thank you man, Thanks for listening to the show. Let's
Speaker 1: see so many emails coming in. Oh good heavens, how
Speaker 1: do we get to them all? There's so many, so
Speaker 1: many hundreds and hundreds to say. Oh but I'm from
Speaker 1: team Buck and I haven't pulled things to say today
Speaker 1: on the show, Dan writes, Buck, why is nobody talking
Speaker 1: about the similarities between the Daniel Ellsberg wire tap in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two and Trump spy spy Gate twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: people were imprisoned for that. Well, Dan, why don't you
Speaker 1: write in with more detail, my man, so I can
Speaker 1: read it on the air. But very few people, I
Speaker 1: think today that are having conversations about spygate even remember
Speaker 1: what happened back in the Ellsberg era in nineteen seventy two.
Speaker 1: So it's incumbent upon us those who do have some
Speaker 1: knowledge of it, or do have some understanding of the
Speaker 1: history here to remind everybody about that and bring it
Speaker 1: all to the four SO team. That is going to
Speaker 1: be the show today. Hope you're enjoying it. If you
Speaker 1: haven't already, please do check out Pluto channel two forty eight,
Speaker 1: the first you can watch what goes on here in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt. It's a great way to catch up
Speaker 1: on the show. Enjoy the show from your smartphone anywhere,
Speaker 1: anytime and until next time, which is tomorrow. Shieldside Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network is the only dual certified veteran owned background
Speaker 1: investigation and vetting company. They are federally certified as a
Speaker 1: veteran owned small business and they are headquartered at Chicago
Speaker 1: with officers throughout the nation. Their riskmunigation experts work with
Speaker 1: startups all the way up to Fortune one hundred companies.
Speaker 1: So for all of your background check needs, call Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. No data or client information is ever offshore,
Speaker 1: and all of their employees located here in the United States.
Speaker 1: Keep it all here at home in the US and
Speaker 1: go with a veteran owned and operated company. For all
Speaker 1: of your background check needs, Global Verification Network call eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. Again,
Speaker 1: that's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: Or go to MYGBN dot com. Again, that's MYGVN dot
Speaker 1: com Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned.