Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. We're just hours away
Speaker 1: from the Muller Report getting released. DC and the country
Speaker 1: are on edge, at least the people that care about
Speaker 1: the truth about Russia, collusion and obstruction. Did any of
Speaker 1: this happen as the president exonerated. We'll dive into that,
Speaker 1: plus the latest mess at the border and the media's
Speaker 1: new love affair with Pete Buddha mayor Pete Buddha judge
Speaker 1: that I'm more 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 America, You're a great American Again, the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, there
Speaker 1: was absolutely spying into my campaign. I'll go a step
Speaker 1: further in my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying,
Speaker 1: and something that should never be allowed to happen in
Speaker 1: our country again. And I think his answer was actually
Speaker 1: a very accurate one, and a lot of people saw that,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people understand many many people understand
Speaker 1: the situation and want to be open to that situation.
Speaker 1: Hard to believe it could have happened, but it did
Speaker 1: there was spying in my campaign. Welcome to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. We are getting down to the wire here
Speaker 1: for Muller time, everybody. It's gonna be Mueller time. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna see this report. It's gonna be four hundred pages
Speaker 1: minus like a hundred or so redactions. I kind of
Speaker 1: wish they would just release one page that says no collusion,
Speaker 1: no obstruction, total exoneration, and then hashtag MAGA and then
Speaker 1: three nine blacked out pages, just to see liberals completely
Speaker 1: freaked out. It would just be funny. I know that
Speaker 1: that's not good for transparency in government, but it would
Speaker 1: be entertaining because there they are hoping. It's hope. There
Speaker 1: are people who feel like tomorrow is going to be
Speaker 1: their moment of vindication after the crushing defeat and the
Speaker 1: ignominious shaming that they took in the release of the
Speaker 1: overview the summary findings from Attorney General bar that there
Speaker 1: were no charges, that there would be no criminal charges,
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of Democrats, a lot of
Speaker 1: liberals who are clinging to this belief that there will
Speaker 1: be something even though there won't. There's no charges. We
Speaker 1: know that we know how the movie ends. Right. We
Speaker 1: know that the hero in this case, Trump, rides off
Speaker 1: into the sunset after clearing out the town, but we
Speaker 1: don't know every little detail, and there are going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of people who who are incredibly invested
Speaker 1: in inflating every detail that comes up as though it's
Speaker 1: a bombshell. Oh you're gonna hear the show, Oh a bombshell. Right,
Speaker 1: They're gonna say this about something that's probably more accurately
Speaker 1: described as a bb from a BB gun. It's not
Speaker 1: a bombshell. There's a lot of reportage right now, which
Speaker 1: I guess is just a fancy word for reporting about
Speaker 1: people who are concerned that what they said to the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel will be held against them by Trump if
Speaker 1: they said anything that was unflattering or they made the
Speaker 1: President look bad, you know, such as life. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that that's that wouldn't surprise me anybody who
Speaker 1: says bad things about Trump at the Special Counsel. You know.
Speaker 1: The other part of that for me is working for
Speaker 1: the White House isn't a job for life, folks. You know,
Speaker 1: you can go to other things. If the President's annoyed
Speaker 1: at you, go go find something else to do. You
Speaker 1: got to speak truthfully to special counsel. It is what
Speaker 1: it is. If you said the president's looking like a
Speaker 1: buffoon on this issue or something, you're gonna have to
Speaker 1: own that. So that reporting doesn't really surprise me. That
Speaker 1: does Will we surprise me? I mean, will that happen
Speaker 1: or not? I don't know. It depends on what's what's
Speaker 1: blacked out, what's not Here are the certainties about the report. Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: the libs will cry and whine about the no matter
Speaker 1: what the redactions are, whether it's you know, one page
Speaker 1: or a hundred pages, they will say that the the
Speaker 1: redactions are the holy grail of Russia Trump collusion and obstruction.
Speaker 1: But there's gonna be a whole bunch of folks that
Speaker 1: that's what they say. That's where they're gonna go. Just
Speaker 1: like when the findings came out from bar it was all, oh, well,
Speaker 1: where's the full report. Where's the full report? Now the
Speaker 1: full report will come out to say, well, what about
Speaker 1: the reductions? What about the reductions? There they're never the
Speaker 1: president knows this, everyone knows. They're never satisfied because it's
Speaker 1: not about being satisfied. It's about hating the president. It's
Speaker 1: about indulging Trump derangement syndrome like a bunch of lunatics.
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna do. That's what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1: And they're gonna try to make political hey out of this.
Speaker 1: They're gonna try to elevate themselves on the political scene
Speaker 1: by forging some narrative of this president maybe isn't criminally charged,
Speaker 1: but is unfit to be in office because of what's
Speaker 1: found in that report. They're they're gonna go for something
Speaker 1: on obstruction. There will be and you know, this is
Speaker 1: fun to make these predictions. And if I'm right, I'll
Speaker 1: definitely revisit tomorrow what I've said today, because that's always good.
Speaker 1: There will be a movement, I believe among Democrats to
Speaker 1: say that a different prosecutor would have brought obstruction charges
Speaker 1: against Trump. That's that's gonna be And and they're gonna say,
Speaker 1: and see, just you guys complained about how Hillary got
Speaker 1: the past, Well Trump got the past. This time, they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna try to cover up the massive injustice
Speaker 1: of giving Hillary a free pass on violations of classification
Speaker 1: protocols that she absolutely did. There's no question it was criminal.
Speaker 1: It was reckless, which is in the statute. Comey had
Speaker 1: to change the language so they could create a false
Speaker 1: not even exoneration, but just a false get out of
Speaker 1: jail free card for her. They're going to try to
Speaker 1: say that these two things are similar and that the
Speaker 1: only thing that saved Trump was the discretion of Barr
Speaker 1: and Mueller, and maybe Mueller just didn't want to put
Speaker 1: the country through that. That's what they'll say, That's what
Speaker 1: you know. Muller's a you know, he's a good man,
Speaker 1: but he didn't want to put the country through that.
Speaker 1: So but somebody else would have. So Trump therefore should
Speaker 1: be subject to impeachment proceedings in the House. And they're
Speaker 1: gonna make this whole big deal of it. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna go very far, I think. I mean, maybe they
Speaker 1: will get to the point of impeachment. I think that
Speaker 1: would blow back on them. But what an inversion of
Speaker 1: reality you're going to see occur tomorrow. I mean not
Speaker 1: if you listen to this show and if you pay
Speaker 1: attention to people who have been right all along. And
Speaker 1: I do think that there's some degree of victory dance
Speaker 1: that you and I need to take here because we've
Speaker 1: been right on this all along. I have never had
Speaker 1: to come on this show once in the last two
Speaker 1: years and say, whoa, I was way off on that
Speaker 1: aspect of the Russia collusion story. Guys, sorry about that.
Speaker 1: You know, I really misread that. Nope, never happened. And
Speaker 1: many of the things that I've told you have been
Speaker 1: borne out by the facts, and many of the things
Speaker 1: that you've sent me, many of your ideas, an analysis
Speaker 1: and thoughts they have they have been correct. So we've
Speaker 1: been right all along. Remember that as we go in
Speaker 1: tomorrow they've been wrong. We've been right. They've been pushing
Speaker 1: narratives that are false time and time again, and now
Speaker 1: tomorrow they're going to do the same thing. Because the
Speaker 1: media are a bunch of unrepentant partisan frauds, and I
Speaker 1: promise they have learned nothing, nothing whatsoever from the debacle
Speaker 1: of the last two years of their anti Trump coverage,
Speaker 1: their collusion with former Obama administration officials to concoct some
Speaker 1: kakamami story about how the President worked with the Russians
Speaker 1: to steal the election. I mean, the whole thing is
Speaker 1: just insane. The media did it. They don't care that
Speaker 1: they were wrong. They're going to try to do it
Speaker 1: again tomorrow. Tomorrow we move into the oh, but obstruction
Speaker 1: equals impeachment phase. That's what I see happening. They're not
Speaker 1: going to say it right away. They no, we need
Speaker 1: more investigation. You see. They love investigation. They love abusing
Speaker 1: the legitimate processes of the government to just extract pain
Speaker 1: and punishment from people because they're vindictive, because they don't
Speaker 1: act in good faith, because the Left has been overtaken
Speaker 1: by radicals who do not look at our side. They
Speaker 1: do not look at Republicans in the era of Trump
Speaker 1: as people worthy of respect, people worthy of some additional consideration,
Speaker 1: a friendly outstretched hand. No, none of that. They want
Speaker 1: to crush us, They want to humiliate us. They want
Speaker 1: to destroy that which we are trying to build through
Speaker 1: the Trump agenda for the American people. And all of
Speaker 1: this will come to ahead tomorrow. There will be a
Speaker 1: lot of people that say that the fix was in.
Speaker 1: There will be a lot of people who claim that
Speaker 1: Barr has acted improperly in some way, and yet this
Speaker 1: process has been as transparent as it can be. In fact,
Speaker 1: today it was just reported that the DOJ is planning
Speaker 1: to let some lawmakers view the Mulla Report without certain redactions,
Speaker 1: so there will be an additional level of access for
Speaker 1: some lawmakers to see even more. Will it be all
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Will it be everything, No, but
Speaker 1: they're going to try to show them as much as
Speaker 1: they can. They're going to try to make this as
Speaker 1: as open as possible so that at least dampens what
Speaker 1: is going to be just a cacophony of partisan shrieking
Speaker 1: on this whole issue. I mean, they're they're gonna just say,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, our democracy is destroyed because of this
Speaker 1: and all kinds of stuff. What I'm interested in is
Speaker 1: finding out when we get some retaliation here, when we
Speaker 1: get reciprocity at least, when the people that push this
Speaker 1: whole thing, and remember not without cost send people to prison,
Speaker 1: cost people a ton of money in legal bills, ruined careers,
Speaker 1: ruined lives, broke up families. Oh that's right, they separated
Speaker 1: people from their families, send them to prison, all because
Speaker 1: they hate Trump so much. I wouldn't know when we
Speaker 1: get to find out those answers. You know. Just remember
Speaker 1: the Democrats who are all about radical transparency right now,
Speaker 1: I mean the Democrats and the judiciary and oversight committees
Speaker 1: are all of a sudden, like a bunch of little osanges,
Speaker 1: just oh, show us everything, no redactions allowed, release it all.
Speaker 1: Are they going to say that when it comes to
Speaker 1: the origin documentation for this investigation, when it becomes very
Speaker 1: clear that this was always about investigating Trump, they try
Speaker 1: to dance around it and say it was about Russia,
Speaker 1: Russia interference, and it was about and then it was
Speaker 1: about obstruction. This was always an effort to use the
Speaker 1: resources of the federal government in a deep state effort
Speaker 1: to conduct a soft coup, the removal of a president
Speaker 1: because people think he's ikey, he's gross. They don't like him.
Speaker 1: And the Komis and the mccaves and the Structs, the
Speaker 1: Pages and the Brennan's and the Clappers of the world.
Speaker 1: They think that they know better than you, and because
Speaker 1: they know so much better than you, they had a
Speaker 1: right to undo what we did by voting for this president.
Speaker 1: There needs to be an accounting of this. There needs
Speaker 1: to be justice. Tomorrow is not going to be that day,
Speaker 1: because tomorrow is only the prosecutor's view. Tomorrow they get
Speaker 1: to lay bare after two years unlimited resources, all of
Speaker 1: their efforts to get Trump, not to exonerate him, not
Speaker 1: to prepare an honest both sides report. This is a
Speaker 1: massive taxpayer funded APO document that they're going to drop
Speaker 1: for the whole country to read tomorrow. So remember that too,
Speaker 1: that this is not an even this is not even handed.
Speaker 1: There's no defense counsel that gets to weigh in here.
Speaker 1: There's no cross examination, there's no challenging of Muller's findings
Speaker 1: about different witnesses. This is all opposition research using the
Speaker 1: PRISM and the resources of the FBI, the federal government
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. It's appalling. It's appalling what has happened here.
Speaker 1: This is the biggest political scandal of my lifetime, and
Speaker 1: it has done more to damage any sense that I
Speaker 1: can have good faith in not just the Democrats, but
Speaker 1: in some of these federal government institutions that are overrun
Speaker 1: with partisan Democrats. I don't know if I'll ever be
Speaker 1: able to look at them the same way. And I
Speaker 1: really mean that the only way that we can begin
Speaker 1: to repair this relationship between the permanent bureaucracy, the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party has granted an opposition party to us, but at
Speaker 1: least something that I would like to be able to
Speaker 1: respect how they do their business. The only way is
Speaker 1: if we get the answers that we need here, which
Speaker 1: won't come tomorrow but will come at some point in
Speaker 1: the future. If Attorney General bar gets his way, I leave.
Speaker 1: I think Bar knows that's spying on a presidential campaign,
Speaker 1: which is what Obama appointees did, is a big deal.
Speaker 1: There must be accountability for it, and there must be
Speaker 1: an attempt to get justice. We also have my friend
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy joining. He'll tell us later on in the
Speaker 1: show what his expectations are for this report. May Or Pete.
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge is the flavor of the moment for the
Speaker 1: Democrat media. They're all they're all hearts a flutter over
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge. So we'll talk about what that looks like,
Speaker 1: where that's going. Got some additional updates for you on
Speaker 1: the border and a pretty important decision by the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice and by Attorney General Bar that might change
Speaker 1: things up a bit about how long they can detain
Speaker 1: asylum seekers. And then what happened to Betto O'Rourke. We'll
Speaker 1: get into that later on Betto saying crazy things, not
Speaker 1: very generous, not a big giver of charitable nation. Bete
Speaker 1: Rourke for a very wealthy guy. At least he married
Speaker 1: very wealthy. It's a fun thing to do. I guess
Speaker 1: that works out. We have a pack show team. We'll
Speaker 1: grt back. I'll bet you can't find a single person
Speaker 1: tomorrow that will tell you his or her opinion has
Speaker 1: changed on President Trump or on the House Democrats. This
Speaker 1: is going to be an evidentially summary without a verdict.
Speaker 1: So I never had a trial where there wasn't evidence
Speaker 1: on both sides. But at some point someone has to
Speaker 1: say the more credible evidence is on this side, and
Speaker 1: that has to be a jury that hasn't already made
Speaker 1: up its mind. Who in this country has not already
Speaker 1: made up its mind? I can't find anyone. So tomorrow
Speaker 1: is going to do nothing except validate whatever your previously
Speaker 1: hell conviction is, which is why I'm not a fan
Speaker 1: of releasing. Important that we all prepare ourselves for that, right.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a bit of a look. We
Speaker 1: had some fun done on liberals for a few days there,
Speaker 1: because the no charges thing, that's a definitive objective reality.
Speaker 1: No charges means no charges. Even libs can't make no
Speaker 1: charges into charges. But tomorrow, what they're gonna do is
Speaker 1: make no charges into maybe there could have been charges.
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna do. Everyone who doesn't like Trump
Speaker 1: is going to see something in this report tomorrow that
Speaker 1: confirms why they don't like Trump and why Trump should
Speaker 1: have been charged but wasn't. Oh maybe not all them
Speaker 1: will go that far, but they'll all say that there's
Speaker 1: something unseemly or I've been hearing that. One part of
Speaker 1: the report that may be interesting is that there were
Speaker 1: overtures from the Russians to the Trump campaign that the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign rebuffed. You know, I've been seeing for a
Speaker 1: while that you know, or I've been hearing for a while.
Speaker 1: That's one part of this that may be interesting for
Speaker 1: people to hear the Trump they were like, well what
Speaker 1: Russia and not? Come on. I don't know if that
Speaker 1: will be there. That's just what i've That's what I've
Speaker 1: been told by sources that tend to know these things.
Speaker 1: But we'll see what they have tomorrow. I'm gonna read
Speaker 1: the whole report, yeay me before I go on radio.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to at least, it depends on what
Speaker 1: the redactions are. Like I may I may pass out,
Speaker 1: but I got my black rifle. It's gonna get me
Speaker 1: fired up. You know, i'mna have plenty of energy to
Speaker 1: read through this report. But people are not gonna not
Speaker 1: gonna change their minds on this, that's for sure. There's
Speaker 1: not gonna be any any honesty from the Democrat media
Speaker 1: all of a sudden that that pops up there, like, oh,
Speaker 1: you know what, we were wrong all along? You know,
Speaker 1: we should give back those Pulitzers that we have for
Speaker 1: our Russia reporting on the Russia collusion stuff. And you know,
Speaker 1: maybe CNN should actually hire some conservatives and treat them
Speaker 1: like normal people and put them on TV and not
Speaker 1: just go through this pretense of being a news organization
Speaker 1: when they're just the media arm of the DNC. You know,
Speaker 1: none of that's gonna happen, that I can promise you.
Speaker 1: So we already know what expectations are going to be,
Speaker 1: like we already know what the or rather we know
Speaker 1: what positions are going to be after this generally speaking.
Speaker 1: And now it's just a question of how crazy the
Speaker 1: Dems go over this, how much they they inflate and
Speaker 1: overreach whatever is actually in the report and make it
Speaker 1: try to make it sound like it's so much worse
Speaker 1: than it is. But overall, I think that you're just
Speaker 1: going to see them claiming that there's stuff there that's
Speaker 1: not there. They're gonna say, oh, well, because between the
Speaker 1: redactions and they're reading between the lines, they're gonna sleuth
Speaker 1: their way to oh, that's right. Trump should have been charged,
Speaker 1: but he wasn't. He got away with it. He got
Speaker 1: the j Smolette treatment from Muller. That's what they're gonna say.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. And there he was yesterday, front
Speaker 1: and center, now third in the polls with a speech
Speaker 1: that many have said are historic. He's inspirational so far,
Speaker 1: and that's that's something that voters absolutely want. But he
Speaker 1: has this appeal for a lot of reasons. He is
Speaker 1: a veteran, he is openly gay, he is from Indiana.
Speaker 1: He is honest, he speaks from the heart. He seems
Speaker 1: like he's a lot about empathy here. You are a
Speaker 1: concert pianist. You speak many languages, including Norwegian, that you
Speaker 1: learn because you wanted to read a book. A real
Speaker 1: renaissance man. He's like Beato's smarter brother a little bit.
Speaker 1: And he's so smart to try to channel Obama, the
Speaker 1: second coming of Obama. Huh, we'll see about that. My
Speaker 1: press may have been answered. If that's true. The draw
Speaker 1: to this point has been young, fresh, positive and to
Speaker 1: change aange it. This guy is chicken soup from my soul.
Speaker 1: Second coming of Obama. I don't I don't think that's
Speaker 1: how I would describe Pete Buddha Judge. But I aspire
Speaker 1: one day to, you know, marry a woman who talks
Speaker 1: about me the way that the media talks about Beet
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge. Right now, it may change. They may turn
Speaker 1: on him if they need to. One thing we know
Speaker 1: about the media is they're not high on integrity or loyalty.
Speaker 1: That much is for sure. But man today, love some
Speaker 1: Pete Buddha Judge right now. Oh he's this, He's that,
Speaker 1: he's so smart, he's incredibly he's amazing. He's also a leftist, folks,
Speaker 1: He's also a leftist. That has to be And I
Speaker 1: will say this, I can't say that you're you know,
Speaker 1: you're not intelligent if you're leftist. Obviously, that would be
Speaker 1: far too sweeping, that would be unfair, that would be untrue.
Speaker 1: But I can't say that it shows a tremendous lack
Speaker 1: of judgment, and judgment is a more important thing for
Speaker 1: a politician than baseline knowledge. You know, your ability to
Speaker 1: make decisions about what matters is a more important skill
Speaker 1: than your ability to recite Norwegian poetry. So the fact
Speaker 1: that he's a leftist is all I really have to
Speaker 1: know to understand that he does not pay good decisions,
Speaker 1: especially about politics, about major policy issues. The media fawning
Speaker 1: over him is very interesting because this guy, what you've seen,
Speaker 1: is I think the first us if this is like
Speaker 1: the Hunger Games. You know, Beto just took the weapons
Speaker 1: that were I'm sorry, Buddha, Judge took the weapons that
Speaker 1: we're supposed to be Betos. You know, he's grabbing his
Speaker 1: lane and he's taking all of his toys and he's
Speaker 1: running with them. I think that Beto is all of
Speaker 1: a sudden gonna fade out. I think he's gonna fade
Speaker 1: out pretty quickly because you have this young guy who
Speaker 1: is you know, Betto Can. As much as we have
Speaker 1: to like use this nickname for him and everything else,
Speaker 1: he's not interesting from the diversity perspective. He's not interesting
Speaker 1: from the perspective of intersectionality and wokeness, and e Can
Speaker 1: tries as hard as he wants, but at least in
Speaker 1: the eyes of leftist Buddha Judge is LBGT, so that
Speaker 1: gives him some additional credibility and desirability as a Democrat candidate.
Speaker 1: But man, the media loves Buddha Judge. And I was
Speaker 1: just out in Indiana visiting my woe wof folks. If
Speaker 1: you're listening on whoa Who, high five to you, thank
Speaker 1: you for tuning in. But I was out in Indiana
Speaker 1: and I was hearing from a lot of different folks
Speaker 1: about how they just think that, you know, Buddha Judge,
Speaker 1: for all the fancy resume stuff, for all the things
Speaker 1: you hear about how great he is on in this
Speaker 1: or that skill. You know he's oh, he's a Rhodes scholar.
Speaker 1: And I don't know, people say, oh, buck comment Rhode scholars.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar too. I spend almost
Speaker 1: as much tom studying ladies as I did studying books.
Speaker 1: You know, Bill Clinton is a guy that everyone we
Speaker 1: talked about how smart he isn't amazing, as I don't know,
Speaker 1: I thought, as the guy always struck me as kind
Speaker 1: of a cheesy salesman. But anyway, may or Pete. Though,
Speaker 1: if he's going to win, is gonna have to be
Speaker 1: is gonna have to be a far left guy. And
Speaker 1: that's why he's trying to pick this fight with with
Speaker 1: Mike Pence, and Mike Pence isn't really taking taking the
Speaker 1: baits so far, but he keeps saying, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: Mike Pence, you know, you know, my my creator made
Speaker 1: me this way, and he wants to create is kind
Speaker 1: of theological rift with Mike Pence so that it highlights
Speaker 1: his status as a member of the LGBT community and
Speaker 1: he creates a kind of wokeness for himself that will
Speaker 1: translate into more leftists who will support him in the different,
Speaker 1: you know, different different primary contests ahead. That's what is
Speaker 1: happening here. That's what he's doing. And that's also why
Speaker 1: you have somebody who went to Harvard and is now,
Speaker 1: you know, the mayor of a town in Indiana. I
Speaker 1: would say that I hear that South Bend is having
Speaker 1: a rough time. I haven't been there, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but South Bend is not all just Notre Dame fight
Speaker 1: songs and beer drinking and you know, jolly good time.
Speaker 1: South Bend's apparently got some rough stuff happening. But Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete because he's going to appeal to the left. Yeah, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: what is South Bend like? You've been there? Telling him? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a little rough. I've actually been there a few
Speaker 1: times recently for some events and football game, and it's
Speaker 1: outside right off the campus and enter Dame. It's a
Speaker 1: rough talent. It looks like it's there's a struggling Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is what. Yeah, this is what I've been told.
Speaker 1: I think my sense of it has always just been
Speaker 1: old Notre Dame is there, so it must be a
Speaker 1: nice college town. But it turns out it's not. So
Speaker 1: it's kind of a rundown place. But Mayor Pete is
Speaker 1: going to be the guy that now the media's infatuated with,
Speaker 1: at least for a few days, maybe a few weeks.
Speaker 1: And so he's gonna start to try to build a
Speaker 1: momentum here. And how do you build momentum as a Democrat?
Speaker 1: That's right. Appeal to envy, appealed to class warfare, appealed
Speaker 1: to denigrating the American dream and suggesting that the only
Speaker 1: way that we can restore the American dream for people
Speaker 1: is if you put Democrat socialists in the in the
Speaker 1: White House and in Congress and in control. The only
Speaker 1: way it can be done. Mayor Pete, who you would
Speaker 1: think would no better he You know, it always reminds
Speaker 1: me whenever say Mayor Pete, I feel like it. I
Speaker 1: get confused for a second. I think of my friend
Speaker 1: Major Pete, who's Pete Hexeth over at Fox News, and
Speaker 1: he's a major. But it's not. It's not Major Pete,
Speaker 1: it's Mayor Pete. Darn it, but Mayor Pete. He's willing
Speaker 1: to trash capitalism. If that appeals to left play clib One, Well,
Speaker 1: I think the reason we're having this argument over socialism
Speaker 1: and capitalism is that capitalism has led a lot of
Speaker 1: people down. I guess what I'm out there to say
Speaker 1: is that it doesn't have to be so. I believe
Speaker 1: in the democratic capitalism, but the democratic part is extremely important.
Speaker 1: Capitalism has let people down. This is demagoguery from Pete.
Speaker 1: Buddha judge, he is too smart to think that that's
Speaker 1: a smart thing to say. He is too capable of
Speaker 1: human being and has too much of an understanding of
Speaker 1: the history of global economics and the American economic miracle
Speaker 1: to think that that's that's an important or a worthwhile
Speaker 1: thing to say. I mean, every economic system is going
Speaker 1: to let people down at some lovel There's no such
Speaker 1: thing as an economic system that's not going to let
Speaker 1: people down. But capitalism is better than what What are
Speaker 1: the alternatives socialism, feudalism, mercantilism, communism, What are we really
Speaker 1: offering in its place? I mean, to say that capitalism
Speaker 1: has let people down is like saying that America or
Speaker 1: the the legal systems countries let people down. I mean,
Speaker 1: of course it has, But why why take that position now?
Speaker 1: And by the way, there's no future in which there
Speaker 1: aren't going to be people no matter what you do.
Speaker 1: I mean, if if Trump got every bill through and
Speaker 1: signed in Congress was all maga and everything was great
Speaker 1: and fun, there's still be people that are let down
Speaker 1: by the system, because ultimately, government is not there to
Speaker 1: be failure insurance for all of us. You know, the
Speaker 1: government is not there just to be the thing that
Speaker 1: we blame when we don't get our way. Government can't
Speaker 1: protect you from your decisions. They might pretend that they can.
Speaker 1: They might pretend that, you know, if only you know,
Speaker 1: we had a single payer healthcare, if only we had
Speaker 1: this or that everything would be fine. But people make
Speaker 1: bad choices, people run into bad luck, things happen. Life
Speaker 1: is not fair. Democrats seem to be running in opposition
Speaker 1: to the reality that we all know exist, which is that, yeah,
Speaker 1: people have disparate gifts that they're given at birth. I
Speaker 1: wish I was, you know, six five. I think that
Speaker 1: would be fun. I'm not. I'm six feet about that.
Speaker 1: I mean five eleven and three quarters, you know, but
Speaker 1: you know, it's just it's unfair. I wish I were
Speaker 1: six four. I wish I was born with a billion
Speaker 1: dollars in the bank or whatever. It's just not reality.
Speaker 1: And there are some things where I think the government's
Speaker 1: let me down, like the big check I head to
Speaker 1: write earlier this week. But there are other things where
Speaker 1: you know, that's on me. I probably shouldn't have taken
Speaker 1: that expensive vacation and put something on a credit card.
Speaker 1: You know, government is not there. I keeps saying this
Speaker 1: because it's important to be your friend, to keep you
Speaker 1: safe and warm at night. The government is there to
Speaker 1: protect rights and allow for the free flow of commerce.
Speaker 1: That's basically it protect us, protect our rights, let us
Speaker 1: engage in the business of the American people, which should
Speaker 1: be business. Capitalism lets people down. This is just demogoguery
Speaker 1: because it's it's meaningless. It is utterly meaningless, and in
Speaker 1: an error where socialism is being offered as a replacement,
Speaker 1: I think it's also reckless. With regard to abortion, do
Speaker 1: you believe that a woman should be able to terminate
Speaker 1: a pregnancy up until the moment of birth. Look, I
Speaker 1: think that that happens very, very rarely, and I think
Speaker 1: this has been made into a political issue. So I
Speaker 1: think it's rare. It's being made into a political issue.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, I believe that
Speaker 1: the decision over abortion belongs to a woman and a physician,
Speaker 1: not the federal government, not the state. I know, we
Speaker 1: we played that yesterday, that was from the Foxtown Hall,
Speaker 1: and I took issue right away with the the the
Speaker 1: claim that Bernie Sanders makes that oh, it's rare, it's rare.
Speaker 1: That that is meaningless. You know, major terrorist attacks are
Speaker 1: also rare. Doesn't make them okay. There's there's no moral
Speaker 1: there's no moral weight to the claim that something is rare.
Speaker 1: Therefore it's okay. This is this is a falsehood, But
Speaker 1: and the fact that there are people in that room
Speaker 1: who were, you know, cheering this on is honestly just appalling.
Speaker 1: But it's the reminder folks, even you know, cuddly Bernie
Speaker 1: Bear here am I just want to hook something kind
Speaker 1: of like Yogi bear. They're pushing ideas on all of
Speaker 1: us and policies and government mandates and the force of law.
Speaker 1: They're doing this in ways that are deeply immoral and destructive,
Speaker 1: and we should not just allow this to go forward
Speaker 1: without being challenged thoroughly and completely. You know, I think
Speaker 1: that Bernie kind of got away with that a little bit.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm bringing up again today. That was not
Speaker 1: an okay answer. That was not acceptable. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna you know, it's the easiest thing in the world.
Speaker 1: Should should abortion up to the moment of birth be legal?
Speaker 1: The answer is no, Unless you are a complete barbarian
Speaker 1: with no moral compass whatsoever, the answer is no. I'm not.
Speaker 1: This isn't a debate about you know, six weeks and
Speaker 1: rape and in say and all these other things that
Speaker 1: liberals like to bring up and talk about. You know
Speaker 1: what six weeks or eight weeks or moment of conception.
Speaker 1: No, no no, no, those are all other debates I'm happy
Speaker 1: to have. This is it's a baby. It could live
Speaker 1: on its own outside the womb. It's a baby inside
Speaker 1: a mother's womb. It does this deserve protection as a
Speaker 1: human being? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Anything else
Speaker 1: is im moral, anything else is wrong. It is just wrong.
Speaker 1: Bernie can't give the right answer on this. Why because
Speaker 1: the Democrats are extremists on this issue. I was happy
Speaker 1: to see that Kelly Anne Conway came out and came
Speaker 1: out swinging on this play thirteen. They don't even like
Speaker 1: when the question is raised because they know it's a
Speaker 1: losing issue for them. The legislation that the Democrats voted
Speaker 1: against recently, again and again is called the Born Alive
Speaker 1: Abortion Survivor Protections Act. Democrats, including Bernie Senters, vote against that.
Speaker 1: So that is unconscionable to many Americans. And we will
Speaker 1: continue to fight for reasonable restrictions and regulations that are
Speaker 1: in line with with a country that should value life.
Speaker 1: That's right, a country that's value life. This is where
Speaker 1: I have to say we are We're beginning to win,
Speaker 1: I think the ideological battle on this one. But legally,
Speaker 1: we're still in very bad shape. That we're having a
Speaker 1: national discussion about whether or not terminating babies in the
Speaker 1: third trimester upt tone, including the moment of birth or
Speaker 1: even post birth disposal of a baby, which is what
Speaker 1: Democrats sometimes are willing to approve, just goes to show
Speaker 1: you that this issue we have gone so far in
Speaker 1: the wrong direction, and it is so appalling. It is
Speaker 1: in fact demonic what is going on in this country.
Speaker 1: And there is, I think somewhere among the Democrat intelligency,
Speaker 1: I think there's an understanding that eventually, when the American
Speaker 1: people fully wake up to what has been going on here,
Speaker 1: this will be like that the Democrats were the party
Speaker 1: of slavery. The Democrats being the party of abortion will
Speaker 1: be a moral stain on them for all eternity. And
Speaker 1: they're just trying to forestall that for as long as possible.
Speaker 1: In fact, if they can, they want to forestall that
Speaker 1: until at least they can get mass amnesty and a
Speaker 1: permanent Democrat majority. So then it'll just be kind of
Speaker 1: a national reconciliation thing of well, you know, the left,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are all in charge. We're now a Democrat
Speaker 1: socialist country and yeah, you know, abortion for all nine months,
Speaker 1: for all those years was probably not a good thing.
Speaker 1: But you know, we're going to move on as a
Speaker 1: country now and there's gonna be some restrictions. I don't
Speaker 1: think it'll ever. I don't think Democrats will will accept
Speaker 1: even if it goes back to the States, if Row
Speaker 1: were to be overturned, total restrictions on abortion. But I
Speaker 1: do think there will be restrictions. I think we're heading
Speaker 1: in that direction. And the science is just it is.
Speaker 1: It is entirely or rather indefensible to suggest that we
Speaker 1: don't know that it's a human being in the womb
Speaker 1: at you know, eight months, nine months, seven months, six months,
Speaker 1: you go back. Science is very clear on that the
Speaker 1: Party of science is also the party of men can
Speaker 1: become women and babies aren't babies. This is quite a
Speaker 1: circumstance that they have put themselves in um and the
Speaker 1: only way they can, I think, deal with themselves as
Speaker 1: the party and sleep at night is to suggest that
Speaker 1: this is not this is not what it is. That
Speaker 1: the the obvious truth that I'm talking to you about
Speaker 1: right now somehow don't count or aren't real or you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what I'm talking about. But Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: is part of this, this radical position on the issue
Speaker 1: of abortion and on life and the protection of life.
Speaker 1: He's radical on a whole bunch of issues, and there
Speaker 1: are there's real suffering that occurs as a result of
Speaker 1: this stuff. You know, the the issue of whether or
Speaker 1: not we're defending life is very differ from the issue
Speaker 1: of are we paying you know, thirty five percent or
Speaker 1: twenty five percent or whatever in taxes. There are moral
Speaker 1: questions at the state handles, and then they are administrative
Speaker 1: questions at the state handles. I would like us to
Speaker 1: be arguing with the Democrats over much more of the
Speaker 1: administrative side of things. You know, how how big should
Speaker 1: the Department of Health and Human Services be or should
Speaker 1: it exist at all? Those are the debates I want
Speaker 1: to have a Democrats, not should we defend babies in
Speaker 1: the womb? That's not That's not a debate that I
Speaker 1: wanted because I want us to have already won that debate.
Speaker 1: I want that to be something of the country has
Speaker 1: moved passed. We are not there yet. And Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: mister Cudley, Grandpa, he is part of the planned parenthood
Speaker 1: system of infant abattoirs, just like all the other Democrats
Speaker 1: to do. Not forget that, because they're going to try
Speaker 1: to cloud the moral battleground going forward. This is one
Speaker 1: place where left and right are truly separated, and Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders is on the wrong side of this one too.
Speaker 1: Earlier this year, the Leadership Institute had a field organizer
Speaker 1: named Hayden Williams who was peacefully helping conservative students recruit
Speaker 1: out at UC Berkeley, and guess what happened. A leftist
Speaker 1: thug attacked him and punched him in the face viciously
Speaker 1: did real damage. Why because he's a conservative? Because that's
Speaker 1: the mentality that the attitude on campus these days. Do
Speaker 1: you want to take action to help conservatives win the
Speaker 1: fight for ideas and the right to express those ideas
Speaker 1: on college campuses. Please support the Leadership Institute in this battle,
Speaker 1: going to take back the campus dot org. With your
Speaker 1: gift of as little as five dollars a month, you
Speaker 1: can help conservative college students stand up to the intimidation
Speaker 1: and physical attacks of radical leftist campus bullies. The left's
Speaker 1: efforts to silence conservatives is going to continue, and it's
Speaker 1: going to have a profound effect on the future. You
Speaker 1: can have a role in this fight. Now visit take
Speaker 1: back the campus dot org to make your urgent gift
Speaker 1: to the leadership Institute today. That's take back the Campus
Speaker 1: dot Org. I think spying on a political campaign is
Speaker 1: a big deal. I'm not suggesting that those roles were violated,
Speaker 1: but I think it's important to look at that. And
Speaker 1: I'm not just I'm not talking about the FBI necessarily,
Speaker 1: but intelligence agencies more broadly. So you're not suggesting, though,
Speaker 1: that spying occurred. I don't, well, I guess you could.
Speaker 1: I think there's a spying did occur. Yes, I think
Speaker 1: spying did occur. Oh good heavens. The Attorney General is
Speaker 1: just saying what anyone paying attention has known for a
Speaker 1: long time now, that spying did occur, and we may
Speaker 1: find out tomorrow the depths of that spying and some
Speaker 1: of the justifications used for it, much to democrats chagrin.
Speaker 1: What should we be expecting here, folks, and what should
Speaker 1: we be looking for? We got our friend Andy McCarthy,
Speaker 1: who is in very high demand of the moment. He's
Speaker 1: making some time for us. I don't know if he's
Speaker 1: coaching a little league game, right now. But he's out
Speaker 1: on the field somewhere. He is from National Review, of course,
Speaker 1: and Fox News. Former federal prosecutor from the Southern District.
Speaker 1: And you're great to have you back, but great to
Speaker 1: be here. My son's pitching today. So I'm a I'm
Speaker 1: a nervous spectator. Oh wow, so you actually are at
Speaker 1: a baseball game. That was a good guest for me.
Speaker 1: I'm look at me, man, using my CIA skills. If
Speaker 1: I'm not at a hockey game, I'm at a baseball game.
Speaker 1: So it's all good. You're living the life, mister McCarthy,
Speaker 1: shuttling back and forth hockey, baseball, and Fox News like
Speaker 1: a good American. So tell me, man, what a collusion? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Tell me? What are you expecting tomorrow? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I think a big part of this is managing expectations
Speaker 1: from all sides. What do you think we're going to see?
Speaker 1: Assuming this four hundred page thing drops it around ten am,
Speaker 1: which is what I'm hearing, What are you looking for? Fuck?
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any reason to think that this
Speaker 1: will be any different than what we have seen for
Speaker 1: a year and a half in indictments written by the
Speaker 1: same group of prosecutors, which is um you know, just
Speaker 1: to take say the Roger Stone or the Papadopolis h
Speaker 1: or the Mike Flynn indictments. They had what we got
Speaker 1: and knows was, you know, somewhere between ten and twenty
Speaker 1: pages of heavy breathing about almost collusion, nearly collusion, feels
Speaker 1: like collusion. And then you flip to the last page
Speaker 1: and you know, somebody lied to an FBI agent about
Speaker 1: the date of a meeting. And what you realize is
Speaker 1: they have used the pretext or the need to write
Speaker 1: a short what in a normal case would be like
Speaker 1: a one paragraph indictment of somebody for making a full statement,
Speaker 1: and they've used that as the pretext for writing a
Speaker 1: narrative story. And I think the difference tomorrow is you're
Speaker 1: going to get to the end and there's going to
Speaker 1: be nothing in the way of criminal charges. But we're
Speaker 1: going to get three or four hundred pages of almost collusion,
Speaker 1: almost obstruction, almost this, almost then. But you know, we're
Speaker 1: not going to at the end of it. I don't
Speaker 1: think we're going to have much of anything. Somebody just
Speaker 1: got on base Andy, So hopefully it's your team, Tell
Speaker 1: me this, what are you you know, on the obstruction side.
Speaker 1: I think that's where Democrats are really very hopeful that
Speaker 1: they're going to have something to sink their teeth into.
Speaker 1: But if there's no charges, does it really does it matter?
Speaker 1: I mean, what do you think. I know, I'm asking
Speaker 1: you to kind of look into your crystal ball here
Speaker 1: a little bit. But without any charges, what could they
Speaker 1: really say? I mean, if the evidence was pretty strong,
Speaker 1: wouldn't they have brought a charge on obstruction? Well not
Speaker 1: only that, buck, but here's why I think this whole
Speaker 1: thing is farcical from the beginning. And I say this
Speaker 1: as somebody who was in the system for a very
Speaker 1: long time and thinks it's a big deal to lie
Speaker 1: to FBI agents, sort to lie to Congress, or to
Speaker 1: lie to a grand jury. So I don't I'm not
Speaker 1: belittling process crimes. I think that people are entitled to
Speaker 1: say that the process crimes are trivial compared to what
Speaker 1: was under investigation in the first place. But I'm not
Speaker 1: putting down process crimes. But here's my question, and it's
Speaker 1: one I haven't heard an answer too, and it's one
Speaker 1: I haven't really heard raise nearly enough, which is, how
Speaker 1: on earth does the president obstruct a counterintelligence investigation. You know,
Speaker 1: criminal investigations are done to do to vindicate the rule
Speaker 1: of law in judicial proceedings. That's the reason we talk
Speaker 1: about obstruction of justice, because when you lie to an
Speaker 1: FBI agent or you you manipulate evidence or witnesses that
Speaker 1: can end up perverting a you know, the eventual judicial
Speaker 1: proceeding after somebody is indicted. But counterintelligence investigations are done
Speaker 1: for the president. They're done to gather information in the
Speaker 1: service of the president's constitutional mission to protect the United
Speaker 1: States from threats from foreign powers. And it's the president,
Speaker 1: not the FBI, not the CIA, not anyone else. It's
Speaker 1: the president who decides what the intelligence needs of the
Speaker 1: nation are. So I don't, for the life of me
Speaker 1: understand since counterintelligence investigations, unlike criminal investigations, really belonged to
Speaker 1: the president and are done for the president. No one
Speaker 1: has yet explained to me how on earth the president
Speaker 1: can obstruct a counterintelligence investigation. But you know, what kind
Speaker 1: of proceeding is it that that this investigation, you know,
Speaker 1: even took place to vindicate I heard McCabe, the deputy,
Speaker 1: the then deputy FBI director. I guess he was the
Speaker 1: acting FBI director when the investigation, when he opened the
Speaker 1: investigation against the president, and I heard remarkably on sixty
Speaker 1: minutes him say that he was concerned that the president
Speaker 1: was interfering with the FBI's intelligent counterintelligence investigation of Russia.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking, was he absent from school the day
Speaker 1: that they taught that it's the FBI that does counterintelligence
Speaker 1: for the president, not the other way around. I mean,
Speaker 1: I just I don't get it how rogue Andy Kenney's
Speaker 1: agent sees go with these processes things like FISA and
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, the counterintelligence investigation overall before there has
Speaker 1: to be some accountability. And people have been saying, now,
Speaker 1: you know what, what would it take, I mean, to
Speaker 1: show up in a FISA court and to as as
Speaker 1: I understand it, we already know the dossier was used,
Speaker 1: so an opposition research document in a political campaign was
Speaker 1: used as even if it wasn't the only thing, the
Speaker 1: fact that it was even included in a phizi war
Speaker 1: and strikes me as highly highly problematic that you know,
Speaker 1: a Mother Jones or Yahoo News I forget which it
Speaker 1: was news story was included in the pies application. You
Speaker 1: know what, what has to happen for the people doing
Speaker 1: this to actually get disciplined. Andy, Yeah, that's the big question,
Speaker 1: And you know, I think there's two things to be
Speaker 1: said about that, Buck. First is, as you and I
Speaker 1: both know from our prior lives, you can take information
Speaker 1: from anywhere. I mean, it's the problem here isn't that
Speaker 1: they took information from, uh, you know, an opposition campaign document.
Speaker 1: It's that they didn't corroborate it. You know, their obligation
Speaker 1: is to verify their own procedures say they can't bring
Speaker 1: unverified information to the fiz A court. So you know,
Speaker 1: I took information from all kinds of terrible people in
Speaker 1: twenty years as a prosecutor, but you don't bring it
Speaker 1: to court and you don't ask anyone to rely on
Speaker 1: it until you can you can make it stand up
Speaker 1: with independent corroboration, and that's what they didn't do, So that,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's one big problem. And the
Speaker 1: second big problem. I think when the history of this
Speaker 1: is finally written, what is going to end up being
Speaker 1: most important is that you know, the way the FBI
Speaker 1: is supposed to work. You do these investigations at the
Speaker 1: field office level and headquarters plays the you know, coolhead
Speaker 1: role of adult supervision because as we all know, if
Speaker 1: we've done investigations, you know, you get very invested in
Speaker 1: your investigation, and you're you know, whether you're a prosecutor
Speaker 1: or an agent work in a case, you always think
Speaker 1: that your bad guys are the worst bad guys ever,
Speaker 1: and your temptation is always to push the envelope. And
Speaker 1: oh yeah, that's why. That's why your headquarters and your
Speaker 1: supervisors are there to say, you know, no, we don't
Speaker 1: bring unverified information to the FIGS accord or you know, no,
Speaker 1: this isn't within our procedures, or that isn't within our procedures.
Speaker 1: I think the real problem here is headquarters took over
Speaker 1: the investigation, did the investigation itself, got very invested of
Speaker 1: it in it was very invested in it from the start,
Speaker 1: and when it came time when they wanted to do
Speaker 1: things that were outrageous things, there was nobody there to
Speaker 1: tell them, no, we don't do that. And I think
Speaker 1: that's the big problem. You Yeah, it feels like Andy,
Speaker 1: there was no meaningful oversight of this process at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, and the fact that it's a shock to
Speaker 1: people that bar is using terms like spying and on
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign. These are facts. These are facts that
Speaker 1: are already in evidence. I don't I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any real honest debate about those aspects of it. The
Speaker 1: point that he makes about whether it's valid or not,
Speaker 1: that's what we have to look at now. But you
Speaker 1: know what you mentioned our previous lives, Andy, You know
Speaker 1: there are walk ins to you know, to uh, you know,
Speaker 1: intelligence officers all of the world that will say, you know,
Speaker 1: ben Laden's hiding under my bed. If I spun up
Speaker 1: a surveillance campaign based on some dude who walks in
Speaker 1: off the street and says ben Laden's hiding under my bed,
Speaker 1: and I said, well, this guy says ben Laden's under
Speaker 1: my bed, So we're gonna pull his phones and everyone's phones.
Speaker 1: You know, I would probably lose my job. It feels
Speaker 1: like that, not in quite a silly way, but somewhat
Speaker 1: you know, similar happened at the FBI with a with
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign, and it's like no big deal to
Speaker 1: the people that work there. Yeah, and you know what
Speaker 1: camouflages that buck, it's it's the fact that they go
Speaker 1: to the FISA chord, which is why I have said
Speaker 1: for you know. I'm I'm an almost thirty years now
Speaker 1: FISA naysayer um because I think all it does is
Speaker 1: make sure that you don't have accountability under circumstances where
Speaker 1: it's not a judicial function. And what I mean by
Speaker 1: that is, you know, Justice Jackson writing for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Jackson was a giant in both the political and legal world.
Speaker 1: He was FDRs Attorney General Berg and then he was
Speaker 1: ultimately on the Supreme Court, and in the nineteen fifties
Speaker 1: he wrote a case for the Supreme Court called Chicago
Speaker 1: Southern which was about intelligence collection, and what he said
Speaker 1: in the case was very interesting. He said, number One,
Speaker 1: judges can't be brought into the executive branches deliberations about
Speaker 1: intelligence because it's not within the judicial ken. There's nothing
Speaker 1: about being a lawyer that makes you in any way
Speaker 1: expert about intelligence collection or analysis. And secondly, in our
Speaker 1: representative democratic republic, the idea is that the most important
Speaker 1: decisions that a body politic makes are the ones about
Speaker 1: its national security, and they're supposed to be decided by
Speaker 1: the people who are directly accountable to the people whose
Speaker 1: lies are as think, namely your political representatives. So I
Speaker 1: don't think judges should belong in this this thicket of
Speaker 1: national security, and here we're seeing why it goes wrong.
Speaker 1: If some it's if you go to a judge, it
Speaker 1: think of the scenario you just talk like Boden's under
Speaker 1: my bed or somebody says, you know, al Qaeda is
Speaker 1: about to bomb something, and you know you have very
Speaker 1: very thin evidence. Do you want to be the judge
Speaker 1: that tells them they can't have their warrant? Of course not,
Speaker 1: And that I think is why it doesn't work. What
Speaker 1: ends up happening is these guys do wild and crazy
Speaker 1: things and then they come to us and say, well,
Speaker 1: for Republican judges, Republican appointed judges signed off on these warrants.
Speaker 1: And you know, I mean, I just I just think
Speaker 1: that so FIS is a rubber stamp. Andy, If I
Speaker 1: mean FIS is a rubber stamp, then basically, well what
Speaker 1: would you be if you were the judge you're going
Speaker 1: to tell them that they can investigate. You know, someone's
Speaker 1: about to commit a mass murder attack, ten thousand Americans
Speaker 1: may be killed. You want to be the judge to
Speaker 1: tell them they can't have their way? Yeah, what I
Speaker 1: was when I was in CTC and in the community,
Speaker 1: we people would always talk about duty to warn and
Speaker 1: duty to Warren was the was the explanation for a
Speaker 1: lot of really crappy stuff getting way too much attention,
Speaker 1: Because to your point, no nobody wants to be the
Speaker 1: one who says, oh, we didn't listen to this guy
Speaker 1: who was actually the tipster that saved us from you know,
Speaker 1: having Times Square get blown up and you know, kill
Speaker 1: a thousand people or something. So so I get it,
Speaker 1: um one thing before let you go in and get
Speaker 1: back to the game. I know you got to give
Speaker 1: the the third base signal to the kids to take
Speaker 1: home plate. Um, why didn't they What is the explanation,
Speaker 1: What is the explanation for why they didn't tell Trump?
Speaker 1: If this was a counterintelligence investigation and was really about
Speaker 1: Russia interfering as they're now saying, why didn't they tell
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign? I think the only way that makes
Speaker 1: sense to me, Buck is if they were the person
Speaker 1: they were worried about was Trump. So you know, if
Speaker 1: it was just these guys orphiting around the campaign, then
Speaker 1: you know there were guys. Even if let's say you
Speaker 1: hate Trump, you can't stand Trump, you think he's a
Speaker 1: disrupt or you know whatever. And there was clearly anti
Speaker 1: Trump animus there. You have a campaign where they have
Speaker 1: Chris Christy, they got Rudy Giuliani, they got Jeff Sessions.
Speaker 1: They were people who had real national security credentials. So
Speaker 1: they could easily have gone in and said, you know,
Speaker 1: look this guy Paul Maniport, we're a little worried about him,
Speaker 1: or you know, we think the Russians are trying to
Speaker 1: infiltrate your campaign. And you could have had that defensive briefing,
Speaker 1: which is the normal thing, as the Attorney General said
Speaker 1: they would do, and I think this whole thing would
Speaker 1: have been resolved. But who's the one person in a
Speaker 1: campaign that they're not going to kick out of the
Speaker 1: case and paying the candidate? And right exactly, this was
Speaker 1: always about See this is Keyla. This was always about Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: Otherwise there's otherwise you handle it a different way. Yeah, absolutely, Andy,
Speaker 1: Just you know, I have a feeling the kid who's
Speaker 1: up next can't hit the curveball, so give the picture
Speaker 1: a signal for us. All right, thanks for my son,
Speaker 1: and I think you just knocked them down. So that's good.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, go tend to that. And Andie McCarthy, everybody,
Speaker 1: National Review and Fox News Andy, thanks so much, Thanks Bud.
Speaker 1: All Right, team live from the Little League field. We
Speaker 1: got Anny McCarthey with us, but with the best analysis
Speaker 1: you'll find anywhere on this issue of Russia collusion. We're
Speaker 1: gonna come back for just some some additional on this
Speaker 1: and then we'll move topics teams, So stay right there.
Speaker 1: I like having a glass of wind unwind, or just
Speaker 1: pair it with a nice meal that I've made. But
Speaker 1: I don't know very much about wine, and most people
Speaker 1: are like me. They just select whatever they think looks
Speaker 1: cool or is on sale. But I can answer any
Speaker 1: questions or problems you have with your wine selection, folks,
Speaker 1: now because of first Leaf, all Right. First Leaf is
Speaker 1: a wine club that makes it easy to discover new
Speaker 1: wines that you're gonna love. First Leaf has created a
Speaker 1: club experience that's customized by you. You just rate the
Speaker 1: wines you receive, and then First Leaf will determine your
Speaker 1: likes and dislikes. It's kind of like Spotify or Pandora
Speaker 1: for wines. Right, you want to check this out. I've
Speaker 1: become a member and I love it. I get my
Speaker 1: wine sent to me and I'm learning all kinds of
Speaker 1: stuff about what I like and what I want to
Speaker 1: get more of. Sign up with my link and you'll
Speaker 1: get an exclusive intro offer six bottles of wine for
Speaker 1: only twenty nine five plus free shipping. Just go to
Speaker 1: try first leaf dot com slash buck Again. Try first
Speaker 1: leaf dot com slash buck six bottles of wine for
Speaker 1: only twenty nine five plus free shipping. Try first leaf
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. There's no doubt they were spying
Speaker 1: on Trump's people in campaign. The question was it lawful?
Speaker 1: The Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Act allows you to follow around
Speaker 1: people you think are working with a foreign government. Counterintelligence investigation,
Speaker 1: by very definition, is surveilling people that you think are spying.
Speaker 1: So the question was it lawful? If the warrant was
Speaker 1: based on the docier, that wasn't lawful. And I don't
Speaker 1: know why they did not tell Trump about people on
Speaker 1: his campaign work in Canada Russia if they really believe
Speaker 1: that Lindsey Graham making my point there, if this was
Speaker 1: a counterintelligence investigation, because you're hearing people that they've there's
Speaker 1: been so much moving up the goalpost with all this,
Speaker 1: so much dishonesty around what really got all this going.
Speaker 1: But if this was ever really about protecting the sanctity
Speaker 1: of our elections and making sure the Russians couldn't involve themselves,
Speaker 1: they should have gone to the Trump campaign, to the
Speaker 1: presidential nominee for the Republican Party and said, we have
Speaker 1: the following concerns about Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, and
Speaker 1: you know what have happened. They would have said, we
Speaker 1: don't even know who those guys are basically, and you
Speaker 1: know they're not a part of the campaign anymore. And
Speaker 1: there you go full stop. You know, in Manafort, the
Speaker 1: same thing. I mean, they are. He fired Manafort anyway,
Speaker 1: Manafork got fired. People always forget this. He was already tossed.
Speaker 1: So I just it's these people are lying to you,
Speaker 1: And that's what I know. We spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time this today, but I wanted to sort of have
Speaker 1: a level of preparation for you are going to be
Speaker 1: inundated with lies tomorrow. I mean, just up to your
Speaker 1: eyeballs in people that will not tell you the truth
Speaker 1: about this. I will not tell you what the report
Speaker 1: really says or what the real meaning of it may be.
Speaker 1: They're just going to hope that, you know, because people
Speaker 1: have busy lives and other things to do, they'll believe whatever.
Speaker 1: The CNN panel of four idiots, who by the way,
Speaker 1: have been wrong for the last two years about everything
Speaker 1: Muller related, everything tying Russia collusion together, those same pundits.
Speaker 1: I see them all on TV, like we're supposed to
Speaker 1: listen to these people, like you know, I mean, I know,
Speaker 1: I know, the whole crew over at CNN. You know,
Speaker 1: they'll still put Max boot and film Mud and and uh,
Speaker 1: you know all these other people that they don't know
Speaker 1: they were wrong about everything, wrong about everything, but they're
Speaker 1: still on TV all the time. What is this? Why
Speaker 1: do they have any credibility? Why should you across the
Speaker 1: country flip on a TV looking to get, you know,
Speaker 1: some news, looking to be updated on what's happening in
Speaker 1: the country, and look at these clowns as they're like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: the MULA report really shows there un obstruction of blah blah.
Speaker 1: They're gonna trot out all these legal experts who were
Speaker 1: saying Trump was essentially gonna get frog marched out of
Speaker 1: the White House in chains totally wrong, no accountability, no
Speaker 1: lessons learned. The mainstream media is full of frauds, utter
Speaker 1: and complete frauds. Just remember that as this report drops tomorrow,
Speaker 1: this group today created a tremendous gap in border secure.
Speaker 1: I had to allocate, had to close down the checkpoint
Speaker 1: in Aho, I had to allocate virtually an entire station
Speaker 1: to begin transporting this group of four hundred to a
Speaker 1: secure location, to provide care, to provide medical attention for him.
Speaker 1: This is a tactic. The cartels are using this tactic
Speaker 1: at the border. They continue to do this because they
Speaker 1: understand that right now there's all this scrutiny on border
Speaker 1: patrol and if they don't bring food and medicine and
Speaker 1: blankets and shelter to illegal aliens who are crossing, end
Speaker 1: mass everything they can to skip the immigration line, knowing
Speaker 1: what is going on here, knowing that what they're doing
Speaker 1: is a violation of our laws. They don't care. They're
Speaker 1: benefiting from this. They view this as something that is
Speaker 1: in their interest. But it means that the cartels can
Speaker 1: exploit the security gaps that they can create. This isn't
Speaker 1: just oh, there's four hundred people who are showing up
Speaker 1: at one spot on the border and saying, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: and then the cartels opportunistically will run Fentonel that's killing
Speaker 1: thousands of Americans meth amphetamine. You can't even get people
Speaker 1: to pay attention to meth amphetamine in this country. Meth
Speaker 1: right now, according to the DA, is the worst it's
Speaker 1: ever been in terms of usage, in terms of overdose,
Speaker 1: the worst it has ever been in this country. But
Speaker 1: no one even pays attention because we got such a
Speaker 1: big opioid crisis. In fact, they're running meth into certain
Speaker 1: communities just trying to keep the flow goings they can
Speaker 1: keep their addicts in place, and they're doing so at
Speaker 1: prices that they keep dropping because there's so much metho
Speaker 1: over the place, and they're saturating the markets in some
Speaker 1: areas because there's so much meth in circulation right now.
Speaker 1: And yet we're told, oh, it's not a security it's
Speaker 1: only humanitarian issue. Yet another lie being told at the border,
Speaker 1: Yet another lie. It went from there's no crisis to
Speaker 1: it's a humanitarian crisis, that's what. It's also a security crisis.
Speaker 1: It's been a law and order crisis for a long time,
Speaker 1: but now it's a real security crisis. There is poison
Speaker 1: that is being trafficked across our border to kill Americans,
Speaker 1: and it is getting into cities you listening to this
Speaker 1: show across the country, wherever you may be in Texas,
Speaker 1: in Indiana, in Florida, in North Carolina, in California, wherever
Speaker 1: you may be, there are drugs that are in your
Speaker 1: community that are coming across the border, and they're killing people.
Speaker 1: And it's easier for them to do it because of
Speaker 1: the migrants exploiting the system, earning themselves in and saying
Speaker 1: they want asylum. These are not asylum seekers, They are
Speaker 1: economic migrants. There are people who want to be in America.
Speaker 1: Honduras is not in the midst of a civil war.
Speaker 1: These people are not fleeing because the Khmer rouge is
Speaker 1: coming for them and going to kill everybody. That's just
Speaker 1: not reality. Same thing in El Salvador, same thing in Guatemala.
Speaker 1: Are they poor countries? Do we wish they were in
Speaker 1: better shape? Yes? Absolutely? But you know, I always want
Speaker 1: to know which is it is America supposed to fix
Speaker 1: all these places or not. I keep hearing from democrats
Speaker 1: from liberals world if we only did more in Central America,
Speaker 1: we would we would fix the They view this as
Speaker 1: a as a as a supply problem. There's a there's
Speaker 1: too much supply of people that want to come to
Speaker 1: this country because this country is great and those countries
Speaker 1: aren't great. It's a very nice way of putting it.
Speaker 1: I'm in a nice mood today Trump puts it a
Speaker 1: different way. But are we supposed to be responsible for
Speaker 1: making the better countries? Because I just you know, when
Speaker 1: we do that, we're told we're being white supremacists, even
Speaker 1: though America is not obviously a country just for the
Speaker 1: white people. There's a lot of people of all different
Speaker 1: ethnicities year America's America. But if America gets involved in
Speaker 1: the Third World, we're told we're being white supremacists. We're
Speaker 1: told we're being imperialists, were you know, all these they say,
Speaker 1: all these terrible things. But if we don't get involved
Speaker 1: and then we don't want to let people just flood
Speaker 1: our into our country, guess what. Then we're told that
Speaker 1: we're being you know, bad, bad stewards of the wealth
Speaker 1: that we have accrued, that we're not being our brothers keeper,
Speaker 1: or that we're not in all this stuff. So we're
Speaker 1: damned if we do. Damned if we don't. We can't
Speaker 1: have a secure border, we can't take it upon ourselves
Speaker 1: to tell countries how to be better countries. That's considered
Speaker 1: that's a no no, Now, so what are we supposed
Speaker 1: to do? This is why I understand Trump's frustration with
Speaker 1: the whole with the whole system, with everything that's going
Speaker 1: on right now, but but even more specifically, that the
Speaker 1: courts are acting as proxies for far left interest that
Speaker 1: all you need is one judge in the Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals to decide that the law is whatever
Speaker 1: he or she says it is, and that judge is
Speaker 1: in a position to override executive prerogative on the border.
Speaker 1: One judge. It's an outrage what's going on here. So
Speaker 1: that's why Trump says, Hey, I've got an idea. We're
Speaker 1: just going to move all the illegals that are crossing
Speaker 1: into sanctuary cities. Let the sanctuary cities deal with it.
Speaker 1: And that's where you get into Democrats with contradictory talking
Speaker 1: points all of a sudden hold on is is Corey
Speaker 1: Booker right when he says that moving people into sanctuary
Speaker 1: cities who are illegal aliens that just came into the country,
Speaker 1: that makes us less safe? Play nine. I think this
Speaker 1: is an empty threat by the president though, to talk
Speaker 1: about bussing people from the border into these sanctuary cities.
Speaker 1: He likes to create frictions sometimes to jumpstart, he says
Speaker 1: a Congress that's not acting. You say friction, I say,
Speaker 1: he's trying to pit Americans against each other and make
Speaker 1: us less safe. Because what you're seeing now, so you
Speaker 1: take a threat seriously. He is injecting fear into our country.
Speaker 1: And so if he was looking to solve a problem,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't be doing things to divide this country against
Speaker 1: itself make us less safe. How by moving I thought
Speaker 1: I thought illegal aliens were better than Americans. I thought
Speaker 1: that illegal aliens were making community safer all the time.
Speaker 1: I take this all down. I try to use an
Speaker 1: Akam's razor or approach to immigration. And if what Democrats
Speaker 1: say is true, and I don't mean one or two Democrats,
Speaker 1: I mean if the mainstream of the Democrat Party is
Speaker 1: to be taken seriously on what they are saying and
Speaker 1: what they're promoting right now, why do we have an
Speaker 1: immigration system at all. It's nonsensical. There's no reason for it.
Speaker 1: If a million people from Central America, from poor countries
Speaker 1: that don't speak English, that don't bring economic skills that
Speaker 1: we need into the country, if they're not being judged
Speaker 1: for those skills, if they're not going through the legal process.
Speaker 1: And Democrats say this is going to be great, we
Speaker 1: have an obligation to do this, but not only that,
Speaker 1: it's going to be fabulous for America. If that's true,
Speaker 1: why do we have an immigration system at all? Why
Speaker 1: not just have a you know, show up. That's what
Speaker 1: the border is. The border right now is show up,
Speaker 1: have a kid, say you've got a credible fear, but
Speaker 1: show up and you're good to go. So why shouldn't
Speaker 1: that be If what Democrats say is true, if there's
Speaker 1: no downside to this, which is what they tell us,
Speaker 1: If there's no downside, why have an immigration system at all?
Speaker 1: They won't make the honest case. They like the outcome here,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to be honest about that. They
Speaker 1: like what's happening, but they pretend that they're working with
Speaker 1: us to handle the situation. They don't want to handle what.
Speaker 1: They want to encourage it. Remember Oakland may Or Libby
Speaker 1: shaff she's the one who warned warned illegal aliens, including
Speaker 1: some who are real hardened criminals in her community that
Speaker 1: ICE was going to conduct some raids, right, so she
Speaker 1: was We want to talk about obstruction. There's a public
Speaker 1: official who's obstructing federal law enforcement, and she's run around
Speaker 1: telling everybody that this is going to make things better
Speaker 1: for us, to make things safer if we have all
Speaker 1: these illegal aliens play ten. The data is very clear
Speaker 1: that immigrants and even undocumented immigrants commit far fewer crimes
Speaker 1: than non immigrants. The data is clear sanctuary cities like
Speaker 1: Oakland are actually getting safer. We believe that there is
Speaker 1: safety and harmony into city and inclusion. But what's really
Speaker 1: outrageous is the way that this administration continues to use
Speaker 1: petty politics and really just vitriolic rhetoric to advance a
Speaker 1: racist agenda. This is not American lies, lies, lies, propaganda,
Speaker 1: and smears. That is what that woman just said. The
Speaker 1: data is absolutely not clear that undocumented immigrants that's a
Speaker 1: made up term. The legal term is illegal alien. That
Speaker 1: is the legal Federal code term. Undocumented is a made
Speaker 1: up thing, doesn't exist. The data is not clear that
Speaker 1: illegal aliens commit far for your crimes. In fact, at
Speaker 1: the state level, they refuse to collect the data. State
Speaker 1: prison authorities do not have reliable data all the number
Speaker 1: of illegal aliens that are in their custody for serious crimes.
Speaker 1: They just don't have it. It's just not there. And
Speaker 1: Coulter wrote a whole book on the issue of what's
Speaker 1: really happening at our southern border, an immigration in this country.
Speaker 1: She crunched all the numbers. She'd never get to the
Speaker 1: credit she deserves for the research that goes into her books.
Speaker 1: Trump took the theses of her book Audios America ran
Speaker 1: with it as his campaign. It's why he became president,
Speaker 1: by the way, I mean, among other reasons. But the
Speaker 1: immigration issue is what's separated from everybody else. But this
Speaker 1: makes no sense at all. You're gonna tell me that
Speaker 1: an that an underclass of people who are are already
Speaker 1: in violation the law and constantly viting the law, document fraud,
Speaker 1: social Security card fraud, all and all kinds of stuff
Speaker 1: that they're doing. If they're gonna be they're going to
Speaker 1: commit fewer crimes than just normal Americans, everyday Americans of
Speaker 1: all ethnic season backgrounds. Really, Huh, that's a completely counterintuitive,
Speaker 1: isn't it. But the data, the data is not clear
Speaker 1: because they refuse to collect the data. The reason they
Speaker 1: refuse to collect the data is because if we saw
Speaker 1: the full extent of the costs to human beings lives,
Speaker 1: as well as the cost to the taxpayer of what
Speaker 1: the illegal immigration problem has been in this country, I
Speaker 1: think there would be a real surge of outrage against
Speaker 1: the political class for selling us out on this issue.
Speaker 1: So they don't want the same reason. Folks they tell
Speaker 1: you there's eleven million, they're lying to you. They are
Speaker 1: lying to you. There are not eleven million illegals, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a million just this year. Well the
Speaker 1: number next year, I guarantee you it would be a
Speaker 1: eleven point six million. I mean, you know, it's just nonsense.
Speaker 1: It is nonsense. There are so many organizations in groups
Speaker 1: that have a vested interest in propaganda around the issue
Speaker 1: of illegal immigration, pretending that they have all these facts
Speaker 1: and figures to back them up that they really don't.
Speaker 1: But there are people who are very invested in this,
Speaker 1: invested in continuing this lie. I'm trying to get answers
Speaker 1: and get the truth. And the more I talk to
Speaker 1: people who know this issue, the more you realize this
Speaker 1: is this has been a swindle. I mean much of
Speaker 1: the most. Almost all of the media's been complicit in this.
Speaker 1: Republicans have been complicit in this. It is a massive,
Speaker 1: multidecade systematic ignoring of laws that are on the books.
Speaker 1: And if somebody who just had to write a big
Speaker 1: fat check to the federal government because of other laws
Speaker 1: on the books, I gotta tell you, I resent that
Speaker 1: there are two legal codes, one for illegal aliens and
Speaker 1: one for the rest of America. Either the laws count
Speaker 1: or they don't. Not just an immigration on everything. I'm
Speaker 1: not even I'm just I'm just beginning to fight here.
Speaker 1: I'll be back in just a moment. Right now, the
Speaker 1: United States, we have overflowing facilities. They need to go
Speaker 1: somewhere because they're in that asylum. Where would you put them?
Speaker 1: What about building proper facilities for them right now, right
Speaker 1: on the border, right on the border at the same
Speaker 1: so the people live on the border should have more
Speaker 1: facilities in their states. But sanctuary cities, which have said
Speaker 1: they're open to accepting people, should not take note. This
Speaker 1: is a political act question. It is a real question.
Speaker 1: Why shouldn't sanctuary CIEs, Why should this be a border problem?
Speaker 1: It's a national problem. Why should communities along the border
Speaker 1: if you bear the brunt of all of this. That's
Speaker 1: a that's a completely legitimate I mean, good for Martha
Speaker 1: McCallum for standing up to Bernie's nonsense, which is what
Speaker 1: he's offering up, by the way, nonsense. I mean, he
Speaker 1: is somebody who to win the left, which he needs
Speaker 1: in order to become the nominee for the Democrats to
Speaker 1: win the left. What you're going to find is Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders all of a sudden drop this whole pretense about
Speaker 1: how he's somebody who is going to care about the
Speaker 1: American worker and has a Remember he was saying some
Speaker 1: of that when he was trying to beat Hillary, when
Speaker 1: he was trying to win the white working class vote
Speaker 1: when he was up against Hillary in the primary. But
Speaker 1: he's going to get rid of that real fast, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden. Now Bernie Sanders is also turning into
Speaker 1: an open borders guy. And you know, I saw that
Speaker 1: there's this change that's happening now because of Attorney General
Speaker 1: barn Attorney General bar Is has stated that you can
Speaker 1: be held in detention if you were illegal, You can
Speaker 1: be held in detention for a whole lot longer than
Speaker 1: was previously the case. This was on MSNBC Today. Attorney
Speaker 1: General William Barr waited on an immigration in case Tuesday,
Speaker 1: establishing a president that could affect thousands of migrants at
Speaker 1: the Southwest Board of Seeking Asylum bar. In his decisions,
Speaker 1: set asylum seekers who begin an expedited removal in which
Speaker 1: they're not given the right to see a judge and
Speaker 1: are then transferred to full removal proceedings in which they
Speaker 1: make their case before a judge, should not be released
Speaker 1: on bond. It means that thousands of asylum seekers who
Speaker 1: once would have been out on bond and living in
Speaker 1: the US while awaiting the decision, will now be kept
Speaker 1: in detention centers, where the wait times are now climbing
Speaker 1: from months to a year. This ruling gives Immigration and
Speaker 1: Customs Enforcement the legal authority to detain all these people indefinitely.
Speaker 1: According to a Migration Policy Institute scholar here, that's if
Speaker 1: they have the capacity. So I think the actual effect
Speaker 1: of this ruling will be severely limited by isis capacity.
Speaker 1: This is going to go into effect in ninety eight eights. Look,
Speaker 1: this isn't a game change your decision, but it's at
Speaker 1: least looking at the authority that Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Speaker 1: has and the Department of Justice has to say no
Speaker 1: more of this free pass nonsense. Okay, we got to
Speaker 1: stop just letting everybody who shows up into America and
Speaker 1: then hey, can you show up for your asylum hearing.
Speaker 1: And it's very frustrating because people say, oh, they show
Speaker 1: up for their asylum hearing. First of all, no, they don't.
Speaker 1: More than half of them do not show up for
Speaker 1: their asylum hearing. It's about sixty percent don't show. And
Speaker 1: even once they show for the asylum hearing, and if
Speaker 1: they're denied they can then they then automatically get these
Speaker 1: asylum These quote asylum seekers, they're not asylum seekers, that's
Speaker 1: what they're calling themselves. They can get legal process to
Speaker 1: challenge the deportation order. I mean, folks, if it's gonna
Speaker 1: take ten years to deport one immigrant who comes into
Speaker 1: this country illegally and says he wants asylum, we're done.
Speaker 1: What's the point they're gonna They're not gonna deport them
Speaker 1: all in the next fifty year. It's just not going
Speaker 1: to happen. So the system is completely The system isn't
Speaker 1: just broken. They are breaking the system. It is a
Speaker 1: purposeful action these asylum seekers and the left wing Democrats
Speaker 1: have helped them break our immigration system. That has what
Speaker 1: they have done, they have smashed it with a hammer.
Speaker 1: Crazy left try to stop Michael Knowles from The Daily
Speaker 1: Wire from speaking at a campus earlier this month. Before that,
Speaker 1: Candice Owens was told the University of Pennsylvania that she
Speaker 1: should go the Something something home. And people are crazy
Speaker 1: on campus now whenever a conservative shows up. Because the
Speaker 1: left has radicalized and they've radicalized the campuses. We need
Speaker 1: to fight back. The campuses are training the next generation,
Speaker 1: and right now they're being trained to be leftist lunatics.
Speaker 1: The Leadership Institute stands athwart this trend. They are the
Speaker 1: premier organization for educating and training conservative college students to
Speaker 1: stand up for their ideas and fight for conservatism on campus.
Speaker 1: Please help the Leadership Institute today. You can have a
Speaker 1: role in this fight. Just go to take back the
Speaker 1: campus dot org. To make your urgent gift to the
Speaker 1: Leadership Institute today. That's take back the campus dot org.
Speaker 1: As little as five dollars a month would really help
Speaker 1: take back the campus dot org. I like representing Ocasto
Speaker 1: Cortes's proposed Green New Deal another time in this country's
Speaker 1: past when we based an existential challenge. In that case,
Speaker 1: it was too our way of life, to the Western democracies,
Speaker 1: to our allies in Europe, to our fellow Americans. In
Speaker 1: the midst of the Great Depression, this country was willing
Speaker 1: to sacrifice men and women all over the United States
Speaker 1: to make sure that we defeated Germany, and we won
Speaker 1: that board and for the following seventy five years that
Speaker 1: we made this world safe for democracy. The Green New
Speaker 1: Deal calls that sacrifice and service and scale scale of
Speaker 1: commitments to mind when it talks about the challenges that
Speaker 1: we face today the Green New Deal. Folks, Beto O'Rourke
Speaker 1: wants you to know that he thinks the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal is as big of a deal as fighting the
Speaker 1: Nazis was. He thinks that the commitment, the willingness to
Speaker 1: sacrifice and you heard him there that those are those
Speaker 1: are Betto's words. He just like really believes that if
Speaker 1: we all just come together and open our hearts, we
Speaker 1: can reach this like new Nirvana where it's like the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal is going to be like World War two.
Speaker 1: Unfathomably stupid stuff from a guy who is flaming out
Speaker 1: very fast, very early in this Democrat primer, I have
Speaker 1: to say, I think Mayor Pete stealing Betto's lunch. That's
Speaker 1: what's happening here. But think about what he's really saying.
Speaker 1: Sixty million people roughly, I think they estimates are forty
Speaker 1: to sixty million died military and civilian in World War two,
Speaker 1: six zero million. That is a lot of people. To
Speaker 1: compare that struggle for global civilization really to the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal, a policy proposal. The brainchild of whom is
Speaker 1: or or or who is the the the person who
Speaker 1: came up with this. I was gonna say the brainchild
Speaker 1: of whom is brainless, but I'm not sure that really works.
Speaker 1: Ocazio Cortez. Ocazio Cortez is somebody who I would not
Speaker 1: trust to run an eleven dollars a bottle juice stand,
Speaker 1: which there's a lot of now in DC I've noticed,
Speaker 1: and yet here, well, I guess she was a bartender,
Speaker 1: so maybe she actually would do a pretty good job
Speaker 1: with that. This is crazy talk, though, from Beta Aurora.
Speaker 1: This is crazy to say that the Green New Deal
Speaker 1: should spur sacrifice on this scale of the US during
Speaker 1: the Second World War what a a complete undermining and
Speaker 1: a disregard for the very real sacrifices and bravery and
Speaker 1: heroism and and horrors and atrocities that were on display
Speaker 1: in the Second World War. I mean, delibos realize how
Speaker 1: stupid they sound. Maybe they just don't care. That's a
Speaker 1: very very dumb thing to say. But when you look
Speaker 1: at what's come out today about the not so charitable Democrats,
Speaker 1: people like Betto. I remember Betto Roic is a guy
Speaker 1: who's very, very very rich because he married very very rich.
Speaker 1: He's pulled the John Kerry. By the way, John Kerry
Speaker 1: married rich not once but twice. That's very lucky, isn't it.
Speaker 1: So Beto marries into a very rich family, like Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney level rich, you know, like around they're not quite billions,
Speaker 1: I think, but in the hundreds of millions real estate
Speaker 1: developer family. And he's telling all of us he's going around,
Speaker 1: I'm just like doing all the social media and I
Speaker 1: just want everyone he's doing all this stuff. Any of
Speaker 1: you want to guess what percentage of Beto's income he
Speaker 1: gave to charity in the most recent year for which
Speaker 1: he put out returns. An he want to guess point
Speaker 1: three percent of his income. Now, I'm sorry, but if
Speaker 1: you're going to run around talking about quote, World War
Speaker 1: two level sacrifice to tackle the imaginary problem of CO
Speaker 1: two melting the planet, and that is what they think
Speaker 1: is happening too much. CO two means we all melt,
Speaker 1: the seas rise, the ice caps melt. There's climate change,
Speaker 1: although they keep changing what climate change is. So it's
Speaker 1: really hard to disprove because the moment it's disprovable, they say, well,
Speaker 1: that's not climate change, or something else is climate change.
Speaker 1: This is I really and I mean this, and I
Speaker 1: don't say this to be glib al, though it's a
Speaker 1: fun thing to say. Climate change is a religious belief
Speaker 1: for people who think they're too smart for religion. And
Speaker 1: so with our increasingly militantly secular Western world, people are
Speaker 1: desperate for purpose. They're desperate to feel like they're a
Speaker 1: part of something bigger and more important than just you know,
Speaker 1: grinding it out in some cubicle somewhere hoping their boss
Speaker 1: doesn't notice that they leave ten minutes early. So being
Speaker 1: a part of this World War two level effort, as
Speaker 1: betto sees it, to save the planet, that gives people
Speaker 1: a lot of meaning all of a sudden, you know, now,
Speaker 1: now you really can hold your head high and perhaps
Speaker 1: more importantly for liberals, look down on the other side
Speaker 1: with disdain. Remember, it's not the climate change hysteria that
Speaker 1: Betcho and all of the every single Democrat candidate believes
Speaker 1: in this stuff. It is now mandatory in the Democrat
Speaker 1: to be a amacrat today. It is mandatory that you
Speaker 1: praise and love the Green New Deal and climate change.
Speaker 1: This area abortion, all nine months of a pregnancy, including
Speaker 1: post pregnancy abortion. You have to be on board for
Speaker 1: all of that. You have to be on board for
Speaker 1: intersectionality and identity politics. That there is no room anymore
Speaker 1: for heretics in the Democratic Party. There hasn't been any
Speaker 1: room on these issues for a long time. But all
Speaker 1: these different Democrats believe this. They all buy into this
Speaker 1: notion that we face in an existential threat. And I
Speaker 1: just would note that if we really did face an
Speaker 1: existential threat, shouldn't they be willing to take more personal action?
Speaker 1: You know, if I really thought that what I was
Speaker 1: doing every day was contributing to the destruction of the planet,
Speaker 1: I would change my I would alter my behavior. I
Speaker 1: really would, I really would. But I don't believe that,
Speaker 1: so I don't alter my behavior. And I hate recycling
Speaker 1: and you know that, and I eat lots of red meat.
Speaker 1: I don't care about the methane from the cows. Take
Speaker 1: that Libs. I saw some CNN, I mean CNN as
Speaker 1: if they don't have enough fake news that has something about, oh,
Speaker 1: one piece of bacon a day increases your chance of
Speaker 1: colon cancer. You know, living increases your chances of colon cancer.
Speaker 1: Give me a break, you know you want to never
Speaker 1: worry about cancer risk. Don't be alive otherwise everything causes
Speaker 1: cancer these days. And you know, to go after my
Speaker 1: beloved bacon CNN. You know, is there no limit to you?
Speaker 1: Or fake news CNN. But the ability that the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal philosophy, this climate change, this area gives Democrats
Speaker 1: to sneer and snicker at the other side. It's also
Speaker 1: a very important thing then, because you're seeing, you know,
Speaker 1: Beto try to present himself early on, and you can
Speaker 1: these dynamics and Democratic Party play out in a way
Speaker 1: where you know, there's it's instructive for us to see this, well,
Speaker 1: what is the Democratic Party really? You're seeing it evolved
Speaker 1: before your eyes in real time. Beto's whole thing was,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm just gonna like always wear a blue
Speaker 1: shirt with my sleeves rolled up and like housewives who
Speaker 1: are libs are just gonna think that I'm like so
Speaker 1: handsome and charming and like, then the rest of the
Speaker 1: country will come along. That was his plan. But he
Speaker 1: wasn't gonna be a brawler, he wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: a fighter. Well that all change because now he's losing
Speaker 1: ground that he knows it. So what does he do.
Speaker 1: He does what libs always want to do, just crash
Speaker 1: the other side. They're bad people with bad ideas and
Speaker 1: forget about their ideas, bad morals, bad brains, bad hearts,
Speaker 1: bad bad bad play clip five. It's not just it's
Speaker 1: not just that he's the placing racist. He's encouraging the
Speaker 1: worst tendency. He's hateful, he's racist, he's are I know
Speaker 1: we've become slightly um immune to this, or at least
Speaker 1: we've become far too used to it. But these are
Speaker 1: horrible things to say about the president United States, Absolutely
Speaker 1: terrible things, and yet they're said by the most prominent
Speaker 1: Democrats of the country. Regular they're said by revered pundits
Speaker 1: and anchors on on various anti Trump news channels, which
Speaker 1: is all of them really except for one, and there's
Speaker 1: no pushback on this. Why why is Trump a racist? Oh?
Speaker 1: Because of the comment about Mexico is not sending us
Speaker 1: their best. I mean, that's that's a manifestly true comment.
Speaker 1: Mexico is not sending its h it's educated elite, because
Speaker 1: there is an educated, eliteed Mexican that's sending them across
Speaker 1: the border. They're not sending their engineers and their PhDs
Speaker 1: and their their mds. And you know, from the look,
Speaker 1: that doesn't make you a better person than somebody who's
Speaker 1: a field laborer. But from the immigration for perspective, we
Speaker 1: do have this whole system, believe it or not, where
Speaker 1: we're supposed to care about the skills that people have
Speaker 1: and what they bring to the economy. And yeah, from
Speaker 1: that perspective, Mexico is not sending us their best when
Speaker 1: you're looking at the illegal population, which is a vast
Speaker 1: majority of Mexican immigration into this country. So they say
Speaker 1: he's racist for that, that's just an observation that maybe
Speaker 1: is politically incorrect, but it's true. And then saying that
Speaker 1: there are rapists and murders. That is also true. No
Speaker 1: serious human being thinks that everyone who comes across the
Speaker 1: border from Mexico or any other country for that matter,
Speaker 1: is a bad person as a rapist. That was obviously
Speaker 1: not what Trump was saying, and it's not what Trump believes,
Speaker 1: but they pretend that's what he says and he believes.
Speaker 1: You know, if he were so bad, they wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to misrepresent so many of the things that he says.
Speaker 1: You know, when Trump on that opened mic such dirty politics,
Speaker 1: we forget that too. You know, ABC just held onto
Speaker 1: that until the moment for I could do maximum damage
Speaker 1: to Trump October surprise time. You know, when he said
Speaker 1: grab them by the you know what, he wasn't saying
Speaker 1: that he assaults women. He's saying he's very sexually aggressive
Speaker 1: because he's a celebrity. That's not the same thing. It's
Speaker 1: just not So why do they have to keep lying
Speaker 1: about him all the time If what he says is
Speaker 1: so bad, if he's such a racist and so terrible,
Speaker 1: why do they have to Oh, that's right, because this
Speaker 1: is who the Democrats are. They misrepresent, they propagandize, and
Speaker 1: they're unrepentant, just like the media is unrepentant about all
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion stuff. They've just decided that they're dug
Speaker 1: in on their side, and they're dug in on hating
Speaker 1: Trump and even Betto, who's supposed to be like this.
Speaker 1: As I've said, you know, Soul Cycle instructor mixed with
Speaker 1: an Aaron Sorkin character, turns out that he's actually kind
Speaker 1: of nasty too when it comes to Trump. I'm sick
Speaker 1: of all these punk democrats. I really am in an
Speaker 1: era of all kinds of photoshop and thakery going on online.
Speaker 1: You need to make sure that whoever you're hiring is
Speaker 1: the person you think you're hiring, that their background check
Speaker 1: comes out clean, and that everything is going to be
Speaker 1: just fine. That's why I want you to partner with
Speaker 1: my friends at Global Verification Network. Whatever business you're in,
Speaker 1: whatever size it is, whatever industry, anywhere in the country,
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is your answer for all background investigation
Speaker 1: and vetting needs. All right, it's really easy to find them.
Speaker 1: Just go to MYGVN dot com. Again, that's MYGVN dot com.
Speaker 1: Or you can call eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: one one seven nine again eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. Global Verification Network is the
Speaker 1: only dual certified veteran owned background investigation in vetting company
Speaker 1: and they do all their work here, unlike a lot
Speaker 1: of their competitors. Please give them a call eight seven, seven, six, nine,
Speaker 1: five eleven seventy nine. Tell them Team Bucks sent you
Speaker 1: hunt and all of us. We watched that more police
Speaker 1: and when we say, I mean I cost late there
Speaker 1: is people are literally policy. But what do you mean
Speaker 1: about that? Hida? Do you come down this? I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: she comes down that? You know, like I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I can where you asking in fucking Dutch. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I've never fought more Palestinian than I ever thought in Congress.
Speaker 1: Even in Palatine when I'm visiting my grandmother, I wren't
Speaker 1: mak any American like to the Palstin. But I'm more
Speaker 1: Palestinian in the Hall of Congress than I am anywhere
Speaker 1: in conscious courts. And then just tell you it's just
Speaker 1: the fact that they weren't ready for us. They really weren't.
Speaker 1: But we were ready for this. That's where Shita Talib,
Speaker 1: one of the favorite far left Democrats now in Congress,
Speaker 1: female of Palestinian descent, and she, along with Okazi Quartz
Speaker 1: and Ilhan Omar have really kind of formed this left wing,
Speaker 1: radical fringe of the Democratic Party that's no longer a
Speaker 1: fringe that's increasingly driving the conversation and directing a lot
Speaker 1: of what is going on, not just media circles, but
Speaker 1: behind the scenes for the Democrats. I mean, Pelosi can
Speaker 1: be dismissive of them as much as she wants, but
Speaker 1: the truth is that they wield they wield real power,
Speaker 1: this far left contingent of the Democrat Party. I mean
Speaker 1: Okazio Cortes, mark my words. I know you can never
Speaker 1: disprove this, but Okazio Quartes, if she were old enough,
Speaker 1: would be running for president, and she would be in
Speaker 1: the top three right now, and I think there's a
Speaker 1: very good chance that she would actually win the nomination.
Speaker 1: She's a no nothing, She's not very nice to people.
Speaker 1: She's incredibly condescending and arrogant and not smart. But Democrat
Speaker 1: don't care. They don't care, hey, they just they're in
Speaker 1: love with the concept of Okazio Quartez. She is for them,
Speaker 1: the vessel for their left wing progressivism. So it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter that she doesn't have any record of success or
Speaker 1: wisdom or judgment or expertise, None of that matters. She
Speaker 1: checks off the boxes that the left obsesses over diversity,
Speaker 1: radical leftism, Marxism, all that stuff, the things that really
Speaker 1: get the the contemporary Democrat left excited. Okazio Quartz exemplifies that,
Speaker 1: and that is what matters to them more than anything else. This, uh,
Speaker 1: this story you keep hearing from the Democrats is that
Speaker 1: there's something really unfair, and you know they're people are
Speaker 1: being really nasty to ilhan Omar in particular. I mean
Speaker 1: Rashida Talip saying she never feels more palaced inidence to
Speaker 1: walk around Congress world. And I say this, I don't
Speaker 1: even know what that's supposed to mean. I mean, I
Speaker 1: could guess at what she's trying to say, but it's
Speaker 1: just such a strange comment. You don't feel more, you
Speaker 1: don't feel more American walking around the halls of Congress.
Speaker 1: I think whoever elected Rashida Talib should should rethink that decision.
Speaker 1: Feel more Palestinian than ever? Why you're you're representing an
Speaker 1: American congressional district, she is. This is part of leftism.
Speaker 1: There's no gratitude on the left. There's no sense of
Speaker 1: I am to be in America at this time. I
Speaker 1: am so lucky. This country is incredible. We are so yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, I'm gonna say it, so rich, so free,
Speaker 1: so prosperous. It's in. This place is amazing. It's not perfect.
Speaker 1: I got a lot of problems too, And maybe we
Speaker 1: talk about all that every day, but if you're really
Speaker 1: taking a step back, America is incredible, and the let
Speaker 1: always just wants to knock it down and talk about
Speaker 1: how unjust it is and unfair it is and bad
Speaker 1: it is. You know, it's like they really want to
Speaker 1: live somewhere else. You know, I gotta tell you, a
Speaker 1: lot of these leftists have a very superficial understanding of
Speaker 1: these other countries that they hold up as Oh, look
Speaker 1: at Japan. They've got a great healthcare system, and they know, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: Japan is a is a truly xenophobic country. They do
Speaker 1: not want outsiders, they do not want immigrants at all, period,
Speaker 1: full stop. You look at a lot of these European
Speaker 1: countries and you're you're just in the early stages of
Speaker 1: seeing what assimilation is really going to look like for
Speaker 1: them with a mass migration, particularly from the from the
Speaker 1: Muslim world. You know, they hold up these other countries
Speaker 1: as exemplars for us. The left does this without even
Speaker 1: really understanding what it's like in these countries. You know,
Speaker 1: they talk about Sweden like it's some kind of utopia. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Sweden's business climate is very friendly and very anti regulation,
Speaker 1: and they just everyone pays really high taxes. That's what's
Speaker 1: the that's the way. It is very unlikely you're going
Speaker 1: to become a you know, a wealthy suite if you're
Speaker 1: born without a lot of money and very unlikely to
Speaker 1: have that possibility. But you know, this just takes me
Speaker 1: that there's a fundamental difference in philosophy between the left
Speaker 1: and the right on where this country should go and
Speaker 1: how it should be governed. And we are seeing it
Speaker 1: in more clear terms now than in any time really
Speaker 1: in my lifetime. I think we're not arguing over the
Speaker 1: means to get to the same place anymore in this
Speaker 1: country between Democrats and Republicans, we are now arguing over
Speaker 1: we're trying to get to different places. Democrats want to
Speaker 1: make this a different country from what you and I
Speaker 1: see it as. They want different economic policies, different relationship
Speaker 1: between citizen and state different immigration policies. Yeah, we are,
Speaker 1: we are coming apart at the seems politically. More on
Speaker 1: this for you in just a moment. I try to
Speaker 1: pick my words with care. I try not to use tough,
Speaker 1: pejorative terms against people. But she is a radical well.
Speaker 1: She has espoused both in terms of her anti Semitic
Speaker 1: points of view and the dismissive way she approaches What
Speaker 1: happened on September eleventh is the thinking of a radical,
Speaker 1: A radical who is now an elected member of Congress,
Speaker 1: a radical who can get the fellow Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: not to condemn her actual words because of the power
Speaker 1: of the Progressive block in Congress, the more than five
Speaker 1: people that Nancy Pelosi is wisely worried about. This is
Speaker 1: a creeping radicalism inside the Democratic Party and it's only
Speaker 1: grown worse. You know. I think Nancy Pelosi showed that
Speaker 1: she's starting to get fed up. Very interesting. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: knows what she's doing, and she would not have thrown
Speaker 1: Shade and those two statements about Aosa if she didn't
Speaker 1: think she needed to. She's sending a signal to the
Speaker 1: other Democrats in the caucus that you need to step
Speaker 1: up you need to fight her too. Never thought I'd
Speaker 1: say this, but I'm rooting for Pelosi. At least you
Speaker 1: know Pelosi is a progressive, a hypocrite, a transactionalist, you know,
Speaker 1: and in many ways is just completely wrong and untakable
Speaker 1: on a whole bunch of issues. But at least you
Speaker 1: know what you're dealing with. Pelosi, aoc Rashida talib ilhan Omar.
Speaker 1: These are people who are radicals. These are people who
Speaker 1: take a very different view and where this country should
Speaker 1: go and what justice is in this country. These are
Speaker 1: people that have gotten elected to high office and I
Speaker 1: think have shown us that they do not share some
Speaker 1: very basic and fundamental principles with the rest of American
Speaker 1: society ideologically, all right, they see this were left so
Speaker 1: oh it's because they're they're women of color knowing it's
Speaker 1: not all right. This is I hate that crap when
Speaker 1: the left, the left does that all the time. Oh
Speaker 1: it's because, no, it's not. I give just as much
Speaker 1: of a hard time to Elizabeth Warren, a fake woman
Speaker 1: of color, you know, somebody who fraudulently claimed to be
Speaker 1: a minority, as I do to these other three. But
Speaker 1: you know, Warren's a transactionalist too. She's not quite as
Speaker 1: radical in her rhetoric as these new members of Congress are.
Speaker 1: Does anyone think for a second that you know, if
Speaker 1: if AOC took the policies of Ted Cruz, who is
Speaker 1: also Latino. You know, I think AOC was fantastic. But
Speaker 1: you know, even the fact that you can feel the
Speaker 1: need to explain yourself on this, oh well, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not saying this because of racial issues or whatever.
Speaker 1: This is what they want. They want to put you
Speaker 1: on defense right away. You can't talk about the issues.
Speaker 1: My problem with these new freshman members of Congress to
Speaker 1: leab Omar and Ao Shee, is that they don't know
Speaker 1: what they're talking about. When they do know what they're
Speaker 1: talking about, it's very radical and it's very unwise for
Speaker 1: the country. And I think that they're nasty and don't
Speaker 1: understand the damage that they would do if they got
Speaker 1: their way. That's my problem with them. There's I have
Speaker 1: no other problems with them. Those are my problems. And
Speaker 1: yet we know what the left is going to do.
Speaker 1: They're gonna say, oh, how could you oppose this radical
Speaker 1: left contingent of the Democrat Party. It must be There
Speaker 1: must be something else, you see, there must be something
Speaker 1: else going on here. And this is where Betto, for example,
Speaker 1: steps in trying to build his left wing street cred
Speaker 1: and he goes after Trump for oh why, oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: going after ilhan Omar. Betto defends her and says that
Speaker 1: Trump is, oh, you guessed it, inciting violence Play twenty one.
Speaker 1: This latest incitements a hatred and violence posting a video
Speaker 1: the President on his own Twitter account, not reach he did,
Speaker 1: but formulated by his own team that conflints a Muslim
Speaker 1: member of Congress, Representative Elon Omar duly elected by her
Speaker 1: constituents in Minnesota, with the terrorists who perpetrated the attack
Speaker 1: on nine to eleven at the end of the video,
Speaker 1: saying we will never forget so were the lives of
Speaker 1: other Muslims in this country. Her life is in danger,
Speaker 1: he said, I'm sorry, but I know a lot of
Speaker 1: prominent figures on the right who received death threats and
Speaker 1: who are the targets of very nasty public criticism. They
Speaker 1: called the President of the United States, and Beto still
Speaker 1: does mind bogglingly. A traitor. Treason is legally punishable by
Speaker 1: the death penalty. In this country. Democrats were actually repeatedly
Speaker 1: for two years calling the president a traitor to his country,
Speaker 1: a Russian asset. And they want to tell us about
Speaker 1: overheated rhetoric. They want to tell us about, oh, putting
Speaker 1: somebody in jeopardy by criticizing them publicly. Look, Ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: said something incredibly stupid and insensitive. She should take the
Speaker 1: l take the loss for it, and move on. But no,
Speaker 1: they want to create a special a special dispensation for
Speaker 1: Omar and aoc. Oh, if they say something terrible and
Speaker 1: you call them out for it, it it must be because
Speaker 1: you're racist. It can't be because they're just saying stupid
Speaker 1: stuff that they should be held to account for. Oh no, no,
Speaker 1: No speech equals violence is one of the most disgraceful
Speaker 1: and dishonest things that the Democrats push these days, and
Speaker 1: they're not giving up on it because even though you
Speaker 1: and I know that this is complete garbage, it works
Speaker 1: in a lot of cases, and unfortunately it works far
Speaker 1: too often. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Indeed, let me touch talent.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get it because I've been waiting to take
Speaker 1: it from the friend zone to the end zone, trying
Speaker 1: to take you to that house. Baby, let's go. I've
Speaker 1: been waiting all night. It's roll call time. That's right,
Speaker 1: roll call time, everybody. If you want in on the action,
Speaker 1: it's very easy. Facebook dot Com slash Buck Sexton, Let's
Speaker 1: get to it, show me, let's start the note, bring
Speaker 1: the noise. I'll tell you that today I was on
Speaker 1: set at Rising and One. We had a no show
Speaker 1: guest today after the show. So sometimes we post tape
Speaker 1: or pretape people for Rising at the Hill, and we
Speaker 1: had a no show guest, and it was just a misunderstanding.
Speaker 1: It was We're gonna have this guest later on in
Speaker 1: the week, no problem. But the no show guest, you know,
Speaker 1: I usually give them about a five minute grace period
Speaker 1: what I'm on set, and then I'm like, all right,
Speaker 1: And I just muttered to myself. Someone said to me, Buck,
Speaker 1: what are you gonna do? And I said, I just
Speaker 1: decided to go on living my life. And the guys
Speaker 1: of the crew, to their credit, immediately caught that as
Speaker 1: a reference to Forgetting Sarah Marshall, where Aldus Snow is
Speaker 1: given the mixtape by Jonah Hill, who is playing a
Speaker 1: kind of over eager hotel employee at the Turtle Bay
Speaker 1: Resort on the north side of Oahu, so a place
Speaker 1: I would like to go check out myself. At some
Speaker 1: point he's like, do you get a chance to listen
Speaker 1: to my mixtape? And he goes, no, I just I
Speaker 1: just went on living my life. So it was good times.
Speaker 1: They all caught that one that I was very proud
Speaker 1: of my TV crew that their their movie quote skills
Speaker 1: are are not quite black belt. I'd say, I'd say
Speaker 1: red belt level or is that higher than black belt?
Speaker 1: We've already been through this a million times, Kirk right,
Speaker 1: it's just a thought, Buck. I think Robert Muller has
Speaker 1: two reports. One he made while thinking he was turning
Speaker 1: it into Rosenstein and then boom along comes Bill Barr
Speaker 1: and Mueller had to change the report around because I
Speaker 1: think it is a he is afraid of Bar and
Speaker 1: he knows Bar is going to clean up. Keep up
Speaker 1: the great work, Buck. I enjoy your podcast. We need
Speaker 1: to expose those darned liberals. And I'd love to see
Speaker 1: the Trump bus all love. I would love to see
Speaker 1: Trump bus all the illegals right to Nancy's neighborhood. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's going to happen, But I would just
Speaker 1: say this to you, that Trump in a way that
Speaker 1: I look, sometimes Trump does and I think it's not
Speaker 1: the right move, and I admit this, I'm like, that
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense, and then he does it, and
Speaker 1: I go, oh, that's why he did that. He's not
Speaker 1: really going to bust these illegal aliens into these communities.
Speaker 1: But by merely saying it, he exposed that liberals deep
Speaker 1: down recognize that illegals from a third world who come
Speaker 1: with very limited skills, little if any English language predominantly,
Speaker 1: and a lot of needs and problems are not a
Speaker 1: huge boon to the local economy in certain places. And
Speaker 1: in fact, professor Borjas from Harvard, who has done the
Speaker 1: most extensive research on what immigration illegal immigration specifically does
Speaker 1: too wages, says the problem is that they always trying
Speaker 1: to measure it at a national level. So you say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, wages nationally have not been affected by but
Speaker 1: you can't you know, you can't say for you won't
Speaker 1: see anything at the national level. What you will see, though,
Speaker 1: is for people who are carpenters, you know, day laborers,
Speaker 1: people that are involved in sort of tradesmen professions in
Speaker 1: southern Arizona. There will be a drop in wages and
Speaker 1: it'll last for a few years. You may say, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: they could go somewhere else to find jobs. Okay, do
Speaker 1: you want to leave your community because all of a
Speaker 1: sudden wages go down dramatically? Wages go down in a
Speaker 1: fifteen or twenty percent fifteen or twenty percent drop matters
Speaker 1: a lot. If you're making thirty five forty grand a year,
Speaker 1: that's a lot. So yeah, I don't think he'll but
Speaker 1: Trump Trump exposed them for the hypocrisy, which I didn't
Speaker 1: at first. I thought, why would he want to because
Speaker 1: a lot of the illegals want to go to the
Speaker 1: sanctuary city, and saying, oh, it's not about what the
Speaker 1: illegals want, it's about what the Libs are going to
Speaker 1: do in reaction to Trump. Kristen, Hello from Seattle. While
Speaker 1: I'm on vacation. Thankfully you have the podcast and I
Speaker 1: just listen while I'm doing the tourist thing, Shields High
Speaker 1: Fight the Good Fire. Well, Kristen, I hope you're having
Speaker 1: a great time up in Seattle. You know, I have
Speaker 1: never been to Seattle. I've never been to that city.
Speaker 1: I've been to Portland, which is the closest I've ever gotten.
Speaker 1: I'd be very curious to check out Seattle. Vancouver, I
Speaker 1: hear is beautiful, very expensive for real estate, but I'm
Speaker 1: not looking to buy a house, so that doesn't really
Speaker 1: bother me. Well, yeah, I hope you're having a great
Speaker 1: time in Seattle. People tell me very good things. Most
Speaker 1: of what I know about Seattle I've learned from the
Speaker 1: show Gray's Anatomy, which is not a show that previous
Speaker 1: girlfriends in my life had made me watch more episodes
Speaker 1: of than I care to admit on National Radio. It
Speaker 1: is not that show that they made me watch lots
Speaker 1: of episodes of so that I know some of the
Speaker 1: characters names and backstories. And it's not that show that
Speaker 1: is not Gray's Anatomy that I'm talking about. Maybe I
Speaker 1: know some stuff about Seattle from that show. Okay, Glenn,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, love your show and the beard Boom, high
Speaker 1: five for the beard. Thank you. The beard has grown
Speaker 1: on people. The beard has grown on me. I live
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, and when I went to the gas station
Speaker 1: the other day, it was shocked to see marijuana for
Speaker 1: sale at the counter. Thought they could only sell it
Speaker 1: at dispensaries. Makes me concerned about access to children if
Speaker 1: it's easy to obtain. Thanks for all you do, Shields High, Glenn.
Speaker 1: You know, it was some years ago when I saw
Speaker 1: a giant like you know, weed truck, and not for
Speaker 1: like roundup weed stuff, I mean marijuana truck that was
Speaker 1: just driving a New York city selling edibles, a truck
Speaker 1: that had weed advertised on it. And now I guess
Speaker 1: New York has more or less decriminalized. And I don't
Speaker 1: know the specifics of the loss here. But look, here's
Speaker 1: where I come down on this. Marijuana. I do not
Speaker 1: I do not approve. I do not like marijuana. I
Speaker 1: do not think it's good for people. But a lot
Speaker 1: of things aren't good for people. You know, sometimes I
Speaker 1: have two or three glasses of tequila. That's not good
Speaker 1: for me. But I also don't think anybody should lose
Speaker 1: their lose their future, their livelihood. They're go to prison
Speaker 1: because marijuana is simply, scientifically not a deadly substance. It's
Speaker 1: just not. People can argue or argue with me about
Speaker 1: this all day. Now. You could say, buck if you drive, yeah,
Speaker 1: but that's true of alcohol too, right. It can it
Speaker 1: can slow down your reflexes and your hurt your decision making.
Speaker 1: But that's true of a lot of things. You should
Speaker 1: see what buck is like without caffeine in the morning. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I look like something from Night of the Living Dead.
Speaker 1: I am not fun without caffeine in the morning. Is
Speaker 1: that a subtle or maybe not so subtle addiction? Well, yes,
Speaker 1: of course. But is anyone in Is anyone including myself,
Speaker 1: in danger because of my two cups of black Rifle
Speaker 1: coffee every morning? Of course, not maybe my three cups
Speaker 1: or four. So I think that marijuana should be decriminalized.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that I advocate the usage of marijuana.
Speaker 1: And I also think that it's a good They're going
Speaker 1: to be societal costs that we need to understand where
Speaker 1: they're going to be people who abuse it, and that's
Speaker 1: very bad. But just compare verrijuana defensemel. People can overdose
Speaker 1: and die from fenseemel the first time very easily. It
Speaker 1: is not hard to do. I've spoken to world renowned,
Speaker 1: a world renowned scientist on this show, doctor Bertha Madrass
Speaker 1: at Harvard's biochemistry Labs. I think that's what they call it.
Speaker 1: It's something like that. Today we had a guy on
Speaker 1: from the National Science Foundation on rising to talk about
Speaker 1: the black hole. And you know, there are not that
Speaker 1: many areas of life where expertise really does leave you
Speaker 1: like huh, but that was one of them. I was like, so,
Speaker 1: you're telling me that there's this black hole and that
Speaker 1: matter disappears in the black hole, but we don't know
Speaker 1: where it goes or what happens to it. That's correct,
Speaker 1: buck h I offered up though, that I know what
Speaker 1: happens when you go into the black hole, you escape
Speaker 1: from the Klingons. That's all you need to know. As
Speaker 1: for a marijuana laws in Massachusetts, Glen, obviously you got
Speaker 1: me on a tangent here. I can't speak specifically to
Speaker 1: them and don't really know what's going off. I'm in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: I used to be at least a college resident of Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: Lovely state, great people, bad politics. I love Boss Boston's man.
Speaker 1: I've been to Boston once for a real weekend and
Speaker 1: I just happened. I went up there for a wedding
Speaker 1: and it was I mean, we had perfect weather, it
Speaker 1: was just beautiful. Man, Boston. I like Boston. I have
Speaker 1: to say, it's a really it's a special talent. I
Speaker 1: wish I'd spent more time there when I was in college,
Speaker 1: but it was in the wintertime. I'm probably not as
Speaker 1: excited as I am about Boston in May. You know,
Speaker 1: right now would be a great time to go visit.
Speaker 1: I'm not a super cold weather guy. Here we go,
Speaker 1: William Wrights Buck. I think I have your liberal podcast
Speaker 1: ad issues solved. It's only coming through the podcast feed
Speaker 1: of iHeart. If you listen any place else, especially the
Speaker 1: Himalaya app, there's no such ad. Keep up the good work.
Speaker 1: Thank you from Pennsylvania Shields High Well, thank you William
Speaker 1: for doing a bit of deep dive into this. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it very much. Uh, William writes, I am al
Speaker 1: gore aphobic. I am terrified of all things Al Gore,
Speaker 1: Tipper Gore, bub um ching shield tie. Thanks William, appreciate
Speaker 1: you sharing that one. I like a groner. You know,
Speaker 1: sometimes you gotta get gotta let a groner joke out there.
Speaker 1: You can't be shy with the groner. Uh, here we go. Nope,
Speaker 1: is that really your name? Nope? Rights Hey Buck, just
Speaker 1: listen to an ad free Monday podcast. Thanks for getting
Speaker 1: rid of those now. Please get a big boy email.
Speaker 1: Love the impressions on the humor Da Kaiser Vilhelm gets
Speaker 1: me eftery time, kutsun tak Kaiser, Mister, it's been a
Speaker 1: long time. Yeah, Mark Schnell, Shields, I remember, it's all
Speaker 1: in the reflexes. Nope, that's a yup because I agree. Team.
Speaker 1: We've got an setting show free tomorrow because the Muller
Speaker 1: Report's gonna be out. It's gonna be wild. Be sure
Speaker 1: to tune in, Be sure to tell somebody to download
Speaker 1: the podcast. Talk to you then, Shields, Hie. Trump isn't
Speaker 1: tired of winning yet, my friends. After twenty eight hundred
Speaker 1: Supeen is five hundred search warrants, nineteen lawyers attempting to
Speaker 1: time to Russian interference in the election, President Trump has
Speaker 1: triumphed again. Show your support and help celebrate this incredible
Speaker 1: milestone by owning one of Noble Golds twenty twenty President
Speaker 1: Trump Freedom coins. One side magnificently depicts an image of
Speaker 1: Donald J. Trump, while the other lists his major achievements.
Speaker 1: This commemorative one ounce coin is the only presidential Trump
Speaker 1: coin made of ninety nine point nine percent silver, not
Speaker 1: silver plating, and his IRA approved As the price of
Speaker 1: silver rises, so will the value of these coins. You
Speaker 1: want to hold onto this collector's item four generations. Just
Speaker 1: go to trump Coin twenty twenty dot com and use
Speaker 1: code buck to save five dollars off each coin. Again,
Speaker 1: text buck to five eleven five eleven, Or go to
Speaker 1: trump Coin twenty twenty dot com and use code buck
Speaker 1: to save five dollars per coin. Trump coin twenty twenty
Speaker 1: dot com. Use code buck five dollars off each coin.
Speaker 1: Standard text rates may apply.