Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats and the
Speaker 1: deep state did spy on the Trump campaign. We've known
Speaker 1: this for a while, but the Attorney General today said
Speaker 1: it out loud on Capitol Hill, and people in the
Speaker 1: mainstream media and in the Democrat apparatus freaked out about it.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about where this is going and whether it'll
Speaker 1: actually be accountability for the massive spying scandal against Trump
Speaker 1: and his campaign aids. That plus the latest on immigration
Speaker 1: and Bernie sanderstyle socialism coming up on The buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again, the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. I think spying on a political
Speaker 1: campaign is a big deal. I'm not suggesting that, uh,
Speaker 1: those rules were violated, but I think it's important to
Speaker 1: look at that. And I'm not just I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly. So
Speaker 1: you're not you're not suggesting, though, that spying occurred. I don't. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess you could. I think there's a spying did occur. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think spying did occur. Spying did occur against the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Very important
Speaker 1: words there from the Attorney General of the United States,
Speaker 1: and you can just hell, you can just hear liberals
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, Oh my gosh, what is he saying?
Speaker 1: They got so nervous there for a minute, because now
Speaker 1: it's all a function of controlling the narrative. Got to
Speaker 1: keep people from figuring out just how insane, just how
Speaker 1: reckless and ruthless and disgraceful the Democrats, the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: the deep staters like Comey and McCabe and Struck and
Speaker 1: Page and Yates and Brennan and Clapper. What they tried
Speaker 1: to do is to undo the results of the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen presidential election, to nullify the votes of over sixty
Speaker 1: million of their fellow Americans who voted for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and think that they're righteous. In the whole process, there
Speaker 1: was spying by a Democrat administration's appointee against a Republican
Speaker 1: presidential campaign in a election year, and then there was
Speaker 1: an effort to use that spying to create further problems
Speaker 1: for the administration once the Republican had won, and to
Speaker 1: bring down his presidency, there was spying. We have to
Speaker 1: we have to say it, we have to repeat it,
Speaker 1: because just that sinking in, just that that recognition in
Speaker 1: our brains begins the process of coming to terms with
Speaker 1: how much of a of a debacle this has been,
Speaker 1: with the catastrophe that has befallen our institutions and our
Speaker 1: sense of fairness at the federal law enforcement level, with
Speaker 1: the press, which I never thought was fair, but now
Speaker 1: at least we have beyond any reasonable doubt proof of
Speaker 1: the press is willing to play very dirty, to send
Speaker 1: people to prison, to lie about people if it serves
Speaker 1: their political interests. They are activists without scruples. They are
Speaker 1: little character assassins for the left. That's what most of
Speaker 1: the mainstream media has turned into. And Bill Barr is
Speaker 1: just beginning this process of getting the answers on this.
Speaker 1: We finally, we finally deserve. We need MSNBC's you know
Speaker 1: this is gonna go, Cynthia alks need no idea this
Speaker 1: person is but put on TV to say that bar
Speaker 1: Spine Kevins are crazy. They're just crazy. Play twenty. At
Speaker 1: one point he said, I think spine did occur. Your
Speaker 1: take on that, Cynthia, Well, I think that's crazy. You know,
Speaker 1: general the United States suggesting that intel were spying, You
Speaker 1: know that that some reason there was spying on the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, and Trump accused that, and there was bugging
Speaker 1: in the campaign, and there just wasn't. And obviously bar
Speaker 1: feels the need to curry favor with Trump. And I
Speaker 1: don't understand why a man of his standing and reputation
Speaker 1: would feel the need to couch out of the President
Speaker 1: in such a way. That's just idiocy. I mean, she's
Speaker 1: she's a former federal prosecutor, knows nothing about the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: apparently knows nothing about the Russia collusion case. What do
Speaker 1: you call running human informants against members of the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign as they did George Popadopoulos going to the FISA
Speaker 1: court to get really extra constitutional national security based surveillance
Speaker 1: done of Carter Page tied to the Trump campaign. We
Speaker 1: don't even know the full extent of what else. We
Speaker 1: don't know what they did to manaphor It, We don't
Speaker 1: know what they did to Flynn. There are some people
Speaker 1: who think that they might have been caught up in
Speaker 1: all this too, in terms of the surveillance. But how
Speaker 1: is that not spying? If taking people's emails and phone
Speaker 1: calls and getting access to their most private and sensitive
Speaker 1: personal data. If that's not spying, what is spine? If
Speaker 1: using foreign intelligence operatives like Christopher Steele, remember he's a
Speaker 1: foreigner two, and using foreign sub sources in Russia, that's right,
Speaker 1: Russian sources to go after Trump. If that's not spying,
Speaker 1: what is If it's not spying, why did Hillary's DNC
Speaker 1: pay a former spy to do the work. Of course
Speaker 1: it was spine. They just know that that word that
Speaker 1: conjures up. It begins that process of allowing us to
Speaker 1: allowing us to understand, to come to grips with just
Speaker 1: how profoundly, profoundly abusive and wrong and underhanded this whole
Speaker 1: Trump Russia collusion mass was. Can you imagine, imagine for
Speaker 1: just a second that we found out what I think of,
Speaker 1: how the press would react that there was an effort
Speaker 1: to say that President Obama, and an effort that was
Speaker 1: picked up by the entirety of conservative media across the board,
Speaker 1: the top of the Republican Party, the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, who knows who
Speaker 1: else and where else, but working with foreign sources, claimed
Speaker 1: that Barack Obama was in fact not only foeign born,
Speaker 1: but a foreign born asset run against the United States
Speaker 1: government and was a traitor, right, a foreign intelligence asset
Speaker 1: who had won the presidency with help of foreign powers.
Speaker 1: And that this all came out there was no evidence
Speaker 1: for this, but the Republican establishment, conservative media, and the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy all created this conspiracy and acted on it
Speaker 1: and spied on Obama, pulled Valerie Jarrett's phone records, pulled
Speaker 1: David axel Rod's emails. Can you imagine how they would
Speaker 1: react to this? And in that case, I would say, rightfully, so,
Speaker 1: it is all we would It would replace Watergate as
Speaker 1: this scandal that we would be forced to talk about
Speaker 1: for the next fifty years, as though it's the only
Speaker 1: scandal that has ever happened in political history. It would
Speaker 1: it would finally replace Watergate as the most profound, most
Speaker 1: profound abuse of government authority, at least according to the Democrats, right,
Speaker 1: that's what they say Watergate was, you know, of the
Speaker 1: last hundred years in American history. But because it's Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and because it's the Democrats who were the guilty parties here,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe that this is what this was acceptable?
Speaker 1: Can anyone really make that case? Now? Bar my friends,
Speaker 1: was just giving a beginning of what I think is
Speaker 1: going to be the reckoning for the Democrat left, the
Speaker 1: deep state, the mainstream media places like CNN, that we're
Speaker 1: hiring people straight out of the top, the top echelons
Speaker 1: of government and then laundering their nonsense stories and using
Speaker 1: their credentials Clapper and Brandon and others, their former credentials
Speaker 1: and the Intelligence agency to make their baseless accusations laundered
Speaker 1: through CNN seem credible. All of it, all of it
Speaker 1: was the dirtiest of politics. It was unethical, and I
Speaker 1: think we'll find out soon it was highly illegal, and
Speaker 1: no less than the presidency of the United States hung
Speaker 1: in the bounce. That's why they don't want the word
Speaker 1: spying to be used. Congressmen. Shots today was trying very
Speaker 1: hard just to get Barre to say, no, no, don't
Speaker 1: say spying, call it something else. Play nineteen. Do you
Speaker 1: want to rephrase what you're doing? Because I think the
Speaker 1: word spying could cause everybody in the cable news ecosystem
Speaker 1: to freak out, and I think it's necessary for you
Speaker 1: to be precise with your language here you normally are,
Speaker 1: and I want to give you a chance to be
Speaker 1: especially precise here. I'm not sure of all the connotations
Speaker 1: of that word that you're referring to, but unauthorized surveillance.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure there was no unauthorized surveillance.
Speaker 1: Is that more appropriate in your mind? This is your call.
Speaker 1: I really did want to give you a chance to
Speaker 1: say it how you wanted to say it, and make
Speaker 1: sure that you didn't misspeak. You know, I'm just like,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe you just want to use like some
Speaker 1: different words than spying or something, because like spying sounds scary. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's because that's what they did. They spied on the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. We were told they were crazy for saying this.
Speaker 1: I remember it. Remember, Oh, you know when Trump said
Speaker 1: that he was wire tap. Oh that's insane. No, no,
Speaker 1: they it was worse than a wire tap. They used
Speaker 1: Fizer power to go after carter Page. Remember it's one
Speaker 1: of Buck's ironclad rules of the Russia collusion fiasco. Anyone
Speaker 1: who tells you that carter Page should have been the
Speaker 1: subject of a Fiser request is either a liar or
Speaker 1: a moron. No intelligent human being could sit down with
Speaker 1: Carter Page for five minutes, learn what happened with him,
Speaker 1: learn his story, hear him talk, and say, yeah, this
Speaker 1: guy was a threat to US national security of a
Speaker 1: FISA warrant. But there's a desperation on the left. Look
Speaker 1: at this. Not only was Trump able to defeat Hillary.
Speaker 1: Trump was able to defeat Hillary with some of the
Speaker 1: most powerful elements of the federal bureaucracy and the government
Speaker 1: and the media actively working to lie about him, investigate him,
Speaker 1: and destroy him. And he still won. It's almost a miracle.
Speaker 1: I don't know how else to describe it. We've never
Speaker 1: come up against anything like this before, at least not
Speaker 1: that we know of. We've never seen such an obvious
Speaker 1: and concerted effort for people who work in the government
Speaker 1: and journalists who are supposed to bring us the facts
Speaker 1: we know that's all a joke, trying to not just
Speaker 1: tip an election one way, but then undo the results afterwards,
Speaker 1: and to weaponize the intelligence community in the process. The
Speaker 1: intelligence community is never never really going to be the
Speaker 1: same now, because it has been brought right into the
Speaker 1: center of this complete nightmare that the Trump administration has
Speaker 1: been dragged through. It was spying folks. That's what happened here.
Speaker 1: The Democrats, the left spied on Trump, spied on his people,
Speaker 1: and then decided that the narrative that they had already
Speaker 1: set up was too useful, even when they knew that
Speaker 1: it was a fantasy to give up too helpful in
Speaker 1: trying to block Trump from achieving his goals, from delivering
Speaker 1: on his promises to not just Trump voters, but to
Speaker 1: the American people. We will never be able to calculate
Speaker 1: the damage that was done to this country over the
Speaker 1: last two years. The time, the energy, the resources, the
Speaker 1: decision making, all of it. All of it just thrown
Speaker 1: on a bonfire of the left lunacy because they just
Speaker 1: can't handle that they lost that the left's vision for
Speaker 1: the country is not shared by a majority of the
Speaker 1: American people, that we don't want to be a socialist nation,
Speaker 1: that we don't want to be all woke and intersectional left,
Speaker 1: and that people have had enough of a pseudo elite
Speaker 1: class of political and media celebrities telling us what's right
Speaker 1: and what's wrong and how we should live our lives.
Speaker 1: This was all a threat to their power. Trump has
Speaker 1: always been a threat to the media's sense of itself,
Speaker 1: to the Democrat establishment's sense of how they've been able
Speaker 1: to convince Republicans to just lose with dignity time and
Speaker 1: time again. Now they have to deal with a fighter
Speaker 1: and a person who will call them out. They didn't
Speaker 1: like that, and so they went scorched earth to take
Speaker 1: Trump down. Yes, my friends, they spied on the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign without a legitimate basis to do so. If this
Speaker 1: had happened in some third world country, we would be
Speaker 1: hearing about how this was an attempted coup, how there
Speaker 1: should be referrals to the Hague perhaps for prosecution for
Speaker 1: you know, international meddling in elections. I mean, we'd hear
Speaker 1: all kinds of crazy things. But because it happened in
Speaker 1: this country, because Hillary Clinton and her allies and the
Speaker 1: Obama administration are read at the very heart of it,
Speaker 1: they're saying, oh, no, it wasn't spying, you see. It
Speaker 1: was just highly sensitive, top secret surveillance of American citizens
Speaker 1: without giving them any due process, all pushed along not
Speaker 1: by a fear of a real national security threat, but
Speaker 1: by a fear of a polite utical threat, that political
Speaker 1: threat being Donald J. Trump. We have much more on
Speaker 1: this team. I'll be right back. It was an illegal investigation,
Speaker 1: it was started illegally. Everything about it was crooking, every
Speaker 1: single thing about it. There were dirty cops. These were
Speaker 1: bad people. You look at McCabe and Colly, and you
Speaker 1: look at Lisa and Peter Struck. These were bad people.
Speaker 1: And this was a an attempted who This was an
Speaker 1: attempt to take down of a president, and we beat them.
Speaker 1: We beat them, absolutely true. It was an attempt to
Speaker 1: take down of a president. President Trump managed to endure.
Speaker 1: But that's that's not enough, just that recognition. Although, don't
Speaker 1: forget it. The Meatia is gonna try to make you
Speaker 1: forget it. Don't let them get their way. Remember what
Speaker 1: was done here, Remember how they played the game. I
Speaker 1: think Barr is certainly going to remember. He's saying that
Speaker 1: he might spend some time investigating what the Intel agencies
Speaker 1: did in this whole process play sixteen. I think it's
Speaker 1: my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies
Speaker 1: and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and
Speaker 1: I want to make sure that happened. We have a
Speaker 1: lot of rules about that. Chris Ray is a great
Speaker 1: partner for me. I'm very pleased that he's there as
Speaker 1: the director, and if it becomes necessary to look over
Speaker 1: some former officials activities, I expect that I'll be relying
Speaker 1: heavily on Chris and work closely with him and looking
Speaker 1: at that information. But that's what I'm doing. I feel
Speaker 1: I have an obligation to make sure that government power
Speaker 1: is not abused. I mean, I think that's one of
Speaker 1: the principal roles of the attorney general. He makes such
Speaker 1: an important point here. Democrats are so concerned about the
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies and did they do this wrong or that wrong?
Speaker 1: Usually Democrats are so critical of law enforcement. But oh no, no,
Speaker 1: let's not look into this, Let's not get any answers
Speaker 1: about the Russia collusion probe. Let's just move right past this.
Speaker 1: They say, let's talk about Medicare for all or something
Speaker 1: else not on Bill Barr's watch this guy. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: I think he's going to get the answers, and the
Speaker 1: answers he gets Democrats are going to hate it. Yes,
Speaker 1: I did, and he also has a fuller explanation of
Speaker 1: that in the report that I'll be making available hopefully
Speaker 1: next week. Did he express any expectation interest in leaving
Speaker 1: the obstruction decision to Congress, not that he didn't say
Speaker 1: that to me. Now, so he said the obstruction decision
Speaker 1: should be up to you. He didn't say that either,
Speaker 1: But that's generally how the Department of Justice works. A
Speaker 1: prosecutor's role, at the end of the day is binary.
Speaker 1: Are there charges or no charges? Or is this a
Speaker 1: crime or not a crime? Have you overruled mister Muller
Speaker 1: or his team on any redaction question? No, one way
Speaker 1: or the other. No, have you discussed any specific redactions
Speaker 1: with the White House? No ru er. We're we're you know,
Speaker 1: pad Lahey, maybe maybe time to think about writing a
Speaker 1: memoir and spending more time with the family. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying more, we're we're. I think I think we've had
Speaker 1: enough pad Lahey and the Judiciary Committee for a very
Speaker 1: very long time. He's he's he has been a politician
Speaker 1: for plenty. I think it's time for pad lay to
Speaker 1: maybe think about, you know, relaxing a little bit more. Anyway,
Speaker 1: you'll notice that they're trying to say it up some
Speaker 1: just just the basis for questioning what was done here,
Speaker 1: for the basis for questioning whether or not bar has
Speaker 1: been ethical, Has he bent any rules has he's done
Speaker 1: anything strange here at all? And the answers, of course, no, no,
Speaker 1: no where, Well, rich Richard McConnell. Mitch McConnell is very
Speaker 1: clear on this point. He knows that they're do. They
Speaker 1: only have a few plays left. Democrats only have a
Speaker 1: few places they can go once this report finally gets dropped.
Speaker 1: A few places they can go, and one of them
Speaker 1: is going to be trying to trash Bar. They've already
Speaker 1: started that, but they're holding back on the full court
Speaker 1: press of Bar is terrible. You can't trust him, he's
Speaker 1: the worst. They're holding back on that until the report drops.
Speaker 1: But Mitch McConnell's trying to get a little bit ahead
Speaker 1: of that play Cliff twelve. I trust the Attorney General
Speaker 1: to give us all of the information and that we
Speaker 1: need without revealing classified information or putting out the names
Speaker 1: of people whose reputations could be ruined who did nothing wrong.
Speaker 1: So I think it really gets down to a question
Speaker 1: whether you trust Bill Barr or not. And I do,
Speaker 1: and I think he will get us a report that
Speaker 1: is as open as possible, as soon as possible. It's
Speaker 1: absolutely true on all accounts there. Look me, Mitch, McConnell's
Speaker 1: a sharp guy, and I think that, you know, conservatives
Speaker 1: do tend to give him a hard time and a
Speaker 1: lot of things because he's a he is a little
Speaker 1: bit of an easy Obviously, he is the political establishment
Speaker 1: in many ways. But his work on the judiciary alone
Speaker 1: and getting those judges through, getting conservative judges put on
Speaker 1: the federal bench across the country, that's going to have
Speaker 1: long lasting ramifications that he has been a rock star
Speaker 1: on that. So you know, give credit where it's due, Mitch,
Speaker 1: and Mitch prevented the whole Merrick Garland fiasco from being
Speaker 1: something that we had to deal with for the next
Speaker 1: thirty years. So you know, there's there's a lot going
Speaker 1: on here that Mitch should get a little bit of
Speaker 1: a rounded applause for. But he knows that they're just
Speaker 1: gonna try to trash Bar. That's what's coming up next.
Speaker 1: And the way they're going to trash him is by
Speaker 1: saying that there's something in the there's some decisions that
Speaker 1: were made in these redactions. Even though he's laid out yesterday,
Speaker 1: Bar laid out the four criteria, they're gonna color code them.
Speaker 1: They're gonna make it very clear and no one right
Speaker 1: now at least openly challenges that those redactions or redactions
Speaker 1: for those reasons are unnecessary or you know that they're
Speaker 1: not right. But you know they're gonna they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to do something here because the report's not going to
Speaker 1: give them what they want. We already know that they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're the Democrats are desperate to squeeze something out
Speaker 1: of the reports. They can pretend that this hasn't all
Speaker 1: been a a total loss for them, but I think
Speaker 1: they're going to be quite disappointed. And as to the
Speaker 1: transparency part of this whole discussion, that's where you have
Speaker 1: to remember. You know, Congressman Nadler, who's gonna make a
Speaker 1: few He's gonna make a few appearances on the show today.
Speaker 1: A lot of interesting action going on on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: last couple of the last couple of days. But we
Speaker 1: did a little mash up for you of you know what,
Speaker 1: Congressman Nadler, depending on whether he wants the information, you know,
Speaker 1: depending on whether the information is damaging to Trump or not,
Speaker 1: Congressman Nadler is either for the release of the information
Speaker 1: or against it. There's no principle, there's no rules per
Speaker 1: se it's just Oh, I think this is bad for Trump.
Speaker 1: It should be released. Oh this is good for Trump.
Speaker 1: No, no no, no, don't don't release that information playlip twenty four.
Speaker 1: We are demanding and we have a right to the
Speaker 1: Congress as a right to the entire report with no
Speaker 1: redactions whatsoever. Much of this material is Federal Rule six
Speaker 1: material that is material that, by law, unless contravened by
Speaker 1: a vote of the House, must be kept secret. We're
Speaker 1: entitled to see it because Congress represents the nation and
Speaker 1: Congress has to take action on any of it, So
Speaker 1: we're entitled to see all of it. The entire Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee is going to see it to decide what must
Speaker 1: be kept confidential. Is protecting privacy of third parties. That
Speaker 1: means fifty people are going to see it. It's going
Speaker 1: to leak out, and those privacy rights are going to
Speaker 1: be violated, and that is ensured by this resolution. He
Speaker 1: has said he will redact four classifications of information. Right.
Speaker 1: Our position is that he should retact none of it.
Speaker 1: Statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses,
Speaker 1: salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be
Speaker 1: unfair to release. Oh wait, but before it was about Clinton,
Speaker 1: and so they wanted to keep it secret. Now it's
Speaker 1: about Trump, so it's all about transparency. Like these people,
Speaker 1: this is why you can't can't trust him, and he
Speaker 1: really can't take him seriously. I mean that they pose
Speaker 1: a serious threat to honesty and decency. But they're not.
Speaker 1: They're not, as as it turns out, individuals of any
Speaker 1: real integrity, certainly not Nadler and some of his cohorts
Speaker 1: and all this stuff. So well, we'll see how this
Speaker 1: all shakes out. We'll see what ends up going on here.
Speaker 1: I I do think though, that we should have an
Speaker 1: expectation that the Democrats are going to try everything that
Speaker 1: they can to undermine Bar and to make it seem
Speaker 1: like he's been a bad guy here. And Bar knows that,
Speaker 1: which is why he brought Mueller along. Muller's a part
Speaker 1: of the redaction process. But it doesn't matter. Though. They're
Speaker 1: gonna lie about this stuff if they have to, They'll
Speaker 1: they'll find a way to try to make him look bad.
Speaker 1: They're gonna find a way to at least create a
Speaker 1: narrative for the MSNBC. Trump deranged that there's something nefarious
Speaker 1: going on here, when there's just not. What's nefarious, as
Speaker 1: we have been discussing, is that there was an effort
Speaker 1: at essentially a soft coup, using the FBI, the intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: some journalists, an OPA researcher, and the DNC to try
Speaker 1: to frame President Trump, which is what this was. This
Speaker 1: was framing the President United States. This is the biggest
Speaker 1: political scandal of my life. There's nothing else that even
Speaker 1: comes close, and we need to speak about it in
Speaker 1: those terms because that's what happened. When I talk about
Speaker 1: a political revolution, I know this sound radical to some people,
Speaker 1: but we're all going to create an economy and a
Speaker 1: government that works for all of us, not just the
Speaker 1: one percent. So to answer you a question, were all
Speaker 1: going to do away with those outrageous loopholes that allow
Speaker 1: large corporations owned by some of the wealthiest people in
Speaker 1: this to pay nothing in taxes. We're going to end
Speaker 1: their ability to put their money in the Cayman Islands
Speaker 1: under the taxapments. The millionaires and the billionaires. Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: doesn't like him. Millionaires and billionaires running around with all
Speaker 1: that money landing on fire just to stay warm. Oh,
Speaker 1: here's a stock of hundreds. I'm a little cold. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'll warm my hands with it. Maybe I'll just put
Speaker 1: some lighter fluid on it, increase climate change, and I
Speaker 1: just burn a couple of mill right here, because I'm
Speaker 1: a millionaire, maybe even a billionaire. Turns out that Bernie's
Speaker 1: a millionaire, Oh what a shock. As we discussed yesterday,
Speaker 1: he's one of these he's one of these classic socialists
Speaker 1: who wants to advocate now now that he has a
Speaker 1: net worth in the millions of dollars, he's happy to
Speaker 1: advocate for higher income taxes on everybody else so he
Speaker 1: can push the social programs he wants. And remember, it's
Speaker 1: not just you know, the tax code is not just
Speaker 1: about the funding of government and the redistribution of well
Speaker 1: through the government mechanisms that are essentially welfare programs. Right,
Speaker 1: that's all certainly part of it, But it's also about
Speaker 1: what you can use the tax code to either encourage
Speaker 1: or discourage. You know, there are ways that you can
Speaker 1: use the tax code that are effectively tools of policy
Speaker 1: that don't really have much to do at all with
Speaker 1: balancing the budget, or rather that aren't first and foremost
Speaker 1: about balancing the budget funding different programs. You know, the
Speaker 1: power to tax is the power to destroy, and it's
Speaker 1: one that the democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders want to
Speaker 1: have firmly entrenched in their hands. But you know, Sanders
Speaker 1: has had some problems in the past because he ran
Speaker 1: for president in twenty fifteen but only released a single
Speaker 1: year's tax return for twenty fourteen. Now, why is that?
Speaker 1: We all know why that is? Because when Bernie's run
Speaker 1: around the billionaires, the billionaires, you know, they're just all
Speaker 1: these these fat cats like Scrooge McDuck. You ever see him.
Speaker 1: He's a duck with a top hat who swims around
Speaker 1: that a giant vault of gold coins. Very greedy, very
Speaker 1: very greedy. Bernie's run around saying that meanwhile, Bernie's got
Speaker 1: more wealth than ninety nine percent of the country. Bernie's
Speaker 1: a one percenter, folks. It's a deep, dark, little secret
Speaker 1: of the burn. He is a one percenter. And yet
Speaker 1: he talks all the time about how people you know,
Speaker 1: are just a wealthy or getting wealthier. And this guy's
Speaker 1: got three houses and he wants to be a socialist. Now,
Speaker 1: if he wants to be a socialist, then have three houses.
Speaker 1: I just would like to understand what that's supposed to mean.
Speaker 1: For people who are making fifty thousand dollars a year,
Speaker 1: but who under a Bernie Sanders government, if he had
Speaker 1: his way, would be paying sixty percent of that income
Speaker 1: and taxes. They're never gonna have three houses now, making
Speaker 1: fifty grand paying sixty percent taxes. No three houses for you.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite as we know. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's something deeply fraudulent about someone who could you know
Speaker 1: he could give his money, He could give the proceeds
Speaker 1: from his book, which is always says he's made most
Speaker 1: of his money to charity to fighting climate change. He
Speaker 1: only want to do that. He likes to keep his money.
Speaker 1: You are the ones who are supposed to be given
Speaker 1: up your money. And he's not the only one who
Speaker 1: is running far left for the Democrat primary, but somehow
Speaker 1: thinks that the rules of wealth re distribution should not
Speaker 1: apply to him. You also have Elizabeth Warren out there
Speaker 1: who made for her last year attack. I think she
Speaker 1: released ten years at tax returns. But and she has
Speaker 1: raised six million dollars. Why doesn't she redistribute that to
Speaker 1: other people in the race. I think she should have
Speaker 1: to read stripute that money. But she's on the want
Speaker 1: to hand Elizabeth Warren pitching a wealth tax, while we
Speaker 1: also find out she made just shy of a million
Speaker 1: dollars for twenty eighteen. You know, her and her husband
Speaker 1: made nine hundred thousand dollars in income, three hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand dollars in book sales, and her husband
Speaker 1: earned four hundred thousand dollars from Harvard. I mean, these
Speaker 1: people are well off. I mean by any global standard,
Speaker 1: even by American standards, They're they're wealthy. They're not rich,
Speaker 1: but they're definitely wealthy. And she's saying that she that
Speaker 1: we should have a wealth tax. Now, how would a
Speaker 1: wealth tax even be enforced? What would you do about this?
Speaker 1: Would you force somebody who's what if all your net
Speaker 1: worth is if you're a farmer, let's say, and all
Speaker 1: your net worth is essentially the land that you live
Speaker 1: on and farm in order to get income, are you
Speaker 1: gonna start to have to parcel up that land and
Speaker 1: sell it off? Is that what a wealth tax would be?
Speaker 1: Are there's going to be a limit on this wealth tax?
Speaker 1: So okay, where's the limits supposed to be? You know,
Speaker 1: you'll notice that this is true of a lot of
Speaker 1: journalists and people in academia who have these positions that
Speaker 1: where they're essentially unfiable, where they have the right politics
Speaker 1: to get the job, which is one of the most
Speaker 1: important requirements. You've got to be a leftist leftist if
Speaker 1: you want to be a journalist leftist, you want to
Speaker 1: be a college professor. And you get a two household
Speaker 1: income of journalists or college professors, you know you're making
Speaker 1: a half million dollars a year, more or less. But
Speaker 1: there's a lot of resentment from the left wing half
Speaker 1: a million dollars year intelligentsia toward the kind of people
Speaker 1: that are making ten twenty and fifty million dollars a
Speaker 1: year or one hundred million dollars a year, which is
Speaker 1: not that many people do that, but there are some.
Speaker 1: They view them as, you know, their earnings are egregious.
Speaker 1: You know, a half a million a year is not egregious.
Speaker 1: That's what they say, and that's what they believe. I
Speaker 1: always remember when John Kerry and producer Mike and fact
Speaker 1: check me on this, when John Kerry when he was
Speaker 1: running for president. You know, a guy who's essentially lived
Speaker 1: off of the divorce proceeds of money made by other men.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what's funded John Kerry's whole life. And
Speaker 1: yet when Carry was running for president against Bush, I
Speaker 1: think he paid something like seven percent income tax because
Speaker 1: all of it was just privileged and tax advantaged investment income.
Speaker 1: So you know, he's paying seven percent on a few
Speaker 1: million dollars of passive income and lecturing the rest of us.
Speaker 1: But how our taxes should go up? And this is
Speaker 1: what democrats do. They think that because they have these
Speaker 1: pure motives, that the hypocrisy of what they want for
Speaker 1: themselves versus what they want for you shouldn't really matter. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it matters a lot. You know what else
Speaker 1: We're going to find out if we see the Burns taxes.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, I can almost guarantee. I mean this is
Speaker 1: a guest, but I feel very confident about this. Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: the socialist who cares so much about the poor, cares
Speaker 1: so much about people in the struggle. Bernie Sanders does
Speaker 1: not give much money to charity. I'm telling you I
Speaker 1: can see it right now. Look, let'll give money to charity.
Speaker 1: The charity comes from the government. Want to take all
Speaker 1: your money from the millionaires, the billionaires. We're gonna follow
Speaker 1: the money the charities, and by charity I mean government programs.
Speaker 1: They're gonna employ bureaucrats who take a huge cut off
Speaker 1: the top and then do very low level, third year
Speaker 1: kind of work to help poor people. That's his version
Speaker 1: of charity, Taxing you more and creating more government programs
Speaker 1: to give money to people based on what the government
Speaker 1: thinks they should get, and to have a whole layer
Speaker 1: of waste on top of that, a people that are
Speaker 1: administering administering those those funds that are taken from you.
Speaker 1: I am telling you Bernie Sanders not a charitable guy.
Speaker 1: I don't think Elizabeth Warren you're go to see a
Speaker 1: much charity either. Now, it's always been a knock on
Speaker 1: Trump that you know that people say that he doesn't
Speaker 1: give enough money to charity and the Trump Foundation bought
Speaker 1: an oil painting of him. I know all this stuff.
Speaker 1: But you know, Trump is the guy who's the capitalist.
Speaker 1: Trump is the one who's run around saying that we
Speaker 1: all need to pay our fair share. That's these people,
Speaker 1: that's Sanders, that's Warren, and they don't want to pay
Speaker 1: their fair share. They just want YouTube. And this is
Speaker 1: this is a fundamental flaw in redistributive economics, is that
Speaker 1: the people that are always pushing this or the rest
Speaker 1: of us don't want to live with it themselves, maybe
Speaker 1: because there's something wrong with taking from people to give
Speaker 1: to other people. Because you say so, Bernie, the Office
Speaker 1: of the Inspector General has a pending investigation of the
Speaker 1: FISA process in the Russian investigation, and I expect that
Speaker 1: that will be complete in probably in May or June.
Speaker 1: I am told more generally, I am reviewing the conduct
Speaker 1: of the investigation and trying to get my arms around
Speaker 1: all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted
Speaker 1: during the summer of twenty sixteen. Attorney General bar reviewing
Speaker 1: the conduct of the FBI's investigation into non existent Russia
Speaker 1: Trump collusion. Will we finally get answers? Here are my friends?
Speaker 1: I was seeing some nervous stuff on Twitter today from
Speaker 1: some of the journals who are part of this whole
Speaker 1: hoax in the mainstream media. What can we expect next?
Speaker 1: We're joined by an expert on this matter, our friend
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst and author of the
Speaker 1: bestselling The Russia Hoax. Greg. Great to have you back, hey, Bud.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you, So what are your expectations?
Speaker 1: I mean today, Bar And he's not a guy with
Speaker 1: a lot of BLUs, you know, he's not somebody who's
Speaker 1: prone to overstatement. He's been in this game a while.
Speaker 1: He's a professional. But he seemed to make it pretty
Speaker 1: clear to folks who are listening then paying attention to
Speaker 1: that hearing that there could be a reckoning of a
Speaker 1: reckoning to come here. They might be looking at the investigators,
Speaker 1: what are your expectations for where this is going? Well,
Speaker 1: Barr has a reputation for being an honest, honorable guy,
Speaker 1: and he cares deeply about the rule of law, and
Speaker 1: that means nobody's above the laws. He stated today on
Speaker 1: the Senate side, he said, look, this is my job.
Speaker 1: If there's an abusive power, I'm duty bound to examine
Speaker 1: it and hold those people accountable. And of course he
Speaker 1: said today that he believes spying on the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: did occur. The question is was it adequately predicated, meaning
Speaker 1: did the law justify it? And was the law followed?
Speaker 1: If there was unauthorized surveillance, that's potentially a crime. But
Speaker 1: he you know, he said, today's spine on a political
Speaker 1: campaign is a big deal. So bar is taking this
Speaker 1: seriously now when we look at what happened here with
Speaker 1: the FISA process, and fisas something that I'm familiar with
Speaker 1: from my time at the CIA. So there was always
Speaker 1: this sense, Greg that nobody would abuse And this just
Speaker 1: comes out of the Post nine to eleven mentality and no.
Speaker 1: Fives has been around for a lot longer than that.
Speaker 1: But it really used to just be about finding spies
Speaker 1: in the United States. I mean, that was the primary
Speaker 1: reason for FISA. And then when the Counter Terrors the
Speaker 1: mission Post nine to eleven became the primary national security
Speaker 1: mission of the United States government, FISA took on a
Speaker 1: whole kind of new problem, set on a whole new meaning.
Speaker 1: But there was always this, well, no one's ever going
Speaker 1: to abuse FISA because it's only for these two really
Speaker 1: important things, getting spies who are in the US and
Speaker 1: stopping terrorists and terror as plots. How confident are you
Speaker 1: that if we see the redacted information used to get
Speaker 1: for example, the carter page finds the surveillance warrant, that
Speaker 1: we're going to see that this system was abused And
Speaker 1: what should we be looking for. Well, I we need
Speaker 1: to examine all of it, and the basis the justification
Speaker 1: for their seeking an intrusion under the Fourth Amendment of
Speaker 1: somebody's privacy rights Carter Pages and in turn, to the
Speaker 1: extent he was associated with a Trump campaign, Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights to free speech in his privacy rights. Look,
Speaker 1: it appears to me, based on the redacted version of
Speaker 1: the FISA warrants from the FBI and the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: that they concealed vital evidence and deceived the judges. They
Speaker 1: didn't tell them about exculpatory evidence they had, which the
Speaker 1: law requires them to advise the court of They didn't
Speaker 1: tell who was pain for the dossier, Hillary Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: and Democrats that would be vital information. They didn't tell
Speaker 1: the court that the information which was based on this
Speaker 1: phony dossier was unverified. At that point, the law is
Speaker 1: very specific. You may never submit unverified information to affine
Speaker 1: a court. If the judges had known the truth of
Speaker 1: all of that, they would never have issued a warrant
Speaker 1: to spy on Carter Page and so, as I explained
Speaker 1: in my book The Russia Hoax, that constitutes arguably six
Speaker 1: different felonies deprivation of rights under color of law, perjury,
Speaker 1: false statements, conspiracy, to defraud fraud on the court. These
Speaker 1: are serious felonies, and there were five individuals who signed
Speaker 1: off on these four successive warrants, and so the question
Speaker 1: becomes did they break the law? And it looks like
Speaker 1: both the Inspector General at the Department of Justice as
Speaker 1: well as the Attorney General will be examining that. Speaking
Speaker 1: to Fox News, legal analyst Greg Jarrett, also author of
Speaker 1: the excellent book The Russia Hoax, Greg, what are what
Speaker 1: are the big You know we're about to get the report.
Speaker 1: I mean it could be within a matter of just
Speaker 1: a few days. Here. People are saying next week we're
Speaker 1: going to see the report. There'll still be some redactions
Speaker 1: in it, but it'll give us a really good sense
Speaker 1: of what happened here with this investigation. But based on
Speaker 1: what Barr was saying today on Capitol Hill about how
Speaker 1: he thinks there were spying going on here, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think at this point we can say there was
Speaker 1: spying going on. The only question, I mean, spying on
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. It's just a matter of was it
Speaker 1: authorized spying or not? Or was it an abusive authority?
Speaker 1: And to your point, was it perhaps criminal in nature
Speaker 1: not just bad judgment? Inside of the FBI, the dj
Speaker 1: and perhaps elsewhere. But what are the big questions? You know,
Speaker 1: you've been covering this for a long time and you've
Speaker 1: been following it in detail. What are the big questions
Speaker 1: you want answers to. Well, I argue in the book
Speaker 1: there was never any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia
Speaker 1: to steal the presidential election. So the first big question
Speaker 1: is upon what basis did you have to launch the investigation?
Speaker 1: July thirty first of two thousand and sixteen, if you
Speaker 1: look at the testimony of FBI lawyer Lisa Page, released
Speaker 1: about three weeks ago, she admitted that they really didn't
Speaker 1: have any evidence at all. You know, I lay out
Speaker 1: in my book the FBI guidelines and regulations for when
Speaker 1: you can and cannot launch an investigation, and they clearly,
Speaker 1: in my judgment, violated their regulations. They launched a dilating
Speaker 1: investigation of Trump driven by personal animus and political bias.
Speaker 1: If they did that, they are arguably committing crimes. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's the first big question that
Speaker 1: the Attorney General wants answered. And all you have to
Speaker 1: do is look at the text messages between Peter Struck
Speaker 1: and Lisa page, which speaks to the question of was
Speaker 1: political bias motivating and driving this investigation of Trump to
Speaker 1: help Hillary Clinton and harm Trump? And the answer to
Speaker 1: me is yes. Just read the texts. There are some
Speaker 1: very important parts of the timeline, and you you mentioned
Speaker 1: one of them here that the investigation into Russia Trump
Speaker 1: collusion begins July thirty, first, twenty sixteen. But when was
Speaker 1: This is just really for the benefit of our audience
Speaker 1: and to make sure that I'm also tracking this properly.
Speaker 1: In terms of the timeline, the Carter page FISA application
Speaker 1: did not come till later on, right, So what I mean?
Speaker 1: I know you said there was no evidence, but what
Speaker 1: was supposed to be the evidence? I mean, how did
Speaker 1: they get this thing started? Was it really just based
Speaker 1: on the dossier and Popidopolis? How do you think that
Speaker 1: they got this thing up and running. Popidopolis was a
Speaker 1: red hearing, a diversion that the FBI through to the
Speaker 1: New York Times, which swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Speaker 1: It's silly and ludicrous to think that, you know, popid
Speaker 1: Appolis hearing a multiple hearsay rumor constituted sufficient evidence and
Speaker 1: probable cause for an investigation. No, it was based on
Speaker 1: this anti Trump dossier that was conjured the fertile imaginations
Speaker 1: of two nefarious characters, an ex British spy Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. And it was commissioned
Speaker 1: by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrats, and then
Speaker 1: it was peddled all over Washington to journalists, the FBI,
Speaker 1: the State Department, the Department of Justice. I mean, this
Speaker 1: thing spread like an airborne contagion, and the premise of
Speaker 1: it was really a rout and it was as outlandish
Speaker 1: as the actions of those that the FBI and others
Speaker 1: who advanced it. You know, remember that Steel was fired
Speaker 1: by the FBI for line and went into hiding. Simpson
Speaker 1: eventually invoked the Fifth Amendment and clammed up. There were
Speaker 1: never any credible facts when the FBI wrongfully launched its
Speaker 1: collusion investigation. Do you think there will be accountability on
Speaker 1: this matter? We do have bar speaking in a warthright
Speaker 1: manner about it today on Capitol Hill. It looks like
Speaker 1: all the signs that I know you deal with this
Speaker 1: in your book, the Russia Hoax, but all the signs
Speaker 1: point to this being orchestrated by anti Trump elements. Within
Speaker 1: the government and in the media, as well as the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party working together to create this this perfect storm
Speaker 1: to try to take the president down. But are we
Speaker 1: going to see anyone who was on that side of
Speaker 1: the equation. We've seen people around Trump who had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Russia collusion get jammed up just in
Speaker 1: the gears of the investigation itself and get hit with
Speaker 1: either tax fraud charges or lying under oath charges. Are
Speaker 1: there going to be any charges against the people that
Speaker 1: try to soft coup against the president the United States? Well,
Speaker 1: there should be, and you know, the Clinton case and
Speaker 1: the Trump case, or a tale of two cases. There
Speaker 1: were five individuals close to Hillary Clinton who were given
Speaker 1: immunity in exchange for nothing, and several of them not
Speaker 1: only obstructed justice but lied. And Komy in his testimony,
Speaker 1: admitted that some of those immunized people that were close
Speaker 1: to Clinton had lied, and he sort of shrugged it
Speaker 1: off and said, well, you know, we toss it up
Speaker 1: to sort of failed recollections. No, they deliberately lied, and
Speaker 1: in some cases documents proved they lied. Juxtaposed the Trump case,
Speaker 1: you know, if you so much or shake hands or
Speaker 1: wave at Donald Trump, the full force of the federal government,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and FBI comes down hard on you.
Speaker 1: You know, Michael Flynn didn't really lie. The FBI agents
Speaker 1: who interviewed him said he told the truth, and yet
Speaker 1: he was charged with lying, and under pressure, he caved
Speaker 1: in and pled guilty. So you know, there is a
Speaker 1: double tiered system of justice in America, one for the
Speaker 1: Clintons and another one for Trump and everybody else. And
Speaker 1: so I am optimistic that those who broke the law
Speaker 1: will be held accountabile. Just look at James Coming. He
Speaker 1: stole government documents, leaked them to the media for the
Speaker 1: purpose of triggering the appointment of a special council. Will
Speaker 1: happened to be his longtime friend, partner and ally. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you harbor any doubts about the complete lack of
Speaker 1: evidence when Robert Muller was appointed, just read the closed
Speaker 1: door testimony of Comey and Lisa Page, and their admissions
Speaker 1: will stun you. It didn't surprise me when Mueller reached
Speaker 1: the conclusion that there was no collusion, because there never
Speaker 1: was any to begin with. Greg Jared, everybody Fox News
Speaker 1: legal analysts check out his book If Villa Want Amazon
Speaker 1: Right now. The Russia hoax. Greg always great to have you, sir,
Speaker 1: Thank you Buck, my pleasure. Thanks. Team will be right back. Well,
Speaker 1: here's what Biden is up against. Here's how it may
Speaker 1: keep coming back and back and back. This is a
Speaker 1: meme that was created by a semi anonymous man from
Speaker 1: Kansas City. From Kansas people did, and then the Trump
Speaker 1: world posted it, and then the president himself he posted
Speaker 1: on Twitter it's Biden fling a funny meme. On another level,
Speaker 1: this is how politics has waves. This thing. These are
Speaker 1: the meme wars in action. Do you think Democrats understand
Speaker 1: what they're up against? Because there was a Mother Jones
Speaker 1: hub on the other day saying the right wing media
Speaker 1: machine is much more effective. Step Bran still that Brad
Speaker 1: steps there, It's gonna be a headache the baby bloods
Speaker 1: the Democrat Did they realize the forest is the babes
Speaker 1: that are kidding up against it? But it just I
Speaker 1: just didn't really understand if the babes they're gonna be
Speaker 1: like really like mead and like mead meme to make
Speaker 1: me cry, that'll like the beab mebs. Just somebody like said, hey,
Speaker 1: Bran Stubt there, why are you like Minni Jeff Zucker
Speaker 1: and why is your bald head show shiny? I just
Speaker 1: you know, why do people say these things? Oh man
Speaker 1: to have a show at CNN where you just get
Speaker 1: to be like, hey, do whatever you want. I just
Speaker 1: here to be a check of the media. Make sure
Speaker 1: that you know the media is a check done thing
Speaker 1: and bit it's amazing. I don't know. I can't tell
Speaker 1: if um, I can't tell if the real problem here
Speaker 1: is that there are people who manage to excel the
Speaker 1: media despite having no apparent talent or ability, or maybe
Speaker 1: that's something that should inspire the rest of us, right,
Speaker 1: like we could be you know, if bands out there,
Speaker 1: it could have a show that's here, he's like hey here, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, they got to be paid him a half
Speaker 1: a million year, maybe maybe more. Um, if that can
Speaker 1: happen for him, I could you know, happen for any
Speaker 1: number of folks, right, So I should I think we
Speaker 1: should all be inspired by it. That. Speaking of people
Speaker 1: who go on CNN, there's a woman by the name
Speaker 1: of Vinograd, Sam Vinagrad who once referred to my Twitter
Speaker 1: count that's something that a Russian bot would come up with,
Speaker 1: which I thought was was both amusing and incredibly stupid
Speaker 1: at the same time. She was a collusion truther all
Speaker 1: along and still still seems to be UM and has
Speaker 1: not been in any way chastened. She's a national security
Speaker 1: analyst over at CNA. They put her on to talk
Speaker 1: about these things. She's not particularly insightful or or interesting
Speaker 1: on any national security topic. I mean, if you're ever curious,
Speaker 1: I'll tell I'll tell you who goes on TV and
Speaker 1: knows knows their stuff and knows what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: Um left and right, Because there are some leftists who
Speaker 1: are knowledgeable about these issues, they just are wrong in
Speaker 1: their judgment. Vieta grad doesn't strike me as one of them.
Speaker 1: But she decided a wax philosophical on immigration. Immigration came
Speaker 1: up for her, and this was just a great moment
Speaker 1: in CNN, because you know, we're at the OBABA DNC network,
Speaker 1: we're just bad journalism. This is their national security analyst
Speaker 1: explaining how, Okay, maybe Obama did separate a means at
Speaker 1: the border, but I mean, you know, it was like
Speaker 1: for their own good play clip Wood. And when President
Speaker 1: Obama separated children from their family's wealth or from adult's wealth,
Speaker 1: it was for their protection. It was if there was
Speaker 1: a risk of trafficking or other kind of harm that
Speaker 1: might have been incurred. But even if he did do that,
Speaker 1: why is Donald Trump saying that two wrongs make it right? Again?
Speaker 1: Obama wasn't wrong, But so he's saying that because something
Speaker 1: happened under President Obama, he's repeating in upping the AMPTY.
Speaker 1: That is an incredibly poor excuse. He is systemized that
Speaker 1: in humane treatment that again Obama was doing protective. Well,
Speaker 1: Trump has to do that too to protect the children,
Speaker 1: because you don't know if someone's being human traffic just
Speaker 1: because someone shows up with them and says, that's my
Speaker 1: you know, this is my child. You don't know. You
Speaker 1: got to separate them. All those systems are overwhelmed, so
Speaker 1: now they can't even process them. So now they're just
Speaker 1: letting them into the country. But the reason that Trump
Speaker 1: points us out is because the way Democrats try to
Speaker 1: seize the moral high ground for creating what is effectively
Speaker 1: an open border and supporting it and stymying, stopping at
Speaker 1: every turn the President's efforts to try and get control
Speaker 1: over the border. They just say, oh, family separation. He's
Speaker 1: a monster, He's basically hitler family separation. Well, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: you don't get to say that Trump's a monster and
Speaker 1: basically Hitler as a Democrat for doing something that Obama did.
Speaker 1: And there were there were things that the Obama administration
Speaker 1: put into place in terms of kids in cages, and
Speaker 1: all these different policies and procedures that Trump is really
Speaker 1: just has inherited. And we still are we you know,
Speaker 1: we're allowed to do everything except and force the laws
Speaker 1: with consequences at the borders. That's where Democrats are on
Speaker 1: the line. Oh yeah, sure, we believe in the law,
Speaker 1: just no consequences. Here's the problem, there's no consequences. Then,
Speaker 1: you know what is also true, there's no laws. Anybody
Speaker 1: who can look at me with a straight face and
Speaker 1: tell me that they know what happens to those young
Speaker 1: children once they're released into the United States is law.
Speaker 1: It's wishful thinking that they're Oh, they're united with family
Speaker 1: members and sponsors, and they're gamefully employed and life is
Speaker 1: life is wonderful, roses and lollypops. After that, you don't
Speaker 1: know where they are. You don't know if who's human trafficked,
Speaker 1: who's murdered, who's with a gang. I've got girls fourteen, eleven,
Speaker 1: and nine. They are with all three of them within
Speaker 1: the range of the girls being pumped with birth control
Speaker 1: and pregnancy tests. Because we know this journey is parallels,
Speaker 1: stop lying and start doing Galli and Comma makes very
Speaker 1: important point there. Not only do we not know when
Speaker 1: the family unit chope of the border that they're actually families.
Speaker 1: We just we don't know that, and we know there
Speaker 1: are recycling rings for the children, but beyond that, we
Speaker 1: also know that, or rather we don't know. We know
Speaker 1: that we don't know once they get in the United States,
Speaker 1: we have no idea what's going on placing them with
Speaker 1: sponsor families. You know, this isn't supposed to be the
Speaker 1: job of the government. This is what people keep forgetting.
Speaker 1: This is is not supposed to be really our problem.
Speaker 1: This is really not supposed to be our problem. We're
Speaker 1: supposed to have laws. Wherever you show up at the border,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to be it's sorry, turned around, not allowed
Speaker 1: to be here. It's called sovereignty and rule of law.
Speaker 1: See you later. Thanks. Unfortunately that's not the system we
Speaker 1: have that our border is collapsing because of the exploitation
Speaker 1: of the kindness and the large ess of the American
Speaker 1: people are willingness to take people in to make sure
Speaker 1: that even non Americans get all the due process anybody
Speaker 1: could ever dream of, and make sure that they're safe
Speaker 1: and fed and warm while in this country and waiting
Speaker 1: for that dude process. You know, that's all being exploited.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like, you know, imagine if you
Speaker 1: show up at a soup kitchen, which I'm sure many
Speaker 1: of you listen to this dude, and you know you're
Speaker 1: helping people to the soup kitchen, giving them food. People
Speaker 1: down their lock, they need a little bit of assistance.
Speaker 1: You want to get them a good hot meal. You
Speaker 1: want to encourage some people maybe to try to get
Speaker 1: back on their feed. And you know it's a good
Speaker 1: Christian kind thing to do. But imagine, imagine when you
Speaker 1: find out that the person that you've been serving at
Speaker 1: the at the soup kitchen follows you home and says, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna take this, uh this spare room. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'm gonna sleep here. You're not using it. Let's
Speaker 1: say to yourself, well, hold on a second, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm I'm trying to be a decent person here
Speaker 1: trying to help you out, and I want to make
Speaker 1: sure that you know you're okay and you're fed. But
Speaker 1: I didn't offer you a room in my house. No, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, it's fine, it's fine. I just I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna take this room. Don't worry about you won't even
Speaker 1: know I'm here most of the time. What do you
Speaker 1: are you Are you gonna be inhumane? Are you gonna
Speaker 1: kick me out on the street? I mean I need
Speaker 1: a place to sleep. That's what the American people are being,
Speaker 1: uh shown right now that that exploitation of our of
Speaker 1: our kindness as a people is what is going on
Speaker 1: at the border. Make no mistake about it. This is
Speaker 1: people who are following us home from the soup kitchen
Speaker 1: saying they want to room in our house. Huh. It's
Speaker 1: not the way it's supposed to be. And the numbers
Speaker 1: are just showing that is a scam. One part of
Speaker 1: this that I don't think people here nearly enough is
Speaker 1: that the media and the government in countries like Guatemala,
Speaker 1: Honduras and Al Salvador, they're also they're fanning the flames
Speaker 1: of this conflagration at our border. They're making this worse
Speaker 1: for us because they want people. Who does anyone really
Speaker 1: think that what's happening is you have you know, brain
Speaker 1: surgeons and college professors and engineers who are on foot
Speaker 1: and entrusting themselves to the coyotes over this journey. And no,
Speaker 1: of course not. These are overwhelmingly very poor, uneducated, non
Speaker 1: English speaking people, and they're going to require a lot
Speaker 1: of assistance, a lot of help, and a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, extra government and state attention. This is a fact.
Speaker 1: It's just a fact. We all know this, and that
Speaker 1: that's why that the numbers matter so much, because the
Speaker 1: long term implications and long term costs of this are
Speaker 1: going to be astonishingly high. It's not gonna be These
Speaker 1: are not gonna be net contributors to the economy. If
Speaker 1: that were the case, why are there so many developed
Speaker 1: first world countries that have very strict immigration requirements that
Speaker 1: are meant to bring people in on merit. Whatever happened
Speaker 1: to that, We're just going to skip right past that now.
Speaker 1: It's now our immigration system is all show up at
Speaker 1: the border and say that you're scared when you really
Speaker 1: just want a job, or you want welfare benefits or family,
Speaker 1: you know, chain migration. Those are the two. That's how
Speaker 1: we're picking most of our immigrants down this country. Y,
Speaker 1: that's not the system that the American people think they're getting.
Speaker 1: Kelly and Comway also gets this part of it. The
Speaker 1: numbers really speak for themselves. Play thirteen the fiscal years
Speaker 1: so far, we've had one hundred and four of these
Speaker 1: one hundred and four so called caravans with at least
Speaker 1: one hundred people. Two years ago, in fiscally year twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen we at exactly two. We've gone from two to
Speaker 1: one hundred and four. Stop denying what you see in
Speaker 1: front of you. We've got people still searching for the
Speaker 1: elusive collusion, and we'll deny what's right in front of them,
Speaker 1: which is over one hundred thousand migrants presented at the
Speaker 1: border just last month alone. That was a thirty five
Speaker 1: percent jump from February from the month before. The flow
Speaker 1: is different for years, really a decade ago. Most of
Speaker 1: them were single males coming from Mexico and you can
Speaker 1: return them very easily to their home country. Now you
Speaker 1: have eight thousand or so unaccompanied minors last month, you
Speaker 1: have the family units from the Northern Triangle countries. It's
Speaker 1: a perilous journey. It is a security any humanitarian crisis
Speaker 1: at the border, vanitarian crisis at the border, that's what
Speaker 1: we've got going on. That is what is happening here.
Speaker 1: It's also a security crisis. It's also a crisis of
Speaker 1: the rule of law. Democrats are fine with all this.
Speaker 1: Democrats don't seem to have a problem with it. As
Speaker 1: we know, they encourage it. And I would note that
Speaker 1: the caravans are are not just that we're told. It's
Speaker 1: usually reported that they're so people can come and they
Speaker 1: can be safe, but also the mass surrenders that happen,
Speaker 1: those are happening for meaning that people they say present,
Speaker 1: I mean they're being detained. They're a crossing illegally in
Speaker 1: the United States. Even if you show up not at
Speaker 1: a port of entry and say hey, here I am,
Speaker 1: and you walk into America, that's illegal. You've broken the law.
Speaker 1: They're presenting themselves and then they're detained. The reason that
Speaker 1: they're sometimes showing up in groups of one hundred, three hundred,
Speaker 1: five hundred is because one the cartels are controlling all this,
Speaker 1: making a ton of money off of it, and they
Speaker 1: know that when they have a group of that size,
Speaker 1: there's such an immediate drain on border patrol resources that
Speaker 1: you can essentially sneak anything across the border at that
Speaker 1: point that you want. That's one big component of this,
Speaker 1: and the other it's just that it further overwhelms a system.
Speaker 1: You gotta remember that. I've seen these processing facilities and
Speaker 1: I've been to the one in El Paso where you
Speaker 1: have people living under a brit and not living sleeping
Speaker 1: for two days under a bridge overpass surrounded by you know,
Speaker 1: chain link fence, and you know, if you bring in
Speaker 1: enough people, they have to do triage with who's sick,
Speaker 1: who has an infant, who has immediate needs. And so
Speaker 1: if you're trying to sneak into the country, if you
Speaker 1: are recycling a child or human trafficking or doing any
Speaker 1: of these things, you want to go in with a
Speaker 1: big group because they just they're overwhelmed with trying to
Speaker 1: process them and they're just going to move people through
Speaker 1: as fast as they can. So there's a strategy behind
Speaker 1: these caravans. It's not it's not just for self preservation.
Speaker 1: The cartels are utilizing it, and there are some bad actors.
Speaker 1: I can tell you that in these groups who have
Speaker 1: been deported multiple times they've they're you know, showing up
Speaker 1: with the child, and now whether the child is theirs
Speaker 1: or not, they know they're gonna be let into the
Speaker 1: United States. Don't have any answers for how to solve
Speaker 1: this one yet. I'm I'm working on it. At least
Speaker 1: now the nation has fixed much of its attention. The
Speaker 1: news cycle is dominated by this border issue. But as
Speaker 1: long as you have the Ninth Circuit running defense for
Speaker 1: the open borders left, and you have Democrats completely unwilling
Speaker 1: to take any meaningful enforcement measure against, you know, infrastructure
Speaker 1: is not enough. We're not just trying to make the
Speaker 1: pathway easier, bigger, and faster for people to just flood
Speaker 1: into the country who aren't actually legal immigrants. That's not
Speaker 1: what we're trying to do. That's all Democrats want to do.
Speaker 1: We'll continue to fight on this one. I'm I get
Speaker 1: frustrated with it. I get frustrated because we know what
Speaker 1: the truth is, but so many people are just either
Speaker 1: lying or delusional. The issue is it's the NR and
Speaker 1: it's greed. The n RAY is largely funded by the
Speaker 1: gun manufacturers. The gun manufacturers want to make money at
Speaker 1: all costs. It doesn't matter who they're selling the gun too.
Speaker 1: The reason why they are against universal background checks is
Speaker 1: they want to sell a weapon to somebody on the
Speaker 1: terror watch list. They want to sell a weapon to
Speaker 1: someone gravely mentally ill with a violent background. They want
Speaker 1: to sell a weapon to someone with a criminal conviction
Speaker 1: for a violent crime. Kirsten Gillibrand, I don't know if
Speaker 1: she's just completely cynical or a total moron. I can't tell.
Speaker 1: I go back and forth, but everything that she just
Speaker 1: said there is false. I mean, I mean, you could
Speaker 1: go through it. And that was during a CNN town hall.
Speaker 1: Apparently CNN claims to be able to tell the difference
Speaker 1: between an apple and a banana, but they can't tell
Speaker 1: when someone's nuts. Everything she said there was false. Every
Speaker 1: statement she made was factually demonstrably true. Let's go through
Speaker 1: them for a moment, where all the Pinocchio, Washington Post
Speaker 1: fact checker people, huh, where's Snopes and this and that
Speaker 1: fact checker on what Jillibrand is saying here, All of
Speaker 1: a sudden, you notice how these people focus so much
Speaker 1: on guns in this campaign. Rhetoric number three hundred million
Speaker 1: guns in this country. This is just all virtue signaling
Speaker 1: they're not serious about stopping Well, they think that by
Speaker 1: harassing legal gun owners with additional paperwork and restrictions on
Speaker 1: magazine capacity. Does Kirsten Jill Ban really Is she so
Speaker 1: dumb that she thinks that's going to stop all the
Speaker 1: homicides and or stop any homicides in the south and
Speaker 1: West Chicago? I don't think so. So why don't you
Speaker 1: say this stuff? Because the good people don't like guns?
Speaker 1: You see, that's what the left believes. The good people
Speaker 1: think guns are scary, guns go bang, guns are bad.
Speaker 1: That's all they need, That's all they need to know.
Speaker 1: Oh and more importantly, perhaps now people who own guns
Speaker 1: with bad people and the people that you know, believe
Speaker 1: in traditional America and church and God and freedom and
Speaker 1: the Founding Fathers and oh all that yucky stuff. Those
Speaker 1: people also tend to like guns. So that's why she
Speaker 1: says this. But let's just let's just for a moment,
Speaker 1: just because we're all about getting things right here, we're
Speaker 1: all about the facts. Let's just for a moment take
Speaker 1: a look at what she said. Wants to sell people
Speaker 1: sell guns to people on the terror watch list. The
Speaker 1: terror watch list, I mean, it depends on. First of all,
Speaker 1: what she's really talking about. If you are not a citizen,
Speaker 1: you are not allowed. I mean, if you're not if
Speaker 1: you're in this country on a visa, you're not buying
Speaker 1: a gun. So who are you really talking about? The
Speaker 1: terror watch list? Also, if you are a citizen and
Speaker 1: you're on a watch list, yeah, should you lose your
Speaker 1: constitutional rights and have no means of redress for them?
Speaker 1: Because that's the situation on the watch list right now.
Speaker 1: You know, we're talking about the no fly list, the
Speaker 1: terror watch list. You know, she's just using all these
Speaker 1: things interchangeably. But that's just fearmongering, no idea. What the
Speaker 1: heck she's talking about? Gravely mentally ill with a violent background.
Speaker 1: Nobody in the NRA, and I know people who are
Speaker 1: in the senior leadership ranks the NRA, I know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I myself have been an NRA member. Although I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna lie, I think my dues might elapse recently, but
Speaker 1: I have been an NRA member on the past. I
Speaker 1: should probably just become a lifetime member and get it
Speaker 1: over with. I just realized as I was on air
Speaker 1: here that I think I need to send in my
Speaker 1: NRA dues for this year. My bad, a little, a
Speaker 1: little late in the game. But nonetheless, the the NRA
Speaker 1: is not funded by the gun companies. The NRA is
Speaker 1: founded by its is funded rather by its members. And
Speaker 1: the NRA does not want people who are gravely mentally
Speaker 1: ill with a violent background to get a gun. And
Speaker 1: there are already laws that prevent people. It is already
Speaker 1: a felony. If you have been involuntarily committed or determined
Speaker 1: mentally unfit by a judge, then yeah, then then you
Speaker 1: can't have a gun. And also criminals convicted for a
Speaker 1: violent crime. I mean, I'm assuming see she'd probably say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, not all violent crimes or felonies, but criminals
Speaker 1: convicted of a violent crime and people convicted convicted of
Speaker 1: domestic violence, they cannot own guns. Felons by definition cannot,
Speaker 1: as a matter of federal law, cannot own a gun.
Speaker 1: So does anyone care that she's just making stuff up?
Speaker 1: Does anyone care that she just lies and lies and lies?
Speaker 1: I mean, at this CNN town hall, everyone's just eating
Speaker 1: it up. You know, Aaron Brunett, who is a stunningly
Speaker 1: successful mediocrity. I do not understand what is going on there.
Speaker 1: At all. I don't, I really don't. Um, but she's
Speaker 1: she's running this town hall. They seem to have no
Speaker 1: problem with all this stuff that was being said there
Speaker 1: by Kirson Jilla Brand, all all the lies, all the nonsense,
Speaker 1: and uh, this is just what we're up against, speaking
Speaker 1: of nonsense, fact checks, things that people should be aware
Speaker 1: of that they're not aware of. See, you've got Maxine Waters, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, producer Mike is Maxine, the one who
Speaker 1: is Congresswoman Water is the one who President Trump has
Speaker 1: said is low iq or is that is that that
Speaker 1: member congressor as mixing it up with another one. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he calls her low iq, right right, that's okay, that's
Speaker 1: what I thought. Yeah, he calls her low iq Maxine. Now,
Speaker 1: people get very mad about that, and they say that's
Speaker 1: not fair, it's mean, it's people will say it is
Speaker 1: it is racist for Trump to say that. But you know,
Speaker 1: I will just be very clear on this. It is
Speaker 1: possible for people of any race to be stupid. It
Speaker 1: is possible for every person of any ethnic background to
Speaker 1: be done, white, everything else, you name it. There are
Speaker 1: dumb people that we all know this, right, So calling
Speaker 1: someone dumb is not racist. Calling someone dumb because they're
Speaker 1: dumb is just a statement of fact or an observation maybe,
Speaker 1: if not a statement of fact, an obvious observation has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with race. And it is not fair
Speaker 1: for people to say that about President Trump when he's
Speaker 1: talking about Maxie Waters, because Maxie Waters does say some really,
Speaker 1: really dumb stuff. Today she was doing her thing on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill and the chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee,
Speaker 1: remember that, seemed to forget something about student loans. Talking
Speaker 1: about student loans? Is hearing's going on here? Play clip
Speaker 1: twenty five please? Today they are more than forty four
Speaker 1: million Americans that, oh, this is student loan crisis. One
Speaker 1: point five six trillion in student loan debt. Last year,
Speaker 1: one million student loan bars defaulted, which is on top
Speaker 1: of the one million barriers who default the year before.
Speaker 1: What are you guys doing to help us with the
Speaker 1: student loan debt? Who would like to answer first, mister Monahan,
Speaker 1: Big bang, we'd stopped making student loans in two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven or so, Oh, so you don't do it anymore.
Speaker 1: Mister Carbett, We actually did student lending in two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine. Mister Diamond, when the government took over student
Speaker 1: lending in twenty ten or so, we stopped doing all
Speaker 1: student lending. She doesn't know it's been almost a decade
Speaker 1: since these banks got pushed out of the student loan business. Mike,
Speaker 1: how is this possible? Tears of joy and not joy?
Speaker 1: It say, tears of laughter. We're coming out of my eyes.
Speaker 1: As I was cut, I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Speaker 1: That's right, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee. Who's
Speaker 1: who's smarter, Mike, Maisie Herrono or Maxine Waters or the
Speaker 1: hard wood that's my desk is made out of. I'll
Speaker 1: go with the hard wood that my desk is made
Speaker 1: out of. I think that's smarter than both of them.
Speaker 1: Are our three's coming up? Of all the people that
Speaker 1: Republicans could have selected, they picked Candice Owens. I don't
Speaker 1: know miss Owens. I'm not going to characterize her. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna let her own words through the talking. So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna play for you the first thirty seconds of a
Speaker 1: statement she made about Adolf Hitler. I agree. I actually
Speaker 1: don't have any problems at all with the word nationalism.
Speaker 1: I think that it gets the definition gets poisoned by
Speaker 1: a ladist that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I
Speaker 1: don't want. So when you think about whenever we say nationalism,
Speaker 1: the first thing people think about in at least in
Speaker 1: America as Hitler, you know, he was a national socialist.
Speaker 1: But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and
Speaker 1: have things run, well, okay, fine. Problem is that he
Speaker 1: wanted he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize.
Speaker 1: He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking Germany.
Speaker 1: That was from today, and that was the clip that
Speaker 1: was played by Ted lew at a House Judiciary committee
Speaker 1: on online hate speech. That got very testy today because
Speaker 1: you have Ted Lu, who's he's mister like left wing
Speaker 1: woke member of Congress now and things got testy because
Speaker 1: ted Lu, during this hearing on hate speech, decided to
Speaker 1: play that clip. Now, now let's before we get into
Speaker 1: Candice's full on body slam of Lu, which was amazing
Speaker 1: and great and very thankful that Candice took the position
Speaker 1: she did and threw down in the way that she did.
Speaker 1: But before I let you just enjoy that glorious moment
Speaker 1: with me, what is Ted Lu really trying to say,
Speaker 1: here is his position. I mean, this is this is
Speaker 1: the level of intellectual dishonesty, the degree of a lack
Speaker 1: of seriousness in their arguments and in their position that
Speaker 1: democrats show all the time. Is it really is his position?
Speaker 1: His belief that Candice Owens, a black female American conservative,
Speaker 1: is pro Hitler? Is that really? What? Is that what
Speaker 1: ted Lew is selling? Because I think that's what he's selling.
Speaker 1: I think this is what he's trying to This is
Speaker 1: the point he's trying to make it by pulling that
Speaker 1: clip and playing it there when Cannis was trying to
Speaker 1: have a discussion about nationalism and how nationalism has a
Speaker 1: negative connotation versus patriotism, when really nationalism and patriotism are
Speaker 1: in many ways very similar things. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's some nuance in the definitional difference, but the
Speaker 1: nuance is really a difference of connotation, not of hardcore meaning.
Speaker 1: And that's what she's trying to say. And it's because
Speaker 1: of who people think of as the greatest nationalist. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you really want to talk about the the you know,
Speaker 1: the the ultra nationalists of history, you've got people like
Speaker 1: you know, Napoleon and Stalin and Hitler, and you know,
Speaker 1: these are people that are thought of as ultra nationals.
Speaker 1: Always an interesting side note, they all came from the
Speaker 1: fringes of their national identities. Just by way of a
Speaker 1: little historical digression here, Napoleon came from Corsica, not from
Speaker 1: mainland France island in the Mediterranean. Stalin came from Georgia,
Speaker 1: not from Russia, which is really a province of the
Speaker 1: Russian what was the Russian Empire, and then of course
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. And Hitler came from Austria, not from Germany,
Speaker 1: which people often forget. Nonetheless, and that this reminds me
Speaker 1: of a line I think it was a Christopher Hitchins
Speaker 1: line that the greatest trick the Austrians ever pulled was
Speaker 1: convincing the world that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Viennese.
Speaker 1: So what is Ted Loose saying. You're saying that Candice
Speaker 1: Owens is Hitler. I guess I don't know. But Candice,
Speaker 1: whom I've worked with before, had on my show and
Speaker 1: seen when you poke, you poke, Candice, You're better be ready.
Speaker 1: You better be ready for it. And this is how
Speaker 1: that turned out. For Congressman lou Today. Please play it.
Speaker 1: It's pretty apparent that mister Luke believes that black people
Speaker 1: are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in
Speaker 1: its entirety. He purposely presented an extractive clip. We acus
Speaker 1: will suspend for a moment. It is not proper to
Speaker 1: refer disparagingly or to a member the committee. The witness
Speaker 1: will not do that. Again. Witness may not refer to
Speaker 1: a member the committee is stupid. I didn't refer to
Speaker 1: him as stupid. That's not what I said. That's not
Speaker 1: what I said at all. You didn't listen to what
Speaker 1: I said. He is assuming that black people will not
Speaker 1: go pursue the full two hour clip, and he purposefully extracted,
Speaker 1: he cut off, and you didn't hear the question that
Speaker 1: was asked of me. He's trying to present as if
Speaker 1: I was launching a defensive Hitler in Germany, when in fact,
Speaker 1: the question that was asked of me was returning to
Speaker 1: what or not I believed in nationalism and that nationalism
Speaker 1: was bad, And when I responded to was that I
Speaker 1: do not believe that we should be characterizing Hitler as
Speaker 1: a nationalist. He was a homicidal psychopathic meniac that killed
Speaker 1: his own people. He purposely wanted to give you a
Speaker 1: cut up, similar to what they do to Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: to create a different narrative that was unbelievably dishonest. And
Speaker 1: she goes on and on slapping around some of these
Speaker 1: Democrat members of Congress today and man, did they ever
Speaker 1: deserve it? They deserved it. This is one of the
Speaker 1: more disgraceful trends in American politics. You see this with
Speaker 1: Democrats now just saying that anything that is conservative or
Speaker 1: anything that is right wing is synonymous with white nationalism,
Speaker 1: that when people talk about a focus on America first,
Speaker 1: that is inherently some kind of a racist dog whistle,
Speaker 1: and Cans a very effective messenger on this issue, which
Speaker 1: she's like, this just needs to stop these approaches to
Speaker 1: discourse that are just meant to shackle free thought. It
Speaker 1: can't be allowed to continue. It's wrong. It's wrong when
Speaker 1: it does to people. It's wrong to imprison people's minds
Speaker 1: by telling them that if they don't agree with what
Speaker 1: the Democrats are forced feeding them, they must be racist,
Speaker 1: it must be they must be evil. And especially it's
Speaker 1: you know when you add into this that they're telling
Speaker 1: people who aren't white, who don't believe in all of
Speaker 1: the allegations all the time that Trump is a white nationalist,
Speaker 1: that white supremacy is the you know, is at the
Speaker 1: heart of so much of American life. I mean, all
Speaker 1: of just exaggerated, irresponsible nonsense that Democrats spiel a the time.
Speaker 1: If you're a minority and you don't buy into this,
Speaker 1: the left just despises you. The left just wants to
Speaker 1: do everything they can to make your life miserable because
Speaker 1: to them, it is completely unacceptable to be non white.
Speaker 1: And to refute this belief that the left is trying
Speaker 1: to foist in the American people that all things conservative
Speaker 1: and all things on the right are really just a
Speaker 1: cover for synonymous with somehow related to white supremacy. It
Speaker 1: is an absolute smear. It is a slur, and that's
Speaker 1: one you're going to see a lot more of, um,
Speaker 1: a lot more of going forward, by the way, you know, Nadler,
Speaker 1: because that's one of the things that Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to do is just trying to make twenty twenty a
Speaker 1: referendum on racism. Are you a racist? No vote vote Democrat?
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna say, because you vote for Trump,
Speaker 1: You're you're a racist. That that's really the extent of
Speaker 1: the argument that they're gonna they're gonna wage for many,
Speaker 1: many people. Nadler, by the way, has a habit of
Speaker 1: cutting off people. Producer Mike pointed out to me, this
Speaker 1: was a in a in a Mike, what was this
Speaker 1: hearing on the Jewish activist Morton Klein calling out Omar?
Speaker 1: Is this also on the hate speech right? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: the same hearing. It just took place a little earlier
Speaker 1: in the day, so um, yeah, same hearing. Well, what
Speaker 1: a different time of das here, let's hear what Congressman
Speaker 1: Nadler does when he starts to hear things from a
Speaker 1: witness that he doesn't like. Play Club five Zooey's letter
Speaker 1: to City University. If we want to stop hate, to
Speaker 1: stop institutions from supporting Cantoni ga, I don't know how
Speaker 1: much time I have your your your forty eight seconds over. Well,
Speaker 1: but I was stopped. I was stopped with the outburst.
Speaker 1: With the outburst ahead, I have something very very important
Speaker 1: to say. I was horrified to see Speaker Pelosi, Leader
Speaker 1: Hoyer defend Representive Omar after her vicious anti Semitic remarks,
Speaker 1: I press gentleman's time is expired. Miss Owens. That was unfair.
Speaker 1: It was not unfair. You had plenty of extra time. No, not,
Speaker 1: miss Owens. You remember the chairman agreeing to give you
Speaker 1: an extra thirty seconds because of the interruption that you
Speaker 1: experienced during your opening statement, And then do you remember
Speaker 1: being gabbled down by the chairman once you began speaking
Speaker 1: of the anti semitic remarks by a member of Congress.
Speaker 1: We've just timed this. You only got twelve seconds. I
Speaker 1: have thirty seconds left, and so I'm going to give
Speaker 1: you those thirty seconds that you were promised. And we're tonight.
Speaker 1: Things getting a little feisty on Capitol Hills, getting a
Speaker 1: little woo, a little spicy there in that hearing. But
Speaker 1: you know, Nadler doesn't like to hear things. He doesn't
Speaker 1: like to hear. And it's true of all Democrats. They
Speaker 1: would rather shout down arguments, whether it's on campuses or
Speaker 1: it's on Capitol Hill. They would rather shout down arguments
Speaker 1: that they find troubling than try to engage with the
Speaker 1: ideas and defeat them or even perhaps co opt them
Speaker 1: into their own thinking. You know, it is possible. I
Speaker 1: mean it is the mark of I think, a very
Speaker 1: limited intellect to believe that there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: learning more about an issue from somebody else. Democrats are
Speaker 1: ossified in their thinking on the matters. They do not
Speaker 1: open themselves up to alternative points of view. In fact,
Speaker 1: they think alternative points of view are a form of violence,
Speaker 1: that there's something unethical about having to hear alternative points
Speaker 1: of view. Then there's just this other I just found
Speaker 1: this kind of amazing. So the Treasury Secretary Steve Manuchin, Oh,
Speaker 1: Maxine Water is going to make another appearance here on
Speaker 1: the show. In a second, look at this Treasury Secretary
Speaker 1: Manuchin appeared and this is just quite an exchange. I just,
Speaker 1: I just I don't know why. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: play this for you because you don't see that get
Speaker 1: testy like this usually on Capitol Hill. But there's something
Speaker 1: in the water right now, man, people are getting spicy
Speaker 1: with each other. Play play clip eight. This is Secretary.
Speaker 1: I want you to know that no other secretary has
Speaker 1: ever told us the day before that they were going
Speaker 1: to limit their time and the way that you're doing so,
Speaker 1: if you want to use them as examples, you have
Speaker 1: acted differently than they have acted as I have said.
Speaker 1: If you wish to leave, you may. If you'd wish
Speaker 1: to keep me here so that I don't have my
Speaker 1: important meeting and continue to grill me, then we can
Speaker 1: do that. I will cancel my meeting and I will
Speaker 1: not be back here. I will be very clear. If
Speaker 1: that's the way you'd like to have this relationship. Thank
Speaker 1: you the gentleman. The Secretary has agreed to stay to
Speaker 1: hear all of the rest of the members please cancel,
Speaker 1: and was next on the list foreign meeting. You're instructing
Speaker 1: me to stay here and I should cancel. So you
Speaker 1: just made me an offer. No, I didn't make you
Speaker 1: any maybe an offer that I accepted. I did not
Speaker 1: make an offer. Just let's be clear. You're instructing me.
Speaker 1: You are ordering me to stay here. No, I'm not
Speaker 1: ordering you. I'm responding. I said you may leave anytime
Speaker 1: you want, and you said, okay, if that's that's what
Speaker 1: you want to do, I'll cancel my appointment and I'll
Speaker 1: stay here. So I'm responding to your request if that's
Speaker 1: what you want to what I want to do. I
Speaker 1: told you, what would you like to do? What I've
Speaker 1: told you is I thought it was respectful that you'd
Speaker 1: let me leave at five fifteen. Pre to leave any
Speaker 1: time you want, anytime you want. Please please dismiss everybody.
Speaker 1: I believe you're supposed to take the gravel and bang it.
Speaker 1: That's please. Do not instruct me as to hi. I'm
Speaker 1: to conduct this committee. Mike. Do you like that? I mean,
Speaker 1: what a what? I was a mess? It's amazing. Right,
Speaker 1: she doesn't understand what. He's like. I mean, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna make me sit here, I guess I'll sit here.
Speaker 1: But that's not cool. She's like, okay, you'll sit there,
Speaker 1: and he's like, so you're making me She's like, no,
Speaker 1: you said you would. He's like no, I'm saying, if
Speaker 1: you make me, I will, but I don't want you.
Speaker 1: Oh man. It's like she like, I don't know if
Speaker 1: she wasn't listening or she just didn't care or whatever.
Speaker 1: But she's a gift that keeps on giving. She's amazing, dude.
Speaker 1: The chairwoman of House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters. Democrats,
Speaker 1: everybody just remember it. They say that they Oh they're
Speaker 1: gonna be good in government, They're gonna be better. A
Speaker 1: Trump is so bad an evil. Yeah, let's put vaccine
Speaker 1: waters at the head of the House Financial Services Committee.
Speaker 1: That seems like that seems like a great idea. Oh,
Speaker 1: my team, We've got so much more coming up. Stay
Speaker 1: with me Ocasio Cortez and to extent, Representative Chili and
Speaker 1: also Representative Omar. They're basically creatures of social media and
Speaker 1: identity politics. I don't want to disparage them unnecessarily, but
Speaker 1: they have no achievement, they have no wealth of knowledge
Speaker 1: they draw on. So they each night they tweet something
Speaker 1: that's more ignorant than the last tweet. It's anti Semitic,
Speaker 1: it's bigotry, shows an ignorance of the Middle East, of
Speaker 1: history of economics. And the question Sean is though, why
Speaker 1: do they have such residents. Why do the three leading
Speaker 1: candidates Beato and Biden and Bernie. Why are they falling
Speaker 1: all over themselves to apologize for their privilege or to
Speaker 1: apologize for the history of white, toxic masculinity. I think
Speaker 1: the answer is that these three representatives have terrified the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party because they've suggested that they represent a constituency
Speaker 1: without which the Democrats count win. I don't think that's true,
Speaker 1: but there's sort of a rain of terror going on
Speaker 1: that these three have engineered. I agree with the rain
Speaker 1: of terror that he's talking about here. I've said before
Speaker 1: that Okazio Cortez is for you Game of Thrones fans
Speaker 1: coming back this weekend. The Jeoffrey Barathian of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party just running around ordering people, you know, to be
Speaker 1: horrifically punished and have their tongues cut out in things,
Speaker 1: and no one will no one will tell them no,
Speaker 1: you know, no one will tell them to stop on
Speaker 1: social media. That's kind of like Okazi Gortz. He runs
Speaker 1: around says things. You know, people are all running around
Speaker 1: scared of her. I mean, she's she's an ignoramist. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's fair to say she's stupid,
Speaker 1: because she's obviously won a you know, a political contest
Speaker 1: that required some degree of savvy and you know, I
Speaker 1: think that she markets herself well, but she's not knowledgeable
Speaker 1: about anything. She's shockingly poorly read and poorly equipped to
Speaker 1: do higher level analysis. I mean just not. This is
Speaker 1: not someone who impresses anyone with the intellectual horsepower she
Speaker 1: brings to the issue she talks about. But there is
Speaker 1: a kind of invulnerability that you know, the Democrats now
Speaker 1: have to deal with the fact that if you are,
Speaker 1: because they're so reliant on identity politics, because these different
Speaker 1: constituencies from within the Democratic Party, you're treated as as
Speaker 1: really sacro sanct They are treated as people who should
Speaker 1: be at all opportunities elevated, protected, treated to a different
Speaker 1: set of rules that goes easier on them than they
Speaker 1: would on people that are not in these protected groups.
Speaker 1: See Jusse Smolette for example, or ilhan Omar. I mean,
Speaker 1: if any if a white guy named Bob and the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party from Indiana had said this stuff about Israel
Speaker 1: and Jews that ilhan Omar had said, trust me, it
Speaker 1: would be a very different response to the Democrats. But
Speaker 1: they don't really get to call these shots anymore. They
Speaker 1: have created this mentality of the victimhood of identity groups,
Speaker 1: and it's very powerful, right because what the the victimology
Speaker 1: narrative does the Democrats is that it gives them, in
Speaker 1: the minds at least of their voters their constituents, the
Speaker 1: moral high ground. And it also exploits among people that
Speaker 1: aren't comfortable enough with their own thinking on these issues,
Speaker 1: or it exploits the sense that a lot of other people,
Speaker 1: perhaps centrists, moderates, have that, you know, they don't want
Speaker 1: to be part of the bad group. They don't want
Speaker 1: to be victimizing anyone in these victim groups. And so
Speaker 1: there's there's essentially a using of the goodwill and good
Speaker 1: faith of people who aren't leftists against them. Say oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know you better you better not open up a
Speaker 1: Chinese restaurant if you're not Chinese. That's cultural appropriation. People.
Speaker 1: Some people will say to that, oh, wow, you're right,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't want to be insensitive. Nobody wants
Speaker 1: to be insensitive. We got people not running another the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party who remembers the Congress, who wield this like
Speaker 1: a weapon. You know, take what we say seriously, or
Speaker 1: else you're racist. Take what we say seriously, or else
Speaker 1: you're an islamophobe, and so on and so forth. The
Speaker 1: Democrats use this, they benefit from it. But it's also apparent,
Speaker 1: especially with the rise of as as VDH says here
Speaker 1: to leave are an Ocasio Cortez, it's not clear that
Speaker 1: Pelosi and the Democrat establishment really have control of these
Speaker 1: forces and these individuals within their our own party, and
Speaker 1: this could drag things into some very interesting directions going forward.
Speaker 1: The very first picture of a black hole, folks, you
Speaker 1: might have seen it today. It was making the rounds.
Speaker 1: A lot of people pointed out that it it kind
Speaker 1: of looks like the eye of Sauron. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's a little terrifying this this photo of it. Here's
Speaker 1: the reporting on it from CNN. Hope CNN is not
Speaker 1: fake news, hopefully when it comes to astrophysics, but maybe.
Speaker 1: Scientists in April twenty seventeen used a global network of
Speaker 1: telescopes to see and capture the first ever picture of
Speaker 1: a black hole. This is according to announcement by Research
Speaker 1: Is the National Science Foundation. They captured an image of
Speaker 1: the supermassive black hole and its shadow at the center
Speaker 1: of a galaxy known as M eight seven. This is
Speaker 1: the first direct visual evidence that a black hole exa,
Speaker 1: the researchers have claimed. In the image, a central dark
Speaker 1: region is encapsulated by a ring of light that looks
Speaker 1: brighter on one side. The massive galaxy called Messia eighty
Speaker 1: seven or M eighty seven, is near the Virgo galaxy
Speaker 1: cluster fifty five million light years from Earth. The supermassive
Speaker 1: black hole has a mass that is six point five
Speaker 1: billion times that of our sun. And yeah, this is
Speaker 1: one of these things where I read about it and
Speaker 1: I try to understand what's going on, but I take
Speaker 1: some solace in knowing that really nobody knows what this
Speaker 1: stuff is. Nobody truly understands what's going on here. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there are some you know, astrophysicists and theoretical physicists,
Speaker 1: and it is amazing that Einstein, from what I understand again,
Speaker 1: this is way, this is way beyond my sophomore in
Speaker 1: high school geometry level of understanding and math and science.
Speaker 1: But that Einstein was correct in what he thought about
Speaker 1: black holes. That's that's what I saw today. So that
Speaker 1: guy Einstein, very smart dude. That much is clear. But there,
Speaker 1: you know, there's there are some theories that I that
Speaker 1: I have that I carry around. Don't worry, not theories
Speaker 1: about relativity or things that require you to be able
Speaker 1: to do math, because that's not something that I would
Speaker 1: be able to do, but the theories about human knowledge.
Speaker 1: And one of them is the more you learn about
Speaker 1: the history of science and scientific inquiry, the more obvious
Speaker 1: it is that we are at the very we are
Speaker 1: at such an early phase in the development of our
Speaker 1: knowledge about things. Uh. This comes up for me in
Speaker 1: the context of modern medicine a lot where people talk
Speaker 1: about the miracles of modern medicine. Yeah, there's some incredible stuff.
Speaker 1: There's also areas of tremendous Uh. Still tremendous ignorance might
Speaker 1: be a little bit too pejorative a word, but the
Speaker 1: lack of knowledge is astonishing. The lack of knowledge about
Speaker 1: gastro intestinal health, about autoimmune diseases, about chronic pain, about
Speaker 1: you know, medicine is in its infancy, and I mean
Speaker 1: over the course of human history. You look back. I
Speaker 1: mean it wasn't It wasn't until the last hundred years
Speaker 1: or so that we had anything even approaching a sensibility
Speaker 1: of or a sense of modern medicine. It's still very
Speaker 1: early in terms of our understanding of space, you know,
Speaker 1: the final Frontier, Right, it sounds like I'm the beginning
Speaker 1: of a Star Trek show. We don't know squat. I mean,
Speaker 1: we are so early on on this process, and I
Speaker 1: just think, I just think that it's interesting that here
Speaker 1: we are. This is the first time we've ever had
Speaker 1: a photo of a black hole, and it does look
Speaker 1: like the eye of Sauron, which is going to consume
Speaker 1: our planet and destroy all of us. The good news
Speaker 1: is it's really really far away, fifty five million light
Speaker 1: years from Earth. Also, this may bring up for Don
Speaker 1: Lemon over at CNN, is this, in fact where that
Speaker 1: missing plane went? You'll recall you will recall that Don Lement,
Speaker 1: Monsieur don Lement, may we that he over at CNN
Speaker 1: asked out loud on television if a black hole perhaps
Speaker 1: was what consumed the Malaysian Airlines flight that disappeared without
Speaker 1: a trace. Monsieur Don Lament was asking a very serious
Speaker 1: question at the time, I think, or maybe he was
Speaker 1: being facetious. It was tough to tell, because well he's
Speaker 1: Don Lemon, so big discovery day. If you haven't seen
Speaker 1: the photos, definitely worth checking out. It might terrify you
Speaker 1: a little bit to know that Soron is out there
Speaker 1: and that if Frodo doesn't throw the ring in Mount Doom,
Speaker 1: we're all finished. But better to know the no. Right,
Speaker 1: We've got roll call come up in a minute, Team,
Speaker 1: that'll be some stuff that is worthwhile. Stay with me, hey,
Speaker 1: team Buck, It's time for roll call. Finally, a beautiful
Speaker 1: day here in the swamp. This is this one window
Speaker 1: in DC where the weather is warm enough you can
Speaker 1: walk around in a T shirt, but not so warm
Speaker 1: and sticky that your T shirt turns into a wet
Speaker 1: T shirt contest, if you know what I mean. So
Speaker 1: it's nice right now. I'm not sure it's gonna stay
Speaker 1: that way, but in the meantime, things are are pretty
Speaker 1: good here in swamp Landia, also known as the People's
Speaker 1: Republic of Washington, DC, Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: If you want a piece, if you want to get
Speaker 1: in on all the action, all if you just write
Speaker 1: me a note there and we'll be off to the races,
Speaker 1: Thomas writes. As more details of the Molar report get
Speaker 1: released next week, Buck, I expect the most frightening thing
Speaker 1: that will come into focus is that the failed coup
Speaker 1: plan was developed over a period of time, starting as
Speaker 1: far back as before Hillary announced she was running for
Speaker 1: president and had the flexibility to be used for whatever
Speaker 1: Republican candidate emerges. The nominee, Donald Trump just happened to
Speaker 1: be the unfortunate target in the end. That leads me
Speaker 1: to believe this conspiracy plan was devised and implemented by
Speaker 1: Obama Jarrett Lynch, Brennan Clappercomy, and struck once the Republican
Speaker 1: candidate was determined a generic blueprint later refined for candidate Trump.
Speaker 1: The determination to get Hillary into the White House exists,
Speaker 1: and she was Secretary of State. Then when she was
Speaker 1: revealed as a felon for potential acts of espionage, the
Speaker 1: cover ups began. The only possible way to make that
Speaker 1: all go away was for her to become president. I know,
Speaker 1: sounds like a second rate novel, but very plausible. What
Speaker 1: do you think, Thomas? A lot of analysis there, and
Speaker 1: I'll just say there we have it. There there, there
Speaker 1: you go. You heard what Thomas Dicks might have gone
Speaker 1: on here, Thomas. I believe that Trump was considered by
Speaker 1: some people to be an unusually clear and present danger
Speaker 1: to the public republic. I do think that there were
Speaker 1: bureaucrats and that in the federal bureaucracy there were deep
Speaker 1: state types that quite honestly convinced themselves that Trump was
Speaker 1: a very serious threat. I think that that's real. I
Speaker 1: do um. I think they're crazy, but I think they
Speaker 1: believe that Paul Rights Howdy Buck was wondering why everyone
Speaker 1: is so hung up on the idea of a wall.
Speaker 1: Let's get medieval on their butts and dig a moat instead.
Speaker 1: It'll be quick, cheap, defenceable, and savanna and contribute some
Speaker 1: alligators just so they know we're not screwing around shields.
Speaker 1: I well, Paul, I do have to note that the
Speaker 1: Rio grand is kind of like a moat, except in
Speaker 1: some areas it is so shallow and flimsy that you
Speaker 1: could walk across it in flip flops, no problem. But yeah,
Speaker 1: a moat would be an interesting way to slow people
Speaker 1: down even more. You could create I'm just gonna say this,
Speaker 1: you could just dig out a ditch that would be
Speaker 1: right in front of the fence on the Mexican side,
Speaker 1: because they do usually build a fence a few feet
Speaker 1: from the actual technical international boundary, so that if they
Speaker 1: need to do fence repair, they can go on the
Speaker 1: other side of the fence if they have to. But
Speaker 1: if you created a ditch there, even if it was
Speaker 1: maybe six or seven feet deep, it would make it
Speaker 1: harder for people to get across in those areas because
Speaker 1: the remember, it's not that the fence stops everybody in
Speaker 1: their tracks, it's that it slows them down enough that
Speaker 1: the other border protection measures in place, notably border patrols
Speaker 1: roving units are able to get there in time to
Speaker 1: make the apprehension, to make the arrest, Paul, I like
Speaker 1: where your head's at, Carolyn, right, hey, Buck, I agree
Speaker 1: with you, it's crazy to suggest reparations for slavery. There's
Speaker 1: not a single person alive whoever participated in this tragic
Speaker 1: chapter in our history. We should not be held accountable
Speaker 1: for the crimes of generations before us. However, we conservatives
Speaker 1: like to stay logically consistent. How do you reconcile this
Speaker 1: position with DACA? Should the adult children of illegals be
Speaker 1: held accountable for the crimes of their parents? I think
Speaker 1: they should not benefit from the illegal actions of their parents.
Speaker 1: But how do you reconcile these two positions in adjust
Speaker 1: in logical manner? For me, I think it's just a
Speaker 1: matter of how many generations you go back. Just Carrios
Speaker 1: for your thoughts. Also, if these libs really cared about slavery,
Speaker 1: they'd focus where it's happening right now, with the human
Speaker 1: trafficking going on at the border. Shields High Carolyn, Carolyn,
Speaker 1: very astute question. Here's how I would approach it. If
Speaker 1: you robbed a bank, Carolyn, which no one is recommending
Speaker 1: you do, very bad idea. But if you were to
Speaker 1: rob a bank and then you took all that money
Speaker 1: and you put it in a piggy bank for your kid,
Speaker 1: you gave it to your kid and said, hey, here's
Speaker 1: all this money from the bank, Well, guess what the
Speaker 1: ill gotten gains of your Bonnie and Clyde routine, or
Speaker 1: I guess just Bonnie routine, because there's no Clyde in
Speaker 1: this situation. I just watched the movie The Highwaymen, and
Speaker 1: I thought it was very good on Netflix. I would say,
Speaker 1: I'd recommend it for you, worth watching for sure. But
Speaker 1: the government wouldn't say, well, it's not fair to take
Speaker 1: away what has been illegally given to your children. They
Speaker 1: would take that money and it didn't matter that you
Speaker 1: had gifted it to your kid and your kid didn't
Speaker 1: know where it came from. I think that also can
Speaker 1: apply here in the case of citizenship. I'm sorry, in
Speaker 1: the case of presence, not citizenship in the United States,
Speaker 1: where someone's been brought here as a child, and I
Speaker 1: would say that you also have a legitimate deterrence function here,
Speaker 1: as in, if you take away what has been given
Speaker 1: to children who are brought here illegally, then the parents
Speaker 1: going forward will know don't do this. So there's also
Speaker 1: a state interest in that. Is it fair to the kids? Well, no,
Speaker 1: but it's also you know, not fair when the government
Speaker 1: comes and takes away the kid's house and all of
Speaker 1: his toys because dad didn't pay the tax bill, you know.
Speaker 1: So that's you can have a direct line of culpability
Speaker 1: and responsibility that the state can enforce when you're talking
Speaker 1: about what was done one hundred and fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how anybody could make a serious case
Speaker 1: that that's a line that you could you could enforce.
Speaker 1: You know. It's almost like there's a there's a statute
Speaker 1: of limitations or there should be a statute of limitations on,
Speaker 1: you know, in intergenerational crimes, where you have to be
Speaker 1: able to make it make a clear case as to
Speaker 1: who's responsible for what and who benefited from one, and
Speaker 1: there's just no way to do that with reparations. But
Speaker 1: it's a very interesting question, Carol, and thank you for
Speaker 1: raising it. Aaron, Hey Buck, when are you going to
Speaker 1: do another deep dive? I think your show needs it
Speaker 1: to break up some of the looney left wall stuff
Speaker 1: that's bombarding the news of late I know that I
Speaker 1: would appreciate it. Actually I kind of need it. You
Speaker 1: are our generations, Paul Harvey, since most of us don't
Speaker 1: read as much as you do. Can I ask for
Speaker 1: one more favor as well? Could you make it separate
Speaker 1: available download in case I missed that one show for
Speaker 1: some reason. I'm a podcast only listener. I don't catch
Speaker 1: them every day. Thanks Man, Shields High Aaron, you know,
Speaker 1: I would like to do another another episode of Shields Hie,
Speaker 1: And I think this summer, if my schedule is what
Speaker 1: I think it'll be, I think there's a real chance
Speaker 1: that we'll push some of the history shows again. It's
Speaker 1: just that the time, the time involved in doing it,
Speaker 1: because I do it all myself. I mean, I've got
Speaker 1: producer Mike and my usual radio team that will assist,
Speaker 1: but the research, they're writing them out and scripting them,
Speaker 1: and I'll say it's it's also tough because some people
Speaker 1: really really like the history, but other people really want
Speaker 1: me to focus on the current events, the news of
Speaker 1: the day, more political philosophy and ideological battle stuff. So
Speaker 1: it's it's tough to know how much of it to
Speaker 1: do it any one time. But look, I love it.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm all, I'm all about it, and I would
Speaker 1: very much like to bring it back. So I appreciate
Speaker 1: that you also like it, and Aaron, I'm looking for
Speaker 1: an opportunity, Melissa rights Block, I got a tech comment.
Speaker 1: Your podcast was interrupted twice in the first four minutes
Speaker 1: by advertising love the new picture with the beard. It
Speaker 1: looks terrific, much more grown up, not so sweet and innocent.
Speaker 1: She'll tie well, thank you, Melissa BARBAROSSA red beard over
Speaker 1: here is you know, I've kind of taken to it.
Speaker 1: I kind of like it. I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 1: It's it's fun. It's nice, nice little beard going on,
Speaker 1: and a lot of a lot of this audience on
Speaker 1: the mail side. Maybe if you on the female side too,
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know, chin hair can get very long.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm not passing judgment one more or
Speaker 1: the other. But a lot of the dudes listen to
Speaker 1: this show are very much pro beard because they have beards.
Speaker 1: So I've seen this. I've seen this. Uh, I've been
Speaker 1: like inducted into the brotherhood of beardom is what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to say, and some of you lovely ladies who
Speaker 1: listened to the Bucks Exton show are also pro Beard,
Speaker 1: so thank you so much for that. And enough self
Speaker 1: indulgent grooming commentary from myself, James Rights. Hey, Buck, love
Speaker 1: your show and listen via podcast because I'm at work
Speaker 1: when you are live. The last few months, though, there
Speaker 1: have been ads for other podcasts added by whatever podcast
Speaker 1: network you are on now. They're even mid segment cutting
Speaker 1: it off. I listened to a few podcasts and sometimes
Speaker 1: sometimes these ads only show up on the Rush podcast
Speaker 1: in yours, please make it stop. I can only take
Speaker 1: so many fashion and transgender podcast ads before my shields fail.
Speaker 1: You know, producer, Mike, do you know what they're talking about?
Speaker 1: I don't even know what this is? What is going on? Oh,
Speaker 1: it's it is the new platform. DJ John's telling me
Speaker 1: it's it's a new platform. This is the way it is. Huh. Well,
Speaker 1: let me see if we can look into this, because
Speaker 1: I really I want you all to have, especially those
Speaker 1: of you who are listening on the podcast side of it.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure you have a very user
Speaker 1: friendly experience. Right if you're listening on your local radio station,
Speaker 1: Hopefully you have a good signal and we're good to go.
Speaker 1: But on the podcast side, I don't want you being
Speaker 1: bombarded with too many ads. I will say though, that
Speaker 1: I unfortunately don't have as much control over these things
Speaker 1: as I would like. James, my taxes went up because
Speaker 1: my state, pennsylvani You're raised its taxes and ate up
Speaker 1: my lower federal taxes. Well, James, that's stinks man. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to hear that that is not the way that
Speaker 1: it should be. Darn it, Joe rides Buck. You should
Speaker 1: ask Democra they believe in Sharia law. If so, doesn't
Speaker 1: that mean they believe in slavery? Well, Joe, Sharia law
Speaker 1: does have, depending on who's doing the interpreting of it,
Speaker 1: provisions for slavery, just as the Islamic state. As the
Speaker 1: Democrats in general, I don't think that they would take
Speaker 1: that position. But I appreciate you writing in sir. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Laurel writes Buck. I was reminded of what he said
Speaker 1: about prosecutors exercising their discretion when I saw that Laurie
Speaker 1: Lawlin and her husband were hit with even more charges
Speaker 1: in the college bribe scandal after declining a plea deal.
Speaker 1: The contrast between this and J. Smolette cannot be any clearer.
Speaker 1: Who would call this justice? It looks more like extortion. Yeah, Laurel,
Speaker 1: this is this is headhunting. This is a high profile case,
Speaker 1: got a lot of media attention. The prosecutors involved want
Speaker 1: to really nail people. When you think about the real
Speaker 1: crimes here, the only victims are some students who law
Speaker 1: places in the schools. I'm not saying that's that doesn't stink,
Speaker 1: but that's not you know, they went on to other schools.
Speaker 1: I'm sure everyone's fine. And the state lost some revenue
Speaker 1: from the tax avoidance schemes. That's it. So I don't
Speaker 1: think people should be going to prison for a long
Speaker 1: time for that. Free and Becky, that's gonna be for
Speaker 1: today's team. Talk to you tomorrow. Shields High