Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hudge. We can't name the whistleblower.
Speaker 1: We all know who the whistle blower is, don't we.
Speaker 1: What's going on here? Why is the media trying to
Speaker 1: prevent the general public from finding out about this? Oh?
Speaker 1: ABC News retaliates against a real whistle blower. They change
Speaker 1: General Flynn three zero two. The anonymous book seems to
Speaker 1: have some lies in it. Already protesting a cuddle program
Speaker 1: and our Marvel movies actually cinema atam more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Mag noo, mistake America, You're a great American Again the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts remember the anid buck sext No, okay,
Speaker 1: they just hand me the story. Coup has started, whistleblower's
Speaker 1: attorney said in twenty seventeen, you know when that was.
Speaker 1: That was a long time ago. It's all a hoax,
Speaker 1: they say, January twenty seventeen. A coup has started and
Speaker 1: the impeachment will follow ultimately. It's a it's all a hoax.
Speaker 1: It's a scam. And you know who helps them, these
Speaker 1: people right back here, the media, and then it said,
Speaker 1: up the light's going to go off. A CNN light
Speaker 1: is going to go up from the lawyer a slee's
Speaker 1: ball that said, I predict at CNN will play a
Speaker 1: key role in at real Donald Trump not finishing out
Speaker 1: his first time? Can you believe this? This is all
Speaker 1: and this was done a long time ago. Then he goes.
Speaker 1: As one falls, two more will take their place, referring
Speaker 1: to outgoing Trump administration employees, who, by the way, have
Speaker 1: been put through hell by the sleeves back there and
Speaker 1: by trupkeet politicians. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, man,
Speaker 1: we have quite a day ahead of us. Here are
Speaker 1: you at President Trump last night at a rally in
Speaker 1: trumpy inform talking about not the whistle blower. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that. When should we know the name of the
Speaker 1: whistle blower? Why should or should not this be confirmed?
Speaker 1: The media effort to restrict this information that's already out
Speaker 1: in public is absolutely astonishing. A media that you would
Speaker 1: think would understand that when the presidency of the United
Speaker 1: States is at stake, then the public should have a
Speaker 1: right to know. Isn't that what they said about publishing
Speaker 1: the Pentagon papers. Isn't that what they say about naming
Speaker 1: people who are operatives of the intelligence agency sometimes and
Speaker 1: newspapers when they've been asked not to be named. Isn't
Speaker 1: this something that we all understand the press will just decide, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about that classified program, We're going
Speaker 1: to write about this person and put them in jeopardy. Huh.
Speaker 1: But this whistleblower, which is not even really the appropriate term.
Speaker 1: Persons not legally entitled to be called a whistleblower. But
Speaker 1: they've just rammed this whole thing through. They've gotten far
Speaker 1: enough in the process and enough people referred to him
Speaker 1: that way that this is what we are told we're
Speaker 1: supposed to say. But do you think that the press
Speaker 1: would understand that this really matters, that the motivations of
Speaker 1: a person who is not a whistleblower, but who has
Speaker 1: called out a question of politics involving the president, but
Speaker 1: has tried to use tried to weaponize the apparatus of
Speaker 1: the federal government against a sitting president and cloak himself
Speaker 1: in the laws by expanding the meaning of plane statute
Speaker 1: beyond what they were ever intended to do. You would
Speaker 1: think the press would understand that we should know everything
Speaker 1: about this person. I mean, CNN camps out on the
Speaker 1: front lawn of random citizens who post something on Facebook
Speaker 1: that they say came from the the Russian Internet Research
Speaker 1: Agency or whatever, and humiliates them. CNN threatens to docks
Speaker 1: people to expose private citizens who make memes that CNN
Speaker 1: doesn't like. Oh, well, you better pull that down or
Speaker 1: else we're going to tell everybody who you are. Oh
Speaker 1: but this whistleblower is sacro sanct. This is also obvious,
Speaker 1: isn't it. This is why I don't give an inch.
Speaker 1: This is why I don't budge. This is why I
Speaker 1: don't flinch when other people say, Oh, but what about
Speaker 1: the phone call in Zolensky and pro quo quit pro quo. No,
Speaker 1: I smelled the coup coming a mile away, so should
Speaker 1: everybody else. This isn't the first time they've tried this.
Speaker 1: In fact, not only is it not the first time
Speaker 1: they've tried this coup. It's by the same playbook as
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion. One stir up a bunch of nonsense,
Speaker 1: do it from hidden positions within the government, try to
Speaker 1: hide the truth in the public as long as possible,
Speaker 1: create a narrative that you cannot prove because it is
Speaker 1: a lie about the president of the United States. And
Speaker 1: then the moment that people start to figure out what's
Speaker 1: really going on, claim process violations, claim that obstruction is occurring,
Speaker 1: claim that there's some tenet of democracy that isn't being
Speaker 1: respected by the president fighting back against this nonsense. I
Speaker 1: smelled the coup coming a mile away, and I know
Speaker 1: you did too, And now they're upset about it. I
Speaker 1: think many in the media are feeling like, Oh, this
Speaker 1: isn't going to work the way we had planned it to.
Speaker 1: This isn't going to be the situation that we had
Speaker 1: hoped it would be that we finally were going to
Speaker 1: nail the president, even if they couldn't remove him via
Speaker 1: Senate two thirds majority vote after a Senate trial, that
Speaker 1: at least the president would be limping into the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty reelection fight after an impeachment battle that he had lost.
Speaker 1: That's the plan. I don't think that's going to happen anymore.
Speaker 1: On the upside, it means that the coup has failed.
Speaker 1: On the downside, I would not look to see the
Speaker 1: mental health of the Libs improve in twenty twenty. As
Speaker 1: a general rule, I think they're only going to get crazier.
Speaker 1: The president there started out reading tweets from the lawyer
Speaker 1: for the whistleblower. In fact, the alleged second whistleblower also
Speaker 1: has the same lawyer. To this, I would say the following,
Speaker 1: I think that I need to disclose this to you.
Speaker 1: I know this lawyer. I know him personally, I know
Speaker 1: him professionally. I don't know him super well. He is
Speaker 1: so and I would say this people who are my friends,
Speaker 1: I don't criticize. I would not get this guy and
Speaker 1: I are not friends, we are acquaintances. But I would
Speaker 1: also tell you that I've had to mute him on
Speaker 1: Twitter because he's so annoying with his Trump patriot So
Speaker 1: none of this is surprising to me. None of this stuff.
Speaker 1: When the President's reading out these tweets about what was
Speaker 1: it kup has started as one falls, two more take
Speaker 1: their place hashtag rebellion, hashtag impeachment. We're supposed to think
Speaker 1: that somebody who shares that opinion doesn't have a bizarre
Speaker 1: animus against the President of the United States that might
Speaker 1: influence whether he's willing to color outside the lines a
Speaker 1: little bit in order to get his way through the
Speaker 1: legal process here to try to take down the president.
Speaker 1: What we have here is evidence of Trump arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: Don't we think that Trump's arrangement syndrome is a hindrance
Speaker 1: to one's objectivity or professionalism. Remember, lawyers are officers of
Speaker 1: the court. They are not. I know you're all laughing,
Speaker 1: because we all know a lot of shady lawyers of
Speaker 1: anadi comes to mind, among many others. Lawyers are supposed
Speaker 1: to act within the interests of the law, not just
Speaker 1: the interests of their client. They're supposed to stay within
Speaker 1: the bounds of their professional obligations, not advance arguments that
Speaker 1: they know to be specious, not advance arguments that they
Speaker 1: know to be twisting of Now, most lawyers will do
Speaker 1: anything for money, we know that. But technically they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be a part of the justice system. And here
Speaker 1: we have somebody who is maniacally anti Trump. And I've
Speaker 1: known that all along, and I've had conversations with him
Speaker 1: about his everything that does. He thinks he's terrible. Basically,
Speaker 1: he has believed every argument about how Trump has obstructed justice,
Speaker 1: about how Trump has violated the law. He believes all
Speaker 1: of it, all of it Now, are we really to
Speaker 1: think that it is a coincidence of all the lawyers
Speaker 1: in all the land, of all the lawyers in the
Speaker 1: swamp alone in Washington, d C. The whistleblower finds Mark Zaide,
Speaker 1: who is perhaps best known for being the guy you
Speaker 1: go to when you want to publish a book after
Speaker 1: serving the government. The government doesn't want you to publish
Speaker 1: he which is a necessary service, by the way, And
Speaker 1: I don't think that that. I think it's good that
Speaker 1: there's somebody who specializes in that. But he's an anti
Speaker 1: Trump Zellot. He's allowed to be an anti Trump Zellot.
Speaker 1: That's fine. I don't pretend that lawyers aren't going to
Speaker 1: have opinions about these things. Congress is full of lawyers.
Speaker 1: But we should know, because this isn't a criminal trial.
Speaker 1: This is a political question that is being processed through
Speaker 1: the United States Congress. We should know who the parties are.
Speaker 1: We should know who the players are, what do they think,
Speaker 1: what do they believe in, what are their motivations. To
Speaker 1: pretend that this whistle blower doesn't matter now, which is
Speaker 1: what you're hearing all these Democrats do, is preposterous. It
Speaker 1: is a farce. Initially it was all about how we
Speaker 1: had to hear from the whistle blow. We had to
Speaker 1: testimony this person at firsthand, firsthand example of the president
Speaker 1: violating lumpy the president violating the law. If he had,
Speaker 1: he'd be hearing about it a thousand times a day
Speaker 1: from every news outlet in the country. Now they're saying
Speaker 1: it's abuse of power. Well, that's the most vague thing
Speaker 1: they could possibly come up with, isn't it. Abuse of
Speaker 1: power is what everybody says about a politician who does
Speaker 1: something they do not like when they cannot find an
Speaker 1: actual statutory infraction. You can't do that. Turns out that
Speaker 1: they've said that about Trump how many times, and then
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has had to weigh in and say,
Speaker 1: actually he can, like the so called Muslim band, you
Speaker 1: can't do that abuse of power. Well, the Constitution says
Speaker 1: he can, and in the realm foreign policy presence have
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of deference. Now there's a political check
Speaker 1: on that. Congress exists in part to be a political
Speaker 1: check on the president of the United States. That is
Speaker 1: one of its duties. And if people really hate the
Speaker 1: conversation that Trump had with Zelenski in about Ukraine. They
Speaker 1: are completely entitled to and really have an obligation to
Speaker 1: think about that and vote accordingly. I think the conversation
Speaker 1: was fine. It's a little rough in terms of political stuff,
Speaker 1: but bare knuckles the way you got to go if
Speaker 1: you want to deal with these crazy libs. Nothing the
Speaker 1: violation of the law. I've never thought there was a
Speaker 1: violation of law, and here we are now we have
Speaker 1: the whistleblowers. Lawyer is other than the front of foxnews
Speaker 1: dot com right now. He's getting a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: and he is a not just a never trumper, he's
Speaker 1: an anti Trumper. I mean he's somebody who openly roots
Speaker 1: for people within the government to not do their duties.
Speaker 1: Sally Yates refused to do her job because she didn't
Speaker 1: like this president. That is what happened. Sally Yates also
Speaker 1: set up General Flynn because she is shameless and grotesque
Speaker 1: in her abdication of basic morality and responsibility in her duties. Grotesque,
Speaker 1: but she was a little resistance hero for a while.
Speaker 1: Yet another, yet another self important, self righteous, sanctimonious bureaucrat says,
Speaker 1: I don't like Trump, I don't like what he stands for.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to I work for him, but I'm
Speaker 1: not going to do what he says. Okay, well she
Speaker 1: got fired. And now we see on Twitter for all,
Speaker 1: and this is a reminder of some folks. Delete your
Speaker 1: old tweets, folks, you never know when they're going to
Speaker 1: come back. Now we see that the lawyer who is
Speaker 1: in some ways quarterbacking this along with Adam Schiff, and
Speaker 1: he does understand this very specific area of the law
Speaker 1: well enough that it's open to interpretation and therefore manipulation.
Speaker 1: Remember that you have a lawyer who is rooting for
Speaker 1: a coup. That's a coincidence. That's what the Libs are
Speaker 1: gonna tell us. Now, that's what the mainstream media wants
Speaker 1: us to believe. This is a coincidence. You just happened
Speaker 1: to find a lawyer who's been screaming on his Twitter
Speaker 1: account about how there needs to be a coup and
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance and government officials need to end this presidency.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter what the people voted for, doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: the system we have says. It's an interesting day, isn't
Speaker 1: It almost feels like the coup's falling apart slowly, but
Speaker 1: surely I'm going to read these transcripts. The whole process
Speaker 1: is a joke. The whole idea that there's a qui
Speaker 1: pro quot based on somebody changing their testimony presuming there was.
Speaker 1: Focus said there was not. He's the special envoy. You
Speaker 1: just pick things you like, Oh, hate this guy, you
Speaker 1: want to get him impeached. I'm not buying into Schiff
Speaker 1: running a legitimate operation over there. I was impeachment manager.
Speaker 1: We did it vastly different. This is a political vendetta. Mueller,
Speaker 1: to me, was the final authority on everything Trump. I've
Speaker 1: read the transcript for myself. I made up my own mind. Volker,
Speaker 1: the special envoys said there was no quick pro quo.
Speaker 1: Sunderland has changed his testimony to say he presumes there was.
Speaker 1: What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward
Speaker 1: the Ukraine, it was incoherent. It depends on who you
Speaker 1: talk to. They seem to be incapable of forming a
Speaker 1: quick pro quo. So no, I find the whole process
Speaker 1: to be a sham, and I'm not gonna legitimize it. Yes, Lindsay, Yes,
Speaker 1: this is the Lindsay Graham that I like. He's right,
Speaker 1: This is like Kavanaugh era Lindsey Graham who just lays
Speaker 1: it down. This whole thing is a joke. It's a sham.
Speaker 1: It's not a funny joke. It's wrong, though, what they
Speaker 1: are doing to the President United States. And it's wrong
Speaker 1: the way that Congress has now decided that without a crime,
Speaker 1: without a real violation to speak of, they're just going
Speaker 1: to make impeachment a process of the House majority deciding
Speaker 1: they don't like the president in an election year that
Speaker 1: they always talking about undermining our institutions. Think about the
Speaker 1: precedent that this sets. Oh yeah, ask yourself, what exactly
Speaker 1: are they impeaching him for. They don't know. They're going
Speaker 1: forward with it, but they're not sure what. Just like
Speaker 1: with the Muller Russia collusion probe, why was there a
Speaker 1: special counsel in the first place? There was no There
Speaker 1: was no evidence of any crime that Trump committed with
Speaker 1: the Russians didn't exist. So why do we need a
Speaker 1: special counsel? Why can the DOJ handle it? Well? Get
Speaker 1: the whole thing going, Worry about the lack of legitimacy
Speaker 1: later on. That's the game they play. I mean, at
Speaker 1: least with Russia collusion, the Democrats and the media lied
Speaker 1: about the certainty of forthcoming devastating revelations for two years.
Speaker 1: Any day now, any day now, Trump is going to
Speaker 1: be finished, they said. So that kept a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Oh and I kept them on the edge of their seat.
Speaker 1: Oh wow. Okay. With impeachment, however, the plan seems to
Speaker 1: be to just repeat the same story over and over
Speaker 1: again until we simply can't take it anymore and agree
Speaker 1: to anything so that it stops anything. But this. Even
Speaker 1: producer Mark I come in, He's like, Man, impeachment stuff
Speaker 1: is boring. I'm like, I know we're gonna listen to
Speaker 1: these State Department bureaucrats like Coon. And then I was
Speaker 1: posted in Ukraine and I really thought that are de
Speaker 1: marsh with the deputy Assistant Secretary of the blah blah,
Speaker 1: I was gonna make this policy change happened, and then
Speaker 1: it didn't. And I just think that that was really bad.
Speaker 1: And that's my opinion. Who cares? You want to know?
Speaker 1: You want to the difference in trumpet Obama era Ukraine policy.
Speaker 1: Obama was like, here's here's some meals ready to eat,
Speaker 1: MRIs and some blankets. I hope they'll keep you warm
Speaker 1: while the Russians are moving on your positions in eastern
Speaker 1: Ukraine with armor and slaughtering your countrymen. You know what
Speaker 1: Trump decided for you, Crane. Hey, we're gonna give you
Speaker 1: javelin anti tank missiles to hold off the advance of
Speaker 1: that Russian armor. And so you're not losing countrymen day
Speaker 1: in and day out in a battle you can't win
Speaker 1: because you don't have the tools to do the job.
Speaker 1: You see, that's a policy difference that matters. The Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but the corruption Trump and Juliani a
Speaker 1: bunch of nonsense, a bunch of absolute garbage coming out
Speaker 1: of all this stuff. For what And now we're supposed
Speaker 1: to believe this guy what salmon? He changes testimonial? Oh,
Speaker 1: I think there was a quid pro quo. What do
Speaker 1: you mean you change your testimony? You've already given your testament. No,
Speaker 1: you're gonna chang your testimony. Remember the whole thing about
Speaker 1: I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but
Speaker 1: the truth. Now you're doing truth two point zero. Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham got it right. It's a sham, a scam, a fraud,
Speaker 1: the whole thing. Folks don't get drawn into it. They're
Speaker 1: trying to play mind games with you, this is all nonsense.
Speaker 1: It's anti Trump, is um on steroids. But first of all,
Speaker 1: I want to thank Ambassador Hale for for being here,
Speaker 1: for obeying the lawful falling the lawful subpoena that we issued.
Speaker 1: We wish others would show the same courage and dedication
Speaker 1: to the law that Ambassador Hale is demonstrating here today,
Speaker 1: courage and dedication to the law. Adam Schiff is really
Speaker 1: a disgrace, a disgrace to the role that he currently holds.
Speaker 1: He's a disgrace to the legal profession. He was a
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor, which is a reminder of my friends that prosecutors.
Speaker 1: When a prosecutor goes bad, you have a lot of problems.
Speaker 1: You have a lot of things to be concerned about.
Speaker 1: There's not a whole lot, not a whole lot that
Speaker 1: can be done about it. They have tremendous authority and
Speaker 1: can abuse the law and can really hurt people. But
Speaker 1: while he's talking about how great it is that people
Speaker 1: are coming forward, remember they can't have State Department lawyers
Speaker 1: with them, so they're not allowed representation. You say, wait,
Speaker 1: but how does that work? Congress just making up the rules?
Speaker 1: They go along here which also is a reminder, my friends.
Speaker 1: They've looked for so many ways to contort, distort, and
Speaker 1: abuse the law in bad faith to go after to
Speaker 1: hurt this president, and they don't care that in that
Speaker 1: process they're showing us all one how dishonest the left
Speaker 1: is in its anti Trump machinations. But also other people
Speaker 1: see this and say, oh, so, the law really is
Speaker 1: just the tool of politics. There's no principle, there's no
Speaker 1: underlying foundation of truth or fairness or justice. It's just
Speaker 1: it says whatever I need it to when I want
Speaker 1: a thing. The Democrats take this approach to anything involving Trump.
Speaker 1: The law is whatever they wanted to say at that
Speaker 1: moment that hurts Trump and helps them without exception. This
Speaker 1: is why you have the hashtag resistance judiciary, these federal
Speaker 1: judges appointed by mostly by Obama but some by others,
Speaker 1: who come forward and decide the law doesn't say what
Speaker 1: it says because Trump. What message does that send to
Speaker 1: the rest of the country. And for a lot of
Speaker 1: people who support Trump, how are they not supposed to
Speaker 1: feel like they're being disenfranchised and that their aspirations, their
Speaker 1: political aspirations for the government are just being nullified by
Speaker 1: people who don't care what the system is, won't play fair,
Speaker 1: don't play by the rules. Democrats claim that they are
Speaker 1: protecting our sacred institutions while they are kicking at the
Speaker 1: load bearing foundations of those institutions. Here's an example of Oh,
Speaker 1: Ambassador Shift was sorry, Adam Shift, not Ambassador Shift. Let's
Speaker 1: not elevate the guy at Schiff saying that, oh, Ambassador
Speaker 1: Hale's coming out to speak, and we can hear from
Speaker 1: all these Ukraine policy people all day long. It doesn't
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean anything. I don't care what they have
Speaker 1: to say because there is no crime that they are
Speaker 1: referring to. They're referring to their differences of opinion with
Speaker 1: the administration. Here's a perfect example. This is from Ambassador
Speaker 1: Taylor's testimony, which has now been I can't I don't
Speaker 1: know whether it's leaked or officially put out or who knows,
Speaker 1: but this is the testimony. Ambassador Taylor says, September seventh.
Speaker 1: Are we looking at the same paragraph, Congressman Lee Selden says,
Speaker 1: third paragraph down on page twelve, Ambassador Taylor right, in
Speaker 1: which he described a phone conversation with Sonlon and President
Speaker 1: Trump yes, sir, mister Zelden, this is the only reference
Speaker 1: in your opening statement to Biden other than your one
Speaker 1: reference to the July twenty fifth call. And this is
Speaker 1: not firsthand, it's not secondhand, it's not third hand. But
Speaker 1: if I understand this correctly, you're telling us that Tim
Speaker 1: Morrison told you that Ambassador Sonlon told him that the
Speaker 1: President told Ambassador Sondlin that Zelenski would have to open
Speaker 1: an investigation, and to Biden, that is being treated as
Speaker 1: damning evidence in this My friends, you said this thing
Speaker 1: to the guy who said the thing about the guy
Speaker 1: who talked to the guy who heard from a guy
Speaker 1: who thought he heard from a guy that this other
Speaker 1: guy had to do a thing. If these were sixth
Speaker 1: grade girls, we'd be laughing at how silly this is.
Speaker 1: They have no idea what's going on here. If maybe
Speaker 1: this is absurd, this is a testimony where all I
Speaker 1: heard from somebody who heard from somebody who heard from
Speaker 1: somebody who heard from somebody else that maybe this was happening.
Speaker 1: Oh what are we supposed to do there? We're going
Speaker 1: to pretend that perception doesn't matter, context doesn't matter, misinterpretation
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. And then Ultimately, what are we even talking about?
Speaker 1: The aid went through to Ukraine, no investigation of Biden
Speaker 1: or his son began, and by the way, I think
Speaker 1: there should be an investigation of Biden at his son.
Speaker 1: Well why not? Was everybody on the and I credit
Speaker 1: somebody on Team Box for writing on this, was everybody
Speaker 1: on the Breezema board getting fifty thousan dollars a month?
Speaker 1: Can we find out the answer to that question? I
Speaker 1: think that really does matter. Was everybody else getting like
Speaker 1: five thousand a month, but Hunter Biden was getting fifty
Speaker 1: Here's somebody I'm gonna put my hand up and say,
Speaker 1: I would make a bet that Hunter Biden's compensation on
Speaker 1: the Breezema board exceeded even that of other Breezema board members.
Speaker 1: They got him through through him a little extra, through
Speaker 1: a little extra extra cheese, the le extra scratch, a
Speaker 1: le extra you know cash. M interesting. So when do
Speaker 1: we get answers to that? Journalists don't want to answer this,
Speaker 1: and that then brings me to well, there's a few
Speaker 1: more things I have. Well, the first of all, if
Speaker 1: you want to get a sense of illegal minds that
Speaker 1: are out there that are pushing this stuff, and also
Speaker 1: get a sense of how really shockingly stupid some members
Speaker 1: of Congress are. Here's Eric Swalwell on I think one
Speaker 1: of the late night shows which just provide a cultural
Speaker 1: laundering service for left wing politicians to seem like they're
Speaker 1: cool and connected to the people. So they go on
Speaker 1: the Colbert Show, like Nancy Pelosi. They go on these
Speaker 1: different programs where the host is clearly on their side
Speaker 1: and they get to tell their little funny anecdote, and
Speaker 1: it tries to blur the line between politician and celebrity
Speaker 1: even more in favor of the person and forgetting that
Speaker 1: they're a politician and have real things to answer for.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is all these shows, clown nos on,
Speaker 1: clown nos off. Are they asking them serious policy questions
Speaker 1: or is it all haha joke? You don't know. Depends
Speaker 1: on what they're doing. But here's Eric Squall on one
Speaker 1: of those shows, play clips six Please. It's an abusive
Speaker 1: power to remove an ambassador for political reasons because you
Speaker 1: don't like what they're doing. Period. It's a gross abusive power.
Speaker 1: If you ask a political ally like the Ukrainians to
Speaker 1: investigate your opponent, it's a gross, extreme abusive power if
Speaker 1: you leverage a White House meeting, which may not seem
Speaker 1: like much to us as Americans, but to other countries,
Speaker 1: that's the most important thing. Again, it's an extraordinary abusive
Speaker 1: power if you unlawful or if you remove an ambassador
Speaker 1: the way the President did ask for investigations, leverage a
Speaker 1: White House meeting and three hundred ninety one million dollars
Speaker 1: in taxpayer dollars. That's what we're investigating. The first the
Speaker 1: statement that he started out with, by the way, is
Speaker 1: one of the stupidest things I've heard somebody say, probably
Speaker 1: all week. It is absolutely not an abusive power to
Speaker 1: fire an ambassador because you don't like what they're doing. Yet, idiot,
Speaker 1: I mean, squaw another guy. I think he was also
Speaker 1: a federal prosecutor. We are not sending the federal justice
Speaker 1: system our best. We are not. This is stunning. The
Speaker 1: president can fire an ambassador for any reason or no reason.
Speaker 1: The president can fire an ambassador because he thinks that
Speaker 1: he or she is just not enthusiastic enough about the policy. Really, legally,
Speaker 1: the president can fire the ambassador because just feels like
Speaker 1: the person isn't the right man or woman for the job,
Speaker 1: and that's an entirely subjective judgment that is not reviewable
Speaker 1: by a cord, that is not reviewable by the Congress.
Speaker 1: The president gets to do this. This is the system
Speaker 1: we have. I know, libs or you know, one day
Speaker 1: they're talking about court packing. The next day they're talking
Speaker 1: about getting rid of the electoral college. You know, they
Speaker 1: only like the system when it gives them what they want.
Speaker 1: The second the system doesn't give them what they want,
Speaker 1: they're willing to just undermine the whole thing and say
Speaker 1: it's all crap and it was all put together by
Speaker 1: a bunch of racist white guy hundreds of years ago.
Speaker 1: It's terrible, I mean, the whole system. They'll they'll throw
Speaker 1: out the moment that it doesn't really appeal to them anymore.
Speaker 1: But Swallow's thing about it, it's an abusive power to
Speaker 1: remove an ambassador for political reasons because you don't like
Speaker 1: what they're doing. No, that is a stupid, false statement.
Speaker 1: There's no person who will win this debate with me.
Speaker 1: He is wrong. That is a dumb thing to say.
Speaker 1: He is factually incorrect. The president can absolutely remove somebody
Speaker 1: because of politics from a post as an ambassador. Let's
Speaker 1: also remember some people become ambassadors because they donate money
Speaker 1: and you get to be ambassador, or like nice little
Speaker 1: beach Paradise country because you raised enough money for the president.
Speaker 1: Let's stop pretending like all these oh, these ambassadors, they're
Speaker 1: all you know, central central pieces and our grand strategy.
Speaker 1: You know, these are the knights and bishops on the
Speaker 1: chessboard of our foreign policy. A sorry, plenty plenty plenty more.
Speaker 1: Where that came from? What you learn about foreign policy
Speaker 1: when you've been close enough to it as I was
Speaker 1: years and years ago, is there very few people make
Speaker 1: decisions that really matter. Everybody else is just processing, and
Speaker 1: I mean part of the process. Everyone else is really
Speaker 1: just shifting paper around and making sure that the Secretary
Speaker 1: of States coffee is hot. I mean, it's not what
Speaker 1: people make it out to be. And there are very
Speaker 1: few decisions that are made that are of any real
Speaker 1: consequence in most of these countries and most of these situations.
Speaker 1: So just just keep that in mind. Is there all,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, are Ukraine policy can't know who the
Speaker 1: whistleblower is? Though? Ah Cano, that is, that's no interest
Speaker 1: there whatsoever. And when I think about how rapidly you
Speaker 1: had for example, journalists back in the days when Sarah
Speaker 1: Palen was running as John McCain's running me. The way
Speaker 1: they descended upon was Silla, Alaska, And you would read
Speaker 1: these reports about how they were just they were asking everybody,
Speaker 1: you know, can you tell us a story about Sarah
Speaker 1: pale I mean, just throwing everything they could at what
Speaker 1: was just an oppo research effort, a democrat opo research
Speaker 1: effort under the guise of journalism. How many of our
Speaker 1: intrepid journals. And by the way, I mean, I'm I'm now,
Speaker 1: I'm now Samson with his haircut in the journalistic establishment,
Speaker 1: and I just want to I just want to bring
Speaker 1: the whole journalistic establishment down at this point, I really,
Speaker 1: because we need to break it down and start a
Speaker 1: new We need to build something different. We need to
Speaker 1: build a journalistic establishment that is honest about what it's
Speaker 1: trying to achieve. Yeah, you have to have facts correct.
Speaker 1: Propagandists have to have facts correct too. It's about editorial decision,
Speaker 1: it's about omission, it's about activism. It's about what are
Speaker 1: you trying. What is your view that you are representing
Speaker 1: to people? Where do you come from with your ideas?
Speaker 1: That's the journalism of the future. That's the information ecosystem
Speaker 1: that I want to be operating in, or rather I
Speaker 1: do operate in it now, I want everyone to have
Speaker 1: to operate it. I mean this this. I saw this
Speaker 1: false front at CNN and New York Times, and the
Speaker 1: CNN is probably the worst offender in this regard now,
Speaker 1: but that they're just journalists, man, They're just doing a job. Lies. Lies.
Speaker 1: I want to bang on the table, but you'd hear
Speaker 1: it in the microphone. And if they're telling lies, doesn't
Speaker 1: that make them liars? And if they're liars, then why
Speaker 1: should I care? And they're constantly in shrill, hysterical voices
Speaker 1: accusing President Trump I lying about everything, and President Trump
Speaker 1: lies about how awesome he is. If you hate him,
Speaker 1: if you love him, you think he's tell him the truth.
Speaker 1: He doesn't lie about things that matter to me. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure many others feel that way as well. This
Speaker 1: is this is quite a week we're seeing. The coup
Speaker 1: plot is already running into some real resistance. Dare I say, so,
Speaker 1: what are they going to do? Now? I would not
Speaker 1: put it past them. You can expect they'll be some
Speaker 1: other trick up their sleeve. They've had months and months. Remember,
Speaker 1: they knew toward the end of Muller that it wasn't
Speaker 1: going to get it done, so they've been preparing for
Speaker 1: this moment. They have the impeachment preceding equivalent of a
Speaker 1: Billy Bush tape somewhere. They're going to have something that
Speaker 1: they have to drop here because right now it's sputtering.
Speaker 1: There's a poll out that shows that a strong majority
Speaker 1: of the American people think that this should be left
Speaker 1: to the election, which any adult, serious human being should know.
Speaker 1: Trump is so bad. If Trump is so terrible for
Speaker 1: the abuses power so much, let's see how the next
Speaker 1: election goes. Don't try to just you know this is
Speaker 1: the Democrats are the kid who can't win the game,
Speaker 1: so they just want to take the ball and go
Speaker 1: home with it, say it's my ball. That's what Chief
Speaker 1: and Pelosi and all the rest of them are doing.
Speaker 1: They're trying to disrupt the very process they claim to
Speaker 1: be protecting because it's not giving them what that because
Speaker 1: they're not winning. They're winning. And you know what our
Speaker 1: Democratic friends have done for him. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: trying to him pacing. I don't need any disrespect. But
Speaker 1: it must suck to be that dumb. Now. I understand
Speaker 1: he's caught in a moment of rhetorical flourish there perhaps,
Speaker 1: But Senator John Kennedy there on Pelosi, I gotta say, Look,
Speaker 1: Pelosi is shameless. She's not a person of principle. Her
Speaker 1: ideas are bad, and she is first and foremost conserving
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, She's not dumb. Though, Let's not underestimate our
Speaker 1: opponents in this. And let's remember that while Trump has
Speaker 1: managed to continue to be president to do an effective
Speaker 1: job in the role, the left has Think of how
Speaker 1: much energy and effort in time they have managed to
Speaker 1: take away from the Trump agenda with all these schemes,
Speaker 1: all these artifices, Muller probe. Now this impeachment collusion stuff,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, impeachment inquiry stuff, collusion, impeachment at all, it
Speaker 1: all blends together after a while. I don't want us
Speaker 1: to underestimate the other side. Right now, it doesn't look
Speaker 1: like they're going to be able to get what they
Speaker 1: want through this impeachment proceeding. But what if the whistle
Speaker 1: blower And I'm not saying this is the case, I
Speaker 1: just have concerns about this. What if the whistle blower
Speaker 1: is just meant to get this thing going. What if
Speaker 1: then the plan is to either release something else, or
Speaker 1: perhaps they even shift the whole conversation back to obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice after the Muller probe, or maybe they take
Speaker 1: just a kitchen sync approach of it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: little you know, a couple of dashes of Ukraine foreign
Speaker 1: Interference request, it's gonna be a little bit a few
Speaker 1: pinches of Muller report obstruction, and then it's gonna be
Speaker 1: Amalia men's clause, and then sprinkle a little bit of
Speaker 1: you know, Trump is basically Hitler over the top and
Speaker 1: whatever it is they're they're going to try and reframe
Speaker 1: the narrative even if the facts aren't in their favor,
Speaker 1: leading into this impeachment inquiry. So we have to be careful.
Speaker 1: And I just I understand that Kennedy there was at
Speaker 1: a at a rally, but I mean to call Pelosi dumb.
Speaker 1: Pelosi is not dumb. She's not an intellectual, she's not wise.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have good judgment, she's cunning. Though many of
Speaker 1: these Democrats are Adam Schiff slimy gross, that person fine,
Speaker 1: but a guy who understands how to attack people, how
Speaker 1: to smear people, how to abuse the law in order
Speaker 1: to achieve unjust ends. Yeah, so I just wouldn't. Don't
Speaker 1: just because I'm telling you it's not working right now
Speaker 1: that the coups seems to be faltering. Democrats are tireless,
Speaker 1: tireless in their scheming and plotting, and they've got something
Speaker 1: else up there sleeve. I don't know what it is yet,
Speaker 1: but they're gonna unleash it. Welcome back the Buck Saxton Show.
Speaker 1: Outing the whistleblower who woo everyone's all. So the name
Speaker 1: Eric Scharamela, I believe it's how you pronounce it was
Speaker 1: reported by the Washington Examiner as well as links on
Speaker 1: Drudge Report as the individual that is believed to be
Speaker 1: the whistleblower. That is what the news report that is
Speaker 1: out there says. I'm just it is. You have a
Speaker 1: First Amendment right to read it. What is it a newspaper?
Speaker 1: I am neither confirming nor denying that it is him.
Speaker 1: I do not know, but it is out there. How
Speaker 1: orwellian and crazy? Is it that now we have people
Speaker 1: in the media no less who are taking the position
Speaker 1: that now that news outlets. Some of them have dug
Speaker 1: into this and claim that they have they have verified
Speaker 1: that this is the whistleblower. That no one's allowed to
Speaker 1: say the name. It's a crime to say the name.
Speaker 1: By the way, I was, I was concerned about this initially.
Speaker 1: I told you this is gonna happen. Up, they're gonna
Speaker 1: they're gonna go after people. They're gonna start to say, up,
Speaker 1: you can't say the name. You can't do it. You know,
Speaker 1: because the people that work in these bureaucratic institutions like
Speaker 1: the dj and you know, they the ones that will
Speaker 1: abuse power are the leftists and if they see an
Speaker 1: opportunity here to try to contort, try to twist the
Speaker 1: law so that it can silence people from saying something
Speaker 1: that's out there. It is in public discourse right now.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it is true or not. I'm
Speaker 1: not reporting on it. I'm not claiming to have verified it.
Speaker 1: But they put the name Eric Scharamela out there and
Speaker 1: they say that he is the guy who's assigned to
Speaker 1: the NSC and that he works in the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: And this is what is out there in the Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: in these other newspapers are is there a gag order
Speaker 1: on what is being reported? I need to understand how
Speaker 1: that's supposed to work. If somebody has particular knowledge or
Speaker 1: background or like, let's say, they know if someone claims
Speaker 1: that they're verifying it and they had access to know this.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe that's a slightly different situation if they
Speaker 1: actually learned through that through special access. But if you're
Speaker 1: just reading it in the newspaper like everybody else, what
Speaker 1: what country are we living in if you are under
Speaker 1: a kind of gag order to not say what is
Speaker 1: the biggest news store in the country, to not name
Speaker 1: the person at the heart of it, or I should say,
Speaker 1: to not be able to say I read this in
Speaker 1: a newspaper, and for libs in the media to claim
Speaker 1: that this is a violation of law. Now, if you
Speaker 1: think I'm making this up, Donald Trump Junior retweeted an
Speaker 1: article that named the whistleblower. You just said, here, here's
Speaker 1: the here's an article or there naming the whistle blower.
Speaker 1: And here you have a not just media person, but
Speaker 1: a so called legal expert. I actually done some workers
Speaker 1: of the past at CIEN and her legal analysis is
Speaker 1: horrifically bad, like incorrect, not that. I don't like it.
Speaker 1: It's just not good. Do not have her as your
Speaker 1: defense attorney? Trust me? Sonny Hasten on the view here
Speaker 1: she is telling a president's son that he is he's
Speaker 1: a criminal for for retreating that. Please play the clip.
Speaker 1: I mean, did you advise um your boyfriend that it
Speaker 1: is a federal crime to out a way? I didn't
Speaker 1: advise him that it was a federal crime, but I
Speaker 1: did come out of the bathroom and say I left
Speaker 1: to them for ten minutes. What happened when mamma sees
Speaker 1: us gone? Because to do that's in the statute. So
Speaker 1: that's well, know that's that's true. That's a lie me. Okay, stop,
Speaker 1: everybody stopped this sting. It's hard to hear under fifteen
Speaker 1: five it is a crime. It's not accurate. Law degree
Speaker 1: says it is. But nevertheless, but he's not the first time.
Speaker 1: My question, you did speak to him about that? I
Speaker 1: talked to him, No, not prior to after I said,
Speaker 1: oh what I said. Well, they're saying that I released
Speaker 1: this and I outed but if you look at the facts,
Speaker 1: and the facts are that the name was out there,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying, Okay, I understand what you're saying that,
Speaker 1: perhaps okay, wasn't the most prudent decision to retweet an article.
Speaker 1: But I want to tell you something. We talked about transparency.
Speaker 1: The President of the United States released the transcript of
Speaker 1: exactly what happened in that phone call. Give me his
Speaker 1: upper canyon? Did do? We heard what just happened there.
Speaker 1: You had a woman with a law degree, he says,
Speaker 1: my law degree, says otherwise. She wants to drop the
Speaker 1: credential on the table, saying that it's a federal crime
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump Junior, which means it's a federal crime
Speaker 1: for any of you out there that this is now
Speaker 1: her claim. It's a federal crime for any of you
Speaker 1: to say the name of this person. He is Voldemort.
Speaker 1: He is the name that cannot be said. This is
Speaker 1: not just coming from partisan Democrat officials. This is coming
Speaker 1: from people that are supposed to believe to live and
Speaker 1: die by freedom of expression, to believe in the First
Speaker 1: Amendment more than anybody. Just as a little experiment, while
Speaker 1: we were applying that clip for you, I typed in
Speaker 1: the name Eric into Google. Didn't nothing else. Just Eric
Speaker 1: could have been Eric, The red could have been Eric.
Speaker 1: I don't know, uh, you know, I can't think of
Speaker 1: I can't think of a really famous Eric of Bruce Mark.
Speaker 1: What's a famous Eric like from sports? Give me one?
Speaker 1: Eric Dickerson, Eric Dickerson, I don't even know who that is.
Speaker 1: Who is that run running back? There we go. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he's fantastic. But you know what came up when
Speaker 1: I typed in Eric into Google the Google machine. Eric's
Speaker 1: a very common name. Eric Scharamela. And then all this
Speaker 1: stuff about the news reports on this guy claiming, claiming,
Speaker 1: based on these news organizations, that he's the whistleblower. In
Speaker 1: what world does anyone think that it could be even
Speaker 1: theoretically prosecutable to say, hey, I just read this thing
Speaker 1: that is literally on the Internet that any human being
Speaker 1: with Internet access can go to and read and see.
Speaker 1: How could that be? How is that the case? I mean?
Speaker 1: Oh no, if we've had the name up all this girl, oh,
Speaker 1: let's going to happen now, Eric's Oh no, oh so scary?
Speaker 1: What are we going to do? I'm so scared. It's fine,
Speaker 1: nohing's gonna happen to the guy. We're just gonna know
Speaker 1: a little bit more about him. By the way, every
Speaker 1: public this whole thing, but oh, his life is in jeopardy,
Speaker 1: which Mark Zaide was saying, Oh, Jake Tapper, that fraud,
Speaker 1: that nasty, petty fraud. He's all owe. Mark Zaide, the lawyer,
Speaker 1: is saying, this guy's life is in jeopardy. Everybody who's
Speaker 1: ever stood up and defended Trump against the Russia collusion stuff,
Speaker 1: death threats, families threatened if you if you cross planned
Speaker 1: parenthood publicly, you'll have people threatening you and you know,
Speaker 1: to mutilate your kids and all this happens to every conservative. Oh,
Speaker 1: this guy, it's so scary for him. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: was it scary for Kavanaugh's family when they were under
Speaker 1: constant threat from psychotic libs who were stupid enough and
Speaker 1: delusional enough to believe that he was part of a
Speaker 1: that Kavanaugh was part of a high school gang rape gang?
Speaker 1: Was Was that the liberals feel bad about that because
Speaker 1: it completely created that entirely false circumstance. Do you think
Speaker 1: any of them lost sleep and didn't cried tears about that?
Speaker 1: Did liberals lose any sleep or feel badly when people
Speaker 1: showed up at Tucker Carlson's home and terrified his wife
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night, chanting and yelling and
Speaker 1: screaming outside as a mob. Did they feel bad about that? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I don't remember any liberals going
Speaker 1: on TV and apologizing for the rhetoric that is constantly
Speaker 1: promoted on the left without any compunction, without without any
Speaker 1: hesitation about how the opponents of leftism and socialism today
Speaker 1: are white nationalists, all of us, anybody, doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: you're white or not, you're still a white nationalist. You're
Speaker 1: supporting white nationalism. It's appalling. These people are people are appalling,
Speaker 1: But that on the view, I have to say, that
Speaker 1: was one of the dumbest legal exchanges I've ever heard
Speaker 1: in my life. It's a crime, really, it's a crime
Speaker 1: to share a news article. You absolute just what a
Speaker 1: I mean, the stupidity. I sit here and I think
Speaker 1: that I understand the full depth of the moral and
Speaker 1: intellectual depravity that the left has fallen into in this
Speaker 1: environment right now, But sometimes they even manage to go
Speaker 1: a step beyond. So I would want to ask legal
Speaker 1: expert on the view, which I know is it'd be
Speaker 1: better to go get medical advice from doctor Nick from
Speaker 1: the Seamsons. Remember doctor Nick Hi everybody. I'm doctor Nick.
Speaker 1: He's not really an expert in anything. Sonny Houston's legal
Speaker 1: expertise is not good. And I just think it's interesting
Speaker 1: that she took this position that Donald Trump Junior. But
Speaker 1: you see it. It's there are certain parts of liberals
Speaker 1: brains now that have just become hardwired. Donald Trump Junior
Speaker 1: must be a criminal, and therefore any opportunity to present
Speaker 1: a case that he's a criminal is worth doing because
Speaker 1: we know he's a criminal. We just don't know what
Speaker 1: the crime is yet. That's their approach, their approach with
Speaker 1: Trump Senior, Trump Junior, all of them. But that was
Speaker 1: a stunning moment on National TV. Really tells you what
Speaker 1: the libs are here. I'm seeing that there are news
Speaker 1: organizations that will not print the name. Now, is this
Speaker 1: now that you know how we don't want to print
Speaker 1: the names of mass shooters because we don't want to
Speaker 1: give them fame. And that never really works because some
Speaker 1: people don't agree with that the name is out there,
Speaker 1: they find out the name, you know. I think the
Speaker 1: way that you can textualize and you frame the issue
Speaker 1: of a mass shooting can really matter to the narrative
Speaker 1: and also the degree of specificity and detail that is reported.
Speaker 1: But the name is going to be out there. It
Speaker 1: just is. It's part of illegal proceeding. The name will
Speaker 1: be out there. This name is out there too. But
Speaker 1: you see, I think the Liberals know that they can't
Speaker 1: stop this. They cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
Speaker 1: Is that like a microaggression against Middle Eastern culture? Now?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but they won't be able to stop
Speaker 1: this thing from being out there. But what they can
Speaker 1: do is slow down the recognition among the American people
Speaker 1: that are paying attention to this, which is not everybody
Speaker 1: by any stretch. They can slow this down so that
Speaker 1: there's just more damage that can be done under the
Speaker 1: existing whistleblower narrative against Trump, the impeachment proceeding can get
Speaker 1: further down the tracks. And if, in fact, and when
Speaker 1: we beyond any reasonable doubt recognize that this guy was
Speaker 1: colluding with Democrats behind the scenes to try and take
Speaker 1: down President Trump going into an election year, they'll have
Speaker 1: already gotten what they wanted. So delay matters here. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like why did Obama initially refuse to call Benghazi
Speaker 1: a terrorist attack? And why did Susan Rice go on
Speaker 1: the shows and say that it's it happened because of
Speaker 1: a video because people were angry and they didn't want
Speaker 1: the perception to set in that Obama did not know
Speaker 1: what the heck he was doing on foreign policy. And
Speaker 1: when you let things laughs for a few weeks, are
Speaker 1: their stories come in. Delay is a strategy. They're delaying
Speaker 1: the recognition of who Charamela may or may not be. Again,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Is it beyond my comprehension or belief
Speaker 1: that maybe they got the wrong guy. It's possible. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but it is being reported on by reputable
Speaker 1: news organizations, and I gotta say, if I'm this guy
Speaker 1: and it's not me, I think I released a statement
Speaker 1: saying it's not me. Right, so we can all put
Speaker 1: our detective hats on and come to some conclusions here.
Speaker 1: But I thought that that that moment on the view
Speaker 1: was it was mind blowing. It really was. Do you
Speaker 1: realize you've committed a crime by retweeting a news article?
Speaker 1: That's it. That's a crime. Now liberals will say they'll
Speaker 1: criminalize anything they don't like. I don't like that. I
Speaker 1: don't approve of that criminal. She's got a prison. These
Speaker 1: liberals I'm telling you, there are just children drunk with
Speaker 1: drunk with power. It's really scary to watch the way
Speaker 1: that they operate. Then there's just there's no objectivity, there's
Speaker 1: no point of of agreement you can reach when it
Speaker 1: comes to Trump and his alleged criminality. Shocking stuff talking
Speaker 1: about whistleblowers today. So let's continue on with that theme,
Speaker 1: shall we, because there's another whistle blows no blower story
Speaker 1: out there, a real whistle blower in fact. First, just
Speaker 1: a moment a little a little uh golf clap or
Speaker 1: what's the liberals now we'll maybe talk about this later,
Speaker 1: but they're like, when you do the like twinkly fingers
Speaker 1: or the jazz heads or something instead of clapping, because
Speaker 1: clapping can trigger people. I'm serious, Clapping can be a
Speaker 1: trigger for people. So you're not allowed to do that anymore.
Speaker 1: But just kudos and props and all that to James
Speaker 1: O'Keefe for getting some great footage of a moment of
Speaker 1: we all know, we know what a moment of honesty is.
Speaker 1: We saw it. Amy Roebock, who is a journalist supposed
Speaker 1: to be presenting you with those moments of honesty all
Speaker 1: the time, unvarnished truth, speaking truth the power. Overwhelmingly, my friends,
Speaker 1: corporate media is just a fraud. The corporate journalist media
Speaker 1: that is out there lies the whole mission statements, not
Speaker 1: what they say that or rather, the mission is not
Speaker 1: what the mission statement says. The mission is to protect
Speaker 1: their fellow elites, to unify with like minded liberal ideologues,
Speaker 1: to present a narrative to the American people that will
Speaker 1: influence them to certain beliefs and therefore make likely outcomes
Speaker 1: that are beneficial to one political party, the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: That is the real mission statement of most of the
Speaker 1: corporate media that is out there, not all of it.
Speaker 1: There's some people, and look, there are a good journalists
Speaker 1: at every People need jobs, right, so I don't pretend
Speaker 1: to say that every person works at this place or
Speaker 1: that place. People will trash on the left. They'll trash
Speaker 1: Fox News, and I would sit there and laugh. I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's such a put aside all the ideological stuff. And
Speaker 1: they're a journalists who are world class by any standard,
Speaker 1: that work at Fox. And yet their journalist colleagues will
Speaker 1: completely to people like Jeff Zucker all the place is
Speaker 1: all propagand the whole thing is propaganda? Really, I think
Speaker 1: zucker doth protest too much about propaganda, which is what
Speaker 1: CNN has entirely turned into. So let's now take a
Speaker 1: step back into the James O'Keefe video, shall we. You
Speaker 1: will recall that Amy Roebock I think I'm saying her
Speaker 1: name right, she spoke about how they the brass, the chiefs,
Speaker 1: the higher ups at ABC decided that the James O'Keeffe
Speaker 1: video was I'm sorry, the Amy robot video that James
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's project Veritas put out there for millions and millions
Speaker 1: and millions of people to watch. But the story that
Speaker 1: they were going to talk about Epstein, who I'm hearing
Speaker 1: all these rumors from people that they think he didn't
Speaker 1: kill himself, But I see that the story. We all
Speaker 1: could see that the story was shut down for reasons
Speaker 1: that had nothing to do with journalism and everything to
Speaker 1: do with don't want to upset certain powerful people, want
Speaker 1: access to powerful people, don't want to cause any problems.
Speaker 1: It was a statement, an honest moment, a statement of
Speaker 1: abject cowardice from ABC and the statement that they put
Speaker 1: out afterwards, Oh, we didn't meet our journalistic standards as
Speaker 1: the most boiler plate. Oh my gosh, what do we do?
Speaker 1: Somebody just come up with some lie that we can
Speaker 1: try to tell people about this. It was so obvious,
Speaker 1: is that there were journalistic standards. They had witnesses, they
Speaker 1: had sworn testimony, they had photographs, they had you know,
Speaker 1: people on there. I mean the story was signed, sealed
Speaker 1: and delivered for them. Nope, didn't want to didn't want
Speaker 1: to touch it. Don't watch out that story. Ah, but
Speaker 1: you see the media, they all pretend like their competitors,
Speaker 1: but really what's important to ABC and CBS and CNN
Speaker 1: and MSNBC that they don't watch each other's backs because
Speaker 1: they all know that they could be working at any
Speaker 1: one of those organizations. So it's like a country club
Speaker 1: for people who are liberals pretending to be journalists who
Speaker 1: want to make sure that they have lots of career options.
Speaker 1: It is not about speaking truth to power. It's not
Speaker 1: about telling difficult, difficult stories that are going to make
Speaker 1: your life harder. It's about telling stories that make your
Speaker 1: life easier. That's what they all do, and that's why
Speaker 1: the whistleblower who initially put out or they believe shared
Speaker 1: that video. We have an update on what happened to him.
Speaker 1: It turns out that some blowers the liberal media doesn't
Speaker 1: think deserve any protection. So you might ask yourself. ABC
Speaker 1: News has a moment here. And remember this is a
Speaker 1: huge company owned by Disney. Everyone there is making you know,
Speaker 1: they're all overpaid. It's very very cushy the whole thing.
Speaker 1: You know, all the anchors I'm talking about, and the
Speaker 1: senior producers and everything else, they're they're living. They're living
Speaker 1: very nice, comfy journal existences over there. And they won't
Speaker 1: even take this opportunity to take responsibility for crushing or
Speaker 1: for quashing I should say, the Epstein story. They won't
Speaker 1: say there's no Mayakalpa, there's no you know, they're instead
Speaker 1: claiming that they acted with the best of intentions as journalists.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, there will be consequences for
Speaker 1: this lapse. The consequences will be visited against the person
Speaker 1: who leaked the footage of Roebok two projects very toss.
Speaker 1: That's the person that's gonna suffer here. No one else
Speaker 1: at ABC gets fired. No one else said ABC has
Speaker 1: to take any responsibility for this. You know, Amy Roebok
Speaker 1: is out there acting like, oh you know, it's just
Speaker 1: I had a moment of frustration and this doesn't represent
Speaker 1: what really happened. Lying to us by this is lying
Speaker 1: to us just wants to keep getting There's my um
Speaker 1: my friend Chadwick Moore, you know, has hosted the show before.
Speaker 1: He has a fantastic piece out and I should really
Speaker 1: try to pull up some of it. Um on Roebok
Speaker 1: and what the truth is about our corporate media because
Speaker 1: this if they don't take, if they don't take this opportunity,
Speaker 1: the mysterious career of Amy Roebock, he rights. This is
Speaker 1: from Chadwick Moore. The establishment can't function without its media
Speaker 1: army of spineless egomaniacs. It's totally true. It is totally true.
Speaker 1: These people are all so replaceable, and they even though
Speaker 1: they become household names, they become rich. They know there's
Speaker 1: their their ability, What is their ability? What do they
Speaker 1: know that other people don't know? What can they do
Speaker 1: that other people can't do? They're like glorified catalog models.
Speaker 1: For the most part. They can read off of a teleprompter.
Speaker 1: Male and female. This is not a knock on any
Speaker 1: female specifically. There's some great stuff in here, though. Here's
Speaker 1: what he writes at the end. Instead of attempting to
Speaker 1: make amends with the American people and earn trust, the
Speaker 1: American media is stuck in a psychotic loop of doubling
Speaker 1: down and further alienating themselves from the population. They continue
Speaker 1: to do it in the most petty ways. Mainstream media
Speaker 1: couldn't be bothered to even acknowledge the source of the
Speaker 1: Robot League Project verytas such a scrappy troll field operation
Speaker 1: is beneath men for those who have the Royal family
Speaker 1: on speed dial, it would seem. In the rare instance
Speaker 1: the networks did mention Project Veritas. They couldn't resist adding
Speaker 1: a snide right wing activist group qualifier. Anyone who initially
Speaker 1: championed Robock has probably reconsidered she's not worthy of our
Speaker 1: praise nor condemnation as much as our pity. The establishment
Speaker 1: can't function without its army of spineless egomaniacs, spear a
Speaker 1: steered in any direction by a dangling a carrot, the
Speaker 1: cogs who will never know the joys of doing good,
Speaker 1: only the rewards of doing good for one's self. End
Speaker 1: quote Chadwick Moore. Here in the Spectator mic drop really
Speaker 1: good stuff from Chadwick so now, what happened to the whistleblower?
Speaker 1: What happened to the whistleblower? I just want to know
Speaker 1: the one in ABC, the one who pointed out or
Speaker 1: rather went to somebody to expose, because this is clearly
Speaker 1: this is this is journalistic malpractice. You'd say, well, does
Speaker 1: he work at ABC News anymore? No he doesn't. So
Speaker 1: once ABC really good, they're gonna try to take him
Speaker 1: to court. Theyre gonna assume him. Oh maybe they could
Speaker 1: be litigious. Oh no, What they do is they reach
Speaker 1: out to CBS Evening News, where I interned a long
Speaker 1: time ago. By the way, I believe it or not,
Speaker 1: I was an intern at CBS Eaving News. Horrible smug
Speaker 1: snyde libs everywhere. I was eighteen years old, and I
Speaker 1: was like, who are all the smug snyde libs in here?
Speaker 1: Where did they all come from? I didn't realize at
Speaker 1: the time. I didn't know quite how much of the
Speaker 1: of the media was biased. And this I was a
Speaker 1: young guy. I mean, I knew there was some media biased,
Speaker 1: but I didn't realize. I was like, oh, so, CBS
Speaker 1: Eaving News, this is a Democrat propaganda operation. That's cool.
Speaker 1: I mean I'm not even I wasn't even college yet.
Speaker 1: I was a high school senior, but I knew what
Speaker 1: was going on there. But the whistleblower, the person who
Speaker 1: has come forward with or shouldn't they come forward? The
Speaker 1: person that released the allegedly, let's keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: Allegedly Releas works at CBC News, so ABC executives reached
Speaker 1: out to CBS executives. You know, CBS executives did fired him,
Speaker 1: fired him. Now, let's unpack this for a moment. This
Speaker 1: person exposed something that was newsworthy malfeasance from a journalistic perspective,
Speaker 1: did not do anything to CBS Evening News, or didn't
Speaker 1: even do this wild employed I'm sure at CBIs or
Speaker 1: perhaps you know, didn't take the video while employed at
Speaker 1: CBS News and harmed what is supposed to be a
Speaker 1: direct competitor of CBS eaving news ABC News in the process,
Speaker 1: and they fire him. Let's unpack that for a moment.
Speaker 1: Why would you do that? Why would you just concede
Speaker 1: to the wishes of a competitor that has just gotten
Speaker 1: a big black eye, and you're going to toss somebody
Speaker 1: out because of what they did to a former employer
Speaker 1: that really they were right to do. Who's the real victim? Here?
Speaker 1: Is the real victim ABC? Or is the real victim
Speaker 1: the young girls whose stories were not told for years
Speaker 1: because ABC wanted to sit down with the royal family, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, there is no journalism that is more worthless, feckless, stupid,
Speaker 1: moronic than the American journalists who were so excited to
Speaker 1: sit with like Kate and whatever his name is, or
Speaker 1: the other one and the the American I can't remember
Speaker 1: her name either. I don't know who who's the one?
Speaker 1: Who are the royal fam who's the two sons? And
Speaker 1: there are the Pete Kate Middleton and then there's the
Speaker 1: other the other lady? Remember her name? What I had?
Speaker 1: Producer Mark. This is the point whenever, whenever journalists and
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh my gosh, I mean it's fine, just
Speaker 1: do it on e you know, do it on a
Speaker 1: show where they're like, oh my gosh, like Christina Aguilera's
Speaker 1: latest fashion. It's just like setting the world on fire,
Speaker 1: like that's fine, but just don't do it and be like,
Speaker 1: I'm a serious journalist. Let's talk to a member of
Speaker 1: the British royal family. Whoa do they serve really good
Speaker 1: tea in Buckingham Palace? Like? What is this tell me
Speaker 1: about what shoes you're wearing? ABC News didn't want to
Speaker 1: lose access to the How good is the t what
Speaker 1: shoes are you wearing? Omg is it's so hard having
Speaker 1: people take photographs of you all the time. They made
Speaker 1: sure they had access to that and didn't care about
Speaker 1: the pedophile ring involving some of the most powerful and
Speaker 1: wealthy people on planet Earth. M Wow, it seems rather strange,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. That's quite a trade off to make. But
Speaker 1: then why does CBS fire this person? There are two
Speaker 1: reasons that I can see CBS fires this individual because
Speaker 1: these different networks CBS, ABCNBC, they really all act as
Speaker 1: they're really that. They pretend to be in competition with
Speaker 1: each other, but they're all really the same restaurants serving
Speaker 1: the same food. They've just got different physical locations, but
Speaker 1: it's all the same thing. They're not presenting anything anything
Speaker 1: different from the perspective of perspective of honesty, truth, justice,
Speaker 1: any of that. They give you the same kind of
Speaker 1: water down left of center, pablem all of it. Yeah, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're the height of journalism. Yeah, it's gross, and so
Speaker 1: they protect each other and if you go after one,
Speaker 1: the others are like, hey, sorry, those are our buddies.
Speaker 1: We know we're supposed to be wishing them, of wishing
Speaker 1: that they would collapse and go away, but that's not
Speaker 1: really true. We just we like this ABCNCCBS. We want
Speaker 1: to just all sort of be a unit. You know,
Speaker 1: we're the big serious TV journalism enterprises. You know, Okay,
Speaker 1: you know what the other problem is, and this is
Speaker 1: the bigger one. And I think a lot of you
Speaker 1: know where I'm gonna go with. This guy's not a
Speaker 1: trustworthy leftist. Guy is not a reliably left wing hack.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what his politics are. We can't
Speaker 1: we guess that it would be possible to care more
Speaker 1: about an enormous story, a tremendously important story with real victims,
Speaker 1: real harmed on continuing victimization of young girls. Isn't that
Speaker 1: enough that we could assume that this this man who
Speaker 1: was just fired just lost his job as livelihood, probably
Speaker 1: along with it from CBS News. Maybe he didn't do
Speaker 1: it because he's right wing, didn't do it because he's
Speaker 1: a conservative. Maybe he just did it because he was
Speaker 1: horrified at what a fraud ABC is. But you see,
Speaker 1: that's a problem for these networks. They have to be
Speaker 1: able to count on you if you're going to work there.
Speaker 1: They have to count on you to know that the
Speaker 1: cause of the left, the beliefs, the ideology of progressive
Speaker 1: democrats that run the media, that is more important than
Speaker 1: journalistic standards or ethics or anything else. That if you
Speaker 1: cross the team and you hurt the cause of a
Speaker 1: left in America, you cannot be trusted again. It does
Speaker 1: not matter, it does not matter why you did it,
Speaker 1: and it does not matter whether the left abandon any
Speaker 1: pretense of principles in the process. They know that they
Speaker 1: cannot trust this guy to put the agenda before the truth,
Speaker 1: and that in the mainstream media is a fiable offense
Speaker 1: in and of itself. Oh and one more story that
Speaker 1: kind of falls into the whistle lower category. Or you know,
Speaker 1: people that want to have a voice in politics, that
Speaker 1: want to really matter, but don't want us to know
Speaker 1: who they are. Anonymous. Anonymous has a book coming out
Speaker 1: and the book makes a claim according to some journalists
Speaker 1: who remember this is the So this is the anonymous
Speaker 1: op ed writer about the steady state and stopping Trump
Speaker 1: from doing what he's really supposed to do or really
Speaker 1: wants to do. We still don't know who that is.
Speaker 1: That rule in the wall. I think it was Watching
Speaker 1: Post in York Times, can't remember. I think it was
Speaker 1: washing Whatever. I think Washing Post. We still don't know
Speaker 1: who that is. But that person apparently is writing a book,
Speaker 1: and the book is going to be anonymous. And in
Speaker 1: that book there are some claims that I mean written
Speaker 1: by anonymous. There's some claims that are made. Quote, senior
Speaker 1: officials had no doubt that Pence would support invoking the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment if the majority of the cabinet agreed.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind here that the way that that is structured,
Speaker 1: senior officials believed that that Pence would this is there's
Speaker 1: all these conditionals, and it's just perception. There's a little
Speaker 1: bit of Look at the way that it reminds you
Speaker 1: of the reporting on Ukraine. This guy thought that this
Speaker 1: person said this thing that they thought meant. This other
Speaker 1: person said this thing that they thought meant that this
Speaker 1: person would. This is not a this is just nothing.
Speaker 1: This is just it's just like your opinion, man, right,
Speaker 1: this is nothing. Katie Waldman who is the Vice president's
Speaker 1: press secretary, tweeted out in response to this fake news
Speaker 1: and I'm sure it is fake news. Does anyone really believe?
Speaker 1: I mean, and I am truly curious about the answers.
Speaker 1: I don't really believe that Mike Pence, of all people
Speaker 1: in this administration be like, yeah, let's have a let's
Speaker 1: have a removal of the president from office under the
Speaker 1: false pretense that he is crazy. Let's just have a
Speaker 1: legalized coup. Yeah, Mike Pence would go along with that.
Speaker 1: This anonymous omp ed writer is almost certainly just peddling lies.
Speaker 1: But how can you challenge how can you challenge the
Speaker 1: access or the authenticity of somebody who's writing under the
Speaker 1: cover of anonymity? You see another parallel to what's going
Speaker 1: on with Ukraine and the whistleblower. How can we know
Speaker 1: whether to believe something or not. I'm just wondering, at
Speaker 1: what point do Democrats start pulling random allegations off of
Speaker 1: Internet chatboards and saying, see, this person claims that President
Speaker 1: Trump really is the lizard King from the President, you know,
Speaker 1: from the planet Zargon or something. And so there are
Speaker 1: people out there who have evidence that the president is
Speaker 1: really not really a human beings. A lizard just looks
Speaker 1: like a human. I mean, I know that's silly and preposterous,
Speaker 1: But so it is all of this, isn't it Isn't
Speaker 1: that kind of the point anonymous coming forward? Also, I
Speaker 1: will tell you this, if I believed, and I know
Speaker 1: it's easy to say, if I believe that the President
Speaker 1: United States was a like a crypto fascist who was
Speaker 1: trying to destroy this country and take us perhaps even
Speaker 1: up to and including a nuclear war, and that I
Speaker 1: had a way of stopping him, And if I really
Speaker 1: believe that, I would need to maintain anonymity. People show
Speaker 1: up and fight and die for this country day and
Speaker 1: day out all over the world. You can't have people
Speaker 1: know your name because you don't want to deal with
Speaker 1: the mean emails. You want to save the country from
Speaker 1: the stalinesque hit Larry and figure of Donald Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: that's a you know, anonymous. Oh, this is a it's
Speaker 1: a risk to our now. They always talked about the
Speaker 1: risks to our national security. Why are all these people
Speaker 1: that come that that, well, they don't come forward. Why
Speaker 1: are all these different individuals that are working so hard
Speaker 1: to destroy this president unwilling to stand up and be counted.
Speaker 1: There seems to be a plague here of cowardice, people
Speaker 1: that want to attack the president from behind, from behind cover,
Speaker 1: from behind closed doors. Why is that the case? Did
Speaker 1: this ever happen during the Obama administration? By the way,
Speaker 1: did you see people who were saying that Obama shouldn't
Speaker 1: really be president? But no one can know who I am, can't,
Speaker 1: can't if anybody understand, no people stood up and they
Speaker 1: made their case about why Obama was doing a bad
Speaker 1: job or why Obama was In some cases, people made
Speaker 1: the case that Obama was not a legitimate president. There
Speaker 1: were people who did that. President Trump, we remember, did
Speaker 1: ask to see the birth certificate. And they weren't hiding
Speaker 1: behind the cover of nanimity, though the media should be.
Speaker 1: If they were honest people, forget about ethical jour If
Speaker 1: they were just honest people, they would be all over this.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, sure, you just get to tell whatever story
Speaker 1: you want about somebody and no one ever gets to
Speaker 1: know who you are. But we'll just assume it's true
Speaker 1: because we hate Trump so much. This is appalling, This
Speaker 1: is maddening, and yet it's not called out. It's not
Speaker 1: the problem. The journals run with this, they tell these stories,
Speaker 1: they don't seem to care about what it's doing. To
Speaker 1: forget about a political discourse. I feel like people are
Speaker 1: just gonna start tuning out the media. They're just gonna say,
Speaker 1: I can't, I can't trust these people. Here's the problem, folks,
Speaker 1: For the most part, you can't. We will have confirmed,
Speaker 1: as I said, one hundred and twelve judges to the
Speaker 1: federal district courts, forty four judges to the federal circuit courts,
Speaker 1: and two outstanding judges to the United States Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and that numbers rapidly rising. Now one out of every
Speaker 1: four circuit judges currently on the bench was appointed by
Speaker 1: this administration, and that numbers now exceeded that by quite
Speaker 1: a bit. No president in history has confirmed as many
Speaker 1: circuit court judges, even close, not even close, in such
Speaker 1: a short period of time. The president is remaking in
Speaker 1: some ways the judiciary, at least the composition of the judiciary.
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons. Well, there's a few
Speaker 1: things here. You have Mitch McConnell, who knows that the
Speaker 1: machinery of appointing constitutional conservative judges to the bench, and
Speaker 1: I have no problem in saying that we should want
Speaker 1: conservative judges on the bench, people that believe the law
Speaker 1: is what it's says. The Constitution is a thing with meaning,
Speaker 1: it doesn't just change based on whatever you want it
Speaker 1: to mean. That their role is not to come up
Speaker 1: with what is the best policy through the law, but
Speaker 1: what the law says, to interpret it based on constitutional jurisprudence,
Speaker 1: and to be fair and impartial in that process without ideology.
Speaker 1: That's what a constitutional conservative justice means. If you want
Speaker 1: liberal activist judges, we know what that means. Laws whatever
Speaker 1: they want it to be. It means whatever they tell
Speaker 1: it to mean. You know, it is whatever they wanted
Speaker 1: to say. And Mitch McConnell, for example, understands that his
Speaker 1: legacy in this whole process is going to be increasingly
Speaker 1: cemented just based on the fact that he'll have all
Speaker 1: these lifetime appointments of federal judges and people all the
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court who will at least be
Speaker 1: at least be some greater chance that you're not going
Speaker 1: to have the activist left take over the entire day
Speaker 1: of the the judiciary. I mean Trump has gotten a lot
Speaker 1: of is in place, which is which is important and
Speaker 1: for those and I put myself in this category some
Speaker 1: aspects of the Trump presidencies so far, of not he
Speaker 1: hasn't accomplished. I had to say that he hasn't done
Speaker 1: what he said he'd do. That's unfair. It's not over yet,
Speaker 1: and I think he is going to get four more years,
Speaker 1: but there are certainly things that remain unfinished. I think
Speaker 1: we could all agree there are things that remain unfinished
Speaker 1: with this presidency. And the judges, though, that he has
Speaker 1: gotten in so far really matters. It really does matter.
Speaker 1: And that's one of the parts for those who were
Speaker 1: still troubled by President Trump's personality and the nepotism and
Speaker 1: some of the other less savory aspects of the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: The judges have been great. And also I think there
Speaker 1: was a political awakening that happened on the right as
Speaker 1: a result of the fight, specifically over Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Here's the President was talking about this last night. Play
Speaker 1: clip sixteen. Please, I said, Brett, let me tell you something.
Speaker 1: This approval process that you're going to go through will
Speaker 1: be so fast and so easy. You're perfect, perfect life,
Speaker 1: perfect family, perfect education, top scholar, best schools, Brett, this
Speaker 1: is going to be so easy. Little did he know,
Speaker 1: Little did he know? But I'll tell you what it
Speaker 1: really represented something. It represented unfairness. And some of those
Speaker 1: people that came forward, to my way of thinking, all
Speaker 1: of those people that came forward, I thought it was
Speaker 1: disgraceful what happened. And I want to thank all of
Speaker 1: my Republican colleagues for standing up tall for a man
Speaker 1: who really didn't deserve what he went through. Nobody could
Speaker 1: have believed a thing like that could have happened, And
Speaker 1: yet it was very instructive, isn't it. And the President's
Speaker 1: absolutely right, And we should remember that Kavanaugh wasn't just
Speaker 1: a guy who was up for an important government job.
Speaker 1: He was someone who an objective, thoughtful human being would
Speaker 1: immediately come to the conclusion, this is as honorable, decent, intelligent,
Speaker 1: and qualify a human being for this job as you
Speaker 1: could ever find with nothing in his I mean, think
Speaker 1: about what they had. What they did presented lies from
Speaker 1: thirty years ago that had not a shred, not one
Speaker 1: piece of corroborating evidence or proof of any kind whatsoever,
Speaker 1: and the flimsiest of supposed witness testimony from people whose
Speaker 1: motives were obvious in the whole process. And I've said
Speaker 1: this before, and I think we all have to remember this,
Speaker 1: especially as we think about, well, we're going to vote
Speaker 1: for Trump at gang I mean, I mean, I am,
Speaker 1: but some people might say, well, you know, I'm like
Speaker 1: a third party and independence and undecided. Remember this, whether
Speaker 1: you have Trump in the Oval office or you have
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh in the Oval office. Just by way of comparison,
Speaker 1: both of them, the left has alleged our rapists basically
Speaker 1: or attempted rapist and no, actually no, I'm sorry a
Speaker 1: rapist with Kavanaugh too because of what Sweatnick said. Both
Speaker 1: of those people, the leftist said our rapists. So let's
Speaker 1: not delude ourselves into thinking that if we had a
Speaker 1: more genteel and this is why they never trumpers. I
Speaker 1: just I've had it with them. I'm done, so I
Speaker 1: don't want to have them on the show and don't
Speaker 1: want to talk to them, or a bunch of babies
Speaker 1: who have not woken up to the reality of the
Speaker 1: fight we're in. I'm sorry, they're wrong. If you have
Speaker 1: anyone in this White House who is trying to accomplish
Speaker 1: the things that Trump is trying to accomplish, they would
Speaker 1: be saying he's hitler. They would be coming up with
Speaker 1: stories from his past. Oh, he's a rapist, he's a racist,
Speaker 1: the worst. They would say the worst things about anyone.
Speaker 1: The mistake of the GOP in the past, in the
Speaker 1: Romneyite era, let's say, in the Bush era, which Bush
Speaker 1: was a little different because of the War on Terror,
Speaker 1: and so there was the focus went away from some
Speaker 1: of these more hot button domestic issues. But it was well,
Speaker 1: we will be we will conduct ourselves with decorum and decency,
Speaker 1: and the Left will respond to that. You know that
Speaker 1: they will at least play by some If they can
Speaker 1: call Brett Kavanaugh a rapist, they can literally call any
Speaker 1: human being a rapist and not feel bad about it.
Speaker 1: There was a psychopathy at the heart of the anti
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh movement. They didn't care what they were doing to
Speaker 1: this guy. They didn't care about the psychological damage to him,
Speaker 1: to his family. They had convinced themselves that he needed
Speaker 1: to be burned at the stake and nothing else mattered,
Speaker 1: nothing else mattered. I mean, these are the people who
Speaker 1: I mean the left. You see this in their eyes sometimes,
Speaker 1: you see this in the way they talk about these issues.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that would have been cheering as the
Speaker 1: wagons made their way down the chancelse in Paris, taking
Speaker 1: people to, you know, have their heads lopped off by
Speaker 1: the guillotine. The same mentality exists among leftists today, where
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, we need our political enemies to suffer,
Speaker 1: to be ruined, to be destroyed. I've yet to hear
Speaker 1: I stole this day, have yet to hear of anyone
Speaker 1: who is a prominent figure on the left really just
Speaker 1: feel rotten, feel badly about what happened to this guy.
Speaker 1: And the reason I won't let it go is because
Speaker 1: one they did. If you remember, they tried with that
Speaker 1: pathetic New York Times book, the New York Times reporters
Speaker 1: that put out this book, they tried to revisit the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh thing and oh, maybe he really, he really did
Speaker 1: do this thing. According Oh, here we have again hearsay
Speaker 1: on hearsay on hearsay on allegation, and all the people
Speaker 1: involved in it have political motivations. But we're supposed to
Speaker 1: ignore that. Oh, it doesn't matter, you just just believe them.
Speaker 1: I'd want to know, should we ask ABC News if
Speaker 1: believe women is a thing that doesn't apply to people
Speaker 1: who aren't over the age of eighteen. Why didn't they
Speaker 1: believe the women that Epstein had abused? Why? Why why
Speaker 1: is it that when they come forward and they were
Speaker 1: gonna they don't believe those women? Huh because when had happened?
Speaker 1: Maybe their memories or well, what was the explanation? ABC News?
Speaker 1: I just wouldn't want to know. Why didn't meet standards?
Speaker 1: Of course? A bunch of liars, liars, cowards, liars. NBC
Speaker 1: News man, I'm really not gonna get a job in
Speaker 1: corporate media anytime soon, am I? NBC News liars Matt Lower. Oh,
Speaker 1: they didn't know about Matt Lower. I mean there were
Speaker 1: people who knew, who were very powerful, who make a
Speaker 1: lot of money and didn't want the gravy train to
Speaker 1: stop period lying to you. They look and that they
Speaker 1: put these people on TV. They are supposed to be
Speaker 1: telling you the truth, supposed to be telling you about
Speaker 1: what matters, what happened, supposed to represent our ideals as Americans,
Speaker 1: and it's all that's all just it's all just crap.
Speaker 1: That's all crap. And where were these guardians of truth?
Speaker 1: I told you I had I had people from CNN
Speaker 1: reach out to me and say, with this if you
Speaker 1: don't stop calling Christine Blasi for a liar publicly, if
Speaker 1: you don't stop saying that the other women are liars,
Speaker 1: you're never gonna You're never gonna work in a you know,
Speaker 1: a sort of a top tier media organization. Again, is
Speaker 1: what CNN people had worked with. They were telling me this.
Speaker 1: I didn't care because what was happening was appalling. It
Speaker 1: was appalling, and I would hope that any person who
Speaker 1: has any judgment or common sense would recognize that if
Speaker 1: they can do that to Kavanaugh, and if they would
Speaker 1: do that to Kavanaugh, and they did, they would do
Speaker 1: the same thing to you, your dad, your husband, your brother,
Speaker 1: not think twice about it. Anything for the cause, anything
Speaker 1: for the cause. These people are. It's got a little
Speaker 1: it's kind a little crazy. It's got a lot scared
Speaker 1: of the They keep saying all these things about how
Speaker 1: Trump supporters are horrible, and you know, we want these
Speaker 1: bad things to happen in the country. It's not true,
Speaker 1: and nothing horrible has happened, and yet they run around
Speaker 1: in hysterics all the time about how these terrible things
Speaker 1: are going to occur, and we look around, So when
Speaker 1: when do they just get when when do they exhaust
Speaker 1: their hysteria. When can we sit down and have a
Speaker 1: conversation as a country, like adults who want to having
Speaker 1: a worthwhile exchange of ideas, because there are there are areas,
Speaker 1: you know, how do we fix healthcare, how do we
Speaker 1: fix the border? What should our immigration system look like?
Speaker 1: These are real content, These are real things where there's
Speaker 1: good faith discussion on all sides. But the president is
Speaker 1: a Russian agent who's a trader, and Brett Kavanaugh is
Speaker 1: a serial gang rapist. And you know, these are things
Speaker 1: that bad people present as truth for their own purposes,
Speaker 1: and we should hold them accountable for that. And I
Speaker 1: mean bad people in the media. People should not They
Speaker 1: should not watch these shows. They should not support these endeavors.
Speaker 1: It's bad, It is bad what is going on out there.
Speaker 1: There is no truth, there's no honesty, and everyone is
Speaker 1: just doing what the what their paymasters tell them to
Speaker 1: do all the time. You know, these leftists, they pretend
Speaker 1: that they are speaking truth to power. When was the
Speaker 1: last time somebody who was a prominent give me one
Speaker 1: anchor at CNN or MSNBC who stood up and during
Speaker 1: the entire Kavanaugh thing, one who was like this is wrong.
Speaker 1: I didn't see it. Did you see? Maybe I would
Speaker 1: bet a lot of money. No one primetime anchor on
Speaker 1: either of those networks, all the shows they have who
Speaker 1: said this should oh, they just all happened to agree
Speaker 1: that that was that was right, that Kavanaugh was a
Speaker 1: serial gang rapist. And you know, they took Avanati's part
Speaker 1: in this whole thing because Michael Avnati is somebody that
Speaker 1: should be trusted. I'm all upset. Actually, he's never He
Speaker 1: loves to DM people and tell them how unimportant and
Speaker 1: what a loser they are on Twitter. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: a horrible human being. CNN put him on TV seventy times.
Speaker 1: Do you think they feel bad about that? Do you
Speaker 1: think they have any any sense of Wow, we're a
Speaker 1: gross organization. We really should do some soul search. No,
Speaker 1: of course, not worked at the time. Put some guy
Speaker 1: on TV. Trash is Trump talked about the porn star payoff. Great.
Speaker 1: I think the trash is Trump is good. Jeff Zucker
Speaker 1: is sitting in his office, Yeah, get him. That's it.
Speaker 1: I'm explaining what I've been in these places. I know
Speaker 1: people who work at all of them. I have a
Speaker 1: lot of people who talk to me in back channel
Speaker 1: about what's going on there. The things I hear about
Speaker 1: what are going on at CNN specifically are horrifying about
Speaker 1: what the editorial line is there now and how how
Speaker 1: it's a it's a get Trump operation. Everybody knows it,
Speaker 1: and the people that don't want to be a part
Speaker 1: of it are just told, you know, deal with it
Speaker 1: or leaf. I'm here to tell you the truth about
Speaker 1: all this stuff. I tell you truth about this. I
Speaker 1: tell you to watch it the first also on Pluto
Speaker 1: channel two forty eight, because we'll actually say this stuff here.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you things you won't hear from other places.
Speaker 1: It's the way it is, my friends, It's the way
Speaker 1: it is. Senator John Cornyn, I looked at your poles.
Speaker 1: Nobody's beating you, John, nobody, And you don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about Beato anymore, that's for sure. From Texas, he
Speaker 1: liesn't like guns, religion, or oil. He knocked out all
Speaker 1: three categorists somehow in Texas. That won't work. I don't
Speaker 1: think that works anywhere. I kind of miss Betto in
Speaker 1: the race. I gotta tell you and Trump that's a
Speaker 1: good line, by the way, but he doesn't like guns.
Speaker 1: Religion or oil. But I I wish Patou is still
Speaker 1: in It's like he was really this this uh like
Speaker 1: pure distillation of the sanctimonious, rich white lib dude who
Speaker 1: would like pretend to care so much and be so woke,
Speaker 1: but really it's all just like a fraud. And he
Speaker 1: doesn't really ever think about anything. He just says a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. I miss you. I miss him already.
Speaker 1: We still love Bertie Berties running around being crazy talking
Speaker 1: about health care of this and that and the other thing.
Speaker 1: But we don't have we don't have Bett anymore, which
Speaker 1: makes me a little bit on the set. That makes
Speaker 1: me sad. He was a fun one to to have
Speaker 1: in the mix. So Betto's campaign r I p oh.
Speaker 1: But we do still have Ralph Northam running around trying
Speaker 1: to give us lessons in the way politicians should act
Speaker 1: and be. And this guy is going to be a
Speaker 1: running embarrassment for the Democrats for a long time. Play
Speaker 1: clip ten. This president has been an embarrassed to this
Speaker 1: country and sold ourselves to other countries, our allies. I mean,
Speaker 1: just it's one thing after another and I think it's
Speaker 1: catching up with him. So certainly was a factor, but
Speaker 1: I think in Virginia. Yesterday people spoke about the progress
Speaker 1: that we've made, the progress that will continue to make.
Speaker 1: You know, another issue that is very very important in
Speaker 1: virginia's women's reproductive healthcare and also stopping the discrimination against
Speaker 1: the LGBTQ community. Those are important issues, and Virginia spoke
Speaker 1: to those yesterday and we're listening and we're going to
Speaker 1: pass some good laws in policy to move Virginia forward.
Speaker 1: I just want to remind everybody that when you have
Speaker 1: your liberal friends telling you, how could you vote for Trump?
Speaker 1: How could you? A lot of Virginia Democrats went out
Speaker 1: to vote for a guy who dressed in black face
Speaker 1: or a clan robe, and in fact did it so
Speaker 1: often that he had a nickname that I will not
Speaker 1: repeat on air in college because of his habit of
Speaker 1: dressing in black face, and who spoke openly about an
Speaker 1: infant that had survived an abortion procedure being killed, but
Speaker 1: to do so in as humane a fashion as possible.
Speaker 1: So the infanticide black face guy, who also refused to
Speaker 1: even admit his black face passed. Virginia Democrats no problem
Speaker 1: showed up voting for that guy, But they're gonna lecture
Speaker 1: us all about oh Trump, Trump said him he had
Speaker 1: a mean tweet. Trump's a bad guy. Look at the
Speaker 1: liberals in Canada, justin Trudeau, who have not talked about
Speaker 1: in the wild. Liberals in Canada voted for Trudeau. The
Speaker 1: guy did blackface so many times. Can't even remember how
Speaker 1: many times he did black face. But they want their
Speaker 1: ideas reflected in the corridors of power. They want their
Speaker 1: beliefs to have the power, the authority of the state.
Speaker 1: Just cram it down people's throats in this country or
Speaker 1: in Canada too. So I just I don't want to.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear that. We're gonna have so
Speaker 1: much trying to push us from voting for Trump based
Speaker 1: on how it's just good people couldn't do that. Good
Speaker 1: people won't vote for trouble's. They'll try to morally blackmail
Speaker 1: you into this. Oh how could you? Trump is so awful?
Speaker 1: All right, Well, what about all these democrats out there
Speaker 1: that seemed that there's no problem voting for them? What
Speaker 1: are these democrats and the positions that they support are awful?
Speaker 1: But also in a lot of cases, there their backgrounds,
Speaker 1: their backstories. You find out more about them, and you realize, oh,
Speaker 1: these are not good, decent, ethical people at all. They're
Speaker 1: certainly not like Brett Cavanaugh, somebody you'd want as a neighbor,
Speaker 1: as a friend, as a family member. They're not in
Speaker 1: his category. But they'll tear the Kavanaughs of the world
Speaker 1: down ruthlessly, viciously, falsely. Welcome to the modern Democrat Party. Everybody. Wokeness,
Speaker 1: my friends, is not limited to the United States, as
Speaker 1: you know, the entire English speaking world certainly it has
Speaker 1: its own social justice movements, and there's this increase in
Speaker 1: the the desire to shut down speech that's offensive is
Speaker 1: happening in US and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, other
Speaker 1: places too. Came and think about. But this was a
Speaker 1: new one for me. I didn't I didn't know about this.
Speaker 1: I know who played that that that women in Australia
Speaker 1: who's like, I want the I just want the patriarchy
Speaker 1: to fear feminism. I want the patriarch to be like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, him, I'm in a coolner and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I'm like shaking with fear because the I'm a patriarchy
Speaker 1: and feminism is like this giant, like it's like this
Speaker 1: giant person is really strong, right, it's strong, like like
Speaker 1: a like an ox. It's threatening patriarchy. I don't I
Speaker 1: still don't know what she was talking about, but it's
Speaker 1: like island sometimes, what you've got to do if you're good,
Speaker 1: if you can't get what you want, get what you need.
Speaker 1: The rollings don't anyway say some nonsense there, Good morning
Speaker 1: Britain though that were leaved. That was now I know
Speaker 1: that wasn't an audi accent, but the woman kind of
Speaker 1: sounded like that to me. But now now we're in Britain,
Speaker 1: so we have a a woman who wants to let
Speaker 1: you know about the danger of clapping twenty So it's
Speaker 1: actually not just some people with anxiety. It's also people
Speaker 1: who use hearing aids. Clapping can be disruptive to that.
Speaker 1: People who have sensory processing issues. It can be very
Speaker 1: distressing and overwhelming to have those loud, sudden noises. It's like,
Speaker 1: it's like, really, it's really terrifying if you've got sensory
Speaker 1: deprivation issues that you do. I mean, okay. Also if
Speaker 1: I you know, I'm trying to walk past them on
Speaker 1: the subway, I tap them on the shoulder, it could
Speaker 1: startle them and they could have a heart attack. Like,
Speaker 1: we can't live our lives this way. Okay, we can't
Speaker 1: do this, dude. Hey, but what if somebody is like, really, look,
Speaker 1: they've got a little bit of a headache, and you
Speaker 1: just start clapping. It's like real loud. Then you all
Speaker 1: of a sudden that headaches can't get worse? And I mean,
Speaker 1: how much tired and all couldn't one person take I
Speaker 1: was happy though. Wait, but I will say this before
Speaker 1: we have a gentleman who was on the panel. There
Speaker 1: was some sanity in the UK. There was no sanity
Speaker 1: in that Australia panel. I just want the patriarchy be terrified.
Speaker 1: I want the patriarchy to be like, oh but I
Speaker 1: can't deal with this anymore. I'm so sad on the inside.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore. The
Speaker 1: panel in this case had somebody came forward. He spoke
Speaker 1: a bit of sense. But before I get to that,
Speaker 1: I will say, oh, don't don't don't you don't play that?
Speaker 1: Are you playing the clip you're trying to? Okay, just
Speaker 1: making sure I got eyes on you, producer Mark. So
Speaker 1: there's a thing that people do and I just want
Speaker 1: to go on rec It's the most it is the
Speaker 1: most annoying thing on planet Earth. And it's when they're
Speaker 1: at a concert or a sporting event, or it's happened
Speaker 1: to me when I was a Broadway play person was
Speaker 1: sitting right next to me. I wanted to dump a
Speaker 1: bucket of ice water on her head. But they do
Speaker 1: the thing where they put the two fingers in their
Speaker 1: mouth and they make the super high whistle noise to
Speaker 1: show their approval for something. I'm not an advocate of violence,
Speaker 1: but if somebody punches you because you're doing that, it's
Speaker 1: not like they didn't have some cause. I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it. It's the most annoying, lacking in consideration for
Speaker 1: other people noise that happens in public place all the time.
Speaker 1: Don't do that thing. Yeah, okay, the people down on
Speaker 1: the field, you're up with the cheap tea making this.
Speaker 1: I can't even be I can't make the noise at all.
Speaker 1: They make the whistle with the fingers and maybe somebody
Speaker 1: on the field they'll hear the but you know who
Speaker 1: also hears it. The person who is who is eighteen
Speaker 1: inches away from you in their seat, whose ear drum.
Speaker 1: You have just punctured with your stupid noise. Are you
Speaker 1: with me? Producer Mark? That wasn't the right whistle that
Speaker 1: I wanted. I was trying to find some whistling in
Speaker 1: the system to annoy you. But I was like, is
Speaker 1: that a bomb noise? Because because my comment bomb, I
Speaker 1: don't know what that was sound like a bomb? It
Speaker 1: did sound like that. It's like a roadrunner. But you
Speaker 1: know what, what do is there a word for that?
Speaker 1: Kind of like the fingers in the loud obnoxious whistle,
Speaker 1: A loud obnoxious whistle. Don't do the loud obnoxious whist.
Speaker 1: That's actually a thing in ranger games, oh hockey, no
Speaker 1: wonder like they'll do a little little whistle thing like
Speaker 1: don't don't, don't like that thing, and then yelled pop
Speaker 1: van sucks. I see, I wouldn't know about this. You're
Speaker 1: gonna take me to a hockey game at some point, sure,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have a come on the show and
Speaker 1: talking about but you know what, but they put the
Speaker 1: fingers them out, they do the whistle thing, and it's
Speaker 1: the loudest, most annoying sound in the world, and yet
Speaker 1: people will just do it sometimes and I don't understand
Speaker 1: why they think that that's okay. And I look at them,
Speaker 1: I'm like, do you not know that it hurts the
Speaker 1: ears of people that are like legitimately it actually hurts
Speaker 1: the ears of people around you. And you could say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: I can make whatever noise I want to at a
Speaker 1: game or something. I'd say, well, what if I just
Speaker 1: got in your ear and I did the dumb and
Speaker 1: dumber noise, you know, as loud as I possibly could,
Speaker 1: wouldn't people be mad at me about that? It's no different.
Speaker 1: It's like if you kick my chee oh oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: stop stop, turn off the Okay, I give, I give,
Speaker 1: I give anything. Uncle. I'm glad I finally found some
Speaker 1: good whistling. Oh I hate hate whistling of all kinds,
Speaker 1: but the fingers in the mouth sporting event whistle is
Speaker 1: the one that that drives me the most. And saying
Speaker 1: oh but okay, but back to sanity, because there's lady's like,
Speaker 1: oh but we don't want to clap because it's going
Speaker 1: to be hurting your ears. We can't clap too loud,
Speaker 1: it's going to be bad. We have Andrew Doyle. I
Speaker 1: don't know this guy. I guess he's a Good Morning
Speaker 1: and host or something who was like, no, we're not
Speaker 1: going to all start doing instead of clapping, just do
Speaker 1: jazz hands, which is I guess what they call it,
Speaker 1: like jazz hands. We're gonna here's what he said play
Speaker 1: Club twenty one. When we saw that clip earlier, people
Speaker 1: people doing the jazz hands. The reason that looks really
Speaker 1: silly to us and we are instinctive to still laugh
Speaker 1: it is because it's really counterintuitive. They seem quite intinctive
Speaker 1: about wanting to show your appreciation through applause. It's something
Speaker 1: that babies do quite naturally without us training them to
Speaker 1: do so, one of the first things that they do exactly.
Speaker 1: It's an old, old thing. It's part I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I can totally take your point that we do in
Speaker 1: a compassionate society which we are lucky enough to live in.
Speaker 1: We make sensible provisions for people who have various mental
Speaker 1: health issues and disabilities and that kind of thing. But
Speaker 1: what we don't do is completely restructured society and completely
Speaker 1: change societal norms in order to accommodate the sensibilities of
Speaker 1: a few people. Who is that guy? Because you sound
Speaker 1: smart and I agree with the one hundred percent. But
Speaker 1: we don't do is just turn society upside down because
Speaker 1: there's a few outlier situations for certain people, and the
Speaker 1: expectation becomes that you always have to act like the
Speaker 1: outliers are everywhere, you know, and you don't make case
Speaker 1: by case accommodation based on kindness and consideration. You make
Speaker 1: the policy based on the possibility of somebody not you know,
Speaker 1: liking clapping. No more clapping. You know what they used
Speaker 1: to do. I remember for a while at coffee shops
Speaker 1: when I was in college in the nineties, or when
Speaker 1: they did, like the poetry reading, they would do the
Speaker 1: you know they would that's an old theater thing though,
Speaker 1: Is that an old theater? Yeah? I remember. Remember. It's
Speaker 1: like a lot of people who I knew who were
Speaker 1: in like the drama and stuff they do. Like some
Speaker 1: cool drama kids would be like, hey, we're snapping because
Speaker 1: we're just like snapping. They just think they're cool. It's
Speaker 1: not there's no reason behind it. Yeah. I didn't really
Speaker 1: like the drama kids in high school as it grown up, though,
Speaker 1: I like the people that were the drama ladies in
Speaker 1: high school now that they've grown up. Some of them
Speaker 1: can be fun. I was a drama kid. I didn't act.
Speaker 1: I just did all the behind the scenes toll. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but that's cool. You're like one of the You're like
Speaker 1: one of the Union guys. It's like backstage playing guitar,
Speaker 1: hanging out. Those guys are always cool. Of course I'm
Speaker 1: a cool guy. Yeah, that's true. So learning a little
Speaker 1: little fun stuff about producer Mark here. Um. But anyway,
Speaker 1: so the clapping thing is is going to be a
Speaker 1: pro I guess we don't, you know. I said we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about our is Marvel cinema or these Marvel movies? Really?
Speaker 1: Are they cinema or not? Because they've got what's the
Speaker 1: super fan? The Good Fellows director? What's Scorsese? How could
Speaker 1: I forget Scorsese book? You forget Scorsese? You crazy? I
Speaker 1: think we'll hold that though for tomorrow. I want to
Speaker 1: hold that one over. Here's here's what I would say. Um,
Speaker 1: I have to separate out the Avengers from everything else.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm not gonna hold this for tomorrow. Um well,
Speaker 1: maybe I'll return to it tomorrow. I would just give
Speaker 1: you my my brief, my praise, ce my overview. Here
Speaker 1: is that superhero movies can be great. They can be
Speaker 1: movies like any other movie, with all the different the
Speaker 1: whole range of human emotion, and the acting can be excellent.
Speaker 1: The obviously can be very, very entertaining. I think some
Speaker 1: superhero movies are fantastic. The Avengers movies, though, are like
Speaker 1: a threat to all that is dear in civilization because
Speaker 1: they're so bad. That's just I'm just here to tell
Speaker 1: people the truth. You'll notice a lot of truth bomb
Speaker 1: on this show. You have never been more wrong about
Speaker 1: something in your life, your entire life. You other ever
Speaker 1: get it. You know it's all right when you don't,
Speaker 1: and when you have a little more wisdom you know
Speaker 1: under your belt. My Fred, you know Avenger's End Game
Speaker 1: is the highest grossing movie of all time. Obviously, you
Speaker 1: are in the minority in terms of this. Yeah, because
Speaker 1: everybody in Beijing saw it. It's not because it's a
Speaker 1: good movie in you in the US. It's the highest
Speaker 1: grossing movie of all time in the US because we
Speaker 1: didn't want to let the Chinese win, so we saw
Speaker 1: just embrace it. You are wrong. I'm trying to tell
Speaker 1: you this is a poor opinion, just like your opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm not liking hockey. You are not liking baseball. You're
Speaker 1: racing the Bucks takes, not our movies. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark's gonna send you astray. Oh you know you'll
Speaker 1: have like Hulk and Thorpe. You like who is booger biceps? Hah,
Speaker 1: so funny, this whole that has never happened in pretty
Speaker 1: much what happens? You haven't even watched them. See this
Speaker 1: what happens? When I opened the Scorsese can ors Martin
Speaker 1: Scorsese at true filmmaker, He's wrong. Also, cinema is anything
Speaker 1: you wanted to be bout? I mean, would you tell
Speaker 1: Mozart he didn't know how to write a sonata? My friend? Yes,
Speaker 1: I didn't. Actually probably would no respect for my man
Speaker 1: Wolfgang on a dais zero. Yeah, roll calls up next
Speaker 1: to Buck. It's time for roll call. It is time
Speaker 1: for roll call. Let's uh, let's get to it show.
Speaker 1: We let's see what we what we have here? Um
Speaker 1: Julia with a fantastic comment. I can tell from the start.
Speaker 1: Buck love your show yesterday, And you are right. Producer
Speaker 1: Mark is grouchy, Julia, making my day. He snapped at
Speaker 1: you when you mentioned it while talking about Camela's six
Speaker 1: PM disaster Shields High. What did I snap at you?
Speaker 1: I don't even know. But Julia's saying wrong's wrong as
Speaker 1: she agrees with the host, not the producer. She says,
Speaker 1: you're grouchy, oh without the producer that show. That's true.
Speaker 1: But Julia, you're on the right side of this one.
Speaker 1: You probably you probably hate Avengers, Ultra Marathon, Everlasting too,
Speaker 1: or whatever it's called. Not even close, Yeah whatever. Richard
Speaker 1: Comment of the Day, Julia, thank you, Buck. I think
Speaker 1: you're missing something. On Virginia elections. Eric Holder has an
Speaker 1: organization that has been working on redistricting states, so they
Speaker 1: sued Virginia in twenty nineteen for the maps that were
Speaker 1: drawn in twenty ten. Then they got some California Live
Speaker 1: to redraw the maps and poof no more Republican majority
Speaker 1: in Virginia. That election is more about this group than anything. Also,
Speaker 1: why didn' the Virginia Republicans hang the late term abortion
Speaker 1: issue on the dams. It's like they don't want to
Speaker 1: win sometimes. Richard, um, I have to I'm sure what
Speaker 1: you're saying about that rings true to me about Virginia Redistriching.
Speaker 1: I've just I haven't been following that part of the
Speaker 1: story closely enough to comment on it in any expert way.
Speaker 1: I agree. I mean it's look, I don't think it
Speaker 1: really matters that much what Virginia, what the campaign really
Speaker 1: was from the Republicans at this point, because Virginia has
Speaker 1: been importing Democrats to work for the federal government and
Speaker 1: into the state, because Virginia has a very large and
Speaker 1: increasing immigrant population as a state. And that's just immigrants
Speaker 1: vote two to one for Democrats, sometimes three to one. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's see here, all the immigrants. I hate the little
Speaker 1: book immigrants. I don't know if you have a green
Speaker 1: CARDI camp, but if you become, if you're a naturalized citizen,
Speaker 1: you can vote, so can everyone. You don't need to
Speaker 1: send me the assume assume Like like Fredo, I'm smart.
Speaker 1: I have ideas too, Not Fredo Cuomo, I mean Fredo
Speaker 1: from the actual Godfather, though I just love that I'm smart.
Speaker 1: I've got ideas. Jason and Rights, Hey, about the whole
Speaker 1: thing where the Democrats are keeping the identity of the
Speaker 1: whistleblowers secret, It's nothing more than a game. There is
Speaker 1: virtually no way this deep state operator doesn't have to
Speaker 1: come forward to testifying the trial in the Senate if
Speaker 1: Trump is successfully impeached. Thus, they're trying to protect their
Speaker 1: partisan impeachment as if it's something they just have to
Speaker 1: do rather than something they have been dying to do
Speaker 1: since Trump won. Absolutely true, Jason ding Ding. If we
Speaker 1: had prizes to give out, we would give them to you.
Speaker 1: But we can't give out prizes because we're on the radio,
Speaker 1: and there's like rules about that, by the way, right, Mark,
Speaker 1: And there are rules about this. You can't just like
Speaker 1: I can't just like send people T shirts if I
Speaker 1: like them, because we have if we have like a
Speaker 1: contest or something, right, I think you can give out
Speaker 1: T shirts. We just don't have T shirts. Wow, Christmas
Speaker 1: is coming, folks, So I just want to make sure
Speaker 1: if it's anything like above a T shirt, then then
Speaker 1: the rules get a little weird. Then it is okay.
Speaker 1: So I can't be like I'm gonna give ten thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to somebody and then like give it to my cousin,
Speaker 1: right exactly. That's why there's rules for that. But a
Speaker 1: T shirt, you can help get T shirts probably all. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's good to know, Sarah. These guys really do oh, love,
Speaker 1: love love your voice impersonations, you're the best. No, Sarah,
Speaker 1: you are the best. As for eleven thousand scientists who
Speaker 1: think we're overpopulated, perhaps they should lead by example. Scientifically speaking,
Speaker 1: at their various ages, I'm confident they produce more methane
Speaker 1: than the newborns would bum bum methane jokes, Sarah, well played,
Speaker 1: perhaps stinky, but well played. H And then these guys
Speaker 1: really do have a god complex? Do they not to
Speaker 1: think we humans can save the world. Yes, Sarah, they
Speaker 1: do have a god complex. They want to be important,
Speaker 1: they want to be powerful, all of that stuff. So
Speaker 1: that is very much true. Doug Lass buck Water va
Speaker 1: Arson of his Douglas. I don't know why I said
Speaker 1: his name so weirdly. I'm just kind of in the
Speaker 1: zone right now. Buck Water vapor is the largest of
Speaker 1: the so called greenhouse gases. It is one hundred times
Speaker 1: more plentiful than CO two, but no one does anything
Speaker 1: about it because one we can, and two it would adversely,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't rather adversely affect western capitalist societies. Further More,
Speaker 1: the atmosphere has been point three percent CO two forever.
Speaker 1: The hundreds of tiers of industrial oh years rather of
Speaker 1: industrial revolution and addition of six billion people to the
Speaker 1: planet hasn't budged the CO two concentration by more than
Speaker 1: point zero one percent or one one hundredths of one percent,
Speaker 1: even if you assume the entire increase is man cause,
Speaker 1: which is ridiculous. Where did the three hundred parts per
Speaker 1: million come from? All the greenhouse gas is allegedly caused
Speaker 1: by mankind amount to less than point zero two percent
Speaker 1: of the atmosphere, less than two hundred molecules each one
Speaker 1: million molecule of air. How could any reasonable person believe
Speaker 1: that two hundred out of a million tenths of anything
Speaker 1: is going to destroy the earth. Yeah, man, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm with you, obviously. I think I think these people
Speaker 1: that think this stuff are absolutely nuts. So, and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of math in there, Douglas. So thank you
Speaker 1: for handling the math, because I'm not If we have
Speaker 1: math problems or tech problems or tech you know, technology problems,
Speaker 1: math problems, audio problems, that's producer Mark. You send him
Speaker 1: the numbers to gear all that. I just handle the
Speaker 1: funny voices. That's my that's my job. So somebody complaining
Speaker 1: about my audio again? No, no, no, no, no, it's okay.
Speaker 1: It's easy, Mark the Grouch, don't worry about it. No
Speaker 1: one has to get no one has to get spanked today.
Speaker 1: It's okay. I'll go back into my hole. There we go.
Speaker 1: It's all fine, all right, everybody that's gonna be the
Speaker 1: show for it today. I hope you're enjoying. If you're
Speaker 1: not already enjoying watching it on Pluto, please do check
Speaker 1: it out. Channel two forty eight, the first where we
Speaker 1: speak the truth, the first like the First Amendment, also
Speaker 1: the first channel you should be watching on Pluto TV
Speaker 1: every day. Also, download the Bucks Action Show on iTunes.
Speaker 1: Tell people about it. Numbers are going up. We love that.
Speaker 1: Shields high