Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt, impeachment blast Ada into
Speaker 1: the open with hearings this week that people can actually
Speaker 1: watch the blackout on the whistleblower's name from the media,
Speaker 1: Nicky Haley and the subversives. Democrats are mad and lonely,
Speaker 1: Border patrol arrest drop dramatically, and the fate of DACA.
Speaker 1: That and oh so much more coming up on The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Mag No mistake, American, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again the Buck Sexton Show begins, He's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to buck Sexton Show. Everybody, Happy Veterans Day. First
Speaker 1: and foremost, take a moment to thank the veterans in
Speaker 1: your life, Thank someone for their service, and for all
Speaker 1: of you veterans listening, thank you so much for being
Speaker 1: the brave patriots you are and being a part of
Speaker 1: the greatest, most powerful, most just military in the history
Speaker 1: of the world. So we got impeachment weeks starting now.
Speaker 1: This is when all of a sudden things start to
Speaker 1: happen out in the open. You'll see Democrats engaged in
Speaker 1: all kinds of grandstanding. It'll be wall to wall coverage
Speaker 1: by a lot of the news networks. The people who
Speaker 1: are at the top of the news hierarchy in many
Speaker 1: ways are having a Watergate tingle here. Oh water Gate
Speaker 1: is this is when journalism can reassert itself. You see.
Speaker 1: Trump has been a challenge, a direct challenge and affront
Speaker 1: really in their eyes, to the journalistic establishment. In fact,
Speaker 1: I would argue that that's one of the finding characteristics
Speaker 1: of his presidency, his willingness to call them fake news,
Speaker 1: to say what they really are, and not to back
Speaker 1: down when they claim, Oh, it's basically violent. Oh how
Speaker 1: could he say these things about us? It's terrible. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out the president of the United States can't
Speaker 1: be bullied by the media or can't be persuaded. He
Speaker 1: can't be bought off quite as easily as other Republicans
Speaker 1: in the past, that's for sure. I'm not saying opinion
Speaker 1: doesn't matter to him. The media. Sometimes I worry this
Speaker 1: president does read a little too much from say Maggie
Speaker 1: Haberman in the New York Times. I think he cares
Speaker 1: more than he should, but he cares a lot less
Speaker 1: than any of his predecessors. That is for sure. But
Speaker 1: the journalistic establishment sees this as an opportunity to reassert
Speaker 1: its role in American life, which for decades we've been
Speaker 1: told is to speak truth to power, to unearth that
Speaker 1: which the corrupt, the oppressive want to hide. That's what
Speaker 1: journalism has told us. It is all about for my
Speaker 1: entire life, and I'm sure for the lives of some
Speaker 1: of you listening who are quite a bit older than me.
Speaker 1: That's what they've been teaching people in journalism schools. This
Speaker 1: is what they say about themselves un ironically, mind you,
Speaker 1: on TV on a regular basis. Now is their chance
Speaker 1: to get no small degree of revenge against this president
Speaker 1: who has challenged their sense of who they are their professions, yes,
Speaker 1: but also their role in American society and their role
Speaker 1: in our day to day lives. Journalists are enraged at
Speaker 1: this president because he has pointed out that there is
Speaker 1: no special sect of our fellow Americans who are the honest,
Speaker 1: the just, the true journalists. They don't exist. There's part
Speaker 1: there are partisans, there are activists. There are people who
Speaker 1: do everything that they can in order to push certain agendas.
Speaker 1: But if they can get rid of this president like
Speaker 1: they got rid of Reagan, which I would. I'm sorry Nixon.
Speaker 1: They wish they could have gotten rid of Reagan as
Speaker 1: they pushed Nixon out. Not that Nixon didn't give them
Speaker 1: plenty to work with. The certainly did, but that would
Speaker 1: be a restoration in their minds to the old order,
Speaker 1: the way things are supposed to be. And so I
Speaker 1: just want to prepare you for those of you who
Speaker 1: are going to be watching some of the mainstream coverage
Speaker 1: or just it'll come up on your computer screens or
Speaker 1: on your smartphones as you're scanning through the news. Hopefully
Speaker 1: you just listen to this show and drown out much
Speaker 1: of that worthless noise, but if you do see it,
Speaker 1: I want you to be prepared for dishonesty on a
Speaker 1: level that will be truly mind blowing for activism and
Speaker 1: partisanship from people who are telling you, as they are
Speaker 1: trying to persuade you to go against a Republican president,
Speaker 1: that they are not doing this because if any animus
Speaker 1: against the president or against the Republican Party or Conservatism,
Speaker 1: they're doing this out of love of country, because Trump
Speaker 1: has violated the Constitution. And then you could do what
Speaker 1: I do and say what part of the Constitution. Exactly
Speaker 1: has he violated? Can you just point to what he
Speaker 1: has violated the Constitution? If they're going to use the
Speaker 1: most broad designations possible. Oh, he has failed to faithfully
Speaker 1: conduct his office responsibilities. Like how with a conversation that
Speaker 1: I have not heard a single credible lawyer say was
Speaker 1: a criminal act? Not one? How exactly are as the
Speaker 1: president of the United States violating the Constitution. They won't
Speaker 1: have a good answer. They will just they will yell
Speaker 1: at you, though, they will make it clear that you're
Speaker 1: a bad person if you don't agree with them, like
Speaker 1: those lunatics who are screaming in my face last week
Speaker 1: as I was on the way to a social event.
Speaker 1: They will yell, they will scream, they will shriek. His
Speaker 1: Democrats are very, very angry. In fact, there's some polling
Speaker 1: that I will get too later in the show proves
Speaker 1: the Democrats really have lost their minds. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is now far too commonplace. People that identify with that
Speaker 1: ideology and with the culture the Democratic Party don't have
Speaker 1: the tap the brakes mode anymore. They can't do it,
Speaker 1: can't pull it off that they can't chill out. They
Speaker 1: are too frenzied around all of this stuff, perhaps because
Speaker 1: they have Democrat candidates for the presidency telling them that
Speaker 1: the world is going to end in ten years unless
Speaker 1: we listen to Alexandria Occasio Cortez and institute the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal. Only dishonest or stupid people can believe that.
Speaker 1: But there are a lot of dishonest people and unfortunately
Speaker 1: even more stupid people. But one thing you will not
Speaker 1: hear a lot of this week, as we enter the
Speaker 1: open phase, never there's still stuff going on behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: There's still lots of conspiring and machinations, all sorts of underhanded,
Speaker 1: politically motivated stuff the Democrats are going to try to
Speaker 1: do to conjure up. I mean, this is really an
Speaker 1: act of political alchemy what they're doing here with this
Speaker 1: phone call with Ukraine. I will find a way. We'll
Speaker 1: come up with some way to convince people that something
Speaker 1: that they know instinctively and right away is not terrible.
Speaker 1: We'll make them believe that it's terrible. We just have
Speaker 1: to find the right way to present this, find the
Speaker 1: right words. One thing you will not hear is a
Speaker 1: fulsome discussion of the whistle blower reported by numerous outlets
Speaker 1: as Eric Scharamela, and I'm seeing now some people are
Speaker 1: still running around saying that to use his name out
Speaker 1: loud is a crime and a violation of the whistle
Speaker 1: blower statute. My friends, this is now the desperate straits
Speaker 1: the left finds itself in when they will openly advocate
Speaker 1: for the criminalization of common knowledge. That's where we are.
Speaker 1: Things that are known publicly to anyone with access to
Speaker 1: the Internet who cares to know them can now be
Speaker 1: considered criminal on the left, including journalists who are going
Speaker 1: along with this and acting like, yeah, sure, maybe there
Speaker 1: is some crime here. The same journalists who will out
Speaker 1: intelligence programs and individuals recklessly. The same journalists who think
Speaker 1: that making America look bad in a time of war
Speaker 1: is always a patriotic duty, doesn't matter if it results
Speaker 1: in greater attacks against US soldiers. You know, they make
Speaker 1: those kinds of decisions all the time. No problem, But
Speaker 1: the whistle blower's identity is sacrosanct, at least for now.
Speaker 1: Why can't we just get confirmation of this? Journals, why
Speaker 1: don't you care to know? How can anyone pretend that
Speaker 1: this is not important? Here is a piece by James
Speaker 1: Freeman over the Wall Street Journal. In the fifty days
Speaker 1: since news consumers were told that a federal whistleblower was
Speaker 1: expressing his disapproval of a presidential phone call, CBS News
Speaker 1: has aired or published more than a hundred stories on
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump and Ukraine. Counting stories from local affiliates,
Speaker 1: the number rises above two hundred, but CBS hasn't come
Speaker 1: close to the wall to wall coverage offered by rival
Speaker 1: ABC News. A search of ABC stories about mister Trump
Speaker 1: in Ukraine yields six hundred and eighty seven results for
Speaker 1: the last fifty days. More than three hundred of the
Speaker 1: ABC stories specifically include the term whistleblower, and roughly all
Speaker 1: the stories are derived from the original allegations formulated by
Speaker 1: the unnamed government employee in consultation with the office of
Speaker 1: Representative Adam Schiff. Mister Schiff publicly denied that such consultation
Speaker 1: had occurred, but later acknowledged the fact as his falsehood
Speaker 1: was exposed. Usually, news organizations like ABC and CBS at
Speaker 1: least pretend to spend their days trying to report previously
Speaker 1: non public information, but they recently decided not to report
Speaker 1: the name of the federal whistleblower. Ironically the entire impeachment
Speaker 1: case jes on an assumed political motivation by mister Trump
Speaker 1: for comments on a phone call that we're not illegal yet.
Speaker 1: By maintaining a blackout on the identity of the whistleblower,
Speaker 1: news outlets are impeding the public's ability to learn the
Speaker 1: possible political motivations of his accuser. That James Freeman nails
Speaker 1: it here in the Wall Seet Journal That is exactly correct.
Speaker 1: And they have to at least get to the point
Speaker 1: where these hearings are up and running and going. They
Speaker 1: have to at least get to the point where we
Speaker 1: are seeing people on TV from the Democratic Party able
Speaker 1: to give their speeches about how Trump is horrible, and
Speaker 1: Trump is this, and Trump is that. All of those
Speaker 1: things have to occur, right, this is this is what's
Speaker 1: really going on here. And if at that point we
Speaker 1: are all able to talk about the name of this
Speaker 1: whistle blower, well, at least at least, then they will
Speaker 1: have launched the ship, so to speak, Come what may.
Speaker 1: But the suppression of the whistleblower's identity is appalling, and
Speaker 1: it just shows us that journalism in America today is broken.
Speaker 1: Although I would actually argue, we've just found out the
Speaker 1: truth about it. It It hasn't ever been anything other than
Speaker 1: what it is. Now, it's just more clear what it
Speaker 1: is because of Trump. It's more clear what we're dealing with,
Speaker 1: because the President of the United States has turned journalists
Speaker 1: into lunatics and some kind of a frothy rage. They
Speaker 1: have lost their minds. They hate this guy, and they
Speaker 1: will defame and profane their professions in order to take
Speaker 1: him down. Doesn't matter what they have to do. But
Speaker 1: how can journalists pretend to be honest brokers of the truth,
Speaker 1: or how can they pretend that they are investigating and
Speaker 1: trying to get us the information we need when they
Speaker 1: are actively engaged in a campaign of information suppression by
Speaker 1: not referring to the alleged whistleblower, all of these news
Speaker 1: outlets we're happy to print allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, for example,
Speaker 1: without any verification, without any journalistic standards beyond some person
Speaker 1: came out and said something, that's it. They ran with
Speaker 1: those Oh, we're going to pretend now that whistleblower protection
Speaker 1: law is going to stop journalists from the same journalist
Speaker 1: who would out any classified or covert action program the
Speaker 1: US government's running anywhere in the world if they felt
Speaker 1: the need to do it, which just as their whim
Speaker 1: they decide, Yeah, the public has a right to know.
Speaker 1: How often have you heard that the public has a
Speaker 1: right to know? And it's not just the mainstream outlets either,
Speaker 1: it's not just the big journalistic edifices that still I
Speaker 1: don't know why people we can't get past this era
Speaker 1: where people believe that these journals are, these big institutions
Speaker 1: are somehow to be trusted, even when they keep betraying
Speaker 1: that trust. How many times can you get burned by
Speaker 1: the partisanship of the Washington Post in the New York Times?
Speaker 1: How much fake news? How many false stories before one
Speaker 1: cancels a subscription and says, I'm no longer going to
Speaker 1: go to these people for my narrative of what is
Speaker 1: happening in America and around the world. I don't have
Speaker 1: an answer to that, but I do find it trembling.
Speaker 1: This is where we are still to this day. But
Speaker 1: YouTube YouTube now apparently also feels that there should not
Speaker 1: be a mention of the whistleblower's name. That's considered a
Speaker 1: violation of community standards. According to a one journalist named
Speaker 1: Tim Poole, a violation of community standards that have to
Speaker 1: do with conspiring for criminal activity and possible harm against
Speaker 1: a person. That's right, my friends, the most powerful media
Speaker 1: companies in the country are refusing to report on the
Speaker 1: name of the single individual who is most newsworthy in
Speaker 1: America right now. They refuse to report on his name.
Speaker 1: They refuse to try to dig up more facts and
Speaker 1: background information. Why they pretend it's because of concern of harm?
Speaker 1: Would that stop them in other instances if this were
Speaker 1: a whistleblower against President Obama or a Democrat president. Does
Speaker 1: any even think that all of this bombast about the
Speaker 1: whistleblower statue would be emanating from the newsrooms across the country.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. It's because the so called whistleblower,
Speaker 1: because he's not even really a whistleblower, folks, he's so
Speaker 1: called whistleblower, is necessary to the anti Trump movement right now.
Speaker 1: And there is nothing, nothing, that is more important to
Speaker 1: the left than that. That is the single The goal
Speaker 1: is to defeat Trump. Everything else falls into a distant,
Speaker 1: distant second place. Doesn't matter what this does the journalistic
Speaker 1: standards and ethics. You'll also notice the number of news
Speaker 1: reports on Project Veritas and what happened at ABC News.
Speaker 1: Just so we're keeping score here, so we're clear. NBC
Speaker 1: News clearly clearly shut down at the top level from
Speaker 1: the top people there, shut down coverage of Harvey Weinstein's
Speaker 1: sexual serial sexual predation because he was a super powerful
Speaker 1: liberal Democrat, friends with the Clinton's, friends with the Obamas,
Speaker 1: and they didn't want to touch it. So there's your
Speaker 1: truth to power at NBC and ABC didn't want to
Speaker 1: report on serial pedophile and near billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who
Speaker 1: has connections to some of the most powerful people in
Speaker 1: the world because his close connections were to people like
Speaker 1: the British Royal families, Prince Andrew, and Bill Clinton himself
Speaker 1: when Hillary also was still thinking about running for president.
Speaker 1: By the way, we still trust them, though, Do you
Speaker 1: trust them? I certainly hope not. This man from the
Speaker 1: first day he went into office, he wanted to have
Speaker 1: an alternative foreign policy where Jared Kushner wanted a special
Speaker 1: back channel communication to Russia that no one would know about.
Speaker 1: Now he's got Giuliani running a back channel improper foreign
Speaker 1: policy to get dirt on his political officials. You throw
Speaker 1: in an obstruction of Congress. You throw an obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice from Muller. This is just an a lawless administration
Speaker 1: that knows no restraint, and we're supposed to be publicly
Speaker 1: say oh, we're gonna listen. I'm gonna listen. And there
Speaker 1: could be some unbelievable thing that the president brings up,
Speaker 1: but no, there is clearly obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: and abuse of power. That'll be about is that incoherent
Speaker 1: blather from Representative Steve Cohen there Democrat of course, given
Speaker 1: what he's saying about President Trump. That goes out saying
Speaker 1: Representative Steve Cohen, he's saying this stuff about the president
Speaker 1: and you're thinking, wait, what he's jumping around? You know
Speaker 1: this thing he did and obstructing this and obstructing data.
Speaker 1: I'm sure the President engaged an unprecedented cooperation with the
Speaker 1: Muller probe, which was completely based on faulty premisses and
Speaker 1: lies and collusion between the meeting, the Democratic Party, and
Speaker 1: foreign sources. By the way, not just Christopher Steele, the
Speaker 1: people who relied on for the information in that insane dossier,
Speaker 1: which I went back and read some more of over
Speaker 1: the week. In the fact that anyone took the dossier
Speaker 1: seriously is a testament to the stupidity of some of
Speaker 1: the most powerful people in the intelligence apparatus and the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy. The dumbest rise to the top of the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy many times. Make no mistake about it. I've
Speaker 1: seen it myself. You have predicted though, that the president's
Speaker 1: not gonna last much longer, that he's gonna resign or yeah.
Speaker 1: I think there's an overwhelming cascade of of evidence, and
Speaker 1: so this week will be the starting of that waterfall.
Speaker 1: It's one thing when things are behind closed doors and
Speaker 1: you're doing an investigation. It's another thing when it's open
Speaker 1: theater and you can actually see the rank lawlessness of
Speaker 1: what's gone on and the lack of constitutionality in the
Speaker 1: process with the president. And I think I think it's
Speaker 1: not just a Ukrainian call. There will be other elements
Speaker 1: of this story that unfold where people will say, Okay,
Speaker 1: wait a minute. There's a combination of incompetence, there's a
Speaker 1: combination of a destruction of the executive branch of the
Speaker 1: United States in addition to the lawlessness and traitorous like behavior.
Speaker 1: So traitors like behavior. Oh, there's no question. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're if you're a strong word anything, Well, what word
Speaker 1: would you use. You're you're on the phone with the
Speaker 1: president of the Ukraine and you're strong arming him to
Speaker 1: have him go after your political opponent. Okay, that is
Speaker 1: you're become a traitor to the Constitution and a traitor
Speaker 1: to the laws of the United States. Trader, just the
Speaker 1: word a lot mooch trader. Isn't that interesting? This from
Speaker 1: a man who even at the time of Trump's greatest victory,
Speaker 1: which is the election, I mean that was such a
Speaker 1: moment of shock for many people across the country. I
Speaker 1: know not that many of you listening to this, but
Speaker 1: at a time when a lot of people were trying
Speaker 1: to curry favorite the president, the degree of sycophancy from
Speaker 1: Scaramucci was a sight to behold. And I saw it myself.
Speaker 1: This was a guy who'd go on TV, you know,
Speaker 1: the president's super genius. He's a Christian billionaire, super genius.
Speaker 1: You know, like Kanye says, the president everything he does,
Speaker 1: he's playing five D chess, twelve D chess. The President
Speaker 1: understands the will the American people. I mean, he would
Speaker 1: go I remember this guy because I sat on some
Speaker 1: panels with him. I did some shows with this this
Speaker 1: fellow of the mooch. As at first, all where did
Speaker 1: this guy come from? Well, I am I listening about anything?
Speaker 1: What does he know about any of this stuff? I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, the president's biggest the president's biggest weakness
Speaker 1: other than perhaps a bit of messaging and discipline sometimes,
Speaker 1: but is the people that he has put in positions
Speaker 1: of a Look at all these people are turning on him.
Speaker 1: Tillerson and Kelly and those are some of the better ones.
Speaker 1: You've got Mooch and I'm a Rosa and you've got
Speaker 1: Cohed and I mean these are He's made a lot
Speaker 1: of bad a lot of bad choices in that regard.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else to say other than he
Speaker 1: should have picked different people for these roles. But the
Speaker 1: Mooch saying that he's a traitor, I mean, that's You're
Speaker 1: going to hear a lot of that now, just use
Speaker 1: the words bash him, go after this president with the
Speaker 1: most terrible allegations possible. That's going to be the choice.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the decision that they make. And
Speaker 1: then I also bring you Senator Chuck Schumer, though, who
Speaker 1: has to deal with the reality of what's going to
Speaker 1: happen in the Senate. You see, this is going to
Speaker 1: be the great moment for the Democrats right now, when
Speaker 1: they can say whatever they want to say on the
Speaker 1: floor of the House, they can push whatever stories they
Speaker 1: want to push, and they don't have to worry about
Speaker 1: the votes because they have the votes. The truth, however,
Speaker 1: is that there's something different going on in the Senate,
Speaker 1: where we fortunately have a Republican majority and would need
Speaker 1: two thirds. The founders knew what they were doing with this,
Speaker 1: would need two thirds in the Senate to vote for
Speaker 1: removal from office. And so also because they don't have
Speaker 1: a majority, the Senate procedures will be set not by
Speaker 1: the Democrats but by the Republicans. So all the stuff
Speaker 1: you're seeing right now with shape from the behind closed
Speaker 1: doors and the lack of honesty and truth and fairness
Speaker 1: going on back there, this is so classic. They're a
Speaker 1: railroading Trump where they have the majority, and then in
Speaker 1: the Senate, where they know they're going to have to
Speaker 1: deal with a whole different situation, they're going to plead
Speaker 1: for how oh, come on? This is the Senate. We
Speaker 1: need to be fair here, so give us some give
Speaker 1: the Democrats some concessions. Don't don't just steamroll the Democrat
Speaker 1: argument here the Democrat point of view, I mean the arguments.
Speaker 1: Just get rid of Trump, there's nothing beyond that. But
Speaker 1: don't steamroll us just because you have the majority. That's
Speaker 1: only something that happens in the House. Here's Senator Schumer,
Speaker 1: for example, trying to appear as though he's the reasonable
Speaker 1: man in the situation. Play for McConnell is the majority leader,
Speaker 1: so it's his prerogative to set up rules. In the past,
Speaker 1: there's always been consultation with the minority leader, and I
Speaker 1: hope he will consult with us and we can get
Speaker 1: some fair bipartisan rules, like was done in the last
Speaker 1: impeachment situation with Bill Clinton. They initially came to an
Speaker 1: initial agreement that passed a hundred to nothing. They had
Speaker 1: some disputes later and it passed in a more divided way.
Speaker 1: But I am ready to sit down with Leader McConnell
Speaker 1: and try to come up with fair rules. There's no
Speaker 1: reason why we shouldn't be able to do that. So
Speaker 1: the Democrats are the minority there, but they want fair rules,
Speaker 1: fair rules. Does anyone think that their fair rules going
Speaker 1: on in the House? If you read as I did
Speaker 1: over the weekend, some of the transcripts from these witnesses,
Speaker 1: the transcripts from these witnesses that have testified behind closed
Speaker 1: doors to the Democrat Intelligence Committee run by Schiff, every
Speaker 1: time they ask a question about hey, was there you know,
Speaker 1: did you collude or did you have any conversations or
Speaker 1: did you have any any back and forth with this
Speaker 1: or that Democrat asking the witnesses, or anytime they start
Speaker 1: to get closer to a question that all of a
Speaker 1: sudden is blah blah blah blah blay. Can't talk, can't talk, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: don't answer it, don't answer. The Democrats just shout it down.
Speaker 1: They just shout it down. And there's no judge there,
Speaker 1: you see. So it's like imagine a courtroom where there's
Speaker 1: no judge, and anytime a witness that is presented by
Speaker 1: the prosecution is about to get questioned by the defense,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors gonna can't here, can't and start yelling and
Speaker 1: screaming like a bunch of children. I'm not exaggerating. That's
Speaker 1: what they do in the House Intelligence Committee. That is
Speaker 1: what they are doing behind closed doors right now. They
Speaker 1: are saying, oh, sorry, can't you know, can't talk, can't
Speaker 1: answer that question. Fair process, fair process, my foot I
Speaker 1: was angry. I don't know why my foot was when
Speaker 1: I came out of my mouth. But all right, But
Speaker 1: this is this reminds me very much of the quote
Speaker 1: from Frank Herbert's Children of Doone. Some of you who
Speaker 1: know I'm talking about. When I am weaker than you,
Speaker 1: I ask for freedom because that is according to your principles.
Speaker 1: When I am stronger than you, I take away your
Speaker 1: freedom because that is according to my principles. Well, this
Speaker 1: is what the Democrats are doing. I tweeted this out
Speaker 1: last night. When Democrats don't have the votes, they ask
Speaker 1: for fairness because that is according to conservative principles. When
Speaker 1: Democrats do have the votes, they take away fairness because
Speaker 1: that is according to Democrat principles. It's exactly what's happening
Speaker 1: here in the House. It's there where the highway deal
Speaker 1: with it. Elections have consequences. In the Senate. Now you're
Speaker 1: having Schumer and in the vanguard here. If they oh,
Speaker 1: whoa hold on, Let's let's establish fair rules. Let's all agree,
Speaker 1: let's all be civilized about this. You know. Yeah, because
Speaker 1: Democrats don't have the majority and they don't have the votes.
Speaker 1: These people, these leftists, couldn't be any more transparent, but
Speaker 1: unfortunately they don't really care. We have reached such polarized
Speaker 1: times that there's very little that a Democrat politician can
Speaker 1: do now that would turn any of his or her
Speaker 1: supporters against him, as long as it was geared toward
Speaker 1: the destruction of President Trump, As long as that's the
Speaker 1: overall plan, I would say, you know, Nicky Haley has
Speaker 1: a book coming out, and in her book there are
Speaker 1: some things that is that are I think troubling dreamed.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I don't know Nicky Haley. I've
Speaker 1: actually never interviewed her. These days, there are few and
Speaker 1: fewer of those officials that I've never had a chance
Speaker 1: to talk. But I've never interviewed Nikki Haley. I've heard
Speaker 1: that she's a straight shooter. I can't really speak to
Speaker 1: it beyond that she has this book coming out. However,
Speaker 1: I also all these public officials writing books, I find
Speaker 1: it a little not just repetitive and boring, because these
Speaker 1: books are almost always a waste of everyone's time they've
Speaker 1: written for these officials. It strikes me as a waste
Speaker 1: of time for most people. But there are a couple
Speaker 1: of sometimes there'll be a couple of interesting things in it.
Speaker 1: And here you have, first of all, Nicky Haley, during
Speaker 1: an interview in advance of the book coming out, saying that, look,
Speaker 1: there's nothing in the trans Well, let's hear from her
Speaker 1: play clip twenty five. You're an impeach a president for
Speaker 1: asking for a favor that didn't happen and giving money
Speaker 1: and it wasn't with help. I don't know what you
Speaker 1: would impeach him on. And look, Nora, impeachment is like
Speaker 1: the death penalty for a public official. When you look
Speaker 1: at the transcript, there's nothing in that transcript that warrants
Speaker 1: the death penalty for the president. And I think that,
Speaker 1: to be clear, it was not a complete transcript. There
Speaker 1: are still things that are missing from it. And in
Speaker 1: that he does say I would like you to do
Speaker 1: us a favor, though the Ukrainians never did the investigation
Speaker 1: and the president released the funds. I mean, when you
Speaker 1: look at those there's just nothing impeachable there. And more
Speaker 1: than that, I think the biggest thing that bothers me
Speaker 1: is the American people should decide this. Why do we
Speaker 1: have a bunch of people in Congress making this decision?
Speaker 1: The transcript is incomplete. You'll hear this. This is another
Speaker 1: one of these things that journalists will say, and they
Speaker 1: think it's smart, They think that they're all I'm really
Speaker 1: up on things. Perhaps they should read through the transcripts
Speaker 1: of the testimony behind closed doors as I have, or
Speaker 1: you have these various witnesses, former ambassadors, NSC officials, etc.
Speaker 1: Brought forward by Adam Schiff For the sole purpose of
Speaker 1: trying to trash President Trump. And when Vinman right who
Speaker 1: The more we learn about him, the more clear it
Speaker 1: seems that he had a at least a policy acts
Speaker 1: to grind against the Trump administration. But but Vinman said,
Speaker 1: when asked directly, well, maybe they didn't you know, the
Speaker 1: company was named Barisma. They had that. That might have
Speaker 1: been left out of the transcript, that one word. But
Speaker 1: that's we all know what company was talking about. That
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter is the rest of the transcript. Actor
Speaker 1: he was asked this the guy who was supposed to
Speaker 1: be bolstering this whistleblower's complaint because he also had concerns
Speaker 1: about it. He was asked, and guess what he said, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was it was accurate. Oh okay, well look at that.
Speaker 1: So what's this, Oh, there's there's another transcript out there.
Speaker 1: There's something that's see They say this, this is a
Speaker 1: dodge because when you look at it and you say
Speaker 1: that the transcript does not support impeachment, they go, well,
Speaker 1: but what about all this other stuff that also kind
Speaker 1: of happened that we don't like and buzzword buzzword and
Speaker 1: the and the in transcripts, not even a direct transcript.
Speaker 1: I mean, my friends, this is this is actually a
Speaker 1: conspiracy level stuff. Now they've asked the people that heard
Speaker 1: the phone call, is this transcript representative? You know? Was
Speaker 1: there was there anything did you remember being said that
Speaker 1: was left off of the transcript that would alter the meaning?
Speaker 1: And the answers No, answers, No, there's nothing that was
Speaker 1: like left off that would have all you know? So
Speaker 1: why do we keep hearing I keep bearing this from journalists?
Speaker 1: Oh it's not an exact transcript. Oh okay, this would
Speaker 1: be like saying, you know, yeah, the the defendant here
Speaker 1: signed a sworn confession. But there are like at least
Speaker 1: two or three misspellings in this confession, So therefore it
Speaker 1: is an inaccurate document, isn't it because there are misspellings,
Speaker 1: and misspellings are inaccurate. So now I can go around
Speaker 1: reporting on the inaccurate document that this individual signed for
Speaker 1: his confession, the inaccurate confession. That's how propaganda works, you see,
Speaker 1: takeout contexts, take out nuance, take out understanding that we
Speaker 1: all have of the world, the English language, what words mean,
Speaker 1: and then just oh, of course the transcript is not verbatim.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's thegether way, that the transcript is not verbatim. Okay,
Speaker 1: they might have left out an the or you know
Speaker 1: here or there. Does anyone really think there's there's not
Speaker 1: some other allegation that is not can you know that?
Speaker 1: The whole crux of the case is that the President said, hey,
Speaker 1: can you you know, find out some answers about the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen CrowdStrike thing and also look into the Biden
Speaker 1: situation with with Barisma, because you know, I heard bad
Speaker 1: stuff was going on there. That's it. That was the
Speaker 1: you know, unless they're going to allege that there's some
Speaker 1: and they're already saying it was a quick broke quote.
Speaker 1: So why Why would the specific verbiage make any difference
Speaker 1: in the context if they've said that it's already there.
Speaker 1: It's just garbage, friends, it's garbage, but it's it's gonna
Speaker 1: get so gross this week. I'm here to prepare you
Speaker 1: for this. What do you for those of you that
Speaker 1: care to follow some of this political stuff that's going
Speaker 1: on in DC. I mean I think that I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a presidency at stakes, so it's hard to ignore
Speaker 1: it entirely. But I think most of the American people
Speaker 1: look at this and just say, I mean, you got
Speaker 1: you gotta be kidding me. I mean, this is really
Speaker 1: what we're gonna be spending our time doing. This is is
Speaker 1: really the way that the media is gonna focus all
Speaker 1: there the answers. Yes, that is how they're going to
Speaker 1: focus all their energy. But it's going to get It's
Speaker 1: going to get quite quite nasty, that much is for sure.
Speaker 1: I'm the one to raise the issue from my phone
Speaker 1: call with the God sol in the day before where
Speaker 1: he described some some type of something that Ukraine handed
Speaker 1: do before President Trump would release the funding. And when
Speaker 1: I brought up that scenario, President Trump immediately and I've
Speaker 1: described as adamantly and family denied it. And yet here
Speaker 1: we are, we're going to be told that the facts
Speaker 1: aren't the facts, that the president clearly violated the law.
Speaker 1: They won't tell us what the laws that has been violated,
Speaker 1: but they know there's a there, No, there's a crime
Speaker 1: in there somewhere. That's the way they've always approached us president.
Speaker 1: We know he's a criminal, we just can't tell you
Speaker 1: what law he's broken. Yet that's an interesting approach, very
Speaker 1: very Soviet in feel, and I suppose that shouldn't be
Speaker 1: surprising given the way that the left is embracing the
Speaker 1: suppression of common knowledge and public information like the whistleblower's name.
Speaker 1: That YouTube is taking down videos now with that is stunning.
Speaker 1: I've also heard that Facebook perhaps is I can't remember
Speaker 1: which platforms now are okay and which ones aren't with it,
Speaker 1: but there are definitely some social media platforms where you
Speaker 1: cannot even if you're referring to someone else's reporting. I mean,
Speaker 1: it really is Voldemort from the Harry Potter series, which
Speaker 1: I haven't read, and I think people reference too much
Speaker 1: in pop culture, particularly in the media. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's he who shall not be named, and the fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is that he has been named, and
Speaker 1: we do have the public does have a right to know,
Speaker 1: an interest in knowing exactly what is going on here,
Speaker 1: and journalists have abandoned their posts. Journalists have decided that
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what the damage is that's done to
Speaker 1: the country in this process, because the president's such a
Speaker 1: bad man that even if they have to lie, cheat
Speaker 1: and steel to get him out office, they'll be doing
Speaker 1: their patriotic duty in the process. Oh I mentioned Nicki
Speaker 1: Haley before I wanted to get back to this. She
Speaker 1: talked about some of the people around the president who
Speaker 1: are not helpful to him, and she said John Kelley
Speaker 1: and Rex Tillerson, both of them. She does not have
Speaker 1: a nice words to say about Rex Tillerson, which is unsurprising.
Speaker 1: Here's what she said though, about undermining a president played
Speaker 1: twenty four. Instead of saying that to me, they should
Speaker 1: have been saying that to the president, not asking me
Speaker 1: to join them on their sidebar plan. It should have
Speaker 1: been go tell the president what your differences are and
Speaker 1: quit if you don't like what he's doing. But to
Speaker 1: undermine a present he's really a very dangerous thing, and
Speaker 1: it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what
Speaker 1: the American people want, and it was offensive. There are
Speaker 1: people all across the government, it seems, who think that
Speaker 1: the president is not really the president, including very senior
Speaker 1: officials who worked for him. I just am waiting for
Speaker 1: the president to make one decision. I hear all the
Speaker 1: time about how these people need to Oh, he's he's
Speaker 1: so scary and terrible. Anything we have to do to
Speaker 1: stop I just need one instance of the president making
Speaker 1: a decision that is a catastrophically bad decision. One decision,
Speaker 1: I'd like one. They said that about the trade war,
Speaker 1: they were wrong. They said that about Syria, they were wrong.
Speaker 1: They've said that about tax cuts that I mean good
Speaker 1: on the list. They've said that about trying to secure
Speaker 1: the border, about building a wall, they were wrong. Where
Speaker 1: is this catastrophically bad decision making except in the personnelity
Speaker 1: puts around him who tell us that he's such a
Speaker 1: bad decision making. The whistle blower and the president's right
Speaker 1: to zent a defense. That is the piece by my
Speaker 1: man Andy McCarthy, who is of course at Nashal Review
Speaker 1: also Fox News contributor. He joins us now to tell
Speaker 1: us what's going on? Andy? How are you doing, my friend?
Speaker 1: I'm doing great, Buck, how are you? I'm good? All right,
Speaker 1: So let let's get into this because I've been talking
Speaker 1: about this for a while. There's there's a concept here
Speaker 1: of the right to confront your accuser, and then there's
Speaker 1: the actual specific law of when you have a legal
Speaker 1: right to confront the accuser. Can you just kind of
Speaker 1: walk us through here the differentiation between, you know, whether
Speaker 1: the whistleblower, as a function of law, needs to test
Speaker 1: five versus whether in a fair process set up of
Speaker 1: the Congress, the whistleblower would in fact testify. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think the latter, you could say, for sure, Bucket a
Speaker 1: fair process, he could be called to testify. This so
Speaker 1: much legal confusion about all this, and people are throwing
Speaker 1: a lot of half baked ideas around, not least the
Speaker 1: idea of whistleblower itself. I've tried to point out that
Speaker 1: this fellow who's been identified elsewhere, if that is the
Speaker 1: guy we're talking about, he's been called a whistleblower, and
Speaker 1: maybe in some sort of descriptive, non legal sense, he's
Speaker 1: a whistleblower like a common usage sense of that term,
Speaker 1: but under the only sense that matters, the statutory sense.
Speaker 1: He's not a whistleblower because the statute that they're relying
Speaker 1: on relates to intelligence activities that are under the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: of the Director of National Intelligence. This guy is not
Speaker 1: reporting on intelligence activity. He's reporting on the president's activities,
Speaker 1: specifically the conduct of foreign policy with a counterpart in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: a foreign national or a foreign government. That is not
Speaker 1: what's covered in that statute. So he's not a whistleblower,
Speaker 1: even though the Trump intelligence community decided to treat him
Speaker 1: as one in an abundance of caution. So he doesn't
Speaker 1: even qualify for whistleblower status and under the law, and
Speaker 1: even if he did, the whistleblower protections that would be
Speaker 1: afforded to him would be against reprisals. Other than the
Speaker 1: Inspector General of the intelligence community. No one is required
Speaker 1: to give the whistleblower anonymity, and even the Inspector General
Speaker 1: is not required to give it to him under all circumstances.
Speaker 1: For example, if you will refer a matter to a
Speaker 1: prosecutor for trial, the expectation is that the whistleblower could
Speaker 1: become a witness, where he would have to be public.
Speaker 1: So you know, the whole idea of him being a
Speaker 1: whistleblower and entitled to anonymity is bogus. And then we
Speaker 1: get to this whole business of you know, confrontation clause
Speaker 1: and should he be required to testify? The confrontation clause
Speaker 1: only gives a defendant in a criminal prosecution, and impeachment
Speaker 1: is not a criminal prosecution. But even if it applied,
Speaker 1: you would only get the right to confront the witnesses
Speaker 1: that the prosecutor chooses to call in the trial. So
Speaker 1: if you analogize the Democrats to a prosecutor in a
Speaker 1: criminal case, if they don't call the witness, the whistleblower
Speaker 1: so called, as a witness, then you wouldn't have a
Speaker 1: Sixth Amendment confrontation clause right to call him or to
Speaker 1: cross examine him at the trial. And finally, that's why
Speaker 1: I've argued that what they should be talking about here
Speaker 1: is not the president's confrontation rights. It's his right to
Speaker 1: present a defense, and in any proceeding that's not a
Speaker 1: kangaroo court, you always get that is the president being
Speaker 1: afforded any right to a defense. From what you're seeing
Speaker 1: so far, not at this stage. And that's because I
Speaker 1: think Bogus Lee the Democrats are equating, at least when
Speaker 1: it's convenient to them to do it. They are equating
Speaker 1: this phase, this intelligence committee phase run by Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: of their investigation. They're equating that to a grand jury. Now,
Speaker 1: in a grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor is not required
Speaker 1: to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, because the
Speaker 1: only thing that grand jury has did or decide is
Speaker 1: the limited question of whether there's probable cause that a
Speaker 1: crime got committed, such that the prosecutor should be able
Speaker 1: to get an indictment, and then you bring the case
Speaker 1: to a trial court, where the defendant would get to
Speaker 1: present his defense and have all those rights, etc. The
Speaker 1: reason I say that Schiff is only doing that grand
Speaker 1: jury analogy when it's convenient for him is that the
Speaker 1: tradeoff for prosecutors is, yes, in the grand jury you
Speaker 1: get to give the grand jury is only your version
Speaker 1: of events, and you can muzzle the defense's version of events,
Speaker 1: but it's all got to be done in secret so
Speaker 1: that you don't prejudice the defendant. And what Schiff is
Speaker 1: trying to do here is have the best of both worlds.
Speaker 1: It's a leaky grand jury, right. He wants to exactly right.
Speaker 1: He wants to muzzle the exculpatory evidence, muzzle the president's defense,
Speaker 1: but he wants to take what he thinks of the
Speaker 1: best witnesses to him and go public with it. Which
Speaker 1: is why I think that people who are describing this
Speaker 1: as a show trial are exactly right about that. Now,
Speaker 1: this point that was made, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw it on the view Andy, that it could be
Speaker 1: a crime to speak the name of the alleged whistleblower.
Speaker 1: How do people with legal degrees say this stuff on TV?
Speaker 1: I just want to know. Well, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I spent twenty years in courtrooms with people with legal
Speaker 1: degree saying kinds of crazy stuff. I gotta tell you.
Speaker 1: Sometimes that comes with the territory. But I find though
Speaker 1: that when they're talking on television what went on in
Speaker 1: the courtroom seems modestum. That is just, you know, it's nonsense.
Speaker 1: There's no legal prescription against mentioning the whistle blower. And
Speaker 1: in fact, if the whistle blower was blowing a whistle
Speaker 1: on a Democrat, the media would not only report the name,
Speaker 1: they would lecture you about the public's right to know
Speaker 1: and how that takes precedence of and needs to secrecy
Speaker 1: and all that stuff. So it always with these guys
Speaker 1: depends on whose ox is being bored. So now you
Speaker 1: know it's a Republican president. So the whistle blower is,
Speaker 1: you know, one of humanity's great hero their their situational
Speaker 1: ethics are highly flexible, acrobatic. Even I would say, I
Speaker 1: would ask Andy, what are you expecting this week now
Speaker 1: that the stuff's coming out in the open? Give us
Speaker 1: your your preview where you think, you know, where are
Speaker 1: they going to take this space and everything that that
Speaker 1: shift and the Democrats have been doing so far. And
Speaker 1: also what do you think Republicans response should be in
Speaker 1: the Congress? Yeah, I think this part for the Democrats
Speaker 1: standpoint book that this three or four days of hearings,
Speaker 1: whatever it's going to be this week, is going to
Speaker 1: be pretty scripted. They've picked out the handful of witnesses
Speaker 1: that they think are best for them to bruise up
Speaker 1: President Trump. They're essentially going to deny the Republicans the
Speaker 1: right to call witnesses that would put these things in context.
Speaker 1: So what the Republicans want to show is that if
Speaker 1: the President was demanding investigations of the Bidens and investigations
Speaker 1: of corruption, it was because Ukraine has pervasively corrupt. There's
Speaker 1: reason to believe good faith, reason to believe the Bidens
Speaker 1: were engaged in corrupt self dealing. And what the Republicans
Speaker 1: also want to show is there's a twenty sixteen election
Speaker 1: component of a Ukraine component in what would be what
Speaker 1: we would think of as the bar Durham investigation into
Speaker 1: the origins of the Trump Russia investigation. What I mean
Speaker 1: by that is there's a lot of reporting that the
Speaker 1: Obama administration leaned on Ukraine to do things like investigate
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort, who was temporarily Trump's campaign chairman. And there's
Speaker 1: also evidence that Ukrainian officials colluded with the Clinton campaign.
Speaker 1: And that's just not me. That's not just me saying
Speaker 1: that a Ukrainian court has found that to be the case.
Speaker 1: So I think the Republicans want to bring all of
Speaker 1: this out in order to place in context exactly what
Speaker 1: President Trump was asking of President Zalinsky of Ukraine, and naturally,
Speaker 1: the Democrats want to keep all of that out and
Speaker 1: then suggest that you Trump was simply doing nothing other
Speaker 1: than demanding an investigation of his political rival for potential
Speaker 1: violations of Ukrainian law. And they want to, of course,
Speaker 1: then make the argument that, you know, the federal government,
Speaker 1: the American federal government exists to protect us from foreign regimes.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't have a president encouraging a foreign regime to
Speaker 1: investigate an American citizen for violations of Ukrainian law. Now, Andy,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you because because you know Politico,
Speaker 1: for example, reporter this recently, according to Giuliani, Ukrainian officials
Speaker 1: conspired with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee
Speaker 1: to help boost the Democratic nominee's campaign and damage Trump's candidacy.
Speaker 1: No evidence has emerged to support that idea. That's Politico,
Speaker 1: which was the rival of The Hill where I used
Speaker 1: to work for full disclosure right. And then you go
Speaker 1: back to January of twenty seventeen, also in Politico, not
Speaker 1: retracted or amended the following Ukrainian Africa to sabotage Trump backfire.
Speaker 1: keV officials are scrambling to make amends with the President
Speaker 1: elect after quietly working to boost Clinton. And it goes
Speaker 1: on to talk about how Ukrainian officials tried to help
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness
Speaker 1: for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
Speaker 1: aid in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter,
Speaker 1: only to back away after the election. They helped Clinton's
Speaker 1: allies research damaging information on Trump at his advisors, according
Speaker 1: to Politico, So which Politico do we believe? Andy? And
Speaker 1: a more serious question is this denied? Is this not
Speaker 1: what happened? Because if this is what happened, then everybody
Speaker 1: that's running around screaming treason for Trump asking a country
Speaker 1: to investigate what seemed to me to be quite a
Speaker 1: corrupt arrangement needs to explain why it was okay for
Speaker 1: the Obama administration to do that to try to help
Speaker 1: Hillary during the election. Yeah, Buck, I think what we
Speaker 1: need to watch very carefully here is if you listen
Speaker 1: to the thing that Adam Schiff says and the way
Speaker 1: they are being reported in the media. What he's now
Speaker 1: saying is that what Trump was looking for was an
Speaker 1: investigation into what he calls a refuted conspiracy theory about
Speaker 1: Ukraine being connected somehow to CrowdStrike, which is the outfit
Speaker 1: that looked at the server exactly right. So what Schiff
Speaker 1: is trying to do is miniaturize this into saying what
Speaker 1: Trump was asking for was an investigation into whether the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians had something to do with the DNC server, And
Speaker 1: that may be a conspiracy theory that doesn't have much
Speaker 1: in the way of legs, but the story of Ukraine's
Speaker 1: connection to the Obama administration's investigation of the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen has a lot more to it than
Speaker 1: the server and crab strike. So I think what we
Speaker 1: should do is like sort of carefully watch Shift and
Speaker 1: watch the way he is parsing that end of it,
Speaker 1: because you know, obviously, again there is a whole angle
Speaker 1: involving the Obama administration leaning on the Ukrainians to investigate Manafort,
Speaker 1: and a Ukrainian legislator and the head of the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: so called anti corruption police leaking information to the media
Speaker 1: that was harmful to Maniford with the intention of trying
Speaker 1: to help the Clinton campaign. I mean, that's that's out there,
Speaker 1: and that's the reason the Republicans have asked for these
Speaker 1: witnesses that are connected to those things is precisely because
Speaker 1: they want to put all that out in public and
Speaker 1: try to put the president's comments in contact. So there
Speaker 1: is there is a serious possibility here based on reporting
Speaker 1: from news organizations that didn't realize then that this would
Speaker 1: be helpful to Republicans, perhaps now that there was outreach
Speaker 1: from the Obama administration to go after a Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: Trump campaign chairman at the time, right, which would certainly
Speaker 1: look a lot like asking for foreign interference in an election.
Speaker 1: Whether or not Manta Fort was dirty, Yeah, and Buck,
Speaker 1: I would underscore a Ukrainian court has found that the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian legislator and the head of the anti corruption police
Speaker 1: colluded with an American campaign named with a Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: in order to interfere in the American election. They've they've
Speaker 1: found that, So you know, this is not something we're
Speaker 1: pulling out of the sky. And what's going on in
Speaker 1: real quick before let you go back to the rest
Speaker 1: of your life. What's going on here with the delayed
Speaker 1: report on Fi's abuse. Now I'm hearing you know, I
Speaker 1: heard it was I heard it was going to be Halloween,
Speaker 1: and I heard it was going to before Thanksgiving. Now
Speaker 1: it's like I'm here and hopefully before the next election. Practically, well,
Speaker 1: what's going on any ideas well? I think I still
Speaker 1: think it's going to be. I hope it's before Thanksgiving,
Speaker 1: but I think it'll be. It'll be reasonably soon. And
Speaker 1: I think buck that all that's going on here. I've
Speaker 1: heard some theories that are out there that, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe he's dragging his feet because he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: step on whatever Dorham is doing. That's the latest theory.
Speaker 1: My own theory for what it's worth is that Horowitz
Speaker 1: is indicated to Congress into the Justice Department, that he's done,
Speaker 1: and that they are in the final rushes of putting
Speaker 1: the report out. And my sense of it is that
Speaker 1: the sheer bulk of this report, remember the Clinton emails
Speaker 1: one was like five or six hundred pages. This is
Speaker 1: going to be a bigger report than that, maybe hundreds
Speaker 1: of pages longer. And they have to do a line
Speaker 1: by line with every intelligence agency that has equity in
Speaker 1: terms of anything that's designated as classified information, and Bar's
Speaker 1: got to do a view about, you know, what stays
Speaker 1: classified and what gets unclassified. And I just think that
Speaker 1: that's a complicated process to get through with a document
Speaker 1: that's going to turn out to be very, very long,
Speaker 1: and the real deal, by the way, I've been reading
Speaker 1: about him, and it seems like he is the guy
Speaker 1: that we would want looking into this. You're talking Durham, Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Durham's a terrific guy. He's an excellent prosecutor. I happen
Speaker 1: to know him personally. I haven't worked with him, but
Speaker 1: I know him and think very well of him. Judge Mukasey,
Speaker 1: the former age of the Bush administration, who did not
Speaker 1: only work with him but picked him to do the
Speaker 1: investigation involving the CIA interrogations, thinks the world of him,
Speaker 1: which goes a long way in my book. But he's
Speaker 1: done these kinds of investigations buck for administrations of both parties,
Speaker 1: going back to the Clinton administration, and everybody says that,
Speaker 1: you know, he's a very scrupulous guy who you won't
Speaker 1: hear from because he doesn't talk to the media and
Speaker 1: he puts his nose to the grindstone and gets a
Speaker 1: job done. He's not fast, if that's what people are
Speaker 1: looking for, that are going to get that, but he's
Speaker 1: thorough all right. Andy McCarthy, everybody check out his latest
Speaker 1: on nationalview dot com, The Whistleblower and the President's right
Speaker 1: to present a defense, and he thanks so much for
Speaker 1: your time. We'll talk to you soon. My pleasure. But
Speaker 1: and he's the best, isn't he. It's always so fun
Speaker 1: to have Andy McCarthy on. As good as any legal
Speaker 1: endless you'll find anywhere, and honest about it all. The
Speaker 1: poll that I mentioned before about how Democrats are crazy,
Speaker 1: it's a real poll. Axio supported on it today. Here's
Speaker 1: what he got. More than seventy percent of Democrats say
Speaker 1: politics is making them increasingly angry about America, leaving them
Speaker 1: feeling like strangers in their own land. According to a
Speaker 1: Axios on HBO pole the big picture, Americans a whole
Speaker 1: are just playing mad and feeling like strangers their own land.
Speaker 1: Republicans fifty seven percent are angry, compared to seventy four
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats. Seventy one percent of Democrats say they
Speaker 1: feel like a strand of their own win folks. Seven
Speaker 1: out of ten people in this survey who are Democrats
Speaker 1: are saying, by the way, five out of ten republican.
Speaker 1: But you know there's always gonna be some angry people.
Speaker 1: Life is frustrating and difficult. But seven out of ten Democrats,
Speaker 1: according to this poll, are angry right now because of politics,
Speaker 1: specifically because of politics. So when I tell you that
Speaker 1: there's a mass delusion, there's a mass hysteria. The Democrats
Speaker 1: have lost it. The numbers back me up. I'm not
Speaker 1: just pulling this stuff out of nowhere. The numbers suggest
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is true. Because here's the thing, it
Speaker 1: is true. I think we understand that Democrats have gone crazy.
Speaker 1: They have been broken in the Trump era and have
Speaker 1: no interest in trying to set things right in any
Speaker 1: way other that there were rather in any way that
Speaker 1: does not involve the removal of his president from office
Speaker 1: and from power. That that much is very clear at
Speaker 1: this point in time. The Danka kids, all they want
Speaker 1: to do is become Americans. They came here when they
Speaker 1: were little. They weren't they didn't cross the border themselves,
Speaker 1: their parents brought them. And so many of them are
Speaker 1: in our armed forces. So many of them are going
Speaker 1: to college and trying to make a good life for themselves.
Speaker 1: There's broad consensus Democrats, Independence, Republicans that these DACA ought
Speaker 1: to pass, and I hope the courts will uphold that. Oh,
Speaker 1: my friends, so much dishonesty around the immigration debate. It's
Speaker 1: one of the most difficult conversations to have with liberals
Speaker 1: these days because they've just been told so much that
Speaker 1: is not true, and they are so insistent on it
Speaker 1: being true. We have a couple of very important dynamics happening,
Speaker 1: or immigration issues I should say, occurred right right now.
Speaker 1: I want us to do with the border, which I'll
Speaker 1: get into in a moment, and the reasonably I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say the securing of the border, but the more effective
Speaker 1: efforts at securing the border compared to where we were
Speaker 1: some months ago. Well, first I want to talk about
Speaker 1: DACA Deferred Action for childhood arrivals. This is going to
Speaker 1: get heard by the Supreme Court, I believe tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: there should be a decision made by the court sometime
Speaker 1: in June of twenty twenty. So we're not going to
Speaker 1: get a final ruling on this for a while. But
Speaker 1: there are some very important issues at stake here, and
Speaker 1: every news report you read about this is just going
Speaker 1: to be kids who are great, who are aspiring for
Speaker 1: the American dream, who they're all valedictorians, they all want
Speaker 1: to serve the military. All they do is just be
Speaker 1: amazing all the time. And big, bad, mean Republicans are
Speaker 1: supporting the administration, which is saying that the DACA program
Speaker 1: needs to end. There is before I get into DACA itself,
Speaker 1: because this is what they're going to skip pass right away.
Speaker 1: There's a rule of law issue that is very much
Speaker 1: at stake here, and that is the really the prime issue,
Speaker 1: the primary concern that I have about this, because the
Speaker 1: Obama administration very explicitly, you will remember this, they said
Speaker 1: that they wanted comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama re upon
Speaker 1: his power and as the chief executive of the United
Speaker 1: States government, he said, as an executive order to just
Speaker 1: declare that there would no longer be enforcement of duly
Speaker 1: pass congressionist congressional statutes about illegal act illegal presence in
Speaker 1: America under immigration law. President Obama just said, look, Congress
Speaker 1: isn't doing what I want Congress to do, So I'm
Speaker 1: just going to do what I want to do. And
Speaker 1: I don't care about that what message that sends. I
Speaker 1: don't care about the rule of law and the effects
Speaker 1: on the rule of law as a result of this.
Speaker 1: So Obama just said, you know, we will do this
Speaker 1: thing where you don't depoor dreamers. He made a decision
Speaker 1: as commander in chief, as the president of the United
Speaker 1: States at the time President Trump comes into office and says, Okay,
Speaker 1: put aside for a moment. Put aside for a moment.
Speaker 1: Whether you like the idea of DACA or not, the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is arguing something very straightforward here, what are
Speaker 1: what one president can do via executive authority can be well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's one policy issue can be undone via
Speaker 1: executive authority, especially because this the entirety of the DACA
Speaker 1: argument as it was offered up at the time, was
Speaker 1: that it was just a prosecutorial prioritization maneuver that also
Speaker 1: allowed them to allow the people on aer DOCA buy
Speaker 1: executive fiat. This was just conjured out of thin air.
Speaker 1: To work, they register, they're allowed to work and a
Speaker 1: lot of the United States, and they have to renew
Speaker 1: their DOCTA protection. So it created this process where you
Speaker 1: will to stand the country even though they're actually in
Speaker 1: the country illegally. And the Trump administration came in and said, okay, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want to do this because this is an
Speaker 1: extra league or illegal program. This was not passed by Congress.
Speaker 1: This is not the way it's supposed to be. And
Speaker 1: at a minimum, you would think that the Trump administration
Speaker 1: would have the same discretion to not prosecute. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration would have the have that discretion and be in
Speaker 1: a position to prosecute or in this sense remove the
Speaker 1: prohibition on prosecution. That's all, by the way. I don't
Speaker 1: think that people even if the DOCCA program ended, I
Speaker 1: think that they'd be a very low prioritization for deportation anyway.
Speaker 1: And I do think that this is why there's such
Speaker 1: a focus on DOCA, that these are the people who
Speaker 1: are the they have the most sympathetic cases for being
Speaker 1: in the country illegally. But then there should also be
Speaker 1: an understanding, well, if we're not going to just enforce
Speaker 1: the law as is, there should be a quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: Dare I say that DOCA if the Republicans were to
Speaker 1: go along with DOCA for the Democrats, but if it
Speaker 1: meant real, meaningful border security and reform of immigration laws,
Speaker 1: that that's a bargaining chip that could be used instead.
Speaker 1: What happened was at court no surprise. I'm sure it
Speaker 1: was an Obama point deal though I don't know that,
Speaker 1: but I'm guessing it was an Obama pointee with the
Speaker 1: ruling said sorry, under the administrative Procedure Act. This is
Speaker 1: arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the president cannot undo what a
Speaker 1: president before him did because the judge says so. Now,
Speaker 1: there are some who would argue that that this isn't
Speaker 1: even really in the purview of a federal judge to review.
Speaker 1: That's one argument. Then there's also how is it possible that,
Speaker 1: you know, can one president not end the war that
Speaker 1: another president starts under the Administrative Procedure Act. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is when you start to see a lawlessness from
Speaker 1: these institutions that are supposed to be upholding the rule
Speaker 1: of law. This is where you see an abandoning of
Speaker 1: principle and of following legal text and its replacement with
Speaker 1: the whims of people who happen to be on the judiciary.
Speaker 1: It's absurd. Here you had the founder of scotus blog
Speaker 1: tweeted this out. I thought this was great. Scotus blog
Speaker 1: is a Supreme Court blog. All they do is cover
Speaker 1: Supreme Court stuff. He wrote, this is an enormously important,
Speaker 1: stupid case. Enormously important for the individuals involved in immigration policy,
Speaker 1: but stupid because if Barack Obama can create the program real,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump can withdraw it. Yeah, this is very straightforward.
Speaker 1: This is not complicated stuff. What one president can decide
Speaker 1: to do, another president can decide not to do if
Speaker 1: it is within presidential discretion. Right, If one person is
Speaker 1: allowed to walk into a store and say I want
Speaker 1: to buy, you know, strawberry ice cream or chocolate ice cream,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go at the you know, or vanilla, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go at strawberry, another person can walk into the
Speaker 1: store if they have that same consumer discretion and say
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get the you know, the Rocky Road ice
Speaker 1: cream or the strawberry or whatever it is. Right, you
Speaker 1: have a problem if the same choice cannot be made
Speaker 1: by the same people in the same given the same
Speaker 1: authority under the law. So what's the answer here? Like, oh,
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance. Judge doesn't like it. Taking away DOCTA status
Speaker 1: is mean administrative procedure Act. You've got to be kidding me.
Speaker 1: But what that means is that this is just because
Speaker 1: this is because I say so in legal ease from
Speaker 1: a judge. Why can't you do this? Yeah, violation the
Speaker 1: administrant because there's not enough notice here under come on,
Speaker 1: this is entirely nonsensical stuff, but there are very major
Speaker 1: there are major implications here, major implications for rule of law.
Speaker 1: And it's also just a reminder of the length the
Speaker 1: judiciary has been willing to go to in order to
Speaker 1: undermine President Trump and in the process, undermine the very
Speaker 1: federal judiciary itself. The lengths have been extreme. And then
Speaker 1: you have just the border overall. Right now, you have
Speaker 1: a seventy five percent decrease in illegal border crossings since May,
Speaker 1: and this is attributable to Trump administration policies. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration has taken some important steps that have been very
Speaker 1: helpful in trying to stop this situation from continuing on.
Speaker 1: You had one hundred and thirty just just to give
Speaker 1: you some numbers of what's going on the border, one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty two thousand arrests at our southern border
Speaker 1: back in May. Those are illegal crossings. People caught. Thirty
Speaker 1: two thousand are caught. How many got a cross about that?
Speaker 1: And then also it's down to thirty six thousand in October.
Speaker 1: What are some of the moves. Let's take a little
Speaker 1: stock here. Because I was ry much involved in trying
Speaker 1: to publicize what was going on at the border. I
Speaker 1: spend time at a couple of border sectors with border patrol,
Speaker 1: trying to get the word out, a lot of appearances
Speaker 1: on Tucker carl Carlston's show, wrote a couple of articles
Speaker 1: in The Hill dot com. One of them actually got
Speaker 1: shared by the official Trump and White House Twitter accounts
Speaker 1: about the scams going on at our southern border with
Speaker 1: the immigration So what has changed? What has been the
Speaker 1: shift here? We have a few things. One, Mexico, at
Speaker 1: the behest of the Trump administration, has decided to step
Speaker 1: up immigration enforcement. So the Mexican government, with pressure from
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, has said that there has actually put
Speaker 1: more of its own national Guard troops at its border
Speaker 1: with Central American countries and then stopped the inflow into Mexico,
Speaker 1: which is obviously very helpful because the inflow of Mexico
Speaker 1: becomes the inflow of the United States. Mexico is also
Speaker 1: agreed to have fifty five thousand migrants remain in Mexico.
Speaker 1: And guess what turns out that people who are told
Speaker 1: you can apply for ASSY in the United States, but
Speaker 1: you have to wait in Mexico while you do it,
Speaker 1: some of that are going all the way back to
Speaker 1: Central America. Now, there are two ways that this will
Speaker 1: be described the media. Well, first of all, this and
Speaker 1: that program is facing legal challenges. So you have all
Speaker 1: the different open borders advocates, the Democrat Party of course
Speaker 1: leading the charge, all these different open borders advocates who
Speaker 1: are saying, oh, no, you can't work out. The United
Speaker 1: States does not have the sovereign right to work out
Speaker 1: in agreement with Mexico where they keep asylum seekers in
Speaker 1: Mexico waiting for their day in court in the United States.
Speaker 1: They want to fight that because we all understand what
Speaker 1: the incentive is here, the incentive all along will show
Speaker 1: up at the southern border, claim that you're fleeing gang violence,
Speaker 1: read practically from a script about what you have to
Speaker 1: say to get into the country, to pass that first
Speaker 1: credible fear test. And then once in the United States,
Speaker 1: you're good. Yeah, you're home free. Don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: You're out of custody. They're never They're not gonna find
Speaker 1: you again. You're not going to show up for your hearing.
Speaker 1: If you do show up, you gotta show up a
Speaker 1: few times before they can even take any action against you.
Speaker 1: You can fight against your actual extradition even when you
Speaker 1: lose your asylum appeal. I mean, it's impossible. You're gonna
Speaker 1: be good. It's all you gotta do is get into
Speaker 1: the country and get out of attention, and you're good
Speaker 1: to go. And that was the whole game. Turns out,
Speaker 1: when people are told, hey, guess what you gotta wait
Speaker 1: in Mexico, they go, oh, the scam isn't gonna work anymore.
Speaker 1: Got to go back to Central America. Better to go
Speaker 1: back to the country that they, many of whom would
Speaker 1: claim was a threat to their very lives, than to
Speaker 1: just wait a few months maybe in Mexico for their asylum.
Speaker 1: Hearing that seems to be a strange choice, although it's
Speaker 1: not a strange choice if you aren't really fleeing gang violence.
Speaker 1: You're just an economic migrant and you were trying to
Speaker 1: find a way to game the system to get into America,
Speaker 1: which is what a vast majority of these Central American
Speaker 1: migrants would doing, as told to me by border patrol,
Speaker 1: and as I was able to find when we would
Speaker 1: hear the in some cases the actual arrests going on
Speaker 1: of these Central American migrants when they're telling the stories
Speaker 1: two border patrol when I was there, So that's another thing.
Speaker 1: And then They have instituted a policy where if you
Speaker 1: pass through Mexico and don't first try to get asylum
Speaker 1: in Mexico if you're from Central America, then you cannot
Speaker 1: claim a sign the United States. Essentially, you cannot go
Speaker 1: jurisdiction shopping or nation state shopping as an assy lee
Speaker 1: if you're really claiming asylum, if you're under mortal threat,
Speaker 1: if you're oppressed and fleeing tyranny, the first country that
Speaker 1: isn't going to tyrannize and threaten you is the one
Speaker 1: that you should be asking for asylum, and you don't.
Speaker 1: You don't get to say, well, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: I want the best, richest, biggest welfare benefit country in
Speaker 1: the Western hemisphere. You're not allowed to do that anymore
Speaker 1: to the Trump administration. Of course, the Libs are very
Speaker 1: upset about about that. And then one other thing here
Speaker 1: not getting a lot of attention. I remember there's some
Speaker 1: so called, well, I don't know, conservatives, some of them
Speaker 1: are never Trumpers. We're very upset about the declaration of
Speaker 1: a state of emergency that Trump made. Who are all
Speaker 1: of our civil rights being trampled on because of the
Speaker 1: Trump declaration of emergency? Well, it turns out that by
Speaker 1: the end of twenty twenty, the Trump administration is hoping
Speaker 1: to have constructed four hundred and fifty miles because of
Speaker 1: the declaration of emergency and the moving of funds within
Speaker 1: the federal budget to the border construction border wall construction,
Speaker 1: they're hoping to have four hundred and fifty miles of
Speaker 1: border wall by the end of twenty twenty. If Trump
Speaker 1: gets close to five hundred miles of new wall, not
Speaker 1: just upgraded fence, new fence, new wall, whatever we're calling it,
Speaker 1: those build a wall chants are going to be very
Speaker 1: loud going into what I think will be his reelection.
Speaker 1: People said he would never do it, never happened, can't happen. Well,
Speaker 1: if they really are are on track, if this is correct,
Speaker 1: this is reporting the Wall Street Journal to put up
Speaker 1: four hundred and fifty miles a wall by the end
Speaker 1: of this year, by the end of next year, I
Speaker 1: think you'd have to consider that a promise kept, or
Speaker 1: at least close to it. Promise kept it, promise in
Speaker 1: progress on something that critics of the Trump administration we're
Speaker 1: saying along absolutely impossible. There's no way that he'll be
Speaker 1: able to pull that off, so we will continue to
Speaker 1: watch the border and the administration's response to it. I'm
Speaker 1: worried that we're running out of time. Every time the
Speaker 1: scientists reanalyze the data, it's worse than they thought. So
Speaker 1: when they thought we had this much time to do something,
Speaker 1: it turns out when they reanalyze the data, it's this
Speaker 1: much time, and that it's this much time. We've got
Speaker 1: to be moving on every front. This is our only planet,
Speaker 1: and I think of the responsibility that we have to
Speaker 1: future generations. We didn't We didn't inherit this earth from
Speaker 1: our grandparents. We're borrowing it from our grandchildren, and we
Speaker 1: have a responsibility to believe them the earth that is sustainable,
Speaker 1: an earth that will support life. And I don't know
Speaker 1: about you, but I refuse and reject and absolutely will
Speaker 1: not accept the choice of the choice. Sorry, I refuse
Speaker 1: to accept the choice of leaving a planet that is
Speaker 1: diminished and dying to the next generation. I refuse to
Speaker 1: choose that. And because we refuse to choose that, then
Speaker 1: we what we have no choice to do is to
Speaker 1: act to do exactly what they say. What Warren says,
Speaker 1: what AOC says, that's your There's no choice here. You
Speaker 1: must do what they say because the planet is at stake.
Speaker 1: These people are nuts, folks. This is crazy. This is crazy.
Speaker 1: What's amazing is when you speak to people who think
Speaker 1: they're very sophisticated, very very educated, wealthy area died across
Speaker 1: the country and the liberal enclaves, they look at you
Speaker 1: like your nuts if you don't think the world is
Speaker 1: going to end in ten years unless we listen to
Speaker 1: complete and income poops in the Democratic Party who don't
Speaker 1: know a thing about a thing, and let them run
Speaker 1: the entire economy and let them transform the global economy
Speaker 1: without our basic understanding of how economics works. And just
Speaker 1: how much crazy er can it get? How much more
Speaker 1: bonkers can the Democratic Party be before there is some
Speaker 1: kind of reckoning, some kind of awakening about what is
Speaker 1: really going on? How to take down a charter school.
Speaker 1: This is a story that I find, I find and
Speaker 1: if you reating fascinating and well worth it. For those
Speaker 1: of you that want to, we'll put the story up.
Speaker 1: It's from the Atlantic dot Com. John McCord is the
Speaker 1: author of the piece, and it tells a story, a
Speaker 1: story that people should know because it deals very much
Speaker 1: with social justice rhetoric. And wokeness and whiteness and all
Speaker 1: these different concepts that are constantly being used and leveraged
Speaker 1: and alleged on the left, depending on what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: There's a charter school in Brooklyn called Ascend. In fact,
Speaker 1: it's now a network of fifteen schools, but it was
Speaker 1: founded ten years ago by a man named Stephen Wilson.
Speaker 1: And Stephen Wilson who you would think would be celebrated
Speaker 1: by the left because as he founded a charter school
Speaker 1: that has done what so many public schools across the
Speaker 1: country cannot figure out how to do, which is to
Speaker 1: take young, predominantly minority, Black and Latino children who are
Speaker 1: from underprivileged backgrounds and make them exceptional students doing well,
Speaker 1: getting good grades, beating the national or the estate average
Speaker 1: on the test scores success like Success Academy here in
Speaker 1: New York another place that's been made controversial because the
Speaker 1: left really doesn't like success that goes outside the public
Speaker 1: school model, because public school is actually a form of
Speaker 1: socialism and central planning runs it and it is it
Speaker 1: is a mediocrity factory and a jobs program. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what the national level public school system is. And
Speaker 1: to call it a mediocrity factory might be generous, probably
Speaker 1: is very generous. Actually, a charter schools sometimes do what
Speaker 1: we're told is so hard to do, which is to
Speaker 1: find a way to inspire and promote learning among underprivileged
Speaker 1: minority children. You would think the left, which talks all
Speaker 1: the time about diversity and inclusion and equity and multiculturalism,
Speaker 1: You would think the left would say, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: this is great. How do we how can we do this,
Speaker 1: how can we find a way to replicate this success?
Speaker 1: But no, they want to shut it down. They want
Speaker 1: to shut down these charter schools when they can. They
Speaker 1: want to make sure that people don't believe that these
Speaker 1: different philosophies when it comes education, are more effective than
Speaker 1: the one size fits all approach of the bland intellectual
Speaker 1: gruel that has served up to our children courtesy of
Speaker 1: the Department of Education across the country. But this innovative educator,
Speaker 1: Steven Wilson put up a blog post that I have read.
Speaker 1: I have read the piece by John McCarter. The blog
Speaker 1: post from this past summer written by Steve Wilson. They
Speaker 1: found Stephen Wilson, the founder of Ascend Charter School, and
Speaker 1: then also the change dot org petition from friends of Ascend,
Speaker 1: they say, asking for this guy to get in trouble.
Speaker 1: By the way, he has been fired or removed from
Speaker 1: his position by the board of the very charter school
Speaker 1: system that he founded that was so successful for so
Speaker 1: many young, underprivileged minority children. He's been kicked out. Why
Speaker 1: has he been kicked out? Because he wrote a blog piece,
Speaker 1: the Promise of Intellectual Joy, that is really worth reading,
Speaker 1: by the way, I mean, it's only about eight pages long,
Speaker 1: and I was impressed impressed with his willingness to look
Speaker 1: at some of the educational missteps in this country's past,
Speaker 1: and how there has been for now over a hundred years,
Speaker 1: a debate that has been raging back and forth where
Speaker 1: people in the educational establishment. Now I'm not really talking
Speaker 1: about university level, really talking about grammar school and high school,
Speaker 1: but there have been these moments in time when or
Speaker 1: periods of time when the educational establishment was saying, oh,
Speaker 1: let's not we don't need a liberal education. We don't
Speaker 1: need an education that tries to inspire the mind, promotes
Speaker 1: a joy and love of learning. Let's just teach people
Speaker 1: how to keep themselves clean. You know, how to do
Speaker 1: the basics of living day to day, of you know,
Speaker 1: computational arithmetic for buying things in the store. Let's teach
Speaker 1: them these these basic life skills essentially at the expense
Speaker 1: of teaching them about the life of the mind. And
Speaker 1: that these movements have popped up at different times, and
Speaker 1: it popped up, for example, in the early twentieth century.
Speaker 1: This is all this promise of intellectual joy piece written
Speaker 1: by this esteemed educator that when there was a big
Speaker 1: surge of immigrants into the country, for example, that the
Speaker 1: educational establishment public schools in this country, was pushing for
Speaker 1: effectively dumbing down the teaching so that you're not learning
Speaker 1: the life of the mind, you're not learning about the
Speaker 1: promise of intellectual joy and trying to give that to
Speaker 1: everyone as a gift for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: You're teaching them how to be cogs in this state machine,
Speaker 1: how to you know, be able to more or less
Speaker 1: function day to day in a way that they're not
Speaker 1: too much of a drain on the state. A tremendously
Speaker 1: condescending approach to education. Now, Stephen Wilson is taking the
Speaker 1: approach that this is wrong, that this should not be done,
Speaker 1: and here's some of how John mcquarter describes this this debate,
Speaker 1: Wilson's decries how the pushback against traditional education with its
Speaker 1: rote learning and Ltrinell range of perspective, has often entailed
Speaker 1: the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, toward
Speaker 1: a gauzy student focused approach that de emphasizes the authority
Speaker 1: of the teacher, or most disturbing disturbingly, the learning of facts.
Speaker 1: Wilson's problem is with people such as Rousseau and John Dewey,
Speaker 1: and even Dwight D. Eisenhower, who espoused what Wilson considers
Speaker 1: anti intellectual ideas about how and what children should learn.
Speaker 1: Wilson observed in his blog post, this is where he
Speaker 1: gets into trouble, folks. This is where they come after him.
Speaker 1: Wilson observed in his blog post that liberal education is
Speaker 1: under fresh attack, this time as whiteness. The petition states
Speaker 1: this claim equates a liberal education with whiteness, the very
Speaker 1: opposite of Wilson's argument. The underlying message here, say the
Speaker 1: petition writers, is that a liberal education is whiteness. Whiteness
Speaker 1: is therefore intellectual, and any challenged to a liberal education
Speaker 1: is a challenge to whiteness. So any challenge to whiteness
Speaker 1: is anti intellectual. Even following the rather tortuous logic here,
Speaker 1: Wilson gives no indication of thinking that all challenges to
Speaker 1: something as vast as white hegemony qualify as anti intellectualism. Elsewhere,
Speaker 1: Wilson criticizes the idea that focus on a text is
Speaker 1: a kind of white supremacy. That's right, my friends, focusing
Speaker 1: on the words in a text when you're teaching literature
Speaker 1: or English language that is decried in some places in
Speaker 1: the educational system now as white supremacy. The words focus
Speaker 1: on the words, that's white supremacy, oh says who says
Speaker 1: people in the educational establishment. Quote. That may sound bizarre,
Speaker 1: but at a conference about white supremacy, culture and education
Speaker 1: convened by the New York City Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza,
Speaker 1: attendees were shown a slow explained that white supremacist thinking
Speaker 1: includes quote, worship of the written word and even objectivity
Speaker 1: end quote. Educational conference at the highest level here in
Speaker 1: the public school system in New York City that is
Speaker 1: making the claim and instructing other educators to propagate this
Speaker 1: claim that objectivity and the written word itself can be
Speaker 1: a form of white supremacy. And if you're wondering what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on, you are not alone. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what he says. It doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: he really wrote. The petition quotes Wilson's concern and then
Speaker 1: with no argumentation whatsoever, flags him as protecting white supremacy
Speaker 1: culture and a paternalistic orientation toward the work of social
Speaker 1: justice reform. Now, my friends, here's the real here's the
Speaker 1: real problem. Here's why this guy Wilson had to lose
Speaker 1: his job after doing more for minority children in New
Speaker 1: York City than any of these social justice activists on
Speaker 1: the change dot org petition. The problem is that he
Speaker 1: pointed out that there is a movement underway right now,
Speaker 1: as there has been at different times in the past,
Speaker 1: to teach differently to minority children, to teach in a
Speaker 1: way that is more culturally sensitive and culturally inclusive. And
Speaker 1: so that means making choices, making distinctions that go away
Speaker 1: from trying to inspire everybody with the same ideas and
Speaker 1: ideals and great literature and great learning, and teaching differently
Speaker 1: to minority children in order to give them something that
Speaker 1: they will be more act to take to and to
Speaker 1: handle well in the classroom. Now they think the social
Speaker 1: justice left thinks that doing this, teaching differently to minority
Speaker 1: children in the public school is something that should be
Speaker 1: promoted and celebrated. And that's why they're also attacking a
Speaker 1: culture of objectivity and words on the page meaning what
Speaker 1: they mean as a form of whiteness. And this is
Speaker 1: all it's I mean, I have the documents in front
Speaker 1: of me, this is all in the petition, and that
Speaker 1: this is white, toxic patriarchal masculinity in the classroom. Right.
Speaker 1: You know, learn read poems from the great poets and
Speaker 1: read what they say, not reinterpreted, and write your own
Speaker 1: poem that has the same title, but you know, is
Speaker 1: more culturally in line with what you wish the poem said.
Speaker 1: You know, that's anathemaa that's no longer acceptable. And there
Speaker 1: have been other times in history when in the public
Speaker 1: school system in this country people have argued that certain groups, immigrants,
Speaker 1: the poor, minorities, should be taught differently. And the promise
Speaker 1: of intellectual joy that Wilson is trying to advocate for
Speaker 1: is that all people, all children, have the same intellectual inheritance,
Speaker 1: which is that we should all be striving for greater
Speaker 1: knowledge and understanding. The roots of a liberal education are
Speaker 1: to give you a joy of learning and understanding and
Speaker 1: the process of wrestling with thoughts and coming to conclusions,
Speaker 1: and understanding reason and understanding logic and thinking about your
Speaker 1: place in the world. That is everybody's inheritance, irrespective of
Speaker 1: skin color, irrespective of socioeconomic background. And the children should
Speaker 1: all be given the best that we can in terms
Speaker 1: of the life of the mind and the promise of
Speaker 1: intellectual joy. But this runs afoul of the social justice
Speaker 1: activists who want to say that this is you know,
Speaker 1: all all the authors that are being taught in this classroom, classroom,
Speaker 1: it's all old white, old dead white males. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if the book is a time you know, is
Speaker 1: timeless or incredibly well written, or deals with the historical
Speaker 1: period that all human beings should be you know, very
Speaker 1: familiar with. In fact, if you were really wondering the
Speaker 1: lengths that this this social justice group was willing to
Speaker 1: go to to get Steven Wilson, founder of the Ascend
Speaker 1: Charter school system fired. Remember that when he specifically quote
Speaker 1: when he specifically cites the great African American writers and
Speaker 1: intellectuals from American history. He cites Martin Luther King, he
Speaker 1: cites Frederick Douglass, he cites James bald He says, you
Speaker 1: know this and their timelessness and their role in you know,
Speaker 1: the ur educational system. People understanding the greatness of their thoughts,
Speaker 1: their writing. His citation of great African American authors and
Speaker 1: writers of the past, and the need to make sure
Speaker 1: that they are representing the classroom because of their intellectual worth,
Speaker 1: because of their greatness. That has taken as further evidence
Speaker 1: of his transgression by the social justice left. I bring
Speaker 1: you this quote. The author asked, what would they make
Speaker 1: of Frederick Douglas's fourth of July speak, Martin speech, Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail, or James Baldwin's letter
Speaker 1: to his nephew my dungeon shook in the fire next time.
Speaker 1: The author concludes this point by stating, it is hard
Speaker 1: to imagine a more destructive message to teachers and their students.
Speaker 1: This tool will surely become to see as another wrong
Speaker 1: turn on the way to equal opportunity. These statements, this
Speaker 1: is from the petition to get this guy fired. Okay,
Speaker 1: these statements represent a commitment to protecting white supremacy culture
Speaker 1: and paternalistic orientation toward the work of social justice reform.
Speaker 1: This is from the petition that got this guy fired
Speaker 1: from the fifteen school char charter school network that he
Speaker 1: built from the ground up. This is why I got fired.
Speaker 1: He was citing great African American intellectual and literary heroes
Speaker 1: from from within America, from within our own, our own tradition,
Speaker 1: and they viewed that as another transgression. How dare you
Speaker 1: use great black, great Black authors to make the case
Speaker 1: that young Black and Latino children have heroes from within
Speaker 1: their own ellectual tradition that are promoting the same virtues
Speaker 1: and greatness and life of the mind that other other
Speaker 1: authors are. And therefore the case that the social justice
Speaker 1: left that you have to dumb things down, or you
Speaker 1: have to do a different course, slow, different coursework based
Speaker 1: more on inclusion and equity and all these other things,
Speaker 1: that that's not necessary. In fact, that's the wrong path.
Speaker 1: This guy's a liberal, folks, It's clear from where he's writing.
Speaker 1: This guy's a liberal leftist. But he understands education. He
Speaker 1: understands the need to inspire the mind of all people.
Speaker 1: He takes the very basis of what we would think
Speaker 1: is is our need for equality and equity. That we
Speaker 1: are all God's children, that we were all equivalent in
Speaker 1: terms of our our moral worth, and we all should
Speaker 1: be treated equally as human beings, and our ability to
Speaker 1: grow and the life of the mind to grow within
Speaker 1: us should all also be treated equal as human beings.
Speaker 1: The social justice left does not see it that way.
Speaker 1: They want different approaches based on who different people are.
Speaker 1: And this guy's fighting down when he points out how
Speaker 1: absurd that is and how it has failed historically, and
Speaker 1: how there have been other times when people thought that
Speaker 1: they were doing a favor to the new immigrants, they
Speaker 1: thought they were doing a favor to the poor, to
Speaker 1: people in urban ghettos, to people, you know, by changing
Speaker 1: curriculum to make it so that it was you know,
Speaker 1: less of a challenge, or that it was more represent
Speaker 1: editive of of you know, inclusiveness and diversity in terms
Speaker 1: of the reading list or whatever it may be. And
Speaker 1: that that wasn't a good idea that we've tried to
Speaker 1: experiments fell in the past. The left has to crush
Speaker 1: this guy. There's one more point here about all of this.
Speaker 1: I thought was so I mean, this was fascinating stuff,
Speaker 1: and we'll we'll put it up on Facebook dot com.
Speaker 1: So Buck slash buck sex since you guys can see it.
Speaker 1: Chriser Mark, please remember remind me to make sure we
Speaker 1: do that. Mcquarter, who, by the way, is an African
Speaker 1: American writer who's the guy who wrote the piece breaking
Speaker 1: all this down. Mcquarter says at the end that what
Speaker 1: you see from this petition is that it's not It's
Speaker 1: not that they, the people writing this petition, this change
Speaker 1: our petition to get this guy fired. It's not that
Speaker 1: they think calling someone white supremacists is just a a
Speaker 1: tool that is useful for blunt force politics, which it
Speaker 1: certainly is. But he says that it's clear from reading
Speaker 1: this petition that they viewed calling someone a white supremacist
Speaker 1: as in and of itself all that is necessary for
Speaker 1: someone's destruction. That essentially they believe the argument, once you've
Speaker 1: called someone a white supremacist, they must be that and
Speaker 1: must be treated as such without any argument, without any
Speaker 1: underpinning justification. Terrifying in the implications. But this is where
Speaker 1: the social justice left has gone, destroying good people who
Speaker 1: do good things for minority communities while pretending to be
Speaker 1: caring about the very minority communities that were helped by
Speaker 1: the other guy. All right, team, So as we discuss
Speaker 1: today is Veterans Day, and I want to bring on
Speaker 1: we have many good friends who are veterans who are
Speaker 1: frequent guests here in the show. Our friend Brandon Webb
Speaker 1: joins us now. He is the founder of softwarep dot com,
Speaker 1: which also owns Great Club and they have a show
Speaker 1: inside the Team Roman he's gonna tell us about also
Speaker 1: Brandon as a former Navy seal himself. Brandon, Happy Veterans Day, man,
Speaker 1: Thank you for your service. What are your what are
Speaker 1: your thoughts? Just start with your opening thoughts today is
Speaker 1: it's a day to actually appreciate those who have served,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean my thoughts and thank for having
Speaker 1: me on the show. I appreciate it. My thoughts are
Speaker 1: you know this is a data to acknowledge, you know,
Speaker 1: veterans have served. But in the larger picture, you know,
Speaker 1: I think your audience would appreciate the fact now more
Speaker 1: than either, more than more than ever. We need to
Speaker 1: really think about, you know, what we're doing abroad and
Speaker 1: and do we really have a well thought out form
Speaker 1: policy strategy in place? Because you know, you and I
Speaker 1: both lost friends since nine to eleven, and you know,
Speaker 1: I hate to look at what we're doing in Afghanistan now,
Speaker 1: almost twenty years in, and you know, I think we
Speaker 1: just have to really hold hold our politicians accountable and
Speaker 1: make sure that we're we're putting forth America's best and
Speaker 1: brightest to a cause that we can get behind in
Speaker 1: the country. And I mean, do you think we should
Speaker 1: get out get out of Afghanistan brand that I know
Speaker 1: you served there? Yeah, I mean, honestly, the mission when
Speaker 1: I was over there was very clear after nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: You know, I deployed in two thousand and one, two
Speaker 1: thousand and two, it was killed a bunch of bad
Speaker 1: guys and wipe out the training camps, which we did,
Speaker 1: And personally, I think we probably would have been better
Speaker 1: off packing up and leaving in two thousand and three.
Speaker 1: And I just look at, you know, the the amount
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars pumped into that country, and really,
Speaker 1: what are we gonna have to show for it? And
Speaker 1: you know, ideally, if we look at it, if we
Speaker 1: pulled out tomorrow, the Taliban it's back in power. So
Speaker 1: it's just one of those things. Um, you know, not
Speaker 1: going a tangent when you look at Syria, right, I
Speaker 1: think Trump made the right call by pulling troops out
Speaker 1: of Syria because we don't really want to get into
Speaker 1: a proxy war with Russia and Iran, and so you
Speaker 1: think series the right move. Do you feel like the
Speaker 1: administration by large? I mean, well, when you talk to
Speaker 1: veterans about about how Trump is doing as commander in chief,
Speaker 1: what's the what's the overriding sentiment did you pick up? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's a good question, right, I think largely
Speaker 1: the sentiment that I hear among my fellow veterans that
Speaker 1: that Trump has been a pretty good commander in chief,
Speaker 1: like in the form of really respecting the troops, which
Speaker 1: I served under the Clinton administration when I first joined
Speaker 1: the Navy, and it was well known amongst all military
Speaker 1: service members that there was kind of a disdain of
Speaker 1: sorts for men and women in uniform and that's just
Speaker 1: not good for morale. Right, Yeah, that is clearly that
Speaker 1: is part of the case. Brandon tell us about Inside
Speaker 1: the team Room, the show that you guys have launched
Speaker 1: over at soft Rup. So the first team Room show
Speaker 1: we did was back in twoy twelve, when we launched
Speaker 1: softwap dot com, it actually featured Chris Kyle Americ, who
Speaker 1: was the American Sniper at the time. Him and I
Speaker 1: had two books out together, my Being the Red Circle
Speaker 1: and his Being America Sniper, and that showed it extremely well.
Speaker 1: We since pulled it down out of respect to the
Speaker 1: for the family, but the series has carried on. So
Speaker 1: we just launched a new series on dot com called
Speaker 1: Inside the Team Room Navy Seal Snipers. Um. It features
Speaker 1: myself Charlie Melton, who worked with me as an instructor
Speaker 1: at the Sniper program, and it really goes into like
Speaker 1: areas of conversation that you just don't find on typical
Speaker 1: television or cable programming. And that's what I think really
Speaker 1: makes the show special is you know, Charlie can you know,
Speaker 1: talk about the struggles of transitioning from active duty to
Speaker 1: civilian life, but also you know the time he shot
Speaker 1: someone at sixty yards with a fifty cal sniper rifle,
Speaker 1: So that you know, the stories are engaging and um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think people are really going to enjoy
Speaker 1: the show going to find it at soft reap dot com.
Speaker 1: We put the first three episodes on YouTube on our
Speaker 1: YouTube channel for free, um but our you know, we
Speaker 1: have a military version of Netflix on software so people
Speaker 1: can can sign up for monthly and access the video
Speaker 1: the rest of the series. There Former Navy seal and
Speaker 1: softwarep dot com founder Brandon Webb, Brandon, my friend. Great
Speaker 1: to have you on the show. Have you Veterans Day
Speaker 1: to you and we'll talk soon. Thanks brother, and keep
Speaker 1: up with a good work, Team Bucking. It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. All right, let's get into some of our emails,
Speaker 1: our Facebook posts, Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton. If
Speaker 1: you want to send in a note there and if
Speaker 1: you want to do stuff on the on the email
Speaker 1: and we'll kick at old school way to do that
Speaker 1: is to write to us at Team Buck at iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: dot com. Carl says Buck Carl here just saying you
Speaker 1: sound like the guy off Princess Bride, you know that
Speaker 1: mel Brooks played, or the witch that yells. You know,
Speaker 1: it's the inflection of the tone that's hilarious. When do
Speaker 1: I sound like the Princess? Oh? Want to do Bernie?
Speaker 1: Bernie said this, I don't know, I don't know who
Speaker 1: we're talking about here. Well as far as Joe Biden
Speaker 1: goes he needs about four or five years of previgin
Speaker 1: what and producer Mark Huey, Dewey Louis and Scrooge McDuck. Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you, Carl. I don't even know what's going on here, Carl.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you running in all right, Benny, Benny and
Speaker 1: the Jets, Hey Buck, how many more slanted, biased, non attributable, false,
Speaker 1: misleading quote news articles we'll it take before Conservatives on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill began using a Lensky's tactic of ridicule as
Speaker 1: a most potent weapon. If a conservative has asked to
Speaker 1: comment on a story from the New York Time Times,
Speaker 1: they respond every time they didn't read it, nor do
Speaker 1: they comment on anything that from a particular fraudulent source.
Speaker 1: Will be the American people. Bob whoa shields high? Benny, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, I don't know where the meat
Speaker 1: we're fighting. We're fighting the anti we're in the media,
Speaker 1: fighting the anti media war. That seems to be what's
Speaker 1: going on here. Karen about Christine Blasi Forge right, she
Speaker 1: can't remember where or when that party was, but she
Speaker 1: claims Brett having assaulted her. But she remembers she only
Speaker 1: had one beer. When my alcoholic clients say one beer,
Speaker 1: they mean a forty ounce bottle. Well, Karen, as you know,
Speaker 1: I think that the Blasi Ford was a political hit,
Speaker 1: and I think that she was probably just delusional but
Speaker 1: definitely incorrect and possibly lying intentionally. But that's that's where
Speaker 1: I am on this. Let's see here, lo right, So
Speaker 1: listen to your show because your version of the day's events.
Speaker 1: I really like the roll call structure of interaction with
Speaker 1: your listeners opinions. Taking call some people in the middle
Speaker 1: of the the show is what everybody else does. It gets old.
Speaker 1: I really like everything you're doing to expand your media company.
Speaker 1: Kudos to producer Mark. Oh, you know, we appreciate producer Mark.
Speaker 1: We just don't want him to, you know, get a
Speaker 1: big head or anything, you know, because now we're doing
Speaker 1: all this cool new stuff and producer Marcus, you know,
Speaker 1: running the cool new stuff. Don't worry, my head could
Speaker 1: never get as big as yours. That is a that
Speaker 1: is a literally true statements. My cranium is giant. I'm
Speaker 1: in literally n figured to lay here you go, but
Speaker 1: producer Marcus here to make sure that the buckster's feet
Speaker 1: stayed on the ground. Here in the Freedom Hut not
Speaker 1: floating up into the sky. I don't worry about that.
Speaker 1: We have Dixie right. Hey, Buck, just wondering you've seen
Speaker 1: heard the new ad for the Hartford Insurance Company. The
Speaker 1: Buck starts here. I have not. I have not, but
Speaker 1: I will um, I will check it out. John rights Buck.
Speaker 1: Trump is the ultimate capitalist as such, just the fact
Speaker 1: that he is. He is a direct to the government
Speaker 1: swamp and bureaucrat blah blah. Wait what hold on? Trump
Speaker 1: is the ultimate capitalist as such, just the fact that
Speaker 1: he is is a direct there we go to the
Speaker 1: government swamp and every beer kind of Washington, DC. That's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons they hate him so much for
Speaker 1: as long as they do. John m Yeah, John, I
Speaker 1: do think that that is that you're onto something here
Speaker 1: with that Trump is a threat to the swamp. They
Speaker 1: recognize that, and so they act accordingly. So there you go, Jacob.
Speaker 1: I love that you have an official email. Now I'm
Speaker 1: doing my best to get out the word about Team
Speaker 1: Buck and recommending the podcast to all my friends. Go
Speaker 1: Team Buck with your shielder on at Jake in upstate
Speaker 1: New York. Jake, thank you, man, I really mean it.
Speaker 1: Those of you that can please tell tell your folks,
Speaker 1: tell your conservative friends to listen to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: It is the single most helpful thing you can do
Speaker 1: is to get somebody that you know who doesn't already
Speaker 1: listen to the show to listen. That is a game
Speaker 1: changer for us here. All right, now we'll go over
Speaker 1: to the Facebook side of things. We got Jonathan rights Buck,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, don't go knocking out libs. The cameras mightier
Speaker 1: than the progressive mouth pointed their way and they melt
Speaker 1: like the witch from OZ. That is all. Thank you, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: don't worry. We are we are not violent, violent types
Speaker 1: in here. But and Producer Mark, was you say if
Speaker 1: anybody were to be disrespectful to missus, Producer Mark, there
Speaker 1: would be hell to pay, which I back one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: I mean that's different. That's not just me being violent. No, No,
Speaker 1: that's you just yeah, standing my ground, standing your grampan
Speaker 1: to man. Yeah, that's right, totally. But Jonathan, I know
Speaker 1: he doesn't want us to give any any liberals a
Speaker 1: knuckle sandwich. Remember when people say give you a knuckle sandwich,
Speaker 1: that's you know, old old timey stole, old times. Yes, yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: I don't want to give anyone knuckle sandwich unless they
Speaker 1: start really deserve it. Yeah, Julia Rights, buck great show
Speaker 1: has always I agree with you. You have to go
Speaker 1: with your instincts first. No, mouthguard might as a word
Speaker 1: avenger shirt and crocs while you're at it. Good teeth
Speaker 1: are for TV people anyway, Shields high. Thank you, Julia.
Speaker 1: I think I think that's helpful. I'll take it ill,
Speaker 1: I'll roll with it. So yes, indeed, Um, the mouthguard
Speaker 1: I have not. I have not yet been able to
Speaker 1: get that thing to do what I want to do.
Speaker 1: So um, but I'm working. I'm working on all the things,
Speaker 1: working all the stuff. Amanda Rights, thanks for the book recommendations.
Speaker 1: Also Endgame. The new Marvel movie stunk. I was so
Speaker 1: mad that I spent all my time watching it. Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she's right, isn't she? Mark No, she is very very wrong,
Speaker 1: just saying another one. Put another one on the board
Speaker 1: for the bucks. That's like two and the rest of
Speaker 1: them are with me. So the ones who know know
Speaker 1: what's up. I know what. I watched her the weekend.
Speaker 1: It was it was Oh, can I recommend it? I
Speaker 1: watched The King on Netflix. It was pretty well done.
Speaker 1: It's about Henry the Fifth Battle of a Juan Carl.
Speaker 1: It's pretty good. But and the battle sequence they did,
Speaker 1: I feel like, was hyper realistic, which was an interesting
Speaker 1: way to go for that period. They did not. It
Speaker 1: wasn't a lot of these battles. They have a guy
Speaker 1: who you know, was standing in the battlefield and he's
Speaker 1: like cutting down people left and right, and it's all
Speaker 1: very choreographed and you know he's like yeah, yeah, and
Speaker 1: you can see him and every This battle was just
Speaker 1: like a man I mean, dudes rolling around the mud,
Speaker 1: stabbing each other in the eyes with you know, sharpened sticks,
Speaker 1: crushing each other, horses fall on top of people. I
Speaker 1: mean that it was. It was a little a little
Speaker 1: bit like the best episode of Game of Thrones probably ever,
Speaker 1: which was the Battle of the Bastards, where you had
Speaker 1: that fight sequence, but that was stylized. But it was
Speaker 1: it was pretty well done. I thought this was a
Speaker 1: not a very stylized battle sequence at all, and it was.
Speaker 1: It was good. The movie itself, though, I feel like
Speaker 1: drags a little bit, all a slow in some places,
Speaker 1: but a Netflix movie was pretty good. But yeah, if
Speaker 1: you want to see some about Henry the Fifth and
Speaker 1: John Falstaff doing their thing. I thought it was it
Speaker 1: was a it was a solid enough effort. I watched
Speaker 1: it over the course of the weekend. Lauren Rights, Hey Bock,
Speaker 1: I just started watching your show on Pluto TV using
Speaker 1: our Roku. A couple of comments. The audio volume between
Speaker 1: your show and the commercials significant. The commercials are too loud,
Speaker 1: your show is too soft. There's a okay and more
Speaker 1: complaints about commercial Well, we love our sponsors, but Lauren,
Speaker 1: we will pass this onto producer Mark and he can
Speaker 1: see if he can work some of that Producer Mark
Speaker 1: magic to do all the things, make all the things happen.
Speaker 1: James Dune Dune Dune, I side with producer Mark. I
Speaker 1: support the Mets shields tire from w g Y New York.
Speaker 1: So James is also miserable. Yeah, the Mets not so good.
Speaker 1: They are usually laughing stock of baseball. How can they
Speaker 1: be the case? The New York is such a big
Speaker 1: sports make so much. Yeah, well they have ownership that
Speaker 1: refuses to spend money on the team. But they love
Speaker 1: when we spend money, you know, buying merchandise and tickets
Speaker 1: and food and all that stuff. But they won't spend
Speaker 1: it on players. Yeah, it's not good. That's that's not
Speaker 1: a recipe for success. I feel like it is not
Speaker 1: not in baseball where there's no salary cap. M what's
Speaker 1: the best? What are like the mega teams? Well, the
Speaker 1: Yankees they're the ultimate team, the Red Sox, the Dodgers,
Speaker 1: most of the ones, the kind of the marquee names.
Speaker 1: It's not like a team. It's not. You know, Golden
Speaker 1: State Warriors were a joke ten years ago or fifteen
Speaker 1: years ago. Now they're like the team. Well now they're
Speaker 1: not anymore this year. They have a lot of players injured.
Speaker 1: But well, okay, well I was class I see, I
Speaker 1: almost dropped some sports knowledge. Almost didn't let me get
Speaker 1: it was very close. Yeah, I knew more about sports
Speaker 1: back in the nineties than I do now. But now
Speaker 1: I have to just read all the time so I
Speaker 1: can tell team Buck what's going You still think the
Speaker 1: Knicks are a good team? Are they not a good team? Oh?
Speaker 1: My god, they're the worst team in basketball. That's really that.
Speaker 1: That's another How is that possible? They got the biggest
Speaker 1: basketball market in the country here, Yes, New York City
Speaker 1: loves basketball. Well, another ownership problem is that the Dolans,
Speaker 1: I've hurt. He's a joke. I knew somebody used to
Speaker 1: work for them and said that it was amazing to
Speaker 1: work for a sports franchise with the people who owned
Speaker 1: the franchise didn't care about sports. See if he was
Speaker 1: like to the Knicks like he is to the Rangers,
Speaker 1: the Knicks would be good. He just leaves the Rangers alone,
Speaker 1: lets the hockey people do the hockey things. Doesn't do
Speaker 1: that with basketball. I see, Yeah, Cody Rights, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: you're looked up Porter Stansbury before Wikipedia. Yeah, Cody, Porter's
Speaker 1: my man. Porter's a friend of mine. He's great. So
Speaker 1: I know all about Porter. Let's see what else we
Speaker 1: have here, Gina, hey Buck, Robin and Prince of Thieves
Speaker 1: is okay. But it's not just he has no English accent.
Speaker 1: He starts off with one badly, in my opinion, in
Speaker 1: the first twenty minutes or so, it's completely gone. Is
Speaker 1: that really true? But I will say Alan Rickman is
Speaker 1: a badass Sheriff of Nottingham. I'll cut jall hot out
Speaker 1: with a spoon shield tie. Gina, you may be right
Speaker 1: about about the performance that what's his name turned in
Speaker 1: for Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. I don't remember. I
Speaker 1: just remember him walking around like I am Robin Hood.
Speaker 1: I do not have an accent. Everyone else's like, O,
Speaker 1: who's that Robin Hood? Is he trying to steal bread
Speaker 1: from the sheriff and give it to the pool people.
Speaker 1: It looks like that. You know. Everyone else has got
Speaker 1: like a real serious accent. He's like, I am Robin Hood.
Speaker 1: I have no accent. I didn't think that was cool. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if everyone else has an accent, you need an accent.
Speaker 1: They're walking around. I'm like, oh boy, he's so good
Speaker 1: with the bower de row. Look at him. He takes
Speaker 1: the bowie, shoots the arrow realm like right straight on
Speaker 1: dunk in the blinds. I sound just like the guy
Speaker 1: dunk in the assistant that he has. Thank you, Robin Nood,
Speaker 1: you gave me a bit of bread. It's the ninety
Speaker 1: so we think it old. British people talk like this
Speaker 1: a little bit unless they're the Queen than they sound fancy.
Speaker 1: I do love a nice British accent. Yeah exactly, I
Speaker 1: probably be fake one at bars. You'd be helpful here
Speaker 1: in New York City. All right, that's gonna be it
Speaker 1: today for the buck Sexton Show team. It has been
Speaker 1: fantastic as always. I hope you agree. Spread the word
Speaker 1: far and wide. Post the links that we share on
Speaker 1: Facebook and on Twitter. Please to your own page if
Speaker 1: you don't mind, so some of your friends, some of
Speaker 1: your folks can see it. That would be a big help.
Speaker 1: We are trying to grow the show. Kind of a
Speaker 1: fantastic Veterans Day, all of you please say thank you
Speaker 1: to a veteran and we'll talk tomorrow. Shields High,