Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt exoneration for President Trump.
Speaker 1: The Mullar probe is over, and now we know, beyond
Speaker 1: a shadow of a doubt that the President did nothing
Speaker 1: wrong and all of the ills came from the other side.
Speaker 1: That's right, the Democrats and their media allies were engaged
Speaker 1: in a sham, a hoax. We'll talk about that, plus
Speaker 1: a very bad day for Trump critic and opponent Michael
Speaker 1: Avenati that I'm more coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Bucks Sexton Remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American great, You're a great
Speaker 1: American again. This is the Bucks Sexton Show. CIA analysts,
Speaker 1: I can speak the realities without a phone call. Try
Speaker 1: doing that sometime. So, after a long look, after a
Speaker 1: long investigation, after so many people have been so badly hurt,
Speaker 1: after not looking at the other side, where a lot
Speaker 1: of bad things happened, A lot of horrible things happened,
Speaker 1: a lot of very bad things happened for our country,
Speaker 1: it was just announced there was no collusion with Russia.
Speaker 1: The most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There was no
Speaker 1: collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction and none whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And it was a complete and total exoneration. It's a
Speaker 1: shame that our country had to go through this. To
Speaker 1: be honest, it's a shame that your president has had
Speaker 1: to go through this spore before I even got elected.
Speaker 1: It began, and it began illegally, and hopefully somebody's gonna
Speaker 1: look at the other side. This was an illegal takedown
Speaker 1: that failed, and hopefully somebody's gonna be looking at the
Speaker 1: other side. So it's complete exoneration, no collusion, no obstruction.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Thank you, complete exoneration, no collusion,
Speaker 1: no obstruction. Welcome to The Buck Sexton Show Special Edition.
Speaker 1: Because it's pretty much the best day since Trump won
Speaker 1: the presidency. I think that's fair to say. It feels good. Right,
Speaker 1: it's morning in America, my friends, things feel good. Doesn't
Speaker 1: it take a moment, all of you, please, after all
Speaker 1: we've been through together, after all the times we've had
Speaker 1: to come together here on air and discuss the latest
Speaker 1: Democrat OPO efforts through the media or through Congress or whatever,
Speaker 1: to say the president's a traitor, the presidents are a
Speaker 1: Russian agent, he's Putin's puppet, that his family members were
Speaker 1: going to prison, that this presidency's over and done with that.
Speaker 1: The walls are closing in, the noose is tightening, The
Speaker 1: President's finished all this stuff, and we kept our heads
Speaker 1: and we were right. We got it right. I do
Speaker 1: not have to sit here and tell you guys, I'm
Speaker 1: I know. I know. I was trained as an intelligence officer,
Speaker 1: and I've been reading all of your messages and taking
Speaker 1: your calls, and you know, I guess we all were
Speaker 1: somehow fulled. We were right. A multi billion dollar media
Speaker 1: apparatus was completely wrong. All the Democrat media. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are some journalists that are notable exceptions as a
Speaker 1: handful of them on the left actually, but the rest
Speaker 1: of them were just on board for this. What a
Speaker 1: horrific hoax, a completely insane scam, and it was all
Speaker 1: an effort to overturn the legitimate election results of twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen Democrats. Progressives, they live in these bubbles, they have
Speaker 1: these echo chambers, their snowflakes. They get triggered easily, and
Speaker 1: they could not handle that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Everything else is just kind of filling in details when
Speaker 1: push comes to shelf. That's what this is really about.
Speaker 1: They can't handle losing they have to be in power.
Speaker 1: They don't understand who they are in a world were
Speaker 1: their views and their sense of self and their own
Speaker 1: importance is not being magnified by the media and government
Speaker 1: apparatus on a daily basis. Anyone who challenges how mark
Speaker 1: or wise or important they are by confronting some of
Speaker 1: their worldview, by refusing to play by their rules, by
Speaker 1: refusing to bend the knee, Anyone who does that is
Speaker 1: a threat to them that they cannot abide. And President
Speaker 1: Trump is the biggest one that they have ever come across. Exonerated,
Speaker 1: my friends, no evidence to charge the President United States
Speaker 1: with after two years of this, after all the reckless speculation,
Speaker 1: and we knew it was reckless. And I'm going to
Speaker 1: get into some of the details and some of the
Speaker 1: legal specifics here about I think that Muller showed a
Speaker 1: little bit of his hand here. I do not think
Speaker 1: that Muller's somebody that everybody should be giving applause to
Speaker 1: over this just because he didn't indict the president or
Speaker 1: didn't try to indict the president. I want to get
Speaker 1: into some of the specifics. We all know the Democrats
Speaker 1: are not going to accept this. They want to move
Speaker 1: on to other things. They want to move on to
Speaker 1: their investigations. They're lying now, but what they were saying
Speaker 1: all along and what was predicted by their side, But oh,
Speaker 1: no surprise here. They They also want to claim that
Speaker 1: it's because Barr is the hand picked attorney general. Right.
Speaker 1: They will undermine the system. I thought undermining the system
Speaker 1: was bad. Well, they'll undermine whatever they want, whatever they can,
Speaker 1: if it serves their purposes. CNN claiming that this does
Speaker 1: not exonerate him is a farce. But CNN has turned
Speaker 1: into a farce. And that's just where I wanted to
Speaker 1: take a moment, because we've been We've been in this,
Speaker 1: We've been on this ride together for two years now.
Speaker 1: I was opposed to the appointment of the Special Counsel
Speaker 1: from day one. You know that I have thought all
Speaker 1: along that this was an exercise and political retribution. The
Speaker 1: weaponization of my employer in the intelligence community, the FBI,
Speaker 1: the CIA, the weaponization of Faiza, the abuse of government authority,
Speaker 1: the real collusion between media and the Democrat Party and
Speaker 1: Democrat operatives in the FBI, the deep state, which is
Speaker 1: very real, all of the efforts, by the way that
Speaker 1: the other side made to hide the truth from us
Speaker 1: to lie. Took over a year to find out that
Speaker 1: the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton. Why is that?
Speaker 1: Because people were hiding the truth, but we knew. We
Speaker 1: knew because we pay attention, because we're honest, and because
Speaker 1: we understand how this country and how this world really works.
Speaker 1: We know who is on the other side. We know
Speaker 1: what we face here in the opposition in this country,
Speaker 1: the length that they will go to. We understand our
Speaker 1: political enemies, and we know what they're capable of. So
Speaker 1: please today, in your own way, however it is, celebrate
Speaker 1: a little bit. This is a very good day, not
Speaker 1: just for Trump. It's a very good day for the country.
Speaker 1: Anyone who does not understand that, does not care about
Speaker 1: this country. The president is not a traitor. The president
Speaker 1: in nothing wrong, and that is now confirmed. We should
Speaker 1: all be happy that we can move past this, at
Speaker 1: least those of us who are willing to face facts
Speaker 1: in reality can move past this. But do take a
Speaker 1: moment for yourself, team, especially for all of you who
Speaker 1: have been all along so supportive of me in this
Speaker 1: show and all the heat that I took and the
Speaker 1: terrible things people at CNN said to me publicly and
Speaker 1: privately about how I was a stooge for Trump and
Speaker 1: how I was just all of that. Just remember, take
Speaker 1: a little victory lap for yourself, even if it's just
Speaker 1: in your head. We were right, they were wrong. Trump
Speaker 1: is innocent. The guilty parties, my friends, are the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the media. Where that coming up. I takeaway is
Speaker 1: there's a very real prospect that he may be the
Speaker 1: first president in quite some time to face the real
Speaker 1: prospect of jail time. Do you agree with Congressman Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: who is going to be the chairman of the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, that President Trump could be indicted and possibly
Speaker 1: face jail time after he leaves office. Yes, if we
Speaker 1: do the investigations, the information is there with Fitman while
Speaker 1: Rome is burning, this president needs to be impeached. And
Speaker 1: I think they're shocked that the news is tightening and
Speaker 1: that people might go to jail. You're exactly right, the
Speaker 1: rest of their lives. But do you think some people
Speaker 1: are going to wind up at jail, not just one individual,
Speaker 1: but people plural? Is that what you're saying. That's my impression. Yes,
Speaker 1: it certainly looks like they are the kind of offenses
Speaker 1: that would call for impeachment hearings. Absolutely, I think he
Speaker 1: can be looked at and perhaps even charged with obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice. Well, I think they're all going to end
Speaker 1: up together in prison, and maybe that's he has no
Speaker 1: idea that he's going down. These people are nuts. Those
Speaker 1: were That was a whole collection of mainstream media darlings,
Speaker 1: most of them paid millions millions a year to be
Speaker 1: imbeciles to have bought this completely implausible nearly evidence free.
Speaker 1: It really is evidence free. I mean they could. They
Speaker 1: faked the evidence, right, I mean, the dossier was a
Speaker 1: false document, so they faked evidence. They had very little evidence.
Speaker 1: Even with the faked evidence, they weaponized the intelligence apparatus
Speaker 1: against a political candidate, and the guardians of our republic,
Speaker 1: you know, the the firefighters of the First Amendments, so
Speaker 1: to speak, bought this stuff, hook line and sinker. They
Speaker 1: just took it. They ran with it. They should be ashamed,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately I know they won't be. In many cases.
Speaker 1: I think it's been financially and professionally really advantageous for
Speaker 1: these people. It has. It has made their ratings go up,
Speaker 1: It has pushed their careers on. CNN's ratings are you know,
Speaker 1: they're they're crappy compared to Fox and MSNBC in general,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure they're up from CNNs even crappier ratings.
Speaker 1: We've had two years of the most deranged, overhyped, reckless
Speaker 1: speculation and propagandizing from a media that if it is
Speaker 1: so left wing now and so self referential and in
Speaker 1: love with itself, And I mean, I think we need
Speaker 1: to just build up a media from scratch, I really do.
Speaker 1: I mean, there needs to be a total rethink of
Speaker 1: what's going on with news media in this country. And
Speaker 1: here we got more where that fun came from. Play
Speaker 1: play clip two. He is going to be delivering what
Speaker 1: I think are going to be his indictments, the final indictments.
Speaker 1: I would not be surprised if there were a number
Speaker 1: of indictments that's silver going to come down the pikes.
Speaker 1: There are indictments in this president's future. That's a bombshell,
Speaker 1: the bombshell, this bombshell dropped, the bombshell, bombshell accusation, this
Speaker 1: BuzzFeed news report is true, then we are likely on
Speaker 1: our way to possible impeachment proceedings. Man. At that point,
Speaker 1: we are in high crimes at misdemeanor and we are
Speaker 1: in impeachment right This president needs to be impeach. Impeachment
Speaker 1: is the remedy. I mean, the president can't the only remedy.
Speaker 1: The spirit of what Trump did is clearly treasons. This
Speaker 1: is moving into perjury, false statements, and even in a
Speaker 1: potentially treason, there's outright treason. I mean, there is no question.
Speaker 1: I think he's feeling the news around his neck, and
Speaker 1: I think they're shocked that the news is tightening, or
Speaker 1: he feels the news is tightening. The sound of who
Speaker 1: feats of all those investigations catching up with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: must be loud in his ears. What a bunch of
Speaker 1: psychos treason they run around saying the president of the
Speaker 1: United States is guilty of treason. No no evidence, no
Speaker 1: circumspection really about it either. I mean they just jump
Speaker 1: right to it. Well, you know, we're gonna get We're
Speaker 1: gonna get them. The noose is tightening. That's the That's
Speaker 1: the kind of terminology they used to describe this president's future.
Speaker 1: They're talking about treason. These are the things that they
Speaker 1: were saying on air on a regular basis and clapping
Speaker 1: for each other, thinking that this was this was wise,
Speaker 1: This was good journalism. They are a disgrace, an absolute disgrace.
Speaker 1: And while I'm very much caught between two feelings here,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, I feel like it should be
Speaker 1: said that, you know, they we won, and I'm happy
Speaker 1: about that, and the good guys won this battle. But
Speaker 1: we've been through a terrible battle that we shouldn't have
Speaker 1: had to shouldn't have had to go through, and we lost.
Speaker 1: We lost people along the way, and we took losses.
Speaker 1: You know, General Flynn is still facing prison time for
Speaker 1: a total setup. He should be pardoned tomorrow. Probably won't
Speaker 1: be pardon tomorrow, but I do think he'll be pardoner
Speaker 1: of the next month or so. That's that's what I'm
Speaker 1: hearing from my people. Which would be the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. Paul Manaford, Okay, they didn't pay his taxes.
Speaker 1: He should make financial restitution and you know, as time served,
Speaker 1: commute sentence. Let the guy out. Let him be with
Speaker 1: his family. He's been through enough. He's been in solitary
Speaker 1: confinement for almost a year. Let the guy out. You know.
Speaker 1: Ter Paige should get a check from the federal government
Speaker 1: for about the ten or fifteen million dollars. How about that,
Speaker 1: and there are people here who were really wronged. Maria
Speaker 1: Boutina was smeared as some kind of Russian honeypot, you know,
Speaker 1: as a honeypot operation where they put an attractive woman
Speaker 1: out there to try for espionage purposes. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: what That's what the mainstream press said about her, based
Speaker 1: on nothing. She wasn't doing that, she wasn't trading sex
Speaker 1: for favors. I think that's I'm sorry. And it's one
Speaker 1: thing to try to influence policy or make friends, another
Speaker 1: thing to be sleeping with people that you know. And
Speaker 1: that's what they said about her. Lies. Lies. So there
Speaker 1: have been losses we've taken along the way here too,
Speaker 1: I mean, and when I say we, I just mean
Speaker 1: the good people, the good side. They were willing to
Speaker 1: put so much on the line here, and I think
Speaker 1: we have to enforce that there are real losses that
Speaker 1: they suffer as a result of this. I mean that
Speaker 1: the media cannot be trusted again. CNN is not a
Speaker 1: nonpartisan source of news. If you believe that you are
Speaker 1: lying to yourself or you just don't know any better,
Speaker 1: CNN is the wing, the for profit wing of the
Speaker 1: DNC media apparatus. That's what CNN is. MSNBC is just
Speaker 1: you know, a competitor DNC media wing apparatus. To see it,
Speaker 1: I was the same thing basically, but MSNBC there's at
Speaker 1: least a little more honesty around the fact that it's
Speaker 1: a bunch of left wing a bunch of left wing
Speaker 1: people who all support the same ideas and policies. CNN
Speaker 1: still pretends like, oh, no, we're just journalists, man, We're
Speaker 1: just journalists doing our job, you know, just doing our thing. No,
Speaker 1: they are not. I've noticed they won't put anyone forward
Speaker 1: ane other big tough anchors, some of whom are involved
Speaker 1: in perpetuating this hoax in the earliest days. You know,
Speaker 1: none of them, I mean, they're not tough, obviously, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. They're they're big, swanky, fancy anchors.
Speaker 1: None of them are gonna go defend their coverage of
Speaker 1: this publicly, none of them will subject themselves to scrutiny,
Speaker 1: and not even a hostile just a neutral environment, because
Speaker 1: they can't defend this. How could they. They wasted two
Speaker 1: years of our time with this. They wasted two years.
Speaker 1: And when you see how how this is gone and
Speaker 1: all the time on this one I mean twenty eight.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's on the Special Council side. Twenty eight
Speaker 1: hundred subpoenas, five hundred search warrants, two hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: orders more than that, but two and thirty plus orders
Speaker 1: for communication records, thirteen requests to foreign governments for evidence,
Speaker 1: five hundred witness interviews. All right, that's that's what this
Speaker 1: to get us to hear where there's no charges nothing.
Speaker 1: Drudgeport had this up today. Five hundred and thirty three
Speaker 1: thousand articles published about Russia and Trump. Network News spent
Speaker 1: two thousand, two hundred and eighty four minutes on the probe.
Speaker 1: They have fake stories that they've refused to retract. There
Speaker 1: does need to be a broad recognition among the American
Speaker 1: people that our news media has betrayed us, and they
Speaker 1: have betrayed the trust that the American people put in them,
Speaker 1: at least some of them do to bring them the
Speaker 1: facts and the truth. They have dishonored that mission. They
Speaker 1: have disgraced themselves. We should never forgive the media for
Speaker 1: what they've done to Trump. We should never forget the
Speaker 1: lies of the last two years. While this report does
Speaker 1: not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also
Speaker 1: does not exonerate him. That's a direct quote quote from
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller. The Special Council say also, but the only
Speaker 1: place in the document, I think we're still reading it
Speaker 1: where they really go into the reasonable doubt standard and
Speaker 1: they talk about how, you know, so what would have
Speaker 1: to have been proven in or convict someone of a
Speaker 1: charge where corrupt intent, engaging and obstruction. They're noting that
Speaker 1: it's a high legal burden. What was found today was
Speaker 1: that the president or everyone connected the campaign won't be
Speaker 1: charged by the state for you know, things that could
Speaker 1: have been burned beyond a reasonable doubt. But there's still
Speaker 1: plenty of that Congress connect and that's really the important thing. No,
Speaker 1: what's really the important thing CNN panel is that there's
Speaker 1: no collusion and no obstruction and this is done. It's finished.
Speaker 1: They need to learn to accept that. They need to
Speaker 1: just take take a moment, take a deep breath, and
Speaker 1: it's it's finished. They tried, they took their best shot
Speaker 1: at destroying this presidency through underhanded means, and they failed,
Speaker 1: and they failed. I know it's hard for them. There's
Speaker 1: a bit of denialism that has said in here too,
Speaker 1: with someone the left you know, people have taken different
Speaker 1: Some are saying on the left, well, we never really
Speaker 1: thought they were going to prove illusion. You know. Others
Speaker 1: are saying, well, you know, we are still going to
Speaker 1: investigate this. And then there's also that group that just
Speaker 1: is in denial or they say, oh, we're we are
Speaker 1: just not going to believe this, or or or oh
Speaker 1: there's another option too, which is that this wasn't this
Speaker 1: wasn't enough, this wasn't fair, the process was somehow favorable
Speaker 1: to Trump. CNN as this Justice reporter guy named Evan Perez,
Speaker 1: whom I've never heard say anything intelligent really on television,
Speaker 1: but they put him on a lot and he gave
Speaker 1: this spin on corrupt intent, essentially saying, well, because the
Speaker 1: President did not sit down with Muller, that's why they
Speaker 1: couldn't prove me. This was just in a day of
Speaker 1: full of very weak, very dumb takes. This was in
Speaker 1: a class by itself place sex. So the question is
Speaker 1: it is the reason why they were never able to
Speaker 1: answer the question of corrupt intent because the president refused
Speaker 1: to sit down with the investigators to essentially discuss what
Speaker 1: he meant by his tweets, what he meant when he
Speaker 1: told Komy that he should drop the Flint thing was
Speaker 1: what was going on in his mind, and obviously that
Speaker 1: was the holy grail for the President's legal team. I
Speaker 1: think this was a huge victory, obviously, that cannot be understated.
Speaker 1: The fact that the president went through this twenty two
Speaker 1: month investigation and never sat down with the investigators is
Speaker 1: something that I think made a huge difference here. And
Speaker 1: one reason why Robert Mueller probably could not even get
Speaker 1: to a conclusion here is that perhaps he was not
Speaker 1: able to complete the investigation. It's also the most obvious
Speaker 1: thing imaginable. Of course, Trump should not have sat down
Speaker 1: with Muller. The whole game that Muller and his team
Speaker 1: were playing all the time was to set perjury traps
Speaker 1: for people. And we know Trump is very kind of
Speaker 1: fast and loose and speaks in generalities and with hyperbole,
Speaker 1: and it was an obviously bad idea to have Trump
Speaker 1: sit with Mueller, especially because we know Mueller was on
Speaker 1: a headhunting expedition and was going to try to take
Speaker 1: anything he could to get Trump. And that's also where
Speaker 1: on this does not exonerate him line that he left
Speaker 1: in there and that was that was gross that was
Speaker 1: not ethical. And I have yet to hear anybody with
Speaker 1: a real legal mind who has tried to justify what
Speaker 1: was done there, because Mueller's not supposed to say, well,
Speaker 1: we we had some stuff on him, but we didn't
Speaker 1: decide to charge him. But we maybe could have charged him,
Speaker 1: but we didn't charge him. That's not what prosecutors do.
Speaker 1: The law is broken or the law is not broken
Speaker 1: based on the investigation. It is a go or no
Speaker 1: go standard. It isn't a yes no maybe so. And
Speaker 1: I liked that the DIRSH really laid into Mueller on
Speaker 1: this one play clip twelve. I thought it was a
Speaker 1: cop out for him to say that there was not
Speaker 1: enough evidence to indict. But it's not an exoneration. We're
Speaker 1: going to put a report out on obstruction. We're going
Speaker 1: to put a report out what says. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, it sounds like a law school exam.
Speaker 1: That's not the job of the prosecutor. The job of
Speaker 1: the prosecutors to decide yes or no, make a decision,
Speaker 1: and then if you say yes, you indict. If you
Speaker 1: say no, you shut up. How was this different than
Speaker 1: Comy Comey says, I'm not going to windict Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: But let me tell you it was a close case.
Speaker 1: She had all of this stuff, and she was extremely
Speaker 1: careless and she did terrible things. But we're not going
Speaker 1: to indict her. That's not what prosecutors do. Shame on Muller,
Speaker 1: But not having the guts to come to a decision
Speaker 1: one way or the other, that's what prosecutors have paid
Speaker 1: to do. The dirt is right. I have not heard
Speaker 1: anybody in the legal profession worth anything say otherwise. It
Speaker 1: is not the job. When a prosecutor does not bring charges,
Speaker 1: they don't get to say, well, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of dirty stuff on you, but we decided not to
Speaker 1: charge you anyway. That's not how this works, all right.
Speaker 1: Your prosecutor's offices are not oppo research for political parties,
Speaker 1: which is what Mueller was really doing all along as
Speaker 1: we know. But that also goes to the people said, oh,
Speaker 1: how dare you criticize Muller. No, Mueller deserves to be criticized.
Speaker 1: Mueller sent dozens of people armed to the teeth on
Speaker 1: a raid into Roger Stone, senior citizen Roger Stone's quiet
Speaker 1: home in Florida because Roger Stone lied under oath about
Speaker 1: nonsense allegedly about nothing. Paul Manafort has been in solitary
Speaker 1: confinement for months, for months, because the special counsel wants
Speaker 1: him to suffer solitary confinement. He's gonna cell alone twenty
Speaker 1: three hours a day. I mean, the guy is not
Speaker 1: Hannibal Lecter. So the people that were running this whole
Speaker 1: information operation on how you couldn't criticize Muller and Muller's
Speaker 1: the best and how could I even say anything bad
Speaker 1: about Mueller's should be ashamed of themselves. What do you
Speaker 1: mean Mueller like the guy who botched the anthrax case
Speaker 1: and Andrew Weissman and what he did to Enron. I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at some of the people that were you know,
Speaker 1: Jeanie Ree who was involved at the Clinton Foundation as counsel.
Speaker 1: There were a bunch of Democrats involved here. There were
Speaker 1: people who had very questionable motives and very questionable judgment
Speaker 1: all throughout. And that there are so many in the
Speaker 1: media and in the Democratic Party who pretended that that
Speaker 1: wasn't so. I just keep these people have no integrity
Speaker 1: to protect. The good part about having no integrity to
Speaker 1: protect is it just gives you a lot of leeway.
Speaker 1: You can get away with a lot if you'll just
Speaker 1: if you'll just do anything, if you're playing anything to win,
Speaker 1: you got a lot of options. And that's how the
Speaker 1: Democrat media and the Democrat Party plays plays the game.
Speaker 1: Any need to win, you have to abandon all principles
Speaker 1: and ethics and decency. But that Democrats did that a
Speaker 1: long time ago. In this investigation with Trump, it was
Speaker 1: scorched earth everything they can to take him down, anything
Speaker 1: they can to take him down. And they failed, but
Speaker 1: it was closer than it should have been. My friends,
Speaker 1: keep in mind, Yeah, a number of US persons worked
Speaker 1: with the Russians in one form or another. I think
Speaker 1: it's been demonstrated now that there was this active engagement,
Speaker 1: and I'm hoping and I believe that Bob Muller and
Speaker 1: his team were going to uncover a lot more that
Speaker 1: is unknown. I think is Glenn mentioned there is a
Speaker 1: lot that the Special Council's Office has been involved in.
Speaker 1: You smell coming between now and the final report from
Speaker 1: more I started between I smell more indictments family members. Well,
Speaker 1: I believe that if there are going to be family
Speaker 1: members indicted by the Special Council, it would be the
Speaker 1: final raft of indictments. That's the former CI direct John Brynnant.
Speaker 1: The only group of people in this whole process that
Speaker 1: I think look worse than the left wing media are
Speaker 1: the senior government officials, mostly Obama, but not all Obama appointees,
Speaker 1: but mostly Obama or I should say that, I think
Speaker 1: they really all were appointees of Obamas, but at least
Speaker 1: some of them were from other administrations too. Yeah, these
Speaker 1: very senior people at places like the Department of the
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence DNI, James Clapper, John Brennan, the
Speaker 1: CIA director, James Comey, the FBI director, Andrew McKay, the
Speaker 1: WFBI director, Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General. These people
Speaker 1: have made complete fools of themselves, and the way that
Speaker 1: they've acted has really shaken the faith and confidence that
Speaker 1: any of us should be able to have in these agencies.
Speaker 1: I feel the Brennan lunacy in a particularly acute fashion
Speaker 1: because I feel like people now are way less impressed
Speaker 1: by the whole notion of the CIA and like what
Speaker 1: kind of people work there and what kind of work
Speaker 1: they do. And I think people look now at what
Speaker 1: happened and they say to themselves, what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on over at the CIA. I mean, how could
Speaker 1: this guy, John Brennan have been the top person there
Speaker 1: and now all he does go on TV. I mean
Speaker 1: he said this stuff all the time, more indictments. Maybe
Speaker 1: the family is going to be indicted, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: they'll get Don Junior and maybe they'll get Ivanka. At
Speaker 1: all he's feeding into this. I mean, John Brennan said
Speaker 1: the President was guilty of acts tant amount to treason.
Speaker 1: That's what he said. Does the former CI director who
Speaker 1: was the agency director, mind you, when all this Russia
Speaker 1: collusion stuff was supposedly happening. So every time he gave
Speaker 1: voice to this, the assumption in the audience was that
Speaker 1: he must know something. I mean, that's a reasonable assumption.
Speaker 1: He must know something. The former's CIA directors saying that
Speaker 1: the president committed treason and he's talking about acts that
Speaker 1: were taken while he was CIA director. He must know something.
Speaker 1: And this was all part of the con This was
Speaker 1: all part of the game that they played. They took
Speaker 1: these people that were supposed to have credibility. They took
Speaker 1: these individuals they were supposed to listen to because of
Speaker 1: the big job titles they had under the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: and they trotted them out and they just fed this
Speaker 1: insanity play fifteen. He did this so many times, we
Speaker 1: could just play you, John Brennan, Crazy Clips play fifteen.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, this week on Friday,
Speaker 1: not knowing anything about it, but Friday is the day
Speaker 1: that the granjury indictments come down, and I don't think
Speaker 1: Robert Muller will want to have the dramatic flare of
Speaker 1: the IDEs of March when he is going to be
Speaker 1: delivering what I think are going to be his indictments,
Speaker 1: the final indictments, as well as the report that he
Speaker 1: gives the Attorney General. What makes you believe that he
Speaker 1: has more indictments because he hasn't addressed the issues related
Speaker 1: to criminal conspiracy as well as any individual criminal conspiracy.
Speaker 1: The Russian criminal conspiracy involving the Russians wasn't addressed in
Speaker 1: the indictments Eugenius because there was no criminal conspiracy involving
Speaker 1: Trump and the Russians. How could he not know that
Speaker 1: that was at least a possibility? And what convinced him?
Speaker 1: Where did you get all this certainty that there was
Speaker 1: a criminal conspiracy? This guy was the CIA director, and
Speaker 1: this is what we this is what we have, this
Speaker 1: is what we come up with. It's it's embarrassing, but
Speaker 1: you know, there's even more embarrassment to go around for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. Beto, I totally missed you. I haven't talked
Speaker 1: to you in like a couple of days because I'm
Speaker 1: campaigning for a president. Betto yesterday in South Carolina yesterday
Speaker 1: said the following about Trump Play twenty two. You have
Speaker 1: a president whom, my opinion, beyond the shadow of a doubt,
Speaker 1: sought to, however, hand handedly calune with the Russian government,
Speaker 1: of foreign power to undermine and influence our elections, the
Speaker 1: sanctity of the ballot box, the ability for each and
Speaker 1: every single one of us to make informed decisions about
Speaker 1: those who seem to represent us, and whole positions of
Speaker 1: public trust. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that,
Speaker 1: once in office, President of the United States sought to
Speaker 1: obstruct justice, first by firing the principal investigator in know
Speaker 1: what had happened in the twenty sixteen election, and then
Speaker 1: in the light update, tweeting as Attorney general to stop
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation. Oh wait, Patio almost knows something that
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller doesn't because beyond a shadow of a doubt,
Speaker 1: Patio says Trump wanted to work with the Russians to
Speaker 1: change the course of the election, and turns out that
Speaker 1: that's not true. Do you think, though, that any of
Speaker 1: the people that were listening to that to betomania in action,
Speaker 1: Do you think that any of them believe that the
Speaker 1: president is now innocent or at least is not guilty
Speaker 1: because the Mallo probe is over. No, they don't care,
Speaker 1: because they never cared what the facts where. They're going
Speaker 1: to believe this no matter what, no matter what we
Speaker 1: tell them, matter what is said. And that's because there
Speaker 1: was a real insanity here. I mean, I used when
Speaker 1: I'm talking about this and I'm saying lunacy, insanity, They're nuts,
Speaker 1: they're whacko. I really mean there there was a psychological break.
Speaker 1: There was a disconnect here from reality that affected millions
Speaker 1: and millions of people and affected most of the national
Speaker 1: press corps. And there were stories in the last few
Speaker 1: weeks even of I mean, this was both sad and
Speaker 1: kind of terrifying. There were stories written in a might
Speaker 1: even been The New York Times, but in a major
Speaker 1: paper about how there were people who were elderly and
Speaker 1: who were in their last weeks perhaps of life, and
Speaker 1: they had an anxiety. And I'm not making this up. Okay,
Speaker 1: you can check this. They had anxiety because they weren't
Speaker 1: sure they would make it to see the end of
Speaker 1: the Muller probe and Donald Trump being arrested. You know,
Speaker 1: they weren't sure that they would live long enough. And
Speaker 1: that was that provoked anxiety. I mean, that was something
Speaker 1: that was really bothersome to them, the notion that they
Speaker 1: wouldn't get to see Donald Trump in handcuffs because the
Speaker 1: Muller probe they had been that thoroughly brainwashed. You go
Speaker 1: back and you look at what was dawn on Saturday
Speaker 1: Night Live, and just how this made its way into
Speaker 1: the culture. I mean, there were people who, oh, my gosh.
Speaker 1: You know when when Jeff Sessions stepped down, Remember it
Speaker 1: was all, oh, what's gonna happen, and he's gonna shut
Speaker 1: down the Muller probe now, and all these people and
Speaker 1: all this protect Muller Acts stuff from the Congress and
Speaker 1: just all this grandstanding and this nonsense, and and that
Speaker 1: was pathetic enough, But then you also had people who
Speaker 1: turned Muller into some kind of a folk hero. Remember this,
Speaker 1: This was this went viral. It was people singing how
Speaker 1: they want a Muller Christmas play twenty seven. We wish
Speaker 1: you a mother Christmas. We wish you a mother Christmas.
Speaker 1: We wish you a mother Christmas and impeachment next year.
Speaker 1: Indictments will come to you and to your kin. Indictments
Speaker 1: for Christmas and impeachment next year. Sa Penaskuller for all
Speaker 1: of Trump's men in Diamon's for a Christmas and impeachment
Speaker 1: next year. Bring We can stop it there, because that's
Speaker 1: just not what normal people would do. That's that's there's
Speaker 1: there's a kind of sickness at the heart of this.
Speaker 1: You're singing Christmas carols with your kids about how you're
Speaker 1: hoping Muller impeaches the president. I mean this and there
Speaker 1: were all these different people on this video, and it
Speaker 1: got all this attention because anything that was anti Trump
Speaker 1: and pro Muller would get all this attention. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of embarrassment to go around here for people who
Speaker 1: aren't even in the public eye. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: really believe that Trump did this thing with Muller, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I did this thing with Putin rather and he was
Speaker 1: Putin's puppet, and then took that into to the lengths
Speaker 1: of propagandizing to your kids about it. And at what
Speaker 1: point do people feel stupid over this? Because they should
Speaker 1: A lot of people should feel very very dumb. Not
Speaker 1: people listen to this show because you've known the truth
Speaker 1: all along, but a lot of other people very dumb
Speaker 1: on this issue. Avan had his conduct had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with zealous advocacy for a client or any other
Speaker 1: kind of legitimate legal work. Instead, Avanadi used illegal and
Speaker 1: extortion threats for the purpose obtaining of obtaining millions of
Speaker 1: dollars in payments for himself. Abanati repeatedly pressured the company
Speaker 1: to agree to pay or risk having Avanadi hold the
Speaker 1: press conference that he claimed would dramatically drive down the
Speaker 1: stock price of the company at its market value. Avenati
Speaker 1: told the company it could skip paying for an internal
Speaker 1: investigation if instead it simply paid him twenty two point
Speaker 1: five million dollars. Then, Abanati said he would quote ride
Speaker 1: off into the sunset. Today we announced criminal extortion charges
Speaker 1: against Michael Abanati. The charges are based on Avenati's scheme
Speaker 1: to extract more than twenty million dollars in payments from
Speaker 1: a public company by threatening to use his ability to
Speaker 1: garner publicity to inflict financial and reputational harm on the company.
Speaker 1: Want a remarkable turn about my friends. Avanati dubbed the
Speaker 1: creepy poorn lawyer by none other than Tucker Carlson, is
Speaker 1: facing I think now, if he were to get the
Speaker 1: max on all charges, which he won't. And the newspapers
Speaker 1: love to do this thing where they tell you what
Speaker 1: someone's facing. They're never going to get that even if
Speaker 1: they're guilty. But he's facing over a hundred years in prison.
Speaker 1: It's a long time. But if he were convicted on
Speaker 1: these charts, I would says he's going to face something
Speaker 1: along the lines of, you know, seven to ten, probably
Speaker 1: in federal prison. He's got real prison time coming his
Speaker 1: way because that's the Southern District of New York. There's
Speaker 1: also a federal case against him that was unveiled today
Speaker 1: in California. We have another indictment out there in which
Speaker 1: Michael Avanati told a client that he would accept money
Speaker 1: on the clients behalf lied about the date of payment
Speaker 1: so that he could keep the money for himself and
Speaker 1: use that money to get a loan for one of
Speaker 1: his coffee businesses or something like that, and then kept
Speaker 1: pushing back the date, the phony date of when he
Speaker 1: said he would get the money for the client it
Speaker 1: was over a million dollars and use that money that
Speaker 1: was not his money to begin with, use that money
Speaker 1: in the furtherance of a bank loan fraud where he
Speaker 1: listed that as assets to get multiple millions of dollars
Speaker 1: in loans from a bank. My friends, let's just all
Speaker 1: take a moment here to drink this in Abanati, who
Speaker 1: was less than a year ago being treated by the
Speaker 1: media as some kind of rock star, as a possible
Speaker 1: presidential candidate, and I am not making that up. There
Speaker 1: were articles written about this guy. I mean, they made
Speaker 1: him a celebrity lawyer superhero. But Michael Avenati, with all
Speaker 1: of that, now faces the possibility of some really serious
Speaker 1: prison time and the loss of his law license and
Speaker 1: of course whatever reputation he had. This is really serious,
Speaker 1: and it's also simultaneously kind of hilarious because he's a
Speaker 1: shady guy. He's a bad guy. People should have known
Speaker 1: this all along. There's nothing surprising about this, just the
Speaker 1: whole way that he would go after people and his
Speaker 1: hyper aggressive and self promoting manner. I mean, he didn't
Speaker 1: have to spend long reading about or seeing this guy
Speaker 1: on TV to know that he was really bad news.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats in there, it's just insane hatred of
Speaker 1: this president. I mean, Trump's arrangement syndrome is such a
Speaker 1: powerful thing that they are incapable of just using their
Speaker 1: normal faculties to figure out that someone like Avenati is
Speaker 1: a world class charlatan. I mean world class. The sky
Speaker 1: is such a phony, and there's there's already so much
Speaker 1: smoke in his background. You know that there's fire with
Speaker 1: different shady dealings going on here and there. But you know,
Speaker 1: he used the representation of Stormy Daniels in an effort
Speaker 1: to really build up his personal profile and to make
Speaker 1: himself a household name. And CNN should be We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk more about media shame in a moment here. I mean,
Speaker 1: they should be appalled at the fact that they had
Speaker 1: this guy on over a hundred times. I think was
Speaker 1: the tally that I saw over the course of two months.
Speaker 1: I mean he was on TV on CNN and MSNBC,
Speaker 1: like you know, multiple times a night, every night for months.
Speaker 1: He was all over the place. People were having serious
Speaker 1: thoughts about whether this guy was going to run. Democrats,
Speaker 1: leftist media types really believe that Michael Avanatti was going
Speaker 1: to run for president of the United States and that
Speaker 1: maybe he could take it to Trump. I heard them
Speaker 1: say this. I heard them, I heard liberals talking about this,
Speaker 1: you know, in person and on TV. I was amazed.
Speaker 1: But you have to remember, Michael Avanati is also accidentally
Speaker 1: kind of a great American. You have to recall that
Speaker 1: Michael Avanati was the individual who was representing the third
Speaker 1: accuser of Kavanaugh, Julie Sweatnick. You know, Avanati was the
Speaker 1: one who put his name to that or oversaw that
Speaker 1: document that sworn Affidavid about Kavanaugh and the roving gang
Speaker 1: rape squads. It was Avenati who made that thing a
Speaker 1: national news story, and he was the lawyer representing that woman.
Speaker 1: And she was quite clearly a crazy person. I mean,
Speaker 1: she was somebody who really does have severe problems. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you saw that interview where she gave her she's
Speaker 1: talking about the roving Kavanaugh gang rape squad, it was
Speaker 1: so obvious that she was a liar and a disturbed
Speaker 1: person and an emotionally disturbed person, and that Michael Amanati
Speaker 1: as a lawyer, as an officer of the court, which
Speaker 1: is always kind of funny when you say that about
Speaker 1: certain lawyers, you think, wow, you mean they're supposed to
Speaker 1: be ethical as somebody who's on the court. That's not
Speaker 1: something that he should have been good faith done. He
Speaker 1: should not be representing a woman and be part of
Speaker 1: an obvious political hit job using a deeply disturbed human
Speaker 1: being in order to get his name the headlines. But
Speaker 1: he did it. But as a result of him representing Sweatnick,
Speaker 1: I think you have Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, because no
Speaker 1: honest person could sit there when that third allegation came
Speaker 1: out and say, Okay, so this isn't this isn't a hit, right,
Speaker 1: I mean it. You know, I thought that I can't
Speaker 1: remember her name now, but the main the main accuser
Speaker 1: of Kavanaugh, thank you, Blasi Ford. I thought that she
Speaker 1: was a liar, but a credible liar. I have thought
Speaker 1: now for oh, I've thought the whole time that the
Speaker 1: second accuser wasn't even really an accuser. You know, she
Speaker 1: couldn't even really remember the story. I mean, she wasn't
Speaker 1: even really sure what was going on. She said that
Speaker 1: she had to ask people, did this really happen to me?
Speaker 1: You're not an accuser when you have to ask people, well,
Speaker 1: did this thing happen that I'm asking you about whether
Speaker 1: it happened. But the third one, the Julie Sweatnick, that
Speaker 1: was the tipping point, and I think that might have
Speaker 1: saved that might have saved things for Kavanaugh, because the
Speaker 1: White House was very close to pulling that nomination. They
Speaker 1: almost did it. And you know, that's where you look
Speaker 1: at the effort and the really the devious machinations involved
Speaker 1: in a number of these very major news stories that
Speaker 1: Democrats were involved in, things like Covington, Kavanaugh, Jesse Smollett.
Speaker 1: You know, where there was an obvious, concerted effort to
Speaker 1: either create a narrative or to prop one up after
Speaker 1: some others had created it. And you see that they
Speaker 1: never learned a lesson, and that's because they don't think
Speaker 1: there's really a lesson to learn. The mainstream media knows
Speaker 1: deep down that they are activists. They are taking actions
Speaker 1: for what they think is a broader a broader good, which,
Speaker 1: as we know, is liberal left wing policy, idea, culture,
Speaker 1: everything else. The media is so far left that it
Speaker 1: doesn't even know how far left it is. And that's
Speaker 1: a very very real problem. We see that continue to
Speaker 1: play out. But I Avanadi and I'm gonna get into
Speaker 1: that media piece in a second. Every but you know,
Speaker 1: Avanadi has inserted himself into some of the biggest issues,
Speaker 1: some of the biggest scandals in America in the last
Speaker 1: year or so, and now here he is facing serious
Speaker 1: federal criminal charges. And also he's not a very slick guy.
Speaker 1: It's kind of amazing that he's made as much money
Speaker 1: and become as famous as he is when he was
Speaker 1: trying to extort Nike. And this is the basics of
Speaker 1: the of the plan. You heard the US attorneys say
Speaker 1: it there earlier in this in this segment, But the
Speaker 1: basics of the plan where You're gonna give me a
Speaker 1: whole lot of money for kind of a sham investigation
Speaker 1: or else I'm going to help hold a big press
Speaker 1: conference and trash you. And what's abasic is that Nike
Speaker 1: when he asked for the twenty was it twenty or
Speaker 1: twenty two million? When he asked for twenty million dollars plus,
Speaker 1: Nike went to the federal government, went to federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: and said, or US attorneys and said, hey, this is
Speaker 1: what's happening to us. And then they got him and
Speaker 1: this was in the indictment which I read, and they
Speaker 1: got him to essentially on tape say exactly what his
Speaker 1: scheme was in a way that it's going to leave
Speaker 1: very little little wiggle room for Oh, this is just
Speaker 1: a standard legal payoff. You know, the the bar is
Speaker 1: pretty higher because, you know, the the line between a
Speaker 1: legal line between legal hush money, which this is really
Speaker 1: a hush money situation, that's what that's what he was
Speaker 1: doing here. But the line between the legal hush money
Speaker 1: payment and extortion is not always that clear. But if
Speaker 1: there is a line, it seems like this individual Avanati
Speaker 1: has crossed it. And then some he's also just the
Speaker 1: whole everything about this guy was just so slimy and gross,
Speaker 1: and I mean I remember when he went on Tucker
Speaker 1: Show and the way that the way that he acted,
Speaker 1: in the way that he was just going after people
Speaker 1: and pretending like he's some kind of hero for women's
Speaker 1: rights by representing by being really a part of a
Speaker 1: porn star extortion, which is what was going on. I mean,
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels, I mean the hush hush hush money is
Speaker 1: really just a form of legalized extortion anyway, and that's
Speaker 1: all that was going on there. So this is what
Speaker 1: this guy is. This is who he is and what
Speaker 1: he does. But I don't want you to forget for
Speaker 1: one second that he was hailed as a hero when
Speaker 1: they thought that he was useful for bashing Trump. Avenati
Speaker 1: was treated like a hero, a rock star. They could
Speaker 1: not put him on TV enough. I mean, CNN refuses
Speaker 1: to have administration officials on TV because they say that
Speaker 1: they have credibility issues. Right, there's some administration figures that
Speaker 1: have been at least temporarily banned from CNN because of
Speaker 1: their credit ability issues. Meanwhile, Michael Avanadio on every chance
Speaker 1: they got because it served a purpose. Because they are
Speaker 1: not journalists, they are activists. They view their role as
Speaker 1: pushing for an agenda. They're rooting for an outcome. They
Speaker 1: are not providing you with facts. And we have some
Speaker 1: more on that very notion coming up in a moment.
Speaker 1: Despite what Donald Trump keeps saying about no collusion, no collusion,
Speaker 1: no collusion, people all around him appear to have been
Speaker 1: involved in some kind of nefarious relationships with Russians. Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: for the first time in his life, is cornered. He
Speaker 1: is boxed in by Mueller, and it's on the question
Speaker 1: of collusion and a massive obstruction of justice. Mueller is
Speaker 1: now connecting the dots. They know everything about Russia. The
Speaker 1: most serious counterintelligence people we have in the US government saying,
Speaker 1: oh my god, the president's words and actions lead us
Speaker 1: to conclude that somehow he has become a winning, unwinning
Speaker 1: or half winning pawn two Latimer Reputin. I think we've
Speaker 1: done the media. The press has done one of the
Speaker 1: great reporting jobs in the history. That is one of
Speaker 1: the craziest little montages. I think we could pull together
Speaker 1: for you. And you're hearing there from Carl Bernstein of
Speaker 1: Woodward and Bernstein fame that CNN kept putting on the
Speaker 1: air to just make a complete fool of himself and
Speaker 1: tell that audience what they wanted to hear, which was
Speaker 1: that Trump was cornered. Trump's going down any moment, They're
Speaker 1: gonna get Trump. No, they're not. And the way that
Speaker 1: people just completely debased and humiliated themselves in this effort
Speaker 1: to be popular with the hashtag resistance is something that
Speaker 1: I will never forget. And there are people out there
Speaker 1: who have been honest about this. There are people who,
Speaker 1: including those who are not Republicans, not conservatives, who saw
Speaker 1: this for what it was. And I gotta say I
Speaker 1: was on Fox just yesterday briefly, but I was on
Speaker 1: Fox talking about this, and I managed to see the
Speaker 1: Dirsch who was on right before me, and he had
Speaker 1: a he had a just a great moment where he
Speaker 1: went after specifically CNN on this whole issue of Russia
Speaker 1: collusion and this theory, this fantasy. Here's what the Durst said,
Speaker 1: Play thirteen. This is a good day for the president.
Speaker 1: It's a very very bad day for CNN. I have
Speaker 1: to tell you there should be hanging their head in
Speaker 1: shame when you think about how many people went out
Speaker 1: on a limb and predicted there would be indictments for obstruction,
Speaker 1: there would be indictments for collusion, there would be indictments
Speaker 1: for this and for that. They made it seem like
Speaker 1: it was an open and check case, and they misinformed
Speaker 1: the American public and they have to have some public
Speaker 1: accountability when you say things that turn out not to
Speaker 1: be true. I completely agree with Thurschwitz. Unfortunately, I don't
Speaker 1: think there will be any accountability because it served the agenda.
Speaker 1: It served the purpose. Remember, even though they didn't get
Speaker 1: Trump on collusion, they were able to tell this story
Speaker 1: and to use it as a means of hurting the presidency,
Speaker 1: slowing down the presidency, drawing its focus away, drawing its
Speaker 1: energy and resources away from enacting policy into fighting. I mean,
Speaker 1: they put the administration using this lie. They put the
Speaker 1: administration on defense. And in that regard, I don't think
Speaker 1: that CNN feels, or the Washington Post or any of
Speaker 1: these channels or newspapers. I don't think they feel badly
Speaker 1: about this at all. I just think that they are
Speaker 1: a little momentarily sheepish about the fact. Then, unless you're
Speaker 1: a moron, you know that these channels acted horrifically. And
Speaker 1: I mean, unless you are delusial. This woman writing for
Speaker 1: the Washington Post today, I gotta see if I can
Speaker 1: find her who it was, because it was so, so,
Speaker 1: so bad. This woman writing for the Washington Post said
Speaker 1: that they did a good a good job. Hold on
Speaker 1: a second, where did this one go? Oh? Yeah, here
Speaker 1: you go. Margaret Sullivan perspective. Serious journalists should be proud
Speaker 1: and not bullied over their Russia reporting. This is in
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. She is completely completely out of her mind.
Speaker 1: The press. I don't think. I think this is a
Speaker 1: death blow for media credibility. I mean, I don't think
Speaker 1: they ever come back from this. I don't think they're
Speaker 1: ever going to rebound from this, and I think the
Speaker 1: media is now permanently fractured. It might take a little
Speaker 1: time for this to become obvious, but I do think
Speaker 1: that that's where that's where we're heading now. You can't
Speaker 1: watch this and realize that these people are just they're
Speaker 1: just out of it. They have forgotten about what their
Speaker 1: jobs are supposed to be. They've abandoned it, and they
Speaker 1: have no honesty about what they're really doing. Day in
Speaker 1: and day out. They serve an agenda, they serve a
Speaker 1: purpose for the left, and it's a very look, it's
Speaker 1: a it's good work if you can get it from
Speaker 1: a sense that a lot of them are very highly
Speaker 1: paid little foot soldiers of the left wing agenda. They are,
Speaker 1: you know, operating in a in an environment, especially in
Speaker 1: a place like SNA or MSNBC wherever it around them
Speaker 1: thinks that they're doing heroic work because they're carrying water
Speaker 1: for the Democrats. So there won't be media accountability, but
Speaker 1: there should be, and at least you and I get
Speaker 1: to go on with our days knowing that we were
Speaker 1: right and all these so called journalists made complete fools
Speaker 1: of themselves. Did Robert Mueller deserve better from the president
Speaker 1: that this kind of language and behavior? Frankly, I think
Speaker 1: the American people deserved better. They didn't deserve for the
Speaker 1: election of this president to try to be the president's
Speaker 1: rhetoric about a public servant doing a job. Are you kidding?
Speaker 1: The president's rhetoric matches. They are literally The media and
Speaker 1: Democrats have called the president an agent of a foreign
Speaker 1: government that we're talking, but that is an accusation equal
Speaker 1: to treason, which is punishable by death in this country.
Speaker 1: Does he owe Robert Muller an apology for that kind
Speaker 1: of rhetoric? I think Democrats and the liberal media owe
Speaker 1: the president, and they owe the American people and apology.
Speaker 1: They wasted two years and created a massive disruption and
Speaker 1: distraction from things that people that impact everyone's day to
Speaker 1: day life. The gas lighting here is just crazy. That's
Speaker 1: left winger, left wing, you know, est publishment, media hacks.
Speaker 1: Evannah Guthrie does Robert Muller deserve an apology? Are you
Speaker 1: kidding me? Lady? Does Robert Muller deserve an apology for what?
Speaker 1: For what? Because the President said that Muller's whole thing
Speaker 1: is a witch hunt. It was a witch hunt. The
Speaker 1: President's right. Does anyone think that it really took them
Speaker 1: two years to figure out that there was no collusion
Speaker 1: and they probably knew with in the first three months,
Speaker 1: maybe the first six months. You know, they're a pull
Speaker 1: all the phone records, they are the pull whatever witnesses
Speaker 1: they want, whatever electronic communications they wanted to see, had
Speaker 1: all the resources they could ever want or desire for this.
Speaker 1: But does Muller They still they're just trying to come
Speaker 1: up with everything they can to muddy the waters here.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's amazing to watch how the media
Speaker 1: plays all these games, and there's so much, there's so
Speaker 1: much that they do. It's so transparent, so dishonest, but
Speaker 1: they can't help themselves, and one of the ones is
Speaker 1: just to find something else to talk about or to
Speaker 1: make it seem like the real victim here is Muller.
Speaker 1: The real person that we need to like focus in
Speaker 1: on is is how you know, is Muller and how
Speaker 1: he was not treated nicely enough by the President of
Speaker 1: the United States. So I think Muller is gonna be
Speaker 1: gonna be just fine. There was, as as I've been saying,
Speaker 1: such a mass hysteria around this. It's such it's such
Speaker 1: an embarrassment, and there should be such a greater deal
Speaker 1: of embarrassment for the people that bought into all of
Speaker 1: this and this. Alston then brings me to will we
Speaker 1: see any any consequences for the people involved? I I
Speaker 1: think unforced the answer is probably not really, not really.
Speaker 1: I've I've still thought all along that Sally Yates played
Speaker 1: a bigger role in some of this than we've yet
Speaker 1: found out. I just there's something about Yates and her conduct,
Speaker 1: and I mean, she's definitely a lefty and a definitely
Speaker 1: a true believer leftist. But you know, I just wonder
Speaker 1: if they're all going to get away with this with
Speaker 1: with an attempted coup against the government, really just a
Speaker 1: coup using the government apparatus. But people say, oh, that's
Speaker 1: not fear. You can't call it a coup. Why And
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of coups are bloodless. They
Speaker 1: just you know, the men with guns, show up the
Speaker 1: police or the secret police or whatever, and they say, okay, mister,
Speaker 1: mister president or King so and so, like, you're under
Speaker 1: arrest now, and that's it, you know, And that person
Speaker 1: then gets thrown in a cell somewhere and the new
Speaker 1: regime comes into place. And that a coup is not
Speaker 1: always the palace, you know, or the the seat of
Speaker 1: government gets shot up and there's bloodshed everywhere and it's
Speaker 1: a it's a tank battle in the streets. Sometimes a
Speaker 1: coup is just okay, the people in power show up
Speaker 1: and say you're now in a cell or you have
Speaker 1: to leave the country. And what they tried against this
Speaker 1: president was no less than a coup, a coup using
Speaker 1: the judicial system and the or rather the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice and the prosecutorial and investigative functions of the governments.
Speaker 1: That was what the effort was here, and the media
Speaker 1: and the Democratic Party working together on this, and it's
Speaker 1: the biggest scam, the biggest scandal in my lifetime. And
Speaker 1: while on the one hand, I'm elated, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: I'm absolutely furious. And that's why I like that Sarah
Speaker 1: Hugaby Sanders is just not backing down one inch. One inch.
Speaker 1: Here's what she said about about this with Savannah Guthrie,
Speaker 1: play twenty four. Let's not forget this took place under
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. You had people like Clapper and Brennan
Speaker 1: lying to Congress to perpetuate this idea of Russia collusion
Speaker 1: against the President of the United I think they're talking
Speaker 1: about the fact that Russia did, in fact metal in
Speaker 1: our elections, which is borne out by this latest report
Speaker 1: and the intelligence agencies of the US, and they tried
Speaker 1: to tie the President of the United States to it,
Speaker 1: which was completely false and completely wrong. Notice how just
Speaker 1: you know she knows the talking was there, Well, there
Speaker 1: was the Russian meddling. The Russian middling was a joke, folks.
Speaker 1: It was a joke. And I think actually the Russians
Speaker 1: really believed that it was basically a joke, as in,
Speaker 1: they were just messing with us because that's what they
Speaker 1: like to do. They weren't going to turn the election
Speaker 1: one way or the other. They certainly didn't think. No
Speaker 1: one thought Donald Trump was gonna win. The Russians didn't
Speaker 1: think he was gonna win, and they didn't know anything,
Speaker 1: no idea. They got their own problems. I got their
Speaker 1: own things going on there, But Savannah Guthrie, you know,
Speaker 1: sticks to the talking points of that. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: really the problem is that you just need to look
Speaker 1: at how Russia was so influential in what happened here,
Speaker 1: and the truth is that Russia was not influential, and
Speaker 1: we should not be in a position where we have
Speaker 1: to keep going back over this same And I want
Speaker 1: to see the information, by the way, I would like
Speaker 1: to see more than just people who said it was
Speaker 1: seventeen intelligence agencies and you know they were the ones
Speaker 1: that made this determination. It's actually four. It was actually
Speaker 1: individual Jules, a handful of people i'm sure, from four
Speaker 1: of the intelligence agencies that were handpicked by by Brennan
Speaker 1: by Brennan. So you know, he's a guy who has
Speaker 1: done as much damage to the reputation the federal government's
Speaker 1: process as anybody. I mean, I think you could probably
Speaker 1: argue he's done the most damage with the possible exception
Speaker 1: of James Komey and maybe McCabe or the McCabe wasn't
Speaker 1: as large of a figure in this. And Peter Struck
Speaker 1: was the most egregious in his hatred of the president
Speaker 1: and the stupidity of his personal communications. But he's a
Speaker 1: kind of not a low level but a lower level guy,
Speaker 1: and not somebody that you would expect necessarily to have
Speaker 1: the political know how and skills to maneuver at that level,
Speaker 1: someone like a Komey, a Brennon. I mean, these guys
Speaker 1: are effectively politicians who are running major government bureaucracies, and
Speaker 1: that they have been such clowns in this whole thing
Speaker 1: and really so damaging. I mean, if you haven't seen
Speaker 1: yet Komy standing in the woods looking up at a
Speaker 1: bunch of trees with his tweet, I have questions. You know,
Speaker 1: you've definitely missed something. And then there's also a video
Speaker 1: let's going around of it's I can't even really describe it.
Speaker 1: I think it's called a Pea Warrior video of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's face put on these South Asian in this South
Speaker 1: Asian warrior scene. It's it's hilarious. I mean, I'm just
Speaker 1: so excited about all the celebration and the the hilarious
Speaker 1: stuff that's also going on, because we finally get to
Speaker 1: sit around and look at each other and say, you know,
Speaker 1: this nightmare is over. But that sense of elation, in
Speaker 1: that sense that we can take a take a breath.
Speaker 1: You know, you have to balance that out with well,
Speaker 1: what does justice really require here? And I think that, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: justice is going to require, despite what Savannah Guthrie's of
Speaker 1: the world say, finding out who perpetuated this hoax, because
Speaker 1: it was not about Russian interference in the election. It
Speaker 1: was about the president conspiring with Russia to interfere in
Speaker 1: the election. If it was just about Russian interference, there
Speaker 1: would not have needed to be a special counsel at all.
Speaker 1: The special counsel was appointed because they said that Trump
Speaker 1: was trying to stop the investigation into the interference that
Speaker 1: Trump committed with Russia in the election, which was all
Speaker 1: a crazy story for lunatics, but they believed it. This
Speaker 1: president has a way of trying to get into people's
Speaker 1: heads and indoctrinate them. He's been saying no collusion, no collusion,
Speaker 1: no collusion, over and over again for a long time now,
Speaker 1: and he's going to try and conclude that there this
Speaker 1: report is proving that there's no collusion. And you have
Speaker 1: a lot of his sicklephants who will you take the
Speaker 1: knog from him, and they'll say the same thing. But
Speaker 1: we cannot allow them to get away with this. He
Speaker 1: does this all all the time. This is not the
Speaker 1: end of anything. This is the well, it's the end
Speaker 1: of the report and the investigation by Muller. But those
Speaker 1: of us who chaired these committees have a responsibility to
Speaker 1: continue with our oversight. This is not the end of anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, at the end of the Mueller investigation. But
Speaker 1: it's not the end of anything. Maxie and waters Man,
Speaker 1: what what would we do without Maxie? And representing the
Speaker 1: left wing Democrat looney point of view? There, She's not
Speaker 1: the end of anything. They're going to keep on. We
Speaker 1: knew this was the case. I've been telling you this forever.
Speaker 1: You know this. I know this that even one presented
Speaker 1: with the finality of no collusion via Muller, whom, as
Speaker 1: I've discussed with you, is not somebody who is favorably
Speaker 1: disposed for the president at all, not somebody who was
Speaker 1: I think fair minded in his approach to this investigation.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean he didn't conduct a reasonably fair investigation,
Speaker 1: but I think that Muller someone who did not like
Speaker 1: President Trump, and that colored his thinking at different points.
Speaker 1: It certainly colored the thinking of somebody who, in that
Speaker 1: memo said it does not. It does not convict him,
Speaker 1: it does not exonerate him. That was unacceptable. It was
Speaker 1: very commiest moment, very reminiscent of James Comey with his
Speaker 1: Hillary did all these bad things, but we're not going
Speaker 1: to indict her for violations of the Espionage Act and
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, I would note, which was far more
Speaker 1: obvious and far more clearly the case with Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: than it was with anything having to do with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, Hillary was destroying evidence. I mean, destroying evidence
Speaker 1: is about as clear obstruction as you're going to get.
Speaker 1: But they did not charge her. But they're not. The
Speaker 1: real point here is that they're not ending it. They're
Speaker 1: not going to shut down this investigation. They're not going
Speaker 1: to say, you know what, maybe we were just being
Speaker 1: completely insane for no reason, and enough as an enough,
Speaker 1: and we are going to move on with our lives
Speaker 1: here in some way. That's absolutely not going to happen.
Speaker 1: In fact, I still think the dumbest person in Congress
Speaker 1: is Senator Horono, although there's some competition for sure, but
Speaker 1: Senator Horrono has also said that, oh, they're just gonna
Speaker 1: keep They're gonna keep on this. They're gonna stay on
Speaker 1: this play twenty five. The president, who basically cares about
Speaker 1: protecting himself and money, that he will come out and
Speaker 1: say this is full examination, knowing that that is not
Speaker 1: the case at all. So meanwhile, the chairman of the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee will continue to do whatever he's going to
Speaker 1: do regarding Hillary because as long as there's a policy
Speaker 1: they want to go after the Clintons, we should be
Speaker 1: moving forward. At the same time, there's no question that
Speaker 1: the House committees are going to continue their investigations. So
Speaker 1: just because there was not enough evidence for criminal charge
Speaker 1: of conspiracy does not mean that this very cozy relationship
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has with we're putting who, by the way,
Speaker 1: must be really happy that this came about, that this
Speaker 1: kind of clozy relationship that is not good for our
Speaker 1: country in that it's not transparent. We'll continue. First of all,
Speaker 1: you've got to get past all the babbling there of
Speaker 1: just just the nonsense, but the cozy Putin relationship and
Speaker 1: what does this have to do with anything? But I
Speaker 1: love how she immediately goes from on the one hand,
Speaker 1: moved past the Clinton component of this, Oh, let's not
Speaker 1: focus on the Clintons, and on the other but let's
Speaker 1: keep let's keep investigating Russia collusion. They've had a special
Speaker 1: counsel to look into that, it has been two years,
Speaker 1: it has been tens of millions of dollars, and that
Speaker 1: they won't give it up now. It just goes to
Speaker 1: show you that this was never about And one of
Speaker 1: the more frustrating lies that's told now is that this
Speaker 1: was just about finding out about Russian interference in the election.
Speaker 1: I mean, the interference in the election was an attempted
Speaker 1: interference in the election, as in the effectiveness of it
Speaker 1: is obviously zero. If the Russians were that good at
Speaker 1: turning a US election, they would have to have geniuses
Speaker 1: at American political propaganda. I mean, they would have to
Speaker 1: have the smartest team of people on the planets, smarter
Speaker 1: than all of the different political apparatuses in this country
Speaker 1: and all the different media and everything else, that was
Speaker 1: just able to tip the balance perfectly, just get those
Speaker 1: right voters to I mean, it's just it's a crazy fantasy.
Speaker 1: But this whole thing has been a crazy fantasy. And
Speaker 1: that's how we've known all along that when it comes
Speaker 1: to when the Mullar probe comes to an end, it
Speaker 1: does not mean that the rest of this will necessarily
Speaker 1: come to an end, because sure enough, they want to
Speaker 1: continue to use this as a harassment campaign against the president.
Speaker 1: They want to do everything that they can to make
Speaker 1: sure that they can subpoena people and subpoena documents and
Speaker 1: bring them down. And you know, it's it's just remarkable.
Speaker 1: It's just remarkable that they aren't even batting an eyelash
Speaker 1: as they say, Oh, yeah, you know, we're just gonna
Speaker 1: keep on keep on going here, but let's not investigate Hillary.
Speaker 1: I do believe that the only way to get Democrats
Speaker 1: to stop, the only way to fight back against the left,
Speaker 1: is to make them live under their own rules and
Speaker 1: also to do to them as they do to us.
Speaker 1: And that means that I think there's a very a
Speaker 1: very real argument to be made for appointing somebody to
Speaker 1: Now the Inspector General is looking at it, so that's
Speaker 1: what they would say, Inspector Generals looking at the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton situation. And it won't come out until next summer.
Speaker 1: Most likely. It's going to be a little while before
Speaker 1: that IG report is out. But I'm hoping that if
Speaker 1: there's enough in that IG report that there will be
Speaker 1: some accountability for someone along the way, because that's one
Speaker 1: of the losses here. We simply have not had enough
Speaker 1: people who are going to suffer real consequences for what
Speaker 1: has happened, not even close. In fact, I think very
Speaker 1: very few of any people. I'm even of the mind
Speaker 1: that McCabe is unlikely to face criminal charges for just
Speaker 1: lying under oath and which other people in the Muller
Speaker 1: probe haven't caught up in and serve jail time for.
Speaker 1: I think that McCabe is going to skate on that
Speaker 1: because he's part of that status establishment and they're just
Speaker 1: not going to want to go after him the way
Speaker 1: they've gone after others. But yeah, this doesn't and we
Speaker 1: knew it would. Now now it's all going to be
Speaker 1: more Southern District of New York. Although, hey, Southern District
Speaker 1: with Albanati. It's going to be Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: It's going to be, oh, the big fight over Trump's taxes.
Speaker 1: And I can tell you this, of all the surefire
Speaker 1: nothing burgers that the Democrats have attached themselves too and
Speaker 1: made a huge deal out of of all the nothing
Speaker 1: burgers that anyone should know are just and to disappoint
Speaker 1: those who believe that there could be something else going
Speaker 1: on here. Trump's taxes are going to be boring as
Speaker 1: all hack. There's nothing in there that anyone should think
Speaker 1: is particularly interesting or is going to think is interesting
Speaker 1: or worthwhile. At this point, I think Trump just won't
Speaker 1: give it to them because they wanted so badly and
Speaker 1: he liked. Look, he's great at trolling the media. He
Speaker 1: knows this. He's great at messing with their heads. And
Speaker 1: that's part of his intransigence on the taxes issue, because
Speaker 1: the federal government already has it. I mean, the irs
Speaker 1: already has Donald Trump's entire tax history, and they could
Speaker 1: go through it. I mean they could. I'm sure they
Speaker 1: have audited him. I think he even said that he's
Speaker 1: under audit right now or it has been under audit,
Speaker 1: so the Feds have already been looking at this. I'm
Speaker 1: quite certain that there isn't some big wire transfusion from
Speaker 1: the Kremlin to President Trump for election collusion. I'm quite
Speaker 1: sure that some of the bizarre and completely silly theories
Speaker 1: out there are not going to be proven true. But
Speaker 1: they're gonna latch onto that and a whole lot more
Speaker 1: because they're not given up, folks. They don't care what
Speaker 1: the facts are. They never did. Yesterday, a rocket was
Speaker 1: fired from Gaza, deep inside Israel. It hit a home
Speaker 1: north of Tel Aviv. It wounded seven, including two small children,
Speaker 1: and miraculously no one was hurt, no one was killed.
Speaker 1: Israel will not tolerate this. I will not tolerate this.
Speaker 1: And as we speak, as I told you, mister President,
Speaker 1: just now, Israel is responding forcefully to this wanton aggression.
Speaker 1: I have a simple message to Israel's enemies. We will
Speaker 1: do whatever we must do to defend our people and
Speaker 1: defend our states. Net Yahoo today in a meeting with
Speaker 1: President Trump talking about recent Israeli actions in response to
Speaker 1: attacks from Hamas. We've got our friend David if Fun
Speaker 1: with us now. He is editor in chief of the
Speaker 1: Alga Miner. David, always great to have you, Always a
Speaker 1: pleasure buck. All right, So what first, let's just talk
Speaker 1: about this Hamas missile strike. What happened, what's the response,
Speaker 1: and what's sort of led up to this? What are
Speaker 1: the atmospherics we need to know about with regard to
Speaker 1: Israel and Hamas? Right now? Why are the tensions ratcheting up? Well? Look,
Speaker 1: the tensions are always there, simmiling, simmering below the surface,
Speaker 1: and what they now, who said is right? I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if if anyone listening has had a
Speaker 1: chance to look at the images and not the images
Speaker 1: that you're seeing sort of on the main Sti media outlets,
Speaker 1: but you know the images that are circulating within Israel.
Speaker 1: You know, you actually see the roof caved in, you
Speaker 1: see the house in ruins, and you see the little
Speaker 1: child's crib right there underneath the rebels. So it really
Speaker 1: was miraculous that the damage wasn't wasn't more severe here. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of what's behind it and why
Speaker 1: we're seeing this now, we've seen a few explanations over
Speaker 1: the past few weeks. There were certainly different theories in
Speaker 1: terms of, you know, whether Hamas wants to influence the
Speaker 1: Israeli elections in some way over the over the coming weeks.
Speaker 1: You know they're coming up pretty soon. But the truth
Speaker 1: is that, you know, this is the worst impact that
Speaker 1: we've seen from Gaza rockets for a very, very long time,
Speaker 1: and the Israelia response has really been ferocious. They've been
Speaker 1: targeting Hamas control centers and terrorist sites all the way
Speaker 1: up and down the full length of the strip, including
Speaker 1: taking down the Hamas central headquarters of Prime Minister Ishmael Haneam.
Speaker 1: And you know that that's a significant response. That's sort
Speaker 1: of led to talks of a ceasefire now that's being
Speaker 1: mediated by Egypt. They say it's going to go into
Speaker 1: effect at ten pm tonight, so we'll see how that goes.
Speaker 1: You know, these c S fires are notoriously shaky. So
Speaker 1: and David, this comes right after President Trump. President Trump
Speaker 1: announced this policy of recognizing the goal on Heights as
Speaker 1: Israeli territory. Just can you speak to what's the significance
Speaker 1: of that and how is that being received in Israel.
Speaker 1: Israelis are ecstatic about this across the board, and it
Speaker 1: really is significance. What President Trump said is right that
Speaker 1: this should have been recognized years and years and years ago.
Speaker 1: I mean, the history of that is simple. In nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty seven, during the Six Day War, Syria invaded Israel
Speaker 1: from the girl and Heights, which have there are strategic elevation,
Speaker 1: so that it's a very significant from a security perspective.
Speaker 1: It was a very hard fought battle in which Israel
Speaker 1: won back the heights at the cost of the lives
Speaker 1: of many good men. And you know, for for years
Speaker 1: and years and years, there's been talked that, you know,
Speaker 1: the famous resolution two for two, that Israel would return territories,
Speaker 1: not all the territories, that very specifically doesn't use the
Speaker 1: word all the territies, just says territories that have gained
Speaker 1: during that war. But it's one has always maintained that
Speaker 1: returning the Girl on Heights would be something that would
Speaker 1: be very strategically significant, and especially considering how things have
Speaker 1: been developing is Syria lately, where it's either Isis or
Speaker 1: Iran that's going to control that area. So it's reached
Speaker 1: the point where there isn't even according to those who
Speaker 1: think it should be returned for whatever reason, you know,
Speaker 1: there's no logical way to give it back to any
Speaker 1: of those two parties. So, you know, putting all of
Speaker 1: those elements together, the White House has said, you know,
Speaker 1: enough is enough. Um, you know, Israel one that territory
Speaker 1: in a in a defensive war, and in any case,
Speaker 1: there's nobody to give the territory back to, So you know,
Speaker 1: we're going to go with with Israel's view. Israeli next
Speaker 1: bit decades ago. So we're going to back Israel's position.
Speaker 1: This is Israeli territory, and hopefully more countries around the
Speaker 1: world will flow. What was the hold up with other administrations?
Speaker 1: I mean, the case you just laid out seems pretty straightforward.
Speaker 1: So why did the Obama administration do this? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration, there was certainly, uh, some some sympathies.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is this is a long complex discussion.
Speaker 1: There are lots of different parts to it, but there
Speaker 1: was a sympathy, a sympathy towards the Iranian position. The
Speaker 1: Iranians were obviously allied with the Syrians in the Syrian
Speaker 1: Civil War. It's the same reason that the abadministration was
Speaker 1: reluctant to back the opposition at the beginning. They didn't
Speaker 1: want to, um, you know, do too much that could
Speaker 1: upset the Ranians at that time. Obviously, this is something
Speaker 1: that that's that would be uh, you know, it's a
Speaker 1: big loss to the Iranian position in that country. And
Speaker 1: you know, the Obama administration was notoriously sensitive to Iranian concerns,
Speaker 1: which I think could have been the major factor behind this,
Speaker 1: which of course is unfortunate and has led to no
Speaker 1: end of trouble that the position that the above administration took.
Speaker 1: Having said that, it's refreshing that this administration is taking
Speaker 1: a completely completely different approach which is fair and fast
Speaker 1: sighted and moral, just and ultimately will benefit the security
Speaker 1: of the region in the world. And Prime Minister and
Speaker 1: Yahoo today said that in his remarks that Israel has
Speaker 1: had many friends in the White House in this country,
Speaker 1: but that there is no that Israel has had no
Speaker 1: better friend than President Donald Trump. I mean, is that
Speaker 1: sentiment pretty pretty universal back back in Israel? I mean,
Speaker 1: our folks, how do folks over their view this presidency. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's pretty universal back in Israel. You know, there are
Speaker 1: two countries in the world where President Trump is more
Speaker 1: popular than he is in the United States, and one
Speaker 1: of those countries is Israel. Across the board, he received
Speaker 1: praise for this decision. Obviously, there's a great deal to
Speaker 1: say about President Trump. But you know, I spent many
Speaker 1: hours with ambassadors and ministers and advisors to the Prime Minister,
Speaker 1: and I can tell you that they literally cannot believe
Speaker 1: their luck with this administration. I mean on all the
Speaker 1: key issues that are important to them, on Iran, on Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: on Palestinian payments of terrorists, on bias against Israel, the
Speaker 1: United Nations, on to Golan Heights. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: there's a never ending stream of favorable positions that this
Speaker 1: administration has taken on issues that have been of huge
Speaker 1: importance and with very broad political consensus throughout Israel, from
Speaker 1: from parties across the Aisle. So there's absolutely no question
Speaker 1: that this president is adored in the Jewish State. And
Speaker 1: you know, taking everything else out of the equation and
Speaker 1: looking solely at the positions that he's taken, I think
Speaker 1: it's hard to make the case that there has ever
Speaker 1: been a position that's taken persistently taken more favorable positions
Speaker 1: visa Israel's security consent than this president has. And as
Speaker 1: for a Net and Yahoo's political prospects, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think we had you on recently, David, to talk about
Speaker 1: the prospect of an indictment of Net and Yahoo in
Speaker 1: Israeli criminal court. What is this guy's what's his status?
Speaker 1: How are things going? Well? Look the way the things
Speaker 1: work in Israel, Um, it takes a while to these
Speaker 1: things to to process. I mean, some of some of
Speaker 1: these investigations and indictment and and you know, the process
Speaker 1: of you know, prosecuting or tempt to prosecute someone in
Speaker 1: that position could take a very, very long time. So
Speaker 1: it's rail's a kind of use to political life continuing
Speaker 1: with these sort of legal issues taking place in the background.
Speaker 1: So the announcement happened early enough that it seems that
Speaker 1: it's sort of baked into the numbers that we're seeing
Speaker 1: today at this stage, and the decision that Israelis are
Speaker 1: going to make is not likely to take the legal
Speaker 1: issues into account too much. I mean, now the question
Speaker 1: really is, you know, Naho's been there for a decade.
Speaker 1: He's the longest serving prime minister ever I think, or
Speaker 1: the second longest. It's very close with David being around.
Speaker 1: And the question is, you know, whether it's rays are
Speaker 1: going to say time to try somebody new. But certainly
Speaker 1: there's a lot of appreciation for nit Nyahu and what
Speaker 1: he's done for the country on security front, on the
Speaker 1: diplomatic front, on the economic front. And you know, in
Speaker 1: the end of the day, that's the choice that the
Speaker 1: people in the country are going to make. Do they
Speaker 1: want to have someone who has proven effectiveness or you know,
Speaker 1: are they ready to try somebody knew is the time
Speaker 1: for somebody knew it? Yeah, that's really how it works
Speaker 1: in democracies. You know, you've got you've gotta change things
Speaker 1: up a little bit every once in a while. So, um,
Speaker 1: just just telling any just telling that Yahu and anybody
Speaker 1: else who's running, just don't don't don't talk to any
Speaker 1: Russians because that can that can cause problems for you, apparently,
Speaker 1: David to food and everybody. Check out the Alga Miner
Speaker 1: online Alga dot com. Doab it always good to even
Speaker 1: make the time, my friend. Thank you. Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: But team, we are going to come back with a
Speaker 1: whole lot more show. Stay with me. There are some
Speaker 1: idiosyncratic topics that I like to talk about on this show.
Speaker 1: You know that, right. There are certain things like occasionally
Speaker 1: I just need to tell you about the dangers of
Speaker 1: carpet sharks, you know, and how they look all cute
Speaker 1: and little weener dogs and the whole thing. But then
Speaker 1: you know, you lift it up at the baby shower
Speaker 1: in front of like all your girlfriend's friends and it
Speaker 1: tries to bite your face off, you know, So I
Speaker 1: just want to I want to warn you about that. See,
Speaker 1: you need to understand that a decrepit, ancient looking docs
Speaker 1: and aka carpet shark can be dangerous. Also, I'm a
Speaker 1: big proponent of and this is going to tie into
Speaker 1: our topic here, of comfortable footwear. This is why some
Speaker 1: of you have seen before I've even gone on national
Speaker 1: TV wearing old beat up boat shoes also known as
Speaker 1: my sperries. And you say, Buck, you shouldn't. Well, I know,
Speaker 1: usually I think they're not going to see my feet.
Speaker 1: It's just occasionally because the TV shot, they may see
Speaker 1: my feet. But you want to have comfortable feet. It's
Speaker 1: very important to have comfortable feet in life as a
Speaker 1: general thing. And I try to convince I might trying
Speaker 1: to be sexist here, I'm trying to be anti sexist.
Speaker 1: I try to ladies out there that if you're you know,
Speaker 1: if it's night out on the town, or you're you know,
Speaker 1: you're going to like a fancy dinner party or you know,
Speaker 1: going out whatever, going out to a gallah or whatever,
Speaker 1: people do who actually have social lives. Yeah, of course,
Speaker 1: high heels you go over the whole thing. But when
Speaker 1: I see women walking into the office in heels, I
Speaker 1: just always want to say, you know, that's got a hurt.
Speaker 1: That can't be fun. You know, that's not how I
Speaker 1: go If I were you, then again, I believe or not,
Speaker 1: don't have much experience walking around Niels, I don't really
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about, but men's suits are another
Speaker 1: area of my ire because I just think that the
Speaker 1: traditional men's western suit is not a very comfortable garment.
Speaker 1: I'm really more okay with the suit jacket. Suit jackets
Speaker 1: don't really bother me, although they're never that comfortable, but
Speaker 1: they they can be pretty good. Suit Pants, though, are terrible,
Speaker 1: and wool, which, as we know, most especially winter suits,
Speaker 1: you gotta have it in wool. Wool is not a
Speaker 1: very comfortable fabric compared to other stuff that's out there now.
Speaker 1: Now people send to me, Buck, you sound like a savage,
Speaker 1: what is wrong with you? And to that I say,
Speaker 1: I understand that I'm breaking with the consensus here, But
Speaker 1: for all of you who have to wear suits to work,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about, and it really confines you.
Speaker 1: And there's also no such thing as a suit, let's
Speaker 1: be honest. Unless for those of the audience that have
Speaker 1: a you know that have washboard abs, congrats, and we
Speaker 1: all secretly are jealous. But you know, if you sit down,
Speaker 1: you're wearing a men's suit and you in its wool,
Speaker 1: it has very little stretched and so it tends to
Speaker 1: not be very comfortable when you sit down, because some
Speaker 1: people have a little bit of a tumtum that can
Speaker 1: form when you sit down. So I'm just saying suits
Speaker 1: are not a lot of fun. Turns out I'm not
Speaker 1: alone in this. One. Wall Street Journal is a piece
Speaker 1: today that says men ditch suits and retailers are struggling
Speaker 1: to adapt. You have more and more major companies and
Speaker 1: organizations that are saying that you no longer have to
Speaker 1: wear a suit in the office. In fact, Goldman Sacks,
Speaker 1: which is a very fancy place, as you know, most
Speaker 1: famous investment bank and most powerful investment bank. I think
Speaker 1: you could say in the world they no longer require
Speaker 1: their employees to wear a suit in the office. And
Speaker 1: there are only a couple of high powered law firms
Speaker 1: in New York that still require suit and tie. I
Speaker 1: think suits might be required, but not suit and tie.
Speaker 1: There's only a couple, and people are moving away from this.
Speaker 1: A tie is kind of a ridiculous thing, and you've
Speaker 1: probably noticed that I wear ties less those you see
Speaker 1: me on Fox that were ties less than I used to,
Speaker 1: because yes, I know, it kind of completes the look,
Speaker 1: and there's a formality and a and a you know,
Speaker 1: pulls it all together vibe to wearing the right tie.
Speaker 1: But it's it's pretty ridiculous. You know, you're tying this
Speaker 1: rope around your neck. Basically, it's not a very not
Speaker 1: a very wise thing. Tactically for those of you that
Speaker 1: are from the tactical community, you know, you don't want
Speaker 1: to have something tied around your neck like that, just
Speaker 1: inviting the enemy to take advantage. But suits are now
Speaker 1: on the way out. In fact, suits are down eight
Speaker 1: percent since twenty fifteen the men's suit market, and it's
Speaker 1: almost two billion dollars. People are not spending as much
Speaker 1: money on suits anymore, you know, And I think one
Speaker 1: of the reasons for that is that, first of all,
Speaker 1: you know, a suit that is really gonna fit you well,
Speaker 1: is going to be custom made off the rack is
Speaker 1: pretty tough to get totally right, because look, we all
Speaker 1: have different sized bodies. It doesn't make any sense right
Speaker 1: that a suit which has certain fixed especially in the shoulders,
Speaker 1: and you know there are fixed parts of it that
Speaker 1: you can't really adjust all that much, and it's it's
Speaker 1: difficult for you to find or just be lucky maybe
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes you'll get well and you say, oh,
Speaker 1: this fits me perfectly, but usually not. But now you
Speaker 1: get people that are wearing these the equivalent of men's
Speaker 1: yoga pants to work and Lulu Lemon for men. Lu
Speaker 1: Lemon is a very trendy and high end athletic apparel company.
Speaker 1: Lu Lemon men's pants are now And you know what
Speaker 1: I'm team. I'm not gonna hide this from you. I
Speaker 1: own a pair of lu Lemon men's pants. You've never
Speaker 1: seen me. I haven't posted any photos to be wearing
Speaker 1: them anything that they're not tight. So before you think
Speaker 1: that I'm walking around in the male version of yoga pants,
Speaker 1: they are not tight. But they are I will tell
Speaker 1: you they are incredibly comfortable. And once you start wearing
Speaker 1: them around a little bit, you're like, you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't think I really want to. You know, an
Speaker 1: old pair of blue jeans pretty good, because blue jeans
Speaker 1: can kind of mold to you a little bit. The
Speaker 1: cotton stretches in a way that you know, blue jeans
Speaker 1: definitely have a comfort level of other pants, but you know,
Speaker 1: you can compare it to things like corduroy and these
Speaker 1: other and any kind of wool suit pants. Not even close,
Speaker 1: not even close. So I'm really hoping that we can
Speaker 1: all move in part of our evolution as a species,
Speaker 1: the human beings, we can stop thinking that we have
Speaker 1: to maintain these old fashioned trends of using uncomfortable, particularly
Speaker 1: heavy and not very breathable fabric, because folks, you only
Speaker 1: go through life once, shouldn't we shouldn't our clothing be comfortable.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a guy who tried to hop on
Speaker 1: a plane in Russia and said, and he was totally naked.
Speaker 1: This was in the news today. A New York pro
Speaker 1: support on this totally naked and they jumped on the plane.
Speaker 1: He said, well, understand, he's more aerodynamic. That's actually what
Speaker 1: I said. It's more aerodynamic because he got on plane naked. Now,
Speaker 1: before we cast any judgment on this man, do we
Speaker 1: know if he has a degree in astrophysics? I don't,
Speaker 1: so I don't know if I'm necessarily going to say
Speaker 1: that he's wrong. Is naked more aerodynamic than clothed? I
Speaker 1: think the answer is probably yes, although maybe it depends
Speaker 1: on your proportions and the kind of clothing you're wearing.
Speaker 1: But I like to think outside the box team, and
Speaker 1: I think that the suit, the suit and tie, I'm
Speaker 1: hoping we evolve out of it. I think, first of all,
Speaker 1: it hasn't been around that long, and I think it's
Speaker 1: it's time to say bye bye to the tie. You
Speaker 1: really don't want anything around your neck like that. And
Speaker 1: wool suit pants are just they're itchy, they're uncomfortable, they're
Speaker 1: they're just generally not the kind of stuff that you
Speaker 1: want to be wearing. And Lulu Lemon, maybe you don't
Speaker 1: like Lue Lemon, but you know, when under Armor comes
Speaker 1: out with pants that you can wear to the office,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you some of you are going to put
Speaker 1: them on. You're gonna say, stretchy, stretchy in my pants.
Speaker 1: That sounds weird, but you know what I mean. Stretch pants.
Speaker 1: They're a good thing. Not just for the ladies, the
Speaker 1: guys at there too. This has been Buck's fashion segment
Speaker 1: for the show today. We'll be right back later this week.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be in El Paso, Texas, and I
Speaker 1: will be talking to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and members
Speaker 1: of Border Patrol about what's going on at the in
Speaker 1: the Rio Grand sector of Texas, because we're already getting
Speaker 1: early reports that the number of migrants at the border
Speaker 1: is it has just exploded over the last month. We
Speaker 1: certainly have anecdotal reporting about how these facilities are overwhelmed
Speaker 1: and how there's just no real plan in place for
Speaker 1: dealing with this. And Axios today has this up exclusive
Speaker 1: DHS data shows growing surge of migrants at the border,
Speaker 1: and this is from a new department, new Department of
Speaker 1: Homelet Security data obtained by Axios. They don't give real
Speaker 1: numbers in here, which I think is interesting, and they
Speaker 1: certainly couldn't give numbers for the month because obviously the
Speaker 1: month is not over yet, so they would be premature
Speaker 1: to give monthly numbers. But I think what happened here
Speaker 1: is Axios probably got a peak at the spike that
Speaker 1: has been happening in March. Because the weather is a
Speaker 1: little bit warmer, now is a better time to cross.
Speaker 1: And people say, oh, buck the desert, it's really hot. No,
Speaker 1: that's not true. Those of you who actually live down
Speaker 1: there know that it is quite cold at night in
Speaker 1: the desert, especially in the wintertime, so there's going to
Speaker 1: be a big surge in the numbers. I'm hoping to
Speaker 1: come back with a lot of data, a lot of
Speaker 1: interviews and stories to print and talk about here on
Speaker 1: radio that will allow me to raise this issue all
Speaker 1: the way up to the top level at the White House,
Speaker 1: because people really do need to focus in on this one.
Speaker 1: All right. The Mueller probe is gone, the mull Robe
Speaker 1: is over and done with. So now it's time to
Speaker 1: focus again on the agenda. And at the very top
Speaker 1: of that agenda needs to be what are we going
Speaker 1: to do about the southern border. We need to take action.
Speaker 1: This is not a sufficient state of affairs. The current
Speaker 1: situation is just flatly unacceptable. This cannot continue as is,
Speaker 1: and so that means that there needs to be some
Speaker 1: kind of meeting between the Republicans and the Democrats, because
Speaker 1: this is a congressional thing, folks, it's not just Trump.
Speaker 1: Because if Trump just gives an order, it'll be challenging
Speaker 1: in the courts. And I would argue that even if
Speaker 1: there is congressional action, if it is not open borders
Speaker 1: friendly enough, then you'll have some left wing judge who
Speaker 1: will decide that the duly pass statute is not in
Speaker 1: fact acceptable. So I just want to note that this
Speaker 1: is a very this is a worsening situation, and it's
Speaker 1: one that I'm gonna be raising. I hope that I
Speaker 1: can get the folks here in DC to pay attention.
Speaker 1: I'll certainly have stories to tell all of you about this,
Speaker 1: and I will have really seen one a in San Diego,
Speaker 1: a place where the border fence, the wall really works,
Speaker 1: and what that means for that area, and how that
Speaker 1: has helped and how that has brought down illegal crossings.
Speaker 1: But in El Paso, what I'm going to see is
Speaker 1: what it means when there's a massive loophole, loophole that's
Speaker 1: being exploited by people that want to come into the
Speaker 1: country illegally. This is going to be this is gonna
Speaker 1: be a big deal because not only is it a
Speaker 1: moment of I know that we're maybe getting a little
Speaker 1: tired of winning right now with Trump the last couple
Speaker 1: of days, but not only is it an inability to
Speaker 1: follow through on the promises made by the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: If we're going to be honest about this, and I
Speaker 1: want to always be honest about things with you, and
Speaker 1: we should always be honest with ourselves about what's happening
Speaker 1: in this country. The border right now is in worse
Speaker 1: shape than at any time in really the last decade,
Speaker 1: and that's just completely unacceptable. I mean, that is just madness.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna drill down on this one. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have more for you. I'm gonna be doing the show
Speaker 1: from El Paso, Texas on Thursday, and then because of
Speaker 1: flights and scheduling, I'm gonna have a sub on the
Speaker 1: show on Friday. I think it's gonna be The Godfather,
Speaker 1: Michael Pelka. So we're gonna have the Godfather in on Friday.
Speaker 1: You haven't heard from him a while. He misses all
Speaker 1: of you, so he'll be joining in and doing a
Speaker 1: great show as his as is his custom. But and
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that I'm gonna be out. I you know,
Speaker 1: I hate being out from this show, but I do
Speaker 1: think it's worth it to get down for a couple
Speaker 1: of days and see what's really going out of the border.
Speaker 1: And so then when I talk to you about it
Speaker 1: as well, I can bring all of that firsthand experience
Speaker 1: in those conversation ations into our analysis of what's really
Speaker 1: happening here. And I think that that's that's well worth it.
Speaker 1: So Thursday I'll be from El Passo, Texas. And Friday
Speaker 1: you'll have a guest and roll Call is next. Ain't
Speaker 1: no party like a Team Buck party, because a Team
Speaker 1: Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got bucks turned up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll Call. Glorious day, my friends,
Speaker 1: Glorious day, good day for Trump, good day for Conservatism,
Speaker 1: good day for America. And with that, I think it's
Speaker 1: worth getting into our latest on roll Call, Facebook dot com.
Speaker 1: Slash Buck Sexton if you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the action Thomas Great show on rising this morning. Buck.
Speaker 1: After listening to Gene Rossi, I get the impression he
Speaker 1: is supporting Jerry Nadler on trying to generate a wedge
Speaker 1: on Agbar Summary Report. Rossi stated that it was Muller's
Speaker 1: decision to determine if there was sufficient evidence to declare
Speaker 1: obstruction by President Trump and then make the charge that
Speaker 1: there was wrong. That is the same fine line cross
Speaker 1: by Komey in the Clinton investigation, Robert Muller was tasked
Speaker 1: to investigate any collision between the Trump campaign and Russia
Speaker 1: in order to corrupt the election. Mueller was tasked on
Speaker 1: the umbrella of a counter intelligence investigation. A significant point
Speaker 1: in that context, Muller's function is as an investigator, not
Speaker 1: a prosecutor. Both Rossi and Nadler are trying to convince
Speaker 1: everyone the decision on obstruction of justice was up to Mueller.
Speaker 1: They are wrong. Muller's function was to gather all pertinent
Speaker 1: information and provide it to the AG, the Assistant AG,
Speaker 1: and the DOJ panel. Once done, the final is made
Speaker 1: by the AG. Thomas, you're correct, sir. And the people
Speaker 1: who are saying continuously here that there's something there's something
Speaker 1: inherently improper about what's gone on because Bar made the
Speaker 1: Bar made the final call, don't understand that Bar is
Speaker 1: the one who makes the final call. So they can
Speaker 1: complain as much as they want, but you know, he
Speaker 1: is the umpire. He is the one and that's why
Speaker 1: that this this report. And people say, oh, well, Muller
Speaker 1: said this, and then Barr said that, yeah, Bar's the
Speaker 1: final word, and the final word is no collusion, no obstruction.
Speaker 1: That is the final word. Alright, here we go. Rachel writes, Hey,
Speaker 1: my daughter can only say a few words, but hi,
Speaker 1: Buck is one of them. When I listened to your
Speaker 1: listen to your podcast, and she sees your face. She
Speaker 1: always enthusiastically says, hi Buck. Enjoy the video, shields Hi.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, she does say hi Buck in the video.
Speaker 1: That's so cute. That's awesome. Thanks Rachel. That's great. That's
Speaker 1: really cute. She's adorable. Your family's lovely. Thank you for
Speaker 1: setting in the baby saying Hi Buck. Harry, all right, say,
Speaker 1: catching up on the podcast. I am totally with you
Speaker 1: on the athletic absurdity in colleges and beyond. There's something
Speaker 1: really wrong with the society that rewards an entertainer to
Speaker 1: play and game a thousand times more than we do
Speaker 1: an educator. Shields high, shields wall high and strong. Harry. Well, Harry,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you know there are some folks who agree
Speaker 1: with me. And remember I'm not I'm not taking the
Speaker 1: opinion that, oh, we should get rid of recruiting because
Speaker 1: it wouldn't have an effect on college athletics or no. No,
Speaker 1: I'm taking the opinion that we should dramatically change the
Speaker 1: focus that we currently place on athletics in college, that
Speaker 1: we should not allow ourselves to be sucked into this
Speaker 1: belief that sports teams are as important as everything else
Speaker 1: that's going on, because they are not, all right, They're
Speaker 1: just not, especially when you get outside the major sports
Speaker 1: that do generate serious revenue and ticket receipts. There's only
Speaker 1: a few the do folks, Football, basketball, and then maybe
Speaker 1: a couple other sports at a couple other schools, depending,
Speaker 1: But it's really football and basketball the huge generators of
Speaker 1: revenue in the the NCAA. I mean, you know, there's no
Speaker 1: NCAA soccer team that's making massive money for their school.
Speaker 1: And as you know, most because you listen to this show,
Speaker 1: most athletic programs lose money for their schools. That is
Speaker 1: a fact, all right, Julie. And it's not most like
Speaker 1: fifty one percent, it's like ninety five or ninety seven percent.
Speaker 1: I mean, they almost all lose money for their schools,
Speaker 1: meaning that the schools spend more on athletics than they
Speaker 1: make back on athletics, and the rest of the student
Speaker 1: body subsidizes those sports. Okay, Julie runs, Hey, buck, here's
Speaker 1: a deal on Hickenlooper. He's a total tool, he's a
Speaker 1: beta mail and he's running for VP. He was twice
Speaker 1: governor in Colorado and basically sat there looking like a dufus.
Speaker 1: A woman president has to have a mail VP, because
Speaker 1: if she has a woman, the inevitable gossip of catfights
Speaker 1: and style wars and who wore it better will happen.
Speaker 1: Fingers crossed. The first woman president is Nicky Haley. Great show, Julie, Julie,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Thanks for educating me a bit
Speaker 1: on mister Hickenlooper and what his circumstance was. His situation
Speaker 1: is so good for me to know. Bobby, I was
Speaker 1: going to suggest the same site, although I haven't tried
Speaker 1: it myself. Love your show, buck Oss how to block
Speaker 1: annoying robocalls that you keep getting? And then he sent
Speaker 1: me a CNBC site on this. You know, I have
Speaker 1: an app on my phone that's supposed to block them.
Speaker 1: I think it does a reasonable job of blocking some
Speaker 1: of them. I think most of the time that calls
Speaker 1: actually get through. I find it very, very frustrating how
Speaker 1: much robocalling irritates me on a regular basis. And we
Speaker 1: just should be able to get rid of this entirely
Speaker 1: that there's no excuse for why. Remember there was a
Speaker 1: time I don't know how many of you got this woman,
Speaker 1: It was hi I'm Julie from the Reward Center. Would
Speaker 1: you like to go on a cruise? And you're just like, no, Julie,
Speaker 1: I don't want to go on a cruise. I want
Speaker 1: to not answer my phone and have a stupid robot
Speaker 1: screeching at me. But why are you so mean? Stop
Speaker 1: at Julie. Ah, that's stop binding Willie. All rights, Hey, buck,
Speaker 1: enjoy your show daily on the podcast. The Muller investigation
Speaker 1: should be investigated. Too many people charge with lying obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice. How can you obstruct justice if there was
Speaker 1: no crime? Well, well, I mean you can obstruct justice
Speaker 1: if there is no underlying crime. It's harder to do it.
Speaker 1: Certainly is a more difficult case usually to prove. But
Speaker 1: I think the most compelling defense for the president on
Speaker 1: that one is that one he didn't actually obstruct anything,
Speaker 1: that the investigation that the firing of Comey was not
Speaker 1: a was not actually an act of obstruction, because the
Speaker 1: investigation continued on anyway. So it was. And he has
Speaker 1: a constitutional ability to fire Comey. He has the constitutional
Speaker 1: right to fire Comy for any reason. He can fire
Speaker 1: come me because he does not like the tie he
Speaker 1: wore one day. So I do not think that obstruction
Speaker 1: is a strong place for the Democrats to go. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind, they're just trying to go somewhere. They're
Speaker 1: trying to find something. Jonathan writes a longer here. Hello
Speaker 1: Buccanader podcast listener in New York. So I have very
Speaker 1: few alternative listening points here. I'm proud to say I
Speaker 1: start off all my mornings with the buck blasting. I
Speaker 1: was a past liberal, so I guess you can say
Speaker 1: I grew up and started paying attention to the world
Speaker 1: around me. And no one seriously would think that a
Speaker 1: person would be so stupid as to corroborate with Russia
Speaker 1: to win votes, or collaborate with Russia to win votes.
Speaker 1: Probably easier to collaborate with Mexico to win twenty twenty
Speaker 1: wink wink. Hopefully they'll be charges soon. This is literally
Speaker 1: one of the biggest conspiracies ever to grace this nation. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I wonder did you ever get to play up north
Speaker 1: when you were in Iraq? Shield tie keep fighting for
Speaker 1: the cause, Jonathan. I was up north in Iraq, and
Speaker 1: I am fond of our Kurdish friends and allies. From
Speaker 1: that experience, that much I can say. Thanks for writing
Speaker 1: in my friend appreciate it. Gregor, I was like, Gregor's
Speaker 1: a cool name. Why Mueller had to find no collusion?
Speaker 1: This allowed him to look primarily forward and not have
Speaker 1: to delve into the dossier, its origins or the people
Speaker 1: involved in its origination. Yeah, I mean greg Or. I
Speaker 1: think that we may hopefully get answers to all those
Speaker 1: other issues now, but we will have to see Andrei's
Speaker 1: hold on a second's up buck a few things. Most recently,
Speaker 1: I noted your conversations regarded the assembly of military three
Speaker 1: letter agency folks and law enforce and for a movie
Speaker 1: pow Wow cultural appropriation. I guess anyway, I think that's
Speaker 1: great for number of reasons. First, those who follow you
Speaker 1: dig your style and trust your judgment of the show's content.
Speaker 1: For me, I like what you and your team put
Speaker 1: together the joke's impressions, movie quotes, commy bear food interest,
Speaker 1: what Molly's doing dog stuff in history keeps us interested
Speaker 1: in loyal That's a good thing. Secondly, you're masterful at
Speaker 1: what you do. I can only guess why you're successful,
Speaker 1: but I believe it's because you stay the course that
Speaker 1: adhere to principles a personal and professional discipline. Of sorts.
Speaker 1: That's cool. Buck. You might rather you want movie night analysis?
Speaker 1: Do it? You want what's your favorite emory recipe? Hack Day?
Speaker 1: Do it? French Bulldog Friday. I'm tuned in. You get
Speaker 1: the idea. Keep being Buck, I'll be there shieldside andres
Speaker 1: andres Man, thank you so much for the encouragement. And
Speaker 1: it is something. Look, I mean I understand that when
Speaker 1: you're doing a daily news, daily news kind of show
Speaker 1: as I do, you know you're gonna hear that people
Speaker 1: are gonna say you no collusion. You're gonna hear that
Speaker 1: on every radio show today and probably every day this
Speaker 1: week from every show, no collusion, you know. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: we all get it. So there's no collusion. That's important.
Speaker 1: We got to talk about it. But when you come here,
Speaker 1: I want you to get other things too. And I
Speaker 1: make a special point of one having this be a
Speaker 1: real time to hang out and actually talk to the team.
Speaker 1: So that's that's always part of the ethos here. We
Speaker 1: are having a conversation. I am talking to you like
Speaker 1: you are sitting in the room. In fact, I was
Speaker 1: told that originally by my first real mentor and radio
Speaker 1: that this is a one to one conversation with a
Speaker 1: close friend. And then if you approach your craft of
Speaker 1: radio that way and you really believe that, and that's
Speaker 1: how you think of what you are doing. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not crazy like I see pink elephants and think
Speaker 1: you're in the room with me, all of you listening.
Speaker 1: But I do kind of think you're all in the
Speaker 1: room with me, and that should come across in the
Speaker 1: way that we do this show. And as for the
Speaker 1: movie plan about having some spec Ops guys pull apart,
Speaker 1: we'd have to do some editing beforehand because you couldn't
Speaker 1: watch the whole movie. But if we could pull just
Speaker 1: some some great scenes and talk about them, I think
Speaker 1: that could be a really fun short show. I just
Speaker 1: don't know if we'd have to get rights clearances for
Speaker 1: the movie to use and stuff like that. It's that's
Speaker 1: where it gets a little bit more complicated. But Andreas Mann,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for the encouragement. Everybody, make sure
Speaker 1: you take a little time today for yourself and just
Speaker 1: you know, take a little victory lab. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's around your house or around the block, or
Speaker 1: you're gonna go for a little little nice evening drive,
Speaker 1: but go for a little victory lap, play some of
Speaker 1: your favorite tunes. It's a big victory what's gone on here.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure that many of you have been criticized
Speaker 1: by friends or you've just had those moments of self
Speaker 1: doubt where you know, why do all these people really
Speaker 1: think the president's a traitor? And how could they all
Speaker 1: believe this? And am I? Am I the one who's
Speaker 1: missing this And we all have self doubt on these
Speaker 1: issues at different points, but you stayed the course. I
Speaker 1: stayed the course, and at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: we were right and we were able to stay with
Speaker 1: the team and fight because indeed team, we kept our
Speaker 1: shields high.