Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Looks like there was
Speaker 1: more coordination behind the scenes between the deep State and
Speaker 1: the Democrats on this whole Ukraine situation. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: And also the anonymous book is out and people say
Speaker 1: it stinks. Will break down just why that's the case.
Speaker 1: And some crazy protesters get up in Buck's face on
Speaker 1: the streets of New York City. Addam work coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Mag noo, mistake, You're a great American Again, the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody. Thank you so much for here.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you on this chilly but lovely
Speaker 1: Friday here in NYC and across the country and around
Speaker 1: the world. Thank you again to those watching on Pluto
Speaker 1: channel two forty eight, the first If you haven't checked
Speaker 1: it out yet, please do. And also, podcast numbers are
Speaker 1: growing because you're telling people about the show. It is
Speaker 1: on every day on iTunes on the iHeart app. Subscribe
Speaker 1: the podcast drops three Eastern. You can listen to it
Speaker 1: whenever you like. Listen to it in drivetime. So before
Speaker 1: I get into the latest on the back and forth
Speaker 1: over Ukraine, an impeachment, and this political fight that has
Speaker 1: become an obsession of the media and an obsession of
Speaker 1: the political class. I wonder how much most Americans really
Speaker 1: care about this, although I suppose we'll just have to
Speaker 1: wait and see what comes of it all. I want
Speaker 1: to tell you that last night I went to a
Speaker 1: gala here in New York City for the New York
Speaker 1: Young Republican Club. It was a great, great event. The
Speaker 1: guys who put it together really made it all happen,
Speaker 1: and it was It was fun. It was a it
Speaker 1: was like a Conservative Avengers reunion kind of situation. We
Speaker 1: had a man Raheem Kassam there, Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer,
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon was there. I gotta say. Bannon gave a keynote,
Speaker 1: and I I've met Steve before and I'm familiar with
Speaker 1: some of his work. His speech was or the mic
Speaker 1: didn't work. So Bannon stands up and there must have
Speaker 1: been almost three hundred people. I think we're there last night.
Speaker 1: It was two fifty or two sixty in the in
Speaker 1: the ballroom, and Bannon stood up and the mic was
Speaker 1: just on the on the fritz. So he just said,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm just gonna project, which is this is
Speaker 1: what a pro does, right, That's how you do things.
Speaker 1: It would have been like, I'm just gonna say it
Speaker 1: would have been my move. You don't want to keep
Speaker 1: being a test dang, test dang, touching the mic and
Speaker 1: you lose people if there's too much of that. And
Speaker 1: the room was small enough that he could project. So
Speaker 1: he stood up and he gave a very good speech,
Speaker 1: and she said, we are we are losing right now.
Speaker 1: He said, We're not losing in a micro policy sense,
Speaker 1: but we are losing if we don't understand how close
Speaker 1: we are to continuing to lose ground to China, for example,
Speaker 1: lose ground to socialists in our own country. And just
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump has been a moment of pushback and
Speaker 1: fight back against all of that, it doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: if you take if you take a step back and
Speaker 1: look at the totality of what's going on, that the
Speaker 1: situation for conservatism and for individual liberty and constitutionalism in
Speaker 1: this country is looking good. If you were to put
Speaker 1: it on, if you were to plot this on a
Speaker 1: longer X Y axis, it is trending against liberty, it
Speaker 1: is trending toward collectivism. This is not what he said.
Speaker 1: This is my interpretation of some of Steve's remarks. And
Speaker 1: he also gave just his review of what it was
Speaker 1: like going into the final weeks of the election. Because
Speaker 1: I believe three years ago. Was it three years ago today?
Speaker 1: November eighth? At least three years ago was when we
Speaker 1: had our first day? Was it the first day of
Speaker 1: the election, the first day after the election. It's been
Speaker 1: three years. It's rather amazing that this time has gone
Speaker 1: by so quickly. Yep, Raheem Kassan Pasobic Bannon was there.
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer was there, a bunch of other
Speaker 1: folks that, Oh Rob Smith, great guy he was. It's
Speaker 1: funny I saw Rob in the New York City subway
Speaker 1: in the morning randomly, and then I saw him at
Speaker 1: night at the Galla. So even New York with eight
Speaker 1: million people, can feel rather small sometimes. Well, while it
Speaker 1: was a fantastic night, my little brother was there. He's
Speaker 1: looking very dapper as always. While it was a great
Speaker 1: night for all involved, there was a contingent outside of
Speaker 1: of protesters, and they had clearly studied who they invited
Speaker 1: and you know, VIP guests or whatever you want to
Speaker 1: call them, essentially media people or those with some public profile.
Speaker 1: And it was also a black tie event or black
Speaker 1: tie preferred, so most people were wearing I mean, Bannon
Speaker 1: didn't wear black tie. Don't worry Bannon war with Bannon wars,
Speaker 1: which is very specific to Bannon. But there were people
Speaker 1: who were outside and there must have been about sixty
Speaker 1: or seventy protesters i'd say, outside of this event, and they,
Speaker 1: you know, yelled epithets as I was walking past them,
Speaker 1: you know things, you know, alt right and racist and
Speaker 1: things like that. And then I have to tell you
Speaker 1: one of them actually jumped out from the credt. Now
Speaker 1: there were police there, so there were police standing right there,
Speaker 1: which is interesting because on the one hand, I know
Speaker 1: some of you are saying, well, if someone got up
Speaker 1: in my face in this way, I would, well, if
Speaker 1: the cops are there, someone yells at you and you
Speaker 1: put and you you know, you escalate that situation. You're
Speaker 1: the one who's going to get the silver bracelets on you.
Speaker 1: So you just have to walk into the building and
Speaker 1: not pay attention to it. But there was one individual
Speaker 1: in particular who kind of got up and actually stood
Speaker 1: in front of me to block my way. And he
Speaker 1: looked to be he was a white male, probably late forties,
Speaker 1: early fifties, and you know, I don't think that. Let's
Speaker 1: just say he was not a rugged looking fellow, and
Speaker 1: he looked like he'd spent a lot of time indoors
Speaker 1: playing battle chest by himself. And I had this guy
Speaker 1: in my face and he was screaming in my face,
Speaker 1: you are not welcome here. I'm a member. It was
Speaker 1: at the Yale Club. I'm a member, you are not welcome.
Speaker 1: You're screaming in my face. I just kind of looked
Speaker 1: at him and you know, smiled actually in his walk,
Speaker 1: walked around him. And it was so interesting because my
Speaker 1: mindset at first it was, you know, what a clown.
Speaker 1: And there was a little part of me that was like,
Speaker 1: you're lucky that there are people here, because I am somebody,
Speaker 1: and I should probably get this out of the way
Speaker 1: now in case there ever is an incident. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't deal with aggression usually by just being cool
Speaker 1: about it. I may seem very mellow and relax and
Speaker 1: I do the show which I am, and I think
Speaker 1: I'm a very fair fellow and never looked to start
Speaker 1: any problems, but I do not react passively to aggression.
Speaker 1: That said, I initially had that moment that I think
Speaker 1: a lot of guys in the audience and galls in
Speaker 1: the audience would where it was this guy's lucky that,
Speaker 1: you know, because the worst thing you can do as
Speaker 1: a conservative, of course, And apologies for my voice, obviously,
Speaker 1: I was out a little bit late last night. There
Speaker 1: was some mescal involved, but the worst actually was tequila.
Speaker 1: Wasn't mescal for really going to be fair, I asked
Speaker 1: for mescal and they didn't have it, so I wanted
Speaker 1: there to be mescal, but there was just tequila. If
Speaker 1: you do anything, if I say, if you say anything,
Speaker 1: if you curse it them, they're all just hoping to
Speaker 1: create some incident that then they can put on. I
Speaker 1: saw someone call huff post Huff huff poop this warning
Speaker 1: on Twitter, which I had never seen that before. That
Speaker 1: was interesting. But one of those sites and or someone
Speaker 1: also referred to vox as as pox like chicken pox.
Speaker 1: But you know, they're waiting for somebody to overreact and
Speaker 1: do something bad in a circumstance like that, and so
Speaker 1: I had my I know that, and so I'm just
Speaker 1: going by them and I kind of like smiled at
Speaker 1: some of them just because. But then I was walking
Speaker 1: the building, I had I had a couple of other thoughts.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was this process that went, the initial
Speaker 1: thing of somebody getting right up in your face, you
Speaker 1: doesn't know you, screaming at you, and they targeted me specifically.
Speaker 1: I mean, Bannon was smart enough to show up later
Speaker 1: on when they didn't have a permanent anymore. So the
Speaker 1: police weren't there, so you can go in the back door, said,
Speaker 1: you know, some of the other people I just went
Speaker 1: at the very beginning the event, I didn't care. And
Speaker 1: so they came after me specifically and got right up
Speaker 1: in my face and yelling at me. And you have
Speaker 1: that initial that initial feeling of this person is showing aggression.
Speaker 1: He's lucky, I don't I don't, you know, take his
Speaker 1: head off. And then as I walk inside, I just thought,
Speaker 1: this is really what libs are now, this is who
Speaker 1: they've turned into. This guy allegedly went to Yale University.
Speaker 1: It's pouring rain outside, there's an event with people who
Speaker 1: are it's a private event, people wearing black tie in.
Speaker 1: You know, the all I mean the keynote speakers are
Speaker 1: military veterans, all three of them, and all of whom
Speaker 1: served their country in uniform. And there was a very
Speaker 1: It was just not that this really should make any
Speaker 1: difference to anybody, because you know, but I thought it
Speaker 1: was interesting. It was a particularly diverse crowd as well,
Speaker 1: which I just think the left I always say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's all these white male Republicans. Anybody who
Speaker 1: was there last night. The first of all, obviously it
Speaker 1: was about half women, but even beyond that, it was
Speaker 1: very It was actually a diverse room. Not that I
Speaker 1: feel like we should always have to have that caveator,
Speaker 1: just does every party have to have a I mean,
Speaker 1: private party have a diversity quotient. Well, the left seems
Speaker 1: to like to enforce that kind of thinking. But as
Speaker 1: we went in, or as I went into the building,
Speaker 1: I just remember thinking, I talk about these limbs on
Speaker 1: the air and how they're crazy, and it was actually
Speaker 1: it was good to experience this because this was and
Speaker 1: it's not the first time, and I get people write
Speaker 1: horrible things to me. I don't write, I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't read the stuff that comes in on roll call.
Speaker 1: That's you know, your horrible. You know, go go blank
Speaker 1: yourself or go do something terrible to yourself. You know.
Speaker 1: I don't read because why, I mean, it doesn't it's not.
Speaker 1: If it's funny, occasionally I'll read it, but I don't
Speaker 1: read this stuff where it's just people who are venting spleen.
Speaker 1: It's not worth hearing for anybody. But as as I
Speaker 1: went to the building, I was thinking, this is real.
Speaker 1: I mean, people have actually lost it. I mean I
Speaker 1: would be so ashamed to show up at a private
Speaker 1: event and get in the face of a stranger and
Speaker 1: yell at that person and try to ruin that person's night,
Speaker 1: which it didn't at all. I had a great night.
Speaker 1: Sexton brothers were out in the town, had tons of friends.
Speaker 1: We had a fantastic night. So it was great. I
Speaker 1: would never last ning like this again in the way
Speaker 1: of that. But that was the purpose. Obviously, it was
Speaker 1: to rattle people and make them feel, you know, like
Speaker 1: like they can't have a moment's peace. This was a
Speaker 1: purely so it was a social event. It had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with you know, we weren't raising money for
Speaker 1: a candidate or anything. And it is a reminder that
Speaker 1: these people are they are crazy. I mean, they really
Speaker 1: have taken politics to a level that I would be.
Speaker 1: I would be. I would not just be ashamed personally,
Speaker 1: I would be ashamed to be friends with someone I
Speaker 1: would I'd be ashamed to be associated with somebody who
Speaker 1: would wait in the rain outside of a private party
Speaker 1: to yell. By the way, if I had asked, I mean,
Speaker 1: I thought about engaging this guy. What what do you
Speaker 1: not like about my positions? You know, you you utter
Speaker 1: more on but it's it's not I'm going to a party.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't care, it doesn't it doesn't benefit me.
Speaker 1: But I'd be ashamed to even be associated with a
Speaker 1: human being that would do that. And there were seventy
Speaker 1: of them or so fifty sixty seventy something like that
Speaker 1: waiting outside, that's my estimate, all in a line of
Speaker 1: placards the whole thing and pick people out to try
Speaker 1: to And I know that they do this on college campuses,
Speaker 1: but keep in mind this this was not and this
Speaker 1: was not meant to be. We weren't trying to provoke
Speaker 1: a dialogue with the outside world. This was a private
Speaker 1: party that you know, some Antifa group in New York
Speaker 1: found out about and they sent their lunatics to it.
Speaker 1: And I'm just gonna just gonna say this on the
Speaker 1: record right now for all the team because you know,
Speaker 1: hopefully the hopefully the corporate folks in the world will
Speaker 1: always back me on this one. But if something ever
Speaker 1: happens and I have to lay out one of these guys,
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you that they started it, Okay, It
Speaker 1: just there's zero chance that I started it, So I
Speaker 1: want to make sure that we're all you have. That
Speaker 1: that is the that is my alibi from the get go.
Speaker 1: If something ever happens and there's a video of me
Speaker 1: and I have to knock somebody out, they started it,
Speaker 1: just so you know, because I know myself and I
Speaker 1: would never react unless I was actually physically personally threatened
Speaker 1: in that way. But they're they're crazy, which you saw,
Speaker 1: and then you also have they're pathetic too. It's such
Speaker 1: a such a bizarre, sad and loser thing to do
Speaker 1: to wait outside of a social event and scream at
Speaker 1: people because what because Donald because we voted for the
Speaker 1: same president that half the country voted for, that that
Speaker 1: makes that acceptable. And I would just wonder, you know,
Speaker 1: do these do these loser leftists, all Libs, all Democrats
Speaker 1: all only know I'm sure MSNBC and CNN watchers they
Speaker 1: probably go on Slate and vox dot com and think
Speaker 1: they're getting the truth. I mean, there wasn't a single
Speaker 1: non leftist in this group of protesters outside. But you
Speaker 1: have to wonder to yourself, well, I just would they
Speaker 1: be Okay, what if somebody was having a wedding, you know,
Speaker 1: at that venue, and Steve Vanham was attending the wedding,
Speaker 1: would they wait outside? And you know, the left really
Speaker 1: is much closer to the depravity and disgrace of the
Speaker 1: Westboro Baptist Church for example. Then I think many of
Speaker 1: us know because the media is always covering up for
Speaker 1: them and trying to hide this. But they're not embarrassed
Speaker 1: by these people, which I think is really noteworthy. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're they're not disgusted by people who would wait outside
Speaker 1: of a private event and get in a stranger's face,
Speaker 1: someone they knew nothing about. And I mean he wasn't
Speaker 1: trying to intimidate me because that would not have worked,
Speaker 1: but was clearly just trying to be rude, and I
Speaker 1: got it. Actually, I think more aggressively than anybody else.
Speaker 1: I mean the other people. They really came after me
Speaker 1: in particular because other people were walking in before me,
Speaker 1: other people that I know from media world. And it's
Speaker 1: it's a reminder that as I say to her, and
Speaker 1: I tell you about these things about how we are
Speaker 1: going into political trench warfare, we are going into an
Speaker 1: era now where the gloves have come off and people
Speaker 1: are ugly and they're nasty, and they're mean, and they're crazy,
Speaker 1: and they're stupid, and they're ignorant, and they're liberals. That's
Speaker 1: where we are. That's what has become normalized on the left.
Speaker 1: There's no embarrassment over things like this. There's no sense
Speaker 1: of shame that these people allegedly represent liberal values. They
Speaker 1: represent liberal values by shaming people going to a social event.
Speaker 1: You know, I just would wonder do they have any
Speaker 1: boundaries at all, they have any respect, any decency whatsoever.
Speaker 1: The answers no, of course not. And I'm quite honestly,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that if they found out that Steve Bannon
Speaker 1: or some of the other people that were in Eric
Speaker 1: Prince was in attendance as well, if some of them
Speaker 1: were at I'm sure they would wait outside a wedding
Speaker 1: and probably spit at the bride. These people are disgusting.
Speaker 1: They are disgusting, and their liberals, they're leftists. They adhere
Speaker 1: to this ideology that we're always told is in resistance
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump. If this country goes down a very
Speaker 1: unfortunate and destructive path, which I do have days where
Speaker 1: I worry about that, I do think the same way
Speaker 1: that I tell you that if I ever have to
Speaker 1: defend myself against one of these Antifa lunatics, trust me,
Speaker 1: it's their fault. If we ever go down the road
Speaker 1: that I'm hoping is unthinkable, where this country really starts
Speaker 1: to have political violence in the streets, which happened in
Speaker 1: the sixties could happen again. Last night was a reminder
Speaker 1: that these leftists, maniacs, they're the ones that are responsible
Speaker 1: for it. That much we know ahead of time. All right,
Speaker 1: let's talk about this whistleblower situation with some revelations on
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson's show. Before I get I actually get into
Speaker 1: Tucker shows, say Dort, Producer Mark, we will not let
Speaker 1: anybody know where Producer Mark's wedding is because if if
Speaker 1: any of those Antifa clowns show up outside producer Mark's wedding.
Speaker 1: All bets are off baby, old old school, buck the trade,
Speaker 1: somebody they're a dead man. I know. I'll be right
Speaker 1: there with you. Man. It'll be like the scene in
Speaker 1: Office Space where they have the fax machine, but it'll
Speaker 1: actually be some guy from Antifa. That's what it'll end
Speaker 1: up happening. That's one of the best seeds that Office
Speaker 1: Space bet. If you haven't seen it, it's like worth
Speaker 1: going back, just because to this day, I think I'm
Speaker 1: on my fourth printer in my apartment in like four years.
Speaker 1: It's just they always break. They always there's always a paper.
Speaker 1: There's fear. They know when you really need to when
Speaker 1: you really need to print something, you're like desperate to
Speaker 1: get some form in or you're gonna lose your driver's
Speaker 1: license or something. That's what always happens when you were
Speaker 1: in college and you really need to paper performance. It's
Speaker 1: outrageous anyway, Office Space, if you haven't seen it, that's
Speaker 1: my movie wreck for the weekend. It is a timeless
Speaker 1: classic that I'm sure would trigger libs if they watched
Speaker 1: it today. All right, so what's the latest in this
Speaker 1: whole saga? Do we call it? I'd like to call
Speaker 1: it a farce, a saga. It is a comedy, but
Speaker 1: it's not funny. We're gonna here's just a general it's
Speaker 1: a prediction. It's also an update of what I've been
Speaker 1: telling you all along, and that is that the more
Speaker 1: we find out about what has really happened here with
Speaker 1: the whistleblower and all this, the more this will be
Speaker 1: just what we had before with Russia collusion, where people
Speaker 1: set this was a setup. This it was a conspiracy,
Speaker 1: not a conspiracy theory. This was a conspiracy that there
Speaker 1: were people who are conspiring out of a moniacal hatred
Speaker 1: for this president, for what he represents, for the threat
Speaker 1: to the established order of the elites in this country,
Speaker 1: and they feel very justified in doing a whole lot
Speaker 1: of stuff, including up to and including breaking the law,
Speaker 1: in order to harm this president. Well, it turns out,
Speaker 1: and this was an exclusive last night on Tucker's show,
Speaker 1: Tucker Shows Great Tucker's fantastic dude. By the way, just
Speaker 1: putting it for those you know, sometimes I come on,
Speaker 1: it's I say that people in media, a lot of
Speaker 1: them are really bad, really crappy people. It's true, and
Speaker 1: by the way, it is true conservatives that you all
Speaker 1: know too, but I won't you know, I I home
Speaker 1: team gets a respect. Even if there's some mean people
Speaker 1: on the home team. Mostly lives are the terrible ones though,
Speaker 1: just so you know. And there are people like Tucker
Speaker 1: out there in media who are just awesome, very talented,
Speaker 1: great guys, super nice. So the good news is that
Speaker 1: there's plenty of Shannon Bream is amazing and super talented
Speaker 1: and nice. You know, I mean, I gotta I'm gonna
Speaker 1: sit here and go through like fifty people at Fox,
Speaker 1: but I mean, you have what I'm saying. There are
Speaker 1: some really fantastic people on the right in media, So
Speaker 1: I know, I give the media all hard time, but
Speaker 1: you know, Fox is like this one outpost of sanity
Speaker 1: and in a crazy, crazy world out there. So here's
Speaker 1: what happened though on Tucker's show. This is the exclusive
Speaker 1: that former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Ivanovitch. I think
Speaker 1: that's the way we're supposed to say it. A key
Speaker 1: witness in House democrats impeachment inquiry communicated via her personal
Speaker 1: email account with a Democratic Congressional staffer concerning a quite
Speaker 1: delicate and that's a quote and quote time sensitive matter,
Speaker 1: just two days after the whistleblower complaint that kickstarted the
Speaker 1: inquiry was filed, and a month before the complaint became public.
Speaker 1: Emails appear to contradict Ivanovitch's deposition on Capitol Hill last month,
Speaker 1: in which she told US Representative leez Zelden about an
Speaker 1: email she received on August fourteenth from the staffer Laura Kerry,
Speaker 1: but indicated under oath that she never responded to it.
Speaker 1: The communication came from the Foreign Affairs Committee, and they
Speaker 1: wanted me to come in and talk about I guess
Speaker 1: the circumstances of my departure as Ambassador to Ukraine. Ivanovitch testified,
Speaker 1: I alerted the State Department because I'm still an employee
Speaker 1: and so matters are generally handled through the State Department.
Speaker 1: She then went on to say, so she emailed me.
Speaker 1: I alerted the State Department, and you know, asked them
Speaker 1: to handle the correspondence. And she emailed me again and said,
Speaker 1: you know who should I be in touch with? Fox
Speaker 1: News is told that it is a breach of normal
Speaker 1: procedure for Congressional staff to reach out to a current
Speaker 1: State Department employee at their personal email address for official business. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you canna say that again, Why would why would de
Speaker 1: former US ambassador to Ukraine, who is one of the
Speaker 1: main voices that they point you now to shore up
Speaker 1: this flimsy impeachment case against the president. Why would she
Speaker 1: want to talk to them about a sensitive matter? Talked
Speaker 1: to a Democrat House staffer. Doesn't that seem odd quite
Speaker 1: delicate and time sensitive? Two days two days after the
Speaker 1: whistleblower complaint. Does anybody want to take the position this
Speaker 1: is a coincidence? Do they want to try that one? Oh?
Speaker 1: This is yet another indicator of what I think we've
Speaker 1: all known has been the case all along. There were people,
Speaker 1: there was a group really of Obama administration holdovers or
Speaker 1: people that had been in the State Department during the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, had formulated what they thought was Ukraine policy.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind these Ukraine experts, this whole group of them,
Speaker 1: vinmin Ivanovich, you've got all you know, You've got these
Speaker 1: different ambassadors that are giving their testimony, So how many
Speaker 1: how many envoys and aids and ambassadors and all the
Speaker 1: stuff they really but conversation for another time. You have
Speaker 1: all of the all of this happening here, and yet
Speaker 1: they weren't able to do one of the most important
Speaker 1: things that could have been accomplished. These these so called
Speaker 1: Ukraine policy including Eric Charamelo's name is now out there everywhere.
Speaker 1: We're all talking about it, and including last night on
Speaker 1: or yesterday rather on the view that was that was
Speaker 1: a fiery exchange with the President's one of the President's sons,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Jr. And the ladies of the View. I still, though,
Speaker 1: I'm stunned by how stupid the analysis is of you're
Speaker 1: breaking the law by sharing a news story that names
Speaker 1: the whistleblower when everyone knows the name. So are we
Speaker 1: suppose we're really going to embrace this Orwellian world that
Speaker 1: the Left wants us to where we pe we pretend
Speaker 1: to not know that, which we know that's going to
Speaker 1: be the way that the game is played forward. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I don't think we're going to do that.
Speaker 1: But Ivanovitch talking to a Democrat, of course, a Democrat
Speaker 1: staff are on Capitol Hill. Oh and they weren't able
Speaker 1: to get lethal A to Ukraine, is what I was
Speaker 1: going to say. They weren't able to convince the Obama ministry.
Speaker 1: All these Ukraine experts care so much about Ukraine but
Speaker 1: at the end of the day they were ineffective. That's right,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. For all the complaining
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump in Ukraine, the fact of the matter
Speaker 1: is that on the single most important decision about Ukraine
Speaker 1: that has to do with stopping Russian aggression, Trump got
Speaker 1: it right, and Obama and all of his so called
Speaker 1: experts on Ukraine couldn't get it done. And you could say, well,
Speaker 1: buckets Obama's choice. They couldn't override him. Well, they really
Speaker 1: couldn't convince him of this one. Did they try that hard?
Speaker 1: Because it mattered a lot. But you won't hear that,
Speaker 1: will you? That Trump policy is more pro Ukrainian where
Speaker 1: it counts and how it matters, just like you won't
Speaker 1: hear about how Trump was the one who blew up
Speaker 1: a couple of hundred Russian mercenaries in the desert for
Speaker 1: attacking our Kurdish allies. But all the Kurds abandoned. We've
Speaker 1: abandoned all the Kurds. They're all the whole Middle East
Speaker 1: is gonna be a war in genocide, Remember all that stuff.
Speaker 1: When was the last time you heard about the courts, folks?
Speaker 1: Is there a genocide happening? No, oh no, Buck, you're not.
Speaker 1: You don't that's it could have any day now, it's
Speaker 1: gonna happen. Well, if you wait long enough in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, in any region, there's gonna be violence to
Speaker 1: speak of. So I just can I get a timeline
Speaker 1: here for when Trump pulling fifty US soldiers out of
Speaker 1: one part of a country that's been in the midst
Speaker 1: of a civil war that's killed five hundred thousand people.
Speaker 1: Can we get a timeline for when that was clearly
Speaker 1: not the most catastrophic, horrible decision ever made in foreign policy?
Speaker 1: Because I think we're already there, folks, But oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: Isis is gonna rebound? Really? Ice is gonna rebound because
Speaker 1: the Assad regime and the Russians and the Turks they
Speaker 1: all have an interest in Well, the Turks it's a
Speaker 1: little a little more complicated, but the Assad regime and
Speaker 1: the Russians, they don't want an Isis resurgence. Do we
Speaker 1: want them to be fighting Isis? Or do we want
Speaker 1: to be fighting Isis? You know, this is the people
Speaker 1: think that they've studied and understood the Middle East, and
Speaker 1: they forget that it's the people who live there who
Speaker 1: have to ultimately do the fighting. We can't be doing
Speaker 1: it for them. We're not going to stay forever, although
Speaker 1: people seem to want to do that in Afghanistan. I
Speaker 1: just I just note on different areas of foreign policy,
Speaker 1: the narrative is never to give credit for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: on things where he clearly has been better than his predecessor.
Speaker 1: And there's there's no question, there's no question that he's
Speaker 1: been better than predecessor Barack Obama in fighting the Islamic State.
Speaker 1: Just look at the numbers looking out rapidly ISIS got
Speaker 1: rolled up in Syria. And also by the way that
Speaker 1: we can stop calling it isol. Robama I wanted to
Speaker 1: call it Isil. We're gonna stop him or stop him
Speaker 1: Isisol's bat. We're just like, why are we calling them isol?
Speaker 1: No one called them that. Obama called him that and
Speaker 1: his executive branch. And I know this because I had
Speaker 1: friends and the Intel community who were telling me that
Speaker 1: it was It was isol was what they were insisting
Speaker 1: on calling it. Wrestling nine percent of the rest of
Speaker 1: the worlds like isis. Let's just keep it simple here.
Speaker 1: Irakan Syria, not Irakan Sham, the Greater Levant Area. It
Speaker 1: was all just I had said this. All people had
Speaker 1: this whole theory about how it was about Israel and negating. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: it was just trying to be pedantic. They were just
Speaker 1: trying to show, you know, that was a It was
Speaker 1: a little thing meant to indicate that the person using
Speaker 1: isol instead of Isis was really more knowledgeable about the
Speaker 1: situation over there. You know, I even knew some people
Speaker 1: are calling it dash because they wanted to use the
Speaker 1: Arabic acronym. And then I'd say, do you speak Arabic
Speaker 1: because the answers no, I don't think you should using
Speaker 1: the Arabic acronym for it speak American. So here we
Speaker 1: have the Ukraine policy disputed playing out again. We find
Speaker 1: out that the another day of this, we find out
Speaker 1: that Ivanovitch, now that I say the name properly, apparently
Speaker 1: I'm really having fun with it, had contacted a Democrat
Speaker 1: staffer in a timeline and in a way well one
Speaker 1: that which is a strange thing to do. Why would
Speaker 1: this person the state department have content with the Democrat
Speaker 1: staff from the hell I worked for the CIA for
Speaker 1: five years. I never never just wrote some email to
Speaker 1: a Now this is a state department person. And I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, why would somebody who's in the federal government
Speaker 1: in this way just fire off an email to a
Speaker 1: staffer about the sensitive matter. M Right, curious, isn't it. Oh,
Speaker 1: but the journals out there are not going to dig
Speaker 1: into this one. No, no, no, no reason to dig
Speaker 1: into this one. Why would they want to do that?
Speaker 1: My friend. What I've been saying to you all along
Speaker 1: is increasingly going to be obviously the case, and that
Speaker 1: is that they'd use this that really, the whole Ukraine
Speaker 1: thing was just meant to get the impeachment proceedings start.
Speaker 1: It was the excuse to start it. The I think
Speaker 1: what you're gonna find is that this impeachment situation eats
Speaker 1: a little bit like pretending that General Flynn violated the
Speaker 1: Logan Act so you can get him on which note
Speaker 1: was just not serious. There's no real charge there and
Speaker 1: it would never happen. But they really wanted to get
Speaker 1: him online or you know whatever, just to trap him
Speaker 1: and say, oh, it's such a serious crime to a
Speaker 1: lot of the FBI. Oh they changed is three h
Speaker 1: two by the way, they had Lisa Page that they've
Speaker 1: now this has been admitted, and I know I'm jumping
Speaker 1: around here, but it's Friday, so it's my party, and
Speaker 1: I'll jump around if I want to. Lisa Page, the
Speaker 1: lawyer with Strok, the ones that will go on trum
Speaker 1: Trump is gonna be president. I can smell the Trump
Speaker 1: supporters though we're Hillary voters. Hillary is great. And anybody
Speaker 1: who thinks that Hillary is some fantastic person and that
Speaker 1: that alone is reason to vote for her over Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, you gotta be kidding me, right, Oh yeah, Hillary,
Speaker 1: paragon of virtue, great person. People I know who have
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time around to say, she's not
Speaker 1: even she's not even nice, she's not even a nice person.
Speaker 1: But oh yeah, she's one. He's great. It's wonderful. Vote
Speaker 1: for her. So, Lisa Page, the senior FBI lawyer changed
Speaker 1: the three you know, had some hand in editing General
Speaker 1: Flint's three O two. And now the position of the
Speaker 1: federal government involved in this prosecution. These prosecutors who remember
Speaker 1: they want to it's often partisan, but also within the
Speaker 1: federal federal bureaucracy there are people who just want to
Speaker 1: defend the institution at all costs, so that can also
Speaker 1: factor into this. But they change Flint's three O two
Speaker 1: and now we're being told, well, he pleaded guilty, though well, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe he wouldn't have pleaded guilty. If you know, if
Speaker 1: the cops show up, they sit down, they're like, hey,
Speaker 1: you better take a player, you know, the prosecutor rather
Speaker 1: sit down and say, hey, you better take a plea
Speaker 1: because we have a we have a signed confession with
Speaker 1: your signature on it. And you're like, wait, what, I
Speaker 1: don't remember signing that. They're like, yeah, you just you
Speaker 1: walked in here and we have video of you and
Speaker 1: you signed it. And maybe you were you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe you're drunk or something, you're high, but
Speaker 1: you signed this thing. Here's a signed confession and it's
Speaker 1: already been you know, maybe at that point you'd say, okay,
Speaker 1: I guess I have to take a plea deal here, right,
Speaker 1: what's your other? And then if you found it after,
Speaker 1: it's oh no, it's fake. Right, you didn't sign this,
Speaker 1: You weren't sleepwalking and signed a confession. Shouldn't you be
Speaker 1: able to retract that plea deal? I mean, that would
Speaker 1: seem to be a logical, unjust approach, but they're not
Speaker 1: looking for logical injust here they set up General Flynn.
Speaker 1: I mean General Flynn should be all charges. I mean, rather,
Speaker 1: the whole case against him should be dropped. He should
Speaker 1: be exonerated, The whole thing should go away. It's it's
Speaker 1: a disgrace. It's a disgrace to our justice system, the
Speaker 1: whole thing. But then again, so was the mother prope.
Speaker 1: So at this point, much more justice system disgrace can
Speaker 1: we take before we say enough is enough. Oh but
Speaker 1: speaking of perjury, see I'm bringing it back now, bringing
Speaker 1: it back full circle is how we roll here in
Speaker 1: the Freedom unt. Speaking of full circle, why is Ivanovitch
Speaker 1: able to lie under oath? I mean that seems to
Speaker 1: be what has been admitted here, that she did have contact.
Speaker 1: Representative Zelden said, it is greatly concerning that Ambassadory Ivanovitch
Speaker 1: didn't answer my question as honestly as she should have,
Speaker 1: especially under oath. Roger Stone right now is in a
Speaker 1: trial for lying apparently the FBI or you know, allegedly
Speaker 1: lying to federal authorities about non crimes that no one
Speaker 1: really doesn't matter, they don't mean anything. They want to
Speaker 1: send him to prison though for years. So if roger
Speaker 1: Stone can get sent to prison for lying, you know,
Speaker 1: under oath or lying to federal authorities. If General Flynn,
Speaker 1: after thirty years of military service could get sent to
Speaker 1: prison for long, is Ambassador Ivanovitch oh, because she's hashtag
Speaker 1: resistance and we all know it is that why she
Speaker 1: doesn't get in trouble for this. One of the biggest
Speaker 1: threats we often hear from the Democrats. We hear from
Speaker 1: them about how there's such an undermining of our institutions.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest threats to the integrity of our
Speaker 1: institutions of government is the growing perception. And it's real,
Speaker 1: and it is rooted in reality, a growing perception that
Speaker 1: we have a two tiered justice system, one for people
Speaker 1: on the right and one for people on the left.
Speaker 1: It's a big problem. I never heard any discussion in
Speaker 1: my entire ten year as vice president about the twenty
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment, And why would I The very notion of
Speaker 1: this anonymous who wrote an editorial now it's reported that
Speaker 1: they've written the book is just appalling to me. If
Speaker 1: there's someone in our administration or serving our administration that
Speaker 1: does support this president, doesn't support his agenda, they should
Speaker 1: do the honorable thing in the sign. Isn't that pretty
Speaker 1: straightforward from the Vice president there. If there's somebody who
Speaker 1: really thinks that President Trump is a danger to the Republic,
Speaker 1: a danger to all of us, shouldn't they not work
Speaker 1: for him and go out in public and say what
Speaker 1: needs to be said. But look at look at Anthony Scaramuccies.
Speaker 1: He's some brave truth teller. I mean, we know that
Speaker 1: he got on the outs with Trump Nolvis on the
Speaker 1: Mooch's like, hey, Trump's the worst. I hate him, He's terrible.
Speaker 1: I remember the mooch going on. I sat next to
Speaker 1: him once, said on a Fox Business show, and he was, mister,
Speaker 1: you know, Donald Trump is amazing, and he's going to
Speaker 1: transform politics in this country. And he has a brilliant,
Speaker 1: genius level instinct for understanding American politics. And I mean,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, he's not White House
Speaker 1: Comms directord morning. He's yeah, Trump's the worst ever, He's terrible.
Speaker 1: But is the mooch so brave? Is everyone is the
Speaker 1: mooch in danger because he criticizes Trump. Why can't the
Speaker 1: whistleblowers come out? So maybe I will call myself Christian genius,
Speaker 1: Christian billionaire genius buck Sexton, because I kind of like
Speaker 1: the sound of that. Although only one of those three
Speaker 1: things is true, you can probably all guess which one.
Speaker 1: But that's what Kanye West has been telling people. He
Speaker 1: might change his name too. He's also saying he might
Speaker 1: run for president in I think twenty twenty or twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. I'm actually not sure which one it is,
Speaker 1: but I like the I like the sound of Christian
Speaker 1: billionaire genius buck Sexton. That would be kind of fun.
Speaker 1: At least gives me something to aspire to. I could
Speaker 1: earn the name after calling myself a name down the line.
Speaker 1: I also just wanted to point out something that you're
Speaker 1: not going to hear, because you know, I feel like
Speaker 1: I have to upate you on some of the latest
Speaker 1: on this situation with you know, all of these all
Speaker 1: these different people who are coming forward to speak about impeachment,
Speaker 1: these different ambassadors. Well, here's one, a career guy named
Speaker 1: George Kent. Now Kent, he said some stuff that was not,
Speaker 1: you know, helpful for the Trump side of things. Right.
Speaker 1: He said that the president's personal attorney sought to manipulate
Speaker 1: US policy on McRae, on Ukraine and Alice Foreign Ambassador
Speaker 1: Marie Ivanovitch guess what the president kid said and whoever
Speaker 1: he wants to do whatever he wants on foreign policy.
Speaker 1: The president gets to do foreign policy. All these bureaucrats
Speaker 1: you don't like. Remember, bureaucrats don't like President Trump's foreign
Speaker 1: policy on Ukraine or they're they're concerned about what he's
Speaker 1: going to do about it. Meanwhile, thanks to President Trump,
Speaker 1: they actually have missiles to stop the Russian tanks from
Speaker 1: running over their brothers in trench warfare in eastern Ukraine. Right,
Speaker 1: So who's the good guy here? I just all the bureaucrats,
Speaker 1: the stuffy buik are working so art on this issue. Please,
Speaker 1: I see, I know these people I worked, the kind
Speaker 1: of people that do all the grandstanding about how important
Speaker 1: they are and how much the you know, we mattered,
Speaker 1: the US foreign policy matters. The self importance of the
Speaker 1: State Department is just I'm going to be honest, it's
Speaker 1: just vomit inducing. It's always The State Department could be
Speaker 1: a fifth of its current size, and if you just
Speaker 1: had good people who worked hard and got things done,
Speaker 1: everything would be fine. He could be twenty percent of
Speaker 1: its current size and we would not the country would
Speaker 1: not be in dire straight. We might have like a
Speaker 1: few less unnecessary you know, agricultural training programs in countries
Speaker 1: that you know are not thankful for the help we
Speaker 1: give them anyway. George Cann who's this and he's this
Speaker 1: guy who is a lifelong bureaucrat for the State Department.
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say in testimony. This is
Speaker 1: you know now the test was coming out. Question and
Speaker 1: anytime was there discussion of perceived conflicts of interest either
Speaker 1: in the part of the Vice President Biden or his son. Answer?
Speaker 1: You're talking about a period leading up to his visit
Speaker 1: in December twenty fifteen. Well, Hunter Biden, he first support
Speaker 1: that he was on the board in mid twenty fourteen. Correct,
Speaker 1: And the Vice President's involvement with Ukraine is pretty significant
Speaker 1: at that point in time, and it remained until he
Speaker 1: through twenty sixteen. Correct. Yes, And the question was, you know,
Speaker 1: were there any discussions of a perceived conflict of interest
Speaker 1: on the part of either Hunter Biden or the Vice
Speaker 1: President when I was the first time I was in
Speaker 1: Ukraine as acting Deputy Chief of Mission in the period
Speaker 1: of mid January to mid February twenty fifteen, subsequent to
Speaker 1: me going into the Deputy Prosecutor General on February third,
Speaker 1: and demanding who took the bribe and how much it
Speaker 1: was to shut the case down against Zlotchevsky. I became
Speaker 1: aware that Hunter Biden was on the board. I did
Speaker 1: not know that at the time. And when I was
Speaker 1: on a call with somebody on the Vice President's staff
Speaker 1: and I cannot recall who it was, just briefing on
Speaker 1: what was happening in Ukraine, I raised my concerns that
Speaker 1: I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board
Speaker 1: of a company owned by somebody that the US government
Speaker 1: had spent money trying to get tens of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars back, and that could create the perception of a
Speaker 1: conflict of interest. Oh you don't say, hm, Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: conflict of interest daddy running Ukraine foreign policy? Huh? This
Speaker 1: State Department guy's putting all the puzzle pieces together, isn't
Speaker 1: he question? And what did the person the other end
Speaker 1: of the line tell you. Remember this is a State
Speaker 1: Department person talking about raising to the Vice President's staff
Speaker 1: the problem of Hunter Biden. Here's what we said. The
Speaker 1: message that I recall hearing back was that the Vice
Speaker 1: President's son Bo was dying of cancer, and there was
Speaker 1: no further bandwidth to deal with family related issues at
Speaker 1: that time. Was that pretty much the end of it?
Speaker 1: That was the end of that conversation. Okay, that was
Speaker 1: in mid twenty fifteen. That would have been in February,
Speaker 1: because the best of my recollection, bo Biden died that spring.
Speaker 1: I then returned to you Ukraine in August of twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: and I believe he passed before then. So the only
Speaker 1: time that conversation could have happened is in the narrow
Speaker 1: window between January February twenty fifteen and subsequent to that.
Speaker 1: Did you ever think through with other State Department officials
Speaker 1: about whether we should try to get Hunter Biden to
Speaker 1: leave the board, or maybe we should get the Vice
Speaker 1: President to transition his key responsibilities on Ukraine to some
Speaker 1: other US official. No, it's easy in a conference room
Speaker 1: like this to have a considered discussion about things in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: At that time, we had a war with Russia occupation.
Speaker 1: We had an embassy staff going from one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty to two hundred fifty Americans from no special forces
Speaker 1: US government soldiers to close to seventy in country. Our
Speaker 1: assistance went from one hundred and thirty million to nearly
Speaker 1: a billion, and we were working nearly NonStop. Ambassador Piat
Speaker 1: I can tell you from working for him, would wake
Speaker 1: up between four fifty and five oh one am because
Speaker 1: that's when I got the first email from him and
Speaker 1: went to bed, because that's when I'm blah blah blah. Okay, yeah, NonStop.
Speaker 1: Twenty hours a day, seven days a week. Right, no
Speaker 1: one's ever worked as hard in the history of the universe,
Speaker 1: is these particular diplomats do. I was in war zones
Speaker 1: with the federal government too, folks. I know what really
Speaker 1: goes on. So yeah, all these State department guys twenty
Speaker 1: hours a day, seven days a week. Sure. Anyway, the
Speaker 1: real reason I'm reading this transcript portion to you is
Speaker 1: just so we're all clear. The media's, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: think there's anything wrong with Hunter Biden being on the
Speaker 1: board of the company is just feigned stupidity. Nobody's that dumb.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows that what Hunter Biden did was gross and
Speaker 1: gross enough that there would be justification to look into
Speaker 1: whether there was actual corruption, abuse of power, you could say,
Speaker 1: by Joe Biden on behalf of his son in these circumstances,
Speaker 1: you could at least justify an investigation of it. But
Speaker 1: instead what we have is an entire media apparatus that
Speaker 1: is anti Trump, just willing to look really dumb because
Speaker 1: it's easier to look dumb than have to explain this
Speaker 1: stuff to the American people. They'd rather pretend. And speaking
Speaker 1: of looking dumb, I mean, I have said this before.
Speaker 1: I do believe, and there's some there's some competition, for sure,
Speaker 1: but I think that Senator Mazie Horono is, based on
Speaker 1: her public utterances, the dumbest elected official in the United
Speaker 1: States Congress. I think that that's probably that's a there's
Speaker 1: a strong case to be made that she said the
Speaker 1: dumbest things of anybody in Congress. I'm just this is
Speaker 1: just one man's opinion. I tend to be right. Here's
Speaker 1: what she says, though, about this whole situation. Play seventeen.
Speaker 1: Please the whistle lords complained, which first brought to light
Speaker 1: that the President engaged in this kind of what it
Speaker 1: turns out to be cripocal, has been collaborated by Taylor
Speaker 1: by others. And so here's the Republicans, you know, they
Speaker 1: just can't deal with a substance of what the present did.
Speaker 1: So they're doing all kinds of things so to muddy
Speaker 1: the waters. They can't deal with the substance, so they
Speaker 1: want them under the waters. We've dealt with the substance
Speaker 1: every day for weeks now. Substance isn't changing. We know
Speaker 1: what the substance is. We know it's set on the
Speaker 1: phone call. Perceptions of policy from bureaucrats from the period
Speaker 1: of time and question. I don't care, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: They're not telling us about anything that we need to
Speaker 1: know from them, especially because there's this irony that Trump's
Speaker 1: policy on Ukraine was better for Ukraine that Obama's and
Speaker 1: all these people who work together, but there's all this connection.
Speaker 1: By the way, they think now that Scaramella may have
Speaker 1: traveled I believe with Biden to Ukraine. I think I
Speaker 1: saw that in the Washington Examiner. I mean, this was
Speaker 1: like a it was like a cabal of Obama era
Speaker 1: officials that had one view of what should be going
Speaker 1: on in Ukraine. And there's also this question about CrowdStrike
Speaker 1: and whether you know why was CrowdStrike, which is Ukrainian funded,
Speaker 1: the only group that ever looked into the DNC server
Speaker 1: and the FBI never actually examined the service. Is that
Speaker 1: a crazy thing to ask? Can I get an answer
Speaker 1: about this? They're gonna ask a private entity that's Ukrainian funded.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why Trump brought that up on the call.
Speaker 1: And maybe there's maybe there's nothing to it. But you
Speaker 1: see with Democrats, they think if they just shout loud
Speaker 1: enough and they're shrill and nasty enough, they can prevent
Speaker 1: people from just doing fact finding. How about we find
Speaker 1: out what happened. Wouldn't that be a good thing to do.
Speaker 1: We had to sit here and be lectured by crazy
Speaker 1: libs for over two years about how oh, the special
Speaker 1: counsel this is all by the book, this is all legitimate. No,
Speaker 1: it's all crap. The whole thing was garbage, and I
Speaker 1: was saying, along is right all along. It was a
Speaker 1: conspiracy to take down a president. And if there was
Speaker 1: anything that they could have produced, trust me, they would
Speaker 1: have because they went through everybody. Nobody got the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt in that process process, crimes were thrown
Speaker 1: at people left and right, turned up the heat on people,
Speaker 1: did real financial and psychological damage to lower level staffers
Speaker 1: in the White House who had to just get lawyers
Speaker 1: and deal with sleepless nights because they had to go
Speaker 1: in for you know, with Muller and his team knowing
Speaker 1: that if they you know, lied about what they had
Speaker 1: for breakfast yesterday, they're going to get thrown in prison.
Speaker 1: It's just crazy. Oh, but we can't find out about
Speaker 1: anything Ukraine related. That would be that would be terrible.
Speaker 1: Let's also understand even if let's say that there was
Speaker 1: an announcement about this has gotten skipped over by everybody here.
Speaker 1: Let's just say that with the quid pro quo, Oh,
Speaker 1: the quid pro quo, Let's just say for a second
Speaker 1: that it was followed through with or it really did happen,
Speaker 1: meaning that Zelenski announced that there was an investigation into
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, that whole situation. So let's assume
Speaker 1: that that actually was going on. That would be like
Speaker 1: a two day news cycle, the announcement of an investigation.
Speaker 1: You know what, all the Democrats would say, there's nothing there,
Speaker 1: it's a part of an investigation. Who cares, They're not
Speaker 1: going to show up with anything. And if they didn't
Speaker 1: get anything from the investigation, that would be it. You know,
Speaker 1: the way that people are talking about this on the left.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like Donald Trump said, Hey, we're going
Speaker 1: to arrange for like hunter Biden to travel to Ukraine
Speaker 1: and can you guys throw him in prison and like
Speaker 1: never let him get trial. You know, that's not what happened,
Speaker 1: the way that the hysteria, Oh to invest foreign interference
Speaker 1: by investigating your opponent, Even if that had happened, Okay,
Speaker 1: even if if that had gone through, does anyone really
Speaker 1: think that Democrats would have stopped supporting Joe Biden? Where
Speaker 1: there's a joke right of me, like they're gonna all
Speaker 1: of this sud be like, oh, well, because they're investigating
Speaker 1: this Ukraine situation. I guess Trump wins the election, and
Speaker 1: now you might say, oh, what about those independents? And
Speaker 1: that's where it will really matter. Okay, but guess what.
Speaker 1: Politics is a rough business. And Donald Trump is currently
Speaker 1: has gone through a criminal proceeding meant to take him down,
Speaker 1: that was based on lies for two years, and now
Speaker 1: is going political proceeding meant to destroy his presidency, and
Speaker 1: yet they still haven't been able to stop him. So
Speaker 1: maybe this is going through this gauntlet is I think
Speaker 1: forging him as an even stronger candidate in this whole process,
Speaker 1: or a stronger president, somebody who is just unflappable. I mean,
Speaker 1: you cannot, you cannot keep this guy, keep this guy down.
Speaker 1: It's really remarkable. So just some some additional thoughts on this.
Speaker 1: You know, where I have more more bureaucrats, more people
Speaker 1: are gonna come out from a state department and they'll
Speaker 1: be targeted, leagues of different information. But it's all telling us.
Speaker 1: This is why amazing heronaus thing I think is such
Speaker 1: garbage because the substance, we already know what the substance is.
Speaker 1: They just keep trying to say, hey, but do you
Speaker 1: see this thing that happened that he said on the Yeah,
Speaker 1: we know I don't care, not going to care that.
Speaker 1: They're not going to make me care by repeating it
Speaker 1: every day, which seems to be the plan as well
Speaker 1: as I said, they're gonna switch. They're gonna switch into
Speaker 1: something else because this isn't gonna cut it. It's just
Speaker 1: not enough, it's not it's not damaging and off this
Speaker 1: narrative that they've concocted, it's not going to get it done.
Speaker 1: If you held a vote today in the House, would
Speaker 1: you vote to impeate this president impeach this president. Well,
Speaker 1: that question I won't answer because I do have to
Speaker 1: keep an open mind and an appearance of an open mind.
Speaker 1: I have said that the evidence is pretty damning. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he's keeping an open mind, all right, noddler there, No,
Speaker 1: it would't it wouldn' vote impeach the president, right of course. Not,
Speaker 1: no way, no way you would do that. I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, this is what This is one of the
Speaker 1: things that bothered me so much about Democrats, like they
Speaker 1: will resume as soon that we're all so stupid. Yeah, sure, sure,
Speaker 1: he's he's still waiting to see that evidence come in
Speaker 1: before he makes up his mind. You know, same thing
Speaker 1: with like you know, Pelosi and Shift and all the rest.
Speaker 1: And they're still waiting for the evidence. This is all
Speaker 1: based in the facts. This isn't This isn't a political
Speaker 1: narrative that's driving their perception of the facts. It really is.
Speaker 1: It really is stunning to them, just the dishonesty and
Speaker 1: the the disingenuousness of all of this. And I would
Speaker 1: like to think, I would like to believe that the
Speaker 1: American people understand really what's going on. Enough. I had
Speaker 1: to say enough America, beause there are a lot of
Speaker 1: forty eight forty five percent of the country. I really
Speaker 1: believe this wouldn't care if Donald Trump were being impeached
Speaker 1: based on evidence that they knew to be fraudulent, they
Speaker 1: would not That wouldn't bother them if they were, if
Speaker 1: they knew that they somebody had, you know, fabricated. I'm
Speaker 1: in and I can't really walk you through how this
Speaker 1: analogy would work, but I'm just saying if they they
Speaker 1: don't know, they don't care what it is. Forty to
Speaker 1: forty five percent of the country of the voting public,
Speaker 1: all Democrats obviously, they just want Trump gone. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what it is. It doesn't matter what the explanation,
Speaker 1: the explanations and the process and all. This is just
Speaker 1: trying to hope to get republic looking defectors and create
Speaker 1: enough support among independents that the Democrats have a shot
Speaker 1: at regatting more power in the next election. But I mean,
Speaker 1: the Democrats, this is all They're not sitting around, you know,
Speaker 1: none of the leftist none of the psychopaths who are
Speaker 1: protesting the event I went to last night. I mean,
Speaker 1: none of these people are sitting around saying, wow, I
Speaker 1: really don't know if Donald Trump should be impeach, we
Speaker 1: need to let the process play out. Yeah, sure, sure.
Speaker 1: Remember that was what they were saying about Mueller until
Speaker 1: Muller didn't give them what they wanted, and then it was, oh, Muller,
Speaker 1: move right to impeachment right away. These people are nuts,
Speaker 1: by the way. Senator John Kennedy he he had some
Speaker 1: thoughts on what Pelosi is doing here. Really what the
Speaker 1: precedent is that Nancy Pelosi is setting, Prince Mark, could
Speaker 1: you play clip five please? She is going to elevate
Speaker 1: partisan impeachment to the new normal, so that hymns fourth.
Speaker 1: When we have a new president and we will have
Speaker 1: a democratic president day, many Republicans are going to feel
Speaker 1: obligated to impeach the democratic president because they don't agree
Speaker 1: with his or her politics. And I don't think that's right.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that's try. It's a little bit
Speaker 1: like the the nullification that can happen in states when
Speaker 1: if you just get a private enough private interest groups
Speaker 1: together or just interest groups who want to recall somebody,
Speaker 1: you know, recall elections, well you know what a total recall.
Speaker 1: The original was actually a pretty good, watchful movie. The
Speaker 1: remake was terrible, which made me sad. You know why
Speaker 1: made me sad, Producer Mark Why because Jessica Bill was
Speaker 1: in it, I believe before she married justin Timberlake, so
Speaker 1: she was still in the market at that time, so
Speaker 1: there was hope. And now you're you have no hope anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean once she married somebody like Timberlake, I mean
Speaker 1: even I think he's dreamy fair point. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: he wasn't even good in the social network, which which
Speaker 1: was pretty oppressive. So anyway, I think that recall elections,
Speaker 1: for example, can be a way where yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: if someone's doing horrible, I understand why it exists. But
Speaker 1: you know, it's a little bit like jury nullification. Nullification
Speaker 1: is a real thing. It's also an extreme thing. It's
Speaker 1: also should be a last resort, and impeaching a president
Speaker 1: should be a last resort as well. And anyone who
Speaker 1: is telling you that this what's going right now with
Speaker 1: President Trump is a last resort is a liar. It's
Speaker 1: just not they've been wanting to do this all along.
Speaker 1: It's all pretextual. It's all based on some excuse that
Speaker 1: they'll find in order to make it seem like they
Speaker 1: haven't been trying to do this all long. But it's
Speaker 1: just it is just lies, my friends. It is just lies,
Speaker 1: and you know it and I know it. But Democrats
Speaker 1: have gotten very, very comfortable with that, so I don't
Speaker 1: think it's going to change anytime soon. All right, let's
Speaker 1: check in on the crazy Democrat candidates, folks. I feel
Speaker 1: like I feel like we haven't done much of that.
Speaker 1: We haven't a nad lay today. I've just been getting
Speaker 1: an impeachment and telling you about you know, psycho antifo wannabes.
Speaker 1: They're just jealous that Buck pulled off the tuck. So well,
Speaker 1: what can I say? Double o seven buck baby, it's
Speaker 1: how we roll. We have. If you haven't, you gotta you, guys,
Speaker 1: gott follow me on Instagram. I need more team Buck
Speaker 1: following on Instagram. I post photos from this stuff. I
Speaker 1: post some on Facebook two, but Instagram now is where
Speaker 1: the photos usually go. So if you want to see
Speaker 1: the event last night, you should definitely follow me. Just
Speaker 1: Buck sexon on Instagram's very easy, All right, Ulizabeth Warreen,
Speaker 1: let's start with Elizabeth Warren. How do we have crazy
Speaker 1: Bernie Bernie Sanders getting crazier and crazier. Where is this here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we met a Bernie here somewhere. We do
Speaker 1: have Warren for sure, talking about Elizabeth Warren want Shane
Speaker 1: just wants to take the wealth from the rich people
Speaker 1: and just wants to pay for everything else for everybody else.
Speaker 1: Here's her telling us all that rich people are. Remember
Speaker 1: she's rich, she's millionaire rich. There's not billionaire rich and
Speaker 1: millionaire riches like you still have to think about things,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, I'd love to be millionaire rich
Speaker 1: first son bad. I've never experienced this, but billionaire rich
Speaker 1: although I am, as producer, Mark will tell you perhaps
Speaker 1: going to legally change my name to Christian Billionaire Genius Buck,
Speaker 1: and maybe that should just Christian Billionaire Genius Buck if
Speaker 1: you can make that the show title today. I just yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: you know. But if you're a billionaire, I'm not getting
Speaker 1: paid enough. That's true. Yeah, sorry, we'll have to up
Speaker 1: the salary. But it is. It is technically fake news
Speaker 1: that I'm a Christian billionaire genius. But Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: out there saying that rich people are bad. Play fifteen
Speaker 1: producer Mark. When you see a government that works great
Speaker 1: for those with money and it's not working so well
Speaker 1: for much of anyone else. That is corruption, pure and simple,
Speaker 1: and we need to call it out for what it is.
Speaker 1: When you see a government that works for people with
Speaker 1: money and it's not working so well for much of
Speaker 1: any one house, that is corruption, pure and simple. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? You know, that's my favorite question on
Speaker 1: the show. But what does that mean the government work?
Speaker 1: The government has a almost trillion dollars welfare budget, right
Speaker 1: that spends almost a trillion dollars on welfare. Depending on
Speaker 1: how you calculate welfare. I think it's like eight hundred
Speaker 1: billion a year. Where exactly is how I mean the
Speaker 1: government in what way works for rich people. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that that's not that there's not ways. The system
Speaker 1: is rad it's definitely true financial system. It's not fair.
Speaker 1: There's stuff that goes on that's that's bad and dirty.
Speaker 1: But I would like a little more specifics than just
Speaker 1: the class war fair envy. I don't like the rich
Speaker 1: people stuff Fromlizabeth Warren. I think that we could ask
Speaker 1: for a little bit more specificity than she's giving us here.
Speaker 1: Oh that's right. Wealth tax time, baby. Now, as a conservati,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you this wealth tax wouldn't affect me,
Speaker 1: so woooo right, Producer Mark, Oh, wealth tax, they're gonna
Speaker 1: get up in our bank accounts. I don't think, so
Speaker 1: we don't have to worry about that. Good, no new
Speaker 1: taxes for us, Yeah, exactly, Mom. Robin Hood Baby, Take
Speaker 1: from the rich, give to the poor. Important. What is
Speaker 1: the best version, live action or animated robin Hood of
Speaker 1: all time? There's only one answer to this question, but
Speaker 1: let's see if you get it. The best version of
Speaker 1: robin Hood the tale of all time. We're gonna go
Speaker 1: with the animated one, right, correct, ding ding ding? Producer
Speaker 1: Mark gets it done. The Disney animated I mean, nothing's
Speaker 1: better than most of the Disney animated movies. Remember that's like, uh,
Speaker 1: that the Sheriff of Nottingham that's singing that little little tune.
Speaker 1: I think so you've been a while since I've watched him. Yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: it's great. If your kids haven't seen it, that's one
Speaker 1: of the best. That's an underrated Disney movie. Because here's
Speaker 1: the thing. Uh, the robin Hood Prince of Thieves with
Speaker 1: Kevin Costner. Why could everyone else have a British accent
Speaker 1: but he can't. He's like, yes, I am Robin Hood,
Speaker 1: and I speak in a monotone because I'm Kevin Costner.
Speaker 1: He doesn't. He doesn't have a British accent in the movie.
Speaker 1: It's like it took some guy from you know, central
Speaker 1: Illinois and put him in you know, thirteenth century England
Speaker 1: or whatever. Rob be like if James Bond spoke with
Speaker 1: an American accent. Yeah, exactly, I'm James Bond. Baby here
Speaker 1: I am. Look at my tucks, New Yorker, James Bond,
Speaker 1: New Yorker, James Bond. I like hot dogs, football, tuxedos,
Speaker 1: the Mets. Clearly that James Bond with like the Mets.
Speaker 1: What what is that supposed to mean? But we know
Speaker 1: what's up. We know, you know, we know there's this
Speaker 1: there's certain certain New Yorkers like the Yankees, and certain
Speaker 1: New Yorkers like the Mets. That's all I'm gonna tell you.
Speaker 1: It's the thing. I'm a Mets fan. Fuck. I know?
Speaker 1: Is I like we like the poke producer bark a
Speaker 1: little bit? So anyway, do you a Robin Hood prince
Speaker 1: athesis is bad men and tites is reasonably entertaining. It's
Speaker 1: actually Dave Chappelle back in the day was in met
Speaker 1: robin hood mentites. All right, Sorry, I got totally sidetracked
Speaker 1: Fromlizeth Warren wealth tax. There we go back on track now.
Speaker 1: So the thing about a wealth tax. As a conservative,
Speaker 1: I understand that the wealth tax is problematic in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways. But before I get into why the
Speaker 1: wealth tax is problematic, let me say that the I
Speaker 1: always tell you when I get a little status tingley,
Speaker 1: I get a little thrill up a leg of statism
Speaker 1: or something, or statism is throwing up my like whatever
Speaker 1: you understand, I I always know when I'm veering into that,
Speaker 1: Like like when they banned smoking in places, I'm like,
Speaker 1: I know it's big government, but stinks for all of
Speaker 1: you who like to smoke in the public places, like
Speaker 1: and I know that that should be private, private day
Speaker 1: places to be able, but they regulated and they say
Speaker 1: can't do it. And I like it, even though I
Speaker 1: know that technically it's not a free market liberal liberal
Speaker 1: or I should say a liberty base is when I
Speaker 1: liberal Buck had a long night. Buck, his voice is
Speaker 1: a little bit scratchy and my brain's not foggy, though
Speaker 1: I'm not having like a not having like a Biden moment.
Speaker 1: Here or anything. Um see that we should call it.
Speaker 1: Call it a Biden moment, when you forget where you are,
Speaker 1: when you're just sort of blabbering incoherently about something. So
Speaker 1: I like the idea that at least a wealth tax
Speaker 1: because the super rich Libs and wealth tax is bad.
Speaker 1: Don't you know? People can cut this and like Buck,
Speaker 1: you said, you're like a wealth tax. No, I don't
Speaker 1: like a wealth tax, but there are some parts of
Speaker 1: it that I kind of like. Because the problem you
Speaker 1: have with a lot of Libs is that they love
Speaker 1: to talk about how much they want to pay higher
Speaker 1: t axes and they're all fine with it. And yeah,
Speaker 1: you look at somebody like like John Carey when he
Speaker 1: was running for president. I think back in two thousand four, right,
Speaker 1: think about that John Carey was a Democrat nominee for president. Wow,
Speaker 1: that guy, Yesh, I'm really boring and I talk like
Speaker 1: this all the time. And I've been fortunate to marry
Speaker 1: two incredibly wealthy women, one after the other. And John Carey, Man, my,
Speaker 1: John Carey is actually kind of good. I haven't pulled
Speaker 1: that one out a while. I was like, I felt
Speaker 1: like John Carey was in the room so some of
Speaker 1: you were like boo false. John Carey when he was
Speaker 1: running for president. I think he had something like seven
Speaker 1: million dollars in income from investments and things, so like,
Speaker 1: not from labor, but just from investment income. And I
Speaker 1: think he paid ten or twelve or fifteen percent because
Speaker 1: there are all these incentives and all this stuff, it
Speaker 1: was structured. He paid a shockingly low tax rate on
Speaker 1: the seven million dollars. And keep mind they're not touching
Speaker 1: any of the principle of his overall. Well, so of
Speaker 1: course for people like that, they're like, yeah, fifty percent
Speaker 1: tax rate whatever their bills are already paid because of
Speaker 1: super rich people don't have to care about the tax
Speaker 1: rate all that much. The tax rate on income, my friends,
Speaker 1: they don't have to care about because their expenses are
Speaker 1: already all covered and are covered by what they can
Speaker 1: accumulate just from investment income. Essentially, even though right now
Speaker 1: bank accounts he don't get anything. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: I will say, you know, from Bannon last night, one
Speaker 1: of the best things that he said at the at
Speaker 1: the speech, and he went into how the government policy
Speaker 1: and this is where this is true. Government policy has
Speaker 1: because of quantitative easing and this enormous FED balance sheet
Speaker 1: and the acquisition of all this cash by the federal
Speaker 1: government to use and then distribute to printing money. I
Speaker 1: mean they don't actually print it, but to put money
Speaker 1: out in the marketplace. What it means is that's why
Speaker 1: you can't get any percentage on your savings that's worth
Speaker 1: worth a damn anymore. You can't. You know, there were
Speaker 1: times when you could get and some of you listening
Speaker 1: to know this because you got it. And I've never
Speaker 1: been alive when it, but you would get you know,
Speaker 1: seven yeah, even I think at one point it when
Speaker 1: I was high. Well, I don't know. I don't want
Speaker 1: to give you a number because I will be wrong,
Speaker 1: but I know it's seven eight nine percent on a
Speaker 1: savings account. You could get back at one point. Now
Speaker 1: there was higher inflation obviously, but still now you can't
Speaker 1: get any money on that stuff. And that means that
Speaker 1: the money goes into the into the stock market, in
Speaker 1: particular inflated people who have assets, those assets get inflated,
Speaker 1: they do well. But people who are trying to save
Speaker 1: money pay for essentials, they are you know, you're transferring
Speaker 1: money from from people who are at the lower end
Speaker 1: of the scale who are just trying to get ahead
Speaker 1: and build some economic security of people who at the
Speaker 1: very top of the scale. That's a real economic phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Ben I was talking about it last night, and that's
Speaker 1: something that we should not forget, you know, Lizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: some Democrats, some of the stuff they talk about is real.
Speaker 1: There are there is a growing gap between rich and
Speaker 1: poor in this country. I mean, there are some phenomena
Speaker 1: that they they discussed that are we need to discuss
Speaker 1: two because it's real. But we just have better ideas
Speaker 1: about how to fix it. But a wealth tax affects
Speaker 1: the people that like to walk around being, oh, I
Speaker 1: don't care how high am I tige whicheverybody should pay
Speaker 1: higher taxes? Oh really, All of a sudden, the really
Speaker 1: rich people start and of course the super rich libs
Speaker 1: out there start to say, oh, no, you can't take
Speaker 1: a percentage of my overall assets, because that starts to
Speaker 1: feel like they're actually they're they're feeling that. It feels
Speaker 1: like they're feeling it, that's the way you could say
Speaker 1: it. It It feels like they take note of it. And
Speaker 1: here's Senator Elizabeth Warren doing her full Marxist class warfare routine,
Speaker 1: play clip sixteen. Please, And here's the thing. You may
Speaker 1: have heard some billionaires on TV recently crying about that
Speaker 1: two cent wealth tax. Ah, but we asked the top
Speaker 1: one tenth of one percent to pitch in two cents
Speaker 1: on their fortunes. We can invest in an entire generation
Speaker 1: two cent wealth tax. I'm assuming she means ah, I'm
Speaker 1: assuming she means two percent. Uh what exactly is her Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: annual on two percent? Yeah, that's what. Of course it's
Speaker 1: two cents. Why she says it's two percent, she's calling
Speaker 1: a two cent That's why I don't. I guess she's
Speaker 1: trying to be clever with two percent wealth tax, two
Speaker 1: percent on every dollar of net worth above fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1: What this would do is it would over time, it
Speaker 1: would shrink very large fortunes. That is true. It would
Speaker 1: and people who right now are very haughty about how
Speaker 1: they don't care what their tax it is, they would
Speaker 1: start to care all of a sudden. They would be
Speaker 1: a change, There would be a shift in their thinking.
Speaker 1: And so if for no other reason than that, I
Speaker 1: kind of like it. I kind of like it because
Speaker 1: now I do not just I do not support a
Speaker 1: wealth tax, but I like the aspect of it where
Speaker 1: it shows some of the hypocrisy. It shakes rattles up
Speaker 1: a little bit. The people that love to talk about, oh,
Speaker 1: I wish I could pay Warren taxes. First of all,
Speaker 1: those people never just they can send as much money
Speaker 1: as they want the federal government. If you want to
Speaker 1: give the federal government every dollar you have, you can
Speaker 1: do that. And I'm sure there's some leftists who so
Speaker 1: that's the patriotic thing to do, give every dollar you
Speaker 1: have for the government so that the Democrats can redistribute
Speaker 1: it to legal aliens, right. I mean, that's they're great
Speaker 1: with that. They think it's a fantastic idea. But the
Speaker 1: wealth tax Elizabeth Warren is bringing up is that's where
Speaker 1: Wall Street is all of a sudden starting to turn
Speaker 1: on her. This is where people are seeing things differently
Speaker 1: about Elizabeth Warren. And they had in the past ease
Speaker 1: every bit as radical as Bernie. She just comes across
Speaker 1: as less radical in her demeanor. But it's really just
Speaker 1: a style thing. It's not a substance thing. She has
Speaker 1: all of Bernie's radicalism and then some, and we should
Speaker 1: not forget that as we continue to think about which Democrat,
Speaker 1: which Democrat do we really want to have squaring off
Speaker 1: against President Trump. That's that's an interesting question at this point.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't have a clear answer in mind,
Speaker 1: other than I feel like I'm quite confident that Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders would lose, but I don't know. Maybe Biden is
Speaker 1: more likely to lose. In Sanders, I think it's important
Speaker 1: for the nation to raise him and raise a fifteen
Speaker 1: dollars an hour or the next seven years. Is that possible?
Speaker 1: It is possible. You know what happened was when Barack
Speaker 1: and iron office. What happened was we pushed it, and
Speaker 1: a number of states came along and responded to that push.
Speaker 1: And there's a number of states. Now there's fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: minimum ways that's phased in. And the argument's going to
Speaker 1: cost jobs is not true. Just take a look of
Speaker 1: corporate profits there. The idea he can't pay for fifteen
Speaker 1: bucks an hour is not It is just not accurate.
Speaker 1: And look, it's all about giving people some dignity. There
Speaker 1: has to be the ability to be able to have healthcare, education,
Speaker 1: be able to live a decent life. Nobody should be
Speaker 1: working forty hours a week and being paid was below
Speaker 1: the poverty level. It's just not right in minment. Now.
Speaker 1: I know this is a very popular issue left hand right.
Speaker 1: People like minimum wage, they like raising minimum wage, and
Speaker 1: we never seem to get past this. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit like the intractable nature of the pay gap between
Speaker 1: men and women, which is not what people say it is.
Speaker 1: The pay gap is a lie. You keep you have
Speaker 1: to keep coming back to this. No, women do not
Speaker 1: make you know, seventy seven cents of the dollar or
Speaker 1: what They're doing the same work, at the same level,
Speaker 1: the same stuff. That's not true. It's just not but
Speaker 1: people like to say it. And on minimum wage. I
Speaker 1: know this is where because I feel that to you,
Speaker 1: I mean, I want people to get well paid. I look,
Speaker 1: anybody who shows up and does an honest job for
Speaker 1: an honest wage deserves respect. And I mean that from
Speaker 1: bottom my heart. And I think that, you know, one
Speaker 1: of the things about America that makes us Americans is
Speaker 1: that if you show up and you're doing an honest
Speaker 1: job for an honest wage, it's it's every bit as
Speaker 1: respectable was any other job at anyone's doing for a
Speaker 1: ton of money or famous or whatever. It may be,
Speaker 1: and that's that's part of our that is part of
Speaker 1: our American ethos, that is part of our American culture.
Speaker 1: But I also understand economics a little bit better than
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders and better than Joe Biden, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: And I know that the studies they've done on this
Speaker 1: are very clear. Minimum wage. When you raise it, some
Speaker 1: people do make more money. Some people's hours are cut back,
Speaker 1: some people's jobs are cut that's just your screen. The
Speaker 1: price is the price. I always say that's the central
Speaker 1: planners pretend that's not the case. The price is the
Speaker 1: price the market sets. The price paying somebody is the
Speaker 1: price for their labor. And there are factors that go
Speaker 1: into that that are not just we think this would
Speaker 1: be a good amount of money for you to make.
Speaker 1: And it's also the case that it makes it harder
Speaker 1: for people to get into the workforce, it increases automation.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's all these there are all these things
Speaker 1: that happen you raise themum wage and people feel good
Speaker 1: about it, and there are some people who will be
Speaker 1: you know, in that margin of okay, the company can
Speaker 1: pay a little bit more, or they it's good pr
Speaker 1: for them. So they'll just they'll pass on the cost
Speaker 1: to consumers. There's all these different but ultimately you're just mandating.
Speaker 1: The government is mandating that the money is going from
Speaker 1: one place and into another. That's what's happening here. There's
Speaker 1: there's there's not some magic money tree that they can
Speaker 1: just shake and the money comes down for all the
Speaker 1: people and everything is fine. But everyone like this is
Speaker 1: you know, Republicans lose on this issue. People like the
Speaker 1: minimum wage to get to be higher. No one wants
Speaker 1: to hear from the nerdy economists who actually crunch the numbers.
Speaker 1: You'll tell you that it doesn't do. It does not
Speaker 1: do what people say it will do. There are costs
Speaker 1: and there are drawbacks. But you know, I know, I
Speaker 1: sound like Buck the Grinch, the whistleblower whose complaint has
Speaker 1: now led to impeachment hearings. The whole point of releasing
Speaker 1: a name is to intimidate someone, to threaten someone, and
Speaker 1: to scare other people from coming out. That's something that
Speaker 1: dictators do. I've lived in China. I've seen that firsthand.
Speaker 1: That's not what America does. That's not who we do.
Speaker 1: We don't we stand by our people. Why did you
Speaker 1: want to release think think. I think the reality of
Speaker 1: the answer is the whistleblower's name was on a little
Speaker 1: website called the Drudge Report a couple of days ago.
Speaker 1: It was in real clear politics. I literally quote tweeted
Speaker 1: an article that had the guy's name in the title
Speaker 1: of the article. So that whole thing is that I
Speaker 1: wish the outrage would be equal. I mean, there was
Speaker 1: no outrage when you know, my family got an exploding
Speaker 1: letter of you know, with white powder substance in it.
Speaker 1: You know, they're protecting a guy, you know, in the
Speaker 1: CIA and the great outrage. But when your family gets something,
Speaker 1: it's there. And that's a big part of the book,
Speaker 1: which is it's not a level playing field in terms
Speaker 1: of outrage. We do live in an outrage culture. We
Speaker 1: do live in an outrage culture, that's for sure. And
Speaker 1: it was an outrage how much stupid stuff was said
Speaker 1: on the View yesterday by some of those co hosts.
Speaker 1: First of all, we've we went over to remember that
Speaker 1: you had Sonny Houston saying that it was a crime,
Speaker 1: which she's don't have her as your defense attorney that much.
Speaker 1: I assure you that bad idea not a good lawyer. Okay,
Speaker 1: You're not going to prison in any normal circumstance, at
Speaker 1: any normal court in this country because you shared a
Speaker 1: news article that was freely published that you just happened
Speaker 1: to share online. That that does not happen, not yet
Speaker 1: at least in this country. But even an Abby Huntsman there,
Speaker 1: who I remember when she worked in FI I thought
Speaker 1: she was kind of supposed to be a conservative? Is
Speaker 1: that Abby Huntsman just is she whatever she has to
Speaker 1: be for the job she's in at that time. Is
Speaker 1: that where her ideology lies? I think so. So, you
Speaker 1: know Huntsman in Romney, you get some of these folks
Speaker 1: who are Republican names out the Republican dynasties who don't
Speaker 1: seem all that concern with helping out. Republicans sometimes seem
Speaker 1: much more concerned with, well, what's gonna help me at
Speaker 1: any point in Ton? But her her no, no, look,
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm surprised that she's actually on an opinion
Speaker 1: chow because I've never really heard her share much in
Speaker 1: the way of opinions. But she said here that you
Speaker 1: know this is meant to intimidate, to threaten someone. First
Speaker 1: of all, Don Junior didn't release the name of the person.
Speaker 1: But beyond that, for a second, she brought up dictators.
Speaker 1: That's what dictators do. They out people who are whistleblowers
Speaker 1: in the government. You know what else dictators do. Dictators
Speaker 1: hold secret trials. Dictators don't have to present evidence for
Speaker 1: public scrutiny. Dictators will take sworn testimony or just testimony
Speaker 1: from anonymous sources and use that as the only justification
Speaker 1: necessary to punish someone, to destroy someone. Dictators do that too.
Speaker 1: Who's doing that right now? And Aunt Trump, it's not
Speaker 1: the Republicans. It's just a particularly stupid moment there. And
Speaker 1: as I keep saying to you this, the whistle blower
Speaker 1: legally does not have the expectation of complete and utter privacy.
Speaker 1: The whistle blower Statute is out there to protect people
Speaker 1: from retaliation. It is not meant to be a cover
Speaker 1: so that someone cannot be that they can engage in
Speaker 1: a political debate from behind the cover of anonymity. Look
Speaker 1: at Democrats doing this, folks. This is now a new
Speaker 1: game They're played. Got the anonymous book, which apparently terrible.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's like, because this guy writes this anonymous book,
Speaker 1: it's the same thing, the same problem you have with
Speaker 1: the whistleblower who won't subject himself to scrutiny. How can
Speaker 1: we test the merit of any of these claims. Let's
Speaker 1: just take all the politics out of this for a second.
Speaker 1: If I said to you, if I said to you
Speaker 1: that your business partner is stealing from you, right, if
Speaker 1: i've you and I my dear and beloved audience, if
Speaker 1: we are have a conversation you and I knew you,
Speaker 1: and I said, look, I know your business partner stealing
Speaker 1: from you. And you said, well, how do you know that?
Speaker 1: And I said, well, I just know, and I wouldn't
Speaker 1: give any more information than that. Would you be right
Speaker 1: to act on that? Would you be right to go
Speaker 1: and confront your business partner and say, hey, are you
Speaker 1: stealing from me? No? If your business and if you
Speaker 1: asked me and I said, well, it turns out that
Speaker 1: I'm really good friends with your business partner's accountant, and
Speaker 1: he's worried and he's going to the FEDS because there's
Speaker 1: some embezzling going on here, then you might say, okay,
Speaker 1: I got a problem here, right, But how can you
Speaker 1: know without me giving you that critical piece of information?
Speaker 1: What if I said your business partner stealing from you.
Speaker 1: And you said well, And I said, well, I a guy.
Speaker 1: This actually happen. Once a guy came up to me
Speaker 1: in a wizard hat, serious like a wizard, you know,
Speaker 1: like like Harry Potter, and he wanted to tell my fortune.
Speaker 1: And he just sat next to me and started telling
Speaker 1: me what's going to happen in my future. If I
Speaker 1: told you that guy, random wizard walking around to the park,
Speaker 1: guy who claimed to be able to see the future,
Speaker 1: that he told me that your business partner is stealing
Speaker 1: from you, you'd probably say, I don't think I'm not
Speaker 1: worried about my business partners stealing for me. How can
Speaker 1: you assess the credibility of information without these necessary facts?
Speaker 1: You can't. Why am I? You know, why am I
Speaker 1: telling you this thing? On what basis am I telling
Speaker 1: you this thing? The anonymous book that's out there right
Speaker 1: now comes from somebody who won't give the details about
Speaker 1: obviously himself or herself, but even beyond that, won't give
Speaker 1: specifics enough about the incidents in question because doesn't want
Speaker 1: to be outed by you know what. You get into
Speaker 1: certain conversations in certain places in the White House, there's
Speaker 1: only a small group of people that were in the room,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna be able to figure out you know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna find out who the mole is. Essentially right,
Speaker 1: they're gonna find out who the leaky, leaky member of
Speaker 1: the team is with this book. So you don't know
Speaker 1: who the person is, and they won't give any details
Speaker 1: to prove that what they say they heard or what
Speaker 1: they say happened happen, but we're just supposed to believe them.
Speaker 1: Is that? Is that the country you want to live in?
Speaker 1: Anonymous allegations that you're supposed to make a decisions, momentous
Speaker 1: decisions on, and you're not allowed to ask for more information. Now,
Speaker 1: the willingness for journalists here to abandon transparency and the
Speaker 1: you know, the they're supposed desire for transparency and they're dogged,
Speaker 1: unrelenting search for the truth all the time is appalling.
Speaker 1: It's appalling. By the way, those are those are things
Speaker 1: that are generally fake. Most people who I know who
Speaker 1: are journalists really don't show up saying I just want
Speaker 1: to I just want to break a story that's a
Speaker 1: big story on a thing. Most journalists that I know,
Speaker 1: or I want to break a big story that hurts
Speaker 1: the other team. That's the real goal, because that's how
Speaker 1: people that's how your audience in mainstream journalism, that's how
Speaker 1: they come to love you when you do something that
Speaker 1: takes down a Republican, takes down somebody who opposes the
Speaker 1: world view that you think you you deserve to have,
Speaker 1: You deserve to live in a place where that worldview
Speaker 1: is constantly reflected back to you. So this is uh,
Speaker 1: it's it is. It is troubling stuff to see this,
Speaker 1: but nonetheless it is the view, I guess. So so
Speaker 1: there is there is that aspect of it. I guess
Speaker 1: we shouldn't think that the view is going to give
Speaker 1: us a great legal analysis. I don't think anybody would
Speaker 1: expect that. But also just that this is supposed to
Speaker 1: be a reflection of mainstream, even Democrats, perception of things. Now,
Speaker 1: the whistle blower is supposed to be anonymous, we're supposed
Speaker 1: to believe that the media is not all in the tank.
Speaker 1: For this whole whistleblower situation, it forces us to ask
Speaker 1: the question repeatedly, how dumb do they really think we are?
Speaker 1: How dumb do they think we are? The answer is
Speaker 1: really dumb, it seems, which makes me kind of annoyed.
Speaker 1: I think everybody should be a little mo annoyed about
Speaker 1: this special treat for all of you out in a
Speaker 1: radio podcast and Pluto TV land my man Jesse Kelly,
Speaker 1: host of the Jesse Kelly Show, which is a great
Speaker 1: radio show down in KPRC Houston. Also my counterpart here
Speaker 1: on the first Chiel two forty eight Pluto TV. Mister
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly, how are you, sir? It's Friday and I
Speaker 1: got one more show of each this week, so I'm
Speaker 1: just all right, my man, here we go. What's new
Speaker 1: out there? Is it the Bloomberg News today? I find
Speaker 1: this to be hilarious. Well, this isn't I just want
Speaker 1: to be clear this is not technically Bloomberg's announcement, but
Speaker 1: I will take a little trip down Bloomberg memory lane
Speaker 1: if I can with you, Producer Mark, would you do
Speaker 1: your favorite in play clip twenty four, please let me
Speaker 1: summarize today's announcement for our Spanish speaking New Yorkers A
Speaker 1: late pademosa Toto slush New York knosk say mentagan inm
Speaker 1: infomatos subrey el Harican Sandy Ya. You remember when when
Speaker 1: Bloomberg would go into his and people call him, said
Speaker 1: you were, said, said you were Bloomberg Ghito, And all
Speaker 1: of a sudden he was. He was doing as Bloomberg
Speaker 1: in Spanish love. He's like something as as a Texan
Speaker 1: that is the worst Spanglish. I remember, like he says
Speaker 1: it like such a New Yorker in toto if no no,
Speaker 1: no mass margaritas esto a key. I don't speak much Spanish,
Speaker 1: but I think I speak as much as as much
Speaker 1: Spanish as Mayor Bloomberg Ghito. I just thought it, girl, like,
Speaker 1: why don't have somebody else's come up and translate for him? Now?
Speaker 1: He wanted to do it himself. He's like a mayor.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg got the you know uh, but he crashed me
Speaker 1: up because and I realized he was a better mayor
Speaker 1: than Deblocio. He was a much better mayor. I must
Speaker 1: be honest with you. He was. But it's this you look,
Speaker 1: you're a resident again of New York City, so maybe
Speaker 1: you can speak to it. And you know that I
Speaker 1: love New York City, so don't everybody's scream at me.
Speaker 1: I love your town. But there's something about these New
Speaker 1: York City mayors. They rise to be New York City
Speaker 1: mayors and they're unlikable jerks. You know, they have that
Speaker 1: New York City screw you everybody's stupid attitude. And then
Speaker 1: they take that power and think I could be president.
Speaker 1: I mean, what is Deblasio doing running for president? That
Speaker 1: guy is a jerk. Yeah, well they really think that
Speaker 1: they're mayor of America. Is what happens the same way,
Speaker 1: and I realized it's a big success. He was a
Speaker 1: good mayor. That guy you sit down in one interview
Speaker 1: and you're like that guy, I feel like he's yelling
Speaker 1: at me. I feel like he's looking down at Mean,
Speaker 1: that guy, you can't be president. Look, I mean, also's
Speaker 1: gonna remember that a mayor. You know, mayors aren't generally
Speaker 1: dealing with weighty constitutional issues, dealing with issues of war
Speaker 1: and peace. They're not deploying soldiers abroad. They're not you know,
Speaker 1: you know mayors. It's like, you know, keep make sure
Speaker 1: the trash is getting picked up, don't let the city
Speaker 1: budget run too far on the red and collapse, don't
Speaker 1: you know, upset and undermine your law you know, police
Speaker 1: and law enforcement. I mean, there's like it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's like a managerial job. You know, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: something that if you just don't be an idiot and
Speaker 1: and Deblasio can't even manage that, and you'll pretty much
Speaker 1: be okay as a mayor. But there are a lot
Speaker 1: of idiot mayors, unfortunately, oh there are. And plus it's
Speaker 1: New York City and everything's so corrupt, and you know what,
Speaker 1: I kind of love that it's part of the charm
Speaker 1: of New York City. But everybody from New York City
Speaker 1: that's risen to positions of power there has so much baggage.
Speaker 1: It's it's really tough to be president from there. Now.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the h the ABC
Speaker 1: Roebock situation, right because I mean, first off, what's your
Speaker 1: sense of the willingness of the media to kill a
Speaker 1: story like that? ABC News? But then also I think
Speaker 1: Tucker called it a cartel, which he just beat me
Speaker 1: to it. I was going to refer to as a
Speaker 1: cartel too, ABC, CBS, NBC. They all like have got
Speaker 1: each other's backs, like they all want to just keep
Speaker 1: this little fiefdom of where the elite broadcast news networks,
Speaker 1: when in reality, I mean, it's all just a bunch
Speaker 1: of libs saying the same things to each other and
Speaker 1: getting overpaid. Well, it's I mean, now, this story has
Speaker 1: more of a human element to it than other stories,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, just because on re loose sight of
Speaker 1: the fact we all do there are real underage teenage
Speaker 1: girls in this who had their lives destroyed by this
Speaker 1: freaking monster, and we shouldn't forget about that. I mean, wow,
Speaker 1: it's fun to make fun of the media and stuff,
Speaker 1: where we shouldn't forget about the fact that they're dropping
Speaker 1: the ball on this or just flat out hiding this issue.
Speaker 1: It costs people their lives. I mean, it costs people
Speaker 1: the quality of their lives. So there's that. But to
Speaker 1: your greater point, that's what we've seen since Trump got
Speaker 1: into office, is the media never a moment, never even
Speaker 1: a brief moment of accountability, of holding each other or
Speaker 1: themselves accountable. They all just locked arms and circled the
Speaker 1: wagons and decided that they are the First Amendment warriors
Speaker 1: who are speaking truth to power, and they're defending America
Speaker 1: and any attacks on them at all should be repelled.
Speaker 1: They meant to take a moment of account It's a
Speaker 1: little I mean, you and I take a similar view
Speaker 1: of these mainstream media outlets. But it's it's amazing to
Speaker 1: your word that CBS would do the bidding of a
Speaker 1: competitor ABC and fire. But I believe it's a woman,
Speaker 1: and Megan Kelly's actually sat down to interviewer fire a
Speaker 1: woman for blowing the whistle essentially on killing the Epstein
Speaker 1: story at ABC. CBS fired her for that. But it's
Speaker 1: not amazing when you consider the fact they consider themselves
Speaker 1: to be one entity and so many of these people,
Speaker 1: the higher ups there and the underlings there, as evidenced
Speaker 1: by the fact this lady was an ABC and then
Speaker 1: at CV had they just moved in between networks, They
Speaker 1: bounced from network to network. The CEOs are not sitting
Speaker 1: around thinking how they can cut the throat of their competitor.
Speaker 1: They're not at each other's throats. They consider themselves to
Speaker 1: be an essential part of the country. No different than
Speaker 1: the way the old guys used to do it. I mean,
Speaker 1: no different than you know, when we started a war
Speaker 1: with they we started the Spanish American War with New
Speaker 1: York City newspapers, you know, thinking they knew better than
Speaker 1: anyone else. This is the history of the press in
Speaker 1: the country. They don't they don't compete with each other.
Speaker 1: It's them versus Republicanism and Jesse, what do you think,
Speaker 1: though you know about the whistleblower situation, specifically the willingness
Speaker 1: to keep that whistleblower sacro saying even though we all
Speaker 1: know his name. And then no media outlets even covered
Speaker 1: the project Toss. I mean, I should say, ABCCBSNBC, none
Speaker 1: of them even covered the project very Toss audio of
Speaker 1: ABC as though it was a news story and a
Speaker 1: very serious one because of the Jeffrey Epstein connection. Exactly. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what I mean. It just goes to prove the
Speaker 1: point I was already making of if you were saying
Speaker 1: anything against Donald Trump, no matter who you are, whether
Speaker 1: you're a quote whistleblower or whether you're James Toby, or
Speaker 1: whether you're a serial killer, you are to be protected
Speaker 1: and lionized at all costs. You are to be held
Speaker 1: up as some mantle of all that is good and
Speaker 1: right in America. But if you go after the video,
Speaker 1: I mean, you remember Buck, it wasn't that long ago
Speaker 1: CNN wrote a threatening letter to docs a guy who
Speaker 1: made a gift online of Trump doing a body slam
Speaker 1: or something of a CNN sign some stupid little gift
Speaker 1: that made a couple of people snicker. CNN publicized a
Speaker 1: threatening letter saying, you will stop doing this, and you
Speaker 1: will not only pull this down if you do anything
Speaker 1: like this again, we reserve the right to release your
Speaker 1: private information. That happens in this country. It's it's outrageous.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you, Jesse, who is currently the
Speaker 1: worst Democrat in the race for prett Because we've had
Speaker 1: a few drop out, Bedo is gone to blah. Who
Speaker 1: is the worst? Oh, you know, honestly, it's Pete. I
Speaker 1: knew you were gonna say that. That's what I want
Speaker 1: to ask you. Go ahead, Well, it is because he
Speaker 1: has you know, he's one of these hit and there.
Speaker 1: This happens in politics all the time. He's one of
Speaker 1: these paper champions. You look down if you're a Democrat
Speaker 1: or you're somebody in the press, and he's made for you.
Speaker 1: You know, a young, good looking dude. He's gay. I mean,
Speaker 1: they love that part of it. He's from the Midwest.
Speaker 1: They're trying to win back the Midwest. He can speak,
Speaker 1: he's got military service, so they can act like he
Speaker 1: gives a crap about America. They have all these things
Speaker 1: laid out for him, but it just doesn't work. It
Speaker 1: does not work. Scott. This simmering anger about him that
Speaker 1: I saw a long time ago, and it seeks from
Speaker 1: his pores that it turns people waffable. That's one of
Speaker 1: the guy's never gotten any attractions. He raises a bunch
Speaker 1: of money because there's a lot of money and being
Speaker 1: gay in the Democrat side there just is there's big
Speaker 1: you know, you can rally a lot of donors being
Speaker 1: that way. So he's raised a ton of money. She
Speaker 1: has editing in place to be a major candidate. It
Speaker 1: just ain't ever gonna ask. Yeah, just we've only got
Speaker 1: about it to twenty seconds. You're Jesse, but I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you as well. Who's going to be the
Speaker 1: Democrat nominee at this point? Oh? Elizabeth Warren. I saw
Speaker 1: that coming a long time ago. She is unstoppable and
Speaker 1: then Trump is going to curb stop her. Wow, there
Speaker 1: you have a Jesse Kelly telling us Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: going to be the next Democrat nominee for presidency. Everyone
Speaker 1: should check out to follow Jesse Kelly on Twitter. Also
Speaker 1: watch him on the first channel to forty eight on
Speaker 1: Pluto TV and if you're down in Houston, KPRC Houston,
Speaker 1: the Jesse Kelly Show. A man, Jesse Kelly, have a
Speaker 1: fantastic weekend, so we'll talk to you soon. Good well
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions here, I've proved to say President Trump's cabin.
Speaker 1: Did I write a tell all book? No? Did I
Speaker 1: go on CNN and attack the President? Nope? Have I
Speaker 1: said a cross word about our president? Not one time?
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you why. First, that would be dishonored.
Speaker 1: I was there to serve his agenda, not mine. Suck
Speaker 1: at the President doing a great job for America and Alabama,
Speaker 1: and he has my strong support. Jeff Sessions running for
Speaker 1: Senate in Alabama. You know you all listen to the
Speaker 1: show now that I have a I have a soft
Speaker 1: spot for Jeff Sessions because he did this show like
Speaker 1: three times when he was a Tourney channel. He called in,
Speaker 1: we got a bunch of Jeff's and I had to
Speaker 1: sit down with him at a video interviewer. Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: was he's He was not a very nice man. I look,
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't think that his loyalty to
Speaker 1: country or loyalty even to Trump was ever in question
Speaker 1: at all. I think he did what he thought was right.
Speaker 1: He's just not a He's just a guy. You know.
Speaker 1: There's some people who are you're in a bar fight
Speaker 1: and you got a buddy with you. You know, they're
Speaker 1: a good guy, but like they're just not much much
Speaker 1: use in a bar fight. And Jeff Sessions as Attorney General,
Speaker 1: there's not a lot of use in the bar fight,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. So I think he had
Speaker 1: a Trump was very very tough on ever since he
Speaker 1: decided I'm look I am honestly by my bias here
Speaker 1: Jeff Jeff. I guess he used to listen to the
Speaker 1: show sometimes and he was Attorney general. He liked it
Speaker 1: and we would get to have him in the mix.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I wish him. I wish him well. Man.
Speaker 1: I think he was very effective in the Senate. He's
Speaker 1: really one of the only people who, even before the
Speaker 1: Trump phenomenon happened, was supportive of a lot of Trump's
Speaker 1: signature policies. I don't think Jeff Sessions gots enough credit
Speaker 1: for that, especially on immigration. By the way. So you
Speaker 1: know Jeff Sessions, and he's a smart guy and he's
Speaker 1: a good dude, And I feel badly because he got.
Speaker 1: He got put through the meat grinder with the whole
Speaker 1: Attorney General Russia losing thing. Should he ever have accused himself, No,
Speaker 1: probably not, But you know he made that decision, and
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff happened after that. Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash bucks, sextan a little double roll call today. We'll
Speaker 1: do some Facebook stuff, to do some email stuff, Adam
Speaker 1: first in here, Buck on the Avengers, you make me sad.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark is on the money. I respect your opinion.
Speaker 1: I humbly ask you to reconsider Shield's high. I knew
Speaker 1: Mark was good. That's one I'm gonna count throughout the show. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: Mark one buck zero, Mark one buck zero. So far,
Speaker 1: let's see. Let's see what ends up happening here on um, Matthew,
Speaker 1: you asked for it. Here we go. I'm sorry, Producer Mark,
Speaker 1: you are wrong. The New Avenger movies are poor cinema,
Speaker 1: if they can even be called cinema. Buck, you are
Speaker 1: wrong too, though, whoa it's like? Is this like a draw? Then?
Speaker 1: I think hockey is great? Oh all right, that's Mark two.
Speaker 1: You're right on. He's giving you the hockey win. But
Speaker 1: I think you take the loss on the Avengers. Let's see,
Speaker 1: Amanda rites in buck Love the show. I need some
Speaker 1: book recommendations. I thought i'd asked someone smart and well read,
Speaker 1: that's you. What would you say are your top five
Speaker 1: pertinent and instructive reads giving the nation's current situation. Coming
Speaker 1: Apart by Charles Murray is really interesting and worthwhile, and
Speaker 1: I think you would enjoy that as a book on
Speaker 1: what's going on the country. The Great Revolt by Selena
Speaker 1: Zito is also a very good book about the current situation.
Speaker 1: Trying to think what else would be I actually saw
Speaker 1: a book that I have not been able to read yet,
Speaker 1: but I it is in my my queue of things
Speaker 1: that I want to read, and it's about here we go,
Speaker 1: Nathaniel Blake's Oh no, sorry. The book is The Strong Gods.
Speaker 1: I just saw this today, actually, so I might check
Speaker 1: out a book called The Strong Gods. I've heard it's
Speaker 1: about issues going on this country. That was a recommendation,
Speaker 1: is actually a recommendation from Molly Hemingway, whom I very
Speaker 1: much respect. So maybe I'll check that one out, The
Speaker 1: Strong Gods. And I hope that that was a reasonably
Speaker 1: helpful answer. Amanda, Thank you so much for running in
Speaker 1: Charlie Right's Heybuck, it's Chuck from Penn State. Would you
Speaker 1: please give your thoughts on this, opinion of mine a
Speaker 1: huge reason for the political discourse in our countries. It's
Speaker 1: here and because people approach complex problems with a lot
Speaker 1: of with a lot of nuance, with simple answers, and
Speaker 1: these problems answers are pushed by mainstream media who don't
Speaker 1: dive into the nuances the problems or the potential solution.
Speaker 1: Shields high and producer Mark is the man. Look at
Speaker 1: the producer. Mark's got fans. Producer Mark has fans. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna call it three. We'll give you a third on
Speaker 1: that when you get three points on the board, Charlie.
Speaker 1: Political discourse is deteriorating. There's a lot of reasons of
Speaker 1: the change in discourse that has resulted, specifically, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: from social media is a big part of this. People
Speaker 1: now feel very comfortable and feel very justified in saying
Speaker 1: things and writing things and doing things on social media
Speaker 1: that they would absolutely not do face to face to
Speaker 1: another human being. And then there's also the echo chamber effect,
Speaker 1: which can be I mean, you can you can exist
Speaker 1: in a world where all the news you read, if
Speaker 1: especially if you're a leftism, it's going to be honest.
Speaker 1: All the news you read all the time supports your worldview,
Speaker 1: reinforces your political biases, and it's just a constant, oh
Speaker 1: look at me, look at me, I'm right, uh situation.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think that that's that's what I would
Speaker 1: add in here. Uh, Kristen, I do not agree with
Speaker 1: your assessment of the Avenger movies. I think they're great,
Speaker 1: though Endgame was a disappointment. The rest are excellent examples
Speaker 1: of action movies. Another point for producer Mark Wamp, whom
Speaker 1: I love when I'm right. Yeah, this is I'm have
Speaker 1: to skip these ones. It's not fair. I know people,
Speaker 1: well it's my show. People to start thinking you're right,
Speaker 1: your name's on the door. Yeah yeah. Well, anyway, the
Speaker 1: producer Mark is winning the Avengers battle today, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Justin the Trump impeachment is straight out of the Democrat playbook.
Speaker 1: They take a crime they are one hundred percent guilty
Speaker 1: of and turn it back on the Republicans to change
Speaker 1: the narrative. Example, Russia collusion. Hillary clearly colluded with Russia
Speaker 1: to try and win the election, and even prior to
Speaker 1: the election, so turn it back on Trump to draw
Speaker 1: attention away from that. Now we have Biden one percent
Speaker 1: guilty of a quid pro quo, so they can blame
Speaker 1: Trump and change the narrative, all in an effort to
Speaker 1: cover their own tracks. The swamp is really deep. Well,
Speaker 1: it is a tactic. It is a tactic that you
Speaker 1: see with the left thinking that that they can get
Speaker 1: away with accusing Conservatives of doing exactly what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and that that is real. I'm trying to find this
Speaker 1: for you now as I'm live, you know, doing the
Speaker 1: show in real time. But there is a there was
Speaker 1: a story I think it was the New York Times
Speaker 1: and it was it was an editorial, actually, but will
Speaker 1: Republicans ever accept political losses? And I just think that's
Speaker 1: amazing because what we've seen from Democrats is they're very
Speaker 1: a very real situation of them not accepting. They do
Speaker 1: not accept political losses. They do not accept that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton lost the election in twenty sixteen. They still think
Speaker 1: that there's some way that they can justify to themselves
Speaker 1: acting like that election did not happen. So let me see.
Speaker 1: It was a New York Times piece. I think I'll
Speaker 1: try to find it. It was the editorial where they
Speaker 1: write in The New York Times was once a great newspaper.
Speaker 1: I mean now it is a straight up propaganda rag
Speaker 1: of the left. I mean the New York Times is
Speaker 1: a is a disgrace to journalism, and they've got an
Speaker 1: article today the billionaires are getting nervous. Yeah, The New
Speaker 1: York Times was okay with you know, New York Times
Speaker 1: was okay with billionaires when Carlos Slim was injecting cash
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. That could stay stay afloat.
Speaker 1: Here we go. Matt Buck. I'm a few episodes into
Speaker 1: Jack Ryan and I can't say it's all too bad.
Speaker 1: Sure it has some lib undertones, but these days you'll
Speaker 1: find that in almost all content. It's much more watchful
Speaker 1: than anything on TV. Lighten up a little bit and
Speaker 1: enjoy a fun storyline. Matt Oss Original Saturday Squad Matt Man.
Speaker 1: I'm all about light. I'm light as a feather. I'm
Speaker 1: just chill all the time. Twenty four to seven. Pretty much.
Speaker 1: I can't agree. I just thought this is not a
Speaker 1: good show man. I don't know what to say. It's
Speaker 1: the scene where the ambush scene, the first in the
Speaker 1: first episode was just weak sauce. Man, it was just bad,
Speaker 1: It really was. I mean I could come up with
Speaker 1: a cooler ambush sequence like fifteen minutes of scriptwriting. So
Speaker 1: it wasn't good. So look, man, to reach his own
Speaker 1: You're completely entitled to your own opinion, and I'm entitled
Speaker 1: to be right. Oh just kidding. Uh let's see here, um, Laurie, right,
Speaker 1: do the night guard for your grinding problem. I actually
Speaker 1: have two broken teeth, which involves expensive crowns. I also
Speaker 1: bought the ultrasonic densure cleaner to clean the guard weekly.
Speaker 1: It has cut down all the ramifications of grinding. You
Speaker 1: can do it and get used to it. Oh, Laurie,
Speaker 1: I'm really gonna wear this thing. I wish you feel
Speaker 1: like when I put the guard in my mouth and
Speaker 1: that turner talks a little bit like cold stick that
Speaker 1: the top of your tongue. I have your guard in
Speaker 1: your mouth. I do you know, like maybe maybe you
Speaker 1: know at some point, uh Buck would like to I
Speaker 1: don't know, like being a committed relationship and be married
Speaker 1: every night. I'd be like, honey, I'm sorry, I've put
Speaker 1: my night garden and I've got a protect protect my
Speaker 1: key with a night guard because it's really in there.
Speaker 1: It's not good as a radio as your radio producer,
Speaker 1: I should tell you to stop talking like that immediately
Speaker 1: and um because it sounds like ridiculous. And you know,
Speaker 1: once you get past the first couple of months, you
Speaker 1: can do stuff like that in a relation, right, but
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't put out a ni night nor
Speaker 1: when you are in bed with her the cup. First
Speaker 1: couple of times you don't wear it. Yeah, but it's
Speaker 1: it's you can wear it on a nightly basis. Yeah, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: but you know like it's it's you sound like I like,
Speaker 1: if you ever have you ever used what you ever
Speaker 1: talking about the night gard? Understand what it is. It's
Speaker 1: like you know, when you were like kids and you'd
Speaker 1: have brace like like the big metal bracket braces, and
Speaker 1: you're a kid, and it would sometimes get like and
Speaker 1: it would interfere with It's like that. You don't sound cool,
Speaker 1: you know, sound cool? You don't always need to be cool, buck,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, I think I gotta you're still
Speaker 1: worried about a wife and kids, but you gotta keep
Speaker 1: yourself healthy. Tests that's true. I don't Also, I look
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's good advice. My dentist says,
Speaker 1: gotta put the night guard in, and I just couldn't
Speaker 1: do a radio show with it him, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Truck writing a copper mounting the voice again. All right,
Speaker 1: I know that's bad, but that's what it sounds like.
Speaker 1: I'm trust me. I've gotten used to it. Um. I've
Speaker 1: tried it now a couple of times. David, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm all for these idiots wanting to reduce the population.
Speaker 1: They will and we won't. Long term, we win, of course, canes,
Speaker 1: as in John Maynard said, in the long run, we're
Speaker 1: all dead. Not necessarily true, my friend, keep up the
Speaker 1: great work. Take care of Dave. Dave, I like where
Speaker 1: your head's at on this. You're good, You're a good man.
Speaker 1: Uh let's see run rights Buck Trump again. Reference syringes
Speaker 1: in San Francisco. The city says that they intercept them
Speaker 1: before they get to the oceans, but somehow plastic straws
Speaker 1: seemed to sail on through, so we must be we
Speaker 1: must ban them. Amazing shields eye. Interesting points here. You're
Speaker 1: saying so that the hypodermic needles obviously are a form
Speaker 1: of waste in the city distributing that waste at the
Speaker 1: same time that they're banning the distribution of plastic straws,
Speaker 1: that they would say, obviously, you don't need a straw,
Speaker 1: you need a hypodermic needle, etc. But I see what
Speaker 1: you see where you're going with that, Sarah, it's buck.
Speaker 1: I love your show. Oh well, thank you, Sarah. I'm
Speaker 1: a teacher of thirteen years and at a public school,
Speaker 1: and I completely agree with your viewpoint of schools basically
Speaker 1: being a socialist entity. Here we go. The teachers know
Speaker 1: them right. It doesn't matter how hard you work or
Speaker 1: how great of a teacher you are. When a horrible
Speaker 1: teacher has the same number of years experience as a
Speaker 1: great teacher, they make exactly the same amount of money
Speaker 1: and there's no incentive to work hard. I keep getting
Speaker 1: more jaded each year I teach. Keep doing what you're doing.
Speaker 1: I keep telling everyone I know to listen to your show. Well, Sarah,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Really means a lot. Please do
Speaker 1: tell people listen to the show. Our podcast numbers last
Speaker 1: month we're jumping up a bit, which was just in
Speaker 1: response to me asking all of you to please tell
Speaker 1: people about the show. So that's great. Please do continue
Speaker 1: to spread the word. You guys are the best, the
Speaker 1: best you know, word of mouth that I can have,
Speaker 1: or from you guys who listened to the show, and
Speaker 1: gals of course whatever you know, everyone's allow to choose
Speaker 1: that the pronounced these days, guys, gals, whatever, whatever one's
Speaker 1: chosen nomenclature would be. And Sarah, Yeah, about about public schools,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is true from friends of mine who
Speaker 1: teaching in the public school system, and I've talked them
Speaker 1: about this and what you're telling me, this is the
Speaker 1: way that it is, and it is very much a
Speaker 1: socialist entity. And I really don't like the you know,
Speaker 1: I've had to I've sat down with teachers. I sat
Speaker 1: down with the president of the American Federation Teachers a
Speaker 1: few times, and I worked at the Hill, and it
Speaker 1: was just the same old wap talking points about how
Speaker 1: teachers just want to teach and it's just about teaching,
Speaker 1: and it's about the kids. I've got our future and
Speaker 1: teachers wanted to teach and the kids and our future,
Speaker 1: and okay, yeah, but like where are we spending all
Speaker 1: this money? Are why are outcomes on any better? Why
Speaker 1: are we not seeing test scores rise. Why are charter
Speaker 1: schools able to fix this problem in a way that
Speaker 1: public schools can't, even the public schools have greater resources, Like,
Speaker 1: that's the conversation that we should have. You know, why
Speaker 1: isn't parental involvement more a part of school curriculum? And
Speaker 1: I want to stay involved. I don't mean doing the
Speaker 1: homework with the kids, but you know, you know, parents
Speaker 1: need to be involved. And people like to think up,
Speaker 1: I dropped my kids at the school the school hands. No,
Speaker 1: the parents need to show up. They need to be engaged.
Speaker 1: You need to make sure the kid feels supported in
Speaker 1: the endeavors in the school. You know, there's an education
Speaker 1: process for parents as well. I don't mean education as
Speaker 1: it in the classroom necessarily, but learning about how to
Speaker 1: be supportive of their kids. And I don't know this
Speaker 1: from personal experience because I don't have any kids yet,
Speaker 1: But I know this from the teachers who have been
Speaker 1: in the trenches doing this stuff. And they'll tell you
Speaker 1: that parental involvement is an enormous factor in success or
Speaker 1: failure for kids, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, etc. Parental
Speaker 1: involvement really really matters. Here we go Tim but given
Speaker 1: the power and extend the cartels in Mexico, which were
Speaker 1: brought to light this week, how long before Mexico is
Speaker 1: considered a failed state? And if and when that happens,
Speaker 1: what would our plan be? Failed state across our borders
Speaker 1: a huge security risk and becomes an even easier entry
Speaker 1: point for terrorists. It's a fair question. I mean, Mexico
Speaker 1: is not yet a failed state because it does have
Speaker 1: a government apparatus that is largely still functional. And let's
Speaker 1: just remember that there are there are portions or parts
Speaker 1: of Mexico that are very actually quite safe. There are
Speaker 1: parts of Mexico that would not be problematic to go visit,
Speaker 1: you know, an interesting what really we'd have to think
Speaker 1: more about how do we define a failed state? You know,
Speaker 1: state that no longer has a functioning government or a
Speaker 1: government that can exercise its sovereignty enforced tracks and the
Speaker 1: rule of law. Is that what a failed state really is?
Speaker 1: We have to look into the specifics of the definition.
Speaker 1: Mexico is not yet a failed state, but the power
Speaker 1: of the cartels and the ability of the narco traffickers
Speaker 1: to take on the federal take on the Mexican federal
Speaker 1: government head on, and that's very concerning. That's something that
Speaker 1: we're going to have to have more of a policy
Speaker 1: focus on. I mean, Mexico is a bigger issue for
Speaker 1: US than Syria. By the way, no one ever seems
Speaker 1: to think about this, at least in the media, But
Speaker 1: Mexico and the cartels and the drug war much bigger
Speaker 1: day to day concern in our lives than Syria. All Right,
Speaker 1: I hope you've enjoyed the show. My friends, I love
Speaker 1: doing it. Producer Mark is going to miss you all.
Speaker 1: He sends you hugs. He's not always grouchy. Have a
Speaker 1: fantastic weekend. We will talk to you Monday. Shield's Eye