Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump still throwing
Speaker 1: down with Nancy Pelosi over who's the mean one and
Speaker 1: who's willing to work with the other side. But what's
Speaker 1: really got the liberals all in a tizzy, all fired up,
Speaker 1: is that President's releasing information about the Russia investigation origins
Speaker 1: via the Attorney General's discretion. This is big, folks, declassify
Speaker 1: it that. I'm more coming up on a freestyle Friday
Speaker 1: buck Sexton mission, decoding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show. CIA analysts I can
Speaker 1: speak to three hours without a phone. We'll try doing
Speaker 1: that sometime. But we want to be very transparent. So
Speaker 1: as you know, I declassified everything. Everything they want. I
Speaker 1: put it under the auspices of the Attorney General. He's
Speaker 1: going to be a charge of it. He's a great
Speaker 1: gentleman and a highly respected man. So everything that they
Speaker 1: need is declassified and they'll be able to see how
Speaker 1: this hoax, how the hoax or witch hunt started, and
Speaker 1: why it started. It was an attempted coup or an
Speaker 1: attempted takedown of the president. Of the United States. It
Speaker 1: should never ever happen to anybody else. You're gonna learn
Speaker 1: a lot. I hope it's gonna be nice, but perhaps
Speaker 1: it won't be. Welcome to the Buck Sex and show
Speaker 1: everybody California Edition out here still in Los Angeles. I'll
Speaker 1: be back in the swamp next week. Not to worry.
Speaker 1: I'll be back to my swamptastic self next week in
Speaker 1: our nation's capital, Washington. See, I feel like they need
Speaker 1: an injection of freedom. I'm going to show up to
Speaker 1: the district, the People's the People's Communist Republic of Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: and I'll certainly certainly have lots of folks to catch
Speaker 1: up with there. But the President is dropping a little bomb,
Speaker 1: so to speak, right before the long weekend by giving
Speaker 1: the Attorney General the discretion to release whatever he deems
Speaker 1: fit in from the Russia investigation, anything and everything. Now,
Speaker 1: let's let's just The press is obviously try to do
Speaker 1: everything they can to shape the narrative around this, to
Speaker 1: prepare the battleground so that nothing really bad will come
Speaker 1: of it for them, as they have all been complicit
Speaker 1: in the Russia collusion hoax, not all of them, but
Speaker 1: vast majority of them as they scramble for some story
Speaker 1: that can cobble together of how there wasn't a deep
Speaker 1: state coup to take down this president, how there was
Speaker 1: not abuse of power, abusive authority, spying, big spy spying
Speaker 1: on a presidential campaign by Obama appointees to help Hillary win. Folks,
Speaker 1: this is if you wrote the novel, people would say
Speaker 1: it was too unrealistic. Here we are. So the president
Speaker 1: is doing what I've been hoping he would do all along.
Speaker 1: In fact, the president is doing what he told me
Speaker 1: in the Oval Office he would do back in October.
Speaker 1: He's declassifying the documents, or I should say a little
Speaker 1: bit of a tweak to that. He has given a
Speaker 1: duly empowered and entirely appropriate government official, the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: Bill Barr, has given him the full executive blessing to
Speaker 1: go through and release whatever should be released in this process. Now,
Speaker 1: let's just keep in mind that yesterday when news of
Speaker 1: the Asange indictment broke, and you see the journalists are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's an assault on journalism. WHOA. They're not
Speaker 1: that upset about it. They can't help it. They feel
Speaker 1: like a sane sold out Team Hillary and Team Hillary
Speaker 1: to the Lib journos is more important than the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: Just is Team Hillary is what they were really rooting for,
Speaker 1: and Asange crossed them on that one, and so they
Speaker 1: can't bring themselves to really get fully and totally fired
Speaker 1: up on behalf of Julian Asange and the fact that
Speaker 1: I will say this, I don't like what Asange. I
Speaker 1: don't like the way Sane goes about what he does.
Speaker 1: But I think that if you're gonna if you're gonna
Speaker 1: tell the New York Times they can release classified information,
Speaker 1: you cannot tell Julian Assange he cannot release classied information.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. That's this is a matter of law. This
Speaker 1: is matter of principle. Just because people like the New
Speaker 1: York Times who make big decisions in government doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that they get to live by a different set of laws,
Speaker 1: or the Washington Post or any of these major outlets.
Speaker 1: So what does Trump do now? Though he says Bill
Speaker 1: bar now can go through this released documents, the Attorney
Speaker 1: general is empowered. Yesterday the journals, the Lib journals were
Speaker 1: all saying, oh, okay, so you know, we like Asane
Speaker 1: kind of not really but kind of, but radical transparency
Speaker 1: is a good thing, and Trump is being a tyrant
Speaker 1: by and then they barely have time to write their
Speaker 1: editorial saying so much. And now today transparency is a
Speaker 1: bad thing. Today you have people who are former employees
Speaker 1: of the security state, some of whom were directly involved with,
Speaker 1: or new individuals who were in these cases, making these
Speaker 1: decisions about Russia collusion, about the surveillance, and they're running
Speaker 1: this whole game they always do. Oh, it's going to
Speaker 1: endanger our national security, and sources and methods would get it.
Speaker 1: No that the Attorney General is going to go through
Speaker 1: the process. This is all a question of discretion. This
Speaker 1: is all a question and it always is with classified information.
Speaker 1: You know, there's there are gray areas, and there are
Speaker 1: judgment calls that have to be made. And here's the
Speaker 1: way I see it. If the truth is that what
Speaker 1: happened here is what I believe it to be, and
Speaker 1: if we can get the names to make it so
Speaker 1: that it is irrefutable, the Libs will still deny it.
Speaker 1: They'll deny it no matter what I mean. They would
Speaker 1: deny it. If we had a recording between Brennan and
Speaker 1: the Hillary campaign and James Comey all concocting this thing
Speaker 1: in real time on a phone call. I mean, they
Speaker 1: don't have that. But I'm saying, even if they had
Speaker 1: the most smokey of smoking gun evidence, you'd have plenty
Speaker 1: of libs that are like, oh, no, there's nothing, nothing
Speaker 1: wrong happened here, nothing to see, no problem. Trump's the problem. Wait,
Speaker 1: but what about up the deep state coup against the president?
Speaker 1: Isn't that Isn't that unsettling to people? Doesn't that doesn't
Speaker 1: that concern them? Doesn't that make it more likely that
Speaker 1: they're going to be, you know, more of these going forward.
Speaker 1: Isn't this Don't we have to address this? I would
Speaker 1: offer to you the following. If we are balancing out
Speaker 1: as a society, and we always do when it comes
Speaker 1: to national security information versus the public's right to know.
Speaker 1: If there was a deep state coup effort against the president,
Speaker 1: as I believe very clearly there was, then the imperative
Speaker 1: the need to get that information out dwarfs the apparent
Speaker 1: need for some secrecy in some of the investigation dealing
Speaker 1: with Russia collusion, because it was all crap anyway. You know,
Speaker 1: the names of some of the people who are involved
Speaker 1: in this they're already alleged to be different government informants
Speaker 1: and agents, and we really think they're going to be
Speaker 1: in jeopardy. If it comes out that it's just confirmed
Speaker 1: what everybody already thinks about some of these people, then
Speaker 1: they're gonna be in great now. They're gonna be Grea Dander,
Speaker 1: they're gonna get a professorship at Harvard, and they're gonna
Speaker 1: be on MSNBC every night. It's all sources and methods
Speaker 1: thing what we're supposed to protect. It's more important to
Speaker 1: protect somebody who try to, you know, entrap George Papadopolis
Speaker 1: over a few drinks wherever this occurred, and whichever individual
Speaker 1: we're talking about, because there are a few of them
Speaker 1: that seem to go this route. More important to protect
Speaker 1: that person's backstory or whatever than to know if the
Speaker 1: FBI and perhaps some foreign intelligence agencies or whomever was
Speaker 1: trying to destroy a presidential campaign because they couldn't stand
Speaker 1: the thought of Queen Hillary losing. Don't let them obscure
Speaker 1: what is important here. What's important is the truth. What's
Speaker 1: important is that we don't just have transparency for its
Speaker 1: own sake, but that we can get answers and the
Speaker 1: way to get answers here is to release information. This
Speaker 1: is obviously what the president should do. This is the
Speaker 1: right move. And yet who wants to think or who
Speaker 1: wants to guess what the left's view of this is.
Speaker 1: Do you think that they take a fair minded and
Speaker 1: bipartisan country first approach? And of course not. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got n Adler, who's just a babbling buffoon running
Speaker 1: around saying that he's this is this is all to
Speaker 1: everything that they do for the sake of transparency, is
Speaker 1: now dirtying things up. Yesterday it was a cover up.
Speaker 1: Now it's an uncovering. That is a dirtying. It's dizzying.
Speaker 1: You can't keep up with all the Democrat contortions, the
Speaker 1: way that they stretch and abuse and manipulate and distort
Speaker 1: logic to uphold all these positions, these these contradictory positions,
Speaker 1: these nonsensical positions. Oh well, he's they're not transparent enough.
Speaker 1: Oh no, now they're being too transparent. It's not fair.
Speaker 1: Oh there's a cover up. Oh no, they're uncovering things.
Speaker 1: Stop all that uncovering. You can't show us that it's
Speaker 1: because here is I often say Democrats don't have principles.
Speaker 1: Here is their principle, destroy Trump at all costs. Whatever
Speaker 1: hurts Trump is good, whatever helps Trump is bad. That's
Speaker 1: that's where they operate from. That is how they approach
Speaker 1: every aspect of their job as Democrats in the Congress,
Speaker 1: every aspect of their job as lib journalists in the media.
Speaker 1: And that's how you get guys like Nadler who are
Speaker 1: suggesting that this information being declassifies some terrible thing. Rumor
Speaker 1: you know, Obama declassified the you know, interrogation techniques over
Speaker 1: the objections of like the whole defense and intelligence community.
Speaker 1: But you know, Obama said, we have we have to know,
Speaker 1: you know, we have to get to the truth. This
Speaker 1: is a much bigger deal, a much bigger deal. And
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, no, we can't know this stuff. Gotta
Speaker 1: protect gotta protect the sanctity of the Fiser Court. I
Speaker 1: think that we may be heading for the abolition of
Speaker 1: the fiserc court. My friends, Yeah, we may have to
Speaker 1: start from scratch, build it anew. The whole process. Tell
Speaker 1: me about we need to protect the Fiser Court. Here's
Speaker 1: what Nadler says, though, because he's a clown to play seven.
Speaker 1: It's part of the Trump and Republican plot to dirty
Speaker 1: up the intelligence community, to pretend that there's something wrong
Speaker 1: with the beginning of the Muther investigation, and to persecute
Speaker 1: and bring into line the intelligence agency. You know, in
Speaker 1: a sense, he's right. In a sense, he's right. This
Speaker 1: is this is an effort to dirty up the intel
Speaker 1: agencies that were a part of this, to dirty up
Speaker 1: the Democrats and the media are all working together. But
Speaker 1: here's the problem that he doesn't deal with. It's dirtying
Speaker 1: them up with the truth. It is dirtying them up
Speaker 1: with facts, trying to release information that is essential to
Speaker 1: our understanding of what really happened here, trying to get
Speaker 1: it out into the public sphere so that we can
Speaker 1: know instead of either guessing or analyzing and surmising. Any
Speaker 1: good faith person in this whole process who cares about
Speaker 1: this should welcome this. But what do we see from Democrats.
Speaker 1: There is no good faith at all. All they offer
Speaker 1: is politics, politics in pursuit of raw power, destroy Trump
Speaker 1: at all costs. That's the only principle. Everything else is
Speaker 1: secondary or non existent. Declassifying information about a coup against
Speaker 1: the president of the United States operated from the top
Speaker 1: reaches of our own security agencies. That's something that if
Speaker 1: it happened, we need to know, and if it didn't happen,
Speaker 1: we need to know. Although it happened, I want the evidence. Now.
Speaker 1: Trump has made a move in that direction. Let me
Speaker 1: just say this before we've got more on this. But
Speaker 1: you know, this is also very important timing because by
Speaker 1: allowing the Attorney General discretion to declassify things that deal
Speaker 1: with the Russian investigation, it means that there will also
Speaker 1: be a greater latitude for him, perhaps to have information
Speaker 1: that the Inspector General's report which is coming out soon
Speaker 1: that looks at the Russia investigation, there might be more
Speaker 1: information that can be included very important information. Classification is
Speaker 1: not and this is from the regulations and I know
Speaker 1: because I used to have a top secret clearance. Classification
Speaker 1: does not exist to cover up, obscure or excuse government misconduct.
Speaker 1: Classification is not a political tool. It's not supposed to
Speaker 1: be at this point. Anyone who claims that we should
Speaker 1: not know exactly what happened in this Russian investigation to
Speaker 1: get Trump is absolutely playing politics and nothing else. To
Speaker 1: pay attention to all these former this person and that
Speaker 1: person from this agency or that agency going on TV saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: this is so terrible. They just don't want to be
Speaker 1: humiliated publicly because they will be humiliated when this information
Speaker 1: gets out because they've been playing for the wrong team.
Speaker 1: They've been lying, they've been misleading the American people intentionally
Speaker 1: for years on this issue, and now it's time for payback.
Speaker 1: And all you need for that payback is the truth
Speaker 1: to get out. And that's why they're so opposed to it.
Speaker 1: I'm much more coming your way, team, stay with me.
Speaker 1: You know, James Coby has changed his story a number
Speaker 1: of times. Originally it was we didn't spy and we
Speaker 1: didn't wire it's out. Well, he's going to change it again.
Speaker 1: Now he's gonna say, well, didn't break the law when
Speaker 1: we spied in wired tap, because I think the American
Speaker 1: people will see that very soon. Additionally, what we've got
Speaker 1: to find is the additional documents in terms of what
Speaker 1: they knew when they knew it, And I can tell
Speaker 1: you I've seen some unclassified documents that would indicate that
Speaker 1: the FISA warrants, the very first PISA warrant, was predicated
Speaker 1: on something they knew was false, and they knew that
Speaker 1: before they made the application. You see. It's not that
Speaker 1: people are going to get frog marched down to the
Speaker 1: station because of what happened in the Russia collusion investigation,
Speaker 1: although that there could be some If were Komi or
Speaker 1: Andrew McKay, I'd probably want to have very good legal
Speaker 1: representation right now. But it's more that it will show,
Speaker 1: I believe, especially when these documents are released, beyond any
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, there will be unreasonable doubts. The Libs will
Speaker 1: conjure up unreasonable doubts of all kinds. Make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it. They You will never There are some Libs
Speaker 1: who still believe the Trump took orders from Putin on
Speaker 1: the election. I mean, you'll never change their mind. It
Speaker 1: does not matter. It is an article of leftist faith
Speaker 1: for them now. But for the rest of us, we're
Speaker 1: trying to operate in the real world. What you will
Speaker 1: see is the very senior officials that it's beyond just
Speaker 1: Democrats and leftist it's it's really also the establishment people
Speaker 1: that had been at the top reaches of the federal
Speaker 1: bureaucracy for a long time and think that they're the
Speaker 1: kind of praetorian guard of the Republic, you know, But
Speaker 1: the way they do that is, by putting their thumb
Speaker 1: on the scale when need be to make sure a
Speaker 1: threat like Donald Trump can't get elected by the American people.
Speaker 1: What you'll see is a pretextual, pretextual decision making, you know,
Speaker 1: the equivalent of as I've told you, if somebody walks
Speaker 1: walking into my office when I was in the CIA
Speaker 1: and said, I know or Bin laden is he's hiding
Speaker 1: under my bed, my my first instinct would not have
Speaker 1: been to say, we need to get a work up
Speaker 1: on this guy. We need to you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: assuming that this happened to me and you know, the
Speaker 1: DC area, and the guy's clearly crazy. You know, this
Speaker 1: isn't like overseas somewhere where maybe this is true. But
Speaker 1: my first instant wouldn't be to say, we need to
Speaker 1: tap his phone, we need to bring in all of
Speaker 1: his relatives. My first inste would be, we need to
Speaker 1: get this guy some help. Not too unlike this circumstance
Speaker 1: when somebody has a dossier that's completely unsourced and unvetted
Speaker 1: and just or I should say unvetted, they'll say, well,
Speaker 1: of course there are sources, but single sourced in so
Speaker 1: many different ways, and who knows how good the sources are,
Speaker 1: and that they would base major investigative steps on the dossier.
Speaker 1: I could write a dossier right now about anyone and
Speaker 1: send it in the FBI and say, well, this is
Speaker 1: what I heard, but I can't tell you who my
Speaker 1: sources are if they what if I did that about
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton? I said, I've got a dossie and Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton turns out and I wrote all this crazy stuff
Speaker 1: down and I say that someone told me, but I
Speaker 1: can't tell you FBI because those are my sources. And
Speaker 1: if the FBI then started wire tapping Hillary Clinton or
Speaker 1: going after her top aids, would people think that that
Speaker 1: was okay? Oh well, the FBI they had a dossier.
Speaker 1: That is the level of stupidity that we are talking
Speaker 1: about here from some of the most powerful people in
Speaker 1: the government under the Obama administration. And once even more
Speaker 1: galling is they expect you to swallow that nonsense. They
Speaker 1: expect you to say, oh, yeah, that seems normal to me,
Speaker 1: that seems fair. This is going to have them running Scarrett.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you this, this is it is the biggest
Speaker 1: political scandal of my lifetime. Many others have said it.
Speaker 1: It is true. We've got more because like you said
Speaker 1: this was something that was overwhelmingly ordered both. She's an
Speaker 1: American icon. This is not a Republican problem. This is
Speaker 1: Trump if we can't could humble together on a woman
Speaker 1: like this, And I think that for him and for
Speaker 1: the administration, as he said, which is is halting this
Speaker 1: for reasons, I don't understand. It would be a way
Speaker 1: to unite the country and celebrate something good. So I
Speaker 1: don't understand why for that reason alone, Well can't put it.
Speaker 1: It could well dog whistle to his base. I don't
Speaker 1: understand it. I don't think so. If you do racist
Speaker 1: things and say racist things, the question of whether that
Speaker 1: makes you a racist is almost academic. The problem with
Speaker 1: the president is that he does and says racist things
Speaker 1: and gives cover to other racists. I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: an accident that hate crimes rose disproportionately in places that
Speaker 1: his campaign visited. And there's no question, without having to
Speaker 1: examine his heart, there's no question that we have to
Speaker 1: respond to the racism that is emanating from this White House.
Speaker 1: Oh Trump is so racist, racist, racist, They say, that's
Speaker 1: that's what they're telling us all the time. I mean, there,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk more about later in the show, how
Speaker 1: ridiculous this claim is that you know, Trump there's a
Speaker 1: delay in putting Harriet Tubbin on the twenty dollar bill
Speaker 1: because of racism. But let me let's put stop that
Speaker 1: firm and we'll get to that later in the show,
Speaker 1: something that we can look forward to in our discussions
Speaker 1: later on. But there you had a mayor, Pete Buddha
Speaker 1: judge who's saying the same thing. But it's just, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump is just so racist. This is what we're always told. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: didn't get a lot of attention, But there's an academic
Speaker 1: study out this week. You know, I don't know how
Speaker 1: you know how much you can take this to the
Speaker 1: bank or not, but it's out there. There's an academic
Speaker 1: study that shows that the country is now considered less racist,
Speaker 1: that people have less of a racist attitude about things
Speaker 1: in this country during the Trump presidency, that race relations. Basically,
Speaker 1: this is the first time you will see anything out
Speaker 1: there about how the country is becoming less racist under
Speaker 1: the president that were always told as a racist. Now
Speaker 1: the way that the Libs are already positioning themselves on this, Sorry,
Speaker 1: this is university. I was trying to find the studies
Speaker 1: I was talking University of Pennsylvania sociologists who have said
Speaker 1: that quote. Contrary to mainstream reporting, America is less racist
Speaker 1: under President Donald Trump than more racist. Sociologist Donald Jay
Speaker 1: Hopkins and Samantha Washington gathered a randomly selected panel of
Speaker 1: twenty five hundred Americans whose changing opinions have been understudy
Speaker 1: since two thousand and eight. The two expected to hear
Speaker 1: an increase in prejudicial remarks this is from red state,
Speaker 1: especially from the Republicans in their group. However, they found
Speaker 1: the following quote. The study found the opposite. Americans have
Speaker 1: actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was elected. Anti black prejudice, they found, declined by
Speaker 1: a significantly significantly statistically insignificant degree between twenty twelve and
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen when Trump was elected. But then after wait,
Speaker 1: between twenty twelve and twenty that's that's wrong. But then
Speaker 1: after twenty the date there is wrong. Sorry about that, guys.
Speaker 1: But then after twenty sixteen it took a sharp dive
Speaker 1: that was statistically significant. They meant, when Obama was elected
Speaker 1: twenty twelve and twenty sixteen. Moreover, contrad of their expectations,
Speaker 1: the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it
Speaker 1: was among Democrats. There was also a general fall and
Speaker 1: anti Hispanic prejudice too, although this was more evident among
Speaker 1: Democrat voters. Ah, yeah, folks, here we are here. We
Speaker 1: are dealing with numbers, not not the perceptions of people
Speaker 1: in the media, not the not folks who have a
Speaker 1: very clear and vested agenda in the could continuation of
Speaker 1: the narrative that Donald Trump makes everything so much worse
Speaker 1: and so much more racist than everything else Here they
Speaker 1: actually looked at it. Sociologists tend to be tends to
Speaker 1: be full of leftists as a academic discipline. They looked
Speaker 1: at what's going on in the country and what did
Speaker 1: they find. They found that the country is, at least
Speaker 1: according to the sample sis, getting less racist with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump as president. What are we going to take away
Speaker 1: from that? Now? The Libs are going to say that
Speaker 1: this is because Trump has held the mirror up to
Speaker 1: racism in a way that people see how repugnant it is,
Speaker 1: and therefore they're less okay with sharing their own You know,
Speaker 1: they can try to dance around this as much as
Speaker 1: they want. At the end, At the end of this discussion,
Speaker 1: would you take away from it, it is at least
Speaker 1: here's one study that's saying the country is in a
Speaker 1: way less racist than it was before, or racial attitudes
Speaker 1: have become less prejudice, which is a great thing, by
Speaker 1: the way. I mean, one of the problems I think
Speaker 1: that conservatives run into when we talk about race is
Speaker 1: that we truly, we truly are not racist, and we're
Speaker 1: called racist for our policies all the time, but we
Speaker 1: aren't in our hearts in any way prejudice against people
Speaker 1: based upon skin color or creed. And we know that
Speaker 1: that's in direct contradiction to the core tenets of conservative belief,
Speaker 1: which is the dignity of the individual and moral agency
Speaker 1: and an individual freedom and liberty. I mean, you can't
Speaker 1: have these things if you're judging people by their skin color.
Speaker 1: You know, you are in a state of self contradiction
Speaker 1: if you think that individual dignity worth or you know,
Speaker 1: legal rights can in any way change or should change,
Speaker 1: based upon someone's skin color. So racism is anti conservative.
Speaker 1: So it's not surprising at all that when you have
Speaker 1: a Republican administration, at least from my perspective, you would
Speaker 1: see a decline in racist attitudes but the media is like, WHOA,
Speaker 1: what's going on here? This is crazy, this can't be happening.
Speaker 1: Trump is the most racist, racist president ever. This is
Speaker 1: this is what they've been told. This is what they
Speaker 1: tell themselves. It turns out that the data we prefer
Speaker 1: eight or data, the data goes in the other direction.
Speaker 1: Talk about some immigration stuff, Pelosi. I've got some fantastic
Speaker 1: guess that'll be joining in the third hour. We're going
Speaker 1: to discuss a possible a pardon request from the sister
Speaker 1: of a soldier currently imprisoned for what his family says
Speaker 1: is a crime he did not commit. We'll also be
Speaker 1: joined by someone from the R and Sets to give
Speaker 1: us a little bit of an update on election stuff.
Speaker 1: That and more coming up. Team can side because, like
Speaker 1: you said, this was something that was overwhelmingly recorded on
Speaker 1: both She's an American icon who This is not a
Speaker 1: Republican problem. This is Trump If we can't could put
Speaker 1: hum together on a woman like this, and I think
Speaker 1: that for him and for the administration, as you said,
Speaker 1: which is is halting this for reasons I don't understand.
Speaker 1: It would be a way to unite the country and
Speaker 1: celebrate something good. So I don't understand why for that
Speaker 1: reason alone, Well can't put it. It could well dog
Speaker 1: whistle to his base. I don't understand it. So I
Speaker 1: don't think so. If you do racist things and say
Speaker 1: racist things, the question of whether that makes you a
Speaker 1: racist is almost the academic. The problem with the president
Speaker 1: is that he does and says racist things and gives
Speaker 1: cover to other racists. I mean, it's not an accident
Speaker 1: that hate crimes rose disproportionately in places that his campaign visited.
Speaker 1: And there's no question without having to examine his heart,
Speaker 1: there's no question that we have to respond to the
Speaker 1: racism that is emanating from this White house. Oh Trump
Speaker 1: is so racist, racist, racist. They say that's that's what
Speaker 1: they're telling us all the time. I mean, there, and
Speaker 1: we'll talk more about later in the show, how ridiculous
Speaker 1: this claim is that you know, Trump there's a delay
Speaker 1: in putting Harriet Tubbin on the twenty dollar bill because
Speaker 1: of racism. But let me let's put stop that from it.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that later in the show, something that
Speaker 1: we can look forward to in our discussions later on.
Speaker 1: But there you had a mayor, Pete Buddha judge who's
Speaker 1: saying the same thing but it's just, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is just so racist. This is what we're always told. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: didn't get a lot of attention, But there's an academic
Speaker 1: study out this week. You know, I don't know how
Speaker 1: you know how much you can take this to the
Speaker 1: bank or not, but it's out there. There's an academic
Speaker 1: study that shows that the country is now considered less racist,
Speaker 1: that people have less of a racist attitude about things
Speaker 1: in this country during the Trump presidency, that that race
Speaker 1: relations basically, this is the first time you will you
Speaker 1: will see anything out there about how the country is
Speaker 1: becoming less racist under the president that we're always told
Speaker 1: as a racist. Now the way that the Libs are
Speaker 1: already positioning themselves on this. Sorry, this is university. I
Speaker 1: was trying to find the studies. I was talking University
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania sociologists who have said that quote, contrary to
Speaker 1: mainstream reporting, America is less racist under President Donald Trump
Speaker 1: than more racist. Sociologist Donald Jay Hopkins and Samantha Washington
Speaker 1: gathered a randomly selected panel of twenty five hundred Americans
Speaker 1: whose changing opinions have been understudy since two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: The two expected to hear an increase in prejudicial remarks.
Speaker 1: This is from red state, especially from the Republicans in
Speaker 1: their group. However, they found the following quote. The study
Speaker 1: found the opposite. Americans have actually become less inclined to
Speaker 1: express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti black prejudice,
Speaker 1: they found, declined by a significantly significantly statistically insignificant degree
Speaker 1: between twenty twelve and twenty sixteen when Trump was elected.
Speaker 1: But then after wait, between twenty twelve and twenty that's wrong,
Speaker 1: But then after twenty the date there is I'm sorry
Speaker 1: about that, guys. But then after twenty sixteen it took
Speaker 1: a sharp dive that was statistically significant. They meant when
Speaker 1: Obama was elected twenty twelve and twenty sixteen. Moreover, contrar
Speaker 1: of their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican
Speaker 1: voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a
Speaker 1: general fall and anti Hispanic prejudice too, although this was
Speaker 1: more evident among Democrat voters. Ah, yeah, folks, here we
Speaker 1: are here. We are dealing with numbers, not not the
Speaker 1: perceptions of people in the media, not folks who have
Speaker 1: a very clear and vested agenda. In the continuation of
Speaker 1: the narrative that Donald Trump makes everything so much worse
Speaker 1: and so much more racist than everything else. Here, they
Speaker 1: actually looked at it. Sociologists tend to be tends to
Speaker 1: be full of leftists as a academic discipline. They looked
Speaker 1: at what's going on in the country and what did
Speaker 1: they find. They found that the country is, at least
Speaker 1: according to the sample size, getting less racist with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump as president. What are we going to take away
Speaker 1: from that? Now? The libs are going to say that
Speaker 1: this is because Trump has held the mirror up to
Speaker 1: racism in a way that people see how repugnant it is,
Speaker 1: and therefore they're less okay with sharing their own You know,
Speaker 1: they can try to dance around this as much as
Speaker 1: they want. At the end, at the end of this discussion,
Speaker 1: would you take away from it? It It is at least
Speaker 1: here's one study that's saying the country is in a
Speaker 1: way less racist than it was before, or racial attitudes
Speaker 1: that become less prejudice, which is a great thing. By
Speaker 1: the way, I mean, one of the problems I think
Speaker 1: that conservatives run into when we talk about race is
Speaker 1: that we truly, we truly are not racist and recalled
Speaker 1: racist for our policies all the time. But we aren't
Speaker 1: in our hearts in any way prejudice against people based
Speaker 1: upon skin color or creed. And we know that that's
Speaker 1: in direct contradiction to the core tenets of conservative belief,
Speaker 1: which is the dignity of the individual and moral agency
Speaker 1: and an individual freedom and liberty. I mean, you can't
Speaker 1: have these things if you're judging people by their skin color.
Speaker 1: You know, you are in a state of self contradiction
Speaker 1: if you think that individual dignity worth or you know,
Speaker 1: legal rights can in any way change or should change,
Speaker 1: based upon someone's skin color. So racism is anti conservative.
Speaker 1: So it's not surprising at all that when you have
Speaker 1: a Republican administration, at least from my perspective, you would
Speaker 1: see a decline in racist attitudes. But the media is like, WHOA,
Speaker 1: what's going on here? This is crazy, this can't be happening.
Speaker 1: Trump is the most racist, racist president ever. This is
Speaker 1: this is what they've been told, This is what they
Speaker 1: tell themselves. It turns out that the data we prefer
Speaker 1: data or data, the data goes in the other direction.
Speaker 1: Talk about some immigration stuff, Pelosi. I've got some fantastic
Speaker 1: guests that'll be joining in the third hour, we're going
Speaker 1: to discuss a possible a pardon request from the sister
Speaker 1: of a soldier currently imprisoned for what his family says
Speaker 1: as a crime he did not commit. Will also be
Speaker 1: joined by someone from the R and C Scius a
Speaker 1: little bit of an update on election stuff. That and
Speaker 1: more coming up. Team. Are you worries that these investigations
Speaker 1: are hurting your reelection chances? If I don't know, my
Speaker 1: Paul numbers are very good, you know, like the reporter,
Speaker 1: but my Paul, I guess we have a forty eight
Speaker 1: today we have a fifty one. We have very good
Speaker 1: Paul numbers. Considering now, I have to tell you, if
Speaker 1: you people would give straight news, I'd be at seventy.
Speaker 1: I'd be maybe at seventy five. But you don't give
Speaker 1: straight news. You get faith dws with fake news. I'm
Speaker 1: still winning the election. But if you gave serious good
Speaker 1: news the way you're supposed to, I'd probably be at
Speaker 1: seventy or seventy five based on the economy alone. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think Trump has a point here. I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: at seventy or seventy five because you got too many
Speaker 1: lunatic Democrats who just won't change. It doesn't matter, what
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what Trump does. Trump could wake up tomorrow,
Speaker 1: walk to the podium in front of American people say
Speaker 1: I have cured cancer single handedly. The stock market has doubled,
Speaker 1: and all of our enemy states have agreed to have
Speaker 1: elections next month that will be fully democratic and transparent,
Speaker 1: and they all want to be just like America. I mean,
Speaker 1: conjure up your dream scenario for what the world looks
Speaker 1: like tomorrow or next month or next year. And if
Speaker 1: Trump got us there, you would still have about forty
Speaker 1: to forty five percent of the country. That's like, No,
Speaker 1: I hate Trump. Trump is terrible. He's a racist. I
Speaker 1: don't like him. Wouldn't matter, wouldn't matter what he did.
Speaker 1: I've said this before to you. I was cheering for
Speaker 1: Barack Obama the day that the Bin Lauden raid was success.
Speaker 1: I was like, you know, he's my commander in chief. Two.
Speaker 1: He gave the order. I know we could get into
Speaker 1: the They waited, and but he gave the order. He
Speaker 1: gets the credit, folks. That's just that's the truth. Okay.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe Hillary was the one who really want
Speaker 1: to give the order. There are just because Obama did
Speaker 1: it didn't make it bad. Right, Just because Obama did
Speaker 1: something didn't mean that I thought that that was the
Speaker 1: wrong move. I thought he made a lot of wrong moves,
Speaker 1: but not everything was wrong. Not everything he does is bad.
Speaker 1: There are so many people who take that perspective about Trump,
Speaker 1: and that is largely a function of the media propagating
Speaker 1: this narrative every day and every way that they can
Speaker 1: that Trump is literally worse than Hitler. If you hear
Speaker 1: that enough, I think it starts to seep into your brain.
Speaker 1: You start to reach this point where you figure, you know,
Speaker 1: there must be something terrible about this guy. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are adults that seem like they're they're functional human
Speaker 1: beings that have completely lost their minds over. I mean,
Speaker 1: there must be some thing to this. They can't be
Speaker 1: that crazy with no reason. Oh no, oh no, they
Speaker 1: are that crazy for it no reason whatsoever. This is
Speaker 1: this is where we are, folks, that that Trump is
Speaker 1: polling as well as he does. Oh look, he's a salesman.
Speaker 1: He's got a little he's a little braggadocious, little braggadocio.
Speaker 1: He's I don't know why I got Italian with that one,
Speaker 1: but I guess I think it does come from it.
Speaker 1: It looks Italian. That's a word. Hey, who is the braggadocio.
Speaker 1: He's a guy though, who's got plenty a swagger, no question,
Speaker 1: and he likes to he pushes it a little bit
Speaker 1: on the numbers and on the estimates. That said that,
Speaker 1: all said, I do think that the Trumpster has been able,
Speaker 1: and I say the Trumpster with affection. The Trumpster has
Speaker 1: been able to keep a solid number even from the
Speaker 1: polls that are the most negative toward him, because the
Speaker 1: economy is as good as it is. Could you imagine
Speaker 1: if we were in the midst of a recession. Could
Speaker 1: you imagine what they said about Trump starting a war
Speaker 1: with North Korea or a trade war with China that
Speaker 1: would cripple the stock market and destroy housing prices. And
Speaker 1: if any of that were true wherever we be, then no,
Speaker 1: the opposite of all that has been true. And yet
Speaker 1: they still act like Trump is the is the apocalypse man.
Speaker 1: They really the the dishonesty at work with the media.
Speaker 1: Trump Trump knows it though he's right anyway, I want
Speaker 1: to do well. Ultimately, he understands that they're just they
Speaker 1: have not yet gotten over and they I shouldn't say,
Speaker 1: they have not yet gotten over. They will never get
Speaker 1: over this. They will never get over that Trump won
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. It's it's never gonna happen. There will
Speaker 1: not be a day here when we can look at
Speaker 1: the media and they'll say, you know what, We've finally
Speaker 1: come around on this. We understand that our positions in
Speaker 1: the past were rooted in a kind of irrational animus,
Speaker 1: and we're not We're not going to do that anymore.
Speaker 1: We're We're we're gonna give the president his due on
Speaker 1: all of this. We're gonna make sure that President Trump
Speaker 1: is treated fairly by the press. You know, would you
Speaker 1: even know how to how to react if that were
Speaker 1: the case, I would think that something bizarre had happened
Speaker 1: and maybe the apocalypse was nigh. I mean, the media
Speaker 1: is so biased. Later on, I'll talk to you about
Speaker 1: I got quoted ida kicking some stand in the faces
Speaker 1: of people over at CNN, but they deserve it. I
Speaker 1: got quoted in a media itte, which is really only
Speaker 1: red I think it's kind of a trade journal online
Speaker 1: for media people. But I got quoted about about CNN
Speaker 1: today and I'm look, I'm just telling the truth. I'm
Speaker 1: just telling the truth. I'm because I'm keeping it real.
Speaker 1: Because I'm keeping it real. It's what I do. It
Speaker 1: is what I do. By the way, Mark, do you
Speaker 1: have Trump saying they're never gonna get over the the election?
Speaker 1: Please do? What do you want to accomplish with your
Speaker 1: first full attack? Bob? Excuse me? This just shows how
Speaker 1: fake you and the news are when you say when
Speaker 1: you say a personal attack, didn't you hear what she
Speaker 1: said about me long before I went after her? Did
Speaker 1: you hear she made horrible statements. She knows they're not true,
Speaker 1: she made, she said terrible things. So I just responded
Speaker 1: in kind. Look, you think Nancy's the same as she was,
Speaker 1: She's not. Maybe we can all say that, but I
Speaker 1: think I think, frankly, I think right now we are.
Speaker 1: I'm only speaking for myself. I want to do what's
Speaker 1: good for the country. I think Nancy Pelosi is not
Speaker 1: helping this country. I think the Democrats are obstructionist. They're
Speaker 1: hurting our country very very badly. They are hurting the
Speaker 1: country with all this lawfare against the president. But don't
Speaker 1: you like Trump is once again he sees this for
Speaker 1: what it is. You got a bunch of you know,
Speaker 1: live reporters here, which is basically all almost all reporters
Speaker 1: who were asking him about why he's being mean to Pelosi.
Speaker 1: Pelosi is calling him a criminal. Are they going to ask,
Speaker 1: have you seen a single reporter ask Nancy Pelosi if
Speaker 1: she thinks it is beneath the dignity of her office
Speaker 1: to not just insinuate, to outright accuse the president of
Speaker 1: criminal conduct, to suggest the president is mentally unfit for office,
Speaker 1: to continue to preside over this machinery of lies about Russia,
Speaker 1: collusion and obstruction and all this stuff. I mean, if
Speaker 1: we had an honest press corps, wouldn't they ask that
Speaker 1: question at some point, wouldn't that happen? Nope, doesn't see
Speaker 1: him to happen. No, their activists, folks, their activists posing
Speaker 1: as journalists. Journalism has been destroyed. These people have corrupted
Speaker 1: it beyond recognition. They might as well all just walk
Speaker 1: around with little DNC stickers on their chest. That's what
Speaker 1: they do. That's how they see themselves. At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, when all said and done, they say otherwise.
Speaker 1: But they know that they're playing for a team. They
Speaker 1: know that they're engaged in pushing an agenda, and it's
Speaker 1: just you know, some of us have We've had enough
Speaker 1: of it. I think I'm sick of all the crap
Speaker 1: from these journos. How about that. I think Trump's sick
Speaker 1: of it too. Yeah, I really do it. It gets
Speaker 1: me fired up, all right, it gets me. It gets
Speaker 1: me a bit fired up. What can I tell you? Oh,
Speaker 1: speaking of democrats and crazy things that they say, Well,
Speaker 1: we got a lot when it comes to democrats and
Speaker 1: crazy things. We have to hit a quick break here.
Speaker 1: We'll be back. This is the third time I've been
Speaker 1: in a leadership role during a migration surge at the
Speaker 1: border of families and children, both in twenty fourteen and
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen at the end of the last administration. We
Speaker 1: have more than doubled those two crises combined in the
Speaker 1: first seven months of this year. And we are still
Speaker 1: in the middle of that effort. Well, even though we
Speaker 1: provided solutions to Chiras, We're not going to just wait
Speaker 1: for them to act. I'm going on Monday to Guatemala.
Speaker 1: I want to take this fight to the cartels that
Speaker 1: are smuggling children. Starting at the Guatemala Hunter and border.
Speaker 1: We're bringing HSIH agents CBP officers Borbauing is to embed
Speaker 1: with the Guatemala enforces and trying to interdict this flow.
Speaker 1: At the beginning, we're working with the government in Mexico
Speaker 1: and the same thing, sharing intel on the people profiting
Speaker 1: from human misery. We can't allow that to go on anymore.
Speaker 1: And then the steps were taken at the border, trying
Speaker 1: to get judges down there to adjudicate hearings more quickly,
Speaker 1: get people repatriated and change this dynamic. I like what
Speaker 1: I'm seeing from this guy, Kevin mcaleen, and over at DHS,
Speaker 1: he's he seems like a no nonsense, no nonsense dude,
Speaker 1: and it seems like he's taking the reins on this
Speaker 1: and deciding to tackle the problem of the border. I mean,
Speaker 1: you heard that. He's saying, we're already beyond what we're
Speaker 1: considered previous crises, and the media would admit then that
Speaker 1: they were they were crises, because remember, a crisis under
Speaker 1: when it comes to immigration, a crisis under a Democrat
Speaker 1: president is always an excuse for a conversation about amnesty.
Speaker 1: A crisis under Republican administration turns into something else because
Speaker 1: Republicans say, hold on a second, we need to stop
Speaker 1: these people from coming in. Well, we need to take
Speaker 1: take a different approach from the executive branch. Remember Obama,
Speaker 1: there were crises that happened to the border of these
Speaker 1: unaccompanied miners, these surges, and what was the Obama administration
Speaker 1: response DOCA and what came after Doc DAPPA not just
Speaker 1: deferred action for child that arrivals, but deferred action for
Speaker 1: the parents of child. You know what's gonna come after that?
Speaker 1: Dog PA for deferred action for grandparents of arrivals, right, dagpa,
Speaker 1: I mean you? Or for the ants and uncles of
Speaker 1: arrivals dah two, a's there and uncle you know whatever,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be all these different versions of the same thing,
Speaker 1: which is just a rolling system of amnesty. That's all
Speaker 1: that was. That was the whole big trick under the
Speaker 1: Obama years when dealing with the border, when talking about
Speaker 1: the borders, that everything just immediately became a conversation about
Speaker 1: how quickly we could get to amnesty. But under this president,
Speaker 1: we at least can discuss that there's a downside to this.
Speaker 1: Remember that's where the leftists completely fall apart of immigration.
Speaker 1: They do not accept that there's any downside to illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: That's we're focused here on illegal immigration. They do not
Speaker 1: accept it. There's nothing about illegal immigration that's bad. They
Speaker 1: just want to control it a little better. They just
Speaker 1: want more of a sense of who's coming across the
Speaker 1: border scamming our system, staying in this country accessing federal benefits.
Speaker 1: You know, before we had that, we had Trump talking
Speaker 1: about how high he thinks his numbers would be if he,
Speaker 1: you know, didn't have the press corps completely against him,
Speaker 1: if he wasn't in a position where everybody around him,
Speaker 1: in the in the media was just on it, on
Speaker 1: a crusade or perhaps the jihad to take him down.
Speaker 1: If that wasn't the case, what would public perception of
Speaker 1: his presidency be? You know, would he be well above
Speaker 1: fifty percent in the polls. I mean, here's a perfect example.
Speaker 1: When he accuses them of being fake news. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of reason to believe that he's he's correct on that.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of there's a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff you can point to that shows that, yeah, in fact,
Speaker 1: the president is is the target of of fake news.
Speaker 1: I Mean, here's a here's a perfect case in point
Speaker 1: on calling uh MS. Remember he called MS thirteen members
Speaker 1: animals and the media for they lie bout the this
Speaker 1: or they they approached this in one of two ways.
Speaker 1: One is they say that President Trump preferred to Mexican
Speaker 1: immigrants or just immigrants from south of the border as animals,
Speaker 1: which is just a lie, a capital lie. Lie doesn't
Speaker 1: mean they haven't told it. They've said it. Beto O'Rourke,
Speaker 1: until very recently was still saying and he hasn't taken
Speaker 1: it back. He just he's been saying that publicly, but
Speaker 1: he's been lying his face off about this. But then
Speaker 1: the media also takes this in some ways even more position.
Speaker 1: It's one thing to lie about what the president says.
Speaker 1: It's another thing to take a position that you'd think
Speaker 1: they can't really believe that. And there's this, oh, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't be so mean about MS thirteen a gang rape
Speaker 1: control kill or is it rape rape control torture? I
Speaker 1: can't even remember. Now, you know that that's its motto,
Speaker 1: and they are fond of hacking off people's limbs, and
Speaker 1: it is founded with an eye to devil worship, all right,
Speaker 1: that's where that's what the origins of the group are
Speaker 1: are rooted in. I've talked about that before and now
Speaker 1: we're being told things like this is how some of
Speaker 1: the media talks about MS thirteam play fourteen. He basically
Speaker 1: seems to assume that everybody is part of MS thirteen.
Speaker 1: Very strange to hear President United States speak in such
Speaker 1: dehumanizing terms. Is it appropriate for a president to ever
Speaker 1: call anyone an animal, even if they are statistic gang members. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's something to watch out for. The history
Speaker 1: of political leaders dehumanizing opponents, even criminals, and using animal
Speaker 1: metaphors is a dangerous one. That is not something that
Speaker 1: we should accept from an American president. I do think
Speaker 1: there's a serious problem with the president the humanizing inning
Speaker 1: group of people in the United States, even if they
Speaker 1: are hardened criminals at a little okay, if they're sadistic
Speaker 1: gang members because of animals day, you know, I think
Speaker 1: we got bigger problems. We got bigger problems than that.
Speaker 1: And also that I didn't even know who that was
Speaker 1: the beginning of that. I think those are all see
Speaker 1: then commentators there at the beginning of a little montage.
Speaker 1: But the person who says that he calls them all animals,
Speaker 1: or he indicates that, oh, sorry, that he calls everybody
Speaker 1: a member of MS thirteen. I mean, that's just a lie.
Speaker 1: He obviously doesn't do that, He's never done that. But
Speaker 1: you see, this is where the Democrat media has a problem,
Speaker 1: especially on a week like this, when you have two
Speaker 1: people who were arrested supposed to be deported, two teenagers
Speaker 1: members of MS thirteen, and Brewley murdered young girl. You know,
Speaker 1: there are bodies that pile up as a result of
Speaker 1: the bleeding heartlib approach to dealing with illegal immigration. There
Speaker 1: are bodies as a result of this, and they should
Speaker 1: be forced to answer for this. Their policies have led
Speaker 1: to this. They just pretend that this is not the case.
Speaker 1: They act like this does not happen at all. I mean,
Speaker 1: I couldn't believe it. I saw A Tucker's show on
Speaker 1: Fox earlier this week and he played that montage and
Speaker 1: he said, you'll look back at this and say, there's
Speaker 1: no way that this could really have been real. There's
Speaker 1: no way that this could be what really would really happen.
Speaker 1: There there are, in fact people and voxed this whole
Speaker 1: splainer on how MS thirteen they're just like you and me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: MS thirteen, you know, they're just like the kidnext door.
Speaker 1: You know, I'll get but they get mixed up in
Speaker 1: some bad things. No, I'm sorry. I mean, if you're
Speaker 1: joining a gang that has built its entire reputation on
Speaker 1: horrific and sadistic brutality and murder, you know you should
Speaker 1: have to answer for that in reputation as well as
Speaker 1: in the criminal justice system. But they just they have this.
Speaker 1: It's the same loop from them. What do you hear
Speaker 1: from Democrats on on how to solve the border crisis? Nothing?
Speaker 1: All year from them is family separation and Trump is
Speaker 1: mean about immigrants. What do they want their policy to be?
Speaker 1: How would they like to fix it? So here's the thing.
Speaker 1: They don't think of it as fixable or needing a fix.
Speaker 1: They think that the situation right now is completely sustainable.
Speaker 1: In fact, the situation right now is preferable in many
Speaker 1: ways to a secure border. It benefits them politically, It
Speaker 1: does all kinds of things for the Democrats that over
Speaker 1: the long term they like. They see it as votes,
Speaker 1: they see it as building the ranks of identity politics.
Speaker 1: They see it as the necessary enlarging of the state
Speaker 1: in order to administer to these new illegals who have
Speaker 1: crossed in the country who in an increasingly information based economy,
Speaker 1: are not going to be able to compete. We know this,
Speaker 1: but it's all slogans, it's all chance. It's all like
Speaker 1: the people that I come across here and the fancy
Speaker 1: precincts of LA who don't want to deal with the reality.
Speaker 1: They just want everyone to think that they're really they're
Speaker 1: really caring and really like totally smart. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: We now have a list of the numbers of children
Speaker 1: that have died in custody. We should all be outraged.
Speaker 1: The evidence is really clear that this is intentional. It's intentional.
Speaker 1: It's a policy choice being made on purpose by this administration.
Speaker 1: Why do people think this administration is intentionally harming children?
Speaker 1: Look at all the lies, Look at the harm done
Speaker 1: to children the administration. They say, a bunch of libs
Speaker 1: there claiming the administration is intentionally hurting kids, and some
Speaker 1: even go as far as to say publicly elected officials, democrats,
Speaker 1: that the administration is hoping that children die as a
Speaker 1: result of the border policy. You even had, You've had
Speaker 1: so many libs. I mean, this is one of the
Speaker 1: great areas of virtue signaling. Who's going to argue. This
Speaker 1: is the way the Libs like to frame any debate.
Speaker 1: You want to have a gun control discussion, you don't
Speaker 1: care about the dead kids that get shot. You want
Speaker 1: to have a border discussion. You don't care that kids
Speaker 1: go into custody. Keep in mind, they're not dying after
Speaker 1: five or ten days in custody. They're dying within forty
Speaker 1: eight hours in custody because when they come to the border.
Speaker 1: By the time they get to the border, hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of people were talking about here. In any population
Speaker 1: of hundreds of thousands, you will have individuals, just as
Speaker 1: a function of numbers, who have a serious illness and
Speaker 1: young children who are being forced to travel under difficult circumstances,
Speaker 1: under dangerous circumstances, and who show up at our southern border,
Speaker 1: and who just by virtue of the resources at the
Speaker 1: border and the overwhelmed border patrol, can't get medical attention,
Speaker 1: don't get medical attention within necessarily the first hour of
Speaker 1: showing up at the border, they have a fever, they die.
Speaker 1: That's what is That's what has happened. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the situation of the border. And I spoke in
Speaker 1: a border patrol about this. I mean, they feel terribly
Speaker 1: that any kids have lost their lives. There's absolutely no
Speaker 1: sense whatsoever that you get from talking to the medamin
Speaker 1: A border patrol that there's anything other than sympathy for
Speaker 1: the individuals who show up with kids. But they also
Speaker 1: are law enforcement officers and they have a job that
Speaker 1: they have to do. They are not the Red Cross.
Speaker 1: They're not there standing in front of tents waiting to
Speaker 1: give everybody medical care. And you know, you have to
Speaker 1: ask at some point you should ask the Democrats, is
Speaker 1: that what should happen is that there is that what
Speaker 1: their preference is that we just tell everybody, come here,
Speaker 1: free medical care and you get to stay. If that's
Speaker 1: not open borders, what is open borders? You know Mika
Speaker 1: Brazinski's running around on her show, which I mean Joe Scarborough,
Speaker 1: does he still call himself a conservative? I mean, the
Speaker 1: guys policy agenda right now is identical to who's that
Speaker 1: guy who, you know, the worst person in the world,
Speaker 1: the biggest clown to have ever been on MSNBC, which
Speaker 1: is saying a lot. By the way, Alberman, I mean
Speaker 1: Olberman and Joe Scarborough seem to have pretty much the
Speaker 1: same political outlook, but but Scarborough is a conservative at MSNBC,
Speaker 1: so Meek is all hysterical about this, and because it's
Speaker 1: so easy to down there saying I'm the one who
Speaker 1: cares about dead children and the Trump administration doesn't care,
Speaker 1: and there's so many and terrible Kevin McAleenan, he's like, look,
Speaker 1: what they're saying is just not true. We were not
Speaker 1: trying to punish kids and families of the border. It's
Speaker 1: not happening. Playclip thirteen. Happening. We're separating children in maybe
Speaker 1: one case a day out of the three thousand families arriving.
Speaker 1: It's very rare as for the safety of the child,
Speaker 1: prosecution for a serious criminal offense, it's a threat to
Speaker 1: the child, it's communical disease, or it's someone who's presenting
Speaker 1: a family relationship that doesn't exist. That's when that happens.
Speaker 1: For that not to be the case, let's be very
Speaker 1: clear what they're talking about here is the rare cases.
Speaker 1: Now there is still family separation that can occur at
Speaker 1: the border. And that's why the Libs want to tap
Speaker 1: tap right back into that because over the summer they
Speaker 1: were able to seize the moral high ground at least
Speaker 1: in terms of the media battle by saying, oh, the
Speaker 1: family separation is terrible and they're separating children. It's so horrible,
Speaker 1: it's awful, and it's skipped They skipped right past the
Speaker 1: discussion of Okay, well, what do we do about in
Speaker 1: the border. They've got no answers on that. They just
Speaker 1: want to tell us how terrible the family separation policy
Speaker 1: is now. They want to go back to that. Well,
Speaker 1: because one or two people a day children are being
Speaker 1: separated from their families. But as it's being pointed out,
Speaker 1: it's because there's either a serious disease and they're trying
Speaker 1: to save somebody, or there's a serious threat to the child.
Speaker 1: You know. For that not to be the case, you
Speaker 1: would have to have a special set of accountability, a
Speaker 1: special law in place. Because an American citizen, people that
Speaker 1: are supposed to be in this country and supposed to
Speaker 1: be able to count on federal services when needed, an
Speaker 1: American citizen who posed a threat to a child can
Speaker 1: be separated from that child. Happens every day. Americans who
Speaker 1: are you know, caught drunk driving and have a kid
Speaker 1: in the back seat separated from their kid. Happens every day.
Speaker 1: So what's the what's the desire here of the of
Speaker 1: the left owes? What do they want to happen? Do
Speaker 1: they want do they want the situation to be that
Speaker 1: even if the adult that is accompanying the child, And
Speaker 1: remember I told you about that story, um a few
Speaker 1: days ago. We're a pilot program that suggests thirty percent
Speaker 1: of the children that are showing up with different illegals
Speaker 1: are not actually their kids one and three. That's a lot.
Speaker 1: That means we got tens of thousands of kids who
Speaker 1: are being either cycled, or being abused, or being Now
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that that study is flawless and that
Speaker 1: that's but that's an indicator board and on by the
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner. I mean, it's a real thing that's out there.
Speaker 1: But are we now going to have a situation where
Speaker 1: the the the government, our government is going to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're worried that this child maybe part of a human
Speaker 1: trafficking scheme and could be sold into a kind of slavery.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, horrible things happen to kids in
Speaker 1: the hands of the cartels, and we're not we are
Speaker 1: We're going to tell border patrol at an Immigrations Customs
Speaker 1: Force them. No, No, you can't separate this person from
Speaker 1: you can't separate this this child from the person who's
Speaker 1: claiming to be his father or mother or whatever. That's
Speaker 1: that would be a deeply immoral position. But you'll notice
Speaker 1: that they won't get into the leftist who criticize this,
Speaker 1: who are so upset over it and have all these problems,
Speaker 1: They will not they will not get into to the
Speaker 1: details of it, because all they want to say is,
Speaker 1: just like with Russia interference in the election, all Russia interfered,
Speaker 1: Russia interfered, Okay, but how much do they interfere? Did
Speaker 1: it matter? Did the Trump administration if anything to do
Speaker 1: with it? Oh, Russia interfered. It's just a talking point.
Speaker 1: Family separation that still occurs at the border. Yes, it
Speaker 1: is true that there is family separation that still occurs
Speaker 1: at the border. Why And when you get to the why,
Speaker 1: it's very clear that a family separation was not occurring
Speaker 1: at the border, our border patrol would be derelict in
Speaker 1: their duty and the federal government would be acting in
Speaker 1: a clearly immoral fashion. And yet this is where Democrats
Speaker 1: are on this. They have no answers on immigration. All
Speaker 1: they have is demagoguery, grandstanding. Oh, we care about the kids.
Speaker 1: Republicans don't care about the kids, like everyone cares about kids,
Speaker 1: all right, But there's also this problem of having an
Speaker 1: open border and having the erosion of American sovereignty, you know,
Speaker 1: which started out like a trickle and is now becoming
Speaker 1: a tsunami because of the laws and because of the
Speaker 1: way they're being enforced at our southern border. This is
Speaker 1: a real problem. This has to be addressed, and it
Speaker 1: does not get addressed by people who stand around thinking
Speaker 1: that they're just so morally superior to border patrol and
Speaker 1: law enforcement for doing their job. And now this time
Speaker 1: another temper tantrum again. I pray for the President of
Speaker 1: the United States. I wish that his family, or his
Speaker 1: administration or his staff would have an intervention for the
Speaker 1: good of the country. And I do think that impeachment
Speaker 1: is a very divisive place to go in our country,
Speaker 1: and what we can get the facts to American people
Speaker 1: through our investigation that may take us to a place
Speaker 1: that is unavoidable in terms of impeachment. The White House
Speaker 1: is just crying out for impeachment. That's why he flipped yesterday.
Speaker 1: This is not behavior that rises to the dignity the
Speaker 1: office of president of the United States. What is going
Speaker 1: on with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, third in
Speaker 1: line for the presidency? Everybody, that's right, You gotta remember
Speaker 1: that as we talk about this president's calling her crazy,
Speaker 1: Nancy got some things to say about her. Well, is
Speaker 1: this indicative of the Democrats in disarray? We got Liz
Speaker 1: Harrington joining us now she's the rnc's national spokespersons. Tell
Speaker 1: us what she thinks about this early stage going into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty and also impeachment, all that good stuff. Liz,
Speaker 1: thanks for making the time before the long weekend. Absolutely
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. All right, so let's let's start,
Speaker 1: shall we with impeachment. To impeach or not to impeach.
Speaker 1: I can't seem to figure out if Democrats are sure
Speaker 1: that Trump should have been impeached one hundred times over
Speaker 1: or if they're not sure and they're in kind of
Speaker 1: wait and ce mode because they apparently change their mind
Speaker 1: every few hours, right, and Nancy Pelosi's behavior, quite frankly,
Speaker 1: is the Niza dignity is with the Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House should be doing, and right now she's trying to
Speaker 1: have it both ways and trying to appease her really
Speaker 1: rapid radical base that's been dying for impeachment from day one.
Speaker 1: We know Rashida to leave what she famously said after
Speaker 1: she won her election, which is also beneath the dignity
Speaker 1: of behavior of congress people. But neither here nor there,
Speaker 1: they wont impeachment. She has a radical left wing base
Speaker 1: that she's dealing with, so she's trying to appease them
Speaker 1: on the one hand and throw them in a peach
Speaker 1: fit bone, and then on the other go over to
Speaker 1: the White House and say, oh, yeah, that's just nonsense.
Speaker 1: Let's make a deal on infrastructure. That's not how it works.
Speaker 1: You can't accuse the president again of a baseless crime,
Speaker 1: saying he's covering up a non existent collusion. However that works.
Speaker 1: You can't go in the front door after laying down
Speaker 1: that bomb and then expect to work to others. They're
Speaker 1: not interested in working for the American people. If they were,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have dismissed the immigration plan that was laid
Speaker 1: out just a week ago before they even read it.
Speaker 1: So she I don't think I don't think she quite
Speaker 1: knows what to do or how to handle her caucus
Speaker 1: right now. That's why she keeps going is very incoherent
Speaker 1: on the impeachment question. Incoherent for sure. I think incoherences
Speaker 1: the order of the day for Nancy Pelosi. Ya, I
Speaker 1: need a little bit of an insight into this one list.
Speaker 1: If they want to impeach you, why not just impeach them?
Speaker 1: They have the votes. The Democrats would go along with it.
Speaker 1: What's with this back and forth, this kind of impeachment
Speaker 1: footsie they're playing. I think Nancy Pelosi knows that the
Speaker 1: reason that the Democrats won the House in twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: wasn't the far left face. It was more moderate Democrats.
Speaker 1: It was more moderate voters who do not want impeachment.
Speaker 1: And so if she wants to hold onto her speaker's gavel,
Speaker 1: she knows the American people don't want it. They don't
Speaker 1: want to talk about Russia anymore. They're sick of it
Speaker 1: after more than two years when there was no there there,
Speaker 1: they don't The American people don't want it. They want
Speaker 1: them to work and fix the problem. So that's why
Speaker 1: I think you're seeing this incoherent concluding, like she wants
Speaker 1: to dangle it out there and have you know, the
Speaker 1: the air of suspicion, but she doesn't want to actually
Speaker 1: go through with it because that's going to backfire big
Speaker 1: time on the Democrats because there's no crime. There's nothing
Speaker 1: there And I love they're accusing the president of a
Speaker 1: cover up, who just declassified everything so he wants everything
Speaker 1: out there. Uh, and yet he's covering up what exactly.
Speaker 1: It's so easy, but they're grasping at anything because they
Speaker 1: have nothing. They can't win on the issues. He covers
Speaker 1: it up by uncovering it. Apparently this is this is
Speaker 1: what we've come to with the with the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: We're speaking to Liz Harrington, rnc's a national spokesperson. Lee, how,
Speaker 1: how are you guys feeling right now about your your
Speaker 1: chances against the the whoever the Democrat, whomever the Democrat
Speaker 1: contender may be, when when it all is said and done,
Speaker 1: How are you guys feeling about the race right now?
Speaker 1: I know it's very early stage, but what dynamics are
Speaker 1: you seeing play out that are either favorable or challenging
Speaker 1: or what? Sure, We're very optimistic. We're feeling very good
Speaker 1: because the country is feeling good. We just had a
Speaker 1: record numbers of optimism again in the country at over
Speaker 1: seventy one percent or feel good about the economy, and
Speaker 1: that's incredible news. And it's because of the policies of
Speaker 1: this administration and a strong Republican agenda put forward by
Speaker 1: the President. And we've seen the effects in ever in
Speaker 1: your daily life. With the tax cuts and the deregulation.
Speaker 1: We've got the economy actually booming again. It wages are rising,
Speaker 1: unemployment at historic lows. So we're really proud of the record.
Speaker 1: We think it's a strong one on a continued every
Speaker 1: promise the President is really brought up in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: he's delivering on and and the ones that we're still
Speaker 1: working on, like the borders because the Democrats refuse to
Speaker 1: come to the table. So we're looking very good right now.
Speaker 1: We're very excited about the record we now have to
Speaker 1: run on. It wasn't just promises, it was actually results.
Speaker 1: And any of the Democrats, I mean, so early, what
Speaker 1: do you think of Mayor Pete? May Or Pete's making
Speaker 1: a surge right now. He's got you know, he's a vet,
Speaker 1: he's got an impressive resume. Is he one you know
Speaker 1: who worries who worries you the most, Liz, I know
Speaker 1: you're gonna say none of them because Trump will win.
Speaker 1: But if you have to pick one, who's the most
Speaker 1: concerning right now? Well, I think the concerning thing is
Speaker 1: the normalization of really radical policies that not only Mayor Pete,
Speaker 1: but Joe Biden is getting on board with a lot
Speaker 1: of radical policies as well. They all are. They're talking,
Speaker 1: they're following the Bernie Sanders wing as a party, which
Speaker 1: is a towards socialism. So that's what I'm concerned about.
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete can try to put a nice face on socialism,
Speaker 1: but it's it's a devastating political philosophy. And he's endorsed
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, he's endorsed packing the Supreme Court, getting
Speaker 1: rid of the electoral college, which would give no voice
Speaker 1: to states like New Hampshire, in Iowa, all these early
Speaker 1: battleground states that they're they're having a lot of face
Speaker 1: time there right now. Well, they would never go there
Speaker 1: if the electoral college didn't exist and it was a
Speaker 1: national popular vote. They are the Green New Deal, all
Speaker 1: of them. Joe Biden says he wants a climate revolution.
Speaker 1: I mean, they are talking about radical policies where the government,
Speaker 1: not you, decides every aspect of your life, whether what
Speaker 1: you drive, what you eat, how even they're even telling
Speaker 1: you not to have kids anymore because the climate change.
Speaker 1: They're adopting really radical, one size fits all policies that
Speaker 1: we know don't work, that hinder individual freedom and would
Speaker 1: ruin wreck the economy. I mean, never mind how you
Speaker 1: pay for it, every single policy they're proposing. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: I should say as well, because she's right there with
Speaker 1: proposing these radical policies, you would have to double taxes,
Speaker 1: and that still wouldn't pay for Medicare for All, which
Speaker 1: is really socialized medicine. So that's what's concerning to us.
Speaker 1: But we think we can make a good contrast to
Speaker 1: look look at the individual freedom that's been restored just
Speaker 1: in the past couple of years, with more freedom to
Speaker 1: get a new job. I mean, we have a million
Speaker 1: more job openings than unemployed people in this country right now.
Speaker 1: That means you have more economic freedom in your life
Speaker 1: to move, leave your job and find a better one.
Speaker 1: And it's great. The policies are working to give you
Speaker 1: more freedom, more money in your pocket, and we're going
Speaker 1: to continue that progress. We don't want to go down
Speaker 1: the leftist path at the Democrat Party wants to take
Speaker 1: us down. All right, Liz Eric and everybody RNC national
Speaker 1: spokesperson here and from the HQ there in DC, have
Speaker 1: a fantastical day weekend, and thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining you too. Happy Memorial Day. All right, team, we
Speaker 1: got so much more coming your way. Please stick around
Speaker 1: because the show is just getting going. Team. There's been
Speaker 1: a lot of talk this week from people around the president,
Speaker 1: and there's been some reason, believe from the President himself.
Speaker 1: There's a consideration of pardons for some former military US
Speaker 1: military members who are accused of crimes, in some cases
Speaker 1: convicted of what are classified as war crimes. We now
Speaker 1: have the sister of one of those individuals right now,
Speaker 1: and she wants to tell us the story of Nick Slatton.
Speaker 1: We have Jessica Slatt and his sister on right now.
Speaker 1: But Nick was eighty second Airborne deployed twice to Iraq
Speaker 1: and then got caught up in a very deadly incident
Speaker 1: years later and is currently convicted numerous counts as a result. Jessica,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: having me on the show. Book and letting me have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to talk from about my brother Nick and
Speaker 1: why he's such a prime candidate for our presidential party.
Speaker 1: And the bottom line is, as a proud American, I
Speaker 1: agree with those around the country who are speaking out
Speaker 1: to say the prosecuting veterans for split second decisions in
Speaker 1: war zone incidents to further political agendas is wrong. But
Speaker 1: as a sister of a wrongly convicted, innocent combat veteran
Speaker 1: who is sitting in a cell right now and may
Speaker 1: die in prison for someone else's shot during one of
Speaker 1: those war zone engagements, I really want to dispel some
Speaker 1: of the some of the false statements that are out
Speaker 1: there in the media about my brother. So I really
Speaker 1: thank you for giving me the opportunity to do that today.
Speaker 1: Well please, people may not remember this, but this was
Speaker 1: in Baghdad. Was this the Mansor traffic circle incident? Mister Square? Yes,
Speaker 1: so basically square, sorry, yeah, NICs square. Where it started
Speaker 1: out was a car bomb blew up in the Red
Speaker 1: Zone where a US diplomat was unseen. Nick and his
Speaker 1: team went to the traffic circle in the sirsquare to
Speaker 1: lock that down to help that diplomat get back to
Speaker 1: safety and when that happened, a white Kia came out
Speaker 1: of stop traffic and headed forward the convoy, and one
Speaker 1: of Nick's teammates made the decision to shoot and stop
Speaker 1: that threat, and he did that because he feared it
Speaker 1: was a secondary car bomb attack. And my brother and
Speaker 1: then that person who my brother's teammate who did this,
Speaker 1: confessed four time to doing it. All of the eyewitnesses
Speaker 1: to the shooting say that it was my brother's teammate.
Speaker 1: The physical evidence that exists is consistent with the fact
Speaker 1: that it was my brother's teammate. We know from trajectory
Speaker 1: analyzes that it would have been impossible for my brother
Speaker 1: to make the shot. And yet my brother was wrongly
Speaker 1: prosecuted and convicted for killing that person. And so Nick
Speaker 1: is an innocent man sitting in prison today for shots
Speaker 1: that were not his. Another thing that's so incredulous about
Speaker 1: this is the stuff that isn't out there in the media,
Speaker 1: which is all the stuff I just said, Plus the
Speaker 1: fact that when the FBI asked the driver's father to
Speaker 1: travel to the United States to testify against my brother,
Speaker 1: that man refused. He told the FBI that American agents
Speaker 1: had told him that Nick's teammate, the one who confessed
Speaker 1: had killed his son, and that changing the charge to
Speaker 1: Nick was dishonest. Not only that, my brother has been
Speaker 1: completely honest throughout this process. He even passed a polygraph
Speaker 1: by a former FBI examiner that included that concluded Nick
Speaker 1: was truthful when he denied shooting the driver. So I
Speaker 1: don't know how we are possibly here today, but we
Speaker 1: are now. Wasn't there also a decision made to prosecute
Speaker 1: your brother based on the usage of an automatic weapon
Speaker 1: as an enhancement to the crime, which the statute, as
Speaker 1: I understanding, is there so that if you are, you know,
Speaker 1: a gang banger in the States, or you know, if
Speaker 1: you're engaged in organized crime or something and use an
Speaker 1: automatic weapon, they can have an enhancement. But your brother
Speaker 1: was given the automatic weapon by the United States government
Speaker 1: as a and was serving as a contractor for it.
Speaker 1: So that's actually a charge that was levied against the
Speaker 1: other men who were charged and convicted in connection with
Speaker 1: the shooting, not my brother. The government did not. His
Speaker 1: charge is only with respect to the driver of the Kia,
Speaker 1: who he did not shoot or kill. But you're absolutely
Speaker 1: right that three other men were charged. They were convicted
Speaker 1: of that, and you know which is and they were
Speaker 1: but the way, but they were also government contractors given
Speaker 1: their weapons by the United States government, and then they
Speaker 1: were additionally charged for using those automatic weapons in the
Speaker 1: commission of this crime, yes, exactly, which is outrageous because
Speaker 1: those were the weapons that our government gave them, told
Speaker 1: them to use, they used them, and all of those men,
Speaker 1: you know, did what they thought was right under the circumstances,
Speaker 1: and they used the weapons that the government had provided
Speaker 1: them to do their jobs. I mean, I think everybody
Speaker 1: needs to remember, these guys were out there responding after
Speaker 1: a car bomb exploded, so we're not talking about you know,
Speaker 1: they were out there doing their jobs protecting diplomats. Yes, now, Jessica,
Speaker 1: from what you've told me, it sounds like, how could
Speaker 1: it be possible that if somebody else has already stated
Speaker 1: on the record and under oath numerous times, another member
Speaker 1: of the team that your brother Nick Nick was with that,
Speaker 1: how could he still be in prison for this. It
Speaker 1: seems impossible to people that that could be the case,
Speaker 1: given the system that we'd like to believe is more
Speaker 1: competent than that. So, I mean, what do the prosecutors
Speaker 1: say about this. Do they just believe that the other
Speaker 1: guy's lying. Well, they can't point to a single case ever.
Speaker 1: This is unprecedented. They can't point to a single case
Speaker 1: ever where they have prosecuted a citizen for first degree
Speaker 1: murder when someone else confessed to the killing and there's
Speaker 1: so much evidence that this other person did it. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, what they are is embarrassed. They were unable
Speaker 1: to prosecute my brother for lesser charges and then vindictively
Speaker 1: prosecuted him for murder, so he couldn't come into court
Speaker 1: and say what he actually did out there that day,
Speaker 1: which was shoot someone who was taking aim at the convoy,
Speaker 1: completely different person. The Department of State went out and
Speaker 1: found enemy shellcasings in the precise location where Nick had
Speaker 1: told the teammates that that happened. So they couldn't see
Speaker 1: what they needed to do with paint this case as
Speaker 1: black or white. They needed to say this was a
Speaker 1: good shooter, it was a bad shoot. Nick is someone
Speaker 1: who's can come in and give evidence that it's a
Speaker 1: good shoot. And so what they decided to say was,
Speaker 1: while our theory is anyone who shot out there that
Speaker 1: day basically committed excessive force, essentially and then they dropped
Speaker 1: Nick from the case many many years ago because the
Speaker 1: evidence was weak that he didn't anything wrong, because obviously
Speaker 1: what he was doing was, you know, his job. He
Speaker 1: fired two shots during an engagement when hundreds of rounds
Speaker 1: were fired. And then later during the Obama administration, when
Speaker 1: they tried to put Nick back in the case after
Speaker 1: Joe Biden went to Iraq and promised them that they
Speaker 1: would pursue the case, the statute of limitations had a run.
Speaker 1: The prosecutors had to be told by the appellate course
Speaker 1: that you can't prosecute somebody for time bar charges. So
Speaker 1: then they've vindictively charged him with murdering someone they know
Speaker 1: he didn't even shoot. That's how this happens and how
Speaker 1: he gets convicted is he has a civilian jury and
Speaker 1: the prosecutors are allowed to make Nick's case about everything
Speaker 1: else that happened and all the other shots that got
Speaker 1: fired that have nothing to do with Nick. That's how
Speaker 1: the right and for everyone listening, I mean, there were
Speaker 1: a lot of civilians who were killed in the exchange overall,
Speaker 1: but that, as you point out, is not the result
Speaker 1: of the shots that you're brother fire. That is correct,
Speaker 1: That is correct. And also, you know, I do want
Speaker 1: to point out for your listeners that you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of things that aren't reported in the media
Speaker 1: obviously about this case. And you know, one of the
Speaker 1: things about the count and the number of people who
Speaker 1: were killed or injured in the incidant that was largely
Speaker 1: created by an Iraqi official who we now know has
Speaker 1: suspected ties to terrorist groups. We just got that information
Speaker 1: disclosed to us during my brother's third trial, second and
Speaker 1: third trial, which happened last year, and so you know,
Speaker 1: it's really sketchy how our government relied on this person
Speaker 1: to help build their case. He's the one who collected
Speaker 1: the victims, you know, the alleged victims. He collected all
Speaker 1: that information. He gave that to the FBI when they
Speaker 1: finally showed up like weeks later after this happened. And
Speaker 1: you know, we have there are witnesses who have said, hey,
Speaker 1: if this guy tells us to go left, we'll go left.
Speaker 1: Did they tell us to go right, We'll go right?
Speaker 1: And you know, it's it's very sketchy. I'm not denying
Speaker 1: the fact that you know, as innocent people were killed
Speaker 1: and wounded. That's tragic, but that has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with my brother number one, but number two. People need
Speaker 1: to know that there's more story, more to the story
Speaker 1: behind that as well, and have serious questions about that.
Speaker 1: What is the current status of your brother. My brother
Speaker 1: is sitting in a cell in a jail after having
Speaker 1: been wrongfully convicted by a civilian jury last December, and
Speaker 1: we have post verdict motions to legal team has filed
Speaker 1: um seeking his full acquittal based on a ton of
Speaker 1: rights violations during his trial orm and also the fact
Speaker 1: that the evidence is just legally insufficient to support a
Speaker 1: murder conviction in his case. Or what degree of sentence
Speaker 1: is he currently serving? Oh, he doesn't have a sentence,
Speaker 1: but he will have a life sentence if the judge
Speaker 1: doesn't grant him a new trial or throw the case
Speaker 1: out entirely. And we're waiting to see what's going to
Speaker 1: happen on those motions right now. But you know, I
Speaker 1: want to I want to impress that upon the listeners
Speaker 1: that you know, my brother may very well die in
Speaker 1: prison without a political intervention in his case. And because
Speaker 1: it was such a political prosecution, I think it's a
Speaker 1: perfect case, a primary case for a political intervention, all right, Jessica,
Speaker 1: if people want to learn more about this or if
Speaker 1: they if they want to help. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: you want the president to pardon your brother. Is there
Speaker 1: is there a petition? Is there anything that people that
Speaker 1: want to get involved in the case should look at.
Speaker 1: You know, I know our president listens to the media
Speaker 1: and also has a great presence on Twitter. So I
Speaker 1: just hope people will get out on Twitter and social
Speaker 1: media and just like tell him that my brother should
Speaker 1: be pardon pardoned, Nick Slatton. Tell him, you know that
Speaker 1: this is wrong looking look into Nick's case. I you know,
Speaker 1: I want people to look into I want people to
Speaker 1: send the message we want him to look into this case.
Speaker 1: And we do have every reason to believe that he is.
Speaker 1: And if he is, I want to thank him on
Speaker 1: behalf of my entire family, and I want to tell
Speaker 1: him that we are an American patriot like him, and
Speaker 1: I'm hopeful that he will be the one person in
Speaker 1: our government to finally say that the truth matters in
Speaker 1: my brother's case and not let a decorated combat veteran
Speaker 1: get discarded for politics. My family wants to get back
Speaker 1: to fighting for the country we love instead of fighting
Speaker 1: against it and I hope that he'll help us do
Speaker 1: that by sending my brother home. Nick Slatton is the
Speaker 1: former member of eighty second Airborne Folks who currently sits
Speaker 1: in a cell. His sister, Jessica Slatton tells us he
Speaker 1: was wrong, wrongfully convicted and it's hoping for a pardon
Speaker 1: from President. From Jessica, than you so much for your time,
Speaker 1: The best to you and your family, and I hope
Speaker 1: you have a blessed Memorial Day weekend. Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Buck you as well. All right, team, we'll be right
Speaker 1: back to be honest with you. Any changes with paper
Speaker 1: money are very slow. For example, in nineteen thirteen they
Speaker 1: started talking about the idea of reducing the size of
Speaker 1: paper money, which at that time was much bigger than
Speaker 1: it is today, large sized notes, and also changing the designs,
Speaker 1: and that took from nineteen thirteen all the way until
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty nine. Okay, so but that was one hundred
Speaker 1: years ago and things are just as slow. But really
Speaker 1: like even in today's day and age, it should take
Speaker 1: twelve years to get a new its currency, a new
Speaker 1: bill up and running. You think that the delay is legit.
Speaker 1: It is a slow process. And the other problem that
Speaker 1: he brings up is the security, which he is right about.
Speaker 1: We are very behind the times on security for our
Speaker 1: paper money. So you have CNN with Donna Bash, don't
Speaker 1: it's not Dana even though it's spelled in it's Donna Bash.
Speaker 1: So that's how you can you know if someone's a
Speaker 1: CNN insider or not if they know how to pronounce
Speaker 1: that name. She's asking a currency expert about whether the
Speaker 1: delay in getting Harriet Tubman on the twenty dollar bill
Speaker 1: is legit or not. You know what, what what's going
Speaker 1: on here? People have been saying, you know that this
Speaker 1: must be racism or it must be racism, because Harriet
Speaker 1: Tubman on the twenty is delayed until after Trump leaves office,
Speaker 1: according to Treasury Secretary Manuchin. And now I'm saying that
Speaker 1: people are replacing Andrew Jackson's face on some bills. This
Speaker 1: is the Washington Post with a what is this a
Speaker 1: stamp that they've used of Harriet Tubman there, there's effectively
Speaker 1: taking it into their own hands to replace Harriet or
Speaker 1: Andrew Jackson with with Harriet Tubman. But you'll you'll know,
Speaker 1: notice in the tone of voice with with Donna Bash there,
Speaker 1: it's fun to say Donna. You'll notice that the answer
Speaker 1: she wants is that this must be racism. I mean, right,
Speaker 1: it has to be racism, right, there's no other reason.
Speaker 1: And now, because we've been told that Harriet Tubman on
Speaker 1: the twenty isn't gonna happen until twenty twenty eight, and yeah,
Speaker 1: here we go, A three D stamp has been created
Speaker 1: by Donno Wall, not to be confused with Donna Bash.
Speaker 1: I'm not making that up. This guy's Donno Wall that
Speaker 1: can superimpose a portrait of Tubman over Andrew Jackson Jackson
Speaker 1: and he's already sold out of these, and he's telling
Speaker 1: people to just stamp the currency with this. Um I believe.
Speaker 1: I don't. Look, I'm not trying to be a stickler
Speaker 1: for rules here. I believe it is illegal to de
Speaker 1: face US currency, so I cannot I cannot think. Yep, wait,
Speaker 1: he says. The basic gist is if you can't you
Speaker 1: can't render a bill illegible, you can't cover any text
Speaker 1: or numbers. Anything outside of that is fine according to Wall,
Speaker 1: But according to the Earth Bureau of Engraving, defacement of
Speaker 1: currencies prohibited under federal law. Currency defacement is generally defined
Speaker 1: as follows quote whoever mutilates, cuts, transfer disfigures, not transfigures.
Speaker 1: That's something else. Perforates, unites or cements together, or does
Speaker 1: any other thing to a bank, build draft note or
Speaker 1: other evidence of debt. Okay, and you can be fined
Speaker 1: and imprisoned up to six months. So it sounds to
Speaker 1: me like you're probably breaking the law here by by
Speaker 1: doing this. There, my friend, I cannot, I cannot give
Speaker 1: this the all clear. I think this is probably a
Speaker 1: very very bad idea, the stamping. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know how people feel about replacing Jackson with Harriet Tubman.
Speaker 1: I'm I mean, if the idea here is to have
Speaker 1: a greater diversity of representation of Americans history on our currency,
Speaker 1: I mean, I look, everyone can have their own opinions
Speaker 1: on this, and that's fine, but I would think, why,
Speaker 1: you know, I would think Frederick Douglass or Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King ahead of Harriet Tubman if we wanted an African
Speaker 1: American representation. Um, you know, an individual represented on our currency.
Speaker 1: I just I mean me personally. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: Frederick Douglas is incredibly eloquent and so important in our history.
Speaker 1: So anyway, but look, I'm fine with Harry Tubbin thing.
Speaker 1: I'm fine. I don't have an issue one with the other.
Speaker 1: I just think it's interesting that libs here are so
Speaker 1: surprised that one the answer is that it's not actually
Speaker 1: Trump's fault, that's what seeing now, what's going for the
Speaker 1: answer is that it's not Trump being a big, mean
Speaker 1: racist that's stopping this from happening more quickly. And also
Speaker 1: I think that they they really don't understand how inefficient
Speaker 1: and slow government is like that. That is, even at
Speaker 1: this stage of life. You have news anchors who have
Speaker 1: been in the game for twenty or thirty years working
Speaker 1: at a place like CNN, and they just don't understand
Speaker 1: that government is highly inefficient, is a bureaucracy that does
Speaker 1: not function the way that we are told it will,
Speaker 1: and that there's no really, there's no really sound way
Speaker 1: to speed it up. Government just isn't that good at stuff.
Speaker 1: Changing currency is one of those things that government's going
Speaker 1: to be very slow at doing. And also, you know,
Speaker 1: our currency is important too, folks. Something you want to
Speaker 1: get right. Let me tell you. When I was over
Speaker 1: in China and seeing all the fro lexes, fake rolexes
Speaker 1: and all the fake handbags and all that stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: counterfeiting currency is not that hard either. It's an active war,
Speaker 1: I believe, for a nation state to do that. So
Speaker 1: it's a very very big deal. But we want our
Speaker 1: currency to be with all the different security measures and
Speaker 1: everything we've got. I mean, currency is a pretty complicated thing. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: Trump's it's not Trump's fault. It's not racism. It's just
Speaker 1: the government is slow. And once again it's that's that's
Speaker 1: a surprise to the journals because journals just don't see
Speaker 1: them able to comprehend that. You believe it or not,
Speaker 1: there are people out there in the government who are
Speaker 1: not working overtime all the time to get things done.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. The show ain't over yet, folks.
Speaker 1: Keeping it real. It's time for roll call. Yeah, role call.
Speaker 1: Everybody in a holiday weekend coming up, looking forward to it.
Speaker 1: Out here in Los Angeles, La La Land. I'm actually
Speaker 1: heading to the beach tonight, heading to the boo as
Speaker 1: it were, which, as I understand it is what the
Speaker 1: cool kids call Malibu. So if you see somebody drinking
Speaker 1: a zema, dancing around in you know, aviator sunglasses with
Speaker 1: some flip flops on probably any person in Malibu right now.
Speaker 1: I don't think you'd be able to know that that
Speaker 1: was me. That wasn't a very good description. But I'll
Speaker 1: be there hanging out, running around the Beach'd be nice
Speaker 1: thinking about kind of house i'd buy in Malibu if
Speaker 1: I had a spare ten or fifteen mill lying around,
Speaker 1: Or forget a spare ten or fifteen mill, how about
Speaker 1: just a mill. That would be nice. That would help
Speaker 1: things out quite a bit. All right, your thoughts via
Speaker 1: role call Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton. That is
Speaker 1: where you go for your role call action Woody Rights
Speaker 1: Shield's high Buck. I see you went to China with SUG.
Speaker 1: You can stay engaged with any media source you wish
Speaker 1: via your sponsor Express VPN. Oh really, I fly as
Speaker 1: a pilot there all the time and stay engaged with
Speaker 1: appropriate news sources, including one American News. It is appropriate
Speaker 1: for you to call out that you only get seeing
Speaker 1: an international garbage at most hotel, but as a world traveler,
Speaker 1: IM my fellow conservatives make our wishes known to the
Speaker 1: hotel staff, which has produced positive results. I have on
Speaker 1: many issues gorged on issues you have brought forth. I
Speaker 1: think it says gorge. There you wrote, you wrote gouge,
Speaker 1: but I don't know what that really means. Reach out,
Speaker 1: brother Woody, well what do he? Thank you for the
Speaker 1: heads up, man, And yes, CNN International is anti American
Speaker 1: propaganda that our own country puts out, so I wish
Speaker 1: that is not the case. Turns out that I also
Speaker 1: got quoted today in an article on Mediaite about CNN's
Speaker 1: bias a couple of times. So there's that. There is
Speaker 1: that for sure? All right here, Dwayne Rights, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Go to media you'll see CNN claims balance coverage,
Speaker 1: but former pro Trump contributors disagree. Quote, we're squeezed out involuntarily.
Speaker 1: That's not what I that's not the one that my
Speaker 1: quote Buck Win. Actually, you guys, you know what, fine, fine,
Speaker 1: I should tell you. So this is about how CNN
Speaker 1: doesn't pretend to be a journalistic enterprise but doesn't really
Speaker 1: have any actual pro Trump conservatives. I mean, there's a couple,
Speaker 1: and I don't mean to be mean, but they're not
Speaker 1: exactly the first ones that come to mind for the
Speaker 1: biggest names in conservative media. Here's here we go. This
Speaker 1: is what I told, This is what I told media
Speaker 1: about CNN. Quote, CNN used to pretend it accepted right
Speaker 1: wing voices for balance, but now it openly despises conservatives
Speaker 1: who are a pro Trump. Today, the entire enterprise clings
Speaker 1: to a fundamental dishonesty that it has no political agenda.
Speaker 1: Taken down, Trump is obviously the agenda. And in this regard,
Speaker 1: some of CNN's hard news anchors, Temper Cooper are the
Speaker 1: biggest journalistic frauds of all. When asked, and then that
Speaker 1: was the end of that quote. And then when asked
Speaker 1: if Sexton would ever consider working with CNN again, he responded, quote,
Speaker 1: this is interview today. Quote what I go back? Sure,
Speaker 1: if CNN stopped being crazy good times, good times, this
Speaker 1: has already got I think it's got close to a
Speaker 1: thousand comments. People. People are enjoying this, Uh, this back
Speaker 1: and forth quite a bit, I think. So I'm sure
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get me some mean former CNN people or
Speaker 1: former colleagues of mine, I suppose from CNN. They're still there,
Speaker 1: going to creep into my DMS and say, how dare you, sir?
Speaker 1: What say that CNN is completely biased and unbalanced left
Speaker 1: wing propaganda? Because it is, I mean, we can sit
Speaker 1: around and pretend like it's not, but we all kind
Speaker 1: of know that it is. So that's what I've got
Speaker 1: for you on that. Okay, Okay, I know I got
Speaker 1: a little sidetracked there, Dwayne Rights. Democrats don't break ranks
Speaker 1: for the same reason scientologists don't leave the church. They'll
Speaker 1: get destroyed by their quote friends. Well, Dwayne, that that
Speaker 1: may be true. I don't know if your take your
Speaker 1: word for that one. Indeed, let's see here. Well, no,
Speaker 1: actually that I do know that is true. Democrats will
Speaker 1: destroy their friends. I just don't know about the scientologist
Speaker 1: thing really, But now that to think about it, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Scientologists really mean if you leave the church, right. Indeed,
Speaker 1: let's see John Right shields high fan from the real newsdays.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi calling for Trump's family to have an intervention
Speaker 1: for Trump because he won't bend the knee to her
Speaker 1: is the ultimate Democrat projection. They can't stand the president
Speaker 1: hasn't resigned yet, or perhaps it's a cry for help.
Speaker 1: She sounds like she's got a case of dementia. She's
Speaker 1: slurring and she has to pause and think about her words.
Speaker 1: COMMI better lives, John, I think one of those videos
Speaker 1: that's circulating, I haven't seen them all. One of them
Speaker 1: I do believe is fake, and one of them is
Speaker 1: just edited, so edited is not fake, it's edited. But
Speaker 1: one of them I believe they actually change change the
Speaker 1: speech patterns in it, although you know, I don't really know.
Speaker 1: So there you go, down right, Welcome back, buck handangdee
Speaker 1: shoe fa, which in Mandarin means great show, great hair.
Speaker 1: On yesterday's show, you call Pelosi crazy like a fox.
Speaker 1: Please never use the word fox in any context near
Speaker 1: her name ever. Again made me ill have a great
Speaker 1: holiday weekend, Steve, I think I said, or at least
Speaker 1: I meant to say, that Trump is crazy like a fox.
Speaker 1: I don't think I said that about Pelosi. If I did,
Speaker 1: I I misspoke, which does happen sometimes when you speak
Speaker 1: for three hours at a time, which is what I
Speaker 1: do here every day every day. What a due I speak? Okay? Sorry,
Speaker 1: Andy writes buck Love the show that Amash his family
Speaker 1: owns a tool company that stamps its name on Chinese goods.
Speaker 1: He is going to lose money when trade Trump makes
Speaker 1: his trade deal. Andy, I I don't know anything about that,
Speaker 1: but thank you for raising it to our attention here, Phil, Phil,
Speaker 1: what's happening, Phil, Phil? Welcome back? All fair guest host
Speaker 1: feedback top to bottom, best to worst best The Godfather
Speaker 1: knows how to host, has great guests and is very entertaining.
Speaker 1: Number two Ben Winegarten doesn't proontificate, has excellent guests and
Speaker 1: allows him to speak after he asked great questions. Number
Speaker 1: three Raheem knows how to host less interesting guests interesting
Speaker 1: and then I will not Okay, I will not get
Speaker 1: into the bottom of the list of out of respect
Speaker 1: for my guest host. But at least his top three here,
Speaker 1: that's interesting. Let me know if you agree with this
Speaker 1: team Phil, Phil thinks for his guest hosts, he puts
Speaker 1: The Godfather Michael Pelica number one. Number two he puts
Speaker 1: Ben Winegarten. Number three, puts Rahim Kassam. Look, the good
Speaker 1: news is this is like picking your best all star.
Speaker 1: And you know, everyone that I have guest host this
Speaker 1: show is hostworthy for you know, for their own shows.
Speaker 1: So I always knew know that when I'm not here,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a great a great person in. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously it's not the same show without me, but it's
Speaker 1: still a hopefully very enjoyable listening experience. Let's see here,
Speaker 1: Trisha rights, whoa were we go? Not all of us
Speaker 1: in California. People are crazy libs. We know how we
Speaker 1: know the facts and laugh at how dumb the Democrats act. Oh, Trisha,
Speaker 1: I know some of my favorite people in all of
Speaker 1: conservative Conservativa are out here in California. Nor are we
Speaker 1: millennials all against Trump and wants socialism in free healthcare
Speaker 1: for illegals. Maybe a late end of millennial worries mean
Speaker 1: that people say there for socialism. Topic for the show.
Speaker 1: I'd like to suggesta ran about how absorbed California Congress
Speaker 1: and governor are waiting to give free healthcare to people
Speaker 1: here illegally. But I'm an American, I live in California.
Speaker 1: I have to pay for my own health insurance along
Speaker 1: with the outrageous hospital bills I have from my illness.
Speaker 1: I've never published a writing piece, but I'm considering writing
Speaker 1: a piece and trying to get it out and express
Speaker 1: how outrageous this has all become. It is. I feel
Speaker 1: an itch for speaking out and wanted to express myself.
Speaker 1: I can make money doing it, I feel like I
Speaker 1: would go for it, etc. Thanks for listening llol and
Speaker 1: indulging my rant. Tricia, I hope you feel better. Sorry
Speaker 1: to hear about some of your medical challenges. And I
Speaker 1: totally understand what you're saying. It's like, well, people struggle
Speaker 1: so much to pay for their healthcare. They struggle to
Speaker 1: pay for their healthcare, but then we're told that people
Speaker 1: that are here illegally shouldn't have to pay anything for
Speaker 1: their healthcare. Wow, that doesn't seem that Dare I say
Speaker 1: that does not seem fair? Probably because it isn't. Let's
Speaker 1: see Kirk, hey, Buck, good to hear your back. Sounds
Speaker 1: like you had a great trip today. I've seen in
Speaker 1: the Nancy Pelosi talking up. I think the only coverup
Speaker 1: should be the Nancy being covered as the fool she is.
Speaker 1: She speaks when she sounds half drunk. She can't lie
Speaker 1: on camera very well. Wow, you really get you really
Speaker 1: good after here, Kirk? All right, Kirk does not like
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi. Kirk does not like Nancy Pelosi, that is
Speaker 1: for sure. Let's see what else we have here? Shan't we?
Speaker 1: Chris rights Buck? Am I the only one experiencing this
Speaker 1: third hour? Every show has been replaced with some podcast
Speaker 1: A show called Sleepwalkers, a tech show listen on AM
Speaker 1: radio in Mississippi. Check the iHeart app. All right, So Chris,
Speaker 1: I did look into this, and it turns out it
Speaker 1: turns out that they are now on some stations just
Speaker 1: to try it out. They're running some podcasts for about
Speaker 1: an I think an hour a day at different times.
Speaker 1: We have I have no control over it. It's it's
Speaker 1: just a thing that's a sort of a top down.
Speaker 1: So for some reason, part of the show gets cut
Speaker 1: to throw a podcast in there. You know, let's um
Speaker 1: listen to the listen to the podcast of my show.
Speaker 1: That's the best thing I can tell you, because I can't.
Speaker 1: I can't turn this spigot off right now. It is
Speaker 1: what it is. We got more, speaking of the spigot
Speaker 1: and the Fawcett got more roll call coming up stairt there,
Speaker 1: rock and roll, fellow patriots. We made ours go up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll call. Michael Buck. I'm
Speaker 1: mean to say thank you for the scrambled egg tips.
Speaker 1: My scrambled eggs have improved exponentially. My son loves them.
Speaker 1: You truly are a scrambled egg connoisseur. However, I cannot
Speaker 1: go down the same road as when it comes to bacon,
Speaker 1: give me thin, crisp bacon any day over chewy fat
Speaker 1: strips of bacon shields high. Well, Michael, you're half right,
Speaker 1: so that's better than being a whole wrong, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. Buddy, Hey, hey, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: My scrambled egg tips are fantastic. Look, if you prefer
Speaker 1: thin bacon, that is fine. I mean that's you know,
Speaker 1: some people like wine out of a box, and that's
Speaker 1: cool too. I'm just trying to tell you that if
Speaker 1: you start getting in the habit of drinking some really
Speaker 1: nice vintages, you might prefer that and a nice vintage.
Speaker 1: When it comes to bacon, is thick cut slab bacon
Speaker 1: that you get from a butcher. I'm just saying, I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be a bacon snob. If I go
Speaker 1: into eyehop, what am I getting a plate of super
Speaker 1: thin cell of fan looking bacon. It'll still be delicious.
Speaker 1: All bacon is delicious. It's like chocolate pretty much. All
Speaker 1: chocolate's delicious. But give it a shot, my friend. If
Speaker 1: you haven't yet, Alright, I'm glad you're on the egg
Speaker 1: train with me because that's a good a good train
Speaker 1: to be on. Remember, folks that the biggest things take
Speaker 1: Take it off the heat. Don't just adjust the heat.
Speaker 1: Remove it from the heat source as soon as it
Speaker 1: starts to cook too quickly cook it low and slow.
Speaker 1: Eggs do not need to be cooked fast. They cook
Speaker 1: fast on their own medium low heat for scrambled eggs.
Speaker 1: And break the egg on a piece of paper towel
Speaker 1: on the countertop, and then pour it into the pan.
Speaker 1: Do not break it on the edge of the pan.
Speaker 1: You will get shell ejected into the pan. You don't
Speaker 1: want that, all right, Let's see Kristen Buck I'm patiently
Speaker 1: awaiting the post China podcast. Oh, Kristen, hopefully you've gotten them.
Speaker 1: I know this week we've had some technical issues with
Speaker 1: the pod, So yeah, I am on it. Let's see
Speaker 1: what else we've got here. Adam ran across this article
Speaker 1: planning on gene editing wheats so it's safe for you
Speaker 1: to eat shields high crisper Jean editing could make gluten
Speaker 1: safe for celiacs. Well, that would thanks Adam for sending
Speaker 1: us to mean that would be fantastic. I don't really
Speaker 1: like to be able to eat bread again. And maybe
Speaker 1: drink beer. Again. These are things that I would I
Speaker 1: would really very much enjoy. I would like that to
Speaker 1: be the case. So if there's a way that science
Speaker 1: hashtag science can make that happen for me, I am
Speaker 1: all about it, my friend, all about it. Absolutely. Let's
Speaker 1: see here. We have so many messages today, trying to
Speaker 1: pick them on the fly, Richard, your Tuesday show on
Speaker 1: Stitcher was posted about three hours before your Wednesday show.
Speaker 1: The Chinese must be targeting you. Keep up the awesome
Speaker 1: though shieldside your producer, Mark Man, what is are the
Speaker 1: Chinese hacking us? Why are the podcast not going up?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go ahead and blame the Chinese. Okay, gosh,
Speaker 1: let's I mean it used to be sorrows now I
Speaker 1: think the Chinese are hacking me exactly, Marcus, My first
Speaker 1: thought when Beto Rock's campaign started tanking was, no, if
Speaker 1: he drops out of the race, Buck Saxon might stop
Speaker 1: doing his awesome Beto impression. That would be terrible. I
Speaker 1: can't get enough of that impression, mister Saxon, not only
Speaker 1: Senior O'Rourke's voice and affectations, but also your parody of
Speaker 1: his uber PC ideas such as they are. If Amigo
Speaker 1: O'Rourke's campaign flames out, I humbly make the following request,
Speaker 1: Could you please please please keep doing your ombre O'Rourke impression.
Speaker 1: You can use whatever you want to satirize it typically
Speaker 1: woke progressive Democrat shields High from Winnipeg, Canada. Yeah, baby,
Speaker 1: some of our Canadian brothers up north. Listen to the
Speaker 1: Buck Saxon show. I love it. I love it well totally,
Speaker 1: because when Patio doesn't win the presidency, then the next
Speaker 1: stop for him, we'll be running for the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: of Canada. Because while Betto isn't from Canada, he's also
Speaker 1: not Hispanic or Latino. But he appropriated a name, so
Speaker 1: why not just appropriate a citizenship? Amazing? I like love
Speaker 1: maple syrup and Molson's beer and ice hockey, so I
Speaker 1: can totally be your prime minister and bring our hearts
Speaker 1: together as a unified one. There you go, there's some
Speaker 1: Betto to send you off for your weekend. I should
Speaker 1: talk like that in Malibu. I'd make more friends. Malib
Speaker 1: is so beautiful. Can we Conservatives? Can we take it over? Please?
Speaker 1: Can we just like set it up so we buy
Speaker 1: all the land there? And it's very expensive. There's there's
Speaker 1: a lot of rich conservatives out there. Though. You got
Speaker 1: all these business owners to listen to this show. People
Speaker 1: are like, you know, just quietly have a master of
Speaker 1: fortune through hard work and doing it right over many
Speaker 1: many years. So you know, can you guys all get together?
Speaker 1: Can the can the wealthy members of Team Buck please
Speaker 1: buy up Malibu so we have a little enclave of
Speaker 1: conservatism on the beach. That'd be fun. Right now the
Speaker 1: Libs own the beach, all owned by Libs and enough.
Speaker 1: Let's Oh, this is very long and I do not
Speaker 1: have time to get to this one on today's show.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping everybody will be able to download the podcast
Speaker 1: that wants to I guess this is kind of late
Speaker 1: to say that because by the time they hear this
Speaker 1: all other or not. No, but please do tell us somebody.
Speaker 1: This weekend people are gonna be asking you what podcast
Speaker 1: should I listen to? You who's a smart, young conservative
Speaker 1: who can lay it down for me while also keeping
Speaker 1: it entertaining. I'm hoping you'll say that is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton or just Buck Sexton. You don't have to put
Speaker 1: an article in front of it, have a fantastic weekend.
Speaker 1: Everybody have it blessed and Memorial Day. I will talk
Speaker 1: to you Tuesday. She'll tie