Speaker 1: You're in the freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Get more from Buck by following him on
Speaker 1: social media at buck Sexton on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Speaker 1: Welcome friends to the Buck Sexton Show. I know it
Speaker 1: is nothing new that the media lies to you. We've
Speaker 1: said it on this show so many times that it's
Speaker 1: almost like an unofficial mantra. But the media does a
Speaker 1: lot to you constantly, the lot of all Americans. They
Speaker 1: lie to themselves. But you've seen a shift, and this
Speaker 1: is clear with the Hunter Biden story as we now
Speaker 1: have it, because it's a condensed enough period on an
Speaker 1: important enough issue that it's clear as day what's going
Speaker 1: on here. Let me tell you the old model, or
Speaker 1: the old thinking about this was that the mainstream mediaize
Speaker 1: to you largely out of a subconscious bias. They don't
Speaker 1: even know how liberal they are. They don't even know
Speaker 1: how much they're Democrat activists pretending to do journalism. So
Speaker 1: what they do is to them completely fair minded. Now
Speaker 1: that's insane and it's obviously wrong and delusional, but they
Speaker 1: at least can consider themselves. They at least think they
Speaker 1: have that going for them. They believe that at whatever level.
Speaker 1: But now when you see what's happened with this Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden storyline, which I also I'm still not sure that
Speaker 1: that alone would have had a dramatic effect on the election,
Speaker 1: But we can't know. That's the problem. That's the point.
Speaker 1: Now it's too late. We can't run the experiment again.
Speaker 1: But the Hunter Biden story was suppressed in such a
Speaker 1: way that anyone can see. It is very clear, It
Speaker 1: is very obvious that they did this intentionally, and they
Speaker 1: did this without any remorse, without any sense that they
Speaker 1: were betraying their profession, that they have scruples or ethics.
Speaker 1: It's not about that anymore. This is the change. It's
Speaker 1: not that they think they're being fair minded. Now they
Speaker 1: just weaponize whatever they've got. Now it's out, it's all
Speaker 1: out in the open. They are on team Destroyed, Team
Speaker 1: destroyed Trump, Team help Biden. That's what they're doing. That
Speaker 1: is the plan. That's what's going on here. So the
Speaker 1: media is a disgrace, and social media has now amplified it.
Speaker 1: And I do believe I believe that there is right
Speaker 1: now a greater degree of aggressiveness and brazenness from the
Speaker 1: mainstream media than there's been a long time, because They've
Speaker 1: got social media now running cover for them, so they
Speaker 1: figure now is the time. Now is their moment. Crush
Speaker 1: the opposition, lie to everyone's faces, get away with it,
Speaker 1: rub our noses in it. That's what they're doing. What
Speaker 1: examples could I point to on this? Oh, they're they're
Speaker 1: a countless ones right now. But let's just start before
Speaker 1: I get into how disgraceful and dishonest they were on
Speaker 1: this story and how it's clear now and this is
Speaker 1: the real takeaway. This was not an accident. They didn't
Speaker 1: really think that the Hunter Biden laptop was stolen or hacked.
Speaker 1: That was all a lie, and they knew it was
Speaker 1: a lie. They didn't really believe any of this was
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation. They knew that was a lie. The point
Speaker 1: now is that with social media running cover for them,
Speaker 1: backing them up, magnifying their lies, they feel comfortable doing
Speaker 1: whatever they've got to do to achieve power. They don't care.
Speaker 1: They don't care that you and I know, I think
Speaker 1: that's important. We used to believe that if we held
Speaker 1: a light up to them, if we were able to
Speaker 1: express our outrage age and how they violated their principles,
Speaker 1: and they're not really being journalists, that there was some
Speaker 1: cause and effect there, that there would be some responsiveness
Speaker 1: from their side. I mean, I think that was always overstated.
Speaker 1: But they don't care what you think. They don't care
Speaker 1: what anybody who's not a Biden supporting Trump hating leftist thinks.
Speaker 1: They simply do not care. Does not matter to them.
Speaker 1: We are now in a post journalism world in this
Speaker 1: country where all we have are these warring propaganda machines,
Speaker 1: and now propaganda can be for the good. Right. The
Speaker 1: Allies engaged in propaganda during World War Two against the Nazis.
Speaker 1: It was good propaganda. Right, So let's understand that that
Speaker 1: word can usually have a negative connotation. But what else
Speaker 1: we can call it polemics, we could call it fierce debate,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to say. We have to defeat their arguments,
Speaker 1: that we have to actually defeat their power grabs, or
Speaker 1: else they'll just continue to do this and continue to
Speaker 1: get away with it. So here we have perfect example.
Speaker 1: I mean, then there's so many examples that we could
Speaker 1: choose from, but here's a perfect example of this politico
Speaker 1: which considers itself to be an insidery politics first publication
Speaker 1: in DC. I mean, it's it's a bunch of libs.
Speaker 1: They could the politicals for people who couldn't get jobs
Speaker 1: at the New York Times. But you know, we're almost there,
Speaker 1: pretty close. And they put out this before the election.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at this stuff and it's it's
Speaker 1: just amazing. Hunter Biden's story, this is before the election,
Speaker 1: this is in October. Is Russian disinfo. Dozens of former
Speaker 1: intel officials say more than fifty former intelligence officials signed
Speaker 1: a letter casting doubt on the providence of a New
Speaker 1: York Post story on the former president's son. What does
Speaker 1: that even mean? Who cares what fifty former intelligence officials
Speaker 1: think about the New York Post reported? What do they
Speaker 1: know about it that the New York Post doesn't. The
Speaker 1: answer was nothing. But this was a smokescreen. This was
Speaker 1: a classic smokescreen operation. Just put something up there to
Speaker 1: obscure what's really going on. That's what they did. Now
Speaker 1: you go to the story from this week, Justice Apartment's
Speaker 1: interest in Hunter Biden covered more than taxes actually covered.
Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors also investigated foreign ties, including possible money laundering
Speaker 1: and money launders. A serious crime. It's a federal felony.
Speaker 1: You can go to prison for quite a few years
Speaker 1: for that one. So this is the same publication a
Speaker 1: few weeks apart. And I think that our belief that
Speaker 1: what we will usually fall back on an our side.
Speaker 1: As see look at how dumb they look. Ha ha.
Speaker 1: The journals. The journals are being silly journals again, and
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you that's not how they view it.
Speaker 1: The New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, MSNBC, all
Speaker 1: of major news publications, platforms, channels across the country that
Speaker 1: are not explicitly right of center, all of them, all
Speaker 1: of them now have trended toward this. But the big
Speaker 1: players in the space, CNN, the Times, the Post, they
Speaker 1: don't do these things and then feel embarrassed when they
Speaker 1: get caught. They're doing them now and they're saying, what
Speaker 1: are you gonna do about it? And the answer, and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you this, and not a lot of
Speaker 1: other people will the answer on the right is we
Speaker 1: got to figure that out. Because we don't have a
Speaker 1: good answer yet. People ask me what can we do?
Speaker 1: And I share all of their frustration. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: seething over stuff like this when I dig into it,
Speaker 1: I'm doing this research, I I just want to just
Speaker 1: shout profanity when I see this stuff happening. But they
Speaker 1: do it now, and they look you in the eyes
Speaker 1: and they say that's right, and it worked. This is
Speaker 1: the Harry Reid school, and the Democrats do this all
Speaker 1: the time and there and the media now is just
Speaker 1: open about it. Remember what Harry Reid said about the
Speaker 1: completely baseless smear. I'm no Mitt Romney fan, as you know.
Speaker 1: But Mitt Romney has always paid his taxes. Okay, Mit
Speaker 1: Romney is not a is not a guy who hasn't failed,
Speaker 1: hasn't filed tax returns in ten years, No way at boy, scout,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. Okay, that guy pays his taxes. Is he rich?
Speaker 1: Is he a plutocrat? Is he a sell out? Sure?
Speaker 1: But way not that there's nothing wrong being rich. We
Speaker 1: should all be so lucky. But here we are now
Speaker 1: looking at the true manifestation of the philosophy that Harry
Speaker 1: Reid very clearly outlined for us when he was asked, sir,
Speaker 1: what do you what do you think now about the
Speaker 1: fact that you lied about Mitt Romney's tax returns. He
Speaker 1: clearly did his responsible will. He didn't win, did he.
Speaker 1: That's what the entire mainstream media. They're all laughing at
Speaker 1: us now behind closed doors. We sit here and we say, see,
Speaker 1: you guys, don't do what you say you're gonna do.
Speaker 1: And they giggle in our faces and say, oh, yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: I guess we made that mistake. I guess we had
Speaker 1: a little bit of a slip up on the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden stuff. Oh we'll do better in the next election. Sure.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, enjoy being shut down. Enjoy having your
Speaker 1: conservative websites and commentators people like me shut down on
Speaker 1: Twitter and Facebook and YouTube. And who knows what Google's doing?
Speaker 1: Google's the most powerful company in the world right now,
Speaker 1: Google's the most powerful company in the world. All in
Speaker 1: we don't even know what they're doing. Who do you
Speaker 1: think's gonna stop them? Oh? You think a bunch of
Speaker 1: Republicans who are getting a lot of money from big tech.
Speaker 1: Do you think Mike Lee is gonna all of a
Speaker 1: sudden be the great savior of the Republic against the
Speaker 1: big tech oligarchs who are handing our country over to
Speaker 1: the radical left. I don't think so. Not that guy
Speaker 1: here we are seeing it couldn't be any more clear,
Speaker 1: couldn't be any more obvious. They do this now, and
Speaker 1: they don't apologize. They do it because it is the mission.
Speaker 1: This is not something that just occurs, This isn't an
Speaker 1: unwanted byproduct of their political aspirations. This is how they
Speaker 1: do what they do. And now we get to what
Speaker 1: can we all do about it? The answer is stop
Speaker 1: trusting them on anything. Don't read them, don't support them,
Speaker 1: don't click on them, don't accept it when they put
Speaker 1: someone forward who's, oh, well, we've got some conservative voices
Speaker 1: at CNN. No they don't. They do not not that
Speaker 1: are worth a damn. So don't do it. You all
Speaker 1: have the ability to vote with your dollars. You all
Speaker 1: have the ability to be a part of this movement
Speaker 1: based on who you support, who you listen to, who
Speaker 1: you help. And I tell you openly, please make me
Speaker 1: one of them. If you're listening to this show, get
Speaker 1: as many people as you can in your orbit to
Speaker 1: listen this because you think they're being told this message elsewhere.
Speaker 1: Do you think that any friend of yours, and you know,
Speaker 1: good patriotic Americans who probably aren't that into the news cycle,
Speaker 1: aren't as into politics as you are. If you're listening
Speaker 1: to this, you know they're they're they're listening to you know, NPR,
Speaker 1: and they're listening to PBS and there you know, they
Speaker 1: they're trying to get information too, and they're just being
Speaker 1: constantly propagandized too. They're being brainwashed. It's not their fault.
Speaker 1: Brainwashing is very effective if you if you study and
Speaker 1: if you look at cults. There's actually some stories on
Speaker 1: this recently. A lot of very smart people fall for cults,
Speaker 1: usually because they think they're too smart to fall for
Speaker 1: a cult. Same thing as true a brainwash. You've got
Speaker 1: to be very aware, you've got to be self effacing.
Speaker 1: And the dominant media, unfortunately, the liberal media, the mainstream,
Speaker 1: they're achieving a position again where they can just fully
Speaker 1: stifle the other side. They don't have to pretend anymore
Speaker 1: that there should be balanced in media and you know,
Speaker 1: equal time and fairness doctrine and all this stuff. No,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, they want the same way they want
Speaker 1: absolute political dominance. They're going for absolute media dominance. And
Speaker 1: they're in a better position now than they've been in
Speaker 1: a very long time. And we all need to be
Speaker 1: aware of that. Fox News alone and a handful of
Speaker 1: you know, radio personalities, and a couple of publications. Not enough,
Speaker 1: not enough. If it were enough, Joe Biden wouldn't have gotten. However,
Speaker 1: many years, seventy or eighty eighty million votes. I think
Speaker 1: it is what they're saying now, right, eighty four million
Speaker 1: or eighty eighty million. I mean, Joe Biden, you got
Speaker 1: million more than Obomber, right, so let's call it eighty million.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden wouldn't have been able to get that. But
Speaker 1: the propaganda machines are very powerful, and I know there's
Speaker 1: more will dig into this Hunter Biden stuff. I've also
Speaker 1: seen people now calling did anyone call for a special
Speaker 1: counsel into Hunter Biden before I did? I'm just curious
Speaker 1: because I put that out on Twitter and it started
Speaker 1: to catch fire, and now I'm hearing a lot of
Speaker 1: people say, oh, we should have a special counsel for
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden. Yeah, we should. In fact, this is a
Speaker 1: perfect example of what we should have a special counsel
Speaker 1: for a criminal investigation involving the son of a possibly
Speaker 1: incoming president. That's when you appoint it, and you appoint
Speaker 1: it now. You don't wait until there's another president who
Speaker 1: happens to be the one whose son would be under
Speaker 1: criminal investigation. We need to reorient our thinking a bit
Speaker 1: on this. We've caught them in the fraud about it's
Speaker 1: no one really could have believed it was Russian disinformation,
Speaker 1: But that was the disinformation. The claim was the deceit.
Speaker 1: That was the whole point, and at some level it
Speaker 1: was successful. At some level it worked. And all that
Speaker 1: means is they're going to do it again. There's no
Speaker 1: good faith, there's no common ground, there's no reaching across
Speaker 1: to the other side of the media and saying can't
Speaker 1: we all agree on the following can't we have fair
Speaker 1: rules of the road. No, we are now in all
Speaker 1: out political media war. That's where we are. We need
Speaker 1: to understand that. And everybody has a role to play.
Speaker 1: Everybody can choose who they watch, who they listen to,
Speaker 1: who they tell their friends, who they support, and the
Speaker 1: ideas that come with all of that. So you absolutely
Speaker 1: every day are making choices that play a role in
Speaker 1: this fight. Don't forget that. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get the latest news and information
Speaker 1: from Buck by heading to Bucksexton dot com. Now let's
Speaker 1: get into some of the best exchanges to identify the smug,
Speaker 1: intentional dishonesty and overall idiocy of so many in the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. And we're talking about some of the most
Speaker 1: established names in journalism, people who have a fancy accent
Speaker 1: and work on a specific kind of presentation on television,
Speaker 1: and then everyone's supposed to think they're so smart just
Speaker 1: because they have this very pompous accent, and it's all
Speaker 1: really just like they're an actor. But we think they're
Speaker 1: smart anyway for no reason. Christian I'm um Pool. You'll
Speaker 1: remember perhaps she had this exchange when the Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: laptop was exposed, when we got into all this, she
Speaker 1: had this exchange on CNN and you gotta hear at
Speaker 1: play one. Okay, you know what. Also, the United States
Speaker 1: government says, the FBI says this laptop is not Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: So what are you talking about here? This laptop is real.
Speaker 1: It's not just the laptop. There's other emails, there's text messages.
Speaker 1: They are real. So according to there's this government I
Speaker 1: verifying everybody to look at that. But that's not what
Speaker 1: we're hearing from. This is one of the most power
Speaker 1: because families in watching this, the Biden family and you're okay,
Speaker 1: you're okay, with our interest being sailed out to profit
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and his family, when when we're suffering during
Speaker 1: a pandemic from communist China, keeps doing deals with communist Okay,
Speaker 1: as you know perfectly well, I'm a journalist and a
Speaker 1: reporter and I follow the facts and there has never
Speaker 1: been any issues in terms of corruption. Now let me
Speaker 1: ask you this. Yesterday the FBI. The FBI had that
Speaker 1: I'm talking about reporting and any evidence. I'm talking to
Speaker 1: you now, Okay, I would talking if you guys would
Speaker 1: beyond aren't doing that verifing? Oh, we're not going to
Speaker 1: do your work for you. I want to ask you
Speaker 1: a question. The FBI journalist Hustry is verified. How much
Speaker 1: insane crap can Christian Mumpool say in one interview? I
Speaker 1: just want to know this is this is on on
Speaker 1: CNN in some ways there their longest running and best
Speaker 1: known host. I mean, now I'm on poor goes back
Speaker 1: to the Larry King days, and uh, she's saying I'm
Speaker 1: a journalist. She also says that's not what we're hearing
Speaker 1: from the FBI. It was the most obvious news story ever.
Speaker 1: They had the guy's laptop, they had all of his
Speaker 1: personal information. It was clearly his laptop. But the problem
Speaker 1: is that I'm on poor after all this, you think
Speaker 1: she looks like a moron, so she'd be upset. No,
Speaker 1: she probably got a pat on the head, maybe even
Speaker 1: a bonus from Jeff Zucker for this disinformation. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. This is the buck Sexton Show podcast
Speaker 1: from more buck Head to Bucksexton dot com and remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe to the podcast. I wish you would interview
Speaker 1: Joe Biden like you interview me. It would be so good.
Speaker 1: You know what, you like this? I thought, I thought.
Speaker 1: But when I watch him walk out of a store
Speaker 1: and he's walking with a ice cream and the question
Speaker 1: the media asked him, what kind of ice cream? What
Speaker 1: flavor ice cream do you have? And he's in the
Speaker 1: midst of a scandal, he's not and he's taking of
Speaker 1: course he is, Leslie, Come on, of course he is.
Speaker 1: It's the biggest, second biggest scandal. So the biggest scandal
Speaker 1: was when they spied on my campaign. They spied on
Speaker 1: my campaign. There's no real evidence of that, of course
Speaker 1: there is. It's all over the plays, Leslie, they spied
Speaker 1: on my campaign, and they get Can I say something
Speaker 1: you know, this is sixty minutes, and we can't put
Speaker 1: on things. We can't pay it on because it's bad
Speaker 1: for Biden. We can't things we can't very leslie. They
Speaker 1: spide on my campaign, We can't totally verified it's been
Speaker 1: Just go down and get the papers. They spied on
Speaker 1: my campaign. They got caught. No, and then they went
Speaker 1: much further than that, and they got caught. And you
Speaker 1: will see that, Leslie, and you know that, but you
Speaker 1: just don't want to know. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: I don't know that. No, as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: I don't apparently read any of the various lengthy reports
Speaker 1: from the DOJ on this, or what the Congress and
Speaker 1: the various oversight committees have proven. And no, this is
Speaker 1: sixty minutes. We don't do facts that make Democrats sad
Speaker 1: on the inside. That's what she's telling you. Again, looks
Speaker 1: like an idiot to anybody who knows anything about Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General of the United States said and used
Speaker 1: the word spying on the campaign, and was and backed
Speaker 1: it up. Afterwards. They said, oh, you didn't really mean spying.
Speaker 1: They said, no, no, No, I meant spying on the campaign.
Speaker 1: That's the sitting Attorney general. But sixty minutes knows better.
Speaker 1: This is sixty minutes. Unbelievable, unbelievable. It's all a fraud. Friends,
Speaker 1: They're they're you know how Satan is the father of
Speaker 1: lies the mainstream media because the grandfather applies. Okay, they're
Speaker 1: they're coming up with this stuff all the time, all
Speaker 1: the time, and they don't care you catch them. It
Speaker 1: does not matter because they're doing it for a reason.
Speaker 1: The reason is not to inform people. It is to
Speaker 1: please their democrat audience, to make them feel happy on
Speaker 1: the inside, and to crush conservatives. That is why they exist.
Speaker 1: They do not exist for the truth. They do not
Speaker 1: exist to tell you things as they are, and they
Speaker 1: don't care when you catch them anymore. That's that's the
Speaker 1: big difference. Now there's no pretense. They just think. Here's
Speaker 1: a perfect example of the transition that I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Go back, look, just do it. You can do it.
Speaker 1: You know, a time constrained Google search, you know, put
Speaker 1: in in the tools and you go to the dates,
Speaker 1: go back and do his search five years ago on
Speaker 1: social media bias against conservatives, and all these websites would say, oh,
Speaker 1: but you know, we don't do it at all, and
Speaker 1: the social media platforms, oh, that's not that was a mistake. Oh,
Speaker 1: we didn't mean to do that. Oh no, no no.
Speaker 1: And now it's gone to the point where they're just going, yeah,
Speaker 1: what are you gonna do about it? That's right. We
Speaker 1: are attacking. We are coming after you. We are shutting
Speaker 1: you down and cutting you off. And get ready for
Speaker 1: the possibility here of Joe Biden getting a televised Shiatsu
Speaker 1: massage for the next four years. I mean, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be embarrassing. Joe is gonna be every interview. It's gonna
Speaker 1: be the equivalent of Joe Biden saying, oh, yeah, no joke,
Speaker 1: my shoulders really, you know, man, it's tight up there.
Speaker 1: And yeah, let's right, get into those knots. Yeah, a
Speaker 1: little more oil. Yeah, that's right. That's what the media
Speaker 1: is gonna be doing to Joe Biden for four years,
Speaker 1: if he is present, and if he lasts four years
Speaker 1: in office. Because let's be honest, friends, we're already seeing
Speaker 1: some very interesting indicators, aren't we. No, no, no, And
Speaker 1: I don't know this. I'm thinking this one through as
Speaker 1: I talk to you, but sure, the media is now
Speaker 1: coming clean on the Hunter Biden stuff. And I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say coming clean, they're just they have to now drop
Speaker 1: the facade. But why now? Why are they dropping the
Speaker 1: facade now? They probably could have extended this out a
Speaker 1: little bit longer, waited until after the inauguration. Why do
Speaker 1: it now? And they don't seem upset about this at all?
Speaker 1: And remember that they are a bunch of conniving, backstabbing,
Speaker 1: behind the scenes manipulators. That's what the mainstream media is
Speaker 1: full of. So why would they all of a sudden
Speaker 1: be so calm about clearly very negative revelations about Joe
Speaker 1: Biden that aren't really revelations as you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's even tough to talk about this because the words
Speaker 1: that we end up using. And this is not a
Speaker 1: news story. This is just the media saying, whoopsie, why
Speaker 1: do you sorry? But not sorry? That's really the media's
Speaker 1: new entrip. Sorry, not sorry. They don't care, that's all
Speaker 1: this is. Why is this happening now? Why is this
Speaker 1: occurring in this moment? I have told you all along
Speaker 1: it is my belief that Kamala Harris was very likely
Speaker 1: to take over for Joe Biden early in a Biden administration.
Speaker 1: And that this would work out for all those involved.
Speaker 1: As far as the Democrats are concerned, Joe Biden gets
Speaker 1: to be a hero, the savior of our democracy from
Speaker 1: the clutches of Trump and Trumpism and hand it over
Speaker 1: to the first black female president after being vice president
Speaker 1: for eight years, to the first black president. Right, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden gets to be a hero for the ages. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you look at the legacy of Biden versus say,
Speaker 1: the legacy of the Clintons, Biden, if he pulls this off,
Speaker 1: will be a more revered name. And who would have
Speaker 1: thought that could have been the case. But here we are.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about among Democrats, great hero to the party.
Speaker 1: And I think that we all need to see that.
Speaker 1: That's given Biden's age, Right, if Biden were like a
Speaker 1: strapping guy of you know, if he was in his
Speaker 1: early sixties and you know, look like I mean, I
Speaker 1: think when Bush came into office, remember someone telling me
Speaker 1: who was in that White House that you know, he
Speaker 1: could run multiple, multiple miles under seven minutes. And I
Speaker 1: mean he was like a you know, a young, vital guy.
Speaker 1: And then of course after eight years of being president,
Speaker 1: he looked like he had aged about thirty years. But
Speaker 1: you know, if Biden were in his even in his
Speaker 1: early early sixties, I would say, or just his sixties,
Speaker 1: I'd say, yeah, he's gonna make it. He's gonna go
Speaker 1: all eight years. He's gonna be eighties soon. And those
Speaker 1: of you who have people in your in your lives
Speaker 1: who I mean, the difference for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: not for all people. And so I don't need to
Speaker 1: get the emails from our wonderful team buck audience whore
Speaker 1: in their eighties who could still kick my butt. I appreciate,
Speaker 1: I know that you're out there. But for a lot
Speaker 1: of people, the difference between seventy and eighty is really substantial,
Speaker 1: and just in terms of their energy, and they're that's okay,
Speaker 1: It's true for all of us. This is not this
Speaker 1: is no way is this anything other than an observation.
Speaker 1: You know, when I'm seventy, it's gonna be different than
Speaker 1: when I'm eighty. I mean, gosh, I'm gonna be forty soon,
Speaker 1: and it feels very different from when I was thirty.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you. So we all have this, we
Speaker 1: all have this understanding. Joe Biden is going to deteriorate
Speaker 1: more in office with all the pressure and stress under
Speaker 1: him in terms of his aging and everything else, and
Speaker 1: it's so easy for him to step aside, but I
Speaker 1: think the media wants him to. This could be and
Speaker 1: this is really where I'm going to this analysis analysis.
Speaker 1: This could be the greatest Baden switch. This could be
Speaker 1: the biggest maneuver in politics in our lifetime. They essentially
Speaker 1: get this guy who doesn't seem that radical, at least
Speaker 1: that's what they're saying, and they push this guy and
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and then they just replace him with
Speaker 1: somebody who's completely willing to do whatever the corporate left wants,
Speaker 1: emphasis on corporate. Kamala Harris is a liberal, but she
Speaker 1: likes you know, she likes the dollar dollar bills. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's somebody who wants the Googles and the facebooks and
Speaker 1: the you know, the Soros Foundation, and she wants all
Speaker 1: that to be on her own planned parent at all,
Speaker 1: that's got to be on her side. And then they're
Speaker 1: on the side of the radical left as we know anyway.
Speaker 1: But I can't help but notice that there's a a
Speaker 1: sense here of oh, Okay, turns out maybe Joe Biden
Speaker 1: does have some problems. And the left is fighting this enough.
Speaker 1: They're not even trying to run cover on it right now,
Speaker 1: they're just saying, yeah, sorry, I mean they don't care.
Speaker 1: As I've said to you, they don't care. But they
Speaker 1: could have held it a little bit longer. Look, maybe
Speaker 1: I'm maybe I'm reading further into this than I should.
Speaker 1: That's always possible. But I don't think Joe Biden makes
Speaker 1: it to the mid terms. I really don't. And you
Speaker 1: have this time, meaning that he voluntarily steps aside for
Speaker 1: health reasons, which would be not there would never be
Speaker 1: a way to prove that that was planned versus that
Speaker 1: that was the reality. There's a very decent chance Joe
Speaker 1: Biden could have a real health reason to step aside
Speaker 1: in the next four years, right That wouldn't be a surprise.
Speaker 1: So the door is wide open for it, I think.
Speaker 1: And I'm not talking so much about this Biden thing
Speaker 1: because I've given up, So you don't need to tell
Speaker 1: me that I haven't given up yet. I had Sean
Speaker 1: Parnell on yesterday. We're taking this thing to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and we all all it takes is one big break
Speaker 1: in the damn That's what it takes. And it could
Speaker 1: be this Pennsylvania case. It'd be amazing if my buddy
Speaker 1: Sean was part of the legal effort that change history.
Speaker 1: But you know, he knows it's a long shot. He's
Speaker 1: told you that, but it's still a shot. But with Biden,
Speaker 1: I'm just sensing now this is at least the media's
Speaker 1: thinking and the Democrat Party's thinking, which is why this
Speaker 1: Time magazine thing is just so interesting. Who do you
Speaker 1: think the Time Magazine Person of the Year is Person
Speaker 1: of the Year Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Not the
Speaker 1: people that have put together a vaccine that might give
Speaker 1: us back our lives in the next six months, because
Speaker 1: that's really what it's going to be. Not the people
Speaker 1: that have done that. Not are frontline healthcare workers. You know,
Speaker 1: they've done this sort of group thing before. They'll say
Speaker 1: that the person of the year and they'll name a
Speaker 1: group of people. No, No, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris person
Speaker 1: of the year Time Magazine. This is the only thing
Speaker 1: that ever talks about with Time Magazine, just because it's
Speaker 1: it's had this ability to put this stamp of person
Speaker 1: on the year for going back. I don't even know
Speaker 1: now how many decades, fifty sixty seventy years whatever, maybe
Speaker 1: more than that. I have no idea, so we still
Speaker 1: say this, but it just shows you where the mentality
Speaker 1: is right now. Yeah, they they couldn't just put Joe
Speaker 1: Biden on that cover. Had to put Kamala. They had
Speaker 1: to put the vice president Joe Biden they think won
Speaker 1: this election. That's what we're all being told as has happened.
Speaker 1: Of course, no fraud, no fraud at all. Of course
Speaker 1: there was fraud, but Joe Biden won this election. And
Speaker 1: here we are now seeing the Kamala Harris shares the
Speaker 1: cover with him Time Magazine. These are little indicators. These
Speaker 1: are things that in the media world, you always pay
Speaker 1: attention to what the photo placement is. In the media world,
Speaker 1: who's in the center, who's on the sides, who who
Speaker 1: has a good photo picked to them, who is kind
Speaker 1: of a crappy photo picked of them? Because there's decisions
Speaker 1: going into all this all the time, which by people
Speaker 1: in the media are usually so crazy and and finicky
Speaker 1: about stuff like this. But they put kamalaw on that
Speaker 1: cover for a reason. Friends, that much I know you're
Speaker 1: in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Get more from buck by following him on social media
Speaker 1: at buck Sexton on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Make sure
Speaker 1: you go check out buck Sexton dot com. We got
Speaker 1: judge Emmett Sullivan is the new face of Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: That's a story up there. And we've also got dems
Speaker 1: were effective and distracting from their own skeletons to the
Speaker 1: closet Bucksexton dot Com breaking down all that for you.
Speaker 1: A lot of what you hear on the show, we're
Speaker 1: gonna be writing up and putting on that site and
Speaker 1: you gotta check it out bucksex and dot com. Make
Speaker 1: it a homepage, check in throughout the day. You can
Speaker 1: listen to the podcast there too, so you can always
Speaker 1: just share that site with somebody and say, hey, this
Speaker 1: is where you can listen to this guys radio show.
Speaker 1: All right, now, what is what is the reality of
Speaker 1: the Georgia election that's coming up. We've got to be
Speaker 1: focused in on this thing. I think we you know,
Speaker 1: I worry about the psychology of the right at this
Speaker 1: point in time because Trump supporters are look, I get it,
Speaker 1: people are upset, they're dejective. We've got people talking about
Speaker 1: the road to secession here right this is this is upsetting.
Speaker 1: It's an emotionally challenging period. I'll put it that way.
Speaker 1: A lot of other words I'd like to use, but
Speaker 1: there's a family show. It's emotionally challenging period. It is
Speaker 1: messed up. You could say that's family friendly. But if
Speaker 1: we don't get our heads right and get into this
Speaker 1: fight in Georgia and make sure that these senate runoffs
Speaker 1: go our way, then we really got problems. No matter what.
Speaker 1: We can focus as much as we need to and
Speaker 1: push at support and people are sending donations and they're
Speaker 1: keeping the story alive, and they're spreading, spreading word about
Speaker 1: the fraud, and I think we also don't have enough time,
Speaker 1: which has always been my concern here. They keep saying, well,
Speaker 1: where's the fraud? Show us the proof, and I say, well,
Speaker 1: how long is you got to go and say they're
Speaker 1: talking about tens of millions, over one hundred million votes.
Speaker 1: You're not looking at them everywhere, obviously only in certain
Speaker 1: states and certain precincts. But it's a big operation, and
Speaker 1: you got to go and do hand recounts and check
Speaker 1: things us. This takes time, and we don't have a
Speaker 1: lot of time. But that said this Georgia election, the
Speaker 1: Democrats are hoping that we don't show up those of
Speaker 1: us who live in and are registered in the state
Speaker 1: of Georgia. Of course, because we don't commit we don't
Speaker 1: commit fraud. That's what Democrats do. Mike Pence is telling everybody.
Speaker 1: I know Trump and Pence are out there pushing for
Speaker 1: Leffler and for Perdue. And here's Pence making the very
Speaker 1: straightforward case, we got to show up for this thing.
Speaker 1: Play five. I know we all got downs about this
Speaker 1: last election. I know I do, but I actually here's
Speaker 1: some people saying here in the Peach State, just don't vote.
Speaker 1: From my fellow Americas, if you don't vote, they win.
Speaker 1: If you don't vote, there could be nothing to stop
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer and Nancy Felosi from cutting our military, raising taxes,
Speaker 1: and passing their agenda the radical left. So I want
Speaker 1: to say to you from my heart, for all we've done,
Speaker 1: for all we have yet to do, for our president,
Speaker 1: for our future, for Georgia, and for America, cast another
Speaker 1: vote for all President Trump has accomplished. Cast a vote
Speaker 1: to send David Perdue and Kelly Leffler back to the
Speaker 1: United States Senate's absolutely right. In fact, my only criticism
Speaker 1: would be that if they took the Senate majority, it
Speaker 1: would be a lot scarier than just raising taxes and
Speaker 1: cutting the military back a bit. It would get much
Speaker 1: worse than that. They will go for long term strategic
Speaker 1: structural changes to the American political landscape so that then
Speaker 1: they can win on any issue. Then it's just a
Speaker 1: question of what their base wants, what the Democrats decide
Speaker 1: to do. They don't have to worry about, Oh, we're
Speaker 1: gonna get we're gonna get thumped in the mid terms,
Speaker 1: because we'll make a difference. That's what eliminating the filibusters,
Speaker 1: statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, and amnesty and packing
Speaker 1: the courts would accomplish. He's lay it out right there.
Speaker 1: We're not winning another election for thirty or forty years.
Speaker 1: If they get those things done, and they know it,
Speaker 1: you're in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast from more buck Head to Bucksexton dot com
Speaker 1: and remember to subscribe to the podcast. Harsani Time, Everybody,
Speaker 1: our friend David Harsany the Sage of Harsanyidom. He joins
Speaker 1: us now. He's a senior writer at National Review, checkout
Speaker 1: nashreview dot com for his latest. He's got a lot
Speaker 1: of thoughts up there, and he wrote a piece this
Speaker 1: week in fact on the Hunter Biden story killing. Let's
Speaker 1: get to that, David. Great to have you, always a
Speaker 1: pleasure of thank you. Fuck so, David, I have a
Speaker 1: thesis and you can. I'm sure you have either either
Speaker 1: another view on this that's a little diversion, or maybe
Speaker 1: you want to add to it, or you know, you'll
Speaker 1: do what you do. But here's here's what I want
Speaker 1: to put out there for you. I think we're at
Speaker 1: a point now that the media that and when we say,
Speaker 1: I know, we don't have great terms here, right, the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, the lib media, whatever Democrat aligned media, which
Speaker 1: controls ninety percent of journalism as we know, ninety five percent. Really,
Speaker 1: I think we're at a point now where they get
Speaker 1: caught doing things that violate the core ethics of their profession,
Speaker 1: like the suppression of the New York Post piece turning
Speaker 1: against them the New York Times writing some palace intrigue
Speaker 1: piece about how in the newsroom at the Post. I
Speaker 1: mean we had you on to talk about this. I
Speaker 1: remember you're saying that there were Yeah, there are people
Speaker 1: that have disagreements in a newsroom all the time. But
Speaker 1: the point is is the story true and shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been run. I think the media and David is at
Speaker 1: a point now where they just don't care if they're
Speaker 1: caught as long as it was for the right cause,
Speaker 1: that is Democrats. No, of course they don't care. That's
Speaker 1: their mission is to help elect democrats. You know. It's
Speaker 1: not as if they're suffering. You see the New York
Speaker 1: Times or even CNN. It's not like there is some
Speaker 1: kind of you know, everyone knows what they do, so
Speaker 1: there's no blowback to anything like this. This is the
Speaker 1: They're playing to their crowd, their left wing organizations, their
Speaker 1: partisan organizations, you know, and that's what they do. They
Speaker 1: don't care about stories like the hunter by the story
Speaker 1: because it hurt their candidate. They knew very well that
Speaker 1: the Post story had been conducted, the reporters had conducted
Speaker 1: themselves with the same ethical standards and the same journalistic
Speaker 1: standards that you know, a vast majority of other stories
Speaker 1: used and scoops used. They just wanted to suppress it
Speaker 1: and they did, and none of them care. None of
Speaker 1: them are today are like, wow, maybe we should have
Speaker 1: conducted ourselves differently. At least I haven't seen anyone too that. No,
Speaker 1: that's why I have not I've not seen a single
Speaker 1: person who apologized for lying about the I mean to
Speaker 1: call it Russian disinformation. Ben Rhodes, the former Obama White
Speaker 1: House a foreign policy propagandist who is really one of
Speaker 1: the more odious figures of the Obama administration, you know,
Speaker 1: in its totality, He called it Russian disinformation at the time,
Speaker 1: many many other people were, I mean, that was the
Speaker 1: talking point. You could go all these different cable news shows,
Speaker 1: MSNBCCNN and all the rest. They're all saying that it
Speaker 1: was Russian disinformation, which it clearly was not. And there's
Speaker 1: no Mayakalpa at all. In fact, the only Mayakulpa that
Speaker 1: I've seen came from I think it was a guy
Speaker 1: at Politico during the suppression effort who was sorry publicly
Speaker 1: for sharing the New York Post story. Yeah, you're right
Speaker 1: about that. Remember that it's funny because Political ran one
Speaker 1: of the most dishonest stories. Political is a complete joke,
Speaker 1: but they ran the most dishonest piece where they had
Speaker 1: Brennan and a bunch of other former figures within other
Speaker 1: administrations say that this might be Russian disinformation, but even
Speaker 1: they didn't come out and say for sure it was
Speaker 1: or anything of that nature. But yet the whole thing
Speaker 1: was couched in a way to make it seem like, well,
Speaker 1: you know it could be Noah, well anything could be
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation, right, I mean, so we can literally cover nothing.
Speaker 1: The Post had its hands on the laptop. All they
Speaker 1: have to do is go and ask for confirmation from
Speaker 1: Biden himself, which they have now done, because how long
Speaker 1: can you ignore a story that's under You know, if
Speaker 1: there's a federal investigation into someone, you can pretend that
Speaker 1: doesn't exist forever. But now, of course it's been blunted
Speaker 1: and all that. So yeah, I mean, I laid out
Speaker 1: a bunch of examples of how people were misleading on
Speaker 1: the story, suppressing the story, how they were There were
Speaker 1: more stories process stories about the Post newsroom than there
Speaker 1: was about the front running candidate of the United States
Speaker 1: possibly being involved in what is essentially either criminally corrupt
Speaker 1: but at the very least shady business dealings with authoritarian states.
Speaker 1: But you know, they don't care. So I think that
Speaker 1: the main thing here. I'll keep complaining my whole life.
Speaker 1: The main thing is we're going to have to people
Speaker 1: who care about the truth, even when it's about Democrats
Speaker 1: need to come up with a better plan than relying
Speaker 1: on these organizations and institutions which don't do their job anymore.
Speaker 1: Or they do their job, but their charge is very
Speaker 1: different from the one they pretend it is. I'm just wondering.
Speaker 1: On his show earlier this week, Tucker referred to The
Speaker 1: Daily Beast as he said something like, probably the worst
Speaker 1: left wing website that does news on you know that
Speaker 1: people know that does news. Is there one offender that
Speaker 1: you think is the worst at all of this? Because
Speaker 1: Daily Beast is a good choice. I actually think in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways, really, CNN dot com is actually
Speaker 1: the single worst site on the internet. But is there
Speaker 1: one that bothers you more than the others? See? I
Speaker 1: think the Daily Beast is a joke, though I do
Speaker 1: there is one reporter I sort of like over there,
Speaker 1: But in general, I mean, I think the editor is
Speaker 1: a complete joke of a of a you know, a journalist.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're journalists over there at all. But
Speaker 1: the problem with that is that everyone knows that and
Speaker 1: deals with them in a certain way where CNN positions
Speaker 1: itself as an unbiased source and actually prides itself with
Speaker 1: its stupid banana apple commercials with one of the anchors
Speaker 1: was wearing like facts first sweater the other day, you know,
Speaker 1: things like that. It's just annoying. But so to me,
Speaker 1: CNN is has the most egregious because of people like
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper and others who are complete activists pretending to
Speaker 1: be journalists. So for me, I think CNN is the worst. Yeah, Mike,
Speaker 1: I will totally totally agree, obviously, And I think that
Speaker 1: it's something that people need to just we need to
Speaker 1: come at all this now, not as oh, sometimes these
Speaker 1: places lie to us in terms of their motivations. Now
Speaker 1: it's no one lies about the facts all the time
Speaker 1: because that's counterproductive, right even and people and I have
Speaker 1: some familiarity with propaganda from studying it as an intelligence
Speaker 1: officer to see how other countries do it, and also
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union, you know, you want to use
Speaker 1: some factual basis for things, and then you want to
Speaker 1: either spin it in a certain way or leave certain
Speaker 1: things out. So it's not about that. It's not like
Speaker 1: we're all going to be using a different number for
Speaker 1: COVID cases, for example. It's about things like this, What
Speaker 1: do they suppress, what do they actually tell you? How
Speaker 1: do they know? What information do they want you to
Speaker 1: be aware of? What are the headlines that they're using.
Speaker 1: But David, I guess, and we're speaking of David Harsani
Speaker 1: of National Review here nash Review dot com. What do
Speaker 1: we do about this? I get asked this question, and
Speaker 1: it's a great question when blast me, but I'm not
Speaker 1: always sure that I have a great answer. It just
Speaker 1: quickly what you're said about there being a kernel of
Speaker 1: truth and all kinds of misleading propaganda. You know, as
Speaker 1: far as you know the history of the world goes,
Speaker 1: that's always the case. There's always some you know, every
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory for instances, somehow has one leg in the
Speaker 1: truth or it wouldn't seem plausible for people. So that's
Speaker 1: of course the case. And the worst defenders who deal
Speaker 1: with that kind of thing are fact checkers, who are
Speaker 1: perhaps the low it's the lowest form of journalism there is,
Speaker 1: in my opinion at this point, anyway, move forward. I
Speaker 1: enjoy bashing these people, but what can we do about it? Well,
Speaker 1: there's not much right now in the sense that I
Speaker 1: think that you have to keep pointing it out and
Speaker 1: in essence fact checking them in their genuine use of
Speaker 1: the term as they go along. But the problem is,
Speaker 1: and I've said this on your show before, is that
Speaker 1: you know, it costs a lot of money, and it
Speaker 1: takes a lot of work, and there has it takes
Speaker 1: a lot of time to actually really report on big stories.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you have to put reporters on it for months,
Speaker 1: year more even And the problem with doing that for
Speaker 1: smaller places National Review, Federalist, whoever, or even Washington Examiner
Speaker 1: and places they're trying to do more old school journalism
Speaker 1: is that it's super expensive and they just don't have
Speaker 1: the institutions to do it. Whereas you know, the New
Speaker 1: York Times has I don't know how many reporters in
Speaker 1: the news or might imagine a thousand, I think I
Speaker 1: think I think they've got a thousand people that work
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. Right when I worked at
Speaker 1: the Denver Post and the idea of newspapers there are
Speaker 1: four hundred people. I think they're So you're talking about
Speaker 1: there used to be a lot of reporters doing a
Speaker 1: lot of work and having very specific beats and so on,
Speaker 1: where it's very difficult to do. But I just don't
Speaker 1: see any other way to combat this because I think
Speaker 1: journalism has been corrupted by journalism, from journalism professors all
Speaker 1: the way up the line to the top editors. They've
Speaker 1: turned on free speech, they've turned on it's not even
Speaker 1: it's not biased anymore. That is completely something you can
Speaker 1: deal with. It's much worse than that. So I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't really have answers to what we meaning anyone
Speaker 1: who is upset by that can do. Um. I think
Speaker 1: right wingers need to start their own journalistic outfits and
Speaker 1: do the work. But I wish there were very much
Speaker 1: places that the ap or routers pretend to be, you know,
Speaker 1: just the people who just give us the you know,
Speaker 1: just the bare bones facts about what's going on out there.
Speaker 1: I think that, by the way, I think there is
Speaker 1: a you know, there could be a market for that.
Speaker 1: I for example, you know, if there was a place,
Speaker 1: if there was a place that did what CNN laughably
Speaker 1: pretends to do, I would be I mean, I would
Speaker 1: be reading it, I'd be checking in. I mean, I'd
Speaker 1: kind of want to see what I could, what I
Speaker 1: could gather from that for my own purposes. If I
Speaker 1: knew that I could trust the information was accurate, right,
Speaker 1: and then I wasn't getting all this nonsense. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you if you're a I mean, I know I'm
Speaker 1: picking on CNN and there are many others. I'm CNN,
Speaker 1: I do think is the worst defender in this regard,
Speaker 1: and it's gotten much worse even in the last four years.
Speaker 1: I'll say that having had personal experience of working at
Speaker 1: CNN and knowing it's gotten even even crazier. But but
Speaker 1: it seems to me, Brian uh, David, Sorry, it seems
Speaker 1: to me, d just kill me. It's face flashed on
Speaker 1: a screen for a second, and I got you know,
Speaker 1: this is the problem with having screens in your in
Speaker 1: your radio room. M David. It seems to me that
Speaker 1: the way that we can fight against this is also
Speaker 1: severely limited by the fact that the social media companies
Speaker 1: now and I feel like the old like the Fox
Speaker 1: News watching generation, for example, people like me talk about
Speaker 1: YouTube and you know and Twitter, and it's like, ah,
Speaker 1: this is no, this is the new mainstream media, like
Speaker 1: they're more powerful than CNN. I'm trying to get everyone
Speaker 1: understand that even if people who are of a certain age,
Speaker 1: a certain demo don't use these things. Well, I think
Speaker 1: you're right in that. Um. You know, people often point
Speaker 1: out a very very small percentage of Americans actually use Twitter,
Speaker 1: but you know, and of that percentage of very few
Speaker 1: use it all the time. But I do think that
Speaker 1: that things that happen on Twitter tend to filter up
Speaker 1: into the news and elsewhere, so I think it's more
Speaker 1: important and then the credit that's given to it. But
Speaker 1: I also think it's been an amazing way for conservatives
Speaker 1: to combat things. Now I get that Twitter, like I
Speaker 1: think that Twitter is both terrible and excellent at the
Speaker 1: same time. It's both makes us terrible human beings. It
Speaker 1: allows fake news to filter, it makes us you know,
Speaker 1: there's all kind of terrible things going on. But honestly,
Speaker 1: how many big stories have there been debunked on Twitter
Speaker 1: by Twitter users in the last four, you know, eight years?
Speaker 1: I think many? Right, first it was blogs that we're
Speaker 1: doing it, and now you have people on Twitter doing it.
Speaker 1: So it is an important tool. And that's why I
Speaker 1: worry about stripping liability protections from these folks, because I
Speaker 1: think you're going to kill social media in a way,
Speaker 1: and then that gives gatekeepers even more control because you're
Speaker 1: gonna have less ways for democratized, you know, way for
Speaker 1: people to talk to each other. So again, I don't
Speaker 1: have any good answers for this, but I think that
Speaker 1: that talking to yourself on parlor, which is a fine
Speaker 1: site whatever, is not helping you in the sense that
Speaker 1: being out there being able to debunk what CNN is
Speaker 1: saying in real time on Twitter, if you have a
Speaker 1: big following and you do, is much more effective. So
Speaker 1: giving up that fight and going to another platform, I
Speaker 1: don't know that that's really the answer to I would
Speaker 1: say this too, and I just that we have learned
Speaker 1: so much about what is true about these journalists and
Speaker 1: how they think because of Twitter. Finally, it took I
Speaker 1: took a while people to realize this, but the guy
Speaker 1: who's tweeting orange Man bad, he's basically Hitler at ten am,
Speaker 1: is not doing a fair recitation of the White House
Speaker 1: Press conference at four pm. And I think that that
Speaker 1: has been an enormous benefit of Twitter. Yeah, and if
Speaker 1: I may add, it's not just journalists though. You now
Speaker 1: you see what they're really about the things they tweet,
Speaker 1: the exclamation points on stories, you know, all that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. They're just completely unprofessional. And this goes for
Speaker 1: the vast majority of them. But you also see it
Speaker 1: with college professors. You know, my kids are going to
Speaker 1: go to college soon, and I'm like, I used to
Speaker 1: have a list. I'm like, I cannot send them to
Speaker 1: this college. Does this idiot or this unintellectual crackpot teaches there?
Speaker 1: But now there are too many schools that I've seen
Speaker 1: professors from everywhere that I don't even know where. It's everywhere.
Speaker 1: I don't give a dollar to my college, and I
Speaker 1: have zero regrets about that. I can tell you that.
Speaker 1: David Harsani, everybody check him out National Review dot com.
Speaker 1: And if you're not following him on Twitter and you're
Speaker 1: on Twitter, you should be David Harsan. Ye kind of
Speaker 1: spell it out phonetically. You'll get there. David, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you,