Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunch. President Trump salutes the
Speaker 1: heroes of immigrations and customs enforcement and customs and Border patrol.
Speaker 1: That's right, Trump is pro law enforcement. What does that
Speaker 1: make the other side? The Democrats will get into a
Speaker 1: story that shows you their mindset. Plus they are still
Speaker 1: doubling down on this notion of Brennan's clearance getting taken
Speaker 1: away as a big problem. We'll dive into what's really
Speaker 1: going on here, including a piece on the Hill dot
Speaker 1: Com written by yours truly that makes sense of all
Speaker 1: this stuff and much more coming up on The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great American Again.
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins. Set analysts. Today, I sent
Speaker 1: a letter to state and local leaders across our nation
Speaker 1: asking them to pledge their full support and cooperation with
Speaker 1: the officers and agents of ICE and CBC. Sadly in
Speaker 1: recent months, incredibly, I have to say, incredibly, a coalition
Speaker 1: of open borders extremists, and to me, that means crime.
Speaker 1: People that don't mind crime, they mind it when it
Speaker 1: happens to them. They don't mind it when they have
Speaker 1: to watch it on television. Have waged an unprecedented assault
Speaker 1: on American law enforcement, our greatest people, threatening ice and
Speaker 1: Border Patrol for performing their duties admirably and for defending
Speaker 1: our country from horrible people and horrible, horrible events and crimes.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sex and show everybody. He had
Speaker 1: President Trump today establishing a very clear difference between his
Speaker 1: administration and how the Republican Party views immigrations and customs
Speaker 1: enforcement and customs and border patrol essentially law enforcement as
Speaker 1: it pertains to US borders and immigration. And this administration
Speaker 1: and this president are supportive of those agents and officers.
Speaker 1: This administration believes in their mission, which I would note
Speaker 1: isn't just an opinion, it's also supported by the law.
Speaker 1: These are agents of the state. Usually, Democrats love agents
Speaker 1: of the state, especially when they're you know, they're they're
Speaker 1: tax collectors, regulators, people like that. You know, people that
Speaker 1: come and tell a small business what what they can
Speaker 1: and can't do, what they're heating ducts in a certain area.
Speaker 1: Democrats love those kinds of government agents. But the people
Speaker 1: who work for our federal government, who are trying to
Speaker 1: stop drug smugglers, human traffickers, cartel members, cartel hitmen from
Speaker 1: coming in the United States. They have a disdain for them.
Speaker 1: Democrats have been throwing them under the bus. And Trump
Speaker 1: today held this rally that I think or held this
Speaker 1: meeting rather that really established for all to see what
Speaker 1: that difference is. And I'm glad that we have a
Speaker 1: president is finally saying that Democrats are really four open borders.
Speaker 1: They won't say it, they don't have the courage of
Speaker 1: their convictions to be honest on this, but they do
Speaker 1: want open borders. They just don't want that to be
Speaker 1: the law. They want that to be the reality. This
Speaker 1: is a question you should ask the next time you
Speaker 1: are engaging in this debate. If you do, the next
Speaker 1: time you have an opportunity to talk to somebody about
Speaker 1: this who feels differently from you on it, asked them, say,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, explain the following to me. Why
Speaker 1: is it that everything that I hear from Democrats about immigration,
Speaker 1: everything I hear from them about illegal immigration specifically, is
Speaker 1: that it's good, that it's part of the American dream,
Speaker 1: there's no downside. And then you should ask them, well,
Speaker 1: then why shouldn't we just why shouldn't we be open borders.
Speaker 1: If you refuse to concede that illegal immigrants oppose a
Speaker 1: crime problem, if you refuse to believe it they are
Speaker 1: a a drain on public resources, that there's really a
Speaker 1: a large scale theft going on, uh from taxpayers to
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. If you refuse all of that, and then
Speaker 1: you don't even think it affects the political culture of
Speaker 1: this country. Because keep in mind, folks, we have millions
Speaker 1: and millions of illegal immigrants that are coming in from
Speaker 1: certain countries that are part of a contiguous land mass
Speaker 1: with the United States. This is different. Even national security
Speaker 1: analysts will tell you this is not just immigration from
Speaker 1: all over the world and people come here. This is
Speaker 1: immigration from right next door. And historically this tends not
Speaker 1: to work out well. This usually aids to secessionists and
Speaker 1: separatist movements. Oh, I know, no one even thinks about that. Now, Well,
Speaker 1: give it time, give it a hundred years. What do
Speaker 1: we think that will look like. I'm not worried about
Speaker 1: people from from Italy or you know, from Rome or
Speaker 1: from Shanghai wanting to know, rejoin their former country. But
Speaker 1: I wonder at this rate. What does the future look
Speaker 1: like of the U. S. Mexico border. We assume it
Speaker 1: is static, but history tells us it's not. Not even
Speaker 1: ancient history, Okay, not that long ago, go back a
Speaker 1: few generations. So there's no honesty from Democrats about this
Speaker 1: issue at all. They just pander and do a lot
Speaker 1: of virtue signaling dressed up as a sound thinking on policy.
Speaker 1: And Trump knows that immigration is a weak point for Democrats.
Speaker 1: The American people are not with the left on immigration.
Speaker 1: They're just not playli this new wave of anti borders,
Speaker 1: anti law enforcement, extremism and shameful, dangerous. It's horrible in
Speaker 1: every way, and it's going to stop. It's going to
Speaker 1: stop right now. It's gonna stop today. We slowed it down,
Speaker 1: now we're stopping it. We will never surrender our nation
Speaker 1: to the forces of anarchy and chaos and crime. And
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna do very well in the midterms.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the very big reason. The
Speaker 1: fact is people respect law and order and they love
Speaker 1: our law enforcement. And I think we're going to have
Speaker 1: much more of a red wave than what you're going
Speaker 1: to see as a phony blue wave. Blue wave means
Speaker 1: crime it means open borders not good. We will not
Speaker 1: stand for the vile smears, the hateful attacks, and the
Speaker 1: vicious assaults on the courageous men and women of ice
Speaker 1: and border patrol and law enforcement. So the in and
Speaker 1: is making a pretty clear case here about what's the
Speaker 1: difference in Republicans and Democrats on the border. I think
Speaker 1: it's very important that we all hear it, that we
Speaker 1: all know it. But but there's also this story that
Speaker 1: broke over the weekend, and I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: try not to spend too much time um on social
Speaker 1: media over the weekends. You know, we all need to
Speaker 1: disengage and and step back, right, we all should, We
Speaker 1: all should do that. But I saw this story about
Speaker 1: about immigrations and customs enforcement on video no less, right,
Speaker 1: So there's gonna be there's gonna be video of this
Speaker 1: and everybody can see and how they swooped in and
Speaker 1: arrested it's so terrible, arrested this man taking his wife
Speaker 1: to the hospital to deliver a baby. And we were
Speaker 1: supposed to react to this with shock and outrage. Of course,
Speaker 1: the heartless immigrations and Customs enforcement agents are out there
Speaker 1: doing this terrible work of enforcing the law, and they,
Speaker 1: you know, they they stopped this man from being there
Speaker 1: for the birth of his baby and all this other stuff.
Speaker 1: And then by the way, this was picked up, I
Speaker 1: was picked up by a lot of major news outlets
Speaker 1: all over the place. You know, they're they're all running
Speaker 1: with this story, ABC, CNN. And then we find out
Speaker 1: some additional details of this. This was in San Bernardino, California,
Speaker 1: over the weekend. We find out that sure enough, this
Speaker 1: individual who was arrested that we were supposed to be
Speaker 1: deeply concerned about, and we were supposed to really be
Speaker 1: worried about, what a terrible injustice, what a tragedy has
Speaker 1: befall in this country when you have somebody like this
Speaker 1: arrested on their way to the hospital. No less, it's
Speaker 1: just unthinkable, so terrible. But then we find out a
Speaker 1: bit more. It turns out this man who they were
Speaker 1: saying is just unjustly, unjustly grabbed right Joel our Rowna Laura,
Speaker 1: thirty six years old. UM He was, according to Immigration
Speaker 1: the Customs Enforcement wanted on a warrant for murder. And also,
Speaker 1: by the way, his wife, who was pregnant, on the
Speaker 1: way to the hospital to have her fifth child. Uh
Speaker 1: was having a ces arean section, which means that it
Speaker 1: was a scheduled procedure, so you know she was gonna
Speaker 1: be able to get to the hospital, folks, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is not It's not like the baby was The
Speaker 1: baby was was, you know, happening at the gas station
Speaker 1: where he was arrested. She was on her way to
Speaker 1: hospital for an appointment. They found this guy. They think
Speaker 1: he's wanted for murder, and so they arrest him. And
Speaker 1: you see how this played out by the way I
Speaker 1: saw one journalist One Blue Check journal tweeted out, I
Speaker 1: used arrested a California man on Wednesday when he stopped
Speaker 1: for gas while driving his wife to the hospital for
Speaker 1: her C section. She ended up driving yourself to the
Speaker 1: rest the rest of the way, giving birth alone twenty
Speaker 1: three thousand retweets, and then he added this update. I
Speaker 1: said Monday, this man was arrested because of a homicide
Speaker 1: warrant for him in Mexico. I just didn't mention this
Speaker 1: in its comments to meeting yesterday. His lawyer denized there
Speaker 1: are such charges. No details from Ice two forty two retweets.
Speaker 1: When I when I saw this earlier today, So over
Speaker 1: twenty retweets of oh my gosh, look at this guy's
Speaker 1: been grabbed. It so terrible. Ice is so heartless. Two,
Speaker 1: it's like, well, actually they thought he was a murderer.
Speaker 1: I think she thought this guy was dangerous. Right, murderers
Speaker 1: are dangerous. You want to take them off the street.
Speaker 1: And the media narrative very quickly fell apart here, right,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, that was not really a story
Speaker 1: they were very focused on. But I want to take this.
Speaker 1: Oh there's also this point they make of how I
Speaker 1: said in their initial statement that no one has shield
Speaker 1: You know, if you're here illegally, you can be deported.
Speaker 1: No one shielded from deportation, whether you're on the way
Speaker 1: to the hospital or whatever. I mean, if if they
Speaker 1: detain you, they detain you. Right by the way, police
Speaker 1: busted into Metaphorts home at six o'clock or five o'clock
Speaker 1: in the morning, right, and police come at very inopportune times.
Speaker 1: Years ago, there was a an n S a whistle blowerer,
Speaker 1: remember the case. They came in and pulled him out
Speaker 1: of the shower with MP five's drawn. They sent in
Speaker 1: a swat team to grab that guy. By the way,
Speaker 1: you know when he ended up getting a for jail time, nothing,
Speaker 1: got probation for a misdemeanor, didn't even he didn't do anything,
Speaker 1: released unclassified information that the government didn't like. But that's
Speaker 1: a conversation for another time. Yeah, that's right. Law enforcementill
Speaker 1: take you at at inconvenient times. They'll do that for citizens.
Speaker 1: By the way, they do that for all of us. Right,
Speaker 1: if they have to arrest, if it's if they have
Speaker 1: to execute it, arrest, you're getting arrested. There's not this like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know I'm on the way to get coffee or
Speaker 1: you know, I got a doctor's appointment. Can you arrest
Speaker 1: me later. That's not how it works. And what they're
Speaker 1: saying here what Immigrations a Custom Enforcement initially said was well, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're deporting this guy. He's got a deportation order out
Speaker 1: on him. And and the media said, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it's so heartless and terrible. And then we found out
Speaker 1: that there's a murder warrant. And now people are saying, well, no,
Speaker 1: there's not a murder world. Well guess what if if
Speaker 1: that was information Ice had, they have to act on it. Right,
Speaker 1: if Mexico has some mess up in their system. It's
Speaker 1: not our federal officers faults. They're they're doing their job.
Speaker 1: They think they're taking a murderer off the street. They
Speaker 1: should be praised for this. Then there's one other point,
Speaker 1: and this is the biggest one, and this goes right
Speaker 1: to the heart of why people really want to hear
Speaker 1: from from Trump on this and why his message on
Speaker 1: this issue is so very, very important. Why was this
Speaker 1: even a national news story that this man was detained
Speaker 1: by Immigrations and Customers Enforcement If he were not an
Speaker 1: illegal alien, which he was right, if you were not
Speaker 1: an illegal alien, if he were just a guy wanted
Speaker 1: on an outstanding drug warrant, wanted on an assault charge,
Speaker 1: and he were on his way to the hospital with
Speaker 1: his wife, would this have been a news story period?
Speaker 1: I don't mean a national level, front page weekend news story,
Speaker 1: which is what this was treated as. I mean, would
Speaker 1: anybody in the media care at all? Well, you know
Speaker 1: the answer is no. This then brings me to what
Speaker 1: they really don't want you to think about. But you
Speaker 1: already know this is the case. They just try to
Speaker 1: skip past this. It's not only that illegal aliens in
Speaker 1: this country get special treatment from the media. It's also
Speaker 1: that the media expects that illegal aliens will given be
Speaker 1: given special legal treatment too, that they shouldn't be held
Speaker 1: responsible the same way that others are for illegal acts,
Speaker 1: because they have been put in a very difficult situation,
Speaker 1: you know, because law enforcement is hounding them. So the
Speaker 1: forgeries they commit, the social Security card for all that
Speaker 1: they commit, all these different things, you know, that's that's
Speaker 1: not their fault. That's our fault, you see, because we've
Speaker 1: put them in that situation. The media in this country
Speaker 1: and the Democratic Party with them, don't just believe the
Speaker 1: legal aliens should be allowed to stay. They think illegal
Speaker 1: aliens in this country should have extra rights over citizens,
Speaker 1: and that they deserve more attention and more sympathy. Illegal
Speaker 1: aliens are more deserving of sympathy than the media's fellow Americans.
Speaker 1: That's what they really believe. Otherwise, how do you explain
Speaker 1: this story? How do you explain that this was treated
Speaker 1: as an urgent matter for all of us to spend
Speaker 1: so much time on. It doesn't make any sense unless
Speaker 1: you put it into that context. Then all of a
Speaker 1: sudden it does eight four four nine to eight to
Speaker 1: five eight four four nine, Buck, We've got a lot
Speaker 1: on the security clearance uh pol fiasco. Today We're gonna
Speaker 1: be also free speech bill maher Jack Dorsey saying that
Speaker 1: Twitter does discriminate in favor of leftist idea pology. I mean,
Speaker 1: I got a jam packed show for all of you
Speaker 1: show uh oh. And also the social justice mob dragged
Speaker 1: a friend of mine or a former classmate of mine.
Speaker 1: I should say, We'll get to that in more coming up.
Speaker 1: I want to bring up from five thirty our friends
Speaker 1: at five thirty to put out their first forecast for
Speaker 1: the mid term elections. And they say that Democrats have
Speaker 1: a three and four chance to win control of the House,
Speaker 1: Republicans have a one in four chance to keep control
Speaker 1: in the House, and Jason, it's a very qualified forecast
Speaker 1: right there. They're just saying this is these are probabilities,
Speaker 1: not predictions, uh in in any way. But this corresponds
Speaker 1: to what we're seeing from other experts. There's no red
Speaker 1: wave that the president. No, I think that's we're still
Speaker 1: thinking on some part. Every factor seems to point that
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to take the House. The president's low
Speaker 1: approval ratings, which are at the point where every president
Speaker 1: has lost the House when name would lost the House
Speaker 1: or lost one of their chapters. That was doubd who
Speaker 1: if I played you, he's an ABC analyst. If I
Speaker 1: played you as predictions from the Trump election, you would
Speaker 1: laugh really hard because everything he said at every point
Speaker 1: of that was pretty much wrong. But the whole panel,
Speaker 1: they've noticed that. They're all very dismissive. I just a
Speaker 1: little trip down memory lane based on where the polling
Speaker 1: was two years ago. Folks played John only into this night,
Speaker 1: where do we stand? This is where we stood coming
Speaker 1: into the night to to two oh four. So clearly
Speaker 1: an advantage for Secretary Clinton. So right now we have
Speaker 1: Hillary is about a seventy five or favorite. We have
Speaker 1: different first past. You can look at Hillary Clinton up
Speaker 1: by double nidgets nationally twelve points fifty thirty eight, full
Speaker 1: way race, Clinton leading in Florida, Clinton leading in North Carolina,
Speaker 1: Clinton leading in Ohio, Clinton leading in Nevada. I could
Speaker 1: go on and on and on, but said, basically, this
Speaker 1: is the beginning of the end for Trump. At the
Speaker 1: beginning of the end, the beginning of the ends, is
Speaker 1: probably starting of the beginning of the end for for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Mr Trump, to answer your call for political honesty,
Speaker 1: I just want to say, you're not going to be president.
Speaker 1: All right. They're not popping the champagne corks as yet,
Speaker 1: but they probably are thinking about how good it might taste. Anderson,
Speaker 1: this night is turning out to be a real nailed by.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump will carry the state of Florida. Were a
Speaker 1: major projection. Right now it's Donald Trump will say, pretty
Speaker 1: dramatic change in your forecast. Now, well, it's not about
Speaker 1: our forecast. Well, my crystal ball has been shattered into
Speaker 1: atoms here because I predicted the exact opposite of what happened. Well,
Speaker 1: if the scene here is so different than it was
Speaker 1: a few hours ago, when people were happy and relaxed,
Speaker 1: I have been looking around the room and people who
Speaker 1: are stone faced, some of them have been crying. Everybody
Speaker 1: is crying and so and it is the end. Everybody
Speaker 1: is crying. It is a morning moment for for those people. Uh,
Speaker 1: and it is it is woman filled with fear. How
Speaker 1: do we explain how this is possible? How did this happen?
Speaker 1: Donald Trump will be the President of the United States
Speaker 1: thirty Keep you waiting, complicated business folks. I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: man that anytime I'm having a bad day, I just
Speaker 1: need to listen to that, that whole that whole cycle again. There.
Speaker 1: It's amazing, isn't it? Election night? Wow? Incredible, incredible stuff.
Speaker 1: It was incredible. Just just remember that. Well, all the
Speaker 1: all the smug politicos. I'm not saying they're gonna be wrong.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying their smugness has not in any way
Speaker 1: gone down since they were incredibly wrong about the last
Speaker 1: national election in the Trump era. So we'll see, folks,
Speaker 1: it ain't over until the lady sings. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America, Buck Sexton, his back. For these people
Speaker 1: that want to question why we do what we do.
Speaker 1: The first people need to look in the mirrors Congress.
Speaker 1: Congress had had ability to fix us, and they didn't
Speaker 1: fix it. So the fault lines at their feet first.
Speaker 1: This is why he's a great president. He talks to
Speaker 1: talk and he walks a walk. I've been with the
Speaker 1: President of numerous town hall meetings where he meets with
Speaker 1: the frontline law enforcement folks that the folks that wear
Speaker 1: that keval arvest every day and enforce laws. You know,
Speaker 1: he's staying shoulder to shoulder with him and what he's
Speaker 1: doing is right for America. What he's doing is right
Speaker 1: for border security. And as far as the political puns
Speaker 1: want to continue to vilify ICE officers, I find it.
Speaker 1: I find a un American that you would want to
Speaker 1: attack a law enforcement officer for merely doing their job
Speaker 1: enforcing the laws that Congress enacted. I mean, what does
Speaker 1: this come to. I mean, I'm glad this is happening.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that Left is finally shown that they want
Speaker 1: open borders. I think it's gonna help. I think it's
Speaker 1: gonna help in November. I really do. I totally agree
Speaker 1: with Thomas Holman, their former UH ICE director. He's he's
Speaker 1: completely right. You know, the Democrats are exposing themselves for
Speaker 1: who they really are, and that's good. We should know.
Speaker 1: I want the American people to know. I want them
Speaker 1: to know that this is what Democrats are really all about.
Speaker 1: I want them to know that this is how Democrats
Speaker 1: view our customs and border patrol, of you, our immigration
Speaker 1: enforcement agents. And I think it might have a real
Speaker 1: impact in the mid terms. You know, because because the
Speaker 1: Democrats have have deluded themselves into thinking that the country
Speaker 1: is with them on on immigration, they run all these polls.
Speaker 1: You know, do you think immigration is good for America,
Speaker 1: do you you know? No, no, no, no no, no, that's
Speaker 1: really an issue here, folks. What is it issue is
Speaker 1: should the laws of this country be enforced? Why is
Speaker 1: it that the laws against you? And this goes back
Speaker 1: to how they illegal aliens have special rights in the
Speaker 1: eyes of the media. Why should the laws against you
Speaker 1: be enforced without exception? Right? Why should Papadopolis be facing
Speaker 1: six months in prison for a lie about a non
Speaker 1: crime but immigrated? Shouldn't offenses are not punished at all?
Speaker 1: Explain that to me. I can think of a whole
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of different offenses that have been in
Speaker 1: the media recently. You know, why should why should Manafort
Speaker 1: be facing decades in prison for not paying money on
Speaker 1: his taxes? Okay? Telling me has to pay the money
Speaker 1: and a fine, decades in prison? Oh buck? The law
Speaker 1: is the law? Well, okay, the law is law. Who
Speaker 1: who exactly suffers because Manaford hid this money? By the way,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen is expected to be facing charges any moment now.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing the wire hit just as we're on the show.
Speaker 1: Not for Russia collusion, collusion, who's collusion? But for a
Speaker 1: tax scheme involving taxis a taxi tax scheme. Okay, Now
Speaker 1: you may say, Bucky, and everyone's gonna pay their taxes.
Speaker 1: I agree, But should should the sanctions really be that severe?
Speaker 1: Should people lose their freedom and go to prison for
Speaker 1: a tax issue? Because and people say me, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's the law. All I said, Well, who's really suffered
Speaker 1: because of what they've done? Where is the victim? Or
Speaker 1: the victim is the government? And therefore they said, the
Speaker 1: victim is all of us? But is it really so severe? Well,
Speaker 1: what about being in this country illegally accessing federal services,
Speaker 1: illegally engaging in forgery, engaging in document fraud, engaging in
Speaker 1: and you know, not filing a tax return and being
Speaker 1: in this country? Oh, that's right. They don't file tax
Speaker 1: returns generally speaking, do they? And if they did, keep
Speaker 1: in mind, a lot of them would be getting payments
Speaker 1: from the government because a lot of illegal aliens don't
Speaker 1: make enough money to pay federal income taxes. But those
Speaker 1: laws don't get enforced. The law is the law until
Speaker 1: it's not. With Democrats, that's one thing that we've seen,
Speaker 1: and certainly on immigration, and it's because they view it
Speaker 1: as a path to permanent power. That's what's It's not
Speaker 1: about one election for Democrats. Amnesty and continued inflows of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens from developing in third world countries is all
Speaker 1: about power for the Democrat Party. It's just what it is,
Speaker 1: so we might as well call it out. I'm glad
Speaker 1: that former ICE director Homeman is willing to say it.
Speaker 1: And he also you notice how how he attacked the
Speaker 1: political pundit class to which is something we all should
Speaker 1: be very comfortable doing at this point, because they do.
Speaker 1: They run their mouths about this stuff. They act like
Speaker 1: they've got answers and they know they know what really
Speaker 1: should be done. And you know, meanwhile, they're not honest
Speaker 1: about immigration. They don't know anything abou immigration, and they
Speaker 1: won't debate the issue publicly. They've got people running around
Speaker 1: yelling abolish Ice, Abolish ICE like a bunch of mincompoops,
Speaker 1: including sitting senators Kirsten gila Brand is saying that I
Speaker 1: should be abolished too. This is a sitting senator who
Speaker 1: wants to eliminate a law enforcement agency that is absolutely
Speaker 1: necessary for this country. Well, what are we gonna do.
Speaker 1: We're just gonna oh, that's right, We're gonna go open borders,
Speaker 1: and that isn't a that that's an applause line for
Speaker 1: Democrats tells you a lot. But a lot of the
Speaker 1: Democrats applause lines these days give you not just a
Speaker 1: window into their mindset, but really a window into their soul.
Speaker 1: The political pundit class Homan clearly has some animus towards them.
Speaker 1: Here is a I want to play this full exchange
Speaker 1: for you. This is from MSNBC, which you'll notice. I
Speaker 1: tend to lay off MSNBC because everyone knows their left,
Speaker 1: their Democrats right. It's a Democrat channel four by and
Speaker 1: of progressives. That's what it is. I think they're wrong
Speaker 1: about everything, but at least they're honest about who they
Speaker 1: are at some level. At some level, I mean, NBC's
Speaker 1: politics really are any different from msnbc s. But maybe
Speaker 1: that's a conversation for another time. CNN I have a
Speaker 1: problem with because the whole the whole thing is a fraud.
Speaker 1: It's dishonest. It's an anti Trump channel. It's an anti
Speaker 1: Republican channel now as well, because Trump and the Republican
Speaker 1: Party have become one. Uh. But here's a here's a
Speaker 1: pretty good example of what passes for analysis. At MSNBC. Again,
Speaker 1: this is the most vocal president, at least in real time,
Speaker 1: that we've had in recent memory. Right, he is the
Speaker 1: leader of the free world. No he's not. He's not
Speaker 1: the leader of the free world. But sorry, by default
Speaker 1: is the leader of the free worlds leader of the
Speaker 1: free world. But well, he is the most important person
Speaker 1: in in the world in politics right now, and he
Speaker 1: is very vocal. And I do agree with you that
Speaker 1: this does express a level of exasperation among his aids.
Speaker 1: Stop for one second, notice how this analyst. You know,
Speaker 1: he's not the leader of the free world. This is like,
Speaker 1: he's not my president. Not my president. This is the
Speaker 1: Trumps arrangement delusion. The leader of the free world is
Speaker 1: a title that we all give to the President United States. Okay,
Speaker 1: Angela Merkel is a no position to lead the free world.
Speaker 1: Angela Merkel was your to to borrow from. I think
Speaker 1: it was Ross douth It in the New York Times.
Speaker 1: She was European far right nationalisms woman of the Year.
Speaker 1: In her whole experiment of let's bring in a million
Speaker 1: people from the Muslim world who are refugees and see
Speaker 1: what happens did not work out well. In fact, in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways, Brexit and trumps um are tied
Speaker 1: to the fiasco of mircalism. Corton talk, yeah, Mercanism, it's
Speaker 1: so much fun to talk about ZIMRCA. But this analyst
Speaker 1: that MSNBC says that she's the leader of the free
Speaker 1: will you know this is this is part of the
Speaker 1: mindset that they are picking another leader over over ours,
Speaker 1: that they seem to believe that there are other people
Speaker 1: out there, other countries now have stepped in this leadership role.
Speaker 1: That's not true. What is Germany doing to lead the
Speaker 1: free world? In what I mean? Germany has got a
Speaker 1: lot of problems, by the way, including what it's going
Speaker 1: to do about immigration, including what's going to happen as
Speaker 1: a result of some of these some of these policies.
Speaker 1: I mean, let let me give you another example. This
Speaker 1: by the way, um, this is how the Washington Post
Speaker 1: writes about the throw down between this country and Turkey.
Speaker 1: Remember the Washington Post is a US paper, folks. This
Speaker 1: is how they frame this issue. Erduan capital Arouan is
Speaker 1: of course the president of Turkey. Are Douan capitalizes on
Speaker 1: Trump's effort to break and isolate Turkey and here's how
Speaker 1: they write about this quote. When President Trump tried to
Speaker 1: strong arm Turkey into releasing a detained American pastor this month,
Speaker 1: he gambled at a barrage of punishing measures, market rattling
Speaker 1: economic sanctions, and humiliating public rebukes would force President are
Speaker 1: to Wan to quickly relent. That has not happened more
Speaker 1: than three weeks after the crisis started. The pastor is
Speaker 1: still under house arrest, and are to Wan for the moment,
Speaker 1: appears unbowed. Now. I know you can argue that that's
Speaker 1: a factual recitation of what's gone on, or it's a
Speaker 1: factually accurate recitation, but that reads very much like yeah,
Speaker 1: aridauan stand up to Trump. To me, that reads like
Speaker 1: they're rooting for a Turkish strong man, very much in
Speaker 1: the mold of Putin, who is, by the way, very
Speaker 1: pro hamass. And if we dug a little deeper, we'd
Speaker 1: find some really unsaved reconnections to the Islamic state. Trust me,
Speaker 1: between the Turkish government and Isis that's already there. But
Speaker 1: the Washington Post is rooting for not our president because
Speaker 1: he's not because Trump is not their president, not my president.
Speaker 1: I'll never forget those rallies in New York. I walked
Speaker 1: into one by accident. I was trying to get home.
Speaker 1: Not my president, not no, it's like, no, no, inaccurate.
Speaker 1: He is in fact your president. But John, please continue
Speaker 1: with that, with that MSNBC panel, because because it gets
Speaker 1: worse your yeah, go ahead, I'm sorry your argument that
Speaker 1: he is not the leader of the free world, because
Speaker 1: he's not. He's a sort of junior player in a
Speaker 1: block of authoritarian country and no, and the people like
Speaker 1: the European Union are no longer looking at him as
Speaker 1: a leader any longer. And I think is right. They
Speaker 1: see he's instead he's like right, he's part of the
Speaker 1: block that includes Vladimir Prutin to Terte, he's you know,
Speaker 1: he's kind of part of a he's part of kind
Speaker 1: of an access that it's it's worse than I mean,
Speaker 1: not that that's not the worst thing that could have said,
Speaker 1: because it's about the worst thing could say about him,
Speaker 1: but not the rounding people up and murdering, murdering them
Speaker 1: without any you know, to process, and they like to
Speaker 1: I don't think you can say that definitively. Did you
Speaker 1: did you catch that? I know there's a lot of
Speaker 1: like a lot a lot of you know, chirping over
Speaker 1: each other there, But he would, certainly he would. That
Speaker 1: was a paid political analyst on TV saying that the
Speaker 1: current president United States would like to round people up
Speaker 1: and execute them. And they think that that's both insightful
Speaker 1: and funny to say on National TV. I don't remember
Speaker 1: anybody that anyone thought was even remotely intelligence saying that
Speaker 1: about Obama, that Obama was looking around people up and
Speaker 1: execute them. No, nobody said that, because that's stupid, right,
Speaker 1: that's stupid. It's reckless, and there's no basis for it.
Speaker 1: But this passes for just kind of a casual Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, you know, casual conversation over at MSNBC. It
Speaker 1: passes for just the way the way they talk about
Speaker 1: this this stuff all the time. Noticed they also they
Speaker 1: put Trump in the same category as Dette in the
Speaker 1: Philippines and Vladimir Putin based on what because he because
Speaker 1: he pushes back on on media narratives. Our media is biased.
Speaker 1: They're in the tank for Democrats. Okay, that's just reality.
Speaker 1: They can cry about it all day, but they're a
Speaker 1: bunch of Democrat wanna be whiners, and we see it
Speaker 1: we see it day in and day out, and so
Speaker 1: Trump pushes back, and now we're supposed to think that
Speaker 1: he's some evil dictator because of it. He isn't jailed anyone. Fact.
Speaker 1: Obama was more dangerous to journalism than Trump was by
Speaker 1: a mile, But they won't tell you that. Instead they'll
Speaker 1: sit there and and sneer and snicker and laugh at
Speaker 1: the notion that Trump he's that they could notice how
Speaker 1: they also they ran out of ways to say how
Speaker 1: bad he is. They couldn't come out and come up
Speaker 1: with a new pejorative for him. You know, Oh, well
Speaker 1: he's he's worse than That's the worst thing you can say.
Speaker 1: But he's not even that bad. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: what they do. They try to one up each other.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like a bunch of five year
Speaker 1: olds arguing about, you know, my dad can beat up
Speaker 1: your dad. I mean, this is just idiocy on display.
Speaker 1: That's how they do things. Um speaking about MSNBC and
Speaker 1: things not being brilliant over there, uh, and situations being uh,
Speaker 1: let's just say more humorous than intended. This one's amazing, folks.
Speaker 1: I want to play this for you. You know, the
Speaker 1: Reverend Al has how to show overt MSNBC for quite
Speaker 1: a long time. And those of us who grew up
Speaker 1: in New York City know that Al Sharpton is a
Speaker 1: charlatan and a hack and highly unethical, but they give
Speaker 1: him a show at MSNBC. Anyway, He's had it for
Speaker 1: a long time and occasionally has prompt trouble. Occasionally has
Speaker 1: prompt trouble. And and this is how this went. Play
Speaker 1: play the clip please from over the weekend speaking about
Speaker 1: you know, Trump and Amarossa, and he brings in Aretha
Speaker 1: Franklin played the clip. You know what they say about payback,
Speaker 1: it's a real well you I'm sure you know the
Speaker 1: word I'm thinking of. So, in the words of my
Speaker 1: late friend Aretha Franklin, show some R E s p
Speaker 1: I s c T R s p I c T. Folks. Oh,
Speaker 1: we don't have the rest of that clip, but he
Speaker 1: goes on after that, he doesn't correct it. R E
Speaker 1: s p I c T. That is what indeed from
Speaker 1: me R E s p I C T ris respect.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know rever. Now, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure I knew that song in the third grade.
Speaker 1: I think it might be the song that I knew,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the first songs I could ever
Speaker 1: sing the words to. And I think that's true. Probably
Speaker 1: all of you listening, have you ever heard anyone to
Speaker 1: misspelled that before? Have you ever heard somebody misspelled the
Speaker 1: name of that or the word in that song? R
Speaker 1: E spr c T second to second to R E
Speaker 1: s pr c T. Yeah TV host Everybody informing you
Speaker 1: about politics and life in America. Courtesy of MSNBC. The
Speaker 1: Reverend OW, We'll be right back. I was raped by
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein here I can. I was twenty one years old.
Speaker 1: This festival was his hunting ground. Harvey Weinstein will never
Speaker 1: be welcomed her ever again. He will live in disgrace,
Speaker 1: shunned by your film community that once embraced him and
Speaker 1: covered up for his crimes. And even tonight, sitting among you,
Speaker 1: there are those who still have to be held accountable
Speaker 1: for their conduct against women, for a behavior that does
Speaker 1: not belong in this industry, does not belong in any
Speaker 1: industry or workplace. You know who you are, but most importantly,
Speaker 1: we know who you are and we're not going to
Speaker 1: allow you to get away with it any longer. So
Speaker 1: that's Asia Argento, who is considered a leader up there
Speaker 1: with Rose McGowan of the Me Too movement, and that
Speaker 1: was her speech at Khan at the Cohn Film Festival
Speaker 1: after the Harvey Weinstein revelations had come out, and they
Speaker 1: said she's she's considered one of the most prominent voices
Speaker 1: on the Me too movement about outing sexual harassers and
Speaker 1: getting justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, particularly
Speaker 1: in the in the film and entertainment industry. And she's
Speaker 1: also the girlfriend of uh of Anthony bord Aine who
Speaker 1: killed himself earlier this year. And you just had the
Speaker 1: story break today. I it's tough to know really, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just a shock that a young actor
Speaker 1: claims that she paid him off, that Asia Argento paid
Speaker 1: him off because she had sex with him when he
Speaker 1: was underage in the state of California now to California
Speaker 1: has an eighteen year old age of consent. He was seventeen,
Speaker 1: so he was he was close to it, but he
Speaker 1: was under age and that you know, they they had,
Speaker 1: you know, a sexual relationship, and she paid him. According
Speaker 1: to support in the Hollywood Reporter, CNN is on the
Speaker 1: story to a lot of places are reporting on this
Speaker 1: paid him over three hundred thousand dollars for his silence.
Speaker 1: I just I gotta tell you, I did not see
Speaker 1: this one coming, did not see this as a possible
Speaker 1: twist in this whole situation. It doesn't really change anything
Speaker 1: about the Me too movement, but it just goes to
Speaker 1: show you that sometimes the loudest voices on an issue
Speaker 1: are ones that have their own demons that they're hiding. It.
Speaker 1: Very strange, very unsettling situation. I'm want to think more
Speaker 1: about this one. I might have worn it later this week,
Speaker 1: but we got Kim Strasso from the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: joining us to talk about Bruce or that's coming up.
Speaker 1: The FBI says that home title theft is one of
Speaker 1: the fastest growing crimes out there. Brace yourselves, because having
Speaker 1: your credit card stolen is nothing compared to the hell
Speaker 1: you're in for once an identity thief takes control of
Speaker 1: your homes title. Everything is stored online these days, folks,
Speaker 1: including the title to your home. That means that the
Speaker 1: bad guys, domestic and international cyber thieves, they can actually
Speaker 1: hunt down your homes title and use it against you.
Speaker 1: I have seen a demonstration of this process is shockingly easy.
Speaker 1: To steal your homes title. And once that happens, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: you're gonna be getting all these bills coming to you
Speaker 1: for loans you didn't take out. It's a nightmare to
Speaker 1: deal with. Don't let it happen to you for just
Speaker 1: pennies a day. Home title protects my most viable asset,
Speaker 1: my family's home. Register now for a free analysis and
Speaker 1: discover if your home's title has been compromised. That's a
Speaker 1: sixty dollar value, folks, totally free. Visit home title lock
Speaker 1: dot com again. That's home title lock dot com for
Speaker 1: your free analysis. Buck Sexton Mission decoding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts. No,
Speaker 1: I think Brusour is a disgrace. I suspect I'll be
Speaker 1: taking it away very quickly. I think that Brussour is
Speaker 1: a disgrace with his wife Nellie. For him to be
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department had to be doing what he did.
Speaker 1: That is a disgrace. That is disqualifying for Mueller, and
Speaker 1: Mr Mueller has a lot of conflicts also directly yourself,
Speaker 1: so you know that Mr Muller is highly conflicted. In fact,
Speaker 1: uh Tomy is like his best friend. I could go
Speaker 1: into conflict after conflict, but sadly Mr Muller is conflicted.
Speaker 1: But let him write his report. We did nothing, there's
Speaker 1: no collusion. But if he was doing an honest report,
Speaker 1: he'd write it on the other side, because when you
Speaker 1: look at criminality and you look at problems, take a
Speaker 1: look at what they did, including colluding with the Russias.
Speaker 1: The other side, what was Bruce Or doing? Right? Remember
Speaker 1: Bruce Or was I think number four the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice and very much involved in the dossier, Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and all that stuff. His name is popped up a bunch.
Speaker 1: You remember his wife, Nellie Or was actually an employee
Speaker 1: of Fusion GPS, which paid for and then manufactured uh
Speaker 1: the dossier, sent helped pay and send it around. Right,
Speaker 1: all this stuff going on. So the big question is
Speaker 1: what was Bruce Or doing? And it is the one
Speaker 1: that our next guest addresses in her latest column. Kim
Speaker 1: Strassol is with us now. She's on the Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal at a chorial board. She's a columnist also the
Speaker 1: author of The Intimidation Game. Kim great to have you on.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining. Uh, I just want
Speaker 1: to pose your question to you. So, what the heck
Speaker 1: was Bruce doing? Hi, Hi Buck, thanks for having me on. Um. Well,
Speaker 1: look here's we know what he's doing. He was funneling
Speaker 1: information from Christopher Steele, the obviously the author of the
Speaker 1: infamous dossier, from Christopher Steel to the FBI. And the
Speaker 1: reason that this matters is that the FBI had already
Speaker 1: terminated Christopher Steele as a confidential human source. He had
Speaker 1: broken all of the FBI's rules by talking to the press,
Speaker 1: and so they said, we can no longer work with you.
Speaker 1: And yet we now find that months after that happened,
Speaker 1: Bruce or the senior Member of the Judiciary, is act
Speaker 1: or at the Justice Department, is acting as an intermediary
Speaker 1: and and sending information from Christopher Steele to the FBI.
Speaker 1: And he's doing that even though his wife works for
Speaker 1: the same organization that Christopher Steele does. He obviously has
Speaker 1: a huge conflict of interest. He does not disclose this,
Speaker 1: at least not in his financial forms, and as so
Speaker 1: far as we know, not to his superiors. UM. And
Speaker 1: so that's an issue as well too. Now this would
Speaker 1: seem to me to be a case of Kim Or
Speaker 1: We would already have a lot of answers here. Why
Speaker 1: haven't Why have we heard more about this guy? I mean,
Speaker 1: the conflict of interest just in that his his wife
Speaker 1: was Look, I think we can all assume that he
Speaker 1: was talking to his wife a lot, right, they lived together, uh,
Speaker 1: and and she she helped bring this information to him.
Speaker 1: How can the FBI justifying this or do we just
Speaker 1: not know what the FBI really says about it? Well,
Speaker 1: they haven't even tried to justify it, and I think
Speaker 1: because it's unjustifiable, and this is an important point I
Speaker 1: tried to make in the columns it up until now,
Speaker 1: the FBI has continued to insist it did nothing wrong
Speaker 1: during despite you know, everything that we know about what
Speaker 1: they did do about using the dossier, not telling the
Speaker 1: court entirely about the dossier, running informants into a presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are things that I think should be
Speaker 1: very troubling to anyone, no matter what side of the
Speaker 1: aisle you're on. But throughout that they've insisted did nothing wrong.
Speaker 1: This clearly is problematic. Um, not just in terms of
Speaker 1: what Mr Orr himself did and the fact that he
Speaker 1: didn't disclose it, um, but that the FBI chose to
Speaker 1: use him because again remember that this informant program or
Speaker 1: source program that they had that Mr Steele was part of,
Speaker 1: that they were using. It's not some willy nilly thing.
Speaker 1: It's got rules, guidelines, is entire manual gathering, you know,
Speaker 1: governing who can be an informant to and a source
Speaker 1: for the FBI, and what they need to do to
Speaker 1: maintain that status, and what the agents handling them need
Speaker 1: to do. Um. And this was all disregarded, and the
Speaker 1: FBI went back to Bruce or uh And and continued
Speaker 1: to obtain information from a source that they had terminated
Speaker 1: for violating their own rules. What would happen here? What
Speaker 1: has to happen, Kim for there to be accountability for
Speaker 1: how this was handled the dj N FBI side. I
Speaker 1: mean I put myself in this category. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of folks feel like we you know, this just
Speaker 1: this is drags on, It drags on, and you know, yes, okay,
Speaker 1: Struck was Struck was fired, McCabe was fired. I mean
Speaker 1: some people have could have been fired. Are we ever
Speaker 1: going to get a comprehensive report on just what they did.
Speaker 1: I mean the president's in power, he should be able
Speaker 1: to direct the executive branch to produce the necessary documents
Speaker 1: give us the information. Is it a function of waiting
Speaker 1: for the Mueller probe to end? I mean, essentially, is
Speaker 1: the are the President's hands tied to try to get
Speaker 1: to the truth here and let the American people know
Speaker 1: what happened, because anything that he does is going to
Speaker 1: be called meddling in the ongoing Mueller probe. What do
Speaker 1: you make of all that? Well, I think we can
Speaker 1: feel pretty confident that we are never going to get
Speaker 1: an internal house cleaning and a report and an admission
Speaker 1: of a problem from within d o J or FBI.
Speaker 1: That is really, to me very disappointing that you do
Speaker 1: have two new leaders there, Rob Rosenstein at the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice and Christopher Ray. Neither of them have shown
Speaker 1: an inkling of interest and saying, look, there is a
Speaker 1: problem here, we are looking into it. This is why
Speaker 1: so and so was fired, This is why so and
Speaker 1: so was moved out of their position. Because remember, nearly
Speaker 1: every part of that comy inner circle has now either
Speaker 1: been fired or removed from their jobs or retired. Um.
Speaker 1: That is to me an admission that there was clearly
Speaker 1: a big problem and that internally they recognized it, but
Speaker 1: they have not come clean to the public. So the
Speaker 1: question then, I mean, we at the editorial page of
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal have been advocating every chance we
Speaker 1: have that the President uh declassified many of these documents.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be a lot. There's a discreete
Speaker 1: a number of them. We even went out and said,
Speaker 1: here are the ones that would provide the most information
Speaker 1: to the American public um and at least to get
Speaker 1: that out there. And then, because I think the only
Speaker 1: other avenue we really have will be to wait for
Speaker 1: the Inspector General's report, but that could be at least
Speaker 1: another year in coming. Kim, I've got a theory I
Speaker 1: want to test out on you and everybody. We're speaking
Speaker 1: of Kim Strasso, obviously of the Wall Street Journal. Her
Speaker 1: pieces what was Bruce or doing? She tries to answer it,
Speaker 1: but the the the short version is wasn't good. Uh So,
Speaker 1: so you should definitely all check that out. But Kim,
Speaker 1: here's my theory. Because people have asked me this, they say,
Speaker 1: how is it that you have some of these individuals
Speaker 1: at FBI, d O J who seemed like and I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about the ones that have already been fired
Speaker 1: or under suspicion, but I mean, you know, you mentioned
Speaker 1: Christopher Ray, for example, FBI director. How is it that
Speaker 1: these guys are also in on it? And I try
Speaker 1: to explain it to people this way. I think that
Speaker 1: if we really knew what happened at the top reaches
Speaker 1: of the d o J and the FBI, I mean,
Speaker 1: if we really without you know, the games and the redactions,
Speaker 1: if the American people found out the truth, they would
Speaker 1: have a very hard time thinking of the FBI the
Speaker 1: d o J in the same way. And so even
Speaker 1: for those who are not necessarily anti Trump or you know,
Speaker 1: they weren't Hillary cronies, but people that are institutionalists that
Speaker 1: have spent a lot of time in those decades, in
Speaker 1: many cases in those organizations, they feel like they have
Speaker 1: a duty to the greater good to protect those institutions
Speaker 1: from the you know, the the ire and the the
Speaker 1: the distrust for generations the American people. What do you
Speaker 1: think about that? I think you've nailed it. This has
Speaker 1: long been my argument too, that these folks are institutionalist,
Speaker 1: and I think part of it is what you describe
Speaker 1: that they feel the need to protect the department or
Speaker 1: agency that they work for, UH to the extent that
Speaker 1: they are willing to overlook and even justify things that
Speaker 1: if they were on the outside, they would not. I
Speaker 1: think too. It's also a bit of an I use
Speaker 1: this word carefully, but but craven nous and that you
Speaker 1: and I both know if you work in an institution,
Speaker 1: you were surrounded by people on all sides that are saying, no,
Speaker 1: what we did was okay, it was okay, it was okay.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to break from that pack to go
Speaker 1: and basically infuriate everybody who works for you and works
Speaker 1: with you and around you. And so I just don't
Speaker 1: think you have the test of leadership there. And remember
Speaker 1: neither Rod Rosenstein nor Christopher Ray were necessarily chosen for
Speaker 1: those reasons. If you look at the rest of the
Speaker 1: Bush Bush the Trump cabinet um, they were chosen as reformers,
Speaker 1: people who were going to come out inside and really
Speaker 1: shake things up. But Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Ray both
Speaker 1: came in under somewhat of a hurried and dress process
Speaker 1: um where they weren't necessarily vetted because they were going
Speaker 1: to clean house they were vetted as a safe choice
Speaker 1: that would be easily confirmable by the Senate in the
Speaker 1: middle of that entire rush that surrounded the whole supposed
Speaker 1: Russia scandal. Kim, just before we let you go here,
Speaker 1: what do you think Mueller's motivation is? I know, I'm
Speaker 1: kind of asking you to look into a man's mind,
Speaker 1: and you know nobody can do that. But do you
Speaker 1: think do you think he's a partisan along the lines
Speaker 1: of some of these others that clearly I mean, anyone
Speaker 1: who tells me that stalker McCabe that they aren't partisans,
Speaker 1: they didn't use their office, I just can't take that
Speaker 1: argument seriously anymore. Do you think Muller just views it
Speaker 1: as he has to almost mechanically go through literally every
Speaker 1: nook and cranny of the investigation, just go through everything
Speaker 1: he can, because that's the only way the American people
Speaker 1: will have faith and assistant or do you think he's
Speaker 1: actually he's anti Trump? I mean, you think this is
Speaker 1: this is a witch hunt. He knows it, and he's
Speaker 1: down for that. I think he's something almost as concerning
Speaker 1: as a partisan. He's a lawyer, and you know, a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: and and look this is one of the problems with
Speaker 1: special counsels is nobody wants to go in and spend
Speaker 1: two years of their life and say I didn't get
Speaker 1: anything in the end, right And and this is always
Speaker 1: the issue with a special counsel, is that they do
Speaker 1: not feel as though they have done their duty or
Speaker 1: their job unless they come out of it having bagged someone,
Speaker 1: someone big, preferably because the field that that was their mission.
Speaker 1: Um And and we've seen that again and again and
Speaker 1: again and so far Mr Mueller has done a pretty
Speaker 1: decent job of unraveling, uh, what clearly was an effort
Speaker 1: by Russians to engage in some small time disruption uh
Speaker 1: and chaos sewing here in the United States. He's trolling
Speaker 1: on social media, et cetera and so on. It's great
Speaker 1: that he did that, but I don't think he necessarily
Speaker 1: ever viewed that really as his job. I think it's
Speaker 1: a noble job that he'd done that, But remember he
Speaker 1: was more specifically tasked with looking into Mr Trump, and
Speaker 1: and having come up completely short on that front in
Speaker 1: terms of collusion and obstruction of justice, it seems he's
Speaker 1: just not willing to let it go. Kims Strass of
Speaker 1: everybody of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, the one
Speaker 1: and only Kim, thank you so much for make the
Speaker 1: time always great to have you stopped by the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: When you're hiring, folks, when you're trying to bring new
Speaker 1: people into your organization, you know, it's absolutely essential that
Speaker 1: you can trust that the people that you're taking into
Speaker 1: your fold are who they say they are, that their
Speaker 1: backgrounds match up with all the things they've presented to you,
Speaker 1: and that you know that you're getting somebody who's passed
Speaker 1: all the necessary hurdles and checks. That's why Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network is a partner that you should be working with.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is the only dual certified, veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. They're federally certified as a
Speaker 1: veteran owned small business and headquartered here in Chicago with
Speaker 1: offices throughout the country. Their risk mitigation experts can work
Speaker 1: with startups all the way up to fortune on companies.
Speaker 1: No data or client information is ever offshore, and as
Speaker 1: I said, folks, it's all done here in the States.
Speaker 1: Call eight seven seven six nine, that's eight seven seven,
Speaker 1: or go to my g VN dot com. That's my
Speaker 1: g v N dot com and if you give him
Speaker 1: a call, tell him Buck sent you. I think John
Speaker 1: Brennan is actually a national security risk to the country,
Speaker 1: and we are safer because his UH security clearance has gone.
Speaker 1: And the reason I say that is in two thousand
Speaker 1: and twelve he actually released information to other x C
Speaker 1: i A agents who went on TV and said, oh,
Speaker 1: we've got a double agent in Yemen. Well, at the time,
Speaker 1: there was a double agent Yemen and his life was
Speaker 1: put in his or her I don't know who it was.
Speaker 1: Their life was put at risk because of John Rennan's,
Speaker 1: you know, releasing information that he shouldn't have. John Brennan
Speaker 1: was also involved with illegally looking at democrats computers who
Speaker 1: are investigating CIA torture and then lying about it before
Speaker 1: a committee. So John Brennan should have been fired for
Speaker 1: calls long ago, and he shouldn't be within a mile
Speaker 1: of classified information because he's the national security risk. He
Speaker 1: doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut, and now
Speaker 1: he's someone who's going out there saying the commander in
Speaker 1: chief has treason us. I don't think. I don't know
Speaker 1: how you can be in the chain of information if
Speaker 1: you're saying the commander in chief should be put to
Speaker 1: death for treason. So, yeah, John Brennan's way out there,
Speaker 1: absurdly out there and needs to have no connection to government. Ever, again,
Speaker 1: Rand Paul just making a whole lot of sense, there,
Speaker 1: isn't he? Senator Rand Paul seems to get it. A
Speaker 1: lot of other people don't. Not only is it, look,
Speaker 1: this is an exception, this is an outrage. Folks. You've
Speaker 1: got the former CI directors calling somebody, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a trader to the country, and just so happens that
Speaker 1: person he's calling a trader is the President of the
Speaker 1: United States. And then he goes through a lot of
Speaker 1: other reasons, particularly the Senate spying issue. Uh, And I
Speaker 1: think folks would say, yeah, this guy should have a clearance?
Speaker 1: Is this really a surprise when you when you think
Speaker 1: about how this guy Brennan was Obama's like chief terrorism
Speaker 1: advisor in the White House for a while. Okay, Obama
Speaker 1: thought Brennan was just the greatest. Do you look at
Speaker 1: the other people that Obama really trusted on national security,
Speaker 1: Susan Rice, Samantha Power. I mean, you go down this
Speaker 1: list of some of the folks that he wanted around him,
Speaker 1: to advise him. Ben Rhodes, John Kerry. I mean, these
Speaker 1: are people that you think I really have an understanding
Speaker 1: of what's going on the this is the A team.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I don't think so at all.
Speaker 1: You know, and Trump is he's not backing down on this.
Speaker 1: And even though the media is trying to make this
Speaker 1: a huge deal. Oh my gosh, they're making that such
Speaker 1: a big deal. Trump spoke about this earlier today and
Speaker 1: this is what he had to say about A Place seven.
Speaker 1: Oh actually no, this is from even this is from
Speaker 1: over the weekend, Place seventeen. There's no silence. If anything,
Speaker 1: I'm giving up a bigger voice. Many people don't even
Speaker 1: know who he is. And now he has a bigger voice,
Speaker 1: and that's okay with me because I like to get
Speaker 1: on voices like that. I've never respected him. I've never
Speaker 1: had a lot of respect. And Senator Birth said it best.
Speaker 1: If you knew anything, why didn't you report it when
Speaker 1: you were before all of these committees, including their committee,
Speaker 1: so he had a chance to report, he never did.
Speaker 1: This was just came up lately, and that's that. That's
Speaker 1: a disgusting thing. Frankly, this notion of silencing Brennan is
Speaker 1: not to be taken seriously. It's not a real thing, folks.
Speaker 1: It's not anything that we should uh be sitting around
Speaker 1: be worried about. He's not being silent. Brennan is now
Speaker 1: more famous than ever. This is Brennan has become the
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta of the intelligence world. Oh my gosh, they're
Speaker 1: silencing me. Look, his book deal will be bigger, his
Speaker 1: speaking fees are higher. Everything about Brennan's world right now
Speaker 1: is elevated because he's become a hashtag resistance figure. And
Speaker 1: I just think that it's it's you know, we we've
Speaker 1: had it. We've had enough of the lives man that
Speaker 1: this notion is being silence. No one's silencing him. They're
Speaker 1: just not giving him access to the nation's most sensitive information,
Speaker 1: which he doesn't need and we don't need him. To
Speaker 1: give you a sense of the kind of stuff that
Speaker 1: they say, I mean, here, here's here's Clapper on scene
Speaker 1: and play play eight. The value standards, the institutions that
Speaker 1: that I and others spent the major part of our
Speaker 1: professional lives defending and upholding are under assault by our
Speaker 1: very own president. That I really do wonder whether the
Speaker 1: Russians have something on him. I really question question his
Speaker 1: ability to his fitness to be in this office. And
Speaker 1: I also I am beginning to wonder about his his
Speaker 1: motivation for it. What a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
Speaker 1: He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what
Speaker 1: he's doing with the president handling an asset. Folcus saying
Speaker 1: that the president United States is effectively under foreign government control.
Speaker 1: That's the former Director of National Intelligence. Does he provide
Speaker 1: an evidence for this note? But you see, that's what's
Speaker 1: so easily about the whole thing is that they create
Speaker 1: the assumption that they must have information, they must have
Speaker 1: access to things that you know, we don't have. But
Speaker 1: they're the ones who really know the truth. They're the
Speaker 1: intelligence community chiefs or were also. Don't forget this. This
Speaker 1: is this is Clapper. When I asked a question about
Speaker 1: whether or not there's any mass collection going on play
Speaker 1: Club nine, does the n s A collect any type
Speaker 1: of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of Americans? No, sir, it does not, not wittingly. There
Speaker 1: are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not
Speaker 1: not winningly. That's a lie, as we all know that
Speaker 1: was before Congress. What why is that? You know, We've
Speaker 1: got all these people that are saying, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: you know Trump, you can't speak to he can't speak
Speaker 1: to Mueller because he's gonna get caught in a lie. Well,
Speaker 1: other people lie and it's not a big deal. Other
Speaker 1: people lie and it's apparently no problem in front of Congress,
Speaker 1: which is the same legally speaking as being under you know,
Speaker 1: as being under oath in a court. So why is
Speaker 1: there no issue here? See, folks, they don't have any standards,
Speaker 1: so they try to use our standards against us. And
Speaker 1: in the era of Trump, we've decided to stop letting
Speaker 1: that be the game that they play. We've had enough.
Speaker 1: And these former intelligence chiefs who are out there making
Speaker 1: this case to the the American people are doing so in
Speaker 1: a way that is deeply damaging to the reputation of
Speaker 1: the intelligence community, to our ability. I think to have
Speaker 1: a commander chief who can trust the intelligence chief is
Speaker 1: going forward. And they're doing it all because of Trump
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome. Because these are not normal criticisms. These are
Speaker 1: not healthy minds that are thinking this stuff about the President.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back he's back with you now, because
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck
Speaker 1: never stops. You said, if Mueller doesn't get this done
Speaker 1: in two or three weeks, basically referring to September one,
Speaker 1: we will just unload on him like a ton of bricks.
Speaker 1: What does that? What does that mean for interfering with
Speaker 1: the election when he had no reason to do that
Speaker 1: because he could have gotten this done earlier. The person
Speaker 1: who's delayed here, But what are you gonna do if
Speaker 1: the president gonna fire him, We're not going to We're
Speaker 1: gonna public We're gonna point out to the public how
Speaker 1: he has acted improperly and he's now violating a Justice
Speaker 1: Department run about not carrying on an investigation. That's not
Speaker 1: the sixty days about issuing indictments and things like that.
Speaker 1: He can go. What's about carrying on It is not.
Speaker 1: It's about carrying on a public investigation. If he has
Speaker 1: to issue a subpoena during that period of time, it
Speaker 1: would be a gross interference in the election when he
Speaker 1: could have issued a six months uh, six months before,
Speaker 1: three months before. And when you tell me that, you
Speaker 1: know he should testify because that for a minute pause,
Speaker 1: actually I want to jump in here for seconuse. We
Speaker 1: we're about to folks were about to get into the
Speaker 1: big exchange from over the weekend where everybody was all upset.
Speaker 1: You know, oh my gosh, look at Rudy said, Now,
Speaker 1: oh the media running all these headlines. Let me just
Speaker 1: know that, you know that you got Rudy and Chuck
Speaker 1: Todd here on whatever show NBC. I never I don't
Speaker 1: watch the Sunday shows because I do my own research
Speaker 1: on Sundays and I don't need some clowns to tell
Speaker 1: me what the political stories are for the week. But
Speaker 1: you know, no, no notice how this whole thing, the
Speaker 1: Mueller probe and all this this got started because of
Speaker 1: election interference. That's what they said, right, that's what and
Speaker 1: then interference led to the obstruction and then all this
Speaker 1: other stuff. But what what we see here is that
Speaker 1: the same people who were so worried about election interference
Speaker 1: are now the ones who are justifying election interference. Right,
Speaker 1: the same people who are saying, oh my gosh, the Russians,
Speaker 1: all the Russians are getting going our stuff now when
Speaker 1: Mueller may be continuing this probe in a way that's
Speaker 1: clearly going to affect the mindset of voters. That's clearly
Speaker 1: going to affect people as they're going into the polls.
Speaker 1: If you're not somebody who understands the full scope of
Speaker 1: what's going on here, if you if you pay attention
Speaker 1: to the media, if you trust the mainstream media for
Speaker 1: your facts on what's gone on here, you're gonna think,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, the president nited states still under this
Speaker 1: active investigation. This is so terrible, And maybe I should
Speaker 1: vote for the party that is not the president's party. Right, No,
Speaker 1: Trump is not in the ballot. But as everyone knows,
Speaker 1: in a mid term like this, of course the president
Speaker 1: and his party together are on the ballot. Everybody knows that.
Speaker 1: Everybody understands that. So but but the election interference narrative
Speaker 1: has now got us to a point where people are
Speaker 1: pushing for election interference who were so worried about election
Speaker 1: interference before. This is the great irony of the situation.
Speaker 1: But then we get into this other, this other component
Speaker 1: here about truth is truth playclip twelve. And when you
Speaker 1: tell me that you know he should testify because he's
Speaker 1: going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry. Well,
Speaker 1: that's so silly, because it's somebody's version of the truth,
Speaker 1: not the truth. He didn't have a conversation of this truth.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to go like I know it isn't truth.
Speaker 1: Truth isn't truth. The President of United States says, I
Speaker 1: didn't Truth is the truth? Mr merrithn you realize what
Speaker 1: I No, No, don't, don't don't do that. Don't do
Speaker 1: this to me, don't do truth. Donald Trump. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: says I didn't talk about Flynn with Comey. Comey says,
Speaker 1: you didn't talk about it. So tell me what the
Speaker 1: truth is, Tom McCain, if you have such a genius,
Speaker 1: you know that. That's exactly the point that that they
Speaker 1: they see that they would seize on this and make
Speaker 1: a meme of it, and they did, right. Truth isn't truth? Yeah,
Speaker 1: well that that's a funny phrase now because they're all
Speaker 1: saying Trump lies so much and there's all these liars
Speaker 1: around and everything else. Uh. Meanwhile, what he's saying is
Speaker 1: something that liberals pretend to forget now because it's convenient
Speaker 1: for them. And it's the following that that you could
Speaker 1: tell the truth and still go to prison, or you
Speaker 1: could tell the truth and still be uh treated as
Speaker 1: a liar in the courts or or by the FBI.
Speaker 1: This should not be surprising to liberals. Liberals are supposed
Speaker 1: to be the ones, folks they're supposed to be, I
Speaker 1: know they're not. They're supposed to be the ones who
Speaker 1: are worried about, oh, false arrest, about implicit racial bias
Speaker 1: and arrest. Liberals are always telling us that police are unjust,
Speaker 1: that the justice system makes mistakes, that the justice system
Speaker 1: is biased, and and they're always so worried about procedure
Speaker 1: to protect defendants. But we see is that's really only
Speaker 1: applicable for liberals when they think the defendant is a
Speaker 1: member of a protected class. That's really what they're worried about.
Speaker 1: Identity politics as it intersect with the intersects with the
Speaker 1: justice system. That's what really matters to them. The principle
Speaker 1: of a far too powerful uh executive branch, or a
Speaker 1: far too powerful prosecutorial wing of the executive government that
Speaker 1: doesn't really seem to bother them. I'm sorry. I refused
Speaker 1: to believe that General Flynn, who was the Defense Intelligence
Speaker 1: Agency director and a three star general. Okay, I refused
Speaker 1: to believe that he just lied about a meeting with
Speaker 1: some FBI agents for no reason for and it was
Speaker 1: no big deal because he didn't know any better, or
Speaker 1: because he just felt like it. No, they set him up,
Speaker 1: meaning that he thought he was just having an off
Speaker 1: the cuff conversation and said something that they could then
Speaker 1: later on manufacture as factually inaccurate. There's a reason why
Speaker 1: people don't want to have to sit in a federal
Speaker 1: trial and defend themselves that there's a reason why they
Speaker 1: don't want to have these interactions with the government. Liberals
Speaker 1: used to know that stuff, but they have very conveniently
Speaker 1: forgotten it now, and so that's why they run with
Speaker 1: this whole truth isn't truth? Look what if he's that
Speaker 1: truth isn't truth? Truth, There isn't truth. Well, yes, when
Speaker 1: when you have a jury that's going to always give
Speaker 1: much more weight to what the what the government says,
Speaker 1: especially the federal government. It's unfortunate, but it's true in
Speaker 1: these matters when you have a jury that's going to
Speaker 1: hear from the government one thing and then you're going
Speaker 1: to present it with another. You know, when you have
Speaker 1: a Trump administration that has been just beset with media
Speaker 1: stories of all kinds about how they're lying and they're
Speaker 1: so bad and they're so terrible, then yeah, you could
Speaker 1: tell the truth if you're the president of the United
Speaker 1: States and the d o J could jam you up anyway,
Speaker 1: So you know that this isn't really that complicated, This
Speaker 1: isn't really that that that that that insane. But but
Speaker 1: they ran with the story because it's useful to them,
Speaker 1: folks that this is the new The new narrative under
Speaker 1: the Trump administration at least, is that Republicans don't care
Speaker 1: at all about facts and don't care at all about truth,
Speaker 1: when what's actually going on is that we care about
Speaker 1: what matters, care about how the country is doing, what
Speaker 1: the policies are, and we understand the context of this fight.
Speaker 1: You know, I just feel like we've all gotten tired
Speaker 1: after a while of one of the left favorite games,
Speaker 1: which is always holding us to the the holding us
Speaker 1: up to live by rules and we have to be
Speaker 1: perfect or else. They exaggerate every transgression, every mishap, right
Speaker 1: when a conservative messes up, they magnify at times. Town
Speaker 1: when a conservative makes a mistake, it's the end of
Speaker 1: the world. And with their side, they're always ignoring it,
Speaker 1: they don't cover it, or they soft pedal it or
Speaker 1: they and we're all sick of it. We won't play
Speaker 1: their game anymore. And that's why they're freaking out so much.
Speaker 1: That's why they can't bring themselves they just have a
Speaker 1: normal conversation about any this. Now, it's just what Trump
Speaker 1: derangement syndrome is a true psychological pandemic, and why they
Speaker 1: would pick out of this thing truth isn't truth. I
Speaker 1: know it's a catchy headline. I know a lot of
Speaker 1: different media outlets went with it, but when you listen
Speaker 1: to the context, it's clear what Ulani was saying, which is, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Mueller is on a witch hunt and he
Speaker 1: is trying to take down the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: even if he tells the truth. You have been more
Speaker 1: outspoken than really any former official. Uh. And in fact,
Speaker 1: that maybe why many Republican legislatures feel comfortable taking the
Speaker 1: president's side. They believe your comments have been over the top.
Speaker 1: Do you regret essentially accusing the president of treason? Do
Speaker 1: you do you regret some of the things you have said.
Speaker 1: I called his behavior trees this, which is to betray
Speaker 1: one's trust and to aid and at the enemy. And
Speaker 1: I stand very much by that claim, you are the
Speaker 1: former CIA director accusing the sitting president United States. It's
Speaker 1: not a private citizen. A lot of people here, the
Speaker 1: former CIA director accusing the sitting president United States of treason.
Speaker 1: That's that's monument that's a monumental accusation. It is indeed
Speaker 1: a monumental accusation. And I gotta say I give Chuck
Speaker 1: Todd some credit for at least being willing to say that.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not normal stuff, folks, And I
Speaker 1: think that's where a lot of us have finally just
Speaker 1: departed from this crazy game that you know, the the
Speaker 1: anti trumpers want to play. When you have the former
Speaker 1: CIA director out there, uh, claiming that the president of
Speaker 1: the United States, the sitting president United States, committed treason,
Speaker 1: I mean, that has really negative ramifications. I think it's
Speaker 1: so interesting that you'll hear all the time from these
Speaker 1: different journalists and the anti trumpers that Trump is undermining institutions.
Speaker 1: When you have the spy chief of the last administration
Speaker 1: that was a Democrat administration, the opposition to the current
Speaker 1: one saying that the president is a trader, Uh, that
Speaker 1: is incredibly undermining. But this this interview continues on and
Speaker 1: and Brennan, who I think has had some kind of
Speaker 1: break with reality. I mean, there's something wrong with him.
Speaker 1: Brennan goes into some more detail about his position. Well,
Speaker 1: I think these are abnormal times, and I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people have spoken out against what Mr Trump
Speaker 1: has done. And maybe it's my my warning training as
Speaker 1: an intelligence professional, I have seen the lights blinking red
Speaker 1: in terms of what Mr Trump has done and is doing,
Speaker 1: and is bringing this country down on the global stage,
Speaker 1: and he's fueling and feeding divisiveness within our country. He
Speaker 1: continually lies to the American people and the types of
Speaker 1: things that he's doing. I think I need to speak out,
Speaker 1: and so I've been speaking out rather forcefully because I
Speaker 1: believe it's important to do so. I don't believe I'm
Speaker 1: being political at all. I'm not a Republican, I'm not
Speaker 1: a Democrat. Yes, he's not being political. He's just being crazy.
Speaker 1: That's what the former CIA director is doing. He is
Speaker 1: acting like a person who has real problems in real trouble. Look, folks,
Speaker 1: I wrote about this on the Hill dot Com today.
Speaker 1: Of piece actually created quite a spirited discussion in the comments,
Speaker 1: and I got pushed back, and people are mad at
Speaker 1: me because there's always this assumption I think that because
Speaker 1: I worked for the CIA, that I must have some
Speaker 1: affinity for the intelligence agencies and and for federal bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: And I have to try to tell people no, because
Speaker 1: I actually understand these places. I have very different opinions
Speaker 1: than most journalists do. I am not an institutionalist when
Speaker 1: it comes to these these organizations. I view them as
Speaker 1: sometimes doing good stuff, sometimes doing bad stuff. Sometimes they
Speaker 1: need correction, and sometimes they need praise. But Brennan, I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, Brennan is someone who and please do,
Speaker 1: by the way, go read the article. It's on Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck Sexton or the Hill dot com.
Speaker 1: Appreciate when all of you get a chance to read
Speaker 1: it went up today. And I mean, I just say, look,
Speaker 1: the spy chiefs are causing long term damage to the
Speaker 1: spy agencies, the former spy chiefs, because they're gonna make
Speaker 1: it so that any incoming administration is going to think,
Speaker 1: who appointed that that CI director? Do I need to
Speaker 1: get rid of him right away? Yes? Sometimes people, you know,
Speaker 1: CI directors and others in the intel community come and
Speaker 1: go pretty quickly, but they don't always. And it's also
Speaker 1: a question of some of the other UH senior level folks.
Speaker 1: You know, if you worked in the White House and
Speaker 1: then you became, you know, a top person at the
Speaker 1: n s A or top person at the State Department
Speaker 1: or wherever, does the next administration have to worry about you.
Speaker 1: I think the answer now is obviously yes. But I
Speaker 1: want to dig into Brennan for a moment here, because
Speaker 1: I think that everyone I know who has worked at them,
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of people that I know
Speaker 1: who have spent time with Brennan who know him personally,
Speaker 1: who I believe it or not, generally say very good
Speaker 1: things about him as a as a as a guy,
Speaker 1: as as somebody that they would be around it. They
Speaker 1: seem to like him. Um, So I have a hard
Speaker 1: time believing that he's just entirely that he's had some
Speaker 1: kind of a breakdown. I mean, that's that's possible, but
Speaker 1: I don't see that as the most likely outcome here.
Speaker 1: I think a better guess of what's going on is
Speaker 1: that Brennan realizes that it's probably only a matter of
Speaker 1: time before the full extent of what he did to
Speaker 1: try and create this Russia collusion trapped for the administration
Speaker 1: or try to. I mean see that the problem is, folks,
Speaker 1: it's almost like a a police officer who who's so certain,
Speaker 1: so certain that a a a minister, a person is
Speaker 1: guilty that they plant evidence. And what happens to a
Speaker 1: cop who plants evidence because they're so sure that this
Speaker 1: is the guilty party and then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: it starts to look like they're not the guilty party. Well,
Speaker 1: for a lot of unethical people out there, they'd say, well,
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of collecting more evidence, but they
Speaker 1: would double down on the necessity of that right. They
Speaker 1: want to believe that their actions they were just trying
Speaker 1: to get the bad guy, and they know they know
Speaker 1: that person is bad. They believe in their heart that
Speaker 1: person is bad. And that's I think where Brennan is.
Speaker 1: I believe that he was worried that Trump was a
Speaker 1: a danger, a threat to the country. I think that
Speaker 1: he really was of that mindset. And now that the
Speaker 1: information is actually coming out, now that we're getting a
Speaker 1: better sense of what really happened, it's becoming clear that
Speaker 1: he jumped the gun. It's becoming clear that he was
Speaker 1: not in fact uh on, he had not unearthed or
Speaker 1: helped unearth this massive conspiracy with the Trump campaign to
Speaker 1: throw an election. No, in fact, what what happened is UH,
Speaker 1: a bunch of Russian Facebook trolls and some other uncorrelated
Speaker 1: events came together at a time when the Trump administration
Speaker 1: was beating all of the political wisdom, destroying the consensus opinions,
Speaker 1: and the establishment was in an utter panic and they
Speaker 1: were looking for a scapegoat, and this became the perfect
Speaker 1: scape scapegoat that Russia had helped Trump win. But Brennan
Speaker 1: is not in He's not in normal terms here, nor
Speaker 1: are Clapper and Comey and Hayden. I think I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get a chance to sit down with former CI director
Speaker 1: Michael He's also former n Essay director Michael Hayden later
Speaker 1: this week here in d C. Again the benefits of
Speaker 1: being a swamp creature, as I get to actually interview
Speaker 1: all these people now and and run sources all over
Speaker 1: the city, and I get to learn a lot of
Speaker 1: interesting stuff which I then can tell you. But I
Speaker 1: worked for Mike, as I've told you before, and I
Speaker 1: thought Mike was pretty squared away, and I really want
Speaker 1: to ask him what has happened here? You know, you
Speaker 1: heard it in Brennan's thing about you know, I had
Speaker 1: warning training and I'm a warning training intelligence officer. Well,
Speaker 1: i had intelligence officer training two. And at this point,
Speaker 1: we would we would think that this person, if Brennan
Speaker 1: were a source, I would think he was making stuff up.
Speaker 1: I would think that he was fabricating information to tell
Speaker 1: the American public what they what he thought they wanted
Speaker 1: to hear um. And I can't help but feel like
Speaker 1: there's some of these other people that are involved with
Speaker 1: Brennan that are all catching his back right now. They're saying, oh,
Speaker 1: how dare you threatened to take Brennan's clearance? Well, where
Speaker 1: are they when Brennan is yelling about how the president
Speaker 1: United States is a trader? Where are they on that?
Speaker 1: Why don't we get to hear more about that? You know,
Speaker 1: if if they're so concerned about the future and fate
Speaker 1: of the country, you would think that they might want
Speaker 1: to tell tell for the former CI director to chill
Speaker 1: out just a little bit. Clapper over the weekend said
Speaker 1: something like Brennan's He muttered something because Clapper likes to
Speaker 1: mutter about how Brennan needs to Yeah, probably tone it down.
Speaker 1: A little bit, but he needs tone it down a lot, folks.
Speaker 1: He needs to tone it down a whole heck of
Speaker 1: a lot. And what we're seeing is there's a desperation here,
Speaker 1: a desperation to justify after the fact actions that were
Speaker 1: taking uh in a in a frenzy of anxiety at
Speaker 1: the top level of the Obama administration. That's right, it
Speaker 1: was under Obama's watch. These are executive branch officials. Do
Speaker 1: not forget that. And now they're using the bully pulpit.
Speaker 1: Now they're using you know, TV appearances in books to
Speaker 1: try and create a narrative where they won't look like
Speaker 1: the villains in the end. But I have to tell you,
Speaker 1: I think that Brennan and all the rest of the
Speaker 1: deep Staters are going to look like the villains. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence,
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, American, You're a great American again. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton shows set No how the President
Speaker 1: continues to do this, And I hope he adds I'm
Speaker 1: a Rosa to the list because if she has a clearance,
Speaker 1: she too, because of her actions, should have it revoked.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I put m Rossa in the
Speaker 1: same category of people signed those letters but film. But
Speaker 1: I imagine you want to react profitable Paris. When I
Speaker 1: am requested to sit on an advisory board, let me
Speaker 1: ask you one question, how much do you think I'm
Speaker 1: paid to do that? At the requestion to the US government,
Speaker 1: give me one answer and you got ten seconds? How
Speaker 1: much I'll give I'll ask you a question, how much
Speaker 1: are you paid for your answer? The question acting gig
Speaker 1: for for being a for They have no contract with
Speaker 1: the US government that paid more. I'm not talking hearing.
Speaker 1: This is the thing I'm not talking about that I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about. There you go CNN everyone, that's how
Speaker 1: things go over there, the the the global leader in
Speaker 1: cable news that there he had a former former c
Speaker 1: I a senior executive, Phil Mud, and a and and
Speaker 1: Paris Denard, whom I think he's a Trump supporter who
Speaker 1: goes on CNN, one of the very very few. And
Speaker 1: they're arguing over the security clearance thing. And you'll notice
Speaker 1: that that Phil Mud sounds really upset over this and
Speaker 1: made this very personal. And I can tell you know
Speaker 1: because because the news today is that there are more
Speaker 1: people who are joining Brennan's clearance crusade here right, there's
Speaker 1: there's even a greater number, I think a hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty five people. And Mike Hayden has added his name
Speaker 1: to the list. And you know, a lot of people,
Speaker 1: a lot of normal Americans look at this instead of themselves.
Speaker 1: Hold on a second, why am I supposed to care
Speaker 1: about Brennan losing his clearance? Brennan no longer works for
Speaker 1: the government. I mean, that's one part of this that
Speaker 1: no one seems willing to give me a straight answer them,
Speaker 1: which is why has this become the thing that the
Speaker 1: national security establishment is rallying around. You have, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, as I've been discussing with you, people claiming
Speaker 1: the President of the United States is a trader, okay,
Speaker 1: and including former intelligence agency heads to the general public
Speaker 1: understandably thinks must have some inside track on the president's treason.
Speaker 1: They're silent on that. But when it comes to Brennan's clearance,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to think that this is how you know,
Speaker 1: the the American people on every water tower across the country,
Speaker 1: there are all these different you know, they're all these
Speaker 1: different posters and and and placards, that are being put
Speaker 1: up about Brennan's clearance. You know in small towns across America,
Speaker 1: give Brennan back his clearance. We don't care. I don't care,
Speaker 1: you know. I asked the former c I a uh
Speaker 1: public affairs director. I forget what a specific title was,
Speaker 1: but a former CI executive that I sat on my
Speaker 1: show here in d C. I said, can't you just
Speaker 1: give the eyes clearance back if you really want to,
Speaker 1: if you really want to reinstate him. If the government
Speaker 1: wants to bring Brennan in, you know what, they can
Speaker 1: reinstate his clearance. If President Trump was like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: we desperately need John Brennan's advice on this one, then
Speaker 1: they could bring him in. The next administration could bring
Speaker 1: him in. And people who are saying, oh, this is
Speaker 1: so politicized, what I want to say is yeah, but
Speaker 1: this is an extreme situation. Brennan is the extreme here. Well,
Speaker 1: what he's doing is unethical, folks. He is undermining the
Speaker 1: commander in chief of this country and using the perception
Speaker 1: of his super user access to classified information to do it.
Speaker 1: And so the presidents like, well, no more classified for you.
Speaker 1: By the way, it is so interesting how upset these
Speaker 1: guys all get, including film. Oh when you talk about
Speaker 1: how you know we don't necessarily need their clearance. The
Speaker 1: intelligence community is vast. There are so many people working
Speaker 1: on all these issues. I can't think of a situation,
Speaker 1: aation where we would have been at a loss. You
Speaker 1: know they do, they do outgoing briefings and for the
Speaker 1: incoming team if there's a new CIA director. I mean,
Speaker 1: of course, all that bureaucratic stuff happens. I can't even
Speaker 1: fathom a situation where this would be necessary. I can't
Speaker 1: even think of it. And they're acting like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that doesn't mean it can happen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sure they bring in former people and but generally speaking,
Speaker 1: let me tell you something, the former director and they're
Speaker 1: really necessarily like, I want to have that much of
Speaker 1: the or rather, the current director doesn't want to have
Speaker 1: that much of the former director poking around and telling
Speaker 1: him what to do. Trust me on that one. But
Speaker 1: this is just again the the outrage machinery exhausts itself here.
Speaker 1: I we don't really care. I don't really care, you
Speaker 1: don't really care. It's one guy who does not have
Speaker 1: a constitutional right to have a top level security clearance,
Speaker 1: and he's going around on TV being a maniac. By
Speaker 1: the way, everybody that I know in the business, and
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people, think that Brennan has
Speaker 1: not just been saying things that are irresponsible, but has
Speaker 1: been crossing the line here and talking to press about
Speaker 1: things is not supposed to. Now that's not on the
Speaker 1: record yet, we don't know, but I'm if I'm placing
Speaker 1: bets my friends. I think it's just a matter of
Speaker 1: time before we do find that out. But oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, it actually gets a little bit crazier here
Speaker 1: between Dennard and Paris Denard and film mud over at CNN.
Speaker 1: It devolves, folks. Get ready for it. Here it comes
Speaker 1: your role with the federal government. I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: time that a sultan and a contractor, the consulting firms
Speaker 1: that they form and that you all get is because
Speaker 1: you get more money when having a consultant before having
Speaker 1: the security class like that doesn't happen. I have zero
Speaker 1: consulting relationship with the US government. Zero. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: feel that's a good talking point. I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: relationship with the government. I'm talking about in the private sector.
Speaker 1: When you have a security fan and you keep relationships
Speaker 1: with the private sector that involved my security clearance? Zero
Speaker 1: who says that we're talking about Phil mud and his contracts.
Speaker 1: We're talking about you know or not we but but
Speaker 1: Paris Dennard is actually talking about in general secure any clearances.
Speaker 1: This is just true, folks. You are worth more as
Speaker 1: a private sector contractor who works on government contracts if
Speaker 1: you have a clearance and if you don't. This everybody
Speaker 1: knows this. I don't know why Phil Mudd is acting
Speaker 1: like this is all about him, but he goes even further.
Speaker 1: I get zero dollars from consulting companies that deal with
Speaker 1: US government. Are we clear? Well, I will be clear
Speaker 1: and saying that everybody in Washington, d c Knows. If
Speaker 1: you don't want to be honest about it, that's on you.
Speaker 1: But if you have a security clearance and you keep it,
Speaker 1: you can do money to get out. It's not your show.
Speaker 1: Don't be self defensive about this. I mean we we
Speaker 1: had to actually edit it out. Phil Mud there, CNN's
Speaker 1: paid on air analysts was was dropping dropped an s
Speaker 1: bomb there at the end that that's how crazy this
Speaker 1: whole thing made him and you have to wonder, folks,
Speaker 1: you know what, what could push people to take this
Speaker 1: show personally. You'll notice in the in the era of Trump,
Speaker 1: this is a constant theme that and anything that is
Speaker 1: Trump related gets the the anti trumpers thinking about it
Speaker 1: in terms of how it affects them. You know, it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: how dare you say this thing about me? No one
Speaker 1: said anything about film mun Paris Dear didn't saying that
Speaker 1: film Mont. I'm not saying anything about well, I'm making
Speaker 1: fun of him freaking out on on CNN. But you know,
Speaker 1: one of the other promise here is that the crazier
Speaker 1: you get on air, and this is true of a
Speaker 1: lot of anti trumpers out there, the crazier you get
Speaker 1: on air, and the more extreme the articles you write
Speaker 1: and the more outrageous the allegations you make against this president,
Speaker 1: the more the left praises you, you know, the more
Speaker 1: they think that you're actually a real hero for the
Speaker 1: cause and that you're somebody who's really committed that you're
Speaker 1: trying to do the work. You know, you're trying to
Speaker 1: take down this presidency. You're you're trying to be the
Speaker 1: one that makes sure that you know that the American
Speaker 1: people are safe from the tyranny of Trump is um
Speaker 1: but the clearance is who has been. It's been known
Speaker 1: for a long time. One of the problems the federal
Speaker 1: government has had, stretching back to my time in the
Speaker 1: federal government, is people who take a government job and
Speaker 1: then jump ship and they keep that clearance work that's
Speaker 1: done in their background, and then they monetize it in
Speaker 1: the private sector and go back and work on a
Speaker 1: government contract somewhere. This this is just these are facts.
Speaker 1: This is not someone's opinion. That's what happens. So for
Speaker 1: phil Mud to act like this is some you know,
Speaker 1: terrible slight some insult against him and his family and
Speaker 1: everything else or pe Well he didn't say his family,
Speaker 1: but you know what I mean. To act like this
Speaker 1: is some blood feud, it's just crazy. But you know,
Speaker 1: I I I'm running out of adjectives to describe the
Speaker 1: way Democrats react to Trump on TV now, and I'm
Speaker 1: running out of ways to talk about this. I've described
Speaker 1: it as pathological. I've described it as really a as
Speaker 1: an illness. I think we're there. Uh, this is this
Speaker 1: is not a normal time in American politics at all.
Speaker 1: It's not just that things are our partisan and nasty.
Speaker 1: It's that you can't even engage on the middle ground
Speaker 1: of hey, let's at least keep some decorum here. And
Speaker 1: by the way, did go on CNN and just start cursing?
Speaker 1: You know, But he's not gonna get suspended for that.
Speaker 1: He's not gonna get talked to for that. You know.
Speaker 1: I get yelled at if I ever talked when Dravid
Speaker 1: Gergen was talking about Nixon and Reagan and Ford. And
Speaker 1: you know, if I said anything and there was any
Speaker 1: cross talk with gurgling with Gurgan back in my CNN days,
Speaker 1: they'd pull me aside and give me a time out,
Speaker 1: you know, make me wear the dunce cap in the
Speaker 1: corner by myself. But you if you're trashing a Trump person,
Speaker 1: you can pretty much do anything, you know, and they'll
Speaker 1: just they'll just let you go. By the way. That's
Speaker 1: why I would never That's why I wouldn't go on CNN. Now.
Speaker 1: I mean, Paris will handle it, good for him, but
Speaker 1: I have no interest because they have no interest in
Speaker 1: having a real conversation because CNN decided to go to
Speaker 1: war against this president. Don't ever forget that that was
Speaker 1: reported and I know who actually got that initial information,
Speaker 1: and it's real. CNN said that they were going to
Speaker 1: war against the president, all right, that was a thing
Speaker 1: that was said and overheard in the vicinity of the
Speaker 1: head of CNN, Jeff Sucker. They have gone to war
Speaker 1: against this president and they are losing. I know it
Speaker 1: can be tempting to get sucked in by the latest
Speaker 1: Macha green foam SOI latte nonsense. But folks, if you
Speaker 1: want to drink all American coffee from an all American
Speaker 1: coffee company, you've only got one answer, one choice out there,
Speaker 1: black rifle coffee. I drink black rifle every day. In fact,
Speaker 1: I've been converting as many folks as I can at
Speaker 1: the Hill dot com. You know, all it takes. I
Speaker 1: give them one cake up of black rifle coffee and
Speaker 1: then they can do a taste test with anything else
Speaker 1: we've got in the office. We've got all kinds of stuff,
Speaker 1: and there are lots of comy coffee. You know what, folks,
Speaker 1: they all prefer black rifle. It just tastes better. And
Speaker 1: this is a company founded and operated by veterans. They're
Speaker 1: great guys, their patriots, and they're building a great American brand.
Speaker 1: Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck received fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off your order. That's Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck for fifteen percent off. Folks, join the coffee
Speaker 1: or die revolution. Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: They've got gear there and all kinds of coffee. Check
Speaker 1: it out for yourself. It's Alex Jones, who is not
Speaker 1: my friend and who tells crazy lies about me. Uh
Speaker 1: is thrown off Twitter, I think, and Facebook and a
Speaker 1: few of the platforms. I think he's going to. Uh. Well,
Speaker 1: if you're a liberal, you're supposed to be for free speech.
Speaker 1: That's free speech for the speech you hate. That's what
Speaker 1: free speech means. We're losing the thread of the concepts
Speaker 1: that are important to this country, and you care about
Speaker 1: the real American where you don't and if you do,
Speaker 1: which goes for every side. I don't like Alex Jones,
Speaker 1: but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody get to speak.
Speaker 1: You know. I don't really like Alex Jones either, so
Speaker 1: and from what I understand, he doesn't really like me.
Speaker 1: This is from all Access dot Com. Ten questions for
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. I never even knew who this guy was
Speaker 1: when I saw him. But I said, that guy is
Speaker 1: a government agent. The secure look, the satisfied look. So
Speaker 1: let's put aside for a second that Alex Jones is
Speaker 1: a crazy person who is completely unethical and his analysis
Speaker 1: and says things that are both deeply laughable and deeply
Speaker 1: destructive at the same time, and that he made fun
Speaker 1: of my hair, which is a crime that will always
Speaker 1: be unforgivable. He is currently at the centerpiece of a
Speaker 1: national discussion over censorship, and that's where I want to
Speaker 1: go back to this clip. This exchange with Bill Maher
Speaker 1: was was pretty astonishing. Here. First of all, you had
Speaker 1: grand Holme Jennifer Granholm, whom I've debated once or twice before,
Speaker 1: she was the uh was the governor of and she's
Speaker 1: a Democrat governor of Michigan. Oh my gosh, Michigan. You
Speaker 1: made Jennifer Granham your governor. What the heck is wrong
Speaker 1: with you? Guys? Anyway, you saw the you saw that exchange,
Speaker 1: and she goes, yes, Alex Jones, he's silenced. And Bill Maher,
Speaker 1: who has made his whole life essentially making jokes and
Speaker 1: often offending people, is like, no, Liberals, you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to do this. You're not supposed to be the ones
Speaker 1: cheering anyone getting completely shut down and banned from the
Speaker 1: public square because of speech. And I know people keep saying,
Speaker 1: uh that, they keep bringing up all the time that
Speaker 1: Twitter and Facebook and these are private companies. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, as liberals will tell you, private companies are
Speaker 1: regulated in all kinds of ways. So the national conversation
Speaker 1: about what private companies that are as large and powerful
Speaker 1: as Facebook and Twitter, how that conversation goes can affect
Speaker 1: the legislation and the regulation of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Are they treated as utilities? Will people try to break
Speaker 1: them up and say that they are monopolies? Although I
Speaker 1: think if nothing else, what we've seen here is that
Speaker 1: there's a a chink in the armor of some of
Speaker 1: these social media platforms. Now they're no longer considered to
Speaker 1: be quite as invulnerable because if half, if half of
Speaker 1: the people that are on these platforms, at least in America,
Speaker 1: feel like they're being targeted for their ideas, there's certainly
Speaker 1: an alternative, or there there could be an alternative out there.
Speaker 1: So I do think that there are long term implications
Speaker 1: for how these social media companies will do and how
Speaker 1: they will function. But notice how more has to slap
Speaker 1: down grant homes stupidity there for a second. Because it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be the liberals who are the ones who
Speaker 1: want free speech. It's supposed to be that this is
Speaker 1: what is part of the lore right, although that's never
Speaker 1: really been true. They want free speech when it suits them,
Speaker 1: and they've always been pushing for hate speech laws and
Speaker 1: and you know, in form in my lifetime at least,
Speaker 1: I mean, I won't pretend to know what things were
Speaker 1: like from the sixties through the through the eighties, but
Speaker 1: starting from as long as far back as I can remember,
Speaker 1: liberals are the ones who want the government to be
Speaker 1: in a position of authority to shut down the speech
Speaker 1: that they do not like. And this is a big
Speaker 1: change for them. I mean culturally, they now have to
Speaker 1: deal with the fact that they are no longer a
Speaker 1: party that's all about the Berkeley free speech movement. And
Speaker 1: with this deep platforming effort and speech equals violence and
Speaker 1: all these different constructs that they've come up with to
Speaker 1: try and limit speech that they don't like, it's increasingly
Speaker 1: clear that liberals are bracing a really embracing a really
Speaker 1: authoritarian approach on these issues, and they no longer are
Speaker 1: a part. That's why I hate calling them liberals. They
Speaker 1: are anti liberty. There it's a misnomer to call them liberals.
Speaker 1: It's really incorrect. Uh, you could say they are progressives,
Speaker 1: their socialists. Really, you know, we we don't like to
Speaker 1: say this, we don't like to talk about it, but
Speaker 1: you could say they're democratic socialists. But this is really
Speaker 1: what the Democratic Party in this country has become. And
Speaker 1: you know that they like to just constantly change the
Speaker 1: language and and hide from the truth. But what do
Speaker 1: they want? More government, higher taxes, government in control of businesses,
Speaker 1: government and control of of the day to day operations
Speaker 1: via regulation, and massive taxation, and enormous safety net. Right,
Speaker 1: these are socialist ideas, So why can't they just be
Speaker 1: honest about it? No, we have to call them democrats
Speaker 1: because what they believe in, they believe in democracy, and
Speaker 1: we don't. Is that really what the idea is supposed
Speaker 1: to be? Here? So much dishonesty in the modern Democratic
Speaker 1: Party's philosophy. But that's not gonna change anytime soon. So
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure how helpful it is for us
Speaker 1: to bemoan that. But I did. What really struck me
Speaker 1: there was that initially you had the cheering for Yeah,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones is gone. Bill Maher, who on some issues
Speaker 1: is horrendous, but on free speech and on Islam, he's
Speaker 1: pretty good. Bill Maher has to say to her, what
Speaker 1: are you doing cheering for censorship? You know, the liberals
Speaker 1: are the ones folks who say that pornography is free expression.
Speaker 1: The liberals are the ones who have been saying for
Speaker 1: a long time that you know, a crucifix and urine
Speaker 1: as a as a taxpayer funded art exhibit, you know
Speaker 1: that can't be sensored. I mean, they're the ones who
Speaker 1: are always saying no rules, no rules, offensiveness against Christianity
Speaker 1: is fine, be as blasphemous as you want, do whatever.
Speaker 1: You know, that's been their position. But now when it
Speaker 1: comes to some of their favorite groups, or when it
Speaker 1: comes to issues where they feel like they have an
Speaker 1: increasing amount of power, they're just embracing censorship. I mean
Speaker 1: that they are embracing it under these different rubrics that
Speaker 1: calling it d platform ng or they'll you know, they'll
Speaker 1: call it something else, right, they'll say that a conversational
Speaker 1: health to borrow from the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. But
Speaker 1: the truth is that they are abandoning something that for
Speaker 1: a long time they held to be central to their
Speaker 1: ideological identity. Whether it was true or not a separate issue,
Speaker 1: and I would say to you that it's untrue. But
Speaker 1: they are now openly just advocating for things that we
Speaker 1: don't like. People should not be allowed to say and
Speaker 1: should be punished for saying by private companies and in
Speaker 1: the public square. And it's a very small step for
Speaker 1: that to turn into government regulation. And by the way,
Speaker 1: they're already doing that. I mean, when you look at
Speaker 1: the way the laws are currently set up or the
Speaker 1: way some of these government bodies are set up, they
Speaker 1: are also trying to censor via the government. Don't forget that.
Speaker 1: I mean there they've gone back to the guy who
Speaker 1: didn't want to bake a gay wedding cake and try
Speaker 1: to make him bake a cake of Satan with a
Speaker 1: a sex toy on it. I mean, you know, the
Speaker 1: and the and the account of the Colorado Civil Rights
Speaker 1: or Human Rights Commission is going after the guy. So
Speaker 1: they are little petty authoritarians when it comes to speech,
Speaker 1: and that's really who democrats have becoming. I think Bill
Speaker 1: Maher maybe has realized this a little late in the game,
Speaker 1: but he's not about to change this anytime soon. That's
Speaker 1: who the Democrats have become. He's holding the line for
Speaker 1: America buck sex in his back. So I gathered with
Speaker 1: one of my conservative friends here in d C over
Speaker 1: the weekend. A buddy of mine. We got, you know,
Speaker 1: drinks and dinner. Ms. Molly was away at a bachelorette party,
Speaker 1: which is apparently a thing where a bunch of young
Speaker 1: m and all get together and do bachelorette things. I
Speaker 1: don't even know what that really means. But he asked
Speaker 1: me about whether I knew what happened to Colin Jost
Speaker 1: and I said, no, what are you talking about? Because
Speaker 1: he didn't know this. But as I mentioned you before, Colin,
Speaker 1: who is the weekend update anchor for Saturday Night Live,
Speaker 1: was my high school classmate and also on my debate team,
Speaker 1: and he's now was on my debate team and is
Speaker 1: now most famous for being the a cou trement of
Speaker 1: Scarlett Johanson, and he is dating Scarlett Johansson right now.
Speaker 1: But I had no idea that there was some controversy
Speaker 1: with with Colin, whom I haven't seen I bumped into
Speaker 1: on the street maybe a year or two ago. I
Speaker 1: haven't seen him, and I think SNL is a terrible
Speaker 1: and deeply unfunny show, so it's probably best that we
Speaker 1: don't talk about that very much. But Colin did say
Speaker 1: some stuff in response to it. Well, he was interviewed.
Speaker 1: He was interviewed because he's gonna be hosting the Emmy's
Speaker 1: with Michael Chay, who's co host on Weekend Update, and
Speaker 1: I it was a you know they had the it
Speaker 1: was a transcribed interview, and in response to one of
Speaker 1: the questions, Colin said this, I think most of the time,
Speaker 1: award shows are way too self serious and focused on
Speaker 1: things that of the country doesn't care about. This is
Speaker 1: to the Los Angeles Times. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: it's adults getting trophies. Why should that be taken seriously?
Speaker 1: But I completely agree with Colin all this. I think
Speaker 1: he I think he couldn't be more correct. I think
Speaker 1: it is. The whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm glad
Speaker 1: that somebody's calling it out. Uh. And then he went
Speaker 1: on to say, remember when movies like Gladiator, which is amazing,
Speaker 1: by the way, are you not at the day. He
Speaker 1: went on to say, why can't fund good movies win?
Speaker 1: And not just artsy things. They're both good and fun,
Speaker 1: and sometimes the fun ones are harder, a lot harder
Speaker 1: to make. The Saturday Night Live star told the outlet,
Speaker 1: this to me is like not even It's not that
Speaker 1: it's not controversial. It's obviously objectively true. Right, there's so
Speaker 1: many movies. I've told you The Shape of Water is
Speaker 1: about a woman who has sex with her aquarium pet. Okay,
Speaker 1: that is a fact. These are terrible movies. And while
Speaker 1: I did see The Avengers, uh, Ultra whatever the most
Speaker 1: I can't remember what it was called now, you know,
Speaker 1: Forever War or something. It was awful. I couldn't even
Speaker 1: get through the first hour of it. Yeah, there's popular
Speaker 1: movies that are terrible. We don't have to pretend that
Speaker 1: artsy movies are good even when they're awful and unpopular.
Speaker 1: Well you think this was not just uncontroversial but a
Speaker 1: actually smart thing that Colin said. He got annihilated on
Speaker 1: Twitter for this over the weekend by journalists uh and
Speaker 1: people who wrote things like, quote, Colin Jost is just
Speaker 1: a loaf of wonder bread with a degree from Harvard
Speaker 1: and Colin Joe's favorite movies ranked Gladiator, Boondock Saints, Boondock Saints,
Speaker 1: Boondock Saints, Boondock Saints, Boondoc Saints. I mean, people were
Speaker 1: freaking out on him. He was trending on Twitter for
Speaker 1: a while because of this, because he said, maybe movies
Speaker 1: like Gladiator, and yeah, that's right, Braveheart, the greatest movie
Speaker 1: ever made. Would you be willing to train all the
Speaker 1: days from this day to that for one chats? Just
Speaker 1: one chat? Still don black here until our enemies then
Speaker 1: they may take on one, but they'll never take doesn't
Speaker 1: get any better than that, folks. But anyway, Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: there was a time when great movies did win Oscars.
Speaker 1: But this that it forget about for a second that
Speaker 1: you know this SNL host and writer got dragged by
Speaker 1: the Twitter social justice mob for a completely inocuous comment.
Speaker 1: Expect craziness from them. Why why would this comment matter
Speaker 1: so much? Why do they care so much about award shows?
Speaker 1: Because clearly the progressive left and the social justice warriors
Speaker 1: really do care about this issue. They really do care
Speaker 1: that the Oscars continue to elevate movies about social justice
Speaker 1: right whether and and the Emmys give as many awards
Speaker 1: as possible to shows where there's an emphasis on transgender
Speaker 1: issues and transgender rights and whatever. The particular issue of
Speaker 1: the moment is for the left, they want to control
Speaker 1: the culture, folks, and they want to be able to
Speaker 1: use their control at the top to force feed us.
Speaker 1: Aren't that is not good that we don't care to see.
Speaker 1: But they have the levels of control and power to
Speaker 1: make us sit and see it. In many cases, they
Speaker 1: control the platforms, they control the distribution and the money
Speaker 1: behind these projects, and by elevating this themselves and claiming
Speaker 1: that it is fantastic, claiming there's some objective process here
Speaker 1: by which their social justice infused artwork is the best.
Speaker 1: That's how they justify the processes in place of making
Speaker 1: sure that they determine what we see, how we see it,
Speaker 1: when we see it. This is an issue of control
Speaker 1: of the culture for them, and award shows are a
Speaker 1: necessary laundering mechanism for liberalism to be pushed on all
Speaker 1: of the rest of us, even when we don't want it.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call. Yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: it is that part of the show. We get to
Speaker 1: dive into all of the latest from you here in
Speaker 1: roll call. Uh, let's see what we have here. First up,
Speaker 1: Harry rides Hi buck Shield Hie. Catching up on podcasts.
Speaker 1: I listened to the August segment on Facebook and big
Speaker 1: banks sharing data. You discussed the scary Internet of things
Speaker 1: that I laughed out loud when you launched an in
Speaker 1: an intro for an ad for simply Safe. Oh my god. Well,
Speaker 1: I can hope they have a very secure link between
Speaker 1: your home and your phone. Here's you get another portal
Speaker 1: of attack into our lives. No smart anything for me.
Speaker 1: Even my phone is a very dumb flip phone. Count
Speaker 1: me another proud Loodite, Harry. Well, Harry, Look, there's always
Speaker 1: trade offs with technology when it comes to a possible
Speaker 1: security vulnerability, right, I mean, if you're gonna use a
Speaker 1: credit card, your credit card could get stolen. If you're
Speaker 1: going to use a car, it's a lot safer to walk, right,
Speaker 1: You're not going to run into a tree walking and die.
Speaker 1: So we can't be completely closed off from the risks
Speaker 1: that technology may pose. But I do think that in
Speaker 1: the case, first of all, our our sponsors simply say,
Speaker 1: if it's a billion dollar company and all they do
Speaker 1: is not just figure out how to make sure that
Speaker 1: all your stuff at home is safe, but also that
Speaker 1: no one except for you will be able to access
Speaker 1: anything that's there. But to be sure there there are
Speaker 1: always going to be the possibilities of security risks with
Speaker 1: any WiFi enabled device, and that's why you want to
Speaker 1: want and have a company you really trust and to
Speaker 1: just be aware at least of what some of those
Speaker 1: issues could be. But indeed, Harry, I'm glad you've got
Speaker 1: some amusement out of that. Ryan writes, yo buck love
Speaker 1: the show. I was listening to Thursday's show and you
Speaker 1: were talking about the media's new fixation on Trump's distaste
Speaker 1: for dogs. You mentioned that you weren't a fan of
Speaker 1: Obama's dogs and stated it was a golden doodle. First,
Speaker 1: the Obama's had Portuguese water dogs. Apparently they were considering
Speaker 1: a labor doodle. That's what I was thinking of until
Speaker 1: the Telegraph said that labradoodles are not for presidents. Second,
Speaker 1: you crossed a line when you dissed golden doodles. I
Speaker 1: understand how some people see these new mixed breeds as
Speaker 1: designer dogs, But if you love Golden Retrievers because of
Speaker 1: their incredibly warm personality, and you want to reduce shedding.
Speaker 1: You can't beat a golden doodle. They're great dogs. I'll
Speaker 1: give you a one time pass on this one. Shields
Speaker 1: high from Ryan or Ryan. You know, I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: honest with you when it comes to golden Doodles. I
Speaker 1: am somewhat judging a book by its cover because they
Speaker 1: just look a little frou frou to me. But I
Speaker 1: have never known one, so I'm kinda I'm kind of
Speaker 1: being an anti golden doodle person without really having all
Speaker 1: the full facts, so you know, let me think more.
Speaker 1: Whereas Sharp Pay's I don't like because they haven't been
Speaker 1: nice when I've met them. You know that there's some
Speaker 1: dogs that you spend time around, you get a sense
Speaker 1: real quickly of what's going on. I think I told
Speaker 1: you all, by the way, about that story about the
Speaker 1: uh the docks and who had the He was dragging
Speaker 1: his earmuffs for for anybody under the age you know
Speaker 1: of of being able to hear such things, but the
Speaker 1: docks and was dragging his peep on the ground and
Speaker 1: he was super old, and I lifted him up, and
Speaker 1: he tried to bite my face off. I saw that
Speaker 1: couple again who owned the docks and and or their
Speaker 1: parents did at least, And they didn't even know that story.
Speaker 1: And I told them, and they laughed a lot, and
Speaker 1: they said, yeah, he has really bad back problems. And
Speaker 1: he bites. Said yes, he indeed has back problems. And
Speaker 1: he bites and he drags his little peep on the
Speaker 1: ground because he's so low to the ground and so
Speaker 1: old and and uh he looks so cute though, because
Speaker 1: he doesn't look anyway I'm talking about the He's like
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old docks and or something. It's the
Speaker 1: oldest looking dog I've ever seen. Uh. Anyway, Molly felt
Speaker 1: so bad for him. She's like, look what he's dragging
Speaker 1: the crowd. I said, well, you know that would put
Speaker 1: me in a bad mood too, honey, So I can
Speaker 1: kind of understand. Uh. Next up here we have Erica,
Speaker 1: who rights I have left over metro cards from our
Speaker 1: d C trip. Shoot me a mailing address. I'll send
Speaker 1: them to you. A figure having extra cards will be
Speaker 1: helpful when you have visitors. Erica, that's very sweet of you,
Speaker 1: but keep them for when you come to d C
Speaker 1: the next time around. I also think Erica probably now
Speaker 1: because of all of my gotta keep it lights on
Speaker 1: and the Freedom Hut Talk is trying to help me
Speaker 1: out a little bit, which, hey, you know, all the
Speaker 1: help I can get is is great. But do keep
Speaker 1: your cards for the next time that you are in town. Jenna, Yes, truth,
Speaker 1: You're right on good shows this week. I really appreciated
Speaker 1: Tuesday Night's insights into the history of fascism and communism
Speaker 1: and antifa. I recently read Liberal Fascism, as you've recommended,
Speaker 1: very relevant keep speaking truth. Well, I'm so glad you
Speaker 1: enjoyed it. And look, it's Jonah Goldberg's finest work in
Speaker 1: my opinion, It's a really ex o in book, Liberal Fascism.
Speaker 1: So I'm glad you enjoyed that. And I try to
Speaker 1: get into as much of the back story and history
Speaker 1: here on the show as I can, something that I
Speaker 1: think is very important. So appreciate, appreciate your your kind note.
Speaker 1: Here we go, um Peter writes in response to Andrew
Speaker 1: Cuomo's America was never that great comment. America will reach
Speaker 1: greatness when we get rid of people that use discrimination
Speaker 1: and stereotyping of conservatives who have no place in the
Speaker 1: state of New York. His own words, just readjusted to
Speaker 1: show the blatant bias against the people who make up
Speaker 1: most of the area of New York State. He's not welcome,
Speaker 1: nor does he stand for the people in upstate New
Speaker 1: York minus Syracuse and Albany. In he won only twelve counties,
Speaker 1: but an NYC contains the highest population of the state,
Speaker 1: giving him the wind shields high. Keep up the good fight.
Speaker 1: Nobody cares about winning those twelve counties because Cuomo only
Speaker 1: needs to win the battle in the media eyes. But no,
Speaker 1: you are correct, Peter oh Also, he writes, forgot to
Speaker 1: mention one reason Hillary would send only hard copies of
Speaker 1: the emails is that it's very easy to use the
Speaker 1: font color option in a document to change certain characters
Speaker 1: that one would want to be unseen, and select font
Speaker 1: color white, which does not appear on print but can
Speaker 1: be retrieved very easily. Think of how CEI director David
Speaker 1: Portrays and Broadwell used draft copy and a shared Gmail accounts,
Speaker 1: so there was no trace when deleted. Uh. I don't
Speaker 1: know anything about any of that, Peter, but that was
Speaker 1: certainly interesting. Thank you for thank you for writing um
Speaker 1: John writes, I have noticed I haven't seen a post
Speaker 1: from you in months hashtag silenced. Well, you know, John,
Speaker 1: I've i people listen to the show. No, I've been
Speaker 1: worried about social media censorship for years now. Uh. And
Speaker 1: there are there's clear there is a left wing bias.
Speaker 1: There meeting, there's a left wing bias. And you know
Speaker 1: that's that's just something we're gonna have to figure out now. Uh, Dennis,
Speaker 1: right book. I listened five days a week. I'm a fan.
Speaker 1: When you change your voice to mimic Adobe liberal, it
Speaker 1: sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard. I know this sounds petty,
Speaker 1: but maybe if other fans are also mentioned this, you
Speaker 1: might be mindful and not try to do that as much.
Speaker 1: Other than that, I'm all in. I'm glad you're out
Speaker 1: there in radio land. Dennis. Appreciate the uh, the constructive criticism,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's always a balancing act. I can
Speaker 1: tell you that a few times when I went on,
Speaker 1: when I filled in for Rush Limball in the earlier
Speaker 1: days of my career. You know, I'm at that huge
Speaker 1: Rush Limball Mike. It's just a pretty incredible experience to
Speaker 1: reach that many people at a radio or with a
Speaker 1: radio Mike and I would get afterwards, especially if I
Speaker 1: did like Kassa Vilhelm Wilhelm de Blasio. Yeah, kutent talk,
Speaker 1: and I would do this whole you know, because build
Speaker 1: a Blasio's real name is Kaiser Wilhelm. That or it
Speaker 1: wasn't Kaiser well and pardon me, it's Warren Wilhelm. It
Speaker 1: was not actually pardon me, it was not actually Kaiser Wilhelm.
Speaker 1: And I would get a hundred messages saying, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: you're build the Blasio thing was hilarious. You need to
Speaker 1: do that like every show, all the time. And I
Speaker 1: would get you know, let's say thirty messages that were like,
Speaker 1: I love your entire show except for build the Blasio stuff.
Speaker 1: Don't do that again, or I won't listen. And I
Speaker 1: would sit there and say, okay, well, you know what
Speaker 1: do I do? Now? You know, it's it's always a
Speaker 1: little bit of a balancing act and radio you just
Speaker 1: end up going with what you think, you know feels
Speaker 1: right with you, and then you you're trying adjust based
Speaker 1: on the sense you can get from the audience. But
Speaker 1: there's no there's no perfect dance with that. That said, Dennis,
Speaker 1: I'll try to make sure that I strike a better balance.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the constructive criticism. Monty rights Buck, So glad
Speaker 1: you had Dan Bongino in the Freedom Hut, my two
Speaker 1: favorite podcast. I listen to your show on podcast form.
Speaker 1: Dan's enthusiasm and energy means I start my daily walk
Speaker 1: with my Chabrador a Lab Chow mix listening to Dan.
Speaker 1: Then it's Buck after I go on duty. Thanks for
Speaker 1: keeping us informed and entertained. Well, thank you for for listening.
Speaker 1: And yeah, Dan is a great guy. I've known Dan
Speaker 1: in this business. Gosh, it's crazy, and I started thinking
Speaker 1: about this now I've I've I think I've known Dan
Speaker 1: Bongino for at least six years now, so we we
Speaker 1: go back quite a ways. Um, he's either a great
Speaker 1: guy and I'm very happy for him for all of
Speaker 1: his success, richly deserved. I mean, he's a guy out
Speaker 1: there who's just making it happen by making a really
Speaker 1: good product and drawing in people that want to listen,
Speaker 1: you know, I you know, the Bongino model, Shapiro, some
Speaker 1: of the people who are out there now who are
Speaker 1: just building these really you know, these these massive audiences
Speaker 1: without having a huge traditional platform. I just think I
Speaker 1: think that's so good for the national political conversation. I
Speaker 1: think it's so good for conservatism something we're doing here too.
Speaker 1: Of course, although I do have a lot of terrestrial,
Speaker 1: wonderful terrestrial affiliates, over a hundred and twenty of them,
Speaker 1: So that is a that is a traditional platform. I
Speaker 1: can't pretend that I don't have a traditional platform. I've
Speaker 1: got a great one. But the the digital platforms that
Speaker 1: people are building, Dan Bongino high up on that list,
Speaker 1: are really really impressive. Uh, Brian writes buck heard you
Speaker 1: mentioned mistakes in speech like intensive purposes. Another good one
Speaker 1: is irregardless, no such word. My problem is the one
Speaker 1: person that I know who used the word as someone
Speaker 1: I can't correct my wife, Shields High, Well, Brian, your
Speaker 1: secret is safe with me, my friend. We won't tell
Speaker 1: anybody that you out did your wife for saying you're regardless.
Speaker 1: But thanks very much for writing, my friend. Good to
Speaker 1: hear from you. That's gonna be it for today. In
Speaker 1: the Hut, I will see you all, or I guess
Speaker 1: talk to you all. We'll all chat together, same time,
Speaker 1: same place, Shields High. I talked about simply safe home
Speaker 1: security a lot on this show because it's a great
Speaker 1: security system. It is fantastic protection. I've got it at
Speaker 1: home right and it's so easy to use. Well, I've
Speaker 1: got some exciting news for you folks. Simply Safe, this
Speaker 1: company that's you know, just been trying to provide the
Speaker 1: best service, the best systems for all of you. It's
Speaker 1: now valued at a billion dollars. I've known them for
Speaker 1: years to Simply Safe guys are all about protecting your home,
Speaker 1: your effects, and your family. And it's comprehensive protections. You
Speaker 1: get round the clock monitoring and police dispatch to protect
Speaker 1: you against intruders, fires, leaks, even burst pipes. Okay, Simply
Speaker 1: Safe even keeps working during powder outages, down WiFi, even
Speaker 1: if a burglar smashes your keypad. Check it out for yourself.
Speaker 1: This is the best system you can get. Order your
Speaker 1: simply Safe system now. My listeners get free shipping and
Speaker 1: free returns when you go to simply safe dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's s I M P L I S
Speaker 1: A F E simply safe dot com slash buck. Protect
Speaker 1: your home today with simply safe dot Com. The slash
Speaker 1: Buck