Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with is not. When the President of the
Speaker 1: United States take it to a bank together, we will
Speaker 1: make America great again. You'll never sharender. It's what you've
Speaker 1: been waiting for all day. The Buck Sexton Show joined
Speaker 1: the conversation called Buck toll free at eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred Buck. That's eight four four nine hundred to
Speaker 1: eight to five the future of talk radio Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: I think it's terrible. You want another truth. I think
Speaker 1: it's a disgrace what's going on in this country. I
Speaker 1: think it's a disgrace. The memo was sent to Congress,
Speaker 1: who was declassified. Congress will do whatever they're going to do.
Speaker 1: But I think it's a disgrace what's happening in our country.
Speaker 1: And when you look at that, and you see that
Speaker 1: and so many other things, what's going on, a lot
Speaker 1: of people should be ashamed of themselves and much worse
Speaker 1: than that. So I sent it over to Congress, and
Speaker 1: they will do what they're going to do. Whatever they
Speaker 1: do is fine, it was declassified and let's see what happens.
Speaker 1: But a lot of people should be ashamed. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody. The
Speaker 1: memo is out. It has been released. Democrats are either
Speaker 1: scurrying for the exits or delusional about the implications of
Speaker 1: this whole thing. I would just know that yesterday I
Speaker 1: made some predictions. I wanted to just revisit that before
Speaker 1: we dive into the details here. Number one with the
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS dossier affirmed. Number two other unspecified things also
Speaker 1: part of the five's activity. Number three. Democrats will argue
Speaker 1: this a tiny part of the overall picture. Four d
Speaker 1: O J top level will look bad. Five And this
Speaker 1: is the annoying part everyone. But I'm just gonna tell
Speaker 1: you the Russia conspiracy theory lives on Boom Gonna Go
Speaker 1: Away based on this memo. Boom one, two, three, four, five,
Speaker 1: all of them nailed. I'm just I'm just saying I
Speaker 1: didn't read the memo, but I knew it was in
Speaker 1: the memo. You know what I'm saying. I do want,
Speaker 1: I don't, I know when I don't. So there you
Speaker 1: have it. That is, in fact a pretty good rundown
Speaker 1: that was from yesterday. The memo came out today. That's
Speaker 1: a pretty good rundown of what in fact we know today.
Speaker 1: I want to dive into the details with you on
Speaker 1: all this, but let me first just get into how
Speaker 1: it was. It was such a sad day over at
Speaker 1: CNN at some of these places. Oh gosh, they're so upset, like,
Speaker 1: are we even gonna be a democracy? Are we gonna
Speaker 1: be okay? The fascism is just you being all over
Speaker 1: the place. What are we gonna do? Uh? And I
Speaker 1: believe it is done purposely to discredit, as has been reported,
Speaker 1: law enforcement. This memo is a Dutch This is a
Speaker 1: way for the for the President Dana to discredit the
Speaker 1: Muller investigators. That this is very partisan, cherry picked and
Speaker 1: is in fact undermining UH longstanding, decades, long standing rules
Speaker 1: of oversight. Of the dramatization of this memo, it does
Speaker 1: go back to the Joe McCarthy period of a sense
Speaker 1: of getting something, calling it a document perhaps written with
Speaker 1: the help of the White House. Not a single one
Speaker 1: of those people, those are all journalists. Not a single
Speaker 1: one of them knows a damn thing about FISA intelligence
Speaker 1: anything that they don't even know how a simple warrant
Speaker 1: works in the criminal justice system. It's just they just
Speaker 1: know what they're supposed to say, and that's what they're saying.
Speaker 1: But I have to know that this this is quite
Speaker 1: a change, isn't it. In fact, one of the most instructive.
Speaker 1: And like I said, I'll get into some of the
Speaker 1: details and will we'll jump into this together. I, somebody
Speaker 1: who used to have a clearance and work in the
Speaker 1: intelligence community, have a little bit of a of a
Speaker 1: leg up on the topic compared to a lot of
Speaker 1: the commentators out there because I've worked in this world.
Speaker 1: I know what FISA is and I can tell you
Speaker 1: what's going on. But the the favorite part of the
Speaker 1: of today for me, and this is what I've been
Speaker 1: saying for some days now, including here on this show
Speaker 1: and other shows where I've been appearing to set this
Speaker 1: one up. And I will note that it was kind
Speaker 1: of fun that all my predictions were correct, but not
Speaker 1: that they were that outlandish. I'm just saying it's nice
Speaker 1: to be right five times and one thing, but the
Speaker 1: don't I'll be I'll be humbled on Monday when I
Speaker 1: make a stock market prediction or something. Then I'll really
Speaker 1: I'll remember that. You know, don't don't ever get too
Speaker 1: big for your bridges their sex. And I'm a long
Speaker 1: way from that guy's I promised. But the the the
Speaker 1: best thing about today is seeing one people saying stuff
Speaker 1: like it's a dud. It doesn't really mean anything. There's
Speaker 1: nothing in this that is important for us to get into.
Speaker 1: And too, this is the other great one, and I was,
Speaker 1: I was certain about this all along. Anyone who who
Speaker 1: had seen this memo. So that's Adam Schiff, the youth
Speaker 1: sham wile salesman, and all of the other Democrats standing
Speaker 1: around with him. Uh, the people in the FBI who
Speaker 1: had seen it and complained. Anyone who said that this
Speaker 1: was going to harm national security and had sources and
Speaker 1: methods concerns is a liar or an idiot, full stop.
Speaker 1: They are a liar an idiot. They were they were
Speaker 1: just playing games. There was nothing. There is no basis
Speaker 1: in this four page memo, which I've I've probably read
Speaker 1: through ten or fifteen times today, right, there is no
Speaker 1: basis for national security concern. Nobody will be harmed because
Speaker 1: of this memo. Nobody is in jeopardy because of this memo.
Speaker 1: And US national security is not in danger because of
Speaker 1: this memo? So what was all How could they get
Speaker 1: it so wrong? Everyone? How could they be making that claim?
Speaker 1: And I just have to know the whiplash that we
Speaker 1: all have. A few days ago it was, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: if the memo comes out and all the Russians will win,
Speaker 1: the Chinese will invade, We're gonna get nuked. And then
Speaker 1: today it's a you know, it's a nothing burger. What
Speaker 1: how do we go from one to the other. It's
Speaker 1: because the arguments against this, as I was telling you,
Speaker 1: we're so disingenuous. They're not made in good faith. They're
Speaker 1: not arguments that the people making them believe are true
Speaker 1: or probably even feel good about. But they think that
Speaker 1: it's for a purpose. And the purpose was any do
Speaker 1: anything you can to soften the blow, do anything you
Speaker 1: can to undermine the truth, and for the Democrats, for
Speaker 1: the left, and for the deep state apparatus, which we
Speaker 1: got quite a window into here, my friends. It is real.
Speaker 1: It is a cabal. It's small in terms of the number,
Speaker 1: but it is powerful in terms of the influence at
Speaker 1: the d o J and the FBI. So here we
Speaker 1: are with additional information about this um. There was some
Speaker 1: uh or some great reporting on this today from folks
Speaker 1: over at Fox, and our friend Sarah Carter also has
Speaker 1: been breaking stories all along on this issue. I want
Speaker 1: to jump into the specifics of this with you for
Speaker 1: just a moment, if I, if I, or for a
Speaker 1: few moments. I think it's worth taking some time on this.
Speaker 1: So what did we find out? What really matters here?
Speaker 1: Here's what happened the shorthand version, and then I'll get
Speaker 1: the details. You had a an opposition research document paid
Speaker 1: for by the Hillary Clinton d n C during a
Speaker 1: presidential election year that relied on a foreigner, yes Brits
Speaker 1: or foreigners, a foreigner speaking to or getting information from
Speaker 1: other foreigners, in this case the Russians, and then relying
Speaker 1: on that unverified information from the Russians from a foreigner
Speaker 1: taken to the FBI, and then the FBI uses that
Speaker 1: information to do an end run on the Fourth Amendment
Speaker 1: rights about search and seizure for a US citizen and
Speaker 1: repeat that error four times over and even site. As
Speaker 1: we find out today in the memo, a news item,
Speaker 1: a press or a piece in the press from Yahoo
Speaker 1: News that also relied on the British foreign source who
Speaker 1: was relying on Russian foreign sources for his information. This
Speaker 1: is very, very disturbing. There is no way around this.
Speaker 1: I think it's faster to see people say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's only a part, it's only a
Speaker 1: part of the overall picture of the fives a warm Well,
Speaker 1: let's just get this out there right away everyone, if
Speaker 1: it is one component of it. My first objection to
Speaker 1: that line of reasoning is if you have a strong
Speaker 1: case two, this is spying. Okay, this is spying. This
Speaker 1: is not. Remember if it were, if he were reasonably
Speaker 1: in or if it was a reasonable possibility that he
Speaker 1: was engaged in criminal activity. If they had a probable cause,
Speaker 1: FBI could have tap this guy's phones or his emails
Speaker 1: or whatever it is. They didn't have that. Counterintelligence investigations
Speaker 1: operated in a much broader area of well, we just
Speaker 1: need this information for national security reasons. So you better
Speaker 1: be damn sure whatever it is that bringing you to
Speaker 1: that conclusion is at least based on sound information, right
Speaker 1: because the FBI, as I see it right now, would
Speaker 1: be subject to you aren't even walking and I could
Speaker 1: walk in and say, yeah, you know, I know this
Speaker 1: guy named ab Duel. I think he's friends with Osama
Speaker 1: bin Lad and maybe you guys should just, you know,
Speaker 1: put out a fies on him. And that is that enough? No,
Speaker 1: of course, not right. That would be laughable. They'd have
Speaker 1: to use their discretion that they couldn't just if I'm talking,
Speaker 1: you know, if my imaginary friend here as a US citizen,
Speaker 1: they can't just light him up, track them, rack him
Speaker 1: and snack him with whatever intelligence apparatus equipment that they can.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's crazy, but that seems to be what
Speaker 1: happened here with Carter Page. I would also not that
Speaker 1: Carter Page has not even been accused of any crime
Speaker 1: still to this day, not none, leaked, nothing, there is nothing.
Speaker 1: New York Times n a story a while I go
Speaker 1: saying the Russians, Russian intelligence tried to recruit him. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's also known as being a businessman who's in Russia.
Speaker 1: By the way, that's not uncommon. The Russians try to
Speaker 1: recruit all kinds of people who go over there. At
Speaker 1: the Times wants to make it seem like there's a scheme.
Speaker 1: Carter was trying to run his own little foreign policy portfolio,
Speaker 1: making connections, but there's nothing illegal or wrong with that.
Speaker 1: But the pies A court. Back to my initial problem here,
Speaker 1: if the Phisi court wasn't just relying on the dossier,
Speaker 1: if the fis A court was not relying on the dossier,
Speaker 1: then I want to know what's the other information? What
Speaker 1: else is there released that information? This is where the
Speaker 1: Democrats are gonna stall install and we're gonna have the
Speaker 1: same argument. Oh, its sources and method, it's national security.
Speaker 1: We can't tell you, we can't tell you. Meanwhile, there's
Speaker 1: already reporting that the fire that for the fires of war,
Speaker 1: and in fact the dossier was a top line item,
Speaker 1: was critical. And you have a member of Congress who
Speaker 1: has already put it out there. I believe it's a Zellner.
Speaker 1: Congressman Zellner who has said, oh sorry, Zeldin, pardon me, Zelden,
Speaker 1: who has said the following via Twitter. We'll get to
Speaker 1: Comy's tweet later. Guys, don't worry, that's gonna be fun.
Speaker 1: Here's Congressman Zelden. McCabe did, in fact testify under oath
Speaker 1: that there would not have been a Fieser warrant if
Speaker 1: not for the dossier. It was recorded, So either McCabe
Speaker 1: blied under oath and therefore perjured himself and should face
Speaker 1: criminal charges. Or the dossier was in fact essential for
Speaker 1: the FISER warrant, which brings me back to my initial
Speaker 1: summation of this, which is that you had oppo research
Speaker 1: handed to the FBI, and then the FBI in bad
Speaker 1: faith went to the FISER court didn't tell the fies
Speaker 1: A court there is in fact a judge. It's referred
Speaker 1: to as the FISK, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court f
Speaker 1: I s C. But the d J went in front
Speaker 1: of the court and said, yeah, you know, this is
Speaker 1: this is this information. We need a fis A warrant
Speaker 1: on Carter page they did not here. This is from
Speaker 1: the actual memo today quote. Neither the initial application in
Speaker 1: October nor any of the renewals disclose or reference the
Speaker 1: role of the d n C Clinton campaign, or any
Speaker 1: party campaign or campaign in funding Steal's efforts. Even though
Speaker 1: the political origins of the Steel dossier were then known
Speaker 1: to senior d o J and FBI officials. The dossier,
Speaker 1: compiled by Christopher Steele on behalf of the Democratic National
Speaker 1: Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, formed an essential part
Speaker 1: of the Carter page FISA application. Steele was a long
Speaker 1: time FBI source who was paid over a hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty thousand dollars by the d n C and Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign via the law firm Perkins Co and Research for
Speaker 1: Infusion GPS to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties
Speaker 1: to Russia and quote. So they eight, we're playing dirty
Speaker 1: with the five accord everybody. But it gets even worse
Speaker 1: by the way. The names that pop up in this
Speaker 1: comy McCabe, struck or Yates. One of my personal favorite,
Speaker 1: Sally Yates, former Acting Attorney General hashtag resist Attorney General
Speaker 1: would not do her job as acting Attorney General because
Speaker 1: she hates Trump so much, and since she has left
Speaker 1: office or has left the d o J, has been
Speaker 1: quite vocal about her hatred of Trump. One of the
Speaker 1: most important things in the entire memo that was out
Speaker 1: today was also that it was established as a record,
Speaker 1: on as a fact, on the record that Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: the former British intelligence officer who was running around doing
Speaker 1: all this stuff, that he in fact hated Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and was desperate to prevent him from becoming president. That's
Speaker 1: in the memo. Now, what I'm going to put forward
Speaker 1: to you right now, is that it is very clear
Speaker 1: to me that in fact, the same could be said
Speaker 1: of Yates and Comey, and or and McCabe. They also
Speaker 1: despised Donald Trump and felt that they should do everything
Speaker 1: in their power, including the egregious abuse of their discretion,
Speaker 1: to take down a president by finding those around him
Speaker 1: who could be targeted using the surveillance apparatus of the
Speaker 1: intelligence community, selectively leaked their communications if need be. And
Speaker 1: bring this into because remember this was leaked to the media,
Speaker 1: this whole. If the five of stuff was kept silent,
Speaker 1: wouldn't even know about they were leaking this. They were
Speaker 1: trying to take Trump down with this completely bogus, nonsense,
Speaker 1: n income poop filled Russia colle Usian narrative. We have
Speaker 1: established that today we now have proof. But before we
Speaker 1: can take this to the jury in this case the
Speaker 1: American people, we need more. We need more information. More
Speaker 1: questions have to be asked, more answers have to be found.
Speaker 1: We will get to that work together more on this show.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. This is a tipping point for our democracy.
Speaker 1: Are we going to be a democracy after today? Or
Speaker 1: is this going to be demagoguery and despotism. The simple
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is he talks about transparency, and
Speaker 1: this is an administration that hasn't had a solo press
Speaker 1: conference in a year. They haven't had a press briefing
Speaker 1: in the last week and a half. They don't talk
Speaker 1: to the press. We have to go on the South
Speaker 1: Lawn to try and get in touch with the president
Speaker 1: and shout questions at him. That's disingenuous. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if you're going to be transparent, then you release the
Speaker 1: democratic version of it as well. What the heck is
Speaker 1: this guy talking about over at CNN or are we
Speaker 1: gonna even have a democracy? We're gonna have a democracy
Speaker 1: after this memo is released. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's
Speaker 1: a first of all, to republic. Second of all, I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna be okay. I think it's gonna be
Speaker 1: all right. My friend, just just calm down to say
Speaker 1: my favorite, my favorite Buck tweet from earlier in the day,
Speaker 1: This one for sorry, this one really uh whatever reason,
Speaker 1: this one really resonated with people and it was everyone
Speaker 1: needs to calm down. Comey has an inspirational tweet coming
Speaker 1: with a photo of a lake that will address all
Speaker 1: of this. Comey did have a tweet that he sent out,
Speaker 1: not of a lake, and it was not inspirational though
Speaker 1: um but almost as if on Q in response to
Speaker 1: what I wrote about Comey, you had an actual Comy tweet.
Speaker 1: Here's what he wrote about the memo. That's it dishonest
Speaker 1: and misleading. Memo wrecked the House Intel Committee, destroyed trust
Speaker 1: with intelligence community, damage relationship with fives accord, and inexcusably,
Speaker 1: inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen for what
Speaker 1: d O J and FBI must keep doing their jobs.
Speaker 1: Every single thing in that Comy tweet is either an
Speaker 1: exaggeration or a lie. Now, given that Comey, as we
Speaker 1: find out in this memo, authorized three of the four
Speaker 1: fies awarrants on carter page a US citizen with a
Speaker 1: some affiliation of the Trump campaign, I think we should
Speaker 1: go back and rethink some of our Comey as America's
Speaker 1: last true public servant crap that we've been fed by
Speaker 1: the media. Let me go through this tweet, fricks for
Speaker 1: a second. He says, dishonest and misleading memo. Okay, what's
Speaker 1: dishonest about it? Where where it's misleading? How? What is there?
Speaker 1: And then destroyed trust with intelligence community? How did destroy
Speaker 1: trust with the intelligence community? First of all, the intelligent
Speaker 1: community of seventeen agencies. This just involves FBI and d J.
Speaker 1: And why is it destroyed? Why does it destroyed trusts?
Speaker 1: Who have them doing oversight? They went through a completely
Speaker 1: legitimate process, a legal process, for the release of this memo.
Speaker 1: So what's the What does the intelligence community think they
Speaker 1: can do? Stuff in Congress doesn't get to know, and
Speaker 1: the President doesn't get to tell the American people about it.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. An inexcusably exposed classified investigation of
Speaker 1: an American citizen. Oh please comb me is such a punk.
Speaker 1: This stuff has been leaked. The New York Times has
Speaker 1: been running story after story after story about how Carter
Speaker 1: Page was under surveillance. You know, maybe at some point
Speaker 1: he should get the right to either have his name
Speaker 1: cleared or have charges brought. But Democrats are just in
Speaker 1: this for the smears. My friends, he's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America. Buck Sexton his back. Welcome back to let
Speaker 1: me share with you what I rode today on the
Speaker 1: Hill dot com right when the memo broke here, because
Speaker 1: I think it's a pretty good summation of where we
Speaker 1: are in all this. By no means does this memo
Speaker 1: and the issue of so called deep state spying on
Speaker 1: Trump or the Russia collusion narrative. Those debates will continue on,
Speaker 1: likely with more ferocity than ever. We now need more
Speaker 1: disclosures and even greater transparency into the issue of spying
Speaker 1: on Trump and the Russia collusion fiasco. But now we
Speaker 1: have clear evidence that yes, Trump associates were targets of
Speaker 1: intelligence surveillance using a flimsy partisan pretext that only makes
Speaker 1: sense if those advancing it from the corridors of government
Speaker 1: power were filled with a judgment clouding hatred for all
Speaker 1: things Trump. This is a bad day for a handful
Speaker 1: of senior officials within our government, the Democrats who worked
Speaker 1: so strenuously to keep this information from the light of day,
Speaker 1: and those in the media who have debased their craft
Speaker 1: to serve the Russia collusion narrative with no hint of
Speaker 1: skepticism or even handedness. For the American people who want
Speaker 1: the truth, however, it is just the start end quote.
Speaker 1: That's so, that's where I am on this. I figured
Speaker 1: that to share it. That's what I think is going
Speaker 1: on here, and it's true I would know that Devin
Speaker 1: Nounez was just on TV with Brent Bear and said, quote,
Speaker 1: this is just the first memo. There will be another
Speaker 1: one dealing specifically with the State Department's role in all
Speaker 1: of this. Oh, it isn't that gonna be interesting? You
Speaker 1: had anti trumpers in the bureaucratic apparatus who were playing
Speaker 1: games here, folks. And speaking of the anti trumpers and
Speaker 1: the bureaucratic apparatus, the names that come in for special
Speaker 1: treatment here, Comy, Sally Yates, Struck. They have all been
Speaker 1: clearly anti Trump for quite some time. McCabe or and
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein also mentioned in this, I mean Bruce Or
Speaker 1: at the FBI thought that it would be okay to
Speaker 1: keep on meeting with Steel, to treat Steel as a source.
Speaker 1: And I would just note that you're getting into some
Speaker 1: weird gray areas here to begin with. When you're a
Speaker 1: private intelligence gun for hire, are you also treated like
Speaker 1: a journalist? Do you get to put the journalist hat
Speaker 1: on one day and you know then then not? As
Speaker 1: this clown knows on, clown knows off. You know, sometimes
Speaker 1: you're a hired gun with an agenda. Other times you
Speaker 1: get to be a journalist or a source for the FBI.
Speaker 1: Which is it? Which one is it? But or his
Speaker 1: wife just happened to be working a fusion GPS on
Speaker 1: the dossier put together by Christopher Steele. So or his
Speaker 1: wife is involved in putting together this information. So Or
Speaker 1: keeps on feeding this information, believes in its credibility to
Speaker 1: the FBI. And I would just note that what's in
Speaker 1: that dossier. I've read through the dossier in full a
Speaker 1: few times. I'm sure many of you have as well.
Speaker 1: The only parts of it that are quote verified or
Speaker 1: corroborator to things like so and so traveled to Russia
Speaker 1: at this point, and there's news reports about it. Nothing
Speaker 1: else has panned out for these people, I mean the
Speaker 1: they have lost their minds. There is a psychosis now
Speaker 1: that is clearly at the heart of a lot of
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion hysteria. People have had a break with
Speaker 1: reality because new information does not affect their judgment of
Speaker 1: the situation at all. New information doesn't change their stance.
Speaker 1: Just for the purposes of a thought experiment for a
Speaker 1: moment here, do me a favor. Think about what the
Speaker 1: media's reaction would have been if in the first year
Speaker 1: of Obama's presidency. There was a whole storyline about a
Speaker 1: massive conspiracy between President Obama and Russia that was the
Speaker 1: only reason that he got elected. And then we found
Speaker 1: out that it was actually citizens United paying for some
Speaker 1: guy to run around and pick up rumors, rumors as
Speaker 1: we would call it in the intelligence business, rumor intelligence,
Speaker 1: which is just a funny way of saying rumors, pick
Speaker 1: up rumant, throw together in some slap dash, unfinalized report,
Speaker 1: and then use that as the basis or as a
Speaker 1: primary basis for counterintelligence surveillance. If what Carter Page was
Speaker 1: doing was so bad, folks, there's no need to go
Speaker 1: to the FISA court because you could get a criminal
Speaker 1: warrant against him. But the mainstream and the left are
Speaker 1: so dumb, there's so incapable of facing the truth on this.
Speaker 1: They're so terrified of their credibility just being sprayed as
Speaker 1: refuse all over the lawn that they won't look at
Speaker 1: the facts as they're presented. They pretend to be incapable
Speaker 1: of putting together necessary data points and drawing conclusions from them.
Speaker 1: They'd rather be dumb than wrong, or they'd rather be
Speaker 1: dishonest than wrong, or a combination of of the two.
Speaker 1: So this is is troubling. I want to dig a
Speaker 1: little more though, into the Comy Yates Struck side of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, keep in mind, there have been criminal leaks
Speaker 1: from someone in the government, I think from some people
Speaker 1: in the government. There have been criminal leaks, all negative
Speaker 1: against Trump. There's been no leaks that helped Trump of
Speaker 1: of information that's classified. This isn't a leak, this is
Speaker 1: through the necessary declassification process. But there have been criminal
Speaker 1: leaks to hurt the Trump administration from people who are
Speaker 1: very high up and people who thought that they could
Speaker 1: cover their tracks and get away with it. We still
Speaker 1: have not found out how the Washington Post was told
Speaker 1: the contents of a phone call between a Russian ambassador,
Speaker 1: Sergey Kisliak and former National Security Advisor General Flynn or
Speaker 1: Mike Flynn. We still don't found that person. There's somebody
Speaker 1: at a very senior level, almost certainly at the do
Speaker 1: o J, who decided to get even No one has
Speaker 1: been held accountable for that. That was a crime, that
Speaker 1: was the worst kind of abuse of intelligence powers for
Speaker 1: political reasons. No one has been There's nothing nothing on
Speaker 1: that one, and I think we should start looking into
Speaker 1: some of these names. Any serious person looks at this
Speaker 1: information and says, Sally Yates hates Trump, Comey hates Trump,
Speaker 1: McCabe hates Trump. I mean, you just go down the line,
Speaker 1: all of them, all of them, and look at how
Speaker 1: long it's taken us even to get to this point.
Speaker 1: I would note that I'm seeing the stuff old carter Page,
Speaker 1: the FISA. You know that they were surveilling and beforehand
Speaker 1: because of his connections to foreigners. Okay, so what exactly
Speaker 1: has carter Page done that's illegal? Anyone? Well? What what
Speaker 1: are we? What are we waiting for? They haven't flipped page,
Speaker 1: No charges against Page, so it was just a fishing expedition. Well,
Speaker 1: I would note that they used carter Page, this insignificant fellow.
Speaker 1: They used the FISA warrant on him and the surveillance
Speaker 1: of him as the excuse for this whole Russia collusion thing.
Speaker 1: The whole thing falls apart. There is no other there's
Speaker 1: no other collusion narrative for them. This is it. We're
Speaker 1: hearing about all this meddling and Okay, yeah, you want
Speaker 1: to look into Facebook and Twitter bots and sock puppets, fine,
Speaker 1: knock yourself out. We're never gonna stop that. It's not
Speaker 1: new and it didn't do anything in the election. And
Speaker 1: you know what, they need to hear over there at
Speaker 1: CNN and MSNBC. Even if it did do something about
Speaker 1: the election, Trump had nothing to do with it. So
Speaker 1: tough breaks Hillary worshippers. Stinks for you. If the American
Speaker 1: people were fooled into believing Russian bots, guess what, they're
Speaker 1: allowed to make that decision. And we're not about to
Speaker 1: invade Russia or go to war with them because Larry
Speaker 1: didn't get to be president. This whole thing is just
Speaker 1: a joke. It should be. It's just it's a day
Speaker 1: of disgrace. I mean, Comey is the worst, but I've
Speaker 1: told you this, a guy who can sleep soundly at
Speaker 1: night and sends Martha Steward to prison for what. Remember
Speaker 1: Comey was the one pushing that. A guy who does
Speaker 1: not feel sick to his stomach about that completely trumped
Speaker 1: up nonsense. Oh, Valerie, plain, what are we gonna do?
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, you know the whole everything's yeah, she
Speaker 1: was posing in Vanity Fair like two days after the
Speaker 1: story broke. She's so worried about what was gonna happen,
Speaker 1: And please oh, we found out about her, by the way,
Speaker 1: nice little anti Semit. But you know, they the media
Speaker 1: was with her until came out that she was an
Speaker 1: anti Semit, you know, and then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, gosh, maybe we uh shouldn't have made
Speaker 1: a movie where we had Naomi Watts playing her. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't say tell it. The Scooter Libby Mortgage's house
Speaker 1: took his life savings, right to practice laws still, a
Speaker 1: convicted felone just had a sentence commuted for what the
Speaker 1: political tantrum of the anti Bush left were in the
Speaker 1: same place. These people just have no honor, folks. That's
Speaker 1: what it really comes down to. They have no honor.
Speaker 1: They have no integrity, they have no decency. They don't
Speaker 1: question their assumptions, they don't question their biases. They think
Speaker 1: they're always right. They're like a bunch of spoiled children,
Speaker 1: except in this case, the spoiled children were running the
Speaker 1: FBI and running the d J. That's pretty scary. I mean,
Speaker 1: no accountability unless we push for it. They think they'll
Speaker 1: get away with the whole thing. They should be ashamed.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing this, you know what I'm seeing that. It's
Speaker 1: it's like nothing's like, nothing's going on, and I'm seeing this.
Speaker 1: Why is John McCain saying Trump is doing Putin's job
Speaker 1: for him with the memos release. That's a that's a
Speaker 1: dumb statement. I mean, John McCain, Ah, yeah, I always
Speaker 1: want people to order. You know, you can't criticize John Mccainmick. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we all respect to service of the country. But what
Speaker 1: do I need to only have my friends who are
Speaker 1: special operations current informer be like, yeah, I k indoors
Speaker 1: and gotten shot and gotten wounded, And like I think
Speaker 1: John McCain's you know, acting like a jerk. Are they
Speaker 1: the only ones who are allowed to say it? Because
Speaker 1: that's how it feels sometimes with the media because what
Speaker 1: he says, I mean, that's that's an idiotic statement, doing
Speaker 1: Putin's work for him. And we're talking about very basic
Speaker 1: civil liberties here, due process, rule of law. I think
Speaker 1: it's so interesting that Carter page, Yeah whatever, So we
Speaker 1: were just you know, looking at all this stuff based
Speaker 1: on based on crap. If there's more to it, if
Speaker 1: there's more to it than what we already know, then
Speaker 1: they damn sure better tell us what that is. But
Speaker 1: as I've already said, if there's more to it, why
Speaker 1: would they include the dossier. Remember a little story I
Speaker 1: told you about college admissions and how my friend admissions
Speaker 1: once told me, the thicker, the thicker the file, the
Speaker 1: thicker the candidate. If you've got a good case, it's
Speaker 1: easy to make. You've got a straightforward case, you just
Speaker 1: do it. When you start patting it and stacking it
Speaker 1: with with fluff, with nonsense, there's a reason you're telling
Speaker 1: me they included something that literally could have and basically
Speaker 1: was written in Hillary clinton headquarters for the campaign about
Speaker 1: her opponent, and they put that in here, and they
Speaker 1: didn't think that was a problem. I mean, I remember
Speaker 1: being told that the at the agency you abuse fies,
Speaker 1: you're going to prison, right you put this information out
Speaker 1: there if if you break your oath, this is a
Speaker 1: criminal violation. FISA is very very powerful and secret for
Speaker 1: a reason. And we're seeing look at the Kisliak Flynn
Speaker 1: conversation up linked that one took Flynn out. Look at
Speaker 1: how these people are playing the game, and look at
Speaker 1: how it never goes in the opposite direction. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is look. I know people are saying the memo,
Speaker 1: the memo doesn't end this but it does really show
Speaker 1: us just how dark and really depraved the other side
Speaker 1: is when it comes to Russia thing, and how they
Speaker 1: don't they don't care, They're not at They're not in
Speaker 1: this for the truth. Folks, strap in and get ready
Speaker 1: for it. That it does. There is literally nothing I'm
Speaker 1: not exactly. I mean that there is literally nothing that
Speaker 1: could come to light. There is nothing that we could prove.
Speaker 1: There is nothing that could be demonstrable fact that will
Speaker 1: stop the New York Times, Washing Post, CNN, MSNBC, leftist
Speaker 1: media industrial complex from going on and pretending that Trump
Speaker 1: won the election because of Russia and he's a trader.
Speaker 1: There is nothing, So we just have to keep fighting
Speaker 1: and at least try to convince as many as our
Speaker 1: of our fellow Americans as possible that this whole thing
Speaker 1: is it's a blank show. All right, Well, I gotta
Speaker 1: hit a break. I want to hear from all what
Speaker 1: do you guys think about the memo? I'm sure you
Speaker 1: read it. What do you think? Height four five buck
Speaker 1: get into that next hour. Some action movie quotes too,
Speaker 1: because we gotta have some funks. It's a Friday. We'll
Speaker 1: be our back. You figured that one out, He was
Speaker 1: asked that was Trump. He was asked, do you think
Speaker 1: you might fire Rosenstein or do you still have confidence
Speaker 1: in Rosenstein? You know, insure he's the A G Number two.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, the d o J number two. The Sessions
Speaker 1: recused himself from all this stuff, right, Sessions. Sessions is great.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're in a street fight and you
Speaker 1: need somebody to be a few blocks away, who's like you, No,
Speaker 1: I'm just here. If you need me, you know, just
Speaker 1: just give me a holler. It's like Sessions, where are you?
Speaker 1: But anyway, yeah, I mean I think you should fire Rosenstein. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: that Rosenstein. If my understanding is Rosenstein had a problem
Speaker 1: with his memo coming out, that is unacceptable. There's nothing
Speaker 1: in this memo that exposes sources and methods. There's nothing
Speaker 1: in this memo that is sensitive. This is stuff that
Speaker 1: we absolutely had to know. It's effectively a confirmation of
Speaker 1: what was already out there. But now we don't get
Speaker 1: to we don't have to rely on you know what
Speaker 1: The New York Times feels like dolling out to us
Speaker 1: from their sources at d o J. Everybody, Now we
Speaker 1: actually have some source material to work with. Oh, all right,
Speaker 1: let's take Sam in Charlotte, North Carolina. Hey, Sam, I
Speaker 1: share your passion and your frustration with these liberal hacks man.
Speaker 1: They just drive me insane with what they're doing. But
Speaker 1: I got a couple of questions. Uh, so you've got
Speaker 1: it right? Are you going to Vegas next week? Oh?
Speaker 1: You mean on the on the predictions for the memo?
Speaker 1: H thank you, sir. I'm just happy if you all,
Speaker 1: if you all feel like you trust my analysis, maybe
Speaker 1: just even a little bit more now. Oh yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: a believer. I'm I'm a shield top believer. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: But do you feel failed that there's nothing that can
Speaker 1: cause hiss a roll in here? You know, it's as
Speaker 1: far as legalities, you know, Sam, it's tough because, and
Speaker 1: I've been saying this to you all along, they can
Speaker 1: Incompetence never gets you sent to prison in the government, right,
Speaker 1: That's just the truth, and competence pretty much is is bulletproof,
Speaker 1: so to speak, defense from criminal jeopardy as a government employee.
Speaker 1: You have to have malicious intent or you have to
Speaker 1: do something, take affirmative steps, you know, knowingly and willfully.
Speaker 1: And so even though their inclusion of opposition research is unethical,
Speaker 1: is wildly inappropriate. I don't see what statute it would violate,
Speaker 1: you see what I'm saying. And and my understanding is
Speaker 1: also that under the law they don't have to tell
Speaker 1: the fies a court necessarily. Um you know, well, here's
Speaker 1: a better way to put it. A lie of omission
Speaker 1: to the fives accord is not going to stand up
Speaker 1: as a lie in court that you could be prosecuted forward,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, but but there
Speaker 1: could be something in the future. And I've said the leaks,
Speaker 1: the leak about Flinn and kisl Yak, that's a that's
Speaker 1: a criminal offense straight up. And they can find I mean, look,
Speaker 1: they know what paper published it, right, Obama's at the
Speaker 1: president for going after journalists. I know journalists would all
Speaker 1: of a a sudden care about it again if the Trump
Speaker 1: administration did it but published in the Washington Post. Yeah,
Speaker 1: hey man, thanks for all that you do. And uh,
Speaker 1: it's a great pleasure to hear you five for our
Speaker 1: country every night. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Shields Hi, thank you very kind. Yeah. Look, I mean
Speaker 1: you're not kinda with five for five on that one
Speaker 1: one five for five it is Friday, So why don't
Speaker 1: we give everybody the open the will give me all
Speaker 1: clear for the next hour, that it is time for
Speaker 1: a m f F. Wait, no, a m QF whoops
Speaker 1: go in movie quote Friday. Sorry, John, that's a new thing. Action.
Speaker 1: You could ask yourself question lucky movie's let off quote
Speaker 1: Friday's action movie quote Fridays eight four four nine hundred
Speaker 1: buck eight four four to eight to five action movie quotes.
Speaker 1: Memo thoughts. Whatever you've got, Team Ribby, Searing recipes, you
Speaker 1: name it, We're open for it. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Our to coming up. He's back with you now, because
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck
Speaker 1: never stops. But the newly declassified Republican staff memo stays at.
Speaker 1: The former British spy who was paid by Democrats to
Speaker 1: put together the Trump dossier had a personal animist towards
Speaker 1: the candidate Donald Trump. Christopher Steele was hard by the
Speaker 1: opposition Research for Infusion GPS for the project in April.
Speaker 1: Five months later, according to the Republican Investigators, he told
Speaker 1: the top Justice Department official. In September, Christopher Steele admitted
Speaker 1: to Bruce Or his feelings against then candidate Trump, when
Speaker 1: Steele said he quote was desperate that Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.
Speaker 1: The NUNS memo is troubling. What you see in here
Speaker 1: is if it's right that the FBI relied on a
Speaker 1: document paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign to start as a
Speaker 1: central part of why they got to fight as a
Speaker 1: dot of warrant. That's not the way our system is
Speaker 1: supposed to work. Welcome back to the buck Sex and
Speaker 1: show everybody there. He had Katherine Herrider, Fox News and
Speaker 1: Ari Fleischer, former White House Press secretary, just going through
Speaker 1: some of what's important from today's memo release. You know
Speaker 1: what I'm seeing? People? Now? The left is all running
Speaker 1: with all but there's more information, all right, let's see it.
Speaker 1: Let's see this more information. We should know, we should
Speaker 1: know what it is. And I need someone to explain
Speaker 1: to me if they had much better stuff for a
Speaker 1: FISA warrant on carter page. And this does not make
Speaker 1: the whole FISA process look very good, does it? I mean,
Speaker 1: what kind of checks and balances can we really have?
Speaker 1: How can we think that the fis a chord, is
Speaker 1: anything but a rubber stamp, if the Fusion GPS dossier
Speaker 1: could in any way, shape or form find its way
Speaker 1: into a FISA courts request. But if they had other stuff,
Speaker 1: well then why why put this in there at all?
Speaker 1: Why put this in if they think about everyone? What
Speaker 1: what this effectively means, What the Fusion GPS dossier used
Speaker 1: in a FISA warrant process means is that any political
Speaker 1: candidate for office could have his henchman or her henchman
Speaker 1: in the case, hire somebody to run around, dig up
Speaker 1: some dirt, or just fabricated one of the classic techniques
Speaker 1: of intelligence and counterintelligence, just make stuff up disinformation campaign, right,
Speaker 1: You could fabricate information and then have somebody who has
Speaker 1: some relationship with the FBI. Oh that's right, like Bruce
Speaker 1: or his wife who worked for Fusion GPS, some person
Speaker 1: with the relationship to vouch for that person, and they
Speaker 1: go in there and they just say, yeah, here, I
Speaker 1: would like you to spy on people affiliated with the
Speaker 1: presidential campaign because of this, And the information doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be verified, the information doesn't have to be true, guys.
Speaker 1: And this is like the FAISA intelligence court equivalent of
Speaker 1: swatting somebody. It just ran in there was a hit job.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you know, here's the stuff we got together
Speaker 1: on Carter Page. He's he's in the fusion or he's
Speaker 1: covered in this dossier we have. Oh no, he just
Speaker 1: happens to be or happens to have been working for
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Now this is where this can get
Speaker 1: very This can get lost in translation very quickly. If
Speaker 1: they're gonna say now that Carter Page and this is
Speaker 1: all separate from Trump in some way, and that he
Speaker 1: is not the reason for Russia collusion. Go back and
Speaker 1: look at how the whole story of Russia collusion with
Speaker 1: the Trump administration was built. It was all about leaks,
Speaker 1: leaks that were based on the Carter Page storyline. So
Speaker 1: what they did is they they had a situation where
Speaker 1: one person was under surveillance, and then they kept leaking
Speaker 1: these stories about, oh, somebody traveled to Russia, senior advisor
Speaker 1: to Trump under surveillance, there's an active fis a warrant
Speaker 1: under surveillance. Those are, by the way, those are all
Speaker 1: criminal leaks. Who's doing the leaking? I think we know, right,
Speaker 1: we have we have a handful. We're not sure who
Speaker 1: is responsible for any individual leak or individual leaks yet
Speaker 1: I think we got some ideas. I could play some bets.
Speaker 1: Right now, I'm feeling pretty frisky about my ability to
Speaker 1: predict the future. So there's some names that come to mind.
Speaker 1: Who thought that it was necessary to leak? I mean,
Speaker 1: you did have an acting Attorney general, for example, who
Speaker 1: decided to go full on never Trump, anti Trump and
Speaker 1: just to profane the office of the Attorney General on
Speaker 1: the way out. Not her call to be like, I
Speaker 1: don't like what you're doing. Not her call. Remember she
Speaker 1: didn't resign, she got fired. She just said I'm not
Speaker 1: doing it. You want to resign on principle, welcome to
Speaker 1: do that as a government servant anytime. But you stay
Speaker 1: and say no, you gotta fire me. What is that?
Speaker 1: That's just nullifying the system? Right. Think about if anybody
Speaker 1: else did that. I think about if you had a
Speaker 1: bunch of leftist Democrat judges. Oh, you know, I just
Speaker 1: refused to see any cases today. I'm just not gonna
Speaker 1: do my job because I don't like Trump. We have
Speaker 1: to go through with the process of impeaching them. I mean,
Speaker 1: what are you gonna do. It's just a way to
Speaker 1: try to throw grains of sand into the machinery of
Speaker 1: the watch of government, right, that's all that was. These
Speaker 1: people are a complete disgrace and they're so smug, too comy.
Speaker 1: That guy is really high on my list of just
Speaker 1: the worst, the worst. And I've known it all along,
Speaker 1: because anybody who thought that the Patrick Fitzgerald Special prosecutor
Speaker 1: with the whole valerie playing affair, anyone who thought that
Speaker 1: wasn't just a completely overbolt blown political hit, is either
Speaker 1: a liar or an idiot. I mean, we're really getting
Speaker 1: down into that territory now where those are the only
Speaker 1: choices that are left for a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And if it's really true that there's more on carter page,
Speaker 1: I want to know what it is. We should have
Speaker 1: access as to that information. We should know why it
Speaker 1: is that the federal government was tracking this guy. I've
Speaker 1: seen this stuff at all. The Russians tried to recruit him,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's nothing. The Russians. The Russians pitch you
Speaker 1: because you travel to their country and you don't know
Speaker 1: that their intelligence operatives that are pitching you, and this
Speaker 1: is just based on the New York Times reporting. Then
Speaker 1: they get then the government gets to track all your
Speaker 1: all your U. S citizen. They get to track your
Speaker 1: communications just you know, for the foreseeable if they had
Speaker 1: other stuff, why I use the dossier, folks, The dossier
Speaker 1: was padding at a minimum, if not the primary reason
Speaker 1: it was padding. If they had a real case, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't have had to put it in there. They had
Speaker 1: a real case, we would know what the rest of
Speaker 1: the case was. I would also note that carter page
Speaker 1: run around given interviews, they got nothing on this guy.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of a little disconcerting too, isn't it
Speaker 1: that you could be a US citizen who who Not
Speaker 1: a single person has yet even come up with what
Speaker 1: carter page what crime he theoretically was committing, And yeah,
Speaker 1: he's under surveillance. Oh oh, that's interesting. So the government
Speaker 1: now can tap your phone just because you know, they
Speaker 1: kind of have a hunch because hashtag counterintelligence. I'm sorry, unacceptable, unacceptable.
Speaker 1: I think we should be having that fvisory authorization debate now.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's really been looking at this much
Speaker 1: more closely. Not a foreigner foreigner sorry, different ballgame. You know,
Speaker 1: we want to look into what foreigners are doing whatever
Speaker 1: in telling the community, God bless go for it. Constitution
Speaker 1: protects US citizens from that kind of behavior, and that
Speaker 1: this got mixed up into a presidential campaign in intelection
Speaker 1: year in any way and has been used now continuously
Speaker 1: as a nemesis for the Trump administration. That's what this
Speaker 1: Russia collusion Mueller probe is. I mean, I asked the question,
Speaker 1: without Carter Page, without the Fiser warrant, do you have
Speaker 1: a Muller probe? Why do we have this Muller probe
Speaker 1: to look into Russia election meddling? We don't need Mueller
Speaker 1: to ask Facebook for information on Russian bots. So do
Speaker 1: we even have this investigation if not for this trumped
Speaker 1: up Fiser warrant? That's the real question. And people can
Speaker 1: tell me, oh, there are other reasons they're looking at
Speaker 1: carter Page. Okay. I like to know what they are
Speaker 1: and elect to know what it has to do with Trump,
Speaker 1: because if the problems that Carter Page had, you see,
Speaker 1: I know you you got there, So slipper, you have
Speaker 1: to really nail them down, folks. Is what the Democrats
Speaker 1: are saying. The Adam Shifts used, sham Well used sham weile,
Speaker 1: salesman in chief, Adam Schiff. Uh. This is where they
Speaker 1: start to you know, when when you really pin them down,
Speaker 1: they get all squirmy. They'll say, well, carter Page was
Speaker 1: under surveillance before, or he was on the FBI's radar
Speaker 1: before he worked for Trump, the investigations before he worked
Speaker 1: for Trump. Okay, so then what does this have to
Speaker 1: do with Trump? Were they just going after Page as
Speaker 1: a private citizen the Russians and then this all got
Speaker 1: dragged into it, because then what is what's the basis
Speaker 1: for what is the basis for the Muller probe? That's
Speaker 1: really what you have to be asking now. If carter
Speaker 1: pages association with Donald Trump did not coincide with the
Speaker 1: the beginning of the counterintelligence investigation on Carter Page, why
Speaker 1: do we have any reason to believe that Trump or
Speaker 1: any of his top people had anything to do with you.
Speaker 1: See what I'm saying. They can't have it both ways.
Speaker 1: They say, oh, well, the husion GPS isn't the reason
Speaker 1: that they were looking at carter Page. There was other
Speaker 1: stuff and it started before he was working for Trump. Okay,
Speaker 1: So is this a Manafort situation? Yeah, Manafort did some
Speaker 1: shady stuff overseas, nothing to do with Trump. Is that
Speaker 1: what we have here? I think it might be and
Speaker 1: guess what that means. That the whole Russia collusion narrative
Speaker 1: is fabricated, It is false, and it means that no
Speaker 1: one should ever take a place like MSNBC or CNN seriously,
Speaker 1: never mind a whole bunch of pundits, journalists, authors and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. Ever again eight four eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred buck, we gotta we gotta get
Speaker 1: in some lines some phone. I know every single line
Speaker 1: has been lit the whole show, which I appreciate that. Guys.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of your calling in and we've
Speaker 1: only got six lines that are open. But we will
Speaker 1: get into these calls. I want to rack him and
Speaker 1: stack him. Want to hear from all of you. Just
Speaker 1: keep mind as as we take calls, lines open up.
Speaker 1: So if you haven't been able to get in X,
Speaker 1: I know we've got lit up like a Christmas tree
Speaker 1: right away in here, you'll have a chance. Eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred buck. Just call in as soon as
Speaker 1: somebody drops drops off and we'll get some calls. Stare
Speaker 1: right with me. All right, lines lit, team, Let's get
Speaker 1: to it. Jesse in bat Rouge, Louisiana. Hey, Jesse, how's
Speaker 1: it going, brother? Bucks Shields, high Field time. Man, thank
Speaker 1: you for calling in. Look here, man, I got a
Speaker 1: question and an observation. My observation is this. You know,
Speaker 1: from what I know about this Fights Accord deal is
Speaker 1: these judges are rotated federal judges, and with any luck,
Speaker 1: none of them come from the Ninth District. But you know,
Speaker 1: I've spent most of my life in law enforcement after
Speaker 1: my exodus from the army, and my family's all been
Speaker 1: in law enforcement, either prosecute prosecutorially or as comps. And
Speaker 1: the one thing that I've learned over my years is,
Speaker 1: if you really really want to upset a judge, lie
Speaker 1: to him. Should we anticipate some repercussion from this nonsense?
Speaker 1: Now that the judge, the judge that was involved in
Speaker 1: this fights WI warrant, knows he was hoodwinked, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think so, because, first of all,
Speaker 1: the big advantage from a government malfeasance point of view
Speaker 1: that the fires of court has is that the proceedings
Speaker 1: are so secret and secretive, uh, such that you know
Speaker 1: it's punishable by law. Although you know grand jury proceedings
Speaker 1: are secret, there's other stuff that happens in courts that
Speaker 1: aren't necessarily about classified as you well know, and law
Speaker 1: enforcement that you have to keep under wraps too. But
Speaker 1: the the reality here is I think that there won't
Speaker 1: be any repercussions. They will just say that there was
Speaker 1: no obligation to inform the fies A court about the
Speaker 1: entirety of the background of the information they were giving.
Speaker 1: They were just presenting the information, you know what I mean. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I would still think there'd be a strong taste
Speaker 1: for at least contempt at court because they went in
Speaker 1: their full knowing that they were full of it. They
Speaker 1: knew that everything that they were presenting to this court
Speaker 1: was a lie or was based on here say and
Speaker 1: and I can't see any judge and good standing and
Speaker 1: good good moral conscience that wouldn't be upset about this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree with you, A fool out of themselves. They're
Speaker 1: making a fool out of that particular court. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't have uh, I don't have a clear insight
Speaker 1: into the day to day workings of the actual fives
Speaker 1: A court. I really understand fives them more as a
Speaker 1: process and as a tool, But in terms of going
Speaker 1: going before a judge, you know, that's that wasn't my
Speaker 1: That wasn't my deal. So I don't know, man, I
Speaker 1: look at Jesse raised a very valid point. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: see if we get Andy McCarthy to come way in
Speaker 1: on that one next week, and I'll say, look, can
Speaker 1: one of those judges see you would see what I
Speaker 1: would We were at Jesse's. I feel like the judge
Speaker 1: think about how difficult it was to get this information out,
Speaker 1: even though Congress and the President wanted to do it.
Speaker 1: I'm sure a judge has all kinds of national security
Speaker 1: gag orders in effect for it. So I don't even
Speaker 1: know what the process would be for a fives a
Speaker 1: judge to come forward and try to hold someone in contempt.
Speaker 1: I don't know, if you know what I'm saying. I
Speaker 1: don't even I don't know. Yeah, well, I mean that
Speaker 1: you know that. That's what gets me is is it
Speaker 1: would be different if there were any real basis to
Speaker 1: anything they presented to the court. But this whole thing
Speaker 1: was nothing but smoking mirrors, and now the court knows it.
Speaker 1: So that that just kind of got me scratching my head.
Speaker 1: That my question for you is you're gonna love this,
Speaker 1: um right? I mean, like the next day after this
Speaker 1: memo was made public and people start talking about it,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, trade Dad, he decides he's not
Speaker 1: going to run for re election, and his response to
Speaker 1: the to the media was, I'm going in. I'm going
Speaker 1: in to prosecute prosecutorial law. Do you think there's a
Speaker 1: little bit Is that one of those things that make
Speaker 1: you go because I mean, he's been the pitbull of
Speaker 1: Washington for years. I mean he when he grabs all
Speaker 1: of the bne he don't turn it loose. Ye, I
Speaker 1: I did definitely made me go. Hm. I tried to
Speaker 1: try to get that across here on the show. I
Speaker 1: just don't believe that a guy like Trey Gaudy, who's
Speaker 1: who's been to the big dance, so to speak, is
Speaker 1: just gonna fade out. Now. He's a young guy. He's
Speaker 1: got a lot of a lot of mileage left on him,
Speaker 1: if you know what I mean. And I just don't think,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't see him just disappearing into the
Speaker 1: night to go, you know, run a wood shop somewhere.
Speaker 1: So I I the answers. I don't know, Jesse, but
Speaker 1: I agree with you that it's U and I would
Speaker 1: love for him to come back because I would love
Speaker 1: him to come back as Attorney general, by the way,
Speaker 1: so that would be that would be my what's the
Speaker 1: thing with me is is you know it's his timing
Speaker 1: is pretty miraculous really, because let's be real, honest, we
Speaker 1: don't have anybody on the hill right now with the
Speaker 1: stones to go after the players that are involved in
Speaker 1: this game. Look, I hear maybe maybe he gets appointed
Speaker 1: special counsel to look into the special counsel you know
Speaker 1: who knows? Man, but Jesse shields high and thank you
Speaker 1: very much for the call. I do appreciate it, my friend.
Speaker 1: H Let's take that would be interesting, right if Trey
Speaker 1: Gaudy think about at they put him in a position
Speaker 1: where he would be the one that gets to look
Speaker 1: into what's been going on here with all the other
Speaker 1: players in this mess. Uh. Let's take Charlotte in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Hey, Charlotte,
Speaker 1: hi owns calling because you're a comment about media industrial complex.
Speaker 1: I said, that's right, That's exactly what it is. That's
Speaker 1: why these people are so diabolical and so desperate because
Speaker 1: they started something under Obama and Trump has kicked the
Speaker 1: foundation out from underneath it. They wanted to impoverish us
Speaker 1: and and makes us become like hopeless depressed and uh
Speaker 1: Trump has given us new life and jobs and people
Speaker 1: to hope for something. And these Vomba people like Holme
Speaker 1: onto desperation for their grand plan of you know, some
Speaker 1: kind of global socialization and uh Trump is uh gamegous
Speaker 1: to their plans. That's why they pulled out all stops
Speaker 1: and what became so desperate. That's in my opinion. When
Speaker 1: I was watching these Democrats sit in the House at
Speaker 1: the State of Union, I said, why aren't they applotting
Speaker 1: for certain things? You know? And that's because they want power.
Speaker 1: Nothing's gonna make them happy except for the power that
Speaker 1: they got drunk on during Obama. That's absolutely true. And
Speaker 1: I would just know Charlotte to add into what you're
Speaker 1: saying that the way the media has set this up
Speaker 1: now And when when I say the media, you all
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about. Not conservative websites, talk radio
Speaker 1: and Fox News and some other smaller channels that are
Speaker 1: out there, but all the big channels, all the big newspapers.
Speaker 1: They are so tainted by their hatred of Trump that
Speaker 1: they cannot even be trusted to process new information. And
Speaker 1: and view it with clear eyes as to how it
Speaker 1: affects this whole Russia collusion narrative. They are so invested,
Speaker 1: they are all in against Trump. All their chips are
Speaker 1: on the table, and the chips are meant to say
Speaker 1: that I'm passed to go down. They are betting on it.
Speaker 1: They are left with nothing if he doesn't. So that's
Speaker 1: what's going on here, Charlotte, Thank you very much for
Speaker 1: calling in from Pittsburgh. Yeah, it's it's crazy out there, man,
Speaker 1: it's crazy. I don't know what's gonna happen here with
Speaker 1: the next memos to drop, though, I want to see
Speaker 1: that Democrat memo. I want to see shift those cold
Speaker 1: dead eyes of Adam Schiff. I I just want to
Speaker 1: see him, you know, staring into the camera and telling
Speaker 1: us all, well, here's the Democrat memo. And we look
Speaker 1: at it, We're like, uh, okay, what exactly, what exactly
Speaker 1: are you trying to say here with this memo? Because
Speaker 1: if you're just gonna tell us there's information that you
Speaker 1: can't tell us, but that also means the information we
Speaker 1: do know is worth nothing. Sorry, not just gonna buy that.
Speaker 1: As the Democrat response, we got more stay with me.
Speaker 1: Other shows. Just talk at you in the Freedom Mudge.
Speaker 1: We have a mission. We fight for the truth in
Speaker 1: a team effort and buck us back with our next play.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, let's get in some calls here.
Speaker 1: We have Kevin in Scottsdale, Arizona. Hey, Kevin, Hey, buddy,
Speaker 1: Hey buddy, You'll tie, You'll tie, dude. Hey, congratulations. I
Speaker 1: gotta say I've been listening to you for years and
Speaker 1: to see you on Fox News. Man, it's gonna sound
Speaker 1: weird about very proud of you, dude. Keep going, keep
Speaker 1: doing it. Man, it's a great job. Thank you. I
Speaker 1: do what I can. Hey, So all right, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: alleviate some of the pain today. And I got a
Speaker 1: movie quote for you, okay, out now to give you
Speaker 1: a hint. This is a movie back in the eighties.
Speaker 1: Is an action movie. But it is not a comedy.
Speaker 1: It's not the Schwarzenegger. It's a real action movie. And
Speaker 1: I have a feeling you might have watched this. So
Speaker 1: I have two options for you. I can give you
Speaker 1: several lines from this movie, or or I can give
Speaker 1: you one name of a character for the movie, which
Speaker 1: I think both have equal weight in giving a hint.
Speaker 1: With the movie. It's actually movie quote Friday, So you
Speaker 1: gotta give me a line, hopefully, you know, it has
Speaker 1: to be a line that's not like I would like
Speaker 1: water with dinner, right, It has to be a line
Speaker 1: with somebody, right, ok Like Charles Bronson says, Okay, Okay, say,
Speaker 1: I got a couple of lines, so I think this
Speaker 1: is fair. Okay. The lines are your time has come.
Speaker 1: A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives,
Speaker 1: it will shake the universe. Emperor, we come for you. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you the last line. Last night, I
Speaker 1: can't I can't yell this, but it has to be
Speaker 1: screamed out. Long Live the Fighters. I mean, you got me.
Speaker 1: I had no idea to hit the buzzer. What is it.
Speaker 1: I've never seen Dune. I've never are seen dude, I've
Speaker 1: heard of it. Then an action movie. I think that's
Speaker 1: sci fi Home Slice. I don't know, dude, it's sci
Speaker 1: fi action. And by the way, it's about the jihadis
Speaker 1: in the future. I don't know, my main man, I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's doing a little sci fi like you're
Speaker 1: pushing the envelope with action there. Look, I'll we'll, we'll
Speaker 1: we'll include it. You know. I've turned to the Jeopardy
Speaker 1: judges here and they've they've decided to allow it this time,
Speaker 1: but next time you come correct with an action movie quote.
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling in, brother Kevin. I appreciate it. Man,
Speaker 1: I gotta I got a roll, Thank you, sir. Um
Speaker 1: let's get uh Rick in Niceville, Florida sounds like a
Speaker 1: lovely place. Hey, Rick, Hey, Hey, how are you doing, sir?
Speaker 1: I'm good, sir, how are you alright? Alright? I got
Speaker 1: an action movie line here that's really an action movie.
Speaker 1: And I'm not to degrade the previous fellas, but I
Speaker 1: would like to afterwards give a line from a yeah,
Speaker 1: a war movie that I think people can use in
Speaker 1: their social media anyway. The action line is this, um,
Speaker 1: what do you the boyfriend? Huh hey, boyfriend, where is
Speaker 1: the body? Tell me? If you need more, I mean
Speaker 1: a little more, because that's pretty vague. Go ahead, okay, um, okay,
Speaker 1: unless you starting well, it's like a one man play.
Speaker 1: We're doing it right here. And then off stage he says,
Speaker 1: take gifts. I don't know, man, I got nothing. What
Speaker 1: what is this? Hit the buzz terminal velocity with Charlie Sheen.
Speaker 1: You gotta see that one. Is that is that where
Speaker 1: he's like a parachute guy or something? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: yeah yeah. That is one of the best actual movie
Speaker 1: I thought you would eat this one. Man. I don't
Speaker 1: know we're getting We're getting into like next thing. I
Speaker 1: know you guys are gonna start bringing Dolph Londgren's like
Speaker 1: third tier films up, which yeah really yeah, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say it. It gets real sketchy there where Dolph
Speaker 1: is like barely speaking in wish, She's just like flexing
Speaker 1: his muscles and kicking people. Alright, alright, Ricky got me though,
Speaker 1: And you have a shield. Oh you wanted a military quote,
Speaker 1: I'll let you. I'll allow it this time. What's your
Speaker 1: military quote? The military quote you know in uh? When
Speaker 1: I use this on Facebook when people complain about little things,
Speaker 1: get the clip from to Tom or Tom Berenger says,
Speaker 1: shut up, take the pain, take the pain. You can
Speaker 1: get a YouTube clip on that. Yeah, no, I I
Speaker 1: know I know platoon very well and uh, and I
Speaker 1: sell I celebrate Tom Berenger's whole catalog Platoon, Sniper, all
Speaker 1: kinds of stuff. Thanks for calling in re appreciate it
Speaker 1: shields eye major league. It was a major league. That's right.
Speaker 1: Great movie, by the way, you know, I will say
Speaker 1: one thing. People were giving me a little bit of
Speaker 1: the business today because yes it is. It is groundhog Day,
Speaker 1: right punk Satani Phil saw his shadow so that you
Speaker 1: know that happened. But I said, Bill Murray, I said,
Speaker 1: I think, uh, Bill Murray's top ten involves groundhog Day.
Speaker 1: Some people are telling me they think groundhog Day is
Speaker 1: Bill Murray's best all time movie. I think that's a
Speaker 1: little much. I think it's definitely in the conversation in
Speaker 1: the top five. I don't think. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any way it beats out Ghostbusters or Caddy Shack. Though,
Speaker 1: I just don't. You know, guys, you know we're not animals,
Speaker 1: were not savages here. We gotta keep it real. So
Speaker 1: I I just don't see that. But I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong. Let's get Scott in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Speaker 1: Hey Scott, Hey Buck, how you doing and really enjoy
Speaker 1: your should Thank you very much, sir, I appreciate that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's have a comment about the democrats reaction to this memo. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's kind of funny, the last four of six years,
Speaker 1: they have done nothing but vilify law enforcement and despise
Speaker 1: the rule of law in this nation. And now all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, there lifting up law enforcements FBI. Of
Speaker 1: I'm not buying it. I actually tweeted out something about
Speaker 1: that just a couple of days ago, the very very
Speaker 1: similar sentiment. I'm like, so, we were told for the
Speaker 1: last few years of the Obama administration that police were
Speaker 1: irredeemably racist, there was systemic bias in the whole law
Speaker 1: enforcement system. And there look, there was a lot of
Speaker 1: of sympathy and you know, sympathy and and you could
Speaker 1: even say collusion from the media with the Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter movement, which led to some neighborhoods getting burned down
Speaker 1: in part and riots in some places. And they were always, oh,
Speaker 1: but you know, the police racism is so bad. And
Speaker 1: now those same reporters, I mean, I'm not saying just
Speaker 1: like democrats in general, I'm talking about I could name
Speaker 1: some of the reporters, I could name some of the journalists.
Speaker 1: Those same people are now turning around like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: you're undermining the FBI. I want to be like, look,
Speaker 1: you know, in most of our day to day lives,
Speaker 1: you know, no offense to FBI agents who are listening.
Speaker 1: But on our day to day lives, it's actually local
Speaker 1: law enforcement and state troopers that are the ones that
Speaker 1: are keeping you know, bad guys from kicking in granny's
Speaker 1: door and stealing all of our valuables, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. So undermining local police is actually really dangerous
Speaker 1: to us. Holding the FBI, which has incredible federal power accountable,
Speaker 1: that to me is an undermining that's that's necessary. Absolutely, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm with you. Well, it's an excellent observation, Scott, we
Speaker 1: share the same observation. Shield side buddy. Thank you for
Speaker 1: calling in uh nol in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Hey, hey,
Speaker 1: what's going on? Yeah? Coming out? I thank you from
Speaker 1: what you said about the memo between you Handity and
Speaker 1: Russian they have nailed the whole um analysis of it
Speaker 1: for like the past year. I mean, it's nice getting
Speaker 1: the confirmation everything. Yes, thank you, it's good to be right.
Speaker 1: But also I had an actual movie for you, and
Speaker 1: let's le's see if you all right. I gotta redeem myself.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of off my game today. Although Dune. Now
Speaker 1: that he's gone, I'm just gonna say, Dune in sci Fi.
Speaker 1: Get that, get that weak sauce out of here, go ahead,
Speaker 1: and okay here you alright mother, when you release your shield,
Speaker 1: and so have I, sister, And he charged at the enemy,
Speaker 1: so all I and the death awaits us, calling his
Speaker 1: warriors home. Let me go, guy, smiling by your side,
Speaker 1: for we are family. That's an awesome quote. I want
Speaker 1: that inscribed on my tombstone. Um, so I'll just take
Speaker 1: the hit. All this I don't know, but that's amazing.
Speaker 1: Whatever this movie is, I have to see it. Acts
Speaker 1: of Violence with Bruce Willis and Coalhauser. I have never
Speaker 1: even heard of that movie. What's what's the basic what's
Speaker 1: the basic plot? Uh? This? Uh that? Who with like
Speaker 1: PTSD sort of or he said some issues or his
Speaker 1: brother his wife gets kidnapped by some um slavery outfit
Speaker 1: in Cleveland, and the KI and his buddies and his
Speaker 1: brother's going to hunt with automatic weapons to try and
Speaker 1: hunt down the people that took her. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit like without Remorse. Then the Tom Clancy novel and
Speaker 1: I mentioned on the show a while back, which I
Speaker 1: read when I was like thirteen or fourteen, and it's
Speaker 1: quite a Yeah, that's quite a novelry. When you're in
Speaker 1: the fifth or sixth grade, you're like, damn. But anyway, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: I'll check out this movie. No, that's a great quote. Though.
Speaker 1: That's really cool. I mean it's a little bit on
Speaker 1: the implausible side, but it's it's a fun movie here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: most most movies are. It's like whenever I see whenever
Speaker 1: I see you know, movies about people in the CEI
Speaker 1: thanks for calling in all movies with people in the
Speaker 1: c I A And I'm like, yeah, we don't have
Speaker 1: like watches that fire out lasers. We do write a
Speaker 1: lot of memos though, a lot of typing, superspy typing. Um, alright,
Speaker 1: a four or four nine buck if you want to
Speaker 1: call in, please do. Wow, we've ripped through the show today.
Speaker 1: It's been fast. I feel like I've been sitting here
Speaker 1: for about ten minutes. That some other stuff to discuss,
Speaker 1: maybe a little more about the situation of immigration. UM,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe they'll make fun of Adam Shift
Speaker 1: because I like to do that will make some comy
Speaker 1: jokes because he's a uh freakishly unself aware lanky, weirdo. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't know, we'll get into some good stuff. It's Friday,
Speaker 1: so be kind of a surprise there right there. Did
Speaker 1: anybody not see the state of the Union, because even
Speaker 1: the haters back there gave us good reviews on that
Speaker 1: one taught for them to do. They came up with
Speaker 1: the fake Paul's. You know, they had fake polls, but
Speaker 1: the fake poles were even good, and they said, what
Speaker 1: are we gonna do? Took him a couple of hours
Speaker 1: to figure before they went negative. You know, they got
Speaker 1: calls from the bosses. You can't say that about Trump,
Speaker 1: can't say good our immigration situation shouldn't. I think it
Speaker 1: has a chance. You know, the Democrats are a wall.
Speaker 1: They're missing an action. Who're saying, where are they? We
Speaker 1: have a proposal? We never hear from him because I
Speaker 1: don't think they want to solve the DOCTA problem. I
Speaker 1: think they want to talk about it. I think they
Speaker 1: want to obstruct. You know, the name is resist, that's
Speaker 1: the name of their movement. Resist. That's all they do
Speaker 1: is resist. I don't know if they're good at it.
Speaker 1: They can't be too good at it because we're passing
Speaker 1: a lot of things. Here's the uh. I was gonna
Speaker 1: say there's the Trump, which that would work too, But
Speaker 1: there's President Trump speaking about where he is right now
Speaker 1: on immigration after that very effective State of the Union address,
Speaker 1: And I would just note that he seems to be
Speaker 1: quite on the ball when it comes to what the
Speaker 1: Democrats real endgame is here on immigration specifically, he seems
Speaker 1: to know that they don't really want to deal. They
Speaker 1: just wanted y'all racist? Do you so racist? Hashtag resist,
Speaker 1: no interest in trying to govern responsibly as adults and
Speaker 1: to restore the rule of law. They just want the
Speaker 1: photo ops. Um. I would note that there's a Pew
Speaker 1: a Pew Global Report outside from the Pew Research Center,
Speaker 1: that this won't get all that much attention, but I
Speaker 1: think it's it's important for us keep in mind A
Speaker 1: hundred According to Pew Research, a hundred and thirty eight billion,
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty five million dollars in remittances was
Speaker 1: sent from the United States to other countries in they
Speaker 1: don't have the numbers yet. A hundred and thirty eight
Speaker 1: billion dollars everybody sent to other countries. Now, I understand
Speaker 1: you could say, oh, well, but no buck private property
Speaker 1: people and Senate. Now let's look. Let's dial into which
Speaker 1: countries are very high on the list. I'm sure some
Speaker 1: of you could probably us only a few, only a
Speaker 1: handful really get over a billion dollars in remittances h China, India, Mexico.
Speaker 1: But far and away the biggest of these remittance receiving countries,
Speaker 1: it's Mexico. To the tune of it is. Remember and
Speaker 1: this is just based on Pew research, so it's based
Speaker 1: on survey data. But you've got roughly fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year in hard currency flowing south across
Speaker 1: the border via remittances to Mexico. I would also note
Speaker 1: that that money is I'm sure a vast majority of
Speaker 1: it is untaxed. Untaxed. We are subsidizing Mexico's economy with
Speaker 1: untaxed wages that are sent across the border through I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe Western Union or however the miittances get
Speaker 1: transferred these days. I would also note that this number,
Speaker 1: and now I'm bringing in some of my other topics
Speaker 1: I find interesting, this number is sure to only go
Speaker 1: up as these different services for the transfer of funds,
Speaker 1: the kind of paypalization of the Internet, right. PayPal was
Speaker 1: the first really big one to allow you to transfer
Speaker 1: funds to people without it and being through a credit
Speaker 1: card or without it being through a bank specifically. PayPal
Speaker 1: is kind of like an intermediary between the banks, which
Speaker 1: are intermediaries. But if you could just sell or you
Speaker 1: could just send currency through crypto, which I know and
Speaker 1: probably not a lot of the illegal immigrant community in
Speaker 1: America is big into crypto right now. But I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: in the future, this is going to get a lot
Speaker 1: easier to do. And if you can do that, I
Speaker 1: think there were remittances, the number is probably just gonna
Speaker 1: go up. The number is only going to be increasing
Speaker 1: over time. And this is also where we do have
Speaker 1: considerable average in dealing with Mexico and the issue of immigration,
Speaker 1: because they really need those remittances for the economy. When
Speaker 1: I said, really, it's not like the Mexican economy is
Speaker 1: going to collapse without them, I think the Mexican economy
Speaker 1: is maybe I think it's a trillion dollars a year.
Speaker 1: I think that's about right. Um, but they still in
Speaker 1: terms of hard currency from the US just flowing in,
Speaker 1: you know, twenty billion that counts for a lot. And
Speaker 1: I think that this is where you start to see
Speaker 1: that there are ways that the US could exert a
Speaker 1: little more leverage and its stealings and negotiations with Mexico
Speaker 1: that we turn the heat on pretty quickly. I would
Speaker 1: also tell you that we have on the books and
Speaker 1: we just refuse to use it because it would be
Speaker 1: I don't know, I mean, it would just be too
Speaker 1: strong an action. I suppose they would say. But the um,
Speaker 1: the reality is right now on the books. If you, uh,
Speaker 1: if you were to enforce it. Any time that a
Speaker 1: country refuses to take back illegals that we have in
Speaker 1: our custody in this country, we are supposed to, under
Speaker 1: law suspend all visas from that country. That's a very
Speaker 1: useful tool in our dealing with countries that have large
Speaker 1: illegal imigrant populations here that are being difficult about taking
Speaker 1: them back. So I just wanted to, uh, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to point that out. A hundred, but a hundred
Speaker 1: thirty eight billion dollars. I wonder what the economic impact
Speaker 1: is of that for us. This money is not this
Speaker 1: money is not getting spent on goods and services here everybody.
Speaker 1: Hundred and thirty eight billion bucks just flowing overseas. Remember remittances.
Speaker 1: This is money that people are sending home to their
Speaker 1: home countries. So you know, it's not not a lot
Speaker 1: of made in USA going on with that stuff, and
Speaker 1: a lot of it is untaxed, especially when start talk
Speaker 1: about legal aliens. You're there's not going to be much
Speaker 1: in the way of taxation, um going on with those
Speaker 1: those flows at Bobby and Colfax, North Carolina. What's up, Bobby?
Speaker 1: Doing good? Doing good? And how are you? But I'm good.
Speaker 1: I got a movie clip for you, all right, we
Speaker 1: got some movie quotes flowing in today. What do you got? Uh?
Speaker 1: Thank you for flying mix Mixican Airlines. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know what is it? That's the quote, come on Desperado.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Now it's uh badash down the boy?
Speaker 1: You I mean, is this like a is this like
Speaker 1: a whole movie that you've seen? What's this movie? It's
Speaker 1: uh uh what is the guy's name? Danny? I I
Speaker 1: hello to pronounce his last name, and Danny uh Glover
Speaker 1: was in it. It's called bat but bad ass and
Speaker 1: the boy. You know, I know I heard that part
Speaker 1: of it, all right. It sounds like is there like
Speaker 1: some wrestling of gators. It sounds like that kind of movie.
Speaker 1: All right, Bobby, I appreciate it, man, Thank you fair enough. Um, alright, guys,
Speaker 1: I was gonna put this out there for the team. Alright,
Speaker 1: I know some of you, you know, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say. I'm gonna call an action movie quote.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're really we're looking for a certain genre
Speaker 1: of film here on a certain level of quote. Alrighty,
Speaker 1: we're getting a little we're getting a little down in
Speaker 1: the weeds here with some you know, hey, Buck, what's
Speaker 1: this quote? Would you say? It's not enough for me? Guys,
Speaker 1: a little you need a little more meat on the
Speaker 1: action movie quote. Bone, We're gonna talk about progressive schools
Speaker 1: coming up. You're gonna like it. He's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America. Buck Sexton his back. Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Team our three here. I know it's
Speaker 1: a Friday. I wanted to mix some things up, so
Speaker 1: we've got some different topics coming up this hour instead
Speaker 1: of just memo, memo, memo. Uh, there's what was that
Speaker 1: movie with the guy who kept for memento? Right? He
Speaker 1: kept forgetting things? And that movie was very overrated by
Speaker 1: the way, I don't really remember it, and that wasn't
Speaker 1: I'm not making a joke there, but the memo, Okay,
Speaker 1: we've talked a lot about that. There's something else I
Speaker 1: wanted to get into here. It's a piece in The
Speaker 1: Weekly Standard that we should really put up on Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Sexton because I want you all
Speaker 1: to be able to read it and find it really easily.
Speaker 1: It's by Katherine Kirsten of the Weekly Standard, and it's
Speaker 1: inside a public school social justice factory. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: if you got kids, you have to read this. If
Speaker 1: you don't have kids, you have to read this, just
Speaker 1: because it's it's such a compelling story and it just
Speaker 1: goes to show you what is going on at least
Speaker 1: some of the public school districts in this country. Let
Speaker 1: me give you some of ms Kirpan's were Kirsten's words here,
Speaker 1: and then we will dig into it a bit more.
Speaker 1: For decades, the public schools of Adena, Minnesota, where the
Speaker 1: gold standard among the states school districts. Adena is an
Speaker 1: upscale suburb of Minneapolis, but virtually overnight its reputation changed.
Speaker 1: Academic rigor is unraveling high school reading and math test
Speaker 1: scores are sliding, and students increasingly fear bullying and persecution.
Speaker 1: The shift began in tween when Adiena's school leaders adopted
Speaker 1: the All for All Strategic Plan, a sweeping initiative that
Speaker 1: reordered the district's mission from academic excellence for all students
Speaker 1: to quote racial equity. Equity in this context does not
Speaker 1: mean equality or fairness. It means racial identity, politics and
Speaker 1: ideology that blames minority students, academic challenges on institutional racial
Speaker 1: racial bias, repudiates Martin their King Junior's color blind ideal,
Speaker 1: and focuses on uprooting I know you already guessed it
Speaker 1: white privilege. End quote. This was a top down program
Speaker 1: of social justice warrior indoctrination for kids who are in
Speaker 1: elementary school, for little kids. I mean they talk about
Speaker 1: what this does at the high school level as well.
Speaker 1: But you're teaching six and seven and eight year olds
Speaker 1: about social justice and social racial equity, racial consciousness. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe they should work on addition and subtraction first, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe it would be helpful. You want to I want
Speaker 1: to skip ahead to the end here about one part
Speaker 1: of this. Who wants to guess if the math. If
Speaker 1: the math scores of minority students in the school system
Speaker 1: dramatically went up or dramatically went down after this program
Speaker 1: of social justice warrior indoctrination, who wants to guess, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they went down a lot, a lot, because you know,
Speaker 1: when you stop teaching people and decide to brainwash them
Speaker 1: instead with ideas that any adult who knows anything would
Speaker 1: at best find to be highly politicized and at worst
Speaker 1: are just falsehoods peddled by people that have become brainwashed
Speaker 1: themselves by a culture of victimology and Martin Neo Marxism.
Speaker 1: But here's more of what they tell the kids. I
Speaker 1: want to get into what what what are they teaching
Speaker 1: children in this school district in Minneapolis because this in Minnesota, Minnesota.
Speaker 1: That sounds that's kind of right. And I always think
Speaker 1: of the mom from Bobby's World, Bobby Clean your Room, Minnesota. Um,
Speaker 1: you know Ms Molly is she actually grew up in
Speaker 1: all different parts of the of the country, Florida, Louisiana.
Speaker 1: Uh not. Buffalo is not upstate New York, right, that's
Speaker 1: like Western New York or do we consider that upstate here?
Speaker 1: Upstate is like if you're New York City. Upstate is
Speaker 1: anything where there's grass and trees that's outside of New
Speaker 1: York City. But so she's been all over the place,
Speaker 1: and she always making fun of not make fun I
Speaker 1: I lovingly teach her about how she says tired. You see,
Speaker 1: I'm tired. I'm like, where did that come from? That's
Speaker 1: just how she says it. I don't know. I think
Speaker 1: it's because she's growing up in some funky places where
Speaker 1: they have deficult Oh yeah, you know, Oh yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: tired doing dealing, you know. Um, But Minnesota's a lovely place,
Speaker 1: all right, And I'm sure this Minneapolis suburbs is lovely too.
Speaker 1: But here's what they're teaching kids in Adena, Minnesota school
Speaker 1: District now. As written in this piece in the Weekly
Speaker 1: Standard Quote. Highland Elementaries, new racially conscious elementary school principle
Speaker 1: runs a blog for the school's community. On it, she
Speaker 1: approvingly posted pictures of Black Lives Matter propaganda and rainbow
Speaker 1: gay Pride flags, along with a picture of protesters holding
Speaker 1: a banner pro claiming gay marriages are right. On a
Speaker 1: more age appropriate post, she recommended an ABC book for
Speaker 1: small children entitled A is for Activists. You peruse the
Speaker 1: book and find all sorts of solid gold like F
Speaker 1: is for feminists, T is for trans see is for
Speaker 1: culporate corporate vultures. I am not making this up, folks,
Speaker 1: I'm not making it up. Okay, there there you have,
Speaker 1: and and it it gets, oh, it gets worse. There's
Speaker 1: obviously in the high school all kinds of deconstructionist, Marxist, feminist,
Speaker 1: post colonial, psycho analytical approaches to literature, a lot of
Speaker 1: themes of colonization, immigration, and social constructions of race, class,
Speaker 1: and gender. So they're they're basically taking stuff that even
Speaker 1: college students can't make sense of, and that is a
Speaker 1: waste of their time. And they're force feeding this now
Speaker 1: to high school kids who are, by the way, struggling
Speaker 1: in math and and reading. And then it gets it
Speaker 1: gets even worse. In case you didn't think that was
Speaker 1: the single worst instance of this or the worst instances
Speaker 1: I could give you, um ah, I told you that.
Speaker 1: Hold on a second, I'm trying to find it. Now
Speaker 1: here we go. Recently, conservative students at a Dina High
Speaker 1: school file a federal lawsuit claiming the district has violated
Speaker 1: its members rights of free speech and association. The suit
Speaker 1: grew out of events following a Veterans Day assembly in
Speaker 1: the high school gym on November nine. There, a group
Speaker 1: of veterans spoke about their military service, and the school
Speaker 1: band played the national anthem and tap during the music,
Speaker 1: Some African American students protested by refusing to stand, talking loudly,
Speaker 1: and blaring music on their cell phones. Members of the
Speaker 1: schools on official Young Conservatives club responded by criticizing the
Speaker 1: protesters behavior at school and on social media. In response,
Speaker 1: the protesters and their allies harassed the Conservative students, with
Speaker 1: groups as large as thirty surrounding club members and threatening
Speaker 1: to hurt them if they did not change their political views.
Speaker 1: Uh so yeah, Um, here you have kids disrespecting veterans
Speaker 1: in a high school, and some students say, hey, that
Speaker 1: wasn't cool, and then other students are now physically threatening
Speaker 1: the kids who said, hey, don't disrespect the veterans. This
Speaker 1: is now high school in America, folks, This is happening.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of how I told you yesterday that
Speaker 1: it wasn't just to pick on that that imbecile out
Speaker 1: And I think it was with California, that teacher who
Speaker 1: said that you know military, or the dumbest of the
Speaker 1: dumb and the lowest of the low, I mean, that
Speaker 1: complete slug of a human being. Um, it wasn't just
Speaker 1: to highlight some idiot, but also to to tell you,
Speaker 1: as I did, that that mentality, unfortunately is more widespread
Speaker 1: on the left than certainly any mainstream Democrats want to
Speaker 1: admit publicly, that anti military sentiment lives on the left
Speaker 1: in ways that would never be acceptable among those on
Speaker 1: the right, among conservatives, and that it wasn't and it's
Speaker 1: not an isolated incident really in that regard that there
Speaker 1: are plenty of Remember our OTC was kicked off a
Speaker 1: college campuses for how long. There's plenty of anti military
Speaker 1: sentiment among academia. And now we're we're just talking about
Speaker 1: school teachers too. We're not even really talking about academia
Speaker 1: in the sense of the academy or the campus. So
Speaker 1: it's I mean, this stuff is bad. This is what
Speaker 1: we're seeing at schools now across the country. This is
Speaker 1: just one particularly egregious example of it. Um, And they
Speaker 1: are teaching Marxism. I mean, there's one guy here who
Speaker 1: actually who's a parent who filed the suit. He says
Speaker 1: he fled Nicaragua as a child to escape communism, and
Speaker 1: now he actually has his kids being told that communism
Speaker 1: is actually a good thing in schools in America and
Speaker 1: he has a problem with that, and he's right, And
Speaker 1: it just goes to show you what is really going
Speaker 1: on in some of them. Remember this is a public
Speaker 1: school system. Okay, this is your tax dollars, folks, Your
Speaker 1: tax dollars are going to this. Um. It's disconcerting. Uh,
Speaker 1: here we go. The drop was most noticeable at the
Speaker 1: high school level. Math course for Black students in eleventh
Speaker 1: grade dropped from proficient in teen to fourteen percent. Uh.
Speaker 1: In guys, the math proficiency of African American high school
Speaker 1: students at in this school system dropped by half in
Speaker 1: three years after they instituted this social justice curriculum. I mean,
Speaker 1: if this had happened under any other circumstances, people be like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, Like what's going on? But you see
Speaker 1: the problem is when people are learning lies about politics,
Speaker 1: they're not learning the truth about reality. They're not learning
Speaker 1: how to do the essential intellectual heavy lifting of being
Speaker 1: a responsible citizen and an adult. They're not learning the
Speaker 1: basic knowledge to come to informed conclusions. They're not learning
Speaker 1: to question, they're not learning logic and reason. You can
Speaker 1: have whole societies that are built on educating the young
Speaker 1: with lies. I mean, when you look at what's taught
Speaker 1: in some Shariah compliant curriculums in the Muslim world, for example,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't have to go right to North Korea,
Speaker 1: but obviously the same thing. It's true there. But there
Speaker 1: are plenty of countries where the ideological bias of adults infects, distorts,
Speaker 1: and destroys whatever could be taught to children, and therefore
Speaker 1: pollutes the next generations thinking and and just their ability
Speaker 1: as well. And the terrible and tragic irony here is
Speaker 1: that this curriculum is supposed to be benefiting, particularly black
Speaker 1: students in this Minneapolis school district, and instead of benefiting
Speaker 1: them on the test scores, it's actually making their lives
Speaker 1: harder and making them less likely to succeed and go
Speaker 1: to college. But this is what social justice warriors do,
Speaker 1: you know, really nice intentions, really terrible results, and they
Speaker 1: just blame it on other people and scream about racism. Alright,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have much more coming up, Teams, Stay right there,
Speaker 1: I'll be back seem my apologize twofold here one is
Speaker 1: for the delay in this particular topic on the show,
Speaker 1: and the other is for the late hour a Friday
Speaker 1: for me to do it. Usually, I know this is
Speaker 1: a a lighter part of that I try to make
Speaker 1: it a lighter part of the show. But as it
Speaker 1: came to me, I just I would feel remiss if
Speaker 1: I went into the weekend without raising the issue. And
Speaker 1: has to do with the recent Senate rejection of what
Speaker 1: is called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which
Speaker 1: is about a twenty week abortion band. There could be
Speaker 1: a finer imprisonment for those who have an abortion beyond
Speaker 1: twenty weeks. The other way of saying that is beyond
Speaker 1: five months. And this was a bill that you would
Speaker 1: think in any civilized society and any essentially decent and
Speaker 1: moral country, that that bill would pass. In fact, there
Speaker 1: are similar even more restrictive if one would call it that,
Speaker 1: I mean restrict ss on murder that aren't just a
Speaker 1: total restriction seemed to be deeply insufficient. But European countries,
Speaker 1: many of them have bands on what are effectively third
Speaker 1: term abortions. And this he's one of those moments where
Speaker 1: and I know this, it's it's I know it's late,
Speaker 1: it's a Friday. And for the media, for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: it's always been said. I was told this by producers
Speaker 1: who just look at the numbers and they say, don't
Speaker 1: don't talk about issues of life on on your show,
Speaker 1: don't talk about on TV, don't talking about on a radio.
Speaker 1: Because even people who agree with you, and I would
Speaker 1: assume that a lot of you listening feel the same
Speaker 1: way about this that I do. Although I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's just my my guest, but I think it's a
Speaker 1: safe assumption that you are pro life and you believe
Speaker 1: in life and want to protect it. Ah. But even
Speaker 1: people who feel that way, I will say, I can't,
Speaker 1: you know, I can't handle And now they'll change the
Speaker 1: they'll change the channel, or they'll turn the dial, they're
Speaker 1: turn off the radio, whatever it may be. I certainly
Speaker 1: hope that that is That is not the case, and
Speaker 1: I'm speaking about it, one because I feel compelled to anyway,
Speaker 1: and two because I believe that with this audience that
Speaker 1: is not the case. Despite the so called conventional wisdom
Speaker 1: from the media analyst set that you can't discuss this
Speaker 1: issue without literally getting people turning people off. UM. This
Speaker 1: is a reminder for all of us of the moral
Speaker 1: divide between the two parties. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: issues where it's a difference of how to get to
Speaker 1: the same outcome. How do we make a better economy,
Speaker 1: how do we promote the best immigration policies? And I
Speaker 1: know there's pretty fierce differences within even those spheres, But
Speaker 1: on this issue, it is in fact black and white.
Speaker 1: And I do take solace on my worst day sometimes
Speaker 1: this thought just crosses my mind. Maybe one person, at
Speaker 1: some point in the now five going on six years
Speaker 1: I've been doing radio, Maybe one woman has heard the
Speaker 1: show and decided against her previous inclination or judgment to
Speaker 1: have a baby that she wouldn't have otherwise. And I
Speaker 1: remind myself of that, because that would have made all
Speaker 1: of this that I have done, all the thousands of
Speaker 1: hours of radio more than worthwhile. UM. And that's why
Speaker 1: I just feel, how does the media not spend any
Speaker 1: time on this? I think that there's a there should
Speaker 1: be a greater sense of shame about this, UM, that
Speaker 1: this isn't more of a central focus. That we can't
Speaker 1: live in a country that understands that a baby that
Speaker 1: is that has been in the womb for five months,
Speaker 1: that can feel pain, that has fingernails, are heartbeat, lungs,
Speaker 1: a brain. Uh, you know, I don't. You know the
Speaker 1: specifics as well as I do. Many of you have
Speaker 1: had children which I have not yet had, so you
Speaker 1: have an even closer relationship to the whole process of
Speaker 1: bringing a life into this world that the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: would be willing to stand against. This is the only evidence,
Speaker 1: in fact that I need. It's the only data point
Speaker 1: that I have to bring up that shows that they
Speaker 1: are in fact standing a top and immoral foundation. This
Speaker 1: is the root sin, the original sin of the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: that they do not respect life. That they have convinced
Speaker 1: themselves through a series of delusions that people like the
Speaker 1: now departed from the organization ah Cecil Richards and her Forbear,
Speaker 1: Margaret Sanger and others are anything other than for profit
Speaker 1: butchers is very disturbing. And this is where there's a
Speaker 1: real difference, folks. You know, we're not sitting here talking
Speaker 1: about the marginal tax, right. We are literally looking at
Speaker 1: whether or not one political party roughly half or so
Speaker 1: of the ideological spectrum, but represents half the ideological spectrum
Speaker 1: in this country wants to have more liberal abortion laws
Speaker 1: than any European country and wants to make sure that
Speaker 1: a woman can terminate a pregnancy well beyond the point
Speaker 1: at which it is a baby that would live on
Speaker 1: its own, never mind the debate over life at conception
Speaker 1: and supporting life all at all points throughout the pregnancy.
Speaker 1: So this was a very this was a very dark
Speaker 1: day for the country. I I'm somebody who advocates. I
Speaker 1: know some would say, no, you just need to overturn
Speaker 1: o v weighted. I I take the approach of we
Speaker 1: save as many lives as we can, as quickly as
Speaker 1: we can. And anything that is saving life, anything that
Speaker 1: is stopping abortion procedures from happening, is a good thing.
Speaker 1: And if we could stop you know, five thousand this
Speaker 1: year and top five hundred thousand in the next year,
Speaker 1: that would be fantastic. I don't want to wait to
Speaker 1: just stop the five thousand, because we've got five thousand
Speaker 1: lives hanging in the balance. Um. I am appault and
Speaker 1: I really have to sometimes catch myself because even some
Speaker 1: of my my friends in New York who are stalwart Democrats,
Speaker 1: particularly the women I know who are stalward. Democrats will
Speaker 1: defend this, and I just look at them and I
Speaker 1: know that they don't actually believe in in killing babies.
Speaker 1: They've just convinced themselves that this is not killing babies,
Speaker 1: and they're wrong. So I know that's a bit intense
Speaker 1: for later on a Friday. But the Senate failed us,
Speaker 1: the government failed us, and there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people that are going to have some answering to do
Speaker 1: in this life. We're the next on this issue. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. So the doubt dropped like a stone
Speaker 1: in water. Today. Not looking so good on the economy.
Speaker 1: What the heck is going on here? We've got the
Speaker 1: tax reform, uh, putting more money in people's pockets, supposed
Speaker 1: to be a very positive economic outlook. Some people are
Speaker 1: saying GDP of maybe four or four and a half
Speaker 1: percent this year, and things are feeling little If you're
Speaker 1: right now, well to take a look at the latest
Speaker 1: jobs numbers and everything going on with the economy. We've
Speaker 1: got Phil Kirpin with us. He is president of American
Speaker 1: Commitment if you found it back in twent twelve. He's
Speaker 1: also contributing editor at National Review and a writer for
Speaker 1: Fox News. Opinion. Great to have you feel. Hey, my pleasure,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. So what is going on with
Speaker 1: the economy right now? Feels like a weird rough day
Speaker 1: when otherwise we should be celebrating, right, but the Tao
Speaker 1: is looking like it's been a little rattled. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: this is one of those things where the stock market,
Speaker 1: I think, uh interpreted sort of good economic news as
Speaker 1: bad news for stocks because they think that the economy
Speaker 1: is going to sort of heat up to the point
Speaker 1: that it's going to force interest rates higher, and that's
Speaker 1: going to kind of end the party, the easy money
Speaker 1: party that we've had on Wall Street. And so I
Speaker 1: think actually the strong labor market data kind of triggered
Speaker 1: some panic selling on walls rate because of the perception
Speaker 1: that interest rates are going to go higher, and in fact,
Speaker 1: uh there was also a uh there was also a
Speaker 1: sell off in bonds that did drive interest rates a
Speaker 1: little higher. And so the you know, the the expectation
Speaker 1: is we might have hire inflation as a result of
Speaker 1: the economy heating up a bit, and that's made of
Speaker 1: Wall Street a little skittish. So inflat but but if
Speaker 1: we have interest rates go up, I mean, won't that
Speaker 1: be good for people who are savers, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: right now, it feels for a long time, it feels
Speaker 1: like if you just try to put money in the
Speaker 1: bank or put it in a CD, you're you're getting nothing.
Speaker 1: In fact, when you add I think when you add
Speaker 1: inflation into it, you're actually losing money. Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've been in this extraordinary period of sort of extremely
Speaker 1: low interest rates because of all the stuff that the
Speaker 1: FED did and all the money creation coming out of
Speaker 1: the financial crisis. And you know, that's been good news
Speaker 1: if you're a borrower, and in particular it's been pretty
Speaker 1: good news, uh, you know, for the banking sector, but
Speaker 1: it's been pretty bad news for individuals. As you pointed out,
Speaker 1: if you're a saver and you're trying to get any
Speaker 1: kind of return on uh you know, we have on
Speaker 1: a c D or and savings account, it's basically been
Speaker 1: almost nothing for the past decade. And so, yeah, higher
Speaker 1: interest rates could be good news for some people if
Speaker 1: they're savers. It's generally seen as a negative though from
Speaker 1: the standpoint of the business side of things. If business
Speaker 1: borrowing costs are higher, they're not as many projects to
Speaker 1: get green light and so forth. But you know that
Speaker 1: might be a little less important than it has been historically,
Speaker 1: given that you know, commerce's past the tax law that
Speaker 1: allows for immediate full expensing of investment on the business side.
Speaker 1: So we might see a lot more equity investment as
Speaker 1: opposed to debt financing in the business sector anyway, and
Speaker 1: it might be less sensitive to interest rates. So too
Speaker 1: early for anybody to read too much or read much
Speaker 1: at all into a massive I think it's the biggest
Speaker 1: drop since June in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. And
Speaker 1: you know, people looking at this and it was it
Speaker 1: was blaring across all the screens. I also have to
Speaker 1: wonder if maybe it's news that isn't the memo. So
Speaker 1: I think that's probably fat. Well. Look, I mean, we
Speaker 1: had a very strong manufacturing report from I s M yesterday.
Speaker 1: The Atlanta Fed increased their GDP now forecast for this
Speaker 1: current quarter. We're in first quarter there now over five
Speaker 1: percent in what they're forecasting. We have pretty had pretty
Speaker 1: strong labor market news this morning, and not super strong,
Speaker 1: but you know, with unemployment already at four point one,
Speaker 1: adding two hundred thousand jobs is still pretty considerable. And
Speaker 1: so I do think this is one of these situations
Speaker 1: where it's bad stock market news, but I don't really
Speaker 1: think that it's bad economic news. More broadly, how do
Speaker 1: you think the Trump administration with the tax cut in place,
Speaker 1: is positioned in terms of overall economic growth and just
Speaker 1: the feelings that Americans will have by and large about
Speaker 1: the economy. And I think they're in really good shape
Speaker 1: because I think the Democrats and their media allies really
Speaker 1: misplayed their hand. They went so over the top things
Speaker 1: that the tax cut bill was a disaster, we didn't
Speaker 1: all die, and yeah, when you set expectations like that,
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's it's only good if you succeed in
Speaker 1: stopping the bill and then you can dance on its
Speaker 1: grave and claim credit once it actually passed. Now, all
Speaker 1: of those absurd statements, they may are gonna be judged
Speaker 1: against reality. And you know, they convinced half of Americans
Speaker 1: their taxes were going up, and of course almost everyone
Speaker 1: who pays taxes is seeing their taxes go down. If
Speaker 1: they haven't already seen it in their paycheck, they're going
Speaker 1: to see it in the next couple of weeks. Because
Speaker 1: I R. S is requiring the new withholding tables to
Speaker 1: be implemented. By February fifteenth, and so people are going
Speaker 1: to see the tax by go down, They're going to
Speaker 1: see their take home pay go up. And if they're
Speaker 1: in the half of the country that was convinced by
Speaker 1: Democrats and the media the opposite would happen, they're gonna
Speaker 1: have some pretty interesting cognitive dissonance the first time they
Speaker 1: opened this paycheck and see they actually did get a
Speaker 1: tax cut. Speaking to Phil Kirpin, who's president of American
Speaker 1: Commitment and a contributing editor for National Review Online, Phil,
Speaker 1: what does Trump need to do what we're what can
Speaker 1: he do going into this second year of his term
Speaker 1: with the mid terms already looming, to make sure that
Speaker 1: the economic growth we see is as robust and sustained
Speaker 1: as possible. Well, you know, they're going to do a
Speaker 1: big push on infrastructure. I'm kind of skeptical of the
Speaker 1: Democrats will actually work with them on that. The one
Speaker 1: vote that I would really like to see and that
Speaker 1: the White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohene has
Speaker 1: been pushing for, and I think Congress would be very
Speaker 1: smart to do this would be to vote to make
Speaker 1: the individual tax cuts they passed last year permanent, so
Speaker 1: the Democrats can't say, oh, well, yeah, it might looks
Speaker 1: like a good tax cut now, but you're gonna lose
Speaker 1: it in eight years. They had to go ahead and
Speaker 1: force the vote to make it permanent, because it would
Speaker 1: be very hard for Democrats to vote against that, I
Speaker 1: think based on the way they've sort of positioned themselves politically,
Speaker 1: and if they passed that, it would take kind of
Speaker 1: one of the big talking points off the table and
Speaker 1: assure people that this tax cut is gonna last. So
Speaker 1: i'd like to see them do that. Uh you know.
Speaker 1: I think that they've got a pretty good start on
Speaker 1: a lot of the big regulatory pieces already in the
Speaker 1: first year, but they've got to follow through on a
Speaker 1: lot of that deregulation, And in particular, i'd really like
Speaker 1: to see them get some of the regulatory reform legislation
Speaker 1: that was done early in the Congress, in the House
Speaker 1: actually through the Senate to lock in place a lot
Speaker 1: of these games on regulation and during the the Trump
Speaker 1: administration so the next Democrat can't just come back in
Speaker 1: and snap every crazy Obama reag back in place. So
Speaker 1: I think that that really should be the focus, along
Speaker 1: with trying to make the tax cuts permanent, so permanent
Speaker 1: tax cuts and permanent deregulation in a sense. Yeah, let's
Speaker 1: lock in the games that we've made in the remarkable
Speaker 1: first year, so they so that we know they'll last.
Speaker 1: That would be my focus. Bill. Where should people go
Speaker 1: to read your latest or pick up a book. American
Speaker 1: Commitment dot org is the website, or follow me on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Kirpin my last name k rpm Bill. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. Have a fantastic weekend.
Speaker 1: All right, you two have a good one, alright, Team,
Speaker 1: we're going to get into uh some roll call coming
Speaker 1: up here in just a few minutes. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always send me your thoughts at Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: buck sex, and also check out bucks Sexton dot com
Speaker 1: for all the latest. We'll be right back. Well, team,
Speaker 1: it's almost the weekend, and we're gonna gonna spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time this weekend. I'm sure writing about the memo.
Speaker 1: I wrote a piece today on The Hill dot com
Speaker 1: if you want to see it, the Visor abuse memo
Speaker 1: Deep State bombshell. Um. You know, because I wanted people
Speaker 1: to read it, so I gave it a title that
Speaker 1: I feel like we'll get them to read it. If
Speaker 1: you have not, please go check it out. I think
Speaker 1: it's a good piece, lays out a lot of the
Speaker 1: arguments that I've made here today, and also the Hill
Speaker 1: will see that you've been reading it. They'd be like, oh,
Speaker 1: people like to read Bucks stuff. I did have a
Speaker 1: piece there go completely viral a few months ago that
Speaker 1: was that was interesting. I've never seen so much focus
Speaker 1: on one editorial from from one website, but it was
Speaker 1: at least in my career. But anyway, please do check
Speaker 1: it out. It's on Facebook, dot com, slash box Sexton
Speaker 1: as well, and I very much appreciate you taking a look.
Speaker 1: I would also note that the plan is, assuming I
Speaker 1: do not collapse from exhaustion and overwork, to have the
Speaker 1: Siege of Multipart one out on Monday. For those of
Speaker 1: you who like the history deep dives, we we at
Speaker 1: least have a few more going. I'm trying to get
Speaker 1: to ten before I take a break. I might not
Speaker 1: get there. I might stop around six or seven, but
Speaker 1: we're gonna try to get to ten and then we're
Speaker 1: gonna get back into it. But that's the that's the
Speaker 1: plan for now. But the Siege of Malta should be
Speaker 1: a really a really good episode. I think it'll be
Speaker 1: more than one part. I'm gonna figure out this weekend
Speaker 1: whether it's gonna be two or three parts. Um, So
Speaker 1: that's coming up. Oh also tomorrow morning, those of you
Speaker 1: who tend to wake up super early on Saturday, are
Speaker 1: you happy to be up making coffee doing your thing?
Speaker 1: I will be on Fox and Friends at six fifteen am.
Speaker 1: So hanging out on Fox and Friends talking about the
Speaker 1: deep State family Tree, which is a phrase that I
Speaker 1: will tell you I coined on Fox and Friends doing
Speaker 1: some analysis on the screen there and it has since
Speaker 1: caught on and now they often refer to the deep
Speaker 1: State family tree and they kindly give me credit for that,
Speaker 1: a little bit of I don't know, cleverness, whatever we
Speaker 1: want to call it. So, uh, here we get all
Speaker 1: of the latest on Oh sorry, we get the latest
Speaker 1: from you from Roll Call. Hit It Team Buck. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll Call. So we got Troy right and
Speaker 1: in with the following you, Dan Bongino and Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: on Hannity together. Wow, all star cast. The Shield formation
Speaker 1: is strong today. Are you planning on having Bongino on
Speaker 1: your show tonight? Last night I caught him hosting for
Speaker 1: Levin for a bit and he did a three hour
Speaker 1: show and putting the pieces together using some solid analytical methodology,
Speaker 1: using information reported in the left wing press to connect names, dates,
Speaker 1: and relationships. I think it was great. I think his
Speaker 1: work with your experience would be great on exploring the
Speaker 1: same data and exploring the truth. Well, Troy, thank you
Speaker 1: very much. First of all, it's great to get a
Speaker 1: chance to talk to Sean today on his show earlier
Speaker 1: in the day and have Bongino and Sarah on their
Speaker 1: two friends of mine, those two from the media business
Speaker 1: from way back when Sarah and I used to work
Speaker 1: together on The Blaze all the time. She was a
Speaker 1: frequent panelist on a show called Real News, of which
Speaker 1: I started out as the kind of deep deep right
Speaker 1: field participant in and then eventually became the uh central
Speaker 1: anchor in, which was quite a quite a process. But
Speaker 1: Sarah was one of our all star guests there, and
Speaker 1: Dan is a is a great dude, um, and I'm
Speaker 1: just happy to see his career getting so it's getting
Speaker 1: so hot right now. I mean, he's doing a great job.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'd love to have them on. We actually
Speaker 1: asked Sarah today, but she has to she's literally over
Speaker 1: at Fox during the show right now. Otherwise I would
Speaker 1: have had Sarah on, but I understand, you know, TV
Speaker 1: calls you gotta do it, and Dan's got his own
Speaker 1: show to do. Otherwise we'd be happy to have him on.
Speaker 1: I think we had Dan on a couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: like a week or two ago though, right so, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: two weeks ago. Yeah, so Dan's look, Bongino is welcome anytime.
Speaker 1: He knows that I like Dan and he does good
Speaker 1: analysis but so good suggestions, Troy, and thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Uh Will has the next one here. Nice work on
Speaker 1: Shawn Show with Dan and uh Dan and Sarah. He
Speaker 1: also wrote solid tweets today, been sharing via text message
Speaker 1: to all the underground conservatives and the People's Republic of
Speaker 1: Manhattan also signed up for Brandon's Create Club and use
Speaker 1: your code Buckshot. Well. Thank you very much, Will, first
Speaker 1: for spreading the conservative word around to our fellow underground
Speaker 1: conservatives here in the People's Republic of Manhattan, and also
Speaker 1: for checking out Create Club. It's it's a an honor
Speaker 1: for me. Whenever any of you are willing to go
Speaker 1: check out our sponsors, use the promo code. That's how
Speaker 1: you signal to the sponsors. Hey, there's something really going
Speaker 1: on here with this show. We believe in the show,
Speaker 1: We like your product, and we want to support you
Speaker 1: and Buck at the same time. So anytime you put
Speaker 1: in that promo code, you're giving me a high five,
Speaker 1: and you're giving one of the great companies that sponsors
Speaker 1: this show a high five, and you're getting some good products,
Speaker 1: some good gear. So thank you very much for that.
Speaker 1: That's what Look, that's what keeps us in business. I
Speaker 1: make no I make no secret of that, and that's
Speaker 1: why I tell you guys just straight up the way
Speaker 1: it works on radio. Thank you for what you're doing.
Speaker 1: That's why you'll notice Black Rifle coffee, which I do
Speaker 1: drink every day. These guys keep coming back because you
Speaker 1: are willing to give them a shot, because you know
Speaker 1: that they matter to me. These are companies that I
Speaker 1: care about. Look, the sponsors, you know, it's it's this
Speaker 1: is a this is really a three way relationship, right,
Speaker 1: it's it's you, it's me, it's sponsors. Well, that that's
Speaker 1: the three that's what keeps the radio show on the air.
Speaker 1: That's what keeps us all going. So thank you all
Speaker 1: for that. Kevin, do you remember when Chuck Schumer said
Speaker 1: on the Sunday Shows that Trump can't pick a fight
Speaker 1: with the intel community because they get you seven ways
Speaker 1: from Sunday. I wonder if he meant this, Yeah, Kevin,
Speaker 1: I think that this is a really annoying and disconcerting
Speaker 1: trend that I've seen among a lot of people on
Speaker 1: social media and the commentary world, that oh, well, if
Speaker 1: you mess with the I see the intelligence community, which
Speaker 1: we very rarely refer to it to that when you're
Speaker 1: in it, by the way, you always refer to it
Speaker 1: by your home agency. I just think it's so funny,
Speaker 1: like I would never walk around like, hey, like I'm
Speaker 1: in the i C, right, your FBI, your c i A,
Speaker 1: your d i A, you're you know, that's you. Really
Speaker 1: it's a much more tribal culture than people outside of
Speaker 1: it can never realize. You almost have to think about
Speaker 1: it like it's like the i C is the NFL,
Speaker 1: and then all the different agencies are different teams. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're not competing against each other technically, but there's some
Speaker 1: of that too. There's a little bit of uh friendly
Speaker 1: and sometimes not so friendly rivalry between them. I think
Speaker 1: it's funny people refer it as a community, like we
Speaker 1: have community hangouts that are all just you know, sitting
Speaker 1: out on our lawns together drink, you know, sipping on
Speaker 1: sweet tea and mint julips or something. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's not how it goes. But yeah, um, I do
Speaker 1: remember that, Kevin. And I think it's really disconcerting, as
Speaker 1: I said, that people seem to think that the intelligence
Speaker 1: community should ever find it appropriate to like settle the
Speaker 1: score with the president. And I think that we've seen
Speaker 1: some people, based on the memo today, that they do
Speaker 1: take that approach. Next up on Roll Call, t j uh,
Speaker 1: you have a deep voice as is, but you sound
Speaker 1: about ten times more manly on the Hannity Show. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's just the intensity of the topic that fight's a memo,
Speaker 1: all right, t J. I'll take you, man. Thanks, I
Speaker 1: gotta i gotta lay it down here. You know, it's
Speaker 1: I'm very comfortable with all of you, so I'm not in.
Speaker 1: When you're the guest, you gotta get right to it
Speaker 1: right away because you've only got a few minutes on air.
Speaker 1: When you're the host, you're like, yeah, you know, this weekend,
Speaker 1: I think I'm gonna you know, kick on the flip lups,
Speaker 1: go for a walk around the neighborhood. You don't maybe
Speaker 1: get myself a t bone steak, and by that I
Speaker 1: mean riby and you know, hanging out with miss Molly.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a little more relaxed because I have
Speaker 1: more time with you. But I guess I'm glad you
Speaker 1: like the the deep voice, not the deep state. The
Speaker 1: deep voice, Danny next, Hey Buck. In case nobody's mentioned it,
Speaker 1: I noticed the last several podcasts have numerous instances of
Speaker 1: windows sounds in the background. Most notable are the sounds
Speaker 1: of a USB device being plugged and unplugged. I thought
Speaker 1: your staff would like to know, Shields high, what is
Speaker 1: she talking about with you guys, crashing windows or something?
Speaker 1: Windows sounds? Yeah, well, I'm looking at you, you two.
Speaker 1: Nothing all right. We're gonna have a full on inquisition later.
Speaker 1: Someone's gonna get a code red for the I'm just kidding.
Speaker 1: We would never do that for the windows sounds. I
Speaker 1: gotta look at I need to know if he means
Speaker 1: the History podcasts or something else, because if it's the
Speaker 1: History podcast then it's uh and that's all on me.
Speaker 1: And I gotta figure that out. But you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't know what I can do to
Speaker 1: fix that. Uh, let's see, we got Greg. I'm about
Speaker 1: two important facts to add to the current debate. I
Speaker 1: R S harassment of conservative groups adds to a pattern
Speaker 1: of agency corruption under Obama. Where else did it exist?
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are other agencies. So let me just say, Greg,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw when I was on
Speaker 1: the Brett Bear panel earlier this week. Brett Air Show
Speaker 1: on Fox is one of my favorites. He's that's a
Speaker 1: great show. They have really top guests, and Breach just
Speaker 1: does a he says, he's just as good as it
Speaker 1: gets in the business of news. And but I did
Speaker 1: throw in there, and much of people heard it because
Speaker 1: the Washington Post columnist who was sitting next to me
Speaker 1: said something like, I don't know, he was saying something
Speaker 1: that I did not particularly like or agree with, and
Speaker 1: I just tossed in there. Well, you know what about
Speaker 1: the I R S. I mean this, this whole idea
Speaker 1: that has been one of the central defenses of FBI
Speaker 1: d o J conduct here, that they're beyond reproach is
Speaker 1: complete nonsense. In recent memory, we had the politicized targeting
Speaker 1: of conservatives by the I R S under the Obama
Speaker 1: administration without any real consequences for anyone involved. They lied
Speaker 1: to us about it, they hit it, and then they
Speaker 1: did everything they could to downplay the story. And that's
Speaker 1: a fact. This is the those are facts. That's just
Speaker 1: what is on the record. So I think that's uh
Speaker 1: very important to point out. He also wrote love your
Speaker 1: show and UH Shields High podcast. Keep up the good work,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Greg. I'm trying. I'm busy these days, man.
Speaker 1: I haven't gotten to work out in the last couple
Speaker 1: of days. I'm starting to a job of the buck
Speaker 1: over here. I gotta get I gotta get back into
Speaker 1: the you know, I gotta, like I said, I'm fighting
Speaker 1: the dad body and tell him a dad that's the
Speaker 1: plan because once that's the one of the upsides of
Speaker 1: being a dad, right easy get to say, all right,
Speaker 1: full embrace of the dad bod. No shame in that
Speaker 1: game that's coming up. That's this is my that's my
Speaker 1: excuse this weekend to eat French fries. I tend to
Speaker 1: eat French fries in the weekends, sometimes more than once
Speaker 1: a day, which I realize is really decadent. But sometimes
Speaker 1: you need with brunch, sometimes you need it with dinner.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know what else to tell you.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for me. From the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: for this edition of My Friends. Download those podcasts, uh,
Speaker 1: the History one and also this show. Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1: I'll see you Monday. As always, Shields High