Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump, in a
Speaker 1: fiery press conference, denies all the Deep State claims against him.
Speaker 1: He throws down because guess what. We also found out
Speaker 1: some very interesting information about possible coordination with Congressman Adam Schiff.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that, plus a moment of incredible grace
Speaker 1: captured on camera during a trial involving manslaughter. That are
Speaker 1: more coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake America, You're a great American Again, The buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show begins. Analysts, Remember, no questen was what did you
Speaker 1: want President to Lensky to do about President Vice President
Speaker 1: Biden and his son Hunter? Are you talking to me? Yeah?
Speaker 1: It was just a follow up of what I just
Speaker 1: asked you. Sir, listen, are you ready? We have the
Speaker 1: President to Finland? Ask him a question? I have one
Speaker 1: for him. I just wanted to follow up on the
Speaker 1: one that I asked you, which did you hear me?
Speaker 1: Did you want? Did you hear me? Ask him a question?
Speaker 1: I will, but giving you a long answer. Ask this
Speaker 1: gentleman a question don't be rude. No, sir, I don't
Speaker 1: want to be rude. I just wanted you to have
Speaker 1: a chance to answer the question that I asked. You
Speaker 1: answer everything. It's a whole hoax. And you know who's
Speaker 1: playing into the hoax. People like you, people like him
Speaker 1: playing into the hoax. Welcome to the buck sex and
Speaker 1: show everybody President Trump and rare for him, yes, slready
Speaker 1: even for the President deciding that he was going to
Speaker 1: stand up and not just fight, but relish the fight
Speaker 1: a little bit, throw punches, go after people, really decide
Speaker 1: that he's had enough. You could tell that he's frustrated.
Speaker 1: You could tell that he no longer wishes to be
Speaker 1: told that he has to abide by the process as
Speaker 1: it's been laid out for him, that he has to
Speaker 1: listen to whatever it is that the mainstream media tells
Speaker 1: him he has to do. And it wasn't just the
Speaker 1: press conference yesterday that was a bit of a change
Speaker 1: in the narrative right now, as we know, the narrative
Speaker 1: is that the President of the United States did something bad,
Speaker 1: very bad on a phone call that a whole lot
Speaker 1: of people were on, and that one almost certainly rapidly
Speaker 1: anti Trump partisan thought, gave an opportunity to take yet
Speaker 1: another another swipe at this president, possibly de rail or
Speaker 1: even end his presidency. The President's having none of it.
Speaker 1: And when you add to it the revelation yesterday about
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff, who has been quarterbacking this whole phenomenon from
Speaker 1: the start, I suppose nobody should really be particularly surprised
Speaker 1: by any of this. I feel like they probably should
Speaker 1: understand that Adam Schiff is obviously a hyperpartisan and wants
Speaker 1: to get rid of this president, does not believe that
Speaker 1: President Trump should be allowed to stay in office, and
Speaker 1: so he was part of what seems to be a
Speaker 1: deep state slash Democrat slash media conspiracy. This isn't surprising.
Speaker 1: New York Times, though, breaks the story, which is interesting.
Speaker 1: Schiff got early account of accusations as whistle blower concerns grew.
Speaker 1: Now this is interesting on a number of levels, but
Speaker 1: one that I want to start with is that initially
Speaker 1: shifty Shift, as he is aptly called, we're saying that
Speaker 1: this did not happen initially. Adam Schiff was claiming that
Speaker 1: there was no early tip off that he had not spoken,
Speaker 1: or he referred to it as we we have not
Speaker 1: spoken to the whistleblower. Turns out that's not the case.
Speaker 1: President Trump recognizes this, and I'll get into what his
Speaker 1: response to Shift isn't just a moment. But now first
Speaker 1: we have to go to do we have a producer Mark,
Speaker 1: Do we have the Shift lie here somewhere initially where
Speaker 1: he says we did not speak. Let's let's grab that
Speaker 1: one in. Oh yeah, well, we definitely have Shift getting
Speaker 1: defended on MSNBC play clip twenty four. Sam, you spoke
Speaker 1: to Chairman Shift last night. I want to read the
Speaker 1: quote again. That was September seventeenth quote, we have not
Speaker 1: spoken directly with the whistleblower. How does he explain that
Speaker 1: when clearly at that point the whistleblower had come to
Speaker 1: Chairmanshifts committee, so we talked for complements last night. He
Speaker 1: expressed regret for not having been more clear in his
Speaker 1: wording what he said. He said at the time when
Speaker 1: he was saying that, obviously we now know that they
Speaker 1: the whistler had approached his staff, but there wasn't one
Speaker 1: hundred percent certainty that the whistleblower who would approached his
Speaker 1: staff was the same one who was behind the actual complaint.
Speaker 1: There's a suspicion it was, but there wasn't one hundred
Speaker 1: percent certainty. He also was explaining that he was trying
Speaker 1: to compel the whistleblower to come testify before the committee
Speaker 1: when he was saying that. But again, he expressed regret
Speaker 1: for saying for what he said on the initial interview
Speaker 1: with Morning Joe and said he should have been much
Speaker 1: more clear about it. I will say this puts him
Speaker 1: in some trouble. He clearly wasn't being forthright in that
Speaker 1: interview with us a couple of weeks ago, and he
Speaker 1: should have been. It wasn't forthright with us, and he
Speaker 1: should have been. I like that. Notice how when it's
Speaker 1: a member of Team Democrat, there's a there's a different
Speaker 1: kind of language that's used. You know, they'll scream about
Speaker 1: how Trump has lied fifteen times, fifty thousand times. We
Speaker 1: did a fact check, Trump has lied five hundred million times.
Speaker 1: But then when you have Adam Schiff straight up looking
Speaker 1: the meeting the eye and the American people in the eye,
Speaker 1: lying about this, it's oh, he could have been more clear,
Speaker 1: and he regrets the lack of clarity, and maybe he
Speaker 1: could have done it another way. No, he lied, and
Speaker 1: it's a very significant lie at that. Why would the
Speaker 1: whistleblower go to Shift before finishing off the process, going
Speaker 1: through the entire process of the intelligence community, inspector general.
Speaker 1: You know, the process really does matter here too, because
Speaker 1: the Democrats tried to make that the initial line of attack.
Speaker 1: Do we have a lie where Shift is at? Just
Speaker 1: so you could hear it. I feel like you should
Speaker 1: hear Shifty Shift himself. Go for it. The essence of
Speaker 1: what the president communicates, We've been very good to your country,
Speaker 1: very good. No other country has done as much as
Speaker 1: we hadn't restonansity here. Well, this is a lot of that.
Speaker 1: That's when he made up the I tried my best. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all right. That's when he made up testimony that
Speaker 1: didn't actually have I'm talking about when he said he
Speaker 1: had not spoken to the whistleblower. Okay, that's the that's
Speaker 1: the base. That's a very straightforward lot, because he had
Speaker 1: spoken to the whistleblower. So this is a yes or
Speaker 1: no thing. It turns out that that was a moment
Speaker 1: of Shift showing us exactly who he is. And it
Speaker 1: matters because the process was initially part of the assault.
Speaker 1: They were saying that they tried to stop the whistleblower
Speaker 1: from getting through that McGuire acting DNI, that he didn't
Speaker 1: do enough in order to make sure that this was
Speaker 1: given to Congress fast enough and would delayed it three weeks,
Speaker 1: and they're complaining about the process. Meanwhile, on the other
Speaker 1: side of this, when you look at another component of
Speaker 1: the process, the whistleblower came forward and said or went
Speaker 1: to Adam Ship's committee, went to Democrats in Congress and said, hey,
Speaker 1: just to give you guys a heads up. Now I
Speaker 1: think he might have done it through an intermediary or
Speaker 1: but hey, just to give you guys a heads up.
Speaker 1: I've got some real stuff on the president here, and
Speaker 1: I'm worried it's not going to get through the Inspector
Speaker 1: General inspector general process. Why would the whistle blower be worried?
Speaker 1: And also, that's not the whistleblower's call. Then there's the
Speaker 1: whole other issue of the whistleblower doesn't have jurisdiction to
Speaker 1: blow a whistle over the president of the United States
Speaker 1: because a phone call between a president and a foreign
Speaker 1: head of state is not an intelligence activity. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot of problems here. But the lie about the process,
Speaker 1: meaning Adam Schiff saying that he did not get a
Speaker 1: heads up about this. That was important to the Democrats
Speaker 1: because what does it look like, Now, let's just strip
Speaker 1: away all the nonsense for a second. What does it
Speaker 1: look like happen? Well, somebody from within reportedly the CIA
Speaker 1: saw something or i'm sorry, heard something from someone who
Speaker 1: saw something in a transcript and decided that this was
Speaker 1: an opportunity to be a hero of the resistance. Is
Speaker 1: this person an acolyte of John Brennan's as this person
Speaker 1: someone who has been involved in other deep state actions
Speaker 1: against this president, whether it's leaks or who knows. Also,
Speaker 1: this pretense that the whistleblower's life will be in jeopardy
Speaker 1: if anyone finds out the whistleblower it's not true, but
Speaker 1: shifts involvement in this from the very beginning, and the
Speaker 1: way that he made sure that this would get through
Speaker 1: just goes to show you that it was two things.
Speaker 1: A weak complaint. Remember, the Inspector General had to rule
Speaker 1: on whether it was an urgent concern without seeing the transcript,
Speaker 1: so it was really just taking the person's word for
Speaker 1: the initial complaint. And then there was pressure coming from
Speaker 1: Democrats like Shift in the House Intelligence Committee saying hey,
Speaker 1: this better. You know, we better get this information, you
Speaker 1: better release this information. So they were trying to subvert
Speaker 1: in some ways the process. They were trying to escalate
Speaker 1: the process for obvious political benefit for their own ends.
Speaker 1: And now they've been caught. So Shift was involved in this.
Speaker 1: Then this was an effort by Adam Schiff to have
Speaker 1: a basis for this whole impeachment inquiry. They were looking
Speaker 1: and looking and looking, and this then became the thing
Speaker 1: they would latch onto. So there's, as I've been saying,
Speaker 1: every coup starts with a conspiracy. It looks like we
Speaker 1: have seen the conspiracy here. I know it's a soft coup.
Speaker 1: No one's saying that they're rolling tanks up to the
Speaker 1: White House. But it's a soft cup. And also this
Speaker 1: wasn't a strong complaint. If it was, you would think
Speaker 1: that the person bringing it, instead of trying to make
Speaker 1: sure that he put his hand on the scale to
Speaker 1: make sure there would be disclosure, would go through the
Speaker 1: standard process. Why go to Democrats on the hill and
Speaker 1: say there that this person's worried. They're saying vein now
Speaker 1: because it's not. We don't have to hear a sheet
Speaker 1: that they are worried that this won't make its way
Speaker 1: through the inspector general process. Why why that concern? Why
Speaker 1: that worry? It seems to me very odd. Indeed, seems
Speaker 1: to me to be very range decision. So that's what
Speaker 1: we've got from yesterday. Well, actually, I'm sorry. We know
Speaker 1: why because the person's a part of anyone take it's
Speaker 1: very obvious. Why I ask you good question rhetorically, because
Speaker 1: the person wants to harm the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: That's that much, is very honest, very obvious. I don't
Speaker 1: see any issue with what was in that transcript. That's
Speaker 1: part of my problem, I suppose. I don't see it.
Speaker 1: As they keep saying digging for dirt on Biden. This
Speaker 1: is the phrase they use. He didn't ask for dirt,
Speaker 1: he asked for an investment. I think it's a scandal.
Speaker 1: But he's allowed to do that. Okay, that's what the
Speaker 1: word is, and I think it's I give a lot
Speaker 1: of respect for the New York Times of putting it out.
Speaker 1: Just happened. As I'm walking up here. They handed it
Speaker 1: to me and I said to Mike, I said, whoa
Speaker 1: that's something. That's big stuff. That's a big story. He
Speaker 1: knew long before, and he helped write it too. It's
Speaker 1: a scam. It's a scam. It is a scam. I
Speaker 1: think that's clear. But the Democrats are all in on it.
Speaker 1: They're not going to stop just because it has become
Speaker 1: apparent that this was a partisan maneuver all along. Of
Speaker 1: course we knew. Now we just have the facts. It
Speaker 1: was clear based on what had occurred, but now we
Speaker 1: can point to specifics and say, oh, okay, this is why.
Speaker 1: This is the way that they unveiled this latest effort
Speaker 1: to undo the twenty sixteen election. This is the first time,
Speaker 1: I think, in a few days that the media has
Speaker 1: had to just say, well, doesn't matter what we report.
Speaker 1: I suppose we're just supposed to be anti Trump, So
Speaker 1: here we are. New York Times puts out the SHIFT
Speaker 1: got early warning if they remember when Trump gives the
Speaker 1: New York Times credit here, they broke the story. But
Speaker 1: if they didn't, somebody else was going to This was
Speaker 1: already I think Sean Davis a few days ago had
Speaker 1: already said that it looked like SHIFT got early warning
Speaker 1: about this based on the timeline. My friend Fred Flights
Speaker 1: also got word of this or analyze, I should say
Speaker 1: that that must have been what happened, that there had
Speaker 1: to be a way that Shift had early warning. And
Speaker 1: so what this did was it allowed Shift to pretend
Speaker 1: that he just wants the process to play out. He
Speaker 1: doesn't know what's in the whistleblower complaint. He we just
Speaker 1: need to find out what's going on here. But he'd
Speaker 1: already been told. It's like he got the answers to
Speaker 1: the test beforehand, and then he sat down to do
Speaker 1: some algebra two and was like, oh, this is I
Speaker 1: don't know if I'll be able to get through this exam.
Speaker 1: This is very hard. You know, he's such a scamster,
Speaker 1: shifty Shift. It's not a surprise. That's where we are.
Speaker 1: That's the truth of the matter. Where does it go
Speaker 1: from here, Well, I think we've already seen that Democrats
Speaker 1: can't back off now. They can't back down now, and
Speaker 1: that means that this is just going to turn into
Speaker 1: a massive fight in the media. President Trump is just
Speaker 1: going to continue to call it a hope, which is
Speaker 1: one of his favorite words these days. Let's let's hear
Speaker 1: from the President. Sixteen producer Mark well I always cooperate.
Speaker 1: This is a hoax. This is the greatest hoax. This
Speaker 1: is just a continuation of what's been playing out for
Speaker 1: the last since my election. I would say, if you
Speaker 1: want to probably we'll find out soon, but probably even
Speaker 1: before my election. This is a fraudulent crime on the
Speaker 1: American people. But we'll work together with Shifty Shift and
Speaker 1: Pelosi and all of them. Saying like we'll cooperate because
Speaker 1: they're going to go through this process one way or
Speaker 1: the other doesn't mean they're going to do everything the
Speaker 1: Democrats want them to. But get ready for it, folks.
Speaker 1: We are. We are heading into impeachment season. There's no
Speaker 1: there's no doubt about that. And there's going to be
Speaker 1: an impeachment vote. And I'll get into why that is
Speaker 1: in just a little bit. But they're going to impeach
Speaker 1: this president. I think we all need to be prepared
Speaker 1: for that. They don't care what the facts are, where
Speaker 1: the facts may lead, or any of that stuff. They
Speaker 1: are they're planning to impeach the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: There's nothing that can be done at this point, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, that would change that. In fact, they're looking
Speaker 1: at polls and viewing this as a political win already.
Speaker 1: Paul Krugman, who it's amazing to me that he was considered,
Speaker 1: and I guess still is. He's a New York Times
Speaker 1: editorial columnist guy, an excellent economist, but he's a terrible
Speaker 1: political analyst. And he's already crowing about how it looks
Speaker 1: like the Democrats have picked up a big win here
Speaker 1: by going going after Trump on impeachment. I doubt that
Speaker 1: that will in fact be the case in the end,
Speaker 1: but we will see how it all plays out. But
Speaker 1: there are important reasons, and I will get into that
Speaker 1: in a moment. There's actually a very good piece that
Speaker 1: I think lays out that impeachment is about more than
Speaker 1: even just Trump hatred. There's a whole another layer to
Speaker 1: this that we should explore, and it has to do
Speaker 1: more with the establishment and the political class, an elite
Speaker 1: consensus than most folks would assume. I mean, Trump hatred
Speaker 1: is the tip of the spear, but behind that there's
Speaker 1: a whole lot more. I have to wonder at what
Speaker 1: point more Americans will see this for what it is,
Speaker 1: which is a backlash about the twenty sixteen election, and
Speaker 1: really that will never change no matter what evidence they
Speaker 1: find no matter what Trump says about anything. Oh, we
Speaker 1: also have some time today to speak about how the
Speaker 1: Biden phenomenon's not going away. Democrats, you know, they took
Speaker 1: this shot. They decided that they were going to use
Speaker 1: this as the spur to impeachment. They took this shot.
Speaker 1: And yet huh, now they've got problems because Joe Biden
Speaker 1: himself has a history here that will be further scrutinized
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and whether it's
Speaker 1: illegal or not requires investigation, but whether it is disgraceful
Speaker 1: or not, as already established, it's gross. And it's not
Speaker 1: just the Ukraine issue. There's also China that can be
Speaker 1: factored into all of this. China is a component of
Speaker 1: the latest allegations. It looks bad too. And you break
Speaker 1: down what happened here with Hundre Bidens. We'll talk more
Speaker 1: about that, and later on in the show, we'll also
Speaker 1: have some a moment to look at what can happen
Speaker 1: when someone decides to extend an incredible grace to a
Speaker 1: person who has done a terrible wrong. That's just a
Speaker 1: preview of what we'll be looking at together. But when
Speaker 1: I come back, I really do want to take a
Speaker 1: moment to look into the realities of the broad narrative
Speaker 1: of anti Trumpism from the establishment, not just the Democrats.
Speaker 1: And if you're hearing some weird siren of the background,
Speaker 1: apparently we're in the midst of a fire alarm test here,
Speaker 1: but it's radio, so we're just gonna roll with it
Speaker 1: and we'll be back in just the moment. So why
Speaker 1: does the left, the Democrats, the media, why do they
Speaker 1: want to impeach Trump so badly? Trump to them is
Speaker 1: a vile creature. They think that he's uncouth, he's barbarous.
Speaker 1: Whenever I hear that word, I always think of this
Speaker 1: is barbarous, and then he goes, oh, this is Sparta.
Speaker 1: Remember that it's amazing. Three hundreds, a great movie, great movie,
Speaker 1: I watch it anytime. But they think that Trump is
Speaker 1: barbarous and that he is not Sparta, and they absolutely
Speaker 1: hate him for many many reasons that are both substance
Speaker 1: and style. Based mostly on style, though, I think, which
Speaker 1: is to the elites, to the establishment class, that's a
Speaker 1: sin that is unpardonable, to be as ghaush, as meretricious.
Speaker 1: It's like we're doing an sat word prep now. As
Speaker 1: Trump is. That's just unacceptable to them. So then we
Speaker 1: move on to why what is really going on here?
Speaker 1: There is a fantastic piece in the Spectator Spectator USA,
Speaker 1: which I actually think I just met somebody from a
Speaker 1: Spectator at an event a week ago, and they asked
Speaker 1: me if I wanted to write, So maybe I'll have
Speaker 1: to write for them since I think this piece is
Speaker 1: so good. Impeachment is regime suicide. The ruling class still
Speaker 1: believes in a consensus that doesn't exist. Their legitimacy is vanishing.
Speaker 1: Now I will walk you through a little bit some
Speaker 1: of this, not all of it because we don't have
Speaker 1: the time, but it is an excellent, excellent piece, and
Speaker 1: in it Daniel McCarthy takes you through the previous, the
Speaker 1: previous impeachment moments. Now, of course, you've had a number
Speaker 1: of people already fall into that, fall into that bear
Speaker 1: trap of or where Nixon was impeached. Nixon wasn't impeached.
Speaker 1: Everybody Nixon resigned. Nixon knew that he was. He was dunzo,
Speaker 1: as the kids say, so he resigned. But you have
Speaker 1: a lot of people, oh, well, Nixon wasn't impeached. Maybe
Speaker 1: they can get David Gurgan because he loves you know, hey,
Speaker 1: David Gergan, what do you think about the economy? Nction resigning.
Speaker 1: He's the CNN, He's the CNN senior statesman over there
Speaker 1: for all political analysis, and whether we're talking about the
Speaker 1: FED rate or counter terrorism, he'll work in some reference
Speaker 1: to or nriction Ford administration, or remembers real terrifical from
Speaker 1: Niction and raygn Ford. So now he at least it
Speaker 1: is going to be talking about what people are asking about,
Speaker 1: which is the era of Nixon, and that of course
Speaker 1: the Clinton impeachment. But back to this Daniel McCarthy piece
Speaker 1: about impeachment as regime suicide and really a a an
Speaker 1: effort by the regime to not just undo the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election, but undo the idea behind it that many
Speaker 1: of the centers of power in this country are not
Speaker 1: nearly as legitimate as they like to pretend. That elite
Speaker 1: media is a fraud, elite university system, as we know
Speaker 1: in anyways, can be schemed and gamed. It's not this
Speaker 1: meritocracy that it's just providing us with the best and
Speaker 1: brightest in the future. That corporate America, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of buying of political influence, incumbents always squeezing out, crushing
Speaker 1: their rivals, using the state to do it. Remember, big
Speaker 1: business and big government like each other, and the cult
Speaker 1: of government expertise coming under probably greater pressure and threat
Speaker 1: than at any point before. So those are all real
Speaker 1: dynamics that Trump very much played into in the last
Speaker 1: election that Trump was in many ways a messenger for.
Speaker 1: And that's why this piece by keep on Us. Yes, McCarthy,
Speaker 1: I always think of a friend Andy McCarthy, but this
Speaker 1: is Daniel McCarthy. But he looks at impeachment in the
Speaker 1: past and just also moments of real political crisis. And
Speaker 1: there was something of a national consensus, meaning the consensus
Speaker 1: after Nixon stepped down was or when Nixon was about
Speaker 1: to resign and step down, was that that was the
Speaker 1: right thing to do. And while Ford lost in the
Speaker 1: next election, he didn't lose by a lot to Jimmy Carter,
Speaker 1: and it was not the end of the Republican Party
Speaker 1: because the feeling at the time was that Nixon was
Speaker 1: that the correct move was for him to stepped down.
Speaker 1: And then of course Ford, as vice president, became the president.
Speaker 1: Then he had to run against Carter. But Clinton in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety eight, the impeachment against him. The nation felt
Speaker 1: like maybe that wasn't worth it, and that was considered
Speaker 1: to be a mistake, But that was still a consensus,
Speaker 1: a consensus in a different direction and involving a different
Speaker 1: member of a different party. But there was a general
Speaker 1: national feeling of this is more or less what should
Speaker 1: happen here. There was not some huge outcry that, oh,
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton, he must be moved by the Senate. I mean,
Speaker 1: people felt that way, but that wasn't as much as
Speaker 1: you can describe a consensus, which is a feeling about
Speaker 1: mass opinion. That's what was going on. But then McCarthy
Speaker 1: goes into how this is not a moment of consensus
Speaker 1: at all. This is the elites deciding that they determine
Speaker 1: national consensus even when it does not exist, and that
Speaker 1: they are never going to accept Trump, not because of
Speaker 1: his policies or even his personality, but because he has
Speaker 1: a challenge to who they are, to their position in society.
Speaker 1: And I've been saying that to you for a long time.
Speaker 1: This is most apparent, perhaps with some of the journalists
Speaker 1: out there who have completely lost their minds, including Republican
Speaker 1: or GOP leaning or conservative leaning journalists of the never
Speaker 1: Trump kind who have just never accepted I mean they
Speaker 1: say they're never Trump, but really they're just never facing
Speaker 1: the reality of they're not going to have the access
Speaker 1: they thought they were. Their ideas are not going to
Speaker 1: be herald they're not going to be invited to all
Speaker 1: the fancy parties, which are real as I keep telling
Speaker 1: you have the Georgetown cocktail parties. All it's a cliche, yeah,
Speaker 1: because there's so many of them. I was just down there.
Speaker 1: The swamp is swampy, trust me. But the regime now
Speaker 1: is trying to assert itself. That's the elite media. You
Speaker 1: see this, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Posts, all
Speaker 1: these different media outlets. They are without question devoted to
Speaker 1: the destruction of the Trump presidency in a way that
Speaker 1: exceeds anything that we've seen in the past with Republican administrations.
Speaker 1: They didn't like Bush and they called him stupid, but
Speaker 1: they didn't really think that they were going to be
Speaker 1: able to get rid of him before the election. But
Speaker 1: I have brought up with you yesterday that if the elites,
Speaker 1: if elite consensus has led by Pelosi and Schumer and Anderson,
Speaker 1: Cooper and Rachel Maddow and the Dean Baquet at the
Speaker 1: New York Times and all these other folks. If elite
Speaker 1: consents opinion was really about respecting our institutions they often
Speaker 1: talk about protecting our democracy, respecting our institutions, then of
Speaker 1: course they would just focus on the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 1: because the only true repudiation of Trump as a politician
Speaker 1: is going to come through a defeat at the ballot box.
Speaker 1: But that's not really their purpose. In fact, they don't
Speaker 1: care much at all about the underlying institutions of this country.
Speaker 1: What they care about is that those institutions belong to them,
Speaker 1: that they are in control of the elite apparatus of
Speaker 1: power in America, or just the apparatus of power period,
Speaker 1: you could say, and Trump is a threat to that.
Speaker 1: Trump's message, as McCarthy rights when he came in, was
Speaker 1: it was boiled down to quote, they screwed you. They
Speaker 1: being the Bushes, the Clinton's, the establishment in both parties,
Speaker 1: the warmongers, the trade deal architects, the communist Chinese free
Speaker 1: riding allies, and more. That really readinated with people, because
Speaker 1: there certainly has been a sense, especially when you look
Speaker 1: at all those issues that not only have the elites
Speaker 1: managed to become fabulously wealthy during a period where an
Speaker 1: nowomenous sound a little Bernie sanders esk for a second here,
Speaker 1: but where wealth disparity is more apparent than it had
Speaker 1: been in the past, where the consolidation of wealth for
Speaker 1: really the point zero one percent is galloping away from
Speaker 1: the rest of society. So the free traders and the
Speaker 1: people that have been pushing along these mantras, both on
Speaker 1: the business end of things and then using their mouthpieces
Speaker 1: in the media and paying for the think tanks, and
Speaker 1: oh just free trade. Free trade was this thing that
Speaker 1: you could say that would never be challenged. It was
Speaker 1: just considered a good in and of itself, almost like diversity.
Speaker 1: Someone just asked to say that they had an interest
Speaker 1: in diversity, and if you were to question in that,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with you? Why don't you like diversity? Well,
Speaker 1: what does diversity mean and how do we achieve it?
Speaker 1: And what are the trade offs? And oh no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you're rather on board for diversity or not. Same with
Speaker 1: free trade it used to be. And this was among conservatives.
Speaker 1: This is on the right. You'd just say, well, I'm
Speaker 1: for free trade. And if you weren't for that, you
Speaker 1: were a troglodyte. You know, you were stuck in the past.
Speaker 1: You were not somebody who understood economics. And oh, but
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden, Trump comes along says, China's
Speaker 1: been ripping us off. You start looking at trade deals,
Speaker 1: including the NAFTA trade deal, including what's going on with China,
Speaker 1: and we are getting ripped off. That's a fact. There
Speaker 1: are bad things that are happening in US China trade
Speaker 1: that no one has done anything about for years and years.
Speaker 1: Why does take Trump coming along to tell us that. Well,
Speaker 1: a lot of people that were making decisions in the
Speaker 1: upper echelons of power in this country, who while China
Speaker 1: was getting away with all kinds of theft and exploitation,
Speaker 1: well that was happening. They were getting very rich. They
Speaker 1: didn't much care. They liked the status quo. And Trump
Speaker 1: came in. I mean, he's not he's not some deep
Speaker 1: political irist. I've never made that claim, and I never would.
Speaker 1: But he has a gut understanding, of visceral understanding of
Speaker 1: just what's really going on here. And McCarthy points that out.
Speaker 1: But then why this push for impeachment. Well, quote Trump's
Speaker 1: enemies are not just the left, they are the ancien regime.
Speaker 1: Anyone who supports the political and economic dispensation of the
Speaker 1: post Cold War era is apt to feel threatened by
Speaker 1: Trump and even more menaced by what stands behind behind him,
Speaker 1: a growing anti consensus, a force that declares every center
Speaker 1: of power in this country illegitimate and antithetical to the
Speaker 1: well being of the people. And yet the ancien regime
Speaker 1: assumes that deep down, for all that Republicans are racist
Speaker 1: and deplorable, they still love the regime and they will
Speaker 1: support it over Trump. They haven't yet given up on
Speaker 1: this idea at all. That's why, that's why impeachment is
Speaker 1: a process that you are seeing underway. Yes, it is
Speaker 1: harnessing the rage, the animosity of the left, the sense
Speaker 1: that Hillary should have been coorradated, the sense that she
Speaker 1: was going to be the next president. There's all of that,
Speaker 1: there's no question, and they absolutely despised Trump. But there's
Speaker 1: something broader. Mitt Romney, for example, what is Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: doing in all of this? He has to know that
Speaker 1: he's being helpful to the ideological enemies of all that
Speaker 1: he says he stood for. At least in the twenty
Speaker 1: twelve election. Why is he always making trouble for Trump?
Speaker 1: Does he really think he's going to change his behavior
Speaker 1: to help out? When you look at the establishment media,
Speaker 1: this is beyond just they disagree with They are on
Speaker 1: a search and destroy mission for this president. Why do
Speaker 1: you think that is well, because he's the first president
Speaker 1: has ever come along and said, oh no, guys, I'm
Speaker 1: not just going to ask you to be fair to me.
Speaker 1: I'm going to point out that you are frauds, that
Speaker 1: you and the journalistic establishment in this country are absolutely
Speaker 1: partisan's activists, people who are taking a side of this
Speaker 1: and engaged in an endless stream of propaganda, in part
Speaker 1: driven by the brainwashing of an audience to the center
Speaker 1: left that will always think that whatever they see that
Speaker 1: fits into that mentality is actual news, the real news.
Speaker 1: Anything that challenges that must be coming from some right
Speaker 1: wing blogs somewhere. But then also because those are the
Speaker 1: proclivities of the journalists, of the people in the newsrooms,
Speaker 1: the senior editors, editors in chief owners of these publications,
Speaker 1: the bezos is and I mean just think of all
Speaker 1: these major media publications, who owns them, who's paying for them?
Speaker 1: Incredibly wealthy liberals. They want to see their ideas reflected
Speaker 1: back to them in this and they don't like someone
Speaker 1: coming along who has a megaphone that is as big,
Speaker 1: if not bigger, than theirs and saying these are lies
Speaker 1: that the establishment of this country is not composed of
Speaker 1: the best, the smartest, the most hard working, the most amazing.
Speaker 1: They're not looking out for the little guy. They're not
Speaker 1: all about the rule of law. In fact, there's different
Speaker 1: laws for different people depending on how wealthy and connected
Speaker 1: you are. That's a reality now in this country. Here,
Speaker 1: it's impeachment is a regime counterattack against a man elected
Speaker 1: to bring about change. And while impeachment is certainly constitutional,
Speaker 1: it is an elite procedure, not a democratic one. The
Speaker 1: prestige media has passed the first judgment on whether it's
Speaker 1: warranted in this case. It is they say, democratic house
Speaker 1: will investigate and then inevitably that will move forward with
Speaker 1: the vote. He goes on. The old saying is that
Speaker 1: if you strike it a king, be sure to kill him.
Speaker 1: In this case, the regime is striking not at a king,
Speaker 1: but at the very idea that an elected official can
Speaker 1: challenge the establishment. This risks revealing just how weak the
Speaker 1: country's ruling class really is. If forty percent of the
Speaker 1: country remains with Trump despite the ordeal of impeachment, that
Speaker 1: will show that forty percent is anti regime, and revolutions
Speaker 1: are made with less that forty percent would be a floor,
Speaker 1: not a ceiling. This is the last gasp of a
Speaker 1: ruling order, or perhaps the last lashing out of a
Speaker 1: ruling order, that views Trump as an existential threat to
Speaker 1: all that they hold dear and important. That is why
Speaker 1: the evidence does not matter. What Chiff is saying is
Speaker 1: all just for show. What the Mola report did or
Speaker 1: did not say does not really matter. They have to
Speaker 1: destroy Trump. It's not enough to beat him at the
Speaker 1: ballot box. They must impeach him. They must asterisk him,
Speaker 1: they must blackmark him for all of history. As a
Speaker 1: message to anybody who'd come along down the line, if
Speaker 1: you cross us, it doesn't matter if you win, you
Speaker 1: will eventually lose because we will harness all the power
Speaker 1: that we the establishment have left. We will destroy you.
Speaker 1: That's why we're heading toward impeachment. It's driven not by
Speaker 1: the will of the people, but by the will of
Speaker 1: the elites who despised Trump and feel that he's a
Speaker 1: threat to everything they hold. Dear, Okay, I think I've
Speaker 1: answered most of your questions. What do you think he
Speaker 1: is the happiest country? Finland is a happy Well, if
Speaker 1: you got rid of Pelosi and you got Ridish shift,
Speaker 1: Finland is a happy country. He's a happy leader too.
Speaker 1: There was a funny moment yesterday where apparently Trump I
Speaker 1: saw the video of it, kind of tapped the Finnish
Speaker 1: president on the knee and everyone said that that seemed
Speaker 1: a little uh. It seemed like the Finnish president didn't
Speaker 1: much appreciate that. Uh. Finland does usually get the highest marks.
Speaker 1: And when they do these studies of happiest countries in
Speaker 1: the world, Finland does do does do very well. Um.
Speaker 1: It was just it was a funny funny day yesterday
Speaker 1: at the press because Trump was he was in rare
Speaker 1: form and one second He's saying, all right, give the
Speaker 1: Finnish president a question. Then he goes, oh, no, I
Speaker 1: like that question. He was jumping in. He Finish president
Speaker 1: was kind of like, but that Christian is for me,
Speaker 1: and uh, Trump was like, yeah, it's for me now.
Speaker 1: So you know, Trump is he sometimes is the kid
Speaker 1: in the sandbox in the playground. Who wants all who
Speaker 1: wants all the toys? I think that's true. He doesn't
Speaker 1: always like to share the toys. But it was quite
Speaker 1: a press conference yesterday and the way that he went
Speaker 1: after the Bidens. By the way, um, this is going
Speaker 1: to raise some interesting questions for Democrats. They can talk
Speaker 1: about how what Trump did on the phone call wasn't illegal,
Speaker 1: and they keep saying that it's unethical, so he should
Speaker 1: be impeached. Okay, what the Bidens have done may not
Speaker 1: be illegal, though we haven't really had a good investigation
Speaker 1: of it yet. It definitely is unethical. And are they
Speaker 1: just going to cover up for this like they did
Speaker 1: with Hillary? I think the answer as well. We will
Speaker 1: have to see. But let's dive a little deeper, my friends,
Speaker 1: into the Biden corruption situation. Ask a question, Thank you sirs,
Speaker 1: What did you want about Biden? What you want them
Speaker 1: to look at you on Biden? Look Biden? His son
Speaker 1: our stone called crooked, and you know it. His son
Speaker 1: walks out with millions of dollars. The kid knows nothing,
Speaker 1: You know it? And so do we go ahead? Ask
Speaker 1: a quition. I was one of the best moments yesterday
Speaker 1: at the press conference, and it dealt with the Biden phenomenon,
Speaker 1: which we are being told by the elite media, by
Speaker 1: the Democrat media calling him elite. It's a little they
Speaker 1: really Maybe the smug media would be a better way
Speaker 1: to refer to them, the self satisfied, dominant liberal left media.
Speaker 1: But the point about Biden and corruption is one that sticks.
Speaker 1: The point about Biden corruption makes sense because guess what,
Speaker 1: you don't go to Ukraine, and now I'm saying it.
Speaker 1: I have been saying fifty thousand a month. It went
Speaker 1: as high. I think it varied month a month is
Speaker 1: eighty three thousand dollars a month. So Biden's son Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's getting a lot of money while his dad is
Speaker 1: the point man on foreign polo see for a country
Speaker 1: that desperately needs US aid and the benefit of US assistance.
Speaker 1: So I do think that as we look at this now,
Speaker 1: we have to start asking ourselves when is it a
Speaker 1: little bit too much? When are they asking us? I
Speaker 1: think they already have asked us to swallow what we
Speaker 1: refuse to in terms of this story, it's absurd, and
Speaker 1: that's why Trump calling out the crookedness here. I think
Speaker 1: really matters because they're making the phone call, the whistleblower
Speaker 1: phone call, about what's ethical, about what's right. They're not
Speaker 1: saying that Trump necessarily broke the law. They tried that
Speaker 1: for a couple of days. But the campaign finance thing
Speaker 1: is that's just a non starter if it's a campaign
Speaker 1: finance relation. As I was sanked you from the beginning,
Speaker 1: for the president to ask a foreign counterpart to do
Speaker 1: something that's within the president's power to do because it
Speaker 1: will benefit the president as well as be something that
Speaker 1: he's allowed to ask for. That could be said of
Speaker 1: any policy decision. Oh, well, they got a trade deal.
Speaker 1: So when the president asked, hey, I really need a
Speaker 1: favor here. We need to get this trade deal signed.
Speaker 1: That's helping his campaign, it's just idiocy. It doesn't work,
Speaker 1: it won't hold water. Nope, nobody could really believe this
Speaker 1: stuff just would not would not stand right. So they
Speaker 1: had to abandon the criminal component of this, and then
Speaker 1: they had to look at the ethical side of it. Now. Democrats,
Speaker 1: the same Democrats who told us that Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation, we raised a lot of money for
Speaker 1: a lot of people, you know, we did like all
Speaker 1: the stuff all over the world. Man, it was crazy.
Speaker 1: We're on private jit and flying around stop and climate
Speaker 1: change and empowering women. The Clinton Foundation, we were told
Speaker 1: was all about charity, and then we found out that
Speaker 1: it was about charity except until after Hillary wasn't going
Speaker 1: to be president anymore. And then people were like, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure I'm gonna give money this, which is so
Speaker 1: strange because wouldn't Hillary have more time to run that charity.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't she be able to focus on her charitable endeavors,
Speaker 1: not be distracted by running for office, use all of
Speaker 1: her rolodecks and her connections for good. Yeah, you can
Speaker 1: hear Hillary cackling. That's because that's what she really wants
Speaker 1: to do. Hillary really cares about the little guys, really
Speaker 1: wants to help people. Her whole career has been about
Speaker 1: just helping people, not advancing herself in maniacal fashion. But
Speaker 1: then the Biden situation comes up here and they're telling us, oh, well,
Speaker 1: there's nothing illegal. There's nothing illegal Biden, and there was
Speaker 1: an investigation and the investigation didn't bring charges, so we
Speaker 1: should shut this whole thing down now, or shut the
Speaker 1: whole discussion down, which I say, Ukraine is one of
Speaker 1: the more corrupt places in the world. We're really to
Speaker 1: believe that Ukraine is on the up and up here,
Speaker 1: that this investigation. You do have choken now the prosecutor
Speaker 1: that Biden fired and said, I'm going to cut a
Speaker 1: billion dollars of aid unless you fire that. So that
Speaker 1: is a quid pro quo. That is a straight up
Speaker 1: a quid pro quos are now it is within Biden's
Speaker 1: realm as foreign as a foreign policy envoy of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, to make that kind of quid pro quote.
Speaker 1: But not if it's for the benefit of his son.
Speaker 1: Then you do have a straight up corruption case if
Speaker 1: you can prove that right, if you can prove that
Speaker 1: it was for the sun, but that's going to be
Speaker 1: difficult to prove. You do have a lot of people
Speaker 1: running around saying that Chokin was a bad guy, everybody
Speaker 1: who was a bad guy. But we are being led
Speaker 1: to believe by the Demps here, but the Libs that
Speaker 1: the investigation of Bisma, the natural gas company that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden was on the board of making fifty to eighty
Speaker 1: some out thousand dollars a month, We're being led to
Speaker 1: believe that, oh, well, that's that was a very a
Speaker 1: thorough and most excellent investigation, and there's no need to
Speaker 1: look back at it anymore. The same Democrats who had
Speaker 1: a special counsel for over two years and now are
Speaker 1: calling witnesses and using subpoenas and dragging people who have
Speaker 1: already gone through the Special Council process in front of
Speaker 1: them as if they're going to find out more than
Speaker 1: Muller and all of his anti Trump, which Hunt experts.
Speaker 1: Does anyone think that that's fair minded? Of course not.
Speaker 1: But this, no, this has never been about fair and
Speaker 1: people who think it's fair have just been brainwashed and
Speaker 1: want to believe that, and therefore they allow themselves to
Speaker 1: suspend all critical faculties and skip beyond the obvious situation
Speaker 1: here of this is an effort to destroy the president, right,
Speaker 1: That's what this is. That everything else has to be
Speaker 1: fitted into that basic understanding, that basic narrative, and Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden and Joe Biden have become collateral damage in the
Speaker 1: whistleblowers attempt to use a conversation about about Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: Joe Biden to destroy the president. So they weren't expecting
Speaker 1: that this would be And keep in mind they also
Speaker 1: sometimes make strategic errors I think people say, well, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't do this, they wouldn't be foolish and put
Speaker 1: the Bidens in the spotlight in a way that could
Speaker 1: be problematic for the Democratic frontrunner. No, Democrats make all
Speaker 1: kinds of stupid, buffoonish errors, and I think it's quite
Speaker 1: possible that this is one of them. They figure it, well,
Speaker 1: it'll be more important to get out that there's this whistleblower,
Speaker 1: and they'll start the impeachment proceeding and they'll just ignore
Speaker 1: all the counterfactuals. They'll ignore the lack of any integrity
Speaker 1: about whether what the Bidens did here was acceptable, whether
Speaker 1: this should be Should this guy be the next president
Speaker 1: the United States based on what went on with his son?
Speaker 1: You should say the answers no pretty clearly. And now
Speaker 1: China is going to be a part of this discussion
Speaker 1: as well. It's not just Ukraine. That was part of
Speaker 1: the part of the shift today in where this fight
Speaker 1: is going now for those who don't know. As a
Speaker 1: quick review, Hunter Biden traveled on Air Force two back
Speaker 1: during the Obama administration. He traveled on Air Force and
Speaker 1: introduced Joe Biden, the Vice president at the time, his
Speaker 1: dad to a bunch of Chinese government officials, and it
Speaker 1: was the Chinese government that gave him, Hunter Biden over
Speaker 1: a billion dollars of assets to manage. This was written
Speaker 1: about by Peter Schweitzer in his book Not Invisible Empires.
Speaker 1: Is it invisible? There's something like that, But that is
Speaker 1: what happened here. There was a pay There was a
Speaker 1: huge payout for Hunter Biden while traveling to China on
Speaker 1: dad's jet, which is the taxpayer jet US government jet
Speaker 1: known as Air Force too for the Vice President, and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden, Hunter Biden gets a huge
Speaker 1: sum of money from the Chinese government. We're supposed to
Speaker 1: think that there's there's no connection there. Who's given this
Speaker 1: guy a billion dollars? My friends, who thinks that, you know,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's really got a lock on the next great
Speaker 1: investment idea or that someone who very rapidly washed out
Speaker 1: of being a public affairs officer as a commission naval
Speaker 1: officer that he only got because of his dad in
Speaker 1: the first place. For I can't remember it was crack
Speaker 1: cocaine or cocaine used, but one or the other. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that that guy's the one you're just going to hand
Speaker 1: a billion dollars too. Now we could get into this
Speaker 1: discussion about whether it should be illegal. That's fine even
Speaker 1: if it is entirely even if there's nothing you could
Speaker 1: say that is explicitly illegal about what was going on
Speaker 1: with the Bidens, And I suppose that there someone will
Speaker 1: take that position about the Clinton Foundation. It's just filthy dirty.
Speaker 1: We know that this is selling access. We know that
Speaker 1: this is leveraging one's familial position and using the full
Speaker 1: power and backing of the United States government as a
Speaker 1: backdrop for private business transactions that would not have happened
Speaker 1: without this. No, there's no question about that would not
Speaker 1: have happened unless his dad was the vice president. So
Speaker 1: now what do the Democrats do. Well, they've got a
Speaker 1: choice to make, and we got the Democrat debate coming up.
Speaker 1: See my favorite Democrat, Tulsi Gabbert is in fact going
Speaker 1: to be on the stage. So there we go. She's
Speaker 1: made it. We'll talk more about the Democrats at a
Speaker 1: few moments. But now that we're looking at what the
Speaker 1: future is going to be for that primary, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: can either stay and the Joe Biden mantra or the
Speaker 1: anti Joe Biden narrative. Is going to be at least
Speaker 1: in part that Hillary had her emails and Joe has
Speaker 1: his son's nepotism and all this other stuff. Right, So
Speaker 1: there's that, and then on the other side you could
Speaker 1: have Joe Biden stepped down. But then that's in a
Speaker 1: sense and admission and admission that there was in fact
Speaker 1: something going on here, that this was bad, And so
Speaker 1: that will then leave quite a bad taste in the
Speaker 1: mouths of voters who have been told by the media
Speaker 1: all along, Oh, there's nothing to see here, there's no problem,
Speaker 1: there's nothing, there's no worry. Well, I tend to I
Speaker 1: tend to disagree, my friends. I think there's a lot
Speaker 1: to see here. I think there's a lot for the
Speaker 1: Democrats to be concerned about. We shall see if they
Speaker 1: decide that Biden is too much of a liability. So far,
Speaker 1: the Poles have remained steady. They really believe that he
Speaker 1: is their best hope, which is why you've had just
Speaker 1: the stupefying expression on the faces of so many of
Speaker 1: these Democrats out there in the media in particular, who
Speaker 1: are saying, oh, fifty eighty thousand a month, one hundred
Speaker 1: and nah, no big deal, was it illegal? Do you
Speaker 1: do anything wrong? Why was there no charges brought? No
Speaker 1: big deal, Just like the said of a Hillary's emails,
Speaker 1: no big deal. The same people that tell us that,
Speaker 1: you know, if Trump says that he's the greatest president ever,
Speaker 1: he's a liar and basically worse than Hitler, because of
Speaker 1: course he's not the greatest president ever. Trump's arrangement syndrome
Speaker 1: is real. Just a question of how bad the diagnosis
Speaker 1: is for anyone member of the Democratic Party, anyone news outlet, individual.
Speaker 1: Trump derangement syndrome unfortunately, has spread far and wide across
Speaker 1: the land. My friends, we have more to talk about.
Speaker 1: With Secretary of State Pompeo fighting back against the bullying
Speaker 1: of his state department. I'm get into that where I
Speaker 1: think all of this is going with the Democrat impeachment effort.
Speaker 1: What I see happening there, Democrats want to take your guns.
Speaker 1: That's not a surprised. We will have some time for that,
Speaker 1: and then a towards the end of the show will
Speaker 1: get into a more inspiring moment. In a very difficult circumstance,
Speaker 1: someone showed us all that forgiveness and grace can exist
Speaker 1: even in the most in the most trying of situations.
Speaker 1: So we have that and we have oh so much
Speaker 1: more team coming up here on the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I don't care how much money you spend, mister President,
Speaker 1: or how dirty do you attacks get. Trump knows there
Speaker 1: are no truth in the charges again me, none zero.
Speaker 1: Every independent news organization that has reviewed the charges at
Speaker 1: length has found it to be a flat out lie
Speaker 1: his assertions, every single one. On Now, let me make
Speaker 1: something clear to mister Trump and his hatchetman and the
Speaker 1: special interest funding his attacks against me. I'm not going anywhere.
Speaker 1: You are not going to destroy me, and you're not
Speaker 1: going to destroy my family. Well, I guess Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: pretty definitive right now on how he's not going to
Speaker 1: get out of this thing. He's not going to change
Speaker 1: his mind and decide that there's another Democrat who should
Speaker 1: be at the top of the field and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: can go spend his time on the vineyard and fly
Speaker 1: fishing and hanging out. He's got other plans, folks. He
Speaker 1: wants to stick it out. At least that's what he
Speaker 1: says right now. I am not sure that that is
Speaker 1: going to hold. But the discrediting of the investigation is
Speaker 1: such an interesting thing to see play out because we've
Speaker 1: known it would be coming for quite a while. It's
Speaker 1: been very, very obvious to anyone who's been paying attention
Speaker 1: that they can't allow the Attorney general, the current Attorney
Speaker 1: General Durham, the US attorney in Connecticut, to finish their
Speaker 1: investigation and present findings about Russia collusion origins, fives abuse,
Speaker 1: and essentially the international dirty tricks scheme that was used
Speaker 1: to try to destroy the Trump to first stop Trump
Speaker 1: from winning the election and then destroy the Trump presidency
Speaker 1: right after. If we find out what really happened there,
Speaker 1: that could be devastating to Democrats and their worst fear
Speaker 1: of Trump getting handily reelected in twenty twenty in part
Speaker 1: because of the truth of those revelations coming out. That
Speaker 1: could very well be where this all goes. Yeah, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden says that he's he's going to stay in it.
Speaker 1: He says that he is going to fight this thing
Speaker 1: all the way to the very end. By the way,
Speaker 1: and we mentioned before how Shift lies. You know who
Speaker 1: else is a very dishonest character in all this. Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: All Right, Nancy Pelosi is someone that she's remarkable in
Speaker 1: what she's been able to do in politics for someone
Speaker 1: that you know, you look, you hear, you think, why
Speaker 1: how has she been really the most powerful Democrat, female
Speaker 1: Democrat in the Democratic Party in my lifetime. Well, one
Speaker 1: thing is that she never breaks ranks. There's no stumbling
Speaker 1: over integrity, there's no issue with well, that's a lie,
Speaker 1: and my party's peddling a lie. So I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: against it. And here's a perfect example that. Here's Pelosi
Speaker 1: talking about Remember when Shift did the whole Hey, I'm
Speaker 1: a mafia ball, I'm ordering the assassination of a million people.
Speaker 1: I'm making stuff up as I'm talking about things, but
Speaker 1: I'm pretending that this is what Trump said, Right, remember
Speaker 1: that thing when he just was speaking crazy talk. Pelosi
Speaker 1: is saying that that was actually what the President was saying.
Speaker 1: He played twenty five. I know you support the chairman, Shift,
Speaker 1: but was it right for him to have that dramatic
Speaker 1: interpretation of the President's transferred the phone call at the
Speaker 1: hearing last week. I want the American people to know,
Speaker 1: but that phone call was about I want them to
Speaker 1: hear it. So, yeah, it's Sarah, it's sad, but it's
Speaker 1: using the president's own words. So well, those weren't the
Speaker 1: president's words. Who's an interpretation of the president's works saying
Speaker 1: he made this up? He didn't make it up, Nancy Pelosi. There,
Speaker 1: folks sitting with George Stephanopolis, who is doing the bare
Speaker 1: minimum pushback thereof Well, I mean that's not entirely true,
Speaker 1: because it's not true use the president's own words. No,
Speaker 1: he didn't. He did not use the press it in
Speaker 1: own words. That is not what happened there. Okay, So
Speaker 1: why is Nancy Pelosi then able to get away with
Speaker 1: saying that it is? Why aren't people running around saying
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is a liar? See that term to label
Speaker 1: somebody in politics a liar, it's very very powerful. It's
Speaker 1: very effective for one side of the aisle. The other
Speaker 1: side somehow always doesn't get the same doesn't get the
Speaker 1: same benefit. Pelosi was lying there, She was clearly lying.
Speaker 1: And that's because the underlying substance of the charge against
Speaker 1: Trump here is weak. The substance is weak. And because
Speaker 1: they're released the transcript, and because they understood what this
Speaker 1: effort was all about early on and handled it better
Speaker 1: than I think the Trump administration would have in the past,
Speaker 1: the process argument also very quickly fall apart. So now
Speaker 1: what do you have, Well, just the very straightforward proposition
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are going to impeach this president. Because
Speaker 1: they're going toapeach this president, nothing else really matters, nothing
Speaker 1: is going to be to get in the way of it.
Speaker 1: And that is where we are. That is how this
Speaker 1: is going to shake out. So we shall see. We
Speaker 1: shall see whether or not that has an enormous backfire,
Speaker 1: which I really hope that it does. I think it's
Speaker 1: quite possible that it will. But I'm not somebody who
Speaker 1: thinks that this inquiry is, Oh, they're dipping a toe
Speaker 1: in the pool and they're not sure if they're gonna go,
Speaker 1: they're gonna have to go in. Imagine the fury and
Speaker 1: the just the noise, I mean the literal noise from
Speaker 1: all the protesters and the loons, and the Capitol hill'll
Speaker 1: be turned into an insade asylum by all the Democrat
Speaker 1: donors running around with crazy costumes on some of them
Speaker 1: profane costumes at that, and saying that Nancy Pelosi and
Speaker 1: the rest of the Democrats have sold out on this,
Speaker 1: so they're gonna have to impeach the president. They're gonna
Speaker 1: have to impeach him. This is and this is just
Speaker 1: gonna hurt the country. It's gonna divide us even more.
Speaker 1: It is nothing but spite. Do you understand a motive?
Speaker 1: I don't, and I'm supposedly going to be interviewed by
Speaker 1: mister dorm as part of this non investigation. I remember
Speaker 1: William Barr, you know, when he was testifying in front
Speaker 1: of Congress, he said he didn't understand the predication of
Speaker 1: the countertelligence investigation that was launched into Russia's interference in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. I don't understand the predication of this
Speaker 1: worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt, either real or imagined,
Speaker 1: that would discredit that investigation in twenty sixteen into Russian interference.
Speaker 1: You know, on one hand, the aboministration is crucified for
Speaker 1: not doing enough, and now they're looking for what we
Speaker 1: might have done in order to try to understand better
Speaker 1: and to prevent the Russian interference. And I do agree.
Speaker 1: It's not just that Trump doesn't care about Russian interference.
Speaker 1: I think he is hoping that he's going to get
Speaker 1: it because he knows that Russia interfered on his behalf,
Speaker 1: and I think as he sees his political fortunes dwindling,
Speaker 1: I think he really is hoping that his pal Vladimir
Speaker 1: is going to come through once again and help him
Speaker 1: get elected in twenty twenty if he's going to be
Speaker 1: in office. By the former CI director John Brennan as
Speaker 1: single handedly trash the brand of the organization that I
Speaker 1: once worked for and actually have very many fond memories of.
Speaker 1: Brennan is just trashing the CIA. He doesn't view it
Speaker 1: that way. Of course. He thinks he's being some kind
Speaker 1: of patriot, including when he runs around and says that
Speaker 1: Trump is a trader or tantamount to trees in he
Speaker 1: said some of them more insane things of anyone. I mean,
Speaker 1: he is a true hashtag resistance Trump hater. The fact
Speaker 1: that he was CI director under Obama. Should remember what
Speaker 1: I was talking about in the beginning of the show
Speaker 1: with the elites and how they're not as impressive as
Speaker 1: they want us to think they are, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them can wield power and have consolidated power under
Speaker 1: the premise that they know what they're doing and we
Speaker 1: can trust them. And the more you learn about them,
Speaker 1: the more you find out Nope. A lot of them
Speaker 1: are just playing the game, sucking up to the elite,
Speaker 1: sucking up the establishment as they need to in order
Speaker 1: to get into the positions of authority that allow them
Speaker 1: to wield that power over all the rest of us
Speaker 1: and enriched themselves in the process. Why is Brennan so
Speaker 1: concerned though, about the investigation? When did investigating become bad?
Speaker 1: We've been told for three years now, Oh, why are
Speaker 1: you trying to stop the truth from getting out about Trump?
Speaker 1: He would say, Okay, you're right, fine, When did investigating
Speaker 1: become a problem? I'm just curious. I would like to
Speaker 1: know at what point in this process, at what phase
Speaker 1: in all of this more information, more facts about Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: Russia interference in twenty sixteen, What happened with the CrowdStrike?
Speaker 1: Why didn't the FBI do its own investigation of the
Speaker 1: server that the DNC claimed was hacked and that's where
Speaker 1: the emails came from? That showed what we already knew,
Speaker 1: which is that the DNC was completely in the tank
Speaker 1: for Hillary at the expense of Bernie Sanders. That's really
Speaker 1: all it showed us. Why is that such a problem? Wow,
Speaker 1: because they want their guy. You see the Democrats they love,
Speaker 1: They want their person in charge of this and putting
Speaker 1: someone else in that role that they cannot trust, to
Speaker 1: approach every aspect of the investigation with an anti Trump
Speaker 1: lens really more of an anti Trump ferocity, and to
Speaker 1: make decisions within the discretion of the investigator that will
Speaker 1: always favor one side. Is That's part of the problem here, folks,
Speaker 1: is that we see that discretion from the powerful is
Speaker 1: abused in ways that always goes one way, and it
Speaker 1: goes toward the establishment, toward the elites, the Democrat left.
Speaker 1: It is used against conservatives in the right in ways
Speaker 1: that you just look at if I'm missing something, show
Speaker 1: me the conservative who has broken all kinds of laws
Speaker 1: and gotten away with it all. Oh, they would say,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, really, what is the I sit here and
Speaker 1: I ask what is the law that he has actually broken?
Speaker 1: And they'll throw out a bunch of things at me,
Speaker 1: to which I would say, he has not broken any
Speaker 1: of those laws. He just has it the emolument's clause.
Speaker 1: Someone from the Japanese embassy had a cheeseburger a Trump hotel. Oh, no,
Speaker 1: Trump is selling us out to the Japanese embassy. That
Speaker 1: man didn't just get a cheeseburger. He got bacon on
Speaker 1: a Demit that's three dollars extra. And I used to
Speaker 1: go to the Trump Hotel a fair amount actually, so
Speaker 1: I guess I've also bought Trump's foreign policy. You know
Speaker 1: the best thing there is Producer Mark. It was amazing.
Speaker 1: They had these bacon strips. Their fame. Everyoneys takes photos
Speaker 1: of them. It's like a touristy thing to do. You
Speaker 1: go to the Trump Hotel in DC. They have these
Speaker 1: bacon strips and then they take a blowtorch out and
Speaker 1: they blowtorch the bacon. It's already cooked a bit, but
Speaker 1: they sear it right in front of you, and it's
Speaker 1: and it's a maple glaze on it. That sounds delicious. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, if you go down there, man, it's
Speaker 1: worth the super thick. Yeah. You could. You could slap
Speaker 1: somebody and knock them out with those bacons. Yeah, I guess.
Speaker 1: I guess bacon is plurals. So I didn't mean bacons.
Speaker 1: Look at me. I got so excited I forgot the English.
Speaker 1: How many bacons do you want? Hey, how many bacons
Speaker 1: do you want? I'm gonna I'm gonna grill it. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna flame flame thrower it. It looks like a little flamethrower.
Speaker 1: But I'm sure they've had some interesting accidents in the
Speaker 1: past there, So yeah, I think that I own Trump's
Speaker 1: foreign policy though, because I have eaten at the Trump hotel.
Speaker 1: That's good. That's good to know, a good thing to do.
Speaker 1: And John Brennan doesn't want us to find out more
Speaker 1: about what happened in twenty sixteen because here's here's a prediction.
Speaker 1: John Brennan's not going to look good in the investigation
Speaker 1: of Russia collusion origins. He's not going to look good
Speaker 1: in that. And here's another prediction. The more we find
Speaker 1: out to bring it to the current, the current moment
Speaker 1: with a shift and all the rest of it, the
Speaker 1: more we find out about both the whistleblower and the
Speaker 1: behind the scenes of getting this complaint through and weaponizing
Speaker 1: against Trump, it will be so clear that this is
Speaker 1: it's the Blasi Ford playbook. Go to partisan democrats and
Speaker 1: enlist their assistance, enlist their help in finding a way
Speaker 1: to you know, shut this thing down and or rather
Speaker 1: attack somebody in an effort to shut down the presidency.
Speaker 1: And that's it. That's all you really have to do.
Speaker 1: You have to worry much about the facts or anything else.
Speaker 1: So Brennan's a guy that should He's got concerns, I
Speaker 1: can tell you that much, and so does McCabe, who's
Speaker 1: been referred for a prosecution based on the Inspector General
Speaker 1: of the DOJ report. So our side gets to investigate
Speaker 1: two folks. This is what this is what they've never understood,
Speaker 1: they will never accept. Our side gets to investigate as well.
Speaker 1: For example, if it's acceptable to start an investigation based
Speaker 1: on what George Papadopolis says to a dude at a bar,
Speaker 1: based on what he heard from another dude somewhere else,
Speaker 1: and the FBI spins up a full field investigation based
Speaker 1: on that. I think Hunter Biden getting fifty to eighty
Speaker 1: grand a month while his dad's running forign policy in
Speaker 1: a country for the Obama administration, when Hunter Biden is
Speaker 1: clearly unqualified for those fauns that has no idee is
Speaker 1: talking about. I think that this is all, yeah, a
Speaker 1: conversation that we get to have about the investigation, about
Speaker 1: how we should go forward and look more into this.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, I've got a fantastic moment here. By the way,
Speaker 1: from the the Trump twitter yesterday. So we can't play it.
Speaker 1: We can't play the Trump tweet for you because there
Speaker 1: involves copyrighted music. Wait do we How are you saying
Speaker 1: we can play it? No? No, we cannot. Yeah we can't.
Speaker 1: We can play like three seconds. No, No, that's all right,
Speaker 1: I can just do it. I was gonna say, look
Speaker 1: at this photograph. Yeah, we're good with that. I gotta
Speaker 1: scratch your voice. I'm from Canada. I don't think Nickelback
Speaker 1: would want to claim copyright on Yeah, look at this photograph.
Speaker 1: I'm Nickelback, I'm you know, yeah, it's not really I'm
Speaker 1: not really sounding that much like them, but trying. Look,
Speaker 1: you know, Nickelback is the poor man's Creed. So I
Speaker 1: think that that's you know, yeah, I agree. I think
Speaker 1: that's pretty true. Yeah. So people who say they, hey,
Speaker 1: Creed are also just lying. They're just lying. Creed the
Speaker 1: movie is good, by the way, But Creed the band
Speaker 1: had some great stuff back in the day. They were
Speaker 1: a nineties, a nineties phenomenon. So, and I think Scott
Speaker 1: stapp is a concern. Am I right in thinking that?
Speaker 1: So he gets extra points? Extra points? I don't know
Speaker 1: people's political affiliations, but come on, we we've done over this.
Speaker 1: I did see stay Stacy Dash got arrested earlier this week.
Speaker 1: That made me sad. I like, she'll always be Dion
Speaker 1: from Clueless for me. So do you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about? No? Okay, Well here's what happened for those
Speaker 1: who are curious. Yesterday you had the President of the
Speaker 1: United States to his sixty five million that's right, sixty
Speaker 1: five million Twitter followers. He tweeted out and it was amazing.
Speaker 1: And if you haven't seen it, I hope that someone's
Speaker 1: grabbed because now they've pulled on the music. A photo
Speaker 1: of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, who they've now had
Speaker 1: to look back at. The Oh we've never talked about
Speaker 1: is Hunter Biden and Joe Biden with a Barisma executive
Speaker 1: playing golf. So that's that seems noteworthy, doesn't it. Oh
Speaker 1: so you just played golf with the guy. But like
Speaker 1: you guys, see this focus is where this? Oh where's
Speaker 1: the smoking gun? Evans? Oh? Please? They had conversations about this,
Speaker 1: of course they did, and they were smart enough not
Speaker 1: to put in an email. Hey give my son a
Speaker 1: lot of money and I'll help you guys out when
Speaker 1: you need it at Barismo, Like they're not that stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean, even Joe Biden's not that dumb. But this
Speaker 1: photograph comes out after Joe Biden has said that there's nothing,
Speaker 1: there's nothing to be concerned about, there's no issue here
Speaker 1: with corruption whatever, and so Trump shares the photograph and someone,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know who it was created a
Speaker 1: kind of mashup of the Nickelback song look at this photograph,
Speaker 1: I grabber. I'm from Canada and singing a song you
Speaker 1: know what is. I don't know the rest of it.
Speaker 1: It's only it's the only thing that made me. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'll stop. I know you guys people right now are
Speaker 1: they're deleting the podcast And I could hear the clicks,
Speaker 1: but it was. It was Nickelback mashed up with a
Speaker 1: photograph of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and the and the
Speaker 1: natural gas executive from Ukraine with the song look at
Speaker 1: this photograph, and the President of these United States tweeted
Speaker 1: it out. Pretty pretty amazing, I gotta tell you, pretty amazing. Um,
Speaker 1: it was really funny. Now Nickelback decided to put out
Speaker 1: a copyright infringement claim on this because Nickelback has no
Speaker 1: sense of humor, and so now the good thing is
Speaker 1: that the entirety of America can go back to hating Nickelback.
Speaker 1: This is a unifying moment for US producer Mark. Everyone
Speaker 1: can be like Nickelback's the worst. Although I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you something right now. You know it's worse than Nickelback.
Speaker 1: What Matchbox twenty? That's right, I'm gonna say it. Are
Speaker 1: you just a little unwell? You like Matchbox twenty? No,
Speaker 1: that's just the one reference of a Matchbox twenty song
Speaker 1: I can make. Oh, I didn't even know that was
Speaker 1: a Matchback twenty song. I didn't that there're one song
Speaker 1: on Well maybe I don't know. They're a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of them. I don't know if I've ever been good enough.
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit rusted, you know whole thing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I swear people are I'm you know what's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: The inbox is gonna be full of people saying buck,
Speaker 1: do not don't ever sing on the podcast. I look, guys,
Speaker 1: I didn't want to. My hand was forced here. I
Speaker 1: don't think it won. My hand was forced because I
Speaker 1: wanted to play the Nickelback, but they already pulled the
Speaker 1: copyright infringement and this little show is not going to
Speaker 1: be able to handle the Nickelback legal team. They're gonna
Speaker 1: come to a bunch of mean Canadian lawyers be like,
Speaker 1: don't play our song a they might sue for you
Speaker 1: singing it really yeah, just because it's so terrible. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I was gonna say it's parody, my man, that's protected
Speaker 1: under parody. That's like, uh, weird al Yankevich level stuff
Speaker 1: right there. It might be the listeners that sue. We're
Speaker 1: having to hear it. That's probably true. Hopefully they won't
Speaker 1: start listening to some other inferior conservative podcast. A parental
Speaker 1: advisory for you. In this block, I'm going to be
Speaker 1: quoting from things that the President of the United States
Speaker 1: has tweeted, So if you have kids in the room,
Speaker 1: you might want to mute the television because he used
Speaker 1: some profanity today. The combative President Trump increasingly combative, lashing
Speaker 1: out claiming he always cooperates, which is not true, as
Speaker 1: House Democrats prepared a subpoena the White House for the
Speaker 1: Ukraine scandal. The president also attacking the impeachment inquiry as
Speaker 1: a hoax, a coup, and even saying that Democrats are
Speaker 1: focusing on quote Jake Tupper, how dare you? Oh no,
Speaker 1: not Jack Tupper, You're so proper Like I said, ah,
Speaker 1: if you don't want my hairs, you know, if you
Speaker 1: have kids in the room, I want to have them
Speaker 1: leave the room. Because the president and as him, this
Speaker 1: is the same network I might add that was running
Speaker 1: around talking about s space whole country. You gotta say
Speaker 1: it that way because otherwise it comes across the wrong
Speaker 1: way on some some other friends of mine of the
Speaker 1: business have gotten into a little bit of an you
Speaker 1: with this because you're trying to refer to the you know,
Speaker 1: we'd say blank hole. How about that that's better because
Speaker 1: if you say the S and then the other thing,
Speaker 1: it sounds like you're saying the thing you're not trying
Speaker 1: to say. See so I'm a savvy cat. So I'm
Speaker 1: going to stay away from that. And yeah, that didn't
Speaker 1: that wasn't supposed to rhyme. The media is all like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, look what Trump has done, Look what
Speaker 1: he's up to with this, talking about this in a
Speaker 1: way that normal people talk about things. One of my
Speaker 1: favorite things about this president, and there are many of them.
Speaker 1: One of my favorite things in the fact this guy
Speaker 1: just talks like a normal human being. I really hope
Speaker 1: if there are, if there are some things that we
Speaker 1: can continue post Trump, it would be that politicians and
Speaker 1: all get to be like, Wow, I just I woke
Speaker 1: up and I was sleepy. I got a bed of
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and that I went for a walk thinking
Speaker 1: about the foul dog Fathers, and that I figured I
Speaker 1: would stop and read a little Adam Smiths on the
Speaker 1: wealth of Nations and the way that we could perhaps
Speaker 1: get free trade going, get a more robust fashion to
Speaker 1: elevate me and income. And you know, how about you
Speaker 1: speak like a normal person. Wouldn't that be better? I
Speaker 1: like guys that actually tell and gals. I just like
Speaker 1: people who communicate the way human beings communicate, without all
Speaker 1: the pretense, without all the nonsense. I certainly try to
Speaker 1: do a fair bit of that here. But I just
Speaker 1: thought it's funny the CNN, which which has had people
Speaker 1: on its air cursing up a storm, and they love
Speaker 1: the second, oh man, the second the president does anything
Speaker 1: that's a little salty, says anything a little salty then,
Speaker 1: which you hear is one journo after another just ripping
Speaker 1: into it with you know, ooh the president. So the
Speaker 1: President said this. So I'm gonna be edgy now and
Speaker 1: repeat the curse word that the President said. Oh no,
Speaker 1: oh no, yeah, it's not really not really that scary.
Speaker 1: I wish people would just act like they've they've been
Speaker 1: there before, they've seen this before. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: looks like the effort to change the law in California
Speaker 1: didn't work out. Oh no, But I thought that they
Speaker 1: respected the rule of law so much, these libs. I
Speaker 1: thought they cared so much about our sacred institutions that
Speaker 1: Trump is a threat to our democracy, they say, as
Speaker 1: they try to prevent the democratic process of electing our leader,
Speaker 1: next leader for this republic. This is what Trump said
Speaker 1: about that. Gavin Newsom attempts to mess with potus please. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: as you know, I was sued by the governor, Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: He's another beauty. I was sued by him. He said,
Speaker 1: do nothing. Sued by him so that I can't get
Speaker 1: on the ballot in the state of California. It was
Speaker 1: a massive story. It was the biggest story, mister President.
Speaker 1: It was headlines all over the place. Trump gets sued
Speaker 1: by do nothing governor and California. It was big. Here's
Speaker 1: what happened yesterday. I won the case very convincingly. A
Speaker 1: very tough, smart, highly respected judge, not a Trump person
Speaker 1: at all, not appointed by Trump, appointed by somebody that
Speaker 1: you would call the opposition, came out with a scathing
Speaker 1: and tough opinion. I won the case. I didn't see
Speaker 1: one story that I won that case, as our California
Speaker 1: tried to change the law and violate the constitution by
Speaker 1: saying you can't be on the ballot in California for
Speaker 1: president unless you share your tax returns. These people change
Speaker 1: laws statewide just to try and stick a thumb in
Speaker 1: Trump's eye. And they're the ones who lecture us about
Speaker 1: respecting our sacred institutions, the rule of law. They have
Speaker 1: no shame. But then again, Shifty Shift will go on
Speaker 1: TV and say that this whole impeachment's nonpartisan, So they
Speaker 1: are beyond parody and beyond shame at the same time.
Speaker 1: It's quite a thing. I did not mean to skip
Speaker 1: this story from I think it was yesterday, So I'm
Speaker 1: coming back to it now because it does illustrate something.
Speaker 1: It does tell us something but not really about the president.
Speaker 1: I think it tells us more about the media. The
Speaker 1: story was that the New York Times, which I think
Speaker 1: has a book coming out on this, well, I mean
Speaker 1: the anti Trump books in twenty twenty are just it's
Speaker 1: gonna be, you know, vote against Trump or We're all
Speaker 1: gonna die. I mean that's the title of pretty much
Speaker 1: every book you know, vote against Trump or you like Hitler.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just pretty One of the issues you
Speaker 1: come up against with these resistance folks is that it's
Speaker 1: an arms race of crazy. So the more one of
Speaker 1: them will say Trump is the worst president the history
Speaker 1: of presidents, and he's horrible and he's terrible, and what
Speaker 1: are we going to do about it, the more others
Speaker 1: have to up the annie and say, oh no, I
Speaker 1: think Trump is Trump has killed more people than Gangha
Speaker 1: has come, which, for those of you that have ever
Speaker 1: listened to a hardcore history no or read any books
Speaker 1: about Mongol history, ganghas kind called a lot of people.
Speaker 1: So I think that would be an exaggeration. But liberals
Speaker 1: don't seem to think it's an exaggeration because they say
Speaker 1: crazy things all the time. Although they haven't said I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to pull an Adam shift. They have not
Speaker 1: said that he has killed Hutland Ganghis Khan, although there
Speaker 1: are people that what was it? Earlier in the week
Speaker 1: they said he was complicit? Who wasn't in the Bill
Speaker 1: mar Show, wasn't it? Someone said that he was an
Speaker 1: accessory to murder by helping Russia or something. Just crazy talk.
Speaker 1: But the crazy talk continued because you have Donald Trump
Speaker 1: issuing or issuing a denial of this New York Times report.
Speaker 1: Here's what the report is, my friends, they think they say.
Speaker 1: They claim that Donald Trump wanted to have a serious
Speaker 1: discussion about building a moat like the old medieval castle moat,
Speaker 1: you know, around the around the citadel or the castle
Speaker 1: or the whatever. And the moat was to be filled
Speaker 1: with alligators and snakes, and that there might be spikes
Speaker 1: put on top of the fence that would impale people.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, maybe Trump also asked could
Speaker 1: illegal aliens who are crossing the border, could they be
Speaker 1: shot in the legs non lethally to stop them. I
Speaker 1: have thoughts on this. Okay, Trump has already come out
Speaker 1: and he has said fake news, just like the snakes
Speaker 1: and gaiters in the moat the media's deranged. They've lost
Speaker 1: their minds, so he's saying, and that was in specifically
Speaker 1: to Trump asked about shooting migrants crossing the border in
Speaker 1: the legs. ABC News, they say here, confirming New York
Speaker 1: Times reporting. My friends, there are only two possibilities here. Really,
Speaker 1: there are only two ways that this is even a
Speaker 1: story that we should discuss in any context whatsoever. One
Speaker 1: of them is that this is a rumor that media
Speaker 1: has seized on because it makes the President seem nuts,
Speaker 1: and they want to make him seem nuts, and that's
Speaker 1: the most important thing to them. And even if the
Speaker 1: sourcing is flimsy and it is not oh there's that word,
Speaker 1: it's not credible per se, they still want to put
Speaker 1: it out there because some people will believe it, just
Speaker 1: like some people still believe the Kavanaugh was guilty, even
Speaker 1: though all the evidence is that he's innocent. In that sense,
Speaker 1: the Libs manage what they wanted there. Kavanaugh comes across
Speaker 1: as the asterisk Supreme Court justice because liberals made these
Speaker 1: claims they could not substantiate and they could not make
Speaker 1: stick to him. But there people still believe it. They
Speaker 1: still believe this stuff, all right, so that's one part
Speaker 1: of it. The other possibility here, and I'm not going
Speaker 1: to say that I think this is I think this
Speaker 1: is unlikely, but I can see it. So I think
Speaker 1: that this is probably just total nonsense. But there's another
Speaker 1: component of it, maybe, and that is that Trump is
Speaker 1: a very He's very freewheeling with the way he speaks
Speaker 1: about things. And he said, I have interviewed the President,
Speaker 1: I've talked to him on and off the record. You
Speaker 1: get this president off the record, and he will say
Speaker 1: things that are edgy, are salty, and he does it
Speaker 1: in some ways I think just because he likes to
Speaker 1: let loose, but also because that's just the way that
Speaker 1: he communicates. That's the way that he likes to engage
Speaker 1: with certain people. He likes get a rise out of them.
Speaker 1: He likes to be ended. Me. He's the most most
Speaker 1: entertaining governor official I've ever interviewed by far. Is Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: no question, not even close. I mean, Mike Pence a
Speaker 1: great guy, but you know, Mike Pence, you're interviewing a
Speaker 1: vice president that you would think is the vice president
Speaker 1: in a movie or something. He's just very vice presidential.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, you got a whole other it's a whole
Speaker 1: other thing when you're interviewed Donald Trump. So is it
Speaker 1: possible that he made some passing joke to and now
Speaker 1: I know people say, oh, it's not funny, and he's
Speaker 1: the commander chief and he shouldn't, But alligators in a moat,
Speaker 1: I mean maybe I could see And then just the
Speaker 1: same way we've seen with the whistleblower, through the media
Speaker 1: apparatus of anti Trump hyperventilation that turned into Trump is
Speaker 1: going out trying to, you know, eliminate trying to trying
Speaker 1: to take out illegal immigrants with snakes and alligators. I mean,
Speaker 1: no one thinks that snakes and alligators would really be effective, right,
Speaker 1: that that's a thing that you would want to do.
Speaker 1: I mean, even if Trump was this horrible person that
Speaker 1: they clearly must believe he is, that's not even a
Speaker 1: that's like a cartoon villain, bad idea, and it's just
Speaker 1: not an idea he was ever serious about. If he
Speaker 1: said anything about this, it would have been it would
Speaker 1: have been in jest. And you can determine for yourself
Speaker 1: whether you think that the any kind of joke like
Speaker 1: that's appropriate or not. But there's just no way there's
Speaker 1: just no way that the President the United States was saying, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've got an idea, let's put a Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what Napolitano. Come on, man, I'm just seeing this on
Speaker 1: my screen. Trump behavior is criminal and impeachable. Oh, this
Speaker 1: is frustrating. Look, Judge, I don't know the judge very well.
Speaker 1: I know him a little bit. I've met him a
Speaker 1: few times, and he's always and everyone always says this
Speaker 1: about him. He's always a gentleman to me. So you know,
Speaker 1: I have nothing personally against Judge of Politano. He's always
Speaker 1: been a perfect gentleman to me. And that's not true
Speaker 1: of everybody in the business, including even on the right.
Speaker 1: And there's some people on the right who are jerks.
Speaker 1: But man, is he wrong here. He's just wrong. And
Speaker 1: I think that a lot of this is I do
Speaker 1: think a lot of this is personal. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's so personal for some people who hate the president
Speaker 1: that they can't even separate themselves from that animosity, and
Speaker 1: they're not even really able to be aware of what's
Speaker 1: driving their decision making. You know, what's driving the react
Speaker 1: ladies of their perception of Trump. I saw, for example,
Speaker 1: you know, George Conway George Conway, Kelley and Conway's husband.
Speaker 1: And I don't like this. I don't like that the
Speaker 1: media latches onto a really a public dispute between a
Speaker 1: husband and a wife over the president, and they like
Speaker 1: this drama. They stoke this trauma, meaning the media. So
Speaker 1: Conway has written an art I've written an editorial that
Speaker 1: says Trump is unfit for office. Oh, big surprise. Jake
Speaker 1: Tapper shared it from his Twitter account because you know,
Speaker 1: he's an objective journalist, so you can share a lot
Speaker 1: of things that say the president is not objective. But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that you think that I'm sorry the
Speaker 1: president is not fit for office. But that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you're not objective. Oh no, of course not, of course not.
Speaker 1: But the judge for me, judge of politan analysis, he
Speaker 1: he is personally agitated with Trump and that is driving
Speaker 1: a lot of his legal analysis. And I just find
Speaker 1: that really troubling. I really do it. It's i should
Speaker 1: say disappointing more than troubling. It is not criminal. His
Speaker 1: behavior is not criminal. I've not heard a single valid,
Speaker 1: serious argument about the whistleblower phone call being riding the
Speaker 1: level of criminal activity. You know, it is criminal. In
Speaker 1: my mind, seizing people's private property, especially when it's constitutionally
Speaker 1: protected property like guns. Democrats were threatening to do that
Speaker 1: the ninety four so weapons Man, it didn't apply to
Speaker 1: weapons that were purchased before nineteen ninety four. What would
Speaker 1: you do about the millions of specifically assault weapons that
Speaker 1: are already in circulation. What do you do about those? Well,
Speaker 1: there are approximately five million, two point craig. We have
Speaker 1: to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory
Speaker 1: buyback program. It's got to be smart. We got to
Speaker 1: do it the right way. But there are five million,
Speaker 1: at least some estimate as many as ten million, and
Speaker 1: we're going to have to have smart public policy that's
Speaker 1: about taking us off the streets, but doing it in
Speaker 1: the right way. Mandatory buy back such an Orwellian term.
Speaker 1: Democrats have all the ones who are trying to get
Speaker 1: a little bit of an edge on the competition, at
Speaker 1: least in the primary. They are they are leveraging the
Speaker 1: left's animosity towards the Second Amendment as best they can
Speaker 1: and saying that they're going to have a buyback of
Speaker 1: ten million guns. It's just it's just insane. The mandatory buyback.
Speaker 1: What happens when people say, no, are you really going
Speaker 1: to send law enforcement into people's homes? You're really going
Speaker 1: to say, hey, we have reason to believe that you
Speaker 1: bought an A R fifteen, you hand it over. Are
Speaker 1: you going to arrest the men? Are they felons? I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure in Connecticut they got rid of what they
Speaker 1: believed to be about one hundred thousand assault rifles that
Speaker 1: would have been banned under a new state Connecticut law,
Speaker 1: and they were supposed to turn them into local sheriff
Speaker 1: or police station, whatever it may be in Connecticut, and
Speaker 1: very small percentage people to them in What is this
Speaker 1: mandatory buyback program going to look like? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Justin Trudeau may be thinking about it though, up in Canada,
Speaker 1: because he now wants to ban all assault rifles in
Speaker 1: He's like, I am very much trying to rebound from
Speaker 1: my week of everybody thinking that I'm a huge racist,
Speaker 1: and so I have an idea, let us ban the guns.
Speaker 1: That is the Trudeau move ban the guns. This was
Speaker 1: also the Harvey Weinstein maneuver, and now it's the desperate
Speaker 1: Democrats who are not getting traction in the primary maneuver,
Speaker 1: like Kamala Harris, who was a media darling. I mean,
Speaker 1: they were all in on all things Kamala until they
Speaker 1: weren't or I still think that she's on the cover
Speaker 1: of Time magazine. I believe for either this week or
Speaker 1: month or whenever Time magazine mark you check on that.
Speaker 1: Am I crazy? Am I seeing things? I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: she was. I tend to be. I tend to be
Speaker 1: right about the things. So I think she's in the
Speaker 1: cover Time magazine. The media is trying to prop her
Speaker 1: up and still have a god because look, if Biden
Speaker 1: steps steps Yep, I'm right, Time Magazine, boom, the buckster
Speaker 1: always delivers. If Biden changes his tune and he actually
Speaker 1: can handle the heat going forward, then who knows where
Speaker 1: that twenty some odd percent of the Democrat primary vote
Speaker 1: is going to go. I think that the belief in
Speaker 1: some quarters in the media is that that translates to
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, that if and if Biden steps out, the
Speaker 1: next electable person would be Kamala Harris. That's what I
Speaker 1: think I think will happen. But who knows. The truth
Speaker 1: is nobody knows right now. Who else, by the way,
Speaker 1: is making noise about they want to take all the guns.
Speaker 1: Wasn't somebody Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, mandatory buyback. Corey Booker
Speaker 1: another guy the media loves, the voters don't. Here's what
Speaker 1: he says about the mandatory buyback twenty seven. The number
Speaker 1: one killer for African American children is gun violence. Protect
Speaker 1: our families, protect our communities. If I'm president, I will
Speaker 1: do that mandatory buyback, voluntary buyback. This is another thing
Speaker 1: that to me is just again absurd. Let's start with
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here, where we're talking talking about
Speaker 1: assault rifles. That's what I'm saying, right. I want to
Speaker 1: be clear exactly what we're talking about. Again, the overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority of Americans over seventy five does not believe that
Speaker 1: we should have these weapons of war on our street.
Speaker 1: So how do you get them off the streets? So
Speaker 1: you have a mandatory buyback program? Confiscation? This is said.
Speaker 1: This is Democrats telling you that they're going to come
Speaker 1: and take your guns. They're telling you repeatedly. They're not
Speaker 1: hiding it, they're not they're not shading the truth here.
Speaker 1: They're not trying to hedge their bats. They're just saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're coming for your guns. Now to a Corey Booker's
Speaker 1: point there about violence against I believe he said violence
Speaker 1: against African American children is the number one gun violence
Speaker 1: is the number one killer. I would be willing to
Speaker 1: bet that if you were to crunch the numbers on
Speaker 1: that ninety nine percent of that violence is from handguns.
Speaker 1: You're talking about people that are either killed in accidents,
Speaker 1: children that get you know, that that find a gun
Speaker 1: in the home. You know, it's it'd be very difficult,
Speaker 1: for example, for a small child to operate a large
Speaker 1: rifle or shotgun, and you know, a handgun, it's not
Speaker 1: not difficult. And if you're talking about gang violence, gang
Speaker 1: violence is overwhelmingly committed with handguns. Well, well, let's just
Speaker 1: break down the numbers. All gun violence of all kinds
Speaker 1: is almost entirely handguns. It's ninety seven percent of gun
Speaker 1: violence comes from handguns. Two to three percent comes from rifles. Now,
Speaker 1: if you were to break that down even further, so
Speaker 1: they were talking about gang violence, and you're not discussing, say,
Speaker 1: some of the mass shootings that have happened in recent months,
Speaker 1: that's going to be handguns too. So here you have
Speaker 1: a problem. The Corey Booker sets up, we have gang violence,
Speaker 1: killing young kids, which is terrible. But instead of taking
Speaker 1: a law enforcement approach to deal with the criminals, what
Speaker 1: he's saying is, let's ban something that has effectively nothing
Speaker 1: to do with the problem with the violence that I
Speaker 1: just brought up. Let's get rid of something that is
Speaker 1: completely extraneous in this discussion because it'll make the left
Speaker 1: wing base happy and they hate guns and gun owners.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's when you when you look at this
Speaker 1: by the numbers and the reality of what's going on,
Speaker 1: and just so that he can't get beaten from the
Speaker 1: left here Joe Biden, who's supposed to be the modern
Speaker 1: but Joe Biden's the whatever you need him to be
Speaker 1: candidate if you're a Democrat. That's what everyone who's really
Speaker 1: watching this understands. Whatever Joe Biden to say, he's gonna say.
Speaker 1: But Joe Biden's out there saying that he wants also
Speaker 1: to take dramatic, draconian anti Second Amendment action. It's talking
Speaker 1: about a federal gune and magazine registry. No more maxim magazine,
Speaker 1: no more of that naughty stuff. Just getting bad joke.
Speaker 1: Different magazine played twenty eight and meantime, go out and
Speaker 1: eliminate the ability to purchase and or make any more
Speaker 1: of these assault weapons period. Now there's a third thing
Speaker 1: where you do under the Firearms Act. In nineteen thirty four,
Speaker 1: there's a situation where when they outlawed machine guns, they said, Okay,
Speaker 1: you can continue to have a machine gun if you
Speaker 1: own it, but guess what, you gotta let us know
Speaker 1: you have one. You gotta let us know you have arms.
Speaker 1: You got it. I want that for all assault weapons.
Speaker 1: I want that for magazines, because what happens is if
Speaker 1: we know you have one, the likelihood of that ever
Speaker 1: being used in commission of a crime after a voluntary
Speaker 1: buyback is highly unlikely. Highly unlikely. That's a lie. By
Speaker 1: the way. First of all, the people that have them
Speaker 1: wouldn't register them. A lot of people wouldn't. Anybody that
Speaker 1: had any ill intent would certainly never register one. So
Speaker 1: what is he even talking about. Well, we he's talking
Speaker 1: about is establishing the basis for a nationwide assault rifle registry,
Speaker 1: and then they really would know exactly who has it.
Speaker 1: And they're gonna say, oh no, we just need to
Speaker 1: know you have it. We're not going to do it. Well,
Speaker 1: you got one politician here saying we just need to
Speaker 1: know you have it. You got a bunch of other
Speaker 1: Democrat politicians who are saying, oh, no, we're going to
Speaker 1: take it from you, which is it. Well, this is
Speaker 1: why we can't trust them, because they keep moving the
Speaker 1: target around. We don't know what the well, no, I've
Speaker 1: scratched that. We do know what they want, which is
Speaker 1: they want to ban these weapons entirely and get them
Speaker 1: out of out of legal, lawful gun owners hands. That's
Speaker 1: the other part of this. If you look at the
Speaker 1: numbers with people who own rifles, if ninety seven percent
Speaker 1: of all gun violence is handgun based, what percentage of
Speaker 1: individuals in America who own a long gun of any
Speaker 1: kind use that long gun in any sort of crime.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a tiny fraction of one percent,
Speaker 1: a tiny fraction of it. It's not below one percent.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, it's not even going to be something that
Speaker 1: you'd be able to easily plot on a graph. But
Speaker 1: they still pretend like this is a way to save
Speaker 1: lives and end gun violence. And unfortunately, there's just no
Speaker 1: sense of good faith from Democrats on this at all,
Speaker 1: especially because it's an election year, so we should just
Speaker 1: not seed ground, not give an inch that should be
Speaker 1: our approach team. I wanted to take a moment to
Speaker 1: tell you about a sad story, but one that at
Speaker 1: least adds at the end a moment of hope. Doesn't
Speaker 1: I certainly not call it a happy ending. It's a tragedy.
Speaker 1: The whole situation across the board as a tragedy, but
Speaker 1: there's a moment of hope that has offered up at
Speaker 1: the end. It has to do with a former police
Speaker 1: officer in Dallas, Amber Geiger. She was just sentenced yesterday
Speaker 1: to ten years in prison for the killing of an
Speaker 1: innocent man. Now, she shot him when she entered his apartment,
Speaker 1: which was the same layout of apartment in terms of
Speaker 1: words on the floor, but a different floor. She went
Speaker 1: into what she thought was her apartment. She's a police officer.
Speaker 1: She saw a guy sitting on her couch. She thought
Speaker 1: he was robbing her. This was this was her story
Speaker 1: for the for the judge and jury. And so she
Speaker 1: drew her firearm and she killed him, shot him on
Speaker 1: the couch. And she had inadvertently and it does the
Speaker 1: story at least seems lausible to me. I don't see
Speaker 1: why this would not have been I do not believe it.
Speaker 1: She decided to just randomly walk into some stranger's apartment
Speaker 1: and shoot him just because she looked like a terrible error,
Speaker 1: a terrible mistake that she made and one that she
Speaker 1: does have to pay a price for. But she went
Speaker 1: in thinking that it was her apartment, she shot him,
Speaker 1: and she just got ten years in prison over this.
Speaker 1: She's eligible for parole in five years, but she's going
Speaker 1: to prison in the state of Texas. Now, I will
Speaker 1: tell you I've actually done the same thing in my
Speaker 1: obviously not with a firearm, and Norm's hurt, But I
Speaker 1: mean I've gone to the wrong floor and gone to
Speaker 1: open a door thinking it was my door. Especially in
Speaker 1: hotels which you're not used to layout, it can happen.
Speaker 1: So I've done that before. I've never been carrying a
Speaker 1: firearm and gone into someone else's apartment and drew down
Speaker 1: on them. But so that part of the story I
Speaker 1: can find credible. Unfortunately, the individual's door was a jar,
Speaker 1: a little bit unlocked, and so she went in, and that,
Speaker 1: she said, was part of why she thought there was
Speaker 1: a burglar in progress. Now, why she when she had
Speaker 1: a firearm and this guy posed no threat to her,
Speaker 1: why she felt the need to shoot, especially as a
Speaker 1: train Remember she's law enforcement's a cop. To shoot instead
Speaker 1: of making an arrest strikes me as very very problematic here,
Speaker 1: which is probably why she went to prison for ten years,
Speaker 1: or he's going to prison for up to ten years.
Speaker 1: But there was a moment of incredible mercy and grace
Speaker 1: in the courtroom yesterday. The brother of the man who
Speaker 1: was shot decided that Brant Jeane I believe is his name,
Speaker 1: he took the witness stand in the court. Remember this
Speaker 1: is he's talking about the woman. Bottom Jean is the
Speaker 1: man who was shot. His brother, Brant Jean took the
Speaker 1: took the stand, and here is what he said in
Speaker 1: front of the court and now in front of the
Speaker 1: whole country. And I wasn't gonna ever say this in
Speaker 1: front of my family or anyone. But I don't even
Speaker 1: want you to go to jail. I want the best
Speaker 1: for you because I know that's what that's exactly what
Speaker 1: both of them would want you to do. And the
Speaker 1: best would be gave your life to Christ. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna say anything else. I think given your life to
Speaker 1: Christ would be the best thing that both of them
Speaker 1: would want you to do. Again, I love you as
Speaker 1: a person. I don't wish anything bad are you. I
Speaker 1: don't know if it is possible, but can I give
Speaker 1: her a hug? Please? Please? Yes? Wow? This young man
Speaker 1: lost his brother in what was a terrible accident, but
Speaker 1: an involuntary manslaughter really, and the woman who killed his brother,
Speaker 1: he wants to give her the message that she should
Speaker 1: give her life to Christ, that he loves her as
Speaker 1: a person, and that he wants to give her a
Speaker 1: hug before she is taken into custody and certain begins
Speaker 1: serving a lengthy sentence for homicide. Surprised a lot of
Speaker 1: people seeing this happen. We feel these days. I think
Speaker 1: many of us feel that we live in a society
Speaker 1: where grace and forgiveness are in short supply, and we
Speaker 1: often get caught up in political tribalism, religious factions arguing
Speaker 1: with one another, tearing one another down. I think far
Speaker 1: too many people root for the failures of their fellow
Speaker 1: human beings in this country and anywhere else, take too
Speaker 1: much pleasure and seeing people brought low, and also feel
Speaker 1: very comfortable demanding vengeance in place of any kind of forgiveness. Well,
Speaker 1: the brother of Botham Jean here gave everybody, I think,
Speaker 1: a lesson in what is possible, and I think that
Speaker 1: it's something that I hope people remember going forward in
Speaker 1: their own lives because it was powerful watching this play out.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for roll call. It is
Speaker 1: It is time for roll call. The optimist prime sounding
Speaker 1: voice there is correct, it is roll call time. If
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of this part of
Speaker 1: the show, wasn't the most eloquent way of saying that,
Speaker 1: You can write to us at Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton or you could also email us at Team
Speaker 1: Buck at i heeart media dot com. Those are your options,
Speaker 1: so very exciting stuff. If you would like to get
Speaker 1: in on the Facebook roll call or email action, just
Speaker 1: re mark make sure that we mix it up. But
Speaker 1: we're gonna a little bit of Facebook right now. How
Speaker 1: bad do things have to get wade rights? How far
Speaker 1: along the road of detriment do we travel until the
Speaker 1: protectors of our life, our way of life, our military
Speaker 1: can step in to remove these lying, delusional congress people
Speaker 1: from power. Well, my friend, I think that You're gonna
Speaker 1: wait in a long time before anything like that happens,
Speaker 1: because if that does have to happen, it's a very
Speaker 1: very bad day for this country, and we're not there yet.
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you, Wade, it's gonna be okay.
Speaker 1: Other shows tell you the country is going to hell.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you it's gonna be okay. We gotta fight,
Speaker 1: we gotta keep an eye on things. But I think
Speaker 1: that part of the American spirit is optimism. Got to
Speaker 1: be an optimist. Rory Right's buck. It's a wee bit
Speaker 1: of concern regarding free college for medical students. Does this
Speaker 1: mean healthcare costs will be lowered? Does that factor in
Speaker 1: the DEM's grand plan to destabilize the US and have
Speaker 1: us on the government shields high or Rory M hell. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, it's interesting. I don't know what the plan
Speaker 1: is for medical school. I think most people graduate from
Speaker 1: medical school with debts somewhere in the neighborhood of I
Speaker 1: think it's close to half a million dollars. I think
Speaker 1: it's three or four hundred thousand dollars of medical school debts.
Speaker 1: I think that's that's a real thing. That what does
Speaker 1: that mean, now would your medical school be paid for?
Speaker 1: And if the government, in a Bernie Sanders plan, for example,
Speaker 1: is going to take over healthcare, does that mean does
Speaker 1: that mean that doctors won't be able to make as
Speaker 1: much money? Because it probably does mean that. So who's
Speaker 1: gonna want to go and take on four hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars of loans in order to make very little money
Speaker 1: and not be able to pay back those loans? When
Speaker 1: now you say, buck, oh, we'll make medical school free.
Speaker 1: Really so now everyone's graduate degrees are free too. This
Speaker 1: is going to be even more expensive than anybody could
Speaker 1: have anticipated, and it's not free. And a lot of
Speaker 1: you are going to yell at me or semi email
Speaker 1: saying that's not free the taxpayer, I know, but no
Speaker 1: cost to the individual, cost to the society. That's the
Speaker 1: basic promise. That's what they will be With's what they
Speaker 1: will be saying. Kristen writes, I thought that your Scottish
Speaker 1: accent was fat bastard. Didn't he sing that song in
Speaker 1: the second Austin Powers movie? I know, I've heard it,
Speaker 1: I've never seen so I married an axe murder A
Speaker 1: great job though, No, Kristen, so I used to celebrate
Speaker 1: Mike Mike Myers whole catalog, so I know some of
Speaker 1: this stuff. He is the dad, the Scottish dad of
Speaker 1: Mike Myers, and so I burried an axe murderer, but
Speaker 1: he does the exact same accent in so I married
Speaker 1: an axe murderer as the Scottish dad, as he then
Speaker 1: does in a fat suit when he's playing fat bastard.
Speaker 1: I did think he sang that song though, Oh he
Speaker 1: sings that song in Austin Powers. You mean think so
Speaker 1: he thinks sings something close to it. I mean I
Speaker 1: can believe that. Yeah, he definitely does this thing at
Speaker 1: the wedding and so I murdered an axe murderer where
Speaker 1: there's bagpipes being played, and he's like, hey, we've got
Speaker 1: a pipe utter down, We've got pipe utter down. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. You haven't seen a producer work. You
Speaker 1: got homework, man, you gotta go see this movie. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I need to be doing in my free time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you got a wedding in like a few weeks. You
Speaker 1: got a lot of other things you gotta do. I
Speaker 1: can officially say next month, Hey, many many crab cakes
Speaker 1: you guys gonna do it. Uh, you don't want to
Speaker 1: know about the wedding of this Uh the the menu
Speaker 1: of this wedding, why, well, uh, it's a closer dairy
Speaker 1: kosher non dairy, no kosher dairy. What is kosher dairy?
Speaker 1: You can't have milk and meat together. Yeah, so we're
Speaker 1: only doing milk. So that means fish pasta, no meat. Uh,
Speaker 1: basically a vegetarian wedding. I am unhappy about it, but
Speaker 1: I'm not paying for it, so wow. Hey, uh, you
Speaker 1: know it's a religious thing. I I'm just I just
Speaker 1: was thinking you're gonna be no brisket. No, oh my god. I'shure.
Speaker 1: Meat is a lot more expensive than just doing it
Speaker 1: the other way. We have no cake, Well you gotta
Speaker 1: have cake exactly. But but I always go to wedding
Speaker 1: at a candy I'm the loser who can't eat the
Speaker 1: cake because of celiac disease. It's never fun. Yeah, all right,
Speaker 1: let's see we got here next. Jay writes Buck. I
Speaker 1: really enjoy your show. Um. I have to admit the
Speaker 1: first time I saw you on Fox News, I thought
Speaker 1: you were one of President Trump's sons. Please keep up
Speaker 1: the good work, all right, thank you, appreciate that. I'll
Speaker 1: take the vote of support. I think the sons are sons,
Speaker 1: are handsome guys, are strapping young lads. They're the lads.
Speaker 1: Say they are handing some young lads. Uh so I'll
Speaker 1: take that. They got good hair. Here we go, brass buck.
Speaker 1: Is there any scenario that puts the military stepping in
Speaker 1: to stop the coup? Well, that's another question about this coup. Guys.
Speaker 1: There's not going to be a coup. I mean when
Speaker 1: you say is there any scenario, I mean, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: always a scenario for everything. But I don't think you
Speaker 1: need to worry about that. That's not gonna happen. Look,
Speaker 1: Trump's Trump's gonna win reelection. It's gonna be fine. Like
Speaker 1: I said, I'm an optimist. Trump's gonna still get fired up. Though.
Speaker 1: You gotta get out there and and you've got to
Speaker 1: do what you can to make sure that the Libs
Speaker 1: aren't able to just have their way with the narrative.
Speaker 1: But we'll see. Um, let's see what else we got
Speaker 1: here next up? Dave, Right, it's so funny. This is
Speaker 1: gonna be an amazing ear of politics. Oh yeah, Dave
Speaker 1: sent me the lost photograph. I see I went through
Speaker 1: it quickly that time because I didn't want you guys
Speaker 1: to have to listen to me singing again. Every time
Speaker 1: I look. It makes me laugh. I see we make
Speaker 1: see we make fun of Nickelback, but then we take
Speaker 1: every opportunity to do nickel back here on the show.
Speaker 1: Well we make fun of nickel Backs, so we can
Speaker 1: make fun of you. Well that's true too. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: probably should admit this, but I shared some Spotify playlist
Speaker 1: with my little sister and I just I just got
Speaker 1: a text from her. She was just like, work out playlist,
Speaker 1: Comma T Swift? Really, question mark? Was this your own
Speaker 1: personal Spotify play Yeah? Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.
Speaker 1: Look I just searched workout on Spotify and it comes
Speaker 1: up with the good stuff. That's that's probably a better
Speaker 1: way to do it. No, I have a whole curated
Speaker 1: workout playlist. But little little little cis little sis picked
Speaker 1: up on the fact that there was some T Swift
Speaker 1: on there, in fact that your sister is making funy
Speaker 1: for that. Oh yeah, I mean, was there was there
Speaker 1: an area on a Grande song? I can neither confirm
Speaker 1: nor deny. It sounds like you have the musical taste
Speaker 1: of my future wife. Yeah, there we go. I could
Speaker 1: DJ your wedding perfect. You guys have to bring in
Speaker 1: special food for me though, what we'll have a gluten
Speaker 1: free option. Oh, there we go. Okay, coming as long
Speaker 1: as you got some gluten free um. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get into this real call Facebook dot Com, slashbox sex
Speaker 1: and mic rides. The damns are just throwing gas on
Speaker 1: the fire their way out of their league. Bar Pompeo
Speaker 1: and Durham are going to expose them for who they are.
Speaker 1: It's all coming out. I bet you Comey Brennan and
Speaker 1: the rest are deep state participants, and the rest of
Speaker 1: the deep state participants are as nervous as a prostitute
Speaker 1: in church shields. I oh, Mike. Some of them, I
Speaker 1: think probably realize that they may have an issue on
Speaker 1: their hands here. But I would not overestimate the conscience
Speaker 1: of these deep state libs and assume that they really
Speaker 1: are that worried about things, because they look the establishment
Speaker 1: is still very powerful. It's still very strong. All let's
Speaker 1: get into the emails now, because I'd like to switch
Speaker 1: it up. This is from Diane and it comes into
Speaker 1: Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com hey buck. I heard this
Speaker 1: morning the House committees that are conducting the appeachment inquiry.
Speaker 1: I've declared that the Republican members won't be allowed to
Speaker 1: attend the hearings, much less ask any questions of the witnesses.
Speaker 1: I thought they said this was not political. How can
Speaker 1: they say it is a by part as an inquiry?
Speaker 1: How can surely the Republicans won't sit still for this.
Speaker 1: I'm boiling mad. They're trying to railroad our president and
Speaker 1: they know there are Republicans on the committees who will
Speaker 1: shoot holes in their flimsy story. They must not get
Speaker 1: away with this shields. I thank you for being a
Speaker 1: one of the voices of reason. Oh, thank you, Diane. Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: it's all. It's all going to be a big part
Speaker 1: as in mess. There's not gonna be any effort at
Speaker 1: bipartisanship here. It's just not going to happen. So we
Speaker 1: might as well be prepared for that, and yeah, geting
Speaker 1: ready for it. I don't know else to tell you.
Speaker 1: The Democrats have no interest, No Republicans are going to
Speaker 1: go along with them. And this is also just gonna
Speaker 1: make things more damaged politically, especially if Trump becomes President.
Speaker 1: The Democrats keep exacerbating what divides us and then turn
Speaker 1: around saying why are we so divided? James, hey back,
Speaker 1: I'm hearing that people getting sick and dying from vaping
Speaker 1: are doing so after you using black market TC products.
Speaker 1: I'm a millennial conservative turned libertarian and can't understand why
Speaker 1: we haven't legalized marijuana federally yet get people out of
Speaker 1: the shadows and open a pathway for safer products. From
Speaker 1: James James, I'm in april of legalizing marijuana. That does
Speaker 1: not mean I advocate the smoking of marijuana, but I
Speaker 1: am in favor of legalizing it. That said, at the
Speaker 1: federal level, I just think there's a there's a big
Speaker 1: hesitation to do this because we've been fighting the war
Speaker 1: on drugs for a long time and they don't want
Speaker 1: to they don't want to change this. I can't really
Speaker 1: think of people that are going to argue that marijuana
Speaker 1: is more dangerous or is so dangerous that it has
Speaker 1: to be regulated as a Schedule one drug. I just
Speaker 1: don't see that argument. I don't think that that's I
Speaker 1: don't think it's true. I don't think it's accurate. When
Speaker 1: is it going to go nationwide. When is it gonna
Speaker 1: be legal nation wide? That's a good question I gotta
Speaker 1: think about. That might not be for a while. We
Speaker 1: have this state by state process that's playing out right now,
Speaker 1: so we shall have to see Sherry short and sweet
Speaker 1: in the subject line love the podcast, well, Sharry, thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Please do share the podcast with as
Speaker 1: many people as you can Itune, Stitcher, what's the other? Spotify,
Speaker 1: I heeart appay, your company, my company, I heeart app Yes, anywhere.
Speaker 1: We're fine podcasts or listen to. You can listen to
Speaker 1: the Bucks Exton Show. I'm hoping you guys all enjoy that.
Speaker 1: We get the show out earlier now, so we are
Speaker 1: in your drive time, We are in your feed early on.
Speaker 1: That means that it's a great way to or it's
Speaker 1: a great conversation. Sorry to Hey, you know the Bucks
Speaker 1: Exton shows early now, Tell somebody get them to listen.
Speaker 1: It's a show that they will enjoy, as will be
Speaker 1: tomorrow's show, which you will hopefully enjoy. Until then, She'll
Speaker 1: tie