Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with Trump is not to be president of
Speaker 1: the units, take it to a bank. Together, we will
Speaker 1: make America great again. It's what you've been waiting for
Speaker 1: all day. The Buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called
Speaker 1: Buck Toll Free at eight four four nine hundred Buck
Speaker 1: that's eight four four nine hundred to eight to five
Speaker 1: The Future of talk radio. Buck Sexton, Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, Oh my gosh, A lot going
Speaker 1: on today. I will be honest with you. I will
Speaker 1: tell you that I had been planning, and some of
Speaker 1: you saw this on Facebook this morning. I've been planning
Speaker 1: to just really change it up today with a show
Speaker 1: that would be things of of interest to me and
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit of historical storytelling or something. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I just wanted to get away from what
Speaker 1: had been so dominant in the headlines this week. And
Speaker 1: then at about two o'clock today, boom, big stories, I mean,
Speaker 1: just big stuff dropping. The biggest how has to do
Speaker 1: with this Russia indictment Russia collusion situation. Um, you have
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Mueller charging thirteen Russians with interfering in the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. That's that's at least how it's being presented.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna dig into this a bit. This is Oh boy,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a bit frustrating. But here's uh Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General Rod Rosenstein with just exactly what's going on
Speaker 1: and Grand Jury in the District of Columbia to day
Speaker 1: return an indictment presented by the Special Council's office. The
Speaker 1: indictment charges thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian companies for
Speaker 1: committing federal crimes while seeking to interfere in the United
Speaker 1: States political system, including the presidential election. The defendants allegedly
Speaker 1: conducted what they called information warfare against the United States
Speaker 1: with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates
Speaker 1: and the political system in general. Now, this is being
Speaker 1: spawned by both sides. The Trump colluded with Russia and
Speaker 1: betrayed his countryside, also known as the mainstream media as
Speaker 1: well as the No, this is nonsense. How could anyone
Speaker 1: think this about Trump? I'm so sick of this Malarkey
Speaker 1: investigation as being a day when we're where we come
Speaker 1: to a conclusion, right, there was there was there was
Speaker 1: no collusion, there was interference. There was no collusion yet
Speaker 1: how much interference was there. Here's the problem, folks, It's
Speaker 1: never gonna end. This is the They're never gonna stop.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what comes out, it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: the actual information is. Rod Rosenstein, Muller. Heck, even throw
Speaker 1: Combie in there. If you stopped taking Twitter photos of
Speaker 1: waterfalls for a moment, throw Comi in there. And if
Speaker 1: they all said, you know what, we've really looked into
Speaker 1: this and Trump there was no collusion with Trump. He
Speaker 1: didn't do anything wrong. You know what the press would say,
Speaker 1: Still unable to find Trump Russia collusion, but questions linger.
Speaker 1: That's all. So I'm just preparing. It's never gonna change.
Speaker 1: So let's just get so we'll focus on the facts
Speaker 1: and ignore as much as we can the nonsense political
Speaker 1: spin that's being put on all this by people who
Speaker 1: aren't invested in in the facts. They're invested in a narrative.
Speaker 1: Here's happened, Um, you had a bunch of Russians, according
Speaker 1: to the indictment and I read through the indictment several times.
Speaker 1: You had a bunch of Russians part of a Internet
Speaker 1: reason that they had some phony name for Internet research company,
Speaker 1: and they set up phony bank accounts in the US
Speaker 1: two and and took on ideas of Americans. So so
Speaker 1: there Look, there are some actual crimes that occurred here,
Speaker 1: um identity theft by or fraud, but they set up
Speaker 1: sock puppets and Facebook stuff, and I think they maybe
Speaker 1: got a rally or two together somewhere by using the
Speaker 1: Internet in order to run a whole bunch of different
Speaker 1: messages during the election. After the election, they were sometimes
Speaker 1: pro Bernie Sanders, they were pro Trump in some ways,
Speaker 1: they were anti Hillary, anti Rubio, anti Cruise. This started everyone.
Speaker 1: This is according the indictment to So this is all
Speaker 1: now all on the record, official d o J position,
Speaker 1: criminal proceeding. This is not theoretical. This started in there.
Speaker 1: Did anybody almost in the world, including maybe like President
Speaker 1: Trump's immediate family, think that he was going to win
Speaker 1: the election in probably not seem pretty unlikely at the time.
Speaker 1: If if you think back, I know a lot of
Speaker 1: your like Buck, I saw it coming. Maybe you saw
Speaker 1: it coming in Okay, I don't think so. I doubt
Speaker 1: that that would be quite a prediction that all said,
Speaker 1: the Russian effort here was to just create a sense
Speaker 1: of agitation in the political system and some degree of
Speaker 1: of undermining of the sanctity of our electrical process or
Speaker 1: something like that, basically just to so confusion and chaos.
Speaker 1: They call it information and warfare, which I would notice
Speaker 1: that's that's a that's pretty strong terms for some Facebook
Speaker 1: sock puppets and Twitter trolls. That seems to me to
Speaker 1: be perhaps taking this a bit far, which is also
Speaker 1: why I'm I'm a little concerned about what this really
Speaker 1: means going forward. So now is is fake news if
Speaker 1: it involves if a foreign country puts fake news out there?
Speaker 1: Is that a Is that an act of war? What
Speaker 1: is the additional illegality here? In the indictment, it specifically
Speaker 1: mentions defrauding the government of the United States and defrauding
Speaker 1: the Federal Election Commission by by by being a part
Speaker 1: of our process, by spreading lives, by by rumor spreading essentially. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm I don't like Russia. I don't you know, like
Speaker 1: I like Russians what I mean that, but I don't
Speaker 1: like the Russian government meddling in our stuff. I don't
Speaker 1: I don't think this is a good thing. But where
Speaker 1: does that stop and start? The Internet is global, folks.
Speaker 1: Here's the biggest problem I have with this. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I don't think that I've forgotten or or
Speaker 1: I'm not going to get to the FBI just just
Speaker 1: doing a straight up a face plant on the whole
Speaker 1: uh stopping the shooter thing. I I knew that that
Speaker 1: it looked kind of bad for them, and then we've
Speaker 1: got that they just ignored the TEP. We will get there.
Speaker 1: That's probably gonna wait until the second hour, but I
Speaker 1: promise you we're going to really roll up the sleeves
Speaker 1: on that one, because Wow, I just wanting to get
Speaker 1: that out there. That's something we will have to tackle
Speaker 1: today too, because a lot of big news for a Friday. Uh. Well,
Speaker 1: the biggest problem I have with this, and I actually
Speaker 1: tangled with the former CIA director. He was never, never
Speaker 1: my boss at the agency, so I have no particularly
Speaker 1: fondness or loyalty to him. But John Brennan, who wrote
Speaker 1: that the do o J statements and indictments revealed the
Speaker 1: extent and motivations of Russian interference in the election, claims
Speaker 1: of a hoax in tatters. My take implausible that Russian
Speaker 1: actions did not influence the views and votes of at
Speaker 1: least some Americans. I responded to Mr Brennan, former CI director,
Speaker 1: close confidante of Obama's, by the way, and a hyperpartisan,
Speaker 1: and I know that's the case. It's I got people
Speaker 1: who tell me things. But here's what I respond said.
Speaker 1: Under this standard, Mr Brennan, any foreign actor anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world can undermine the results of any U s
Speaker 1: election by setting up a few sock puppets buying some
Speaker 1: Facebook ads, because that would also influence quote, at least
Speaker 1: some Americans. You'll notice that there's no effort, nor is
Speaker 1: there any curiosity in the part of the media to
Speaker 1: try and engauge the extent and effect of this effort.
Speaker 1: They're saying things like, oh, it looks like they spent
Speaker 1: a few million dollars. A few million dollars to influence
Speaker 1: the US presidential election. Is that a joke? If they
Speaker 1: were trying to influence a congressional seat in Oklahoma might
Speaker 1: be like, all right, you know, a few million dollars,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be a lot. Yeah, But us presidential election.
Speaker 1: Does anyone take Russian sock puppets? Seriously? Was this? Was
Speaker 1: this having any effect? Now here's the problem with this.
Speaker 1: It leaves it all completely open ended. They can say,
Speaker 1: and technically there's truth to it, that Russia interfered in
Speaker 1: our election, and that's all they want to keep saying,
Speaker 1: because the subtext of that for the Democrat left is
Speaker 1: that Russia interfered in our election and therefore Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is an illegitimate president. We all know that, right, That's
Speaker 1: what they're really saying, that's the subtext. What I'm saying
Speaker 1: in response to that is, this is the equivalent of
Speaker 1: at a presidential election saying there was some voter fraud
Speaker 1: and we can point to at least a few cases
Speaker 1: of people into I did for voter fraud. Therefore, this
Speaker 1: election was tainted by voter fraud and we can't consider
Speaker 1: it to be legitimate. See. A reasonable response to that
Speaker 1: would be does it I mean, are we talking about
Speaker 1: a few hundred votes with over sixty million casts? Because
Speaker 1: that's obviously not changing the course of the election. But
Speaker 1: that's not what they're doing here. This is the this
Speaker 1: is the digital equivalent of well, because thirteen Russians working
Speaker 1: with a few dozen other Russians created some fake Facebook
Speaker 1: accounts that said, you know, lock her up for Hillary,
Speaker 1: that that brings the election into doubt. I would also
Speaker 1: note that the the saber rattling over this just visa
Speaker 1: vie Russia is astonishing to me. Okay, so we're worried
Speaker 1: about Russia doing this in the next election. How do
Speaker 1: we stop this? And what's a legitimate recourse other than
Speaker 1: to say, okay, Russia, don't do this. Are we going
Speaker 1: to give the power to any non state actor in
Speaker 1: Russia or anywhere else in the world for that matter,
Speaker 1: to cause major diplomatic incidents for US because they set
Speaker 1: up some US based social media accounts. As I said,
Speaker 1: there are some aspects of the Russian intrusion into our
Speaker 1: process that certainly break laws identity theft. Although identity theft,
Speaker 1: you really want to get down to this, the fact
Speaker 1: that matters that identity theft occurs, and what I mean
Speaker 1: that I'm not talking about when you open bank accounts
Speaker 1: and but just creating false accounts. People do that all
Speaker 1: the time. I'm not charged. Clearly, the addition of some
Speaker 1: of the other criminal statutes into this indictment today about
Speaker 1: these thirteen Russians in the election is to give it
Speaker 1: a little bit more half, little more teeth, a little
Speaker 1: more clarity, because things like information warfare and spreading distrust
Speaker 1: are not crimes. That's what troubles me about this. So
Speaker 1: Mueller saying effectively in this indictment, the DJ is saying, remember,
Speaker 1: he's not apart from the Department of Justice, he's just
Speaker 1: a rogue operator within it. That's what the Mueller probe is.
Speaker 1: But they're saying effectively that this is information warfare. Huh.
Speaker 1: That seems to me to be troubling because if it's
Speaker 1: information warfare, what is the proper response and how do
Speaker 1: we stop it? And what is a way to quantify
Speaker 1: the scope and scale of the problem. They don't make
Speaker 1: any effort of that because the narrative on the left
Speaker 1: is Russia interfered in the election. The narrator on the
Speaker 1: right is well a version of what Rosenstein said in
Speaker 1: a statement today. I think he wrote this what I've
Speaker 1: identified for you with the allegations in the indictment. There's
Speaker 1: no allegation in the indictment of many effect on the
Speaker 1: outcome of the election. So there's nothing about collusion and
Speaker 1: there's nothing about changing the course of the election in
Speaker 1: the indictment. For some of us, we've reached the point where, okay,
Speaker 1: if they don't have it, now you know they clearly
Speaker 1: don't have it. But for the other side, it's just yet,
Speaker 1: they're always inserting the Yet we don't have evidence of collusion. Yet,
Speaker 1: we don't have evidence that it changed the course of
Speaker 1: the election yet, And that will never change, folks. And
Speaker 1: that's what's so frustrating about it. You're not dealing with
Speaker 1: good faith actors on the other side here, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the left, they don't care what the eventual outcome is,
Speaker 1: the processes, the punishment, and as long as they can
Speaker 1: keep running with this storyline that Russia did anything just
Speaker 1: just tip the scale just a tiny bit in favor
Speaker 1: of Trump. It cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the
Speaker 1: Trump presidency. Trump is therefore deserving of no degree of respect,
Speaker 1: no degree of bipartisan goodwill. He's hashtag not my president.
Speaker 1: They would say so as much as today to me.
Speaker 1: To me, it's it's really inflated by the left situation.
Speaker 1: It's just not as big a deal as they want
Speaker 1: to make it into. It's also not going away anytime soon,
Speaker 1: so we'll get into it more of this. But you know,
Speaker 1: I take a different approach. I saw a lot of conservicing.
Speaker 1: See no collusion, no collusion. I want to say, guys, yeah,
Speaker 1: no collusion. But that doesn't stop this because they just
Speaker 1: say no collusion. Yet they say we're going to find collusion.
Speaker 1: So just you know, don't think that this is the
Speaker 1: end of it based on the fact that they haven't
Speaker 1: asserted any Trump Russia active conspiracy here. I've also been
Speaker 1: telling you all along that they use the term collusion
Speaker 1: and not conspiracy because collusion will be used as a
Speaker 1: political word so that this becomes a political crime, as
Speaker 1: an impeachment becomes the only viable route to deal with it.
Speaker 1: Conspiracy has a specific legal definition and terminology attached to
Speaker 1: it that they will never or be able to prove.
Speaker 1: And they know that. That's why it's always been about collusion,
Speaker 1: because those words otherwise could be used somewhat interchangeably. All Right,
Speaker 1: we have a lot more here. What do you think,
Speaker 1: By the way, the thirteen I really want to hear
Speaker 1: from all of you because I look at this and
Speaker 1: I'm just like, what is Muller doing These Russians are
Speaker 1: never gonna get extradited. They're never gonna face justice. They
Speaker 1: set up some sock puppets. They use some fake bank accounts,
Speaker 1: you know. They I don't think they stole money from anyone,
Speaker 1: although I have not. I have to have to go
Speaker 1: back and look at that. But so there's they're guilty
Speaker 1: of some identity, identity theft and wire fraud. It's not good.
Speaker 1: It's criminal, but it's also not keeping me, you know,
Speaker 1: up late at night shaking in my booties here. And
Speaker 1: as for the information warfare, I just think it's laughable.
Speaker 1: I'm not okay with it. I don't approve of it.
Speaker 1: I think Russia is a bad actor in this situation.
Speaker 1: But I also think, come on, everyone, let's get a
Speaker 1: grip here. I really think that they's had any effect
Speaker 1: on anything. The answer overs, and then it's absolutely all right.
Speaker 1: Eight four four to five. It is Friday. I want
Speaker 1: to hear from lots and lots of you folks out there.
Speaker 1: Eight four four buck will be right back. The defendants
Speaker 1: posed as politically and socially active Americans advocating for and
Speaker 1: against particular candidates. They established social media pages and groups
Speaker 1: to communicate with unwitting Americans. They also purchased political advertisements
Speaker 1: on social media networks. The Russians also recruited and paid
Speaker 1: real Americans to engage in political activities, promote political campaigns,
Speaker 1: and stage political rallies. The defendants and their co conspirators
Speaker 1: pretended to be grassroots activists. So is this information warfare
Speaker 1: or just FEC violations or is it both? You know,
Speaker 1: I'm wondering where do we Where do we draw the
Speaker 1: lines here? They're saying that thirteen guys indicted for this,
Speaker 1: that's it. You'll notice that there's some I I think,
Speaker 1: very feverish moving of the goal post that's going on
Speaker 1: here by many of those who have been promoting a
Speaker 1: narrative about Russia collusion for over a year. Now, do
Speaker 1: not forget my friends. Do not let them change and
Speaker 1: rewrite history. The whole frenzy behind this is not that
Speaker 1: a few people created some social media profiles to try
Speaker 1: to trick some people into what hating Hillary. Think about
Speaker 1: how much noise was out there, we were talking about
Speaker 1: separating the signal from the noise. How many millions and
Speaker 1: millions of Twitter accounts, hundreds of millions of Facebook account
Speaker 1: they're posting things about the election, literally hundreds of millions,
Speaker 1: and yeah, this was the difference maker. This is laughable,
Speaker 1: except people think that it is the biggest political scandal
Speaker 1: of the last you know, hundred years or whatever. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Democrats do. But the story was not that there
Speaker 1: was some Russian intrusion into our political ecosystem via social media, right,
Speaker 1: That was not what was getting them all riled up.
Speaker 1: Don't let them just ease into that now. Oh No,
Speaker 1: it was that there was high level cooperation with the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign to do that. We still have nothing on
Speaker 1: that zero And we cannot allow those who were promoting
Speaker 1: that storyline for over a year to just kind of
Speaker 1: slink away, just be like, hey, you know, yeah, we
Speaker 1: we really were just worried about those sock puppets and
Speaker 1: Twitter trolls. No, that is not what was at the
Speaker 1: heart of all of this, because that's not gonna stop.
Speaker 1: Someone explained to me how the FBI is supposed to
Speaker 1: handle this. There are some someone in Russia, some group
Speaker 1: in Russia sets up a few a few hundred accounts
Speaker 1: to try and help a political candidate in the US,
Speaker 1: and they're tweeting stuff out about them. Are we and
Speaker 1: they're pretending that it's coming. It's coming from like you know,
Speaker 1: Bill in Kentucky. Uh, are we gonna do what? We're
Speaker 1: gonna block the Internet from Russia to the U. S.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's let's think about this for a moment.
Speaker 1: We're gonna freak out yell at the Russian government for this.
Speaker 1: I just want to know what what's the real response?
Speaker 1: You know, we were talking about trying to deal with
Speaker 1: Russian intrusion the elections, So how do we do that?
Speaker 1: Anyone have any ideas. I'm wondering. We'll be back. He's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back. After
Speaker 1: the election, the defendants allegedly stage rallies to support the
Speaker 1: president elect while simultaneously staging rallies to protest his election.
Speaker 1: For example, the defendants organized one rally to support the
Speaker 1: president elect and another rally to impose to oppose him,
Speaker 1: both in New York on the same day. There he
Speaker 1: had Deputy Attorney General Rodenstein from a statement today after
Speaker 1: the indictment of the thirteen Russians, as I said, by
Speaker 1: the way, Russians who will never be extradity the United States.
Speaker 1: So I'm glad that justice will be served by indicting
Speaker 1: these guys who are in Russia and nothing is going
Speaker 1: to happen to them. But anyway, I know, look, you
Speaker 1: go on the record, we show the Russian government you know,
Speaker 1: don't don't do this kind of stuff and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. But yeah, there you have it. Here's
Speaker 1: here's something that I want to want you all to
Speaker 1: keep in mind. It's quite clear based on the timeline
Speaker 1: here was when much of this guts started. It is
Speaker 1: quite clear from a timeline that the purpose of the
Speaker 1: sock Puppets and this member of sock Puppet is a
Speaker 1: fake identity on Facebook or I think people use it
Speaker 1: for Twitter too, um and a troll you all know,
Speaker 1: to Twitter trolls. So it's really kind of the same thing. Uh.
Speaker 1: The reason they did all this was to create some
Speaker 1: degree of distrust and chaos in our political system. But
Speaker 1: I just think it's a laughably inept effort to do that, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this would be like the equivalent of me
Speaker 1: running over And I know some of you like, hey,
Speaker 1: what the Obama administration do in Israel during its election?
Speaker 1: But maybe we'll go there later. But if if I
Speaker 1: showed up in a foreign country and I did a
Speaker 1: printing of leaflets, you know, root for this candidate, not
Speaker 1: this candidate. This guy did these bad things, and I
Speaker 1: just started handing them out to people on the street.
Speaker 1: I'm sure I'd be violating some election law in that country,
Speaker 1: and fine, but would anyone really think that I would
Speaker 1: change the outcome of the election that way? Our elections
Speaker 1: such fragile things, that's such a meager effort would have
Speaker 1: any impact on the outcome. And yet if CNN and
Speaker 1: MSNBC we're reporting on it, they'd be like buck Sexton
Speaker 1: interfering in the election in yeah, Azerbaijan or wherever, right,
Speaker 1: interfering in the election. Technically true, But as I said
Speaker 1: to you with the voter fraud issue, okay, but we
Speaker 1: need some sense of context and scale, some sense of
Speaker 1: how important this is. You know, it's also technically true
Speaker 1: that I committed a crime today. It is technically true.
Speaker 1: You could even say that today I branded myself a
Speaker 1: criminal because I jay walked a couple of times. Because
Speaker 1: I'm a New York City and we all jaywalked. Would
Speaker 1: it be fair to call me a criminal because I
Speaker 1: jaywalked today? Is it? Is it? Specifically? If you want
Speaker 1: to get really technical about it. Did I break a law? Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: But should I be locked up for that one? I
Speaker 1: really hope not, because all the rest of my fellow
Speaker 1: New Yorkers are Gonnet locked up too. I think I'm
Speaker 1: trying to illustrate the point here. I hope it's Uh,
Speaker 1: it's clear enough with what I'm trying to say. Uh. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the press just wants to freak out a Trump Russia
Speaker 1: day president president by day, kid right presiders Russia and
Speaker 1: the grocer. Yeah, let's just let's just go to war
Speaker 1: with Russia over there's everybody. Let's just let's just get
Speaker 1: to it. The sock puppet twitter troll War of twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: These people are nuts. Most of them don't even know
Speaker 1: that the Communist Party during the Soviet Union was sending
Speaker 1: funds to various fellow travelers in the United States, specifically
Speaker 1: so that they would publicized communist ideology, anti American stuff.
Speaker 1: And by the way, they also infiltrated some major left
Speaker 1: wing publications with all that, but they don't like to
Speaker 1: talk about that. And they infiltrated the State Department look
Speaker 1: up Alger Hiss and a whole bunch of other places
Speaker 1: in the United States government. Again, I'm not saying anything
Speaker 1: that's okay, But in the case of setting up some
Speaker 1: you know, weekly communist rag that's printed in someone's basement
Speaker 1: somewhere in the fifties of the sixties, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think they are about to overthrow the US government
Speaker 1: with that. None of this stuff is new. It's just
Speaker 1: being exaggerated now because we all know why. It is
Speaker 1: to make Trump's election illegitimate. That is the fundamental purpose
Speaker 1: of this entire thing, and to try and pretend it's
Speaker 1: anything else is preposterous. I want to know. I would
Speaker 1: like some of these people who go on TV. By
Speaker 1: the way, it's like CNN, it's just basically hiring anyone
Speaker 1: who's ever worked for and every anyone who's ever worked
Speaker 1: for Mueller or James Comey is like finding employment and
Speaker 1: airtime over at CNN. Now, isn't that curious? All these
Speaker 1: FBI and d o J folks that with an ax
Speaker 1: to grind against administration. Oh, they're just they are just
Speaker 1: civil servants doing their duty, sir, Will you with action Russia? Yeah? Sure,
Speaker 1: Trump should have. Oh man, he could have some fun
Speaker 1: with that one. I think he just wanted to ignore it.
Speaker 1: But you have all these people now that are running
Speaker 1: around with us on TV, and they're saying this stuff,
Speaker 1: and at the end of the day, they're doing Russia's
Speaker 1: work for them. Nothing could be more undermining about our
Speaker 1: elections than the storyline that CNN has been running with
Speaker 1: for over a year now, and MSNBC and the New
Speaker 1: York Times and the Washing Post and many others. Right,
Speaker 1: they are clearly convinced or willing to convince their fellow
Speaker 1: Americans that Trump cheated. That's what this is about. Trump cheated.
Speaker 1: Here's a fun thought experiment, folks, with the thirteen Russians
Speaker 1: indicted today, do any of you think that if Hillary
Speaker 1: had won the election, we would all be sitting here
Speaker 1: worried about the Russian intrusion into the next election? No? No,
Speaker 1: Remember how there was this moment in time some months
Speaker 1: back when they admitted, the press admitted that the Obama
Speaker 1: administrator should have made a decision not to make a
Speaker 1: huge deal out of the Russian metaling. Right, FBI knew
Speaker 1: about this, they knew there were these stock puppet accounts
Speaker 1: and stuff. Obama administration didn't make a big deal. How
Speaker 1: was it that it wasn't such a big deal then,
Speaker 1: But now it is such an enormously big deal. How
Speaker 1: was it that we went from President Obama saying this,
Speaker 1: what is it about our political system that made us vulnerable? Two? Uh,
Speaker 1: these kinds of potential manipulations, which, as I've said publicly before,
Speaker 1: we're not particularly sophisticated. This was not some elaborate, uh
Speaker 1: complicated espionage scheme. They hacked into some Democratic Party emails.
Speaker 1: Not an elaborate, complicated espionage scheme. I know that specifically
Speaker 1: about the emails and not about the stock But it
Speaker 1: was all part of the same effort. Right and Obama,
Speaker 1: the president receiving the PDB every day, the Presidential Daily Brief,
Speaker 1: he was clearly aware of this stuff. He must have
Speaker 1: been made aware by the FBI, and they decided not
Speaker 1: to make a big deal of it. But yet that
Speaker 1: was then. It wasn't a big complicated espionage scheme. Now
Speaker 1: we are told things like this by former Justice Department officials.
Speaker 1: If the indictments we believed it has proven, it looks
Speaker 1: like a pretty sophisticated operation. These groups functioned um trying
Speaker 1: to present themselves as Americans, had enough clout online to
Speaker 1: show some followers, and and tried to get in touch
Speaker 1: at least on a couple of occasions with members of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and helped to organize um various kind
Speaker 1: of of rallies. Both it looks like foreign against Trump.
Speaker 1: So what are we to do about that? What are
Speaker 1: we to make of it? How do you stop that?
Speaker 1: I would note, are we going to have mandatory verification
Speaker 1: of Actually wish that social media did have man mandatory verification.
Speaker 1: I wish that every person with a social media account
Speaker 1: had we all got to know who they were, exactly,
Speaker 1: who's operating it and there was none of this stuff.
Speaker 1: That actually be a great idea for like a new
Speaker 1: version of Facebook where everyone it has to be a
Speaker 1: real person, you've got accountability. That would be great. I'm
Speaker 1: all in favor of it. But this is not realistic.
Speaker 1: It's not the way that it works right now. So
Speaker 1: there's a there's no end in sight to this, folks.
Speaker 1: You know, I know Trump tweeted out that there was
Speaker 1: no collusion. He's correct, there's no collusion. Um And I
Speaker 1: saw that my old friend Kaylee mckin then he was
Speaker 1: on Fox and she said, this is the end of
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion conspiracy. It's not the end of the conspiracy.
Speaker 1: I think she was implying it should be and I
Speaker 1: would agree with that, but it is not the end
Speaker 1: at all. They will not stop. It is not going away.
Speaker 1: So this is the big news that we get on
Speaker 1: on Friday. This continues on, and you know now you're
Speaker 1: going to have all kinds of talk about when the
Speaker 1: next shoe will drop them all investigation. I will note
Speaker 1: that there I saw only today some people on the
Speaker 1: left now that we got these thirteen indictments out there,
Speaker 1: so some people who were uh saying, well, I mean,
Speaker 1: nobody really took it seriously. There was collusion at the
Speaker 1: top level the Trump campaign, because why would he be
Speaker 1: reaching out Why would the Russians have contact with a
Speaker 1: C list player even in the Trump circle like Carter
Speaker 1: Page and Papadopoulos the No matter what anyone says, those
Speaker 1: are low level people in the campaign. If Trump is involved,
Speaker 1: why the Russians interacting with them? That makes no sense.
Speaker 1: But they're just changing the story so that it seems
Speaker 1: like they're less crazy as this goes along, because eventually
Speaker 1: there will not be any more room for them to say, oh,
Speaker 1: there was Russia collusion. Oh it's any day now. But
Speaker 1: until that day we get to keep hearing not yet,
Speaker 1: not yet, they're on it, and the press will be
Speaker 1: asking the president, may the president, will you sanction Russia? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's how this is going to go. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: it's Fridays. You know what that means. It's action movie
Speaker 1: quote Friday, where it's an effect. Today we're not action.
Speaker 1: You could ask yourself question, lucky you a movie? This
Speaker 1: spot off? Quote Friday's action movie quote Fridays? Here you
Speaker 1: actually movie quote Friday? Everybody? Are we got lines? We'll
Speaker 1: get to some calls after the break. Stay with me
Speaker 1: our two. We're gonna talk about this. It's FBI situation.
Speaker 1: They messed up big time, folks. We will get into
Speaker 1: that in the next hour. Stay with me. Does this
Speaker 1: end today? Like? Is this over for the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and any of the officials. I think it's particularly good news.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that that that word is subject is
Speaker 1: not subject to change, but at least on the available
Speaker 1: evidence at this point in the investigation, I think that
Speaker 1: the White House probably should justifiably breathe a sigh of relief,
Speaker 1: meaning that the secondary aspect of the mandate has not
Speaker 1: been proven. In other words, there's no evidence yet that
Speaker 1: has been developed, and this indictment would seem to be
Speaker 1: consistent with that. That would indicate that there was collusion
Speaker 1: by the Trump campaign in Russian efforts to interfere and
Speaker 1: influence the two thousand and sixteen presidential election. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: not over that, guy's right, it's not over. Going to
Speaker 1: keep on just grinding on the background. Let's take Charles
Speaker 1: in Houston. What's up, Charles, Hey, Buck, how's it going, man?
Speaker 1: I'm good, Thank you for your call. Hey, I just
Speaker 1: want to talk about informational warfare for part of it.
Speaker 1: That's you know, they're trying to they're trying to demonstrate,
Speaker 1: you know, there's no monetary value going back and forth,
Speaker 1: at least none that none that they have divulged to
Speaker 1: us right now. But George Sorrow spends all his money.
Speaker 1: He's a for national influence in super PACs and actually
Speaker 1: spending money. So why aren't people up in arms about that?
Speaker 1: It's going to the US citizen. I don't have to check.
Speaker 1: I think he is. I think he is a U.
Speaker 1: S citizen, But I mean he's he does not sound
Speaker 1: like a U. S. It is in because he is
Speaker 1: so autos But you know, yes, he is a U.
Speaker 1: S citizen, So okay, well, I mean, and then then
Speaker 1: that takes that off the table, you know, but that's
Speaker 1: where I was going with that. Not sure, it's not
Speaker 1: sure where we could go there, but we'll check. I could.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong, I mean, I but I also wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, he is a US citizen. Yeah. I also wonder, Charles,
Speaker 1: at what point does this become so so if it's
Speaker 1: an f EC violation, meaning it's a Federal Election Commission
Speaker 1: violation for Russians to be trying to remember wage information
Speaker 1: warfare that's from the indictment, which I've never even heard
Speaker 1: of as a crime before. I'm not saying there's no
Speaker 1: such thing as information warfare, but that's a very malleable term, right.
Speaker 1: Uh So, So can I can any one now anywhere
Speaker 1: in the world set up an account where they're like,
Speaker 1: you know, my name, my name is you know, my
Speaker 1: name is Jim, and I live in America and I'm
Speaker 1: voting for so and so, and it's actually some dude
Speaker 1: in I don't know, the Philippines or India or Turkey
Speaker 1: or you know who knows where? Right, and are they
Speaker 1: waging information warfare? Acains the United States, it seems a
Speaker 1: little extreme. Well with with an open internet, you know,
Speaker 1: so it's gonna open internet and go down that route.
Speaker 1: People didn't do whatever they want exactly, but even take
Speaker 1: the international flavor out of it. What if Buck sex
Speaker 1: and tomorrow writes a blog post based on information of
Speaker 1: that moment staying something, then comes back six months later,
Speaker 1: Oh it was, you know, there was They found more information.
Speaker 1: They come back and say, well, Buck was spreading information warfare.
Speaker 1: He's you know, he's a he's a terrorist against the state,
Speaker 1: he's domestic And where does the line get drawn with this?
Speaker 1: This is what I was amazed, and I got a
Speaker 1: lot of heat for this day on Twitter because I said,
Speaker 1: this seems like weird overreach to me. Look, I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that identity theft and and wire fraud or whatever
Speaker 1: are in crimes. I get that. But the whole point
Speaker 1: about how how information warfare is being waged by the
Speaker 1: Russians here, I'm like, uh, they information warfare. They were
Speaker 1: advocating for different political candidates in this country. By the way,
Speaker 1: we do all kinds of the US government openly does
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff. We've got our pro democracy organizations abroad.
Speaker 1: Guess what a pro democracy organization in a country that
Speaker 1: doesn't have democratic elections is influencing the country, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: we have all these different international institutions that we're influencing
Speaker 1: countries all the time. I just think the information warfare
Speaker 1: concept is that just kind of that strikes me a
Speaker 1: little weird. You know, if they just indebted these guys
Speaker 1: for identity theft, they'll be like, yeah, okay, fine, information
Speaker 1: war A conspiracy to defraud the United States government was
Speaker 1: what they was what they actually said in the indictment.
Speaker 1: Defraud the government, how I mean defraud and the individuals
Speaker 1: who have their identity stolen. Fun but defraud the government
Speaker 1: because they were spreading ideas. That's called politics book. That's
Speaker 1: what I thought by our foreign Also, how about this,
Speaker 1: a lot of foreign media entities are state sponsored. So
Speaker 1: is now a state sponsored media entity that operates in
Speaker 1: this country. We're just talking about Al Jazeera earlier in
Speaker 1: the week, and they might have to register as a
Speaker 1: foreign agent, right, But there are a lot of foreign
Speaker 1: media entities Dore's does the Daily Mail, the UK based
Speaker 1: Daily Mail? Do they are they waging information warfare in
Speaker 1: this country? If they spread a story that's a lie
Speaker 1: or the the BBC are absolutely right, the BBC that
Speaker 1: that's government news, that's government information. So okay, So people say,
Speaker 1: well those aren't hostile. Okay, So what about what about
Speaker 1: Chinese uh state sponsored media? What about like Shinhwah news agency?
Speaker 1: Are are they waging information warfare when they post stories
Speaker 1: on the internet in English and people share them here?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm just trying to think this thing through
Speaker 1: beyond oh my god, Russia, and you know it starts
Speaker 1: to get a little hazy, doesn't it. Well, you're using
Speaker 1: you're using logic again. You're trying to think of the
Speaker 1: bigger picture, not the immediate sound by. You're trying to say, okay,
Speaker 1: if they say this, what does it mean for ABC
Speaker 1: and D as well? You know you're you're thinking down
Speaker 1: the road and implications, right, You're not just going to
Speaker 1: the Democrat Montra going not our president like you're pointing
Speaker 1: out before. Well, I appreciate that. And Charles and Soto
Speaker 1: sends the guards, how do you have a good weekend?
Speaker 1: You have a good weeks misses you bye bye? Um
Speaker 1: Kenny in Boston, Kenny, we got about actually we got
Speaker 1: like less than a minute but you've been on hold
Speaker 1: that everyone else is on the hold. What do you got, Kenny?
Speaker 1: I got a couple of things. I got a quote,
Speaker 1: and I have a thing about the Russian blockbuster as
Speaker 1: it's called. You know, what's the scariest thing about me
Speaker 1: is the timings and the patterns of these announcements and stuff.
Speaker 1: They come at a great time. So how is it
Speaker 1: possible that this particular Russian thing was based on the
Speaker 1: fact that they dropped the ball on the shooter investigation
Speaker 1: and that this story has actually been lying and waiting.
Speaker 1: You know, they just hastily through this together or got
Speaker 1: the thing through and all of a sudden, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess what we get. We don't know when these
Speaker 1: uh indictments were laid down. We're gonna talk about Kenny,
Speaker 1: thank you for Colina. We're gonna talk about the FBI
Speaker 1: what we found out today about how they handled that tip.
Speaker 1: The FBI got a tip that could have prevented that shooting. Folks.
Speaker 1: So I had planned team Welcome to our two of
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. I had planned, because it was Friday,
Speaker 1: to move on to some other topics. I felt I
Speaker 1: felt like we had discussed what was necessary with regard
Speaker 1: to that terrible shooting in Parkland, Florida. I didn't I
Speaker 1: wasn't gonna touch on the subject at all today. I
Speaker 1: didn't think it was really something we had we had
Speaker 1: to do. I felt like we had covered it. And
Speaker 1: then this FBI statement comes out this morning, and I am.
Speaker 1: I am at a level shocked, but also not at all.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a part of me that wants to
Speaker 1: believe that the FBI is more on it than this,
Speaker 1: And then there's also know a part of me that
Speaker 1: knows that federal bureaucracies and the federal government. That's what
Speaker 1: I said to you yesterday, that the government can't protect
Speaker 1: you all the time, and the government can't protect you
Speaker 1: that well, a lot of the time. It's up to you.
Speaker 1: It's up to all of us. You gotta protect each other,
Speaker 1: gotta protect yourself. Here's this FBI statement. I'll just read
Speaker 1: it to you, and then, well, I don't know what
Speaker 1: what we're supposed to make of this. It's on January,
Speaker 1: a person close to Nicholas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, contacted
Speaker 1: the FBI's Public Access Line tip line to report concerns
Speaker 1: about him. The caller provided information about cruizes, gun ownership,
Speaker 1: desire to kill people, uranic behavior, and disturbing social media posts,
Speaker 1: as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.
Speaker 1: Under established protocols, the nation provided by the callers should
Speaker 1: have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The
Speaker 1: information should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office,
Speaker 1: where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken. We have
Speaker 1: determined that these protocols were not followed for the information
Speaker 1: received by the p L on January five. The information
Speaker 1: was not provided to the Miami Field Office and no
Speaker 1: further investigation was conducted. At that time. FBI Director chrispher
Speaker 1: Ray said, we are still investigating the facts. I am
Speaker 1: committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in
Speaker 1: this particular matter, as well as reviewing our process for
Speaker 1: responding to information that we received from the public. It's
Speaker 1: up to all Americans to be vigilant, like I've been saying,
Speaker 1: and when members of the public contact us with concerns,
Speaker 1: we must act properly and quickly. We have spoken with
Speaker 1: victims and families and deeply regret the additional pain this
Speaker 1: causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of
Speaker 1: the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to
Speaker 1: keeping the American people safe and are relentlessly committed to
Speaker 1: improving all that we do and how we do it.
Speaker 1: That's the statement, uh, in terms of a foul up, Folks,
Speaker 1: in this situation, I'm having a hard time thinking how
Speaker 1: much bigger of a mess up you could see from
Speaker 1: the FBI side than this. They received a name, with
Speaker 1: detailed information and a specific claim that this school shooter
Speaker 1: was likely to conduct a school shooting, and they just
Speaker 1: did nothing. Now, notice what happens when you put this
Speaker 1: in conjunction with the other story. And that was already
Speaker 1: concerning enough that the YouTube comment about quote I want
Speaker 1: to be what he said, I want to be a
Speaker 1: professional school shooter. I'm going to be a professional school shooter.
Speaker 1: End quote. How that was flagg for the FBI. The
Speaker 1: FBI met with the person who flagged it, which I
Speaker 1: will note. You know, when they just do that and
Speaker 1: don't follow up and try to find the person who
Speaker 1: did it, makes you think do I really wanna do
Speaker 1: I really want to see something say something? Because all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, I've got FBI guys who are like, well,
Speaker 1: how do you know this person? You know, what do
Speaker 1: you know? What do you know about this? Look, I
Speaker 1: can understand from a normal person's point of view on this,
Speaker 1: you might say, maybe I'm just not gonna see something
Speaker 1: and say anything. But they had that information about the
Speaker 1: YouTube posting in true name Nicholas Cruz spelled in a
Speaker 1: way that very few people in the country spell their
Speaker 1: name that way. I mean, if they had done an
Speaker 1: Instagram search of the name. Okay, I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: some high level, super secret scurel FBI stuff. We're not
Speaker 1: talking about you know, rerouting spy satellites here, folks. If
Speaker 1: they had done an Instagram search of the name on
Speaker 1: the YouTube comment, they probably would have found the kid
Speaker 1: right away. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Nicholas
Speaker 1: Cruises that are writing that kind of stuff and have
Speaker 1: photos of them all over the place with knives and
Speaker 1: guns and looking pretty aggressive and mutilated animals and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. Right, So if they fell down
Speaker 1: on that one, and I was willing to say, Okay, look,
Speaker 1: a lot of comments, there's a lot of stuff going
Speaker 1: on that nothing's perfect, and you know, there's human error here.
Speaker 1: I understand that However, when you have someone who is
Speaker 1: calling in to the FBI line with detailed information and
Speaker 1: a name about an individual who may be involved in
Speaker 1: a who maybe soon to be a school shooter, and
Speaker 1: the FBI does nothing, What the heck is the point
Speaker 1: of the FBI's public access line. And I know, I
Speaker 1: do think it's unfair to immediately jump to a conclusion
Speaker 1: that I saw a lot of people doing on social media,
Speaker 1: which is, oh, well, you know, maybe they were doing
Speaker 1: there was too much Russian Russia investigation going on for
Speaker 1: there to be any resources put to this. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's fair. Different offices different But I do think
Speaker 1: if someone had called into that tip line and said,
Speaker 1: you know, I I know the guy who offered to
Speaker 1: give the Trump campaign Hillary's hacked emails, I feel like
Speaker 1: that person would have gotten there would have been a
Speaker 1: call back, and there would have been some action taken.
Speaker 1: I do think that's true, which tells you something about
Speaker 1: the priorities these days of America's premier law enforcement agency,
Speaker 1: at least from the top down. You know that that
Speaker 1: may be that the influence that this collusion hysteria has
Speaker 1: had is deeper than we think. But I'm surmising. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm theorizing on that one. But you'll notice that there
Speaker 1: was this recitation of the mantra after this terrible school
Speaker 1: shooting of if you see something, say something, it's incumbent
Speaker 1: upon each each one of us to report to the
Speaker 1: authority's report to the authorities. It was reported repeatedly and
Speaker 1: in detail. Everybody knew every red flag was seen and
Speaker 1: noted and spoken about. And what we get to here
Speaker 1: is is there is there nothing the government can do
Speaker 1: or would do to stop this. And I think the
Speaker 1: answer is maybe even if they had followed up on this,
Speaker 1: maybe the intervention by the FBI to sit down with
Speaker 1: this kid and say, don't be a psycho killer that
Speaker 1: might have had some effect. I don't know. We also
Speaker 1: could argue, what have a accelerate the process, but it
Speaker 1: seems like there's very little hope. If they can't stop
Speaker 1: Nicholas Cruise from being in a school shooter, what makes
Speaker 1: you think that they're going to stop the next one.
Speaker 1: This kid could not have been anymore obvious, aggressive, blatant,
Speaker 1: leaving a huge trail for everybody. I mean, if we
Speaker 1: were to put this in terrorism in terms, this would
Speaker 1: be like the guy who you know, is walking around
Speaker 1: the back of the mosque saying, I want to be
Speaker 1: a suicide bomber. I want to be a suicide bomber.
Speaker 1: And everyone knows and they interview him and everything, and
Speaker 1: he's on the FBI's radar, and then a couple months
Speaker 1: later he's a suicide bomber somewhere. Yeah, that is pretty
Speaker 1: analogous to what happened here this guy. All the flags
Speaker 1: were there, we saw them, we noted it. The FBI
Speaker 1: didn't pass it along, didn't didn't look into this. I
Speaker 1: would say this. I wonder what other tips were called
Speaker 1: into the public access line that that did get followed
Speaker 1: up on. Where they looking into, you know, Medicare fraud
Speaker 1: and Florida. Where they were what were they spending their
Speaker 1: resources and time doing well? I guess they didn't even
Speaker 1: pass it onto the field office. So not to single
Speaker 1: out the Florida field office, but what were they spending
Speaker 1: their resources on what could be a higher priority than
Speaker 1: at least look it into this. They've they've got the people,
Speaker 1: They've got the people to run down the all the
Speaker 1: stuff we're seeing with the Russia. We look, we had
Speaker 1: this all this fan for today, right thirteen indictments in
Speaker 1: Russia of Russians for setting up sock puppets. That's a
Speaker 1: whole lot less important than what what happened earlier this
Speaker 1: week in Florida, a whole lot less devastating, not even
Speaker 1: the same universe, not even the same stratosphere of importance,
Speaker 1: and yet nobody looked into it. Um, this is my friends,
Speaker 1: this is not This is not good. It does not
Speaker 1: look good for the FBI on this one. Um, it
Speaker 1: makes us feel It makes it feel like the whole
Speaker 1: see something, say something campaign is just lip service, you know,
Speaker 1: see something, say something ing has meaning, maybe if you're
Speaker 1: talking about I don't know, someone engaged in white collar
Speaker 1: fraud somewhere, or maybe Russia collusion. But school shooting. This
Speaker 1: didn't get this didn't get any resources or any attention whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I mean human error. I was willing to give the
Speaker 1: FBI some benefit of the doubt on the YouTube comment
Speaker 1: because I figured, Okay, there's a lot going on, you know,
Speaker 1: they there's a lot of comments that are posted here
Speaker 1: and there. But that was because you didn't have a
Speaker 1: full picture, and what it was just Nicholas Cruz a
Speaker 1: name and one comment on one YouTube clip. Okay, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of any of you have spent time in
Speaker 1: the comment sections of websites, no, pretty gross, scary stuff
Speaker 1: that people are saying, and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: But this call, this call had everything quote cruises, gun ownership,
Speaker 1: desire to kill people, erratic behavior, disturbing social media posts,
Speaker 1: potential of him conducting a school shooting. The FBI could
Speaker 1: have followed up on this in two minutes. They could
Speaker 1: have looked at this kid's instag I mean it was
Speaker 1: all there. They didn't even have to investigate really, I mean, heck,
Speaker 1: they could have brought in a high school kid and said, hey,
Speaker 1: this is what we were told. What do you think
Speaker 1: you know? Can you do a do a quick scrub
Speaker 1: of social media? Could have brought in an intern. I
Speaker 1: would have been able to figure this out. Nothing. Ah, Look,
Speaker 1: it looks pretty bad for the fbion. I don't know
Speaker 1: what else to say. I remember or all the you know,
Speaker 1: the different you know, the heat that the intelligence community
Speaker 1: got for while both WMD and Rock and then before
Speaker 1: that Missing nine eleven. And I'm a believer in accountability
Speaker 1: for these massive and very powerful federal bureaucracies. I really am.
Speaker 1: And I don't know what accountability looks like for this,
Speaker 1: because this is this is bad. Governor Scott of Florida's
Speaker 1: saying the FBI director should resign. I think there's a
Speaker 1: there's two philosophies on that point. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: you have people who will say, pardon the phrase, the
Speaker 1: buck stops with the guy at the top. That would
Speaker 1: be Christopher Ray. So even though he had no direct
Speaker 1: ability to influence this, there has to be a show
Speaker 1: of accountability. Maybe the other side of it is, are
Speaker 1: you really going to have the FBI director resigned because
Speaker 1: of what employees far down the chain of command did
Speaker 1: not do has nothing to do with him. I tend
Speaker 1: to fall more into that category, just because I don't
Speaker 1: think you can hold the head of an organization responsible
Speaker 1: for uh incidental or or not incidental, but aberrant one
Speaker 1: off conduct. It's one thing if it's systemic and not caught,
Speaker 1: and there's a there has to be accountability for that.
Speaker 1: But who man, it's a bad it's a bad day
Speaker 1: for the bureau um. I don't think there's any way
Speaker 1: around that. And I don't know who it's tough, folks.
Speaker 1: Given the week we just had as a country, well
Speaker 1: we all just went through. We saw, we heard the videos,
Speaker 1: the footage, everything, and I was really hoping, just for
Speaker 1: the purpose of a bit of psychological recuperation, we just
Speaker 1: moved past it today and then this happens the FBI. Hey,
Speaker 1: I mean they they came clean, So I guess there's
Speaker 1: that's a good sign at least for some sense of accountability.
Speaker 1: But I don't know how they can miss a more
Speaker 1: obvious one than this. This is this is Hey. I
Speaker 1: think a guy across the street is trying to build
Speaker 1: a truck bomb. Here's his name. I've seen photos of it.
Speaker 1: You can check it out online. He's been posting stuff
Speaker 1: about how he wants to build a truck bomb. You
Speaker 1: really should check this out. And the FBI doesn't. It
Speaker 1: doesn't even begin to look at it, see something, say something.
Speaker 1: Come on, what do you think ben't too harsh? Not
Speaker 1: harsh enough? What are we to make of this? The
Speaker 1: backle at the bureau eight four eight four, four to
Speaker 1: eight to five. We'll be right back herb in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bucks Acton show. Sir, dude, how are you?
Speaker 1: I'm good, dude, how are you? I'm doing pretty good? Hey, listen,
Speaker 1: I wants your opinion on this possible scenario. So, um
Speaker 1: Muller was charged with investigating the possibility of Russian interference
Speaker 1: in our election, and lo and behold, today we get
Speaker 1: these indictments charging these individuals and organizations with violating various
Speaker 1: laws relating to the conduct of our election and other charges. Um. So,
Speaker 1: out of gratitude for a job well done, President Trump
Speaker 1: UH declares the investigation successfully completed and rewards Mueller with
Speaker 1: an appointment to replace Ray as director of the FBI,
Speaker 1: with the charge of cleaning up the mess that currently
Speaker 1: embroils the FBI because of things like the botched UH
Speaker 1: Clinton email investigation and the UH the Docier debacle that
Speaker 1: led to potentially bogus spice a warrant. And now look
Speaker 1: at this mess in Parkland, Florida, where they dropped the
Speaker 1: ball and should have at least paid this guy a
Speaker 1: visit to talk to him. So is there is there
Speaker 1: a question in their herbari? Well, I want to know
Speaker 1: what do you think of that? Of all that stuff
Speaker 1: they mean, all the things you're talking about. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, here's here's my My suggestion was, suppose Trump
Speaker 1: declares that we have a successfully completed the investigation into
Speaker 1: Russian meddling in our election, the indictments that were issued today.
Speaker 1: But he can't. He can't that that doesn't work because
Speaker 1: the Mueller probe is still ongoing and Mueller has already
Speaker 1: said that. Okay, well I missed that part. I'm just
Speaker 1: thinking that. You know, all along we've been hearing that
Speaker 1: the Russians medal, the Russians medal, the Mustans medal, and
Speaker 1: and now we have the proofs of the Russians medal
Speaker 1: and uh. In his statement today we heard, um, uh,
Speaker 1: what's that guy's uh? The deputy director Rosenstein. Rosenstein made
Speaker 1: a very uh appointed statement that there were no and
Speaker 1: it's in the indictment also, there there were no US
Speaker 1: citizens who were knowing participants. Yeah, winning versus unwitting is
Speaker 1: the terms is the term they use. Yeah, right, it's
Speaker 1: no collusion. Yeah. But but did you hear my whole
Speaker 1: thing herb about yet? Because the Left is not given
Speaker 1: up on this. They're just saying they haven't proven it yet.
Speaker 1: And what Rosenstein said is that, yeah, there's nothing in
Speaker 1: this indictment about that, but there could be another indictment
Speaker 1: or even a superseding indictment with more of it. I
Speaker 1: hear you her, but I appreciate you calling it from
Speaker 1: New Jersey, and thank you for sharing your thoughts here
Speaker 1: on the show. All right, Mark in Waynesboro, Virginia. Hey, Mark,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Hey. So,
Speaker 1: in America, there used to be a time when men
Speaker 1: that were in the high positions of power, whether they
Speaker 1: were generals or government officials, if seventeen innocent, precious American
Speaker 1: children died on their watch, at a bare minimum, that
Speaker 1: individual would resign, and in some cases, out of honor,
Speaker 1: that individual would go out into the woodshed in the
Speaker 1: backyard and either hang themselves or shoot themselves. Now, we
Speaker 1: had an athletic director and a football coach down there
Speaker 1: in um Florida that, without a second thought, gave their
Speaker 1: life to protect those innocent kids. But look at the
Speaker 1: classlessness of Director Ray. Look at the complete despicable behavior
Speaker 1: of all of these bureaucrats in Washington, d C. They
Speaker 1: have proven that not only are they corrupt, but they
Speaker 1: have absolutely no interest or desire whatsoever to do their
Speaker 1: job to protect the American people. And that's with a
Speaker 1: budget of money that is an un goodly sum of
Speaker 1: money to any of us. You had asked if you
Speaker 1: thought that he should resign or if somebody lower down
Speaker 1: the chain should be held accountable. What's astonishing, Buck is
Speaker 1: no one has been held accountable yet, and you and
Speaker 1: I both know, Buck, that no one will be held accountable,
Speaker 1: and any absence of honorable men in this fraudulent federal
Speaker 1: government in Washington, d C. The American people are gonna
Speaker 1: do nothing but suffer under this joke of a federal
Speaker 1: government of here. Mark, I appreciate you calling him, and
Speaker 1: I will say that I think that Nicholas Cruise will
Speaker 1: be held accountable, but that will be not nearly enough
Speaker 1: justice under the circumstances. Um, we gotta roll into a
Speaker 1: quick break here, folks. When we come back, we will
Speaker 1: have much more. By the way, if you want to
Speaker 1: throw any thoughts at me on Russia, on the FBI's
Speaker 1: mess up here, or even if you eat Friday, you
Speaker 1: can give me an action movie quote if you're so inclined.
Speaker 1: I was hoping to have a bit of a lighter
Speaker 1: show today, but the news conspired against me. The news
Speaker 1: colluded against me. We'll be back alright, Team lines are lit.
Speaker 1: Let's get to them. We have Todd in Greenboro. Hey Todd, Hey,
Speaker 1: how are you doing books? I'm all right, thank you
Speaker 1: for your call. I just want to ask, freaking what's
Speaker 1: the last color want from this government? Three fifty freaking
Speaker 1: million people in this freaking country, and what he wants
Speaker 1: to he want He wants somebody to control everybody. What
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do? But on top of that,
Speaker 1: the shooting, how are you going to correct it? It's
Speaker 1: all pointing fingers one way or another. Oh, it's his fault. No,
Speaker 1: it's their fault. No, it's it's your fault, homie, it's
Speaker 1: your fault. Freaking The American public needs to realize it's
Speaker 1: your fault. These are your kids out here pulling triggers,
Speaker 1: freaking because you are weak. Well, I mean maybe it's
Speaker 1: it's I think you could say that it's it's our
Speaker 1: responsibility to keep our children safe. It's the fault of
Speaker 1: the shooter. Nicholas Cruz and I do think that there is, uh,
Speaker 1: there's reasonable criticism of the FBI is failure to follow
Speaker 1: up on a very specific tip about exactly what happened here.
Speaker 1: But there's a currently an environment of every running around
Speaker 1: just trying to hang whatever their political issue is on
Speaker 1: this like a Christmas tree. I mean, it's just terrible.
Speaker 1: I mean there there's so much grandstanding and nonsense and
Speaker 1: that's not helpful at all. And and looking even when
Speaker 1: I mean, I know I had I had guests on
Speaker 1: yesterday talking about greater security at schools. Here's here's just
Speaker 1: something that's just reality. I'm sure, And I know you
Speaker 1: know this, Todd. Somebody has an Air fifteen and they're
Speaker 1: planning out a a mass slaughter of civilians and they know,
Speaker 1: they know the area well, they know the target well,
Speaker 1: they understand who's gonna be there, where they're gonna be,
Speaker 1: and they're just trying to kill in us in people.
Speaker 1: You could have had fifty arm guards there and at
Speaker 1: best you might have had a faster response time and
Speaker 1: a fewer casualties. But people were almost there was no
Speaker 1: way that you weren't going to take casualties once the
Speaker 1: shooter got on the grounds and had an air fifteen
Speaker 1: in his hands. It's just it's just not realistic to
Speaker 1: think otherwise. Correct. But can I ask a question, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: is it is it a question of security or is
Speaker 1: it the question of your government? Well, I mean, well
Speaker 1: it kind of rolls in together. But I mean security
Speaker 1: in schools. We put more security on our in our
Speaker 1: banking system than we do on our children. I mean,
Speaker 1: who are the greatest teachers. Who are the greatest teachers
Speaker 1: in America? That's one question. That would be American special Forces.
Speaker 1: They jump into other countries and teach them how to
Speaker 1: kill people. They are the greatest teachers in America. Now
Speaker 1: you've got retired freaking green Berets all over the East Coast,
Speaker 1: all over America. Could you not put them in a school,
Speaker 1: have them have a weapon on them, and they could
Speaker 1: stop this mess. It's security, it's not freaking your government.
Speaker 1: What are we doing? What are we doing? Well? The answers,
Speaker 1: I think, by the way, Todd, we're not going to
Speaker 1: do very much. I think we're probably gonna do nothing
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of this. That's different from what we're
Speaker 1: already doing. I appreciate you calling in. I appreciate your passion.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Have a good weekend. Al in Colorado,
Speaker 1: welcome to box section show shields high buck sheels high Al.
Speaker 1: I want to offer a solution. Um. First of all,
Speaker 1: they are they all just stop giving every federal employee
Speaker 1: uh an automatic uh employment until retirement. You have to
Speaker 1: be able to fire them, and they can't. Yeah, civil
Speaker 1: service firing is almost impossible. I've talked to you about
Speaker 1: this before. If you if you show up on time
Speaker 1: for your job, leave on time, and don't break the law,
Speaker 1: it is very hard to fire a civil servant, right
Speaker 1: and don't punch your boss in the nose. Uh. That
Speaker 1: my solution. My solution is, you know the problem. The
Speaker 1: problem lies in that, uh, you notify the FBI that
Speaker 1: so and so is is a bad guy. Yeah, goes
Speaker 1: out and says, howdy, um, what you're doing? He says nothing,
Speaker 1: jef I can't do anything because he hasn't done anything yet. Well,
Speaker 1: that that's a good point. That's what I've been saying.
Speaker 1: Let's let's say al that that the FBI had not
Speaker 1: let's say the FBI had not failed to as it
Speaker 1: as it admits, failed to uh follow protocol here and
Speaker 1: they had met with Nicholas Cruz. They sat down with
Speaker 1: him and they said, hey, we see all this stuff.
Speaker 1: We're hearing some very bad things about you. They can't
Speaker 1: lock him up based on anything that I have seen
Speaker 1: and and so, if he's really committed to this. He
Speaker 1: may say, oh, wow, the FBI visited me. They're on
Speaker 1: to me. You know, I better go that they can't.
Speaker 1: And then people have said things like, why can't we
Speaker 1: put them under surveillance? You're you're not gonna put every
Speaker 1: every whacko in the country under twenty four hour surveillance
Speaker 1: because you just can't. You don't have the resources of
Speaker 1: the time, of the manpower. There's no way you'd be
Speaker 1: able to pull that off. And you also then get
Speaker 1: into whole question about, well, how can you put somebody
Speaker 1: under twenty four hour surveillance that they haven't actually committed
Speaker 1: a crime yet. These are the problems of living in
Speaker 1: a free society, my friends. You know, the rule of
Speaker 1: law sometimes means that things like this are are complicated. Buck,
Speaker 1: I've got a solution. Here's my solution. Okay, um authorize
Speaker 1: these i FBI guys when they when they go out
Speaker 1: and they find this young man um and he is
Speaker 1: a he is a man at nineteen, he's definitely a
Speaker 1: man um. And you take him and you put him
Speaker 1: in the car and you drive up to the nearest
Speaker 1: prison and they're all over health half acres. You take
Speaker 1: him to the nearest prison and you say we're just
Speaker 1: going for a visit, and you're walking through there and
Speaker 1: you show him these miscreants in the prison and say
Speaker 1: which which one would you like to be the voice
Speaker 1: toy for? This is? This is some version I think
Speaker 1: al of the I believe it's MTV, and I'll thank
Speaker 1: you for Colinger from Colorado. I believe it was MTV
Speaker 1: that did a version of a did a show called
Speaker 1: Scared Straight where they would bring juvenile delinquents into a
Speaker 1: very frightening prison and have them I mean, I remember
Speaker 1: watching this, so I know it's a thing. I think
Speaker 1: it was called Scared Straight. But they would scream at
Speaker 1: them in prison to get the juvenile delinquents to stop there.
Speaker 1: They're delinquent ways basically, and they had guys who I mean,
Speaker 1: I remember that there was some very uh how do
Speaker 1: I put this, Some some salty language was used by
Speaker 1: the convicts to really to really bring the point home. Um,
Speaker 1: I want to there's a little bit of a feud
Speaker 1: going on right now, a feud brewering that while has
Speaker 1: some fun with here where CNN is calling out by
Speaker 1: name on TV one of your I'm guessing favorite senators.
Speaker 1: Certainly i'd say, he's in your top fifty senators for sure,
Speaker 1: maybe your top five, maybe your favorite, but definitely your
Speaker 1: top fifty. Who is that senator? And what is the feud?
Speaker 1: If you stay through the break, you will find out
Speaker 1: all these things. So I just want to tell you
Speaker 1: a bit about how CNN likes to present the gun
Speaker 1: control debate on on on air. I remember many years ago,
Speaker 1: after the new Town shooting, a friend of mine was
Speaker 1: asked by producers overseas before I worked there. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I was asked at CNN to present the pro Second
Speaker 1: Amendment point of view, and he was on a show
Speaker 1: with a live audience. They didn't tell him that. They
Speaker 1: also didn't tell him that during the show he would
Speaker 1: be asked to stand up and give the second time
Speaker 1: a point of view surrounded with the parents of Newtown victims.
Speaker 1: That was how they wanted to, you know, structure things.
Speaker 1: They thought that was the way to go. That wouldn't
Speaker 1: in any way influence his feelings about making his point
Speaker 1: of view. They would have parents standing next to him
Speaker 1: who are crying, understand Annalie, who were heartbroken about what
Speaker 1: had happened, and he was supposed to be the one
Speaker 1: defending the right to bare arms standing right next to them.
Speaker 1: That was how they that was how they wanted to
Speaker 1: do it, CNN, and that was Piers Morgan's show. By
Speaker 1: the way, if you're wondering, um, which I'm sure's no
Speaker 1: surprise to any of you, that Piers Morgan would take
Speaker 1: that approach, he is. He is aggressively ignorant on the
Speaker 1: issue of gun control and the Second Amendment UM, and
Speaker 1: still weighs in on this issue all the time. He
Speaker 1: might be great on other things, he might be a
Speaker 1: really nice dude. I don't know. The point is he's
Speaker 1: not right in the Second Amendment. Uh. But CNN also
Speaker 1: wants to go after people like Ted Cruz, for example,
Speaker 1: and say that Ted Cruz is well, we have the clip.
Speaker 1: We invited Republican Senators Marco Rubio ted Cruz while he's
Speaker 1: from Texas, because he talks about this issue a lot.
Speaker 1: We invited the governor to come on the show this morning.
Speaker 1: They declined. We say, let's get after it. It's not
Speaker 1: a slogan, it's an approach. You have to take these
Speaker 1: issues on. You gotta ask the tough questions. You must
Speaker 1: be held accountable. Rubio says this is an inexplicable tragedy
Speaker 1: that couldn't be less true. Governor Scott is actively fighting
Speaker 1: right now to penalize doctors who even asked patients in
Speaker 1: their state if they have firearms? Where are they? They
Speaker 1: will come on here, They're on Fox News this morning,
Speaker 1: the mother Ship, so they won't be pressed about gun control.
Speaker 1: What are they afraid of? Yes, what are they afraid of? Well,
Speaker 1: here's the problem with that. Mm hmmm, the whole issue. Uh.
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz says that he gave a fifteen minute exclusive
Speaker 1: interview to CNN that they just never aired. So it
Speaker 1: seems pretty unfair, doesn't it to have a CNN anchor
Speaker 1: saying that Ted Cruise is scared to talk about gun rights.
Speaker 1: Notice how gun control is what some people say, gun
Speaker 1: rights is what other people said. The language always gives
Speaker 1: you such a a sense of which side of the
Speaker 1: issue one person is going to be on. Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: had appeared or had called, and they just didn't use
Speaker 1: the interview. I would note that I had the I
Speaker 1: had the experience of doing a CNN show for Brian
Speaker 1: Stelter once, an interview on terrorism, and Stelter thought he
Speaker 1: had a big gotcha moment, and it was because I
Speaker 1: said that something was Islamic terrorism and it was going
Speaker 1: to be that it was too early. It turns out
Speaker 1: I was just right. Uh, and they gave me the
Speaker 1: they did. We did the whole interview, and it was
Speaker 1: supposed to air on a Sunday. We interviewed on Friday.
Speaker 1: They just never told me anything, never aired it, and
Speaker 1: pretended that there was breaking news on a Sunday, which
Speaker 1: is why they couldn't arrow it. You see, these are
Speaker 1: the games fake news plays. This is this is how
Speaker 1: they operate, folks. It's all journalism, integrity and honesty when
Speaker 1: it suits them to say so, but when it comes
Speaker 1: down to it, it's just all a show. It's not journalism,
Speaker 1: it's activism, and they're always trying to protect some very
Speaker 1: fragile egos and very flimsy intellects over there. Nonetheless, I
Speaker 1: would love to see Ted Cruise go on go on
Speaker 1: CNN and talk on control with any of their anchors.
Speaker 1: It would be a wipeout. My advice to any of
Speaker 1: those CNN anchors would be, uh, save yourself the humiliation,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure I have a feeling they will. But
Speaker 1: this was not just some one off thing. They actually
Speaker 1: were running a graphic on tv UM, so they were
Speaker 1: presenting it as though it were news. Unwilling CNN ran
Speaker 1: a graphic unwilling to appear on CNN. What are they
Speaker 1: afraid of? This was a full screen on CNN's air
Speaker 1: national channel across the country. Governor Rick Scott center mark
Speaker 1: of Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, and Ted Cruz is like,
Speaker 1: that's bull I'll come on your show and it's I'm
Speaker 1: talking about this issue. In fact, I did for fifteen
Speaker 1: minutes an interview already with you, and you just chose
Speaker 1: not to run it. And now you're gonna call me
Speaker 1: a coward? How much dirtier and more dishonest do you
Speaker 1: think they can really get? Kind of makes you wonder,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Mike and Alabama got some thoughts? What's up, sir?
Speaker 1: Kay Bugus? Is Mike and Alabama shield tied? Mike? I
Speaker 1: don't know. In regards to the Florida shooting, I don't
Speaker 1: know if there's a direct way it would be applicable.
Speaker 1: But I do know that in Florida they have a
Speaker 1: thing called the Baker Act, and uh it allows for
Speaker 1: involuntary Uh. I don't know if it's incarceration, institutionalization I
Speaker 1: think is the word you might be looking for, Yeah,
Speaker 1: for someone that's got mental health issues, And it doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily mean they've committed a crime of any sort yet.
Speaker 1: Uh from what I understand, both of the the guy's
Speaker 1: parents were deceased, so that may have been a reason
Speaker 1: why they it and go with the Baker Act. But
Speaker 1: I think lawenforcement can initiate that as well. I could
Speaker 1: be wrong. No, there there is and and Mike, I
Speaker 1: won't pretend to be an expert in a in a
Speaker 1: legal process or the specifics of its state by state,
Speaker 1: but there I know there are ways that you can
Speaker 1: have somebody involuntarily committed to a mental institution if they
Speaker 1: proved to be a harm to themselves or to others.
Speaker 1: But that is a it is a high bar, and
Speaker 1: I have to say it's generally with with very good reason.
Speaker 1: That's a high bar, right, I mean, could you imagine
Speaker 1: people that just need some help, You wouldn't want them
Speaker 1: to be uh sent away to a mental institution. And
Speaker 1: also it leaves a mark on on a person's record.
Speaker 1: You will never be able to get a gun after that, legally,
Speaker 1: you will never so it's there, but it's it's tricky
Speaker 1: with this guy. Do I think that there probably could
Speaker 1: have been a case I'd have to bring a psychiatrist
Speaker 1: with with background and how the state functions on this
Speaker 1: on the show, My my gut tells me that you
Speaker 1: probably could get this guy, uh sent away for and
Speaker 1: sent away to a mental I mean, you know, not
Speaker 1: we before the shooting, it would have been sent away
Speaker 1: to get help. Now it's you know, sent away for life,
Speaker 1: if not into the into a lethal injection room. But
Speaker 1: at this point, yeah, at this point, but beforehand, it
Speaker 1: would have been sent away to get them help. And
Speaker 1: and I think that it's there, but I look, it
Speaker 1: used to be a lot easier to do that, and
Speaker 1: they've changed the law of the a c l U
Speaker 1: has fought like mad against involuntary institutionalization, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: to to elevate the standards. It's one of the reason
Speaker 1: why I mean, look, I'm here in New York City
Speaker 1: and I see severely mentally ill people. They're usually uh
Speaker 1: the home, they're usually homeless, and you see them and
Speaker 1: they're doing things on the street, and it's very clear
Speaker 1: they're severely mentally ill. But unless they're a danger to
Speaker 1: themselves or others. You generally can't get them committed. And
Speaker 1: part of the problem is that by the time it's
Speaker 1: clear they're a danger to themselves or others, it's too late,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. Sometimes the first time it's
Speaker 1: clear is when they've you know, cracked a rock over
Speaker 1: some old lady's head for no reason. So it's and
Speaker 1: there's no there's that. I keep saying this because it's true.
Speaker 1: There's no easy answers. Mike Alright, Rock and Roll, thank
Speaker 1: you for calling him my friend. I appreciate it. Good
Speaker 1: to talk to you and have have a good weekend. Um,
Speaker 1: and it's it has been quite a week. You noticely
Speaker 1: that they don't talk about this very much either. The
Speaker 1: markets actually had a really good week. I feel like
Speaker 1: last week everybody was, oh my gosh, the bottom is
Speaker 1: falling out of the market. What are we gonna do Now,
Speaker 1: Everyone's like, yeah, it's it's coming back, It'll be all
Speaker 1: It'll be all right. That's good, that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to find the positives. Oh, CNN reporting playmates
Speaker 1: alleged affair with the president. I haven't read this. Have
Speaker 1: you guys read the story yet? Oh you have all right,
Speaker 1: I'll have to read. I didn't read this one today.
Speaker 1: I was busy with the Russia and the and the
Speaker 1: FBI stuff. Um this this is one of these things
Speaker 1: where the media will I'm not gonna say it's not
Speaker 1: a story, but they're gonna run with a story for
Speaker 1: as long as they can. And I think this affects
Speaker 1: the Trump base. I think it's probably a zero one
Speaker 1: way or the other. I don't think they care. Nope,
Speaker 1: So we will see. Uh, this is just kind of
Speaker 1: where we are now and the way we deal with
Speaker 1: political not political scandals, politicians personal scandals, you know, whether
Speaker 1: you believe it or not, still is just not going
Speaker 1: to have an effect. Things have changed quite a bit.
Speaker 1: We will talk about immigration coming up, because I think
Speaker 1: that that is a subject that we can get some
Speaker 1: greater clarity on after it was so pushed aside this
Speaker 1: week with some of the other major events that had happened.
Speaker 1: We'll also have a friend joined to talk to us
Speaker 1: about an interesting program in well a research that shows
Speaker 1: that school choice may help lessen criminality, which you can
Speaker 1: imagine that I have all kinds of interesting discussions going forward.
Speaker 1: I wish that they'd get back on uh school choice
Speaker 1: issue at the the national level. It has not been
Speaker 1: something that's been a part of Trump's agenda. And we
Speaker 1: will have some of your thoughts via roll call. We'll
Speaker 1: have kind of an extended session. We'll spend at least
Speaker 1: a solid segment of roll call coming up. It reminds
Speaker 1: me by the way Facebook dot com slash buck sex
Speaker 1: in if you want to share thoughts. Also, we always
Speaker 1: post stories and more on buck Sexton dot com. Please
Speaker 1: do check it out. We'll be getting into that and
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other things. And then by the
Speaker 1: time our third hour has done, folks and you listen
Speaker 1: to it, your weekend gets to begin. So that's exciting.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, I just want to
Speaker 1: take a moment to say before our before I bring
Speaker 1: in some esteemed guests here. I just find it so
Speaker 1: disappointing the way people get so nasty to each other
Speaker 1: over the whole Russia investigation thing, and particularly look, I
Speaker 1: expect the left to act like a bunch of maniacs.
Speaker 1: A lot of them of stake their their careers at
Speaker 1: some level, not really, I mean people will forget, but
Speaker 1: they stake their credibility on their being really an impeachment
Speaker 1: that comes out of all this. They think they're gonna
Speaker 1: take the media, believe they're gonna make right the election
Speaker 1: by taking down the Trump presidency with this narrative that
Speaker 1: will lead to an impeachment. So there's a lot of
Speaker 1: there's a lot going on here, but it just bums
Speaker 1: me out to see the different people who are involved
Speaker 1: in all this, who are just uh, just nasty. And
Speaker 1: their conservatives, Yeah, they somehow believe this, They've somehow bought
Speaker 1: into this, and they refer to other conservatives as as
Speaker 1: Trumpists or Trumpers because they don't think that the president
Speaker 1: United States had some hatch, some conspiracy with the Russians.
Speaker 1: That just the whole thing is so nuts, and it
Speaker 1: is you know, it is problematic. It is troubling. Uh,
Speaker 1: it is really bothersome to me that we have reached
Speaker 1: this point now where you can't even really have a
Speaker 1: civilized discussion about this. You can't even you know, you
Speaker 1: have uh, you have Adam Schiff making quite clear what
Speaker 1: the real goal is here. Play clib seven for me
Speaker 1: for a second. The president's conduct was so incompatible with
Speaker 1: office that they needed to vote to remove him. Uh,
Speaker 1: it is going to be important for people to know
Speaker 1: that that was not something that we were seeking from
Speaker 1: the very beginning because of what this will put the
Speaker 1: country through. So I think early talk about impeachment before
Speaker 1: we finished our investigation um makes that case more difficult
Speaker 1: if the evidence comes to support it, and we need
Speaker 1: to let Bob Mueller do his job. A big part
Speaker 1: of what I consider my job right now is making
Speaker 1: sure or we stay the hell out of Bob Mother's way.
Speaker 1: Because they want to impeach Trump. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: it is, This starts to get to be pretty preposterous here.
Speaker 1: I mean, they there's a reason. There's a reason that
Speaker 1: they're so set on this Mueller investigation. So so we
Speaker 1: know that some Russians, some Russians have been indicted and
Speaker 1: it's not going to change anything. There mightn't even to
Speaker 1: die some more Russians. Not gonna change And we've we've
Speaker 1: known about this for a long time. We have been
Speaker 1: hearing about Russia interference in the election for a year
Speaker 1: and a half. And you'll notice no one ever has
Speaker 1: some policy in mind for it, no one ever has
Speaker 1: a solution they want to talk about. This is just
Speaker 1: all about Trump. Which I can kind of handle at
Speaker 1: some level, But I also feel like, you know, because
Speaker 1: I know I expect this, but I just feel like,
Speaker 1: what's with these conservatives? They really would rather they want
Speaker 1: they want to they want to be right on this
Speaker 1: one in that Trump portrayed his country. That would make
Speaker 1: them feel better. They'd be happier with the future in
Speaker 1: which we have I guess a Pence by the way,
Speaker 1: It's not like they would accept Pence as a replacement
Speaker 1: for Trump. If in fact they did repeat and removed
Speaker 1: from from office, they would say the whole thing was illegitimate.
Speaker 1: They they would uh, it would cause a crisis of
Speaker 1: governance and a crisis of confidence in our governing institutions
Speaker 1: in this country, the likes of which certainly has never
Speaker 1: occurred before in my lifetime. But it's just disappointing. There's
Speaker 1: a there's a childishness in the media on this issue
Speaker 1: that it's it's just gross. It feels icky. Anyway, we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk more about what's going on with immigration here
Speaker 1: in a second. I've I've been saying to you that,
Speaker 1: you know, some big stuff happened this week on the
Speaker 1: issue of immigration. It's not like this just we should
Speaker 1: just skip over it. So I wanted to bring in
Speaker 1: our friend Marker Corey and from the Center from Immigration Studies.
Speaker 1: I know, Friday, and we're gonna be talking policy kind
Speaker 1: of late on a Friday. But yeah, hey, we're we're
Speaker 1: always we're always focused on what matters here, folks, or
Speaker 1: at least most of the time. Sometimes not really. When
Speaker 1: I'm screaming and pretending to be a journalist yelling at
Speaker 1: at Trump, maybe that's not or or my Sorrows impression, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, I feel like I don't get enough appreciation.
Speaker 1: I think my Sorrows is pretty good. Like I think
Speaker 1: it's if you listen to Sorrows, don't know, he's sort
Speaker 1: of enough sounds like these, and he has you can
Speaker 1: talk about the markets and the things that the market
Speaker 1: is doing, and I feel like that's kind of listen
Speaker 1: to some Sorrows audio. That's pretty close. It's not perfect. Gosh,
Speaker 1: everyone's a critic. Yeah, it's like somehow my Hillary impersonation,
Speaker 1: which sounds nothing like Hillary. Everyone is like your spot
Speaker 1: on you know, somehow that's perfect. But my Sorrows, which
Speaker 1: which if I called you and let the message on
Speaker 1: your machine and you may in fact, believe was sorrows.
Speaker 1: You're just you're you're rejected that one. It's just not fair, folks,
Speaker 1: It's just not fair at all. Oh, Sonny, we've got
Speaker 1: my thank you, my Bernie Bernie Sands. I wish you
Speaker 1: would run again, just so I could do Bernie all
Speaker 1: the time. But like, hey, it's Bernie's night, and the
Speaker 1: mood is right for socialism. You know, we'd have so
Speaker 1: much fun with the burn. I kind of missed the burn.
Speaker 1: He was a great character to work into things him.
Speaker 1: And if you remember Janet Politano, big sis, you know,
Speaker 1: talking about Homeland, talking about the border strip searching guys
Speaker 1: that are trying to get drugs in the country, and
Speaker 1: the whole thing Janet to Politano. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of a whole bunch of different characters. Alright, alright,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into some serious stuff in a minute.
Speaker 1: We've got our friend marcret Corey and joining also. I
Speaker 1: wanted to bring in a friend and a contributor to
Speaker 1: the Federalist Enis Felcher, who's gonna talk about how school
Speaker 1: choice has a has been shown. It's not proven yet.
Speaker 1: There's some studies show dramatic impact on crime as in
Speaker 1: reduces it very much. We will get into that and
Speaker 1: much more in just a couple of minutes. Your team,
Speaker 1: stay with me. I am optimistic. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: why I'm so optimistic as the President did something that
Speaker 1: many of us found surprising and very intriguing. He said
Speaker 1: that he was willing to support a path of citizenship,
Speaker 1: a twelve year path of citizenship for Dakas for these dreamers.
Speaker 1: So is immigration reform dead or not? Where are with
Speaker 1: with all this? We've got somebody who can shed a
Speaker 1: lot of light on this. We have Marker Corey and
Speaker 1: with this he is from the Center for Immigration Studies
Speaker 1: c i S dot org. He's the executive director. Mark.
Speaker 1: Always good to have you on the program. I'm glad
Speaker 1: to be here. Than our first keys update us on
Speaker 1: what happened in the immigration kind of got pushed aside,
Speaker 1: even though it's probably the single most important policy issue
Speaker 1: facing the Trump administration right now. Kind of push aside
Speaker 1: this week. But some stuff happened. What happened this week
Speaker 1: with Congress, Well, the President had a submit, did some
Speaker 1: an outline of what he would like Congress to pass um.
Speaker 1: In other words, amnestying the Dreamers, and he actually increased
Speaker 1: it to amnestying up to almost two million people, not
Speaker 1: just the one with the DOCCA work permits from Obama's
Speaker 1: illegal program, but a million extra. These are people who
Speaker 1: came here illegal, but they came as minors. Um. He
Speaker 1: sweet tried to sweeten the deal by by adding up
Speaker 1: by asking for an amnesty for almost two million people
Speaker 1: in exchange for changes to chain migration policy so that
Speaker 1: only husband's wives and little kids can be brought here
Speaker 1: from abroad, not other relatives, getting rid of the visa lottery,
Speaker 1: which is literally a lottery we give green cards out
Speaker 1: at random to people across the world. And funding for
Speaker 1: the wall, and other enforcement measures. That was a package.
Speaker 1: Congress in the Senate specifically had four measures. One of
Speaker 1: them was that, and then several couple others that were
Speaker 1: much weaker. Brought them all up for a vote. What
Speaker 1: the majority leader in the Senate said is, look, let's
Speaker 1: just have a free for all here. Whatever you guys
Speaker 1: can put together, bring it up for a vote. See
Speaker 1: if it gets the sixty votes it needs to pass
Speaker 1: the filibuster rule. All four measures failed. This was on Thursday.
Speaker 1: None of them passed, and the Senate basically has decided that,
Speaker 1: you know, they're finished with this, They've got other things
Speaker 1: to do, and now it's up I guess, to the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives to see if they passed something that
Speaker 1: amnesties these DACA young people. They're not kids, but the
Speaker 1: twenties and thirty year olds illegal immigrants. Um and UM.
Speaker 1: That's kind of where it is now. So, but even
Speaker 1: if the House does pass something, it still has to
Speaker 1: get through the Senate, right, so it seems it seems
Speaker 1: to be pretty unlikely Mark that this is actually going anywhere. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it is quite frankly and um. The reason
Speaker 1: there was of an urgency to do something about this
Speaker 1: is that the President canceled the DOCCA program, which was
Speaker 1: illegal to begin with. Under Obama, President said he was
Speaker 1: gonna pull the plug on it on day one. He
Speaker 1: waited till day two hundred, but he finally did pull
Speaker 1: the plug on it, and March, the beginning of March
Speaker 1: is when the program expires, because they gave him a
Speaker 1: grace period and people would start losing their work permits.
Speaker 1: So there was this idea that they had to get
Speaker 1: it done by them. Well, several court rulings outrageous. Court
Speaker 1: rulings actually said the president couldn't do that, um, in
Speaker 1: the words, he couldn't cancel a memo, that's all. It
Speaker 1: was a memo from a previous administration. Supreme Court's going
Speaker 1: to strike those down almost certainly. So at some point,
Speaker 1: people with work permits are gonna start losing the work
Speaker 1: perments they're gonna expire. And I think once that happens,
Speaker 1: maybe there'll be some more interest in doing something on this,
Speaker 1: but probably not so. I think, um, they're the What
Speaker 1: this really boiled down to is that the Democrats and
Speaker 1: some of their Republican pro immigration allies valued keeping chain
Speaker 1: migration very high. In other words, they were unwilling to
Speaker 1: cut immigration by a couple hundred thousand a year rather
Speaker 1: than amnesty. You know, these young people who grew up here.
Speaker 1: They made the choice that it was more important to
Speaker 1: them to let these young people who grew up here
Speaker 1: lose their work permits and go back to becoming regular
Speaker 1: illegal aliens than it was to um reduce immigration back
Speaker 1: to the level it was in the nineteen eighties. It's
Speaker 1: not even very radical. We're speaking to market Corey and
Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies here, Mark,
Speaker 1: can you give me some clarity on what we know
Speaker 1: about illegal immigrants specifically and crime and what person? Because
Speaker 1: I've seen some articles here and there that are saying
Speaker 1: that like a large percentage of federal crimes are committed
Speaker 1: by illegal aliens. Do do we have good data on that?
Speaker 1: What can you tell me about the numbers? There's nobody
Speaker 1: has good data on this. Their studies all over the place,
Speaker 1: but none of the data is particularly good. And what, um,
Speaker 1: the there's no questions that illegal immigrants make up a
Speaker 1: hugely disproportionate share of the federal prison population. But remember
Speaker 1: most people in jail are in state prisons. That's where
Speaker 1: most of the crimes are punished. Not you're a burglar,
Speaker 1: you stab somebody, you go to state prison, right exactly. Um.
Speaker 1: That having been said, there's been research that suggests immigrants
Speaker 1: might be less likely to be involved in crime. But again,
Speaker 1: the data is terrible on this. It people don't want
Speaker 1: to know. The FBI does not do a good job
Speaker 1: of collecting data on this one. Does A recent report
Speaker 1: by a scholar named John Lott l O. T T
Speaker 1: who has done a lot of work on the gun.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I know John, we thought him on the show. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he got a data source from Arizona which specifically, in
Speaker 1: other words, from their state prison that specifically does ask
Speaker 1: legal status, and he found a very disproportionate rate of
Speaker 1: criminal activity on the part of illegal immigrants specifically. So
Speaker 1: that's an important finding, but it's just one finding. This
Speaker 1: is something that the powers that be literally don't want
Speaker 1: to know the answer. Well, that was my next question.
Speaker 1: How is it possible, Mark, that we have people who
Speaker 1: are in custody and yet we don't have numbers about
Speaker 1: how many of those who are in the government's custody
Speaker 1: are actually illegal aliens. That just seems unfathomable to me.
Speaker 1: They keep all kinds of data on the prison population. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I'm not saying they don't know in
Speaker 1: each individual case. But remember, if you know a fact
Speaker 1: about the various people you arrest, but you don't enter
Speaker 1: it into your compute system, then it doesn't matter. If
Speaker 1: it's on a piece of paper, no, one can never
Speaker 1: really know it. You can't use that data for analysis.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like with these DOCA people we were
Speaker 1: talking about, a lot of them used translators to sell
Speaker 1: out their applications. They were supposedly they're so assimilated, they're
Speaker 1: so Americanized, that we need to give them citizenship. And
Speaker 1: yet a lot of them don't even know English, and
Speaker 1: so we would be good to know what percentage don't
Speaker 1: know English. You know what it's on the form, but
Speaker 1: they never answered it into the computer, so there's no
Speaker 1: way to know. There was a program that there was
Speaker 1: a program mark that was talking about briefly at least
Speaker 1: by the White House earlier this week that would have
Speaker 1: changed the Supplemental Nutritional Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP, better known
Speaker 1: as food stamps, by having a food box essentially as
Speaker 1: part of the benefits. It wouldn't be entirely the equivalent
Speaker 1: of cash, which is what an E B T card
Speaker 1: is right now. And I people are asking me this,
Speaker 1: and I said, look, I don't really have the answer
Speaker 1: for you, and so I wanted to pose it to you.
Speaker 1: Do we have good numbers on on either immigrant usage
Speaker 1: of federal welfare and or illegal alien usage of federal welfare?
Speaker 1: We actually do, and were we seem to be the
Speaker 1: Center for Immigration Studies, seems to be the only people
Speaker 1: who ever used it. Let me explain, there is um
Speaker 1: information from the Census Bureau surveys on whether people have
Speaker 1: used government benefits, but it seems that it was underestimated.
Speaker 1: That's usually where the data comes from. That's what we've
Speaker 1: used at the Center when we report this. Well, there's
Speaker 1: a different survey which for technical reasons is much more
Speaker 1: difficult to use, which specifically is about use of government programs.
Speaker 1: And what we found was we were the first people
Speaker 1: ever looked at that to figure out what immigrant welfare uses.
Speaker 1: We found out that families headed by a foreign born
Speaker 1: person this is legal or illegal, put together, about half
Speaker 1: of them use at least one government welfare program. Is
Speaker 1: what we found UM and it's really pretty remarkable. Illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants UM are cipher. I don't have the number in
Speaker 1: front of me. It's slightly lower because the illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: themselves are not eligible, but their children are eligible. And
Speaker 1: if you get an E B T card to go
Speaker 1: shop at the grocery store, the four year old is
Speaker 1: not going to the grocery store with that. In other words,
Speaker 1: he's getting you're getting it on his behalf because he's
Speaker 1: a US citizen born here, but he's not doing the show.
Speaker 1: So in illegal can almost be the custodian of the
Speaker 1: federal benefits for the legal child, right, not almost, but literally.
Speaker 1: And it's not like the kid is the only one
Speaker 1: eating the food, you know what I mean. So, so
Speaker 1: these benefits are widely used, even by illegal limrates, and
Speaker 1: it's not because anybody's ripping off the taxpayer. The fact
Speaker 1: is almost all of these families, immigrant families, legal or illegal,
Speaker 1: who are getting government benefits, they're people working in that family.
Speaker 1: It's just that they're a mismatch for our economy. They're
Speaker 1: low skilled people, and they can't earn enough money to
Speaker 1: feed their own children. Literally. So the question is not
Speaker 1: so much how do we keep immigrants from using welfare?
Speaker 1: The more important question is why are we letting people
Speaker 1: in who are incapable of earning enough money to feed
Speaker 1: their own children? And Mark before we let you go.
Speaker 1: It seems to me that perhaps with the way Trump
Speaker 1: has approached immigration reform up to this point, he may
Speaker 1: have exposed something which which you also alluded to I
Speaker 1: believe before, which is that it's actually not necessarily DACA
Speaker 1: recipients who are the crown jewel of the Democrats immigration
Speaker 1: reform desires. It may actually be chain migration, which I've
Speaker 1: noticed they're now calling family based migration, which is one
Speaker 1: of the terms for it. It's just the chain migration
Speaker 1: is also a long used, normal term which they're trying
Speaker 1: to make, you know, somehow problematic or unpc But no,
Speaker 1: I think you're right. The goal here, or let me
Speaker 1: put it this way, the more important thing is to
Speaker 1: keep immigration going indefinitely into the future. And the DOCCA
Speaker 1: young people, I mean, they're happy that if they could
Speaker 1: get them green cards, sure that they're not against that.
Speaker 1: But if they don't, But I mean, if the price
Speaker 1: of that is giving up an unending flow of immigration
Speaker 1: in the future. Remember last year we had one point
Speaker 1: two million people got green cards. If that's the price,
Speaker 1: if reducing that down to say eight or nine hundred
Speaker 1: thousand or six or seven hundred thousand is if that's
Speaker 1: the price, then they're not going to pay it. They're
Speaker 1: okay with these DOCCA people losing their work permits because
Speaker 1: the more important issue is keeping immigration going indefinitely at
Speaker 1: as a high level as possible. Real quick. You don't
Speaker 1: expect any major legislation immigration this year? Is that fair
Speaker 1: to say? Yeah? I think, I mean I may be wrong,
Speaker 1: but yeah, if you were. If I were a betting man,
Speaker 1: I would bet lunch on nothing happening. Well, I'm putting
Speaker 1: my chips right next years on the table. I think
Speaker 1: the same is true everybody. Marcret Corey and c I
Speaker 1: s dot Org for the Center for Immigration Studies work.
Speaker 1: It's a great site. They do fantastic stuff. Mark, have
Speaker 1: an excellent weekend. Thank you for joining team. We're gonna
Speaker 1: roll into a quick break, will be back with an
Speaker 1: interesting study that very few people know about that I
Speaker 1: think has implications for a lot of stuff when it
Speaker 1: comes to uh schools in this country, and when it
Speaker 1: comes to violence in fact in this country and criminality,
Speaker 1: and how schools can play a role perhaps in lessening
Speaker 1: all of that. I know I'm speaking in very generic
Speaker 1: terms that because I want our expert to inform you,
Speaker 1: So stay right there, all right. So we talked about
Speaker 1: school choice among conservatives with some regularity. It hasn't gotten
Speaker 1: a lot of attention in the Trump era, but I
Speaker 1: think it's something that we should refocus on, and there
Speaker 1: are actually some research out there that shows that may
Speaker 1: have benefits beyond just the usual test scores, math, reading
Speaker 1: and all of that. It could actually have a much
Speaker 1: bigger societal impact. But I have to bring on the
Speaker 1: expert to talk about this when we have in s
Speaker 1: felture with us now. She is a contributor to the Federalists,
Speaker 1: and that's great to have you on. Thanks for having me, Buck,
Speaker 1: all right, so tell me about this research. I've heard
Speaker 1: you speak about it briefly before, but apparently it's something
Speaker 1: that ties together behavior and school choice in ways that
Speaker 1: really would matter to broader society, right exactly. I think
Speaker 1: it's it's really important to think about the broader implications.
Speaker 1: I think actually behavioral implications and UM societal or community
Speaker 1: implications are actually a lot more important to our daily
Speaker 1: lives than things like test scores. Although I'm happy to
Speaker 1: go through the evidence that shows a school choice raises
Speaker 1: math and reading scores. UM. The evidence that I want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about today is actually these two
Speaker 1: studies that came out fairly recently, One about a charter
Speaker 1: school in New York in Harlem, and the other about
Speaker 1: the Milwaukee Bouncer Program, which is the longest running modern
Speaker 1: school choice program in the nation. UM. The first study
Speaker 1: is UH comes from both Harvard and Princeton, a joint
Speaker 1: study UM, and it was on the Promise Academy charter
Speaker 1: school in Harlem, And I actually found that enrolling in
Speaker 1: this charter school versus and match public school student dropped
Speaker 1: the crime rate of the incarceration rates to zero, right,
Speaker 1: so it reduced it by a hundred percent. If we
Speaker 1: were talking about some kind of big government program, right,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that that would be on every paper. Um,
Speaker 1: then the New York Times would have a lot to
Speaker 1: say about a big government program that reduced crime by
Speaker 1: a hundred percent. YEA repeat exactly. You're telling me that
Speaker 1: if people enrolled in this students enrolled in this school
Speaker 1: of New York City, the crime reduction for those students
Speaker 1: was a hud. That's pretty astonishing, right for boys, it
Speaker 1: didn't do as much for girls, but it did reduce
Speaker 1: their crime as well. But they commit Girls commit far
Speaker 1: fewer crimes than boys do to begin with. Um, but
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm being woman explained right now. But
Speaker 1: that's okay. We all have our advantages. Um. Anyway. The
Speaker 1: second piece of evidence is a study from the University
Speaker 1: of Arkansas, which has a whole department that studies the
Speaker 1: effects the school choice, and it's on this very long
Speaker 1: running voucher program that started in which is why we
Speaker 1: can actually go ahead and do longitudinal studies on kids
Speaker 1: as they get into their they graduate from high school
Speaker 1: and get into their twenties. Um. And as it turns out,
Speaker 1: there were enormous effects of the Doucher program UM on
Speaker 1: all sorts of criminal measurements, so felony convictions for kids
Speaker 1: in the program versus a match public schools didn't sell
Speaker 1: by almost eighty percent. Okay, drug crime was down by best.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think we get the picture right that
Speaker 1: these are massive effects that we haven't been able to
Speaker 1: replicate with any of the big government programs that we have,
Speaker 1: either in education or UM in the crime prevention arena, right,
Speaker 1: um and and right especially this week, people are asking
Speaker 1: a lot of questions in as about what can we
Speaker 1: do with troubled youth and how do we prevent you know,
Speaker 1: problems from those who slipped through the cracks and everything.
Speaker 1: It sounds like this is at least in an area
Speaker 1: that is worth pursuing more, which is does school choice
Speaker 1: have an effect a massive dampening effect on violence? Yeah? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I think it also circles back to the main point,
Speaker 1: which is people care about the values that their kids
Speaker 1: are learning in school, right. It's not. Of course, we
Speaker 1: all want our kids to to learn how to read
Speaker 1: and to do math um, but the values are equally important.
Speaker 1: Trooping a child's character used to be a large part
Speaker 1: of education, and increasingly in the public school system or
Speaker 1: in the traditional public school system, that's either something they
Speaker 1: don't pay any attention to it at all or um,
Speaker 1: you know, it's controlled by one left wing point of view,
Speaker 1: and parents are left, as they have different values, are
Speaker 1: left with very few options about you know, if they
Speaker 1: can't afford to send their kids to a private school
Speaker 1: on their own dime, um, they can't homeschool because mom
Speaker 1: and dad both work, right, they have very very few
Speaker 1: options to find a school or an education for their
Speaker 1: kid that actually fits with their values. And this is
Speaker 1: what the conservatives should because especially concerned with right um,
Speaker 1: our ideology is going to die out if we keep
Speaker 1: sending our kids to the public school system that teaches
Speaker 1: them to be left wingers. Right um. And that's you know,
Speaker 1: some of that we can counteract at home, but not
Speaker 1: all of it. And so it's incredibly important that we
Speaker 1: get these choices that then have so much of an impact,
Speaker 1: not just on tat schools, but on things like families,
Speaker 1: on communities, on crime rates, on values, things that conservatives
Speaker 1: normally like to talk about. Yeah, crime behavior, violence, and
Speaker 1: society at large. If schooling can have an effect on this,
Speaker 1: a very positive effect on this, and school choice in particular,
Speaker 1: it would seem like that scenario that should get a
Speaker 1: lot more attention under from the administration and from the
Speaker 1: media at large. But as we know, teachers unions not
Speaker 1: so much a fan of this stuff, and as from
Speaker 1: what I understand, absolutely not, teachers unions basically resist all
Speaker 1: change to the education system, even though pretty much everyone
Speaker 1: agrees that the education system is sailing our kids. The
Speaker 1: unions have this constant refrain, which is, if you give
Speaker 1: us more money, will make it better. Right, We've we've
Speaker 1: been giving them more money, both on the federal and
Speaker 1: the state levels for basically forty years, and they haven't
Speaker 1: done better, and in fact, the problems hasn't many ways
Speaker 1: gotten worse. Um and and so they every time they
Speaker 1: come back with the same refrain, the same refrain, if
Speaker 1: you just give us more money this time, we'll make
Speaker 1: it work, when in reality, we spend among the highest
Speaker 1: per pupil spending in the developed world where number three, Um,
Speaker 1: you know what have they spend in DC, by the way,
Speaker 1: is it's like private school tuition per student? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like Sidwell Friend's tuition, not just any private school.
Speaker 1: It's thirty thousand dollars per student. That's astonishing. Imagine just
Speaker 1: imagine if every DC parent got thirty thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: their pocket to send their kids to whatever educational experience
Speaker 1: was best for that kid. Just imagine the impact that
Speaker 1: that would have. But instead it's going into the same
Speaker 1: system that is repeatedly failing kids, um and failing families
Speaker 1: who don't have a lot of other options. He has
Speaker 1: feltures a contribute to the Federalists. You can re relatest
Speaker 1: at the Federalist dot com. Also follow her on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And as We're gonna have to get in touch with
Speaker 1: somebody at the White House to get them start looking
Speaker 1: at school choice stuff, because I'm not hearing enough about
Speaker 1: this and I feel like this is this is one
Speaker 1: place where conservatives win when people know the truth absolutely
Speaker 1: and more importantly, get in touch with your state legislators.
Speaker 1: Get in touch with your state lawmakers, because education policy
Speaker 1: should be made at the state level. And largely still is.
Speaker 1: The funds come from the state, and the states really
Speaker 1: set the policy. So talk to your legislators. Make sure
Speaker 1: that you know they know that this is an important
Speaker 1: issue for you. It's to me, I think it's the
Speaker 1: survival of our ideology, of the belief systems that we
Speaker 1: have of um, you know, civics in America and really
Speaker 1: of citizenship in America. We don't, you know, improve the
Speaker 1: quality of the education that our kids received. We're just
Speaker 1: going to continue down the wrong path. And as felt
Speaker 1: everybody follow her on Twitter and dinas have a great weekend.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining. Thank you day. We're gonna roll
Speaker 1: into a quick break here we come back. We're gonna
Speaker 1: get into some roll call. Man, It's a lot for
Speaker 1: a Friday, everybody. I tell you today I kind of
Speaker 1: cleared out the schedule, you know. I talked to some
Speaker 1: Fox people. I'm like, you know what, I'll do one
Speaker 1: hit today. I don't. I can't no more TV for me,
Speaker 1: wear some sweats. I'm gonna cook myself a nice Friday
Speaker 1: style brunch, you know, a lot of bacon, a lot
Speaker 1: of eggs around like one o'clock in the afternoon. You know,
Speaker 1: I just really kind of lean into it. I was
Speaker 1: gonna do a little a little bit of reading for pleasure,
Speaker 1: which is, I know, such an anomaly these days. He's
Speaker 1: gonna kick back, relax, and you put on some Cat
Speaker 1: Stevens and let the cat pur. And instead, I know,
Speaker 1: now his name is like something like Yosef Islam or something. Right,
Speaker 1: Cat Stevens changed his name to Salmon Islam or Yosef
Speaker 1: Islam or something. I forget what Cat Stephen's name is. Now. Anyway,
Speaker 1: you gotta let the cat pur while you're drinking some zema.
Speaker 1: And and I was just sitting around, you know, thinking
Speaker 1: that it was gonna be pretty chill, and sure enough
Speaker 1: it was like blam, huge story on Russia and then blam,
Speaker 1: FBI dropped the ball and I'm sitting here, I'm like,
Speaker 1: oh no, my whole day got turned upside down. And then,
Speaker 1: you know the problem with with getting involved in this
Speaker 1: stuff as you start to see some of the some
Speaker 1: of the Twitter battles. You know, right when the news breaks,
Speaker 1: you want to get in there, and next thing you know,
Speaker 1: you're in some You're in some long Twitter to exchange
Speaker 1: with some clown from who knows what network, and You're like,
Speaker 1: why am I even doing? What am I doing with
Speaker 1: my life? Like what is the point? What is the
Speaker 1: point of this? I should be focused on the content
Speaker 1: for the show, focused on making sure that I'm as
Speaker 1: prepared as I possibly can be every single day for
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hub, which is no doubt my mission and
Speaker 1: my mantra. But it was quite a change today. So
Speaker 1: anyway with that, I I will get into I will
Speaker 1: get in from Pope. There we go yet, Team Bucking.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll Call? Who roll Call? We gotta
Speaker 1: make some cool like you know what I mean? We
Speaker 1: should probably take some some lee Aramy quotes. Isn't that
Speaker 1: as the guy's name from Full Metal Jacket? Actually movie
Speaker 1: quote Friday. I should know this, you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: and we can intersperse them and create our own thing
Speaker 1: for roll call, Like I didn't know they stacked stuff
Speaker 1: that high, you know that stuff something like that, and
Speaker 1: we put that in there. That's amazing. I admit. I
Speaker 1: think that there are a couple of movies where you
Speaker 1: have to think of it as a movie in in
Speaker 1: two parts, and one of them is Wedding Crashers. The
Speaker 1: first hour of Wedding Crashers is like a highly entertaining,
Speaker 1: amazing movie that I can watch anytime. The second hour
Speaker 1: is a not funny, depressing, weird devolution into the depths
Speaker 1: of human despair and like frailty. It's not what I
Speaker 1: was signed up for at all. Right, Basically, when they
Speaker 1: leave the island with the really nice country house on
Speaker 1: the on the shore of Maryland in wedding Crashers, it's
Speaker 1: no longer a movie you should watch. I I kind
Speaker 1: of and some of you gonna get mad at me,
Speaker 1: but you know what, that's okay. I like to I
Speaker 1: like to provoke sometimes. I feel the same way about
Speaker 1: Full Metal Jacket first hour. Full Metal Jacket is like
Speaker 1: cinematic masterpiece. It's incredible. Uh, it's, you know, among among
Speaker 1: the best of Kubrick's works. The second hours. You know,
Speaker 1: he could have like taken it and put it in
Speaker 1: the middle of the movie Platoon and been like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like all kind of the same. It was fine,
Speaker 1: it was not. I didn't have quite the same In fact,
Speaker 1: and I think Lee Airmy and I'm probably getting his
Speaker 1: name wrong, but that the drill instructor really carried the
Speaker 1: movie on his shoulders. Um he did quite an amazing job,
Speaker 1: a timeless a timeless character, and I'm sure he's a
Speaker 1: conservative all right in roll call Now, pardon the digression there,
Speaker 1: big fan of your show. This comes from John So John,
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of you original Saturday squad here. Oss.
Speaker 1: You have the perfect mix of analysis, opinion, and humor,
Speaker 1: and you are polite to callers. Miss the days when
Speaker 1: you be doing your show after a panel appearance on
Speaker 1: CNN and you would vent some anger. That was good stuff.
Speaker 1: I download all your shield HiPE podcast. You should consider
Speaker 1: doing a deep dive on Operation AJAX. Uh. There's probably
Speaker 1: a lot of misinformation regarding this. For a recommendation, I
Speaker 1: would recommend blank he's a blankety blank blank blank. Okay, anyway,
Speaker 1: keep up the good work and shields high. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much, John. Yeah. That The only good part about
Speaker 1: CNN is that when they would cut me off and
Speaker 1: not let me respond ring an ambush, I would then
Speaker 1: sometimes come on radio and just vent spleen or like
Speaker 1: a solid thirty minutes on it, which which made for
Speaker 1: some good radio buck There were buck slaps all over
Speaker 1: the place. They're just buck slaps left and right, so
Speaker 1: you know there whoa hey, there came out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: By the way, every time we do that, I think
Speaker 1: of the the radio show on Parks and Wreck. Do
Speaker 1: you guys know Parks and Wreck? The show where the
Speaker 1: guys you know what's his name, crazy Ira and the douche.
Speaker 1: It's that's like among the best parts of the show.
Speaker 1: Although the guy whose name is like Mervin Myrtle or whatever,
Speaker 1: who's the the NPR style host, I actually like his
Speaker 1: pseudo radio show more. You know. It's like, oh, we're
Speaker 1: listening to uh, Swedish jazz music and he's just so boring,
Speaker 1: and they're talking about like the mating habits of flying
Speaker 1: squirrels and stuff like that. It's a you know, NPR.
Speaker 1: It's it's great. It's great stuff. And now I'm not
Speaker 1: actual mp are I mean their version of MPR in
Speaker 1: Parks and Recreation. Another thing, I'll give you a tip,
Speaker 1: skip the season two. If you haven't seen Parks in Rex.
Speaker 1: Season one is garbage. Just go right to season two
Speaker 1: on Netflix and start watching it. From there, you'll love it.
Speaker 1: Ron Swanson will be your favorite TV character, one of
Speaker 1: your favorite TV characters of all time. But season one
Speaker 1: is bad. It's almost like unwatchable. So you gotta go
Speaker 1: right to season two. You miss nothing, all right? Now
Speaker 1: we have uh Bill, who's next up? Food for Poor?
Speaker 1: Thirty to forty years ago, the poor could get basic food, flour, beans, cheese, Uh, power,
Speaker 1: power eggs. I guess that's powdered eggs, right, powdered, Yes,
Speaker 1: power high powered powdered or I can't speak power eggs.
Speaker 1: Sounds like something you take before you're lifting. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: lifting away. It's I'm very strong, going to pump you up.
Speaker 1: I have to the clap thing. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you could hear that. Not a lot of SNL sketches
Speaker 1: really hold up from back in the day, Like there's
Speaker 1: a there's a lot of nostalgia with them. But if
Speaker 1: you go back and you watch some of the Jim
Speaker 1: Blushi stuff, feel like this doesn't this doesn't hold up
Speaker 1: all right. He writes food for the Poor thirty or
Speaker 1: four years and you get that stuff. They all had
Speaker 1: to take, Uh. They had to take all these commodities,
Speaker 1: not just what they wanted. This means they had to
Speaker 1: prepare the food instead of just pouring it out of
Speaker 1: a box. They would take all and if they did
Speaker 1: not want something, throw it in the trash or sell
Speaker 1: it to someone. All right, Bill, Well, thank you for
Speaker 1: the historical context there. I would say this, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to return to this issue of food and food
Speaker 1: stamps and all that. This this was this is a
Speaker 1: surprise during the show. I mean we the response on
Speaker 1: the phones, on email and Facebook to that one segment,
Speaker 1: which I just kind of thought about something I had
Speaker 1: read earlier in the day was was profound. People were
Speaker 1: really really into it. Um. So we will get into
Speaker 1: that some more. Uh Irwin rights the following, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I agree with you, there's really no solution to this problem.
Speaker 1: Fully support the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and therefore support
Speaker 1: the idea that this kind of unfortunate situation is a
Speaker 1: cost of doing business, you know earin I'm so open
Speaker 1: to any ideas that will fix this that don't have
Speaker 1: really bad trade offs, that are all and and are
Speaker 1: also worthless actions to prevent it. Right, If someone says
Speaker 1: we can do this, it would stop gun That's why
Speaker 1: when people say more armed security at schools, all right,
Speaker 1: how much more I don't know how highly trained up
Speaker 1: for discussion, but more not opposed to that? Will it
Speaker 1: stop some Maybe? Is there any real downside as I
Speaker 1: see it, not really. You know, your school safety officers
Speaker 1: there for any number of safety issues. Right. The guy
Speaker 1: who's standing there, who's got a glock on his hip
Speaker 1: to make sure there's not a school shooting, could also
Speaker 1: be the guy who have you know, a student is
Speaker 1: having some kind of you know, major health emergency. He
Speaker 1: could be a first responder. I mean, it can sort
Speaker 1: of many hat the positions that people have with regard
Speaker 1: to this, they're not just it's not like they're standing
Speaker 1: there in a you know, standing there in some kind
Speaker 1: of you know, armored personnel carrier on the lookout, right.
Speaker 1: I mean they're gonna be able to interact with students
Speaker 1: and do things. They're not dug into a machine gun
Speaker 1: nest with a fifty cow waiting for someone to come
Speaker 1: after them. They can be helpful to other parts of
Speaker 1: the school atmosphere and keep kids safe without having to
Speaker 1: engage an active shooter. Right, there's other stuff anyway, Bill
Speaker 1: writes the following, and I'm sorry, Bill, because it got
Speaker 1: frozen there for a second. Hey, Buck, great work on
Speaker 1: your radio show. Really enjoy listening to it on Stitcher.
Speaker 1: That's right, everybody, you can listen on stitcher. By the way,
Speaker 1: could you have your people tech people look into your
Speaker 1: voice level? It seems kind of low and have trouble
Speaker 1: When I turn it up the bump music comes on.
Speaker 1: It's really loud. Is this a thing? Are we are
Speaker 1: we having? Is this on me? Oh? I turned my
Speaker 1: oh oh, all right, this is a This is apparently
Speaker 1: my radio technique. Folks. Occasionally I don't speak right into
Speaker 1: the microphone because blue blue. But yeah, you guys are right.
Speaker 1: You're not the first people have told me that I
Speaker 1: get all animated and I assume I'm talking. I assume
Speaker 1: the whole team is in the room with me, and
Speaker 1: I'm not actually speaking to people across the entire our
Speaker 1: United States through a little metal tube that I have
Speaker 1: to be very close to it all times or else
Speaker 1: my voice does not really carry over it. But we
Speaker 1: have a ton more messages in the in the inbox
Speaker 1: for this week. I will hold some off for Monday.
Speaker 1: And you know, by the way, we're also going to
Speaker 1: start thinking about some ideas for going live with video
Speaker 1: or maybe post show video or pre show video. So
Speaker 1: you've got ideas on that, let me know. Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash box, sex and official Team Buck at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: If you want to email us, we should probably get
Speaker 1: a company email for that. By the way, just a
Speaker 1: thought makes it sound like I'm doing Wayne's World thing
Speaker 1: out of my basement here. We should get a real one. Hey, everybody,
Speaker 1: have a great weekend. Excited to join you next week.
Speaker 1: Shields High