Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The establishment is rallying
Speaker 1: behind Kamala Harris. They think that she is going to
Speaker 1: be their savior against Trump is um. Turns out she's
Speaker 1: kind of a radical and something of authoritarian. We will
Speaker 1: break down what she has had to say so far
Speaker 1: after the free campaign contribution that CNN gave her yesterday.
Speaker 1: Plus we will get into all the latest on Roger
Speaker 1: Stones pending trial data. More coming up on The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show begins Sexton Sex No, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and Show. Everybody. Great to have you
Speaker 1: with me here. We have so much to get to today.
Speaker 1: You know, it's one of these days where I feel
Speaker 1: like there are there are two main issues to tackle,
Speaker 1: and I wasn't sure which one we would kick it
Speaker 1: off with because it can make a case for either.
Speaker 1: We got our friend Andy McCarthy joining later on this hour.
Speaker 1: I'd really just walk us through the legal ease and
Speaker 1: the sound constitutional analysis of what's going on now with
Speaker 1: the Muller probe with Roger Stone Stone looking very dapper
Speaker 1: today at chord. Everyone's of course, of course focused on that,
Speaker 1: but we'll get into into that and more. I think
Speaker 1: we're going to bounce around on some topics today because
Speaker 1: there's so much on both the Stone Muller probe situation
Speaker 1: and what is hopefully it's final chapters, although I don't
Speaker 1: know how long those chapters will be, and then also
Speaker 1: in the reminder of what we are up against with
Speaker 1: the Democrat at party. You see, for two years now,
Speaker 1: for two years we have been living in in a
Speaker 1: country where with the media environment that has saturated the
Speaker 1: airwaves with Trump is a he's a bully, he's a sexist,
Speaker 1: he's a rapist, he's mean, He's this it's just crazy.
Speaker 1: He's the twenty fifth Amendment is going to have to
Speaker 1: remove him from office because he's not of sound mind.
Speaker 1: All this stuff right, he's a Russian agent, all this
Speaker 1: craziness they've put out there, and those of us who
Speaker 1: have been trying to make sense of some of the
Speaker 1: difficulties the administration has had getting things done. The wall
Speaker 1: is obviously still very much an open question. Why didn't
Speaker 1: they fund planned parenthood. Why hasn't the why haven't the
Speaker 1: Republicans in Congress taken more definitive action on healthcare? And well,
Speaker 1: we know, I mean John McCain wouldn't even let them
Speaker 1: do the downsized version of a of an Obamacare, if
Speaker 1: not replacement, at least reducing of Obamacare. And now we
Speaker 1: are reminded that the Democrats have twenty twenty firmly in
Speaker 1: their sights and are having to be open about it,
Speaker 1: are having to open themselves up to well, who are you?
Speaker 1: What does your side represent? Who are these people that
Speaker 1: from their various perches and either the media or in
Speaker 1: the government as members of Congress, senators and all the rest,
Speaker 1: you've been making it sound for two years like you're
Speaker 1: the ethical, reasonable, intelligent, competent people to run the country.
Speaker 1: Now you and I haven't been buying that, but that's
Speaker 1: been part of the pitch we're you know, the Democrats
Speaker 1: have been trying to say while Trump is doing his
Speaker 1: very unorthodox presidency where he has gotten a lot done,
Speaker 1: and I think it's been overall. You know, I'm I'm happy,
Speaker 1: but I'm not I'm not satisfied. Happy but not satisfied.
Speaker 1: As how I think we could describe a lot of
Speaker 1: folks who look at the Trump administration. But now when
Speaker 1: Kamela Harris comes out, who is clearly all the fawning
Speaker 1: all to sit down that the Jake Tapper sit down
Speaker 1: on CNN. Wow, isn't that just so nice that CNN,
Speaker 1: you know, kicks off for presidential campaign like that. You know,
Speaker 1: this is why when people talk about campaign financer form
Speaker 1: and oh, you shouldn't be able to you should only
Speaker 1: be able to give this much money into a cannonade
Speaker 1: or this was money to a pack. I mean, Jeff
Speaker 1: Zucker is giving the equivalent of free media to people
Speaker 1: who based on what, well whatever their newsroom says, Well,
Speaker 1: if advertisers have to pay for exposure on CNN despite
Speaker 1: the week week sauce ratings, you know, there's a reason
Speaker 1: why the media has the power still that it does.
Speaker 1: It's effectively an in kind contribution for them to put
Speaker 1: certain people on TV. There are other people they obviously
Speaker 1: won't do this for, but putting at a side for
Speaker 1: a moment. The great thing about seeing Kamala Harris up
Speaker 1: there onstage talking about what she wants is that it
Speaker 1: is a reminder that the Democratic Party in twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: is crazy. These people cannot be trusted to balance a
Speaker 1: check book, never mind run the United States government. Their
Speaker 1: ideas are absurd, their ideas are destructive. They will not
Speaker 1: work in practice. They don't even work in principle. Kamela
Speaker 1: Harris made it clear she wants to take away and
Speaker 1: I am not exaggerating, I'm not playing games with her purpose.
Speaker 1: She wants to take away all private health insurance. She
Speaker 1: believes in a Green New Deal. She wants to bed
Speaker 1: all semi automatic weapons, which means, I mean, unless you've
Speaker 1: got a side by side Elmer Fudd style shotgun, guess what,
Speaker 1: your weapons pretty much gonna be gone. So she's anti constitution,
Speaker 1: anti personal freedom, anti individual responsibility, and wants to tell
Speaker 1: you what to do and then some. And she's the
Speaker 1: centrist among the Democrats who have thrown their hats in
Speaker 1: their rings. So far, she's supposed to be the least
Speaker 1: crazy of all these crazy people. She is speaking about
Speaker 1: policy ideas, and I don't even like to call them
Speaker 1: policy ideas because they're really just something that a bunch
Speaker 1: of you know, college sophomores at Hampshire would come up
Speaker 1: with between bong rips, you know, she's coming up with
Speaker 1: these ideas of yeah, they used to like let's just
Speaker 1: make college like no one pays any debt, but like
Speaker 1: also no, no private for profit college. You know, no,
Speaker 1: you don't know what you're doing. And if you think,
Speaker 1: and you know, I had tip our friend David Harsani
Speaker 1: over the Federalists for a very good, short and to
Speaker 1: the point piece today on this. You know, if you
Speaker 1: think that Kamala Harris doesn't approach government as effectively in
Speaker 1: her mind, a benevolent authoritarian in our minds, a very
Speaker 1: dangerous authoritarian. What is an authoritarian? She wants to take
Speaker 1: away your car. She wants to take away your gun,
Speaker 1: She wants to take away your ability to keep what
Speaker 1: you earned. She wants to take away your private health insurance,
Speaker 1: take it away, just gone. She really really believes that
Speaker 1: that's a good way forward, a single pair. Here we
Speaker 1: are what is it. Let's let's call it eight nine
Speaker 1: years later. And I remember because it was the start
Speaker 1: of my media career, doing all this reading and research
Speaker 1: on healthcare and Obamacare and where it was going and
Speaker 1: the fight over it, and and conservatives like me, and
Speaker 1: I'm not pretending to be alone here at all. This
Speaker 1: was we knew the right knew you, the intellectual right
Speaker 1: had an understanding of where this was all heading, which
Speaker 1: was it was just Obamacare was an unworkable but politically
Speaker 1: saleable monstrosity that would get us to a place where
Speaker 1: we are going to be told, oh, the only way
Speaker 1: to fix this a single pair. We were saying this,
Speaker 1: We were saying it was a pathway to socialize medicine.
Speaker 1: We were told, we were told that we were way
Speaker 1: off base, that we were racist because we just didn't
Speaker 1: like Obamacare, because of Obama, all these crazy things. We
Speaker 1: were told we were right, we were right. Turns out
Speaker 1: that when you actually have an understanding of how the
Speaker 1: insurance market works and how governments function and dysfunction, then
Speaker 1: you can predict these things because they're entirely predictable. Now
Speaker 1: we have the favorite candidate of the establishment, female African
Speaker 1: American background. You know that they love this notion of
Speaker 1: President Kamala Harris, at least until president or would be president.
Speaker 1: Pardon me. Biden throws his hat in the ring, which
Speaker 1: is going to happen. I think he's worried that that
Speaker 1: Camela is stealing too much thunder here, but she's the
Speaker 1: one that they're pointing to as the Hilary esque safe
Speaker 1: sound option, and the Democratic Party has been pulled so
Speaker 1: far left that I would say these people are un serious,
Speaker 1: except they seriously want to destroy very important foundational concepts aspects,
Speaker 1: legal protections, cultural traditions of this country. This is great though,
Speaker 1: for the country, in a sense that we at least
Speaker 1: have the ability to see this now and early. We
Speaker 1: are now going to be able to switch into a
Speaker 1: mode where we're not just being told all the time. Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, look at look at what Trump said. Look
Speaker 1: at Trump's tweet. Ha ha ha. He's got small hands,
Speaker 1: he's orange, look at it. You know, it's just the
Speaker 1: media has been acting like a bunch of Brady sixth graders,
Speaker 1: as as Charles Cook and his wonderful essay on a
Speaker 1: bad press on Nash Review Online makes it just a
Speaker 1: slam dunk case on. I mean, they act like mean
Speaker 1: spirited schoolgirls, all of them male female, everybody in the media,
Speaker 1: that's what they act like, people that you know, just
Speaker 1: really care about their popularity, their influence. They create this
Speaker 1: little in group and they're all just snickering and he
Speaker 1: he he he, and being nasty to anybody outside the group, CNN,
Speaker 1: Washington Post, New York Times, huff Po, BuzzFeed, all these places.
Speaker 1: That's how they act, That's how they've been conducting themselves.
Speaker 1: Now they are going to have to switch from just
Speaker 1: being in this relentless attack mode. You also having to
Speaker 1: talk about what they want their people, because they're activists.
Speaker 1: They're not journalists. They are active participants in pushing for
Speaker 1: certain political ideas, and they are They're frauds and liars
Speaker 1: for not admitting that publicly. But they are now going
Speaker 1: to have to say, oh, yes, let's here's a splainer
Speaker 1: on vox about the Green New Deal. The Green New
Speaker 1: Deal would be the single most economically disastrous thing we
Speaker 1: have done since the era of the Great Depression, and
Speaker 1: in some ways might even be worse than the Great
Speaker 1: Depression if they really went all in. Ninety percent of
Speaker 1: our energy is going to come from renewables. Does anyone
Speaker 1: realize what the costs of this would be. We have
Speaker 1: to just have this great leap forward, and I make
Speaker 1: the connection to what happened in China under MAO. Purposefully,
Speaker 1: we're going to have this great leap forward into green
Speaker 1: energy that will annihilate our economic growth, destroy trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars of wealth and all because they really believe that
Speaker 1: CO two right, CO two, which plants need to survive
Speaker 1: and which is a tiny percentage of our overall atmosphere,
Speaker 1: is going to melt the world unless we decide that
Speaker 1: we're going to give up on all of our economic
Speaker 1: and technological progress in one fell swoop, effectively just destroy
Speaker 1: so much of what we've built and then try to
Speaker 1: rebuild it in this new green energy amount. These are
Speaker 1: not ideas where we have a difference of opinion. This
Speaker 1: is negotiating. This is debating with people who have no
Speaker 1: connection to reality. But because of the media apparatus they have,
Speaker 1: it still is very powerful, because of the Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: apparatus they have, which is overwhelmingly not just Democrat, but
Speaker 1: far left progressive. You want to talk about influencing an election,
Speaker 1: who knows who could even gauge how much Google and
Speaker 1: Facebook and Twitter have done behind the scenes with some
Speaker 1: you know, cya rubric of oh, we're just trying to
Speaker 1: make our platform better, but all of a sudden, Democrat
Speaker 1: ideas get out there much more frequently and get shared
Speaker 1: much more easily. Who knows how much they've already tilted elections.
Speaker 1: We are in for a truly epic political battle leading
Speaker 1: in the twenty twenty and it's going to be incredible.
Speaker 1: And I'm so happy that I have all of you
Speaker 1: gathered with me as we do it, because it's going
Speaker 1: to be a wild ride, and there's going to be
Speaker 1: some crazy days. There's gonna be some really sad days,
Speaker 1: but I am I'm excited for a shift in the
Speaker 1: national conversation, hopefully away from the Russia collusion delusion, which
Speaker 1: is the greatest waste of time and injustice perpetrated by
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice in my lifetime, and move toward
Speaker 1: what do these Democrats who pretend to be the adults
Speaker 1: in the room and the Trump era, who say they've
Speaker 1: always got a better answer? What is their answer? What
Speaker 1: do they really think we should do? And the moment
Speaker 1: that you drill down into what they're suggesting, you only
Speaker 1: come away with one conclusion. It is for anybody who
Speaker 1: is honest and intelligent, it is an unavoidable conclusion. The
Speaker 1: Democratic Party has lost its mind. These people are crazy.
Speaker 1: The stuff that they want to do would be massively destructive,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately, we're going to have to fight this one,
Speaker 1: because if we don't, they can win, and a lot
Speaker 1: of people are going to suffer. Eight to eight nine
Speaker 1: two eight two five eight eight eight nine hundred buck.
Speaker 1: That's the phone line if you want to call in
Speaker 1: the lines? Or did I give the right number? John?
Speaker 1: Sometimes they get the wrong I mean, Brandon, pardon me.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they get the wrong number, wrong DJ, wrong number?
Speaker 1: Does that sound right? Eight eight nine two eight two
Speaker 1: five eight to eight nine hundred buck? We got a
Speaker 1: much more show. Any McCarthy's gonna drop knowledge bombs around
Speaker 1: the Russia Muller Stone circus, So that's coming up. Made
Speaker 1: a little radio boo boo before Sorry about that team.
Speaker 1: The lines are open, but I should probably tell you
Speaker 1: the right line. Eight four four wait, wait, wait, Mike,
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred two eight two five right
Speaker 1: eight four four buck. In my defense, I had to
Speaker 1: commit to memory the Glenbeck phone number when I used
Speaker 1: to fill in for him, the Rush Limbaugh phone number
Speaker 1: when I used fill in for him, and my own
Speaker 1: phone number at the Blaze. So there are a lot
Speaker 1: of and it becomes very mechanical blah blah. You just
Speaker 1: kind of say it, you know, And that was so yes,
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred two eight two five eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred bucks. Sorry about that team. Anytime
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, I'm gonna get the number right, I
Speaker 1: always get it wrong. Good good job, good job son.
Speaker 1: I should co read myself. I'm gonna know how that
Speaker 1: would work, all right. I was talking. So here's how
Speaker 1: we're gonna break this down. I was talking about Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris and how the Democrats are embracing the radical left
Speaker 1: of their own party now. And I don't think it's
Speaker 1: just a people are gonna say, it's a primary ploy.
Speaker 1: That's the ploy. This is where the party is. This
Speaker 1: is where the Democrats are. I want to break that
Speaker 1: down issue by issue. But we're gonna kind of switch
Speaker 1: gears from him because we could only get Andy McCarthy.
Speaker 1: He's a very busy man to join us in just
Speaker 1: a few minutes to talk about Stone Russia, collusion, Whittaker,
Speaker 1: all that good stuff. So we're going to kind of
Speaker 1: return to the socialism. Kamala Harris. Where are the Democrats?
Speaker 1: Why are they so here's a really interesting question. Why
Speaker 1: are they so very very upset with the notion of
Speaker 1: Schultz running. Here's here's a point that the media won't
Speaker 1: focus on Yes, it could theoretically split the vote. I
Speaker 1: get that, and that's a lot. I'm not saying that's
Speaker 1: not a big concern from the crazy anti Trump left,
Speaker 1: because of course it is. They're single. The single most
Speaker 1: important thing for them is that Donald Trump does not win. Right.
Speaker 1: Everything else is way, way, way distant to that. The
Speaker 1: single most important thing for Democrats is Donald Trump cannot
Speaker 1: below to win the presidency. But there's another component of
Speaker 1: Schultz that that is problematic for them. And you've seen
Speaker 1: this in the last twenty four hours or so. Remember
Speaker 1: this is this is the former High five producer Mike
Speaker 1: for making sure I got that one right. The former
Speaker 1: CEO of Starbucks until twenty seventeen. What was he the
Speaker 1: bathroom policy guy, by the way, or was that am
Speaker 1: I getting my timetables off? Here? Was he the like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can just come in and you know, do your
Speaker 1: thing and you don't have to pay You remember that
Speaker 1: when that whole thing happened. Yeah, that, I'm almost positive
Speaker 1: that was under the new CEO. But when he left
Speaker 1: in two seven twenty seven team he became an executive
Speaker 1: board member, so he was definitely in part of that Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: So because I wonder, I'm wondering how that how that
Speaker 1: shook out. My guess is that most people probably managed
Speaker 1: to h you know, they managed to buy a cup
Speaker 1: of coffee, if they got to use the bathroom. But anyway,
Speaker 1: his underlying capitalist instincts and understanding are a problem for
Speaker 1: the modern Democrat Party, and that's really important. This is
Speaker 1: not a little thing. This is a very, very important
Speaker 1: thing that the modern Democrat Party really does now increasingly
Speaker 1: have an aversion to cap not an aversion to wealth.
Speaker 1: Look at Madurou there are very rich socialists and aversion
Speaker 1: to capitalism, to business and commerce and the success thereof
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America bug Sex in his back,
Speaker 1: comfortable that the decisions that were made are going to
Speaker 1: be reviewed, you know, either through the various means we have.
Speaker 1: But right now, you know, the investigation is I think
Speaker 1: close to being completed, and I hope that we can
Speaker 1: get the report from Director Muller as soon as we
Speaker 1: as possible. No responsible official of the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: would make those kinds of comments about an investigation coming
Speaker 1: to a conclusion in the near future. If Matthew Waker
Speaker 1: was briefed about the investigation. It's the last time he
Speaker 1: should be briefed because his comments were totally irresponsible and reprehensible.
Speaker 1: Democrats seem very testy about the notion of the mother
Speaker 1: probe at an undetermined stage to maybe wind down on
Speaker 1: its own. They they've really gotten very attached to this thing.
Speaker 1: It's like the precious and their Smiegel. Let's spring in
Speaker 1: somebody who can actually make sense of all this and
Speaker 1: tell us what's really going on. Our friend Andy McCarthy
Speaker 1: has made some time for us tonight. He is, of
Speaker 1: course Fox News contributor. You see him on Fox all
Speaker 1: the time. Also National Review where he's got great columns
Speaker 1: and they do a podcast over National Review that i'd
Speaker 1: recommend to you all this Well, mister Andy McCarthy, great
Speaker 1: to have you back. Fuck how are you? I'm good?
Speaker 1: So you know, we got a couple of things we
Speaker 1: gotta get through today. Andy. One is just you know,
Speaker 1: you heard their Whittaker having his say about the Muller
Speaker 1: investigation close to complete it. Who knows what that even means.
Speaker 1: Bloomenthal obviously gets very upset about it. What do you
Speaker 1: make of this? Bloomy and Democrats are making me dizzy.
Speaker 1: I have to say, I mean the rule of the road,
Speaker 1: as we know from the Justice Department and the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: even this goes double for them. But you never confirm
Speaker 1: or deny the existence of an investigation, right, and you
Speaker 1: certainly never identify the subjects of the investigation. At a
Speaker 1: public hearing in March or twenty seventeen, then FBI Director
Speaker 1: Comy gets up in grand style and announces not only
Speaker 1: the existence of the Russia investigation, but says that the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign is a subject of the investigation, even though
Speaker 1: the investigation is counterintelligence and it's classified and you're not
Speaker 1: supposed to name subjects. And he goes on for good
Speaker 1: measure to say and will be checking to see if
Speaker 1: they committed any crimes too. And I think my recollection,
Speaker 1: as the Democrats thought that was just peach. So you know,
Speaker 1: to hear them now say that the guy to whom
Speaker 1: Muller reports, which is Whittaker, and you know, mind you
Speaker 1: I know they want to treat Mueller like he's generalized,
Speaker 1: how are out there or something, But you know, Muller
Speaker 1: is just a line prosecutor. He's not even confirmed by
Speaker 1: the Senate, and he's in a chain of command. He
Speaker 1: works for Whittaker. Now you know they may not like
Speaker 1: that because they don't like Whittaker. And you know, Mueller
Speaker 1: is this legendary person engine all that jazz. But that's
Speaker 1: that's the fact of the matter. So all the guy
Speaker 1: who is running the investigation, or or to whom the
Speaker 1: investigators report said, was that it looked like it was
Speaker 1: winding down. He didn't say anything more than that. And
Speaker 1: now they're up in arms. But when the thing got announced,
Speaker 1: which was the violation of every single rule in the
Speaker 1: justice part of the FBI, they thought that was great.
Speaker 1: I mean, Eddie, I can't look at this whole situation,
Speaker 1: especially given how much we hear about how Trump and
Speaker 1: his and his people are always undermining institutions. For me,
Speaker 1: that that the DOJ has been caught up in this
Speaker 1: whole thing the way that it has a lot of
Speaker 1: the decision making that we've seen on the FBI side,
Speaker 1: the DOJ side has been shoddy at best, and perhaps,
Speaker 1: you know, unethical. And I would argue that some of
Speaker 1: it is unethical. And yeah, we're supposed to believe that
Speaker 1: this process is playing out and it's just the way
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be, and it's fine. I feel like,
Speaker 1: why should we why should we have faith in this
Speaker 1: institution of the Special Council, given all the things that
Speaker 1: have happened. Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, what other
Speaker 1: investigation buck do you know of where they assign a
Speaker 1: prosecutor to run a counterintelligence investigation? You know, the Justice
Speaker 1: Department has a unit of lawyers their National Security Division
Speaker 1: that lends assistance to the FBI, which is our domestic
Speaker 1: security service. When they need a national security wire tapper,
Speaker 1: they need some kind of assistance from from the court. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department, counterintelligence investigations don't get a prosecutor
Speaker 1: because they're not prosecutor work. They're not supposed to be
Speaker 1: tailored to building criminal prosecutions. They are information gathering exercises
Speaker 1: in order that the president can carry out his national
Speaker 1: security and foreign policy functions. And they don't get a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: So I mean, procedural regularity it seems to me has
Speaker 1: gone out the window from the get go on this.
Speaker 1: And I you know, I don't want to keep making
Speaker 1: jokes about being being busy, but you know, I must say,
Speaker 1: now they suddenly want procedural regularity after everything that's gone on. Here,
Speaker 1: we got a guy who was apparently monitored for close
Speaker 1: to a year, four separate FISA warrant applications where they
Speaker 1: evidently relied on a read of opposition research from the
Speaker 1: from the opposition political campaign, and now they're going to
Speaker 1: start worrying about whether whether we have procedural regularity. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, Eddie, you know, I know that this
Speaker 1: is more of a gut feeling thing or but after
Speaker 1: spending a good amount of time on air and off
Speaker 1: air talking to Carter Page, the idea that they got
Speaker 1: four fires A warrants on this guy. Keep hearing people say, oh,
Speaker 1: but the FISA process is is so respectable and good.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, no, it is not. If you can get
Speaker 1: four fires A warrants on this guy who is speaking
Speaker 1: to the Special Counsel without a lawyer and has apparently
Speaker 1: no charges against him at all, then there's a massive
Speaker 1: problem with at least abuse of the FISA process, if
Speaker 1: not the whole way that it goes down for counterintelligence investigations. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I've always wondered, Buck, you know, in the part of
Speaker 1: a wire tap, whether it's criminal or national security, where
Speaker 1: you have to tell the court why you need the
Speaker 1: wire tap where you have to say alternative investigative techniques,
Speaker 1: you know, less restrictive or less intrusive methods of doing investigations.
Speaker 1: You have to tell the court why they've either been
Speaker 1: tried and failed, or they would fail if tried. I've
Speaker 1: always wondered, what on earth did they say to de
Speaker 1: Fies a court that would have convinced anyone that they
Speaker 1: couldn't have brought card a page in and interviewed him,
Speaker 1: which they had done in the past. Anyhow, you know
Speaker 1: why they needed a warrant on this guy. If I
Speaker 1: met the guy a couple of times, he's a you know,
Speaker 1: he seems like a perfectly nice guy, but you know,
Speaker 1: with due respect to him, you can't shut him up.
Speaker 1: So's he's the worst. He's the worst person that you
Speaker 1: could find if you looked really hard to try to
Speaker 1: run an international conspiracy to tip an election with I mean,
Speaker 1: you'd be better off grabbing a random person off the
Speaker 1: street than having Carter. And I don't mean that in
Speaker 1: a mean way. I just mean exactly what you're saying,
Speaker 1: which is he's very garrulous, he's very open, right, and
Speaker 1: when the Russians tried to to recruit them as it
Speaker 1: asked that in twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen, and that didn't
Speaker 1: work out. What did the Russian guy say about him?
Speaker 1: He's an idiot. Yep. So so you know, Eddie and
Speaker 1: I are trying to be trying to be nice here,
Speaker 1: but yeah, this is not a guy. He's not an
Speaker 1: international man of mystery that was the center of this
Speaker 1: huge conspiracy. But you know, Andy, if I asked you,
Speaker 1: and you know I and I spent more time than
Speaker 1: I ever thought I would talking to libs about this,
Speaker 1: about this whole Muller prob issue. What for you is
Speaker 1: the single what's the most egregious part of the whole thing?
Speaker 1: I mean, what's the one thing that you just can't
Speaker 1: get over? You're like, this is not right, whether you
Speaker 1: want to call it a witch hunter or whatever, that
Speaker 1: this process is fundamentally tainted and it's just political and
Speaker 1: meant to get Trump. I think it's it's two things. First,
Speaker 1: the quality of justice that was accorded to the Clinton
Speaker 1: emails investigation versus the Trump Russia investige Asian where we're
Speaker 1: all supposed to get the same quality of justice, and
Speaker 1: as somebody who knows the stuff and has looked at
Speaker 1: this long and hard. I see one case where they
Speaker 1: bent over backwards not to make the case, and one
Speaker 1: case where they scorched the earth to try to find
Speaker 1: a case where there wasn't one. And I don't see
Speaker 1: how anybody could look at those two things and say
Speaker 1: that we have one standard of justice in this country.
Speaker 1: And then the second thing, but that continues to just
Speaker 1: royal me, is that you know, I know people don't
Speaker 1: like Trump, and I get that, but you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is not always going to be president. And I've always
Speaker 1: thought this really isn't about Trump as much as it's
Speaker 1: about the presidency. And when you investigate, when you put
Speaker 1: the presidency under a cloud of suspicion, that really screws
Speaker 1: up the government's ability to govern, even down to the
Speaker 1: point of not just dealing with Congress and dealing with
Speaker 1: foreign countries, but good people to come in and work
Speaker 1: for the government. You know, nobody wants to come into
Speaker 1: a government that's that's under investigation and they have to
Speaker 1: lawyer up and you know, spend lots and lots of
Speaker 1: money on that sort of stuff. Um. Now, we had
Speaker 1: this wonderful principle that no one is above the law,
Speaker 1: which means if the president is reasonably suspected of having
Speaker 1: committed a serious crime, then even if it means our
Speaker 1: government and our governance is going to be screwed up,
Speaker 1: we have to suck it up and deal with that.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that should ever ever happen unless
Speaker 1: someone makes a showing at the beginning that there actually
Speaker 1: is some serious crime that there's a reasonable basis to
Speaker 1: think the president is implicated in. And it just seems
Speaker 1: to me that they didn't even care about that. Here,
Speaker 1: can we can we hold you over to talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about Stone on the flip side. You gotta
Speaker 1: run on the Fox. You got a minute? Sure? Okay, great, guys,
Speaker 1: we're talking to Annie McCarthy, Natural Review, Fox News contributor.
Speaker 1: We'll be back with him in just a moment. What
Speaker 1: it is all about is not just their lying, but
Speaker 1: what they are lying about, and what they are lying
Speaker 1: about is colluding with the Russians. And you see that
Speaker 1: with Stone and Wiki leaks, you see that with Cohen
Speaker 1: and the Moscow Tower. Quite a stretch, if you ask me.
Speaker 1: But let's ask Andy McCarthy, National Review writer and also
Speaker 1: Fox News contributor. Andy, you know they're now all in
Speaker 1: the it's about the lying mode. But the lying, they say,
Speaker 1: also proves the collusion. If the line proves the collusion,
Speaker 1: why can't they charge collusion? Yeah, somebody want to let
Speaker 1: Muller know that maybe he was absent from law school
Speaker 1: the day they taught law. I guess, yeah, I'm being flipped.
Speaker 1: But I mean, don't these guys think that if that
Speaker 1: was true, that Muller would have charged conspiracy here in
Speaker 1: charge collusion? You know, the thing, Buck is, we've always
Speaker 1: objected to this word collusion because it's such a weasel word.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean anything. I mean, if what they're saying
Speaker 1: is it should be conspiracy. You've said this before in
Speaker 1: the show, and you're right that that would be the charge. Yeah, right.
Speaker 1: You know, if what they're saying here is that a
Speaker 1: number of people had contacts and by the way, I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't see any evidence that Stone did.
Speaker 1: But if what they're saying here is that people had
Speaker 1: contacts with you know, Russian people who were connected to
Speaker 1: the Kremlin, people who connected to Putin, Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: they did. I think people inside the Clinton campaign did.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton himself, you know, gave a speech over it
Speaker 1: in Moscow that he could given his speech or in
Speaker 1: his sleep that he got paid about half a billion
Speaker 1: dollars for and then had a face to face meeting
Speaker 1: with Putin and Medvedeva. You know a lot of people
Speaker 1: had contacts with Russia. But would prosecutors care about what
Speaker 1: this investigation is supposed to be about is conspiracy. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to have an association or contact with someone.
Speaker 1: You have to agree to commit a crime. And they've
Speaker 1: been at this for over two years. There's not any
Speaker 1: evidence that anyone was involved in a criminal conspiracy. Andy.
Speaker 1: You know, the Stone indictment lays out a bunch of
Speaker 1: a bunch of different allegations of lying, and you know,
Speaker 1: maybe some of them he did. You know, he's obviously
Speaker 1: pleaded not guilty today. But I see a trend. I mean,
Speaker 1: having having read I recently went back and just took
Speaker 1: a look at USC one zero zero Yeah, USC one
Speaker 1: zero zero one, because Border Patrol is telling me that
Speaker 1: effectively it's illegal to lie to Border Patrol and Immigrations
Speaker 1: and Customs enforcement about really important things like I'm fifteen,
Speaker 1: actually you're forty. I mean, but that is never charged. Really,
Speaker 1: I mean, in rare circumstances a charge even though it
Speaker 1: is illegal. And I think it's interesting because they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be a standard. I mean, you'll know that this
Speaker 1: specific legal legal verbiage. But the lie is supposed to matter, right,
Speaker 1: I mean they're not supposed to use one zero zero
Speaker 1: one to go after people who say, as I believe Stone,
Speaker 1: did I spoke to him on the phone. Well, no,
Speaker 1: you spoke from the phone and you emailed him. Okay,
Speaker 1: well they have your email, so who cares? Can you?
Speaker 1: Can you weigh in on this? Yeah? Well, the standard
Speaker 1: is low buck, but it's materiality and the the either
Speaker 1: the affirmative misstatement or the material omission, so you can
Speaker 1: you can can lie either way, right, I can tell
Speaker 1: you a positive lie, or I can conceal something that
Speaker 1: I'm under the circumstances obligated to tell you. In either
Speaker 1: of those events, it has to be material. That is,
Speaker 1: it has to be important to the investigation in order
Speaker 1: for it to be actionable. Now, materiality, I don't want
Speaker 1: to confuse people or mislead people into thinking it's a
Speaker 1: very high hurdle. It's not. And under circumstances where you know,
Speaker 1: even if they even if it was easy to find
Speaker 1: this out if Stone told them. You know, look, it's
Speaker 1: really stupid for Stone, if he had a zillion text
Speaker 1: with somebody to tell the committee that they never spoke
Speaker 1: other than orally on the phone, and to do that
Speaker 1: under circumstances where he's obviously trying to withhold the string
Speaker 1: of their communications from the committee, and he's otherwise putting
Speaker 1: pressure on this guy, Randy Kretico, not to turn information
Speaker 1: over to the committee. So I get that. I don't
Speaker 1: have a problem with that. I worked in the process
Speaker 1: for a long time, and I think people who try
Speaker 1: to subvert the process, you want to prosecute them for it.
Speaker 1: I did that. I'm fine with that. I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of overreach in Muller's indictment. But to the
Speaker 1: extent that you know, Stone told stupid black and white
Speaker 1: laws that he shouldn't have told, then he you know,
Speaker 1: then he gets what he deserves. But the point would
Speaker 1: he have been investigated at all if it weren't for
Speaker 1: you know, nobody here committed a crime until the investigation started, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, and so when you mentioned overreach, and we
Speaker 1: got about a minute, Andy, but just where is the overreach?
Speaker 1: As you see it well. For example, Buck He says
Speaker 1: in the indictment, for example, that Stone tells Jerome Corsi,
Speaker 1: you got to go out and get to Asange and
Speaker 1: Wiki Leaks because they may have a bunch of Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation stuff. And the way the indictment reads, you would
Speaker 1: think that Stone must have an inside lead into or
Speaker 1: you must have an intermediary in Wiki Leaks. And it
Speaker 1: turns out that Mueller leads out that that morning Stone
Speaker 1: was blind copied on an email from a friend of
Speaker 1: his that included an email from a reporter named James Rosen,
Speaker 1: who was at Fox at the time, which said, I
Speaker 1: hear that there's going to be a trove of Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation emails coming out. So obviously Stone didn't have a
Speaker 1: line into Wiki leaks. He was blind copied on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's email very shady and not by not an accident.
Speaker 1: You mentioned lies of omission before. I think that's an
Speaker 1: interesting one. Andy McCarthy of National Review, everybody follow his
Speaker 1: stuff on nationalview dot com. Also you can follow him
Speaker 1: on Twitter and mister Andy McCarthy, my friend. Great to
Speaker 1: have you back, and we'll talk to you soon. If
Speaker 1: you're in a relationship. There are a couple of important
Speaker 1: dates that require roses, Birthdays, anniversaries, Valentine's right around the corner.
Speaker 1: So you know, when you're looking for the best roses
Speaker 1: you can possibly get, I've got the answer for you.
Speaker 1: Check out my friends at one eight hundred flowers dot
Speaker 1: com right now. You can get eighteen red roses for
Speaker 1: twenty nine and nine, or you can upgrade to twenty
Speaker 1: four roses that'll only make an impression for only ten
Speaker 1: dollars more. This is an unbelievable offer from one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers eighteen red roses for twenty nine nine nine,
Speaker 1: or for just ten bucks more you get twenty four
Speaker 1: beautiful red roses to give to your loved one. Okay,
Speaker 1: these are flowers that are picked at their perfect time
Speaker 1: and are shipped overnights. You have fresh, amazing flowers to
Speaker 1: order eighteen red roses for twenty nine nine nine, or
Speaker 1: upgrade at twenty four red roses only ten bucks more.
Speaker 1: Go to one eight hundred flowers dot com, click on
Speaker 1: the radio icon and enter promo code Buck. That's one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com. Promo code b u c
Speaker 1: K Hurried Alfred Stires Tomorrow Buck Sexton permission decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence mag no mistake, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, this is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: shows analysts Sexton, it is Buck Sexton. No, what do
Speaker 1: the Russians have on Donald Trump? Politically, personally or financially?
Speaker 1: What is putin blackmailing President Trump Trump with personally, politically
Speaker 1: or financially. So again I asked the question, what do
Speaker 1: the Russians have on Donald Trump politically, personally or financially.
Speaker 1: The Russians must have something personally, politically or financially on
Speaker 1: President Trump. Now, I don't think that Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: a total nincompoop. She obviously has some good political instincts
Speaker 1: and fundraising ability and is utterly ruthless and desperate for
Speaker 1: power all the time. So those will get you some
Speaker 1: places in life, for sure. But I say that because
Speaker 1: I don't believe that she is so stupid as to
Speaker 1: believe that the Russians have blackmail material on the President
Speaker 1: of the United States. But she as the person who
Speaker 1: is third in line for the presidency. Okay, third in
Speaker 1: line for the presidency, we all need to remember that
Speaker 1: he's running around. We just played that for you. We
Speaker 1: could have found more clips saying that the Russian government
Speaker 1: has blackmail material on Donald Trump, and I just want
Speaker 1: to say, what would that even be. What let's think
Speaker 1: about this for a second. What information could the Russians
Speaker 1: really have that would allow them to blackmail President Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is hard to fathom.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind information that has not already come to light.
Speaker 1: Because Donald Trump's tax returns are with the IRS, the
Speaker 1: federal government agency that looks over deals with investigates and
Speaker 1: prosecutes people for tax irregularities and fraud. People always say, oh,
Speaker 1: we need to see his tax returns. The IRS has them.
Speaker 1: It's not like he hasn't filed taxes and the government
Speaker 1: doesn't know the government very much knows what's in his taxes.
Speaker 1: So it's not that as much as they're say, oh,
Speaker 1: it'll all be This is one of the dumbest things
Speaker 1: that I hear. It's all in the taxes. If he
Speaker 1: just releases his taxes, that's will all see because because
Speaker 1: the IRS given all the attention. You think what we've
Speaker 1: seen with the dj and the FBI and some of
Speaker 1: the weaponized bureaucrats against this president, and when he was
Speaker 1: a candidate. You think that no one in the irs
Speaker 1: might have said, hey, I'll take a little look at
Speaker 1: what's going on here. Maybe there's some suspicious wire transfers
Speaker 1: from Russia. This is only people that are brainwashed or
Speaker 1: are just stupid could believe this stuff. And I don't
Speaker 1: know if Nancy Pelosi thinks that her constituencies across the country,
Speaker 1: because he's really more of a national figure than even
Speaker 1: a local congresswoman. I don't know if she thinks they're
Speaker 1: stupid or brainwash, but it's one of the two or both,
Speaker 1: because she keeps saying this. The other part of this
Speaker 1: is to say that the president that there's some information
Speaker 1: that they have on him that is so damaging that
Speaker 1: he would sell out his country, be a trader and
Speaker 1: do Putin's bidding, which he isn't even doing, not doing
Speaker 1: an opposite of that in Ukraine, opposite of that in Syria.
Speaker 1: It's a Trump administration that decided to really go after
Speaker 1: isis hard core from the air. It's the Trump administration
Speaker 1: and that blew up two hundred Russians in the Syrian
Speaker 1: desert who made a run for a Kurdish allied outpost
Speaker 1: in the Syrian desert, two hundred Russians blew them up.
Speaker 1: That was this president. But he's doing Putin's bidding. You see,
Speaker 1: he's doing Putin's bidding. That that's what they keep telling us.
Speaker 1: Oh and by the way, the blackmail material that the
Speaker 1: Russians have to date. Muller, who can pull all of
Speaker 1: your phone records, all of your emails, every communication you've had, electronically,
Speaker 1: put anyone he wants under oath, question them for as
Speaker 1: long as he wants, bankrupt them through lawyer's fees alone,
Speaker 1: and you know he can do that, and he hasn't
Speaker 1: found this blackmail material yet. Wow. It's because the Trump
Speaker 1: team must be really good at hiding things from Muller
Speaker 1: when they have a Russia blackmail angle. That that somehow
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi knows about her intuitions going off, but the
Speaker 1: Muller team hasn't been able to figure out. This is
Speaker 1: This is for crazy people. This is not a rational,
Speaker 1: normal thing to believe. The country is in the grips
Speaker 1: of a mass hysteria with it not all of us,
Speaker 1: but a lot of people. One day. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you want, I'm I'm happy to sit here and have
Speaker 1: a conversation, right, all of us talk a bit about,
Speaker 1: you know, sem of your thoughts, calling whatever you want
Speaker 1: to do about the mistakes Trump has made. Trump has
Speaker 1: made a lot of mistakes. Of course, you expect the
Speaker 1: president of the units is gonna the United States is
Speaker 1: gonna make mistakes. But I mean, I think he I
Speaker 1: think he's picked. I think he has bad judgment about people.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's really a much of a debate
Speaker 1: about that. I think that he puts people in positions
Speaker 1: of authority that they can handle and are not qualified
Speaker 1: for not everybody. I think he's got some good picks
Speaker 1: in there too, But I think that he's got some
Speaker 1: some Maybe it's, you know, he just has a personal
Speaker 1: affinity for somebody, but you know, it overrides whatever other
Speaker 1: judgment that he could bring to bear. And I think
Speaker 1: that's a problem. It has definitely hurt his presidency. I
Speaker 1: think he should have pushed for action on the wall
Speaker 1: and for the stop the funding of planned parenthood way
Speaker 1: earlier than he did. There's a lot and and never
Speaker 1: mind the tweets, and you know, yeah, some of the
Speaker 1: tweets I don't really like that much. Some of them,
Speaker 1: though I love and some of them are amazing. And
Speaker 1: the Trump the honesty that he has brought in the
Speaker 1: conversation about particularly CNN, which is just a cesspool of
Speaker 1: of pseudo journalism and fraud, is is a breath of
Speaker 1: fresh air. It's it's a great thing for the national conversation,
Speaker 1: in my opinion. But they focus all their attention on
Speaker 1: this fantasy, the left, the Democrats of you know, instead
Speaker 1: of actually drilling down on what policies Trump has failed on,
Speaker 1: or ways in which, you know, what he's trying to
Speaker 1: accomplish are bad for the country, or they oppose him
Speaker 1: on the on the economy, or whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: They've they've turned this Russia fairy tale into the main
Speaker 1: gathering point for all their anti Trump reige rage. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the basket in which they don't all of
Speaker 1: their anti Trump psychosis, psychosis an animus, so not good,
Speaker 1: not good for the country, not good for anything. And
Speaker 1: and I'm hoping that it will it will come to
Speaker 1: and end soon. But I also and this is perhaps
Speaker 1: a little bit of foreshadowing of where we're going to
Speaker 1: go in a moment here where I talked about Kamela Harris,
Speaker 1: I think it's because there's also gonna be They're gonna
Speaker 1: have a tough sell the American people. Hey, you know
Speaker 1: that really strong economy and super low unemployment, and government
Speaker 1: that is slowly but surely through deregulation and just more
Speaker 1: sane policy making within the fourth branch of government, which
Speaker 1: is the permanent bureaucracy, you know, taking it. It's boot
Speaker 1: off your neck a little bit, not entirely, but a
Speaker 1: little bit. You know, all that stuff that was going on,
Speaker 1: Throw that out the window. Let's put the people who
Speaker 1: thought that that Hillary Clinton was honest and good and
Speaker 1: decent and a good leader. Let's put all those people
Speaker 1: in charge now and just with somebody else as the figurehead,
Speaker 1: so that they can destroy the economy, destroy the constitution,
Speaker 1: and destroy everything in this country that makes it so
Speaker 1: much better than so many other countries all over the world.
Speaker 1: They're gonna have a tough sell there. That's not going
Speaker 1: to be an easy thing to the commits. I know.
Speaker 1: I said, lines are open, and we got some calls up.
Speaker 1: James in Georgia, my friend, welcome to Buck Saxon Show.
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling in. Yes, sir, yes, sir, I'm glad.
Speaker 1: I'm glad to be on the show with you. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for calling in. I love Georgia. Savannah
Speaker 1: is one of my favorite places to visit. Yeah, baby,
Speaker 1: you need to come to the borough. I don't know
Speaker 1: where that is, but it sounds nice. Yeah, there you go. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm living a farmer community. I'm around a lot of immigrants,
Speaker 1: and a lot of them are really good people and
Speaker 1: are trying to make a decent living, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them they send their money back over to Mexico
Speaker 1: and the Central America and South America, and that's all
Speaker 1: well and good, but we don't hear anything in the
Speaker 1: national news of if they want to have what we
Speaker 1: have in this country, they should build it in their
Speaker 1: own country and we should help them do that. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, brain, brain drain and skill drain is a
Speaker 1: very very real thing for for a lot of countries
Speaker 1: all over the world where because of the increase in mobility,
Speaker 1: particularly in the in the twentieth century, now in the
Speaker 1: twenty first you know, it's a lot easier James for
Speaker 1: people to pick up and go somewhere else, and so
Speaker 1: you know, they they want and there are libertarians I
Speaker 1: would note who argue they forget about the importance of
Speaker 1: an actual nation state and citizenship and patriotism. But they'll
Speaker 1: argue that, you know, the free flow of people all
Speaker 1: over the world is just inherently a good thing. I disagree.
Speaker 1: But it's a lot easier to move around and look
Speaker 1: for that better economic opportunity than it used to be.
Speaker 1: You don't have to get on a ship for you know,
Speaker 1: eight weeks or whatever across the Atlantic, six weeks, hover
Speaker 1: along the Atlantic voyage taxs, you know. Now you can
Speaker 1: just hop on a plane and get there. And and
Speaker 1: so that means that you do have this role on
Speaker 1: good talented, hardworking people. And I appreciate, by the way,
Speaker 1: what you're saying about how yeah there are I mean,
Speaker 1: I know illegal immigrants too. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: good people within that community who are trying to the
Speaker 1: best by their families. But we're trying to deal with
Speaker 1: policy and with sustaining the country as it is, and
Speaker 1: that means you're gonna have to make some tough choices.
Speaker 1: To your point about the people that are sending back
Speaker 1: money and why don't they just better their own countries. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we are subsidizing Mexico and some Central American countries with
Speaker 1: our economy in the sense that there are untaxed remittances
Speaker 1: being sent back to Mexico to the tune of about
Speaker 1: twenty billion dollars a year. And that's an estimate. I mean,
Speaker 1: they don't really know, but it's about twenty billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year in cash that we are sending back to Mexico.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that, James, what they would say
Speaker 1: is that it's just too corrupt and too far gone,
Speaker 1: and you know, in the long run, we're all dead,
Speaker 1: and they don't feel enough of a bond with their
Speaker 1: own country or enough of a they don't feel that
Speaker 1: they can make an impact. Now I'm speaking for obviously
Speaker 1: some of Eagles who have come here. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but my guess is they're just like, look, I've just
Speaker 1: got to get what's better for me in my family.
Speaker 1: But that does have the effect that you're alluding to of,
Speaker 1: you know, who's gonna make who's gonna make honduras a
Speaker 1: better place, Who's going to clean up Honduras's corruption and
Speaker 1: end the the horrific street violence and gang violence that
Speaker 1: is a very real thing there. If a lot of
Speaker 1: the hard working, good people leave, you know, it does
Speaker 1: make it harder for those who are behind. So you know,
Speaker 1: you identify a very real problem. Yes, all righty, my friend,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for calling it from Georgia. Do
Speaker 1: we still get to Charlie and Maryland on a lot
Speaker 1: er to Charlie bounce he dropped, Oh thanks Charlie. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Hey money McCall buck. What's up? Man? Oh, I just
Speaker 1: talking about this Stone invasion and stuff. Uh, Andrew Weishman
Speaker 1: is ahead of that, and he's done this three times
Speaker 1: and I think he made a mistake on this last
Speaker 1: one when they televised it. Okay, why can't he be
Speaker 1: charged with abuse of power? Oh? Well, you know, Okay,
Speaker 1: so you've you've touched on some on some important points here.
Speaker 1: So so Charlie's talking about the the I think technically,
Speaker 1: I don't think it was pre dawn. It was probably
Speaker 1: around six am, but his very early raid, early morning
Speaker 1: raid on Roger Stone's house in Florida. By the way,
Speaker 1: I was on Tucker Show last night, just as an aside,
Speaker 1: Charlie and Tucker is like, and you know, Tucker, people
Speaker 1: forget he worked at CNN for many years. You know,
Speaker 1: I worked there for a couple of years. Tucker worked
Speaker 1: there for like a decade, I think, and Tucker is like,
Speaker 1: this idea that CNN was the only news organization that
Speaker 1: happened to stake out his house that happened to remember,
Speaker 1: it's not just the reporter. He had a camera crew
Speaker 1: there ready to go. That that's a little bit of
Speaker 1: a This isn't just one guy who's like monitoring the
Speaker 1: house at Tucker is like, this is just the idea
Speaker 1: that they didn't get a leak from from Muller's team
Speaker 1: is preposterous. He said that last night on the show.
Speaker 1: I mean I was saying that initially too, but I
Speaker 1: was surprised that Tucker went so all in on this one.
Speaker 1: But obviously they're doing this to send a message, and
Speaker 1: the message is that the Special Counsel is to be feared.
Speaker 1: You know, if you mess around with it, you do
Speaker 1: so at your peril. And it does stink of police
Speaker 1: state tactics, and you know it's it should bother people.
Speaker 1: And I know that Roger Stone is a fun character
Speaker 1: for people to you know, he brings some of it
Speaker 1: on himself and he is a weird guy and everything else.
Speaker 1: Got a giant tattoo of Nixon on his back. If
Speaker 1: you've never seen it. It's an amazing photo. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: know I still have to when I think about it.
Speaker 1: But given all that, I mean, there is something very
Speaker 1: real here. You know, he's facing years and years in prison,
Speaker 1: which is going to be a terrible thing for anybody.
Speaker 1: And you know, they didn't have to do it in
Speaker 1: this way, and there should be some judgment shown by prosecutors,
Speaker 1: by people who have the force of the state at
Speaker 1: their disposal, to make sure that they're not abusing it.
Speaker 1: Now to your point about is there any accountability for
Speaker 1: that abuse, Charlie, Unfortunately, answer with prosecutors is no. It
Speaker 1: is really hard to hold. I mean, they there has
Speaker 1: to be provable malicious unethical misconduct. It can't just be
Speaker 1: you made a bad call. It has to be you know,
Speaker 1: they've got an email if you're saying, I hate this
Speaker 1: person's stupid face, so I'm going to ruin his life
Speaker 1: and like terrify his wife by sending in the squat team.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're dumb enough as a prosecutor to
Speaker 1: send that email, you might get in trouble. Sure of that.
Speaker 1: You really don't, you know, the Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Knifeong
Speaker 1: I followed that very closely, so I remember a fair
Speaker 1: amount of the details. He was he was disbarred and
Speaker 1: was fired from his job, but he was a guy
Speaker 1: who had entirely exculpatory evidence and was like, I don't care.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna send these white kids to prison for, you know,
Speaker 1: twenty years to prove a point about social justice or
Speaker 1: something short of that. Man, Charlie, we need real reform here.
Speaker 1: I mean I think that I think that prosecutors there
Speaker 1: should be a standard, but beyond which if they abuse
Speaker 1: their authority, they should be personally, personally at least liable
Speaker 1: from a civil perspective, so you can sue sue the
Speaker 1: pants off, I mean, not actually take their pants up.
Speaker 1: They don't sue them into oblivion. So Charlie, I'm with
Speaker 1: you on that, man. I think that that needs to
Speaker 1: that needs to be addressed. And I thank you for
Speaker 1: calling in and Shields High. You know, there's there's some
Speaker 1: interesting stuff that's coming out now about asset forfeiture civil
Speaker 1: asset forfeiture, which is abused in many many jurisdictions across
Speaker 1: the country, and a lot of federal prosecutors know it's bad,
Speaker 1: but they just don't seem to care, and they keep
Speaker 1: doing it. This is the branch of the government that
Speaker 1: is the most likely to ruin your life. I mean
Speaker 1: to mess up your life. It's the irs. But the
Speaker 1: branch of the government that is the most likely to
Speaker 1: ruin your life as a decent, otherwise or fully law
Speaker 1: abiding American citizen is the prosecutorial arm of the government.
Speaker 1: Remember that it is important for all of us. We're
Speaker 1: going to talk a little bit about Camela's crazy policies
Speaker 1: when we come back. Stay with me. You're probably somebody
Speaker 1: who's familiar with hearing at least about the AAARP. You know,
Speaker 1: you might already know somebody who's a member. You might
Speaker 1: be a member. But did you know that the AARP
Speaker 1: is a lefty progressive organization for seniors. They fought tooth
Speaker 1: and nail for government control of healthcare. All about the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act Obamacare stood against tax cuts from middle
Speaker 1: class Forget all that. All right, If you want all
Speaker 1: the benefits but none of the progressive drawbacks, try AMAC.
Speaker 1: I recommend it. Why AMAC, Well, AMAC gives you all
Speaker 1: the upside of AARP with even better deals and conservatism
Speaker 1: and pro American policies at the center. Of the agenda.
Speaker 1: This is an organization that gives you benefits while also
Speaker 1: promoting the America that you, as a conservative senior want.
Speaker 1: Stand with AMAC as they fight the good fight. Become
Speaker 1: a member to today join right now at AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck that's am AC dot us slash fuck.
Speaker 1: AMAKI is better, better for you, better for America. The
Speaker 1: idea that a twenty nine member swat team in full
Speaker 1: tactical gear with assault weapons would surround my house, that
Speaker 1: I would open the door looking down the barrel of
Speaker 1: assault weapons, that I would be frog marched out front,
Speaker 1: barefooted and handcuffed when they simply contacted me. But as
Speaker 1: you know, it's pretty standard for that to happen. No,
Speaker 1: it is not stepping up ads. No, it is not
Speaker 1: standard for that to happen. It's standard for the Muller probe,
Speaker 1: and it's his team of Democrat psychos. Sure, but it
Speaker 1: is not standard. That is a lie. The main argument
Speaker 1: for why they did this that that has been offered
Speaker 1: up is so he wouldn't destroy evidence. My friends, he
Speaker 1: was saying, Roger Stone was saying last summer on my
Speaker 1: show on Riser, he was saying, you know, they're probably
Speaker 1: coming from me anything. Now. They already have all of
Speaker 1: his emails and what records could he destroy? They have
Speaker 1: his phone records, they have his emails. They're prosecuting for stuff.
Speaker 1: It's already in their possessions. It's a lie. No, this
Speaker 1: is this is how they do things. You know. They
Speaker 1: they're the big, bad, tough special prosecutors who are going
Speaker 1: to restore democracy and blah blah blah all this other crap.
Speaker 1: But notice how you have I mean, this is just
Speaker 1: the media is a disgrace, bad press. As Charles Cook says,
Speaker 1: the media is a disgrace because they can't even let
Speaker 1: a fellow American citizen talk about how he was frog
Speaker 1: marshed out of his home, you know, at at at
Speaker 1: six am or whatever, barefoot with a couple of dozen
Speaker 1: guys in tactical gear, and that that this is you
Speaker 1: know that he has to jump in. Stephan Appos has
Speaker 1: to jump in and say, oh, that's it's like the fault, George,
Speaker 1: you're a little you're a little you know, Clinton clintonite hack,
Speaker 1: all right. The fact that this guy makes one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars to host a show, it's just because he's
Speaker 1: friends with the executives in the media company. The media
Speaker 1: company is always owned by a larger company that actually
Speaker 1: has money and makes stuff, and the media executive who
Speaker 1: runs the the media wing of the much larger company
Speaker 1: can determine whatever salary he or she wants for this person,
Speaker 1: because you know, the actual company is like selling you know, internet,
Speaker 1: you know, internet access or something, but the little media
Speaker 1: company underneath it, it's just it's all about being clubby,
Speaker 1: clubby and buddy buddy with each other. We replaced Stephanopolis
Speaker 1: tomorrow and the guys there's nothing remarkable or interesting about
Speaker 1: him whatsoever. And he can't even let Roger Stone finish
Speaker 1: without saying something stupid, and that betrays how opposed to
Speaker 1: not just Roger Stone, but any criticism of the Special Counsel.
Speaker 1: You know, you're talking about dudes with guns, oh scarias,
Speaker 1: all rifle guns that liberals are supposed to hate, come
Speaker 1: in through the door and acting like they're you know,
Speaker 1: going after Pablo Escobar back in the day. And it's
Speaker 1: Roger Stone. I mean, can't you let the guy at
Speaker 1: least get his asscot and his velvet slippers. He's back
Speaker 1: with you now, because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the fuck never stops at Trump, you egotistical billionaire,
Speaker 1: go back to get Ratio on Twitter to talk over
Speaker 1: the other billionaire league how to run the world. Oh Man,
Speaker 1: the former CEO of Star wicks their shoults getting heckled,
Speaker 1: I mean getting heckled big time. Do you want Trump
Speaker 1: to win, you egotistical billionaire? Peep? Oh Man lives. They
Speaker 1: have created a culture of outrage and craziness. And ah,
Speaker 1: they're always outraged. They're always so emotional, aren't they. They're
Speaker 1: just so upset about things. I mean, here's a guy
Speaker 1: who's like, Hey, I want to run a really centrist
Speaker 1: campaign and give people more options, and and don't you
Speaker 1: dare run for president. They are so mad about this guy.
Speaker 1: And it's yes, as I've said, it is because he
Speaker 1: would he would split the vote, and he would probably
Speaker 1: siphon off some Democrat votes. And you know you're looking
Speaker 1: at ten twenty thousand votes here or there in certain states. Difference,
Speaker 1: the difference between winning and losing. You better fight for
Speaker 1: every edge. Some of you will catch that reference too, well.
Speaker 1: That would be some ninth level black belt ninja stuff
Speaker 1: if you caught that. But some of you will catch
Speaker 1: that reference between living and dying brand that you have anything.
Speaker 1: What I'm talking about famous speech, famous speech, but I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna I'm not gonna give it away because I
Speaker 1: want to. We'll see who in the team buck audience
Speaker 1: is industrious and can figure out what that is. So
Speaker 1: they hate Schultz because he would be a problem for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. And also if you have somebody who is
Speaker 1: a sane alternative that is socially liberal but at least
Speaker 1: understands mat math, which is why the Libs hate him.
Speaker 1: They hate him because he understands math and doesn't pretend
Speaker 1: not to understand math because he had to run a
Speaker 1: major company. You know, unlike people a Hillary Obama, these
Speaker 1: people don't They don't math math, schmath. They don't care.
Speaker 1: Math to them is math is the abstraction. Their good
Speaker 1: intentions are the reality. Right, Math is that we can
Speaker 1: make it up as we go along, but their good
Speaker 1: intentions will carry the day. Schultz is upsetting to them,
Speaker 1: and and it's because of it's because of this, it's
Speaker 1: because of his understanding of how finance works. And look,
Speaker 1: I think Schultz are probably really annoying and be a
Speaker 1: bad president, but at least he's not Elizabeth Warren, the
Speaker 1: multi millionaire who talks all the time about how rich
Speaker 1: people have it so easy. I'm like, Elizabeth, I don't
Speaker 1: have I don't have a million dollars period. So I
Speaker 1: really don't like to hear from people who have got
Speaker 1: fifteen or twenty million who are like, it's so hard
Speaker 1: for people who are just being ripped off by the
Speaker 1: rich people all the time, like, well, yeah, you're a
Speaker 1: rich person, Elizabeth Warren. They hate to break it to you.
Speaker 1: But Schultz went on speaking of people who speak like
Speaker 1: this that are very upset about things. Schultz went on
Speaker 1: the view where they have opinions and they want to
Speaker 1: share them and and here's here's how that went with
Speaker 1: Joy beiha, Hello, it's Joy. I've missed you. We haven't
Speaker 1: talked in a while. I'm all this, I don't read.
Speaker 1: I don't know too good, but you know I'm here now.
Speaker 1: Your entry into the race pretty much guarantees that a
Speaker 1: Republican is going to win. But I know I don't
Speaker 1: agree with you. I know you don't I don't agree.
Speaker 1: In fact, not only do I not agree with you,
Speaker 1: but I think if President Trump runs against a far left,
Speaker 1: progressive liberal Biden hasn't. Bisen hasn't come into the race yet,
Speaker 1: but they just let's finish if he runs against a
Speaker 1: far left progressive person who is suggesting sixty seventy percent
Speaker 1: tax increases on the rich and a healthcare system that
Speaker 1: we can't pay for. I don't know President Trump is
Speaker 1: going to get reelected. Oh my gosh, they do not.
Speaker 1: What what are you? What are you talking about healthcare?
Speaker 1: It's got to be cheap when the government runs it.
Speaker 1: They do not want to hear what Schultz is saying
Speaker 1: because what he is saying, and this is not a
Speaker 1: this is not a oh, I'm just gonna say this
Speaker 1: so we can all own the Libs and laugh, laugh,
Speaker 1: laugh about it, although obviously we do a lot of
Speaker 1: that on the show. What he is saying is objectively
Speaker 1: and demonstrably true. If the Democrats run a far left
Speaker 1: candidate like a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, they're going
Speaker 1: to lose. They're going to lose. He's right, and they
Speaker 1: don't want to hear it. This is anathema, this is sacrilege. Now,
Speaker 1: on the left, you have to sneak the socialism into
Speaker 1: the conversation. You see, you have to allow the media
Speaker 1: to engage in its work of propagandizing so that people think, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris isn't really an authoritarian social She just wants
Speaker 1: the government to control all aspects of your life, the
Speaker 1: means of production, for business ventures and for commerce to occur,
Speaker 1: and to essentially have a total say over every aspect
Speaker 1: of what's going on day to day in this country
Speaker 1: with very few, if any restraints. But she's not a
Speaker 1: Democrats or she's not a authoritarian socialist. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: she's a She's wonderful. You see, she is just wonderful.
Speaker 1: That's what they'll tell you. She's amazing. Look at her story.
Speaker 1: There are some parts of her story, by the way,
Speaker 1: they've already come out that people are not going to
Speaker 1: want to look too closely. Yet. Now, in fairness, we
Speaker 1: are not going to be in the game here of
Speaker 1: looking it's it's it's not really, it's a no go
Speaker 1: zone if you will to get too deep into you know,
Speaker 1: if somebody's you know, somebody had an affair, or somebody's
Speaker 1: got that personal baggage. Folks, we're not democrats. We're not
Speaker 1: going to be rank hypocrites about this. The Trumpster has
Speaker 1: a slightly unorthodox past when it comes to women and
Speaker 1: his marital tendencies. Okay, the Trumpsters, He's led a he's
Speaker 1: led a full life, very full So I don't think
Speaker 1: that we're going to spend too much time talking about
Speaker 1: the various personal foibles of the of the people that
Speaker 1: are running. I want to focus on the policies. I
Speaker 1: want to focus on the substance of what they are saying.
Speaker 1: That's what I do with Trump. What is the message?
Speaker 1: What is he promising to accomplish for the country, and
Speaker 1: how will that affect all of us? And how does
Speaker 1: it affect the constitution and the future of this nation?
Speaker 1: And it sounds like I'm running for office right now,
Speaker 1: how does it affect the future? But really that's what
Speaker 1: I care about and that's what I want to focus on.
Speaker 1: But Schultz is the fly in the ointment right now.
Speaker 1: On the left, they are very upset about this because
Speaker 1: they can't they can't have somebody who has any credibility
Speaker 1: on the left. I mean, Starbucks, man, this is this
Speaker 1: is an American institute, but a liberal one, always has been,
Speaker 1: always will be. Starbucks is liberal. I mean coffee should
Speaker 1: be something that's not you know, should not be politicized
Speaker 1: unless it's delicious, freedom loving, patriotic coffee, black Raffle, cofee
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck, you know, unless it's that, then
Speaker 1: coffee should just be something you go get, you know,
Speaker 1: in the store. Whatever. But they're already jumping all over
Speaker 1: Schultz because he is speaking the truth, and the Democrat
Speaker 1: primary is going to be even more of a mess.
Speaker 1: If you have somebody who is center left speaking the truth.
Speaker 1: You need people that can get away with the most
Speaker 1: spectacular falsehoods about how government will be more efficient in
Speaker 1: the delivery of healthcare, about how your healthcare costs will
Speaker 1: go down if you currently have private assurance, but then
Speaker 1: the government is in charge, about how your care will
Speaker 1: be better. All lies, all lies, And I'm I'm the
Speaker 1: person who's sitting here telling you, yeah, that's right. We've
Speaker 1: been predicting single payer for years and here we are,
Speaker 1: here we are. That's they can't have somebody who is
Speaker 1: yelling from the rooftops about what's really going to happen
Speaker 1: to this country at the Democrats win. So that's why
Speaker 1: they hate Schultz, which brings me to what they're doing.
Speaker 1: And this is colasssic what they are doing right now
Speaker 1: in order to destroy, because you know, the left is
Speaker 1: very good at personal destruction. And so what's happening now
Speaker 1: is that they are turning. They're turning all these they're
Speaker 1: activating all these journalists activist types, which is basically journalists
Speaker 1: who are on the left, which is journalists. Because if
Speaker 1: you're a conservative journalist, people they'll call you right wing
Speaker 1: conservative commentator or whatever. If you're a lib journalist, they
Speaker 1: just call you a journalist. This is one of the
Speaker 1: big dishonest games they play. But they are mobilizing against
Speaker 1: Starbucks right or well, against Starbucks one and against Schultz.
Speaker 1: They've already threatened a boycott of Starbucks because the FORMERCYEO.
Speaker 1: All right, the former CEO might run for the presidency.
Speaker 1: Are you guys kidding me? Like, well, why why you're
Speaker 1: gonna you're gonna harm this company that employs thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands people? Starbucks a good company. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: an American institution. Now, I think the coffee is overpriced,
Speaker 1: and it's pumped way too much sugar in our veins
Speaker 1: over the years. But I guess you don't pump sugar
Speaker 1: in the vein, you know what I mean, in our
Speaker 1: blood stream um. But that said, you know, why, why
Speaker 1: why are they coming after this thing? Is he's not
Speaker 1: even a part of it anymore. I mean, maybe he's
Speaker 1: on the borders somebody. You know, he hasn't run it.
Speaker 1: You're gonna boycott Starbucks because he's thinking about it? This
Speaker 1: is just crazy talk. But that's even not enough. It's
Speaker 1: not enough for the activist left and its journal accomplishes
Speaker 1: to threaten Starbucks the company. They're also going after just
Speaker 1: anything they can to humiliate and destroy Schultz preemptively. This
Speaker 1: is a piece from The Daily Beast, which is a
Speaker 1: a woke dumpster fire of a website. Over twenty one years,
Speaker 1: Starbucks released and sold two hundred and sixty two records
Speaker 1: using discogs dot com. A good percentage of these were
Speaker 1: compilations like Music for Little Hipsters or British Folk. The
Speaker 1: single artists albums, though, are overwhelmingly from white musicians. According
Speaker 1: to her review by The Daily Beast, the only living
Speaker 1: black artists we could find among the two hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty two Starbucks releases were Herbie Hancock, Mary J. Blige,
Speaker 1: sly In the Family, Stone Al Green, Ben Anice Singer, Angelique,
Speaker 1: Kid Joe, and jazz trio, Soulivai or soul Live. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm sorry, I don't know how you can
Speaker 1: say that Blige to the youngest among them. She's forty
Speaker 1: eight years old. So that's the right, folks. In order
Speaker 1: to discredit Schultz because he's speaking truth about economics, you
Speaker 1: now have journalists who are doing a deep dive into
Speaker 1: what crappy CDs Starbucks used to try to sell you
Speaker 1: at the checkout counter. And the big problem with them,
Speaker 1: too many white artists, Starbucks artists, so white. That's that's
Speaker 1: what this is. We can't let these we can't have
Speaker 1: let these people run the country again. I'm sorry. We
Speaker 1: cannot let the crazy left run America. They're going to
Speaker 1: run it into the ground. They will ruin this place,
Speaker 1: they will ruin it. Oh, you can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 1: Oh I haven't even gotten a camel Yeah we got.
Speaker 1: We got a little deep dive into some of the
Speaker 1: Camelo stuff here. I'm just having too much fun tonight
Speaker 1: on the show. Actually got enough sleep last night, which
Speaker 1: is always always a good thing. Um Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck sexy if you want to send me thoughts
Speaker 1: for those of you who are listening on delay on
Speaker 1: the podcast. Make sure that you subscribe even if you
Speaker 1: are a live listener to the podcast, so you always
Speaker 1: have the buck Sex and Show on your phone. So
Speaker 1: if you just want to listen to it on demand
Speaker 1: on your own time, you can do so. It's on iTunes.
Speaker 1: We will well, it's on iTunes. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: to reiterate. You support the Medicare for All bill, I think,
Speaker 1: initially co sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders, you're also a cosponsor.
Speaker 1: I believe it will totally eliminate private insurance, so for
Speaker 1: people out there who like their insurance, they don't get
Speaker 1: to keep it. Well the listen. The idea is that
Speaker 1: everyone gets access to medical care and you don't have
Speaker 1: to go through the process of going through an insurance company,
Speaker 1: having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all
Speaker 1: of the delay that may require. Who of us has
Speaker 1: not had that situation where you got to wait for
Speaker 1: approval and the doctor says, well, I don't know if
Speaker 1: your insurance company is going to cover this. Let's eliminate
Speaker 1: all of that. Let's move on nonsense, crazy talk from
Speaker 1: someone who should know better, but I'm not sure she does.
Speaker 1: Let's move on. We can just move past this private insured.
Speaker 1: The reason that people have been concerned, or rather the
Speaker 1: reason that the left has been concerned for a while
Speaker 1: that they would have to build up to this moment
Speaker 1: where they can push for this Medicare for all. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind, Medicare for all isn't even really an
Speaker 1: accurate description. They want single payer. Single payer is the
Speaker 1: government gives a check for your healthcare costs to a provider.
Speaker 1: Medicare actually has cost sharing, Medicare has states that kick
Speaker 1: in money for it, and individuals have to This is
Speaker 1: why there's Medicare supplement plans, and this is why there
Speaker 1: are you know, it's not as simple as just everything
Speaker 1: is paid for, everything is done. Medicare is also the single,
Speaker 1: by far biggest reason we are twenty two trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in debt and counting and going to be insolvent. So
Speaker 1: what you have here is getting a free infomercial from CNN.
Speaker 1: They didn't do this for you know, they didn't do
Speaker 1: this are some of the other candidates they announced, What
Speaker 1: a surprise, CNN's a trash bag. But here you have
Speaker 1: the single biggest driver of our debt that is only
Speaker 1: going to get bigger and bigger over time, which also
Speaker 1: means that interest payments on the debt will simultaneously be
Speaker 1: getting bigger and bigger as we go deeper into debt
Speaker 1: and crowding out the rest of spending and the stuff
Speaker 1: that we want rights do the government spending that would
Speaker 1: actually be good, and a whole lot of other things.
Speaker 1: I get ready for that war we're gonna have with
Speaker 1: China in about twenty years. So here they're saying that
Speaker 1: the answer to the nation's ills at a time when
Speaker 1: Obamacare has failed its core promises, and it's just it's
Speaker 1: just shifting money from some people, from people who are
Speaker 1: kind of you know, making seventy to ninety thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year to people who are making, you know, thirty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year. I mean, that's what Obamacare is
Speaker 1: largely done on the healthcare market. Depends on what state
Speaker 1: you're in and all the rest of it, but it's
Speaker 1: just redistribution of wealth. Now, the answer is, let's just
Speaker 1: double down on the government running healthcare and making all
Speaker 1: the determinations about care. If you think that you're going
Speaker 1: to be and I know you don't when I say
Speaker 1: you this is like the Royal You asn't you know
Speaker 1: the people out there, if they think that this is
Speaker 1: going to be making healthcare easier to get with less
Speaker 1: bureaucracy and less red tape and less frustration, it's like
Speaker 1: they've never spent a minute dealing with the government. Remember,
Speaker 1: Medicare is too expensive as it is. It is robbing
Speaker 1: from future generations to pay for the program we already have.
Speaker 1: That's just a fact. People pay take out twice what
Speaker 1: they put in on average, meaning that their taxes are
Speaker 1: half of what they take out in healthcare at the
Speaker 1: end of their lives. That's just a system. I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you what it is. Future generations are going to
Speaker 1: be crushed under this debt. And their answer is, let's
Speaker 1: just let's just take this which only affects people that
Speaker 1: are sixty five and over, so it's only a subset
Speaker 1: of the population and expand it for everyone. It's insane.
Speaker 1: It's insane. And people who are gonna tell me, oh buck,
Speaker 1: they do this, and they do this in other countries.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about what the country is. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: the population size, Let's talk about its economic growth, Let's
Speaker 1: talk about its GDP. You know, I don't want to
Speaker 1: be in another country. I want to be in America
Speaker 1: and two Democrats. That's increasingly a revolutionary concept. I don't
Speaker 1: want us to be Denmark. I want this to be America.
Speaker 1: Can we all get on board with that? If we're
Speaker 1: gonna have this presidential rates, can we at least all
Speaker 1: agreed that we're trying to pick the president of the
Speaker 1: United States and not the president of Sweden. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network the only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company out there. Okay, this is a unique organization
Speaker 1: that can tailor whatever needs you have. They can tailor
Speaker 1: the program so that it fits perfectly. Whether you're a
Speaker 1: huge business or a small business. You're going to need
Speaker 1: to have background checks done on the people that you're hiring,
Speaker 1: people that you're bringing in. If you need someone or
Speaker 1: a deal or anything to be vetted, this is the
Speaker 1: organization to go to. Global Verification Network. They are based
Speaker 1: in Chicago, but their risk mitigation experts are spread out
Speaker 1: across the country. They can handle your business wherever you are,
Speaker 1: large or small business. So call them at eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine again. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network eight seven seven six nine five one one
Speaker 1: seven nine, or go to MYGVN dot com. Again, that's
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com. Make sure they know that you're a
Speaker 1: part of Team Buck. You heard about them here on
Speaker 1: the show. And remember Global Verification Network leaves no stone
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence nor Again, this is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Sexton would not be standing here were it not for
Speaker 1: the education I received, And I know man of many
Speaker 1: of us will say the same thing. And I believe
Speaker 1: a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime.
Speaker 1: So I decided I was going to start prosecuting parents
Speaker 1: for truancy. Well, this was a little controversial in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: and frankly, my staff went bananas. They were very concerned
Speaker 1: because we didn't know at the time whether I was
Speaker 1: going to have an opponent in my reelection race. When
Speaker 1: I said, look, I'm done. This is a serious issue,
Speaker 1: and I've got a little political capital and I'm going
Speaker 1: to spend some of it, and this is what we did.
Speaker 1: We recognized that in that initiative, as a prosecutor and
Speaker 1: law enforcement, I have a huge stick the school district
Speaker 1: has got to care at let's work in tandem around
Speaker 1: our collective objective and goal, which is to get those
Speaker 1: kids in school. There you have Kamela Harris talking abo
Speaker 1: When she was a prosecutor in San Francisco, she was
Speaker 1: going after people for their kids not going to school. Now,
Speaker 1: some of you might actually, I don't know, some of
Speaker 1: you might might kind of like this as a general ideal,
Speaker 1: though it seems to me kind of harsh. How do
Speaker 1: you know, you know, how would you even make the
Speaker 1: determination as whether the parents are really at fault or
Speaker 1: whether the kid. You know, usually it's not ten year
Speaker 1: olds aren't showing up to school, it's teenagers. The kid
Speaker 1: is ditching, the kid is just not showing up. Who's
Speaker 1: going to make that determination? And also is this a
Speaker 1: wise use of prosecutorial resources? Beyond that, though, there's also
Speaker 1: a philosophical issue here, one that is going to haunt
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris as she is now held up as the
Speaker 1: she is overnight. This is why Tapper sat down with
Speaker 1: her on CNN to do this, to do this advertisement
Speaker 1: for her campaign. That's what they call it a town hall.
Speaker 1: It's a CNN ad for a candidate that's what it is.
Speaker 1: But they they did this, and they're trying to prop
Speaker 1: her up. They're trying to at least put someone forward
Speaker 1: who's not doing, you know, doing damage to herself for
Speaker 1: himself in the first moments of candidacy, right, I mean
Speaker 1: someone I mean Elizabeth Warren with the DNA thing, one
Speaker 1: of the greatest self owns, one of the biggest owned
Speaker 1: goals I've ever seen anyone manage, period. So they're they're
Speaker 1: hopeful that this will at least make their crop of
Speaker 1: candidates look a little bit more serious. And the other people,
Speaker 1: who's this castro guy? You know, you look at the names,
Speaker 1: He's like, who exactly is you know, Elizabeth Warren? Who
Speaker 1: else is in there? I mean, it's a it's kind
Speaker 1: of a not a very exciting proof for the the Democrats.
Speaker 1: The problem she's going to have those that she has
Speaker 1: a record as a prosecutor and a record for locking
Speaker 1: people up. She is going to because of the Democrat
Speaker 1: narrative around women, women of color, she is going to
Speaker 1: want to present herself as a champion of particularly minorities
Speaker 1: and and you know, people who get to get the
Speaker 1: rough end of the criminal justice system at all the
Speaker 1: time Meanwhile, when it suited her, she was a pretty
Speaker 1: pretty rough and tumble prosecutor, going after people pretty hard,
Speaker 1: pretty statused in her inclinations. He's arresting people, prosecuting parents
Speaker 1: for truancy here, that's unusual. Now the Left is going
Speaker 1: to try to make all that disappear, but it's going
Speaker 1: to be hard because they need to make that excuse
Speaker 1: for it, because ultimately they're going to get into this
Speaker 1: mindset of electability, and they believe that Kamala Harris is electable.
Speaker 1: They think that she can do it, and therefore they'll
Speaker 1: make excuses. They're just gonna make excuses for a long
Speaker 1: on the way. There's some other interesting things that came
Speaker 1: to light in the discussions. She was like, oh wait,
Speaker 1: we have a little more on her on her truancy comment.
Speaker 1: This was in play play fifteen. So to that end,
Speaker 1: on my letter head, now, let me tell you something
Speaker 1: about my letter head. When you're the DA of a
Speaker 1: major city in this country, usually the job comes with
Speaker 1: a badge, and there is often an artistic rendering of
Speaker 1: said badge on your stationary. So I sent a letter
Speaker 1: out on my letter head to every parent in the
Speaker 1: school district outlining the connection that was statistically proven between
Speaker 1: elementary school truancy high school dropouts who will become a
Speaker 1: victim of crime and who will become a perpetrator of crime.
Speaker 1: We sent it out to everyone. A friend of mine
Speaker 1: actually called me and he said, Colin, my wife got
Speaker 1: the letter. She freaked out. She brought all the kids
Speaker 1: into the living room, held up the letter said if
Speaker 1: you don't go to school, Kamala's gonna put you and
Speaker 1: me in jail. Yes, we achieved intended effect. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but that's that's that's a creepy thing, this idea that
Speaker 1: you know you have to go to these First of all,
Speaker 1: they're they're factories of progressivism. I mean, overwhelmingly, the public
Speaker 1: school system in this country is just is brainwashing kids
Speaker 1: to become a little Democrat voters, a little automatons for
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party, which is really disconcerting in and of itself.
Speaker 1: But beyond that, I mean, I understand she's really playing
Speaker 1: this up like she I wonder how many people she
Speaker 1: actually prosecuted, if any, But to threaten to use prosecutorial
Speaker 1: resources and and and power to take away possibly somebody's freedom,
Speaker 1: even if it's only look I know, she's not gonna
Speaker 1: lock people up for decades for truancy, but you know, theoretically,
Speaker 1: at least she would have had to threaten to arrest
Speaker 1: people take away that I mean, take away their freedom
Speaker 1: for a day or two. To me, seems harsh. And
Speaker 1: that you know that the whole idea that your children
Speaker 1: should it should be a criminal act for you to
Speaker 1: not send your children to school. That should that should
Speaker 1: be disconcerting. I think to folks, I really do all
Speaker 1: the stuff she is saying about dropouts, and yeah, there's
Speaker 1: other problems all that, But what about parents that just
Speaker 1: don't want to send their kids to the public school,
Speaker 1: they want to homeschool them. You say, oh, buck, they
Speaker 1: can know they make that hard in some states. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of ways that this can blowback on parents.
Speaker 1: Oh but then, speaking of blowback guns, Kamala Harris talked
Speaker 1: about what she thinks about guns play thirteen. We have
Speaker 1: got to have smart gun safety laws in this country,
Speaker 1: and we've got to stop buying this false choice. You
Speaker 1: can be in favor of the Second Amendment and also
Speaker 1: understand that there is no reason in the civil society
Speaker 1: that we have assault weapons around communities that can kill
Speaker 1: babies and police officers. She even went as far as
Speaker 1: to suggest that we should have people see the victims
Speaker 1: of gun violence. Legislators should be forced to see the
Speaker 1: dead bodies from gun violence because that would change their
Speaker 1: mind about the Second Amendment. A bizarre, ignorant, and truly
Speaker 1: obtuse thing for her to say, as though those of
Speaker 1: us who believe in the right to bear arms don't
Speaker 1: care about the innocent victims of violence. Quite the contrary,
Speaker 1: we don't want to be the innocent victims of violence,
Speaker 1: and we want to be able to protect others from
Speaker 1: becoming the innocent victims of violence. But Harris is a statist,
Speaker 1: a socialist, and a disaster in waiting. That Russia is
Speaker 1: our number one geopolitical foe. Yes, right now, I think
Speaker 1: they're the most determined foe to work against us, because
Speaker 1: they actually did attack us in the last election. You've
Speaker 1: become this outspoken voice on foreign policy, specifically the Russia,
Speaker 1: because of your Intel Committee assignment. But if you ask
Speaker 1: all of the heads of all the intelligence agencies anything
Speaker 1: that they agree on besides agreeing that Russia interfere in
Speaker 1: our twenty sixteen election, the thing they most agree on
Speaker 1: is that China actually presents the most severe and significant
Speaker 1: long term economic and national security threat to this country.
Speaker 1: Why if that's the case and you believe that, do
Speaker 1: you spend the overwhelming majority of your time on Russia? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And I don't spend the overwhelming majority of my time
Speaker 1: on Russia, but the certainly on talking about it, certainly
Speaker 1: on television, certainly on your tweets, and certainly also on
Speaker 1: your legislation. I mean, the largest bulk of legislation that
Speaker 1: you've written has been in response to the President and
Speaker 1: also with respect to Russia. I would say it reflects
Speaker 1: that the times that we're in and the threat that
Speaker 1: we faced. Good for Margaret Hoover, old associate of mine
Speaker 1: from back in the day, for what she did here
Speaker 1: by getting that was Swallowell For those who don't know,
Speaker 1: Smarmy Swallowell from the sound of his voice, who's a
Speaker 1: one of these Democrat congressmen who has made made his
Speaker 1: whole brand, really made his whole name about going on
Speaker 1: TV and saying crazy and irrespond constable stuff about Trump
Speaker 1: and Russia and Russia collusion. I mean, there's a there's
Speaker 1: a Hines Congressman Jim Hines I think out of Connecticut
Speaker 1: he's won Um Swallowell obviously the grand daddy of them
Speaker 1: all is that incredibly oly aginists because I learned that.
Speaker 1: I learned that the proper pronunciation of that word because
Speaker 1: of the incredible brilliance of Team Buck. Thank you the
Speaker 1: oly aginist fellow, Adam Schiff. These are people who are
Speaker 1: only known really, I mean, this is this is how
Speaker 1: they have built their political brands by being Russia conspiracy maniacs.
Speaker 1: I mean, just people that are making it up as
Speaker 1: they go along, and they'll say whatever. They'll say whatever
Speaker 1: Rachel Maddow, whatever morning Joe wants to call them, or
Speaker 1: want rather wants them to say, sorry, that's what That's
Speaker 1: what will happen. Um. That's the way that they go
Speaker 1: about representing the people as this pathetic hash tag resistance
Speaker 1: mentality where anything you can say on Russia is going
Speaker 1: to get you applause and plaudits from people that really
Speaker 1: believe that the president is an Asian of Russia, which,
Speaker 1: as we've been discussing, especially if we are finally in
Speaker 1: the latter stages of the Muller probe, which I am not,
Speaker 1: I think the latter stages of the Muller probe means
Speaker 1: we have six to twelve months left. That's what I
Speaker 1: think that. You know, when they say latter stages, they
Speaker 1: mean it's not going to stretch for ten years. But
Speaker 1: they're they're not going to finish this until the election year.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, that's if you ask me to put
Speaker 1: money on it right now now, I could. This is
Speaker 1: a wild guess. I can't. None of my sources in
Speaker 1: DJ will. I think they honestly just don't know. I
Speaker 1: think only Muller and his team know, and they probably
Speaker 1: haven't even decided yet. But if I were putting money
Speaker 1: on it, I would say, the Muller probe wraps up
Speaker 1: next you know, next fall, you know, maybe around October November.
Speaker 1: So we're when we say we're close to the end.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's all a question of what does close mean.
Speaker 1: But I want there to be a acountability for the
Speaker 1: idiocy and the viciousness and the stupidity, the lies, all
Speaker 1: of the stuff that has characterized the way the Democrats
Speaker 1: have acted this whole time, and the cost to the country,
Speaker 1: you know, the cost to the US government, to the
Speaker 1: confidence that the American people's choice in an election will
Speaker 1: be respected by the establishment. We're always told, oh, he's
Speaker 1: undermine Trump's undermining our institutions. And I always respond, well,
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, but one of them, but
Speaker 1: one of the ways I respond is by saying that
Speaker 1: what could undermine our institutions more than the people who
Speaker 1: are supposed to be the neutral Uh, you know, executors
Speaker 1: of the institution, people that work in the government bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: people that work for Congress on Capitol Hill, And you
Speaker 1: know what could undermine our institutions more than all of
Speaker 1: them working to undo the clear choice made by the
Speaker 1: people of the United States and last election to vote
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. And look, I agree, it's it's crazy
Speaker 1: in a way that Donald Trump is president. Now, I
Speaker 1: didn't see it coming. Some of you did, and I
Speaker 1: probably one day i'll sift through the email box and
Speaker 1: the inbox on Facebook and just go back to the
Speaker 1: early days of the primary, when some of you were like, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to tell you. I'm trying to tell you
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is going to win this thing. You're not
Speaker 1: listening to me right now, but you will listen. I
Speaker 1: did listen eventually, but you were like, I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: this is a movement. I'm telling you this is different.
Speaker 1: And I look, I was always humbled by the fact,
Speaker 1: as one should be in media, right that some of
Speaker 1: you saw this so early, And I was like, I
Speaker 1: just can't I just can't see it. I don't think
Speaker 1: this guy can beat the machine, and sure enough, I
Speaker 1: am the machine. Very few of you will get that reference,
Speaker 1: but those of you who will will be like Buck,
Speaker 1: that was a great reference. So Swallowell is one of
Speaker 1: the clowns in chief here for the whole Russia thing.
Speaker 1: And I mean, here's an another example. I mean, on
Speaker 1: I always want to say NPR, PBS, the other state
Speaker 1: media thing that is funded for old people to watch.
Speaker 1: That's where she asked that question. But then there's just
Speaker 1: the kind of stuff that this guy Swollwell says on
Speaker 1: a regular basis without evidence, as is noted here played too.
Speaker 1: At what point you draw the line and not accused
Speaker 1: the president of United States without any evidence of being
Speaker 1: an agent of Russia. Yeah, he's betrayed our country. And
Speaker 1: I don't I don't say that lightly. I worked as
Speaker 1: a prosecutor for seven years a night betraying the country.
Speaker 1: By the way, we want evidence before you say that.
Speaker 1: But you said, an agent of Russia. He works on
Speaker 1: their behalf. After it was revealed that the Russians were
Speaker 1: attacking our democracy, he went to a press conference and said, Russia,
Speaker 1: keep doing it. We're familiar with that sequence of events
Speaker 1: as a prosecutor, as you know. But as a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: that wasn't the evidence in court. I mean, as a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: do you know the difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 1: I'm not hearing the evidence that he's an agent of Russia. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's pretty clear. It's almost hiding in
Speaker 1: plain sight. Is he delusional or just a decrepid, dishonorable liar.
Speaker 1: This guy represents a congressional distory. He's a member of Congress.
Speaker 1: He gets on TV all the time. Trump is an
Speaker 1: agent of Russia, says says who how Oh you know,
Speaker 1: he just is. It's right there in front of you. No,
Speaker 1: crazy person, It's not right there in front of us.
Speaker 1: Why should this person, Eric Swollwell be taken seriously? Why
Speaker 1: should anyone take him seriously when he says this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. I mean, the answer is he shouldn't be
Speaker 1: the answer is this guy is way out of line. Oh, bio.
Speaker 1: He mentioned, you know Trump saying keep doing it. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of loose a lot of loose talk around
Speaker 1: what Trump said and how bad it was at one time.
Speaker 1: And Trump occasionally does you know, Look he's running around,
Speaker 1: he's throwing long bombs verbally speaking into the end zone.
Speaker 1: Sometimes he gets picked off. It's gonna happen. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: gonna happen, and it has happened. But they always feel
Speaker 1: this need to exaggerate what Trump said, which tells you
Speaker 1: a lot, doesn't it, or to misconstrue the exact words
Speaker 1: are usually not enough. They have to do something else.
Speaker 1: Here is what remember Swalwell said that he told Russia
Speaker 1: keep doing it. Here's the reference. Actually, playclip three. He's
Speaker 1: a total lack of respect for President Obama. Number one,
Speaker 1: he doesn't like him, and number two, he doesn't respect him.
Speaker 1: I think he's going to respect your president if I'm elected,
Speaker 1: and I hope he likes me. Russia, if you're listening,
Speaker 1: I hope you're able to find the thirty thousand emails
Speaker 1: that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded
Speaker 1: mightily by our press. Yeah, he's just saying that. Visually,
Speaker 1: he's obviously trying to be a little tongue in cheek,
Speaker 1: but he saying, yeah, if Russia, if you got the
Speaker 1: emails that Hillary deleted from her illegal server situation, Okay,
Speaker 1: they including the classified hundred plus emails that she deleted
Speaker 1: when emails were under subpoena. That's destruction of evidence. Not
Speaker 1: only did she traffic and classified on an unsecure server
Speaker 1: in clear violation of the Espionage Act. And James Comey,
Speaker 1: in his I'm America's Last boy Scout routine stood up
Speaker 1: in complete contravention of dj guidelines and jumped on the
Speaker 1: hand grenade to save the Clinton administration. To be in
Speaker 1: addition that she was destroying evidence, she was destroying evidence,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to believe the big problem is Trump
Speaker 1: making jokes about the destruction of evidence that she had.
Speaker 1: And he says, you'll be rewarded minorly by the press. Yeah,
Speaker 1: as in the press is going to cover that story
Speaker 1: a lot. That would be a big story. One other
Speaker 1: part of the whole Hillary email Russia hacking thing and
Speaker 1: the DNC hacking in all, but that never seems to
Speaker 1: get much attention. This stuff was all true, I mean,
Speaker 1: is that allowed to factor into the calculation here a
Speaker 1: little bit. I mean, there are a lot of news
Speaker 1: publications New York Times, Washington Post in violation of the law.
Speaker 1: They think it's not, but it is published classified information
Speaker 1: that harms US national security on a regular basis, in
Speaker 1: violation of the law. We just our DJ chooses not
Speaker 1: to prosecute them. What about the the wiki leaks, dump
Speaker 1: on the DNC and podessed his emails? What about that
Speaker 1: is so outside the balance of what the Washington Post
Speaker 1: and the New York Times, oh, because they did it
Speaker 1: for a foreign power. We had a foreigner paid by
Speaker 1: Hillary's campaign, Christopher Steele, using foreign sources who were Russian,
Speaker 1: to weaponize the intelligence community against a presidential candidate, which
Speaker 1: one of those things sounds worse to you. We're gonna
Speaker 1: have to hold these people accountable, the liars, the cheats,
Speaker 1: the thieves, We're going to have to hold them accountable.
Speaker 1: Because if this Muller probe does wind down the way
Speaker 1: that I don't know when, but I know it will,
Speaker 1: it's going to go out with a whimper. If it
Speaker 1: does wind down that way, they're going to try to
Speaker 1: move this to being a political crime, something that needs
Speaker 1: to be impeached, and we need to make sure that
Speaker 1: we hold them accountable for all of the lie, all
Speaker 1: the stuff they've done that is so destructive and so untrue.
Speaker 1: People like this super clown Congressman Swallowell his district should
Speaker 1: be ashamed. By the way, We'll be right back, hey,
Speaker 1: team Buck, It's time for roll call by the night
Speaker 1: and the freedom have my friends, we have covered so
Speaker 1: much ground. Thank you for being here with me and
Speaker 1: hanging out man. Wherever you're listening across the country, or
Speaker 1: if you're listening even the next day. It reminds me
Speaker 1: podcast If you ever missed the show live, you can
Speaker 1: always always listen on iTunes. Just type in the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show on iTunes and you can also subscribe so
Speaker 1: it'll always be waiting for you. Podcasting is fun and great,
Speaker 1: so you should check that out alrighty the Facebook in box.
Speaker 1: By the way, one thing I'm with my beard, my
Speaker 1: beard struggles. Is it supposed to sometimes get too long
Speaker 1: around the producer Mike, do you have any input on this.
Speaker 1: It gets a little long around your mouth so that
Speaker 1: it kind of can scratch and irritate. Does that mean
Speaker 1: you got to bust out the trimmers? Or do I
Speaker 1: just need to man up microaggression and let it keep growing. Yeah. Man,
Speaker 1: well I'll give you my point of view, and then
Speaker 1: we know, we all know Brandon's a beard expert. Me
Speaker 1: and you are new to this scheme. We're kind of
Speaker 1: beard neubs. Yeah, he's really the beard specialist. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: what I do is I get the little it's mini
Speaker 1: scissors that come with your oil clipper kit, and I
Speaker 1: trim around the you know, so it doesn't like get
Speaker 1: in your food and all that you know stuff. But
Speaker 1: I do trim it up. They always say, like, let
Speaker 1: it grow as much as you can. But it annoys
Speaker 1: me sometimes, but that's what I do. I do trim it. Brandon, Well,
Speaker 1: how do I get it to fill it on the sides? Man?
Speaker 1: Because you got a man beard. I got a baby
Speaker 1: boy beard. I need a man beard. You have to
Speaker 1: nurture it like it's a you know, a chicken, like
Speaker 1: a baby, like an egg every day, helpful baby grow
Speaker 1: every day. Yes, you're supposed to let it grow for
Speaker 1: a while, but then you're supposed to It's like getting
Speaker 1: your split ends cut on your beautiful main that you have,
Speaker 1: Like you have to keep it, you know, even and
Speaker 1: out every day I'm trimming something so I don't look
Speaker 1: like I'm homeless. I wish I could take some kind
Speaker 1: of credit for the for the swoop, but it's just
Speaker 1: the jeans man. Papa Sexton's got great hair. You know.
Speaker 1: You know, my mom's got great hair. She is technically
Speaker 1: a ginger, So my mom's got very red hair, but
Speaker 1: my dad's got a great swoop. Yeah. So yeah, there
Speaker 1: we go. Alrighty, let's get to the roll call. As
Speaker 1: I sit here and scratch my face a little bit,
Speaker 1: we have TJ up for his book. I appreciated your
Speaker 1: commentary on the Punisher Netflix series. I think we're about
Speaker 1: the same spot where you stopped. And when the whole
Speaker 1: homosexual Russian connection came up, I about threw my hands
Speaker 1: up and said I'm done, but I must persist and
Speaker 1: finish the series, because you know guns from the get go.
Speaker 1: I said to my wife though, that the bad Christian
Speaker 1: guy doesn't make much sense, and not because a Christian
Speaker 1: can't be bad, it's just the context of his character
Speaker 1: doesn't line up with the church he goes to. He
Speaker 1: sounds much like an Italian mobster whom everyone knows, or
Speaker 1: Catholic and he dresses like a priest from a Western
Speaker 1: or possibly an Amish or Mennonite person. However, the church
Speaker 1: he goes to is clearly not Catholic, and no one
Speaker 1: attends his church dressed in simple garb as you would
Speaker 1: expect from Amish or Mennonites. It's pretty clear to me
Speaker 1: that they did not consult a Christian for this character.
Speaker 1: They just took a bunch of stereotypes from a bunch
Speaker 1: of different denominations and blended them into one character. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's just it's so dumb, it's so annoying. It really.
Speaker 1: It ruined it for me, man, it just ruined it.
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm gonna tell you something. The first
Speaker 1: season had some flaws. It dragged in some places. You know,
Speaker 1: that guy Billy, who's basically like a fashion model that
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe is like some you know, highly
Speaker 1: trained tactical killer. You know, he's not Billy Russo he's
Speaker 1: not a compelling guy. I think in the role the
Speaker 1: woman who plays you know, the woman who plays the
Speaker 1: uh FBI agent, Madonni is her name, and you know
Speaker 1: she always looks like she's walking off a fashion shoot too.
Speaker 1: I mean I'm not saying, Look there, I've worked with,
Speaker 1: I knew some some very lovely FBI agents. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that it's just her character is wrong. It's just
Speaker 1: not uh, it's not a good fit. Um and and
Speaker 1: and she's kind of boring a little annoying and anyway,
Speaker 1: so I got a lot of problem. The only thing
Speaker 1: I'll say that's good about Punisher is the action sequences
Speaker 1: are well executed. And the guy Brandon you know the
Speaker 1: name he was in the first two seasons of Walking Dead.
Speaker 1: You know what that guy's name is, John. He was
Speaker 1: like the best friend that betrays the He was Shane
Speaker 1: in the Walking Dead. Yeah, Shane in the Walking deadhal
Speaker 1: something like yeah, something like something like that. Um, he's
Speaker 1: what do you think about him as the Punisher? I
Speaker 1: think he does a good job. I like the character,
Speaker 1: but I agree with what you said yesterday. In addition,
Speaker 1: he gus forcing certain things, so I'm not I quit
Speaker 1: this season also, So I'm with you. Yeah, but I
Speaker 1: like yes. And I also have a rule and it's
Speaker 1: a rule that I will I will say I think
Speaker 1: is a good one for for everybody to adopt. And
Speaker 1: it's really my lost rule. I establish it from watching
Speaker 1: the show Lost. When you know a show has gone bad,
Speaker 1: do not. And obviously TJ wants to. He says he
Speaker 1: wants to watch in our inbox here because of the guns,
Speaker 1: which I can respect that. But when you know a
Speaker 1: show has gone bad, do yourself a favor. There's so
Speaker 1: much good content out there. There's so many shows that
Speaker 1: will really, you know, stick with you, entertain you, inspire you, whatever.
Speaker 1: Don't don't get caught in the I'm halfway through, so
Speaker 1: I have to finish. No. I watched the first three
Speaker 1: seasons of Lost, and I remember I came to the conclusion.
Speaker 1: I was like, there's no way that that JJ Abrams
Speaker 1: can make this make sense. It is not possible to,
Speaker 1: in some bit of writing brilliance, bring this all together.
Speaker 1: It's just it's just all these fragments of what seem
Speaker 1: like cool storylines that aren't going to make any sense.
Speaker 1: No joke. I'm watching Lost currently for the third time,
Speaker 1: all the way through. You've got to be kidding me.
Speaker 1: I wish I was. I know what you're saying, but
Speaker 1: there's something about that show that it does kind of transport.
Speaker 1: You mean, I love the first two seasons, but in
Speaker 1: the third season. I watched the third season. I don't
Speaker 1: even think I finished it, and I was like, there's
Speaker 1: no way, and it's all I mean, I know we're
Speaker 1: we're ruining the show for those who haven't seen it.
Speaker 1: But it's Hurley's dream, right, That's how this all ends. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like a little well, I don't even say that
Speaker 1: that's the official reason. I think some of it's left
Speaker 1: up into an interpretation. I just think that I just
Speaker 1: think that it was all a dream. I used to
Speaker 1: read word at magazine. I just think that that's that's
Speaker 1: the laziest writing trick, that that it possibly exists. I
Speaker 1: enjoyed the ride, That's what I guess. I look that
Speaker 1: the characters are well done and that I made it
Speaker 1: through halfway. But I'm just glad that I bailed. I
Speaker 1: would tell you that there's some other by the way
Speaker 1: to producer, Mike, do you have a Do you have
Speaker 1: a vote on this one? Lost? Yeah? I lean more
Speaker 1: towards you on this, Like, I forget where I left off,
Speaker 1: but I do remember getting to the point where I
Speaker 1: just didn't care anymore. So I just bailed. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: making my girlfriend finish it, though, thet's our first time
Speaker 1: watching Lost, so I'm enjoying this. So it's my third
Speaker 1: time watching someone for the first time. Get frustrated, dude.
Speaker 1: There are so many series that we could sit down
Speaker 1: and talk about, Brandon that you probably tell me you've
Speaker 1: already seen Breaking Dad. Yes, okay, you've seen The Wire. No,
Speaker 1: that's on my list. Unacceptable. You have homework. You must
Speaker 1: watch The Wire. It is a fantastic show. There are
Speaker 1: others that I could out of the mix. I would
Speaker 1: actually say I think Peaky Blinders is in my top ten.
Speaker 1: Now I think Peaky Blinders it wasn't my jam in
Speaker 1: the very beginning. I kind of liked it, but I
Speaker 1: was like, ah, it's a little depressing, and then it
Speaker 1: just takes off. Man, It's it's a it's a top
Speaker 1: ten show for me, which I did not think was
Speaker 1: going to happen. I also love the first season of
Speaker 1: The Loss of the Last Kingdom, but I would say
Speaker 1: that the second and third season are not. It's kind
Speaker 1: of a lot of the same storylines happening over and
Speaker 1: over again, which gets a little bit boring. Anyway, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is not supposed to be This is supposed to
Speaker 1: be the team speaks. It's not supposed to be Buck
Speaker 1: rambles about TV shows. Let me hit a quick break.
Speaker 1: We'll come back. We'll finish roll Call in just a moment,
Speaker 1: with all of your insights, all of your fantastic wisdom, knowledge, jokes,
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. Stay with me, all right,
Speaker 1: all right, so roll Call, Sorry about that. I got distractics.
Speaker 1: We're talking about shows. TJ got me all fired up
Speaker 1: with his comments about the Punisher, and yeah, I'll save
Speaker 1: you the time. Don't watch it. It's not worth your time.
Speaker 1: The first season, maybe second season not so much. Rick writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I use iTunes to download your podcasts every weekday. Today
Speaker 1: iTunes cannot access your most recent podcasts. Thought you should know,
Speaker 1: producer Mike, Is that correct? Not that I know of.
Speaker 1: Do we have to code red Apple, because I'll do it.
Speaker 1: I'll code red there. I mean it's you know, I
Speaker 1: usually I hear complaints when those things happen. Haven't seen
Speaker 1: any We are transitioning actually internally to a new content
Speaker 1: management system. So maybe there was a hiccup, but I'll
Speaker 1: look into it. Alright, alrighty, all right, thanks. The producer
Speaker 1: Mike is the one who has the answers. I'm just
Speaker 1: the dance and bear. I just dance and dance on radio. Mike,
Speaker 1: actually make sure that like things happen. H Spencer writes, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck love the show. I use cast box to get
Speaker 1: the podcast. Now, Mike, we got a problem when when
Speaker 1: there's a couple of people in a row in the inbox,
Speaker 1: we got a problem. Didn't get Monday's show. I'm missing
Speaker 1: my buck fix Mike? Can you can you send out
Speaker 1: a terse, but but professional email to whoever needs one
Speaker 1: about how our podcast is not getting up for people listen.
Speaker 1: That makes me sad. Yeah, let's check it out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: look into it because because we know when there's when
Speaker 1: they're these are back to back messages in the inbox here, Yeah,
Speaker 1: something must to happen. Something's up, guys. I'm sorry, you
Speaker 1: know the new up make that three messages the newest
Speaker 1: Bucksaction Show is not on. Okay, guys, so well we're
Speaker 1: on it. I'm sorry this was Monday. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: know that's what they're saying. Damnit Buck, damn it. Um
Speaker 1: we'll fix it. Guys. Don't don't worry. It's gonna get
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm the one who's worried. Really we do
Speaker 1: we do this phenomenal show and then when you can't
Speaker 1: listen to it when you want to, I get very mad.
Speaker 1: Another another message about the podcast. Last episode posted is
Speaker 1: twenty days ago. Mike, what all right? Guys, we're all
Speaker 1: I'm not going to read any more message about the podcast.
Speaker 1: Thank you for telling me about this. We are on this.
Speaker 1: We will look at what's going on on iTunes, but
Speaker 1: clearly this transition to a new content management system needs
Speaker 1: some work. Friday's podcast is definitely up, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: it now, but Monday's it looks like there might be
Speaker 1: in this show. Mike, We're gonna we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: take matters into our own hands here. Um, Let's let's
Speaker 1: see if we can get that one fixed. Rachel writes, Hello, Buck,
Speaker 1: I just want to let you know how much how
Speaker 1: much my husband and I really appreciate your analysis. We
Speaker 1: don't want or listen to the lib news media, but
Speaker 1: we're able to know what's truly going on in the
Speaker 1: country because you do the research and filter through all
Speaker 1: the crap that is out there that is true. I
Speaker 1: am neck deep in liberal media crap on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: Just wanted to say hi and encourage you to keep
Speaker 1: up the all some work Jesse and Rachel in Callie Well,
Speaker 1: Rachel and Jesse Shields Ye, and thank you so much.
Speaker 1: And I can see here in your profile photo you
Speaker 1: have an adorable family, so very very wonderful and cute
Speaker 1: and good for you. And thank you so much for
Speaker 1: sending me the note. I appreciated. This is my favorite
Speaker 1: part of the day every day. John writes, Heybuck Shields, Hie,
Speaker 1: where is the Charles Cook article on bad Press? How
Speaker 1: the media failed? John? If you go to National Review Online,
Speaker 1: look at me. I'm plugging my my friends websites that
Speaker 1: I don't even work for. Go to nash Review Online.
Speaker 1: It'll still be there. But an easy way to do it.
Speaker 1: It's just type in on Google Charles Cook and it's
Speaker 1: c O k E. Charles Cook Bad Press, and the
Speaker 1: piece went pretty viral, so it'll pop up in your
Speaker 1: in your search results right away. I texted Charles he
Speaker 1: was on vacation. I'm like, wow, I haven't heard back
Speaker 1: from him. Of course, it's very like Charles too. For
Speaker 1: those of you who remember Charles Cook from the Real
Speaker 1: News days when we used to work together at The Blaze.
Speaker 1: He was a frequent guest on my show. And it's
Speaker 1: very much like Charles to write a piece that the
Speaker 1: internet like, it just catches fire for for forty eight hours,
Speaker 1: and Charles is like, oh, I was I was going
Speaker 1: doing some sporting clay shooting. You know. He just he
Speaker 1: just didn't even he was gone while his piece, because
Speaker 1: everybody's like, Charles, this is amazing, and he didn't respond
Speaker 1: to anybody. And now he's back and he's like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you liked the piece. Like, yeah, Charles, it
Speaker 1: was one of the better editorials I've read in the
Speaker 1: last year. I'd say, so it's really really good stuff.
Speaker 1: And all those you're listening, you know, so many people
Speaker 1: spew out, you know, there's a lot of just spewing
Speaker 1: out content and spewing out, you know, crappy opinion pieces
Speaker 1: all the time. Read the Charles piece to get a
Speaker 1: sense of what a really good editorial can be like,
Speaker 1: and then maybe read my piece from last week, which
Speaker 1: also went viral on the Commington Kids on the Hill
Speaker 1: dot com. I'm just saying, Rob, all right, Buck, I
Speaker 1: listened on Okay more Wow, Everyone's you know, I got
Speaker 1: I gotta skip past the messages where they're complaining about
Speaker 1: do tell me, guys, I'm not saying that, but we
Speaker 1: get it. We had it, we had a problem. Thank
Speaker 1: you for the heads up on it. Sorry, guys, we'll
Speaker 1: make sure that doesn't happen again. More and more the
Speaker 1: whole inboxes messages about how we don't have a podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna We're just gonna have to We're just gonna
Speaker 1: have to create an email address where you can just
Speaker 1: complain directly to producer Mike so he can complain directly
Speaker 1: to whoever's supposed to be filing these TPS reports. Randy writes,
Speaker 1: a great job on Talker tonight. You'll have your own
Speaker 1: show soon, bring back Real News with some personnel changes
Speaker 1: of course, shields Hie. You know, Randy, Real News on
Speaker 1: the Blaze was a great show. I mean, we had
Speaker 1: so much conservative pundit talent that assembled on that show
Speaker 1: over the years. I mean, you know, you sit here.
Speaker 1: There is nowhere else where I know of outside obviously
Speaker 1: of Fox News. But remember this was in the early days.
Speaker 1: This is before a lot of these people were at
Speaker 1: that level in their careers that were going to be
Speaker 1: on Fox as as paid hosts or contributors. We had
Speaker 1: se Cup Wilkin, Teras Set Mayor, Amy Holmes, Guy Benson,
Speaker 1: Katie Pavlich, Pete Hegseth Nick or Matt Matt Welch. I
Speaker 1: mean that's just off the top of Ellison Barber, Jedediahbila.
Speaker 1: I mean, and I'm not saying these are people that
Speaker 1: just appeared on the show. Those were regular guests. I
Speaker 1: mean those were panelists on a regular basis. So we
Speaker 1: had and we were fighting about conservatives of all the time,
Speaker 1: which was always funny. I mean, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of I wouldn't say overly heated arguments, but there were
Speaker 1: definitely definitely some back and forth. Holly Rights, I just
Speaker 1: saw your report on Tucker Carlson. You're right on the money.
Speaker 1: You should also look at the other types of immigration
Speaker 1: fraud occurring after those illegally crossing make entry. Besides gaming
Speaker 1: the asylum system, they're gaming adjustment of status and all
Speaker 1: kinds of large scale fraud schemes going on that end
Speaker 1: with these individuals fraudulently gaining work authorization, lawful permanent residence status,
Speaker 1: and citizenship another huge incentive for illegal crossers. Holly, you
Speaker 1: are absolutely right. There are a number of crimes that often,
Speaker 1: not always, but often accompany illegality of people that you
Speaker 1: know of the illegal crossing itself and document fraud lying
Speaker 1: to federal officials as you point out different types of
Speaker 1: fraud that occur to try to gain the system. You know,
Speaker 1: there's marriage fraud. There are a lot of things that
Speaker 1: go on where people are making a mockery of our
Speaker 1: immigration laws, and unfortunately it's become so widespread that there's
Speaker 1: very little will to enforce it. There's very little desire
Speaker 1: to pay attention to what's on the books and actually
Speaker 1: do something about it. So that's that is frustrating gym rights.
Speaker 1: What about Mexico siding Russia on Venezuela's president one more
Speaker 1: good reason to build the wall. Well, you know, Penyonieto,
Speaker 1: the president of Mexico is a far left socialist and
Speaker 1: he comes from the PRII, which is the Mexican the
Speaker 1: Mexican socialist party that had run the country for seventy
Speaker 1: years until Vicente Fox came along. So you know, he's
Speaker 1: somebody who comes from this from the machine of Mexican
Speaker 1: politics that is outrageously corrupt and very left wing and
Speaker 1: very socialist. And social justice minded, and there is a
Speaker 1: kind of a comrade ship if you will comd I know,
Speaker 1: I gotta bring back Commy Beartt's been forever. You don't
Speaker 1: even know who Commy Bear is anymore. There's been a
Speaker 1: comrade ship between Mexico and Venezuela recently because of that connection.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for the Freedom Hunt tonight, my friends.
Speaker 1: It has been real, It has been fantastic. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for your time. We will talk tomorrow, Shield Tie.
Speaker 1: When you're in a relationship, there are a couple of
Speaker 1: important dates that you gotta remember and they require roses
Speaker 1: to really make it special. Birthdays, anniversaries and Valentine's Day,
Speaker 1: which is right around the corner. So when you're looking
Speaker 1: for the biggest and best quality roses out there, I
Speaker 1: want you to check out my friends at one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com. Right now you can get eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for only ten dollars more. This
Speaker 1: is an unbelievable offer from one eight hundred flowers. Eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for only ten dollars more. These
Speaker 1: are the best roses you'll get anywhere. They are picked
Speaker 1: at their peak freshness and shipped overnight. To order eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for only ten bucks more, go
Speaker 1: to one eight hundred flowers dot com. Just go click
Speaker 1: the radio icon at one eight hundred flowers dot com
Speaker 1: and enter the promo code buck. Really important. That's one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com radio icon. Click on it
Speaker 1: promo code buck. Hurry offer expires Wednesday