Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. America falls in love
Speaker 1: with a military super dog. A new witness emerges in
Speaker 1: the whole Ukraine gate fiasco. What happened to the whistleblower?
Speaker 1: By the way Trump and maximum immunity claims, Sean Spicer
Speaker 1: gets voted through California fires and utility company nonsense, China
Speaker 1: has smart toilets, and Trump Turnbury not really a thing.
Speaker 1: We got that and much more coming up on The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember no,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bucks. Back to the show, everybody, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being here. We have some things
Speaker 1: to get to today, although I do I promise that
Speaker 1: we're going to probably jump around more than usual because
Speaker 1: there's not that one dominating news story that Everburn's also
Speaker 1: focused on. I did want to take a moment just
Speaker 1: to say that the Internet was a flame alight. The
Speaker 1: Internet was on fire with all these photos of now
Speaker 1: they said they I've seen the name. I don't want
Speaker 1: to say the name because people are saying the name
Speaker 1: might not be officially the name, and but a dog
Speaker 1: that is credited with helping to chase down Abu Baker
Speaker 1: al Baghdaddy has taken the hearts, has won the hearts
Speaker 1: of the American people. There's a photo of that K nine,
Speaker 1: that K nine hero that's making the rounds all over
Speaker 1: the place, and it's one of these moments where I
Speaker 1: have to say, the American people love dogs so much,
Speaker 1: and I'm one of the American people who loves dogs
Speaker 1: so much that I'm not sure that it's rational. But
Speaker 1: I'm also sure that I don't care. Dogs are a gift.
Speaker 1: They're fantastic. Reminds me I probably need to get one,
Speaker 1: even though as a guy who lives solo, it's not
Speaker 1: that easy to take care of them. I also believe
Speaker 1: that it's likely that there will be a surge in
Speaker 1: ownership of Belgian Malinois and Dutch shepherds. Those are the
Speaker 1: two dogs that I think these days are most often
Speaker 1: now I'm not a canine handler, so any of you
Speaker 1: listening who know more about this, by all means let
Speaker 1: me know. But I've met plenty of people in the
Speaker 1: special operations community out in the field. Who those tend
Speaker 1: to be the dog breeds that they have. There's also
Speaker 1: German shepherds, obviously, but a lot of Belgian Malonois, a
Speaker 1: lot of Dutch shepherds, And I mean those things when
Speaker 1: you see them and they're well trained, they're like fur
Speaker 1: rockets with teeth, and they're incredibly good at what they do,
Speaker 1: tracking down bad guys, getting into tight space, is moving
Speaker 1: very quickly through buildings, tackling and grabbing the bad guys,
Speaker 1: even when they're armed. I think there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: spike in ownership of those dogs. I'm a little concerned
Speaker 1: that people at somebody who spent way too much of
Speaker 1: his childhood reading through the American Kennel Club book and
Speaker 1: learning all the different dog breeds and reading about their temperaments.
Speaker 1: If you get a bells in Malanma, you better know
Speaker 1: what you're doing with a dog because they require a
Speaker 1: firm hand, a master who establishes himself or herself as
Speaker 1: the alpha, and they are working dogs. I'm I'm just
Speaker 1: putting that X. I feel like people out I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: look at this dog. They're amazing. There there can be
Speaker 1: fantastic animals, no question about it. But you're not getting
Speaker 1: a pug, you know, where the pug gets a little
Speaker 1: out a lot and you're like, oh, little simy pug,
Speaker 1: Like this is a This is an animal that has
Speaker 1: a purpose, is bred for a purpose, and that purpose
Speaker 1: is to work to assist military law enforcement, to track
Speaker 1: and to hunt down perpetrators. So there was a little
Speaker 1: bit more fall it also yesterday from the media efforts
Speaker 1: to take away from what is clearly a big Trump
Speaker 1: national security victory. I know we spent a lot of
Speaker 1: times yesterday, so I won't get into it for very long.
Speaker 1: But one of my favorites was when there was this
Speaker 1: concern over why would President Trump not inform like Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi or Adam Schiff about the raid before it happened?
Speaker 1: And the truth is why, really, I'd put it in
Speaker 1: the other direction. Why would he? I know people would
Speaker 1: say that it's custom, but they keep saying the president's
Speaker 1: a trader, So I think there's a degree of ill
Speaker 1: will there that we'd have to recognize on both sides.
Speaker 1: But here's his answer. I mean, President Trump never want
Speaker 1: to back away from the media trying to corner him.
Speaker 1: Here's his answer to why they didn't tell Democrat leadership
Speaker 1: about the effort to the successful, hugely important raid against
Speaker 1: Abu Baker al Baghdatti playclip too please. Well, I guess
Speaker 1: the only thing is they were talking about why didn't
Speaker 1: I give the information to Adam Schiff and his committee?
Speaker 1: And the answerance because I think Adam Schiff is the
Speaker 1: biggest leaker in Washington. You know that, I know that
Speaker 1: we all know that. I do think a lot of
Speaker 1: people would agree that Adam Schiff is a huge leaker
Speaker 1: and a very dishonest and dishonorable guy. And of course
Speaker 1: the media went apoplectic over this thing. They were still
Speaker 1: so very very upset. How dare the president, the commander
Speaker 1: in chief make this decision without getting the thumbs up
Speaker 1: from not that she had to give a thumbs up,
Speaker 1: but but informing Nancy Pelosi beforehand. And then there was
Speaker 1: the continued shock that I think that some of the
Speaker 1: country had a lot of us expect nothing more than
Speaker 1: this from the Washington Post, but there was a degree
Speaker 1: of shock from some quarters over Wapouan Post saying that well,
Speaker 1: the whole Austere scholar obituary for Abu Baker all back Daddy,
Speaker 1: he was an Austere scholar, they claimed in the headline.
Speaker 1: It turns out his chief propaganda guy for the Islamic
Speaker 1: State was also taken out. So clearly the Special Operations
Speaker 1: community has a problem with Austere scholars. Our guys and
Speaker 1: jaysok are our seals and Delta and rangers. They really
Speaker 1: don't like Austere scholars in Syria. That's what we've found
Speaker 1: out in the last few days. But Kelly on Conway,
Speaker 1: who I think would accurately describe as fierce, she's fierce
Speaker 1: when she wants to be. She pointed out that would
Speaker 1: WAPPO make such an error if it were about I mean,
Speaker 1: I said this too, and this is the obvious way
Speaker 1: to illustrate the point. But it was funny to hear
Speaker 1: a senior White House advisor get into it as well,
Speaker 1: that if somebody from the White House haven't forbid passed
Speaker 1: away from natural causes, would the obituary in the Washington
Speaker 1: Post make any effort whatsoever to be fair, to be favorable,
Speaker 1: even to be respectful. No, of course, not play us seventeen.
Speaker 1: I just want to say this last thing on behalf
Speaker 1: of the president in the White House. This obituary was
Speaker 1: a disgrace. And I would ask the Washington Post close
Speaker 1: your eyes and pretend that al bag Daddy worked in
Speaker 1: the Trump White House and then go rewrite true obituary.
Speaker 1: I bet you wouldn't be as kind. Wow, al bag
Speaker 1: daddy worked in the White House. That would be a
Speaker 1: bigger a bigger problem for the bigger issue. Perhaps a
Speaker 1: bit of exaggeration, but it feels like not nearly enough.
Speaker 1: And now we move on today because they lost the
Speaker 1: battle to make this a problem about Trump's Oh no,
Speaker 1: there's one more thing where we keep hearing about how
Speaker 1: well he almost jeopardized the mission his pullout decision from Syria.
Speaker 1: We keep hearing that that Trump was was so reckless
Speaker 1: that this could have gone very bad, all because of Trump,
Speaker 1: even though I thought, isn't he the commander chief doesn't
Speaker 1: even get credit if the economy is terrible, doesn't they
Speaker 1: get the president and get credit for it or blame
Speaker 1: for it? And the same thing if it goes really
Speaker 1: well in a way that's not really directly linked to
Speaker 1: any one particular person. The answers, of course, we know
Speaker 1: this is the case. Presidents get more credit and more
Speaker 1: blamed than they are due. That's just the way. Things
Speaker 1: are true of generals of armies too, by the way,
Speaker 1: more credit than they deserve, more blame than they deserve,
Speaker 1: depending on the circumstances. But in this issue, on this issue,
Speaker 1: there are so many people in the media who have
Speaker 1: really no understanding whatsoever of the military that or how
Speaker 1: the military operates or functions. What will the military is
Speaker 1: capable of that this this line I was seeing even
Speaker 1: from some conservatives of oh, we would never be able
Speaker 1: to do the strike we did if Trump had had
Speaker 1: his way. Well, here's what. First of all, Trump did
Speaker 1: get his way, and that's where the strike happened. But
Speaker 1: here's General Mark Milly responding about the operational capabilities of
Speaker 1: the United States military to pull off something like the
Speaker 1: Abu Baker Bagh Daddy ray play sixteen. Can you explain
Speaker 1: how difficult this operation would have been if you didn't
Speaker 1: have troops or bass on the ground in Syria and
Speaker 1: in Iraq. Well, we do have video photos. Who are
Speaker 1: not prepared at this time to release those. They're going
Speaker 1: through a declassification process. I think what you'll see here
Speaker 1: in the coming days is we'll set up some operational
Speaker 1: and taxi level preefings by Central command, and you'll be
Speaker 1: provided some video and photos, etc. Of that been to
Speaker 1: carry out this operation if he didn't have troops on
Speaker 1: the ground. From an operational standpoint, the United States military
Speaker 1: can strike any target anywhere, anytime. I want to put
Speaker 1: that at the top of the show, just as a reminder, like,
Speaker 1: just have that as part of our opening. General Milliye
Speaker 1: is saying, from an operational standpoint, we can hit anyone anywhere, anytime. Yeah, America.
Speaker 1: So that was a good answer to the question, I think,
Speaker 1: and hopefully we'll silence a little bit of the bad
Speaker 1: faith criticism that's out there. Oh, speaking of bad faith criticism,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer noted counter terrorism expert also wanted to job,
Speaker 1: we're going to get to this Ukraine testimony and more
Speaker 1: people opining over what a transcript means that we've already
Speaker 1: seen and discussed at nauseum what the transcript says. But
Speaker 1: oh gosh, well someone else's opinion on this, Like we're
Speaker 1: really supposed to care. But here's what Chuck Schumer noted,
Speaker 1: counterterrorism expert, have you on the sarcasm there thinks about
Speaker 1: the defeat of ISIS play fourteen? Please, we still need
Speaker 1: a plan for the enduring defeat of isis not gone.
Speaker 1: We must include details on how we will deal with
Speaker 1: escape prisoners. Nobody knows. These are evil people that want
Speaker 1: to hurt us, and they can escape from the prisons,
Speaker 1: and Lord knows where they'll go, but we know a
Speaker 1: good chunk of them will want to do damage to
Speaker 1: our homeland. So far, the administration unfortunately has articulated no
Speaker 1: coherent plan. Its top official, Secretary Pompeio, Secretary Espert, unable
Speaker 1: to find time to even brief Congress. You all likely
Speaker 1: could because they have nothing real to say, no plan.
Speaker 1: What was the coherent plan, Chuck Schumer? When President Obama
Speaker 1: was running things and about a half a million people
Speaker 1: died in Syria, a massive terrorist group took over hundreds
Speaker 1: and hundreds of miles of territory and was enslaving, mutilating,
Speaker 1: and murdering at ill and engaging in external plotting, inspiring
Speaker 1: attacks against European allies and against the American homeland. What
Speaker 1: was the Obaba administration coherent plan? Oh? I remember, don't
Speaker 1: do stupid stuff, and we're supposed to think that was smart.
Speaker 1: That was a brilliant strategic slogan, don't do stupid and
Speaker 1: they didn't say stuff. By the way, it's almost like
Speaker 1: everything now is just turned partisan for the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: so nothing else really matters. You do start to get
Speaker 1: that sense, don't you, Speaking of which the impeachment proceedings,
Speaker 1: and yet another person coming forward to tell us what
Speaker 1: we've already the facts that we already know, but to
Speaker 1: give another spin on it. Oh, there's a bit of
Speaker 1: a trouble bubbling up over this one. Who exactly is
Speaker 1: this official? Former National Security Aid Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
Speaker 1: We will get into what he says about how old
Speaker 1: now the walls are closing in on Trump. Now Trump
Speaker 1: has gone too far. Now it's all, oh, no, no,
Speaker 1: none of that is true. None of that is true.
Speaker 1: But they never grow tired of this. The inmates and
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party took over the asylum a long time ago.
Speaker 1: They do the same thing and expect the different result
Speaker 1: and don't think that it's crazy. And so here we
Speaker 1: are talking more about this phone call with President Trump
Speaker 1: and the leader of Ukraine. We will get into this
Speaker 1: in a second. The New York Times headline is supposed
Speaker 1: to send shivers down the spines of people throughout the
Speaker 1: Trump's supporting world official who heard Trump's Ukraine call reported
Speaker 1: his concerns. This is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vinmann, And now
Speaker 1: is where we have to start this by saying, yes,
Speaker 1: he served honorably, Yes he's a Purple Heart recipient, and
Speaker 1: we thank him for his military service. That does not
Speaker 1: mean and the media knows this, but this is a
Speaker 1: very dishonest game they like to play that his opinion
Speaker 1: about what is a clearly political matter holds any more
Speaker 1: weight than yours, or mind or anybody else's. That he
Speaker 1: has expertise in Ukraine policy does not matter. This is
Speaker 1: a question of whether or not the President of the
Speaker 1: United States did anything illegal in his phone call, and
Speaker 1: the answer is most decidedly no. And then beyond that,
Speaker 1: to the president of the United States do anything that
Speaker 1: was unbecoming of the commander in chief? And the answer
Speaker 1: to that is the voters decide. I don't care what
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel Vinman thinks about the phone call. It does
Speaker 1: not sway me one bit. But it is supposed to.
Speaker 1: He quote plans to tell about the way I read
Speaker 1: his testimony this morning. I keep wondering this testimony gets
Speaker 1: leaked out from all these people that are speaking behind
Speaker 1: closed doors, almost like this has all been orchestrated by
Speaker 1: Democrat and this is a sham and a scam. In fact,
Speaker 1: I believe this morning I saw Congressman Mark Meadows sharing
Speaker 1: on Twitter that this may be moved from the Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee to the Intel Committee. It's ano they're going to
Speaker 1: shift committees, I mean the shifty shift. They're just going
Speaker 1: to play as many games as they can to control
Speaker 1: the process. And in fact, one reason why they haven't
Speaker 1: established a vote on the impeachment process. Yesterday they were
Speaker 1: saying Nancy Pelosi was about to do it. Today they're saying,
Speaker 1: oh no, Pelosi says there is no impeachment process vote
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen. I mean is that they're not really
Speaker 1: sure because it has none of this has anything to
Speaker 1: do with what is fair or ethical or decent. This
Speaker 1: is all about what maximizes political benefit for Democrats and
Speaker 1: helps them the most in twenty twenty against Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Everything else is not a secondary, a non consideration. They
Speaker 1: simply and truly do not care. And so now we
Speaker 1: have the details of this, and much has been made
Speaker 1: of VINMN, according to the New York Times, trying to
Speaker 1: give advice to the Ukrainians about how to deal with
Speaker 1: the United States government, and people have looked at this
Speaker 1: and said, what the heck is that all about. You
Speaker 1: should never be helping a foreign government figure out what
Speaker 1: America is trying to do, especially if you're a senior
Speaker 1: American government official. But this is now a repetition of
Speaker 1: what we've already been told, which is that people don't
Speaker 1: like Trump's Ukraine. People that had set up a Ukraine
Speaker 1: policy on the previous administration, and those who have been
Speaker 1: working for the National Security apparatus for many years on
Speaker 1: this issue didn't like some of the most President Trump
Speaker 1: was it was making. It's from the New York Times.
Speaker 1: Quoteman will testify that he watched with alarm as outside
Speaker 1: influencers began pushing a false narrative about Ukraine that was
Speaker 1: countered to the consensus view of American national security officials
Speaker 1: and harmful to United States interests. End quote, guess what,
Speaker 1: Lieutenant COLONL. Vineman, I don't care that you think that
Speaker 1: that's like your opinion, man, doesn't matter. You're allowed to
Speaker 1: share it, sure, but this is not a high crime
Speaker 1: or misdemeanor issue. This is a you don't like what
Speaker 1: the president was doing issue, and Democrats have so conflated
Speaker 1: these two things that they really believe if they're very upset,
Speaker 1: I mean, if they're like really really really upset about something,
Speaker 1: then it doesn't really matter if it's not actually a crime,
Speaker 1: because they're angry enough about it that it should be
Speaker 1: a crime. And I think that's, in summary form, what
Speaker 1: this whole impeachment thing is all about. They hate Trump
Speaker 1: so much that their hatred self must be evidence of
Speaker 1: the high crimes and misdemeanors constitutionally mandated. But it's not.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show team. So continuing
Speaker 1: on with this theme of the latest, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: this new addition to the whistle blower. Wait, whatever happened
Speaker 1: to the whistle blower? Why is it that the whistle
Speaker 1: blower is not going to testify now? Just the written
Speaker 1: statement No, no testimony from the whistle blower. Huh, Because
Speaker 1: I remember in the early days of this when it
Speaker 1: was all about truth and justice in the American way
Speaker 1: according to Congressman Shift, I remember that it was of
Speaker 1: course necessary for the whistleblower to testify. But then they
Speaker 1: figured out the whistle Blower had coordinated with Adam Shift
Speaker 1: before the complaint was made public, and that sort of
Speaker 1: look kind of bad, almost like this was motivated by
Speaker 1: partisanship and has nothing to do with actual crimes or
Speaker 1: misdemeanors as reference in the constant, or high crimes and
Speaker 1: misdemeaners as reference the Constitution, or just i'm crimes, which
Speaker 1: was initially alleged as well. Remember that I haven't forgotten.
Speaker 1: This is the game they like to play. Oh, they
Speaker 1: throw out some criminal charge, and everybody who knows anything
Speaker 1: about the law or can just read a legal text goes,
Speaker 1: that's not true. That's not a criminal. You can't charge
Speaker 1: the president with a campaign finance violation because he was
Speaker 1: using the pressure of his office to get an outcome
Speaker 1: that would benefit him politically. Because any president who uses
Speaker 1: the pressure of his office with a foreign counterpart would
Speaker 1: be getting on a major policy, you should be getting
Speaker 1: some kind of benefit politically. Doing anything smart for the
Speaker 1: president should not be illegal, which is effectively what that
Speaker 1: interpretation of the law would mean. Up, the president just
Speaker 1: signed this treaty going to help him at re election time,
Speaker 1: clearly getting a foreign benefit from that counterpart or a
Speaker 1: benefit from that foreign counterpart. This is absurd. That was
Speaker 1: the legal theory. Notice that you see this recurring in
Speaker 1: mal luments, stretching that beyond comprehension. Oh, diplomats have bought
Speaker 1: cheeseburgers a Trump hotel. They must own Trump's foreign policy.
Speaker 1: This is absurd. But this is really the case. They
Speaker 1: make the usage of the Logan Act, the Logan Act
Speaker 1: in order to have that interview with General Flynn entrapman
Speaker 1: interview with the FBI. No one thought seriously they were
Speaker 1: going to bring a Logan Act charge. But see they
Speaker 1: use the pretense of a legal concern in order to
Speaker 1: bring in the apparatus of the state, and then poke
Speaker 1: around and the process becomes the punishment. Democrats excel at
Speaker 1: this and they hate that it would be used in
Speaker 1: the other direction. Oh no, you're not allowed to investigate.
Speaker 1: Even if there's a legitimate pretext for the investigation, or
Speaker 1: rather a legitimate basis for the investigation, You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to do that. We have more here. This is all
Speaker 1: about Colonel Vinman's policy concerns. Again, I simply do not
Speaker 1: care what his policy concerns are. I don't even find
Speaker 1: them particularly interesting. He wants to do things one way.
Speaker 1: Trump wants to do things another way. Trump's the commander
Speaker 1: in chief. The NSC staff is not there to subvert
Speaker 1: the will or the policy directives of the President of
Speaker 1: the United States. I know they think they are. I
Speaker 1: know the State Department thinks they are. I know all
Speaker 1: these people that sit in boring Beijewald government offices all
Speaker 1: across the DC metropolitan area believe that they are supposed
Speaker 1: to thwart the will of the president because they know better.
Speaker 1: But that's not true. That's not how our system works.
Speaker 1: That is not why they are sitting in those chairs.
Speaker 1: And yet here we are New York Times continues. Colonel
Speaker 1: Vineman was concerned, oh no, after he learned that the
Speaker 1: White House Budget Office had taken the unusual step of
Speaker 1: withholding the three ninety one million dollars package of security
Speaker 1: systons for Ukraine that have been approved by Congress. They
Speaker 1: got the money, folks, nothing happened. They keep on saying this, like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, Ukraine, they were left on the front
Speaker 1: lines without any without any bullets, without these security assistance
Speaker 1: went through. And the Ukrainians during this whole ruckus that
Speaker 1: we're talking about here, didn't even know that there was
Speaker 1: a hold a review placed on that security assistance. So
Speaker 1: how could you have been using the security aid to
Speaker 1: force them to do something that would be illicit? And
Speaker 1: I'm not even agreeing that it is a listit necessarily
Speaker 1: I think there's a legitimate basis to investigate what the
Speaker 1: Bidens were doing in Ukraine. I'm sorry, I know that
Speaker 1: makes me a crazy person, even on the right. For
Speaker 1: some people these days, I don't care. You know, is
Speaker 1: this a little bit like cancel culture? Some conservatives have
Speaker 1: figured out that the only way to begin to bring
Speaker 1: things back to normalcies to say you're going to cancel.
Speaker 1: We're gonna cancel, You're gonna have these crazy rules. You
Speaker 1: have to live by these crazy rules. And if investigations
Speaker 1: that are at least able to appear legitimate are going
Speaker 1: to be a tool that Democrats throw at Republicans all
Speaker 1: the time. If Republicans have an even more legitimate basis
Speaker 1: for an investigation that just happens to negatively affects some
Speaker 1: Democrat politicians, guess what too bad? Or we can just
Speaker 1: allow one side to weaponize the law and have no
Speaker 1: response to it whatsoever, which has been the reality. I mean,
Speaker 1: we can go back to the Romney school of fighting
Speaker 1: against the left. Just keep getting smacked around and say, well,
Speaker 1: but I'm really ethical when I'm getting slapped around, I'm
Speaker 1: really a nice person while they are running roughshot over
Speaker 1: the Constitution and taking away the rights of the people
Speaker 1: that I said I would protect in my elected office.
Speaker 1: But whoops, No, I don't want to be mean. Quote.
Speaker 1: At least one previous witnesses testified that mister Trump directed
Speaker 1: the aid be frozen until he could secure a commitment
Speaker 1: from Zelenski to announce an investigation of the bidens. While
Speaker 1: Colonel Vineman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials,
Speaker 1: some of whom have already testified. He was in a
Speaker 1: unique position because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his
Speaker 1: family when he was a child. He's fluent in Ukrainian
Speaker 1: and Russian. Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how
Speaker 1: to deal with mister Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.
Speaker 1: Giuliani's an American working at the behests of the president.
Speaker 1: I know that Libs and Democrats hate this, don't like this,
Speaker 1: reject this doesn't change anything. Julian is an American and
Speaker 1: he's the president's personal lawyer. He is working on a
Speaker 1: directive from the President of the United States, and we're
Speaker 1: at the direction of the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: and this guy is helping the Ukrainians to deal with him. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not throwing around people have been talking about about
Speaker 1: dual loyalty because I don't care where a person grew
Speaker 1: up or where they're from. That that is irrelevant to me.
Speaker 1: Why would you be assisting a foreign counterpart in a
Speaker 1: process of handling and negotiating with an American interlocutor who
Speaker 1: was working for the President of the United States. Well,
Speaker 1: what kind of authority does want to have to do that?
Speaker 1: And why would one do that? I think we all know.
Speaker 1: And this is why when they say it's unfair to
Speaker 1: call this person a never trumper, he has a policy
Speaker 1: dispute with the President of United States. He was very,
Speaker 1: very worried about the directive to start an investigation of Biden. Oh,
Speaker 1: can we just keep two things in mind here as
Speaker 1: we continue to get hammered with this This really just
Speaker 1: an endless propaganda narrative. The AID was not cut off.
Speaker 1: The investigation of Biden didn't as far as we know,
Speaker 1: did not even happen, did not even start. So what
Speaker 1: are we also worked up about here? Again? You know,
Speaker 1: this reminds me of how people say, oh, Trump obstructed
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion investigation, except he could have shut it
Speaker 1: down any day he wanted to. So he didn't shut it.
Speaker 1: He didn't obstruct it. Oh, but he wanted he said
Speaker 1: he wanted to obstruct it. This is pathetic, and we
Speaker 1: keep running back to this over and over again. We're
Speaker 1: going to punish the president of the United States for
Speaker 1: thought crime against liberal pieties. I don't think so. Look,
Speaker 1: this is not going to change anything. This is not
Speaker 1: going to shift any public support I think for or
Speaker 1: against the president. I believe that there's there are two
Speaker 1: forces that are pushing the Democrats into this, or that
Speaker 1: make the Democrats think that they have to do this.
Speaker 1: One of them is that their base is insane, has
Speaker 1: really lost its mind. I mean, the left wing base
Speaker 1: is completely crazy and they demand this. So there are
Speaker 1: some Democrats in Congress are saying, look, we got we
Speaker 1: got to help out those in crazy town here who
Speaker 1: need to see some action or else they're going to
Speaker 1: flip out it. So that's one part of it. So
Speaker 1: they're just playcating the craziest elements the Occasio Cortes wing
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party. That's one aspect, and the other
Speaker 1: is I do think there are some Democrats who in
Speaker 1: Congress who have convinced themselves that Trump is such an
Speaker 1: existential threat to the United States. Whatever they think that
Speaker 1: even means, I don't even know how they could. But
Speaker 1: the nuclear war that he hasn't started, he hasn't started
Speaker 1: any war unlike his predecessors. What exactly is this grand
Speaker 1: threat that Trump poses to the Republic saying mean things
Speaker 1: to smug, overpaid, whiney journalists for the media establishment. That's
Speaker 1: a massive threat to this country. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. But I
Speaker 1: do believe there are members of Congress who think that
Speaker 1: anything that they have to do to harm this president's
Speaker 1: reelection prospects is justified, and even if that means manipulating
Speaker 1: this impeachment process so that it makes a mockery of
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives, which I already think they've already managed.
Speaker 1: That they have dramatically undermined any public confidence that Congress
Speaker 1: is a place where serious people gather to do serious things.
Speaker 1: It's impeachment so far as a sham, it's a clown show.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous, And yet here we are, Here we are,
Speaker 1: It's gonna just push on. It looks now like they
Speaker 1: won't get the consensus opinion, which who knows what that
Speaker 1: even is. But the media and the Democrats are all
Speaker 1: saying to each other that looks like this will extend
Speaker 1: into the new year. That also, though, means that if
Speaker 1: the Senate gets dragged into this, then you will have
Speaker 1: Democrat senators who should be out there on the campaign
Speaker 1: trail for the primary, you know klobaschar and Warren and
Speaker 1: Booker and you know good on the list, who might
Speaker 1: all of a sudden have some duties in the Senate
Speaker 1: having to do with an impeachment trial. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: know if they think that that's a good trade off,
Speaker 1: but I would guess it's so Democrats haven't even figured
Speaker 1: out what the strategy is here yet. They just know
Speaker 1: they feel like they've got something, and like a terrier
Speaker 1: with a bone, they're just not going to let it go.
Speaker 1: They're just gonna keep shaking and shaking and hope that
Speaker 1: something happens. That's pretty much the Democrats strategy just keep shaking,
Speaker 1: just keep doing crazy stuff, and see if they can
Speaker 1: finally break through the great Wall of trumps Um. I
Speaker 1: don't think they're going to get there, but they're going
Speaker 1: to keep trying, folks, because their policy proposals certainly aren't
Speaker 1: going to get it done, and the candidates they're putting
Speaker 1: forward aren't going to get it done. So impeachment is
Speaker 1: their X factor. I can understand why the President doesn't
Speaker 1: want these witnesses come forward. What I find harder to
Speaker 1: understand is why the Republican members of this body, in
Speaker 1: this House don't want these witnesses to come forward. Where
Speaker 1: is their duty to this institution, Where is their duty
Speaker 1: to the constitution? Where is their respect for the rule
Speaker 1: of law? Where's that shift's respect for the rule of law? Well,
Speaker 1: we know that was tossed out, tossed out the window
Speaker 1: a long time ago. Doesn't really matter, does it. Of course,
Speaker 1: now you're going to have a response to this democrat
Speaker 1: weaponization of a process that no one even really knows.
Speaker 1: They're making it up as they go along, acting like
Speaker 1: it's a legal process, mind you, when it's just clearly
Speaker 1: a political process. They can figure out whatever the whatever
Speaker 1: they want to do on any given day and then
Speaker 1: just institute that. But I would note that there's a
Speaker 1: I do have a real concern about something it comes
Speaker 1: up as a result of this. Of course, the president
Speaker 1: has no choice and would be foolish if he were
Speaker 1: to just go along with all this stuff. So he
Speaker 1: has no choice but to fight against and his legal
Speaker 1: team in the White House these efforts to going into
Speaker 1: an election, in your mind, you try to use Congress
Speaker 1: as some bat with which to beat down the chances
Speaker 1: of a reelection for President Trump. So they should fight
Speaker 1: it at every stage, and they should make this as
Speaker 1: difficult as possible because there's no good faith in the process,
Speaker 1: So that should be responded to in turn. Now there's
Speaker 1: also the concern, though about what the president's lawyers are
Speaker 1: asserting as a result of this. The Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: has a piece here, Trump Attorney, a Trump Attorney's assert
Speaker 1: immunity from a broad sweep of laws. And when you
Speaker 1: look over the documents and the filings that Trump's legal
Speaker 1: team has put together in response to this concerted effort
Speaker 1: from Democrats to destroy his presidency, you have a lot
Speaker 1: of a very broad swath of documents that are all
Speaker 1: more or less saying the same thing, which is that
Speaker 1: Trump is quote immune to civil law suits, judicial orders,
Speaker 1: criminal investigations, or congressional probes. The journal rights here. Those
Speaker 1: arguments have become even more aggressive as mister Trump faces
Speaker 1: numerous legal threats, including a possible impeachment in Congress, a
Speaker 1: New York state prosecute who are prosecutor who has subpoened
Speaker 1: his tax records as part of a criminal probe? And
Speaker 1: a welter of civil lawsuits. They are trying lawfare against
Speaker 1: this president personally. It's not the administration. They're going after
Speaker 1: the President United States personally, but this in response, now,
Speaker 1: lawyers will often take a maximalist position on behalf of
Speaker 1: their clients. You know, if you go into a divorce proceeding,
Speaker 1: your lawyer is probably going to say, well, my client
Speaker 1: deserves full custody of the kids and all the merrill
Speaker 1: assets and should get spousals aboard, doesn't matter what the
Speaker 1: real and you start the negotiation from there. For obvious reasons.
Speaker 1: In this context, when you have all these different entities
Speaker 1: that are trying to personally legally attack the president, that says,
Speaker 1: while he's the president, I can understand why his lawyers
Speaker 1: are saying you don't need essentially, you don't even have
Speaker 1: standing for this, You don't even have the grounds to
Speaker 1: bring this lawsuit against the president, that he has a
Speaker 1: de facto immunity from all of this stuff while he's president.
Speaker 1: That said, that then does result in some of what
Speaker 1: we've already seen, which is people saying or lawyers on
Speaker 1: behalf of the president making the claim that he could
Speaker 1: in fact shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not get prosecuted.
Speaker 1: This has now become a point of legal contention amongst
Speaker 1: some and you even had Mayor Bill de Blasio who said, no,
Speaker 1: we would arrest him in New York City even if
Speaker 1: and can you imagine that, by the way, what happens
Speaker 1: What happens if I just if we're theoretically playing out
Speaker 1: this circumstances at the President United States were to shoot somebody,
Speaker 1: and then the local police, which is really just an
Speaker 1: extension of state police powers, but you know, local police
Speaker 1: here in New York wanted to make an arrest. Would
Speaker 1: Secret Service if the Secret Service was told the President
Speaker 1: was under threat from local I mean, this starts to
Speaker 1: get crazy, right, it turns into a Tom Clancy novel
Speaker 1: or something or that scene at the end of the
Speaker 1: movie The Siege, which I actually think is an underrated
Speaker 1: movie for what it is, with Denzel Washington and Annette Benning,
Speaker 1: where you have US military and FBI agents all drawing
Speaker 1: down on each other because the rogue Bruce willis, who's
Speaker 1: a rogue colonel I think, not a general is doing
Speaker 1: bad stuff and the FBI wants to arrest him, and
Speaker 1: then he tells his guys and they all they all
Speaker 1: have that standoff at the end. But I have to say,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's fascinating to see the legal back
Speaker 1: end forth here over whether or not a president can
Speaker 1: in fact be indicted for anything. The President's position right
Speaker 1: now is nope, he cannot. We will be made to
Speaker 1: revisit this, my friends. This is not going to go away.
Speaker 1: He was a sick and depraved man and now he's dead.
Speaker 1: He's dead. He's dead as a doornail. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of ways that one could describe the death of
Speaker 1: Baghdaddy and who Abubakar al Baghdaddy was. That it really turned,
Speaker 1: It really turns into a competition to find the most
Speaker 1: the most clear put down of who this individual was.
Speaker 1: Language that really conveys what a disgrace and what a
Speaker 1: dehumanizing and evil piece of You know, you want to
Speaker 1: go to the profane. I'll just say it. You want
Speaker 1: to start dropping curses when you're talking about a guy
Speaker 1: like this. I get that, And that's the normal feeling
Speaker 1: that all of us would have somebody who would do this,
Speaker 1: somebody who would keep sex slave, somebody who would murder
Speaker 1: men and women, children, have the Mexican you to have
Speaker 1: them tortured. All these the most horrible things imaginable. And
Speaker 1: by the way back, Daddy would have done it to
Speaker 1: millions of people if he could have remembered that. You know,
Speaker 1: albib Baker, albug Daddy, if he had a nuke to
Speaker 1: set off a New York City, he would do it tomorrow. Well,
Speaker 1: he won't be doing anything tomorrow except burning in hell.
Speaker 1: But there aren't. Some people who, as we've been discussing,
Speaker 1: were distracted from this obvious truth of Albibaker al Baghdaddy
Speaker 1: because to them, the bigger concern, the bigger enemy than
Speaker 1: the Islamic State is clearly Donald Trump. And this is
Speaker 1: a malady that has been on the left for a
Speaker 1: long time. Right, the bigger concern than al Qaeda was
Speaker 1: George Bush for a lot of liberals in America for
Speaker 1: a long time. I remember I was in the CIA
Speaker 1: during the Bush administration, and a lot of people were
Speaker 1: much more worried about Bush than they were about Sam.
Speaker 1: They were about the Taliban, al Qaeda, you name it.
Speaker 1: The real enemy was Bush, or the real worry was
Speaker 1: was Bush and his foreign policy. And this is from
Speaker 1: me of something that we have seen from the Trump
Speaker 1: administration that I think is very important. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of things about Trump that will last long after
Speaker 1: he's out of office, hopefully in twenty twenty four. But
Speaker 1: one of my favorites is that he has managed to
Speaker 1: expose the media and liberals and Democrats in a way
Speaker 1: that nobody else had before, because they dropped the pretense
Speaker 1: that they often hide behind. They drop from behind their
Speaker 1: hiding places and oh, I'm just an objective journalist, or oh,
Speaker 1: I'm just a government a faithful government servant who would
Speaker 1: never ever try to take politics into my own hands,
Speaker 1: use the power that I'm given to execute a very
Speaker 1: specific mission of the federal government, and do something else
Speaker 1: with that. Oh never, good heavens. And then we had
Speaker 1: Comy and Clapper and Brennan and you struck and pay
Speaker 1: age and you know, just go down the whole list.
Speaker 1: N CNN just making a mockery of itself on the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, The New York Times, fall stories, fake stories,
Speaker 1: having a fire journalists because they write fake stuff about
Speaker 1: the president, burning sources to write something nasty about the president,
Speaker 1: some minor news item somewhere. I mean, just just no integrity,
Speaker 1: no ethics, just just throwing it all out the window
Speaker 1: because resistance is all that matters. And that's been very illuminating,
Speaker 1: that's been really worthwhile for us as a country. We
Speaker 1: will not forget it. I will not forget it. I mean.
Speaker 1: The two greatest clarifiers of media bias in the last decade,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, our Twitter, because now we have journalists
Speaker 1: who at eight o'clock in the morning go like ha
Speaker 1: ha ha lol, Donald Trump is a moron, and then
Speaker 1: at eight o'clock at night are on TV. Tonight Donald
Speaker 1: Trump destroyed the Constitution. Again. I'm just an objective journalist here,
Speaker 1: just telling you the objective truth. Don't don't pay attention
Speaker 1: to my haha. Trump is a more on tweet. They
Speaker 1: do this all the time. So that's one part of it,
Speaker 1: but the others also just the Trump himself. The existence
Speaker 1: of Trump has I think heightened that that phenomenon on
Speaker 1: Twitter and elsewhere. They just can't help themselves. They hate
Speaker 1: this guy so much that they make errors. They get
Speaker 1: so angry about Trump that they're not as conniving, they're
Speaker 1: not as tactically sound in their propaganda as they were
Speaker 1: in the past. And I think that's been very useful.
Speaker 1: The one part of that that I have to say
Speaker 1: is surprising, and this is what has made me get
Speaker 1: in this frame of mind, is what he has shown
Speaker 1: us about many conservatives too. You see in the early
Speaker 1: days of Never Trump and there were people who were
Speaker 1: posted Trump during the primary, and I understand why, and
Speaker 1: I had my concerns about Trump during the primary too,
Speaker 1: did not have any concerns. As soon as he was
Speaker 1: the nominee. He was my guy, full stop. But there
Speaker 1: have been there has been this movement of never Trumpers
Speaker 1: who initially for about the first two years of the
Speaker 1: Trump presidency, we're holding themselves up as the true idealists
Speaker 1: of the conservative movement. They were the real right wing,
Speaker 1: true believers in a sense, because they were adhering to
Speaker 1: the principles that everybody else had abandoned because of this
Speaker 1: reality TV barbarian who had taken over the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: That was the basic narrative. But what we've really seen
Speaker 1: or that many of the not all of them, I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna put them on it, but many of the
Speaker 1: loudest voices in that category have in fact now made
Speaker 1: common cause with Democrats, vote for Democrats, want Democrat policies
Speaker 1: to get through, have switched teams, are the definition politically
Speaker 1: of a turncoat, and no longer clinging to the fiction
Speaker 1: that they're the true conservatives. So in a sense, Trump
Speaker 1: has brought out the truth of many people who were
Speaker 1: formerly leading voices of the conservative establishment, people like Bill Crystal,
Speaker 1: people like Max Boots, people who I used to have
Speaker 1: on this show sometimes as guests, some of whom I'm
Speaker 1: still reasonably friendly with, so I will try to refrain
Speaker 1: from bringing up their names on air just out of
Speaker 1: personal loyalty. But I always tell you that my personal
Speaker 1: loyalties do interfere with my analysis, as in, my friends
Speaker 1: are off limits for my show, and that's just a
Speaker 1: point of honor that I maintain. You can disagree with
Speaker 1: that some people would, but that's just I'm honest with
Speaker 1: you about it. But an amazing example of this, a stark, wow,
Speaker 1: punch you in the face kind of example of exactly
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. Max Boot who is not a
Speaker 1: friend of mine, who wears a fedora un ironically in
Speaker 1: his main photos on Twitter and stuff, which just it's
Speaker 1: it's pretty stunning. And he's a surly fellow, and I
Speaker 1: think also increasingly an emotionally unwell fellow. But I can't
Speaker 1: prove that. I'm just basically on my limited dealings with
Speaker 1: him and what I see on TV. But he wrote
Speaker 1: a column of The Washington Post, which also has just
Speaker 1: made a complete fool of itself in this bag Daddy
Speaker 1: process in which he wrote this is in a column quote.
Speaker 1: The assertion that Bagdaddy died as a coward was in
Speaker 1: any case contradicted by the fact that, rather than be captured,
Speaker 1: he blew himself up end quote. So in a column
Speaker 1: in the second large or third largest newspaper in the country.
Speaker 1: I think the Washington Post is the third largest, deal
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's close to it, probably the second
Speaker 1: most esteemed liberal newspaper after the New York Times. But
Speaker 1: in a column that he had to know was going
Speaker 1: to be read by a fair amount of people. Max Boot,
Speaker 1: driven by his ferocious trump hatred and obvious narcissism and
Speaker 1: hurt feelings that no longer being particularly important, not the
Speaker 1: way that he thought he used to be. He no
Speaker 1: longer has a political party around him that he feels
Speaker 1: he can direct, he has an important place in There
Speaker 1: is a selfishness that has been exposed for many, not all,
Speaker 1: many never Trumpers who have gone so far in their
Speaker 1: anti trumpism that they actively work to assist the other side.
Speaker 1: And now they can't hide from that anymore, and they
Speaker 1: also make fools of themselves. They can't hide from that either.
Speaker 1: Why would anyone think it appropriate, even for a moment,
Speaker 1: to suggest that Bagdaddy suicide himself and three of his
Speaker 1: own children with a suicide vest means that he's not
Speaker 1: a coward who would think that first of all? And
Speaker 1: then who would write that out? Who would think that
Speaker 1: they should write it out and then submitted under their
Speaker 1: own name to a newspaper and not understand what the
Speaker 1: consequences of that would be. The buffoonery here from Boot
Speaker 1: is stunning, except you have to understand this is an
Speaker 1: emotional an emotional response for him, because anything that is
Speaker 1: good for a Trump, he feels like it's bad for him.
Speaker 1: It's all personal. A lot of never Trumpers, it's all personal.
Speaker 1: They're not important anymore. They got used to being important
Speaker 1: within a certain set of the American right. They got
Speaker 1: used to being celebrated and everyone listening to them at everybody,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden when people started to
Speaker 1: question either some of their ideas or question their inability
Speaker 1: to see what many of the rest of us scene
Speaker 1: about Trump, which is not that Trump is perfect. I
Speaker 1: don't think Trump is perfect at all. I think that
Speaker 1: Trump has made plenty of mistakes. I think he's got
Speaker 1: plenty of personality flaws that are pretty shocking at times.
Speaker 1: I don't sit here telling you that he's beyond reproach
Speaker 1: at all. In fact, I think it's important we should
Speaker 1: criticize Trump more on the let's say trillion dollars deficit
Speaker 1: we're running this year. On some of you right and say, buck,
Speaker 1: you can't criticize him on this, or he's trying to
Speaker 1: build a wall, or he's not trying hard enough. But
Speaker 1: that's a long way criticizing somebody for not doing well enough.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a difference between a coach who's
Speaker 1: trying to encourage his player on the field versus people
Speaker 1: in the stands. We're saying, you stink, get out the game.
Speaker 1: That's what never Trump became really from the beginning. And
Speaker 1: then we find out not only are the yelling at Trump,
Speaker 1: you stink, get out of the game, but they were
Speaker 1: secretly rooting for the other side the whole time. Wow,
Speaker 1: I don't think we should listen to them anymore about
Speaker 1: game strategy if that's going to be their approach. Boot
Speaker 1: had to walk this back, by the way, But he's
Speaker 1: such a surly and smug fellow. We talked about immigration
Speaker 1: once when I was on Rising, and he just didn't
Speaker 1: know what he was talking about. He came on TV
Speaker 1: figures I've written, I've written some books that were well
Speaker 1: reviewed on the history of warfare, and therefore I know
Speaker 1: about immigration. And so he came on TV and said
Speaker 1: some stupid things like walls don't work, and everybody knows
Speaker 1: that false. That's not true. Walls do work, and anybody
Speaker 1: who knows anything about the boarder knows the walls work.
Speaker 1: So there's that. He did have to add this little
Speaker 1: little note to his piece quoted. An earlier version of
Speaker 1: this column included a sentence questioning whether Trump was right
Speaker 1: to call back Daddy a coward because he blew himself up.
Speaker 1: The line was removed because it unintentionally conveyed the impression
Speaker 1: that I considered back Daddy courageous. Well, that is kind
Speaker 1: of what he said when he says someone's not a
Speaker 1: coward because they blew himself up. I mean kind of
Speaker 1: saying that they're not a coward. So I don't know
Speaker 1: what else to say about that other than trump. De
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome is a powerful drug, and some people take
Speaker 1: way too much of it, and we see the results
Speaker 1: of it now. So we have I think, greater clarity
Speaker 1: in many ways about who is who in the political
Speaker 1: discussion right now than we've ever had before because they
Speaker 1: can't help themselves. Trump is the great clarifier in that sense. Sure,
Speaker 1: they'll always talk about how he polarizes things and he
Speaker 1: makes it more difficult to have certain civil conversations with
Speaker 1: the other side. Yeah, but he also lets us know
Speaker 1: who really wants what and who stands for what in
Speaker 1: the political debate in this country. And I think that
Speaker 1: in itself is especially worthwhile. Oh, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: aggressive at all. I would be surprised if he made
Speaker 1: those comments in a negative way, but I don't think
Speaker 1: the response would be if he actually said that, if
Speaker 1: he actually meant that, I said what I do and
Speaker 1: that I mean. So now we've got to another moment
Speaker 1: in the media's life cycle here where they're using a
Speaker 1: former using the words of a former Trump official to
Speaker 1: bash the president. And here's what I believe is that issue. Here, Kelly,
Speaker 1: who's a retired Marine Corps general, said during the Sea
Speaker 1: Island Summit, which was hosted by the Washington Examine or CIANA,
Speaker 1: here's a very nice place. Kelly said that if he
Speaker 1: if he had stayed on his chief of staff, Trump
Speaker 1: wouldn't be in the midst of the current impeachment inquiry,
Speaker 1: saying that certain White House advisors could have prevented it.
Speaker 1: And quote, here's the quote from Kelly. I said, whatever
Speaker 1: you do. And we're still in the process of trying
Speaker 1: to find someone to take my place. I said, whatever
Speaker 1: you do, don't hire a yes man, someone who won't
Speaker 1: tell you the truth. Don't do that, because if you do,
Speaker 1: I believe you will be impeached. Okay, well, maybe Kelly
Speaker 1: said it, maybe he didn't. President Trump seems to think
Speaker 1: that that wasn't. Keep in mind, people have been talking
Speaker 1: about how Trump was going to be impeached from the
Speaker 1: day he took office because of the ferocious hatred the
Speaker 1: left has for him. So it's not a tough thing
Speaker 1: to say. That's not analysis that would be that should
Speaker 1: be surprising to anybody. Do I think that the presidents
Speaker 1: I saw me for but where I criticized the president?
Speaker 1: Do I think the president's choices of senior advisors and
Speaker 1: staff around him have been almost inexplicably bad, Yes, yes
Speaker 1: I do. There's there is no justification, there's no rational
Speaker 1: way to explain many of the choices that Trump made
Speaker 1: about who to put around him and who to put
Speaker 1: in positions of real authority. Scaramucci on a Rosa, I mean,
Speaker 1: it really was a little bit like he said, or
Speaker 1: like he decided that he was staffing up a reality
Speaker 1: TV show again, like he was picking people for the
Speaker 1: Apprentice White House. That's real. Let's let's be clear, let's
Speaker 1: be on about that. Um. There were a lot of
Speaker 1: people that were brought in that had to be shown
Speaker 1: the door rather quickly. And they never should have been
Speaker 1: brought in. So that's one area. And by the way,
Speaker 1: that does fall on the president. I mean, he's got
Speaker 1: a lot of authority and these are important decisions to make,
Speaker 1: and to make such poor ones reflects badly on his
Speaker 1: judgment as a as a commander in chief. I think
Speaker 1: that there's no way around that. I think we need
Speaker 1: to be honest about that. So I'm telling you that's
Speaker 1: that's what I think about where the president is on
Speaker 1: all of it. On the upside though, they give you
Speaker 1: a happy thing. So that's a that's a place where
Speaker 1: I say Trump, you know, Trump gets a he gets
Speaker 1: a C minus on appointees and seeing your advisors really
Speaker 1: C minus. It's gotten a little bit better, but it's
Speaker 1: because he's went through a lot of the really bad choices.
Speaker 1: But here is on the upside of things, the president is.
Speaker 1: And whether you're pro Trump or not, if you are
Speaker 1: a conservative, you have to be pleased with what is
Speaker 1: going on right now in the federal judiciary. Here is
Speaker 1: President Trump. Play clip one. Please, I want to thank
Speaker 1: you President Obama for giving me one hundred and forty
Speaker 1: two open judges. How you allowed that to happen is
Speaker 1: beyond me. It's beyond me. Thank you, President Obama very much.
Speaker 1: Everybody in this room, thanks you. Now he's been a
Speaker 1: little funny there, but this is a real point that
Speaker 1: he's making. The hashtag resistance has relied so much on
Speaker 1: federal judges who are activists, appointed largely by Obama but
Speaker 1: also by Clinton and sometimes by Republicans too. You'll notice
Speaker 1: Democrats never seem to slip up on this. Who is
Speaker 1: the Democrat Supreme Court appointee you know, from a Democrat
Speaker 1: administration that turned out to be really republican? Doesn't happen. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you go back and look at Reagan and George H. W. Bush,
Speaker 1: something to be they're putting in there into the federal
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court turn out to be leftists, activists
Speaker 1: and judges robes. Never happens the other way. I'm not
Speaker 1: making it up. Think about it. Who is it? You know?
Speaker 1: So to Mayor liberal, Kagan liberal, Ginsburg liberal. They're all liberals,
Speaker 1: liberals and in lockstep with liberalism. I mean, never disappoint
Speaker 1: the party, faithful of the Democrats. Really not anything important,
Speaker 1: I should say. On some more minor stuff, procedural things.
Speaker 1: People have a different view, but anyway, the judiciary, not
Speaker 1: just Kavanaugh and Gorsich, but the judiciary at the federal
Speaker 1: and district court level, or at the district court level,
Speaker 1: I should say, an appeals court that being changed in
Speaker 1: the way that it is right now, and the kind
Speaker 1: of judges that Trump is picking. This is where his
Speaker 1: outsourcing decisions a bit to people who know more and
Speaker 1: and he can trust on which judges to pick, has
Speaker 1: been a good move in the federalist society, etc. So
Speaker 1: on the upside, Spicy gets through very important news item
Speaker 1: for you here, the show Dancing with the Stars has
Speaker 1: Sean Spicer on as a contestant. You remember Sean Spicer.
Speaker 1: He was White House Press Secretary for a short time
Speaker 1: and was perhaps best known well was was in a
Speaker 1: pop culture since, best known for the Melissa McCarthy send
Speaker 1: up of him, impersonation of him, and also because he
Speaker 1: was the one who came out and saying that the
Speaker 1: inauguration was the biggest and most attendant inauguration ever and
Speaker 1: that was a that was a bad look. It just
Speaker 1: it didn't didn't come come off well at all. But
Speaker 1: I'm glad to see that he's he's a he's a nice,
Speaker 1: nice dude. I've bumped into him a few times at
Speaker 1: the Trump Hotel in DC, where it's really the GOP
Speaker 1: clubhouse where a lot of people hang out. I hear
Speaker 1: they might be selling it, by the way, which is
Speaker 1: kind of a bummer, because if you want to have
Speaker 1: really overpriced drinks in a space that plays Musaic twenty
Speaker 1: four to seven, Trump Hotel is definitely the lobby. There's
Speaker 1: definitely the place you want to do it. The I
Speaker 1: don't know if it's flombade bacon or like flamed bait whatever.
Speaker 1: They take a blowtorch to the bacon there and they
Speaker 1: have these hanging bacon strips and I'm telling you it
Speaker 1: is amazing. I mean, they do. They do bacon right
Speaker 1: at Trump Hotel. So I give credit where it's due,
Speaker 1: always one of the mantras of this show. But for
Speaker 1: you know, our pop culture correspondent here as producer Mark
Speaker 1: and producer Mark, I do have to ask you, first
Speaker 1: of all, have you ever seen have you ever seen
Speaker 1: Dancing with the Stars, because I have not. I've seen clips.
Speaker 1: I've seen clips too. Have you ever actually watched the show?
Speaker 1: I think watches. It's pretty popular show apparently. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think my main man. Tucker Carlson was on at one point. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, like they came asking the buckster, But I
Speaker 1: would have you ever ballroom dance? I don't think of course,
Speaker 1: I took some ball on dancing growing up. I had
Speaker 1: Debbie tomp Balls to go to my friend as an escort.
Speaker 1: Oh so you were going to escort? This is what
Speaker 1: you're saying to a Debbie tomp Ball. We were sixteen.
Speaker 1: But I would just point out that that spicy is
Speaker 1: my understanding the worst in terms of actual dancing skill.
Speaker 1: My dancing skills, by the way, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't even know if America could handle these funky moves.
Speaker 1: But spicy true true, don't that's a that's an accurate thing.
Speaker 1: Then I don't know if they can handle it. I
Speaker 1: don't think I can vocalize the face I just made. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: we do need to get a camera for you get
Speaker 1: as our producer, Mark, Well, we'll work on that. But
Speaker 1: so what I want to know is are people pushing
Speaker 1: him through as a joke or they pushing him through
Speaker 1: out of some kind of Trump solidarity. At this point,
Speaker 1: it's got to be for the humor, right, They gotta
Speaker 1: you know this is like when you used to have,
Speaker 1: remember your student council elections. There was always a candidate
Speaker 1: at my school growing up who would run who was
Speaker 1: like the kid who basically lived in the tension, and
Speaker 1: all the teachers thought was just like, you know, a
Speaker 1: class clown, cut up, bad kid who did bad Not
Speaker 1: bad kid, but you know the kid who was always
Speaker 1: misbehaving and getting into trouble. You're describing me, Oh really,
Speaker 1: definitely the class you were that kid. Oh yeah, not
Speaker 1: in attention all the time, but I was a clown. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's surprises nobody. Um, yeah, you got away with it though,
Speaker 1: right I did. Yeah, So I just I would think
Speaker 1: that this is a little bit like that where they're
Speaker 1: they're voting for him specifically, as it's almost like a
Speaker 1: protest vote against Dancing with the Stars. It's like that
Speaker 1: guy on American Idol, I forget his name that got
Speaker 1: through because he was hilarious. Was that the the the
Speaker 1: the William Hung. Yes, yeah, he became a star. Sang
Speaker 1: he sang in his I remember this back then? He
Speaker 1: sang Yang by Mary Ricky Martin. Yeah, that was fantastic
Speaker 1: but terrible, And then you know he put it on
Speaker 1: an album by the way, Yeah, no, I heard it.
Speaker 1: Look you gotta pan idol credit. I was just the
Speaker 1: Nashville of the weekend, Love you Nashville, and there was
Speaker 1: there were the people to I was like, who are
Speaker 1: the biggest country music stars? I asked, Nashville locals? Actually
Speaker 1: a radio host, I asked, U uh, Clay Travis what
Speaker 1: he what he thought about it? And and he named
Speaker 1: all these different I said, Oh, Carrie Underwood's really carry
Speaker 1: Underwoods like a big deal in Nashville. Yeah, because she's
Speaker 1: married to the former captain of the Nashville Predators. Is
Speaker 1: that a thing? I didn't know that. But she's still
Speaker 1: a big deal form her music come on. Oh of
Speaker 1: course for her music as well, but she's also like
Speaker 1: over here. She was always my favorite. I like Kelly Clarkson,
Speaker 1: but I don't know, I feel like she didn't reach
Speaker 1: her true attend I saw Carrie at the garden once,
Speaker 1: like Justin Guarini had his day. Remember that guy I
Speaker 1: used in the movie From Kelly to Justin. They made
Speaker 1: a movie after the first season American Idol. Oh, it
Speaker 1: was so bad. I didn't see it. I saw previews,
Speaker 1: but man, it was so bad. But hey, you gotta
Speaker 1: grab that money while you can. You know, I think
Speaker 1: the only season I watched was when Clay Aikin and
Speaker 1: up stutter. I used to watch a Kanto with my parents.
Speaker 1: It was like a bonding experience of this show. We
Speaker 1: could in the early days. In the early days of
Speaker 1: that show, it was a phenomenon. It was. It was amazing.
Speaker 1: And some of the people they had come in and
Speaker 1: the whole Simon callick, Oh, I'm a British guy and
Speaker 1: I'm I'm just like a little mean, but you'll still
Speaker 1: love me anyway, like that whole thing. You know now
Speaker 1: the voice is actually really big. Oh is that the one? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's like that's the one with the chairs that they
Speaker 1: spin around in. And then the stars coached them a
Speaker 1: little too theatrical for me. I'm an original guy, you know.
Speaker 1: I said it was popular. That doesn't mean I know
Speaker 1: I'm not as I'm not as into it. By the way,
Speaker 1: did you see the Have you seen? Um? What's it called?
Speaker 1: You've seen Breaking Bad? Out? Of course I have not
Speaker 1: seen the movie yet, so Breaking Bad Um has a
Speaker 1: movie that's out right now, which I did watch and
Speaker 1: I got oh wait. Producer Nick tells me that Justin
Speaker 1: is now little sat from the Doctor Pepper Ads. Did
Speaker 1: you know that Justin Guarini has made a comeback from
Speaker 1: Doctor Pepper ads? I don't drink Doctor Pepper. Well. What
Speaker 1: I wanted to tell y'all also is that the new
Speaker 1: movie elm el Camino, Yes, is terrible, so boring. I
Speaker 1: haven't seen anything. I have to watch it just because
Speaker 1: you really like just an episode, a long episode of
Speaker 1: Breaking Bad. It's not really a movie. It's like if
Speaker 1: they added one more episode two Breaking Bad, but with
Speaker 1: episode no it ended perfectly like why did they do this?
Speaker 1: Why do they have to at least make it a
Speaker 1: spinoff so I can ignore it. It's very sad, but
Speaker 1: I've got a lot going. I mean, I've got a
Speaker 1: book to write, but which is you know that's a problem.
Speaker 1: But I'm watching The Americans right now and also checking
Speaker 1: out a fair amount of Oh I will be watching
Speaker 1: Peeky Blinders. Did you see the spin off of Breaking Bad?
Speaker 1: At Better? So? I thought it was a little boring. Really,
Speaker 1: I saw the first season. I didn't want to be
Speaker 1: on the first season. Season after season one gets so
Speaker 1: much better. It really. I have not seen the most
Speaker 1: recent season because it's not on Netflix or any because
Speaker 1: I think my man dave Reeboy told me that he
Speaker 1: also really liked Better Call Saul. I loved it, the
Speaker 1: thing with the brother and it can't go outside and
Speaker 1: all that. Don't know. I just was like, what is this?
Speaker 1: It gets so much better right day on. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: watch based on producer Mark's recommendation here and if it's terrible,
Speaker 1: we're gonna make fun a producer Mark. Course. Yeah. But anyway,
Speaker 1: so so Sean Spicer, he got through, and I guess
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to watch an episode of this show
Speaker 1: now now that now that the because the Spicy phenomenon
Speaker 1: is turning into its own things. I'm sure they put
Speaker 1: clips out on ABC. Just watch. I've seen a couple
Speaker 1: of the small, but I want to see that. I
Speaker 1: gotta watch the Who show. I don't even know how
Speaker 1: this works. Like it's a professional dancer with the not
Speaker 1: professional dance. Yes, I believe, so I could see the
Speaker 1: professional dancers. That'll be kind of fun. I appreciate the technique.
Speaker 1: What you yeah, that's it? Yeah. So anyways, Spicy, I
Speaker 1: guess we gotta do it? Should we should we join
Speaker 1: the vote for Spicy train. I don't know, maybe could happen.
Speaker 1: I have also started to perhaps be more candid talking
Speaker 1: about what I describe and what I believe to be
Speaker 1: the elephant in the room about my campaign. What is
Speaker 1: that electability? What are your electability? You know? Essentially, is
Speaker 1: America ready for a woman and a woman of color
Speaker 1: to be president of the United States? America was ready
Speaker 1: for a black man to be president United State, and
Speaker 1: this conversation happened for him. There is a lack of
Speaker 1: ability or a difficult a difficulty in imagining that someone
Speaker 1: who we have never seen can do a job that
Speaker 1: has been done, you know, forty five times by someone
Speaker 1: who is not that person. I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: really don't like this analysis, this view of things that
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris is offering up. And we've heard it many
Speaker 1: times before. We heard it from Hillary. Is the country
Speaker 1: ready for a woman? In this case with Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: is this is the country ready for a president who
Speaker 1: is a minority woman? The answer is yes, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: ready for it. The American people aren't. I know, Democrats
Speaker 1: have all convinced themselves that we're so racist and closed
Speaker 1: minded and unless we agree with them on everything, then
Speaker 1: we're okay. But if we're if we have any other
Speaker 1: thoughts about anything, oh, we're such terrible people. These Americans
Speaker 1: are so awful, So much racism in this country. When
Speaker 1: every American I know, every person that I know, regardless
Speaker 1: of political affiliation, if you said, hey, there's a candidate,
Speaker 1: the candidate shares all of your ideas on all major
Speaker 1: policy issues, and it's just really inspiring and great. But
Speaker 1: the candidate has fill in any demographic profile you want
Speaker 1: and any gender you want. I guarantee you that anybody
Speaker 1: that you do in your life, you'd be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: on who cares great, doesn't matter, you know, white, black, Hispanic, Asian,
Speaker 1: you know, pick something out, you know, male, female, whatever
Speaker 1: it may be, if you like the person as a person,
Speaker 1: if you think they're a compelling politician, if you agree
Speaker 1: with them on policy. The vast I'm not saying, of
Speaker 1: course they're stupid racist everywhere in every country all over
Speaker 1: the world, not saying it doesn't exist, but the vast, vast,
Speaker 1: vast majority of Americans of voters, you know, I would say, yeah,
Speaker 1: ninety nine out of one hundred, maybe maybe nine out
Speaker 1: of ten. If you want to give yourself a little leeway.
Speaker 1: We have noe, no problem voting for a woman, no
Speaker 1: problem voting for minority, And we just went through eight
Speaker 1: years of a president who was a minority, and it's
Speaker 1: almost like we're supposed to pretend that, you know that
Speaker 1: that didn't have any meaning. It did. Country is still
Speaker 1: just as racist as it was. Come on, It's just,
Speaker 1: you know, it's such a self serving narrative, and especially
Speaker 1: in this case with Gamala Harris, it is such a
Speaker 1: self serving narrative because she's dramatically underperforming because people just
Speaker 1: here's the thing, and I see this among deat I'm
Speaker 1: not speaking about this as a Republican. What my feeling,
Speaker 1: you know, my least favorite candidate, it's Betto because he's
Speaker 1: just like, it's like he just reads the comments on
Speaker 1: the Huffington Post and he's just like, yo, I just
Speaker 1: want to like comment and I just gonna tell everybody
Speaker 1: that I'm gonna take all your guns. And America's like
Speaker 1: super racist. But I'm not racist, but America is like
Speaker 1: so racist, So Betto is the worst. But from what
Speaker 1: I see from Democrats, people I know and follow and
Speaker 1: interact with, they're all really unimpressed with Kamala Harris. They
Speaker 1: really do not like the campaign that she has run.
Speaker 1: So is that who's Is that the fault of sexism
Speaker 1: or racism or is it the fault of Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: for not doing a good job? The same thing with Hillary?
Speaker 1: You know, which is it was it a big reason
Speaker 1: to vote for Hillary that she's a woman, or was
Speaker 1: it a big hindrance to her winning the election that
Speaker 1: she's a woman? Oh well, it depends on whether she
Speaker 1: wins or not. I guess right, And that's the way
Speaker 1: the analysis always goes. Well, it depends on whatever's most
Speaker 1: politically useful for her at any point in time. I
Speaker 1: just I find it. I honestly and truly find this.
Speaker 1: It's so boring, it's so typical. She has not run
Speaker 1: a she has not run a campaign in this case
Speaker 1: with Kamala Harris. By way, Tulsi Gabbert is outperforming Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: Tulsi Gabbert is also I believe qualifies a minority female
Speaker 1: unless I'm misunderstanding something, And she doesn't complain about this,
Speaker 1: so I think the complaints are just a way of
Speaker 1: self justifying a weak campaign. But on the on the
Speaker 1: other side of political correctness these days. You do have
Speaker 1: Dave Chappelle with his most recent special, The Name of It,
Speaker 1: I'm actually forgetting, but it was do you remember the
Speaker 1: name producer? Mark? No, I don't remember that. Whatever, it's good,
Speaker 1: go watch it if you haven't seen it. Look, there's
Speaker 1: some stuff that's edgy, there's some stuff that you might
Speaker 1: even be a little uncomfortable with. Exactly, it's comedy, deal
Speaker 1: with it. He's got to push the boundaries a little
Speaker 1: Bit's why comedy is so bad right now. In general,
Speaker 1: nothing is allowed to be funny. No one's allowed to
Speaker 1: make a joke. You're at to laugh either, oh can't laugh?
Speaker 1: But what about a fuck? I'm doing a bad own
Speaker 1: Prussian and I'm just like, hey, I just want to know, like,
Speaker 1: am I the single biggest hypocrite in the race? And
Speaker 1: then Bernie's like, no, you don't have the biggest. I'm
Speaker 1: the biggest. I got three houses, I'm a millionaire. Why
Speaker 1: are you doing? But I just like really don't understand
Speaker 1: why the American people then just don't like open their
Speaker 1: hearts to better. Uh. I was I even saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: so you can make fun of politicians, that's okay. There
Speaker 1: are very few other people you can make fun of
Speaker 1: and get away with it. And one of my big
Speaker 1: frustrations is that I wish that I could do different
Speaker 1: fun accents here on the show, but I can. Basically
Speaker 1: can I can reliably and without fear of dramatically negative consequence,
Speaker 1: do accents of public figures and people from America, you know,
Speaker 1: parts of America, and European majority or European countries, and
Speaker 1: maybe like Australia and some you know, the English speaking
Speaker 1: countries outside of America. That's it. Can't do accents from
Speaker 1: different parts of the world. Can't do you know, any
Speaker 1: any sketch. You look at Robin Williams wouldn't have even
Speaker 1: had a comedy career if you were alive today, because
Speaker 1: he wouldn't been able to do any things that he
Speaker 1: did that made him famous. Not allowed. Can't no jokes,
Speaker 1: no Asian accents, no South Asian accents, East Asian accents.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think i'd be able to. You
Speaker 1: can't do a Latino accent. You can't do any of
Speaker 1: these acts, you know all, to do any accents because
Speaker 1: I'm making make doing an accent is terrible. Oh, it's awful. Okay,
Speaker 1: I seem unless you know, like I said, I can
Speaker 1: do Bernie, you can do better. I can do Russian,
Speaker 1: I can do Italian. And those are some places. You know.
Speaker 1: I make fun of Irish people all day, but that's
Speaker 1: an English people. That's about it. But Dave Chappelle was
Speaker 1: asked about comedy and political correctness, and I just I
Speaker 1: particularly enjoyed his response, would you please play clip eleven?
Speaker 1: Producer mark anolitical recorrectness has his face his place. Excuse me.
Speaker 1: We all want to live in a polite society. We
Speaker 1: just have the kind of work on the levels and
Speaker 1: coming to an agreement of what that actually looks like.
Speaker 1: I personally am not afraid of other people's freedom of expression.
Speaker 1: I don't use it as a weapon. It just makes
Speaker 1: me feel better. And I'm sorry if I heard anybody,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. Yah yaha, Yeah, everything I'm supposed
Speaker 1: to say. I like that. I want to start doing that.
Speaker 1: You know, every time, for example, the left puts for
Speaker 1: ord a veteran to criticize, to tear down President Trump,
Speaker 1: or be part of the soft coup effort to destroy
Speaker 1: the president, I want to say, you know, YadA da YadA.
Speaker 1: Of course, respect the service and all that, all the
Speaker 1: things I'm supposed to say. Now, can we talk about
Speaker 1: the issue? You know, like, now, can we can we
Speaker 1: just assume the things that that, you know, we'll now
Speaker 1: have to have to say to establish that we're a
Speaker 1: good person before we talk about the issue. And I
Speaker 1: think the same thing is is kind of true with
Speaker 1: comedy now too. You know, it's like, okay, yeah, so
Speaker 1: I make some jokes. I don't want to offend anybody,
Speaker 1: YadA YadA, YadA, Like, you know, can we just all
Speaker 1: be adults about this? Unfortunately the answer is no. But
Speaker 1: I want the I want the YadA YadA YadA right
Speaker 1: where I can just say, hey, you know, all the
Speaker 1: stuff that you already knew about me, blah blah, YadA YadA,
Speaker 1: I hate all the terrorists, but let's talk about this
Speaker 1: issue or blah blah blah. You know, I believe in
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and I'm a strong supporter of the United
Speaker 1: States military, but I disagree with this particular general on
Speaker 1: this thing or whatever it is. Welcome back to my team.
Speaker 1: We haven't talked about the story yet. I haven't really
Speaker 1: been paying very close attention to it, but it has
Speaker 1: been getting a lot of headlines. You have a Democrat
Speaker 1: member of Congress who has resigned due to a I
Speaker 1: guess we could just call it a sex scan. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of a lot of moving parts, a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff going on here. We have Tiana Lowe,
Speaker 1: commentary writer for the Washington Examiner, joining us now to
Speaker 1: tell us what Exachie went on here. Tiana, great to
Speaker 1: have you back, Hi Buck, thanks for having it all right, So,
Speaker 1: so who is this now soon to be former member
Speaker 1: of Congress and what the heck happened? So Katie Hill
Speaker 1: was representing a formerly a very Republican district of Los
Speaker 1: Angeles County out Usine Valley, and then she's a diehard
Speaker 1: progressive pro Medicare for all that she amounted to a
Speaker 1: part of Trump's or the supposed new wave of twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Now red State, the conservative news site. They wrote a
Speaker 1: story over a week ago that showed foes and text
Speaker 1: messages indicating that Hale had had one affair with her
Speaker 1: female campaign staffer and then another affair with an actual
Speaker 1: staffer in her congressional office. Hale, who is openly bisexual,
Speaker 1: apparently engaged the campaign staffer another, a twenty two year
Speaker 1: old woman in a thruffle with her husband like a
Speaker 1: polyamorous three way relationship now on its face, you know,
Speaker 1: if they want to do polyamory. I don't think that
Speaker 1: her voters would have a problem with that. The issue
Speaker 1: is that, you know, a twenty two year old in
Speaker 1: a relationship with someone more than a decade her senior
Speaker 1: who was also her boss, is a bit problematic. And
Speaker 1: especially the texts that were released by Red State indicated
Speaker 1: that the that the campaign staffer abused in the relationship
Speaker 1: and called Hill toxic. And the photos, brother, do we
Speaker 1: know where the photos came from? And and I saw
Speaker 1: some conservatives you were saying that they felt like the
Speaker 1: photos should not have been published or what can you
Speaker 1: tell us about that? And what do you think about that?
Speaker 1: I mean, I agree whoever leaked the photos does belong
Speaker 1: in jail because it violates revenge porn statutes in most states,
Speaker 1: including California. And it's possible that it was the ex
Speaker 1: husband who she's now going through divorced with. You know,
Speaker 1: the photos should not have been leaked. However, it is
Speaker 1: of national interest if she was having a relationship with
Speaker 1: two of her subordinates, one of which violated House ethics
Speaker 1: rules that were passed just last year. You know, the
Speaker 1: House agreed that you that members of Congress are not
Speaker 1: allowed to have relationships with the subordinates, and for obvious reasons.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is one where the Meto movement was
Speaker 1: very necessary. We do have to understand that there are
Speaker 1: an abusive power that has involved when you have the
Speaker 1: power to hire and fire people. And this is a
Speaker 1: part of the reason why conservatives cared about both Clinton
Speaker 1: and Monica Lewinsky. Um, but those are two separate issues,
Speaker 1: and now that the story is out there, yes, resigning
Speaker 1: was the right thing to do. Did you notice a
Speaker 1: slowness from many of the major outlets to cover because
Speaker 1: I know you've been writing about this from the beginning.
Speaker 1: Was there a sense that you had that this was
Speaker 1: just getting less attention than it would have had the
Speaker 1: party affiliation of Katie O Congressman Katie Hill been different.
Speaker 1: Or do you think that they that this story grew
Speaker 1: naturally as more information came out, and that the complaints
Speaker 1: that I've seen from some of our somewhat fellow conservatives
Speaker 1: out there that this was being suppressed or perhaps a
Speaker 1: little bit ahead of ahead of where things were. Oh,
Speaker 1: this absolutely was slow walks. You know, it took a
Speaker 1: week for the story to gain traction. If this were
Speaker 1: Dan Crenshaw, there were photos of him nude rushing the
Speaker 1: hair of one of his campaign staffers, this would be
Speaker 1: primetime News, twenty four hour pearl clutching. Again. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that revenge porn is good or acceptable, or that
Speaker 1: you know that we should be focusing on the lasciviousness
Speaker 1: of the story. But the fact is that, you know,
Speaker 1: the mainstream media I had no time, had no problem
Speaker 1: salivating over the fact that I believe it was a
Speaker 1: Republican Congressman Joe Burton's much to resigned after his ex
Speaker 1: paralm war were attempting to extort him with nude photos
Speaker 1: and wound up. I believe she released them, and that
Speaker 1: was the mainstream media story, and no one was calling
Speaker 1: him a victim when clearly he was. Do you think
Speaker 1: that there's also a problem at the left? Now we're
Speaker 1: talking to Tiana Low, everybody, she's a commentary writer at
Speaker 1: the Washington Examinery. You can also follow her on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Tiana Low. Do you think there's a there's an
Speaker 1: issue that the left runs into, or how do you
Speaker 1: think they handle? It was clearly there's an issue. How
Speaker 1: do you think they handle and the problems complexities that
Speaker 1: come up for them in dealing with women in power
Speaker 1: in workplace situations in the era of Me too, which
Speaker 1: has so clearly up to this point been almost entirely
Speaker 1: about men abusing positions of power. What do you think
Speaker 1: are some of the problems they run into and the
Speaker 1: application of the me too standard? Well, again, this is
Speaker 1: you know, the me too movement isn't about just exerting
Speaker 1: third wave feminism, because women are capable of being aggressors,
Speaker 1: women are capable of lanning. It's about looking at power
Speaker 1: structures and caring of an evidence. And the fact is
Speaker 1: that the evidence here was ample and showing that she
Speaker 1: I mean again, so he'll denies the affair with the
Speaker 1: staffer who works for her in Congress or looked for
Speaker 1: her in Congress, and she's besign, But the evidence indicates
Speaker 1: that she had not one, but two affairs where she
Speaker 1: had the power to hire and fire people. And I mean,
Speaker 1: when it's two, it's clearly a pattern. And yes, she
Speaker 1: should absolutely be held up to account, much as I'll
Speaker 1: Frank and Law. Are you so resigning was the right move? Yes?
Speaker 1: Huh yeah, there we go. So do you think there's
Speaker 1: anything that comes after this though? Is there anything else
Speaker 1: we should be looking out for any any changes in
Speaker 1: the way Congress will handle this stuff going forward? Well,
Speaker 1: I think in the way that the media jumped to
Speaker 1: a turn out all their actually bag Daddy was courageous
Speaker 1: for blowing himself up in front of his three children
Speaker 1: and killing them in the black. Oh we talked about
Speaker 1: Max earlier in the show. He's a lunatic. But keep going.
Speaker 1: I think I think just in the way Max Boot realized,
Speaker 1: Oh wait, no one else agrees with me because this
Speaker 1: story is insane. Like the last twenty four hours, we've
Speaker 1: gotten a bunch of sympathetic coverage of Hill and whatnot,
Speaker 1: and I think everyone in the rest of the country
Speaker 1: realizes this isn't about a feminist, and this isn't an
Speaker 1: attack on a feminist. This is in me too story
Speaker 1: and there's no reason why Hill should be given special treatment.
Speaker 1: I think that that much is finally apparent. Now I
Speaker 1: know you're a California name. I want to switch gears
Speaker 1: for a second. Well, we we're talking about a California
Speaker 1: congresswoman too. But do you have an opinion on the
Speaker 1: the the debate over one whether the fires, because you're
Speaker 1: right now, there's all this news footage, right because big
Speaker 1: fires gets people to click on things. That's just the
Speaker 1: simple reality. A lot of news footage, a lot of
Speaker 1: coverage of this. They've got a couple of bad fires
Speaker 1: going in Los Angeles area, I believe, and up in
Speaker 1: Sonoma County too. Do you have an opinion on why
Speaker 1: this is happening or whether there's state's mismanagement to where
Speaker 1: anything else plays a role in this. Yes, so obviously
Speaker 1: climate change is a factor, but a big one does
Speaker 1: have to do with how so and so there are
Speaker 1: two factors involved in the state and county governance. So
Speaker 1: the state government is probably the most to blame because
Speaker 1: they don't do controlled for us fires. They don't spend
Speaker 1: enough money, you know, I mean, La County one and
Speaker 1: four out of every ten Angelinos on medical Medicaid medicare,
Speaker 1: yet they don't they aren't willing to spend enough mone
Speaker 1: me on you know, patrolling the actual safety and preemptively
Speaker 1: doing controlled burns. But then also there is apparently an
Speaker 1: issue when and I don't know the semantics of it. Bucks.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to get into too much detail, but
Speaker 1: it looks like there's a little bit of corruption between
Speaker 1: pg and E, the energy company that is right now
Speaker 1: having to do blackout, little blackout. It looks like there
Speaker 1: is a little bit of corruption between PGINI and Governor
Speaker 1: Gavin K. Newsom, Like I think that PGINI donated to
Speaker 1: Newsom's campaign, and uh, I mean, it's everything out there
Speaker 1: is quite corrupt. I would certainly blame more than anyone
Speaker 1: the state government. At what point does the at what
Speaker 1: point do is there a critical mass of Californians that
Speaker 1: just recognize that, apart from politics, their state government is
Speaker 1: a disaster and there needs to be some change. Are
Speaker 1: they close to that or is that never going to happen?
Speaker 1: What you know, because I mean if you look at
Speaker 1: this from even from the East coast, I'm here in
Speaker 1: New York where we have you know, may or more
Speaker 1: on the Blasio running things. But yeah, if we see California,
Speaker 1: we see all this stuff going on, We're like, why
Speaker 1: can't anybody understand that some of this at least is
Speaker 1: the result of crappy government decisions? Do Californias just think
Speaker 1: that this is the way it asked to be, or
Speaker 1: is there a sense that they're going to cross the
Speaker 1: tipping point? I mean, California, the supposedly most progressive country
Speaker 1: in the States, has a Genie coefficient closer to a
Speaker 1: South American country than any rent state. You know, the
Speaker 1: income inequality is terrible. The racial divisions are from a
Speaker 1: city perspective or not great. An issue there is that
Speaker 1: the California State Republican Party has basically given up. If
Speaker 1: you compare how the Republican Party in Texas treats minorities
Speaker 1: in those outreach and how they perform quite well versus California,
Speaker 1: you know, the difference is astounding. So it will take both,
Speaker 1: I think a collapse, I mean the next ressession. The
Speaker 1: debt problem in California is good, prove monumental, but it's
Speaker 1: you look at. It will take the state government having
Speaker 1: a week up call in terms of like the exodus
Speaker 1: in the state that's happening right now, and then also
Speaker 1: the California Republican Party rebuilding and storming out good candidates.
Speaker 1: All Right, we'll have to wait for that. It might
Speaker 1: be a while. Yeah, Tiana Loo everybody Washington examin or
Speaker 1: check out. Well, what's your next piece going to be on?
Speaker 1: Or have you not decided yet? I haven't decided yet
Speaker 1: keeping tabs on this Ukraine thing. So we'll see. All right,
Speaker 1: We'll go to Watchington Examiner dot com. Look for Tiana
Speaker 1: Low follow on social media Twitter and Facebook and stuff. Gianna,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining, Thank you buck. Let's talk about Medicare
Speaker 1: for All for a moment, shall we? Oh? Yes, primary
Speaker 1: policy idea of the Democrats right now, the single biggest
Speaker 1: debate in the country over a true policy issue. And
Speaker 1: there is a bipartisan group that has just looked at
Speaker 1: Medicare for all and guess what, folks, It is too
Speaker 1: much money. The only ways I mean, if you're just
Speaker 1: looking at this as a pure function of the numbers,
Speaker 1: the only ways to get anything close to funding for
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, And that's assuming you don't have spikes
Speaker 1: and usage, because now people just show up like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'll go to the doctor. I'll go to the doctor.
Speaker 1: Who cares? Would be if you instituted crippling taxes on everybody?
Speaker 1: This is what this piece today is Medicare for All
Speaker 1: study funding Medicare for All with tax and the riches impossible,
Speaker 1: according to this study is a bipartisan budget watchdog report
Speaker 1: that was just released, and here are some of the
Speaker 1: most worthwhile findings. Quote. There's not enough annual income available
Speaker 1: among higher earners to finance the full cost of Medicare
Speaker 1: for All on a static basis. Even increasing the top
Speaker 1: two income tax rates blind to individuals making over two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars a year and couples making over four
Speaker 1: hundred three per year to one hundred percent would not
Speaker 1: raise thirty trillion dollars over a decade. An accompanying chart
Speaker 1: in the study lists the tax the rich funding option
Speaker 1: as impossible. The options for financing Medicare for All without
Speaker 1: increasing taxes are similarly immoderate. The CRFB says the federal
Speaker 1: government would need to cut the non health federal spending
Speaker 1: by eighty percent in order to pay for Medicare for
Speaker 1: All without increasing taxes. This would require get ready for it,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be fun, cutting Social Security benefits from approximately
Speaker 1: eighteen thousand dollars to about thirty six hundred dollars each year,
Speaker 1: and cut troop numbers wait for it, from one point
Speaker 1: three million to two hundred and seventy thousand, so truly
Speaker 1: slash and burn the military down to numbers that would
Speaker 1: be unrecognizable to America for the last couple hundred years,
Speaker 1: and make social security benefits far less for people. And
Speaker 1: this is just there's only so many ways you can
Speaker 1: try to move these numbers around. You can try to
Speaker 1: rebalance them, cut here, slash there, tinker around the edges.
Speaker 1: And then you might say, well, what about modern monetary
Speaker 1: theory buck that I say, oh, they looked at that
Speaker 1: as well. Quote deficit financing Medicare for all would be
Speaker 1: far more damaging to the economy, according to report, assuming
Speaker 1: that such a massive increase in the debt would not
Speaker 1: royal financial markets or lead to high inflation, we estimate
Speaker 1: that one one hundred and eight percent of GDP increase
Speaker 1: in the federal debt would shrink the size of the
Speaker 1: economy by roughly five percent in twenty thirty, the equivalent
Speaker 1: of a forty five hundred dollars reduction in per person income,
Speaker 1: and far more than that in the following years. You
Speaker 1: can't pay for this with the rich, and you can't
Speaker 1: pay for this without massive tax increases. And if you
Speaker 1: try to pay for it by just adding to our
Speaker 1: already out of controlled debt. Guess what you're going to creter.
Speaker 1: You're going to create the economy. And that's assuming that
Speaker 1: there's not just a crisis that comes up that would
Speaker 1: make everybody much poorer and worse off and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. But you know, I remember I was
Speaker 1: at I was a politicon talk with people, and they
Speaker 1: these democrats on stage with me. They think you're crazy,
Speaker 1: or they think I'm crazy because I look at this
Speaker 1: and I see the numbers, and I say, this is
Speaker 1: not a good idea. There is a faith based component
Speaker 1: in medicare for all. Remember a lot of people who
Speaker 1: are big time statists tend to be a lot of
Speaker 1: them tend to be atheists or people of no particular faith.
Speaker 1: And the state, then is what it would be in
Speaker 1: loco dais in place of God. The state is in
Speaker 1: place of God. The state plays the role of God
Speaker 1: in many people's lives, and therefore they have no problem
Speaker 1: with the state growing all the time and becoming a
Speaker 1: more prominent part of everyone's lives and having more power,
Speaker 1: because that's just going to be better for all of us.
Speaker 1: But there's a deep ideological need that many people have
Speaker 1: who are supporting this Medicare for All proposal to remove
Speaker 1: any market based incentives, any individual choice from this equation
Speaker 1: and make it all about just the government writing at checks.
Speaker 1: The government's writing at checks. And to this, I also
Speaker 1: just want to say health it's a very personal thing
Speaker 1: for all of us. We all make decisions that affect
Speaker 1: our health. I mean, you know, I know, for example,
Speaker 1: I should eat less chocolate and like not drink tequila
Speaker 1: and mescal during the week, but like, sometimes I want
Speaker 1: some chocolate, you know, sometimes you know you want you
Speaker 1: don't want any decide salad, you want to order a franchise.
Speaker 1: We're all making decisions all the time about our health
Speaker 1: that affect our health, I should say, And it's really
Speaker 1: more about habits than I know, that's silly to say
Speaker 1: any eating any one thing, but it's about habits that
Speaker 1: we have. But we also have to understand that the
Speaker 1: choices that we make about which doctors to see about
Speaker 1: are about how we're going to try and maintain a
Speaker 1: certain level of health. Those are going to affect us
Speaker 1: no matter what the government does or sets And I
Speaker 1: think this is where there needs to be a bigger
Speaker 1: discussion about how people how do people stay healthy In America,
Speaker 1: We're always talking about previousing conditions and people with terrible diseases,
Speaker 1: and that's not where most healthcare spending is. Preseasing conditions
Speaker 1: actually a very small part of healthcare spending. I mean,
Speaker 1: put aside whether the people are covered or not. I
Speaker 1: just mean that that's a very very small segment of
Speaker 1: the population, a true pre existing condition that would have
Speaker 1: been uninsurable before Obamacare. Most healthcare spending is lifestyle disease related,
Speaker 1: most of it, or old age, and those are things
Speaker 1: that require an approach of people educating themselves, making smart choices,
Speaker 1: making a decision, and a different approach from the medical
Speaker 1: community about how to encourage healthy behaviors earlier and younger.
Speaker 1: And you know this is it's just such a bigger
Speaker 1: issue than Oh, the Governm's gonna write the check for everything.
Speaker 1: Everything's gonna be fine, you know what I mean. If
Speaker 1: the government is going to be writing the check for
Speaker 1: your treatments because you have you know, cirrhosis of the
Speaker 1: liver for example. You know that, Okay, someone's writing the checks,
Speaker 1: but it would have been much better to figure out
Speaker 1: how to stop that from happening. Stop the drinking that
Speaker 1: led to that perhaps this is just it's more of
Speaker 1: a philosophical discussion. But medicare for all. It's not going
Speaker 1: to solve all the problems, is what I'm saying. You
Speaker 1: all know that I find the border to be one
Speaker 1: of the most important issues facing the country. I think
Speaker 1: it's fascinating and I think it's one of the areas
Speaker 1: that we see the greatest amount of obvious dishonesty from
Speaker 1: the mainstream media in their coverage of it. And that
Speaker 1: then brings me to a story that I saw it.
Speaker 1: I thought, why isn't this getting more attention? And you know,
Speaker 1: and it's because the media is completely invested in the
Speaker 1: Russia Ukraine. Trump is a trader, Trump needs to be impeached.
Speaker 1: All that that just dominant. That takes all the oxygen
Speaker 1: out of the room. But this story is important. This
Speaker 1: story matters in a way that I think people should
Speaker 1: be much more aware of, much more cognizant of. And
Speaker 1: it has to do with the Trump administration at the border,
Speaker 1: testing or getting ready to test. It's I think they've
Speaker 1: started to do it, but they're keeping it pretty close
Speaker 1: hold right now. How it's working. Rapid Asylum Review, which
Speaker 1: would mean that now border patrol and this is going
Speaker 1: to change the process, and oh, we know there's going
Speaker 1: to be all these lawsuits. But here's the basics of it,
Speaker 1: the whole scam that and it was a scam. The
Speaker 1: scam that has been run by predominantly Central American but
Speaker 1: not entirely Central American illegal immigrants in the United States,
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in the United States is based on exploiting
Speaker 1: the inability of the system to process people in a
Speaker 1: timely enough fashion, so that what ends up happening is
Speaker 1: they're releasing the interior of the United States and released
Speaker 1: with the promise that they will come, that they will
Speaker 1: come back and show up further hearings. And as we know,
Speaker 1: once you're in the United States, you established more roots
Speaker 1: and then you have, you know, all these lawyers that
Speaker 1: are free that will come and pro bono represent you
Speaker 1: against the immigration courts, and they're all these so it
Speaker 1: makes it very unlikely, very hard than any of these
Speaker 1: people who are coming in this we're going to be deported.
Speaker 1: So it became a big backed or scam to get
Speaker 1: in the United States. Say you're fleeing violence in a
Speaker 1: Central American country, Well, I mean all these Central American
Speaker 1: countries were talking about have very high per capita homicide rates,
Speaker 1: so anyone therefore could claim they're fleeing violence. And if
Speaker 1: anyone could claim they're fleeing violence, well THENI minus would
Speaker 1: just allowed the entire country of Honduras do just come
Speaker 1: to America, and I bet a lot of them would
Speaker 1: if they thought they could. So we've seen this scampling,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats lied about this, and the media lied
Speaker 1: about this. There's oh, they're just there's no one lying,
Speaker 1: and there's no one who's scamming the system. Of course
Speaker 1: there were. You had thirty year old saying that they
Speaker 1: were seventeen, so they could come in as an unaccompanied minor.
Speaker 1: You good people renting children's they could pose as family units,
Speaker 1: you god, people who were reading from a script that
Speaker 1: they had been taught by the cartels, so they could
Speaker 1: get past the initial screening at the southern border. Get
Speaker 1: all this stuff going on, and the Trump administration at
Speaker 1: every turn has been stymied, has been has been slowed
Speaker 1: down by Democrats and leftists who are open borders but
Speaker 1: won't admit that their open borders. It's a very important
Speaker 1: thing that we must all keep in mind. Here they
Speaker 1: just want any new shows up gets to stay, especially
Speaker 1: from a third world, especially if you're non English speaking,
Speaker 1: you show up America, you should get to stay. That
Speaker 1: is a widespread belief on the left. And they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: but we're all a nation of immigrants, and we're all yeah, right,
Speaker 1: legal immigrants. I'm not supposed to be a nation of
Speaker 1: people who come and breaking the law. And also the
Speaker 1: nation of immigrants thing, are we talking about pre ye,
Speaker 1: post welfare state, Great Society programs nineteen sixties, all that
Speaker 1: stuff we're talking about before that or after that? Because
Speaker 1: there's a pretty there's some pretty big distinctions in there
Speaker 1: about the incentives for coming to this country. But the
Speaker 1: Trauma administration was having a lot of problem in this
Speaker 1: whole situation because the process was over The processes were overwhelmed.
Speaker 1: People knew that they were exploiting that and they were
Speaker 1: taking vantage. All right, So then we get to, well
Speaker 1: what can be done about it? And they tried this
Speaker 1: remain in Mexico program, Well, that would that would deal
Speaker 1: with the incentive in this way, if you're not if
Speaker 1: you come to the board. At first of all, they're
Speaker 1: illegally crossing because another way they're trying to limit this
Speaker 1: was to say that you have to wait at a
Speaker 1: portive entry. They can only process so many people that
Speaker 1: are port of entry every day. So then the illegal
Speaker 1: aliens would just cross illegally New America, but then claim
Speaker 1: defensive asylum secondary asylum and say, oh, no, I want
Speaker 1: asylum even though I came into your country illegally. And
Speaker 1: then they get into this process where they stay in
Speaker 1: America and they're never going to leave. So to deal
Speaker 1: with that, we'd say, okay, you're gonna claim defensive asm.
Speaker 1: What if we keep you in Mexico while you're waiting
Speaker 1: for your asylum hearings. A lot of them are a
Speaker 1: lot of them all of a sudden stop showing up
Speaker 1: because that's not what they are. That's not what they want.
Speaker 1: They want to be released in the interier of the
Speaker 1: United States. They want to be on US soil and
Speaker 1: then try to game the system so they can stay.
Speaker 1: So if you keep them on Mexican soil while they're
Speaker 1: waiting to get their asylum hearing, that's a big removal
Speaker 1: of incentive. Oh and the liberals fought against this and
Speaker 1: their lawsuits and judges and you know, federal judges. Oh
Speaker 1: you can't do that. Why can't they do that? Oh,
Speaker 1: you can't do that because we say so. Still waiting
Speaker 1: for a ninth Circuit judge to overturn Trump's killing of
Speaker 1: Baghdaddy under the Administrative Procedure Act unconstitutional. The killing of Baghdaddy.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's a lib somewhere who's gonna say it,
Speaker 1: who's gonna try to put that through. I'm kidding, but
Speaker 1: only kind of. But the other the story that I
Speaker 1: thought was so interesting that just came out in the
Speaker 1: last few days is that they're now testing the administration
Speaker 1: is testing rapid asylum review. Rapid asylum review. Huh So
Speaker 1: what this would be is a change in the process
Speaker 1: where instead of just doing a very preliminary credible fear
Speaker 1: screening by border patrol, border patrol would do a more
Speaker 1: extensive credible fear screening to see if somebody should even
Speaker 1: be let into the country to begin the asylum process.
Speaker 1: They probably as able to ask for some supporting documentation
Speaker 1: or some details of this credible fear ie people being told, Hey,
Speaker 1: just the cartels telling these illegal aliens just say that
Speaker 1: you're fleeing gang violence, and you know, if you go home,
Speaker 1: you'll be killed, then you'll be let into America. Well,
Speaker 1: if you have somebody there who's obviously Spanish speaking, who
Speaker 1: can say, all right, which gang was it, what threats
Speaker 1: did you receive? Did you file up police report? Why
Speaker 1: are they targeting you and not other people? Any you know,
Speaker 1: very straightforward questions. I think we all know what would happen.
Speaker 1: There wouldn't be answers to this because it's a scam,
Speaker 1: but they think that they might be able to through
Speaker 1: this program begin to process asylum applications in this way
Speaker 1: within ten days. So now you would stay in border
Speaker 1: patrol custody, not be released in the interior of the
Speaker 1: United States, and get it done within ten days, whether
Speaker 1: or not you even can begin the ASI lem review
Speaker 1: process because under law, you have to establish the credible
Speaker 1: fear standards. So this is now saying, well, they're gonna
Speaker 1: put a little more, a little more teeth into the
Speaker 1: credible fear standard and make this something that's a real standard.
Speaker 1: This could be a game changer the southern border. The
Speaker 1: crossing is already down, but this could be a game changer.
Speaker 1: You know, it's going to be fascinating to watch all
Speaker 1: of these Democrats and open border activists and media virtue
Speaker 1: signalers who are going to say this is terrible. They're
Speaker 1: not getting their due process. Why is in a due process?
Speaker 1: Why should lawyers show up and tell these people what
Speaker 1: to say so that they can try to game the
Speaker 1: system and stay in America. They should be able to
Speaker 1: answer straightforward questions about whether or not that why they
Speaker 1: say they have a credible fear standard, or why they
Speaker 1: meet that credible fear standard. Folks, the game looks like
Speaker 1: it may be up soon here, and I think we
Speaker 1: all need to remember that there were many people, many
Speaker 1: prominent people, millionaires, the media, and others, who were willing
Speaker 1: to just go along with the lies in this because
Speaker 1: it made them feel like they were good people. And
Speaker 1: that's what the Democrats wanted, That's what the left wanted. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're also open minded, we have open hearts about all
Speaker 1: this stuff. No one's lying, we've just taken people. Well,
Speaker 1: does everyone get to say no? Not everyone gets to
Speaker 1: say just everyone who comes and lies to border patrol
Speaker 1: about credible fear. Just every family unit that shows up
Speaker 1: explicitly to exploit a law meant to prevent the exploitation
Speaker 1: of children through trafficking. But now with families, they realize
Speaker 1: that we can't separate the kids, so they keep showing up.
Speaker 1: The good faith and good will of the American people
Speaker 1: was being taken advantage of by a lot of people
Speaker 1: that are Southern border, and I I understand many of them
Speaker 1: are poor and desperate, and I get that it doesn't
Speaker 1: make them bad people, but it doesn't mean that we
Speaker 1: have to continue policies that encourage that exploitation. A Trump
Speaker 1: administration right now is trying to shut that down. Give
Speaker 1: them process, and I think that that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: We shall see if it works. Get ready for all
Speaker 1: the challenge. Hey, Team Buck, It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Team Bucket. Iheartbe dot com or Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: Buck Saxon if you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the roll call action. We have Paul writing in first
Speaker 1: here and he writes hey Buck, hopeball as well in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut. It's okay. It's okay. Brucer Mark is
Speaker 1: not particularly grumpy today, so that's a good thing. I
Speaker 1: was listening to Friday's show and wanted to update you
Speaker 1: on your prediction about a Hollywood mainstreaming the idea about polygamy.
Speaker 1: Poly amorousness or PolyAm or whatever you call it. There
Speaker 1: are at least two shows about this topic that have
Speaker 1: appeared on TV, Big Love, which ran from twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: to twenty eleven on HBO, and Sister Wives, which started
Speaker 1: in twenty ten and is still producing new episodes on TLC.
Speaker 1: The list of entertainment to deal with a topic on
Speaker 1: streaming services an alternative tech is too large to get into.
Speaker 1: It's kind of scary. There's always Love, Love, Love the
Speaker 1: show Love the hair Shield Saw Paul, Paul, you have
Speaker 1: great taste in radio shows as well as hair so
Speaker 1: thank you so much for that. Um. Yeah, but Big
Speaker 1: Love is about polygamy, which is I guess a little
Speaker 1: different than polyamorous or poly is the is the noun polyamorer.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you proiser, Mark, do you know?
Speaker 1: I mean you're about to get married, so I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm assuming you know this is not not an area
Speaker 1: that it's really across your radar all that much. Oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't tell you I'm getting married to different I
Speaker 1: could say you're getting married to a few people that
Speaker 1: would that would make sense. Um, that's gotta be expensive, right.
Speaker 1: Peoples can play about kids can you imagine having multiple wives? Oh,
Speaker 1: that'd be terrible expensive. You know, why would I want
Speaker 1: to get nagged by more than one one? How is it? Well?
Speaker 1: How how many times can you go through the boring
Speaker 1: details of your day before it turns into a violation
Speaker 1: of the Geneva Convention? Yeah? Do you just do it?
Speaker 1: Like in a group about your day and then asking shit?
Speaker 1: Everybody down, like you got a blackboard behind you and
Speaker 1: a pointerre like, and then I had lunch and then
Speaker 1: I did this and then you know, but really they
Speaker 1: don't want to they don't care about They just want
Speaker 1: to tell you about their day exactly. So that's you
Speaker 1: gotta get through that fast. And then you got to
Speaker 1: sit there and then she said this about me, and
Speaker 1: I'm so upset about this. I'm like, then she said this,
Speaker 1: and then she said this other thing. See I voted
Speaker 1: that for a long time working nights. Now that we're
Speaker 1: during the day, I get that again. Yeah, there we go, Thanks, Buck,
Speaker 1: That's what I'm here for, James great first name, Hey Buck.
Speaker 1: I will never vote for a socialist or any of
Speaker 1: the far left totalitarian controllers. Uh Nazis are far left too. Um,
Speaker 1: I'll stick to the right of center where our wives
Speaker 1: founders placed us. And there we go. James A. Boston,
Speaker 1: Thank you, James Austin. Let's see here. Brandon Buck, one
Speaker 1: of the main characters, was part of a terrorist group.
Speaker 1: It was also part of a of a polyamorous group
Speaker 1: in the show Caprica Battlestar Galactica prequel from Brandon, I
Speaker 1: didn't I don't know, you know, I'm gonna say it.
Speaker 1: I couldn't get through Battlestar Galactica. I got. I thought
Speaker 1: the graphics and stuff were too cheesy. I got, I
Speaker 1: got bored. And I know people say it's an amazing
Speaker 1: show and it's like life changing if you watch it.
Speaker 1: I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. I couldn't
Speaker 1: get excited about Battlestar Galactic I I really, I really
Speaker 1: did try. Uh don take this ball and run, run run.
Speaker 1: What an inspiration for our world. This president has confirmed
Speaker 1: we have extinguished a demonically driven individual. How can anyone
Speaker 1: our immediately try to spin this blah blah? There we go,
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Bruce Book, you and your
Speaker 1: produced your sufferer from only knowing well the happenings during
Speaker 1: your lifetimes in sports, movies and music, no one can
Speaker 1: match Wilt Chamberlain. He averaged fifty points per game for
Speaker 1: one season and one scored one hundred points in the game.
Speaker 1: The NBA even changed the court layout because of him.
Speaker 1: I believe they widened the lane so there was more
Speaker 1: room for penetration towards the goal without an automatic block
Speaker 1: by Wilt the stilt Bruce in New Orleans, probably listening down,
Speaker 1: hopefully down on our wonderful New Orleans radio station which
Speaker 1: people can listen on, which is a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: What do you have? What you got to say something? Well,
Speaker 1: I was beat about and shouldn't you know the station? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Of course I know the station. It's a wonderful station,
Speaker 1: of course. Yeah, don't worry about it. Uh done. Add
Speaker 1: Charlie Daniels band to your playlist. I don't know what
Speaker 1: that is. Who is that? I don't know. It sounds
Speaker 1: like a band. Yeah, sounds like a music recommendation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there we go. Maureen hey Buck and producer Mark you
Speaker 1: men of mystery. She wrote it not me about the
Speaker 1: whole polyamory thing. You were sometimes conflating all the variations
Speaker 1: of such lifestyles. So here's some clarity for your listeners.
Speaker 1: Polygamy is one man with more than one wife, you know,
Speaker 1: I know. Polyandry is one woman with more than one husband. Oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't know that, and they are only with her
Speaker 1: and nobody else. Wait, polyander is one woman with more
Speaker 1: than one husband and there with her and nobody else.
Speaker 1: That's a thing. I don't even know. I don't even
Speaker 1: know that was a thing. Did you know that was
Speaker 1: a thing. I hadn't even heard of that. Learning new stuff,
Speaker 1: all right. Polyamory, however, is a total sexual free for all.
Speaker 1: It's one man and one woman in a relationship together,
Speaker 1: often married, but they're free to be with any man
Speaker 1: and woman they want to be with as many partners
Speaker 1: of either gender as they want. It's a total free
Speaker 1: for all, both sides of a very non monogamous pairing.
Speaker 1: That's polyamory. It's sad. I know about the stuff, but
Speaker 1: I'm a psychotherapist, so I just know about things. By
Speaker 1: the way. I'm grateful. That's why she knew what polyandry.
Speaker 1: I never that was like some that's some textbooks. That's
Speaker 1: some textbook level stuff. Yeah, that's like with the dusty
Speaker 1: books behind the doc You know what I mean that
Speaker 1: you're like, what is in there? Polyandry's in those books?
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that is. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'm so grateful for your podcast, as you often get,
Speaker 1: but you often get preempted for stupid sports. I love football,
Speaker 1: but not if it hears if it interferes with hearing
Speaker 1: your voice. So the podcast assures me I'll never have
Speaker 1: to miss a broadcast. I saw it on Pluto TV once,
Speaker 1: but it's not as convenient as your podcast sometimes, so
Speaker 1: you do keep many of a safe and warm listening to.
Speaker 1: You're simply the best Maureen in California. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Maureen. And yes, remember, folks, if you're ever
Speaker 1: unable to listen on your local radio station, you can
Speaker 1: always listen to the podcast. So that's why I ask
Speaker 1: that you please subscribe, even if you're not somebody listens
Speaker 1: to a lot of podcasts, Please do subscribe the podcast
Speaker 1: of the Buck Sexton Show. And that way, when ever
Speaker 1: you want to listen to any day, it'll be on
Speaker 1: your phone. Subscribe on iTunes or on the iHeart app,
Speaker 1: and also download Pluto TV and you can watch this show.
Speaker 1: Channel two forty eight, the first the best channel there's
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff on there though, just so I'm
Speaker 1: saying it's a worthwhile after you to download in general.
Speaker 1: But the first channel two forty eight on Pluto is
Speaker 1: where we do our show, and Jesse Kelly also shows
Speaker 1: up and does his show, and we're gonna have other
Speaker 1: people joining in the action in the weeks and months ahead,
Speaker 1: which is gonna be fantastic. That's gonna be our show.
Speaker 1: We gotta go because producer Mark's got important things to do,
Speaker 1: but we will talk to you all tomorrow. Shield's Hot