Speaker 1: Mr garbatsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with is not President of the United States,
Speaker 1: take it to a bank. Together, we will make America
Speaker 1: great again. It's what you've been waiting for all day.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck toll
Speaker 1: free at eight four four nine hundred Buck that's eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred to eight to five the future
Speaker 1: of talk radio. Buck Sexton, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody,
Speaker 1: great to have you with me, an honor, a privilege,
Speaker 1: and a pleasure. Thank you so much for or coming
Speaker 1: to hang out, coming to join in this meeting of patriots,
Speaker 1: like minded individuals. We are gonna dive into the news
Speaker 1: of the day and cover stuff that I doubt you'll
Speaker 1: hear anyone else get into. And we'll certainly talk about
Speaker 1: things in a way you won't hear anyone else talk about,
Speaker 1: or in a way you won't hear from them. So
Speaker 1: there we go, eight four four five eight four buck
Speaker 1: quick roadmap to the show. We will get into the
Speaker 1: latest on five's abuse because we have to um, can't,
Speaker 1: can't skip over that one. The media just a White
Speaker 1: House under siege right now because of the Rob Porter stuff,
Speaker 1: which I'm gonna I'm trying to not play the media
Speaker 1: game here because they're running stories on this that really
Speaker 1: have nothing to do even with Rob Porter. They just
Speaker 1: want to keep the name and the story going as
Speaker 1: much as they can. But we will discuss what's going
Speaker 1: on to some at some level, at least in the
Speaker 1: in the White House right now and surrounded with this
Speaker 1: a frenzy. Also, the dock negotiations are underway right now,
Speaker 1: so deferred action for childhood arrivals. Will there be an
Speaker 1: immigration deal? I think the answer is no, but we
Speaker 1: still should talk about it because why why do I
Speaker 1: think the answer is no? They're in therein lies the
Speaker 1: the payoff. Therein lies the important stuff on a policy level. Also,
Speaker 1: I think I mentioned infrastructure, but then some national security somehow,
Speaker 1: some stuff that's getting just left on the cutting room
Speaker 1: floor by most of the networks. And this will get
Speaker 1: to later probably back half of the show, not exactly
Speaker 1: sure where, but how many you knew that there was
Speaker 1: a U S air strike to kill the whole bunch
Speaker 1: of Russians recently, so US planes blew up a bunch
Speaker 1: of Russian nationals in Syria US fighters. Do we want
Speaker 1: to get into this? I think we do. Rather important
Speaker 1: what's going on right now in Syria because we have
Speaker 1: US forces in harm's way and we have a cauldron
Speaker 1: of multiple conflicts playing out in what I like to
Speaker 1: refer to I believes it's an accurate term for the
Speaker 1: Second Syrian Civil War. Pardon the alliteration, but that is
Speaker 1: what's going on there. We will discuss that. To be sure,
Speaker 1: A lot going on in Syria and on the Anti
Speaker 1: Isis well beyond the anti Iis fight. Really, that's that's
Speaker 1: the main thrust of it. We will get into that though.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we have not only a US US fighter
Speaker 1: planes taking out some Russians on the ground. Now there
Speaker 1: are Russian contractors. I'll I'll talk to you about the
Speaker 1: details of it, right. I don't want to lead you astray,
Speaker 1: make you think that this is it was an intent.
Speaker 1: It wasn't intentional. We weren't trying to hit Russian but
Speaker 1: it just goes to show you what's at stake here.
Speaker 1: Russia still got a whole lot of nukes. This is
Speaker 1: not something that we want to play around with, and
Speaker 1: they know it and we know it. We're like, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: there were Russians there. We'll get into this. And also
Speaker 1: an Iranian drone shot down in Israeli airspace. That's a
Speaker 1: big drone, not like not a drone that you're gonna
Speaker 1: see flying around the beach kid throws up in the air,
Speaker 1: big drone, military drone. We'll talk about that as well.
Speaker 1: That'll be coming up later on in the show. Oh
Speaker 1: and also maybe some North Korea fallout. The short version
Speaker 1: is everyone who knows anything agrees with me that the
Speaker 1: media's coverage over the weekend of what was going on
Speaker 1: at the Winter Olympics was appalling. Appalling the speed with
Speaker 1: which the mainstream media will find an excuse to favorably
Speaker 1: compare literally the worst government on the planet right now
Speaker 1: to our current government in this country. It is. It
Speaker 1: is jaw dropping, and it is disgraceful, and it's something
Speaker 1: that we should not forget anytime soon. Oh and there's
Speaker 1: some other the intel chiefs we're speaking today about worldwide threats,
Speaker 1: you know, for hours and hours. There were some interesting
Speaker 1: things that came out of that though, and I will
Speaker 1: address that But first before we get into that, we
Speaker 1: have more on the You can call it really the
Speaker 1: fall out of the Susan Rice email that I discussed
Speaker 1: with you yesterday. I've had people asking me all day
Speaker 1: to day, Um, people in the in the business was
Speaker 1: over at Fox. People over there were asking me in
Speaker 1: the green room, what do you think about this? It
Speaker 1: seems so clumsy. So this is what you have to
Speaker 1: remember when you're talking about Clinton's and Obama era officials.
Speaker 1: Don't give them the benefit of thinking, well, you know,
Speaker 1: they have no scruples, so just put that aside for
Speaker 1: a second. But don't give them the benefit of well,
Speaker 1: that's so clumsy. There's no way they would do that.
Speaker 1: Remember when we're talking about the Clinton Obama era of
Speaker 1: governance in this country, the eight years of Barack Obama
Speaker 1: UH and Hillary Clinton and other top officials around them
Speaker 1: running the show. You had things like the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State violating classified protocols over a hundred times with the
Speaker 1: Homebrew server, you know all about that. You had the
Speaker 1: sitting Attorney General meet with Bill Clinton, the wife of
Speaker 1: the highest profile political target of a criminal investigation in
Speaker 1: the country probably ever in some ways right or you know,
Speaker 1: for an election year at least. Um, that's rather important
Speaker 1: and rather clumsy stuff, isn't it? So is it really be? Oh?
Speaker 1: And Susan Rice, as I was pointing out to people
Speaker 1: today at Fox, was also she was camera. She was
Speaker 1: US and vassador Unitations or National Security advisor at the time.
Speaker 1: But after I think Nation Security advisor. After Benghazi, she
Speaker 1: was the one who went on TV and said that
Speaker 1: it was a peaceful you know, it was a peaceful
Speaker 1: protest that turned into something else. She was the first
Speaker 1: one who went out there on the Sunday shows and
Speaker 1: lied about Benghazi. There was no way we weren't going
Speaker 1: to figure that out. And thankfully we've had Tonto and
Speaker 1: other guys come forward to tell us really what happened there,
Speaker 1: although they're still under some restrictions about what they can
Speaker 1: talk about. But so so you can't take this, Oh,
Speaker 1: she wouldn't do something that's so obvious as right herself
Speaker 1: a note that says it was all done by the book.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Obama didn't want anything, nothing bad to happen
Speaker 1: to to Trump with the Russia collusion stuff. Just let
Speaker 1: that go the way it's going. No interference at all.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure, you know, Note the time,
Speaker 1: Note the email, no interference at all. You say, oh, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's not this isn't slick. It's too obvious to be effective.
Speaker 1: And I would respond to you if you said that,
Speaker 1: And I had to respond to some people today, I
Speaker 1: meet meeting with meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.
Speaker 1: You're you're the attorney general. There's pressed there that is
Speaker 1: that is that obvious? Remember who you were dealing with
Speaker 1: when we are talking about whether you want to call
Speaker 1: it the swamp, the Obama era deep state, all these
Speaker 1: different forces working against the Trump administration and the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign before that. They were drunk with their own power,
Speaker 1: and they were certain that they weren't gonna get caught.
Speaker 1: And when people are arrogant, like the former Obama officials
Speaker 1: were talking about here, were clearly comy. McCabe yeah, struck.
Speaker 1: I mean this guy, the FBI guy struck, Yeah, he was.
Speaker 1: He was a senior FBI person. By the way, It's
Speaker 1: not just some guy who's kicking indoors checking to see
Speaker 1: if college kids are counterfeiting with the copy machine or something.
Speaker 1: I mean he actually I think that would technically be
Speaker 1: a secret service operation. But maybe that's FBI. Now, the
Speaker 1: point is he was a senior guy, and he was
Speaker 1: operating with terrible personal operational security because he didn't think
Speaker 1: it was gonna get caught. It wasn't gonna be a
Speaker 1: big deal. So Susan Rice writing herself an email that's
Speaker 1: basically an attempt to give the media talking points. Should
Speaker 1: they should? They need a trail of crumbs left for
Speaker 1: them to find this? Right? I mean, should they? Should
Speaker 1: this ever actually come out? It's obvious, but so much
Speaker 1: of what they did is obvious. It's sloppy. But so
Speaker 1: much of what Hillary Hollow and all the rest of
Speaker 1: them did was sloppy. I don't think that we're dealing
Speaker 1: with criminal masterminds here. We are not. We are absolutely not.
Speaker 1: They've had the media covering for them all along, and look,
Speaker 1: Hillary gets away with a lot even when she's caught.
Speaker 1: You also have to factor that into the thinking of
Speaker 1: these officials. And I've been telling you that all along,
Speaker 1: even with the Figes abuse that is coming out that's
Speaker 1: being on earth as we go forward, if the worst
Speaker 1: case scenario was exposed here, beyond any doubt, right that
Speaker 1: there was, and I think we're there, but it's not
Speaker 1: provable yet, but certainly seems to be the preponderance of
Speaker 1: the evidence that there was this political targeting. Carter Page
Speaker 1: was an excuse to look at all the different Trump
Speaker 1: people and if we get them dead to rights on that.
Speaker 1: I don't think that the Democrat Party and the left
Speaker 1: is going to turn on anybody who's implicated in that
Speaker 1: and say, oh gosh, what have you done. Know, they're
Speaker 1: gonna say, well, you know what they saw the danger
Speaker 1: of Trump is M, who you know, is worse than
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un. They saw the danger of Trump is
Speaker 1: M and they did whatever was necessary. They're heroes of
Speaker 1: our democracy. But it's a republic. But you know what
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what will happen. So know how the
Speaker 1: other side thinks and operates very important. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to say know the enemies and not enemy,
Speaker 1: they're fellow Americans. But they've made some very very poor
Speaker 1: decisions and they've done some very bad things. You have
Speaker 1: to know the other side. And that's why I'm not
Speaker 1: willing to dismiss out of hand that Susan Rice would
Speaker 1: write to see look it, it's just it's suspicious. There's
Speaker 1: nothing illegal about her writing this email to herself. There's
Speaker 1: no thing that I can say about it other than well,
Speaker 1: that looks weird. And now, given everything else we know,
Speaker 1: you've got to say to yourself. H m hmm. Yeah,
Speaker 1: by the book everything, just by the book, last day,
Speaker 1: last day before. She no longer is in a position
Speaker 1: to create a record, right to create a paper trail.
Speaker 1: It just seems a bit strange to me. And this
Speaker 1: is the same person who went on TV. This is
Speaker 1: the same senior Obama administration of Fisher who went on
Speaker 1: TV and just blatantly ball face lied to the American
Speaker 1: people about Benghazi and was promoted for it from the
Speaker 1: role of US Ambassador to the United Nations to National
Speaker 1: Security advisor promoted by the Obama administration. Remember that, folks,
Speaker 1: her loyalty to Obama over country was rewarded. So you
Speaker 1: don't someone's really gonna tell me this beyond her, Nah,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I don't think so. We also
Speaker 1: have some more on the Carter Page situation here, very
Speaker 1: very important stuff. Our friend Andy McCarthy has been out
Speaker 1: there writing about this and doing some great work on it.
Speaker 1: It's just so interesting. The more we know about fis
Speaker 1: a targeting and what's going on here, the worse it looks.
Speaker 1: I keep waiting for them to provide us with some information,
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats and Adam Schiff and all this, to
Speaker 1: give us the data that counters the overall argument and
Speaker 1: makes all this not look just so fetted, so repulsive.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen it yet. In fact, the more information
Speaker 1: we get, the more clear it is to me that
Speaker 1: very very disturbing stuff went on here. Illegal, I think,
Speaker 1: so unethical. I know. So we will get into that
Speaker 1: and more after the break. Stay with me. Yeah, what
Speaker 1: our assessment is as of the present is, in fact,
Speaker 1: what it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to
Speaker 1: what it transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course,
Speaker 1: as you know, uh, there was a violent protest outside
Speaker 1: of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video. But you
Speaker 1: do not agree with him that this was something that
Speaker 1: had been plotted out. We did not have information at
Speaker 1: present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated
Speaker 1: or pre planned. Lying lying to the American people there.
Speaker 1: Former U S Ambassador to the U N Susan Rice
Speaker 1: on the Sunday Shows right after Benghazi, I mean days
Speaker 1: days after Benghazi just lying, lying about it. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: it's about the video wasn't pre planned, as we know,
Speaker 1: because we eventually got access on the Hillary emails. Hillary
Speaker 1: told Chelsea or Chelsea told Hillary, I forget who. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was terrorist attack and that was the day of
Speaker 1: But she went on TV and said that, as you know,
Speaker 1: just I'm I'm trying to make sure that we're evaluating
Speaker 1: these different figures, different people in the administration before this one,
Speaker 1: who are are now implicated in so much of the
Speaker 1: foul play, the political targeting, the abuse of FISA to
Speaker 1: get after Trump, which I'm going to get into in
Speaker 1: a moment here in some detail. But don't give them
Speaker 1: too much credit. Don't think that this is all they're
Speaker 1: all criminal masterminds and that they know exactly what they're
Speaker 1: doing and they never make a mistake, right. No, they
Speaker 1: actually trust that the system is so corrupt and so
Speaker 1: favorable to them, swamp dwellers, if you will believe that
Speaker 1: the swamp has their back, and they are generally correct.
Speaker 1: They have been maybe up until now. We will see,
Speaker 1: but that's the operating assumption that they use is oh, well,
Speaker 1: I'm even I can do this thing, and even if
Speaker 1: I get caught, they'll they'll bail me out. The press
Speaker 1: will come to my press will come to my aid,
Speaker 1: and the system and as we see it, we used
Speaker 1: to believe that it was the media, and you know,
Speaker 1: the media was always backing up the Democrats all the
Speaker 1: time and tilting the scales towards the progressive left in
Speaker 1: this country. Now we know that there are some very
Speaker 1: powerful elements within the fourth branch of government, so to speak,
Speaker 1: not really a branch, but the bureaucracy, the federal bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: that has taken much the same role. Um. So there
Speaker 1: you have it, taking much the same role as what
Speaker 1: the media has done. They're just doing it from the
Speaker 1: role of the Department of Justice. They are are doing
Speaker 1: it from the intelligence agencies. But they are trying to
Speaker 1: tilt the scales towards the left as well. It's very
Speaker 1: troubling to see that happening. So now a bit on
Speaker 1: the So that's on the Susan right, Emil. Look, maybe
Speaker 1: it's nothing, Maybe she just wrote a weird email to herself.
Speaker 1: But I just refused to dismiss it out of hand
Speaker 1: because people tell me I should. I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: like that Carter page interesting piece up by Alex Pappas
Speaker 1: on Fox News fox News dot Com talking about the
Speaker 1: real implications of what it means that carter Page was
Speaker 1: under FISA warrant and also, you know, I know Andy McCarthy,
Speaker 1: and I just realized, now we should have called I didn't.
Speaker 1: We'll get Andy on tomorrow. Maybe you're later this week, producer, Mike.
Speaker 1: Let's let's reach out put out the Andy signal, uh,
Speaker 1: which we should work on what that sounds like or
Speaker 1: looks like. But here's the very important thing. One of
Speaker 1: the arguments you heard originally about the one of the
Speaker 1: arguments that you heard um when we're talking about carter
Speaker 1: Page and fives warrants and all that stuff, is that
Speaker 1: carter Page was already on the FBI's radar and stopped,
Speaker 1: you know, stopped working for the Trump campaign at some point,
Speaker 1: so you know, well, what was really taken into his
Speaker 1: what were his communications really like? How much of this
Speaker 1: stuff was, how much of the targeting would allow or
Speaker 1: people to get caught up in this? And what this
Speaker 1: piece is saying is, and what Andy's been saying as well,
Speaker 1: is that well, if you if you're if you're under
Speaker 1: electronic surveillance, as it turns out they have access to
Speaker 1: you know, it's kind of like if they got if
Speaker 1: someone got access to your phone, your cell phone, and
Speaker 1: they could hear every call you're making. Well, they also
Speaker 1: can see the calls that you've already made, and who
Speaker 1: you've talked to, and you know, whatever else they're looking
Speaker 1: into it. So now think about this. It's not just
Speaker 1: the dates in question, but there's also the very real
Speaker 1: possibility of being able to essentially go through Carter Page's
Speaker 1: digital footprints, so to speak, and look at whatever communications
Speaker 1: he had and whoever he was talking to, and and
Speaker 1: pretty sure that you're gonna see some members of the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign popping up and all that. Right, there's been
Speaker 1: reporting on this already. We don't know because they're still
Speaker 1: keeping this stuff under wraff, but it certainly seems likely.
Speaker 1: It certainly seems like there is ah a very high
Speaker 1: possibility of that. And it brings me back to another factory.
Speaker 1: You have to keep in mind as we go along.
Speaker 1: I remember, this is a this is a marathon, not
Speaker 1: a sprint. This whole Russia collusion thing, it's going to
Speaker 1: keep on. You know this, because we've been talking about
Speaker 1: this already. We're already at the point now where a
Speaker 1: lot of us would like to, you know, sit down,
Speaker 1: have some of those gel packs that runners, you know,
Speaker 1: when the gel with the things that the hydration thing.
Speaker 1: I've never had one, but I feel like you have
Speaker 1: to earn those, you know what I mean. You've got
Speaker 1: to run more than like the half mile I put
Speaker 1: down on the treadmill to have a little gel pack thing.
Speaker 1: But we've we've done enough now where we feel like,
Speaker 1: all right, we've we've been there, We've earned a gel
Speaker 1: packer two. And yet I want you to keep in
Speaker 1: mind that what's real, What was really at stake here
Speaker 1: was the possibility. The reason they would do all this
Speaker 1: was that they could have found campaign ending information on Trump.
Speaker 1: So they thought it was worth the risk and they
Speaker 1: wouldn't be caught. So that that's motive, motive, motive. You
Speaker 1: have to remember motive in these discussions. Oh yeah, and
Speaker 1: that also is why I can tell you Trump Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: come on, nonsense, the worst plot ever, It doesn't even
Speaker 1: make sense. We'll get into some more Russia stuff coming
Speaker 1: up in a minute. Well, I lived through the water
Speaker 1: get because I was a candidate for the first time
Speaker 1: as the nixt administration disintegrated. Um, things start to unravel
Speaker 1: and then one thing pulls another thing, and then one
Speaker 1: morning year in a space you never dreamed of, because
Speaker 1: they'll just keep on raveling. And I think Susan Rice's
Speaker 1: memo is one more example of this thing gradually unraveling.
Speaker 1: She's obviously trying to rewrite history. She's trying to make
Speaker 1: it look as if something happened that didn't happen. She
Speaker 1: writes the memo after Barack Obama is out of office,
Speaker 1: after she no longer had a job. My suspicion, and
Speaker 1: I think Senator Graham shares this as well, is that
Speaker 1: they learned something between January five and January which caused
Speaker 1: them to want to change the narrative about this meeting.
Speaker 1: None of us knew about about the meeting. I'm with
Speaker 1: the Judge Newt. I'm with the Judge Newton Buck. It
Speaker 1: sounds like it sounds like a pretty awesome bluegrass band. Actually,
Speaker 1: the Judge Newton book I like it. Uh yeah, I'd
Speaker 1: be like that, like the A team of political analysis. Um,
Speaker 1: those dudes both have good hair too, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. So we we got a lot of good
Speaker 1: hair going on. We we could do something. I should, Hey,
Speaker 1: Judge Newt, we should talk anyway. They're they're correct, though
Speaker 1: that the whole email thing strikes all of us as
Speaker 1: as quite weird that they said that. I guess last
Speaker 1: done on Fox, I said up here on the show.
Speaker 1: I mean, did I say at first? Probably? Of course,
Speaker 1: But nonetheless we all agree on this one, which is
Speaker 1: an important fact of all this. But today he had
Speaker 1: the various intel chiefs giving these and I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: spend too much time on it because I don't think
Speaker 1: you need me to give a big overview of of
Speaker 1: all the biggest global threats. I mean maybe that would
Speaker 1: be like a separate podcast I do some other time.
Speaker 1: But you understand a lot of the threats that are
Speaker 1: out there, you know, we we talked about it here
Speaker 1: on the show, and you know, yeah, North Korea, you're
Speaker 1: on Islamic stage, hottists, Russia, cyber crime there you go. Right,
Speaker 1: That's that's pretty much the the rundown on a lot
Speaker 1: of what today's It wasn't even a grilling. It was
Speaker 1: mostly just being asked questions the intel chiefs of the
Speaker 1: different agencies, asking being answered answers some questions, but there
Speaker 1: were some interesting things. There were some moments. First of all,
Speaker 1: there's the there's a story that I did not I
Speaker 1: don't think I spoke about here on the show. I
Speaker 1: read it in the New York Times, and I was
Speaker 1: aware of it, but I just didn't have the time
Speaker 1: to to get to it here. And it had to
Speaker 1: do with this maybe I mentioned it. I can't remember
Speaker 1: how to do with a an operation where the CIA reportedly,
Speaker 1: according to New York Times, tried to buy UH info
Speaker 1: hacking tools. And also with that, this shady guy offered
Speaker 1: damaging information and on Trump. So that that actually, I
Speaker 1: think got a lot more attention than the the hacking
Speaker 1: tools component of the story. But it's a story that
Speaker 1: was printed out there, and I was looking at this
Speaker 1: and it's just it smelled funky. There's something about it
Speaker 1: that smell a little funky to me. I just like
Speaker 1: I read the stories and hundred grand and the guy
Speaker 1: just gets to walk away, and that's just the way
Speaker 1: this was, and it seems strange to me. Well, here's
Speaker 1: the CIA director today addressing the specific story. Reporting on
Speaker 1: this matter has been atrocious, it's been ridiculous, totally inaccurate.
Speaker 1: UH and in our view, The suggestion to see I
Speaker 1: was cindral swindled is false. The people who were swindled
Speaker 1: were James rice And and Matt Rosenberg, the authors of
Speaker 1: those two pieces. Indeed, it's our uh, it's our view
Speaker 1: that the same two people who were proffering phony information
Speaker 1: to the United States government proffered that same phony information
Speaker 1: to these two reporters. So I just want to be
Speaker 1: clear here. Here you got the c I A director
Speaker 1: saying basically that the New York Times story was fake news.
Speaker 1: I mean, he didn't use the words fake news. What
Speaker 1: are you saying? Fake news? So there was that kind
Speaker 1: of a fun little moment there, And there's a more
Speaker 1: so that's that New York Times story. We can kind
Speaker 1: of just move past it, right I And people say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: don't you believe? Well, I didn't. The story didn't bring
Speaker 1: true to me originally. So and it's it strikes me
Speaker 1: as unusual that the that the agency director would speak
Speaker 1: to a story in that way and so definitively. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: I I don't I'm not buying that. I'm not buying
Speaker 1: that New York Times piece. I'm not smell test is funky.
Speaker 1: You know, it's past the expiration date for sure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's that. Okay. Now, one other thing that came up
Speaker 1: in the hearing that I thought was was kind of
Speaker 1: interesting and C and M was running with it for
Speaker 1: obvious reasons, the notion that that well, Russia is still
Speaker 1: trying to meddle in our elections, that Russia is going
Speaker 1: to find a way to get involved in our in
Speaker 1: our upcoming midterm elections. Now, I'm sure that's probably true,
Speaker 1: but as I have explained to you, and I was
Speaker 1: doing this way well in advance of when Russia today
Speaker 1: the cable news channel that the Kremlin pays for in
Speaker 1: English language with you know, appealing telegenic English speaking American
Speaker 1: anchors here in this country and has been doing it
Speaker 1: for over a decade now, as the register is a
Speaker 1: foreign agent. But I've been saying to you on the
Speaker 1: show for over a year. I think they registered this
Speaker 1: past fall that that's just straight up propaganda network that's
Speaker 1: been operating for a long time. A lot of people
Speaker 1: see it, and Adam Schiff went on it, other senior
Speaker 1: government officials went on it. Now, so yeah, Russia is
Speaker 1: trying to influence us in a lot of ways, and
Speaker 1: Russian trolls and sock puppets, which is what people refer
Speaker 1: to fake accounts that are um, you know that that
Speaker 1: pretend to be one thing, they're actually another. At least
Speaker 1: that's what they call them on Facebook. I think they
Speaker 1: call them that on Twitter. Two, they're gonna be making
Speaker 1: more of those, and and their goal, from the best
Speaker 1: analysis I've read of the Russian attempts to involve themselves
Speaker 1: in our elections. Everything else is just to create chaos
Speaker 1: and distrust in the system, which is really the Russian
Speaker 1: version of extending a solitary digit from the hand to
Speaker 1: the United States electoral process. That's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 1: They are they are hoping to just make things difficult,
Speaker 1: and I think it's interesting that that gets kind of
Speaker 1: pushed aside and the narratives there's, oh, they're just trying
Speaker 1: to help Trump, right because of all the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: nonsense that we've heard. But we're hearing these stories about
Speaker 1: how they're gonna get involved in midterm elections. CNN and
Speaker 1: others were even taking it further today. It's actually on
Speaker 1: the screen right now breaking News. Intel chiefs say Trump
Speaker 1: has not specifically directed them to confront Russian meddling. Now,
Speaker 1: for the CNN audience, they see they're like, oh, see,
Speaker 1: Trump is basically a puppet off the Kremlin. This is crazy.
Speaker 1: He's not specifically directing them to they get all worked
Speaker 1: off about this, right And no, no, note that not specifically,
Speaker 1: so maybe he said some stuff about it. But I
Speaker 1: want to take this a little further though. I wanna
Speaker 1: work on this for just a moment here. What the
Speaker 1: heck are we supposed to do about the kind of
Speaker 1: meddling in the elections that the Russians are either actively
Speaker 1: engaged in now or will be engaged in the midterms.
Speaker 1: Are we gonna block off the internet? Are we gonna
Speaker 1: we already have sanctions on Russia, although I know there's
Speaker 1: recently been some sanctions that were not enforcing. But the
Speaker 1: point is, you know, we tried that didn't do anything,
Speaker 1: So what's the what's the sola Russia? By the way,
Speaker 1: sanctions on Russia this would be like having sanctions on China.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. It does not have the intended effect. It's
Speaker 1: too large and too powerful and important a country for
Speaker 1: us to be able to just easily economically isolated and
Speaker 1: bend it to our will. I would note that much smaller,
Speaker 1: much less powerful and important countries have defied sanctions for
Speaker 1: a long time. The history of sanctions working not so good,
Speaker 1: not a so good. So we're being told that they're
Speaker 1: not specifically that that Trump has not specifically directed them
Speaker 1: to confront Russian meddling. And I just pushed this to
Speaker 1: the next, the next phase of the discussion. How what
Speaker 1: does that even mean? What was he supposed? This reminds
Speaker 1: me of whatever Trump had had is his early meetings
Speaker 1: with Putin? Look did you see that he shook Putin's
Speaker 1: hand and didn't even spit in his face? What kind
Speaker 1: of American is he? I mean there, what do they
Speaker 1: think he was gonna? Do? You know? Russia is not
Speaker 1: what it used to be is this isn't the Soviet era,
Speaker 1: But Russia's still a large, important country with a very
Speaker 1: serious military and a whole lot of nuclear weapons. Like
Speaker 1: they always say that Trump is irresponsible on national security
Speaker 1: and foreign policy. Oh Trump, he's doing this wrong, He's
Speaker 1: doing that wrong. And then there is no level of
Speaker 1: belligerents that, at least rhetorically speaking, they will back away
Speaker 1: from when it comes to our dealings with Russia. They
Speaker 1: they have become brainwash to think that we we have
Speaker 1: to be on this trajectory of complete and total opposition
Speaker 1: and rage against Russia as a government all the time.
Speaker 1: Very dangerous, very bad thinking. As I mentioned before, we
Speaker 1: just had an incident in Syria where we blew up
Speaker 1: with our airplanes airstrike. I'll give you the specifics later.
Speaker 1: You don't have to stay with me through the show,
Speaker 1: but blew up at least four, I think may have
Speaker 1: been a few dozen Russians. So we need to keep
Speaker 1: Russian relations open and const insructive. And things are getting
Speaker 1: a little tense anyway, what would it mean to confront
Speaker 1: Russian meddling in the election? We're going let me tell
Speaker 1: you how this could go, folks, and you already know this,
Speaker 1: but let's just walk through it together, shall we. So
Speaker 1: we have Rex Tillerson, who I think could play the
Speaker 1: krusty but very resilient sheriff in any Western pretty much
Speaker 1: ever filmed. You got Rex Tillerson, and he's gonna what.
Speaker 1: He's gonna sit down and speak to Lavrov of the
Speaker 1: Russian Foreign Minister. He's gonna call him on a secure
Speaker 1: line or something to say, hey, knockoff that meddling, you
Speaker 1: know what, Lavrov, Or we'll say one of two things,
Speaker 1: whatever the Russian counterpart is. I'll say one of two things,
Speaker 1: We're not doing that, or you're absolutely right, Well, we'll
Speaker 1: crack down on it, and no matter what the responses,
Speaker 1: it will have no effect, because how are you going
Speaker 1: to stop this? Folks? We've seen breathless news reports about
Speaker 1: how there are like fake Facebook accounts out there and
Speaker 1: fake Twitter accounts that are pushing hoax news stories, as
Speaker 1: if that's a dire national security threat to US. People
Speaker 1: believe dumb news all the time. We just had a
Speaker 1: CIA director tell us that The New York Times ran
Speaker 1: a major story that was completely false and the reporter's
Speaker 1: writing it got duped. So what is confronting Russian meddling
Speaker 1: supposed to me? And the answer is nothing. It's just
Speaker 1: feeding into more of the hysteria over this. I assure you,
Speaker 1: neither you, none of you listening to any of the country,
Speaker 1: nor me, have our political inclinations, are votes, or any
Speaker 1: of that influenced by Russia in the least. It's really
Speaker 1: hard to get me to change my mind. I'm sure
Speaker 1: a lot of you are very stubborn to by the way,
Speaker 1: just taking a guess. But there's nothing that Russia's gonna do.
Speaker 1: It's gonna make me go one way or the other.
Speaker 1: And that's the kind of meddling we're talking about. Sure,
Speaker 1: if they hack into our voting system, which they can't
Speaker 1: really do because there's a they're separate, there's an air
Speaker 1: gap with voting systems, but of if they tried some
Speaker 1: of this stuff, all right, you know, we'll get mad
Speaker 1: at them, We'll tell them don't do that. Maybe we'll
Speaker 1: impose more sanctions. But preemptively we're talking about what are
Speaker 1: we gonna do. We're gonna tell them. You know, you
Speaker 1: can't have people making fake Twitter accounts that are saying
Speaker 1: mean stuff about Hillary still. I mean, this is just
Speaker 1: like I said, these people have lost their minds. They
Speaker 1: have no idea what they're talking about. Major news organization
Speaker 1: has no idea what they're talking about at all. They
Speaker 1: just know Russia is scary. Trump Russia. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: it childish, but it's dangerous. Rolling into a quick break,
Speaker 1: we got a lot more. I think we'll talk immigration
Speaker 1: and infrastructure in the next hour, probably just immigration. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's a little early for me on on infrastructure. Um,
Speaker 1: maybe budgets, Yeah, that's the ticket. Budgets probably get into
Speaker 1: that too. We'll be back. Yes, we we have seen
Speaker 1: Russian activity and intention to have an impact on the
Speaker 1: next election cycle. Here, I agree with Director Pompeio's assessment
Speaker 1: about the likelihood of the two thousand and eighteen occurrence
Speaker 1: as well. This is not going to change or stop. Yes,
Speaker 1: it is not going to change, nor is it gonna stop.
Speaker 1: We have never seen any evidence of any significant change
Speaker 1: from last year. I agree with Director Pompeo as do I. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: you got a whole bunch of Intel chiefs today sitting
Speaker 1: in front of Congress. You'ret's saying exactly that it's gonna continue,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna stop. And I don't know how to
Speaker 1: take away from that is but but Trump, But Trump,
Speaker 1: he didn't do enough. What does Trump do? I mean? But,
Speaker 1: like I was saying, they just they just want to
Speaker 1: whine about him. I guess it's it's all just the journalist.
Speaker 1: It's really all just one version of when remember that
Speaker 1: woman then the resist woman just like screamed in the
Speaker 1: air and it went just viral because it was such
Speaker 1: a horrifying shriek. There was a woman who like she
Speaker 1: like looked in the sky and yell at like one
Speaker 1: of the women at one of the women's marches or something,
Speaker 1: you know, hashtag resist right. Journalists all secretly just want
Speaker 1: to do that all the time, and it really informs
Speaker 1: a lot of their coverage, or I should say it
Speaker 1: influences a lot of their coverage. We also had Kamela
Speaker 1: Harris who was asking the following, if the President asked
Speaker 1: you tomorrow to hand over to him additional sensitive FBI
Speaker 1: information on the investigations into his campaign, would you give
Speaker 1: it to him. I'm not going to discuss the investigation.
Speaker 1: Do you believe the president should recuse himself from reviewing
Speaker 1: and declassifying sensitive FBI material related to this investigation? I
Speaker 1: think recusal questions are something I would encourage the president
Speaker 1: to talk to the White House counsel. But guess what
Speaker 1: not the FBI director's call. It's it's funny that you
Speaker 1: know or Harris. Yeah, look, she's she's grandstanding and doing
Speaker 1: what with both parties tend to do in these hearings,
Speaker 1: which is just make their point and pretend they're asking
Speaker 1: a question. But yeah, yeah, do you think the President,
Speaker 1: who is the ultimate declassification authority. He's the commander in
Speaker 1: chief and the head of the executive branch of the government.
Speaker 1: Do you think he should just not be allowed to
Speaker 1: determine whether the American people see anything about Russia. You know,
Speaker 1: let's just tie his hands behind his back, the attorney
Speaker 1: General's attorney general's hands behind his back, and we've got
Speaker 1: a special counsel. You know, we can let loose. Let
Speaker 1: loose the mad dogs of investigations, so to speak, right,
Speaker 1: just let them run around do whatever they want. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I should Trump accuse himself from it. Oh, It's just
Speaker 1: that's not gonna happen. I also saw that there was
Speaker 1: a breaking Fox News story a few moments ago that
Speaker 1: Trump's outside legal counsel is making the case that Trump
Speaker 1: should not speak to Mueller. And I hope all of
Speaker 1: Trump's counsel is making that case, because that is the
Speaker 1: correct answer. There is no other answer. And I am
Speaker 1: glad that if nothing else. If I can provide you
Speaker 1: with with some lasting advice from listening to this show,
Speaker 1: one is where comfortable shoes whenever you can, too, is
Speaker 1: don't ever talk to the FBI when it's time for
Speaker 1: you to talk to the FBI. You'll know, right, if
Speaker 1: you've got your lawyer, president or whatever, and hopefully not
Speaker 1: you will ever have to deal with this or if
Speaker 1: you know, if you've been the victim of a crime
Speaker 1: or something. Right, but you'll know. But as a general rule,
Speaker 1: never talked to the FBI. There's nothing against FBI agents.
Speaker 1: They just they have a tremendous tool at their disposal,
Speaker 1: which is the moment you say something that is material
Speaker 1: and false, they have you. You are You are now
Speaker 1: a criminal awaiting trial. Um which I actually think that
Speaker 1: that law should be revisited. I think that testimony under
Speaker 1: oath versus testimony given the on the spur of the moment,
Speaker 1: for example, especially when it's sprung on somebody who doesn't
Speaker 1: even know they're a suspect. You know, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it shouldn't be admissible. I'm just saying that that that
Speaker 1: you're gonna go to prison for five years just based
Speaker 1: on that. It seems a little harsh, a little harsh.
Speaker 1: But Trump should not speak to them. That would be
Speaker 1: a a mistake. I'm also going to just go out
Speaker 1: there and say it. You know, I'm a little disappointed
Speaker 1: we don't have the memo. Yet I thought we'd have
Speaker 1: the Democrat memo, and I think it's going to be
Speaker 1: pretty lame. I don't think it's going to open up
Speaker 1: much in the way of new information. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's going to kick open this investigation and and tell
Speaker 1: us a lot. I do believe the Democrats have been
Speaker 1: playing games with the classified information they've put into it,
Speaker 1: as I knew they would, as I said they would, right.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, I kind of want to see
Speaker 1: what the Democrats have up their sleep on this one.
Speaker 1: We can get a really good sense as to whether
Speaker 1: or not. And I actually kind of wish that Trump
Speaker 1: had just said, you know what, fun if this is
Speaker 1: what Democrats want to put out there, he's actually just
Speaker 1: being responsible about this. So it must have been really
Speaker 1: bad information I would know, I mean, really sensitive classified
Speaker 1: information the Democrats put in their memo. Um. But then
Speaker 1: I wonder why there. I guess the Republicans only voted
Speaker 1: to only voter to send it to the White House,
Speaker 1: knowing that Trump would have to say no, no no, no,
Speaker 1: we can't do that. The whole thing strikes me as
Speaker 1: a little odd. But I was hoping we had the
Speaker 1: Democrat memo this week. I don't know, it's looking like
Speaker 1: it's gonna get Yeah, it's gonna get held past it.
Speaker 1: I like, I like pulling apart the memos. I got
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff going. Um. I think next hour
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk well, North Korea, some updates on that
Speaker 1: and the press coverage of that. Also immigration, because you
Speaker 1: don't like talk about immigration. And then what's going on
Speaker 1: in Syria? Why or US planes dropping bombs on Russians.
Speaker 1: We'll get there. He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton his back. Welcome to our two of the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. Thank you so much for being here, thank
Speaker 1: you for staying, thank you for joining. Depending on what
Speaker 1: part of the we find you. Uh So, there's some
Speaker 1: very important policy matters. I want to talk to you about,
Speaker 1: some things that we will all I think agree matter
Speaker 1: to our future. We even have some very troubling national
Speaker 1: security situations developing overseas, and there's just much to discuss.
Speaker 1: Much going on today. There was a White House press conference, however,
Speaker 1: and it sounded a whole lot like yesterday's White House
Speaker 1: Press conference on a day where we have the Senate
Speaker 1: hammering out well saying they're going to hammer out a
Speaker 1: deal in immigration. I think there will be no deal
Speaker 1: because Democrats will not want a deal. They are unsious
Speaker 1: in their negotiations over immigration. They want amnesty. That's all
Speaker 1: they want, and that's what they're waiting for, and they
Speaker 1: expect to get it. That's it. There's nothing else for them.
Speaker 1: There's nothing else that maybe more immigration courts to process
Speaker 1: the amnesty. That's all. We'll talk about where that ends
Speaker 1: right now and what we can expect from that back
Speaker 1: and forth. And then also more on infrastructure today. So
Speaker 1: looks like the Trump administration will be going forward on
Speaker 1: trying to improve roads and bridges and all the other
Speaker 1: things that we've been told about. Now they'll be trying
Speaker 1: to deregulate much of the permitting processes for things like bridges,
Speaker 1: and it's still early. I gotta see where all that's going.
Speaker 1: But instead of even spending time on that at the
Speaker 1: White House press conference, there was only one subject that
Speaker 1: it seemed was getting any attention from the assembled journalist.
Speaker 1: There was only one subject that they wanted to ask
Speaker 1: about because it is clearly the most critical issue right
Speaker 1: now the government is handling that faces million Americans. And
Speaker 1: then of course, has ripples all around the world because
Speaker 1: of American influence on the planet. Uh. The one issue was, well,
Speaker 1: was was this issue one full week into the domestic
Speaker 1: of You scandal involving now former White House Staff Secretary
Speaker 1: Rob Porter, what we went about Rob Porter telling the
Speaker 1: allegations you didn't deceive people learning drop Porter out to
Speaker 1: stay here without through security claries. The initial response from
Speaker 1: the White House was to prop up Porter and stand
Speaker 1: by Porter. Now we're into a few days of this,
Speaker 1: and they were asking the Intel chiefs when they were
Speaker 1: assembled today in front of Congress, they were asking them
Speaker 1: about it. They want to know the timeline with Christopher Ray.
Speaker 1: They're going into background investigation discussions. And now you're getting
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of very uh, very huffy,
Speaker 1: very agitated journalists out there who are saying it all
Speaker 1: somebody with an intern clearance should not be allowed to
Speaker 1: handle sense of information. Now they're all security clearance experts.
Speaker 1: They're not. But this is just one way they keep
Speaker 1: the story and the headlines. They want to talk about
Speaker 1: the clearance process here. Here's I feel inclined to talk
Speaker 1: about it only insofar as I want to give you
Speaker 1: not the not that not that there's the other side
Speaker 1: of it. There's just additional information that I think is
Speaker 1: worth noting as we go through this. The guy has
Speaker 1: already been fired. He's already been uh publicly shamed, as
Speaker 1: I think he should be, because you've got two ex
Speaker 1: wives and I think an ex girlfriend now right as well.
Speaker 1: Wasn't that also, So you've got three women who have
Speaker 1: come forward and provided evidence and on the record and
Speaker 1: give interviews. Uh, yeah, he had to go. But you'll
Speaker 1: notice they're beating up the White House for things like
Speaker 1: saying that they initially, you know, they initially defended him.
Speaker 1: What's the let's just do a little thought experiment. What's
Speaker 1: the alternative that anytime anyone makes an allegation against any
Speaker 1: government official, especially anybody tied to this White House, they're
Speaker 1: just gone fired. They've somehow turned even a a a
Speaker 1: pause in the name of due process, just to pause,
Speaker 1: not even an actual due process, into complicity with domestic violence.
Speaker 1: That's what the media narrative right now is all about.
Speaker 1: They have managed to make it. They're they're managing to
Speaker 1: create an effective propaganda here whereby if you don't automatically
Speaker 1: and immediately throw the person that is accused of the wolves,
Speaker 1: you are complicit in their and their wrongdoing and in
Speaker 1: their crimes. Uh. That's an unfair standard to hold any
Speaker 1: organization to, including the White House. So that's one part
Speaker 1: of the objection that they have, and I think that
Speaker 1: they're being clearly they're they're being unfair, they're being disingenuous
Speaker 1: about that. And there's the other component of it, which
Speaker 1: is the security clones. Did this come up in his background? Now,
Speaker 1: those of you who have ever gotten a clearance, as
Speaker 1: I have gone through that process, and especially for a
Speaker 1: high level clearance a T s H, you you have
Speaker 1: to open up a lot of your life to people
Speaker 1: who are government investigators. And it's all I would note
Speaker 1: on effectively under penalty of perjury, all the information you're
Speaker 1: giving them. So it can be a bit on the
Speaker 1: stressful side, and they can ask people all kinds of questions. UM.
Speaker 1: I can't get into what was fair game when I
Speaker 1: joined the agency because we don't talk about that. But
Speaker 1: I can just tell you that pretty much what the
Speaker 1: agency wants to make fair game is what in their
Speaker 1: background investigation process. I think they can dig deep and
Speaker 1: if they find people and this is true government wide
Speaker 1: now for security clearance processes. If they find people that
Speaker 1: dislike you and say nasty stuff about you, is that
Speaker 1: enough to stop you from getting the job? Should you
Speaker 1: be banned from especially in the case of say Intel
Speaker 1: community or well military, you get a clearance to depending
Speaker 1: on your job. People that work in the White House,
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to serve now because someone said nasty
Speaker 1: stuff about you, know, they have to verify it, right,
Speaker 1: they have to. And that's what they call the adjudication process,
Speaker 1: where they look at all the different assembled bits of
Speaker 1: data in your background and they come to they come
Speaker 1: to uh, some some kind of a conclusion about it,
Speaker 1: and they make a determination do you get a clearance
Speaker 1: or not? And I would note that I've had friends
Speaker 1: who are denied clearances based on what they told me
Speaker 1: and I don't know right, I didn't get to see
Speaker 1: their file, but denied clearances for some stuff that you'd
Speaker 1: be like, WHOA, really you get denied a clearance for that.
Speaker 1: It's not always the most clear cut standard. The adjudication
Speaker 1: process is behind closed doors office for good reason, and
Speaker 1: it can be a little bit of a mess. You
Speaker 1: can imagine the government is compiling a dossier on each
Speaker 1: individual who's gonna get a clearance. Think of it that way.
Speaker 1: It's a dossier, right, They're pulling together all the stuff
Speaker 1: about you, all of your financials and everything they can
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of government employees with clearances.
Speaker 1: So do I think it is possible? It is, It
Speaker 1: is feasible. It is likely that Rob Porter. You know
Speaker 1: that the the FBI or whomever, I don't know who
Speaker 1: was doing his background clearance specifically. There's different government bodies
Speaker 1: and agencies that can involve. But the government investigators found
Speaker 1: evidence that he was a wife beater. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: they probably did. And I think it is also clear
Speaker 1: they didn't act on it right away because they needed
Speaker 1: to compile the file for adjudication. And did that maybe
Speaker 1: not get communicated to the White House in a timmy
Speaker 1: enough fashion, or did someone in the White House not
Speaker 1: act on it? It is possible. I think it wasn't
Speaker 1: communicated quickly. I don't know if somebody didn't act on
Speaker 1: it in a way that they should have. Um, But
Speaker 1: that's the that's the only question that I see as
Speaker 1: being particularly or as being the one the media is
Speaker 1: pushing that is valid. This whole notion of like, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, he's such a national security threat. I mean,
Speaker 1: we didn't find out that Rob Porter was a wrest
Speaker 1: and spy. We found out that he is a disgrace
Speaker 1: who hits women shouldn't be working in the White House,
Speaker 1: shouldn't have gotten the job. But it's not like he,
Speaker 1: you know, sold the nuclear secrets or something. And the
Speaker 1: way the press is trying to dig into the story
Speaker 1: and keep it alive more and keep talking about I'm
Speaker 1: talking about it because it's all Trump is a misogynist.
Speaker 1: The Me Too movement is is gaining strength all the time.
Speaker 1: Trump is the as I said, called over at MSNBC,
Speaker 1: the commander in chief of rape culture. You know what's
Speaker 1: remember an MSNBC an analyst over there called Obama a
Speaker 1: a word. He called him a word on air for it's,
Speaker 1: you know, as a slang term for a part of
Speaker 1: male anatomy. And he was banned from the air. That
Speaker 1: analyst was banned from the air for weeks. I forget
Speaker 1: how long he was suspended for a period of time
Speaker 1: for that. But you can go on MSNBC and say
Speaker 1: that this president is the command are in chief of
Speaker 1: rape culture, and that's okay. In fact, you're celebrated for it. It's, uh,
Speaker 1: it's pretty pretty uh clear the double standards that we're
Speaker 1: dealing with here. But so in the Porter case, the
Speaker 1: notion that this is all about national security, I'm just
Speaker 1: seeing a lot of a lot of oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the national security threats here. He was seeing classified information.
Speaker 1: Him seeing classified information has really nothing to do with
Speaker 1: him being an abuser, meaning that that that does not
Speaker 1: mean that he there's no classified information component of the
Speaker 1: story other than he's not an honorable person who should
Speaker 1: be who should be trusted with his role in the
Speaker 1: White House. But that's a different This is this is
Speaker 1: an ethical issue, not a national security issue, is what
Speaker 1: I'm trying to clarify. But the way the media talks
Speaker 1: about it, it's, oh my gosh, we're talking about clearance.
Speaker 1: I've never heard so much talking about security clearances in
Speaker 1: my life. And this from people who are saying that
Speaker 1: Hillary's hundred you know, hundred plus classified emails was no
Speaker 1: big deal. That's a national security risk. That's actually classified
Speaker 1: information problem, right, it's a rob Porter jerk problem, you know. Bad.
Speaker 1: And again, I mean, look, people, I know, people can
Speaker 1: call and tell me, and I get it. He hasn't
Speaker 1: been proven guilty of anything in a court of law.
Speaker 1: He's entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. But if
Speaker 1: we're making assessments here, guys, I mean both both of
Speaker 1: his ex wives and and her ex girlfriend saying he
Speaker 1: he hit them and they have proof, I think that
Speaker 1: I like the White House made the right move getting
Speaker 1: rid of him, and that it wasn't fast enough for
Speaker 1: the press. Is liking is not not enough for them?
Speaker 1: Of course? Um, all right, I can see if some
Speaker 1: lines are letting up. Maybe we'll get into some of
Speaker 1: this if you have thoughts on it. I wasn't gonna
Speaker 1: spend too much time on it, but then again, we
Speaker 1: talked about immigration a lot, and we'll spend some time
Speaker 1: some time on Syria in the third hour on the
Speaker 1: situation there. So we've got we've got a lot more
Speaker 1: show coming. And maybe do you think this producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: what do we think about this story about Office of
Speaker 1: Management and Budget saying that maybe people instead of getting
Speaker 1: food stamps should get a food box. So you get
Speaker 1: you see this, you get a yeah, I've got some
Speaker 1: I've got some thoughts on that this could get I
Speaker 1: should get a little spicier that I anticipated. Actually, I've
Speaker 1: got some thoughts on that whole situation that maybe I
Speaker 1: should share with you. Let's mix it up a little
Speaker 1: bit here. You know, everyone's gonna blah blah cally blah blah. Immigration,
Speaker 1: Let's talk about food and national food policy and food stamps.
Speaker 1: I think that could actually be really really interesting usage
Speaker 1: of our time here on the show. All right, time
Speaker 1: to go to a break. We'll be right back alright,
Speaker 1: seam lines are lit. Let's get to some calls. We
Speaker 1: got Brian in Saint Clair'sville, Ohio. Brian, thank you for
Speaker 1: giving us a ring. Well, thank you very much, but
Speaker 1: great evening to you. Um hey, were a bunch of
Speaker 1: subjects that you're talking about. What's Ron Porter? And I
Speaker 1: personally would support him to be completely innocent until proven
Speaker 1: guilty and that it has to go through the due process.
Speaker 1: And I say that wholeheartedly for the fact that I
Speaker 1: went through an abuse of marriage, ended up being falsely
Speaker 1: arrested at one time, and had to prove my innocence
Speaker 1: h her father the police report the day I was
Speaker 1: out of town, out of state actually, so I was
Speaker 1: able to improve money innocence on that one and then
Speaker 1: I didn't marry for another thirteen years, married another guy
Speaker 1: and moved to Canada. That didn't turn out good either,
Speaker 1: And then all of a sudden, both of them got
Speaker 1: together and the next thing I know, I'm facing the
Speaker 1: same charge as possible accusations up in Canada and almost
Speaker 1: got tossed in Canadian gale. And and I just asked,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is an ordeal. How did your ex
Speaker 1: wives find each other a team up to try to
Speaker 1: try to mess you up? That's that's like Jerry Springer stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is Jerry Springer stuff. Um, the court did not.
Speaker 1: Let's put this way, she wouldn't have received custody of
Speaker 1: our child if she had told the truth so encouraged me.
Speaker 1: She had to dispouraged me in order to demean my character.
Speaker 1: In the end, three years later, I mean, my divorce
Speaker 1: lasted three years. In the end, the court looked at
Speaker 1: me and says, we're not giving her custody at all.
Speaker 1: You get a full custody. So then when I moved
Speaker 1: to Canada, I took my son to Canada. And of course,
Speaker 1: you know, everybody gets to know who everybody is and everything,
Speaker 1: and that's how it all kind of worked, but so
Speaker 1: you were you were exonerated, you saying, Brian, despite being
Speaker 1: accused by two ex wives of abuse. That's correct, that
Speaker 1: was correct. The first one done in the States, I
Speaker 1: had a proven in court. Luckily in Canada, I had
Speaker 1: already had all this information, so I just presented it,
Speaker 1: you know, to the attorneys and they worked it out.
Speaker 1: And you know, the courts just dropped that point up there.
Speaker 1: But you know, the people will talk, they will talk together,
Speaker 1: they will form things. One thing I've learned, I've had
Speaker 1: psychology working in the medical field, and one thing I know,
Speaker 1: seventy of the people, doesn't matter if you're male or female,
Speaker 1: will lie at any time for any reason. Umkin of
Speaker 1: all will lie only when you're pushing the corner and
Speaker 1: have to, you know, have a defense mechanism, and then
Speaker 1: little good. Only about five or seven percent of people
Speaker 1: really try to live their lives without lying. So um, Brian,
Speaker 1: we're part of the five or seven percent here, my friend. Right,
Speaker 1: So there we go, Amen, my friend, Thank you for
Speaker 1: calling in, Thanks for sharing your stories. Brian Shields High
Speaker 1: Daniel in Missouri. Daniel, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Hey,
Speaker 1: what's going on? Shields? Fields high question, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: play I guess partial devil's devil's advocate and maybe far
Speaker 1: right wing conspiracy theorists. Since we're finding out all this
Speaker 1: corruption in the higher echelogs of the FBI, what's to
Speaker 1: say that during Mr Porter's background check, both of his
Speaker 1: ex wives were interviewed, told the interviewer about the physical
Speaker 1: and mental abuse, and he decided to bury it and say, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not putting this in the report. You guys say quiet,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna tell you exactly when we want this
Speaker 1: to come out, just to ruin the man. M hm, Well,
Speaker 1: why would the background investigators? Well, I look, I can
Speaker 1: tell you this, Daniel. I can't say that that didn't happen,
Speaker 1: so you know, but I was just throwing it out
Speaker 1: there because I think it may be. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's Here's what I would say, Daniel. I
Speaker 1: would say that's that's a highly unlikely scenario based on
Speaker 1: what I know in the way that the average government
Speaker 1: employee goes about their job. However, I'm telling you that's
Speaker 1: highly unlikely after spending a lot of time here on
Speaker 1: the radio telling you that it is likely. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: that the senior most figures of the FBI and the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice abused one of the most powerful surveillance
Speaker 1: tools of the United States government to throw a presidential election.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I gotta keep an open mind, you know,
Speaker 1: I can't be dismissing throwing it in there because Peter
Speaker 1: Struck was involved with his interview process as well. So
Speaker 1: maybe he was the one that wait, Peter Struck was
Speaker 1: involved with with with Rob Porter. Yeah, well didn't you
Speaker 1: say that earlier that he was he was one of
Speaker 1: the ones that was involved in interviewing him. No, don't
Speaker 1: remember saying that. I didn't. I mean, if I did,
Speaker 1: I was a mistake. And I think I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's true, although I don't know. Let me
Speaker 1: check on producer, Mike. Can you take a look and
Speaker 1: see if there's any any correlation or correlation fancy radio talk,
Speaker 1: any connection between all that stuff. But Daniel, hey man,
Speaker 1: I look, I like the outside the box thinking and
Speaker 1: you know, interested until proven guilty is a legal term.
Speaker 1: It is also a concept that that we should try
Speaker 1: to maintain in in most of our day to day
Speaker 1: as much as we can. But it looks really bad yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, Danna, thank you very much for calling in.
Speaker 1: I would also say that, you know, it looks really
Speaker 1: bad with this guy Porter, and I, yeah, I know.
Speaker 1: There's the pressure of and see look here, I've spent
Speaker 1: more time on this radio show than I intended to
Speaker 1: on the subject. But you guys get fired off about it.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of calls coming in on it.
Speaker 1: So you know, I can't even take We're not going
Speaker 1: to take the next the next few calls because we've
Speaker 1: gotta move subjects. But the for me, if you're accused
Speaker 1: of this and it's not it's not true. I just
Speaker 1: don't think that you you step down and you allow
Speaker 1: that to be a mark on your record. Um. And
Speaker 1: but I understand there's also the pressure of you can't
Speaker 1: drag the White House down with your fight on this.
Speaker 1: It's not fair to everything else is going on with
Speaker 1: this guy. I don't know this kind of this guy Pore.
Speaker 1: The more I've looked at this Rob Porter guy doesn't
Speaker 1: doesn't look good for me. It doesn't look good for
Speaker 1: my opinion. UM. So there's that a little more on
Speaker 1: North Korea, I think I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about maybe we won't get at immigration today. Definitely talking Syria. Oh,
Speaker 1: and some Israel stuff coming up, including UH Israel shooting
Speaker 1: down in Iranian drone in Israeli airspace. That's kind of
Speaker 1: a big deal because you know, the Iranians want to
Speaker 1: get nuclear weapons so that they can expand their power
Speaker 1: across the Middle East and also eventually destroy Israel. And
Speaker 1: and so there's some issues there that we should continue
Speaker 1: to keep an eye on. So we'll talk about that
Speaker 1: in the third hour, as well as Oh, Anglo American
Speaker 1: heritage of our eagle system. That is a thing that
Speaker 1: we know about, but some people think that that term
Speaker 1: is inherently racist. Oh, we'll talk about that in the
Speaker 1: third hour. You are not gonna want to miss it.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. So I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about the Office of Management
Speaker 1: and Budget Director McK mulvainey saying that maybe instead of
Speaker 1: giving people food stamps, which is more properly termed the
Speaker 1: Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP, give them a food
Speaker 1: box similar to the very popular and quite excellent from
Speaker 1: what I understand UH Food Service known as blue Apron
Speaker 1: where they send you the food to make a meal.
Speaker 1: H Before I get to that, though, I just would
Speaker 1: note that the there's breaking news coming from CNN, So
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you the source. Take it or leave it.
Speaker 1: That Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, the Democrat
Speaker 1: who is the face of the Democrat efforts in that committee. Yeah, ah,
Speaker 1: he has now come out to say that there will
Speaker 1: be no revisions, no revisions of the Democrat memo. Huh,
Speaker 1: well now you have. Now you have something of us standoff,
Speaker 1: don't you. If they If this reporting is accurate and
Speaker 1: that is in fact what happens, that the Democrats refused
Speaker 1: to make any revisions to the memo, this then strikes
Speaker 1: me as showing us what the Democrat plan here was
Speaker 1: all along. The memo was created so that it could
Speaker 1: not be released, so that then they can continue to
Speaker 1: fight in the public sphere by a whisper campaign and
Speaker 1: propaganda and talking points without providing any actual substantive information
Speaker 1: to back it up. Just Oh, we had so much
Speaker 1: more on carter page. We touts wanted to show you,
Speaker 1: but like you know, couldn't do it. We had so
Speaker 1: much on carter page that would have absolutely justified the
Speaker 1: spying on American citizen and therefore also the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: that went along with it. But you know, those mean
Speaker 1: Republicans wouldn't let us show it to you. This is
Speaker 1: what they are trying to pull off. I think we'll
Speaker 1: see it's not yet done with. But that's been my
Speaker 1: sense of where this is going all along. Um, Now
Speaker 1: with that, let's talk about food shopping for a second.
Speaker 1: So if you're like me, you show up in the
Speaker 1: grocery store and you're like, all right, take me to
Speaker 1: the salad greens, take me to the let me think
Speaker 1: the chicken, no skin, no breading, certainly not fried, you know,
Speaker 1: just just lean protein veggies. Maybe if I'm feeling particularly saucy,
Speaker 1: allow myself a couple of apples. Uh, That's what I
Speaker 1: go in there with the intention of. And somehow I
Speaker 1: find myself, you know, getting GUACAMOLEI and chips, and uh,
Speaker 1: you can never have enough cheddar cheese, maybe some brie,
Speaker 1: some fried chicken nuggets. Obviously, need to throw in some
Speaker 1: some honey mustard sauce. Maybe a little horse radish sauce too,
Speaker 1: in case I'm really gonna party, you know. And that's
Speaker 1: that's what and you know, a couple of chocolate bars
Speaker 1: because you need a sweet treat and maybe some ice cream,
Speaker 1: and like that's what ends up in my cart. And
Speaker 1: Ms Molly makes fun of me a little bit for
Speaker 1: it sometimes because I go in there and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: eat like a guy who uh just can't wait to
Speaker 1: show off his six pack abs. But I leave like
Speaker 1: the guy who definitely does not have six pack apps.
Speaker 1: You know, I leave like a guy who enjoys enjoys
Speaker 1: his ribbis, his red meat and uh ice cream chez
Speaker 1: all the above. So I understand the struggle in the
Speaker 1: grocery store is a real thing. You know. It's a
Speaker 1: struggle to get the right foods and also there's a
Speaker 1: struggle to pay for it. I live near a Whole
Speaker 1: Foods here in New York City, and Whole Foods is
Speaker 1: is a pricey place to shop for food. It's great,
Speaker 1: It's the closest grocery store to me. But I know
Speaker 1: it's sounding I'm sounding very very bougie right now, but
Speaker 1: I swear I'm not. But there's a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of very good stuff there, and food
Speaker 1: is expensive, I get it, right, But the government has
Speaker 1: now waded into the issue of making food choices for
Speaker 1: people perhaps, which is you can imagine is going to
Speaker 1: get all kinds of political and uh. I think they're
Speaker 1: probably gonna back off this, but before they do, it's
Speaker 1: just visit with what Mick mulvaney, the director of the OMB,
Speaker 1: said about the SNAP program better known as food Stamps
Speaker 1: Snap food stamps. A couple of changes there will hit
Speaker 1: the highlights. Um you may have heard about this already.
Speaker 1: The food box program one of the most innovative things. Actually,
Speaker 1: I think it originated at the U. S d a
Speaker 1: UH secretary but do wanted to give a chance. We
Speaker 1: thought it was a tremendous idea. So what we do
Speaker 1: is proposed that for folks who are on food stamps,
Speaker 1: part not all, part of their benefits come in the
Speaker 1: actual sort of and I don't want to steal somebody's copyright,
Speaker 1: but a blue Apron type program. We actually receive the
Speaker 1: food instead of receive the cash. Um. It lowers the
Speaker 1: cost to us because we can buy prices at wholesale
Speaker 1: where they whereas they have to buy it at retail.
Speaker 1: It also makes sure that they're getting nutritious food. UM.
Speaker 1: So we're pretty excited about that. So say the government money,
Speaker 1: give people food. That's the that's the planner that that's
Speaker 1: what he's trying to trying to get at at a
Speaker 1: ward in the washing post, those foods would include shelf
Speaker 1: stable milk, juice, grain, cereal, pasta, peanut, butter, beans, and
Speaker 1: canned meats, canned fruits, vegetables, some other stuff. Juice, by
Speaker 1: the way, I'm very anti juice, I know, yeah, very
Speaker 1: anti juice. A lot of sugar. We all grow up thinking, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I drink a big glass of orange juice every day,
Speaker 1: and it's like the the caloric and and sugar equivalent
Speaker 1: of of coke juice. What do you say, what do
Speaker 1: you juice? Oh, juice like homemade juice. Wow, now you're boogie.
Speaker 1: Look at you, producer, Mike. Homemade juicer. Those things always
Speaker 1: look great. Then you find out you have to clean them.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like the really fancy coffee machine. You know,
Speaker 1: I like the simple coffee machines. Simple kind of guy.
Speaker 1: But yeah, look here in New York City, there's a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of different chains where you go in there
Speaker 1: and they offer you some version of green juice, and
Speaker 1: they'll call it like doctor smoothies, green blend of Colon
Speaker 1: cleans or something, and like it's fifteen dollars and you
Speaker 1: get to them, just go in there and you know
Speaker 1: you and it usually the better it is for you,
Speaker 1: the more it tastes like lawn milch mixed with water.
Speaker 1: That's the way it's supposed to go, right, So that's
Speaker 1: how it fifteen bucks. And you think out by the way,
Speaker 1: come to New York, come visit folks. Uh, I'll I'll
Speaker 1: direct you to some of these places you can go
Speaker 1: get your fifteen dollar your fifteen dollar juice. Um. Anyway,
Speaker 1: juice has got a lot of sugar in it. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, if you have like orange juice, apple juice, delicious.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong, it's fine. What's the while? But
Speaker 1: just not people think of juice is healthy. I'm always like, no, no,
Speaker 1: not really. But I digress. So they're gonna maybe do
Speaker 1: this government program where they give people that that need
Speaker 1: assistance in having and getting enough and getting a food
Speaker 1: on the table, are gonna be getting these different It'll
Speaker 1: be partially the what they're used to, which is a
Speaker 1: card and e be And like I've been in plenty
Speaker 1: of groceral grocery stores where people are using BT cards.
Speaker 1: I understand it's it's similar to a credit card. I
Speaker 1: get how the process works. And there have been criticism
Speaker 1: in the past of should you be able to buy
Speaker 1: cigarettes with your EBT cards? Should you be able to
Speaker 1: buy soda? I'm like, never gonna get a soda sponsor here,
Speaker 1: at least a sugar soda any of the flavored waters
Speaker 1: out there that do not have sugar in them. Gladly
Speaker 1: have you been sponsors on the show. But I can't.
Speaker 1: I can't get excited about twenty four grams of sugar
Speaker 1: via high fructose corns share particularly, It's just not really
Speaker 1: my jam. So anyway, but can you buy that stuff
Speaker 1: with food stamps? Can you? You know, is there any
Speaker 1: are you allowed to make any put any limits in
Speaker 1: place for what people are buying for their food? And
Speaker 1: it becomes very very tense, very political. People say, oh,
Speaker 1: you're gonna look at you you're now keep on. It's
Speaker 1: the government programs. The government's giving people. It's a welfare program.
Speaker 1: It is it's a welfare program. So they're giving people
Speaker 1: money and letting people buy food with the money. Should
Speaker 1: they be able to direct them to certain kinds of
Speaker 1: foods and you know, say that you need to buy
Speaker 1: you know, chicken breast and uh broccoli and not Cheetos,
Speaker 1: for example, which I used to eat when I was
Speaker 1: a kid, like bags of with Nestley Quick. By the way,
Speaker 1: It's like I was trying to give myself a corn
Speaker 1: area in the fifth grade. But these are the things
Speaker 1: that I like, Cheetos, Nestle's Quick. I need a whole
Speaker 1: sleeve of those Pringles, you know, I just go go
Speaker 1: Pringles for some reason. You could eat an entire thing
Speaker 1: of them, be like, hey, it wasn't that much anyway.
Speaker 1: So this is a big issue now or there's got
Speaker 1: a lot a lot of back and forth on it,
Speaker 1: and I just reminded of So I don't know if
Speaker 1: there's gonna go anywhere. I think they'll probably back off
Speaker 1: of it. Well maybe not. You know what we are
Speaker 1: talking about the Trump administration here, They may they may
Speaker 1: take the heat on this. It would say, it would
Speaker 1: say the government money, and it would force people who
Speaker 1: are on I shouldn't say force, but it would give
Speaker 1: them some staple. And then I'm sure there'd be some
Speaker 1: choice within the program probably of what the staples would be,
Speaker 1: but people getting more nutritious food instead of just leaving
Speaker 1: them to their own devices. I would note that there's
Speaker 1: some very interesting and um under the radar studies that
Speaker 1: have been done. I find food choice and all this
Speaker 1: fascinating because something we all do, right You're you're at
Speaker 1: the grocery store behind food. I'm gripped buying food or
Speaker 1: you know, some of you are like nobuk, I actually
Speaker 1: grow my own and I go out there and hunt
Speaker 1: it like a real man. But nonetheless, like most of
Speaker 1: you are probably going to the grocery store at some point,
Speaker 1: um and and getting food. Uh. But the choices that
Speaker 1: you make, it becomes very political. As you remember, the
Speaker 1: primary initiative of Michelle Obama's time as First Lady was
Speaker 1: school lunches. Really that was or one of the primarynwerships.
Speaker 1: I think that was the probably best best known one.
Speaker 1: But you hear these stories from liberals about food deserts,
Speaker 1: for example, and the idea here for years was and
Speaker 1: this is kind of the payoff to this otherwise kind
Speaker 1: of rambling story about food stamps and blue Apron like
Speaker 1: programs from the government everything else. You heard for years
Speaker 1: that the reason people in low income neighborhoods across all backgrounds.
Speaker 1: But low low, low income neighborhoods would not buy healthier
Speaker 1: food is because of quote food deserts. They don't have
Speaker 1: access to it. That's the Delhi on the corner which
Speaker 1: sells the I'm really beating up on Cheetos and Coca
Speaker 1: Cola right now. But anyway, you know, soda, soda pop
Speaker 1: and soda pop and it's not like my grandfather, they
Speaker 1: still call that. I think they call it pop in
Speaker 1: the South still, right, Yeah, exactly, it's called pop like
Speaker 1: that is a proper terminology for a Southern anyway, soda
Speaker 1: pop into and cheetos and potato chips and whatever. But
Speaker 1: if they had access to Brussels sprouts and Collie flower
Speaker 1: and free range organic chicken, that is what low income
Speaker 1: people would would buy if they were given the option. Well,
Speaker 1: there was a study that was done back in It
Speaker 1: was actually here in New York City, and it had
Speaker 1: some pretty interesting, uh pretty interesting end results, I would say. Um.
Speaker 1: For one, even when the federal government subsidizes healthy food
Speaker 1: initiatives and low income neighborhoods encourages the purchasing of food
Speaker 1: healthy food and loan income neighborhood. So so they they
Speaker 1: are literally making it cheaper and more available than it
Speaker 1: would otherwise be in the market, and really going out
Speaker 1: of the way to say here's where their program. There
Speaker 1: are awareness programs, there are here's where it is in
Speaker 1: your neighborhood program, and there's the oh, it's even cheaper
Speaker 1: than it would be at a normal store because they're
Speaker 1: subsidizing it. And who wants to guess what they found out?
Speaker 1: Who wants to get us? If the food if when
Speaker 1: the government gets involved in food deserts for low income neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: it changes the buying patterns of the residents. Nope, people.
Speaker 1: If people want to buy Cheetos, they buy cheetos. If
Speaker 1: people want to buy free range of roast chicken, they
Speaker 1: brought buy free range roast chicken. The government, though, trying
Speaker 1: to educate, subsidize, encourage, course whatever people to eat healthier
Speaker 1: does not work. It was an abject failure. And so
Speaker 1: then what you figure out is that, Okay, so the
Speaker 1: notion of a food desert, it's not that it's not
Speaker 1: there and people can't afford it and people can't buy it,
Speaker 1: and particularly talking about low income neighborhoods. It's that people
Speaker 1: in the neighborhood don't want to buy it. That when
Speaker 1: it's presented to them and it's like, hey, it's cheap,
Speaker 1: it's here, it's great, it's for you, They're like, I
Speaker 1: want something else. I don't want to you know, skinless
Speaker 1: chicken breast and uh, you know celery stocks. You know,
Speaker 1: I want what I want and whatever that may be.
Speaker 1: And if the stuff the government does not particularly healthy
Speaker 1: or or good for you. So anyway, I just think
Speaker 1: that's we talked a lot about food here. It's probably
Speaker 1: Chef Buck comes out sometimes and wants to have a
Speaker 1: discussion with all of you. Um, Chef Molly's way better
Speaker 1: than Chef Buck. But that's a discussion for another time.
Speaker 1: We'll roll into a quick break. We will remember the
Speaker 1: third hour. We'll talk about what's going on in Syria
Speaker 1: because it's really crazy stuff, disconcerting and uh, troubling, But
Speaker 1: no one seems to care in the country right now,
Speaker 1: which is weird to me given what's going on. But
Speaker 1: you know, they'd rather talk about how the White House
Speaker 1: is got pr problems right now. We'll be right back. Well,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you I wasn't planning on talking about
Speaker 1: food stamps and the program that the government talked about.
Speaker 1: But every single line here is lit. It got whoa
Speaker 1: people want to talk about this. So let's let's get
Speaker 1: into some of these calls. Here. We have Jamie in Florida. Hey,
Speaker 1: Jamie hick Uh, I think they need to limit what
Speaker 1: people can purchase with food stamps. I think the boxes
Speaker 1: should come in the same as the old you know,
Speaker 1: in the olden days, you've got cheese and means from
Speaker 1: the government. They already have a program called Wick Win
Speaker 1: Men and Infant and Children Wick where they tell you
Speaker 1: weekly what you can get. You can get so you know,
Speaker 1: so much milk, so much eggs, so much formula, so
Speaker 1: much this, that and the other each week of the month,
Speaker 1: and you have to get it weekly. And it needs
Speaker 1: to go to that so that people who are getting
Speaker 1: assistance are actually using it for food instead of selling
Speaker 1: it on the street. I give you fifty cents on
Speaker 1: the dollars to buy their drugs, which they are doing
Speaker 1: and in large numbers. All right, Jamie, thank you for
Speaker 1: thank you for calling on the food stampers. You appreciate it.
Speaker 1: We got run in Florida also want to talk food stands.
Speaker 1: Hey Ron, hey buck Uh. I've been listening to you
Speaker 1: since your real news days. Thank you, kudos, kudos on
Speaker 1: your progression so far and many more good things to come.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, all right, So this is not a
Speaker 1: new thing. Back in the sixties. I'm a native New Yorker,
Speaker 1: so back in the sixties come from a very large family.
Speaker 1: They had U s d A when the program and
Speaker 1: they actually gave out you have to go to the
Speaker 1: distribution center to pick up uh the you're allot men
Speaker 1: of food for either it was bi weekly or a monthly,
Speaker 1: so you would go to the distribution center. They gave
Speaker 1: you that big block of cheese. Have you ever heard
Speaker 1: the term government cheese. That's where it comes from. They
Speaker 1: gave you canned meats. They gave you boxes of powdered milk,
Speaker 1: and they gave you the big cans of peanut butter.
Speaker 1: The two different kinds of canned meats. So this is
Speaker 1: this program is a retread. Would be interesting to see
Speaker 1: what they come up with. What do you think good
Speaker 1: idea on or not so good? Um? I listen, you
Speaker 1: know what with with all of the iterations out it
Speaker 1: that are that are currently out there with the blue
Speaker 1: aprons and the ones. They're doing it on a for
Speaker 1: profit basis. I think if they, if they knuckled down
Speaker 1: and thought about it, they could get something really good
Speaker 1: and beneficial out of it and still and get the
Speaker 1: cost savings. All right, Thank you, Ron, thank you for
Speaker 1: calling it from Florida. Um Brent in New Mexico, Brett,
Speaker 1: we got about a minute and change, but go ahead
Speaker 1: a buck, Shield time, man, Shield TI. I just want
Speaker 1: to tell you, man, this is a serious issue. Man.
Speaker 1: Where I live, they'll take these cards and they'll go
Speaker 1: in there and every dime of it. I'm talking industrial
Speaker 1: law beings, all that stuff. They'll pay for it all
Speaker 1: in their EBT cards and then they'll get their little
Speaker 1: food chats that make Themali's and stuff, and it's just
Speaker 1: cash in hand. And I mean they're turning this thing
Speaker 1: into a straight up business. And I mean they don't
Speaker 1: spend a dime on it, on Cheetos or nothing, but
Speaker 1: it's all it does. I would be I would be
Speaker 1: very curious to see what food stamp you know, what
Speaker 1: they have on food stamp fraud and food stamp abuse numbers,
Speaker 1: because I can tell you brown one of the things
Speaker 1: I learned about I was the m y p D is.
Speaker 1: They're like one of them, just because for for obvious
Speaker 1: political reasons, welfare fraud you have to be really egregious
Speaker 1: for anyone to actually investigate or care. It's it's much
Speaker 1: more rampant than people want to admit or that they
Speaker 1: even know about. So that's an interesting Thank you for
Speaker 1: bringing up another component of this Shields high and uh,
Speaker 1: Team I gotta we're gonna get into a Buck brief
Speaker 1: coming up here. I gotta talk to you about what's
Speaker 1: going on in Syria. I appreciate all the calls that
Speaker 1: came in. We still have many more folks calling in
Speaker 1: lines lit up on on food stamps if maybe we'll
Speaker 1: come back to that issue tomorrow. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: get into some national security here coming up, so stay
Speaker 1: with me for that in the third hour. The other
Speaker 1: shows just talk at you in the Freedom HUD. We
Speaker 1: have a mission. We fight for the truth in a
Speaker 1: team effort, and Buck us back with our next play.
Speaker 1: You are now entering the Freedom Technical Operations Center. Programs
Speaker 1: must be kept strictly. Need to know Team Buck is
Speaker 1: cleared and ready for the Buck Brief. Reports of a
Speaker 1: US air strike that killed Russian nationals in Syria has
Speaker 1: reports have come in in recent days. Here's what we know.
Speaker 1: This coming from UH the This coming from CNN for
Speaker 1: Russian nationals, and perhaps dozens I'm sorry, this from New
Speaker 1: York Times, and perhaps dozens more. We're killed in fighting
Speaker 1: between pro government forces in eastern Syria and members of
Speaker 1: the United States led coalition fighting the Islamic State, according
Speaker 1: to Russian and Syrian officials. Assyrian military officer said that
Speaker 1: about a hundred Syrian soldiers have been killed in the
Speaker 1: fighting on February seventh and eighth, but the news about
Speaker 1: Russian casualties has dribbled out slowly through Russian news organizations
Speaker 1: and social media. Most of the fatalities were attributed to
Speaker 1: an air strike on enemy columns that was called in
Speaker 1: by American backed Kurdish soldiers who believed they were under attack.
Speaker 1: My friends, this is this is very troubling. UM. So
Speaker 1: here's what we know based on the reporting so far.
Speaker 1: The individual the Russians who were killed here, they were
Speaker 1: moving with Assad pro Assad militia forces, essentially right elements
Speaker 1: of the Assad regimes military forces or paramilitaries in the
Speaker 1: dear Azor region. This is in the Euphrates River valley
Speaker 1: eastern eastern Syria, and the column was moving and the
Speaker 1: US backed Kurdish soldiers. They called in for American support
Speaker 1: seeing this large movement of Syrian soldiers, but there were
Speaker 1: some Russians among those Syrians. I believe the Russians were
Speaker 1: working for a private Russian security company called I'm assuming
Speaker 1: Wagner or Wagner, which has sent hundreds of contractors into
Speaker 1: Russia to work as well auxiliaries for the Assad regime.
Speaker 1: So this allows Russian special forces, Russian spet SNAs and
Speaker 1: others to take part in the Syrian conflict, but to
Speaker 1: not technically be Russian flagged military, similar to what we've
Speaker 1: seen with paramilitaries operating in eastern Ukraine and part of
Speaker 1: the separatist movements there. But in this case you had
Speaker 1: a large US air strike that killed pro Assad regime forces,
Speaker 1: killed a handful of Russians. The Russians are so far
Speaker 1: keeping a relatively low profile about this, but most of
Speaker 1: the casualties we're from a pro regime Christian militia, so
Speaker 1: not technically Syrian ASSAD soldiers as assyrious Assad regime soldiers.
Speaker 1: But this Christian militia. Like I mean, this is You've
Speaker 1: got so many different pieces and forces and movements and
Speaker 1: everything going on in Syria right now because we've really
Speaker 1: gone into a new phase. We're no longer in the
Speaker 1: primarily anti Isis campaign of the Syrian civil war that
Speaker 1: has been one by this administration. We are now in
Speaker 1: a second Syrian civil war or the the war. The
Speaker 1: wars within this Syrian civil war are coming to the surface,
Speaker 1: and it's dizzy ng when you look at all the
Speaker 1: different factions and rivalries and what's going on in the country.
Speaker 1: And I I am surprised given that we of U.
Speaker 1: S troops in Syria, we have used troops on the
Speaker 1: front lines. In fact, we've been worried in recent weeks
Speaker 1: that because of Turkish military action in the north of
Speaker 1: Syria across the border against US backed Kurdish forces, Syrian
Speaker 1: Kurdish forces, that we could have the Turks essentially shelling
Speaker 1: or dropping bombs on our guys in Turkey's a NATO
Speaker 1: ally and they're gonna be Now that hasn't happened, but
Speaker 1: that was a very real concern. And they have dropped
Speaker 1: bombs in areas where and they have attacked in places
Speaker 1: where we have allies on the ground in Syria, which
Speaker 1: is very problesome. Force. Well, what are the Turks I
Speaker 1: think that they're they're doing by by engaging in such
Speaker 1: so we say unhelpful conduct. Ah. But this group, this
Speaker 1: Christian militia that we hit with an air strike, they
Speaker 1: call themselves the Isis Hunters, which is interesting. They they
Speaker 1: are part of this Assad regime branding effort to be
Speaker 1: all about fighting against the terrorists. And this is complicated
Speaker 1: because the Assad regime is in fact fighting against terrorists,
Speaker 1: just also a lot more than terrorists and bombing a
Speaker 1: lot of innocent women and children and civilians in the process.
Speaker 1: Assad is using the very real fight against the Islamic
Speaker 1: State and the al Qaeda element in Syria as a
Speaker 1: cover within his own side for whatever brutality, chemical weapons attacks,
Speaker 1: and everything else that's been going on in the country.
Speaker 1: He's just saying that it's either you know, it's either
Speaker 1: me or you can have those crazy Gihattas running the country.
Speaker 1: So his own people, Assad's people that are still inside
Speaker 1: of Asad controlled territory give him a much greater leeway
Speaker 1: than the otherwise would. But inside of this second Syrian
Speaker 1: Civil War. You have a whole bunch of different conflicts
Speaker 1: that are that are playing out. So for example, you've
Speaker 1: got the problem between American backed Kurdish fighters and Turkey.
Speaker 1: You have the problem of Iran Syrian Israeli conflict that
Speaker 1: is looking more and more realistic all the time, considering
Speaker 1: that the Iranians were just flying a drone from Syria
Speaker 1: into Israel. I mean, they're using Syria. Iran is using
Speaker 1: Syria as a launch pad at a forward operating base
Speaker 1: to look at what's going on in Israel, and who
Speaker 1: knows what else. Keep in mind that Iranian backed militia
Speaker 1: Hezbollah in Lebanon has been fired. You know, I think
Speaker 1: there have been conflicts between Israel and Hezbillah stretching back
Speaker 1: for decades. Was recently in two thousand and six Israeli
Speaker 1: tank columns went up into southern Lebanon. There's those all
Speaker 1: kinds of problems there. So now it might be Syria
Speaker 1: as well, could be a front of Israeli military at tension.
Speaker 1: So that's complicated. And then we also just have what
Speaker 1: happens with the Assad regime, and we say that we
Speaker 1: want a sad to go. We say that we would
Speaker 1: like the Assad regime to be gone, but who's going
Speaker 1: to take its place, and how would that work. We
Speaker 1: don't really have much in the way of a game
Speaker 1: plan here, folks. We have defeated the Islamic State, but
Speaker 1: Syria is a devastated mess, and we have, as I've
Speaker 1: been saying, us troops, they're also US allies on the
Speaker 1: ground there that I think we have some obligation to
Speaker 1: for their fighting alongside our guys and taking the fights
Speaker 1: of the Islamic States. So we can't just entirely write
Speaker 1: them off, right, We've got to do something about that.
Speaker 1: And this is a problem that you know, the administration
Speaker 1: is smart not to get too deep into the Syrian
Speaker 1: conflict and not to decide that we're going to remake
Speaker 1: or rebuild this country. That's that's a recipe for disaster.
Speaker 1: But when you have Russian troops and or Russian paramilitaries
Speaker 1: and American air strikes mixing, this is this is combustible.
Speaker 1: And while the Russians publicly may be saying because they
Speaker 1: don't this, here's the weird. The thing that you gotta
Speaker 1: also remembers that Putin doesn't want his own people to
Speaker 1: know that Russians are dying in Ukraine and Syria. It
Speaker 1: also calls the diplomatic Headaches form. So that's while using
Speaker 1: these paramilitaries is a tool for them. They say that
Speaker 1: they're just on two Russian bases in Syria, officially an
Speaker 1: air base in a naval base, naval base at Tartus,
Speaker 1: but they're much more involved than that. They've got ground
Speaker 1: troops that are right alongside the front lines trying to
Speaker 1: take back territory for the Assad regime. And the Russians
Speaker 1: may say, oh, sure, those weren't really our guys, so
Speaker 1: we'll just move on from this. But the fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is that they may, ah, they may try
Speaker 1: to get even with us in some way. This is
Speaker 1: how the game, unfortunately has played right. The Russians can
Speaker 1: decide to make things very uncomfortable for us, but in
Speaker 1: a way that we couldn't openly retaliate against them, and
Speaker 1: that's how all of a sudden you could find we
Speaker 1: could find ourselves losing a whole bunch of our guys
Speaker 1: and sirious So you've got to pay very close attention
Speaker 1: to this. And there's also just we're gonna talk to
Speaker 1: David Iffun here in a moment about what's going on
Speaker 1: in Israel, which is a lot of stuff in the
Speaker 1: security realm right now. But there was a an Iranian
Speaker 1: copy of the Lockheed Martin RQ one seventy Sentinel drone,
Speaker 1: remember that one that went down in December, even in Iran.
Speaker 1: The Iranians say they have reverse engineered it, and the
Speaker 1: Israeli military is saying that a knockoff of our Sentinel
Speaker 1: drone was sent by Iran via Syria into Israeli airspace
Speaker 1: and these Railis had to blow it out of the sky.
Speaker 1: This is this is tense. This is tense stuff. This
Speaker 1: is something should be getting a lot more a change
Speaker 1: in the media than it has been. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: get into some of the details on the Israeli side
Speaker 1: of the Aasian here with David I fun In. And
Speaker 1: we're also going to talk about Anglo American law that'll
Speaker 1: be coming up, So stay with me alright, everybody. So
Speaker 1: we've been discussing a lot of national security today on
Speaker 1: the show. There's a lot going on, especially in the
Speaker 1: Mid East, and it's involving our close ally israel I.
Speaker 1: Got my friend David if fun on the phone right
Speaker 1: now with us. He is the editor in chief of
Speaker 1: the Alga Minor, which is a newspaper you should all
Speaker 1: become familiar with David. Great to have you back, always
Speaker 1: a pleasure. But so first we've got Net and Yahoo.
Speaker 1: Prime Minister saying the following. I've been warning for some
Speaker 1: time about the dangers of Iran's military entrenchment in Syria.
Speaker 1: Iran seeks to use a Syrian territory to attack Israel
Speaker 1: for its professed goal of destroying Israel. Holds Iran and
Speaker 1: its Syrian host responsible for today's aggression. We will continue
Speaker 1: to do whatever is necessary to protect our sovereignty at
Speaker 1: our security, So David the Prime Minister speaking after a
Speaker 1: drone and apparently in Iranian drone according to Israeli Defense
Speaker 1: Forces spokesman, and Iranian drone based on the the Sentinel
Speaker 1: drone that was well lost to the Iranian some years ago,
Speaker 1: which is a stealth drone meant for reconnaissance, had to
Speaker 1: be shot down over Israel proper. What what's happening here? Well, look,
Speaker 1: just to give you a sense of the context, Israeli
Speaker 1: leaders and military leaders in particularly I've been saying for
Speaker 1: quite a while, is that eight of the threats facing
Speaker 1: the country in one way or another are emanating from Iran,
Speaker 1: and the Iranian threat takes on a few different forms.
Speaker 1: The most famous, obvious to me is the nuking a threat,
Speaker 1: which is something that has made headlines over the past
Speaker 1: couple of years. But the biggest I think that's emerging
Speaker 1: that's really taking a lot of israel attention right now
Speaker 1: is that the Iranians have effectively taken advantage of the
Speaker 1: vacuum that's been left by the infighting in Syria and
Speaker 1: Iraqian frankly American abdication from the Arena, and started to
Speaker 1: set up establish military strongholds in the region. Now what
Speaker 1: obviously Iraq is a completely separate subject, but there's a
Speaker 1: lot going on there that's really disturbing. The problem that
Speaker 1: we've been discussing now is Syria, which is right on
Speaker 1: Israel's border. So typically for the last number of years,
Speaker 1: this has been what these range have called a quiet border.
Speaker 1: They've got harmuss and Gaza, they've got the Sinai, they've
Speaker 1: got has Bolo and Lebanon. Syria has been quiet border.
Speaker 1: The concern right now is that the Iranians have really
Speaker 1: established a very significant military foothold in another one of
Speaker 1: their borders, one that's typically been quiet, and we'll use
Speaker 1: that to launch attacks. Reconnaissance of ailance are Israel and
Speaker 1: Israeli target and what we shot bursting out into the
Speaker 1: open was really the product of this build up over
Speaker 1: a number of months where one of the players, the Iranians,
Speaker 1: let's up, they let one of their journeys cross into
Speaker 1: an Israeli a space, of course, has to respond hard,
Speaker 1: fast and shop and the rest is what everybody's been
Speaker 1: seeing in the headlines. This is really concerning, Dovid. I mean,
Speaker 1: for for everybody listening, we have a situation here where
Speaker 1: you have essentially the Iranian state in part colonizing uh well,
Speaker 1: Iraq and Syria, I mean, turning them into not just
Speaker 1: proxy battlegrounds, but also forward operating bases for Iranian military
Speaker 1: power and in the case of Israel, Iranian military power
Speaker 1: that's right next door. I mean, this is we're talking about,
Speaker 1: as you well know, you can see into the goal
Speaker 1: on heights from Israel. I mean this is not I
Speaker 1: mean that that's exactly right. And frankly, this is a
Speaker 1: playbook that we've seen enacted in Lebanon, the South of Lebanon.
Speaker 1: I mean in many ways around effectively control of the
Speaker 1: country and the country's military. I mean they take offense
Speaker 1: when you put things like that, but effectively that is
Speaker 1: the case. And it's the playbook that they've now that's
Speaker 1: been emensely successful in Lebanon, and they've now merited in
Speaker 1: multiple other arenas. They're doing that in a rockter, doing
Speaker 1: it Interia, They're trying to do it in Yemen and wherever. Frankly,
Speaker 1: wherever they find they find an opportunity, Wherever they see
Speaker 1: an opportunity, Whenever they see a vacuum, it rise round there.
Speaker 1: And they're not they're not afraid to put soldiers on
Speaker 1: the ground to put to invest resourcers uh and take
Speaker 1: advantage of the lack of appetite from for many of
Speaker 1: the of the Western allies. Um to stick to stick
Speaker 1: to it in the long run, and they've been a
Speaker 1: mental successful and it's unfortunately for where you know, they
Speaker 1: have limited resources that are a country on the siege
Speaker 1: and every coire boarder they can take, they guests from
Speaker 1: the needs and now I'm excited they've just lost another one.
Speaker 1: We're speaking to David Affoon, who's the editor in chief
Speaker 1: of the Alga Minor. The Alga Minor is the fastest
Speaker 1: growing h Jewish newspaper in America. Check it out Alga
Speaker 1: Minor dot com. Uh, David, let's just switch gears for
Speaker 1: a second. We started with a SoundBite from Prime Minister
Speaker 1: and Nen Yahoo. I'm reading today that police in Israel
Speaker 1: are recommending criminal charges against the current Prime minister. Looks
Speaker 1: like America is not the only place where politics gets
Speaker 1: uh gets really rough. What's going on here? Well, this
Speaker 1: is something that's been baking for for quite some time,
Speaker 1: being the uh investigations into the Prime Minister's personal dealings. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: it is complicated, uh, and there are lots of different
Speaker 1: moving but effectively, the accusation is that the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: of his family had received over a number of years
Speaker 1: and lavish gifts, primarily cigars and champagne from various benefactors,
Speaker 1: and that in exchange that has helped them out of
Speaker 1: bits and pieces that they needed, including US visas and
Speaker 1: and other things. There's also a second charge in fact
Speaker 1: that there were at least four investigations, but there are
Speaker 1: only two that culminated in a recommendation for indictment for
Speaker 1: by the police. The second was it was a deal
Speaker 1: that he had made, was a or or discussed because
Speaker 1: the deal wasn't actually enacted, but it was a deal
Speaker 1: that was discussed, uh with a newspaper publisher when he
Speaker 1: said that he would where he would take some action
Speaker 1: to weaken one of the newspapers competitors and exchange the
Speaker 1: more favorable coverage. That was something that was discussed and
Speaker 1: was never acted. Now, now, the way it works in Israel,
Speaker 1: first of all, is that the police can recommend an indictment,
Speaker 1: but that the final decision is only made by the
Speaker 1: attorney general. So this brief or now certain the attorney
Speaker 1: general's officer quite a time. Obviously, it's an incredibly delicate situation.
Speaker 1: You have a democratically elected leading and you have charges
Speaker 1: that are made against him, but you know by by
Speaker 1: going ahead and finding those charges, you know you're you're
Speaker 1: messing with the democratic process. So it's it's I would
Speaker 1: not want to be the attorney general right now. It's
Speaker 1: a huge weight and shoulders to make the right decision here,
Speaker 1: to make the right core And uh, yeah, for the
Speaker 1: first time in a while, Jeff Sessions may be saying, Wow,
Speaker 1: that guy's got a tough job. Yeah, that exactly right,
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. And I have to tell you, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, just just from from Rice and obviously we
Speaker 1: haven't seen the full picture yet and sometimes you know,
Speaker 1: they always stay whether it's there's fire, but what they're
Speaker 1: accusing him of effectively taking about a a million shekels
Speaker 1: and gifts, which is about two hundreds or thus thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: it does seem like listen, over the course of a
Speaker 1: number of years, it does seem like a very small
Speaker 1: amount to to go down for. I mean, if if
Speaker 1: you're talking about corruption on on that level, you know,
Speaker 1: the level of a head of state, you know, you
Speaker 1: want to think that it involves many, many millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: Right to have a prime minister who served for you know,
Speaker 1: the longest, serving as ready Prime Master for more than
Speaker 1: a decade in its fourth term, he uh, shepherd of
Speaker 1: the country is a very very trying time. I would
Speaker 1: say it would be a very unfortunate thing for him
Speaker 1: to go down over over something that's really so stupid. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you're telling me champagne and cigars. It's it
Speaker 1: seems pretty it seems pretty flimsy. But David we we
Speaker 1: gotta leave it there for right now. Please come back
Speaker 1: when we have updates on this story. And thank you.
Speaker 1: It's always for joining us. David I Fun, editor in
Speaker 1: chief of the Alga Minor Alga Minor dot com. Everybody, David,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. It's always a pleasant it. Alright, team,
Speaker 1: we're gonna roll into a break. We come back. We've
Speaker 1: got a whole lot more show for you, So don't
Speaker 1: go anywhere, and uh, stay with me. Since our founding,
Speaker 1: the independently elected sheriff has been the people's protector who
Speaker 1: keeps law enforcement close to an accountable to people through
Speaker 1: the elective process. The office of sheriff is a critical
Speaker 1: part of the Anglo American heritage of law enforcement. We
Speaker 1: must never erode this historic office. Now. That was Attorney
Speaker 1: General Jeff Sessions, and he was speaking earlier today at
Speaker 1: the National Sheriff's Association on I'm sorry this earlier this
Speaker 1: week on combating the opioid epidemic. This was yesterday, And
Speaker 1: that seems like a pretty non controversial statement, right. He's
Speaker 1: just saying that sheriffs have a longstanding, important role in
Speaker 1: our history. And and he remember he's speaking to the
Speaker 1: National sheriff's association, So one would understand why he would
Speaker 1: want to mention sheriff's. But here's the problem. So they say,
Speaker 1: he mentioned the Anglo American tradition of law enforcement. Wait
Speaker 1: a second, I don't. I don't understand why would he
Speaker 1: say such a thing. People got very upset over this.
Speaker 1: They immediately went into this place of oh, that's some
Speaker 1: kind of a white nationalist dog whistle. Now, ignorance knows
Speaker 1: no bounds on the left. We are quite aware of that.
Speaker 1: But this is really just going too far. You know,
Speaker 1: I can't I can't abide this. The buck cannot abide.
Speaker 1: This is not gonna fly. And other press outlets were
Speaker 1: going along because I'm gonna explain, and I know all
Speaker 1: of you listening already know. And the the anglis x
Speaker 1: tradition of law enforcement speaking about sheriff is actually are
Speaker 1: is speaking directly to English common law, which is a sin.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing common law, the Anglo Saxon tradition
Speaker 1: of law. Our laws, the basis of our laws. I
Speaker 1: know natural law comes from God, but I mean the
Speaker 1: the structure of our laws comes from common law in
Speaker 1: England and hundreds of years of it. Right really stretching
Speaker 1: all the way back to the Magna Carta. Actually, so
Speaker 1: U you can rock it all the way back to
Speaker 1: the thirteenth century if you want. But it's it's a
Speaker 1: completely non controversial phrase if you understand what it means.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem, folks. A lot of people out there,
Speaker 1: including journalists. I'm a journalist. I do not like to
Speaker 1: know things. I just like to write things and get outraged. Uh.
Speaker 1: A lot of journalists out there are at least putting
Speaker 1: or you know, adding some fuel to the fire here.
Speaker 1: I mean. You've got the Associated Press, for example, with
Speaker 1: this tweet earlier today. This is from their official a
Speaker 1: P Associated Press account A G. Sessions remark about the
Speaker 1: Anglo American heritage of law enforcement. Some see or some
Speaker 1: here a racialized dog whistle. Those people are called ignorant
Speaker 1: because they do not understand something. There's not a debate here,
Speaker 1: there's not a discussion. This isn't a dog whistle issue.
Speaker 1: This should be like saying, uh uh, Buck Sexton is
Speaker 1: born in New York City. That is just a statement
Speaker 1: of fact. People can pretend that that is a political
Speaker 1: statement or racial statement or whatever, and they're just being imbeciles.
Speaker 1: There's no racial dog whistle involved in literally stating a
Speaker 1: fact of history and and not doing it any way
Speaker 1: where he he wasn't even trying to make a political
Speaker 1: statement or anything. He just SAI. Yeah, the angle American
Speaker 1: tradition of law enforcement, as I'm sure many of you know,
Speaker 1: the whole the term itself sheriff comes from a shire reeve.
Speaker 1: And this is a term we take from the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: This is not something that Joe that just came from,
Speaker 1: you know, from Walker Texas ranger or something I guess
Speaker 1: that would be a ranger. But you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: this is not something that we've just conjured up here
Speaker 1: in the American tradition. I was just thinking about Texas
Speaker 1: Ranger the other day for no for no apparent reason. Um,
Speaker 1: but that's what the whole notion of a shire reef,
Speaker 1: which is where we get the term sheriff is Anglo
Speaker 1: Saxon comes from England. And so when he says our
Speaker 1: Anglo Saxon tradition of law to a sheriff's association, not
Speaker 1: only is he speaking specifically to sheriff's but he's just
Speaker 1: speaking about what is in fact our tradition of law.
Speaker 1: You know. This is like saying that that the that
Speaker 1: Great Britain was the colon or the England was the
Speaker 1: colonizer of the United States. The English they colonize the
Speaker 1: United States. That is true. That's a true statement. You
Speaker 1: can say that's racist, or that doesn't that's not inclusive,
Speaker 1: or something else, but it's just a fact. So if
Speaker 1: people want to play this game now, we can't let them.
Speaker 1: Um this is and I would note it's not just
Speaker 1: some trolls, some Twitter troll idiots out there that are
Speaker 1: saying that's the problem. I read you from the Associated Press.
Speaker 1: They're saying some believe it's a dog whistle, but you
Speaker 1: gotta sitting. US senator from Hawaii wrote the following today,
Speaker 1: do you know anyone who says Anglo American heritage in
Speaker 1: a sentence? What could possibly be the purpose of saying
Speaker 1: that other than to pit Americans against each other? For
Speaker 1: the chief law enforcement officer to use a dog whistle
Speaker 1: like that is appalling. Best no vote I ever cast
Speaker 1: Brian Schatz. It's his name. Yeah, I think, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm right, I'm I don't think I'm mispronouncing it. Let
Speaker 1: me say it again. Ryan schats is a moron. That
Speaker 1: is an idiotic statement. It's unfair to Attorney General Sessions.
Speaker 1: And this is just parading his ignorance. This is walking
Speaker 1: around saying I hated that book and I'm illiterate. That's
Speaker 1: what he's doing. He has no idea what he's talking about. Uh,
Speaker 1: Maddie Iglesias over at he's one of those left wing writers.
Speaker 1: I forget where he writes, Sessions. This is what he
Speaker 1: what he wrote. Sessions could have avoided a lot of
Speaker 1: trouble this morning by either saying common law instead of
Speaker 1: Anglo American or not having a long record in public
Speaker 1: life as a racist. No, no, sorry, Iglesias, it doesn't
Speaker 1: work that way. Common law and Anglo American law are
Speaker 1: interchangeably used terms, right, This is these are not worthy.
Speaker 1: They do not mean different things. They mean the same thing.
Speaker 1: And then just saying well, because we don't what he's
Speaker 1: really saying. At least there's some honesty in this. Is
Speaker 1: because Sessions is a quote racist, even though what he
Speaker 1: said isn't racist, we're all gonna pretend it's racist. Sitting
Speaker 1: us senator who is uh what's her from the show
Speaker 1: with the Three Witches and there Shannon Doherty is one
Speaker 1: of them. I just weston Nanotuno. What's the you know, charmed?
Speaker 1: I know, yeah, I saw, I saw a listen thank
Speaker 1: you a Lissa Milano. She immediately tweeted out in response
Speaker 1: to Sessions is completely uncontroversial statement that he must be
Speaker 1: fired right away, and people who know anything went absolutely nuts.
Speaker 1: Um other I mean blue Choh. Linda Star Sore. She
Speaker 1: she got up on this too. Uh, your attorney general
Speaker 1: said this. The office of a sheriff is a critical
Speaker 1: part of the Anglo American heritage of law enforcement. She
Speaker 1: she quotes him because she thinks that's like a bad thing.
Speaker 1: Like I said, this is the equivalent of saying that
Speaker 1: the the English uh fought America and the Revolutionary War.
Speaker 1: You can make it controversial if you're an idiot. Otherwise
Speaker 1: it's just a thing that happened. That is true. So anyway,
Speaker 1: Anglo American shire Reeve sheriff. We like to know things here,
Speaker 1: but other people don't. We're back with a little bit
Speaker 1: of an anecdote for my day and also some of
Speaker 1: your thoughts via roll call. Stay with me. I like
Speaker 1: to think of this as an injustice league of anti trumpers.
Speaker 1: These are all people that had key access at important
Speaker 1: points in the entire Russia Trump collusion narrative, and also
Speaker 1: have an anti Trump animals that they don't like Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And when you're talking about some of these folks like
Speaker 1: for example, Christopher Steel, Fine, he is a gun for hire.
Speaker 1: He's essentially a glorified private investigator in this context, but
Speaker 1: he has been involved at every step with the way
Speaker 1: of manufacturing this Russia collusion narrative. Al Right, so as
Speaker 1: we closed up the show here, I gotta say that
Speaker 1: was a that was a very strong opening I had
Speaker 1: there on Fox and Friends this morning. All was going
Speaker 1: according to plan. I even coined a phrase that I
Speaker 1: think you'll be hearing more of the injustice League of
Speaker 1: anti Trumpers. I'm proud of myself. I came up with
Speaker 1: that at five something in the morning. Those of you
Speaker 1: who have been with me, those who have been uh
Speaker 1: OSS original Saturday Squad in particular, tend to know that
Speaker 1: I am the opposite of a morning person. I am
Speaker 1: one of these people who can actually have a conversation
Speaker 1: really early in the morning that I basically entirely forget um.
Speaker 1: I sometimes have to stop myself from like walking out
Speaker 1: of my apartment just wearing a sweatshirt and boxers and
Speaker 1: like flip flops because you know you need pants. I'm
Speaker 1: just not a morning person. I I can kind of
Speaker 1: rev up for a second early on, but you know,
Speaker 1: so like I can do it, but then afterwards it's
Speaker 1: a bit like those of you who have seen Old
Speaker 1: School when Will Farrell has to debate and and he
Speaker 1: debates the raging Cajun James Carville an Old School and
Speaker 1: then right after he finishes, he kind of like melts
Speaker 1: down and can't really speak anymore. That's how I am
Speaker 1: in the morning, right, I can. I can do it
Speaker 1: for a few minutes, and then I was just like
Speaker 1: I just fall down and I can't really handle it anymore. Um.
Speaker 1: And it also means that occasionally I show up and um,
Speaker 1: maybe have tie askew or something like that. Well today
Speaker 1: during my Fox and Friends segment. And look, it's important,
Speaker 1: right if you're gonna be in the TV business, you
Speaker 1: gotta remember stay humble, because you will be humbled. Things
Speaker 1: will happen and you'll say, yeah, so I had. And
Speaker 1: if you go and you see the clip, and it's
Speaker 1: on the Fox and Friends account on the Twitter account,
Speaker 1: so you can see it. It's on Facebook two, so
Speaker 1: it's out there. Um. I somehow, and I cannot only
Speaker 1: take so much credit for this, because I don't know
Speaker 1: even how one would do this. But everything looked fine
Speaker 1: with the swoop, which is my affectionate term for my
Speaker 1: own hair, which is probably weird that I refer to
Speaker 1: my hair, almost as though it's an inanimate object. We're
Speaker 1: in the third person, but in the era of Trump,
Speaker 1: I feel like hair has taken on a whole new
Speaker 1: personific Asian right, Trump has a swoop, I have a
Speaker 1: swoop buck swoop, Trump swoop. You know, tomato tomato. And somehow,
Speaker 1: as I was doing my segment and no one thought
Speaker 1: to maybe just say, hey, Buck, you know you got
Speaker 1: a little thing going on there, I developed what I
Speaker 1: could only call a shark fin in the back of
Speaker 1: my head. So it's now, if it were in the front,
Speaker 1: it might look a bit like a foe hawk like
Speaker 1: it might have looked a little cool, But the shark
Speaker 1: fin has not yet caught on with the cool kids.
Speaker 1: Imagine like a retractable mohawk that only comes out of
Speaker 1: the very back of my head. And that's why it
Speaker 1: was very It was shark finn like, and maybe that
Speaker 1: makes it sound much cooler than it was, But I
Speaker 1: just bring it up because one, it's just a reminder of,
Speaker 1: you know, stuff happens in TV. And and also too
Speaker 1: sure enough, despite the audio in that segment, I love
Speaker 1: it they carry like the Fox TV Show on different
Speaker 1: radio stations sometimes because or on different radioizations because at
Speaker 1: least people heard the The audio was great, right, kill
Speaker 1: me and I I really like Brian. We had we
Speaker 1: had a really good back and forth and the segment
Speaker 1: was a strong segment. But all I saw the commentary afterwards,
Speaker 1: no one was like, Wow, Injustice League, that's a really
Speaker 1: cool phrase you've just coined. Like, oh, that's a really
Speaker 1: you know, you're really bringing some things together here. I
Speaker 1: like your insight about former CI director Brennan as a
Speaker 1: c I a guy. You've got a lot to offer
Speaker 1: on this. Oh no, they're all like nice shock finn jerk.
Speaker 1: You look like you look like somebody woke up and city.
Speaker 1: I want to look like a porcupine, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's some of them were funnier than others, at least
Speaker 1: the funny ones I'll kind of go with. But it's
Speaker 1: just a reminder that the problem with going on TV.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons why I love radio so much
Speaker 1: is it as there's a purity to this. Sure, maybe
Speaker 1: I'll sneeze sometimes, or you'll hear some off Mike banter
Speaker 1: or something, but more or less, I can sit here
Speaker 1: in sweats, no one cares. I'm doing the show, and
Speaker 1: the content is the show, right, the connection, the conversation
Speaker 1: between me and you. You doing TV. If you know,
Speaker 1: let's just say you miss a patch shaving, because maybe
Speaker 1: that's happened to me before, and not like a big patch,
Speaker 1: but like a little one in HD. That stuff can
Speaker 1: show up and you just get ripped. I mean, people
Speaker 1: who just you do oh don't you don't want a mirror?
Speaker 1: Dufus a? Do you even lift? Bro? I mean, that's
Speaker 1: kind of the stuff that you end up getting thrown
Speaker 1: at you. And it was. It was a reminder today
Speaker 1: that sure enough the shark Vin haircut is not yet cool,
Speaker 1: is not yet in style, so you know, it happens.
Speaker 1: It was a good segment though. It was a good thing.
Speaker 1: I want to play. I played the best part for
Speaker 1: you too, the Injustice League. I wanted to roll with
Speaker 1: that a little bit. So with that I want to
Speaker 1: do a little roll call. Now we got some time
Speaker 1: for a roll call, not a lot, but a few
Speaker 1: minutes here to do it. Oh yeah, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. So first up here we have David, who
Speaker 1: made a request yesterday which producer Mike made sure I
Speaker 1: would not forget. David with the following, Hey, Buck, I
Speaker 1: am Oss. So is my wife. Her name is Maria.
Speaker 1: We remember watching you back on the Blaze way back
Speaker 1: in the day. February today is our wedding anniversary. How
Speaker 1: about a shout out? This comes from Doc David, And uh,
Speaker 1: that's the shout out, my friend. Happy thirtieth anniversary to
Speaker 1: you and the wonderful Maria. Thank you for being with
Speaker 1: me Oss style since the Blaze days. And I hope
Speaker 1: you have another thirty or forty or fifty, you know,
Speaker 1: however many wonderful I don't know how old you guys are,
Speaker 1: so let's assume it's gonna be fifty, another fifty wonderful
Speaker 1: years of marital bliss ahead of you. So thank you
Speaker 1: so much and and congratulations guys. All right, next up here,
Speaker 1: we've got a lot of messages today. Uh, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's always a it's always a reminder here that I
Speaker 1: have both the the best listeners in radio, the wittiest
Speaker 1: and the smartest listeners in radio. When I read through
Speaker 1: the messages, some of them would be great, but they're
Speaker 1: not exactly not safe for radio, but they're still really funny.
Speaker 1: Here we go, though, this one is, Adam writes, buck
Speaker 1: love the show Love shields high. Don't stress about getting
Speaker 1: the next episode out. Let it be a labor of
Speaker 1: love and not a burden. Hopefully you see our eagerness
Speaker 1: for the next installment as an indicator of how good
Speaker 1: they are. I plan to incorporate them when I start
Speaker 1: home schooling my kids next year. Well, Adam, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, And that's exactly my approach. I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: them done as I can. The great thing about them
Speaker 1: is there's no These battles happen like h six seven
Speaker 1: years ago. But you know, you started getting into the
Speaker 1: getting into the math here. It's been a little while,
Speaker 1: so I don't think we're gonna They're not gonna They're
Speaker 1: not gonna go stale. When I'm talking about what happened
Speaker 1: in the fiftie and seventeen centuries in the Mediterranean basin,
Speaker 1: Christian and Muslim forces facing off for control of the world.
Speaker 1: I was thinking, it's so interesting too that they don't
Speaker 1: really teach people, and I mentioned this on our Columbus
Speaker 1: Day segment when we talked about the history of Columbus Day.
Speaker 1: They don't teach people that one of the one of
Speaker 1: the main reasons that they were looking for a a
Speaker 1: faster route to the Indies. Ever, ever, everyone assumes, oh,
Speaker 1: a faster route too, to the Indies and to India.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just it's because it takes a long time.
Speaker 1: There's obviously no Suez Canal, and it takes a long
Speaker 1: time to go around the southern tip of Africa, which
Speaker 1: is true. But then in now far away it was
Speaker 1: the other direction. One of the reasons they had to
Speaker 1: find a faster route or a different route was that
Speaker 1: the overland route had to go through the Ottoman Empire
Speaker 1: the Caliphate, and that was a big problem if you're
Speaker 1: European power at the time. In the Ottomans were able
Speaker 1: to take on any of the European Christian powers militarily
Speaker 1: and and then some so the notion that you're just
Speaker 1: we're just gonna have set up essentially a giant taxation
Speaker 1: collection waypoint anyone that tried to go to the east
Speaker 1: and along the old trade routes that have been there
Speaker 1: for centuries, don't even have tried to pass through autom
Speaker 1: in territory. There was no choice but to pass throughout them.
Speaker 1: In territory. You're gonna be you know, you're gonna be
Speaker 1: paying all kinds of taxes, man, a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of problems. Taxes cause a lot of problems. And
Speaker 1: that's a that's a discussion we'll get into again another time.
Speaker 1: Oh now we've got a different take on this. Kevin writes,
Speaker 1: what happened to Shields High? It's been two weeks thanks
Speaker 1: to the awesome podcast, but really, where is it? Well, Kevin,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, man, I'm on it. I'm on it.
Speaker 1: I promise it's it's coming soon. I have I have
Speaker 1: not forgotten that. Sure enough. We we do need to
Speaker 1: get to some Shields High in the near in the
Speaker 1: near future. So it's happening. It's happening. Um, I'm hoping
Speaker 1: this Monday. It really depends on how social I feel
Speaker 1: like being this weekend with Ms Molly. So with that,
Speaker 1: I gotta close up the Freedom Hunt for the night.
Speaker 1: My friends actually even go hang out with Miss Molly
Speaker 1: and Miss Molly's mom, So Miss Molly and Mrs Molly.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be fun. Probably gonna watch some Bravo. Probably
Speaker 1: probably gonna drink something with a little bit of bubble
Speaker 1: in it. You know, why not. It sounds like a
Speaker 1: good time to me. With that in mind, my friends,
Speaker 1: tomorrow night, excited to join you here in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: As always, shields Hi