Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunch, a massacre of Americans
Speaker 1: in Mexico at the hands of the vicious cartels. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about where that stands right now. Also, the transcript
Speaker 1: is out of at least one impeachment witness against Trump.
Speaker 1: We know the Democrats are cheating on the process. Baseball's
Speaker 1: kurts Zuki was at the White House and he did
Speaker 1: something that upsets some folks. Also, has Jack Ryan been ruined?
Speaker 1: And is Aunt Becky going to prison for forty years?
Speaker 1: That and more coming up. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins, Remember the
Speaker 1: nimpd buck Sexton. Welcome to the buck Sex and the Show. Everybody,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being here. We have a
Speaker 1: lot to get to today. As is our custom, I
Speaker 1: did want to start off though, with an absolutely gut punch,
Speaker 1: a gut punching, heart wrenching, really horrific story that I think,
Speaker 1: unfortunately is a harbinger of some further violence and instability
Speaker 1: on our southern border to come. Here's where it stands
Speaker 1: right now. Cartel gunmen have killed at least nine US citizens,
Speaker 1: including six children, who were in the Mexican border state
Speaker 1: of Sonora. This is not far from the US Mexico
Speaker 1: border with Arizona where this attack took place. Ranita Maria
Speaker 1: LeBaron died along with her six month old twins and
Speaker 1: her two other children aged ten and twelve. Christina at
Speaker 1: Langford Johnson, Donna Langford and two of Donna's children, aged
Speaker 1: three and eleven, were also killed. The victims here belonged
Speaker 1: to the LeBaron family. They are US citizens, dual citizens
Speaker 1: with Mexico who live who live in a Mormon breakaway
Speaker 1: community in this part of northern rural northern Mexico. The stories,
Speaker 1: the details that we have so far about this coordinated
Speaker 1: ambush are horrific, beyond imagining. There were children who died
Speaker 1: as these cars were on fire. They were strapped in
Speaker 1: the vehicles unable to escape. Children were reportedly executed while
Speaker 1: trying to run away from this three suv convoy after
Speaker 1: it had been attacked. There's also some early reports and
Speaker 1: indications that some of the women who were captured, they
Speaker 1: believe members of the family may have been captured or
Speaker 1: being held. We're sexually assaulted in this whole process too,
Speaker 1: as vicious and awful in ambush as you could imagine
Speaker 1: murdering children. A lot of people are going to see
Speaker 1: this and say, wait a second, you mean that Mexico
Speaker 1: is in a really bad place. This will be something
Speaker 1: of a surprise to them, not people who watch and
Speaker 1: listen to this show. However, you will recall that we
Speaker 1: have done in recent weeks stories on what happened in
Speaker 1: Kuliya Khan, Mexico, where you had cartel gunman on behalf
Speaker 1: of Chapo Guzman's son O video shut down essentially an
Speaker 1: entire city, a major city in Mexico, and have the
Speaker 1: national government back off. You know, when the national government
Speaker 1: backs off of a gunfight with the bad guys, with
Speaker 1: the thugs, you're in a very bad place. I've also
Speaker 1: been telling you now for the last two years that
Speaker 1: Mexico has the highest murder rate that it has had
Speaker 1: in history. Right now, that Mexico is seeing more violence
Speaker 1: internally than at any time since they have been counting homicides.
Speaker 1: How much of this do you see getting attention in
Speaker 1: the news media. There are reasons for that, my friends,
Speaker 1: This is not an oversight, This is not an accident.
Speaker 1: And I will get into why this doesn't fit the
Speaker 1: narrative for the mainstream meeting in a second. But going
Speaker 1: back into this, this ambush of women and children, defenseless
Speaker 1: women and children in a convoy on a dirt road,
Speaker 1: I do not believe. And this is now assessment. This
Speaker 1: is not reporting. This is not based on anything other
Speaker 1: than me looking through the details. But I used to
Speaker 1: do this quite a bit at the CIA and then
Speaker 1: at the NYPD Intelligence Division, look at the early signs
Speaker 1: to try to understand what the indicators are. People who
Speaker 1: are saying that this is an accident, meaning they thought
Speaker 1: that they were attacking a rival cartel, I don't believe that.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong. I don't believe it. People who
Speaker 1: are referring to this as being caught in the crossfire, well,
Speaker 1: that suggests that there were people on the other side
Speaker 1: firing and this convoy somehow got in the middle, which
Speaker 1: there's no evidence to support that either. I think there's
Speaker 1: a real effort here and some people from some people
Speaker 1: in our media, in the US media, to find an
Speaker 1: explanation for this that's not The cartels basically run Mexico,
Speaker 1: that the cartels are now more powerful than any politician,
Speaker 1: more powerful than the central government in a day to
Speaker 1: day way, and that they're just covering this up, and
Speaker 1: that Lopez Obrador has been with his hugs not bullets
Speaker 1: policy that's actually a thing, by the way, trying to
Speaker 1: find ways to do development and to not go to
Speaker 1: war with the cartels. The cartels have gone to war
Speaker 1: with Mexico, and what they show us now is that
Speaker 1: they have no problem engaging in the worst atrocities, not
Speaker 1: just against cartel rivals and innocent Mexicans, to the tune
Speaker 1: of tens of thousands of people a year, about thirty
Speaker 1: to thirty five thousand murders in Mexico every year. That's
Speaker 1: a lot for a country that's less than half the
Speaker 1: size of the United States and has about double our
Speaker 1: murder rate, perhaps even more like two and a half times.
Speaker 1: So there's a big problem here. But that the cartel
Speaker 1: would do this, this could be something of a turning point.
Speaker 1: You would think that perhaps this would get attention. These
Speaker 1: were Americans. These were at least nine perhaps more killed
Speaker 1: and perhaps more captured. Now and who knows what's going on. Unthinkable, unthinkable,
Speaker 1: atrocities in captivity. But these are our people. These are Americans. Yes,
Speaker 1: they're dual citizens, they're American citizens too, and they are
Speaker 1: down there in Mexico and they were just slaughter by cartels.
Speaker 1: Now I appreciate that President Trump has taken the position
Speaker 1: he has on this. He says that a wonderful family,
Speaker 1: this was on Twitter this morning, A wonderful family and
Speaker 1: friends from Utah got caught between two vicious drug cartels
Speaker 1: who were shooting at each other, with the result being
Speaker 1: many great American people killed, including young children, and some missing.
Speaker 1: If Mexico needs a request help in cleaning out these monsters,
Speaker 1: the United States stands ready, willing and able to get
Speaker 1: involved and do the job quickly and effectively. The great
Speaker 1: new president of Mexico has made this a big issue.
Speaker 1: But that cartels have become so large and powerful. You
Speaker 1: need sometimes an army to defeat an army. So the
Speaker 1: President is saying here himself that they were caught in
Speaker 1: the crossfire. I can't understand how that would work though.
Speaker 1: And if they're caught on the crossfire, why would children
Speaker 1: running away from the convoy be specifically executed. They couldn't
Speaker 1: be concerned about these kids ide and cartel gunmen from
Speaker 1: Afar and those are that's already in the reporting. So
Speaker 1: I think that in the initial assessment here there are
Speaker 1: mistakes that are being made. I'll update this as we
Speaker 1: find out, as we find out more. That seemed to
Speaker 1: me to be a first take on the issue, unless
Speaker 1: the other eyewitness accounts that we're hearing about are incorrect.
Speaker 1: It's also noteworthy that Mexican authorities were not particularly helpful
Speaker 1: in this, and that family members of those who had
Speaker 1: been murdered had to swarm the hills around this attack
Speaker 1: site themselves looking for survivors. So the Mexican government does
Speaker 1: not have this well in hand. They will also, of
Speaker 1: course not invite in at least not openly direct American
Speaker 1: kinnetic Assistant show. We say, at least not something that
Speaker 1: they'll talk about publicly. We have a real problem here.
Speaker 1: Even if let's assume for a moment that the initial
Speaker 1: reporting about this being a caught in the crossfire moment
Speaker 1: is true, well, then that would mean that the cartels
Speaker 1: are still willing to execute women and children in the
Speaker 1: midst of a gun battle with their opponents knowing that
Speaker 1: this is going to be I mean even in Mexico.
Speaker 1: This incident was going to get a lot of attention.
Speaker 1: They don't care. They're not worried about the bad press.
Speaker 1: Particularly there's been so many there have been so many
Speaker 1: murders and so many atrocities in Mexico. They have police
Speaker 1: convoys that are ambushed with I think it was recently
Speaker 1: nine officers in one instance murdered by cartel gunmen. Why
Speaker 1: does this come as a surprise to so many Americans?
Speaker 1: Why does this come as a surprise to people in
Speaker 1: this country. Well, we are led to believe by the press,
Speaker 1: by the Democratic Party, by the open borders movement here,
Speaker 1: that Mexico is not a security concern for us, when
Speaker 1: if you look at the amount of heroine that is
Speaker 1: pouring into this country as well as opioids, the number
Speaker 1: of people that are dying from those heroin and opioid overdoses,
Speaker 1: and who controls that trade, it is almost entirely the
Speaker 1: Mexican drug cartels. Mexican drug cartels are poisoning American city.
Speaker 1: Thousands and thousands of people now are dying every year,
Speaker 1: over seventy thousand in one of our particularly bad recent years.
Speaker 1: And I know that the press likes to beat up
Speaker 1: on pharmaceutical companies, and there were some pharmer companies that
Speaker 1: engaged in unethical practices for which they have now been
Speaker 1: financially annihilated, and perhaps they will also be further criminal
Speaker 1: sanction against individuals involved, including doctors prescribing drugs. But keep
Speaker 1: in mind that the way our laws work in this
Speaker 1: country right now, if someone sells opioids to a person
Speaker 1: who overdoses, they don't get charged with just selling a
Speaker 1: controlled substance. They are charged with manslaughter or murder. They
Speaker 1: are held responsible for that homicide. So, based on that
Speaker 1: very same legal approach, which is a day to day
Speaker 1: reality here in America, the drug cartels a response, well,
Speaker 1: for killing thousands and thousands of Americans every year, who
Speaker 1: knows how many. It's very tough to actually get this data.
Speaker 1: I've asked around for it. I even asked somebody, a
Speaker 1: contact of the DA say, well, it's hard to know
Speaker 1: where the drugs come from. So we know most of
Speaker 1: the drugs come from Mexico. We know about sixty to
Speaker 1: seventy thousand people are dying from these drug overdoses every year.
Speaker 1: We know Big Pharma has been put on notice, and
Speaker 1: doctors know They risk not just their license, but their
Speaker 1: freedom for decades if they overprescribe on purpose or illicitly
Speaker 1: prescribe these drugs. So what is the most likely scenario here,
Speaker 1: Let's put all of us together, that the drug cartels
Speaker 1: that are now multibillion dollars international criminal syndicates are responsible
Speaker 1: for poisoning our cities and causing just unimaginable social destruction.
Speaker 1: And yet we are told that Mexico is not a
Speaker 1: national security concern for us. We're told that the fact
Speaker 1: that there's a country right next door that has organized
Speaker 1: crime more powerful than the central government and can even
Speaker 1: outgun them in a major city is not something that
Speaker 1: we need to be worried about. Those syndicates. By the way,
Speaker 1: those cartels, they have connections, They have tentacles that stretch
Speaker 1: into every major US city and in fact a lot
Speaker 1: of mid size and small US cities too. Sometimes they
Speaker 1: try to keep a low profile here because thank god,
Speaker 1: our law enforcement has not yet been outgunned by cartels,
Speaker 1: and they still have to operate with some degree of
Speaker 1: discretion and fear of law enforcement in America. Not so
Speaker 1: in Mexico. And trust me, the history of that country.
Speaker 1: It's corruption its inability to have durable institutions that will
Speaker 1: root out corruption. That all indicates to me that what's
Speaker 1: going on there right now there are people going all
Speaker 1: the way up the chain of the Mexican government who
Speaker 1: are not who are either not willing to fight against
Speaker 1: the cartels or are on the cartel's payroll. The hotels
Speaker 1: have something on them. The cartels have threatened their family,
Speaker 1: The cartels are in some way exerting leverage on them.
Speaker 1: How is this not one of the biggest stories in
Speaker 1: the country. I ask you that question. How is it
Speaker 1: possible that we have seventy thousand or so Americans dying
Speaker 1: every year, overwhelmingly from poison being poured into our cities
Speaker 1: by our neighbor to the south, by the organized crime
Speaker 1: groups there that are killing Americans on our side and
Speaker 1: killing tens of thousands of Mexicans, people who are just
Speaker 1: caught on the crossfire day in and day out. Why
Speaker 1: can't they get control of this. Why aren't there law
Speaker 1: enforcement and judicial systems strong enough to finally root this out?
Speaker 1: These are questions that we should ask much more than
Speaker 1: we do, and it's also something that I think should
Speaker 1: get a whole lot more attention at not just in
Speaker 1: our media, but also from our own government. We've heard
Speaker 1: a lot about how we need to treat the opioid
Speaker 1: epidemic by putting more facilities in place. That's all well
Speaker 1: and good, but how about stopping the poison from entering
Speaker 1: our cities. People are not growing heroin in their backyard
Speaker 1: in Vermont or in Utah. It's coming in from south
Speaker 1: of our border, and it's being grown in Mexico. There's
Speaker 1: been an enormous shift. Heroin used to be overwhelmingly from Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: It was a big cash crop for the Taliban. UN
Speaker 1: estimates back even a decade ago or that over ninety
Speaker 1: percent of the world's heroin market was grown in essentially
Speaker 1: southern and eastern Afghanistan. Now about ninety percent of the
Speaker 1: heroin and opioids coming into this country that are on
Speaker 1: the street illegally are coming from Mexico and they are
Speaker 1: made in or grown in Mexico. Oh, but the fact
Speaker 1: that we have a porous border, the fact that we
Speaker 1: have millions and millions of illegal aliens in the country who, yes,
Speaker 1: a very small percentage of whom are involved directly in
Speaker 1: the cartel trade. But there's still a percentage of them
Speaker 1: who are, and that percentage, by the way, is responsible
Speaker 1: for thousands and thousands of US deaths. You can read
Speaker 1: Sam Canone as his book Dreamland. He goes into this
Speaker 1: in details. An LA Time Supporter's not a conservative's a liberal.
Speaker 1: The cartels made inroads into US cities at just the
Speaker 1: same time that there was this surge in prescription painkillers,
Speaker 1: and they capitalized on it and murdered countless Americans in
Speaker 1: the process, addicted people and put them in a position
Speaker 1: where the likelihood of an overdose was overwhelming. Mexico's a
Speaker 1: big problem. How much time, I ask you this, have
Speaker 1: you heard the media wailing about the Kurds in the
Speaker 1: last few weeks versus how much time have you heard
Speaker 1: them talking about the gunfight in Kuliya Khan. How much
Speaker 1: do you think they'll spend on this mass assassination, of
Speaker 1: this ambush and slaughter of nine Americans? The numbers probably
Speaker 1: going to grow in Mexico. What's a bigger threat? Who?
Speaker 1: Who has killed more Americans in the last thirty days?
Speaker 1: Cartels in Mexico, which are right on our border and
Speaker 1: can come and go as they please, largely across our border,
Speaker 1: or isis in Syria. Who should we be more concerned
Speaker 1: about A lot of people giving weighty speeches about the
Speaker 1: threat of ertiwan, What about the threat of the Sinaloa cartel,
Speaker 1: which one's more likely to be a problem for you
Speaker 1: in your community wherever you are in the country, by
Speaker 1: the way, from coastal California to Appalachia, north and south
Speaker 1: everything in between. The cartels have tentacles all over the place.
Speaker 1: People in your town, your city are dying because of
Speaker 1: what they do. Where's the media focus on this? Where's
Speaker 1: the CNN, the MSNBC town hall on cartels in the
Speaker 1: opioid epidemic? Oh? You mean that, It's almost like it
Speaker 1: doesn't fit the narrative. None of us are surprised here
Speaker 1: in the Freedom hud are we just an update on
Speaker 1: this ambush as I was taking a moment here to
Speaker 1: look at the numbers. Nine killed, seven injured. Children are
Speaker 1: now in the United States and they were part of
Speaker 1: this this Mormon sect that had left the United States
Speaker 1: decades ago and settled in Mexico because of a schism
Speaker 1: over the practice of polygamy. This group also just as
Speaker 1: a as a side note of the history of it
Speaker 1: involved at one point to George Romney. Mitt Romney's father
Speaker 1: lived in in this part of Mexico as as a
Speaker 1: member of this member of this sect. I believe he
Speaker 1: was born there. So they're also had There's some additional
Speaker 1: numbers here. Last last year I said thirty to thirty
Speaker 1: five thousands, thirty three thousand murders in Mexico last year
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. So far, he's going to break that thought.
Speaker 1: We had about thirty five thousand murders in this country
Speaker 1: of Mexico, and the authorities are just hoping that they
Speaker 1: don't have to. I think they just don't want to
Speaker 1: lift the lid off and see what's what's underneath here
Speaker 1: in terms of the cartels. They don't want to deal
Speaker 1: with it. They're just hoping it goes away. But it's
Speaker 1: not going to go away. This is a powder keg.
Speaker 1: This could go at any point. We also now know
Speaker 1: the name of the worst blower. The whistleblower needs to
Speaker 1: come before Congress as a material witness because he worked
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was
Speaker 1: getting money from corrupt oligarchs. I say tonight to the media,
Speaker 1: do your job and print his name. Why is the
Speaker 1: whistleblower's name sacrosanct? Who said that that's the case? Who? Who?
Speaker 1: And where? Show me the statute or show me the
Speaker 1: regulation that claims that an internal federal government, federal agency
Speaker 1: whistleblower who decides to blow the whistle on something that's
Speaker 1: not even within the purview of his or her agency
Speaker 1: has a guarantee of anonymity for as long as that
Speaker 1: person wants it. Huh does an anybody want to explain
Speaker 1: that one to me? But the problem here, and we're
Speaker 1: going to keep running in circles around this, is that
Speaker 1: the process is largely whatever the Democrats decide, because they're
Speaker 1: in the majority of the House. Whatever they decide the
Speaker 1: process is, that's what it will be. So they'll make
Speaker 1: it as fair as unfair as they want and claim
Speaker 1: that they have the power for this process to be
Speaker 1: what it is. And Republicans are right to point out
Speaker 1: some of the glaring imbalances and all this, but it's
Speaker 1: not going to change anything. Ultimately, it's going to continue
Speaker 1: to be more or less what it is, which is
Speaker 1: a get Trump, destroy Trump, do what you can see
Speaker 1: just they're really just in a lot of ways shaking
Speaker 1: the tree to see what falls out. I mean, they
Speaker 1: don't even know what the end result of this whole
Speaker 1: impeachment process will be. They just know that it's bad
Speaker 1: for the president, and as we know from dealing with
Speaker 1: the left, anything that is bad for the president must
Speaker 1: be good. That's their approach, that's how they see all
Speaker 1: of this. Rand Paul also went a little further here,
Speaker 1: and this is something and I'm just noting that a
Speaker 1: lot of what you're here now from the administration, from
Speaker 1: officials defending it, is where the buckster was in the beginning,
Speaker 1: which is we already know Hunter Biden is what he
Speaker 1: did is unethical and gross. We already know that this
Speaker 1: was pay to play. It might not have been illegal,
Speaker 1: but the appearance of corruption is clearly there. That's that's
Speaker 1: in the facts, which also means that the basis for
Speaker 1: an investigation is there, Which means that the president of
Speaker 1: the United States asking a foreign counterpart to look into
Speaker 1: something is completely within his purview. Is it bare knuckle politics? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Is Trump allowed to do that in response to what
Speaker 1: they're doing to him? Yes, in my opinion, sure, people
Speaker 1: disagree with me. You know what they can do vote
Speaker 1: against him. That's what this is. All a political question.
Speaker 1: Democrats are trying to morphit into some legalistic process. But
Speaker 1: it's not a legal process. It's not legal. It's not
Speaker 1: a criminal justice proceeding. But people got all into this
Speaker 1: quid pro quote and all the stuff. I'm like, look,
Speaker 1: I don't even see what's wrong with it. You can
Speaker 1: go back, go to tape, listen to earlier week we
Speaker 1: got him the episodes on iTunes on the iHeart Up,
Speaker 1: which you can subscribe to. But go back, listen to
Speaker 1: what I was saying when the first thing, when this broke.
Speaker 1: You'll see, yes, look, I don't understand what the big
Speaker 1: problem is here. And some conservatives that I really like,
Speaker 1: we're very worried about it at first, but I know
Speaker 1: this game before I know how, I know how the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion hoax was run. They get all frenzied, they
Speaker 1: get all fired up about how this is the worst
Speaker 1: thing that anyone's ever done. It's worse than Nixon. And
Speaker 1: then when you look at it and you deal with
Speaker 1: the facts, you say, but hold on a second, why
Speaker 1: exactly is this worse than Nixon? Why is this worse
Speaker 1: than Watergate? It's always important to take a breath when
Speaker 1: liberals tell you that the republic is about to sink
Speaker 1: and we're all doomed. That's when it's worthwhile the step
Speaker 1: outside gets some fresh air and think, do I trust
Speaker 1: these people? The answer is no. So since I don't
Speaker 1: trust them, should to listen to them about this? The
Speaker 1: answer is also no. Rant Paul understands that the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden thing. Democrats are sensitive about it because it looks gross.
Speaker 1: There's no question about a play club five. If you
Speaker 1: would hunter Biden made fifty thousand dollars a month. That's
Speaker 1: the definition of corruption. We know he got it only
Speaker 1: because of his family connections. And I say to my colleagues,
Speaker 1: if shifty Shift will not let Hunter Biden come, and
Speaker 1: if you will not bring the whistleblower for every Republican
Speaker 1: in Congress should take a walk and say this is
Speaker 1: a farce. I think that at some point Republican nullification
Speaker 1: of the process, or at least refusal to behave or
Speaker 1: to behave maybe to be a part of the process.
Speaker 1: That's what this is heading to. I do think at
Speaker 1: some point Republicans should probably just say we're not gonna
Speaker 1: We're not gonna do this, We're not gonna show up
Speaker 1: what are they gonna They're gonna send a sergeant in
Speaker 1: arms to arrest all the Republicans for not wanting to
Speaker 1: sit through Adam shifts bizarre inquisition Hunter Biden, which we
Speaker 1: all have to goes back to the Democrat debate where
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper's like whatever his question was, it's basically, you know, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you about Ukraine, Joe Biden, but
Speaker 1: I'm also going to make sure that there's no evidence
Speaker 1: against you and there's no evidence you didn't anything wrong,
Speaker 1: And now I'm gonna ask my question. Well, I mean
Speaker 1: that all depends on what the meaning of wrong is,
Speaker 1: because to me, it is quite clearly wrong for someone
Speaker 1: to get fifty thousand dollars a month when their fathers
Speaker 1: on board. Because remember, even if see this is if
Speaker 1: you really think this through, you understand why the Democrats
Speaker 1: are so sensitive about this. Let's say for a second
Speaker 1: that what Hunter and Joe Biden have told us all
Speaker 1: along is true, which is a leap I will have
Speaker 1: you know that I'm not willing to make. But but
Speaker 1: let's just say that they made this or they did
Speaker 1: not discuss anything Ukraine related, and that Hunter never even
Speaker 1: promised the Ukrainians who were sending him these big checks
Speaker 1: every month that he was going to be their guy
Speaker 1: with the administration, with the Obama administration. And let's assume
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden's telling the truth. And remember, I'm not
Speaker 1: I don't believe it this is true, but I just
Speaker 1: even if we go to that level where we say
Speaker 1: everything had told us so far as true, the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: company Bisma was paying Hunter Biden to be on the
Speaker 1: board as an insurance policy. Right's something that we know
Speaker 1: the left, the Democrats know about. Remember the discussion about
Speaker 1: the insurance policy in Andy McCabe's office, off what if
Speaker 1: Trump gets elected. Yeah, they try to pretend that we're
Speaker 1: not going to remember that, but we do remember. So
Speaker 1: the insurance policy is an issue here. The way that
Speaker 1: you can see this is that if Hunter Biden's on
Speaker 1: the board of Barisma, wouldn't that even without anyone being
Speaker 1: told anything in Ukraine, which is very dependent on US
Speaker 1: eight at this point in time, the Obama aministration is
Speaker 1: heavily engaged in Ukraine as a foreign policy issue, wouldn't
Speaker 1: you know, just without being told Let's not get too
Speaker 1: crazy with this Bearismo investigation. And if you were the
Speaker 1: person making the decisions or the group making decisions about
Speaker 1: who's on the Barizma board. You would know that too,
Speaker 1: that it doesn't matter. Right, Why why is it a
Speaker 1: problem for somebody in you know? Why is nepotism an
Speaker 1: issue in general? You know? Why is it a problem
Speaker 1: in government for a father? You know, if if Trump
Speaker 1: were too And you guys know that I disagree with
Speaker 1: the nepotism that this administration engages in. I just I do.
Speaker 1: I think it's wrong. And people can tell me all
Speaker 1: day that the best people are the people he trusts
Speaker 1: and they're around him. But let's be honest about this.
Speaker 1: First second, folks, look at a lot of the decisions
Speaker 1: Trump has made about who to put around him, you know,
Speaker 1: like the mooch, we're gonna this isn't This is an
Speaker 1: area where you know, if you're not willing to criticize
Speaker 1: the president, I gotta say, I think it's starting to
Speaker 1: come pretty close to where are you willing to criticize
Speaker 1: this president? And I'm a big supporter, as you know,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's a different thing supporting somebody and saying
Speaker 1: everything I do is brilliant is not this? That's not
Speaker 1: those are not equivalent. But why is nepotism an issue
Speaker 1: in the first place. Well, because if I'm the president
Speaker 1: of the United States, let's make it President Buck, which
Speaker 1: would be amazing, by the way, but it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: I like getting sleep and relaxing and going for walks
Speaker 1: anonymously in New York. Let's say that there was President
Speaker 1: Buck and I had a son who was great, and
Speaker 1: I want to make my son's secretary of State. How
Speaker 1: could anybody have confidence that I wasn't picking my son
Speaker 1: Because whether I ever tell anybody or not where, whether
Speaker 1: I ever write it down or make it a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo or make it official or not, the fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is that I have a personal relationship
Speaker 1: to that person, and that will affect my decision making.
Speaker 1: The same is true about Drew Biden on the board
Speaker 1: of Barisma. When his dad is running policy in that country.
Speaker 1: There doesn't have to be a discussion about it. The
Speaker 1: point is that it makes it look like nobody could
Speaker 1: touch Burisma because Hunter Biden's there, so there, so the
Speaker 1: people are saying, oh, but there's no there's no smoking gun,
Speaker 1: we have no it doesn't matter. We've already established that
Speaker 1: this was gross. We've already established that this is wrong.
Speaker 1: You never should have done it. Of course, it's why
Speaker 1: did Joe Biden say to him, I hope you know
Speaker 1: what you're doing. I mean, Joe Biden's kind of a moron,
Speaker 1: but he's smart enough to figure out that having his
Speaker 1: song on the board of a company when he's running
Speaker 1: Obama administration policy in that country is a problem. Doesn't
Speaker 1: look good. Media has no interest in this whatsoever, and
Speaker 1: they're certain by the way that there's no further investigation needed.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've had the Mullard probe, We've had every
Speaker 1: media organization in the country that's anti Trump, which is
Speaker 1: ninety percent of them digging into Russia collusion as though
Speaker 1: their lives depended on it. Same thing, over and over,
Speaker 1: same witnesses, the same storyline, everything. But in the case
Speaker 1: of Breeze. But with Hunter Biden, we know everything. We
Speaker 1: need to know. Nothing to see here, Move on or
Speaker 1: else you're a conspiracy theorist. Sorry, not going to play
Speaker 1: the game the way they want me to, because I
Speaker 1: know what the other side's really all about. I know
Speaker 1: what matters to them. Let's also, though, talk about this.
Speaker 1: Javanovich testimony. The good news here, folks, is I read
Speaker 1: the Javanov testimony. It's already been I don't know if
Speaker 1: they've I think they leaked it or maybe it's out officially.
Speaker 1: I can't keep up with all the shenanigans going home
Speaker 1: with this committee. But I read the Yevanovich testimony, and
Speaker 1: let me tell you it is. It is not exactly
Speaker 1: riveting stuff. All these State Department people have the same
Speaker 1: you know, I've just been doing all the best I
Speaker 1: can for US foreign policy, and I'm a selfless public
Speaker 1: servant and i have no politics, and right, we get it, Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: some of them are some of them aren't. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like any large organization. There are go to the
Speaker 1: university of some big school, and you know they'll be
Speaker 1: brilliant people, though they'll be idiots there. That's like the
Speaker 1: State Department. That's like the CIA, that's like the FBI.
Speaker 1: You know, you got a mix. But Yevanovich's testimony. There
Speaker 1: are a few things that are worth noting from this,
Speaker 1: which I'll tell you, but just just in case you
Speaker 1: happen to flip on the TV and you see Shifty
Speaker 1: Shift trying to lie to you about it. I want
Speaker 1: to I want to give you some of what really
Speaker 1: happens or what really is clear from the testimony, and
Speaker 1: more importantly, I mean on the process. We have a
Speaker 1: problem here though, because the Democrats can set and are
Speaker 1: setting the process. It's deeply unfair, but they're allowed to
Speaker 1: make it deeply unfair. You know what the check is
Speaker 1: on the unfair process. The Democrats in this House impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry are doing you, the voter. That's why this is
Speaker 1: political ambassadory. Ivanovitch had a well earned reputation as a
Speaker 1: fighter of corruption, and she was working with Ukraine to
Speaker 1: get Ukraine to fight corruption. And so what does this
Speaker 1: irregular back channel, sanctioned by the president do. It seeks
Speaker 1: to remove someone fighting corruption in Ukraine by employing a
Speaker 1: vicious smear campaign in which the state department at the
Speaker 1: highest levels that acknowledged had no merit whatsoever. That smear campaign,
Speaker 1: orchestrated by this irregular channel was successful in removing a
Speaker 1: US ambassador and taring her reputation. Of course, see the
Speaker 1: President's comments about the ambassador in the call record. All right,
Speaker 1: some notes of caution here. What does he see Ivanovitch?
Speaker 1: I think he's Conna. I can never get these names right.
Speaker 1: I was saying Yavanovitch, Ivanovitch, tomato, tomato. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get it right. So of course it's tomato,
Speaker 1: by the way, not tomato. What are we on, like
Speaker 1: faulty towers? Ridiculous? Do you even know? You don't even
Speaker 1: know what faulty towers is? Do you producing? This is
Speaker 1: just like? Nah? I just old I just old manned
Speaker 1: myself here, didn't I You have no idea? Next Thingain,
Speaker 1: I'll be talking you about Mash. I at least know
Speaker 1: what Mash was. Well, that's good. I have a clue.
Speaker 1: But the other thing, no clue, no clue. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: a few things about this one my notes of caution here.
Speaker 1: Do I think that it's possible that perhaps the presidence
Speaker 1: personal layer Rue Giuliani might have been a bit over zealous,
Speaker 1: and you know, I know the mayor. I like the mayor,
Speaker 1: so I would have a very hard time without heart
Speaker 1: evidence just be ever speaking ill of them. What does
Speaker 1: it possible theoretically that maybe he had some bad information
Speaker 1: on this ambassador and there was a smear campaign against
Speaker 1: her that was not meant to be a smear campaign,
Speaker 1: but they really thought she was working against Trump administration
Speaker 1: wishes in some way, I could say, I don't know, right,
Speaker 1: we're working with very imperfect information here. But but a
Speaker 1: few things that I would note the State Department. Careers
Speaker 1: to the State Department are politically in line with the
Speaker 1: Oberlin Women's and Gender Studies Faculty Lounge. Okay, they are
Speaker 1: politically in line with the far left of America. Three
Speaker 1: I'd say, I'd say two out of three or three
Speaker 1: out of four, right, so you're looking at a healthy majority.
Speaker 1: Aren't even just democrat their leftists, they're internationalists. I've spent
Speaker 1: a lot of time and a lot of people dated
Speaker 1: somebody a long time ago from the State Department. I
Speaker 1: know the State Department, Okay, not not super well. I
Speaker 1: didn't work there, but I know enough about it, having
Speaker 1: interacted with it and being around that enough to know
Speaker 1: that there's a and there were back in the day
Speaker 1: a lot of actual When I say commies, I mean communists.
Speaker 1: There were Communist penetrations of the State Department at a
Speaker 1: very high level. And to this day people pretend that
Speaker 1: that did not happen. Don't even get me started on
Speaker 1: an Alger Hiss and the pumpkin papers and everything else
Speaker 1: that's real. Though, read Witness Whittaker Chambers fantastic, fantastic book.
Speaker 1: Really one of the people that got National Review up
Speaker 1: and running, along with William F. Buckley. You should read
Speaker 1: Whitaker Chambers Witness. The left still pretends that there weren't
Speaker 1: commy infiltrations of this country, and specifically of the highest
Speaker 1: levels of the United States government, because the Left always
Speaker 1: has a little bit of a soft spot for commies.
Speaker 1: Now that's but I'm just giving you the numbers. I
Speaker 1: don't know if she is an anti Trumper or not.
Speaker 1: I would just note that it's very possible that she
Speaker 1: was so based on what you usually see for people
Speaker 1: that work for the State Department. That's one aspect of this. Also,
Speaker 1: that Adam Schiff is telling you nothing but the most
Speaker 1: the most praising or praise worthy sweeping statements of how
Speaker 1: wonderful is That just puts me a little bit on edge.
Speaker 1: And the Obama administration has great fighters of corruption in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Play clip nine if you would please. Ambassador Ivanovitch had
Speaker 1: a well earned reputation as a fighter of corruption, and
Speaker 1: she was working with Ukraine to get Ukraine to fight corruption.
Speaker 1: And so what does this irregular back channel sanctioned by
Speaker 1: the president do. It seeks to remove someone fighting corruption
Speaker 1: in Ukraine? Right, But he is he saying that she
Speaker 1: was being removed because she was fighting corruption Ukraine or
Speaker 1: she being removed because it was believed that she was
Speaker 1: opposed to President Trump or did not like President Trump
Speaker 1: at some level. I mean, is now the storyline that
Speaker 1: President Trump wants Ukraine corruption? That's new, that would be
Speaker 1: a new addition into this whole thing. Keep in mind
Speaker 1: that the Democrats do not allow House Minority Republicans or
Speaker 1: the House Republicans or in the minority to pull their
Speaker 1: own witnesses. They're not allowed to ask questions, so they're
Speaker 1: just there to watch the show, so to speak. So
Speaker 1: that then the Democrats can do whatever they want in
Speaker 1: the show and pretend that this is bipartisan, but it
Speaker 1: is clearly not bipartisan. Democrats also have threatened, I believe,
Speaker 1: to withhold pay of State Department officials who show up
Speaker 1: and want there to be a State Department lawyer present
Speaker 1: with them during this testimony. Why would the State Department
Speaker 1: have a lawyer present with them? Well, to protect executive
Speaker 1: branch equities in all of this to make sure that
Speaker 1: the executive branch, which is a coequal branch with the Congress,
Speaker 1: is not having its prerogatives run roughshod over. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's really the way you'd say that, but
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. But no, you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to or else they'll hold your pay. I think I
Speaker 1: read that today, which seemed just absolutely outrageous. I think
Speaker 1: that the whistleblower gave a lot of false information, and
Speaker 1: you have to see who the whistleblower is. Once I
Speaker 1: released the transcript, which was almost immediately, the whistleblower's report
Speaker 1: was very wrong because, as you know, the whistleblower covered
Speaker 1: mostly my transcript, myall Michael with the President of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So once I released that call, I released a very
Speaker 1: detailed version of that call. All of a sudden, the
Speaker 1: whistleblowers report was incorrect, and the whistleblower seems to have disappeared.
Speaker 1: And I also wonder what happened to the second whistle
Speaker 1: blower and what happened to the informant. The President has
Speaker 1: targeted some of the folks who have testified, including Lieutenant
Speaker 1: Colonel Vinman. He has called for unmasking the name or
Speaker 1: revealing the identity of the whistle blower, which is protected
Speaker 1: by the law. How much do you take this seriously
Speaker 1: and how much do you think it's actually a sort
Speaker 1: of concrete threat to these proceedings. So we know that
Speaker 1: the whistle blower's identity is no longer relevant because everything
Speaker 1: he said has now been corroborated by other witnesses, and
Speaker 1: the White House's release they're called transcript the summarized version
Speaker 1: of it. We don't need to have a whistable over
Speaker 1: tell us what was on that phone call, because American
Speaker 1: people already know. In addition, the Trump's President Trump's attacks
Speaker 1: on Colonel Vinman or a very unfortunate ten Colonel Vinman
Speaker 1: served in Iraq, he shut his blood, he had got
Speaker 1: a prople heart. He is an American hero, and he
Speaker 1: told his story to Congress. He should not be attacked.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of very important things going on
Speaker 1: here from the Democrat side with this whole impeachment effort.
Speaker 1: I want to just walk it through a little bit
Speaker 1: of it. Yeah, I can never remember the Ambassadory Ivanovitch,
Speaker 1: I think is why I'm supposed to say it, right,
Speaker 1: Ambassador Yvanovitch, there was there were no bombshells. She gave
Speaker 1: the usual I'm a sort of State Department, long time bureaucrat.
Speaker 1: Here's what I think, blah blah. They shouldn't have fired me,
Speaker 1: and maybe they shouldn't know. I can't you know, the
Speaker 1: administration if if they have any evidence or real proof
Speaker 1: that she was working against Trump, we should We should
Speaker 1: see that at some point. We have not seen that yet.
Speaker 1: But I would note that this desire to protect the
Speaker 1: whistleblower's identity at all costs. Hold on a second, why
Speaker 1: can't the whistle blower testify behind closed doors because Republicans
Speaker 1: and Congress can't be trusted with the identity. Now, keep
Speaker 1: in mind there's already reports circling all over the place
Speaker 1: about the name of somebody who is a reportedly a
Speaker 1: CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC. Who is
Speaker 1: the person behind this? I can neither confirm nor deny.
Speaker 1: I don't know the name is swirling around. But until
Speaker 1: we have confirmation of this from the government, we don't
Speaker 1: really know what we're dealing with. But let's understand also
Speaker 1: what the president here would be A person working for
Speaker 1: the federal government going forward, any person working for the
Speaker 1: federal government could, upon learning of any meeting that the
Speaker 1: president has, including a highly classified discussion that the president has,
Speaker 1: file a complaint through allies in Congress, and then use
Speaker 1: that complaint as the basis for a make it up
Speaker 1: as you go along impeachment inquiry. That's an entirely political exercise,
Speaker 1: and that is meant to defame the president while in
Speaker 1: office and also perhaps even set the stage for not
Speaker 1: just a Senate trial, but removal from office of the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, thwarting the will of the
Speaker 1: American people as evidence in the twenty sixteen election, and
Speaker 1: showing us that the deep state really runs things. That's
Speaker 1: the precedent that would be set here. Think about this,
Speaker 1: Why did we have all these hearings about Benghazi, for example,
Speaker 1: with the Obama administration when what they really should have done,
Speaker 1: apparently is have one person from within the There are
Speaker 1: plenty of them, by the way. I've spoken to people
Speaker 1: who were involved in Benghazi who would have loved the
Speaker 1: opportunity to talk about the terrible malfeasance by the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton State Department, the lack of action by the White
Speaker 1: House under President Obama during the hours the thirteen hours
Speaker 1: I believe it was of that assault and gun battle.
Speaker 1: But instead of just having hearings, we could find out
Speaker 1: what happened, and hearings of the the American people were allowed
Speaker 1: to see. I suppose they should have just had one
Speaker 1: person who really didn't like President Obama go meet with
Speaker 1: Republicans in the Congress and say that Obama was guilty
Speaker 1: of dereliction of duty. Oh, but that person's a whistleblower. See,
Speaker 1: so nobody can know who it is, what their politics are,
Speaker 1: what their motivations may be. Keep that identity secret. Then
Speaker 1: convene a congressional majority, a congressional group like the House
Speaker 1: permanenc left Committee on Intelligence that just goes and subpoenas
Speaker 1: every Obama administration official they want to, threatens to hold
Speaker 1: people in contempt. Doesn't allow Democrats. I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: what could have happened. I suppose if Republicans were willing
Speaker 1: to just go scorched earth and just just play really dirty.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrats are playing here, that's what this is.
Speaker 1: You'll notice that now they're saying, well, we know it's
Speaker 1: in the transcripts, so we don't need to hear from
Speaker 1: the whistleblower more. Well, then why did we hear from
Speaker 1: a whistle blower in the first place. Whistle blower wasn't
Speaker 1: even there when the call was had, and there was
Speaker 1: supposed to be a second witness, where's that second witness?
Speaker 1: And what is that witness really going to tell us?
Speaker 1: These are all the questions we were not supposed We're
Speaker 1: not supposed to get answers to anymore. We're supposed to
Speaker 1: just believe Ted lou and Adam Schiff and various other
Speaker 1: Democrat hyperpartisans who represent incredibly blue districts, and all they
Speaker 1: have to do to get reelected, and they know it
Speaker 1: is constantly prove their Trump hatred. That's all they have
Speaker 1: to do. That's all that has to happen. So that
Speaker 1: makes it a pretty straightforward proposition for them. I've been
Speaker 1: telling you this, I'm seeing others have been catching on,
Speaker 1: and I would be writing some articles about this, but
Speaker 1: I'm writing the book. The book's coming along. I'm in
Speaker 1: a chapter right now about college for all. I'm going
Speaker 1: to be writing about modern monetary theory soon, and I'm
Speaker 1: just the buckster is is a little overworked and under
Speaker 1: slept lately. So I'm trying. I'm trying, but this show
Speaker 1: is obviously priority number one, So this show will always
Speaker 1: be awesome. But I can't write as much for the
Speaker 1: Hill in other places as I have been in the past,
Speaker 1: because I got to write the book that all said
Speaker 1: my defense of the basic right just a right of fairness,
Speaker 1: never mind just a right of law to confront your accusers.
Speaker 1: Where is the willingness to stand up for this. There's
Speaker 1: a reason why that's not something that's just kind of
Speaker 1: thrown in there at the very you know, at the
Speaker 1: very end. Now this goes back to English common law.
Speaker 1: If someone is going to accuse you of a serious crime,
Speaker 1: you should have the right or your lawyers, your defense team,
Speaker 1: the people that are representing your side of the story
Speaker 1: should have the right to question that individual story and yes,
Speaker 1: character and trustworthiness and all the rest of it. That's
Speaker 1: an essential component of justice. Otherwise people have first of all,
Speaker 1: as much less likely that we'll get to the truth
Speaker 1: of an accusation. And also think about the incentive then
Speaker 1: to just lob bombs at somebody from safe quarters and
Speaker 1: know that you're never going to receive incoming yourself. You're
Speaker 1: just going to be able to say whatever you want
Speaker 1: about a person and you can lie about it as
Speaker 1: you see fit. That's a problem, folks. That's a problem,
Speaker 1: and that's what they're doing right now to President Trump.
Speaker 1: It's disgusting. And yet the media seems to have no
Speaker 1: problem with this whatsoever. The process is whatever the Democrats
Speaker 1: say it is, unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that we
Speaker 1: have to say the process is okay. It also goes
Speaker 1: to show you that there's nothing fair minded about any
Speaker 1: of this. Right, if the Democrats were serious, if they
Speaker 1: had a real case, wouldn't they make more of a
Speaker 1: show of Sure Republicans can cross examine, Sure Republicans are
Speaker 1: going to get an equal say in how these hearings
Speaker 1: are conducted, They're going to be able to ask questions
Speaker 1: of witnesses to all these things. No, they're not going
Speaker 1: to do any of that. They have to cheat, They
Speaker 1: have to stack the deck in their favor because they
Speaker 1: don't have a strong case and they know it. And
Speaker 1: they also have to protect the identity of the whistleblower
Speaker 1: because if we found out who this person was, for sure,
Speaker 1: I think we already kind of know, And if it's
Speaker 1: the person that's being reported as the whistle blower, then yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a Democrat hack part is in working inside the
Speaker 1: intelligence community, who saw an opportunity here to work with
Speaker 1: his buddies and defend Joe Biden in the process, to
Speaker 1: work with Adam shift in the Democrats and try to
Speaker 1: take down a president that he obviously hates in a
Speaker 1: way that only the same shrill lunatics who basically cry
Speaker 1: even though they're adults when a baseball player puts on
Speaker 1: a maga hat, that same mentality, those same individuals, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they do work for the federal government. Sometimes, the kind
Speaker 1: of people who would boo the Commander in chief the
Speaker 1: same day or than twenty four hours of arrayed the
Speaker 1: commander in chief order to take out Abubakhara bug Daddy
Speaker 1: to boo him. Those same lunatics work for the federal government.
Speaker 1: A lot of them, not a few of them. Mostly
Speaker 1: the federal government is full of trump paters, because people
Speaker 1: who go to work for the federal leviathan who want
Speaker 1: jobs where the minimum is all that is ever expected
Speaker 1: or required of you, and where you cannot be fired,
Speaker 1: and where all you do and I know this because
Speaker 1: I was one is complained about how underpaid you are,
Speaker 1: when in fact you're overpaid. That's going to be a
Speaker 1: place where you find a lot of Democrats, a lot
Speaker 1: of leftists, and so it's unsurprising that some of them
Speaker 1: come forward and try to take out the President of
Speaker 1: the United States politically in this way, which reminds me
Speaker 1: also of the anonymous book. This is going to be interesting.
Speaker 1: You remember the anonymous op ed writer who claimed that
Speaker 1: the steady state was doing everything possible to try and
Speaker 1: stop the president from getting his way. Ah, we must
Speaker 1: stop President Trump from being able to do what he
Speaker 1: wants to do as president because he's so crazy, and
Speaker 1: so we pull papers away from him. The steady state, well,
Speaker 1: really deep state, anonymous op ed author said, we frustrate
Speaker 1: his will for the benefit of the American people, and
Speaker 1: then they make fun of us when we say so,
Speaker 1: there is a deep state, right. We understand this because
Speaker 1: that's what this person is describing. What this person is
Speaker 1: laying out for us is the deep state. That's what
Speaker 1: it is. But they don't like to think of it
Speaker 1: that but they don't like to hear about it in
Speaker 1: those terms. Isn't that interesting? So this person is coming
Speaker 1: out with a book. I believe it hits mid November,
Speaker 1: and the book will be I'm sure, one large collection
Speaker 1: of look at how crazy and stupid Trump is behind
Speaker 1: closed doors ps vote Democrat the end, that's what the
Speaker 1: book will be. How can we judge the authenticity of
Speaker 1: the author? How can we judge their motivations, their truthfulness
Speaker 1: when we don't know who the person is. Democrats are
Speaker 1: normalizing cowardice in a way that's fascinating to watch. Oh,
Speaker 1: we can have a whistleblower, but the whistleblower can't come forward. Really,
Speaker 1: we have men and women in uniform across the country
Speaker 1: and around the world risking their lives every day out
Speaker 1: of love for this country. You're gonna tell me this
Speaker 1: whistle blower, such a patriot, can't take the heat, the
Speaker 1: heat of being on the speaker's tour, getting paid one
Speaker 1: d one hundred thousand dollars to speak look at Combe.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, he's he's suffered a terrible amount for his
Speaker 1: opposition to the president. If by suffering you mean getting
Speaker 1: a book deal, being on TV all the time, getting
Speaker 1: paid to give speeches all over the country about how
Speaker 1: awful Trump is. There's no bravery here. This whistleblower is
Speaker 1: not brave, and there's no bravery in writing this. Anonymous book,
Speaker 1: which we're told the person's going to give some degree
Speaker 1: of the money, I think to charity or something. But
Speaker 1: that's until they decided to come forward, and then they
Speaker 1: start collecting the big paychecks for giving the anti Trump
Speaker 1: speeches as the author of anonymous all across the country.
Speaker 1: This is appalling. Why can't this person come forward? I
Speaker 1: think it's because we would recognize that one, he or
Speaker 1: she is not nearly I believe it's he, he is
Speaker 1: not nearly as senior as he would want us to believe.
Speaker 1: And two probably find out that this person has a
Speaker 1: background just like the whistleblower. Reportedly of Democrats support an
Speaker 1: anti trumpism. So this would be like, you know, I
Speaker 1: could go back to work for the federal government and
Speaker 1: the next time we have a Heaven forbid, but we
Speaker 1: might have a Biden or a Warrant or a Buddha
Speaker 1: judge administration. All of a sudden, I'm a whistleblower. And
Speaker 1: people say, wait a second. This guy has been a Republican,
Speaker 1: he's been a right winger his whole life. Maybe his
Speaker 1: opinion on this isn't just so objective. Well, of course,
Speaker 1: of course it's not objective. It's the opinion of somebody
Speaker 1: that is opposed to the administration. That's exactly what we
Speaker 1: have here. The issue with the anonymous book right now,
Speaker 1: the issue with the anonymous book is that they are
Speaker 1: going to look into The Justice Department is looking into
Speaker 1: whether or not there was a binding nondisclosure agreement signed here,
Speaker 1: especially if the person had access to classified information. You're
Speaker 1: going to see a lot of people that I think
Speaker 1: are gonna have trouble here. If this person was senior
Speaker 1: and had access to classified information, which is you would
Speaker 1: have to be if you're a senior enough in this
Speaker 1: White House, there is a review process for writing a
Speaker 1: book of the stature about your work. It does not
Speaker 1: matter if you think you are a patriot. It does
Speaker 1: not matter if you think that you are saving the
Speaker 1: democracy or the republic or whatever they're calling it today.
Speaker 1: You have a legal obligation to submit that for review.
Speaker 1: And I am pretty sure, although I can't speak to
Speaker 1: it quite yet, we'll have to find out what the
Speaker 1: final facts are. I'm quite sure that this person did
Speaker 1: not submit this for review and so therefore would be
Speaker 1: in violation of their secrecy agreement. Now, violation of the
Speaker 1: secrecy agreement itself without spilling classified information is punishable only
Speaker 1: by seizure of the profits of the book, and so
Speaker 1: the profits of the book that are going to go
Speaker 1: to charity, I'm not sure the White House would care
Speaker 1: to seize those, assuming that it's really just going to charity.
Speaker 1: But then there's the issue of, well, if you're going
Speaker 1: to have a court proceeding here, guess what you have
Speaker 1: to find out who in fact is the author of
Speaker 1: this book, Hatchet or Hashette Hachett. However you say Hatchet,
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the publishers. A Chet is
Speaker 1: saying that they have no legal obligation to the federal governments,
Speaker 1: so they're not going to yet, but they have legal
Speaker 1: obligation to a federal judge, who may say, guess what,
Speaker 1: we have to know who this author is because we
Speaker 1: have to know if they signed a classified NDA. This
Speaker 1: is the process we have, This is the way the
Speaker 1: law works. Get ready for it now, because at this fight,
Speaker 1: if the White House pursues this fight, you will see
Speaker 1: people who are alleged legal experts going on TV pretending
Speaker 1: that this is not very straightforward, when it is. The
Speaker 1: federal government has a legitimate interest in preventing the disclosure
Speaker 1: of classified and sensitive information. If you go work for
Speaker 1: the federal government, you sign something a contract that is
Speaker 1: legally binding that says that for books about your work
Speaker 1: in the government, you will submit them for prepublication review.
Speaker 1: If you are unwilling to do that, you are in
Speaker 1: breach of contract to the federal government. How can we
Speaker 1: know if this person is in breach of contract to
Speaker 1: the federal government or not if we don't know who
Speaker 1: the person is? Oh, there we go. That's when a
Speaker 1: federal judge gets to say who is this person? Federal
Speaker 1: judges deal with classified all the time. They can deal
Speaker 1: this inclosed proceedings. But we get to know, or rather
Speaker 1: the federal government gets to know. Just remember that now,
Speaker 1: because I think you're going to see, Oh but the
Speaker 1: first amendment in the you know, whatever is Trump is bad.
Speaker 1: And then you're gonna hear people legal experts go on
Speaker 1: TV make jackasses of themselves because anything for hashtag resistance.
Speaker 1: We should probably some of these predictions, we should mark
Speaker 1: them down because I just am always right, and I
Speaker 1: mean it's fun to always be right. I mean sometimes
Speaker 1: producer Mark is like, you're occasionally wrong. I don't have
Speaker 1: to tell him see this is where you're wrong, producer, Mark.
Speaker 1: But I'm basically always right, and this is one where
Speaker 1: assuming they pursue this, you will see people making arguments
Speaker 1: that are completely ridiculous on TV about how that there's
Speaker 1: no legal basis to find out who the author of
Speaker 1: this book is. There absolutely is a federal government basis
Speaker 1: to find out who the author of this book is.
Speaker 1: And they're going to try to hide this from us too.
Speaker 1: Why the person is not as senior as they pretend
Speaker 1: to be in the op ed doesn't have the access
Speaker 1: that they're letting people believe that he or she believed.
Speaker 1: We'll see he does, and probably has a history of
Speaker 1: being kind of a if not a wishywashy Republican, a
Speaker 1: straight up stealth Democrat. We'll see. But one of the
Speaker 1: reasons we wanted mister Eisenberg to come in is to
Speaker 1: find out what his role was, what the role of
Speaker 1: others was, and why a transcript that plainly did not
Speaker 1: belong in a classified system that is meant for some
Speaker 1: of the most secret of intelligence activities, that is, covert
Speaker 1: action activities. Why would a call record that the president
Speaker 1: would have the country believe was perfect, Why would it
Speaker 1: be hidden in this classified system. So clearly the White
Speaker 1: House does not want him to testify. They do not
Speaker 1: want the American people to know why mister Eisenberger others
Speaker 1: made that decision. And I think we can infer that
Speaker 1: the reason they don't want the public to hear from
Speaker 1: mister Eisenberg is that it would tend to corroborate allegations
Speaker 1: against the president anything. Where Adam Shift says you should
Speaker 1: infer you probably want to do the opposite, because he's
Speaker 1: lying to you. Think about the way that this is
Speaker 1: being constructed. Why would the transcript of the Zelenski Trump
Speaker 1: phone call be removed to a classified server? Why would
Speaker 1: that happen? First of all, any conversation between the president
Speaker 1: and another head of state is going to be considered
Speaker 1: sensitive and classified. Okay, that's so start with that. But
Speaker 1: why would it be removed specifically to a server would
Speaker 1: be even more secure. Oh you mean, why would they
Speaker 1: try to prevent the leak of a conversation between the
Speaker 1: president and a counterpart that was basically leaked that they
Speaker 1: that as soon as possible, there was this effort to
Speaker 1: try to get it out into public view. Oh gee,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe because they understood that the second
Speaker 1: there was an opening for people who hated the president
Speaker 1: try to take this and turn it into something that
Speaker 1: it wasn't. They would do it, But shifty shift never
Speaker 1: stops being shifty. Let's talk about how journalism, big journos,
Speaker 1: how do they really do what they do? How does
Speaker 1: this business work, this business of informing the public but
Speaker 1: also shaping perception of fitting propaganda in certain ways so
Speaker 1: that it is more easily disseminated, making sure that narratives
Speaker 1: take hold in the public mind that are in line
Speaker 1: with what the activist intentions of most journalisms actually are. Right,
Speaker 1: That's all the part of how do they do it?
Speaker 1: And how do we have evidence or do we have
Speaker 1: evidence of them doing it? Project Veritas strikes again, And
Speaker 1: I've got to tell you this is a pretty interesting one.
Speaker 1: You may have seen the memes out there now, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of them. Some of them are pretty pretty
Speaker 1: funny about how it has become a cultural phenomenon right
Speaker 1: now to just blurt out or write in an unexpected
Speaker 1: place that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself. This is a
Speaker 1: this is a meme. Now, this is a thing that's happening.
Speaker 1: You'll see this in different places, and people will try
Speaker 1: to find more and more creative ways to put this
Speaker 1: out there. Here. I'll actually give a shout out to
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles over at the Daily Wire. He had one
Speaker 1: today that was that was particularly funny. It was on
Speaker 1: this day six hundred and eight years ago Khalil Sultan,
Speaker 1: the Timorhood ruler of Transaxania, died at the age of
Speaker 1: twenty seven. Shortly thereafter, his wife committed suicide, which distinguishes
Speaker 1: her from Jeffrey Epstein, who did not kill himself. That's
Speaker 1: the that's the kind of stuff that you are are seeing,
Speaker 1: uh these days. That's the that's the the memes, the
Speaker 1: meme creation. Because there are a lot of people who
Speaker 1: are are looking at the Epstein case and are saying, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a minute, here, hold on a second. Why
Speaker 1: is it that doctor Boden, who was paid by Epstein's
Speaker 1: brother to look into this, But I don't believe that
Speaker 1: he would light his credibility on fire for no reason.
Speaker 1: Who's involved in some of the highest level autopsies of
Speaker 1: any in terms of the cases that he's dealt with
Speaker 1: of anyone. Why would he say it is highly highly,
Speaker 1: highly unlikely that he's never seen. And I think it
Speaker 1: was forty years of medical examination, an autopsy, the circumstances
Speaker 1: that Epstein died under, and that being a suicide. So
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe that the highest Let's just add
Speaker 1: up the coincidences. Here, the highest profile prisoner at the
Speaker 1: time in the United States Bureau of Prisons custody was
Speaker 1: able to commit suicide weeks after an alleged other suicide attempt.
Speaker 1: He was able to commit suicide with two guards falling
Speaker 1: asleep while he was committing suicide, two guards with cameras
Speaker 1: malfunctioning near the cells, and the medical report shows breakages
Speaker 1: of around his throat that are more consistent with being
Speaker 1: strangled than killing one's self. There's a lot of Oh,
Speaker 1: and he was the first prisoner, I believe, in the
Speaker 1: history of the Manhattan Correctional Facility to commit suicide when
Speaker 1: held in similar circumstances in a cell that was specifically
Speaker 1: designed to prevent suicide. And oh, by the way, doctor
Speaker 1: Boden hasn't seen this in forty years of examining dead
Speaker 1: bodies and homicide situations. That's I mean, look, that's all possible.
Speaker 1: Crazy stuff happens. It's a lot though, right, Am I
Speaker 1: missing something? That's a lot of lots, a lot of coincidences.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of coincidences. But let's put that aside
Speaker 1: for a moment. So I don't plan on just sitting
Speaker 1: here on the show and yelling Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill
Speaker 1: himself at random, although I know people will be doing
Speaker 1: that on their shows, because I'm not sure. I think
Speaker 1: that it's still very much an open question what happened
Speaker 1: to Epstein. But here's what I don't think is an
Speaker 1: open question. And this brings me back to or rather,
Speaker 1: here's what I am certain of, and this brings me
Speaker 1: back to Project faretas there's a lot about Epstein that
Speaker 1: is being suppressed, still actively suppressed by people who were
Speaker 1: around around Epstein, knew what was going on, and there
Speaker 1: was a conspiracy of silence that ran all the way
Speaker 1: through the media because of the people that Epstein was
Speaker 1: involved with, and that there was pressure brought to bear
Speaker 1: to shut these stories down, no question about that, And
Speaker 1: that there are people right now who pretend to be brave,
Speaker 1: who pretend to be the journals out there who are
Speaker 1: doing the hard work of speaking truth to power. I
Speaker 1: do not know many journals at all who speak truth
Speaker 1: to power. I know a lot of journals who do
Speaker 1: powers bidding, who do what they think their audience wants
Speaker 1: to see and what their paymasters in the executive suite
Speaker 1: want to see, and what their peer group in the
Speaker 1: elite echelon of opinion and tastemakers in American media want
Speaker 1: to see. That's what they report on, and if it
Speaker 1: fits into those categories, that's what they'll do. But if
Speaker 1: it's going to rock the boat too much, particularly, they'll
Speaker 1: sell out their audience. Usually journalis long before they'll sell
Speaker 1: out the executives who signed their paychecks or the people
Speaker 1: that they socialize with after hours. We've seen this with
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein, with Matt Lauer, with numerous high level cases
Speaker 1: of people who were serial abusers of women at organizations
Speaker 1: that give a lot of lip service to being all
Speaker 1: about women's empowerment and feminists, and it turned out that no,
Speaker 1: they were much more concerned with powerful people, their relationships
Speaker 1: and the bottom line, their financial interests. That it brings
Speaker 1: me this project very toss video about Jeffrey Epstein's case
Speaker 1: and what Amy Roeboch, who is an ABC News anchor,
Speaker 1: I mean I never. I'm always amazed that there are
Speaker 1: there are still millions of people who watch ABC, many
Speaker 1: more than watch cable news. By the way, ABC News
Speaker 1: has a much bigger audience for its one new show
Speaker 1: than any cable news show does. I just can't imagine
Speaker 1: watching this water down, worthless news broadcast that it's not
Speaker 1: really opinion, it's not really news. It's just kind of like,
Speaker 1: I don't know. To me, it's it's like CBSCA News
Speaker 1: with Dan rather, these are these are old models that
Speaker 1: I'm amazed they still have any audience at all. But
Speaker 1: put that aside for a moment here, So I never.
Speaker 1: I don't even know who Amy Roebock was, but I'm
Speaker 1: sure she's got millions of people that watch her, even
Speaker 1: though I work in news and I don't even know
Speaker 1: who she is. But there's an important, an important reality
Speaker 1: keep in mind, and that is reducer. Mark has to
Speaker 1: remind me of this sometimes when I'm in the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt in the language is getting a little salty. What
Speaker 1: is that when you have microphones and cameras around you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're not on air, you can let it loose
Speaker 1: a little bit sometimes, and there's a different presentation that
Speaker 1: we all have when we are presenting in front of
Speaker 1: an audience versus when we're just talking off mike. But
Speaker 1: you gotta always assume that maybe it's being recorded and
Speaker 1: maybe it will you know, for those who don't remember,
Speaker 1: What'll Do It Live? We'll Do It Live. One of
Speaker 1: the greatest moments, and I really think one of the
Speaker 1: greatest bods in TV history. It's amazing, and I like
Speaker 1: I like Bill O'Reilly. I think he's a great TV talent.
Speaker 1: It's just one of the funniest things. It's just one
Speaker 1: of the funniest things I've ever seen, and it's just
Speaker 1: really funny. So no disrespect ment to the big man.
Speaker 1: I just think that that clip is pretty hilarious. But
Speaker 1: you gott always remember that people are recording these things,
Speaker 1: and you know that there's the possibility that it will leak.
Speaker 1: And this one day Amy Roeboch talked was talking kind
Speaker 1: of off mike, or rather not thinking this would air
Speaker 1: about how well, let me let's just let her to
Speaker 1: This is about the Epstein case. Here is what a
Speaker 1: big time ABC News anchor had to say when she
Speaker 1: didn't think people were listening play it. I've had the
Speaker 1: story of three years I've had this interview with for
Speaker 1: Jinny Roberts. We would not put it on the air.
Speaker 1: First of all, I was told, who's Jeffrey Epstein? No
Speaker 1: one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.
Speaker 1: Then the Palace found out that we had her whole
Speaker 1: allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.
Speaker 1: We were so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview
Speaker 1: Kate will that that also quashed the story. And then
Speaker 1: and then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in because of
Speaker 1: the planes. She told me everything, she had, pictures, she had, everything,
Speaker 1: She wasn't hiding for twelve years. We convinced her to
Speaker 1: come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It
Speaker 1: was unbelievable what we had, Clinton, we have everything. I
Speaker 1: tried for three years to get it on to no avail,
Speaker 1: and now it's all coming out and it's like these
Speaker 1: new relevant revelations and I freaking had all of it.
Speaker 1: I'm so pissed right now, Like every day, I get
Speaker 1: more and more pissed because I'm just like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: it was what we had was unreal. Other women backing
Speaker 1: it up, Hey yep, Bright Edwards the attorney three years
Speaker 1: ago saying like like we there will come a day
Speaker 1: when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific
Speaker 1: pedophile this country has ever known. And I had it
Speaker 1: all three years ago. Now, the good news for Amy
Speaker 1: Robock is that she actually comes out of its looking
Speaker 1: pretty good. The people who don't look good are the
Speaker 1: executives at ABC who and she just ran down all
Speaker 1: the stuff here. And this is why, you know what
Speaker 1: I've been saying that there was a conspiracy of silence
Speaker 1: around Epstein. Of course there was. They're very powerful people,
Speaker 1: very powerful Democrats by the way. You notice Dershowitz, Clanton,
Speaker 1: the royal family in the UK, which I'm not think
Speaker 1: they're not Democrats, but what the heck is going on there?
Speaker 1: Who is Epstein? Well, that's why you break a major
Speaker 1: national news store and you tell, you tell people who
Speaker 1: Epstein is? Right? What you what? Here's what's clear about this?
Speaker 1: And you see this, You constantly see this happening in
Speaker 1: major news rooms. You saw this with NBC with Matt Lauer.
Speaker 1: By the way, they haven't brought in an independent investigator
Speaker 1: yet to look at what was really happening at NBC
Speaker 1: News with Matt Lauer, who had the sketchy button installed
Speaker 1: under his desk for security reasons. I love this like
Speaker 1: we're all a bunch of morons. Yeah, sure, because that
Speaker 1: was going to save him. If somebody came into the
Speaker 1: office to harming he has a button on his desk,
Speaker 1: he'd hit the lock the door. We know what that
Speaker 1: button was all about, all right, and we know that
Speaker 1: they know that it was installed in his office. And
Speaker 1: I've been hearing shady rumors about Matt Low and I'm
Speaker 1: just a little dude in media that no one even
Speaker 1: pays attention to in the mainstream. I had known stuff
Speaker 1: about him for years. I mean heard rumors, I should say,
Speaker 1: and the rumors turn out to be true. I didn't
Speaker 1: know the names and stuff, but I knew that he
Speaker 1: was doing stuff with young women while he's a married guy.
Speaker 1: At his place, and people who work for him, they
Speaker 1: won't bring an independent investigator because they'll find out is
Speaker 1: that the NBC executive some of them knew about it
Speaker 1: and didn't do anything about it. I'd also like to
Speaker 1: know what years was Jeff Zucker, a senior executive at NBC,
Speaker 1: because I'm prettyure Matt Lauer was there when Jeff Zucker
Speaker 1: was at the same time. I just think that would
Speaker 1: be an interesting thing for someone to look into. What
Speaker 1: a surprise, But they didn't do what they should have done.
Speaker 1: They weren't acting ethically because of the money involved and
Speaker 1: because of the powerful relationships involved, and for ABC News too.
Speaker 1: Does anyone think for a second that what Roebox says
Speaker 1: here is untrue that when you look at the pressure
Speaker 1: of the royal family saying the note Kate and Will interviews.
Speaker 1: By the way, Americans, I beg you, all right, I
Speaker 1: love I love my fellow Americans more than any people
Speaker 1: in the world. Stop giving a crap about the royal family.
Speaker 1: It's worthless. It doesn't matter. It's weird, okay, we need
Speaker 1: to not I don't know what I mean, like the Billbergs,
Speaker 1: you know, the Illuminati and the Queen of England and
Speaker 1: forget about all that stuff. I just mean, what is this?
Speaker 1: Why do we care? It's not a fairy tale. It's
Speaker 1: kind of weird. We are anti We fought a war
Speaker 1: about not having the deal with monarchy. I don't really
Speaker 1: want the monarchy to invade our space because of media,
Speaker 1: all right. I think the monarchy thing is bizarre. I
Speaker 1: think they're a bunch of entitled brats. I don't get it.
Speaker 1: I don't get it. And i'd say about any country,
Speaker 1: although we only seem to have this fascination with the
Speaker 1: British royal family, Like the doesn't even even know there's
Speaker 1: a Danish I think there's a Danish king. There's a
Speaker 1: Swedish king that these places all have. But they're like
Speaker 1: they're like socialist kings, now, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: They show up, they their their palaces have lots of
Speaker 1: Ikea furniture. It's a little bit of a different vibe.
Speaker 1: But Kate and Will, they're going to deny that, you know,
Speaker 1: access to the royal family, and the royal family I'm
Speaker 1: sure threatened to sue. Look, I mean, I'm a guy, okay,
Speaker 1: I've seen I've seen a lot of photos of a
Speaker 1: lot of people. And you know, if you're a guy,
Speaker 1: you've spent left time on social media, you always can
Speaker 1: kind of tell when someone's holding your girlfriend a little
Speaker 1: too close, or somebody's trying to And I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it. You see that photo that Prince Andrew has
Speaker 1: with one of the one of the victims, who's when
Speaker 1: she was a very young girl, I think fifteen or
Speaker 1: sixteen at the time. I mean, he's holding a way
Speaker 1: where if that were my daughter, I would lose my
Speaker 1: mind that that old British dude. I mean, because you
Speaker 1: can just you look at the photo. There's something sketchy
Speaker 1: going on. There's something sketchy going on. So they had
Speaker 1: this stuff. There was proof. ABC had evidence. Roebock is saying,
Speaker 1: we had the girls. She's gonna come forward. She had photos,
Speaker 1: she had everything, she had names, manifests of flights would
Speaker 1: have proven that these guys would fly. They didn't want
Speaker 1: to rom with this story. This isn't this is an
Speaker 1: incredible story. They still haven't figured out how this guy
Speaker 1: made all of his money, by the way, they still
Speaker 1: haven't really and they and everyone's reporting on Epstein. I mean,
Speaker 1: now I started to get into this Epstein zone where
Speaker 1: I lose my mind. Everyone reports on Epstein about how
Speaker 1: he had surveillance equipment and it was all set up
Speaker 1: so that they could blackmail, that he could blackmail people.
Speaker 1: Who was he blackmailing? No names? No names, wait, wait,
Speaker 1: we have no No one has been accused, or rather,
Speaker 1: no one has been brought into this because of the
Speaker 1: the blackmail that Epstein was supposedly preparing to use or
Speaker 1: using against them. No one has been indicted who was
Speaker 1: in epstein enabler or somebody else that Epstein was inflicting
Speaker 1: upon these these young girls. No charges. The statutes on
Speaker 1: that stuff would be very lengthy. I mean, I'd have
Speaker 1: to look at the specifics, but I mean trafficking and
Speaker 1: underaged girls. And I think the statute you're look if
Speaker 1: there might not be any statute of limitations depends on
Speaker 1: what they're talking about, state or federal. So no charge, nothing,
Speaker 1: nearly Epstein's dead case closed. That's what we're supposed to
Speaker 1: accept from this. When you have ABC News making it
Speaker 1: quite clear that the ABC brass was ABC News brass
Speaker 1: was like, Nope, not touching this. And my friends, these
Speaker 1: are people, these are all they're all incredibly well paid.
Speaker 1: We're talking about millionaires with tremendous connections. But unfortunately a
Speaker 1: lot of the people who are in that category in
Speaker 1: this country in the media are cowards. They really on
Speaker 1: this will sound like a cliche. They want to be
Speaker 1: invited to the fancy parties in the Hamptons. They don't
Speaker 1: want to rock the boat. They want to be considered
Speaker 1: among the elite. They want to be welcome at parties.
Speaker 1: They're not looking to speak truth to power, they just
Speaker 1: want to be near power. They're sycophants. They're not patriots.
Speaker 1: They're not truthtellers. An ABC News just showed us exactly
Speaker 1: a rather robot is telling us exactly what ABC News
Speaker 1: is all about. Young girls are being trafficked and violated
Speaker 1: by this Epstein maniac. Nobody wanted to do anything about it. Rich,
Speaker 1: multi millionaire media celebrities knew about this. Executives knew about this,
Speaker 1: didn't do anything. I hope you're all enjoying the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show today. Thank you for hanging out with me.
Speaker 1: If you want to watch on Pluto TV channel two
Speaker 1: forty eight, right, producer Mark, that's how you like to
Speaker 1: watch on the Pluto TV. Yes, all day on my
Speaker 1: television at home is Buck Sexton and Jesse Kelly. That's right.
Speaker 1: He's just got bucks. He's responsible for just upping our
Speaker 1: numbers over here. But checkout Pluto TV app if you
Speaker 1: haven't already downloaded, watch it wherever you want on your phone,
Speaker 1: so easy. It's a great way to check out what's
Speaker 1: going on. The Freedom Huder in the Jesse Kelly world,
Speaker 1: So thank you very much for that. Is Aunt Becky
Speaker 1: really going to prison for forty five years? All right?
Speaker 1: For those who don't know, Aunt Becky's better known as
Speaker 1: Laurie Laughlin. That's her real name. She was the much
Speaker 1: beloved and in her day quite lovely aunt on the
Speaker 1: show Full House. Who was the girlfriend or white? I
Speaker 1: think she was the girlfriend of right, wasn't the wife
Speaker 1: of John? Eventually she was the wife? Yeah, eventually they
Speaker 1: got married, right, But originally Aunt Becky was the girlfriend
Speaker 1: on the show Full House, which was just a beloved
Speaker 1: I watched her growing up. I mean I grew up
Speaker 1: watching Candice Cameron and what was the other one's name?
Speaker 1: I don't even remember now, Kirk Kirk Cameron. That's the
Speaker 1: right show, right, or is that? Yeah? No? Is Kirk
Speaker 1: Cameron full House? No? No, no, I got I've got
Speaker 1: my shows. Whatever, doesn't Who cares? He was on one
Speaker 1: of those shows where people are nice to each other,
Speaker 1: and there's like a like an intact family or close
Speaker 1: to it, where people are being nice to each other.
Speaker 1: You think of Bob Sackett. No, No, that's the dad. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: I think I think he's in I think he's the
Speaker 1: older brother. Anyway, the neither here nor there full house
Speaker 1: aunt Becky. I'd kind of a crushed it at Becky
Speaker 1: back in the day. She had great hair, which I respect.
Speaker 1: And here's the problem for him, Becky now and her
Speaker 1: and her husband Massimo Giannouli, which is a great name
Speaker 1: for a fashion designer, which is what he is, a Massimo.
Speaker 1: So they bribed some coaches at USC, using that this
Speaker 1: is all Operation Varsity Blues, right, this has became a
Speaker 1: big story. I was like, oh my gosh. They bribed
Speaker 1: some coaches to say that their daughters were on the
Speaker 1: crew team. Their daughters were not on the crew team,
Speaker 1: or rather there were crew recruits. And having been someone
Speaker 1: who actually rote crew in college, I can tell you
Speaker 1: that those girls are not on the crew team. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna put that out there. I've seen photos.
Speaker 1: They're not ladies who rowe. You know, they row. But
Speaker 1: I digress. So they bribe these coaches and this is
Speaker 1: still a big store. Why is the big story Because
Speaker 1: they're facing now additional federal prosecution. They want to take
Speaker 1: it to a jury. They're going to fight this all
Speaker 1: the way. But if they get convicted. If Massimo and
Speaker 1: aunt Becky get convicted on all I'm gonna keep calling
Speaker 1: me aunt Becky because that's how I know of her.
Speaker 1: But that's Laurie Laughlin, the actress. If they get convicted
Speaker 1: on all accounts, they could get forty five years in
Speaker 1: federal prison. All right, forty five years. Now, the way
Speaker 1: the guidelines work, they wouldn't get forty five years. But
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you something. If they take this to
Speaker 1: a jury and the jury says, sorry, you broke the law.
Speaker 1: And technically, even though the money laundering statutes you violated
Speaker 1: are meant to go after drug kingpins and people doing
Speaker 1: really bad things, not people bribing their kids into college,
Speaker 1: you did break the law and it is kind of
Speaker 1: what you did, and you know, that's kind of where
Speaker 1: it is. They could go to prison for a few years.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would not be surprised if Aunt aunt Becky,
Speaker 1: I mean I had to look at the specifics of
Speaker 1: the charges. But if she asistant takes it to a jury, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, and they and they find them guilty on
Speaker 1: some of these counts, they're going to prison for a while.
Speaker 1: And remember in federal in a federal system, you'd serve
Speaker 1: the whole time. So whatever the judge says you get,
Speaker 1: that's what you get, and you serve it. There's no parole.
Speaker 1: I would note that Felicity Huffman from Desperate Housewives has
Speaker 1: already served her time. She got fourteen days but was
Speaker 1: released after twelve because there was a weekend or something,
Speaker 1: so she wasn't exactly wasn't exactly shawshank, you know, she was.
Speaker 1: She was able to get out. It was okay. It
Speaker 1: wasn't that bad. She you know. It also reminds me
Speaker 1: of the Vandem movie. I think it's death Warrant where
Speaker 1: they get this guy. If you think about this, this
Speaker 1: is an idea. They send an undercover police officer into
Speaker 1: like the scariest prison ever to go after the guy
Speaker 1: who's the meanest, badest, scariest guy in the prison as
Speaker 1: an inmate. I'm like, who woulds? Who would? But he
Speaker 1: does many good fly kick he has many spinning kick
Speaker 1: vandam yes, who would sign up for that? I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, I think that's that's a bit of a stretch.
Speaker 1: Producer Razuto, who's watching this, he's probably he's probably almost
Speaker 1: as much of a Van damn aficionado as I am.
Speaker 1: So anyway, we have where was I? We have law?
Speaker 1: I mean Huffman, not Laughlin. Hufflin has pleaded guilty, she
Speaker 1: got to twelve days, but Laurie Laughlin's taken this all
Speaker 1: the way. Now, why why are the fens making such
Speaker 1: a big deal in to this? This is clearly federal overreach.
Speaker 1: I've been saying that from the beginning. Bribing your way
Speaker 1: into college. I mean, this should not even be a
Speaker 1: criminal really a criminal offense. If it is a criminal offense,
Speaker 1: it should be you pay a very large you should
Speaker 1: pay a large fine. Remember, there's already been consequences for this.
Speaker 1: The daughters had to leave USC, and no offense to USC.
Speaker 1: But it's not usually the kind of place you think
Speaker 1: of when people are bribing to get their kids in.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be school snobby here, but it's
Speaker 1: not Stanford. But anyway, they they bribe their kids to
Speaker 1: get them into USC. I'm sorry, they bribed the administered,
Speaker 1: they brought the coaches to get their kids in the USC.
Speaker 1: But the kids have had to withdraw and you obviously
Speaker 1: suffered some humiliation. Laughlin has already been cut from I
Speaker 1: think Netflix, a Netflix series, as well as the Fuller House,
Speaker 1: which I've heard is terrible, which is the spinoff or
Speaker 1: addition to the original Full House. So there are bad
Speaker 1: things that have happened to these people already because of
Speaker 1: their decision to bribe bribe these officials. And this is
Speaker 1: where I want to just point out that unfortunately, envy
Speaker 1: is very powerful politics, and prosecutors are often politicians, and
Speaker 1: finding a very well to do, attractive white female celebrity
Speaker 1: like this and making an example of her in this
Speaker 1: way in our current environment is attractive politics to a
Speaker 1: lot of people, particularly on the left. This is where
Speaker 1: the federal overreach component gets really scary. When you see
Speaker 1: people that are being made an example of because of
Speaker 1: who they are, not what they did. We should all
Speaker 1: be worried about that. I can tell you from friends
Speaker 1: who have worked in US attorney's offices across the country.
Speaker 1: There is always a there's a premium put on prosecutions
Speaker 1: of corruption of public officials, which I understand keeping trust
Speaker 1: in the system or whatever, but you know, they sometimes
Speaker 1: look where they did to Bligoevich. I mean, sometimes they
Speaker 1: go after these guys really really aggressively because of it
Speaker 1: looks good, right, politician speaking truth to power. There's that
Speaker 1: speaking truth to power again. But also for white collar crimes,
Speaker 1: there are people who believe that it is an issue
Speaker 1: of fairness that someone who is engaged in insider training
Speaker 1: and makes you a million dollars illicitly should serve a
Speaker 1: really stiff prison sentence along the lines of somebody who
Speaker 1: went into a convenience store with a gun and stole
Speaker 1: a thousand dollars. I think that's crazy, but there are
Speaker 1: people who will make that argument. There are people who
Speaker 1: will say that they're that part of the racial injustice
Speaker 1: in our system is that there are certain crimes that
Speaker 1: are disproportionately committed by non by people who are either
Speaker 1: well white or Asian, and that those crimes are more
Speaker 1: lightly punished, and there's a racial component of that. I
Speaker 1: mean to that, I just say, well, that's because stealing
Speaker 1: money through a stock fraud is far less of a
Speaker 1: of an imminent social harm and risk and risk to
Speaker 1: life and limb than threatening somebody with a gun. I
Speaker 1: don't care what someone's skin color is. If they threatened
Speaker 1: somebody with a gun, that's a really serious crime. I
Speaker 1: don't care what someone's skin color is if they are
Speaker 1: engaged in medicare fraud, Yeah, they should be punished. But
Speaker 1: I'm not worried to guy engaged in medicare fraud is
Speaker 1: going to get out of prison and kill somebody, right,
Speaker 1: So this is but there there is this argument you'll
Speaker 1: see for especially for the criminal justice reform type. Some
Speaker 1: of them will say that, you know, we need to
Speaker 1: really punish. There's this impetus to really punish non violent crimes,
Speaker 1: especially if they affect the elites. Right, So I think
Speaker 1: that there's some of that mentality at work here with Yeah,
Speaker 1: people cheating to get their kids into school, and you know,
Speaker 1: this for me also forces a whole discussion about I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that the way that people get into school
Speaker 1: in a whole variety of context is really gross and
Speaker 1: bad and wrong. And now is where everyone starts booing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that athletic recruiting for colleges overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: is strange and bizarre. I think that Title nine shouldn't
Speaker 1: exist the way that it does for women's and men's
Speaker 1: athletics teams, as though we're supposed to assume that women
Speaker 1: want to play sports at the same levels as men
Speaker 1: in schools, and we have to allocate funds the exact
Speaker 1: same way. I think that that's bizarre. I think it's wrong.
Speaker 1: I think that people getting into schools because their parents
Speaker 1: went there legacy is a problem. It's just financial issue
Speaker 1: because legacy donations are very important to these schools. But
Speaker 1: I think it's gross. I should say I think affirmative
Speaker 1: action is wrong. I think it's discrimination by race. And
Speaker 1: if you want to stop discriminating by race, the best
Speaker 1: way to do it is to stop discriminating by race.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of complexity in the college admissions world,
Speaker 1: and then there's also just the advancement office. Right. This
Speaker 1: is remember that where they described this in the initial
Speaker 1: Varsity Blues, which is what they call this whole college
Speaker 1: admissions thing. You can go in the front door, which
Speaker 1: is normal admissions. The backdoor is write a huge check.
Speaker 1: The side door is right, a small check to somebody
Speaker 1: who can insert you in the process, coaches, etc. Who
Speaker 1: can get you into the school in this way that is,
Speaker 1: you know, not in keeping with the rules. I mean
Speaker 1: to this, I just say so, it's not a bribe
Speaker 1: that sends you to federal prison if you give it
Speaker 1: to the administrators. But it is a bribe that'll get
Speaker 1: you sent to federal prison if you give it to
Speaker 1: a coach. People could say, oh, but buck, the admission
Speaker 1: spots are a thing of value, and that thing of
Speaker 1: value is to be allocated by the administration of the school,
Speaker 1: not by any individual coaching. To that, I say, well,
Speaker 1: that's not even really true, because coaches do get to
Speaker 1: pick people as they see fit for their teams and
Speaker 1: get through the admission process. That's why they have the
Speaker 1: value they do. And so, in what way is paying
Speaker 1: off a coach a federal crime? Gross unseemly sure a
Speaker 1: federal crime. I spoke to some DOJ contacts when I
Speaker 1: was in DC when this case first broke, and they
Speaker 1: were like, yeah, this is this is way because remember
Speaker 1: that's this is being handled by the US Attorney's Office
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles. Guess what. I'm sure there's a lot
Speaker 1: of libs, but they they agreed. I mean, my friends
Speaker 1: in DC and the Department of Justice they agreed that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of overreach and there's some there's kind
Speaker 1: of some headhunting going on here. I mean, there's some
Speaker 1: going for scalps, there's some trying to make a political
Speaker 1: point here. But yeah, privilege and wealth and access. We're
Speaker 1: going to really stick it to those people. Forty five
Speaker 1: years in federal prison for Aunt Becky. I know it's
Speaker 1: not going to be, but the fact that she even
Speaker 1: faces that, I mean, when they look at the charges,
Speaker 1: it'll be enough for senator prison for forty five years.
Speaker 1: Who is who is egregiously harmed in this process? Isn't
Speaker 1: it enough that the students have been that her daughters
Speaker 1: have been expelled, humiliated, She's lost a lot of money
Speaker 1: from her career. You know, Have her do some I mean,
Speaker 1: I agree with Bill McGurn in the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: Have her do some community service, pay a pretty hefty fine,
Speaker 1: and go about her life. You sent to prison for
Speaker 1: this insane But you know, another part of this is
Speaker 1: that the incentive for the federal government to have you
Speaker 1: plead guilty way too high. And they'd say, but but
Speaker 1: you're getting a benefit. That's why you plead guilty, because
Speaker 1: you get the benefit. But our systems shouldn't really be
Speaker 1: what it is right now, where it's apt what the
Speaker 1: federal government says about you. By the way, this comes
Speaker 1: into play with General Flynn as well, where they forced
Speaker 1: to plea I think really illicitly by hiding things that
Speaker 1: were exculpatory, but they forced to plea, and now they say, sorry,
Speaker 1: you took the plea. It doesn't matter how we got
Speaker 1: you to take it. That's the position of the federal
Speaker 1: government with General Flynn right now. But it's not in
Speaker 1: the interests of justice to say, accept our allegation of
Speaker 1: guilt against you as true and you'll live to fight
Speaker 1: another day. Fight against our allegation of you as truth,
Speaker 1: and we will annihilate your life and send you a
Speaker 1: prison for decades. That's not justice. I know, it's the
Speaker 1: system we have right now, but that's not the same
Speaker 1: thing as justice. So you know, free Aunt Becky, that's
Speaker 1: what I say, Free Aunt Becky. And there, well, I
Speaker 1: was Felicity. Huffin's already out. I never watched Desperate Housewives,
Speaker 1: so I don't have I don't get it excited about
Speaker 1: that one. I can't really pretend that I care all
Speaker 1: that much. But I don't know Aunt Becky. I grew
Speaker 1: up with Becky. Man. Come on, all they need those one?
Speaker 1: Maybe this is the game they're playing. Maybe this is
Speaker 1: all they need on that jury is one millennial or
Speaker 1: gen X or y person. I guess that'd be the
Speaker 1: right age who grew up watching Full House and and
Speaker 1: Becky's gonna walk. That's what I think. The truth is
Speaker 1: what I what. I send that Becky to prison? Of
Speaker 1: course not, I'm not a monster. Tell everything they're gonna do. Like,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna take people's guns away, wait till you
Speaker 1: get elected, then take the guns of time. If you're
Speaker 1: gonna take that guns away, don't tell them ahead of time.
Speaker 1: Gotta make sure you get elected and then you can
Speaker 1: fool them, you can bamboozle them. Joy beiha. A woman
Speaker 1: makes millions of dollars doing TV. Folks. I don't know
Speaker 1: what to say other than what a country we live in.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure Mark how I talked about how Beto's
Speaker 1: out of the By the way, did I get to
Speaker 1: this at all? Oh see, That's why I was thinking
Speaker 1: about this, because like, oh, I was just really feel
Speaker 1: like I was leaning into my my better own personation
Speaker 1: about how this country is so racist and so terrible,
Speaker 1: and I felt like I was getting Bettos cadence down
Speaker 1: where he would just accept whatever you said about him
Speaker 1: and his privilege and how he's like super rich and
Speaker 1: white and that's like terrible and he's really should be
Speaker 1: ashamed of it, And I was so excited. I was like,
Speaker 1: this guy's got all He's out. He bailed on Friday, Man,
Speaker 1: Beto is done zo. I didn't even get to talk
Speaker 1: about it because the way he announced it over the weekend,
Speaker 1: I guess he was hoping people like me wouldn't spend
Speaker 1: a whole day just making fun of how terrible his
Speaker 1: campaign was. But there was something particularly, is hubristic a word?
Speaker 1: Let's assume it is, because I want to say it
Speaker 1: full of hubrists. I think hubristics should be a word.
Speaker 1: If it's not, I'll do like a I'll like the
Speaker 1: bush thing, misunderestimate him, make it up. But there was
Speaker 1: a lot of hubrists coming from Beto O'Rourke all along,
Speaker 1: not just the Vanity Fair cover based on what why
Speaker 1: was he on the cover of Vanity Fair? There was
Speaker 1: a hero worship of him from the left because he
Speaker 1: was willing to be the guy who was supposed to
Speaker 1: well take Texas from Ted Cruz and turn the state blue.
Speaker 1: The most expensive senate race terms of dollars in in history,
Speaker 1: more more money for better o'rouric the most expensive senate campaign. Ever,
Speaker 1: he lost, and then they wanted him to be president
Speaker 1: the United States, and this guy would go around saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we're just gonna take your guns, and I
Speaker 1: just think that when the law changes, like we'll take
Speaker 1: all of your guns, and if you don't like that,
Speaker 1: well then like clearly you're like bad and we're just
Speaker 1: going to take the guns anyway, not understanding the constitutional
Speaker 1: as well as logistical hurdles of just seizing firearms from
Speaker 1: people because you have a really weak argument about how
Speaker 1: it will make them safer. But you're Beto O'Rourke and
Speaker 1: you're on the cover of Vanity Fair but taking guns
Speaker 1: and so that's what the joy behar there is a
Speaker 1: more savvy observer of politics than Betto is, because she
Speaker 1: at least understands that Betto's problems that he started telling
Speaker 1: us what he really thinks. He was taking the most
Speaker 1: far left wing position on issue after issue, but specifically
Speaker 1: on guns. He was saying what Democrats think to themselves
Speaker 1: but don't say aloud, not understanding that there's a reason
Speaker 1: they don't say that alloud. There are reasons why they
Speaker 1: don't just let it rip and tell Republicans what they're
Speaker 1: really planning to do in this whole process. So Beto
Speaker 1: is no longer running for president, which makes me a
Speaker 1: little bit sad. We've lost the Blasio, We've lost beto've
Speaker 1: we're about to lose. I think we're about to lose.
Speaker 1: When did Castro already stop? I think he might have
Speaker 1: already stopped. If he hasn't, it's ridiculous that he hasn't.
Speaker 1: Tom Styre is not gonna stop. He's a billionaire, so
Speaker 1: he can just waste money on whatever he wants. He's
Speaker 1: wasting money annoying the American people with his climate change lunacy.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I'd say that there's some stuff here. There's
Speaker 1: some things, some things to look at going forward about
Speaker 1: how it is that Democrats were even in any way,
Speaker 1: at any point in time, we willing to get behind
Speaker 1: this guy Bette Aroor. It's like, yeah, I agree, you
Speaker 1: should make me president because I just think that I'm
Speaker 1: terrible because I'm rich and I'm a white guy, and
Speaker 1: I've so much privilege and I'm just drowning in my
Speaker 1: privilege all the time. But because I admit it, you
Speaker 1: should make me president. Nope, not gonna happen. As Tucker
Speaker 1: calls him Betteau. This is a president who is trying
Speaker 1: to divide us up based on the color of our skin,
Speaker 1: where we were born, our sexual orientation, or our religion.
Speaker 1: Who is really doing the dividing in this country? Trump
Speaker 1: or the Democratic Party. I think it's an important question.
Speaker 1: I think it's something that we have to ask here.
Speaker 1: Who is really in charge of making sure that the
Speaker 1: American people do not unify around our shared americanness? In fact,
Speaker 1: who has an entire ideology devoted to the study of oppression,
Speaker 1: not just between one dominant group and all the other groups,
Speaker 1: although that's certainly a part of it, but the oppression
Speaker 1: among oppressed groups, intersectionality, which is central to the left
Speaker 1: thesis of how America works these is So, I just
Speaker 1: want to know which side of the aisle is really
Speaker 1: obsessed with all this stuff. Who cares about identity politics.
Speaker 1: By the way, producer Marcus told me that I cannot
Speaker 1: scratch my beard where I'm doing the show, which has
Speaker 1: become a habit of mind because you can actually hear it,
Speaker 1: which is it's like this rustling sound, this rustling sound
Speaker 1: of manly beard being shifted around. Well deepened sonorous words
Speaker 1: are being spoken, he's producing marks about to vomit. But
Speaker 1: the point here is that Bernie Sanders is talking about
Speaker 1: how Trump divides us all the time, and Trump is
Speaker 1: a is a racist, and I keep coming back to
Speaker 1: I wish they would give me the examples of Trump
Speaker 1: being a racist, and I would also you know that
Speaker 1: that are real examples of him being a racist, not
Speaker 1: the lie about what he said. They lied about what
Speaker 1: he said. Charltt's well, they lied. And I even saw
Speaker 1: some I remember, and I've not forgotten who they were.
Speaker 1: There were some conservatives who came after me because I
Speaker 1: was like, why are they all pretending? Like he said?
Speaker 1: But he didn't say, oh, books are there good people
Speaker 1: on both sides? No, of course there aren't good people
Speaker 1: on both sides when you're talking about neo Nazis on
Speaker 1: one side. Trump didn't say that. There's a T and script.
Speaker 1: A lot of focus on transcripts these days. There's a transcript,
Speaker 1: to be sure, but calling out the president for being racist.
Speaker 1: And yet here we have a president who has gotten
Speaker 1: Criminal Justice Reformed pass, which disproportionately has positive impact on
Speaker 1: minority particularly black and Latino communities. It gets no credit
Speaker 1: for whatsoever. None a president of the United States, who
Speaker 1: I think that there's a certain respect that a lot.
Speaker 1: I mean, at least some of the minorities that I've
Speaker 1: talked to you about their support for Trump. I can
Speaker 1: speak to that because I know a number. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of minorities personally who are Trump supporters, whether
Speaker 1: they're Black, Asian, Latino, and they appreciate that when Trump
Speaker 1: speaks to those communities, he's speaking about how he wants
Speaker 1: prosperity for them, how he wants people in any community,
Speaker 1: including minority communities in this country, to be in the
Speaker 1: best spot possible, to have the most prosperous future, make
Speaker 1: the most money, be the most successful they can be.
Speaker 1: I think there's a level of respect there. It's Democrats
Speaker 1: who often take this position of, well, we need a
Speaker 1: bigger welfare state, we need more government handouts for people,
Speaker 1: and if you oppose that, you must be racist. Well,
Speaker 1: what are the implications that the Democrats are making there?
Speaker 1: The Trump position to me seems to be to have
Speaker 1: a lot of faith in the black and Latino and
Speaker 1: other minority communities in this country that without the government
Speaker 1: in their way, without the government creating reverse incentives for
Speaker 1: them to do what is best for them to pursue
Speaker 1: their own dreams that with the government out of the
Speaker 1: way and with lower taxes, with more jobs, those communities
Speaker 1: will thrive. Those communities will the ingenuity and the skills
Speaker 1: and the intelligence and the work ethic within minority communities
Speaker 1: will be in even better position without the government doing these.
Speaker 1: So Trump's positions, let us, let us make it easier
Speaker 1: for minority communities across the country to become wealthier, more prosperous,
Speaker 1: have more, you know, economic security and freedom. And the
Speaker 1: Democrat position to me always seems to be, well, we
Speaker 1: need you know, we need more, we need more handouts.
Speaker 1: And if you oppose handouts, there's something you're greedy and
Speaker 1: you're probably racist. So I talk to minorities who appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Trump's position is that he speaks to minority communities as
Speaker 1: as people that are striving for the same things as
Speaker 1: everybody else and have the same abilities and the same
Speaker 1: dreams and the same aspirations as everybody else, and is
Speaker 1: not pandering Democrats, especially white liberal democrats like Peto O'Rourke.
Speaker 1: All they do is pander, constantly, pander, constantly talking about
Speaker 1: how even if you were to look at specific troubled
Speaker 1: minority communities, like the poor areas of Baltimore, like the
Speaker 1: South Side of Chicago. I believe the West Side actually
Speaker 1: has some violence to it, but the South Side of Chicago,
Speaker 1: and try to have a conversation about what could be
Speaker 1: done there to make those communities less and have less
Speaker 1: violence and be in better shape economically. Instead of having
Speaker 1: that very worthwhile, sophisticated and respectful discussion, the Beato Arourics
Speaker 1: of the world just say, it's because of systemic racism.
Speaker 1: That's why there's all this violence in Baltimore. It's because
Speaker 1: of systemic racism. And when you would point to other places,
Speaker 1: you'd say, well, why is it that there are other
Speaker 1: minority communities across the country where there's almost no violence.
Speaker 1: Is there not systemic racism there? Or is Can we
Speaker 1: look at specific communities and try to address criminal justice,
Speaker 1: law enforcement issues, economic issues and do so on a
Speaker 1: plane of respect for everybody? There No Democrats, it's white
Speaker 1: liberal Democrats have one move when it comes to talking
Speaker 1: to minority communities, a least when they're trying to get
Speaker 1: them to vote for them, and that is pandering a
Speaker 1: lot of pandering. So I think it's and by the way,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders resonance with minority communities is a big question
Speaker 1: mark so far continues to be not as much as
Speaker 1: Pete Buddha judge who I mean, as African American support,
Speaker 1: as I understand it is almost zero in this primary.
Speaker 1: So it's interesting that Bernie Sanders, he's probably trying to
Speaker 1: you know, establish them bonafit is with the minority community,
Speaker 1: minority communities across the country by attacking Trump on this
Speaker 1: issue of race. But you know, Ilhan Omar, for example,
Speaker 1: also says that Trump is doing He's the one who's dividing.
Speaker 1: He's the one who's separating us by race play a
Speaker 1: fourteen place. The current occupant of the White House likes
Speaker 1: to talk about making American degree, But every action and
Speaker 1: virtually ever we warn out of his mouth is an
Speaker 1: attack on the very values and ideals that make this
Speaker 1: country a peakin of hope for me and the people
Speaker 1: around the world. Every action Trump's take, a Trump takes,
Speaker 1: she says, is an attack on the ideals of this
Speaker 1: count really, so it was if we had a real
Speaker 1: journalist in this country, they'd probably ask, okay, so was
Speaker 1: criminal justice reform meant to help the disproportionately incarcerated minority community.
Speaker 1: Was that was that an attack on our values? I
Speaker 1: you know, she says every action. I'm just I'm asking
Speaker 1: her based on the words that she uses here. So
Speaker 1: was that an attack on our values? Huh? Is always
Speaker 1: touting the Black and Hispanic unemployment rate which is at
Speaker 1: record lows, and the pride that President Trump has when
Speaker 1: he speaks of that issue, the sense of accomplishment and
Speaker 1: joy he has for those communities. Is that antithetical to her?
Speaker 1: Because there's all these things that you can talk about
Speaker 1: with President Trump, you'd say, well, hold on a second.
Speaker 1: But she says that it's all against our values. She
Speaker 1: doesn't even pick issues here or there, just like Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders says he's dividing us by race. At what point
Speaker 1: is this not exaggeration or even overstatement? At what point
Speaker 1: is this just propaganda? Is this just lies, lies meant
Speaker 1: not just to smear the president, but to smear any
Speaker 1: of his supporters, to make it seem politically I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: to make it seem socially, never mind politically unpalatable, unacceptable
Speaker 1: to support this man. This is why they keep throwing
Speaker 1: out these allegations of racism. This is why they keep
Speaker 1: telling us that President Trump is more or less a
Speaker 1: white nationalist, because they're hoping that, even though there's no
Speaker 1: basis for these charges, that there's no real way to
Speaker 1: prove any of this or even to make a fair
Speaker 1: minded case about it, people will just hear the charge
Speaker 1: and be scared to support the man. The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks keeping it. It's time for roll call. Indeed,
Speaker 1: it is roll call time everybody, which is exciting for
Speaker 1: all of us. We've got a lot of stuff coming
Speaker 1: in here now and let's see. Oh wait, nope, First,
Speaker 1: I gotta got to Facebook because we got to load
Speaker 1: up the emails. I gotta figure out how to do
Speaker 1: this a little bit better. All right, inbox your Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash Buck Sexton to be in on the
Speaker 1: Facebook roll call, Teenbucket, iHeartMedia dot com if you want
Speaker 1: to just send us thoughts elsewhere. Let's see. We have
Speaker 1: Tom who rights. Hey, Buck, I was just listening to
Speaker 1: the podcast of yesterday's show, and I'm surprised you missed
Speaker 1: an important key detail about the Fox News poll when
Speaker 1: you're reporting on it. Don't feel bad at Glenn and
Speaker 1: Rush also missed it. The poll is absolute garbage. To
Speaker 1: be more specific, the breakdown a poll was forty five
Speaker 1: percent Democrat, thirty nine percent Republican, and sixteen percent independent.
Speaker 1: The breakdown for the country is thirty nine or thirty
Speaker 1: one percent Democrat, twenty nine percent Republican, and thirty nine
Speaker 1: percent independent. The polsters oversampled Democrats by six percent over
Speaker 1: Republicans and by whopping fourteen percent over their average breakdown
Speaker 1: for the country. They also undersampled independence by an insanely
Speaker 1: huge amount. With this level of crappy polling, they can
Speaker 1: get any results they want. It's actually surprising they only
Speaker 1: got forty nine percent to approve removing President Trump from office.
Speaker 1: This does not speak well for the Democrats, either with
Speaker 1: impeachment or next November. And yes, I intentionally did not
Speaker 1: capitalize Democrats to take care of Tom. Yeah. Tom, Well,
Speaker 1: you're crunching the numbers on this. But I kind of
Speaker 1: got there just by my gut. I got there just
Speaker 1: by figuring out that there's no way that what they
Speaker 1: are trying to tell us is true. And it's just
Speaker 1: not surprising that there's a lot of nonsense going I remember,
Speaker 1: poles are a way of shaping perception. And shaping perception,
Speaker 1: especially popularity on any specific issue, is a very powerful tool.
Speaker 1: So do we think that the people that are in
Speaker 1: positions to shape those things? Are they angels beyond reproach
Speaker 1: or do they sometimes, maybe perhaps just a little bit,
Speaker 1: decide that they're going to stack the deck for one
Speaker 1: side or another. I think we all know that answer.
Speaker 1: Bride in hold on a second, Buck, I've got a
Speaker 1: way of circumventing the attempts for Democrats to hide behind children,
Speaker 1: decorated veterans, and bad arguments. Simply get the person you're
Speaker 1: speaking with, degree with the so called protected person, then
Speaker 1: kindly inform them that your argument is now against their stance.
Speaker 1: The protected person isn't okay. This is kind of complicated.
Speaker 1: Also help you out, Like soft butter and warm toast,
Speaker 1: time to spread some freedom. Coast to coast. Toast is
Speaker 1: the United States, and the butter is freedom. You spread
Speaker 1: that stuff everywhere. It's also a good analogy because your
Speaker 1: roll call participants are from everywhere. Thank you so much, Brian.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your writing him a man, it was great,
Speaker 1: too great to get your stuff in the roll call here.
Speaker 1: Richard hi Buck love your show. You explain everything and
Speaker 1: seem to analyze events the way that I would. Thank
Speaker 1: you for your service. I heard Don Junior say Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney was his favorite Democrat. Ha ha, Richard, thanks for
Speaker 1: writing him, man, thank you for your kind words. I
Speaker 1: think we'll have Don Junior on the show sometime this week,
Speaker 1: so I've been in contact with him. It is very
Speaker 1: likely we'll have mister Don Junior on. So there is
Speaker 1: that we got. Bradly, He writes Buck, I'm a new listener. Yes,
Speaker 1: someone told someone to listen to the show. See it
Speaker 1: can happen. It can happen. It can be a day
Speaker 1: to day thing. People just say, oh, yeah, you hear
Speaker 1: about the Bucks Action show. I love the Bucks actual show.
Speaker 1: It's amazing. Oh you're listening. Yeah, I should listen to
Speaker 1: other people. But Bucks way funnier and smarter. That's all
Speaker 1: it takes. It's really easy. Just tell us about Oh
Speaker 1: where do you get it? All iTunes? Wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to podcasts, how do you find it? Type in the
Speaker 1: Buck sex and show. It'll come up. There's only one
Speaker 1: Buck Sexingers doing a podcast right now at least, so
Speaker 1: that's the good news. Sonia Bradley. Sorry, I got excited
Speaker 1: I get excited about new podcast listeners. I love you
Speaker 1: old podcast listeners too. Don't worry you guys are you
Speaker 1: guys are awesome? You guys are a fan. Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm a new listener. Sorry, we already said that, and
Speaker 1: really enjoy what I'm hearing from you. You've become my
Speaker 1: primary podcast only after only a couple of weeks. Yes,
Speaker 1: my question for you is why is no one talking
Speaker 1: about the possibility of weaponizing a program like Medicare for All.
Speaker 1: I'm sure our voter registrations are accessible. Could you foresee
Speaker 1: a situation where registered Republicans are given lower priority to
Speaker 1: rationed during ration care from behind enemy lines in California?
Speaker 1: Brad Um, I mean, Brad, you know, never say never,
Speaker 1: but that does seem a little bit extreme to me.
Speaker 1: Medicare for All as a function of you know, there
Speaker 1: will be tears within it, and there will definitely be
Speaker 1: rationing that occurs, and then how that rationing is doled
Speaker 1: out will become a fight for sure, and people will
Speaker 1: then be arguing with each other over the over the
Speaker 1: way the government deploys the resources that are scared made
Speaker 1: scarce by government intervention. Intervention in the healthcare marketplace. So
Speaker 1: but I don't I don't think we're going to see
Speaker 1: anything with Republican registration used to deny people care. I
Speaker 1: can't say I see that being because there's there are
Speaker 1: still The good news is there's still a lot of
Speaker 1: Republicans and they would be pretty upset understandably about that.
Speaker 1: So I don't think we need to worry about that
Speaker 1: one quite yet. Hold on, wait a second. We gotta
Speaker 1: go to and that's that's when I have to take
Speaker 1: a moment here, Michael Rites, can you tell me more
Speaker 1: about yourself? Where are you located? I'm located in New
Speaker 1: York City, So that's where I'm located, New York, New York, Randy.
Speaker 1: Hold on a second here, hey, buck Love the show
Speaker 1: shields high. So Elizabeth Warren released the cause for her
Speaker 1: Medicare for All no private medical insurance plan and so
Speaker 1: she won't have to raise taxes in the middle class
Speaker 1: by one penny. She previously thought that her DNA tests
Speaker 1: would show that she was one one and twenty fourth
Speaker 1: native American, proved that she was part cheric Key, so
Speaker 1: she has already proven that she has no concept of math.
Speaker 1: Why would we believe her now? Just saying Randy, Well, Randy,
Speaker 1: I agree with you on that, my man. She is
Speaker 1: not someone whose judgment I particularly respect or care to hear. Skip,
Speaker 1: my man. Skip the new Netflix The King was excellent.
Speaker 1: Brought tears watching the battle. Really, I might have a
Speaker 1: check that one out. You know what else, I gotta
Speaker 1: check out this little teaser for the show later this week.
Speaker 1: Because I'm a former CIA and with a cooler name
Speaker 1: than Jack Ryan buck Sexton the Jack Ryan Show on Amazon.
Speaker 1: I'm hearing some troubling things, friends. I'm hearing that there
Speaker 1: is a bit of social justice nonsense going on. I'm
Speaker 1: hearing that they're rewriting stuff to appeal to the left
Speaker 1: wing set in Hollywood. I don't like it, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to take it to task, I think because
Speaker 1: CIA analysts should be depicted a certain way in the
Speaker 1: media as people of above average reading ability who dress
Speaker 1: in semi slovenly fashioned, drink a lot of coffee, and
Speaker 1: go to a lot of meetings. So I'm gonna make
Speaker 1: sure we keep it real with the CIA analyst. That's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for today's show. We have a fantastic
Speaker 1: show coming your way tomorrow and every day this week
Speaker 1: because you know how we roll shields high