Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats are circling
Speaker 1: the wagons around banning the use of spying as a
Speaker 1: term to describe spying. We'll talk about how that factors
Speaker 1: into the whole Trump Russia collusion delusion. And also some
Speaker 1: big indictments today, including Julian Assan, who is going to
Speaker 1: get looks like extradited to the US. And there's another
Speaker 1: big prosecution we'll tell you about. But you got to
Speaker 1: stay for the show. That's all coming up. Buck Sexton remission,
Speaker 1: decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show for CIA analysts. I can speak
Speaker 1: for three hours without a phone call. Try doing that
Speaker 1: some No, you think you're turning down on yesterday, there
Speaker 1: was spying into your campaign? I kind of yes, I am.
Speaker 1: I think what he said was absolutely true. There was
Speaker 1: absolutely spying into my campaign. I'll go a step further
Speaker 1: in my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and
Speaker 1: something that should never be allowed to happen in our
Speaker 1: country again. And I think his answer was actually a
Speaker 1: very accurate one. Welcome to the Buck Saxton show, Trump
Speaker 1: laying it down. There is there any doubt? Of course
Speaker 1: there was spying. Of course, that's what the people in
Speaker 1: the deep State and Christopher Steele and the you know,
Speaker 1: that's what it is. That's what happened. Are we really
Speaker 1: going to argue about this? Apparently we are the media's
Speaker 1: are you can't You can't say that, you know. It
Speaker 1: was one thing when they were being crazy about this before,
Speaker 1: but we have known now for then they were just lying.
Speaker 1: But at least it was there was a plausible deniability,
Speaker 1: like maybe they because we didn't yet have the facts.
Speaker 1: We didn't know about the FISA, we didn't know about
Speaker 1: the human sources, we didn't know about all the different
Speaker 1: tools of the federal government used to spy on American
Speaker 1: citizens tied to President Trump and to use the efforts
Speaker 1: to spy on those Americans tied to Trump as the
Speaker 1: basis of this narrative that Trump is a Russian spy himself.
Speaker 1: What's happened here is that just the Attorney general who
Speaker 1: who you know, Bill Barr, who has real gravitas and
Speaker 1: knows what he's doing and knows this game and knows
Speaker 1: what the Democrats are trying to pull here is just
Speaker 1: calling it what it is, and they're all freaking out.
Speaker 1: You know. They they were lying to us back in
Speaker 1: the day about how there was no spying, and now
Speaker 1: they're trying to just lie to our faces when we
Speaker 1: know there was fine. But here's what they used to
Speaker 1: sound like. Play seven. There is no evidence to support
Speaker 1: any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed
Speaker 1: a spy in the Trump campaign. Is baseless claims of spies.
Speaker 1: It's so called spy issue. First of all, there's absolutely
Speaker 1: no evidence there was a spy, So it's really a
Speaker 1: fake issue. This this phony bologny story about a spy
Speaker 1: in the campaign. To call them a conspiracy theory is
Speaker 1: to give them too much credit, just fake facts. All
Speaker 1: the other people who've seen the intelligence in your own
Speaker 1: party are saying, there's just no there there. I'm wondering
Speaker 1: what it will take for you, Congressman Zalden to say
Speaker 1: he's full of it. What is it going to take
Speaker 1: for CNN Aaron Burnett there and others to say, oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: are bad, we were wrong, wrong, wrong, Well they were lying, lying, lying,
Speaker 1: Actually there weren't just wrong. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: them knew I'm certainly Adam Schiff knew. He's on the
Speaker 1: House Intelligence Committee. These are people that have clearances. They
Speaker 1: knew speaking of people with clearances who were lying people
Speaker 1: at the very highest level of the intelligence community. Someone
Speaker 1: explained to me, Grumble Grumble Clapper aka James James Clapper,
Speaker 1: how he's supposed to be able to get away with
Speaker 1: saying stuff like this? Still play eight? But is the
Speaker 1: FBI spying on Trump's campaign? No, they were not. They
Speaker 1: were spying on a term I don't particularly like, but
Speaker 1: on what the Russians were doing, trying to understand were
Speaker 1: the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain
Speaker 1: leverage and influence? So why doesn't like what they do?
Speaker 1: So why doesn't he like that? He should be happy?
Speaker 1: Though bold? Why doesn't he like that he should be
Speaker 1: happy with what they did try to keep the Russians
Speaker 1: out of the campaign? Does anyone believe this is anyone
Speaker 1: that's other than joy Behar Is anyone that's stupid to
Speaker 1: think that that's what was going on here? If if
Speaker 1: they were doing this for the benefit of the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: wouldn't they have told the Trump campaign that there were
Speaker 1: efforts at Russian penetration and asset cultivation within the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: They explicitly did not do that. No, instead, they found
Speaker 1: the on the flimsiest pretext possible. I mean, to go
Speaker 1: after Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. Remember those were names
Speaker 1: that eighteen months ago people were saying they were traders.
Speaker 1: People were saying they sold out their country. And now
Speaker 1: that we know what really happened, these guys didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, they're a little a little out
Speaker 1: of their depth, maybe a little clownish, but no ill intent.
Speaker 1: They're not unpatriotic, They're they're not doing anything wrong to
Speaker 1: a I mean, what a terrible thing to say about somebody.
Speaker 1: I mean, being called a trader by people who really
Speaker 1: mean a trader when you are not in the least,
Speaker 1: when you're a patriot and have done nothing wrong. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like being called a you know, a rapist or
Speaker 1: a murderer or a molester. I mean, it's a terribly
Speaker 1: damaging thing, one of the worst things you can be called.
Speaker 1: And it was said about them all the time, and
Speaker 1: even people like Maria Bouccina, who was a Russian national
Speaker 1: that was initially smeared by the press as being a
Speaker 1: honey trap because of a joke that she made over
Speaker 1: text message of somebody saying that she was trading sex
Speaker 1: for access. Total lie. Do you think the press ever
Speaker 1: really apologized for that. No, of course not. She was Russian,
Speaker 1: so she was really scary. And also so what if
Speaker 1: her reputation and life maybe were ruined by the media's recklessness.
Speaker 1: You know, the mainstream media and their feverish pursuit of
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion delusion took the attitude of you know,
Speaker 1: if you've got to break a lot of eggs to
Speaker 1: make an omelet of bs, go for it. That's what
Speaker 1: they did. Now they're saying there was no spying. I mean,
Speaker 1: what's next. They never wanted to get Trump in the
Speaker 1: first place. Oh, that's what's gonna be interesting. They're gonna
Speaker 1: try to rewrite the history. It's gonna happen. You're gonna
Speaker 1: hear people say this. It was never really about Russia
Speaker 1: Trump collusion. It was just about looking into obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice and also the Russian interference in the election. They're
Speaker 1: going to try to exercise that whole The president of
Speaker 1: the United States is a Russian asset. Was working for
Speaker 1: the Kremlin doing Putin's bidding. This completely insane stuff that
Speaker 1: was being said all the time. There were people who
Speaker 1: were being called Russian agents in the Trump administration that
Speaker 1: you could you would have to struggle hard to find
Speaker 1: something to say in public on MSNBC or CNN that
Speaker 1: was more on its face moronic, but it was being
Speaker 1: said by people who take themselves very seriously are paid
Speaker 1: for their opinions and expertise. James Clapper on the Views View,
Speaker 1: where are the really important conversations happened with Joy pay Huh?
Speaker 1: You know? The View is a place where you'd think
Speaker 1: that James Ever might let his hair down a little bit. No, No,
Speaker 1: not trying to be funny with that, because I know,
Speaker 1: you know Clapper, I'm not he He's follicularly challenged whatever.
Speaker 1: That's not what I was going for. But Clapper saying
Speaker 1: that there was no spying by the FBI, How could
Speaker 1: he say this? And now you start to get into
Speaker 1: what did they know and when did they know it?
Speaker 1: It is I worked in the intelligence community. I sat
Speaker 1: in on meetings with and briefed the people who are
Speaker 1: the very very top all the way for the president.
Speaker 1: But you know, the DNI, the CIA director, I've I've
Speaker 1: run briefings for them, I've been of the room with them.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something right now, there is absolutely
Speaker 1: no way that there could have been anybody under surveillance
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration orbit without the Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence James Clapper knowing it. It's just it's just not feasible.
Speaker 1: We know that there was spying. Now we should start
Speaker 1: to look back from the spying and say who knew
Speaker 1: about this when it was happening, who signed off on this,
Speaker 1: What was their explanation for this at the time. What
Speaker 1: we're going to find out, by the way, and this
Speaker 1: is the real terror from the Democrats and they're going
Speaker 1: to try to do everything that can cover this up,
Speaker 1: was that the dossier was about eighty percent of the
Speaker 1: justification for all of us that a foreign national paid
Speaker 1: by the DNC to go collect rumors, unsourced rumors from
Speaker 1: Russian subsources, put them in a raw intelligence document, private
Speaker 1: intelligence document, not government and just spew all this stuff
Speaker 1: onto a page, not analyze or verify any of it,
Speaker 1: and then you can take that and use that for
Speaker 1: the top of the spying apparatus of the United States government.
Speaker 1: Against a presidential campaign. This is crazy. What has happened
Speaker 1: here is crazy. This is the amount Vesuvius eruption of
Speaker 1: political scandals. And meanwhile, you know, all the villagers around
Speaker 1: us are burning and their houses are on fire, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats are like, what's the big deal, what's the
Speaker 1: big deal. We're beyond guessing about whether they were spying. Now,
Speaker 1: it's how far did it go? Who signed off on it,
Speaker 1: Did they break the law or were they just unethical?
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham gets it played four. There's no doubt they
Speaker 1: were spying on Trump's people in campaign. The question was
Speaker 1: it lawful? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows you to
Speaker 1: follow around people you think are working with a foreign government.
Speaker 1: Counterintelligence investigation, by very definition, is surveilling people that you
Speaker 1: think are spying. So the question was it lawful? If
Speaker 1: the warrant was based on the dicier, that wasn't lawful.
Speaker 1: And I don't know why they did not tell Trump
Speaker 1: about people on his campaign working NATA Russia if they
Speaker 1: really believe that their stories, the Democrats, the leftist media,
Speaker 1: and one part of this that I'm really hoping we
Speaker 1: get to is speaking of collusion, the degree of collusion
Speaker 1: between the so called serious journos of places like CNN
Speaker 1: and you know, other other news outlets that say they're
Speaker 1: just doing journalism the way that they worked hand in
Speaker 1: glove with not just former intelligence agency officials, but the
Speaker 1: former chiefs most recent chiefs of the intelligence agencies who
Speaker 1: would have been working specifically on the very issue of
Speaker 1: Russia Trump collusion while they were in office, and then
Speaker 1: using those allegations, laundering them through the press to give
Speaker 1: them the veneer of credibility. How much of that happened?
Speaker 1: You know? How many conversations did say Clapper and Jake Tapper?
Speaker 1: Clapper and Tapper sounds like a really bad cop buddy comedy.
Speaker 1: How much did they talk about this? How is it
Speaker 1: that CNN managed to break the story of the briefing
Speaker 1: of the dossier by Comey to Trump right after it happened. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, because they needed somebody to create a news
Speaker 1: item out of something that was unsourced. And then BuzzFeed,
Speaker 1: which we know from the conversations between the very conversation
Speaker 1: between BuzzFeed editor in chief Ben Smith and none other
Speaker 1: than fake Jake Tapper that they wanted to report on
Speaker 1: the existence of the dossier without letting people see the dossier.
Speaker 1: That was the game, That was what it was going
Speaker 1: to be. Then BuzzFeed let the cat out of the bag.
Speaker 1: So they're BuzzFeed cats, cat videos. Let the cat out
Speaker 1: of the bag, and we all got to see that
Speaker 1: this document was completely ridiculous. James Comey sat down with
Speaker 1: the President the United States and said, you should know
Speaker 1: that this is out there. I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: equivalent of the FBI director sitting down with the President
Speaker 1: United States and saying, hey, you see all these comments
Speaker 1: from internet trolls that are on this post about you.
Speaker 1: Some of them are saying some pretty crazy stuff. We
Speaker 1: thought you should see this. What these people are supposed
Speaker 1: to be professionals. They're supposed to be neutral purveyors of
Speaker 1: sensitive information so that the government can make the best
Speaker 1: decisions possible. And what we had here were a bunch
Speaker 1: of clowns, partisan clowns, blinded by their own egos and
Speaker 1: political allegiances, and a media that was just up to
Speaker 1: its neck in advocacy for Hillary and doing everything they
Speaker 1: could to take down and destroy the president. And it
Speaker 1: went so far as to be a conspiracy to weaponize
Speaker 1: the intelligence apparatus of the United States government against a
Speaker 1: presidential campaign in an election year, and we've had no
Speaker 1: accountability for this, really whatsoever, yet, no real reckoning. The
Speaker 1: reason they don't want people to use the term spying
Speaker 1: is because it will start to sink in the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: his appointees and oh, speaking of when did he know
Speaker 1: and what did he know? You're gonna tell me that
Speaker 1: Obama didn't know about this. That's an unserious position. So
Speaker 1: Obama's appointees, with Obama knowing at least some of what
Speaker 1: was going on, and not calling this into question, we're
Speaker 1: spying on a presidential campaign. And then once they couldn't
Speaker 1: get their way and find what they thought they would find,
Speaker 1: they decided to cover their tracks by concocting a story
Speaker 1: of obstruction and then doing everything they could to fill
Speaker 1: the air waves and fill the newsrooms with all these
Speaker 1: rumors about these nefarious plots with Putin and Trump and
Speaker 1: doing his bidding, and this was all propaganda. It was
Speaker 1: just a giant web of lies. You cannot trust these
Speaker 1: people anymore. If you ever did, please stop believing them.
Speaker 1: They made traffic in fact sometimes, but it's only so
Speaker 1: that they can piggyback the propaganda. On top of it,
Speaker 1: there was spying. Do not let them gas light you
Speaker 1: do not let them pretend that it didn't happen. It happened.
Speaker 1: They spied on the Trump campaign. They threw everything they
Speaker 1: could at President Trump to take him down. He came
Speaker 1: out on top. But that's not enough. Now we've got
Speaker 1: to find out what they did in detail. The American
Speaker 1: people need to know, and we need to know before
Speaker 1: we vote on the next presidential election. And I think
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is going to get us there. The Democrats,
Speaker 1: the reckoning is coming. We'll be right back. He is
Speaker 1: the opposite of Sessions, who has been who was recused.
Speaker 1: He's embedded. He is completely immersed now with the Trump team.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't have been confirmed. Once he was confirmed, he
Speaker 1: should have accused himself. He has no business being on
Speaker 1: this case. I won't accept anything about this investigation until
Speaker 1: we hear from Bomba. I mean, the Democrats weren't going
Speaker 1: to be happy no matter who Trump appointed the attorney
Speaker 1: general role, because if you have an adult in that
Speaker 1: role who refuses to go along with the left wing
Speaker 1: game anymore. Here of oh yeah, all this Russia collusion stuff.
Speaker 1: This was on the up and up. This seemed legit.
Speaker 1: If you don't say that, if you're not part of
Speaker 1: the part of the team, so to speak, team take
Speaker 1: down Trump, they're gonna have a problem with you. That's
Speaker 1: where we are. This is why all the Democrats are.
Speaker 1: They're attacking far As though you know, it's his fault
Speaker 1: that there was no Russia collusion. It's Bar's fault that
Speaker 1: Mueller didn't bring obstruction or collusion charges. Did not say
Speaker 1: that there should be those charges conspiracy not collusion. But
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, this is all they've got. Now,
Speaker 1: go after the guy who is doing everything he can
Speaker 1: to respect the process. But the cardinal sin here, the
Speaker 1: thing that they will refuse to forgive is that Bar
Speaker 1: won't back down from obvious objective reality, which is that
Speaker 1: there was spying. Of course, there was spying. There are
Speaker 1: a whole New York Times articles referring to the FISA
Speaker 1: stuff as spying. You know, when it benefited the left
Speaker 1: to make this thing seem as nefarious as possible. Lots
Speaker 1: of stories about carter Page spying for the Russians, spying
Speaker 1: on carter Page to see if he was spying for
Speaker 1: the Russians. George Papadopoulos, maybe tied to Wiki leaks, maybe
Speaker 1: involved with Russian spies. Who knows all that was used
Speaker 1: all the time. Now that there's nothing that they can
Speaker 1: point to to justify all this, they oh, spying, Well,
Speaker 1: that wasn't spying. It was It was more like a
Speaker 1: check in using the most sophisticated intelligence collection apparatus in
Speaker 1: the world and doing so as an end ron on
Speaker 1: any Fourth Amendment protection in the name of national security. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's called spying. Use the spy word, folks. Do not
Speaker 1: let them try to push you off this because it
Speaker 1: conveys the gravity and the seriousness of what happened here,
Speaker 1: which is that the Democrats tried a soft coup against
Speaker 1: the president of the United States. That's what they did.
Speaker 1: You cannot trust these people. You should not listen to
Speaker 1: these people, but you should watch them very closely, because
Speaker 1: here's a promise. If we don't hold them accountable for this,
Speaker 1: they would try this again. That may just say, how
Speaker 1: very very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement
Speaker 1: officer of our country is going off the rails yesterday
Speaker 1: and today. He is Attorney General of the United States
Speaker 1: of America, not the attorney general of Donald Trump. Not
Speaker 1: even really true what she's saying there. I mean, the
Speaker 1: a journey general works for the president. So but yes,
Speaker 1: he is first and foremost was to work for the
Speaker 1: American people, and that's what he's doing. This is the
Speaker 1: This is the way that the Democrat panic manifests itself.
Speaker 1: This is a straight up exercise in controlling the narrative.
Speaker 1: There was spying. There's no serious argument otherwise. It is
Speaker 1: very clear that what's happening here is Democrats trying to
Speaker 1: normalize or dismiss this by saying, oh, don't don't use
Speaker 1: that word, don't use the S word, the spying word.
Speaker 1: How is how is bar going off the rails? You know?
Speaker 1: In what way? Has there been any violation of the
Speaker 1: trust put in Bar? Or just has there been a
Speaker 1: violation of common sense? Nadler and Pelosi are are spewing
Speaker 1: this garbage, and these people are a joke, an absolute joke.
Speaker 1: But unfortunate they've got a lot of power and the
Speaker 1: media is backing them up on this stuff. Play clip three.
Speaker 1: Republican conspiracy theory nonsense, It says, show games. Look at
Speaker 1: this imaginary conspiracy versus the fact that the Russians interfered
Speaker 1: with our elections. I'm very concerned about the statements made
Speaker 1: by the Attorney General Barr. I think that they undermine
Speaker 1: our constitution, they undermine the role of the Attorney General.
Speaker 1: I don't trust Bar. I trust Muller. Okay, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: she doesn't trust bar, she trust Muller. Muller is part
Speaker 1: of the redaction team going through the report right now.
Speaker 1: Mueller has not objected to anything that Barr has done.
Speaker 1: Muller is involved in all of this. But I mean,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is she looks she's just she has no
Speaker 1: ethical core whatsoever, just so we'll say whatever she has
Speaker 1: to say that benefits her side. She'll say anything, She'll
Speaker 1: say anything. And that guy Nadler saying, look at this
Speaker 1: imaginary conspiracy versus the fact that the Russians interfered in
Speaker 1: our elections. You want to talk about an exaggeration. The
Speaker 1: Russian interference in the election was an eye dropper of
Speaker 1: water into an ocean of media and social media in
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen fight, Yeah, did something happen, Sure did
Speaker 1: it matter? No serious person thinks that it mattered. But
Speaker 1: the imaginary conspiracy here is supposed to be the spying.
Speaker 1: The spying is a matter of record, it is a
Speaker 1: matter of fact. We've spent two years waiting for the
Speaker 1: spying to be justified, and now that they cannot justify
Speaker 1: the spying, they're saying it wasn't spying. Oh wow, that's
Speaker 1: quite a walk back, isn't it. That's that's astonishing. And
Speaker 1: they also, i think, have been thrown into a little
Speaker 1: bit of a disarray because unless they get something really
Speaker 1: good on the obstruction, they know, they know that impeachment
Speaker 1: is likely to blow back on them. That it's not
Speaker 1: a politically intelligent thing for them to do, which is
Speaker 1: all they really care about, to pursuit and exercise, the pursuit,
Speaker 1: acquisition and exercise of power. That is, that is the
Speaker 1: the the central soul of the Democrat left. That's all.
Speaker 1: That's the most important thing of all. What they have
Speaker 1: to do to get there. You know what the results
Speaker 1: are once they get it, that's all secondary. They need
Speaker 1: to be in power. They have to be the ones
Speaker 1: who are in charge here. That's what mobilizes them, that's
Speaker 1: what makes them tick, and that's why on impeachment Pelosi
Speaker 1: is now saying, well, maybe we gotta steps back a
Speaker 1: little bit. Maybe we've got to think a little more
Speaker 1: about the long term ramifications here play too. The fact
Speaker 1: is is that this president has engaged in activities that
Speaker 1: are unethical American in terms of taking babies out of
Speaker 1: the arms of their moms, on patriotic, I mean, in
Speaker 1: every way, he is unfit to be president of the
Speaker 1: United States. Does that make it? Is that an impeachable offense? Well,
Speaker 1: it depends on what we see in the report. Depends
Speaker 1: on the report. They're still clinging to this He's unethical, Unamerican, unpatriotical.
Speaker 1: What can Pelosi fill in some specifics here? Is what
Speaker 1: is Unamerican about Donald Trump? I mean, that's a real
Speaker 1: that's a real stretch. I'd like to know what did
Speaker 1: he do that's Unamerican? What did he do that's unpatriotic?
Speaker 1: You know, the previous president Obama, he was the one
Speaker 1: to run around bowing and apologizing and America is really
Speaker 1: not that great. And Michelle Obama saige you never you know,
Speaker 1: for the first time in her adult life, she was
Speaker 1: proud of her country when her husband became the commander
Speaker 1: in chief. What is a what does Trump do that's
Speaker 1: un patriotic? I would like to know what that you know,
Speaker 1: does she just pick word that mean bad? Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: finds words that are bad and then just says them
Speaker 1: about Trump in every way he's unfit. I mean that's
Speaker 1: interesting because I think right now he would crush, absolutely
Speaker 1: crush any Democrat who ran against him. Bernie Sanders might
Speaker 1: be able to win one or two states that Hillary lost,
Speaker 1: that's it now, not one of the big ones. And
Speaker 1: that's assuming that the media can run enough cover and
Speaker 1: defense for a socialist, which I don't even I don't
Speaker 1: even know if the media has that kind of juice anymore.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they're really in a place to
Speaker 1: shape the narrative so that a democratic socialist can can
Speaker 1: run and win. We're gonna see. I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: find out, because I do think it's gonna be you're
Speaker 1: ask me right now, I think the candidate's gonna be Bernie.
Speaker 1: I don't think you're gonna have some Democrat come out
Speaker 1: of this pack. I think there's a lot of feeling
Speaker 1: out there that it should have been Burnie in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: He's raising a lot of money, he's got the name recognition.
Speaker 1: They go back to Biden. There's why why would any
Speaker 1: person vote for Biden over Trump? Because if he's a
Speaker 1: more normal return to politics or something, it does not
Speaker 1: make any sense to me, any sense at all. But
Speaker 1: we'll see Democrats do a lot of things that don't
Speaker 1: make sense to me. It doesn't mean that's not going
Speaker 1: to happen. Oh, team, we have oh so much more
Speaker 1: coming your way. I want to talk to you about
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, Bernie's plan, and some other stuff coming up.
Speaker 1: It's obviously a good question whether you trust Bill Barr
Speaker 1: or not. He was a confirmed unanimously his attorney general
Speaker 1: way back in Bush forty one. He's an honorable man.
Speaker 1: He's not over there trying to cover anything up. He's
Speaker 1: going to send us a Muller report that is as
Speaker 1: open as possible, and when I say as possible, pretty
Speaker 1: confident he's not going to throw innocent people who were
Speaker 1: in charge under the bus and run their reputation or
Speaker 1: reveal classified information. This effort to undermine Bar before this
Speaker 1: report comes out is so transparent, and it's gone into
Speaker 1: overdrive with the Yeah, there was spying debate that we've
Speaker 1: we've been thrown into now, which is not a debate.
Speaker 1: It's just a do you admit reality or not there
Speaker 1: was spying? Do you admit what happened or do you
Speaker 1: not admit what happened? And you look Mitch McConnell, aka
Speaker 1: Cocaine Mitch. Any of you don't know why they call
Speaker 1: him that. You just gotta If you google Cocaine Mitch
Speaker 1: on YouTube or something, or that's not googling, but you'll
Speaker 1: see it'll come up. It was from an ad run
Speaker 1: by an opponent of his. I forget the guy's name
Speaker 1: where he started to claiming Cocaine Mitch and it just
Speaker 1: stuck as a wacko crazy nickname. But but you don't
Speaker 1: mess with Cocaine Mitch. The guy knows what he's doing
Speaker 1: and he understands the game here, which is they're trying
Speaker 1: to do everything that they can to undermine bar in
Speaker 1: this process, who's already been the Attorney general. He has
Speaker 1: all the credentials, all the background to be in this role.
Speaker 1: And what you're seeing is that Democrats have there's no
Speaker 1: good faith here. They they always want their guy or
Speaker 1: their gal in this role because they know that leftists
Speaker 1: will side with leftists and then they'll have the whole
Speaker 1: left wing ecosystem of media and academia and you know,
Speaker 1: the DNC and all the rest of it saying oh no, no,
Speaker 1: that was the right decision. Of course, that was the
Speaker 1: right decision. There was no politics involved there. It don't
Speaker 1: be silly, don't be silly. You know, everything that Barr
Speaker 1: has said is legitimate. Here here's Senator Jerry Moran, who's
Speaker 1: just saying, of course he should look into spine. Of course,
Speaker 1: Bar It's not just that it's a good idea. He
Speaker 1: has a mandate. He has a mandate to look into spine.
Speaker 1: He must know if the government was abusing its power.
Speaker 1: Here play six. Those who are critics of the president,
Speaker 1: those who are perhaps critics of the Attorney general, are
Speaker 1: over emphasizing the word spying. What he was talking about
Speaker 1: was the efforts that commenced this investigation. Were they based
Speaker 1: upon legal authority? And the question is did that occur.
Speaker 1: That's very a very valid request of an attorney general
Speaker 1: to find out what the facts are. It's not even
Speaker 1: a request, it's an obligation. He must find this out.
Speaker 1: He must find this out. Of a note. You know,
Speaker 1: before we second hour, we got some big things. We
Speaker 1: have to get to the Julianus Sane arrest today. Julian
Speaker 1: mbuddy from a couple of years ago. We had a
Speaker 1: long chat. I'll tell you about that. The Julianus Sange arrest.
Speaker 1: Also a Greg Craig got arrested, the White House counsel
Speaker 1: for Obama in the beginning of the first Obama term.
Speaker 1: He's now facing a serious felony indictment. And you know
Speaker 1: they're they're feeding him to the lions. But I'll get
Speaker 1: into why that is. More updates on the border total mass,
Speaker 1: the meeting's lying about it. We'll just we'll get into
Speaker 1: that because we should. We have to. And then the
Speaker 1: latest on Rashida to leave and ilhan Omar. And they're
Speaker 1: the way they're defending themselves when people point out the
Speaker 1: bad or stupid or reckless things that they say, Oh,
Speaker 1: here's a guess it has to do with racism, right.
Speaker 1: That's that's where they take the conversation. But Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: put it out yesterday his medicure for rule the millionaires.
Speaker 1: The billionaire is gonna pay for it. Mitch McConnell understands
Speaker 1: that is a bad idea. I like I like Mitch
Speaker 1: when he's getting getting feisty, getting a little frisky. I
Speaker 1: like that, Mitch McConnell. And here's what he said about
Speaker 1: Bernie's Medicare for all planned play eleven not as long
Speaker 1: as I'm a jority. Later, it'd ought to be called
Speaker 1: Medicare for none, because, as the setup piece pointed out,
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty million Americans would lose the private
Speaker 1: health insurance they many of them negotiated for at work.
Speaker 1: Medicare itself that the current recipients have been pay into
Speaker 1: all these years would be completely drained by adding all
Speaker 1: these additional people. If you want to turn America into
Speaker 1: a socialist country, this is the first step. That coupled,
Speaker 1: of course, with a Green New Deal, which would eliminate
Speaker 1: a whole lot of jobs. I think what we're seeing
Speaker 1: here is full socialism on display, and the democratic primaries
Speaker 1: for president full socialism on display. Absolutely correct. That is
Speaker 1: what is going on here, pushing to get us closer
Speaker 1: and closer to a truly socialist society where you have
Speaker 1: the government making far too many decisions, the government deciding
Speaker 1: who gets what and when, how much wealth you're allowed
Speaker 1: to have, how much of your wealth or your earnings
Speaker 1: goes to somebody else or some government program. And Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders is saying that he would be willing to use
Speaker 1: this just came out yesterday to get this thing through.
Speaker 1: He's going to use budget reconciliation. This is one place
Speaker 1: where I get very frustrated with the Republicans because Republicans
Speaker 1: still kind of like to play nice. Republicans will say, oh,
Speaker 1: but you know, the Senate, we don't want to we
Speaker 1: don't want to rock the boat too much, and there's
Speaker 1: all this institutions and blah blah, all that stuff. Democrats
Speaker 1: are like, we want this, We're gonna do it. We
Speaker 1: want this. We're going to find a way to get
Speaker 1: around the Senate sixty vote requirement right now and just
Speaker 1: do it with a slim fifty vote majority. So you know,
Speaker 1: people are saying that Senators don't believe that this kind
Speaker 1: of legislation could go through under reconciliation. But you know,
Speaker 1: Sanders doesn't care what's supposed to happen. He just cares
Speaker 1: what he can do. The raw exercise of power is
Speaker 1: all Democrats feel they need to get what they want.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what they trample in the process, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what previous norms are shattered, and this is
Speaker 1: going to be one of those one of those moments.
Speaker 1: What was the first thing? What Obama had all the
Speaker 1: votes he needed both houses of Congress. What was the
Speaker 1: first thing he did? Healthcare? Because he knew that we'd
Speaker 1: never be able to get rid of it, and that's
Speaker 1: where we are right now, and that it would just
Speaker 1: put us on a pathway to socialize medicine, which is
Speaker 1: exactly where we are. And I was saying this at
Speaker 1: the time along with many, many, many of my conservative
Speaker 1: brothers and sisters, and we were right, but we were
Speaker 1: told that we were fear mongering, and we were wrong.
Speaker 1: And now we're back here at the moment when we're
Speaker 1: being told that medicare for all is what the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party is going to run on in twenty twenty, that
Speaker 1: they're going to ram it down our throats no matter what,
Speaker 1: that they're going to destroy the private health insurance market.
Speaker 1: You're not going to have private insurers anymore, and you're
Speaker 1: gonna have your healthcare is going to be whatever the
Speaker 1: heck the Democrat controlled statists say at it a Democrat
Speaker 1: controlled state, who are statists say it will be? That's
Speaker 1: going to be your healthcare plan that should be that
Speaker 1: should be troubling. You know, I'm somebody who you know
Speaker 1: I want And this is where I started maybe sound
Speaker 1: a little radically. I want more profit motive and healthcare.
Speaker 1: I want people spending money to give better care and
Speaker 1: better delivery. You know, I want the healthcare providers to
Speaker 1: compete vigorously for your business. You know, last time I
Speaker 1: went to a hospital, it was just such a such
Speaker 1: a lesson, and I waited for must have been in
Speaker 1: the emergency room, must have waited for four or five hours.
Speaker 1: Doctor came in, spent thirty seconds with me, and said, oh,
Speaker 1: I gotta go do something else, and left me again.
Speaker 1: I actually didn't even get seen. I left the hospital
Speaker 1: without getting to see a doctor because I was just
Speaker 1: so drained and frustrated and figured, you know, whatever stomach
Speaker 1: bug I had would just it would pass, and you know,
Speaker 1: I guess I'd be okay and whatever. And I was.
Speaker 1: But it was a rough day. And I waited for
Speaker 1: four or five hours in there, and you know what
Speaker 1: happened after that? They sent me a bill. Who wants
Speaker 1: to guess how much the hospital bill was waiting for
Speaker 1: five hours in an er? You know, the most you know,
Speaker 1: uncomfortable depressing place and madgeble, I mean, you know, short
Speaker 1: of being in like a you know, a in the
Speaker 1: morgue or something. I mean, it's just, you know, it's
Speaker 1: a lot of people and a lot of pain and
Speaker 1: a lot of suffering, and you know, it's not a
Speaker 1: place you want to spend a lot of time. I'm
Speaker 1: glad there are emergency rooms obviously, but I just it's
Speaker 1: not somewhere you will like to wait around. A lot
Speaker 1: of people are sick. You don't want to get sick.
Speaker 1: My hypochondriac side's coming out. But what do you think
Speaker 1: the bill was for the non provision of services based
Speaker 1: upon the blood pressure and blood pressure reading and weight
Speaker 1: that they took on me when when they first brought
Speaker 1: me in, so they had a nurse take my blood pressure,
Speaker 1: in my weight and oh, in my temperature. What do
Speaker 1: you think the bill was that they've sent me that
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to pay out a pocket because it
Speaker 1: comes it was twelve hundred dollars, that's right, twelve hundred
Speaker 1: dollars to not help me, not do anything, not see me.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. And if I
Speaker 1: don't pay it all they're gonna send collection agency after
Speaker 1: me and all the sudden. You know, that's not good enough.
Speaker 1: Our healthcare should be better than it is. It's not
Speaker 1: going to be better because a bunch of government bureaucrats
Speaker 1: sit on boards and committees and try to come up with,
Speaker 1: you know, cost saving measures because we're blowing the budget out.
Speaker 1: That's what Medicare for all will be. It will be
Speaker 1: a disaster. Your healthcare will get worse, the economy will
Speaker 1: be slowed. There'll be less innovation, less cures, less new medicine.
Speaker 1: This is what the Democrats want, you know, that's just
Speaker 1: take it back to the Soviet Union. Let's just have
Speaker 1: glass factories that make glass that breaks before you can
Speaker 1: get off the assembly line. That's a great idea. That's
Speaker 1: the economic theory they want to apply to our healthcare
Speaker 1: system this country. It's just it's just so idiotic. But
Speaker 1: that the left has lost its mind. Our two coming up.
Speaker 1: Wikilaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like
Speaker 1: a hostile intelligence service, and it's encouraged its followers to
Speaker 1: find jobs at the CIA in order to obtain intelligence.
Speaker 1: It's time to all out wikilis for what it really
Speaker 1: is a non state hostile intelligence service, often embedded by
Speaker 1: state actors like Russia. This precedent means that any journalist
Speaker 1: can be extradited for prosecution in the United States for
Speaker 1: having published truthful information about the United States various charges
Speaker 1: involving his role in Russian metaling in our election. He
Speaker 1: should face charges here, without presuming what the outcome will be,
Speaker 1: Justice should come to Julian Assange. Justice, it seems is
Speaker 1: coming to Julian Assange arrested today. The Ecuadorian embassy has
Speaker 1: pushed him out, allowed British police to come in. I
Speaker 1: wonder if they went there, like, excuse me, sir, hello,
Speaker 1: can you please oh no, oh, would you please come
Speaker 1: with us? Oh yes, oh no, no, rito yes. Actually
Speaker 1: the cops from them like a stuff together, a loud
Speaker 1: put out of well, all of a suddenly the cops
Speaker 1: are Scottish. I don't know, We're running all over the place,
Speaker 1: but they've arrested Assange. And now, according to the indictment,
Speaker 1: which we've seen from the Eastern District of Virginia, where
Speaker 1: they often handle espionage related cases or federal government related cases,
Speaker 1: you have a charge of essentially conspiring to hack into
Speaker 1: a computer. Now there's so this is all related to
Speaker 1: the Chelsea Manning situation. This is a Chelsea Manning related
Speaker 1: case and they're not charging him, and this is very notable.
Speaker 1: And I know people have all this passion about Assange,
Speaker 1: and you know, I have a lot of different feelings
Speaker 1: about what the you know, there's so many layers here.
Speaker 1: I can't just give you the Do I think Assange
Speaker 1: is a dirtbag? Yeah? I think he's a dirtbag. Do
Speaker 1: I think that he does the bidding of some people
Speaker 1: in Moscow? Yes, I think that that's probably true. Have
Speaker 1: I seen direct evidence of it yet? No, I have not,
Speaker 1: so I'm open. I'm open to counter arguments to be sure.
Speaker 1: Has he published a lot of information that has had
Speaker 1: a tremendous impact, including on say, the Arab Spring, and yes,
Speaker 1: yes he has. Have I ever seen Julian Assange or
Speaker 1: do I know? Could I point you to Julian Assange
Speaker 1: releasing information that endangered the life of any particular source.
Speaker 1: I can't give you chapter and verse on that, So
Speaker 1: you know, I try to be very honest to the
Speaker 1: facts as they are around this guy. I interviewed Asange
Speaker 1: what now, two years ago at some length on a podcast,
Speaker 1: not on this show, on the Stansbury Investor Hour, which
Speaker 1: to this day I wonder what that did to you know,
Speaker 1: what malwaares on my computer, in my IP system and
Speaker 1: everything else. Because of that, Connecting to one of the
Speaker 1: most surveiled men on the planet inside the Ecuadorian Embassy
Speaker 1: using your own personal IP address probably not the wisest
Speaker 1: thing I've ever done, but you know, I wanted to
Speaker 1: talk to the guy, so you know, he's very sanctimonious.
Speaker 1: He does think that he's incredibly important. I do think
Speaker 1: Pam Anderson has been his girlfriend, which is an interesting
Speaker 1: kind of nineties throwback side note, And there's all this
Speaker 1: stuff about his cat too, and how he's kind of
Speaker 1: a dirty, smelly, nasty guy inside the Ecuadorian Embassy. There's
Speaker 1: only so much PlayStation I guess you can do before
Speaker 1: you just start to like let it go and give up.
Speaker 1: You know, I will say, usually as I'm in a
Speaker 1: beard phase these days, Asange's beard, Beard game, Beard game,
Speaker 1: kind of weak. Beard game looked like the guy's been
Speaker 1: sleeping on a park bench, maybe used to get some
Speaker 1: of the beard oil or beard wax whatever going on.
Speaker 1: But you know, I look at that. I look at
Speaker 1: this whole list to get into the substance of this.
Speaker 1: You know, has he endangered a source? Not that I
Speaker 1: not that I could point you too. Does he have
Speaker 1: an ax to grind against the United States? Yeah? I
Speaker 1: think so. Is he doing the work of hostile foreign
Speaker 1: powers with what he's engaged in the past. Yeah. Do
Speaker 1: I think that he really engaged in whistleblowing by getting
Speaker 1: Chelsea Manning to release all that classified information? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: war is messy and bad things happen. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: there was no policy chains that came out of that.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of complain I'm just telling you
Speaker 1: there's a lot of complexity here. You know. You look, conservatives,
Speaker 1: some of your favorite conservatives were having this guy on
Speaker 1: and because as soon as he was involved with the
Speaker 1: release of the DNC emails from Hillary from during the
Speaker 1: Hillary campaign and the Podesta emails, as soon as that
Speaker 1: was on the table, now a lot of conservatives like, wow,
Speaker 1: this radical transparency thought can be pretty cool. But the
Speaker 1: moment that people found out about his role in the
Speaker 1: release of classified information through Chelsea Manning, he was a
Speaker 1: trader people. I saw all these people saying he should
Speaker 1: be drone striked and all this stuff. Well, this is
Speaker 1: why there. You know, he's there's a lot of interesting stuff.
Speaker 1: He's a very interesting character, and what he's done raises
Speaker 1: a lot of questions. I mean, here's some of and
Speaker 1: a lot of you will disagree with me on this.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that what he did by releasing
Speaker 1: the classified information, I think it was reckless. I don't
Speaker 1: think it had some great effect or impact. But I
Speaker 1: also think that a lot of journalists in this country
Speaker 1: release information that is classified, and that it is reckless
Speaker 1: to do so. And I think they do so often
Speaker 1: out of spite, you know. I think they do so
Speaker 1: because the administration that's in power is one they don't like,
Speaker 1: and they're just looking to create a bad news cycle
Speaker 1: for it. But here's where I start to have some
Speaker 1: conflicting feelings about all this. You know, Julian Assange is
Speaker 1: not an American citizen, So his obligation to protect classified
Speaker 1: US government information, I don't believe that it really exists,
Speaker 1: because I certainly wouldn't want to be held to the
Speaker 1: standard of well, I said something or publish something that
Speaker 1: the Iranian government, let's say, claims is classified and Therefore,
Speaker 1: you know, America to be a good member of the
Speaker 1: international community has to hand me over to Iran. I'm
Speaker 1: not an Iranian citizen. I don't answer to them. Now
Speaker 1: in the case of Assange, because he's an ass maybe
Speaker 1: the Aussies are like, go get him America. They probably are,
Speaker 1: because the Asses are a very good ally. But I
Speaker 1: think that raises some interesting questions, you know, I think
Speaker 1: that that creates an obligation. You know, one of my
Speaker 1: big problems with among many radical Islam is that it expects,
Speaker 1: it expects, the expects nonbelievers to obey when it comes
Speaker 1: to things like not showing images of the prophet Muhammad.
Speaker 1: And you know, that's a level beyond what you get
Speaker 1: in most other faith traditions, where nonbelievers have to live
Speaker 1: by the code of those who believe. If you're not
Speaker 1: an American citizen, I do not believe you have any
Speaker 1: obligation to protect American national security information because I would
Speaker 1: not be expected him. I used to work for thus CIA,
Speaker 1: and I would not want to be held to the
Speaker 1: standard that I could be handed over to some foreign
Speaker 1: government because I messed with their national security information. Right
Speaker 1: so or now, in my role as a as a
Speaker 1: media person, not really a journalist, but as a person
Speaker 1: who does break stories and does do frontline coverage on
Speaker 1: different issues. I wouldn't want some government to be able
Speaker 1: to demand my extradition. So you know, I know that
Speaker 1: my my Asange analysis for some of you is probably
Speaker 1: unsatisfying in the sense that I'm not always terrible and
Speaker 1: always great. But I would just note a lot of
Speaker 1: the people who today I'm not going to name any names,
Speaker 1: a lot of conservatives who today are going to tell
Speaker 1: you this is great, Assange needs to go down, and
Speaker 1: he's a bad guy and all this stuff. They were
Speaker 1: people who not long ago, and I mean a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago, we're saying that Asange was providing a
Speaker 1: really necessary service, and they were interviewing him on their shows,
Speaker 1: and so people have gone back and forth on this guy.
Speaker 1: Now with that in mind, the way that this plays
Speaker 1: out with the Democrats, I find fascinating because Democrats are
Speaker 1: angry at this guy, have a beef with this guy
Speaker 1: because of what he did at Hillary, right, it is
Speaker 1: his anti Hillary record. That is why all of a
Speaker 1: sudden you have a lot of Democrats cheering for him
Speaker 1: to get prosecuted in this country. You have Democrats who
Speaker 1: are coming out and celebrating this, and it's because they're
Speaker 1: bitter because of the role that he played in really
Speaker 1: exposing what we already knew was the case, which is
Speaker 1: that the election or the nomination I should say, was
Speaker 1: stolen from Bernie Senters. It was Bernie should have beaten
Speaker 1: Hillary in a fair contest without the Democrat apparatus just
Speaker 1: pushing her forward, and without all the behind the scenes
Speaker 1: collusion between various hillary Bots that we don't even know about,
Speaker 1: I think Bernie would have won. And what Asane did
Speaker 1: was just to really expose that. I mean, there's nothing
Speaker 1: else that anybody particularly remembers about this. I think there
Speaker 1: might have been some off about how Chelsea Clinton's a
Speaker 1: brat whoa big surprise, you know. I mean, there's some
Speaker 1: not flattering stuff in there. But the only real bombshell,
Speaker 1: if you could say there was a bombshell, was that
Speaker 1: the Democrat National Committee had already picked the candidate for
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party. There was no need for a primary.
Speaker 1: It was gonna be Hillary. So Assan showed us that,
Speaker 1: really a sossage, gave us, you know, more of that
Speaker 1: and some proof of that, and people liked it, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats obviously hated it, and the Hillary establishment media
Speaker 1: and national security apparatus types are never going to forgive
Speaker 1: Assange for what he did there. So he's upset both sides,
Speaker 1: and he's done things that both sides either like or hate.
Speaker 1: And obviously his ties to Chelsea Manning makes him a
Speaker 1: sort of progressive hero of some kind. But to undermine
Speaker 1: and this is where you know, my national security background
Speaker 1: and feelings comes into play. I mean, to undermine confidential
Speaker 1: and secret plomacy and discussions, even if you're not naming
Speaker 1: names necessarily, but that's that's really dangerous and counterproductive stuff,
Speaker 1: you see, if you believe and this is where I
Speaker 1: have my My biggest objections to Assange are that he
Speaker 1: I think he does do the bidding of and I
Speaker 1: know this is a phrase that has been polluted by
Speaker 1: Democrats saying Trump does this, but I really do believe
Speaker 1: that Assange does the bidding of the Russians, and so
Speaker 1: you know, I have that issue with him. And also
Speaker 1: I think America is overall and on balance, an incredible
Speaker 1: force for good in the world, and for people to
Speaker 1: try and unfairly target just America for embarrassment for the
Speaker 1: sake of just embarrassing it. That I got, I've got
Speaker 1: a problem with that. I haven't an issue with that
Speaker 1: that there needs to be able to be I mean
Speaker 1: a lot of the Wiki leaks cables, a vast majority
Speaker 1: of it was like, okay, doing what we do, fighting
Speaker 1: a war, having diplomacy behind the scenes. Yeah, you've got
Speaker 1: to deal with some unsavory care chacters in the world
Speaker 1: of diplomacy. Welcome to the world. I think that in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways, what we saw in the wiki
Speaker 1: leagues cables, which you know, I remember people who had
Speaker 1: clearances are being told don't look at the wiki leagues
Speaker 1: cables online. I was like, so, the people who are
Speaker 1: legally allowed to see this stuff and their actual jobs
Speaker 1: shouldn't look at it on the internet. That was That
Speaker 1: was a weird one. But you know the reality of
Speaker 1: Assange is that you always are picking a side, folks,
Speaker 1: and this is what's true of journalism as well. You're
Speaker 1: always picking a side, and I think I think Assange
Speaker 1: often sides with the bad guys. So I have an
Speaker 1: issue with that. As to the specifics of the of
Speaker 1: the charges here, you know, they're going after them on
Speaker 1: on essentially conspiracy to hack because they don't want to
Speaker 1: make it about publishing secrets. Why because our own journalists
Speaker 1: published secrets in this country, and the DOJ has a
Speaker 1: policy but a law. There is no statute that protects
Speaker 1: the New York Times, There is no statute that protects
Speaker 1: the Washington Post from criminal penalty for publishing classified information.
Speaker 1: We just don't do it. We don't force some First
Speaker 1: Amendment standoff with them by threatening that or by taking action.
Speaker 1: Although the Obama administration came very close listing James Rose
Speaker 1: in a Fox News as a co conspirator in an
Speaker 1: espionage case. And you know, the Obama administration was horrific
Speaker 1: on press freedom, which they now pretend, Oh no, we
Speaker 1: shtood up to Obama Police, a bunch of whimps in
Speaker 1: the mainstream media. As you know, they did stand to
Speaker 1: Obama worth of dam But they're going on this conspiracy
Speaker 1: to hack into a government computer charge because that's one
Speaker 1: pretty easy to prove and two not specifically about the publishing.
Speaker 1: So they've just decided that they're going to get this guy.
Speaker 1: And you know, I people are blaming the Trump administration
Speaker 1: for this. I think that there are a lot of
Speaker 1: Hillary people who are still in the government apparatus, who
Speaker 1: maybe Trump's you know, Trump's people have to sign often,
Speaker 1: and I get it, but I think a lot of
Speaker 1: the Hillary people want to see this guy go down too.
Speaker 1: I think this has turned into the political establishment in
Speaker 1: DC wants to finally get a sage and you know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna put him away for five years in a
Speaker 1: federal federal prison. You know, see how he likes that,
Speaker 1: and they're going to turn him into a free speech
Speaker 1: martyr in the process. I would just note that's what
Speaker 1: a lot of people are gonna take from this. So
Speaker 1: scummy guy had an impact. A lot more to talk
Speaker 1: about here, but we'll continue to follow it. I'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Well, they finally got one. They finally federal
Speaker 1: government decided to take action against a Democrat for false
Speaker 1: statements and for failure to register as a foreign agent
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. Greg Craig, who is
Speaker 1: formerly White House counsel for President Barack Obama in his
Speaker 1: first year, was indicted earlier today. At a lot of
Speaker 1: big indictments lately, Anadi indictment, Julia Sans indictment, Greg Craig indictment,
Speaker 1: but two counts of making false and misleading statements to investigators,
Speaker 1: including Special Counsel Robert Muller's team. And this is because,
Speaker 1: guess what, with all the Russia Russia Russia collusion nonsense,
Speaker 1: all the stuff you hear, it turns out that there
Speaker 1: are Democrats who were involved with Ukrainian oligarchs and trying
Speaker 1: to do shady overseas political dealings and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. Greg craig was working on behalf of Russia
Speaker 1: backed former President of Ukraine Victor Jennakovich. Oh, you mean
Speaker 1: that people who are politically connected in DC, that swamp creatures,
Speaker 1: will just go where the money is and they'll be
Speaker 1: unethical in the process. But it's not about trying to
Speaker 1: overturn in an election or do Putin's bidding. They'll just
Speaker 1: they're just guns for hire, They're just political mercenaries. You
Speaker 1: mean that this isn't actually a Republican or Trump specific thing. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, that's right. And he concealed material facts and
Speaker 1: made false statements to Muller and the DOJ National Security
Speaker 1: Division about the Foreign Agents Registration Act. So this is
Speaker 1: tied to a Farah prosecution, but it's not technically Farah
Speaker 1: it's lying about Farah. And this guy was writing some
Speaker 1: kind of essentially a study, publishing a document and was
Speaker 1: saying that he only got was a report, saying that
Speaker 1: he only got twelve thousand dollars for it, when his
Speaker 1: law firm has actually paid millions. Scadden received four million
Speaker 1: dollars for his services under this, not twelve not twelve thousand,
Speaker 1: four million. That's a big difference, very big difference. This
Speaker 1: just this shows you a few things. One is that
Speaker 1: you know, swamp creatures going to swamp. People that have
Speaker 1: access and can trade on that access for money tend
Speaker 1: to do so. And this is no different. People that
Speaker 1: want to make a lot of money and are unscrupulous
Speaker 1: will go work overseas and try to you know, hide it.
Speaker 1: And in this case, he was hiding it because the
Speaker 1: report was meant to provide cover for Yanikovich in the
Speaker 1: international community. So it was better if it didn't look
Speaker 1: like Greg Craig was totally paid off to put forward
Speaker 1: this report, right, So it was a credibility issue. So
Speaker 1: on top of just the lying about the funds and
Speaker 1: lying about this, they just were this this guy was
Speaker 1: paying to sell his credibility. Craig, who was Obama's White
Speaker 1: House counsel. That's right. Oh, there are people tied to
Speaker 1: Obama who are shady and do bad things. Yeah, of
Speaker 1: course there are. Um and uh, you know, this is
Speaker 1: this is one of these times where you see that,
Speaker 1: you know, people can be corrupted for money. But then
Speaker 1: I got one other frustration, and this is just for me.
Speaker 1: You know, they're all gonna say, now, oh see, they'll
Speaker 1: they'll prosecute democrats too. Ah. Sorry, this is a sacrificial
Speaker 1: lamb case here. This is putting. This is putting a
Speaker 1: guy you know, in the cross areas who's not looking
Speaker 1: at that much time, whose conduct was pretty egregious for
Speaker 1: what it was, and Tie It's just like it's just
Speaker 1: what Manafort did, same kind of stuff, except minus the
Speaker 1: tax violations. I'm not going to believe that we have,
Speaker 1: you know, an equal justice system for Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: in politically high profile cases until Andy McCabe and some
Speaker 1: others a DJ and FBI get prosecuted, until Andy McCabe
Speaker 1: gets prosecuted for lying under oath. Sorry, this doesn't cut
Speaker 1: it for me. This is just this is just trying
Speaker 1: to do a distraction move. For the most part, has
Speaker 1: returned a thirty six count indictment against a turning Michael Abanati.
Speaker 1: This indictment is now the operative charging document in the case.
Speaker 1: The indictment substantially broadens the criminal conduct that was charged
Speaker 1: in the criminal complaint that was unsealed on March twenty fifth.
Speaker 1: The charges now being alleged against mister Abnati can be
Speaker 1: broken down into four general categories. First, wire fraud related
Speaker 1: to the theft of millions of dollars from five clients.
Speaker 1: Second tax fraud including failing to file income tax returns
Speaker 1: for himself and his law firm, Third bank fraud, and
Speaker 1: fourth bankruptcy fraud. Michael Avenati is having a bad day.
Speaker 1: That's very clear. This guy is facing now thirty six
Speaker 1: count indictment and these are the kind of charges you know.
Speaker 1: I know Abanati thinks he's a clever guy, thinks that
Speaker 1: he's going to appeal to public sentiment and the fact
Speaker 1: that he's a Trump fighter, you know, that was that
Speaker 1: was his big appeal before. Oh he's willing to stand
Speaker 1: with the porn star and be the creepy poorn lawyer
Speaker 1: that he was. But it was bad for Trump. So
Speaker 1: not only did Democrats not ask any tough questions about him.
Speaker 1: They elevated him. They pretend like it's not just like
Speaker 1: they pretend that there was no spying when we all
Speaker 1: know there were spying in the Trump campaign. This is
Speaker 1: this is not up for debate. This is not up
Speaker 1: for discussion. They pretend now, Democrats in the left like
Speaker 1: there weren't real discussions, and I know there were because
Speaker 1: I'm here in the swamp and I talked to Democrats
Speaker 1: a lot. There were discussions about whether Avenati was going
Speaker 1: to be a dark horse political candidate for the presidency
Speaker 1: for the Democrats in twenty twenty. That was real that
Speaker 1: they want to tell you now that it wasn't there.
Speaker 1: We never would have done that. Yeah, right, it was real.
Speaker 1: That's just now that this guy has been exposed as
Speaker 1: just the worst, slimiest, most disgraceful. I mean, producer Mike
Speaker 1: is telling me that it was on the cover of Politico. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: Politico has on our heads right on the front cover
Speaker 1: that he was going to be in the twenty twenty candidate.
Speaker 1: So they were all in on him. This is this
Speaker 1: is astonishing, This is astonishing. You know, the Politico would
Speaker 1: take the position that this guy based on what, by
Speaker 1: the way, because he says mean things about Trump and
Speaker 1: and and don't don't let them say, oh, it's only
Speaker 1: because of what's happened now, we could they couldn't have
Speaker 1: known that Michael Avanatti was so scummy. And that's really
Speaker 1: the word for he's scummy. Sky's an unethical, nasty, you know, vindictive,
Speaker 1: ambulance chaser, that's who this is. And the Democrats were like, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's make him our champion. What does this tell you
Speaker 1: about them? Mother? For all they're talking about old Trump
Speaker 1: is so immoral and we don't like Trump because he
Speaker 1: doesn't use the nice language, and that's but then they
Speaker 1: want to stand behind Michael Avonati or even have a
Speaker 1: conversation about this guy as though he's someone that should
Speaker 1: be taken seriously really on any matter. It's appalling. I mean,
Speaker 1: the stupidity here is hard to overstate. But they went
Speaker 1: for it. They they were they were all about Avenati
Speaker 1: and you know, trying to find some way to elevate
Speaker 1: him at Trump's expense. It was it should have been
Speaker 1: known that he wasn't anyone to put any stock in
Speaker 1: because he was the guy. You gotta remember, it's not
Speaker 1: just a Stormy Daniels thing. Avanati represented Sweatnick, Julie Sweatnick,
Speaker 1: the third accuser against Brett Kavanaugh now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, thankfully,
Speaker 1: and Sweatnick's allegations were so transparently and obviously false and
Speaker 1: preposterous that any ethical lawyer would have would have refused
Speaker 1: to take that and write out a sworn statement and
Speaker 1: take that public. But Avenati's not ethical, not an ethical
Speaker 1: guy obviously. Oh what is the extent of his corruption?
Speaker 1: I mean, how much of a scummy individual is he?
Speaker 1: This is from the indictment today as well, play clip twenty.
Speaker 1: Mister Avanati conducted committed wire fraud in relation to funds
Speaker 1: more than twelve million dollars in total, that he received
Speaker 1: and held in trust on behalf of his clients. While
Speaker 1: mister Avanatti was entitled to attorney's feast for the settlements
Speaker 1: he negotiated, the indictment alleges that he nevertheless stole millions
Speaker 1: of dollars that rightfully belonged to his clients. There are
Speaker 1: five separate client victims in four cases in which money
Speaker 1: was stolen, including a paraplegic man who agreed to a
Speaker 1: multimillion dollars settlement, but has received only a fraction of
Speaker 1: the money, despite the fact that mister Avenatti received the
Speaker 1: full settlement amount over four years ago. That's right, everybody.
Speaker 1: Michael Avenatti, one time Democrat hopeful for the presidency, the
Speaker 1: great anti Trump champion of the looney progressive Left, was
Speaker 1: stealing money from a paraplegic client of his as his lawyer.
Speaker 1: Avenati was robbing the guy in a wheelchair that he
Speaker 1: was supposed to represent and has a sacred legal duty
Speaker 1: to protect and assist. Nope, just stole the money. Just
Speaker 1: just stole the money from him. And are these are counts,
Speaker 1: by the way, These are the kinds of allegations where
Speaker 1: it either is or it isn't. You know, we're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, failure to file income taxes and uh and
Speaker 1: you know, stealing and money laundering and why or fraud
Speaker 1: and all these different things. That's the kind of stuff
Speaker 1: that gets you in a whole lot of trouble. And
Speaker 1: they either have the records or they don't. I'm sure
Speaker 1: Abnadi's gonna come up with, you know, some version of
Speaker 1: the of the uh, the kind of OJ defense here
Speaker 1: where it's like, oh, they're just getting me because it
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with the case. But they're just
Speaker 1: going after me because of Trump. You know, that's what
Speaker 1: he's gonna say. You know, just like with oj was,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, I killed two people. But you know, racism,
Speaker 1: Avanadi is gonna be I I stole from a guy
Speaker 1: in a wheelchair who was my client. But Trump, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's gonna be enough. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: gonna work for this guy. But as fast as you
Speaker 1: can see, Democrats pretend like nothing ever happened, you know,
Speaker 1: pretend like Michael Avenati was not. I mean, and not
Speaker 1: just in the political system, but the media, as though
Speaker 1: the media hadn't already with the Russia collusion nonsense, covered
Speaker 1: itself in an absolute just intellectual bile. I mean, just
Speaker 1: the media has ruined itself in a way that I'm
Speaker 1: hoping it will never recover from just over Russia. But
Speaker 1: they put this guy Abanati on TV. I mean there
Speaker 1: was a time when Michael when CNN was the Avenati channel,
Speaker 1: I mean, he was on there it felt like ten
Speaker 1: times a day, all because they were just wanting to
Speaker 1: have somebody who was going to talk about how disgusting
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was, how terrible he was and how he
Speaker 1: slept with a porn star. And let's just talk more
Speaker 1: about the porn star and Donald Trump's sleeping with the
Speaker 1: porn star. That's all it was. We're supposed to treat
Speaker 1: these places as as legitimate news organizations and news organizations. Now,
Speaker 1: now you can tell me, Buck, that was a real story. Okay,
Speaker 1: it wasn't that biggest story. Wasn't that interesting? And more
Speaker 1: than that, maybe they should have asked some questions about
Speaker 1: this guy who obviously has very sketchy relationships with his
Speaker 1: clients and has a history now that he's going to
Speaker 1: have to explain well before a hopefully a federal federal jury.
Speaker 1: That's where this is all heading. But this guy was
Speaker 1: a hero of the resistance. And you know, you see
Speaker 1: this with a lot of these resistance heroes, whether it's
Speaker 1: that guy Schneiderman up in New York who is a
Speaker 1: left wing me too anti Trump resistance here, Oh he's
Speaker 1: actually a woman abuser and a scum. You know, you
Speaker 1: see this. You saw this with Anthony Wiener. Oh, big
Speaker 1: firebrand leftist type, love to go on TV and mix
Speaker 1: it up and try to bash conservatives and fight with
Speaker 1: the right, and oh it turns out that you know,
Speaker 1: he's chasing around teenage girls and sending you know, elicit
Speaker 1: lewed photos to them, and now as a convicted sex offender. Right,
Speaker 1: But he was on MSNBC all the time. They loved putting,
Speaker 1: they'd loved putting the Wiener on MSNBC. And now you've
Speaker 1: got Avannati, who, granted it is not guilty of that
Speaker 1: kind of conduct or thing that is in that realm,
Speaker 1: but the kind of unethical behavior talking about here, I mean,
Speaker 1: rip off your clients as a lawyer, doesn't get much
Speaker 1: worse than that. So we'll see what ends up happening.
Speaker 1: I know he's claiming that he's going to beat this.
Speaker 1: I wonder if that's going to be the case. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to represent have ANADI. I'll tell you that much.
Speaker 1: By any measure, four thousand arrest in a day, one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand in a month, that's the population of the
Speaker 1: city of Albany, New York. That suddenly shows up on
Speaker 1: our southern border in one month is a crisis. And
Speaker 1: it's a crisis because it overwhelms our border patrol and
Speaker 1: our immigration officials ability to deal with it. And it's
Speaker 1: a crisis because you have to absorb that population somehow
Speaker 1: into southern border towns, and so it overwhelms the humanitarian
Speaker 1: effort on our southern border, it overwhelms our DHS personnel,
Speaker 1: and frankly, it all emanates from the crisis that's been
Speaker 1: going on for some time in Central America. Oh there's
Speaker 1: a crisis. Huh. That's j Johnson, Obama's former DHS secretary,
Speaker 1: a guy very, very respected on the left, and he's saying,
Speaker 1: looked by any measure, there's a crisis. Wait, but we
Speaker 1: were told what last month, month before that, no crisis,
Speaker 1: there's no crisis. What purpose Let's really think about this
Speaker 1: for a moment. What purpose is the media is supposed
Speaker 1: to serve? According to the media, right, not the real
Speaker 1: purpose that they serve is pushing a left wing agenda
Speaker 1: and trying to enrich themselves and grow their power and influence.
Speaker 1: And I'll do it under this guise of quote journalism.
Speaker 1: But what what are they saying that they do? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. They provide the necessary information to the public
Speaker 1: for us to understand what's going on in our country
Speaker 1: and in our world and become more informed and therefore
Speaker 1: better citizens. Of this they would say democracy. Many of
Speaker 1: you would correct them and say republic. But you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, right, They give us the necessary information
Speaker 1: to be involved and educated citizens there, and that should
Speaker 1: that should filter all the way up to our elected representatives.
Speaker 1: That's what they say. So how is it that they
Speaker 1: could get this so wrong? How is it possible that
Speaker 1: in good faith they could miss something by this much?
Speaker 1: Last twenty four hours you have headlines like this for
Speaker 1: the New York Times, the US immigration system may have
Speaker 1: reached a breaking point? How did we go from reach
Speaker 1: a breaking point now? And you know, you go back
Speaker 1: in time and it was, oh, no, only people, the
Speaker 1: only people who are worried about this are are bad
Speaker 1: people who don't want Central Americans here and because they're mean,
Speaker 1: they're heartless, they want to just separate children and etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: You know Vox today where you know they just I
Speaker 1: don't know how they managed to get so many bitter
Speaker 1: beta mails working for one organization, but Vox does a
Speaker 1: great job of it. Border the migration crisis and the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's response explained they had a piece just a
Speaker 1: few hours ago. So it's a crisis. Everyone now says
Speaker 1: it's a crisis. Why did it take them all this
Speaker 1: time to get to this point. Well, I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I think that not only were they denying the reality
Speaker 1: of it because they didn't want it to be true.
Speaker 1: I think that for some of these newsrooms, for some
Speaker 1: of these organizations and publications, they wanted to give more
Speaker 1: time for to reach this critical mass because now the
Speaker 1: storyline that they're pushing isn't oh my gosh, what's going
Speaker 1: on here? What are we going to do to fix
Speaker 1: this and stop this? It's well, we're totally overwhelmed. So
Speaker 1: we're just gonna have to just bring in more and
Speaker 1: more and more. We can't stop this now. Now now
Speaker 1: it's our you know, the horses have already left the
Speaker 1: you know, the barn doors were opened. The horses have
Speaker 1: already run out, so to speak. I messed up that metaphor,
Speaker 1: or you get what I'm saying. They it's already done.
Speaker 1: It's a fat accompla. So we might as well just
Speaker 1: accelerate this process and bring an even more just allow
Speaker 1: a mass migration from Central America into this country under
Speaker 1: with illegal crossings happening every day and under false pretenses.
Speaker 1: It is a false pretense that all these families showing
Speaker 1: up the border are fleeing violence in their home countries.
Speaker 1: That is a lie. It's a lie because the violence
Speaker 1: under asylum systems that we're trying to deal with is
Speaker 1: violence that a specifically target against people because of either
Speaker 1: their ethnicity, their religion, or their political opposition to the state.
Speaker 1: It's not I live in a country where there's violence.
Speaker 1: I live in Washington, d C. Am I an asylum
Speaker 1: seeker if I want to go to Canada because there
Speaker 1: are parts of DC that are violent. My part of
Speaker 1: DC isn't that violent, but there are parts of DC
Speaker 1: where there are shootings and stabbings and bad things happen.
Speaker 1: So can I say, do I get to go claim
Speaker 1: a silent you know, forget Canada. Can I claim a
Speaker 1: silent Monaco? Because I live in America and there's violence
Speaker 1: in America. Now, I know you're probably thinking, Buck, this
Speaker 1: is absurd, but that's exactly right. It is absurd. The
Speaker 1: positions that are being taken here by the left, by
Speaker 1: the Democrats and their media lackeys, are absurd. They're just
Speaker 1: simply not intellectually defensible, and yet here we are the
Speaker 1: other thing that they're doing. And this just drives me
Speaker 1: just this drives me insane. This is all about racism
Speaker 1: for them. That's that's what the argument turns into. You
Speaker 1: don't want mass illegal immigration into this country in violation
Speaker 1: of laws that Democrats aren't changing either, would I would
Speaker 1: note you know, Democrats won't vote for open borders. They
Speaker 1: just want open borders. And if you try to stand
Speaker 1: against this and speak about what's really going on, this
Speaker 1: is what they say. They say about you. What they
Speaker 1: say about Stephen Miller, the president's senior advisor, who is
Speaker 1: an immigration architect of sorts, architect of immigration policy. Here's
Speaker 1: what the media says about him. Play thirteen. We have
Speaker 1: a white nationalist president who's a threat to American democracy.
Speaker 1: It's the language of white nationalist European splinterer, hard right
Speaker 1: crazy town parties, and we haven't heard in our politics
Speaker 1: in a long time. It's going to be Stephen Miller,
Speaker 1: and his sort of white nationalist tendencies are really obvious.
Speaker 1: He can't even dress that up. Stephen Miller, immigration hardliner,
Speaker 1: immigration hardliner, Stephen Miller, the dark lord of antimmigration, Stephen Miller.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a stretch for a lot of
Speaker 1: Americans out there to wonder whether or not the president
Speaker 1: is secretly considering himself a white nationalist. That was the
Speaker 1: senior White House correspondent for CNN saying he thinks the
Speaker 1: president secretly is a white nationalist. Just for anybody who
Speaker 1: says do they can't call us fake news. That's still unfair. No,
Speaker 1: they are fake news. CNN's a joke. Maybe it won't
Speaker 1: always be, maybe it'll get its bearings and start to
Speaker 1: be a news organization again. Now CNN is a propaganda
Speaker 1: organ of the Democratic Party full stop. But all that stuff,
Speaker 1: they said, they're white nationalist. Trump's a white nationalist. Steve
Speaker 1: Miller's a white nationalist. This is how the left. This
Speaker 1: is how the left debates. You know, they won't get
Speaker 1: into the substance on this because what they're doing is
Speaker 1: they're they're allowing the country to slowly dissolve. Our sovereignty
Speaker 1: is eroding every day. That's just reality. But they don't
Speaker 1: want to face that. So what they do is say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if you have a problem with this, you're you're a
Speaker 1: white nationalist. You're a bad person. That's what they tell you.
Speaker 1: There's a lot allowed to it, a lot you can
Speaker 1: get away with in debate if you have no ethics
Speaker 1: and no no real argument to make, and unfortunately that's
Speaker 1: what we face when we're arguing with lives. I know
Speaker 1: that there's something else that has been on your mind
Speaker 1: and on a lot of folks minds, and that is
Speaker 1: some comments and some backlash now to Congresswoman Elon Omar,
Speaker 1: after some comments surface this week in which and I
Speaker 1: want to play it, she said something about the nine
Speaker 1: to eleven attacks. I want to talk about your reaction
Speaker 1: to the backlash and your reaction to the comment in
Speaker 1: two pieces. So here's that remark. Congresswoman Care was founded
Speaker 1: after nine eleven because they recognize that some people did
Speaker 1: something and that all of us were starting to lose
Speaker 1: access to our civil liberties. And it's that phrase people
Speaker 1: did something that is being picked up on by some
Speaker 1: of the congresswoman's critics, including for example, the cover of
Speaker 1: the New York Post, which I will ask you about
Speaker 1: in a second, But on these remarks themselves, some people
Speaker 1: did something as a reference to nine to eleven, do
Speaker 1: you think she should have rethought her words? Do you
Speaker 1: worry about the appropriateness of that? They do this all
Speaker 1: the time to us, especially women of color, they do that,
Speaker 1: they take our words out of context because they're afraid
Speaker 1: because we speak truth, we speak truths of power. My
Speaker 1: sister Lahan Omar, she was she was talking about was
Speaker 1: uplifting people. Okay, so you've heard it. That's enough of
Speaker 1: the looney the looney bin over at MSNBC there. But
Speaker 1: I just wanted to give the uh, you know, give
Speaker 1: the context of this. That was Rashida to leave another
Speaker 1: one of these new members of the Democrat majority House
Speaker 1: of Representatives who has some ideas that are that are
Speaker 1: problematic when it comes to well when it comes to
Speaker 1: Israel specifically, but a whole lot of things. And she
Speaker 1: went on to say that it was a pure racist
Speaker 1: act to call out Ilhan Omar for and they played
Speaker 1: the audio there too, so you got to hear for yourself.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, some people did something with nine
Speaker 1: to eleven um. That's you know, let's let's just put
Speaker 1: it this way. I understand you can make this case
Speaker 1: that oh well, she was trying to just move past
Speaker 1: it quickly and not get bogged down too that. You know,
Speaker 1: there's there are ways you could try to explain away
Speaker 1: any bad comments. But you know, if we were talking
Speaker 1: about World War two and we were talking about the
Speaker 1: Holocaust and someone said, yeah, okay, so you know, some
Speaker 1: people did some very bad thing or she didn't even
Speaker 1: say that. If you just said some people did some
Speaker 1: things in the death camps, people would rightly look at
Speaker 1: you like you were nuts. You know, what do you
Speaker 1: mean some people did something in the death camps? Like
Speaker 1: some it was one of the worst atrocities in the
Speaker 1: history of humanity? What why would you refer to that
Speaker 1: as some people did something? And as a native New
Speaker 1: Yorker and an American and a human being to refer
Speaker 1: to the murder of nearly three thousand people over the
Speaker 1: course of an hour or so, including many of them
Speaker 1: burned alive, jumping out of buildings to escape the flames,
Speaker 1: crushed in debris, terrified to refer to that as some
Speaker 1: people did something. Yeah, you're gonna get hit for that.
Speaker 1: You're gonna get hit for that. Omar, you're good to
Speaker 1: get hit for that. Talib people are going to rightly
Speaker 1: get upset at that, because it's a very disrespectful way
Speaker 1: to talk about an event that changed many lives. Changed
Speaker 1: my life, changed the lives of a lot of you.
Speaker 1: Listening to this who served in the military or served
Speaker 1: in the government trying to track down those pieces of
Speaker 1: you know what, who attacked us on that day. So
Speaker 1: it was a big deal. It was a big It
Speaker 1: wasn't some people did something. But you know, this is
Speaker 1: the victim mentality. Oh omar At talking about CARE and look,
Speaker 1: CARE are often terror apologists. They are let's just say
Speaker 1: what it is. CARE the Council and Arab Islam or
Speaker 1: American Islamic relations rather is often downplaying terror and does
Speaker 1: this whole whiny Oh, but the real threat is Islamophobia
Speaker 1: all the time. You know. The real threat is that
Speaker 1: people are going to think that Islam isn't a religion
Speaker 1: of peace. Well, that's a whole other conversation. I do
Speaker 1: not respect CARE as an organization. I do not think that.
Speaker 1: And don't even get me started with some of the
Speaker 1: other connections that it's had in the past. Will be
Speaker 1: here all night. But for her to just sort to
Speaker 1: dismiss nine to eleven and say, the real problem is
Speaker 1: that people looked at some individuals wearing hit jobs in
Speaker 1: the months after nine to eleven a little bit strangely,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's not a problem, but it's nowhere
Speaker 1: near in the same stratosphere of problem as three thousand Americans,
Speaker 1: including a lot of Muslims by the way, killed on
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. I think that's a much, much bigger deal.
Speaker 1: But what's the go to. What does the progressive left
Speaker 1: do when cornered with their own foolishness. Well, you know
Speaker 1: what they do. They make it about, Oh it's racist,
Speaker 1: Oh it's it's policing quote women of color, and the
Speaker 1: way that they speak about these matters, and this is
Speaker 1: the way. There's a whole generation now it's really my
Speaker 1: contemporaries who are just beginning to you know, start their long,
Speaker 1: I'm sure decades long careers in the Congress of these progressive,
Speaker 1: woke social justice warrior types, who don't you know, Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Biden, you know, they they give lip service to
Speaker 1: all that social justice stuff because it's useful for them,
Speaker 1: but they don't they're not true believers. You know. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is a white dude who likes to play a
Speaker 1: lot of golf and you know, puts on this air
Speaker 1: of being a man of the people, but really really
Speaker 1: likes to spend time around the fancy and the connected.
Speaker 1: But to leave and Omar and Ocazio Cortez and you know,
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other young Democrat members of Congress.
Speaker 1: They're true believers in this stuff. I mean they they
Speaker 1: think that social justice, wokeness and intersectionality and the obsession
Speaker 1: that the left has with the politics of oppression and victimology,
Speaker 1: that that's not just for them a posture. They really
Speaker 1: think this stuff is. They think that this is real.
Speaker 1: They want to fight against it, and they know that
Speaker 1: their most effective weapon is to run around calling everybody racist,
Speaker 1: calling everybody an islamophobe, and just try to use fear
Speaker 1: instead of argument and persuasion so that no one will
Speaker 1: stand in their way. And here's to leave talking about
Speaker 1: Trump's travel ban, which people still they still say it's
Speaker 1: a Muslim ban. It bans something like, population wise, twelve
Speaker 1: percent of the Muslim world. I mean, it's a tiny,
Speaker 1: tiny fraction, and there are all kinds of loopholes. And
Speaker 1: but here's what she says about that plate twenty two.
Speaker 1: The fact that even the Muslim band being present, currently
Speaker 1: in existence, it shows to so many people like somehow,
Speaker 1: as being of Muslim faith, expressing your freedom of religion
Speaker 1: in this country, that somehow that you're less than and
Speaker 1: they need to see leadership from Congress members. They say,
Speaker 1: we don't agree with this president, we don't agree with
Speaker 1: this on American policy. And that's what we're doing by
Speaker 1: introducing this bill and pushing forward and using it to
Speaker 1: educate American people that this directly this No matter what
Speaker 1: the courts are saying, I'm telling you, this was intended
Speaker 1: to directly impact people's right to express themselves through other
Speaker 1: faith and in many ways also feel make people feel
Speaker 1: less than because they're Muslim faith. So was it intended
Speaker 1: to make all the North Korean Muslims, of which there
Speaker 1: are none, feel less than? Or what about the Venezuela
Speaker 1: and Muslims of which there are some but not very many?
Speaker 1: Were they were they supposed to feel badly about? What
Speaker 1: about the rest of the people of Venezuela and North Korea?
Speaker 1: Was this an attack on their Islamic nous or lack
Speaker 1: of lack of Islamic credentials. I'm just wondering. I'm just wondering.
Speaker 1: What about all the Muslim countries that are not included
Speaker 1: in the band? Oh? What about the fact that the
Speaker 1: countries in the band were specifically singled out by the
Speaker 1: Obama administration as countries that have a particular problem with terrorism?
Speaker 1: Is that what was Obama being islamophobic and racist? Or
Speaker 1: I I just would like some clarity from the left
Speaker 1: on this. I'd them to explain what it is exactly
Speaker 1: that they're they're referring to when they call it a
Speaker 1: Muslim ban, because it clearly doesn't ban all Muslims. It
Speaker 1: only bans some Muslims. So, and it's based on national origin,
Speaker 1: not based on religious persuasions. So in fact, if you
Speaker 1: are an Iranian, an Iranian Christian, or an Iranian Jew,
Speaker 1: you would also be covered by this. Is it something
Speaker 1: we should ignore that many of the most troubled places
Speaker 1: in the world when it comes to political violence and instability,
Speaker 1: happen to be Muslim majority countries. Are Are we supposed
Speaker 1: to pretend that's not the case? No, you know, we're
Speaker 1: supposed to do. We are supposed to let Omar and
Speaker 1: to Leib and Okazio Cortez just browbeat all the rest
Speaker 1: of us into agreeing to whatever they want politically culturally,
Speaker 1: because to oppose them is to be sexist, racist, bigoted,
Speaker 1: and islamophobic. That's the real plan, that's their pitch and unfortunately,
Speaker 1: because of the brainwashing of the millennials that are you know,
Speaker 1: my generation, this stuff works. Alexa. What is the CIA?
Speaker 1: The Central Intelligence Agency, the civilian foreign intelligence service of
Speaker 1: the US government, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national
Speaker 1: security information from around the world, primarily through the use
Speaker 1: of human intelligence. Do you work for the CIA, Alexa?
Speaker 1: Do you work for the CIA? No? I'm not employed
Speaker 1: by them. I'm made by Amazon. Alright, alright, alright, So
Speaker 1: that was one of my That was one of my favorite. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's one of my favorite Alex Jones moments there, man, Alexa,
Speaker 1: do you work for the CIA? No? I do not
Speaker 1: work for the CIA. So here's here's why I'm bringing
Speaker 1: this up right now. Other than you know, anytime we
Speaker 1: could talk about mister Jones's greatest hits is entertaining. There
Speaker 1: is reason to be concerned about these open mics that
Speaker 1: people have all over the place. I've been worried about
Speaker 1: this for some time. I have Sirie on my iPhone.
Speaker 1: I turn Siri off. Why would I turn Syria off? Well,
Speaker 1: because for me, the idea that I would have a
Speaker 1: microphone that is actively monitoring and therefore recording everything that
Speaker 1: I say, and that that recording device is one in
Speaker 1: trusting that information to a third party, and two already
Speaker 1: linked up to all of my personal information and data
Speaker 1: and connected to the Internet. That strikes me as a
Speaker 1: little bit terrifying. And this is where we start to
Speaker 1: see that we do live in a kind of digital panopticon.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of you know what a panopticon,
Speaker 1: so let me explain that for a second. It's an
Speaker 1: English philosopher named Jeremy Bentham came up with this idea
Speaker 1: in the eighteenth century of a building where you are
Speaker 1: essentially there's one central guard tower surrounded with all these
Speaker 1: cells that are open. And because the cells are all
Speaker 1: open and you have no privacy and there's a guard tower,
Speaker 1: everyone will behave because there's you never know if someone's
Speaker 1: looking at you, right, so you never know when you're
Speaker 1: being watched versus when other people are being watched. So
Speaker 1: therefore you have to assume all the time you're being watched.
Speaker 1: We do live in a kind of digital panopticon. Now, now,
Speaker 1: I think in many ways that's good for human behavior.
Speaker 1: I think that the enormous increases we've had in safety
Speaker 1: in America for example, are largely attributable to technology, most
Speaker 1: specifically the proliferation of cellular phones and geolocation on those phones,
Speaker 1: and just the all the tracking and everything that's possible
Speaker 1: as a result of these computers, which is what we
Speaker 1: are carrying. We are carrying computers around with us all
Speaker 1: the time that are tracking our moves, that are storing
Speaker 1: our communications. But I've never been comfortable with this thing
Speaker 1: of sirie. You know, when I'm sitting around that I'm
Speaker 1: like talking. I don't know, maybe I'm talking a little
Speaker 1: bit about T. Swift's greatest hits and it's like playing
Speaker 1: Taylor's swift? Are you ready for it? When that happens?
Speaker 1: Not that that has ever happened to me, obviously, Right
Speaker 1: that happens a producer, Mike, I'm not the T. Swift fan,
Speaker 1: But when that happens, he's going to punch me for that.
Speaker 1: I just got to say that. You know, you got
Speaker 1: to remember that that information that you're speaking openly all
Speaker 1: the time about is going through an electronic device, and
Speaker 1: there is some analysis of it. Well turns out that
Speaker 1: it's not just and this is the big story today
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg. It's not just the algorithms and machine learning
Speaker 1: that has applied to what you're saying in earshot of
Speaker 1: your Alexa. The reality is that a lot of what
Speaker 1: you're saying, or at least a lot of what you're saying,
Speaker 1: could be listen to buy an actual, live human being
Speaker 1: who works for Amazon. That's disconcerting, folks. I would not
Speaker 1: want that to be the case. I think that this
Speaker 1: is where we see the the privacy need should be
Speaker 1: re established in ways that that are urgent. They have
Speaker 1: this article or they talk about how there are you know,
Speaker 1: there's tens of millions of people around the world who
Speaker 1: use these smart speakers, and they'll say, you know, play
Speaker 1: Kenny G. You know do do do Do Do Do
Speaker 1: do do? Do you know? Kenny G? Right, that sounds
Speaker 1: just like Kenny G. I will have you know, and
Speaker 1: then it comes on and people think they're all cool.
Speaker 1: So when I'm like, hey, Alexa, drop down the Murphy bed,
Speaker 1: turn the lights low, and let the cats stevens Perrum. Yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe I look like a smooth operator. Smooth, but that
Speaker 1: means that all the times when I'm talking about other things,
Speaker 1: Alexa is also hearing that. And there are cases now
Speaker 1: of people that work for Amazon, who have heard what
Speaker 1: they think might be a crime in progress, or that
Speaker 1: they might have even heard a sexual assault or a
Speaker 1: child being abused or you know something, and you know,
Speaker 1: what are the legal ramifications of this? When do they
Speaker 1: take action? How do they know what's really going on?
Speaker 1: What are the expectations we should have of a company
Speaker 1: that is essentially now Remember, I understand this is not
Speaker 1: Amazon's fault per se, because people are bringing these devices
Speaker 1: into their homes. They know that they're open, open microphones.
Speaker 1: But everyone should be very uncomfortable with the idea of
Speaker 1: an open microphone in their home. I'm uncomfortable enough with
Speaker 1: the smartphones that we currently have and the fact that
Speaker 1: we know they can be turned on remotely. There was
Speaker 1: that I think it was in Skype or was it
Speaker 1: in FaceTime, where there was a way that you could
Speaker 1: conference in people and you could turn on the video
Speaker 1: feature on their phone even if they didn't want it.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is all very real, and it's just
Speaker 1: it's a reminder that there are always going to be
Speaker 1: tradeoffs with technology. Sometimes the tradeoffs are are very minimal
Speaker 1: on the downside, but there's always some kind of a tradeoff.
Speaker 1: You know, whoever used to make buggy whips. Is pretty
Speaker 1: bummed out now that people are making car engines. But
Speaker 1: when you're talking about the surveillance realm and the self
Speaker 1: surveillance that we are doing now, the people, you know,
Speaker 1: the Founding Fathers, and I like to remind everybody of this,
Speaker 1: the Founding Fathers were concerned about general warrants. A general
Speaker 1: warrant required an actual agent of the British government to
Speaker 1: go in and look through your stuff and you know,
Speaker 1: rifle through your papers and your personal effects. And that
Speaker 1: really upset the colonials, right. That got the our forefathers
Speaker 1: in quite a their breaches got into a twist, if
Speaker 1: you will. But now what you have, our government agencies
Speaker 1: and government and private agencies as well have far more
Speaker 1: access and information about us than anybody would have thought possible.
Speaker 1: And the Founding Fathers were concerned about the intrusion into
Speaker 1: our private lives when it required an actual human being. Right.
Speaker 1: This is why we have the amendments that we do.
Speaker 1: This is why we have individual protections for individual liberty.
Speaker 1: The ability of the government to intrude into your life
Speaker 1: now is so much magnified from what it was in
Speaker 1: the late in late eighteenth century. And because it's convenience though,
Speaker 1: and because it's associated with what is new and what
Speaker 1: is hip and what is you know, creates wealth, we
Speaker 1: don't always think about the other end of it. So
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you I am not a I love technology,
Speaker 1: I'm not a luddite, but I am somebody who doesn't
Speaker 1: want open microphones. I mean, here's a perfect example. Whenever
Speaker 1: I'm recording at home, I don't leave. Even though I've
Speaker 1: got some devices set up where I can do radio,
Speaker 1: I can connect radio live if I want to from
Speaker 1: my home. The Freedom hut is is sometimes mobile, but
Speaker 1: I always unplugged. I always told the engineers, I want
Speaker 1: to know how to unplug the microphone. So it is
Speaker 1: from an engineering and electricity standpoint, impossible for this mic
Speaker 1: to be on because I don't want to trust that,
Speaker 1: oh the program is off. Oh maybe the program's on now.
Speaker 1: Now maybe everything I'm doing in my home is being
Speaker 1: recorded on a device. I'm just not okay with it.
Speaker 1: So this story has been a long time in coming.
Speaker 1: But you know, people should have known this, really, the
Speaker 1: fact that this is collecting and collecting what you say
Speaker 1: all the time and sifting through it algorithmically. If they're
Speaker 1: sifting through it algorithmically, it means that there is some
Speaker 1: digital storage of what you're saying. And if there's digital
Speaker 1: storage of it, then human beings can hear two folks.
Speaker 1: I don't even want to know how this is being
Speaker 1: applied in some other countries where we have no expected
Speaker 1: where there is no expectation of privacy, there are no
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights. But perhaps that'll be a conversation for
Speaker 1: another time. Team, Let's talk about a very special day
Speaker 1: today coming up in just a moment. It's a very
Speaker 1: special day to day, folks. No, I don't have a
Speaker 1: family birthday to give a shout out to, but it's
Speaker 1: not quite as cool as that, so maybe now I'm
Speaker 1: disappointing you. But it is National Pet Day, which is
Speaker 1: one of these things where people come up with a
Speaker 1: national day for something. There's like National Banana slug Day,
Speaker 1: National where birkenstocks even though they're outdated since nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: eight day. I mean, there's all kinds of weird days
Speaker 1: that we are supposed to celebrate now, but National Pet
Speaker 1: Day is kind of a fun one because we all
Speaker 1: get to post photos of our little free fluffy fluffy friends,
Speaker 1: I mean national pet. Now that's assuming I know some
Speaker 1: of you are like Buck. There's a little bit of
Speaker 1: pet bigotry going on here with you. Because maybe my
Speaker 1: pet's not fluffy, Maybe it has gales, maybe it has slime,
Speaker 1: maybe it has fangs and poison that it can inject
Speaker 1: via them. And if the answer to any of those is,
Speaker 1: or if the reality of any of those is that yes,
Speaker 1: that's what you have, I am very curious as to
Speaker 1: some of the decisions you've made up. I always wonder
Speaker 1: why anyone would have a pet tarantula, for example, I
Speaker 1: always remember that from home alone, did terrified ever since
Speaker 1: I would not allow somebody. You know, there are most
Speaker 1: pets that I would allow in my home, even as
Speaker 1: a visitor. Pet tarantula, it's not coming to the house. Sorry,
Speaker 1: not doing it. Tarantulas or the enemy snakes. I also
Speaker 1: hate snakes. I don't understand, and I think that lizard
Speaker 1: brains aren't big enough to form emotional attachments. Some people
Speaker 1: have gotten mad at me. They say my pet turtle
Speaker 1: was very loving. I don't think you can snuggle a
Speaker 1: turtle ps salmonella. So there's that. But let me talk
Speaker 1: to you about the dogs that I had growing or
Speaker 1: in my family at least we had a Boston Terrier
Speaker 1: growing up who was endurable and her name was Dixie.
Speaker 1: Very very cute dog. Boston Terrors to those of you
Speaker 1: who want a compact dog with a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: energy and spunk, but really sweet and a great temperament.
Speaker 1: Boston Terrors are really really good. So people that have
Speaker 1: young families in particular, and if you don't have a
Speaker 1: big house in a big yard, I think Boston Terror
Speaker 1: is a great choice. Now my parents, my family up
Speaker 1: in New York. They have a French bulldog named Tulula
Speaker 1: who is very French. One minute she wants to give
Speaker 1: you a kiss. Son's a cheek was the tongue because
Speaker 1: she thinks you're also fantastic. The next minute she cannot
Speaker 1: be found anywhere, actually doesn't want to talk to you.
Speaker 1: She will not respond to your phone callio text message
Speaker 1: because she is French. She's she can be a little
Speaker 1: kois sometimes, so you know, occasionally she wants snuggles and
Speaker 1: then she doesn't want snuggles, and you know then you
Speaker 1: just want those little French bulldogs snuggles all the more.
Speaker 1: But she's a lot of fun. My older brother has
Speaker 1: a pom Rain and that he now again a small dog.
Speaker 1: But if you live in a city, small dogs make
Speaker 1: a lot of sense. People that have these large dogs,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, you don't want a Rhodesian ridge
Speaker 1: back if you're living in a four hundred square foot
Speaker 1: studio in Murray Hill. I'm just saying, folks, it's not
Speaker 1: a good idea. I see people that do this, and
Speaker 1: I go, you know, you got to think about the
Speaker 1: breed that you're going to be bringing into your home.
Speaker 1: I'm not bringing up the pit bull thing because I
Speaker 1: know people are so and that's like bringing up vaccines.
Speaker 1: People are very passionate on both sides of that discussion.
Speaker 1: I've known some lovely pit bulls. I also think that
Speaker 1: animals that are much more powerful and have more powerful jaws,
Speaker 1: you have a smaller margin for error if they're not.
Speaker 1: You know, someone's Chihuahua is a biter. It's very different
Speaker 1: than someone's eighty pound pit is a biter. But I
Speaker 1: know people get mad they say pit bulls are wonderful pets.
Speaker 1: I've I've missed. I've you know, I've known pit bulls.
Speaker 1: So and then there's the other thing that I always
Speaker 1: find so interesting about the pet world, and this is
Speaker 1: make me want to get a dog, really about And
Speaker 1: my dream dog is an English bulldog. No, I want
Speaker 1: an English bulldog. I'm gonna get one one day. I
Speaker 1: already have ten different names picked out for him or her.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure which I'm gonna go with. But that
Speaker 1: the for the four legged animals, obviously the most popular dogs,
Speaker 1: then cats. I think that's right, isn't it. Yeah, thirty
Speaker 1: six percent of us households own a dog, thirty percent
Speaker 1: own a cat. Now that's of I think that must
Speaker 1: be of people that have a pet, thirty per thirty six.
Speaker 1: So basically a third of pet owners have dogs, a
Speaker 1: third of pet owners have cats, and then it's broken
Speaker 1: down between the rest. But you know what, the John,
Speaker 1: what's the most popular four legged pet that's not a
Speaker 1: dog or a cat? Hamlin close, very good, guess it's
Speaker 1: actually ferrets. It's actually a ferret. Nope, John, Actually, I'm
Speaker 1: looking at the stats right now. I lied turns out
Speaker 1: that it's you're right. Look at that job. You're right,
Speaker 1: it is a hamster. Ferrets are number five on the list,
Speaker 1: after hamsters and guinea pigs, so I've never ceased to
Speaker 1: impress John amazing stuff. Roll call is up next, Team Buck,
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. All right, let's get to
Speaker 1: some roll call. I feel like it's been so long.
Speaker 1: It's been a full twenty four hours since the roll
Speaker 1: call time, and that's just too long. Facebook dot Com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton to send your thoughts here to the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt, to the Buck Sexton Show. I always love
Speaker 1: to hear from you, and even when the messages that
Speaker 1: come in have far too many links in them, a
Speaker 1: little pet peeve of mine, guys, I want to I
Speaker 1: want to hear from you. Want eight links, so write me,
Speaker 1: don't link spam me, but even the link spamming, I
Speaker 1: appreciate the effort, although don't do it. Some of your
Speaker 1: thoughts Sean Right's afternoon, Buck. I read that Congress is
Speaker 1: thinking of giving themselves a pay raise again. How about
Speaker 1: the state that represents them have to vote for pay
Speaker 1: raises and or reductions? Could you use your swampy connections
Speaker 1: to see if this can really become a reality. Shielty
Speaker 1: Shan an original real news fan Wow real News from
Speaker 1: back in the day. Sean that is going on eight
Speaker 1: years ago. Isn't that pretty astonishing turn of events. Eight
Speaker 1: years ago was when we or I think that's right,
Speaker 1: launched the Real News Show on the Blaze, and that
Speaker 1: was a great show. I still think that Glennbeck doesn't
Speaker 1: get enough credit to this day for what he did
Speaker 1: for conservative media in this country. He set up a
Speaker 1: place where people like me who had no previous media
Speaker 1: training could go and get world class media training. I mean,
Speaker 1: have really top executives running a company where you also
Speaker 1: had a lot of freedom to maneuver, a lot of
Speaker 1: ability to try you try your hand to different things.
Speaker 1: I mean when I was the Blaze, I was doing radio,
Speaker 1: I was doing podcast, I was doing writing for the website,
Speaker 1: wrote an ebook, and did TV every day, all different
Speaker 1: kinds of t panel shows, hosting shows, quick hits as
Speaker 1: a guest. So the Real News was a part of
Speaker 1: that whole effort. And I still think that when you
Speaker 1: look at who came out of the Blaze, either as
Speaker 1: an employee or I know, the Blaze, people say that
Speaker 1: the Blaze is still round Buck, I know, but it's
Speaker 1: different now it's merged with CRTV and now it's the
Speaker 1: Blaze Media. But the original days of the Blaze TV,
Speaker 1: which was GBTV. You had all of your favorite conservatives
Speaker 1: really aged, not all of them, to say, Buck, what
Speaker 1: about so and so? But a big chunk of your
Speaker 1: favorite conservatives age twenty five to four, maybe now more
Speaker 1: like thirty to forty. We're all going through the Blaze
Speaker 1: in different ways a different times. So I'm glad that
Speaker 1: some of you have stuck with me all this time.
Speaker 1: TJ writes, Buck, have you looked much into the firing
Speaker 1: of Palmer Lucky, the Oculus founder from Facebook? Supposedly it
Speaker 1: was performance Base, but there's a lot of evidence to
Speaker 1: suggest otherwise, and in fact was likely because of his
Speaker 1: support for Trump, plus a lot of other shady, possibly
Speaker 1: illegal stuff by Facebook. Blake Harris is the author of
Speaker 1: the book The History of the Future that chronicles this story,
Speaker 1: and was on Beck's radio show podcast yesterday talking about it.
Speaker 1: You should see if you can get him on your
Speaker 1: show or on Rising to discuss ps. His book has
Speaker 1: skyrocketed up the bestseller's list since his appearance on Beck's show.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting, TJ. I don't know anything about this,
Speaker 1: so I'll have to look into a little bit. Oculus, huh.
Speaker 1: I always think of oculus and confuse it with We're
Speaker 1: not confuse it with But I think of the show
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley where they have the guy who says octopus
Speaker 1: when he means oculus, and he has a whole Yeah,
Speaker 1: he has. There's I can't explain it other than that, David,
Speaker 1: that was a weird anecdote, I know. But if you
Speaker 1: watch Silicon Valley, you're like, I know what he's talking about,
Speaker 1: David rod Shield's I buck ted Lu's obvious misrepresentation of
Speaker 1: what Cannis Owens right after he played the clip said
Speaker 1: was jaw dropping. Lou wants people to think that what
Speaker 1: made Hitler amaniac was the nationalist part of national socialism,
Speaker 1: probably because he knows his own party is currently infested
Speaker 1: with anti Semitic socialists who want global power without borders.
Speaker 1: Sounds familiar, Well, David, I you know, I know that
Speaker 1: the Democrats really do believe because they've been they've been
Speaker 1: brainwashed into thinking this, and they've been told this by many,
Speaker 1: many people, that national socialism had nothing to do with socialism.
Speaker 1: This is where I would tell you to check out
Speaker 1: the book The Nazi War on Cancer, and there are
Speaker 1: there is a lot of a lot of different programs
Speaker 1: put in place by the National Socialists that would now
Speaker 1: you have to put put aside the you know, the racial, genocidal,
Speaker 1: all those components of it for a moment. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying there are other programs within the Nazi state that
Speaker 1: were very clearly socialists. That's why they're called the National Socialists.
Speaker 1: So they can try as much as they want to
Speaker 1: remove that component. But the Nazi Party, the National Socialists
Speaker 1: were in fact collectivists. They were socialists. They were making
Speaker 1: war on the Lutheran Church in Germany. They were fighting
Speaker 1: with communists, not because they hate communism so much, but
Speaker 1: because communists and National Socialists were fighting over the same recruits.
Speaker 1: They're fighting over the same groups of people in the streets,
Speaker 1: so to speak. And that's so they were rivals. They
Speaker 1: were not ideological opposites. That's not the same thing. And
Speaker 1: one of the shortcomings even for devoted, devoted socialists, one
Speaker 1: of the shortcomings of and this is the reason why
Speaker 1: you have the Communist Internationale, and one of the things
Speaker 1: they realized was going to be problematic is that people,
Speaker 1: even if they have a unifying global ideology, they like
Speaker 1: the idea of belonging to a nation. People think of themselves.
Speaker 1: Sure they want to be socialists, but they want to
Speaker 1: be you know, Dutch socialists and German socialists and Spanish socialists, etc.
Speaker 1: They don't necessarily just want to be part of this
Speaker 1: world workers movement, because we need a greater sense of
Speaker 1: identity than that. Karen rights. Some of the new ads,
Speaker 1: especially during the podcast, are uninteresting, but they pay the
Speaker 1: bills so I can live with them. Karen, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. That's right. Hashtag commerce, hashtag capitalism very important.
Speaker 1: It's what keeps being on the air. It's also where
Speaker 1: I'll tell you that whenever I give you guys a
Speaker 1: commercial with a slash buck at the end of it
Speaker 1: to use promo code buck, please do check out that
Speaker 1: product if you have a chance. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: not already a subscribe to Black Rifle under my code,
Speaker 1: which is very important, or if you haven't yet thought
Speaker 1: about giving the Leadership Institute or tried First Leaf Wine
Speaker 1: Club or any of these different those of you who
Speaker 1: have do background need background checks for your business. Our
Speaker 1: friends in Global Verification has been a great partner. Whenever
Speaker 1: you try their services and they know that you learned
Speaker 1: about it on this show, you are voting for the
Speaker 1: continued growth and success of the Buck Saxon Show. It's
Speaker 1: very straightforward, it's very easy. So this show is obviously
Speaker 1: free for all of you across the country every day.
Speaker 1: But our sponsors are are what keeps the radio electrified.
Speaker 1: It is what keeps the lights on in the Freedom Hunt,
Speaker 1: and I'm very upfront about that. These are partners for
Speaker 1: the show. And whenever you can show your support for
Speaker 1: what we do here trying their products, checking out their services,
Speaker 1: it really does. It means a lot. And every single
Speaker 1: one of you counts. I mean they they count up
Speaker 1: how many of you go in and even if you
Speaker 1: don't buy something, if you go to the site, you
Speaker 1: go to the u r L and show some interest
Speaker 1: in the product, that helps. Although bonding is better if
Speaker 1: you can capitalism, baby, I'm all about it, Corey. Right,
Speaker 1: just a quick shout out to expand upon what James
Speaker 1: wrote in about I'm also a podcast listener and there's
Speaker 1: also a lot of these ads. Thanks heaven, Thank Heavens
Speaker 1: for the fast forward seek button. You know, Corey, We're
Speaker 1: gonna try to find a happy medium here. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: talk to my team and see if we can get
Speaker 1: some stuff set up so that we you know, we're
Speaker 1: in a place now where yeah, we need to have ADS,
Speaker 1: but I want, I obviously want the user experience to
Speaker 1: be optimal. Oh, Bruce, whenever it starts out like this,
Speaker 1: you know, I got trouble. It's not often I disagree
Speaker 1: with you, but I honestly do not believe Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: deserves credit for holding off Garland or his support of
Speaker 1: Judge Kavanaugh. That is simply what he was elected to do,
Speaker 1: besides do nothing, or the opposite would have been political suicide.
Speaker 1: Picking Kavanaugh was not one of the present's finest moments.
Speaker 1: There were far more conservative picks just saying, mm, you know, Bruce,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna, I'm gonna. I'll see your disagreement and raise
Speaker 1: you a disagreement. I think that you know, Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: has been willing on and I'm not some big Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell fan bookshexterns are fantastic radio or host, and I
Speaker 1: wanted him to always be the best own radio. I
Speaker 1: think Mitch McConnell, you know, in some ways, really typifies
Speaker 1: the Republican establishment and does occasionally have some rhino tendencies
Speaker 1: depends on the topic. But on the issue of conservative judges, man,
Speaker 1: he's been a beast. He has been getting those nominations through.
Speaker 1: He's he was willing to fight fire with fire and
Speaker 1: refuse to allow Democrats to continue their obstruction. So it's
Speaker 1: all real stuff. They're folks, That's that's all real m.
Speaker 1: I I mean, look, Bruce, you're entitled to your opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm entitled the mine on this one. And I see
Speaker 1: what you're saying. We just have different standards for what's
Speaker 1: worthy of applause. Your point is that's what he's supposed
Speaker 1: to do, So that's the way it should be. And
Speaker 1: my sense of it is these days, if you're a
Speaker 1: politician and you just meet the bare minimum standard of
Speaker 1: what we want from you, that puts you in a
Speaker 1: kind of class by yourself. Brian. Hold on a second, Brian,
Speaker 1: here you go, hey, brother, great ran on taxes tonight.
Speaker 1: I gave up trying to figure out a long time
Speaker 1: ago and simply pay a company to do it for
Speaker 1: me and tell me where to sign. That said, My
Speaker 1: wife and I finally purchased a home last year for
Speaker 1: a young family. Congratulations, Brian. Oh, Unfortunately, we had to
Speaker 1: pull from our four O one K to help with
Speaker 1: a down payment. Oh, the irs charge just more than
Speaker 1: ten thousand dollars over last year's taxes for it. Just
Speaker 1: when I think I'm getting out of debt, they pull
Speaker 1: me back in. It's just so gosh darn intentionally confusing
Speaker 1: to retain the ability to get you on anything, praying
Speaker 1: for a flat tax on assets. I leave you with
Speaker 1: a quote from Einstein. The hardest thing in the world
Speaker 1: is to understand income taxes. It's a legit quote. Come on, dude, No, really, no,
Speaker 1: it's not. No, it's not. That's like Abraham Lincoln says,
Speaker 1: don't believe everything that you hear on the internet. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't buy that one. But Brian, I
Speaker 1: hear you on the taxes man, it's out of control.
Speaker 1: People need to get a grip and stop allowing for
Speaker 1: us to all get ripped off by the government the
Speaker 1: way that we do. And look, it's corruption. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's why the tax code is the way it is
Speaker 1: because of corruption. This is very, very straightforward. Katie writes Buck.
Speaker 1: I love your passion, Katie. I love your love of
Speaker 1: passion when you're really feeling it. Lately, your voice gets gruff.
Speaker 1: It makes me nervous for anyone next in the studio.
Speaker 1: But I know you're being real. I was wondering if
Speaker 1: the Chicago pd can sue Smolette for the cost of
Speaker 1: his fraudulent case. Don't I have standing as a taxpayer
Speaker 1: to sue the DNC and just Department for the twenty
Speaker 1: six million dollars spent on the Russian investigation. I want
Speaker 1: my money back, Katie. I hear you in principle, but
Speaker 1: your share of the Russian investigation would probably be, you know,
Speaker 1: less than a penny, and same with mine, because there's
Speaker 1: a lot of his paying taxes. But I hear what
Speaker 1: you're saying, and I do think that Smolette should be
Speaker 1: forced to pay back the money that he costs the
Speaker 1: city of Chicago. But I'm I think Smilllette might get
Speaker 1: off totally, totally scott free in this whole thing, which
Speaker 1: is appalling. All right, Team Tomorrow Freestyle Friday, looking forward
Speaker 1: to it. I'll talk to you then, Shields High