Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hunt. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American ring,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again the Buck Sexton Show begins,
Speaker 1: Remember the Sexton. No, I really can't stay. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: cold outside. I've got to go away. Maybe it's cold outside.
Speaker 1: This evening has been hoping that you drop very nice.
Speaker 1: I'll hold your hands. They're just like my mother will
Speaker 1: start too worryful. What's your father? Will be pacing the
Speaker 1: flow to the fireplace. So really i'd better skirt, please,
Speaker 1: don't well, maybe just a half a drink. Baby it's
Speaker 1: bad out this So I love that song. And this
Speaker 1: is Lisa Booth with the Buck Sexton Show. I'm filling
Speaker 1: in for him tonight. Obviously I don't sound like him,
Speaker 1: which is probably a good thing because that would be weird.
Speaker 1: But all right, So I am really fired up about
Speaker 1: this right now. So we've got radio stations in Cleveland
Speaker 1: and San Francisco that have banned this beautiful song, Baby
Speaker 1: It's Cold Outside, a Christmas classic goes back to nineteen
Speaker 1: forty four. They have banned this song and one of
Speaker 1: the hosts of the radio one of the radio stations
Speaker 1: that banned it, Glenn Anderson, had this to say. He said,
Speaker 1: the world we live in is extra sensitive now. People
Speaker 1: get easily offended. But in a world where me too
Speaker 1: has finally given woman the voice they deserve, this song
Speaker 1: has no place. But isn't that kind of the problem.
Speaker 1: One that the world has gotten that sensitive that a
Speaker 1: song from nineteen forty four somehow a problem. But also
Speaker 1: they need to movement and how far it's gone that
Speaker 1: the lyrics of the song somehow imply you know something nefarious.
Speaker 1: And what really drives me insane is I really think
Speaker 1: it sort of puts the viewpoint of the left in perspective.
Speaker 1: One from the censorship standpoint, they don't like something, they
Speaker 1: shut it down. But two that somehow women are victims.
Speaker 1: And you look at the words of this song. And
Speaker 1: the woman in the song decides to stay. So who
Speaker 1: cares if she's asked three four times to stay? It's
Speaker 1: her choice. She has agency. If she wanted to leave,
Speaker 1: she could have left. She decided to stay. She decided
Speaker 1: to have another drink. And according to the song, it
Speaker 1: was cold outside, wouldn't you want to stay? Inside and
Speaker 1: have another drink, particularly if you're hanging out with someone
Speaker 1: you like and someone you're having fun with. So how
Speaker 1: ridiculous is it to imply somehow, because she's asked a
Speaker 1: couple of times, that you know, she can't make their
Speaker 1: own decision, and to stay that she's a victim. It
Speaker 1: paints her as weak and that drives me insane as
Speaker 1: a woman. But it really is the same approach that
Speaker 1: the Left applies to a lot of things, even for
Speaker 1: the equal pay argument from the left. Essentially, what they're
Speaker 1: implying is that women need a government mandate or government
Speaker 1: intervention to get paid more, And how ridiculous that. And
Speaker 1: even if you look at studies, they don't even break
Speaker 1: that down. Most often the breakdown and pay comes from
Speaker 1: decisions that a woman makes, either time in office or
Speaker 1: choosing less lucrative careers. But it just really irks me
Speaker 1: that the left beliefs somehow that a woman can't do
Speaker 1: it on their own and that they need a government intervention.
Speaker 1: And another aspect of this that I find, you know,
Speaker 1: really just scary and terrifying is sort of for the
Speaker 1: relationships between men and women. There was also this Princeton
Speaker 1: A capella group that decided to pull the plug on
Speaker 1: the Kiss the Girl from Little Mermaid. Everyone knows that song.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to sing it because I have a
Speaker 1: terrible voice. Nobody wants to hear that. But people at
Speaker 1: the university said that they raised concerns over misogyny and
Speaker 1: that it was dismissive of consent. How ridiculous, somehow a
Speaker 1: song just about kissing a girl is going to trigger people.
Speaker 1: I mean, how insane have we gotten? And where has
Speaker 1: this led us? As well? The Daily Wire recently reported
Speaker 1: about women and men in relationships having to enter some
Speaker 1: sort of dating consent agreement and shooting videos regarding consent
Speaker 1: because men are so terrified about getting caught up in
Speaker 1: this too movement. And it really concerns me because you
Speaker 1: look at what the over correctness or the overcorrection we've
Speaker 1: seen in society about the meed too, and it actually
Speaker 1: negatively impacts women. You know. Bloomberg interviewed around thirty senior
Speaker 1: executives on Wall Street and they actually found that men
Speaker 1: are walking on eggshells because they're so terrified of getting
Speaker 1: caught up in they need too movement that they don't
Speaker 1: even want to be around women. And I found this
Speaker 1: interesting because Karen Olinsky, a president of the Financial Women's
Speaker 1: Association and a senior vice president at Wells Fargo, said
Speaker 1: the falling. She said that women are grasping for ideas
Speaker 1: and how to deal with it because it's affecting their
Speaker 1: careers and it's a real loss. So essentially what has
Speaker 1: happened is because of the me too movement and this
Speaker 1: overcorrected overcorrection and the societ that we've seen, women are
Speaker 1: actually worse off and men are terrified to be a
Speaker 1: round woman. And can you blame them? I mean, you
Speaker 1: look at what happened to Supreme Court Justice Brett Cavanaugh
Speaker 1: and the railroading of him over baseless allegations from people
Speaker 1: like Christine Ford, where we've seen numerous inconsistencies with her stories.
Speaker 1: We saw lies about flying, lies about the second exited house.
Speaker 1: I mean, can you blame men for being terrified of
Speaker 1: living in this society? I remember a while back, there's
Speaker 1: a woman named Emily Lindon, I believe it's her name
Speaker 1: from teen Vogue, and she said that it doesn't at
Speaker 1: all concern her if innocent men's lose their jobs over
Speaker 1: false accusations because it's more important to bring down the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: I mean, how terrifying is that that it's okay for
Speaker 1: an innocent man to get caught up in something that
Speaker 1: he didn't do, just to prove a bigger point. That's
Speaker 1: where we're at, people, And nook no further than what
Speaker 1: Senator Mazie Horno also said during the Supreme Court confirmation
Speaker 1: of Brett Cavanaugh. She said that men should just shut up.
Speaker 1: So men listening, that's what you should do. That's what
Speaker 1: people on the left, that's what some of these women believe,
Speaker 1: Mazie Rano being one of them, just shut up. And
Speaker 1: Senator Jill Brand also further approved this point. Just this week,
Speaker 1: she tweeted out that the future is a female, to
Speaker 1: which Donald Trump Junior rightfully responded. He said, should I
Speaker 1: tell my boys, ages nine, seven and six that there
Speaker 1: was no future for them? So, you guys, this is
Speaker 1: the kind of society that we're living in right now.
Speaker 1: And you know what, it may just be a banning
Speaker 1: of the song is the way the left views this,
Speaker 1: But I view it as so much bigger. And these
Speaker 1: are issues we're facing as a society. The over sensitivity,
Speaker 1: the censorship of the left, and also what the over
Speaker 1: correction of the me too movement has brought. And we
Speaker 1: really saw that come to a fruition with the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearing. And we're going to see
Speaker 1: a lot more of this. So people, if you were
Speaker 1: living in these states or in these cities where these
Speaker 1: radio stations are banning baby it's cold outside, you call
Speaker 1: them and you tell them that you want them to
Speaker 1: play it. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Lisa
Speaker 1: Booth filling him for him tonight. You might know me
Speaker 1: from Fox News. I'm on outnumbers sometimes I do a
Speaker 1: bunch of stuff over there. I've also written some columns
Speaker 1: for The Hill and for the Washington Examinar, and spent
Speaker 1: some time on Capitol Hill in campaigns as well. We've
Speaker 1: got an awesome show for you tonight. We've got National
Speaker 1: Review Andrew McCarthy. We're gonna talk to him about the
Speaker 1: Mueller probe. We're going to talk to Stephen Yates about
Speaker 1: China and trade. Jesse Kelly, who thinks that Alexandria Acasio
Speaker 1: Cortes should not be underestimated. You're gonna want to stay
Speaker 1: tuned for that. And we're also going to talk immigration
Speaker 1: with Center for Immigration Studies Andrew Arthur and also Fares R. J. Hammond.
Speaker 1: So you're gonna want to stick around for that. It's
Speaker 1: going to be an awesome show. But first I wanted
Speaker 1: to get your take, you know, on what I had
Speaker 1: said earlier on in the show about the Me Too
Speaker 1: movement and the band on the baby It's Cold Outside song.
Speaker 1: So why don't you call in if you're If you're around,
Speaker 1: we'd love to hear your thoughts. Phone numbers eight four four,
Speaker 1: nine hundred buck So tune in, would love to hear
Speaker 1: what you have to say. And also another person who
Speaker 1: I want to hear what they have to say is
Speaker 1: producer Mike. Mike, how did I do there with that?
Speaker 1: What did you make of my opening statement there? I
Speaker 1: thought it was outstanding. When you said you came in,
Speaker 1: you said you wanted to talk about that, I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm like that's pretty good because like on the surface,
Speaker 1: I when this debate was going on, it's found it
Speaker 1: utterly ridiculous. I was just like, here's the left losing
Speaker 1: their minds again. But like like when you get into
Speaker 1: it and which just happened with Judge Cavanaugh and the
Speaker 1: environment we live in. It's serious. You know, it's from
Speaker 1: a guy's point of view, like it's not like it
Speaker 1: used to be. And you have to be cautious about dating.
Speaker 1: And when you can take a seventy four year old
Speaker 1: song and make that out of it, I think it's
Speaker 1: ridiculous but scary. Well, and that's what's And look, I'm
Speaker 1: a I'm all for like the Harvey Weinstein's going down,
Speaker 1: and you know people like that, you know, who are
Speaker 1: doing terrible things. But you know, I'm not okay with,
Speaker 1: you know, the baseless allegations thirty six years later that
Speaker 1: are unproven, no corroborating witnesses, no corroborating evidence, and trying
Speaker 1: to bring someone down off of a beer a mirror allegation.
Speaker 1: That's why it really concerns me because I have three brothers,
Speaker 1: and you know, so I look at this both from
Speaker 1: a female perspective but also someone who has been raised
Speaker 1: in a family with guys, and you know, it's kind
Speaker 1: of terrifying. And I was telling you about the study
Speaker 1: that I found really interesting. And so I'm a senior
Speaker 1: fellow for this group called Independent Woman's Voice, and her
Speaker 1: sister's organization is the Independent Woman's Foundation, and so they
Speaker 1: flagged this study that I found super interesting. All right,
Speaker 1: and so the study's done by Valentine Bolotney. I'm sorry, Valentine,
Speaker 1: I probably butchered your name, so I apologize for that
Speaker 1: also Natalie Emmanuel. And so essentially what they did is
Speaker 1: they looked at several years of data with the Massachusetts
Speaker 1: Bay Transportation Authority BUST and train operations, and what they
Speaker 1: found is that even in a unionized environment, where tasks
Speaker 1: are similar, allery wages our identical, and tenure dictates promotion,
Speaker 1: that female workers still earned eighty nine cents on the
Speaker 1: male worker dollar. And the reason they found was because
Speaker 1: of the choices that women make, for instance, and what
Speaker 1: they found that men take forty eight percent fewer unpaid
Speaker 1: hours off work, eighty nine percent more overtime hours annually,
Speaker 1: and also sign up for seven percent more scheduled overtime,
Speaker 1: and they take twice as much last minute unscheduled over time.
Speaker 1: And I found that interesting because even in this really
Speaker 1: level playing field that you have, you still have women
Speaker 1: earning less. What that tells me is perhaps there's one
Speaker 1: on the left that are showing up at these rallies
Speaker 1: with the pink cats. Maybe they should spend more time
Speaker 1: not at these rallies and wearing these pink cats, but
Speaker 1: maybe showing up at work. Yeah, putting in a little
Speaker 1: bit more time, or making different career decisions in the
Speaker 1: career fields that they're choosing. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: don't necessarily have to respond to the I don't want
Speaker 1: to gain in trouble, but yeah, I'm in trouble every
Speaker 1: day here. But it's all good. But what do you
Speaker 1: make of that study? I mean, is it as interesting
Speaker 1: as I find it? Or am I just a nerd here? No?
Speaker 1: I think if you carried about two of those things
Speaker 1: could be true at the same time you're on now,
Speaker 1: I'm good. Yeah, I found it very interesting. And once again,
Speaker 1: like I said, I can't believe this actually studies about
Speaker 1: this now, But it's why it's out there. I think it's,
Speaker 1: you know, worth paying attention to and worth you know,
Speaker 1: talking about. Has anyone called them talk to us yet? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we actually have some We have Mark onm Mississippi on
Speaker 1: the line, so he wants to talk about a little
Speaker 1: bit and we're gonna put them through right now for you. Hey, Mark, Hey,
Speaker 1: are you doing I'm doing well, how are you doing tonight?
Speaker 1: Good listen, I just wanted to put some infot on
Speaker 1: when this started. I'm fifty eight year old white male.
Speaker 1: I've been at a chemical plant for thirty years. And
Speaker 1: the brainwashing classes as I call them, starting back in
Speaker 1: the nineties, and they kept changing the program and starting
Speaker 1: out and expect respect, matter of respect, women for this,
Speaker 1: women for that. And we have women that work and
Speaker 1: they actually are making the same amount of money, but
Speaker 1: just the things that have changed over the years. And
Speaker 1: they have a network for everybody but the white male.
Speaker 1: They have the LGDDCT whatever. All the letters are Hispanic Network,
Speaker 1: the Black Network, Women's Network. And years ago my colleague
Speaker 1: tried to start a Christian network and we're told that
Speaker 1: you just can't be forming hate groups. Wow. But the women,
Speaker 1: you know, I heard you talking about some of them
Speaker 1: not making money at other places. I'm sure that might,
Speaker 1: but they are here and they're you know, same as
Speaker 1: this men. There's some men that are can't carry their
Speaker 1: weight either. But when you get out there and you're
Speaker 1: talking about valves and forty eight inch plate frenches and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, you know, they give, they get it,
Speaker 1: but they just change it around when they work around them.
Speaker 1: There's nothing against women or anything. We got plenty of them.
Speaker 1: They're good workers and can you know, do better than
Speaker 1: some men. Well, the point I was making is that
Speaker 1: there's this you know, well, the point I was making
Speaker 1: is that there's a study that essentially, in you know,
Speaker 1: very level equal playing field, that essentially what happened is
Speaker 1: that the choices of the women there dick heated the
Speaker 1: outcome of the pay. So that was the point I
Speaker 1: was making, is that, you know, it's a lot of
Speaker 1: times it comes down to choice. And again back to
Speaker 1: my point earlier agency and the fact that women aren't victims.
Speaker 1: We make our own decisions and we you know, we
Speaker 1: make our own determination in life. So that was kind
Speaker 1: of more broadly about the point I was making. But
Speaker 1: do you find in the work environment has your interaction
Speaker 1: with women changed or are you worried with you know,
Speaker 1: sort of the me too movement and that interaction with
Speaker 1: the you know, women at your organization. I mean, I've
Speaker 1: been married to the same lady for thirty one years,
Speaker 1: so I try to avoid I do like to I
Speaker 1: guess they call it a pension method. I don't show
Speaker 1: up with anybody alone or working together or anything. It's
Speaker 1: always more than just me and another woman doing a
Speaker 1: job or something. You know, And that's saying terrible, but
Speaker 1: I mean that's just the way I mean. I gave
Speaker 1: an example. We had a man that was become the
Speaker 1: supervisor area. He brought again it really wasn't one of
Speaker 1: the good workers, and he brought her behind closed door
Speaker 1: as well. It wasn't two months after that he went
Speaker 1: back to his tools because he was told under no
Speaker 1: circumstances or you go one on one behind closed door.
Speaker 1: You know. He was just trying to give her a
Speaker 1: performance review and tell her what she was doing on
Speaker 1: but that was just a big insult. Yeah, well, it
Speaker 1: sounds like you're ruined, ruined a good person. Well, it
Speaker 1: sounds like you're a smart man. And as they say,
Speaker 1: happy wife, happy life. Right yeah, all right, well you
Speaker 1: have a great night. I appreciate you calling in. All right,
Speaker 1: we're gonna go to Nick now and queens who wants
Speaker 1: to talk about this as well. Okay, hey Nick, Hey Lisa,
Speaker 1: are you I'm doing well? How's it going? Good? Excellent
Speaker 1: job so far? Oh I appreciate that. That's better than
Speaker 1: the alternative, right yeah, right, And I'm the one I
Speaker 1: always tweet you pictures of when you're on TV. Oh awesome,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. I let's try your pictures of my
Speaker 1: niece every once in a a long. Oh yeah, I've got
Speaker 1: I've got a niece as well. Um, she's a little
Speaker 1: CUTI pie. So that's a really fun thing to have.
Speaker 1: Um and so what so what were your thoughts then
Speaker 1: on you know what I had said, uh, sort of
Speaker 1: regarding the banning of baby it's cold outside and sort
Speaker 1: of more broadly, this overcorrection in society regarding the me
Speaker 1: too movement? You know, what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: I think it's ridiculous and I think you actually probably
Speaker 1: said it on TV that think of the other songs
Speaker 1: that are on the radio and the rap songs and
Speaker 1: all these other songs that are on the radio. But
Speaker 1: those are fine. But you know, in old time Christmas
Speaker 1: song is not right. And that's that's just you know that,
Speaker 1: that's just really really the PC police are just it's
Speaker 1: it's out of control. And you know, I my kind
Speaker 1: of theory is I'm going to do whatever I want
Speaker 1: and I don't care what other people think. Well, and
Speaker 1: it's like, if I want to listen to Christmas music.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna listen to Christmas music. Same here, which is
Speaker 1: why we started the show with baby It's Cold Outside
Speaker 1: because I love that song. But they're coming for a
Speaker 1: little Mermaid kiss the girls a problem. They're also coming
Speaker 1: for it off, so Rudolph needs to be aware as well.
Speaker 1: But Nick, I appreciate your time, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: calling in, and we appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Right,
Speaker 1: I think we have one more call. Time for one
Speaker 1: more call. Let's do it, yeah, Alan Ohio, Alan, Hey, Allen, Hi,
Speaker 1: how's it going? Okay? Um? A lot of snow and
Speaker 1: sloppy weather here in the Buckeye State. Ah, well, you
Speaker 1: know that's what I h Oh Sorry, go ahead, But
Speaker 1: I had a couple comments about this song, and it
Speaker 1: shows a lot of ignorance on the left side because
Speaker 1: I work with traumatized women, and I think I'm a counselor, okay,
Speaker 1: And I think this whole um protest that they have
Speaker 1: against this song minimizes what it's really like for a
Speaker 1: woman who's been truly traumatized. That song in that movie
Speaker 1: does not begin to um parallel in any way what
Speaker 1: happens to women who are physically restrained, blocked from leaving,
Speaker 1: and I think that it trivializes the whole issue. The
Speaker 1: second observation I just wanted to make real quickly is
Speaker 1: that I think it's sexist because if the roles were reversed,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If it was
Speaker 1: the woman asking the man to stay, we wouldn't be
Speaker 1: having this conversation. So I think the whole fact that
Speaker 1: they point out a problem here shows that they have
Speaker 1: a sexist, sexist viewpoint. Well, you know that's actually that's
Speaker 1: a great point you make, because you're right. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: if this song was about a woman saying that to
Speaker 1: a man, they'd be like, oh, look at her. She's
Speaker 1: so strong, she's so empowered, she makes her own decisions.
Speaker 1: But exactly back to you know, your point what I
Speaker 1: was saying earlier, It's like the fact, just because he's
Speaker 1: asked her a couple of different times, somehow she can't
Speaker 1: make her own decisions. I mean, in the end of
Speaker 1: the song, she chose to stay. She wanted to have
Speaker 1: another drink, So I mean, you know, goes back to
Speaker 1: you know, that point about agency and ability for a
Speaker 1: woman to make her own decisions, but you're right. If
Speaker 1: the roles were reversed, the dynamics of the conversation would
Speaker 1: be completely interesting. Thank you so much for Alan. You
Speaker 1: made some really interesting points tonight, so we really appreciate
Speaker 1: your time. All right again, Lisa booth Phillion for the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. You know me from Fox News, I
Speaker 1: think in some other places, So stay with us. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the buck Sexton Show. We've got Andrew McCarthy
Speaker 1: from the National Review and also a Fox News contributor,
Speaker 1: and I've had the honor of being on the Fox
Speaker 1: News is Outnumbered couch with him. Andy, You're such a
Speaker 1: smart guy, so I am so glad to have you
Speaker 1: on the show tonight. And just you know so much
Speaker 1: about the Mueller investigation, everything that's going on, so I'm
Speaker 1: just so thankful that we've got you to break it
Speaker 1: down for us. So, you know, Andy, first of all,
Speaker 1: I want to start off Judge Napolitan, I want of
Speaker 1: her co workers from Fox made some news yesterday. He
Speaker 1: said that he believed that Don Junior will be indicted.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that statement? Do you believe him? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't see any evidence to that at the moment. Lisa,
Speaker 1: I think that we have a better indication that there
Speaker 1: was some kind of a criminal investigation going on. I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't really, I don't know what the Politano was
Speaker 1: referring to. I know that people are looking carefully at
Speaker 1: his testimony in the in the Senate, but so far,
Speaker 1: you know, the only intriguing thing there is that he
Speaker 1: says that he did not speak to then candidate now
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump about the Russia meeting at the Trump
Speaker 1: Tower in June of twenty sixteen. The only two people
Speaker 1: I think who know that one way or the other
Speaker 1: are Don Junior, the President, and from what I understand,
Speaker 1: one of the things that the Mueller has been putting
Speaker 1: pressure on Paul Manafort where they've had a flowing out
Speaker 1: after Manafort was trying to cooperate with the investigation, Mueller's
Speaker 1: evidently been putting pressure on him about whether the President
Speaker 1: knew about the Trump Tower meeting him, whether Don Junior
Speaker 1: had told him. I don't know what other evidence, you know,
Speaker 1: what other transaction they'd be looking at, but I don't
Speaker 1: to what. At least the way I understand the investigation
Speaker 1: right now, I don't think they have evidence to charge
Speaker 1: him well, and I wanted to ask you that because
Speaker 1: I read your column the other day, and the case
Speaker 1: you made is that Mueller is not or he's building report,
Speaker 1: he's not building sort of a criminal case. And so
Speaker 1: if you can for our listeners if they haven't read
Speaker 1: your column, which they should, and I advise everyone to
Speaker 1: go and read it, but can you just sort of
Speaker 1: summarize that for us and why you believe that he's
Speaker 1: building report and not a case. Yeah, sure, Well, no
Speaker 1: prosecutor builds a case, Lisa, the way that Muller is
Speaker 1: going about it. So what you want to have when
Speaker 1: you're building a criminal case is a cooperator who's an accomplice,
Speaker 1: who is involved in what you say is the main scheme.
Speaker 1: And then what you do is you bring that cooperator
Speaker 1: into court to plead guilty and you have him alocute
Speaker 1: to the full extent of the conspiracy. So you say, yes,
Speaker 1: there was a Yes, there was a conspiratorial arrangement. I
Speaker 1: was involved in it. You know, these other three people
Speaker 1: were involved in it. Here's what they did, here's what
Speaker 1: I did. And that's how you go about it. The
Speaker 1: last thing you would do as a prosecutor trying to
Speaker 1: build to the crescendo of a big case would be
Speaker 1: to plead all of your possible, big important witnesses to
Speaker 1: charges of lying to investigators. It would mean that the
Speaker 1: one enduring thing that a jury would come away with
Speaker 1: after watching your case is that they can't believe a
Speaker 1: thing any of your this is say, which is not
Speaker 1: the way that you that you go about it. So
Speaker 1: I think Mueller's problem, and this has been the problem
Speaker 1: I tried to identify when he was appointed without the
Speaker 1: basis of a you know, without any factual grounding for
Speaker 1: a criminal investigation. From that day forward, there has never
Speaker 1: been a time when it seemed that Mueller had evidence
Speaker 1: of anything criminal in the way of a scheme between
Speaker 1: the Trump people and the Kremlin. And I've always thought, Lisa,
Speaker 1: that that's the reason they refer to it as collusion,
Speaker 1: because collusion is a weasel word, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it just means concerted activity. You and I are colluding
Speaker 1: by having this conversation, doesn't mean we're doing anything wrong, right,
Speaker 1: What what prosecutors care about is conspiracy, which is a
Speaker 1: criminal agreement to violate a law, a criminal law, And
Speaker 1: he's never had that. So I think that you know,
Speaker 1: every There are a lot of people who who don't
Speaker 1: like Trump who look at all these pleas and they think,
Speaker 1: you know, very hopefully from their perspective, that Mueller is
Speaker 1: piece by piece, mesodically rolling up people to get, you know,
Speaker 1: to go up the chain, as they say, and finally
Speaker 1: get to Trump. But that only works when you're getting
Speaker 1: them to plead guilty to the thing that they did
Speaker 1: with Trump. And if they're all pleading guilty to making
Speaker 1: false statements to investigators long and after the cell called
Speaker 1: collusion scheme, then you don't really have a collusion case. Well,
Speaker 1: so then you know, my question to you then is,
Speaker 1: you know, what's the point of the Mueller investigation? Then
Speaker 1: if if they're you know, really, isn't this criminal activity?
Speaker 1: You know, why even have the Muller investigation of the
Speaker 1: beginning with like to begin him? What is he doing?
Speaker 1: What is the point of this investigation? That's always been
Speaker 1: a great question, and it's you know, one of the
Speaker 1: reasons I try to point out that, you know, there
Speaker 1: is this distinction between criminal investigations and counterintelligence investigations. What
Speaker 1: Mueller was handed was a counterintelligence investigation that's importantly different
Speaker 1: from a criminal investigation. In the latter. In criminal cases,
Speaker 1: what you're trying to do is build evidence so that
Speaker 1: you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody that
Speaker 1: you've identified as a suspect has violated a law. The
Speaker 1: point of a counter intelligence investigation is not to enforce
Speaker 1: the law. In fact, most the vast majority of counterintelligence
Speaker 1: investigations don't have anything to do with criminal prosecution. The
Speaker 1: point of a counterintelligence investigation is to collect information about
Speaker 1: foreign powers that may threaten American interests. So, for example,
Speaker 1: in the Russia counterintelligence investigation, the thing that you're looking
Speaker 1: at is Russia. You know to the extent that it
Speaker 1: poses a threat to our election system and anything else
Speaker 1: that way, it may pose a threat too. And the
Speaker 1: reason it's really bad to give a prosecutor a counterintelligence
Speaker 1: investigation is twofold. First, in the Justice Department, counterintelligence investigations
Speaker 1: don't get a prosecutor because it's not lawyer work. It's
Speaker 1: agent work. It's analytical work. There's nothing about having a
Speaker 1: law degree that makes you an expert intelligence analysis. So
Speaker 1: the only time the lawyers get involved in the Justice
Speaker 1: Department in counterintelligence is if the analysts need them to
Speaker 1: get for example, a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Speaker 1: Act to surveil somebody. So then the prosecutorial it's not
Speaker 1: even they not even usually prosecutors, they're just government lawyers
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department. They will go to the fies
Speaker 1: the court and try to get a warrant for the agents,
Speaker 1: but they don't get involved in the collection or analysis
Speaker 1: of the evidence. So why you would put a prosecutor
Speaker 1: in charge of an important counterintelligence investigation is beyond me.
Speaker 1: But the second reason it's really bad, Lisa, is what
Speaker 1: you want with prosecutors is for them to be assigned
Speaker 1: to something that already is suspected to be a crime.
Speaker 1: When you assigned the prosecutor. In other words, what we
Speaker 1: do in this country is a crime gets committed and
Speaker 1: then we assign a prosecutor. We don't assign a prosecutor
Speaker 1: and tell them, see what you can do to go
Speaker 1: off and find a crime. So that's not the way
Speaker 1: it works. So my being overly am I overly simplifying
Speaker 1: this and saying that you know, it seems like Muller
Speaker 1: is in search of a crime instead of investigating a
Speaker 1: crime that's already happened. Yes, I think that with respect
Speaker 1: to President Trump. That has always been true. And one
Speaker 1: of the reasons that's another of the reasons I guess
Speaker 1: I should say that's that's a really bad way to
Speaker 1: go about it in terms of counter intelligence. Is you know,
Speaker 1: if I assign you, Lisa as a prosecutor to go
Speaker 1: investigate the robbery of the First National Bank, we all
Speaker 1: know that there was a robbery, and we know that
Speaker 1: there's like three or four elements of bank robbery that
Speaker 1: a prosecutor has to prove beyond the reasonable doubt. So
Speaker 1: the transaction has understandable limits and parameters, and you either
Speaker 1: you can either prove it or you can't after doing
Speaker 1: an adequate investigation. By contrast, a counterintelligence investigation, as we've
Speaker 1: just said, is just an information gathering exercise, and the
Speaker 1: guys who gather information will always tell you they can
Speaker 1: never get enough, right. So unlike a normal criminal investigation,
Speaker 1: it doesn't have any finite you know, there's no sensible
Speaker 1: beginning an end to it, and it can just be
Speaker 1: an unguided missile or a phishing expedition with no natural
Speaker 1: beginning or end, and it would be one It would
Speaker 1: be one thing if you did something like that in
Speaker 1: a normal prosecutor's office where all the resources of the
Speaker 1: office can't be poured into one case. You know, every
Speaker 1: every case has to compete with every other case for resources.
Speaker 1: But you know, when you're when you're a special cancel situation,
Speaker 1: it's like you're you assigned a prosecutor to one target.
Speaker 1: And then if you turn around and say, and by
Speaker 1: the way, we're putting any limits on you. You're assigned
Speaker 1: to this person and you scorch the earth as much
Speaker 1: as you think you need to to try to find
Speaker 1: a crime. That's not really the American way of doing investigations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's pretty terrifying stuff there. And look, i'd be eve
Speaker 1: remiss to not ask you about the Mueller sentencing report
Speaker 1: on Michael Flynn. It came out on Tuesday night. What
Speaker 1: are your takeaways from it? And also is the media
Speaker 1: missing anything big about it that hasn't really been reported. Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that there's a lot in there. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know everybody says because there's so much redaction, you
Speaker 1: can't really tell what Muller has and there's there's something
Speaker 1: to be said for that. But I think it's interesting. Um,
Speaker 1: it seems to me that it confirms something that that
Speaker 1: I've been arguing all along, which is that you know,
Speaker 1: you asked me a second ago, what is Muller doing here?
Speaker 1: I think a big priority that Mueller has is to
Speaker 1: justify the very controversial decision made by the Obama administration
Speaker 1: to conduct an investigation of the opposition party's presidential campaign
Speaker 1: the presidency of Trump. And you know, I think that's
Speaker 1: what they were obviously going about doing that. If you
Speaker 1: look at the Flynn memo, what it seems to indicate
Speaker 1: is that they've brought on to exactly what the theory
Speaker 1: that the Justice Department had in the Obama days before
Speaker 1: Muller was assigned. So you'll learn that, you know, there
Speaker 1: was a Logan Act investigation of Flynn during the Trump transition. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, the Logan Act is not a good basis
Speaker 1: to conduct a criminal investigation. It's this two century old
Speaker 1: provision that never has been prosecuted successfully in the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: And when when Flynn was in the Trump transition, his
Speaker 1: job was to deal with counterparts from other countries. So
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think that's a proper basis to
Speaker 1: be conducting an investigation. And yet, you know, Muller seems
Speaker 1: to adopt that. So I think a big part of
Speaker 1: what he's trying to do here is even if they
Speaker 1: don't find any sitable criminal offenses, by they are going
Speaker 1: to they are ultimately going to say that there was
Speaker 1: plenty of basis for the FBI in the Justice Department
Speaker 1: to be suspicious. So why aren't more people reporting that then?
Speaker 1: Because you mean, you look at that, there really doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to be a basis for the FBI ever interview
Speaker 1: interviewing Flynn in the first place. He didn't do anything
Speaker 1: wrong with talking to Kissley acc about sanctions. He was
Speaker 1: part of the incoming administration. That has happened before. So
Speaker 1: why why aren't more people talking about that? I think
Speaker 1: because the media buy enlarges anti Trump, and they liked
Speaker 1: the investigation. And you know, ultimately Congress is not limited, Lisa,
Speaker 1: to criminal violations. High crimes and misdemeanors don't have to
Speaker 1: be indictable criminal offenses, so it's always possible that Muller
Speaker 1: could turn up something that might be impeachable, even if
Speaker 1: it can't be used to indict Trump. So they liked
Speaker 1: the investigation. All right, Andy, well, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us tonight. I knew you would be an
Speaker 1: awesome guest. So so thankful for you joining us this
Speaker 1: evening and making sense of everything for us. Thanks so much,
Speaker 1: least always a pleasure to be with you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hope to see you soon. All right, YEA, have a
Speaker 1: great night. Muller's not involved in a investigation. Mueller has
Speaker 1: a Trump destruction project. He brought on a team, all
Speaker 1: of them dedicated to destroying Trump. They've done everything they
Speaker 1: could to destroy Trump. Part of that technique is you
Speaker 1: throw the kitchen sink. You basically threatened somebody and say
Speaker 1: I'm going to bankrupt you, I'm going to put your
Speaker 1: son in jail. I'm going to charge you with so
Speaker 1: many different crimes you'll never get out from undred. Now,
Speaker 1: would you like to talk? And we have the full
Speaker 1: power of the federal government against you, it's pretty tough
Speaker 1: not to try to find a way to get him
Speaker 1: off your back. But it has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the truth, it has nothing to do with justice. Historians
Speaker 1: someday will comment that this was one of the most
Speaker 1: extraordinary efforts to undo the will of the American people
Speaker 1: buy an established bureaucracy and its establishment friends that we've
Speaker 1: seen in all of American history. Okay, so that was
Speaker 1: Newt Gingrich. And we've also talked to Addie McCarthy just
Speaker 1: in the last break, and again I urge you to
Speaker 1: go read his column it's called Robert Mueller's Plan, because
Speaker 1: I really, you know, I've got a lot of concerns
Speaker 1: about this. And to his point, if Robert Mueller is
Speaker 1: building a report, not a case, then what is the
Speaker 1: point of the Mueller investigation to begin with? If there's
Speaker 1: not criminal activity that he's already that he was looking
Speaker 1: at from the inception of this investigation, what is the
Speaker 1: point of his investigation? And it's also it's not just
Speaker 1: new Gingridge, it's not just Annie McCarthy that have raised
Speaker 1: questions and kind of rung the alarm on this. There's
Speaker 1: also this column in USA Today not too long ago
Speaker 1: by Michael Muccasey, who is a former Attorney General who
Speaker 1: served under George W. Bush, who raised the point that
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel investigation just should have never started from
Speaker 1: the beginning, that there wasn't a justification for the investigation.
Speaker 1: And now here we are. Taxpayers have been on the hook,
Speaker 1: and what have we gotten from it? Where is the collusion?
Speaker 1: Where is the crimes in relation to conspiracy that Annie
Speaker 1: McCarthy was talking about earlier. Yet but yet here we are.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about Express VPN. Every
Speaker 1: time you go online or you use public WiFi, you're
Speaker 1: actually putting information and danger and all it takes is
Speaker 1: a one time, one time, and a hacker could have
Speaker 1: enough information on you distill your identity by infiltrating your
Speaker 1: Internet traffic. Hackers could open bank accounts in your name,
Speaker 1: access your emails, and destroy your credit for years. That's
Speaker 1: why I decided to take my privacy back by using
Speaker 1: Express VPN. Express VPN has easy to use apps that
Speaker 1: runs seamlessly in the background of my computer, phone, and tablet.
Speaker 1: Turning on Express VPN protection only takes one click. Express
Speaker 1: vpn Secure anonymizes your Internet browsing by encrypting your data
Speaker 1: and hiding your public IP address. Protecting yourself with Express
Speaker 1: VPN costs less than seven dollars a month. Express VPN
Speaker 1: is rated the number one VPN service by tech Radar,
Speaker 1: and it comes with a thirty day money back guarantee.
Speaker 1: So if you ever use public wi fi and you
Speaker 1: want to keep hackers in spies from seeing your data,
Speaker 1: Express VPN is the solution. And if you don't want
Speaker 1: to hand over your online history to your internet provider
Speaker 1: or data resellers, express VPN is the answer. So protect
Speaker 1: your online activity today and find out how you can
Speaker 1: get three months free at express vpn dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's Express vpn dot com slash buck for three month
Speaker 1: free and a one year with a one year package.
Speaker 1: Visit express vpn dot com slash buck to learn more.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Hoard two of the Buck Sexton Show. Lisa
Speaker 1: Booth in for him tonight. I've got Steven Yates on
Speaker 1: the line. He is a former national security advisor to
Speaker 1: former President Dick Cheney Vice President Dick Cheney. And see when.
Speaker 1: I'm so glad you're here because I really want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about what's going on right now with
Speaker 1: China and trade. The Chinese Minister of Our Commerce said
Speaker 1: on Tuesday at that the meeting in G twenty at
Speaker 1: the G twenty summit was very successful and that the
Speaker 1: two countries are over the next ninety day is going
Speaker 1: to seek to try to formulate a more specifcific deal.
Speaker 1: So where are we right now with China on trade
Speaker 1: and also what happens in the next ninety days, in
Speaker 1: your opinion, at least, I think we're kind of running
Speaker 1: in two tracks at once right now. I think everyone
Speaker 1: has come to the awareness that Donald Trump is a
Speaker 1: different kind of president, and he's taking an unconventional approach
Speaker 1: to negotiating with China, and this is a major issue
Speaker 1: for his presidency but also for him personally. He's talked
Speaker 1: about it for decades, trying to rebalance what he sees
Speaker 1: as I think accurately the raw deal Americans have had
Speaker 1: in doing business in China. And the second track is
Speaker 1: managing the politics of the near term and going into
Speaker 1: next year. Financial markets were getting skittish about FED moves potentially,
Speaker 1: and the kind of dark horizon of a trade war
Speaker 1: with China seemed to be rattling a few cages. I
Speaker 1: don't think that Donald Trump is going to go wobbly
Speaker 1: and negotiations with the Chinese, but we definitely have a
Speaker 1: bit of back and forth in the history of US
Speaker 1: China relations, and certainly, going back the better part of
Speaker 1: thirty years of my working on China related issues, I've
Speaker 1: never heard of anyone putting a ninety day horizon out
Speaker 1: there with China and expecting real measurable results. So if
Speaker 1: we get something in those ninety days, that's unprecedented. But
Speaker 1: I think the president is pushing in the right direction
Speaker 1: to try to give the Chinese goal posts, and then
Speaker 1: if they fail to meet them, well, then he goes
Speaker 1: back to hitting them with the hammer of the tariffs,
Speaker 1: which he said he is famously the tariff president. So
Speaker 1: do you think you'd mentioned his unconventional approach. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think it's working, the tariffs against China and
Speaker 1: sort of this tougher approach. Is it working well? It
Speaker 1: certainly worked. Up to the G twenty meeting. The Chinese
Speaker 1: were feeling pressure. I think the leadership was feeling pressure
Speaker 1: political and economic. There's a kind of an open question
Speaker 1: among those of us who try to watch these things
Speaker 1: really closely about whether the Chinese feel like they got
Speaker 1: a ninety days breathing space or whether they kind of
Speaker 1: had this personal heart to heart at the leader level. Now,
Speaker 1: I am a deeply skeptical person when it comes to
Speaker 1: having a heart to heart with the head of a
Speaker 1: communist party of any country, And much as the Communist
Speaker 1: Party of China have a heart and so I don't
Speaker 1: really believe in personal chemistry and negotiating with China, But
Speaker 1: the President believes in playing that in his negotiations. So
Speaker 1: the combo of trying to build some rapport, pressing them
Speaker 1: with tariffs and the threat of future of things coming
Speaker 1: back probably is the right thing. But frankly, the Chinese
Speaker 1: only understand power and pressure, and that's what they'll respond to. Friendliness.
Speaker 1: He'll just eat up for lunch and come back and
Speaker 1: say can I have another serving? And so I think
Speaker 1: the President is going to have to be prepared to
Speaker 1: be tough through twenty nineteen and onward. But if we
Speaker 1: get net progress along the way, I'm happy with that.
Speaker 1: Just don't backtrack. So you're thinking this is the long
Speaker 1: road ahead, then this is going to take a while. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: that's my zoo. I mean, I'd love to be proven wrong.
Speaker 1: I'd be happy to see the president get a breakthrough
Speaker 1: and recalibrate the US China trade relationship. But we have been,
Speaker 1: I think, on a fantasy for the last fifty years
Speaker 1: about giving economic benefits to China and favorable dealings with China,
Speaker 1: letting it get away with things we don't let any
Speaker 1: other country get away with on the expectation they become
Speaker 1: more modern, more like us, less of a problem. And
Speaker 1: I think President Trump accurately read that a majority of
Speaker 1: Americans don't buy that anymore. And guess what, the statistics
Speaker 1: and the reality of doing business in the world doesn't
Speaker 1: back it up anymore. And so we've got the theft
Speaker 1: of intellectual property, imbalanced trade, and a lot of non
Speaker 1: tariff barriers, which is a technical way of saying unfair
Speaker 1: trade practice is beyond taxes that the Chinese have gotten
Speaker 1: away with, and we this is just desperate need of
Speaker 1: a rebalance. So I support the direction. I'm just not
Speaker 1: optimistic it will be a near term harvest. And you
Speaker 1: had mentioned the intellectual property theft that of course was
Speaker 1: part of the justification of tariffs on China and this
Speaker 1: tough stance that the Trump administration is taking. Of course,
Speaker 1: they did a seven month investigation into China and found
Speaker 1: a loss economically of about fifty billion dollars to Corporate
Speaker 1: America and corporate earnings. Can you just break down for
Speaker 1: the listeners just the impact of the intellectual property theft,
Speaker 1: what China is up to, and why it's so important
Speaker 1: to know about this and to call China out on it. Well,
Speaker 1: first and foremost, I think the scale is much larger,
Speaker 1: and so we're probably really looking in the ballpark of
Speaker 1: like six hundred billion dollars worth of intellectual property being
Speaker 1: stolen from American interests over recent years. And that's not
Speaker 1: like going back thirty years, it's just going back into
Speaker 1: recent years. And so what happens is companies try to
Speaker 1: go into the ever large China market thinking they'll get
Speaker 1: market share, increased sales, have an export platform, and the
Speaker 1: Chinese will add on fe these forced technology transfer, have
Speaker 1: their people trained up to basically spy on you and
Speaker 1: copy what you do, and after a certain amount of time,
Speaker 1: they become incredibly competitive under a national brand to do
Speaker 1: exactly what you do, and the government there will favor
Speaker 1: the national brands over foreigners, and sooner or later you
Speaker 1: find yourself squeezed out of the market you thought was
Speaker 1: enormous and key to your long term growth. So there's
Speaker 1: been over the last twenty five to thirty years, there's
Speaker 1: been a number of big companies and some small entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: that have literally had their lunch eaten by the Chinese
Speaker 1: this way, over and over and over. The first few
Speaker 1: times people can say, oh, this is just working the
Speaker 1: kinks out, and there's some winners and some losers. But
Speaker 1: this is a long term pattern now where entire companies
Speaker 1: get engulfed, major technologies get overtaken, and some of these
Speaker 1: technologies are critical to our vital infrastructure, like five G
Speaker 1: technology and cellular communications and lots of semiconductor parts in
Speaker 1: everything that's in the technology that we live our lives,
Speaker 1: relying upon for security, but also everyday commerce and just
Speaker 1: getting around town. This is now a vital part of
Speaker 1: our economy, and the Chinese have really taken a huge
Speaker 1: stake in it, and now it's difficult to do something
Speaker 1: to push back. So President Trump's got obviously a lot
Speaker 1: of criticism regarding his approach on trade, a little bit
Speaker 1: less on China, you know, more on you know, regarding
Speaker 1: surrounding NAFTA in Mexico and Canada. But staying on trade,
Speaker 1: do you think, I mean, what other approach does President
Speaker 1: Trump have then to try to if he's trying to
Speaker 1: extract concessions from China, if he's trying to get them
Speaker 1: to lay off the intellectual property threft theft outside of tariffs,
Speaker 1: you know, what other options are available to President Trump
Speaker 1: and trying to kind of lay the hammer down on China. Well,
Speaker 1: some of what he's done broadly on trade, while not
Speaker 1: directly targeting China, I think has had an impact on
Speaker 1: negotiations with China and the reality to deal with them.
Speaker 1: Number one, the successor agreement to NaSTA had Canada and
Speaker 1: Mexico agree to conditions that Chinese can't go make a
Speaker 1: favorable agreement with one or the other of them and
Speaker 1: sneak their way in their goods or services into the
Speaker 1: United States and bypass our own laws, in our own
Speaker 1: restrictions for security or other conditions, and so eliminating a
Speaker 1: NaSTA loophole that gave Chinese an unfair advantage by way
Speaker 1: of NaSTA had an impact on their economic strategy. Also
Speaker 1: recalibrating the trade relationship and our alliance structure with Europe.
Speaker 1: At first, everyone said the sky is going to fall,
Speaker 1: this is going to wreck the world. But what it
Speaker 1: turned out was not only could these things be done
Speaker 1: that people said were impossible, but an increasing number of
Speaker 1: our alliances openly in many cases but even more so privately,
Speaker 1: are saying we two want a rebalancing of China's behavior
Speaker 1: on security, on unfair trade practices. The feeling of intellectual
Speaker 1: property affects a lot of interest around the world. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of quiet cheerleaders behind the administration's approach
Speaker 1: to try to tackle these issues with China. And frankly,
Speaker 1: there's no precedent. No leader in the world, not just
Speaker 1: the United States, has really tried to pressure the Chinese
Speaker 1: to reverse this trend to date, and so any progress
Speaker 1: Trump gets is the first in the world. How much
Speaker 1: pressure is China feeling right now? I read a CNBC
Speaker 1: article saying that China's growth could be slowed about point
Speaker 1: six percent I think next year regarding are due to
Speaker 1: the tariffs. You know, how much pressure economically is China
Speaker 1: facing right now? Much more than statistics would let us know.
Speaker 1: Number One, there's a longstanding issue of how accurate are
Speaker 1: Chinese statistics, given that they are done by organizations controlled
Speaker 1: by officers of the Communist Party of China. And the
Speaker 1: other part of it is, for the United States, it's
Speaker 1: an infinitesimal fraction of our GDP is tied to trade
Speaker 1: with China, and for China it's getting up into the
Speaker 1: single digits, which sounds small to a lot of people,
Speaker 1: but that is like a hundred times more impactful on
Speaker 1: their GDP their trade with US than our trade with
Speaker 1: them is for the US GDP. So, in a very
Speaker 1: real way, there's economic pressure that is disproportionately on China
Speaker 1: that it is on the United States. Now, the industries
Speaker 1: in the US that are affected farmers primarily, but not
Speaker 1: limited to them, they have real pain, They had some uncertainty,
Speaker 1: and I think the administration and Congress have tried to
Speaker 1: address it. But we should be under no mistake, and
Speaker 1: I hope the President's team is under no mistake. The
Speaker 1: pressure is much more on China, and the time to
Speaker 1: get your advantage is now. Will they're under pressure, don't
Speaker 1: get them up for air and hope that they'll be
Speaker 1: nice to you after this pressure has been put on them.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about, you know, kind of same question
Speaker 1: regarding at the United States. How much pressure is the
Speaker 1: United States economy in effect with China and the retalitary
Speaker 1: tariffs that they've put on us, And if this is
Speaker 1: the long haul, how much damage or how much pain
Speaker 1: are Americans going to feel? Well, certainly there are some
Speaker 1: sectors that have put all their eggs in the China basket.
Speaker 1: I think soybeans is one of those that comes to mind,
Speaker 1: but hey, and some other commodities that affect agricultural state disproportionately,
Speaker 1: there's going to be long term impact. Now. Part of
Speaker 1: the Buenos Aires G twenty agreement was that the Chinese
Speaker 1: are committed to increase purchases of those kinds of commodities,
Speaker 1: and so we'll see whether that helps mitigate the longer
Speaker 1: term uncertainty about this. But there's two kinds of pressure
Speaker 1: that are going to come to play. One is economic
Speaker 1: and the other is political. The political press pressure is
Speaker 1: frankly a bit more mixed. The President's approach is more
Speaker 1: Main Street than Wall Street, and frankly, there are elements
Speaker 1: of the new Democrat majority in the Congress that has
Speaker 1: a history of being more sympathetic to the trade policy
Speaker 1: of the president has been pushing than his own majority
Speaker 1: in recent years has and so the politics of this
Speaker 1: are definitely mixed. The Wall Street versus Main Street part
Speaker 1: of this, I think is the most important part of
Speaker 1: going into twenty twenty. And that Electoral College coalition that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wrote to victory in twenty sixteen, that is
Speaker 1: a belt of manufacturing that wants to see a rejuvenation
Speaker 1: of work here and sees China as an unfair player,
Speaker 1: and so I think that that's going to remain solidly
Speaker 1: behind him. So there's the economic pressure, and I think
Speaker 1: Wall Street will keep and that's going to be hard
Speaker 1: for the administration, but I think Main Street is going
Speaker 1: to mostly be supportive of this direction continuing. So let's
Speaker 1: talk about the politics a little bit. You know, you
Speaker 1: obviously mentioned the incoming Democrat House. How much does that
Speaker 1: impact is that dynamics also with the Republican led state
Speaker 1: majority one and looking at the renegotiated NAFTA deal essentially
Speaker 1: and then to potentially any sort of deal with China. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that the Democrat majority is going to be
Speaker 1: very skeptical of deals with China, and the Republican majority
Speaker 1: probably balance would be inclined towards a more mainstream or
Speaker 1: conventional approach to trade and dealing with China on balance,
Speaker 1: But the combo of an administration engaged in these kind
Speaker 1: of negotiations of their party and then needing to try
Speaker 1: to meet common ground. I mean, trade legislation has to
Speaker 1: come out of the House because usually it's dealing with taxes, revenue, tariffs,
Speaker 1: things like that, And so there's going to have to
Speaker 1: be piped bipartisan work to get something actually inked, But
Speaker 1: I think the politics of it actually favor the President
Speaker 1: and getting coalition in the House. If that happens, I
Speaker 1: think the Senate would be hard pressed try to stand away. Although,
Speaker 1: as you've witnessed as well as anyone, the Senate is
Speaker 1: the body in which any one person can stand up
Speaker 1: at grandstand frankly, at any moment and bring things to
Speaker 1: a halt. And so that's just something we live with
Speaker 1: on every issue going forward. Right, all right, Stephen, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us, and I really appreciate
Speaker 1: your insight on this. Have a great one. Thanks. Would
Speaker 1: you be willing to support some degree of wall funding
Speaker 1: if you got a permanent bona fide solution on back No,
Speaker 1: that would approve one point three at least a million
Speaker 1: for the border fence, correct and not necessarily because that's
Speaker 1: what it was last year. So if you just extend
Speaker 1: that again, wouldn't that cause a problem. I mean, it
Speaker 1: depends on how you spending money. It's border security as
Speaker 1: about order security, but within that there was money for
Speaker 1: the fence as well. Well, you're trying to better fence,
Speaker 1: You're not trying to be a wall. Now, speaking for myself,
Speaker 1: consider the wall immoral, ineffective, expensive, and President said he
Speaker 1: promised it. He also promised Mexico would pay for it.
Speaker 1: So even if they did, Smarl still and then they're
Speaker 1: not going to pay for us. Soon to be Speaker Pelosi,
Speaker 1: which I really hate saying that. That is just really
Speaker 1: depressing that she's going to be the incoming Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House. Democrats obviously took control of the House, and
Speaker 1: this is what President Trump is going to be met with. Well,
Speaker 1: Democrats aren't going to support the wall. Nancy Pelosi doesn't
Speaker 1: want to play ball. There are going to continue standing
Speaker 1: in the way of President Trump and his efforts to
Speaker 1: try to build a wall on the southern border. And look,
Speaker 1: the only reason why he wants the walls, he wants
Speaker 1: it to serve as a deterrent from illegal activity at
Speaker 1: the southern border. And we're seeing right now why that
Speaker 1: is needed. When we saw most recently a thousand migrants
Speaker 1: in this caravan illegally trying to rush the southern border,
Speaker 1: and of course they were met by customs and Border
Speaker 1: patrol agents with tear gas because they were trying to
Speaker 1: illegally cross into the United States and break the law.
Speaker 1: And the problem is we're going to continue to see
Speaker 1: these caravans of migrants coming and trying to exploit or
Speaker 1: laws if we don't change things. If one we don't
Speaker 1: increase border security, in two, if we don't change laws
Speaker 1: in relation to immigration, particularly looking at things like asylum laws. Look,
Speaker 1: the reality is that these Central Americans coming over to
Speaker 1: seek asylum in the United States, eighty nine percent are
Speaker 1: going to pass that initial tests. Only nine percent are
Speaker 1: actually going to be granted asylum in immigration court. Think
Speaker 1: about those numbers. Almost ninety percent will pass the first test.
Speaker 1: That's how easy that initial interview is, that initial threshold,
Speaker 1: that initial bar to that they're trying to pass is
Speaker 1: and only nine percent will actually be granted an immigration court.
Speaker 1: That is troubling. If that doesn't tell you that our
Speaker 1: laws need to be changed, I don't know what does.
Speaker 1: And also another thing that really irks me is the
Speaker 1: hypocrisy of the left when it comes to President Trump's
Speaker 1: calls for a border role. If you remember back in
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, Democrats like Diane find Stein Ron
Speaker 1: why even Obama, Biden, and Clinton all voted in favor
Speaker 1: of a border fence in two thousand and six. Yet
Speaker 1: those same people, You've got Hillary Clinton basically, you know,
Speaker 1: she made fun of President Drop in his desire for
Speaker 1: a wall. You had Democrats at the time saying, like
Speaker 1: Senator Diane Feinstein saying that they are solidly behind border security.
Speaker 1: Well where are they now? But you know what, I'm
Speaker 1: going to talk to Center for Immigration Studies are Arthur
Speaker 1: about all of this asylum, what is happening at the
Speaker 1: southern border with this caravan. He's going to break it
Speaker 1: all down for us. He's Center for Immigration Studies. We're
Speaker 1: going to talk to him about the asylum. We're going
Speaker 1: to talk to him him about the wall, and we're
Speaker 1: also going to talk to him about this other really
Speaker 1: interesting story that's going on right now, this Honduras woman
Speaker 1: who crossed over into the southern border, jump the wall
Speaker 1: to have a baby in the United States. We're also
Speaker 1: going to talk to him about birthright citizenship and if
Speaker 1: it needs to end, you're gonna want to stay tuned.
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding you. It's going to be a great interview.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton's Show. Lisa Booth filling
Speaker 1: in for him. We've got Art Arthur of Center for
Speaker 1: Immigration Studies. He is a resident fellow for both law
Speaker 1: and policy. We're going to talk to him about what
Speaker 1: the latest with the caravan and what's going on at
Speaker 1: the southern border. Art, how are you, I'll do great.
Speaker 1: How are you doing today? I'm doing well, all right,
Speaker 1: So I wanted to get your take. So there's some
Speaker 1: headlines today regarding adoran woman who scaled the border wall
Speaker 1: to have a child in the United States. So it's
Speaker 1: sort of ignited this debate which we've already seen, really
Speaker 1: regarding birthrights citizenship. President Trump talked about it during the campaign.
Speaker 1: He sort of recently talked about it as well. So
Speaker 1: you know, what does this tell us about the problems
Speaker 1: with birthrights citizenship From your vantage point, well, birthrights citizenship
Speaker 1: at least has become a magnet that draws individuals to
Speaker 1: the United States in order to give birth. And you
Speaker 1: look at this specific example and quite frankly, it points
Speaker 1: out everything that's wrong with it. One, the woman had
Speaker 1: an incentive the United States. I think that she referred
Speaker 1: to it as your big reward for making it to
Speaker 1: the United States is giving birth to a child in
Speaker 1: this country too. She was eight months pregnant at the
Speaker 1: time that she actually gave birth, she took a perilous
Speaker 1: journey to the United States and again entered illegally, putting
Speaker 1: not only her life but the life of her unborn
Speaker 1: child in danger. So the fact is that, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a prime example of everything that is wrong
Speaker 1: with birthright citizenship. It encourages people to enter the United
Speaker 1: States illegally, to undertake the arduous journey to come to
Speaker 1: this country, and then it gives people an incentive to
Speaker 1: enter the United States have United States children equities that
Speaker 1: will make it probably next to impossible to remove her
Speaker 1: from the United States at the end of the day.
Speaker 1: So when President Trump was talking about ending birthright citizenship,
Speaker 1: he got a lot of flaks. Some were saying that
Speaker 1: it's going to take a constitutional amendment. Where are you
Speaker 1: on that debate, and what legally would it take to
Speaker 1: end birthright citizenship. Well, the leading case on this issue
Speaker 1: is a case called Wang kim Arc, which is more
Speaker 1: than one hundred and I think twenty years old, interpreting
Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and Wan kim Ark
Speaker 1: involved an individual whose parents were actually permanent residents of
Speaker 1: the United States and Wan kim Arc was born in
Speaker 1: this country, and his argument was that he was a
Speaker 1: citizen under the fourteenth Amendment. And so even if you
Speaker 1: accepted face value, you know, Wan kim mark the idea
Speaker 1: that a child born of permanent residents is automatically a
Speaker 1: citizen of the United States. There's still the question of
Speaker 1: whether or not individuals who are not who were born
Speaker 1: to individuals who were here illegally, not under the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: of the United States and fourteenth Amendment, would be citizens.
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, I think that there is an argument to
Speaker 1: be made. In addition, there was a very strong descent
Speaker 1: in wan kim Arc that said that the case was
Speaker 1: decided wrongly. Was decided very much according to British common
Speaker 1: law and the idea of sovereignty and allegiance, many ideas
Speaker 1: that were rejected at the founding of this republic. So one,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that won key mark is quite as
Speaker 1: broad as people say it is. And two I think
Speaker 1: it was wrongly decided. But the fact is that there
Speaker 1: hasn't been a case that's challenged it in the intervening
Speaker 1: more than a century. I believe it was Senator Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham who said that he was going to introduce legislation
Speaker 1: to end birthright citizenship. Do you know where Congress is
Speaker 1: on this issue right now, and do you know what
Speaker 1: the latest is with what Senator Lindsay Graham said. I
Speaker 1: do not. I have not seen a bill that would
Speaker 1: actually end birthright citizenship. I think the Wall Act, which
Speaker 1: was introduced by a variety of senators, actually does have
Speaker 1: some legislation that does that, and Senator Graham maybe one
Speaker 1: of the maybe one of the senators that's involved in
Speaker 1: that Act. But again, I believe that this is something
Speaker 1: that could be done by congressional enactment. It's going to
Speaker 1: have to go to the Supreme Court. But I think
Speaker 1: that this particular Supreme Court would probably look at, you know,
Speaker 1: that case on the principles on which it was based,
Speaker 1: and would you know, in accordance with h you know,
Speaker 1: the founding documents of this country, and I think that
Speaker 1: we have a lot of original is sitting on the
Speaker 1: court right now, would probably disagree with the decision in
Speaker 1: Wan Kim Mark. And I think that it would that
Speaker 1: if the Congress were to pass legislation that would change
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship, that it would probably survive Congressional Review. The
Speaker 1: only problem is that the clock is running out. I
Speaker 1: really don't expect Speaker Pelosi to be introducing any legislation
Speaker 1: to that effect um in one hundred and sixteenth Congress.
Speaker 1: So quite frankly, the door is closing quickly for a
Speaker 1: change to be made. So the woman from Honduras, who
Speaker 1: you know, scale the fense to to have the baby,
Speaker 1: she said that her and her family are looking for
Speaker 1: family reunification and clumb this Ohio. They've got some family there.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't kind of speak to the and they're
Speaker 1: seeking asylum just for the listeners at home, does this
Speaker 1: kind of speak to what's wrong with our asylum system
Speaker 1: right now? In the sense that you know, all the
Speaker 1: most of the media, mainstream media, they say, look, these
Speaker 1: people are coming over. You know, they're fleeing the conditions
Speaker 1: in Central America. But isn't there also this other large
Speaker 1: component about it, where it's it's family reunification that they're
Speaker 1: seeking here in the United States, and it's also economic opportunities. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And it's important to note that, you know, the fact
Speaker 1: is we have a higher standard of living than almost
Speaker 1: every country in the world. The vast majority of individuals
Speaker 1: I believe is given the opportunity to live in the
Speaker 1: United States. In fact, would plus because we've had temporary
Speaker 1: protected status, perhaps one of the biggest misnomers in immigration law,
Speaker 1: from Honduras and from El Salvador for more than fifteen years.
Speaker 1: We have a large population of people from those countries
Speaker 1: living in the United States. And that's a drawing fact
Speaker 1: for individuals who are from those countries. They want to
Speaker 1: reunify with their family members, they want to have better
Speaker 1: schools for their kids, they want to have better hospitals
Speaker 1: for themselves and their children, they want to have more
Speaker 1: economic opportunities. Again, that's perfectly understandable. The problem is it's
Speaker 1: just not legal. The credible fear standard, which is the
Speaker 1: screening standard that's used by customs and Border Protection are
Speaker 1: used by US citizenship and immigration services at the border
Speaker 1: for people who enter illegally is very low. It's deliberately low,
Speaker 1: and for the better part of nine years, only about
Speaker 1: five thousand people claimed credible fear and guide into the
Speaker 1: United States. But work out around that, if you did
Speaker 1: claim credible fear that you had about an eighty to
Speaker 1: ninety percent chance of being allowed into the United States.
Speaker 1: And then being released. In fact, that's what happened to Missernandez,
Speaker 1: the mother of the child. She and her family were
Speaker 1: released on Sunday. And let me just give you a
Speaker 1: fact that puts this into relief. If you were detained,
Speaker 1: your case will be finished in about forty days. If
Speaker 1: you're not detained, your case will take an average of
Speaker 1: eight years. So probably Misser Nandez and her husband and
Speaker 1: her now two children and however many more children she
Speaker 1: will have, will probably be in the United States indefinitely
Speaker 1: if she ever leaves. So what percentage of those individuals,
Speaker 1: you know, looking more at the eight year mark, do
Speaker 1: they end up showing up an immigration court or where
Speaker 1: do they go? The vast majority of the asylum claims
Speaker 1: get denied. A significant number of them failed to file
Speaker 1: asylum applications at all, and then a larger percentage of
Speaker 1: them either fail to show up for court or failed
Speaker 1: to appear for their asylum hearing. So only about fifty
Speaker 1: three percent of them ever file an asylum application, and
Speaker 1: the denial rate for those cases is higher than seventy
Speaker 1: percent at the end of the day. So I mean,
Speaker 1: do you get the sense then, obviously based on you know,
Speaker 1: some of the things you just said, that these people
Speaker 1: that are coming here from Central America that they have
Speaker 1: an understanding of how to game the system absolutely, and again,
Speaker 1: you know, this seems to be a fact that is
Speaker 1: lost on the press. They know that if they come
Speaker 1: with children, that they're going to get released after twenty
Speaker 1: days under the Flores Settlement Agreement. They know that if
Speaker 1: they claim credible fear, the odds are they're going to
Speaker 1: be allowed into the United States even if they don't
Speaker 1: have an asylum claim. They know that if they're children,
Speaker 1: if they show up, that they're going to be released
Speaker 1: over to HHS with them two days. So these are
Speaker 1: all things that we want to dissuade people from doing.
Speaker 1: About ten percent of all women who make the perilous
Speaker 1: journey from Central America to Mexico or sexually assaulted. About
Speaker 1: two thirds of all of the individuals who make that
Speaker 1: journey are assaulted in one way or another, and that's
Speaker 1: according to Doctors Without Borders. That's not a statistic from
Speaker 1: the United States government. So, you know, it's an amazingly
Speaker 1: perilous journey that we want to encourage people not to undertake. Plus,
Speaker 1: you know, we want to have respect for our own laws.
Speaker 1: But the fact is that when people in Honduras, Guatemala
Speaker 1: and I'll Salvador see people like Misernadas get into the
Speaker 1: United States, give birth and get released, it just encourages
Speaker 1: more people to come. So can I because the approach
Speaker 1: of the mainstream media is a fact that you know,
Speaker 1: they're concerned about the humanitarian aspect of what's going on
Speaker 1: in Central America, and you know, these individuals, these migrants,
Speaker 1: and you know some illegal immigrants that are trying to
Speaker 1: cross the border illegally coming over to the United States.
Speaker 1: Why then do we never hear about the aspect that
Speaker 1: you just mentioned, about the dangerous journey and what happens
Speaker 1: along the way. Why is that never discussed? And if
Speaker 1: the media is so concerned about the humanitarian conditions, why
Speaker 1: don't they talk about that? Well, you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: funny because under President Obama, when he was faced with
Speaker 1: a similar situation in two thou fourteen, both NPR and
Speaker 1: National Geographic if you can imagine, spoke about the dangers,
Speaker 1: and I've written about the articles that they wrote. Then
Speaker 1: in fact, they talked about a specific pharmacy in all
Speaker 1: tars to Nora, where women would go to get birth
Speaker 1: control because of the high likelihood that they would be
Speaker 1: raped on the journey to the United States. And yet
Speaker 1: for some reason, that part of the story gets lost.
Speaker 1: Now all we see is the crying little girl next
Speaker 1: to the border patrol agent and the pink sweater. Now
Speaker 1: all we see is the mother dragging the two children,
Speaker 1: one without shoes, one wearing a diaper, away from the
Speaker 1: tear gas canister. And I think that a lot of
Speaker 1: that has to do with the way that the media
Speaker 1: feels about the president. Any stick is a good stick
Speaker 1: to beat Donald Trump with. I think they believe and
Speaker 1: they figure that hard tugging pictures of small children, babies
Speaker 1: born in the United States are effective tools to use
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump. And that's why I think we see
Speaker 1: this and why we don't hear about how lawful that
Speaker 1: journey is. ICE has attempted to put out statistics about this,
Speaker 1: but by and large, nobody ever writes about them. And
Speaker 1: the governments of those three countries encouraged their nationals not
Speaker 1: to leave, but they leave anyway. Well, So one thing
Speaker 1: I found interesting about the imagery that you're talking about.
Speaker 1: When there was you know, I think about a thousand,
Speaker 1: this might be two weekends ago, now where you know,
Speaker 1: you had the almost a thousand immigrants trying to rush
Speaker 1: the southern border, and that was the image that you
Speaker 1: talked about in The Washington Post reported about why everyone
Speaker 1: was so focused on that picture, and they did it
Speaker 1: because they thought it contradicted the narrative it came from
Speaker 1: the White House. But one thing that I found interesting
Speaker 1: about it is that the children didn't have shoes in
Speaker 1: the photo. But it's my understanding that at these shelters
Speaker 1: in Mexico where they came from, that they do have
Speaker 1: shoes and clothing available. Is that correct? That's correct, And
Speaker 1: the fact is that you know, this was a family
Speaker 1: that had made the journey. I believe they were from Honduras,
Speaker 1: and I believe again there was father in Louisiana for
Speaker 1: the two children. So and they were attempting to breach
Speaker 1: a rusty border fence that had accordion wire on the
Speaker 1: other side. I really am not one hundred percent sure
Speaker 1: what that woman was thinking about putting children into that situation.
Speaker 1: I'm a parent, I had children that I had a
Speaker 1: child at age once upon a time, and if I
Speaker 1: were to attempt to rush toward police officers with Ryan
Speaker 1: gear on and a rusty fence and accordion wire. I'd
Speaker 1: probably be arrested for child endangerment. I certainly wouldn't end
Speaker 1: up with my picture splashed all over the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: Well and also not yeah, not to mention the fact
Speaker 1: what they were doing was illegal in trying to cross
Speaker 1: the border illegally. But I'm glad that you had mentioned
Speaker 1: that because I do think that the way the media
Speaker 1: paints this just sort of tells everyone everything they need
Speaker 1: to know about where the mainstream is coming. Mainstream media
Speaker 1: is coming from it just in their buys about the
Speaker 1: Trump administration and immigration at large. But or we've got
Speaker 1: to get going. But thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us tonight. I really appreciate your insight on this very
Speaker 1: hopeful Thank you for have a great night. Or you've
Speaker 1: got Lisa Booth filling in for Buck sex Sin tonight
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Buck Sexton Show. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for staying with us. So I want to play this
Speaker 1: clip for you about President Trump talking about Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: and then we're gonna talk about it. Take a listen.
Speaker 1: They're gonna cover polka hotas. Who is thank of it?
Speaker 1: Thank of it? She of the great tribal heritage. What
Speaker 1: tribe is it? Let me think about that. One meantimes
Speaker 1: she's based her life on being a minority polka hotas.
Speaker 1: They always want me to apologize for saying it, and
Speaker 1: I hereby, Oh no, I want to apologize. I'll use
Speaker 1: tonight polka hots. I apologize to you. I apologize to you.
Speaker 1: I apologize to the fake polka hunt this. I won't
Speaker 1: a vote. Now it's causing her problems. You know that
Speaker 1: name is called because now even the liberals are saying,
Speaker 1: take a test, take a test. You know the I
Speaker 1: tell you, I shouldn't tell you because I like not
Speaker 1: to give away secrets. But this one, let's say I'm
Speaker 1: debating pocahunt this right, I promise you all do this.
Speaker 1: I will take you know those little kids, they saw
Speaker 1: them television for two dollars, learn your heritage. Guy says
Speaker 1: I was born in Scotland. It turns out he was
Speaker 1: born in Puerto Rico. And that's okay, it's good. You know.
Speaker 1: Guy says I was born in Germany. Well he wasn't
Speaker 1: born in Germany. He was born someplace. So I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get one of those little kids and in the middle
Speaker 1: of the debate when she proclaims that she's of Indian
Speaker 1: heritage because her mother said she has high cheek boats
Speaker 1: that's her only evidence that her mother said she had
Speaker 1: high cheek book. We will take that little kid and say,
Speaker 1: but we have to do it gently, because when the
Speaker 1: meat two generations, you have to be very gentle. And
Speaker 1: we will very gently take that kid and we will
Speaker 1: slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't hit her and injure
Speaker 1: her arm, even though it only ways probably two ounces,
Speaker 1: and we will say, I will give you a million
Speaker 1: dollars to your favorite charity, paid for it by chump
Speaker 1: if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian.
Speaker 1: You know, I mean, come on, that's hilarious. I don't
Speaker 1: care if you like President Trump or not, but you
Speaker 1: can't not laugh at that. It's pretty funny. Well, turns
Speaker 1: out to remember that response in President Trump making fun
Speaker 1: of Elizabeth Warren calling her pokehonas prompted her not too
Speaker 1: long ago to take a DNA test. You know, this
Speaker 1: was her moment to prove to everyone that she hasn't
Speaker 1: been lying of her about her heritage. She hasn't been
Speaker 1: taking advantage of structural or structural advantages in her career
Speaker 1: as a result. But turned out whole release ended up
Speaker 1: being a massive joke, and what we found out was
Speaker 1: that Elizabeth Warren is actually probably less Native American than
Speaker 1: the average US white person. So she did this whole
Speaker 1: rollout is a five minute video. You know, she really
Speaker 1: thought that this was just going to clear her name,
Speaker 1: and instead it ended up hurting her. And so today
Speaker 1: word around the street from New York Times is that
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren. They have the article titled Elizabeth Warren stands
Speaker 1: by a DNA test, but around her worries about and
Speaker 1: so essentially word on the street is these Democrat operatives
Speaker 1: are really worried that Elizabeth Warren potentially had ended her
Speaker 1: own career be our presidential ambitions before they even got started.
Speaker 1: You know what I even remembered when this happened. My
Speaker 1: first thought was she's done because she just embarrassed herself
Speaker 1: so bad by doing this rollout and actually inevitably ended
Speaker 1: up hurting her more than helping her own case. And
Speaker 1: it's also kind of hilarious what President Trump is able
Speaker 1: to push Democrats into doing end up stepping in their
Speaker 1: own way, hurting themselves and potentially limited herself from the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty field. So I found that interesting. I wanted
Speaker 1: to share it with you. Welcome back to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. Lisa Booth in for him. We've got Jesse
Speaker 1: Kelly on the line, and he is the host of
Speaker 1: ninety ninety point fifty KPRC radio station. Jesse, So, you
Speaker 1: recently made some headlines inadvertently and not intentionally when Twitter
Speaker 1: banned you. Did you ever find out why Twitter banned you?
Speaker 1: You know, the headlines or headlines be getting quote permanently
Speaker 1: banned from Twitter. And now my name was training nationwide
Speaker 1: no matter what, I'll take it now, I don't, I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't know. I don't care. I mean,
Speaker 1: I really do not care. I didn't care that much
Speaker 1: to begin with. It's social media to run by leftists,
Speaker 1: and it's just something we all have to watch out
Speaker 1: for on the right. Right, all right, Well, let's get into,
Speaker 1: you know, some more stuffs into this stuff. So I
Speaker 1: really enjoyed your column in The Federalists, and it's why
Speaker 1: the right should start taking Alexandria Cossio Kurtz seriously. And
Speaker 1: I find it interesting because I am one of those people.
Speaker 1: I mean, you hear are some of the things she says.
Speaker 1: You see some of the things she tweeted out. I
Speaker 1: mean she honestly thought that she signed law or legislation
Speaker 1: into law, which is obviously not the job of Congress.
Speaker 1: So it's really easy to kind of see these things.
Speaker 1: Here's some of the things she says and just automatically
Speaker 1: dismiss her. But you say we should not, why because
Speaker 1: it actually makes her more endearing Because elections are not
Speaker 1: about It's not about you, Lisa, it's not about me.
Speaker 1: It's not about the political pundits who who pay attention,
Speaker 1: or even people who maybe don't have a platform, but
Speaker 1: people who pay attention. Those people know how they're going
Speaker 1: to vote. I guarantee you the next guy, we know
Speaker 1: how we're voting in the next election. Elections are about
Speaker 1: the common man. They always have been. The guy who votes,
Speaker 1: but he kind of pays attention, he kind of doesn't.
Speaker 1: And in this day and age, in the social media age,
Speaker 1: it's all about charm and appeal and it's a big
Speaker 1: reason why Trump is president. And yeah, makes the idiotic
Speaker 1: guests and I'm not defending them. Obviously, the things she says, or,
Speaker 1: don't I get that. But what the right does is
Speaker 1: we pile on Or and pile on Or and pile
Speaker 1: on Or. We attack her as an idiot, and what
Speaker 1: we do is we make her a martyr to her
Speaker 1: supporters and also the common man thinks, well, I didn't
Speaker 1: know that either, Bob. I guarantee many people say, oh,
Speaker 1: I thought they did sign it into law. Well, where
Speaker 1: I ever't want to make in front of her, stop
Speaker 1: being such a chair. Plus, I mean, she's pretty. That matters.
Speaker 1: She's she's charismatic, she's good with the camera. She has
Speaker 1: more appeal than people think. How do you think her
Speaker 1: policies play in the public. Obviously she's talking about you know,
Speaker 1: single player healthcare systems, these things with huge price tags.
Speaker 1: But do you think that matters to the average voter.
Speaker 1: I think some it does, some it doesn't. But I
Speaker 1: don't think socialism, especially if you look at like the
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump hypothetical numbers from twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: Sanders crush Trump by double digits, and almost all of them. Yes,
Speaker 1: things are going okay now, but I don't think socialism
Speaker 1: as a whole. Is that unappealing to the American public
Speaker 1: not nearly unappealing as it should be. Socialism is That's
Speaker 1: why I wrote the article Socialism is frightening. It's killed
Speaker 1: more people than Nazism or racism, Radiism's combined. It's a
Speaker 1: frightening thing in America is not as far from it
Speaker 1: as those of us on the right would like to believe. Well,
Speaker 1: and so what's the best way for conservatives to fight that?
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at some of these polling and
Speaker 1: you know the way younger Americans view socialism, and it's
Speaker 1: pretty terrifying. So you know what's the best way then
Speaker 1: for Republicans to push back on that? For conservatives to
Speaker 1: push back. That's not necessarily going after younger Americans. Younger
Speaker 1: Americans as far as voters don't, they don't matter. Everybody
Speaker 1: talks about younger people are always socialists, they're always democrats.
Speaker 1: It's that old Winston Churchill line. If you're under thirty
Speaker 1: and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're
Speaker 1: over thirty and not a conservative, you have no brain.
Speaker 1: They'll come around as soon as they start bringing paychecks in.
Speaker 1: But when it comes to a candidate like Cortez, attack
Speaker 1: the ideas, that's fine. Break down the mask. That's fine,
Speaker 1: but constantly braging her with this your a moron, She's
Speaker 1: an idiot, she's so stupid. What that does is it
Speaker 1: personalizes it for people who maybe lukewarm supporters of hers. Well,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, I kind of liked her, and now
Speaker 1: you're calling her an idiot. Now you're kind of calling
Speaker 1: me an idiot. It's the same thing the left has
Speaker 1: done with Trump. All of the criticisms of Trump are
Speaker 1: so personal. Trump's supporters take them personally, they take them
Speaker 1: on themselves, and so it's made him even more powerful.
Speaker 1: That's a good point. I mean, do you think that
Speaker 1: conservatives do a good enough job in sort of articulating
Speaker 1: why her policy suck? No, But then again, it's harder
Speaker 1: to do that in this social media world. I mean
Speaker 1: it is a Twitter world, Facebook, Instagram, and people don't
Speaker 1: like to accept that. But those things are extremely powerful now,
Speaker 1: and so it's snarky, it's one hundred and forty characters,
Speaker 1: it's get it in and get it out, and it
Speaker 1: very rarely do you have some was a tension span
Speaker 1: long enough to break down why it stinks? And that's
Speaker 1: something we do need to get better at home. Well,
Speaker 1: and so you mentioned in your column you've spoken about
Speaker 1: this as well of that. You know, relatability is so important. Now.
Speaker 1: We saw that be an issue with Hillary Clinton. I
Speaker 1: remember even David axel Rod was pointing out the fact that,
Speaker 1: you know, she people couldn't relate to her, the fact
Speaker 1: that everything came out of her mouth through a political
Speaker 1: lens that you know, it was part of the reason
Speaker 1: that hurt her. So, you know, taking that into account
Speaker 1: and a looking ahead at twenty twenty, what do you
Speaker 1: see from the left in terms of what the Democrat
Speaker 1: primary field's going to look like? It's gonna be beato.
Speaker 1: I would I said he was running against I told everybody,
Speaker 1: I said, he's not even running for senate here in Texas.
Speaker 1: He's running for president. He always has been running for president.
Speaker 1: You don't take those hard left positions in Texas that
Speaker 1: expect to win. But he did set himself up nationally.
Speaker 1: He has charisma, he has a national name idea now
Speaker 1: and I'm tony he's going to boat race the entire
Speaker 1: Democratic field. Besides maybe Harry. I mean, you think he's
Speaker 1: just gonna you know what was he on the skateboard
Speaker 1: across the presidential debate stage. And that's my point, Les,
Speaker 1: Like you saw that, and I saw that, and I
Speaker 1: rugged my eyes about rolled into the back of land.
Speaker 1: Now what is this idiocy? But we have to remember
Speaker 1: we did that a lot to Barack Obama when he
Speaker 1: was running, too, and the things he would do in
Speaker 1: the way people fell in love with it. People loved
Speaker 1: that stupid skateboard thing. They love the little dumb things
Speaker 1: Beto does. So we can't dismiss it because we think
Speaker 1: it's stupid. The left loves him and the guy hands
Speaker 1: it's whatever it is, and it doesn't pay to deny it.
Speaker 1: Trump had it and the left denied it. Obama had it,
Speaker 1: the right denied it. There's always a guy, there's always
Speaker 1: a superstar out there. We like to roll our eyes
Speaker 1: at and call an idiot or call all these other things.
Speaker 1: But I'm telling you the guy has something. And I
Speaker 1: think Trump still beats him, but you watch him come
Speaker 1: back and win in twenty twenty four. But see, you
Speaker 1: think he can make his way through a crowded primary
Speaker 1: hill dank. So I think you know what we're looking
Speaker 1: at right now is nix eatingly. I mean, there's been
Speaker 1: a couple contenders in recent days saying that you know
Speaker 1: they're not going to run, but right now it looks
Speaker 1: like it's still going to be a pretty big primary field.
Speaker 1: I mean, so you think he's able to break through
Speaker 1: the with the Kamal Harris's and the Corey Bookers of
Speaker 1: the world, Well, Booker, There's no way Booker is going
Speaker 1: to do it. He just doesn't have what it takes.
Speaker 1: Harris would be the only one I would say that
Speaker 1: would compete with Beto because she has the looks, she's
Speaker 1: really good, she speaks really well. Obviously former district attorney,
Speaker 1: so she knows what she's talking about him. I don't
Speaker 1: agree with any of her policies, but I think Beto
Speaker 1: crushes them all. I mean, yes, it will be a
Speaker 1: crowded field, but you see who there rolling out. It's
Speaker 1: a crowded field of a bunch of old, boring white people.
Speaker 1: Those are not people who are going to energize the
Speaker 1: Democratic base. It's just not well. Jesse, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. We will be looking ahead in the
Speaker 1: coming months here to see if he ends up throwing
Speaker 1: his hat in the ring. I'll talk to you seeing
Speaker 1: all right, Jesse, have a good one. Thanks Omaha. Steaks
Speaker 1: is America's original butcher since nineteen seventeen. Order with complete
Speaker 1: confidence right now. Omaha Steakes is giving an amazing limited
Speaker 1: time offer to Bucks listeners. When you go to Omaha
Speaker 1: Steaks dot com and enter code Buck into the search bar,
Speaker 1: you will get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family
Speaker 1: Gift Package originally one ninety five, now only forty nine
Speaker 1: ninety nine. Order now and you'll get four hand cut
Speaker 1: aged to tenderness tops or loin steaks, two Savory Premium
Speaker 1: pork chops, two chicken fried steaks, four Omaha Steakburgers, four
Speaker 1: snappy Huelbasa sausages, all beef meatballs, four perfectly brown potatoes
Speaker 1: au grop ten, four made from scratch caramel apple tartlets,
Speaker 1: plus get four more burgers for free. Omaha Steakes is
Speaker 1: a fifth generation family owned company with over one hundred
Speaker 1: years of experience delivering perfectly aged beef cut beef hand
Speaker 1: cut by master Butcher's in Omaha. Again. This is a
Speaker 1: limited time package for only four nine. When you go
Speaker 1: to Omaha Steaks dot com, type Buck in the search
Speaker 1: bar and add the Family Gift Package to your car.
Speaker 1: Don't wait. This offer ends soon. Go to Omaha Steaks
Speaker 1: dot com type Buck in the search bar to send
Speaker 1: the Omaha Stakes family package. Today, Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Lisa Booth in for him tonight. I
Speaker 1: want to play you this interview that Buck did yesterday
Speaker 1: with Greg Jarrett, the author of the Russia hoax. And
Speaker 1: essentially what Greg is saying it runs contradictory to what
Speaker 1: a lot of the mainstream media is saying about the
Speaker 1: Flynn's Michael Flynn's cooperation with Muller, that it actually is
Speaker 1: good for President Trump, because a lot of people are
Speaker 1: saying that, you know, Trump has done this is really
Speaker 1: bad for the president. So why don't you take a
Speaker 1: listen to the interview? What do you make of this
Speaker 1: latest series of events this week? Is it? Let's start
Speaker 1: with the Flynn no jail time but substantial cooperation. What
Speaker 1: do you see in those documents? What's it all telling you? Well,
Speaker 1: the word cooperation is one of those wonderfully fungible terms.
Speaker 1: Cooperation can simply mean he agreed to talk to us
Speaker 1: immediately and try to be as forthcoming as he possibly could.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that he actually was able to provide
Speaker 1: anything that is incriminating whatsoever towards Donald Trump in this
Speaker 1: so called collusion investigation. Collusions also, you know this amorphous
Speaker 1: crime that doesn't really exist in the criminal codes. Is
Speaker 1: it some sort of conspiracy coordination with Russians. Well, this
Speaker 1: memo reveals none of that, and in fact just the opposite.
Speaker 1: The memo itself makes no mention of collusion. The addendum,
Speaker 1: which is roughly five pages long, is heavily redacted, but
Speaker 1: you can tell from how it's laid out and set
Speaker 1: up two things that Flynn offered assistance on two subjects. First,
Speaker 1: he contributed something that's unidentified in a criminal case not
Speaker 1: handled by the Special Council, So that tells us it's
Speaker 1: not directly collusion related because it's handled not by Muller. Second,
Speaker 1: Flynn seems to have answered questions about the Trump transition
Speaker 1: teams conversations with foreign governments, including Russia. But that can't
Speaker 1: be collusion either to win the election, because the election
Speaker 1: was already over. So it's a bit of a mystery
Speaker 1: as to what is contained in the redactions. But I
Speaker 1: think it's evident to me and others that there's not
Speaker 1: much evidence of collusion being provided by Flynn and what
Speaker 1: do you take from the lack of any I mean,
Speaker 1: we've had a few people already go down for the
Speaker 1: process crimes of lying during the course of an investigation
Speaker 1: about no actual criminal conduct, right, Papadopoulos, Alexander Zuan. There's
Speaker 1: been a few of them. Papadappolis got two weeks. Flynn
Speaker 1: looks like it's gonna get nothing. Do you do you
Speaker 1: gauge that more as a function of Mueller thinking that
Speaker 1: the cooperation was just so exceptional, or is that also
Speaker 1: Mueller maybe not wanting to kick the hornet's nest even more?
Speaker 1: Because I think people realized that the FBI did Flynn
Speaker 1: dirty on this one. I mean, this was this was
Speaker 1: a setup. I mean, there was a classify the week
Speaker 1: and then the claim of the Logan Act to get
Speaker 1: this whole thing going. I mean, this is as as
Speaker 1: much a coordinated political hit as anything I can think of.
Speaker 1: Flynn should never have been prosecuted by Robert Muller and
Speaker 1: his assembled team of partisans. Why Because the FBI agents
Speaker 1: who interviewed Flynn concluded that he was telling the truth.
Speaker 1: That was confirmed by both James Comey and his debuty
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe when they were interviewed by congressional investigators. The
Speaker 1: truth is, had Robert Muller been forced to prove his
Speaker 1: case against Flynn and Chord, he would have lost. He
Speaker 1: probably would have lost the case against Popadopoulis as well.
Speaker 1: Why because the law requires that a false statement be
Speaker 1: made willfully and knowingly. That's a very difficult thing to prove.
Speaker 1: If somebody's recollection of a conversation happens to be different
Speaker 1: than a transcript of the conversation, or different than how
Speaker 1: the FBI or Muller interprets it, that's not a crime.
Speaker 1: But you know, Muller applied enormous pressure on Flynn to
Speaker 1: admit to lying, when in fact Flynn never lied, and
Speaker 1: in fact, Flynn became broke trying to pay his legal fees.
Speaker 1: And what was really unconscionable is that Muller threatened to prosecute,
Speaker 1: based on no evidence, Flynn's own son. So Flynn finally
Speaker 1: surrendered under the intense emotional strain in monetary pressures, which
Speaker 1: is really a shame. It's wrong, it's unconscionable for Mueller
Speaker 1: to behave that way. Now, the Cohen PLA also got
Speaker 1: some attention this week. What what what can you tell
Speaker 1: us about how you how you read that and what
Speaker 1: comes next? Well, Michael Cohen is a prodigious liar and
Speaker 1: a tax cheat, and he played guilty because he wants
Speaker 1: leniency in his sentencing treatment. You know, this is the
Speaker 1: trouble when the government, Robert Mueller in this case, decides
Speaker 1: to get in bed with a known liar and criminal.
Speaker 1: For all we know, Michael Cohen is lying about his lies.
Speaker 1: So we I mean he is not a credible witness.
Speaker 1: And in fact, because Muller is going ahead with sentencing,
Speaker 1: it means he will never call Cohen as a witness
Speaker 1: in anything. So you know, Cohen, in my judgment, is
Speaker 1: also a total zero when it comes to collusion. You know,
Speaker 1: he can talk about payments which are perfectly legal under
Speaker 1: the Federal Campaign Election Act, to women who said they
Speaker 1: had affairs with Donald Trump, not a crime. What do
Speaker 1: you think about And by the way, everyone, we're speaking
Speaker 1: to Greg Jarrett, author of the Russia hoax, the illicit
Speaker 1: schemes to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump. Judge Napolitano,
Speaker 1: your colleague, overt Fox said earlier today, quote, I expect
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior to be indicted. Do you agree with
Speaker 1: that assessment. Disagree. Well, given Mueller's behavior of criminalizing conduct
Speaker 1: that is not remotely criminal, that's altogether a possibility. You know, again,
Speaker 1: Flenn's a perfect example. He didn't lie, he didn't commit
Speaker 1: a crime, but Mueller prosecuted him. Nevertheless, So as I
Speaker 1: you know, I spent an entire chapter in my book
Speaker 1: The Russia Hoax explaining how the Trump Tower meeting violates
Speaker 1: no law. You know, it's not a crime to talk
Speaker 1: to a Russian lawyer or any Russian for that matter.
Speaker 1: Take a look at the Federal Election Commission website. Foreign
Speaker 1: nationals may participate in American campaigns as long as they
Speaker 1: don't receive money or donate money. So to have a
Speaker 1: conversation with a Russian lawyer who purportedly is going to
Speaker 1: give you information about Hillary Clinton, you know, that's that's
Speaker 1: just not a crime. So we'll wait and see what
Speaker 1: Muller does. But know he is the kind of unprincipled,
Speaker 1: unscrupulous character, Mueller who would try to weaponize and criminalize
Speaker 1: that which is not truly under the law of crime.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this is winding down? And if so,
Speaker 1: could he tell us why? Because I've been hearing that
Speaker 1: for quite a while, and obviously it has not been
Speaker 1: true for quite a while, because this thing still drags on.
Speaker 1: Are we going to be in you know, springtime, still
Speaker 1: talking about whether Mueller's got the goods? It's altogether possible. Sure,
Speaker 1: These independent counsels and special counsel investigations tend to drag
Speaker 1: on well beyond their merits. We certainly saw that in Whitewater,
Speaker 1: which went on for the better part of four years
Speaker 1: and then ended up, you know, acute the President Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton then of something that had nothing whatsoever to do
Speaker 1: with the original mandate. So there's no telling when Muller
Speaker 1: and his team of partisans will end this thing. They
Speaker 1: should have ended it long ago. There's not a whiff
Speaker 1: of evidence that Trump ever had some conspiracy or coordination
Speaker 1: or collusion with Russia to win the election. None zero,
Speaker 1: And it should have ended there. And in point of fact,
Speaker 1: Muller should never have been appointed because under the federal regulation,
Speaker 1: she can only appoint a special counsel if there's some
Speaker 1: evidence of a crime first. And Lisa Page, who was
Speaker 1: the top FBI lawyer on the Russia investigation, testified two
Speaker 1: months ago that during entire time the FBI had the case.
Speaker 1: They never found any evidence of collusion. So this has
Speaker 1: been with Robert Muller, an investigation in search of a crime,
Speaker 1: which were verses. Ambassaardizes the legal process and turns the
Speaker 1: federal regulations on their head. And that was Greg Jared,
Speaker 1: author of the Russia hoax with Buck. Coming up next
Speaker 1: is R. J. Homman of Fair. He's going to talk
Speaker 1: to us about the upcoming spending fight on Capitol Hills.
Speaker 1: As stay tuned, Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: Lisa Booth. Here, we've got RJ. Hamman on the line
Speaker 1: from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He's the government
Speaker 1: relations director. J I really wanted to get in to
Speaker 1: with you about, you know, this upcoming spending fight that
Speaker 1: we're going to see on Capitol Hill. President Trump of
Speaker 1: course is demanding and pushing to get funding for the
Speaker 1: border wall. Where do you see you know you're covering
Speaker 1: all this and paying attention to it. Where is this
Speaker 1: fight heading and what do you foresee happening? Yeah, Li's
Speaker 1: thanks for having beyond obviously the border wall, President Trump's
Speaker 1: you know, key campaign promise. I mean, it's his signature issue.
Speaker 1: That's what everybody was screaming for on the campaign trail,
Speaker 1: but you know, on this, on that front, he's been
Speaker 1: largely stymied all year. I mean, every single funding fight
Speaker 1: we've had, you know, congressional leadership has convinced him, Oh,
Speaker 1: we'll do it next time, We'll do it next time. Well,
Speaker 1: now it's now or never. I mean, you have Speaker
Speaker 1: Pelosi coming in in January. She's not going to give
Speaker 1: you any border wall funding for the next two years.
Speaker 1: So right now it's now or never. Obviously, with the
Speaker 1: tragic death of former President George HW. Bush kind of
Speaker 1: threw a wrinkle in some of these negotiations. As many
Speaker 1: of your listeners may remember, the spending bill, the dhs
Speaker 1: CR was supposed to run out tomorrow, December seventh. So
Speaker 1: what they did today, and I want everybody understand because
Speaker 1: this isn't as swampy as it gets. So what they did.
Speaker 1: What they did is they did a two week continuing
Speaker 1: resolution to push the shutdown deadline from December seventh to
Speaker 1: December twenty first, right up before Christmas. And Lisa, you've
Speaker 1: seen this before. I've been up in Washington and see this.
Speaker 1: The closer you get to Christmas, Conservatives always get screwed.
Speaker 1: So this, you know, the bad news is that it
Speaker 1: effectively puts a pressure on a lot of these members
Speaker 1: to cave and accept what leadership offers them just to
Speaker 1: get home for Christmas. And you know, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy, I mean, they're not really true supporters of
Speaker 1: President Trump's immigration platform, even though they let on like
Speaker 1: they are in the border wall. So you know, when
Speaker 1: you want to pass something that you know your base
Speaker 1: is going to hate and and you don't want a
Speaker 1: bunch of angry phone calls or get thrown out in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty and then schedule to vote right up against
Speaker 1: Christmas while everyone's distracted. So you know, it looks like
Speaker 1: that that they just want to kind of tell President
Speaker 1: Trump that, hey, we can't get those votes. We need
Speaker 1: to pass a one year extension of Department Homeland Security
Speaker 1: funding into next year. But you know, again, right now,
Speaker 1: it doesn't look good. It's now or never. That's why,
Speaker 1: you know, organization is urging you know, our members in
Speaker 1: the general public to make your voice heard. Call your
Speaker 1: member of Congress and say you do support the President
Speaker 1: Trump's a key campaign promise you support border security because
Speaker 1: of Congress all they care about right now, it looks
Speaker 1: like he's getting home for Christmas, even though they didn't
Speaker 1: accomplish what they were set there to do. Well. I
Speaker 1: know this all two from working on Cathitol Hill and
Speaker 1: Arch I wanted to, you know, how much leverage do
Speaker 1: you think President Trump is going to use here? I mean,
Speaker 1: because we saw with the brief shutdown that you know
Speaker 1: what President Trump dubbed the Schumer shutdown over DACA. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think he'll do that again? I mean, do
Speaker 1: you think President Trump is not going to play those games?
Speaker 1: You know, do you think he'll hunkered down? And how
Speaker 1: much leverage does he really have here? I mean, I
Speaker 1: know he can veto it, you know, you know as
Speaker 1: well as I do. Again, it's I think both parties,
Speaker 1: and I think this fear is generally correct. Is everybody's
Speaker 1: afraid of being blamed for a shutdown. I mean, it backfired,
Speaker 1: It's backfired on Republicans before, It's certainly backfired on Schumer
Speaker 1: when he did that over DACA. And I think there's
Speaker 1: always a fear again. I mean, this is why you know,
Speaker 1: we think President Trump should use his leverage and tried.
Speaker 1: If he wanted to shut down the government, he should
Speaker 1: have done this back in March, you know, or a
Speaker 1: lot or a lot farther away than right at the
Speaker 1: game against the line here. But again, no, Trump does
Speaker 1: have leverage. He can veto this thing. But again, when
Speaker 1: you take out again at the damage and how long
Speaker 1: a shutdown would be, you know, Democrats could essentially run
Speaker 1: out the clock, say President Trump's vetos whatever they give
Speaker 1: him on the twenty first, they can just hang tight
Speaker 1: for a couple of weeks until they get in power
Speaker 1: and then send him something else, rather than you know,
Speaker 1: if they've tried to pass something he didn't like, they
Speaker 1: vetoed it. You know around this week, Democrats would maybe
Speaker 1: have to come to the table and not risk being
Speaker 1: blamed for a one month shutdown. But again, you know,
Speaker 1: President Trump said, we remember back in September when he
Speaker 1: got a terrible spending bill, he says, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to sign a bill like this ever. Again, he said
Speaker 1: that repeatedly, and I mean we're hoping he you know,
Speaker 1: he puts his boots in the ground and and sticks
Speaker 1: to what is his key campaign promise again, like I said,
Speaker 1: it is now or never Nancy Pelosi will not give
Speaker 1: him any border wall funding. In fact, you know, a
Speaker 1: Democrat appropriators, they're going to be trying to claw away
Speaker 1: money from border security and essential law enforcement functions as
Speaker 1: long as they pertain to immigration. You're talking cutting ICE funding,
Speaker 1: cutting CBP funding. They're not just gonna not give him
Speaker 1: what he wants. They're gonna take away from our border
Speaker 1: security and interior enforcement apparatus. So I mean, he's in
Speaker 1: fantasyland again if he thinks that he can listen to
Speaker 1: the establishment Republicans on Capitol Hill and oh, we'll get
Speaker 1: it next time. There is no next time. Wells. One
Speaker 1: thing that always gets me is we've seen like a
Speaker 1: thousand people try to rush the southern border illegally break
Speaker 1: their way into the United States. You saw them do
Speaker 1: the same on their journey to the United States and
Speaker 1: breaking into what was it, Mexico or I'm getting the
Speaker 1: right doing that as well. And then we're saying recently
Speaker 1: two of people basically throwing their children over the Southern
Speaker 1: wall to get into the United States. So just lawlessness,
Speaker 1: and to me, it kind of makes the case for
Speaker 1: what President Trump has been saying of increased border security
Speaker 1: and also all right, No, absolutely. I mean a wall
Speaker 1: is a wall is just one of the many things
Speaker 1: again that we need to do. And and you know,
Speaker 1: people act like, you know, President Trump was exploiting the
Speaker 1: caravan and all those visions as you know, a manufactured crisis,
Speaker 1: if you will. And I think it was actually manufactured
Speaker 1: by a lot of these open borders groups and everything
Speaker 1: that they know that we're having, you know, and immigration stalemate,
Speaker 1: and they know how you know, toxic this is in
Speaker 1: our country, and they're looking to exploit the division and
Speaker 1: make almost a standoff, if you will. But again, the
Speaker 1: border wall can't stop the caravan, and I think that's
Speaker 1: something that you know, I wish President Trump would understand
Speaker 1: a little bit more, you know, if he really wanted
Speaker 1: to stop this problem. I mean, it's of course, it's
Speaker 1: all well and good to want that five billion dollars
Speaker 1: or even more for some border infrastructure walls work. We
Speaker 1: need to repair things down there on the border. A
Speaker 1: lot of the fences needs repairs. I totally understand that
Speaker 1: we support that. But President Trump has to call for
Speaker 1: closing our asylum loopholes. I mean, this is what is
Speaker 1: driving people up here from Central America. These coyotes down
Speaker 1: there that bring them up here. They know how to
Speaker 1: exploit our loss. They know what to say in their
Speaker 1: credible fear interviews to get released into the interior of
Speaker 1: the country. They know that if they bring a child
Speaker 1: that they will get released because they can't be detained
Speaker 1: for more than twenty days. These laws are the ultimate
Speaker 1: pull factors. And we could have a wall from sea
Speaker 1: to Shining Sea and they'll it'll still happen because these
Speaker 1: people will just walk right up to a port of
Speaker 1: entry or rush a port of entry and claim asylum
Speaker 1: and get released into interior of the country. It is
Speaker 1: the new form of illegal immigration. It's not like the
Speaker 1: early two thousands when you had young, working age Mexican
Speaker 1: mails streaming over the border and just running into the country.
Speaker 1: They turn themselves in immediately, and a wall certainly will
Speaker 1: not stop this well. And I mean we saw that
Speaker 1: with the end of the zero tolerance policy with President Trump.
Speaker 1: There is an eighty percent increase of families coming over
Speaker 1: to the United States after that policy ended, So clearly
Speaker 1: people are figuring out how to game the system. So
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about you'd mentioned the
Speaker 1: loopholes that need to be closed. Can you what are
Speaker 1: those loopholes and what needs to be done about it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we look at about you know, three main things. So,
Speaker 1: so first you got to tighten the credible fear standard
Speaker 1: for asylum applicants. So credible fear credible fear interview is
Speaker 1: the first thing you do when you make an asylum
Speaker 1: claim to see if it's it's valid. And the Obama
Speaker 1: administration really liberalize the meaning and it's created a situation
Speaker 1: where everyone thinks that they can get it. And what
Speaker 1: they need to do is impose penalties on migrants who
Speaker 1: make these frivolous claims. Really tighten the standard of these interviews,
Speaker 1: because right now, I think it's over ninety percent path
Speaker 1: that initial interview and many of them eventually get their
Speaker 1: asylum claims denied. But but as you know, it takes
Speaker 1: well over a year, sometimes two years to get your
Speaker 1: asylum claim adjudicated because the backlog is so great. So
Speaker 1: what these people want to do is they really don't
Speaker 1: want to see their asylum claim all the way through.
Speaker 1: They know that if they get past this initial credible
Speaker 1: fear interview that they'll get really into the country and
Speaker 1: they can just go disappear into the population. The second
Speaker 1: thing we need to do is address the Flores Settlement agreement.
Speaker 1: That's a court settlement, and that's what tricked up when
Speaker 1: President Trump was trying to That's what interfered with President
Speaker 1: Trump's deer or tolerance policy was the Floras Settlement. Correct
Speaker 1: Florist settlement says that if your family units can't be
Speaker 1: detained or children can't be detained either for more than
Speaker 1: twenty days, and then they have to be released. And
Speaker 1: and if what we need to do is extend family
Speaker 1: detention and increased detention space so that will have adequate
Speaker 1: holding facilities so we don't have to release these people.
Speaker 1: And and President Trump when he did the zero tolerance thing,
Speaker 1: is he really exposed truly what the open borders left
Speaker 1: really wants to do. You know. He says, all right,
Speaker 1: all right, so we could either separate families. They oh, no,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. And he goes, all right, well,
Speaker 1: let's hold the families together, and they say, no, you
Speaker 1: can't do that either. So then what do you want
Speaker 1: that's just for them to be released in the interior
Speaker 1: of the country. If we exactly exactly, if we really
Speaker 1: want to stop this again, we have to ensure that
Speaker 1: these can be held together in detention. And I think
Speaker 1: the third thing is amending one of our trafficking laws,
Speaker 1: which is the TVPRA, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
Speaker 1: And that's a law. It's a well intentioned law designed
Speaker 1: to protect miners from sex traffickers, but now it's just
Speaker 1: it's basically a foothold to get into the US. And
Speaker 1: we believe there a variety of changes that can be
Speaker 1: made that would close this loophole that's being exploited while
Speaker 1: still protecting these children who may be at risk. And
Speaker 1: then I think more broadly, you know, you secure the
Speaker 1: border with more resources and staffing, you dry up the
Speaker 1: jobs magnet by implementing mandatory, you verify, you know, you send,
Speaker 1: you send the message no more funny business. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're serious about enforcing our laws. And Congress hasn't done
Speaker 1: that yet. You know, President Trump has tried time and
Speaker 1: again to do what he can through his executive authority,
Speaker 1: kind of the opposite of what President Obama did. And
Speaker 1: you know, the ACLU or other open borders groups seem
Speaker 1: to be able to find an activist judge anywhere, you know,
Speaker 1: and likely under the Ninth Circuit to stop President Trump,
Speaker 1: even though he has legitimate authority most of the time
Speaker 1: delegated to him by Congress. UM. And you know, or
Speaker 1: j I wanted to talk to you about, you know,
Speaker 1: how much has word essentially gotten out to these Central
Speaker 1: American migrants about how easy or laws are to games.
Speaker 1: I know you had mentioned the fact that, you know,
Speaker 1: eighty nine percent of these indigual individuals are going to
Speaker 1: pass that first interview with immigration authorities. And my understand
Speaker 1: he's only nine percent who actually show up an immigration
Speaker 1: court will be granted asylum. So how much is word
Speaker 1: essentially gotten out about how easy it is to come
Speaker 1: here and at least pass that first initial or interview. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's widely known. I mean even go back.
Speaker 1: So I remember back when President Trump, you know, diddaca. UM,
Speaker 1: he had to dispatch Joe Biden down to Central America
Speaker 1: to tell the governments down there, hey, and to let
Speaker 1: your people know that just because we're doing this DACA
Speaker 1: thing doesn't mean that you're gonna be able to come.
Speaker 1: I mean we've seen we've seen this time and again
Speaker 1: every time either Congress discusses or extends an immigration benefit.
Speaker 1: Or even you know, our laws get widely known how
Speaker 1: they can be abused. These people down their irrational people,
Speaker 1: they take note, they know what their family members have done,
Speaker 1: they know what works. And a lot of these coyotes
Speaker 1: down there. You know, there was actually a Washington Post
Speaker 1: article several weeks several of the reporters went down to
Speaker 1: Guatemala and we're actually talking to people down there. Coyotes
Speaker 1: were encouraging people to go with a child that a
Speaker 1: child is basically known as a get out of jail
Speaker 1: free card. I mean that is that's a humanitarian crisis.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're our laws are encouraging people to bring
Speaker 1: their children and sometimes not even their own children, and
Speaker 1: encourages kidnapping. You know, as somebody in Guatemala could go
Speaker 1: kidnap a child knowing that you know, hey, that child
Speaker 1: might get out of jail free card and a ticket
Speaker 1: to work in the United States. That creates a crisis
Speaker 1: down there. This journey up up to the United States
Speaker 1: from Central America, it's terrible. I mean, you have children
Speaker 1: that are raped, that they're subjected to violence. You know,
Speaker 1: gangs are recruiting. I mean, it's a real crisis, and
Speaker 1: our laws are exacerbating the problem. You know, it's not
Speaker 1: You're not being in humane, you're not acting without heart
Speaker 1: when you want to shore them up again. These people
Speaker 1: need to make the changes in their own countries to
Speaker 1: better the conditions down there, rather than coming up in
Speaker 1: the treacherous journey to the United States and disregarding our laws. Well,
Speaker 1: and to that point, DHS put out a statistic. I
Speaker 1: think it's over the past two years there's been one
Speaker 1: hundred and ten percent increase in malls bringing a child
Speaker 1: trying to enter into the southern border. So completely making
Speaker 1: your point, J, We're out of time, but I really
Speaker 1: appreciate you joining us tonight. RJ. Haman of Fair all right,
Speaker 1: thanks Lisa, thank you so much. Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Lisa Booth. I really appreciate you guys
Speaker 1: for sticking with me to night. This is actually my
Speaker 1: first time a solo hosting radio, So thank you to
Speaker 1: Buck for getting sick and allowing me this opportunity to
Speaker 1: fill in for him. Really, he's a friend of mine,
Speaker 1: so I really appreciate him believing in me and not
Speaker 1: thinking I was going to screw it up. So a
Speaker 1: great friend there. And I've also I've got a producer,
Speaker 1: Mike with me right now, because I heard that he
Speaker 1: actually takes issue with where I went to college. So Mike,
Speaker 1: what gives? I don't take issue. I I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the way. That's why I tell you where you went school. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I went to the University of Tennessee, which is a
Speaker 1: phenomenal school. Phenomenal yeah, yeah, big Orange. Right. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: a Philadelphia boy, so I don't really have place to
Speaker 1: speak on the South. But well, then what's your beef
Speaker 1: with me? What I could deal? I have relatives who
Speaker 1: went to the University of Alabama. Well, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not like you guys have anything to be upset with
Speaker 1: right now. Alabama has been, you know, amazing, Yeah, kicking
Speaker 1: butt with football. We just have problems with schools that
Speaker 1: really stink at football. You know, that's so right, and
Speaker 1: right now that a season not going so good. You know,
Speaker 1: actually I want to talk to you about that, and
Speaker 1: what do you think is wrong with your program? Well,
Speaker 1: it's really tough, is I can't really rebut that because
Speaker 1: you know, I went to school when Philip former, Philip
Speaker 1: Fumer ever, Philip former, and then also when Lane Kiffin
Speaker 1: screwed US over Yes, things just went downhill. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you this. I think it's so funny because I
Speaker 1: remember there was a guy that put up our guy
Speaker 1: or gal who I don't know if who who was
Speaker 1: behind it, put up a billboard on one of the
Speaker 1: major highways and it read that Lane Kiffin was as
Speaker 1: faithful as Tiger one. That's really funny. I never saw
Speaker 1: that well, and that just goes to show you how
Speaker 1: much people love their football in Knoxville, Tennessee, that someone
Speaker 1: would pay their own money to I mean the billboards.
Speaker 1: He was well, I mean it's true because Lane Kiffin was,
Speaker 1: you know, not a faithful you know, he's a terrible coach,
Speaker 1: screwed us over M and so well that's actually that's
Speaker 1: true too. But so I found that to be hilarious
Speaker 1: because someone literally spent their own money to send a
Speaker 1: message and an important message. It was, yeah, an important message.
Speaker 1: What is it about the South? It out and like
Speaker 1: because the Alabama fans are the same. SEC is great,
Speaker 1: SEC country is awesome. They loved their football and they
Speaker 1: take it so seriously. I understand there's no NFL teams
Speaker 1: down there, But what's in the water down there that
Speaker 1: like gives them like they're they're crazier than like Giants
Speaker 1: fans and Eagles fans like they're nuts. They have you
Speaker 1: been to games? Like? Have you gone to an SEC game? Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Well it's so much fun. Yeah, I mean that was
Speaker 1: the highlight of going to ther University of Tennessee. It's
Speaker 1: so much fun going to the football games. You get
Speaker 1: to hang out with friends. It brings the school together,
Speaker 1: or brings the community together. It's just a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: Not even too you know, my girlfriends and I in college.
Speaker 1: You know, we go to games at the different universities.
Speaker 1: We go to Old Mess, we go to Georgia, and
Speaker 1: you get got to check out some of the other
Speaker 1: universities as well, which was a lot of fun. Although
Speaker 1: toma um you know what? Yes, actually, well no, I
Speaker 1: don't remember it ready. Have you ever had a yellowhammer?
Speaker 1: You know what that is? Actually I did. I did
Speaker 1: go to the University of Alabama. That's cracked. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: been a while since I graduated, although hopefully nobody knew
Speaker 1: that because I still look young, maybe you'll be okay
Speaker 1: at least that's just what I'm gonna tell myself. Still,
Speaker 1: if I still go out and get card at a
Speaker 1: good night so it makes feel better about yourself definitely.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's it's beautiful down there. Like I love
Speaker 1: going the BAM. I've never been to Tennessee, so I
Speaker 1: can't speak too hard on it. It's beautiful. We've got
Speaker 1: in you've got Vall Navy on the water too, which
Speaker 1: is a lot of fun. Be game the games. But
Speaker 1: thanks so much everyone. I really appreciate you guys for
Speaker 1: joining me tonight, and thank you Buck for letting me
Speaker 1: fill in for you. Have a great night, everyone,