Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. So Trump clarifies a
Speaker 1: little bit what he had to say to Putin in Helsinki.
Speaker 1: But guess what. The media is still so freaked out.
Speaker 1: They're saying it's the the equivalent of nine eleven Pearl
Speaker 1: Harbor and the Inquisition all wrapped into one. It's not true,
Speaker 1: of course, they just hate the President looking for a
Speaker 1: way to undermine them. We'll talk about the way forward
Speaker 1: from here, and also we're joined by Andy McCarthy from
Speaker 1: National Review and Judge Jeanine Pirou with some fantastic legal
Speaker 1: analysis of that Mueller probe that I'm more coming up
Speaker 1: on the Buck Sexon Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again, The Buck Sexton Show began insectivate analysts.
Speaker 1: I realized that there is a need for some clarification.
Speaker 1: It should have been obvious. I thought it would be obvious,
Speaker 1: but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn't.
Speaker 1: In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the
Speaker 1: word would instead of wouldn't. The sentence should have been
Speaker 1: I don't see any reason why I wouldn't or why
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be Russian. So just to repeat it, I
Speaker 1: said the word would instead of wouldn't, and the sentence
Speaker 1: should have been, and I thought it would be maybe
Speaker 1: a little bit unclear on the transcript or unclear on
Speaker 1: the actual video, the sentence should have been, I don't
Speaker 1: see any reason why it wouldn't be Russian, sort of
Speaker 1: a double negative. So you can put that in and
Speaker 1: I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. That was President Trump
Speaker 1: just a little bit before we went on air. Give
Speaker 1: it a press conference today. People are calling it a
Speaker 1: walk back, you can call it a clarification. But he's
Speaker 1: given a little additional detail on the press on on
Speaker 1: what he said at that press conference in hell Sinki,
Speaker 1: and he here's why this is so, This is so
Speaker 1: classic trauma. And people are gonna say a lot of
Speaker 1: things about this, like why did it take twenty four
Speaker 1: if it was a clarification about a word, why would
Speaker 1: it take twenty four hours to clarify that? For example,
Speaker 1: where was the White House Comms team on that? I
Speaker 1: know what everyone's gonna say. Here's Trump's version of this.
Speaker 1: He figures he knows what or rather he believes that
Speaker 1: people know what he was trying to say and why
Speaker 1: he was saying what he was saying, and if it's
Speaker 1: gonna make people feel a little bit better about the situation,
Speaker 1: he'll say, yeah, okay, fine, I believe the intel agencies.
Speaker 1: I get it. You know, America on the world stage.
Speaker 1: This wasn't the best messaging to sin But bottom line,
Speaker 1: I still think that there's a weird deep state cabal
Speaker 1: that tried to undermine my election, and I'm sick of
Speaker 1: these punks and the collusion thing is a joke and
Speaker 1: it's nonsense. Trump out like, that's kind of that's kind
Speaker 1: of what he's saying. That's his version of it. You know, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll say, I changed the word, and you know, now
Speaker 1: we're now Is everyone happy? Is everybody happy? Now? They
Speaker 1: feel better? Now? They're everyone gonna calm down over this?
Speaker 1: The answers, of course, no, all right, we'll get to
Speaker 1: some of that. They're not gonna calm down. I've I
Speaker 1: have heard some of the craziest stuff in the last
Speaker 1: twenty four hours. In terms of political analysis, people are
Speaker 1: I'm actually starting to get worried about them, Like I
Speaker 1: don't know how they sleep at night, being so worked
Speaker 1: up over something that affects them not at all. And
Speaker 1: that is in the grand scheme of things, actually so
Speaker 1: very very minor. And I'm seeing all this other stuff. Now,
Speaker 1: all these experts are saying, well, policy doesn't matter, it's
Speaker 1: the words that matter. Okay, So now now we're in
Speaker 1: in in a in a world with Donald Trump. I
Speaker 1: just want to be very clear, if you oppose Trump,
Speaker 1: you're willing to now take the position that words speak
Speaker 1: louder than actions. Well, isn't that perfect? Isn't that very
Speaker 1: Orwellian for this particular era. And isn't it then fitting
Speaker 1: that Trump fights fights back with his own Orwellian twist
Speaker 1: of Okay, I said, would I should have said wouldn't
Speaker 1: or not wouldn't have instead of wouldn't not have or
Speaker 1: whatever it is that he's doing it. And he's like,
Speaker 1: all right, fine, we're gonna play this game. We'll play
Speaker 1: this game. It's gonna drive them nuts. He sends a
Speaker 1: signal to all of us who were saying, as I did, Yes, Ray,
Speaker 1: there's some stuff I didn't like, some stuff in the
Speaker 1: press conference a little bit Donald a little bit, a
Speaker 1: little bit off, but overall, no big deal, and I
Speaker 1: get what he's saying and everyone understands. And the media
Speaker 1: was baiting him with all these questions. They wanted him
Speaker 1: to be just spitting Putin's face, which would be idiotic.
Speaker 1: There's so much stupidity coming from the media and all
Speaker 1: this stuff. They're all they're just such a bunch of
Speaker 1: glorified hall monitors. But he said, yeah, okay, you know,
Speaker 1: we get it, we heard it. Okay, we we know.
Speaker 1: On the big lies, Gazi wasn't a terrorist attack. If
Speaker 1: you like your health care plan, you can keep your
Speaker 1: health care plan. You know, go go down, the go
Speaker 1: down a list of lies that actually matter to you
Speaker 1: in your day to day life, or should matter to
Speaker 1: the American people in their day to day lives. Media
Speaker 1: was m i A on most of that, you know,
Speaker 1: not not really a lot of attention paid. There's the
Speaker 1: old book. We covered it. Yeah, I know you covered it,
Speaker 1: but you covered the whole of this racist this raises
Speaker 1: troubling whatever it's the Democrat, let me tell you some
Speaker 1: of the tells, some of the giveaways. When media doesn't
Speaker 1: like something A Democrat does, but it's a Democrat. They'll
Speaker 1: say things like, oh, well, there's raises troubling questions. Troubling
Speaker 1: questions have been raised by this. This makes us uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: There are issues that stem from it. When a Republican
Speaker 1: does something, Democrats don't like it. It's nine eleven all
Speaker 1: over again. And oh my gosh, this is bloodier than
Speaker 1: Caesar's conquest of Gaul. I mean, they're really they lose
Speaker 1: their minds. And then when you say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I think you're coverage of all normal. We covered both.
Speaker 1: We covered both as if the words and the intensity
Speaker 1: and the seriousness of the coverage don't matter at all.
Speaker 1: So they get all fixated on this thing with Trump
Speaker 1: yesterday about the intelligence agencies. As I said to you,
Speaker 1: and actually I did a buck wild today at at
Speaker 1: Hill dot TV on this one. Do we really think
Speaker 1: it's weird that Trump has a little bit of a
Speaker 1: sour taste in his mouth when it comes to the
Speaker 1: intel agencies. They've all come out as partisan hacks against him.
Speaker 1: My commune and my former community where I was trained
Speaker 1: and learned the craft of intelligence will never be the
Speaker 1: same because of all these hacks from the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: People say all book, but they're lifelong public servants. Not no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: They were essentially Democrats sleeper agents the whole time, folks.
Speaker 1: That's what's really going on here, don't we see? It's
Speaker 1: just that with Obama gone, after eight years of obama Ism,
Speaker 1: and now everybody is on Twitter, everybody is a pundit.
Speaker 1: Now we see who these people really are. Brennan didn't
Speaker 1: just become a leftist yesterday. At least there's so much
Speaker 1: stupid argument out there. Brandon voted for a communist decades ago.
Speaker 1: Who does that? Who does that? I would even let
Speaker 1: him into the c I never, never mind let him
Speaker 1: run it. He's saying it's a treason, and that's a
Speaker 1: very serious charge. I would also point out that treason
Speaker 1: can be punishable by death. So when people keep saying that,
Speaker 1: you know that's the charge that they're applying here, what
Speaker 1: are they What are they getting at? Treason is a
Speaker 1: is a capital crime folks, under US federal code. So
Speaker 1: throwing that charge around is not something to be taken lightly.
Speaker 1: And they are straight they're straight up calling a botch
Speaker 1: press conference treason that wasn't even botched. That badly bow it.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong. I mean it wasn't great. That's
Speaker 1: up a little bit, but it wasn't like a big deal.
Speaker 1: And also it just gave us a twenty four hour
Speaker 1: period of you know, if the Democrats were serious people.
Speaker 1: I keep coming back to this notion of serious versus
Speaker 1: un serious. Okay, they are deeply un serious, as we
Speaker 1: see from Okazio Cortez for example, who thinks that because
Speaker 1: people have two jobs there's lower levels of unemployment. Now,
Speaker 1: the future of the Democratic Party. Everybody doesn't know something
Speaker 1: that in eighth grader should know about the economy and
Speaker 1: how we measure unemployment. But future future there never mind her? Yeah,
Speaker 1: like Israel and Palestine and like i' mean the occupation
Speaker 1: of Palestine and Israel, and that's just the stuff and
Speaker 1: the things and future the Democratic Party. There you go.
Speaker 1: But they want to lecture us on her. Oh we
Speaker 1: need people that are you know, that have more policy chops. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's fun, that's a fun conversation to have. You notice
Speaker 1: how quickly they swept that whole interview out of the way.
Speaker 1: For Okazia Cortes back to Trump, I'm I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to trying to divert from this. We're we're gonna work
Speaker 1: through this one together. Well, we've got our friend Anie
Speaker 1: McCarthy joining a little bit. He's going to talk about
Speaker 1: the arrest of a Russian national in d C that
Speaker 1: barely I mentioned on the show yesterday, barely even got covered,
Speaker 1: arrested as an agent of influence, trumped up stuff. By
Speaker 1: the way, from what I can see so far, it's
Speaker 1: just we are we are living in a new red scare,
Speaker 1: except we need to come up with a new term
Speaker 1: for it because they're not communists, right, but there but
Speaker 1: there is a there is a a fever swamp mentality
Speaker 1: among the Democrats now for anything Russia related. And that's
Speaker 1: why when I bring up things like, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: China has actually been a bigger is a bigger conventional
Speaker 1: military threat, a bigger cyber threat, a bigger economic rival, um,
Speaker 1: more damaging to our economy, more serious, a a foe
Speaker 1: on the world stage. There gon't always about China. We
Speaker 1: could walk and chew gum at the same time. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: but when it comes to Putin, you just want our
Speaker 1: president to to just go to go crazy and and
Speaker 1: and yell at him and do all these things. You know,
Speaker 1: Obama himself was clear on the point that you can't
Speaker 1: really do very much about it. What are you gonna do?
Speaker 1: You're gonna shame the president of Russia because they ran this.
Speaker 1: It was basically an intel operation, not a particularly big
Speaker 1: one and not a very sophisticated one either, not important
Speaker 1: enough for Obama to raise the alarm about it. You know,
Speaker 1: this is there's there's so much hypocrisy with them on this.
Speaker 1: If it was such a big deal, then what does
Speaker 1: it say about the Democrats that they were willing to
Speaker 1: when they were in charge of government, when they were
Speaker 1: in charge of national security, with the Obama administration calling
Speaker 1: the shots, they were gonna let this whole Russia intrusion,
Speaker 1: oh undermoting or democracy, or they were gonna let it
Speaker 1: slide because Hillary was gonna win. Do you do you
Speaker 1: would you let something, you know, would you let something
Speaker 1: slide because of that? Do you think that's a uh
Speaker 1: if it were the equivalent of nine other would you
Speaker 1: let nine eleven slide if you thought it was gonna
Speaker 1: help your putting? No, well, they're saying that stuff. They're
Speaker 1: out there going completely nuts. I mean, here this to
Speaker 1: give you a sense of where they are in all
Speaker 1: this place. Six FBI director continues, the investigation, Department of
Speaker 1: Justice continue support for the investigation. Congress continues saying that
Speaker 1: this investigation is legitimate. Curious point in American government when
Speaker 1: do we see almost a shadow government come out and
Speaker 1: say we cannot side with the government, whether it's the
Speaker 1: Cabinet or the Senate. I think that's the big question,
Speaker 1: and I agree with an earlier speaker. It's time for
Speaker 1: Americans to be out on the streets. We are under
Speaker 1: attack from Russia. If there were physical missiles, like during
Speaker 1: the missile missile Cristis, Americans would be in the streets
Speaker 1: and protesting and asking for the president to protect us.
Speaker 1: These are invisible missiles. These are digital missiles. These people
Speaker 1: are insane invisible missiles. We're talking about Facebook accounts that
Speaker 1: are saying things like maga and and and lock her
Speaker 1: up about Hillary, basically parting commonplace American political discourse during
Speaker 1: the election. Did digital missiles? I guess for the the
Speaker 1: snowflake is um of the left, and I guess because
Speaker 1: they believe that words they don't like equal violence. Maybe
Speaker 1: they are kind of like digital missiles, but it's only
Speaker 1: because they're crazy. No normal person would say these things.
Speaker 1: I will tell you I aren't here today on set. Uh.
Speaker 1: You'll remember him for his purple heart comment, which he
Speaker 1: already had to walk back, but Representative Cohen of I
Speaker 1: Believe Tennessee, and I was interviewing him today here in
Speaker 1: the swamp because I get a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of swamp creatures now coming come past the hut, so
Speaker 1: I get to interview them. And I asked him, and
Speaker 1: we don't have the audios that didn't asked for it,
Speaker 1: but here's the gist of it. I said, so, what
Speaker 1: what should we do? People go, oh, my gosh, and
Speaker 1: digital missiles and you got you got Phil mud who's
Speaker 1: a former you know, Intel guy himself over at CNN
Speaker 1: yelling about how a shadow government should rise up. Excuse me, dude,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure it already did and it didn't work.
Speaker 1: And that's why they're so angry, and that's why they
Speaker 1: won't stop. I think, if you're Brennan, if you're Comy,
Speaker 1: if you're after, if you're some of these guys who
Speaker 1: who knows what they really did, what they really said,
Speaker 1: and the lengths they went to stop Trump from being elected.
Speaker 1: The only way you maintain any sense of your reputation
Speaker 1: and your own sense of your your I guess your
Speaker 1: ethics is if Trump is a clear and present danger
Speaker 1: of the United States, They're very invested in that narrative.
Speaker 1: You have to think, why are they so invested in it?
Speaker 1: They must have taken action under the premise that he
Speaker 1: was a clear in present danger and he's not. So
Speaker 1: what does that mean about what they did? But but
Speaker 1: I asked Cohen, I mentioned this. I asked Cohen and Nashville.
Speaker 1: I said, so, so, what should we do to respond?
Speaker 1: And he said, because he said, this is an act
Speaker 1: of war? I said, well, that's that's a cute phrase
Speaker 1: to throw around. That's that's got some really serious implications, though,
Speaker 1: how should we respond? Sitting congressman, sitting member of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party and Judiciary Committee, by the way, so you know,
Speaker 1: not not just some slouch out of nowhere. What should
Speaker 1: we do because of these this this terrible intrusion undermining
Speaker 1: our democracy, which is just a fat was phrase to
Speaker 1: begin with? He said, we should we should engage in
Speaker 1: an active war. In response, and said, well, what do
Speaker 1: you mean, Oh, we should hack Russia's banking sector and
Speaker 1: shut it down, shut it all down. And I'm looking
Speaker 1: at this guy and for the first time I actually
Speaker 1: had a Democrat staring at me, who's saying we should
Speaker 1: invite the prospect of real war with Russia because Hillary
Speaker 1: didn't win the election and the Russians put up some
Speaker 1: Facebook accounts that were fake and got end Upidesta's email account.
Speaker 1: These people need help. Have they learned nothing? Uh, we're
Speaker 1: all of their anti war poses in the past just
Speaker 1: about being anti American. Yes, is the answer to that.
Speaker 1: By the way, you know what is this. Russia is
Speaker 1: not the economic power it was, it's not the military
Speaker 1: power it was, but it still has a few thousand
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. We're gonna start playing chicken with them over
Speaker 1: this over you know, a razor thin election margin that
Speaker 1: we're gonna pretend was influenced by. I mean, if the
Speaker 1: Russians were able to pull off turning the election, they
Speaker 1: would be the most incredible pr geniuses. You know, this
Speaker 1: is like the equivalent of somebody's saying, Hey, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: take on Apple computers. I got a hundred dollars. Who's
Speaker 1: with me? I got a hundred dollars, Come on, I
Speaker 1: can do it. Right, Steve Jobs got nothing on me.
Speaker 1: People think you're crazy. That's what the Russians did an
Speaker 1: equivalent with this operation, and the Democrats are basically saying,
Speaker 1: let's go to war with Russia over They have lost
Speaker 1: their minds. I really mean this, and that's why Trump
Speaker 1: trolling a little bit today amuses me. I think it's
Speaker 1: good he clarifies the point. We'll get into this some
Speaker 1: more in a moment. As you can see, I'm a
Speaker 1: little fired up about this. Stay with me. It's just
Speaker 1: as serious to me as the Cuban missile crisis in
Speaker 1: terms of an attack or the nine eleven attack. The
Speaker 1: President is taking the side of the people who attacked
Speaker 1: us instead of trying to prevent a future attack. He
Speaker 1: has done nothing to make sure that the elections four
Speaker 1: months away are going to be safe. And I would
Speaker 1: say that his performance today will live in infamy as
Speaker 1: much as the Pearl Harbor attack or Crystal Knock. That
Speaker 1: was a former Water Day prosecutor they put on TV
Speaker 1: to make a jackass of herself. Not the only one.
Speaker 1: A lot of people running around just just be clowning themselves,
Speaker 1: clown clown all over the place. I have not seen
Speaker 1: anything like this in quite some time. Politico magazine with
Speaker 1: a big feature by Mark Hurtling, a general whom I
Speaker 1: remember from CNN from being on segments with him. But
Speaker 1: I thought to myself, Wow, some generals just aren't smart.
Speaker 1: And the piece here in Politico is Putin's attack on
Speaker 1: the US is our pearl harbor. M hmm. That's a
Speaker 1: piece that this guy who was a general wrote. Okay,
Speaker 1: does anyone to try to defend that this is our
Speaker 1: pearl harbor? Folks? That's what that's the stuff that they're saying,
Speaker 1: just just because apparently not a lot of folks on
Speaker 1: the left and the general the Warter, you know, they
Speaker 1: always have like one or two military guys because you
Speaker 1: always even know how most military people are conservative anyway,
Speaker 1: then one or two they'll just go along with whatever
Speaker 1: left says, right, because somebody's writing the checks in their
Speaker 1: former military of course right there out. But because they
Speaker 1: don't seem to spend much time looking at a real
Speaker 1: historical comparison here, they're gonna say that what happened with
Speaker 1: Russian meddling in the election. Remember we're talking Facebook accounts,
Speaker 1: Twitter accounts, and a phishing scam that hit a couple
Speaker 1: of email accounts. Okay, they're gonna compare that to uh,
Speaker 1: twenty four hundred people killed during Pearl Harbor, over eleven wounded,
Speaker 1: and then Pearl Harbor, by the way, launched a war
Speaker 1: that cost four hundred thousand plus American lives, six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand wounded, over to cost sixty million people their lives.
Speaker 1: They're gonna make this comparison. I mean, Crystal Knock, hundreds
Speaker 1: of people died, synagogues were we're we're burned down, dozens
Speaker 1: and dozens of synagogues burned down. They're gonna they're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about this seriously. These are real comparisons. Crystal Knock,
Speaker 1: of course, a harbinger of the Holocaust. How do these
Speaker 1: people take themselves serious? They shouldn't. They're un serious. They're
Speaker 1: not there. It's not just a question they have bad judgment.
Speaker 1: They just looked dumb. The people writing this stuff and
Speaker 1: saying this stuff, they just look like they're not very
Speaker 1: smart people. But they're still on TV, and somehow we're
Speaker 1: supposed to act like they are smart. I'm sorry, I'm
Speaker 1: not played along her differences in their testimony. In many cases,
Speaker 1: she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say,
Speaker 1: as opposed to agents Struck, who thinks that we've all
Speaker 1: misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might
Speaker 1: be negative. Well, there's a news story you haven't heard
Speaker 1: much about. Remember that the paramour of Peter Struck that
Speaker 1: now generally I think considered disgraced FBI counterintelligence agent who
Speaker 1: was involved in that exchange of text messages as well
Speaker 1: as very important investigations Hillary Clinton's emails and the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion situation Lisa Page testified. Well, we've got that and
Speaker 1: some other important legal stories to get to that have
Speaker 1: been I think consumed so far or pushed aside by
Speaker 1: the news cycle. We've got Andy McCarthy with us now,
Speaker 1: the one and only you all know him from National
Speaker 1: Review or he's a senior writer also Fox News, where
Speaker 1: he's a contributor doing the best stuff on legal analysis
Speaker 1: out there. Andy, Great to have you back, Buck, always
Speaker 1: a pleasure. So just I know there's not a ton
Speaker 1: on this Lisa Page thing, but it does seem noteworthy
Speaker 1: that the Republicans are saying, well least she says what
Speaker 1: she writes is what she means, or what she wrote
Speaker 1: is what we think it is, yeah, Buck, So once
Speaker 1: I'm encouraged by silence, I wish we had more of it. Um.
Speaker 1: But it sounds to me like what what seems to
Speaker 1: be going on with miss Page is what you would
Speaker 1: hope would go on in most investigations that involve into
Speaker 1: viewing witnesses behind closed doors, which is there's an agreement
Speaker 1: that they're not going to leak the substance of what
Speaker 1: she says, uh, And there isn't any catterwauling apparently from
Speaker 1: either side about it. And the one thing that we're
Speaker 1: hearing is that she's apparently more forthcoming than uh Peter Struck.
Speaker 1: Was that she concedes that the she concedes the obvious,
Speaker 1: which which shows a measure of sophistication these days, that
Speaker 1: you know, what what was said in the free wheeling
Speaker 1: text is an accurate reflection that the text means what
Speaker 1: they say. And the one disturbing thing that I her
Speaker 1: that has come out, which doesn't have to do with
Speaker 1: the substance of her testimony, is that she was not
Speaker 1: made aware that the that the Congress wanted to speak
Speaker 1: to her. So evidently the the committees let the Justice
Speaker 1: Department in the FBI know some time ago that they
Speaker 1: would like to have a interview with her like they've
Speaker 1: been having with other witnesses, and they, according to her,
Speaker 1: at least from what we're reported. From what's reported, the
Speaker 1: Department did not pass that information along to her, which
Speaker 1: is disturbing. I can tell you as a former prosecutor,
Speaker 1: I always agreed in any trial, but especially as like
Speaker 1: organized crime trials or racketeering trials, terrorism trials, I always
Speaker 1: agreed to accept service for the government's witnesses because you
Speaker 1: don't want to have a situation where you know people
Speaker 1: are getting accosted by process service and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: That it's it's really irresponsible if that happened, that they
Speaker 1: didn't so that that at a minimum a mess up.
Speaker 1: Is there any more? Is there any other reason for it,
Speaker 1: andy or just bureaucratic screw up? I well, it's impossible,
Speaker 1: buck I think not to look at it in the
Speaker 1: context of everything else we've seen where the FBI and
Speaker 1: the Justice Department have slow walk disclosure, have refused to
Speaker 1: comply with subpoenas, have redacted documents in a nonsensible way,
Speaker 1: and have conducted themselves overall in a way that I
Speaker 1: think an objective person could assume that their slow walking
Speaker 1: nous hoping the Democrats win the mid terms and that
Speaker 1: the committee chairs change over to Democrats and the investigation
Speaker 1: goes away. And that's what I was thinking, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to hear the legal expert actually weigh on. So
Speaker 1: there we go, folks. Now, Andy, there's another big that's
Speaker 1: going to make sense to me. The law can just
Speaker 1: the law can just screw us up here, buck, I guess. Uh. So,
Speaker 1: you know, Andy, there's another big story out there that, well,
Speaker 1: it would be a lot bigger if we hadn't just
Speaker 1: had the the press conference in Helsinki, which a lot
Speaker 1: of us are just going to kind of hope to
Speaker 1: move on pass from uh. And and that is this
Speaker 1: story of Maria Boutina, a twenty nine year old Russian
Speaker 1: woman living here in Washington, d C. Have not had
Speaker 1: the chance to rub elbows with miss Boutina at a
Speaker 1: bar or anything yet, folks. So I can't tell you
Speaker 1: anything about her, not that I know of, correct. I mean,
Speaker 1: she might be under some other aliens or something. But
Speaker 1: Maria Bouttina, who is supposed to be studying America University,
Speaker 1: has been arrested by federal prosecutors for uh, not registering
Speaker 1: as a foreign agent and for essentially being an agent
Speaker 1: of influence. Andy, what the heck is this all about? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, Buck, it happens that back in January, which
Speaker 1: the way our news cycles go today feels like a
Speaker 1: thousand years ago. Um. I actually wrote a column about
Speaker 1: Maria Bouttina because the press was trying to drum her
Speaker 1: up at the time as as what I called collusion
Speaker 1: three point oh, you know, the carter page theory didn't work,
Speaker 1: and then they went to the papadopolist theory, and it
Speaker 1: seemed to me that Boutina was was three point oh,
Speaker 1: the idea of being in a nutshell, that she was
Speaker 1: using the n r A as a potential conduit, uh,
Speaker 1: between the I mean, it's hard to wrap your brain
Speaker 1: around this, between the Trump campaign and the Russian regime,
Speaker 1: and there may have been exchanges of money and and
Speaker 1: that kind of thing to defeat them, to help Russia.
Speaker 1: Russia using the n r A to defeat the the
Speaker 1: prescriptions against foreign Interference and campaigns and the like. Um
Speaker 1: And I think the one thing that we can say
Speaker 1: about this that's significant is the fact that this is
Speaker 1: not part of Mueller's investigation. So what would seem to
Speaker 1: me that this is yet another angle that's been floated
Speaker 1: as potential collusion angle. Uh, and that turns out to
Speaker 1: be a dry hole for those hoping that the smoking
Speaker 1: gun someday, someway someplace will emerge. Now, how much trouble
Speaker 1: would she be in here? And I mean this Brie
Speaker 1: Betina is a Russian national. She didn't I mean she
Speaker 1: might have not registered as a foreign agent at FARA,
Speaker 1: violation which has also been a problem for General Flynn
Speaker 1: and others, but is usually not something that is prosecuted
Speaker 1: with with a lot of seriousness or prosecutor at all.
Speaker 1: They usually right to give you the opportunity to make amends. Uh.
Speaker 1: They also are getting around some kind of a conspiracy charge,
Speaker 1: a kind of broad sweeping conspiracy I guess against the
Speaker 1: US government. But she didn't try to steal any secrets.
Speaker 1: She wasn't an espionage agent. So how much trouble is
Speaker 1: she in here? Well, you know, I I don't think
Speaker 1: she has a criminal record. They don't look to me
Speaker 1: like overwhelming charges. She could be in a fair amount
Speaker 1: of trouble. It certainly does look like um A Moeller
Speaker 1: flash Wiseman type indictment in that they love this CONSI
Speaker 1: ver Sey against the United States charge, which I think
Speaker 1: is a really troubling invention, but they seem to use
Speaker 1: it in every case. But it's you know, it's the
Speaker 1: kind of charges that we've seen before that haven't previously
Speaker 1: been treated as crimes. Uh. And I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're dealing with somebody who hasn't doesn't have an
Speaker 1: extensive criminal record and charges that are usually not brought
Speaker 1: or activity that's not usually treated as criminal, uh, she's
Speaker 1: probably not in a world of trouble. But I think,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of the bigger picture for the
Speaker 1: country as opposed to to for her, I think the
Speaker 1: news of it is that she's you know, that collusion
Speaker 1: angle is is just not there. Andy, at this point,
Speaker 1: what kind of confidence do you have at the Mueller probe?
Speaker 1: Is is on the the I mean, I mean Mueller
Speaker 1: himself and his actions, that they're on the straight and arrow. Well,
Speaker 1: I've never thought they were on the straight and narrow.
Speaker 1: I thought that Mueller personally is a uh is a
Speaker 1: person who is scrupulous, at least in my experience. And
Speaker 1: I said that when he was appointed I think he
Speaker 1: had a tenure with the people that he recruited, and
Speaker 1: some of the things that have gone on in the
Speaker 1: investigation book I think have been very, very troubling. I
Speaker 1: think the fact of this indictment against these Russians is
Speaker 1: very troubling because it seems to me that's the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that we don't indict. It's use the twelve
Speaker 1: guys from last week. For everybody listening, And I know
Speaker 1: you wrote a piece about this last review, and you
Speaker 1: go ahead, yeah, And I think this is the natural
Speaker 1: logical consummation of their misuse of the counter intelligence authorities
Speaker 1: to do the investigation in the first place. Now they're
Speaker 1: indicting things that we're not supposed to indict because they're
Speaker 1: not the When foreign agents, foreign officials commit aggressive acts
Speaker 1: against the States, that's not a law enforcement issue. That
Speaker 1: there's other ways that we deal with that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: And it seems to me that Muller is doing it
Speaker 1: because he figures he's got a free pass. These guys
Speaker 1: are never going to trial. So when there's an indictment
Speaker 1: that that is for a case that's never going to happen,
Speaker 1: I always think that that's more of a press release
Speaker 1: than a charging instrument. Yeah, and Andy, as a former
Speaker 1: mental guy, this whole thing strikes me as as almost
Speaker 1: as preposterous. Quite honestly, we're gonna tell the Russians, hey,
Speaker 1: the assuming they were acting on Putin's orders or right,
Speaker 1: they were doing the bidding of the Kremlin here putting
Speaker 1: aside everything else about how oh, it's a threat to
Speaker 1: our democracy. The notion that the Kremlin would hand over
Speaker 1: g r U agents for doing the Kremlin's bidding because
Speaker 1: we say so is is completely bonkers. I mean, we
Speaker 1: would never do that on our side. We would never
Speaker 1: hand over our people to another government. Buck. I think
Speaker 1: it's worse. I mean, think about and I agree with
Speaker 1: everything you just said emphatically, but but I just would
Speaker 1: add to it. Think about when you were an intel guy,
Speaker 1: how thrilled you would have been to hear that we're
Speaker 1: now suddenly changing the rules of the game so that UH,
Speaker 1: intelligence operatives and government officials of other governments pursuing the
Speaker 1: interests of their country are now going to be subject
Speaker 1: to arrest when the domestic domestic politics of some country
Speaker 1: UH indicates that it's a good idea to charge them
Speaker 1: with a crime. Yeah, it's a non starter. It's a nightmare,
Speaker 1: no way. Yeah, I think it's really bad. I mean,
Speaker 1: considering that are government is more active in the world
Speaker 1: than any other government on earth, it really seems to
Speaker 1: me that it's it's a very reckless thing to change
Speaker 1: the rules of the game this way, and to do
Speaker 1: it for what seems to me to be nothing but
Speaker 1: but but nakedly political purposes, and to justify the existence
Speaker 1: of Muller's investigation. I just think it's a reckless thing
Speaker 1: to do. Do you have any sense of of how
Speaker 1: much longer we have to suffer through this this you know,
Speaker 1: national uh water torture of just drip, drip drip, trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what's going on here with Muller. Do
Speaker 1: you have any any sense andy of how much longer
Speaker 1: we have to go through this buck You know, for
Speaker 1: the first time, I'm getting a sense that it may
Speaker 1: actually be winding down, because I really think that the
Speaker 1: upside of that indictment, if there is one, is that
Speaker 1: the logic of it is that there can't be the
Speaker 1: kind of a collision case that that was fantasized over
Speaker 1: from the start. And it does seem to me that
Speaker 1: this flurry of activity, which they're clearly trying to do
Speaker 1: before the mid terms get into their kind of stretch run. Uh.
Speaker 1: It looks to me like he's trying to wrap up.
Speaker 1: Perhaps he's decided that there's no conspiracy to commit espionage
Speaker 1: against the Trump people. Uh. I've I've thought all along
Speaker 1: that the obstruction thing was legally nonsense. Uh. And there's
Speaker 1: no case to pursue against President Trump except to write
Speaker 1: a report that the you know, the House can use
Speaker 1: or whatever it wants to use it for. Uh. It
Speaker 1: may be that he's actually trying to get this thing
Speaker 1: wrapped up. And if he if he is, I think
Speaker 1: that would be for all the other things that have
Speaker 1: been said, it would be a credit to moll Or
Speaker 1: if he realizes that his investigation is doing damage to
Speaker 1: the ability of this government to function and he needs
Speaker 1: to wrap it up. Andy, if one last thing before
Speaker 1: we let you go, and everyone should read Andy's latest
Speaker 1: and National Review dot com. Also you'll see him on
Speaker 1: Fox News. Just watch Fox. Uh. Andy, if the President
Speaker 1: came to you after the end this whole thing and said,
Speaker 1: all right, Andy, do you recommend of all the people
Speaker 1: caught up in this smaller thing, is there anyone you
Speaker 1: recommend that I pardon, which we all know he could do.
Speaker 1: Is there anyone that is there anyone that you would
Speaker 1: drop as a name. Yeah, I've said slightly and publicly
Speaker 1: I think General Flint should be pardoned, and I think
Speaker 1: it's it's terrible that the politics of things are such
Speaker 1: that he can't be pardoned this minute, because I don't
Speaker 1: think his pardon. I don't think it should have awaited
Speaker 1: his indictment. But I certainly think under all the circumstances,
Speaker 1: given that the FBI didn't think that the agents who
Speaker 1: interviewed him didn't think that he lied, he didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong. They pursued him on a preposterous Logan Act theory,
Speaker 1: and his prosecution was, to my mind, blatantly political. I
Speaker 1: think he should already have been pardoned, and I've certainly pardoned.
Speaker 1: I pardoned General Flynn yesterday. All Right, Well, I agree
Speaker 1: with you. So there's that I didn't know Andy took
Speaker 1: that position publicly, but I agree with the most preser Andy,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us to come back soon.
Speaker 1: My pleasure to take care Phil. Alright, team, we've got
Speaker 1: a lot more coming up, including Judge Janine. It's going
Speaker 1: to be joining us. WHOA, that's gonna be a party,
Speaker 1: Get excited for that. But you're all the judge you
Speaker 1: need from Foxnaw, he's got a lot of legal egals
Speaker 1: on the show tonight. We'll be right back, all right.
Speaker 1: We got a call from Patrick in Wabash, Indiana. Hey Patrick, Yes, Uh,
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy uh sworped into what I'm going to talk about.
Speaker 1: The Mueller um fishing expedition has told us that the
Speaker 1: Russian collusion supposedly with Trump didn't change one vote, unlike
Speaker 1: the Democrats in Detroit. I heard this on w W
Speaker 1: News that the Democrats got all of the votes in
Speaker 1: certain precincts, but even worse than that, they got more
Speaker 1: votes than there were people in the pre think. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: they tell us that there's Patrick that that they claim
Speaker 1: there's no voter fraud, right, They say voter fraud doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: And then I say, well, why are people going to
Speaker 1: prison every every year for voter fraud? And they say, okay,
Speaker 1: well there's some voter fraud, but it's not that much.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're dishonest about that. And on the
Speaker 1: Mueller probe and Patrick, thank you for calling it From
Speaker 1: Indiana on the on the Mueller Probe book there they're uh,
Speaker 1: they're dug in folks. You just said, and and he's
Speaker 1: a very fair minded guy, very knowledge but also very
Speaker 1: fair minded. You know, I've you've those of you been
Speaker 1: listening to the show for a while. Though. I've tried
Speaker 1: to push him, Andy, you know, come on, are these guys,
Speaker 1: what's going on? What's going on? I really want to know,
Speaker 1: you know, I really wanted his his assessment of it.
Speaker 1: Not I'm not asking for him to you know, preach
Speaker 1: to the choir. And you know, he said he him
Speaker 1: and I have had disagreements. He thought that you know,
Speaker 1: Patrick Fitzgerald for example, back in the day, was you know,
Speaker 1: a guy who was pretty on the up and up,
Speaker 1: and I felt like Fitzgerald was a political headhunter. So
Speaker 1: and any of it. We've disagreed on some of this stuff.
Speaker 1: But you heard what he said in the Mamma Probe.
Speaker 1: He's like, this is just this is just out of control.
Speaker 1: And you know when Andy says that, I really think
Speaker 1: you can take it to the bank, because if he believed,
Speaker 1: you know, he wrote a piece on Nashvillbe He's saying, look,
Speaker 1: I think Trump's Helsinki summit was ill conceived and ill executed,
Speaker 1: so you know he'll call he calls balls and strikes.
Speaker 1: But he also says the Mueller probe is this is
Speaker 1: a travesty, folks. It's an injustice. It really is at
Speaker 1: this point, and it's it's harming the country. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not too our benefit to have this be the situation.
Speaker 1: So we got some more on this. Judge Janine is
Speaker 1: gonna be joining the next hour. We've also got the
Speaker 1: return of President Obama. Mr. I got things I gonna
Speaker 1: tell you. I'm gonna lecture you, I gotta talk to you.
Speaker 1: So Obama is gonna be back. We'll have some interesting
Speaker 1: conversation about that though. The third hour. By the way,
Speaker 1: we're gonna revisit that story about how the Papa John's
Speaker 1: founder got booted out of his company for the racial slur.
Speaker 1: There's an update on that I think is worth our time.
Speaker 1: And uh, I've got some other stuff, including the government
Speaker 1: weighing in on international politics. That's right all Schwarzenegger himself.
Speaker 1: So third hour is gonna be amazing too. When you're
Speaker 1: at work, you know your dogs are running around, they're
Speaker 1: cooped up inside all day. So when you get home,
Speaker 1: I get it. You want to let them burn off
Speaker 1: a little energy, run around the yard and all that.
Speaker 1: But guess what the pup can get under your fence? Right?
Speaker 1: Defense only goes so far to the ground. You want
Speaker 1: to never think about this problem again. Dig defense is
Speaker 1: your answer. It solves the problem of dogs getting under
Speaker 1: the fence to get out of your yard by digging,
Speaker 1: or predators by the way boxes raccoons scary little suckers.
Speaker 1: They can get under the fence too and come after
Speaker 1: your dogs. You don't want that either. Dig Defense take
Speaker 1: care of all of it. It's so easy to install.
Speaker 1: All you need is a hammer and a pair of gloves.
Speaker 1: So if you have pets digging under the fence, check
Speaker 1: out dig defense right now. It's available online at lows Menards,
Speaker 1: Wayfair and Stop the dig dot com again. It is
Speaker 1: your solution of pets digging under the fence at stop
Speaker 1: the dig dot Com. Dig Defense available online right now.
Speaker 1: Check it out for yourself. Buck Sexton Mission decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, America,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Analysts who are the people that started this. James Clapper,
Speaker 1: who lied to the Senate said they weren't collecting our information,
Speaker 1: and yet they were collecting all of our information and
Speaker 1: housing in Utah. John Brennan has now accused John Let
Speaker 1: me finish. John Brennan has now accused the president of treason.
Speaker 1: This is John Brennan who voted for the Communist Party
Speaker 1: when he was a young man. John Brennan now thinks
Speaker 1: he's holier than everybody else. But these people had the
Speaker 1: power to collect every Americans information, and these are the
Speaker 1: people I am concerned to use their bias against President Trump,
Speaker 1: and absolutely I'm with the President on this. The intelligence
Speaker 1: community was full of biased people, including Peter Start McCabe
Speaker 1: and dozens of others. HI five for rand Paul everybody.
Speaker 1: Why is he the only one that really sees this
Speaker 1: for what it is? Why is he the only Republican
Speaker 1: that will stand up and point out what really matters here,
Speaker 1: which is the effort to destroy the Trump administration from
Speaker 1: former government officials, including the most senior intelligence officials in
Speaker 1: the United States government, who, by the way, we're using
Speaker 1: their government position to fabricate the collusion narrative that they
Speaker 1: are now tweeting about and puntiting about on the various
Speaker 1: cable networks. What why just why only Rant Paul everyone
Speaker 1: else running scared for cover. You know, say what you
Speaker 1: will about Democrats, and I say a lot, but you'll
Speaker 1: notice how they take care of their own and Republicans
Speaker 1: love to lay the Holy earthen thou game o merchant, McConnell, McConnell,
Speaker 1: indisputable evidence, here's what. Here's what the GOP Senate majority
Speaker 1: leader had to say about stuff play clip, the annexation,
Speaker 1: the invasion of eastern Ukraine, not to mention the indisputable
Speaker 1: evidence ernest that they tried to impact the sixteen election.
Speaker 1: So make no mistake about it. I would say to
Speaker 1: our friends in Europe, um, we understand the Russian threat.
Speaker 1: And I think that is the widespread view here in
Speaker 1: the United States Senate among members of both parties. The
Speaker 1: Russian threat is greatly exaggerated right now. That's the truth.
Speaker 1: And I don't know why Mitch McCarney, every everyone likes
Speaker 1: to do this thing. You know, they're all behind Trump
Speaker 1: until there's any resistance, there's any any issue, and then
Speaker 1: they're all just lining up to release statements to release statements.
Speaker 1: You know, we don't need all your Republican statements trashing
Speaker 1: their president United States. Okay, he gets it, he clarified,
Speaker 1: he walked back. Whatever you want to say. Today wasn't
Speaker 1: a good press conference. But he's also got the entire
Speaker 1: press corps doing everything they can to just to ruin
Speaker 1: his presidency. And they hurt. Then they don't care who
Speaker 1: gets hurt in the process. They don't care who goes
Speaker 1: to prison, They don't care what this does the American people,
Speaker 1: the American economy. They just want their way. They're like
Speaker 1: a bunch of frightening toddlers that have still way too
Speaker 1: much sway and authority in American society, and they're angry
Speaker 1: because they want their power back. Ram Paul seems to
Speaker 1: get it. And why is he the only one who's
Speaker 1: calling out the fact that there is a deep state?
Speaker 1: I remember when people were talking about the deep state
Speaker 1: like it was some crazy conspiracy. And now what do
Speaker 1: we call it? When senior government officials were working to
Speaker 1: undermine an incoming presidency in this country? What do you
Speaker 1: call that? What do we call the fies? A warrants
Speaker 1: against harder page laughable stuff? I mean, this is crazy
Speaker 1: going after Carter Page. He's the center of some international
Speaker 1: conspiracy to these people, I mean, I really mean this.
Speaker 1: Are are they taking large amounts of recreational drugs before
Speaker 1: they're signing off on these five A warrants? These FBI
Speaker 1: agents that are part of this process, that they feel
Speaker 1: good about themselves at night, like they're really defending the
Speaker 1: country from Carter Page. And that's what all this has been.
Speaker 1: You know, remember the whole collusion part of this is
Speaker 1: the only reason you've got a special counsel. Now they're
Speaker 1: falling back on the Oh, it's just about Russian interference.
Speaker 1: Russian interference is wildly exaggerated. It's not that important, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter, and we can't stop it. So what
Speaker 1: are we really gonna do. We're just gonna live now
Speaker 1: and fear our elections. Oh no, you know, what if
Speaker 1: what if somebody? What if somebody sent me a fake
Speaker 1: news and it's a Russian okay whatever? And you know,
Speaker 1: it's really with with Democrats. It's like just time to
Speaker 1: put on the big boy pants here. It's it's just
Speaker 1: too much. And Rampaul I give him a lot of
Speaker 1: credit because oh he got hammered on this yesterday. But
Speaker 1: he's right. And wolf Blitzer, who usually you know, people
Speaker 1: think wolf Blitzer is like a neutral newsman. It's really
Speaker 1: just because he's generally so boring and lacking in like
Speaker 1: facial expression that you figure, well, I guess he's new
Speaker 1: He sounds neutral, as in, the tone doesn't go up
Speaker 1: or down. Here, I am my wolf Blitzer, I am
Speaker 1: reading off a prompter, and now I am doing an
Speaker 1: interview on the things that I'm going to talk about. Uh,
Speaker 1: how they made this guy like a household name of
Speaker 1: news is an amazing thing to me. I don't I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I guess he looks the
Speaker 1: part of newsman. I don't really know. But anyway, he
Speaker 1: was interviewing uh Rampaul and really was doing cross examining
Speaker 1: him because it as an objective news Nework. Anderson Cooper
Speaker 1: yesterday comes off, comes off the Trump pressor and says,
Speaker 1: that's the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen. That is
Speaker 1: a pundit comment. That is not a news anchor comment.
Speaker 1: A news anchor says, well, there was the president United States.
Speaker 1: Now let's go to our panel for analysis. Okay, this
Speaker 1: this is not that hard. Oh my gosh, worst thing ever,
Speaker 1: worst than Pearl Harbor. And people say this, I mean, really,
Speaker 1: you gotta wonder about that. I I mean wonder about
Speaker 1: their mental health. But here's how this Wolf Blitzer thing
Speaker 1: went here. Yesterday. I wanted to play the audio, but
Speaker 1: we we you know, the show was too close to airtime.
Speaker 1: Play clip to the most recent leaders of the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: James Clapper and John Brennan. James Clapper, Perjurde himself talking
Speaker 1: talking the content director of National I'm not interview or
Speaker 1: if you're gonna interrupt me question will if we can't
Speaker 1: really have no No, I just want to be occasially better.
Speaker 1: You're usually better than this Wolf of doing an interview,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's fair. Usually it's better than this.
Speaker 1: But you know what that was. Wolf felt pressure to
Speaker 1: show he's democratic audience, which is what CNN has. I mean,
Speaker 1: CNN is the whole thing now is a giant fraud.
Speaker 1: The whole thing. You know, Their whole pretense that they're
Speaker 1: an objective news network without a political bias is laughable,
Speaker 1: but they still cling to it because otherwise they have
Speaker 1: to actually have their people go out there and make
Speaker 1: real arguments. And stand behind what they say. You know,
Speaker 1: I I will, I will tell you I have more
Speaker 1: respect intellectually for matt Ow and Hayes and that whole
Speaker 1: crew than I do for the for the CNN Nightly lineup.
Speaker 1: Or Don Lemon is not a liberal? What are people? Morons?
Speaker 1: Come on? They still say this though they still pretend
Speaker 1: you know what I mean? Who? Who do we think?
Speaker 1: Who do we think Jake Kapper, Anderson Cooper, Aaron Burnett,
Speaker 1: Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer? Who do do we think that
Speaker 1: they're they like President they would have liked President Hillary
Speaker 1: Moore or President Trump? Boor does anyone wanted to spoot this?
Speaker 1: Is this really a serious conversation? And c not No, No,
Speaker 1: we're just journalists. We're just journalists because they know the
Speaker 1: you know, the the ground is shifting beneath their feet.
Speaker 1: You know, they've had this wonderful Golden Goose legacy media
Speaker 1: operation going on. But we're entering a new world, a
Speaker 1: wild West of where ideas have to stand on their
Speaker 1: own and people have to be honest about where they
Speaker 1: come from and what they're doing. Can't hide behind this
Speaker 1: facade anymore objective and neutral news gathering. And you know,
Speaker 1: but Wolf wanted to signal to his I will say
Speaker 1: it's a cool name. I mean, from a buck to
Speaker 1: a wolf, it is a cool name. I give him that.
Speaker 1: It is a cool name for a newsman. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not here to hate, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: And his beard. Respect it's bernanke level. You know. His
Speaker 1: beard is the mustache equivalent of what Bolton has, or rather,
Speaker 1: Bolton's mustache and Blitzer's beard are on the same plane
Speaker 1: of awesome. I respect it. Okay that said, Uh, it
Speaker 1: gets worse because Blitzer didn't like the interview because he's
Speaker 1: trying to signal his audience I don't like this. I
Speaker 1: don't like this. But he can't come out and say that. So,
Speaker 1: as I've told you before, what the anchor does is interrupt, interrupt,
Speaker 1: show that you're you know, show that tension in the interview.
Speaker 1: Remember one of my rules. Whenever you go on TV
Speaker 1: and you see this, the first person that gets aggressively
Speaker 1: interrupted is the first person the anchor wants the audience
Speaker 1: to know I disagree with this person, or even I
Speaker 1: don't like this person. Watch how that goes. Not a clarification, right,
Speaker 1: because sometimes they'll pile on. Oh, no, Buck, what you're
Speaker 1: really saying, you know, oh, so and so, what you're
Speaker 1: really saying is this right? Oh yes, yes, yes, I'm
Speaker 1: with you. Yes, good person, good person. I like you.
Speaker 1: Themen they go whoop up, hold on, hold on hold
Speaker 1: the one they cut off your flow in one of
Speaker 1: these supposedly you know, left right analysis segments. The person
Speaker 1: they cut off is the person they want to show
Speaker 1: the audience they do not like and do not respect.
Speaker 1: Trust me, watch news with this in your mind, You're like, wow,
Speaker 1: Buck's got some ninja moves. That's true. But here's what
Speaker 1: Blitzer did after that, play three, Who do you trust? Center?
Speaker 1: The American intelligence community, the American law enforcement community, or
Speaker 1: of Vladimir Putin? What I would say is that all
Speaker 1: power needs to have checks and balances, and I think
Speaker 1: our intelligence community has way too much power. The fact
Speaker 1: that Peter Strock was able to bring incredible bias towards
Speaker 1: the president of work US, that's not the question. The
Speaker 1: right question that should be asked Wolf is should that
Speaker 1: power be unchecked or should you have a judicial system
Speaker 1: that says, you know what, I understand what you have
Speaker 1: to do warrants, but you have to have checks and
Speaker 1: balances on intelligence. So so I just why don't you
Speaker 1: just say you believe in the intelligence community, the law enforce,
Speaker 1: you access there there, you accept their assessments. You notice
Speaker 1: this is a tactic they do, right. They construct a
Speaker 1: whole narrative, a very complex narrative with a lot of
Speaker 1: misstatements and a lot of inferences and innu window. They
Speaker 1: construct a very complex narrative, and then they try to
Speaker 1: distill it down to one question, one yes or no question,
Speaker 1: and if you accept one side or other they make
Speaker 1: it a binary, then you to accept everything else. And
Speaker 1: this is what Trump is fighting against in that interview yesterday.
Speaker 1: He knows the moment you say yes, Russia meddlon the election,
Speaker 1: then he's just subject to all it's oh see you're
Speaker 1: not really president, you didn't really win. He knows that's coming,
Speaker 1: so he's he's pushing back against that, even though you
Speaker 1: know that the premise of their question is constructed so
Speaker 1: that by just saying yeah, okay, they meddled, then the
Speaker 1: follow on to that because of all the media efforts
Speaker 1: around it as well, they must have changed the election
Speaker 1: and all the stuff hal was to happen. Here's an
Speaker 1: example of perfect example of this. And by the way, Obama,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about him later. In Johannesburg, he did the
Speaker 1: same thing. He mentioned this specifically. Do you believe in
Speaker 1: climate change? That's the very that's a very loaded question, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, well, yeah, of climate change is a naturally
Speaker 1: occurring thing and has for all of history. Climate has
Speaker 1: always been changing. So yeah, of course I believe in
Speaker 1: climate change. Do you believe that human beings have an
Speaker 1: effect on climate change? Well, I mean, you know, you
Speaker 1: can kind of take it at the butterfly effect level. Sure, him,
Speaker 1: If a butterfly flaps its wings in New York and
Speaker 1: you know, you could have the monsoon in Southeast Asia
Speaker 1: because of all the variability and you know, the decoupled
Speaker 1: non linear system that we live in that is the universe. Sure,
Speaker 1: theoretically could have an effect. But that's not what they're saying.
Speaker 1: When you say I believe in climate change, you are
Speaker 1: saying to them and what they're gonna go, well, then
Speaker 1: we need to have you know, carbon emission caps, and
Speaker 1: we need to have all these restrictive environmentalist policies and
Speaker 1: all that comes with it. And they know they create
Speaker 1: a binary question so that you have to submit to
Speaker 1: the narrative that is behind the question, even though it's unfair,
Speaker 1: this is this is the propaganda value of what they're doing.
Speaker 1: And I know that this you know, this is this
Speaker 1: is a complicated way of approaching the question. But you know,
Speaker 1: I have the smartest audience in radio, and so we
Speaker 1: talk about these things at the highest level. That's why
Speaker 1: Trump is so resistant to yes, they meddled the election. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he knows the Russians probably did this stuff whatever, but
Speaker 1: he also knows that they're not concerned with Russian meddling
Speaker 1: in the election. They're concerned with undermining and delegitimizing his win.
Speaker 1: This would be like saying if the media had been
Speaker 1: running around with the story for the last eighteen months
Speaker 1: about how there was massive, massive voter fraud, massive voter
Speaker 1: fraud in the election, they couldn't prove any of it,
Speaker 1: and then they said, well, was there any voter And
Speaker 1: by the way, they would never do this because they
Speaker 1: claim that there isn't voter fraud and they don't want
Speaker 1: to know how much voter fraud there is. Democrats have
Speaker 1: no interest in finding that out. But if you said, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean there were a couple of votes changed like, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: do you believe in voter fraud? You go, well, okay, yeah, well, yes,
Speaker 1: you believe in voter fraud. Therefore we know the last
Speaker 1: election was illegitimate because of the massive voter fraud we've
Speaker 1: been talking about all along. You see how quickly it
Speaker 1: transitions into that. That's the game they're playing here, and
Speaker 1: Trump knows it. That's why he's hesitant. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: could he be more adept at trying to get out
Speaker 1: of the trap? They said for him? Sure, yesterday he
Speaker 1: got he got jammed up. But you know they're trying
Speaker 1: to jam him up with every question every press conference,
Speaker 1: and people said, oh, book, he's a president. Build No,
Speaker 1: they're not asking him policy questions. They're asking him when
Speaker 1: did you stop beating your wife? Questions and so and
Speaker 1: when every member of the press corps was the acception
Speaker 1: of Fox and a few other outlets are just asking
Speaker 1: you when you stop eating your wife day in and
Speaker 1: day out. And you're expected to have to answer these
Speaker 1: questions in one form another administration is people are gonna
Speaker 1: slip up. It's gonna happen. And they know that, right.
Speaker 1: You know, that's why the hyena arena of CNN and
Speaker 1: all the rest get so excited by this. Yeah, Blitzer
Speaker 1: wants you to know he does not like he does
Speaker 1: not like those answers. He did not like what Ron
Speaker 1: Paul had to say. I ran Paul, pardon me. I
Speaker 1: had to say, uh man, I didn't even get it.
Speaker 1: There's some other stuff. But we got judged in joining
Speaker 1: that's gonna you guys think I'm fired up. Judge Denin.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be very interesting. We got Obama. We're talking
Speaker 1: about his speech later on in this hour, and uh,
Speaker 1: I got a whole I got a whole lot more shows.
Speaker 1: So we are going to transition off this issue of
Speaker 1: the press conference everything else. I I just think it's important.
Speaker 1: And you know, I took some heat today because I
Speaker 1: did this with the short video and not saying it.
Speaker 1: You know, it didn't go mega viral or anything. But
Speaker 1: we're doing these short form videos ninety seconds called a buckshot.
Speaker 1: It's on my page now Facebook dot com slash buck sex.
Speaker 1: And I just made this case. Is Trump really crazy
Speaker 1: to think that they're might be a problem with the
Speaker 1: intelligence community because the intelligence community at the top level
Speaker 1: has been waging almost almost an open war against him
Speaker 1: at this point. I mean, we know this, right, we
Speaker 1: see the people that used to run it, and now
Speaker 1: they're out, and all they want to do is tear
Speaker 1: down Trump at the expense of their own credibility, of
Speaker 1: their own sanity, it seems. So it is it crazy
Speaker 1: that Trump is aware of this deep state and doesn't
Speaker 1: want to play into their hands. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: You know, even some conservatives got mad at me today. Whatever.
Speaker 1: You know, hey, producer, Mike, you can't you can't. You
Speaker 1: can't please all the You can't please all the never
Speaker 1: Trumpers all the time, you know what I mean, You
Speaker 1: can't please them any of the time. Really, I've lost
Speaker 1: friends over this. Man. It's crazy, you know. That's an
Speaker 1: almost impossible crowd, that onever. Yeah, I mean, all with me.
Speaker 1: You just gotta be cool like books dogs and we
Speaker 1: can be friends, you know what I mean. So you
Speaker 1: got you can't dislike dogs. That that is kind of
Speaker 1: a red line for me. But all right, we got
Speaker 1: more common teams. Stay with me. The nineties are now
Speaker 1: calling the asked for their foreign policy back, because you know,
Speaker 1: the Cold War has been over for twenty years. In
Speaker 1: many of the areas where we are working to solve
Speaker 1: problems Russia has been uh an ally. Governor Romney's answer,
Speaker 1: I thought it was incredibly revealing. He acts like he
Speaker 1: thinks the Cold War still on. Russia is still our
Speaker 1: major adversary. I don't know where he's been. And then
Speaker 1: Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky
Speaker 1: for you're a lot of Democrats, they're a little throwback.
Speaker 1: Just do a few years back, folks, not that long.
Speaker 1: Democrats like what is this crazy talk about Russia being
Speaker 1: an adversary? Republican war mongers, and now they're like, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, the Russians are inventing. I mean, when you
Speaker 1: listen to some of the analysis from the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours, you really get the sense that a lot
Speaker 1: of UH news anchors and pundits and and de crap
Speaker 1: members of Congress think that they're in They're in like
Speaker 1: Red Dawn three or something, and and the Ruskies are invading.
Speaker 1: When you look at the Russian economy, I mean, we
Speaker 1: are so far ahead of Russia on all this stuff.
Speaker 1: And it would be better for the whole world if
Speaker 1: we could align more of our interest with the Russians
Speaker 1: and get them to play ball in a way they
Speaker 1: look at it wasn't long ago. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: whole other way to look at this, which I know, people,
Speaker 1: it's okay. People can yell at me for this. I
Speaker 1: don't care. Russia has come a long way from where
Speaker 1: it was in a pretty short period of time. Folks.
Speaker 1: We had the serious threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction
Speaker 1: for decades. Okay, we had little kids hiding under their
Speaker 1: desks like that was gonna save them. You know, if
Speaker 1: the neutron bombs dropped. You know, they had the drills
Speaker 1: going on, and you know, now they got Russians. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's not perfect, but they're showing up in vacation spots
Speaker 1: all over the world there, you know, the they got
Speaker 1: lots of expensive gear from Gucci and Fendi at all
Speaker 1: these other places and rocking the Versace suits. They're driving
Speaker 1: around in Porgias and Maserati's, and you know, those are
Speaker 1: the ones that granted looted the Russian state industries. But
Speaker 1: I'd rather have them focused on capitalism and conspicuous consumption
Speaker 1: than trying to push some workers revolution and destroy all
Speaker 1: of us, right, I mean, when you really think about it,
Speaker 1: Russia has actually come a long way. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it's okay, I'm not excusing any Putin does, but I
Speaker 1: mean it's it's in my lifetime. They've gone from yeah,
Speaker 1: we might just have to destroy the entire United States
Speaker 1: and maybe the world to you know what, I like
Speaker 1: fancy fancy cars, nice watches, and big houses. This is
Speaker 1: a good thing. This is a good thing. We we
Speaker 1: can work with this. It's not perfect, it's not gonna
Speaker 1: be perfect anytime soon, but it's also not you know,
Speaker 1: doctor strange glove and nuclear destruction. So let's keep an
Speaker 1: eye on all this stuff. All right, We got judged
Speaker 1: in coming up. He's back with you now, because when
Speaker 1: it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: All right, team, welcome back. We now have a guest
Speaker 1: who really needs no introduction, the one and only Judge
Speaker 1: Janine Piau of Fox News fame. She has a new
Speaker 1: book out, Liars, Leakers and Liberals, The Case against the
Speaker 1: Anti Trump Conspiracy. Judge Bireau, great to have you, Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Well, Bucket's great to be
Speaker 1: with you, and I love the buck stops here. And
Speaker 1: why thank you, madam? Why thank you? So tell us
Speaker 1: a judge about the new book. Well, you know, Buck,
Speaker 1: I've been a prosecutor, judge and d A for thirty years,
Speaker 1: so I know crime, I know the law, and I
Speaker 1: know a con when I see it. And there was
Speaker 1: no question in my mind that a leading up to
Speaker 1: this last presidential election, there were people within the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice and the FBI who sought to essentially drag
Speaker 1: a criminal across the presidential Finnish line without any kind
Speaker 1: of real investigation, without a grand during the panel, none
Speaker 1: of the stuff that I did for years, and they
Speaker 1: hold it a criminal investigation. And then when it appeared
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump might win for president, these same people
Speaker 1: within the FBI and the Department of Justice decide that
Speaker 1: what they're gonna do is they're going to create an
Speaker 1: insurance policy. And you and your listeners, fuck may not
Speaker 1: have understood it at the time that these emails or
Speaker 1: text messages between FBI Peter Stuck, Assistant Director of counter Intelligence,
Speaker 1: and his girlfriend leads to paid UH Council and the
Speaker 1: FBI when they started talking about an insurance policy, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna start everyone really under stupid that meant, except it
Speaker 1: became very clear in my book Liar's leaders and ribberals
Speaker 1: is almost present on this one. Where the insurance policy
Speaker 1: was the worst of coluction investigation, that would be their
Speaker 1: ace in the whole, in the event in their minds.
Speaker 1: God for Donald Trump got elected. And that's why when
Speaker 1: we the Pewter struck last week arrogantly, condescendingly, smuggly, uh, defiantly,
Speaker 1: and unapologetically taught the members of Congress as though he
Speaker 1: were some kind of uh uh superior being, uh, it
Speaker 1: was clear that these people were running their own system
Speaker 1: of justice within our time, out of time honored FBI.
Speaker 1: And that's why the book on Americans. What I was
Speaker 1: gonna say, Judge, well, what did you make of that
Speaker 1: the i G report that was a compendium page after
Speaker 1: page of blatant bias that then said no bias that
Speaker 1: affects actions. To me, it just seemed the whole thing
Speaker 1: seemed disingenuous. I've never felt so honestly disgusted by the
Speaker 1: d o J in recent memory, at least maybe ever. Well,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, you know, there's this saying, don't
Speaker 1: believe your lion. I I just uh, you know, it
Speaker 1: was like Jim Kobe. It was the same feeling I
Speaker 1: had what Jim Cooley said, she was reckless. She was
Speaker 1: this with Hillary Quinn with those emaales and everybody's saying, guy,
Speaker 1: he's gonna in die, or's gonna call for her indictment,
Speaker 1: and nothing happened. The same with Peter Frock. He was
Speaker 1: biased in this and bias in that, but no book.
Speaker 1: There was biased in the outcome. Excuse me, I you're stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course there was biased. This is a
Speaker 1: textbook definition of bias. And what they did was this
Speaker 1: is the deep state. Fuck, this is the deep state
Speaker 1: covering for itself. Everybody's got the goods on everybody else.
Speaker 1: And that's why I was the book flyers and leaguers.
Speaker 1: They are wires, the lot leaders. Jim Kobe. I lived
Speaker 1: with him when I was re elected g A. He
Speaker 1: was ust attorney with his office next to mind, and
Speaker 1: each guy acted like he was holier than that out
Speaker 1: and the FBI behind us back that the rank and file,
Speaker 1: who are good men and women, call them. Cardinal Kobe.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's just stuck on himself. But what they
Speaker 1: did for the first time in American history was they
Speaker 1: tried to overturn an election with their own two and
Speaker 1: thank God that the American people instinctively knew it was
Speaker 1: time for an outsider. They instinctively knew. This isn't about
Speaker 1: Republican and Democrat. It's about the swamp, the establishment. People
Speaker 1: going to Washington with pinimal means or mediocre means and
Speaker 1: come out multimillionaires and their families or multimillionaires. I'm fed
Speaker 1: up with it. And you know what, Americans work hard.
Speaker 1: We don't deserve these people who think, oh, well, this
Speaker 1: should be a global country. Let them all come in
Speaker 1: and then you know, we can pay for it while
Speaker 1: we worked till the three jobs. So you know Americans
Speaker 1: are hard working, their fair, their charitable. But don't don't
Speaker 1: pull them all over their eyes. Don't tell them they're
Speaker 1: responsible and they're not Christian if they don't do what
Speaker 1: these oblists want them to do. And the book is
Speaker 1: a reminder that everything is at stake right now. Buck everything. Judge,
Speaker 1: I gotta ask you, because I've I've heard some things.
Speaker 1: If called upon to serve this president as the attorney general,
Speaker 1: what would your response be, Well, I don't engage in
Speaker 1: hypotheticals even as a judge. Jack would I would? I
Speaker 1: would the same objections by lawyers in my courtroom who said,
Speaker 1: if this were to be the case, and I would
Speaker 1: say to them, if it's the case, we'll get to it.
Speaker 1: But it's not right now. Look Donald Trump, and I
Speaker 1: write this in the book. He's been my friend for
Speaker 1: thirty years. I know him. I watched his just grow up.
Speaker 1: This is a man who believes in this country, who
Speaker 1: would just as easily have been on a golf course
Speaker 1: in Scotland stayed. They're playing golf for the next six months.
Speaker 1: Um and and and I I'm happy with what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: Who knows what the future holds. All right, Well, judge,
Speaker 1: you gotta promise us if it does come up, you
Speaker 1: gotta come back and we talk about it. Okay, I
Speaker 1: do well. I I love you, and I thank you
Speaker 1: book and your listeners for of course, Judge, good luck
Speaker 1: on the book. Good luck in the book. Everybody check
Speaker 1: it out for yourself. Liars, leakers and liberals, the case
Speaker 1: against the anti Trump conspiracy. Judge Denin Pierro, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, and we'll talk to you soon. Thank you, book.
Speaker 1: Take care all right. So they had the judge only
Speaker 1: judge man, she's great. I've done her show. But time
Speaker 1: she's a lot of fun and she she gets it's
Speaker 1: like Friday night and Judge Denine lights it up. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk about I know now this is gonna
Speaker 1: be kind of a you know woo who so sad
Speaker 1: we gotta talk about Obama speech. Now we're really gonna
Speaker 1: dig into it. We got that coming up team, So
Speaker 1: stay right there, we'll be back. Unfortunately, too much of
Speaker 1: politics today seems to reject the very const up of
Speaker 1: objective truth. People just make stuff up. They just make
Speaker 1: stuff up. We see it in the growth of state
Speaker 1: sponsored propaganda. We see it in Internet driven fabrications. We
Speaker 1: see it in the in the blurring of lines between
Speaker 1: news and entertainment. We see the utter loss of shame
Speaker 1: among political leaders where they're caught in a lie and
Speaker 1: they just doubled down and they lost the law. That's
Speaker 1: President Obama. Do you miss them? Everybody? I think we
Speaker 1: needed you know what, I think where they needed at
Speaker 1: this point in time, in our in our discourse in
Speaker 1: this country. I think we needed the most recent former
Speaker 1: president United States two from overseas that was in uh Johannesburg,
Speaker 1: South Africa, give a thinly veiled broadside against the current
Speaker 1: US administration. You'll notice that you know who didn't do that.
Speaker 1: Bush during Obama's eight years didn't do it. I didn't
Speaker 1: think it was right, didn't think it was honorable to
Speaker 1: take cheap shots at the person who came after him
Speaker 1: in the Oval office. Just didn't didn't didn't do it.
Speaker 1: Obama does it, but actually doesn't even have the courage
Speaker 1: to come out and just say it. Right, we all
Speaker 1: know who he's talking about there. Oh, when he's talking
Speaker 1: about state sponsored media, that's that's not new. If you
Speaker 1: asked him, oh, where's oh really, President Obama, where's the
Speaker 1: new state sponsored media? He's really talking about Fox News.
Speaker 1: This is all a a version of the same critiques
Speaker 1: were hearing day in and day out about Trump administration.
Speaker 1: But Obama's just he's just leaving out Trump's name because
Speaker 1: he's he's so clever, it's so subtle. You know, at
Speaker 1: least have the courage if you're gonna take cheap shots
Speaker 1: at the administration from foreign soil, especially right now given
Speaker 1: what's happening in Hell, thinking everything else, you know, just
Speaker 1: say it. I would have more respect for Obama if
Speaker 1: you just called it out instead of this kind of
Speaker 1: wink and a nod of like, I mean, state sponsored media.
Speaker 1: We all know we're talking about Fox News, right, you know,
Speaker 1: be forthright about it. One thing about Democrats, you know,
Speaker 1: very uh, very quick to be keyboard warriors, really tough
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and when they're overseas, you know, they just
Speaker 1: assume that the whole world is with them. You while
Speaker 1: most of the world doesn't care. What are the Americans
Speaker 1: ever say about anything? There's that too. Most people just
Speaker 1: care about their day to day lives in their country.
Speaker 1: This whole notion of world opinion is this left wing
Speaker 1: fabrication in America. There's a word, there's a global opinion
Speaker 1: on anything. You can measure this seven billion people in
Speaker 1: the world. Do you think they most of them give
Speaker 1: a give a hoot about what's going on with our
Speaker 1: political problems. I don't think so, all right, They're worried
Speaker 1: about food on the table, you know, not getting a
Speaker 1: serious disease and hopefully providing for their families or or
Speaker 1: being in a place to have a family. That's it anyway.
Speaker 1: So Obama, though, you know, it's been a while since
Speaker 1: Obama lectured the rest of us because he's he's really
Speaker 1: a demigod I mean, he's he's above us. He deigned
Speaker 1: to be among us mere mortals for eight years. And
Speaker 1: now Obama is back, and you know there's some stuff
Speaker 1: that he said that I'll get into that. Well, I
Speaker 1: wish this was more of a tona actually we had
Speaker 1: for eight years when he was in office, instead of
Speaker 1: just a complete fixation on demonizing the political opposition that
Speaker 1: he had, uh, just being a pyromaniac in a field
Speaker 1: of straw men all the time with every conservative policy
Speaker 1: argument that he came across, never really dealt with it
Speaker 1: on the merits. And then the obsession with identity politics, toxic,
Speaker 1: toxic identity politics. One of the real legacies of the
Speaker 1: Obama era is that we still deal with this now
Speaker 1: to this day, these this identity politics nonsense that it
Speaker 1: has only is worse than it has ever been. But
Speaker 1: you know, here, here's what he said about about oppression.
Speaker 1: Remember he's talking about the US while he's in South Africa.
Speaker 1: Play nineteen. It is a plain fete that racial discrimination
Speaker 1: still exists in both the United States and South Africa.
Speaker 1: And it is also a fact that the accumulated disadvantages
Speaker 1: of years of institutionalized depression have created yawning disparities and income,
Speaker 1: and in wealth and education, and in health, in personal safety,
Speaker 1: and access to credit. Interesting, access to credit. You might
Speaker 1: think yourself, why is that there will be more of this?
Speaker 1: I've started to pick up on this again that in
Speaker 1: the aftermath of the financial collapse, and this is a
Speaker 1: bit of a diversion, but this is important. In the
Speaker 1: aftermath of financial collapse, there are all these new rules
Speaker 1: that the banks, you Dodd Frank and all this stuff
Speaker 1: came crashing down on the banks and and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, people realize making bad loans is a bad idea.
Speaker 1: The only way that we ever got to the financial
Speaker 1: crisis where you had, you know, exotic dancers in Miami
Speaker 1: who owned five houses and all the rest of it, right,
Speaker 1: the only way we got to that point was that
Speaker 1: community organizers, really the original social justice warriors, decided that
Speaker 1: banks lending practices, which were based entirely upon income and
Speaker 1: history of paying bills, were racist. This goes back to
Speaker 1: the Community Reinvestment Act and decades of social justice agitation
Speaker 1: over the issue. And they talked about redlining, and then
Speaker 1: you know, they would then they started bring federal suits
Speaker 1: against banks, and they decided they're going to get rid
Speaker 1: of the uh, the FICO score as a necessary component
Speaker 1: in lending, or make it much less important. And that
Speaker 1: then led to the the monstrosities of the balance sheets
Speaker 1: that you had of different mortgages at Fannie Mae and
Speaker 1: Freddie Mack and I mean, this is the truth of
Speaker 1: how we got and then Wall Street, which is just
Speaker 1: like a pack of wolf circling you know, capitalism, it
Speaker 1: is about, you know, get what you can when you can.
Speaker 1: Then they came in package these things, sold them and
Speaker 1: almost took down the whole global economy. So for a
Speaker 1: while they added back off this. But but I'm starting
Speaker 1: to hear this again, interesting, isn't it. Obomba says, you know,
Speaker 1: access to credit, I mean, access to credit in this
Speaker 1: country is supposed to be based upon your ability to pay,
Speaker 1: in your history of payment. It's not supposed to have
Speaker 1: anything to do with with your ethnicity, skin color, religion,
Speaker 1: or anything else. But what they're gonna start saying is
Speaker 1: that the objective criteria, if they have a disparate impact
Speaker 1: on different communities, are no longer to be considered objective,
Speaker 1: which kicks the door wide open for all right, we're
Speaker 1: just gonna make loans to people based on favored status
Speaker 1: as an aggrieved minority group, which then means that you're
Speaker 1: gonna start making a lot of loans to people that
Speaker 1: can't pay them, and they're gonna either socialize those losses
Speaker 1: in the broader economy or just keep pushing and pushing
Speaker 1: and pushing the deatload larger and larger until eventually, guess what,
Speaker 1: we have another financial crisis, and you know what they're
Speaker 1: gonna do. They're gonna turn around and they're gonna blame
Speaker 1: the greedy capitalists, even though it's actually government engineering that
Speaker 1: pushed the whole crisis. See, this is the version of
Speaker 1: the mortgage meltdown you want to hear from anybody else.
Speaker 1: It is all true. Go ahead, fact check me. You'll
Speaker 1: see everything I'm telling you. Go back look at the
Speaker 1: Community Investment Act, look at redlining practices, Look at the
Speaker 1: government's response when they started bringing suits against banks for
Speaker 1: not loaning to people. And there was a number of
Speaker 1: cases actually in Chicago where they shoot certain banks that
Speaker 1: said they were racist, and the banks were actually community
Speaker 1: banks that were African American owned, and they were like, well,
Speaker 1: we're just trying to do this. We're trying to make
Speaker 1: loans that we think will actually get paid back because
Speaker 1: we're a bank. The other banks were like, well, they
Speaker 1: were terrified of being considered racist, so they they wouldn't
Speaker 1: use that criteria. But you know, nobody ever wants to
Speaker 1: actually deal with the facts when it comes to lending,
Speaker 1: when it comes to these disparities. They just want to
Speaker 1: say what gets the biggest applause, and and Obama is
Speaker 1: dealing with doing that right now. Access to credit. I
Speaker 1: know that sounds like such a throwaway. It's not a throwaway,
Speaker 1: and it really I heard. I actually had an interview
Speaker 1: here today with a a would be Okazio Cortez, another
Speaker 1: person who is young trying to unseen an incumbent senator
Speaker 1: in the Democrat Democrat Party in Delaware, and she also
Speaker 1: talked about access to credit. So I'm hearing this now,
Speaker 1: this is a thing. You're gonna hear more of this
Speaker 1: and real quick. And then there was something Obama said
Speaker 1: that I have to say. I thought, wait a second,
Speaker 1: this is um like I like that place seventeen but
Speaker 1: democracy demands. They were able also to get inside the
Speaker 1: reality of people who are different than us, so we
Speaker 1: can understand their point of view. Maybe we can change
Speaker 1: their minds, but maybe they'll change ours. And you can't
Speaker 1: do this if you're just out of hand disregard what
Speaker 1: your opponents have to say from the start. And you
Speaker 1: can't do it if you insist that those who aren't
Speaker 1: like you because they're white or because they're male, that
Speaker 1: somehow there's no way they can under stand what I'm feeling,
Speaker 1: but somehow they're lack standing to speak on certain matters.
Speaker 1: I think that's great. I've never heard Obama say anything
Speaker 1: like that before. I'm not saying he hasn't. I mean,
Speaker 1: I just say I I can't remember ever saying it
Speaker 1: like that before. Was that a message that you that
Speaker 1: just because you're you're you know, you're a white male,
Speaker 1: for example, doesn't mean you can't understand the plight of
Speaker 1: a grieve minorities or and people need to understand that
Speaker 1: and occur. Is that a message that you feel like
Speaker 1: came through from the eight years of the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: I'm just going off on my own recollection here. I'm
Speaker 1: not you know, I don't need any any of the
Speaker 1: crazy fact checkers out there in a politic fact or whatever.
Speaker 1: They don't need to jump on me. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: I don't I don't remember that at all. I'm totally
Speaker 1: behind that message. I want people to try to understand
Speaker 1: each other. I want people to come to good faith
Speaker 1: resolutions of political disagreements. So, okay, if that's the message
Speaker 1: Obama wants to go with, I'm all for it. But
Speaker 1: I have a feeling what you're gonna see between now
Speaker 1: in the midterms is a lot more Obama give lectures
Speaker 1: abroad end at home about how all these terrible things
Speaker 1: are happening to the country, and he won't really mention Trump.
Speaker 1: And I just wish if he was going to be
Speaker 1: out there and ignoring the precedent sent by his predecessor,
Speaker 1: if he's gonna be out there and being in the
Speaker 1: political fight, be honest about a former president Obama, just
Speaker 1: say what you mean to me when you say how
Speaker 1: about that? Got a big third hour coming up? Your team,
Speaker 1: Stay with me. We'll be right back. Strike Force Energy
Speaker 1: veteran own American, made one of the honest new energy
Speaker 1: products on the market. Look, strike Force is fantastic. I'm
Speaker 1: using it now every day. Let me tell you how
Speaker 1: it works. Okay. It is an energy liquid in a
Speaker 1: pack and what you do is you mix it in
Speaker 1: with whatever you want. Okay, it tastes great with six
Speaker 1: twenty ounces of water, tea, lemonade, yogurt. You can even
Speaker 1: throw strike Force into an ice cold beer. And what
Speaker 1: it does it help you get energy and fuel for
Speaker 1: the fight. It's available in four flavors, has zero sugar
Speaker 1: and zero calories. You will love it. And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, Strikeforce has shipped millions of packets of Strikeforce
Speaker 1: to our troops both at home and abroad. Right now.
Speaker 1: If you go to Strikeforce energy dot com, you entered
Speaker 1: discount code buck at checkout. For every packet you buy,
Speaker 1: Strikeforce will donate a packet to military members around the globe.
Speaker 1: Help yourself stay fueled for the fight. Help our troops
Speaker 1: at home and overseas stay fuel for the fight. Go
Speaker 1: to Strikeforce Energy dot com discount code buck. Strikeforce Energy
Speaker 1: dot com discount code buck. Buck Sexton mission Decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American.
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Analyst No Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. You
Speaker 1: may recall that the founder of Papa John's. John Schnatter
Speaker 1: got embroiled in a racial slur scandal recently, and the
Speaker 1: board of Papa John's, a company that he was founder
Speaker 1: of and still owns a large piece of worth about
Speaker 1: five million dollars by the way. So Schnader is going
Speaker 1: to be fine out either way. But you know, your
Speaker 1: reputation is your reputation, no matter how rich you are.
Speaker 1: What Schnader had, the board turned on him, he resigned.
Speaker 1: They're pulling him out of all of the marketing materials
Speaker 1: from Papa John's, and they really decided that he was
Speaker 1: He was not just a little bit out, he was out,
Speaker 1: and they were going to erase all trace of his
Speaker 1: presence at that company. I guess, other than changing the
Speaker 1: name from Papa John's to something else, because his name
Speaker 1: is John, I'm assuming maybe it's for his dad. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I will also say that, well, I won't
Speaker 1: get into because people would point out rightly that I
Speaker 1: haven't had any fast food pizza in about ten years
Speaker 1: because I can't flower, and didn't know that until well
Speaker 1: but seven or eight years ago. But nonetheless, uh, that's
Speaker 1: not really important for our discussion. What is important here
Speaker 1: is that Schnatter, formerly the CEO of Papa John's, is
Speaker 1: now saying that he made a mistake in stepping down,
Speaker 1: and then he should not have just allowed the board
Speaker 1: to push him out right away because the full story
Speaker 1: didn't really come out about his usage of a racial slur,
Speaker 1: in this case, reportedly the N word. Now, I have
Speaker 1: somewhat uh, blasphemous views on this, in the sense that
Speaker 1: I do not believe that there should be such a
Speaker 1: thing as a word that any person is unable to
Speaker 1: use in any context, such that if I were, you know,
Speaker 1: in a court of law, and I was reading back
Speaker 1: the testimony of somebody who had just said a word,
Speaker 1: I would have to change the word to something else
Speaker 1: because of who I am, not because of a universally
Speaker 1: applicable standard. It's one thing to say, buck, you're on radio,
Speaker 1: you can't curse. There's something to say, well, Buck, because
Speaker 1: you are, let's say, a Republican on radio, you can't curse.
Speaker 1: But Democrats can curse on radio. And I know that's
Speaker 1: not what happens, but I'm just trying to say. That's
Speaker 1: what I mean by different rules for different people. Universally
Speaker 1: applicable means no one can say it, and then we
Speaker 1: can discuss, and we can discuss whether or not a
Speaker 1: prohibition is sensible on a word of prohibition is something
Speaker 1: that we could all agree on or not. But prohibitions
Speaker 1: that vary by person, I think are inherently problematic. I
Speaker 1: remember an essay years ago that Christopher Hitchins wrote on
Speaker 1: the pernicious effect of banning words. And he was somebody
Speaker 1: who liked to be provocative. He was a great writer,
Speaker 1: a anti Christian bigot, but a great writer. Nonetheless, I mean,
Speaker 1: very talented writer. And you know he took that position.
Speaker 1: I agree with the position, and it reminds me of
Speaker 1: the kerfuffle now that surrounds well, the debacle that surrounds
Speaker 1: John Schnatter. People are calling him. Look, they're saying he's
Speaker 1: a racist. And the way that story was initially reported,
Speaker 1: here's a very wealthy, nationally recognizable at some level guy
Speaker 1: who apparently used a racial slur. And what we find
Speaker 1: out is that, well, he didn't just drop a racial
Speaker 1: slur in conversation. He certainly didn't refer to anyone as
Speaker 1: a racial slur. Here's what the Wall Street Journal says,
Speaker 1: quote in his letter to the board, Mr Schnatter said
Speaker 1: he was asked during the media training whether he is racist,
Speaker 1: and he answered no. Quote. I then said something on
Speaker 1: the order of Colonel Sanders used the N word. I
Speaker 1: would never use that word, and Papa John's doesn't use
Speaker 1: that word. End quote. Now he said the word right,
Speaker 1: not the N word, but the actual word that we
Speaker 1: all know is you know, is the is the other
Speaker 1: way of saying that is the other word. And that's
Speaker 1: what he had this national level that's what he had,
Speaker 1: this this national level crisis about for his company and
Speaker 1: for him as an individual. And I look at this
Speaker 1: and I think to myself, so we're really at the
Speaker 1: place now where if I were to read aloud, let's say,
Speaker 1: from Uh Huckleberry finn Uh, and if you were to
Speaker 1: read some of the dialogue of characters in the Mark
Speaker 1: and Mark Twain novels and you did not change what
Speaker 1: was the written text and you read that aloud, I
Speaker 1: think you would be subject to the rage of the
Speaker 1: social justice mob, and your career and your reputation may
Speaker 1: be ruined. Schnader did not use a racial epithet against
Speaker 1: any person, nor did he drop a racial epithet into
Speaker 1: his conversation. Thought lest lee. He said, I would not
Speaker 1: say this word, but by saying the word, he transgressed, Folks,
Speaker 1: I think this is a problem, and it really only
Speaker 1: from what I can gather, it really only is the
Speaker 1: case with this one word right now. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe there are a few other words that aren't people
Speaker 1: aren't as sensitive about, but where there's also a if
Speaker 1: you're from within the community, you can say it, but
Speaker 1: if you're outside the community, you can. I I even
Speaker 1: willing to discuss usage of banned words in certain contexts,
Speaker 1: but I want to be very clear from what from
Speaker 1: what is being reported here about Schnatter, founder of Papa
Speaker 1: John's Pizza Once. I'm sure most of you listening to
Speaker 1: this have probably eaten at some point in time. Maybe
Speaker 1: some of you think it's great pizza. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know why. I don't know. But what what
Speaker 1: Schnatter is pillar read for and what he has lost
Speaker 1: his reputation for and lost his place on the board
Speaker 1: of the company he founded, is using a word, or
Speaker 1: rather citing a word that someone else used. So this
Speaker 1: is now usage in any context is racist, is band
Speaker 1: is wrong? Depending on who the person is. That is
Speaker 1: a pretty extreme bar for us to deal with. And
Speaker 1: I think it also goes to show that this is
Speaker 1: that that that this is now getting to a place
Speaker 1: where the rules are well, I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: know really what the rules already, Moore, other than you
Speaker 1: better be very careful if you are not from within
Speaker 1: the community that is allowed to use certain uh you know,
Speaker 1: racial terms, racial terminology. You have to be super careful
Speaker 1: because everyone's going to just throw you to the wolves
Speaker 1: right away. And I just I do not agree with
Speaker 1: this in principle. I do not agree with their words
Speaker 1: that some people can never use under any circumstances. I
Speaker 1: think it's a dangerous precedent in our language. I think
Speaker 1: it's dangerous for our discourse. I just disagree with it.
Speaker 1: But you'll notice I won't viol at it. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not, And I'm not gonna be an idiot, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, I understand these are the rules. Now I
Speaker 1: disagree with the rules, but these are the rules. Um.
Speaker 1: And then there's this other. Remember I'm not saying use
Speaker 1: use of racial epithets is ever okay or a good
Speaker 1: idea in everyday speech or anything else. What I'm saying
Speaker 1: is the ban on the actual saying of a word ever.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like Voldemort, it's you know, he who
Speaker 1: shall not be spoken of. That is not something that
Speaker 1: I want as a precedent in the English language in
Speaker 1: an American society. That's not something that I think we
Speaker 1: should be in favor of. And there are some liberals,
Speaker 1: there are some civil libertarians and some liberals out there
Speaker 1: who still agree with me. There are a few, there
Speaker 1: are a few. You know, if someone says a word
Speaker 1: in the wrong, if someone calls someone racial epithet, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's an assault on their in you know, decency as
Speaker 1: a person, on their integrity, and that's you know, that
Speaker 1: person should be named and shamed and all that. I
Speaker 1: get that I'm talking about. You can't say the word
Speaker 1: ever period in any context. That's too far. I just
Speaker 1: think that's too far. Uh. And then also on on
Speaker 1: Schnatter stepping down and stepping down quickly. We we have
Speaker 1: seen a shift happen. And it's not just in this case.
Speaker 1: That's in many cases where when there is when political
Speaker 1: correctness demands someone's head, you no longer get any benefit
Speaker 1: from bowing and apologizing to the mob. You no longer
Speaker 1: actually drive any benefit they you know, they go King
Speaker 1: Geoffrey from Game of Thrones on you. You admit your
Speaker 1: crime and then they take your head. There is no mercy.
Speaker 1: So that's going to change our our discourse. I think
Speaker 1: for a lot of folks going forward, I think there's
Speaker 1: a greater recognition now than ever before that if you
Speaker 1: it used to be they wanted the apology, but they
Speaker 1: would kind of let you slink off into public life
Speaker 1: afterwards as long as you apologize and did the whole
Speaker 1: You had to do a grovel tour for a while
Speaker 1: if you offended the social justice mob. Now, if you
Speaker 1: offend the social justice mob, you might as well make
Speaker 1: a last stand for your career. You might as well
Speaker 1: argue and plead your case and stand and fight unless
Speaker 1: you are really giving into the dictates of your own conscience,
Speaker 1: unless you really believe you aired. And then that's but
Speaker 1: you get no you get no benefit from the other side.
Speaker 1: And I've seen it in case after case. Now you
Speaker 1: do not get any understanding, any second chance. When the
Speaker 1: social justice mob comes for you. It is now a
Speaker 1: last stand for your career, for your livelihood. Uh. And
Speaker 1: that's it's just a lesson that you see here. If
Speaker 1: you stepped out. If you give up your ability to
Speaker 1: fight back and plead your case. I'm not saying, you
Speaker 1: know whether this is not about Schnatter, this is just
Speaker 1: in general. If you say, okay, I'm sorry, punish me
Speaker 1: and and let me go forward, what you'll find out now,
Speaker 1: and this is a change from some years ago, is
Speaker 1: oh no, we appreciate that you're sorry, but we're still
Speaker 1: going to ruin you, and there will be no second chance,
Speaker 1: and you are going to be held up as an
Speaker 1: example to others. You are now a cautionary tale. You
Speaker 1: are not somebody who can be brought back into There's
Speaker 1: no rehabilitation by the social justice mob. Now you are done.
Speaker 1: Now you are finished. That's a dangerous change, I think
Speaker 1: in in the character of our discussions around culture and
Speaker 1: politics and everything else. Uh. And you know that that
Speaker 1: Schnaders said the word he said obviously shows poor judgment,
Speaker 1: but you know it brings you back to this. Okay,
Speaker 1: So we really are at a place now where you
Speaker 1: are never you based on who you are, not based
Speaker 1: on the power of a word itself, based on who
Speaker 1: you are, in this case, based on your skin color,
Speaker 1: can be permanently and forever in all context. Banned from
Speaker 1: uttering a word doesn't matter what the context is. That
Speaker 1: is a dangerous precedent. I don't care what anybody says.
Speaker 1: That is not something that we should just sit blithely
Speaker 1: by while that is a precedent in America. So I
Speaker 1: know people people disagree with me on the conservatives disagree
Speaker 1: with me on this. That's fine. I'm I am pleading
Speaker 1: my case here, for there must always be the context
Speaker 1: of a word's usage has to matter in the evaluation
Speaker 1: of whether or not somebody has transgrassed, as you know,
Speaker 1: has shown themselves to be deficient in their character. The
Speaker 1: context matters. Just the word can't just be forever banned.
Speaker 1: All right, Maybe I'll tell you a happy story. Come
Speaker 1: o up here, stay with me. It can be the
Speaker 1: little things that creep up on you. It can be
Speaker 1: those little details that you skip over that make the
Speaker 1: difference between a really smart business decision and one you're
Speaker 1: gonna regret, and it could cost you a lot of money,
Speaker 1: could even cost your business if you're not careful. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network has your back on all these issues. When
Speaker 1: it comes to investigations and vetting, you need to call
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network. They make sure it's all done here
Speaker 1: state side. There are other companies in this space that,
Speaker 1: first of all, aren't dual certified and veteran owned the
Speaker 1: way Global Verification is. And also they send a lot
Speaker 1: of their stuff overseas. You don't know who's really working
Speaker 1: on your case. You know where their servers are, and
Speaker 1: they don't have as good a control over what's actually
Speaker 1: happening day to day. When you call Global Verification, someone
Speaker 1: answers the phone. You don't go to some call center.
Speaker 1: Check it out for yourself. Go to my g VN
Speaker 1: dot com. That's my g VN dot com. Or call
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five nine. That's eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five eleven seventy nine told me before
Speaker 1: here on the show that I think that the skill
Speaker 1: of first days, as in how to approach your first
Speaker 1: day in school, in work, in life, whatever it may be, right,
Speaker 1: whatever it is that you are facing for the first time,
Speaker 1: is one of the more important things. And and it's
Speaker 1: something that I've, as I'm for many of you, have
Speaker 1: dealt with for as long as I can remember, and
Speaker 1: I've gotten better at as i've gotten older, and there
Speaker 1: is a mindset to it. Well, here's a story that
Speaker 1: I just thought, given all the craziness out there right now,
Speaker 1: I would share with you, although I probably I would
Speaker 1: have told you about the story of a lost pug
Speaker 1: in Cape cod that went viral because the cops found
Speaker 1: the pug and then did a mug a mug shot,
Speaker 1: and they called it a pug shot, and they shared
Speaker 1: it so that whoever lost the pug would be able
Speaker 1: to find their pug. And they had a little, you know,
Speaker 1: mug shot thing under the pug where it. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: was really really the whole little nameplate. It was really adorable,
Speaker 1: but you can't see it. So my description of it
Speaker 1: is all I can give you. But this is also
Speaker 1: a really nice story and it has to do with
Speaker 1: first day. So Walter Carr was supposed to have his
Speaker 1: first day of work with a moving company last week
Speaker 1: in in Alabama, in Homewood, Alabama, and he his car
Speaker 1: broke down the night before, a Sunday night before his
Speaker 1: first day of work, and he was gonna be with
Speaker 1: this moving company. So instead of doing a lot of
Speaker 1: folks would have done, he just walked. He walked fourteen
Speaker 1: miles to his first job site, straight through the night.
Speaker 1: Walked fourteen miles and arrived at the place where he
Speaker 1: was supposed to join his team to be a mover,
Speaker 1: and he got there for everybody else, and he found
Speaker 1: out that rather the family that was high that hired
Speaker 1: the movers found out that this gentleman car and his
Speaker 1: mother were from New Orleans and they lost their home
Speaker 1: during hurricane contry and then moved to Alabama. And this
Speaker 1: guy was very, very very humble and told the rest
Speaker 1: of the crew about how he walked fourteen miles through
Speaker 1: the night after his car broke down because he didn't
Speaker 1: want to be late for his first day on the job.
Speaker 1: And now this has gone viral and the owner of
Speaker 1: this the owner of this moving company called l Hops,
Speaker 1: has gifted a car to car his last name is C. A. R. R.
Speaker 1: But gave him four to escape as a thank you
Speaker 1: for exemplifying. Look, it's a great pr move for the
Speaker 1: moving company. And Mike, you know, we all know this, right,
Speaker 1: but for exemplifying this, you know, can do attitude and
Speaker 1: and just not want to be late on his first day.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you know, I've had to learn this.
Speaker 1: I've had to learn this myself, even relatively small things.
Speaker 1: You know, A couple of first day first day advice
Speaker 1: that I give out there. And you know, you're never
Speaker 1: too old for a first day. You know, maybe it's
Speaker 1: if not, Yeah, we think of it usually with jobs
Speaker 1: or with school, but you know, first day anywhere, first
Speaker 1: day in a in a new gym can feel a
Speaker 1: little weird, first day in a you know, you go
Speaker 1: down the line, whatever it may be. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're traveling overseas, your first day at a place, you know,
Speaker 1: what's the one I always feel like one. Don't try
Speaker 1: to go big on the first day. This is just
Speaker 1: my own personal recollection. You know, don't be the guy
Speaker 1: that tries to don't try to make an impression on
Speaker 1: your first day. Leave an impression on your first day.
Speaker 1: What I mean by that is, you know, don't try
Speaker 1: to rearrange the company's way of doing business day one.
Speaker 1: Just go along and be the guy that everyone is
Speaker 1: glad or gal that everyone's glad is there. You know
Speaker 1: that you're you're there to work, to do your job,
Speaker 1: to be helpful. And and I will say I borrow
Speaker 1: this from my dad, who, by the way, his birthday
Speaker 1: is in fact coming up, so I'm excited to be
Speaker 1: giving him a happy birthday here on the show. Um,
Speaker 1: but you know, I my my dad always his attitude
Speaker 1: is everything, and in work and in school, it's the
Speaker 1: first day, definitely. That's the one thing that people pick
Speaker 1: up on, and it's something I'll tell you. I'm not
Speaker 1: great at hiding my attitude about things. My family would
Speaker 1: laugh if they heard this. For somebody used to be
Speaker 1: an in talvient officer. I'm good at detecting other people's
Speaker 1: b s, if you will, I'm not good at doing
Speaker 1: my own bs. And that means that I'm also not
Speaker 1: good at putting on a happy face when I'm not
Speaker 1: happy about something or if I'm not loving the way
Speaker 1: things are going in the first day. So I've learned
Speaker 1: to get better at that. I wouldn't to get better
Speaker 1: at that. Another thing I think I might have mentioned
Speaker 1: this before on the show, uh is you know I
Speaker 1: used to think it wouldn't matter because I've always had
Speaker 1: a lot of hair. I know it's a humble brag,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't until very later on in life when
Speaker 1: someone finally told me he was actually on the NYPD
Speaker 1: do not arrive for work late. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if you don't arrive for work late.
Speaker 1: Let me redo this. If your hair is wet, it
Speaker 1: looks like you just got out of the shower, because
Speaker 1: I always thought, come on, hair dry I don't need
Speaker 1: a hair dryer, right, that's for I always thought that's
Speaker 1: kind of for ladies. Honestly, that was my thinking with this,
Speaker 1: because I could just air dry my hair. But if
Speaker 1: you you were close enough to work that you know
Speaker 1: I had showered in the morning. And I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's someone people agree with, but it's something that
Speaker 1: I paid more totion too. And especially in a workplace
Speaker 1: where a lot of people were traveling from far away
Speaker 1: to get there, it looked a little people took it
Speaker 1: the wrong way. I guess when I would show up
Speaker 1: if I still had wet hair, I mean, not like
Speaker 1: soaking wet, but you know what I'm saying, if it
Speaker 1: looked like your hair was slicked back and still wet
Speaker 1: because you just you showered it for the morning. So
Speaker 1: little things like that you pick up. But the best
Speaker 1: thing I look, I never walked fourteen miles through the
Speaker 1: night for work, and I don't know if I ever went.
Speaker 1: And that guy is amazing, and you know, congrats to him.
Speaker 1: But my thing that I've I've learned and I've seen
Speaker 1: it on both sides, and I've learned it the hard
Speaker 1: way in the easy way is don't try to make
Speaker 1: an impression. Just know that you are leaving an impression.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a good mantra going into a
Speaker 1: first day wherever you are, and if you're willing to
Speaker 1: work walk fourteen miles through the night to get to
Speaker 1: your jobs. Oh and the other thing is it is true,
Speaker 1: and it just bears repeating. I've learned this, this one
Speaker 1: I have learned the hard way. I've gotten much better
Speaker 1: about this. Cannot be late. You just can't be late.
Speaker 1: You know it, even when people are all about it.
Speaker 1: This is what I've learned, even if it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: that you're not late. And by the way, later on
Speaker 1: you can be late. I'm talking about day one, Day one.
Speaker 1: You absolutely cannot be late. A lot of you are
Speaker 1: like Buck, we already know this. But I just for
Speaker 1: some of the young uns out there listening, some of
Speaker 1: the team Buck campus, trust me. Even when they say
Speaker 1: it's okay, it's not okay when you're late. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. He's holding the line for America. Buck sext
Speaker 1: in his back from I just saw your chriss conference
Speaker 1: with President Putin and he was embarrassing. I mean you
Speaker 1: stood there like a little with noodle, like a little
Speaker 1: uh fanboy. I mean I was asking. I said, when
Speaker 1: you're gonna ask him for an autocrat for selfie or
Speaker 1: something like that? Yeah, when you want to ask him
Speaker 1: for this? Healfie. I mean you live. He sold out
Speaker 1: the dispress conference, our intelligence community, our justice system, in
Speaker 1: worst of all our country. You're the president of the
Speaker 1: United States. You shouldn't do that. You shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: You're girling on And what's a metal with you? Who
Speaker 1: is your daddy? And what does he do? I mean,
Speaker 1: whatever happened to the strong words or to the strength
Speaker 1: of Ronald Reagan? And he stood there at the Berlin
Speaker 1: Wall and he said, Mr Guobachev, tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: What happened? Don't that? What are your arms compuny for
Speaker 1: the governator? What happened? Don't that? Hen Trump's even lost
Speaker 1: the governator on this one. Oh no, what's he gonna do?
Speaker 1: I don't remember anybody particularly caring what Schwarzenegger had to
Speaker 1: say about foreign policy while he was governor of California.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure not too many folks will care now
Speaker 1: about this, but I did think one thing was interesting
Speaker 1: about Look, Uh, Schwarzenegger's Austrian. By the way. People always
Speaker 1: think of him as being German because accident, Yeah, Hans
Speaker 1: and Franz. But he's actually Austrian. And it's like I
Speaker 1: who has an incredible story, even his life story in
Speaker 1: the States is amazing. But when he says that he's
Speaker 1: talking about Gorbachoff and and uh, talking to the era
Speaker 1: of Gorbatof and yelts In and and Reagan and you know,
Speaker 1: tear down this wall and all this stuff, I gotta
Speaker 1: say that's the kind of rhetoric that conservatives certainly celebrate.
Speaker 1: But we celebrated in the context of we're facing down
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, an evil empire that threatened the world
Speaker 1: with annihilation. We really aren't doing that anymore. And I
Speaker 1: I I understand right now that the temperature is very hot.
Speaker 1: People are really fired off about this whole thing, and
Speaker 1: and they're saying stuff that's that I think it's just
Speaker 1: it's just borderline crazy. I mean, they're saying things about
Speaker 1: the president or no that are crazy. Forget borderline that
Speaker 1: that are crazy, But but I also, you know, I
Speaker 1: think it's such a loss for us, and maybe I'm
Speaker 1: I'm off on a on a tangent. I just think
Speaker 1: it's such a loss for us that entertain nurs not Schwartzeninger,
Speaker 1: I knows, a politician, and people are even thinking maybe
Speaker 1: he'd run for president at some point. Some of you
Speaker 1: will recall in the movie Demolition Man still still Sylvester Stallone,
Speaker 1: this this action movie stuff, Sylvester Stallone makes an offhanded
Speaker 1: joke about President Schwarzeneger one day, right because he wakes
Speaker 1: up in the future and there's been a President Schwarzeneger
Speaker 1: in the era of Trump, and it feels like none
Speaker 1: of that stuff can really be considered to be impossible.
Speaker 1: And I just thought that was that was kind of
Speaker 1: stuck with. It's like, wow, President Schwarzeneger. People are thinking
Speaker 1: about that for a while. But I do wish that
Speaker 1: we could have some separation of our entertainment culture from
Speaker 1: the constant stream of politics. Hey, I know this has
Speaker 1: become a conservative point of contention here, that that everything
Speaker 1: is now political, but I really do find it troubling.
Speaker 1: I mean, it does bother me. I wish it wasn't
Speaker 1: the case. Occasionally I see something that I go, oh wow,
Speaker 1: there's some there's a little bit of cultural commentary that
Speaker 1: breaks with them, a little bit of bravery. I like
Speaker 1: this show Silicon Valley, even though it's the people say
Speaker 1: it's like the Rise of the Beta mails over, you
Speaker 1: know the rest and all the that's all, you know,
Speaker 1: that's all kind of nonsense. But it's a funny show.
Speaker 1: It's might judge the guy who did Office Space. I
Speaker 1: like it, and I just I'm getting caught up in
Speaker 1: the latest season. Over the weekend, I saw an episode
Speaker 1: where the big the big problem is that there is
Speaker 1: a character who is gay and Christian, and I won't
Speaker 1: get into all the details, but he's the gonna be
Speaker 1: the proprietor of a website. And the guy, the main
Speaker 1: character from the show outs him not as as gay
Speaker 1: because he's openly gay and that's fine in Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: and everyone's fine with it. Outs him as Christian and
Speaker 1: the problems that that causes for this startup internet company,
Speaker 1: the problems that causes in Silicon Valley, and I just
Speaker 1: thought it was such It was so refreshing to finally
Speaker 1: an instance of some honesty in what we're being presented
Speaker 1: as comedy. That there's a lot that's going on folks
Speaker 1: that is worthy of of mockery and derision that never
Speaker 1: gets touched because of political correctness and political sensitivities. And
Speaker 1: it is a true thing right now that to be
Speaker 1: any historically marginalized minority of any kind, to be from
Speaker 1: the lgbt Q community, any of that in the Bay
Speaker 1: Area Silicon Valley is not just fine, but it's it
Speaker 1: is openly celebrated, which is fine too, that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: But to be Christian is to subject yourself now to
Speaker 1: real hatred and people don't trust you. And that's not
Speaker 1: a you know. And I was just surprised to see
Speaker 1: that finally someone in pop culture was willing to tackle
Speaker 1: this issue. And look at Mike Judge is very irreverent.
Speaker 1: I'm he's not some he's not blazing the trail for
Speaker 1: Christianity make it come back in America by any means,
Speaker 1: but he the does pick up on the fact that
Speaker 1: right now, uh, it is a precarious thing to live
Speaker 1: your faith and to be a Christian in America now
Speaker 1: you are always being told that you are, that you're
Speaker 1: a bad person that you're a bigot that and you
Speaker 1: have all these politicians like the Pelosi's of the world,
Speaker 1: who say that they're Christians, say that they're favorable towards Christianity.
Speaker 1: But the moment that somebody's actually Christian, whoa, whoa, whoa,
Speaker 1: and then you've got a problem. I know it's straight
Speaker 1: from the governator a bit here, but it just made
Speaker 1: me think. I think of him and entertainment in Hollywood,
Speaker 1: and he is the greatest action movie hero of all times.
Speaker 1: So I wish he was on the Trump trains, but
Speaker 1: you know he's not so and it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: Roll Call is up next. Team stay with me, Hey,
Speaker 1: team Buck, It's time for roll call. Let's get to
Speaker 1: the row. Call your thoughts I want to give him,
Speaker 1: want to read them? And then of the Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash box Sexton if you want in on this action.
Speaker 1: First up here we have Karen, who writes, I know
Speaker 1: you've been experimenting with what to wear on rising, get
Speaker 1: Ben Dominic to advise you. He looks comfortable and sharp
Speaker 1: in the blue check shirt with the blue blazer with
Speaker 1: the subtle plaid. Thank you, Karen. Ben is a very
Speaker 1: sharp dresser indeed always has been. In fact, Ben tends
Speaker 1: to go for the pocket square, which is something that
Speaker 1: I a shoe in my startorial endeavors. But Ben is
Speaker 1: a buddy and I will certainly go to him if
Speaker 1: I really want help. I'll go to Miss Molly, who
Speaker 1: works in fashion, but I tend not to bother her
Speaker 1: with things like that, although I will ask her for
Speaker 1: a little assistance on the wardrobes. And some of you
Speaker 1: think that that would be a good idea, Aries writes,
Speaker 1: hold up here it comes, but great show today. You're
Speaker 1: getting better and better, unlike other people who recently acquired
Speaker 1: a TV show whose radio shows have suffered. Thank you, Aries.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you because I have a very different
Speaker 1: style of TV show in the morning. When I get
Speaker 1: the opportunity, when I get the chance to get on
Speaker 1: radio and just be me at night, I'm I'm extra
Speaker 1: fired up about it now, you know, because I gotta look,
Speaker 1: I gotta do a little delicate dance in the morning.
Speaker 1: I gotta be a little uh, a little what's the
Speaker 1: word some of you are yelling out words right now
Speaker 1: that I probably don't want to hear. A little open minded,
Speaker 1: a little bit polite, and at on the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: it's just Buck Sexton. I get to be me and
Speaker 1: talk to all of you, so I love it. Kelly,
Speaker 1: next up here. As far as the Russian meddling goes,
Speaker 1: I haven't heard anyone defending the intelligence of the American people.
Speaker 1: Facebook ads and tweets are nothing new to us. With
Speaker 1: every single election, lines and half truths are spread by
Speaker 1: opposing candidates. Although most Americans are not experts when it
Speaker 1: comes to politics, we do know to look deeper than
Speaker 1: social media post to determine who gets our votes. This
Speaker 1: whole fiasco angers me because it appears, as usual that
Speaker 1: the powers that be think we the citizens, are naive
Speaker 1: and stupid. We are not stupid, and Donald Trump won
Speaker 1: the election because we are sick and tired of politicians
Speaker 1: running this country into the ground. We wanted to make
Speaker 1: America great again, and it had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: Russia or anyone else posting silly Facebook ads. Thank you
Speaker 1: for letting me vent well, Kelly. Thank you for giving
Speaker 1: words to what a lot of us are thinking. This
Speaker 1: notion that they were able to turn the election, change
Speaker 1: the outcoming election with a few Facebook ads and some
Speaker 1: Russian trolls and this is just it's completely crazy. But
Speaker 1: even beyond that, it is insulting, as though you know,
Speaker 1: some fake news story about pizza gate or something was
Speaker 1: the reason Hillary laws Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That is
Speaker 1: not not to mention Florida and Ohio. That is not
Speaker 1: what happened. And you know, the Democrats haven't given up
Speaker 1: on this because ultimately they can't accept that after eight
Speaker 1: years of Obama, there was a repudiation of left wing progressivism,
Speaker 1: that progressive ism has not one, that there is in
Speaker 1: fact an opposition ideologically to what is going on in
Speaker 1: this country on the left. And they just they completely
Speaker 1: and utterly they rejected. They will not be okay with it.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's what's what is driving so
Speaker 1: much of the opposition right now. Brian, next up here,
Speaker 1: have you heard you're talking about books you're reading as
Speaker 1: wondering and wondering if you could put on your website
Speaker 1: a recommended reading lest Brian, we are in the process
Speaker 1: of revamping buck sex and dot com right now. I
Speaker 1: do want to have up a books section that I
Speaker 1: can refer people to. Uh And you know, right now
Speaker 1: I'm I'm reading a book on Cortes, The Conquistador, which
Speaker 1: I highly recommend to you. Uh, I think it's it's
Speaker 1: by Buddy Levy. Actually, Conquistador Hernan Cortes, King Montezuma and
Speaker 1: the as stand uh of the Aztecs is the book
Speaker 1: by Buddy Levy. I'm reading right now on the Kunkistadors
Speaker 1: or on the Conquest, and it is it is excellent.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you it is. It is a very
Speaker 1: very good book, and I'm I'm pleased with it. I
Speaker 1: would tend to hesitate to usually get a book without
Speaker 1: a real recommendation from someone by a guy named Buddy.
Speaker 1: But then again, my name is Buck. So who am
Speaker 1: I to Who am I to judge? Who am I
Speaker 1: to judge? So I hope you liked that book. I
Speaker 1: also read read Notice recently by Browder, and I'm trying
Speaker 1: to think what else I you know, I read Frankenstein
Speaker 1: some months ago, which I was never assigned in school.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, not Great has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the movie in Frankenstein, the one you think of.
Speaker 1: Not Great. The only Frankenstein I've ever seen in pop
Speaker 1: culture or in any kind of theatrical experience that was
Speaker 1: anywhere near the Frankenstein Monster of well, as you know,
Speaker 1: I know you're read book. It's not though, I no, no, no,
Speaker 1: anywhere near the Frankenstein novel about Dr Frankenstein and the
Speaker 1: Demon as it is often referred to in the book.
Speaker 1: It is not. It's not the Frankenstein Monster, but the
Speaker 1: the only thing that I've ever seen that ever pays
Speaker 1: any real attention to the original novel was by Mary Shelley.
Speaker 1: Was the Cinemax series, Uh, Penny Dreadful. The the the
Speaker 1: Dr Frankenstein and his monster or the demon as it's
Speaker 1: referred to in that is not out of the book,
Speaker 1: but at least there's some similarities to it. And if
Speaker 1: you see that. I thought Penny Dreadful had some great stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean it was overall. The last season was bad,
Speaker 1: which was a shame because it was the Dracula season.
Speaker 1: But the overall Penny Dreadful story arc I thought was
Speaker 1: actually pretty good. I I really enjoyed it. Um alright,
Speaker 1: next up here we have Canny Rights. Hey, Buck, I
Speaker 1: love your show. Thank you for reading the poignant piece
Speaker 1: by the five year old cancer patient who had written
Speaker 1: his own obituary. Kudos because you got through it without
Speaker 1: totally choking up, although your voice did get a little
Speaker 1: thick toward the end. After complaining of headaches for several weeks,
Speaker 1: which is his pediatrician thought were related to his sinuses,
Speaker 1: My grandson Sam was diagnosed with brain cancer just before
Speaker 1: his fifth birthday. Over the next two years, he underwent
Speaker 1: several surgeries, chemo, and radiation. During this trying time, he
Speaker 1: became fascinated with Captain America and just had to have
Speaker 1: all the action figure stuff we could get him. In
Speaker 1: the attached photo, he's wearing his Captain America costume note
Speaker 1: the shield while waiting for the doors to open for
Speaker 1: a Halloween party at his children's hospital in Oregon. Thanks
Speaker 1: to the grace of God, the skilled and dedicated staff
Speaker 1: at Dornbecker Hospital, and the support of Captain America, Sam
Speaker 1: will be celebrating his eleventh birthday this August nine. Shield
Speaker 1: Ye Ken in Washington. Ken, that is a beautiful story
Speaker 1: in great news, Uh and Ken Semi here a photo, Uh,
Speaker 1: a photo of his his grandson when he's fighting the cancer.
Speaker 1: And then a photo now where he just looks great
Speaker 1: and you know, totally healthy and God bless men. I'm
Speaker 1: so happy that you know, your your grandson won his fight,
Speaker 1: pulled through and has a long and and enjoyous life
Speaker 1: ahead of him. Now, uh, it's always you know, you
Speaker 1: gotta remember the important stuff. I think yesterday in particular,
Speaker 1: people were just so wrapped up and and what really
Speaker 1: doesn't have I'm just gonna say that, you know, it
Speaker 1: doesn't have that much to do with him. It's it's
Speaker 1: just not worth it. What really matters to you is
Speaker 1: your day to day. You know, how you act, who
Speaker 1: you are, how you treat people, what you're accomplishing, how
Speaker 1: you're helping others. That's that's the stuff that matters. And
Speaker 1: we all know this, and we all need to remind
Speaker 1: each other of this. Um. I've often said that, you know,
Speaker 1: kindness is your first obligation, or kindness is our first obligation,
Speaker 1: and in these particularly politically heated moments, I just find that, Look,
Speaker 1: we can all use the reminder. You know, we can
Speaker 1: all take a moment to sit back and say, you
Speaker 1: know what, Ah, let's think about some inspiring stories. You're
Speaker 1: like young Sam for example, who beat cancer, and how
Speaker 1: important it is to love the ones around us, and
Speaker 1: how my friends, everything is temporary. All of us are
Speaker 1: temporary here on earth, So excuse me for the digression there,
Speaker 1: but again, a really important story Ken, thank you for sharing. Jonathan.
Speaker 1: Next up here, Hey, Buck, you just made mention about
Speaker 1: transgender and dating apps, and it's very easy to ensure
Speaker 1: you're going to get what it is you're looking for
Speaker 1: in your profile. All you have to do is state
Speaker 1: if you prefer male or female organs. Then it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what they call themselves. You'll still end up getting
Speaker 1: what it is you're looking for. Hey, and they if
Speaker 1: they don't fit the profile, you won't have to worry
Speaker 1: about being called a bigot because you clearly stated you
Speaker 1: prefer just my two cents. Hope those two texts will
Speaker 1: not fail me. Shields high. Uh, my friend Jonathan, you
Speaker 1: know Jonathan in It shouldn't have to be at that place,
Speaker 1: but I think it is getting to that place. And
Speaker 1: I'm telling you you can. You can start the countdown clock.
Speaker 1: You will start. You will see more articles. Now you've
Speaker 1: already had actors now can't play transgender actors. That's no
Speaker 1: longer allowed because of Scarlett Johansson. But you will see
Speaker 1: people who shame others because they will not state that
Speaker 1: they are or not are not okay with being attracted
Speaker 1: to someone who claims to be you know, so a
Speaker 1: heterosexual cannot say I only want to date women who
Speaker 1: are actually biologically women. That's going to be called bigger
Speaker 1: than closed minded. It's already it's gonna happen. It's already
Speaker 1: happened a little bit, but it will become a much
Speaker 1: more wide. Just like ten years ago, if you said,
Speaker 1: the left will be arguing that thirteen year olds can
Speaker 1: use you know, the girl's locker room if they're a boy,
Speaker 1: if they think they're a girl. And they would have
Speaker 1: said that was crazy. Well that that's now official. It
Speaker 1: was official Obama administration policy. So I tend to have
Speaker 1: a pretty good track record on predicting this stuff. Just
Speaker 1: putting that out there. Jenna writes my top three favorite
Speaker 1: things about daily listening to Buck Sexton Show three. The
Speaker 1: enthusiastically say this is your favorite part of the day, Well,
Speaker 1: it's mine too. The podcast two. My two year old
Speaker 1: cheers Team Buck, Team Buck. That's awesome, Thank you very much, Jenna.
Speaker 1: Number one, Team Buck gives me a hope that there
Speaker 1: are other conservatives, most of all yourself, who can articulate truth,
Speaker 1: news and interesting facts. Thank you, and the montages are great.
Speaker 1: Keep them coming well. Thank you Jenni for the very
Speaker 1: kind message here on roll Call. Certainly brightened up my day.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for us here in the Hut
Speaker 1: for tonight. I will see or talk to you all tomorrow,
Speaker 1: same time as always, no matter what, She'll tie