Speaker 1: You're in the freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Get more from Buck by following him on
Speaker 1: social media at buck Sexton on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Oh here we are.
Speaker 1: What has it been about a month and change since
Speaker 1: the election? We'll call it about six weeks something like that.
Speaker 1: Five weeks since the election, and we find out that
Speaker 1: something that came up in the days before the election
Speaker 1: that we were not allowed to say, that was being
Speaker 1: intentionally suppressed by social media, was in fact true. Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden is officially, by his own admission, under investigation by
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors who are looking at his foreign ties and
Speaker 1: possible money laundering. And where do we think some of
Speaker 1: those foreign ties may be? China? That's right, starting to
Speaker 1: see the Democrat Party was doing a whole smokescreen operation
Speaker 1: for four years. Yes, they were attacking Trump on Russia,
Speaker 1: but their Russia fixation seemed to also serve the very
Speaker 1: useful additional purpose of preventing people from paying more attention
Speaker 1: to very high level Democrat connections to our true national
Speaker 1: security threat, our true economic challenger, the People's Republic of China.
Speaker 1: And here is political with the peace the federal investigation
Speaker 1: into President elect Hunter Joe Biden, Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: has been more extensive than a statement from Hunter Biden indicates.
Speaker 1: According to a person with first hand knowledge of the investigation,
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, Hunter Biden said he had been contacted about
Speaker 1: a tax investigation of the US Attorney's office in Delaware.
Speaker 1: In addition to Delaware, the securities fraud unit in the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York also scrutinized Hunter Biden's finances,
Speaker 1: According to the person with direct knowledge of the investigation,
Speaker 1: The person said that as of early last year, investigators
Speaker 1: in Delaware and Washington were also probing potential money laundering
Speaker 1: and Hunter Biden's foreign ties. The person spoke on the
Speaker 1: condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss YadA, YadA, okay.
Speaker 1: In addition to the probe to Hunter Biden, federal authorities
Speaker 1: in the Western District of Pennsylvania are conducting a criminal
Speaker 1: investigation of a hospital business in which Joe Biden's brother,
Speaker 1: James was involved. Federal officials have asked about James Biden's
Speaker 1: role in the business. According to a second d blah
Speaker 1: blah okay, there is no indication Joe Biden himself is
Speaker 1: under investigation, but this could complicate his presidency and shine
Speaker 1: an unflattering light on his relatives dealings. You don't say
Speaker 1: this is the best the Democrats could do. Really, here
Speaker 1: we are, and this is not a Russia collusion fairy tale.
Speaker 1: This is not something that was cooked up by a
Speaker 1: bunch of lib unethical journals at the New York Times
Speaker 1: or James Comey and some other smug weirdos at the DOJ.
Speaker 1: This is real here, we are, just a little just
Speaker 1: a month or so past the election. Still have challenges
Speaker 1: in the courts, I know, but the election day has
Speaker 1: come and gone, and now they're like, yeah, it turns
Speaker 1: out Hunter Biden is under serious criminal scrutiny right now.
Speaker 1: I thought Joe Biden was going to restore honor and
Speaker 1: dignity to the White House. That's what they told us.
Speaker 1: I thought that Joe Biden was a totally straight shooter.
Speaker 1: I thought that Joe Biden was somebody that he didn't
Speaker 1: have to worry about. Good old Scranton Joe, blue collar
Speaker 1: Joe who's been living in multimillion dollar houses despite being
Speaker 1: a public servant his entire adult life pretty much. He's
Speaker 1: been living in multimillion dollar houses for the last forty years.
Speaker 1: But you know, blue collar Joe, Sure, sure he is.
Speaker 1: Now this is where there's so much that I want
Speaker 1: to jump into here. Let's start with this. The media
Speaker 1: actively lied to the American people right before the election.
Speaker 1: We need to understand that the Democrat aligned mainstream media
Speaker 1: ninety five percent of Democrats supporting and voting, and the
Speaker 1: independent journalists or they're registered independence, but they're all Democrats.
Speaker 1: That's just a game they play. They did more than
Speaker 1: just support their guy. They lied about information of the
Speaker 1: public interests in the public interest in order to make
Speaker 1: sure that there would be an outcome that they desired.
Speaker 1: That was what it was. And the social media companies
Speaker 1: now work hand in glove with the mainstream medias. You know,
Speaker 1: they're essentially just an extension of it. Although really they're
Speaker 1: more powerful than the mainstream media Google, Facebook, Twitter. They
Speaker 1: can kill any media outlet they want to. They can
Speaker 1: throttle you, shut you down, cut off your funds, cut
Speaker 1: off your reach. You're done. What are you gonna do?
Speaker 1: You're gonna go to ask Jeeves dot com good luck?
Speaker 1: So what do we make of this? The people who
Speaker 1: were lecturing us for four years about the need to
Speaker 1: protect our sacred democracy, The people who have been claiming
Speaker 1: that the big threat to our future was Donald Trump lying.
Speaker 1: He lies. That's what they always said. They all lied
Speaker 1: to you. They were all either actively engaged in or
Speaker 1: complicit in this lie, which I gotta be honest with you.
Speaker 1: I've told you all along. I don't think that this
Speaker 1: was necessarily going to be the end for the Biden campaign.
Speaker 1: But then again, we didn't really know whether there was
Speaker 1: money laundering tied to all of this. It's one thing
Speaker 1: to say Hunter Biden is involved in sleazy dealings. It's
Speaker 1: another thing to say he could be a felon involved
Speaker 1: in hiding money that's getting paid to him by agents
Speaker 1: of the People's Republic of China. That's a bit more.
Speaker 1: That's an escalation, right, Getting getting paid a little bit
Speaker 1: on the side is one thing. Being a convicted felon
Speaker 1: would be another. The media lie, do you? They actively
Speaker 1: work to suppress the truth because they think they know
Speaker 1: better than you about who should be president of the
Speaker 1: United States. The media lied, do you? All? Right? So
Speaker 1: we start with that. It's so funny too. Now they're like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: underreported story they're saying, or you know, didn't get that
Speaker 1: much attention. These are the news outlets saying it. I
Speaker 1: remember when it was oh, this is all a lie.
Speaker 1: Think about the Hunter Biden story, the progression. At first
Speaker 1: it was fake news, they said at first there was
Speaker 1: no Hunter Biden laptop. Then it was the laptop was
Speaker 1: stolen and so therefore the information on it was inadmissible
Speaker 1: or something in a journalistic sense. Then it was oh,
Speaker 1: it was hacked, which all these things were not true.
Speaker 1: And then it was oh, there's really nothing there, there's
Speaker 1: nothing on the laptop, nothing to see here. And now
Speaker 1: it's oh, yeah, it turns out the laptop was real.
Speaker 1: It wasn't stolen, it wasn't hacked. It was one hundred
Speaker 1: percent true, and there is a federal money laundering investigation
Speaker 1: into what the who the media is calling the president
Speaker 1: elect's son. He's not the president elect until the electoral
Speaker 1: College meets. That is that is actually the process. They
Speaker 1: can say this all day, but it does not actually
Speaker 1: change the truth. Right. This would be like saying, well,
Speaker 1: we don't actually have to say that there's this guy's
Speaker 1: an alleged murderer. We'll just say he's a murderer in
Speaker 1: the press because you know that alleged thing. Let's skip
Speaker 1: past the jury trial. No, I say, no, I say,
Speaker 1: we we have these rules for a reason, and if
Speaker 1: you're going to ask us, ask us to respect some
Speaker 1: parts of the process, you can't then count others. But
Speaker 1: of course that's what them. He does all the time.
Speaker 1: Show us your principles, they say to conservatives when it's
Speaker 1: in the interests of the left, and the Democrats when
Speaker 1: it advantages them to pretend that they also have principles,
Speaker 1: and then we see them abandon any principle at the
Speaker 1: moment they think that that is helpful. We're not supposed
Speaker 1: to notice this. Oh what are they going to say? Now?
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden is not a problem for Joe Biden. Remember
Speaker 1: it wasn't just that Hunter Biden was doing this. Wasn't
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden got caught, you know, selling weed at a
Speaker 1: party or something. This guy's a forty something year old man,
Speaker 1: and he was leveraging his dad and including his dad
Speaker 1: in these discussions to get rich. And he's a total
Speaker 1: screw up. This guy. We all know that. Everyone knows that,
Speaker 1: even his dad knows that. So we know that he's
Speaker 1: not some criminal genius or something. It's not like he
Speaker 1: covered his tracks well. So if they look into this
Speaker 1: at all, it's very likely that they'll find out that
Speaker 1: there were some problems here. But do I think they'll
Speaker 1: really look into this. I've already had some friends reaching
Speaker 1: out and asking, do you do you think that a
Speaker 1: Joe bidendj would even begin a serious investigation or allow
Speaker 1: the continuation of a serious investigation of possible money laundering
Speaker 1: of the president's son. The answer is no. And I
Speaker 1: know people don't want to hear that. I know we
Speaker 1: want to think that the system isn't that rotten or
Speaker 1: that corrupt. I'm here to tell you the Democrats have
Speaker 1: made it that rotten and corrupt. That is where we
Speaker 1: are now. Look at Russia collusion. They are promoting people
Speaker 1: in the media and in government from the Obama era
Speaker 1: now who were big Russia collusion hoaxers. If you were
Speaker 1: a Russia collusion PP tape truther, you have benefited from
Speaker 1: that because the whole point of it was the smear,
Speaker 1: the sliming, the attack on Trump. It wasn't about to
Speaker 1: ending our democracy. Nobody really believes that because nobody really
Speaker 1: thought that there was Russia collusion. At least nobody was
Speaker 1: moderately intelligent, but they pretended, Okay, yeah, we can run
Speaker 1: with this, We'll do this story night after night after night.
Speaker 1: The first three years of the Trump presidency were dominated
Speaker 1: by a story in the media that was a lie
Speaker 1: that they pretended to be just, oh, we're serious journalism,
Speaker 1: we're looking into this. Absolutely not true. The whole thing
Speaker 1: was a fraud. The moment you understand that we are
Speaker 1: now in an information environment of warring propaganda machines, you
Speaker 1: start to see everything more clearly. If you are not
Speaker 1: a polemicist these days, you are controlled opposition for the
Speaker 1: other side. That's where we are. You're either fighting against
Speaker 1: this or you're not worth people's time with what you're doing. Right,
Speaker 1: You're either taking a stand against the leftist Democrat media collective,
Speaker 1: or what are you really doing. I'm talking about for
Speaker 1: people in the media, not for everybody, and so this
Speaker 1: is where we find ourselves. This is where we are.
Speaker 1: People ask me what should be done? Now. Do I
Speaker 1: think a Hunter Biden investigation would be allowed to continue
Speaker 1: under Joe Biden? Absolutely not. They'll shut it down. Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton lied under oath as clearly as anyone can lie
Speaker 1: about anything, never even faced a criminal charge, didn't have
Speaker 1: to pardon himself, didn't matter. Does anyone really think that
Speaker 1: it will be different under a Biden administration? After all
Speaker 1: the lectures we got about our sacred democracy from these Democrats,
Speaker 1: you think they're going to change? Absolutely not. So what
Speaker 1: can we do other than point out the lies, other
Speaker 1: than try to shame them? They won't They won't be
Speaker 1: shamed into honor or decency, but they should be shamed anyway.
Speaker 1: And the media is atrocious in this country. It's a disgrace.
Speaker 1: But what else can we do? Appoint a special council?
Speaker 1: President Trump is the president. Attorney General Bill Barr is
Speaker 1: the head of the Department of Justice. This is a
Speaker 1: perfect example of where we need a special counsel because
Speaker 1: this investigation is going to be fraught with political pressure
Speaker 1: and considerations. So we need someone brought in from the
Speaker 1: outside to have full autonomy to investigate Hunter Biden and
Speaker 1: his associates up to and including Joe Biden if and
Speaker 1: when he becomes president of the United States. Why not
Speaker 1: Someone explained to me why we should not do this, Oh,
Speaker 1: because it's mean, because it'll make the Democrats have the SADS.
Speaker 1: It's an even better reason. Look at what they did
Speaker 1: to us. If they get away with this, and they're
Speaker 1: they're on the edge of getting away with it. If
Speaker 1: they do, they will do it again and they will
Speaker 1: have benefited from it. Maybe it's time we start fighting
Speaker 1: fire with fire. A special council on Hunter Biden sounds
Speaker 1: like a great idea to me. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get the latest news and
Speaker 1: information from Buck by heading to Bucksexton dot com. What
Speaker 1: was interesting was how much, how how much we all
Speaker 1: said the same thing. We were a lot of people
Speaker 1: from different countries talking about freedom of the press in
Speaker 1: their country, in Europe and in Asia and in Africa.
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump has had a very very corrosive effect
Speaker 1: on the freedom of the press. I used to stay
Speaker 1: in the beginning in twenty seventeen that this was just rhetoric,
Speaker 1: but the fact is that he's called us the enemy
Speaker 1: of the people, and the term fake news has been
Speaker 1: repeated by fifty presidents, prime ministers and other national leaders
Speaker 1: around the world, and it's it's become a calling card
Speaker 1: or authoritarians. And so I do think there's been a
Speaker 1: very prosive effect. But I would like to say that
Speaker 1: I think that at least in this country, our system
Speaker 1: has the court that the system is held in terms
Speaker 1: of democracy. The press has done its job, The courts,
Speaker 1: that the separation, that the course have done their jobs.
Speaker 1: So I am not as um, you know, negative and
Speaker 1: pessimistic as some of my colleagues internationally. That's what you'll
Speaker 1: hear over at MSNBC. I wanted you to get to
Speaker 1: listen to that drivel because that's a pretty good summation.
Speaker 1: The libs, the journals are lunatics. I mean, they're they're
Speaker 1: completely deranged. They think they've done their job. Oh I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The suppression of speech that is going on that's coming
Speaker 1: from social media is that's something that they talk about.
Speaker 1: Do they fight against that? They have no problem with it.
Speaker 1: They are in cahoots. They are a part of this.
Speaker 1: They are the authoritarians. That is the tragic irony of
Speaker 1: this whole situation. We all see it. Yes, the press did.
Speaker 1: The press did their job by lying to the American
Speaker 1: people about Russia collision for three four years. Now, that's
Speaker 1: their job. They have no credibility, They show no ethics,
Speaker 1: no decency. They never apologize it's just creating this frothy
Speaker 1: mouthed rage machine of anti Trumpism. That's what they did.
Speaker 1: When she says we did our job, you know what
Speaker 1: she's really saying, yeah, because we think Trump lost the election.
Speaker 1: Now that is in the journal's view, their job. Their
Speaker 1: job was not to present the American people with facts.
Speaker 1: You know, they talk about democracy in the media all
Speaker 1: the time, and they talk about free speech. They're enemies
Speaker 1: are free speech and journalism as a profession is actually
Speaker 1: the enemy of the American people right now. It's true
Speaker 1: because they're liars and there's no accountability and what they
Speaker 1: do is disgusting. But when she says that they accomplished
Speaker 1: their mission unfortunately, or they did their job unfortunately from
Speaker 1: the perspective of a leftist, there's some truth to that,
Speaker 1: because here we are still fighting it out over this election,
Speaker 1: still wondering if we're able to get some justice here,
Speaker 1: and the journals are all saying, well, we weren't able
Speaker 1: to do it in twenty sixteen, but we rebounded and
Speaker 1: got it done in twenty twenty. Does anyone really doubt
Speaker 1: that they found their purpose to be destroying Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and stopping him from having four more years they suppressed
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden story. The reason fake news resonates so much,
Speaker 1: and let's remember they were the ones, the elite journals,
Speaker 1: were the ones that popularize the term fake news because
Speaker 1: their whole initial pitch was that Trump voters are so
Speaker 1: dumb they believe all the fake news stories from Russia online.
Speaker 1: And then Trump said, no, you are the fake news
Speaker 1: completely turned it around. Was actually one of the most
Speaker 1: brilliant things he did in his presidency. He took their
Speaker 1: weapon and used it against them, and they hate him
Speaker 1: for it. They absolutely hate him for it. And now
Speaker 1: they want to tell you that what they're going to
Speaker 1: speak truth to power if and when there's this Biden presidency,
Speaker 1: which is going to be just a joke. This guy,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is He's a clown. He I don't care
Speaker 1: if he ends up being president. I don't care. He's
Speaker 1: still be team always will be. Nothing impressive about this guy,
Speaker 1: nothing worthwhile about his leadership or his vision. Just a
Speaker 1: guy who shows up and does what he's got to do.
Speaker 1: Whatever that took, saying whatever he had to say, shilling
Speaker 1: for the credit card companies out of Delaware for a
Speaker 1: long time, and now he's supposed to be some man
Speaker 1: of the people who unites us and brings us all together.
Speaker 1: Just wait until they shut down the Hunter Biden investigation.
Speaker 1: You know what they're gonna say if there's a Biden administration,
Speaker 1: they shut down the Hunter Biden probe. I can assure
Speaker 1: you I already know what the talking point will be.
Speaker 1: But Trump pardon people, and Trump is so bad, and Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, Orange Man bad. That's all they'll say. They
Speaker 1: won't even they won't even be able to connect the
Speaker 1: dots with wow. So Biden's actually really corrupt. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: For more buck head to Bucksexton dot com and remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe to the podcast. Well, firstly, I feel bad
Speaker 1: for the taxpayers in Texas that have to finance this
Speaker 1: ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit. You know, we should note that A. G. Paxton,
Speaker 1: you know, is a member of the Trump campaign very
Speaker 1: involved with that. Also that he is currently under federal
Speaker 1: indictment for securities fraud and also being investigated by the FBI.
Speaker 1: So I see this more than anything as an effort
Speaker 1: to ingratiate himself to a man who could potentially provide
Speaker 1: him with a presidential pardon. Yeah, that's what it is. Always.
Speaker 1: It's always it's always angling for a pardon from Trump,
Speaker 1: isn't it. They're not even to live liars. Aren't even creative,
Speaker 1: are they? They just all repeat each other and think
Speaker 1: we're so smart. They all repeat each other. They think
Speaker 1: that that's clever. You have seventeen Republican attorneys general have
Speaker 1: already backed Trump in this lawsuit out of the state
Speaker 1: of Texas. So here's what it says. This Now, this
Speaker 1: is the New York Times version. Understand, this is supposed
Speaker 1: to be the way they write a news story. This
Speaker 1: is not. This is not the editorial page. But you
Speaker 1: really won't be able to tell the difference. Despite dozens
Speaker 1: of judges and courts rejecting challenges to the election, Republican
Speaker 1: attorneys general in seventeen states on Wednesday backed President Trump
Speaker 1: in his increasingly desperate and audacious legal campaign to reverse
Speaker 1: the results. The show of support and a brief filed
Speaker 1: with a Supreme Court represented the latest attempt by Trump
Speaker 1: loyalists to use the power of public office to come
Speaker 1: to his aid as he continues to deny the reality
Speaker 1: of his loss with baseless claims of voter fraud. The
Speaker 1: move is an effort to bolster a lawsuit follow on
Speaker 1: Tuesday by the pro Trump Attorney general in Texas that
Speaker 1: seeks to delay the certification of the presidential electors in
Speaker 1: four battleground states that President Trump lost. So shall see, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's the that's the way the I mean the New
Speaker 1: York Times, it's just going all in with editorializing as
Speaker 1: a news story. Not a surprise there. Notice that lawsuits
Speaker 1: to Democrats, this is just one of many ways how
Speaker 1: we can establish that they don't have principles. They only
Speaker 1: have desires and wants, and they shift whatever principles they
Speaker 1: have or just scard them in order to achieve those
Speaker 1: desires and wants. Here's what here's what you should remember
Speaker 1: about all this. Democrats celebrated the usage of lawsuits and
Speaker 1: the Federal Bench. Activist judges on the Federal Bench constantly
Speaker 1: ensnaring and tangling up President Trump in every aspect of
Speaker 1: his agenda that they could with bad faith lawsuits and
Speaker 1: legal decisions. Right then, when I say bad faith, you
Speaker 1: can tell, because when the Ninth Circuit keep doing something
Speaker 1: to stop Trump from doing something right, they just can
Speaker 1: you know, what's coming, and then the Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: to step in and say, no, you can't do that. No,
Speaker 1: that's not what the law says about the judges below them,
Speaker 1: the Obama appointees in particular on the Ninth Circuit, that's
Speaker 1: not good faith, that's abusing the process. But they loved
Speaker 1: lawsuits and judges and the law when they were particularly
Speaker 1: when Trump had the House and the Senate. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna say it, not enough done. Not enough done during
Speaker 1: that period, tax cuts pretty much it And guess what's
Speaker 1: gonna happen if there's a Bide administration The taxes go up.
Speaker 1: I know people don't like to hear this, but this
Speaker 1: is the truth. Didn't get enough done, and you can
Speaker 1: there's a whole bunch of reasons why. One of them
Speaker 1: is really bad personnel at the top level of the
Speaker 1: of the new administration in twenty sixteen, horrible, horrible people.
Speaker 1: If anyone who's gonna write me some email now and say,
Speaker 1: oh that's not yeah, really you want to bring back
Speaker 1: Scaramucci and Amarosa and Rex Tillerson in it? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: the crew. I don't think. So. There was a lot
Speaker 1: of time lost in that transition period. And afterwards. Some
Speaker 1: of it was, of course because of the d I
Speaker 1: understand the ambush by the Democrats and the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: truthers and going after General Flynn. But I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you this much, if there's an incoming by administration, they're
Speaker 1: going to try to hit us day one with as
Speaker 1: much left wing crazy stuff as they can get away
Speaker 1: with the executive order already seeing. And this also ties
Speaker 1: into the legal issues I was talking to you about.
Speaker 1: There are hundreds of migrants who are moving in a
Speaker 1: caravan from Honduras toward the US southern border right now.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that is? Why would the caravans
Speaker 1: start up again? What has in the minds of people
Speaker 1: in Central America, for example, and as well as other
Speaker 1: countries all over the world because they don't talk about
Speaker 1: this that much in the news. But it wasn't just
Speaker 1: people from Central America during the border crisis under the
Speaker 1: Trump administration who were showing up. There were people from Pakistan,
Speaker 1: There were people from Haiti, there were people from China,
Speaker 1: people from all over the world showing up the border
Speaker 1: saying I'm fleeing, I'm fleeing oppression. They basically reading some
Speaker 1: key is actually reading an off little piece of paper.
Speaker 1: I'm fleeing oppression. I want I want asylum in your country.
Speaker 1: And who are you fleeing? What oppression do you have
Speaker 1: to I'm fleeing oppression. That's all they know. That's all
Speaker 1: they have to say. Okay, I guess you passed the
Speaker 1: credible screening test. Let's let you into the US. But
Speaker 1: you're gonna show up at your hearing, right, You're gonna
Speaker 1: show up at your credible theory at your first immigration
Speaker 1: hearing to see if you actually get asylum. Oh sure, promise.
Speaker 1: We all know how that worked out. Why would a
Speaker 1: migrant caravan, this was an Associated Press story that I
Speaker 1: saw start making this way to the southern border again
Speaker 1: because they know the first order of business for Democrats
Speaker 1: will be the elimination of the filibuster if they can
Speaker 1: get if they can get the majority. If they don't
Speaker 1: have the majority, and then they'll be all these other
Speaker 1: things that'll happen anyway. If they don't have the majority,
Speaker 1: the first order business will start will be executive orders
Speaker 1: from Joe Biden, and among those executive orders will be immigration,
Speaker 1: the extension of dhaka as a kind of permanent status
Speaker 1: and they then will move toward amnesty. And once they
Speaker 1: get amnesty, what you think the Texas is going to
Speaker 1: stay red if there is amnesty. Think about this, Think
Speaker 1: of all the states, because after amnesty, you know what
Speaker 1: happens the pathway to citizenship, or maybe it's all at once,
Speaker 1: maybe it's all together. Goodbye Republican governance and administrations and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. Those are the stakes right now.
Speaker 1: And people are coming to our southern border because they
Speaker 1: know that under a Biden administration, what they'll do is
Speaker 1: tell the public one thing is happening while the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: while the bureaucracy allows another thing to happen. That's what
Speaker 1: they'll do. And they'll say, oh, they're going to show up.
Speaker 1: I can tell you when I was living in a
Speaker 1: DC working at the Hill dot Com doing that show Rising,
Speaker 1: we had all these debates, all these people showing up,
Speaker 1: and I had been down at the border a few times.
Speaker 1: I've been talking to border patrol and you'd have all
Speaker 1: these Democrat talking heads that would show up and say,
Speaker 1: everyone shows up for their hearings. There is no crisis
Speaker 1: at the border. They're all fleeing oppression. It was just
Speaker 1: a propaganda campaign, lies all lies. There was an exploitation
Speaker 1: of the goodness of the American people underway. We were
Speaker 1: allowing people to come here with one under one set
Speaker 1: of rules, and they were the first thing they were
Speaker 1: doing was breaking those sets of rules. They weren't even
Speaker 1: willing to wait at the points, at points of ports
Speaker 1: of entry. They would cross the border illegally, which is
Speaker 1: it is actually an illegal act. Believe it or not.
Speaker 1: It's like federal trespassing. To step across the US Mexico
Speaker 1: border that itself is a is an illegal act. So
Speaker 1: they would do that so they could get arrested, and
Speaker 1: then they would claim asylum, and then they will would
Speaker 1: hope to get lost in the court system, get a
Speaker 1: delayed hearing, or just not show up for the hearing.
Speaker 1: And if they show up for the hearing and the
Speaker 1: hearing goes against them for a psylam, you know what
Speaker 1: happens next? They have to wait for a deportation hearing.
Speaker 1: How many people do you think show up for the
Speaker 1: asylum hearing get denied, and then how many people show
Speaker 1: up for the deportation hearing again just to see if
Speaker 1: they can actually get there. They've already been in the
Speaker 1: United States for months and months. At that point, maybe
Speaker 1: a couple of years. You think you're gonna show up,
Speaker 1: But the propaganda machinery of the Democrats will kick in
Speaker 1: a high gear in twenty twenty one. If Biden is
Speaker 1: calling the shots again, they're gonna say, oh no, everyone showed.
Speaker 1: They're gonna lie all over again. They want things that
Speaker 1: they believe are justified by the lies. It's not even
Speaker 1: really a lie because the Democrats think it's so important.
Speaker 1: That's their attitude. That is how they approach all of
Speaker 1: these things. So you should you should remember that as
Speaker 1: they seek to give us all lectures about how the
Speaker 1: press did their jobs and Trump was a threat to
Speaker 1: freedom of the press. How is Trump a threat to
Speaker 1: freedom of the press by hurting their feels, by making
Speaker 1: them feel sad? What did he do? He made fun
Speaker 1: of some of them. The most insecure, vain, and often
Speaker 1: sociopathic people I've ever met, and often intellectually worthless, are
Speaker 1: national political journalists. Terrible, terrible people go into this profession,
Speaker 1: lots of them, and they hate it when anyone points out,
Speaker 1: who are you and what are you doing your whole
Speaker 1: day to day? If I'm here to speak truth, to
Speaker 1: powers of fraud. We all know that, right. Do you
Speaker 1: think any of them? Do you think any of the
Speaker 1: New York Times to washing the posts? They're gonna speak
Speaker 1: truth to power and bide administration. And can anyone say
Speaker 1: that with a straight face. It's laughable. No one really
Speaker 1: believes that, but they'll say it. They'll say it anyway,
Speaker 1: And unfortunately, people with minds that are easily molded, the
Speaker 1: easily brainwashed, will say, yeah, that's true. You're in the
Speaker 1: freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get
Speaker 1: more from Buck by following him on social media at
Speaker 1: buck Sexton on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Everyone is so.
Speaker 1: It's when you cannot get people to even when someone
Speaker 1: tells you that they won an election that they lost.
Speaker 1: That's going to a whole another level. And then you
Speaker 1: have people believe you, believing in you because they trusted
Speaker 1: in you and they thought they were doing something that
Speaker 1: was noble by and they thought they were standing up
Speaker 1: for the right thing when they really weren't. They were
Speaker 1: you were leading them astray. And the common enemy is
Speaker 1: not us. It's not the media. I mean, listen, maybe
Speaker 1: it's someone else's not me. It's not you. To the
Speaker 1: best of my ability. I tell you the truth every night,
Speaker 1: and if I screw it up, I apologize and I corrected.
Speaker 1: But these people are being lied to and have been
Speaker 1: lied to for at least the past five years. I
Speaker 1: like the sort of calm and unity based Tony of
Speaker 1: ton Lemon were we the media, We're not the enemy.
Speaker 1: He works for CNN, He's an anchor at CNN, the
Speaker 1: Commy News Network. I mean the way that that place
Speaker 1: transformed itself into an institution of pure anti Trump propaganda
Speaker 1: over the last four years, that they should study. Future
Speaker 1: generations should study this. It's actually remarkable. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: awful and it's wrong, but it's also pretty fascinating. They
Speaker 1: suppressed the Hunter Biden story. We have the tape right
Speaker 1: of from James O'Keefe and and Project Veritas, which you know,
Speaker 1: we always have these tapes that come out. I keep
Speaker 1: telling us, Yeah, CNN superliberally lie to all of us.
Speaker 1: I mean, I understand that it is. Maybe I'm using
Speaker 1: to hear them in the lies, but we're not learning
Speaker 1: anything new with this, just putting that out there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can tell you, as I've said, what they're saying
Speaker 1: on the cneditorial calls. I know what they're saying on
Speaker 1: then editorial calls. Having worked there, I understand the mindset.
Speaker 1: But yeah, they actively suppressed the Hunter Biden story. That's
Speaker 1: what they did. And now they want us to believe
Speaker 1: that they're on our side. They're just they're just there
Speaker 1: for truth, man. Yeah, they're just telling us the truth.
Speaker 1: You know that this is all this is all what
Speaker 1: we should expect, I suppose. And then there's Steve Schmidt.
Speaker 1: I have a question for you. You know, why is
Speaker 1: it that the people who are like all helping Democrats?
Speaker 1: Are they the Democrats now the never trumpers? Or here
Speaker 1: you go, the dumbest political analyst on television at MSNBC,
Speaker 1: Steve Schmidt MSNBC, Steve Schmidt. Here he is Play eight.
Speaker 1: We're in a fight now between an autocratic movement and
Speaker 1: a democratic movement. And the only way to win a
Speaker 1: fight is either through submission or through exhaustion. And here's
Speaker 1: the deal. And this is what I would say to
Speaker 1: the people that Kim described as deluded. They are in
Speaker 1: a party that has let out of the underworld a
Speaker 1: mixture of conspiracy theorists, white nationalist, white supremacist militia groups
Speaker 1: and all of those people are part of their Trump coalition, right,
Speaker 1: they are in the mainstream of the Trump coalition, groups
Speaker 1: like the Lincoln Project. Our review is very simple. There
Speaker 1: is no compromise with these people. They must be driven
Speaker 1: back into the underworld of American politics. They have no
Speaker 1: place at the table, and that any political party that
Speaker 1: wishes to associate with them has to become so toxic
Speaker 1: that they have no chance of winning elections. So basically,
Speaker 1: I'm a Democrat. Well, ninety five percent of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party ninety seven percent the Republican Party might even more
Speaker 1: like ninety nine now that supports Donald Trump. So they
Speaker 1: don't have a voice. They don't have a voice at
Speaker 1: the table. Steve Schmidt does as long as he's taking
Speaker 1: money from left wing billionaires to pretend to be a
Speaker 1: conservative who makes anti Trump ads. These people are ideological
Speaker 1: mercenaries and you're going to see them. They're now going
Speaker 1: to be maneuvering. What is their role here in a
Speaker 1: possible post trump ero What are they going to be
Speaker 1: adding to all these Well, they're Democrats, so I think
Speaker 1: their role should be that they get to go around
Speaker 1: and tell people the truth. Fond it they're actually Democrats.
Speaker 1: Now I think Joe Scarborough does that, or if he doesn't,
Speaker 1: it's laughable he should. These people have switched parties over
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. So when they used to talk about protecting
Speaker 1: unborn babies, for example, that was just all for show.
Speaker 1: They don't really believe that now they're Democrats. When they
Speaker 1: talked about the rule of law and supporting police and
Speaker 1: secure boarders, and I don't mean they've done that recently.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about, you know, go back ten or fifteen
Speaker 1: years with some of these guys when they were you know,
Speaker 1: Romney McCain Republicans. When they would say those things, they
Speaker 1: didn't actually mean it. It didn't matter to them. It
Speaker 1: was just the thing they had to say that was
Speaker 1: of the greatest benefit to them at that moment in time.
Speaker 1: A lot of this, a lot of this going on,
Speaker 1: and just remember we should not we should not allow
Speaker 1: them to pretend that they weren't working for Democrats in
Speaker 1: this last election. They absolutely were. So they've gotten in
Speaker 1: a way, they may have gotten what they want here.
Speaker 1: And I hope that this lawsuit out of Texas will
Speaker 1: get some traction. It's unlikely, folks. We are now at
Speaker 1: December tenth, the Electoral College certification by the States happens
Speaker 1: on Monday, and then we have a few weeks, but
Speaker 1: it'll be over the holidays, there won't be a lot
Speaker 1: going on, and then they'll be the actual Electoral College
Speaker 1: official tally and or rather, I'm sorry, the Congress will
Speaker 1: certify the official tally. And at that point that's all
Speaker 1: she wrote. So we have a few weeks here. There
Speaker 1: could be something and I don't know if you want
Speaker 1: to use the term miracle, but there could be something
Speaker 1: unexpected that comes together here. But what's the downside? I
Speaker 1: keep telling my friends who people who are conservatives who
Speaker 1: view me as as a fighter but reasonable, which I
Speaker 1: think is a nice I'll take that that. I'm I fight,
Speaker 1: but I'm I try to be reasonable. What's the downside
Speaker 1: of fighting? Why not make this as difficult for the
Speaker 1: Democrats as possible? Why not drive them insane? Oppose resist right,
Speaker 1: hashtag resist. Now it's our turn. Now the shoe is
Speaker 1: on the other foot. Now we're the ones they're gonna say,
Speaker 1: slow it all down. Attack with everything we've got, use
Speaker 1: every advantage we have within this system to defeat the people.
Speaker 1: The Democrats, Biden who corrupted so thoroughly our entire political system.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast from more buck Head to buck Sexton dot
Speaker 1: com and remember to subscribe to the podcast. The election
Speaker 1: fight is still under way and it could go all
Speaker 1: the way to the Supreme Court. Our friend Sean Parnell,
Speaker 1: former Army ranger and congressional candidate in Pennsylvania, is at
Speaker 1: the tip of the spear on this one. Sean. Great
Speaker 1: to have you. Hey, it's great to be back as always, Buck,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. So tell me, tell me where
Speaker 1: this stands right now, because people are looking still at
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania and thinking that that may be where the wall
Speaker 1: is breached on this election. What's going on. Well, look,
Speaker 1: we brought a just to provide context for listeners or viewers,
Speaker 1: we brought a lawsuit through the Commonwealth Court, through the
Speaker 1: PA Supreme Court, and ultimately it ended up at the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court that that asserts that Acts seventy seven Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: is universal. Uh, mail in absentee ballot law is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: And look, it is facially unconstitutional. Uh. It's clear. We've
Speaker 1: been in three courts, as I mentioned, three courts on this,
Speaker 1: but only one of those three courts has has bothered
Speaker 1: to even evaluate this case on the merits. And in
Speaker 1: that instance they said, if plaint tips are likely to
Speaker 1: move forward on the merits, we will win. That Acts
Speaker 1: seventy seven is is facially unconstitutional um. So we brought
Speaker 1: that case. Uh, it went to the Commonwealth Court where
Speaker 1: we got a favorable ruling. It went to the PA
Speaker 1: Supreme Court where they dismissed it on a legal doctrine
Speaker 1: called latches, basically saying that I brought the lawsuit too late.
Speaker 1: But here's the here's the here's the kept twenty two
Speaker 1: that they put us in is that I couldn't have
Speaker 1: challenged the law any earlier because two hundred years of
Speaker 1: PA Supreme Court case law says candidates can't challenge elections
Speaker 1: prior to them being finished. So I couldn't challenge the
Speaker 1: constitutionality of Act seventy seven for the election, couldn't challenge
Speaker 1: it after. And then the PA Supreme Court dismissed it
Speaker 1: with prejudice and said that essentially I can't ever challenge
Speaker 1: Acts seventy seven again. So we brought it to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court after hearing both sides
Speaker 1: of the argument. What they did was dismiss our petition
Speaker 1: for injunctive relief. Only right now, what we asked the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to do, and this is important, was just
Speaker 1: temporarily halt the certification of Pennsylvania while we debated the
Speaker 1: constitutionality of Acts seventy seven on the merricks. Now the
Speaker 1: PA Supreme Court said, no, we're not going to halt
Speaker 1: the certification. We're going to allow that to move forward.
Speaker 1: But the critical piece here is that they did not
Speaker 1: dismiss our case like so many in the media have reported.
Speaker 1: We are allowed to petition for what's called a writ
Speaker 1: of certiori, which basically is legally ease for we're in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to hear the case on the merits
Speaker 1: and back. I think that they have an obligation to
Speaker 1: step in and rule on the merits because the people
Speaker 1: of this country deserve some clarity and they deserve to
Speaker 1: know if the elections that we conducted here in the
Speaker 1: in the in the Great Commonwealth the Pennsylvania are and
Speaker 1: deep constitutional, because right now Act seventy seven it's a
Speaker 1: black letter of the laws, as people say, it's it's
Speaker 1: clearly unconstitutional. And so this is the way that our
Speaker 1: system was intended to work. We're going to the courts
Speaker 1: for clarity, and so far we haven't had much success
Speaker 1: with the High Court of Pennsylvania or the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: but we're hoping that they'll take up this case and
Speaker 1: allow for our petition for certiory to pass and eventually
Speaker 1: rule on the merits sean a view of some sense
Speaker 1: of what the timeline is on this, because there are
Speaker 1: a lot of folks who are seeing the days pass
Speaker 1: on the calendar, and you know, Inauguration Day is going
Speaker 1: to be here before we know it. So how how
Speaker 1: do we view the time situation? Yeah, so we we're
Speaker 1: going to submit our petition for certiori today. Um, I
Speaker 1: don't know how long the Supreme Court is going to
Speaker 1: take to act on that. The Supreme Court, as I've
Speaker 1: sort of learned as this process has gone on, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is a is an enigmatic body, you know,
Speaker 1: and and quite frankly, uh, you know, the nine Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices are all very very smart people, and they
Speaker 1: sort of do things that their own way in their
Speaker 1: own way, and a lot of people were reading into oh,
Speaker 1: it's a one sentence denial. Well that's sort of typical.
Speaker 1: That's that's what they do. And and oh, it's a
Speaker 1: nine zero opinion, there were no descents. They don't they
Speaker 1: don't weigh in on things like that. That the truth is,
Speaker 1: it could be it could have been a five four decision.
Speaker 1: We have no idea, and anybody that is reporting it
Speaker 1: was nine oh with no descentse has no idea either.
Speaker 1: So m we're hoping that our petition for certiari will
Speaker 1: be taken up in an expedited waybuck to try to
Speaker 1: try to give the American people a sense of clarity.
Speaker 1: But but I'll add one more thing that the only
Speaker 1: date that really matters, that it constitutionally matters for the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is January twentieth. So again, one of the
Speaker 1: things that I've learned throughout this process is that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court can pretty much do whatever at once with
Speaker 1: regards to issuing a remedy as long as they follow
Speaker 1: the constitution, of course. And so you know, the idea
Speaker 1: that you know with the media narrative is oh, Parnell
Speaker 1: wants to throw out two point five million mail in ballance.
Speaker 1: That that's not at all what we're asking to do.
Speaker 1: We're simply asking the Supreme Court at this point, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to follow the Constitution of the United States,
Speaker 1: and so we're still in the fight. Many in the
Speaker 1: media have reported to the contrary, but we intend to
Speaker 1: have our petition filed at some point today, hopefully you
Speaker 1: can do. Sean Parnell a former Army ranger, current congressional
Speaker 1: candidate out in Pennsylvania and Western PA, and he's at
Speaker 1: the forefront of this legal fight. Sean, what would be
Speaker 1: in your mind a just outcome from the perspective of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court with regard to your specific legal challenge. Well, well,
Speaker 1: it's a great question. I'd love for them to hear
Speaker 1: him on the merits first, and whatever whatever outcome or
Speaker 1: whatever whatever ruling that they that they provide, of course
Speaker 1: will honor, you know. But I'm the reason why I'm
Speaker 1: I'm so steadfast in my pursuit of this is because Buck,
Speaker 1: I believe that Pennsylvania and perhaps our nation is really
Speaker 1: in the midst of a constitutional crisis. So in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: let's say the Court says, yeah, twenty twenty was messed up.
Speaker 1: Act seventy seven is unconstitutional. We're going to kick this
Speaker 1: back to the legislature to fix this problem. You want
Speaker 1: to pass Act seventy seven, do it the right way,
Speaker 1: pass a constitutional amendment. Well, the problem with that course
Speaker 1: of action, while I would certainly accept it, and while
Speaker 1: many people believe that would be imminently fair, fix it
Speaker 1: moving forward, Well, you're gonna have fifty percent of the
Speaker 1: people in the state of Pennsylvania say, wait a second,
Speaker 1: the election in twenty twenty was unconstitutional and they'refore illegal.
Speaker 1: Fifty percent of the people aren't going to be okay
Speaker 1: with that. And you know, on the flip side, you know,
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court says that yes, Act seventy seven
Speaker 1: is unconstitutional, therefore any ballots submitted under that system is
Speaker 1: also unconstitutional, illegal, and we're tossing these ballots, well guess what.
Speaker 1: That is also a very explosive decision, and the truth
Speaker 1: of the matter is, but there's really no easy answer here.
Speaker 1: What would be what would be covered? Sean just knows
Speaker 1: what would be covered under that umbrella of Acts seventy
Speaker 1: seven ballots if the Supreme Court did that, which would
Speaker 1: be a huge move. What would be covered? Yeah, well, okay,
Speaker 1: so you know, like any ballot, any no excuse absentee
Speaker 1: ballot would would if the Supreme Court did that, right,
Speaker 1: and I really want to say if, because they could
Speaker 1: do whatever they want to remedy this situation. Right, if
Speaker 1: they did, they would just be no excuse absentee ballots,
Speaker 1: like any absentee ballot that was filled out in accordance
Speaker 1: with the Pennsylvania Constitution. Like you know, military service is
Speaker 1: one of the provisions where you can vote. Absentee, having
Speaker 1: to work, having to be out of town, you're working
Speaker 1: at a poll when can't vote, all of those provisions
Speaker 1: are covered under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Those ballots would still count.
Speaker 1: So again, anybody out there that's saying, oh, Parnella wants
Speaker 1: to discount military ballots, that's a lie. That's not true.
Speaker 1: The only thing we're talking about is no excuse absentee
Speaker 1: ballots and the reason why this is a dilemma and
Speaker 1: why two point five million people Democrats, Republicans and independents
Speaker 1: are fired up about that and guess what they should be.
Speaker 1: But let's make sure that they're they're focused and putting
Speaker 1: the blame in the right spot. We're talking about a
Speaker 1: general Assembly that passed an unconstitutional law, a governor that
Speaker 1: signed an I lamented an unconstitutional law, an attorney general
Speaker 1: and the State of Pennsylvania who failed to appine on
Speaker 1: the constitutionality of the law at the time that it
Speaker 1: was passed, and the Secretary of State that manipulated that
Speaker 1: law the benefit her own party and water down ballot integrity.
Speaker 1: The blame for disenfranchisement of the people of this commonwealth
Speaker 1: rests squarely on the Commonwealth government. And Buck, you know me.
Speaker 1: You know me for a long time. You know that
Speaker 1: I'm not a politician. You know that I'm not afraid
Speaker 1: to stand up to my own party. And that's part
Speaker 1: of what I'm doing here. For the General Assembly is
Speaker 1: controlled by Republicans. I'm suing the General Assembly, and I'm
Speaker 1: suing our radical Democrat governor and our radical Democrat Attorney general.
Speaker 1: Right because this is a constitutional issue. The Constitution shields
Speaker 1: us all from government overreach, Democrat, Republican, and everybody in between.
Speaker 1: And that's what I'm fighting for. And at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, Buck, the most important part of the
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment process in this regard right and changing time, place,
Speaker 1: and manner of elections here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Act seventy seven represents the most
Speaker 1: radical change in our Commonwealth election ever since, since the
Speaker 1: founding of our country. The most important part of the
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment process is that the people have a say,
Speaker 1: And it was it was the it was the intentions
Speaker 1: of the framers of the PA Constitution to make the
Speaker 1: amendment process that way, to give the people say. And
Speaker 1: also every instance in the state of Pennsylvania upheld by
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court PA Supreme Court, by the way, every
Speaker 1: instance of an unconstitutional expansion of absentee ballots, it's been
Speaker 1: struck down. It's been struck down by the PA Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So in order for the PA Supreme Court to even
Speaker 1: rule against us, that have to overturn one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty four years of their own ruling president, which is
Speaker 1: why they dismissed us on on a technicality. So I'm
Speaker 1: in this fight because it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: It's not the easy thing to do, is not what
Speaker 1: most politicians would do, But we're in this for the
Speaker 1: people and we're going to continue fighting for them. Speaking
Speaker 1: of Sean Parnell, Congressional Canidd, he's involved in this lawsuit
Speaker 1: they're filing today to try to get the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: to hear it on the merits to see if it
Speaker 1: is agreed by the court that Acts seventy seven in
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania was unconstitutional. Sean, before we let you go, you've
Speaker 1: mentioned me before that when you check the signatures on
Speaker 1: ballots that came in from specifically some nursing homes in
Speaker 1: Western PA, that it was fishy. Do we have any
Speaker 1: further information on that? Do we have any confirmation? Because
Speaker 1: I think one of the big challenges people have is
Speaker 1: we hear so much in all these affidavits or read
Speaker 1: and here from witnesses on these affidavits of fraud that
Speaker 1: they saw but ironclad proof as in one hundred signatures
Speaker 1: from different ballots that all look the same, that would
Speaker 1: really be helpful. Where are you in that? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a that's a great question. And so for your listeners
Speaker 1: and viewers, we did a random sampling of two thousand
Speaker 1: ballots here from boar different nursing homes in Beaver County.
Speaker 1: We did a freedom of information requests to grant access
Speaker 1: to get access to that information. After looking at it
Speaker 1: for five minutes, we realized that most of the handwriting
Speaker 1: was the same and the signatures appeared to be forged.
Speaker 1: So what we've done, Buck, is we've turned that information
Speaker 1: over to the district attorney in Beaver County. He's looking
Speaker 1: at it. He's asked us a couple of follow up
Speaker 1: questions to get information on the ballots and where they
Speaker 1: came from. And if once the district attorney's investigation is done,
Speaker 1: he'll send it up to the US Attorney for the
Speaker 1: Western District of Pennsylvania. And so here's the challenge, Buck,
Speaker 1: We're in a very short timeline right to certify this election,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned January twenty, it's going to come around
Speaker 1: pretty quickly, right. The problem is it were in a
Speaker 1: very short timeline and it just takes time to do
Speaker 1: these investigations. So right now the district attorney here in
Speaker 1: Beaver County has those ballots and has that evidence, is
Speaker 1: in the process of conducting an investigation. Hopefully he finishes
Speaker 1: that investigation soon and sends it to the next level. Hornell, everybody,
Speaker 1: the man is in the fight. He was when he
Speaker 1: was an Afghanistan and now he is back here at home. Sean,
Speaker 1: my friend, good luck, keep us in keep us in
Speaker 1: the loop. Okay, yeah, thanks Buck, I appreciate it.