Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt the shutdown approaches, looks
Speaker 1: like there might actually be a last stand to get
Speaker 1: that border wall. After all. We'll go into the latest
Speaker 1: from the White House, and also an update to the
Speaker 1: story of the seven year old girl who died at
Speaker 1: our southern border last week. The facts aren't what the
Speaker 1: Democrats seem to think they were. And finally, Sean Parnell
Speaker 1: will join to talk about a Green Beret who faces
Speaker 1: a possible death penalty for killing the enemy. That more
Speaker 1: coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins
Speaker 1: the Sea Analyst Remember the NMPD. Whenever a president say
Speaker 1: to the American people at Christmas time, I am going
Speaker 1: to shut down your government, it pains me because I
Speaker 1: know that that's going to make a bad pristiman for
Speaker 1: a lot of people. And I would say to the
Speaker 1: President that a lot of people who have worked hard
Speaker 1: and all they want to do is live their lives.
Speaker 1: What is the president's plan and will he shut it
Speaker 1: down to get this five billion in border wall funding.
Speaker 1: We're going to do whatever is necessary to build the
Speaker 1: border wall to stop this ongoing crisis of illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: This is a This is a very if it comes
Speaker 1: to it, absolutely, this is a very fundamental issue. At
Speaker 1: stake is the question of whether or not the United
Speaker 1: States remains a sovereign country, whether or not we can
Speaker 1: establish and the force rules for entrance into our country.
Speaker 1: The Democrat Party is a simple choice. They can either
Speaker 1: choose to fight for America's working class or to promote
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. You can't do both. Welcome the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Saxon Show. It looks like there
Speaker 1: might be a shutdown after all, folks. I'm a little surprised,
Speaker 1: gonna be honest with you. I did not think that
Speaker 1: we would be here. But it looks like the Republicans
Speaker 1: may have found some backbone after all. Though I might
Speaker 1: be speaking too soon. But notice how this turns into
Speaker 1: a battle of narratives. This turns into who can make
Speaker 1: the best appeal to the public. And you really had
Speaker 1: a pretty good overview there, courtesy of a logic. Cummings
Speaker 1: and Stephen Miller, the President's White House aide and policies
Speaker 1: are of sorts on immigrations. Specifically, the left, the Pelosiites,
Speaker 1: the shue Marians, I like that, the ancient shue Marians,
Speaker 1: the Babylonians. They view this as just an opportunity to
Speaker 1: say that Trump is reckless, that shutting this down before
Speaker 1: Christmas is heartless. The Trump is the grin that if
Speaker 1: in fact, there is a shutdown, and by the way,
Speaker 1: I hope there is, I am. I am rooting for
Speaker 1: a shutdown because this is a fight we need to have.
Speaker 1: We need to see what the American people really think
Speaker 1: when presented with this choice. But on the left, the
Speaker 1: Democrats offer up well, pretty much what you would expect
Speaker 1: them to. They give you, Oh, it's so cruel and
Speaker 1: heartless for the government employees that aren't going to have
Speaker 1: their paycheck. Oh, it's terrible for people that are expecting to,
Speaker 1: you know, spend time at the Grand Canyon facilities that
Speaker 1: are run by the National Park Service, at so on
Speaker 1: and so forth. And yeah, there there will be costs,
Speaker 1: at least in the short term to a shutdown. There'll
Speaker 1: be some inconveniences, but that's to be expected. There is
Speaker 1: a trade off going on here. So on the one hand,
Speaker 1: you have the fear of eighty percent or so of
Speaker 1: the government still operating exactly as it is twenty percent
Speaker 1: of our federal government. You know, keep in mind there
Speaker 1: were whole departments of the federal government that did not
Speaker 1: exist in living memory. I mean, entire agencies that weren't
Speaker 1: even there. But we're supposed to believe that if eighty
Speaker 1: percent of the government continues on, that's what's left out
Speaker 1: of that equation is going to make it into dogs
Speaker 1: and cats living together mass hysteria for the rest of us.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I just I don't buy it, and I
Speaker 1: know you don't buy it either. There have been I
Speaker 1: think about a dozen or so shutdowns in the past.
Speaker 1: We're all fine, We're still here. We don't live in
Speaker 1: some mad Max dystopia, right, We're not all just running
Speaker 1: to our nearest neighbor that has plenty of storable food, ammunition,
Speaker 1: and tactical training. Although it's always good that I speak
Speaker 1: to you team, because I feel like this radio audience
Speaker 1: if things ever did get really bad, you know, if
Speaker 1: the zombie apocalypse apocalypse came, I just put out the
Speaker 1: Buck signal of the team Buck. I know I'd be fine.
Speaker 1: You guys would have me covered. But nothing terrible is
Speaker 1: going to happen. If the government shutsdown, it will all
Speaker 1: be okay, but it will force a discussion. It will
Speaker 1: force a debate in front of the American people, just
Speaker 1: like the one that Trump tried to have with Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Schumer last week. Will we get to hear what
Speaker 1: do the two sides think about this? What do they want?
Speaker 1: And I already told you the Democrats have they're going
Speaker 1: to focus on. Oh the shutdown, it's heart Listen. Government
Speaker 1: employees will get back pay. Congress has always made sure
Speaker 1: that even if you're one of those furloughed federal employees,
Speaker 1: that you get the pay that you were going to
Speaker 1: get for the time period. And that wouldn't change here,
Speaker 1: and nobody would want that to change here. You know,
Speaker 1: they're showing up in good faith to do their jobs.
Speaker 1: They shouldn't not have a job to do because of
Speaker 1: Congress being unable to do its job. But that said,
Speaker 1: look at the other side of the equation for a moment,
Speaker 1: do we really think the status quo is sustainable? Because
Speaker 1: the status quo is, the border keeps getting worse, Loopholes
Speaker 1: are exploited, illegal immigration continues. Illegal immigration surges, drugs are
Speaker 1: pouring into this country. They're killing over seventy thousand of
Speaker 1: our fellow Americans. We have crime spiking, we have public
Speaker 1: services strained. We have all these things tied to either
Speaker 1: illegal immigration or the cartels, or a combination thereof. You'll
Speaker 1: notice how the media really goes to great length to
Speaker 1: speak about illegal immigration as though it is not at
Speaker 1: our southern border directly tied to the cartels. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: truth is that the cartels have broken up our border
Speaker 1: into plazzas regions, and those plazzas aren't just for drugs smuggling,
Speaker 1: they're for human smuggling too. And when we talk about coyotes,
Speaker 1: we might want to start thinking about coyotes in terms
Speaker 1: of employees of drug cartels, as in cartel members, people
Speaker 1: that are associated with the cartels. And I'm sure they
Speaker 1: don't just smuggle human beings either, smuggling all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: That's what's on the other side of this. And then
Speaker 1: you look at the long term reality here and what
Speaker 1: happens to a country that has overwhelmed by the fecklessness
Speaker 1: of its leadership, the processes of assimilation that are in place,
Speaker 1: What happens to a country that has rapid change of
Speaker 1: its demographics, with people coming into the country who the first,
Speaker 1: their first act on US soil is illegal. Their very
Speaker 1: presence here, their very first moment in America, is a
Speaker 1: statement of their willingness to break US law and then
Speaker 1: come here and are told by the left and Democrat
Speaker 1: activists and our own media that they are owed this.
Speaker 1: Remember that activist that I interviewed on the street last week.
Speaker 1: They're owed because of US foreign policy. They're owed this
Speaker 1: because of colonialism, because of white privilege, whatever the left
Speaker 1: wing explanation is. And we also have a Democrat party
Speaker 1: that's increasingly trying to enlarge the welfare state as it is,
Speaker 1: and yet they won't privilege the interests of America's poor. First.
Speaker 1: For the Democrats, a mouth defeat is a mouth defeat.
Speaker 1: They don't care if it's an American mouth or a
Speaker 1: foreigner who's come into this country and is getting access
Speaker 1: to what is turning into the largest soup kitchen in
Speaker 1: the world. The us of a these are very and
Speaker 1: then we can talk about the labor market and the
Speaker 1: labor pool and what this does to those who are
Speaker 1: trying to work their way up or trying to get
Speaker 1: into the middle class, who want some sense of economic
Speaker 1: and professional security and want to be rewarded for a
Speaker 1: hard day's labor. Turns out, if you dump countless, endless
Speaker 1: amounts of low wage, non English speaking workers on the economy,
Speaker 1: it has a negative impact on those who were not
Speaker 1: fortunate enough to come from a background where they're likely
Speaker 1: to go to college, where they're likely even necessarily to
Speaker 1: finish high school. And this used to be gospel on
Speaker 1: the left. They try to say this is all to right,
Speaker 1: this is racism. To talk about a secure border is
Speaker 1: somehow evil. Even though Obama used to talk about a
Speaker 1: secure border. Obama says don't come here and bring your
Speaker 1: children now. He was saying it because that's where the
Speaker 1: American people were, and he wasn't going to win that argument.
Speaker 1: The left, his left wing base, did not agree with
Speaker 1: him on that. But they don't have an honest discussion
Speaker 1: on this issue. They don't have the willingness to debate
Speaker 1: these principles, these points as they are. It's always emotional manipulation,
Speaker 1: it's always demagoguery, an emotional and psychological blackmail by screaming
Speaker 1: that everyone else is racist, by pretending that the only
Speaker 1: moral and decent point of view is to operate in
Speaker 1: a state of de fact open borders, to pretend there's
Speaker 1: no downside, only upside, no cost, only benefits, and we've
Speaker 1: all had enough. The wall will be helpful. But the
Speaker 1: wall is not everything. It's also it is not the
Speaker 1: only thing. It's also symbolic of a willingness to do
Speaker 1: something about this issue, to take action, substantive, meaningful action.
Speaker 1: It might move the entire conversation at immigration. It's not
Speaker 1: just we'll have a barrier that will assist border patrol
Speaker 1: sector by sector, mile by mile. That's how this has
Speaker 1: to be done. Maybe there's some areas where you need
Speaker 1: very little, if any physical construction because it's inhospitable terrain,
Speaker 1: there's no access roads and border patrol's got to cover.
Speaker 1: But there are other places we're clearly like San Diego,
Speaker 1: where there is a border fence. It helps, it works.
Speaker 1: But not only would that prove that we have been
Speaker 1: lied to by the elites, by the media, by the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party on this whole concept of a wall, it
Speaker 1: would show that we don't have to just continue to
Speaker 1: suffer under this lawlessness covered up with dishonesty all the time,
Speaker 1: that we don't have to accept this as the status
Speaker 1: quo of the border. That's what the wall would do,
Speaker 1: and it would be a progression. It would take time,
Speaker 1: it would get stronger and better. The wall would get better,
Speaker 1: but our conversation around immigration would too. And once we
Speaker 1: have a firm grasp on our southern border, once we
Speaker 1: don't have seventy thousand one month, one hundred thousand another month,
Speaker 1: fifty thousand another month pouring into the country with the
Speaker 1: full expectation they're going to be allowed into the country
Speaker 1: because of this loophole about asylum. Once we have that
Speaker 1: our control, then we can say, okay, what do we
Speaker 1: really do now? What do we do now about the
Speaker 1: illegals that are already in the country. But you can't
Speaker 1: even have that discussion until you have a secure border.
Speaker 1: You can't even look at what comes next. And by
Speaker 1: the way, there would have to be deportations, not necessarily
Speaker 1: of everybody who's in the country illegally, but there would
Speaker 1: certainly have to be a review process in detail, in
Speaker 1: depth of who are these individuals, how long have they
Speaker 1: been here, can they prove it, how they've been productive?
Speaker 1: Do we make them leave the country, reapply, and then
Speaker 1: come back. I mean, what, that's all a serious conversation.
Speaker 1: You can't even have that conversation until the southern border secure.
Speaker 1: Can't do it. It's nonsense. Democrats know this, which is
Speaker 1: why they are desperate. I mean, they are hell bent
Speaker 1: on preventing the border from being secured. I mean it
Speaker 1: is their preference that this continue on. They can't say that,
Speaker 1: but that's what and that's why the shutdown fight is
Speaker 1: so important. People need to see the Democrats for who
Speaker 1: they really are on this issue. They can't allow the
Speaker 1: media or runcover for them. They can't just look at
Speaker 1: the caravan, all the lies that were told with the caravan.
Speaker 1: Oh there's no criminals. Oh they'll never get to the border. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's all fearmongering. Lie lie, lie, lies everywhere from the
Speaker 1: biggest networks in the country, with one exception. Lies. Did
Speaker 1: they change any of their behavior? Was there any introspection?
Speaker 1: Was there any reflection from the mainstream media afterward? No,
Speaker 1: of course not, because they have an agenda and they
Speaker 1: are executing on that agenda. When they silence people by
Speaker 1: calling them racist, when they claim that a secure border
Speaker 1: is somehow the the wish only of the alts right
Speaker 1: or of nationalists in this country. Meanwhile, it was a
Speaker 1: bipartisan expressed through legislation, bipartisan desire just a few years back.
Speaker 1: What has changed, Well, let's change. The Democrats have become
Speaker 1: a party on social issues of people who are anti
Speaker 1: science and just delusional. On the economy. They can't do math.
Speaker 1: They think that socialism is going to solve things and
Speaker 1: make things cheaper and better. They don't know history either.
Speaker 1: And on the border, what they realize is that this
Speaker 1: is the way that they can overcome all of their
Speaker 1: other structural political deficiencies. Keep this issue going, use it
Speaker 1: to mobilize the Latino base in America, use this to
Speaker 1: create a whole new generations of Democrat voters, and in
Speaker 1: the process, we're paying the bills in every conceivable way.
Speaker 1: All right, team, we get a lot more. I've got
Speaker 1: a show today that's going to cover a lot of ground,
Speaker 1: including this this green beret who's facing a death penalty
Speaker 1: charge for killing a Taliban bomb maker. We'll get into that.
Speaker 1: We'll have my friend and Champarnel, former Army ranger, joining
Speaker 1: talk about it. I've also got some of the sanctacomy
Speaker 1: testimony today on Capitol Hill Man. That guy's ah, he's
Speaker 1: a clown. And then we have more on this issue
Speaker 1: at the border coming up. So a. Oh, and of
Speaker 1: course Flynn and the firing of I'm sorry, the charges
Speaker 1: rather against some of Flynn's former business partners, General Flynn.
Speaker 1: So Stack show, we've got more. Come and stay with me.
Speaker 1: Sorry to spoil the surprise, but if you're getting gift
Speaker 1: from me this Christmas, you're getting coffee from my favorite
Speaker 1: coffee company, Black Rifle Coffee. Every morning when I go
Speaker 1: into the Hill, I have a steamy, hot, delicious cup
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle, just black. And that's also how I
Speaker 1: drink it. And the name of the coffee. By the way,
Speaker 1: it is delicious, Okay. The aromas, the different taste profiles
Speaker 1: that come through are incredible. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: this is a company run by and four veterans, including
Speaker 1: veterans of the United States Special Forces. He's got are amazing.
Speaker 1: Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things so easy. Just pick
Speaker 1: your blending amount you want and they'll ship the coffee
Speaker 1: right to your door. Check this out for yourself. They
Speaker 1: offer three, six and twelve month prepaid and pays you
Speaker 1: go subscriptions the best tasting, most energizing coffee imaginable, and
Speaker 1: they help veteran first responder causes. Black Rifle Coffee is
Speaker 1: the gift that keeps on giving. Visit black Riflecoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck for fifteen percent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck for fifteen percent off. Consistently,
Speaker 1: the FBI has had legal counsel there to try to
Speaker 1: discourage the answering of certain questions that might be good
Speaker 1: for the American people to know, and yet oftentimes they
Speaker 1: will suggest that it's part of an ongoing investigation and
Speaker 1: discourage the witnesses from testifying. He has a huge advantage.
Speaker 1: He has the clock. The administration, if you will, always
Speaker 1: has the clock, and in this case, the clock is
Speaker 1: running out. So what would normally be two hundred and
Speaker 1: forty five, I don't remember two hundred and forty five.
Speaker 1: Demands Department of Justice to provide at least some of
Speaker 1: the information. He says he doesn't remember. There's no time
Speaker 1: for that, And this Department of Justice, under no real management,
Speaker 1: continues to withhold information and even cause him to withhold
Speaker 1: information on those occasions of which he knew something. Komey
Speaker 1: was given round two today of Komy Paluza twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: which is like going to a rock concert where there's
Speaker 1: no music and they only serve fruit juice, but not
Speaker 1: even vaping aloud at komy Paluza. But Komey was there
Speaker 1: today and it was exactly what I expected. Just the same, old,
Speaker 1: the same old sancta Coomy doing what he does, being evasive,
Speaker 1: being smarmy, not giving any real answers to any questions,
Speaker 1: just generally being a pain and the one. And we
Speaker 1: might get in a little more of this tomorrow because
Speaker 1: I'll have more time to focus on this issue, and
Speaker 1: I want to go back to our immigration battle in
Speaker 1: a moment here. But I did want to just note
Speaker 1: that Comey was testifying today. He was asked about what
Speaker 1: he's done to the FBI's reputation. Play nineteen director Comy,
Speaker 1: the FBI's reputation has taken a big hit over the
Speaker 1: last year. Do you share any of the responsibility for that? No,
Speaker 1: the FBI's reputation has taken a big hit because the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, with his acolytes, has lied
Speaker 1: about it constantly and in face of those lies. A
Speaker 1: whole lot of good people who watch your network believe
Speaker 1: that nonsense. That's a tragedy that will be undone eventually.
Speaker 1: But that damage has nothing to do with me. So
Speaker 1: what about McCabe, Well, the deputy director of the FBI,
Speaker 1: they got fired. Did he do anything call me to
Speaker 1: hurt the reputation the FBI? What about Jeter Struck working
Speaker 1: on a case as a senior counterintelligence agent, talking about
Speaker 1: how Trump is a blanking this and a blanking that
Speaker 1: while he's investigating him. What about lista page He's a paramore.
Speaker 1: That's just fine. Huh. She was the same thing. Oh,
Speaker 1: what can we do to help Hillary? He's got on
Speaker 1: the list? And what about Comee himself leaking information to
Speaker 1: the New York Times via a cutout so he can
Speaker 1: settle some political score. That's how important Komei thinks. He
Speaker 1: is always always, remember this. Komy ultimately pretends to care
Speaker 1: so much about the American people, but he cares so
Speaker 1: much more about himself than the American people, and that's
Speaker 1: evident in everything he does and says. Now, one of
Speaker 1: the great tragedies that is going on in our country
Speaker 1: today is the loopholes and our immigration laws, and the
Speaker 1: deficiencies and immigration laws, and left wing activist judicial rulings
Speaker 1: that incentivize the most vulnerable populations to come to our country.
Speaker 1: Last year, administ last year, one hundred thousand unaccompanied alien
Speaker 1: children or children traveling with adults showed up at our
Speaker 1: southern border. President Trump took dramatic action, issued an executive
Speaker 1: order directing illegal traffic to the ports of entry, but
Speaker 1: a left wing activist judge issued a reckless nationwide injunction
Speaker 1: of the President's order, putting thousands of lives at risk
Speaker 1: and further enriching these grotesque as Stephen Miller is hated
Speaker 1: by the left, largely because he's effective in talking about
Speaker 1: immigration policy. I mean they hate him. They they protested him.
Speaker 1: I walked past the protest last week, waiting outside of
Speaker 1: his apartment, harassing him, not letting him, you know, get
Speaker 1: a good night's sleep, bothering him. Why Well, because when
Speaker 1: he speaks of immigration, he knows what the heck he's
Speaker 1: talking about, and he does not mince words. What's going
Speaker 1: on now is a scam. People are scamming our immigration
Speaker 1: system thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and there
Speaker 1: are millions who are here illegally. I'm I'm talking about that.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about people that are using this loophole, this
Speaker 1: idea that if you come to the border with a child,
Speaker 1: now you deserve special and different treatment. So now people
Speaker 1: are using in a sense, children as legal human shields
Speaker 1: in order to get entry into the United States. That's
Speaker 1: what they are doing. There's also while you have people
Speaker 1: that show up with children that are not actually family members.
Speaker 1: This has been that doesn't get reported a lot, but
Speaker 1: this is happening. People who are showing up who are
Speaker 1: human smugglers, human traffickers. The cartels are making millions, tens
Speaker 1: of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, smuggling people and drugs
Speaker 1: into the United States, maybe meaning that they're using some
Speaker 1: of the people they're smuggling as part of their drug
Speaker 1: running operation, and they're making billions selling drugs. And Stephen
Speaker 1: Miller is just saying, look, they're not allowing the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to even do what they're supposed to an immigration
Speaker 1: Once again, what did we see on the Muslim ban. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's the most it's the worst thing ever. Oh, it's
Speaker 1: it's so unconstitutional. It turns out it is constitutional. Oh,
Speaker 1: it turns out that some activist judges on that when
Speaker 1: we're wrong, it's that surprised. You know, of course not,
Speaker 1: but we know what's really going on here. Stephen Miller
Speaker 1: is saying, look, this one judge in this case, forget
Speaker 1: about the Muslim ban for a second, which the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court said Trump was right and with it his authority.
Speaker 1: Remember he's the commander chief. You know. Part of the
Speaker 1: problem here is that the left does not think of
Speaker 1: immigration as a security related matter. Is this is a
Speaker 1: really political and culturally salient distinction between left and right. Now.
Speaker 1: They don't see any threat, any national security implication of
Speaker 1: immigrant They just don't. They completely dismiss this idea that
Speaker 1: any terrorists could ever come into the country via the
Speaker 1: asylum program. Oh but that's happened. But they still say
Speaker 1: that never happens. They dismissed the idea of the terrorists
Speaker 1: or MS thirteen gang members. You know, you are more
Speaker 1: likely in this country to die because a gang banger,
Speaker 1: not to freak everybody out, but because a gang banger
Speaker 1: you know, pops off a bunch of a bunch of
Speaker 1: rounds during a drive by, or or you know, or
Speaker 1: stabs you in a in a robbery than you are
Speaker 1: from a terrorist attack. So there's the security and law
Speaker 1: enforcement component of this as well. And you know, the
Speaker 1: president has a duty to the citizens of this country
Speaker 1: to prevent foreign criminal activity from coming into this country.
Speaker 1: You know that is in the purview of the federal government,
Speaker 1: in the executive branch, the presidents. That's a top that.
Speaker 1: But the left rejects the idea that there's any national
Speaker 1: security importance to the border. They reject the idea that
Speaker 1: we need to care from a security perspective about what's
Speaker 1: going on. And when you look at the seventy thousand
Speaker 1: plus debts from opioids every year and how much of
Speaker 1: that overdose rate comes from illegal drugs and the percentage
Speaker 1: of those illegal drugs that are coming from the cartels,
Speaker 1: they are a true they are a clear and present
Speaker 1: danger to United States citizens. The cartels, and the cartels
Speaker 1: are running a vast majority of the drugs across our
Speaker 1: southern border. They're not flying them in on planes, they're
Speaker 1: not floating them in on gun boats or on go
Speaker 1: fast or any of that stuff. Yeah, occasionally you see
Speaker 1: one of these drug runners with a submarine or something,
Speaker 1: it's mostly running it across the border, sometimes via tunnels,
Speaker 1: sometimes in the pickup truck. But however it is, they're
Speaker 1: taking it across our southern border, and we have our
Speaker 1: government has an obligation to stop that. People are dying.
Speaker 1: They are dying because of this, and a federal judge says, no,
Speaker 1: you can't. You can't in any way influence immigration policy,
Speaker 1: President Trump, when it comes to the asylum law that's
Speaker 1: being abused. Notice how they're all about the law at
Speaker 1: the front end and don't care at the back end.
Speaker 1: The front end of asylum law is if you show
Speaker 1: up and claim us and claim asylum and you pass
Speaker 1: the initial screening, and the initial screening is basically, do
Speaker 1: you have a credible fear? If you say yes, you
Speaker 1: get led into the country. Notice how if you listen
Speaker 1: to Democrats, that part of the law is sacred. But
Speaker 1: the okay, if you then don't show up for your
Speaker 1: immigration hearing, your asylum hearing, or you're denied asylum at
Speaker 1: the hearing, you must be expelled from the country. That
Speaker 1: part they fight tooth and nail. This is what democrats do.
Speaker 1: They don't they don't reject all laws. They just reject
Speaker 1: the laws. They don't like, but they are literal, they
Speaker 1: are black and white on laws they do like, you know,
Speaker 1: there can be no discretion, there could be no good
Speaker 1: faith operation from their political opponents who are trying to
Speaker 1: secure the border, trying to secure the country. And so
Speaker 1: Miller pointing out that this one judge, this one federal judge,
Speaker 1: is able to override the president on an area in
Speaker 1: his purview. You know, it does force the question what
Speaker 1: would happen if President Trump responded to an actual invasion
Speaker 1: of some kind. Let let's say you know that the
Speaker 1: and I don't know, let's say the Russians grabbed one
Speaker 1: of the you know, one of the islands off Alaska
Speaker 1: and Trump was going to respond to it with military force.
Speaker 1: Could one federal judge be like, sorry, Congress has not
Speaker 1: given you authority to do this, and would out override
Speaker 1: the president. It's the little thought experiment you could run.
Speaker 1: You know, this is ultimately, this really is about securing
Speaker 1: the border. You know, Kelly and Conway. I get killing
Speaker 1: Conway a lot of credit. Man, She's out there, she's
Speaker 1: in the fight, and she takes so much incoming from
Speaker 1: the left, and she is she is a fighter. It's
Speaker 1: not easy to do I even feel sometimes like, man,
Speaker 1: I don't know how much more of this defamation, you know,
Speaker 1: I can take from from the lefties. They're just just
Speaker 1: such a bunch of wackos. I'm just kidding, though, Shields high, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't can't be the slogan of the
Speaker 1: show if I'm not going to hold my shield high.
Speaker 1: But Kelly an said this about border security play three.
Speaker 1: This is way beyond immigration or even the wall. This
Speaker 1: is border security, and border security is national security. This
Speaker 1: president has made clear that his primary duty to all
Speaker 1: of us in this country tis to keep us safe.
Speaker 1: And we see what happens when you have a poorous border.
Speaker 1: You have poison like fencannel and heroin cocaine pouring over.
Speaker 1: You have people trying to come here illegally. You have
Speaker 1: people being promised by coyotes and others that they've paid
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars to maybe more. This is a president
Speaker 1: who knows that we as an have been spending billions
Speaker 1: of dollars ever decades helping other nations protect their own
Speaker 1: sovereign boarders. It's high time we do it here. There
Speaker 1: were twenty six Democrats in the Senate who voted for
Speaker 1: the Secure Offences Act in two thousand and six, and
Speaker 1: they were none other. Let me just highlight a few
Speaker 1: for you. Senator Joe Biden, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 1: and Senator Ding Ding Ding Hillary Clinton. So what's happened
Speaker 1: on the border since the two thousand and six Secure
Speaker 1: Offences Act was pat was voted on. It got worse.
Speaker 1: It's more poorous, that's all true. It did get worse.
Speaker 1: It is more porous. You cannot take Democrats seriously on
Speaker 1: this issue. They are lying. Oh, we have more on
Speaker 1: this though, more updates on the border coming up. This
Speaker 1: is mad what USLBA, This is what Trump. Sure, he
Speaker 1: doesn't have any law or care of combussion to anybody.
Speaker 1: So I don't know why nation as a president like him.
Speaker 1: So I hope you get rid of Trump soon. Where
Speaker 1: does the brain line? First? First, the people that was
Speaker 1: involved directly, but they must or they act under orders
Speaker 1: from somebody else, And so you have to go all
Speaker 1: the way to the top. And the language, it's more
Speaker 1: aggressive than physical violence. Speaking the way Trump speaks is
Speaker 1: not good for this nation. Change and change soon. Hurgan
Speaker 1: man going to be there for long. So that's the
Speaker 1: former president of Mexico. It Sente Fox doing exactly what
Speaker 1: a lot of the media did, which was find a
Speaker 1: way to use the death of a seven year old
Speaker 1: girl at the border to not just blame Trump's immigration policy,
Speaker 1: but you really go after the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, make this as though, as though Trump himself
Speaker 1: refuse to give this this girl who was malnourished and dehydried,
Speaker 1: you know, to give her water to drink. Trump is
Speaker 1: just no, he is so mean. These people are are crazy.
Speaker 1: These people are not operating with a with a rational mindset.
Speaker 1: And the President of the United States is in no
Speaker 1: way not ass he's not responsible for this. To claim
Speaker 1: that that the president would feel anything other than other
Speaker 1: than sheer horror at this, I mean, look, say, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of things you can say with this president,
Speaker 1: a lot of criticisms of him, but you know, I
Speaker 1: think that he's actually a very sympathetic guy. I think
Speaker 1: that he gives people too many chances. I think that
Speaker 1: he gives people the benefit of the doubt. I think
Speaker 1: that he views, you know, loyalty as something that's so
Speaker 1: important that sometimes he does place it above confidence. But
Speaker 1: more than anything else, I think he's a he's a
Speaker 1: guy who likes to give people second chances. He's a
Speaker 1: guy who likes to see what's what's better in folks
Speaker 1: than what they may even see in themselves. And I
Speaker 1: think that he is very I think he's very sympathetic.
Speaker 1: I think that he you know, he likes people. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think Nancy Pelosi's very sympathetic. I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: call it out. I mean, I think Trump is somebody
Speaker 1: who really Trump cares about construction workers, he cares about
Speaker 1: truck drivers, he cares about normal everyday folks. He's not
Speaker 1: one of them, not saying to him, and he doesn't
Speaker 1: pretend to me one of them. But I think he
Speaker 1: does care about them. And the notion that he wouldn't
Speaker 1: care about a seven year old girl to the boarder,
Speaker 1: this is terrible. I mean, Trump fired off missiles because
Speaker 1: of a chemical weapons attack in Syria and because of
Speaker 1: the photos of children that were gasping for error that
Speaker 1: that we're dying in the Syrian civil war. So just
Speaker 1: you know, it's just a slander. It is just a
Speaker 1: slander to say that the president doesn't care about this.
Speaker 1: And then when you go to the policies involved here. Well,
Speaker 1: actually I don't even good policies. Let's just go to
Speaker 1: the facts. You know, last week it was oh, look
Speaker 1: at Trump. He's response with this, it's so terrible. Well,
Speaker 1: when you talk to the father of this seven year
Speaker 1: old girl, here's what he said, Play thirteen. According to
Speaker 1: DHS officials and the father, the young girl first started
Speaker 1: showing signs of distress and vomiting during a ninety minute
Speaker 1: bus ride to a Border patrol station in Lordsburg, New Mexico.
Speaker 1: The girl died about twenty seven hours after being taken
Speaker 1: into custody. The cause hasn't been determined. The father has
Speaker 1: told officials he has no complaints about how border patrol
Speaker 1: agents treated him and his daughter, and that he believes
Speaker 1: everyone around them did everything possible to save the girl's life.
Speaker 1: The father, all right, I feel terrible for this guy
Speaker 1: because I have a lot of sympathy for people that
Speaker 1: are trying to come into this country. Doesn't mean I
Speaker 1: agree with or mka with those who are doing it illegally,
Speaker 1: but I get it. It's a great country we live in.
Speaker 1: We want to keep it great, though, If we want
Speaker 1: to make this the beacon of freedom and prosperity and
Speaker 1: dignity that it is for the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: You know, we have to preserve it, and that means
Speaker 1: the rule of law and sovereignty matter. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that I don't I don't feel sympathy for the
Speaker 1: people that want to be here, that I don't understand
Speaker 1: that urge and that I don't You know, I get
Speaker 1: it right, you get it too, Yeah, I mean, do
Speaker 1: I think that you should be able to come here
Speaker 1: just because you know, Honduras isn't really bad shape? No?
Speaker 1: But do I feel badly that Honduras is in such
Speaker 1: bad shape? I mean, you know, on an individual basis,
Speaker 1: do I feel for people that are trapped in poverty
Speaker 1: and misery and have no way of bettering their lives? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I absolutely do. I think that's a basic human feeling
Speaker 1: that we all have, at least we as Americans have.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't speak to the way that other
Speaker 1: places in the world view other countries, but certainly that's
Speaker 1: the way that we are, we the American people. But
Speaker 1: the father is saying even that that he has no
Speaker 1: complaints about what the HS did because he knows he airlifted.
Speaker 1: He's seven year old to a hospital. I mean, he
Speaker 1: put her in a helicopter. They had people meet her, right,
Speaker 1: she was fine. They checked her, she was fine. Nobody
Speaker 1: thought she wasn't fine. The father didn't note that she
Speaker 1: wasn't fine, and you know, she wasn't showing any signs
Speaker 1: of anything. They're they're overwhelmed as it is with all
Speaker 1: these people who were coming into the country right now,
Speaker 1: trying to you know, find any way, any loophole to
Speaker 1: stay here. But there's no outward signs. There's nothing to
Speaker 1: point to to suggest that anything is amiss. And the
Speaker 1: moment that there was, they had they had emergency workers
Speaker 1: meet at the bus because the girl was having a
Speaker 1: seizure on the bus, and they emergency workers met her.
Speaker 1: She had been offered I believe, food and water, according
Speaker 1: to the reports that I read, and they took her
Speaker 1: right to the airport. I mean they're doing I mean
Speaker 1: right to the hospital rather airlifted her with a helicopter.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that, of course they should do that.
Speaker 1: Anybody who's in mortal peril should be treated in this
Speaker 1: way in this country. That's who we are. But let's
Speaker 1: not pretend they that airlift ride and everything else. I mean,
Speaker 1: if it's are to add this up, I mean that
Speaker 1: the cost of that's probably ten or fifteen grand. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, let's not act like they didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: That's all I'm saying. Let's not act like the government said, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, too bad, you're not one of us. Furthest
Speaker 1: thing from it. And it's so unfair what the Democrats
Speaker 1: did last week, what the Schumer Pelosi left wing loons
Speaker 1: were running with, wasn't just an attack on Trump, although
Speaker 1: that was obviously very high on the agenda. It's also
Speaker 1: attack on the men and women of border patrol and
Speaker 1: Immigration and Customs Service who are doing a hard job
Speaker 1: that we need them to do every day, and they
Speaker 1: were being thrown under the bus by Democrats pandering to
Speaker 1: the open borders maniacs in this country. And it's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: All right, those be the men and women of our
Speaker 1: border patrol are men and women just like you and me.
Speaker 1: They are Americans, they're doing a hard job. They have
Speaker 1: their own husbands and wives, their own children. And for
Speaker 1: anyone to suggest, as was so widely suggested, that it
Speaker 1: was a indifference and policy failure last week that led
Speaker 1: to that seven year old girl dying. That's a scandal.
Speaker 1: But this is what we're you know, the scandal is
Speaker 1: the lie. But this is what we're going to continue
Speaker 1: to deal with because the left in it with its lust,
Speaker 1: its thirst for power. The left is so thirsty for
Speaker 1: power and authority. With that drive, they are willing to
Speaker 1: do almost anything that will push them to lie and
Speaker 1: to defame the men and women of Border Patrol. And
Speaker 1: we need to be on guard because this was not
Speaker 1: the fault of the United States people or the United
Speaker 1: States government. It's about to be a new year. You
Speaker 1: want to start it off right with all the major
Speaker 1: decisions you're making for your business, and that includes background investigations.
Speaker 1: You know, you got to have vetted people working with you.
Speaker 1: You need to know they're people you can trust, that
Speaker 1: they've represented themselves properly. This is just what business has
Speaker 1: to do. Global Verification Network is the answer to all
Speaker 1: of that, all right. They're the only dual certified, veteran
Speaker 1: owned background investigation and vetting company. They work with small companies,
Speaker 1: even little startups, entrepreneurs, small businesses, all empty huge corporations.
Speaker 1: So whether you're somebody that's making all the calls about
Speaker 1: who gets hired, or you work in the HR department
Speaker 1: of a massive company, you want at least give a
Speaker 1: call to the folks of Global Verification and talk to
Speaker 1: them about your background check needs. They can come up
Speaker 1: with a program that works for you, that's best for you,
Speaker 1: and they are the people that you can trust. Call
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine,
Speaker 1: or go check out Global Verification Network online. That's GVN
Speaker 1: dot com again, MYGVN dot com. It's an awful, awful ruling.
Speaker 1: We're going to fight this tooth and nail, and the
Speaker 1: first thing we're going to do when we get back
Speaker 1: there in the Senate is urge put a vote on
Speaker 1: the floor urging an intervention in the case the judge.
Speaker 1: A lot of this depends on congressional intent, and if
Speaker 1: a majority of the House and a majority of the
Speaker 1: Senate say that this case should be overturned, it'll have
Speaker 1: a tremendous effect on the appeal. So great run in
Speaker 1: for a country. We'll be able to get great healthcare.
Speaker 1: We'll sit down with the Democrats with the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: of Votes. We'll be sitting down with the Democrats said,
Speaker 1: we will get great healthcare for our people. Let's say
Speaker 1: repeal the new place hands a little bit differently. But
Speaker 1: it was a big, big victory. All right. So the
Speaker 1: big news that just broke, what was it over the
Speaker 1: weekend It came out of the own Friday, is that
Speaker 1: this judge US Distrecord, Judge Ried O'Connor of Texas, has
Speaker 1: declared Obamacare unconstitutional. Yeah, it was Friday evening, this game
Speaker 1: down unconstitutional, which people now say it puts the healthcare,
Speaker 1: the healthcare law in jeopardy. I have I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be honest with you as I always am. I
Speaker 1: gotta get rid of that figure of speech. I've I'm
Speaker 1: mixed about this. I have mixed feelings about this. And no,
Speaker 1: it's not that I think Obamacare is go to think
Speaker 1: Obamacare is unconstitutional. I think Obamacare is a badly constructed,
Speaker 1: badly implemented, and long term, very destructive bill, both to
Speaker 1: our legal order in this country as well as to
Speaker 1: the healthcare that we receive. I think that it puts
Speaker 1: us on oh oh oh and oh buckets all. I'm
Speaker 1: like the kid is excited in the class to answer
Speaker 1: his own questions. Apparently, oh call on me. But then
Speaker 1: also the third point about it is that as somebody
Speaker 1: who got I got into media during the Obamacare fight,
Speaker 1: I mean the era of the Tea Party in Obamacare.
Speaker 1: That's when I thought that, you know this, this was
Speaker 1: the place out. I didn't want I work for the
Speaker 1: executive branch. I didn't want to work for the Obama
Speaker 1: anymore in sorry for the Obama administration in the CIA.
Speaker 1: So I left and I wanted to do other things,
Speaker 1: and I got this opportunity. Long story short about a
Speaker 1: being here. I am years later, but I think Obamacare
Speaker 1: is terrible. That all said, oh wait, no, no. The
Speaker 1: thing that I didn't add into this is that it
Speaker 1: was a step on the way to single payer. It
Speaker 1: was a step on the way to single payer. That
Speaker 1: I've been saying this many I mean, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that I'm like some prognosticator. Everybody's been paying attention, but
Speaker 1: saying this takes us down the pathway toward single payer.
Speaker 1: This takes us to a place where the government all
Speaker 1: of a sudden starts writing the check. And once the
Speaker 1: government starts writing the checks for some people's healthcare, then
Speaker 1: that's how they try to get rid of employer provided healthcare,
Speaker 1: because employers are going to be like, you know, forget this,
Speaker 1: let's just have they write the checks for all of
Speaker 1: our employees. Why do we want to do those? Why
Speaker 1: don't we want to shoulder the increasing premiums and decreasing
Speaker 1: level of care and all this other stuff. Forget that,
Speaker 1: you know, let people get their their public option, people
Speaker 1: get their own healthcare via the government. So those are
Speaker 1: my One Obamacare is constitutional. Two it's crap, lousy and
Speaker 1: bad for healthcare and bad for the rule of law.
Speaker 1: And three it's it's just a way point on the
Speaker 1: path to single pair, which has been Medicare for all
Speaker 1: slash single pairer. Depending on what the Democrats actually go for.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going to go for true single payer.
Speaker 1: They'll probably go for some expansion of the Medicare program
Speaker 1: because people like Medicare. Okay, So then why am I
Speaker 1: saying I'm mixed about it? Well, because the Republicans in
Speaker 1: in what I think, I have to say, Republican Congress,
Speaker 1: in a combination of gutlessness and lack of legislative skill
Speaker 1: and foresight, Republicans do not have did not have a
Speaker 1: replacement bill ready to go for this thing. You know,
Speaker 1: how is that possible. How could we be in this
Speaker 1: place whereafter I can't even remember how many it was.
Speaker 1: I want to say it was dozens. It felt like
Speaker 1: it was seventy. It might as well have been a million.
Speaker 1: All these votes that they took on the floor of
Speaker 1: the House either lived like a repeal or to play
Speaker 1: all out of care. Okay, great, repealing plays Obamacare. Then
Speaker 1: when it came time, we couldn't even get fifty one
Speaker 1: senators to vote for it. And we all know who
Speaker 1: is responsible for the shortfall there. But at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, Republicans did not get it done, and
Speaker 1: we were told they would get it done. So I
Speaker 1: think we're allowed to be very disappointed. And Republicans also
Speaker 1: keep getting schooled in the demagoguery department here by Democrats
Speaker 1: because it just this just turns into a fight over
Speaker 1: pre existing conditions. That's all. That's all we ever hear
Speaker 1: about prexist. The bill is, you know, thousands of pages long,
Speaker 1: but it's just you know, oh, Republicans want to take
Speaker 1: away your previusing conditions, and now it's Republicans want to
Speaker 1: take away your healthcare. Those of us who also work,
Speaker 1: saying that all they have to do is pass Obamacare
Speaker 1: and you'll never really be able to get rid of it.
Speaker 1: We're right, well, right, So you know that's an additional
Speaker 1: layer here. I think Republicans don't look good on this.
Speaker 1: This isn't a political winner for them because when they
Speaker 1: had a majority in the House, in the Senate and
Speaker 1: a Republican in the White House, it's you can't say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: they needed sixty votes because they couldn't get to fifty
Speaker 1: plus one with the tie coming from Pence. They couldn't
Speaker 1: get there. So it's irrelevant that they couldn't get to
Speaker 1: the sixty because they couldn't even get to the fifty
Speaker 1: that they would have needed here, So you know that
Speaker 1: you got to remember that. So Republicans look look lousy
Speaker 1: on this. And then also you know, I don't like
Speaker 1: responding to a bad a bad decision of the judiciary
Speaker 1: with with what I think is another weak decision from
Speaker 1: the judiciary. You know, Obamacare is unconstitutional because of the
Speaker 1: individual mandate compelling it's it's compelled commerce. Essentially, the government's
Speaker 1: forcing it how to buy a product. And as much
Speaker 1: as you and I can laugh, but how we think
Speaker 1: the government should probably make people buy a Bible and
Speaker 1: make people buy a firearm of some kind to keep
Speaker 1: in their homes, and that would probably make for a
Speaker 1: better country. Nonetheless, I would not advocate for that, Okay,
Speaker 1: I do not advocate for the government forcing people to
Speaker 1: buy a product just to be in this country. People
Speaker 1: will bring up, oh, health, I'm sure, I mean auto
Speaker 1: insurance and other things. That's that's a privilege that people
Speaker 1: engage in. But look, that was at the part of
Speaker 1: that was at the heart of the whole, at the
Speaker 1: part at the heart of the debate before. But you know,
Speaker 1: you don't you don't have to drive and be in America.
Speaker 1: You know that that's a regulation on you do. You
Speaker 1: have to have insurance under the Obamacare mandate, And that's
Speaker 1: why they have this this penalty associated with it, which
Speaker 1: they said was a tax, and it's a penalty. And
Speaker 1: I think they did real harm to or notion to
Speaker 1: rule a law by change what could be more of
Speaker 1: a changing of planed words than saying something is a
Speaker 1: penalty when it's attacked and it's at taxed when it's
Speaker 1: a penalty, Wait, which is it? That's so, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that this is a strong decision though
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a strong decision because ultimately the
Speaker 1: severability clause and the idea that because you don't have
Speaker 1: the individual mandate, the individual mandate is necessary. The individual
Speaker 1: mandate has not been struck from this thing by a
Speaker 1: legislative act. It just is not being enforced. And the
Speaker 1: decision to not enforce it via executive order is different
Speaker 1: than an act of Congress to remove it. So I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a strong discilce. I'm just gonna tell
Speaker 1: you I don't think it's a strong decision, and I
Speaker 1: don't mean to point people who are all excited, oh,
Speaker 1: because I'm because it's not gonna last the Fifth Circuit.
Speaker 1: This isn't the Ninth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit is a
Speaker 1: pretty conservative at least as federal circuits go, as a
Speaker 1: pretty as appeal circuits go, as a pretty conservative one.
Speaker 1: I don't think this is gonna make it past there,
Speaker 1: and maybe then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: but I'm not even sure the Supreme Court would take
Speaker 1: it up. I think that you'll see this one will
Speaker 1: likely get get over. This is a decision that will
Speaker 1: likely get overturned, and then you'll have all the gloating
Speaker 1: from the Libs. You say, see, we get our way
Speaker 1: with the law even when we shouldn't, and then we
Speaker 1: get our way with the law when we should. You know,
Speaker 1: let's say that we get it on both sides. So
Speaker 1: this is not the This is not the sweeping victory
Speaker 1: that I think a lot of people were hoping it
Speaker 1: would be when when you see the initial headline. I
Speaker 1: know I felt the same way when you see the
Speaker 1: headline about oh my gosh, look at this. You know,
Speaker 1: we we should we should be so happy Obamacare is
Speaker 1: finally you know, it's like ding dong the witch is dead, right,
Speaker 1: Obamacare is gone. It's not it's not good for it's
Speaker 1: definitely the law of the land for the next year,
Speaker 1: so they're not changing it for that, and it's just
Speaker 1: getting a stay here. You know. Ultimately, this is we're
Speaker 1: run around all these legal circles with us now with Obamacare.
Speaker 1: Here's here's where the real as I see, where the
Speaker 1: real debate is, or where it really should be. All right,
Speaker 1: you have, on the one hand, um, a Democrat left
Speaker 1: that believes that healthcare. This is a really fundamental healthcare
Speaker 1: debate in this country right now. Democrats and the left
Speaker 1: think that healthcare is a human right and that the
Speaker 1: state should be in charge of determining who gets healthcare
Speaker 1: and at what level. And they can do this better
Speaker 1: and more efficiently than the than the private sector can.
Speaker 1: And they've managed to can vince enough people through a
Speaker 1: lot of tricks of accounting, people think that Medicare is
Speaker 1: paid for. Medicare is not paid for. Medicare beneficiaries take
Speaker 1: twice as much out of the program as they pay
Speaker 1: into it over their entire life of Medicare taxes. All right,
Speaker 1: so this, you know, this is a thing. I know
Speaker 1: people don't like to hear that. People like say, oh
Speaker 1: I paid into Medicare, okay, but most people pay into
Speaker 1: Medicare take out a lot more, which just means that
Speaker 1: they're they're running up the deficit, that care is running
Speaker 1: up the depths. And people like it. Of course they
Speaker 1: like it. It's free stuff. It's it's subsidized by tax
Speaker 1: dollars of people that pay into it over there, but
Speaker 1: it's it's still getting free stuff. But this is how
Speaker 1: they've managed to convince people that you want the government
Speaker 1: to be in charge of more of your healthcare by
Speaker 1: essentially telling them that the free stuff model is just
Speaker 1: going to get expanded and expanded. But you know that
Speaker 1: that quote by Thatcher. The problems socialism is you run
Speaker 1: out of other people's money. The problem with subsidized healthcare
Speaker 1: is you're gonna run out of people to subsidize it,
Speaker 1: and you're going to be the subsit or your children
Speaker 1: or your grandchildren are going to be the subsidy. That
Speaker 1: that's where we're heading. So you have the one side,
Speaker 1: people who just have convinced a large portion of the
Speaker 1: American electorate that you want the government more involved than
Speaker 1: paying more of your money, taxpayer dollars for healthcare. On
Speaker 1: the other side, you have the hey, let's get the
Speaker 1: free market involved here. But they're fighting a losing battle
Speaker 1: right now because the healthcare market is already a large
Speaker 1: portion of it is already taken up by government spending,
Speaker 1: and that portion's getting larger all the time, and we're
Speaker 1: just not winning the argument about how you can get better,
Speaker 1: more efficient, more quality care. If you have a free
Speaker 1: market and healthcare, you know what you really want is
Speaker 1: essentially everyone to have catastrophic coverage, meaning if you get
Speaker 1: really sick, you're just covered. Okay, if you get really
Speaker 1: sick you get and then you know, you have to
Speaker 1: have some incentive for people. And this is what nobody
Speaker 1: wants to talk about. And now you're getting into well,
Speaker 1: you know, no one wants to talk about diseases that
Speaker 1: are largely lifestyle driven, which is the biggest single driver
Speaker 1: of healthcare spending in this country. People say that, oh,
Speaker 1: look at Europe, They've got better healthcare outcomes than we do.
Speaker 1: That's because in Europe people are generally a little healthier
Speaker 1: than they are here, and a lot of that is
Speaker 1: diet and lifestyle. The number one drivers of our healthcare
Speaker 1: spending in terms of disease are type two diabetes, cancer,
Speaker 1: and heart disease. Those are the ones that are drying
Speaker 1: and the ones that are getting larger and larger as
Speaker 1: a percentage all the time are type two diabetes and
Speaker 1: cardiac diseases, different different disease of the cardiac system. And
Speaker 1: that's a lot of that's driven by lifestyle. And that's
Speaker 1: where you say, okay, well we don't want people have
Speaker 1: to pay you know, people who have to pay more.
Speaker 1: But you know, do you have an insurance system or
Speaker 1: do you have subsidized care? If it's insurance, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're a drive. If you're somebody who's driving a
Speaker 1: car one hundred and twenty miles an hour all the
Speaker 1: time and you're getting caught every now and again, insurance
Speaker 1: company's gonna charge you more. If you're a smoker, they're
Speaker 1: gonna charge you more. Well, there are other things too
Speaker 1: where they're gonna they if they were doing a true
Speaker 1: insurance system based on a risk pool, they would charge
Speaker 1: some people more. We don't want to hear this. This
Speaker 1: is the and and people who are getting right now,
Speaker 1: they're probably getting a little frustrated. And even I'm talking
Speaker 1: about it. It's just the truth. It's just the truth.
Speaker 1: So forget about pretty existing conditions. Lifestyle choice as it
Speaker 1: affects the healthcare market is something that nobody wants to
Speaker 1: talk about. Nobody wants to look at it and deal
Speaker 1: with that component of the spending. And so that's why
Speaker 1: we're just gonna keep getting deeper and deeper down this
Speaker 1: down this rabbit hole. And I think we're gonna get
Speaker 1: to a Medicare for all point in this country where
Speaker 1: where the you know, the Democrats are going to view
Speaker 1: that as a winning issue and we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: deal with with the reality of a country that you know,
Speaker 1: has a Medicare for all options. It's not going to
Speaker 1: be good, but it's very popular, and it's very poplic
Speaker 1: because people don't really understand what it entails. Let me,
Speaker 1: what does what would that entail? What are the problems
Speaker 1: with it? And where's all this Obamacare discussion going. That's
Speaker 1: going to be our conversation come up here at a moment.
Speaker 1: Remember we also have my friend Sean Parnell joining to
Speaker 1: talk about this really difficult case of this green beret
Speaker 1: who's now facing capital murder chargers for killing a Taliban bombmaker.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that coming up with Seawan Parnell as
Speaker 1: a combat vet. Great guy who were talking to us
Speaker 1: in a moment. Stay with me as to the end
Speaker 1: to the ippy Snippy dot com. There are all these
Speaker 1: social media platforms out there right now that are engaged
Speaker 1: in a forced progressive group think. They change the algorithms,
Speaker 1: they shadow band, they have people that get terms of
Speaker 1: service violations that haven't anything wrong, and guess what, they're conservatives.
Speaker 1: If you want to send a message and if you
Speaker 1: want to have your voice heard, you know what you
Speaker 1: can do. Good Snippy dot com thousands of my listeners
Speaker 1: have join stippy dot com. They're now expressing their opinions
Speaker 1: and they're stirring up lively conversations. You see, Snippy's this
Speaker 1: unbiased new social media platform that encourages freedom of expression.
Speaker 1: They're all about the First Amendment, no political bias, no censorship,
Speaker 1: no shadow banning ever. Now snippy dot com has an
Speaker 1: updated user interface and exciting new features. Also available in
Speaker 1: the Apple App Store and available for Android Snippy snippy
Speaker 1: dot com free to join, free to use, totally free service.
Speaker 1: Just go check it out for yourself, team start your
Speaker 1: account snippy dot com. You remove what the Democrats and
Speaker 1: Roberts said was the absolutely essential element, the individual mandate,
Speaker 1: which we did in the tax cut bill a year ago,
Speaker 1: and the whole thing has to fall. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that said it. It does have to fall. The whole
Speaker 1: thing hung on the individual mandate, and now that taxes zero,
Speaker 1: it's gone away, so the act must fall. Their words
Speaker 1: will come back to haunt them. It should get to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and Robert says, either going to have
Speaker 1: to say, you know what, I was just lying. I
Speaker 1: was trying to come up with some reason to uphold Obamacare.
Speaker 1: But or he can say, you know what, I said
Speaker 1: it and I'm in it, and therefore the whole thing
Speaker 1: must fall. You guys know, I like Congressman Gohmert out
Speaker 1: of Texas a lot. I think, I think Louise a
Speaker 1: great guy. I think he's wrong here, you know, and
Speaker 1: we know we'll see, we'll see. I mean, I you know,
Speaker 1: I I I learned a lot more from what I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: I think than me just run around saying I'm right
Speaker 1: all the time. So it's maybe maybe the Congressman see
Speaker 1: something I do own here. But I think he's wrong
Speaker 1: on this one. Because the individual mandate has not been
Speaker 1: removed by Congress, has been removed by executive order. That's different.
Speaker 1: It's still the law. They're just not enforcing it. And
Speaker 1: you know, we get very upset when, rightfully show when
Speaker 1: President Obama, for example, decides that the law isn't really
Speaker 1: the law and he's not really going to enforce some
Speaker 1: aspects of it just because he doesn't like some aspects
Speaker 1: of it. You know, that's that's also um not, that's
Speaker 1: not good. So I I, you know, I gotta tell him.
Speaker 1: We gotta keep it real here, folks, I do not
Speaker 1: see this one. There are the other the original Obamacare
Speaker 1: challenge about the individual mandate. Roberts completely screwed that up.
Speaker 1: But this one, I think, I think conservatives this is
Speaker 1: not going to stand in. It just puts Republicans in
Speaker 1: a bad place going forward for healthcare. That's really that's
Speaker 1: that's my sense of it. And you you know you
Speaker 1: you heard me. I'm I'll go back and I'll update
Speaker 1: this one. We'll see if I end up being right.
Speaker 1: I'm a feeling I will be, but I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: So we have this this case of Major Matthew Goldstein,
Speaker 1: and and I want to We're gonna bring on Sean Parnell,
Speaker 1: who's my friend and a real great guy combat ve.
Speaker 1: He's gonna talk about this. But here's Major Matthew Goldstein
Speaker 1: talking to Brett Barre on November fourth, and also his
Speaker 1: father talking about this issue. Play clip fourteen. Did you
Speaker 1: kill the Taliban bomb maker? Yes? You willingly offered up
Speaker 1: these details at the CIA, right, that's Christ and that's
Speaker 1: where it all started. Pretty much. It was an enemy combatant,
Speaker 1: he was a known bomb maker. He was identified, and
Speaker 1: the actions taken were to protect the lives of the
Speaker 1: villagers and those in his unit and the people around him?
Speaker 1: What is moral? What is ethical when you are in
Speaker 1: warfare faced with a disgraceful enemy that will kill women
Speaker 1: and children, that plays by no rules. What's ethical when
Speaker 1: you know lives are in the balance? Do you leave
Speaker 1: it to the system or do you decide that you
Speaker 1: must act. That's a question we're going to tackle here
Speaker 1: at a moment. We're going to pose it to my
Speaker 1: friend Sean Parnell, stay with me, a case of agreean
Speaker 1: beret who could face the death penalty. President Trump has
Speaker 1: already waited on this one. He has said he's going
Speaker 1: to take a look at it. But what exactly is
Speaker 1: the story behind this h this controversy, what happened with
Speaker 1: Major Matthew Goldstein? And and what should we make of
Speaker 1: all this? We've got our friend Sean Parnell with us now.
Speaker 1: He is a combat veteran. He led forces on the
Speaker 1: front lines in Afghanistan, wrote a book about it, a
Speaker 1: fantastic book called Outlaw Platoon, and he's a former Army ranger.
Speaker 1: Mister Parnell, great to have you back it. It It is
Speaker 1: great to be here, Buck, Thanks for having me, all right, man,
Speaker 1: So so let's just for the folks listening, let's walk
Speaker 1: through a little bit of this. So, so, uh, Major Goldstein,
Speaker 1: he's a he's a Green Beret, So he's an army guy.
Speaker 1: He is in the Battle of Helmand in Afghanistan, back
Speaker 1: in what is it twenty ten or twenty ten, and
Speaker 1: things get really nasty and then what what what is
Speaker 1: the issue at at? And here's Sean what happened? Well,
Speaker 1: apparently he killed he killed a guy that a bomb maker,
Speaker 1: that was responsible for killing a couple of Marines. Um,
Speaker 1: and you know there, here's the deal, you know where
Speaker 1: you know? And I said this on Twitter and I
Speaker 1: took a lot of criticism for it. But you know,
Speaker 1: when you're in a war, the object is to win,
Speaker 1: and you win by killing people, and oftentimes that is
Speaker 1: an inconvenient truth. Now that's not the sole mission, but
Speaker 1: you know, the mission of Green Berets is foreign internal defense,
Speaker 1: which means training up indigenous populations so that so that
Speaker 1: host nations can fight wars on their own. But ultimately
Speaker 1: their first mission is just like any anybody else's close with,
Speaker 1: and destroy the enemy. Now they knew that this guy
Speaker 1: was a bomb maker, he had American blood on his hands,
Speaker 1: and this Green Beret killed him, and so my issue,
Speaker 1: of course, can we just just to give a little
Speaker 1: additional context. So my understanding you're from the from the
Speaker 1: reports that are out is that as you said, he
Speaker 1: this this guy's a Taliban bomb maker. They just lost
Speaker 1: two Marines to a bomb. They believe that that he
Speaker 1: They found bomb making materials in his house after a
Speaker 1: sweep near an area. So they so they lost two Marines,
Speaker 1: they did a sweep, they find the bomb, bomb making
Speaker 1: materials rather, and then they bring that guy, this this
Speaker 1: Taliban member back to base, and that Taliban member sees
Speaker 1: an Afghan tribal elder. The tribal elder is then terrified
Speaker 1: that the taliband member is going to tell all this
Speaker 1: Taliban buddies, hey I saw this at you know, so
Speaker 1: if essentially the elders like, I'm dead and my whole
Speaker 1: family's dead. This guy saw me. And so then Goldstein,
Speaker 1: again this is what's all alleged that what's in the
Speaker 1: reports hasn't been adjudicated yet in a court. But Goldstein
Speaker 1: then allegedly just says, all right, this guy, we got
Speaker 1: to take him out, and so he shoots him and
Speaker 1: then they bury him in a shallow grave and later
Speaker 1: take him to a burn pit. This was all in
Speaker 1: the New York Times review of this. So those are
Speaker 1: the the you know that, that's the totality the facts
Speaker 1: as we know them right now. But then, so so
Speaker 1: what do you make of this? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it's if that, if if those are
Speaker 1: the facts and that's really what happened, you know there.
Speaker 1: To me, you know, there's we have we have to
Speaker 1: we have I mean, to me, we have to look in.
Speaker 1: We have to look into what happened. I mean, because
Speaker 1: really we don't know. That's that's from the New York Times.
Speaker 1: I want to read the official report. Um, but you know,
Speaker 1: just to give you, to give you a sense of
Speaker 1: of how this sort of thing works. You know, we
Speaker 1: had an interpreter infiltrate Mi Paeltoon and he killed one
Speaker 1: of my soldiers and wounded four others seriously, and we
Speaker 1: took him into captivity. We did everything right right, and
Speaker 1: we sent him up to Bogram and he was released
Speaker 1: on his own recognisance because you know, we had to
Speaker 1: because of some paperwork mishap or SNAPf foo and now
Speaker 1: that soldier, that insurgent, that foreign fighter, if now back
Speaker 1: on the battlefield killing more Americans. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: obviously there has to be a line to see. My
Speaker 1: issue here, Buck, is that the rules of engagement are
Speaker 1: slanted towards Americans and are slanted towards war fighters. You know,
Speaker 1: we have to put American lives first. And so if
Speaker 1: you follow this logic, of course it's horrific and wrong
Speaker 1: to execute prisoners while they're in captivity. In fact, it's
Speaker 1: contrary to our values that Americans as Americans. It's what
Speaker 1: separates Americans on the battlefield from our enemy. The compassion
Speaker 1: that we show them is not a value that they share.
Speaker 1: But obviously there has to be a fine. There has
Speaker 1: to be a middle road here, you know, between executing
Speaker 1: soldiers you know, in prison, which is terrible and wrong
Speaker 1: it should never happen, to capturing them and doing the
Speaker 1: right thing and hire just releasing them back on the battlefield,
Speaker 1: which happens time and time and time again. And you know,
Speaker 1: American soldiers sees just get sick of it. They get
Speaker 1: sick and tired of seeing their their their brothers in
Speaker 1: arms come home and flag draped coffins because they caught
Speaker 1: a terrorist, did everything right to capture them and do
Speaker 1: the do the right thing and make sure that he's
Speaker 1: that he that he's turned in, and only to have
Speaker 1: him released. It is the most maddening and frustrating thing
Speaker 1: in the world. And you know, I have to live
Speaker 1: with the pain of losing the soldier every day. My soldier,
Speaker 1: you know, his name is Scott Cole. His little kit
Speaker 1: will never hug his father because of this, you know. Um,
Speaker 1: So it's a tough sean. Can I ask you know,
Speaker 1: from from the perspective of from a from a civilian
Speaker 1: perspective of looking at this, it sounds like what Goldstein
Speaker 1: if he had done things. And also we're assuming that
Speaker 1: the facts here that have been presented are are the
Speaker 1: storyline right? There might be additional And also for those
Speaker 1: wondering how did this all come about? The Army had
Speaker 1: an initial investigation. He was reprimanded, but they did not
Speaker 1: press criminal charges. And then he gave an interview with
Speaker 1: U and that came out of a CIA interview where
Speaker 1: he was interviewing for a job. This is all according
Speaker 1: to The New York Times, interviewing for a job at
Speaker 1: the CIA in twenty eleven. He said he had killed
Speaker 1: this guy and then there was an investigation by the army.
Speaker 1: There was no charge for the Later he sat down
Speaker 1: with Bret Bare, who, by the way, for whatever it's worth,
Speaker 1: I think is one of the fairest and one of
Speaker 1: the best in the business. But Bret Bare just asked him,
Speaker 1: look what happened here, and the guy said, yeah, I
Speaker 1: killed this guy. And then they've reopened this investigation. But
Speaker 1: but to me, Sean, it sounds like if Goldstein had
Speaker 1: done everything that he was supposed to do, what would
Speaker 1: have happened here is a teleband bombmaker would have gone
Speaker 1: free killing two Marines suit your point, are never going
Speaker 1: to see their families again, and would have almost certainly
Speaker 1: killed this tribal elder probably his family along with him.
Speaker 1: And you know, maybe maybe we get him again later
Speaker 1: on the battlefield. Maybe we don't. Yes, that's my problem
Speaker 1: with it. And if you if you follow this logic
Speaker 1: and what I was, what I was saying, and you
Speaker 1: know you you articulated it perfectly, Buck, But if you
Speaker 1: follow this logic like they are, the rules of engagement
Speaker 1: right now, places the lives of the enemy over the
Speaker 1: lives of Americans, And that to me, it's the core
Speaker 1: issue that to me is the problem. Um, you're exactly right.
Speaker 1: Maybe we catch this. Maybe hey, we do everything right
Speaker 1: and the system fails us. So what this amounts to is,
Speaker 1: obviously it's the rules of engagement problem. But we're putting
Speaker 1: American servicemen and women in situations that are impossible to navigate.
Speaker 1: There's no right situation. So you capture him, you do
Speaker 1: the right thing. A bomb maker is released on a paperwork, snapfoo,
Speaker 1: or you kill him to masure he never goes back
Speaker 1: on the battlefield to kill American soldiers again. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: like god, if this Green Beret executed this guy and
Speaker 1: dumped him in a shallow grave, yeah, that I got
Speaker 1: a real problem with that. Um. But that's why I
Speaker 1: just want to see what the facts are in this case,
Speaker 1: and I want to hear this guy's side of the
Speaker 1: story before I make a final judgment. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that people also are very understandably reacting with
Speaker 1: horror at the notion that that one of our own
Speaker 1: who was called in a situation like this and this
Speaker 1: is not this is not walking in and you know
Speaker 1: this is in you know, my lie, this isn't walking
Speaker 1: in and shooting women and children and someone this is
Speaker 1: a guy who's trying to defend his guys. He's in
Speaker 1: a difficult situation and and you know, and he does
Speaker 1: what he thinks he needs to do. Not just remember,
Speaker 1: it's not just justice for those two Marines, it's also
Speaker 1: saving an Afghan ally and and probably his family too,
Speaker 1: from god knows what the Taliban was going to do
Speaker 1: to them. And I think Sean the notion that and
Speaker 1: they keep this keeps getting repeated in the news reports
Speaker 1: that the death penalty is even on the table for
Speaker 1: this guy as a possible charge. People are like, uh, no, way,
Speaker 1: not not in this America. But no, exactly, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's it's absurd, and it's ridiculous, you know. And it's
Speaker 1: something else that people don't even think about. Right, how
Speaker 1: many drone strikes have been called from the Oval Office
Speaker 1: where they where they make calculated, tactical decisions, whether it
Speaker 1: was George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Donald Trump, right
Speaker 1: where they know that there's a high value target in
Speaker 1: a certain area in Pakistan, and they call it a
Speaker 1: drone strike, and they kill him and every single number
Speaker 1: of his family kills included. Now, all of those people
Speaker 1: that call those drone strikes in from their comfy desks
Speaker 1: and offices are part of the same chain of command
Speaker 1: that this green beret is in, except for this green
Speaker 1: beret is front towards the enemy, getting shot at every
Speaker 1: single day, making decisions, you know, split second decisions that
Speaker 1: could mean life or death. And so we're going to
Speaker 1: throw this guy to the fire, charge him with a
Speaker 1: crime to where the death penalty is on the table.
Speaker 1: But every single civilian or politician has ever called in
Speaker 1: a drone strike where women and children have been killed,
Speaker 1: and by the way, it's happened hundreds of times, all
Speaker 1: those people are okay. So why why Why does the
Speaker 1: chain of command, why do the rules engagement? Why do
Speaker 1: they differ for soldiers that are boots on the ground
Speaker 1: in combat in tougher situations than they do for our
Speaker 1: own politicians here at home. That's a very good question.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering, wondering what the answer would be from the
Speaker 1: people that are making decisions. Speaking of that showan the
Speaker 1: President's already gotten on Twitter about this thing. It looks
Speaker 1: like he says he's gonna look into it. Um if this,
Speaker 1: if this goes through, and I know that you would say,
Speaker 1: we'd have to go through the process to find out
Speaker 1: what the full facts are, right, he'd have to go
Speaker 1: and you know much more but this than I would
Speaker 1: be through UCMJ and through a court martial. And if
Speaker 1: that all happens, though, and it sounds like the story
Speaker 1: is that we think it is at this point, presidential commutation,
Speaker 1: presidential pardon. Would that be top of mind for you
Speaker 1: too early to know? How how do you assess it? Yeah? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I would say I would, I would absolutely. I
Speaker 1: don't want I don't want the screen Beret charge, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, like, look, if there have been instances, I
Speaker 1: think there's one specific instance in Afghanistan up an American
Speaker 1: soldier going into a home and killing women and kids
Speaker 1: that to me cannot be tolerated. But but like it's
Speaker 1: important for people to remember that we are still in
Speaker 1: a war. The man that the Green Beret killed had
Speaker 1: American blood on his hands. If he captures him, he
Speaker 1: sends him into the system and the system fails him,
Speaker 1: or we release him and that insurgeon goes back onto
Speaker 1: the battlefield and kills Americans. It is a lose lose situation.
Speaker 1: And to me, we're putting Americans in impossible situations. So
Speaker 1: to me, the government in the chain of command have
Speaker 1: a greater responsibility than this green beret do on the
Speaker 1: battlefield to reform the way that our wars are fought
Speaker 1: and to basically make the rules of engagement a heck
Speaker 1: of a lot simpler. And to me, the duty in
Speaker 1: the onus is on the chain of command rather than
Speaker 1: this green beret. There's a there's a reason why the
Speaker 1: army sort of just slapped him on the wrist and said,
Speaker 1: you know, move out and draw fire, so to speak. Now,
Speaker 1: this investigation was reopened after the fact, but I do think,
Speaker 1: I do think that the president needs to get involved
Speaker 1: and he needs to have a real hard look at
Speaker 1: what our rules of engagement are in whether or not
Speaker 1: they benefit American soldiers or the enemy. Sean part Now, everybody,
Speaker 1: the author of Outlaw Plaitude and Sean, we got to
Speaker 1: leave it there for now. Thank you for your service,
Speaker 1: my friend, always going to talk to you, and thanks
Speaker 1: for your perspective on this one. Everybody, America, we all
Speaker 1: love Casey's show No No Prague. Ever, never he posted
Speaker 1: it on the internet. When the lawyers from McDermot, Will
Speaker 1: and Emory answered that question and he's actually instructed me
Speaker 1: when I was serving as this lawyer. Just don't answer
Speaker 1: it anymore because it's one of these silly things that
Speaker 1: constantly gets repeated. So the answers, No, he's never been
Speaker 1: to Prague, or even are we player asking what about
Speaker 1: the suburbs of Prague nowhere nearby? Okay, that's lady Davis
Speaker 1: who was the lawyer for Michael Cohen talking about Prague.
Speaker 1: Now why do we care about Prague? What about Prague
Speaker 1: is of interest to this one? Oh? That's right. Prague,
Speaker 1: you'll remember, was the place where Michael Cohen was, according
Speaker 1: to the dossier, supposed to have visited as part of
Speaker 1: the whole Russia collusion scandal. Now that Prague would appear
Speaker 1: in this way in the dossier, in the phony bologny
Speaker 1: nonsense DNC funded Hillary Clinton stamp of approval slime document
Speaker 1: anti Trump screed that was the dossier, that that Prague
Speaker 1: appears there. That and now we know, beyond any reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt it should never have appeared there. This is meaningful.
Speaker 1: This tells us something. This is not This is not
Speaker 1: something that we should just look at and say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, who cares, no big deal, Because this is
Speaker 1: one of those verifiable or falsifiable facts. You know, if
Speaker 1: you recall when we were talking here on this show
Speaker 1: about the blasi Ford situation, right Christine Blasiford, she came
Speaker 1: out and I said that from the get go there
Speaker 1: remember she's wrong, she's either lying or delusional on the
Speaker 1: other women are just straight up lying who accused Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: But from the get go it was highly convenient and
Speaker 1: therefore very suspect that every aspect of her story was
Speaker 1: impossible based on her gaps in member impossible to falsify.
Speaker 1: You know, did not know the date, did not know
Speaker 1: the house, did not know who took her home, did
Speaker 1: not you know, all the things that you would have
Speaker 1: to have in place in or any of the things
Speaker 1: that you could have in place to say that is
Speaker 1: factually inaccurate. This this thing that you've this this story
Speaker 1: that you're telling, this fact that you've put into it,
Speaker 1: we can prove is false. Because once you have a
Speaker 1: false fact, then you have people raising doubts about the
Speaker 1: whole rest of it. Now apply that, which is one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why I knew that the Plasi fourth
Speaker 1: thing was a scam, because you know, they just happened
Speaker 1: to look far back, and it was plausible enough but
Speaker 1: vague enough that you could believe it, but you could
Speaker 1: not disbelieve it. Um. So that's that's important. On the uh,
Speaker 1: on the you know Prague traveling, that we don't that
Speaker 1: we don't know that we don't know more of the
Speaker 1: dossier's falsifications at this point is not or rather that
Speaker 1: we can't prove it more of as false does not
Speaker 1: mean that we should not have huge red flags going
Speaker 1: off in our minds about you know, they got this wrong,
Speaker 1: what else did they get wrong? Right? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: we'd know Prague didn't happen, but what else in there?
Speaker 1: People would say, oh, buck, the Russian hookers and the
Speaker 1: Golden Shower. I'm pardon me, that's what it's said in
Speaker 1: the dossier. I know, I know, I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: be gross, but the you know, those aspects of it,
Speaker 1: people would say, well, we can't disprove it yet. But
Speaker 1: since we can disprove Prague, does not mean that we
Speaker 1: should have more doubts about the whole dossier's veracity. And
Speaker 1: then add into this, the dossier was used by the
Speaker 1: federal government for a counterintelligence investigation using FISA warrants, which
Speaker 1: means the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus on the planet was
Speaker 1: affect actively turned against individuals like Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
Speaker 1: Where the charges I remind you where the charge against
Speaker 1: against carter Page. Remember when carter Page was like patient
Speaker 1: zero of Russia collusion. I mean, carter Page was supposed
Speaker 1: to be the guy who was gonna make all there's lunacy,
Speaker 1: no charges. They can't even get this guy online about anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's the most earnest I'll talk to you
Speaker 1: about whatever you want, as long as you want. Guy. Ever,
Speaker 1: I don't even know if he has counsel representing Hi
Speaker 1: when he meets with the Special Council. No charges against
Speaker 1: carter Page. But the dossier was used in order to
Speaker 1: get that fires app up. I mean, this stuff is
Speaker 1: a sham. It's an embarrassment because Russia collusion's a farce.
Speaker 1: But the sad truth is that it served its purpose.
Speaker 1: Now that we know the produc didn't happen, we know
Speaker 1: the dossier's garbage, We know that all the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: stuff is nonsense. You know what they've done. They've moved
Speaker 1: on to other other so called crimes. Which was always
Speaker 1: the plan. The obvious point that everybody should understand is
Speaker 1: that the FBI didn't ask him these questions to learn
Speaker 1: the truth because they knew the truth. They knew the truth.
Speaker 1: They weren't trying to obtain more information. They were simply
Speaker 1: giving him an opportunity to lie. I don't think in
Speaker 1: America we want to empower the FBI of grand juries,
Speaker 1: of prosecutors to impose morality tests, criminal morality tests on citizens,
Speaker 1: get them opportunities to lie, opportunities to tell the truth,
Speaker 1: test them. And as Judge Sullivan implied, and as Judge
Speaker 1: Ellis said very clearly, the goal here was not to
Speaker 1: get Flynn. Obviously, He's just a means to the end.
Speaker 1: Their goal was to find some low hanging fruits, figure
Speaker 1: out a way of getting him to lie to the
Speaker 1: FBI so that they could squeeze him. Then either the
Speaker 1: sing or to compose the obvious target here was Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: The obvious target of the whole Flynn saga, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: That much as for sure, let me take a moment
Speaker 1: to step back here and just say that it's it's
Speaker 1: troubling to me to see how even the most basic
Speaker 1: notions of fairness. You know, one of the things that
Speaker 1: really does separate this country from other countries is the
Speaker 1: respect that that every American historically has had for the
Speaker 1: rule of law. It's something that we really do take
Speaker 1: from English common law and from our from our colonial
Speaker 1: our colonial founding. And you know, we we have this
Speaker 1: notion that people all, we all kind of know the
Speaker 1: laws important. We all know. And I'm not saying people
Speaker 1: don't obviously either have ignorance of the law or discard
Speaker 1: it when they see fit, but in general, we take
Speaker 1: the law very seriously, in fact orwell in his in
Speaker 1: some of his writings made it very clear that what
Speaker 1: he felt made Englishmen different in the nineteen forties from
Speaker 1: other countries was just this idea that the law applies
Speaker 1: to everyone, and everyone has to obey the law, and
Speaker 1: the law is meaningful. That's not true in a lot
Speaker 1: of countries. A lot of countries the law is always
Speaker 1: kind of up to debate discussion, based purely upon power dynamics. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: the law isn't really the law if you're you know,
Speaker 1: a shake, you know, if you're from the Middle East,
Speaker 1: the law doesn't really count. The law isn't really the
Speaker 1: law if you're tied to the royal family in some
Speaker 1: other country, you know the law and so on and
Speaker 1: so forth. And we don't accept that, and we don't
Speaker 1: we don't believe it that that should be something that
Speaker 1: we change, that we adopt from other countries. But what
Speaker 1: we're seeing increasing is that people view the laws of
Speaker 1: political instrument not mean not that the law obviously isn't
Speaker 1: always going to have political implications, but that they can
Speaker 1: try to abuse the law specifically to find a way
Speaker 1: of attacking their political opponents. And and this is very
Speaker 1: self evident when you just do a little bit of
Speaker 1: a mental checklist here of Okay, what are some of
Speaker 1: the things that we've been told are really important laws
Speaker 1: that are used to go after either Trump or his associates,
Speaker 1: or try to come up with some narrative meant to
Speaker 1: take down Trump as his associates. The Logan Act. Okay,
Speaker 1: Logan Act has never been used in two hundred years.
Speaker 1: The Logan Act is effectively not really a law, but
Speaker 1: Sally Aids pretend that it was a law so that
Speaker 1: she could go after a Trump associate. But you know,
Speaker 1: the Logan Actor. That that's one example of one What
Speaker 1: about the emolument's clause. How many people have really thought
Speaker 1: long and hard about the emolument's clause? Oh, Trump can't
Speaker 1: be president because of owning hotels, and and if a
Speaker 1: foreigner pays money in a hotel to stay there, and
Speaker 1: Trump owns some interest in that hotel, it could influence
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is nonsense, right. What it
Speaker 1: really would mean is that nobody could nobody could be
Speaker 1: a businessman and go into government without giving up all
Speaker 1: of their ownership in any company or any business. That's
Speaker 1: what it would mean based on this liberal interpretation of
Speaker 1: And then you get into a campaign finance law, which
Speaker 1: is among the most arbitrary of all the laws that exist.
Speaker 1: Why is the current maximum personal contribution? I don't even
Speaker 1: know what it is. I think it's twenty seven hundred
Speaker 1: dollars something. Why is that the number? Because they say so?
Speaker 1: Why isn't it five thousand? Why is it in fifty thousand?
Speaker 1: Because they say so? I mean, there's really no rhyme
Speaker 1: or reason to it. This is not really much of
Speaker 1: a They just kind of threw a dart at a
Speaker 1: board and said, yeah, we'll say that's what the And
Speaker 1: if you spend more than that or you give more
Speaker 1: money than that. If you use a straw donor or
Speaker 1: anything like that, you're a criminal. Now they want they
Speaker 1: want you to believe you're a criminal. Meanwhile, the media
Speaker 1: really operates as an unlicensed I mean, the mainstream corporate
Speaker 1: media operates as an unlicensed Democrat pack and has a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of influence over the elections and don't have
Speaker 1: to think about whether they're giving by they make airtime decisions.
Speaker 1: My friend, that is money, Make make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: That is money they're giving by the way they cover people.
Speaker 1: That is money. It is effectively dollars. What do most
Speaker 1: political campaigns spend a majority of their funds on ad buys?
Speaker 1: That's right, ad buys for advertising. Well, you know, you
Speaker 1: can see now from the way that Trump was so successful,
Speaker 1: if you're just effective enough at media, you don't even
Speaker 1: need to spend that money. You spend more money the
Speaker 1: other guy on that. So anyway, you see how there's
Speaker 1: all these different ways though that the Democrat Party has
Speaker 1: just tried to find a means to use the law,
Speaker 1: find a way to come up with a construct of
Speaker 1: the law that Trump or his people have violated it.
Speaker 1: And online to the FBI. There should be way more
Speaker 1: introspection about what's really going on here. I mean that
Speaker 1: we accept, or we're supposed to accept, that the government
Speaker 1: can lie to you lots and lots. I mean, the
Speaker 1: government can tell you that your wife has flipped on you,
Speaker 1: that you're they can tell you that you know they've
Speaker 1: got you on a wire tap that don't even have
Speaker 1: you on. They can put somebody next to you who
Speaker 1: pretends to be your best friend and care about you
Speaker 1: more than anybody, and then that person you know, was
Speaker 1: wearing a wire I mean, you know, all the different
Speaker 1: ways of subterfuge of deception the government can engage in.
Speaker 1: And and you know people say, oh, Buck, that's necessary
Speaker 1: to catch drug dealers. Yeah, but but there's a discretion
Speaker 1: involved here, right the same way that you know, technically
Speaker 1: the government can send in a squat team I guess
Speaker 1: whenever it decides that it feels like it. But we
Speaker 1: get a little bit annoyed at. You know, what would
Speaker 1: be a clear abuse of authority if, for example, you've
Speaker 1: got a white collar criminal says he's going to turn
Speaker 1: himself in on on Monday, and the government just to
Speaker 1: make a make a stink and they've done this kind
Speaker 1: of thing before. They'll send in you know, of twenty
Speaker 1: guys who are armed to arrest somebody in their office.
Speaker 1: You know, that's the pre Berara move, by the way,
Speaker 1: to try to get maximum press and I try to
Speaker 1: make an arrest as much of a show trial as possible.
Speaker 1: That's right, pret CNN Barrera. You know this is there's
Speaker 1: so many ways that the law can be abused, and
Speaker 1: we need to be aware of it. And that's not
Speaker 1: the same thing as abusing the foundation of the system.
Speaker 1: That's trying to make sure the system is function the
Speaker 1: way it's supposed to. You know, there's a difference between
Speaker 1: trying to blow the whole thing up and trying to
Speaker 1: criticize it to make sure that it's what we've been
Speaker 1: promised and what we're supposed to have. And this will
Speaker 1: aligned to the FBI thing with Flynn. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: where I see them really just abandoned any ideas of
Speaker 1: basic fairness. Now, I also have to note that these
Speaker 1: guilty police today from these Flynn, these Flynn associated individuals
Speaker 1: for this Turkish lobbying, right that that you could have
Speaker 1: somebody that's working as the incoming national security advisor. I'm sorry, indicted,
Speaker 1: not not guilty. Please indicted, Pardon me. That's what I
Speaker 1: meant to say. That you have these former Flint associates
Speaker 1: who are indicted. Let me just say this is bad.
Speaker 1: I'm not here to defend everything that General Flynn did,
Speaker 1: despite his decades of military service. I'm not here to
Speaker 1: say that everything flinted. I've told you from the beginning
Speaker 1: I did not like the General Flynn took money from
Speaker 1: RT from Russia today, which is a Kremlin propaganda channel.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not saying it's criminal. I'm just saying I
Speaker 1: don't like it because when Buck was living with, you know,
Speaker 1: three roommates in the West Village in New York and
Speaker 1: had no money and was being offered has on RT,
Speaker 1: I think I'm not going to be a part of that,
Speaker 1: you know, And they were trying to sweet talk me
Speaker 1: and I could have been a contributor there and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff in no way never even appeared on
Speaker 1: their air. And I made that conscious decision. Now, other
Speaker 1: people could feel differently about it, I can get but
Speaker 1: but I don't. I'm not okay with that. The Flynn
Speaker 1: associate here, bijon Kian, who's been charged as part of
Speaker 1: conspiracy to violet federal lobbying rules. He faces up to
Speaker 1: fifteen years in prison. And he got these these two guys,
Speaker 1: Bijon Kian and Akim Alpteken, who were using Flynn on
Speaker 1: their masthead in a sense to add to their credibility
Speaker 1: that they were trying to get this. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of complexity here with this case. But Gulan, who is
Speaker 1: this exiled cleric because living in Pennsylvania of all places,
Speaker 1: get him extradited to Turkey. And they're doing this in
Speaker 1: a shady fashion. This is not okay. And I think
Speaker 1: this may be why General Flynn hasn't fought the line
Speaker 1: charge more vociferously, because this is good. This is a
Speaker 1: tougher thing for people to to brush off, excuse, or
Speaker 1: defend based on the fact pattern I'm seeing here. You
Speaker 1: cannot have the incoming National Security advisor associated with a
Speaker 1: stealth a stealth lobbying campaign for the Air Douan government
Speaker 1: in Turkey with regard to US policy that affects Turkey.
Speaker 1: This is bad. This is very problematic. So I would
Speaker 1: just note that Flynn. I've been a very strong defender
Speaker 1: of Flynn because I know because he was set up.
Speaker 1: I mean, they entrapped him. The whole thing is garbage.
Speaker 1: But this Turkish lobbying, this, this looks like really poor judgment.
Speaker 1: Was Flynn's rolling a criminal? I don't know. We'd have
Speaker 1: to see what the what the facts of the case are,
Speaker 1: but you know, I think if Flynn was in look,
Speaker 1: he shouldn't have been involved with this at all. He
Speaker 1: really shouldn't have. So I'm gonna want to watch watch
Speaker 1: this case play out a bit and see. But this,
Speaker 1: this is, uh, this is troubling. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: don't think that Flynn was paying enough attention here at
Speaker 1: a minimum. I love delicious meat. That's why I can
Speaker 1: tell you that I'm an Omaha Steaks fan. I've already
Speaker 1: gone through an entire Steaks Family gift package all my
Speaker 1: own for me and Miss Molly. I've been cooking up
Speaker 1: a storm. Right now, you can give the gift of
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks and all you have to do is go
Speaker 1: to Omaha Steaks dot com and enter promo code buck
Speaker 1: into the search bar, and then you'll get seventy four
Speaker 1: percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package originally one hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety five dollars now only forty nine ninety nine.
Speaker 1: When you order now, you'll get four tender top sirloin steaks,
Speaker 1: two Premium pork jobs, four chicken fried steaks, four Omaha
Speaker 1: Steaks burgers, four snappy Kibasa sausages, all beef meatballs, four
Speaker 1: perfectly brown potatoes, zogret tam four made from scratch caramel
Speaker 1: apple tartlets, plus four more burgers free. All right, this
Speaker 1: limited time package is only forty nine ninety nine, But
Speaker 1: you gotta go to Omaha Steaks dot com and you
Speaker 1: have to type buck that's buc k in the search
Speaker 1: bar to add the family gift package to your card.
Speaker 1: I've already done it, I've eaten it in is delicious,
Speaker 1: or I don't wait. This offer end soon Omaha Stakes
Speaker 1: dot Com. Type buck in the search bar today. The
Speaker 1: way that the Flint investigation has been in your interview
Speaker 1: has been carried out has come under a lot of
Speaker 1: criticism in your view, should that have been happened to
Speaker 1: have been handled any differently? How do you defend from
Speaker 1: the criticism that this is Internet didn't happening. I think
Speaker 1: of what's happened to the Republican Party. They're up here
Speaker 1: attacking the FBI's investigation of a guy who's pled guilty
Speaker 1: to lying to the FBI. He should have been warned,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't lie. You should have been told you can
Speaker 1: have a lawyer. Think of the state of affairs we've
Speaker 1: ended up in. That's nonsense. I'm very proud of the
Speaker 1: way the FBI conducted itself, agile, flexible, thoughtful, pursue the
Speaker 1: leads where you'd want us to. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: return to this for a moment here, because the criticism
Speaker 1: of what the FBI did to Flynn is in my opinion,
Speaker 1: rock solid and Comey is a disgrace, and I'm I
Speaker 1: feel almost like as an American, I've been violated. Knowing
Speaker 1: that James Comy has had as much authority in the
Speaker 1: United States Government, in the executive branch as he has
Speaker 1: for as long as he has that James Comy was
Speaker 1: making investigative and in the case of Hillary, prosecutorial apparently
Speaker 1: decisions and prosecutorial decisions before that when he was a
Speaker 1: US attorney. That gives me. That gives me the creeps.
Speaker 1: This is not a This is not a person that
Speaker 1: should be given power. There's a person who's really drunk
Speaker 1: on his own self righteousness and is not fair minded.
Speaker 1: He's not He's not a fair actor in this at all.
Speaker 1: And let me just say, you know, when he starts
Speaker 1: getting all huffy about how the FBI someone lied, the FBI, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, they prosecuted Scooter Libby for lying about
Speaker 1: a conversation. And that was Comy's good buddy, Patrick Fitzgerald,
Speaker 1: by the way, who was in his own he was
Speaker 1: the special counsel before. Not notice a pattern, your folks,
Speaker 1: Republican administration and special counsel goes right to the heart
Speaker 1: of trying to take out one of the top officials
Speaker 1: of the United States government, if not the president, the
Speaker 1: vice president. This doesn't you know, we don't play the
Speaker 1: game as dirty as they do. No special counselor to
Speaker 1: the Obama years, no special counsel on Benghazi, no special
Speaker 1: counsel on Fast and Furious, no special counsel on the
Speaker 1: irs targeting of conservatives. And these are all real things
Speaker 1: that happened. These are not crazy conspiracy theories like Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: But Comey's gonna pull this crap, say, oh, the FBI
Speaker 1: he pleaded guilty. Yeah, people plead guilty. All the time
Speaker 1: because they don't want to spend the rest of their
Speaker 1: life in prison. The fact pattern looks terrible for the FBI,
Speaker 1: looks terrible for the DJ About what happened here with Flynn,
Speaker 1: there was no reason to sit down and talk to
Speaker 1: him none. It was based on a pretext the logan
Speaker 1: at gimme in, give me a break. It's this is
Speaker 1: like saying, we need to sit down and talk to
Speaker 1: talk to Flynn because of this email we got about
Speaker 1: aliens landing tomorrow. We wanted to ask if he knows
Speaker 1: about the aliens that are landing in the in the spaceship.
Speaker 1: This is crap, but it was crap when they went
Speaker 1: after Scooter Livy and that was also political targeting. And
Speaker 1: you know, James Comey's buddy Fitzgerald was the one who
Speaker 1: pushed that thing through and they tried to ruin a
Speaker 1: man's life over that. They were gonna send him to prison.
Speaker 1: He was gonna he was gonna serve I think eighteen
Speaker 1: months in federal prison, you know, do some real time
Speaker 1: for lying about a non crime, lying about some desk
Speaker 1: jockey who is running around pretending like she's an international superspy.
Speaker 1: So much a superspy that she was doing a cover
Speaker 1: shoot for Vanity Fair while this whole thing was going on.
Speaker 1: She's so worried about all the people that might have
Speaker 1: been exposed overseas because her name was exposed. Give me
Speaker 1: a break. Her husband's writing op eds where he's supposed
Speaker 1: to be on some secret trip for the government in
Speaker 1: the New York Times, your racist op ed on it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just these people have no ethics. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is part of the problem. This is why when
Speaker 1: they want to criticize the ethics on our side, I
Speaker 1: just say, you guys are a joke. They're a joke.
Speaker 1: We'rena listening to them. We're gonna listen to Sanctacomey drone
Speaker 1: on about this stuff. I mean, you know, I think
Speaker 1: Flynn showed some bad judgment on some things that all said.
Speaker 1: I'd say General Flynn over James Comey one hundred times
Speaker 1: and twice on Sunday. They have done so much here
Speaker 1: to break faith with the American people's conception of what
Speaker 1: our justice system is supposed to be. I mean, the
Speaker 1: damage that has been done to the DOJ, the damage
Speaker 1: that has been done to our perception that both sides
Speaker 1: of the political spectrum, and people say, oh, bucklets so weird.
Speaker 1: Why do you say that. No, the establishment and the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy are one and the same, and the bureaucracy is
Speaker 1: now skewed toward the party of the state, because the
Speaker 1: state big s is always going to be the party
Speaker 1: of the bureaucracy. Right, if you are a federal government
Speaker 1: studge who's been doing this for thirty years and your
Speaker 1: senior government official, it is very likely, it is very
Speaker 1: likely you're going to be a Democrat and maybe even
Speaker 1: a progressive one. It's not true of everybody I know.
Speaker 1: I know they're conservative patriots listen to the show. Who've
Speaker 1: been working for you, working for the Department of Agriculture
Speaker 1: or department whatever. But you know this, you don't even
Speaker 1: mean to tell you because I remember when I was
Speaker 1: the CIA. You got to keep that conservative Republican stuff
Speaker 1: to yourself when you're in the government, because the system
Speaker 1: is all about self perpetuation. And this real separation between
Speaker 1: those who believe that the citizenry live and exist by
Speaker 1: their leave and those who think that they're supposed to
Speaker 1: be serving the citizens of this country is a very
Speaker 1: very different perception here. I mean a lot of people
Speaker 1: like James Comey going to government service because they think
Speaker 1: that we need them to guide us. You see, James
Speaker 1: Comby thinks himself as almost like a guardian angel of
Speaker 1: American ethics and morality and law. And that's how that's
Speaker 1: how he you know, that's how he is able to
Speaker 1: sleep soundly at night. In reality, James Comey has made
Speaker 1: people like me trust the DOJ less than ever. And
Speaker 1: you know, I'll tell you this if I ever got
Speaker 1: into an issue at the federal government. Now, do I
Speaker 1: feel like as a conservative who's vocal, who's known, who
Speaker 1: is on record, and who has has an audience, has
Speaker 1: a platform, has real sway in the conversation, Do I
Speaker 1: think I'd be fairly treated by the DOJ? Nope? I
Speaker 1: do not. Did denish to SUSA think he was fairly
Speaker 1: treated by the DOJ? Certainly not Scooter Liberty? Nope. I
Speaker 1: mean you got on the list of all these people,
Speaker 1: all these conservatives, where's the equivalent of their side? Where
Speaker 1: are the Democrats who have gotten rough stuff from the DOJ?
Speaker 1: You know, the ones who do deserve it and then
Speaker 1: some But when it comes to judge calls, when it
Speaker 1: comes to the gray area our side. Conservatives always get
Speaker 1: the short end of the stick. And it's not an accident.
Speaker 1: It's Christmas Eve in LA. He's California. Well, we'll see
Speaker 1: what Santa and Mommy can do. Bay a New York cup.
Speaker 1: John McLean has come to see his wife. Instead, he's
Speaker 1: going to have to save her. Down within this skyscraper
Speaker 1: high above the city, twelve terrorists have declared war and
Speaker 1: they're about to between the Left ander real use of
Speaker 1: parent there. It is brilliant. Okay, we get the idea.
Speaker 1: That's right, the original Diehard. Everybody now's the the the
Speaker 1: official trailer for it. The greatest Christmas movie of all time.
Speaker 1: You know, we all make jokes about this. Conservatives love
Speaker 1: to talk about how Diehard is the greatest movie. It's
Speaker 1: my number one all time action movie. But it is
Speaker 1: also just a fantastic movie in general. And yes, it
Speaker 1: does entirely take place on Christmas Eve. What other movie
Speaker 1: can you say that? For? Now? There is this based
Speaker 1: on streaming data and I sent this to John too.
Speaker 1: There is this state by state comparison of based on
Speaker 1: stream so based on what people really want to watch,
Speaker 1: what is their favorite Christmas movie by state? And Wow,
Speaker 1: are there are some surprises on here. All right, let's
Speaker 1: just John, I want to pass this to you of
Speaker 1: the map of US states, of all the movies that
Speaker 1: are favorites for that state for Christmas movies, which one
Speaker 1: did you find the most surprising. I'm looking at New
Speaker 1: York State because I was interested to see what that is.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the apartment is, John, I couldn't
Speaker 1: agree anymore. I don't even know what the heck the
Speaker 1: apartment is. This is a Christmas movie that I've never
Speaker 1: heard of, with the most boring name and the apartment.
Speaker 1: I have to look this thing up. I don't even know.
Speaker 1: I was also, so you get the prize because I
Speaker 1: agree with you. Man, I know you're in New York,
Speaker 1: and I would have never guessed. I love. I know
Speaker 1: producer Mike is is cutting up some audio for the
Speaker 1: end of the show right now, but trading places for
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania because it all takes place in Philly. I like that.
Speaker 1: I like it that Pennsylvania gives trading places with Eddie
Speaker 1: Murphy all do love because it does take place in Philadelphia.
Speaker 1: So you have that. The ones that the ones that
Speaker 1: really surprised me though, in terms of the amount of coverage.
Speaker 1: First of all, die Hard is the favorite movie for
Speaker 1: Christmas of Washington State. What Up Washington? Whoo, We're up?
Speaker 1: We're up on a Washington a couple of Washington State stations.
Speaker 1: And also die Hard is the favorite of Wisconsin. Hey,
Speaker 1: what's up Wisconsin? As well as Missouri. So Missouri, Washington
Speaker 1: State at Wisconsin love die Hard. And the one that
Speaker 1: surprised me though, was that Batman Returns the Tim Burton
Speaker 1: version of Batman, the second Tim Burton Batman movie. That's
Speaker 1: the number one in California and Florida. John, what do
Speaker 1: you think about that? I didn't see that one coming.
Speaker 1: Is it a warm weather thing that they like that movie? No,
Speaker 1: it's that's a fair question. But I mean two of
Speaker 1: our biggest our number one state by population, I think
Speaker 1: number four. I think Florida's number four, though I think
Speaker 1: Louisiana also is Batman Returns. Yeah, Louisiana is also in
Speaker 1: a Batman because, which I find I don't even think
Speaker 1: of that as a Christmas movie, although it technically does
Speaker 1: have a whole Christmas snowing vibe. It's a very dark film,
Speaker 1: by the way. I remember seeing it. Remember the Penguin
Speaker 1: wants to like march all the children of Gotham into
Speaker 1: the into the icy sewer system. It was pretty it's
Speaker 1: pretty rough. The Nightmare Before Christmas is a movie that
Speaker 1: people like in the Southwest. Edward Scissorhands, a lot of
Speaker 1: Tim Burton movies, Yeah, a lot of Tim Burton movies.
Speaker 1: Who knew that Tim Burton had such a profound effect
Speaker 1: on Christmas movie fair. Everyone listening to the show right now,
Speaker 1: I think, is like, what the heck? What about a
Speaker 1: Christmas story? What about Miracle on forty second Street? What
Speaker 1: about you know, go down all those classics, right, I
Speaker 1: mean even you know, Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, the
Speaker 1: live action. I mean, none of that really seems to
Speaker 1: get much. Gremlin's another one. The entire Southeastern like sec
Speaker 1: conference part of the country. You got, what is this?
Speaker 1: North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama? All that is Gremlin's country,
Speaker 1: which is a shock Scrooge to also make some appearances
Speaker 1: on here. The only the only state that I say
Speaker 1: country before I'm in state, The only state that has
Speaker 1: elf as it's number one is Kentucky, which I didn't
Speaker 1: realize that there was so much love for for for
Speaker 1: the movie Elf but to people like Elfred Kentucky. So
Speaker 1: there you go, and there's some Oh my gosh, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: love actually Massachusetts? What are you? What are you doing
Speaker 1: to me? You know, there's so much to love about Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: Boston's a great town, great sports teams, great food, amazing history.
Speaker 1: What are you doing to me with love actually is?
Speaker 1: And see the people who live in Boston who listen
Speaker 1: to this show, We're all like, buck, love actually is gobbage?
Speaker 1: And you know what, they're right, because love actually is gobbage.
Speaker 1: And I'm just glad that we can establish that. If
Speaker 1: producer Mike was here, I'd have them do a Philly
Speaker 1: accent for Trading Places, because we know the Trading Places
Speaker 1: is a Trading Places. A good movie I would offer
Speaker 1: to you. I just walked in. Hey, hey, you see
Speaker 1: the Trading Places? You got this map? John can show
Speaker 1: you Trading Places the number one film for Christmas for
Speaker 1: State of Pennsylvania. Yeah, man, I know that. That's actually
Speaker 1: part of it was filmed in the Billy my dadd
Speaker 1: used to work. I love that growing up. We so
Speaker 1: you always go down there and into that building and
Speaker 1: in the lobby where he goes rolling in on his car,
Speaker 1: Eddie Murphy. It's great. Want to do one of the great,
Speaker 1: one of the great Philly based its movies. It is
Speaker 1: an amazing movie. I mean, I think Rocky is still
Speaker 1: number one, but trading places it's got to be like
Speaker 1: top five, absolutely not including historical dramas with you know,
Speaker 1: the Founding five. Yeah, Rocky's definitely won, but trade places
Speaker 1: as a strong Till there we go, it's spoken from Philadelphia.
Speaker 1: Mike himself comes in. Yo, Yo, lunch team. We got
Speaker 1: roll call up next. The show ain't over yet, folks.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call, Roll call time. Everybody hits Monday.
Speaker 1: I had a very fun weekend. I have to say,
Speaker 1: I miss Molly and I went to the Kennedy Center,
Speaker 1: and I have to admit to you all, despite it
Speaker 1: may make me sound like something of a savage, I
Speaker 1: lived in DC for years before and never once may
Speaker 1: to the Kennedy Center. This was my first ever Kennedy
Speaker 1: Center visit. Now, I've been more times than I can
Speaker 1: remember to the Metropolitan Opera in New York City, to
Speaker 1: Avery Fisher Hall, to those kinds of venues, but never
Speaker 1: made it to the Kennedy Center. We had a lovely time.
Speaker 1: It was definitely a kind of a family fair event.
Speaker 1: I'd say it was. It was Christmas music meant for
Speaker 1: families with kids and everything. But it was really nice
Speaker 1: and the woman I can remember her name who was
Speaker 1: the soloist, was incredible. They did a whole medley of
Speaker 1: the Christmas songs that you love to hate. But overall
Speaker 1: I think it was it was quite good. I have
Speaker 1: to be honest with you, and I enjoyed it in
Speaker 1: the Kennedy Center. Obviously a lot of fun stuff going
Speaker 1: on there. I'm gonna have to take Miss Molly back.
Speaker 1: We'll have to make another run to the Kennedy Center
Speaker 1: sometime soon. I enjoyed it, all right, Your thoughts not mine.
Speaker 1: Roll call time. The team is like, stop trespassing on
Speaker 1: our time. Buck, you get to talk for hours on end. Silence,
Speaker 1: you old windbag, you sexton re rights love your show.
Speaker 1: Podcast listener in Europe, Elibanser, I don't know why I'd
Speaker 1: assume you're French. There's a lot of languages in Europe.
Speaker 1: When you have the dirsh on, could you ask him
Speaker 1: why he defended Jeffrey Epstein in the International sex Trafficking
Speaker 1: case and why Alex Acosta gave Epstein a light sentence.
Speaker 1: Please thank you, Acosta. I don't really care what his
Speaker 1: excuse might be. What he did, what he allowed to
Speaker 1: happen in the Epstein case is just simply unconscionable. I
Speaker 1: don't remember if Dersh was I guess he was involved
Speaker 1: somehow as a lawyer for Epstein, And I'm sure Dersh
Speaker 1: would just say that everyone is entitled to the best
Speaker 1: counsel they can get, and in reality that often turns
Speaker 1: into the best counsel they can afford. And if you
Speaker 1: are a billionaire, you can afford the dirsh. So that
Speaker 1: would be how I would assume he would answer that.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, Tyler writes, just curious buck, what is your
Speaker 1: discount code for Black Rifle Coffee? Well, Tyler, the discount
Speaker 1: code is not really the thing. It's Black Riflecoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash Buck. Just go to that page, guys. There's
Speaker 1: really great t shirts. There, a lot of stuff there,
Speaker 1: and the Black Rifle folks have been among the biggest
Speaker 1: supporters of the Freedom Hunt for a sponsor of Stalwart guys.
Speaker 1: Awesome guys, So if you're looking to get it, you
Speaker 1: know what you know what. It's really perfect for an
Speaker 1: office Christmas gift. If you want to hook somebody your
Speaker 1: office up with a great Christmas present and you don't
Speaker 1: know that much about them and you don't want to
Speaker 1: spend a ton of money, you know, send them black
Speaker 1: Rifle coffee for you know, a few months. Send them
Speaker 1: three months of black Rifle coffee. Send them six months
Speaker 1: of black Rifle coffee. I mean, there's they drink coffee.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming if you know that about them, you're in
Speaker 1: the office with them, then you're you're good to go.
Speaker 1: So just go to black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: Let's push up some of those buys here going into
Speaker 1: the end of the holiday, or rather the holiday season.
Speaker 1: Richard writes, I do not care what kind of mood
Speaker 1: I've in when I hear your podcast, I smile, ear
Speaker 1: to ear kudos to you, brother. Have an awesome week.
Speaker 1: You know, Richard, you just made my day. I really
Speaker 1: mean that, Thank you. It's I put a lot into
Speaker 1: this show. Every day. I show up sick, tired, angry, sad,
Speaker 1: you know you name it, and I show up and
Speaker 1: try to do the best show I can every day.
Speaker 1: And I spend most of my day preparing for this show.
Speaker 1: So if it is something that you look forward to
Speaker 1: every day, man, then mission accomplished from my end, and
Speaker 1: it makes it all worthwhile. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: And you know you just made you just made my day,
Speaker 1: maybe my week two. Josh Wright Shield tie buck, it's
Speaker 1: my birthday, big five three. Thank you for combating the
Speaker 1: leftist evil. Keep the faith goodwins in the end, well, Josh,
Speaker 1: Happy belated my friend. I know this message came in
Speaker 1: over the weekend, but happy belated birthday to you fifty three.
Speaker 1: You don't look a day over forty, my friend, So
Speaker 1: thank you for writing in, and I hope you had
Speaker 1: a great birthday, probably full of some delicious red meat
Speaker 1: and maybe some birthday cake, even of the glutinous variety.
Speaker 1: Don writes, Could it be that the Flynn false statement
Speaker 1: is omission of facts during a conversation? False statement is
Speaker 1: ambiguous on items stated and items not stated. If I
Speaker 1: was a natural security advisor, I would hold back details
Speaker 1: about my phone calls with random FBI people. If asked
Speaker 1: about the content of the call, I would say this
Speaker 1: and that when in doubt compartment compartmentalized information. Right is
Speaker 1: he even allowed to disclose details. I think it far
Speaker 1: more likely that Flynn omitted details rather than stated false details.
Speaker 1: Don It's really tough to know, you know. Andie McCarthy
Speaker 1: did a very excellent rundown over the weekend on National
Speaker 1: Review of how he says it look Flynn probably lied,
Speaker 1: but they definitely set him up to get him in
Speaker 1: a lie that didn't really matter. But he that Flynn
Speaker 1: probably did lie. And you know the reason for that
Speaker 1: is maybe he was a little embarrassed that he had
Speaker 1: already lied publicly and figured he could lie to some FBI.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm just telling you what Andy said. And
Speaker 1: you hear Andy on this show regularly. You see him
Speaker 1: on Fox News regularly. You know, he's not some anti
Speaker 1: Trump zellot at all. In fact, he agrees with me
Speaker 1: a lot more now than he used to about what
Speaker 1: a scam the Special Counsel has turned into with regard
Speaker 1: to the politics, right. I mean, it's a very political instrument.
Speaker 1: Andy was willing to with whole judgment on it, but
Speaker 1: he says, now, I'm sorry. You know, Flint is out
Speaker 1: Flynn is out there, you know, getting the rough stuff
Speaker 1: from Team Muller and the Office Special counsel is essentially
Speaker 1: a scalphunting expedition. That's really what it has turned into.
Speaker 1: It's not supposed to be that. It's a shame, but
Speaker 1: that's where it is. So, I know, I think you're
Speaker 1: don your theory about alive omission is possible. I think
Speaker 1: it more likely that Flynn probably just said something that
Speaker 1: he may be justified to himself as Oh, that's just
Speaker 1: my interpretation, you know. That's that's how I think about
Speaker 1: what I said to Ambassador Kisliak. But with the transcript there,
Speaker 1: they're able to snag him on inaccuracy. Lauren, right, it's
Speaker 1: I can't believe the FBI would allow agents to write
Speaker 1: three zero two's months after the fact. In nursing, we
Speaker 1: have a saying if it isn't charted, it didn't happen.
Speaker 1: So if we failed to chart, which means enter info
Speaker 1: into the medical record during our shift, every intervention that
Speaker 1: we performed during our shift, we were legally liable for
Speaker 1: any lack of patient care or any patient harm, even
Speaker 1: if in fact we had cared for the patient properly.
Speaker 1: I feel like the FBI, with as much power as
Speaker 1: they will, should at least be as accountable as nurses Laurd.
Speaker 1: I think that's an excellent point. Totally agree with you,
Speaker 1: and yes you are right, and this is a very
Speaker 1: thoughtful post you've written to me. Also, she wrote, maybe
Speaker 1: Lieutenant General Mike Lynch, you're just saying the meeting wasn't
Speaker 1: documented so it didn't happen. Boom Lord is dropping the knowledge. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't mean he yelling your ears, guys, I just
Speaker 1: realized that that probably went a little loud over the mic.
Speaker 1: I gotta watch that. I move around quite a bit
Speaker 1: during radio, so if you ever hear things sounds like
Speaker 1: a bumping, don't worry. It's okay. If the Freedom hut's
Speaker 1: a rocking, you can come a knock in, because it
Speaker 1: just means that I'm moving around as I'm getting animated
Speaker 1: and talking on the radio. Nothing else going on in here,
Speaker 1: so you can you could always knock. I guess though
Speaker 1: none of you technically really visit me at the Freedom
Speaker 1: of which is probably for the best because it's it
Speaker 1: is a hut. It is small Paul right buck, if
Speaker 1: you've talked about this before, I missed it is Inspector
Speaker 1: General Horrow. It's a straight shooter. What is his rep
Speaker 1: around the alphabet soup agencies. Also, what the heck was
Speaker 1: wrong with your mic on Thursday? All that tapping sounded
Speaker 1: like you had Woody Woodpecker on for an interview. Paul,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I think what happened was I was moving
Speaker 1: around to the chair. It's funny. I didn't even know
Speaker 1: that that was going to be the next that was
Speaker 1: gonna be the next message we got to. But some
Speaker 1: of you pointed out that there was some tap tap
Speaker 1: tap tappy going on with the microphone tap tapperou And
Speaker 1: that was just me moving around a lot and bumping
Speaker 1: into the desk and bump into the mic. And this
Speaker 1: is one of my radio skills that I or radio
Speaker 1: technique things that I have to work on, is I'm
Speaker 1: used to TV wherehab a lapel mic and you can
Speaker 1: just sort of just move around and do whatever you want.
Speaker 1: And I like to slouch, I like to lean over
Speaker 1: or I'm very I try to be h well, I
Speaker 1: probably should just sit up, ramrod back straight, but I
Speaker 1: have some some TV habits that blend over and that's
Speaker 1: probably not for the best. But that's what that tap
Speaker 1: tap a U was all about. Chris writes buck Love
Speaker 1: the show well Chris the Show loves You, please spend
Speaker 1: some time we talk about perjury traps defining lying. Most
Speaker 1: people assume a willful misrepresentation of the truth and intent
Speaker 1: in these cases, they include just being imprecise or even
Speaker 1: an honest mistake. We talked with this in your show.
Speaker 1: Used the word lie can confuse people, even model a message.
Speaker 1: Even Andy McCarthy uses the word lie when he means
Speaker 1: innocent mistakes being construed as lies. Hopes this makes sense
Speaker 1: from Chris, you know, I think you raised an interesting
Speaker 1: point there. I mean is when is a lie a lie?
Speaker 1: And people who chuckle at that notion, people who think
Speaker 1: that's such a funny question, don't have a particularly sophisticated
Speaker 1: understanding of our legal system, of these statutes in play here,
Speaker 1: and of truth in general. When is it a memory lapse?
Speaker 1: When is it a difference of interpretation? When is it material?
Speaker 1: A lie is supposed to be material for it to
Speaker 1: be a chargeable offense. So that there's a lot of
Speaker 1: different ways that you can look at this problem, a
Speaker 1: lot different ways to slice it, and I think that
Speaker 1: we shouldntinue to ask those questions our team that's gonna
Speaker 1: be it from the Freedom hunt for today and with
Speaker 1: you every day this week, we're going to close out
Speaker 1: the holiday season strong. So used to join me here
Speaker 1: in the Hut and make sure you tell somebody at
Speaker 1: your at your Christmas gathering this year, like hey, what,
Speaker 1: hey man, what what shows you listen to? What podcasts
Speaker 1: are downloading? Tell everybody you know the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: That's the podcast they want to be in on until tomorrow.
Speaker 1: My friends, Shield's High