Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Special Council decides
Speaker 1: to have one last shot at the President before he
Speaker 1: has a mic drop moment and says that he's going
Speaker 1: to ride off into the sunset. No longer part of
Speaker 1: the DOJ Not so fast, Muller. We've got a breakdown
Speaker 1: what he said, what it really tells us, and how
Speaker 1: it certainly shows that this was always a get Trump operation.
Speaker 1: We've got that and a whole munch, a whole month
Speaker 1: bunch more stuff coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, You're a great American again. The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins now. The first volume of the report
Speaker 1: details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election.
Speaker 1: This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response
Speaker 1: to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there
Speaker 1: was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. Now, I
Speaker 1: hope I expect this to be the only time that
Speaker 1: I will speak to you in this manner. I am
Speaker 1: making that decision myself. No one has told me whether
Speaker 1: I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
Speaker 1: There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any
Speaker 1: testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,
Speaker 1: and the report is my testimony. I would not provide
Speaker 1: information beyond that which is already public in any appearance
Speaker 1: before Congress. Welcome through the Bus Accident Show. Finally we
Speaker 1: got another another Muller based news cycle to dive into together.
Speaker 1: It was only a matter of time. You thought we
Speaker 1: were through with the mullerisms, with the Special Council era.
Speaker 1: But no, Now, sure enough today Bob Muller, by his
Speaker 1: own admission, then you heard him there, just said I
Speaker 1: decided this is what I was gonna do. I was
Speaker 1: going to stand in front of American people and talk
Speaker 1: about the report that has been out now for it's
Speaker 1: in its second month. It's been out for quite a while.
Speaker 1: I've read it. I'm sure many of you have read it.
Speaker 1: It's well known what's in the report. What exactly does
Speaker 1: Mueller think he's accomplishing today. Let's work backwards on this,
Speaker 1: because first that the Special Council just declares, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't tell you anything anyway, and so there's essentially
Speaker 1: no need to subpoena me tells us all we need
Speaker 1: to know about one the self regard and real arrogance
Speaker 1: that Muller has. But also is going to be very
Speaker 1: interesting when we see journalists who but a few days ago,
Speaker 1: we're claiming that Bar not showing up for the latest
Speaker 1: circus on Capitol Hell, for the shenanigans that they're going
Speaker 1: to perpetrate against him, and this all this talk about
Speaker 1: how Bar might have to go to prison, that Democrats
Speaker 1: were playing, playing publicly for their bass. It's just an embarrassment.
Speaker 1: They should be embarrassed. They're not, but they should be embarrassed.
Speaker 1: But now those same people the voices for how we
Speaker 1: need transparency, we need honesty, we need accountability. Bar must testify. Well,
Speaker 1: if Bar must testify, why shouldn't the special counsel himself.
Speaker 1: I heard voices on the left who were calling for
Speaker 1: the Mueller report to be added to by Mueller himself.
Speaker 1: Now that Mueller has said he doesn't want to, what
Speaker 1: are we to make of that, or that it's not necessary,
Speaker 1: he won't add anything. Let's see other government officials don't
Speaker 1: get that. They don't get that ability. You don't get
Speaker 1: to be another executive branch employee of the presidents and say,
Speaker 1: you know what, Congress, I know you think you have
Speaker 1: oversight of me as a government official, senior government but nah,
Speaker 1: not really, you don't get to make that call. Oh
Speaker 1: just watch how quickly the left will we'll turn doing
Speaker 1: about face on this and they'll act like we don't
Speaker 1: have the Internet and Google and can't see what they
Speaker 1: wrote and said a week ago, and the claims they
Speaker 1: were making about bar and what was gonna remember they
Speaker 1: were they were talking openly about throwing the attorney general
Speaker 1: in prison, about having the sergeant at arms of the
Speaker 1: Congress go and arrest him if he did not show
Speaker 1: up and testify. But now Mueller gets to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna resign and leave. This is all I
Speaker 1: got to say, see you later. Nonsense, complete nonsense. But
Speaker 1: then on this point of inch insufficient evidence, I mean,
Speaker 1: the big line here is that you know, if they could,
Speaker 1: if if we could have cleared the president, we would have.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a paraphrase, but that was the big
Speaker 1: takeaway from today. If we could have cleared the president
Speaker 1: of mis conduct, we would have. That is not the
Speaker 1: job of the prosecutor. And that even more importantly, is
Speaker 1: not the legal standard that this society operates under in
Speaker 1: any respect ever it is. It is not the government's role.
Speaker 1: It is not the government's right to say you, sir,
Speaker 1: should or ma'am should have your reputation ruined and should
Speaker 1: have adverse consequences because we've been unable to prove that
Speaker 1: you are one hundred percent innocent of this thing we
Speaker 1: think you might have done. No, no, no, You should
Speaker 1: only suffer consequences, including reputational consequences, if the government believes
Speaker 1: that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you
Speaker 1: are guilty of a criminal offense. This is the legal
Speaker 1: foundation upon which our society is built. Muller is kicking
Speaker 1: at the load bearing walls of the rule of law,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats and the media lackeys are cheering him
Speaker 1: while he does it. Here's actually exactly how he said
Speaker 1: at playclip twenty three. The report describes the results and
Speaker 1: analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
Speaker 1: The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate
Speaker 1: actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we conducted that investigation,
Speaker 1: and we kept the Office of the Acting Attorney General
Speaker 1: apprised of the progress of our work, and as at
Speaker 1: fourth the report after that investigation, if we had had
Speaker 1: confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime,
Speaker 1: we would have said so. We did, not, however, make
Speaker 1: a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
Speaker 1: What kind of double speak is this from a seasoned
Speaker 1: prosecutor and you know, super g man government man over
Speaker 1: the FBI. If we could have said he was innocent,
Speaker 1: he would have. This is a slimy, roundabout way of saying,
Speaker 1: I mean, he's kind of guilty. We can't prove he's guilty,
Speaker 1: but he's kind of guilty. And that then brings us
Speaker 1: to the purpose behind this whole thing, the transparent and
Speaker 1: blatant and obvious purpose for the Muller pressor today, for
Speaker 1: the Muller pronouncement from on High of Special Counsel Landia.
Speaker 1: This was meant to force the hand of Democrats who
Speaker 1: have been doing this whole punch's pilot routine over impeachment.
Speaker 1: Shall we shouldn't we? Who will? Who won't? Good idea?
Speaker 1: Bad ideas? Someone else make the call. Mueller is clearly
Speaker 1: saying to the Democrats, this is on you to take now.
Speaker 1: I did my part for the anti Trump left. I
Speaker 1: did my part for the deep state and the establishment.
Speaker 1: Now it's on you, Pelosi and company to finish this
Speaker 1: hatchet job, which is exactly now what I think is
Speaker 1: going to is going to transpire. I'll get more into
Speaker 1: why I think impeachment now is essentially inevitable later on
Speaker 1: in the show that I just wanted to share a
Speaker 1: little more on on how outrageous what happened today really is.
Speaker 1: It was completely unnecessary. I mean, in one moment, Muller
Speaker 1: is telling us let the report speak for itself, as
Speaker 1: he's speaking about the report unnecessarily and in a fashion
Speaker 1: that is clearly meant to undermine the president, to hurt
Speaker 1: the president. I mean, there's really no serious question about that.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was meant to destroy the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, or to open up a pathway to
Speaker 1: destroy him through impeachment. And they know he won't be
Speaker 1: removed from office, but they're hoping that impeachment will be
Speaker 1: the necessary ingredient, the special weapon, the secret weapon that
Speaker 1: can stop the president from winning re election. That's what
Speaker 1: all of this is, All that stuff, all the lectures
Speaker 1: about all the rule of law and the sanctity of
Speaker 1: our democracy, and it was all just a smokescreen. It
Speaker 1: was a cover. It was sanctimony from the Democrats and
Speaker 1: and their establishment allies. It was self righteous blather meant
Speaker 1: to cover for what was really going on, which was
Speaker 1: a get Trump operation. This is now the latest stage
Speaker 1: of the soft coup attempt against the President United States.
Speaker 1: It is disgraceful, and Muller showed us who he really
Speaker 1: is today beyond a reasonable doubt. He's trying to take
Speaker 1: down Trump. He has been all along. And the question
Speaker 1: I really want him to have to answer is when
Speaker 1: did he know this investigation was a farce, how early on?
Speaker 1: And why did he continue it? We had more coming up.
Speaker 1: Teams stayed with me. They interviewed five hundred people, They
Speaker 1: spent millions and millions of dollars. They put several people
Speaker 1: in solitary confinement for a length of time, which frankly
Speaker 1: should be an American. Then find it. What are they
Speaker 1: complaining about. They had all the resources, They had a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of very smart left lawyers, all of them
Speaker 1: dislike Trump. They went all out and they didn't get anything. Now,
Speaker 1: at some point in the hunt, you got to decide
Speaker 1: that there's no deer in the forest, and the fact
Speaker 1: is they couldn't prove anything, and they ought to relax
Speaker 1: and just say, you know, and the absence of proof
Speaker 1: in America, you are innocent. Therefore, by definition President Trump
Speaker 1: is innocent. Ah. But you see, while Nude is completely correct, here,
Speaker 1: democrats are willing to turn centuries of American jurisprudence, and
Speaker 1: in fact, going back even further than that, to turn
Speaker 1: English common law and the basis for rule of law
Speaker 1: in the Western world on its head, to suggest that
Speaker 1: you should face consequences because a prosecutorial body was unable
Speaker 1: to prove you did not do something as improve your
Speaker 1: innocence to prove a negative. Democrats have been lecturing us
Speaker 1: for a long time now in the Trump era over
Speaker 1: just how important our institutions are and how Trump is
Speaker 1: a danger to those institutions and we must be on
Speaker 1: guard to protect them in the era of Trump because
Speaker 1: of all the terrible things that he's done, and Trump
Speaker 1: is so awful and he undermines our democracy. They say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, our rule of law is essential to our democracy.
Speaker 1: And what you have here with what went with what
Speaker 1: Muller did today, and the chorus of left wing partisans
Speaker 1: who are going out of their way to try and
Speaker 1: praise what he has done, and now use this not
Speaker 1: just to say that they agree with Muller's bizarre, counterproductive,
Speaker 1: and disgraceful press conference, but that they are going to
Speaker 1: try to capitalize on it. They're going to try to
Speaker 1: weaponize the Muller press conference and use this as a
Speaker 1: jumping off point for impeachment proceedings. That tells us a lot,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. They do not respect the rule of law.
Speaker 1: There is no there is no fundamental, principled sense of
Speaker 1: respect for the rule of law. They just pretend when
Speaker 1: it is convenient. They believe in our institutions when they
Speaker 1: support the power of the left. They believe in our
Speaker 1: government apparatus when it's doing their bidding. The law is
Speaker 1: the law when it's going their way. But at the
Speaker 1: moment any of that changes, they will cast it all aside.
Speaker 1: And you see this with the dare I say unprecedented
Speaker 1: actions of some of these anti Trump partisans. Notice always
Speaker 1: say anti Trump partisans. I know that some of them
Speaker 1: were formally Republicans, but some of the people who hate
Speaker 1: Trump the most are in fact other former or even
Speaker 1: current Republicans. Look at Justin Amash running around saying that
Speaker 1: Trump should be impeached. What is that guy thinking. I
Speaker 1: think I know he's thinking. He's just going to start
Speaker 1: making friends on the other side. As I've told you,
Speaker 1: better book deals, better, better TV hits. You know, it's
Speaker 1: it's sweet stuff on the left. If you want to
Speaker 1: sell out, be it progressive. Oh man, there's some there's
Speaker 1: some good eating over there on the left. You know,
Speaker 1: the barbecue on the left is tasty. But on the
Speaker 1: right you have to be prepared to deal with those
Speaker 1: who will constantly fight dirty, and Muller is in that camp.
Speaker 1: This is it's unprecedented what James Comy did, for example,
Speaker 1: to stand up and say that no federal prosecutor would
Speaker 1: charge Hillary Clinton. That was not his job, that was
Speaker 1: not his call, that was not true, and it was
Speaker 1: bizarre that he did it. But we're to ignore that,
Speaker 1: We're to think that Comy there's nothing about him that
Speaker 1: is worthy of of repudiation. There's nothing about him that
Speaker 1: should give us concern when it comes to the actions
Speaker 1: he took when he was the most or second most powerful,
Speaker 1: perhaps law enforcement officer in the country. That Comey would
Speaker 1: take memos from his time as FBI director and use
Speaker 1: them for partisan purposes and leak them to a newspaper.
Speaker 1: We're not supposed to take notice of that either. That's
Speaker 1: just a thing that happened that we are to ignore.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't plan on ignoring it. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't accept that. And now Mueller Muller has also
Speaker 1: engaged in unprecedented, bizarre and I think very telling behaviors,
Speaker 1: the decisions about who to prosecute and who not to
Speaker 1: Tony Podesta, Yeah, he can be a foreign agent and
Speaker 1: not register, and that's fine. But if you were a
Speaker 1: Trump person or you didn't register, you got to go
Speaker 1: to prison. You know. The way that he chose to
Speaker 1: not choose the decision to not decide about whether the
Speaker 1: president the law, that was very obviously a break from
Speaker 1: prosecutorial precedent. That's not the way it's supposed to work.
Speaker 1: He should have said, we found sufficient evidence for charges.
Speaker 1: We leave it to the Justice Department whether those charges
Speaker 1: can be brought. But we we either did or did
Speaker 1: not find sufficient evidence for it. That's it. A crime
Speaker 1: was committed or not. That's what the prosecutor says. Not, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it could have gone either way, just FYI,
Speaker 1: but you know, let's just leave it there. Unacceptable and unprecedented,
Speaker 1: never heard have you ever heard, I've never heard of
Speaker 1: a federal prosecutor doing that. Federal prosecutors I've talked to,
Speaker 1: I've never heard of a federal prosecutor doing that. And
Speaker 1: then this press conference today, What was this all about?
Speaker 1: What did he add to our understanding here? What was
Speaker 1: what was the information that was necessary for him to
Speaker 1: share with the American people that came from this? Ah,
Speaker 1: this was not a gentle nudge, but a shove, a
Speaker 1: public shove toward impeachment proceedings. This was Muller who should
Speaker 1: have absolutely no inclination and certainly not a public protestation
Speaker 1: of his desire for a impeachment proceeding should not happen.
Speaker 1: This should not have happened, But it did, and it
Speaker 1: was a very deliberate decision. You know. They he wrote
Speaker 1: out the statement, or at staff run out the statement
Speaker 1: for him. Muller did not seem like the avenging superhero
Speaker 1: of the establishment that so many have held him out
Speaker 1: to be. It seemed very kind of you know, it
Speaker 1: seemed like a man who's most fierce days are long
Speaker 1: since gone. I can tell you that although he does,
Speaker 1: he did wield the tremendous amount of power as a
Speaker 1: special prosecutor. But the precedents get broken, the decisions get
Speaker 1: made that are inexplicable, and they're always by these senior
Speaker 1: government officials to harm Trump. They never break precedent in
Speaker 1: his favor. Right, They never bend the rules, They never
Speaker 1: do what they can, They never do what's you know,
Speaker 1: what's in their discretion, but perhaps on the very edge
Speaker 1: of it to benefit Trump. It's always to hurt Trump
Speaker 1: and help his rivals, help his opposition. This is not
Speaker 1: a coincidence, This is not an accident. This is by design. Mueller,
Speaker 1: my friends, is part of the hashtag resistance, and he
Speaker 1: always has been. Both Komi and Mueller are trying to
Speaker 1: have it both ways. They'd like to be statesman, they'd
Speaker 1: like for everybody to respect them. But in Mueller's case,
Speaker 1: he had two full years, he had a huge team.
Speaker 1: They wrote a report. Now, if they can't get their
Speaker 1: report right, I don't know why they're coming back later
Speaker 1: to tell us what it is they wish they might
Speaker 1: have said. And I think Mueller's better off. Frankly, it's over,
Speaker 1: go home. Relax. In Comy's case, I think he's scared
Speaker 1: to death of what Attorney General bar is doing and
Speaker 1: the fact that a lot of stuff is going to
Speaker 1: be a come public that's going to make Komey's directorship
Speaker 1: look really, really bad. Well, I don't think it's much
Speaker 1: of a reaction. It just repeats the report. He had
Speaker 1: no evidence or insufficient evidence, which is the same thing
Speaker 1: for a prosecutor of collusion. And although he couldn't reach
Speaker 1: a decision on obstruction, that's a decision. When a prosecutor
Speaker 1: can't reach a decision, that's the decision. So there's no
Speaker 1: case on obstruction, there's no case on collusion, and the
Speaker 1: report is forged in thirty pages of opinion. The reality
Speaker 1: is and he altered his opinion on collusion to opinion
Speaker 1: on structure. Opinion on collusion was there is no case.
Speaker 1: His opinion on obstruction was that he couldn't conclude that's
Speaker 1: the president committed of structure. I gotta say, I think
Speaker 1: that Mueller really hurt himself today. I think that for
Speaker 1: those of us who have all along known that you know,
Speaker 1: it's more complicated than you know. He's not just doing
Speaker 1: the Democrats dirty work. For them. I think that Bob
Speaker 1: Muller really believes that he's doing a great service to
Speaker 1: the country by fighting dirty against Trump. I believe that.
Speaker 1: I think that he treats this like he's going up
Speaker 1: against a mafia kingpin. And if that means he's who's
Speaker 1: very guilty, you know, in this case, it's Trump. And
Speaker 1: if that means he's got to plant a little evidence
Speaker 1: or play a little too rough with the jury or
Speaker 1: whatever it is, he's going to do it. And that's
Speaker 1: been his approach all along. That's that's what I've always thought,
Speaker 1: And what you see today, I believe, just hammers that home.
Speaker 1: What the heck was this all about today? What was
Speaker 1: going on there? What does he really think has been done?
Speaker 1: Other than well, I think maybe he did it. He
Speaker 1: did accomplish the goal. The goal was to establish in
Speaker 1: front of the whole country that the purpose that this
Speaker 1: was really all about impeachment all along, that there were
Speaker 1: never going to be any charges brought against the President
Speaker 1: United States, no matter what happened here. I still think
Speaker 1: that's a very weak argument, though, because there's nothing stopping
Speaker 1: Muller from saying, if we were able to bring charges,
Speaker 1: we would have brought charges that is not what he said.
Speaker 1: And I think and this is an idea will revisit
Speaker 1: a little later in the show with Kamala Harris. But
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that the reason that they want
Speaker 1: to keep this broad and open because if they pick
Speaker 1: any specific charge, they'd have to defend whether that's whether
Speaker 1: that's a reasonable charge to bring against the present meaning
Speaker 1: a specific act. You know, was it firing James Comey?
Speaker 1: Are they really because if they said the most egregious,
Speaker 1: the most obvious thing that he did, that that Trump
Speaker 1: did that's illegal, is firing James Comey, then we could
Speaker 1: all look at that and come away with that's not illegal.
Speaker 1: That's not obstruction. It's this constitutional right to fire the
Speaker 1: fire James coming for any reason or no reason. So
Speaker 1: what's really the what's the obstruction? Why don't we ever
Speaker 1: hear about the act of obstruction? They say ten times?
Speaker 1: Ten times? Okay, what's the worst one. But I'll revisit
Speaker 1: this this point later on in the show with you.
Speaker 1: One other thing that came up in this uh kind
Speaker 1: of bizarre press conference, and well we got Sean Davis
Speaker 1: from the Federalists joining us in just a few minutes
Speaker 1: to talk about this. But one other thing that came
Speaker 1: up was that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller praised the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, which is I'm sure not something that you're
Speaker 1: gonna hear on MSNBC tonight. They're not going to spend
Speaker 1: time on this because the Attorney General has been slandered.
Speaker 1: I mean, he has been slammed and undermined and degraded,
Speaker 1: and they've done all this stuff trying to make the
Speaker 1: Attorney General in the United States look bad because they
Speaker 1: view him not just as a they say he's a
Speaker 1: Trump partisan. The real problem is that he's both an
Speaker 1: effective effective in the role of Attorney General for this administration,
Speaker 1: knows the law and is super smart, knows how this
Speaker 1: game is played. And also they're trying to blunt the
Speaker 1: weaponry so to speak, that barn will have at his
Speaker 1: disposal when the Inspector General report comes out. That's what
Speaker 1: this is really all about. That's why they've gone after
Speaker 1: him so hard. But Muller had some words of praise
Speaker 1: for the Attorney General that we should remind ourselves of
Speaker 1: and I'll explain why in a moment, But let's hear
Speaker 1: from Bob Muller himself. Play nine. At one point in time,
Speaker 1: I requested that certain portions of the report be released,
Speaker 1: east the Attorney General preferred to make that and preferred
Speaker 1: to make the entire report public all at once. And
Speaker 1: we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public,
Speaker 1: and I certainly not question the Attorney General's good faith
Speaker 1: in that decision. Wait, but I thought Barr was engaged
Speaker 1: in a cover up. I thought Barr was terrible, and
Speaker 1: oh he he should go to prison. And this is
Speaker 1: what the Democrats had been saying. And Muller came forward.
Speaker 1: He's like, look, I wanted there to be and it
Speaker 1: was this. It's clearly because he wanted the most damaging
Speaker 1: narrative possible for Trump. But he says, luck, okay, I
Speaker 1: wanted stuff released earlier. But if we're gonna never mind,
Speaker 1: be fair, just be operating in reality, we have to
Speaker 1: take note of the fact that the Attorney General did
Speaker 1: not have to release almost the full report and did
Speaker 1: the Attorney General did allow for a lot of transparency
Speaker 1: and did essentially open up a massive taxpayer funded Democrat
Speaker 1: opo research effort against the sitting president of the United States,
Speaker 1: leveraging federal law leveraging federal investigative tactics and procedures to
Speaker 1: do so. So, you know, I just think that you
Speaker 1: should go back and try to remember some of the
Speaker 1: nastiest things said about bar and who said them. Who
Speaker 1: were the people that were claiming that Bar was you
Speaker 1: know Pelosi. Pelosi for example, even today is saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, the Attorney General thinks, and Kamala Harris will
Speaker 1: say the Attorney General thinks that he really is working
Speaker 1: for the president and not for the American people. This
Speaker 1: is all just rhetoric, and it's it's all noise and nonsense.
Speaker 1: But ultimately I think that Mueller really this was Mueller's
Speaker 1: Avenati moment in terms of the remember the Kavanaugh hearings.
Speaker 1: It was when Avenati came along with that third accuser,
Speaker 1: sweat Nick, where I went from, I don't believe these women.
Speaker 1: This is a political hit. To Gosh Jarnett, this is
Speaker 1: the most obvious, slimiest, most disgusting political hit I have
Speaker 1: ever been. Anyone who doesn't realize it is either blinded
Speaker 1: by partisanship or is a moron worth that now with
Speaker 1: whether Muller was operating in good faith. They're either blinded
Speaker 1: by partisanship or just not very bright. This guy was
Speaker 1: going after Trump. He is doing He did strange things
Speaker 1: and made clear decisions to show that he is an
Speaker 1: anti Trump partisan And we shouldn't have to play this
Speaker 1: game anymore pretending like, oh, Saint Muller and he just
Speaker 1: did everything by the book. This wasn't by the book today.
Speaker 1: He didn't need to hold this press conference today. This
Speaker 1: was political, This was payback, This was a hit. Sean
Speaker 1: Davis is up next. But under longstanding Department policy, a
Speaker 1: president president cannot be charged with a federal crime while
Speaker 1: he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the
Speaker 1: charge has kept under sealed and hidden from public view,
Speaker 1: that is prohibited. His Special Council's office is part of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound
Speaker 1: by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime
Speaker 1: was therefore not an option we could consider, not an
Speaker 1: option they could consider. Isn't that interesting that it comes
Speaker 1: up just when it seems to be most most convenient
Speaker 1: for us to hear from this former head of the
Speaker 1: Special Council team that was trying to take down Trump.
Speaker 1: We got Sean Davis joining us now. He is the
Speaker 1: co founder of the Federalist. He's got a great piece
Speaker 1: up on the Federalist dot com. Muller just proved his
Speaker 1: entire operation was a political hit job that trampled the
Speaker 1: rule of law. I could not agree more, as is
Speaker 1: evident from my tweets about this today, mister Sean Davis,
Speaker 1: great to have you back, sir. Just what the heck
Speaker 1: is Muller doing? Let's just start there. Well, yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It was a really interesting press commerce today, and as
Speaker 1: I wrote on my piece, I was actually thankful for it.
Speaker 1: Is infuriating as it was, because Mueller made clear for
Speaker 1: everyone to see what many of us had said for
Speaker 1: two years, which is this was not some upstanding public
Speaker 1: servant just doing his duty to uphold the rule of
Speaker 1: law when he took this job. He made clear today
Speaker 1: this is a political hit job from day one. And
Speaker 1: there was one thing in particular which he did which
Speaker 1: I thought was absolutely shameful and for which he actually
Speaker 1: deserves to be sanctioned. You know, he talked a lot
Speaker 1: about departmental policy and being bound by DOJ policy. We
Speaker 1: know there's a lot of DJ policy and even American
Speaker 1: Bar Association policy prohibiting the sliming of uncharged third parties,
Speaker 1: as they say. And you know, it was one thing
Speaker 1: for Muller to write in a confidential report required by
Speaker 1: law to the Attorney General that, you know, maybe he
Speaker 1: didn't exonerate Trump. Now I don't think it was a
Speaker 1: great idea, but maybe it wasn't totally terrible. But to
Speaker 1: hold a press conference today, which he did for the
Speaker 1: express purpose of saying, I, Saint Robert of Mueller refused
Speaker 1: to exonerate the president is a shameful, shameful abrogation of
Speaker 1: the law. It is not the job of a prosecutor
Speaker 1: to exonerate or grant innocence. It's the job of a
Speaker 1: prosecutor to either prosecute or decide not to prosecute. And again,
Speaker 1: getting back to DJ regulations, that was his sole job
Speaker 1: as a special counsel, which to make the decision to
Speaker 1: prosecute or not prosecute. And now he's coming out and
Speaker 1: saying no, I didn't. I didn't really feel like doing it.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, Trump's still probably guilty anyway.
Speaker 1: It was a shameful display today from a hackneyed political
Speaker 1: schemer in Conniver. I love the part, and you got
Speaker 1: into this in your peace where he went through some
Speaker 1: went through some trouble to make it very clear that well,
Speaker 1: the Russians who actually hacked and did things online with
Speaker 1: the sock puppets and the you know, election interference, much
Speaker 1: overblown election interference in terms of its fact, did this,
Speaker 1: But the election interference such as it was, they're innocent
Speaker 1: until proven guilty. But Trump, we can't, We can't prove
Speaker 1: his innocence. I was shocked. I had to go to
Speaker 1: the transcript afterwards and read it again and then watch
Speaker 1: the video again. So he made a special point of saying,
Speaker 1: these Russians, these people who aren't even American, who tried
Speaker 1: to steal our elections, who we charged in court was
Speaker 1: criminal wrongdoing, they're innocence. Let us not trample on their
Speaker 1: rights and declare that they're anything but presumed innocent until
Speaker 1: proven guilty. But but I'm gonna apply a little bit
Speaker 1: of a different standard to an actual American who hadn't
Speaker 1: been charged with anything, and say, you know what, it's
Speaker 1: actually his burden to prove his innocence to me, and
Speaker 1: I declare him dirty. It was so shameful, and it
Speaker 1: reminded me of the horrific press commerce that James Coomi
Speaker 1: gave against Hillary. Now, I don't like Hillary Clinton, and
Speaker 1: I'm glad she's not president. But his business of going
Speaker 1: out there and saying, you know what, we're not charging
Speaker 1: her with anything. But by the way, she's actually kind
Speaker 1: of a terrible person, and here's all the bad things
Speaker 1: she did, and but we didn't charge her. So she's
Speaker 1: not getting a good day in court. So she can
Speaker 1: never really clear her name from the mud that I'm
Speaker 1: throwing at her right now. Oops. I mean, you can
Speaker 1: see why Mueller and Comi are such good friends. Apparently
Speaker 1: correct birds of a feather flock together. I also noted
Speaker 1: that the Special Council former Special Council said that the
Speaker 1: report the work speaks for itself. As he's speaking weeks
Speaker 1: after the report was released about the report, does he
Speaker 1: is he not up on irony? I didn't really understand
Speaker 1: how you could miss this, right. It was a four
Speaker 1: hundred and forty age report which has been out for
Speaker 1: nearly six weeks. I think April eighteenth is when it
Speaker 1: came out, So we're looking at well like forty two
Speaker 1: for you know, forty three days. He says that the
Speaker 1: work speaks for itself. I'm not going to testify. The
Speaker 1: work is its testimony, is my testimony. The works for itself,
Speaker 1: Which is why I'm here six weeks later, blabbering on
Speaker 1: like a doddering, senile old fool about something which allegedly
Speaker 1: speaks for itself. And that's another thing that I thought
Speaker 1: was very strange today. This is not the Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: I remember, is the cowering, authoritative FBI director holding court
Speaker 1: with a complete command of the facts. What I saw
Speaker 1: today wasn't this all in command prosecutor. I felt like
Speaker 1: I was watching a senile non engineering Senator Reid for
Speaker 1: the very first time, a statement which had been written
Speaker 1: for him by his staff. It was a thoroughly unimpressive performance,
Speaker 1: both in style and in substance. Now you mean you
Speaker 1: used to work on the hills as a senate investigator
Speaker 1: of Sean the possibility of Muller getting subpoena at here.
Speaker 1: He seemed to think that he just gets to kind
Speaker 1: of do this mic drop of like I'm resigning from
Speaker 1: DJ This is all I'm saying, Boo yah, We're done here.
Speaker 1: I'm out. Can he and shouldn't he be subpoenaed? But
Speaker 1: he if there were a congressional body capable of doing
Speaker 1: actual work other than reading its own press clips and
Speaker 1: going on TV. Absolutely, but already this morning Lindsey Graham,
Speaker 1: who previously now seemed to think his oversight duties consisted
Speaker 1: of just signing onto letters, Chuck Grassley wrote, he who
Speaker 1: is now Judiciary chairman, setting nine, and it's over. This
Speaker 1: is over as long as as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: You know, Mueller said the report speaks for herself, and
Speaker 1: we have the report, So yeah, case clothes, I'm done,
Speaker 1: which I think is just shameful. Bring that man and
Speaker 1: put him under oath and make him answer the questions
Speaker 1: that nobody else can seem to answer from his committee.
Speaker 1: You know where did all these leaks come from? Why
Speaker 1: didn't you look at Christopher Steel? Glenn Simpson lied before Congress.
Speaker 1: Why didn't you bring up him up? Why didn't you
Speaker 1: look into Russians doing delivered disinformation through this stafier which you,
Speaker 1: for some reason used as a roadmap rather than proof
Speaker 1: of actual Russian inclusions by the Clintons. These are all
Speaker 1: things that Robert Mueller should be forced to testify to
Speaker 1: under growth, And yet apparently nobody in Congress really seems
Speaker 1: to care, including the Republicans out. That's just bizarre. I
Speaker 1: don't I don't understand all I know. Graham went on
Speaker 1: Twitter twice today to say, no, this is case closed.
Speaker 1: Report speaks for itself. We're done here. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it's really it's just maddening. Um. But you know, when
Speaker 1: the IG report comes out, there maybe renewed interest and
Speaker 1: perhaps then they'll be willing to do what needs to
Speaker 1: be done here and get Muller under under oath and
Speaker 1: in front of the American people. I want I've always
Speaker 1: wanted to testify. By the way, do you think it
Speaker 1: You'll see a shift here where people who were clamoring,
Speaker 1: you know, journos who are clamoring for Muller to testify
Speaker 1: but a few weeks ago, will now stand behind him
Speaker 1: say he shouldn't have to testify. He wrote the report.
Speaker 1: Oh we've we've already seen that. We We went from
Speaker 1: Democrats saying, oh, when Mueller's done, you you bet your
Speaker 1: took as He's going to come here and testifying the
Speaker 1: oath about what he did. And yet now we see Nadler,
Speaker 1: We've seen other House Democrats saying, you know, maybe maybe nah,
Speaker 1: maybe they were just going to do our own investigation
Speaker 1: and we'll just leave him alone. What are they afraid of?
Speaker 1: I mean, are they afraid of him having to answer
Speaker 1: tough questions? Or are they afraid of him dissembling like
Speaker 1: he did during his conference today when it becomes apparent that,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe this guy wasn't calling the shots, maybe
Speaker 1: he was just a doddering old figurehead completely out to
Speaker 1: lunch daydreaming like Walter Mitty, and it was actually Andy
Speaker 1: Weissman doing the dirty work all the way along. But
Speaker 1: either way, nobody in Congress seems to be interested in
Speaker 1: hearing from this guy anymore, which is really curious. We're
Speaker 1: gonna have to make some noise about this is unacceptable.
Speaker 1: We got to get this guy under oath, Sean Davis. Everybody,
Speaker 1: best thing I've read today on the Mueller press conference
Speaker 1: of Seawan's piece, Mueller just proved his entire operation was
Speaker 1: a political hit job that trampled the rule of law.
Speaker 1: It's up on the Federalist dot com right now, Sean,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, Thank you. Buck. All Right, the eye
Speaker 1: word impeachment, yep, Democrats are obsessed with it. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about that. Stay with me. Unfortunately, Special Counsel Muller was
Speaker 1: unable to pursue criminal charges against the president because the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice polace he prevents a sitting president from
Speaker 1: being prosecuted. That policy, in my opinion, is wrong, but
Speaker 1: it prevented the special Counsel from pursuing justice to the
Speaker 1: fullest extent possible. Therefore, as Mueller again highlighted this morning,
Speaker 1: it forced to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies,
Speaker 1: and other wrongdoing of President Trump. We will do so.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, No one, not even the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, is above the lawd He did say
Speaker 1: if he saw any evidence that the president was not
Speaker 1: what was innocent, he would have let us know. If
Speaker 1: he had any evidence that the president was not guilty,
Speaker 1: he would have let us know. But he didn't. He didn't,
Speaker 1: and I think that was very, very important. I am
Speaker 1: gravely disappointed in the Justice Department for their attitude of
Speaker 1: misrepresentation of the Muller report, to begin with, their hiding
Speaker 1: behind something that you could never find in the Constitution,
Speaker 1: that the president is above the law. That wait, they're
Speaker 1: hiding behind it, or Muller's hiding behind it. What Nancy
Speaker 1: Belosi's not making sense again? Folks, we all know what
Speaker 1: this is. We know what Mueller was trying to do.
Speaker 1: It couldn't be any more clear. It's a handoff, the
Speaker 1: impeachment handoff, passing the partisan baton two of the Democrats
Speaker 1: to try and finally get Trump. Couldn't get him legally,
Speaker 1: now they want to get him politically, although those two
Speaker 1: things were always inextricably linked all along the way. Dray
Speaker 1: Gudi was making the rounds today, he knows exactly what
Speaker 1: this is. He gets it Playliff twenty one. And what
Speaker 1: you're gonna have now for the next fourteen months is
Speaker 1: an impeachment investigation by folks who have already made up
Speaker 1: their mind. I mean, sixty of them wanted to impeach
Speaker 1: him before Mueller wrote a single syllable a report. The
Speaker 1: jury is never gonna convict him, so we're going to
Speaker 1: be in this state of chaos for the next fourteen months. Look,
Speaker 1: I don't think that there's a prosecutable case for obstruction.
Speaker 1: I don't know everything, but for what I've seen, firing
Speaker 1: Jim Comey is not obstruction of justice fourteen months according
Speaker 1: to you, try gallity, mean, who knows what the real
Speaker 1: timeline will be but it's all gonna be about impeachment.
Speaker 1: That's that's the game. And here's what I here's what
Speaker 1: I'll tell you. They're they're doing it, folks. Today is
Speaker 1: the day when we finally see and I've thought all along,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure if we went back in the show archives,
Speaker 1: we would find me at least a few times saying
Speaker 1: that they're they're going to impeach. The left is going
Speaker 1: to force them to impeach. The left will not have
Speaker 1: it any other way. This is the most hated president
Speaker 1: by the left since Ronald Reagan, and it's really much
Speaker 1: more hated even than Reagan was by progressives. We have
Speaker 1: reached a level of anti conservative, anti republic derangement that
Speaker 1: I can't think of any time and certainly in my lifetime,
Speaker 1: that there's been anything close to this. I don't know
Speaker 1: if there ever has. I can't speak for all of
Speaker 1: American history, but certainly worth thinking about. Impeachment's going to happen.
Speaker 1: They're going to impeach this president. It's going to happen.
Speaker 1: They can't control the left wing loons enough. They can't
Speaker 1: get this. They can't put this genie back in the bottle,
Speaker 1: so to speak. They can't put the horse back in
Speaker 1: the barn. They're going to impeach. And now I'll say
Speaker 1: this as well, there's been this be very careful in politics,
Speaker 1: these as about the conventional wisdom, because there has been
Speaker 1: this conventional wisdom out there for quite some time that
Speaker 1: Democrats would suffer, they would suffer politically if they impeach
Speaker 1: the president. Truth is, we don't know. We don't know,
Speaker 1: I would like to say to you, and I think
Speaker 1: it's it's certainly plausible that after a two year just
Speaker 1: complete disgrace of an investigation of the Russia collusion with
Speaker 1: a Trump campaign, after all that, I'd like to think
Speaker 1: that there'd be enough sane, reasonable Americans left who are
Speaker 1: the the persuadable or undecided voters in the next election,
Speaker 1: enough of them are saying where they realized that, you know,
Speaker 1: there was it didn't matter that Trump was innu and
Speaker 1: it never mattered to the Democrats. It was always just
Speaker 1: about destroying his presidency, and that they will that those
Speaker 1: voters will reject that and will punish Democrats for it.
Speaker 1: I'd like to think that that's the case. I'd like
Speaker 1: to believe that that will happen. But I don't know
Speaker 1: if it will. We don't know. No one knows. Everyone says, oh,
Speaker 1: look at look at Clinton, the MP. Yeah, Clinton had
Speaker 1: already you know, he'd already won a second term. You know,
Speaker 1: who knows how this one will play out? And every
Speaker 1: political situation, every moment in time, has its own, has
Speaker 1: its own nuances, has its own deciding factors at play.
Speaker 1: You know who knows where this will go. I mean,
Speaker 1: i'd like to believe that people will start to listen
Speaker 1: to Sarah Hugaby Sanders point of view on this one.
Speaker 1: Obviously she's a mouthpiece for the president. But play clip nineteen.
Speaker 1: He reiterated the points that he'd already made in the report,
Speaker 1: and we agree with him. There was no collusion, there
Speaker 1: was no conspiracy, and we consider this case closed. He
Speaker 1: completed his investigation. Now he's closed his office and it's
Speaker 1: time for everybody to move on. He's going back to
Speaker 1: his private life, and we think everybody else should too.
Speaker 1: It is case closed now, it's impeachment open. Case closed,
Speaker 1: impeachment open. That's what we're heading into. We're going to
Speaker 1: have a fierce election battle play out, and we are
Speaker 1: going to have a simultaneous to that and really as
Speaker 1: a part of that an impeachment battle. I'm convinced. I
Speaker 1: could be wrong, but I'm convinced this is happening now.
Speaker 1: I don't know how You've had all these different Democrat candidates,
Speaker 1: you know, Harris and Booker, and I mean, I can't
Speaker 1: even keep up with all the different ones who are
Speaker 1: saying that. You know, now, there's an obligation and ethical
Speaker 1: obligation to impeach the president of the United States. There
Speaker 1: will be great irony in and if in fact that
Speaker 1: impeachment helps Trump win reelection. I do think that that
Speaker 1: is possible, but I don't I don't sit here and
Speaker 1: pretend I'm in the prediction business. I'm in the pundit business,
Speaker 1: just talking about interesting stuff. Any predictions I make that
Speaker 1: are correct, will revisit. Any predictions I make that are wrong,
Speaker 1: we'll forget about. That's how we roll in the Freedom Hud.
Speaker 1: We have more on this and what is the truth
Speaker 1: of Biden some other top candidates. We'll get into that
Speaker 1: in a moment. Yeah, he's Uncle Joe. Everybody likes the
Speaker 1: fluffy uncle. But he luck Obama's friend. He's got the
Speaker 1: cool black friend, right, That's all it is. Joe has
Speaker 1: a terrible history in the black community, and everybody just
Speaker 1: loves him because he's the fluffy old guy. He has
Speaker 1: given us no policies. This African American voter who was
Speaker 1: talking about Joe Biden there at this MSNBC town hall,
Speaker 1: he gets it. I mean it's he almost sounds like
Speaker 1: he listens to the Block Sexton show. Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: a nothing burger. Joe Biden has in so many ways
Speaker 1: betrayed forget about whether you know you agree with progressive
Speaker 1: ideas or not, betrayed the left throughout his time. When
Speaker 1: it was popular, when it was good for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: to be tough on crime, he was mister mass incarceration.
Speaker 1: When it was good for Joe Biden to be, you know,
Speaker 1: wanting us to invade the country or not, whatever it was.
Speaker 1: If it was good for Joe Biden, that's what he
Speaker 1: was for. Quintessential politician, classic demagogue, pure demagogue. That's who
Speaker 1: this guy is. And I you know, with the within
Speaker 1: the black community, it is it is befuddling to me.
Speaker 1: I have I've spoken to two friends of mine and
Speaker 1: I've spoken to colleagues at the Hill who are Democrats
Speaker 1: and African American pundits and polsters and people who work
Speaker 1: in in politics and certainly have their have their finger
Speaker 1: on the pulse of the black community, especially in different
Speaker 1: states where they're running campaigns and such. And they're telling
Speaker 1: me that, well, they they like Biden because of Obama,
Speaker 1: And I just think, how is that? Why is that transferable?
Speaker 1: Anybody could have been Obama's vice president. It really didn't matter.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden didn't accomplish anything as vice president. That was
Speaker 1: no where they do I didn't do anything for the
Speaker 1: African American community. And you have two African American candidates
Speaker 1: in the mix, and you know, I just if I'm
Speaker 1: Corey Booker, I'm Kamala Harris. Look, the left is the
Speaker 1: is the side that is always telling us that identity
Speaker 1: matters and that you know they're but just think about
Speaker 1: what poor what's his name Swawell? Yeah, you know there
Speaker 1: are areas where I just don't think that I, you know,
Speaker 1: I really have an understanding because I just need to
Speaker 1: confront my whiteness and you know he has to do
Speaker 1: that whole maya culpa for his whiteness thing. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: but you have these candidates who are part of the
Speaker 1: African American community who are not getting the support that
Speaker 1: this old, super white dude Joe Biden is because of
Speaker 1: the connection to Obama. I just don't understand it. People
Speaker 1: say that it's because they think Biden is electable, and
Speaker 1: I guess this, this is the answer. I'm told frequently
Speaker 1: that because Biden is the most electable, he therefore is
Speaker 1: the has the best chance of protecting what is consider
Speaker 1: or to be important policy issues to the black community.
Speaker 1: But to this, I just say, well, he's electable because
Speaker 1: they say he's electable, meaning that if you had fewer
Speaker 1: people in the African American community and fewer in the
Speaker 1: Democrat primary in general across the board who were supportive
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden, he wouldn't be electable. Right. It's a
Speaker 1: self fulfilling prophecy this guy is. I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: part of me maybe I should stop with this. Although
Speaker 1: I know I'm not talking to that many Democrats here
Speaker 1: on the show. Most of you are on the right,
Speaker 1: and you are right thinking, Thank heavens. Although Democrats that
Speaker 1: listen to the show welcome you have an open mind
Speaker 1: and you'd like to listen to smart stuff and learn
Speaker 1: cool things. So good for you, give you credit. And
Speaker 1: I do want I want more Democrats listen to the show.
Speaker 1: I want people to convert to my way of thinking.
Speaker 1: I believe truly in what I say here on the show,
Speaker 1: day in and day out. I want people to agree
Speaker 1: with me. I want to persuade them. I'm not just
Speaker 1: here to bash the left. I want the left to
Speaker 1: know why I think much of what they do is
Speaker 1: worthy of bashing. And let me know, the door is
Speaker 1: always open to our side. They're always welcome to come.
Speaker 1: You know, the water's warm here, and Conservatism please jump in.
Speaker 1: But the Biden phenomenon, to me, is just indicative of
Speaker 1: a party that has kind of lost its way. And
Speaker 1: perhaps it's so steeped in Trump hatreot at this point
Speaker 1: that there's a sense of just grasping to what was
Speaker 1: known in the past, in the pre Trump hatred era
Speaker 1: of the Obama years. But Biden is not an impressive guy,
Speaker 1: not somebody that I think is going to be a
Speaker 1: particularly strong candidate, which is what I was going to
Speaker 1: say before. And I don't want I don't want to
Speaker 1: give the other side too much advice here, but I
Speaker 1: do not think that putting Biden forward it's going to
Speaker 1: be something that works for them the way they think
Speaker 1: it's meaning Democrats the way they think it's going to work.
Speaker 1: But then again, Booker and Harris, you know, they're desperate,
Speaker 1: not not just to shore up their support of the
Speaker 1: African American community, but with primary voters in general. Booker
Speaker 1: just always seems kind of phony to me. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't. I think that he lacks in an era
Speaker 1: of where there's a kind of craving for well I
Speaker 1: was gonna say political authenticity, but is Joe Biden authentic?
Speaker 1: I certainly don't think so. But at a time when
Speaker 1: if you're considered a kind of if people think of
Speaker 1: you as a phony, whether you are a phony or not,
Speaker 1: I think you're in a really tough spot trying to
Speaker 1: win elections, especially at the national level. I think that
Speaker 1: Booker just there's something about him but doesn't really connect.
Speaker 1: And and same with with Kamala Harris. There there's a
Speaker 1: lack of political skills, a lack of that X factor,
Speaker 1: that that charisma that's necessary to garner enough support. And
Speaker 1: I'm talking about from their own their own side, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about from people who are supportive of their
Speaker 1: ideas in their ideology, but they're now jumping on the
Speaker 1: impeachment bandwagon, which we knew was going to happen. And
Speaker 1: this is an effort now to try to differentiate from
Speaker 1: the rest of the pack. Although after today it's not
Speaker 1: surprising you have more people than ever, more Democrats than ever,
Speaker 1: talking impeachment. Here's Kamala Harris saying where she stands on
Speaker 1: this issue. Play for on the issue of impeachment. Let's
Speaker 1: be clear, you know I've read them all. Report there
Speaker 1: are at least ten separate incidents of obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: but there is no question that the evidence supports a
Speaker 1: prosecution of that case. I believe that there needs to
Speaker 1: be transparency, There needs to be accountability. There is a
Speaker 1: clear track record of this president and members of his
Speaker 1: administration obstructing justice. Not to mention what we have seen
Speaker 1: from the current Attorney General of the United States, who
Speaker 1: I questioned in the connection with the Judiciary Committee, who
Speaker 1: clearly thinks his job is to rep present the president
Speaker 1: and his peculiar interest as opposed to representing the people
Speaker 1: of the country in which we live. So there is
Speaker 1: a lot of work to do and I plan on
Speaker 1: seeing it through. So Kamala Harris want to ask you,
Speaker 1: since you won't appear on this show, at least ten
Speaker 1: instances of obstruction of justice, So you charge all ten.
Speaker 1: This is not just This is not an idle, idle question.
Speaker 1: This matters which one. It's often the case, and she
Speaker 1: would know this because she's a former prosecutor. In fact,
Speaker 1: was a pretty rough one from what I understand, would
Speaker 1: like to like to lock people up during her time
Speaker 1: in San Francisco. You usually go with the charge that
Speaker 1: is the most readily provable, and you offer that, We
Speaker 1: say we're going to bring the indictment on this one,
Speaker 1: and then you see if you can get a plea
Speaker 1: deal right, and if they won't, then you can always
Speaker 1: add in a superseding a night, but additional charges, which
Speaker 1: which is the of the ten, which is the act
Speaker 1: of obstruction that is the most clear, the most egregious,
Speaker 1: the most provable. They'll they'll never tell us. They never
Speaker 1: settle on one. You know why that is because if
Speaker 1: they picked one and they focused in on that, what
Speaker 1: they would risk is that we'd be able to say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, that's not obstruction, that's not a
Speaker 1: strong case. And if that is your strongest instance of obstruction,
Speaker 1: and it is not able to persuade it is it
Speaker 1: is not really strong at all. What does that say
Speaker 1: about the other so called instances of obstruction? So they
Speaker 1: want to keep it broad, They want this this vagueness
Speaker 1: of the general concept of obstruction or oh, this is
Speaker 1: like what they say with Trump's lives, they do the
Speaker 1: same thing. Trump has lied ten thousand times. Okay, what's
Speaker 1: the really bad Trump lie? Try this with a liberals
Speaker 1: sometime ask them this, what's the thing that Trump lied
Speaker 1: about that that really mattered to you? And that was
Speaker 1: just you know, it was just too much. You'll get nothing.
Speaker 1: That what his crowd size was the biggest ever his inauguration?
Speaker 1: I mean, are we adults? Are we having a serious conversation?
Speaker 1: Who the heck cares about that? What's the lie along
Speaker 1: the lines of if you like your healthcare plan, you
Speaker 1: can keep it? You know, what is the lie that
Speaker 1: was told willfully and deliberately. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: Trump hasn't lied about different things. I'm just saying, notice
Speaker 1: how they'll tell you is the worst lie or ever?
Speaker 1: But they said, and he's lied so many times. But
Speaker 1: then you say, well, what's the really bad lie. Well,
Speaker 1: then they just want to go back to ten thousand lies.
Speaker 1: Look at what the Washington Post says, thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands of lives. When you dig into those lies,
Speaker 1: I would note you see that some of them an't
Speaker 1: lies at all, and the Washington Post isn't so stupidest
Speaker 1: to not know that. But they're just trying to pad things.
Speaker 1: They're trying to, you know, to boost up the numbers
Speaker 1: quite a bit. It's it's it's ridiculous and it's wrong.
Speaker 1: But Kamala Harris's thing here about how she's there. There
Speaker 1: are ten ten different instances that they could charge un obstruction.
Speaker 1: Give me one, miss Harris, give me your Senator Harris,
Speaker 1: give me one. And let's pull that one apart. Let's
Speaker 1: see what you got. What's the best shot you can
Speaker 1: take for obstruction at this president? They never tell you.
Speaker 1: And then to throw the attorney general in there too,
Speaker 1: ag Barr. That's just pandering, that's all that is. That
Speaker 1: is just straight up pandering. And she knows it. Oh
Speaker 1: you know, ag Bar doing that is she's saying he's
Speaker 1: a criminal. Should an attorney general Bar go to prison?
Speaker 1: Remember what attorney general bar send to Nancy Pelosi, did
Speaker 1: you bring your handcuffs? Because these people are a joke.
Speaker 1: These democrats are a joke, and it's time that they
Speaker 1: be treated as such. They don't need to show them
Speaker 1: all this deference in respect, Oh, Nancy Pelosi, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is a clown. A clown, although unfortunately they're
Speaker 1: doing real damage to the country in this whole process
Speaker 1: and undermining these so called sacred institutions they pretend so
Speaker 1: much to care about when it benefits them politically in
Speaker 1: the short term. So, team, I've got a little announcement
Speaker 1: to make for all of you. Um you're getting advance
Speaker 1: you're getting advanced word about this. But just in case
Speaker 1: you happen to be among those who have have enjoyed
Speaker 1: my time trying to have a respectful conversation with the
Speaker 1: other side on Hill TV. Next week is going to
Speaker 1: be my last week on Hill TV. I am going
Speaker 1: to be pursuing other projects as in focusing on this
Speaker 1: show and focusing on podcasts and some of the some
Speaker 1: of the things that many of you have been asking about.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be leaving on very good terms, and
Speaker 1: I thank the management at the Hill for the opportunity
Speaker 1: and the the investment in me. And it's been a
Speaker 1: very interesting year and a lot of growth. But last week,
Speaker 1: or rather next week, is gonna be my last week
Speaker 1: at Hill TV. So Crystal and I are going to
Speaker 1: be sitting next to each other for about six more shows,
Speaker 1: and that's going to be all she wrote on that one.
Speaker 1: And look, I I have nothing but but fondness for
Speaker 1: my my co host and I you know that's and
Speaker 1: as you know, I will do not criticize my friends,
Speaker 1: and she is certainly a friend. I will say it
Speaker 1: is very challenging to do a left right show in
Speaker 1: the current environment. I mean, how do you have a
Speaker 1: how do you have a civilized and fair minded and
Speaker 1: worthwhile conversation about is the president a traitor? For example,
Speaker 1: which is a topic that the media forces us to
Speaker 1: cover because that's an allegation that Democrats will make and
Speaker 1: have made many times against the president. You know, how
Speaker 1: do you have a civil conversation about is Donald Trump insane?
Speaker 1: You know, legally mentally incompetent, not not able to medically
Speaker 1: speaking hold the job of how do you have a
Speaker 1: real conversation with someone about that, with anyone about that.
Speaker 1: So I'm excited to have the the license going forward,
Speaker 1: and this is going to be the way I conduct
Speaker 1: my All of this was an experiment to try to
Speaker 1: have the all right, let's have a conversation that Now
Speaker 1: I'm just going to have the buck conversation, as in,
Speaker 1: this is what I think about all of the things.
Speaker 1: Here's the people need to know, and if they want
Speaker 1: to have an exchange of ideas with me, that's fine.
Speaker 1: But I reserve the right to say that the other
Speaker 1: side's ideas are stupid, including to anyone's face, and anyone
Speaker 1: who does not want to have that conversation with me
Speaker 1: after I'm done at the hill should not talk to
Speaker 1: me from the other side. Doesn't mean I'll always say that,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean I'm not willing to have a civil conversation,
Speaker 1: just means I reserve the right to be able to
Speaker 1: say that is some dumbass stuff. So that will be
Speaker 1: a bit of a change for me. Obviously, here on
Speaker 1: radio I can say whatever I want, which is great
Speaker 1: and always have and always will. But going forward, I
Speaker 1: will not commit I told you this at the Hill,
Speaker 1: I committed to trying to have a both sides of
Speaker 1: the aisle conversation. It was challenging. I learned a lot.
Speaker 1: I am not doing that again. That's that's not that's
Speaker 1: not in my future, folks, that's not happening. So I
Speaker 1: can tell you if that, if that explained, feel about it, well,
Speaker 1: then there we go. But I did get the chance
Speaker 1: because of what I've done over the last year or
Speaker 1: some of my my favorite stuff that I've been able
Speaker 1: to do has involved speaking to particularly are some of
Speaker 1: the left wing guests that I've I've had some spirited
Speaker 1: exchanges with a You know, today I wasn't really in
Speaker 1: a I'll just tell you, tell you what's really going
Speaker 1: on here. I didn't get much sleep last night, so
Speaker 1: I wasn't full of full of zest and energy this morning.
Speaker 1: But we had on a I think either national spokesperson
Speaker 1: or a present or something, a very senior person from
Speaker 1: the National Organization of Women Now. Her name is Tony
Speaker 1: Van Pelt, and she came on the show and she
Speaker 1: would never look. People ask me sometimes, Buck, why woudn't
Speaker 1: you have on more liberals on your radio show. They
Speaker 1: won't come on here. They'll get they know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen, especially if they want to have a productive
Speaker 1: conversation and respectful conversation. That's fine, but they don't. They
Speaker 1: want to go into talking points and they want to
Speaker 1: you know, they want to engage in the kind of
Speaker 1: intellectual laziness and emotional blackmail that are central to left
Speaker 1: wing argument. That's that's what you get on so many
Speaker 1: of these different issues. So they won't wait, they won't
Speaker 1: do it, and I won't waste my time with them,
Speaker 1: even if they would do it in most cases, not
Speaker 1: in all cases. But Miss van Pelt was talking about
Speaker 1: these recent decisions from a Supreme Court involving the abortion
Speaker 1: law in Indiana, and I just want you to note
Speaker 1: I'm being very calm because she knows. You know, it's
Speaker 1: like when the head of Planned Parenthood who recently got
Speaker 1: four pinocchios for being a liar and lying. This is
Speaker 1: the head of Planned Parenthood, I can't remember her name now,
Speaker 1: doctor something or other. She said that thousands of women
Speaker 1: die front used to die from abortions. That's not true.
Speaker 1: That's just a lie that the abortion lobby you keeps
Speaker 1: saying a thousands of women a year used to dict
Speaker 1: from abortions. It's not true at all. They believe it
Speaker 1: might have been like a dozen a year something like that,
Speaker 1: but they say a thousand women a year. That's that's
Speaker 1: not accurate. She lied, but they had identified me. And
Speaker 1: this is a frustration that I had at the Hill
Speaker 1: because much of much of the Hill TV staff were
Speaker 1: very liberal and I am not liberal, so as you know,
Speaker 1: so there was always a little bit of a little
Speaker 1: bit of a disconnect in this regard. But they were
Speaker 1: informed that I was considered an enemy of choice by
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood, which is a something that I wear as
Speaker 1: a badge of honor. And I should probably get a
Speaker 1: T shirt that says enemy of choice, although it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be clear to everybody what choice I'm an enemy of.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Tony van Pelt knows that I'm not. I'm
Speaker 1: not on her team, so she sits down and launches right.
Speaker 1: And this is from the National Organization from Women, far
Speaker 1: left group. All you know, think of a progressive women's issue,
Speaker 1: and they're all all over it. And here's how some
Speaker 1: of the conversation went. Apologies for me not having more
Speaker 1: energy play clip thirteen. I'm very sad by this, and
Speaker 1: I'm of course upset, and many women in the country
Speaker 1: are very angry by the fact that these men have
Speaker 1: made this decision about their bodily integrity when it's really
Speaker 1: none of their business. Well, wasn't just men who weighed
Speaker 1: in on this. It was a seven two decision, and
Speaker 1: a couple of liberals actually went along with it. So, well,
Speaker 1: why you're saying just men because it is driven by men,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm uncertain as to what you're talking about. It
Speaker 1: is an undue burden on women. Kagan joined the majority
Speaker 1: when simmy say, man, I mean my understanding is that
Speaker 1: Kagan joined the majority here. She's obviously a woman. Thanks
Speaker 1: for bringing up that. Yeah, thank you for bringing up
Speaker 1: that point. Yeah, it wasn't just men. A woman went
Speaker 1: with the majority here, saying that, yeah, they can dispose
Speaker 1: the state can say that you have to dispose of
Speaker 1: this as you would human remains, because that's what it is,
Speaker 1: human remains. It's a human being. But but notice that
Speaker 1: that you know that this sort of snide. Yeah, what
Speaker 1: she said was stupid, and I just I didn't call
Speaker 1: it stupid. I just made it obvious that it's stupid
Speaker 1: by saying that. You know, you're saying that men made
Speaker 1: this decision. But it wasn't just men. A woman made
Speaker 1: this decision too, and two liberals went along with the
Speaker 1: conservatives in the court here, So why go with the
Speaker 1: why go with the nonsense talking point? But let's let's
Speaker 1: dig a little deeper into the nonsense talking points of
Speaker 1: your play fourteen. Why should the gender of the justice
Speaker 1: matter in these cases? Why should the gender of the
Speaker 1: justice in this particular case. We're talking about particular men
Speaker 1: that hold these views, and that's why it would matter.
Speaker 1: What about the fact that in Roe v. Wade all
Speaker 1: of the majority were men, and does that then affect
Speaker 1: their ability to weigh in an impartial, in fairment or
Speaker 1: your mind? They're not here, and we're not talking about
Speaker 1: that now. We're talking about to establish a principle as
Speaker 1: to why it is that the or the justice should matter.
Speaker 1: I really don't see that as an important to this discussion,
Speaker 1: because what we're talking about is women here. We're not
Speaker 1: talking about men, except in the way that men try
Speaker 1: to control women. And that's why respect for. The first
Speaker 1: thing you said when you sat down is this is
Speaker 1: a decision by a bunch of men, and so thinks right, okay,
Speaker 1: And I just said that it is men who are
Speaker 1: trying to control women that's why it's so important that
Speaker 1: we put more women onto the state legislatures. Now, notice
Speaker 1: how she spits out there. You know, men are the
Speaker 1: ones pushing this decision, as if they're allowed to push
Speaker 1: decisions about women's bodies, and all I'm all I say
Speaker 1: to her, this is very straightforward. I mean, she's obviously
Speaker 1: a truly brainwashed left wing pro abortion automaton. All I
Speaker 1: say to her is, Okay, well, Roe v. Wade was
Speaker 1: all men, all of the majority, and Roevwade men. Does
Speaker 1: that mean that, you know, when men do what you
Speaker 1: want them to do, they have full agency, full license
Speaker 1: on the court to weigh on women's bodies and what
Speaker 1: they can and can't you. But when they don't do it,
Speaker 1: they're men, they're not allowed to. I think she's just
Speaker 1: not clever enough to understand what I was trying to
Speaker 1: explain to her. It's not it's actually not complicated. This
Speaker 1: is producer Mica. Is she the president of the National
Speaker 1: Organization for Women? I think she's something either that or
Speaker 1: the or the national spokesperson for it is. Yeah, she's
Speaker 1: the president, the president of the National Organization for Women, folks.
Speaker 1: Not impressive, not smart. Let's just say it not somebody
Speaker 1: who wonders. And I think that it's it's not that
Speaker 1: she's a dumb person, per se. It's her arguments are dumb.
Speaker 1: Her understanding of the issue is dumbed down because it
Speaker 1: has to be, because otherwise it falls into contradiction. That's
Speaker 1: why she's a little brainwashed soldier of sorts for her
Speaker 1: side who is told to just go and and attack
Speaker 1: the other side. And she's not told why, or how
Speaker 1: or anything else. He just knows that this is for women,
Speaker 1: an abortion is a right and doesn't think on that.
Speaker 1: And then I just asked, we're just one more question,
Speaker 1: just to give you a sense of what the others saw,
Speaker 1: what the Democrats really want here. This is what I
Speaker 1: asked the president of the National Organization for Woman play fifteen.
Speaker 1: Should abortions be directly subsidized by taxpayers? I think that
Speaker 1: all healthcare should not be subsidized. That is a universal
Speaker 1: right for people. That's my personal So the tax dollars
Speaker 1: should go toward abortions, which you believe is part of
Speaker 1: health all healthcare, birth control, sex education, abortion, classic abortion
Speaker 1: lobby maneuver. There, you'll notice what I asked her is
Speaker 1: a very straightforward yes or no question. Should tax dollars
Speaker 1: go toward abortion? She says, you know, well, all healthcare
Speaker 1: is a yeah. Yeah, So is that a yes or no? Well,
Speaker 1: let's talk about all this other this is what this
Speaker 1: is what planned parenthood does. Oh, we're all about mamograms
Speaker 1: and giving out birth control and also abortion. Why do
Speaker 1: you have to always talk about the other stuff. Why
Speaker 1: can't if abortion is fine, why don't you just talk
Speaker 1: about abortion. They can't argue on the merits, they can't
Speaker 1: have a real discussion about this because they're wrong. You
Speaker 1: should know that. You should remember that. And when the
Speaker 1: National Organization for Women is releasing these statements and all
Speaker 1: this left wing claptrap that they're constantly pumping out there,
Speaker 1: just remember that I was able to with very I
Speaker 1: wasn't yelling, I wasn't raising my voice. Just ask a
Speaker 1: few questions and not just poke holes, but really just
Speaker 1: eviscerate this woman's position that men have no right to
Speaker 1: say what goes on when it comes to abortion. No, actually,
Speaker 1: this is about life and the protection of life. This
Speaker 1: is an a gender issue. That's what the left doesn't understand,
Speaker 1: and that's what the left cannot accept because once we
Speaker 1: frame this as an issue of protecting and defending life,
Speaker 1: then their position becomes untenable, which is also why they
Speaker 1: don't want the fetal remains to be treated as what
Speaker 1: they are, which are the remains of small human beings.
Speaker 1: But national organization from women, zero buck and righteousness and
Speaker 1: the good guys one, we'll be right back. Massoura's last
Speaker 1: abortion clinic could be shut down this Friday. To the
Speaker 1: governor there, Mike Parsons his name, signed a bill into
Speaker 1: law banning abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy. The Saint
Speaker 1: Louis clinic closes, Missouri will become the first state effectively
Speaker 1: to end all legal abortion service since Roe versus Wage.
Speaker 1: Forcing women to wait seventy two hours even having unnecessary
Speaker 1: invasive pelvic exams isn't that dangerous. It's bad for healthcare.
Speaker 1: It's also traumatizing for women, especially women who have suffered
Speaker 1: sexual fault and rape. But now the state is threatening
Speaker 1: to prosecute our doctors. Plant parenthood is more than just abortions.
Speaker 1: I think people need to understand that too. Yes, safe
Speaker 1: legal abortion care, because that's what it is. It's healthcare donations.
Speaker 1: They are going up, true, they are, and I hope
Speaker 1: that people will keep on supporting Plant Parenthood and other
Speaker 1: organizations that provide essential houses. Okay, it's not a drill.
Speaker 1: Listen to all that Planned Parenthood propagain, and not just
Speaker 1: from Lena Wynn, who have now remember her name is
Speaker 1: the president of Planned Parenthood, a ghoulish organization, but all
Speaker 1: the different media outlets there. Oh, the media is on
Speaker 1: the issue of abortion. The media is as far left
Speaker 1: as they are on anything. In fact, I think that
Speaker 1: the media apparatus is reflective of the most extreme, and
Speaker 1: it is it is mainstream in journalism to be extreme
Speaker 1: on the issue of abortion. But now, notice how the
Speaker 1: there's this difference between the way they'll talk about different
Speaker 1: rights constitutional right to bear arms, for example. Oh, but
Speaker 1: that there there can be you know, they want waiting periods,
Speaker 1: background checks upon background checks, limitations on magazine size, limitations
Speaker 1: on type of weapon, limitations on transfer a weapon, limited
Speaker 1: you know, all these you know, fill out paperwork, mental
Speaker 1: health screening for it, all this stuff for what is
Speaker 1: legitimately a constitutionally protected right, the right to bear arms.
Speaker 1: But then when they talk about what the completely phony
Speaker 1: and fake constitutional right to an abortion, it's oh, women
Speaker 1: might have to wait a day or two for their abortion.
Speaker 1: They might have to have a pelvic exam. You can
Speaker 1: tell from the way the president of Plan PARTI talks
Speaker 1: about it. They want people to get They want people
Speaker 1: in getting an abortion like they're being like they're being
Speaker 1: handed a lollipop. I mean, it's just you know, you
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on, or you're in and out.
Speaker 1: No one knows, no one talks, no one sees, just book. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, what about can we can we even talk
Speaker 1: about the cleanliness of the facilities? Oh no, no, they
Speaker 1: can't be. You don't need admitting privileges for a hospital,
Speaker 1: for the doctors or anything. It needs to no no limitations,
Speaker 1: no restrictions, nothing. They just want it to be fast, quick,
Speaker 1: taxpayer funded. They want it mechanized. They want it to
Speaker 1: be like a machine. And that is in fact what's
Speaker 1: going on here, the mechanized murder of small children. All right,
Speaker 1: I will change it up here from one. I don't
Speaker 1: want to go too too much on this, but I
Speaker 1: did think the conversation with the president of the National
Speaker 1: Organization from Women today was worth your time. Um AOC,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk in a few minutes about a organization
Speaker 1: that I don't know if it's real or not, but
Speaker 1: it seems to be real and it's a left wing thing.
Speaker 1: AOC addressed the cow fart controversy earlier this week. That's right,
Speaker 1: cow farts. It's a thing. And I just want let
Speaker 1: you know that she's kind of doubled down on the
Speaker 1: cow fart issue. Play clip one. We need to innovate
Speaker 1: on our technology, you know, obviously, like I had a stafford,
Speaker 1: you know, police a document to talk about cow flachelence.
Speaker 1: But which is an issue. I just want to say,
Speaker 1: you're so ridiculous, but it literally is. But it but
Speaker 1: actually is an issue when it comes to contributing to methane.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean you end cows. It means that
Speaker 1: we need What it means is that we need to
Speaker 1: innovate and change our grain, our cow grain from which
Speaker 1: you know they feed in these troughs, that we need
Speaker 1: to really take a look at regenerative agriculture, like these
Speaker 1: are our solutions. What the heck is she talking about?
Speaker 1: I mean, she doesn't know, so it's fair to ask.
Speaker 1: She doesn't know what she's talking about, So should we
Speaker 1: really know what she's talking about? I think that's probably
Speaker 1: asking too much, but we're gonna change the grain we
Speaker 1: feed the cows so they have less methane in the farts.
Speaker 1: This is the the vanguard of the Democratic Party, the
Speaker 1: ideological front line of the left, AOC, my friends, somebody
Speaker 1: who thinks that the answer to any difficult questions we
Speaker 1: just need to innovate. Let's just like innovate, We'll innovate
Speaker 1: the farts away from the cows. White women, you are
Speaker 1: coming to the table to bear witness to our pain.
Speaker 1: This is the headline. This is the main wording that
Speaker 1: you see on this website for something that i'm I
Speaker 1: will say this right up front. I did not think
Speaker 1: at first that this is that this was real. My
Speaker 1: assumption is still that it is is possible that this
Speaker 1: is some kind of hoax. But I'm not able to
Speaker 1: say that it's a hoax because so far it seems
Speaker 1: like this is a real thing. So if it turns
Speaker 1: out that this is a high concept hoax, I would
Speaker 1: just say to you, all, well, how can you know?
Speaker 1: But it is a website that is up right now,
Speaker 1: and well I'll have to explain to you what this is,
Speaker 1: and you can tell me what you think it's called
Speaker 1: race to Dinner. And here's their mission statement. Our mission
Speaker 1: statement is simple, reveal the naked truth about racism in
Speaker 1: America and your complicity as white women. This isn't the
Speaker 1: stuff of Trump, the KKK, and Nazis. That's easy, it's obvious,
Speaker 1: and denouncing it requires almost nothing of white folks. What's
Speaker 1: hard looking at yourself in the mirror and acknowledging that,
Speaker 1: as a white person in America you are an active
Speaker 1: participant in upholding white supremacy. This isn't personal. This doesn't
Speaker 1: make you bad. This is systemic, and this makes you
Speaker 1: human who is part of that system. As black and
Speaker 1: brown women, we too are humans who are part of
Speaker 1: the system. Only we are on the other side. We
Speaker 1: are on the receiving end of white supremacy, while you
Speaker 1: are on the giving end. Until and unless white folks
Speaker 1: are willing to bear witness to the pain they've caused,
Speaker 1: we will never see change. The system of oppression will
Speaker 1: remain safely in place until white people, all white people,
Speaker 1: are willing to acknowledge their complicity. This. I think this
Speaker 1: is a look. It's not written in a way that
Speaker 1: it's clear that it's supposed to be a kind of satire.
Speaker 1: I think this is real. I think this is really
Speaker 1: have a donation page, they have contact information. You know,
Speaker 1: this was making the rounds on on social media today
Speaker 1: and it's hard to know. And with the left. This
Speaker 1: reminds me of how within Okazio Cortez quote, I find
Speaker 1: myself saying, there's no way Okazio Cortez said something that stupid,
Speaker 1: and oh no, it turns out she did. So with this,
Speaker 1: this is as bizarre. This is so bizarre that there's
Speaker 1: a part of me that insists that that refuses to
Speaker 1: believe this is real. But the way it's written is
Speaker 1: very much in line with social justice rhetoric and mainstream
Speaker 1: thinking on the left. Is this has now become mainstream.
Speaker 1: The idea that white supremacy, which used to be reserved
Speaker 1: as a description for neo Nazis with swastika tattoos, shaved
Speaker 1: heads and you know, big boots on right, that that
Speaker 1: used to be what you thought of as white supremacy.
Speaker 1: Now white supremacy is the lack of minority PhDs and
Speaker 1: the top math programs in the country or something. I
Speaker 1: mean that that's now considered white supremacy, which is a
Speaker 1: dramatic downgrading of that of that definition and to expand
Speaker 1: it into a whole lot more stuff. And this, uh,
Speaker 1: this concept that's being forwarded here that the systemic injustice
Speaker 1: in our society is just a form of pervasive white
Speaker 1: supremacy that all white people are complicit in. This creates
Speaker 1: a dynamic, a power dynamic that is meant to force
Speaker 1: people to adopt certain political positions and posts, in this
Speaker 1: case white people, for the benefit the political benefit and
Speaker 1: power of non white people in America who are a
Speaker 1: part of this left wing identity politics movement. That's what
Speaker 1: this is and that's where you get this race to
Speaker 1: Dinner's idea Again. Here's what it says about it. Quote,
Speaker 1: white women, we are talking about you. We are talking
Speaker 1: about your complicity and upholding white supremacy and keeping us
Speaker 1: brown and black women down. You are an integral part
Speaker 1: of this system. Our goal is to dig out the
Speaker 1: tumor called white privilege, power control and reveal it for
Speaker 1: what it is. Making white women comfortable isn't our goal.
Speaker 1: Our goal is to be seen, to be heard, and
Speaker 1: to have you white women bare witness to our pain,
Speaker 1: pain you have caused. Ready, and this is the idea
Speaker 1: here folks, is that there will be a dinner, a
Speaker 1: dinner where white women attend with minority women present. Look again,
Speaker 1: if this is a hoax, I'm sorry that I'm in
Speaker 1: a way maybe I'm falling for it, but it seems
Speaker 1: believable enough to me. It's a real site. It is
Speaker 1: getting shared around. You know, how can and this this
Speaker 1: is even if it is fake, Even if this is
Speaker 1: meant to be some kind of satire, it is exposing
Speaker 1: or or it is elevating what is what is mainstream
Speaker 1: thinking on the progressive left? How can you host a dinner?
Speaker 1: They ask on this site. Please consider why you want
Speaker 1: to join the dinner with Regina and Sarah um. If
Speaker 1: it's to learn, or to feel better, or to be
Speaker 1: a good ally, reconsider this dinner is not for you
Speaker 1: or about you. The dinner will be painful, uncomfortable, maddening,
Speaker 1: and upsetting, but what you'll experience listening to our stories
Speaker 1: doesn't come close to the pain of living as a
Speaker 1: brown or black woman in America? Are you truly ready
Speaker 1: to join us? Step two? Plan your race to dinner.
Speaker 1: Now you think you're ready to bear witness to our pain,
Speaker 1: Let's get started. The next step is to contact. Jessica
Speaker 1: mageris our program director and she will help you get going.
Speaker 1: Click here to smash your white fragility. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think this is I don't know is real or fake.
Speaker 1: It seems real enough to me. It seems like this
Speaker 1: could be. You know, I'm doing the basic Google searches
Speaker 1: on this to see if people are calling this, uh,
Speaker 1: you know A no, I don't. I don't think that
Speaker 1: this is. This is nuts that you have to bear
Speaker 1: witness to the pain of black and brown women as
Speaker 1: as part of this. I mean, people are writing about this.
Speaker 1: I see the let me see this is Jesse's single
Speaker 1: who's a writer for New York Magazine. He says that
Speaker 1: this service allows white women to hire women of color
Speaker 1: to come to dinner, so the white women can bear
Speaker 1: witness to our pain, the pain that the women who
Speaker 1: invited the white women of the women of color to
Speaker 1: dinner have caused. Race to dinner nicely sums up contemporary
Speaker 1: upscale progressivism. So this is a New York Magazine guy
Speaker 1: who's treating this as real, and maybe I guess this
Speaker 1: is real. And when I think about what I was
Speaker 1: subjected to even in college with some of the diversity
Speaker 1: training that we had where they would bring in these professional,
Speaker 1: paid speakers who would essentially come in and tell all
Speaker 1: the white people in the room. And I was one
Speaker 1: of them. So I remember that you are not doing
Speaker 1: enough to combat racism, that you are part of an
Speaker 1: unjust system, that you have not earned as much as
Speaker 1: you think you have earned, that you have oppressed more
Speaker 1: than you think you have oppressed, and that you have
Speaker 1: to make amends. And if you disagree or you don't
Speaker 1: make amends, it's because you have not confronted the reality
Speaker 1: of your white privilege. This is a victimology mindset that
Speaker 1: quickly lends itself to a kind of a kind of authoritarianism.
Speaker 1: You know, do what I say, or else you have
Speaker 1: not fully understood and embrace the privilege that you have.
Speaker 1: It's essentially claiming that somebody else has caused an offense
Speaker 1: for which they must make amends, and if they're unwilling
Speaker 1: to make amends, they're even causing even greater offense. See,
Speaker 1: so it's a it's a cycle. There's no way out
Speaker 1: of this. You either admit and agree and repent for
Speaker 1: your whiteness, or else you are doubling down on the
Speaker 1: sins of your whiteness. This is a an emotional blackmail
Speaker 1: system that is put in place specific to advance progressive ideology,
Speaker 1: and it's now widespread. This is what you have on
Speaker 1: college cabs, is this is what you have in media,
Speaker 1: This is what you have now increasingly in a lot
Speaker 1: of government programs, in government hiring. You know, in confront
Speaker 1: your white privilege. Now, how about I'm not confronting anything.
Speaker 1: I confront what I do in life. I'm responsible. I
Speaker 1: have the the moral culpability for those actions and decisions
Speaker 1: that I am responsible for. And that is it. Group
Speaker 1: or collective responsibility is the elimination of the moral foundation
Speaker 1: of Western society. And that's why identity politics is toxic.
Speaker 1: It is toxic waste seeping into the ground. And unless
Speaker 1: we confront that, it's only going to get worse. Hey,
Speaker 1: what's going on across the ocean with the European friends,
Speaker 1: what's the latest with Brexit and all the back and
Speaker 1: forth over the future of the EU. We got our
Speaker 1: special freedom Hut EU correspondent with US now better known
Speaker 1: as the editor in chief of Human Events, the global
Speaker 1: editor in chief in fact, mister Rahim Kasam, also Generalman
Speaker 1: about Town ascot aficionado and guest host here of the
Speaker 1: Buck Saxon Show. Right, he and great to have you. Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me again. But all right, man, So
Speaker 1: what's going on? What's going on with brexite You're all
Speaker 1: over the place. Boris Johnson's in the headlines, Theresa May,
Speaker 1: things are going on. Tell us why we care it's
Speaker 1: all going on. Then I'll tell you exactly why you care.
Speaker 1: So the European barment elections that happened last week is
Speaker 1: somewhat of a harbinger for what can be expected, I
Speaker 1: think in a twenty twenty election cycle in the United States.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you exactly why. Last week we saw
Speaker 1: a repudiation once again in a massive way of the
Speaker 1: political center, the elites, the the end of history, Francisco
Speaker 1: Guayama types who had decided that neoliberalism opened blowers. All
Speaker 1: of that stuff was just garegur and that's how things
Speaker 1: were from now on. Well, the Greens on the far
Speaker 1: left picked up a load of votes from the center left,
Speaker 1: and on the hard right in Europe you had Marine
Speaker 1: La penn and Salvini and the Brexit Party all stealing
Speaker 1: votes away from the center right. So You've got this
Speaker 1: now polarization in European politics, and I think that's exactly
Speaker 1: what's happening here in the United States as well. When
Speaker 1: you look at who you know whose ideas are rising
Speaker 1: to the surface, it's the hard left, the Sanders and
Speaker 1: the Cassio Cortez. And on the other side it's it's Trump.
Speaker 1: The era of Bill Crystal and Hillary Clinton and all
Speaker 1: these guys is for the time being over, and that's
Speaker 1: why it's so important for Britain. For Brexit, well, it
Speaker 1: was quite an extraordinary scenario really. You had Nigel Farage
Speaker 1: coming out of retirement, set a whole new political party.
Speaker 1: He didn't go back to the UK Dependence Party, which
Speaker 1: is a previous vehicle, set up a whole new party
Speaker 1: called the Brexit Party. New candidates, new logo, new infrastructure,
Speaker 1: knew everything. And that was just six weeks ago, and
Speaker 1: he won a major national election just six weeks later. Firstly,
Speaker 1: absolutely unheard of in British political history. Secondly, the second
Speaker 1: time he's won a major national election with a new,
Speaker 1: non mainstream political party. And what that means is that
Speaker 1: the voters out there in the United Kingdom begetting sick
Speaker 1: to death of Brexit not being delivered. Q Theresa May
Speaker 1: resigning and Q this new leadership contest inside the Conservative
Speaker 1: Party to decide who becomes the next Prime minister. And
Speaker 1: for the people out there listening and going, oh, why
Speaker 1: doesn't Nigel just become prime minister? We need to have
Speaker 1: a majority in the House of Commons, and so far
Speaker 1: the Brexit Party hasn't got a single all seat in
Speaker 1: the six hundred and fifty seat House of Commons. Now,
Speaker 1: just America for you again. I know I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: how does Boris Johnson way into walls? Well, so exactly
Speaker 1: so to bring it back to America for you again.
Speaker 1: President Trump is going to the United Kingdom on an
Speaker 1: official state visit next week, and he has in his
Speaker 1: diary in his schedule a lunch or dinner or some
Speaker 1: sort of sit down meeting with Boris Johnson, the former
Speaker 1: Foreign secretary now favorite to be the next Prime minister.
Speaker 1: The problem is Boris, although he pretends to be a conservative,
Speaker 1: and although he's making nice with the White House and
Speaker 1: what President Trump now, he is on the record as
Speaker 1: having called Trumper moron, said that he's unfit to serve
Speaker 1: as president, that he doesn't go to cist in parts
Speaker 1: of New York because he doesn't want to bump into him.
Speaker 1: Says that he doesn't want to bring him to London
Speaker 1: because he doesn't want to expose Londoners to him. And
Speaker 1: Boris's only record is pretty poor as well. He's bad
Speaker 1: on immigration, he believes in amnesty. He's historically bad. As
Speaker 1: the mayor of London, he was a terrible foreign secretary.
Speaker 1: He's sort of known as this cute, bumbling buffoon, but
Speaker 1: actually he's quite a nefarious character in the sense that
Speaker 1: he actually tricks people into believing that he is a conservative.
Speaker 1: So we've got six weeks now ahead of us of
Speaker 1: a Conservative Party leadership election, and of course the President
Speaker 1: meeting with Boris will give Boris the edge in that election.
Speaker 1: It would almost be like a level of foreign interference
Speaker 1: in deciding on who the next prime minister should be.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you what, if people want Trump to
Speaker 1: have a really good ally in Britain, as as the
Speaker 1: British public want to be to America, then they will
Speaker 1: implore him not to meet with Boris Johnson because that
Speaker 1: can only go awry. And who should be the next
Speaker 1: prime minister? Well, I like to think that I should
Speaker 1: throw my head in the ring. But him, I'd vote
Speaker 1: for you, and i'd i'd even, you know, become one
Speaker 1: of those fancy minister positions to help you out. Oh yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: we'd create a whole new ministry for you, then the
Speaker 1: Minister of Fun. And here's the thing. The Conservative Party
Speaker 1: is put up so far, there's about ten candidates fighting
Speaker 1: in this and all but one of them, or maybe
Speaker 1: two of them, these these two backbenches, Steve Baker and
Speaker 1: Esti McVay, those are probably the two good ones. Very conservative,
Speaker 1: very free market capitalists, very keen on board of control,
Speaker 1: very good on Brexit. But they're not cutting through because
Speaker 1: as they're safe, they're just back benches. You know how
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party right now as all these no name
Speaker 1: people running in their presidential race. Unfortunately, that's what's happening
Speaker 1: to the Conservative Party as well. Just so happens that
Speaker 1: we're losing a lot of talent from the Conservative back benches,
Speaker 1: while the continuity candidates, you know, cut from the same
Speaker 1: mold as David Cameron Theresa May, are rising up because
Speaker 1: that's who the media wants to win, so they're giving
Speaker 1: them all the support to the casual observer Brexit. We
Speaker 1: keep hearing about it. What is this with the implementation?
Speaker 1: Will there want there? Didn't they vote for this thing?
Speaker 1: And why is it happening? Right? I mean, we voted
Speaker 1: three years ago to leave the European Union, but then
Speaker 1: the government set upon a path of trying to negotiate
Speaker 1: a leading deal with the EU, which means because we
Speaker 1: do trade, and because we have a border with Ireland,
Speaker 1: the Northern Ireland border, because of the peace process that
Speaker 1: took place in ninety seven, because of all of that
Speaker 1: Common Fisheries policy, because some of our waters bleed into
Speaker 1: one another. There's all these things that the government has
Speaker 1: been trying to square the details away on. But of
Speaker 1: course the European Union doesn't want to square those details
Speaker 1: away because they don't want a nation to look like
Speaker 1: it can successfully leave the EU. They want nations to
Speaker 1: be supine towards Brussels. So they've thwarted it for three
Speaker 1: years now. Theresa May was terrible at dealing with it,
Speaker 1: so she's gone nine or four hours of the breaks
Speaker 1: of Party are saying this, look, we can leave. We
Speaker 1: are perfectly within our rights to leave with outer deal.
Speaker 1: We revert to World Trade Organization trading rules and we
Speaker 1: just go from there and then if the EU wants
Speaker 1: to come to the table later and say we want
Speaker 1: preferential treatment, then we'll have that conversation when it needs
Speaker 1: to be had. And I think that is well. Most
Speaker 1: of the British public are now leading towards let's just
Speaker 1: go man is Rahim Kassam. Everybody. He doesn't just have
Speaker 1: a fancy accent, ladies and gentlemen. He also writes and
Speaker 1: does TV. Check out his latest over at human events
Speaker 1: dot com, where he is global editor in chief again
Speaker 1: human events dot Com. For mister Rahem Kassam, Rahem, my friend.
Speaker 1: Good to have you. We'll talk to you soon. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, Buck Tickere all right, team, What does it
Speaker 1: mean now that the other end of the app may
Speaker 1: be able to rate and review you in a world
Speaker 1: where we are increasingly defined by our digital reputations? Is
Speaker 1: this a good thing or a bad thing? I will
Speaker 1: address that in a moment. I like this new era
Speaker 1: of digital accountability we find ourselves in, my friends. Let
Speaker 1: me let me explain. Currently, there are all these apps
Speaker 1: out there where you get to rate services that you get,
Speaker 1: and you can go online and you can find out
Speaker 1: so much about everything, from the best plumber or the
Speaker 1: best vacation spot. You know, who gave us the best
Speaker 1: foot massage? I mean, if one is so inclined. But
Speaker 1: you can find out all kinds of stuff. I believe
Speaker 1: it's called reflexology buck, but yeah, whatever it's called, I
Speaker 1: love it. But you can find out all kinds of
Speaker 1: stuff online. You can also get a sense of ratings
Speaker 1: of different individuals in a whole lot of ways. And Uber,
Speaker 1: the ride sharing app. I like Lift a lot too.
Speaker 1: If either one of them care to sponsor the show,
Speaker 1: I'd be interested. I'd be interested in either one of
Speaker 1: those opportunities. But Uber and Lift, you know these ride
Speaker 1: share apps, they let you comment on the driver, and well,
Speaker 1: now it turns out that they well, as you know,
Speaker 1: for a while, they all so can rate you as
Speaker 1: the user. So if you are a very mean person,
Speaker 1: or if you leave garbage in the back of their car,
Speaker 1: what is with the people that put the garbage in
Speaker 1: the in the door handle like they used tissue? That
Speaker 1: is so disgusting. And whenever I reach in the door
Speaker 1: handle and there's a used tissue in there, I want
Speaker 1: to punch something, preferably the person who left the used
Speaker 1: tissue in the door handle. But they're not around, but
Speaker 1: they can rate you. And now Uber has finally said
Speaker 1: that that's not just so the driver gets a sense
Speaker 1: of who he or she may be dealing with. Now
Speaker 1: they may start to ban people from their services based
Speaker 1: on bad behavior. I think this is great. I think
Speaker 1: we should get ratings for all kinds of things. I
Speaker 1: know you can say, Buck, you're crazy. Maybe I am.
Speaker 1: It's a brave new world I want us all living in.
Speaker 1: But I want there to be an app where everyone
Speaker 1: shows up to a movie theater and if you start talking,
Speaker 1: people can give you like a demerit. You know, people
Speaker 1: can give you points off no talking during movies and
Speaker 1: ever when just by being there you're GEO located up
Speaker 1: that person's a movie talker. And then enough people say
Speaker 1: you're a movie talker, they can keep you out of
Speaker 1: the movie, or you can see before you go into
Speaker 1: the movie. Is this is there going to be a
Speaker 1: talker in there? And maybe some movies people only want
Speaker 1: talk I'm just saying there's all these different applications for this.
Speaker 1: And with Uber, now if you're a jerk and you're
Speaker 1: mean to the drivers, they can say sorry, you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to use our app anymore, that they're going to
Speaker 1: give you warnings and so on and so forth. Open
Speaker 1: table another site that I use all the time because
Speaker 1: I spend like so many millennials, that's right, I'm a
Speaker 1: graybeard millennial. Like so many millennials, I spend far too
Speaker 1: much of my disposable income on food and particularly going
Speaker 1: out to eat, because it's not like I can invest
Speaker 1: in the housing market, not enough money, so I spend
Speaker 1: far too much money on food. And but with open table,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty much I'm like a ninety nine sure thing.
Speaker 1: When I say I'm gonna be at a restaurant and
Speaker 1: I'm there on time too, I'm very fastidious about it.
Speaker 1: I get there, I arrived, So I feel like that
Speaker 1: should be I don't know if open table does this
Speaker 1: or not, but that should be represented in my profile,
Speaker 1: so that when I make a reservation a restaurant, they
Speaker 1: should know that I'm showing up, and unless I stop
Speaker 1: showing up, that should always be the expectation that this
Speaker 1: is a guy who shows up who's on time. I
Speaker 1: would even say let them know if I consistently tip
Speaker 1: twenty percent, which of course I do. No cheap skate here.
Speaker 1: I may not be rich, my friends, but I'm rich
Speaker 1: in spirit. So I like this. I want people to
Speaker 1: think more about their behavior in this way. I want
Speaker 1: people to have to have greater consideration of their behavior.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think this this even applies to just
Speaker 1: the way we act on the street now. Because everyone
Speaker 1: has a cell phone and has video and streaming capability,
Speaker 1: you know, you're a little less likely to throw a
Speaker 1: fit and be verbally abusive to somebody, at least if
Speaker 1: you're smart, because you never know. You know, you might
Speaker 1: decide you're gonna start saying something really nasty to somebody,
Speaker 1: and maybe they even deserve it, but you get live
Speaker 1: streamed and that all of a sudden goes viral and
Speaker 1: becomes a big problem for you. I want services. I
Speaker 1: want people that I engage with to mark it down
Speaker 1: that I'm I'm a good customer, who's polite, who's a man.
Speaker 1: I don't know that all of you would feel the
Speaker 1: same way. Right. You want credit for this, so I
Speaker 1: like that Uber's doing this. I'm hoping this expands to
Speaker 1: a whole lot of other platforms. The good people should
Speaker 1: get credit for being good people in the digital world. Folks,
Speaker 1: and the jerk should be treated like jerks. The show
Speaker 1: ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton for roll call.
Speaker 1: The most fun thing you can do on Facebook other
Speaker 1: than posting photos of yourself on vacation. You gotta do
Speaker 1: the the feat in the photo to show you're there,
Speaker 1: and then some beautiful background, some beach seen, some kind
Speaker 1: of landscape, you know, the Swiss Alps or whatever. That's how,
Speaker 1: it's how you got to do it. Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton's the place to go. And Bucksexen dot
Speaker 1: com by the way, new and improved, if you want
Speaker 1: to go check out Bucksexen dot com. We are against
Speaker 1: our posting all kinds of fun stuff and content there. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Get some articles up, got some good things happening,
Speaker 1: All right, Glad you're first up, He writes. Buck was
Speaker 1: wondering if there's any chance Congress can force Muller to testify. Well, yes, Glenn,
Speaker 1: Mine understanding is that Congress can do a little thing
Speaker 1: called subpoena. Subpoena ing Muller, and Muller would be in
Speaker 1: a very strange position as far as I can tell
Speaker 1: to say no. So I think that that's what's going
Speaker 1: to happen. If the Republicans don't subpoena him, they're missing
Speaker 1: a big opportunity, and there is, in my opinion, no
Speaker 1: way the Democrats can try to push back against a
Speaker 1: Muller subpoena without looking like complete hacks. But that may
Speaker 1: not stop them, as we know that may not be
Speaker 1: on its own enough. Let's see here, Kimmy writes, yo book.
Speaker 1: You recently mentioned that you finished Frank Herbert's done. Excellent choice,
Speaker 1: and you are just the audience the author is writing
Speaker 1: for ie people who don't read sci fi. Herbert, along
Speaker 1: with Robert Anson Heinlein, is one of my two favorite authors.
Speaker 1: Herbert once said something the effect of Dune isn't sci fi,
Speaker 1: it's socio political commentary. Check out this interview with him.
Speaker 1: Stay with the story to the end of the first
Speaker 1: trilogy at least Shield High, Long Live the Fighters. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Kimmy for this. I was just
Speaker 1: told today I haven't finished the first the first of
Speaker 1: the Dune trilogy books quite yet. I'm about six hundred
Speaker 1: or so pages into the eight hundred pages, but it's
Speaker 1: the writing is excellent. I mean, the guy's an incredible storyteller,
Speaker 1: and the intricacy of the novel as such that I
Speaker 1: find myself sometimes going back and rereading parts of it.
Speaker 1: I think that they are remaking the Dune movie. I
Speaker 1: was just told that today by one of my colleagues
Speaker 1: at the Hill, who is sci fi sci fi not obsessed.
Speaker 1: What's the word, I say? Sci fi savvy. Here we
Speaker 1: go a little alliteration. Diane writes, Hey Buck on Wednesday's show,
Speaker 1: you wonder why the Democrat candidates done have any real
Speaker 1: substance given how strongly their political ideology supported in colleges.
Speaker 1: And I think I know why. College kids these days
Speaker 1: are not only taught what to think, not how to think,
Speaker 1: so they have no clue how to present arguments to
Speaker 1: support their ideology, much less how to analyze arguments against them.
Speaker 1: As a result of Democrats know they don't have to
Speaker 1: provide any substantive or substantive support for their platform to
Speaker 1: sustain the support of their followers. Anyway, That's how I
Speaker 1: see it. Shields High, keep up the great work, Diane.
Speaker 1: It's true college made me a much better conservative because
Speaker 1: I was always swimming against the current there, I had
Speaker 1: to be able to defend my ideas in the classroom
Speaker 1: and outside of the classroom, not just against my fellow students,
Speaker 1: but also against professors. So that meant that I had
Speaker 1: to be particularly adept in making my case and making
Speaker 1: my points. I'll never forget taking a class called the
Speaker 1: American Right in sociology. And as I've described in the past,
Speaker 1: sociology is the study of why left wing social theories
Speaker 1: are correct. That's what sociology is. I would even go
Speaker 1: so far as to say it's not in the way
Speaker 1: it is generally taught in schools. It is not a
Speaker 1: real academic discipline. It's just indoctrination. But I took a
Speaker 1: sociology class called the American Right, and it was the
Speaker 1: worst class. It was the worst grade rather that I
Speaker 1: got my entire senior year. It's the only non A
Speaker 1: that I got senior year. Humble brag, humble brag. I'm
Speaker 1: just kidding it, Amirst. Everybody gets say it's ridiculous, But
Speaker 1: I remember being in this classroom, and just because I
Speaker 1: was willing to ask questions of the professor and push
Speaker 1: back a little bit, there were some other conservatives in
Speaker 1: the class who would sit near me on purpose, because
Speaker 1: we formed this little unit and they liked me going
Speaker 1: toe to toe at the rest of the classroom, and
Speaker 1: they'd come up me afterwards like that was great man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you gotta keep it going. Little did they know one
Speaker 1: day here I'd be speaking to hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: you across the country. Yeah. Uh, Jackie, all right, Hey
Speaker 1: Buck love the show. Glad you're back from China. Well, Jackie,
Speaker 1: that makes two of us. I had enough ound sauce
Speaker 1: and boiled vegetables for a lifetime. Please tell me why
Speaker 1: all these expert pundits who are supposedly expert on China,
Speaker 1: North Korea, law, obstruction and presidential everything. Tell me why
Speaker 1: they didn't know alllong that Muller can't charge a president
Speaker 1: if it's unconstitutional to charge a president. Why haven't all
Speaker 1: the constitutional experts been telling us that every time some
Speaker 1: new revelation comes to light, all the pundits crow in
Speaker 1: unison that this, that or the other thing is something
Speaker 1: that they're all an expert in. How come none of
Speaker 1: them have been saying this for the past two years? Then, huh?
Speaker 1: Why does Muther continue to do this, keep dragging it
Speaker 1: out over and over. How does this stop so? Well, Jackie,
Speaker 1: You're making a very important point here, which is that
Speaker 1: there are so many people that hold themselves up as
Speaker 1: experts and it is never challenged, or rather, they never
Speaker 1: stop and think about whether they really qualify as experts
Speaker 1: in anything, And I think the answers they don't, or
Speaker 1: at least they should have to do a whole lot
Speaker 1: of additional study to be considered an expert in anything
Speaker 1: because they are not particularly impressive in it. People have
Speaker 1: been wrong, wrong, and wrong again on Russia collusion and
Speaker 1: still think of themselves as beyond reproach, still think that
Speaker 1: they have all the answers, and they're unwilling to change that.
Speaker 1: Josh right, Nalie am Brulia was hot back in the day. Also,
Speaker 1: did you switch producers? Where's producer Mike No? I didn't switch? Okay,
Speaker 1: a few thinks here, Josh Nalie am Brulia was very talented,
Speaker 1: and she was the one who sang that song Torn,
Speaker 1: That's correct. She also has a song for the ladies
Speaker 1: out there, just Leave Me Alone, that some of you
Speaker 1: ladies might like. It's very very catchy, not as well
Speaker 1: known as Torn, And I didn't I have a new
Speaker 1: technical producer. People also afford him as a board op
Speaker 1: and a board op. But we have a new technical
Speaker 1: Producer's name is Mark. Mark. You won't say high everybody, Hello, everybody. Yeah, see,
Speaker 1: that's Mark, Mark's new technical producer. We had a couple
Speaker 1: of different technical producers before, but we have Mark now
Speaker 1: in full time. He is the man. He is our
Speaker 1: technical producer. So you'll hear him bouncing in and out
Speaker 1: of the show as we go along. Producer Mike is there,
Speaker 1: but he runs back and forth. I always joke around.
Speaker 1: I mean, sometimes it's he's getting phone numbers from you know,
Speaker 1: ladies in the lobby that are going in and out
Speaker 1: to get their Starbucks. But it's often that he's pulling
Speaker 1: video or rather audio and different components for the show,
Speaker 1: and he'll leave the studio to do that. So that's
Speaker 1: why if you hear me, see where's producer Mike, it's
Speaker 1: not that he's not around. He's just usually working on
Speaker 1: some stuff outside of our actual radio studio. Let's see,
Speaker 1: and then here we go. Josh's last Aquaman was good
Speaker 1: for a DC movie, but that doesn't say much. It
Speaker 1: was cheesy and a little over the top, but most
Speaker 1: DC movies are unwatchable. Yeah, Josh, I can't disagree with
Speaker 1: you on that. Most DC movies are unwatchable. And the
Speaker 1: Last a Man movie was incredibly cheesy. All Right, I'm
Speaker 1: not just gonna sit here and keep trashing Aquama because
Speaker 1: of some of you like it. And that's fine. You know,
Speaker 1: you could trash Big Trouble in Little China, for example,
Speaker 1: which I talk about frequently on this show. I mean,
Speaker 1: you'd be wrong, but you could do that. You could
Speaker 1: tell me that Tombstone's not really a Western, even though
Speaker 1: I think it's the greatest Western of all time. That's right,
Speaker 1: fight me, fight me. Tombstone is. It's just a great movie.
Speaker 1: It's just a really fun to watch, excellent movie. Notice
Speaker 1: how both Kurt Russell movies. So yes, I would. I
Speaker 1: would put that out there for you. Last night, I
Speaker 1: couldn't sleep. I don't know why. I just I couldn't sleep, really,
Speaker 1: and I woke up after and it was one of
Speaker 1: those things where I woke up after two hours and
Speaker 1: all I can think is, please tell me you've been
Speaker 1: to sleep for five or six hours, please, And it
Speaker 1: was two hours and I was wide awake, you know,
Speaker 1: not like a little bit awake, wide awake for some reason,
Speaker 1: and I went out to just find something to watch
Speaker 1: on the Telly. Oh it wants to find something to
Speaker 1: watch on the lay late at night, and I turned
Speaker 1: on whatever happened to beyond It. It was Resident Evil
Speaker 1: Extinction or Apocalypse or I mean those Resident Evil movies.
Speaker 1: Movies they they they still make money, and Mila Djobovic
Speaker 1: just keeps churning them out. It's all A said. It's
Speaker 1: just zombies mad, you know, eating people men and then
Speaker 1: women running around in very tight tank tops and shorts
Speaker 1: doing a lot of spin kicks and firing a lot
Speaker 1: of machine guns. So that's really all you need, you know.
Speaker 1: I just I just want to make a series that's
Speaker 1: women in short shorts with machine guns and zombies. I'll
Speaker 1: make producer mark true or false. I'll make money. I
Speaker 1: think you'll make money. Thank you. That's the correct answer.
Speaker 1: Let's see what we kind of here next up? Oh oh,
Speaker 1: I got a fine one that's unread. Um Jerry, right,
Speaker 1: can you tell me more or about yourself? Well, Jerry,
Speaker 1: I'm a capricorn who grew up in New York City
Speaker 1: and likes to have a good time. But it also
Speaker 1: knows how to kick back, relax and let the good
Speaker 1: times role. Jerry, I don't know what you want to know,
Speaker 1: my friend. You got to send me more specific question
Speaker 1: than that. Bruce. Read the Weed Agency to see how
Speaker 1: bureaucracy works in government. Hilarious and scary at the same time. Bruce,
Speaker 1: there's some great books on bureaucracy, but I will tell
Speaker 1: you this, there is nothing that really teaches you about
Speaker 1: bureaucracy like working for the federal bureaucracy, which I have done,
Speaker 1: and it is a It is an experience, my friends,
Speaker 1: that I can tell you. Mike up in Alberta, Canada,
Speaker 1: all right, I stumbled on a quote from a noted
Speaker 1: democrat apologies if you're aware of it already. On April
Speaker 1: twenty seventh, nineteen sixty one, in a speech in New
Speaker 1: York City, John F. Kennedy said quote, we are opposed
Speaker 1: around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that
Speaker 1: relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence.
Speaker 1: On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion, instead of elections,
Speaker 1: on intimidation, instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night
Speaker 1: instead of armies by day. It is a system which
Speaker 1: has conscripted vast human and material resources into building a
Speaker 1: tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific,
Speaker 1: and political operations. Just want to share this with you. Okay, Mike,
Speaker 1: thank you. I've never seen that quote before. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I can't attribute to anything because I don't know, but
Speaker 1: you say it's Kennedy. Thank you so much for sending
Speaker 1: it saying that's going to be it for the show
Speaker 1: for today. It has been excellent, may we biesser? I
Speaker 1: hope you agree. Please do download the podcast, subscribe on
Speaker 1: iTunes to the Buck Sexton Show. Tell a friend to subscribe,
Speaker 1: like this is the best podcast ever. I will talk
Speaker 1: to you tomorrow. Shields High