Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Infector General report
Speaker 1: bomb has dropped, my friends, and you have the deep
Speaker 1: State running for cover all over the place. There is
Speaker 1: very little that they can do to prevent the onslaught
Speaker 1: of criticism. Now that we know much more about just
Speaker 1: how biased the FBI agents involved in the Hillary email
Speaker 1: and Rush conclusion investigation were and have been, as well
Speaker 1: as what an incredibly reckless situation Hillary Clinton was involved
Speaker 1: in with her email. We'll get into that and all
Speaker 1: of the implications coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: A mistakes American, you're a great American. Again, the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody,
Speaker 1: Oh my, what a day. We knew it was coming.
Speaker 1: We knew it was coming. And uh and and here
Speaker 1: we are, sure enough lots of additional information about just
Speaker 1: how swampy the Deep state swamp is. We're going to
Speaker 1: stop it. We're gonna stop it. Struck texted page. That's
Speaker 1: what they said at any Inspector General port. Now, look
Speaker 1: it's five pages. I haven't been able to read through
Speaker 1: all of it. I've read through as much as I
Speaker 1: can since it was released. But it is bad. It
Speaker 1: is bad, and you've got a lot of people running
Speaker 1: around trying to do damage control for the FBI, for
Speaker 1: Hillary Comby by the way, what a what an incredible
Speaker 1: transformation over time about the way that an individual is
Speaker 1: viewed in the public eye, right it is just astonishing.
Speaker 1: Um And when you when you look through what's really
Speaker 1: gone on here, you can't help but think that we
Speaker 1: shouldn't have total faith in the FBI's ability to handle
Speaker 1: itself without political bias. Right now. There's no it's just
Speaker 1: not possible. I mean, if I had told you a
Speaker 1: few months ago, let's say even a year ago, that
Speaker 1: we would have a text message from a senior FBI agent,
Speaker 1: one of the most senior FBI agents involved in both
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton email investigation at the highest level. That
Speaker 1: FBI agent also was the one who interviewed General Michael Flynn.
Speaker 1: By the way, FBI is a big place. This guy's
Speaker 1: just happens to be involved in all these different things
Speaker 1: and then is involved in the Russia collusion the early
Speaker 1: early side of the Russia collusion probe, and that we
Speaker 1: would have a text message from him stating that to
Speaker 1: his FBI lawyer girlfriend. So somebody else who's involved in
Speaker 1: this at a senior level, that they would stop Trump
Speaker 1: from becoming president. I think you'd be like buck nowhere,
Speaker 1: No way, that's just not that's not realistic. Well it is.
Speaker 1: It's what happened. And here we are now looking at this,
Speaker 1: dealing with the reality um and just trying to pull
Speaker 1: together how how crazy this whole situation really was. Anyone
Speaker 1: now who says to you that there was nothing to
Speaker 1: see here is either ignorant or a liar. There were problems.
Speaker 1: The FBI Zone Inspector General has found problems with Comy
Speaker 1: and has come away from this unable, I think, to
Speaker 1: do much to make me feel any better about the situation,
Speaker 1: other than at least there's an Inspector General report and
Speaker 1: it has brought some facts to light. Here. Here's one
Speaker 1: fact I want to know about. Why was it that
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, From what I understand what I've
Speaker 1: been able to see in this report, which is very long,
Speaker 1: I'll be spending the weekend reading it, why was the
Speaker 1: do you what? Why was the initial text exchange between
Speaker 1: Struck and page redacted so as not to include the
Speaker 1: will stop him part of this. They're having a conversation
Speaker 1: about about the Trump campaign. They hate Trump, and somehow
Speaker 1: the government initially thought that they would give that to
Speaker 1: the Inspector General. Of course, I mean the FBI would
Speaker 1: give it to inspector General, but not to Congress. I
Speaker 1: think I think that's a pretty big issue. I think
Speaker 1: it's understandable that folks would see that as exactly what
Speaker 1: I've been worrying about all along, which is that the
Speaker 1: fix was in. The fix was in other parts of this.
Speaker 1: I found interesting, uh that an agent texted another agent
Speaker 1: that no one is going to prosecute Hillary Clinton even
Speaker 1: if we find unique classified after discovery of Wiener's laptop.
Speaker 1: My friends, they were not going to prosecute Hillary ever,
Speaker 1: under any circumstances for her violations of classified information. They
Speaker 1: were not going to do it. It It was never going
Speaker 1: to happen. So that means that Hillary Clinton, while running
Speaker 1: for president of the United States, was to be held
Speaker 1: above the law. They would not prosecute her. I wonder
Speaker 1: as well, what else were they unwilling to prosecute Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton for? What else were they going to skip over?
Speaker 1: In their various uh adjudications about what was going on
Speaker 1: at this point in time. It is appalling what has
Speaker 1: happened here. It is completely and utterly outragious. Got Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani weighing in here on. I mean, there's so many
Speaker 1: different people. We we we gotta break down all the pieces.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna spend a lot of time on this today.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it because I've spent all day
Speaker 1: reading about this, and this is this matters. This matters.
Speaker 1: This is about the Federal Department of Justice, which affects
Speaker 1: all of us in all kinds of ways. And if
Speaker 1: we can't trust the d o J to be non political,
Speaker 1: we are have a we have a very real threat
Speaker 1: to liberty in this country. We're gonna talk about the
Speaker 1: coming component of this. Cabe Comy was insubordinate and way
Speaker 1: outside the lines. Of course, he tweets out today that
Speaker 1: he's not and oh yeah, I disagree with them, but
Speaker 1: I respect them Somehow. Comy always thinks he's above approach.
Speaker 1: They'll never get it. I'm sorry from that guy. We
Speaker 1: got Hillary Clinton email investigation part of this destruck page text.
Speaker 1: But I think the biggest thing is you and I
Speaker 1: have been sitting around here for a long time, and
Speaker 1: you get mocked and ridiculed by people who are anti
Speaker 1: Trump for the notion of a deep state. You get
Speaker 1: mocked and ridiculed for bringing up that there are obviously
Speaker 1: very powerful, very senior individuals that were involved in trying
Speaker 1: to change the outcome of an election. You know, I
Speaker 1: think it's now obvious to us that there were some
Speaker 1: powerful folks in law enforcement and intelligence who were sending
Speaker 1: each other messages about how much they hated Trump and
Speaker 1: how they were going to make sure that they stopped
Speaker 1: him from being president, openly talking about undermine forgot about
Speaker 1: the Russians undermining democracy. These are powerful government officials. He
Speaker 1: are trying to undermine democracy. And we have the texts
Speaker 1: one of my missing by the way, we don't have
Speaker 1: the conversations, but I guarantee you the conversations followed along
Speaker 1: with what we saw in some of those text messages,
Speaker 1: the the notion that and you see this, all these
Speaker 1: pathetic attempts to obfuscate, to push aside. And they're saying, well,
Speaker 1: why why would they have reopened the email? You know,
Speaker 1: the reopening of the email investigation was bosh. I mean,
Speaker 1: mistake after mistake, malfeasans after malfees, and so many things
Speaker 1: here that just stink. It's rotten. And they'll say, well,
Speaker 1: while they opened the email investigation, you know why they
Speaker 1: why do they do that? I say, uh reopener. I mean,
Speaker 1: and because it was gonna leak, they were gonna sit
Speaker 1: on it. They tried to sit on it. If it
Speaker 1: leaked and they were sitting on it, what would that
Speaker 1: do to the election? Right, But here's Juliana. I mentioned him.
Speaker 1: I want to get him in here. It's like you
Speaker 1: sitting next to me. Hey, Rudy, I'm actually having him
Speaker 1: on my show rising tomorrow. What's up? That's how we roll, right,
Speaker 1: thank you. Producer Mike just gave me a thumbs up.
Speaker 1: We're getting some fantastic guests. As an aside, that Sessions
Speaker 1: interview I did a clip of it was picked up
Speaker 1: by pretty much every major news outlet in the country,
Speaker 1: not every Okay, and people can get on like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so broke some news with that one, folks. That was fun.
Speaker 1: Good times. We do all kinds of things in the freedom.
Speaker 1: All right, Guliani will speak and I'll be quiet play eleven.
Speaker 1: First thing we're going to get as a report from
Speaker 1: Inspector General Harrow. It's on Klee's hand Linker Hillery, which
Speaker 1: I think is gonna be very very critical. I think
Speaker 1: should be uh call me realish have a chance to
Speaker 1: be prosecuted as a result that we'll see result or
Speaker 1: it could be prosecuted. M hmm. Wouldn't that be interesting?
Speaker 1: You know, I don't want I never wanted this. I
Speaker 1: don't want the criminalization of political differences to become the
Speaker 1: norm in this country. But given the frothy mouth frenzy
Speaker 1: from the Democrats to try and take down Trump, take
Speaker 1: down his family, send anybody in Trump's orbit to prison
Speaker 1: for any at all infractions real and imagined, maybe the
Speaker 1: only way to get it to stop is to fight back.
Speaker 1: And maybe that means holding them to the same standards
Speaker 1: they hold our side too. You lie, you're gonna get
Speaker 1: prosecutor you'll have FBI A're gonna get prosecuted. One thing
Speaker 1: that comes across here is the is the Hillary claim
Speaker 1: that she didn't know what the confidential She told the
Speaker 1: FBI agents that she didn't know what confidential markings were.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a lie. And I'm already saying people
Speaker 1: giving me a back and forth on on online social media. Oh,
Speaker 1: let's not a law, you'll be prosecuted for. Okay, So
Speaker 1: Pidopolis can get prosecuted for lying about the last time
Speaker 1: he talked to somebody, that's all, that's it. But Hillary
Speaker 1: can lie about an essential point of knowledge for her
Speaker 1: day to day job that affect the state of mind
Speaker 1: that she had, the Men's reissue would have when she
Speaker 1: was engaged in this criminal act of using her unclassified
Speaker 1: email system to move classified information around. And that's not
Speaker 1: a crime, folks. It's like there's no standards anymore for
Speaker 1: any of us. It's like the law is a complete joke.
Speaker 1: That's what's happened here. Progressivism has taken the law and
Speaker 1: bastardized it. They have contorted it, they have destroyed it
Speaker 1: because the law doesn't really matter to them. It's just political.
Speaker 1: It's power. There is no underlying foundational principle that will
Speaker 1: stop them from thinking that they have the right to
Speaker 1: be in charge of your life and my life. That's
Speaker 1: where we are now. I haven't even gotten into the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation, and I'm McCabe. Even after he was supposed
Speaker 1: to stay away from it, kept trying to reinsert himself
Speaker 1: in a mean, you have some people here. I've been
Speaker 1: saying this so long. This isn't a coincidence. The same
Speaker 1: names keep popping up, the same people involved, over and
Speaker 1: over again, and the judgment always goes in favor of
Speaker 1: one side and against the other. We're we're going to
Speaker 1: dig deep into this team. So I want to hear
Speaker 1: what you think, by the way, if you have any
Speaker 1: big takeaways on the inspector General report or just where
Speaker 1: you think we are now as a country. I mean,
Speaker 1: the mull Mulla probe should have been shut down a
Speaker 1: long time ago. So I'll just repeat my my statement
Speaker 1: that I think Muller should be shut down. Uh, it
Speaker 1: won't be, but I wish it would be, because it's
Speaker 1: just a drag. It's a drag on the whole country.
Speaker 1: You know. Fine, if they want to prosecute man of
Speaker 1: for it, for tax fraud or something later that they've
Speaker 1: got their scalps. Let's just stop with the charade. Or
Speaker 1: is it the sharade? I think people say it both ways.
Speaker 1: Eight four or four wight to five. We have a
Speaker 1: show that will rock this freedom hunt coming up. Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan Mark Meadows, and I sent him a letter a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago urging him to do that. He
Speaker 1: has the power, and I think he should do it.
Speaker 1: The American people deserve the truth on this. Heck, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has been treated as poorly as anybody by some
Speaker 1: of these jokers, so he should definitely pull the trigger
Speaker 1: on that absolutely. You know, look, President has the power
Speaker 1: to bring this thing home. He can do it, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna stand behind him. You know, there was a
Speaker 1: pathetic attempt today. It was it was pretty clear a
Speaker 1: pathetic attempt to try and distract from this by the
Speaker 1: Attorney General in New York by breaking out Well we'll
Speaker 1: get into that too, but I just it's so obvious
Speaker 1: what's going on here, folks, I and I will tell
Speaker 1: you this. It is very important to remember as we
Speaker 1: move through not just today's show, but all of our
Speaker 1: shows here. The more information we get about what happened
Speaker 1: during the election and after the election, involving the government,
Speaker 1: involving the Department of Justice, the intelligence community, the worst
Speaker 1: it looks for the Trump haters, the better it looks
Speaker 1: for the Trump supporters. That's just a fact. With with
Speaker 1: greater transparency, all these anti trump efforts look increasingly weak, strained, corrupt,
Speaker 1: and pathetic. You know, you go over to It's such
Speaker 1: an amazing day for this too. You go over to
Speaker 1: Fox News for a second. You go to Fox news
Speaker 1: dot com and the IG refers to uh refers five
Speaker 1: FBI workers over political hostile messages. Hostile messages. Okay, And
Speaker 1: then you go to CNN and you had earlier today. No,
Speaker 1: no political was it. No, no political bias at work here, okay.
Speaker 1: So just Trump hating. That's not political bias, just hating
Speaker 1: the incoming president or the soon to be president. It
Speaker 1: is incredible. Um. I want to get more into this,
Speaker 1: but also want to take some of your calls here
Speaker 1: Beverly in Mobile, Alabama. Hey Beverley, Hi buck, let me
Speaker 1: thank you since glampeck. Thank you so much. Yes, but
Speaker 1: I really hate the way that the American people are
Speaker 1: being I too insulted because either they obviously they were
Speaker 1: too stupid to say the truth, or they hold us
Speaker 1: in such content that they don't care that we know. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's it is. They must think, Beverly, that we can't
Speaker 1: remember anything that we don't pay attention, or or they
Speaker 1: think as they are so oblive and so all powerful
Speaker 1: that we can do nothing about it. Even if we
Speaker 1: do see the truth. We do have our we do
Speaker 1: have our guy in the White House though. So the
Speaker 1: good news is there's there's a happy ending to this story. Yeah. Hey,
Speaker 1: I don't think they know how enraged how I mean?
Speaker 1: They just keep hitting us again and they can and
Speaker 1: again with this corruption. And I think that this thing
Speaker 1: here has just absolutely put the nail on it. And
Speaker 1: we're gonna see a red tsunami this election coming up.
Speaker 1: And of course Trump is going to be re elected,
Speaker 1: but it's going to be in such overwhelming numbers. They're
Speaker 1: gonna hear the voice of the people. I hope. So
Speaker 1: Beverly shields high and thank you very much for the call.
Speaker 1: Mike in Belleville, Ohio. Hey, Mike, how are you doing.
Speaker 1: I'm good. I want to I want to tell Beverly
Speaker 1: not to worry. Things are going to continue to get better.
Speaker 1: I personally volunteered in two thousand and fifteen to help
Speaker 1: the Republican Party in my area. I canvas probably four
Speaker 1: and Republican voters and Democratic voters to question each one
Speaker 1: of them. I had to document it, email it, sent
Speaker 1: it in the wave that happened there. I got such
Speaker 1: a great response, and I just want people like Beverly
Speaker 1: to know that the American people are not stupid. These
Speaker 1: people know exactly what's going on the deep state of
Speaker 1: exactly what we've seen today. Christopher Ray, no matter how
Speaker 1: they want to portray him, just covered their rear ends
Speaker 1: and I think everybody sees that, Buck, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: come to fruition in the mid terms and once again
Speaker 1: when President Trump is re elected for a second term.
Speaker 1: I think that the people are just on top of it.
Speaker 1: They see exactly what's going on. We can see right
Speaker 1: through the deep state people what what's happening out there.
Speaker 1: And like I said, Buck, I think that it's going
Speaker 1: to be a great, great election coming up. I hope so.
Speaker 1: And I think I think you're right, Mike. I certainly
Speaker 1: hope you're right. Shields high, and thank you for the call.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's amazing to watch how like I
Speaker 1: get it right. Well, we've got a little bit of
Speaker 1: Christopher Ray, I have heard is a very straight, straight
Speaker 1: shooter and apparently a very honorable guy. I've heard that
Speaker 1: from people who would know, but they got to try
Speaker 1: to defend the institution. But the facts speak for themselves here.
Speaker 1: There was something very rotten at the top of the
Speaker 1: FBI and the d o J over the last few
Speaker 1: years and probably long before that too. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America. Buck Sexton is back. We've been investigating
Speaker 1: this for a year and a half. FIS abuse and
Speaker 1: other matters. We now are at the end. We need
Speaker 1: documents that to actually get to the bottom of what
Speaker 1: actually happened in this situation. They now just in the
Speaker 1: last week's have kicked out the staff, the lead investigators
Speaker 1: on this. Now they've kicked out all of the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee members. So the only ones that are going
Speaker 1: to provide documents to in the whole entire House were
Speaker 1: representatives only two Republicans, Paul Ryan, the Speaker, and myself.
Speaker 1: This is totally unacceptable. It is a classic case of
Speaker 1: obstruction of a congressional investigation. People in America should be alarmed.
Speaker 1: This is a way to hide information not only from
Speaker 1: the American people, but to their congressman. There's two ways.
Speaker 1: There's two ways. One we can hold Mr Rosenstein and
Speaker 1: others in the Department of Justice and contempt and impeach.
Speaker 1: The other way would be for the President of the
Speaker 1: United States to to demand uh them to to order
Speaker 1: them to give us all the documents. Those are really
Speaker 1: the only two ways there we go, and that's where
Speaker 1: we are. I want more documents, more transparency, d o J.
Speaker 1: From what we have seen in this Inspector General port
Speaker 1: has lost any benefit of the doubt to do its
Speaker 1: own housekeeping, in its own house cleaning on this issue.
Speaker 1: That's why we have oversight. That is why there is
Speaker 1: a Congressional Oversight Committee in both the House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: dealing with intelligence, dealing with justice. That's why they look
Speaker 1: at these issues. That's why they're there. This is very
Speaker 1: troubling and I just I wonder at what point some
Speaker 1: of the Trump haters who used to be I mean,
Speaker 1: they'd say they're still conservative, I guess, but you know
Speaker 1: who used to be kind of on board for the GOP,
Speaker 1: and I wonder at what point they realized that the
Speaker 1: fix was in against Trump here it really was. You know,
Speaker 1: you have these text messages. I mentioned the one about
Speaker 1: stopping the president. And keep in mind that if you
Speaker 1: had the detective on a case, send a text message
Speaker 1: to the prosecutor on a case and you let's say
Speaker 1: you were the defendant, the detective sends the prosecutor, which
Speaker 1: is kind of like struck in page here, we're really
Speaker 1: gonna We're really gonna nail this defendant no matter what.
Speaker 1: I don't care what the evidence is. And that came out,
Speaker 1: you'd be a freeman or woman. I don't care what
Speaker 1: you did. I mean, that would be a mistrial. Maybe
Speaker 1: they'd try you again, but that would be a big problem.
Speaker 1: So why are we to think that a similar act
Speaker 1: of just hubris really from these people. Remember, we're not
Speaker 1: picking and this is what's so important. It's not Oh
Speaker 1: look at this. People say the dumbest crap about this.
Speaker 1: I'm really tired of it. Who blueload to have opinions? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're allowed to have opinions, but you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: show extreme bias against subjects of active investigations you're involved in.
Speaker 1: They say, it's not a political bias, what's a personal bias?
Speaker 1: Whatever it is, it's clear they freaking hated Trump. This
Speaker 1: is really an extension of what I've been telling you
Speaker 1: about for a long time. Because the Democrat Party is
Speaker 1: the party of the state. Now, the state itself is
Speaker 1: full of Democrats, meaning that the actual government apparatus has
Speaker 1: become infiltrated and been overtaken by progressive ideology much the
Speaker 1: same way as the media and college campuses. And because
Speaker 1: progressivism is an invasive species of the mind, it does
Speaker 1: not allow for other ideologies to flourish. It doesn't even
Speaker 1: allow them to exist. Progressivism is like of those little
Speaker 1: ugly monster fish that comes in and like kills all
Speaker 1: the other fish, right Like, that's what it is. Progressive
Speaker 1: Ism is an invasive species of the mind. You have
Speaker 1: to remember that doesn't allow for doubt, it doesn't allow
Speaker 1: for self criticism, it doesn't allow for modesty. Honestly, I
Speaker 1: think it's got real problems with kindness and decency too.
Speaker 1: Some of the text messages here that this report revealed
Speaker 1: unnamed agents one and five. You're discussing their jobs. Quote,
Speaker 1: I find anyone who enjoys this job an absolute effing idiot.
Speaker 1: If you don't think so, ask them one more question.
Speaker 1: Who are you voting for? I guarantee you it will
Speaker 1: be Donald Drump You know what that we know whether
Speaker 1: calling him Drump because you know who started the whole
Speaker 1: Drump thing. John Oliver's Goes Out show on HBO where
Speaker 1: he drops a lot off bombs because he's so edgy.
Speaker 1: You know, his name is really Drump, it's not even him.
Speaker 1: That's where they get that. So, so you got a
Speaker 1: bunch of John Oliver watchers in the FBI who hate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Okay, look, they're allowed to have their opinions,
Speaker 1: but we're also allowed to say, hmm, maybe there's bias here.
Speaker 1: There are reasons that these things exist, like recusal reassignment.
Speaker 1: Continuing on with the quotes here, quote I forgot about Drump.
Speaker 1: That's so sad and pathetic if they want to vote
Speaker 1: for him, Agent five responded, someone who can answer a question,
Speaker 1: someone who can't be professional for even a second. In September,
Speaker 1: Agent one and five conversed again, bashing Trump supporters as
Speaker 1: quote retarded. I'm thinking, I'm trying to think of a
Speaker 1: would I rather instead of spending time with those people?
Speaker 1: Agent five cent Agent want to ask stick your tongue
Speaker 1: and a fan. Agent five later wrote, I would rather
Speaker 1: have brunch with Trump and a bunch of hip of
Speaker 1: his supporters, like the ones from Ohio that are retarded
Speaker 1: and you know, h people right, this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: you gotta think to yourself, what is their problem you're
Speaker 1: really gonna refer to first And first of all, I
Speaker 1: will say, and you know, I'm not I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not a language police person, but I really don't like
Speaker 1: I really don't like the R word as a as
Speaker 1: a pejorative. Uh you know, I I really don't like.
Speaker 1: I'll just say that I don't like it. I'm not
Speaker 1: somebody's gonna call it for people to be fired or
Speaker 1: whatever over, but I don't like people using that word,
Speaker 1: especially given a lot of the discussions that are going
Speaker 1: on right now about you know, the the sanctity of
Speaker 1: life as it regards people with with Down syndrome. And
Speaker 1: I don't like people thrown around the R word like
Speaker 1: that at all. Okay, that's just an aside, but um,
Speaker 1: you know, the the FBI guys here. I know that
Speaker 1: people will say that they're just sharing your opinions. We
Speaker 1: all do this, but there's such a lack of professionalism
Speaker 1: in this. And let me, as I was saying to before,
Speaker 1: I knew from when I was at the m y
Speaker 1: p D just a little you know, every day analysts
Speaker 1: man running around and I was only the NYPD for
Speaker 1: I don't know, eighteen months or so. It wasn't there
Speaker 1: all that long? Was a c I A much longer
Speaker 1: c I A for about I don't know two thousand five,
Speaker 1: two tho ten. Uh, if you wanted to say something
Speaker 1: that you probably shouldn't say, you said it, you didn't
Speaker 1: write it. So whatever you're seeing in these text messages
Speaker 1: is the tip of the iceberg of the actual sentiments.
Speaker 1: I think that's important for you to keep in mind
Speaker 1: and trust me, FBI guys that are constantly locking people
Speaker 1: up for what they put in emails, locking people up
Speaker 1: for what they text each other, the stuff they were
Speaker 1: saying blows whatever you're reading out of the water. I
Speaker 1: can't prove that, but I know it. But this notion
Speaker 1: that now we're supposed to just move on past this,
Speaker 1: that the you're noticing Democrats are running with the oh,
Speaker 1: there was no political buy us involved. Really, you think
Speaker 1: they think we're going to accept that? Huh, no political
Speaker 1: bias involved? Stop this person? They want to stop Trump
Speaker 1: from becoming president. One of how many individuals were involved
Speaker 1: at senior levels in both the Russia collusion probe and
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton email investigation, I'm guessing it's a handful.
Speaker 1: I could probably count them on two hands. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but it's it's a handful. And one other thing to
Speaker 1: keep in mind is that they were so set on
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion stuff. I haven't even by the way,
Speaker 1: we have to get into a full trash comy session.
Speaker 1: That's that I might wait until the second hour on
Speaker 1: that one, because you know, I thought Comey was a
Speaker 1: self a self righteous, sanctimonious, lanky weirdo the whole time.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't make I mean, but being tall is actually
Speaker 1: an advantage in life, so I feel I know, I
Speaker 1: don't make I don't make fun of people's appearance, and
Speaker 1: I'm just jealous because he's so tall, and I'm not it. Okay,
Speaker 1: he's just fine. He's a self righteous, sanctimonious weirdo. Okay,
Speaker 1: strike the lanky part from the record. We'll get to
Speaker 1: that probably in the in the second hour of the show,
Speaker 1: because I also want to take some more of your calls.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of lines lit up here. But
Speaker 1: they told us, according this IG report, that they were
Speaker 1: more interested in the Russia investigation then in the Hillary
Speaker 1: reopening investigation quote. The FBI's failure to act in late
Speaker 1: September or early October is even less justifiable when contrasted
Speaker 1: with the attention and resources that FBI management and some
Speaker 1: members of the Mid Year Exam Team dedicated to other
Speaker 1: activities in connection with the Mid Year investigation. During the
Speaker 1: same period, the FBI was focused on the Russia and
Speaker 1: quote of the Russian investigation. Moreover, given the FBI's extensive resources,
Speaker 1: the fact that Struck and several other FBI members of
Speaker 1: the Mid Year Exam Team had been assigned to the
Speaker 1: Russa investigation, which was extremely active during this September and
Speaker 1: October time period, was not an excuse for failing to
Speaker 1: take any action during this period on the Wiener laptop.
Speaker 1: They needed to take action on the Wiener stuff anyway.
Speaker 1: In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over
Speaker 1: following up on the Mid Year Exam uh lead discovered
Speaker 1: on the Weener laptop. We were particularly concerned about text
Speaker 1: messages sent by Struck and Page that potentially indicated or
Speaker 1: created the appearance that investigative decisions that were made were
Speaker 1: impacted by bias or improper considerations. Yeah, they were more
Speaker 1: focused on the Russia stuff. A lot of time to
Speaker 1: do Russia. Russia Russia, not a lot of time to
Speaker 1: figure out about the classified information on the convicted pervs
Speaker 1: laptop who just happens to be married to the closest
Speaker 1: aid to the soon to be expected by everyone President
Speaker 1: of the United States. O g. That seems a bit
Speaker 1: strange to me, doesn't it. We're just getting going here. There,
Speaker 1: there's so much more. I haven't even gotten into that,
Speaker 1: the commiest portions of this, which are gonna be fun.
Speaker 1: What do you think, folks, Where do we go from here?
Speaker 1: What do you make of all this? Are you angry?
Speaker 1: You're just like, yeah, I knew well, I knew this, Buck,
Speaker 1: They're just now they're admitting what I've known all along.
Speaker 1: Curious as to your thoughts? Eight four eight four to five.
Speaker 1: Much more coming. Stay right there, man, we got a
Speaker 1: lot to get into here. I'm actually kind of excited
Speaker 1: to read the I I'm gonna take the IG Report
Speaker 1: this weekend. I'm gonna go old school buck on it,
Speaker 1: where I just sit there with my little mechanical pencil
Speaker 1: and take notes in the margin. Just I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tear that thing apart. Hope you'll uh getting through
Speaker 1: all five pages. It's not like there's some parts that
Speaker 1: you can skip over though, right like, oh, here's how
Speaker 1: we had our findings, you know whatever. But I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna chew on that thing this weekend. It's gonna
Speaker 1: be fun and tonight to some degree, but over the
Speaker 1: weekend I'll really get into it because the nuances matter here.
Speaker 1: Nuances matter. All we got we got lines, lit. I
Speaker 1: love it. You folks want to chat, let's do it.
Speaker 1: Brent down in New Mexico. Hey, Brent, Hey buck shield
Speaker 1: time man shields high Sir. Yeah, I don't know about
Speaker 1: unless you're a unless you're a professional athlete. Six seven
Speaker 1: seems kind of tall. It seems like that's a disacknowledged
Speaker 1: that all that guy Comy did was spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time tripping over Steve annoyed people. You know what,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say, comey call me six seven guy
Speaker 1: could never done a basketball. He's one of those guys. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think he has a negative I think he has
Speaker 1: a negative vertical. Anyway, go ahead, Yeah, with that said, anyway,
Speaker 1: I just want to let you guys do it. Thank
Speaker 1: you personally, because I truly believe that without like your
Speaker 1: platform for a deep dive in social media. We wouldn't
Speaker 1: know about this stuff. I mean, third years ago, there's
Speaker 1: no way that Jenn Rother was going to read an
Speaker 1: investigating general report on his teleproper, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to thank you, guys, because this really
Speaker 1: is what tips the scale in our in our favors,
Speaker 1: because we have more outlets like yours to get the
Speaker 1: information that we need. Yeah. Well, and look, man, I
Speaker 1: appreciate you listening, and I hope you can help spread
Speaker 1: the word and get other folks to join in too,
Speaker 1: because I do think it's really important because a lot
Speaker 1: of the media, not only is there a lot of
Speaker 1: left wing media, a lot of media is under the
Speaker 1: delusion that they're nonpartisan, and that just that just needs
Speaker 1: to stop. Because they are partisans. They should be honest
Speaker 1: about it. Everything I say to you, You know that
Speaker 1: I'm coming to you from the perspective of I think
Speaker 1: this is right. But I am a conservative. You understand
Speaker 1: my philosophy, and I'm honest about it. I do not
Speaker 1: like the dishonesty that others employ when they're trying to
Speaker 1: get their messages out as quote journalists or writers or
Speaker 1: whatever it is that they're doing. So I'm I'm happy
Speaker 1: for conservative radio too. It's why I'm here. And thank
Speaker 1: you very much, Brent for uh for calling in. Dean
Speaker 1: up in Austin. What's up you, Ben? I'm all right, man,
Speaker 1: thanks for calling in. So for me, this comes down
Speaker 1: to something that's I'd like to boil things down to
Speaker 1: very simple terms so that everybody listening to me now
Speaker 1: at the family table, they can kind of start from
Speaker 1: that point work up. When it came down to the election,
Speaker 1: there were two people that we got to choose when
Speaker 1: we stepped into a ballot box. One was chosen by
Speaker 1: the people to represent the Republican Party. The other was
Speaker 1: chosen by a Democratic party to represent the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: So there were two different ideologies right there on how
Speaker 1: you put someone forward. Now you fast forward to today
Speaker 1: and the agency, the most powerful agency, the FBI, the
Speaker 1: policing agency pretty much all over the world, has people
Speaker 1: inside of it at the top that had such a
Speaker 1: disdained bias and prejudice for the person that was elected
Speaker 1: by the people that those people get to apply the
Speaker 1: law to us, not only to the president, but to us.
Speaker 1: So they hate me and they get to apply the
Speaker 1: law to me based on what their prejudices are. And
Speaker 1: it's not everybody. Again, I agree the Rancord style of
Speaker 1: pure and do the best they can, but the hierarchy
Speaker 1: controls all of those people and can make life very
Speaker 1: uncomfortable if they don't follow the line. So what's going
Speaker 1: to happen now to me in the future? Hey, how
Speaker 1: will this be taught in our schools as a part
Speaker 1: of history? Will the truth that hasn't come out yet completely?
Speaker 1: How will it come out in the schools and be
Speaker 1: taught so the next generation doesn't get to take a side,
Speaker 1: you get to hear both sides truthfully. And the second
Speaker 1: is how will the courts adjudicate these issues? Now? Will
Speaker 1: they not be biased? And will they take these people
Speaker 1: who are brought forward from breaking rules or skirting the
Speaker 1: you know, the way that they get around it. Will
Speaker 1: they end up in front of courts that will say enough,
Speaker 1: we have to apply the law uh truthfully, equally and
Speaker 1: without prejudice. Those are the two things that concerned me
Speaker 1: at the end of all of it. How will it
Speaker 1: be taught and how will it be educated in court? Now? Dean,
Speaker 1: there's are eloquent thoughts and incredibly worthwhile questions, and I
Speaker 1: just I think it's best we're best served by just
Speaker 1: everyone thinking about it on for themselves right now. I
Speaker 1: completely agree with you that going forward, this is going
Speaker 1: and thank you Deane for calling in from up in Boston.
Speaker 1: You're gonna see a rewriting of this, and the rewriting
Speaker 1: starts now. They're going to try and mitigate it, limit
Speaker 1: the damage, distract, deflects, do whatever they can. Because how
Speaker 1: do all of these people that have been telling us
Speaker 1: for the last eighteen months that there is no deep state,
Speaker 1: there is no problem, that Trumpers are crazy, that we
Speaker 1: don't understand, we don't know anything, we're all a bunch
Speaker 1: of you know, toothless hillbillies and don't understand anything, you
Speaker 1: don't read anything. How do they explain what this Inspector
Speaker 1: General report says, which, by the way, I think it
Speaker 1: presents some very important facts, but the overall conclusions I
Speaker 1: find highly questionable. The notion about whether there was political
Speaker 1: bias or not is something I want to revisit with
Speaker 1: you here because I know that they're saying there wasn't
Speaker 1: political bias found. I think they found it and just
Speaker 1: refused to call it that. Folks. You gotta keep your
Speaker 1: little furry friends safe. Your dogs, they can't get outside
Speaker 1: the fence. That's a really unsafe situation, as you know.
Speaker 1: And if they've been cooped up inside, when you get
Speaker 1: home you let them out, they're very likely to start
Speaker 1: digging and they can get under your fence, get out there,
Speaker 1: and then you get all kinds of dangers. Also, predators
Speaker 1: can try to come into your yard under the fence.
Speaker 1: Dig Defense solves this. It extends the protection of your
Speaker 1: fence underground. No amount of digging is gonna let your
Speaker 1: pets out or let predators in. It comes at a
Speaker 1: bunch of different models and sizes. It's easy to install.
Speaker 1: All you needs a hammer and a pair of gloves.
Speaker 1: You have pets digging under the fence. Checkout did Defense
Speaker 1: right now available on on it lows menhards wayfair and
Speaker 1: stop the dig dot com online. That's right, stop the
Speaker 1: dig dot com for dig Defense. The solution de pets
Speaker 1: digging under the fence and getting out. We're letting predators in.
Speaker 1: Go to stop the dig dot com for dig defense.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Mission decoding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American you're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show. No, oh, my friends,
Speaker 1: We've got so much to get into here, and you
Speaker 1: know that it's good stuff because the media really wants
Speaker 1: you to focus on other things. Does anybody out there
Speaker 1: want to try to make the case that this that
Speaker 1: I'm about, this story I'm about to tell you about,
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with the IG report? Hitting today
Speaker 1: is the New York Times. The New York State Attorney
Speaker 1: General's office filed a scathingly worded lawsuit on Thursday taking
Speaker 1: aim at the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the charity
Speaker 1: and the Trump family of sweeping violations of campaign finance laws,
Speaker 1: self dealing, and illegal coordination with the president presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: The lawsuit, which seeks to dissolve the foundation and bar
Speaker 1: President Trump and three of his children from serving on
Speaker 1: nonprofit organizations, was an extraordinary rebuke of a sitting president.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General also sent referral levels to letters to
Speaker 1: the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission for
Speaker 1: possible further action, adding to Mr Trump's extensive legal challenges.
Speaker 1: Oh no, what is Trump gonna do? By the way,
Speaker 1: which which attorney general is this one? Because I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure the other one, who was a hashtag resistant superstar
Speaker 1: had to resign because he was a disgusting abuser of
Speaker 1: women who liked to mouth off about how he was
Speaker 1: so into the me too movement. By the way, this
Speaker 1: is pathetic, isn't it. Although I'm glad they do it.
Speaker 1: I'm glad they make it so obvious and easy for
Speaker 1: us to see what's really going on here and what
Speaker 1: really motivates them. They they You have the Attorney generalist
Speaker 1: State of New York. You know, you think that he
Speaker 1: should be somebody who believes in the equal application of
Speaker 1: the law. You'd think that this is somebody who wouldn't
Speaker 1: engage in this degree of partisan hackery, that ethics should matter.
Speaker 1: But no, no time this so that it can be
Speaker 1: a an escape hatch for New York Times readers, for
Speaker 1: anybody who doesn't want to know the truth about what
Speaker 1: really happened at the FBI and the Department of Joe.
Speaker 1: This before so pathetic, so very obvious, isn't it. The
Speaker 1: timing matters, and the timing tells you a great deal
Speaker 1: something else. I wanted to bring your attention though, because
Speaker 1: we will focus a bit more on this report and
Speaker 1: I think this is very eloquently put by our friend
Speaker 1: Kim Strassel from the Wall Street Journal, and we've had
Speaker 1: on here many many times as a guest. She's fantastic,
Speaker 1: a really sharp mind and an excellent writer. She put
Speaker 1: the following thread, you know, thread is like a series
Speaker 1: of string of tweets in a row thread out there.
Speaker 1: I don't believe, or rather don't believe anyone who claims
Speaker 1: Horowitz didn't find bias. This is about the i G Report. Okay,
Speaker 1: He very carefully says that he found no documentary evidence
Speaker 1: that bias produced specific investigatory decisions. That's different. It means
Speaker 1: he didn't catch an anyone doing anything so dumb as
Speaker 1: writing down that they took a specific step to aid
Speaker 1: a candidate, you know, like let's give out this immunity
Speaker 1: deal so nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for president.
Speaker 1: But he in fact finds bias everywhere. The examples are
Speaker 1: shocking and concerning, and he devotes entire sections to them,
Speaker 1: and he very carefully specifically are very specifically says in
Speaker 1: the summary that they cast a cloud on the entire
Speaker 1: investigations credibility. That's pretty damning. Meanwhile, this cast of characters
Speaker 1: who the i G has now found to have made
Speaker 1: a hash of the Clinton investigation and who demonstrates such
Speaker 1: bias seamlessly moved to the Trump investigation. And we're supposed
Speaker 1: to think they got that one right end quote him
Speaker 1: is spot on here, spot on. Yeah, you don't have
Speaker 1: page and struck in text messages saying So what we're
Speaker 1: going to do is pretend that there is a much
Speaker 1: less serious Hillary Clinton violation so that we can stop
Speaker 1: Trump from being president. Like they're not complete morons, although
Speaker 1: I have to tell you they're operationals. The Deep States
Speaker 1: operational security is not so good. But I think it's
Speaker 1: because they thought they'd never be caught because Hillary was
Speaker 1: gonna win. Hillary was gonna win. They wanted to make
Speaker 1: sure she won. But that makes sense right from their perspective,
Speaker 1: given that Trump is such an evil monster, they have
Speaker 1: to do anything they can to stop the monster from winning.
Speaker 1: And that means very clearly that they were going to
Speaker 1: abuse whatever powered authority they had in order to ensure
Speaker 1: the outcome that they expected. Man, this stuff is, it's
Speaker 1: heavy when you dig into this more. How much worse
Speaker 1: is it gonna look for the Hillary side on this
Speaker 1: before were people finally admit that this was fixed. You
Speaker 1: have FBI agents saying they were never going to bring
Speaker 1: charges against her. That means that the statutes on classification,
Speaker 1: the statutes on National Security Sensitive information, effectively did not
Speaker 1: apply to Hillary Clinton. And we can come up with
Speaker 1: all kinds of complex organs, but at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, she was Hillary. She was above the law.
Speaker 1: Now on to comey, oh, comey, you you widely man.
Speaker 1: You the good thing. He got his book out already
Speaker 1: and he's made millions and millions off it, by the way,
Speaker 1: so you know, don't cry any don't cry any big
Speaker 1: tears for Comy. He's gonna be just fine. But when
Speaker 1: we find out more about him, we find out that, yes,
Speaker 1: he was insubordinate. What he did was outside the guidelines
Speaker 1: of the FBI, and they say it wasn't political, and
Speaker 1: I think you could argue that it was commyst But
Speaker 1: all so, what was the more important decision two ensure
Speaker 1: that nobody would prosecute Hillary Clinton, or to bring up
Speaker 1: the email investigation that was completely legitimate right before the election.
Speaker 1: The Hillary Clinton email investigation. One other thing that came
Speaker 1: up in this i G report that I think is
Speaker 1: really interesting. Comy claimed not to know that Anthony Weiner
Speaker 1: was married to whom I Abbati this is during over
Speaker 1: the course of the internal investigation, said he didn't know
Speaker 1: that the FBI director. I just want this to be
Speaker 1: real clear for all of us. The FBI director did
Speaker 1: not know, according to him, that the closest advisor to
Speaker 1: the soon to be president was married to the weirdo,
Speaker 1: underage sexting predator guy who also happened to be a
Speaker 1: Democrat on a their pugilist for MSNBC and others, you know,
Speaker 1: running around yelling at people Mr Progressive, Mr Principles of
Speaker 1: the Left and socialism and all that stuff. Social justice
Speaker 1: not socialism, but close enough, do we do? We believe
Speaker 1: that there's another way to look at that too. If
Speaker 1: Comey didn't know that Aberdeen was married to Weener, that
Speaker 1: would mean that when the investigation first came up and
Speaker 1: there were there was just some random guy that had
Speaker 1: classified information from within Hillary circle on on the laptop
Speaker 1: and like that didn't like bring any alarm bells for him.
Speaker 1: Just some random dude. That's better, folks. It just it
Speaker 1: doesn't add up. It does not add up. And I
Speaker 1: know the Inspector General is trying. They do have in
Speaker 1: their minds a duty to try to protect the rest
Speaker 1: of the institution, because I do feel I feel badly
Speaker 1: for all the rank and file FBI folks who realized
Speaker 1: that this makes their jobs harder. This calls into doubt
Speaker 1: the impartiality of d o J on these matters. This
Speaker 1: calls into doubt how much we can really trust these institutions.
Speaker 1: But I will also say the only way to regain
Speaker 1: trust is for full and absolute transparency on all this stuff.
Speaker 1: We have to know a full fledged damage assessment. That's
Speaker 1: what is needed here by Congress and by the executive branch.
Speaker 1: What really went down. No more secrets, no more lies.
Speaker 1: They withheld the will Stop Him text from Congress. How
Speaker 1: do they justify that that's not classified, which also I
Speaker 1: will add, means that all the redactions they've given out
Speaker 1: another documents, we can't trust them that those are fairly classified. Either.
Speaker 1: You don't get to do this right as an as
Speaker 1: a citizen, as an individual, will your credibility before a court.
Speaker 1: He's essential, and if you lie, that is used against
Speaker 1: you in all the rest of your testimony. Right that
Speaker 1: you're a you're a liar when the government lies. It
Speaker 1: seems to think that that we're not allowed to make
Speaker 1: the same judgment when an institution has been dishonest with
Speaker 1: the American people. They seem to think that we don't
Speaker 1: get to ask for a full accounting of that. And
Speaker 1: they're wrong, They're wrong. I want to I want to
Speaker 1: hear from the dirsh on this one of the I
Speaker 1: meant to get this in earlier, but he's talking about
Speaker 1: Comey and Mueller here in place seven. I wonder whether
Speaker 1: we'll see anything about the close relationship between Kobe and Mueller. Uh,
Speaker 1: we know that these people were joined at the hip,
Speaker 1: And if a Coomy is criticized, I think the President
Speaker 1: will get some ammunition for criticizing a Komy's protege. This
Speaker 1: is going to be a partisan fight with Blunwithal on
Speaker 1: one side and others and the President's seam on the
Speaker 1: other side. And I think when it becomes a partisan fight,
Speaker 1: the president wins the partisan fight. The president wins because
Speaker 1: he's been saying, oh, along, that's what happened here. One
Speaker 1: other note, the Democrats, you knew this was gonna happen.
Speaker 1: They do. They do get one little takeaway here for
Speaker 1: their side, which is that Comey shouldn't have done what
Speaker 1: he did right before the election, and that they're saying
Speaker 1: that that hurd Hillary. They get to run with that
Speaker 1: talking for in place sixteen. But there are two facts
Speaker 1: in controvertible and not susceptible to spin. One. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: won that election. So the complaints about the FBI and
Speaker 1: Jim Comey and all the rest don't lead anywhere. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the actions reviewed in this
Speaker 1: report helped Donald Trump win the election, not the other
Speaker 1: way around. Yeah, but you see what what when he
Speaker 1: leaves out of this is that this report didn't deal
Speaker 1: with the Russia collusion fiasco. This was just a Hillary
Speaker 1: email component. So given what we have learned about how
Speaker 1: the FBI the Department of Justice handled Hillary's emails, does
Speaker 1: anybody want to play some bets on how messed up?
Speaker 1: And there's a different word I'd like to use, but
Speaker 1: I am on radio and I can't how messed up
Speaker 1: The Russia collusion investigation by the same FBI and d
Speaker 1: o J has been and is still. I think you
Speaker 1: all know the answer that we all know the answer
Speaker 1: to that. It's very clearly, very clearly a a disaster,
Speaker 1: a disaster. Um I want to hear from Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: on the staff. There's so many interesting voices weighing in
Speaker 1: all this. Mark Meadows play clip twelve. This is the
Speaker 1: tip of the iceberg. Not only are we saying in
Speaker 1: the fact that classified information actually was compromised contrary to
Speaker 1: director call me sworn testimony, but we're also seeing that
Speaker 1: there was a real bias a Russian to go into
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation at the expense of everything else. So
Speaker 1: as people start to read through this, I think you'll
Speaker 1: find that not only are we troubled by it, but
Speaker 1: we should be alarmed by it. Another thing I almost
Speaker 1: left that there's so many different Look, it's a five
Speaker 1: page report, right, That's why I'm spending so much time
Speaker 1: in the tay we once spend the whole show, although
Speaker 1: we'll move on to immigration and some other topics coming
Speaker 1: up third hour. You know, I just like to give
Speaker 1: you more just things that I'm thinking about that I
Speaker 1: believe are interesting for all of us, to all of
Speaker 1: us think about together. But they they're saying that Hillary
Speaker 1: Server was penetrated by an outside by outside actors, obviously
Speaker 1: malevolent outside actors. Now you can tell me old buck that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know that doesn't affect Well, we were told nothing happened,
Speaker 1: and that was part of the nothing to see here chorus. Right,
Speaker 1: nobody got out. No, they did get access to her server.
Speaker 1: So the whole story classified on her unclassified home server,
Speaker 1: did compromise national security information, did put it at risk.
Speaker 1: Foreign adversaries were targeting it. I think that matters, you know,
Speaker 1: whether whether it matters in the in the legal sense
Speaker 1: or not. It certainly matters in the whether this was
Speaker 1: a big deal or not. Conversation which should have had,
Speaker 1: which should have political ramifications for all of us, did
Speaker 1: not and would have had stronger ones. By the way,
Speaker 1: had we known about that before the election, we should
Speaker 1: have known about that before the election, but they wanted
Speaker 1: to hide all this stuff. Look, the Hillary team plays
Speaker 1: rough and they played dirty, and we're seeing it. Team
Speaker 1: Hillary is not something you want to mess with. Although
Speaker 1: Team Trump was able to defeat it, the many headed
Speaker 1: hydra of the I'm with her Hillary squad at the
Speaker 1: FBI and the d o J wasn't enough to overcome
Speaker 1: the Donald. So in that sense, it does have a
Speaker 1: happy ending. But the story is not over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: because the Russia collusion farce. The witch hunt continues on.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot more coming your way eight four
Speaker 1: four five. I'm gonna switch gears into immigration here shortly.
Speaker 1: They're pushing that really hard. That. I mean, the the
Speaker 1: whole press conference they went with today, the White House
Speaker 1: press conference, was an attempt for the media to distract
Speaker 1: from the real impact of the IG report. At least
Speaker 1: that's what it felt like to me get into some
Speaker 1: of those details coming up. Information is power, And if
Speaker 1: you want to have the best information at your fingertips
Speaker 1: about prospective hires, about a possible tenant, or a major
Speaker 1: business transaction, if you want to know who that counterparty
Speaker 1: is you're dealing with, you need the best background investigation
Speaker 1: and vetting company in the business. That's Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: They never offshore any of your data. They work with
Speaker 1: startups all the way to Fortune one companies, and they
Speaker 1: have employees located here in the United States. It's also
Speaker 1: the only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting company.
Speaker 1: They can handle whatever your needs, large or small company,
Speaker 1: large or small project. Give them a call. Eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five nine. That's eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five one one seven nine, or go to my
Speaker 1: g v N dot com. That's my g v N
Speaker 1: dot com for Global Verification Network, because you do not
Speaker 1: want to leave any stone unturned. Democrats want to get
Speaker 1: serious about it instead of playing political games. They're welcome
Speaker 1: to come here and sit down with the president and
Speaker 1: actually do something about it. Don't you have any MP
Speaker 1: you're a parent. Don't you have any empathy for what
Speaker 1: these people are going through? They have less? Tryan settle down.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to be serious, but I'm not gonna have
Speaker 1: you a yell out of terms. Chill law and they
Speaker 1: have These people have nothing. Hey, I know you want
Speaker 1: to get some more TV. I want to recognize, Go ahead, Jill. Honestly,
Speaker 1: it's a serious question. These people have nothing. They come
Speaker 1: to the border with nothing and approach children, and he
Speaker 1: just you're a parent, you're a count to do children.
Speaker 1: Don't you have any empathyle what they go through? Chill?
Speaker 1: Go ahead? Oh, but he's just an objective journalist, you see.
Speaker 1: That's ah CNNs Brian Karen or Karram. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but he's an objective journalist. That's what they'll tell you.
Speaker 1: He's standing up. He is straight up haranguing, and if
Speaker 1: there is such a thing as man splaining, man splaining
Speaker 1: in a weird where he was almost like parents planning
Speaker 1: to Sarah Hugaby Sanders, and you know tomorrow he's gonna
Speaker 1: he's gonna up around and be like, oh no, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm just you know, just the facts, just the facts.
Speaker 1: I'm just a journalist. They all do this over at
Speaker 1: seeing and it's the most annoying game I've ever seen
Speaker 1: in my life. It's a lie. There liars, lots of liars,
Speaker 1: unless they'll say that there are you know that, Yes
Speaker 1: we have opinions, Yes we push an agenda. That's fine,
Speaker 1: we have free speech in this country. I get it.
Speaker 1: But this guy is not objective. This is not journalism.
Speaker 1: This is a monologue that is rude and disrespectful in
Speaker 1: the West wing to the press secretary on an issue
Speaker 1: that I'll break down for you a little more in
Speaker 1: a few moments, but that the press is just using
Speaker 1: it some kind of crazy wedge right now. They're trying
Speaker 1: to stop people from thinking about other things. Think about this,
Speaker 1: By the way, I just wanted to get to something
Speaker 1: real quick, something really made my day to day, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm new down here at the at the Hill and
Speaker 1: one of our staffers, one of our awesome staffers named
Speaker 1: Sean share with me that he met um Charlie from Tallahassee, Florida,
Speaker 1: and uh and Leanne and that they came up to
Speaker 1: and they said, do you know Buck Sexton or somehow
Speaker 1: somehow it came up in the exchange and they it
Speaker 1: turns out that that my Seawan, who works on the
Speaker 1: crew here, met a couple of really great team Buck
Speaker 1: folks were visiting DC area from Tallahassee, Florida, and they
Speaker 1: said all these nice things to to Shawn about me,
Speaker 1: and then that made its way around all the folks here,
Speaker 1: and you know what that was. I really appreciated that.
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to say that. So Charlie and Leanne,
Speaker 1: you know, first of all, Sean said, you guys were great.
Speaker 1: And also, it's been a long tough week here. We've
Speaker 1: I've been working NonStop and there's nothing that gives me
Speaker 1: a bigger smile these days than and here and from
Speaker 1: some folks on the team, and Uh, you made me
Speaker 1: look good in front of one of my new colleagues,
Speaker 1: and I sounded cool when people are talking about out
Speaker 1: the water cooler. So thank you very much. It really
Speaker 1: meant a lot and I appreciate it. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: You know, recently, I've been receiving all my style tips
Speaker 1: from the clothing experts at Peter Millar. If you're a golfer,
Speaker 1: if you're somebody likes to get out there and do
Speaker 1: sports like me, you know the name. If you don't,
Speaker 1: you should, because Peter Millar is all about quality, value
Speaker 1: and style. It is the most comfortable clothing I've ever worn,
Speaker 1: whether it's the nits, the pants, the polos. I'm telling
Speaker 1: you right now I'm wearing a performance polo and it
Speaker 1: is incredible. It's my new favorite polo shirt. Check it
Speaker 1: out for yourself. The performance Polo is the most comfortable
Speaker 1: shirt I've ever worn. And I can say that about
Speaker 1: everything that I'm wearing from Peter Millar these days and
Speaker 1: right now. You can head over to Peter Millar dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck to check out some of my Peter
Speaker 1: Millar favorites. Be sure to use my link and you'll
Speaker 1: receive a complimentary shipping and free hat. That's right, Peter Millar,
Speaker 1: M I L l A R dot com slash Buck
Speaker 1: Peter Millar dot com slash Buck the best performance clothing
Speaker 1: you're ever gonna wear. He's back with you now because
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck
Speaker 1: never stops. I can say that it is very biblical
Speaker 1: to enforce the law. Uh. That is actually repeated a
Speaker 1: number of times throughout the Bible. However, this hold on, Jim,
Speaker 1: if you'll let me finish again, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: comment on the attorney specific comments that I haven't seen.
Speaker 1: That's not what I said, And I know it's hard
Speaker 1: for you to understand, um, even short sentences. I guess,
Speaker 1: but at please don't take my words out of context.
Speaker 1: But the separation of illegal FAMI alien families Sarah Hugaby
Speaker 1: Sanders with a buck slap? Do you hear that there?
Speaker 1: Buck slap? I guess it's a huck slap actually, because
Speaker 1: she did a good job, you know. Acasta is one
Speaker 1: of the prime examples of I'm just a journalist. I'm
Speaker 1: just a journalist. I don't have a opinions. I'm just
Speaker 1: the facts. It's a lie. Costas that way, tappers, that way, lemons,
Speaker 1: that woman go down the list. These are all pundits that,
Speaker 1: by the way, everybody wants to have the right facts.
Speaker 1: It's the way the facts are presented, the frequency, the intensity,
Speaker 1: the purpose behind the presentation of the fact. Just being
Speaker 1: about the facts doesn't mean you don't have an opinion.
Speaker 1: This is what this is. The great lie over at CNN.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't you notice I don't bash what
Speaker 1: I bash. At MSNBC are the fake conservatives over there
Speaker 1: who are just trashing Trump and trashing everything he does
Speaker 1: reflectively because they want to be on TV. But MSNBC
Speaker 1: is honest. It's anti Trump, it's pro Democrat. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: I can handle that. CNN I can't handle anymore. CNN
Speaker 1: is just off off the off the radar crazy. It's well,
Speaker 1: it's just dishonest. The entire thing is a lie. So
Speaker 1: they're running around calling a president a liar all the time.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is ask any prominent anchor
Speaker 1: it's and end, are you a nonpartisan journalist? And if
Speaker 1: they say yes, they're lying. That's a lie. Sarah Kilby
Speaker 1: Sanders knows this, and so she's sick of it. With
Speaker 1: a Costa with the games here, you know, being disrespectful,
Speaker 1: interrupting area. But look at Costas playing to his bass.
Speaker 1: He's almost like a politician. He gets to go through
Speaker 1: all the steps of being Oh, I'm so I'm so
Speaker 1: pro immigrant, I'm so pro the Latino community specifically. That's
Speaker 1: one part of the immigration debate, by the way, that
Speaker 1: just kind of goes unspoken most of the time. When
Speaker 1: most folks are talking about how much they are pro immigrant,
Speaker 1: they also will very quickly switching too, really, well, well
Speaker 1: Latino immigrants, And I would say, hold on it, what
Speaker 1: about do we not like East Asian South Asian immigrants?
Speaker 1: Are they not really a part of the concern or no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, it's Latino immigrants almost like the percentage of
Speaker 1: illegal alien Latinos in the country affects the political discussion
Speaker 1: about the rest of immigration almost. But but this all
Speaker 1: this stuff we I've had the Attorney General here on
Speaker 1: the show. I've had you know, immigration experts in the show.
Speaker 1: I've read about this, and they present these lines about
Speaker 1: the bus for babies, that's a prison boss, and how
Speaker 1: it's it's new that they're separating families the border. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the only reason it knew is because before if you
Speaker 1: showed up with a kid, you it was just okay,
Speaker 1: you got to go come on into the country, bring
Speaker 1: a child, come on in. Bringing a child illegally to
Speaker 1: the United States or into the United States should not
Speaker 1: be incentivized. And people say, well buck them not illegal,
Speaker 1: Well they are when they don't show up with the
Speaker 1: immigration hearing folks. So they may not be illegal day one,
Speaker 1: but it's it's on a on a a conveyor belt
Speaker 1: to illegality. But we notice, you know what I'm seeing
Speaker 1: that they run around with this lack like it's all
Speaker 1: the big, bad, mean Trump administration. Every country in the
Speaker 1: world that you can think of that is worth anyone
Speaker 1: going to restricts its immigration. If I show up in Switzerland,
Speaker 1: which these days, given how annoying I find a lot
Speaker 1: of the media, sometimes I think about set up a
Speaker 1: freedom hunt in Switzerland. Don't worry, we'd all still hang out.
Speaker 1: But if you know, the swamp is so swampy, I
Speaker 1: just want to go to the Alps and disappear from
Speaker 1: all the swampness for a while. But they wouldn't just say, oh,
Speaker 1: you want to be here. Do you think America's corrupt?
Speaker 1: Do you think the mainstream media is you know, a
Speaker 1: fascistic destructive or they're not fascist, but you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. They're they're destructive organization. Uh yes, come on
Speaker 1: in No, they'd say, sorry, we have rules here, we
Speaker 1: have laws, but we have now we have been convinced
Speaker 1: by our own media that immigration laws are inherently unfair
Speaker 1: and inherently racist. And oh, by the way, if you
Speaker 1: don't pay your taxes, which for some of you listening
Speaker 1: who are high earners, you know, congrats. By the way,
Speaker 1: one day, I hope you'd be there myself. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't pay almost half your income in taxes
Speaker 1: to support the massive welfare state in this country, which
Speaker 1: includes all the illegal immigrants who come into the country.
Speaker 1: I don't care what they say, but oh no, they
Speaker 1: don't qualify. They get better. If it's lots of different ways,
Speaker 1: it's a lie. If you don't pay those taxes, you
Speaker 1: go to prison, and no one feels bad for your kids.
Speaker 1: That seems like an issue to me, That seems like
Speaker 1: a problem. I we're talking about MS thirteen coming right up.
Speaker 1: Stunning report in the Washington Post about something that I
Speaker 1: I don't know why it isn't a national news story.
Speaker 1: Well beyond just one article. This should be kitchen table
Speaker 1: conversation coast to coast right now, because it's showing us
Speaker 1: a problem that is getting worse and worse, is spreading
Speaker 1: across the country and has very terrible consequences. MS thirteen.
Speaker 1: Trump has been talking about MS thirteen, and finally the
Speaker 1: media I think has realized, well, you know, they gotta
Speaker 1: do this thing where they cover it because if they
Speaker 1: don't cover it at all, it's too obvious. But they're
Speaker 1: clearly uncomfortable with it. Why are they uncomfortable with MS
Speaker 1: thirteen as a topic. Why do they cover it but
Speaker 1: give it the minimum right on months? Then they don't
Speaker 1: cover it. I'm saying, they do it in a way
Speaker 1: that you know, oh we touched it. We don't want
Speaker 1: to stay on it. Remember when the media wants to
Speaker 1: make a point there, they go to the map, they
Speaker 1: go to the they go all the way. You know.
Speaker 1: With Abu Grab, I think was on the front page
Speaker 1: of the New York Times as a story like thirty
Speaker 1: some odd times in two or three months or something,
Speaker 1: and bad over and over and over again, one one
Speaker 1: instance of abuse of of prisoners, and it was just
Speaker 1: they just hammered the Bush administration on that for as
Speaker 1: long as they could. MS thirteen is a gang that
Speaker 1: has its well, it was really started in this country.
Speaker 1: I've told you about it before, has some root and Satanism,
Speaker 1: you know, Mara Salvatruccia. It is now taking over parts
Speaker 1: of Central American countries and it has chapters all across
Speaker 1: this country and particularly in the area where I am.
Speaker 1: And that's what the Washington Post story was on. It
Speaker 1: was on Prince George's County, which is not far at
Speaker 1: all from where I am right now, Um, Prince George's
Speaker 1: counties in Maryland, and there has been quite an influx
Speaker 1: of Central American immigrants. And there's now MS their team
Speaker 1: that's effectively taking over some of these schools from a
Speaker 1: security standpoint, right or or menacing, terrorizing, I should say
Speaker 1: some of these schools from a security standpoint, stabbing people,
Speaker 1: hit hit fellow students, hitting them with bats, threatened to
Speaker 1: kill them. Rape. There was a case of a girl
Speaker 1: being raped and she recanted because she was afraid that
Speaker 1: MS th team would have her killed. And we know
Speaker 1: that they will kill fellow students. They've done it out
Speaker 1: in Long Island. So when you when you read these
Speaker 1: these accounts from these teachers, but that the teachers are terrified,
Speaker 1: absolutely terrified. There's MS thirteen graffiti. Here's a line from it.
Speaker 1: A few hundred feet from both schools. The trees are
Speaker 1: covered in MS thirteen graffiti, empty beer cans, candy rappers,
Speaker 1: and crumpled assignments around a stump blackened by fire. One
Speaker 1: tree trunk appears that if it has been used for
Speaker 1: knife practice near all the MS thirteen graffiti. MS thirteen
Speaker 1: is something that you would think the police would take
Speaker 1: very very seriously, right, they would go to whatever length
Speaker 1: they had to to stop them. But no, it turns
Speaker 1: out actually the police are kind of This is a
Speaker 1: line from Prince George's Police, which have had an officer
Speaker 1: station at the school, declined to discuss the allegations of
Speaker 1: gang activity. Quote this is their house, so we're going
Speaker 1: to defer to school leadership, said police spokeswoman Jennifer Donalan.
Speaker 1: If school security isn't telling us about something, then we
Speaker 1: don't know. Let me tell you. Journalists don't like this story.
Speaker 1: They really don't. They could run m. S thirteen stories
Speaker 1: a lot more than they do. But this is the downside.
Speaker 1: Immigration that we've been told would never happen. There's doll
Speaker 1: and they'll tell the statistics, well, immigrants are better than
Speaker 1: native born Americans. I'm like, that's such a weird are
Speaker 1: I've been saying that forever, such a weird argument. Okay,
Speaker 1: so non Americans are better than Americans or less less
Speaker 1: crime prone than Americans. Really, is that what we're gonna
Speaker 1: suggest now? And the answers with Democrats, yeah, they will.
Speaker 1: But when you read through this article, you can't help
Speaker 1: and it's in the Washington Post, you can't help but
Speaker 1: feel like, oh, okay, so they're gonna just try to
Speaker 1: turn a blind out of this and hope the problem
Speaker 1: goes away. Police this year to this one, this one school.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to see what the schools. William Worked Middle
Speaker 1: School in Riverdale, Maryland. This one school is how the
Speaker 1: police called to it seventy four times. That seems like
Speaker 1: a lot of police calls to me. Uh, there are
Speaker 1: students who are completely disruptive, They threatened teachers. Now, I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you that's a situation I really wouldn't want
Speaker 1: to be in because as any of you who have
Speaker 1: had to deal with you know, school school aged kids,
Speaker 1: you know and and have if you've ever been in
Speaker 1: a disciplinary role, sixteen year old can do a lot
Speaker 1: of damage. Sixteen year old can kill you very quickly.
Speaker 1: Sixteen year old can kill you just as quickly as
Speaker 1: an eighteen year old. But the sixteen year olds probably
Speaker 1: gonna unless they actually do kill you, probably gonna get
Speaker 1: away with it a lot more. Certainly a thirteen and
Speaker 1: a fourteen year old will I'm gonna try him as
Speaker 1: an adult. So when some fourteen year old he says
Speaker 1: he's part of m S thirteen, if your teacher says
Speaker 1: he's gonna stab you, not only you have to take
Speaker 1: that seriously. I wonder what your recourse is. Are they
Speaker 1: really gonna pull that student out of school? Big problem
Speaker 1: here that I see with all this is this shouldn't
Speaker 1: be our issue at all. This shouldn't be happening. They
Speaker 1: won't connect it to this. But the truth is that
Speaker 1: a lot of these m S thirteen youths are the
Speaker 1: result of the recent influx under the Obama administration, with
Speaker 1: the relaxation of different rules at the border to create
Speaker 1: loopholes to let people just come and stay, come and
Speaker 1: stay over and over and over again. Under the Obama
Speaker 1: administration application of the law, have you showed up at
Speaker 1: the border with a fifteen year old. Particularly the last
Speaker 1: four years of Obama's presidency. You got to stay. You
Speaker 1: were good that you were in, you were good to go.
Speaker 1: No Interior enforcement, Oh, don't show up. Your hearing doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: And now all you've got are these stories from different
Speaker 1: news outlets, particularly SNANA about how, oh it's their separating
Speaker 1: families at the border, the terrible things in the border.
Speaker 1: The only reason that that's happening is because they told everybody,
Speaker 1: more or less, come with kids and you'll be fine,
Speaker 1: you can stay. That's what they've been saying. That has
Speaker 1: been the message, and so that's resulted in so many
Speaker 1: people showing up at the border. And it also now
Speaker 1: means you've got all these young people that have come
Speaker 1: from Central America that are being recruited for a Central
Speaker 1: American based gang that also has deep ties to Mexican
Speaker 1: drug cartels. I mean, this is scary stuff. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you. You know, as as somebody in the media
Speaker 1: you can talk smack about isis all day long. They're
Speaker 1: not gonna come for you. They're really not. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a it's less than a lightning strike possibility. Right.
Speaker 1: I could sit here and make fun of Abu Abu
Speaker 1: Jihad and Abu Babu. I mean, whoever, right I can
Speaker 1: talk to all these different guys that be heading maniacs
Speaker 1: over there. They're not gonna show up at my door.
Speaker 1: But Prince George's County is about fifteen minute car ride
Speaker 1: from where I am, and ms their teen some really
Speaker 1: bad dudes who who make a habit of engaging in
Speaker 1: extreme violence, extreme brutality show. There's there's that component of
Speaker 1: this story as well. But I just think that they can't,
Speaker 1: you know, the the journalists that they can't help themselves,
Speaker 1: that they feel like it's unfair to the immigrant communities
Speaker 1: that have come from Central America recently under these Obama
Speaker 1: era regulations, unfair to tell the story. And I'm sitting
Speaker 1: here like, well, it's also unfair to not raise public
Speaker 1: consciousness enough about this to have sufficient public resources devoted
Speaker 1: to dealing with the problem. And yes, at a political level,
Speaker 1: we don't need to be taking anybody who says they
Speaker 1: don't like living in all Salvador or ponderous. If hey,
Speaker 1: my country is dangerous and crappy, is now an excuse
Speaker 1: to be in America. We gotta take everybody and there is,
Speaker 1: and this is I think one of the big separations
Speaker 1: between Democrats and Republicans all on this issue. There is
Speaker 1: something about American nous, there's something about being an American. Yes,
Speaker 1: you can become American, but just showing up here doesn't
Speaker 1: make you an American. And if your first act in
Speaker 1: showing up here is to break the law or to
Speaker 1: twist the law for your own purposes, that's a very
Speaker 1: bad start. And we are import or in poverty. You know,
Speaker 1: we got we got a twenty trillion dollar dead and counting.
Speaker 1: We are importing poverty and all the problems that come
Speaker 1: with it. We're importing you know, English as a second
Speaker 1: language classes, and we're important, And do you want to
Speaker 1: pay for it? I will say this for all the
Speaker 1: journalists who would wait, oh my gosh, can you imagine
Speaker 1: if I went over to see it in right now?
Speaker 1: They're like, oh, he's a monster, he hates everybody. Like yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean sure, I'm just we're all we're all so hateful,
Speaker 1: you know. It would be a really worthwhile exercise. Two.
Speaker 1: Put these different pundits that are so in favor of
Speaker 1: taking in more and more asylum seekers from who are
Speaker 1: really they're not asylums, and they're just immigrants, illegal immigrants really,
Speaker 1: but they're using this loophole. Will they send their kids
Speaker 1: to this school in Prince George's County? Will they send
Speaker 1: their kids to a school that has a high percentage
Speaker 1: of recent arrivals from Central America? Will they do that?
Speaker 1: I can tell you that Chris matthews kids, Jake Tapper's kids, Uh,
Speaker 1: go down the line, Brian Williams kids. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know how old they are, don't even know what
Speaker 1: they have kids. You know what I'm saying. They do
Speaker 1: not go to these schools. They do not live in
Speaker 1: parts of the country where they have to come into
Speaker 1: contact with the recently arrived immigrants from Central America that
Speaker 1: used the child at the borderloophole. So I just think
Speaker 1: there's tum I just think there's tremendous hypocrisy on this issue,
Speaker 1: tremendous And I think that there's a real unwillingness to
Speaker 1: tell us the the the full truth and nothing but
Speaker 1: the truth consistently about m S thirteen and its penetration
Speaker 1: of our cities. And and Donald Trump, God love him.
Speaker 1: You know, he's another issue where people said, oh, how
Speaker 1: good he's so terrible said, wait, wait a second, he's
Speaker 1: the one who's actually telling us what's going on. What
Speaker 1: are all those other people doing? What? What? What? What's
Speaker 1: been up with them? Why? Why haven't we even know
Speaker 1: about this problem? You know, someone tell me why we
Speaker 1: can't know about the m S thir team penetration of
Speaker 1: high schools in all these different cities. But we'll get
Speaker 1: lectured by the Obama administration about a rape culture on
Speaker 1: campus that does not exist, That is a fantasy, that
Speaker 1: is not real. Why why is one of those things
Speaker 1: that we have to be lectured about talking about, but
Speaker 1: the other one we can't talk about. I think we
Speaker 1: can guess at what some of the answers are about
Speaker 1: the politics behind us. Our three coming up, our sponsor
Speaker 1: this half hour is Anubis. The enigmatic US president is dead.
Speaker 1: ISIS is attacking on multiple fronts, and the U S
Speaker 1: Special Forces call on a mercenary cyber warrior to stop
Speaker 1: the crisis. This is Anubis. An aging marine sergeant and
Speaker 1: battle warren Army major face an enemy that turns the
Speaker 1: Internet into a terrorist weapon and makes our existing concepts
Speaker 1: of security archaic. A catastrophe of biblical proportions is about
Speaker 1: to unfold. The president is facing a ruthless, relentless caliphate,
Speaker 1: and our military and elected leaders have no means to
Speaker 1: stop it. The only real questions are when and where?
Speaker 1: This is a Nubis. Today's headline show us what is
Speaker 1: happening in the Middle East. Author Eric Anderson reveals the
Speaker 1: frightening possibilities that remain. This is a Nubis. Eric Anderson
Speaker 1: is a former undercover US intelligence agent. His new novel
Speaker 1: is a Nubis with Done Books now on sale at
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com or visit Done Books at Done Books.
Speaker 1: That's d U n N done books dot com. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Mission decoding the news and disseminating information. Who is
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence? Make no mistake American Great? You're a great
Speaker 1: American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show at an
Speaker 1: No Dame. Buck, Welcome to our three of the Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: You know what are the great ironies of liberalism? There
Speaker 1: are many like why do they call themselves liberal when
Speaker 1: they are in fact anti liberal? We talked about that
Speaker 1: a bit yesterday. It's really am a misnomer along the
Speaker 1: lines of why are Democrats the party of Blue in
Speaker 1: this country and Republicans are read It's just well known
Speaker 1: that in the Western world at least, red is the
Speaker 1: color of socialism, collectivism, communism. So why are the Democrats
Speaker 1: blue and Republicans read? As you you may recall from
Speaker 1: this show, and this might be worth its own segment
Speaker 1: at some point. It was a decision really made by
Speaker 1: media networks in the seventies eighties. I think I'll go
Speaker 1: back and check on the deep dive we did some
Speaker 1: time ago. But and it comes from electoral maps and
Speaker 1: they just picked colors at random, they say, so saith
Speaker 1: the left wing media networks. But really, when you think
Speaker 1: about a democrats should be read, why aren't they? It
Speaker 1: would be so much more fitting. But also that science
Speaker 1: proves them right all the time. That uh, science is
Speaker 1: something that if you are acquainted with it, you will
Speaker 1: be you will be more favorable toward a liberal Democrat
Speaker 1: point of view. When we see this coming into contact
Speaker 1: with reality and failing as a maxim time and time again,
Speaker 1: all right, we see many instances of oh wait, liberals
Speaker 1: actually reject science on that. One of the areas is
Speaker 1: obviously getting a lot of gotten. A lot of attention
Speaker 1: recently has to do with the notion of gender and
Speaker 1: gender identity and the creation of all of these new genders.
Speaker 1: The gender is a social construct. That there's nothing underlying
Speaker 1: a person's gender that is biological and biochemical, right XX chromosome,
Speaker 1: x Y chromosome. They don't no, no, they don't think
Speaker 1: about that. They don't care about that. It's all a
Speaker 1: social construct, because if it's a social construct, then people
Speaker 1: just get to decide. It's almost like science by the mob.
Speaker 1: There are other areas as well. You will see an
Speaker 1: inability to or unwillingness to comprehend the science. I think
Speaker 1: life is one of them, meaning that the fetus is
Speaker 1: a baby, just a baby in the womb. The more
Speaker 1: we know about fetal pain, the more we know about
Speaker 1: fetal development, and science just proves to us that it
Speaker 1: is life, It is sacred, it as precious, and Democrats
Speaker 1: are extremists on the issue, a topic we will address
Speaker 1: more another time, but also reject all the advances and
Speaker 1: science that we have now. There also isn't a tendency
Speaker 1: among Democrats to suggest that the science is settled. In fact,
Speaker 1: you'll hear them say that the science is settled, when
Speaker 1: true scientific inquiry is never really settled, because it should
Speaker 1: always be subjected to constant proof you have to test
Speaker 1: those hypotheses, and then you have to prove them time
Speaker 1: and time again. You have to look at those conclusions
Speaker 1: scientific method. You're supposed to apply this. There's a reason
Speaker 1: why when you're a freshman in high school and your
Speaker 1: ner biology class and you're using the Bunsen burners and
Speaker 1: you're running these little experiments. Yeah, we know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen with the experiment, but we keep doing them
Speaker 1: because we want to see for ourselves. Were to test them,
Speaker 1: maybe water won't boil at that temperature. I mean, that
Speaker 1: would be pretty crazy. But the point is you do
Speaker 1: it so you know that that's the way that it works, right,
Speaker 1: that you put yourself through the process of a learning
Speaker 1: so that it is not so you're not entirely reliant
Speaker 1: on what others have told you about you see this
Speaker 1: with the so called well the pay gap is more
Speaker 1: of a social construct issue, though it does have some
Speaker 1: roots in biology. People start to address this and they
Speaker 1: get yelled at. So I'm not gonna get all that.
Speaker 1: But here's another example of it. When you're talking about
Speaker 1: the achievement gap between boys and girls in math. Now,
Speaker 1: this is an area that if you pay attention to
Speaker 1: it has already cause some people professional considerable professional strife.
Speaker 1: Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard University, suggested once
Speaker 1: that there was a perhaps there was a difference in
Speaker 1: the very very highest achieving AH math I think fields
Speaker 1: medal fields medal winners was the topic. And handle though
Speaker 1: don't quote me on that, I might be awful little bit.
Speaker 1: But the president of Harvard was at this symposium, this
Speaker 1: meeting with other faculty, and he said, well, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the reason that they're they're almost exclusively or or
Speaker 1: largely even forget exclusively largely male math geniuses has something
Speaker 1: to do with in the aggregate biology, right, which is
Speaker 1: another way of saying it doesn't mean that boys are
Speaker 1: better than girls at math. It just means that males
Speaker 1: for reasons of the way the you know, the cortex
Speaker 1: connects to the all that different brain chemistry stuff. Right.
Speaker 1: Not a not a biologist, don't play one on radio.
Speaker 1: But there are some differences that when you look at
Speaker 1: a population in the billions and you're trying to then
Speaker 1: you're trying to figure out who is at the very
Speaker 1: very very highest level of one or the other results
Speaker 1: and differences aggregate population differences of achievement in math in
Speaker 1: particular between men and women is a subject that gets
Speaker 1: you yelled at, and Larry Summers, I think I think
Speaker 1: he got fired. I think he has stepped down. One
Speaker 1: of the great lines in the whole thing was this
Speaker 1: was years and years ago, maybe over a decade ago now,
Speaker 1: but there was a woman who said, you know, and
Speaker 1: how dare he raised that subject. I practically fainted and
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, wow, you mean you got the
Speaker 1: vapors you know? Oh, I do declare I cannot hear
Speaker 1: about the achievement gap between men and women without just
Speaker 1: kidding all in as it. I thought that was kind
Speaker 1: of I mean that the situation was funny to me.
Speaker 1: But this New York Times piece today was looking at
Speaker 1: a in a eight hundred large school districts, a massive study,
Speaker 1: and the big headline they took from it is that
Speaker 1: in wealthy, predominantly white and Asian parts of the country. Remember,
Speaker 1: this is looking at eight this is looking at math tests.
Speaker 1: And remember with math or right and wrong answers right.
Speaker 1: And as much as they try to say that math
Speaker 1: is culturally biased, no, it's just math. Look, I wish
Speaker 1: I were better at math. If I were awesome at math.
Speaker 1: I probably would have become a hedge fund manager and
Speaker 1: I'd be calling into this radio show from my yacht
Speaker 1: in the Aegean with COMMI Bear. But instead I'm doing
Speaker 1: what I love more than anything, which is radio. So
Speaker 1: I got lucky. I suppose that I wasn't good at math.
Speaker 1: Large school districts and the big take a way they
Speaker 1: had from this from the two hundred and sixty million
Speaker 1: standardized test scores for third through eighth graders was that
Speaker 1: boys from predominantly white or Asian parts of the country,
Speaker 1: slight that are that are well off slightly over uh
Speaker 1: outperformed girls in math. And they're they're very concerned about this. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into the specifics of you
Speaker 1: know why that may be, because quite honestly, it's I'd
Speaker 1: have to I have to look at it more. And
Speaker 1: I'm not sure anybody really has that just the straight
Speaker 1: up answer on this. But it was amazing that when
Speaker 1: you read this article, and this goes to my initial
Speaker 1: premise about how they have a difficulty with science, is
Speaker 1: they drill down into this research. Uh. This is a
Speaker 1: professor of poverty and inequality and education at Stanford University.
Speaker 1: So but when they looked at this, and this is
Speaker 1: from the years two thousand and huge study of all these,
Speaker 1: they're concerned. They view this as a problem. They view
Speaker 1: boys doing better than girls in math in just a small,
Speaker 1: small percentage of school districts across the country as some
Speaker 1: social problem that needs to be fixed. Now you may
Speaker 1: say that, okay, buck, well, maybe that is something to
Speaker 1: be and I responding, well, you know what, something you
Speaker 1: gotta keep in mind here, folks, is that when you
Speaker 1: look at the actual peace and the article and the
Speaker 1: and the data, girls are way out performing performing boys
Speaker 1: on verbal tests. So I just need someone to explain
Speaker 1: this to me. When you have this data set and
Speaker 1: by a large margin, young girls third to eighth grade
Speaker 1: are doing better than than boy is in verbal that's
Speaker 1: just date. That's just a thing that we all know.
Speaker 1: But because there's clear evidence here that males outperformed females
Speaker 1: at the top end of math from third to eighth grade,
Speaker 1: that is a social problem that needs to be addressed. Well,
Speaker 1: I need to know why is it not a social
Speaker 1: problem that girls are out performing voice? The assumption and
Speaker 1: you can read in this piece for yourself. So I
Speaker 1: know that maybe this sounds a little kind of wonky
Speaker 1: buck while you focused on this, but it's just there's
Speaker 1: such a perception bias that the left has about these things.
Speaker 1: You know, they view their intersectional politics the notion that
Speaker 1: there are these different groups, and one group of presses
Speaker 1: another group, and all groups oppressed each other. That is
Speaker 1: influencing the way they see even things like this where
Speaker 1: it's a straightforward data set, right, and but they only
Speaker 1: see it as a problem when when boys outperform girls
Speaker 1: based on the data, when girls apport from boys, well,
Speaker 1: you know, of course they do because girls are are better.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are like kind of nonsensical things to
Speaker 1: say and think. But I don't know how else to
Speaker 1: explain why they take this approach other than they they
Speaker 1: view women as an oppressed minority. Deep down. They have
Speaker 1: the sense that women are oppressed. That that, you know,
Speaker 1: social scientists and and academics, the academics who are conducting
Speaker 1: conducting this study. Because I look at this, and I'm
Speaker 1: not alone here, I mean, you have to create and
Speaker 1: entirely like new access of comparison for girls versus boys
Speaker 1: on English tests versus on math tests. Overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, girls
Speaker 1: do better than boys regardless of their parents social socioeconomic status.
Speaker 1: There two takeaways were that on math tests, boys from
Speaker 1: richer districts tend to do better than girls from richer districts.
Speaker 1: This is the problem that needs to be addressed. I
Speaker 1: just why is it a problem? Really? Think about that one.
Speaker 1: Why do they see this? And they girls are better
Speaker 1: than boys at verbal but it's a problem that boys
Speaker 1: are better than girls at verbal at math in this study.
Speaker 1: Doesn't that strike you as weird? Why is one of
Speaker 1: them like, hey, yeah, whatever science? The other one is whoa, whoa.
Speaker 1: There's because they go into all this, you know, it
Speaker 1: could be about a set of expectations. It could be
Speaker 1: messages kids get early on it. It could be girls
Speaker 1: aren't speaking up in math. Okay, well, why don't we
Speaker 1: ask any of those questions about why women do better
Speaker 1: than men? And you know, because they don't have any
Speaker 1: ability to be objective. Even scientists now, in many cases,
Speaker 1: especially social scientists, have been co opted by the intellectual
Speaker 1: rots of intersectionality. And that's what we see here. Ye.
Speaker 1: So there's so there's that team. You want the best
Speaker 1: and most comfortable gear, you want to wear, clothing that
Speaker 1: you really enjoy putting on, but you can also wear
Speaker 1: gear that represents who you are and supports good causes
Speaker 1: and good people. That's where nine Line Apparel comes in.
Speaker 1: Nine Line is a veteran owned and operated patriotic lifestyle bread.
Speaker 1: Go on their site and check it out for yourself.
Speaker 1: You will see different clothing lines that are all about veterans,
Speaker 1: the military, the Second Amendment, patriotism and America. And the hoodies,
Speaker 1: the T shirts, the polos, all the different articles that
Speaker 1: you can see on the site are incredibly comfortable. I
Speaker 1: know because I love my nine line gear. The founder
Speaker 1: and CEOs in the special operations community, and a lot
Speaker 1: of it is a hundred and fifty employees or veterans themselves.
Speaker 1: Go check out what they've got to offer. You. Visit
Speaker 1: nine line apparel dot com and use a coupon code
Speaker 1: buck twenty off. That's nine Line Apparel dot Com coupon
Speaker 1: code buck twenty It's a great deal buck to zero
Speaker 1: for twenty percent off. I really like debates where both
Speaker 1: sides get to be smart, and I like discussions where
Speaker 1: you can have both sides come in an issue and
Speaker 1: it's not obvious who's gonna win, right, So for example,
Speaker 1: if somewhere to say who has better hair, Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: or Joe Scarborough, there's only one correct answer, you know,
Speaker 1: and you can try to take the Scarborough round for
Speaker 1: as long as you want. You can. You can provide
Speaker 1: exhibits and evidence or whatever, but at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, at the end of the day, we know
Speaker 1: the Buck has better hair, that the two swoops are
Speaker 1: not even really comparable. They're just vaguely in the same category.
Speaker 1: The encryption debate is one of those places where I say,
Speaker 1: I go back and forth on this one, and I
Speaker 1: know a lot of people who do. Ultimately I come
Speaker 1: down on the side of privacy over government access, but
Speaker 1: it's it's a close call. Let me let me just
Speaker 1: give you the latest on this. So Apple is gonna
Speaker 1: make it harder. This just broke this week, actually, I
Speaker 1: think it just came out today for people to break
Speaker 1: into iPhones so that the data port that you use
Speaker 1: can also be used to access and download your data.
Speaker 1: Apple is going to have a software update, according to
Speaker 1: reason dot com here that will block port access to
Speaker 1: a phone's data if the phone has not been used
Speaker 1: for an hour. Anybody who wants to access the data
Speaker 1: will have to enter the phone's password. So this is
Speaker 1: just enhanced security, that's all it is. And already you
Speaker 1: know where this is going. The fbis are like, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, dogs and cats living together, Massster area, right,
Speaker 1: And people are really getting upset about this because they're saying, well,
Speaker 1: this makes it even harder for law enforcement, harder for
Speaker 1: law enforcement. And I say, you know what's really the alternative.
Speaker 1: Any back door that is left for the government to
Speaker 1: exploit in our devices, one creates a temptation for government
Speaker 1: to make it too easy to use that backdoor for
Speaker 1: exploitation and too perhaps even a bigger threat of though
Speaker 1: I don't know. This is why I love I love
Speaker 1: I love this discussion because I think there's so many
Speaker 1: different facets and you can push back and forth on it,
Speaker 1: and reasonable people, well informed, intelligent people can and do
Speaker 1: disagree on this one. So you know what what happens though,
Speaker 1: when all of a sudden we realize that criminals have
Speaker 1: gotten their hands on this and now your phone, your data,
Speaker 1: your whole life could be subject to hacking. They can
Speaker 1: penetrate and and get all get access to all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff, then you've obviously got a very big problem.
Speaker 1: So if the government can't force you, because they may
Speaker 1: have to come in and kick down your door with
Speaker 1: a swat team, if they can't force you to have
Speaker 1: a special door that they are allowed to use for
Speaker 1: your home, why should they have a special door for
Speaker 1: your phone? Now? Remember this is this is uh a
Speaker 1: situation though that when they get a warrant and they try,
Speaker 1: we haven't really fair out where this goes. Because when
Speaker 1: they get a warrant that they get into your device,
Speaker 1: if they can't get in, then what happens? Can they
Speaker 1: force a private company to violate their own intellectual property?
Speaker 1: They haven't done anything wrong because somebody else is hiding something.
Speaker 1: This plays out in really interesting ways, so you know
Speaker 1: it's but it's also easy to say, oh, keep the
Speaker 1: government out of my stuff. And then I say, well,
Speaker 1: if if i'm a you know, if i'm a member
Speaker 1: of Congress, I'm a whatever, a law enforcement official or
Speaker 1: just a concerned citizen, and I know that someone's kidnapped
Speaker 1: young girl and she is in dire you know, she's
Speaker 1: in a dire situation, dire jeopardy, and I have very
Speaker 1: good reason to believe that her All the locational data
Speaker 1: everything is is stored on some evil doers phone. We
Speaker 1: really gonna say, oh, we can't. We can't make them
Speaker 1: in a life or death situation, we can't make them
Speaker 1: give access. Gets a lot harder to make the case, then, right,
Speaker 1: it gets a lot harder. I also think about how
Speaker 1: we are so we're talking more about technology actually in
Speaker 1: a in a moment here, but we are so dependent
Speaker 1: on these devices now for so much people are doing.
Speaker 1: I see this a lot of time now. They do
Speaker 1: banking transactions on their phones. They're paying their mortgage on
Speaker 1: their phone there, you know, doing a lot of their
Speaker 1: shopping on their phone. There's so much we are we
Speaker 1: are living in these in this truly digital world. Now,
Speaker 1: it's not just for communications, It's become a lot more
Speaker 1: than that. It's record storage, it's it's business transactions. And
Speaker 1: if somebody said to me, hey, Buck, your phone got hacked,
Speaker 1: I'd be like, I don't know, Like, weren't you're in
Speaker 1: the like Yeah, I had people who are smart about
Speaker 1: phones to help me in the c I I don't
Speaker 1: know any of this stuff. I don't have a hack
Speaker 1: into a phone. I mean, I know what the vulnerabilities are.
Speaker 1: I understand from a counterintelligence perspective all the bad things
Speaker 1: people can do to you. But I'm not like some
Speaker 1: character in the matrix. You can sit down at a
Speaker 1: bunch of computers and like start typing real fast and
Speaker 1: like I got this, you know, and you see all
Speaker 1: the different code going on the screen, and I'm stopping
Speaker 1: the hack from happening. No, I probably call my little
Speaker 1: brother like hey, man, like I need help, But you're
Speaker 1: better than me with computers. So there's that. I wonder
Speaker 1: what's gonna end up going on here. I think that
Speaker 1: Congress is still really flirting with the idea of creating
Speaker 1: uh legislation that to mandate that the government has access
Speaker 1: and that that creates a real that's a real problem.
Speaker 1: It's these are multibillion dollar companies now that have they
Speaker 1: should make it as secure as possible. That is in
Speaker 1: their business interests. There's nothing illegal about it, you know.
Speaker 1: It would almost like be it would almost be like
Speaker 1: having a kill switch and guns that were being sold
Speaker 1: in case law enforce and wanted to shut off your
Speaker 1: gun so it couldn't be used. That would strike me
Speaker 1: as a problem. So this strikes me as a problem too.
Speaker 1: But I want to talk about social media use. Actually
Speaker 1: in a moment, so stay right there. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America buck sex in his back. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, I think that we're gonna find out in
Speaker 1: due time that all this time on on social media,
Speaker 1: you know that that this notion that you have to
Speaker 1: be putting your whole life out there online and and
Speaker 1: everyone's just doing it, especially for younger folks, that there
Speaker 1: are really negative consequence as well this. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: we're gonna find out that this was we were not
Speaker 1: really prepared for this, and as a species, I mean here,
Speaker 1: you know, human beings, we just haven't thought out the
Speaker 1: full long term consequences of exposing particularly I think young people, kids,
Speaker 1: to a constant barrage of what what everyone else is
Speaker 1: presenting as their lives, the incredibly powerful echo chamber of facts.
Speaker 1: You know, I feel like individuality and you know, the
Speaker 1: space to make mistakes. There are all these different things
Speaker 1: that are under assault from this incredible new technology that
Speaker 1: we have, and we think about how new this really is.
Speaker 1: I grew up in an era and in a lot
Speaker 1: of you are you know when I was when I
Speaker 1: was your age, I had to walk through three ft
Speaker 1: of snow. No, but I grew up in an era
Speaker 1: when pac Man was considered really advanced and exciting. I
Speaker 1: remember when making cell phone calls was something that only
Speaker 1: rich people did because it costs seven dollars a minute
Speaker 1: or something, and the cell phone looked like you were
Speaker 1: calling it a you know, an airstrike in Vietnam or something.
Speaker 1: It was a very different kind of setup. And now
Speaker 1: you've got these kids that are on these devices and
Speaker 1: I go out. I often have to eat out down
Speaker 1: here because I don't have Miss Molly around and off
Speaker 1: the time to cook. So I'll pop into a restaurant
Speaker 1: and takes, you know, something to go. I was gonna
Speaker 1: say a salad, but I don't want to lie to you,
Speaker 1: you know, a burger usually no bun fries though, because
Speaker 1: obviously I'm not a savage. And and I'll go in
Speaker 1: there and and I'll just see that these kids are
Speaker 1: on these divides. They're always on the device has now
Speaker 1: become their interaction, their babysitter, their their tutor, their friend there,
Speaker 1: you know, confidant. And man, I am so glad that
Speaker 1: Facebook and all this stuff didn't exist when I was
Speaker 1: a kid. You know, we talked about things like cyber bullying.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've seen bullying, and I know about the
Speaker 1: menace that kids can be to other kids, and I
Speaker 1: always took a certain I felt a certain obligation. I
Speaker 1: took a certain pride and in stopping bullying that I
Speaker 1: saw around me growing up. Uh, you know, maybe that's
Speaker 1: just for my own purposes of feeling like I'm doing
Speaker 1: good things and yami, but I was kind of a
Speaker 1: bully hunter. But I can't imagine what it's like now.
Speaker 1: You know, if your kid who's U goes through an
Speaker 1: awkward phase or you don't. And but what made me
Speaker 1: think about this is that the National Health Service in
Speaker 1: the UK, which I know it's Britain, but we're pretty
Speaker 1: close to the Brits, right, We're similar ish they think
Speaker 1: that there was a quote epidemic of mental illness among
Speaker 1: children fueled by social media. Now this is in the Telegraph,
Speaker 1: the paper in the UK um and he also says
Speaker 1: that people need to do a lot more about a
Speaker 1: lot more to protect themselves from this. And then this
Speaker 1: was another statistic that I thought, I thought it was
Speaker 1: pretty astounding. He wrote that this is from the head
Speaker 1: of the National Health Service in the UK that the
Speaker 1: average person in Britain spends twice as long on the
Speaker 1: toilet as they do exercising. But you know, of got
Speaker 1: like not enough time to go out and like kick
Speaker 1: kick a football around, so we've got to sitting here
Speaker 1: on the on the I don't know a British people
Speaker 1: call a toilet like the porcelain thing where they PLoP
Speaker 1: the business. You know, I don't know what if they
Speaker 1: have a cool I was gonna say the the telly,
Speaker 1: but that's obviously for something else. The lou that's right,
Speaker 1: well done, well done, John. So I was kind of
Speaker 1: switching back and forth in different accents. I was thinking,
Speaker 1: British people love they love the leverage that their accent
Speaker 1: gives them in America, but they don't like to beat
Speaker 1: your dancing bear with it. You know, they don't like
Speaker 1: most of my British friends. I have a handful. You
Speaker 1: gotta keep a few British friends in your life. If
Speaker 1: you're like, do different, do the Northern like man queue
Speaker 1: me an accent for me. Now do like a Southern
Speaker 1: you know, whateverever it is Dorset, that's not in the South.
Speaker 1: I don't know the UK, GR know, London, I guess Cockney.
Speaker 1: They don't like to jump around to different accents. They
Speaker 1: take it all very seriously. But back to the social
Speaker 1: media stuff. We don't even know and let's all just hope.
Speaker 1: And I don't say this to be a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 1: I don't say this because books actually part of he's
Speaker 1: trying to infiltrate the government. Uh, I'm actually trying to
Speaker 1: infiltrate the media. I was in the government. But I
Speaker 1: say this because I think it's you know, it does
Speaker 1: give me a little bit of pause. We better hope
Speaker 1: that the radiation from our cell phones over over a
Speaker 1: course of thirty or forty years, there's no big deal.
Speaker 1: That's all I can tell you, because otherwise it's like
Speaker 1: how an apocalyptic movie comes about and the cockroaches literally
Speaker 1: take over, right because we're all well, I guess other
Speaker 1: animals don't carry cell phones around, so it would just
Speaker 1: be uso that would be gone. But that would be
Speaker 1: pretty bad news. Anyways. Social media, I I don't know,
Speaker 1: I really want to start instituting social media free weekends.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get to the point where I have
Speaker 1: that level of self control, right say, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm just not gonna do it anymore. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna stay off the Twitter. I'm gonna stay off
Speaker 1: these things there. They're they're bad for us. They don't
Speaker 1: we need people. We need to interact with other people,
Speaker 1: or even just books and quiet, not constantly on social
Speaker 1: media for kids. I just think it's terrible. I don't
Speaker 1: have I gotta think more about this one. I gotta
Speaker 1: drill into this one more. But it's just one that
Speaker 1: I like to bring up sometimes. Roll call is coming up.
Speaker 1: In just a couple of minutes, it's time for roll call. Indeed,
Speaker 1: roll call time, time for the roll call. You know,
Speaker 1: one day I'm gonna I'm gonna be able to throw
Speaker 1: a party and have a like a big band there
Speaker 1: at my party. I'm kind of excited about that prospect.
Speaker 1: That's one thing. One day I want to throw a
Speaker 1: party for myself it's black tie. And another time I
Speaker 1: want to throw a party that is has a big
Speaker 1: band or maybe ska because that just like went away.
Speaker 1: It's like a style of music that doesn't even exist anymore.
Speaker 1: But I digress, all right, roll call, Facebook dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash buck sex and if you would, in fact like
Speaker 1: to do some of the roll call, you can just
Speaker 1: send me a message on Facebook and we can get
Speaker 1: right to it from there. First up here, William William, Right,
Speaker 1: So if the i G determined that Kobe was a
Speaker 1: commey was a mess up, and Trump was in line
Speaker 1: with firing him, why is Bob Mueller still employed? William?
Speaker 1: I get what you're getting at here. I don't really know.
Speaker 1: I'm at a point now where I have to say
Speaker 1: I'm increasingly be fuddled as to how we can be
Speaker 1: in the situation we're in with an with a special
Speaker 1: counsel that seems like it is on such incredibly shaky ground.
Speaker 1: But it's all about politics to the left, It's all
Speaker 1: about what is politically useful to them. So that's where
Speaker 1: it is. It's not really about a principle here. Hello,
Speaker 1: Buck Shields, Hie, love the show. You know what I'm saying. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is from Denny. I'm really excited about your new
Speaker 1: project at Hill TV, but I'm having trouble figuring out
Speaker 1: how to watch a full episode of the show rising
Speaker 1: all I see your clips. Can you help out a
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut junkie? Denny? That is a good question, and
Speaker 1: let me let me get back to you on that.
Speaker 1: I I was under the impression that if you just
Speaker 1: go to yeah that yeah, that the clips play sequential.
Speaker 1: So that's there you go. Thank you j So John
Speaker 1: you saw it there, that's right. Yeah, just play the
Speaker 1: different clips. Just play those clips and that's all you
Speaker 1: need to do. So there you have it. Will next
Speaker 1: up here. I'm skimming the IG report at work. Nothing surprising.
Speaker 1: I really would like to see the previous draft before
Speaker 1: McCabe call me at all and all their counsel were
Speaker 1: given a chance to challenge, amend and soften it up. Well, well,
Speaker 1: it's already bad enough, but I hear you. I think
Speaker 1: there's probably a whole lot more that didn't come out today.
Speaker 1: We'd all be really curious about if we could find out.
Speaker 1: So yeah, Eric spelled with an A instead of an E. Hey, Buck, congrats.
Speaker 1: I heard you're working with the Hill and get your
Speaker 1: own morning show. That's great. I've been listening to you
Speaker 1: since Richard Mayberry suggested uh the Investment Hour and through
Speaker 1: their learned about the Freedom Hunt. Oh thank you very much. Eric.
Speaker 1: You do some of the best political commentary I've heard
Speaker 1: in my life. I'm sorry in my lineup, well that
Speaker 1: would have been That's nice. Too, including people like Bongino,
Speaker 1: Shapiro and Levin. Well, I'm very hallowed and revered company there, Eric,
Speaker 1: So thank you your knowledgeable entertaining, incredibly accurate, you humble
Speaker 1: when your statements are called into question. Fantastic work. I
Speaker 1: hope to see you, uh make Porter money. God bless
Speaker 1: shields hie So. So Eric learned about me through something
Speaker 1: I do call the Stansbury Investor Our. Any of you
Speaker 1: who have any interest in learning about the markets and learning, look,
Speaker 1: Stansbury has taught me how to manage my own money.
Speaker 1: I'll just tell you that. I'm I'm a subscriber as
Speaker 1: well as a podcast analysts with them. I do politics
Speaker 1: and Porter. The CEO does business and markets and stock
Speaker 1: market all that kind of stuff, you know, investments, Uh,
Speaker 1: and they put out all their research. It's it's a
Speaker 1: really cool company. And if you investor, our dot com
Speaker 1: is the website you can go to for that. So
Speaker 1: that's a different thing. But that's if you remember. That's
Speaker 1: if you're interested in you know, you want to invest
Speaker 1: in X or Y or whatever. And they just put
Speaker 1: out research. They do not manage any individuals moneys. They
Speaker 1: just put out research on their own thoughts. Uh. Next up,
Speaker 1: Kevin says Rising just received a mention on Russia's show. Well, Kevin, indeed,
Speaker 1: I heard about that, but thank you for giving me
Speaker 1: the heads up. You know there's and what can I
Speaker 1: tell you? I know I've I've had the honor of
Speaker 1: filling in for Mr Rush Lamball and his on his
Speaker 1: incredible radio show many times. And any time you get
Speaker 1: a shout out from l Rush Bow is it any
Speaker 1: any day that happens is a good day. So there
Speaker 1: you have it. Taylor next up here, as you call him,
Speaker 1: the greatest talk show host of all time, is talking
Speaker 1: about Rising. Am I surprised? Nope, Taylor, thank you? Yeah.
Speaker 1: That was also another they're instant of Mr Limbaugh speaking
Speaker 1: about the show, which, or you can imagine, mean a
Speaker 1: young guy like me and now you're trying to make
Speaker 1: your way in this business and everything else. I guess
Speaker 1: I'm not am I am? I still a young guy, John,
Speaker 1: Do I still get to say that I'm getting old? Man?
Speaker 1: Things start, you know, my knees, you know, yes, and
Speaker 1: my knees start to hurt, my back starts to hurt.
Speaker 1: I don't I'm not I'm not as spry as I
Speaker 1: used to be. I think once you start using the
Speaker 1: term spry, everyone realizes that you are in fact not spry. Right.
Speaker 1: So that's my ability to rebound after I'm really tired,
Speaker 1: kind of like my ability to rebound after really nasty
Speaker 1: hangover is a fraction of what it used to be.
Speaker 1: Like like I find that, you know, I used to
Speaker 1: take a power nap, and then I would want you
Speaker 1: know how it is. I would take a power nap
Speaker 1: and then I'd say, all right, now I'm ready to
Speaker 1: get back into day. And now I take a power
Speaker 1: nap and I'm like, well, it's already two or three o'clock.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just stay and just keep sleeping till like
Speaker 1: tomorrow morning, you know, until two or three, I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe eight am tomorrow. I mean, I get caught up
Speaker 1: in it because I get tired. Now I get tired.
Speaker 1: Duke writes, I'll make it short. Congratulations on rising. We'll
Speaker 1: watch it and try not to be disappointed. Shield side
Speaker 1: from Duke Duke, thank you man. Look, we actually you're
Speaker 1: gonna get a little a little uh early preview of
Speaker 1: something where we've it came along and I'm actually I
Speaker 1: don't want to tell you the backst around it just yeah,
Speaker 1: but it looks like the tagline for the show is
Speaker 1: going to become both sides of the story because it's
Speaker 1: working really well. You know, we had Crystal do an
Speaker 1: interview today with John Podesta and I said them, look,
Speaker 1: if you guys want to have an interview where you
Speaker 1: just where Crystal and John from the from the Democrats
Speaker 1: side of things. I remember, everyone here is everyone on
Speaker 1: this show, well at least that's doing commentary, right, and
Speaker 1: everyone who's who's a political commentator. He's up front about
Speaker 1: what's going on. Crystals are progressive. We said it on
Speaker 1: day one, She'll say it every day thereafter, or or
Speaker 1: it's very clear every day thereafter. I'm a conservative. I
Speaker 1: take the position of a conservative. You know, sometimes maybe
Speaker 1: I get a little libertarian and some other stuff, and
Speaker 1: and also I'm a little too nice, so that's when
Speaker 1: I start to sound like a liberal on certain things.
Speaker 1: But I'm a conservative, and so we're just up front
Speaker 1: about this, and I I wish that this were the
Speaker 1: case on UM Media shows across the spectrum. So anyway,
Speaker 1: both both sides of the story is something we're testing
Speaker 1: out as the way we're gonna be referring to the
Speaker 1: show from here on. But but it's not you're you're
Speaker 1: not gonna get shout fest. It's not that kind of
Speaker 1: a show, meaning I'm not looking to own the Libs
Speaker 1: as the phrase goes, and the libs aren't looking too,
Speaker 1: you know, scream at me that I'm a racist, misogynists,
Speaker 1: you know, evil colonialists, all that stuff. Right, that's that's
Speaker 1: not happening. So if you're okay with that, tune in.
Speaker 1: Check it out if you want, if you want to
Speaker 1: see up both sides of the story situation, tune in
Speaker 1: if you just want pure unadulterated freedom hut Buck, you
Speaker 1: know where to come, my friends, you're already you're already here, right,
Speaker 1: you know where to hang out with all the rest
Speaker 1: of us. Um, this is just what I think about
Speaker 1: everything you know, and influenced by all of you with
Speaker 1: your calls, you're writing your emails. I don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about anyone else feeling, you know, like they're getting
Speaker 1: their saying from their side. No, freedom Hunt, it's for us.
Speaker 1: It's a little different TV show, as you know. So
Speaker 1: if you can't check it out, he'll dot TV Slash
Speaker 1: Rising is the show I will tell you that I
Speaker 1: I cannot I cannot overstate at this point how excellent
Speaker 1: the timing was that Ted Cruz had during our interview.
Speaker 1: Because I had been pushing here behind the scenes to
Speaker 1: wear a tie on TV. I'm like, guys, I'm just
Speaker 1: more comfortable with tie. If hon to me be on TV,
Speaker 1: I want to wear a tie. And I sat down
Speaker 1: and they said, no, no, no, we're more casuals. Morning,
Speaker 1: I sat down with Ted Cruz and he goes, you know,
Speaker 1: why can't this young man or they said, He said,
Speaker 1: we have it on tape. I just forget the exact words.
Speaker 1: He said, the Hill has to pay you more, you
Speaker 1: can afford to tie. And we had it on the
Speaker 1: camera and I was like, you know what, Senator Cruise
Speaker 1: is right. So now we're in ties, and I think
Speaker 1: that's a very good thing. Paul writes Buck, I just
Speaker 1: watch your debut episode of Rising on Hill Dot TV. Wow.
Speaker 1: I love the tone you and Crystal Ball are setting.
Speaker 1: It is so refreshing to see civil political debate without
Speaker 1: the hate. Excellent job you guys, keep it up. Congratulations,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Paul. That's that's really what we're going for.
Speaker 1: You know, we're trying to trying to put it all.
Speaker 1: You heard what I said before. I'm not gonna keep
Speaker 1: repeating myself that how you know both sides and you
Speaker 1: get it right. That's we We have a specific mission
Speaker 1: on that show, and that is to bring two different
Speaker 1: perspectives to the news in a way that is not
Speaker 1: It's not a steel cage match, and it's not all
Speaker 1: about rigging it so that inside always wins or loses.
Speaker 1: That's not how it's supposed to be. Eric Right's, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buckman not. I'm sure this has been pointed out already,
Speaker 1: but just in case. The music on the Rising Show
Speaker 1: is way loud, and then the volume when you and
Speaker 1: Crystal are speaking is much lower. Oh wow, I'm watching
Speaker 1: it now and had not realized the format was where
Speaker 1: actual issues to be discussed by politically opposed, rational, intelligent people. Brilliant.
Speaker 1: Hope this thing blows up shields hide Well, thank you, Eric,
Speaker 1: that's what we're going for. So if it's working, that
Speaker 1: makes me very very happy. I gotta I gotta shut
Speaker 1: down the Freedom Hunt for tonight, my friends, but it'll
Speaker 1: be back in action tomorrow. Next week is our first
Speaker 1: week of the Freedom Hute with Buck Sexton podcast. You
Speaker 1: can subscribe. The link is up. You can go to
Speaker 1: freedom Houte with Buck Sexton on Apple Podcasts or check
Speaker 1: that out and until next time, Shields Hid. The FBI
Speaker 1: calls home title theft and one of the fastest growing
Speaker 1: crimes out there. And brace yourself because having your credit
Speaker 1: card stolen is nothing compared to the hell you're in
Speaker 1: for once an identity thief takes control of your home's title.
Speaker 1: You know you've got all your stuff online these days,
Speaker 1: and there is no bigger better target for the bad
Speaker 1: guys than American homeowners. You have so much of your
Speaker 1: equity that they can try to steal by taking out
Speaker 1: fake loans in your names, and they do it by
Speaker 1: getting your home title. Home title Lock stops this. It
Speaker 1: forms a virtual perimeter around your home's title for just
Speaker 1: pennies a day. Home title Lock protects my most valuable asset,
Speaker 1: my home registered now for a free analysis and discover
Speaker 1: if your home's title has been compromised. That's a sixty
Speaker 1: dollar value. Free visit home title lock dot com. That's
Speaker 1: home title lock dot com to check it out now
Speaker 1: free analysis. Make sure your home title is safe