Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Brett Stevens is very
Speaker 1: upset from the New York Times because he was called
Speaker 1: a bed bug. We'll also talk about Trump's latest fights
Speaker 1: with China in the trade war. McKay Versius Papadopoulos looks
Speaker 1: like a two tiered system of justice from the deep staters.
Speaker 1: Epstein footage has some of its unusable and also a
Speaker 1: massive Purdue Pharma settlement. We'll get to that more coming
Speaker 1: up all the bucks Sexton Show. This is the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again The buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst,
Speaker 1: remember the sex no your Twitter account after a controversy
Speaker 1: that involved someone calling you a name. Would you like
Speaker 1: to comment on that? Yeah, I'm going to be careful
Speaker 1: with my words because I know these are going to
Speaker 1: be examined carefully. So I think Twitter brings out the
Speaker 1: worst in its users. It tends to bring out the
Speaker 1: worst in its users. And yesterday a professor George Washington
Speaker 1: University described me as a bedbug or a metaphorical bedbug,
Speaker 1: just in the context of the New York Times having
Speaker 1: a bedbug problem in our building, and I think that
Speaker 1: kind of rhetoric is dehumanizing and totally unacceptable, no matter
Speaker 1: where it comes from. So I wrote him a personal email.
Speaker 1: I didn't go to Twitter. I wrote him a personal email,
Speaker 1: which I think was very civil, saying that I didn't
Speaker 1: appreciate it, that I would welcome him to come to
Speaker 1: my home in New York, meet with my family and
Speaker 1: see if you would call me a bedbug to my face,
Speaker 1: because a lot of things people say on social media
Speaker 1: aren't the things that are really prepared to say in well,
Speaker 1: welcome everybody to the Buck Sexton Show. It's late in
Speaker 1: the summer, so we're gonna do whatever we want today
Speaker 1: or talk about whatever we feel like talking about. So
Speaker 1: that is in case you don't know that we're like Buck,
Speaker 1: why are you leading? Do? We're gonna get to China immigration,
Speaker 1: very important settlement on the opie what You've got important
Speaker 1: news stories to get to you, as we always do.
Speaker 1: But I just thought today we could have some fun
Speaker 1: with the fact you have a a New York Times
Speaker 1: columnist pretty well known at least in New York Times
Speaker 1: reading circles, formerly of the Wall Street journal, a never
Speaker 1: Trump stalwart, someone who has said that if you don't
Speaker 1: think Donald Trump is deplorable, you're deplorable. I mean that,
Speaker 1: I forget what exactly the exact word to use was.
Speaker 1: It was something like that. And if you don't think
Speaker 1: Trump is awful, you're awful. That was a Columny wrote
Speaker 1: as a so called conservative, And here he is showing
Speaker 1: us once again that the leap journals and he's not
Speaker 1: even a lived journal he's a never Trump rooting for
Speaker 1: the Democrats now former conservatives, so whatever you call that.
Speaker 1: But the journals in general, the journalist class really doesn't
Speaker 1: like when what they do to others is done to them,
Speaker 1: because they will go after people, they will dive into
Speaker 1: their into their public and private records. They'll publish stories
Speaker 1: that are to say that they're of questionable news importance
Speaker 1: is an overstatement. But when people call them out, you
Speaker 1: find out they're actually quite thin skinned. They're quite thin skinned.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know you know that. I've mentioned it before.
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper, for example, is almost like pathologically thin skinned
Speaker 1: about any criticism on Twitter and public and he'll go
Speaker 1: after you and he'll call you know, he's crazy, right,
Speaker 1: He seems like he's put together on TV, but in
Speaker 1: reality he's very thin skinned. Other journalists same thing. And
Speaker 1: I mean, if you if you go after you know,
Speaker 1: Don Lemon, if you go after Fredo Cuomo, we are
Speaker 1: treated to a perfect example of this, right, you know,
Speaker 1: saying completely Cuomo, broke Cuomo as we call him, because
Speaker 1: we're respectful. We don't call him Fredo, We call him
Speaker 1: bro Cuomo. Uh. We see that Broke Cuomo was threatening
Speaker 1: physical harm against someone for calling him Fredo, a reference
Speaker 1: to The Godfather Part two, which is a quite excellent movie,
Speaker 1: unlike god Godfather Part three, which I will save you
Speaker 1: some hours of your life, give it back to you
Speaker 1: and you'll be fine. Trump tweeted out no bedbugs at
Speaker 1: dral The radical left Democrats, upon hearing that perfectly located
Speaker 1: for the next G seven was under consideration, they spread
Speaker 1: that rumor. Not nice, that's a Trump tweet, No bedbugs
Speaker 1: at the deal. I mean, so bedbugs today, I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you. Bedbug was the top rending and Brett Stevens
Speaker 1: top trending item on Twitter all day. This is just
Speaker 1: a look, it's a late summer story. People are you know,
Speaker 1: the politicians aren't really in DC and ever a lot
Speaker 1: of the journals or in the Hampton's or Nantucket or
Speaker 1: you know wherever they hang up. And so all of
Speaker 1: a sudden this story has gotten a whole lot of attention.
Speaker 1: But it is a reminder that journalists do tend to
Speaker 1: be a very thin skinned bunch. They take themselves quite seriously.
Speaker 1: And the best part of this was, well, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of great parts of it. Is that Stevens instead
Speaker 1: of just saying so, remember he wrote a letter to
Speaker 1: a professor, an email to a professor at George Washington University,
Speaker 1: because the professor this is what he wrote. Someone wrote
Speaker 1: about the New York that the New York Times has
Speaker 1: a bedbug infestation, which is gross. By the way, Man,
Speaker 1: I have a friend who told me, and I hope
Speaker 1: none of you were eating right now, who told me
Speaker 1: years ago. When someone will tell you about their bedbug infestation,
Speaker 1: that's a that's a level of trust, right. You don't
Speaker 1: want anyone to know you have ever had bedbugs. This
Speaker 1: is like it's like given out your personal medical history
Speaker 1: or something, and people don't want to ever talk about this.
Speaker 1: Usually I had a friend who had a bedbug. Now
Speaker 1: it sounds like, I'm like, I've never had bedbugs. I
Speaker 1: had a friend who had a bedbug infestation years ago,
Speaker 1: and he told me about what it looked like and
Speaker 1: what he had to go through. And it is traumatizing
Speaker 1: if it happens in your home. This is of course
Speaker 1: in an office, but it's it's a traumatizing experience. But
Speaker 1: the story is that the New York Times has a
Speaker 1: bedbug infestation. And then someone joked on Twitter. And these
Speaker 1: are not people with big Twitter followings. When you someone
Speaker 1: joked on Twitter that the bedbugs are a metaphor, the
Speaker 1: bedbugs are Brett Stevens, that was the That was the line.
Speaker 1: Now I can tell you, as somebody who's been on
Speaker 1: Twitter for a number of years and has been the
Speaker 1: target of plenty of very nasty left wing attacks, that
Speaker 1: that line is PG for Twitter. It's it's actually rated G.
Speaker 1: Do they still have rated make rated G movies? It's
Speaker 1: like what you could take your five year old to see?
Speaker 1: The bedbugs are Brett Stevens is about as docile, about
Speaker 1: as tame as a Twitter insult is going to get
Speaker 1: Bret Stevens indicated. Commas been in the game a very
Speaker 1: long time, hates Trump, of course hates hates hates Trump,
Speaker 1: very vocal about that, and I I've bumped in him
Speaker 1: once twice in Greenham. Not a friendly guy, so I
Speaker 1: don't have particularly much of an issue here by having
Speaker 1: a little bit of fun with the situation. He wrote
Speaker 1: a letter, as he stated in his in his little
Speaker 1: monologue there that we played for you. And see this
Speaker 1: is the part of it that I got a problem with.
Speaker 1: He wrote a letter and he looks like a big baby,
Speaker 1: obviously because he is a big baby. But he wrote
Speaker 1: this letter and he cc the provost of the university,
Speaker 1: which is basically like I'm going to write a letter
Speaker 1: to you and CC your boss. He went to ccs.
Speaker 1: And other journalists do this too. I won't name them name,
Speaker 1: won't name them right now, but they've done to people
Speaker 1: that I know in the media field. They'll they'll call
Speaker 1: out the person and say, oh, you know, I'm also
Speaker 1: sending an email to your boss, or they'll cec the
Speaker 1: boss try to get them in trouble. That's just a lame,
Speaker 1: crappy thing to do. It is, especially for an insult
Speaker 1: that's barely even an insult. I mean, I've I've been
Speaker 1: called worst, I've been called worst things my friends of
Speaker 1: mine in the last month a bed book. And then
Speaker 1: he tried to say Stevens tried to say that he
Speaker 1: didn't actually want there to be any real consequence for him.
Speaker 1: He just cc the provost of the university that employs
Speaker 1: that professor because he just wanted him to be aware
Speaker 1: of what kind of public discord. I mean, please, if
Speaker 1: you're a little monk, if you're a snide, thin skinned baby,
Speaker 1: who's going to try to get someone in trouble with
Speaker 1: their boss because they said something about you that's not
Speaker 1: even that mean at all on Twitter, own it own
Speaker 1: what you did. They don't try to just compounded to
Speaker 1: make it even worse. This is one of the news
Speaker 1: This is the conservative so to speak, that the New
Speaker 1: York Times employs. This is a conservative who, I'll also
Speaker 1: note for you was defending a colleague, I believe her
Speaker 1: name is Sarah Jong, defending a colleague who said very
Speaker 1: racist things about white people, like basically, white people are
Speaker 1: the worst, white people are terrible, all kinds of stuff
Speaker 1: like that, said that, oh, you know, she's learned and
Speaker 1: she's grown and let's not But he was another guy
Speaker 1: who's like Rosanne needed to be fired right away for
Speaker 1: what Roseanne did. My friends at the Federalist pointed this
Speaker 1: out today with his his you know, his double standard
Speaker 1: on well, some people can be racist, but other people
Speaker 1: can be racist and get away with it. That was
Speaker 1: the double standard that he had said there. And Brett Stevens,
Speaker 1: you know, says that the proo we got more from him.
Speaker 1: Actually here, let's hear this is his He's going on TV,
Speaker 1: folks too, because this is the biggest social media based
Speaker 1: story in the country today by far, trending on Twitter.
Speaker 1: The President is tweeting about this bedbugs. I also copied
Speaker 1: his provost on the note people are upset about this.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear I had no intention whatsoever
Speaker 1: to get him in any kind of professional trouble, but
Speaker 1: it is the case at the New York Times and
Speaker 1: other institutions. That's a lie. Okay, So that's it's annoying
Speaker 1: that he would go on TV. You know. I look,
Speaker 1: I have had the feeling so many times where I
Speaker 1: want because I, as I've admitted to you, in case
Speaker 1: you know, anyone ever meets me on the street or
Speaker 1: you know, you hear a video of me from my
Speaker 1: off hours or something, I use salty language. I am.
Speaker 1: I am not somebody who shirks from profanity in my
Speaker 1: private life. But for him to have done what he oh,
Speaker 1: and then I wish that I could say that to
Speaker 1: people on Twitter, you know, But I can't because I
Speaker 1: have an obligation to present a public, a professional face
Speaker 1: to the public with these issues. But I trust me,
Speaker 1: there's so many times when I would love to use
Speaker 1: a lot of very colorful words for people that say
Speaker 1: things that are either untrue or that, particularly when it
Speaker 1: gets personal. But I don't do it right. But I
Speaker 1: understand that impulse. So if he said, you know what,
Speaker 1: it just robbed me the wrong way. But I was like, okay,
Speaker 1: that's one thing. But no, no, he wants to tell
Speaker 1: us now that he isn't even worse because he tried
Speaker 1: to get him fired. It's just a lie. That people
Speaker 1: should be aware. Managers should be aware of the way
Speaker 1: in which their people, their professors or journalists interact with
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. That's certainly the case with
Speaker 1: me at the New York Times. My editors are always
Speaker 1: aware of what I'm saying, and I've sometimes been called
Speaker 1: to account rightly. So he then posted my email on Twitter,
Speaker 1: so people are free to go and look at what
Speaker 1: I had to say. All I would say is that
Speaker 1: using dehumanizing rhetoric like bedbugs who or you know, analogizing
Speaker 1: people to insects is always wrong. We can do better.
Speaker 1: We should be the people on social media that we
Speaker 1: are in real life. I would agree with that. Final
Speaker 1: statement for sure is that the worst thing that you
Speaker 1: have ever been called on social media. There's a there's
Speaker 1: a bad history of being called, of being analogized to insects.
Speaker 1: That goes back to a lot of totalitarian regimes in
Speaker 1: the past. I've been called worse. I wrote this guy
Speaker 1: a personal note. Now it's out there for ague. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, he did it, he went there. I you know,
Speaker 1: it's someone said I was like a bedbug as a joke.
Speaker 1: But a bedbug is a type of vermin, and vermin
Speaker 1: are dehumanized because they're not people, and totalitarian regime jeemes
Speaker 1: have used the rhetoric of vermin to dehumanize groups in
Speaker 1: the past. Therefore, the guy is basically an you know,
Speaker 1: basically being a Nazi who said that I was a
Speaker 1: bed book. I mean, you could just see the whole
Speaker 1: logic loop going on. There. Look, Bret Stevens is getting
Speaker 1: everything that he deserves to this one because he just
Speaker 1: made it worse. It is a It is a lie
Speaker 1: when he says that he did not want the guy,
Speaker 1: that that was not his intent. Whether he wants him
Speaker 1: to a now or not is irrelevant. It's a lie
Speaker 1: when he says he didn't want him to get in
Speaker 1: trouble because Bret Stevens a big New York Times columnist.
Speaker 1: This guy some professor, no one's ever heard of. Guy
Speaker 1: has like fifty followers on Twitter. So he's lying to
Speaker 1: the American public about that. And but then also to
Speaker 1: go there. I mean, this is just what Chris Cuomo
Speaker 1: did with what he said about Fredo, comparing it to
Speaker 1: an ethnic slur, when no one thinks it's an ethnic slur.
Speaker 1: They've called Donald Trump Junior Fredo countless times on CNN.
Speaker 1: But what is the real moral of the story here
Speaker 1: other than it's just a very amusic little a little
Speaker 1: vignette of what are journal elites early like, what is
Speaker 1: the ball of a story here? These are the individuals
Speaker 1: who are going to be presenting you with what they
Speaker 1: say is objective reality going into a very contentious election.
Speaker 1: These are the people that are going to be presenting
Speaker 1: to you what they say is the truth, and their
Speaker 1: judgment about what to tell you, and as importantly, what
Speaker 1: not to tell you is something you can either trust
Speaker 1: or very thoroughly scrutinize, or perhaps distrust entirely because you
Speaker 1: know that the individual involved is not somebody who is
Speaker 1: honorable and has good judgment. Brett Stephens showed a lot
Speaker 1: of people who he is over the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: and I can tell you this, my friends, he is
Speaker 1: not the only one at the New York Times. In fact,
Speaker 1: he's probably one of the much better ones over at
Speaker 1: the New York Times. So maybe the only way that
Speaker 1: we get reform in the world of journalism is to
Speaker 1: insist that journal at least have a standard human beings
Speaker 1: approach to being mocked or ridiculed and not think that
Speaker 1: it is a five alarm fire that everybody should freak
Speaker 1: out about. We will get into some actually important stuff
Speaker 1: here in a second. We have some immigration discussion to have.
Speaker 1: We also have the possibility of charges. Actually, let's get
Speaker 1: to that. The charges that may come against Andy McCabe,
Speaker 1: former FBI and now CNN contributor. Former FBI acting director.
Speaker 1: Here's a prediction for you. I do not think they
Speaker 1: will charge him. Why, well to hear that, you gotta
Speaker 1: stay through the break. So we're going to find out
Speaker 1: very soon whether the justice system in this country is
Speaker 1: entirely rigged by politics. We're going to find out very soon.
Speaker 1: We are told that it is a matter of days
Speaker 1: before we find out if they're are charges against Andy McCabe,
Speaker 1: who was the acting FBI director at the well after
Speaker 1: the firing of James Comey, who was very tight with
Speaker 1: James Comey. McCabe, it has also since come out, is
Speaker 1: a very self satisfied and sanctimonious bureaucrat, a deep stater extraordinaire.
Speaker 1: And here's the problem that we face right now. Andie McCabe,
Speaker 1: according to the FBI's own internal investigation, lied four separate
Speaker 1: times LID this is about the disclosure of information to
Speaker 1: a reporter about the Hillary Clinton Clinton Foundation investigation. And
Speaker 1: he said that he didn't know anything about this, and
Speaker 1: it turns out that no, he does. He in fact,
Speaker 1: I believe he was the one who disclosed the information.
Speaker 1: And he even called subordinates in New York. He yelled
Speaker 1: at them about the leak saying who would do such
Speaker 1: a thing? This was all in the Inspector General report.
Speaker 1: So now this is a very straightforward application of the law.
Speaker 1: Either the acting FBI director, whose wife, as we know,
Speaker 1: was going to run as a Democrat and who hates
Speaker 1: Trump and who was involved in a discussion about an
Speaker 1: insurance policy in case Trump won. Right, remember this from
Speaker 1: the Lisa Page and Peter Struck text messages. Annie McCabe lied,
Speaker 1: according to his own FBI. He lied in a legally
Speaker 1: binding context where he broke criminal law. This is what happened.
Speaker 1: And now this is a guy who I can assure you.
Speaker 1: I can assure you sent lots of people to prison
Speaker 1: as an agent and then moving up the ranks as
Speaker 1: a manager, lots of people to prison for doing exactly that,
Speaker 1: lying about something that's not even necessarily a crime. James Comey,
Speaker 1: McCabe's mentor and friend, was a pioneer in the realm
Speaker 1: of throwing people in prison who didn't break any laws
Speaker 1: but maybe misremembered something irrelevant. And then you know, this
Speaker 1: is like the Martin Martha Stewart. That was all James,
Speaker 1: call me, Do I think that they're going to press
Speaker 1: charges against McCabe. I think the answer is no, even
Speaker 1: though he very clearly broke the law. I will tell
Speaker 1: you why in a moment. So why is it that
Speaker 1: I'm so confident? I could be wrong? But let's be honest.
Speaker 1: How often does that happen? Why is it that I'm
Speaker 1: so confident that Andy McCabe will evade prosecution. There'll be
Speaker 1: some stern words about how he shouldn't have misled the
Speaker 1: FBI investigators. I'm so confident about it because I understand
Speaker 1: what we are up against. I understand how the other side,
Speaker 1: how the left thinks, how they approach power, how they
Speaker 1: wield power, and they know ultimately, they know that. This
Speaker 1: is a very important moment for the hashtag resistance because
Speaker 1: it is an opportunity to show that if you are
Speaker 1: anti Trump, you are in fact above the law. If
Speaker 1: you hate this president, the libs in whether it's the
Speaker 1: jury pool, the prosecutor's office, or the deep state, will
Speaker 1: protect you. All you have to do is despise this
Speaker 1: president and work openly against him, which is what we
Speaker 1: know Andy McCabe was doing. Hebe hates the president, and
Speaker 1: oh he's now a CNN commentator. Well, isn't that interesting?
Speaker 1: Isn't that special, CNN commentator Andy McCabe. Will he be indicted?
Speaker 1: Probably not. What do you think George Papadopolis thinks of
Speaker 1: that they send Papadopolis to jail for a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: He didn't commit any other crimes. He wasn't some mastermind
Speaker 1: of a criminal conspiracy. And they could only get him
Speaker 1: on lying. You know, this is an al capone. They
Speaker 1: just got him on tax evasion because they couldn't get
Speaker 1: him on all the murders and racketeering and everything else.
Speaker 1: But why should Papadoppolus suffer a punishment that a person
Speaker 1: who was at the very top of the federal law
Speaker 1: enforcement hierarchy would escape for doing the same thing. I
Speaker 1: would need someone to have a really good explanation for this.
Speaker 1: George Popadopoulus here, this is from our friend Andy McCabe.
Speaker 1: Quote the date of a meeting, that's all the lie
Speaker 1: was about. George Papadoppolus claimed that a meeting he'd had
Speaker 1: with the mysterious Maltese professor Joseph Miffsud happened slightly before
Speaker 1: the Green is Grass twenty eight year old was recruited
Speaker 1: into the Trump campaign in reality, it was slightly after.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a very porton lie. It was of no
Speaker 1: consequence to the FBI or the Special Council's investigation. Papadopoulus
Speaker 1: was such an afterthought to the Bureau that it did
Speaker 1: not bother to interview him until late January twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: about ten months after he met Miff sud By the
Speaker 1: time Papadopoulus was charged, the Trump Rush investigation had been
Speaker 1: ongoing for well over a year. It was already clear
Speaker 1: there was no conspiracy. Yet that didn't stop Muller's staff
Speaker 1: and Rod Rosenstein, their Justice Department superior, from indicting Papadopolis
Speaker 1: on a felony charge, nor did it stopped them from
Speaker 1: exhorting a federal court to impose a sentence of incarceration.
Speaker 1: That's right. Not only did they want him to have
Speaker 1: a felony record, they learned him to sit in to
Speaker 1: sell because he lied to them about the date of
Speaker 1: a meeting that didn't matter in any way, shape or
Speaker 1: form to anyone other than the investigation. That shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been happening in the first place, because it was all
Speaker 1: a deep state witch hunt. We know this. It's over
Speaker 1: they tried, they took their best shot and they missed.
Speaker 1: But why should Popadopoulus have a felony record and see
Speaker 1: the inside of a prison and not Andy McCabe. Don't
Speaker 1: we expect more of the FBI director? Don't we expect
Speaker 1: more of somebody who sent lots of people to prison
Speaker 1: for offenses that were offenses against the States? You know,
Speaker 1: no one ever questions when you send people along the
Speaker 1: lines of you know, a murder or a kidnap or
Speaker 1: any of that too a prison. But what about when
Speaker 1: you send somebody who is caught lying and about no
Speaker 1: underlying criminal conduct. FBI Andy McKay put plenty of people.
Speaker 1: It's US code one zero zero one. He put plenty
Speaker 1: of people away for that. If the felony charges that
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Brier Investigation drops against
Speaker 1: people on a regular basis for minimalize, which I oppose,
Speaker 1: But I think that we need to get a grip
Speaker 1: on this whole thing. I think that unless it's a material,
Speaker 1: unless it is a truly material lie that you are
Speaker 1: absolutely certain was willful and knowing and malicious and intended
Speaker 1: to throw off the investigators. If it's minor This reminds
Speaker 1: me of the member Scooter Libby. In the Scooter Libby trial,
Speaker 1: the whole case turned on whether or not Tim Russer
Speaker 1: said the name of a person to a CIA officer
Speaker 1: to Scooter Libby Lewis Libby and we all call him Scooter,
Speaker 1: or whether Libby said it to him first. Do you
Speaker 1: know what the proof was? The proof was Tim Russer's word.
Speaker 1: That was taken as the proof. They believed Russer. They
Speaker 1: didn't believe. They didn't believe Libby just because that was
Speaker 1: all and they wanted to send Libby away. It goes
Speaker 1: for eighteen months, your federal president. He didn't leak anyone's name, folks.
Speaker 1: The leaker was Armitage, and they knew that, and they
Speaker 1: pressed charges against Libby. Anyway, you're noticing a pattern, aren't you.
Speaker 1: If you're attached to if you're on the right, if
Speaker 1: you're involved with the right, you do not get the
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt. If you are on the right,
Speaker 1: you're a target. If you're a leftist, if you do
Speaker 1: the bidding of the Democrat Party, if you go after
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party's enemies. Somehow, you just always look the
Speaker 1: best example of this is Bill Clinton himself. Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: committed a felony. Bill Clinton lied under oath. That's it.
Speaker 1: People can can dance around it, and oh this, and
Speaker 1: then he lied in the oath, and the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: circle the wagons and said, sorry, the president's this. President's
Speaker 1: allowed to commit a felony. It's too important to the
Speaker 1: Democratic cause, just like Hillary Clinton with her misuse and
Speaker 1: a reckless treatment of classfied information, which is also I
Speaker 1: would note, can be a felony charge depending on the circumstances.
Speaker 1: But they just said, you know what, it's clear she
Speaker 1: broke the law. It's clear what the law is. We
Speaker 1: just don't plan on holding her responsible for it. And
Speaker 1: I think you're likely to see the same thing with McKay.
Speaker 1: There'll be some some kind of you know, mumble mumble
Speaker 1: served as country good man everything. Okay, Why didn't General
Speaker 1: Flynn get the benefit of that doubt from the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice? You know, he didn't. They hit him with
Speaker 1: a felony, want to ruin him, bankrupt him. He didn't lie,
Speaker 1: He didn't. He lied about a conversation, according to them.
Speaker 1: I still think it's interesting if he even really lied
Speaker 1: or not, whether he misremembered, but he lied about a
Speaker 1: conversation that was in no way criminal put him in
Speaker 1: any kind of jeopardy, but they just decided that that's
Speaker 1: what they were going to do, that they were going
Speaker 1: to charge him. Who gets charged and who doesn't is
Speaker 1: one of the most most important areas of government action
Speaker 1: to watch because it tells you who's really running things,
Speaker 1: and when one side keeps getting a pass, when one
Speaker 1: side keeps getting the the the Bill Clinton treatment, the
Speaker 1: Jusi Smalllett treatment, the Hillary Clinton treatment, you'll notice this,
Speaker 1: but the other and this is this matters in politically
Speaker 1: charged cases. This matters when there is a a political
Speaker 1: foundation to all of it. What is the other spot
Speaker 1: side supposed to think? What are we supposed to believe?
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're right now already analyzing how because
Speaker 1: Trump is so hated in DC, the Swamp where I
Speaker 1: was formerly a resident of the Swamp is after San Francisco,
Speaker 1: the most left wing Democrat heavy affiliated, Democrat heavy by
Speaker 1: registration major city in the whole country. And they think
Speaker 1: that maybe mcay will get off if he takes it
Speaker 1: to a jury trial, just because people hate Trump so much.
Speaker 1: That's right now, you're gonna have jury nullification of federal
Speaker 1: law because hashtag they hate Trump and they'll feel righteous
Speaker 1: about that too, so somehow, now, but that would only
Speaker 1: be if we see charges. I don't think you're going
Speaker 1: to see charges. And they'll just sweep the whole thing away.
Speaker 1: They'll say, oh, well, it didn't look like it was
Speaker 1: a slam dunk, so they just and then we'll move on.
Speaker 1: They know we'll move on. Nobody will really pay how
Speaker 1: much attention. But here's what I mean. I'm here to
Speaker 1: tell you the game, the criminal justice game is fixed
Speaker 1: in favor of the left from the very top, from
Speaker 1: the very top, even when you have a Republican president,
Speaker 1: because the justice system is really run by the permanent bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: and there are all these rules that only are used
Speaker 1: against the right about oh you know there's you can't
Speaker 1: you know, involve yourself an ongoing investigation, and well it's amazing.
Speaker 1: People will say this, Oh look what Trump did involving
Speaker 1: himself an ongoing criminal investigation of him with his tweets.
Speaker 1: And I said, you know, Obama said that, you know,
Speaker 1: involved himself in the Hillary Clinton email investigation while he
Speaker 1: was president, said there's nothing there. How is that not
Speaker 1: in oh I've said this, people to say, well, that
Speaker 1: doesn't they don't think this stuff through, and that's that's
Speaker 1: so that's what I think is gonna happen with in
Speaker 1: the cave. I just one more criminal justice story to
Speaker 1: get to today. And I don't want to be I
Speaker 1: don't want to blur these lines between analysis and conspiracy.
Speaker 1: But sure enough, I saw today reported in numerous places
Speaker 1: that some portion of the Stein surveillance video from the
Speaker 1: prison is in fact considered unusable, unreadable, whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't really see there was a malfunction
Speaker 1: of what is considered essential footage to the investigation at
Speaker 1: one of the security of Prouser. Right, I can see
Speaker 1: this today. I'm not imagine this, right, Oh yeah, I thought.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just wonder, at what point are we
Speaker 1: allowed to say that there are too many coincidences here
Speaker 1: that would all line up as coincidences in this way
Speaker 1: if if the whole purpose was really to prevent certain names,
Speaker 1: certain information around Epstein. I know, Epstein's gone, but there
Speaker 1: are a whole bunch of other people around Epstein from
Speaker 1: getting out there. I mean, how much more do we
Speaker 1: have the stomach of this stuff before we can say
Speaker 1: that something's really wrong here, right, Yeah, it's beyond conspiracy.
Speaker 1: It's common sense. Now it's turned into common sense. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I tweeted out today and I'm really curious
Speaker 1: people to think about this. Are we still supposed to
Speaker 1: say the words conspiracy theory if we're told in a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks of there was a malfunction in the FBI,
Speaker 1: you know, evidence process, and some of the some of
Speaker 1: the hard drives and things that they took from Epstein's
Speaker 1: house just disappeared or was lost in a fire, or
Speaker 1: was accidentally erased by a wayward you know, computer technician,
Speaker 1: you know what? Is too much for us to think
Speaker 1: that all of this just happened the way that it
Speaker 1: happened because two guards asleep, Epstein left alone, Epstein taken
Speaker 1: off of suicide watch three weeks after he tried to
Speaker 1: commit suicide. Epstein allowed access to materials that could that
Speaker 1: could be used for suicide, even though he never should
Speaker 1: have been. Haven't heard anything yet about these raids of
Speaker 1: his properties? What do they take from his properties? When?
Speaker 1: When do we get to find out about that? And
Speaker 1: for those of you who probably think we'll hold on
Speaker 1: a second buck, unpack, unpack your worst case scenario for
Speaker 1: this for a moment. How could anyone in the currently
Speaker 1: in the system, whether it's Bureau of Prisons or DJ
Speaker 1: or anywhere, How could anyone in the system do anything
Speaker 1: that would help hide the truth about Epstein. It might
Speaker 1: not just be It might not be about Epstein at all.
Speaker 1: There are people who think that they are doing the
Speaker 1: right thing. I have known them in the federal bureaucracy
Speaker 1: by protecting the bureaucracy. And the way they justify to
Speaker 1: themselves is this is such an important institution. This matters
Speaker 1: to the American that belief in this institution matters to
Speaker 1: the American people so much that even if we have
Speaker 1: to lie to the American people, even if we have
Speaker 1: to hide things to the American people about the truth
Speaker 1: of what has gone on here, it's for their own good.
Speaker 1: Someone pressured a Costa to take the deal. Someone pressured
Speaker 1: a camera. The guy's name, the state's attorney in Palm
Speaker 1: Beach to give an insanely favorable deal. There was pressure
Speaker 1: brought to bear who did that. If we find out
Speaker 1: that it was someone very high up the chain of command,
Speaker 1: it would rock our faith in the Apartment of justice
Speaker 1: in the justice system itself. A lot of people out
Speaker 1: there could justify to themselves hiding that kind of information
Speaker 1: from the public because our institutions are just too important.
Speaker 1: That is something that I want you to remember as
Speaker 1: we keep getting more information about how we never get
Speaker 1: any information. They're not going to present you with any indictable,
Speaker 1: smoking gun evidence from Epstein's Cash of what had to
Speaker 1: be blackmail information on some of the most powerful people
Speaker 1: in the world having sex with underage girls. Had to
Speaker 1: be no information about this, no proof anywhere, even though
Speaker 1: this guy set up what is essentially a proof factory
Speaker 1: to blackmail powerful people. I will not give up on this.
Speaker 1: We will keep following this. We all have limited attention spans.
Speaker 1: We have limitability to address any problem any you make
Speaker 1: any decision. Our energy, our resources are not endless, and
Speaker 1: that matters when you start to think about what the
Speaker 1: media focuses on. You Compare, for example, the hysteria around
Speaker 1: climate change, which we'll talk more about later in the show,
Speaker 1: with the lack of real emotion, the lack of focus,
Speaker 1: the lack of attention on the opioid crisis, which is
Speaker 1: and orders of magnitude more important, more real, more devastating problem.
Speaker 1: One of these things is a liberal fantasy that has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with anything really other than government control,
Speaker 1: and the other is a national emergency. Seventy thousand people
Speaker 1: a year in the last few years on average dying dying.
Speaker 1: These are people who are now dead from a drug overdose.
Speaker 1: And yet liberals have far in the media, far less
Speaker 1: outrage to use on this issue that they're spending much
Speaker 1: less time. Well, that made change at least for a
Speaker 1: few days here, because the maker of Oxyconton, the most
Speaker 1: well known opioid Perdue Pharma, and its owners, the Sackler families,
Speaker 1: supporting the NBC News today, are offering to settle more
Speaker 1: than two thousand lawsuits against the company for ten to
Speaker 1: twelve billion dollars and this would be this is a
Speaker 1: huge class action lawsuit obviously. Now, the truth is this
Speaker 1: won't bring anyone back who's been lost the opioid crisis,
Speaker 1: but it will at least give some measure of justice,
Speaker 1: perhaps to some of the families. And it also is
Speaker 1: a reminder that pharmaceutical companies do have ethical obligations, and
Speaker 1: modern medicine has ethical obligations that it failed in dramatic
Speaker 1: fashion to keep keep going. When it comes to the
Speaker 1: opioid crisis, someone hal with oxyconton among other drugs. We'll
Speaker 1: keep an eye on this. So what do you say
Speaker 1: to the governors of those nineteen states that are suing
Speaker 1: the Trump administration? I ask them, do you really care
Speaker 1: about these people? Because when you when you entice people
Speaker 1: to come to this country by guaranteeing they won't be detained,
Speaker 1: When you when you vilify ice trying to carry out
Speaker 1: the judge's orders and you don't want them doing that,
Speaker 1: you entice more people to come to this country. Thirty
Speaker 1: one percent of women are being sexually assaulted at making
Speaker 1: that journey. Children are dying, Cartels are getting rich. The
Speaker 1: same cartels are a murdered barbitual agents. At what point,
Speaker 1: there's the laws in this country that we're enacted by
Speaker 1: Congress need to be enforced. We got to stop ignoring it.
Speaker 1: So again, this isn't just about enforcing law. This isn't
Speaker 1: just about securing the Border's about saving lives. There's no
Speaker 1: downside on securing our border. There's no downside unless illegal
Speaker 1: immigration at bank rows criminal organizations. There's no downside unless
Speaker 1: illegal drugs from this country. Well that's let's secure our border.
Speaker 1: That is our job as a nation. That's Tom Holman,
Speaker 1: and I gotta tell you he is a national treasure
Speaker 1: on the issue of immigration. And he's somebody who knows
Speaker 1: that issue as well as anybody you'll find. You know, whatever,
Speaker 1: Tom and I see each other in the green red
Speaker 1: Fox were always just exchanging thoughts on the latest here
Speaker 1: with the crisis and what's going on. And notice the
Speaker 1: way that he frames it, it changes so much how
Speaker 1: you would have a conversation about immigration. The magnet has
Speaker 1: to be shut off that people believe by violating our
Speaker 1: laws they will receive a benefit and they will not
Speaker 1: be punished in any way. That then promotes the mass immigration,
Speaker 1: that's the invasion of migrants from Central America in violation
Speaker 1: of US law into this country because they think it
Speaker 1: will be good for them. If you stop that process,
Speaker 1: if you turn off the benefits, you also then make
Speaker 1: it much less likely that all of these very very
Speaker 1: bad things will happen as a result of their decision
Speaker 1: to try to entery that it's legally. He brought up
Speaker 1: thirty percent of women being sexually assaulted along the way,
Speaker 1: children who are exposed to all kinds of risk, including
Speaker 1: some children who have died because they have made the journey.
Speaker 1: They did not die because they got to US custody
Speaker 1: in an hour later were taken to a hospital. They
Speaker 1: died because of the journey that adults decided to take
Speaker 1: them on. Or in some cases, you have miners who
Speaker 1: are assaulted, who are sexually assaulted, and who are having
Speaker 1: put a tremendous risk sent alone to the border. If
Speaker 1: you want this to stop, you have to convince people
Speaker 1: that this is not a good idea for them to
Speaker 1: take the risks involved. No one. No one is going
Speaker 1: to go bankrupt at the racetrack if they can't win
Speaker 1: any money, right, I mean, if there's no chance that
Speaker 1: there's going to be anything good that happens. If you're
Speaker 1: not gonna pay, no one's going to take those risks.
Speaker 1: You have to eliminate the incentive. This is essential in
Speaker 1: dealing with the immigration crisis. It is absolutely a first step.
Speaker 1: This isn't something down the line if you're at it's
Speaker 1: the first step. And that is why when you see
Speaker 1: how the left acts on this issue, it's clear that
Speaker 1: they don't want this to stop. That's why they fight
Speaker 1: against the enforcement mechanisms at every step of the way.
Speaker 1: They fight against deportation, they fight against detaining people until
Speaker 1: they're hearing that's what the big argument is. Now, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to keep the families together. Families will stay together.
Speaker 1: No family separation. All right, fine, Democrats, you've won that argument.
Speaker 1: No family separation, which now means that we're creating a
Speaker 1: special carve out with an immigration within criminal immigration enforcement
Speaker 1: that does not exist in the rest of criminal law.
Speaker 1: Because if you are drunk driving, folks, if one of you,
Speaker 1: you know, obviously don't ever do. It's a very risky,
Speaker 1: very stupid thing to do. But if you're drunk driving
Speaker 1: and you've got a kid in the back seat and
Speaker 1: you don't have a relative that can take custody of
Speaker 1: that child, that child is going to be the custody
Speaker 1: of the States. You get out of get out of prison,
Speaker 1: you're going to be separated from that child, at least
Speaker 1: for the processing phase. It's going to happen. So now
Speaker 1: we have a separate set of law for the enforcement
Speaker 1: of immigration statutes. And Democrats show us who they really
Speaker 1: are on this, which is a party that wants this
Speaker 1: lawlessness to continue. And that's why now that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has said, you know what, we're just not going
Speaker 1: to We're going to change. This is really an internal
Speaker 1: mechanism within the federal government. The Flora has consent decree.
Speaker 1: This is not a congressional statute. This is a federal
Speaker 1: judge telling the government that you got to do this
Speaker 1: and this is how we should go. And the government
Speaker 1: agreed to it. Well, okay, and now we're going to
Speaker 1: agree to something else. And again Tom home and waited
Speaker 1: in on this one specifically on Floras and why this
Speaker 1: is such an important change, and Democrats know it's an
Speaker 1: important change, which is why they are completely freaking out
Speaker 1: over this. No, we did this back in Uplay fifteen.
Speaker 1: It took about forty forty five days and said them
Speaker 1: to see a judge. And when the Flora recent decision
Speaker 1: came out a couple of years ago, say you're gonna
Speaker 1: only home for twenty days. We warn the court. I
Speaker 1: personally didn't have to. David warn in the court if
Speaker 1: you do this, if you make us release them before
Speaker 1: they see a judge, you're going to see a surgeon.
Speaker 1: Family unis that you've never seen before. And of course
Speaker 1: I was called a fear monger. I didn't have evidence
Speaker 1: of it, and look what happened. So holding them in
Speaker 1: a family residential center for up to forty five days
Speaker 1: it's not that bad since it's a facility built for families,
Speaker 1: it's not a jail cell. And also, if they're really
Speaker 1: escaping fear and persecution and death from their homeland, I
Speaker 1: don't see the downside and detaining them for a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks longer to see a judge in a family
Speaker 1: residential center, they're gonna be well taken care of. See,
Speaker 1: that's what we're really talking about here, folks, a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks more so that they can be processed and
Speaker 1: see a judge. All along we've been told, oh, they're
Speaker 1: just seeking asylum, they're just seeking a song. Why won't
Speaker 1: you let them lawfully seek asylum. Well, they've illegally entered
Speaker 1: the country because they've overwhelmed our processes. So at ports
Speaker 1: of entry we say, sorry, we can't take you in
Speaker 1: right now where there's too many. You're gonna have to wait.
Speaker 1: They said, I don't want to wait. I'm gonna surrender.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna walk across the border, break the
Speaker 1: US law, violate sovereignty, of the United States, and then
Speaker 1: I'm gonna want to go through my legal process, you know,
Speaker 1: then I'm gonna want to tell people that I need asylum.
Speaker 1: Well to Tom's point here, if you really want asylum
Speaker 1: because you have a credible fear, and this is the
Speaker 1: this is what it all turns on. You have a
Speaker 1: credible fear that you will be subject to violence if
Speaker 1: you return to your home country. Then is the prospect
Speaker 1: of thirty or forty days in a US family detention
Speaker 1: facility men for families, or you will be fed, clothed, housed,
Speaker 1: receive medical care, all a taxpayer expense. Mind you, no
Speaker 1: one's paying any money for this other than the taxpayer.
Speaker 1: Is that so unthinkable? Does that make us such a
Speaker 1: such terrible people? I mean, look at what other countries
Speaker 1: do when they have an illegal immigrant population. They detain people,
Speaker 1: they hold them in facilities that this is standard everywhere.
Speaker 1: But Democrats that they'll point to the rest of the
Speaker 1: world when it suits them. On Oh, look at you
Speaker 1: know what they do in healthcare here, or look at
Speaker 1: the very high rates of taxation in this quaint European
Speaker 1: country with nice lattes and some cobblestone streets. You know,
Speaker 1: but when it comes to sovereignty and in in the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, you know, try showing up in like
Speaker 1: Japan and saying, yeah, I just want to stay here. Thanks,
Speaker 1: It's just not going to happen. It will not happen.
Speaker 1: You will not be successful in that process. Most countries
Speaker 1: around the world are far stricter about immigration than we are.
Speaker 1: And no country in the world takes in as many
Speaker 1: legal immigrants every year as we do. And what do
Speaker 1: democrats do now when we have a fix to the loophole,
Speaker 1: They complain about the fix. Well, if you both agree
Speaker 1: that the loophole needs to be fixed, you don't complain
Speaker 1: when that actually happens. They never wanted this to be fixed.
Speaker 1: And that's why you have these states, nineteen of them,
Speaker 1: including the district of Columbie. They're all suing the Trump
Speaker 1: administration saying that twenty days is that that's what it
Speaker 1: has to be. It's an arbitrary number. Why does it
Speaker 1: have to be twenty days, says who? Why not twelve days,
Speaker 1: Why not fifty days? Twenty days? Why just because some
Speaker 1: judge twenty years ago plus over twenty years ago decided
Speaker 1: that twenty days sounds about right. These days for supporting
Speaker 1: the magnets of illegal immigration. The reason we're being overrun
Speaker 1: is two reasons. If you come here and claim asylum,
Speaker 1: you're hearing these three years away, and you never show up.
Speaker 1: We don't hold people for three years, so all they
Speaker 1: got to do is ask for asylum. If you're bringing
Speaker 1: a minor child, we can only hold a child for
Speaker 1: twenty days. We turned the child over to a labor HHS.
Speaker 1: Since you don't want to separate families, will let the
Speaker 1: entire family go. So they're continuing a bad practice. Shame
Speaker 1: on these dates. Shame on the district coul Yeah, the
Speaker 1: Congress should change our laws to allow you to hold
Speaker 1: minor children and their families long enough to process their
Speaker 1: claims so you don't let them out into the interior
Speaker 1: of the country. See, folks, The real point here is
Speaker 1: that all a long Democrats have been pretending that we're
Speaker 1: working toward the same goal and immigration. You know, they
Speaker 1: just want to be humanitarian. They want to be considerate
Speaker 1: of the children involved as its. Remember it's always one
Speaker 1: of my rules whenever someone says that they're doing it
Speaker 1: for your your safety, or for the children, be suspicious
Speaker 1: in the government, be suspicious. Now we've got a fix
Speaker 1: to that problem, and they're saying, well, now that that's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: They are all these states are suing, and I'd be
Speaker 1: very curious to know in what way are they even
Speaker 1: going to claim standing here because they have they have
Speaker 1: residents that want illegal aliens to come into the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, how exactly are they all going to claim it? Well,
Speaker 1: we'll have to see what the specifics are of the suit.
Speaker 1: M But you know, Lindsey Graham, he goes for me.
Speaker 1: He goes back and forth in immigration. Sometimes I feel
Speaker 1: like he's pretty squared away and other times he's a
Speaker 1: little too squishy for my taste. But here's lindsay on
Speaker 1: how we can fix this. The Democrats do not want
Speaker 1: to hate Trump. Well, yeah, exactly, I hate Trump. We
Speaker 1: get that. But at the same time, this is a
Speaker 1: humanitarian crisis at our southern border. It would seem that,
Speaker 1: you know, you've been working with other Democrats. I know
Speaker 1: they hate Trump, but they've got we send you people
Speaker 1: to Washington to fix stuff, and you're not fixing it.
Speaker 1: Send people to Washington who don't hate Trump. I have
Speaker 1: been working on immigration for ten years. I'm willing to
Speaker 1: deal with a DOCCA population, give them a place to
Speaker 1: stay in our country at pathway to citizenship. I'm willing
Speaker 1: to spend money in Central America to make life better.
Speaker 1: I've done everything I know to do. I've talked, I've
Speaker 1: turned blue in the face. I can't get one Democrat
Speaker 1: to agree with me that you should apply for asylum
Speaker 1: in Central America Mexico, not the United States. This tells
Speaker 1: you everything you need to know, because if they had
Speaker 1: to apply for asylum Mexico not the United States, they
Speaker 1: would stop coming. And you know what that would mean,
Speaker 1: because they're not going to get asylum. Vast majority, ninety
Speaker 1: percent plus won't get asylum. Oh what that means is
Speaker 1: that all along we've been lied to, we've been played
Speaker 1: if all of a sudden things. So this is like
Speaker 1: my test for the Clinton Foundation, which I turned out
Speaker 1: to be right as you know, I said, Okay, the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation, if it's really about charity and not about
Speaker 1: buying access. When Hillary Clinton is no longer going to
Speaker 1: be president the United States, the donations, especially from from
Speaker 1: abroad for the Clinton Global Initiative, they should stay exactly
Speaker 1: the same. It's about a charity, man, It's not about
Speaker 1: buying access. Oh what did we find out? I think
Speaker 1: it dropped pruser Michaels about forty percent. Is that sound
Speaker 1: about right? I think thirty five forty percent year one?
Speaker 1: And now when they shut down the Clinton Global Initiative
Speaker 1: so they could they didn't even want to wait and
Speaker 1: see how much would drop your two, So they shut
Speaker 1: it down because I guess what we were right. There
Speaker 1: was influence peddling. There was access selling going on by
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation. Whether you know whether it was a
Speaker 1: quid pro quel or was just perception of access, that's
Speaker 1: what was happening. It wasn't just about charity. All along
Speaker 1: the media the Democratic Party have been telling us that
Speaker 1: the people showing up at our southern border have done
Speaker 1: so claiming asylum, have done so in good faith because
Speaker 1: they fear for their lives. Well, if all of a
Speaker 1: sudden they can't just say that and get into the
Speaker 1: United States and then never show up for their hearing,
Speaker 1: if they have to go through the real asylum process
Speaker 1: and then be subject to deportation because they are not
Speaker 1: in the United States, they just get taken to a
Speaker 1: judge and then they get expeditiously removed afterwards because they're
Speaker 1: staying in Mexico. Guess what, they weren't really asylum seekers
Speaker 1: all along. Democrats want to avoid They want to avoid
Speaker 1: that recognition of reality. They also want to avoid angering
Speaker 1: their far left radical base that does want an open border,
Speaker 1: that wants these loopholes to continue as is, does not
Speaker 1: want to see any change because this creates what is
Speaker 1: a de facto open door for anyone outside of US
Speaker 1: borders to come into America. And then one political party,
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party, is going to tell them, you have
Speaker 1: a right to be here. Don't worry that you broke
Speaker 1: our laws. In fact, we owe this to you. And
Speaker 1: the only people that you need to worry about are
Speaker 1: those big, bad, mean Republicans. So vote against them, vote
Speaker 1: for us, and all will be well. This is the game.
Speaker 1: It's the California model for the whole country. Flip the
Speaker 1: whole country blue through illegal immigration from the developing world.
Speaker 1: That's the plan. We can all see it. We've got
Speaker 1: more coming up, all right. So I know I mentioned
Speaker 1: to you that because we made this prediction on air
Speaker 1: before Hillary laws the election, that if she, if she
Speaker 1: in fact was not the president, that the Clinton Foundation
Speaker 1: donations would all all of a sudden it's a charity,
Speaker 1: folks shouldn't shouldn't matter, nobody should care, But all of
Speaker 1: a sudden there'd be problems. Rooster, Mike, what happened around
Speaker 1: that time? The Clinton Foundation? So throughout Hillary's ten years
Speaker 1: secretary of State, the foundation pulled in on average two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty four million dollars a year. Ayay, so
Speaker 1: a lot of money. That's who yeah, look good, trying
Speaker 1: to change. So they dropped from two hundred and sixteen
Speaker 1: million in twenty sixteen to just twenty six point five
Speaker 1: million in twenty seventeen. Quickmath, I'll tell you buck, that's
Speaker 1: an eighty eight percent fall. Only down eighty eight percent, man,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know who could happen to anybody? Wait?
Speaker 1: I thought that was a charity. So if it were
Speaker 1: at charity, all of a sudden, the whole world got
Speaker 1: a whole lot less charitable. Oh maybe it wasn't about charity.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was a way to write checks to somebody
Speaker 1: who was going to be the most powerful individual in
Speaker 1: the world. And people were trying to buy a little
Speaker 1: bit of favor, a little bit of gratitude, a little
Speaker 1: bit of what for what? You don't here you don't
Speaker 1: hear a lot of stories over at CNN about that one. No.
Speaker 1: Right now they're freaking out because Attorney General bar my
Speaker 1: main man, showed up at my going away party in DC.
Speaker 1: If you guys haven't seen that because you don't follow
Speaker 1: me on Instagram, Buck Sexton. You should all follow Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton on Instagram if you like. Please. It's really just
Speaker 1: me now tweeting out things that wreck libs and where
Speaker 1: I post tweets where I wreck libs. And then also
Speaker 1: occasionally me and Tallula, my parents, French bulldog, you know,
Speaker 1: got to pose for the pup photos and some stuff
Speaker 1: from different media appearances. But now the CNN folks are
Speaker 1: all angry because my man, Attorney General bar has booked
Speaker 1: a DC at his book, Trump's Hotel in DC, the
Speaker 1: Trump Hotel in DC, which is a great hotel by
Speaker 1: the way, or thirty thousand dollars for a holiday party.
Speaker 1: Now the thing about that is that he's paying out
Speaker 1: of his pocket. And now they're saying, oh, well, this
Speaker 1: raises questions about ethics and DJ independence, and you know
Speaker 1: that they're doing all the stuff the usual, like oh
Speaker 1: my god, Trump, Trump can't do anything. Trump can't buy
Speaker 1: a sandwich without people saying, oh, there's a transaction, here's
Speaker 1: paying people off, and there's gonna be favors, and he
Speaker 1: can't do anything without. This is just this is like
Speaker 1: a lib hysteria over this thirty thousand dollar party about
Speaker 1: it's not even a very expensive holiday party. I hate
Speaker 1: to break it at a hotel that's not that's spent
Speaker 1: a lot more money than that for different companies in corporation.
Speaker 1: But he's paying out of his pockets. Now they're gonna say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: he can't be independent as Attorney general. No. I think
Speaker 1: he can throw a party for the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: at a hotel that is owned by the president and
Speaker 1: that's not going to all of a sudden mean that
Speaker 1: he doesn't understand the law and he doesn't have any
Speaker 1: ethics and nothing matters. I think that's quite an exaggeration.
Speaker 1: And then there's the other part of this that you
Speaker 1: won't hear from any places. But I know this to
Speaker 1: be true from other situations like this in DC. Guess what,
Speaker 1: I'm sure many many, many DC hotels turned down the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States. I'm sure that happened.
Speaker 1: I don't even know. I haven't even seen that in
Speaker 1: a new story yet, because it's just broken up. But
Speaker 1: I'm sure that's the case. I had a friend will.
Speaker 1: I don't want to name it because I don't want to.
Speaker 1: You know, I knew this from behind the scenes. I
Speaker 1: knew somebody who was doing a conservative show in DC
Speaker 1: from a venue, and some people the venue found out
Speaker 1: about his politics. And guess what, the venue, even though
Speaker 1: they're paying money, and they head an agreement, kicked them out. Sorry,
Speaker 1: none of that Trump stuff here, not in our place.
Speaker 1: You know, you could probably recite the Communist Manifesto in
Speaker 1: most DC hotels and it said, oh, this is brilliant story,
Speaker 1: this is great, we should try this. That really makes
Speaker 1: a lot of sense. But if you are supporting the
Speaker 1: president and the party that he leads that is in
Speaker 1: power right now, you are a bad person. That's what
Speaker 1: they want you to know. You're not an allowed to
Speaker 1: have a holiday party without this being a problem. There
Speaker 1: is nothing that is too petty, too minute, and too
Speaker 1: unimportant for libs to freak out about when it comes
Speaker 1: to Trump. There's nothing that is beneath them. Nothing is
Speaker 1: allowed to just be not that big a deal. If
Speaker 1: Trump is involved, they will make it a big deal.
Speaker 1: They will make it an issue of national security of
Speaker 1: tremendous importance to the American people just because they are
Speaker 1: suffering from Trump's arrangement syndrome. These people are nuts. They
Speaker 1: have a mass delusion, a mass mental health disorder. Due
Speaker 1: to the presidents of the United States being who he is.
Speaker 1: He can't help. But that's how Trump is. By the way,
Speaker 1: Trump Hotel party, I might have to go. It's going
Speaker 1: to be great. Just so you understand, Tena wants to
Speaker 1: make a deal. Now, whether or not we make it deal,
Speaker 1: it's got to be a great deal for us, you know.
Speaker 1: And I told this to President She. You're starting up
Speaker 1: here and you're making five hundred billion a year and
Speaker 1: stealing our intellectual property. Went down on the floor lower
Speaker 1: than the floor. Should make a fifty fifty deal. This
Speaker 1: has to be a deal that's better for us. And
Speaker 1: if it's not better, let's not do business together. I
Speaker 1: don't want to do business. Forget about tariffs for a second.
Speaker 1: We'll take an in tremendous amount of money. Forget that.
Speaker 1: I don't want to do business. Now. When I raise
Speaker 1: and he raises, I raise, and we can never catch up.
Speaker 1: We have to balance our trading relationship at least to
Speaker 1: an extent, and they were unwilling to do that, and
Speaker 1: we'll never have a deal if that happens. But it's
Speaker 1: going to happen. Trump says we're never gonna have a
Speaker 1: deal as the Chinese bend to some demands, not just
Speaker 1: to meet us halfway. But it sounds like he's saying,
Speaker 1: deal's got to be kind of sweet for us to
Speaker 1: make up to balance out what had happened in the past. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe this is just his negotiating posture put out in public.
Speaker 1: But this is where I can tell you, my friends,
Speaker 1: there is not going to be a major, a sweeping
Speaker 1: trade deal with China before this election. Which brings me
Speaker 1: back to what I said to you yesterday. I really
Speaker 1: do believe that the president holds the even if it's
Speaker 1: just a temporary, uh you know, cessation, if it's a
Speaker 1: pause in the trade war, he holds that in his
Speaker 1: back pocket as a way to just create all kinds
Speaker 1: of optimism and a bulliance in the economy right when
Speaker 1: he needs it. Um, it's it's an you know, this
Speaker 1: is I think, isn't it. In racing, sometimes you know
Speaker 1: you'll you'll get in the NASCAR. Don't you get him
Speaker 1: behind the lead car and you can that person, then
Speaker 1: there's like some technique. I don't know anything about racing.
Speaker 1: I'm totally going off, but he's essentially staying there, keeping
Speaker 1: it for the right moment when he hits the afterburner,
Speaker 1: which is what you do in a plane, not a
Speaker 1: Are you get what I'm saying. Trump's holding in his
Speaker 1: back pocket. He's holding an economic bazuka, so to speak,
Speaker 1: in his back pocket, and he's ready to use it
Speaker 1: when he needs to. That's what I think is happening
Speaker 1: here with China because he's not gonna get a deal.
Speaker 1: There's no way the Chinese will concede on this deal.
Speaker 1: But he has also changed the entire conversation about our
Speaker 1: trading relationship with China. No serious person really believes that
Speaker 1: we are unable to weather the storm so far, and
Speaker 1: also no one thinks that we should have had a
Speaker 1: relationship with China continue as is. I mean, the trade
Speaker 1: war hasn't been that bad. And also everyone now understands
Speaker 1: that the trade war is more of a of a necessity,
Speaker 1: or at least standing up at China on trades, more
Speaker 1: of a set necessity than it was in the past.
Speaker 1: The President says, the Chinese are incident dealing. I think
Speaker 1: they want to make it a deal, and I think
Speaker 1: they should make a deal. And I think if they
Speaker 1: don't make a deal, it's going to be very bad
Speaker 1: for China. And I very much appreciate the fact that
Speaker 1: they came out last night, very late last night, and
Speaker 1: they said, you know, they want to make a deal.
Speaker 1: They wanted to be under calm circumstances. It was a
Speaker 1: little different kind of a statement. I thought it was
Speaker 1: a beautiful statement. A beautiful statement. He says, well, we
Speaker 1: shall see. Trump is sticking to what he thinks is
Speaker 1: best on China. And that's I got to say that
Speaker 1: there is a lead. There's leadership on display here. I
Speaker 1: mean that Trump is leading on this issue of the
Speaker 1: China trade deal. It is the signature, really the signature
Speaker 1: economic and trade and foreign policy issue of his administration
Speaker 1: all in one. And that's why the stakes are very high.
Speaker 1: But the issue is of tremendous importance. But here's on
Speaker 1: the other side of things. And I know I've said
Speaker 1: I've been way too nice about this guy on this show.
Speaker 1: So here we go with him talking about all kinds
Speaker 1: of nonsense. Here's the other side of it, which is that, oh,
Speaker 1: Trump's trade trade policies not only are they bad, but
Speaker 1: his trade policies are tied into climate change and deforestation.
Speaker 1: And therefore, see, once again Trump is bad on the
Speaker 1: environment because they say so. Here's John Delaney talking about
Speaker 1: the Amazon the fire. Whenever in things of Amazon, they
Speaker 1: not think of the company. But there's also the big place,
Speaker 1: you know, Amazon river base, in the Amazon rainforest. Delaney
Speaker 1: is saying that Trump's trade with China is the cause
Speaker 1: of the fires in the Amazon. This is some wild
Speaker 1: stuff like this notion of being kind of an isolationist
Speaker 1: like the president is. I mean, a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: are talking what's going on in the Amazon? You you
Speaker 1: opened with it, and reality that's directly related to trade.
Speaker 1: You know, the fact that US farmers can sell soybeans
Speaker 1: to China has created an opportunity for Brazil to sell
Speaker 1: soybeans to China, and as a result, farmers are tearing down,
Speaker 1: you know, the Amazon to grow soybeans. And so what
Speaker 1: democrats have to understand is that an isolationist approach to
Speaker 1: the world is not the right answer on any of
Speaker 1: these big issues that we care about. How is it
Speaker 1: an isolationist approach to stop the predatory trade practices, or
Speaker 1: at least to try to fight back against the predatory
Speaker 1: trade practices of the Chinese government. How is that isolationism?
Speaker 1: So is it now isolationism if you just don't want
Speaker 1: to be ripped off? Am I being an isolationist? When
Speaker 1: someone calls me on the phone and says that they're
Speaker 1: going to offer me a free cruise and I say,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't want to give you my credit
Speaker 1: card to just say you have the number because I
Speaker 1: just want a free cruise. I don't think I believe
Speaker 1: you robocall, or person or person that's trying to commit
Speaker 1: that fraud against me. I don't. I don't think that
Speaker 1: anyone should believe in these things. But nonetheless, hopefully the
Speaker 1: rubble calls have been less recently, but they're still they're
Speaker 1: still bad. But this is the perfect approach to everything
Speaker 1: that Trump does, which is that whatever he does is
Speaker 1: not just bad in that thing, it ties into all
Speaker 1: the other things that the Libs say Trump is doing
Speaker 1: wrong and where he's terrible and he's such a whether
Speaker 1: he's an idiot, he's a nightmare, he's a fascist. You know,
Speaker 1: Trump is either incapable of doing anything or in charge
Speaker 1: of everything, depending on the day you ask lives about it.
Speaker 1: By the way, this Trump's trade war linked to Amazon
Speaker 1: rainforest destruction. This is from the Oh, what a big surprise,
Speaker 1: the Huffington Post. But there was already a huge soy
Speaker 1: market in a soybee market rather in Brazil before this,
Speaker 1: So you know, here you go. I mean, they're just
Speaker 1: gonna always, they're gonna find a way. And by the way,
Speaker 1: it's up to Brazil to determine, you know what they
Speaker 1: gotta Those farmers in the Brazilian economy could use a
Speaker 1: little bit more trade. It's it's really not for us
Speaker 1: to determine whether or not that they should be in
Speaker 1: a position to trying to benefit off of this economically.
Speaker 1: But you know, the Libs always, they always have a
Speaker 1: reason to complain about this the globes. The Amazon rainforest
Speaker 1: is the biggest rainforest in the world. Obviously, it's home
Speaker 1: to three million species of plants and animals. And last
Speaker 1: week the Group of Seven said they're going to provide
Speaker 1: twenty two million dollars to help with firefighting. Bulsonaro, did
Speaker 1: you see Bulsonaro clapped back pretty hard at mccrall on this.
Speaker 1: Wilsonaro said, why don't you worry about like the preventable
Speaker 1: fire in your country. He took a he's got a
Speaker 1: Notre Dame cheapshot at him, which was a little bit
Speaker 1: of surprise. I think people like whoa Raine is hot?
Speaker 1: That was serious stuff. But yeah, everything that Trump does
Speaker 1: has to be tied into every other liberal talking point
Speaker 1: in some way. And the deforestation issue in the are
Speaker 1: we is the world a lot to tell Brazil that
Speaker 1: they cannot they cannot cut down trees in order to
Speaker 1: make room for farmland. I mean, is that up to
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. I have to wonder at
Speaker 1: some point, soy shipments from Brazil, according to this article here,
Speaker 1: jumped twenty seven percent from twenty seventeen to twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, but there's one other trade issue that I
Speaker 1: wanted to point out to you, and that is the
Speaker 1: US Mexico Canada agreement. Guess what, he was right on
Speaker 1: that one, and that's actually coming along quite nicely. Play three,
Speaker 1: So we're go ahead to be significantly expanding our trading
Speaker 1: relationship when the USMCA gets done. He completed our farmers
Speaker 1: love it, the unions love it, the workers love it,
Speaker 1: manufacturers love it. Everybody likes it. I think most Democrats
Speaker 1: like it, so hopefully that'll be particularly worked fairly soon.
Speaker 1: It's got tremendous support, Broth. I believe Democrat and Republic
Speaker 1: end It has been signed and finalized essentially by Canada
Speaker 1: and essentially by Mexico, so we're waiting for that from
Speaker 1: the United States, and we have really great support and
Speaker 1: it's something I think it's a very special agreement. They
Speaker 1: said that Trump was going to ruin NAFTA. That's what
Speaker 1: they used to say, It's going to ruin NAFTA until
Speaker 1: they realized that NAFTA was over twenty years old that
Speaker 1: needed to be updated. They said Trump was going to
Speaker 1: ruin NATO, and now it turns out that there's more
Speaker 1: funding from Allied countries going to NATO and alliance is
Speaker 1: as strong as it has ever been. They just keep
Speaker 1: saying things that aren't true, and then they get mad
Speaker 1: at us for the Libs get mad at us for
Speaker 1: not believing us when they're wrong over and over and
Speaker 1: over again. They're wrong on trade too. In the midst
Speaker 1: of white supremacy, white nationalism, and what I said a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago that racism is a national security threat.
Speaker 1: This commission would have a immense authority. I think America
Speaker 1: is ready for this because of what we have been
Speaker 1: going through in the last couple of weeks, because of
Speaker 1: the attitude of our commander in chief, and because of
Speaker 1: what we have seen the dastardly impacts of white nationalism,
Speaker 1: white supremacy, and outright racism that has impacted others, but
Speaker 1: certainly has impacted over the decades and centuries African Americans,
Speaker 1: the descendants of enslaved Africans. We're going to have more
Speaker 1: discussion going forward. That was a representative Jackson Lee talking
Speaker 1: about reparations. You're going to have more of a reparations
Speaker 1: discussion in the future for reasons I'll get into in
Speaker 1: a moment, but let me say first this is another
Speaker 1: topic that came up when I was doing Bill Maher
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago, because Mary Ann Williamson is very
Speaker 1: pro reparations, and it's a huge applause line on the left,
Speaker 1: and it's an idea that to liberals and even to
Speaker 1: some on the right, sound good. It sounds good until
Speaker 1: you think it through. You understand the implications, and you
Speaker 1: take actions based on policy, based on the the the
Speaker 1: doing of what you say you're going to do, which
Speaker 1: is which is institute these reparations, you have to implement it.
Speaker 1: And I've just got to say, you know, you look
Speaker 1: at America right now. You have fifty million Americans or
Speaker 1: permanent residents citizens who were born outside the United States
Speaker 1: who live in America right now, fifty million. So you're
Speaker 1: going to have somebody who is you know, You're going
Speaker 1: to have someone who's a you know, working really really hard,
Speaker 1: doing you know, doing We always here about people doing
Speaker 1: two or three jobs, working two or three jobs, who's
Speaker 1: from let's say Bangladesh or China or you know, gone anywhere,
Speaker 1: and their tax dollars because right, taxes come from all
Speaker 1: of us. I mean, the money they're paying into the
Speaker 1: system is going to go toward paying reparations. And you're
Speaker 1: going to have people who are receiving money who nothing
Speaker 1: was done to. But the claim will be that things
Speaker 1: were done so viciously and for so long that I
Speaker 1: suppose we never we never get beyond what was done
Speaker 1: in the past. Will there be an argument for reparations
Speaker 1: in a hundred years, in three hundred years. I wonder
Speaker 1: you know, at what point do you do you pass
Speaker 1: the social the psychological statute of limitations, so to speak,
Speaker 1: on this issue, and then you also just have the
Speaker 1: underlying injustice of taking from people through no fault of
Speaker 1: theirs and giving to people who were not wronged themselves
Speaker 1: by the individuals who are having to pay up. This
Speaker 1: is a historical collective guilt in position. Now it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. I do not believe that there will
Speaker 1: be reparations in this country, but it will continue to
Speaker 1: be a big talking point on the left, just like
Speaker 1: voter suppression, which anybody who looks at, for example, the
Speaker 1: Georgia the Georgia gubernatorial race knows that Stacey Abrams talks
Speaker 1: about voter suppression. And it's not it did not happen.
Speaker 1: It's that she has nothing there. She just claims, well,
Speaker 1: you never really know if you know, people would have
Speaker 1: voted who couldn't vote for some reason. Just like the
Speaker 1: pay gap, we keep we'll hear about the pay gap
Speaker 1: all the time, even though the pay gap is a myth.
Speaker 1: If a business could hire the same level of employee
Speaker 1: for the same work for twenty or thirty percent less,
Speaker 1: No capitalist would ever hire an anything but women. The
Speaker 1: pay gap is a myth meeting. It is a lie,
Speaker 1: but it's a very useful lie to the left. People
Speaker 1: want to believe it, so they do believe it. People
Speaker 1: on the left want to believe that there would be
Speaker 1: a positive change that would come out of reparations, when
Speaker 1: that's just completely unrealistic. If they don't do the money
Speaker 1: out to the descendants of those descendants of those who
Speaker 1: are held the slaves, then what are they going to
Speaker 1: do with the money? Oh, it's going to go to
Speaker 1: some institutions on the left that will be controlled that
Speaker 1: what become the sort of equivalent of the Southern Poverty
Speaker 1: Law Center, which is supposed to be watching over our
Speaker 1: civil rights and our morality as a country. The SPLC,
Speaker 1: I know it had a very important mission, But the
Speaker 1: SPLC has turned into a left wing pack. It's a
Speaker 1: left wing political action committee. Does anyone really think that
Speaker 1: if there were reparations that would not be the future
Speaker 1: the institutions that would be funded with that money, of course,
Speaker 1: it would be Why are we hearing about it? Why
Speaker 1: is it still coming up? Well, Elizabeth Warren has been
Speaker 1: making a real run in the polls lately, Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is right up there with Bernie and Biden. What is
Speaker 1: her weakness? Where is she unable to get the support
Speaker 1: she needs to be the Democrat nominee. Answer is the
Speaker 1: African American community in this country. She has very low numbers.
Speaker 1: Biden does very well with black voters. Elizabeth Warren it's
Speaker 1: like barely even registering. So how do I think she's
Speaker 1: going to try and prove her bona fides, prove her
Speaker 1: good faith to the Black community in this country? Oh, well,
Speaker 1: she's going to talk about reparations. Reparations by poll by
Speaker 1: polling numbers is about sixty percent. I don't know. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I think it's much higher than the and might be
Speaker 1: as high. Seventy five percent of the African American community
Speaker 1: is in favor of it. So if you can appeal
Speaker 1: as a Democrat primary Canada seventy five percent of the
Speaker 1: African American vote on this issue, you're gonna do it.
Speaker 1: So you're going to see some shameless Elizabeth Warren pandering,
Speaker 1: that is for sure. And just like you saw her
Speaker 1: appear with the what was the Native American I believe
Speaker 1: she appeared with the Native American tribe a while ago
Speaker 1: in order to apologize for the mistakes that she had made.
Speaker 1: And that's really easy. She didn't make mistakes. She made
Speaker 1: a mistake, which was engaging in a multidecade long racial
Speaker 1: fraud and racial appropriation to advance herself. But the left
Speaker 1: will forgive all sins, even sins of racial fraud, for
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, as long as she appeals to the right
Speaker 1: demographics as a candidate. Who is the worst Democrat candidate?
Speaker 1: I don't mean who has the least chance of winning,
Speaker 1: because that's that's hard to assess because there are so
Speaker 1: many that realistically are not realistic candidates, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: we know there are all these different candidates out there
Speaker 1: that are doing this for the attention. They're doing it
Speaker 1: for the brand value, the brand building, all that stuff. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: I don't mean who is the worst Democrat candidate as
Speaker 1: a function of the polls. I mean who bothers you
Speaker 1: the most producer, Mike, Who's who is the worst of
Speaker 1: the Democrats running for running for president? Right now? It's
Speaker 1: tie between Jilla Brand and her bad dancing and Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris and her horrible laughing. I don't know which one
Speaker 1: bothers me more. I dude, I think those are very
Speaker 1: solid choices for the worst, and in fact, with Jilla
Speaker 1: Brand specifically, I think that that for me, it was
Speaker 1: a it was a it was a neck and neck
Speaker 1: race between Jilla Brand and Kaiser Wilhelm de Blasio for
Speaker 1: the worst. And as I'm here in New York City,
Speaker 1: I do feel like I don't even consider the Plasio
Speaker 1: a candidate. I don't think the Blasio considers de Blasio
Speaker 1: a candidate. I mean, it's just he's just yeah, how
Speaker 1: I am. I'm just gonna it sounds like my shelter.
Speaker 1: I can't. I don't have a de Blasio impression yet.
Speaker 1: It's just it's like a big worthless clown whatever that
Speaker 1: sounds like. That's what de Blasio sounds like. Starts snoring.
Speaker 1: That's right. Just wake up at like ten, drive forty
Speaker 1: five minutes each way to a gym where you get
Speaker 1: after that elliptical for about five minutes. You know, de
Speaker 1: Blasio would be a five minute and that's all elliptical. Guy, Wow,
Speaker 1: I just want I gotta sweat up and uh yeah sure.
Speaker 1: But here's what a producer, producer mark the worst. If
Speaker 1: you cared away and who's the worst of the Democrats?
Speaker 1: Easily de Blasio is a New York are just watching
Speaker 1: him be the mayor. That's what I mean. He's terrible. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, you guys are right on. You guys are
Speaker 1: right over the target, right, I'm not I'm not gonna.
Speaker 1: I can't say that you're either of you are wrong.
Speaker 1: I would just add for consideration because for me, he
Speaker 1: was an outlier candidate or the worst beto maybe in
Speaker 1: my number one spot. Now he he just keeps getting
Speaker 1: more annoying, more sanctimonious, and you know, there's a there's
Speaker 1: a desperation in this guy now because he was held up.
Speaker 1: He was supposed to be a top five contender. Now
Speaker 1: he's just like going around. But it's like, I'm more
Speaker 1: woke than the wokest of the woke. I'm like a
Speaker 1: super woke star, and I just and he says things
Speaker 1: that are utterly and completely indefensible. Um, He's saying stuff
Speaker 1: that even smart Libs should know. It's just just insane.
Speaker 1: Here he is, for example, uh claiming because you know,
Speaker 1: one of the important narratives for the left on immigration
Speaker 1: continues to be that we are responsible for the central
Speaker 1: American migrants that have been surging to our southern border.
Speaker 1: You and me, you listening to this, Andy, we are
Speaker 1: the reason they are coming here. And you might say,
Speaker 1: but Buck, that's crazy, and I would say, correct, it
Speaker 1: is crazy. But why are the Libs saying this or
Speaker 1: what are the ways in which they make this case?
Speaker 1: One of them is that we because we try to
Speaker 1: spread stop rather the spread of communism into Central America.
Speaker 1: A very short version is YadA, YadA, YadA, Reagan Iran
Speaker 1: contra Central America, Sandinista kamis commies, commies, and it's all
Speaker 1: our fault now, which can't explain to me. For example,
Speaker 1: why Panama has a murder rate, which is a Central
Speaker 1: American country or Costa Rica, let's say, has a murder
Speaker 1: rate of I think about ten per hundred thousand, and
Speaker 1: Al Salvador is five times and was ten times that
Speaker 1: until a couple of years ago. So if it's just
Speaker 1: a Central America geography thing and we've messed it all up,
Speaker 1: I'd like to know why some countries in Central America
Speaker 1: have been doing okay when we have these other countries
Speaker 1: like Honduras, Guatemala, Honduras Guatemala at Nicaragua, and Al Salvador
Speaker 1: have really all been in rough shape. So there's the
Speaker 1: geopolitical Oh, it's our fault, which you now you're going
Speaker 1: to hear from the Libs. And then there's the climate change, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's our fault, which is an even more bonkers version
Speaker 1: of this narrative. And here's what Beto, just like, I
Speaker 1: don't understand science, and I don't understand really anything, but
Speaker 1: I do know how to sound really sanctimonious and earnest
Speaker 1: with the people of Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador
Speaker 1: reduce violence in their home communities, violence which we are
Speaker 1: somewhat to blame for the civil wars that we've been
Speaker 1: involved in the drug trade, that we facilitated, the war
Speaker 1: on drugs that has militarized and hollowed out their civic
Speaker 1: institutions in their home countries, and Guatemala suffering one of
Speaker 1: the greatest droughts in their recorded history, caused not by
Speaker 1: God nor by Mother Nature, but by you and me
Speaker 1: and all of us and our emissions and our excesses
Speaker 1: in our inaction in the face of the facts and
Speaker 1: the science and the truth. It's like I'm like an
Speaker 1: idiot religious preacher. But the religion is the religion of Betto,
Speaker 1: And I just want to tell you all, like, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, oh m g we are totally a fault.
Speaker 1: We're told it's like all on us. Yeah, it's not
Speaker 1: our fault, Betto. In fact, these countries all get a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of benefit benefit from America and have for
Speaker 1: a long time. We give on a I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find the exact numbers on an annualized basis, but do
Speaker 1: Guatemala specifically, we have given hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: of eight and we are treated like we're the bad guys.
Speaker 1: At least the Libs want to act like we're the
Speaker 1: bad guys all the time. Guatemala has problems that have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with us. Corruption, lack of durable civic institutions,
Speaker 1: lack of infrastructure, lack of a viable economy, low educational standards.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've got a lot of stuff that no
Speaker 1: sane person could say is our fault. But for Beto,
Speaker 1: because of the narrative, it is in fact our fault.
Speaker 1: It has to be our fault that Guatemala is having
Speaker 1: all of the problems that it is say it has
Speaker 1: gotten since two thousand and one, I think is this ranking,
Speaker 1: it's gotten two hundred and fifty seven million dollars. That's
Speaker 1: not a very big country about We're talking about a
Speaker 1: country that doesn't have all that many people, but we
Speaker 1: don't get any credit for at all. But so bet
Speaker 1: Beto's in hibecile. That's this is why he's really he's
Speaker 1: making a run in the polls for the worst of
Speaker 1: the Democrats, which I think had been it really was
Speaker 1: a jilla brand. It was a jilla brand Deblasio race
Speaker 1: until recently, and for the worst, the absolute worst. But
Speaker 1: then Betto was asked by a man at a town
Speaker 1: hall about abortion. Up this is to be fair to Betto,
Speaker 1: let's roy it be fair to me. You have to
Speaker 1: be fair. Uh. He gives what is the standard liberal
Speaker 1: talking point on this, but the way that he does
Speaker 1: it is just particularly disingenuous and annoying, because at first
Speaker 1: he makes it sound like this is he makes it
Speaker 1: sound like that's a silly question, and then he says, well,
Speaker 1: of course, of course I am going to answer the
Speaker 1: question in a way that no moral human being could
Speaker 1: answer it. Specifically about th third trimester abortions. And you
Speaker 1: said that's the decision left up, left up the mother.
Speaker 1: So my question is this, I was born September eight,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine, and I want to know if you
Speaker 1: think on September seventh, eighty nine my life had no value.
Speaker 1: Of course I don't think that. And um, of course
Speaker 1: I'm glad that you're here, but you you UM referenced
Speaker 1: my answer in Ohio and it remains the same. This
Speaker 1: is a decision that neither you nor I, nor the
Speaker 1: United States government should be making. That's a decision for
Speaker 1: the woman to make when we want her to have
Speaker 1: the best possible access to care and to a medical provider.
Speaker 1: So notice what he did there. He says, no, of
Speaker 1: course your life has value. But then he says, well,
Speaker 1: I'm missing a beat, But I mean, you know, your
Speaker 1: your mother could have decided your life had no value.
Speaker 1: That's that's up to It's solely up to her. So yeah,
Speaker 1: you could have you could have been aboarded the day
Speaker 1: before or you were born, and that would be to
Speaker 1: that that Betto is totally fine with that. If that's
Speaker 1: the mother's choice, there's no problem with it. Doesn't even
Speaker 1: say we certainly hope the mother wouldn't do that, doesn't
Speaker 1: say that at all. It's hurt choice, totally hurt choice.
Speaker 1: Nothing else to think about here. This is depravity, my friends.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is it's intellectually flimsy. You can't say
Speaker 1: that somebody the question is does a life have value?
Speaker 1: The day before the baby is born, does that life
Speaker 1: have value? You can't say yes, that's value. But we
Speaker 1: leave it to women to determine whether or not the
Speaker 1: life has value. I mean, this is, this is This
Speaker 1: wouldn't work in a ninth grade debate tournament. But this
Speaker 1: is betto Rourke for you. This is who the Democrats
Speaker 1: until a few months ago were acting like he's the
Speaker 1: second Coming. And I'll tell you the consequence of this,
Speaker 1: this attack on women's right to choose, and and and
Speaker 1: I'll listen to you. And I heard your question. I'm
Speaker 1: answering it um and the attack on roe versus weight,
Speaker 1: which we thought was the settled law of the land.
Speaker 1: And unless we had an illusion that the achievements that
Speaker 1: we can we just jump in for a second. Liberals
Speaker 1: say that this is a moron talking point. This is
Speaker 1: not even a thing that anybody should say. The settled
Speaker 1: law of the land. I mean, it's settled until it's
Speaker 1: not settled, So what is it. You know, same sex
Speaker 1: marriage was illegal until it was the settled law of
Speaker 1: the land via the Supreme Court. Right, I mean, you
Speaker 1: look at any number of things. This is the way,
Speaker 1: you know, this is the way that the system we
Speaker 1: have works. And no serious person really thinks that rowe
Speaker 1: even people that believe that abortion is a right that
Speaker 1: women should have. No serious legal jurist, legal analyst thinks
Speaker 1: that Rov. Wade is good law, but keep going with
Speaker 1: the betto made or protected forever, or that progress is
Speaker 1: inevitable that has been shouttered right now, and I don't
Speaker 1: want to tell you some of the consequences of this.
Speaker 1: In my home state of Texas thinks to these trap
Speaker 1: laws that make it harder for providers to offer the
Speaker 1: full spectrum of reproductive care more than it paused. I
Speaker 1: was like, this is where I want to know the
Speaker 1: full spectrum of reproductive care. Well, what are we really
Speaker 1: talking about here. I've never heard a politician in my
Speaker 1: lifetime being like, we don't want women, do you know,
Speaker 1: we want to prevent them from having access to prenatal
Speaker 1: care or you know, obstetricians or well, what is it?
Speaker 1: What is this full spectrum of of reproductive care? I
Speaker 1: just say abortion, dude, just say what you're really worried about.
Speaker 1: It's it's not impossible. A lot of people listening to
Speaker 1: this are from Texas. If you're a woman is going
Speaker 1: to have a baby in Texas, there are plenty of
Speaker 1: places to go where you can get the care you
Speaker 1: need to have the baby. Right, there's hospitals and doctor's
Speaker 1: office and all that stuff. The only thing that's missing
Speaker 1: in the equation while he uses these vague phrases to disguise,
Speaker 1: the only is missing is the abortion component. That's the
Speaker 1: only thing that anybody has a problem with have closed,
Speaker 1: and it has made us one of the epicenters of
Speaker 1: this maternal mortality crisis, because not only can you not
Speaker 1: get safe legal access to an abortion, you cannot get
Speaker 1: access to a cervical answer screening, or a family planning provider,
Speaker 1: or in a state that refused to expand Medicaid, any
Speaker 1: provider at all. And we are losing the lives of
Speaker 1: women in our state as a result. I don't question
Speaker 1: the decisions that a woman makes. I mean, only she
Speaker 1: knows what she knows, and I want to I've had
Speaker 1: a I mean, this is the pandering can only go
Speaker 1: on for so long. I don't question the decisions a
Speaker 1: woman makes. Really that's interesting, Well what does that extend to?
Speaker 1: I mean to say that and think it's an intelligent statement.
Speaker 1: He's really a statement about the lack of intelligence of
Speaker 1: Beto O'Rourke. This is a this is a completely fluff,
Speaker 1: worthless nonsense talking point from this guy. But you really
Speaker 1: figured out about Beto and what we've seen is that
Speaker 1: this guy was always flimsy. It was always just all
Speaker 1: smoke in mirrors. He is a candidate that the media
Speaker 1: was in love with. They propped him up. He was
Speaker 1: the anti Ted Cruise for them until Ted cru beat him.
Speaker 1: And now we see that this is the person. This
Speaker 1: is a person that the media was doing front page
Speaker 1: Oh vanity fair covers all this stuff. Guys just kind
Speaker 1: of a loser, you know, It's just not somebody that
Speaker 1: you would be inspired by in any way, shape or form,
Speaker 1: and also makes really crappy arguments. So it's Bettel the worst.
Speaker 1: It may be my number one right now. It turns
Speaker 1: out what we put on our plates matters a lot.
Speaker 1: About twenty five percent of all the global climate change
Speaker 1: problems we're seeing can be attributed back to the food
Speaker 1: and the choices that we're actually making about what we
Speaker 1: eat on a daily basis. This is greater than all
Speaker 1: the cars on the planet. In fact, it's about twice
Speaker 1: as much global warming pollution as the cars. If you
Speaker 1: really look at everything that went into making a single
Speaker 1: serving of beef, you end up emitting around three hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty grams of carbon. That's like driving a car
Speaker 1: three miles. Livestock accounts for a little over fourteen percent
Speaker 1: of global greenhouse gas emissions. If that sort of seems
Speaker 1: low to you, contribue it's about quote to transportation. We're
Speaker 1: talking all the cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships on
Speaker 1: the planet combined. That's from vox dot Com. I can
Speaker 1: just feel my testosterone levels dropping from listening to Vox.
Speaker 1: At any point in time, Vox appears on my screen
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, I'm just like, I need
Speaker 1: a safe space. I don't know if I can handle. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm so worried all the time. Vox is very whimpy,
Speaker 1: that is for sure. But whenever I say things to
Speaker 1: you on this show, like the Left wants to control
Speaker 1: everything about your life and do it via climate change.
Speaker 1: This is a perfect example. They are telling you. This
Speaker 1: is not an exaggeration, this is not taking out of context.
Speaker 1: This is a becoming a more widespread belief on the left.
Speaker 1: And get ready for it's already been happening. But the
Speaker 1: meatless meat movement, which producer Mike, we both know that
Speaker 1: is not a thing. There is meat and there is
Speaker 1: something else. There is not meatless meat. If you bring
Speaker 1: me a ribi made out of tofu, it is tofu
Speaker 1: in the shape of something that actually tastes good. There
Speaker 1: are only two genders, and there's only meatless meat. I
Speaker 1: think we got I think we gotta make a T shirt.
Speaker 1: There's only two genders, and meat is meat. This is
Speaker 1: where you see though they really do believe that they
Speaker 1: have license, that they have a think about it. Take
Speaker 1: their thought process to its logical ends, look at their
Speaker 1: argument and draw it all the way through. They believe
Speaker 1: that we are in a moment of They call it
Speaker 1: a climate crisis, a crisis that could end the world.
Speaker 1: And if you're not willing to go along, they want
Speaker 1: to force you because it's for all of our good.
Speaker 1: This is about our survival as a species, they will say.
Speaker 1: And then everything that goes under that very broad umbrella
Speaker 1: of the climate crisis, they have the answers. They don't
Speaker 1: have to have any science background, they don't have to know,
Speaker 1: and they don't have to make any changes themselves, which
Speaker 1: is another fascinating part of this, and this is the
Speaker 1: Leonardo DiCaprio move of flying on his private jet to
Speaker 1: climate change conference after climate change conference. You know, ultimately
Speaker 1: it's just people who believe in climate change. They can
Speaker 1: be intelligent, they cannot have good judgment. That's the truth.
Speaker 1: They'd be very smart, but not wise. It's not possible
Speaker 1: to think the world is ending in twelve years based
Speaker 1: on this crap that people are peddling all over the
Speaker 1: pace and think that and be wise. It's not possible.
Speaker 1: So it really is a wisdom test. It's also a
Speaker 1: bit of a history test, because if you look back
Speaker 1: at these predictions in the past, they're always wrong. And
Speaker 1: I guarantee you, I promise you the chances of you
Speaker 1: listening to the Buck Sexton Show in twenty years, which
Speaker 1: at that point it will be a hologram of me
Speaker 1: hanging out in your living room. Hello, welcome to the
Speaker 1: buck sexton, and I'll be like right there next to
Speaker 1: You'll be a little creepy. Well, have fun though the
Speaker 1: chances that I'll be saying, I'm so sorry I was
Speaker 1: wrong about climate change. Zero zero. That's how sure I
Speaker 1: am about this. But they are so sure in the
Speaker 1: opposite direction in their minds that they want to tell
Speaker 1: you what you can eat. They want to tell you
Speaker 1: what you can drive, where you can go, how you
Speaker 1: light your home, how you heat your living room, all
Speaker 1: these things. This is a it's a crazy religious belief,
Speaker 1: my friends. I mean this, climate change is a cult.
Speaker 1: The climate change crisis mentality is a cult like mentality.
Speaker 1: It is impervious to reason and facts. They say things
Speaker 1: that are hysterical and think that that's acceptable. The world's
Speaker 1: going to end in twelve years. No, it's not. Well,
Speaker 1: it's not going to add in twelve years. It's just not.
Speaker 1: I can say it as much as they want, but
Speaker 1: they better not try to take my burger out of
Speaker 1: my hand. I'll tell you that right now. Meatless, meat, profane,
Speaker 1: the very word meat they do show. Ain't over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: keeping it real. It's time for roll call. Oh, it's
Speaker 1: the roll call time. Everybody. You know how that is.
Speaker 1: Roll call for me, roll call for you, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton and let's see what you have in
Speaker 1: store for us today, all of the latest and greatest.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm pulling it up. It's happening right now in
Speaker 1: real time. Brandy, right, Buck, please go over the origins
Speaker 1: of Labor Day? Will you? Thanks so much? Well, Brandy,
Speaker 1: I have done that in the past on the show.
Speaker 1: So that's that's something that would definitely come up, I
Speaker 1: think again, and I'm happy to do it if that's
Speaker 1: what people would like a little bit of history of
Speaker 1: Labor Day. It's essentially Commy Day. Well that's technically May Day,
Speaker 1: but it's a little bit of a commie holiday. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, you know, you can get mad at me,
Speaker 1: but it's about unions about labor. Because remember, if you're
Speaker 1: a union guy, you can't say labor. You have to
Speaker 1: say Labor Local two seventh to labor. You know what
Speaker 1: I mean. We're here in New York, we know, we
Speaker 1: know how it is. Scott Rights, Hey, Buck, the left
Speaker 1: is losing their minds Trump blowing off the climate change
Speaker 1: form of the G seven and are equally apoplectic about
Speaker 1: the China tariffs. In the interests of stirring up maximum
Speaker 1: havoc with the progressives, I think Trump should announce that
Speaker 1: the tariffs are to punish the Chinese for being the
Speaker 1: largest polluter on the planet, and that shipping billions of
Speaker 1: tons of Chinese goods to America is doing irreparable harm
Speaker 1: to our ocean, which is undeniable. Trump can also roll
Speaker 1: in the rule and that the US becoming energy independent
Speaker 1: has reduced carbon production by having dirty supertanker steaming oil
Speaker 1: halfway across the world. He can call it the best
Speaker 1: biggest green deal ever. Schilzai Scott, Well, I think I
Speaker 1: got all that. Thank you for sending this to us.
Speaker 1: It is true that whenever people are concerned about plastic
Speaker 1: in the oceans, whenever they're concerned about the CO two
Speaker 1: in the air from climate change, all of these things,
Speaker 1: they must, first and foremost, if they are serious, be
Speaker 1: concerned about what is going on in the developing world,
Speaker 1: in China, in India, because they are polluting a whole
Speaker 1: lot more than we are. And unless you're going to
Speaker 1: get them to stop, And does anyone really think we're
Speaker 1: gonna get the Chinese government the same government that until
Speaker 1: recently was enforcing a one child policy, the government that
Speaker 1: will make anyone who speaks out against the Communist Party
Speaker 1: thug accracy there disappear. Any think they're gonna start saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, we're We're gonna take better care of
Speaker 1: the planet. We're going to be better stewards of the environment.
Speaker 1: I think the answer to that is most certainly no.
Speaker 1: Brock not to be confused with Buck, that's kind of close.
Speaker 1: Definitely watched The Shield first. Keep Up the Great Show?
Speaker 1: Was that a play on words there, Brock? See, I
Speaker 1: see what you did there, Keep Up the Great Show?
Speaker 1: I think The Shield is gonna I've heard it's a
Speaker 1: little bit dated, but it's still worth seeing. Um. I
Speaker 1: kind of want to go back and watch, you know what.
Speaker 1: I never watched producer Mike the X Files. Hey, were
Speaker 1: you an X Files guy? I'm gonna I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 1: I saw previous for it back on Channel five in
Speaker 1: New York when I was a kid and I was scared.
Speaker 1: I was like, I don't know if I can watch this.
Speaker 1: It wasn't in the beginning, but I watched it when
Speaker 1: into syndication. I didn't think it was. I think it's
Speaker 1: pretty good. I like it. They did they do a reboot,
Speaker 1: they did a reboot, or did a movie they did
Speaker 1: in a movie without a reboot. I don't think they did.
Speaker 1: I know they didn't. They did. It wasn't It wasn't
Speaker 1: very good. So there's not you know what, there's not
Speaker 1: a great show out there right now that has captured
Speaker 1: the imagination of the public the way things like The
Speaker 1: Sopranos and Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. You know,
Speaker 1: there's all these there's all these shows that are really
Speaker 1: in the in the zeitgeist that everyone's talking about it
Speaker 1: right now. And maybe it's late summer, so there's no
Speaker 1: new stuff. One of those shows you just message it
Speaker 1: is about to drop a movie. Do you know which one? Uh?
Speaker 1: Breaking Bad? Right, I saw it. I saw a little clip. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Breaking Up October first. I think. I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I watched some of the Better Call Saul show, and
Speaker 1: I hear that if you can push through, you're happy
Speaker 1: with the decision. But it's so slow and weird in
Speaker 1: the beginning. It's like watching a bunch of lawyers talk
Speaker 1: about billable hours. Keep going. It's amazing. Yeah, it's good. Really, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I even thought it was good in the beginning. Oh,
Speaker 1: get out of here. It's crazy talk, but I will
Speaker 1: keep going. Jim, well spoken as usual. Buck. My girlfriend
Speaker 1: is a Division one soccer player in college and she's
Speaker 1: had multiple head injuries and can no longer head the
Speaker 1: ball due to this. It's definitely a real thing on
Speaker 1: point as usual, shield, Hie, It is a real thing.
Speaker 1: As somebody who I probably should admit this used to
Speaker 1: play organized soccer at the high school level. You know,
Speaker 1: if you head the ball the wrong First of all,
Speaker 1: the ball has too much air in it. It actually
Speaker 1: really hard, and if you head it the wrong way,
Speaker 1: you'll give yourself a headache basically or instantaneously. I know
Speaker 1: it sound like a huge whimp, but people are rethinking
Speaker 1: some of the sports stuff. Folks. We talked Yester about
Speaker 1: Andrew Luck. I've been reading a little more about this,
Speaker 1: and that guy was dealing with all kinds of chronic pain.
Speaker 1: You see Gronkowski, who looks Gronkowski. I don't know much
Speaker 1: about football, except I know that guy looks like he
Speaker 1: was built in a lab to be a football player, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, he's like six six or six seven, two
Speaker 1: hundred fifty pounds, you know, probably seven percent body fat
Speaker 1: or something. Probably runs a four to five forty And
Speaker 1: he did you see this producer Mike he was he
Speaker 1: was talking about how he's like, I had to retire
Speaker 1: because I just was in pain all the time. And
Speaker 1: now he's really into CBD. Actually he's into CBD, which
Speaker 1: I also I agree that that's an interesting area. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's actually talking about maybe coming back today too. Really. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he didn't rule it out. We'll see. That's the thing though,
Speaker 1: you know that there's a high cost, but it's also
Speaker 1: high reward. I mean, if I could, if I could
Speaker 1: be any professional am wonder what the audience would feel
Speaker 1: about this, if you could be any level of professional
Speaker 1: athlete in any sport in the world. I mean, realistically,
Speaker 1: I would probably say being the number one tennis player
Speaker 1: in the world for me would be the coolest thing
Speaker 1: because you have a very long career, you don't really
Speaker 1: have injuries, You get to go to like all these
Speaker 1: fun places, you know, although it's grueling because I think
Speaker 1: you played pretty much year round. But I think and
Speaker 1: being a quarterback on you know, basically the Tom Brady model,
Speaker 1: that's the ultimate I think, Yeah, you want to make
Speaker 1: the most money and have longevity. You have baseball really
Speaker 1: man guarantee contracts number one. You can't take your money
Speaker 1: away from you like the cannon football and it's you know, no,
Speaker 1: I mean you get incussions if you're a catcher maybe,
Speaker 1: or if you get unfortunate and get hit in the head,
Speaker 1: but you don't get hurt, not the same way. Not
Speaker 1: the same way you get like over us or not.
Speaker 1: You don't get concussive force injury. And on concussions. It's
Speaker 1: as looked up real quick. Um, your concussion injuries are
Speaker 1: just as likely in soccer. They're equal soccer and football.
Speaker 1: People make all these jokes about soccer. The truth is
Speaker 1: that at out of the audience right now, everyone listening
Speaker 1: is like, come on, it's true. Heading the ball, especially
Speaker 1: near the goal, if somebody whips their head back, I
Speaker 1: mean I've seen this happen. It'll shatter your nose. I
Speaker 1: mean it'll be you know, people get messed up because
Speaker 1: you have no protection. And these are you know, these
Speaker 1: are big athletic people who are jumping around trying to
Speaker 1: head it, trying to you know, use their know your forehead.
Speaker 1: Just ask anybody who's adept at Scottish bar fighting. Forehead
Speaker 1: is a weapon, my man. I mean, if you get
Speaker 1: some momentum behind that, you will mess somebody up. I
Speaker 1: always thought it was. You know, you see these European
Speaker 1: players in the in the soccer League. This is true.
Speaker 1: I know you're gonna say this sounds crazy, but you'll
Speaker 1: notice that they often go to the headbut or the
Speaker 1: kick before the punch. Americans go for the punch. Soccer
Speaker 1: players like as Zidan very he's one of the most
Speaker 1: famous players of all time. He headbuttered a dude in
Speaker 1: the chest. Like that's a whole other level of headbutt, right.
Speaker 1: And also Eric Cantra famously did a fly kick to
Speaker 1: a fan in the stands. Not a punch, not a push.
Speaker 1: He ran up, jumped and tried to kick him with
Speaker 1: a cleted foot. I just feel like that's in America.
Speaker 1: You throw a punch like you look at what's remember
Speaker 1: ron Our tests ran up into the stands. He's throwing punches. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: a different deal. Say. Also, by the way, you know
Speaker 1: this is a real thing. It actually came up in
Speaker 1: the Second World War. The reason the Germans had I
Speaker 1: forget what the technical name for it, but people are
Speaker 1: soldiers would call them potato mashers, you know, those old
Speaker 1: school from the army men. You could see them. It
Speaker 1: looks almost like a squat rolling pin as a grenade,
Speaker 1: but we could have little pie apple grenades. You're the
Speaker 1: ones that are around because we all knew how to
Speaker 1: throw baseballs. You take this for granted, but you go
Speaker 1: to other countries. They don't know how to throw when
Speaker 1: they don't learn the throwing motion. So that's why, you know,
Speaker 1: the Germans had to do this whole like over over
Speaker 1: the head circular thing, and they had the special it's
Speaker 1: like they're throwing a rolling pin instead of rolling a
Speaker 1: circular object, because when they throw a circular object, you know,
Speaker 1: foreigners tend to look like the apparently don't teach the
Speaker 1: throwing motion. Actors either either. You ever see an actor
Speaker 1: try to throw a baseball like it in a movie? No,
Speaker 1: it's hilarious. I'm always amazing at how unathletic actors are
Speaker 1: actually okay, like they can't even fake it for the
Speaker 1: purposes of the anyway. You know, google Tom Cruise trying
Speaker 1: to throw a baseball. It's it's quite funny. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sure I saw the movie The Skulls, and they're
Speaker 1: a bunch of kids in that movie who are supposed
Speaker 1: to be in a very elite level rowing race like
Speaker 1: D one Ivy League, which for rowing is like a
Speaker 1: big deal. It's not, you know, obviously, for football, it's
Speaker 1: a joke. And they're like talking and in the boat
Speaker 1: and stuff, and I'm just like, this is the most
Speaker 1: this would be like if you're doing if you had
Speaker 1: dudes who are sprinting on a racetrack looking at each
Speaker 1: other like hey, like I'm getting ahead of you, you know,
Speaker 1: like no, like you're running as fast as you can.
Speaker 1: There's no like people looking at each other on the
Speaker 1: boat having a conversation. You're not on a rowboat. You're
Speaker 1: not on a boat pond in Central Park. Darn it,
Speaker 1: all right, I've taken up too much of your role
Speaker 1: call time with my blabberings. So we're gonna hold on,
Speaker 1: hold on, We're gonna come right back. Stay with me,
Speaker 1: and we're back with roll call Part Deal, Facebook dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton and that's how you get on the action.
Speaker 1: And yes, it's pretty straightforward. Dora economy is great, Buck Barack,
Speaker 1: who's saying Obama just bought a fifteen million dollar mansion
Speaker 1: in Martha's vineyard. I just think it's interesting leap journals,
Speaker 1: in particular, if you say Obama's full name, they think
Speaker 1: that that is some that is some slights you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to say. Brock who say in Obama, which is
Speaker 1: in fact his full name, and that that gets that
Speaker 1: gets people upset. But yeah, he bought a fifteen million
Speaker 1: dollars mansion Marthin. Remember to buy a fifteen million dollar mansion,
Speaker 1: you have to have made I mean, if you're assuming
Speaker 1: you're gonna pay for it without a mortgage, which people
Speaker 1: of fifteen million dollars homes usually don't don't get a mortgage.
Speaker 1: You gotta make about twenty five million or so that
Speaker 1: buy that fifteen million dollars mansion. And then I'm sure
Speaker 1: the taxes for beachfront property and Martha's vineyard year in
Speaker 1: a year out are mind boggling. So it's good to
Speaker 1: be Obama. Guys made plenty of cash. Mister and missus
Speaker 1: Obama have made a lot of money. Sean Right CNN.
Speaker 1: Allowing Trump to be compared to Hitler, Stalin and Mao
Speaker 1: is tantamount to incitement of violence against the president. This
Speaker 1: is exactly the same mindset that antifa, you is to
Speaker 1: justify punching Nazis. I don't know, Sean, if I could
Speaker 1: go as far as I say it's incitement against the president.
Speaker 1: Although although when you have the entire media apparatus parroting
Speaker 1: things about how Trump is a fascist and we have
Speaker 1: the rise of fascism in this country, all this stuff,
Speaker 1: when you start to have enough people echoing that message,
Speaker 1: I've said this to you before. If there really was
Speaker 1: a fascist government in this country, if I believe that
Speaker 1: the country was run by a fascist and we had
Speaker 1: fallen into some form of authoritarianism, would I take up
Speaker 1: arms against the government. Of course, that's what the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment is for. So saying that the government right now
Speaker 1: is fascist is a grotesque overreach that some person without
Speaker 1: the judgment to understand that this is just now the
Speaker 1: way politics on the left are done, may take that literally,
Speaker 1: as has been the case with other other people in
Speaker 1: the past who have gone to violence because of the
Speaker 1: dominant political narrative. Julia rights Buck just started listening to
Speaker 1: your show and I absolutely love it. Please work on
Speaker 1: your Brian Stelter impersonation, because it sounds like Cartman from
Speaker 1: South Park. I think my Stelter's pretty good here. I
Speaker 1: had to do a show because Jeff Zucker has completely
Speaker 1: approved it, and I do whatever Jeff says that here
Speaker 1: I am. I mean, I'm telling I think that's pretty
Speaker 1: close reliable sources. That's what the show should be called,
Speaker 1: Adam Buck with the latest Ruth Bader Ginsburg headline. The
Speaker 1: next fight will make the last one look like a
Speaker 1: warm tropical breeze shields high, Adam, if you do have
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court vacancy that opens up, perhaps because of
Speaker 1: rgb's retirement, if that were to happen in the election year,
Speaker 1: I don't know that we have a different I don't
Speaker 1: know that there is a higher outrage gear for Libs,
Speaker 1: for leftists right now. I mean, they already think that
Speaker 1: Trump is basically Hitler, already think that that's worse. So
Speaker 1: can you get worse than basically Hitler? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: But you're correct that that would seem to add a
Speaker 1: whole other layer of just insanity onto the way that
Speaker 1: the left currently views all this stuff. Because the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has given the left some of its biggest victories
Speaker 1: in the Culture War and in American politics for the
Speaker 1: last forty years. You know, the biggest wins that the
Speaker 1: left has had on policy have more often than not
Speaker 1: come through the Supreme Court. I mean it has been
Speaker 1: their super legislature, not just Row. And however you feel
Speaker 1: about same sex marriage, Ohberg fell, and you know, you
Speaker 1: just go through all these different all these different cases.
Speaker 1: What the lib would point too would be Bush v. Gore,
Speaker 1: which really isn't a complicated case at all. Gore lost
Speaker 1: every count of votes that ever happened. Gore lost. They
Speaker 1: could keep trying to come up with some way to
Speaker 1: only count some you know, some sometimes and not a
Speaker 1: Gore lost. I will say one one hole in my impressions,
Speaker 1: I do not have an Al Gore. I do not
Speaker 1: have it. I sound like or when I do Al Gore.
Speaker 1: And so I've got to get better at my Al
Speaker 1: Gore impression. It's not good, it's not I need to
Speaker 1: work on it. He's kno, No, I can't do it.
Speaker 1: Can't do it. We'll do it live, uh, Sean Buck.
Speaker 1: The Shield is a way better cop show. I started
Speaker 1: watching it while in the military and started the third
Speaker 1: season when recommended by a co worker. Binge watched the
Speaker 1: first two seasons in a weekend, Vic and the crew
Speaker 1: will rivet you to the television phenomenal shields high. Let
Speaker 1: may have to check that out. You know. I remember
Speaker 1: when I was in Iraq now over a decade ago,
Speaker 1: and we had a bunch of a bunch of door
Speaker 1: kickers that I was hanging out within the what is
Speaker 1: it the the MWR mental Wealth and Mental for gosh,
Speaker 1: I can't remember what this the rec room whatever they
Speaker 1: call the rec room in the military. Now I'm forgetting sorry.
Speaker 1: I was never in the military, so why would I know. Well,
Speaker 1: I spent a lot of time on military basis. But
Speaker 1: they were watching the show and I was like, so
Speaker 1: this is like an ancient Roman history show, except with
Speaker 1: like a lot of violence and nudity and things like that.
Speaker 1: Sign me up. And that show was HBO's Rome, which
Speaker 1: I still sad to this day only went two seasons.
Speaker 1: I thought, that show. Do you ever see that? That
Speaker 1: show is awesome? You should watch HBO Room. It's only
Speaker 1: two seasons. They said it was too expensive to continue
Speaker 1: with another season. It was a very expensive show to produce.
Speaker 1: That was what you know. The guy who was the
Speaker 1: showrunner for that went off and made the mentalist later
Speaker 1: on all Right, great show coming tomorrow from New York.
Speaker 1: She'll tie