Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Trump and mccron have
Speaker 1: a discussion while he's out there doing the NATO thing. Also,
Speaker 1: the House GOP has a report out on impeachment. The
Speaker 1: Inspector General report means that people are running for cover
Speaker 1: and trying to run interference on both sides. A peloton
Speaker 1: ad that's gotten far more attention than it intended to,
Speaker 1: and liberals don't like Melania's coat. That are more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Mag no mistake American. Great, you're a great American Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Buck Sex and Show. Everybody. Sorry, I'm
Speaker 1: my voice a little scratchy this morning. I don't really
Speaker 1: know why, but thank you so much for me. That's
Speaker 1: what it's what happens. You do a radio show enough,
Speaker 1: your vocal cords take a beaten. Mine are much abused.
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why I'm days off. I
Speaker 1: try to talk less. I just look at people and
Speaker 1: nodded my head. M that's great. We got a lot
Speaker 1: to get you today. NATO, NATO North Atlantic Treaty organization
Speaker 1: been around for quite some time trying to counter the Soviets.
Speaker 1: You got Trump sitting down with Emmanuel Macron, who I
Speaker 1: will say, does remind me. I mean, you could cast
Speaker 1: him as this snooty French waiter in any movie or
Speaker 1: TV show. I brought you this ketchup because you're American
Speaker 1: and you put ketchip on everything. You know what I mean?
Speaker 1: You could do that and it would it would work perfectly. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it doesn't really smile, doesn't really exude a
Speaker 1: lot of warmth, but certainly exudes a lot of frenchness,
Speaker 1: a lot of French coming from this guy. But they're
Speaker 1: sitting there having a discussion about NATO. And here's what
Speaker 1: the media wants you to believe. Let's start with that.
Speaker 1: If you're just a casual observer of news channels and newspapers,
Speaker 1: with of course the few exceptions that have not made
Speaker 1: anti Trump is their business model. But if you happen
Speaker 1: to take a look casually and just see what's going
Speaker 1: on with NATO, you will read things and see things
Speaker 1: about how Trump is terrible for NATO, He's been a
Speaker 1: great threat. In fact, there was a CNN analysis this morning.
Speaker 1: You can't make this stuff up. CNN analysis where he
Speaker 1: said or where it was said, that Trump is the
Speaker 1: biggest threat to NATO. And so there's some irony in
Speaker 1: the fact that he is holding a meeting with different
Speaker 1: NATO leaders, including an Emmanuel Macron of France. This is
Speaker 1: is very stupid. This is aggressively stupid, as I was
Speaker 1: fond of saying in the past, because first of all,
Speaker 1: if anyone thinks that it's a greater threat than Putin,
Speaker 1: I would really need them to explain that. I also
Speaker 1: think that the threat that Putin poses to us as
Speaker 1: a general matter is being exaggerated. I know that I've
Speaker 1: been telling you for years now. The media, the Democrats
Speaker 1: are completely willing to skip past the real concern that
Speaker 1: China poses to US as a near peer competitor, a
Speaker 1: country that at some point is going to try to
Speaker 1: flex its muscles and say, sorry, America, you're not the
Speaker 1: hegemon anymore. You don't get to make that call. Russia
Speaker 1: is a fraction of the Chinese economy and a fraction
Speaker 1: of the Chinese population. Let's be serious for a moment.
Speaker 1: Anybody who tells you that Russia has a bigger threat
Speaker 1: than China doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying. Well,
Speaker 1: let's get back to NATO for a moment, shall we
Speaker 1: You have the discussion over ISIS fighters that got the
Speaker 1: most attention this morning from the Macron Trump meeting. Please
Speaker 1: produce a Brandon Plick Club twelve for me, the very
Speaker 1: first subjective in the regions is to finish war against
Speaker 1: ices and and don't don't make any mistake. Your number
Speaker 1: one problem are not the firm fighters. This is the
Speaker 1: II fighters in the regions, and you have more and
Speaker 1: more in fighters due to the situation today. This is
Speaker 1: why he's a great politician because that was one of
Speaker 1: the greatest non answers I've ever preferred. And that's okay
Speaker 1: because sometimes if you can have some fundation from the
Speaker 1: DPUs side. I don't say about freas in Fern, but
Speaker 1: could be the press to say this is the European responsibility.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say that we have some of our people,
Speaker 1: but if you don't think at the reality of the
Speaker 1: situations that no one not to be ambiguous with these brooks.
Speaker 1: This is why we thought that to discuss about our
Speaker 1: relations were still key. But I think any ambiguiki was
Speaker 1: Stilkey these books he's victim on to to everybody for
Speaker 1: the situation. France has actually taken back some fighters. So
Speaker 1: we have a lot of fighters, We captured a lot
Speaker 1: of people, and we have captured one hundred percent of
Speaker 1: the caliphate that you know that that means that it's
Speaker 1: still going and going. We set a small contingent in
Speaker 1: and we wiped out another portion of ices. We don't
Speaker 1: want to happen to me what happened with President Obama
Speaker 1: where it reformed and then it became stronger than it
Speaker 1: was in the first place. So we don't want that
Speaker 1: to happen. So this is the primary exchange that everyone
Speaker 1: was focusing on between these two or leaders today. One
Speaker 1: thing you see here is that the French, and this
Speaker 1: is true of really all of our European partners, with
Speaker 1: the possible exception of the Bridge, who do punch pretty
Speaker 1: close to if not at their weight, on these matters.
Speaker 1: We can count on the Brits in a way that
Speaker 1: we really can't count on other European states, count on
Speaker 1: the Aussies kind of the Canadians, but the French not
Speaker 1: so much. The European states mine is Britain tend to
Speaker 1: want to have a much bigger say, but much less
Speaker 1: responsibility in all of these matters. And that's why Trump
Speaker 1: was poking Makran a bit here with the cameras rolling,
Speaker 1: knowing that this would perhaps get under the French leader's
Speaker 1: skin a little bit. America is somehow responsible for whatever
Speaker 1: outcome happens now in Syria. This is what you've been
Speaker 1: led to believe. Meanwhile, we are supposed to be one
Speaker 1: of many countries to have partnered up to deal with
Speaker 1: the mess that is Syria. And all these people who say, oh,
Speaker 1: we should just stay there and stabilize, stabilize until what,
Speaker 1: until there's a challenger regime even place to Assad, because
Speaker 1: that's going to be a pretty picture that's going to
Speaker 1: work out really well. Or just stay indefinitely until Assad decides, Hey,
Speaker 1: I want that piece of the country back because I'm
Speaker 1: the leader, even if you want to pretend I'm not.
Speaker 1: That doesn't look like it ends well for us. The
Speaker 1: people that think that we should just stay in Syria
Speaker 1: haven't really thought this through very much. They now point
Speaker 1: to continuing operations against ISIS as somehow proof that we
Speaker 1: should just stay forever. And I look at this and say, no,
Speaker 1: we should be trying to remove our troops so that
Speaker 1: they don't stay forever. And if we're in the last
Speaker 1: phases of isis mop up, then so be it. There's
Speaker 1: also always risk attended to any of these moves and maneuvers.
Speaker 1: But what do the French really bring to the table here?
Speaker 1: What do they do that is helpful in this process? Well,
Speaker 1: sure they're a part of this coalition, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: they would point to different ways that they have tried
Speaker 1: to contribute. But we all know that somehow once again,
Speaker 1: and America is in the leadership role. Oh you mean
Speaker 1: that even under President Trump, America is in a leadership role.
Speaker 1: America is calling the shots, has the greatest degree of responsibility. Really,
Speaker 1: I thought that Trump abdicated it. I thought Trump was
Speaker 1: destroying NATO. Wait you mean Trump got over one hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars of additional funding from NATO members for their
Speaker 1: own defense. Remember, we are trying to prevent Russian aggression.
Speaker 1: We also asked the question, it should be asked much
Speaker 1: more frequently, what else should NATO will be doing? You
Speaker 1: know what, NATO's only mission in recent memory really has
Speaker 1: been Afghanistan. What is NATO doing in Afghanistan. We got
Speaker 1: a lot of allies. We got this fancy NATO thing.
Speaker 1: I guess we better use it. How has Afghanistan worked
Speaker 1: out with this multi country coalition meant to stabilize it?
Speaker 1: How many of you listening right now either served yourselves
Speaker 1: or have friends, family members, loved ones who have served
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan to come back and say, that's not going
Speaker 1: to be whatever the policymakers think it's going to be.
Speaker 1: A being to bed. Almost all of them, probably all
Speaker 1: of them. Anybody who served in a front line unit
Speaker 1: there knows there's not going to be some stable democracy.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna be able to point to this thing
Speaker 1: and say, yes, another NATO success. But even to ask
Speaker 1: these questions is treated as being Putin's puppet. This is
Speaker 1: what they say, Oh, you're putting out Russian propaganda. Do
Speaker 1: they realize or do they care? To the leftists who
Speaker 1: hate Trump and the media acolytes of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: pretending to be nonpartisan, do they care that making Russia
Speaker 1: into America's Enemy number one hurts us in a number
Speaker 1: of ways. It hurts us with regard to fighting against
Speaker 1: Islamic radicalism, where Russia is in fact an ally it
Speaker 1: hurts us with trying to get the Russians to play
Speaker 1: nicer and with more diplomacy on the European states on
Speaker 1: their periphery. We have a lot in common with Russia
Speaker 1: in certain areas. In others we don't. They view us
Speaker 1: as oppositional. The Russian mentality is very much that they are.
Speaker 1: They view themselves as surrounded. We view Russia as vast
Speaker 1: eleven time zones. It's huge. They think of themselves though
Speaker 1: its surrounded by hostile states. They have to look on
Speaker 1: their periphery and see NATO to the west, see China
Speaker 1: and Japan to the east and southeast, and then even
Speaker 1: India pushing up from their south. From the underbelly, Russia
Speaker 1: doesn't view itself as in some strategically sound position. Russia
Speaker 1: views itself as a victim of geopolitical circumstances, and in
Speaker 1: the post Soviet era even more so. Now I'm not
Speaker 1: saying they're correct or that's right, that's helpful, but we
Speaker 1: should at least understand what the mentality is and try
Speaker 1: to work within that reality. Does anyone really want to
Speaker 1: go to war with Russia? Better question, would anyone in
Speaker 1: the Democrat press right now, which is really just the press.
Speaker 1: They want to send their children to go fight on
Speaker 1: the front lines of Estonia if there was a Russian
Speaker 1: incident involving Maskarovka. I'm not talking about all the tanks
Speaker 1: Roland and I'm saying some separatist movement where they all
Speaker 1: happen to speak Russian and some of you know there are,
Speaker 1: in fact many people in the Baltic States for whom
Speaker 1: Russian is their first language, their whole communities. There would
Speaker 1: not be that hard for this to happen. Are we
Speaker 1: going to get involved in that fight? Now? You can say, yes,
Speaker 1: you can take that position, but we should at least
Speaker 1: people to have that discussion without the idiots in the media.
Speaker 1: And I've realized now the media really is full of
Speaker 1: people who have decided that it's not worthwhile to do
Speaker 1: anything useful. It's much better for them to just try
Speaker 1: to be in the cool kid club all the time,
Speaker 1: to do whatever they have to do to impress the
Speaker 1: corporate executives who can sign over paychecks that are far
Speaker 1: bigger than what they would deserve if they weren't working
Speaker 1: for legacy media outlets. They don't care how stupid they
Speaker 1: look on these issues and how much. They push us
Speaker 1: with their belligerence in the reporting, closer and closer to
Speaker 1: an actual conflict with Russia, which would be horrific. By
Speaker 1: the way, and I remember it's President Trump who blew
Speaker 1: up a couple of hundred Russian paramilitaries in the Syrian
Speaker 1: desert in order to protect our Kurdish allies, I might add,
Speaker 1: and Russia let that one go. We don't want to
Speaker 1: keep having close calls with the Russian state. To say
Speaker 1: that we should aim for better relations with Russia is
Speaker 1: so obvious that it shouldn't have to be said. But
Speaker 1: in our current environment, you hear the narrative Trump is
Speaker 1: destroying NATO, Trump is Putin's puppet. Anything that deviates from that.
Speaker 1: Any facts you can present that don't go along with
Speaker 1: that narrative makes you a bad person. You're an idiot.
Speaker 1: You don't know anything. That's what the media will tell you.
Speaker 1: But hold on a second. What bad thing has happened
Speaker 1: to NATO? Well, name one bad thing that has happened
Speaker 1: to NATO because of Trump since he became the president.
Speaker 1: If you NATO bureaus. A few European institutionalist types decided
Speaker 1: that it was he was a little gruff when he
Speaker 1: was asking for more money. Okay, guess what states paid
Speaker 1: up more money and they said they would That was
Speaker 1: the agreement that we had. NATO is nothing other than
Speaker 1: an agreement. In fact, so in some states can say yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll do this and then they don't do it. Doesn't
Speaker 1: that undermine the very core of what holds it all together.
Speaker 1: But there's never any discussion about any of this, That's honest.
Speaker 1: It's just everything is about bashing Trump. Nothing can be
Speaker 1: separate from bashing Trump. These people. This is the totalitarian mindset.
Speaker 1: And you go back, you see the way it was
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union. If you were in any way
Speaker 1: opposing the Soviet state, you were a counter revolutionary and
Speaker 1: therefore you were to be nullified, you were to be destroyed.
Speaker 1: For the media right now, they have a Soviet mentality
Speaker 1: about Trump, especially because we're in this reelection cycle. Now
Speaker 1: you're either trying to destroy President Trump or you're evil.
Speaker 1: You're part of the problem. Every issue, every news story,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what it is, even when we're talking about
Speaker 1: things like conflict possibly between nuclear armed states. They're reckless
Speaker 1: about this stuff. Putin's puppet, oh Russia, more sanctions on Russia,
Speaker 1: more tough talk against Russia. Really, how far do we
Speaker 1: really want to push that? Obama didn't push really much
Speaker 1: at all. By the way, he got real tough with
Speaker 1: Russia at the end of his presidency. We wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to deal with it, didn't want to send those javelin missiles,
Speaker 1: did the whole expulsion of Russian diplomats and added sanctions
Speaker 1: after he was going to be out of office, and
Speaker 1: wasn't his problem anymore. Really easy to be tough them
Speaker 1: when you don't have to be the one that looks
Speaker 1: into the eyes of parents who have lost their child
Speaker 1: because of the stupidity of much older and allegedly wiser
Speaker 1: elected officials who think they know what they're doing. But
Speaker 1: really it's all about them in this whole process. It's
Speaker 1: not about NATO. It's about defeating Trump. There people who
Speaker 1: want power. The narrative of NATO that you are being
Speaker 1: told every day has been completely misconstrued, distorted, and perverted
Speaker 1: as a club yet again against the presidents of the
Speaker 1: United States, and it is not based in reality. Just
Speaker 1: remember that as you see all of this playing out, Well,
Speaker 1: I haven't asked that to the president today. I have
Speaker 1: over the period time. We have a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: captured fighters. ISIS fighters over Interia, and they're Roland, the
Speaker 1: Latin Key, but many of from France, many of from Germany,
Speaker 1: and many are from UK. They're mostly from Europe, and
Speaker 1: some of the countries are agreeing. I have not spoken
Speaker 1: to the president about that. Would you like some nice
Speaker 1: ISIS fighters, I can give them. You can take everyone
Speaker 1: you want. The very large number of fighters you have
Speaker 1: under Rome to fight us me from from your in
Speaker 1: the region. This is true that you have foreign fighters
Speaker 1: coming from Europe, but this is a tiny minoritia of
Speaker 1: the whole problem we have in the region. And I
Speaker 1: think number one priority because it's not yet finished. It's
Speaker 1: a graduate of IIS and it's always corps. This is
Speaker 1: our number one pio and it's not yet Dune. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to think that. Yes, you see that fighters in
Speaker 1: this region, in Syria and now in Iraq and more
Speaker 1: and more, and the whole the setidization of the region
Speaker 1: makes the situation more difficult to fix, the situation against ISIS.
Speaker 1: So who's going to be responsible for all those fighters
Speaker 1: we have on the ground. You have all these people
Speaker 1: that say that they know what to do in Syria,
Speaker 1: they know what the end game is really Your thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands of prisoners, what happens to them? They've all
Speaker 1: been radicalized one way or another. Maybe some of them
Speaker 1: now would claim that they've turned on the Islamic state
Speaker 1: because it has crumbled. But anyone who would fight for
Speaker 1: a jihadest army that engages in mass torture, enslavement, rape,
Speaker 1: mutilation and murder, it's not somebody you're going to want
Speaker 1: to let go anytime soon. Who takes all the Isis fighters. Well,
Speaker 1: isn't it nice to have a president who looks at
Speaker 1: some of the world leaders who are our allies, places
Speaker 1: like France, and I do love France and the French people,
Speaker 1: by the way, as much as I love will make
Speaker 1: fun of zam Brandon. They're also it's a beautiful culture
Speaker 1: with great food. That all said, sometimes a little bit
Speaker 1: of tough love is necessary in diplomacy. Sometimes pushing our
Speaker 1: allies a little bit to do things they don't necessarily
Speaker 1: want to do means that we have to do less.
Speaker 1: And therefore, oh, that's right. It's America first, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Our interests should be pursued. That doesn't mean at the
Speaker 1: exclusion of being helpful and keeping our word to our allies.
Speaker 1: But it does mean that there's a whole other way
Speaker 1: to approach these issues. You get more funding out of
Speaker 1: NATO members. Maybe you also get some NATO members like
Speaker 1: France to back anybody who's a French citizen who's an
Speaker 1: ISIS fighter. How about that for a crazy idea. I
Speaker 1: think it's very unpatriotic of the Democrats to put on
Speaker 1: a performance where they do that. I do. I think
Speaker 1: it's a bad thing for our country. Impeachment wasn't supposed
Speaker 1: to be used that way. All you have to do
Speaker 1: is read the transcripts. You see there was absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: done wrong. They had legal scholars looking at the transcripts
Speaker 1: the other day and they say these are absolutely perfect.
Speaker 1: Trump is right when he uses those concepts. Those calls
Speaker 1: that we've made, two of them were absolutely perfect calls.
Speaker 1: And I think it's a very bad thing for our country.
Speaker 1: Does it cast in cloud Well, if it does, then
Speaker 1: the Democrats have done a very great disservice to the country,
Speaker 1: which they have. The Democrats have done a disservice to
Speaker 1: the country, but they're not stopping. They don't care about
Speaker 1: the disservice they are doing, and so we have to
Speaker 1: now sit through this Judiciary Committee nonsense on Wednesday, another
Speaker 1: kabuki theater attack Trump extravaganza. We have our friend Raheim
Speaker 1: Kassam joining us now. He is the co host of
Speaker 1: the podcast called War Rum, which is on impeachment and
Speaker 1: related political matters. You can check that out on iTunes. Raheim,
Speaker 1: Great to have you back, sir, Hey, thanks for having me. Buck.
Speaker 1: All right, so let's before we get into your expectations.
Speaker 1: And I know you're you're doing your show with Miller
Speaker 1: and with Bannon, so you guys are neck deep in
Speaker 1: this impeachment thing all the time. But before we get
Speaker 1: to what your expectations are for Wednesday, how do you
Speaker 1: assess what's happened so far? Is this? Have Democrats just
Speaker 1: been stumbling left and right? Or do we not really
Speaker 1: know what their strategy is? I don't think they quite
Speaker 1: know what their strategy is. Buck, They went into this
Speaker 1: whole process, they were effectively sold a bit of a
Speaker 1: fantasy by this so called whistleblower. The fantasy didn't turn
Speaker 1: out to be reality. We heard from the whistleblower very
Speaker 1: early on in this process that they were things on
Speaker 1: the phone call between President Trump and President Lensky, which
Speaker 1: when the transcript was published, they weren't in there. Okay,
Speaker 1: So the Democrats then had to pivot and they said, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to bring all these witnesses in. We're gonna
Speaker 1: bring people who were familiar with the president's thinking. We're
Speaker 1: going to bring people who were familiar with the call,
Speaker 1: who were on the call themselves. Let them elaborate on this.
Speaker 1: And then they brought all of these witnesses in, first
Speaker 1: in Adam Schiff's star chamber in the secretive basement Skiff
Speaker 1: for the Capitol Building. Then Matt Gates goes in and says,
Speaker 1: you can't do this privately. You have to do this publicly.
Speaker 1: This is you're talking about attacking a democratically elected president.
Speaker 1: Do it in public. So then they had to pivot
Speaker 1: again start doing it in public and in public despite
Speaker 1: all the remonstrations of CNN and The New York Times.
Speaker 1: Actually none of the witnesses corroborated what the whistleblowers original
Speaker 1: statement was, and none of the witnesses actually set out
Speaker 1: anything that was illegal, that was unconstitutional, that was an
Speaker 1: abuse of the president's power, And so now the Democrats
Speaker 1: are having to pivot again. This week, we're hearing that
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is quietly attempting to build a new impeachment
Speaker 1: case around things other than Ukraine, going back to the
Speaker 1: Muller report, going back to the Russia collusion hoax, and
Speaker 1: of course Jerry Nadlow, who got ripped up by by
Speaker 1: Cory Lewandowski in an earlier hearing earlier this year. You know,
Speaker 1: you've seen how this Chairman of the Judiciary Committee crumbles
Speaker 1: under pressure also, And I happen to believe therefore that
Speaker 1: after Wednesday, the Democrats are again going to have to pivot,
Speaker 1: and I think they may even be looking at removing
Speaker 1: withdrawing themselves from the impeachment staff and moving just onto
Speaker 1: a censure vote against President Trump and leaving it at that,
Speaker 1: because this is really harming them. It's harming them in
Speaker 1: their thirty one swing districts they have to win next year.
Speaker 1: It's harming their presidential candidates in their primary, and it's
Speaker 1: really taking a toll on Nancy Pelosi and how the
Speaker 1: base used Nancy Pelosi because she was seeming to be
Speaker 1: pulling the line or towing the line, or Rashida Talab
Speaker 1: but Alexander Cassio Cortez and the rest of the squad,
Speaker 1: and it makes her look not a leader of her party,
Speaker 1: but a follower of the far left elements that doesn't
Speaker 1: think they know what their strategy. Now. I know your
Speaker 1: podcast is war room. Let's war game. If we can
Speaker 1: for a moment here this major decision that you got into.
Speaker 1: You alluded to briefly about the possibility of Democrats just
Speaker 1: doing a censure vote. Wouldn't that then be viewed? And
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm always I'm always somebody who says
Speaker 1: nobody can predict the future. I'm I would put my
Speaker 1: certainty that they will impeach at high but who knows.
Speaker 1: And as you're pointing out, this thing is not going
Speaker 1: there's no way that Nancy Pelosi thought that this would
Speaker 1: be where it is right now. And I think that
Speaker 1: that much is clear. If they do a censure vote, only,
Speaker 1: isn't that then going into a reelection cycle essentially an
Speaker 1: admission that this was all just political nonsense and that
Speaker 1: they didn't have the goods on them though, you know,
Speaker 1: how do you view that component of it? I mean,
Speaker 1: at least if they go to the mat Raheem Pelosi
Speaker 1: can say we impeached, we did what we can. Yes,
Speaker 1: she could say that, but then remember the public will
Speaker 1: be able to see and view and read everything that
Speaker 1: comes out in the Senate trial. There will be cross
Speaker 1: examination and cross cross examination. There will be representations at
Speaker 1: the very highest level on all of that. So she
Speaker 1: might even want to avoid that process if she goes
Speaker 1: for a censure and overseeing the impeachment process through. At
Speaker 1: least she can say, well, look, we got a lot
Speaker 1: of very serious information of very serious players. All these
Speaker 1: are elected bureaucrats who are great patriots and everything that
Speaker 1: she wants to say about them, and we had to
Speaker 1: We were obligated to take them at their word and
Speaker 1: have this process out. But it turned out that the
Speaker 1: evidence was not an impeachable offense, although it was an
Speaker 1: offense that the president should be censured over. And we
Speaker 1: take our constitutional you know, we take our constitutional obligations
Speaker 1: very seriously, and therefore that's why we're not pursuing this.
Speaker 1: But if you want a president who's not going to
Speaker 1: be censured for doing things on the international stage that
Speaker 1: they shouldn't be doing, then you vote for one of
Speaker 1: our guys next time. So at six of one and
Speaker 1: half a dozen of the other. As far as Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi's concerned, but she is probably more concerned about more
Speaker 1: than actually losing face over the impeachment process, is actually
Speaker 1: losing power over her own party. So she's trying to
Speaker 1: weigh and measure right now, is there the appetite for
Speaker 1: a full blown impeachment trial out there? Are these thirty
Speaker 1: one Democrats in the swing district's going to side with her?
Speaker 1: Or are they going to actually vote a different way?
Speaker 1: Are they going to distance themselves from party leadership, a
Speaker 1: House leadership over this or can she do something that
Speaker 1: pleases all sides which might be a censure vote? What
Speaker 1: would be the game changer from the Democrat side? Do
Speaker 1: you think that would be a realistic possibility on this
Speaker 1: Wednesday hearing men, I saw the list of some of
Speaker 1: the witnesses Raheem. It's as though they're trying to put
Speaker 1: the American people to sleep. It's a constitutional law professors.
Speaker 1: That doesn't seem to me like it's going to move
Speaker 1: the needle. What could move the needle from Pula? You know,
Speaker 1: what is Nadler going to try to do or is
Speaker 1: you just going to repeat everything we've already heard and
Speaker 1: hope that the repetition itself becomes the argument. Well, so,
Speaker 1: one of the things we're doing, or I'm doing as
Speaker 1: part of my role in the War Room podcast, is
Speaker 1: going through every single document, and yesterday you had the
Speaker 1: Republican Minority report releases one hundred and twenty three pages,
Speaker 1: and going through all of that, you can see why
Speaker 1: Republican Council Steve Caster wasn't playing up to the cameras
Speaker 1: in those public hearings over the last couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: He was actually producing an evidentiary case because guess what,
Speaker 1: when it goes to a Senate trial, there needs to
Speaker 1: be an evidentiary record of what happened with Ukraine. There
Speaker 1: needs to be an evidentiary record of what happened with
Speaker 1: all these phone calls and text messages and WhatsApp, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: It's one thing, which is what the Democrat Council was
Speaker 1: doing to try and pump up headlines and get CNN
Speaker 1: to run funky Chiron's about you know what this witness
Speaker 1: says is an impeachable offense or what this witness implies
Speaker 1: happened between ambassadors on London David Holmes on a terrace
Speaker 1: at a restaurant in Ukraine after a bottle of wine.
Speaker 1: You know, that's one thing, But the other thing is
Speaker 1: producing the evidentiary record. So now what they're doing in
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee is they are trying to backpeddle it
Speaker 1: away from the media. Gramming headlines, putting up constitutional law
Speaker 1: professors lends more towards producing an evidentiary record, or at
Speaker 1: least producing evidence to show that the press that has
Speaker 1: somehow overstepped his constitutional role. That's why they're getting all
Speaker 1: boring with this. They know they're losing the fight as
Speaker 1: it pertains to the granularity and the detail of this
Speaker 1: impeachment process. I think the big game changer is going
Speaker 1: to be this. Look, if the Republicans manage to show
Speaker 1: and to have any doubt cast from any of these
Speaker 1: witnesses that say, look, maybe you disagree with the president's
Speaker 1: foreign policy and the way he went about the foreign policy,
Speaker 1: but do you see any evidence of wrongdoing, then that
Speaker 1: will be a second hit. But they did it the
Speaker 1: last time with all these other witnesses. Remember, none of
Speaker 1: them were able to say, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: this was a directly appeachable offense. They just said, Oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't quite like it. It didn't really fit with
Speaker 1: my worldview. If they managed to get this out of
Speaker 1: the next set of witnesses, that's two strikes. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: will then have a third attempt at bat to do
Speaker 1: something different. It might be a censure vote, it might
Speaker 1: be pursuing a full trial, but then you know she's out.
Speaker 1: Ran Casam everybody. He is a co host of the
Speaker 1: war Room podcast with Jason Miller and Steve Van and
Speaker 1: they are diving deep into this every day. Right here
Speaker 1: before we let you go real quick, I just wondering Brexit.
Speaker 1: What's going on because it's been getting some headlines here
Speaker 1: and there, and then it kind of faded because the
Speaker 1: media is so obsessed with anti Trump is and where
Speaker 1: does it stand right now? Yeah, probably faded because we
Speaker 1: have a general election in the UK now coming up
Speaker 1: on December the twelfth. This is an election that's been
Speaker 1: called because there is a deadlock in Parliament. They can't
Speaker 1: get things going either way, and so it looks like
Speaker 1: Boris Johnson is going to be elected with a big
Speaker 1: parliamentary majority, an eighty class seat parliamentary majority, and therefore,
Speaker 1: by January the thirty first, he will be able to
Speaker 1: take Britain out of the European Union, not perhaps in
Speaker 1: the greatest way that some of us hardline Brixiteers like
Speaker 1: myself and Nigel Barrage would have liked, but it still
Speaker 1: will be a leave by January the thirty first, and
Speaker 1: I'm optimistic about that. Less optimistic about pro amnesty liberal
Speaker 1: Boris Johnson being Prime Minister for the next five years,
Speaker 1: but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Well,
Speaker 1: it looks like Brexit might actually be happening. Isn't that
Speaker 1: kind of amazing because the elite media seems to have
Speaker 1: thought that they'd be able to just change this by
Speaker 1: telling us that it's so bad. Nothing more powerful than
Speaker 1: the will of the people, rightim Cassam, Everybody War Room
Speaker 1: is the podcast. It's on iTunes. Check it out. Rheim,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, my friend, Thank you. We rolled back
Speaker 1: the Obama administrations cuddling up to Cuba by applying heavy
Speaker 1: new sanctions. We've recognized that engagement has not improved Cuba's
Speaker 1: regime and hasn't made it better. The human rights record
Speaker 1: was worse. The risk to the Cuban people was worse
Speaker 1: than the risk of the United States was worse and
Speaker 1: their capacity to influence Venezuela even greater. So we've changed that.
Speaker 1: We've allowed Americans to seek justice by suing the regime
Speaker 1: in Havana to recover property that it stole a long
Speaker 1: time ago. It only makes sense when Americans had their
Speaker 1: stuff stolen, to give them a chance to get it back.
Speaker 1: And we've applauded countries that have expelled Cubans who have
Speaker 1: come to live as doctors inside of their borders, who
Speaker 1: were really working on behalf of the government. These doctors.
Speaker 1: This is a program that's hard to fathom. Sometimes they
Speaker 1: send doctors to countries all around the world. They traffic
Speaker 1: to generate income for the Cuban leadership. So the doctors
Speaker 1: received ten or twenty percent of the revenue that they generate,
Speaker 1: and the rist to fund the Cuban regime, posing up
Speaker 1: to dictators. Right, That's what you always hear about Trump
Speaker 1: from the mainstream media. And yet when you look back
Speaker 1: at the record of the president that was elevated by
Speaker 1: the media as some kind of god king Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: turns out that he had quite a fondness in action
Speaker 1: as a matter of policy, for dictators and regimes that
Speaker 1: do not deserve anything in terms of concessions from America.
Speaker 1: You see, this is where they always blur the lines.
Speaker 1: You look at what's going on with North Korea. President
Speaker 1: Trump has tried to so far unsuccessfully and let's be honest,
Speaker 1: but has tried to create the basic interpersonal framework for
Speaker 1: some kind of a grand bargain with North Korea. Have
Speaker 1: any of the sanctions been lifted in North Korea? No,
Speaker 1: In fact, the sanctions are stronger than they've ever been.
Speaker 1: Has there been any concession made to North Korea? As
Speaker 1: a matter of policy? Do we not still board their
Speaker 1: ships on the high seas and make sure that they're
Speaker 1: not engaged in illegal trade, particularly contraband black market trade
Speaker 1: for missiles and other aspects of the arms trade. Make
Speaker 1: sure they're not selling anything in violation of the crippling
Speaker 1: sanctions on the country. Don't we still do all of that?
Speaker 1: All Trump has done has said or spoken about Kim
Speaker 1: John Gunn said some weird things, no question, but spoken
Speaker 1: about him and spoken to him. With Iran, the Obama
Speaker 1: administration came along and said, hey, so you don't have
Speaker 1: to do anything that's really difficult for you, and we're
Speaker 1: going to give you. We're actually going to deliver to
Speaker 1: you huge palettes of US cash which you can then
Speaker 1: fund your terror regime with. And we're going to make
Speaker 1: sure that neither the Israelis nor anybody else would be
Speaker 1: able to make a strike on your nuclear facilities because
Speaker 1: you'll be under the ages. You'll be under the protection
Speaker 1: of this international deal that the Obama administration with European
Speaker 1: countries that have a long legacy of failure in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, thought was a good idea. That's giving stuff
Speaker 1: for nothing in return. We got nothing in return from Iran.
Speaker 1: They have centerfuges that they could turn on, they could
Speaker 1: turn them off. That doesn't that's not enough, that's not
Speaker 1: a concession. With Cuba, you're the same situation. The Obama
Speaker 1: administration has decided we've been mean enough to Cuba for
Speaker 1: long enough. There's really no reason for us to take
Speaker 1: the approach that we have to do anything about Cuba anymore,
Speaker 1: or we should do a lot less. Let's be buddy
Speaker 1: buddy with Cuba, with Castro's dictatorship, which continues, by the way,
Speaker 1: to be an enormous thorn in our side. Not just
Speaker 1: and when it comes to Cuban specific policy, but also
Speaker 1: with countries like Venezuela, wherever the worst elements, the worst
Speaker 1: political elements are operating, you know, the Marxist, communist, socialist
Speaker 1: revolutionary types in the Western Hemisphere and here in North
Speaker 1: and South America or anywhere for that matter, you can
Speaker 1: often find the hand of the Cuban regime. They are
Speaker 1: running a totalitarian prison camp on that island, and they
Speaker 1: love to export that anywhere else they can, and they
Speaker 1: also like to leverage relationships with other brutal dictatorial types
Speaker 1: in order to stay in power themselves, Venezuela being a
Speaker 1: very good example of that. Despite the Jack Ryan movie
Speaker 1: where their hero at Venezuela is the female social justice warrior,
Speaker 1: yeah that's really the and the bad guys are those
Speaker 1: right wing military types. Yeah they're the scary tale. Or
Speaker 1: maybe the bad guy's social justice warrior Namaduro, who has
Speaker 1: destroyed that country, been responsible for unimaginable deprivation and misery
Speaker 1: and despair. But Cuba is a bad regime. Didn't get
Speaker 1: any better despite the concessions the extended hand from the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, because ultimately there's just an ideological affinity for
Speaker 1: Cuba that comes from a left in this country. In America,
Speaker 1: we have a lot of people who are Democrats, but
Speaker 1: they're really socialists, and they see socialists trying so hard
Speaker 1: to bring about that utopian society on the island of Cuba,
Speaker 1: and yeah, they can admit that it hasn't gone according
Speaker 1: to plan, but they still harbor this fondness for them.
Speaker 1: Socialists tend to like other socialists. Is the really straightforward
Speaker 1: way to look at this, and that's what we're dealing with,
Speaker 1: what we were dealing with with the Obama administration in Cuba.
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be setting it right now.
Speaker 1: You won't see much of the media covering this, though,
Speaker 1: will you, because it would be yet another Obama administration
Speaker 1: foreign policy failure that has to be set right by
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. I understand it can be a little
Speaker 1: bit awkward when you have to think about life insurance.
Speaker 1: You don't want to have to consider what would be unthinkable,
Speaker 1: but you have to prepare for an uncertain future and
Speaker 1: make sure that your family is safe and secure. I've
Speaker 1: gone through this process myself. It's something you need to
Speaker 1: do and you should go to the place that makes
Speaker 1: it easy for you. No hassle. That's Ethos Life Insurance.
Speaker 1: Ethos is modern life insurance for people who just don't
Speaker 1: want to waste time with fine print, extra appointments or
Speaker 1: fees they really just can't afford. Ethos has a simple approach.
Speaker 1: They take industry expertise and they blend it with technology
Speaker 1: so that you can find the right policy to protect
Speaker 1: your loved ones in just a matter of about ten
Speaker 1: minutes and you can apply online. You should check it
Speaker 1: out for yourself. You'll be taking the first steps to
Speaker 1: ensure that your family has the financial security they need
Speaker 1: in case of the unexpected. This is the responsible thing
Speaker 1: to do. Get a fast, free and personalized quote right
Speaker 1: now at Ethoslife dot com. That'slife dot com Life insurance
Speaker 1: that actually fits your life. We are on the final
Speaker 1: countdown for the Inspector General report from the FBI d
Speaker 1: OJ on possible FIZA abuse fies of the Foreign Intelligence
Speaker 1: Surveillance Act meant to catch spies and terrorists and somehow
Speaker 1: deployed against Carter Page, who you could say is among
Speaker 1: the most unlikely assets of a foreign government you could
Speaker 1: find anywhere. Carter Page, who was a cooperative witness and
Speaker 1: just an all around helpful guy to the FBI to
Speaker 1: nail some other Russians before. So, if you were already
Speaker 1: on the FBI's radar and you've had to help them
Speaker 1: in another case involving possible intelligence activities of a foreign
Speaker 1: government against the United States, you're going to try to
Speaker 1: get the Russians to meddle in a presidential election, get
Speaker 1: to coordinate with a presidential campaign. This is something that
Speaker 1: only delusional or stupid people could believe. And yet, guess what,
Speaker 1: when that Inspector General report comes out next week, there
Speaker 1: will be a whole lot of people who are claiming
Speaker 1: that it exonerates the FBI, that it means nothing was
Speaker 1: done wrong, even though carter Page had a FISA collection
Speaker 1: done on him, which to any normal, any sane person,
Speaker 1: is obviously absurd. I will still never forget when carter
Speaker 1: Page sat next to me, and which is before I
Speaker 1: interviewed him the first time, and he told me that
Speaker 1: he met my dad at an event in New York
Speaker 1: City of all things, and my dad was like, who
Speaker 1: but carter Page. It turned out he actually did meet
Speaker 1: him briefly. They shook heads or something, but it was
Speaker 1: quite a quite an interesting broment. What a small world
Speaker 1: we live in. Carter Page is not a Russian spy.
Speaker 1: In fact, there was never even an allegation of any
Speaker 1: criminal They couldn't even concoct a theory of criminal wrongdoing
Speaker 1: against Carter Page. And yet a US citizen had all
Speaker 1: of his communications, cell phone records, emails, text messages, all
Speaker 1: of that just grabbed by the federal government because a
Speaker 1: few FBI agents were hysterical around this conspiracy theory that
Speaker 1: was really coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign. That's let
Speaker 1: me skip to the end of the story for all
Speaker 1: of you. What we will find out and I think
Speaker 1: we'll find out from the Durham report. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if it'll be before after the twenty twenty election though.
Speaker 1: Remember this is Inspector General Horowitz at the DJFBI. What
Speaker 1: we will find out from the attorney US Attorney Durham,
Speaker 1: who is a lawyer's lawyer or prosecutor's prosecutor according to
Speaker 1: both sides of the aisle up to this point, well
Speaker 1: you'll find out from eventually is that the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign got this whole thing start. That there's whole Russia, Russia, Russia.
Speaker 1: It really had its origins in the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Speaker 1: That this was a Hillary info up against Trump, and
Speaker 1: that because people are such wild eyed left wing partisans,
Speaker 1: because Democrats have become such petty totalitarians, they seized on
Speaker 1: this and then abused their power in whatever ways they could,
Speaker 1: either in the press or in the government, to run
Speaker 1: with this theory, to pursue this theory, to really almost
Speaker 1: overturn the results of an election based on this theory,
Speaker 1: and it came from the Clinton camp very early on.
Speaker 1: That is my prediction to you as to where all
Speaker 1: of us is heading, although it'll be some time before
Speaker 1: we get there. What are we going to find out
Speaker 1: about the Inspector General report, Well, let's just remember a
Speaker 1: few things before we before we do our pregame analysis
Speaker 1: here of everything, let's remember that the Inspector General in
Speaker 1: this case, Horowitz, was an Obama appointee who oversaw a
Speaker 1: five hundred plus page report on Hillary Clinton's emails that
Speaker 1: was absolutely full of political bias, and Horowitz concluded, as
Speaker 1: if by magic, that all of that bias in no
Speaker 1: way affected the decisions that the Department of Justice made
Speaker 1: about Hillary Clinton's emails. I am here to tell you,
Speaker 1: and you won't want to hear this. Probably I'm here
Speaker 1: to tell you that you should get ready for round
Speaker 1: two of this. What you will likely see in this
Speaker 1: Inspector General report is a whole lot of dubious decision making.
Speaker 1: Just like with the press, right, the press gets stories wrong,
Speaker 1: but the stories they get wrong are overwhelmingly are overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: I would even argue entirely when it pertains to Trump
Speaker 1: anti Trump. It's always anti Trump stories. You will see
Speaker 1: that the mistakes that the decision making at the FBI,
Speaker 1: and you know fbis within DJ but I'll use these
Speaker 1: go back and forth over these that the decisions made
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice about this FISA warrant and
Speaker 1: this baseline theory that the Trump campaign was somehow colluding
Speaker 1: with Russia, the decisions made through all of that. The
Speaker 1: truth is, my friends, that they were all somehow negative.
Speaker 1: The bad decisions were negative for Trump. Doesn't mean it
Speaker 1: was illegal. But you know, the tie goes to the runner, Well,
Speaker 1: the tie goes to the anti Trump deep state here
Speaker 1: every time, that's what's going to happen. So you'll see
Speaker 1: this pattern of yeah, we gotta get this fizy, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we gotta, we gotta do whatever we gotta do. We
Speaker 1: gotta stack it with the dossier. No one verifies anything, Doscia.
Speaker 1: It turns out the dossier is all crap and it's
Speaker 1: a Hillary Clinton opposition document. You're gonna include that. Oh,
Speaker 1: but you know, the excuse there is that the FBI
Speaker 1: agents involved were lazy and stupid enough to believe the dossier. Okay,
Speaker 1: they're not bad people, they're just dumb and lazy. That's
Speaker 1: going to be the excuse implicit in what comes out
Speaker 1: on this report. That's what they're going to fall back on.
Speaker 1: The bureaucracy, you see, is not tainted. It's just inept.
Speaker 1: It's just not very good at what it's supposed to do.
Speaker 1: But that they can live with. You know, that's cost
Speaker 1: of doing business. Isn't that interesting? There is one wild
Speaker 1: card in this scenario, though, you see. They know that
Speaker 1: they can count on Horowitz to be an institutionalist, to
Speaker 1: be somebody who wants to defend the edifice of the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. It's so easy to convince yourself if
Speaker 1: you work in these government agencies. I work for the CIA, man,
Speaker 1: I know, it's so easy to say, well, even if
Speaker 1: we colored a little bit outside the lines here, even
Speaker 1: if this looks a little shady and shakes the faith
Speaker 1: of the American people that these bureaucrats who are empowered
Speaker 1: for very specific ends do in fact abuse those ends
Speaker 1: for partisan reasons. We still really need these places. We
Speaker 1: really need the Department of Justice, we need the FBI,
Speaker 1: we need all these different seventeen members of the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: And because we need them, if we have to give
Speaker 1: them more than the benefit of the doubt, if we
Speaker 1: have to look the other way, yet, what are reasonable
Speaker 1: rational person would understand as malfeasance, Well then that's just
Speaker 1: the price of protecting these institutions. I noticed this is
Speaker 1: different than even somebody inside the bureaucracy who is left wing,
Speaker 1: who is ideologically willing to you know, the Lauretta Lynch approach. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna meet with Bill Clinton on the tarmac, pretend
Speaker 1: it was a non secuit or conversation. Who cares all
Speaker 1: an accident. You know, I don't know what was said there,
Speaker 1: but she didn't want anyone else to know either. There
Speaker 1: are ideologues inside the bureaucracy, people that clearly take the
Speaker 1: power that they have to try to help Team Democrat,
Speaker 1: help the left, help the socialists inside this country. Because
Speaker 1: they are the party of the state. But then you
Speaker 1: just have people who are not necessarily and I don't
Speaker 1: know enough about Horowitz to make the determination as to
Speaker 1: which one of these camps he falls into, although he'll
Speaker 1: be in one of them. And we know this because
Speaker 1: of the Hillary email report was a giant a monument
Speaker 1: to political bias. Political bias everywhere, that's clear. But did
Speaker 1: that bias affect the decision making? This would be like
Speaker 1: somebody saying to you, Hey, you know this federal judge
Speaker 1: is presiding over this case. He's on tape the week
Speaker 1: before he started presiding over the trial saying that the
Speaker 1: defendant is a moron, an idiot. Smells bad, terrible. But
Speaker 1: even though all of the judgments during the case made
Speaker 1: by the judge went against this defendant, we have no
Speaker 1: clear evidence that the bias that the judge established beforehand
Speaker 1: influenced any of those decisions. That is exactly what the
Speaker 1: DJ did with Hillary's emails. Now you would probably say,
Speaker 1: I mean, back hold on, a second federal judge would
Speaker 1: have to recuse himself. Oh, you mean like Lauretta Lynch
Speaker 1: recused herself, by the way, as the attorney general from
Speaker 1: the Hillary Oh no, she never recused herself from that.
Speaker 1: Did she remember how the Democrats play the game? Remember
Speaker 1: how we play. We have all these Republicans who are
Speaker 1: these little suck ups in the classroom who run around, Oh,
Speaker 1: I never play rough. Oh well, the teacher give me
Speaker 1: a pat on the head. You know, they're tending to
Speaker 1: be never trumpers, and this is what they do. They
Speaker 1: run around. Oh, how could we be so so harsh
Speaker 1: with the other side while the other side of just
Speaker 1: pounding our faces into the pavement all the time. That's
Speaker 1: how the left plays the game, and we walk around, Oh,
Speaker 1: we have people on our side. Why are we being
Speaker 1: so Why does Trump say the mean things about the Democrats.
Speaker 1: I'm glad somebody does. It's about time. But they don't
Speaker 1: recuse themselves from these things. They want to make sure
Speaker 1: they maintain control and they can keep the pressure on
Speaker 1: their opponents. This is what you're going to see play
Speaker 1: out once again. Though the judge who says he hates
Speaker 1: somebody then is in the trial makes every decision against
Speaker 1: that person. But at the end of the day, you
Speaker 1: can claim you can't prove that the judge made all
Speaker 1: those decisions because he hated the person, right that this
Speaker 1: is what you're going to see in this Inspector General report.
Speaker 1: This is my prediction for you. There'll be some Yes,
Speaker 1: someone change some stuff here, but you know, they change
Speaker 1: stuff to make the warrant the FIES are warrant application stronger,
Speaker 1: which is negative for Trump of course, and the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: Then it would have otherwise been and you know, maybe
Speaker 1: they didn't do as much due diligence. They kind of
Speaker 1: ram through all this stuff just so they can get
Speaker 1: the FIES in going because remember, what if what if
Speaker 1: things had turned out a little bit differently. We always
Speaker 1: think about Russia collusion and the possibility that using carter
Speaker 1: Page would have been a way to backdoor get access
Speaker 1: to anyone that in the Trump campaign orbit that he
Speaker 1: had spoken to and any information he may have about
Speaker 1: the alleged Russia collusion. But what if they had found
Speaker 1: something else, What if there was some other criminality or
Speaker 1: collusion of some kind of what if there were campaign
Speaker 1: finance anything that they could have found in this whole process.
Speaker 1: Look at how they went after a Manaphort, look at
Speaker 1: how they're going after Roger Stone. You think they would
Speaker 1: have overlooked this was a way to get a fantastic,
Speaker 1: wide open access to somebody in constant contact with the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, in different senior members of that campaign, and
Speaker 1: to do so on a fishing expedition, and to think
Speaker 1: that it would all be kept secret by the way,
Speaker 1: which as we know now it will not be. This
Speaker 1: is a perfect way to bring down a presidential campaign
Speaker 1: or to bring down a president And this is what
Speaker 1: the other side did. But there is one wrinkle in
Speaker 1: the left's plans here, I said, Horowitz will not will
Speaker 1: not allow for there to be any real consequences or
Speaker 1: accountability for the FBI won't allow it. It's not going
Speaker 1: to happen. It doesn't matter what's there. He already said,
Speaker 1: Lisa Page showed us that we can't really trust the
Speaker 1: FBI or raise us. I forget the verbiage raises core
Speaker 1: issues of trust the FBI. We already know that's there.
Speaker 1: But now we look at the rest of them. We
Speaker 1: said to ourselves, hold on a second. They're going to
Speaker 1: present us with all this evidence of bias and wrongdoing
Speaker 1: and then they're going to claim that there was no
Speaker 1: bias or wrongdoing. That's what's going to happen here again,
Speaker 1: isn't it? And the answer is Yes, that's what I'm
Speaker 1: telling you to get ready for. But there's one problem.
Speaker 1: They're not the only ones who get to shape the
Speaker 1: narrative here. There's another individual, as you know, one of
Speaker 1: my favorites in the administration, another individual out there who
Speaker 1: knows this game very well and probably saved Trump's presidents seal,
Speaker 1: though we don't often talk about it that way, because
Speaker 1: he knows the ambush that the left had had set
Speaker 1: for this president. He understands what they were doing, he
Speaker 1: knows what the dirty politics were, and that man, his
Speaker 1: Attorney General Bar the story in the Washington Post says
Speaker 1: it all my friends, Bar disputes key Inspector General finding
Speaker 1: about FBI's Russia investigation from the Washington Post. We know
Speaker 1: exactly what's going on here. This is the story published yesterday.
Speaker 1: Attorney General William P. Barr has told the associates he
Speaker 1: disagrees with the Justice Departments Inspector General on one of
Speaker 1: the key findings in an upcoming report that the FBI
Speaker 1: had enough information in July twenty sixteen to justify launching
Speaker 1: an investigation into members of the Trump campaign. According to
Speaker 1: people familiar with the matter, the Justice Department Inspector General
Speaker 1: Michael Horowitz is due to release his long awaited findings,
Speaker 1: but behind the scenes of the DJ disagreement at service
Speaker 1: about one of horow It's essential conclusions on the origins
Speaker 1: of the Russian investigation. The discord could be the prelude
Speaker 1: to a major fissure within financial law enforcement on the
Speaker 1: controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign. Barr has not
Speaker 1: been swayed by Horowitz is rationale for concluding that the
Speaker 1: FBI had sufvision basis to open an investigation on July
Speaker 1: thirty one, twenty sixteen. My friends, this is the Achilles
Speaker 1: heel of the whole situation. What have I been saying
Speaker 1: to you now for years? Mueller didn't even touch this.
Speaker 1: Why how did this whole thing get started? Where did
Speaker 1: this come from? Or we're to believe that they just
Speaker 1: happened to have people near Papadopolis, But Papadopolis happened to
Speaker 1: say a thing that Plice, We're not idiots. They had
Speaker 1: set up to get Papadopolis before this conversation he allegedly
Speaker 1: had with Downer in a bar in the UK. I
Speaker 1: believe papadop is running for a congress. By the way, yes,
Speaker 1: that's what they believe that they want us to believe
Speaker 1: that Bar knows. This is going to be the critical question.
Speaker 1: There will be all this information presented, and people who
Speaker 1: are very invested in this will tell you they will
Speaker 1: feign stupidity, they will feign an abject lack of judgment,
Speaker 1: and they will say to you that the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: investigation was a duly predicated investigation from the start, meaning
Speaker 1: that there was something other than political malice as the
Speaker 1: real motivation for looking into all of this. Bar is
Speaker 1: going to look at this according to support, and I
Speaker 1: believe in say not so fast. You're going to investigate
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign based on what a very low level
Speaker 1: advisory member of the campaign says to a guy in
Speaker 1: a bar in the UK. You're gonna do You're gonna
Speaker 1: make that call. You're then going to get FISA on
Speaker 1: another low level member of an advisory board of the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. Really, and you're gonna act like that's fair.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, you know you have people to walk
Speaker 1: into police stations across the country and say that you know,
Speaker 1: Elvis is in their shower and Osama bin Laden is
Speaker 1: hiding under their bed. If you sent in a squat
Speaker 1: team kicked in the front door and shot a couple
Speaker 1: of people. Because you're doing a ray to find Elvis
Speaker 1: and Osama, people would want to ask some questions like
Speaker 1: what the heck are you doing? That is going to
Speaker 1: be what we are faced with by the f behind now.
Speaker 1: They were going to want us to believe they made
Speaker 1: stupid decisions in good faith, not because of politics, and
Speaker 1: bar is going to look at them it sounds like,
Speaker 1: and say, not so fast, we know what you're up to.
Speaker 1: This whole thing was in fact a hoax, an ambush,
Speaker 1: and a scam. So people are making a lot of
Speaker 1: jokes about Bloomberg getting into the race at this point,
Speaker 1: and it turns out that Mayor Bloomberg has jumped into
Speaker 1: in a very crowded field, fifth place according to the
Speaker 1: most recent poll I've seen right away is that like
Speaker 1: six percent ahead of Kamala Harris. S tells you a
Speaker 1: lot about the media's love affair with the Harris campaign.
Speaker 1: Is that's gonna have to come to an end at
Speaker 1: some point. There is really just no way that anyone's
Speaker 1: going to be able to continue to pretend that she is,
Speaker 1: as she once referred to herself, a top tier candidate.
Speaker 1: She is not a top tier candidate. But this is
Speaker 1: what the messages that we're getting from we're getting from
Speaker 1: the Democrat voters who are being pulled here. They all
Speaker 1: know thing and one thing only. They don't want Trump
Speaker 1: to be president. After that, it gets very hazy for
Speaker 1: a lot of them, because no person could look anyone
Speaker 1: else in the eye with seriousness and say, yeah, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's the great Joe Biden the future of America. And
Speaker 1: there was a cartoon circulating yesterday where somebody, a brilliant cartoonist,
Speaker 1: created this little cartoon just set that Joe Biden. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I got hair on my legs, and my legs
Speaker 1: are the blonde hair and the hair is sticking up,
Speaker 1: sticking up, staring at the sky, sun shining down on
Speaker 1: the legs. Little kids hopping around, dumping on my lap.
Speaker 1: I love it because my blonde leg hairs like all
Speaker 1: crazy straight. And then it's not. Then it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's like flying around my head and I'm crazy. Some
Speaker 1: guy created a video of it and it was it
Speaker 1: was amazing, It really was. I wish I could show.
Speaker 1: I wish those of you who are just listening on
Speaker 1: audio we could show it to you, but it was
Speaker 1: a stunning It was a starting to watch because this
Speaker 1: is the person. We're in a country of over three
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty million people, and the best the Democrats
Speaker 1: can do is this really old, not very bright, weird
Speaker 1: guy with some corruption issues that should get a little
Speaker 1: more investigation. I think, you know, I think all of
Speaker 1: that is fair. This guy's going to be the next
Speaker 1: president the United States. He's going to be the one
Speaker 1: with the nuclear codes. We've been told for years Trump
Speaker 1: is not fit for office. Oh oh, I'm sorry. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is fit for office. I had seen references to
Speaker 1: the infamous corn Pop showdown, but I realized yesterday that
Speaker 1: we had not addressed the cornpop issue here on the show.
Speaker 1: And I feel like I am I am remiss as
Speaker 1: a result, because in that same campaign stop where he's talking,
Speaker 1: we wearing a hair and my leg is blood, and
Speaker 1: the sticks in the sky and the sun in my eye,
Speaker 1: and seven little chipmunks sitting on a brand she eat
Speaker 1: a lot of acorns, you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: He also talked about his fight with at the public pool,
Speaker 1: the terrifying gang leader known as corn pop let Us
Speaker 1: revisit this. Shall we plick clip one? I learned a lot,
Speaker 1: and I learned that it makes a difference. This was
Speaker 1: the driving board area and I was one of the guards,
Speaker 1: and there weren't a lot of There's a three meter
Speaker 1: board and you fell off sideways. You landed on the damps,
Speaker 1: the darn cement over there. And Cornpop was a bad
Speaker 1: dude and he ran a bunch of bad boys. And
Speaker 1: I did yeah. He and back in those days and
Speaker 1: shot things have changed. One of the things he had
Speaker 1: to use. If you use pomade in your hair, you
Speaker 1: had to wear a bathing cap and show. He was
Speaker 1: up on the board. Wouldn't list him. I said, hey, Esther,
Speaker 1: you off the board. I'll come up and drag you off. Well,
Speaker 1: he came off, and he said, I'll meet you outside
Speaker 1: my car. This was mostly days were all public housing.
Speaker 1: Behind you my car. There was a gate on here.
Speaker 1: I parked my car outside the gate and I he said,
Speaker 1: I'll be waiting for you. Here's raight murder, three guys
Speaker 1: and straight racers. Not a joke. I just I'll have
Speaker 1: to note that here you have Joe Biden, who I've
Speaker 1: heard giving speeches before, and I've actually actually went to
Speaker 1: a speech where a number of Democrat, like third tier
Speaker 1: Democrat candidates back in two thousand and eight, we're giving speeches,
Speaker 1: and Joe Biden was one of them because he was
Speaker 1: right there with Kucinich and I don't even remember who
Speaker 1: else for people that had no shot of winning the presidency.
Speaker 1: But now he should be president. They tell you, because
Speaker 1: they got nothing else. They got nobody else on the bench.
Speaker 1: That's the problem. They got all these candidates, nobody that
Speaker 1: anyone's excited about. But I noticed that, Yeah, a guy
Speaker 1: named corn Pop and corn Pop out a bunch of
Speaker 1: bad dudes, is am I am? I the only one
Speaker 1: who picks up. He's like a little like a little
Speaker 1: bit of a Southern accent creeps into Joe Biden when
Speaker 1: he's trying to be a little folks here, right, I'm
Speaker 1: not making it look. Guy's from Delaware. He's got as
Speaker 1: much of an accent as I do. Yeah, ain't no
Speaker 1: corn Popper's three meters up on the board. And you
Speaker 1: know ros corn Pop got the dang in the hair
Speaker 1: and the puppy puppy pupp and the puppy poop. And
Speaker 1: you know, I'm just talking like this because I like
Speaker 1: to talk like Thatt. This is Joe Biden. Everybody is
Speaker 1: so Joe Biden's talking all of a sudden. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it reminds you of Hillary. Hillary got away
Speaker 1: with this tool one but you was at I'm so,
Speaker 1: I'm so down, tied my feet done, hurt. This was Hillary.
Speaker 1: I'm like, when did when did Hillary? All of a sudden?
Speaker 1: And if you go back and look at clips of her,
Speaker 1: because you know, she kind of actually has like more
Speaker 1: of a Midwestern thing if you really listen to her.
Speaker 1: Her intonation is. By the way, all the Midwestern people
Speaker 1: listening this right now are booing the crap out of me.
Speaker 1: And that's all right. I'm my Midwestern accent is not good.
Speaker 1: I agree, But she did do that sometimes. Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: doing it here too. Of these politicians. Remember Joe Biden
Speaker 1: will put you all back in chains. Joe Biden said,
Speaker 1: So this is the Cornpop showed on first of all,
Speaker 1: I mean, even in the fifties, do you really think
Speaker 1: that there was some nefarious character who carried around straight
Speaker 1: razors and threatened people in public places named corn Pop.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's a lie. I'm just saying it
Speaker 1: doesn't ring true. But the Great Corn Pop Showdown of
Speaker 1: like nineteen sixty two or something whenever this was, I
Speaker 1: don't know. Here here's how I went to play Clip two.
Speaker 1: There's a guy named bill Wright Mouse, the only white guy,
Speaker 1: and he did all the pools. He was the mechanic.
Speaker 1: And I said, what am I going to do? He said,
Speaker 1: come down here in the basement where mechanics. Where where
Speaker 1: all the pool builder is. You know, the chain used
Speaker 1: to be a chain that went across the deep end,
Speaker 1: and he cut off a six foot and left the chain.
Speaker 1: He fulled up. He said, you walk out with that chain.
Speaker 1: And you walked to the car and say, you may
Speaker 1: cut me man, but I'm gonna wrap this chain around
Speaker 1: your head. I said, you're kidding me. He said no,
Speaker 1: If you don't, don't come back. And he was right.
Speaker 1: So I walked out with the chain and I walked
Speaker 1: up to my car. And they had those days. You
Speaker 1: used to remember the straight razor. You bang him on
Speaker 1: the curb, get him rusty, put him in the rain barrel,
Speaker 1: get him rusty. And I looked at him, but I
Speaker 1: was smart. Then I said, first of all, I said, well,
Speaker 1: I tell you get off the board, and you get
Speaker 1: off the board, I'll kick you out again. But I
Speaker 1: shouldn't have called you Esther Williams. I apologize for that.
Speaker 1: I apologize, but I didn't know that apologie is going
Speaker 1: to work. He said, you apologize me. I said, I
Speaker 1: apologize what I'm not for thrown you out, but I
Speaker 1: apologize to what I said. He said, okay, closed the
Speaker 1: straight razors, and my heart began to beat again. I mean,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's telling you here that he was like about
Speaker 1: to get into some gay warfare kind of fight. Remember
Speaker 1: back in the day when they take the straight razor
Speaker 1: and they make it all rusty? Is that is that
Speaker 1: a thing? People make the straight razor rusty? So that
Speaker 1: why why they think they're gonna give you a tetanus.
Speaker 1: I don't understand what this is all, But again, this
Speaker 1: is just this guy. Look he's he's just full of it. Man,
Speaker 1: He's always been full of it. It's amazing. He's like,
Speaker 1: I'm not tired to get off the board. Gotta get
Speaker 1: off the board. I've heard Joe Biden, he speaks normally
Speaker 1: without any any of this intonation whatsoever. But he thought
Speaker 1: that this would go over well with his crowd. But
Speaker 1: even more than that, it's just such a weird It's
Speaker 1: such a weird story for him to tell, and I
Speaker 1: don't believe it. I mean, Joe Biden, he's walking out,
Speaker 1: He's walking to meet a guy who has a straight
Speaker 1: razor in the parking lot of a public pool. There's
Speaker 1: gonna be people everywhere, and he takes a chain out
Speaker 1: with him. I mean, do you believe that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is some kind of badass he's willing to get into.
Speaker 1: You know, is this like the movie? What is it?
Speaker 1: The movie Warriors? Right? Isn't that where they the gangs
Speaker 1: in New York where they got the change come out
Speaker 1: to play a Yeah, I don't even know what that is,
Speaker 1: but I'm Starriors. It's yeah to play. I just know
Speaker 1: of the movie. But I know they all carry around
Speaker 1: ship that used to be a thing gang members that
Speaker 1: would carry a chance chain is not that good of
Speaker 1: a weapon, Yeah, exactly. I mean, if someone gives me
Speaker 1: the choice between a chain or a baseball bat, you
Speaker 1: go baseball bat. Every time. I think you go knife
Speaker 1: over chain too. Yeah, you could throw it. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: it reminds me of how we used to think that
Speaker 1: like nun chuckoos were a serious weapon. They're in fact
Speaker 1: illegal because people got so scared of them from movies.
Speaker 1: They're illegal in New York California. Now you cannot have
Speaker 1: It's like two pieces of metal with a string between it.
Speaker 1: That's illegal. And it's just because they're all these movies
Speaker 1: in the seventies and eighties where these gang members had
Speaker 1: you known nun chuck nunchuckoos or numbchucks or you know,
Speaker 1: people call them different things. I believe the proper terminology
Speaker 1: is nun chuck us, but people call them numb chucks.
Speaker 1: That's what Michael Langlow said. That's right. The orange Nature Turtle.
Speaker 1: It's not. I mean, people saw that Bruce Lee movie
Speaker 1: and he's like hitting all these guys with No, it's not.
Speaker 1: It's not that easy. Actually, you really don't want you
Speaker 1: really don't want to be squaring off against somebody with
Speaker 1: with numpchucks. It's not it's not the best weapon. Not
Speaker 1: that I've been in a lot of gang fights. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna lie, you know, but I'm not the one
Speaker 1: sitting there like, hey, then a bunch of guys said
Speaker 1: they're gonna cut me with a straight race or not
Speaker 1: grab a chain. I put on my leather jacket with
Speaker 1: the cutoff sleeves I had. They had him a gang
Speaker 1: colors on the back, and I just went out, you
Speaker 1: know your next president of the United States, everybody. And
Speaker 1: this isn't from like twenty years ago. This isn't like
Speaker 1: him talking as a youth. This is a few weeks back.
Speaker 1: This is what the Democrats that. This is why Michael
Speaker 1: Bloomberg could get in the race and he's at you know,
Speaker 1: six percent, run off the back. This is the front runner.
Speaker 1: This isn't I'm not just making fun of some I'm
Speaker 1: like kookie candidate that nobody's you know, serious about. Is
Speaker 1: the Democrat front runner. This guy. Here's a fun question,
Speaker 1: ask your Democrats, what is the big idea that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is running with and in support of. He's just
Speaker 1: a vessel for people's wishing longing for the Obama era.
Speaker 1: That's really it. There's nothing that's not an idea, that's
Speaker 1: that's a fantasy. We're not going back to the Obama air.
Speaker 1: We're not going back to politics pre Trump. Liberals need
Speaker 1: to get a hold of this, They need to get
Speaker 1: an understanding of this. But I think it's gonna happen
Speaker 1: anytime soon. Everybody. We got our friend David Harsani in
Speaker 1: the mix. He is a writer at National Review. He's
Speaker 1: got a great piece up on National Review right now,
Speaker 1: anti majoritarianism isn't on American And although we're gonna put
Speaker 1: a pin on that for one seconds, I want to
Speaker 1: ask him about some of the latest and greatest David.
Speaker 1: Great to have you back. Always a pleasure. Thanks. So
Speaker 1: we're just talking about Bloomberg and Biden. By the way,
Speaker 1: are you having as much fun with the blonde hair,
Speaker 1: straight legs, and corn pop story situation as everybody else?
Speaker 1: I am. You know how it works these days, as
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if things are actually true or not.
Speaker 1: I have to sort of research to make sure that
Speaker 1: these things are actually happening, and they are they are legitimate.
Speaker 1: So I am having fun. Yet, I mean, how can
Speaker 1: this guy what is he? Why is Biden? I was
Speaker 1: just talking this before we called him. Why is Biden
Speaker 1: the front runner? What is your take? How is this
Speaker 1: guy who's really somewhat clownish and preposterous and not even
Speaker 1: not even entertaining clownish? What's going on? Well? I think
Speaker 1: people envision him as a certain kind of candidate, and
Speaker 1: without really paying that much attention to him, he's people
Speaker 1: forget he's you know, he's had failed presidential candidatis and
Speaker 1: not like slightly failed, but just like complete disasters before,
Speaker 1: and he's not ever been that great a politician. I
Speaker 1: think what's happened is that people are looking for a
Speaker 1: candidate who can win. So it's some kind of moderate candidate,
Speaker 1: and he, I guess fits that bill and has enough
Speaker 1: experience in name recognition that it puts him in the lead.
Speaker 1: And people keep telling me he's going to fall apart
Speaker 1: and it's going to be over. But every poll I see,
Speaker 1: you know, he seems a pretty clear front runner to me.
Speaker 1: Now Bloomberg is in at i think six percent in
Speaker 1: the poll. Do you think that he shakes things up
Speaker 1: and makes anything, makes any noise that's worth hearing, at
Speaker 1: least in terms of changing things around. I'm not sure yet.
Speaker 1: I think that there's obviously some I mean, it feels
Speaker 1: to me like Democrats that haven't found the candidate, that
Speaker 1: they're looking for someone who they feel like can win,
Speaker 1: someone who's not too far to the left. You know,
Speaker 1: at least certain Democrats so it's possible that he can
Speaker 1: take some of that, some of that away from maybe
Speaker 1: Biden or mayor Peter or things like that. But in
Speaker 1: the end, though, I just don't I don't think he's
Speaker 1: likable enough, and I don't think that his positions are
Speaker 1: of the moment, especially on the left. Why can't may
Speaker 1: or Peak get more traction. I think he's actually kind
Speaker 1: of a lightweight when you really listen to him. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's the reason. I just think
Speaker 1: maybe it's a name recognition thing, maybe because it looks
Speaker 1: like he's in second rate. I mean, you know, it
Speaker 1: could be various things that turn off people. And there's
Speaker 1: still so many people running, so you never know, once
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris drops out or other people he may get,
Speaker 1: you know, those people might come over to him. So
Speaker 1: out of the people still left, I think he still
Speaker 1: has somewhat of a chance. And do you think that
Speaker 1: in taverns and local bars across the country, people are
Speaker 1: going to be pouring out some shots for the tragically
Speaker 1: ended set Stack campaign. Sometimes I'm like, oh, yeah, he
Speaker 1: was running. It's weird. I guess people have nothing to
Speaker 1: lose anymore when they run, so you get tons of
Speaker 1: people running just for maybe because they want to be
Speaker 1: VP or something like that. I mean, it's like Michael
Speaker 1: Bennett still running. I don't even know. Yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: good question, by the one. Are your expectations for the
Speaker 1: IG report as it's just now days away. I mean
Speaker 1: I've been telling everybody that I think that there'll be
Speaker 1: some bad stuff, but it'll be just like what the
Speaker 1: bureaucracies always do. Would you say, well, you know, there
Speaker 1: were some minor mistakes made, but overall everything's on and
Speaker 1: there's nothing really to be worried. There's no deep state,
Speaker 1: there's nothing to be worried about. What do you think?
Speaker 1: I think that you're probably right though. All the leaking
Speaker 1: going on these days, and in all the sort of
Speaker 1: preemptive defenses that are going on, it makes me think
Speaker 1: that maybe it'll you know that people are a little
Speaker 1: bit worried about what's in there, But I mean generally
Speaker 1: you don't see the bureaucracy saying, you know, they've sort
Speaker 1: of you know, give you a pat on the hand
Speaker 1: or whatever. They don't you know, they're not going to
Speaker 1: really come out. Yeah. Do you remember the five hundred
Speaker 1: page Horowitz Report where it was I read this thing
Speaker 1: and I remember thinking, well, this is this looks terrible.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is bias everywhere. They're like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: just because you have every reason to believe somebody's biased
Speaker 1: doesn't mean their actual decision. I mean, it seemed to
Speaker 1: me that the Inspector General reports set a standard where
Speaker 1: unless you have people working the DOJ who are saying,
Speaker 1: I am doing this because I think Hillary is going
Speaker 1: to be president and I want to help her, there's
Speaker 1: no bias. You can't prove it, right, We can never
Speaker 1: prove it, or it's almost impossible to prove intent. But
Speaker 1: that's why they haven't rules set up so that you
Speaker 1: don't even either create the impression there's something some bias
Speaker 1: going on, or that there is bias going on. So
Speaker 1: obviously when you break those rules, you break them for
Speaker 1: a reason. When you say things, you say them for
Speaker 1: a reason. So to me, it's incredible that we keep
Speaker 1: talking about the intent rather than the professionalism of the
Speaker 1: agents that you're talking about. Yeah, there's definitely going to
Speaker 1: be a drop in the stock in my opinion of
Speaker 1: the f behind the DOJ whenever this thing comes out.
Speaker 1: It's actually terrible in a way that Americans can trust
Speaker 1: their institutions anymore. And it's not. And everyone wants to
Speaker 1: blame Trump, Trump and Trump fans and all that stuff,
Speaker 1: but they do most of this to themselves. Now I think,
Speaker 1: I think that's absolutely true. And I think as we
Speaker 1: continue to see the Democrat standard here as always, Trump
Speaker 1: is a stronger institutions. And then they talk about to
Speaker 1: stronger institutions, and maybe that's actually a perfect place, David
Speaker 1: to transition to your piece up in National Review. So guys,
Speaker 1: hold one sec we'll get into that. Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: is the only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. They are federally certified as a vetitown small
Speaker 1: business and headquartered in Chicago with offices throughout the nation.
Speaker 1: Their risk mitigation experts can work with startups all the
Speaker 1: way up to Fortune one hundred companies, and no data
Speaker 1: or client information is ever offshore. Unlike a lot of
Speaker 1: their competitors, Global Verification Network has all employees located throughout
Speaker 1: the United States and they do not outsource or offshore
Speaker 1: any of the work. You give them. Give Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network a call eight seven, seven, six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine again. That's eight seven seven, six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. You can also go to
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com again, that's MYGVN dot com Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network for all your background investigation, ending vetting needs. Leave
Speaker 1: no stone on terms. All right, seam, we're back with
Speaker 1: our friend David Harsani of National Review. He's telling us
Speaker 1: a little bit about his piece or he's about two
Speaker 1: antimajority arm isn't on American David. Thanks for staying with us,
Speaker 1: O my pleasure. All right, So you're talking about Atlantic
Speaker 1: writer Adam sir wars attack on Trump supporters, essentially saying
Speaker 1: that because they want judges, for example, that will defend
Speaker 1: their rights, that that's not accountability to democracy. Walk us
Speaker 1: through this new trend in left wing public intellectual thought
Speaker 1: and why it's basically crazy. But I'll let you put
Speaker 1: in your own words. Well, I mean, the new case
Speaker 1: against Trumpism is that social conservatives have sold their soul
Speaker 1: so they can because they can sell their ideas through
Speaker 1: the democratic process, they will use undemocratic means, using Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to get what they want. This is kind of
Speaker 1: a ridiculous contention for one reason. For the most the
Speaker 1: biggest reason is that Obviously Donald Trump has selected president.
Speaker 1: So it's not as if social conservatives haven't won anything
Speaker 1: they ran. You know, conservative are in the House and
Speaker 1: until recently, and they run the Senate for years, they
Speaker 1: can win elections. This is all based simply on one
Speaker 1: popular vote. More that Trump never ran for that's imaginary.
Speaker 1: But more than that, they believe that anytime the court
Speaker 1: strikes down something in their favor for religious liberty or
Speaker 1: gun rights or free speech, that social conservative are using
Speaker 1: some kind of undemocratic system, whereas democrats, I mean, abortion,
Speaker 1: gay marriage, is a whole list of lidany of things
Speaker 1: in other cases that they've been upheld by the courts
Speaker 1: that they would never have had without the courts, that
Speaker 1: they've never called those on democratics. So I just think
Speaker 1: it's a hypocrisymb just simply untrue. And you know, yesterday
Speaker 1: we talked a little bit here about the Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: promised to get rid of the electoral college. Is this
Speaker 1: just shameless pandering from Warren? I mean she does a
Speaker 1: lot of that, or do you think that she would
Speaker 1: really if she could, would she really want to do that?
Speaker 1: One hundred percent believe she would want to do that
Speaker 1: if she could. I mean, there are efforts underway to
Speaker 1: get a bunch of states to sign a pack to
Speaker 1: to to throw away their votes to a popular vote
Speaker 1: in their electoral votes, to a popular vote overall, if
Speaker 1: they could, and I'm sure she would do it. I'm
Speaker 1: sure Bernie Sanders would do it. I mean other people. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I don't know if what Joe Biden would do. But
Speaker 1: I just don't understand. So people tell me, oh, you
Speaker 1: know that's never going to happen, don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: You can still vote against Trump. Well I shouldn't. I
Speaker 1: take what politicians say seriously, meaning they're telling me they
Speaker 1: want to overturn the system. But you're telling me that's
Speaker 1: what you're telling me Trump is doing. But these people
Speaker 1: are openly advocating for the very same things you're telling
Speaker 1: me Trump is doing that he's not. So it makes
Speaker 1: no sense to me. Now is your what is your
Speaker 1: best case for why we should keep the electoral College?
Speaker 1: By the way, Well, because we have we have fifty
Speaker 1: different states that deserve their you know, in a diffused democracy,
Speaker 1: deserve their own say, rather than having California and New
Speaker 1: York running the country. If you had if you had
Speaker 1: no electoral college. You know, Trump would have run a
Speaker 1: different campaign. He'd be in New York, he being California,
Speaker 1: pandering to those people with more liberal kind of ideas,
Speaker 1: and we'd have two states that mattered in a bunch
Speaker 1: of states that didn't. That's not how the founders envisioned
Speaker 1: the treat Well, I certainly agree with that. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: what are your expectations for this Wednesday's judiciary hearing and impeachment?
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, I don't even know. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a lot of that same where the
Speaker 1: press is like, you know, you can always tell where
Speaker 1: there's going to be a tweet that's just annoying and
Speaker 1: untrue when someone has to put wow when they first tweet.
Speaker 1: You know, these reporters now do or like three exclamation points.
Speaker 1: You're gonna get a lot of that, and then when
Speaker 1: you actually read what was said, it'll be more of
Speaker 1: the same. I just don't think anyone's mind is being
Speaker 1: changed here. I don't think presidential candidates a lovely idea
Speaker 1: of impeachment. And you know, how do you line this?
Speaker 1: I mean, because I agree, by the way, I love
Speaker 1: seeing all these and it's fun to guess at what
Speaker 1: some reporters are going to say about certain certain uh
Speaker 1: you know, witnesses and this impeachment thing before they even say,
Speaker 1: because it's really easy. They're like, oh my gosh, Trump,
Speaker 1: this is the final you know, now he's gone too far,
Speaker 1: and then they end up writing it. I mean, these
Speaker 1: people have no they're not not only are they bad fingers,
Speaker 1: they have no originality which is really really pretty annoying
Speaker 1: skepticism about anything. I mean, I understand you on like
Speaker 1: trumpets show some skepticism towards both sides. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: what a good reporter should be doing. Yeah, that's that's
Speaker 1: been totally a band. I want to ask about it
Speaker 1: about that actually, because I think that people tend to
Speaker 1: look at Trump as the this singular exposure of the
Speaker 1: media in a way that has never really been done before.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's some truth to that. To
Speaker 1: be sure, he goes after them in a way publicly
Speaker 1: and has a megaphone. They're not used to anyone ever
Speaker 1: having a megaphone that can match what they can do,
Speaker 1: usually in a left right. So Trump all of a
Speaker 1: sudden is at least able to meet them at a
Speaker 1: pretty equivalent level in terms of how many people he
Speaker 1: can reach and how he doesn't have to go through
Speaker 1: them in the same way. But I also you mentioned
Speaker 1: Twitter all the exclamation points. I think that Twitter is
Speaker 1: in a sense that the death of quote nonpartisan journalism,
Speaker 1: because we just see all these journals all day long, like,
Speaker 1: what do they retweet, what are they like? What do
Speaker 1: they say? I mean, it's sort of like the DOJ
Speaker 1: thing where they say, well, there's lots and lots and
Speaker 1: lots of bias about the Hillary email thing, but we
Speaker 1: can't prove that any of those decisions were biased. It's
Speaker 1: just that there was people saying bias stuff. I feel
Speaker 1: like it's the same argument getting out with journalists where
Speaker 1: it's anti Trump screeds all day in the Twitter feed,
Speaker 1: either retweeted or shared or liked or written themselves. But
Speaker 1: then when they're covering the Capitol Hill stuff, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: we're honest, we're honest brokers in this Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 1: Twitter has been a revelation in the sense of showing
Speaker 1: us what all these journals are really like and what
Speaker 1: they think they can control themselves. And obviously I don't
Speaker 1: know what that's like. I'm having had to control myself
Speaker 1: in that way for a long time, but they simply
Speaker 1: can't not retweet things. And once Trump does, you know,
Speaker 1: start doing what he does where he's just sort of
Speaker 1: pushes right back and over the top stuff, they feel
Speaker 1: like now they can you know, they don't have to
Speaker 1: pretend that they're not completely biased. I mean, CNN runs
Speaker 1: an anti Trump organization. They have no interest in any
Speaker 1: sort of other truth. So, you know, I think that
Speaker 1: that's bad for the American people in a way because
Speaker 1: we don't choose a journalists anymore. But in another way,
Speaker 1: at least it tells us what the truth is and
Speaker 1: that we can just deal with it, deal with them
Speaker 1: in a more honest way. So that's what it is,
Speaker 1: David Harsani. Everybody, he approaches lots of things with skepticism.
Speaker 1: So that's the good dude, is he. It's not easily
Speaker 1: easily swayed. Anti majoritarianism, isn't an American that's a national review.
Speaker 1: David Harsani, thank you so much, so we'll talk to
Speaker 1: you soon. Thank you. There's no question that the far
Speaker 1: left thinks it is ascendant right now in our politics,
Speaker 1: and I think that they are on some solid ground
Speaker 1: in thinking. So you've got Sanders and Warren who are socialists.
Speaker 1: They're socialists. We could sit around and talk about the
Speaker 1: nuances and the variations. They are socialists, and they are
Speaker 1: number two and three right now in all the polls,
Speaker 1: and that means, by the way, if you combine their numbers,
Speaker 1: it'd probably be meaning if one of them drops out,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be Bunny, but who knows, Maybe it's gonna
Speaker 1: be warn. He wants to see if he can help
Speaker 1: last the lesser socialist Elizabeth Warren. But that's that's another
Speaker 1: way of looking at this, so that we all understand
Speaker 1: exactly how left wing the Democratic Party has gotten. And
Speaker 1: you even have some candidates now who are quite far left.
Speaker 1: We'll be running in twenty twenty, including mister jenk Uger.
Speaker 1: And I do not know if i'm pronouncing his life
Speaker 1: pronounce his first name, because he's known as jenk. I
Speaker 1: know that that's his name. I've talked to him before. Uger.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if that's how you say's last name,
Speaker 1: but I'm not trying to mispronounce it. That's a that's lame.
Speaker 1: I just don't know how to say it. But he's
Speaker 1: running for Congress now and he is, as you may
Speaker 1: some of you may know, the founder of the Young Turks,
Speaker 1: which is an online probably the most far left. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's kind of like The Nation, which is a bunch
Speaker 1: of commies where to found a news an online news program.
Speaker 1: They raised a whole bunch of money from, you know,
Speaker 1: a left wing multi multi millionaire or billionaire recently. That's
Speaker 1: so they're very well funded socialists, which tends to be
Speaker 1: the case. People that love to benefit from the excesses
Speaker 1: of capitalism and then talk about or rather just benefit
Speaker 1: from capitalism and then like to talk about how they
Speaker 1: hate capitalism. I hope to one day be so rich
Speaker 1: that I can talk about how we shouldn't live in
Speaker 1: a societymore where people can get rich, let's close the
Speaker 1: door for everybody else. I would have be one of
Speaker 1: these rich people who's like, I don't think anybody else
Speaker 1: should be really rich, you know, and therefore I am
Speaker 1: I am justifying my richness by saying that nobody else
Speaker 1: should be rich. That would be That would be a fun,
Speaker 1: self indulgent place to be, wouldn't I think there's no
Speaker 1: question about that. But the Young Churches also employed some
Speaker 1: of the nastiest, dumbest, and most vicious and stupid left
Speaker 1: wing talking heads in all of America, So they have
Speaker 1: that distinction. I mean people who are just odious characters,
Speaker 1: as we have discussed before on the show, bad people,
Speaker 1: people that are unworthy of respect or real discourse, people
Speaker 1: that are deserving of and they are stupid audience by
Speaker 1: the way, as well deserving of approbrium. But jenk is
Speaker 1: you know he will, he will engage, you, will debate,
Speaker 1: So I at least will give him credit for standing
Speaker 1: up and being willing to exchange ideas of people on
Speaker 1: his socialism. He talked about Medicare for all, for example,
Speaker 1: and here is what the Progressive Democrat candidate for I
Speaker 1: don't know which district in California says about Medicare for
Speaker 1: all play fourteen. First of all, Medicare for all polls excellent.
Speaker 1: Second of all, when you guys say you'd lose your insurance,
Speaker 1: that is terribly wrong. You have insurance. Even Michael Bennett,
Speaker 1: who doesn't like purce, okay, but you have better insurance.
Speaker 1: Chris you mad, No, no, not maybe, definitely, I asked
Speaker 1: Michael BENNI Santo Michael Bennet, who does not like Medicare
Speaker 1: for All. He said, it's the Medicare for all would
Speaker 1: be the Cadillac plan. He said, yes, you get everything
Speaker 1: with Medicare for All, you get better insurance. There's no
Speaker 1: question about that. Jenk doesn't understand how markets or economies work. Apparently,
Speaker 1: what he's referring to here is the promise, the absurd
Speaker 1: promise by the way of Medicare for all. And I
Speaker 1: think this is the Bernie Santa's version. It might be
Speaker 1: the war in version. But you know, Potato Potato that
Speaker 1: says that everything, vision, dental, you know, everything would be
Speaker 1: under this medicare. It would, in fact be much more
Speaker 1: than Medicare. Now, keeping my medicare is the one thing
Speaker 1: that threatens to collapse our entire economy as our debt
Speaker 1: continues to spiral out of control. But we're told, let's
Speaker 1: make that a lot, a lot bigger, a lot bigger.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem with having everybody on the same plan.
Speaker 1: You want, I'll give you a perfect sample. Actually, I
Speaker 1: tried to make an appointment with a specialist in New
Speaker 1: York City earlier in the week. Right, God, I just
Speaker 1: tend to some some buck health issue and I was
Speaker 1: told the weight was two months. I have insurance, by
Speaker 1: the way, and this is a doctor that doesn't take insurance,
Speaker 1: but you can of course submit afterwards and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. Two month wait, and that's a that's
Speaker 1: a doctor who's not even an insurance mark. Just wait
Speaker 1: until you're under your plan. Everybody else in the whole
Speaker 1: country is supposed to be effectively on the same plan.
Speaker 1: Do you think you're gonna be able to see the
Speaker 1: doctor you want to see now? Of course not. How
Speaker 1: do you determine who gets to see what doctor? And
Speaker 1: when everyone's paying the same, everyone's network is the same,
Speaker 1: every doctor is the same. This is, by the way,
Speaker 1: this is I mean, this is like full on socialist medicine.
Speaker 1: We're talking about here, determining everything other than the training
Speaker 1: of doctors and the provision of But that'll have to
Speaker 1: they'll have to add that into this because what happens
Speaker 1: is that there are no market signals to determine whether
Speaker 1: or not somebody can see a doctor in a certain timeframe.
Speaker 1: There are no market signals to make that designation, that determination.
Speaker 1: So what does the state does so sure that they'll
Speaker 1: pay for your doctor visit? Just like they will in Canada,
Speaker 1: just like they will in the UK, and you'll wait
Speaker 1: six to nine months for it, maybe a year. You know,
Speaker 1: it happens most of the time. People find out what
Speaker 1: the weight is and they go see a different doctor,
Speaker 1: a doctor they don't particularly want to see. The practitioner matters.
Speaker 1: You know, this is these are goods and services. People
Speaker 1: are making decisions and determinations. The entire system gets better
Speaker 1: when good doctors are rewarded, when good doctors can charge more. Also,
Speaker 1: smarter and better people in the future will want to
Speaker 1: go into medicine because they know they can be rewarded
Speaker 1: for this. The incentive structure in the medical system is
Speaker 1: wiped out in Medicare for All. Everyone's paid the same,
Speaker 1: everyone gets the same. Do you want Do you want
Speaker 1: that to be the case? No? I want to live
Speaker 1: in a country where I can choose the doctor that
Speaker 1: I see and see him in a reasonable or her
Speaker 1: in a reasonable timeframe. The only way that these systems
Speaker 1: that do even less than Medicare for All, the only
Speaker 1: way they provide care is through rationing and waits. They
Speaker 1: tell you how much you can get, they tell you
Speaker 1: when you can get it. By the way, what also
Speaker 1: will be included in this new people are if you
Speaker 1: want to go see a shrink, a psychologist, psychiatrist, do
Speaker 1: you get to go every day? Very very expensive? Who's
Speaker 1: going to pay for this? How much is determined? At
Speaker 1: some point the reality sets in where you can't just
Speaker 1: have people getting whatever they want, because if people get
Speaker 1: whatever they want, there won't be enough for people to
Speaker 1: get Without a mark in place to incentivize better, more efficient,
Speaker 1: faster care and to bring more people into the medical
Speaker 1: system so that there is more there are more goods
Speaker 1: and services to be distributed. This whole thing falls apart.
Speaker 1: It's going to be better than your current insurance plan.
Speaker 1: Good luck with that, the Cadillac of plan. This is
Speaker 1: the folks. This is snake oil that you are being sold.
Speaker 1: It is a lie. It is a fiction. Unless they're
Speaker 1: willing to say middle class taxes will go up dramatically,
Speaker 1: which they will have to just to make the math work,
Speaker 1: and unless they are willing to say that yes, you
Speaker 1: will see the doctor that the government says you are
Speaker 1: allowed to see in the time frame that government determines
Speaker 1: they are lying to you. They can point to any
Speaker 1: other major state operated medical system in the developed world
Speaker 1: and those are the realities that we are dealing with.
Speaker 1: That's it. So just yeah, medicare for all you. Someone's
Speaker 1: gonna pay for all your healthcare. This is state intrusion
Speaker 1: into one fifth, one sixth roughly of the economy in
Speaker 1: a way that will then lead to you, by the way,
Speaker 1: further socialized industries and sectors of our economy. This does
Speaker 1: not get better. This only gets worse. Oh, breaking news,
Speaker 1: breaking news. You know how in the last hour of
Speaker 1: the show, I said, you know, when is Kamala gonna
Speaker 1: call it quits? I think I said that dedn'ty her.
Speaker 1: I was at least making fun of her terrible campaign.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris is out. It's just happened. She's out, no
Speaker 1: longer running for president. I think Bloomberg showing up and
Speaker 1: being ahead of her right away in the polls, I
Speaker 1: think that was a little bit more than even her
Speaker 1: campaign could could manage to deal with. Now that I
Speaker 1: think she's pulling about I don't know, four or five
Speaker 1: percent in some of the polls I've scene. That sounds
Speaker 1: about right, So I wonder where those votes will go,
Speaker 1: probably to Biden, but maybe not. I do think the
Speaker 1: pressure is going to really mount for here's the way
Speaker 1: that they do it. Elizabeth Warren says that, you know, well,
Speaker 1: the realistic way would be for Bernie Sanders to offer
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren the VP slot and then create like a
Speaker 1: socialist dynasty going forward. But I don't know if I
Speaker 1: wisham With Warren's willing to accept that, so it is
Speaker 1: it is worth a well, well, we'll see how this
Speaker 1: how this plays out. Kamala Harris is out there everybody
Speaker 1: a campaign that the media wanted to work so badly,
Speaker 1: and there was always a media superficiality behind a lot
Speaker 1: of that. You know, they just thought that kamalas should
Speaker 1: be because they thought, yeah, Kamala should it should work
Speaker 1: for Kamala. And the reality is that she's not a
Speaker 1: particularly talented politician, not somebody who was ready for this,
Speaker 1: not somebody who was big league enough. And also I
Speaker 1: think Tulsi Gabberd was kind of the Kamala spoiler a
Speaker 1: little bit. I think Tulsie Gabbert got in there and
Speaker 1: made it really hard for Kamala to get any momentum.
Speaker 1: You know, even with the media all pushing behind or
Speaker 1: all the media efforts to do everything that they could do.
Speaker 1: It was not enough, it was insufficient. So Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: is out, as though, as though the Almighty heard from
Speaker 1: Buck's lips to God's ears that Kamala Harris was not
Speaker 1: gonna win the presidency. So today's the day that the
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris campaign calls it. Quins, don't cry too much, team.
Speaker 1: It's that time of year, my friends. People are now
Speaker 1: allowed to play their Christmas music because it's post Thanksgiving,
Speaker 1: and we know only Barbarians play Christmas music before Thanksgiving,
Speaker 1: but now they're allowed. So, you know, I was telling
Speaker 1: you I was in a taxi yesterday and the guy
Speaker 1: was blasting some Christmas music and I felt like such
Speaker 1: a grinch because I was like, really, I'm sitting in
Speaker 1: traffic with just this. You know, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: like Christmas music in limited doses, and I like it
Speaker 1: basically the week of Christmas. But then I'm not that.
Speaker 1: I don't know. What do you like? Do you like
Speaker 1: hanaka tuns? I think we discussed with Markers maybe two
Speaker 1: three three, that's right if you count Adam Sandler maybe,
Speaker 1: But so as a as a as a non Christian,
Speaker 1: what can you think of Christmas music? Just as a
Speaker 1: as a genre. It's a genre. There are some good
Speaker 1: ones that are just good musical songs, although my favorite
Speaker 1: is probably Alvin and Chipmunks. So I don't know what
Speaker 1: it says about me. There we go. So it's also
Speaker 1: the time of year you gotta think about getting people presents. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many familiar with this, but there
Speaker 1: is a very fancy stationary bike company out there called
Speaker 1: Peloton or Pelton. I think it's actually just Peloton, but
Speaker 1: I'd like to do it the French wakes. It sounds fancier.
Speaker 1: Peloton released an ad just in time people to get
Speaker 1: I think these bikes are I know there are many
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars. I think they run somewhere in the
Speaker 1: like ten to fifteen thousand dollars range. Very expensive, okay,
Speaker 1: but you know when you could also just buy a
Speaker 1: bicycle or an old I don't know, or an old
Speaker 1: school stationary bike. I remember my grandfather have one at
Speaker 1: his house here in New York, and the thing was
Speaker 1: from the fifties, and you know, get on there and pedal, yeah,
Speaker 1: go and pedal your heart's content. But now Peloton is
Speaker 1: a very fancy bike and they put out this commercial
Speaker 1: that has gotten people totally outraged. I think I need
Speaker 1: to describe a little bit. So you're going to hear
Speaker 1: a female voice. And this female that is starting this
Speaker 1: commercial is esthetically perfect. She is beautiful, she is slender,
Speaker 1: she's clearly a model. And this is the commercial in
Speaker 1: this incredible house. But this woman looks like she's probably about,
Speaker 1: you know, twenty seven years old. I love all the
Speaker 1: ads where they got people in their twenties living in like,
Speaker 1: you know, million dollar homes, because you know who doesn't.
Speaker 1: People are to seeing where I live. When I was
Speaker 1: like twenty eight years old, I had like three roommates
Speaker 1: living in the basement of some place in the village. Anyway,
Speaker 1: play play Peloton, now Peloton. Give it up for a
Speaker 1: first time ride, first ride. I'm ulrvous, but I'm excited.
Speaker 1: Let's do this five days in a row. Be surprised.
Speaker 1: I am rising with the sun. I was totally worth
Speaker 1: it a year ago. I didn't realize how much this
Speaker 1: exchanged me. Thank you this holiday, give the gift of
Speaker 1: pel So there is this People have flipped out about
Speaker 1: this because you have this esthetically you know, physical, perfect,
Speaker 1: idealized woman who's like I'm so nervous to ride a
Speaker 1: stationary bike and the privacy of your own home. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's okay, I guess, but it seems to trust me,
Speaker 1: this woman is red. She's worked out plenty in her day.
Speaker 1: This is not her first her first time, and then
Speaker 1: I don't know how much it would change me. Now
Speaker 1: what changed? Right? People are being a brand and are talking.
Speaker 1: People are being a little sensitive about this. It is
Speaker 1: the case, and I have seen this in action once
Speaker 1: or twice in my life. It is the case where,
Speaker 1: especially as a male, if you give any kind of
Speaker 1: fitness related equipment as a Christmas gift to a female
Speaker 1: in your life, producer bread and this could backfire dramatically.
Speaker 1: You probably would be hit with that piece of equipment. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they do. They do not. It's not a thing that
Speaker 1: they get excited about. No, it's offensive unless she's offensive.
Speaker 1: I mean, if somebody said, buck, I want I'm gonna
Speaker 1: give you a for Christ's use, I'm gonna give you
Speaker 1: like a dozen sessions on a personal trainer, I'd say
Speaker 1: it's fantastic, I need it. I guess it's it's different
Speaker 1: if you know the person perhaps and maybe she's seen
Speaker 1: the other other commercial for Peloton, and she's, oh, I
Speaker 1: want this, I want this, and the husband gets it
Speaker 1: far right if she's been explicit backward okay, commercial, but
Speaker 1: it kind of reminds me of what at the wedding
Speaker 1: in the office with where Jim and Pam are having
Speaker 1: their like, you know, the rehearsal dinner. Yeah, and then
Speaker 1: the Jim's two brothers stand up and they yell out
Speaker 1: to their wives. You know, Pam's looking good, how about you, ladies?
Speaker 1: Tom for a little mo cardio, which is it would
Speaker 1: not go over well. I would not recommend anyone say
Speaker 1: that to their wife or anybody for that matter. That
Speaker 1: would not go over well. But this, this Peloton commercial
Speaker 1: got a lot of people, um really agitated, I would say,
Speaker 1: Edie after if you watch it, it makes even more
Speaker 1: sense because you're like this idealized existence. She's like, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: like my Peloton bike has changed me so much. She
Speaker 1: looks like she went from about one hundred and seven
Speaker 1: pounds to a hundred and seven pounds right in this commercial.
Speaker 1: And what was she filming for the arrogance bothered me too.
Speaker 1: As soon as she walks in the door, she's shooting
Speaker 1: a selfie of her talking about going in the bike.
Speaker 1: As soon as she wakes up, the cameras right in
Speaker 1: her face there there. I will tell you I live
Speaker 1: in a building here in New York where they have
Speaker 1: a gym in the building, and they are in fact,
Speaker 1: they do, in fact have a peloton in there. So
Speaker 1: I might have to try this now, just so I
Speaker 1: can give you from the front lines of Pelton. I
Speaker 1: can give you my assessment as to whether or not
Speaker 1: this is life changing. And I can use a lot
Speaker 1: of I mean, I should spend an hour of Dana
Speaker 1: Pelton bike. I gotta work out more. It's because there's
Speaker 1: a video that you can do it with other people
Speaker 1: around the world. Is that what makes it so expensive?
Speaker 1: You can watch? Yeah, I think so. Okay, the class
Speaker 1: they have like a video and they video it tracks
Speaker 1: you and it's all metrics, c and things like that.
Speaker 1: I don't know, that's just kind of a this is
Speaker 1: what the people say. But see, I take the position
Speaker 1: and this is and I know that people will say, oh, black,
Speaker 1: that's terrible. And by the way, anything that we advertise
Speaker 1: on this show as a gift you should definitely get
Speaker 1: because they're amazing. But in my family, among the adults.
Speaker 1: You know, I still I give gifts to people that
Speaker 1: you know, do work for me, do people that you
Speaker 1: know are in my life. That especially if people really,
Speaker 1: you know, in New York you're superintendent of the building,
Speaker 1: because everyone here, you know, lives in buildings where there
Speaker 1: tend to be a staff that takes care of the building. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, you give those people a gift for Christmas
Speaker 1: cash Usually I do all that, for sure, But among
Speaker 1: family members, I just think that there's especially because I
Speaker 1: come from one. I'm one of four kids and my
Speaker 1: two parents or six of us. It's just such a hassle.
Speaker 1: Ever got I gotta get at least five presents, and
Speaker 1: if I if I, you know, have a significant other,
Speaker 1: as has been the case in the past, if I
Speaker 1: have a significant other, I gotta get that person a gift,
Speaker 1: and that one has to be expensive. Of course. It's
Speaker 1: all such a hassle. Why can't we all just be
Speaker 1: together and celebrate the holiday for what it's really about.
Speaker 1: I agree, the birth of Jesus, not commercialism, thank you
Speaker 1: very much. So, you know, I just think that that's
Speaker 1: where we should be as a society. I call it
Speaker 1: going grinch. Do it with a smile. It's the way
Speaker 1: to go. And with that roll call, time rock and roll.
Speaker 1: Fellow patriots, we made ours go up to an eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. It is time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Let's get into the Facebook posts here and we get
Speaker 1: to it. John Shieldsa, a real News fan. Pokahon has
Speaker 1: said a democracy should work by popular vote, and to
Speaker 1: call her old fashioned for thinking that way, maybe I'm
Speaker 1: a little rusty on my history, but I don't recall
Speaker 1: America ever being a democracy where elections were voted by
Speaker 1: We're decided by popular vote. Well, John, it's even more
Speaker 1: interesting than that in some ways, because if you go
Speaker 1: back to the origins of the concept of democracy, which
Speaker 1: we tend to find, as tend to think is ancient Greece.
Speaker 1: In ancient Greece, only a very small number of the
Speaker 1: actual people living in the polis, in the city, in
Speaker 1: the city state, we're able to vote. It's not like
Speaker 1: in ancient Athens they walked around and every adult was
Speaker 1: given the right to make a determination. It was actually
Speaker 1: a very very small group of citizens, citizens who were ablished,
Speaker 1: who were landholders, who had some degree of sway in affairs,
Speaker 1: and it was definitely not women and it was not slaves.
Speaker 1: There were slaves in ancient Greece, lots of them. And yeah,
Speaker 1: there there was a small percentage overall the population that
Speaker 1: would have been able to vote. So it's interesting that
Speaker 1: we now think of democracy as every person who is
Speaker 1: an adult gets to vote. But that's really a more
Speaker 1: modern innovation. It was not the case before. So you know,
Speaker 1: women suffrage did not become a thing until pretty recently.
Speaker 1: Brian Buck, I enjoy your analysis and your ability to articulate.
Speaker 1: I think you may be off on a couple of predictions, though.
Speaker 1: Oh first, I don't think they're going to vote to
Speaker 1: impeach for the simple fact that they don't want to
Speaker 1: risk Trump getting a fair trial if they did. I'd
Speaker 1: almost want Republicans to go along with it so this
Speaker 1: mess can be handled properly and watch democrat at scramble
Speaker 1: as all their dirty laundry goes on display. But with
Speaker 1: the ads your report coming out, it may not be necessary. Second,
Speaker 1: I do believe Trump will go scorch earth on Democrats
Speaker 1: after the report comes out. He has said repeatedly that
Speaker 1: this should never be allowed to happen to another president,
Speaker 1: and one way to ensure that it doesn't is to
Speaker 1: hold people accountable and an exact harsh consequences. Trump is
Speaker 1: a one to bluff. This would be a very interesting
Speaker 1: election year for shore Shields High. Well, Brian will get
Speaker 1: to see who's right on these predictions. I'll probably have
Speaker 1: to revisit them and we'll see who's correct. I'm telling
Speaker 1: you they're going to impeach him, but you're saying no,
Speaker 1: I'm saying yes. And then on to Trump going scorch
Speaker 1: shirt on Democrats after the report comes out. I don't
Speaker 1: see how that would happen. What's he gonna do. He's
Speaker 1: gonna fire civil service employees even after there's been an
Speaker 1: inspector General report that does not recommend their firing. I
Speaker 1: don't know, Brian, what that accountability would even look like
Speaker 1: if Trump wanted to do it. Now, that's it. I
Speaker 1: could be wrong. It has It has happened before, seldom,
Speaker 1: but it has happened. So that is a possibility that
Speaker 1: we should be aware of. Um, we'll have to take
Speaker 1: a look at it. We're looking at that, as Trump
Speaker 1: likes us say, we're looking at that. He says that
Speaker 1: about a lot of things. M Adam buck Pot roast
Speaker 1: if done correctly is amazing. Cook it low and slow,
Speaker 1: tenderness is key shields high. Well, Adam, thank you so
Speaker 1: much man for something that I appreciate it. And uh yeah, man,
Speaker 1: I will have to check out some pot roast and
Speaker 1: next thing we got, Paul Buck, you know what strikes
Speaker 1: me as hilarious about this whole get Trump era. If
Speaker 1: they'd stuck with their very first original premise for investigation,
Speaker 1: they probably could have nailed him. Avon Forgets. The earliest
Speaker 1: instigations of him were for ties to organize crime. I
Speaker 1: guess they thought Russian collusion tested. Better keep it up,
Speaker 1: She'll tie, all right, Paul, I mean I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't think that they're going to get Trump on anything,
Speaker 1: but I do appreciate the outside the box thinking, let's
Speaker 1: see where we got here I wanted I wanted to
Speaker 1: get into. I tend to go to the Facebook because
Speaker 1: it's it's easy, but I also want to look at
Speaker 1: what we got in the Team Buck. Team Buck at
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. That's the email address you want to
Speaker 1: send things to us? There, Ken writes the Buck don't stop.
Speaker 1: Can I contribute a nightly feature to the show A
Speaker 1: Thousand Things? We all should know. Try these out amongst
Speaker 1: your staff and see how they like it. Yawning is
Speaker 1: caused by a warm brain. Only one America. Wait what? Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you? Ken? Whatever? We got another Ken, a different Ken.
Speaker 1: Let's see Friday, the President declared the Cartels is terror groups.
Speaker 1: I suspect that Trump has ordered a kind of Cicario
Speaker 1: Cia action with your contacts. You should suss it out, Okay, Ken, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll take a look. I'll take a look. Let's see
Speaker 1: what we'd get here. Here you go, we get next up,
Speaker 1: somebody talking about how the audio is wrong. I don't
Speaker 1: understand what we're doing differently or wrong with the audio.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. That's got to be
Speaker 1: somebody else's to look into that, Harry, right Buck. You
Speaker 1: might want to check out the third season, fifth episode
Speaker 1: of The Crown, entitled Coup. It concerns the attempt by
Speaker 1: Conservative persons to recruit Lord mount Batten to replace Harold
Speaker 1: Wilson's Socialist government after the massive devaluation of the pound
Speaker 1: and further deterioration in the British economy in nineteen sixty seven.
Speaker 1: I think that's the correct year. Yes, it is slow,
Speaker 1: but an interesting take on conservative socialist politics of the time.
Speaker 1: By the way, I think it's hilarious. No one gets
Speaker 1: that America is nearly as socialist under under FDR as
Speaker 1: the USSR during World War Two. Shields, Hi, Harry, Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: there's a lot more socialism out there than people realize.
Speaker 1: That is true. Mark from New Zealand, Team Buck, New
Speaker 1: Zealand in the house, Hey, Buck Shields. I from New Zealand,
Speaker 1: but a followers. Since our government started contributing tens of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars in our taxes to Shillery and the Dems,
Speaker 1: is nobody's safe from the progressives fight for the First
Speaker 1: and Second Amendment rights We got told regularly we have
Speaker 1: no rights, just the privilege the government allows us. Shields High,
Speaker 1: my friend Kiwee, Mark from New Zealand. Kyle, Right, dear Buck,
Speaker 1: don't be too eager to settle down and get married.
Speaker 1: You will turn into one of two versions of your
Speaker 1: former self, Buckless Sexton or Buck sexless. That's pretty good.
Speaker 1: That's pretty good, Kyle. I don't know. Kyle might get
Speaker 1: to might get an email of the day with that one.
Speaker 1: I cannot. I don't know. I can either confirm her
Speaker 1: to kN because I've never been married. There's something that
Speaker 1: someone where on the internet says that I'm married. I've
Speaker 1: never been married. I don't know why this keeps. This
Speaker 1: comes up sometimes I've never been married. I don't I've
Speaker 1: never been engaged. I never been married. Hoping one day, hoping. Um,
Speaker 1: let's see we get here. Um we have Rocky right
Speaker 1: to have a happy Thanksgiving buck Rocky from Nebraska, Rocky
Speaker 1: from Nebraska, shieldside, big hug, Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Um.
Speaker 1: We get more people writing about unequal audio levels. Producer Brandon,
Speaker 1: what is this people? We got a lot of We
Speaker 1: got like ten emails about unequal audio levels. What is
Speaker 1: going on here? Yead? I can't tell you because when
Speaker 1: I put her in and where Mike Marko puts it in,
Speaker 1: it's all level. So we might have to ask an engineer.
Speaker 1: I need to get you like a special gift so
Speaker 1: that you'll actually make the audio good for the audience,
Speaker 1: so that I make this anymore perfect, just like that
Speaker 1: woman from the bike commercial. Yeah, I mean you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's something we could bribe producer Brandon w
Speaker 1: so that he actually makes sure the audio is good.
Speaker 1: I don't have the bribe Producer Mark too, because when
Speaker 1: he comes back from the beach. Oh you've notice, have
Speaker 1: you gotten any selfies of him on the beach? I
Speaker 1: have not, so you know, I don't think Producer Mark
Speaker 1: is thinking about the freedom hunt enough right now. He's
Speaker 1: just oh, look at me. I'm you know, drinking pina
Speaker 1: coladas and getting sun and enjoying my life. There's freedom
Speaker 1: to spread, darn it. That's right. It's very important for
Speaker 1: him to remember that. Also important for you remember your
Speaker 1: orders until next time. Shield's Eye. Black Rifle Coffee is
Speaker 1: celebrating it's fifth year anniversary. So to celebrate, they started
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Friday. Look, I know it sounds like a
Speaker 1: fictional holiday, you know, like Valentine's Day, which is just
Speaker 1: a cast grab. But know you wouldn't be wrong. But
Speaker 1: since it's actually Black Rifles fifth year anniversary and in
Speaker 1: a spirit of radical transparency, which is a thing Black
Speaker 1: Rifles early into Black Riple Coffee is making an early
Speaker 1: play for your holiday spending with new products, special discounts,
Speaker 1: and extra perks for Coffee Club members. Not a Coffee
Speaker 1: Club member, no problem, sign up and see all the
Speaker 1: great benefits you get when you belong to the most
Speaker 1: patriotic coffee club in the country. Let me tell you
Speaker 1: I start every day with a delicious cup of Black
Speaker 1: Rifle coffee. My favorite roast is silence or smooth, but
Speaker 1: I also like Freedom Blend or Caffeinated as blank. Check
Speaker 1: them all out. They're delicious. Don't choose basic batch coffee,
Speaker 1: go with America's coffee, Black Riflecoffee. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck to get twenty percent off your first purchase.
Speaker 1: That's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck Again, twenty percent
Speaker 1: off your first purchase Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck