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: Make no mistake, you're a great American. Again the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is Harlan Hill back in filling in for Buck
Speaker 1: while he's on a signment down at the border. And
Speaker 1: as always I want to thank him for trusting me
Speaker 1: with him his microphone. Tonight and on this Tuesday, the
Speaker 1: fifteenth of January twenty nineteen. God do we have a
Speaker 1: lot of ground to cover. There's lots of breaking news
Speaker 1: from the confirmation hearing on the Hill today for the
Speaker 1: incoming Attorney General William Barr, to this critical Brexit vote
Speaker 1: and much more. I mean, this week and this year
Speaker 1: really is off to a blistering start. But to start
Speaker 1: the show, I wanted to address the Democrats who elected
Speaker 1: to go to Puerto Rico to play on the beach
Speaker 1: and drink with lobbyists instead of getting to work for you,
Speaker 1: instead of working to get the government back up and running.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk to them directly. Shame on you, guys,
Speaker 1: Shame on you guys. President Trump, the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, has been sitting in the Oval office through
Speaker 1: the holidays. He didn't go spend time with his family.
Speaker 1: He didn't leave Washington like you guys did through the
Speaker 1: new year too, well, Yo, were gallivan all over the country.
Speaker 1: Are you kidding me? You guys are still doing it.
Speaker 1: You're going to Puerto Rico on the beach. I'm thinking
Speaker 1: of syndatam Anendez, that criminal on the beach hanging out
Speaker 1: with that blond boy. I'm sure you guys saw the pictures.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy's out of control. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you've read anything about him, you know at least she
Speaker 1: was of age. While they're playing politics, while these Democrats
Speaker 1: are playing politics politics, they just want to blame the
Speaker 1: president for this shutdown entirely, while they won't make the
Speaker 1: smallest compromise, These congressional Democrats won't the smallest compromise to
Speaker 1: get this thing back up and running again, to get
Speaker 1: eight hundred thousand Americans, eight hundred thousand government workers their paychecks,
Speaker 1: including TSA workers, including air traffic controllers, including Secret Service agents.
Speaker 1: They're playing politics with these people's lives, all while they
Speaker 1: blame the President who's sitting there waiting, and even today
Speaker 1: Congressional Democrats refuse. They're boycotting meeting at the White House.
Speaker 1: They don't want to talk about it anymore. All he's
Speaker 1: wanting is a measly five billion dollars. And in the
Speaker 1: context of all the money that Democrats just flushed down
Speaker 1: the drain all the time and have for decades, they
Speaker 1: can't cough this up for a real solution to a
Speaker 1: crisis at the border. Are you kidding me? I'm sure
Speaker 1: we'll get a lot of footage and Buck will have
Speaker 1: a lot of firsthand experience about what it's like down there,
Speaker 1: because he's down right now at the border in San Diego,
Speaker 1: between San Diego and Tijuana. I mean, I can only
Speaker 1: imagine what he's seeing right now. But this problem is
Speaker 1: out of control. These Democrats returned from their holiday in
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico over the weekend. They said they were working,
Speaker 1: but we had all these pictures of them at the
Speaker 1: beach and the bar and everything else. Not to make
Speaker 1: some serious concession and get government back up and running,
Speaker 1: Not to go to the White House and sit down
Speaker 1: with the President and say, hey, how can we strike
Speaker 1: a deal. No, they returned to the Hill to viciously
Speaker 1: tear into a proven Attorney General NAP nominated by President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump to lead the Justice Department, William Barr. And
Speaker 1: that's despite the fact that mister Barr on the Hill
Speaker 1: today pledge to allow the Muller probe to move forward
Speaker 1: and to be reported, the findings of the Muller probe
Speaker 1: to be reported without any interference by him or the
Speaker 1: White House. I mean, this guy couldn't gone anyfore. He's
Speaker 1: bending over backwards to make them happy, to reassure them. Listen,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to administer and then stand by the
Speaker 1: rule of law. I'm not looking to tip the scales
Speaker 1: either way. That's not enough for them. You know, him
Speaker 1: over the last year writing op ed saying that he
Speaker 1: doesn't think the president's in the wrong, there's no evidence
Speaker 1: of coclusion. All these things that are absolutely true, Democrats
Speaker 1: try to use against him today and they want him
Speaker 1: to recuse himself. I mean, it's just it's just so disingenuous.
Speaker 1: They know they know better, they know better, but this
Speaker 1: isn't governing to them. This is a circus. This is
Speaker 1: a political ploy. As they're all announcing their intentions to
Speaker 1: run for twenty twenty, that's all this is. Lots of grandstanding.
Speaker 1: So I wanted to play a clip from it today
Speaker 1: so you could hear mister Barrn his own words, and
Speaker 1: I think you'll be impressed. If confirmed, I will not
Speaker 1: permit partisan politics, personal interests, or any other improper consideration
Speaker 1: to interfere with this or any other investigation. I will
Speaker 1: follow the Special Council Regulations scrupulously and in good faith,
Speaker 1: and on my watch, Bob will be allowed to finish
Speaker 1: his work. My goal will be to provide as much
Speaker 1: transparents as I can, consistent with the law. When his
Speaker 1: report comes to you, will you share it with us
Speaker 1: as much as possible, consistent with the regulations and the law. Yes,
Speaker 1: I am going to make as much information available as
Speaker 1: I can, consistent with the rules and regulations that are
Speaker 1: part of the Special Council Regulations. I'm in favor of
Speaker 1: as much transparency as there can be, consistent with the
Speaker 1: rules and the law. See a case where the president
Speaker 1: could claim executive privilege. In theory, if if there was
Speaker 1: executive privilege material that to which an executive privilege claim
Speaker 1: could be made, it might know someone might raise a
Speaker 1: claim of executive That would be pretty difficult of following
Speaker 1: the US versus Nixon, and mister Giuliani said the president
Speaker 1: should be able to correct the moral report before any
Speaker 1: public release. So, in other words, you could take this
Speaker 1: investigative report, put his own spin on corrected before its release.
Speaker 1: You commit that would not happen. If you're attorney in general,
Speaker 1: that will not happen. Joining me now to discuss is
Speaker 1: Victoria Tunsing, a former Justice Department official and a former
Speaker 1: Chief Council to the Senate Intelligence Committee, so she's got
Speaker 1: experience both at the Justice Department and on the hill. Victoria,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining. Oh what's fun? I listened to
Speaker 1: the earrings today. By by the way, I do want
Speaker 1: to take issue with you. This is not a circus
Speaker 1: raided democrats. This is about power and that's what it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they miss their power. I think you're right. I think
Speaker 1: you're right. But in the process they've turned this into
Speaker 1: a circus. Maybe we'll split the hair there now we're
Speaker 1: in agreement. Okay, there so, but this gives me some
Speaker 1: serious pause because I'll be honest as a Trump oilist,
Speaker 1: which is what I am. You know, I didn't like
Speaker 1: some of the things that mister Barr said today, but
Speaker 1: he bent over backwards a comedy Democrats and say, look,
Speaker 1: I'm going to stay above this. I'm not going to interfere.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to allow this report that comes out
Speaker 1: of the Muller probe to be edited, you know, so
Speaker 1: you know whatever can be didn't Rudy really didn't mean
Speaker 1: editing it. He thought he wanted to look and see
Speaker 1: if there he could there were things that would be
Speaker 1: in dispute that he could bring back. This has done
Speaker 1: all the time, was done under the Independent Council law
Speaker 1: when there was a required report and everybody who was
Speaker 1: a target or a defendant in the case was allowed
Speaker 1: to review the report and come back with saying, hey,
Speaker 1: here's a mistake here. Well, and so to clarify that
Speaker 1: I got you got one hundred percent. And so I mean,
Speaker 1: what was your read on mister Barterday, I mean, how
Speaker 1: did you think his performance was? He was excellent? I mean,
Speaker 1: and Joe and I supported him, my husband Joe to
Speaker 1: Jenneva and law partner and I supported him from the
Speaker 1: get go. We think that he was just he's the
Speaker 1: perfect person. Look, he gave where he had to give.
Speaker 1: There was no way he come there and say no,
Speaker 1: I'm going to stop the Muller investigation this minute. In fact,
Speaker 1: for all of us who support Trump, that would not
Speaker 1: be a good thing. Mueller's would would be in glory
Speaker 1: if that happened, because he has got nothing, so then
Speaker 1: he can say like he's wont to do Oh my,
Speaker 1: they interfered with me. I really had all this stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: make him take it to the end. And Shobe has nothing. Well,
Speaker 1: and that's that's the frustrating bid here. I mean, so
Speaker 1: obviously the Special Council has not been around for um,
Speaker 1: you know, three years, but this talk of Russian collusion
Speaker 1: and these these accusations predate the election of President Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean they started to plant the seeds of doubt
Speaker 1: to undermine the credibility of the incoming administration even before
Speaker 1: election day. I mean I can remember being on CNN. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: Joe and I have been calling it a brazen plot
Speaker 1: ever since they went after George popa dope as I
Speaker 1: call him, because so stupid to lie about something that
Speaker 1: was not criminal. Yeah, and I want to take issue.
Speaker 1: I mean it just drives me crazy. Pat Lahy who
Speaker 1: did the clip, and he says, oh, somebody would have
Speaker 1: a hard time in the report, claiming executive privileged j
Speaker 1: after US versus Nixon. He doesn't even understand this basic
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court in that decision said,
Speaker 1: in a criminal case where there's an ongoing trial, if
Speaker 1: the White House has information that is material, it has
Speaker 1: to be turned over. It didn't say, well, when the
Speaker 1: media or crying out to know what's in a report,
Speaker 1: there's no executive privilege. Right now, I'm embarrassed, right, Pat Lahy, Well,
Speaker 1: Patton know is better, doesn't He probably not? Kind of
Speaker 1: learning his words? So, I mean, so where does this go?
Speaker 1: I mean when is Muller going to wrap this thing up?
Speaker 1: I mean, are we talking about another couple of years
Speaker 1: of this? Is this gonna get dragged within a month?
Speaker 1: I'm told, really those are my source? Wow, you know it.
Speaker 1: He's got too at a certain point, I mean what
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein, may he be forever damned all did by
Speaker 1: authorizing a special counsel on for counterintelligence basis not a criminal,
Speaker 1: it's just what the regulations require. Has has harmed the
Speaker 1: presidencies ever since um January of twenty seventeen, and it's
Speaker 1: got to stop. It's got to stop. Is this the
Speaker 1: new normal? Is this the I mean, so as we
Speaker 1: move eventually, you know, President Trump will not be a
Speaker 1: president anymore, I mean twenty twenty four. Um, So I mean,
Speaker 1: but is this the new normal and how we handle
Speaker 1: um incoming presidents? I mean, will there be efforts to
Speaker 1: de legitimize my god, No, this is not this. Don't
Speaker 1: this will all go away if the Democrat is elected.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you were you were talking about the Democrats,
Speaker 1: you know, gallivanting and Polosi off to Hawaii, the others
Speaker 1: off to Porto Rico. I'm sure CBS led with that
Speaker 1: right and not at all. I mean the account on
Speaker 1: the mainstream media to be complicit. That's that's what it's
Speaker 1: all about. Complacent and complicit. So I mean, but you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not so sure that I believe that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that there's going to there will be elements
Speaker 1: of the Republican side of the aisle that it will
Speaker 1: seek retribution for what Democrats have done here. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that that's a good thing at all. I
Speaker 1: mean the way that that they have for their own
Speaker 1: political expedients delegit attempted to delegitimize a president of the
Speaker 1: United States and undermine the very institutions of our democracy
Speaker 1: is unacceptable. But I fear, but I fear that there
Speaker 1: will be some people that seek retribution and it will
Speaker 1: fall for the same trap that the Democrats have. Well,
Speaker 1: do you really think Republicans are capable of that? That's
Speaker 1: why they're in the minority. They didn't act like they
Speaker 1: were in the majority when they were, and now they're
Speaker 1: not even acting like the fighters the Democrats are. Well.
Speaker 1: Stephen King and I have no great a love for
Speaker 1: Stephen King. I always thought he was rather off dase,
Speaker 1: but they allowed him to be whatever the vote was today,
Speaker 1: whatever the Democrats took over. And yet the woman whose
Speaker 1: name I don't have in my brain right now from Michigan,
Speaker 1: who yeah, the Muslims bio thing about the president and
Speaker 1: is clearly anti Semitic. Nothing nothing, well, I mean, what's
Speaker 1: wrong with them? Right? I mean? And she had a
Speaker 1: devout um, you know, anti Zionist at one of her parties,
Speaker 1: anti Semitic. Yeah, And and they don't and they don't
Speaker 1: want to go after her. There should have been that
Speaker 1: should have been joined. Yeah, is it right? All right?
Speaker 1: Stephen King didn't, No, no, But here's somebody else who did.
Speaker 1: And it's one of yours. Let's take the vote. And
Speaker 1: to your point, I mean, you know, if you had
Speaker 1: a fervent uh anti semitic at a Trump party, I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be Walter wall on CNN for weeks, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, and there's not There has not been a
Speaker 1: single tweet we confirmed this earlier. Not a single tweet
Speaker 1: from CNN, not a single report on the fact that
Speaker 1: that anti semitic gentleman attended her party. Not a single one. No,
Speaker 1: And this is why if we just elect a Democrat president,
Speaker 1: will all go away? Yeah, yeah, I fear that you're
Speaker 1: right anyway. So Victoria, I'm gonna bring you right back
Speaker 1: after this break, Everyone stick around. We've got a lot
Speaker 1: more to discuss, lots of breaking news. The phone lines
Speaker 1: are open, so give us a call at eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred two eight two five. That's eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred buck stay tuned to the buck Sexton Shop.
Speaker 1: In the midst of all the whining coming from the left,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just crazy these days, right, They're chasing
Speaker 1: people out of restaurants, yelling at you in the coffee shop,
Speaker 1: acting like a bunch of maniacs. You have to wonder
Speaker 1: why in the world. Would anyone act this way? My
Speaker 1: guess is they're just not getting their daily dose and
Speaker 1: black Rifle coffee. I drink black Rifle every morning. In fact,
Speaker 1: it's such delicious coffee that I'm usually a guy that
Speaker 1: likes a little can lache in my coffee. But guess what,
Speaker 1: I drink it black because it's black Rifle, for one.
Speaker 1: And also this is delicious, small batch, roast to order coffee.
Speaker 1: All right. I am a Salne for smooth blend guy,
Speaker 1: but their entire catalog of different beans and blends is amazing.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle is roast to order and is guaranteed fresh
Speaker 1: right to your door. Nothing cures a bad attitude like
Speaker 1: starting your day with the most American coffee ever, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee. Visit black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck received
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck for fifteen percent off Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. Welcome back. You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I'm Harland Hill filling in for Buck. The phone lines
Speaker 1: are open, so give us a call at eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred two eight two five. That's eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred buck. President Trump has asked Congress for
Speaker 1: five point seven billion dollars to build a wall along
Speaker 1: our southern border, and he said that if necessary, he
Speaker 1: may declare a national emergency to act unilaterally, and that
Speaker 1: he has the authority to do so. He's walked it
Speaker 1: back a little bit, saying that it shouldn't be necessary,
Speaker 1: that Congress should just act and help him build this
Speaker 1: wall together. But as is the case any time a
Speaker 1: president attempts to circumvent Congress and act unilaterally, there's a
Speaker 1: legal question about whether he should do so and whether
Speaker 1: he can do so. I personally think that the President
Speaker 1: Trump has a very strong argument to make here and
Speaker 1: that he does have the authority to act unilaterally. But
Speaker 1: I want to talk to an expert on this to
Speaker 1: help me break down some of the specifics of it.
Speaker 1: So I'm welcoming back Victoria Tuntsing, a former Justice Department
Speaker 1: official and former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: So Victoria, first of all, can the president do this?
Speaker 1: I mean, if the shutdown goes on much further and
Speaker 1: the President just you know, gets set up and says,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm going to use my full rights
Speaker 1: as the president the United States'm gona exercise my full rights.
Speaker 1: Does he have the legal authority to go and build
Speaker 1: this wall under a national emergency? I think he would
Speaker 1: ultimately prevail. The problem is, and the reason why he's
Speaker 1: trying to work out something is because it would take
Speaker 1: so long. And if he can work out in agreement,
Speaker 1: it's not going to go for months even over a
Speaker 1: year to get to the Supreme Court, because we have
Speaker 1: this new phenomena occurring Harlan, and that is a judge
Speaker 1: out sitting out in Hawaii who doesn't no squat about
Speaker 1: national security can issue an injunction for the whole country.
Speaker 1: I think it is against the judiciary. I think that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is going to talk about it at
Speaker 1: some point, but they have not addressed that issue yet.
Speaker 1: See the bottom line is that I think that the
Speaker 1: president at some point has to say, until the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court tells me to do X, I'm going to do. Why? Right?
Speaker 1: And how how long could that injunction last? Well, until
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court hears it? Got it? When the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court hears it, that's the law. But for one judge,
Speaker 1: you know, the four hundred and some other judges are
Speaker 1: sitting around the country to say, Okay, here's my ruling,
Speaker 1: and that goes for the whole country. It's bizarre. And
Speaker 1: the reason that the left coast, as we call it,
Speaker 1: California and all of that, the Ninth Circuit is liberal,
Speaker 1: it's because the practice has been in the Senate. I
Speaker 1: don't only get it too far down the weeds, but
Speaker 1: basically that the Democratic senators have to approve of the
Speaker 1: judicial nominee, even when it's a Republican president. The Senate works,
Speaker 1: and so they've gotten all liberal judges out there right. Well,
Speaker 1: and how does how does the Supreme Court telegraph that
Speaker 1: they will take up this case? I mean, does the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice supposibly say they'll take it on? No? No, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, okay, So how do they telegraph that?
Speaker 1: That has to wind its way? Usually usually it has
Speaker 1: to go through the circuits, and then there has to
Speaker 1: be a conflict in the circuits or it becomes something
Speaker 1: that just a ruling in the Ninth Circuit against the
Speaker 1: administration is enough to make the administration and apply to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court for search story got it, search as
Speaker 1: we call it. But the Supreme Court doesn't signal nothing right.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't think so. I would't think so. I mean,
Speaker 1: so the president is really in a hard place because
Speaker 1: if he does go that route, I mean, it pretty
Speaker 1: much destins him to the fact that nothing will happen
Speaker 1: with this wall for you know, the duration of his
Speaker 1: first term. I mean, this will probably take some time
Speaker 1: to find its way, um, you know, to through to
Speaker 1: the court. M so, and even beyond that, I mean
Speaker 1: they're going to be all sorts of I mean challenges
Speaker 1: on environmental grounds and others to any wall that he
Speaker 1: seeks to build. And so I mean in a domain
Speaker 1: as well, Yeah, property along there might say I don't
Speaker 1: want you to build this. Yeah. So it's difficult in
Speaker 1: and of itself. So I guess my takeaway is that
Speaker 1: if you're being pragmatic and forecasting here, it's unlikely. And
Speaker 1: the quick response he because gonna have a minute left.
Speaker 1: H Do you think that the wall's gonna get built
Speaker 1: in the next couple of years. Boy, he's a pretty
Speaker 1: determined guy. I think he's going to find a way
Speaker 1: one way or the other. But the Republicans in Congress
Speaker 1: have got to get smarter. They've just got to get
Speaker 1: a little more cohonist Yeah, it's frustrating. I mean, they
Speaker 1: should we should have started this in the first term.
Speaker 1: It will be the legacy of Paul Ryan that he
Speaker 1: didn't take this one, you know, on day one of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. But it's the it's what we have
Speaker 1: to live with. Anyway. We'll be right back after this
Speaker 1: quick break with more. The phone lines are open, so
Speaker 1: give us a call at eight four four nine hundred
Speaker 1: two eight two five. That's eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned to the Buck Sexton Show. Welcome back. You're
Speaker 1: listening to the Buck Sexton Show. I'm Harlan Hill fill
Speaker 1: in for Buck. The phone lines are open. Give us
Speaker 1: a call at eight four four nine hundred two eight
Speaker 1: two five. That's eight four four nine hundred Buck. I
Speaker 1: was struck over the weekend by reports in the New
Speaker 1: York Times of the FBI opening a counterintelligence probe and
Speaker 1: to President Trump, seemingly in retaliation for the firing of
Speaker 1: FBI Director James Comey. This is concerning because you should
Speaker 1: never have a law enforcement agency targeting someone you know
Speaker 1: without any cause and without any material reason for the investigation.
Speaker 1: And I think that that was as evidenced by the
Speaker 1: fact that so as part of this New York Times report,
Speaker 1: there was a revelation that Muller took over this probe
Speaker 1: when the Special Council was instated and decided not to
Speaker 1: chase this any further. So it's clear that there wasn't
Speaker 1: much substance this probe to begin with. And so that's
Speaker 1: why I wanted to bring in an expert to break
Speaker 1: this all down for me, and it's Ryan Morrow, the
Speaker 1: director of intelligence at the Clarion Project. Ryan, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining me, Thanks so much for having me so right.
Speaker 1: I mean, this story, this story is bizarre. I mean,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense to me. And what was your take,
Speaker 1: I mean, what was your gut reaction to this when
Speaker 1: you first read it? At first? I figure that the
Speaker 1: headline must have been manipulative. That usually stories like this
Speaker 1: there will be something buried in the story that helps
Speaker 1: it make sense, and it's not quite as outrageous as
Speaker 1: its found. But I am left more confused, puzzled, just
Speaker 1: overall discouraged based on what I've read from the various
Speaker 1: articles about this. Now, I must say I've had a
Speaker 1: lot of interaction with the FBI over the years since
Speaker 1: I was a teenager involved in stuff. I know a
Speaker 1: lot about counterintelligence and foreign influence operations and kindle what's
Speaker 1: normal and what is not. And as a result, I
Speaker 1: am I have not been one of these people where
Speaker 1: whenever there's a news item like this that just comes
Speaker 1: out and just bashes the FBI or dismisses the FBI,
Speaker 1: and but don't I read this and it doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense because we were told that for a long
Speaker 1: time before this period of time when Komey was fired,
Speaker 1: there was a counterintelligence investigation about Russian influence operations targeting
Speaker 1: Trump and probably a lot of other people. But that's
Speaker 1: not in the news and that's not being leaked out.
Speaker 1: So how this would be new? And what is it
Speaker 1: about the firing of Komey and what Trump said after
Speaker 1: that that would somehow constitute new evidence to suggest that
Speaker 1: Trump is an agent of Russia, either knowingly or unknowingly,
Speaker 1: like just meaning he's just being manipulated and doesn't realize it.
Speaker 1: There's no answer to what that is, what that basis is.
Speaker 1: I reviewed everything I could find on what Trump said
Speaker 1: after firing Komey that could, by some stretch be said
Speaker 1: to be evidence that he's an agent of Russia, and
Speaker 1: I didn't find anything. The most you could ever say
Speaker 1: was is that his comments about how oh I fired
Speaker 1: Komy so pressure over Russia should be alleviated, and he
Speaker 1: said that to the Russians. The most you could conceivably
Speaker 1: argue from that that's evidence of obstruction of justice maybe,
Speaker 1: but that's it. Well, help me understanding how common are
Speaker 1: these counterintelligence investigations into foreign influence or election interference? I mean,
Speaker 1: how often are do we see these come out of
Speaker 1: the FBI regularly targeting politicians. This goes on all the time.
Speaker 1: You just don't hear about it because it's classified information.
Speaker 1: It's not supposed to be part of the press appearing
Speaker 1: in the press. There aren't supposed to be these leaks.
Speaker 1: But this is a different situation because there was enough
Speaker 1: open source information in addition to what was classified and
Speaker 1: leaked or not classified but still confidential and leaked that
Speaker 1: it made it into this big story, and then it
Speaker 1: fits a political narrative questioning the legitimacy of Trump's election
Speaker 1: campaign and his victory. So it's different in terms of
Speaker 1: size and how people are reacting to it. But overall,
Speaker 1: there is there are ongoing FBI counterintelligence operations trying to
Speaker 1: find out what countries are bribing or influencing politicians or
Speaker 1: anyone influencing political realm, oftentimes without the target even noting
Speaker 1: about it. Like not just colluding, but it's common for
Speaker 1: foreign governments to try to implant someone near someone that's influential,
Speaker 1: to whisper lines in their ears in order to sway
Speaker 1: their opinion. So all that is common. The one big
Speaker 1: question that I think keeps this going beyond what it
Speaker 1: should have been and why. And I agree with Andrew
Speaker 1: McCarthy who basically said that one of the key problems
Speaker 1: we have is that Trump doesn't help himself. Sometimes are
Speaker 1: these incidents where when it comes to whether it's Putin
Speaker 1: or it's Airdwan in Turkey, whatever they're putting out as
Speaker 1: their spin on world events, it does seem that Trump,
Speaker 1: for a certain period of time regurgitates those lines. He
Speaker 1: doesn't act as an agent or a puppet, he violates
Speaker 1: their will. So he's not just he's not acting as
Speaker 1: an agent, but there is. But I still can't and
Speaker 1: I'm having a lot of trouble getting past the fact
Speaker 1: that when Ariduan or Prutent says something, then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, Trump says basically the same thing, so that
Speaker 1: there's some level of trust there or there's someone near
Speaker 1: Trump who is reciting those lines that he trusts that.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what's going on there, but that's a
Speaker 1: far cry from what the headlines are leading people to
Speaker 1: believe about this FBI, thinking that Trump was some type
Speaker 1: of KGB SPI. Right. Well, and I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: from a Trump supporter's perspective, this feels like the deep state, right,
Speaker 1: This feels like um somewhat of a soft coup, you know.
Speaker 1: And you say that because it's not just one isolated case.
Speaker 1: I mean you have to also look at the text
Speaker 1: messages from Peter Struck. I mean that was infamous. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's a pattern here, and maybe it's fair, maybe
Speaker 1: it's not fair. But from a Trump supports perspective, you
Speaker 1: feel like where there's smoke, there's fire, and there are
Speaker 1: attempts within the government by people that have been there
Speaker 1: very long time to undermine the incoming president of the
Speaker 1: of the United States at the time and now the
Speaker 1: president of the United States, and that's very frustrating. What
Speaker 1: do you say to those people, I would say I
Speaker 1: agree with them. I mean This is one of those
Speaker 1: things where in a way I agree with all sides
Speaker 1: and disagree of it with all sides. But fundamentally, what
Speaker 1: you said about the deep state, and my definition the
Speaker 1: deep state is what's more commonly accepted, which is just
Speaker 1: that there are special interests there, there are career officials
Speaker 1: in the government who have political ambitions, all these types
Speaker 1: of things that we've known has gone on for a
Speaker 1: long time, and then the term deep state is a
Speaker 1: way of summarizing it all. And I think that when
Speaker 1: you define deep state in the in those terms, than
Speaker 1: what you're describing absolutely goes on. And if you have
Speaker 1: a lot of interaction with people in government agencies, particularly
Speaker 1: those like the State Department or the intelligence community, there
Speaker 1: is a certain level where the arrogance becomes. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, very hard to deal with, but you can
Speaker 1: tell that these are people who feel that they have
Speaker 1: been entrusted to lead the country as opposed to implement policy,
Speaker 1: and privately look at themselves in the mirror and say,
Speaker 1: you know what, look at all those senators and the presidents.
Speaker 1: I'd be better than all of them. They may not
Speaker 1: say it, but you can tell. So that type of
Speaker 1: arrogance and political agenda, even to the point where they
Speaker 1: don't realize it's the political agenda. I come across that
Speaker 1: in different agencies of government very frequently, and that would
Speaker 1: include the Justice Department. So those damning texts from Peter
Speaker 1: Struck where he's even admitting, like I don't think that
Speaker 1: there's anything here, but he's also earlier texting thing we
Speaker 1: need to stop Trump. It's like not that surprising to me. Yeah. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: before you go, I wanted to I know you have
Speaker 1: this new project, Finding the Mountain of Moses, and I
Speaker 1: know it's a new film on the Exodus story. Can
Speaker 1: can Can you tell us a little bit about it? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So this is an independent project completely unrelated to what
Speaker 1: we're just talking about, but you can look it up
Speaker 1: on YouTube by searching finding the Mountain of Moses, order
Speaker 1: the website sinai in Arabia dot com and basically over
Speaker 1: the past two years, um, I've been doing some covert
Speaker 1: filming in Saudi Arabia. Wait, so you you actually went
Speaker 1: to Saudi Arabia to shoot some of this. Yep. I
Speaker 1: took three trips there. That's part of the reason I
Speaker 1: haven't been on Fox and these other places. Is often
Speaker 1: because that's where I was. But tell me about that before.
Speaker 1: I mean, so, tell me, like, what was it like
Speaker 1: going to shoot a documentary about Moses and Saudi Arabia?
Speaker 1: How how welcoming were the people of Saudia to you
Speaker 1: to film this? Well, if this is what'll what'll blow
Speaker 1: your mind because Moses is part of Islam right in
Speaker 1: northwestern Saudi Arabia. Where we found um, well not found,
Speaker 1: but we got evidence of these sites that are said
Speaker 1: to be linked to Moses and the Exodus story and
Speaker 1: really bring the story to life in a way you've
Speaker 1: never seen before. The Salities all run up to you
Speaker 1: because they haven't seen an American in person, and one
Speaker 1: of the first things they'll say to you is, did
Speaker 1: you know Moses was here? Did you know that Moses
Speaker 1: and the who the Jews were here? And they just
Speaker 1: love talking about it and want the world to know
Speaker 1: about it. They're proud of the fact that there is
Speaker 1: a significant Jewish history in northwestern saw. But yeah, but
Speaker 1: the problem is is that the archaeological site, most of
Speaker 1: them are covered up by facalities with fences and police patrols,
Speaker 1: and so until now, there hasn't really been compelling video
Speaker 1: and photo evidence out there for people to see. But
Speaker 1: once you watch the film, if you read the Book
Speaker 1: of Exodus in the Bible, you'll be able to envision
Speaker 1: most of the events described. Now, what did you what
Speaker 1: did you uncovering? What were the big revelations? I mean,
Speaker 1: did you get actual access to these sites or footage
Speaker 1: from the sites? I mean, what did you What did
Speaker 1: you find? Oh? Yeah, yeah I did. Um. Previously, there
Speaker 1: was a handful of Americans that were trying to get
Speaker 1: into follow this theory, but they kept getting arrested and
Speaker 1: their stuff taken, and that luckily did not happen to me,
Speaker 1: although I did have some encounters with police, but I
Speaker 1: there were ways around it. But uh, the bottom line is,
Speaker 1: in terms of evidence from where we think the red
Speaker 1: seat crossing happened, there's some evidence that we show there.
Speaker 1: The Bible says they then go to a place called
Speaker 1: Elam where has twelve wells, and that's where they start
Speaker 1: to get water. Um, you follow the past described in
Speaker 1: the Bible, you come to an oasis just like the
Speaker 1: Book of Fact that it says that still has twelve wells.
Speaker 1: You go to where Moses met his wife in the
Speaker 1: land of Jeff Row and just geographically where it should be.
Speaker 1: There's evidence of the Golden Calf warship scene that some
Speaker 1: people might remember from the Bible, where so Moses followers
Speaker 1: are worshiping golden cast and there's a fenced in spot
Speaker 1: where you can see where that probably happened, right in
Speaker 1: front of what we think is the real Mount Sinai,
Speaker 1: the place where Moses climbed up and got the tenth Commandment. So, um,
Speaker 1: is the is the documentary done now? Is it? Is
Speaker 1: it up for people? Don't yep? Is out there now?
Speaker 1: It's got about four hundred thousand views, which for a
Speaker 1: poor guy like myself who can put I think I'll
Speaker 1: put twenty bucks into promotion. Um, that's that's pretty awesome.
Speaker 1: And Glenn Vex saw it and he's promoting it, and
Speaker 1: the endorsement he gave is uh he actually said this,
Speaker 1: he said, it's the game changer for man kind. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's how praise. Yeah, Well, Ryan, I really appreciate. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have so much perspective. You're from you know, foreign
Speaker 1: policy and national security to now you know Moses. I
Speaker 1: mean it's uh, you're a renaissance man. So Ryan, I
Speaker 1: appreciate your time and your perspective. Where can people find
Speaker 1: you if they want to learn more? The best thing
Speaker 1: they could do is, well they get us go to
Speaker 1: Ryanmorrow dot com, where that's kind of like where all
Speaker 1: my work is. And then the name of the documentary
Speaker 1: again is Finding the Mountain of Moses. Easy enough? Easy enough?
Speaker 1: All right, Ryan, thanks so much. We'll talk soon everyone.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after this with a quick break.
Speaker 1: The phone lines are open, so give me a call
Speaker 1: at eight four four nine hundred two eight two five.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine hundred buck. Stay tuned to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Welcome back. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. I'm Harlan Hill filling in for Buck.
Speaker 1: The phone lines are open, so give us a quality
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred two eight two five. That's
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred buck. You're probably familiar with AARP.
Speaker 1: You or someone you know might already be a member.
Speaker 1: But did you know that AARP lobbies for a lot
Speaker 1: of progressive causes. They fought tooth and nail for a
Speaker 1: government run healthcare system. They even scripted, Get this, they
Speaker 1: even scripted portions of White House speeches behind closed doors
Speaker 1: to ensure the passage of Obamacare, and they stood against
Speaker 1: tax cuts for the middle class and small business owners.
Speaker 1: That's why I recommend AMAC. AMAC was founded by Air
Speaker 1: Force veteran Dan Weber over a decade ago to not represent,
Speaker 1: to represent not only conservative views, but policy that's good
Speaker 1: for America. They advocate for conservative values like protecting the border,
Speaker 1: and they offer a lot of value for their members,
Speaker 1: like discounts on car insurance, hotels, side assistants, dental plans,
Speaker 1: even cell phone services. So stand with AMAC as they
Speaker 1: fight the good fight by becoming a member today. The
Speaker 1: benefits are great, but the cause is even greater. Tell
Speaker 1: your family and tell your friends. Join right now at
Speaker 1: AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: AMAC is better, better for you, better for America. So today,
Speaker 1: British lawmakers have soundly rejected to recent may Is Brexit
Speaker 1: deal over in the UK. It's the biggest de eat
Speaker 1: for any UK Guy government in modern UK history. Over
Speaker 1: two hundred speeches across eight days of debate, members of
Speaker 1: the House of Commons ignored the Prime Minister's final pleas
Speaker 1: to support her plan and threw it out by four
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty two votes, two hundred and two. That's crushing.
Speaker 1: That's crushing. That's a margin of defeat greater than the
Speaker 1: previous record, which is set in nineteen twenty four. Means
Speaker 1: that the Prime Minister now faces a deep political crisis
Speaker 1: with no clear way forward and the opposition to the
Speaker 1: Labor Party there are the opposition. Labor Party immediately triggered
Speaker 1: a vote a no confidence in Teresa May's government. Now
Speaker 1: what does that mean. It means that in a parliamentary system,
Speaker 1: you could, you could, you could, you could push for
Speaker 1: a no confidence vote and seek to remove her from office.
Speaker 1: If her party and a majority of Parliament no longer
Speaker 1: have confidence that she can do her job, they can
Speaker 1: remove her and they could put in someone new. The
Speaker 1: Labor Party can't do it on their own, but as
Speaker 1: as part of a larger coalition including members of Teresa
Speaker 1: May's Conservative Party, they could pull her out. So she's
Speaker 1: she's in a perilous state, and the trajectory of the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom, because Brexit is such an important issue for them,
Speaker 1: is really in question. And acknowledging the scale of the defeat,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister said she would allow time for the
Speaker 1: House of Commons to debate that motion tomorrow on on
Speaker 1: whether the Parliament has confidence in her. The Labor Party
Speaker 1: leader Jeremy Corbyn, who's kind of like a Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: style socialist, called the defeat catastrophic and said the vote
Speaker 1: of no confidence would allow the House of Commons to quote,
Speaker 1: give its verdict on the sheer incompetence of this government. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He may be a crazy left wing socialist, but given
Speaker 1: how resoundingly she was defeated today of this Brexit vote,
Speaker 1: because she has totally mismanaged it, he might actually have
Speaker 1: a point. May urged lawmakers to listen to British citizens
Speaker 1: who voted to leave the EU, and she said, quote,
Speaker 1: I ask members of all sides of the House to
Speaker 1: listen to the British people. Now listen. Nobody is really questioning,
Speaker 1: or at least none of the conservatis of vote against
Speaker 1: this today are questioning whether or not to leave the
Speaker 1: UK or leave the EU. They're questioning the deal that
Speaker 1: she struck. And now here's a great example of why
Speaker 1: her deal is so bad. It would provide for the
Speaker 1: ability for the United Kingdom to trade with the European Union.
Speaker 1: But if the UK wanted to do a trade deal,
Speaker 1: with the United States, which obviously would they obviously they
Speaker 1: would want to do were one of their major trading partners,
Speaker 1: that would have to be approved by the EU. No
Speaker 1: one in their right mind would ever agree to that.
Speaker 1: So the fact that Teresa May even had the guts
Speaker 1: to take this to the floor, it just shows how,
Speaker 1: to use Jeremy Corbyn's own words, how incompetent she must be. Now, listen, guys,
Speaker 1: I want to hear from y'all. I'm gonna take some calls,
Speaker 1: so make sure that you call in. The phone lines
Speaker 1: are open. We're gonna be taking some calls soon. Eight
Speaker 1: four four nine two eight two five. I want to
Speaker 1: hear what you think about this government shutdown. I want
Speaker 1: to hear about what you think about all these Democrats
Speaker 1: running off on vacations to Waii and Puerto Rico while
Speaker 1: President Trump has to stay back in the White House
Speaker 1: and try to work out a deal. So call us
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred Buck, stay tuned, welcome back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show. I'm Harlan Hill
Speaker 1: in for Buck. The phone lines are open, so give
Speaker 1: us a call at eight four four nine hundred two
Speaker 1: eight two five. That's eight four four nine hundred buck.
Speaker 1: With the media hyperventilating about Russian collusion and the government shutdown,
Speaker 1: one thing we don't hear much about it anymore from
Speaker 1: the media is the VA, a department that has let
Speaker 1: our veterans down at every turn for decades and which
Speaker 1: is arguably the single best example of socialized medicine just
Speaker 1: not working. Joining me to discuss that and many more
Speaker 1: as an expert on this, Chris ny William He's also
Speaker 1: a good friend of mine and he's the vice president
Speaker 1: of Next Veterans as well as an Iraq War veteran. Chris,
Speaker 1: first of all, thanks for your service and thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us. Great to be with you, Harland. So, how
Speaker 1: many understand what's happening right now? Is this still an
Speaker 1: issue the VA? Like the wait times and all of that.
Speaker 1: The VA still is having a lot of problems. President
Speaker 1: Trump has made some major changes early and it's been
Speaker 1: very effective at giving VA the authorities needs to less
Speaker 1: than the healthcare weight times, give veterans a choice between
Speaker 1: local VA hospitals and private care providers if they can
Speaker 1: see a doctor sooner, cutting down on the union bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: getting things right, and that's been encouraging, but I still
Speaker 1: think a major issue with the VA are Obama holdovers
Speaker 1: and union bosses that are still dragging their feet, delaying
Speaker 1: the president's agenda and still kind of just being bureaucratic.
Speaker 1: So that's going to continue, and that's been an issue
Speaker 1: in many respects. But I do think the President is
Speaker 1: moving in a good direction and the VA is trying
Speaker 1: to reform. So you're telling me that, I mean, well,
Speaker 1: this actually makes sense because we hear this from every
Speaker 1: different department across the federal government that there are Obama
Speaker 1: holdovers that are in there that are undermining the mission
Speaker 1: of this administration to make some meaningful reforms and changes.
Speaker 1: And you're saying the VA is no different. It's exact
Speaker 1: same thing there. It's exactly the same. And the VA
Speaker 1: is also the second largest federal agency next to the
Speaker 1: looking at three hundred thousand employees. It's a very very
Speaker 1: large arch bureaucracy, and there's a lot of high ranking
Speaker 1: federal employees that frankly just want to kind of keep
Speaker 1: things the same, and there's really no incentive to improve
Speaker 1: and change processes, so there's a lot of finger pointing,
Speaker 1: and the veteran ends up being sort of second to
Speaker 1: the bureaucrats. It's the VA before the veteran. I think
Speaker 1: the Trump administration has tried to put the veteran in
Speaker 1: front of the VA, and I think putting the veteran
Speaker 1: in front of the VA is the real trick to
Speaker 1: the reform and I think the President's working on that now. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, what are the biggest pain points for the VA?
Speaker 1: If you had to identify the three biggest problems, what
Speaker 1: are they? Number one is continued healthcare weight times for
Speaker 1: veterans and trying to get the bureaucracy to allow veterans
Speaker 1: to have these private consults when the VA line is
Speaker 1: too long so they can see a doctor. Number two
Speaker 1: is staffing because of long bureaucratic rules to actually fill
Speaker 1: doctor positions, which I think if you get the more
Speaker 1: bureaucrats out behind desks and more doctors in there will
Speaker 1: solve that. And the third one is twofold one. The
Speaker 1: canine testing program is a big distraction. It's a total disaster.
Speaker 1: It needs to be shut down. The canine testing program.
Speaker 1: What is that? So the can testing program is essentially
Speaker 1: these these painful tests the VA was doing in science
Speaker 1: labs with federal tax money to you know, allegedly create
Speaker 1: new discoveries for veterans health around cardiac and other things.
Speaker 1: But they never got any results out of it. There
Speaker 1: were a lot of scandals around it, and Congress and
Speaker 1: the President shut it down. But there's one waiver authority
Speaker 1: in the law that allows the VA Secretary to continue
Speaker 1: the programs. It's about a million dollars a year, and
Speaker 1: the current secretary is allowing the experiments to go forward,
Speaker 1: and I think he's really making a mistake. I think
Speaker 1: he's listening to some very bad advisors, and I think
Speaker 1: eventually it's going to be shut down. But it's just
Speaker 1: another example of VA bureaucrats and probably doctors getting paid
Speaker 1: a lot of money, and lobbyists in the space that
Speaker 1: just want to continue bad disaster programs because it's a
Speaker 1: benefit to them. So well, I think the President's drained
Speaker 1: the swamp at VA. The swamp has been there for
Speaker 1: so long and there's so many bureaucratic rules that it's
Speaker 1: going to take a little bit longer. But this is
Speaker 1: one program, the knine testing program, that we need to
Speaker 1: shut down in twenty nineteen, and I think we're going
Speaker 1: to get it done. So what about making available more
Speaker 1: private access to care for veterans. I mean, do you
Speaker 1: think that's an important option across the board or in
Speaker 1: specific areas. I do. I certainly think, and we have
Speaker 1: the stats. I mean, certain vas do better than others.
Speaker 1: We call these citizens of veteran integrated service networks basically
Speaker 1: hospital systems for the ones that struggle. A veteran needs
Speaker 1: the option to say I can use the VA or
Speaker 1: I'm going to go to a private care provider. And
Speaker 1: the program exists, but there's been a lot of problems
Speaker 1: around the rules of when you're allowed to use it,
Speaker 1: when you're allowed to get a consult and so. And
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of division in the veteran community
Speaker 1: about private privatization. But it's not privatization, it's choice. It's
Speaker 1: limited private care. When VA still is the overall healthcare provider,
Speaker 1: it should work. It is working. But the President's got
Speaker 1: this right, most of Congress has got this right. But again,
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with the breacracy that big, you're dealing
Speaker 1: with regulations and rules and federal money, there's still a
Speaker 1: lot of delays. But I think that's been a key issue.
Speaker 1: It's been improving and I think that the VA committees
Speaker 1: have got to work together. You know, Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to have the House Committee, Republicans have the Senate Committey
Speaker 1: have got to work together and have hearings to get
Speaker 1: the healthcare choices right so we can lessen those wait times,
Speaker 1: improve healthcare, and also prevent veterans from from having mental
Speaker 1: health issues. Well, let's talk on let's such on the
Speaker 1: mental health issue right now, because arguably, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: one of the most visible issues or a most vocal
Speaker 1: issues that we're starting to hear more and more about.
Speaker 1: What is the VA doing to treat that as an
Speaker 1: issue of priority programs in place? What are they doing?
Speaker 1: That's a great question. They're providing a lot of funding,
Speaker 1: But the problem is the VA spends so much money
Speaker 1: on ads and marketing and all these PR people, and
Speaker 1: the PR people really just run around and talk about
Speaker 1: things that half the time aren't even Germaine. The other
Speaker 1: challenge is most of the veterans that take their life, sadly,
Speaker 1: they're not enrolled in VA. These are veterans that aren't
Speaker 1: enrolled in the system. We've got about twenty two million veterans,
Speaker 1: only nine million or enrollment VA and around four million
Speaker 1: regularly use it. Some veterans don't like to use it,
Speaker 1: others do. But the point is a lot of those
Speaker 1: veterans aren't even in the VA. So why isn't the
Speaker 1: VA brand strong enough to attract veterans is a whole
Speaker 1: other issue. So veterans issues. I'm glad you're you're you're
Speaker 1: covering it. It's so great to be on because, you know, Harland,
Speaker 1: veterans issues just don't get the attention they need most
Speaker 1: of the time. You know, in our busy lives, I
Speaker 1: mean Veterans Day, Memorial Day, we take that moment, but
Speaker 1: the day to day there's a lot of issues that
Speaker 1: need to be fixed. I think the President's focused on it.
Speaker 1: I think Democrats usually try to get it right, but
Speaker 1: I think they need to learn that the Union, the
Speaker 1: American Federation of Government Employees are a bunch of hacks.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're they're president non vet he's anti reform.
Speaker 1: He put bureaucrats over the interest of veterans that died
Speaker 1: on secret waiting lists in Phoenix. And we really need
Speaker 1: to make sure we keep slamming that union. And frankly,
Speaker 1: I don't even know why VA gets to have a union.
Speaker 1: I mean I think so you're telling me the head
Speaker 1: of the union for the VA, is it even a veteran. No,
Speaker 1: so that the union afge. It's a big union that
Speaker 1: includes VA but also other federal agencies at large. They
Speaker 1: have they have a large membership, but not all VA
Speaker 1: employees are members. But the lead of that is not
Speaker 1: a VET. I believe he was a VA nurse at
Speaker 1: one point. But again that's what we're dealing with. We're
Speaker 1: dealing with people that don't understand how it is. Secretary
Speaker 1: Wilkie does get it. He is at he comes from
Speaker 1: a military family. But again, the union has been an issue.
Speaker 1: The union has AFG. He has been a big, big issue,
Speaker 1: and they've been big union people. And President Obama said
Speaker 1: he was going to reform the union and then he
Speaker 1: backed off. Back in the last session two sessions of
Speaker 1: Congress ago HR nineteen ninety four, he issued a veto threat.
Speaker 1: So luckily President Trump got that done in the first year.
Speaker 1: It's called the VA Accountability Act. It allows the employees
Speaker 1: to be fired without you know, waiting years and years
Speaker 1: and appeals if they do. If you, if you mistreat
Speaker 1: our veterans, you should be fired and maybe even have
Speaker 1: the door hit you on the way out. And that's
Speaker 1: the way the Trump administration is taking on the unions. Now, well, Chris,
Speaker 1: I mean this has been great. I'm glad we could
Speaker 1: shine a light on this. I know this is something
Speaker 1: you spend every day working on and and I really
Speaker 1: appreciate it, and I appreciate your service. Where where can
Speaker 1: people find more about you? They can find me at
Speaker 1: my name and Twitter. It's c H R I S
Speaker 1: N E I W E E M like Mike Niwaim
Speaker 1: Chris Niwaim. I am the vice president of Next Veterans
Speaker 1: and work a lot of veterans issues and I'm always
Speaker 1: happy to hear veterans issues, try to work them out
Speaker 1: and hear different perspectives on these VA policy issues. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Chris. As always, I really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me early. We'll be right back after
Speaker 1: this quick break. Make sure that you dial in give
Speaker 1: us a call at eight or four nine twenty eight
Speaker 1: twenty five. That's eight four four nine hundred buck Stay tuned.
Speaker 1: The Russians exploited a massive backdoor into the foundation of
Speaker 1: our democracy. Then Moscow's attack on American democracy, the work
Speaker 1: by Russian agents to try to destabilize American democracy. It's
Speaker 1: everything you need to know about the threat to our democracy.
Speaker 1: You have Republicans who are silent and seemingly okay with
Speaker 1: this kind of attack on our democracy. There is no
Speaker 1: question that Russia attacked us. We're at tax ladies and
Speaker 1: gentlemen on our constitution, attack on the integrity of our elections,
Speaker 1: an attack on our democracy. The first time we've had
Speaker 1: an adversary attack us that we have not responded. This
Speaker 1: is Harlan Hill. I'm back in for Buck Sexton while
Speaker 1: he's on assignment down there in California on the border.
Speaker 1: We wanted to play that clip because this is just
Speaker 1: an endless barrage of mainstream media attacks against the president
Speaker 1: that are almost word for word identical. And it's not
Speaker 1: just the media. I mean it's also democratic leadership, people
Speaker 1: like Barack Obama, Hillard Clinton, others. Right where they say that,
Speaker 1: you know, this Russian collusion that has still not been substantiated,
Speaker 1: is quote to stabilizing democracy, an attack on our democracy
Speaker 1: and attack on us blah blah blah blah blah. And
Speaker 1: they do it because if they repeat it enough, they
Speaker 1: think that it will become truth. And at its core,
Speaker 1: this is an attempt did delegitimize the president of the
Speaker 1: United States, and it started long before even the election.
Speaker 1: And if you were here for our first segment in
Speaker 1: the A block that you heard the great conversation that
Speaker 1: I had with a former official at the Justice Department
Speaker 1: about this. But this process of delegitimizing the incoming president
Speaker 1: United States started even before the election. I can remember
Speaker 1: being on CNN in I think it was October, either
Speaker 1: late September, early October twenty sixteen, and I said on
Speaker 1: there that the reason that this Russian colusion story came
Speaker 1: up was quote to plant seeds of doubt in the
Speaker 1: event that President Trump want wins and Candidate Trump. And
Speaker 1: I gotta pat myself on the back on that one.
Speaker 1: I get some things wrong, but I got that one right.
Speaker 1: You know, that's exactly what this was. That's exactly what
Speaker 1: they've turned out to do. And it's only been turned
Speaker 1: out they turned the dial up by orders of magnitude
Speaker 1: after his election and then again after his inauguration, and
Speaker 1: now with every quarter that passes. I mean, it has
Speaker 1: ratcheted up precipitously. And that's all while we don't have
Speaker 1: a shred of evidence to substantiate the accusation of collusion
Speaker 1: between the Trump campaign and Russia. Not a shred, zero nil, nothing.
Speaker 1: There's nothing there. So we're three years into this process,
Speaker 1: three years since they started playing the seeds of doubt
Speaker 1: undermine Trump, and they say that they're smoking guns. Watch
Speaker 1: Rachel Maddock. I know it's insufferable. Okay, I get it,
Speaker 1: I get it, I get it. She's really annoying. Okay,
Speaker 1: but just turn it on. Turn it on for a
Speaker 1: couple of minutes. Any given night, she will be on
Speaker 1: breathlessly talking about this as if there's a smoking gun
Speaker 1: and we're on the verge of the annihilation of the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. Every single night for years, it's been like this.
Speaker 1: It's like the Little Boy that Cried Wolf every night.
Speaker 1: And it's not just Rachel madd out to be fair,
Speaker 1: I mean, don Lemon Cuoma whatever, I mean, even after
Speaker 1: the presidents. This is how I knew the President had
Speaker 1: a good job the other night in the Oval Office address,
Speaker 1: is that instead of talking about it, Cuoma sort of
Speaker 1: shifting back to talking about Manaphort that night, like almost immediately,
Speaker 1: like you know, so they're like, okay, we can't win
Speaker 1: on the wall shutdown issue. Let's go back to talking
Speaker 1: about Russia. Let's pull that out of the archives. It's pathetic, really,
Speaker 1: it's pathetic. I mean, if there was anything here, if
Speaker 1: it was as someone that was involved with the Trump
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen campaign, as somebody that's now on the advisory
Speaker 1: board for Trump's twenty twenty reelection campaign, I can tell
Speaker 1: you that if something like this happened at the level
Speaker 1: that they were saying it happened, it would be out
Speaker 1: by now. Okay, it would be out by now. There
Speaker 1: would be smoking guns. Mueller wouldn't be taken all this
Speaker 1: time to come to some sort of we would have
Speaker 1: already have indictments and arrests for collusion. We don't now
Speaker 1: do we have other I mean, did they get Mana
Speaker 1: for it on some of his personal dealings? Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Did they get some Trump people for you know, allegedly
Speaker 1: lying under oath? Yeah? Okay, yeah, they perjured themselves, you know,
Speaker 1: not on this issue, but you know, on a variety
Speaker 1: of issues they made mistakes. Yeah, totally they got them. Fine, okay,
Speaker 1: you got you got manip because he didn't pays taxes. Great,
Speaker 1: what does that have to do with the charge of
Speaker 1: collusion against President Trump. Nothing nothing, but this is nothing new.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're gonna keep hearing them the stabilizing democracy
Speaker 1: and attack on democracy. The people that are actually destabilizing
Speaker 1: and undermining our democracy are the Democrats, and they're actively
Speaker 1: doing it every day. They're tearing this democracy down to
Speaker 1: its foundation because it is for their own political expedience.
Speaker 1: They cannot believe. They cannot believe that there was this
Speaker 1: revolution that happened in twenty sixteen and they didn't see
Speaker 1: it coming. They don't believe it. They still don't believe it,
Speaker 1: so it'll keep happening. And it's not just the Democrats,
Speaker 1: to be fair, it's not just the media, to be fair.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's people in the establishment of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party too, and some people come around to it. You
Speaker 1: have a second clip here and include some top Republicans,
Speaker 1: including Mitt Romney from twenty sixteen, and let's see what
Speaker 1: they have to say. He'd rather have a puppet as president,
Speaker 1: and it's pretty clear puppet. What Donald Trump is saying
Speaker 1: is that he would unilaterally surrender to Russian Putin, give
Speaker 1: Putin a massive foreign policy victory. This is a race
Speaker 1: between a man who praises Vladimir Putin, pursues Putin, and
Speaker 1: he thinks Putin's a good guy. So I just can't
Speaker 1: go there. Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin. I
Speaker 1: do think that trump victory is a gift to Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: It's like they're on the same page. And now you
Speaker 1: have Vladimir Putin basically pulling out the old KGB book
Speaker 1: on how to manipulate Donald Trump, and it appears he's
Speaker 1: fallen right into it. Mister Trump's continued flattery of mister
Speaker 1: Putin and the degree to which he appears to model
Speaker 1: many of his policies and approaches to politics on mister
Speaker 1: Putin is unprecedented in American politics. Well, I gotta give
Speaker 1: a couple of people in there some credit for coming
Speaker 1: around seeing the light, because those those those latest clips
Speaker 1: were from twenty sixteen. You know, Synator gram and Senator Cruz.
Speaker 1: You know, they've both seen the light, right, and they're
Speaker 1: firmly on the President's team, and they know that this
Speaker 1: Russian collusion accusation is totally unfounded and unsubstantiated. So I
Speaker 1: give them credit for that. But the rest of them
Speaker 1: I think are largely um. I think the rest of
Speaker 1: the people in there comprised the establishment that is grasping
Speaker 1: at straws for some way to delegitimize this president. And
Speaker 1: I'm frankly sick of it. And I brought up in
Speaker 1: the in the in the in the people that my
Speaker 1: concern is that this, it could become the new norm, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, Democrats have clearly overstepped their bounds here. They
Speaker 1: have worked to chip away at the foundation of democracy
Speaker 1: purely because they don't like Trump. Right. It wasn't enough
Speaker 1: to oppose him and obstruct him on all of his policy,
Speaker 1: but they've got to like tear him down as a
Speaker 1: person and as the president. And my concern is that,
Speaker 1: you know, this could play both ways, because you know,
Speaker 1: as a Republican, I'm gonna want some retribution, and I
Speaker 1: think that's bad for our democracy. It's a real shame. Anyway.
Speaker 1: This is once again Harlan Hill in for Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: here on the Buck Sexton Show. I want to thank
Speaker 1: you all for tuning in. We'll be right back after
Speaker 1: this break. Make sure you tune back in. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show. I'm Harlan Hill
Speaker 1: filling in for Buck. The fund lines are open, so
Speaker 1: give us a call at eight four four nine hundred
Speaker 1: to eight two five. That's eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: We have a government shutdown, contentious hearings on the Hill,
Speaker 1: Democrats announcing for president left and right in an economy
Speaker 1: that many viewers precarious. Jointing me to break all of
Speaker 1: this down is Ryan Grodski, a senior political reporter and
Speaker 1: a political consultant. Ryan, help me understand with all this happening,
Speaker 1: how the president starts to pivot to focusing on a
Speaker 1: general election bid. Hey, Harlan, so, yeah, you know twenty
Speaker 1: twenty Blue or not is just around the corner. Um
Speaker 1: Democrats are jumping in Kerson jail, Brand, Amy Klobacher, Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris are all preparing a launch, and several of like
Speaker 1: a little Bourne already has the good thing for Trump.
Speaker 1: Trump's entrepreur writings have fallen in during the government shut
Speaker 1: down to the very low boies, which is not a
Speaker 1: great place to be. But there was a public policy polling,
Speaker 1: a research paper done. They are a liberal organization and
Speaker 1: they tend to skew more liberally, so they had they
Speaker 1: sampled out the votes in North Carolina and they found
Speaker 1: it basically a tide between Trump and the major competitors Democrats,
Speaker 1: and all the all the major Democrats were within the
Speaker 1: Jim error from him now the pole over sample Democrats,
Speaker 1: so it leans a little heavily Democrat. But the most
Speaker 1: important part was among independents. In this poll, Trump was
Speaker 1: clabboring major Democrats. It with Biden, who is the most
Speaker 1: viable Democrat running for president right now, he's beating him
Speaker 1: with independence by fifteen points. Among Corey Booker it's twenty
Speaker 1: one points. Beto O'Rourke it's almost thirty points, Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: it's twenty points. So Trump seems to have a major
Speaker 1: edge with some independent voters. And if that's true nationwide,
Speaker 1: like it is in North Carolina, if it's true in Florida,
Speaker 1: if that's true in Ohio, Trump's really in a much
Speaker 1: better position for reelection. I think he is what he
Speaker 1: needs to do with after this this government shutdowns over with,
Speaker 1: after he gets some money for wall funding, I think
Speaker 1: he really needs to start pivoting towards really popular middle
Speaker 1: ground issues, one being drug prices that sending him in
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi very much agree on that. The second will
Speaker 1: be infrastructure spending. And the third and this thing he
Speaker 1: promised on the campaign and it still hasn't happened. He shouldn't.
Speaker 1: He needs to reform common Core. It's wildly popular among women. Wiley.
Speaker 1: Common Core is wiley, unpopular among women, among mothers, among teachers,
Speaker 1: major major constituencies that have a very negative opinion about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. He promised to overturn common Core two and
Speaker 1: a half years ago. I don't know what Betsy Divace
Speaker 1: is doing in her spare time besides buying new designer glasses.
Speaker 1: She needs to be reforming common Core or ending common
Speaker 1: Core or throwing to the States something, because it would
Speaker 1: be a major, major boost, in my opinion, to Trump's reelection.
Speaker 1: So let's just take a step back and look at
Speaker 1: that poll out of North Carolina. So what you're telling
Speaker 1: me is that a liberal poll administered by a liberal consultant,
Speaker 1: Public Policy Polling PPP, which we used to use. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm a former Democratic consultant. We used to we used
Speaker 1: to hire them, we used to pay them to conduct
Speaker 1: our polls. So this is hardly an you know, not
Speaker 1: that any of the polls that we typically read about her,
Speaker 1: are are independent? I mean, I think that everybody that
Speaker 1: conducts a pole has some sort of editorial been to them,
Speaker 1: but this one is particularly slanted to the left, but
Speaker 1: is widely respected. I'll give them credit for that. But
Speaker 1: what you're saying is it even though they're oversampling Democrats,
Speaker 1: they have democratic heritage. They still show that the president
Speaker 1: is in on very solid footing in North Carolina. Right,
Speaker 1: that was the takeaway. Well, he's tied. So look, yeah,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, they're at forty five forty five in the full,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris is winning Democrats by sixty one points. Trump
Speaker 1: is winning Republicans by seventy simo points. But Trump is
Speaker 1: then winning independence by twenty two points. So they've clearly
Speaker 1: oversample Democrats to make it seem like it's a tied race.
Speaker 1: If Trump is winning independence by twenty two points, and
Speaker 1: he's winning fourteen percent of Democrats eighty one percent of
Speaker 1: the Republicans, as the pole states, he's winning by more
Speaker 1: by he's more than just a tie. That is clearly
Speaker 1: an oversample of Democrats, but by twenty two points, a
Speaker 1: gigantic margin. Yeah, absolutely, So what about this shutdown. I
Speaker 1: mean because I'm starting to read more and more that
Speaker 1: people are blaming the President and Republicans more than Democrats.
Speaker 1: You know, The Washington Post and ABC News conducted this
Speaker 1: poll from January eighth to the eleventh among seven hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty eight Americans, and it showed that overall, fifty
Speaker 1: three percent of people are blaming Trump and the Republicans,
Speaker 1: compared to twenty nine percent for Democrats in thirteen percent.
Speaker 1: You'd both equally at fault. This can't be good? Or
Speaker 1: am I over? Am? I over? Am I inflating the
Speaker 1: significance of this polling, particularly this early in an election cycle. Well,
Speaker 1: I think one, it's not good for the president. But
Speaker 1: also people are very forgiving about government shutdowns. You remember
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen when Ted Cruz really shut down the government
Speaker 1: and Republicans swept the Senate. In twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, rather, Chuck Schumer shut down the government and
Speaker 1: Democrats won the House back. I think people are very
Speaker 1: forgiving about government shutdowns. It doesn't really stick in people's
Speaker 1: mind very often. Most people don't understand it, and most
Speaker 1: people aren't affected by it. So I don't hold that
Speaker 1: this will be a long lasting sting for the president,
Speaker 1: but if he gets Wolf funding, this will be the
Speaker 1: biggest booster to his base to show that he's actually
Speaker 1: the real deal, that he's not, you know, one of
Speaker 1: these weaker Republicans who could pitch. So it's worth the cost,
Speaker 1: that's your point. I mean it's worth the cost, I
Speaker 1: think so. Yeah. I do think I think something needs
Speaker 1: to happen very soon, but I do think that it's
Speaker 1: worth the cost right now. I don't think that this
Speaker 1: should go into the summertime though, or or summer time.
Speaker 1: I don't think this should go into the spring. I
Speaker 1: don't want this to go for months and months and months,
Speaker 1: but hopefully within another week or two, I think something's
Speaker 1: going to break. You have to remember there are thirty
Speaker 1: five House Democrats in Trump's states, and Trump didn't sorry
Speaker 1: in Trump districts, And there are a number of Democrats
Speaker 1: in the Senate who are in Trump's states or swing states,
Speaker 1: or who have an enormous amount of government workers in
Speaker 1: their states. So I think properly applied pressure on those Democrats,
Speaker 1: you might see some people like Doug Jones already says
Speaker 1: he'll vote for the Wolf funding, and I think that
Speaker 1: maybe some applied pressure on Mark Warner, you might see
Speaker 1: him sit there and start to break with Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 1: given the fact that he's got a huge amount of
Speaker 1: government workers in his state in Virginia. Well. And one
Speaker 1: concern though, is that Democrats are applying a lot of
Speaker 1: pressure on the back end from what I've heard, to
Speaker 1: the public sector unions representing TSA workers and air traffic controllers. Now,
Speaker 1: under current federal law, these unions are barred from striking,
Speaker 1: but I think that Democrats and the unions want to
Speaker 1: test that in the courts. And if you had air
Speaker 1: traffic controllers and TSA officials striking, that would bring this
Speaker 1: country to a halt, the ability to travel and conduct
Speaker 1: business to a halt. I can't forecast what the political
Speaker 1: consequence is going to be for both sides if that
Speaker 1: weren't happen. I mean, that is apocalyptic, and I think
Speaker 1: that's what Democrats know, and they figure that they're going
Speaker 1: to end up on top there. I mean, the Washington
Speaker 1: posted a little bit of reporting on this today. I
Speaker 1: think that this is distinct possibility, maybe not right now,
Speaker 1: but the further we go into this, I think that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are going to get more aggressive, and I
Speaker 1: don't see them backing down and giving even a modicum
Speaker 1: of concession to the President on this. I mean, they
Speaker 1: know that that would be too much of a political
Speaker 1: loss for them, and and they know that they have
Speaker 1: the president kind of pinned in here in a way,
Speaker 1: and they have some of these these outside players, like
Speaker 1: these public sector unions in their back pocket that they
Speaker 1: can probably bring a little bit more pain to bear.
Speaker 1: I mean, how concerned are you about that? Um? I
Speaker 1: had not heard that story. That is concerned. But if
Speaker 1: you have to go to a court case and it
Speaker 1: have to work its way through the course before they
Speaker 1: could strike, so I mean that would take some some
Speaker 1: period of time before they could actually move on that. Well.
Speaker 1: The alternative, though, I'll push back a little bit, is
Speaker 1: that you may just have some of these federal workers
Speaker 1: start quitting. You know, if you're a TSA worker and
Speaker 1: you and you haven't paid in weeks, that we happen, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is that could apply. They won't show up for
Speaker 1: work like that, and such has happened in certain areas.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that, um, I don't think that
Speaker 1: that necessarily is going to be enough to bring the
Speaker 1: economy to its knees or or affect travel um to
Speaker 1: the extent that people are saying it, well, um and
Speaker 1: at that and it worse comes to worse. I think
Speaker 1: that Trump really then should um bulk his his um,
Speaker 1: his his advisors and sit there and do a and
Speaker 1: do an executive order, an executive order, but a an emergency,
Speaker 1: an executive emergency stating that, um, you know, we need
Speaker 1: to build a wall or have have have the CBS
Speaker 1: build a wall. I mean, there are a million things
Speaker 1: that Trump could do, but he still has not done yet.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's really where you know he's got.
Speaker 1: He is much more cars than his pile than Democrats
Speaker 1: have in their pile. And if you look at where
Speaker 1: a lot of these government workers are in, isn't a
Speaker 1: lot of Blue states. I mean, these are a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrat constituents who are going to be hurting, and
Speaker 1: I do. I mean, I have heard of more Democrats
Speaker 1: that they are and say that they are going to
Speaker 1: vote for wall funding of certain types than I have
Speaker 1: heard Republicans. I mean, you have Katie Hill from California,
Speaker 1: you have a new woman from Virginia seven both slaying
Speaker 1: they vote for wall funding. And you know I and
Speaker 1: you've done jing a vote for wall funding. I do
Speaker 1: think that there's an opportunity to sit there and start
Speaker 1: breaking with these moderate Democrats in these Trump districts where
Speaker 1: if you have a majority plus all Republicans voting for
Speaker 1: wall funding. UM, you may be in a situation where
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is dealing with a with with minority of
Speaker 1: Congress on this position. So I certainly think that that
Speaker 1: that may change the media fight, and that may be
Speaker 1: Trump's best bet is that Nancy Pelosi is doing it
Speaker 1: against the will of her own Congress or of her
Speaker 1: own House rather um. And you also Trump State of
Speaker 1: the Union going forward, which will give him a huge
Speaker 1: chance to speak to the American public. But yeah, other
Speaker 1: than that, I think that he should declare an EMERGENC.
Speaker 1: I think why doesn't he declare an emergency or you know,
Speaker 1: deploy the US cord years. I know, I personally know
Speaker 1: that people inside the administration and senators like Lindsay Gram.
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham is all over television saying that he supports
Speaker 1: an executive emergency. I know for a fact from people
Speaker 1: on the Hill it does not actually support that. In
Speaker 1: this whole Trump not to do that an executive emergence.
Speaker 1: An executive emergency is wildly unpopular in polling. But I
Speaker 1: just don't believe many people are following this story of
Speaker 1: whether or not the wall is being built. I just
Speaker 1: I don't believe that you know, the country is going
Speaker 1: to be in rage or not in rage based upon
Speaker 1: something that ninety nine point eight person in the country
Speaker 1: will never see. Most of us will never go to
Speaker 1: the Tucson area of the border to sit there and
Speaker 1: see the wall being completed or not completed. I just
Speaker 1: I just don't think. I don't think that this is
Speaker 1: as big of a story or as big of a
Speaker 1: political battle as Democrats are making it out to be.
Speaker 1: I think at the heart of it, if you look
Speaker 1: at the ABC poll, the one major drop support for
Speaker 1: the wall had it increased from I think thirty two
Speaker 1: percent to forty two percent or something around at the number,
Speaker 1: but the one major drop was people extremely against the wall,
Speaker 1: drop from fifty four percent to thirty eight percent. I
Speaker 1: just don't think many people support this wall. And also
Speaker 1: in the ABC poll, forty five percent of people who
Speaker 1: oppose the building of the wall. Why Democrats that they're
Speaker 1: in support wall funding because they just want the government
Speaker 1: to open back again. Only fifteen percent fifty percent are
Speaker 1: asking Democrats to hold their ground, So it's about twenty
Speaker 1: five percent of the country or we're something or telling democrats,
Speaker 1: you know, don't don't give any concessions, don't give any concessions.
Speaker 1: You know, almost half the people who are opposed to
Speaker 1: the wall are now for building it just to reopen
Speaker 1: the government. I don't think that nance to Pelosi's I
Speaker 1: think Pelosi has overplayed this where where people where people
Speaker 1: where people are actually opposed to the wall as much
Speaker 1: as she thinks they are. So let me ask you
Speaker 1: to make a prediction. I mean, four weeks out from now,
Speaker 1: is the government back up and running. Are we in
Speaker 1: the same spot we're in right now within a month?
Speaker 1: I do think so, I think something. I think something
Speaker 1: has got to give within a month. I think that
Speaker 1: within a month you're going to have Because the most
Speaker 1: important thing that's going to be happening come November of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen is you're going to have major elections in
Speaker 1: the legislature in Virginia, and you're going to have a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans pushing on Trump to um to give
Speaker 1: concessions in for Republicans in Virginia. So I think that
Speaker 1: by the spring, I think the government will within four
Speaker 1: to six weeks, I think the government will be up
Speaker 1: and running again, and we will have some type of
Speaker 1: money for border wall, whether it's through an emergency action
Speaker 1: or through through the Democrats in Congress giving something up.
Speaker 1: All right, Ryan, where people find if they want to
Speaker 1: learn more? My website Ryan Grodusky dot com or Twitter
Speaker 1: at Ryan Grdusk here on Facebook Ryan Grodusky. Awesome, Ryan,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining me again. I'm sure I'll
Speaker 1: see you soon. We'll be bragged back after this quick
Speaker 1: break with more. The phone lines are open, so give
Speaker 1: us a call at eight four four nine hundred two
Speaker 1: eight two five. That's eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned to the Buck Sexton Show. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. I'm Harlan Hill filling in for Buck.
Speaker 1: The phone lines are open, so give us a call
Speaker 1: at eight four four nine hundred two eight two five.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine hundred Buck. In the midst
Speaker 1: of all this wining coming from the left, the cavanall hearings,
Speaker 1: the ridiculous Democratic Party government shutdown. You have to wonder
Speaker 1: why in the world would anyone act pass away. My
Speaker 1: guess is that they're not getting their daily dose of
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. Let me tell you this coffee is good.
Speaker 1: I brew a cup or maybe more like ten cops
Speaker 1: every morning while catching up on the news from overnight,
Speaker 1: and Black Rifle Coffee is roasted to order a guarantees
Speaker 1: that you're getting it fresh, a delicious coffee with every order.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee gives a portion of their sales to
Speaker 1: veterans and first responder causes, and Black Rifle Coffee Club
Speaker 1: makes things easy. Just pick the blend you want, the
Speaker 1: amount you want, and Black Rifle ships that coffee to
Speaker 1: your door every month. It's hassle free, makes it really easy.
Speaker 1: I do it myself. Nothing cures a bad attitude quite
Speaker 1: like starting your daily Wolf with the most American coffee ever,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. I started the show by addressing
Speaker 1: the way that the Democrats elected to go to Puerto
Speaker 1: Rico to play on the beach and drink with lobbyists
Speaker 1: instead of working to get the government back up and running.
Speaker 1: Shame on them. I mean, it's just ridiculous. And in
Speaker 1: the last segment, if you heard it with Ryan Gerdusky,
Speaker 1: we sort of addressed the fact that you know, there's
Speaker 1: no winner here. If you look at the polling, you
Speaker 1: know it's divided between Democrats and Republicans. More Republicans blame
Speaker 1: democ for the shutdown, more Democrats blame Republicans for the shutdown,
Speaker 1: and independence don't know which way to go. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: you know, all these workers that you know, from TSA
Speaker 1: to air traffic controllers to even secret service agents are
Speaker 1: going on paid and what the presidents asking for is
Speaker 1: something relatively mild. He's asking for a fraction of what
Speaker 1: Democrats all voted to give to border funding just ten
Speaker 1: years ago. You know, all throughout the Obama administration to
Speaker 1: appease Republicans, Democrats cast votes in supportive border security funding
Speaker 1: because they wanted to look strong. But Obama wanted to
Speaker 1: look like he was tough on security, even though you
Speaker 1: know he was letting millions in he wanted to look tough,
Speaker 1: and now that the presidents actually wanted to do something
Speaker 1: constructive to target specific areas of the border to prevent
Speaker 1: just the total unimpeded trafficking of people and drugs into
Speaker 1: this country at points of entry, Democrats are nowhere to
Speaker 1: be found. All of a sudden. They've decided that walls
Speaker 1: are racist and they're offensive, and they say that we
Speaker 1: want other forms of border security, but they won't articulate
Speaker 1: with what those forms of security are. So the casualty
Speaker 1: in the meantime is that we have a lack of direction.
Speaker 1: That it's undermining the foundation of our markets. It's hurting,
Speaker 1: you know, eight hundred thousand families across this country. They
Speaker 1: don't know whether or not they're going to get their
Speaker 1: next paycheck. And it stands to get worse. I mean,
Speaker 1: we saw just last week that leading credit agencies are
Speaker 1: considering downgrading America from Triple A status to something lower. Now,
Speaker 1: who knows what that'll be. I mean, in large part
Speaker 1: that depends on well when does the government get reopened. One.
Speaker 1: If it goes much further and we hit the credit ceiling,
Speaker 1: then you know we have a much bigger problem on
Speaker 1: our hands. We're playing with fire here. We're playing with fire,
Speaker 1: and so you know, I talked with Grudski a little
Speaker 1: bit about the polling and the winners and losers of it.
Speaker 1: But my concern is that government, for the first time
Speaker 1: in a long time, is undermining the very foundation of
Speaker 1: our economy deliberately, and there are people to blame, both
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. And we
Speaker 1: can't take this back. Once you open this can of worms,
Speaker 1: once you open this can of worms, you can't put
Speaker 1: them back in. I'm really frustrated. This is serious. We're
Speaker 1: playing with fire, and I want to hear what you
Speaker 1: all have to say about it. So we'll be right
Speaker 1: back after this quick break with more. The phone lines
Speaker 1: are open. Give us a call eight four four nine
Speaker 1: hundred to eight two five. I hope you're as mad
Speaker 1: as I am. That's eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned to the Buck Sexton Show. Welcome back. You're
Speaker 1: listening to the Buck Sexton Show. I'm Harland Hill filling
Speaker 1: in for Buck. We're over six hundred days away from
Speaker 1: the election. But believe it or not, this is true.
Speaker 1: More than four hundred and fifty candidates have already read
Speaker 1: with the FEC to run for president twenty twenty. That's
Speaker 1: the vast majority of those people are lunatics, are not
Speaker 1: serious people, but but they're about twenty to twenty five
Speaker 1: names of very serious contenders that are starting to take shape.
Speaker 1: Some of them have announced, some of them are still
Speaker 1: on the sidelines figuring things out. And I wanted to
Speaker 1: talk about who those people are, what their strengths and
Speaker 1: weaknesses are. And I'm looking specifically at people like Tulsa
Speaker 1: Gabbert Whole and Gastro Castro, Elizabeth Warren, char At Brown,
Speaker 1: John Delaney, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, beat A Rourke, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Kirsten Jillibrand, and even Hillary Clinton. Now,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of names there, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: make for a very crowded field for Democrats. Heck, as
Speaker 1: they just look to put together debate stages. I mean
Speaker 1: they have, they have a struggle ahead of them. So
Speaker 1: joining me to discuss and break down this field is
Speaker 1: Democratic consultant John Rally, the founding partner of Counterpoint Messaging. John,
Speaker 1: How you doing, Harlan? That was quite a list who
Speaker 1: ran through that was pretty impressive. That's not even that's
Speaker 1: not even half of the series of contenders. It's just
Speaker 1: the ones I'm taking out. But uh so, who's the
Speaker 1: front runner, John, Like, who's the guy or a woman? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean I think as of today, I mean, let's
Speaker 1: let's almost think about it the way you have to
Speaker 1: look back and think about Trump when he was in
Speaker 1: a fourteen to sixteen person field. I mean he began
Speaker 1: that race, and the thing that he was that he
Speaker 1: was wildly underestimated for is he had a multi billion
Speaker 1: dollar brand. So when he made errors, he made mistakes,
Speaker 1: he just had enough whether you want to call it
Speaker 1: brand equity, goodwill, or just knowledge build up that he
Speaker 1: was was able to sustain you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: errors and things that almost nobody else in politics. I
Speaker 1: think right now you've got two Democrats, uh Biden and
Speaker 1: Bernie who have billion dollar brands. I mean, they they
Speaker 1: are super well known, their supports deep, they'll be able
Speaker 1: to raise money. But at the same time, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know that anybody wants to be a frontrunner
Speaker 1: for any office these days in politics, especially over a
Speaker 1: two year period. And so I think if you're in
Speaker 1: their chair. And I mean if it is a super
Speaker 1: crowded race like it was last time, I think that
Speaker 1: could benefit Biden. And Bernie just says the super credited
Speaker 1: race benefited Trump the ups and downs and and and
Speaker 1: if you only have that brand, you don't have the
Speaker 1: ability to energize and raise money, it won't be that helpful.
Speaker 1: And I think one of the hugest things Hillary's team
Speaker 1: underestimated last time was I mean, anybody who's run a
Speaker 1: one thousand vote city council race knows if you're the
Speaker 1: incumbent and you're going to have challengers and you've got
Speaker 1: a base, the more challengers the better. And at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, if there would have been five
Speaker 1: or six relatively modest to strong challengers, I mean Hillary
Speaker 1: probably would have run away with the primary last time,
Speaker 1: even though Bernie Sanders ran a great race. I mean,
Speaker 1: just creating that one on one environment coalesces there are
Speaker 1: going to be known almost any candidate and a primary. Um, So,
Speaker 1: I mean I think that's where you would start. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's I think they have huge advantages. But um, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know anybody that would want to
Speaker 1: run and intense to your presidential campaign as the front
Speaker 1: horse right now. Well, and the added pressure there is
Speaker 1: that you can only raise, you know, for the primary cycle.
Speaker 1: So there's the financial question. If you get in now
Speaker 1: and you start burning capital, well, yeah, you have an
Speaker 1: advantage and that you're already out there and you can
Speaker 1: start building the fundraising machine that you need to run
Speaker 1: for president. But once those dollars are spent, you can't
Speaker 1: go back to the well um inventional wisdom in a
Speaker 1: lot of races, if you're the front runner, you want
Speaker 1: a shorter race, but yeah, you have to you have
Speaker 1: to begin that exposure and attack. You have to light
Speaker 1: that fuse, and then you also have the money fuse
Speaker 1: as well. So it's a real challenge absolutely. So maybe
Speaker 1: the better question than is instead of who is the
Speaker 1: front runner, what faction of the Democratic Party is going
Speaker 1: to win here? And and this is going to really
Speaker 1: boil it down. It's gonna be kind of simplistic, but
Speaker 1: is it the moderate wing of the Democratic Party that's
Speaker 1: a little bit more pragmatic or the progressives like um,
Speaker 1: you know, Corey Booker or um a cast A quartet
Speaker 1: somebody like that. Which wing of the party is gonna win? Well,
Speaker 1: I think I think all of the presidential candidates are
Speaker 1: pretty progressive and are going to run is pretty progressive candidates.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you've got some slight variations, but
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, you know, from Biden to Beto
Speaker 1: to I mean, you know a lot of the different senators,
Speaker 1: I think they're all going to run is pretty progressive candidates.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think there's going to be dramatic
Speaker 1: ideological differences. I don't think we're going to have a
Speaker 1: conservative Democrat or even somebody who's the cautious moderate really
Speaker 1: in terms of policy. And uh, I think also a
Speaker 1: misconception about a lot of dimocratic primaries is just going
Speaker 1: furthest to the left ensures victory. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you have to motivate. You have to communicate that you've
Speaker 1: got a connection with the electorate and you're inspiring people
Speaker 1: and you really believe whatever your rap message or lane is.
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the amazing things about Beto
Speaker 1: O'Rourke's rise right now. I mean, he does not have
Speaker 1: the billion dollars long term relationship brand that a lot
Speaker 1: of the others do, so we could certainly see him
Speaker 1: flame out quicker, but I think he's got this connection
Speaker 1: right now, and it's not just in Texas with Democratic
Speaker 1: voters and a lot of primary voters. And the other
Speaker 1: challenges is there's going to be a lot of floating
Speaker 1: around in any primary where you've got well known candidates,
Speaker 1: whether it's a race for governor or mayor or the
Speaker 1: presidential race. We're going to go into Iowa with a
Speaker 1: number of candidates that all of the Democrats like, and
Speaker 1: so I think the you know, some late momentum could
Speaker 1: be big as well. And I think I think the
Speaker 1: other thing that people don't think about right now is
Speaker 1: everybody's matching up the candidates against each other and against
Speaker 1: Trump right now, but trying to imagine outside events that
Speaker 1: impact the campaign. I mean, if if the investigation heats up,
Speaker 1: if we have an impeachment hearings, what that does to
Speaker 1: us senators opportunity versus you know, many of them have
Speaker 1: a ways to go still, and so trying to anticipate
Speaker 1: those sort of events. And I think also is there
Speaker 1: somebody who could be the RFK candidate and time this
Speaker 1: to get in at the moment where a couple campaigns
Speaker 1: collapse or a front runner has a bad run and
Speaker 1: kind of make the late RFK style in nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: eight entrants at the right time to conserve resources, conserve energy,
Speaker 1: and that's also a risky strategy in a ten to
Speaker 1: fifteen person field well. And so one thing that strikes
Speaker 1: me is that you had California move up its primary date,
Speaker 1: it'll coincide with Texas and Florida. That seems to me
Speaker 1: that it would advantage Kamala Harris and her bid. Beto
Speaker 1: will have obviously an advantage in Texas, and he has
Speaker 1: national name ID, but the fact that he was just
Speaker 1: on the ballot there and almost executed in an upset
Speaker 1: of Ted Cruz in a solidly Republican state and he's
Speaker 1: a dynamic figure leads me to believe that he should
Speaker 1: fare very well there. And then Florida's you know, and unknown.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you have big delegate holes getting
Speaker 1: split up between these major candidates early, it's going to
Speaker 1: be very difficult for a front runner to emerge. And
Speaker 1: it strikes me that that means that not only are
Speaker 1: you going to have a crowded field, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a very long primary process, and that this will go
Speaker 1: all the way to the convention. One does that concern
Speaker 1: you too? Are you concerned about the potential for a
Speaker 1: brokered convention? Not really. There's been lots to talk of
Speaker 1: that in the last couple of decades on both sides.
Speaker 1: It hasn't really happened. Same with the primary process, we haven't.
Speaker 1: We had the most contentious, most number of candidates, most
Speaker 1: spending in the primary, we've ever had a Democratic Party
Speaker 1: this year at the congressional and other levels, and it
Speaker 1: cycle turned out pretty well for us. I think that
Speaker 1: energy should translate into the presidential race and could be
Speaker 1: a real advantage. I've rarely seen a hot contested primary
Speaker 1: that so wounds a candidate that you regret it looking back.
Speaker 1: I mean, every candidate would love to run unoppost or
Speaker 1: or your you know, kind of walk through a primary.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean it's good for the Darwinian process
Speaker 1: that is running for president. I don't think it hurt Obama.
Speaker 1: I think it I think it helped them. I don't
Speaker 1: think it hurt Trump. I think it helped him, and
Speaker 1: so I'm not that concerned about it. You know, it's
Speaker 1: hard to tell. I mean that you would certainly think
Speaker 1: instructurally it helps Senator Harris in California or Orbato in Texas.
Speaker 1: But if you look back to ninety two, I mean
Speaker 1: what happened when Tom Harkin ran Is everybody just said, well,
Speaker 1: why try in Iowa? The real battles New Hampshire, and
Speaker 1: so it kind of it it almost made those states
Speaker 1: made Iowa the sort of state that everybody was greating
Speaker 1: on a curve now a lot less. I mean, Texas
Speaker 1: and California are much bigger, delicate, rich states than than
Speaker 1: Iowa was. So but it you know, it could also
Speaker 1: be sweet relief. I mean, if you don't have to
Speaker 1: spend media and field another dollars in the two biggest
Speaker 1: states or two of the three biggest states, that might
Speaker 1: be the saving grace for a couple of these other campaigns.
Speaker 1: And then they may just make a strategic decision to
Speaker 1: m to um, you know what, the national media helped
Speaker 1: communicate and more efficient ways communicate in Texas and California
Speaker 1: and to not essentially maybe spin down your whole campaign
Speaker 1: you I mean, for Al Gore and Bill Bradley didn't
Speaker 1: raise enough money together to run campaigns in Texas and
Speaker 1: California in twenty twenty, I don't think so. Um, I
Speaker 1: mean That's that's one factor. Well, thanks, Sean. I know
Speaker 1: you're gonna stick around for the next segment, So thank
Speaker 1: you for that, and we'll be right back with you. Guys.
Speaker 1: If you're familiar with AARP, and you probably are, either
Speaker 1: you or someone you know is already a member. But
Speaker 1: did you know did the ARP lobbies for a lot
Speaker 1: of progressive causes. They fought tooth and nail for a
Speaker 1: government run healthcare system. They even scripted portions of White
Speaker 1: House speeches behind closed doors to ensure the passage of Obamacare,
Speaker 1: and they stood against task cuts for the middle class
Speaker 1: and small business owners. That's why I recommend AMAC. Why
Speaker 1: AMAC Well, AMAC was founded by Air Force veteran Dan
Speaker 1: Weber over a decade ago to represent not only conservative views,
Speaker 1: but policy that's good for America. They advocate for conservative
Speaker 1: values like protecting the border and much more. And they
Speaker 1: offer a lot of value for their members like discount
Speaker 1: on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistants, dental plans, even cell
Speaker 1: phone plans. So stand with AMAC as they fight the
Speaker 1: good fight by becoming a member today. The benefits are great,
Speaker 1: but the cause is even greater. So tell your family
Speaker 1: and tell your friends. Join right now. AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck. AMAC is better,
Speaker 1: better for you, better for America. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. We'll be right back with more after
Speaker 1: this quick break. Welcome back. You're listening to the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. I'm Harland Hill filling in for a buck.
Speaker 1: I'm back with Democratic consultant John Rally. He's a partner
Speaker 1: at Counterpoint Messaging. John. Over the weekend we had footage
Speaker 1: of Democrats like Senator Menendez from New Jersey parting with
Speaker 1: lobbyists on the beach, heading on the beach in Puerto Rico,
Speaker 1: and in context of the shutdown, it kind of struck
Speaker 1: me as a little tone death. Is that the vibe
Speaker 1: that you got from the other side of the aisle?
Speaker 1: Or are we over reading this year? Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I think the Democrats had done about any
Speaker 1: everything they could do to put a deal on the
Speaker 1: table for the President, and he just kept saying no.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, I mean, whether Puerto Rico was
Speaker 1: a strategic flourish that will be a positive. You know,
Speaker 1: whether going to Hamilton or not was a good idea,
Speaker 1: but also that's a that's a place where they put
Speaker 1: some money into the economy that had been hard hit
Speaker 1: by the hurricane, and also a huge failure of the president.
Speaker 1: So I think the biggest challenge is that the president
Speaker 1: owned the shutdown up front, and he is and I
Speaker 1: think most polling is showing that even beyond Democrats, among
Speaker 1: even Republicans and independence people are playing at his feet. Well,
Speaker 1: I gotta take issue there with your assessment of Democrats
Speaker 1: willing to come to the table and work out a
Speaker 1: deal in the shutdown. I mean, they're not willing to
Speaker 1: compromise at all on funding for the border wall, which
Speaker 1: I kind of think is very interesting because in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: all fifty four Democrats in the Senate voted to pass
Speaker 1: the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, which
Speaker 1: included forty six billion dollars in border security improvements and
Speaker 1: added seven hundred miles of border fencing, exactly what the
Speaker 1: present's looking to do today. So the presence asking for
Speaker 1: five billions to day back in twenty thirteen, every single
Speaker 1: Democrat voted for forty six billion dollars. Where's the difference here? Like,
Speaker 1: what changed since twenty thirteen that Democrats don't like fencing anymore.
Speaker 1: It's not the exact same wall. But I am glad
Speaker 1: you're emphasizing that Democrats are for border security used to
Speaker 1: be well, and they still are. I mean, the ridiculousness
Speaker 1: of the wall. I mean, even most of Trump's supporters
Speaker 1: don't believe he's actually going to do it, and you know,
Speaker 1: I guess, I guess we're never going to get Mexico
Speaker 1: to pay for it either. I mean, it's just, I mean,
Speaker 1: his whole thing was a pitch. It wasn't an actual policy,
Speaker 1: and I think even a lot of I mean a
Speaker 1: lot of his supporters were caught on tape even in
Speaker 1: the primary and general saying he's just he's just saying
Speaker 1: that he doesn't really believe he's going to get it done.
Speaker 1: And so you know now that we're, you know, weeks
Speaker 1: into the shutdown over something that this wasn't a believable policy.
Speaker 1: I mean, gosh, at least, whether you just agree or
Speaker 1: disagree teriffs and taxes and things like that, or at
Speaker 1: least believable policies. This has always just been a fandom,
Speaker 1: It's been a sales pitch. Well, now Democrats are saying,
Speaker 1: including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi saying that walls are immoral. Well,
Speaker 1: you guys voted for seven hundred miles of it in
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. Like, I just don't understand. Forgive me, I
Speaker 1: don't understand the discrepancy. It comes off as very disingenuous
Speaker 1: of Democrats and now oppose fencing, steel slat fencing exactly
Speaker 1: what the President is proposing now, not a concrete wall,
Speaker 1: when you guys supported it just a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: I don't, I really, I earnestly do not understand how
Speaker 1: they weren't immoral back then but now they are. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so much of the President's policy it's
Speaker 1: a it's a moral around this. I mean in terms
Speaker 1: of the in terms of the families and the detainees
Speaker 1: and the people that have been harmed and injured. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a I think I think the Democrats listen, and
Speaker 1: you know, I am a frequent critic often when Democrats
Speaker 1: dropped the ball on things, whether it's policy or politics,
Speaker 1: But on this one, I think, you know, digging in
Speaker 1: on a matter of principle. When the when the president
Speaker 1: shutting down the government is the right human move, it's
Speaker 1: the right policy move, and I think it's the right
Speaker 1: long term political move, maybe the right political move for Democrats,
Speaker 1: but I struggle to understand how it's the right moral one.
Speaker 1: I mean, when two thirds, according to a report the
Speaker 1: CBS had to to publish as a correction to one
Speaker 1: of their fact checks, two thirds of the women and
Speaker 1: children that are coming across the border or molested at
Speaker 1: some point during their journey through Mexico, and women and
Speaker 1: children are being trafficked over the border illegally. Um, there's
Speaker 1: clearly a crisis of morality at the border that we
Speaker 1: could address by having a more secure border, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: if we cut off the source for these people that
Speaker 1: are that are traveling people across the border. So and
Speaker 1: why the president can't come together on strategies at work?
Speaker 1: I mean the old build a ten foot wall and
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a twelve foot ladder at some point.
Speaker 1: I mean, is the sort of thing that John McCain
Speaker 1: and Lindsey Graham and a lot of other Republicans have
Speaker 1: embraced over time. And I mean I think time and
Speaker 1: time again over the last ten to fifteen years, Democrats
Speaker 1: have been at the table to finally have an immigration
Speaker 1: reform Bill and the extreme right wing, the Tea Party wing,
Speaker 1: the Trump wing of the Republican Party has blown up
Speaker 1: deals that some of the top Republicans, most well known
Speaker 1: Republicans in the country had had pre negotiated and everywhere,
Speaker 1: but John I gotta pushed back everywhere that there's a
Speaker 1: border wall, some sort of fencing. Illegal crossings are down materially.
Speaker 1: And we saw that play out in San Diego where
Speaker 1: CNN asked a local station, Hey, can we get a
Speaker 1: reporter to talk about how the border wall doesn't work there?
Speaker 1: They're like, oh, no, it actually works here. CNN says, Okay,
Speaker 1: never mind, We're not interested in having one of your
Speaker 1: reporters come on air. So border walls do work. So
Speaker 1: what's like, what's the problem now, I'm really trying to
Speaker 1: drill down here. If you have to give some concessions,
Speaker 1: and the president's willing to give some concessions, He's even willing,
Speaker 1: he's even willing to work with Democrats and give them
Speaker 1: permanent status for DOCCA recipients. If the presidents willing to
Speaker 1: give that much up to Democrats, why can't they give
Speaker 1: him a measly five billion dollars less than point one
Speaker 1: percent of our annual budget, which is three point eight
Speaker 1: trillion dollars. Why can't they give that very small concession
Speaker 1: just to appease the president, even if you don't think
Speaker 1: it matters. I mean, the Democrats have been at this table,
Speaker 1: and they've also been clear all along this is this
Speaker 1: is not going to happen. I mean, so if it's
Speaker 1: that easily of amount of money, um and and there's
Speaker 1: a huge consensus that it won't work, I mean, why
Speaker 1: would we shut down the government. But there is consensus
Speaker 1: that it does work where crossings are down everywhere we
Speaker 1: put up these border walls. So we just can't agree
Speaker 1: on the facts. That's the problem. That's the problem, and
Speaker 1: maybe that's why Washington is broken. But John, Hey, I
Speaker 1: really appreciate your time today. I think we had a good,
Speaker 1: good to be a good conversation on the on the
Speaker 1: makeup of the twenty twenty field, and on the shutdown.
Speaker 1: Here Where can people learn more about what you do? Sure?
Speaker 1: My company's website is camerapoint Messaging dot com. And yeah,
Speaker 1: if we have another hour, we could maybe get through
Speaker 1: the rest of the democratic field. We we sped through
Speaker 1: it pretty well, that's right. Thanks John, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. We'll be back with more after
Speaker 1: this quick break. Welcome back. You're listening to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. I'm Harlan Hill filling in for Buck. The
Speaker 1: phone lines are open to give us a call at
Speaker 1: eight four four nine eight two five. That's eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred. Fuck. Even before the government shutdown, the
Speaker 1: markets were under considerable pressure in the last quarter of
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, and as a Trump supporter, this gave me
Speaker 1: some serious heartburn as we looked at twenty twenty, because frankly,
Speaker 1: I believe that old trope it's the economy stupid, and
Speaker 1: so I thought I would have somebody come in who's
Speaker 1: an expert at this to talk me off the ledge.
Speaker 1: So I've got John Hartley. He's an economics commentator that
Speaker 1: you'll find Informs magazine and on Foxnews dot com. John,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me, Harland. So first,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to ask a very simple question. Are
Speaker 1: we headed for a recession between now and the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty presidential election? Harland, I think it's unlikely. I think
Speaker 1: if you look at heart economic data where we're at today,
Speaker 1: the unemployment rates below four percent, unemployment, insurance claims are
Speaker 1: at a post war low, and GDP growth is looking
Speaker 1: like it they're going to come in at around three
Speaker 1: percent for twenty eighteen. All of these things are evidence
Speaker 1: of what I would call it a gangbusters economy. I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of people who have become somewhat
Speaker 1: concerned about what's been happening in financial markets as of late.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of reasons why financial markets
Speaker 1: have been somewhat disconnected from the macroeconomy, one of them
Speaker 1: being what's happening on the global on the global stage
Speaker 1: is happening with the global economic growth. China has been
Speaker 1: adversely impacted by the ongoing trade negotiations between the US
Speaker 1: and China. It's important to remember that forty percent of
Speaker 1: SMP five hundred earnings come from overseas, and so the
Speaker 1: US stock market, while it may seem like it's specific
Speaker 1: to the US, is actually can van flow depending on
Speaker 1: what's happening in international markets. If you look, as of
Speaker 1: right now, the US economy stands above and beyond all
Speaker 1: the other country. Most other economies around the world are
Speaker 1: certainly and developed an emerging markets, and so I think
Speaker 1: what's happening is there's a big disconnect between what's happening
Speaker 1: in financial markets and what's happening in the US economy.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be too concerned about what's happening as it
Speaker 1: right now as it relates to whether we're heading toward
Speaker 1: a recession or not. On average, recessions happened approximately fifteen
Speaker 1: percent of the time, and so I think I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be too concerned between now and in twenty twenty. Certainly
Speaker 1: something that I think you want to keep an eye on,
Speaker 1: but it's not something that I'm too worried about. I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of Democrats out there that maybe
Speaker 1: are hoping that a recession could happen, but I think
Speaker 1: it's unlikely. Well, and one thing that was sort of
Speaker 1: a silver lining is that, you know, every time the
Speaker 1: Bureau of Labor Statistics comes out with a report like yeah,
Speaker 1: then they came out the report for December, I mean,
Speaker 1: the jobs growth looks solid, you know, I mean and
Speaker 1: even wage growth and so yeah, so it seems like
Speaker 1: despite the termolile and the markets and this this correction,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what it is. It is a market correction. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, it seems like the underlying economy is solid,
Speaker 1: I mean, and this underlies the longest expansion in post
Speaker 1: war history. UM. And so do you think that at
Speaker 1: least that is what is what you're projecting, is at
Speaker 1: least that trend continues or are you seeing that things
Speaker 1: are starting to slow down in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: the microt I mean answer that the macro economics as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that I tenderly agree with you that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the longest post war uh, the longest post
Speaker 1: war expansion. UH, doesn't seem to show any signs as slowing.
Speaker 1: I think unemployment claims over the past few weeks have
Speaker 1: been flight like slightly elevated, but it's still very close
Speaker 1: to post war lows. Uh. I think one thing that
Speaker 1: you're seeing, and I think that one thing that positively
Speaker 1: contributed to economic growth last year. Many forecasters would agree
Speaker 1: that tax reform, the Tax Custom Jobs Act, which was
Speaker 1: passed at the end of twenty seventeen. This is President
Speaker 1: trump signature tax law and signature legislative achievement, had a
Speaker 1: lot to do with writing investment or writing cabacs. So
Speaker 1: that those are things like factories, new equipment purchases that
Speaker 1: that US companies have made. That all played a lot
Speaker 1: into the wonderful economic numbers that we saw last year.
Speaker 1: As you pointed out, we had a very strong job
Speaker 1: to report from December around two hundred and ninety thousand
Speaker 1: jobs or out of the economy. Also, in wages are
Speaker 1: passing three percent now, and so that when you take
Speaker 1: out inflation, that's one percent of real wage growth, something
Speaker 1: that we haven't seen consistently and brilliant in decades. So
Speaker 1: I think that, well, when you hop in there real quick,
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the one of the concerns that
Speaker 1: I see is that is this government shutdown. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're seeing we're seeing the we're hearing the threat of
Speaker 1: downgrade of US credit rating, you know from triple A
Speaker 1: U if this, if this shutdown were to continue, and
Speaker 1: then if we hit our debt ceiling beyond that. Um,
Speaker 1: that those both seem like triggers that could truly undermine
Speaker 1: the trajectory of the economy going into twenty twenty. And
Speaker 1: I don't see the President flinching on this shutdown. UM.
Speaker 1: And at the same time, I don't see Democrats flinching either. So, UM,
Speaker 1: is that reason to be concerned? I mean, do you
Speaker 1: do you think that that's being overplayed by some of
Speaker 1: the economists and some of the commentators that I you
Speaker 1: know here on Bloomberg and c NBC. Um, Or is
Speaker 1: that a real concern if the shutdown as to continue, Well,
Speaker 1: it's a great Uh, it's a great question. Uh there
Speaker 1: are a costs associated with a shutdown, or that there
Speaker 1: is an impact, But I think as of right now,
Speaker 1: I think it's been relatively small. I think it nonlinearly
Speaker 1: increases over time. So I think if the shutdown, which
Speaker 1: is I think now twenty four days long, if it
Speaker 1: were to go on for another three months, I think
Speaker 1: that's you know, the point where I think you'd want
Speaker 1: to start maybe being very concerned. Um. But I think
Speaker 1: as right now, only two or three weeks, I think
Speaker 1: isn't something to be overly concerned about. I would agree
Speaker 1: with you that I think it's been somewhat over hyped,
Speaker 1: uh in um in the financial press that tries to
Speaker 1: sort of weave a story around every every daily move
Speaker 1: in the market. But that that being said, you know,
Speaker 1: to your point about down grades, Uh, you know the
Speaker 1: yes that was been downgraded before if you remember in
Speaker 1: September twenty eleven, Uh, it was downgraded. Uh. And this
Speaker 1: has to do with a standoff over a dead ceiling
Speaker 1: raid UM and what happened there is you actually did
Speaker 1: have markets um go haywire, but there was no macroeconomic
Speaker 1: followed from that event. And so I think, you know,
Speaker 1: if you look at two thousand and eight where the
Speaker 1: raiding agencies had so many subprime mortgage, so many subprime
Speaker 1: mortgages raided triple A, I think the credit agencies can
Speaker 1: get it wrong, and in my opinion, I think they
Speaker 1: got it wrong when they deal in graded USB in
Speaker 1: twenty eleven. And if they do it again now, you know,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if markets overreacted. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of behavioral psychology that goes into market movements, and I
Speaker 1: think that also plays into why we've recently seen the
Speaker 1: downturn in markets. There's a lot of certain types of traders,
Speaker 1: momentum traders that can have an impact on markets as well.
Speaker 1: But again, I don't think any of those individual factors
Speaker 1: is probably enough to derail the economy. There's really only
Speaker 1: two reasons why economy will go into recession, at least
Speaker 1: in the kind of the postwar history. One of them
Speaker 1: is the FED when they raise rates very high in
Speaker 1: response to high inflation, that can put the economy into recession.
Speaker 1: That happens in the early eighties when you had Paul
Speaker 1: Volker raising interest rates in early age of twenty percent.
Speaker 1: And the second cause of recessions in the US and
Speaker 1: the post war period has been financial imbalances. So these
Speaker 1: are things like the tech bubble in the late nineties
Speaker 1: where you had all your friends were starting to dot
Speaker 1: com companies in getting bridge very quickly and very weird
Speaker 1: strange access is happening. Uh in. Similarly, in two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven and eight you had a housing bubble emerged,
Speaker 1: and so those are exstinancial imbalances that can that can
Speaker 1: cause recessions down on top of FED or called policy mistakes.
Speaker 1: Those are the two sort of leading causes, and as
Speaker 1: of right now, I don't really see either of those
Speaker 1: being the case. Certainly with FED interest rates special term
Speaker 1: intrates being close to two percent, well below the twenty
Speaker 1: percent of the Vulgar era, uh IN. I think with
Speaker 1: stancial imbalances, you know, corporate debt issuance, nonstancial corporate debt
Speaker 1: issuance is maybe a bit higher than historical norms. But
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily see that as being a massive financial
Speaker 1: access that poses some threat to the macroeconomy. That's reassuring.
Speaker 1: I mean, and you know, if one takeaway, if if
Speaker 1: I've had one positive takeaway from all of this, it's
Speaker 1: that it does seem like in terms of raising interest rates,
Speaker 1: the Feed is going to take a step back and
Speaker 1: maybe maybe slow down this year. Is that? Is that
Speaker 1: your your read on it too? For twenty nineteen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you look at what both Jeroan Powell or j Powell,
Speaker 1: Chairman of the Fed's been saying with Vice chair the
Speaker 1: set has been saying what said funds futures market has
Speaker 1: been forecasting right now, the market expects around one the
Speaker 1: two hikes happening next year. Uh. The Fed is now
Speaker 1: forecasting I think two. I think it's important to remember
Speaker 1: how low interest rates are compared to their historical norms. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, two percent. You know, it's it's high or sorry,
Speaker 1: two and a half percent, which is where the upper
Speaker 1: bound of the FED funds ranges right now. Even though
Speaker 1: it's high, I think it's still low relative to UH
Speaker 1: to historical standards. And so yeah, I would agree with
Speaker 1: you that the FED I think is taking a pause
Speaker 1: right now, and I think ultimately that'll have a reassuring
Speaker 1: impact both on markets in the economy as well. And
Speaker 1: the reason why they're raising intrace to begin with was
Speaker 1: concerns about inflation, and that I think have borne out
Speaker 1: to be someone alleviated as well. If GPI is now
Speaker 1: around two point two percent year over a year, I'm
Speaker 1: close to its two percent target, so I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: too concerned about too many more FED rate heikes causing
Speaker 1: some sort of a policy mistake. I think they're being
Speaker 1: very carefully dadependent. All right, well, John, thank you very
Speaker 1: much for talking me off the ledge there. I'm feeling
Speaker 1: a little bit better about our prospects and we'll be
Speaker 1: sure to have you back on again soon. Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me. We'll be back after this quick break with more.
Speaker 1: The phone lines are open, so give us a call
Speaker 1: at eight four four nine hundred two eight two five.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine hundred Buck. Stay tuned to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Welcome back. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. I'm All and Hill filling in for Buck.
Speaker 1: I wanted to thank you guys for your time tonight.
Speaker 1: It's always great to fill in for Buck, and I
Speaker 1: give him a lot of thanks and appreciation for trusting
Speaker 1: me with his mic tonight. By now you have all
Speaker 1: heard about snippy dot com. It's a new social media site.
Speaker 1: And if you've looked at snippy dot com and left,
Speaker 1: look again. Thousands of listeners have joined snippy dot com,
Speaker 1: expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy is
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform that's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its
Speaker 1: users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators.
Speaker 1: Check into snippy dot com for a quick update on politics, sports,
Speaker 1: current events, food, fashion, really anything. You can scroll through
Speaker 1: users posts and strike up conversations. Search by topic, browse
Speaker 1: the news feed, and follow your favorite writers. Snippy is
Speaker 1: a place where everyone is free to express their thoughts,
Speaker 1: share their opinions, and tell the world what makes them snippy.
Speaker 1: It's a place where discussion is valued, a place where
Speaker 1: your opinion matters. It's totally free to join, open to everyone.
Speaker 1: So join at snippy dot com and let your opinion matter.
Speaker 1: No shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought. Ever,
Speaker 1: now with an updated user interface and exciting new features,
Speaker 1: It's also available on the Apple App Store and available
Speaker 1: on the Android Google Play Store. Snippy is your new
Speaker 1: alternative social media. So tonight we've covered a lot of ground.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of my biggest takeaways was that there's
Speaker 1: nothing that the president can do that would appease Democrats.
Speaker 1: He literally nominated someone for attorney general. The Democrats lauded
Speaker 1: right in, mister barr They previously lauded him. They've around
Speaker 1: the funeral of George H. W. Bush, they lauded him
Speaker 1: as well, And the President decided to bring mister Barr
Speaker 1: in as his attorney general. And you would think that
Speaker 1: with that George H. W. Bush heritage, and given the
Speaker 1: fact that they were just talking about how great that
Speaker 1: period of time was, that they would see a lot
Speaker 1: of virtue in that decision. Nope, if you watch the
Speaker 1: hearings today, they did not. They did not. And so
Speaker 1: what we're seeing is a fundamental breakdown in the way
Speaker 1: that our government is operating. And I am concerned because
Speaker 1: I look at what's happening abroad. I look at Britain,
Speaker 1: for example, where tonight they had a vote on Brexit,
Speaker 1: and I can see the dysfunction with which their democracy
Speaker 1: is barely functioning. And I worry now looking at our
Speaker 1: government shutdown, looking at the obstructionists and the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: turning down the President at every turn, even when he
Speaker 1: tries to do things that they would do, that the
Speaker 1: Democrats would want to do, for instance, infrastructure spending. When
Speaker 1: he tries to come to the table with solutions the
Speaker 1: Democrats should love, with nominations the Democrats should love, they
Speaker 1: say no, they cry foul, they say that he's a racist.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not hypervle anymore. This is the
Speaker 1: reality in which we're living. And so I look at
Speaker 1: that example of Brexit and how dysfunctional they are, and
Speaker 1: how they're about to potentially toss out their prime minister
Speaker 1: over this Brexit vote, and I'm like, gosh, Western democracy
Speaker 1: is in trouble. And it's clear why. The common thread
Speaker 1: through all of this is that there has been a
Speaker 1: push to populous nationalism. There's been a push to give
Speaker 1: voice to the people of their own to put your
Speaker 1: own country first, in the case of Britain, to put
Speaker 1: Britain's first, and in the case of America, to put
Speaker 1: Americans first, and that's been rejected wholesale by the establishments
Speaker 1: of both parties, by the establishment of the Labor Party
Speaker 1: in the UK and by the establishment but the Conservative
Speaker 1: Party in the UK, by the establishment of the Democrat
Speaker 1: and Republican parties here in the United States. And as
Speaker 1: long as those puishments refused to recognize that there's been
Speaker 1: a tectonic shift in geopolitics under their feet and they
Speaker 1: didn't see it coming in either the case of Brexit
Speaker 1: or President Trump. Until they realize that this has happened,
Speaker 1: until they come to terms with why it happened, until
Speaker 1: they start listening, so they start listening to voters, they
Speaker 1: won't understand it. They think that these things were flukes,
Speaker 1: and I believe in the case of American politics that
Speaker 1: they will be proven wrong in twenty twenty when President
Speaker 1: Trump is reelected remains to be seen. What happens in
Speaker 1: the UK. I mean, they've got a big mess on
Speaker 1: their hands, big mess, much bigger than the one that
Speaker 1: we have. But it gives me pause because there's not
Speaker 1: enough listening. What we see instead is that those establishments
Speaker 1: try to write off these movements, which are really the
Speaker 1: product of you of neglect by the establishment of middle
Speaker 1: class people. As long as they continue to neglect them.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that people are going to get
Speaker 1: even matter. This problem won't go away. You can stick
Speaker 1: your head in the sand. But you know what, the
Speaker 1: middle class in the West is being destroyed. And they
Speaker 1: look at what's happening with mass migration gutting their wages,
Speaker 1: and they say, what in the world is happening here? Why?
Speaker 1: You know, like I'm crying out for a job, right
Speaker 1: and I'm crying out for better wages. I want my
Speaker 1: kids to have the opportunities that I thought that they
Speaker 1: would have that I had, and I think they're going
Speaker 1: to have a worse off chance. They're looking beyond migration.
Speaker 1: They're looking towards automation. They have a lot of anxiety
Speaker 1: about is my job going to be anxiety or is
Speaker 1: my job going to be automated? That's another problem beyond that,
Speaker 1: you know, they're looking towards the way that you know,
Speaker 1: the people and are native people in their own countries
Speaker 1: have been subjugated. Like enough of this. You know, just
Speaker 1: because I'm a white male doesn't mean that I have
Speaker 1: at all benefited from a patriarchy, right. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: out there struggling every day. Don't write off my problems
Speaker 1: and concerns as less than than others. And so this
Speaker 1: is a time of a lot of pain and transition,
Speaker 1: and I hope the establishments of both parties wake up
Speaker 1: and realize that they need to do a lot more listening. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'll be back soon. I really appreciate Buck for his
Speaker 1: time tonight, and I thank you for listening. If you
Speaker 1: want to follow me, I'm on Twitter at Harlan h
Speaker 1: A R. L An. Have a good night. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show.