Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Michael Cohen gets sentenced
Speaker 1: to prison and General Flynn is asking for no prison.
Speaker 1: We will break down how these deep state machinations are
Speaker 1: playing out against Trump's inner circle. Also, will there be
Speaker 1: a shutdown or not? Will we get a wall or not?
Speaker 1: Going to get into all that, I'm more coming up
Speaker 1: on the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show where the mission or mission is to decode what
Speaker 1: really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins as
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, quite a day
Speaker 1: to day, quite a day. Indeed, we have more information
Speaker 1: about General Flynn and what happened to him. And we
Speaker 1: also have the at least for now final results in
Speaker 1: of the whole Cohen Michael Cohen trial, right, the chief
Speaker 1: advisor to President, chief legal advisor President Trump in his
Speaker 1: private life for many years. But the Flynn, the Flynn
Speaker 1: request for leniency today which was followed with the court.
Speaker 1: Does a MAMO read through it today? And we'll also
Speaker 1: be joined by Andy McCarthy later to work through some
Speaker 1: of us. I mean, this is this is appalling It's
Speaker 1: disgusting what these Hillary Clinton loving leftist deep state petty
Speaker 1: tyrants have done here to a good man who didn't
Speaker 1: service country for like a day here or there, thirty
Speaker 1: years multiple combat zone deployments against all odds, is an
Speaker 1: early friend to President Trump in the campaign, joins with
Speaker 1: Trump and then becomes the National Security advisor, and they
Speaker 1: just can't take it, they can't accept it, so they
Speaker 1: decide to go after him. I remember General Flynn went
Speaker 1: and he had his show, I mean his book, Field
Speaker 1: of Fight. We had him on this show early on
Speaker 1: the campaign, but people didn't think that the Trump administration
Speaker 1: was ever going to be a thing. He was right
Speaker 1: there alongside the president and that's where and he gave
Speaker 1: the president national security credibility, which the left just hated.
Speaker 1: And the establishment, you know, and the kind of centrist
Speaker 1: quasi republican democrats, you know, people of the kind of
Speaker 1: commist ilk if you will, those who have claimed to
Speaker 1: be Republicans but really are no meaningful way conservative or
Speaker 1: limited government constitutionalists. They're really just establishment terians. They hated Flynn,
Speaker 1: and now we see what they did. Now we have
Speaker 1: a better sense of just how it is that they
Speaker 1: set him up. Make no mistake about it. This was
Speaker 1: a setup, okay. This was they intended. They intended to
Speaker 1: get the result they did, which was a criminal prosecution
Speaker 1: of the incoming national security advisor. Right away. This is
Speaker 1: from the court document from Flynn's legal team, and none
Speaker 1: of these facts are in dispute. None of this is
Speaker 1: me just guessing, spitballing. No, no, this is a matter
Speaker 1: of record. Here is what they did to this American
Speaker 1: patriot as payback for being a part of the movement
Speaker 1: that stopped Hillary Clinton from inflicting herself that just corrupt
Speaker 1: lying roneist from inflicting herself upon us for another eight years.
Speaker 1: This is from the document file in court today. Quote
Speaker 1: at twelve thirty five pm. On January twenty four, twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: the first Tuesday after the presidential inauguration, General Flynn received
Speaker 1: a phone call from then the Director of the FBI,
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe, on a secure phone in his office in
Speaker 1: the West Wing. General Flynn had for many years been
Speaker 1: accustomed to working cooperation with the FBI on matters of
Speaker 1: national security. He and mister McCabe briefly discussed a security
Speaker 1: training session the FBI had recently conducted at the White
Speaker 1: House before mister McCabe, by his own account, stated that
Speaker 1: he quote felt that we needed to have two of
Speaker 1: our agents sit down with General Flynn to talk about
Speaker 1: his communications with Russian representatives. This was a conversation among
Speaker 1: government peers. This was supposed to be people on the
Speaker 1: same team talking, and now we don't have a transcript
Speaker 1: of what McCabe. Oh, by the way, a multiple liar
Speaker 1: under oath and therefore should be multiple felon who wants
Speaker 1: to guess whether they'll be criminal charmed is filed against
Speaker 1: McCabe by the DOJ. I'm guessing no. But he lied.
Speaker 1: He liked three times. According to Inspector General. He lied
Speaker 1: under penalty of perjury. Why isn't McCabe, Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: McCabe won't get prosecuted because this is all about getting Trump.
Speaker 1: This is a disgrace. It's disgusting what these people are
Speaker 1: doing to this administration and by extension, to all of
Speaker 1: the people who voted for this administration, who believe in
Speaker 1: it and hope for the best for our country. As
Speaker 1: a result of Donald Trump's win over Shillary Clinton, General
Speaker 1: Flynn was made to believe that he was just having
Speaker 1: a normal casual talk as the National Security Advisor with
Speaker 1: subordinate federal employees. I'm sure McCabe said something to belong. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, there's this thing about you and the ambassador.
Speaker 1: Let's you know, let's just let's just sit and just
Speaker 1: you know, our guys just wanted we just need to
Speaker 1: go on the record with that. Just tell us some
Speaker 1: of the stuff and you know, no big deal, no
Speaker 1: big whoop. Okay, mister mccab's this goes back now of
Speaker 1: the court documents. Mister McCabe's account states quote, I explained
Speaker 1: that I thought the quickest way to get this done
Speaker 1: was to have a conversation between General Flynn and the
Speaker 1: agents only. I further stated that if Lieutenant General Flynn
Speaker 1: wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the
Speaker 1: White House Counsel, for instance, that I would need to
Speaker 1: involve the Department of Justice. General Flynn stated that this
Speaker 1: would not be necessary and agreed to meet with agents
Speaker 1: without any additional participants. So KG McCabe here says, look,
Speaker 1: you know, we're just we're just gonna send over a
Speaker 1: guys are gonna talk to you about this. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that training we did last week wasn't that great? You're
Speaker 1: so great, Gennial Flynn. You know, is we gotta have
Speaker 1: you know, our kids should go, should you know, get together.
Speaker 1: We should play little baseball in the weekend. Sometimes soon
Speaker 1: we're just gonna send over a couple of FBI guys.
Speaker 1: They just kind of talk to you about this thing.
Speaker 1: Nobody dealing. Oh no, no no, you don't want to have
Speaker 1: lawyers there, man, that's gonna make it because then I
Speaker 1: gotta send the lawyers. And you know, we're just gonna
Speaker 1: have a talk. It's fine, don't worry about it. It'll
Speaker 1: be over in five minutes. Now you can say, well,
Speaker 1: Buck Flynn just shouldn't have Flint shouldn't lie. He should
Speaker 1: know he should. First of all, Flynn's not a law
Speaker 1: enforcement guy. Very different s guilty. He's a military man.
Speaker 1: He's about facing down our enemies on the battlefield and
Speaker 1: you know, our side versus their side. He's not used to,
Speaker 1: you know what goes on here with these FBI types.
Speaker 1: He's not somebody who's dealing with the tools of law
Speaker 1: enforcement that often involve dissembling, lying, presenting yourself under false pretenses.
Speaker 1: And this is all set up. Remember he's not accused
Speaker 1: of treason. He's not accused of some serious crime. The
Speaker 1: pretext for this need to talk to him in the
Speaker 1: first place is that little Resistance Payne sally Yates with
Speaker 1: their whole all the logan acting maybe the Russians can
Speaker 1: can blackmail him because he lied about the conversation with
Speaker 1: the ambassador, which they can't blackmail him over that. He'd say, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I misremembered that. Their whole premise here is bull. It's bull.
Speaker 1: They're gonna blackmail. I'm up. You'd better tell you better
Speaker 1: give us all the secret nuclear colds or else we
Speaker 1: are growing to tell people that you you lied about
Speaker 1: your conversation about non criminal activity with the Kisel. Yet,
Speaker 1: he'd be like, all right, I just would say that
Speaker 1: I you know, I misremembered that it was a conversation
Speaker 1: on the phone. I didn't remember. It's no big deal.
Speaker 1: I didn't send uh, you know, I didn't think it
Speaker 1: was it was going to be any issue. That's that's
Speaker 1: not blackmailable, that's not blockmailable. It's just not. But so
Speaker 1: why and the DJ would know that, So why would
Speaker 1: they say it was They're worried up blockmail. They need
Speaker 1: in an excuse this was all about the excuse to
Speaker 1: put Flynn in a situation where they could get him.
Speaker 1: They don't do You don't do this too. He wasn't,
Speaker 1: by the way, Oh let me let me get into
Speaker 1: the details here. But you know this isn't done within
Speaker 1: the federal government to each other. Whenever, I mean, I
Speaker 1: remember I had to sit through a couple of hearings
Speaker 1: for a few different things, and MYPD side, CIA side,
Speaker 1: and whenever there was this, we got the security folks,
Speaker 1: internal watchdog folks talking to your Look, you were told,
Speaker 1: you were told. You know, they're not. They don't send
Speaker 1: some guy undercover into your office to talk to you
Speaker 1: with the water cooler and try to find out, you know,
Speaker 1: are you are you committing like time and attendance fraud
Speaker 1: or something that that's not how they do this. All right,
Speaker 1: more into the so so, McCabe obviously tried to get
Speaker 1: the situation to be exactly what it was, which was
Speaker 1: that he sent struck McCabe a liar and a Hillary partisan,
Speaker 1: Struck an anti Trump lunatic. These are the two people
Speaker 1: that are involved in this so far, and some other
Speaker 1: FBI agent that's not yet really named or known. But
Speaker 1: he said Struck, the anti Trump freak, to go and
Speaker 1: talk to Flynn, made sure that there was no counsel
Speaker 1: in the room with him whatsoever. You know how many
Speaker 1: you know how many lawyers when Struck, Oh, that's right.
Speaker 1: Another time when he's at the nexus here, what does
Speaker 1: the FBI only have four people? Because when you look
Speaker 1: at Hillary and you look at Trump and the key
Speaker 1: points here in these investigations, there's only a few people
Speaker 1: that seem to matter, and they're anti Trump pro Hillary maniacs.
Speaker 1: What a shock. When Struck interviewed Hillary about her emails,
Speaker 1: she had nine lawyers at my account in the room. Okay,
Speaker 1: she had an army of lawyers with her. She was
Speaker 1: allowed to have Cheryl Mills, who was her white i
Speaker 1: mean her State department chief of staff, in the room
Speaker 1: with her, coordinating with her as her lawyer. Meanwhile, she's
Speaker 1: actually a part of the she should be a part,
Speaker 1: she should be a target of the investigation. They're treating
Speaker 1: her like she's Hillary's lawyer. They bent over backwards to
Speaker 1: make sure that Hillary would have no problems, and they
Speaker 1: went in the complete opposite direction with Flynn and with
Speaker 1: everybody associated with the Trump That much is Claire but
Speaker 1: hearing more about the details here that came out. This
Speaker 1: all just came out today in the Flynn in the
Speaker 1: Flynn sentencing less than two hours later, this is after
Speaker 1: the meeting FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Struck and a
Speaker 1: second I'm sorry, this is right before the meeting, and
Speaker 1: a second FBI agent arrived at the White House to
Speaker 1: interview General Flynn. By the agent's account, General Flynn was
Speaker 1: relaxed and jocular and offered to give the agents a
Speaker 1: little tour of the area around his West Wing office.
Speaker 1: The agents did not provide General Flynn with a warning
Speaker 1: of the penalties for making a false statement under eighteen
Speaker 1: USC one zero zero one, before, during, or after the interview.
Speaker 1: Prior to the FBI's interview of General Flynn, mister McCabe
Speaker 1: and other FBI officials decided the agents would not warn
Speaker 1: Flynn that it was a cry to lie during an
Speaker 1: FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and
Speaker 1: they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect
Speaker 1: the rapport. One of the agents reported, yeah, they were
Speaker 1: setting him up before the interview. FBI officials also had
Speaker 1: to decide that if Flynn said he did not remember
Speaker 1: something they knew he said. They would use the exact
Speaker 1: words Flynn used to try to refresh his recollection. If
Speaker 1: Flynn still would not confirm what he said, they would
Speaker 1: confront him or talk him through it. One of the
Speaker 1: agent's reported that General Flynn was unguarded during the interview
Speaker 1: and clearly saw the FBI agents as allies. They had
Speaker 1: the transcript. They had the transcript of what comes from
Speaker 1: counterintelligence collection that was leaked to the press, probably by
Speaker 1: one of these names we already know in this whole debacle,
Speaker 1: one of these anti Trump deep state DOJ lunatics, and
Speaker 1: then they use information from a counterintelligence investigation to try
Speaker 1: and trap the incoming national security advisor, speaking to him
Speaker 1: under at least softened, if not false pretenses. Why would
Speaker 1: Why would if McCabe had any interest at all, any
Speaker 1: interest at all in trying to protect a decorated war
Speaker 1: hero and veterans career and reputation and life. Because Flynn's
Speaker 1: life is being ruined by this. McCabe is a decade
Speaker 1: long FBI guy. He would know. Of course, you have
Speaker 1: a lawyer in the room. Of course you have a
Speaker 1: lawyer in the room. McCabe set him up. McCabe set
Speaker 1: him up because him and his wife wanted Hillary to win,
Speaker 1: and Struck and these other little petty tyrants from within
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy. They think that they're setting it all
Speaker 1: right by stopping Trump, by taking down his people, but
Speaker 1: in the process, you know, they've shown themselves to be dishonorable.
Speaker 1: These people have no honor. A person with honor would
Speaker 1: not be able to do and as senior FBI officer,
Speaker 1: would not be able to set up General Flynn the
Speaker 1: way they did. These individuals Struck McCabe and others involved
Speaker 1: in this, Yates, comey, the whole crew. They are a
Speaker 1: disgrace to this country, and along with Brennan, they have
Speaker 1: disgraced law enforcement, the intelligence community. I don't even feel
Speaker 1: as proud of my intelligence community service as I used to,
Speaker 1: because now everybody realized that these places are run by maniacs,
Speaker 1: by left wing collectivist tyrants. We'll have more on Flynn
Speaker 1: with Andy McCarthy. You know, I'll put all my theories,
Speaker 1: all my thoughts on this to the test with Andy,
Speaker 1: will ask what he thinks about this. He's always very
Speaker 1: fair minded, he was, He said, Okay, let's see what
Speaker 1: the Special Council does in the beginning. Never forget that
Speaker 1: Andy used to come on this show and he was
Speaker 1: willing to give them a fair shot. And now he's
Speaker 1: about as a pall as I am. And he worked
Speaker 1: in the Southern District of New York for almost thirty years,
Speaker 1: and he used to tell me he was a hard prosecutor.
Speaker 1: You did not want to get Andy if you were guilty.
Speaker 1: He's told me that many times. We'll talk about the
Speaker 1: con sentencing today, tell you how much time he got
Speaker 1: in case you don't know, and what we can make
Speaker 1: of that. And then we got the border and the
Speaker 1: shutdown and show his jam. So stay right there, team,
Speaker 1: I'll be back. And I will also note, with great irony,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen well report to federal prison exactly one year
Speaker 1: after we filed the case on behalf of Stormy Daniels.
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen was sentenced today. Donald Trump is next. That's
Speaker 1: right left wing hero Avanati having a let's taking a
Speaker 1: little victory lap there while while Cohen's wife and children
Speaker 1: are shattered and crying, you know, because remember Cohen didn't
Speaker 1: murder anyone, he didn't kidnap anyone. He didn't you know,
Speaker 1: he didn't bludgeon anyone, didn't steal from anyone, lying, paperwork fraud,
Speaker 1: tax fraud, that's basic. That's basically what he's guilty of.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's okay, but I don't think you
Speaker 1: have to, you know, hide, hide the women and children, folks.
Speaker 1: You know, Michael Cohen's out and about, Oh no, what
Speaker 1: are we gonna do? Avanati? By the way, wasn't he
Speaker 1: accused of felony domestic violence recently? Yeah? That guy also
Speaker 1: the one who came forward with the incredibly fraudulent claims
Speaker 1: of the third accuser, Julie Sweatneck, who was just a huge,
Speaker 1: crazy liar going after Brett Kavanaugh. That's right, she was
Speaker 1: a liar, isn't it? Isn't it good to just be
Speaker 1: able to say what's true? Doesn't it feel nice to
Speaker 1: hear what's true? Oh? Are you calling her? Yes? She
Speaker 1: was a liar? Yes, Christine blasi Ford either delusional or
Speaker 1: a liar. Michael Cohen saying that or Michael Cohen rather
Speaker 1: got got three years three years, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: thirty six months at the pretty low end of things here.
Speaker 1: People are saying that maybe he'll maybe he'll even have
Speaker 1: more information for the Special Counsel. They're all hope, hope,
Speaker 1: hoping there's more information for the Special Counsel. I just
Speaker 1: know that Muller's trying to drag this thing out as
Speaker 1: long as possible. He at least has to wait until
Speaker 1: the new Congress comes. And this is my thinking because
Speaker 1: because then people will forget about. When you get Pelosi
Speaker 1: and all the crazy Dems going after Trump and everybody
Speaker 1: around him with subpoenas, then Muller can That's when Muller
Speaker 1: can wind it down. Not gonna wind it down before then,
Speaker 1: not gonna wind it down before the end of January,
Speaker 1: and probably not even for a month or two into it,
Speaker 1: because he's gonna wait until the Democrats, you know, then
Speaker 1: they're the check on Trump. That's the way this is
Speaker 1: going to be talked about. He doesn't have the goods,
Speaker 1: he doesn't have collusion. We all know it. This whole
Speaker 1: thing is I'd just call it a farce, but it's
Speaker 1: nothing funny about it. It's really just dangerous, destructive. Why
Speaker 1: did Trump have a lawyer like Cohen near him? You know,
Speaker 1: he liked the guy, and look, Colin was clearly a
Speaker 1: liability but I can understand personal personal loyalties a liability
Speaker 1: in my own life. Sometimes it's it's a thing that
Speaker 1: you gotta deal with. So what really happened with General Flynt?
Speaker 1: Why is he now in a position after decades of
Speaker 1: serving his country, after being in multiple combat zones, after
Speaker 1: running the Defense Intelligent saying she incoming natural security advisor,
Speaker 1: and now he's begging, essentially a judge not to send
Speaker 1: him to prison. What really went down here? We've got
Speaker 1: somebody who can look between the lines and through the
Speaker 1: lines and tell you exactly what's happening here. Andy McCarthy
Speaker 1: is with us now Scores, a Fox News contributor, also
Speaker 1: of National Review, where he's doing a lot of great writing. Andy.
Speaker 1: Thanks for coming back. Andy, you know there's so much.
Speaker 1: Let me just give the floor to you first, because
Speaker 1: I have some specifics about the Flynn sentencing request memo
Speaker 1: that's out there. I read through. I read through it
Speaker 1: today up to the point where it was all the
Speaker 1: letters of people that are saying he's a great guy.
Speaker 1: Because okay, he's a great guy. But there were some
Speaker 1: interesting takeaways. What was your biggest takeaway? Well, obviously, one
Speaker 1: of the things that I've been complaining about since the
Speaker 1: beginning of the Flynn investigation is what was the basis
Speaker 1: for investigating him? And I think what we saw was
Speaker 1: that there was not only you know, no real basis
Speaker 1: for an investigation. In fact, when the Senate or I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee looked at this, they asked a
Speaker 1: bunch of different witnesses, I think three or four different witnesses,
Speaker 1: what was to predicate for the Flynn investigation. They got
Speaker 1: three or four different answers. Nobody can nobody can seem
Speaker 1: to give a good reason for it, and that I
Speaker 1: think shows in the way they treated him. But at
Speaker 1: the beginning, by basically deciding that they were going to
Speaker 1: orchestrate an interview that would have been in pursuit of
Speaker 1: a criminal investigation without a crime, but try to make
Speaker 1: him think it wasn't a criminal interview. It was just
Speaker 1: going to be him talking to a couple of veteran agents,
Speaker 1: no problem, just the basic information thing to clear up
Speaker 1: a few things about Russia. And he was obviously discouraged
Speaker 1: even from involving White House lawyers, let alone his own lawyers.
Speaker 1: And it's a real departure from the FBI's normal procedures.
Speaker 1: Where when they're going to conduct the criminal investigation, everybody
Speaker 1: acts on the up and up, and they tell the
Speaker 1: person they're in interviewing, here's the reason why we're talking
Speaker 1: to you today, that it's a criminal investigation. They make
Speaker 1: it clear to him that, you know, among other things,
Speaker 1: he's got a right to talk to council and to
Speaker 1: have somebody else's presence at the interview. That's pretty standards fair.
Speaker 1: But here they essentially, as I see it, discourage him
Speaker 1: from having any help at the interview. And is it
Speaker 1: fair in your estimation to say, and this is a
Speaker 1: conclusion that I've drawn in this, but now I feel
Speaker 1: more strongly about it. But I want to know if
Speaker 1: I'm getting ahead of where this is that if Sally
Speaker 1: Yates helped push this along at DJ under the Logan
Speaker 1: Act theory, that that's just acting in bad faith. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree with that. I think fuck that. As I've
Speaker 1: said all along, the Logan Act is not only utimate
Speaker 1: reason to open a criminal investigation against anyone because they
Speaker 1: don't prosecute it. It's been on the books for more
Speaker 1: than two centuries. It's never been successfully used in a
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution. But if you're going to dust it off
Speaker 1: and try to use it despite all the constitutional objections
Speaker 1: to it. The place not to use it, and let's
Speaker 1: make sure our listeners know the Logan Act purports to
Speaker 1: make it basically illegal for American citizens to involve themselves
Speaker 1: in foreign relations without the government's permission. The one place
Speaker 1: that you wouldn't want to invoke it if you were
Speaker 1: going to, in a novel way invoke it, would be
Speaker 1: a situation where you have a transition official for an
Speaker 1: incoming administration who's not only the high transition official, but
Speaker 1: is actually the designated incoming National security advisor whose sub
Speaker 1: is to deal with foreign governments, among other things. And
Speaker 1: now you're going to say it's illegal for him to
Speaker 1: be having contacts with foreign portance. That's insane. It is
Speaker 1: insane and that and we're at the insanity level here,
Speaker 1: which is I think so important for everybody to know.
Speaker 1: And with more facts, I would note this whole effort
Speaker 1: to get Flynn looks even worse. There's been nothing ever
Speaker 1: since they brought this charge that makes me think, oh wow,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe Flynn, you know, really did do something here
Speaker 1: that was egregious instead of misrememory. You know, Andy, A
Speaker 1: question I have for you. You know, so when I
Speaker 1: was in the CIA, if I lied to somebody else
Speaker 1: in the CIA, as far as I knew, I probably
Speaker 1: wasn't going to be guilty of of of a crime. Right,
Speaker 1: So if I lied to one of my colleagues when
Speaker 1: about some issue of work, Um, you know, if I
Speaker 1: said I told the President this, and I actually didn't
Speaker 1: tell the President this, and they're not gonna they're not
Speaker 1: gonna jam me up for that. How do they draw
Speaker 1: this line? You know, when when are you in jeopardy
Speaker 1: speaking to a federal And I wasn't law enforcement obviously
Speaker 1: in that capacity, But when when do you actually have
Speaker 1: that jeopardy in place? Because what it sounds like to
Speaker 1: me is that they made it seem like Flynn was
Speaker 1: talking as an FBI guys to just set something straight,
Speaker 1: and so he thought he was talking to colleagues. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right, And in fact, it's in some ways
Speaker 1: worse than that, Buck, because this is if I'm remembering right,
Speaker 1: this is like the third or fourth day on the
Speaker 1: job for Flynn. Yep, the first Tuesday after the transition, right,
Speaker 1: So he's having the you know, he's having multiple meetings
Speaker 1: as the new national security advisor. So who does he
Speaker 1: talks the deputy FBI director who wants to send over
Speaker 1: the bureau's top counter FB and I Jagen. You know,
Speaker 1: he had every reason to think that this is a normal,
Speaker 1: you know, at that kind of level of government meeting,
Speaker 1: which was probably one of twenty he had that day
Speaker 1: on those kinds of topic. So again, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: the big deal here is if you want to have
Speaker 1: a criminal investigation on Flynn, then have a criminal investigation
Speaker 1: on Flynn, but at least go in the front door,
Speaker 1: have everybody's eyes open, tell them what it's about, and
Speaker 1: you know, treat them like he's a normal investigative subject. Instead,
Speaker 1: they traded on the relationship that you would think high
Speaker 1: ranking national security officials would have with each other, except
Speaker 1: Flynn's thinking he's talking to colleagues and they're thinking they're
Speaker 1: conducting a criminal investigation and doing an interview that could
Speaker 1: put him in jeopardy. And Buck, if I could say
Speaker 1: one other thing about what's gone on with Flynn, which
Speaker 1: I think maybe the most outrageous of all. Flynn is
Speaker 1: a first offender who's looking at a fairly trivial process
Speaker 1: crime for which for anybody the sentencing guidelines would be
Speaker 1: zero to six months. But on the positive side of
Speaker 1: the ledger for him, he's a heroic combat veteran of
Speaker 1: the United States who spent thirty years rendering courageous service
Speaker 1: to this country. And as a result, there's not a
Speaker 1: federal judge in America who was ever going to put
Speaker 1: Mike Flynn in jail if Mula had done nothing. Flynn
Speaker 1: gets a no jail sentence. And the reason I point
Speaker 1: that out is, what do you see happen here? Mullah
Speaker 1: files emotion unto the serencing guidelines, asking the judge not
Speaker 1: to impose jail time, that is to say, asking the
Speaker 1: judge to do what the judge is going to do anyway.
Speaker 1: So when it happens inevitably, what is the story going
Speaker 1: to be. It's not. The story is going to be
Speaker 1: that Flynn got a no jail sentence because of the
Speaker 1: valuable cooperation that he gave to Mula's investigation. Oh, there
Speaker 1: must be some collusion here. And they look at Mueller's
Speaker 1: filing and they see it's half rejected, and they say, oh,
Speaker 1: this must be the expulsive stuff that he gave him
Speaker 1: in order to get the get the you know, the
Speaker 1: sentencing consideration. In the meantime, the guy wasn't going to
Speaker 1: get any jail time in the first place. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's absurd. I mean, you know, Andy, there there's
Speaker 1: so much here. I mean, for one, you know, just
Speaker 1: just to mind my question about you know, when you're
Speaker 1: in the federal government and I had federal peers, you
Speaker 1: had federal peers. I mean, if you were sitting in
Speaker 1: a meeting with a bunch of FBI guys when you
Speaker 1: were you know, an assistant US attorney, and let's just
Speaker 1: say that you did have some kind of a memory
Speaker 1: lapse and you said something that was factually untrue, and
Speaker 1: they're asking you, you know, did you speak to witness A?
Speaker 1: And you said, no, I don't think I ever spoke
Speaker 1: to witness A. Uh. And then if they came in
Speaker 1: a day later and said, you know, Andy, we've got
Speaker 1: a phone call record or you did speak to that witness,
Speaker 1: I mean, are you going to prison? I just I
Speaker 1: want to know, you know, when you're among peers in
Speaker 1: the federal government, what you know, if you're and you're
Speaker 1: not told it's a criminal investigation, you're not told the
Speaker 1: lawyer up, where's the line. Well, yeah, this is another
Speaker 1: thing that's a big problem with this. Why did they
Speaker 1: have to Flynn? Why did they have to interview him
Speaker 1: about conversations that they had recordings of I can't see
Speaker 1: since you have a recording of the conversation, they know
Speaker 1: very well whether, for example, Flynn talked to Kisliak who
Speaker 1: was the Russian ambassador about sanctions or he didn't, because
Speaker 1: they have they have the recording, right, So what's the
Speaker 1: point of asking Flynn whether he talked to Kisliak abat
Speaker 1: sanctions if they know he talked to Kisliak abat sanctions,
Speaker 1: unless it's to try to get them to say something
Speaker 1: that's different from what they have on the recording. And ordinarily,
Speaker 1: if you were in good faith talking to somebody in
Speaker 1: a situation where you weren't trying to get them jammed
Speaker 1: up on a false statement, what you would do is
Speaker 1: it was really important to the FBI to understand the
Speaker 1: context and maybe any in unclear or ambiguous parts of
Speaker 1: the conversation between kisley At and Flynn. Why not play
Speaker 1: the conversation for Flynn and ask them what did this mean?
Speaker 1: What did that mean? Instead, what they did was they
Speaker 1: asked him did you say this? Did you say that
Speaker 1: in connection with a conversation that they had a recording
Speaker 1: of and they knew damn well whether he had said this?
Speaker 1: Said that, Andy, can we run into a quick break
Speaker 1: and comebacks? I also want to ask a couple more
Speaker 1: about this and go into a little bit of Cohen.
Speaker 1: Do you have time? Yeah? Of course, Okay, we got
Speaker 1: more with Andy McCarthy on the flip side. Stay with us.
Speaker 1: Are welcome back team. We've got Andy McCarthy of Fox
Speaker 1: News and National Review joining us here. As you probably
Speaker 1: know if you listen to the show, Andy was an
Speaker 1: assistant US attorney in the Southern District of New York
Speaker 1: for decades. So, Andy, before we get the Cohen issue,
Speaker 1: which of course brings the Southern District, You're old stomping
Speaker 1: ground right into the mix here, I really need to know,
Speaker 1: are we ever going to find out about this time
Speaker 1: lag between the Flynn meeting and the decision of file charges?
Speaker 1: Are we ever going to find out what they said
Speaker 1: to him and what he supposedly lied about? And can
Speaker 1: the President just say, you know, whatever the FBI has
Speaker 1: on this, it's public now because he's being sentenced. Why not, Well,
Speaker 1: the answer to the last question is the president should
Speaker 1: unfeld any of the stuff, and it would be a
Speaker 1: good thing as he did, But yes, absolutely they can
Speaker 1: put all of the shouts. My personal views it looking
Speaker 1: at the sentencing memo, but is that this is all
Speaker 1: about Turken And what I mean by that is the
Speaker 1: sequence of events is in January, right of everybody goes
Speaker 1: into office. So right after the inauguration, they interview Flynn
Speaker 1: and they make a decision that they're not going to
Speaker 1: prosecute him because even if there are failures of recollection,
Speaker 1: they seem to be innocent ones and he's not trying
Speaker 1: to lie to them. In May, Mueller is appointed, and
Speaker 1: they later decide suddenly to second guess the guys who
Speaker 1: were in the room and charging with false statements. The
Speaker 1: intervening event between those two things is this whole business
Speaker 1: about He was questioned about Turkey, as as it's played
Speaker 1: out in the sentencing memo, and one of the things
Speaker 1: they discussed there is they were pressing him on the
Speaker 1: Flynn corporations or the Flynn businesses dealings with Turkey and
Speaker 1: whether they were acting as a foreign agent without without registering.
Speaker 1: And I think the reason that that's relevant. Is that's
Speaker 1: the only part of the sentencing memo where they talk
Speaker 1: about the Flynn business or the Flynn company. That's the
Speaker 1: company he had with his son. And I think the
Speaker 1: natro subtle message here or there is that if they
Speaker 1: were going to pursue criminal charges on the Turkey matter
Speaker 1: because of this failure to I just or as a
Speaker 1: foreign agent, which didn't used to be up until the
Speaker 1: Moller investigation, something that the Justice Department got two whipped
Speaker 1: up about, it was going to be jeopardy not only
Speaker 1: for General Flynn but for his son and I right,
Speaker 1: which also makes sense as to why. I mean, when
Speaker 1: you see that sentencing MAMO, it's oh, Flint takes Flint
Speaker 1: takes full responsibility, he understands, he takes full responsibility, and
Speaker 1: you know they've got a metaphorical gun to his head
Speaker 1: on this stuff. Yeah. I think that's what the Turkey
Speaker 1: stuff really is. Yeah, So so on the now, I mean,
Speaker 1: I could get into this at some point, but but
Speaker 1: will we ever find out what was said in that meeting?
Speaker 1: Are they going to try to keep that from us
Speaker 1: in the Flynn meeting? Do you mean, are we ever
Speaker 1: going to see the FBI three OZ two the yes
Speaker 1: or whatever report or the interview they did. Unless the
Speaker 1: President unseals it, I don't see how we would see it, Okay,
Speaker 1: And now Andy on Nacoan only a couple of minutes Buck,
Speaker 1: I say, the only caveat to that is if it's
Speaker 1: relevant to the Inspective General's investigation, but I don't know
Speaker 1: about that. Now. We've been talking about the the Cohen
Speaker 1: situation here on the on the show at some length.
Speaker 1: Obviously he got three years today, which is people say
Speaker 1: kind of at the lower end, but I mean it's
Speaker 1: it's it sounds like there's a very aggressive prosecutorial tactics
Speaker 1: being used by the Southern District, by the Special Council.
Speaker 1: So it's hard to think of there being much much
Speaker 1: mercy involved here under the circumstances that all said. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you've got a lot of people running around
Speaker 1: Judge Knapps whom I like, Judge Napolitano over from from Fox,
Speaker 1: you know, saying that he thinks there could be evidence
Speaker 1: or the Southern District may have evidence of felony crimes
Speaker 1: committed by the President. What's what's your take on that?
Speaker 1: I think that, um, what happened with h. Cohen today
Speaker 1: was pretty much standard fair in criminal cases. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was a case where the prosecutors were essentially recommending
Speaker 1: forty two months, and the judge gave the judge gave
Speaker 1: thirty six months. It's pretty common for sentencing judge to
Speaker 1: give a slightly lower sentence than the prosecutor is asking for.
Speaker 1: So this really is within the norm of that. If
Speaker 1: there were lots and lots of information damaging against the president,
Speaker 1: what you would expect, especially if Cohen was involved in it,
Speaker 1: was they would have made him plead guilty to those
Speaker 1: instances and then he would say, here's what I did,
Speaker 1: Here's what the president did, and then they would have him,
Speaker 1: you know, in store as a witness to testify about
Speaker 1: those transactions. Instead, what they seem to have done is
Speaker 1: strained to make the case based on the campaign finance laws,
Speaker 1: which ordinarily aren't even treated as a crime, and which
Speaker 1: here there's a pretty serious legal challenge to whether this
Speaker 1: is actually an inkind campaign contribution at all. I have
Speaker 1: to think Buck, if they had something better than that,
Speaker 1: they would have gone with something don a champaign finance violation.
Speaker 1: Real quick, Anny, we only got a few seconds here
Speaker 1: before I to close out. Are you concerned for the
Speaker 1: president in terms of legal jeopardy. I'm done on this
Speaker 1: stuff at the moment. I mean, I think you should.
Speaker 1: He started to take it seriously. They're clearly trying to
Speaker 1: make a case on him in in the Southern District.
Speaker 1: But I think the bigger problem for him has come January.
Speaker 1: The Democrats in the House as sometina power that's gonna
Speaker 1: be very difficult to govern and there's going to be
Speaker 1: a lot of unknown out there that they're going to
Speaker 1: be poking around in. Yeah, agreed, Annie McCarthy. Everybody check
Speaker 1: out his ladies, read nashreview dot com, and also look
Speaker 1: for him on Fox News. Andy, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: the time, my friend. We'll talk to you soon, my
Speaker 1: pleasure books. Take care. Ah Man. They did Flynn dirty everybody,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. If you're making a list and checking
Speaker 1: it twice, you better put black Rifle coffee at the
Speaker 1: top of that list. Mister and missus Claws make it happen,
Speaker 1: all right. That's the best gift you can give anybody
Speaker 1: this Christmas, other than of course love, affection and patriotism.
Speaker 1: But really, black Rifle is my coffee of choice. I
Speaker 1: drink it every morning. All right, Black Rifle is the
Speaker 1: way I get my day going. It's delicious. It's coffee
Speaker 1: that you should all be drinking too, and they've got
Speaker 1: a coffee club, so that makes everything really easy for you.
Speaker 1: You just pick your blend with the amount you want
Speaker 1: and Black Rifle will ship it right to your door.
Speaker 1: And you can gift Black Rifle to somebody else. So
Speaker 1: hook somebody else up with the best coffee you can
Speaker 1: get out there from a company that's all about supporting
Speaker 1: America and veterans. It's the best tasting, most energizing coffee
Speaker 1: you can get. Black Rifle Coffee is the gift that
Speaker 1: keeps on giving. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off again,
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck. This is the most
Speaker 1: significant campaign contribution ever in the history of the United States.
Speaker 1: These two contributions very well may have swung the election.
Speaker 1: Point to another pair of campaign contributions that were so
Speaker 1: directly tied to the outcome. Basically fraudulently obtained the office
Speaker 1: by committing felonies. Someone who corruptly gains the office of
Speaker 1: president cannot be allowed to retain that office. Might this
Speaker 1: be the greatest crime in American history? Might that be
Speaker 1: the greatest crime in American history? That Steve Schmidt the
Speaker 1: Martyes guile, I'm not don beat. I mean that might
Speaker 1: be might just be the dumbest thing I've ever heard
Speaker 1: on television period? Yes, yes, I think so, the greatest
Speaker 1: crime in American history. I mean a country that has had,
Speaker 1: you know, slavery, Jim Crow, seggregation, a civil war. You know,
Speaker 1: go down the list of all the of all the
Speaker 1: terrible things, I've gone, the greatest crime in American history?
Speaker 1: And we have mass murderers, we have It's like this,
Speaker 1: this is the greatest crimeate ever. How could someone say
Speaker 1: something so stupid on cable television and be applauded for it?
Speaker 1: The answer, as we live in a time of Democrat
Speaker 1: mass delusion. This is why, this is why I play
Speaker 1: their words for you. This is so you can hear them.
Speaker 1: I'm not the one who's sitting here talking crazy. They're
Speaker 1: talking crazy. Trump's campaign contribution the most significant ever. They
Speaker 1: are saying, well, let's let's dig into that for a moment,
Speaker 1: shall we. Mark Penn has been pointing out, among others,
Speaker 1: that Congress has been paying off sex accusers with a
Speaker 1: special funded set up since nineteen ninety eight. Here, let's
Speaker 1: work through some of the details of this play twenty
Speaker 1: one In this return back to nineteen ninety eight. Again,
Speaker 1: a little thing happened here that they're two hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty eighth settlements in Congress, many of them presumably done
Speaker 1: during the election period. That if this was a true precedent,
Speaker 1: we'd have to lock up scores of congressmen. Lock them up. Now.
Speaker 1: That actually was taxpayer money that they use for those settlements.
Speaker 1: But those settlements, if you follow the logic of this,
Speaker 1: would be campaign contributions, which was why the logic of
Speaker 1: this is broken. Yep, the logic is broken. And when
Speaker 1: you so, just to be clear about the details here,
Speaker 1: Congress set up a fund. It's taxpayer money Congress set
Speaker 1: aside to pay off people who accuse members of Congress
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment in secret, so it's not public. Now,
Speaker 1: if paying off somebody who accuses you of sexual harassment
Speaker 1: is a campaign contribution, then all of these members of Congress,
Speaker 1: stretching back for about twenty years who have had taxpayer dollars,
Speaker 1: not even their own money, using taxpayer dollars to do this.
Speaker 1: That would be like their taking taxpayer dollars for their
Speaker 1: campaigns illegally. But on top of that, they did not
Speaker 1: disclose it. So if it is a camp, if it
Speaker 1: is a campaign contribution for Donald Trump to pay off
Speaker 1: a sexual harassment or this is not even harassment, donald
Speaker 1: Trump did an harass her. Just this is just this
Speaker 1: is a straight up extortion, by the way, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is an over an, over an affair. If it's
Speaker 1: a problem for him, though, it's a problem for the
Speaker 1: rest of Congress. By twenty two, they're going to have
Speaker 1: a problem if they push impeachment and there was a
Speaker 1: settlement in their office that could have affected one of
Speaker 1: their elections, because they're going to be asked the question,
Speaker 1: did you or someone in your office cause a settlement
Speaker 1: to be entered into sometime in the year of your election,
Speaker 1: and are you a felon? Now? If Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: a felon. I didn't like ninety eight and I don't
Speaker 1: like what's going on today for the very same reason
Speaker 1: that you can't remove presidents for these reasons. You know,
Speaker 1: we just we just see the partisan warfare playing out
Speaker 1: and Democrats have absolutely no principles whatsoever here. And you
Speaker 1: see this from the way that they were so quick
Speaker 1: to hop on the Avanadi bandwagon. The guy is scummy,
Speaker 1: just scummy, and they're so quick to try to use
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels to bring down this president. And yet when
Speaker 1: you dig into the details a little bit, I do,
Speaker 1: I am waiting, and I I should have asked I
Speaker 1: we had Andy McCarthy on, I would have asked this
Speaker 1: question if I had remembered. I'll ask him the next time,
Speaker 1: or I'll send him a text message and I'll find
Speaker 1: out what I can. But how is it not extortion?
Speaker 1: Exactly what happened to Trump? Remember, there was no he's
Speaker 1: no criminal. Trump did nothing criminal, was not even a
Speaker 1: llegs or anything criminal. With Stormy Daniels. She was just saying, Oh, basically,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna ruin your life and your family
Speaker 1: unless you pay me money, because I'm going to tell
Speaker 1: everybody that we had an affair, whether you believe head
Speaker 1: the affair or not. As I point out this terribly discussing.
Speaker 1: Then you look, Stormy Daniel was obviously a very damaged person,
Speaker 1: very unethical, very gross person. But this is how the
Speaker 1: media reacts to a revelation that really the president has
Speaker 1: been extorted play clip eleven. They say Trump directed that's
Speaker 1: the word for lawyer Michael Cohen to cover up a
Speaker 1: campaign contribution in the form of payments to two women
Speaker 1: with whom he had sexual relations. Some top Republicans are
Speaker 1: dismissing the allegations that Donald Trump directed his former fixer
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen to make illegal hush money payments to two
Speaker 1: women during the twenty sixteen campaign. It's incredible to me.
Speaker 1: This is despicable, simple private transaction in which a porn
Speaker 1: star was paid one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to
Speaker 1: keep silent in the final moments. Right, nothing simple about that.
Speaker 1: Let's remember, these payoffs are about the president having affairs
Speaker 1: with women soon after his wife had a baby. Just
Speaker 1: trying to trash there and over the stuff, just going
Speaker 1: after him. Meanwhile, he doesn't even admit the affair. He
Speaker 1: says he didn't do it. I don't know. I well,
Speaker 1: you know, I've seen no evidence that he did it.
Speaker 1: Could I believe that he did it, shut but I've
Speaker 1: seen no evidence of any kind, and given that this
Speaker 1: wasn't that long ago, I find that very very hard
Speaker 1: to believe. But you know, you have all this puritanical
Speaker 1: streak from the left on this issue now. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean from the left general, I mean from people
Speaker 1: in the media who were around back in the nineties.
Speaker 1: And my MainMan producer, Mike for example, pulled together a
Speaker 1: little a little montage for us here of what the
Speaker 1: Democrats were saying back when Bill Clinton was in a
Speaker 1: little trouble for Oh, that's right, as they said, lying
Speaker 1: about an affair at Play twenty three, lying about an
Speaker 1: extramarital affair does not rise to the level of high
Speaker 1: crimes and misdemeanors. Violating a marital vial It is not
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense. The underlying issue is about sex. Impeachment
Speaker 1: was designed to rid this nation of traitors and tyrants,
Speaker 1: not attempts to cover up extramarital affairs. Covering up a
Speaker 1: private sexual affair cannot compare to the Nixon precedent. This
Speaker 1: is a Republican coudeta. Bill Clinton is guilty of certain
Speaker 1: endiscretions in his private life. However, he did not commit
Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors. We have become the laughing stock
Speaker 1: of the entire world because a sexual scandal, perjury regarding
Speaker 1: sex is not a great and dangerous offense against the nation.
Speaker 1: It is not an impeachable offense. Not an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1: They were saying, then, who wants to guess if they
Speaker 1: will use their words from nineteen ninety eight to guide
Speaker 1: them now in their judgments about whether we currently have
Speaker 1: a president who has committed impeachable offenses? Oh, who wants
Speaker 1: to guess? I think we're all very clear. There's no
Speaker 1: principle involved here. There is only power and the struggle
Speaker 1: for it, and that is what the left wants, and
Speaker 1: they will do anything to get it, and Trump stands
Speaker 1: in their way. Therefore, they will use any tricks, any
Speaker 1: play any dirty games, do whatever they have to do,
Speaker 1: and we are supposed to forget about the history of
Speaker 1: how they've acted in the past and allow them to
Speaker 1: just just contort the law. These are the ways that
Speaker 1: they've come after Trump so far. It's also flimsy, and
Speaker 1: it's so desperate, and they just trick you know, the
Speaker 1: Logan Act, the Emolument's clause, you know, the tax returns
Speaker 1: the this that the paying off the FEC violations. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're just coming at them with everything they can. You
Speaker 1: show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.
Speaker 1: Lavrenti Barrier of the secret police in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: That is the principle at work here. In fact, you
Speaker 1: had a a the incoming the incoming state attorney general
Speaker 1: in New York. I mean, this is really really hard
Speaker 1: to believe this is true, though. New York Attorney General
Speaker 1: elect Latitia James says she plans to launch sweeping investigations
Speaker 1: into President Trump, his family, and anyone in his circle
Speaker 1: who may have violated the law. They're saying it out loud, folks.
Speaker 1: This is the New York Attorney general. Remember, can't pardon
Speaker 1: people for state crimes. So that's why they love those
Speaker 1: New York They love getting New York state investigations going.
Speaker 1: The incoming senior most law enforcement official for the state
Speaker 1: of New York, Trump's home state, my home state, is
Speaker 1: saying we're going after Trump, his family, and anyone in
Speaker 1: his inner circle. This is police state garbage. Did you
Speaker 1: believe that Google CEO when he was trying to tell
Speaker 1: us all on Capitol Hill that there's no bias in
Speaker 1: Google search algorithms against conservatives. Please, my friends, we know
Speaker 1: that the left has not just infiltrated, but in fact
Speaker 1: dominates social media. If you want a place where you
Speaker 1: can post and you can exchange thoughts and ideas and
Speaker 1: know that there's no left wing bias, go checkout snippy
Speaker 1: dot com. And if you've looked at snippy dot com
Speaker 1: and left, you need to look again. Thousands of my
Speaker 1: listeners have joined snippy dot com and they're expressing their
Speaker 1: opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy's an unbiased social
Speaker 1: media platform. It's all about conversation and community. Snippy not
Speaker 1: only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its users the
Speaker 1: ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators. It's
Speaker 1: a place where everyone's free to express their thoughts and
Speaker 1: share their opinions right. There's no shadow banning, no conservative
Speaker 1: thought suppression ever. Totally free to join. Check it out
Speaker 1: for yourself starting account today Snippy dot com Again, Snippy
Speaker 1: dot com your new alternative social media show. It unfortunately
Speaker 1: that the president choose to shut down the government, that
Speaker 1: we have a Trump shutdown as a Christmas present, they
Speaker 1: present to the American people, Nancy Pelosi waging a war
Speaker 1: on Christmas. You know, it's so funny. The Libs get
Speaker 1: so triggered, they get so agry when we bring up
Speaker 1: that they seem to have a problem. They do seem
Speaker 1: to have it an issue with Christmas. That that much is.
Speaker 1: It's it's apparent to me. I mean, I think they
Speaker 1: do have problems with Christmas as a holiday. It's just
Speaker 1: not culturally. Even the ones who are who are ostensibly Christian,
Speaker 1: you know, they went, oh, got to be so inclusive,
Speaker 1: and I mean, just I won't get it right now.
Speaker 1: But for fun, read about the history of quanza. Let
Speaker 1: me read about where quanza comes from, who came up
Speaker 1: with it, and the notion of like quanza reats in
Speaker 1: high school classrooms and stuff. It's the more you know
Speaker 1: about them when you're like, this is really I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's really up there with you know, the you know,
Speaker 1: the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever. I mean,
Speaker 1: It's not a real holiday in any in any notable sense.
Speaker 1: It's not a holiday there's any connection to any religion
Speaker 1: or anyway. M But okay, yeah, I mean you could
Speaker 1: say hanaka obviously, but you could say happy Hanaka, you
Speaker 1: can say Mary Christmas. You can say both of these things.
Speaker 1: You don't have to eliminate one so that you're but
Speaker 1: Pelosi is like that. But all this shutdown, which will
Speaker 1: be talking more about we got, we got Congressman Louie
Speaker 1: Gomert's gonna be joining us later on this hour, which
Speaker 1: I think will be quite a bit of we'll get
Speaker 1: a quite a bit of insight. I just also just
Speaker 1: like Louie. I mean, I've I've known Louis since my
Speaker 1: early days at the Blaze, and he's just he's a
Speaker 1: really good guy. He's always fun to talk to. You know.
Speaker 1: Senator John Kennedy is saying, for example, that he doesn't think,
Speaker 1: he doesn't think that that this shutdown is a bluff. I,
Speaker 1: as you know, have been pretty cynical about this. I've thought, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: another oh shutdown, like they always say this. But I
Speaker 1: am very doubtful that there will in fact be a shutdown.
Speaker 1: I had been very doubtful until this meeting with Trump
Speaker 1: and Pelosi and Schumer, where he's like, oh, I'll shut
Speaker 1: it down. Oh I'll shut it down. Senator Kennedy, ple ten,
Speaker 1: I think We're gonna have a shutdown for two reasons.
Speaker 1: Number one, President Trump does not look to me like
Speaker 1: he was bluffing or is bluffing. And number two, I
Speaker 1: don't think Speaker Pomosi is going to agree to anything
Speaker 1: because she's worried about her speakership. As far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 1: if it's shut down, it's a pox on all of
Speaker 1: our houses. I don't know politically who's gonna win or
Speaker 1: lose this. I do know that too many people are
Speaker 1: preoccupied with the politics of it. We ought to try
Speaker 1: to figure a way out of this. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: based on what I've seen, and I could be wrong,
Speaker 1: and I hope i am, because the government shut down
Speaker 1: would would not serve the American people. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: think President bluff President Trump is bluffing, and I don't
Speaker 1: think Speaker Plosi is gonna give an inch because she
Speaker 1: wants to be speaker. And if I've learned anything up here,
Speaker 1: I hate to say it, but most people in Washington
Speaker 1: care about their jobs first. That's definitely true. Careerism is
Speaker 1: rife here in DC, in fact, more so than I
Speaker 1: think in a lot of other places, and a lot
Speaker 1: of other industries. I mean the industry here in the
Speaker 1: district is politics, and with that there's an unfortunately, it's
Speaker 1: very lucrative, a lot of access, a lot of lobbyists
Speaker 1: and people that are representative of different interests that are
Speaker 1: just finding ways to suckle at the government's teat This
Speaker 1: is why you have I don't even know it's five
Speaker 1: or seven now, of the top ten wealthiest counties in
Speaker 1: America per capita, per individual, per household are the ones
Speaker 1: that are right around Washington, d C. Now, this is
Speaker 1: this is where, this is where the special sweet sauce.
Speaker 1: You can get a lot of it here in DC,
Speaker 1: A lot, a lot of honey for people that know
Speaker 1: how to get special access to the to the hive.
Speaker 1: And it's a shame if that's the case, but you
Speaker 1: know that that unfortunately drives a lot of the decision
Speaker 1: making in a lot of the way that this city functions. Also,
Speaker 1: why I just have it, you know, I'm here. It's
Speaker 1: great for my access to the people here, the politicians.
Speaker 1: I'm on Capitol Hill, I'm over at the White House,
Speaker 1: I'm runner all over this town so I can bring
Speaker 1: you information. But man, I miss anything that's not DC.
Speaker 1: A lot of the time that all said, back to
Speaker 1: the shutdown, here is it going to be a Schumer shutdown?
Speaker 1: Part two? I mean, Schumer is really I think seething.
Speaker 1: After yesterday I read this report the President of Trump
Speaker 1: threw a folder at the wall and was so angry.
Speaker 1: I said, I watched that here, I watched that a
Speaker 1: whole sit down yesterday. He crushed Pelosi and Schumer. I
Speaker 1: mean Pelosi was like in a daze. And Schumer looked like,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody told him, no nappy time today, you know,
Speaker 1: no nap nap, you know, can't go sleepy sleep. He
Speaker 1: was really unhappy. And here's here's the speaker and not speaker,
Speaker 1: the minority leader Schumer fifteen. President is so used to
Speaker 1: obsequious advisor. The president is so used to obsequious advisors
Speaker 1: who fail to dispel his false and made up facts
Speaker 1: that he lives in a cocoon of his own mistruth
Speaker 1: Leader Pelosi and I had to tell him, no, mister President,
Speaker 1: that's not true. We had to puncture that cocoon. And
Speaker 1: he threw a temperate tantrum because of it. Well, the
Speaker 1: cocoon that he lives in where we should have border security.
Speaker 1: The cocoon where Democrats are trying to just demagogue the
Speaker 1: issue of the border without actually handling it. I mean, well,
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you in a moment about I had
Speaker 1: a really interesting fun exchange today on my show. You know,
Speaker 1: I was cool as a cucumber. As I whatever I'm
Speaker 1: doing with lives, I try to be calm, you know,
Speaker 1: because it's not you, it's not worth it's not my
Speaker 1: style get you know, yell at them and everything else.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can do that, but I tend not to.
Speaker 1: But this whole notion of what is at the center
Speaker 1: of the debate. We have the money. We can spend
Speaker 1: five billion dollars on an important government project that would
Speaker 1: that would stop a massive problem. And when you look
Speaker 1: at opioids. But you know, fentanyl is now the number
Speaker 1: one cause of overdose in America. And they're not getting
Speaker 1: it from drug stores, folks. They're getting it from cartels
Speaker 1: and from dealers. They're getting it illegally. Now there's also
Speaker 1: a secondary black market, but that's a lot tougher. And
Speaker 1: you know, anybody who's selling on a secondary black market
Speaker 1: is really taking a huge risk because if they find
Speaker 1: out that you gave your fentanyl somebody, that person dies,
Speaker 1: you sold them illegally, you're in big trouble. I mean,
Speaker 1: you might look into manslaughter charges. So of course the
Speaker 1: cartels don't care. It's why you've got over seventy thousand
Speaker 1: people you're dying. I mean, this is a national security emergency.
Speaker 1: The drugs are flowing over our border. It's not just
Speaker 1: about the opping people. It's also about stopping you know,
Speaker 1: forget about the caravans of people. It's the cartels and
Speaker 1: the caravans of drugs they're running into the country. It's
Speaker 1: killing seventy thousand people years an urgent health crisis, and
Speaker 1: a wall would help. And every border patrol agent I
Speaker 1: have ever talked to you, and I've talked to dozens
Speaker 1: and dozens of them in the last few years, every
Speaker 1: single one says the same thing, a wall would help.
Speaker 1: Nobody says a wall is a complete waste of time.
Speaker 1: Nobody I've never heard. I mean, you know, you could
Speaker 1: tell me that there's someone out there who says that,
Speaker 1: who actually knows about the border, but I've never met anybody.
Speaker 1: And everybody in the San Diego border sector is like,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, thank Heaven's we have the wall in fact,
Speaker 1: they worry about the sections of the wall that aren't
Speaker 1: strong enough and aren't reinforced. That's their concern. We gotta
Speaker 1: fight now on this issue. There must be a shotdown
Speaker 1: or a wall. And we have one fourth of the
Speaker 1: world's almost one fourth of the world's immigrants right in
Speaker 1: the United States, somewhere between forty five and sixty million.
Speaker 1: Look at countries that send people all over the world China, India, Mexico, Turkey,
Speaker 1: and they lecture people on their supposed civic duties. And
Speaker 1: then those are the countries that are least likely to
Speaker 1: allow immigrants to come in to their own nation, whether
Speaker 1: in California or Nevada, or Paris or London. That the
Speaker 1: administrative progressive elite feel that they can take the short
Speaker 1: term on popularity because they're changing the demography. They're creating
Speaker 1: a reason for larger government subsidies, entitlements, and fealty with
Speaker 1: newcomers who don't really process themselves into the assimilation process.
Speaker 1: And then I think they also virtue signal that they're
Speaker 1: so moral people and their wealth or their influence or
Speaker 1: their positions insulate them from the ramifications of their own ideology,
Speaker 1: so they don't put their kids in schools with fifty
Speaker 1: percent non English speakers. In a case here in California,
Speaker 1: they live in gated communities, they don't feel that they're
Speaker 1: going to experience the downside verset ten. Instead they say
Speaker 1: racist synophobe, and that deters these people who don't really
Speaker 1: make their feelings known unless the Pew polar Pole like
Speaker 1: them ask them. Victor Davis Hansen is spot on here
Speaker 1: on immigration. I mean, look, VDH is one of the
Speaker 1: great contemporary intellectuals of our time, and in my opinion,
Speaker 1: I guess contemporary of our time or the same thing.
Speaker 1: But you know what I mean, he's one of the
Speaker 1: great intellectuals of our day, and on the issue of immigration,
Speaker 1: he just he just gets it. You know, we have
Speaker 1: a massive immigrant population in this country, legal and illegal.
Speaker 1: We take a million every year, and whenever we want
Speaker 1: to talk about maybe a millions of love or maybe
Speaker 1: we should change something here or there, it's, oh, my gosh,
Speaker 1: you're racist. Are all changes to immigration racist? Is that
Speaker 1: the position that we're in? It? Apparently it is if
Speaker 1: you listen to Democrats. Is the wall racist? Well, in fact,
Speaker 1: here's a perfect perfect place to trans transition into this.
Speaker 1: So today on Rise. And you know today there were
Speaker 1: two We had a panel. Usually the panel is a
Speaker 1: Republican and a Democrat. There was a mistake today in
Speaker 1: the bookings. We had two Democrats. So it was buck v.
Speaker 1: Three today on the panel. But please, I got buck fo,
Speaker 1: I got all kinds of ninja moves. I'm not worried
Speaker 1: about it. And I sent down on this This guy
Speaker 1: actually his name is Kelly, and he is from an
Speaker 1: organization that trains and it's a pretty from one I understand,
Speaker 1: a pretty prolific organization in this field. They train people democrats.
Speaker 1: They trained democrats to run for office. So you call
Speaker 1: them and they say we'll teach you. So it's really
Speaker 1: like community organizing for community organizers and this organization and
Speaker 1: he's the head of it. He runs this organizations. He's
Speaker 1: got some authority. So we're talking about immigration a little bit,
Speaker 1: and I just wanted to get down to first first
Speaker 1: things here, first principles for a moment. And so what
Speaker 1: is I wanted to hear from a Democrat who's very
Speaker 1: involved in you know, progressive circles and progressive politics. Why
Speaker 1: are you so opposed to a wall? And and I
Speaker 1: want you all this is from this morning. I want
Speaker 1: you all to hear how this exchange went, because it's uh,
Speaker 1: it is illuminating. Play seventeen stative American politics is And
Speaker 1: why are they so opposed to a wall? Kelly? Why
Speaker 1: are they so opposed to a wall? We have a
Speaker 1: wall in some places. Why not build more wall? Let's see. Yeah,
Speaker 1: why are we so opposed to a wall? I said?
Speaker 1: Why are democrats? Yeah, why are they so opposed to
Speaker 1: a wall? The fundamental argument behind the wall that's made
Speaker 1: by the other party is that people are invading our
Speaker 1: country who are rapists and criminals and are threatening your
Speaker 1: very existence. A lot. That's a lot of difficulizing about
Speaker 1: about about what people that the press pause. Notice how
Speaker 1: immediately I ask a very straightforward question, and we got
Speaker 1: we got two Democrats. They're coming in with, you know,
Speaker 1: with the exact same thing we look with the President said.
Speaker 1: The President said that there are some rapists and there
Speaker 1: are our murders coming across our border. That is a fact.
Speaker 1: That is a fact. They can try to run with
Speaker 1: this hyperliteralism of he said rapists and murders. He's saying
Speaker 1: they're all No one thinks they're all rapists. And murders,
Speaker 1: but there are some come across the border. But forget
Speaker 1: about the rapists and murderers. The argument is for national sovereignty,
Speaker 1: we have to have control over everybody who comes in
Speaker 1: and comes out. So the argument is knock that they're
Speaker 1: rapists and murderers. But just notice how immediately this guy
Speaker 1: who trains democratic his whole life's work is training Democrat activists.
Speaker 1: He goes to that, and then it continues on play Zach,
Speaker 1: which passed with major bipartisan support back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and six, which was law they just never funded. It
Speaker 1: was that they're offensive be a barrier on our southern
Speaker 1: border to prevent illegal entry into the country. Right, So
Speaker 1: why is it such a bad idea? And if you
Speaker 1: want to run overshot over a bipartisan agreement and instead
Speaker 1: say we need a five billion dollar wall that needs
Speaker 1: to be put up through private property, through nature, through etcetera, etcetera,
Speaker 1: so that we keep these rapists and criminals out. That
Speaker 1: characterize as a whole group of people, immigrants that made
Speaker 1: this country great. Okay, we just pause here for a second.
Speaker 1: Think about all the platitudes that are getting thrown in here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have it go through Nate. Yes, I think
Speaker 1: it's okay. I think the desert will survive a wall
Speaker 1: through it. It's gonna be okay. Uh, you know, but
Speaker 1: this is Oh, it's gonna go through private property. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: we'll use eminent domain and we'll pay people, or we'll
Speaker 1: move the wall so that it doesn't go through their problem.
Speaker 1: We'll figure that out too, Okay. So those are just
Speaker 1: logistics concerns, but that's not a reason not to build
Speaker 1: a wall. Oh and then we go back to the
Speaker 1: the the usual, the people that made America great, the immigrants. No, Actually,
Speaker 1: I like I like the Americans who are here, and
Speaker 1: I like the people who come here legally. I don't
Speaker 1: think that the illegal immigrants are the ones that we're
Speaker 1: gonna just sit around and say they're the ones who
Speaker 1: have made American great. But keep playing it. We tear
Speaker 1: down the wall in San Diego. I think we should do.
Speaker 1: I think this is a difference of opinion of the
Speaker 1: best way to enforce border security. They had a border
Speaker 1: hold us that they want a wall, So I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting to hear all these democrats ahead there's no point,
Speaker 1: there's no point in having a wall I'm sorry. The
Speaker 1: head of the CIA told us that that the Crown
Speaker 1: Prince ordered the killing of a journalist. But we don't
Speaker 1: believe them. And you know, we we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: pick and choose which law enforcement we believe. Good time,
Speaker 1: Seawn makes good. It a couple of things there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you might have heard. I said, Yeah, that's what we
Speaker 1: call a non sequitur, because that has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with any I'm talking about a wall, and nine wants
Speaker 1: to talk about the CIA. And also the CIA is
Speaker 1: not law enforcement. Fortunately used to work at the CIA,
Speaker 1: so I know these things. Um, but you know, you
Speaker 1: couldn't get a real answer from this guy. I asked him,
Speaker 1: if a wall is so bad, if a wall is racist,
Speaker 1: why not tear down the wall in San Diego? Why
Speaker 1: should we have a wall there? Oh my gosh, it's
Speaker 1: this monument to racism. Can't get an answer. Why shouldn't
Speaker 1: we have a wall? Can't get it? Now. I can
Speaker 1: actually help him out, if I chose to, would say.
Speaker 1: You could say it's too expensive. You could say it's
Speaker 1: not effective enough based on the cost of what it
Speaker 1: would be. It's too difficult, it will take too much time.
Speaker 1: You could make those arguments. The problem as though, when
Speaker 1: they get into the efficacy argument, you know what happens
Speaker 1: border patrol, customs, immigrations enforcement, law enforcement. You know what
Speaker 1: they say, No, no, this is good, this is good,
Speaker 1: and then they can't use this. The experts don't say
Speaker 1: we should have walls. So the answer why shouldn't we
Speaker 1: have walls? Because Democrats want a legal immigration. That is
Speaker 1: the answer to the question, and they should just say it.
Speaker 1: When the President said to Senator Assumer, I'll gladly take
Speaker 1: that mantle, I think what he was saying is, I'll
Speaker 1: gladly and proudly take the mantle of doing what we
Speaker 1: told the voters we were going to do, which is
Speaker 1: build a border security wall. So yeah, the Freedom Caucus
Speaker 1: in particular, we took a position last night we're going
Speaker 1: to support the president the full five billion for the
Speaker 1: border security wall, and let's reform our asylum walls while
Speaker 1: we're at it, because that will address the problem. Democrats
Speaker 1: are for open borders. Democrats want to amolishize their parties
Speaker 1: champion in the last election, Secretary Clinton, what does she
Speaker 1: run on a borderleist hemisphere. So I think it's all
Speaker 1: part of that, but the President's to day I think
Speaker 1: made it pretty daring clear he's gonna stand firm and
Speaker 1: focus on doing what we were elected to do. And
Speaker 1: I always say, we make this job too complicated. That's
Speaker 1: a pretty basic thing to focus on. Don't get too complicated.
Speaker 1: Just do what you were elected to do. And we
Speaker 1: were certainly elected to build a border security wall. Border security,
Speaker 1: the wall, the shutdown, big issues looming right now as
Speaker 1: we head into the Christmas holiday just ahead. I want
Speaker 1: somebody who can shed light on all these things, and
Speaker 1: we've got one. Congressman Louie Gomer of the great State
Speaker 1: of Texas is with us now. Congressman Gomer, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining. Of course, thanks for having me on buck.
Speaker 1: Let's just start, if I may, with the shutdown. I mean,
Speaker 1: President Trump in that meeting with Schumer and Pelosi was saying,
Speaker 1: you know, basically, bring it. I'm gonna shut this. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna shut the government down unless you guys want to
Speaker 1: fund the wall. Do you think that the GOP is
Speaker 1: with them on this? I mean, is a shutdown a
Speaker 1: serious a serious threat from either side. It is a
Speaker 1: serious threat from the president, it's a serious threat from
Speaker 1: the majority of the Republicans. The only question remains as
Speaker 1: to whether I elected Republican leaders will have that same
Speaker 1: feeling and commitment, because apparently the President is being told, gee,
Speaker 1: if if we don't have the votes in the Senate,
Speaker 1: then there's no sense the House trying to pass it,
Speaker 1: which that sounds like the old deep state idea of
Speaker 1: when the truth is Heck, the best way to put
Speaker 1: pressure against to get the Senate to do something is
Speaker 1: for the House to pass it. And then once the
Speaker 1: House passes it, and I'm sure we'll pass it without
Speaker 1: an anti Pelosi's vote, but once the House passes it,
Speaker 1: then we can all be doing media and help our
Speaker 1: president put pressure on the Senate to get it done. Now,
Speaker 1: there is a huge problem there and trying to get
Speaker 1: sixty votes in the Senate, but there has been a
Speaker 1: way and to get this done under reconciliation. Paul Ryan
Speaker 1: was chairman of the Budget Committee. He has done this before.
Speaker 1: He knows how it's done. I brought it up to
Speaker 1: him weeks ago and I got a kind of an
Speaker 1: hour role. But but the truth is, there is a
Speaker 1: bill that would it just simply says we do an
Speaker 1: amendment to a budget resolution and make spending and in
Speaker 1: the bill is twenty five billion dollars. What you know
Speaker 1: it would likely or we're told it would likely cause
Speaker 1: is what we should have done, and actually what some
Speaker 1: Democrats have voted for before. But twenty five billion is
Speaker 1: mandatory spending and all the all that it will take
Speaker 1: is fifty or fifty one votes fifty because if there's
Speaker 1: a tie, then Mike Pence would certainly support the president. So, uh,
Speaker 1: there's no reason we wouldn't just amend a budget resolution
Speaker 1: so that we could do it with fifteen fifty one
Speaker 1: votes in the Senate and have twenty five billion. If
Speaker 1: you want to only go five and get a good start,
Speaker 1: then fine, but there's no reason that we shouldn't go
Speaker 1: ahead and pass it Congress. What is the what is
Speaker 1: the Democrat offer right now in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: what they would want signed when it comes to the border,
Speaker 1: and what is the what is the GOP requests? Well,
Speaker 1: they don't want to they do not want a wall.
Speaker 1: They do not want the president to have any kind
Speaker 1: of win at all, and they're scared to death of
Speaker 1: him being able to say in twenty twenty that ill
Speaker 1: I told you we'd get a wall built, and we
Speaker 1: built it. But they're offering what one point one point
Speaker 1: five billion, Congressman, they're offering one point five billion? What
Speaker 1: is that money for the one point five it's supposedly
Speaker 1: to get a start going, But that's that would not
Speaker 1: be enough, and the Democrats know that that would not
Speaker 1: be enough for the President to say, look at the
Speaker 1: wall we've built, we built it where we need it. Well,
Speaker 1: you'd get a good start, but it would still be
Speaker 1: an issue that they would beat him over the head
Speaker 1: with in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty saying, ah, look, you
Speaker 1: know he promised the wall, and they know they're going
Speaker 1: to do everything they can from keeping him from having
Speaker 1: something he can point to and say, see, don't just
Speaker 1: what was Speaker Pelosi or soon to be Speaker Pelosi?
Speaker 1: Pardon me, but what was Nancy Pelosi talking about in
Speaker 1: the Oval office when she was saying, you don't have
Speaker 1: the votes? It seems to me that one, how does
Speaker 1: she know that? In two that defies belief, Well, she
Speaker 1: has said that before that gee that we're focused, don't
Speaker 1: have the votes, and we've surprised her own votes before
Speaker 1: when we did have the votes. So I think this
Speaker 1: would be one where we could and should surprise her again.
Speaker 1: But yeah, she was saying, we didn't have the votes
Speaker 1: in the House. You don't have the votes in the
Speaker 1: House to do this. I think, you know we we
Speaker 1: sure ought to give it a good goal. Now, Tom Delay,
Speaker 1: when he was a majority leader, he said, you know,
Speaker 1: when I get over two hundred votes, I'm ready to
Speaker 1: go to the floor because I figure, you know, with
Speaker 1: especially if we have the president's House, when we get help.
Speaker 1: When we get to the floor, then we can get
Speaker 1: the last votes we need. So we'll see. I think
Speaker 1: that's the way to do it, you know, get get
Speaker 1: it on the floor, get it past. But I do
Speaker 1: think it only makes sense that we pass an amended
Speaker 1: budget resolution that allows us to do it under the
Speaker 1: reconciliation process. And the only I can only think of
Speaker 1: one reason why we wouldn't do that, and that is
Speaker 1: if our own elected Republican leaders don't want to really
Speaker 1: fund even five billion four Is that on the Senate
Speaker 1: side or are you worried about some GOP House members
Speaker 1: as well? I'll send the Senate side, Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the House isn't even solid on this. Well, we're solid
Speaker 1: except for our leadership. I think, But I go back
Speaker 1: two years ago, November two years ago, when I got
Speaker 1: up at conference and I said, all right, look, nobody
Speaker 1: has signed up to run against you, Paul, but I
Speaker 1: would like to know where you stand because you have
Speaker 1: not supported a wall in the past, you have not
Speaker 1: supported a total border security, and those are the two
Speaker 1: biggest things the president ran on, So I need to
Speaker 1: know are you going to help the president get a
Speaker 1: wall built and totally secure the border? And he said,
Speaker 1: you're not understanding what We're getting along great, And I said, no,
Speaker 1: that's not my question. My question is will you help
Speaker 1: the president get the wall built and secure the border?
Speaker 1: And he said, look, we're talking virtually every day. We're
Speaker 1: getting along great, there's no problems there. I said, that's
Speaker 1: not my question. My question is will you help the
Speaker 1: president build get the wall built and totally secure the border.
Speaker 1: And he said, we're doing fine. You're misreading this, and
Speaker 1: then our conference chair said, the gentleman's time has expired,
Speaker 1: and so I never got an answer. My question that
Speaker 1: was two years ago, right after Thomason govern we got
Speaker 1: to run into a break in just a moment. I
Speaker 1: sure a quick question for you if we can't get
Speaker 1: this through. Whether whether the shutdown you know, doesn't go
Speaker 1: the way of the Republicans or whatever. The final dispensation
Speaker 1: of that is kind the president just order the military
Speaker 1: to do this. How does that work? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: actually Bucky laid the groundwork earlier this year when he
Speaker 1: said this was a national emergence. See, and for heaven's sake,
Speaker 1: we had this massive caravan coming. It really was an invasion.
Speaker 1: We know that there were more people killed in the
Speaker 1: last year from the drugs. Most likely they came through
Speaker 1: or from Mexico, the drug cartels. And that's as horrible
Speaker 1: and deadly as Vietnam was. That's more deaths of Americans
Speaker 1: than we lost in Vietnam in the whole Vietnam War.
Speaker 1: So he would have every legitimate basis for claiming it
Speaker 1: is a national emergency because it is. It is an
Speaker 1: invasion because it is, and with that he can use
Speaker 1: the military however he needs to to stop this national emergency,
Speaker 1: stopped the invasion. Congressman Louis Gohmer to the Great State
Speaker 1: of Texas. Congressman Gohmer, I always appreciate you coming by.
Speaker 1: We'll talk to you soon. Always appreciate your perspective bug.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Team Big Hour coming up stay with us.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is the only dual certified veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. Everyone listening to this matter
Speaker 1: how large or small your company is, you know you
Speaker 1: got to have background checks done. Even though I was
Speaker 1: a top secret cleared person when I went to the
Speaker 1: private sector, they had new background checks on me. Right.
Speaker 1: This is just the way it is, and it's the
Speaker 1: smart thing to do. But you need people doing those
Speaker 1: background checks that you can trust, that get you answers quickly, efficiently,
Speaker 1: and make sure they get the answers right that you need.
Speaker 1: That's Global Verification. You should. If you've got an existing
Speaker 1: contract with somebody in your background checks, call Global Verification
Speaker 1: and see what they can do for you. They're very
Speaker 1: competitively priced and they'll get a package that works for you.
Speaker 1: You got a huge company you work in HR your CEO,
Speaker 1: or you've got a small company a startup, call Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Go to MYGVN dot com or call eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine Again
Speaker 1: that's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven
Speaker 1: nine Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned, hapless ever
Speaker 1: changing band of ministers. We're out on the airwaves assuring
Speaker 1: us that there would be a meaningful vote tomorrow before
Speaker 1: this latest twist, this sort of premature parliamentary ejaculation, that's
Speaker 1: put the light to the claim blood. She sticks to
Speaker 1: her gun when she won't even tell us when the
Speaker 1: vote is deferred to, and he indepaired that the lady
Speaker 1: is returning, How can we or anyone trust anything? She
Speaker 1: says again, I'm trying to say, the honorable lady. If
Speaker 1: she looks carefully, I think she'll see that I'm not
Speaker 1: capable of a parliamentary ejaculation. WHOA, the range is hot
Speaker 1: on the flora Parliament there in the UK. That was
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister Teresa May, responding to a member of
Speaker 1: Parliament there you heard. The exchange was spicy, what's going
Speaker 1: on with Brexit? What's going on in the UK? And
Speaker 1: maybe a little time for the yellow vest if we've
Speaker 1: got it, We've We've been joined by our friend Rahiim Kasam.
Speaker 1: He is formerly an advisor in Nigel Farage. He's also
Speaker 1: a Claremont Fellow author of No Go Zones. Raheem, what's
Speaker 1: up my friend? Hey buck? How you do it? I'm
Speaker 1: all right, man, I mean it looks like the MP's
Speaker 1: at least get to have a bit of fun on
Speaker 1: the floor of Parliament there, what is the ladies? I mean,
Speaker 1: we know, actually we've got sound here. Theresa May just
Speaker 1: barely held on to her seat. Play that clip, guys.
Speaker 1: As a leader of the Conservative Party. The number of
Speaker 1: votes cast in favor of having competence and Terisa May
Speaker 1: was two hundred and thea was one hundred and seventeen.
Speaker 1: Under the rules set out in the Constitution of the
Speaker 1: Conservative Party, there's no further confidence vote can take place
Speaker 1: at all, right, so she raheim so that the British
Speaker 1: PM survives a no competence vote. Brexits at the heart
Speaker 1: of this. What the heck is going on? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think where's the start? I mean. Theresa May was nearly
Speaker 1: prematurely ejected as the Prime Minister today after forty eight
Speaker 1: members of her own governing party, the Conservative Party, put
Speaker 1: in letters to the head of what's called the nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty two Committee, which sort of governs the rules inside
Speaker 1: the Conservative Party. They didn't think she was doing a
Speaker 1: good enough job with Brexit. It triggered a no confidence
Speaker 1: vote and she won that vote today amongst her own
Speaker 1: parliamentary party. So she hangs on and as you heard
Speaker 1: in that clip, they can't challenge her for another twelve months.
Speaker 1: But what this means for Brexit specifically is that you
Speaker 1: now have a bad deal that she's negotiated where we
Speaker 1: end up paying the British end up paying sixty odd
Speaker 1: billion dollars into the europe into the European Commission's coppers,
Speaker 1: and what we get in response is basically nothing in return.
Speaker 1: And you'll forgive the noise. In the background, I have
Speaker 1: some policeman doing wheelings in front of the move back.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say, are you writing a tuck tuck somewhere?
Speaker 1: Are you in Southeast Asia? What's going on here? It's
Speaker 1: absolutely gisarreb. Outside of the Trump International itself, there's a
Speaker 1: policeman doing wheelies in front of me. Right, he saw
Speaker 1: a man of action. Everybody international man of mystery. So
Speaker 1: you know, right here with the Brexit thing, people in
Speaker 1: this country we look at what's going on in Europe
Speaker 1: mostly and we take it as either cautionary tales or
Speaker 1: maybe inspiration or some combination of the two for what's
Speaker 1: going on here. Right, that's why Europe tends out. Plus
Speaker 1: you know, you guys, you're you're kind of our cultural
Speaker 1: forebears and all that stuff, so we appreciate that. But
Speaker 1: you know, Brexit move the markets here earlier in the week,
Speaker 1: people were all freaked out about it, and is the
Speaker 1: long and short of basically that the elites in the
Speaker 1: UK want to find a way to just override the
Speaker 1: referendum that they didn't that didn't go their way. Well,
Speaker 1: not that they wanted to find a way, they actually
Speaker 1: have found a way. And it's at the point now
Speaker 1: where you don't even have a deal or no deal scenario.
Speaker 1: Remember this is what we were talking about months ago,
Speaker 1: that we'd either get this really bad deal that Theresa
Speaker 1: May was offering us, or on the March twenty ninth
Speaker 1: deadline when we're supposed to leave the European Union, we
Speaker 1: get no deal and we were revert to World Trade
Speaker 1: Organization rules. Well, then no deal scenario looks off at
Speaker 1: the table now, so we either get a bad deal
Speaker 1: or a slightly less bad deal. And that's what Theresa
Speaker 1: May and her romaniac colleagues as we call them. They
Speaker 1: they've orchestrated this over the last two years then it
Speaker 1: looks like they're about to actually get a great victory
Speaker 1: in favor of the EU over Britain. So no sovereignty back,
Speaker 1: very few immigration controls back. We end up paying massive
Speaker 1: amounts of I mean tens of billions of pounds into
Speaker 1: European Commission scoffers. No negotiation over our fishing waters, which
Speaker 1: was a major part of the break to campaign as well,
Speaker 1: getting back our sovereign right to fish unquoted in our
Speaker 1: own waters, in our own territorial waters. And none of
Speaker 1: this has happened, so breaksit now looks to be not
Speaker 1: breasit at all, And when March the twenty ninth rolls around,
Speaker 1: it looks like what we're going to have instead, it's
Speaker 1: sort of what they call associate membership status of the
Speaker 1: European Union, which is the worst of both worlds. You
Speaker 1: take their rules, you give them cash, but you don't
Speaker 1: get any representation in the Council of Ministers or in
Speaker 1: the European Parliament. Wow. So the elites in the UK
Speaker 1: and their infinite wisdom have effectively managed taxation without representation
Speaker 1: in the biggest supernational body in the world. As exactly
Speaker 1: what has happened and how I keep describing it, and
Speaker 1: it's been unfortunately not just Theresa Ma's fault. It's the
Speaker 1: Conservative Party's fault. You know, I spend a lot of
Speaker 1: my time here in the United States, and I understand
Speaker 1: that the Republican Party has a lot of rhinos within it. Well,
Speaker 1: we have a Conservative Party that is almost entirely constituted
Speaker 1: of Conservatives in name only, and it's going to end
Speaker 1: very badly for the party over the next two to
Speaker 1: five years when their will that have to be another
Speaker 1: general election and people scratch their heads and say, well,
Speaker 1: why would vote for this Conservative Party anyway? And you
Speaker 1: know who's the leader in waiting if if that happens,
Speaker 1: it's the hard left Jeremy Corbyn, who's the leader of
Speaker 1: the Labor Party. He's sort of akin to your Bernie Sanders. Man.
Speaker 1: That does not sound good. We're gonna we're gonna help.
Speaker 1: You have to help our our brothers and sisters have
Speaker 1: written out if it goes that way, because the taxation
Speaker 1: without representation. Then you add on top of that a
Speaker 1: little dose of Sandernista socialism, things that things are going
Speaker 1: to get rough. I just wanted to do what your
Speaker 1: thoughts ring him on on the latest also on the
Speaker 1: yellow vests, these protests kinda handed to the French man.
Speaker 1: I mean, their protests put our protesters to shame for
Speaker 1: whatever that's worth. These guys go when they go, they
Speaker 1: go hard. But what's the latest here in terms of
Speaker 1: one what you think they're well, you know, what's the
Speaker 1: status of the demands and the negotiations? And two what
Speaker 1: do you take away from this for all of us?
Speaker 1: You know, in twenty sixteen, when we had the breaks
Speaker 1: Ait referendum and then we had the election of president
Speaker 1: and Trump, I turned around to some of my French
Speaker 1: friends and I said to them, why why aren't you
Speaker 1: guys following this this revolution? And I'll remember I remember
Speaker 1: one of them said to me, she said, you know,
Speaker 1: we French, we take longer to do things, but when
Speaker 1: we do them, they're bigger. And that's exactly what's happened.
Speaker 1: Two years after the revolutionary year of twenty sixteen. The
Speaker 1: French are now on the streets. You know, they're burning things,
Speaker 1: they're blocking streets, there's obviously a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of violence going on. They're doing it bigger. The reason
Speaker 1: is very simple. Emmanuel Macron positioned himself as a centrist
Speaker 1: candidate against Marine Lapin, who was viewed as the far
Speaker 1: right candidate in the presidential election. But he's governed effectively
Speaker 1: as a as a corporatist. He's given big tax breaks
Speaker 1: to the super wealthy in France, he's cut the minimum
Speaker 1: wage or failed to raise the minimum wage in mind
Speaker 1: with what the French were expecting. I mean, effectively, Frances
Speaker 1: the socialist country. And this is not a conservative protest
Speaker 1: you're seeing. It's sort of got elements of populism to it.
Speaker 1: But by and large, the French just want more freebees
Speaker 1: and that's what they're out protesting about at the moment.
Speaker 1: Now Macron will face her no confidence vote himself this week.
Speaker 1: He will probably just about win it as well, just
Speaker 1: just like Theresa May. But but when you look at
Speaker 1: the narrative from the United States, when you see the
Speaker 1: headlines in the Washington Post in the New York Times
Speaker 1: saying Trump is an unbelievably unpopular is approval ratings are terrible.
Speaker 1: Everybody wants him impeached. They have almost nothing to say
Speaker 1: about the fact that Merkel is now has had to
Speaker 1: stand down, May has had a no confidence and mc
Speaker 1: corman is having a no confidence though. These are the
Speaker 1: three people that they've been telling us are the new
Speaker 1: leaders of the international neoliberal rules based order, and they
Speaker 1: can't even hold majorities and confidences within their own populations.
Speaker 1: America actually, going now to Europe looks like a political haven.
Speaker 1: It looks like a look, it looks like a really
Speaker 1: stable place to be. And isn't that extraordinary when you
Speaker 1: think about what you have to deal with every day
Speaker 1: and the press confidences and the Oval Office and all
Speaker 1: of that, it actually looks like the most stable country
Speaker 1: right now? Where's this all heading? In your opinion? In Europe?
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, look, you were an advisor in
Speaker 1: Nigel Farage. You're very close to some of the movements
Speaker 1: over there that are trying to re establish some degree
Speaker 1: of sovereign team and given the failures of the kind
Speaker 1: of elite consensus folks over there, right, I mean, they're
Speaker 1: not really the consensus of the people. But you know,
Speaker 1: the establishment says, no, no no, no, try this person, you know,
Speaker 1: the trimac Kral, He'll get it done. Where does this
Speaker 1: all go next? Yeah? Look, it's not going anywhere good,
Speaker 1: you know. I I try and I try and keep
Speaker 1: a happy face on most of the time. But when
Speaker 1: you do project these things forward, you know the establishment
Speaker 1: is doubling down. When President Trump said yesterday, you know
Speaker 1: if I if I get impeached, there'll be you know,
Speaker 1: riots or revolution, he was absolutely right, because we're seeing
Speaker 1: that taking place in Europe at the moment. It's not
Speaker 1: going on in Poland where you have a strong conservative government.
Speaker 1: It's not going on in Hungary where you have a
Speaker 1: strong conservative government. It's not happening in Austria. It's happening
Speaker 1: in these these these lishy washy multiculturalist countries like Britain,
Speaker 1: like France, Germany, and unfortunately, the establishment in those countries
Speaker 1: keeps doubling down. We're not going to listen to the people.
Speaker 1: We're gonna figure out ways to suppress their voices, to
Speaker 1: suppress their votes, to not do what they tell us
Speaker 1: to do at the ballot box. And so, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you think the Giljean the yellow vest protests have
Speaker 1: been violent, I've got to say I don't think you
Speaker 1: don't think you've seen nothing yet. I think it's going
Speaker 1: to get much much worse in the next three to
Speaker 1: five years. We're going to see full blown revolutions in
Speaker 1: these countries. Rahim Kassam. Everybody, No Go Zones is his book.
Speaker 1: You can pick it up on Amazon. Also follow him
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and obviously we'll be hearing him here on
Speaker 1: the show. Rahim, my friend. Great to have you talked
Speaker 1: to you soon. Thanks, Buck Chiz. All right, we got
Speaker 1: more coming up. Stay with us. I just had a
Speaker 1: couple of premium pork chops today and let me tell you,
Speaker 1: did a fantastic job with the marinade. But you know
Speaker 1: where those those premium pork chops came from. Omaha Steaks,
Speaker 1: my friends. Right now, Omaha Steaks has an amazing limited
Speaker 1: time offer for Team Buck. When you get to Omaha
Speaker 1: Steaks dot com and enter promo code Buck into the
Speaker 1: search bar, you're gonna get seventy four percent off Omaha
Speaker 1: Steaks Family Gift Package originally one hundred and ninety five dollars,
Speaker 1: now only forty nine ninety nine. Order now and you'll
Speaker 1: get four handcut aged to Tenderness, top surloin Steaks, two
Speaker 1: savory Premium pork chops, four Chicken fried Stakes, four Omaha
Speaker 1: Steaks Burgers, four Snappy Killbossa Sausages, all beef meatballs, four
Speaker 1: perfectly brown potatoes, own four made from scratch caramel apple
Speaker 1: tartlets plus four mare burgers free. I mean it is
Speaker 1: a bonanza of delicious meat and sides. You need to
Speaker 1: check it out only forty nine nine. You need to
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks dot Com type buck into the search bar
Speaker 1: and add the family gift package to your card. Don't
Speaker 1: wait off for end soon. Go to Omaha Steaks dot
Speaker 1: com type buck into the search bar to send the
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package. Today twenty seventeen, the President
Speaker 1: announced Who's pulling this country out of the Paris Climate Accords.
Speaker 1: To hear the politicians and television news chintuggers react, you'd
Speaker 1: think it was the worst natural catastrophe. Wellever, what happened
Speaker 1: yesterday on the climate issue is an embarrassment to a country.
Speaker 1: It should be an embarrassment to him personally for how
Speaker 1: he answers to his grandchildren. People are going to die,
Speaker 1: habitat will be destroyed, seas will rise, insects will spread.
Speaker 1: This will be the day that the United States resigned
Speaker 1: as the leader of the free world. He is not
Speaker 1: helping the forgotten American He is hurting them. Their kids
Speaker 1: will have worse asthma in the summer. The president who
Speaker 1: talked about putting America first has now put America last.
Speaker 1: That was the reaction, just as a little trip down
Speaker 1: memory lane that we got from much of the elite media.
Speaker 1: Obviously Tucker was calling it out, and I completely agree
Speaker 1: with Tucker. But when the Paris Climate Agreement went through,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is something that Obama really Obama really
Speaker 1: showed his internationalist streak here on the whole Paris Climate agreement,
Speaker 1: meaning that US sovereignty, US legislative bodies, none of that
Speaker 1: really matters. All you need to do is show up
Speaker 1: with a bunch of fancy global and globalist bureaucrats and
Speaker 1: come up with some kind of an agreement. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Paris Climate Agreement, just just as a little trip
Speaker 1: down memory lane. Remember Trump pulled this out of this
Speaker 1: and he's right, you mean, the whole thing. I can't
Speaker 1: even talk to libs about climate change anymore. They're so wacko.
Speaker 1: They're so whacko about the whole thing. He can't have
Speaker 1: an What about the fact that people that have been
Speaker 1: saying this keep being wrong, They keeping You want me
Speaker 1: to you want me to not pay attention to the
Speaker 1: fact that the so called experts and the scientific consensus,
Speaker 1: which is really almost an oxymoron, especially on an issue
Speaker 1: as complicated as this consensus about what There's not a
Speaker 1: consensus about how much the temperature will rise or fall.
Speaker 1: There's not a consensus about the best way to deal
Speaker 1: with it. There's not a consensus about what the full
Speaker 1: implications will be or won't be. They just all get
Speaker 1: into this hive mind. I mean, this is just a
Speaker 1: mob mentality about all the climate. We've got to fix
Speaker 1: the climate. The Paris Climate Agreement. This is from the
Speaker 1: Paris Climate Agreements. The United Nations website here the United
Speaker 1: Nations Climate Change. It's fascinating stuff. Here's what it says.
Speaker 1: The Paris Climate Agreement central aim is to strengthen the
Speaker 1: global response to the threat of climate change by keeping
Speaker 1: a global temperature rise this century well below two degrees
Speaker 1: celsius above pre industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to
Speaker 1: limit the temperature increase even further to one point five
Speaker 1: degrees celsius. Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability
Speaker 1: of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change.
Speaker 1: To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new
Speaker 1: technology framework, and an enhanced capacity building framework will we
Speaker 1: put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and
Speaker 1: the most vulnerable countries. Okay, that last part, let's start
Speaker 1: that first. That is really just an excuse for global socialism.
Speaker 1: That's all. That is. The developed countries are going to
Speaker 1: pay for the less developed countries. The developed countries are
Speaker 1: going to have to build the infrastructure for the less
Speaker 1: developed countries. And the excuse is going to be, well,
Speaker 1: we got where we are because of all of our
Speaker 1: CO two emissions, So they're going to do us the
Speaker 1: big favor, the big solid these third world countries out
Speaker 1: there by letting us give them money so that they
Speaker 1: won't they won't go the carbon intensive economic group. By
Speaker 1: the way, this just makes people poorer. You know the
Speaker 1: problem with the climate change lunatics is that there's real
Speaker 1: damage done by their lunacy. This isn't something that does
Speaker 1: not have a cost. In fact, the economic costs are enormous,
Speaker 1: and you know, the countries involved in this are going
Speaker 1: to that. They're the ones that determine they call it
Speaker 1: quote naturally determined contributions, and every five years they're going
Speaker 1: to assess this. There's no mechanism for agreement here. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just the faculty lounge in charge of the world.
Speaker 1: There's no accountability, there's no seriousness. It's just emotions and
Speaker 1: a whole lot of you know, kumbaya. Let's all hold hands,
Speaker 1: dance in a circle. It's crazy. And now we're seeing
Speaker 1: some of the implementation of this and when it finally
Speaker 1: hits people what this involves, it's really bad. That's what.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening in France. They realize you're going to
Speaker 1: add on We've got all these other problems and now
Speaker 1: you're going to add on fighting climate change to our bill. Please.
Speaker 1: I mean, here, here's what here's what Macron has had
Speaker 1: to say about a play clip too. I feel the anger,
Speaker 1: give us another chance. I want to see an immediate
Speaker 1: and real improvement and the salaries. And this is why
Speaker 1: I am ordering an end of the year bonus for
Speaker 1: all employees without any text. He's just having a give
Speaker 1: people a little a little tax cut of it, and
Speaker 1: it's basically trying to pay people off a little bit
Speaker 1: to calm down. He's trying. It's just this is the
Speaker 1: the president of France, desperate to try to regain some
Speaker 1: political stability under his feet and it's it's all. This
Speaker 1: was all because the climate change. He didn't have to
Speaker 1: deal with this problem. You know, the yellow vests, you
Speaker 1: know they're they're coming out, they're so upset, understandably so
Speaker 1: because you're really going to do this to them. You know,
Speaker 1: we do have wealth. Inequality is a very real thing,
Speaker 1: and it is the reason marks resonates with so many people.
Speaker 1: The reason socialism has appeal for so many people is
Speaker 1: because inequality in talents and in wealth and in life
Speaker 1: is real, and it's very easy to exploit the inequality
Speaker 1: that exists in order to turn it into resentment, because
Speaker 1: resentment then also spreads and becomes anger, and anger turns
Speaker 1: into mobilization, and mobilization gives power to the people who
Speaker 1: can control that anger, which then brings me to what's
Speaker 1: going on right now in Paris. Right he was just
Speaker 1: talking about a Playcliff three is the French ambassador of
Speaker 1: the US, and they have been rebellion also against our
Speaker 1: world government, to the government of President mccon. We has
Speaker 1: been has been trying to reform, reform France. When you
Speaker 1: are increasing the price of gas for the people, especially
Speaker 1: for the people leaving in the war areas. It has
Speaker 1: consequences on the standard of leaving, and I think that's
Speaker 1: what the French government didn't take into account. So now
Speaker 1: I think the President has decided to face Desny's problem. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because the president doesn't have a choice because a bunch
Speaker 1: of you know, hundreds of thousands of people are running
Speaker 1: around and yellow vess being like, guess what, mister technocrat
Speaker 1: want to be stop messing up because of climate change? Okay,
Speaker 1: we want better lives now, not in one hundred years.
Speaker 1: And you know what the French on this, I gotta
Speaker 1: agree with them. May we be in studio? Well, I
Speaker 1: understand that Donald Trump doesn't care. Kyleman makes a good point,
Speaker 1: he doesn't care, But why doesn't Mike Pompeo care? Right now?
Speaker 1: Are the pathetic deflections that we just heard when he
Speaker 1: appeared on Fox and Friends? Is that a patriot speaking?
Speaker 1: Or want to be dictator's butt boy? Dead serious? I'm asking,
Speaker 1: are these the words of a patriot? Whoa Mika Brzinsky?
Speaker 1: What is wrong with you? Well, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: answers to that question. She used that term a blank boy,
Speaker 1: which is a you know, it's one of those references
Speaker 1: that has an anti gay associations to it, obviously, and
Speaker 1: all you can do is think about the phrase, and
Speaker 1: you know, it all becomes very clear as to why
Speaker 1: this isn't a subtle This isn't a subtle homophobic remark.
Speaker 1: This isn't a subtle swipe at at people who are um,
Speaker 1: you know, same are same sex attracted. It's a it's
Speaker 1: a slur, and she went for it. She went for
Speaker 1: it because in the era of Trump, you see, there
Speaker 1: is such a psychosis among these elite media types that
Speaker 1: they're just stepping on these verbal bear traps left and right.
Speaker 1: And then of course they're under a completely different standard
Speaker 1: of of so called social media justice right there. There
Speaker 1: no one's gonna call for the firing of Mika Brazinski
Speaker 1: or she's you know, the suspension of Mika Briginski. She's
Speaker 1: way too big a deal for MSNBC. And you know,
Speaker 1: Meek and Joe are really representative of what it is
Speaker 1: that people don't like when they say the elites, um
Speaker 1: this is. This is very important and I'm thinking more
Speaker 1: and more in depth about this, and I may even
Speaker 1: be doing some writing on this in the in the
Speaker 1: not too distant future. Hint hint. But the problem with
Speaker 1: with our leads in this country is that they have
Speaker 1: influence but not skills. They have access and power, but
Speaker 1: not wisdom and knowledge. And they're a self perpetuating class
Speaker 1: based mostly upon a system that they have connections to
Speaker 1: and have figured out, instead of a system that is
Speaker 1: based on merit ability, skill and honestly worthiness. And Mika
Speaker 1: and Joe and their whole show really appeals to those
Speaker 1: kinds of people. And if you watch Morning Joe, the
Speaker 1: idea is that you're you're a sophisticated you know, you're
Speaker 1: you're with the big boys table, You're a sophisticated watcher
Speaker 1: of news. Meanwhile, I mean, it's like listening to a
Speaker 1: bunch of catty high school girls. And I'm talking about
Speaker 1: Joe and you know, Bill Crystal and the people that
Speaker 1: he's got on his panel and some guy Confessory from
Speaker 1: the New York Times and these other people, and it's
Speaker 1: just always this very snide, sanctimonious anti Trump law. They're
Speaker 1: all saying the same crap. But Meeky here saying something
Speaker 1: that's that's anti gay to attack Trump. And yeah, she's
Speaker 1: she's now said that. Oh, she apologized to the Democrat
Speaker 1: Senator Durban, who was on set with her. I guess
Speaker 1: he didn't do anything. He was just sitting there. She
Speaker 1: didn't apologize as far as I know, to Trump, though,
Speaker 1: And you know this, Stephen Colbert not long ago referred
Speaker 1: to I can't even say, I can't say on air
Speaker 1: what he said, but he used a homophobic slur about
Speaker 1: President Trump and Vladimir Putin. I mean, these people are
Speaker 1: paid millions of dollars and are so so lucky. They're elite,
Speaker 1: but they are. They're really elitists, right, They're really just
Speaker 1: trying to hold on to their social position. They're not
Speaker 1: particularly talented, they're not particularly bright, and yet they can't
Speaker 1: help themselves. But to risk much of that, or at
Speaker 1: least risk some of that by saying crazy things about
Speaker 1: this president, I mean, it's just not rational. It's it's
Speaker 1: not a normal thing to be a you know, national
Speaker 1: level TV host and to have to you know, apologize
Speaker 1: and you're a Democrat and you're a leftist and you're
Speaker 1: making anti gay slurs on TV. Yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 1: one of the and it's one of those things where
Speaker 1: you just sitting here, you say, I mean, we know
Speaker 1: there's this double standard. But even with the double standard,
Speaker 1: I mean, what is her problem, you know, putting aside
Speaker 1: that she's not going to get at any any real
Speaker 1: trouble for this, which is just we know that the
Speaker 1: media is unfair and it's stacked and all that, but
Speaker 1: you know, Mika Brazinsky, I just just unimpressive in every
Speaker 1: every regard. And I just wish that people watching that
Speaker 1: stupid show would figure that out. The show keeping it real,
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call fate'sbook dot com slast Buck
Speaker 1: sex in. If you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the roll call party, you know how to do it. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know how to get in on this action. Send
Speaker 1: me a note, Send me a message one day, far
Speaker 1: far away. We will have an email address. Views I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you asked for that, said Buck,
Speaker 1: where's the email address? And I say, I mean, we're
Speaker 1: gonna we should probably set up an a email address
Speaker 1: just to kick at old school. You know, it'll be
Speaker 1: like a throwback jersey. It'll be like team Buck at
Speaker 1: aol dot com. Damn um, Martha rights. Trump needs to
Speaker 1: start billing the wall as a WPA style Americans back
Speaker 1: to work project. Well, Martha, I hear what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I think, more than anything else, Trump needs to start
Speaker 1: getting fired up about the fight ahead with this shutdown.
Speaker 1: And you look, you did a good job with Humor
Speaker 1: and Pelosi. I think that people realize that Humor and
Speaker 1: Pelosi are when you you know, when you look at
Speaker 1: that whole situation, there's there's an understanding that they want
Speaker 1: to be the ones having that discussion behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: Trump wants to have that discussion out where people can
Speaker 1: actually hear it. So there you go. Isn't that that
Speaker 1: tells you a lot about it, doesn't it? If if
Speaker 1: it were so strong for Democrats, if it was so
Speaker 1: politically useful for them to oppose the wall, why aren't
Speaker 1: they the ones that are making the case to have
Speaker 1: that discussion publicly? Why do they want to have it?
Speaker 1: I mean, look, you just you apply basic reason and
Speaker 1: logic to these things, and then you realize the Democrats
Speaker 1: are full of it, full of it. Randy Riots, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck Shields high, I've got I've got to get one
Speaker 1: more line in today. At today's meeting with the President,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer said when the President braggted he won won
Speaker 1: North Dakota and Indiana, he's in real trouble. So, Chuck,
Speaker 1: are you saying that North Dakota and Indiana don't count?
Speaker 1: Oh sick burn from Randy? I don't. I can't speak
Speaker 1: for Chuck Schumer. He also wrote, so after the CEO
Speaker 1: of Google testifying in front of Congress, I believe Google's
Speaker 1: theme song ought to be every breath you take, I'll
Speaker 1: be watching you. Oh can't you see you belong to me?
Speaker 1: That's right, everybody. I should have had a career in
Speaker 1: music instead, That's right. I forget this radio stuff. I'd
Speaker 1: be on the hip music side of the dial. Hey,
Speaker 1: book Sexton, come to you at KO t r j
Speaker 1: w QSR one oh nine point seven seven seven seven.
Speaker 1: What do you think, DJ Brandon? Could I make the
Speaker 1: switch be one of those guys? I want the noise
Speaker 1: though that, yeah, thank you, right. I want to be there.
Speaker 1: I want to have the thing where they're like, you know,
Speaker 1: the noise are like the car going you know, do
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about? Like it's like a
Speaker 1: car goes by you really fast and they use that
Speaker 1: as a drop sometimes. Sure, good luck with that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, DJ Brandon is not these things. I should
Speaker 1: probably stick to the political analysis. That's fine, he's probably
Speaker 1: he's probably master by the way, but buck Master flex
Speaker 1: I like that a lot. Actually, buck Master flex should
Speaker 1: be a thing that we actually run with. Um. Did
Speaker 1: you see a recent photo This was making the rounds
Speaker 1: and the memes of Axel Rose, and the meme was
Speaker 1: that Axel Rose looks like the mean lady from the Goonies.
Speaker 1: And it's true. Yeah, it's true. Have you seen that? Yeah? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it happened. Acts. I mean, we all age. I don't
Speaker 1: know what to tell you, We all age, that's my comment. No,
Speaker 1: it's like it's like it's like you're being told there's
Speaker 1: no Santa clause. The first time Axel Rose see him
Speaker 1: mine seeing him next to Mickey Mickey Rourke. There was
Speaker 1: a recent picture. I think they went to the same service. Yep,
Speaker 1: that's the one. Okay, Yeah, they both they both look
Speaker 1: like they're in their granny phase, which is nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with that. It's just different than I remember them, all right.
Speaker 1: Damien writes like you, I'm a child of the eighties
Speaker 1: and Big Trouble in Little China was a staple of
Speaker 1: my childhood. However, I learned it isn't on Netflix or
Speaker 1: a Hulu. I thought this was twenty eighteen. Jack Burton
Speaker 1: should be on demand. I say, we riot, We're not
Speaker 1: gonna take it. Shield high Buck, Glad you're feeling better, well, Damian,
Speaker 1: thank you, man, I appreciate it. Big Trouble in Little
Speaker 1: China is a great movie that will never ever ever
Speaker 1: be able to be remade because you get in trouble
Speaker 1: from making that movie. Now, there's so much cultural appropriation.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of Asian guys with accents. You know,
Speaker 1: you're just that's just you're not allowed to do these things.
Speaker 1: You know. Cinema has changed so much, and in anyways
Speaker 1: not for the better. Although I was seeing today there
Speaker 1: were the reviews of Aquaman are just scathing that I'm seeing,
Speaker 1: which is such a shame, like Aquaman should be great. Well, Brandon,
Speaker 1: why can't they make superhero movies with with just good
Speaker 1: stories and good acting. I mean, you've already got the
Speaker 1: built in superhero fan base. They rely so much on
Speaker 1: CGI and I think it's because they do it for
Speaker 1: the Yeah, they do it for the global market because
Speaker 1: they know they're gonna dub the crap out of all
Speaker 1: these things, and so you know, if it has a
Speaker 1: big opening in China. They don't care if those of
Speaker 1: us who actually like comic books watch the movie and say,
Speaker 1: this is not paying homage to this great canon of work. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I'm a fan of the artistic comics
Speaker 1: and they I would rather have, you know, Jimpson, Jim
Speaker 1: Henson like puppetry rather than the CGI. Oh absolutely well,
Speaker 1: when you think about a Jaws, even though the shark
Speaker 1: and Jaws doesn't look real, because it's an actual thing
Speaker 1: that's in the water, it holds up much better than
Speaker 1: a lot of these movies. Like I saw a like
Speaker 1: Deep Lucy was Deep Blue c is saved by the
Speaker 1: Samuel Jackson speech and and what happens at the end
Speaker 1: of it. But yeah, no, deeply no, But you're right,
Speaker 1: I mean Deep Blue c. Those sharks, those CGI sharks
Speaker 1: are way less scary than the Jaws. Like you know,
Speaker 1: mechanical shark from however long ago? What was this? I
Speaker 1: remember I read his name. They have a name for
Speaker 1: the shark. I forget what it is, but it's like
Speaker 1: Hank or something like that. So yeah, I mean the
Speaker 1: shark from that's way better. Ah, such as life man,
Speaker 1: such as they were talking about a big trouble a
Speaker 1: little trying to remake, and then and then it fell away,
Speaker 1: and I got all excited about it. Give it time.
Speaker 1: They're gonna do it, probably an original blood Sport remake,
Speaker 1: and they could make that actually a pretty pretty kick
Speaker 1: ass movie. Nathaniel right Hey buck shields high material for
Speaker 1: the show. The BSO has clear non gender based criteria
Speaker 1: for their pay structure, but this millennial flutist is indoctrinated.
Speaker 1: She can't really see the reality staring her in her face.
Speaker 1: A star flutist. He's talking about this piece in the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Star flutist is paid. This is like a
Speaker 1: male female pay disparity thing. The Boston Symphony Orchestra is
Speaker 1: the BSO. They're ninety five musicians, sixty three men and
Speaker 1: thirty two women. Principal flutist Elizabeth Rowe sits next to
Speaker 1: Principal Obois John Farrillo. She paid. She's paid sixty four thousand,
Speaker 1: five hundred or four hundred and fifty one less than
Speaker 1: him a year. Okay, you know, I hate to break
Speaker 1: this to folks, and they're saying this could change the way,
Speaker 1: you know, orchestras pay men and women. I mean, I
Speaker 1: hate to break it too, folks. But you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of salary is about negotiation. I understand that the
Speaker 1: radical feminist types want everyone to believe that it's just
Speaker 1: a gender discrimination, But a lot of salary negotiation is
Speaker 1: about being willing to push, being willing to be aggressive,
Speaker 1: being willing to bluff even and say, you know, I
Speaker 1: got I'm gonna get a great offer from somewhere else
Speaker 1: if you don't pay me x or why. Look, I've
Speaker 1: had to do it myself many times. So our men
Speaker 1: predisposed to be more aggressive and more assertive in Southern
Speaker 1: negotiations than women. It's certainly possible. Oh my gosh, you
Speaker 1: just said men and women are different. It's terrible, but
Speaker 1: but it's definitely not because people have exactly the same
Speaker 1: skills and women just make twenty percent less or whatever
Speaker 1: it is that they say now because or you know,
Speaker 1: in this case, sixty four thousand dollars less. I didn't
Speaker 1: know that people in orchestras made that much money. By
Speaker 1: the way, that's a lot of money, I mean, because
Speaker 1: that's if she makes sixty four thousand less, I mean,
Speaker 1: you gotta be in you know, good six figure territory
Speaker 1: here to be in these orchestras anyway. So there's that's
Speaker 1: that's my take on all that we can talk about
Speaker 1: this morning. The time Rachel writes Buck, there's a Battlestar
Speaker 1: Galactic A miniseries from two thousand and three that's available
Speaker 1: on Amazon Prime right now. The later four series seasons
Speaker 1: are a continuation of the two thousand and three mini series.
Speaker 1: This is why season one, episode one looks like a
Speaker 1: continuation of something. There we go, Rachel, this is what
Speaker 1: I've been asking for for a while because it's really
Speaker 1: not clear to me. And I try to watch Battlestar Galactica.
Speaker 1: I tried to, you know, be up on it, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, wait did I miss? And I hate feeling
Speaker 1: like I'm coming in. I'm somebody who if I missed
Speaker 1: the first twenty minutes of a movie when I used
Speaker 1: to go to movies in the theater, you can't handle it.
Speaker 1: I just I hate it, you know, I can't do that.
Speaker 1: And I always felt like I was behind on Battlestar Galactica.
Speaker 1: It turns out, yeah, there was this mini series before it.
Speaker 1: You don't have to see, but it's kind of based
Speaker 1: on something. I mean, you get what I'm putting down
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm really not I'm really not so
Speaker 1: psyched about Frontier. A bunch of you gave me that recommendation,
Speaker 1: and I can appreciate why you like. And Jason Momoa,
Speaker 1: it's very compelling as Declin Harp it's a cool name too.
Speaker 1: There was a time when I was like, I wish
Speaker 1: my name was Declin. That's one of the cooler Irish names.
Speaker 1: But the storytelling is just a little sloppy, and there's
Speaker 1: way too much like, oh, we need to do something,
Speaker 1: let's just stab some guy here. You know. There's not
Speaker 1: really enough intricate storytelling for me. The acting is a
Speaker 1: little like I call it, like I see it, you know.
Speaker 1: And some of you, some Team Buck original squad, is
Speaker 1: going to make fun of me because I like to
Speaker 1: tear apart pop culture movies and TV more than I
Speaker 1: tend to praise them, and they are correct when they
Speaker 1: say that. But I just I can't do it. I
Speaker 1: can't do it when it comes to a Frontier. It's
Speaker 1: just it's not my favorite. We'll have to do it
Speaker 1: live Van hey Buck. I stumbled onto your show about
Speaker 1: a year ago. I've been listening rapidly for six months
Speaker 1: and enjoy your insight and especially the voices you do.
Speaker 1: Thinks me appreciate it. Although I'm a little more central
Speaker 1: than you are, I am still light years away from
Speaker 1: the modern democrat, libert radical, etc. All I can say
Speaker 1: about the Muller probe is that if President Trump is
Speaker 1: guilty of all of the crimes that Libs say he is,
Speaker 1: Mueller must be the biggest idiot on the face of
Speaker 1: the planet for not being able to find any evidence.
Speaker 1: Trump must be some kind of genius. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: in which case, glad I'm on his side. Do you
Speaker 1: think if the Libs actually believe in God, Jesus and
Speaker 1: the teachings of the Bible, they would think he is
Speaker 1: the anti Christ? Keep spreading the truth, my friend, Shields. Hi,
Speaker 1: then welcome to Team Buck. I know you've been with
Speaker 1: us for six months, but I don't think I've had
Speaker 1: a chance to say that to you before. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that you're spot on. We are supposed to believe.
Speaker 1: But the most sophisticated intelligence and law enforcement apparatus on
Speaker 1: the planet is unable to find smoking gun evidence of
Speaker 1: an international conspiracy to throw a presidential election. This is
Speaker 1: crazy town, all right. It's just not rational, never mind reasonable,
Speaker 1: it's not rational. So that's my answer. That's my answer
Speaker 1: to all that. We're gonna have a fantastic show tomorrow
Speaker 1: and Friday. So thank you so much for giving me
Speaker 1: your time. As always, team, please do do me one
Speaker 1: favor I haven't said in a while. Tell somebody to
Speaker 1: go and download the Buck Saxton Show on Itune. Tell
Speaker 1: them to check it out, listen to it. Hopefully they'll
Speaker 1: make us a part of their daily routine. We want
Speaker 1: the team to continue to grow as it has been.
Speaker 1: For the gosh going on two years, I've been doing
Speaker 1: this syndicated show. Talk to you tomorrow, my friends, my colleagues,
Speaker 1: my fellow Patriots, Shields High. Snippy dot com. If you
Speaker 1: haven't heard about it before, you've heard about it now.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com is a new social media site. I
Speaker 1: was just posting on it earlier today and I'm just
Speaker 1: so happy to see it growing. Thousands of my listeners
Speaker 1: have joined snippy dot com. They're expressing their opinions, turn
Speaker 1: up lively conversations. Snippy, unlike the major mega players that
Speaker 1: are out there for years, is a new, unbiased social
Speaker 1: media platform that just tries to promote community and conversation. Okay,
Speaker 1: they encourage freedom of expression, and they guarantee to guarantee
Speaker 1: their users the ability to discuss topics really without suppression
Speaker 1: from administrators. Snippy is a place where you can express
Speaker 1: your thoughts and not have to worry about somebody telling
Speaker 1: you what you can and can't say. No shadow banning,
Speaker 1: no suppression of conservative thought ever. Now it's got an
Speaker 1: updated user interface and exciting new features, also available in
Speaker 1: the Apple App Store and for Android. Is your new
Speaker 1: alternative social media. Free to join, free to post, All
Speaker 1: of it is free snippy dot com. Start your account today.
Speaker 1: Team