Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Bernie Sanders is defending
Speaker 1: the socialism that he wants to impose upon the rest
Speaker 1: of America. We will talk about that and also just
Speaker 1: all the crazy ideas that Democrats are putting forward to
Speaker 1: try and outdo each other from the left, including letting
Speaker 1: the Boston Marathon bomber vote in elections. This is gonna
Speaker 1: be wild, folks. Strap in the buck Sexton shows coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again, the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins, He's a great guy. No. Is
Speaker 1: it your assumption that I supported or believe in authoritarian
Speaker 1: communism that existed in the Soviet Union, I don't never
Speaker 1: happen I opposed it. I think it's also fair to
Speaker 1: point out that when we were in Moscow, for example,
Speaker 1: I think most of the people here also were extremely
Speaker 1: impressed by their public transportation system. The stations themselves were
Speaker 1: absolutely beautiful. Also, I was impressed by the youth programs
Speaker 1: that they have and cultural programs which go far beyond
Speaker 1: what we knew in this country. Is it your assumption
Speaker 1: that I supported or believe in authoritarian communism that existed
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union, I don't, and never happen. I
Speaker 1: opposed it. I'm Jane Sanders. The city was beautiful, We
Speaker 1: were standard with the openness, the optimism, the enthusiasm. I
Speaker 1: think the things that struck me the most were the
Speaker 1: way that they dealt with children and with the cultural
Speaker 1: life of their community. They put the money into public
Speaker 1: facilities and we have they have palaces culture which are
Speaker 1: paid for strictly by trade union dues. Why is there
Speaker 1: a policy in this country which is producing more and
Speaker 1: more nuclear weapons which is increasingly antagonistic to well to
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. Is it your assumption that I supported
Speaker 1: or believe in authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: I don't, never happened. I opposed it. Welcome to the buck,
Speaker 1: sex and share everybody. We thought we'd give you a
Speaker 1: little taste of Bernie Sanders then and now. I don't
Speaker 1: support Soviet communism. But he kind of honeymooned in the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union with his wife and used to say really
Speaker 1: nice things about the Soviet Union late in the game too.
Speaker 1: This isn't like the early stage leftists in this country
Speaker 1: back in the fifties and the sixties, who were very
Speaker 1: favorable toward the totalitarianism of the Kremlin and the enslavement
Speaker 1: of hundreds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain.
Speaker 1: They were very favorable to it back then. This we're
Speaker 1: talking about the eighties now, where Bernie, if not a
Speaker 1: commy himself, Bernie was sort of a quasi commy. He
Speaker 1: certainly had nice things to say about commies. And I
Speaker 1: would want someone to ask him today in some detail,
Speaker 1: is your problem with the Soviet Union burn that it's
Speaker 1: a bad idea that goes contra human nature, natural law
Speaker 1: and individual rights? Or is it just that it doesn't work?
Speaker 1: It didn't work, you know, That's what someone has to
Speaker 1: explain to me. Is it just that communism wasn't tried
Speaker 1: the right way that time? Or does Bernie oppose communism
Speaker 1: always and at all times. I think this is fair
Speaker 1: I think this is fair game. And we should wonder
Speaker 1: what his answer would be. You know, there was this
Speaker 1: town hall. Now you got all these democrats. It's going
Speaker 1: to be fantastic to watch them just just stumble over
Speaker 1: each other, desperate to prove who's the most left wing.
Speaker 1: You know, who's the real deal, who's the one that
Speaker 1: really represents left wing Democratic Party values to the rabid
Speaker 1: anti Trump, anti capitalist base that is now Progressive America.
Speaker 1: You know who is going to say the wildest stuff,
Speaker 1: the most outrageous, indefensible stuff. Well that's a very open question,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Bernie Sanders on the issue of letting people
Speaker 1: remember not form, I'm open to the argument about former
Speaker 1: felons voting, and I think that there's a there's a
Speaker 1: case to be made there, depending on the specifics of
Speaker 1: it that you know, you serve your time, you served
Speaker 1: your debt to society. I think that you should have
Speaker 1: the restitution of rights, including if you're a non violent criminal,
Speaker 1: I think you should have restitution of your Second Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: By the way, I don't think that writing, you know,
Speaker 1: forging a check means that you should never be able
Speaker 1: to defend yourself and your family again with a firearm.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. But then the burn takes it a bit
Speaker 1: further as and wherever Burne goes, now the Democrats that
Speaker 1: are running against him have to kind of follow because
Speaker 1: he is where the id the instinct of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is currently found. Bernie thinks that maybe it's okay.
Speaker 1: I'm not making this up. We got the audio. You're
Speaker 1: gonna hear it. Bernie thinks, maybe it's okay for the
Speaker 1: Boston Marathon bomber to vote from prison. That's right, people,
Speaker 1: including heinous murderers, terrorists, traders, should be able to vote for, say,
Speaker 1: the next president United States. According to Bernie Sanders play
Speaker 1: clip seven. But our constitution says is that everybody can vote.
Speaker 1: That is true, So people in jail can vote. Now
Speaker 1: Here is my view. If somebody commits a serious crime,
Speaker 1: sexual assault, myrtle, they're gonna be punished. They may be
Speaker 1: in jail for ten years, twenty years, fifty years, the
Speaker 1: whole lives. That's what happens when you commit a serious crime.
Speaker 1: But I think the right to vote is inherent to
Speaker 1: our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people. You think the
Speaker 1: Boston Marathon bomber should vote, not after he pays his
Speaker 1: debts to society, but while he's in jail. Are you
Speaker 1: sure about that? But I do believe. Look, you know
Speaker 1: this is what I believe. Do you believe in democracy?
Speaker 1: Do you believe that every single American eighteen years of
Speaker 1: age or older, was an American citizen has the right
Speaker 1: to vote. No, Bernie, you don't just get to keep
Speaker 1: all your rights all the time, absolutely, no matter what,
Speaker 1: under all circumstances. You don't get to keep your freedom
Speaker 1: if the state decides that you have violated its laws.
Speaker 1: I don't think you necessarily get to keep the right
Speaker 1: to vote. Man. That was touchdown Bernie Sanders there in
Speaker 1: the in the crazy super Bowl. Bernie just caught a
Speaker 1: forty yard bomb in the end zone there. That was wow.
Speaker 1: Even bro Cuomo, who's like Bernie, do you even lift
Speaker 1: bro Even bro Cuomo was taken aback by it for
Speaker 1: a second there. Now you might say, Bucks, that's the burn.
Speaker 1: That's not indicative of where the rest of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is. You're maybe that could be true, although you
Speaker 1: know that's not true. They're all crazy, right, or at
Speaker 1: least they're all pretending to be crazy because they're base
Speaker 1: the far left that they need to win over. Right now,
Speaker 1: they are nuts. But Kamala Harris very establishment figure among
Speaker 1: the Democrats, very you know, very much the kind of
Speaker 1: resume and persona and tone that the Democrats are looking
Speaker 1: for this election. They love Kamala Harris. What does she
Speaker 1: say about the Boston Marathon bomber being allowed to vote
Speaker 1: from prison. Lay eight. I have been long an advocate
Speaker 1: of making sure that the formerly incarcerated are not denied
Speaker 1: a right to vote, which is the case in so
Speaker 1: many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived
Speaker 1: of the right to vote. And these are policies that
Speaker 1: go back to Jim Crow. These are policies that go
Speaker 1: back to the heart of policies that have been about disenfranchisement,
Speaker 1: policies that continue until today. And we need to take
Speaker 1: it seriously. But people who are convicted in prison, like
Speaker 1: the Boston Marathon bomber, death row, people who are convicted
Speaker 1: of sexual assault, they should be able to vote. I
Speaker 1: think we should have that conversation. I think we should
Speaker 1: have that conversation. Is Democrat politicians speak for. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leave it open to your interpretation so the
Speaker 1: base doesn't turn to me right now. But once it
Speaker 1: becomes clear that I've got to actually win over like
Speaker 1: normal Americans who aren't lunatics, I'm gonna pretend like I
Speaker 1: never said I like the idea. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: have a conversation. Oh man, Oh you gotta love Democrats.
Speaker 1: It must be fun to run around and just say
Speaker 1: whatever you want to say, whatever you want to say
Speaker 1: at no principles, the stakes or whatever you say. They
Speaker 1: already given time. Oh my, we have a jam pact show, folks,
Speaker 1: a lot to get too. Promises to destroy individual rights
Speaker 1: like the Second Amendment from Democrat candidates. I mean, the
Speaker 1: looney left is going to be the main theme of
Speaker 1: today's show. So we are going to have some fun
Speaker 1: with that one. I can assure you stay with me
Speaker 1: if I'm after next year. None of those times are
Speaker 1: going to pass they want you to take. So I
Speaker 1: think as a gram reaper that doesn't the President Cocaine
Speaker 1: Mitch aka Mitch McConnell saying that he's the grim reaper
Speaker 1: of socialism when it comes to the legislative body of
Speaker 1: the United States government. And I like it, you know,
Speaker 1: Mitch is I get you know, I get that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of there's a lot of criticism about Mitch
Speaker 1: being an establishment guy, establishment Republican and all that. You know, folks,
Speaker 1: we all always have to be objective about giving credit
Speaker 1: where it's due on our side, on any side. And
Speaker 1: you know, Mitch held the line on Merrick Garland, and
Speaker 1: now we have a pretty solid conservative instead of having
Speaker 1: you know, wishywashy liberal Merrick Garland on the court. And
Speaker 1: Mitch has been excellent on getting conservative justice is appointed
Speaker 1: to the federal bench for a long time now, so
Speaker 1: you know, and that's gonna be Mitch's legacy. And look,
Speaker 1: the guy's not on board with socialism. So let's let's
Speaker 1: make sure that we remember that we have allies in
Speaker 1: this process who well they may be imperfect, they should
Speaker 1: they should get praise, were deserved, and we should welcome them.
Speaker 1: And you know, Mitch McConnell is a very he's a
Speaker 1: kg catman. I mean, he knows parliamentary procedure, he knows
Speaker 1: all the tricks, and you know, he has been very
Speaker 1: effective on a number of issues. Now, he's not good
Speaker 1: on immigration, he's not. There's some places where you know,
Speaker 1: Mitch and I have strong, strenuous disagreements. But he's been
Speaker 1: pretty good on some of this stuff. He really has.
Speaker 1: He's actually been willing to take a lot of heat
Speaker 1: from the press too. That brings me to this Deblasio's
Speaker 1: skyscraper situation in New York City, Kaiseville Haam Deblasio Yeah,
Speaker 1: So he's saying that they're gonna have city legislation in
Speaker 1: New York that's gonna make glass and steel skyscrapers essentially
Speaker 1: cost prohibitive, and you could have a million dollars five
Speaker 1: in all all this crazy stuff. This is what Deblasi
Speaker 1: has been saying about that play clip nine. We are
Speaker 1: going to introduce legislation to ban the glass and steel
Speaker 1: skyscrapers that have contributed so much to global warming. They
Speaker 1: have no place in our city or in our earth anymore.
Speaker 1: If a company wants to build a big skyscraper, they
Speaker 1: can use a lot of glass, if they do all
Speaker 1: the other things needed to reduce to SEE emissions, But
Speaker 1: putting up monuments to themselves that harmed our earth and
Speaker 1: threatened our future, that will no longer be allowed in
Speaker 1: New York City. I just want to know what this
Speaker 1: idiot is going to replace those or what he thinks
Speaker 1: is going to replace that standard of glass and steel skyscraper.
Speaker 1: What does he think is going to happen? Are all
Speaker 1: buildings gonna be You're you're gonna have a hundred story
Speaker 1: brick buildings now, or you know, sixty story brick buildings.
Speaker 1: Do that? Is that what he thinks is that's better
Speaker 1: for the environment. That's a better idea. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: de Blasio is so spectacularly stupid that I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what he thinks he's trying to do.
Speaker 1: This then reminded me of how yesterday I did not
Speaker 1: I did not spend ample time or any time for
Speaker 1: that matter, on the fact that it was Earth Day.
Speaker 1: Yay Earth Day? Whose Earth? Our Earth? Occupy Earth Day? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Remember climate climate change, alarmism, worship of environmentalism. This is
Speaker 1: religious belief for people who think they're too smart for
Speaker 1: religious belief. But AEI, which I'm sure the climate change
Speaker 1: you know maniacs would just yell, is basically a subsidiary
Speaker 1: of you know, x on or something. But who cares
Speaker 1: a guys got smart people. AID pulled together in this
Speaker 1: article as Aliday, this is this is an honor of
Speaker 1: Earth Day, which is I'm celebrating with you Nowaday, I'm
Speaker 1: not really celebrating it. We're kind of ridiculing it, which
Speaker 1: is what we should do. But an honor of Earth Day.
Speaker 1: AI pulled together this article of eighteen examples of quote
Speaker 1: spectacularly wrong predictions made in nineteen seventy when the Green
Speaker 1: Holy Day, which we now call Earth Day began, So
Speaker 1: when Earth Day started back in nineteen seventy or right
Speaker 1: around nineteen seventy. This is what the intelligencia, the earth
Speaker 1: climate science, global warming intelligentsia. We're not just saying offense,
Speaker 1: we're publishing. I mean this is what they were putting
Speaker 1: forward as their predictions. And I want you to keep
Speaker 1: in mind that some of these scientists to this day
Speaker 1: are their research is still relied on there. Some of
Speaker 1: them are still called upon as experts of the now.
Speaker 1: They're getting pretty old. So but this tells you about
Speaker 1: how wrong they've actually have been and can be. Here
Speaker 1: you go, this is this is from AEI, and I
Speaker 1: think the author of the piece is Mark Perry. You
Speaker 1: got number one Harvard biologists. Remember in honor Earthday, folks,
Speaker 1: we're gonna make fun of it. Harvard biologist George Walt
Speaker 1: estimated that civilization would end within fifteen or thirty years
Speaker 1: unless immediate action was taken against problems facing mankind. Quote,
Speaker 1: we are in an environmental crisis threatens the survival of
Speaker 1: this nation and of the world as a suitable place
Speaker 1: of human habitation, wrote Washington. University biologist very Commoner in
Speaker 1: the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The
Speaker 1: day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times
Speaker 1: editorial page warned, quote, man must stop pollution and conserve
Speaker 1: his resources, not merely to enhance existence, but to save
Speaker 1: the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction. Number four
Speaker 1: on this list, population will inevitable, inevitably, and completely outstrip
Speaker 1: whatever small increases in food supplies we make. This is
Speaker 1: Paul Rlick confidently declaring in the April nineteen seventy issue
Speaker 1: of Mademoiselle magazine, the death rate will increase until at
Speaker 1: least one hundred to two hundred million people a year
Speaker 1: will be starving to death during the next ten years.
Speaker 1: That was in nineteen seventy. Anyone want to take a
Speaker 1: little guess as to how wrong he was. It's easy.
Speaker 1: Totally wrong. It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,
Speaker 1: declared Dennis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in
Speaker 1: the spring nineteen seventy issue of The Living Wilderness. Oh
Speaker 1: it goes on number eleven. I'm not gonna read all
Speaker 1: of them, because come on, but number eleven on this list,
Speaker 1: very Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up
Speaker 1: all of the oxygen in America's rivers, causing freshwater fish
Speaker 1: to suffocate. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, by the year two thousand,
Speaker 1: if present trends continue, we will be using up crude
Speaker 1: oil at such a rate that there won't be any
Speaker 1: more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and
Speaker 1: say fill her up, buddy, and he'll say, I'm very sorry,
Speaker 1: there isn't. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy
Speaker 1: of Science Is, published a chart in Scientific American that
Speaker 1: looked at metal reserves and estimated the human that humanity
Speaker 1: would run out of copper after the year two thousand, Lead, zinc, tin, gold,
Speaker 1: and silver we would run out of before nineteen ninety.
Speaker 1: It just goes on and on and on. That's right, folks.
Speaker 1: Scientists in the nineteen seventies, the same people that were
Speaker 1: being published in pure view journals and the leading lights
Speaker 1: of the Earth Day movement, they thought we were going
Speaker 1: to run out of fuel, oil, run out of food.
Speaker 1: There'd be mass starvation, there'd be catastrophic global warming. The
Speaker 1: seas would rise and swamp entire countries and there'd be
Speaker 1: you know, massive species die off and that the human
Speaker 1: race faced extinction. These are supposedly serious scientists who are
Speaker 1: part of the green earth clergy. Why do we still
Speaker 1: have to take any of these people seriously? I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: why is it okay that they're so spectacularly wrong and
Speaker 1: not about particularly complicated issues. Why do the catastrophists get
Speaker 1: away with this again and again and again because it's
Speaker 1: a religious belief for people who think they're too smart
Speaker 1: for religion. That's pretty much why Happy Earth Day, everybody.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. We need reasonable gun safety laws
Speaker 1: in this country, starting with universal background checks and a
Speaker 1: renewal of the assault weapon ban, but they have failed
Speaker 1: to have the courage to act. So, Ben, here is
Speaker 1: my response to you. Upon being elected, I will give
Speaker 1: the United States Congress one hundred days to get their
Speaker 1: act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun
Speaker 1: safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then
Speaker 1: I will take executive action. And specifically, what I will
Speaker 1: do is put in place a requirement that for anyone
Speaker 1: who sells more than five guns a year, they are
Speaker 1: required to do background checks when they sell those guns.
Speaker 1: I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks
Speaker 1: the law, the ATF take their license. Tyranny, Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: promises you, folks, tyranny that's right. An executive branch of
Speaker 1: government that will in response to Congress not passing certain laws,
Speaker 1: laws that go right to the heart of a constitutionally
Speaker 1: protected right. Kamala Harris is telling you that she will
Speaker 1: just go around. She's got a pen on a phone,
Speaker 1: you could say, just like Obama used to, and she
Speaker 1: will go around the Congress if she's elected president, and
Speaker 1: she will take executive action to take guns from people.
Speaker 1: She will decide that you're lawfully owned a R fifteen
Speaker 1: should be taken from you, because she says so. Not
Speaker 1: a single person I've ever heard has made a worthwhile
Speaker 1: argument about why millions and millions of rifles legally owned
Speaker 1: and in circulation right now and protected under the second
Speaker 1: a member of the Constitution, should be taken away from you.
Speaker 1: I have never, I have never in my life heard
Speaker 1: somebody make a compelling case about this. The data does
Speaker 1: not back up that lawfully owned R fifteen or any
Speaker 1: semi automatic rifle that they consider an assault rifle are
Speaker 1: a real threat to public health. And safety. The data
Speaker 1: doesn't back it up. The Second Amendment doesn't have and
Speaker 1: oh that's scary looking and I don't like it. Exception,
Speaker 1: that's not a thing that exists in the law. But
Speaker 1: I would also note that we've gone through a period
Speaker 1: here where the President of the United States, President Trump,
Speaker 1: has tried to go through Congress and then has tried
Speaker 1: to take actions within his purview as the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: Because when it comes to entry into the country of
Speaker 1: foreign of foreign aliens, when it comes to security at
Speaker 1: the border, these are executive branch functions, functions and places
Speaker 1: where the president does have a lot of discretion and authority.
Speaker 1: And we have had wailing from Democrats on this. I
Speaker 1: mean just gnashing of teeth and rending of garments and
Speaker 1: you know, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. They
Speaker 1: are completely freaked out because they say that what Trump
Speaker 1: is doing is tyrannical, because what Trump is doing is
Speaker 1: sure to you know, lead to people getting sented to
Speaker 1: detainee facilities all across the country, and you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is hitler and all this crazy stuff. You know, the
Speaker 1: immigration and customs enforcement must be disbanded, and I mean
Speaker 1: the things that Democrats say about this administration are just unhinged,
Speaker 1: completely unhinged. And yet here's Kamala Harris promising when Congress
Speaker 1: doesn't do what she wants to, just say, Yeah, the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment doesn't really count anymore. I'm gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: ban assault rifles with executive action. Gonna so you're gonna
Speaker 1: turn people. You're gonna turn legal gun owners into felons.
Speaker 1: That's what they did in the state of Connecticut. By
Speaker 1: the way, you didn't hand over your your semi automatic rifle,
Speaker 1: you are technically in violation of Connecticut law. You can
Speaker 1: go to prison for that. Kamala is promising what she
Speaker 1: views as a kind of benevolent tyranny, and the media
Speaker 1: doesn't say a peep, no problem with it, because she's
Speaker 1: on their team. You see, the media is on her
Speaker 1: team and she's on theirs. So all that talk you've
Speaker 1: heard in recent months about how President Trump is exceeding
Speaker 1: constitutional authority of the president, all that stuff, that's all
Speaker 1: it's all bull it's all lies, all right, It's just
Speaker 1: it's just flatly not true. And does the media holder
Speaker 1: to account for it. No, No, that not. We have
Speaker 1: a lot more coming up to talk about on college
Speaker 1: college loans, the jubilee that really the Democrats are kind
Speaker 1: of proposing here. I'll explain that in a few moments,
Speaker 1: but I just I like to keep us all up
Speaker 1: to speed on the Jesse smolette as somebody who knew
Speaker 1: Jesse was lying all along and was vocal about it.
Speaker 1: I like to do those Jesse Smolette updates. Turns out
Speaker 1: the Osendro brothers, who are the two Nigerian brothers who
Speaker 1: he hired to attack him, and we all know this.
Speaker 1: They and it's funny. I don't think that they broke
Speaker 1: any law because they were essentially paid actors. They didn't
Speaker 1: unless they gave false statements to the Thord and they
Speaker 1: didn't do anything wrong. They just showed up and like,
Speaker 1: we're part of this bizarre scheme to you know. I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe you get them on conspiracy. I don't
Speaker 1: know what the charge would be against them. I think
Speaker 1: that they just they were hired to do this weird thing.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they really did. But the Osendiro
Speaker 1: brothers are suing Jesse, so we may in civil court
Speaker 1: finally get some justice. Play fifteen. We have watched lie
Speaker 1: after lie being fabricated about us in the media only
Speaker 1: so one big lie he would continue to have life.
Speaker 1: These lies are destroying our character and our reputation in
Speaker 1: our personal and professional life. So the attorney there is
Speaker 1: reading the statement saying that they're gonna they're gonna sue
Speaker 1: for I think a defamation of character. Forget what the
Speaker 1: specifics are, but just any judicial process that would force
Speaker 1: discovery will force some reckoning for Jesse Smolette with all
Speaker 1: the lies. You know. I look, I would let this.
Speaker 1: I would. I would not be as I wouldn't let
Speaker 1: it go, but I wouldn't be as energized about this case.
Speaker 1: Still if he hadn't gotten a total pass because he's
Speaker 1: he's a protected individual, because he gets a special kind
Speaker 1: of justice, I would have except he had to walk
Speaker 1: out afterwards say I never lied. I would never lie.
Speaker 1: It's just too much, too much. The stomach just just
Speaker 1: can't do it, can't do it. So I decided that
Speaker 1: we would do it live team. We're gonna come back
Speaker 1: and talk about the plan by Elizabeth Warren to make
Speaker 1: all the college debts get white to it. What have
Speaker 1: you already paid off your loans? Though? Oh too bad
Speaker 1: for you. I guess that's coming up. I am someone
Speaker 1: that runs in a purple state. It is a state
Speaker 1: that when I first started running for office, the other
Speaker 1: senator was Republican, the governor was Republican, and three of
Speaker 1: our four constitutional officers were Republican. And then I started running,
Speaker 1: and every single time I have run, I have won
Speaker 1: every single congressional district in my state, including Michelle Bachmann's. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's when you guys are supposed to cheer. Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: so ash when you guys are shappost cheer. Amy klobisher
Speaker 1: a telling you that she would jevery erace and she's
Speaker 1: very charming. And she also eats salad with an old comb.
Speaker 1: Oh that's so gross. Remember the story about eating the
Speaker 1: salad with the comb and making one of her staffers
Speaker 1: clean clean the salad off the comb. I don't know
Speaker 1: what it is, but just you know, honestly, eating mac
Speaker 1: and cheese with a comb. It's a little rough around
Speaker 1: the edges, but I could see it, you know, But
Speaker 1: eating a salad like you get the dressing and the
Speaker 1: comb and maybe some hair and the salad, and it's
Speaker 1: so gross, so gross. Amy klobaschar yet and throwing things
Speaker 1: at her staff, and everyone talks about how horrible she
Speaker 1: is to them, but she's still running because she won
Speaker 1: every district in that you know whatever that was. This
Speaker 1: is where you're supposed to clap. Not quite as lame
Speaker 1: as Jeb Bush. Please clap job oh man, please ye
Speaker 1: there you go. Thank you. Jeb's purpose in the last
Speaker 1: election was just for those of us who pay attention
Speaker 1: to finally shut down this talking point that, oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: if you if you spend enough money, you'll win an election.
Speaker 1: I think Jeb spent almost one hundred million dollars and
Speaker 1: got like two delegates or something. I mean, it was
Speaker 1: just an astonishing fail, massive fail from Jeb Bush. But
Speaker 1: oh yeah, something we'll revisit another time. I had more thoughts,
Speaker 1: speaking of revisiting, more thoughts on this free tuition situation
Speaker 1: that's really gotten a lot of attention from Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: because Elizabeth Warren is now the Democrat who has to
Speaker 1: go kind of bullworth. I don't know how many of
Speaker 1: you remember that movie with Warren Beatty and halle Berry
Speaker 1: where it's about a politician who decides he's just gonna
Speaker 1: start speaking the truth because he kind of has a
Speaker 1: breakdown or I forget, I can't remember if he has cancer,
Speaker 1: if he has a breakdown or whatever, but he doesn't
Speaker 1: care anymore. It's a cool concept. It was not executed well.
Speaker 1: It is not a good movie in large part because
Speaker 1: I think they weren't even willing to write things to
Speaker 1: have this guy say that would have been interesting. I mean,
Speaker 1: they try to make a movie about a guy being
Speaker 1: politically incorrect who they wouldn't really allow to be politically incorrect.
Speaker 1: But Warren is now the Democrat who is willing to
Speaker 1: throw ideas out there because she's desperate to get some
Speaker 1: kind of relevance. She's desperate to come up with a
Speaker 1: way to get back at the top of the pack here,
Speaker 1: and for me at least, I mean, I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting to see a Democrat finally say what. A lot
Speaker 1: of them maybe think she's pushing, obviously for impeachment. We'll
Speaker 1: talk more about that. She's big on impeaching the president.
Speaker 1: She's now said, oh, we must impeach. You know, I
Speaker 1: go back and forth. It's just a question whether they
Speaker 1: think it'll be good politics for them. It has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with the evidence, It has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with obviously with principles or being faithful to their offices
Speaker 1: as elected members of the United States House of Representatives. Now,
Speaker 1: there's nothing to do with that, right, I know, Warren's
Speaker 1: obviously a senator, but it has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: being in Congress. It's just whatever or respecting congressional oversight
Speaker 1: in the role they play in our democracy, and blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. It's just will this help Democrats beat Trump?
Speaker 1: If the answers yes, they'll do it. If they think
Speaker 1: the answers no, they won't. Everything else's noise, But free
Speaker 1: tuition is an interesting concept that's definitely getting more and
Speaker 1: more attention from folks. Play This is what Warren lays
Speaker 1: out for her there, or this is free college tuition
Speaker 1: for people who currently have student loan debt. So it's
Speaker 1: really actually just debt forgiveness. It's a kind of small scale.
Speaker 1: Some of you may be familiar with the biblical concept
Speaker 1: of a jubilee where all debts are wiped away, maybe
Speaker 1: something we should talk about in some detail on the
Speaker 1: show another time, but this has been around for a
Speaker 1: long time, the resetting of an economic cycle and the
Speaker 1: jubilee on the freedom from debt that a society will
Speaker 1: impose upon itself with real consequences, but a way of
Speaker 1: kind of cleansing the economic system. This is a kind
Speaker 1: of campus jubilee, or at least a student loan jubilee
Speaker 1: that she's talking about here play Cliptu. We are going
Speaker 1: to roll back student loan debt for about ninety five
Speaker 1: percent of students who have debt. That's part one. And
Speaker 1: part two is to make sure that we never get
Speaker 1: in this mess again on student loan debt, and that
Speaker 1: is to make college universally available with free tuition and fees,
Speaker 1: and to put more money into pell grants so that
Speaker 1: students of color, so that our poorest students have real
Speaker 1: access to college, and that we put some real money
Speaker 1: into our historically black colleges and universities. This is about
Speaker 1: opportunity for every month. This is about the money ferry
Speaker 1: that's going to magically appear and pay for all of
Speaker 1: This is what it's really about, because the moment you
Speaker 1: start to look at this plan in any detail, you
Speaker 1: realize this is a disaster. So it's rolling back debt
Speaker 1: and then making all college free. College is far too expensive.
Speaker 1: Why is college far too expensive? Well, in part because
Speaker 1: the lender for college is now the American taxpayer, and
Speaker 1: colleges can keep jacking up their rates and building these
Speaker 1: huge endowments and overpaying all these administrators and building multimillion
Speaker 1: dollars dormitories for students, and you know, tens of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars more than that probably on athletic facilities and
Speaker 1: all this stuff. It's a total just wild spending orgy
Speaker 1: with a lot of these colleges and universities, and war
Speaker 1: In here sees us as a function first and foremost
Speaker 1: of fairness. Let me say that the wealth tax that
Speaker 1: she proposes is unworkable. So what she'll do is sell
Speaker 1: us all on a wealth tax. Only will people over
Speaker 1: fifty million? And yeah, can they afford two percent three
Speaker 1: percent of You're sure they can. How are you going
Speaker 1: to extract that two or three percent from people who,
Speaker 1: year in and year out are gonna probably have assets
Speaker 1: that are locked up. Are you're gonna make them sell stock,
Speaker 1: You're gonna make them sell shares in their company, You're
Speaker 1: gonna make them sell Some of them might not have
Speaker 1: three percent of their of their net worth readily available.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are some people that are very, very
Speaker 1: wealthy on paper that. I just want to know how
Speaker 1: this is really going to work. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: a major, if you're if you have a you know,
Speaker 1: a billion dollar real estate portfolio, and you need to
Speaker 1: liquidate three percent of your net worth to pay for
Speaker 1: this special tax every by the way, it's every year.
Speaker 1: How are you so that three percent and then another
Speaker 1: three percent and then another three percent and then that's
Speaker 1: actually gonna eat in your net worth pretty quickly? That
Speaker 1: adds up. I mean this, this whole thing is is
Speaker 1: a farce. It's a fantasy. There's no way it's going
Speaker 1: to happen. But it's interesting to just talk about because
Speaker 1: put aside the mechanics of paying for this free college
Speaker 1: for in the future and eliminating debts in the past,
Speaker 1: let's talk about fair. That the f word, as the
Speaker 1: Democrats use it, fair right, pay You're fair? Sure. Obama
Speaker 1: used to always say, what happens to the people that
Speaker 1: have been struggling for the last twenty years to pay
Speaker 1: off their student loans, that have managed to do so,
Speaker 1: or let's say halfway through or at any stage of
Speaker 1: the game, did they get know that they don't get
Speaker 1: their money back? So the one the people that borrowed
Speaker 1: responsibly and did what they're supposed to do. They suffered
Speaker 1: and didn't They didn't, you know, put that down payment
Speaker 1: on a house. They did. Look, I mean, I'm somebody
Speaker 1: who didn't go to grad school because I don't want
Speaker 1: to take out the loans full stop. That's it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I also wanted to do media, and thankfully it's worked out.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of good at this, but I decided that,
Speaker 1: you know, I just didn't want to take out a
Speaker 1: what would have been, by the time I paid it off,
Speaker 1: a couple hundred thousand dollars to go to a business
Speaker 1: school for two years. Didn't want to do it. But
Speaker 1: if I had been told, oh, we'll do it and
Speaker 1: then it'll be free, you know, in ten years, we'll
Speaker 1: just wipe the whole thing away, I'd say, oh, maybe
Speaker 1: I will do this now. It completely changes the incentive structure.
Speaker 1: And what about the people? So they're the people who
Speaker 1: didn't go because they didn't want to take out the
Speaker 1: debt that people who have serviced those debts, and people
Speaker 1: that chose to go to a two year college, or
Speaker 1: chose to go to a trade school, or chose to
Speaker 1: do an apprenticeship or instead of taking out a four
Speaker 1: year degree so that they could put a down payment
Speaker 1: on a house. Whatever. Do they get left out of
Speaker 1: this whole thing too? Individual choices about one's personal finances
Speaker 1: are not the government's job to remedy, and it is wrong.
Speaker 1: That's right. It is wrong for the federal government to
Speaker 1: step in and say, well, you know, we're going to
Speaker 1: just make this better for you because you're a big
Speaker 1: block of voters. I mean, this is like in Ghostbusters
Speaker 1: when Bill Murray, playing doctor Pete Bankman, says to the mayor,
Speaker 1: you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters. Well,
Speaker 1: in this case, it's saving the bank accounts of registered voters.
Speaker 1: But this is buying them off with taxpair of dollars.
Speaker 1: It's not right. It's not right to do am I
Speaker 1: open to college is too expensive. Yes. Do I think
Speaker 1: that student loan debt should be non dischargeable? No? Do
Speaker 1: I think the federal government should be making these loans
Speaker 1: backing them the first place? No? Do I think that
Speaker 1: people should be responsible for their personal choices. Yes, there's
Speaker 1: a sophisticated discussion to be had here, but free stuff
Speaker 1: for everybody, free stuff all over, just rich people are
Speaker 1: gonna pay. That is selling snake oil. Friends, That is
Speaker 1: a lie, and that is what Elizabeth Warren is presenting you.
Speaker 1: Hiring is really tough, but there's one place you can go.
Speaker 1: We're hiring for whatever job you need to post is simple,
Speaker 1: fast and smart. It's a place where growing businesses can
Speaker 1: connect to the most qualified candidates quickly, efficiently, easily. That
Speaker 1: place is zip recruiter dot com slash buck. You see,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter sends your job to over a hundred of
Speaker 1: the web's leading job boards. They don't stop there, though.
Speaker 1: They've got a powerful matching technology that allows zip recruiter
Speaker 1: to scan thousands of resumes and find the right people
Speaker 1: with the right experience and invites them to apply to
Speaker 1: your job. So what industry you're in across the country,
Speaker 1: if you need to hire for any job, please try
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck right now. My listeners
Speaker 1: can try it totally free at this exclusive web address
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Again, that's zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. I use zip recruiter with fantastic
Speaker 1: results for hiring at the hill. You should try it too.
Speaker 1: Zip recruiter dot com slash buck zip recruiter is the
Speaker 1: smartest way to hire. We've been waiting for Muller to
Speaker 1: you know, make us comfortable with the fact that he
Speaker 1: is deplorable and he's not deserving of the presidency, and
Speaker 1: to find all of the evidence. Then we thought, bar
Speaker 1: despite his background and what we know about him, what's
Speaker 1: going to step up to the plate. And now we're
Speaker 1: waiting on the public to make us do it. The Congress,
Speaker 1: the Congress really does have to really does have to
Speaker 1: step up to the plate. The fact of the matter is,
Speaker 1: I think that when you look at this report, you
Speaker 1: can see that there's enough information there not only on
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, but also on collusion or conspiracy, whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, to move forward with impeachment
Speaker 1: on this president because if anything, even if he's not
Speaker 1: impeachable at the time, if he doesn't, if we're not
Speaker 1: successful in impeaching him, at least we're investigating it, doing
Speaker 1: our dual diligence to hold him accountable. Look at the
Speaker 1: mall report and look at some of the actions over
Speaker 1: a thousand contacts between the Trump organization and the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Since he's a in an office that alone gets you
Speaker 1: into criminal, corrupt activities. How come he can get away
Speaker 1: with that? How come you guys are not looking into
Speaker 1: this deeper? You know, put character flaws aside, and this
Speaker 1: president has a lot of character flaws. Put it aside.
Speaker 1: Look at specifically the actions he's done. Because a lot
Speaker 1: of the things we're fighting for access to healthcare, from
Speaker 1: holding you know, for corporations accountable, to pushing back again
Speaker 1: the high rates of insulin, all of those things. Trump's
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome is real, my friends. You're hearing it. You're
Speaker 1: hearing it all over the place right now. Yeah, just
Speaker 1: Trump is just like the terrible bad man who does
Speaker 1: like so many of the awful things, who's so just
Speaker 1: like everything, and like I just hate his stupid face
Speaker 1: and hair, and you know, it's just small man bad
Speaker 1: and hate him. They can't even get the words out.
Speaker 1: They can't even figure out why they hate them. They
Speaker 1: just know they hate him so much. And now we're
Speaker 1: being told that Congress. They just want to stick to
Speaker 1: the facts, you know, just just want to see what
Speaker 1: we can really do here, what we can really accomplish,
Speaker 1: and you know, look into ways that we can hold
Speaker 1: the Trump administration accountable for this or that I'm sitting here.
Speaker 1: I'm like, you guys are kidding me, right, We're an
Speaker 1: election cycle. They want to have this, these these hearings
Speaker 1: about about impeachment. They want to keep talking about criminal
Speaker 1: charges when there were no criminal charges. Well, if there
Speaker 1: were no criminal charges, then what are we even talking about?
Speaker 1: They sound like, I mean, this is really getting hard
Speaker 1: to analyze these Democrats, to analyze people like Rashida Tali.
Speaker 1: But you just heard from and Maxine Waters. Because if
Speaker 1: you're not crazy, and if you listen to the show,
Speaker 1: you're not because you have excellent taste in radio shows.
Speaker 1: If you're not crazy, it's really hard to understand the
Speaker 1: mentality of somebody who all these issues clearly is crazy.
Speaker 1: You know, it's hard to put yourself in the mindset
Speaker 1: in the shoes of someone who is so completely separated
Speaker 1: from reality here and who has been overcome by this
Speaker 1: disdain for the president that really is a disease of
Speaker 1: the mind. Now there's no there's zero chill, there is
Speaker 1: zero calm, there's no zen when it comes to Democrats
Speaker 1: and the way that they discuss approach deal with this president.
Speaker 1: And you know, they really could just take some solace,
Speaker 1: you'd think, in the fact that there's going to be
Speaker 1: an election soon. The president will be on the ballot,
Speaker 1: at the top of the ballot. There'll be a referendum
Speaker 1: on him. There's plenty of opportunity for them to make
Speaker 1: the case about why he's not a good president. It
Speaker 1: doesn't always have to be that he's literally hitler, which
Speaker 1: is where we keep falling back into the Democrats. They
Speaker 1: can't seem to just have a big boy, adult discussion
Speaker 1: about why they don't like the President of United States
Speaker 1: on policy or whatever. It always comes back to Ikey
Speaker 1: orange man, bad, hate him, hate everything about him, everyone
Speaker 1: around him. They're embarrassing themselves. They don't think that the
Speaker 1: way though, because one they're not self aware enough to
Speaker 1: understand how foolish they sound the thing about you know,
Speaker 1: and look what he's done on insulin prices. What is Trump?
Speaker 1: The Trump Administration's actually working very hard and this is
Speaker 1: an area where people who are honest give them some credit,
Speaker 1: working very hard to bring down prescription drug prices. And yeah,
Speaker 1: insulin is a particular area of medicine where because of
Speaker 1: some of the regulations and the way that our current
Speaker 1: patent laws were insulin's way more expensive than it should be.
Speaker 1: But it's not It's not Trump's fault. It's trying to
Speaker 1: actually bring down these prices. But this is like today,
Speaker 1: I was on a panel on rising and so and said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, unlike the Democrats, you know, Trump doesn't care
Speaker 1: about people in prison. This had to do with the
Speaker 1: prison voting and said, really, the Trump administration one of
Speaker 1: their main efforts over the last six months has been
Speaker 1: this one, this first Step program, trying to help people
Speaker 1: who were coming out of prison. And now we're just
Speaker 1: gonna pretend like that didn't happen. Well, this is true.
Speaker 1: They did the same thing with Bush. Bush was an
Speaker 1: evil warmonger, criminal, hated everybody but George W. Bush, for
Speaker 1: whatever flaws, he had probably saved more lives in Africa
Speaker 1: alone than any president could directly take any kind of
Speaker 1: credit for, you know, in in the modern era, I
Speaker 1: mean post World War two. I know, I don't even
Speaker 1: know how you'd measured live saved it by other presidents.
Speaker 1: But I mean Trump with the efforts. I mean it's
Speaker 1: not Trump, but Bush with the efforts he'd made in
Speaker 1: Africa to just bring down HIV rates and bring down
Speaker 1: age deaths millions of people. That was a huge Bush initiative.
Speaker 1: By the way, the Trump administration is trying to push
Speaker 1: even further with criminal justice reform. And what I just
Speaker 1: think so interesting is that Democrats are going to have
Speaker 1: to be in a position where Kamala Harris, who was
Speaker 1: very lock them up when she was the district attorney
Speaker 1: in San Francisco, she's actually pretty harsh or criminal, was
Speaker 1: thinking about sending parents to prison for the truancy of
Speaker 1: their kids. That's intense. They're going to have to be
Speaker 1: supporting her the Democrat establishment while essentially trashing Trump for
Speaker 1: trying to help people re reintegrate themselves into into society
Speaker 1: after they've served a prison sentence, which as we know,
Speaker 1: disproportionately African Americans are incarcerated in this kind tree and
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is trying to help all prisoners, but
Speaker 1: that's going to have a disproportionate impact helping African American prisoners.
Speaker 1: Democrats give them no credit for that, none. You know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna just turn around and act like none of
Speaker 1: that ever happened because they're dishonest, because that's what Democrats do.
Speaker 1: I suppose we've got more though, on the dossier that
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about, because this is
Speaker 1: where the fight, the central fight I think over Russia
Speaker 1: collusion is about to go over the dossier and how
Speaker 1: it's a big fat lie. Background checks are a critical
Speaker 1: part of any business these days. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: ways that people try to come in under the radar,
Speaker 1: try to make sure that you don't really know who
Speaker 1: they are and what they're all about. That's why you
Speaker 1: need Global Verification Network. They're the only dual certified veteran
Speaker 1: owned background investigation and venting companies. So if you want
Speaker 1: to help veteran owned and operated small business, you want
Speaker 1: to be working with people that you trust on your
Speaker 1: background checks, and you want someone that does this better
Speaker 1: than anybody else in the business. Please call my friends
Speaker 1: at Global Verification Network. Whatever size your business, small all
Speaker 1: the way up to huge companies, they can handle your
Speaker 1: portfolio of background checks. In fact, they will come up
Speaker 1: with a custom tailored plan for you. Just call eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. That's
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine,
Speaker 1: or just go to MYGVN dot com. That's MYGVN dot com.
Speaker 1: All Americans had their civil liberties compromised when you have
Speaker 1: a dossier presented to the fives accord and presented as
Speaker 1: the whole truth, when the Justice Department withheld relevant material.
Speaker 1: If they can do it to the president of the
Speaker 1: United States, they can do it to any of us,
Speaker 1: any citizens. The entire et action of justice discussion is
Speaker 1: a c legal discussion. The Mueller Report got the law
Speaker 1: completely wrong. They came to the conclusion that you could
Speaker 1: actually indict a president for exercising his constitutional authority. That
Speaker 1: just is not the law. It has never been the law,
Speaker 1: and it never should be the law, and every civil
Speaker 1: libertarian should be upset about that. The dirsh has been
Speaker 1: great on the Russia spygate issue. He's been great on it.
Speaker 1: Let's let's just say what it is. He's not a
Speaker 1: friend or Republicans in terms of his ideology, but he
Speaker 1: is somebody who does believe in the law and civil liberties,
Speaker 1: and it's it should be astonishing as we all look
Speaker 1: at what's happened with the Democratic Party this country, just
Speaker 1: how much they've been willing to abandon those things entirely.
Speaker 1: I mean, they used to at least pay lip service
Speaker 1: to them. Now I mean it's it's laughable. You know,
Speaker 1: he mentioned the Steel dossier there. When we'll talk more
Speaker 1: about obstruction and Muller and all that a little later
Speaker 1: on the show. But I want to I want to
Speaker 1: hone in on the Steel dossier component of this. If
Speaker 1: what happened to the Trump campaign and really what happened
Speaker 1: to Carter Page and George Popadopolis, if that is allowed
Speaker 1: to stand, then it is entirely possible, entirely acceptable for
Speaker 1: the following scenario. Anyone who I don't like in politics,
Speaker 1: I could pay a third party to write up some
Speaker 1: report on them with anonymous sourcing, and then take that
Speaker 1: report and then hand it to people in the FBI
Speaker 1: that also don't like that person, and then they can
Speaker 1: open up a full field investigation as they did on Popodopolis.
Speaker 1: They could open up fise A surveillance as they did
Speaker 1: on Carter Page. And the basis for all of this
Speaker 1: is my pay somebody to write up a bunch of rumors, fabricating.
Speaker 1: That's a fabrication. Intelligence work without sourcing is rumor mongering.
Speaker 1: I used to do this. I work for the CIA.
Speaker 1: I know of what I speak here. If I try to,
Speaker 1: you know, task a satellite or run a human surveillance
Speaker 1: operation on somebody based on a piece of paper that
Speaker 1: someone slid under the door at the you know, at
Speaker 1: an embassy somewhere. Guess what I'd look like, a moron?
Speaker 1: That is basically what happened here with the dossier. And
Speaker 1: I'd say I'd get fired. But you really don't get fired.
Speaker 1: You don't get fired for incompetence in government. You get
Speaker 1: fired for either breaking the regulations that they have or
Speaker 1: speaking out publicly against the institution. Those are things I'll
Speaker 1: get you fired. But that's another conversation. The dossier was
Speaker 1: a smear document paid for by the Clinton campaign, run
Speaker 1: through a law firm, relying on foreign intelligence operatives and sources.
Speaker 1: But because it was paid for, it's okay. If we
Speaker 1: apply the democrats logic on the dossier to say the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign and the meeting in Trump Tower, it would
Speaker 1: have been okay. Again, this is Democrat logic. If Valerie Vezelitskaya,
Speaker 1: instead of saying, hey, I've got some information, do you
Speaker 1: guys want to take this? If a Trump campaid said no, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, we can't do that. We're gonna pay
Speaker 1: some British guy to sit in a meeting with you.
Speaker 1: You give him the information and then we'll use it
Speaker 1: and run it to the FBI and do whatever we
Speaker 1: want with it. That's better. That is exactly what the
Speaker 1: dossier was. It was a British intelligence officer cut out
Speaker 1: accepting money to make information from Russians for political purposes.
Speaker 1: Somebody try to tell me I'm wrong, I beg them.
Speaker 1: Somebody try to challenge me on this issue. They will
Speaker 1: get crushed. Democrats have no answers. In fact, there was
Speaker 1: a rather spirited exchange I had with the former senior
Speaker 1: Obama Dojay guy on Rising earlier in the week, and
Speaker 1: I kept saying, how is what I'm saying not true?
Speaker 1: But he just kept dodging, kept dodging, kept dodging. They
Speaker 1: tried to the Muller people, the anti Trump Democrat left
Speaker 1: tried to tried to say that the acceptance of information
Speaker 1: from a foreign source is an illegal campaign contribution. These
Speaker 1: people are nuts information. So does that mean if I
Speaker 1: read the Guardian, that's a foreign source of British newspaper.
Speaker 1: If I if I see a video on Russia today
Speaker 1: that does some Hillary appo am, I is that a
Speaker 1: foreign Oh well that's media? Well, what are the distinctions
Speaker 1: are really making here is this is crazy. This is
Speaker 1: absolutely crazy to see. They they have no real rules,
Speaker 1: no real standards. It's just whatever hurts Trump is good,
Speaker 1: whatever helps Trump is bad. The dossier is going to
Speaker 1: be a huge problem for the Democrats and once Trump.
Speaker 1: I just wish he would do it. And you know,
Speaker 1: I try to. I know that the president has more
Speaker 1: forces arrayed against him than any human being could ever imagine.
Speaker 1: And I understand the pressures that he's under and the
Speaker 1: fact that the Left is They're not just trying to
Speaker 1: defeat him politically. They want to ruin him. They want
Speaker 1: to ruin his brand, they want to ruin his family,
Speaker 1: they want to imprison his family members. Because the Left
Speaker 1: is a bunch of crazy savages, all right, The Left
Speaker 1: just they're barbarians. They have they play by no rules
Speaker 1: anymore when it comes to Trump. Whatever they can do
Speaker 1: destroy him. I get all that, but I do get
Speaker 1: frustrated sometimes I think the President should just release the
Speaker 1: unred just just release the fis of stuff. I know
Speaker 1: people can say, Buck, you can't be Oh no, I'm serious.
Speaker 1: He should just order it. I want to see the
Speaker 1: full fives applications. I don't I don't even care what.
Speaker 1: I don't care. No one's gonna no one's gonna be
Speaker 1: harm from this. What someone spoke to somebody about George
Speaker 1: Popadopolis or somebody spoke to somebody about Carter Page. No, no,
Speaker 1: no one's gonna end up, you know, on the floor
Speaker 1: of some sell and some hell hole because of this.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, it's just not that's just not going to happen.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about some deep intel penetration of a
Speaker 1: hostile country. We're talking about a couple of clowns running
Speaker 1: around in America that have people that are desperately trying
Speaker 1: to take them down, using the federal government to do it.
Speaker 1: I think we should unleash all this stuff by I
Speaker 1: don't mean to be mean about George and Carter. I
Speaker 1: just meant, you know, they're like kind of goofy guys.
Speaker 1: I actually actually like both of them, and you know,
Speaker 1: what's been done to them is terrible. I mean, I
Speaker 1: totally stand with them on this. I mean they were
Speaker 1: essentially both smired as traitors. Mueller from when I was
Speaker 1: reading the Muller Report, was trying to get him on
Speaker 1: being an unregistered agent of Israel. What they're gonna apply
Speaker 1: a fairer violation at Israel, and Israels are close US ally.
Speaker 1: Now we're gonna do that because all along it has
Speaker 1: been oh well Russia, you know, you can't do bad
Speaker 1: things with Russia. But I think Trump should release the
Speaker 1: full files that because you're going to see that the
Speaker 1: dossier was essentially everything. The dossier was the one source
Speaker 1: in the bibliography that appears in the text, you know,
Speaker 1: one hundred times, and everything else that you know, I'm
Speaker 1: using an academic analogy here, but everything else is just like,
Speaker 1: you know, patting the bibliography just to make it seem
Speaker 1: like there were more sources, but they really weren't. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you even go back and listen to Bob Woodward,
Speaker 1: this is from I think eighteen months ago, maybe I
Speaker 1: mean it's at least over a year ago. Bob Woodward,
Speaker 1: who was a revered journalist on the left. He was saying, look, guys,
Speaker 1: this dossier thing, we gotta we gotta look into this
Speaker 1: a little bit more. Play thirteen. Early in building the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference, in an early draft,
Speaker 1: they actually put the dossier on page two in kind
Speaker 1: of a breakout box. I think it was the CIA
Speaker 1: pushing this. Real intelligence experts looked at this and said, no,
Speaker 1: this is not intelligence, this is garbage, and they took
Speaker 1: it out. But in this process, the idea that they
Speaker 1: would include something like that in one of the great
Speaker 1: stellar intelligence assessments, as Muller also found out, is highly
Speaker 1: questionable needs to be investigated. Garbage, Woodward says, And that
Speaker 1: is what the dossier was. It was garbage. There's ridiculous stuff.
Speaker 1: It just just patently ridiculous stuff in there, unsourced Russian sources.
Speaker 1: In fact, now the New York Times, I don't know
Speaker 1: how many of you caught this, I meant to mention
Speaker 1: on the show wrote a piece over the weekend about
Speaker 1: how the dossier. Get ready for this, folks, hold onto
Speaker 1: your butts here it comes. The dossier's self may have
Speaker 1: been a Russian disinformation operation that Steele, Christopher Steele, fell
Speaker 1: for and then laundered through the media and ran up
Speaker 1: the flagpole at the FBI in what would be one
Speaker 1: of the most successful disinformation campaigns any country has run
Speaker 1: against another in history. That's right, the dossier as a
Speaker 1: disinformation campaign. They didn't think about this before. This didn't
Speaker 1: occur to them until the Mulla probe ended. Oh oh, well,
Speaker 1: now it's safe to be somewhat honest about this. Right now,
Speaker 1: it's safe to ask some of the most important and
Speaker 1: basic questions. The media and all this is such such
Speaker 1: a disgrace. We must drill down to the dossier. I'm
Speaker 1: going to keep saying it because it's important. They are
Speaker 1: lying to you about how this whole Russia collusion thing
Speaker 1: got started. They are lying to you because when you
Speaker 1: find out, when we find out, it will be clear
Speaker 1: that this was a conspiracy theory, that this was vindictive
Speaker 1: anti Trump partisans dishonestly concocting a Kakamamee story to destroy
Speaker 1: the would be a now current president of the United States.
Speaker 1: And this was just OPO research treated as intelligence, the
Speaker 1: kind of thing that you would see in some RinkyDink
Speaker 1: third world country. It happened here in America. Intel services,
Speaker 1: major media outlets brought in on the scheme. Appalling and
Speaker 1: something that we need accountability for. Don't put impeachment on
Speaker 1: the table as the only item on the table and
Speaker 1: say you're going to get there no matter what which
Speaker 1: is it's what happened in ninety nine. Instead, you say
Speaker 1: we are going to proceed with the seriousness that this demands,
Speaker 1: not to prejudge the outcome, but to examine the evidence
Speaker 1: as objectively as possible, and then to draw conclusions. And
Speaker 1: if at that point they believe that high crimes and
Speaker 1: misdemeanors have been committed, then I think it is the
Speaker 1: obligation of the Congress to put forward articles of impeachment.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's kidding, right, that's ridiculous. Oh, that's right.
Speaker 1: It's an objective process that the Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: embark on about whether or not they're going to impeach
Speaker 1: Donald Trump entirely objective. You see these elected Democrat officials
Speaker 1: that are going to put the country now through month
Speaker 1: after month of we need to hold hearings. We must
Speaker 1: in defense of art democracy. And Hillary's gonna show up
Speaker 1: once while I need to like, Wow, what you should
Speaker 1: rarely do is vote for Hillary twenty twenty. That's right.
Speaker 1: It might happen, folks, might happen. You laugh right now,
Speaker 1: evil Hillary laugh. That's right, you laugh right now. But
Speaker 1: it could happen. There's no party leader, there's a there's
Speaker 1: a lot of division among the various Democrats that are
Speaker 1: running in terms of their their their base and everything else.
Speaker 1: So I'm just saying, but Hillary coming out, she's the
Speaker 1: voice of reason among Democrats. Now, isn't that stunning? Isn't
Speaker 1: that quite a reminder of what's really going on in
Speaker 1: the world around you right now? Hillary Clinton is more
Speaker 1: sane than the rest of the Democrat Party, and so
Speaker 1: she she gets to show up and be kind of
Speaker 1: the the wise grandma of the Democrat Party. It's it's stunning,
Speaker 1: It really is. Jared Kushner, by the way, switching gears
Speaker 1: here for a second, It's going to be presenting a
Speaker 1: Middle East peace plan in the I think after after
Speaker 1: Ramadan is what I read today, which I don't know
Speaker 1: what will be in the plan, but I do know
Speaker 1: that the smartest person that I've known in my life
Speaker 1: on the Middle East peace process with or with Israel
Speaker 1: and the Palestinians, we used to say that every administration
Speaker 1: will try, every administration will fail, the Palestinians will make
Speaker 1: it worse, the settlers will build. That was his roadmap
Speaker 1: for all things peace process. And I know it's a
Speaker 1: very cynical approach to all of that, but he's not wrong.
Speaker 1: We could say say what you will about it. The
Speaker 1: guy's not wrong. He hasn't been wrong so far. But
Speaker 1: Kushner was speaking. He doesn't speak publicly all that often.
Speaker 1: And although people often tell me in the White House,
Speaker 1: the folks that I talked to that Kushner may in
Speaker 1: fact be the single most powerful advisor in the United
Speaker 1: States government right now, the number one advisor to the
Speaker 1: President of the United States. He's about, I think a
Speaker 1: year or two old than me. Yep. I actually met
Speaker 1: Jared a very long time ago to brunch. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I sat in a meeting with Jared for
Speaker 1: an hour when he owned The Observer and I was
Speaker 1: sent over as a representative of the Blaze talk to
Speaker 1: him about possible collaboration. So I've spoken to Jared a
Speaker 1: few times. But anyway, Jared brought up a very good
Speaker 1: point about this whole collusion Russia interference nonsense, which is like, guys,
Speaker 1: can ever just get a grip on this thing? Can
Speaker 1: we balance out what really happened versus what we've been
Speaker 1: through for two years place sixteen. You look at you
Speaker 1: know what Russia, did you know, buying some Facebook ads
Speaker 1: to try to sew dissent and do it And it's
Speaker 1: a terrible thing. But I think the investigations and all
Speaker 1: of the speculation that's happened for the last two years
Speaker 1: has had a much harsher impact on our democracy than
Speaker 1: a couple of Facebook ads. And I spent about I
Speaker 1: think they said they spent about one hundred and sixty thousand.
Speaker 1: I spent one hundred and sixty thousand dollars on Facebook
Speaker 1: every three hours during the campaign. So if you look
Speaker 1: at the magnitude of what they did on what they accomplished,
Speaker 1: I think the ensuing investigations have been way more hard.
Speaker 1: That is a really important point he makes. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: what I keep telling you about how you could give
Speaker 1: a dollar to a billionaire handed to him and say
Speaker 1: I made that guy richer. And it's technically true. Russia
Speaker 1: could run a few Facebook ads here and there and
Speaker 1: say they interfered in our election. Technically true. But it
Speaker 1: is an eyedropper's worth of Facebook ads in an ocean
Speaker 1: of presidential election politics online. This is why Obama did
Speaker 1: nothing about it, folks, nothing until Hillary lost. This is
Speaker 1: why the Democrats have been dishonest about this all along.
Speaker 1: It's all been one big con. It's all been one
Speaker 1: big lie. And Jared is spot on here with let's
Speaker 1: keep this all in perspective. If any other human being
Speaker 1: in this country had done what's documented in the Muller report,
Speaker 1: they would be arrested and put in jail. Obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice is a serious crime in this country. But Muller believed,
Speaker 1: because of the direction from Donald Trump's Justice Department, that
Speaker 1: he could not bring a criminal indictment against a sitting president.
Speaker 1: So I think he's wrong on that, but that's what
Speaker 1: he believed. So he serves the whole thing up to
Speaker 1: the United States Congress. Elizabeth Warren is a liar. She's
Speaker 1: a liar because of what we know about her gaming
Speaker 1: of the system folka hauntis style in order to advance
Speaker 1: herself and just to give herself a more compelling narrative
Speaker 1: day to day. I spoke not long ago to somebody
Speaker 1: who studied with Elizabeth Warren at Harvard, was one of
Speaker 1: her students at Harvard Law School, and he told me
Speaker 1: that she would regularly refer to being a Cherokee from
Speaker 1: you know, the Midwest, and that that was part of
Speaker 1: her identity. And this is how Elizabeth Warren tried to
Speaker 1: make herself relatable and cool and hip to the intersectional
Speaker 1: identity obsess left. So she's a fraud, she's a liar,
Speaker 1: somebody who doesn't and she maybe believes the lies she tells,
Speaker 1: but she's somebody who we cannot let get away with
Speaker 1: this stuff because the media is certainly gonna let her
Speaker 1: get away. They're just like they have forgotten about the
Speaker 1: fact that she thought that being one one and twenty
Speaker 1: fourth Native American based on a DNA test qualified her
Speaker 1: as Native American, and that she was doing a victory dance.
Speaker 1: She was doing a victory dance at the time, well
Speaker 1: not to be confused with the rain dance, and she
Speaker 1: looked ridiculous. But the media still holds her up because
Speaker 1: of her that's right, Harvard credentials, and they're all obsessed
Speaker 1: with the notion that she's the more progressive Hillary and
Speaker 1: all this other stuff. What she said there about the
Speaker 1: Mueller report is just all is all crap, all crap.
Speaker 1: Let me just deal with this one right now. This
Speaker 1: and what what Mueller did is a disgrace because Muller
Speaker 1: doesn't like Trump, his people don't like Trump, and so
Speaker 1: what they did was they just lit a match and walk.
Speaker 1: They didn't have the courage of their convictions to say
Speaker 1: we're gonna torch this house. We're gonna torch you know,
Speaker 1: this this house of the Trump administration, so to speak.
Speaker 1: So what they did was they said, well, we're just
Speaker 1: gonna leave a couple of lit cigarettes by the upholstery
Speaker 1: and see what happens. But you know, we're not saying
Speaker 1: that we should. We were not willing to openly light
Speaker 1: it on fire. We're just gonna leave some lit cigarettes
Speaker 1: and see if some other people maybe decide to let
Speaker 1: this thing burn. That's exactly what Muller and his team did.
Speaker 1: And let me say this, this this storyline the Democrats
Speaker 1: are clinging to that oh they never would have brought
Speaker 1: charges against Trump? Really, was that what they were saying
Speaker 1: before we were promised and the media was telling us
Speaker 1: night after night that Trump was going to be found,
Speaker 1: you know, the Trump is going to be criminally prosecuted
Speaker 1: or people around him. Remember they always leave that out, folks.
Speaker 1: This is really really important. Russia Trump campaign collusion was
Speaker 1: not just about the president, right, Who were they surveilling
Speaker 1: Carter Page George Papadopoulos low level campaign figures? If they
Speaker 1: and you know this as well as I do, if
Speaker 1: they had anything then amounted to coordination with the Russians,
Speaker 1: even if it wasn't illegal, any coordination of any kind
Speaker 1: with Roger Stone, with manaphor with any of these figures,
Speaker 1: they would have claimed complete vindication. They would have said
Speaker 1: Trump as an illegitimate president, and if they could, they
Speaker 1: would have pressed for criminal charges against any of those
Speaker 1: people based upon possible conspiracy statue or an application of
Speaker 1: the conspiracy statute. So it's not just Trump that was
Speaker 1: not charged. It's Donald Trump junior who was not charge
Speaker 1: who they said would be. It's Trump's senior advisors who
Speaker 1: were not charged on coordinating with the Russians. Yeah, some
Speaker 1: were charged with either lying or with tax fraud or
Speaker 1: by or fraud with tax fraud. That had nothing to do.
Speaker 1: It didn't even happen while he's working for Trump, and
Speaker 1: not that it would matter if it did have him
Speaker 1: and he's working for Trump. But notice that this just
Speaker 1: becomes a narrator. This is a lie. It's not just
Speaker 1: Trump that was not charged, it's the campaign. Nobody on
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign was charged with coordinating with the Russians because
Speaker 1: they had nothing. They had nothing. It was all a lie.
Speaker 1: This was a conspiracy theory. That was fed to the
Speaker 1: rabid left wing base of lunatics, and you know it
Speaker 1: and I know it. But then so that's one part
Speaker 1: of this ole. Oh, they couldn't have charged Trump, but
Speaker 1: they should have. I mean, she's saying here that anybody
Speaker 1: other than Trump would have been arrested and put in jail.
Speaker 1: That's a lie. The finest legal minds in the country,
Speaker 1: who were not partisan hacks, look at this and say,
Speaker 1: at best, at best, it would be a stretch to
Speaker 1: use the evidence they have because there was no obstruction
Speaker 1: and there was no underlying crime. So now you're going
Speaker 1: to charge somebody with conspiracy to obstruct? Is that what
Speaker 1: you're going to say? Because that's not how the obstruction
Speaker 1: statue works. It's not I mused out loud about maybe
Speaker 1: obstructing something. It's either you did or you didn't. You
Speaker 1: do or you don't. So that's also just that this
Speaker 1: is just all lies, Melissas warren't lies on top of
Speaker 1: other lies. But this story that they're telling everybody that
Speaker 1: Muller was never going to bring charges against Trump or
Speaker 1: couldn't couldn't this way, they say Muller's hands were tied
Speaker 1: Saint Mueller, who was going to save the Republic. His
Speaker 1: hands were tied. We all know based on the way
Speaker 1: he wrote that report, he could have said very easily,
Speaker 1: there is nothing, literally nothing stopping him from having himself
Speaker 1: or Weissman or whoever is. You know, Genie read his
Speaker 1: whole team he has of Democrats who hate Trump, that
Speaker 1: we're working and had unlimited reach and resources to go
Speaker 1: after Trump and all those around him very well. Could
Speaker 1: have written in the Mulla Report, we would we would
Speaker 1: recommend a criminal charge against the president United States. But
Speaker 1: because of the guidance of the Department of Justice, we
Speaker 1: will know we know that that is not going to
Speaker 1: result in an actual charge from the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: against the president. They could have said that, they didn't
Speaker 1: say that. They didn't say that because they didn't have
Speaker 1: the evidence for it. They didn't have the case. It
Speaker 1: wasn't there. But now you're told, oh, well, they never
Speaker 1: could have brought charges. That's why they didn't. That's just
Speaker 1: not true. Let's stick to what was said. Can neither
Speaker 1: exonerate nor bring a charge against the president. They could
Speaker 1: have said, we would bring a charge, but we know
Speaker 1: that the president cannot legally be charged. Therefore, we passed
Speaker 1: this the Department of Justice and hope that Congress will
Speaker 1: take action. That's not what they said. So Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is just is just mining and trying to get her
Speaker 1: left wing base all riled up here. But that's should
Speaker 1: be that should be unsurprising to everybody about the way
Speaker 1: that she conducts herself. Well, she's a desperate woman. She
Speaker 1: has something like one hundred and fifty staffers already staffs
Speaker 1: way too big, raised all this money. I mean, she's
Speaker 1: a Democrat establishment figure who is trying to run as
Speaker 1: some kind of you know, new style of politician who's
Speaker 1: going to be so progressive, and it's it's just all,
Speaker 1: it's just all crap. Both she is a massive, a
Speaker 1: massive phony. Nothing about her strikes me as as impressive.
Speaker 1: And the fact that she's a Harvard law or was
Speaker 1: a Harvard law professor, I don't know if she's still
Speaker 1: in the faculty there technically in some way or not.
Speaker 1: And can't even do basic legal analysis of what was
Speaker 1: in the Mulla report without just showing that this is
Speaker 1: all for her. A part is in a political exercise
Speaker 1: tells you a lot about about how who she is
Speaker 1: and how she conducts herself. It also was interesting. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk more about impeachment and the Special Counsel and
Speaker 1: how these things tie together with my friend Charles Cook
Speaker 1: later on in the show. Charles from National Review, I'm
Speaker 1: sure many of he has the best British accent of
Speaker 1: anyone you'll ever hear on the radio. Oh, actually no,
Speaker 1: my friend Rahem Cassam might have an issue with that.
Speaker 1: I don't know who has a better British accent, guys,
Speaker 1: Charles Cook from National Review or Raheem Cassam from Human Events.
Speaker 1: You can pose that one to Raheim because he's going
Speaker 1: to be a guest hosting the show soon. I don't
Speaker 1: know Charles versus Raheim Brandon, do you want to weigh
Speaker 1: in on that one? Do you have a vote best
Speaker 1: British accent on the Freedom Hunt? I'm intimidated by both.
Speaker 1: You're intim That's fair enough. Those British accents do sound
Speaker 1: do sound a bit intimidating. But Elizabeth Warren has talked
Speaker 1: about impeaching Trump and has set a marker on what
Speaker 1: the rationality for all this. And here's what I just
Speaker 1: want to point out to you that. Well, let me first,
Speaker 1: here's what Warren says now about impeaching this president. Play
Speaker 1: for the tool that we are given for that accountability
Speaker 1: is the impeachment process. This is not about politics. This
Speaker 1: is about principle. This is about what kind of a
Speaker 1: democracy we have in a dictatorship. Everything in government revolves
Speaker 1: around protecting the one person at the center, but not
Speaker 1: in our democracy and not under our constitution. We have
Speaker 1: checks and balances, and we have to proceed here in
Speaker 1: a way understanding our place in history that not only
Speaker 1: protects democracy now, but protects democracy when the next president
Speaker 1: comes in, and the next president and the president after that.
Speaker 1: That's our responsibility. Oh but I'm just drowning in the sanctimony.
Speaker 1: There isn't it fun to be Elizaeth Warren's. Oh, it's
Speaker 1: just all about protecting our democracy. Okay. If that's true,
Speaker 1: then I want us all to I want us all
Speaker 1: to pay attention here, because then whether this hurts the
Speaker 1: Democrats prospects the next election or not is meaningless. If
Speaker 1: this is about principle, as she says, they should march
Speaker 1: right to impeachment, because the only Democrat voices you hear
Speaker 1: against impeachment say that they don't think that it would
Speaker 1: be smart for their Party. But I thought this was
Speaker 1: about the defense of the Republic. I thought this is
Speaker 1: about gaseous speeches from people like Elizabeth Warren about how
Speaker 1: there's a responsibility to history to impeach Trump. Well, responsibility
Speaker 1: to history has nothing to do with whether or not
Speaker 1: it's going to help the Democrats in the next election cycle.
Speaker 1: That's not responsibility to history. That's responsibility to meet myself
Speaker 1: an eye for the Democrats. That doesn't work. Ah, But
Speaker 1: we returned to a recurring theme here on the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. When we're talking about Democrats, we are talking
Speaker 1: about a political ideology that has as it's loadstar as
Speaker 1: it's guiding The only guiding principle that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: has is that there are no principles that can interfere
Speaker 1: with the relentless pursuit of power. All other principles are
Speaker 1: subject to that maxim which means there are no other principles.
Speaker 1: There's only one. We must be in charge. Everything else
Speaker 1: pushed aside. Remember this as they continue this dance about
Speaker 1: whether they're going to impeach or not. This is about power.
Speaker 1: It is not about what is right for the country.
Speaker 1: For all of your biggest achievements in life, who's the
Speaker 1: one person that's always been there unconditionally supporting you every
Speaker 1: step of the way. I know what the answer is
Speaker 1: for me, it's Mom. You're forever biggest fan. This Mother's Day,
Speaker 1: show her just how much you appreciate the love with
Speaker 1: one eight hundred flowers dot com right now, when you
Speaker 1: get ahead of the Mother's Day rush, one eight hundred
Speaker 1: flowers dot com will give you an exclusive thirty six
Speaker 1: for thirty six offer. That's thirty six Srebey roses for
Speaker 1: just thirty six dollars, only one dollar per rose. With
Speaker 1: an impressive mix of pastel shades and pink, orange and lavender,
Speaker 1: these roses are guaranteed to make her smile. It's the
Speaker 1: perfect way to surprise all the moms in your life
Speaker 1: or just celebrate any spring occasion. So please check it out,
Speaker 1: but you have to hurry because it expires Friday. This
Speaker 1: incredible offer or right just go to one eight hundred
Speaker 1: flowers dot com, clip the radio icon and entercode buck.
Speaker 1: That's one eight hundred flowers dot com clip the radio icon,
Speaker 1: enter promo code buck. It's not as if the Muller
Speaker 1: Report was a dut This is something that has a
Speaker 1: lot in it that implicates the president in actual crimes.
Speaker 1: I still hope that in this day and age, Republicans
Speaker 1: will see the facts and we'll be as appalled as
Speaker 1: the Democrats are. This report was completely exposing of unfit
Speaker 1: impeachable behavior. Man does not screech and complain. Some might ask,
Speaker 1: why haven't you start, why haven't you opened an impeachment inquiry?
Speaker 1: Or in fairness, is that what you're doing right now?
Speaker 1: And matter and to go with the impeachment gets politicized hands, oh, impeachment,
Speaker 1: political processes. I thought the Special Counsel was supposed to
Speaker 1: be about finding crimes. It was certainly using the investigative
Speaker 1: tactics that one associates with criminal investigation, and not necessarily
Speaker 1: political process. But this stuff all gets very murky, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: I've got our friend Charles Cook back in action here.
Speaker 1: Charles you will know from National Review Online, where he
Speaker 1: is the editor. The man himself, mister Charles Cook. Always
Speaker 1: good of you to make some time for us from
Speaker 1: a sunny Florida. Thank you for having me at Charles.
Speaker 1: It seems like impeachment, or I think it's beyond it
Speaker 1: seems we know impeachment has been the hope for Democrats
Speaker 1: as the end state of the Muller probe. All all along,
Speaker 1: before we get into your idea, the idea you propose
Speaker 1: a national review, which is that we just stop the
Speaker 1: pretense of this of the Special Council as somehow a
Speaker 1: good idea. How well, what do you think about about
Speaker 1: Democrats making all this noise? Because to me, you know,
Speaker 1: if it's about ethics and being unfit for the presidency,
Speaker 1: then it shouldn't matter if it blows back on Democrats. Right.
Speaker 1: If this is if they have a duty to the
Speaker 1: republic to impeach the president for what he's done, then
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear tomorrow Democrats say, well, but
Speaker 1: the voters may punish us for this one. Right, they're
Speaker 1: not going to impeach him. Of course this is all fluff,
Speaker 1: but let's pretend for a moment that those who are
Speaker 1: rattling their savors are serious. It's a difficult one to
Speaker 1: analyze at one level because the congressional power to impeach
Speaker 1: is absolute in the Constitution. The criteria for impeachment is
Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors, but Congress gets to decide what
Speaker 1: that means, and it's not Justice Table, which is to say,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court can't step in and decide whether or
Speaker 1: not the president has committed a crime or define what
Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors means. So if the Democrats in
Speaker 1: the House wants to impeach President Trump, they can do so.
Speaker 1: The problem they have is that this ultimately is a
Speaker 1: political question for them as well. And the case that
Speaker 1: they have built over the last two years was not
Speaker 1: that Trump is generally unfit, which is ultimately a political question,
Speaker 1: but that he was a criminal, that he had colluded
Speaker 1: with Russia, that he had committed treason, that he was
Speaker 1: a traitor. Some had even suggested he was and had
Speaker 1: been for some time a Russian asset. Now that allegation
Speaker 1: has been nuked by the Muller Afford, whatever else it
Speaker 1: implies about Trump's character. So to turn around now and say, well,
Speaker 1: of course, we didn't really base our proposals on that eventuality,
Speaker 1: this has always been about whether Trump is fit in
Speaker 1: general is not true. But it's also politically suicidal, especially
Speaker 1: given that the question of Trump's fitness or office will
Speaker 1: be litigated in a year and a half at the
Speaker 1: next election. Yes, I think that's that's a big problem
Speaker 1: for Democrats the timeline here of how even if let's
Speaker 1: say they were going to go forward, and I agree
Speaker 1: with you, it seems unlikely right now. Although the Democrats
Speaker 1: are crazy. I mean, they're talking about given the Boston
Speaker 1: Marathon bomber the right to vote from prison, so you know,
Speaker 1: who knows how wacko they're willing to be. But if
Speaker 1: they're going to make the case that it's a political
Speaker 1: question about the fitness for offer that the president may
Speaker 1: or may not have, what better way to adjudicate that
Speaker 1: than the national election that's going to happen, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: it just seems like such sore loserism from the left
Speaker 1: all along. But I did want to ask you about
Speaker 1: your feelings on and this is what you wrote about
Speaker 1: today a National Review on this Special Council, that it
Speaker 1: basically walk us through your argument the Special Council this
Speaker 1: is an exercise in some ways in futility, and it's
Speaker 1: kind of a ridiculous setup. It's not just an exercise
Speaker 1: in futility, and it's not just a ridiculous setup, although
Speaker 1: it is both. As the saying, it's also counterproductive semi facetiously.
Speaker 1: Start the piece by saying that given the record of
Speaker 1: the last forty fifty years, the next impeachment an investigation
Speaker 1: drive will come in about twenty years. And when it does,
Speaker 1: I think Americans should demand an entirely different approach than
Speaker 1: the one we've seen with Trump and the one we
Speaker 1: saw with President Clinton. The system under which Robert Maller
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump were asked to operate was a farcical one.
Speaker 1: The executive branch is the branch tasked with investigations and prosecutions.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch, which
Speaker 1: means that Donald Trump was constitutionally being asked to investigate himself,
Speaker 1: and had there been a recommendation of an indictment, he
Speaker 1: would have been asked to indict himself, although the prevailing
Speaker 1: law here suggests that that is impossible, and impossible for
Speaker 1: a good reason. You cannot be your own prosecutor. So
Speaker 1: what we've seen here is two years of freakouts over
Speaker 1: whether Trump is going to comply with the behavior of
Speaker 1: a set of employees that he is ultimately responsible for
Speaker 1: and over whom he has power and control. And this
Speaker 1: has led to a really wooly situation which it is
Speaker 1: fairly difficult to establish what Trump was doing as a
Speaker 1: matter of routine, in other words, what he was doing
Speaker 1: as the head of the executive branch, and what he
Speaker 1: was potentially doing because he's corrupt and wanted to impede
Speaker 1: the investigation. Donald Trump never had a chance here. Unless
Speaker 1: a prosecutor as a mind reader, there's simply no way
Speaker 1: to determine whether he dealt with this properly. Likewise, I
Speaker 1: don't think it any flight on Robert Maller or his
Speaker 1: team to point out that they were operating under extremely
Speaker 1: difficult circumstances. I mean, in no other circumstance would an
Speaker 1: investigator be able to be fired by the person he's investigating.
Speaker 1: In no other circumstance would he know that, even if
Speaker 1: he found evidence of wrongdoing, he most likely could not
Speaker 1: recommend an indictment. It's silly, and it's silly because the
Speaker 1: American system is not set up to work like this.
Speaker 1: If the president is accused of malpersons, Congress is the
Speaker 1: ultimate arbiter, and Congress should be the one to investigate.
Speaker 1: If Congress investigates the executive branch, there's nothing the executive
Speaker 1: branch can do about it. The executive branch can't fire Congress.
Speaker 1: It can't interfere with Congress, it can't resources around, and
Speaker 1: it can't even be accused of trying to do that,
Speaker 1: which is one of the things I think that was
Speaker 1: so unfair to the president in this circumstance. Now, it
Speaker 1: is probably true that we dealt with this accusation better
Speaker 1: than with the accusation against Bill Clinton. Back in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety eight, a statute was still on the books that
Speaker 1: enabled the appointment of the Independent Council. Justice Scleer suggested
Speaker 1: this was entirely unconstitutional. He was in the minority, who
Speaker 1: was in a minority of one in the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: case that followed. But Scleer points out, look, we shouldn't
Speaker 1: be ever taking away prostitutorial power from the president giving
Speaker 1: it to someone the president can't fire. But it wasn't
Speaker 1: too much better this time around, because what we essentially
Speaker 1: did was to take away prosecutorial power from the president
Speaker 1: and give it to someone that he could fire, which
Speaker 1: created a mess. My proposal is, next time this happened,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure it will next time there's an investigation
Speaker 1: into the president, Congress should take it upon itself to
Speaker 1: be in charge of it. Congress has the power to
Speaker 1: tax and spend. It has the power to hire anyone
Speaker 1: it likes. It has the power to subpoena find a
Speaker 1: Robert Muller in the future, put him under congression or control,
Speaker 1: put him on a send it's judiciary committee extension or
Speaker 1: what you will, and look into the president and deal
Speaker 1: with the political fallout. It would then be obvious who
Speaker 1: is operating from what premise, with what agenda. It would
Speaker 1: be obvious whether the president was complying or not. It
Speaker 1: would be obvious where the politics were. It would be
Speaker 1: obvious what was being alleged and what was not, and
Speaker 1: we wouldn't be focused constantly on crimes, which I think
Speaker 1: would have done two things in this case that are important. One,
Speaker 1: it would have stopped a lot of the goal post shifting,
Speaker 1: and two, it would have prevented an investigation that was
Speaker 1: supposed to be into Russian meddling in the election from
Speaker 1: becoming an investigation into whether the president was or was
Speaker 1: not a traitor. I think next time around, Americans shifted
Speaker 1: on better. Charles Cook, everybody, Charles, I really think it's
Speaker 1: a fascinating piece, and it's an excellent idea. Your treatment
Speaker 1: of it is really worth everyone checking out National Review
Speaker 1: dot com. Everyone. Charles Cook, editor of National Review Online.
Speaker 1: Charles always good to talk to you, my friend, Thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you to too soon. Well. Team. We have more
Speaker 1: coming up, including some updates from the campus speech wars.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna want to miss it. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: After twenty eight hundred subpoenas, five hundred search warrants, nineteen
Speaker 1: lawyers attempting to time to Russian interference, President Trump has
Speaker 1: beat the deep state, the left, and the media again.
Speaker 1: Folks join in the celebration. Here a bit okay, you
Speaker 1: can get an incredible coin from Noble Gold. That's right,
Speaker 1: Noble Golds twenty twenty President Trump Freedom Coin. One side
Speaker 1: magnificently depicts an image of Donald J. Trump, the other
Speaker 1: lists him with his major achievements. This commemorative one ounce
Speaker 1: coin is the only presidential Trump coin made of ninety
Speaker 1: nine point nine percent silver, not silver plating, and his
Speaker 1: IRA approved. As the price of silver rises, so does
Speaker 1: the value of the coins. You'll want to hold on
Speaker 1: to this collector's item for generations. Go to Trump Coin
Speaker 1: twenty twenty dot com and use code buck It's very important.
Speaker 1: Trump Coin twenty twenty dot com use code buck and
Speaker 1: I'll save you five dollars off each coin. Okay again.
Speaker 1: You can text buck to five eleven five eleven for more,
Speaker 1: or go to trump Coin twenty twenty dot com use
Speaker 1: code buck to say five dollars per coin. Standard text
Speaker 1: rates may apply. Got an update for you all from
Speaker 1: the campus free speech wars, where there are good guys
Speaker 1: and bad guys. The conservatives are the good guys. The
Speaker 1: left wing maniacs that try to shut down speech they
Speaker 1: don't like, those are the bad guys. And we have
Speaker 1: a very interesting, very interesting case study here of just
Speaker 1: what goes on at Middlebury College these days up in Vermont.
Speaker 1: I think Middlebury's in Vermont, I forget where. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: in Vermont. It's a small liberal arts college. It's very
Speaker 1: similar to where I went to school, Amherst College. Amherst
Speaker 1: is obviously better. But yeah, that's right, Middlebury alumni take it.
Speaker 1: But here's what happened. Back in twenty seventeen. There was
Speaker 1: a speech by Charles Murray, who is very anti Trump
Speaker 1: and is somebody who is a real academic with street
Speaker 1: cred for a whole bunch of different public to a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of different books he's published, but he is
Speaker 1: the author of The Bell Curve, which drove liberals completely
Speaker 1: insane because it walks you through the data on IQ
Speaker 1: and there is one chapter, because I've actually read the book,
Speaker 1: there's one chapter that deals with the distribution in the
Speaker 1: aggregate of IQ across different races. And that forever has
Speaker 1: made Charles Murray someone that the left loves to hate,
Speaker 1: even though he's a very I've had him on this
Speaker 1: show before. He's a very reasonable and intelligent fellow and
Speaker 1: is not in any way racist. I believe he's actually
Speaker 1: married to an Asian woman. He's not racist, and that's
Speaker 1: all just a smear. But he went to speak at
Speaker 1: Middlebury back in twenty seventeen. We talked about this a
Speaker 1: fair amount here in the Freedom Hunt. And not only
Speaker 1: did they try to shut down the left try to
Speaker 1: shut down his speech with you know, the zoo noises
Speaker 1: and the horns and all the usual tactics of the
Speaker 1: Heckler's veto, but they even injured a female professor named
Speaker 1: Alison Stanger. I mean they actually hurt her as she
Speaker 1: was trying to escort him out of the building. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was like a mob, and there was there was violence,
Speaker 1: They assaulted people, They assaulted an invited guest at Middlebury,
Speaker 1: and nobody was expelled. I if I were in charge
Speaker 1: in that school, I would want to list of names
Speaker 1: of every person that made physical contact or threatened physical
Speaker 1: contact with an invited speaker, and I would say, pack
Speaker 1: your crap, you are gone. This is a private universe,
Speaker 1: private college. You have no right to be here. You're out.
Speaker 1: But they don't do that anymore. They don't enforce consequences
Speaker 1: against leftist insanity on these campuses because they invite leftist insanity.
Speaker 1: In many ways, they teach leftist insanity. Well, there's another
Speaker 1: Middlebury speech case came up here, and this involves Rizard Legutco,
Speaker 1: who is a Polish member of the European Parliament. It's
Speaker 1: quite a Rizard. That's a cool name. So this guy's
Speaker 1: a member of the European Parliament. You think that he
Speaker 1: should be an individual that people on a college campus
Speaker 1: up in Vermont would want to hear from. Oh, but
Speaker 1: what's the problem. He is critical of multiculturalism and gay marriage.
Speaker 1: Oh no, that's not You're not allowed to think that anymore,
Speaker 1: the left says. I remember, it's not even clear if
Speaker 1: you opposes these things. He just has criticisms of them.
Speaker 1: And the students signed a petition that claimed that he
Speaker 1: built his career off of homophobic, xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic discourse.
Speaker 1: And they called for the political science department at Middlebury
Speaker 1: College to get rid of his sponsored speech. And they said,
Speaker 1: they're going to demonstrate, of course, you know whose streets
Speaker 1: are streets beata mails, unite against speech. And in this
Speaker 1: case though, there was a kind of underground free speech
Speaker 1: movement that popped up on campus. So Risguard from Poland
Speaker 1: was told that he should show up, and there were
Speaker 1: there was one professor, And this is after they sent
Speaker 1: out the usual because of security and safety risks, we're
Speaker 1: going to cancel the event. So they're just caving to
Speaker 1: the mob, caving to the Heckler's veto. I mean, Middlebury
Speaker 1: should be ashamed of itself, ashamed of itself for this.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless they like a lot of these schools. And
Speaker 1: I think, you know, I used to get invited to
Speaker 1: go speak at my alma mater when I worked with
Speaker 1: the CIA, and I could say very little. Now I
Speaker 1: have a ton to say and a lot to share
Speaker 1: with those kids. They have no they have never invited
Speaker 1: me back, no interest in having me back to campus whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It's my own school school that you know, cost my
Speaker 1: family a fortune to send me to. Won't even invite
Speaker 1: me back to speak, no interest. They are a bunch
Speaker 1: of punks. But this professor, Matthew Dickinson, credit to him
Speaker 1: for believing in free speech and free discourse. He said
Speaker 1: that he would bring mister Legutko, this Polish member of
Speaker 1: the European Parliament, on campus and allow him to give
Speaker 1: his lecture in the professor's political science class as long
Speaker 1: as they all voted yes in a secret ballot. Well
Speaker 1: to the credit of the students, the nine students in
Speaker 1: this class. This is with a big selling point for
Speaker 1: liberal arts colleges, as the classes they are very small.
Speaker 1: All nine of these students voted yes. Okay, So then
Speaker 1: other students kind of heard about this were a mouth
Speaker 1: and a full forty five students asked to be able
Speaker 1: to come and in this political science class here from
Speaker 1: this professor. So he I'm sorry, here from this member
Speaker 1: of the European Parliament because this professor invited him, and
Speaker 1: Professor Dickinson had the failing to say, I've never been
Speaker 1: more proud in my thirty years of teaching than to
Speaker 1: watch these students engage with the speaker, push back on him,
Speaker 1: engage with him. It was a marvelous example of how
Speaker 1: free speech facilitates learning. Professor Dickinson went on, during the
Speaker 1: days of communist totalitarianism, scholars from the West traveled to
Speaker 1: Eastern Bloc nations to give underground lectures and seminars. On Wednesday,
Speaker 1: mister Lagutko returned the favor. Isn't that fascinating that now
Speaker 1: we've reached a point after the fall of the Iron Curtain,
Speaker 1: the destruction of the Berlin Wall, now we are in
Speaker 1: a circumstance where it is, in fact, former Soviets or
Speaker 1: former Soviet states that are sending people to speak in
Speaker 1: underground lectures on our own campuses and our own universities,
Speaker 1: because that's how hostile the campus has become. That's how
Speaker 1: hostile colleges have become too. Free speech. So this was
Speaker 1: a victory in a sense for free speech at Middlebury,
Speaker 1: although a small one, and it certainly is an example
Speaker 1: of exactly what I talked to you about on the show,
Speaker 1: which is that these students they're being robbed of the
Speaker 1: education they're paying so much for it is they are
Speaker 1: stealing it from themselves, and the administrators that are allowing
Speaker 1: it are aiding and abetting that theft college is supposed
Speaker 1: to be about learning. Learning is the exchange of ideas,
Speaker 1: including idea is you may not necessarily agree with or like.
Speaker 1: Anyone who disagrees with that is an opponent of free thought,
Speaker 1: free expression, and education itself. College campuses have become an
Speaker 1: embarrassment in this regard. But perhaps these underground conservative movements,
Speaker 1: some of them are above ground two will gather more
Speaker 1: steam and we will see an end to the just
Speaker 1: psychotic censorship of the left on campuses and universities. Indefensible,
Speaker 1: indefensible in the way that they try to shut down
Speaker 1: ideas that they do not like. These people are petty totalitarians.
Speaker 1: They would be at home in the former Soviet bloc.
Speaker 1: And it's amazing that this is happening here today in
Speaker 1: America in twenty nineteen. All right, team, just remember what
Speaker 1: old Jack Burton does when the earthquakes and the poisoned
Speaker 1: arrows fall from the sky and the pillars of heaven shake. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Jack Burton just looks that big old storm right square
Speaker 1: in the eye, and he says, give me your best shot, Pal,
Speaker 1: I can take it all right. Team facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slashbuck Sexton that is where you go for all of
Speaker 1: the wonderful team Buck action that happens at least on
Speaker 1: the Facebook. And Yeah, we got a big boy email
Speaker 1: that we're working on. It's only been a few years
Speaker 1: in the making to get an email address set up.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, my tech skills need some work.
Speaker 1: Peter is the first up in this piece. Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I was a Cruise and McMuffin voter in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: and podcast listener since the Blaze. Can I get a
Speaker 1: do over on the latter vote? I could tell you.
Speaker 1: Peter McMuffin aka Evan McMullen is someone who really reminds
Speaker 1: me a bit of James Komy, where Koby is so
Speaker 1: sanctimonious you think that he must be kidding, but then
Speaker 1: you find out, oh no, wait, he's not kidding. He
Speaker 1: is actually that lame. That strikes me as a pretty
Speaker 1: good explanation of both McMuffin and Comy. You assume you
Speaker 1: want to give them a benefit of the doubt, that
Speaker 1: they can't really be such such huge tools, But but
Speaker 1: then you find out. Oh no, no, they are in
Speaker 1: fact tools to that degree, and it is both surprising
Speaker 1: and a little off putting. So there you have that.
Speaker 1: Now let's see we get here. Next up we have
Speaker 1: my man Harry. Oh by the way, yes you do
Speaker 1: get a do over, Peter. I'll give you a du over, Harry,
Speaker 1: writes Buck concerning reparations. In addition to all the reasons
Speaker 1: you have already brilliantly argued, there's one more to consider.
Speaker 1: The US Constitution, Article three, Section three, paragraph two, concerning
Speaker 1: trees in states the Congress shall have power to declare
Speaker 1: the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall
Speaker 1: work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life
Speaker 1: of the person attainted. Corruption of blood, et cetera means
Speaker 1: descendants of a trader shall not be held responsible or
Speaker 1: punished for the trader's deeds. While specific only to the
Speaker 1: crime of trees in the implication is that no guilt
Speaker 1: of crime shall be visited upon the heirs of an offender.
Speaker 1: One reason we do not imprison children of murders and
Speaker 1: rapists for crimes of their parents. Slavery reparation certainly feels
Speaker 1: like punishment through taxation for past sins. So reparation of
Speaker 1: any kind other than the immediate victim by the immediate perpetrator,
Speaker 1: neither of which exists today in this case, is thoroughly unconstitutional. Also,
Speaker 1: the definition of reparation includes making amends to someone who
Speaker 1: has been wronged. No one alive has been wronged directly
Speaker 1: by slavery. I'm thinking it may be appropriate to send
Speaker 1: most of Congress, especially the Democrat members, to a reading
Speaker 1: comprehension remedial class before having them read the US Constitution,
Speaker 1: probably for the first time in many cases. Shields High Harry,
Speaker 1: who let me just tell you all can't see this,
Speaker 1: but Harry has a world class beard. I've got a
Speaker 1: little NATO baby beard, Afghanic baby beard. Harry's got a
Speaker 1: big beard raw. Harry's beard's legit. And Harry's analysis here
Speaker 1: is astute. He gets down into the immoral foundations of
Speaker 1: a reparations movement, essentially holding people culpable and taking of
Speaker 1: their property, which is really another way of suggesting that
Speaker 1: you are taking of their time. And there's this is
Speaker 1: why people don't like when the state just takes their stuff,
Speaker 1: because usually you've had to do things to get that stuff.
Speaker 1: And if the state and a lot of times things
Speaker 1: you didn't want to do. So, if the state is
Speaker 1: able to just seize your stuff, I believe in the
Speaker 1: Declaration of Independence, it's referred or is it in gosh?
Speaker 1: Is it common sense or is it the declaration? I
Speaker 1: think it's the declaration Eat out our substance. That's always
Speaker 1: one that sticks out in my mind. So with that,
Speaker 1: I will move on to the next one here. But no, Harry,
Speaker 1: you're right. You cannot hold people responsible for actions that
Speaker 1: they had no ability to effect one way or the other,
Speaker 1: and to do so is to eliminate the foundation of
Speaker 1: moral judgment altogether. Cindy rights a. According to Ben Shapiro,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren's planned to forgive nearly all college debt is
Speaker 1: actually a violation of the Constitution. Is a violation of
Speaker 1: the takings clause because the government cannot declare all private
Speaker 1: debt to be null and void. That would be taking
Speaker 1: something of value from you without just compensation. Just think
Speaker 1: you should know this free stuff. And I love the
Speaker 1: new Facebook pick, Cindy. Well, thank you Cindy for liking
Speaker 1: the new Facebook pick. I think that Ben is likely
Speaker 1: correct here on the legality of it, But I don't
Speaker 1: think he would disagree with this. That would not prevent
Speaker 1: the Democrats from doing it anyway. The Constitution is increasingly
Speaker 1: flimsy defense of our rights and an insufficient bulwark against
Speaker 1: government overreach. So even and that doesn't mean we shouldn't
Speaker 1: continue to make the argument, I'm just saying they would
Speaker 1: claim that they would find some justification under you know,
Speaker 1: they'd say, well, if we can have welfare, which is
Speaker 1: just money taken from some people through taxation or redistributed
Speaker 1: to others, that they would find a mechanism, Cindy to
Speaker 1: make this legal one way or another. If people are
Speaker 1: on board, If Democrats and then Left get their way
Speaker 1: with this debt forgiveness, they would make it some kind
Speaker 1: of you know, they could make it a program where
Speaker 1: if you submit that you have a certain debt and
Speaker 1: the federal government gives you, you know, ten thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year until it's paid off, or actually the federal
Speaker 1: government has something like that for federal government employees already,
Speaker 1: where they pay off some portion of your loans. But
Speaker 1: that's in response to work that you do. And that
Speaker 1: is an incentive and an explicit incentive for federal government workers.
Speaker 1: Michael Rights saw that clip where Joe Disjanova took your
Speaker 1: co anchor to the woodshed. Well, Michael, you saw it,
Speaker 1: and a lot of other people saw it. That clip
Speaker 1: went viral, and I think a lot of you heard
Speaker 1: it on the show last week. Some of you have
Speaker 1: some have asked me what I think about this and
Speaker 1: what my thoughts were in the situation, and I just
Speaker 1: say that Crystal is my co host and I have
Speaker 1: nothing but respect and fondness for her, and beyond that,
Speaker 1: I plead the fifth on the exchange. So I was
Speaker 1: not a part of the exchange. I watched the exchange.
Speaker 1: You can all see the exchange, and there you have it.
Speaker 1: But thanks Michael for writing in good to hear from you.
Speaker 1: I haven't gotten any snarky criticism from Michael in a while,
Speaker 1: which must be in the show is basically going okay,
Speaker 1: which is good to know. Eric. Right, So I listened
Speaker 1: to your show on the buck Sex in twenty four
Speaker 1: seventh stream on the iHeart app. Yeah yeah, all right, Eric, awesome.
Speaker 1: Oh now there's some bad stuff though I know I
Speaker 1: Heeart controls this, but the news stories that played during
Speaker 1: the radio stop sets really stink. Last night, the person
Speaker 1: reading the news for USA Radio called Anka, Siri, Lanka, No,
Speaker 1: come on. Also, the NBC news entertainment segments probably do
Speaker 1: not appeal to most of the people listen to conservative radio.
Speaker 1: I know it's out of your control, just thought you
Speaker 1: should know. Thanks and shields high. Eric. I appreciate the
Speaker 1: heads up. It is out of my control, so all
Speaker 1: I can say is just please focus on the parts
Speaker 1: where I'm doing my show and let's not worry about
Speaker 1: the the rest of it. Jeff Right, Hey, Buck Funny.
Speaker 1: You had on The Primal Rage Guy yesterday. You had
Speaker 1: mentioned the movie a couple of times, so being a
Speaker 1: Bigfoot fan, I had to watch this. Bigfoot was a
Speaker 1: combination of Skinwalker, Predator, Evil Ninja, Predator Too, and Deliverance.
Speaker 1: Not quite as good as The Notebook A Notebook, but
Speaker 1: worth watching on a rainy weekend, you know, Jeff, I agree.
Speaker 1: It's a like it's just you know what you're getting
Speaker 1: with it. It's like going in and getting yourself. You know,
Speaker 1: some General So's chicken, you know General So's chicken, all
Speaker 1: pretty much taste the same. It is terrible for you,
Speaker 1: but it gets the job done, and it's delicious. And
Speaker 1: for those of you who are already asking, yes, they
Speaker 1: do make gluten free General Show's chicken, It's actually not
Speaker 1: that hard to make. That's what I would say about
Speaker 1: that movie. That was a fascinating story though, that Marshall
Speaker 1: told about his fellow actor in that movie that you know,
Speaker 1: lost his leg and then came back and finished the
Speaker 1: movie with a prosthetic leg. That was amazing. And I
Speaker 1: did not and as somebody who watched the movie and
Speaker 1: paid attention, I did not notice that or notice any difference.
Speaker 1: And that guy was very a very physical role in
Speaker 1: that movie too. He was running around trying to escape
Speaker 1: the Bigfoot. The Bigfoot is a very mean bigfoot. You
Speaker 1: know what I will say, though, because I watched Big
Speaker 1: Trouble in Little China recently, which is why some of
Speaker 1: you have picked up on the Jack Burton quotes. In fact,
Speaker 1: I think all of you have. Maybe some of you
Speaker 1: are ignoring them because I like that movie too much
Speaker 1: for what it was. But the monster that kidnaps the
Speaker 1: woman who plays Kim Cattrall, who plays the I don't
Speaker 1: know how to describe it. She's in Sex in the
Speaker 1: City as the one of the main characters Kim Cattrall
Speaker 1: is in big trouble Little China. She is at one
Speaker 1: point kidnap thrown over the shoulder of a very unsightly monster.
Speaker 1: And that unsightly monster looks a bit like the big
Speaker 1: Foot in the Primal Rage movie. So I think I've
Speaker 1: driven up some Primal Rage viewership. And I told them
Speaker 1: that that Marshall, and I'm sure hopefully he's listening to
Speaker 1: He's team Buck. I already set him a message saying
Speaker 1: that they should do a follow up, but they should
Speaker 1: do the Abominable Snowman or the Yetti. You know something
Speaker 1: in Russia that could go really well. And I see,
Speaker 1: here's my little screenplay idea. You take the legend of
Speaker 1: the Abominable Snowman and maybe you tie it in and
Speaker 1: people say it's been around a long time. Yeah know,
Speaker 1: I know that, But maybe you tie it into some
Speaker 1: kind of Soviet nuclear reactor meltdown. So then it's like
Speaker 1: the Hills have Eyes in Siberia with a big foot
Speaker 1: stalking a bunch of guys who are like, just won't
Speaker 1: douluting vodka, and all the monster is eating my face.
Speaker 1: You know that. I think you got a winner. I
Speaker 1: think you got a winner, because that bleak Russian landscape
Speaker 1: would also lend itself very well to horror movies like
Speaker 1: The Thing with also Kurt Russell, which takes place in
Speaker 1: Antarctica and is a very watchable movie. For what it is.
Speaker 1: It's bleak, it's scary, and I think I think that
Speaker 1: The Thing is a good movie. So put that in
Speaker 1: your pipe and smoke it. My Man, Richard one of
Speaker 1: my favorite hoosiers in the whole wide world. I totally
Speaker 1: agree with your views on architecture today. As an artist,
Speaker 1: I'm always attracted to the stained glass and old churches
Speaker 1: with the big, beautiful organs. I don't understand when the
Speaker 1: modern church isn't building one hundred and fifty story stained
Speaker 1: glass cathedrals. The religious buildings used to be the tallest
Speaker 1: in a city. I don't see why that can't happen again.
Speaker 1: Imagine the Bible being told and staying glass on every
Speaker 1: story all the way up to the sky cathedral, maybe
Speaker 1: with a giant open air column the middle with some
Speaker 1: stone gargoyle thrown in for good measure. In Raleigh, they
Speaker 1: recently built a new Catholic cathedral and I was excited
Speaker 1: then when it was shaping up. It was the same
Speaker 1: standard building, only it's made of stone. No gargoyles, no
Speaker 1: stone carvings. It's just lame. It's drywalled. How is that
Speaker 1: going to age? Richard? You ask a good question. I
Speaker 1: think the problem is the architecture software that is used
Speaker 1: today is not artist friendly. Interesting, that's why everything is
Speaker 1: a box and boring. Used to be, you were drawing
Speaker 1: on paper and you wanted to throw in a decorative element,
Speaker 1: no problem. That's why the Budweiser warehouses have cool decorative elements.
Speaker 1: Or look at old schools or other old warehouses you'll
Speaker 1: see the same thing. Heck, most mundane things like bridges
Speaker 1: had a bit of art thrown in. Now it takes
Speaker 1: hours to add an artist element in auto autocat or revet.
Speaker 1: People are not going to pay for that if it
Speaker 1: takes so long. If you want a nice rendering, you
Speaker 1: have to export it to unreal engine or Maya or Max. Wow,
Speaker 1: Richard really is an architect. Notre Dame and Saint Peter's
Speaker 1: were built by artists. Modern day software is being is
Speaker 1: built by engineers that look down on artists with disdain.
Speaker 1: Sure I can tell you how many nails and bricks
Speaker 1: you need, but one needs more than this to nurture
Speaker 1: the soul. I'm just glad the guys who built Notre
Speaker 1: Dame's ribs vault over so that sorry that built Notre
Speaker 1: Dame rib vaults over built them, so not all was lost. There.
Speaker 1: We go keep up the awesome brother Shields high Richard.
Speaker 1: Look at you with all the knowledge on the architectural stuff.
Speaker 1: Very very cool team. We'll come back to a quick
Speaker 1: role call to finish out the show and stay with me.
Speaker 1: Welcome back Tom. In the break there, I was just
Speaker 1: talking to DJ Brandon about I said, Brandon, do horror
Speaker 1: movies get more messed up than the Hills have Eyes?
Speaker 1: Because for me, that's like the that is the citizen
Speaker 1: Kane of incredibly violent and disturbing horror movies. He ran
Speaker 1: me through some of the horror movie cannon that he
Speaker 1: has seen, and wow, I'm JV level for horror movies
Speaker 1: for sure. I might even be freshman team, you know
Speaker 1: when they have to break it out into three teams, Varsity, JV,
Speaker 1: and then freshman. So I'm just gonna keep it. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna keep it there. I'm still I still lose
Speaker 1: sleep because of the Witch I thought that movie was
Speaker 1: scared the scared the bejez out of me. Yeah, dude,
Speaker 1: it's scary movie. It's scary. It's kind of Exorcist like,
Speaker 1: and that stuff really as a Catholic man, that stuff
Speaker 1: gets in your head all right. On the happier things.
Speaker 1: Stephen rights buck on the subject of beautiful churches. A
Speaker 1: beautiful church is great, but what's more important is that
Speaker 1: the Word of God has taught in its entire truth
Speaker 1: and purity. By the way, I'm a conservative confessional Lutheran, Stephen.
Speaker 1: I do not in any way disagree with you. I
Speaker 1: just like beautiful churches. So there you go. I think
Speaker 1: that a beautiful church does serve a purpose that is
Speaker 1: aspirational and and you know, there's a reason for beauty
Speaker 1: in the Catholic Church, for the music, for the the structures.
Speaker 1: But obviously in the earliest days of the church they
Speaker 1: were having, you know, meetings underground in ancient Rome and
Speaker 1: all that stuff van right buckets. Okay, if you don't
Speaker 1: like the fashion, archetec etc. Of the seventies, I didn't either,
Speaker 1: But don't you dare equate all the music from that
Speaker 1: era to the abomination known as disco disco was but
Speaker 1: a short lived boil on the butt of an otherwise
Speaker 1: stellar decade of musical exploration and composition. There is reason
Speaker 1: for the still popular phrase disco sucks. Don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: You're still the man when it comes to serving up
Speaker 1: the truth and fighting the good fight for conservatives. I
Speaker 1: just had to have my music, will say shields High. Yeah, Van,
Speaker 1: I think that's fair. I think that's fair. I know
Speaker 1: that if we look back in the seventies, right, that
Speaker 1: would be Zeppelin is seventies? Is Hendrix is more sixties? Right?
Speaker 1: Or is it more seventies? See I the sixties, seventies, sixties? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So I mean when we think what are the great
Speaker 1: bands of the seventies, are the Rolling Stones? Sure? And
Speaker 1: Zeppelin and Zeppelin? Right? Yeah. Look, I'm just gonna say it,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna get a lot of boomer hate for this.
Speaker 1: And that's okay Boomers, because I love you all. My
Speaker 1: parents are boomers, most wonderful people on the planet. But
Speaker 1: just kind of say, man, you guys, you guys have
Speaker 1: a little too much nostalgia for your boomer for your
Speaker 1: boomer music. I know it's it's people in the office
Speaker 1: today we're talking about how great what's that song Benny
Speaker 1: and the Jets? Who does that thing? Whatever? Elton johnes
Speaker 1: that song is a headache. I'm sorry, takes forever. It's
Speaker 1: just not that I know some of you are actual.
Speaker 1: I'm glad at the end of the show because some
Speaker 1: of you are unfortunately switching me off. Now. As long
Speaker 1: as you come back tomorrow, then it's okay. We're all
Speaker 1: still friends, all right, see. And that's gonna be it today.
Speaker 1: Ending on a high note, Buck, That's gonna be it today.
Speaker 1: Speaking of friends, please do tell your friends about the show.
Speaker 1: Anyone who wants to can always listen on the iHeart app.
Speaker 1: There's a Buck Sexton channel there. You can also listen
Speaker 1: to the podcast of the show on iTunes, a great
Speaker 1: way to listen on to men whenever you like, however
Speaker 1: you like, So please do spread the word about that.
Speaker 1: I'm here every day this week right now. I think
Speaker 1: next week on Monday, I'm gonna have to be out
Speaker 1: doing a little travel, and I believe we're gonna get
Speaker 1: my main men, Rahim Kassam at the Helm. He's gonna
Speaker 1: have some very interesting stuff to tell you. Rahim always
Speaker 1: does a great job, a great job hosting the show.
Speaker 1: I mean, we do have a fantastic guest host lineup here,
Speaker 1: so there is that. But so that's coming up for Monday.
Speaker 1: Have a great rest of your Tuesday. Everybody talk to
Speaker 1: you tomorrow. She'll tie even on the show. This week,
Speaker 1: we've had to talk about more conservatives on campus getting attacked,
Speaker 1: harassed band. It's crazy out there, folks, and the campus
Speaker 1: wars for free speech today turn into the politics of tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We have to fight back. The Leadership Institute is the
Speaker 1: place that can help you take the fight to the
Speaker 1: other side. The Leadership instit shoot is the premier organization
Speaker 1: for educating and training conservative college students. Do you want
Speaker 1: an organization that can stand up to all the Soros
Speaker 1: funded left wing radicals on campus? Do you want an
Speaker 1: organization that's not going to bow down to the dictates
Speaker 1: of the radical progressives. That's the Leadership Institute, my friends,
Speaker 1: visit take back the Campus dot org to make your
Speaker 1: urgent gift to the Leadership Institute today again take back
Speaker 1: the campus dot org for a gift that as little
Speaker 1: as five dollars a month, you can help in the
Speaker 1: fight for conservative ideas and conservative students on campus. Again,
Speaker 1: take back the campus dot org. Please donate today