Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. No trade deal with China.
Speaker 1: But patience, my friends. We'll talk about what's coming next
Speaker 1: for the Trump administration on this massive but very important gamble.
Speaker 1: And also James Comy aka sank to Coomy a little
Speaker 1: CNN town hall where he's rewriting history and puffing up
Speaker 1: his chest, all seven foot eleven of him. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that and more coming up on the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the bus Sexton Show or the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American. Bring You're a great American again,
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexon Show. Everybody. They're excited to
Speaker 1: get a chance to hang out with you on this
Speaker 1: lovely out of evening. Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1: I am it's my last day with you for a
Speaker 1: week because I'm gonna be in China next week. So
Speaker 1: that'll be fun. Assuming everything goes according to plan, I'll
Speaker 1: have some very good stories for all of you. I
Speaker 1: think it's important perspective. My timing to go to China
Speaker 1: is certainly pretty good. I think it's all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: it's become far and away the most important country in
Speaker 1: the world outside of our own borders. I guess you
Speaker 1: could argue, maybe you know Mexico given the border crisis
Speaker 1: right now, but the border crisis is really more about
Speaker 1: Central American migrants moving through Mexico than specifically actions of
Speaker 1: the Mexican government. But China economically, from a technology perspective,
Speaker 1: national security perspective, and this is the this is the biggest,
Speaker 1: the biggest challenge we face as a country, and so
Speaker 1: it's very interesting that I'll have some time over there.
Speaker 1: I've been over to Thailand and Vietnam before. That's the
Speaker 1: full extent out of my Asia experience. So I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to being in China, and I'll tell you more
Speaker 1: about the plan for next week. But we're gonna have
Speaker 1: some new guest hosts for you, and they're all we
Speaker 1: have fantastic people line up for next week. So really,
Speaker 1: I hope you'll tune in every day as you always do. Obviously,
Speaker 1: you can also download the podcast if you can't listen live,
Speaker 1: because we're gonna have great shows for you next week.
Speaker 1: We've put we've pulled together in an Avenger's style lineup
Speaker 1: on radio for next week, so it's gonna be really
Speaker 1: really good stuff. So with all that set now, there's
Speaker 1: no deal on on China yet, which is not a surprise.
Speaker 1: Let's talking more about that in the second hour. I
Speaker 1: really what's got most of my attention, this probably will
Speaker 1: not surprise any of you at all, is that James
Speaker 1: Comeek was given a town hall at CNN. Now, this
Speaker 1: did not pull CNN's ratings out of the ratings basement,
Speaker 1: which is where they belong. CNN has become a parody
Speaker 1: of itself. It is. It is a crappy institution with
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of dishonesty, and it's dishonest about what
Speaker 1: it is, what it's trying to accomplish. Many of the
Speaker 1: people who work there are nasty, and they are unethical
Speaker 1: in the way that they both present themselves to the public,
Speaker 1: and I would even say, and how they sometimes deal
Speaker 1: with their fellow media people. I have there's no love
Speaker 1: lost between me and many many people over at CNN,
Speaker 1: And I can just tell you that I'm a good
Speaker 1: guy and they're not. I don't know what else it's
Speaker 1: I don't know else to say. They have gone to
Speaker 1: the dark side. There's something really wrong over there. There's
Speaker 1: something rotten in the heart of the cable news network
Speaker 1: started by Ted Turner back and whatever it was the nineties.
Speaker 1: So what the Clinton News Network is n S Some
Speaker 1: of my peers in conservative media call it, Well, not anymore.
Speaker 1: I guess now, it's the Komy News Network. See what
Speaker 1: I did there. Amazing. So they had a whole Komy
Speaker 1: sit down last with with Anderson Cooper and another one
Speaker 1: of the one of the great products of media pr
Speaker 1: in my lifetime. Anderson Cooper is so famous and such
Speaker 1: a big deal. Why because he can read questions off
Speaker 1: a sheet and he you know, looks like a male
Speaker 1: model and great. A lot of people can do that.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't really understand it. But anyway, Comey
Speaker 1: was doing his thing last night, rewriting history. Very becomes
Speaker 1: that I understand how Comy plays the game. He's very
Speaker 1: definitive and very much the conscience of America. You know,
Speaker 1: he's he's a combination of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and
Speaker 1: Jesus himself. When he's giving these pronouncements about well, the
Speaker 1: our democracy and the things that we have to do
Speaker 1: to really protect this wonderful Republic, and he's all just bombastic,
Speaker 1: high falutin self aggrandizing nonsense. And then when he gets
Speaker 1: asked a question where really the truth is very good
Speaker 1: for Comy, then he gets well, and I don't really
Speaker 1: remember that. I don't really have much of a recollection
Speaker 1: of that specific fact. I know this is a complicated matter.
Speaker 1: You know, he goes into this hole. Looks he's a
Speaker 1: slimy lawyer. Remember this Comy is not an FBI guy.
Speaker 1: Comy is not somebody who's been you know, kicking indoors,
Speaker 1: tackling bad guys, tracking down bank robbers and kidnappers. And no, no,
Speaker 1: Comey's a lawyer, just a lawyer. So you need to
Speaker 1: recall that too. I mean the fact he's FBI director.
Speaker 1: He's really a politician, a politician who has existed within
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy and elevated himself from within the federal bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: So he's a creature of it. And he is really,
Speaker 1: for me, a kind of quintessential manifestation of just how
Speaker 1: deformed in spirit these creatures of the bureaucracy can be
Speaker 1: when they stay around for too long. Comey, first, I
Speaker 1: gotta smash a lot out of the lies he told
Speaker 1: on this thing last night, and this is this is
Speaker 1: all important. I think Comy's in trouble. I think I
Speaker 1: have some sources here in DC that tell me that
Speaker 1: this Inspector General's report that's going to come out, it's
Speaker 1: gonna be very I would say unkind to Comy, but
Speaker 1: that's not true. It's just going to be factual. But
Speaker 1: the facts are unkind to Komy. He's not going to
Speaker 1: come off well at all. And remember, Comey's the one
Speaker 1: who bailed out Hillary. So if we can if we
Speaker 1: can definitively see that Komy bailed out Hillary and Comy
Speaker 1: was part of the soft coup to take down Trump. Huh.
Speaker 1: That's quite a legacy, isn't it. And I think the
Speaker 1: FBI is going to have to do a serious scrub
Speaker 1: of itself for politicization. And I think that the bureau's
Speaker 1: reputation at the leadership level. This is not for the
Speaker 1: rank and file. If you're an FBI guy and you
Speaker 1: work in the you know, the my Semi office or
Speaker 1: the Omaha office or whatever, I'm not talking to you.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about you, talking about the leadership based
Speaker 1: here in DC Christopher Ray not exactly impressing me this week, either,
Speaker 1: But Comy is trying to get ahead of where he
Speaker 1: knows all this is going. Komey, who took remember, took memos,
Speaker 1: took government property, wasn't his? You know, you don't write
Speaker 1: memos as FBI director, just take those home with you.
Speaker 1: That's not how it works. Were they classified or not.
Speaker 1: I know there's a dispute about that, but I would
Speaker 1: argue that a conversation about any important matter between the
Speaker 1: President the United States and the FBI director should be
Speaker 1: classified many reasons, well you know, many reasons why in
Speaker 1: the classification code you could find it for that. For one,
Speaker 1: it gives insight into the president's mindset about a very
Speaker 1: important matter. And speaking in a confidential setting with a
Speaker 1: senior law enforcement officers, one of the most senior law
Speaker 1: enforcement officers in the country, that's something that you want
Speaker 1: to keep from foreign adversaries from the press. Coomy leaked
Speaker 1: that to the media. What a dirty, dirty little trick
Speaker 1: the Komi poll. I thought he was above that. I
Speaker 1: thought Comy didn't do that kind of thing. Oh no,
Speaker 1: but he absolutely absolutely did. Why would he do that? Komey,
Speaker 1: who pretends to be pure as the driven snow, untouched
Speaker 1: by the politicization that has unfortunately tainted so many other
Speaker 1: players in the swamp. Oh No, not Saint Komi, sank
Speaker 1: to Komy himself. He floats above it all, all nine
Speaker 1: foot four of him, just sort of this lanky emo giraffe,
Speaker 1: as my friend Sean Davis calls him. He just goes
Speaker 1: around lecturing everybody and never You'll notice, he never admits
Speaker 1: any failings on his part. He's never made any mistakes.
Speaker 1: He's only made tough calls. He's never lied. He's only
Speaker 1: just conveniently forgotten what happened over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: I'm Onto Komy, you see. I know him. I don't
Speaker 1: know him personally, but I know who he is. I
Speaker 1: understand him. I've come across his type before, in the
Speaker 1: federal government and in life in general. And I'm not
Speaker 1: letting him slither away from all of this. He has
Speaker 1: put the country through a very damaging time. It is
Speaker 1: time for some payback, for some justice. Here is James
Speaker 1: Komy on this CNN stage talking about whether the FBI
Speaker 1: spies or not. Play clip for the FBI doesn't spy?
Speaker 1: To begin with, the FBI investigates. You said it's not spine.
Speaker 1: Why do you think Attorney General Barr used the word spine,
Speaker 1: which is obviously word that the President has used as well.
Speaker 1: I can't explain it. I mean, the only explanation I
Speaker 1: can think of is he used it because the President
Speaker 1: uses it. Oh, look at that a little I can't
Speaker 1: explain it, but it's because he's Trump's hacked. Look at
Speaker 1: a little backhanded, snide, slippery combie maneuver. I can't explain it,
Speaker 1: but I'm gonna explain it by saying something that's disparaging
Speaker 1: about Bill Barr and say that he's the President's lackey.
Speaker 1: This is a rhetorical technique of a particularly cowardly pedigree
Speaker 1: called pretorizio, where you know, I'm not going to say
Speaker 1: that my opponent is a philandering lout and a cheat,
Speaker 1: but other people could say that that's called predorzio. This
Speaker 1: is what Comie does. You know, he's above it while
Speaker 1: he does it. This is the game that he plays.
Speaker 1: And he's wrong. He's wrong because he's not very bright.
Speaker 1: He thinks he's very bright, he's really not. He's wrong
Speaker 1: because obviously, spying is a word that we can all
Speaker 1: define and understand, and you could make the case that
Speaker 1: all kinds of law enforce and surveillance is a form
Speaker 1: of spine. Right, and whenever there are groups in this
Speaker 1: country that civil rights advocates and others feel have been
Speaker 1: unfairly targeted by law enforcement, not by the federal government,
Speaker 1: not overseas, not using programs like Faiza explicitly created for
Speaker 1: counter intelligence collection purposes, but mere law enforcement surveillance in
Speaker 1: this country of certain groups that are oppressed minorities or
Speaker 1: this or that, or leftists or Marxists or whatever. That
Speaker 1: is routinely referred to as spying, and it's considered a
Speaker 1: black mark on the history of the law enforcement community.
Speaker 1: And I mentioned, for example, the FBI spying on figures
Speaker 1: like Martin Luther King Jr. Of course they say that
Speaker 1: spying without batting an eyelash. Of course it's spying. Oh no,
Speaker 1: But now we can't say it's spine. Now we can't
Speaker 1: say that inserting a covert or confidential human informant asset.
Speaker 1: We don't even know who really sent him and who
Speaker 1: did it. We just know that someone was sent by
Speaker 1: the government to go try to entrap was also entrapment.
Speaker 1: George Boppadopoulos that this isn't spying, This is nonsense. Even
Speaker 1: Clapper admitted that from a definitional standpoint, it's spying. And
Speaker 1: that's another way of saying, yeah, it's spying. If the
Speaker 1: definition is met, then it is that thing. Comy's playing
Speaker 1: games here, as he always does. Comy's trying to hedge,
Speaker 1: trying to prevaricate, trying to create a cloud of misconception
Speaker 1: for his own benefit, and it gets worse play five,
Speaker 1: no doubt in my mind. But that doesn't mean I'm
Speaker 1: against review of it. That's totally fine. Do you think
Speaker 1: the Inspector General will find nothing inappropriate? I don't think so,
Speaker 1: at least the not that I know of. But if
Speaker 1: they do, they do, and they should be transparent about it. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm a big believer in the truth. If the truth
Speaker 1: is there was something concerning, then let's hear it. I
Speaker 1: don't know of anything like that. I don't know of
Speaker 1: anything like that. We have text messages from the senior
Speaker 1: counterintelligence investigator at the FBI talking about an insurance policy
Speaker 1: to stop Trump from getting elected. We're not idiots. We
Speaker 1: know what they were discussing. We have it in plain text,
Speaker 1: we have him saying blank Trump this and blank Trump that,
Speaker 1: cursing about the Republican nominee and then president the United States,
Speaker 1: nothing concerning. He goes on to talk about the severe
Speaker 1: consequences that page and struck face like, what severe severe
Speaker 1: consequences when you're talking about what these people did is
Speaker 1: going to prison? No one's even bring charges against them.
Speaker 1: Severe consequences. Comy's a joke, folks. I'm not letting this go.
Speaker 1: We're going to dive into this and we're going to
Speaker 1: chop lanky Coomey's lies down to size, and then we'll
Speaker 1: talk about China and a bit more about what's going
Speaker 1: to be happening next week while I'm over in China,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have a fantastic show because we always do.
Speaker 1: Is Friday. We are chilling like villains, but we're actually
Speaker 1: the good guys. We'll be right back again. Mueller didn't
Speaker 1: say it wasn't the case. He didn't disprove it, but
Speaker 1: he also didn't establish that it was the case. Another
Speaker 1: important thing is the counterintelligence part of this work, which
Speaker 1: is what whether the Russians had leverage over the president.
Speaker 1: That would be part of the counter intelligence investigation. Mueller
Speaker 1: left that with the FBI. His document is about a
Speaker 1: prosecutor's look at whether they are crimes to be Do
Speaker 1: you think the Russians have leverage over President Trump? I
Speaker 1: don't know the answer to that. Thing's possible, yes, another
Speaker 1: classic communism. I don't know. But let's go with the
Speaker 1: thing that makes Trump look bad. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: it's possible. You think about, think about how disgraceful this is,
Speaker 1: how dishonest and gross this is. I can play this
Speaker 1: game too. Is there any evidence that James Coomy is
Speaker 1: a murderer? No, but I can't prove to you that
Speaker 1: he's not a murderer. So he could be. There's no
Speaker 1: proof that he is. I'm not saying that he's ever,
Speaker 1: but I can't tell you definitively that there's no chance
Speaker 1: that there aren't, you know, a bunch of bodies in
Speaker 1: his backyard somewhere right You don't. I don't know. Do
Speaker 1: you know? Can you prove no? Can you prove a negative?
Speaker 1: This is idiocy, but this is what he's doing. He's
Speaker 1: doing to the president of the United States. Do the
Speaker 1: Russians have leverage over Trump? Well, I don't know. But
Speaker 1: I think they, you know, I think they could. Okay,
Speaker 1: do the Chinese have leverage over Trump? Do the do
Speaker 1: the you know, do the Uzbeks, do the Azerbaijanis, do
Speaker 1: the Argentinians? You know? Well, I don't know. I think
Speaker 1: they could, any of them? Could? You idiots? I can't
Speaker 1: believe this guy held the government posts he did as
Speaker 1: long as he did, and people didn't seem to figure
Speaker 1: this out. Coomey is a bad guy, folks, I mean Trump.
Speaker 1: One thing that has been forgotten here is that what
Speaker 1: he came in, we said that, or the one of
Speaker 1: the promises that was that he would clean up the
Speaker 1: swamp or he would drain the swamp. And I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting. Trump apparently didn't like that swamp term, but
Speaker 1: then it just caught on so much they had to
Speaker 1: embrace it. He also Trump told me that he does
Speaker 1: not like the President told me he does not like
Speaker 1: the term deep state. I'm sorry, it's a good term.
Speaker 1: I think he's and then people use it all the
Speaker 1: time now because that is what we're dealing with here.
Speaker 1: But part of how he has drained the swamp is
Speaker 1: by being essentially a kind of you know, fly trap
Speaker 1: for the swamp creatures. You know, he's bait. He draws
Speaker 1: them out. Callmy would still be FBI director. If you would,
Speaker 1: you know, a sort of traditional Republican or a Democrat
Speaker 1: who is in the in the position, call me would
Speaker 1: still be at the FBI. He'd still be making very
Speaker 1: important decisions about who, you know, prosecute, prosecutions and investigations.
Speaker 1: He'd still be there. That's stunning. Sky is a is
Speaker 1: a clown, is a joke. At least Trump has been
Speaker 1: able to get out there and start to say this
Speaker 1: a little bit, start to explain a bit more of
Speaker 1: what we are seeing. And I think that that Inspector
Speaker 1: General report, by the way, I think the Inspector General
Speaker 1: report comes out in June. What Trump should do is
Speaker 1: he should hold back the release of the information, the
Speaker 1: declassification of the fives and everything. That should be his
Speaker 1: October surprise. And I know I want it before then too,
Speaker 1: I get it. But Trump should hold the declassification of
Speaker 1: the fish, the Russia investigation origin documents and all. He
Speaker 1: should hold that until September before the election, and then
Speaker 1: just let it rip. Then let it fly, because that
Speaker 1: stuff is gonna just look so bad for all these jokers.
Speaker 1: Will it change the election out come out? I mean
Speaker 1: it should. People should be embarrassed for this Democrat. Part
Speaker 1: of the problem is though the true hardcore Democrats, they
Speaker 1: know that there is dishonesty in this process. They know
Speaker 1: that this was all a get Trump operation. They liked
Speaker 1: that part of it. So even when we prove that
Speaker 1: that's what happened here by releasing those documents, when the
Speaker 1: President does that, I gotta tell you, maybe it sways
Speaker 1: some minds of undecided voters, But more to the point,
Speaker 1: I just want them to have to just take it
Speaker 1: right on the chin for what they did this president.
Speaker 1: I really think that that's what they deserved, and I
Speaker 1: wanted to get out there. He's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton is back. There has to be accountability for
Speaker 1: all of this, and the only way you have that
Speaker 1: is with a gigantic take investigation into how it all happened,
Speaker 1: which means grand jury's indictments if necessary. Culture then there
Speaker 1: has to be a public accounting, and then you have
Speaker 1: to have leaders. We have one now with Barr. The FBI, however,
Speaker 1: is rutderless. Chris Ray is a disaster. He's an empty suit,
Speaker 1: not only that he's disingenuous. Yes, he has never given
Speaker 1: the big speech that you have to give when you
Speaker 1: come into an organization like that, we're going to fix this.
Speaker 1: We made some bad mistakes. He has never said that
Speaker 1: to the FBI employee. How can you lead an institution
Speaker 1: back to credibility when you don't address the problem frontally.
Speaker 1: I agree with Joe de Janova here that there has
Speaker 1: been really no accountabilit in the FBI whatsoever. I think
Speaker 1: that there is a kind of deep state delusion going
Speaker 1: on over there that if they just let this go,
Speaker 1: if they don't focus on it, if they don't pay
Speaker 1: any attention to what happened, then everything will be Joe's
Speaker 1: fine and there's nothing to worry about. But unfortunately that
Speaker 1: is not the case. They need to have a coming
Speaker 1: together on this one. They need to have a what
Speaker 1: went wrong and how do we make sure it did
Speaker 1: not it does not happen again in the future. But
Speaker 1: instead they're pretending that everything has been fine, that it's
Speaker 1: all been on me on the up and up, and
Speaker 1: they've got sank To Komy going on TV spreading lines
Speaker 1: then continuing to dig in and isn't it so interesting
Speaker 1: that none of the everything that benefits a Democrat in
Speaker 1: this process, well you know it's Hillary or you know,
Speaker 1: I mean that Comy always has the benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt for the Democrat and always has the worst possible
Speaker 1: interpretation for Trump and then wants to tell us that
Speaker 1: he's operating good faith. Let me tell you this, you
Speaker 1: know when and I don't think we have a sound
Speaker 1: beat on this one, but there was a moment when
Speaker 1: Komy tried to claim that here I can actually I
Speaker 1: can pull up the verbic of this one. He said
Speaker 1: that there was a totally normal step, he said, a
Speaker 1: totally normal step to plant undercover sources in a political campaign.
Speaker 1: Let me just tell you in shorthand bullcrap, Okay, that
Speaker 1: is absolutely completely insane for him to act like a
Speaker 1: single sourced, unvetted tip, which is essentially gossip from some
Speaker 1: foreign overseas Rando this Australian diplomat and Joseph mitsud that
Speaker 1: that would be enough to justify the FBI sending some
Speaker 1: kind of clandestine asset to spy on a US presidential
Speaker 1: campaign is nuts. This is effectively the same as the
Speaker 1: FBI director telling you this is really no different in
Speaker 1: my mind from the FBI director telling you that they
Speaker 1: opened a full field investigation on a conspiracy that claims
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is actually a reptile. Oh no, buck,
Speaker 1: they had a legitimate predicate for it. There's an email
Speaker 1: from you know, truthteller one seven five nine at aol
Speaker 1: dot com came right into the FBI tip box, and
Speaker 1: so we took truthteller one nine five seven two's email
Speaker 1: and we had to you know, what are we going
Speaker 1: to do? The president could be a reptile? Buck? Don't
Speaker 1: you think that we would be We would be you know,
Speaker 1: not conducting our duties properly if we didn't chase this down.
Speaker 1: So sure, we got a FISA and we ran a
Speaker 1: bunch of clandestine assets based on this anonymous tip in
Speaker 1: the FBI email box. We got the tip. We didn't
Speaker 1: do anything. This is what James Coomey has done here.
Speaker 1: This is what we are being told to swallow. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm spitting it out back in their face. Yeah, unacceptable, Komey,
Speaker 1: No frigging way unacceptable that the Let me just give
Speaker 1: you a few additional data points here to prove why
Speaker 1: I'm writing Komey's a clown in a jerk and not
Speaker 1: nearly as clever as smart as he thinks he is.
Speaker 1: There are very serious prohibitions in place at the DOJ
Speaker 1: merely for pulling the records of a journalist in a
Speaker 1: national security inform in a national security case. Okay, it
Speaker 1: goes all the way to the Attorney General's desk if
Speaker 1: you're going to pull a journalist's records to try to
Speaker 1: find a source for a nationally This is usually come
Speaker 1: up in Nationalscourney League investigations. They have a very high
Speaker 1: level of sensitivity around this First Amendment, balancing, YadA, YadA,
Speaker 1: all that stuff. You're gonna tell me that comey who
Speaker 1: says he was briefed on this, I knew about this,
Speaker 1: never thought you know, maybe we need a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can't just run a probe of an active
Speaker 1: presidential campaign that is actually the Republican nominee months away
Speaker 1: from election day. Maybe we need to go on more
Speaker 1: than the word of a foreigner who has no proof,
Speaker 1: has nothing other than his word, just some FBI agents.
Speaker 1: Did that ever get factored in here? Did you ever
Speaker 1: think about this? You're gonna tell me the bar is
Speaker 1: that low. All it takes is, you know, a comment
Speaker 1: from miff suit about you know, email about basically rumors
Speaker 1: somebody mouthing off at a bar. I think to start
Speaker 1: a full field investigation. I mean, if I'm in a
Speaker 1: bar here in DC and I get super wasted, which
Speaker 1: I don't tend to do, but you know, if that
Speaker 1: happened and I said, you know what, I'm actually I'm
Speaker 1: aware of a plot where, you know, Vladimir Putin is
Speaker 1: planning on on, you know, running for United States Senate
Speaker 1: because he's bought off the entire Senate and they're gonna
Speaker 1: change the law and they're gonna make it possible for
Speaker 1: him to do that. I mean, it's the stupidest thing
Speaker 1: you've ever heard, right, But can they run an investigation
Speaker 1: on me because of this Putent plot? Can they pull
Speaker 1: my phones and everything because I said something dumb in
Speaker 1: a bar. Comy's defense here is really when you when
Speaker 1: you boil it all down. The senior ranks of the
Speaker 1: FBI are so stupid and so trumped deranged, and their
Speaker 1: judgment is so poor that when one guy said he
Speaker 1: heard something from Papadopoulos, they risked the entire reputation of
Speaker 1: the FBI. They risked the validity and trust the American
Speaker 1: people could have in a presidential election. They rolled the
Speaker 1: dice on the word of Mith, Sued and a diplomat
Speaker 1: from Australian named Downer. They were willing to do that.
Speaker 1: I don't know what's worse. That they're lying about it
Speaker 1: and expect us to believe this when this clearly isn't
Speaker 1: really all that was going on, and they haven't told
Speaker 1: us about the rest or and this is a possibility.
Speaker 1: Maybe the people running the FBI, including Comy, are a
Speaker 1: bunch of hysterical Ninton income poops. Maybe they're just not
Speaker 1: very smart. I don't know what's worse, But these are
Speaker 1: the options we're left with because the explanation Comy's giving
Speaker 1: is laughable, This is preposterous. Anson Cooper of course, doesn't
Speaker 1: push him on any of this. You're gonna open, You're
Speaker 1: gonna send You're gonna send clandestine assets to go and
Speaker 1: meet with presidential campaign, and then you're gonna open FIS
Speaker 1: on carter page. You'reven gonna address that on carter page.
Speaker 1: Who's working with the FBI before doesn't add up, Folks,
Speaker 1: the deep state coup. They're scared, they're trying to cover themselves.
Speaker 1: But we're coming for them. We are, We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Do you think the Attorney General should go to jail?
Speaker 1: How do you get this thing moving? Do you oppose fines?
Speaker 1: Do you suggest, maybe even as some of said jail time,
Speaker 1: should he go to jail for it? We send the
Speaker 1: sergeant of arms out to handcuff the individual who is
Speaker 1: declining to well, I'm going to start with mister Barr,
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States, to be arrested by
Speaker 1: the sergeant of arms and put in jail. You don't
Speaker 1: want to throw the ag in cuffs though, right, I hear,
Speaker 1: don't want to throw him in jail, but I'm ready
Speaker 1: to do so. And you have to have him sit
Speaker 1: for hearing, and I think you have to have him
Speaker 1: locked up to use our sergeant, our arms and to
Speaker 1: bring him in. He can either be held there to
Speaker 1: testify or he can be punished. And there is actually
Speaker 1: a jail in the capital. What a bunch of bs hysteria.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrats have humiliated themselves the last couple
Speaker 1: of weeks on this issue, but especially this week as
Speaker 1: I look back on it with all though, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: they're gonna put the Attorney General in jail. I you know,
Speaker 1: I kind of wish that Barr would just say, you
Speaker 1: know what, bring it, suckers, what are you really gonna do?
Speaker 1: You're gonna try to put him in prison? Are you
Speaker 1: kidding me? But these are the this is the thing
Speaker 1: they act like, they're the mature adults in government. Trump
Speaker 1: is the problem, you see, They're they're the ones that
Speaker 1: they want to just restore normalcy. And you know, I
Speaker 1: remember when saying lock her up about Hillary. I remember
Speaker 1: when saying lock her up was was a terrible thing
Speaker 1: that was undermining our democracy. And she was just a candidate.
Speaker 1: She wasn't even a government official at the time. She
Speaker 1: wasn't she wasn't the president, she wasn't the attorney general.
Speaker 1: It's a person who wants to be the resident and
Speaker 1: saying lock her up for a crime, and what'll return
Speaker 1: to this for a crime that she definitely committed and
Speaker 1: that other people would have absolutely absolutely been prosecuted for.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, if I had done what she had done,
Speaker 1: my expectation would have been that I had to take
Speaker 1: a plea bargain to avoid prison time for mishandling classified information.
Speaker 1: I really mean that that would have been my assumption,
Speaker 1: and every person I know who's not a anti Trump,
Speaker 1: left wing pro Hillary Democrat will admit that. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's true. You would be in trouble for this.
Speaker 1: She didn't even get a suspension of her clearance, nothing,
Speaker 1: no discipline whatsoever for what she did with classified information. None,
Speaker 1: but remember lock her up chance. That's horrifying. It's undermining
Speaker 1: our democracy. Multi millionaire you know, news anchors who have
Speaker 1: big platform, not that big at CNN, but I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of big. They're talking about arresting the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, putting people on TV or saying arrest the
Speaker 1: attorney general, and that's supposed to be fine. I mean,
Speaker 1: do they realize what kind of combustible stuff they're dealing
Speaker 1: with here? They start arresting cabinet members and think about
Speaker 1: you know, these people are so nuts that it's even
Speaker 1: hard to explain. They want to arrest the attorney general
Speaker 1: because he won't give them documents after he voluntarily gave
Speaker 1: them ninety eight percent of the document, he won't give
Speaker 1: them documents that they are legally not entitled to. There
Speaker 1: is a statutory block on their ability to get six
Speaker 1: E grand jury material. It exists. It's real it's there,
Speaker 1: but they're just saying, well, he should, he should wave it. Well, movie,
Speaker 1: he's not gonna wave it. There's a reason the laws there.
Speaker 1: If they want it go to a judge, they're gonna
Speaker 1: arrest him because he won't just do it. That's really
Speaker 1: a overview of the modern Democratic Party. Break the law
Speaker 1: that we tell you to break, arrest or else we're
Speaker 1: going to arrest you for breaking the law. This is
Speaker 1: like dealing with crazy people. This is not normal. But
Speaker 1: speaking of dealing with not normal, going back to James
Speaker 1: Komy here for a moment, sank to Komy. Oh my one,
Speaker 1: not only sank to Coomy on the Hillary point. And
Speaker 1: this is you know, Democrats get very touchy now when
Speaker 1: you bring up Hillary. I'm sorry, No, that's not off limits.
Speaker 1: We just spent two years investigating what happened in summer
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen. For the most part, I don't want
Speaker 1: to hear about how the summer of twenty sixteen when
Speaker 1: it comes to Hillary is off limits, especially because Komey
Speaker 1: and Struck and all these other pages individuals that we're
Speaker 1: very much involved in Russia collusion hoax, we're also very
Speaker 1: much involved in protecting Hillary with the no fiasco the
Speaker 1: same people. This isn't some huge mystery, This isn't some
Speaker 1: huge shock. You don't need a very big deep state
Speaker 1: to have an enormous effect, enormous impact on these two cases.
Speaker 1: When the people involved in the two cases are the
Speaker 1: same and at the very top of the f behind
Speaker 1: the DOJ, you only need about, you know, a half
Speaker 1: dozen of them, and it looks like we already know
Speaker 1: who they are. We're supposed to think this is a coincidence.
Speaker 1: But here's how James Comey aka Sancta Comey explains, tries
Speaker 1: to explain himself because he look, he's broken up. Comy's
Speaker 1: going down, folks, Comy's in trouble, you know, he's and
Speaker 1: seeing that smug piece of garbage finally finally half to
Speaker 1: just sit and stew in the truth, which is that
Speaker 1: he is completely and utterly in love with his own
Speaker 1: false virtue. And then he ruined people. He did people
Speaker 1: dirty because he's such a smug, priggish punk. And to
Speaker 1: see him finally have to answer for the fact that,
Speaker 1: you know, he when other people break the laws, he's, oh,
Speaker 1: no law breaking allowed. You know, James Comey is just
Speaker 1: the conscience of America. But when he breaks rules, it's
Speaker 1: where all everything's very complicated and I can't remember this,
Speaker 1: and I can't remember that, and I'm not sure about this,
Speaker 1: and you know, all of a sudden, he gets all slippery.
Speaker 1: Slippery comy is what he turns into. When he started
Speaker 1: to push him on some things. Here's what he said
Speaker 1: about Hillary and her emails and his whole effort to
Speaker 1: essentially keep her from getting locked up play too. Secretary
Speaker 1: Clinton had engaged in conduct that was way beyond what
Speaker 1: the normal carelessness was. And so how do we explain
Speaker 1: to the American people that it's not the ordinary stuff,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't rise to the the level that you would
Speaker 1: be locked up for it. So I have to characterize
Speaker 1: the behavior in some way. Not they would attack her,
Speaker 1: but so the American people would understand. This is the
Speaker 1: basis for their judgment. It's not criminal, but it's not
Speaker 1: the ordinary stuff. I probably should have said really sloppy
Speaker 1: or something, but I had to characterize it. The goal
Speaker 1: was to offer transparency to foster trust, So you would
Speaker 1: have used words other than extremely careless. Yeah, only because
Speaker 1: this is a technical thing. But the Republicans and the
Speaker 1: Congress got all wrapped around the axle on those words,
Speaker 1: because they said, Aha, that sounds like gross negligence, which
Speaker 1: is a violation of the law that was passed in
Speaker 1: nineteen nineteen. I'd have said something more plain spoken and say,
Speaker 1: really slop. Listen to the slimy lawyering here from Sank
Speaker 1: to Koby. I shouldn't have said extremely caress if she
Speaker 1: said really slop. It's the same thing, you clown, and
Speaker 1: recklessness is in the statue. It's not up to Komy
Speaker 1: to play word games with recklessness versus extremely careless versus
Speaker 1: really sloppy. She was reckless. She put national security information
Speaker 1: at risk numerous times, over a hundred times, willfully, repeatedly.
Speaker 1: She was culpable. But he bailed her out, and now
Speaker 1: he wants to try to explain that he didn't bail
Speaker 1: her out. We're not all idiots, Comy, And you know
Speaker 1: what the thing with James Comy is, he's just not
Speaker 1: as smart as he thinks he is. That's really his
Speaker 1: greatest flaw. He's really kind of a middling bureaucrat who
Speaker 1: just sucked up to the right people, destroyed the right
Speaker 1: people at the right time, which is also very important
Speaker 1: for bureaucrats, you know, knew who to throw, knew who
Speaker 1: should be thrown under the bus and when for his
Speaker 1: own advancement. I've come across plenty of Comy's in my life.
Speaker 1: I have a particular disdain for individualists like him, and
Speaker 1: I really do hope that he gets his come uppance.
Speaker 1: He deserves it. I want to talk about justice. Justice
Speaker 1: is James Comy's reputation being utterly and entirely ruined because
Speaker 1: of James Comey's actions, because he deserves it. That's some
Speaker 1: reports that the US is softening a stands on force
Speaker 1: technology transfers states subsidized. I don't think we're softening our
Speaker 1: stand sign anything. What I think is going on is
Speaker 1: a very good discussion about all these topics, and as
Speaker 1: I said, you've got a lot of clarity perhaps at
Speaker 1: the end of next week gets so we do not
Speaker 1: yet have a deal with China on trade. I didn't
Speaker 1: think that was going to be the case. I think
Speaker 1: I told you that yesterday, and not that that's some
Speaker 1: great prediction. It's pretty obvious there would have been different
Speaker 1: indicators if there was going to be a deal, and
Speaker 1: I think that's why the markets. You know, there was
Speaker 1: a little bit of skittishness, but then it's kind of
Speaker 1: recovered because people One of the things about the market
Speaker 1: is people got to put their money where where their
Speaker 1: mouths are right. You've got to make a bet. And
Speaker 1: that's why. You know, the way that this has gone
Speaker 1: on China is people understand this a long It's gonna
Speaker 1: be a long haul, and a lot of the market
Speaker 1: anxiety has already priced into people's perceptions are where this
Speaker 1: is going. You know, we've been thinking for a long
Speaker 1: time this is going to happen. Here's the update today
Speaker 1: from the Wall Street Journal. Trade talks between the US
Speaker 1: and China broke off on Friday with no agreement announced,
Speaker 1: hours after President Trump raised a tariff level on two
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars of imports from China. China and tweets
Speaker 1: Friday afternoon, Mister Trump called the two days of talks
Speaker 1: candid and constructive, but said tariffs will stay in place,
Speaker 1: penning the result of future negotiations. He said his relationship
Speaker 1: with Chinese President hij and Ping remains a very strong one,
Speaker 1: and conversations into the future it will continue. Treasury Secretary
Speaker 1: Stephen Manuchin also describe the talks as constructive. Okay, you
Speaker 1: got Robert Lighthouser, who's the US trade representative here saying
Speaker 1: that you know, things are gonna We're gonna get things going.
Speaker 1: It's continuing on What do I think's going on here?
Speaker 1: I think I think the following tell you what's going
Speaker 1: with China's great time. I gotta say, is Buck going
Speaker 1: to go to China? And not? You know, am I
Speaker 1: going to China? Am I gonna fix everything? Probably if
Speaker 1: when I come back from China there's a trade deal,
Speaker 1: are we you know, gonna say thank you, Buck? I
Speaker 1: would hope so, because I think that I'm I might
Speaker 1: be able to fix some things, might pop make the
Speaker 1: magic happen here. But on a real note, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be in China during a very instant time.
Speaker 1: I will say that is the US relationship with China
Speaker 1: is that at a particularly poignant moment. But here we
Speaker 1: have a negotiation that I think has stalled because they're
Speaker 1: one hoping that some Democrat will win because they know
Speaker 1: that they'll be able to push the Democrat around and
Speaker 1: get what they want, and there just won't be this
Speaker 1: willingness to spend political capital. Trump is spending real political
Speaker 1: capital and taking a lot of heat in order to
Speaker 1: deal with a problem that is a very real problem
Speaker 1: that no serious onlooker, no serious observer of the situation
Speaker 1: between the US and China disagrees exists. It's definitely there.
Speaker 1: There's definitely a big problem. But no previous administration has
Speaker 1: wanted to take this on. They've not been willing to
Speaker 1: deal with this the way that Trump is dealing with it,
Speaker 1: which is to say no more. I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: going to allow this to just continue on the predatory practices,
Speaker 1: the intellectual property theft, the just constantly putting their thumb
Speaker 1: on the scale against US on trade and getting a
Speaker 1: free ride on our backs along the way. It's not
Speaker 1: going to continue as is. And you know, a negotiation,
Speaker 1: there is a combative aspect to it. A negotiation is
Speaker 1: a process for resolving two opposing forces, opposing wills. It's
Speaker 1: not supposed to be a hug, a smooch, and okay,
Speaker 1: we got everything figured out right away. That's not how
Speaker 1: a lot negotiations go. You also have to be patient,
Speaker 1: you have to be willing to walk away. Trump and
Speaker 1: his team are willing to do all of that here. Now.
Speaker 1: I think that the Chinese probably want to hold off
Speaker 1: and see what happens with the election because they're playing
Speaker 1: a long game as we know, So that means that
Speaker 1: they don't feel an urgency to get a deal done
Speaker 1: right away. But as we look at when they'll be
Speaker 1: the most Like if you're asking me when a deal
Speaker 1: with China would actually happen, I would say it would
Speaker 1: be in the first quarter of twenty twenty. If President
Speaker 1: Trump wins reelection, that's when there will be the wreck
Speaker 1: cognition that because the Chinese are suffering, They're economy suffering
Speaker 1: more than ours because of their intransigence, because they won't
Speaker 1: you know, they won't anymore make changes that they need
Speaker 1: to change change, you know, because of that. Though, eventually
Speaker 1: there'll be a position where the Chinese will have to
Speaker 1: recognize that four more years of Trump just beating them
Speaker 1: down with these tariffs isn't worth it. At least come
Speaker 1: up with some deal. You know, there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot of Keep in mind, a deal is not going
Speaker 1: to solve all problems. The Chinese will try to cheat
Speaker 1: within the framework of the deal. We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: punish number of things. But at least it would be
Speaker 1: moving the right direction. But the time when I think
Speaker 1: you will finally get a trade deal with China is
Speaker 1: if Trump wins reelection. After his reelection and that gets going,
Speaker 1: then they can really put the heat onto the Chinese.
Speaker 1: Might might it's it might say, Okay, you're right, we'll
Speaker 1: start to change things up a little bit. So strap in,
Speaker 1: my friends, it's going to be a long road to China.
Speaker 1: All of these conservative writers that wanted to maintain their
Speaker 1: dignity and thought they could do that by being anti
Speaker 1: anti Trump are now all going in to William Barr.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just want to let you let you
Speaker 1: guys know you were defending I don't know it, maybe
Speaker 1: even donning for a long time doesn't matter. You're defending
Speaker 1: the most corrupt attorney general. I mean, since John Mitchell like,
Speaker 1: it's bad, your articles are going to look extraordinarily stupid
Speaker 1: and you're going to look like, well, Sicka fan, It's
Speaker 1: just it's really embarrassing. I hope you'll protect yourself from
Speaker 1: that because you really humiliated yourself over the past couple
Speaker 1: of weeks. Joe Scarborough's embarrassing. Joe Scarborough exists to be
Speaker 1: a fake Republican who just bashes Republicans. That that is
Speaker 1: what his existence. I couldn't do it. I couldn't do
Speaker 1: it even for the four or five million dollars overpaid
Speaker 1: as he is that Joe Scarborough gets. Couldn't do it,
Speaker 1: couldn't wake up, couldn't look myself in the mirror every
Speaker 1: day showing up to a job, to pretend to care
Speaker 1: about things that matter, to pretend to have an ideological core, principles, morals, ethics,
Speaker 1: and then just trash my own side. So dishonorable. There's
Speaker 1: no amount of money that's worth being such a dishonorable hack.
Speaker 1: But Scarborough sold out. Oh oh, you mean Joe Scarborough,
Speaker 1: who when he thought him and Trump were buddy buddy,
Speaker 1: he loved Trump, he was all about the Trump train,
Speaker 1: he and Mika, And for him to go around and
Speaker 1: trash conservative writers who are defending Attorney General Bar. Attorney
Speaker 1: General Bar has done nothing wrong. They can say whatever
Speaker 1: they want about, you know, the words that he has
Speaker 1: used so far. He has not broken any regulation, he
Speaker 1: has not done anything that is untoward, and they're calling
Speaker 1: him the most. This guy's calling him a corrupt attorney
Speaker 1: general based on what? Why is he corrupt? How is
Speaker 1: he coruble? Well? What what? Because he released a summary
Speaker 1: of the Muller Muller's a prima donna, Mueller's come two
Speaker 1: point zero. Mueller's whole thing was, how do I, with
Speaker 1: the limited facts that we can pull together that aren't
Speaker 1: favorable for Trump? How can we do as much damage
Speaker 1: to Trump as possible? Under circumstances we can't prosecute him.
Speaker 1: Let's figure something else out. Mueller was a get Trump operation.
Speaker 1: We all know this. We're not We're not silly. But
Speaker 1: what has bar done that was? That's so bad. The
Speaker 1: reason that there is this frenzy to undermine the attorney general,
Speaker 1: to destroy his reputation, and to call out anyone like
Speaker 1: me who will speak in his defense. The reason that
Speaker 1: is happening is because they know they have a formidable
Speaker 1: opponent in both their destroy Trump operations. Now and somebody
Speaker 1: who methodically, legally, ethically is going to get some get
Speaker 1: some results. There will be accountability, People will be held
Speaker 1: to account for what they have done in their maniacal
Speaker 1: destroy Trump efforts. That's gonna happen now. That's why they
Speaker 1: hate the Attorney general so much. This Attorney General is
Speaker 1: just like Kavanaugh. I would say, and that he's the
Speaker 1: gold standard in terms of his resume. His background doesn't
Speaker 1: get any better. He's as qualified to be the Attorney
Speaker 1: general as anybody farm or qualified than Eric Holder. You
Speaker 1: want to talk about corrupt, Never mind Operation Fast and Furious,
Speaker 1: which Eric Holder just covered up using executive privilege, covered
Speaker 1: up what happened. People died. Brian Terry, US border patrol
Speaker 1: agent murdered with weapons sold through straw purchasers to the
Speaker 1: cartels to try and prove how much guns were flowing
Speaker 1: into Mexico from the United States, and they covered it up.
Speaker 1: Eric Holder also was the one who signed off on
Speaker 1: the pardon for Mark Rich who was given a pardon
Speaker 1: because his wife writes fat checks to the Democrat national
Speaker 1: community and Democrat candidates. Just just a pardon for sale,
Speaker 1: that's all that was. And everybody knew it, and even
Speaker 1: Holder can't defend it now, yeah, yeah, And it gave
Speaker 1: him a pardon, and they shouldn't give m name of
Speaker 1: pardon and Holders a he's a third tier legal intellect.
Speaker 1: But he was the Attorney general, oh okay, And he
Speaker 1: was Obama's wingman by his own admission. But he's not corrupt,
Speaker 1: you know, we're not talking about it, and he was
Speaker 1: held in contempt, as we know, but that's largely just
Speaker 1: now a political tool. It doesn't mean that it's right
Speaker 1: when both sides do it, but both sides do it
Speaker 1: for for reasons that are inherently political. But what is
Speaker 1: Scarborough even talking about? Why does anyone listen to this guy?
Speaker 1: I don't know who the Scarborough viewer is. I think
Speaker 1: it must be Democrats who think, well, he's a Republican
Speaker 1: that I like, and they like him because he's actually
Speaker 1: a Democrat who just bashes Republicans all day and that's
Speaker 1: quite a cute game. There's a whole slew of people
Speaker 1: over at CNN, that's what they do. They're so conservative,
Speaker 1: but when you listen to them, all they do is
Speaker 1: bash Republicans. They don't have any any harsh words to
Speaker 1: say about the infanticidal left and the abortion uber super
Speaker 1: crazy extremists that dominate the Democratic Party right. They don't
Speaker 1: there anything to say about them, but they have a
Speaker 1: lot of nasty things to say about Trump and Trump's advisors.
Speaker 1: And you know what Trump said about this or trumpet
Speaker 1: about that. Scarborough is in that category one. He's one
Speaker 1: of these he's one of those think yourself, okay, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: who's watching Who's watching Joe Scarborough? So I just did
Speaker 1: a quick search and then about their ratings, and here's
Speaker 1: the first thing comes up. The Conservative Talker is now
Speaker 1: the lowest rated morning show on cable News first Line.
Speaker 1: So your answer, not a lot of people. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I really I think that he he created there, there's
Speaker 1: a His purpose is for Libs to feel like they
Speaker 1: can watch a conservative and and so they're open minded.
Speaker 1: If the watch a conservative, they can watch republic But
Speaker 1: he's not a Republican. So it's all it's all a fraud.
Speaker 1: I mean, Joe Scarborough's essentially engaged in a media fraud
Speaker 1: every day. And you know, I mean, don't even get
Speaker 1: me started on like he says all this nasty stuff
Speaker 1: about Trump and Trump's personal life. Joe Scarborough, you might
Speaker 1: want to slow slow your role there a little bit, buddy,
Speaker 1: a little bit, a little bit of homewreck and going
Speaker 1: on from what I understand. You know, let's glass House,
Speaker 1: my friend, glass House. But I just want to know
Speaker 1: why he's slamming Bill Barr. It's one thing he's got
Speaker 1: beef with Trump. That's personal, right, that's just that's vindictive,
Speaker 1: petty stuff. And look, I get it. Trump. Trump burns
Speaker 1: people that used to be friends with them, and they
Speaker 1: hate him forever. And you know, sometimes they come back
Speaker 1: to him. Sometimes they don't. I understand. But but this,
Speaker 1: this uh, this complete besmirching of Bill Barr's character is
Speaker 1: this is you know, someone as a hack and a
Speaker 1: joke when they try to say this attorney general is corrupt.
Speaker 1: I actually I feel better about how this country's future
Speaker 1: is gonna go knowing that Bill Barr's the attorney general
Speaker 1: right now. This guy, this guy's a legal superstar. His
Speaker 1: credentials are impeccable. His integrity has never been challenged until now.
Speaker 1: No one's ever thought that he was a hack. No
Speaker 1: one's ever thought, oh, Trump's broken him. They say, based
Speaker 1: on what he doesn't need Trump, he doesn't care. This
Speaker 1: guy's a super successful lawyer in private practice, has already
Speaker 1: been attorney generally. He doesn't need this. But he's not
Speaker 1: going to take this stuff lying down. They can't bully him.
Speaker 1: And they hate people. Left hates conservatives, They hate people
Speaker 1: with just a rational jurisprudence. They hate people that really
Speaker 1: believe the law is the law, because they can't believe.
Speaker 1: I am just so sick of it. I really am.
Speaker 1: One more thing. This whole effort to go after Trump's family.
Speaker 1: I know we talked about it yesterday, but it's it's appalling.
Speaker 1: It's appalling. They're clearly trying to harass President. Now, I
Speaker 1: will say that by the President bringing you know, his
Speaker 1: daughter and son of law into his administration the White House,
Speaker 1: that's I think that you know, he's he's putting them
Speaker 1: in a position where they are going to be for
Speaker 1: congressional stuff. It's it's gonna be a fair game situation.
Speaker 1: They're gonna go after them because they're White House advisors.
Speaker 1: But we know that they're going to do a lot
Speaker 1: more than just subpoenas and records. We know they want
Speaker 1: to try to take these people and ruin their lives.
Speaker 1: That's what the left will do. That's how the left
Speaker 1: tries to get get it, get its way. And here's
Speaker 1: Trump talking about the fact that Burr, Senator Burr, who's
Speaker 1: a Republican, is on a committee, leads a committee that
Speaker 1: subpoenad his son in the Senate play club sixteen. I
Speaker 1: was very surprised to see my son. My son's a
Speaker 1: very good person. My son testified for hours and hours.
Speaker 1: My son was totally exonerated by Muller, who frankly does
Speaker 1: not like Donald Trump. Me this Donald Trump, and yet
Speaker 1: they want more testimony. They want to make his life
Speaker 1: even more of a circus. Donald Trump Junior, from what
Speaker 1: I understand, I do not believe. I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: Maybe he has someone on the campaign. He doesn't have
Speaker 1: a role in the administration though, but there's they really
Speaker 1: he's in this situation. It's like when they really wanted
Speaker 1: to get either call Rover chaineater in the Bush administration.
Speaker 1: They really want to get one of Trump's kids. That's
Speaker 1: the left has a there's a bitterness, there's a vindictiveness
Speaker 1: in the left about how much they want to get
Speaker 1: one of the president's children. They want to make it
Speaker 1: about getting his kids. I mean, this is some real
Speaker 1: sick game of throne stuff from the left. It really is.
Speaker 1: And if you think that, you know, I'm just coming
Speaker 1: up with us out of thin air. Here's joy Beiha
Speaker 1: saying exactly that play. Fifteen oh yesterday, Trump held a
Speaker 1: press conference about whatever, and he talked about his son,
Speaker 1: Don Junior getting subpoenaed by a Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: and he actually sounds like he cares about someone other
Speaker 1: than himself. My son, my son. He kept saying, like
Speaker 1: as if he's a real father, as if he's a
Speaker 1: real father. No human feeling, no basic digna extended from
Speaker 1: the left towards this president or his family. They are
Speaker 1: completely deranged. They are hateful, They are spiteful toward this president.
Speaker 1: You must remember that because it affects all of their
Speaker 1: judgment about him. It affects all of the way they
Speaker 1: view his policies, and it also affects the way they
Speaker 1: view people like you and me who support him. They
Speaker 1: don't They don't have the ability anymore on the left
Speaker 1: to step back and say, Okay, you know, we're all
Speaker 1: people here, we're all doing our best. We mean, well,
Speaker 1: most of us are pretty decent, trying to do good things,
Speaker 1: and we have, you know, our commonalities and our shared
Speaker 1: love of different things like love of family, love of
Speaker 1: our children. Joy Barsy you know, gets in la. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's just a horrifying person, but you know she gets
Speaker 1: a laugh by saying he's not a real father, and
Speaker 1: who cares about this? And everything else. This is dehumanizing.
Speaker 1: The left uses rhetoric about dehumanizing, that's what she's doing.
Speaker 1: But the president and his son, this is why the left.
Speaker 1: We have to understand. These peop are sick. They're sick,
Speaker 1: they're maniacs. They have problems, folks, they got a big problem.
Speaker 1: I guarantee you Joe Biden will not get to election
Speaker 1: day without this being investigated. Joe Biden was appointed the
Speaker 1: point man for Ukraine. Two to three weeks later, his son,
Speaker 1: who had just been tossed out of the military for
Speaker 1: testing positive to cocaine, was appointed to a position on
Speaker 1: the most corrupt agency or the most corrupt business in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Biden's kid took down about three to four million dollars
Speaker 1: we can count. And Biden, when the kid got under investigation,
Speaker 1: actually says quote, I strong armed the President of the
Speaker 1: Ukraine to dismiss the prosecutor because the son of a
Speaker 1: leave it out was corrupt. What he left out of
Speaker 1: the explanation was that prosecutor was right on the tail
Speaker 1: of his son looking for the money that appeared to
Speaker 1: have been laundered. All of a sudden, the President of
Speaker 1: the Ukraine gets a call from the Vice President United States,
Speaker 1: and he's told you not going to get you one
Speaker 1: point two billion dollars loan guarantee, which they needed then
Speaker 1: to prevent default, unless you've dismissed the prosecutor. Ah, it
Speaker 1: looks like Biden maybe having a little bit of trouble.
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani, whom I've had the good fortune to interview
Speaker 1: several times over the last six months or so, and
Speaker 1: I've bumped into him a few times socially in DC
Speaker 1: as well, and I like seeing Rudy. Rudy reminds me
Speaker 1: of New York, of my hometown, and also of what
Speaker 1: he did for that city. So I always give a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of respect and a degree of
Speaker 1: you know that there's a degree of fondness for mister
Speaker 1: Mayor there. You know, I'm somebody who doesn't believe that
Speaker 1: anyone in government should retain their government title when they leave.
Speaker 1: I will say that for for mister Mayor. With Rudy Giuliani,
Speaker 1: it's I choose that one because I think that he
Speaker 1: kind of earned it, you know, by turning New York around.
Speaker 1: But that's just a personal choice. I don't like this
Speaker 1: thing where we call people ambassador or mister Speaker or
Speaker 1: you know, I like New Gingrich. He's not He's not
Speaker 1: Speaker Gingrich. I'm sorry, he's not the Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House anymore. He's New Gingridge, right. And I'm not beating
Speaker 1: up on Nude. I'm just saying this is this is
Speaker 1: a weird thing, and ambassadors in particular are very huffy
Speaker 1: about it. I might calm down, Ambo easy. Speaking of Ambos,
Speaker 1: we have an issue here with Biden's family and what
Speaker 1: looks like some corrupt action that Biden took. And does
Speaker 1: anyone think that this is really beyond the pale for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, You know, a guy who we all know
Speaker 1: is out for number one first and foremost, doesn't really
Speaker 1: represent much in the way of a political ideology. I
Speaker 1: don't think Biden's a true believer in anything other than Bidenism,
Speaker 1: you know. I think Biden is a Bidenist and kind
Speaker 1: of the same way that Comey is a Comyist, except
Speaker 1: James Coomy is also very much tied to the institution
Speaker 1: of the FBI. And I think that really Comey started
Speaker 1: to think that, you know, late late Tan Samoi right,
Speaker 1: the state is me, Louis the was it Louis the fourteenth.
Speaker 1: I believe he said that Louis Catles in France. Same
Speaker 1: idea with Comey the FBI, same MOI that's James Comey.
Speaker 1: So but Biden is a guy who thinks for it,
Speaker 1: thinks of Biden. He's always did good Biden and his
Speaker 1: immediate family and how to line their pockets and how
Speaker 1: to use his influence. And you know that that just
Speaker 1: doesn't surprise me at all. Remember Biden was also the
Speaker 1: guy who was charging the Secret Service some outrageous rent
Speaker 1: to have a little station on his property where they
Speaker 1: could kind of position themselves to provide him security. You know,
Speaker 1: he was charging them like, you know, top top dollar
Speaker 1: for a very minimal, minimal space. But so you have
Speaker 1: the Rudy kind of laid it out, we came in.
Speaker 1: You have this possible corruption issue of Biden's sun and
Speaker 1: getting the heat taken off him from a Ukrainian prosecutor
Speaker 1: because Biden threatened a loan guarantee of over Billy Dodge.
Speaker 1: I mean this is you want to talk about obstruction,
Speaker 1: that's foreign I mean that's probably foreign Corrupt Practices Act violation.
Speaker 1: It's definitely abuse of government authority, abuse of power. It's
Speaker 1: obstruction of Ukrainian justice. Probably. I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: something you could charge here, but uh, it's it's definitely unethical.
Speaker 1: And if this has proven, I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be a problem for Biden. The other area that is
Speaker 1: going to get more attention going forward is around this
Speaker 1: election meddling. Here's the basics of it. And Rudy's going
Speaker 1: out there. I mean, he's He's going on offense, folks,
Speaker 1: and this is what needs to happen. We've been playing
Speaker 1: way too much defense in the on the right and
Speaker 1: in Trump world, and it's been just the whole hope
Speaker 1: that the barrage ends. Just put our heads down in
Speaker 1: the trench and hope that eventually the artillery rounds just
Speaker 1: stop getting fired at us. Instand we should go on
Speaker 1: offense and find out, well, we were doing this somewhat
Speaker 1: now you're seeing this with the Attorney General and what
Speaker 1: he's going to release hopefully the next month or so
Speaker 1: from the Inspector General port of the DOJ. But also
Speaker 1: do some investigative work. You know, where's our Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: you know, where's our guy who's out there really looking
Speaker 1: at what's gone on here? With Joe Biden and who
Speaker 1: knows what other Democrat candidates we're going to have to
Speaker 1: do a deep dive into. We don't want Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: in the sense that we don't want somebody who is
Speaker 1: a fabricator and full of crap, but we want someone
Speaker 1: who's going to pull together a real a dossier of
Speaker 1: facts instead of lies about Joe Biden and what he
Speaker 1: did in Ukraine. And Giuliani is going to be looking
Speaker 1: into whether or not somebody on behalf of the DNC
Speaker 1: was asking the Ukrainian government for dirt on Paul Manaford.
Speaker 1: That's the allegation right now. That's what the that's what's
Speaker 1: going to get some attention. And I just want to
Speaker 1: say that we need to establish right now if there
Speaker 1: was any outreach from anyone associated with the DNC in
Speaker 1: any way to a foreign government to get a thing
Speaker 1: of value, which is what the Democrats were saying about
Speaker 1: it when it was the vessel Nitskaya Trump Tower meeting
Speaker 1: to get a thing of value as an information from
Speaker 1: a foreign government, the Ukrainian government, which is it's not
Speaker 1: quite Russia, but it's not really a friendly either. You know,
Speaker 1: We're not you know Ukraine is not Canada. Although if
Speaker 1: this becomes a thing, trust me, the Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to say, oh, Ukraine, it's the greatest country that we've
Speaker 1: ever been friends with. It, it's amazing. But if we
Speaker 1: can prove that there was outreach to get APO research
Speaker 1: from the Ukrainian government against the Trump administration or i'm sorry,
Speaker 1: against the Trump campaign and Paul Manafort, how are Democrats
Speaker 1: going to explain that given the standard that they've set up,
Speaker 1: given what we have been told about, you know what's
Speaker 1: acceptable and what's not acceptable for a presidential campaign in
Speaker 1: terms of its foreign contacts and what it's going for.
Speaker 1: I need someone to tell me if we can prove this,
Speaker 1: and Giuliani's on the case, he's gonna use all of
Speaker 1: his contacts, all of Rudy's horses, and all of Rudy's
Speaker 1: men here. What if the real foreign collusion was between
Speaker 1: the Democrats and Ukraine, that would be quite a story.
Speaker 1: What we can then say is a we should have
Speaker 1: a non for profit public option for basic banking services,
Speaker 1: and we should be piloting these projects through the US
Speaker 1: Postal Service or in any other number of ways. I
Speaker 1: gotta say one thing about these far left Democrats is
Speaker 1: that they're good at at the talking points, the whipping
Speaker 1: people up into a kind of emotional frenzy. You know,
Speaker 1: class wolfare the rich people not paying off the taxes,
Speaker 1: the millionaires, the billionaires, they get them all. You know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's right, it's unfair. Yeah, it's all those people, the
Speaker 1: dark money and politics and undermining our democracy and healthcare
Speaker 1: is a human right and all this stuff that it
Speaker 1: sounds good and it makes people feel good to say,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't really give you much in the way of, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: what do we do about any of this? And what
Speaker 1: you see with the AOC and the burn the bourn
Speaker 1: elect a nickname it's good, is that when they get
Speaker 1: into the nitty gritty of how they'd make something never
Speaker 1: want to make it work, but how they try to
Speaker 1: make something work, they have no idea what they're talking about. None,
Speaker 1: Okazio Cortez and Bertie Sanders trying to come up with
Speaker 1: a way to revolutionize the banking system and have the
Speaker 1: federal government essentially in charge of banking at some level
Speaker 1: is just indicative of the lack of understanding that they
Speaker 1: have of how really anything works. You know, AOC and Bernie.
Speaker 1: Neither of them have had to function much in the
Speaker 1: in the private sector. Accounty Bernie certainly hasn't. And I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm not yet past that this is a guy who
Speaker 1: went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon. I haven't
Speaker 1: reached the point where I just think that that's like
Speaker 1: something cute and funny that we can all just forget about.
Speaker 1: I think that's quite strange. I think that's very, very weird,
Speaker 1: just like I haven't gotten past Kaza Bill de Blasio
Speaker 1: varonville Helm. I know you probably a Pawadi said that
Speaker 1: because the guys his name was Warren Wilhelm. Doesn't he
Speaker 1: sound like a guy running around in a pith helmet
Speaker 1: from Bavaria? Varonville Helm. Yeah, and then he changed his
Speaker 1: name to Billy Blasio. But he he was gonna run
Speaker 1: for president. Now he's put the announcement off a little bit.
Speaker 1: I think he really as is. Everyone is just just going
Speaker 1: to make fun of him. The guy is such a dufish.
Speaker 1: The good part about Bill de Blasio is that you
Speaker 1: know that, well, if he can be the mayor of
Speaker 1: New York, basically anybody can be the mayor of New York.
Speaker 1: It's a job that you could put somebody, you could
Speaker 1: just grab the first person you find on the street.
Speaker 1: In fact, I give it fifty fifty No, No, I
Speaker 1: think it's probably a little better than fifty fifty odds.
Speaker 1: Remember there's a lot of commies running around New York.
Speaker 1: But I get it better than fifty fifty odds. If
Speaker 1: you just grab some stranger on the street and said hey,
Speaker 1: you're now the mayor of New York City, they'd probably
Speaker 1: do a better job than Bille Blasio. They'd listen to
Speaker 1: the advisors. They'd try to approach it with the common sense.
Speaker 1: The Blasio is a clown and a buffoon. But he
Speaker 1: also went to was it. I believe he went to
Speaker 1: hang out with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua back in the day.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike fact check me on that one. I think
Speaker 1: he went there on vacation. You know, there's some people
Speaker 1: that are really attracted to the authoritarian left. I mean,
Speaker 1: they really believe that communism and Marxist revolution is something
Speaker 1: to be herald at, something to be celebrated. And you
Speaker 1: get these you get people like Bernie Sanders and AOC
Speaker 1: and others who have rarely a word of criticism for
Speaker 1: the likes of a Maduro or anything nasty to say
Speaker 1: about Cuba or the Castro regime. There's a clear affinity.
Speaker 1: And you can't be somebody who understands how capitalist economies
Speaker 1: work and why they're good and not have a level
Speaker 1: of disdain for what we've seen in places like Cuba
Speaker 1: from the regime like Venezuela from the Maduro and before that,
Speaker 1: the Chavez regime. Right you, So you hear Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: in an AOC talking about a public option for basic
Speaker 1: banking services, and you think to yourself, they don't understand
Speaker 1: any of this, do they? They just know how to
Speaker 1: get other people who don't understand any of it to
Speaker 1: like them and vote for them, and to prey upon
Speaker 1: their insecurities and their ignorance so that they become supporters
Speaker 1: of Sanders and AOC. But these are not These are
Speaker 1: not people who are Look, let's let's just say it.
Speaker 1: They're not very knowledgeable. They're not all that bright. Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: Okazi Cortez not intellectually impressive, either of them. I would
Speaker 1: not want them on my debate team. I would not
Speaker 1: want them on my you know, start a business team.
Speaker 1: They are just demagogues. They're really like actors and their acts,
Speaker 1: actors who are playing far left politicians for all of
Speaker 1: us to watch and see. Are they believers as well?
Speaker 1: I think so. I think so at some level. But
Speaker 1: this not for profit public option for basic banking services
Speaker 1: that they talk about, this reminds me of one of
Speaker 1: the most interesting exchanges that I ever heard on the
Speaker 1: Adam Carolla podcast, which now there are a lot of
Speaker 1: big podcasts, but for a long time, Adam Carolla's podcast
Speaker 1: was really the podcast it was. He got in that
Speaker 1: game very early and built up a following very early.
Speaker 1: And but I remember listening to him talk to Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 1: I think at the time Gavin Newsom was the mayor
Speaker 1: of San Francisco. I think that's right, and now he's
Speaker 1: obviously the governor of California. Whenever I think of the
Speaker 1: governor of California, I'm always in my head going to
Speaker 1: think of Schwarzenegger for some reason. But Gavin Newsom was
Speaker 1: having a conversation with Carolla and Carola's I didn't even
Speaker 1: think he's a he's a conservative necessarily. I think he's
Speaker 1: just a a common sensor, if that's a thing. He's
Speaker 1: kind of a guy that just approaches things with the
Speaker 1: way that you would if you weren't already ideologically predisposed
Speaker 1: one may or the other. I don't listen to a
Speaker 1: stuff much, to be fair, but this was fascinating. There
Speaker 1: was a conversation he's having with with Gavin Newsom, and
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom went off on how and I don't remember
Speaker 1: the statistic and this was from I want to say
Speaker 1: six years ago. It's a law time ago, but it
Speaker 1: really I really remembered it. And he said, you know,
Speaker 1: the Latino population of I think it was the Bay
Speaker 1: Area and particularly maybe Oakland, but the Latino population in
Speaker 1: that part of California had a very low rate of
Speaker 1: having a checking account of any kind. And this was
Speaker 1: raised as a tremendous injustice right. Newsom was saying, it's
Speaker 1: so and really a form of structural racism. Why is
Speaker 1: it that a very large percentage, I forget what it is.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say the number, but a large
Speaker 1: percentage of Latinos in the Bay Area, and I believe
Speaker 1: it was true for the rest of California as well
Speaker 1: don't even have a checking account, which is a very
Speaker 1: basic if you're going to understand your finances. You're gonna
Speaker 1: prepare for the future, you kind of need to have
Speaker 1: a check incount. And Corolla just said, Okay, well, why
Speaker 1: don't they have a checking account? Well, it's free. Checking
Speaker 1: accounts are free. I mean some people say, oh buck, no,
Speaker 1: it's a certain bank. You need to have a balance,
Speaker 1: but I mean maybe maybe the balance is one hundred dollars,
Speaker 1: but I mean you're getting a yeah, how many people
Speaker 1: are really? I mean, you can get you get twenty
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year being sent across the border and
Speaker 1: remittances im and how many people really can't keep one
Speaker 1: hundred dollars in a checking account for any any period
Speaker 1: of time. I'm not saying it's no one is in
Speaker 1: that category, but really, and I don't even know if
Speaker 1: that's the case anymore. I mean, I think most banks
Speaker 1: you can open a checking accounts free. You just can't
Speaker 1: have a maybe you can't have a zero or negative balance.
Speaker 1: But was fashionated was that when Corolla said, why don't
Speaker 1: they have a checking account? They're free? Newsome, you know,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden had had no answer. I feel
Speaker 1: like I want to go back and dig up this
Speaker 1: exchange because it was such a and it's just a
Speaker 1: classic moment of here you have another leftist newsom. It's
Speaker 1: just like like ABOc and Bernie, another left left wing
Speaker 1: demagogue who knows what to say to get the crowd
Speaker 1: that they want to think that they're the good guy
Speaker 1: or gal to think that they're on the side of
Speaker 1: the poor. But when you asked them a very basic
Speaker 1: question about the problem that they say they want to address,
Speaker 1: they've never really even thought about it. You know, why
Speaker 1: do we need a not for public, not for profit
Speaker 1: public option for banking services? Why do we need that
Speaker 1: checking counts are free? Did you Bernie and AOC have
Speaker 1: any answers to this? Well, I'm assuming if someone actually
Speaker 1: posed the question to them, it would be somewhat more
Speaker 1: like what happened with Gavin Newsommers. I care about poor
Speaker 1: people in minorities and systematic oppression, and I'm woke in
Speaker 1: social justice, and just they're just all turning these little
Speaker 1: talking point robots, never really think about anything. That's that's
Speaker 1: a defining trait on the left these days. They're just
Speaker 1: it's just like all the talking points have been jammed
Speaker 1: into the system, and it's like mad libs with woke
Speaker 1: with wokeness. With these woke phrases, doesn't really get into
Speaker 1: the substance or how you would fix anything, doesn't really
Speaker 1: ever tell you how they should or how they would
Speaker 1: want to address any of these problems, which starts to
Speaker 1: make you think after a well, maybe they just want
Speaker 1: to talk about the problems because of how it makes
Speaker 1: them sound when they talk about it, not because they
Speaker 1: think they can actually fix it. It's been a number
Speaker 1: of mass shootings on school grounds in the last few
Speaker 1: weeks that have gotten attention to the media, not as
Speaker 1: much as some of the other mass shootings we've all
Speaker 1: come to know the names of, like Marjorie Stoneman, Douglas
Speaker 1: High School or Columbine or the christ Church Mosque massacre.
Speaker 1: Are these horrific events where you remember the names of
Speaker 1: the incident. In this case, I don't think we'll remember
Speaker 1: the names quite the same way. But that's largely because
Speaker 1: in these cases rather the casualties were much lower. There
Speaker 1: have been three attempted major mass shootings in the United
Speaker 1: States alone between April twenty seventh and May seventh. So
Speaker 1: just in recent weeks, you had the synagogue shooting in Poway, California.
Speaker 1: You had a shooter walk into classroom at UNC Charlotte.
Speaker 1: And then on May seventh, you had a shooter open
Speaker 1: fire at a school in Highland Ranch, Colorado known as
Speaker 1: a STEMS school. It's for science and with a focus
Speaker 1: on science and math. Now, the number of dead in
Speaker 1: these shootings was Obviously, every death is a terrible tragedy.
Speaker 1: There should never be a shooting in any school. But
Speaker 1: if we're talking about this as a matter of policy
Speaker 1: response and also the comparison to other shootings, now you're
Speaker 1: looking at a pretty low death toll. And the reason
Speaker 1: given for this, or at least perhaps one of the
Speaker 1: reasons for the relatively lower death toll, as a David
Speaker 1: french Over at National Review has written it up, is heroes.
Speaker 1: There were heroes in these incidents, people who upon themselves
Speaker 1: to intervene and in several cases give their lives. As
Speaker 1: David writes here, let's remember and honor the names that
Speaker 1: truly matter. In Poway, the lone fatality, a brave woman
Speaker 1: named Laurie Gilbert Kay died shielding her rabbi. At the
Speaker 1: same time, in Iraq, vet named Oscar Stewart charged straight
Speaker 1: at the shooter, yelling that he was going to kill him.
Speaker 1: The shooter fled the scene with Stuart at his heels,
Speaker 1: until Jonathan Morales, an off duty Border Patrol agent, engaged
Speaker 1: the shooter with a firearm. At UNC Charlotte, a young
Speaker 1: man named Riley Howell was shot three times as he
Speaker 1: charged the shooter, yet he still managed to tackle him
Speaker 1: so forcefully that the suspect complained to first responders after
Speaker 1: his arrest of internal injuries. Howell gave his life to
Speaker 1: stop the attack, and in Colorado, a young man, a
Speaker 1: young man named Kendrick Castillo, immediately lunged for the gunman
Speaker 1: when the shooting started. He gave his life, but his
Speaker 1: charge gave his classmates time to hide or flee, and
Speaker 1: then three other students also charged and subdued the shooter.
Speaker 1: As David rights, these brave Americans joined an increasing honor
Speaker 1: roll of heroes like James Shaw Junior, who disarmed a
Speaker 1: mass killer at a waffle house in Nashville, or Juan
Speaker 1: Carlos Nazario and Brian Whittle, two armed citizens who gunned
Speaker 1: down a shooter outside an Oklahoma City restaurant. These men
Speaker 1: rightly have far more fame than the killers they faced.
Speaker 1: Their names are the names we remember, this is a
Speaker 1: part of the mass shooting discussion that should get more
Speaker 1: attention for a couple of reasons. For one, the heroes
Speaker 1: here should have their names known forever and always this
Speaker 1: same way that we understand that the bad guys want notoriety,
Speaker 1: and we should try to starve them of that to
Speaker 1: the degree that we can. As a society, we should
Speaker 1: feel that the opposite is necessary for the good guys
Speaker 1: in these situations. The heroes, those who step up, those
Speaker 1: who intervene to save others and in many cases lose
Speaker 1: their lives in the process. Their names should be in
Speaker 1: our minds. Their names should come to our lips quickly
Speaker 1: when we think of heroes during a mass shooting incident.
Speaker 1: And then also on the policy side of this, or
Speaker 1: on the how do we solve this? How do we
Speaker 1: deal with mass shooting incidents? As David writes here, there's
Speaker 1: the hero solution to the mass shooting contagent now, he
Speaker 1: admits in the piece, and you would think this right away.
Speaker 1: Of course, there are some instances, some circumstances where the
Speaker 1: heroes there is no possibility to be a hero. You know,
Speaker 1: if somebody walks into a crowded area and has sufficient
Speaker 1: firepower and enough tactical dexterity, it may not be physically
Speaker 1: possible for anyone to do anything about it. This is
Speaker 1: why the evil cowards who go into mass shooting situations
Speaker 1: in schools or places of worship, that's why they do
Speaker 1: it there. As we know, there's a reason that they
Speaker 1: pick locations where they feel they are unlikely to come
Speaker 1: into contact with a good guy or gal with a gun.
Speaker 1: I think people you know always need to also remember
Speaker 1: that it was a lady officer, a female officer, who
Speaker 1: stepped up and engaged Nidal Hassan at the Fort Hood
Speaker 1: mass murder shooting event. It was a female officer who
Speaker 1: she drew down on that guy, and he had been
Speaker 1: training a lot with pistols he had. He had pretty
Speaker 1: established tactical dexterity and a tactical skill, and she engaged
Speaker 1: that shooter and may have saved many lives in the process.
Speaker 1: I think she got hit if I recall, and I
Speaker 1: believe he got hit as well in that shooting. And
Speaker 1: I think she was you know, she was a diminutive
Speaker 1: female officer. I think she was five one or five two,
Speaker 1: but courage, bravery and some skill with the firearms all
Speaker 1: she needed, and that's what she had. It was also
Speaker 1: one of the two officers who prevented a mass assassination
Speaker 1: of conservative members of Congress the Freedom Caucus at that
Speaker 1: baseball field, and Alexandria, Virginia, one of those two officers,
Speaker 1: was also female, engaged the shooter and took him down.
Speaker 1: So heroes on both sides of the gender spectrum, and
Speaker 1: heroes that have certainly prevented much worse tragedies from happening. Now,
Speaker 1: there's some degree of luck involved in this as well.
Speaker 1: You know, if you happen to be that individual who
Speaker 1: has the courage and has the ability to stop one
Speaker 1: of these mass shootings, then the people around you whose
Speaker 1: lives we saved are very fortunate, because, as I said,
Speaker 1: in some cases, that's just not going to be possible.
Speaker 1: But there is a mentality here. I think you're seeing
Speaker 1: it now and it's similar to the mentality after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven. And this is really at the heart of
Speaker 1: David's thesis and this very good National Review piece. And
Speaker 1: for those who might be thinking Buck David French used
Speaker 1: to have him on the show. I like David. I
Speaker 1: think he's a very good writer, and I think he's
Speaker 1: a good guy. I disagree with a lot of him
Speaker 1: on Trump and with a lot of what he says
Speaker 1: on Trump. I think that he was very wrong with
Speaker 1: where he was on Russia collusion for a long time,
Speaker 1: and that's why we don't We don't engage on that
Speaker 1: subject much because I don't think it's particularly worth either
Speaker 1: of our time. But on stuff like this, on religious freedom,
Speaker 1: on life issues, on gun issues, David is quite excellent.
Speaker 1: He just really, really really hates Trump, so that can
Speaker 1: make it hard to talk to about anything Trump related.
Speaker 1: I think he hates Trump to the point where his
Speaker 1: judgment on Trump is just is tainted. I think that
Speaker 1: he lacks the ability to see anything objective than involves Trump.
Speaker 1: That's my opinion. He probably thinks that I'm, you know,
Speaker 1: given Trump a BackRub all the time. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's a different approach to be sure. I could use
Speaker 1: a backgroub right now. But anyway, but back to David,
Speaker 1: I mean, his thesis is very much that there's a
Speaker 1: change in mentality, and the mentality changes that now people
Speaker 1: perhaps understand that they cannot sit At least some people.
Speaker 1: It has spread far enough that there are many people
Speaker 1: who will not sit by or just engage in the
Speaker 1: flight part of the fight or flight reflex that we
Speaker 1: all have. And after nine eleven, I mean, it was
Speaker 1: definitely the case that if there was any kind of
Speaker 1: a hijacking that was going to happen if somebody tried
Speaker 1: to take a plane, And many commentators and others pointed
Speaker 1: this out, and it was true. And I remember this
Speaker 1: feeling after nine to eleven. You know, remember this mentality
Speaker 1: of if some guy thinks he's gonna take a box
Speaker 1: cutter and take control of this plane, he better be
Speaker 1: ready to have eighty year old women, you know, coming
Speaker 1: at him down down the walkway on the plane the aisle,
Speaker 1: you know, hitting them with their walkers and their canes.
Speaker 1: I mean, everybody on that plane would be in on
Speaker 1: the fight, everybody, you know. I mean, I don't think
Speaker 1: the eight year old one would be the first one necessarily,
Speaker 1: but you see what I'm saying, It would be every
Speaker 1: person would understand that their lives are likely forfeit unless
Speaker 1: they do something and take dramatic and immediate action. So
Speaker 1: that is happening in some of these some of these
Speaker 1: mass shootings. So that's on the positive side of this
Speaker 1: as much as one can find any silver lining in
Speaker 1: the aftermath of mass shootings. The reason that we have
Speaker 1: a few people who are killed in these three shootings
Speaker 1: and they haven't dominated the news cycle as a result,
Speaker 1: because let's just be honest, in the news, there is
Speaker 1: that phrase, if it bleeds, it leads, and the more
Speaker 1: people who are wounded, end or killed, the more likely
Speaker 1: it is there's going to be news coverage of something
Speaker 1: and more sat ration coverage of it. We don't have
Speaker 1: a higher body count because, thank thank god, because people
Speaker 1: stepped up. Because in these incidents there there were individuals
Speaker 1: who in some cases totally unarmed and just ran at
Speaker 1: a shooter knowing that they were very likely going to
Speaker 1: be the next one and then targeted and possibly lose
Speaker 1: their life in the process. But that's that's real hero stuff.
Speaker 1: And if this mentality has changed, similar to what we
Speaker 1: saw after nine to eleven, where people feel like in
Speaker 1: a mass shooting or in a school shooting or house
Speaker 1: of worship shooting scenario, the new reality is going to
Speaker 1: be fight to the bitter end. That may change the
Speaker 1: calculation a bit. Now, you want to add to that,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, the arming of people who want to
Speaker 1: be armed. Concealed carry, by the way, not just not
Speaker 1: just open carry for school resource officers, but I think
Speaker 1: concealed carry for anyone who wants to be who's a
Speaker 1: license and rely liable adult. You know, these are people
Speaker 1: that would have to be background checked, would have to
Speaker 1: have had sufficient safety and weapons instructions so they know
Speaker 1: what they're doing. That also changes the calculation. You know,
Speaker 1: bad guys think about their evil acts usually before they
Speaker 1: do them, and they there's a reason they go for
Speaker 1: gun free zones. There's a reason they go for these
Speaker 1: areas where they know they're not going to come up
Speaker 1: against opposition. So you add the the hero phenomenon that
Speaker 1: we're seeing here during these mass shootings to the possibility
Speaker 1: of what just happened in Florida, where I believe they've
Speaker 1: now passed a or about to pass I can't remember
Speaker 1: off the top of my head a law that would
Speaker 1: allow teachers to be armed. I believe concealed carry as well.
Speaker 1: This is moving in the right direction for how we
Speaker 1: can limit We're never going to we're never going to
Speaker 1: eliminate mass shootings, but we can limit mass shootings in
Speaker 1: number and perhaps even more so in lethality, which is critical,
Speaker 1: and that's what we should be aimed. Four. We should
Speaker 1: be trying to establish as best we can a downward
Speaker 1: trend in these mass shootings, and with each mass shooting,
Speaker 1: we're hoping there'll be fewer and fewer people who actually
Speaker 1: get hit. I want to talk to you more specifically though,
Speaker 1: about what happened in Colorado and this incident, this stem
Speaker 1: school shooting, because there's some dynamics at work here that
Speaker 1: are worth diving into a little bit. So let's do
Speaker 1: that when we come back from the break. I didn't
Speaker 1: sit in that classroom, and I did not sit and
Speaker 1: watch my friends get shot, my friends die. To have
Speaker 1: a political conference on it. It's not right. So we
Speaker 1: gotta get out of here. We can't keep here just
Speaker 1: because well we were mistreated here. We don't want to
Speaker 1: stay here. I want to thank Highland Drench High School
Speaker 1: for hosting us, even though it went a little off track,
Speaker 1: because politics are always fun, and so thank you all
Speaker 1: for coming, supporting, honoring. If you weren't here for politics.
Speaker 1: If you were, thanks for ruining it. And before we go,
Speaker 1: we want to say we quick we love you, Kendrick.
Speaker 1: We will remember you ever and always politicizing a tragedy
Speaker 1: and using the name of a true hero to gather
Speaker 1: people together for a left wing agenda. That is what
Speaker 1: happened at the Highlands Ranch Stems School vigil. Now. I
Speaker 1: mentioned before we came into this break that there was
Speaker 1: a shooting at this school and there was an individual
Speaker 1: named Castillo who ran at the gunman and saved lives.
Speaker 1: He was he was killed, and eight students were wounded.
Speaker 1: When you had two teenagers open fire in this K
Speaker 1: through twelve school that has a math and science specialization,
Speaker 1: interesting enough, one of the people who is being held
Speaker 1: as one of the suspects in this mass shooting is
Speaker 1: a transgender individual, a male who prefers female pronouns, or
Speaker 1: I might have that backwards. It might be a female
Speaker 1: who prefers male pronouns. I can't tell, but very I'm
Speaker 1: just very little coverage of that shooter, which I think
Speaker 1: is interesting. I believe that shooter may be a juvenile.
Speaker 1: But I have a feeling if the shooter were a
Speaker 1: different profile, even though he or she is a juvenile,
Speaker 1: we would be hearing a whole lot more about it.
Speaker 1: But the bigger issue here, Oh thank you Mike tells
Speaker 1: me she's going from female to male, so it's a
Speaker 1: female to male transition, So a transgender male. I think
Speaker 1: I have that right. As we know there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as a true female to male transition or the
Speaker 1: other way around. But we are being told increasingly to
Speaker 1: forget science and reality and just pretend, pretend because it
Speaker 1: makes people feel better. Back though, to this politicization of
Speaker 1: a vigil, that you'd have an event that was quote
Speaker 1: build as a vigil to honor Kendrick Castillo, who was
Speaker 1: the hero of this incident prevented many many others from
Speaker 1: being killed. Guess what a bunch of Brady Campaign to
Speaker 1: end gun violence people showed up and turned it into
Speaker 1: a left wing banned guns rally. The event was organized
Speaker 1: by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Democrats
Speaker 1: showed up Senators Michael Bennett and Representative Jason Crowe to
Speaker 1: speak at length about the need for federal action, and
Speaker 1: reporters were invited to cover the event. This is this
Speaker 1: is where you start to see once again, the virtue
Speaker 1: signaling that has really corroded the gun rights and gun
Speaker 1: control debate. The left believes that people who think that
Speaker 1: law biding gun owners should be constitutionally protected in their
Speaker 1: right to own firearms without undo unnecessary and unconstitutional infringement
Speaker 1: and harassment. The left believes that they're bad people. All
Speaker 1: you have to do is see the timeline of my
Speaker 1: former colleague and friend Dana lash for example, and the
Speaker 1: things that are said to her and about her by leftists,
Speaker 1: including prominent leftists in the media and gun control advocates,
Speaker 1: some of the most well known gun control advocates, and
Speaker 1: they blame law abiding gun owners who've never broken any
Speaker 1: laws in their lives the for dead children and mass shootings.
Speaker 1: This is the mentality you see among Democrats. It's not
Speaker 1: a conversation about what's constructive to do. It's they're the
Speaker 1: good people that want to stop kids from getting killed.
Speaker 1: If you don't agree with them, you're one of the
Speaker 1: bad people who doesn't care about kids being killed. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a stupid construction for the argument. That's a stupid
Speaker 1: way to approach it, but that is how they approach it.
Speaker 1: They really do think that this is a struggle between
Speaker 1: good and evil, and good is banned guns. Good is
Speaker 1: stop people from having firearms that the left says they
Speaker 1: should not have, which really if they had their way,
Speaker 1: we would have something like the Australia model, which isn't
Speaker 1: even the model they say it is, and I'm talking
Speaker 1: about that before. But you know, you'd be able to
Speaker 1: have maybe you know, della barrel shotgun and some bolt
Speaker 1: action rifles and that's it, you know, no pistols, no
Speaker 1: semi automatic rifles, none of that. And even still, given
Speaker 1: the hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation right now
Speaker 1: in this country, even if they try to institute a
Speaker 1: massive ban of that kind, it wouldn't stop violence. Bad
Speaker 1: people would still be able to get their hands on guns.
Speaker 1: There's still a global market for firearms. It's not just
Speaker 1: a US market. There would be illegal weapons. People that
Speaker 1: are willing to kill people and do mass shootings don't
Speaker 1: care what the laws say about gun ownership. So Democrats
Speaker 1: get very agitated because they think that they're so brave
Speaker 1: and good and they're the ones that want to save
Speaker 1: the kids. But their ideas are stupid and their policies
Speaker 1: are unconstitutional, and they can't react to a real and
Speaker 1: rational discussion about guns and what to do about a
Speaker 1: gun violence without pointing a finger. And wanted to make
Speaker 1: this a virtue signaling contest. That's all they care about.
Speaker 1: They really do approach this like a bunch of self
Speaker 1: righteous brats. That is what you see from leftist gun controllers,
Speaker 1: and that's why they politicize a vigil for a hero
Speaker 1: for their own purposes. The show ain't over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: keeping it real. It's time for roll call bad oh Man.
Speaker 1: Buck goes to China, China. That's happening. It's happening tomorrow,
Speaker 1: assuming all goes according to plan. I'm gonna miss you
Speaker 1: all very much, so I'll be out for a week.
Speaker 1: But I can tell you that next week we have
Speaker 1: in at the Helm of the Freedom Hunt. We have Rahinka, Sam,
Speaker 1: Harlan Hill, Charlie Kirk, who else do we have? Brett
Speaker 1: Wintererbill Fantastic guess? So, so next week is kind of
Speaker 1: a smorgasbord of awesome. So I think you know, smurgas
Speaker 1: Borg is one of those Smorgas bored smorgas Borg what
Speaker 1: is it? Smorgas board with a D? Obviously, all right,
Speaker 1: that's what I said. We're just gonna pretend that's what
Speaker 1: I said. It's a buffet offering a variety of hot
Speaker 1: and cold meats, salads, and or dervs or derve's also
Speaker 1: being one of the hardest words out there to smell
Speaker 1: Schmorgers board. So you'll have fantastic guests next week. It's
Speaker 1: going to be very exciting, and then I'll be doing
Speaker 1: I'll be back the following week in Los Angeles, Cala, California.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be fantastic, very much looking forward to that.
Speaker 1: Got some stuff to do out there on the left
Speaker 1: coast the best coast, um. I actually east coast is better,
Speaker 1: let's see. Jim Rights. I highly recommend a book called
Speaker 1: The Bloody Telegram, Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide by
Speaker 1: Gary Hello. This is one of those damn robo calls.
Speaker 1: Gosh darn ittt. Why am I getting a robo call
Speaker 1: in the middle of my freaking radio show. Robo call?
Speaker 1: I'd see, I didn't even I didn't. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna find these robo call people and I'm going
Speaker 1: to lose my mind on them. That's the thing that happened,
Speaker 1: all right, Jim Rights, I highly recommend this book called
Speaker 1: The Bloody Telegram, Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide by
Speaker 1: Gary Bass, an astonishing account of American history that no
Speaker 1: one's ever heard of. What history? What genocide? Check it out? Okay, Jim,
Speaker 1: I know nothing about this, but I will give it
Speaker 1: a google. Michael, Right, I heard Bill Clinton might join
Speaker 1: Joe Biden on the campaign trail. It will be called
Speaker 1: our fondling father's tour. Michael, You're not the first one
Speaker 1: to write this joke to me, so I feel like
Speaker 1: someone saw this joke somewhere and now everyone sending this
Speaker 1: joke around. But thank you for your sharing of humor.
Speaker 1: Adam writes Buck. We are often in the same position
Speaker 1: as Short Round was in when Indiana Jones was brainwashed?
Speaker 1: Question is where do we find the torch shields high?
Speaker 1: You know, I was thinking about this either day. The
Speaker 1: Indiana Jones movies. Look Indiana Jones. The story is a
Speaker 1: great story, The character is really cool, and I think
Speaker 1: it's a great concept. And those movies were very, very
Speaker 1: watchable in their day. They're fantastic. I'm just annoyed that
Speaker 1: they couldn't make more good versions of them. It's such
Speaker 1: a great character. And that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Speaker 1: was was horrific. It was an a fence, it was
Speaker 1: an assault against all things so I did not enjoy
Speaker 1: it at all. Um. And yes, we need to find
Speaker 1: the torch and get short round to stop being brainwashed.
Speaker 1: Mug at um segot um mug at. Remember when he
Speaker 1: goes to like rip the guy's heart. You know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. He goes to rip the heart out
Speaker 1: of the guy. I think they're sat um if that's
Speaker 1: that's from the top of my head. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's a real language they're saying. So I can just
Speaker 1: make up the words too. But that was intense, man.
Speaker 1: I'll never forget the first time I saw I was
Speaker 1: a kid, I saw that guy. I just pull the
Speaker 1: beating heart out of the dude before he put him
Speaker 1: in the fire pit. That't that's that was real deal.
Speaker 1: That was messed up. Uh. Dennis, all right, hey Buck,
Speaker 1: long time listener, first time writer. Book recommendation. My brother
Speaker 1: Timothy May has several written books about Genghis Khan and
Speaker 1: the Mongols. All are available from Amazon Safe Travels. Dennis. Huh, Dennis,
Speaker 1: very cool man. I'll check out your brother's book. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for writing in. I appreciate it. The
Speaker 1: Mongols is a part of history that we should I
Speaker 1: think we skipped over it when I was in school.
Speaker 1: It's just it's like, yeah, and some dudes with horses
Speaker 1: who were pretty intense. They came in mess some stuff
Speaker 1: up and no, no, no, it was really important. They
Speaker 1: were the most dominant military force on the planet for
Speaker 1: quite a while and conquered a larger empire than any
Speaker 1: really anyone since or before in terms of population. I
Speaker 1: think you could definitely make that case. Let's see or
Speaker 1: turns of landmass, probably too, Chris. Someone's yelling, but the
Speaker 1: British Empire was larger with greater popular I don't think so. Man.
Speaker 1: A lot of people in China. Chris wrights Buck still
Speaker 1: can't get over at Judge Napolitano's conversion to Trump hater.
Speaker 1: I really don't care about his likes or dislike. What
Speaker 1: terrifies me is that he was a judge with truly
Speaker 1: awesome power. He seemingly overnight wanted to damage Trump and
Speaker 1: is offering twisted legal interpretations to indulge his anger. Am
Speaker 1: I supposed to believe that couldn't have happened when he
Speaker 1: was a judge. We are at the mercy of these
Speaker 1: egomaniacs if we have the misfortune being entangled in court proceedings.
Speaker 1: How do I now trust that Nap didn't do this
Speaker 1: while he's a judge, probably isn't even aware of it
Speaker 1: on a conscious level. How many people did he damage
Speaker 1: in his career? How revolting your honor? Indeed, you know, Chris,
Speaker 1: I very much disagree with Judgement Politano in terms of
Speaker 1: what he says a lot of the time on Fox
Speaker 1: these days. I've always found the judge to be very,
Speaker 1: very friendly and gentlemanly to me, and I've interacted with
Speaker 1: them many many times. So I like the judge. And
Speaker 1: as I always tell you, I'm upfront with you all
Speaker 1: about that. So you know that that that colors my judgment.
Speaker 1: A lot of people pretend that they're objective even when
Speaker 1: they likes somebody. No what I like somebody. I can
Speaker 1: be objective about some things, but my overall assessment is
Speaker 1: not going to be what you could honestly describe as objective. Now,
Speaker 1: we're not friends. I don't like hang out and drink drink,
Speaker 1: you know stolch Nio with Judge Knapps like I do
Speaker 1: with I don't know, doctor Gorka. We hung out yesterday,
Speaker 1: had some drinks. Doctor G's the man, that guy's great,
Speaker 1: But I do like Judge and Politan, I don't know
Speaker 1: what's happened to him. I don't know why he has
Speaker 1: all of a sudden decided that he hates Trump and
Speaker 1: all of his legal analysis. It feels to me like
Speaker 1: a kind of loyally version of Trump's arrangement syndrome. As
Speaker 1: for what he did when he was a judge, I
Speaker 1: think he was probably a good judge. I don't know.
Speaker 1: He was a state court judge. He was not a
Speaker 1: federal judge, So I think I wouldn't want to go
Speaker 1: too far on this, but yeah, judges do have a
Speaker 1: lot of power, and when you're in a courtroom, that's
Speaker 1: a real manifest a station of state power. And you
Speaker 1: understand that. Like the guy tells you to be quiet,
Speaker 1: you have to be quiet, you know. So I have
Speaker 1: the First Amendment right to speak, and no you don't.
Speaker 1: In the court the judge. It's the judge's world and
Speaker 1: you're living in it. Mary Right. A great book I
Speaker 1: just finished is Women from Shanghai by Shan Wei Yang.
Speaker 1: It is interviews of survivors that were being accused of
Speaker 1: being rightists and counter revolutionaries. Mary. That sounds very interesting.
Speaker 1: I also think though, that that's probably not the book
Speaker 1: that I want to have in my bags when I
Speaker 1: go through Chinese customs. Yes, hello, I am here to
Speaker 1: visit your country, and I have a book about the
Speaker 1: systematic abuse of people that disagree with your regime from
Speaker 1: within your country. Just thought i'd carry that around with me,
Speaker 1: perhaps take some photos with it held up near the
Speaker 1: Great Wall or no. No, I'm going there as a tourist,
Speaker 1: keeping a low profile, just hanging out doing the thing.
Speaker 1: And team. If for some reason I get held up
Speaker 1: over there, I know some of you are going to
Speaker 1: circle a posse together and come and get me. So, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: I'm counting on you, Chess in all right, if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump pardon me. If Donald Trump Junior does sit down
Speaker 1: before Congress, I would want him to plead the fifth.
Speaker 1: This would make many in Congress the media claimate shows
Speaker 1: he has something to hide or is guilty. I would
Speaker 1: respond to those statements with, so you believe that Lois
Speaker 1: Lerner and Hillary Clinton are guilty or something to hide,
Speaker 1: then sit back and watch the verbal gymnastics begin. Yeah, Chess,
Speaker 1: And you're right about how that would happen. And that's
Speaker 1: a very good example of the media bias in many
Speaker 1: of these high profile, very political cases at work. When
Speaker 1: they like someone who takes the fifth, we get lectures
Speaker 1: and of all these legal experts that go on TV
Speaker 1: specifically to tell us all about how pleading the fifth
Speaker 1: is not in any way an admission of guilt, and
Speaker 1: pleading the fifth is completely and utterly fine. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a great legal tradition. But if it's someone
Speaker 1: they don't like, then plead the fifth. All the person's
Speaker 1: obviously guilty, obviously guilty, guilty as sensor, so it chess,
Speaker 1: and you are correct, my friend. And from what I
Speaker 1: see here, you've got quite a beard going, my man,
Speaker 1: I had to trim mine down a little bit. It
Speaker 1: was going. It was going into a little beyond what
Speaker 1: I was looking at. You know, I starting to look
Speaker 1: like a hipster barista. You know, I like the kind
Speaker 1: of I'm not gonna talk about my beard. Whenever I do,
Speaker 1: people say bucks, stop talking about your beard. All right.
Speaker 1: I know it's like a new toy. I'm excited to
Speaker 1: have a beard, but it's I don't know how long
Speaker 1: it's gonna last. Some people tell me that in the summertime,
Speaker 1: it gets itchy, John writes, Shields High Real News fan here, Wow, John,
Speaker 1: go back. We are partying with you like it's twenty
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, which I think is when we started Real News.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi just named two things, fossil fuels and gun violence,
Speaker 1: so make belief thing and a thing that's also made
Speaker 1: up by the left. Sure, gun violence is bad, but
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure it's not number two on whatever list
Speaker 1: she has of things that they say require a Democrat
Speaker 1: president to solve. Strong man arguments from a woman who
Speaker 1: should be in a nursing home and not on TV.
Speaker 1: Commie Bear lives those leaves. Still, here's around Cammi Bear,
Speaker 1: who amuses you. Gun violence is not the number two
Speaker 1: thing for presidents to solve. Yeah, we're not going to
Speaker 1: solve gun violence anytime soon. That is true until we
Speaker 1: solve the deficiencies of the human heart, which we will
Speaker 1: not do that anytime either. We're doing double roll calls.
Speaker 1: This is my last role call with you for a week,
Speaker 1: so that means the flip siur come right back, continue
Speaker 1: the conversation. Team. I'm gonna try not to get all
Speaker 1: weepy because I'm gonna miss you next week, but I'll
Speaker 1: be right back. All right. We got part two of
Speaker 1: our role call for this freestyle Friday, which I gotta
Speaker 1: figure out how it's a freestyle because we used to
Speaker 1: do action movie quote Friday and we take a lot
Speaker 1: of phone calls and now it's kind of just like
Speaker 1: a Friday show. So I know, I'm aware we gotta
Speaker 1: make it a little more freestyle, a little more free wheeling.
Speaker 1: I do get a little sillier on the Friday Show.
Speaker 1: I'm a silly man, so I think maybe that's maybe
Speaker 1: that's a difference. I'm gonna that's my story and I'm
Speaker 1: sticking to it. James, Right, Just some thoughts. They want
Speaker 1: to impeach a president who donates money to charity, all
Speaker 1: of his money that he has paid for doing his job.
Speaker 1: He deserves that money, but the left is willing to
Speaker 1: let that generosity go. I'd like to see any liberal
Speaker 1: donate their money to charity because President Trump is not
Speaker 1: doing it for the money. He's doing it for his country.
Speaker 1: President Trump is trying to prove a point to show
Speaker 1: the world and our country how much he loves our
Speaker 1: country and is willing to give up his lavish lifestyle
Speaker 1: to help improve our lives and be able to take
Speaker 1: care of ourselves on our own and not buy government assistance.
Speaker 1: You cannot prosper on government assistance. You can only move forward,
Speaker 1: or rather, you cannot move forward, you can only go backward. James,
Speaker 1: I got nothing to add to that, my friend, other
Speaker 1: than just say already, thank you so much for frightening
Speaker 1: in Matthew Buck, here's a flip on the argument of
Speaker 1: federal circuit judges being able to issue a nationwide or
Speaker 1: even circuit wide stay. The civil rights of US citizens
Speaker 1: are being infringed, shouldn't the government be stayed from implementation
Speaker 1: until the case has been tried? Do I think what
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit has been doing for the last few
Speaker 1: years is correct. No, But removing that whole power can
Speaker 1: severely hurt US citizens in the long run, as always
Speaker 1: shields high. Yeah, Matthew mean that's I think you're what
Speaker 1: you're saying is there's a good reason why you can
Speaker 1: have a nationwide injunction. But I think that they're looking
Speaker 1: at this again because what you have, and this is
Speaker 1: a this is a recurring theme in our battles with
Speaker 1: the leftists. What you have is the judges now are
Speaker 1: treating everything like it's an imminent civil rights violation. Anything
Speaker 1: as a matter of policy that Trump does that some
Speaker 1: federal judge does not like, they'll just overrule. So there's
Speaker 1: a bad faith component to this that you have to
Speaker 1: you have to keep in mind, and that it's not
Speaker 1: even an appeals court or an on bank review or
Speaker 1: anything like that. It's just one judge can overrule the
Speaker 1: president of the United States on any action that the
Speaker 1: judge decides. That's just that's too much power in the
Speaker 1: hands of think of it this way. That's way too
Speaker 1: much power in the hands of any individual federal judge.
Speaker 1: Federal judge is not this isn't the Supreme Court, This
Speaker 1: isn't a five four ruling or something. This is just
Speaker 1: some judge somewhere that was appointed by a previous president.
Speaker 1: That judge is able to say, no president can't do that,
Speaker 1: No president can't do that, and even though they can
Speaker 1: be overturned on appeal, and that is what's happened. That's
Speaker 1: a tremendously disruptive power to give to one federal judge somewhere.
Speaker 1: So that's what I would say about that. Nathan right Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck just a quick note to let you know, i'd
Speaker 1: throw you a few bucks per month for commercial free
Speaker 1: full episodes of your radio show. I'll listen either way.
Speaker 1: But I'm sure I'm not the only one out here
Speaker 1: with support your content via other means in advertising shields high. Well, Nathan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, man. I that means a lot.
Speaker 1: And you know, we'll see what in the digital media
Speaker 1: future that we are all in this business hurtling toward,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be very likely that you're really just gonna
Speaker 1: everyone's gonna rely on the people that consume their content
Speaker 1: to support that content, whether it's through what we do
Speaker 1: right now, which is advertiser support and by you being
Speaker 1: customers of the advertisers that are on the show, or
Speaker 1: perhaps even a direct subscription model of some kind later.
Speaker 1: So thank you for the vote of confidence and the encouragement,
Speaker 1: my friend, have a fantastic weekend. Susan Rights. Let's see
Speaker 1: four admitted liars in the CA have an all case,
Speaker 1: not one word about it, but now great concern over
Speaker 1: any little disgusting lie the Democrats wish to make up.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is concerned over ethics. Nancy Pelosi and ethics.
Speaker 1: Exclamation question mark, question mark question Mark, how is it
Speaker 1: they're getting away with the filthy lies. Susan took the
Speaker 1: exclamation points right out of my mouth. Dwayne Rights can't
Speaker 1: help but think that Mother's decision to pass on the
Speaker 1: obstruction charge was just a ploy to keep the whole
Speaker 1: thing alive. If he clears Trump out of his mouth,
Speaker 1: the Dems have a little recourse and it's over. If
Speaker 1: he makes bar do it, the Dems can claim cover
Speaker 1: up and keep the circus alive as long as they want.
Speaker 1: The Dems have no soul and are doing a measurable
Speaker 1: harm to our government. Men, Dwayne does not hold back.
Speaker 1: Let's see we have here. Wow, this is really long.
Speaker 1: I will have to come back to this one because
Speaker 1: this is quite a lengthy one. Let's see. Don right,
Speaker 1: it's good evening. Buck Shield's high in La Lower Alabama.
Speaker 1: Not Callie. What do you think of the odds? Are
Speaker 1: the Dems are rolling a Trojan horse um test? Dudo?
Speaker 1: Don I don't know, man, that's a good question. Democrats
Speaker 1: might do that. Everybody. I'll miss you next week, great
Speaker 1: guests in every day though, I'll be talking to you
Speaker 1: from China. Well, actually i'll be talking you about China.
Speaker 1: Want to get back TUC then shields high