Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either beer with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with Trunk is not president of the United States,
Speaker 1: take it to a bank together. We will make America
Speaker 1: great again. We'll never sharender. It's what you've been waiting
Speaker 1: for all day. The buck Sexton Show joined the conversation
Speaker 1: called buck toll free at eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine hundred to eight to five
Speaker 1: the future of talk radio buck Sexton sixty six points
Speaker 1: lost on Friday, almost that Today we busted below that
Speaker 1: fifty day moving average. We're breaking all kinds of different
Speaker 1: technical levels. Quite a drop happening on Wall Street. A
Speaker 1: massive sell off is happening today. Moments ago we were
Speaker 1: down more than nine hundred points. What's going on with
Speaker 1: the mechanics of this machines gone wild? The S and
Speaker 1: P five hundred lower by three point seven percent. This
Speaker 1: pretty much is about religion from central banks gone awry.
Speaker 1: They built it up opportunities to come when the market breaks,
Speaker 1: and the market just broke again. We haven't seen it
Speaker 1: breaking a long time. Look, we overshot to the upside
Speaker 1: as everybody was talking about, and this is clearly at
Speaker 1: least on a short term basis, and overshooting down. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the bucks extit show. Everybody time to panic the market?
Speaker 1: What are we gonna do? I just wanted to play
Speaker 1: that for you, because all of a sudden we had
Speaker 1: a respite from Russia collusion memo Gates. We we had
Speaker 1: a resipite. We had a little bit of a pause,
Speaker 1: did we. I mean it was a shame that our
Speaker 1: four oh one k's we're getting slacks and those of
Speaker 1: you who actually are four enough to be among the
Speaker 1: I think what the percentage of Americans who owned stock
Speaker 1: other than their four one k is? Like, I might
Speaker 1: be way off on that one, Mike. Let me know
Speaker 1: if I'm way off on that. I think Americans actually
Speaker 1: invest the stock market, but it has effects in the
Speaker 1: broader economy. And let me say this, We're about to
Speaker 1: move from the whole market discussion. By the way, I
Speaker 1: do not pretend to be a markets guy on radio.
Speaker 1: Don't worry. I just the Dow was down eleven seventy
Speaker 1: five today, which is the single biggest one day drop
Speaker 1: in history. So everyone's like, Now, if this were to continue,
Speaker 1: if the sell off were a sign of a recession,
Speaker 1: or fears of inflation were to overtake the economy in
Speaker 1: bigger ways, just understand, it's it's the narrative about Russia
Speaker 1: Trump collusion. And this is why I want to play
Speaker 1: this for you right away. I think this is not
Speaker 1: gonna last that long. Yeah, there's markets go up, markets
Speaker 1: go down, right. I don't think this is necessarily the
Speaker 1: beginning of anything really bad. But just know that I'm
Speaker 1: saying this to you my with my active powers such
Speaker 1: as they are. If we enter a rocky period here,
Speaker 1: of all of a sudden, a couple of months of
Speaker 1: bad jobs numbers, inflation starts creeping up beyond I think
Speaker 1: inflation they usually wanted about two. That's what the FED, which,
Speaker 1: as you all know, is like not really the government,
Speaker 1: but in some ways more powerful than the government. Uh,
Speaker 1: the FED wants a two percent inflation rate because that's
Speaker 1: what growth, That's what they think is good for growth.
Speaker 1: So that's what they want the money supply to be.
Speaker 1: But if it gets worse than that, or if it
Speaker 1: starts to get like problematic for whatever reason, they're gonna
Speaker 1: blame it on Trump. That's the bottom. That's what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to say. And all of a sudden, all the
Speaker 1: Russia stuff is gonna be backburner because that's what they
Speaker 1: have to go with. When they've got Trump getting it done, deregulating,
Speaker 1: economy going well, jobs, everything out, everything is cooking and
Speaker 1: rolling along. That's when you gotta here, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Speaker 1: But if things get a little rocky, and I don't
Speaker 1: even think and in the ast case scenario, I think
Speaker 1: Trump would be I think the policies the administration will
Speaker 1: be significantly helpful to whatever is going on. But you're
Speaker 1: just gonna see. I just want to prepare for that.
Speaker 1: There'll be a whole Oh Trump, he doesn't have this
Speaker 1: financial acumen. He's not the dealmaker. They'll the storyline will change,
Speaker 1: which is just my way of illustrating for all of you.
Speaker 1: This is all a construct. Remember one of my one
Speaker 1: of my Buck Sexton Show first principles. The news cycle
Speaker 1: is a construct. It is made for you. It is curated,
Speaker 1: it is pulled together. It is propagandized by an enormous
Speaker 1: multibillion dollar apparatus of people who are paid money to
Speaker 1: feed an audience in many cases whatever it wants to hear,
Speaker 1: but also in general just information and is competing with
Speaker 1: other outlets to that end. Right, that's that's what news is.
Speaker 1: News is not really anything more sophisticated than that. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of room for shenanigans, just in that pretty
Speaker 1: simple and straightforward mission statement. They had a big drop
Speaker 1: in the dow today. All right, fine, I think everything's
Speaker 1: gonna be okay, but just note that they're gonna blame
Speaker 1: You'll see some stories blaming Trump tomorrow. If you look
Speaker 1: around some of the left wing sides, they'll go for
Speaker 1: it right away. A week ago they were saying Trump
Speaker 1: isn't responsible for the booming economy. Some will get a
Speaker 1: little ahead of their skis on this and go, oh
Speaker 1: trumps Trump is bad because of the economy, had a
Speaker 1: couple of bad days. Look what the marketing. You know,
Speaker 1: the same people who were telling you, like a month ago,
Speaker 1: don't give Trump credit for the economy because of deregulation
Speaker 1: and tax cuts are now going to be saying, oh,
Speaker 1: Trump's response. So they have no credibility, no integrity. I
Speaker 1: just wanted you to hear it from me first here. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: let's get into what we do now. I gotta crack
Speaker 1: the knuckles and get ready to talk about national security
Speaker 1: stuff and all the things going on with the memo,
Speaker 1: because there's a not here right there. The fallout from
Speaker 1: the memo has been its own series of debates and discussions.
Speaker 1: As I told you, the memo did not end any story.
Speaker 1: It is, in fact just an important phase, an important
Speaker 1: part of the much larger story here about what happened
Speaker 1: with the Trump administration, and the stakes are no longer
Speaker 1: and have not been for a while, just about whether
Speaker 1: or not Donald Trump colluded. It is now very much
Speaker 1: simultaneously a story about whether or not the FBI, the
Speaker 1: d o J, the Hillary campaign, and the media colluded
Speaker 1: against Trump. And when you look on balance right now,
Speaker 1: there's a whole lot more information to suggest that the
Speaker 1: second thing is true than the first. In fact, there's
Speaker 1: really nothing on the first one. There's a whole lot
Speaker 1: of stuff on the second one, which is what we're
Speaker 1: going to spend some time on today. But you had
Speaker 1: former senior CIA official Phil Mud whom I've I've I've
Speaker 1: met Phil before. Um, this is not a personal thing,
Speaker 1: this is a this is a my thoughts on his
Speaker 1: analysis thing. And I think his analysis at least on
Speaker 1: this issue is poor, beyond poor, beyond belief. Almost. It's
Speaker 1: as though he's saying what he thinks he needs to
Speaker 1: say to get paid a certain amount by CNN. That
Speaker 1: is how I feel about it. I'm and I'm going
Speaker 1: to talk more about this other FBI guy. I would note,
Speaker 1: who's Mr. Oh, I have to resign on principle, and
Speaker 1: then he goes and gets a job at CNN right away?
Speaker 1: Oh what a shock? Oh who could know such a thing? Right?
Speaker 1: But we have to talk first about this point made
Speaker 1: by Mud because he is probably well, they have Clapper
Speaker 1: over there too. You'll notice all these former nonpartisan so
Speaker 1: they say, senior intelligence you know, directors and agency heads,
Speaker 1: they run over to these left wing works and become
Speaker 1: attack dogs. Mm hmm. If we were to work back
Speaker 1: from this, don't we think it's also very likely that
Speaker 1: the Clappers, the Brennan's, the MUD's, Perhaps that we see
Speaker 1: now we're the same individuals with the same political and
Speaker 1: partisan proclivities before. Doesn't that also make us think that
Speaker 1: perhaps after eight years of Obama and Hillary Secretary of
Speaker 1: State and everything, and the expectations of Hillary to become president,
Speaker 1: that some of these very powerful folks who were no
Speaker 1: longer in government, who are rabid partisans now that they're
Speaker 1: outside of government, and I just named them, right, Clapper, Brennan,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Don't we think it stands to reason that
Speaker 1: maybe they were just the same way but not public
Speaker 1: about it when they were inside of government. Look at
Speaker 1: us putting two and two together here in the Freedom Hut,
Speaker 1: because that's how we roll. But a very important issue
Speaker 1: was raised by Mr Mud And as I said, it's
Speaker 1: not personal. I have nothing personally against Phil Mud. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he's a really nice, smart guy, but I don't
Speaker 1: like what he's been saying on CNN recently. So here
Speaker 1: is the statement President is talking about basically corruption at
Speaker 1: the FBI today. But we opposed the leadership. The workforce
Speaker 1: is going to look at this and say this is
Speaker 1: an attack on our ability to conduct an investigation with integrity.
Speaker 1: There's hundreds of agents and analyis working on this investigation.
Speaker 1: It's not just Christopher Ray, the FBI director. So the
Speaker 1: FBI people, i'm gonna tell you, are ticked and they're
Speaker 1: gonna be saying I guarantee it. You think you can
Speaker 1: push us off this because you can try to intimidate
Speaker 1: the director. You better think again, Mr President, You've been
Speaker 1: around for thirteen months. We've been around since nineteen o eight.
Speaker 1: I know how this game is gonna be played. We're
Speaker 1: gonna win. So what he's a senior, a former senior bureaucrat,
Speaker 1: and what he's and I say that as a as
Speaker 1: a junior nobody, former bureaucrat. But what he's saying is,
Speaker 1: from what I can hear and see, is he's outlining
Speaker 1: the very deep state problem we're talking about. It is
Speaker 1: unacceptable for people inside the FBI or any any federal
Speaker 1: bureaucracy with specific and delineated powers and authority. It is
Speaker 1: unacceptable for them to play gotcha based on politics. And
Speaker 1: this is something that I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: have lost sight of recently. It is unacceptable for anyone
Speaker 1: in the intelligence community to say, I don't like what
Speaker 1: Trump said about us, so I'm gonna get him. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leak some stuff to the media that harms
Speaker 1: the administration, which is also a crime, by the way,
Speaker 1: but it is unethical to do that. You do your job.
Speaker 1: You're supposed to be civil servants serving the public and
Speaker 1: the public interest. This is not about egos at the FBI,
Speaker 1: at the CIA, at any place in the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: And I think we've started to see the mask drop
Speaker 1: here a little bit because people that, whether they want
Speaker 1: to admit or or not, have some previous experience of
Speaker 1: this and understand that there are political games that are
Speaker 1: played inside the federal bureaucracy are coming out and saying, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, FBI is gonna win this one. Oh, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: what what does that mean? They're they're gonna win this one.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't the FBI be doing justice? The FBI is a
Speaker 1: subsidiary of the Department of Justice, which by the way,
Speaker 1: works for the executive branch. We seem to have been
Speaker 1: convinced of something else recently by a media that wants
Speaker 1: to pretend now that the do J, the FBI, and
Speaker 1: all these different prosecutors and glorified lawyers they're in are
Speaker 1: above the government that actually gives them their authority. They
Speaker 1: are separate there like a super government, unto themselves, executive, legislative, judiciary.
Speaker 1: They are part of the executive They are not a
Speaker 1: fourth branch of government. They seem to think that they are,
Speaker 1: and This is not new, and I'm singling out the
Speaker 1: statement from mud on CNN because it's the most recent
Speaker 1: one that I've seen. But you've got plenty of people saying, oh,
Speaker 1: if you pick a fight with the I C, the
Speaker 1: I C is gonna get you. The i C serves
Speaker 1: at the pleasure of the president. The i C is
Speaker 1: supposed to provide him with the best information they can.
Speaker 1: The f behind the Department of Justice are supposed to
Speaker 1: help the president and the execution of laws. They are
Speaker 1: not there as a as a stop cap on. Oh
Speaker 1: we don't like his policies, hashtag resist. We're all quite
Speaker 1: aware of the fact that we are a few bad
Speaker 1: days away, perhaps who knows, from a military exchange with
Speaker 1: North Korea, which is a crazy regime that does have nukes.
Speaker 1: We've got very serious problems in the world. The fact
Speaker 1: that you have now bureaucrats who have taken into their
Speaker 1: hands the authority given to them by it's not clear
Speaker 1: to me who. They've just taken it for them selves.
Speaker 1: They have usurped power that is not theirs to try
Speaker 1: and even the score with the president. You'll notice that
Speaker 1: the president isn't picking any fights with the rank and
Speaker 1: file the FBI. The President isn't running around saying that
Speaker 1: he's going to, you know, raise the FBI building to
Speaker 1: the ground, that he's going to h eliminate all rivals
Speaker 1: from within the d o J. He's pushing back against
Speaker 1: the narrative that increasingly looks shaky. And I will say this, people,
Speaker 1: the d o J and FBI lied to you. They
Speaker 1: lied to you about how sensitive the information this memo was.
Speaker 1: Full stop. They didn't misunderstand this isn't a gray area.
Speaker 1: They lied their butts off. And so now there's some
Speaker 1: people that are they're a little sore about the whole situation.
Speaker 1: And you get people running around saying, oh, because some
Speaker 1: folks at the FBI are gonna get even you know,
Speaker 1: the FBI agent right now who's doing his work in
Speaker 1: in Nebraska or Arizona or Florida, who's trying to help somebody,
Speaker 1: you know, deal with the cartels in their area, or
Speaker 1: trying to track down white collar criminals who have stolen
Speaker 1: grandma's life savings or whatever, doesn't really care what people
Speaker 1: say about Jim Coley. This is all a lie. This
Speaker 1: is again part of my The media conjurors creates this
Speaker 1: narrative and then force feeds it to you. And I'm
Speaker 1: not just speaking about this is somebody who's in the media.
Speaker 1: I've got lots of friends who are still inside the community,
Speaker 1: as it's called, real friends, not like hey, you know,
Speaker 1: like I met you once at a at a mixer
Speaker 1: for like the press and people that work for the
Speaker 1: d O J or whatever. I got close buddies in there.
Speaker 1: They're not all running around like, Oh, what are we
Speaker 1: gonna do? Trump said mean things about us. What does
Speaker 1: it say about our federal prosecutors are federal law enforcement
Speaker 1: and intelligence folks that their feelings about the president are
Speaker 1: supposed to influence their work. I think that's absolutely appalling.
Speaker 1: And I also think that it's a pretty good description
Speaker 1: of the very deep state phenomenon that others are always mocking. Oh,
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as a deep state. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: it's an American deep state. It's different than the Turkish
Speaker 1: Darren Devlett, which I can tell you about another time,
Speaker 1: which is an actual superstate within this state that can
Speaker 1: override democratic elections and has many times throughout the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's what we have. Well, we've got
Speaker 1: something that's kind of like an American version of it,
Speaker 1: don't we That's what it feels like right now. So
Speaker 1: maybe it's the American deep state and we need to
Speaker 1: root it out and deal with it. And as you
Speaker 1: can see, my friends, I am just getting started here,
Speaker 1: so stay with me. We'll be right back. Um. The
Speaker 1: only thing I fear from this memo because I think
Speaker 1: it's really been a huge dud. I think everybody knows
Speaker 1: what's kind of a dud. Some White House officials fear
Speaker 1: that the new Knats memo is a complete dud, and
Speaker 1: it's a big dud, a complete dud. This looks like
Speaker 1: it's a dud. This memo with regards to the Miller
Speaker 1: probe is a dud. The reviews are in, and Congressman
Speaker 1: Noons is memo was a dud. Not how all these
Speaker 1: different left wing pundits. It's almost like they gotta an
Speaker 1: email that says, this is what you say about the memo.
Speaker 1: Make sure you use the word dud a lot. Memo
Speaker 1: is such a dud. Yet the FBI fought its release
Speaker 1: four months. Some of these exact same people that I
Speaker 1: just played for you with it's a dud. They were
Speaker 1: saying that it shouldn't be released because it was so sensitive.
Speaker 1: That was a complete lies I've told you, and it
Speaker 1: really bothers someone one that we should not forget anytime soon.
Speaker 1: But it's it's a dud. Huh. Maybe you could say
Speaker 1: it's a dud in so far as it's not a
Speaker 1: lot of particularly new information, but it is confirmation ah
Speaker 1: what has been reported At any time. Some of us
Speaker 1: would say, well, hold on a second, looks like the
Speaker 1: dossier was used for fusion GPS. I remember a few
Speaker 1: months ago. Oh, that's ridiculous. It's a conspiracy there, conspiracy there. Well,
Speaker 1: now we know it wasn't a conspiracy there. Now we
Speaker 1: know it is the truth. So it wasn't the most
Speaker 1: groundbreaking information to have ever been reported because we had
Speaker 1: heard that this was the case. I, as you know,
Speaker 1: predicted pretty much all of what was in the memo.
Speaker 1: But now we know it's Now we know it's true.
Speaker 1: So now we can move forward and hopefully when the
Speaker 1: idiot squad over at the ms v M, the MSNBC,
Speaker 1: MSNBC and CNN, when they try to say things like
Speaker 1: who knows if the dossier, well now we know. Now,
Speaker 1: in fact, we we do know and the notion that
Speaker 1: the memos does is just just goes to show you
Speaker 1: how dishonest many of the people who have involved themselves
Speaker 1: in this debate, in this discussion really are. I would
Speaker 1: also note that there's a Democrat memo that's supposed to
Speaker 1: come out. Hold on a second, if the Republican memo
Speaker 1: was a quote dud, why would the Democrats even waste
Speaker 1: their time with their own memo. Here's a little prediction.
Speaker 1: Some of those same people that you heard saying the
Speaker 1: Republican memos a dud are gonna come out and say
Speaker 1: the Democrat memo is a fly kick to the face
Speaker 1: of the Republican narrative the Democrat. The Democrat memo has
Speaker 1: body slammed the Republican I mean, you know, they're just
Speaker 1: just idiot, dishonest partisans all over the place. But I've
Speaker 1: got a breaking news for you actually on that Democrat
Speaker 1: memo literally just broke while we were on air. I
Speaker 1: will tell you what it is after this break, which
Speaker 1: is coming up in one minute. I got a little
Speaker 1: excited there, I see I kept people up. Get people,
Speaker 1: let's see their pants. I just missed my clock there, folks.
Speaker 1: For a second. That's all that happened. But see now,
Speaker 1: now that I was going to give you the t
Speaker 1: I can't tell you exactly what happened. Let me just
Speaker 1: say this though. The Democrat memo is going to be
Speaker 1: no new factual information. It is just going to be
Speaker 1: a recitation of the talking points that are already being
Speaker 1: used by all these different Democrats talking heads. It is
Speaker 1: going to be the manifestation of the media's concerted opposition
Speaker 1: to getting to the truth about the Carter Page surveillance
Speaker 1: and the FISA abuse and everything else that's happened here.
Speaker 1: What is the status of that memo? Ah, the Democrat
Speaker 1: memo that is to respond to the last week's I
Speaker 1: shall tell you about that one. Here we go this
Speaker 1: time after this break, he's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton is back. They have damaged the relationship between
Speaker 1: our committee and the intelligence community. Uh. In the future,
Speaker 1: the intelligence community is going to be very worry about
Speaker 1: sharing information with us because they won't trust us to
Speaker 1: be responsible stewards of it, and sources of information are
Speaker 1: going to dry up. If you have a neighbor next
Speaker 1: door who's buying a lot of fertilizer, and it seems
Speaker 1: odd because they don't have a yard. Are you gonna
Speaker 1: think twice before calling the FBI and your identity is
Speaker 1: going to be revealed? Because you really can't trust that
Speaker 1: this is going to be kept confidential anymore. The process
Speaker 1: presumed that the president nined states, who has a veto
Speaker 1: over this, would be a responsible person who would have
Speaker 1: the interests of the nation at heart. And of course
Speaker 1: that's not what we have here. That's House Member Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: who is a grotesque liar. So let's just start with that.
Speaker 1: The notion that the intelligence community may now feel weird
Speaker 1: about sharing information with Congress is irrelevant. The intelligence community
Speaker 1: is not some separate part of the government. Congress has
Speaker 1: oversight of what the intelligence community is doing. You know,
Speaker 1: the Left used to know this, now that they have
Speaker 1: many times in the past conveniently beat up on the
Speaker 1: CIA and all kinds of agencies and organizations because it
Speaker 1: was politically convenient for Democrats to do so. Now all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it's, oh, what are we gonna do.
Speaker 1: They're not going to share information tough. If Congress wants
Speaker 1: information from the intelligence community, Congress gets it. This is
Speaker 1: what some in the media don't seem to understand. There
Speaker 1: is no cutout. There is no and then they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if it's it's executive branch information, they don't have to
Speaker 1: share it. Okay, Well, either Congress gets it or the
Speaker 1: president gets it and can release it through the processes
Speaker 1: in place. That's it. They're just we're just acting like
Speaker 1: they can't understand these pretty straightforward separation of power issues
Speaker 1: powers issues because this is part of the narrative. They're
Speaker 1: just hoping to confuse people and running with these storylines
Speaker 1: that they think sounds good but in reality are just crap.
Speaker 1: They cannot withstand a minutes actual scrutiny. Lies. Shift is
Speaker 1: a liar not I have called them a used sham
Speaker 1: wile salesman, and I feel like sham wile salesman out
Speaker 1: there are getting a rough getting a raw deal, the
Speaker 1: used sham wild salesman. Because you know, at least that's
Speaker 1: a product with some you know, I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: know how good it is. I've never tried one. Is
Speaker 1: it good? Does it work? I don't know. It's like
Speaker 1: soaks up all the stuff, right, you know, better than
Speaker 1: paper towel and way more fun. Um. I should probably
Speaker 1: get sham will as a sponsor. Now, we should figure
Speaker 1: out if that's a thing we could do that that'd
Speaker 1: be great, And I'd be a sham wile salesman. Hey, hey,
Speaker 1: it's a good product, I'll try it. Hey, But Shif
Speaker 1: isn't the only one out there who's running the propaganda
Speaker 1: campaign for the left, running interference for the left, and
Speaker 1: doesn't really care what the truth of any of this is.
Speaker 1: You've got former c I a director, and this kind
Speaker 1: of hurts because you know, it's my old home, my
Speaker 1: old home agency. I took a lot of pride in
Speaker 1: the agency when I was there, and and I can
Speaker 1: tell you all the good news is most of a
Speaker 1: vast majority of the people that work in these places
Speaker 1: do it because they find the mission interesting and want
Speaker 1: to serve their country. The usual answer is that they
Speaker 1: just want to serve their country also because they find
Speaker 1: this stuff interesting, though, I see, I'll tell you the truth.
Speaker 1: Other people are mission first, yeah, and the mission is important.
Speaker 1: They also think this stuff can be kind of cool
Speaker 1: and interesting though, and they want unusual career. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the intelligence side now, and and there's that right,
Speaker 1: because if you want to if you just want to
Speaker 1: steady federal government paycheck. You know, you go work at
Speaker 1: the Commerce department or something, right, I mean commerce departments
Speaker 1: not be like, hey, we're gonna put you in this
Speaker 1: place where if you drink the water, you're gonna get
Speaker 1: super sick, and there are people that are trying to
Speaker 1: find you and maybe kill you and cut your head
Speaker 1: off on you know a video that that usually doesn't
Speaker 1: happen with Commerce department. That that can happen unfortunately in
Speaker 1: the you know, on the intelligence side of things. So
Speaker 1: you know, if you're just looking for a federal paycheck,
Speaker 1: you might go in some other directions. You know, FBI
Speaker 1: guys and gals pardon me, uh, you know they have
Speaker 1: to kick indoors and they got maniacs swinging meat cleavers
Speaker 1: at them, and that's and that happens, and you don't
Speaker 1: even read about the story, right, I mean, that's just
Speaker 1: another day in the FBI sometimes. So those are that
Speaker 1: you know, there's a separation here and what kind of
Speaker 1: federal government service people want to do. But yeah, Brennan's
Speaker 1: out there and he's like he was Obama's chief counter
Speaker 1: terrorism advisor. I mean this he's a very obviously political guy,
Speaker 1: and I wish people would stop with this. This is
Speaker 1: why they can't put me on air at places like CNN,
Speaker 1: because I'll just annihilate some of the very dishonest tropes
Speaker 1: they will trot out at at a convenient moment, like,
Speaker 1: for example, if someone's worked for the intelligence community for
Speaker 1: like twenty years, they're just a public servant, you know,
Speaker 1: an honorable public servant. These are the phrases that don't
Speaker 1: even really mean anything. Trust me, you don't stop having
Speaker 1: opinions and ideas, and you don't give up vanity and
Speaker 1: and well ambition, maybe someone in the federal guverment. But
Speaker 1: if you don't give up vanity just because you happen
Speaker 1: to work as a civil servant, um, and you may
Speaker 1: very well have ideological motivations for what you are doing
Speaker 1: in a partisan sense, right. I mean I joined the
Speaker 1: CIA because I wanted to help fight against al Qaeda.
Speaker 1: That was why did I do a good job or not?
Speaker 1: You know, maybe a discussion for another time. I did
Speaker 1: the best I could, But the point is that was
Speaker 1: why I joined. Certainly wasn't for the money. It certainly
Speaker 1: wasn't for the glory. Uh. But Brennan is held out
Speaker 1: to Oh he's not. This is a very very partisan guy,
Speaker 1: and he goes out there and says things like the
Speaker 1: following on the sun A Shows, Meet the Press. Well,
Speaker 1: there were things in that docier that made me wonder
Speaker 1: whether or not they would they were in fact accurate
Speaker 1: and true. Uh, And I do think it was up
Speaker 1: to the FBI to see whether or not they could
Speaker 1: verify any of it. I think Jim Comey has said
Speaker 1: that it was contained selasious and unverified information. Just because
Speaker 1: it was unverified didn't mean it wasn't true. Do you
Speaker 1: remember everyone that or maybe I tweeted this the camera,
Speaker 1: if I said it on the show, or I tweeted this.
Speaker 1: But if it rings true, it is true. That's really
Speaker 1: the left approach to the entirety of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: That that was actually a perfect encapsulation of how the
Speaker 1: media treats Trump, how the media deals with Trump. If
Speaker 1: it rings true, it is true. Here you have the
Speaker 1: former CIA director who's getting pretty close to saying the
Speaker 1: same thing. I know it's not exactly the same thing,
Speaker 1: but just because it's unverified doesn't mean it wasn't true.
Speaker 1: Oh well, let's deal with that for a second. Um,
Speaker 1: let me start with if we're going to start basing legal,
Speaker 1: legally binding processes like a Phis Accord and eliminating the
Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens through surveillance and intelligence
Speaker 1: gathering processes based upon unverified information. Then my theorizing with
Speaker 1: you recently about how they could just open up fires
Speaker 1: a warrant on anyone for basically any reason, because all
Speaker 1: the takes is someone to show up and say, you know,
Speaker 1: so and so is talking to you know, so and
Speaker 1: so is talking to the Chinese about some espionage stuff
Speaker 1: or something you know you better get to and says
Speaker 1: it no verification. They're gonna start, you know, think about
Speaker 1: the the implications of what this means for law enforcement folks.
Speaker 1: And I know we have a lot a lot of
Speaker 1: law enforcement that are listening to this show right now.
Speaker 1: And God bless and thank you for what you do.
Speaker 1: But if all of a sudden, law enforcement could just
Speaker 1: you know, kick I mean, I did say this is
Speaker 1: kind of like the intelligence version of squatting, right if
Speaker 1: law enforcement all of a sudden is showing up and
Speaker 1: just kicking indoors because somebody doesn't like you and they
Speaker 1: said that you know, you're running a meth lab in
Speaker 1: your kitchen and they don't do any due diligence or
Speaker 1: fact checking, and they come, you know, running in through
Speaker 1: your living room with a bear cat and start you know,
Speaker 1: throwing flash bangs everywhere, and little Foo Foo, the kitty
Speaker 1: cat is getting all scared and you're freaked out. That's
Speaker 1: not okay, we don't want that. But there has to
Speaker 1: be some verification beyond just what somebody says. A major
Speaker 1: part of that is also who is the person saying it,
Speaker 1: what are their motivations. I mean, this is actually all
Speaker 1: intelligence analysis, one at one, by the way, which is
Speaker 1: why I find all these stories so interesting and why
Speaker 1: I hope you find it worthwhile to have a former
Speaker 1: intelligence analyst talking to you and working with you on
Speaker 1: all these issues here on this show me. But by
Speaker 1: the way, Brennan said, uh, Docier, which is just her
Speaker 1: amount Brennan. When Brennan was at the When Brennan was
Speaker 1: at the agency, it was when one of it was
Speaker 1: when you had the whole And don't you know, you
Speaker 1: can say this is a nothing burger, but I don't
Speaker 1: care because it made me annoyed. Brendan was at the CIA,
Speaker 1: and that was when the federal government was in the
Speaker 1: whole Uh, it's not. It's not. Um, what's the gosh
Speaker 1: I'm isis it's Isle, right, and you're President Obama eisl Oh,
Speaker 1: it's oh, we gotta dobleisl And everyone's like, what the
Speaker 1: heck is this isl crap? Just say isis the Islamic
Speaker 1: state of rock and Syria. Well you'll notice it's all
Speaker 1: gone away all of a sudden. We don't have to
Speaker 1: say ISCEL anymore. This is just Obama and some of
Speaker 1: his top people like, we're we're smart, We're gonna like Eisol.
Speaker 1: There's no basis in reality for this whatsoever makes no sense.
Speaker 1: I know people say, oh, sham in Arabic was closer
Speaker 1: to levant where America. We can call it what we
Speaker 1: want to call it. It's the Islamic It was the
Speaker 1: Islamic state of Irackan Syria. All right. But you know,
Speaker 1: so Brandon was at the eight, it was at the agency.
Speaker 1: He's director when we're saying ISCEL all the time, and
Speaker 1: now he's running around saying, uh, doucier o the doocey
Speaker 1: it just say dos see a buddy. I know this
Speaker 1: is a little thing and I'm nitpicking here, but whatever
Speaker 1: the point is, I don't like it. And his notion
Speaker 1: that just because it's unverified doesn't mean it's not true.
Speaker 1: That's so misleading in so many ways, because, as I
Speaker 1: was saying to you, this isn't just information that they
Speaker 1: wanted to run to ground and check. They took action
Speaker 1: based on unverified information. And I'm here to tell you
Speaker 1: that a lot of raw intel is crap. A lot
Speaker 1: of it. Raw intel means the information that just comes
Speaker 1: into the various sources of information that we have out
Speaker 1: there in law enforcement, the intelligence community, and a lot
Speaker 1: of you again going to law enforcement world, Yeah, does
Speaker 1: every source who comes to you and says, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know I so and so's uh, you know, running a
Speaker 1: running a chop shop on the other side of town,
Speaker 1: You're just like, oh, let's get the swat team. I mean,
Speaker 1: usually you're gonna write, I mean, you guys know, you're
Speaker 1: gonna do a little checking because if if not, you're
Speaker 1: gonna show up, but with a squat team thinking you're
Speaker 1: breaking up a meth lab or a chop shop, and
Speaker 1: it's gonna be like Luigi's pizzeria, and you're gonna terrify
Speaker 1: a bunch of people for no reason. And you can
Speaker 1: find out that the guy who called he was actually
Speaker 1: Luigi's competition, Mario. Right. So the point here is they
Speaker 1: have to check the information because if you take action
Speaker 1: on unverified information, think about what that opens us up to.
Speaker 1: Most s raw intel is crap. Any of you who
Speaker 1: have worked in the government military, you know this, right,
Speaker 1: there's some clown to walk in somewhere to a government building, lucker.
Speaker 1: You know, yes, uh Osama bin Laden is hiding under
Speaker 1: my bed. I would like a million dollars please. And
Speaker 1: you know, technically you may have to report up a
Speaker 1: chain of command that there's a guy who says Osama's
Speaker 1: hiding under his bed at home and he wants a
Speaker 1: million dollars. But if you were to have sealed Team
Speaker 1: six repel from helicopters at this guy's home looking for
Speaker 1: Osama under the bed, people are gonna be like, mm hmm,
Speaker 1: that's probably a for a whole bunch of reasons, a
Speaker 1: bad idea. But notice again the dishonesty from one of
Speaker 1: the formerly most senior bureaucrats in the whole intelligence community.
Speaker 1: Just because it's unverified doesn't mean it isn't true. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not the point. You can't take action on it
Speaker 1: until it is verified, and therefore you know that it
Speaker 1: is true, because if you take action based on unverified information,
Speaker 1: you pollute and distort and degrade the entire process, whether
Speaker 1: it's law enforcement, fies, a warrants, intelligence collection. They keep
Speaker 1: talking about undermining institutions. My friends, I can't tell you
Speaker 1: this is you want to you want to undermine institutions.
Speaker 1: Convince the American people that you can open up and
Speaker 1: all encompassing like communications fis a warrant on them based
Speaker 1: on what some dude said to some dude that nobody
Speaker 1: ever checked. That's pretty big deal. Oh, the media, it's
Speaker 1: but it's a dud, you see, it's a dud. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the whole thing is a dud. M. I haven't even
Speaker 1: gotten into the State Department side of this yet. By
Speaker 1: the way, we're gonna have some fun with that one.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, I enjoy taking swipes at the State Department.
Speaker 1: That's gonna happen. Uh. We'll also take some of your
Speaker 1: calls eight four four nine buck eight four to eight
Speaker 1: to five. We have much more show. I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: Sarah just to give you. I'm gonna say that and
Speaker 1: not tell you no, no no, I'm gonna tell you we
Speaker 1: have Sarah Carter joining for a deep dive on all
Speaker 1: this in the second part of the next hour, also
Speaker 1: going to talk to you a little bit, just a
Speaker 1: little thoughts on the super Bowl and nachos, and Justin
Speaker 1: timber Lake will get there. That's third hour, Uh make
Speaker 1: fun of Hillary. Third hour. That's gonna be great. And
Speaker 1: then end of the show. I actually have some really
Speaker 1: uh serious but heartfelt and worthwhile stuff to talk to
Speaker 1: you about, not about me, but about just wisdom that
Speaker 1: I saw somewhere online and wanted to share with you,
Speaker 1: and I think you'll particular today. I would hope that
Speaker 1: all of you get a chance to either stick around
Speaker 1: until the end of the show or at least download
Speaker 1: this podcast and listen to the uh well, hopefully the
Speaker 1: whole show, but certally the end of the show, because
Speaker 1: I think we'll find it really, really worthwhile. And with
Speaker 1: that we'll run into a quick break. Alright to we've
Speaker 1: got some lines. Let let's get to it. Patrick in Wabash, Indiana,
Speaker 1: what's up, Patrick, Yes, I wanted to know what you
Speaker 1: think about nobody's taking this serious enough. Why isn't this
Speaker 1: dossier false? Dossier? And the uranium one deal. Why isn't
Speaker 1: it subversion and treason? Fel and Julius Rosenberg have nothing
Speaker 1: on Hillary and Obama administration all finding off on this
Speaker 1: uranium one and the uranium goes to our enemy Russia
Speaker 1: and now be selling to Iran and UH North Korea. Okay, Patrick,
Speaker 1: hold on, let's slow down a little bit, and I
Speaker 1: appreciate your passion. A few things here to keep in mind.
Speaker 1: One is that on um the Rosenberg's stealing nuclear secrets
Speaker 1: and and and giving them to our mortal enemies, the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union at the time is that's a very specific thing,
Speaker 1: and it actually does fall under the category of espionage.
Speaker 1: I believe they were the last people executed in this
Speaker 1: country for espionage, if memory serves UH. Others have all
Speaker 1: gotten life sentences, the worst of the worst. I've gotten
Speaker 1: life sentences. Um, when you're you're talking, you talked about
Speaker 1: a bunch of things here, the uranium uranium one issue.
Speaker 1: I do think that there will be some of hearings
Speaker 1: and and investigation into that going on going on with
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. I do believe they'll be looking into
Speaker 1: it more. I think the DJ has already mentioned something
Speaker 1: about that, but on those issues, for example, the Hillary
Speaker 1: paid a play scheme with the Clinton Foundation, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of gray area. Look, the Clintons are shady, and
Speaker 1: the Clintons both have backgrounds in the law, so they
Speaker 1: now that doesn't mean that Bill didn't break all kinds
Speaker 1: of laws, because he clearly did, and doesn't mean it
Speaker 1: Hillary didn't break all kinds of laws. She clearly did.
Speaker 1: But they generally tried to use the Clinton Foundation as
Speaker 1: a slush fund, but to do it in such a
Speaker 1: way they would always at least have a defense whereby
Speaker 1: they're not selling influence, they're selling charity, They're they're helping
Speaker 1: the world. So it becomes difficult to get to a
Speaker 1: place where you could bring a specific prosecution against the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation unless you're going to try unless you can
Speaker 1: prove quid pro quo corruption, which is a very important
Speaker 1: term in this because that's the standard, right meaning what
Speaker 1: for what. So, for example, if I gave the Clintons
Speaker 1: a check for the Clinton Foundation for a million dollars,
Speaker 1: and then six months later, my secretary, which I don't have,
Speaker 1: nor do I have the kind of money to give
Speaker 1: them a check, I'm just saying theoretically, six months later,
Speaker 1: my assistant, my secretary, calls them and say says, so
Speaker 1: Buck wants a meeting because he represents a conglomerate that
Speaker 1: needs a state department license to do business in Kazakhstan
Speaker 1: or something that maybe you can get me on a
Speaker 1: quid pro quo. But because it goes into a a
Speaker 1: charity instead of directly into my pockets, there's an additional layer.
Speaker 1: And that's the kind of evil genius of what the
Speaker 1: Clintons did. They polluted charity, but they created a slush
Speaker 1: fund that that was a branding mechanism for them that
Speaker 1: supported their lifestyle that flew them all over the world.
Speaker 1: But they can always use a veil of protection of
Speaker 1: the charity to keep them out of legal jeopardy. And
Speaker 1: I know that's a lot of I'm throwing a lot
Speaker 1: at you, Patrick, but I'm trying to just take your
Speaker 1: your whole thought processes here and then on the on
Speaker 1: the issue of treason, and UH treason is a very
Speaker 1: specific charge. People use it as a thing to say
Speaker 1: about people they don't like, and government treason is giving
Speaker 1: aid and comfort to the enemy. So if you're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about illegal uh an actual prosecution of someone for treason.
Speaker 1: You'd have to show them giving aid and comfort to
Speaker 1: the enemy on the uranium. On the uranium issue, they're
Speaker 1: not exporting the uranium, which is true. So that's something
Speaker 1: else that I think you have to keep in mind here.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm as appalled by the Clinton Foundation as
Speaker 1: anybody out there, but I also want to keep keep
Speaker 1: it into in the realm of what is provable and
Speaker 1: what is realistic. I think corruption is provable. I think
Speaker 1: treason is going way too far. Um. We got to
Speaker 1: talk about the State Department though, was this a whole
Speaker 1: other area of propaganda against Trump? Will get there. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now, because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the buck never stops. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, our two is upon us.
Speaker 1: And I got some breaking news for you, which I
Speaker 1: think I was going to break for you before, but
Speaker 1: I held it a little longer because I got distracted.
Speaker 1: But here's what we got. The House Committee, the U. S.
Speaker 1: House of Representatives committ has voted to approve the release
Speaker 1: of the Democrat response to a contentious Republican memo alleging
Speaker 1: FBI bias. That's the headline on Reuter's here, So a
Speaker 1: memo to respond to the memo. That's what we've got here.
Speaker 1: You'll notice that this brings up a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: interesting little side plots, doesn't it. First of all, if
Speaker 1: the memo was a dud, as we discussed in the
Speaker 1: last hour, which is not true, but which a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrats in their media allies are saying, what's the
Speaker 1: need for a response memo if it's a dud. Remember
Speaker 1: they didn't say it's just not true, although they said
Speaker 1: that too. They're saying it's a dud. Why I respond
Speaker 1: to a dug? Oh? Maybe it actually was important and
Speaker 1: they're just lying to their base and trying to downplay this.
Speaker 1: If it's a dud, there's no need for you to
Speaker 1: release your own. I would also note that their memo
Speaker 1: is I believe, ten pages. Okay, what are they going
Speaker 1: to write for ten pages? Here is my guests, and
Speaker 1: my prediction of the Democrat memo is that it will
Speaker 1: have no additional information, nothing that comes from the realm
Speaker 1: of declassified or anything like that. It will just be
Speaker 1: ten pages of Democrat misdirection and talking points to downplay, undermine,
Speaker 1: and try to quickly move past the Republican memo. So
Speaker 1: that's what I think we're gonna have there. That is
Speaker 1: my expectation for that said, yeah, let's release it. Release
Speaker 1: the memo, right, release the memo, Go for it. I
Speaker 1: don't I don't much see any reason not to have
Speaker 1: a release. We'll be joined by Sarah Carter by the way,
Speaker 1: later in the hour to talk about all this stuff,
Speaker 1: the Fies, the fis a memo, Fies abuse memo, everything
Speaker 1: that's going on in this world. Because Sarah's on the
Speaker 1: front lines breaking stories on this and dealing with it
Speaker 1: all the time. So yeah, yeah, the memo will be released.
Speaker 1: The memo is going to be released. I think it's
Speaker 1: going to the White House now. Some are saying that
Speaker 1: Trump might block it. I no reason for Trump to
Speaker 1: block it. I can't imagine. Now if the Democrats get
Speaker 1: this memo through, if they are in fact able to
Speaker 1: get this thing released, then we can expect that if
Speaker 1: my prediction about it is true that it has no
Speaker 1: new information, that it is just a screed, it is
Speaker 1: an editorial posing as national security information to set straight
Speaker 1: some aspect of this debate, then that will show us
Speaker 1: that once again Democrats were either exaggerating, were lying. When
Speaker 1: it came to national security information, they were lying. There
Speaker 1: was no national security information that was sensitive, that was
Speaker 1: problematic in its release in the Republican memo. That was
Speaker 1: a lie. Now they're saying that it was a or
Speaker 1: they were saying immediately that the Republican Memo was a dud.
Speaker 1: I guess we can call it the Shift memo. You know,
Speaker 1: America is about to get shift. Um that is likely
Speaker 1: to have nothing of substance, and that they can't come
Speaker 1: up with any substance. I'm predicting here, but I I
Speaker 1: have very high confidence in this one. I wish there
Speaker 1: was a way I could legally place a bet in
Speaker 1: Vegas on this one. Um. That will just go to
Speaker 1: show you that all of their oh there's a lack
Speaker 1: of context, is a lack of context. This is their
Speaker 1: opportunity to show us the context. This is the opportunity
Speaker 1: to show us what the context is for, or that
Speaker 1: what the lack of context is for the Republican memo,
Speaker 1: because that's what they were always saying, right, And that's
Speaker 1: what something the FBI said to it'll omit it omitted information. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Well, we'll see we'll see if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong. I'm willing to bet. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of you would be with me here, and I bet
Speaker 1: that I'm right on this one. So that's one part
Speaker 1: of a Democrat memo now is going through the same process.
Speaker 1: You know, what is it? What's the deal for? What's
Speaker 1: good for the goose is good for the gander? Right,
Speaker 1: isn't that? But is that like old old nursery wrong stuff? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about. That's an old phrase,
Speaker 1: old old time phrase there from Buck And that's true.
Speaker 1: If you're for transparency, then you're for transparency. That's This
Speaker 1: is pretty straightforward. This is not overly complicated. Democrats want
Speaker 1: to release their own memo, fine, go forth, it's not
Speaker 1: going to change anything. In fact, I think you'll just
Speaker 1: see that they're repeating what they already have on this.
Speaker 1: They're repeating what they've already been saying. Let's get onto
Speaker 1: some new information. Though. There's another interesting part of this
Speaker 1: whole fis abuse scandal, surveillance of card he Page and
Speaker 1: Papadopolis and how this ties into Trump and how the
Speaker 1: media is trying to use this two under mind and
Speaker 1: in fact end this administration. What is the new information
Speaker 1: that we have on this. Well, here's Katherine Herrick from
Speaker 1: Fox News. Last month, the Republican chairman of the Senate
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, along with another senior Senate Republican,
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department
Speaker 1: asking for an investigation of the former British by Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: who compiled the dossier, on the basis that they said
Speaker 1: there was evidence that he had lined to the FBI
Speaker 1: about his contact with the media and the distribution of
Speaker 1: the dossier. And the document is a new allegation by
Speaker 1: the senators that Clinton associates also fed information to steal
Speaker 1: and it reads, in part, it is troubling enough that
Speaker 1: the Clinton campaign funded Mr Steele's work, but that these
Speaker 1: Clinton associates were contemporary contemporaneously feeding Mr steele allegations raises
Speaker 1: additional concerns about his credibility. Oh wait a second, So,
Speaker 1: considering Clinton was a Secretary of State, which means that
Speaker 1: she was the boss of the State Department for a while,
Speaker 1: boss lady of the State Department, and she would have
Speaker 1: had ties to very senior people in the State Department.
Speaker 1: As a result of that, the State Department leans left.
Speaker 1: To begin with, I've told you that in the past,
Speaker 1: and I'm reiterating it here today. What the heck is
Speaker 1: this all about? Now we're being told that there were
Speaker 1: folks who were Clinton acolytes disciples, I mean, Clinton cronies
Speaker 1: in State. Because remember, if you're the assistant deputy assistant
Speaker 1: secretary of whatever at the State Department, you know, deputy
Speaker 1: under assistant under assistant secretary, you stay around after Hillary
Speaker 1: moves on to whatever. I mean, you stay around in
Speaker 1: your State Department job most likely. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: how would you leave or how would you get elevated
Speaker 1: from your deputy under assistant assistant secretary job at State
Speaker 1: if Hillary becomes president. So you have quite a vested
Speaker 1: interest in a Hillary presidency because she would be immensely powerful.
Speaker 1: She'd be in a position to either elevate you within
Speaker 1: the State Department bureaucracy or get you one of those
Speaker 1: really lucrative consulting gigs for former government employees that tend
Speaker 1: to go the way of the swamp dwellers, if you will,
Speaker 1: the d C insiders, right, get some fat contract to
Speaker 1: advise people and basically just have lunch and do Google searches.
Speaker 1: I would know what. I have friends who have worked
Speaker 1: for these places on K Street. You know that's what happens.
Speaker 1: So if you want to get one of those gigs
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden triple or quadruple your government salary,
Speaker 1: you know you want Hillary to win. And so what
Speaker 1: we're being told here is that Christopher Steele was also
Speaker 1: giving information. I'm sorry that Clinton associates were also giving
Speaker 1: information to the Christopher Steel at the time. So people
Speaker 1: within the State Department, if you're acocracy, we're in fact,
Speaker 1: uh telling Christopher Steel stuff. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: it sounds like my information might have gone the other
Speaker 1: way too. Here's former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Newland.
Speaker 1: When he was doing this other work and became concerned
Speaker 1: the dossier. The dossier he passed two to four pages
Speaker 1: of short points of what he was finding, and our
Speaker 1: immediate reaction to that was this is not in our purview.
Speaker 1: This needs to go to the FBI. If there is
Speaker 1: any concern here that one candidate or the election as
Speaker 1: a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation, that's
Speaker 1: for something for the FBI to investigate. So hold on
Speaker 1: a second, which is it here? Because if you have
Speaker 1: Clinton cronies at the State Department giving Steel information and
Speaker 1: then Steele running that to the FBI, do you also
Speaker 1: have Steel getting his information however he gets it, and
Speaker 1: then going back to the State Department to meet with
Speaker 1: member state departments, a huge organization, meet with other people,
Speaker 1: and say, oh, this is the information I've got. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is circle circular reporting in the worst possible way,
Speaker 1: which is a cardinal sin in intelligence and analysis work.
Speaker 1: You don't take one source and then pretend it's three sources.
Speaker 1: In fact, if you were writing a high school report
Speaker 1: on yeah, you know Liechtenstein and or is it Stein
Speaker 1: and you really just use the encyclopedia, but you wrote
Speaker 1: like five books about, you know, my glorious travel in Liechtenstein,
Speaker 1: You've made up sources. That's bad, right, that's actually some
Speaker 1: people would fail you for that. Others would just take
Speaker 1: points off. But you're not supposed to do that. You're
Speaker 1: not supposed to fake the sources that you have or
Speaker 1: pretend that one source is really several sources. In intelligence work,
Speaker 1: you can imagine quite the same quite the same issue.
Speaker 1: Right If if I come up to you and I
Speaker 1: tell you that it was m lawns under my bed,
Speaker 1: you may say, well, you know, Buck's had a long day,
Speaker 1: maybe he's at out of it. If I say I've
Speaker 1: got five different people, all of whom can confirm that
Speaker 1: Osaman Lawdon's hiding under my bed, you might say to me, ohoa,
Speaker 1: that seems I mean, who are the who are these people?
Speaker 1: When in reality they're just four people that I told that,
Speaker 1: and they're like, yeah, I guess Buck's telling the truth.
Speaker 1: Now it's five people, all independently corroborating that. You know,
Speaker 1: that's where Osama's hiding. Yeah, that's right. You know he's
Speaker 1: still running around somewhere. Um, that's that's one way of
Speaker 1: looking at this problem. Meaning that's what I think happened. Here.
Speaker 1: You have Steel running around trying to wage a one
Speaker 1: man campaign to stop Trump from becoming president. And mind
Speaker 1: he's also a foreigner. I know that we think of
Speaker 1: you know, the Brits are like our cousins across the ocean.
Speaker 1: But he's not an American, not a lot of vote,
Speaker 1: not not really a part of our political process. And
Speaker 1: given the fury and fervor over all the Russian machinations
Speaker 1: of all kinds about our election, and it's all foreign
Speaker 1: influence in election. Christopher Steel is for an influence in
Speaker 1: the election, folks. I don't want the Brits or the
Speaker 1: British government or any other government trying to determine what
Speaker 1: goes on here anymore than I want the Russian government
Speaker 1: trying to determine what goes on over here. You know,
Speaker 1: the Swedes are great, I don't want them picking our
Speaker 1: next president. In fact, I think that the Swedes would
Speaker 1: be just as bad at picking our next president as
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other countries that are way less
Speaker 1: economically well off in Sweden. So that's just something else
Speaker 1: to keep in mind. I find this, this whole notion
Speaker 1: of the State Department now being an additional avenue for
Speaker 1: information that is anti Trump, very troubling and completely believable.
Speaker 1: By the way I I've had, I've had many many
Speaker 1: friends at State from over the years when I lived
Speaker 1: in d C. I had a lot of State Department
Speaker 1: friends and spent a lot of time around people the
Speaker 1: State Department. And it's a the best way to think
Speaker 1: about the State Department and people I know I'm gonna get,
Speaker 1: you know, an angry email or two. Here, someone like Buck,
Speaker 1: I work for State and like, I'm awesome. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I love America. What are you doing? I know you're out,
Speaker 1: I get it, But I'm talking about in the aggregate
Speaker 1: right in general, and the prototypical State Department guy or
Speaker 1: gal is an urban dwelling Democrat who thinks that Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders would have been a great option. Okay, that's you
Speaker 1: get a lot of that at the State Department. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, they speak foreign languages from their study abroad
Speaker 1: programs from predominantly like second tier private colleges, and they
Speaker 1: think that, you know, people should listen to them more
Speaker 1: because of that. So you get a lot of that
Speaker 1: at State. And that means you're gonna have a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of folks that are, let's just say, not part
Speaker 1: of the MAGA movement. So if they were in some
Speaker 1: way involved here in the Steel dossier, I would it
Speaker 1: would not surprise me in the least. And no matter what,
Speaker 1: And now, I just I just want to know was
Speaker 1: it a one way information flow or two way? Was
Speaker 1: Steel briefing State with anti Trump stuff? Was State briefing
Speaker 1: Steel with anti Trump stuff? Or was it both ways? Right?
Speaker 1: That's what we need to figure out now, but it
Speaker 1: seems quite clear that we have, um we have some
Speaker 1: some additional digging to do. To that point about digging,
Speaker 1: we have investigative journalist Sarah Carter joining us here in
Speaker 1: just a few minutes, so we will get into quite
Speaker 1: a bit of that. I would note that there are
Speaker 1: some reports today about what's going on with Syria and Rock,
Speaker 1: including US troops pulling out of a rock. Someone remind
Speaker 1: me tomorrow. I'll get it. We'll do a buck brief
Speaker 1: some national security work on what's going on over there
Speaker 1: and what we're gonna do. And it looks like we
Speaker 1: might be withdrawing from Syria and large numbers or not
Speaker 1: large numbers, but a large percentage might be withdrawing from Iraq.
Speaker 1: What that all means, and what's going on with the
Speaker 1: Assad regime, what we can expect there. That's not something
Speaker 1: we're gonna hit today, but I just want to keep
Speaker 1: that in the background of what we're talking about on
Speaker 1: the show. And also I'm hoping to do a little
Speaker 1: bit of a deep dive and a history three of
Speaker 1: MS thirteen, specifically as we get going here on the
Speaker 1: immigration debate, and we talked about enforcement priorities and sanctuary cities.
Speaker 1: I think we should all have a baseline understanding and
Speaker 1: background history on ms there Tomorrow, Salvat Trout show m
Speaker 1: S their teen and what the gang has, what it's
Speaker 1: been all about, what it does and how big it
Speaker 1: is and everything else. So I think that's despite what
Speaker 1: MSNBC said last week about how no one knows I
Speaker 1: m S thirteen except for Fox News viewers or whatever.
Speaker 1: You know. I guess over at MSNBC, knowledge is not power.
Speaker 1: You see much better. You know you want? You want
Speaker 1: a lot of ignorance. All right, we're gonna roll into
Speaker 1: a quick break. We'll be right back. Yea. The actual
Speaker 1: political motivation and beginning of this was on the Republican side.
Speaker 1: It was then switched over where there was democratic funding.
Speaker 1: It really goes to the credit ability, but that is
Speaker 1: an issue that the judge and issuing the fires of
Speaker 1: warrant takes into consideration. So Dick Durbin is still run
Speaker 1: around with that. You know, all the dossier stuff started
Speaker 1: with the Republicans. Like, no, come on, Dick Durbin. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say you're better than that, but that's not true either,
Speaker 1: But come on, man, come on, you know, tell tell
Speaker 1: the truth at least? Why not? Yeah, we only go
Speaker 1: around once in this world. Why not tell the truth
Speaker 1: for a change. Another thing I meant to get to
Speaker 1: you before, and we're gonna have Sarah Carter joining us
Speaker 1: here shortly, and then we'll also get into in the
Speaker 1: next hour a little bit of Super Bowl reaction, Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton blaming misogyny and saying and saying that climate change
Speaker 1: is misogynistic. Get ready for that. It's a real thing, everybody,
Speaker 1: next hour. And at the end of the hour, I
Speaker 1: have some some thoughts, some some wisdom from well of
Speaker 1: particularly important and heartfelt place for all of you. That's
Speaker 1: I'm just sharing with you. It's not from me, but
Speaker 1: it's something that I saw. I think you'll all appreciate.
Speaker 1: And that's at the end of the next year. I
Speaker 1: hope you can stay through for that. I saw this
Speaker 1: guy or I saw this editorial why I Am leaving
Speaker 1: the FBI, And I've noticed a trend here former And look,
Speaker 1: I was early on this one, right. It used to
Speaker 1: be what do you mean you're you're leaving You're leaving
Speaker 1: the intelligence community and you're going to be in media.
Speaker 1: And like, now all these guys want to be in media,
Speaker 1: right I was. Let's be honest, you know, Clapper and
Speaker 1: Brandon and Prete Burrah on all these guys. You're welcome,
Speaker 1: You're welcome. I was a trend setter here. I was
Speaker 1: early on. I've I've been doing this for seven years.
Speaker 1: I was early. Now everyone wants to get in on
Speaker 1: this game. Right. All these guys are working government. They're like, oh,
Speaker 1: I was in all that, being under Assistant Secretary for
Speaker 1: for logistics of making sure potato chips were adequately stocked
Speaker 1: in the in the break room, you know. And they're
Speaker 1: all now on run around over at MSNBC and whatnot.
Speaker 1: But this guy writes this piece of the for the
Speaker 1: New York Times, why I Am leaving the FBI, and
Speaker 1: it has a lot of like self congratulatory stuff. You know.
Speaker 1: One of the greatest honors of my life was walking
Speaker 1: across the stage at FBI Academy and receiving my special
Speaker 1: Agent path from the director Robert Mueller. Oh, big surprise, Mueller,
Speaker 1: you know. And then he goes on and on and
Speaker 1: he starts to say, you know that this is all
Speaker 1: it's also partisan. What are we to make that of
Speaker 1: the recent allegations of political bias at the FBI, particularly
Speaker 1: those involving two employees who is cringeworthy texts continue to
Speaker 1: threaten the agency's reputation. Uh, these political attacks on the
Speaker 1: bureau must stop. If those critics of the agency blah
Speaker 1: blahla and he goes on right, so that this is
Speaker 1: why he's he's leaving the FBI because the political criticism
Speaker 1: is saying, right, who wants to guess what we find
Speaker 1: out next about this guy who left the FBI? Who
Speaker 1: wants to who wants they can guess did he go?
Speaker 1: You know? Is he gonna go lead a quiet life
Speaker 1: somewhere just you know, volunteering in his off time and
Speaker 1: trying to build a small business. Oh he's a CNN analyst. Now,
Speaker 1: Oh what a shock, what a So he's leaving the
Speaker 1: FBI because of political pressure and he's running right over
Speaker 1: to CNN right away. M hmm. Is it really the
Speaker 1: political pressure at the FBI that's bothering him or is
Speaker 1: it the capitalizing here? Is is it the best option
Speaker 1: for him to try and ride this wave into a
Speaker 1: contributorship gig somewhere. I want to let the guy know, look,
Speaker 1: go to see it. You know, you'll be there for
Speaker 1: a year. You'll be on TV sometimes, but you know,
Speaker 1: they're still not going to give you a show, buddy.
Speaker 1: They only give shows to people that are really inside
Speaker 1: the inside the cool kids table, you know. So go
Speaker 1: have fun over there for a little bit. But at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, yet another voice saying that
Speaker 1: Trump is basically Hitler, not adding the conversation. It's not
Speaker 1: helpful and pretending that you're above politics and that's why
Speaker 1: you left the FBI so you can go be an
Speaker 1: a list at CNN. Is comical. It is comical. We
Speaker 1: got Sarah Carter joinings here in a few minutes. She's,
Speaker 1: like I said, front lines of this issue with the
Speaker 1: memo and everything else. So she's also good friend of mine.
Speaker 1: Stay with it. Other shows just talk at you in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Mud. We have a mission. We fight for
Speaker 1: the truth in a team effort, and Buck is back
Speaker 1: with our next play. Alright, alright, So the memo continues
Speaker 1: to be top of the news cycle, a lot of
Speaker 1: back and forth over the weekend after the meto dropped
Speaker 1: on Friday. We have a lady with us right now
Speaker 1: who has been at the center of the storm on
Speaker 1: this for quite some time because she's actually chasing down
Speaker 1: the truth and getting facts out there so that we
Speaker 1: know what's real and what's not. With all this, we
Speaker 1: have Sarah Carter on the line. She's an investigative journalist
Speaker 1: and also a Fox News contributor and an old pal
Speaker 1: of mind. Sarah, thank you for making the time. Oh
Speaker 1: it's great, but it's great to be with you. All right.
Speaker 1: So first in the memo aftermath, a lot of things
Speaker 1: coming up now and as I suspected, that was just
Speaker 1: an important day, kind of a major data point in
Speaker 1: the story. But by no means the end of any
Speaker 1: of these stories. Tell me a bit about this criminal
Speaker 1: referral with Christopher Steele and UH and Grasslely in Congress,
Speaker 1: what's going on with that? I think this is probably
Speaker 1: the biggest development in the case of the fight subbut
Speaker 1: case as well as the dotier on January for its basically,
Speaker 1: Senator Grassley and Senator Linda Graham referred to the Justice
Speaker 1: Department Christopher Steele for a criminal investigation, and basically that
Speaker 1: was based on information that they had obtained from the
Speaker 1: FBI when they looked at Christopher Steele's own testimony in
Speaker 1: the London courts and others and compared that to FBI
Speaker 1: information that they had received. And today they actually released
Speaker 1: a heavily redacted criminal referral that if you pick through
Speaker 1: the criminal referral, you see that they accused him of
Speaker 1: blatantly lying to the FBI. Further, you see that there
Speaker 1: were other people involved in what appears to be a
Speaker 1: second dossier. Now I've spoken to my sources, and those
Speaker 1: those sources have said that the second dossier was information
Speaker 1: said by Chris By actually by Hillary Clinton's allies, her friends,
Speaker 1: to Christopher Stile. And there was someone in particular at
Speaker 1: the State Department that was also feeding information to Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele that he then used in his dossier, which was
Speaker 1: used to obtain the Pytho warrant. So this is a
Speaker 1: very circular, very in and I'm sorry for the noise
Speaker 1: of the background and outdoors, but this is a This
Speaker 1: this shows how very incestuous they say it was between
Speaker 1: Chris Christopher Stile, Hillary Clinton, and others involved in putting
Speaker 1: together this DOFFI don't worry, Sarah. We assume that if
Speaker 1: you're outside, it's because you've got a dead drop going
Speaker 1: with one of your sources and you're about to get
Speaker 1: another another bombshell out there, so we excuse any any
Speaker 1: at all. Envia noise is fun. But tell me a
Speaker 1: bit about where where the Democrat memo stands in all this.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing that the the House may vote on it.
Speaker 1: I'm well, I mean, tell me what you're hearing from
Speaker 1: your sources about why should or should this not come out. Look,
Speaker 1: every source I've spoken to says, let the Democrat memo
Speaker 1: come out. Let them come out with their ten page
Speaker 1: rebuttal I spoke to others who said that it's lappable
Speaker 1: on its face. I don't know if that's true. I
Speaker 1: have not had a chance to look at that. The
Speaker 1: Democrats want to put their point of view out there.
Speaker 1: They you know, they have stated over and over again
Speaker 1: over the last few days that the new nest memo
Speaker 1: is not accurate, is that it doesn't tell the whole story,
Speaker 1: and they want to release their own. But remember they
Speaker 1: have to go through the same process, but the exact
Speaker 1: same process that the Republicans went through, and that means
Speaker 1: that their NEMO, their memo, needs to be thoroughly vetted,
Speaker 1: and it has not been vetted yet. It is in
Speaker 1: the process of being vetted and apparently as soon as
Speaker 1: that is done, they will vote to pass so that
Speaker 1: the Democratic Memo can go forward and become public as well.
Speaker 1: And I think it's important. I think it's important that
Speaker 1: we see both sides of this and understand where a
Speaker 1: representative shift is coming from and what he is going
Speaker 1: to do to can be to contend with the new NIMMO.
Speaker 1: But I tell you this, I've spoken to a number
Speaker 1: of sources who had direct access to the McCabe testimony,
Speaker 1: and they said he would specifically asked about the Steel
Speaker 1: dossier and whether or not the fight the application could
Speaker 1: have been obtained without it. And according to the sources
Speaker 1: that I've spoken with, McCabe was very explicit that he
Speaker 1: would not have been able to obtain the fight to warrant.
Speaker 1: The FBI would not have been able to obtain it
Speaker 1: without the dossier. What can you tell us, Sarah and
Speaker 1: everyone we're speaking to Sarah Carter check out her latest
Speaker 1: because she's the one who's been dropping bombshells on this
Speaker 1: story now for over a year. Sarah a no h
Speaker 1: Sarah and then a Carter dot Com is where she
Speaker 1: posts her pieces, as well as in various outlets across
Speaker 1: the country, Sarah, there's this talking point we heard a
Speaker 1: lot of in the twenty four or forty eight hours
Speaker 1: after the memo drop that well, they already were doing
Speaker 1: surveillance on Page before the the dossier came into effect,
Speaker 1: and or they were doing surveillance on Papadopoulos before the
Speaker 1: dossier came into effect. Do we have any are people
Speaker 1: just saying that without being able to prove it? Do
Speaker 1: we have any information on that? What? What can you
Speaker 1: tell us about that? That the notion that pre dossier
Speaker 1: there was already FBI surveillance of people tied to Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't think everybody has all the facts
Speaker 1: in place. I did speak to Carter Page myself. I
Speaker 1: did ask him direct questions, particularly about information that came
Speaker 1: out with his meeting with the Russians, um very brief
Speaker 1: meeting that he said he had he uh adamantly denies.
Speaker 1: He said he was never paid by the Russians to
Speaker 1: give any advice, that when he did offer his advice,
Speaker 1: it was based mostly on his own fability as a
Speaker 1: professor to to to to try to teach them, uh
Speaker 1: and and kind of direct economic policies and things of
Speaker 1: that nature. As far as what he was teaching at
Speaker 1: n y U at the time. I think was really
Speaker 1: fascinating here is that Paige and Papadopulis. Remember the story
Speaker 1: on George Papadospelis didn't even come out until much later, actually,
Speaker 1: the last this past December, when that story and that
Speaker 1: revelation came about, And that never had been a point
Speaker 1: of contention and never had been brought out in any
Speaker 1: news stories prior to the dossier. The dossier, in fact,
Speaker 1: was the main reason that the FBI, according to all
Speaker 1: the sources I've spoken with, got the fight a warrant
Speaker 1: to continue surveilling carter Page before that, according to carter
Speaker 1: Page and according to others, he was more of a
Speaker 1: witness for the FBI. And I have talked to FBI
Speaker 1: sources who said that they had approached carter Page after
Speaker 1: the meeting and really just wanted to utilize carter Page
Speaker 1: in their investigation of the Russians. Well, that's a critical Sarah.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a critical point because if he
Speaker 1: was working and I've seen this too from some people
Speaker 1: tied into all this and the investigation, if carter Page
Speaker 1: was assisting the FBI in any way in advance of
Speaker 1: the Fiser warrant. Then they can't turn around. They being
Speaker 1: people that are running with this story as a means
Speaker 1: of getting at the Trump administration, they can't run around
Speaker 1: and say, oh, but he was already the he was
Speaker 1: already on the FBI's radar before the Fiser warrant. Because
Speaker 1: if he's on the radar because he's helping them, that
Speaker 1: does not count. And that's exactly it. That's exactly the point,
Speaker 1: and that's the point that I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people have been trying to make her. What was the
Speaker 1: rule Carter Page played in the FBI's investigation, And if
Speaker 1: he was a witness as that is, as it has
Speaker 1: been told by sources that I've spoken with, then it
Speaker 1: makes him very different than being the target which he
Speaker 1: later became when the Dartier came about. And remember the
Speaker 1: Darcier's Christopher Steel put together was said in bits and
Speaker 1: pieces to the FBI. So we know and we have
Speaker 1: heard that the first time they went in for the
Speaker 1: five to application they were denied, and it was the
Speaker 1: second time when they had more information. Apparently the dossier,
Speaker 1: along with Michael Isakof's story in Yahoo Knews that the
Speaker 1: FISA was actually accepted, and they went through with their
Speaker 1: surveillance of carter page. Sarah, can we keep you, can
Speaker 1: we keep you through the break for one second, just
Speaker 1: to to ask you about the State Department angle on
Speaker 1: this in a second. Absolutely, guys, we're talking to Sarah Carter.
Speaker 1: You should be following her on social media for not already,
Speaker 1: follow her on Twitter and Facebook. Her website is s
Speaker 1: A R A A A Carter dot com Sarah A.
Speaker 1: Carter dot com and you see her on Fox News
Speaker 1: all the time. We're gonna be back in just a
Speaker 1: moment with more from Sarah. Stay with me, all right,
Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone. We've got Sarah Carter on the line
Speaker 1: talking to her about the latest in Memo gate. I
Speaker 1: guess we don't really have a better term for yet,
Speaker 1: Russia Gate. We just add gate onto anything of news
Speaker 1: interest these days, it seems. But Sarah, thanks for staying
Speaker 1: through the break with us. This is a this is
Speaker 1: a big addition to this story. We don't often hear
Speaker 1: a lot of new and recently with the memo and
Speaker 1: now this, there's some there's some pieces that are getting
Speaker 1: added into the puzzle here that are are meaningful and
Speaker 1: that advanced our understanding of what really happened when it
Speaker 1: comes to Russia Trump collusion. Tell me about how the
Speaker 1: State Department all of a sudden plays in this well,
Speaker 1: I think this is the most fascinating heart book of
Speaker 1: the entire saga here that all of a sudden, now
Speaker 1: the State Department is involved in this memo and in
Speaker 1: and actually in the dossier itself that Christopher Steele was
Speaker 1: putting together. In the referral, the criminal referral that Chuck
Speaker 1: Grassley along with Lindsay Graham gave to the d o J,
Speaker 1: they specifically state, specifically state that sources within the State
Speaker 1: Department were feeding information to Christopher Steele, who then used
Speaker 1: that information in his dossier, which he fed to the FBI.
Speaker 1: Those sources were friends of the Clintons. That's very important
Speaker 1: because that changes pretty much everything. Although they said that
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele got information from the Russians, this was an
Speaker 1: added piece of information that Christopher Steele was held from
Speaker 1: the FBI, and that's why the referral was made. He
Speaker 1: did not inform the FBI that he was being fed
Speaker 1: information from people that were closely aligned with the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign. Now you go to the memo and you
Speaker 1: say to yourself. Union specifically pointed out that Bruce Or
Speaker 1: in his four page memo that Bruce Or had told
Speaker 1: the FBI that Christopher Steele was intent on not seeing
Speaker 1: President Trump elected. So now take a step back. He
Speaker 1: is not just a former intelligence analyst collecting information that
Speaker 1: he found surprising and stunning. He had a former intelligence
Speaker 1: officer from the from Britain who was collecting information to
Speaker 1: harm President Trump. And this is why people are saying,
Speaker 1: we need to look into this. We need to see
Speaker 1: if our bife of courts and if our intelligence tools
Speaker 1: were weaponized to go after a candidate. Was this being
Speaker 1: used by the political opponent, by Hillary Clinton's campaign, members
Speaker 1: of her camp, friends of hers to basically spread disinformation
Speaker 1: about President Trump in his campaign? I mean, this is incredible, Sarah.
Speaker 1: If if what you're telling me, if what you're telling
Speaker 1: me is is born out with sourcing and reporting, now,
Speaker 1: it would mean that there could have been When you
Speaker 1: say State Department, I think this is an important You know,
Speaker 1: first of all, the State Department is a very I know,
Speaker 1: I knew a lot of people at State. State is
Speaker 1: a left of center at a minimum organization. Overall, Yes,
Speaker 1: there are former ground pounding, awesome patriotic Marines that also
Speaker 1: go and work at the State Department. But it's mostly
Speaker 1: people that got master's degrees from Johns. Hopkins and Columbia's
Speaker 1: CPUs school, and and they are very left of center.
Speaker 1: So that's the overall ethos. But even putting aside whether
Speaker 1: it was just some bureaucrats Sarah who wanted to get
Speaker 1: even with Trump or just didn't like Trump. And we
Speaker 1: know there's been a lot oh the anti Trump sentiment
Speaker 1: coming out of Foggy Bottom for a while. It could
Speaker 1: be senior appointees, or it could have been senior appointees
Speaker 1: of the Obama administration at State, people that had worked
Speaker 1: very closely with Hillary Clinton, which you Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: It could be those people passing information to Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele presenting that to the FBI, And this would
Speaker 1: be a whole another channel for OPO research in essence
Speaker 1: getting handed to the FBI as though it was actual intelligence.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's stunning. It is stunning, And I mean
Speaker 1: I'm reading directly right now from the Criminal Referral where
Speaker 1: they state explicitly it is troubly enough that the Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign funded Mr Steel's work, but that these Clinton associates
Speaker 1: were contemporaneously feeding Mr steele allegations raises additional concerns about
Speaker 1: his credibility. There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr Steele
Speaker 1: materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his
Speaker 1: dostier efforts, which on which bears on his credibility. This
Speaker 1: is so important because this opens up a whole new chapter.
Speaker 1: As you said, but in this dossier, and in Christopher
Speaker 1: Steel's involvement with the dossier, and without this dossier, it
Speaker 1: appears they would have never been able to gain a
Speaker 1: fight the warrant to conduct this investigation of Carter Page. Sarah,
Speaker 1: We've been told now for a few days because as
Speaker 1: a main part of the Democrat rebuttal, that there's other
Speaker 1: information than the dossier. I just want to know, are
Speaker 1: you hearing from from your sources, from people in the
Speaker 1: boat way who could affect change on this, that they're
Speaker 1: going to try and get that information out there too,
Speaker 1: Because I think that the one of the biggest hits
Speaker 1: the d o J took here was the pretense that
Speaker 1: this was national security sensitive information that we couldn't know about.
Speaker 1: I mean that four page memo was important, but there
Speaker 1: was nothing that was endangering any sources, any methods, and
Speaker 1: that they pretended that was the case is really harmful
Speaker 1: to their credibility. Are we gonna be able to get
Speaker 1: more information you think out of them? I mean, if
Speaker 1: there's other stuff, can we find out what that other
Speaker 1: stuff is for the Fies Award or no? Well you
Speaker 1: would think so. I mean, there's been so many leaks,
Speaker 1: and the one leak that we haven't seen, the major
Speaker 1: League that is supposed to prove some type of Russia
Speaker 1: collusion with Trump, is that particular leak we still haven't
Speaker 1: seen that. There has been no evidence to prove that
Speaker 1: as of yet. Now, if there is other evidence that
Speaker 1: they used for the fight of warrant, I would like
Speaker 1: to know what that was too, because I think that's
Speaker 1: essentially important. And maybe the ten page memo by the
Speaker 1: Democrats we'll explain that. But so far we haven't heard
Speaker 1: anything in that realm. There's been no leaks which we
Speaker 1: were expecting to contradict the new Nest memo on that part.
Speaker 1: So either they're holding it close hold or they just
Speaker 1: don't have it. Sarah, when can we expect your next piece?
Speaker 1: And I know it'll be up on Sarah E. Carter
Speaker 1: dot com. But two, can you tell us when to
Speaker 1: expect it and maybe a little bit of what to
Speaker 1: expect or are we still working on that? Well, we
Speaker 1: have a piece coming out today which is a story
Speaker 1: I've been working on which deals with the referral and
Speaker 1: the possible people involved in the Clinton campaign who were
Speaker 1: feeding the British spy his information. Alright, everybody Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: look for on Fox News, follower on social media and
Speaker 1: check out her latest piece out today. Sarah, great work
Speaker 1: is always. Thank you so much for joining us. Hey,
Speaker 1: thank you, bet you too. Um, alright, seems so yeah,
Speaker 1: there you have it. You know it looks Sarah has
Speaker 1: been such a warrior for the truth on this whole issue.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you, I've known Sarah for years.
Speaker 1: I go back with Sarah at Lee six or seven
Speaker 1: years working with her back in the old real News
Speaker 1: days and the Blaze, and she was a colleague of
Speaker 1: mine at the Blaze for a while. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a lot harder to do the job when
Speaker 1: the deep state and the establishment are against you and
Speaker 1: not feeding you information. And you know, it's it's a
Speaker 1: very different thing, right For a lot of these so
Speaker 1: called national secure eddie analysts and reporters, particularly reporters at
Speaker 1: the major papers, they're literally just they're they're spoon fed information,
Speaker 1: sometimes classified information that the Democrat establishment wants out there,
Speaker 1: and then they get to act like, oh, we're in
Speaker 1: trepid reporters. Sarah's finding stuff that people don't want her
Speaker 1: to find out. So she's doing really, really great work
Speaker 1: and I just wouldn't know that. I'm still stunned with
Speaker 1: all this. There's so many people running around acting like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, so what if they turn on a finds
Speaker 1: a warrant based on what we would call rument in
Speaker 1: the intelligence community rumor intelligence, which is just a funny
Speaker 1: way of saying not intelligence. You can just have somebody,
Speaker 1: I mean, think about this. Someone could get a referral
Speaker 1: to the FBI started on me. So yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, my my, my cousin, My cousin knows this.
Speaker 1: This guy named Commy Bear, and he says that Bucky
Speaker 1: is trying to run some special you know, Russia collusion effort.
Speaker 1: And you convince some of the FBI and and and
Speaker 1: they can go to find as a quarters, I mean
Speaker 1: it's crazy. See right, look at what is the basis
Speaker 1: for all this? How can we take seriously any safeguards
Speaker 1: when what's been exposed thus far is that you can
Speaker 1: just if the FBI wants to believe you, or some
Speaker 1: people I shouldn't say the FBI, some people at the FBI,
Speaker 1: the d o J want to believe you. They just
Speaker 1: make up all your stuff. You know, your phones, your emails,
Speaker 1: and you're an American citizen, don't have to identify a
Speaker 1: crime that you're committing. It's crazy. Are we got a
Speaker 1: big hour three coming up? Team? Uh? Eight four, eight
Speaker 1: to five. We're gonna end the show with some life
Speaker 1: philosophy that I think you'll find very useful, um and
Speaker 1: very compelling, and we'll be back with that much more.
Speaker 1: Stay with me other shows just talk at you in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hud. We have a mission. We fight for
Speaker 1: the truth in a team effort and bucks back with
Speaker 1: our next play. When people are insecure and anxious, they
Speaker 1: often um defend against their own feelings by rejecting others,
Speaker 1: and that often happens with minorities, It happens with ethnic ethnicities, races, religions,
Speaker 1: and it also happens with respect to women. Um So,
Speaker 1: any of you who have read my my book about
Speaker 1: what happened, noo that I think that misogyny and sexism
Speaker 1: was part of that campaign. Old fashioned sexism, uh and
Speaker 1: a refusal to accept the equality of women. What happened
Speaker 1: was sexism. There you get Hillary. Look, I'm willing to
Speaker 1: drop the whole Hillary conversation if we don't have to
Speaker 1: hear from Hillary anymore. But she's not dropping it. So
Speaker 1: I'm not dropping it right. I'm not gonna give Hillary
Speaker 1: the last word, last word, because my ears are paying
Speaker 1: the price for Hillaries presidence in the public sphere. But
Speaker 1: you'll notice the same thing from her as you'll always hear, right,
Speaker 1: You'll hear from her that you know it's about sexism.
Speaker 1: I would note that it's a little bit galling for
Speaker 1: some of us to hear from Hillary Clinton that she
Speaker 1: lost because of sexism in part, she said, in part
Speaker 1: to be fair to the words, she is, but you know,
Speaker 1: she lost in part because of sexism. When, as we
Speaker 1: would say in the media business, or I think in
Speaker 1: any business, I just this is the one I know
Speaker 1: the best. Her unique selling proposition, so to speak, as
Speaker 1: a candidate was that she was gonna be the first
Speaker 1: woman president. Right, Her campaign was I'm with her. It
Speaker 1: wasn't vote for me based on the merits, right, it
Speaker 1: was it was she's the first woman president in the
Speaker 1: making new sexism. It's like, no, you know, if if
Speaker 1: you would run a really compelling female candidate, she would win.
Speaker 1: But Hillary is just not a compelling female candidate, as
Speaker 1: we all know. She also has some other sexism based
Speaker 1: advice to share with all of us. For women, they
Speaker 1: will bear the brunt of looking for the food, looking
Speaker 1: for the firewood, looking for the place to migrate to
Speaker 1: where your crops are no longer uh growing, they're burning
Speaker 1: up in the intense heat that we're now seeing reported
Speaker 1: across UH North Africa, into the Middle East and into India.
Speaker 1: So yes, women once again will be the primary um
Speaker 1: primarily burdened with the problems of climate change. Let me
Speaker 1: just reiterate here what's being said there in this recent
Speaker 1: Hillary speech. She's saying that climate change disproportionately affects women.
Speaker 1: Climate change is sexist. Can you I want you to
Speaker 1: let that settle in a little bit there. That's right,
Speaker 1: glory and putting aside for a moment whether or not
Speaker 1: climate change is something to be can certained about. It's real, everybody.
Speaker 1: Climate change is real. It's just always been real. It
Speaker 1: has always been real. It is insignificant to your life
Speaker 1: and mind. It will be insignificant to our great great
Speaker 1: great great grandchildren's lives. And we are naturally decarbonizing as
Speaker 1: a human race. That has been occurring naturally via market
Speaker 1: and technological forces for over a century now, for really
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty years. And I can take you
Speaker 1: through that progression one day if you want, But it
Speaker 1: is as clear as clear can be. And yet you
Speaker 1: have the fearmongering, and you have Hillary who is trying
Speaker 1: to capitalize on climate change as an issue of sexism.
Speaker 1: This was almost our current president, folks, you would have
Speaker 1: been treated to one Hillary speech after another, but I
Speaker 1: broke the glass ceiling. But it was unfair. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't know which way you're going with Hillary. You
Speaker 1: just know that it's going to be self serving and dishonest.
Speaker 1: And I have to note that not only you got
Speaker 1: Hillary telling you that climate change is sexist, which I
Speaker 1: don't even know how you could get makeup dumber stuff
Speaker 1: than this. At this point, like they're actually getting beyond
Speaker 1: my creative capabilities here for mockery. It is getting hard
Speaker 1: to mock some of Hillary's self aggrandizement and self pity.
Speaker 1: She does those two things simultaneously. She's amazing and should
Speaker 1: be president. Oh woe is me? It's so sad. I'm
Speaker 1: a woman. They wouldn't let me be president, right, It's
Speaker 1: it's a pretty astonishing combination. But it's very real with Hillary.
Speaker 1: But I would not that, you know, her whole sexism
Speaker 1: is going to affect women things seems more than men,
Speaker 1: which by the men men need look, you know, without
Speaker 1: getting into the sexist and debate, men need food and
Speaker 1: and dry land and would for fires as well. I
Speaker 1: don't know why women are going to be the ones
Speaker 1: who are disproportionately affected by this. I do not understand anyway.
Speaker 1: There there was also a piece of the Weekend And
Speaker 1: you can't make this stuff up, folks. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is going beyond parody. This was printed in the New
Speaker 1: York Times. No children because of climate change? Some people
Speaker 1: are considering it. This is what the piece says. Add
Speaker 1: this to the list of decisions affected by climate change?
Speaker 1: Should I have children? It is not an easy time
Speaker 1: for people to whold to feel hopeful, with the effects
Speaker 1: of global warming no longer theoretical projections becoming more dire,
Speaker 1: and governmental action lagging. And while few, if any studies
Speaker 1: have examined how large a climate change a role climate
Speaker 1: change plays and people's childbearing decisions, it loomed large in
Speaker 1: interviews with more than a dozen people ages eighteen to
Speaker 1: forty three. Uh, okay, twelve people. It's not exactly a
Speaker 1: a fantastic indicator of anything, right, I mean do they
Speaker 1: sit down and ask twelve people? Oh even if you
Speaker 1: if you ask twelve people in you know, Red Hook,
Speaker 1: Brooklyn what they think about climate change, then you're gonna
Speaker 1: get a very different answer than if you ask people
Speaker 1: from uh, you know, the Midwest. In this case, I
Speaker 1: think they're asking people in Hyderabad in India. Anyway, that
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter. I mean you could ask people. Twelve
Speaker 1: people is not enough? Is not enough to get a
Speaker 1: sense of anything. Um, but this is crazy, folks, This
Speaker 1: is craziness. I mean when I say crazy, I don't
Speaker 1: mean like, oh it's crazy, I mean actually disconnected from reality.
Speaker 1: Need help, like need to seek some form of assistance
Speaker 1: and therapy to cope with the anxieties of day to
Speaker 1: day life. I promise you, folks, your kids and my
Speaker 1: kids are not gonna be having wars in some mad
Speaker 1: Max like dystopia where they're, you know, trying to knock
Speaker 1: each other off of homemade dinghies or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's not That's not the way they is gonna go.
Speaker 1: I assure you that is not the truth. And yet
Speaker 1: here we are um the quote that they used, by
Speaker 1: the way, in this piece. When The New York Times
Speaker 1: tweeted this out, the quote was quote, I don't want
Speaker 1: to give birth to a kid wondering if it's going
Speaker 1: to live in some kind of mad Max dystopia. End quote.
Speaker 1: Now this is where I get into a more serious
Speaker 1: frame of mind for a second. Here, I spoke to
Speaker 1: you last week about the left war on life and
Speaker 1: on the unborn, as as as serious an issue as
Speaker 1: there exists for me, but in a in an even
Speaker 1: broader sense, the left adopts this nihilistic, almost earth worship position.
Speaker 1: And it's not new right if you go back in
Speaker 1: the past, scientists, Thomas Malthus, for those who are wondering
Speaker 1: about when you could even look up mouthis thought, we're
Speaker 1: gonna run out of food and it's more complicated than that.
Speaker 1: He was a social scientist and wrote extensively, but the
Speaker 1: basic idea was human population is ressing at x, food
Speaker 1: production progresses at why we are going to have starvation
Speaker 1: that affects a large portion of the of the global population. Well, mouth,
Speaker 1: this was wrong, totally totally wrong. Why because he could
Speaker 1: not foresee technological advances, just like the climate change folks.
Speaker 1: As we sit here and liquefied natural gas is soon
Speaker 1: to overtake oil and coal as the primary fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: which is much cleaner in terms of carbon burning than
Speaker 1: those two and very abundant. Uh, they can't predict technological
Speaker 1: innovation either. But there is at the root of liberalism
Speaker 1: and leftism a kind of nihilistic atheism that, you know,
Speaker 1: we need to prevent more life from happening. We need
Speaker 1: to stop. We are the last of life. And it's
Speaker 1: also a solop sism. It's it's a an obsession with
Speaker 1: the self. Our children are not going to all drown
Speaker 1: because of climate change. We should all be having as
Speaker 1: many kids as we choose to. We should go forth
Speaker 1: and multiply my friends. As you well know that the
Speaker 1: New York Times would print something so dumb, so insane,
Speaker 1: and that Hillary Clinton has her own version of it
Speaker 1: tells us a lot about where the Democrats are only no, no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: thank god, oh my god, my god. Yes, have two
Speaker 1: different reactions till the Philadelphia Eagles, which, as I understand it,
Speaker 1: Philadelphia locals say Eagles right. There's some way that they
Speaker 1: say it that I don't. Yeah, you're Mike's a super
Speaker 1: Eagles fan, So how do they it Eagles right? They
Speaker 1: have a weird the Philly accent. They have a weird
Speaker 1: way of saying it right. Or am I wrong here?
Speaker 1: You say Eagles? Okay, you're blowing up my spot right now.
Speaker 1: I my college roommate is a Philly born and raised,
Speaker 1: super Philly fan of all sports, and he would always
Speaker 1: say that if you're on like maybe it's the South
Speaker 1: side of Philly or the there's like a it Eagles.
Speaker 1: You know. It's kind of like you go to Baltimore.
Speaker 1: People sound like people sound, but there's some people who've
Speaker 1: got a super funky Baltimore accent. You could tell me
Speaker 1: there's nothing in Philadelphia. Come on, absolutely, we get the
Speaker 1: yo and there yo Eagles, all right, Yo Eagles. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's been a little more like Rocky Balboa. Then alright, fine, anyway,
Speaker 1: point here being the Eagles one, as you all know,
Speaker 1: and that's great. I watched the I watched the Super Bowl.
Speaker 1: In that montage, we need a montage, the opening montage
Speaker 1: there we had Kobe Bryant, who was from Philadelphia, one
Speaker 1: of the greatest basketball players of all time. He was
Speaker 1: on Instagram freaking out and that sort of and I
Speaker 1: think he's with family, right, you could hear kids there
Speaker 1: or something. He was, yeah, yeah, with his wife and child.
Speaker 1: Wife and child. So you know, that's exactly we like
Speaker 1: to see people. It's a great story. Happy for the Eagles,
Speaker 1: half of the city of Philadelphia. In fact, I almost
Speaker 1: moved to Philadelphia some years ago to go to business school.
Speaker 1: It's a whole other story for another time. But the
Speaker 1: the Eagles one, and that's great. But then in the
Speaker 1: other part you may have been like, what is this
Speaker 1: noise I'm hearing? That was one of the riots that
Speaker 1: was going on, or maybe you could call it, if
Speaker 1: you wanted to be a little bit more generous, a
Speaker 1: Ruckus celebration. But they did flip a car over. I
Speaker 1: saw that they looted a store yelling everything is free,
Speaker 1: and I just don't understand. I don't get it, and
Speaker 1: I'm not picking. Look, this is also where it is
Speaker 1: legitimate and necessary to say this is one percent or
Speaker 1: less than one percent of overall Eagles fans, the whole
Speaker 1: country outside of New England, based on the social media
Speaker 1: proclivities that were shared for the Super Bowl, the whole
Speaker 1: country outside of outside of New England, and actually Montana,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, I saw on Twitter Montana was
Speaker 1: overall going for the Patriots. But people are rooting for them,
Speaker 1: and I know this is a very small group, and
Speaker 1: I'm just happy for Philadelphia. It's great. They're gonna have
Speaker 1: a lot of fun now, big parade. Last night they
Speaker 1: were partying. I watched the whole thing. I thought it
Speaker 1: was a great game. Some people were complaining there wasn't
Speaker 1: enough defense. I think that a football game that ends
Speaker 1: up nine three after four quarters is like the worst
Speaker 1: possible thing, So there are some amazing catches. I thought
Speaker 1: it was great, so I enjoyed watching and I watched
Speaker 1: it with Ms Molly and my two brothers and one
Speaker 1: of my brother's girlfriends, and we ate a lot of nachos,
Speaker 1: which I will tell you nachos are good for all
Speaker 1: three meals. The next day. You can, in fact, reheat
Speaker 1: nachos in the microwave the next day for any meal,
Speaker 1: and they taste pretty much just as good as they
Speaker 1: did the day before, and they work for any meal.
Speaker 1: In that regard, nachos are like the bacon of the
Speaker 1: chip world. They are utility players. You can get your
Speaker 1: nachos going for anything you need. But you know, there's
Speaker 1: the Kobe Bryant celebration versus the celebration we saw on
Speaker 1: the streets. And look, it's Kobe's just a you know,
Speaker 1: he's a native Philadelphian um and so he gets very excited.
Speaker 1: Or the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl before.
Speaker 1: That's a great story and and people should have fun
Speaker 1: with it and celebrate. Now. I love it here. We're
Speaker 1: all like, wow, it was a great game last night.
Speaker 1: But onto the riot side of it. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: spend much time on this because come on, it's not
Speaker 1: that not that many people that were doing this, although
Speaker 1: there were like tens of thousands taking to the streets.
Speaker 1: I did see that, But there's a difference. You're taken
Speaker 1: to the street and cheering and lipping cars over and
Speaker 1: stealing from a seven eleven or a CBS or whatever
Speaker 1: that was in the videos that people saw there. But
Speaker 1: I would just note that this is by no means
Speaker 1: limited to the Super Bowl two Eagles fans too, although
Speaker 1: I do believe there is actually a courtroom in the
Speaker 1: Eagles stadium in the basement to adjudicate. Yes, Mike, Mike,
Speaker 1: we got a Super Eagles fan here in studio everybody,
Speaker 1: so they they are ready, They're ready to deal with
Speaker 1: whatever comes their way with Eagles fans. But the truth
Speaker 1: of the whole situation with rioting or the postgame celebrations
Speaker 1: that extend beyond what I think is uh is necessary
Speaker 1: and reasonable, is that I've seen it elsewhere too. When
Speaker 1: I was at a little tiny Amherst College, which is
Speaker 1: right down the street from the University of Massachusetts. You
Speaker 1: mass Amherst, which always and I don't get into this stuff,
Speaker 1: this this pettiness, but people always do the whole you know,
Speaker 1: did you go to did you go to Amherst? I
Speaker 1: went to Amherst, And you say, well, if you went
Speaker 1: to Amherst College, you don't pronounce the age. But if
Speaker 1: you go to Amherst, you mass or you mask Amherst.
Speaker 1: There's a different way of people saying it. I know
Speaker 1: this is all very this is all school rivalry stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't go there. I don't get into it. But
Speaker 1: you mass had like fifteen or twenty thousand students, so
Speaker 1: that was a pretty big school. And when the Patriots
Speaker 1: would win or when they would lose, depending on the game,
Speaker 1: sometimes they would have to bring in like riot police
Speaker 1: basically with tear gas to break up whatever was going
Speaker 1: on in the streets, which when you're in central Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: not in any city you're you're bound to notice when
Speaker 1: all of a sudden there's there's like tear gas or
Speaker 1: pepper spray being deployed in large, large quantities at a
Speaker 1: college gathering. So this is by no means new. This
Speaker 1: is not something that we have not seen elsewhere and before.
Speaker 1: And the Washington Post actually did an analysis of this quote.
Speaker 1: Why do ends feel so strongly about their teams. We're
Speaker 1: social creatures. We have a need to belong said Daniel Juan,
Speaker 1: a psychology professor at Murray State University. People often split
Speaker 1: themselves into categories based on occupation, ethnicity, gender, or other factors.
Speaker 1: That sense of belonging belonging can often be beneficial. In
Speaker 1: studies on college students, Juan has found that fans who
Speaker 1: identify strongly with a team are often less likely to
Speaker 1: feel lonely or alienated and have higher self esteem. But
Speaker 1: then they go what happens in fans brains after a
Speaker 1: win or loss. Because of that strong identification. For ardent fans,
Speaker 1: the team becomes an extension of the fan, and that
Speaker 1: can have profound effects on people's psychology and even physiology. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so there's that, and then they go one more step here,
Speaker 1: So where does the urge for violence come from? Most
Speaker 1: agree the mob mentality has a lot to do with it,
Speaker 1: and study after study psychologists have shown people often behave
Speaker 1: differently in big crowds. Yeah, so thanks Washington Post for
Speaker 1: telling us all what we already know. People can act
Speaker 1: like idiots in big crowds. And the best study of
Speaker 1: this is actually Gustave Le bon l E and then
Speaker 1: b o n The Crowd, a study of the popular mind,
Speaker 1: and it's it is a a philosophical and I guess
Speaker 1: somewhat scientifical. It's really just based on philosophy, but it's
Speaker 1: a philosophy philosophy, philosophical deep dive into the um. It's
Speaker 1: a philosophical deep dive into why a crowd acts the
Speaker 1: way that it does and how it how it functions,
Speaker 1: why it thinks in the manner that it does, and
Speaker 1: everything else. So if you're looking for a version of
Speaker 1: and this is from a hundred hundred gosh, I forget
Speaker 1: how many years Gustave le Bon is nineteenth century, I
Speaker 1: think I forget one exactly. Um, But the truth is
Speaker 1: that Gustav le Bon is the best version of this
Speaker 1: that I've ever read. So that will explain why people
Speaker 1: flip cars over and light things on fire after sporting events.
Speaker 1: And maybe another time we'll do a deep dive into
Speaker 1: the mob mentality. But congrats to the Congrats to the Eagles.
Speaker 1: I'm very happy for them. First time ever, right, first
Speaker 1: time they've ever won. Which it's interesting because they've been
Speaker 1: a good franchise for a long time. I remember, you know,
Speaker 1: Eagles have been competitors, you know they've done well. As
Speaker 1: a by family Giants fan, so I was forced to be.
Speaker 1: There was no question. It was like you're going to
Speaker 1: be raised Roman Catholic, you're also going to be a
Speaker 1: Giants fan. Um. The Eagles have a certain you know,
Speaker 1: the other side feeling for me, but I'm very happy
Speaker 1: for them. Nonetheless, I'm very happy that Eagles came away
Speaker 1: with the w and it was a great game. The
Speaker 1: worst part of the whole thing was the halftime show.
Speaker 1: I don't care what anybody says, that guy justin Timberlake
Speaker 1: is talented, but his music does not match his overall talent.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm glad that there's somebody that can provide
Speaker 1: the soundtrack for exotic dancers for the foreseeable future. But
Speaker 1: that's about the most you can expect from timber Lakes music,
Speaker 1: in my opinion. And with that, we will go into
Speaker 1: some other thoughts on the side of the breaks the
Speaker 1: next segment after this one. It's gonna be a little sad,
Speaker 1: but also inspiring and I think really worthwhile. I'll need
Speaker 1: you to stay with me until the end of the
Speaker 1: show to get into it, and I will also tell
Speaker 1: you that won't be an easy one for me to do.
Speaker 1: It's nothing about me. It's stories and advice from some others.
Speaker 1: But it really stuck with me and I've read through
Speaker 1: It's not long. I've read through it a number of times,
Speaker 1: and I think there's tremendous wisdom in it, and uh,
Speaker 1: I may get a little choked up during it, so
Speaker 1: I just would advise that that may happen. I am
Speaker 1: sometimes a bit sentimental or dare I even say, I
Speaker 1: am sensitive to certain things, and I think you'll understand
Speaker 1: why in the next segment. Like I said, nothing that
Speaker 1: this has nothing to do with me or or my life.
Speaker 1: It's it's the lives of others that I can draw
Speaker 1: some real wisdom from. And I think it's a powerful segment.
Speaker 1: So I hope you will stay through for it, and
Speaker 1: I won't get into more detail than that. But before that,
Speaker 1: I wanted to have a little bit of fun with you,
Speaker 1: which is why I figured we could address the question
Speaker 1: that feels very apropos for the Freedom Hunt, just out
Speaker 1: of curiosity. I really it wasn't rolling, because I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to antagonize anyone, but I was. I was chumming
Speaker 1: the waters with this one a little bit. I on
Speaker 1: Sunday during the I think it was during the super Bowl, actually,
Speaker 1: I asked or I was right before the Super Bowl.
Speaker 1: I asked the following question on Twitter. Can a movie
Speaker 1: be placed in the action genre if it takes place
Speaker 1: in a pre Gunpowder era. Now this is not to
Speaker 1: say that a movie or the question is not can
Speaker 1: a movie have or or not have action if it
Speaker 1: is pre Gunpowder? But I just meant in terms of
Speaker 1: the genre, which is something that's come up on this show,
Speaker 1: for example, action is it's a kind of arbitrary genre,
Speaker 1: but you know, you know when you see it. And
Speaker 1: those of you like me who spent way too much
Speaker 1: of your childhood literally wandering around movie rental stores, it
Speaker 1: was great. Man. I used to just wander around sound
Speaker 1: and check out all the different empty boxes of VHS
Speaker 1: tapes and see what was there. I used to love it.
Speaker 1: It was a great thing. My mom would let me
Speaker 1: do it while she was getting groceries. You know. My
Speaker 1: older brother and I could go wander into the little
Speaker 1: video store next door. Talk about a business that doesn't
Speaker 1: really exist anymore. Their video rental stores everywhere when I
Speaker 1: was an early teenager, and then Blockbuster kind of took over.
Speaker 1: But action was a genre. What I say to people though,
Speaker 1: is Westerns can have a lot of action, but Westerns
Speaker 1: are their own genre. So all those Clint Eastwood movies
Speaker 1: that people call in during action movie quote Friday and
Speaker 1: say hey, and they gave me a quote from it.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's really action. I think it's a Western.
Speaker 1: It can have action in it, but that's not the
Speaker 1: same as falling in the genre of action. And with
Speaker 1: pre Gunpowder, I know that seems like a somewhat arbitrary separation,
Speaker 1: But in the pre Gunpowder era, I think you could
Speaker 1: make a case that some of the great movies are
Speaker 1: historical epics or are historical drama, you know. But but
Speaker 1: then there's some crossover into other into other genres too.
Speaker 1: And I knew I asked this question and from the
Speaker 1: team and from others I was going to get I
Speaker 1: was going to get a bit of a pile on,
Speaker 1: and I did. I did. So. The question is can
Speaker 1: a movie be placed in the action genre if it
Speaker 1: takes place in a pre Gunpowder era, and a lot
Speaker 1: of your like, yes, it can, buck And that is
Speaker 1: what came across here. The big the big ones that
Speaker 1: I have to agree are the ones that generally speaking,
Speaker 1: get me thinking, yeah, those are action movies, they're not
Speaker 1: really historical epics. Are movies like Gladiator and Braveheart. Braveheart
Speaker 1: is probably all in my favorite movie of all time,
Speaker 1: and I've mentioned before that Braveheart was the name, the nickname,
Speaker 1: not of William Wallace, who for some one day I'll
Speaker 1: do a whole show on the real William Wallace. Not
Speaker 1: a whole show, but a segment, probably a shield hie,
Speaker 1: actually on the whole on the real William Wallace. Oh,
Speaker 1: and that's where I also would note, sorry, there's no
Speaker 1: Shields High today. We took a week off to do
Speaker 1: a little additional research. It'll be up and running next week,
Speaker 1: and so your next shield High installment will be next Monday.
Speaker 1: The research team of Buck needed to take a couple
Speaker 1: of days off and actually watch the Super Bowl with
Speaker 1: Ms Molly and his brothers and not have his headphones
Speaker 1: on while he's audio editing a history podcast. But back
Speaker 1: to this question about action, I usually think of Gladiator
Speaker 1: and uh and Braveheart when I think of can you
Speaker 1: have an action movie that is pre gunpowder, so there's
Speaker 1: no guns, no firing of any weapons that aren't you know,
Speaker 1: bows and arrows and crossbows, and a lot of you
Speaker 1: pointed out right away, Hold on a second, what is
Speaker 1: three hundred if not an action movie? And I think
Speaker 1: you got it on that one. I don't think you
Speaker 1: can make a case that three hundred is anything other
Speaker 1: than an action movie. I do see here on Twitter
Speaker 1: that Hector wrote THET Warrior, which I just that really,
Speaker 1: I found that fascinating because it's a It was a
Speaker 1: disaster at the box office. It has Antonio Benderis, but
Speaker 1: it's based on the Michael Crichton Eaters of the Dead,
Speaker 1: and it has an interesting kind of history based plot.
Speaker 1: It's a guy from the apposite Caliphate of Baghdad makes
Speaker 1: his way to Viking territory and there are there's kind
Speaker 1: of a pre I don't know what you say, a
Speaker 1: pre Bronze Age people that essentially eat people, their cannibals
Speaker 1: up there. It's kind of an interesting out there plot.
Speaker 1: But that movie did terribly the box office. I actually
Speaker 1: owned it on DVD. I think it's because it was
Speaker 1: one of those DVDs when I was in college you
Speaker 1: could buy for like five bucks or something in the
Speaker 1: in the store and one of those bins. So I
Speaker 1: actually owned it in college and watched it a fair amount.
Speaker 1: But your your answers here, I cannot begin to uh
Speaker 1: push back against this. You guys were all correct when
Speaker 1: you add in Brave Heart Gladiator three hundred and and
Speaker 1: many others that aren't even coming to mind right away.
Speaker 1: The answer is that, yes, in fact, you can. The
Speaker 1: team Team Buck established it beyond any dispute. You can't
Speaker 1: have an action movie without the usage of any gunpowder weapons.
Speaker 1: So the question was answered, and thank you very much
Speaker 1: for that. Um, I have some wisdom to share with you,
Speaker 1: not for me, from well, from some kids actually and
Speaker 1: a doctor who's passing it along. I think you'll really
Speaker 1: find this worth your time, So stay with me through
Speaker 1: the break and Hay teemed to close out the show. Today,
Speaker 1: I have something a little different in mind than roll Call,
Speaker 1: and it came to me in one of those moments
Speaker 1: over the weekend where I realized I was looking at
Speaker 1: my phone and paying attention to the political disputes going
Speaker 1: on in the aftermath of the Trump memo and not
Speaker 1: focusing as much on MS Molly, And also later in
Speaker 1: the weekend for Super Bowl Sunday time I was spending
Speaker 1: with my two brothers, I was all caught up in
Speaker 1: the back and forth of the memo and not focused
Speaker 1: on my life for a few moments, and it reminded
Speaker 1: me of this thread that I saw on Twitter. So
Speaker 1: I'm now going to use social media as a way
Speaker 1: of telling us all not to spend too much time
Speaker 1: on social media. But I do think that the message
Speaker 1: contained within is is very powerful. It's also quite a
Speaker 1: bit sad when you think about it, but I well
Speaker 1: it it's stuck with me. Very few things in this
Speaker 1: current era of constant news stimulation and engagement, very few
Speaker 1: things that are not bombshell stories, tend to stick with
Speaker 1: me for a few days, and uh, this is this
Speaker 1: is one of them. So here is the story. Um,
Speaker 1: and let me just first say that this is about
Speaker 1: This is about palliative care for pediatric pediatric patients. So
Speaker 1: these are children who have terminal diseases. Palliative in fact,
Speaker 1: it comes from the Latin paliarre, which is to cloak
Speaker 1: or to hide, because palliative care is about dealing with
Speaker 1: the pain and the minimizing the suffering. Essentially, you make
Speaker 1: someone as comfortable as you can for as long as
Speaker 1: you can, but there is really no hope or effort
Speaker 1: to treat the underlying disease. So you can imagine the
Speaker 1: moment you're talking about terminal pediatric palliative care. This is
Speaker 1: this is tough stuff, but there's a lot of wisdom
Speaker 1: that can come from the thoughts of children who have
Speaker 1: been faced with so much so early on in life.
Speaker 1: And this was put together by a doctor Alistair mac
Speaker 1: o Pine is his name, and he put this together
Speaker 1: on Twitter. He is himself a pediatrician, so he treats
Speaker 1: children who have terminal illnesses. And here's what he wrote.
Speaker 1: For an assignment. I asked some of my terminal pediatric
Speaker 1: palliative care patients what they had enjoyed in life and
Speaker 1: what gave it meaning. Kids can be so wise, you know.
Speaker 1: Here are some of their responses. First, none said they
Speaker 1: wished they'd watched more TV. None said that they should
Speaker 1: have spent more time on Facebook. None said that they
Speaker 1: enjoyed fighting with others, and none enjoyed the hospital. Many
Speaker 1: of them mentioned their pets quote, I love Rufus, His
Speaker 1: funny bark makes me laugh. I love when Jinny snuggles
Speaker 1: up to me at night in Purrs. I was happiest
Speaker 1: riding Jake on the beach. Many mentioned their parents, often
Speaker 1: expressing worry or concern. I hope mum will be okay.
Speaker 1: She seems sad. Dad mustn't worry. He'll see me again soon.
Speaker 1: God will take care of my mom and dad when
Speaker 1: I am gone. All of the pediatric palliative care patients
Speaker 1: said they loved ice cream, which I can totally relate to.
Speaker 1: I just bought some ice cream myself yesterday. Miss Molly
Speaker 1: even called me out. She said, you're getting two pints
Speaker 1: of ice cream for the house. I said, yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: I am. But all of these kids loved ice cream,
Speaker 1: and I totally understand. I totally agree back to what
Speaker 1: they had to say here. All of them loved books
Speaker 1: or being told stories, especially by their parents. Harry Potter
Speaker 1: made me feel brave. I love stories in space. I
Speaker 1: want to be a great detective. Mm hmm. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: a great detective like Sherlock Holmes when I'm better. Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: The doctor writes here, folks read to your kids. They
Speaker 1: love it, the doctors. Stories are profound. Stories are really important,
Speaker 1: whether they are fictional or true. They allow us to
Speaker 1: put our own lives into context and to inspire us.
Speaker 1: And when you really think about it, religion, for most
Speaker 1: of you listening, Christianity is storytelling. It is based on stories.
Speaker 1: The Bible is a book of stories. That's an addition
Speaker 1: to someone who will probably say now bucket. The Bible
Speaker 1: is universal and deadless truth, but it is still storytelling.
Speaker 1: You are being told stories, so they can clearly have
Speaker 1: a tremendous impact on our lives. And I will always
Speaker 1: remember my parents coming home from a meeting with the
Speaker 1: headmaster of Regius High School where I went to school,
Speaker 1: which was a really exceptional place, and the headmaster, who
Speaker 1: it was a lifelong educator in a jesuit, was a
Speaker 1: big proponent of whenever possible, eat dinner with your children,
Speaker 1: do not have the TV on. That's not to say
Speaker 1: don't watch the Super Bowl with your kids and eat
Speaker 1: wings once a year. It's just to say, whenever possible
Speaker 1: dinner as a family, without the television or any distractions on,
Speaker 1: talk to each other and be with each other. He thought,
Speaker 1: this Jesuit educator, that that had a profound impact on
Speaker 1: their academic ability, their ability to socialized, particularly with adults.
Speaker 1: And so it was um not just a question of
Speaker 1: what's important in life, but also what is helpful in
Speaker 1: life and reading to your kids, reading stories of all
Speaker 1: the teachers that I had growing up, I have to
Speaker 1: say I think that the the one teacher who made
Speaker 1: a point. His name was Bill Ryan, He was my
Speaker 1: fourth grade homeroom teacher. He he read to us from
Speaker 1: the Hammed and then The Lord of the Rings. And
Speaker 1: it's funny because we did a lot of other stuff
Speaker 1: that year. I remember him reading to us. He would
Speaker 1: just say, okay, everybody, you know, he would he would
Speaker 1: turn the light down just a little bit because the
Speaker 1: light of the sun was always blasting into the classroom,
Speaker 1: so he would just give us a little bit of
Speaker 1: of quiet time and everybody would just sit with their
Speaker 1: hands on the desk, or you could even put your
Speaker 1: head down on your hands on the desk if you
Speaker 1: wanted to, and he would read to the class. It
Speaker 1: was one of the most powerful things that any teacher
Speaker 1: I ever had did. But back to the wisdom of
Speaker 1: Dr Alistair Mackael Pine, or i should say the wisdom
Speaker 1: of the the terminal palliative patients in his care. So
Speaker 1: they all love being told stories. Here's what else they said. Quote.
Speaker 1: Many wish they had spent less time worrying about what
Speaker 1: others thought of them and valued people who just treated
Speaker 1: them normally. My real friends didn't excuse me, um, my
Speaker 1: real friends didn't care when my hair fell out or
Speaker 1: m hm. Jane came to visit after the surgery and
Speaker 1: didn't even notice the scar. Many of them, uh loved
Speaker 1: swimming and the beach. I made big sand castles. Being
Speaker 1: in the sea with the waves was so exciting. My
Speaker 1: eyes didn't even hurt. Almost all of them valued kindness
Speaker 1: above most other virtues. My granny is so kind to me.
Speaker 1: She always She always makes me smile. Johnny gave me
Speaker 1: half his sandwich when I didn't eat mine. That was nice.
Speaker 1: I like it when the kind nurse is here. She's
Speaker 1: gentle and it doesn't hurt as much. Almost all of
Speaker 1: them loved people who made them laugh. That magician is
Speaker 1: so silly. His pants fell down and I couldn't stop laughing.
Speaker 1: My daddy pulls funny faces, which I just love. The
Speaker 1: boy in the next bed farted, The doc writes here
Speaker 1: laughter relieves pain. Also, kids love their toys and they're superheroes.
Speaker 1: My Princess Sophia Doll is my favorite. I love Batman,
Speaker 1: the doc writes. All the boys love Batman, and I
Speaker 1: love cuddling with my Teddy. Finally, they all valued. They
Speaker 1: all valued time with their family. Nothing was more important.
Speaker 1: Mom and Dad are the best. My sister always hugs
Speaker 1: me tight, No one loves me like Mummy loves me.
Speaker 1: And Dr mac Opine then writes take home message, be kind,
Speaker 1: read more books, spend time with your family, crack jokes,
Speaker 1: go to the beach, hug your dog, Tell that special
Speaker 1: person you love them. These are the things these kids
Speaker 1: wish they could have done more. The rest is details.
Speaker 1: Oh eat more ice cream too, Dr Alistair macle pine, Well,
Speaker 1: I'll say this, the doc is right. These kids are right.
Speaker 1: Shield Hie