Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The hysteria around Russia
Speaker 1: collusion continues on despite the lack of evidence. The media
Speaker 1: is now desperate to convince people that non criminal activity
Speaker 1: is criminal, that the president is guilty, and that there's
Speaker 1: evidence that does not exist. They also don't want us
Speaker 1: to find out what really happened in that interview with
Speaker 1: General Flynn that led to those perjury charges. We got
Speaker 1: that and more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: What magno mistake American, You're a great American Again The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. No, welcome to the Buck section Show. Everybody.
Speaker 1: Great to have you here with me on this most
Speaker 1: excellent Thursday. Excellent. We need to get ready for what
Speaker 1: is going to be quite a year in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Time time to batten down the hatches, my friends, Get
Speaker 1: ready for the squall. Dig deep in the trench. It's
Speaker 1: going to get so much uglier, It's going to get
Speaker 1: so much crazier. How is that even possible at this point,
Speaker 1: It's hard to fathom, but I know it to be
Speaker 1: the case. Unfortunately, a lot of very excited and over
Speaker 1: excitable coverage today of this situation with Maria Boutina. Maria Boutina,
Speaker 1: who is this Russian gun rights activist, and now she
Speaker 1: has pleaded guilty to conspiring conspiring here, according to the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, with a senior Russian official, to infiltrate the
Speaker 1: conservative movement in the United States as an agent for
Speaker 1: the Kremlin from twenty fifteen until her arrest in July.
Speaker 1: She's the first Russian national who is convicted of influence,
Speaker 1: of trying to influence, seeking to influence US policy in
Speaker 1: the run up to the twenty sixteen election. This is
Speaker 1: being reported on by a credulous and ignorant media as
Speaker 1: a spy has been found. This is being reported there
Speaker 1: and they're using the word spy. Yahoo has called her
Speaker 1: a spy. MSNBC. The main story on MSNBC just a
Speaker 1: few moments ago when I was when I was doing
Speaker 1: my last run of you know, the various sites that
Speaker 1: I want to make sure or I go through every
Speaker 1: time I come on air. The main story was, in fact,
Speaker 1: this Maria Boutina thing, and they were calling Maria Boutina
Speaker 1: a spy. They were calling her a spy. Here's the
Speaker 1: problem with that. She's not a spy. Now, that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean what she did is okay, It doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: what she did is, you know, just fine and dandy.
Speaker 1: But why, once again do they have to exaggerate. Why
Speaker 1: is the media continuing its trend of pushing further than
Speaker 1: the facts when it comes to anything relating to Russia, Trump,
Speaker 1: the election collusion, any of this stuff. Here's what really happened,
Speaker 1: based on the facts as we know them. Maria Boutina,
Speaker 1: a Russian national, came to America and was trying to
Speaker 1: gain influence in decision making circles, particularly the National Rifle Association,
Speaker 1: but just in general American decision makers on the right,
Speaker 1: and wanted to open a back channel for communication for
Speaker 1: the Russian government or for prominent Russians attached to the
Speaker 1: Russian government. And here's how she's not a spy. One
Speaker 1: she didn't ever try to access nor did she access
Speaker 1: sensitive or classified information. She wasn't trying to steal info.
Speaker 1: Now maybe she would have eventually, but that's not the
Speaker 1: that's not what the charges are. She was trying to
Speaker 1: get close to people that have influence in America. This
Speaker 1: is acting as a foreign agent. Now, this corresponds to
Speaker 1: another charge that has come up in this whole Russian
Speaker 1: collusion madness of failure to register as a foreign agent.
Speaker 1: Call it a FARAH violation Foreign Agent Registration Act. And
Speaker 1: that's when you're in America and an American who is
Speaker 1: trying to push for a foreign agents interest here in
Speaker 1: America right now, if you are advocating on behalf of
Speaker 1: let's say, you know, Saudi interests or Turkish interests or
Speaker 1: Thie interests in America, but you're doing it openly, you're saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I really I'm advocating for Thaie interests in America. That
Speaker 1: falls under FARAH. And that's the kind of thing where
Speaker 1: usually when they catch you, or if that comes to
Speaker 1: the government's attention, they say, hey, hey, you know you
Speaker 1: got a register? All right, you got a register. It's
Speaker 1: essentially being a lobbyist. You're a lobbyist for a foreign government,
Speaker 1: you have to register, just like how if you're a
Speaker 1: lobbyist period in our own government, you're supposed to register, right,
Speaker 1: So this is the equivalent of unregistered lobbying activity. Because
Speaker 1: Maria Boutina was going around saying, hey, I'm Russian. I
Speaker 1: want to open up a dialogue between America and Russia,
Speaker 1: and I want to be near decision makers and people
Speaker 1: who are involved and have influence in the policy process
Speaker 1: on behalf of Russia. That's a very different thing. This
Speaker 1: is not espionage. This is not spying. This is not
Speaker 1: like Anna Chabman. Anna Chapman was accused of being what
Speaker 1: the KGB used to call an illegal which essentially was
Speaker 1: a long, deep, long time, deep cover operative meant to
Speaker 1: penetrate under false pretenses the very top levels of the
Speaker 1: United States government, steal secrets and take it back to Moscow,
Speaker 1: pretending not to be a Russian right, pretending to be
Speaker 1: something else. In this instance, Maria Buccino, this is somebody
Speaker 1: who is walking around and saying, Hey, I'm Russian, and
Speaker 1: I want to talk to people about how we can
Speaker 1: get American Russia to agree on some stuff. She's facing
Speaker 1: up to five years in federal prison now. And now,
Speaker 1: why is this so significant? By the way, for a
Speaker 1: registration also came up in the general flintcase, but we'll
Speaker 1: get to that in a moment. They're saying this is
Speaker 1: so important because it ties together the NRA, GOP, and Trump,
Speaker 1: so the the three headed hydra that the left hate
Speaker 1: so much. They hate the GOP, they hate the NRA,
Speaker 1: and wow do they hate Trump. And this lets them
Speaker 1: tell this tale of a woman who was trying to
Speaker 1: Was she successful in any of this? Did she manage
Speaker 1: to influence US policy at all? You know? This is
Speaker 1: this reminds me of the exaggeration of the impact of
Speaker 1: some Facebook ads. You know when when they were asking
Speaker 1: the Google executive Peach I, CEO of Google, earlier this week,
Speaker 1: how much money was spent by Russian associated accounts on
Speaker 1: Google during the election. You know what he said, It
Speaker 1: was something relines about four thousand dollars. Spending four thousand
Speaker 1: dollars on Google to influence an election is like pouring
Speaker 1: a cup of tap water in the ocean and saying
Speaker 1: you're changing its temperature. Technically, you might have altered the
Speaker 1: temperature somewhat, but it's not percept it's not something that
Speaker 1: you could perceive, it's not something you could measure. Maria
Speaker 1: Boutina did not shift any US policy. Okay, Maria Boutina
Speaker 1: was entirely unsuccessful in this, which, by the way, is
Speaker 1: why the Mueller probe didn't even handle this case. Handed
Speaker 1: it off. This was not, in any way a major
Speaker 1: case of espionage. This was not something that people should
Speaker 1: be so excited about and so concerned about. But it
Speaker 1: involves a Russian involves geop stuff and the elections. Oh,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, it's such a big story. We are
Speaker 1: living in a time of hysteria and delusion that is
Speaker 1: embraced by an increasingly desperate establishment. And the establishment is
Speaker 1: desperate because not only is their power coming coming under
Speaker 1: assault and therefore its longevity is in question, but we
Speaker 1: also now are free to ask questions about why are
Speaker 1: these people the establishment? What is it about the elites
Speaker 1: in government, in journalism and media that has put them
Speaker 1: in that position? Should we believe them? Should we trust them?
Speaker 1: Are they particularly good or competent what they do? No,
Speaker 1: they're not, and Trump exposes them, exposes them for not
Speaker 1: being what they think they are, which is exceptional, which
Speaker 1: is excellent at what they do. No, they just are
Speaker 1: powerful and influential. But that's different. That's a very different thing. Indeed,
Speaker 1: you know, you can be the leader of a foreign
Speaker 1: country because everyone thinks you're great, or you can be
Speaker 1: the leader of a foreign country because you seize power
Speaker 1: through brute force. Both cases, you're talking about a leader,
Speaker 1: but only one side of the ledger would you have
Speaker 1: a situation where somebody could claim excellence and skill and
Speaker 1: the other it's just force and power. And the Left
Speaker 1: is obsessed with power and with the exercise of that power,
Speaker 1: and they'll use force to get there, and anyone who
Speaker 1: challenges that is a target to be destroyed. And that's
Speaker 1: why they have to come up with all these different narratives.
Speaker 1: Narratives meant to undermine the opposition, undermine the people who
Speaker 1: are a threat to their power. Maria Boutina, for example,
Speaker 1: yet another individual who insaner times they would just say, okay,
Speaker 1: just get out of America. They'd probably just deport her
Speaker 1: as they get out of America, go back to Russia.
Speaker 1: You know, you shouldn't be here trying to meddle in
Speaker 1: our national conversation about anything in this way. You know,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to registers as an agent of a foreign country. Right,
Speaker 1: there's foreign registration for Americans, you know, being an agent
Speaker 1: of a foreign power, and then there's being a foreigner
Speaker 1: who's an agent of a or in power. Now General
Speaker 1: Flynn didn't register UNDERFERA. There are a lot of people
Speaker 1: in DC who have not registered UNDERFERRA, but they were
Speaker 1: going to use that, I think as additional leverage against him.
Speaker 1: And this then brings me to what we see happening
Speaker 1: through all the Russia collusion stuff. We see happening with
Speaker 1: General Flynn, with all the people that have been caught
Speaker 1: up Papadopolis and Cohen and Boutina and others. Now, and
Speaker 1: that is when is the law strict, literal and harsh
Speaker 1: and when is the law open to interpretation? Something that
Speaker 1: we should look through with an ida mercy and decency
Speaker 1: and second chances, And increasingly in the most politically tense
Speaker 1: investigations in the country, what we find is that Democrats
Speaker 1: always take the most strict, uncharitable, vicious, aggressive view of
Speaker 1: the law, most literal interpretation of the law possible when
Speaker 1: it is negative for a Republican and we always have
Speaker 1: the reverse for Democrats, whether it's Hillary or you name it.
Speaker 1: The law is malleable, the law is open to interpretation,
Speaker 1: there's room to maneuver, and there's room for mercy. When
Speaker 1: it's a Democrat who is that issue? This is fundamentally
Speaker 1: destroying our sense. This Mueller probe, the hysteria around all things,
Speaker 1: Russia is destroying our sense that the law is impartially
Speaker 1: applied when it comes to politics. We cannot run from this.
Speaker 1: We have to confront it. We will do more of that.
Speaker 1: In just a moment, he answered a bunch of questions,
Speaker 1: a great number of them apparently, and the agents knew
Speaker 1: that some of those those answers didn't fit very well
Speaker 1: with what he knew. And what's fascinating about the information
Speaker 1: we have is they made the conscious decision not to
Speaker 1: raise those with him. So there is a certain feeling
Speaker 1: of a trap here that obviously he never clued into.
Speaker 1: What's really troubling is not just the fact that they
Speaker 1: proceeded to criminalize it, but that the initial agents apparently
Speaker 1: did not believe he was intentionally lying, and they did
Speaker 1: not recommend the charge. Now you now fast forward to
Speaker 1: where we are now, and I can only imagine what
Speaker 1: Flynn might be thinking and reading the recent filings, because
Speaker 1: in one of the footnotes for Cohen, the prosecutors note
Speaker 1: that he came in and made all types of false
Speaker 1: statements about all types of stuff to investigators and then
Speaker 1: simply says, a matter of factly, he then corrected those
Speaker 1: statements and I could imagine Michael Flynn reading this thing. Well, Okay,
Speaker 1: what happened to my chance to correct? That's right, what
Speaker 1: happened to Flynn's chance to correct? Who gets a second chance?
Speaker 1: Who gets the benefit of the doubt? That is what
Speaker 1: is an issue here. I'm so sick of all these
Speaker 1: smarmy left wing lawyers and pseudo lawyers who send they
Speaker 1: broke the law, pleaded guilty, taking this view of everything
Speaker 1: involving Trump at Russia and collusion and the lies and
Speaker 1: the perjury charges as though they've they've never seen how
Speaker 1: criminal law actually functions. Some people get a lot of
Speaker 1: the way, other people don't. If it's based on politics,
Speaker 1: that's a huge problem. Hillary had nine lawyers in the room,
Speaker 1: or there McCabe, who's a liar and a scoundrel and
Speaker 1: was fired from the FBI for for those reasons. McCabe
Speaker 1: made sure that Flynn didn't have any lawyer in the
Speaker 1: room with him. Now, you don't need a lawyer. I
Speaker 1: don't do that. We're just gonna we're just gonna talk
Speaker 1: to you about this thing. Liberals played dirty, and that's
Speaker 1: that's the that's the quick and dirty of what we're
Speaker 1: really talking about here, and when you see how psychologically
Speaker 1: traumatized they were by Trump's victory, and you go back
Speaker 1: and just from member all the people crying at that
Speaker 1: Hillary victory party that wasn't a victory, all the different
Speaker 1: senior government employees who thought that they were going to
Speaker 1: have eight years of a glorious Clinton administration and it
Speaker 1: was gonna be so fantastic for their careers. And also
Speaker 1: it was really a pinnacle moment for a certain kind
Speaker 1: of liberal boomer that Hillary's eight years was going to
Speaker 1: be a kind of golden era of Democrat liberalism in America,
Speaker 1: and that that was stolen from them, and that it
Speaker 1: was so unfair and so wrong, and they lashed out,
Speaker 1: and people within the government. It wasn't just outside a government.
Speaker 1: They lashed out too. And yet as I sit here,
Speaker 1: I still note that they have not produced any evidence
Speaker 1: of collusion, and they are still going after people for
Speaker 1: the petty of crimes. I mean, they're going after people
Speaker 1: for for lies that don't really seem like lies. They
Speaker 1: have all these shady dealings around figures in the government.
Speaker 1: I mean, Comey said just this past weekend, if the
Speaker 1: administration was better organized, they never would have let Flynn
Speaker 1: sit down with some FBI guys without the White House
Speaker 1: Council present. You know, He's basically like, we slipped we
Speaker 1: slipped a couple of guys in there. You know, we
Speaker 1: slipped them under the radar. You're gonna do that to
Speaker 1: the National Security Advisor, people say, oh, buck, But law
Speaker 1: enforcement uses tricks and techniques and you know, essentially lying
Speaker 1: all the time they gave people. Yeah, but they usually
Speaker 1: don't do it without a criminal predicate to the National
Speaker 1: Security Advisor and give me a break. Your law enforcement
Speaker 1: could also theoretically exercise any warrant that they want to
Speaker 1: if they can convince a judge to sign off on it.
Speaker 1: So you know, batter down your front door and you know,
Speaker 1: send in an armored carrier and three and a squat team.
Speaker 1: But you know, usually if they're just trying to find
Speaker 1: out if you you know, are running a credit card
Speaker 1: fraud scam or something, they don't do that. Discretion is
Speaker 1: a necessary component of the justice system, right there has
Speaker 1: to be good faith action from the people that are
Speaker 1: entrusted with the power, and we're not seeing good faith action.
Speaker 1: And that's why I mean, I think Trump should look
Speaker 1: Trump should pardon Flynn full stop Pardon General Flynn, Play thirteen.
Speaker 1: I never directed him to do anything incorrect or wrong,
Speaker 1: and he understands that. Look, he did some bad things
Speaker 1: unrelated to me, in order to embarrass me. They cut
Speaker 1: his turn down. How many people when they say, listen,
Speaker 1: if you embarrass the President of the United States will
Speaker 1: give you a deal. Your father in law, your wife
Speaker 1: will cut your jail. That's all it is. It's a
Speaker 1: terrible system we have. It's going on right now with
Speaker 1: General Flynn. The FBI said he didn't lie, but Muller
Speaker 1: said he did lie. So they took a man who's
Speaker 1: a general and a respected person and a nice man.
Speaker 1: And I don't even know what he said about me, because,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe they scared him enough they don't make
Speaker 1: up the story. But I have a feeling that maybe
Speaker 1: he didn't. He's a tougher kind of a guy than Kohen.
Speaker 1: But they took a general that they said didn't lie,
Speaker 1: and they convinced him he did lie, and he made
Speaker 1: some kind of a deal. And now they're recommending no time,
Speaker 1: you know why, because they're embarrassed that they got caught.
Speaker 1: I think he's the President's right on them on this one.
Speaker 1: He knows, you know. There Cohen can't prove the President
Speaker 1: told him to do anything wrong. Cohen's the lawyer, he
Speaker 1: should know better. Advice of counsel is a real thing.
Speaker 1: And what they did to Flynn, I just said again,
Speaker 1: they did Flynn dirty. Remember why Mueller was set up.
Speaker 1: Muller was set up as a special consul to look
Speaker 1: at was or any collusion and any influence of Raisha
Speaker 1: through the Trump campaign and influencing the election. There's been
Speaker 1: no evidence of collusion at this point. And if there's
Speaker 1: anything about Kohne yesterday that indirectly affects the president, Remember
Speaker 1: the information came from a guy that was a liar
Speaker 1: and accused of lying to the Congress of the United States.
Speaker 1: So how much credibility do you want to put in
Speaker 1: the words of a liar. It's a fair point from
Speaker 1: Chuck Graslie. There one other thing before we move on
Speaker 1: to some other topics, I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about the Women's March and how it's in the midst
Speaker 1: of some some disarray. It's like the women's marches, and
Speaker 1: they're not all marching in the same direction. There's some
Speaker 1: problems there. Also, the Senate some some break news on
Speaker 1: the Senate and Yemen and Kashogi. They're not They're not
Speaker 1: gonna let this thing go, even though now it's it's
Speaker 1: too late for people to realize because everyone has just
Speaker 1: assumed that they spend so much time on Kashogi because
Speaker 1: he must be a you know, a US person, meaning
Speaker 1: either a citizen or a Green card holder. He's not.
Speaker 1: I was a visitor, the visitor of the country. Are
Speaker 1: we responsible now for changing our foreign policy based on
Speaker 1: anyone anywhere in the world that has something terrible happened
Speaker 1: to them if they are a journalist, we we then
Speaker 1: have to change our foreign policy in a whole region
Speaker 1: because of it. That's the new standard. It's not a
Speaker 1: very it's not a very wise standard, if in fact
Speaker 1: that that is our standard. I mean, the world is
Speaker 1: a dangerous place. I hate to be the bearer of platitudes.
Speaker 1: But there's one more thing here on the whole the
Speaker 1: DOJ's conduct. And I'm happy that a judge, Judge Sullivan,
Speaker 1: sounds like he wants to see those three O two's.
Speaker 1: It seems very clear that with a seven month lag
Speaker 1: between when the FBI had the initials sit down with Flynn,
Speaker 1: and when they filed the three O two and that
Speaker 1: we've already seen reporting that the FBI agents did not
Speaker 1: initially think that he lied and they didn't bring charges
Speaker 1: right away, seems very clear that they just they fabricated
Speaker 1: a pretext. You know, it's it's not that hard to
Speaker 1: do this. It's not that hard to go through someone's testimony,
Speaker 1: and if you really really want to get them, find
Speaker 1: something that is technically not accurate and say, well, you
Speaker 1: say you misremembered, we say it's a lie. Guess what
Speaker 1: their version is enough to get you prosecuted. And then
Speaker 1: once they're prosecuting you, you're in a position where you
Speaker 1: can either fight them and try to clear your name
Speaker 1: and risk complete financial ruin and long prison sentence, or
Speaker 1: you say, all right, I'll do whatever you say. I'll
Speaker 1: do whatever you say. But here's something that I think
Speaker 1: is worth pointing. This is from Bree Payton at the Federalist.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice white text messages between former FBI
Speaker 1: employees Lisa Page and Peter Struck from their cell phones
Speaker 1: before the Office of the Inspector General could review them.
Speaker 1: According to a new report from the DOJ watchdog Page
Speaker 1: Instruct's involvement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation has been
Speaker 1: heavily scrutinized after it was revealed they had sent numerous
Speaker 1: and to one another. Mueller has been tasked with looking
Speaker 1: into whether or not Donald Trump and his campaign association
Speaker 1: It's coordinated with Russian officials to steal the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election away from Hillary Clinton. The eleven page report reveals
Speaker 1: that almost a month after Struck was removed from Mueller's team,
Speaker 1: his government issued iPhone was wiped clean and restored to
Speaker 1: factory settings by another individual working Muller's office. Special Counsel's
Speaker 1: records officer told investigators she determined it did not contained
Speaker 1: records that needed to be retained, no substance of text,
Speaker 1: notes or reminders. Wow, isn't that convenient? Inspector General just
Speaker 1: has somebody look at Struck in Page's phones and go, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's nothing here we need to retain. We're just gonna
Speaker 1: we're just gonna get rid of it, okay, because we've
Speaker 1: seen a lot of stuff from them that should have
Speaker 1: been retained, and a lot of stuff that the FBI
Speaker 1: didn't want to release. By the way, so somebody want
Speaker 1: to explain that one to me. Oh, that's just a coincidence, right,
Speaker 1: It's it's always this is what you get from the
Speaker 1: anti Trump Hillary hers out there. It's always just a
Speaker 1: coincidence when something like this goes down. You know when
Speaker 1: Hillary used bleach bit on her own server. Hey, you
Speaker 1: know that was just a mistake. You know what, like
Speaker 1: wipe it like with a cloth, she said, like with
Speaker 1: a cloth, wiping it. Hello, don't you miss her? Don't
Speaker 1: you wish she was president? Oh? I know, I know
Speaker 1: it could still happen. I still think she's you haven't
Speaker 1: heard much better recently. I still think she's running as
Speaker 1: much as everyone else thinks. That's crazy. Meanwhile, despite all
Speaker 1: this stuff going on, there's at least one pull out
Speaker 1: today that says that Trump is about as popular at
Speaker 1: this point in his presidency as Obama was in his presidency. So,
Speaker 1: you know, you've got the entire media saying Trump is
Speaker 1: a criminal, actually saying Trump is a criminal, actively rooting
Speaker 1: for his administration to collapse, people to go to prison,
Speaker 1: Trump's son in law to be indict I mean son
Speaker 1: rather to be indicted and his son in law to
Speaker 1: be indicted. And meanwhile, the president keeps in the fight.
Speaker 1: I gotta give him credit. And he even likes the job.
Speaker 1: Play fourteen. I love getting things done for the people.
Speaker 1: It's a nasty job because I get hit so hard,
Speaker 1: so unfairly by so many. I mean really unfairly. When
Speaker 1: you look at what we've done with taxes, what we've
Speaker 1: done with regulations, what we've done with China and national
Speaker 1: defense and so many other things, including the environment. The
Speaker 1: Paris Accord is not working out to well for Paris.
Speaker 1: Take a look at what's happened, the struggling. That whole
Speaker 1: country is burning down. Okay, So, and I was the
Speaker 1: one that kept us out of the Paris Accord. If
Speaker 1: I was in the Paris Accord, we would be paying
Speaker 1: trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars for nothing, and I
Speaker 1: wouldn't do that. And my people love the job I'm doing.
Speaker 1: You know. The one thing, if I could get a
Speaker 1: little wish for twenty nineteen, I would just like the
Speaker 1: administration's critics to focus on policies that don't like instead
Speaker 1: of this just craziness about Russia and payoffs and women,
Speaker 1: and they're just all this nonsense. It's all inflated. It's
Speaker 1: all exaggerated. They're connecting dots that aren't even there. You know,
Speaker 1: tell me you don't like Trump because of the taxes.
Speaker 1: Tell me you don't like Trump because you know of
Speaker 1: of immigration fund. At least that we could have a
Speaker 1: discussion with somebody. But if you really think that there
Speaker 1: was some crumblin conspiracy, I just I don't even know
Speaker 1: what to say to those people. You know, at some
Speaker 1: point you run out of a middle ground for any
Speaker 1: kind of a conversation. Oh one more thing here on
Speaker 1: the chief of staff. This was all from a Harris
Speaker 1: Faulkner interview on Fox News that the Harris got to
Speaker 1: sit down. Congrats to her on the with the President
Speaker 1: on the chief of staff situation, play fifteen. We're interviewing
Speaker 1: people now for chief of staff. Yes, five people, really
Speaker 1: good ones, terrific people, mostly well known, but terrific people.
Speaker 1: That actually wasn't from the Harris interview. That was from
Speaker 1: just a press conference. But you know, I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: it's Christmas and my birthday coming up. Mister President, you
Speaker 1: need a chief of staff the buck gets results. I'm
Speaker 1: just putting it out there. I know people in the
Speaker 1: White House listen to the show, the buck gets results
Speaker 1: allers to it. But you gotta let him do his
Speaker 1: radio show. Still, um disputes in the Democratic Party base
Speaker 1: because they all hate one another. Um. I mean you
Speaker 1: have the Muslims and the Jews, and the various exotic
Speaker 1: sexual groups and the black church ladies with um, you know,
Speaker 1: the college queers. The only thing that keeps this the
Speaker 1: Democratic base together is for them to keep focusing on
Speaker 1: No white man are the one ones keeping you down.
Speaker 1: You must hate white man. It's the one thing they
Speaker 1: all have in common. Now, it shouldn't be any surprise,
Speaker 1: but that little SoundBite for man culture on Fox News
Speaker 1: made lots of liberal heads explode. They got very upset
Speaker 1: about that. But she was asked about a very specific thing,
Speaker 1: and that is a piece that came out this week
Speaker 1: in Tablet magazine with the title is the Women's March
Speaker 1: melting Down. And we have somebody who can talk to
Speaker 1: us a little bit about what the heck is going
Speaker 1: on here with the whole Women's March movement and allegations
Speaker 1: of anti Semitism within the leadership and all kinds of
Speaker 1: stuff going on there in as Felcher is with us. Now,
Speaker 1: she is a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's
Speaker 1: Forum in as what is the truth theory? Is the
Speaker 1: Women's March melting down? What's happening? Well, they're certainly having
Speaker 1: quite a bit of drama in advance of their next march,
Speaker 1: which just remind folks is the end of January, so
Speaker 1: this is not good timing for them. But yes, let's
Speaker 1: refers to a piece that came out in Tablet magazine
Speaker 1: talking about how even from the very first meeting of
Speaker 1: the leadership at the Women's March, there were anti Semitic
Speaker 1: elements to it, right, that some of the march leaders
Speaker 1: or march organizers. We're talking about how, for example, Jewish
Speaker 1: people apparently bear a special collective responsibilities exploiters of black
Speaker 1: and brown people. And also the false, the false conard
Speaker 1: that Jews were the leaders of the American slave trade,
Speaker 1: that they were the genius behind the American slave trade
Speaker 1: or something like that. These are charges that come from
Speaker 1: Louis Farakon's book The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews.
Speaker 1: So there's not really Actually, this is a bit frustrating
Speaker 1: because conservatives and conservative media have been pointing out the
Speaker 1: anti Semitic elements and the anti semitic statements that have
Speaker 1: come out from leaders of the Women's March from day one.
Speaker 1: But only because the Tablet magazine expose has now been
Speaker 1: published is it getting any kind of mainstream coverage. But
Speaker 1: this is another one of those frustrating moments where it's like, yes,
Speaker 1: conservatives have known this for two years, where were you
Speaker 1: mainstreaming media? And I mean Linda Sars, whom I actually
Speaker 1: bumped into once at Union Station in DC, which is funny.
Speaker 1: She didn't know who I was, but I was like,
Speaker 1: oh wow, that's Lindisar Sir. Look at that Linda sarsor
Speaker 1: somebody who is very much associated with the Women's March
Speaker 1: and definitely has a fondness for some anti Semitic folks.
Speaker 1: Yeah so um so. Linda star Storagemika Malory are the
Speaker 1: two folks who get brought up in these contacts a lot.
Speaker 1: They both have long standing relationships with Louis Faracon and
Speaker 1: with the Nation of Islam. They've also refused to back
Speaker 1: down from those relationships. This is not one of those
Speaker 1: things where increasingly common unfortunately, where the social media mob
Speaker 1: pulls out a tweet out of context from ten years ago.
Speaker 1: U These are active and ongoing relationships, and both women
Speaker 1: have have pretty much refused to disavow Louis Farrakon, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, is the most famous anti Semite in America.
Speaker 1: It's basically him and David Duke. They can they can
Speaker 1: Duke haha, it out for that top. But but these
Speaker 1: are not sort of you know, sort of We're not
Speaker 1: dealing with with things that are are maybe ambiguous or
Speaker 1: can be read both ways. No, no no, like Lewis Faracon
Speaker 1: called Jews termites on Twitter, and by the way, Twitter
Speaker 1: doesn't ban him for that, And these leaders of the
Speaker 1: Women's March have refused to break their association with Louis Farracon.
Speaker 1: If this were on the right, by the way, if
Speaker 1: this were a Trump rally or a for example, the
Speaker 1: Tea Party movement, can you imagine that this would go
Speaker 1: two years without getting the kind of coverage that it's
Speaker 1: getting now. Of course it would not. It would be
Speaker 1: on the front page of every magazine and every news
Speaker 1: broadcast for months until everybody involved resigned in disgrace. I mean,
Speaker 1: I just got to say, you know. The March leaders
Speaker 1: were named twenty seventeen Women of the Year by Glamour magazine.
Speaker 1: There was a glossy book published with Conde Nast on them.
Speaker 1: They have a lucrative merchandise business selling branded Women's March gear.
Speaker 1: They've raised millions of dollars through donations and institutional funding.
Speaker 1: They've gotten money from places like Planned Parenthood and the
Speaker 1: Hospital Workers Union. What's this Fortune Magazine named Mallory, Linda Sarsore,
Speaker 1: Perez and Bland to its list of the world's great
Speaker 1: Greatest Leaders and New York Center Kirsten Gillibrand, in explaining
Speaker 1: why these four women were on Time magazine's list of
Speaker 1: the one hundred most influential people, wrote, the Women's March
Speaker 1: was the most inspiring and transformational moment I've ever witnessed
Speaker 1: in politics. And it happened because of these four extraordinary women.
Speaker 1: And she names the Mallory Bland, Perez, Sarsore. That's all
Speaker 1: from his Talbot magazine piece. Let me just tell you Inez,
Speaker 1: I interviewed Bob Bland. She's a ludentic. Yeah. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Linda Sarsour opens at a rally for Jilla brand.
Speaker 1: So these these folks were well integrated into the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: They were mainstream folks in the Democratic Party and as
Speaker 1: you said, they got this, you know, sort of star
Speaker 1: studded coverage from everything from serious coverage in places like
Speaker 1: the New York Times and mainstream TV networks, but also
Speaker 1: I mean the glossy vagazine from from Conde nass all
Speaker 1: the glamour shots and by the way, all of those donations.
Speaker 1: Who talked about one of the other allegations from the
Speaker 1: Tablet magpiece, and this has also been covered by The
Speaker 1: Daily Beast in the past, is that a lot of
Speaker 1: that money has sort of disappeared and there's some allegations
Speaker 1: of financial impropriety on the part of these these Women's
Speaker 1: March organizers. So again, all of this stuff would have
Speaker 1: been immediately plastered on across the news were these women
Speaker 1: the leaders of say conservative movement, But because they were
Speaker 1: the leaders of the Women's March, a lot of this
Speaker 1: stuff was sort of pushed down and ignored for years,
Speaker 1: for almost two years, until finally this massive exposity gets published.
Speaker 1: And by the way, they're still trying to fight back
Speaker 1: against this. So a lot of UM reporters and journalists
Speaker 1: who tweeted out this Tablet magpiece received an email from
Speaker 1: a PR firm hired by the Women's march basically asking
Speaker 1: them to delete their critical tweets in exchange for unidentified,
Speaker 1: off the record information. Can you imagine if, like the
Speaker 1: press office of a White House for example, or going
Speaker 1: back to Trump campaign, tweeted out or emails a bunch
Speaker 1: of reporters and said, if you take back your critical tweets,
Speaker 1: we might give you some off the record information. It
Speaker 1: would be the end of journalism if he had done that.
Speaker 1: But because they did that, it got a little mockery
Speaker 1: from the right. But he's basically passed unnoticed. You know this,
Speaker 1: this Women's March that's supposed to happen the end of January.
Speaker 1: Is this gonna be? It's gonna be in DC, isn't it.
Speaker 1: They're they're gonna march right past my apartment, aren't they.
Speaker 1: It's terrified. Oh they they they marched past my apartment
Speaker 1: last year. But the fun part of the Women's March
Speaker 1: last year to me is is, um I was actually
Speaker 1: just trying to try to go see a movie with
Speaker 1: my husband and got like sort of caught up in
Speaker 1: this this march and tried to get through. But the
Speaker 1: funniest part of it to me was like they all
Speaker 1: went for brunch afterwards, apparently because I was sitting in
Speaker 1: restaurants and all around me where women enjoying expensive brunches
Speaker 1: with the P word hats on their heads, and they
Speaker 1: left their signs all over the city. And this is
Speaker 1: you know, this is sort of par for the course, right,
Speaker 1: are you and some of the other conservative women of
Speaker 1: DC considering a very a very state and polite counter
Speaker 1: protests where you're all showing up and you know, just
Speaker 1: holding up signs with things like we don't hate men,
Speaker 1: and we actually believe in you know, in life and
Speaker 1: having babies and you know, things like that at anything
Speaker 1: of the works. Um well, I asked Independent Women's Form.
Speaker 1: We're definitely planning on covering the women's march. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we're going to counter protest protest it yet
Speaker 1: or if we're just going to maybe and ask some
Speaker 1: pointed questions that these marches. I don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: that covered is going to look like yet, but we're
Speaker 1: definitely planning on being there and pushing back against this narrative, right,
Speaker 1: because it's always it's always the groups on the left
Speaker 1: that then claim to speak for women as a whole. Right.
Speaker 1: It's it's never the group on the right that claim
Speaker 1: to speak for all women. It's always National Organization for Women,
Speaker 1: the Women's March. Well, let me tell you, all women
Speaker 1: don't support the Women's March. They don't support the anti
Speaker 1: semitism of Wonderstar Store and Jamaica Mallory and and they
Speaker 1: definitely don't support a lot of the fringe beliefs of
Speaker 1: the far left feminist agenda. So those those are they
Speaker 1: represent themselves, They represent, you know, a certain percentage of women.
Speaker 1: But really, at the end of the day, less than
Speaker 1: a third of American women even call themselves to even
Speaker 1: identify as feminists. So really, these women are representing a
Speaker 1: very small group of people in this country. All right,
Speaker 1: in as filter everybody Independent Women's Forum and look for
Speaker 1: stuff on the Federalist dot com too. In as great
Speaker 1: to have you. Thanks for having you, Buck Tabe, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. If you're like me, you use email
Speaker 1: every day, probably too much throughout the day. But that
Speaker 1: also means that you know, you should think about what
Speaker 1: is this company really like that you're trusting all this
Speaker 1: information too? Are they left wing? Do you think that
Speaker 1: they're scanning your information? Are they selling stuff to third parties?
Speaker 1: Skip all that nonsense. Join ipatriots dot Us. Ipatriots dot
Speaker 1: us is a new conservative alternative to liberal based email services.
Speaker 1: If you're if you're concerned at all about your current
Speaker 1: email service, your privacy and protection, this is the option
Speaker 1: for you. Ipatriots dot Us is secure, private, and includes
Speaker 1: more of what you want without the ads and spam.
Speaker 1: Your email and files are going to be safe with
Speaker 1: their high end anti virus, anti spam encrypted software. Okay,
Speaker 1: ipatriots dot Us won't sell your information and it doesn't
Speaker 1: support liberal agenda items. Show your patriot. Go to ipatriots
Speaker 1: dot us now, choose your membership program and input your
Speaker 1: desired ipatriots email address. During checkout, enter promo code buck
Speaker 1: for ten percent savings during your first year membership. Again
Speaker 1: enter romo code buck at ipatriots dot us. They say
Speaker 1: that walls don't work and a wall wall solve it.
Speaker 1: All that he's doing is putting up walls around people's hearts,
Speaker 1: and we are not a wall away from being better.
Speaker 1: Don't waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money in order
Speaker 1: to build something that will not make our border more secure.
Speaker 1: They say a wall is racist. The President went to
Speaker 1: the heart of what I call his brown menace theory.
Speaker 1: These migrants, they're dirty people, They bring disease. This border
Speaker 1: wall thing is about controlling the browning of America. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is fixated on the southern border, as he was
Speaker 1: the day that he announced this campaign. It is not
Speaker 1: about securing the borders. It is about xenophobic, racist, bigoted beliefs.
Speaker 1: Which one is it? Or is it both walls are
Speaker 1: racist and walls don't work. I'm just wondering, if walls
Speaker 1: don't work, why do Republicans want it so badly? Or
Speaker 1: at least, why does Trump wanted so badly? Why do
Speaker 1: people who voted for Trump wanted so badly? We should
Speaker 1: we should feel comfortable digging into these questions a little bit, because,
Speaker 1: first of all, of course a wall works, oh and
Speaker 1: the other the other objection to it is that it's
Speaker 1: so expensive. Bernie Sanders's very pricey to wall. It's gonna
Speaker 1: call it so much money. It's gonna be so expensive.
Speaker 1: I want to do play five. I think water security
Speaker 1: is enormously important, but I think building a wall is
Speaker 1: a very costly and inefficient way to do that. And
Speaker 1: I'm not alone. I mean, many experts think given the
Speaker 1: kind of technology that we have today, we can protect
Speaker 1: those southern bat without building the wall and spending five
Speaker 1: billion dollars. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure he may, but
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure that he has the boats in
Speaker 1: the house. That last part is a non secretary. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's irrelevant. It's not Democrat job to worry about whether
Speaker 1: Republicans have the votes in the House. Okay, Senator Sanders
Speaker 1: can leave that up to the Republican Congress. But notice
Speaker 1: how with each of the objections, when you push back
Speaker 1: a little bit, when you look at the facts a
Speaker 1: little bit more, the objection starts to fall apart. Let's
Speaker 1: start with this. It's they say it's racist. Okay. Is
Speaker 1: the Israeli border wall racist? Okay that some of them
Speaker 1: might say, Some lives in this country probably say yes.
Speaker 1: Is the wall that the Saudis are building, the fence
Speaker 1: that Saudis are building between Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Is
Speaker 1: that racist? Is the wall in the western Sahara racist?
Speaker 1: Is the demilitarized zone between North and So I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's a good idea, if it's fair. I'm just
Speaker 1: at is it racist? Is the barrier between North and
Speaker 1: South Korea? Is that racist? You know? What about the
Speaker 1: what about the fence that we have in San Diego?
Speaker 1: Is that racist if we tear it down because it's
Speaker 1: a monument to racism. If the answers no, I'd like
Speaker 1: to know why. In terms of the cost we just
Speaker 1: hit pretty much today. I think it's official twenty two
Speaker 1: trillion dollars in debt. We are twenty two trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in debt as a country. That is an astonishing number
Speaker 1: considering that it wasn't long ago at all that we
Speaker 1: weren't even into double digits on our national debt, and
Speaker 1: yet here we are. We are spending ourselves into oblivion.
Speaker 1: Our political system is effectively now built upon intergenerational theft.
Speaker 1: Our political system is built upon people passing laws that
Speaker 1: give benefits today based on IOUs that those in the
Speaker 1: future will have to pay. That's not the way a
Speaker 1: responsible country is wrong. But nonetheless, when you're twenty two
Speaker 1: trillion dollars in debt and you have a major crisis
Speaker 1: continuing to occur at the border, I don't want to
Speaker 1: hear about how five billion dollars is too much to
Speaker 1: spend on something that is absolutely critical to US sovereignty
Speaker 1: into rule of law. So the notion that the real
Speaker 1: issue here has cost is laughable. And I'm consistent on this.
Speaker 1: People will point out that the Muller probe, for example,
Speaker 1: has cost has cost money, and I always say to them, yes,
Speaker 1: I understand the Muller probe has cost money, But if
Speaker 1: there really was Russian collusion, fifty million dollars wouldn't be
Speaker 1: too much to pay to find that out. The reason
Speaker 1: the Muller probe is too much money isn't because it's
Speaker 1: in principle too much money. It's because the whole thing
Speaker 1: is a witch hunt. It's a waste, it's a crock,
Speaker 1: it's a joke. A border wall is certainly not that.
Speaker 1: Oh and then Chuck and Nancy all of a sudden
Speaker 1: they are experts on the wall play four deed border security.
Speaker 1: The wall is a part of border security. You can't
Speaker 1: have very good border security without the wall. Knows that
Speaker 1: is a political promise. Border security is a way too
Speaker 1: effectively on our I respond, the experts say you can
Speaker 1: do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and
Speaker 1: doesn't solve the problem. I mean when he says that,
Speaker 1: when he says the experts say. I always want to
Speaker 1: push back and say, well, what about the head of
Speaker 1: border patrol, what about the head of customs enforcement? The
Speaker 1: people that have been working on the border for years
Speaker 1: and years and years, they say that a wall is
Speaker 1: immensely helpful. So are they just misinformed? Are they paid
Speaker 1: for by big wall, you know, instead of big oil?
Speaker 1: I just want to know why are they so confused?
Speaker 1: Who are these experts? Are these immigration attorneys and activists
Speaker 1: that they're citing that that say that you don't need
Speaker 1: a wall to do this. A wall would certainly help,
Speaker 1: and it has helped in many places as we know.
Speaker 1: Here is David Rubin, who was the former mayor of Shiloh, Israel,
Speaker 1: talking about what the wall in Israel did for their security,
Speaker 1: for their safety, and for the population of the state
Speaker 1: of Israel. Play clip eight. Between two thousand and ten
Speaker 1: and two thousand and twelve, there were fifty five thousand
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants into Israel. The rapes and murders in southern
Speaker 1: Tel Aviv skyrocket skyrocketed in those few years. The Israeli
Speaker 1: government made a decision that they were going to build
Speaker 1: the wall, a high tech steel wall on the southern
Speaker 1: border in two thousand and sixteen, the wall was up.
Speaker 1: Two sixteen, there were eleven illegal immigrants who entered Israel,
Speaker 1: and then they raised the height of the wall additional
Speaker 1: several feet, and in two thousands seventeen there was not
Speaker 1: one illegal immigrant that made it through the southern border
Speaker 1: into Israel. So this is a remarkable works. It works
Speaker 1: from fifty five thousand across this one area into Israel
Speaker 1: to zero. Now I understand that the lib argument here
Speaker 1: as well. It might be fifty five thousand, but what
Speaker 1: if a dozen people get across? Then you could say
Speaker 1: a wall doesn't stop everybody. Yeah, but would you rather
Speaker 1: have fifty five thousand illegal crossings or a dozen or
Speaker 1: five or five hundred or even five thousand. Security is
Speaker 1: about risk mitigation and doing the best you can with
Speaker 1: what you have. We're not doing the best we can
Speaker 1: with what we have. There's one other point, by the way,
Speaker 1: that I wanted to make it that I think often
Speaker 1: escapes the conversation here. You know, when people talk about
Speaker 1: anchor babies, which I know now it's you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to say this anymore. You know, they have different to
Speaker 1: talk about family unification policy, reunification. It's not anchor babies.
Speaker 1: One aspect of this that that does not get talked
Speaker 1: about enough is that you know that when somebody has
Speaker 1: a child in the United States and then they are
Speaker 1: to be deported, even if they are a criminal, meaning
Speaker 1: that they commit a crime here, if they had a
Speaker 1: child in the United States, it's considered a family separation.
Speaker 1: So if you are in America and you are a
Speaker 1: member of a cartel, or you are somebody who's involved
Speaker 1: in drug trafficking at a serious level, and you're supposed
Speaker 1: to be deported from the country by Immigrations and Customs enforcement,
Speaker 1: and you've had a kid in America, guess what. Now,
Speaker 1: the liberal argument is, we can't deport that person because oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, we're separating families. So the anchor isn't just
Speaker 1: for people who are in America and might get deported otherwise, right.
Speaker 1: The anchor then also extends to people who fall into
Speaker 1: the criminal justice system. Now, now the argument is made
Speaker 1: that you can't you can't deport them, you can only
Speaker 1: incarceerate them for whatever their sentence is, because that would
Speaker 1: be that would be breaking apart families. Meanwhile, people that
Speaker 1: gets into prison who are just Americans, those families are
Speaker 1: broken up every day, and Liberals don't shed any big
Speaker 1: tears over that one. So there's a there's a lot
Speaker 1: of dishonesty around this issue. But I saw Tom Holman
Speaker 1: last night, and I always really like this guy. We
Speaker 1: got I gotta chat with them a little bit. We
Speaker 1: always whenever I see him in Fox we have a
Speaker 1: discussion about the border. Here's what he says about things
Speaker 1: play nine. I don't care if you're Republican, a Democrat.
Speaker 1: Every one of those people should want to vote to
Speaker 1: secure the border. There's no downside on securing a border,
Speaker 1: less illegal immigration, less illegal drugs being smuggled. The wallship
Speaker 1: proven they worked back in the early eighties. I was
Speaker 1: a border TLAs standing on the line in San Diego.
Speaker 1: Thousands came through every night. But once they built that
Speaker 1: border barrier, the illegal crossings decreased dramatically. It is proven
Speaker 1: it worked in San Diego, you El Paso. It has
Speaker 1: proven one percent effective. So why would we not want
Speaker 1: a wall because they don't want it to be effective.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know Tom knows that, but that's the truth.
Speaker 1: The problem with the wall is not that it doesn't work.
Speaker 1: The problem that Democrats have with it is that it does,
Speaker 1: which tells you everything you need to know about where
Speaker 1: they really stand on immigration and how they really feel
Speaker 1: about security at our southern border. You've got a lot
Speaker 1: of liberals and a lot of conservatives DS talking about
Speaker 1: maybe there needs to be a breakup of the monopoly
Speaker 1: that these social media companies have because of the ideological
Speaker 1: bias on display. Well that's one option, but you know
Speaker 1: what a better option is, just have a platform where
Speaker 1: you don't have to worry about bias. That's snippy dot Com.
Speaker 1: Thousands of listeners to this show have joined snippy dot
Speaker 1: com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations.
Speaker 1: As Namby's an unbiased social media platform. It's all about
Speaker 1: common versation and community. Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression,
Speaker 1: but it guarantees users the ability to discuss topics freely
Speaker 1: without suppression from administrators. Okay, it is completely free to join.
Speaker 1: You've got nothing to lose here, Just go check it
Speaker 1: out for yourself. Snippy dot com no shadow banning and
Speaker 1: no suppression of conservative thought ever. And now Snippy's got
Speaker 1: an updated user interface and exciting new features. It's available
Speaker 1: in the Apple App Store and available for Android. Snippy
Speaker 1: dot com is your new alternative social media. I would
Speaker 1: love to be able to regulate the content of speech.
Speaker 1: The First Amendment prevents me from doing self, and that's
Speaker 1: simply a function of the First Amendment. But I think
Speaker 1: over the long run, it's better that government does not
Speaker 1: regulate the content of speech. That's a Ted Lou Congressman Lou,
Speaker 1: who you know, is increasingly popular in these progressive commentary
Speaker 1: circles on TV because he's you know, he's a guy
Speaker 1: like to drop the rhetorical bombs. But once again, you
Speaker 1: get liberals here really telling you what's in their heart,
Speaker 1: what's in their mind, what they really think about certain issues,
Speaker 1: and on the speech police situation and the desire of
Speaker 1: social media platforms and college campuses and now corporate America
Speaker 1: to regulate the content of speech. Understand that, you know,
Speaker 1: even when you have a Congressman who's supposed to be
Speaker 1: all about upholding defending the Constitution, they if they're Democrats,
Speaker 1: they would like to be able to tell you what
Speaker 1: you can and can't say. And they have the hubrists
Speaker 1: and the arrogance to believe that they know what's best
Speaker 1: for you to be able to say and not say.
Speaker 1: But they got to kind of admit that there's a
Speaker 1: little problem there with the First Amendment, at least when
Speaker 1: it comes to the government. Yeah, technically the government probably
Speaker 1: shouldn't be doing content, but they they want to be
Speaker 1: in a position to dictate to you. And that totalitarian
Speaker 1: impulse is in and of itself problematic, and you see
Speaker 1: it now operating at so many different levels on the left.
Speaker 1: You see it among people in the government who are
Speaker 1: embracing language language restrictions that are constantly changing too and
Speaker 1: are only becoming more restrictive. Right, we're never told, oh
Speaker 1: you can actually you can talk about that issue. It
Speaker 1: turns out we were wrong and we can have a
Speaker 1: free and open debate about this. No, it's just more
Speaker 1: and more things are being taken off the table, you know,
Speaker 1: more areas of debate and inquiry and discussion are are
Speaker 1: essentially roped off from discourse. This has been going, This
Speaker 1: has been a longstanding project of the left to change
Speaker 1: the way we can talk, to change the way that
Speaker 1: you know, we are allowed to discussion issues because as
Speaker 1: I as I've mentioned you many times, if they can
Speaker 1: determine the words for you. They can largely direct the
Speaker 1: thoughts for you. They can influence debated discussion in ways
Speaker 1: that it's hard to even quantify and really even understand,
Speaker 1: because we're just now automatically the grounds of the discussion
Speaker 1: or are moving toward what they want, toward the policy
Speaker 1: ends that they would prefer. But free speeches under is
Speaker 1: under a very direct assault in this country, and it's
Speaker 1: only going to get worse before it gets better. I mean,
Speaker 1: the social media platforms are obviously a big part of this.
Speaker 1: But you know, Democrats now and you know, by the way,
Speaker 1: this is also you know, I go back and forth
Speaker 1: with what should we do? How do we fight back
Speaker 1: against this? You know, you've had you have sometimes these
Speaker 1: these Hollywood lib types get away with saying really offensive stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, Mika Brazinski just said somebody was
Speaker 1: a blank boy, and you know that that the president
Speaker 1: was acting in this way, and she's not she's not
Speaker 1: gonna fire because she's in tight with MSNBC. I don't
Speaker 1: know why anyone likes that show. Morning Joe. I really
Speaker 1: struggle with what the what the upside of it is.
Speaker 1: But then then you know there are other times and
Speaker 1: people that you think maybe are are above reproach and
Speaker 1: they get can't. You know, then the heart of tyranny,
Speaker 1: and whether it's the tyranny of government or the tyranny
Speaker 1: of a society that is abandoning principles of freedom, abandoning
Speaker 1: principles regarding liberty, the heart of tyranny is not the
Speaker 1: draconian enforcement of regulations, standards, and laws. It's the theckless.
Speaker 1: It's the you know, the the constantly changing. It's the
Speaker 1: capriciousness in the enforcement of laws. It's people saying, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: you know you said that, so you get fired. You
Speaker 1: said something very similar, but you don't get fired because
Speaker 1: you know what that means. The person with all the
Speaker 1: power is the person deciding, the person with that discretion. See,
Speaker 1: it's kind of like what we see with the DOJ
Speaker 1: and the FBI, right, I mean, the big problem is
Speaker 1: not that laws on perjury and processes around investigations are
Speaker 1: too strict. It's that they're only too strict when it
Speaker 1: comes to Republicans, to conservatives, to Trump allies. Well, this
Speaker 1: is obviously politically motivated, and that's why that keeps happening.
Speaker 1: We also see this with the speech police, whether we're
Speaker 1: talking about you know, Kevin Hart, or we're talking about Mikabridginsky.
Speaker 1: You know, there's these different standards that evolve for individuals
Speaker 1: based upon where they fall in the political spectrum, and
Speaker 1: it's just exhausting. I would love for this to be
Speaker 1: the case in this country. I would love for us
Speaker 1: to be in a place where we have some some hope,
Speaker 1: some sense that you know, the the standard will at
Speaker 1: least be uniformly applied when it comes to what's unacceptable
Speaker 1: to say, when it comes to what's far too you
Speaker 1: know what, what's beyond the pale. But you know, we're
Speaker 1: not there. We're not there. And what really separates ideologically,
Speaker 1: what separates a left from the right in the most
Speaker 1: general terms, is they always think that they should be
Speaker 1: the ones in control because they believe that their judgment
Speaker 1: on these matters and their ability to use state power
Speaker 1: to exercise that judgment, that they think that they always
Speaker 1: know what the best way is. It's it's troubling, but
Speaker 1: this is what's going to happen. Um. By the way,
Speaker 1: you know, the speaking of these ABC is going to
Speaker 1: bring back the Connors for season two. The ratings were
Speaker 1: actually good. You know, Roseanne got fired for for you know,
Speaker 1: a racist tweet one one racist tweet, he's out, homophobic
Speaker 1: comment for micause she's not out. You know. Yeah, how
Speaker 1: do you engage these things? Well, it depends on what
Speaker 1: the executive at the time think and how much heat
Speaker 1: they're willing to take. But it looks like they're going
Speaker 1: to bring back that show the Connors, which I think
Speaker 1: is kind of a surprise. John, if did you see it? Mike,
Speaker 1: did you see this? I never saw it. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I don't, I didn't see it. I saw
Speaker 1: the first Roseanne. I did not think the first Roseanne
Speaker 1: was funny. The new one, Noah, Yeah, the first episode
Speaker 1: was okay, it was it was just, you know, it
Speaker 1: felt a little contrived to me, the whole thing. But yeah,
Speaker 1: this is you know, the speech and the way that
Speaker 1: people get judged by these things. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of money, a lot of jobs that can hang
Speaker 1: in the balance on this stuff. So we shall see.
Speaker 1: I gotta talk to you about the Kashogi situation. I
Speaker 1: know we've you know, you got an update on this.
Speaker 1: The Senate has taken an action. It's not important. It's
Speaker 1: an action that won't result in any further action most likely,
Speaker 1: But we've got to get to the heart of what's
Speaker 1: going on here with this foreign policy. Oh and by
Speaker 1: the way, I stumbled into some protesters last night who
Speaker 1: were protesting at a White House official's house, and I
Speaker 1: happen to walk right in the middle of that protest
Speaker 1: and speak to their organizers. I got some exclusive audio
Speaker 1: for you. You are now entering the Freedom Technical Operations Center.
Speaker 1: All sensitive programs must be kept strictly. Need to know
Speaker 1: Team Buck is cleared and ready for the Buck brief.
Speaker 1: Some breaking news. The Senate voted just a couple of
Speaker 1: hours ago, fifty seven to thirty eight to end US
Speaker 1: military involvement in Yemen. As lawmakers are still very very
Speaker 1: upset over the killing of Koshogi and what they say
Speaker 1: is the unacceptable response of the Trump administration to this.
Speaker 1: All right, this like Russia is turning into its own
Speaker 1: form of hysteria and pushing us closer and closer to
Speaker 1: some very bad decision making. I think let's just start
Speaker 1: with this. Jamal Kashogi is not an American citizen, was
Speaker 1: not a citizen, was not a permanent resident. Jamal Kashogi
Speaker 1: was not a US national. This is not one of
Speaker 1: ours who was killed in a foreign consulate, on foreign
Speaker 1: soil by a foreign entity. He's not, And there was
Speaker 1: a lot of lying. I checked into this to make
Speaker 1: sure that the that I have this right, because I
Speaker 1: think it's really important. We were being told for weeks,
Speaker 1: weeks and weeks that he was a Green card holder.
Speaker 1: A Green card holder, which means he's he's a permanent
Speaker 1: resident of America. He could stay here his whole life,
Speaker 1: his kids will be Americans. That is false. He was
Speaker 1: an O one visa holder. He was a visitor to
Speaker 1: this country who wrote a column for the Washington Post. Now,
Speaker 1: none of that mitigates the brutal torture and murder that
Speaker 1: he suffered. That doesn't change anything, but it does affect
Speaker 1: the US responsibility for a major response to this. So
Speaker 1: let's just all be very clear. There was an obvious
Speaker 1: effort early on to create the perception that Kashogi was
Speaker 1: a US person. We need to do more. America need
Speaker 1: to speak up for one of its own here, and
Speaker 1: we need to take decisive action to punish Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: for this, not just to speak out, but but to
Speaker 1: make sure that they feel consequences for it. And only
Speaker 1: now that you've that they've got this cycle of oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, Kashogi, and you know, Kashogi's now part of
Speaker 1: the people that are honored for being Time magazine, you know,
Speaker 1: person of the Year along with and I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to be controversial here, but you know that that newspaper
Speaker 1: in Maryland where there is the mass shooting, they're also
Speaker 1: they're also covered in this Man of the Year or
Speaker 1: a Person of the Year in Time magazine. And they
Speaker 1: weren't killed because of the danger of their journalism assignments.
Speaker 1: This was a personal feud with a psychopath who went
Speaker 1: in and shot them all, and it shot five of them.
Speaker 1: And in essence, this is the equivalent of a postal
Speaker 1: worker who goes in and shoots a bunch of people
Speaker 1: who used to work with or something. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a that was a personal grudge, you know. To
Speaker 1: say that that's a guardians of our democracy situation is
Speaker 1: I think it's a terrible situation. It's a tragedy, but
Speaker 1: I think it's something of a stretch to include that
Speaker 1: and it's a guardian of our democracy. Yeah, they were
Speaker 1: doing their jobs and some of them got shot because
Speaker 1: there was a maniac running around who didn't like some
Speaker 1: of the stories that they had written. But it wasn't
Speaker 1: because they were speaking truth to power. It was just
Speaker 1: a crazy person. But back to Kashogi if I can
Speaker 1: for a moment here, But the Senate has done is
Speaker 1: essentially senatorial virtue signaling. The House has already made it
Speaker 1: clear that they're not going to go ahead with this measure,
Speaker 1: that there's not going to be any real change in
Speaker 1: US foreign policy visa vie the Saudis because of it.
Speaker 1: But they're they're just wanted to get on record, and
Speaker 1: it's because the elites, the establishment inside the Beltway and
Speaker 1: in the media here in America has made the Kashogi
Speaker 1: issue really just a big opportunity to bash Trump, and
Speaker 1: that's why they're so fixated on this. This is why
Speaker 1: Jamal Kashogi is the most famous, well known dissident to
Speaker 1: have been killed by a foreign power by far, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that there are a whole bunch of people
Speaker 1: in recent years who have been killed by Russia, who
Speaker 1: you know, who have been taken out as a result
Speaker 1: of their criticisms of a regime. And it's because there's
Speaker 1: a tie in here where they're able to bash Trump
Speaker 1: and anytime you can bash Trump, journalists get very very
Speaker 1: excited and they're very interested obviously about that opportunity. But
Speaker 1: our policy in Saudi with back in Saudi Arabia and
Speaker 1: specifically the war in Yemen, is that we don't want
Speaker 1: Yemen to fall into the hands of an enemy. And
Speaker 1: that's what would occur. If the Saudis weren't engaged in
Speaker 1: this bombing campaign, you would have the Hoothies, who are
Speaker 1: a Shia faction inside of Yemen who are backed by
Speaker 1: the Iranians. You'd have the Hoothies likely able to seize power.
Speaker 1: You also have a very active Al Qaeda branch in Yemen,
Speaker 1: and we're trying to suppress that and support the legitimate
Speaker 1: government as we see it inside of Yemen, and the
Speaker 1: Saudis are our best proxy for doing that. But this
Speaker 1: is all because of Ira and this is because of
Speaker 1: some very serious interests we have at preventing the southern
Speaker 1: portion of the Arabian Peninsula from effectively becoming a launch
Speaker 1: pad for terrorist attacks. Remember Al Kaeda in the Arabian
Speaker 1: Peninsula was just a few years ago. Consider the most
Speaker 1: active terror franchise at external plotting, meaning coming after the
Speaker 1: US and its interests. Al Kaida and the Arabian Peninsula
Speaker 1: has been behind some very high profile international attacks and
Speaker 1: attempted attacks in Europe and in the United States. So
Speaker 1: we can try to pretend like there's no real US
Speaker 1: interest in what's going on and Yem unfortunate, it's not true.
Speaker 1: And on the humanitarian side, and I'm somebody who has
Speaker 1: been trying to raise the alarm about what's going on
Speaker 1: in Yemen for a long time. We've done segments at
Speaker 1: Hill TV. Look, I'm just gonna tell you this. We
Speaker 1: did a segment five months ago at least on Hill
Speaker 1: TV about the war in Yemen and how it's the
Speaker 1: biggest humanitarian disaster in the world, and it just didn't
Speaker 1: get very much attention. People didn't seem that interested in
Speaker 1: that particular story. And I don't know, I can't Maybe
Speaker 1: we just didn't do a good enough job presenting it.
Speaker 1: I would think that the biggest humanitarian crisis on planet
Speaker 1: Earth would be something a lot of people were interested in.
Speaker 1: But I mean other journals, I mean other people in
Speaker 1: the media who saw us covering that. Not a lot
Speaker 1: a lot of high level at a lot of high
Speaker 1: level interest. And I think in general, there hasn't been
Speaker 1: that much interest until now because now it is look
Speaker 1: at out terrible yemen is. Look at what the Saudis
Speaker 1: are doing. Trump is so nice to the Saudis. This
Speaker 1: is all about bashing Trump. You know. They just keep
Speaker 1: using this kind of transitive property of criticism to eventually
Speaker 1: bring it back to how Trump is the bad guy here.
Speaker 1: You know. I would note that these same journals who
Speaker 1: were writing a lot of stories now about what's going
Speaker 1: on with the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, were pretty muted
Speaker 1: for a long time about the fact that the Obama
Speaker 1: administration presided over a supposed coalition to end the war
Speaker 1: in Syria, which is now killed close to six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people, and there was not a unified voice from
Speaker 1: journalists saying that Obama had failed, despite the fact that
Speaker 1: it was supposed to be US leadership. Remember, we're the
Speaker 1: ones that negotiated with the Assad regime to get the
Speaker 1: chemical weapons out. You know, that was a John Kerry
Speaker 1: Barack Obama move. You know, they were very much involved,
Speaker 1: and the whole thing was a disaster. Syria has just
Speaker 1: been gutted topped to bottom. I mean, Syria is a
Speaker 1: shadow of its former self as a country, and there
Speaker 1: was a lot of just incompetence on a splitting the
Speaker 1: abaministration during that, and it was just it was never
Speaker 1: really Obama's fault, though they never really wanted to say
Speaker 1: that Obama was making bad decisions there. Meanwhile, we're not
Speaker 1: the ones that are bombing Yemen. The Saudis are bombing Yemen.
Speaker 1: But we want the Saudis to be able to back
Speaker 1: the legitimate government in Yemen over rebel groups that are
Speaker 1: proxies for Iran and over all Qaeda. And we're supposed
Speaker 1: to change all that and give up that policy, shift
Speaker 1: around that policy because a foreigner, let's just say it,
Speaker 1: I mean, a foreign journalist was killed in a foreign
Speaker 1: country by a foreign entity, and this is now all
Speaker 1: America's problem. I mean, this guy was not one of ours.
Speaker 1: And so why are we so much more, you know,
Speaker 1: orders of magnitude more upset about this than the journalists
Speaker 1: who are tortured and killed in places like Turkey and
Speaker 1: places like Russia and places all over the world. You
Speaker 1: know what the answer is, It's not about the best
Speaker 1: interests of the American people. It's not about us foreign
Speaker 1: policy and geopolitics. It's about can it be attributed to Trump?
Speaker 1: Is it an opportunity to bash Trump? That's why they're
Speaker 1: so interested in this. It's really gross. You know, I
Speaker 1: do have to ask the question. I've got to keep
Speaker 1: it real. Why does the president have some of these
Speaker 1: just utter bozos from his past that he brought into
Speaker 1: this administration? You know what? It motivates the president to
Speaker 1: do this because there have been some people who Does
Speaker 1: anyone want to make excuses for Amorosa? The President certainly doesn't.
Speaker 1: Does anyone want to make excuses for the much as
Speaker 1: Scaramucci the President? Well, I guess they're on good terms. Now.
Speaker 1: Does anyone want to want to talk about how great
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon is? I mean, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: hear a lot of that. Certainly, I don't hear much
Speaker 1: of it when it comes to Cohen, including from the
Speaker 1: President who says that Cohen is now terrible. So why
Speaker 1: would somebody as terrible as Cohen get as close to
Speaker 1: never mind the President United States, a successful businessman like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Well, good news we got the president to
Speaker 1: give an answer today if we can. Michael Cohen, he
Speaker 1: was your attorney three years. He was sentenced yesterday and
Speaker 1: It may seem like he got a break because it
Speaker 1: could have been twice as much, but it's still three
Speaker 1: years in federal prison, five hundred thousand dollars in restitution.
Speaker 1: This was someone who surreptitiously recorded you is now known
Speaker 1: as a criminal liar. Yet this was someone who was
Speaker 1: in your inner circle. Yeah, well it happens. I mean,
Speaker 1: look what happens. I hire usually good people, but it
Speaker 1: just happened. Why did you hire Michael Cohen? First of all,
Speaker 1: that was his title of very low level work. Why
Speaker 1: did you need more public relations than he did law?
Speaker 1: But he did so. If you'd see him on television,
Speaker 1: he was okay in television. But years ago, many years,
Speaker 1: like twelve thirteen years ago, he did me a favor?
Speaker 1: Did Trump a favor? I've heard this before, and I've
Speaker 1: been wondering when we'll finally get to find out what
Speaker 1: this favor was that got Cohen so deep into the
Speaker 1: President's good graces that he would become he's certainly in
Speaker 1: his inner circle. I mean, he's a guy who was
Speaker 1: very close to the president for a number of years.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody disputes that. So what, in fact
Speaker 1: was this favor? Well, the President told us listen, he
Speaker 1: was on a committee and he was so responsive and
Speaker 1: so good, and I said, he's a nice guy. I
Speaker 1: shouldn't wait a minute, Wait a minute, that was the favor,
Speaker 1: because people have been asking, well, what is the favor
Speaker 1: that he did the president? He was on a committee
Speaker 1: with you. Was on a committee. It was a condominium
Speaker 1: committee many years ago, and he was a very big
Speaker 1: supporter of mine on that committee. I did a great job.
Speaker 1: Trump World Tower to a very tall building right opposite
Speaker 1: the United Nations. And when you build a building, people
Speaker 1: always get together at the end and they make a
Speaker 1: settlement with the owner. They say the ceiling wasn't painted
Speaker 1: the right color or something. You know, stuff sometimes serious stup.
Speaker 1: But in my case, it was a great building and
Speaker 1: he was in the committee. I thought he was a
Speaker 1: great guy. I thought he was really a nice guy
Speaker 1: who was very supportive. You know, I'll say this, when
Speaker 1: you've actually gotten to know somebody and they're not asking
Speaker 1: you for something or that, you're not in a position
Speaker 1: where you feel like they inherently have an interest in
Speaker 1: making you think one thing or another, you often get
Speaker 1: a better sense of who you're dealing with, and you
Speaker 1: feel like you want to bring people into your professional
Speaker 1: life that you know from just life in general. And
Speaker 1: I feel this way in media. The people that i've well,
Speaker 1: certainly people i've worked with in the past. It's a
Speaker 1: little different. People i've worked with in the past are
Speaker 1: if I've had a good experience, the first people that
Speaker 1: I want to work with in the future. And I
Speaker 1: also think that loyalty is a very important trait to have.
Speaker 1: It's also a very important trait to respect, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a very important trait that we should want other
Speaker 1: people to have as well. And to do that means
Speaker 1: that you have to reward people for loyalty. So President
Speaker 1: is not a politician. I mean, I don't think that
Speaker 1: he well he wasn't a politician before he's president, obviously,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that he thought of the people
Speaker 1: that he was bringing in as possible liabilities. I also
Speaker 1: think that there was so little prep in many ways
Speaker 1: for the possibility that he was really going to be
Speaker 1: the next president the United States and leader of the
Speaker 1: free world, that there was a lot of learning on
Speaker 1: the job about who to give certain jobs to. And
Speaker 1: I think that's been quite clearly the case. But I
Speaker 1: go back and forth on this one because I am frustrated.
Speaker 1: I'm frustrated the President has given so much authority and
Speaker 1: so much trust while he's the occupant of the White
Speaker 1: House to just utter Bozo's third tier people when it
Speaker 1: comes to their ethics and their intellects. Honestly, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of them that are really low grade individuals and
Speaker 1: they've been given incredibly powerful positions. So that's been a disappointment.
Speaker 1: And there are disappointments about this presidency. You know, we're
Speaker 1: going to have to start to face up to some
Speaker 1: of the things that aren't what we wanted, aren't what
Speaker 1: was promised. It's not to say that I don't still
Speaker 1: support the President's not to say I'm not still just
Speaker 1: forever grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president. I
Speaker 1: get it. But you know, on this one, on his
Speaker 1: choice of advisors, and I'm not bitter that he hasn't
Speaker 1: given me the chief of staff job. Okay, don't no, No,
Speaker 1: I'm not not bitter, you know, I mean, would I
Speaker 1: be an amazing White House chief of staff, of course,
Speaker 1: of course, But has the President asked me yet? No, No,
Speaker 1: he has not. But seriously, I do think that the
Speaker 1: President gets a bit of leeway as well, or should
Speaker 1: get leeway for wanting to have people around that he
Speaker 1: feels at some level he can really trust because he
Speaker 1: is encircled with enemies all the time. I mean, he
Speaker 1: is besieged in a way that no president in my
Speaker 1: lifetime has ever been. He cannot talk to or trust
Speaker 1: most members of the press, he cannot talk to or
Speaker 1: trust talk openly, at least honestly to many senior government
Speaker 1: officials and people who are career government servants. He has
Speaker 1: to be wary of them, and I think the President
Speaker 1: would be foolish not to be. But yeah, we were
Speaker 1: told that it's because Cohen, you know, a long time
Speaker 1: ago did him a solid when he was on a
Speaker 1: condo board, and that's how it all happened. You know,
Speaker 1: it's you know what is the power of weak associations?
Speaker 1: Sometimes you just bump into somebody and that person changes
Speaker 1: your life for better or war for worse. I think
Speaker 1: with Cohen it's for worse. So we'll continue to follow
Speaker 1: this and got a big our three coming up. I
Speaker 1: bumped into some protesters last night. Yeah, that's right. I
Speaker 1: would they tend to find me or I don't know.
Speaker 1: We just I have a sixth sense about these things.
Speaker 1: But I found one of these, one of these anti
Speaker 1: White House Administration official mobile protests going on last night,
Speaker 1: and I interviewed the protest leader, asked about immigration, asked
Speaker 1: him about what the heck are you doing here? Are
Speaker 1: you harassing people? You'll want to hear that conversation. And
Speaker 1: that's upright in just a few minutes. And I practically
Speaker 1: slipped into a food coma yesterday after I finished off
Speaker 1: some delicious pork chops courtesy of Omaha Steaks. And right now,
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks is giving an amazing limited time offer to
Speaker 1: my listeners. When you go to Omaha Steaks dot com
Speaker 1: and Entercoade Buck into the search bar, you'll get seventy
Speaker 1: four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package originally one
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety five dollars, now only forty nine ninety nine.
Speaker 1: Order now and you'll get four hand cut age to Tendantis,
Speaker 1: top surloin steaks, two Savory Premium pork chops, four chicken
Speaker 1: fried steaks, four Omaha Steaks burgers, four kilbasa saucea just
Speaker 1: all Beef meatballs, potatoes, Zoa grata, apple, tartlets plus four
Speaker 1: more burgers free. I'm telling you it's an incredible package.
Speaker 1: I have it myself. I've almost gotten through my first one.
Speaker 1: I might have to get a second one. That's right.
Speaker 1: This limited time gift package is only forty nine ninety
Speaker 1: nine and you got to Omaha Steaks dot com. Make
Speaker 1: sure you type buck in the search bar and add
Speaker 1: the Family Gift Package to your card. Don't wait, this
Speaker 1: offer is going to end soon. Go to Omaha Steaks
Speaker 1: dot com type buck in the search bar to send
Speaker 1: the Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package today. So last night
Speaker 1: walking home and sure enough I stumble upon a protest
Speaker 1: going on in the streets at DC. It's a funky
Speaker 1: assortment of folks. They are dancing, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: loud music, about thirty or forty protesters in a few
Speaker 1: dozen police following them around as they block the streets
Speaker 1: and generally just make a lot of noise. So I figured, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of a media person, a journal an opinion journalist,
Speaker 1: if you will, maybe I'll stop and ask these folks
Speaker 1: what the heck are you doing here? And this is
Speaker 1: how that went. Mus for us nas sir, and I'm
Speaker 1: the founding organizer of Work for Peace. Okay, let's Worked
Speaker 1: for Peace. Work for Pieces a queer and transgress roots
Speaker 1: movement that uses all forms of dance to promote peace.
Speaker 1: We were founded in response to the Pulse nightclub shooting
Speaker 1: to bring the dance lore into the streets to start
Speaker 1: that we are here and we will dance. And we're
Speaker 1: best known for our dance protests in front of Mike
Speaker 1: Pence's house and Avunca Trump's house. And so why are
Speaker 1: you here right now in this location? So right here
Speaker 1: is the apartment complex where Stephen Miller lives. Stephen Miller, Well,
Speaker 1: would you look at that? I stumbled onto one of
Speaker 1: these protests at the home groups right. These are the
Speaker 1: people or among the people who find out where a
Speaker 1: prominent person that they disagree with politically lives, and they
Speaker 1: gather outside their home and try to make a lot
Speaker 1: of noise at night when they think the person is
Speaker 1: likely to be there. You'll recall this happened and was
Speaker 1: rather aggressive and terrifying outside of Tucker Carlson's home not
Speaker 1: long ago. It's happened in other places. My understanding is
Speaker 1: this isn't even the first time they've done this. To
Speaker 1: White House Senior advisor or senior aid whatever his title is,
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller. They've done this before, although I've never seen
Speaker 1: them doing it like this. Now. Is this group intimidating, No,
Speaker 1: there were police everywhere. This was a group that was
Speaker 1: honestly dancing in the streets. That was their whole thing.
Speaker 1: They're dancing in the streets, but they're playing very loud
Speaker 1: music and they're harassing somebody. So I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: a little more about why they choose these tactics. Remember
Speaker 1: I'm speaking to the organizer of this group. I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask them why they choose these tactics and what
Speaker 1: they think about the issues overall. So strap in, folks,
Speaker 1: it gets interesting. The architect of family separation and the
Speaker 1: architect of using tear gas on migrant families, women and
Speaker 1: children who are at the border with the migrant teara beans.
Speaker 1: So we're here to send a clear message to Stephen
Speaker 1: Millern his immigration policies that he is pioneering are not
Speaker 1: tolerated by our communities. Why following to his house, though,
Speaker 1: why not just protest outside the White House. We're you
Speaker 1: to have higher visibility because some people might think this
Speaker 1: is harassment. Well, we were at the White House and
Speaker 1: then we came to his apartment complex. And when we
Speaker 1: think about harassment, what comes first to mind for me
Speaker 1: is ICE individuals breaking into migrant and refugee households and
Speaker 1: tearing them from their families and putting them in jail.
Speaker 1: What comes to mind is Roxanna, a trans LATINEX individual
Speaker 1: who was kept in ice, dehydrated and beaten by ICE
Speaker 1: officials for ten days before she should we abolishize? Oh,
Speaker 1: just to be clear here, I ask this protest leader
Speaker 1: about whether it's harassment to gather outside the private home
Speaker 1: of somebody who works in the White House in the
Speaker 1: US government, And the response I get is not really
Speaker 1: about whether it's harassment of that person. It's real harassment
Speaker 1: is what ICE does to people at the border. I mean,
Speaker 1: I would just know that this is when people talk
Speaker 1: about what about is m This is a first class,
Speaker 1: a one choice USDA example of what about ism has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with anything that I'm really talking about here.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, you are leading a protest outside of a
Speaker 1: person's home where they are operating their capacities as a
Speaker 1: private citizen, Like I'd like to have dinner and go
Speaker 1: to sleep like a normal person, and you're making a
Speaker 1: lot of noise and you're trying to embarrass them in
Speaker 1: front of the people who live around them. And your
Speaker 1: answer to that as well, they're bad things that happened
Speaker 1: to the border. By the way, to say that Stephen
Speaker 1: Miller is the architect of tear gassing migrants in the border,
Speaker 1: that's false. As we know, the Obama administration used tear
Speaker 1: gas at the border. In fact, tear gas is a
Speaker 1: often used, often used technique of law enforcement for crowd
Speaker 1: control and crowd dispersal. So that has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with Stephen Miller at the border. And the notion of
Speaker 1: or the policy of child separation at the border that
Speaker 1: was occurring under the Obama administration not in the same
Speaker 1: numbers as it has under the under the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: But also you did not have a flood of people
Speaker 1: trying to abuse our system and come across the border
Speaker 1: by the tens of thousands. But then we get into
Speaker 1: a little more of what this guy thinks about policy.
Speaker 1: Get ready for it. We're here to advocate to abolish ice,
Speaker 1: to let them in, and to send a clear message
Speaker 1: to migrants and refugees in the caravan, that we are here,
Speaker 1: we support you, and we will continue to work until
Speaker 1: you are free and you are safe and secure. And
Speaker 1: do you think that we should have open borders? Yes,
Speaker 1: I do. I believe that when we think about the
Speaker 1: reason why borders are in place, when we think about
Speaker 1: US imperialism and how it has desecrated other countries, many
Speaker 1: of these countries from where individuals are coming seeking refuge
Speaker 1: because of US imperialism. The US needs to open reporters.
Speaker 1: It needs to We need to find a safe and
Speaker 1: secure way to support the individuals whom we have marginalized
Speaker 1: as the US population. All Right, A lot of big
Speaker 1: takeaways here. This is an interesting conversation with this guy. Now,
Speaker 1: I yes, he's a liberal loon. I will say he was.
Speaker 1: He was very polite. He let me stop. I said,
Speaker 1: I work for the Hill. I'd like to ask him
Speaker 1: some questions, and he was perfectly polite to me, and
Speaker 1: everybody there was kind of smiling and laughing. So you know,
Speaker 1: I always come to you from a place of honesty. Right.
Speaker 1: If I saw a bunch of menacing thug like you know,
Speaker 1: jerks assembled outside, I mean these were like nice, happy, smiley,
Speaker 1: silly jerks. They were not menacing, They were not in
Speaker 1: any way trying to intimidate anybody. I mean they were
Speaker 1: they were actually dancing in the streets with rainbow flags
Speaker 1: and rainbow colored clothing on. So and I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody was scared, but I also think that it was
Speaker 1: causing a bit of a disturbance. Anyway, Here's a guy
Speaker 1: who has, as far as I under stand it, gathered
Speaker 1: many times, and this is one of the things that
Speaker 1: he does. He's an activist, he's a left wing activist,
Speaker 1: and primarily on the issue of immigration. I noticed how
Speaker 1: when I ask him about open borders, he doesn't miss
Speaker 1: a beat. Yes, absolutely, we want open borders. When I
Speaker 1: asked him about whether ice should be abolished, he doesn't
Speaker 1: miss a beat. Absolutely, we should abolish ice. Now, these
Speaker 1: are positions that are increasingly common and widespread within the
Speaker 1: modern Democrat party. These are not really fringe positions anymore.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they're majority positions, but they're not fringe.
Speaker 1: You can find plenty of Democrats for whom this is
Speaker 1: the case. And I found most interesting that this guy,
Speaker 1: immediately when I asked him about open borders, he says, yes,
Speaker 1: we should have open borders. You've heard me tell you
Speaker 1: this before, that the left believes that we owe it
Speaker 1: to the world that we owe to the rest of
Speaker 1: the world, bring them into our country, changing our culture
Speaker 1: to accommodate them, changing our laws to accommodate them, and
Speaker 1: giving them our stuff via the welfare state, because of
Speaker 1: all the injustice that the United States has done around
Speaker 1: the world over the many, many decades, all the wrongs
Speaker 1: that we have committed. You see, it's to make up
Speaker 1: for colonialism, even though America was never a colonial power,
Speaker 1: but to make up for the legacy of Western imperialism,
Speaker 1: the mantle of which was taken from Great Britain and
Speaker 1: by the United States after the Second World War. So
Speaker 1: that's the mentality that's at the heart of a lot
Speaker 1: of this left wing activist thinking. And you're hearing a
Speaker 1: left wing activists just say it, right, he's just coming
Speaker 1: out and saying it, Yeah, that's right. We have to
Speaker 1: take in all these margarets. Anyone wants to come to
Speaker 1: America should be able to come to America because we
Speaker 1: owe it to them because of all the bad things
Speaker 1: we've done. This is very similar to the Obama point
Speaker 1: of view about how we have to make amends with
Speaker 1: the rest of the world, and we should limit the
Speaker 1: way that we use our power to our influence because
Speaker 1: of all the bad stuff America is done. Do you
Speaker 1: think that the Democratic Party is in line with your
Speaker 1: thinking on this? Do you think you'll have a candidate
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty that will be pro open borders? Should
Speaker 1: they just be honest about this. We're here to push
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party to continue fighting for justice and to
Speaker 1: continue fighting for safety and security for migrants and refugees.
Speaker 1: Do you have any concerns that following people to their
Speaker 1: homes to protest at night when they're not at their
Speaker 1: places of work is shutting down discussion, could be seen
Speaker 1: as intimidation, could be actually hurting your cause. We're here
Speaker 1: to celebrate the queer entrance community. We're here to celebrate
Speaker 1: migrants and refugees. Now, put aside the silliness of a
Speaker 1: lot of what this guy says and his inability to
Speaker 1: answer some pretty straightforward questions. He is in line with
Speaker 1: the Democrat base. He is in line with how they
Speaker 1: think about these things. This is where the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: is going. Open borders, abolish ice. We owe it to
Speaker 1: the rest of the world who cares what happens to America.
Speaker 1: So in that sense, this protest was useful because I
Speaker 1: got to see how crazy they are. Well, the weather
Speaker 1: outside may be frightful, but the smell indoors is delightful.
Speaker 1: If you are drinking some delicious Black Rifle coffee, My friends,
Speaker 1: this is your cup of joe. If you love America,
Speaker 1: freedom and all the good stuff about this country, and
Speaker 1: you support veterans in the process. By the way, I'm
Speaker 1: all about Black Rifle Coffee. You should be to get
Speaker 1: yourself the gift of delicious coffee delivered to your front door,
Speaker 1: or get it as a gift for a friend of yours.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee makes it easy with their coffee club. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is the best tasting, most energizing coffee you can get.
Speaker 1: And they offer three, six and twelve months prepaid and
Speaker 1: pay as he goes subscriptions and you can gift them
Speaker 1: for somebody. So on a cool, interesting gift for the
Speaker 1: holiday to give to somebody that you know they're gonna love.
Speaker 1: And it's easy for you to set up Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: Go to Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and you'll
Speaker 1: see fifteen percent off your order, sign somebody else up
Speaker 1: for the coffee club, or sign yourself up again black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck. We do not live in
Speaker 1: charitable times when it comes to public discourse. I think
Speaker 1: we could all agree on that we do not see
Speaker 1: a lot of people acting with mercy and forgiveness in
Speaker 1: the way that they approach others in public life. And
Speaker 1: it's it's particularly pointed these days in the era of
Speaker 1: Get Trump at all costs. There you had a couple
Speaker 1: of hosts on the View who were really having a
Speaker 1: good laugh at the expense of Michael Cohen and saying
Speaker 1: he's a thog just like his boss, of course, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and that you know, karma is a B word, and
Speaker 1: you heard it, and they were the only ones. There
Speaker 1: was a lot of jubilation yesterday on social media from
Speaker 1: people that were just having a good laugh at the
Speaker 1: fact that Michael Cohen's going to prison. Now. It goes
Speaker 1: without saying that Michael Cohen is a individual who is
Speaker 1: ethically challenged, somebody who clearly was well beyond his skill
Speaker 1: set when it came to where he was in terms
Speaker 1: of access and influence, somebody who is not a model
Speaker 1: for any of us to follow, and he is paying
Speaker 1: a pretty hefty price, literally in the sense that he's
Speaker 1: getting a big fine, and also that he will lose
Speaker 1: three years of his life and his reputation is destroyed
Speaker 1: and ruined. But I try to always be mindful of
Speaker 1: the fact that, you know, these political disputes that we have,
Speaker 1: when we turn it into a matter of cheering for
Speaker 1: one side or the other to have people and to prison,
Speaker 1: we really debase ourselves in the process. I try very
Speaker 1: hard not to do this. I'm reminded of a story
Speaker 1: that was told to me many years ago by I
Speaker 1: wouldn't even call him a friend. He was an associate
Speaker 1: of mine in New York and he was not a
Speaker 1: nice guy. He was not somebody that I wanted to
Speaker 1: spend much time with or around. But he was one
Speaker 1: of those friend of a friend guys that would just
Speaker 1: end up hanging around. And this is when we were
Speaker 1: I suppose a few years out of college and he
Speaker 1: was in law school, and he told me about how
Speaker 1: he had spent some time down at the at the
Speaker 1: Federal courthouse in New York City, and I forget even
Speaker 1: the specific context of what it was that he was
Speaker 1: saying and how it was that this, but essentially said
Speaker 1: that he was down there for the defense of a
Speaker 1: guy who was on trial for insider trading, stock market fraud,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing, and he said that showing up
Speaker 1: to this trial, we thought the whole time because everyone's
Speaker 1: wearing a suit and you're in a courtroom, and there's
Speaker 1: a certain normalcy that seeps in when you're in that courtroom.
Speaker 1: You know, this is just what people are doing, and
Speaker 1: it's easy to forget the stakes and everyone goes home
Speaker 1: at the end of the proceeding and it just seems
Speaker 1: like it's a process. It's a process. But I remember
Speaker 1: he told me that at the end of that process
Speaker 1: there was a guilty verdict and this guy ended up
Speaker 1: or maybe even he took the plea, and it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: He was it was clear at the end of the
Speaker 1: process that the defendant was going to prison for some
Speaker 1: period of time. And this friend of mine told me
Speaker 1: about how he heard and he will never forget it,
Speaker 1: or this associate of mine that he heard the wife
Speaker 1: just start sobbing, sobbing at the recognition that she was
Speaker 1: going to be separated from her husband for a few years,
Speaker 1: sosabbing at the recognition that her family name would never
Speaker 1: be quite the same that somebody that she had partnered
Speaker 1: up with for life and had children with. There were
Speaker 1: kids in this family too, that they had suffered this fate.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's not a trial where people at
Speaker 1: the end feel like, yeah, that's right, justice is done.
Speaker 1: This person is a terrible person. People get into desperate
Speaker 1: circumstances and they cheat on their taxes. People get into
Speaker 1: desperate circumstances and they engage in insider training or some
Speaker 1: kind of a white collar crime, you name it. And
Speaker 1: I do think that we need to separate in our
Speaker 1: minds those who have truly victimized individuals, people who are
Speaker 1: violent criminals, people who have stolen from individuals, and those
Speaker 1: who have scammed the system. It's not to say that
Speaker 1: scamming the system is okay, but it's different. And we
Speaker 1: know this, We intuitively know this, that a mass murderer
Speaker 1: is very different from an insurance fraud scamster. Right, these
Speaker 1: are very different. You could sit down and I'm reminded
Speaker 1: of a Christopher Hitchins once said that he had a
Speaker 1: test for people who had a prior record. You know
Speaker 1: that you could sit down with somebody and if they said, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I spent some time and to spend some
Speaker 1: time in the slammer because embezzled some money from my company,
Speaker 1: he says, all right, well you paid your dues and
Speaker 1: sure enough you've come out and I hope you've reformed
Speaker 1: your ways. But you'd continue having lunch if you sat
Speaker 1: down with somebody like that. If you sat down you
Speaker 1: found out that somebody was engaged in, you know, child
Speaker 1: sex trafficking, or was a rapist or a murderer, you
Speaker 1: probably wouldn't continue the lunch and would want to get
Speaker 1: the heck out of there. That's the obvious way of
Speaker 1: separating out the degree and severity of crimes. We all
Speaker 1: know there's a degree in severity. And I think that
Speaker 1: there's way too much celebration in our current moment from
Speaker 1: the Democrats and a lot of anti Trump Republicans of
Speaker 1: people who are having their lives ruined, I mean, their
Speaker 1: life savings wiped out for process crimes, for crimes that
Speaker 1: are not the kind of thing that make anyone a
Speaker 1: bad person. They just make a mistake. You know, no
Speaker 1: one's dying of a drug overdose. No one's losing their
Speaker 1: life or their future because you know, Michael Cohen didn't
Speaker 1: didn't pay all of his taxes to the State of
Speaker 1: New York or something. That's just not happening. And that's
Speaker 1: not to say that he's a good guy and he
Speaker 1: shouldn't pay a price. But I do think that those
Speaker 1: who celebrate this, who take a position of glee at
Speaker 1: the suffering of others, should be very troubled by their conduct.
Speaker 1: And there's way too much of that right now with
Speaker 1: anyone associated with Trump. I mean, people are celebrating what
Speaker 1: happened to Michael, and that happened in front of his
Speaker 1: wife and in front of his kids, that happened in
Speaker 1: front of people who have known him. And yeah, I
Speaker 1: even love the guy. I mean I don't know him,
Speaker 1: but you know he has people who count on him
Speaker 1: and love him. And he's not going to prison for
Speaker 1: three years, which is not an insignificant amount of time.
Speaker 1: General Flynn, do you ever think that after thirty years
Speaker 1: of serving his country, being part of special operations in
Speaker 1: Iraq Afghanistan at the top of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
Speaker 1: do you think that he would be begging a court
Speaker 1: not to send him to prison, and for what exactly,
Speaker 1: what's the crime that Flynn supposedly committed, misfremembering a phone
Speaker 1: call that wasn't criminal in the first place, and for
Speaker 1: that you can have your reputation on your life ruined.
Speaker 1: I just ask that we all be a little contemplative
Speaker 1: about this, and that we remember that those who run
Speaker 1: around celebrating at the misfortune of Trump associates are, if
Speaker 1: nothing else, completely abandoning any thing resembling a holiday spirit.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a time of the year, as
Speaker 1: we get into Christmas and we get into the New year,
Speaker 1: where you think about mercy and forgiveness, and this is
Speaker 1: a country that is in need of a restoration of
Speaker 1: those ideas. Right now. There is far too much desire
Speaker 1: to see the other, to see your opponents destroyed, when
Speaker 1: really we should be thinking about how we can all
Speaker 1: be better and do better for each other. So Merry
Speaker 1: Christmas and goodwill to all, But not from the view.
Speaker 1: Apparently she's back with her first public statement since the
Speaker 1: effort to destroy Brett Cavanaugh with an avalanche of lies.
Speaker 1: Doctor or Professor of Psychology PhD. Christine Blasi Ford is
Speaker 1: now presenting Awards for Sports Illustrated. Listen, I am honored
Speaker 1: to speak with you from far about a woman I
Speaker 1: admire so much, A woman who suffered abuse as a
Speaker 1: vulnerable teenaged athlete, who found the courage to talk publicly
Speaker 1: to stop the abuse of others. Her courage inspired other
Speaker 1: survivors to end their silence, and we all know the result.
Speaker 1: Rachel Den Hollander. I am in awe of you, and
Speaker 1: I will always be inspired by you and stepping forward.
Speaker 1: You took a huge risk, and you galvanized future generations
Speaker 1: to come forward even when the odds are seemingly stacked
Speaker 1: against them. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome this year's Sports
Speaker 1: Illustrated Inspiration of the Year, Rachel Den Hollander. Now this
Speaker 1: situation does not surprise me at all. In fact, I
Speaker 1: was arguing with people last summer that this is exactly
Speaker 1: where we would be. There are a number of important
Speaker 1: takeaways here. First of all, you will recall that it
Speaker 1: was a widely used talking point during the effort to
Speaker 1: destroy Brett Kavanaugh that this woman has nothing to gain.
Speaker 1: That's what they kept saying, nothing to gain from coming forward,
Speaker 1: and people like me on this show and elsewhere we're saying, really,
Speaker 1: because Anita Hill had nothing to gain other than being
Speaker 1: considered a hero for women's rights and womanhood for all eternity,
Speaker 1: for getting speaking gigs and book deals and having movies
Speaker 1: made about what a hero she is, I'd say that's
Speaker 1: a lot to gain. And it was just obvious as
Speaker 1: soon as Christina Blasi Ford came forward with this that
Speaker 1: she was also going to benefit from the massive system
Speaker 1: in place that's there specifically to prop up and reward
Speaker 1: those who do the bid of the left. And now
Speaker 1: that she's presenting awards for Sports Illustrated as well as
Speaker 1: being considered for she was considered, I believe for Time
Speaker 1: Magazine Person of the Year. She definitely is on Time
Speaker 1: magazines cover for the month of December, so she's on
Speaker 1: the cover of magazines. She is lionized. She has treated
Speaker 1: like a hero, a truth teller when there is still
Speaker 1: and this is where I get to the other component
Speaker 1: of this no evidence to back up anything that she said.
Speaker 1: In fact, what we know from the career sex crimes
Speaker 1: prosecutor who interviewed her in Congress, there would not have
Speaker 1: even been enough based on what she had to share,
Speaker 1: Based on the information that Christine Blasi Ford gave to
Speaker 1: affect and arrest of Brett Kavanaugh today, never mind taking
Speaker 1: it to this level of well, we have to believe her.
Speaker 1: This woman has a right to be believed. I would
Speaker 1: also note, does the woman who's accusing Keith Ellison have
Speaker 1: a right to be believed? No, of course not. Keith
Speaker 1: Ellison as a Democrat, and he's an African American and
Speaker 1: he's in a different category for the left than other
Speaker 1: guys who get accused. What about Michael Lavanatti himself? Does
Speaker 1: his accuser of felony domestic abuse have a right to
Speaker 1: be believed? Now? The right to be believed line only
Speaker 1: gets trotted out when it benefits Democrats. And I would
Speaker 1: note that none of this with Christine Lazzie Ford now
Speaker 1: is surprising. You see what they've done is they've created
Speaker 1: They're creating this image, this brand around her as a survivor,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to treat her as a survivor. When
Speaker 1: I think that she was highly politically motivated to make
Speaker 1: the allegations that she did. There's no evidence of support
Speaker 1: the allegation that she brought forward. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of inconsistencies and massive holes in her story. But she's
Speaker 1: going to attach herself now to real survivors like Den Hollander,
Speaker 1: people who were sexually abused, to a rape who are assaulted,
Speaker 1: because in doing so, she is the spokes person for
Speaker 1: those who are survivors. And if you call into question
Speaker 1: her authenticity in that role, the left will of course say,
Speaker 1: are you downplaying the people that she's speaking for. You know,
Speaker 1: she is attaching herself to this movement and putting herself
Speaker 1: at the forefront of this movement, and what you are
Speaker 1: seeing now is just the beginning of that effort. There's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot more. Christine Blassie Ford is
Speaker 1: now a left wing celebrity, and this was entirely predictable.
Speaker 1: In fact, I predicted it. I know many of you
Speaker 1: knew the same thing that she would be for decades
Speaker 1: to come. Your kids will be watching movies, however, whatever
Speaker 1: channel they watched them on. Your kids in ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen years will be watching a movie where Christine Blassie
Speaker 1: Ford is played by the most beautiful actress of our era,
Speaker 1: and she's a heroine for all time, standing up against
Speaker 1: the evil you know, rapist frat boy Brett Kavanaugh and
Speaker 1: all the white male privilege. He said, that's what's going
Speaker 1: to happen, and it was obvious, and we called it.
Speaker 1: And I would just note that the people who were
Speaker 1: saying that wasn't going to happen. I think we should
Speaker 1: be at a point now where you can say, we
Speaker 1: don't have to listen to their opinions on these matters.
Speaker 1: They're obviously not very good analysts. Nothing to gain. They
Speaker 1: said of Blasi Ford, that was a lie, and it
Speaker 1: was an obvious lie. But at the time it was
Speaker 1: useful because it managed to take some of the ferocity
Speaker 1: out of the argument that this was all a setup,
Speaker 1: that this was all a hit, that Christine Blazzi Ford
Speaker 1: is either a delusional, damaged person or just a vicious liar.
Speaker 1: There's only one of two options, and she's one of them.
Speaker 1: But they're treating her like she's a hero. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: the show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Roll call is the best call, because there ain't no
Speaker 1: call like the roll call. Facebook dot Com slash buck
Speaker 1: Sexton and let's get right to it. Eric says buck
Speaker 1: I found this very interesting, a body language take on
Speaker 1: the wall discussion between Trump Pelosi, pants and Schumer. On
Speaker 1: a side note to chime in on your best voice.
Speaker 1: Clearly some people don't listen to the Stansbury Investor Hour
Speaker 1: because clearly, Arianna Huffington is your best impression. L Ol.
Speaker 1: Shields High, Darling, thank you so much for the kind wire.
Speaker 1: It's about Arianna. She wants you to make sure that
Speaker 1: you stretch, that you get all of your macros, and
Speaker 1: you eat vegan and do yoga because this is all
Speaker 1: the great CEOs of the twenty first century are very limber.
Speaker 1: It's important to be limber. Arianna has a lot of
Speaker 1: good advice for you. Steve right Hey, Buck outstanding show
Speaker 1: as usual, Well, Steve, outstanding message as usual. Just catch
Speaker 1: a gump on Wednesday's podcast. I love the guests today,
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy, Louie Gomert. A thought just occurred to me.
Speaker 1: Is it possible for the President to direct the Army
Speaker 1: Corps of Engineer Engineers to inspect and document the entire
Speaker 1: southern border wall? Just seems like that would be a
Speaker 1: great start with notations of weak spots along the border.
Speaker 1: As always, love the show, Shields way High, Well, Steve,
Speaker 1: it would be a good idea. I think that the
Speaker 1: Army Corps of Engineers check out the border at Also,
Speaker 1: we'd have to keep in mind that much of the
Speaker 1: border doesn't have any wall or any fencing, So, you know,
Speaker 1: we got we gotta be clear on that one, right,
Speaker 1: there's most of the border is not in fact covered
Speaker 1: by a fence or wall of any kind. And as
Speaker 1: to how quickly it could happen, keep in mind that
Speaker 1: there are some areas of the border where it's very
Speaker 1: hard to cross. Regardless, there's some places where there's already
Speaker 1: a natural barrier, or you're just going through a lot
Speaker 1: of desert, and they have in place, you know, sensors
Speaker 1: in border patrol in some ways of trying to catch you.
Speaker 1: But there are other areas that are most highly trafficked.
Speaker 1: So you would start with the most highly trafficked areas
Speaker 1: of the border, and then you would make your way
Speaker 1: from that to the lesser trafficked areas of the border.
Speaker 1: I mean. Representative Jim Jordan, for example, shared the following
Speaker 1: facts via Twitter yesterday. Walls work, These facts don't lie.
Speaker 1: Israel illegal immigration down ninety nine percent, San Diego sector
Speaker 1: of hard order down ninety two percent, El Paso down
Speaker 1: ninety five, Tucson down ninety percent, Yuma down ninety five percent.
Speaker 1: Let's build the border security wall. I have yet to
Speaker 1: hear a serious counter argument to this. I've yet to
Speaker 1: hear people say anything in terms of an argument other
Speaker 1: than just well, don't work while don't work. Well, you
Speaker 1: can chant it and you can yell at libs, but
Speaker 1: that does not make it true. So there you have it.
Speaker 1: Adamola Adaramola, Yeah, Adaramola writes, Hi, how is you well? Adamola?
Speaker 1: I think you're a bot or a computer program from
Speaker 1: a foreign country that is trying to engage me in
Speaker 1: a Facebook discussion. So I will just write back to you,
Speaker 1: I is fine, and please take me to your leader
Speaker 1: because you're a bot, because you're not actually somebody I
Speaker 1: think who listens to the show. That is my guess.
Speaker 1: I've had plenty, plenty of boats, unfortunately, get into the Facebook.
Speaker 1: But it's sometimes kind of funny because in real time
Speaker 1: I read them and I go, oh, that's a bot.
Speaker 1: James writes, he sent me a link, so that's not
Speaker 1: a good one. Andrea writes, for your mom, I show
Speaker 1: this to every class I teach. It's Swan Lake but
Speaker 1: with acrobatic twist, and it's Great Chinese State Circus Swan Lake, Andrea,
Speaker 1: I will send that to my mom. You apparently listen
Speaker 1: to the show very very closely, because yes, my mom
Speaker 1: was a professional ballet not belly some of you heard
Speaker 1: me say belly ballet dancer with American Ballet Theater, one
Speaker 1: of the premier, if not the premier ballet companies in
Speaker 1: the country. That was some time ago, and since then
Speaker 1: she's just been the greatest mom in the country. But
Speaker 1: I will certainly send this link on over to her.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, Rachel writes, Buck, with everything you talked
Speaker 1: about with Andy McCarthy tonight pretending to Flynn, it just
Speaker 1: seems like they were trying to entrap him. I'm no
Speaker 1: lawyer and may not know the parameters of entrapment. Can
Speaker 1: you explain why this is not an issue? No, Rachel,
Speaker 1: I think you're right. In fact, the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: editorial the Flynn in Trap pretty much says it they
Speaker 1: they were trying to get this guy. They were not
Speaker 1: doing this in good faith to have a discussion. Look
Speaker 1: that there are two pretexts that they used to try
Speaker 1: and get to excuse sending over what was essentially a
Speaker 1: criminal probe to speak to the incoming national security advisor
Speaker 1: and make sure that it seemed like it was no
Speaker 1: big deal so he wouldn't have a lawyer. There. One
Speaker 1: is the Logan Act, which is preposterous. You're going to
Speaker 1: charge an incoming national security advisor with a law that
Speaker 1: has never in the history of the United States sent
Speaker 1: anyone to prison. I think one time a charge is
Speaker 1: brought under the Logan Act and the person was found
Speaker 1: not guilty, and it was in the nineteenth century. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous, And the fact that people in the
Speaker 1: government would even bring it up just goes to show
Speaker 1: you they're desperate to find some excuse for this. And
Speaker 1: the other one is this notion of a counterintelligence threat
Speaker 1: or a blackmail threat to Flynn. Essentially that the Russians
Speaker 1: could have said, will you must tell us everything you'll
Speaker 1: know about all the secrets, because otherwise we will tell
Speaker 1: the American people that you told them something not true
Speaker 1: about an unimportant conversation with Giseliek. Guess what nobody would
Speaker 1: care if Flynn could just say, whatever I tell people,
Speaker 1: I misremembered it wasn't an important conversation. You know. If
Speaker 1: if let me put it, you this way, if the
Speaker 1: incoming National Security advisor, if General Flynn had a conversation
Speaker 1: with the Russians in which he said I had I
Speaker 1: had corn flakes for breakfast yesterday, and in fact he
Speaker 1: had Coco puffs. You know, technically that's not true. Nobody
Speaker 1: would care, though, So the Russians don't have something on him.
Speaker 1: There's no criminal act him speaking to them about foreign
Speaker 1: policy at policy was not criminal, Okay, the whole idea.
Speaker 1: And Sally Yates, who I think escapes way way more
Speaker 1: easily from the blame here than she should in terms
Speaker 1: of the public recognition of her role in this. She
Speaker 1: was one of these people is pushing this. Look she's
Speaker 1: a little Democrat, a little hall monitor democrat statist who
Speaker 1: didn't like Trump, didn't like his people, and had devoted
Speaker 1: her whole life to being a little DOJ bureaucrat, and
Speaker 1: you wanted to find a way to get these guys,
Speaker 1: and she did. And she remember she's the one who
Speaker 1: also wouldn't wouldn't execute the order that Trump gave when
Speaker 1: she was acting attorney general. I mean, the fact that
Speaker 1: that woman was acting attorney general should be jaw dropping
Speaker 1: to people. Look at these individuals at the top of
Speaker 1: the DOJ, top of FBI. Look at this, Komi, McCabe, Yates, Struck.
Speaker 1: These people are acting terribly, terribly when it comes to
Speaker 1: their abuse of power and the use of their discretion.
Speaker 1: And these are the most important people to Dogen the FBI.
Speaker 1: These aren't just random people that we tried it out
Speaker 1: from nowhere. They were the ones running these investigations. They
Speaker 1: were the ones making these decisions. They're terrible. I really
Speaker 1: betrayed the public trust and they're partisans and because they're
Speaker 1: not honest about that fact, they're also liars and what
Speaker 1: they're doing is dishonest and they're destroying people. I have
Speaker 1: no respect none for Yates, for Komy, for Struck from
Speaker 1: a cabe. These people have profaned the institutions that they
Speaker 1: supposedly represented and worked for. Diane writes, Buck, thanks for
Speaker 1: enlightening all of us in the hut. Are the Pelosian
Speaker 1: Schumer homes surrounded by fences or more importantly walls. If so,
Speaker 1: why I literally don't see either of them capable of
Speaker 1: delivering policy beyond do as I say and not as
Speaker 1: I do shield Hie Diane, Yeah, walls obviously work, and
Speaker 1: this idea that walls don't work is just preposterous, and
Speaker 1: I mean it's really it's embarrassing that people even say this.
Speaker 1: It's so stupid. But it's just one of these It's
Speaker 1: like saying we're a nation of immigrants. No, we're not.
Speaker 1: Most of us were born here. We're not a nation
Speaker 1: of immigrants. This is just not true. I mean, and
Speaker 1: if you're gonna say, well, over the course of our history,
Speaker 1: well then all nations are nations of immigrants. People come
Speaker 1: and go, there are migrations. I mean, it's just a
Speaker 1: stupid thing that people say, or that immigrants do the
Speaker 1: jobs Americans won't do well. Americans would do any job
Speaker 1: if the pay was right, pretty much any legal, you know,
Speaker 1: decent job that where the pay was right. But if
Speaker 1: you bring in low wage, low skilled workers to undercut
Speaker 1: which you're gonna pay Americans and by the way, pay
Speaker 1: them off the books, then yeah, they won't do those jobs.
Speaker 1: As to the walls, I mean, this is it's just stupid.
Speaker 1: It's just not a smart, it's not an intelligent position
Speaker 1: that the Left holds on this. But you know, they
Speaker 1: managed to get away with it, and you know they're
Speaker 1: they're a slippery bunch on the left, so we got
Speaker 1: to hold them to account. Eric I am not Oss,
Speaker 1: but became impressed with you on Real News on the
Speaker 1: Blaze TV and have been following you since those days. WHOA, thanks, Eric,
Speaker 1: I think I figured out some aspects of the Facebook algorithm.
Speaker 1: The more people interact with posts on a Facebook page,
Speaker 1: the more people will see it. So if people see
Speaker 1: a post and feel the message is important, they need
Speaker 1: to like and post and add comments this more people.
Speaker 1: The more people do this, the more eyeballs will see it.
Speaker 1: Shields high well. Eric, I can tell you that you
Speaker 1: are correct and that interactions with a Facebook post are
Speaker 1: a very important component of that Facebook post having reach
Speaker 1: and you know, shares comments like so for those of
Speaker 1: you who see things that I post, and also when
Speaker 1: you talk to each other on posts on Facebook, that
Speaker 1: helps us get the message out. And if you're listening
Speaker 1: to the show and you have not already, please do
Speaker 1: follow our Facebook page Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: It's a way to communicate with all of you. You
Speaker 1: can send me messages. I post there as often as
Speaker 1: I can, and it's a kind of a central gathering
Speaker 1: point for many members of Team Buck that is going
Speaker 1: to be how we close it out today, Excited for
Speaker 1: little Freestyle Friday tomorrow. Until then you have your orders
Speaker 1: Shields high Sni double Py, My friends. Snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: This is the new social media site you've heard me
Speaker 1: talking about here on the show. I just was posting yesterday.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna post later today too. Snippy dot com is
Speaker 1: a place where you can have unfettered, unrestricted conversation and
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about anti conservative bias. Thousands of
Speaker 1: my listeners have joined snippy dot com. They're expressing their
Speaker 1: opinions and stirring up lively conversations. You know, if you
Speaker 1: look at snippy dot com a few months ago, you
Speaker 1: need to go back and check it out again because
Speaker 1: they've done all kinds of awesome updates and if you
Speaker 1: care about politics, sports, current events, food, fashion, really anything,
Speaker 1: you're gonna find a lively chat on snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: No shadow banning, no suppression of conservative thought ever. And
Speaker 1: they've got an updated user interface and exciting new features too.
Speaker 1: It's available in the Apple App Store and for Android.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com free to join, folks. This is a
Speaker 1: free product I'm telling you about here. Just go check
Speaker 1: it out. Snippy dot com s n i p p
Speaker 1: y