Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Nancy Pelosi takes a
Speaker 1: cheap shot at President Trump, so he slapped down the
Speaker 1: Democrats in a meeting over infrastructure. Are they going to
Speaker 1: impeach or not? Time for them to figure it out
Speaker 1: one way or the other. Plus the latest on the
Speaker 1: border crisis, illegals being kept in solitary. We are told
Speaker 1: why is that happening and what should be done about it?
Speaker 1: And Michael Avanati in a bit of trouble. Oh, this
Speaker 1: will be interesting. That and more coming up. Buck Sexton Remission,
Speaker 1: decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence, Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American? Ready, great, You're a great American? Again.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show. Analysts, I can speak
Speaker 1: to three was without a phone call. Try doing that sometimes?
Speaker 1: Would you believe? Said it's important to follow the facts.
Speaker 1: We believe that no one is above the law and
Speaker 1: clean the president of Denunited States, and we believe that
Speaker 1: the president Denied States is engaged in a cover up
Speaker 1: and a cover up and that nation. I walked into
Speaker 1: the room and I told Senators Humer, Speaker Pelosi, I
Speaker 1: want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more
Speaker 1: than you want to do it, I'd be really good
Speaker 1: at that. That's what I do. But you know what,
Speaker 1: you can't do it under these circumstances. So get these
Speaker 1: phony investigations over with. Let's have the meeting on infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Will get that done easily, That's one of the easy ones.
Speaker 1: And instead of walking in happily into a meeting I
Speaker 1: walk into Look at people that I just said that
Speaker 1: I was doing a cover up. I don't do cover ups.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck section. Show everybody la addition out
Speaker 1: here on the left coast. Oh man, looks like I'm
Speaker 1: missing some fun stuff going on in the swamp. Democrats,
Speaker 1: you shameless, shameless bunch. You all the politics that are
Speaker 1: going on, all their efforts to try and use everything
Speaker 1: that they can to take down the president, to weaponize
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy, the Department of Justice, law enforcement agencies,
Speaker 1: the intelligence community, all that stuff. And now they act
Speaker 1: like Trump is the one playing politics. This is something
Speaker 1: that the left has borrowed from Obama. This is really
Speaker 1: an Obama is um. You don't remember back in those
Speaker 1: eight years, the acting assumption of President Obama personally and
Speaker 1: for the rest of his administration around him was that
Speaker 1: it's only the other guy that does politics. Among my
Speaker 1: I was gonna say favorite, I guess it's really least
Speaker 1: favorite Obama isms were the creation of massive straw men.
Speaker 1: You know, some people say we should not need any
Speaker 1: fruit and we should all starve to death. But I'm
Speaker 1: a gunst that, you know, and you'd say, no, I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone. I don't think any Republicans actually think
Speaker 1: that we should all starve to death. I don't know
Speaker 1: where that's a policy. So that's one obamasm, the creation
Speaker 1: of straw men that don't exist. And then he, you know,
Speaker 1: is a pyromaniac and lights those straw men on fire.
Speaker 1: And the other one that's kind of a Churchill a
Speaker 1: version of the Churchill quote. The other one that you
Speaker 1: see is, you know, the other guys engaging in politics.
Speaker 1: Pelosi has borrowed a page from Obama's book here, or
Speaker 1: maybe it was Obama bar from her book originally, who knows,
Speaker 1: but it's the dishonest establishment leftist politician playbook. They're holding
Speaker 1: a meeting before the meeting with the presi United States,
Speaker 1: where they're discussing whether or to impeach. Now, on so
Speaker 1: many levels, I find this to be both disturbing and hilarious.
Speaker 1: For one thing, can they just figure out what it
Speaker 1: is that they would like to impeach the President of
Speaker 1: the United States? For Can they just come up with
Speaker 1: what the specific item is that they could have put
Speaker 1: at the top at the top of the paper of
Speaker 1: impeachment the articles of impeachment. The answers, No, of course,
Speaker 1: is it the emoluments clause violations which didn't happen, The
Speaker 1: collision with Russia that didn't happen, the obstruction that didn't
Speaker 1: happen and was not charge you know, the tax returns
Speaker 1: that he shouldn't have to share. But now judges are
Speaker 1: turning against him. What is it exactly? If Trump were
Speaker 1: as bad as they seem to think he is, or
Speaker 1: at least they pretend to think. That's really what Democrats do.
Speaker 1: They pretend to think the President of the United States
Speaker 1: is grotesquely incompetent, but also a genius. Somehow they did
Speaker 1: this to Bush to Bush was a moron, they said,
Speaker 1: but was controlling the world. Or maybe Bush was a moron,
Speaker 1: but Cheney was using him as a as a hand
Speaker 1: puppet to control the world, and Cheney was evil, but
Speaker 1: he was an evil genius, but he was, you know,
Speaker 1: they never they just it's just it's just emotion. It's
Speaker 1: just spewing of bile. They're just it's like whenever I
Speaker 1: overhear a conversation here in California, well in Los Angeles specifically,
Speaker 1: it tends to be along the lines of Trump is
Speaker 1: like so bad, and I just like, he's like awful.
Speaker 1: I always want to ask, but I know that it'll
Speaker 1: just stump them. What exactly has he done? What has
Speaker 1: he done that is so terrible? What has what has
Speaker 1: the Trump presidency done that? You know, I could sit
Speaker 1: here and tell you bad things about the Bush administration.
Speaker 1: I can tell you a whole bunch of bad things
Speaker 1: about the Obama administration. You know, in normal times, the
Speaker 1: escalation of a war and the massive increase in US
Speaker 1: casualties and killed an action in war, in this case
Speaker 1: Afghanistan for purely political domestic political purposes would be an
Speaker 1: area of a lot of criticism. Obama got away with
Speaker 1: it entirely. Let's escalate Afghanistan, a lot more casualties, many
Speaker 1: more people coming home wounded, maimed, or dead fighting for
Speaker 1: this country overseas. Because Obama had said on the campaign trail,
Speaker 1: that Afghanistan was the good war. That's a bad thing.
Speaker 1: There are There are those choices that presidents can make,
Speaker 1: that administrations can make, the policies they can enact that
Speaker 1: have truly negative consequences and should be fought against and
Speaker 1: should be pointed out. I keep asking the question, what
Speaker 1: is the terrible thing that Trump has done? The travel band? Who?
Speaker 1: How many of you know somebody that their life is
Speaker 1: unalterably and horrifically changed because of the travel band, which
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court upheld much to liberals, All these liberal
Speaker 1: legal analysts who go on to be the same legal
Speaker 1: analysts that are telling us now that there was all
Speaker 1: kinds of illegality that Muller found but didn't charge because
Speaker 1: he can't charge a president. Well, then why was he
Speaker 1: going through this whole investigation? What the what's the purpose
Speaker 1: of a special counsel? If the president can't be charged,
Speaker 1: If it's just going to be a political exercise, then
Speaker 1: why doesn't the Congress just do it? The executive branch,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, is charged with executing the law,
Speaker 1: so therefore it must be a criminal procedure. They are
Speaker 1: engaged in a criminal investigative investigative procedure. But now all
Speaker 1: Mueller and his little Democrat cronies would have you think
Speaker 1: is that it's supposed to be an opposition research exercise
Speaker 1: to hand off to the Congress, so that now we
Speaker 1: can hear from Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the
Speaker 1: Democrat clowns about how they think that the president maybe
Speaker 1: they'll impeach them, maybe they won't. They got to figure
Speaker 1: out how this will blow back on them. First, I
Speaker 1: thought this was all about principle. I thought this was
Speaker 1: the president is so awful, we can't wait. They actually
Speaker 1: cannot wait, meaning they lose, They lose greatly if they
Speaker 1: don't take this on with tremendous speed. They have to
Speaker 1: get rid of this president. M That's not the case,
Speaker 1: is it. They much rather know is this going to
Speaker 1: be bad for us politically? That's not a principal position,
Speaker 1: that's a political position. All you get from these Democrats
Speaker 1: is partisanship. Is Trump bad orange man bad, must destroy,
Speaker 1: must take him down, must win back power. And then
Speaker 1: they turn around and say, why is Trump so partisan?
Speaker 1: Why is he being this partisan man says the mean
Speaker 1: things on the Twitter? What is he supposed to do?
Speaker 1: Pelosi today I mean, she's like the character and Casablanca
Speaker 1: who is shocked, shocked to find there was gambling going on.
Speaker 1: She is shocked that there is politics happening here. Playclip six.
Speaker 1: Wasn't really respectful of the reason of the Congress and
Speaker 1: the White House working together. He took a pass, and
Speaker 1: it just makes me wonder why why he did that.
Speaker 1: In any event, I pray for the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, and I pray for the United States of America.
Speaker 1: I do think sometimes that Nancy Pelosi is so shameless
Speaker 1: and really so intellectually vapid that it's a big advantage
Speaker 1: for her in politics that essentially she's the equivalent of
Speaker 1: a mob boss who people sometimes think, Oh, mob bosses
Speaker 1: are geniuses. No, they just have no scruples and will
Speaker 1: do anything and are willing to endure tremendous risks as
Speaker 1: a result of what they do. But she's not in
Speaker 1: that category. She's in the Maybe she's just so incapable
Speaker 1: of shame that she has a tremendous asset for the
Speaker 1: purposes of bare knuckle politics. She's really saying here that
Speaker 1: President Trump is being disrespectful to Congress Pelosi and all
Speaker 1: of her little Democrat buddies want the president in prison.
Speaker 1: They keep talking about how he is a criminal. They're
Speaker 1: subpoena in the president's former top aids. They want to
Speaker 1: get the president's children under oath. I mean, I will
Speaker 1: tell you this, and you need to remember it because
Speaker 1: it can easily get swept up. And they, oh, this
Speaker 1: is just the usual partisan back and forth. That's not true.
Speaker 1: These people are broken by Trump. They have lost their minds.
Speaker 1: Pelosi and all of the rest really view him as
Speaker 1: some kind of existential threat, not to the country but
Speaker 1: to their power. They worry that it will never return,
Speaker 1: It'll never be the same unless they annihilate the administration
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump, the legacy of this president, and certainly
Speaker 1: prevent him from another four years. Why can't they beat
Speaker 1: him at the ballot box if he's so incompetent, If
Speaker 1: the country's in such bad shape, which no serious person
Speaker 1: can really argue, is the country better right now than
Speaker 1: it was under the Obama administration? The answer is yes.
Speaker 1: We have a better economy, more prosperity, less government interference
Speaker 1: of no massive military operations ongoing. We're in a better
Speaker 1: place right now. It's just a fact Obama had his
Speaker 1: eight years, wasn't very good at the job. Everyone talked
Speaker 1: about how he was a genius, the most super amazing
Speaker 1: president ever, really some kind of a demigod, you know,
Speaker 1: somebody who was more than just human. Obama was a
Speaker 1: celestial presidency as far as the media was concerned, a
Speaker 1: divine incarnation in the White House. Didn't work out for
Speaker 1: the rest of the country that way. You had a
Speaker 1: very slow economic recovery, you had the Obamacare disaster forced
Speaker 1: that on all of us, Benghazi, race riots, and all
Speaker 1: kinds of really nasty stuff happening. But they thought it
Speaker 1: was a divine presidency. Now with Trump, they tell us
Speaker 1: that it's the opposite. Trump is the kind of democrat
Speaker 1: I'd say antichrist, but I don't know if they like that.
Speaker 1: The religious overtones there, that Trump is the epitome of
Speaker 1: evil in a political office. That's what they believe. But
Speaker 1: they can't even bring themselves to have the courage of
Speaker 1: their convictions and say we're going to impeach him. Why not,
Speaker 1: because really this is about power. It's about their power,
Speaker 1: and they know it. And the case to the American
Speaker 1: people that Donald Trump has been in an apt president,
Speaker 1: a bad president. They don't have the skill set to
Speaker 1: make that strongly enough that they are confident they can
Speaker 1: prevent him from four more years. You know why, because
Speaker 1: it's been good so far. He's doing a good job.
Speaker 1: And maybe you could argue aback he hasn't done as
Speaker 1: much as he said he would and everything goes well.
Speaker 1: Perhaps a good president is one who only gets a
Speaker 1: few things done and just doesn't mess everything else up.
Speaker 1: Perhaps they do no harm. Presidency should be the first
Speaker 1: principle for those in the oval office instead of what
Speaker 1: Obama did and what Democrats want to do now, which
Speaker 1: is do everything presidency, a green New Deal presidency. Let's
Speaker 1: just let's fixate on every aspect of her life, tell
Speaker 1: you what to do. Let's just jam virtue signaling hypocrisy
Speaker 1: down the throats of the American people. Make it harder
Speaker 1: to start a business, make it harder to pay your mortgage,
Speaker 1: Tell people that the only reason you can pay your
Speaker 1: mortgage is because you're oppressing them. That's what Democrats want
Speaker 1: to do. And with all of that happening, Pelosi says
Speaker 1: that the president is the one who's being disrespectful. She
Speaker 1: says he's engaged in a cover up after going through
Speaker 1: a two year long investigation where Muller and his little
Speaker 1: Democrat hitmen had to know, had to know that there
Speaker 1: was no Russia collusion almost from the start, and kept
Speaker 1: this thing going, and kept this thing going. The process
Speaker 1: was the punishment. This is what Fitzgerald, the Special process
Speaker 1: secutor under the Bush administration did in the whole Scooter
Speaker 1: Libby case. Just keep putting people under oath, keep looking
Speaker 1: for something, keep looking for someone to hit. They knew
Speaker 1: right away this wasn't actually a lead case. But keep
Speaker 1: it going, keep it going. This is what Democrats do.
Speaker 1: The process is the punishment. Pelosi and the Democrat left
Speaker 1: are using all the processes of government against this president
Speaker 1: and doing so in a vicious manner. Really want to
Speaker 1: ruin him and his family. The media is cheering them
Speaker 1: on like a bunch of idiot jackals, because that's what
Speaker 1: most of the mainstream media is. And she has the hootspa.
Speaker 1: I wanted to say something else, the hootspah to say
Speaker 1: that the president is being disrespectful when he says this
Speaker 1: isn't gonna work. We're not We're not doing this bipartisan
Speaker 1: dance right now, Please Pelosi. He really is appalling really is.
Speaker 1: But you know what else is appalling? Michael Avanati very appollock.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that. Got some immigration stuff to discuss.
Speaker 1: It is a jam pack day here in the Freedom
Speaker 1: hut La edition. I do want to tell you that
Speaker 1: we are going to open some lines. I like to
Speaker 1: keep you on your toes. Some of you're like wait
Speaker 1: lines phone. Sometimes I do it. Usually I'm a zealously
Speaker 1: guard my time on air, and so I don't take
Speaker 1: many calls today. We can take some calls if you like,
Speaker 1: or if you don't call in, I'll just keep talking.
Speaker 1: Eighty eight nine hundred two eight two five. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's the phone number. It's my show. I do remember it.
Speaker 1: Eight eight eight nine hundred buck eighty eight nine hundred
Speaker 1: two eight two five. If you light up the lines, well,
Speaker 1: then we'll know that we want to do more calls
Speaker 1: going forward. If you don't, well, then I know we're
Speaker 1: just gonna hang out you me. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Or the question to judge to the temporary restraining order
Speaker 1: before that money is redirected is inappropriately taken. Coffident will
Speaker 1: win in court. Current project as planned would cost too much,
Speaker 1: and respectfully take too long off, there's been too little
Speaker 1: oversight and not enough transparency, hundreds of millions over budget,
Speaker 1: totally out of control, and which we're not gonna We're
Speaker 1: not gonna do it. I mean, we're not gonna spend
Speaker 1: under construction forever. Wait a second, you mean that this
Speaker 1: absolutely heralded by the left high speed rail project in
Speaker 1: California means they love this idea to connect La with
Speaker 1: San Francisco. Ye, then you wouldn't have to be on
Speaker 1: the one who won the FOO five, the two five
Speaker 1: two one nine seven. You know you just got on
Speaker 1: the train right. High speed rail small, small carbon footprint
Speaker 1: for folks, although they always forget that electricity is a
Speaker 1: secondary power source, not a primary power source. You have
Speaker 1: to generate electricity somehow, and finding the ways to do
Speaker 1: that is the problem. Just driving an electric car doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you're saving the planet. Does that electricity come from coal?
Speaker 1: By the way, you're not saving the planet regardless, because
Speaker 1: climate change catastrophists are insane. Nonetheless, this project is everyone
Speaker 1: understands a fleet tobacle. And I'm here in California, I'm
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles talking to you, and I can tell
Speaker 1: you that I'm sure if I walked around and ask
Speaker 1: people about the project, they'd say, yeah, yeah, like he's
Speaker 1: naci'l good, like all, you know, if we're gonna have
Speaker 1: his dream. But the moment that Trump says, all right,
Speaker 1: so we're not gonna we're not gonna put a billion
Speaker 1: dollars into something that everyone knows can't happen, and they're
Speaker 1: benchmarks that they have to hit anyone to get the money.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is, Oh, it's terrible, and Trump's just doing
Speaker 1: this because he doesn't like this state and because we
Speaker 1: don't back him on immigration. No, maybe maybe the president's
Speaker 1: trying to make a sound decision, but also shouldn't the
Speaker 1: president be able to fight back? I always find this
Speaker 1: fascinating that the Democrats complain about this, like they're allowed
Speaker 1: that this is supposed to be a one way street.
Speaker 1: Pelosi can say the president's engaged in a cover up
Speaker 1: today as she did, and then the President's supposed to
Speaker 1: be really nice to her, you know, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsome in the state of California can actively undermine
Speaker 1: federal immigration law and worsen because that is what they do.
Speaker 1: I mean, they pass state laws that undermine federal laws.
Speaker 1: And then complain about how you know that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration doesn't want to play all footsie footsie with the
Speaker 1: train situation. Guess what Trump has feelings too. Trump's allowed
Speaker 1: to fight back, darn it, and he's doing a good job.
Speaker 1: And I love it. Trump fighting back, Trump punching back
Speaker 1: is my favorite. Trump eighty eight nine hundred two eight
Speaker 1: two five team, take some calls to that if you
Speaker 1: want eighty eight nine hundred buck, that's right. Eighty eight
Speaker 1: nine hundred two eight two five. We will beat right back.
Speaker 1: Remember when the left called the Green New Deal bold?
Speaker 1: Or how about their bold defensive anti semitism in the House.
Speaker 1: I think they're mistaking bold for something else, because the
Speaker 1: way I define bold is the taste of freedom I
Speaker 1: get every morning with my Black Rifle coffee. Black Rifle
Speaker 1: delivers the best roast or coffee right to your door,
Speaker 1: and Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things easy. Just pick
Speaker 1: your blend and the amount you want, and Black Rifle
Speaker 1: ships your coffee right to your door every month, hassle free,
Speaker 1: no lines, no running out, just great coffee ship right
Speaker 1: to your door every month, hassle free. Plus, when you
Speaker 1: join their Coffee Club, you'll receive discounts and offers not
Speaker 1: available to other customers. When you drink Black Rifle Coffee,
Speaker 1: you're supporting a company that gives back to veteran and
Speaker 1: first responder causes, and serves coffee and culture to those
Speaker 1: who truly love America. For a bold cup of America's
Speaker 1: best coffee, visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and
Speaker 1: get twenty percent off your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com, slash Buck Black Riflecoffee dot com slash Buck
Speaker 1: for twenty percent off. He's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton is back. Would you believe? He said, it's
Speaker 1: important to follow the facts. We believe that no one
Speaker 1: is above the law. I'm clean as president of the
Speaker 1: Nine States, and we believe that the President of the
Speaker 1: United States is engaged in a cover up and a
Speaker 1: cover up and that vit the nature. Last night he
Speaker 1: put forth the letters saying that unless we passed the
Speaker 1: US Mexico Canada for trade agreement, there was no reason
Speaker 1: for us to you know, we couldn't go for it
Speaker 1: was infrastructure. We didn't see those two as related. But
Speaker 1: the fact is hopeful, optimistic and seeing the necessity for
Speaker 1: a big infrastructure initiative for our country. We went in
Speaker 1: the spirit of bipartisanship to find common ground with the
Speaker 1: president on this. He came into the room made a
Speaker 1: statement that he made was but I won't even characterize it.
Speaker 1: What a fraud. I can't tell if she's an idiot
Speaker 1: or a fraud or both. But what a ridiculous, a
Speaker 1: ridiculous day for Nancy Pelosi today. Here she starts out
Speaker 1: the presidents engaged in a cover up. That she's saying
Speaker 1: the president's engaged in a crime. She's never it seems
Speaker 1: registered that the two year long investigation into Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: the hysteria that the president the United States was working
Speaker 1: with the Russians to steal the election from the queen
Speaker 1: elect Hillary Hillary Clinton, that that was all a fraud
Speaker 1: and the President's already been put through that and unfortunately
Speaker 1: has had very real negative ramifications for his presidency. Pelosi
Speaker 1: doesn't take any of that into account, just doesn't care,
Speaker 1: just doesn't care. Now it's now it's the cover up.
Speaker 1: You know. The Democrats kind of remind me, I don't
Speaker 1: know how many of you have older brothers or sisters,
Speaker 1: and if they've ever done this to you. But you know,
Speaker 1: you remember when you're a kid and they grab your arms,
Speaker 1: you know, if one of your siblings will grab your
Speaker 1: arms and hit you with your own hands. And then
Speaker 1: to add insult to injury, they say, you know ed,
Speaker 1: do you like? Do you like that? Stop hitting yourself?
Speaker 1: Do you like it? Stop hitting yourself? And you know,
Speaker 1: of course then you have to like either you know,
Speaker 1: rally and take your older sibling out or maybe call
Speaker 1: for mom or dad. You know, depends on how what
Speaker 1: the age difference is and who's got the weight the
Speaker 1: weight advantage. But they're basically telling President Trump, why don't
Speaker 1: you like hitting yourself? Well, why don't you enjoy these
Speaker 1: processes of investigation and smearing? And why do you object
Speaker 1: to our leveraging of the federal federal bureaucracy which voted
Speaker 1: ninety percent plus based on donation records for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm assuming if you donate to Hillary, you're
Speaker 1: gonna vote for Hillary. Plus federal bureaucracy being utilized as
Speaker 1: a weapon against this president. The judiciary increasingly used as
Speaker 1: a weapon against this president. Bill Barr is absolutely right,
Speaker 1: you want to talk. They use the word unprecedented about
Speaker 1: Trump all the time. It became funny. After allus it's like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, this is unprecedented. The president is issuing
Speaker 1: a pardon. No, that's not that's not unpress attented. It
Speaker 1: is literally not literally true, it is literally not unprecedented.
Speaker 1: Trying to avoid the use of the word literally. Now
Speaker 1: I hear it out here a lot. People need to stop.
Speaker 1: I'm literally like going to the store now, but actually
Speaker 1: I'm walking my dog. It's like, well, then you're literally
Speaker 1: not going to the store. They think they think the
Speaker 1: president is supposed to sit by and take all of this,
Speaker 1: and now they are so brazen that the suggestion you
Speaker 1: get from Pelosi and from others is that even though
Speaker 1: all of the all the stuff they've been saying about
Speaker 1: him is a lie, and they already had a special
Speaker 1: counsel and it didn't give them what they wanted. And
Speaker 1: Democrats are just weepy with disappointment because Muller was not
Speaker 1: the savior that they had anticipated. I thought it was
Speaker 1: also Pelosi said she would pray for the president. Now
Speaker 1: she won't. First of all, I thought that thoughts and
Speaker 1: prayers were now out of style on the left. Tweet
Speaker 1: thoughts and pryers, good band guns. You know that's what
Speaker 1: they always say. Now, Thoughts and prayers do nothings. As
Speaker 1: Democrats being really, really kind and helpful to their fellow
Speaker 1: human beings in the aftermath of Treasury thoughts and prayers,
Speaker 1: go thoughts and prouse yourself. You know that, really, But
Speaker 1: Pelosi says she's praying. I don't know. Maybe Pelosi should
Speaker 1: pray for guidance as a prominent politician and a self
Speaker 1: professed Roman Catholic for why it is that she doesn't
Speaker 1: think that babies are babies when they are in the womb.
Speaker 1: Maybe she can get some guidance from above on that
Speaker 1: if she were to actually pray. But I digress. President
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't sit around and take this stuff lying down,
Speaker 1: and so that then becomes evidence of his guilt. This
Speaker 1: is the old, the old trials by ordeal, Remember your
Speaker 1: trial by ordeal. They'd make you do something and depending
Speaker 1: on how it turns out, they'll decide your guilt or not.
Speaker 1: So you know, you walk across hot coals, do your
Speaker 1: feet get burned? You you're They weigh you down with
Speaker 1: rocks in a lake. Do you you sink? Well, if
Speaker 1: you sink, you're guilty and then you're dead anyway, So
Speaker 1: look at that, you must have been guilty. This is
Speaker 1: the stuff they're doing to President Trump. He tries to
Speaker 1: tell the public that he's not guilty of Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: They say that that's effectively obstruction, that that's a crime,
Speaker 1: even though there was no Russia collusion. So what he's
Speaker 1: doing is telling the people of America the truth. But
Speaker 1: you see, for Democrats, when the President speaks the truth
Speaker 1: about what they are doing to him publicly, that really
Speaker 1: upsets them, and so they view that as a crime
Speaker 1: in and of itself, making them look like the bunch
Speaker 1: of foolish imbeciles that they are. That's criminal. And the
Speaker 1: contortions they go through here to find ways of looking
Speaker 1: at the law such that President Trump is in violation
Speaker 1: it should. It's embarrassing. It's embarrassing. They say, Oh, but
Speaker 1: what about luck. We're up with Hillary. Hillary broke the law. Hillary.
Speaker 1: Anyone who ever wants to argue that with me is
Speaker 1: welcome to They're wrong. Hillary broke the law many times.
Speaker 1: What should her punishment have been. That's up for debate.
Speaker 1: How you know, should she have face real prison time
Speaker 1: or just lost her clearance? Or but she broke the law,
Speaker 1: no question if words have meaning. Hillary Clinton broke the law.
Speaker 1: And yet James Comey said no, no reasonable prosecutor would
Speaker 1: have brought charges against her. That I've not forgotten that,
Speaker 1: I've not forgotten how James Comy was really a comyist
Speaker 1: all along. But I don't want to get too deep
Speaker 1: into tomy. At this moment in time, President Trump is
Speaker 1: fighting back and saying, look, I didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1: This is nonsense. There is no cover up. There never
Speaker 1: has been a cover up play clip fourteen. So I
Speaker 1: came here to do a meeting on infrastructure with Democrats,
Speaker 1: not really thinking they wanted to do infrastructure or anything
Speaker 1: else other than investigate. And I just saw that Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: just before I made being made a statement that we
Speaker 1: believe that the President of the United States is engaged
Speaker 1: in a cover up. Well, it turns out I'm the
Speaker 1: most and I think most of you would agree to this.
Speaker 1: I'm the most transparent president probably in the history of
Speaker 1: this country. We have given on a witch hunt on
Speaker 1: a hoax. The whole thing with Russia was a hoax.
Speaker 1: Instead of walking in happily into a meeting, I walk
Speaker 1: into look at people that had just said that I
Speaker 1: was doing a cover up. I don't do cover ups.
Speaker 1: How could it be a cover up when they've already
Speaker 1: had teams of prosecutors, pull all the documents, interview all
Speaker 1: the people. The Congress just wants to do this again.
Speaker 1: This is effectively the political version of what in the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system would be considered double jeopardy. The President's
Speaker 1: already been through a full investigation of all these Russia matters,
Speaker 1: and they're alleged instruction tied to it, and it's done.
Speaker 1: It's over. They need to move on, but they don't
Speaker 1: want to move on. People that talk about Benghazi don't
Speaker 1: know what the heck they're talking about. First of all,
Speaker 1: people died in Benghazi. Second of all, the administration at
Speaker 1: the time, the Obama administration was darrow in their duty
Speaker 1: in Benghazi. And third of all, there was no special
Speaker 1: counsel that had prosecutorial authority and investigative powers and an
Speaker 1: unlimited budget to go after everything in Benghazi and was
Speaker 1: given by the administration of the time, complete and open access.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, that that did not happen. There was
Speaker 1: no special Council for Benghazi. So this is a this
Speaker 1: is a red herring. This is a nonsense comparison from
Speaker 1: Luka Old the hearings over Benghazi. Yeah, there needed to
Speaker 1: be hearing is because the Democrat Obama administration pretended like
Speaker 1: nothing went down that night, nothing happened, didn't want people
Speaker 1: to pay too much attention to how we started a
Speaker 1: war in Libya for what What did the US gain
Speaker 1: out of that situation? This is double jeopardy for political purposes.
Speaker 1: The president knows it, that's why he's fighting against it.
Speaker 1: And they hope that Americans, at least enough Americans that
Speaker 1: they can get their way in the next election, aren't
Speaker 1: paying attention to it. These people do violence to the
Speaker 1: law in the name of upholding the law. It's a
Speaker 1: very disconcerting tendency you see among Democrats. I mean, here's
Speaker 1: another example you've got I mentioned before, these lower court injunctions.
Speaker 1: This means that a federal judge anywhere in the country
Speaker 1: right now feels empowered and knows that he or she
Speaker 1: will be a hero to the left by just giving
Speaker 1: them what they want through a national universal they call
Speaker 1: it a universal injunction. One federal judge can say the
Speaker 1: president can't do that, and then the president is unable
Speaker 1: to do it until an appeals court hears it. And
Speaker 1: in some cases the appeals court will hear it and
Speaker 1: there are a bunch of partisan hacks Obama appointees whatever
Speaker 1: the case, maybe or bad Republican appointees, which often happens too.
Speaker 1: I think suitor, was it a republic Republican appointee if
Speaker 1: memory serves on the Supreme Court. And then you have
Speaker 1: to get you have to get around the fact that
Speaker 1: the executive branch doesn't really have any authority that is
Speaker 1: directly left to it, because there's always some federal judge
Speaker 1: somewhere who wants to be a progressive hero and give
Speaker 1: some dick tot from the bench about how the president
Speaker 1: can't do that. A great example of this, and we'll
Speaker 1: be talking about immigration the next hour, is defer Action
Speaker 1: for Childhood Arrivals DACA right so called dreamers, which is
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about politicized terms of an immigration
Speaker 1: They just stack it. They stack the immigration discussion with
Speaker 1: as many words in terms as possible that are meant
Speaker 1: to get you to concede that their side is right
Speaker 1: before you've even had the discussion. Oh, I just want
Speaker 1: to help the dreamers and get documents for the undocumented,
Speaker 1: and they're doing the jobs Americans won't do, and you know,
Speaker 1: Nation of Immigrants, and they just string all this pablem together,
Speaker 1: this claptrap. But these judges won't allow this president to
Speaker 1: undo Daca, which the justification under the Obama administration for
Speaker 1: it was purely executive prosecutorial discretion. So this is the
Speaker 1: judicial equivalent of one prosecutor looks at something and says,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to bring charges, and then another prosecutor
Speaker 1: comes along and says, you know what, Actually there's a
Speaker 1: reason to bring charges here and says, nope, sorry, you
Speaker 1: don't have the right. That's not how the system works.
Speaker 1: And these judges, especially in the Ninth Circuit, keep getting overturned.
Speaker 1: But it takes time. It takes time. They know it does.
Speaker 1: The process is the punishment. This is hashtag resistance. This
Speaker 1: is the anti Trump judiciary getting through the judicial branch
Speaker 1: what they can't get through the ballot box and through
Speaker 1: the presidency. This is fighting against the president by turning
Speaker 1: the system against itself. It's a Lynsky really, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the Olynskyite approach to judicial resistance to a presidency.
Speaker 1: Remember some of the Olynsky tactics, like just you know,
Speaker 1: go and do an establishment and have everybody that you
Speaker 1: know stand in all the bathroom stalls and stand at
Speaker 1: all the bathroom so nobody in that building can go
Speaker 1: to the bathroom all day. I mean, technically there's no
Speaker 1: law against using a bathroom all day, but there's no
Speaker 1: good faith right the way that this is all. This
Speaker 1: is all premised on taking advantage of other people who
Speaker 1: are acting in good faith and using the system against
Speaker 1: them to get which you should not what you should
Speaker 1: not be able to get. That is what these judges
Speaker 1: are doing. We'll get it. This is going to turn
Speaker 1: into a discussion a moment here about Trump's taxes, which
Speaker 1: Libs are obsessed. The Libs are obsessed with Trump's taxes.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a nothing burger. But this
Speaker 1: is now something that you can't have a rational discussion
Speaker 1: with most Libs about the president's taxes. They think that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a handwritten note from Putin that says,
Speaker 1: you know what, election interference. We'll talk about that when
Speaker 1: we come back. Stay with me Joe in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: He's calling in from California, where I am my friend,
Speaker 1: I guess I can't take the high speed rail to
Speaker 1: see you, but good of you to call. She'll die, buck,
Speaker 1: she'll die. Any chance you're gonna make it up here
Speaker 1: while you're out here, or I gotta get back. I
Speaker 1: gotta get back to the swamp. Got to clear out
Speaker 1: the methane from the Democrats. Yes, the swamp need you
Speaker 1: to clear it out. So well, anyway, hasten back. But
Speaker 1: I hope you survived while you're out here, and good
Speaker 1: to have you out on the West coast. Well, you
Speaker 1: know about the whole Trump investigation. I mean, you do
Speaker 1: have to remember that there were Trump employees who were
Speaker 1: smashing phones in the parking lot where there haven Oh
Speaker 1: wait wait wait that was Hillary Clinton. That's right. You
Speaker 1: do have to remember, though, the time when they talked
Speaker 1: about the not having backups to the emails and there
Speaker 1: were no take Oh wait wait wait, that was the irs.
Speaker 1: L man, that's right, that was the irs. Or what
Speaker 1: about the time when Rump he was bleached but oh wait, wait,
Speaker 1: it wasn't Trump using bleach pit. It was Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: used bleach pit on her serve. But wait wait, he's
Speaker 1: so corrupt, he lies so much, you know, I'd have
Speaker 1: to say though that you all. Honestly, the thing I
Speaker 1: like the most about Donald Trump, and you can really
Speaker 1: see it out here in among the lunatics in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: is that he really smokes these people out. And oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I told you this. Oh it's so true. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's Trump. Trump arrangement syndrome has has a clarifying and
Speaker 1: really a cleansing effect because it shows you who all
Speaker 1: the loons are. Yes, and um, you know, I think
Speaker 1: I told you this before. We haven't spoken in quite
Speaker 1: a while, but I've told you this before that I
Speaker 1: was a reluctant Trump voter. But now in uh, in
Speaker 1: two thou twenty or twenty twenty, I'm going to crawl
Speaker 1: over broken glass with acid and antsport on it in
Speaker 1: order to vote for Donald Trump. I'm with you on that,
Speaker 1: by the way. I mean I wasn't of it. I
Speaker 1: mean I definitely voted for the guy and told others do.
Speaker 1: But since he's been in office, what I've seen is
Speaker 1: one he's actually done a pretty good job. I mean
Speaker 1: it's not it's not perfect. I didn't think it would be.
Speaker 1: It's not even great, but I'd say it's it's good.
Speaker 1: But the other side, I mean, they're just un serious.
Speaker 1: They're a serious threat to the economy and a lot
Speaker 1: of other things, but they're unserious as people, and their
Speaker 1: ideas are are whacko. They had a lot of wacko ideas,
Speaker 1: and there's a there's a fundamental dishonesty, not for the
Speaker 1: individuals necessarily the Democratic Party though that's true too, but
Speaker 1: I think that democratic ideology is imposed. I think you
Speaker 1: cannot be a Democrat without holding a lot of mutually
Speaker 1: contradictory positions and engaging in a whole lot of virtue
Speaker 1: signaling and hypocrisy. That's that's so. I think there's there's
Speaker 1: deep fundamental flaws in the thinking of the American left.
Speaker 1: No matter who you are, Obviously you often ask the
Speaker 1: question are they dishonest? Or are they stupid? Or I
Speaker 1: would add to that, are they insane? You know, I
Speaker 1: think the answer almost always is they're all three to
Speaker 1: be perfectly frank. So, oh, man, Joe, we better get
Speaker 1: you an alias up there in San Francisco, because you're
Speaker 1: you're dropping way too many truth bombs to stay to
Speaker 1: be able to deal with all those commies. Man, be careful,
Speaker 1: all right, you keep your head down, don't don't step
Speaker 1: in any of the any of the human waste on
Speaker 1: the ground there, and avoid Antifa, My friend, shield Side,
Speaker 1: thanks for calling in San Francisco. San Francisco is it's
Speaker 1: a pretty town with great food, but it is not
Speaker 1: well run these days and it's really expensive too. Exsitioning,
Speaker 1: you had Gavin speaking of California. You had Newsom today
Speaker 1: saying that it's a national disgrace that there's all this
Speaker 1: homelessness in California. I'm like, why is it a national disgrace.
Speaker 1: It's not Texas's fault. Yeah, it's not. It's not South
Speaker 1: Carolina's fault. It's not Florida's fault that there's all this
Speaker 1: homelessness in California. Maybe the California governor should take a
Speaker 1: little bit of responsibility for the problem in his state,
Speaker 1: which is a very wealthy state at the top end.
Speaker 1: But oh, I got to talk to you. What is
Speaker 1: a bill of a tainder, A little bit of a history,
Speaker 1: deep dive, little tiented today that's coming up in a moment,
Speaker 1: buck Sexton, permission to coding the news and disseminating information
Speaker 1: with ashionable intelligence, Make no mistake American bring You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. This is the buck Sexton Shows, CIA
Speaker 1: analyst a Bill of a Tainda. Welcome to the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the latest chapter in the Trump's
Speaker 1: Taxes mania, Trumps taxes. They want Trumps Texas so badly
Speaker 1: they need to get a grip. Federal government already has
Speaker 1: New York State government, as we will discuss already as
Speaker 1: Trump's taxes. But now this has turned, this has turned
Speaker 1: into the latest shiny object. It was, Oh, the Southern
Speaker 1: District of New Work. They've got Trump, They've got him
Speaker 1: right where they want him. Oh, it turns out they
Speaker 1: don't one part of the whole get Trump saga that
Speaker 1: get There's a lot that gets skipped over by the medium.
Speaker 1: And the media is a joke. The media is preposterous
Speaker 1: in this country. For the most part. There's some great journalist,
Speaker 1: there's some great outlets, but ninety percent of the media
Speaker 1: could go way tomorrow and the country would be better
Speaker 1: off as a result. But the one thing that they
Speaker 1: just managed to pretend like it never happened, the president's
Speaker 1: personal lawyer and buy their own accusation, his personal fixer,
Speaker 1: his consoliary. Oh I know, people pronounce it consigliari, but
Speaker 1: the g is silent. YO. His consoliary Michael Cohen didn't
Speaker 1: have the goods on him. If the president's personal attorney,
Speaker 1: who also strikes me as something of an idiot, if
Speaker 1: he didn't have what it what they were looking for.
Speaker 1: They really think that they're going to get him with
Speaker 1: the documents that have already been submitted to the federal
Speaker 1: government and are looked over by federal government officials. Do
Speaker 1: we really think that the IRS gives Trump like the
Speaker 1: soft treatment. I don't think so. No, No intelligent person
Speaker 1: believes that right that Trump is somebody who would expect
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt from the IRS. But they're
Speaker 1: obsessed with Trump's taxes, as you know, and they still
Speaker 1: and what I think happens here is they just keep
Speaker 1: moving on to the next Cohn. They are conning the left,
Speaker 1: They are conning Democrats into thinking that there's this this
Speaker 1: magic pill they're going to give them that ends the
Speaker 1: Trump nightmare. Just just stay with us a little longer,
Speaker 1: a little longer. Here's the magic pill. If the emolument's clause,
Speaker 1: it's the twenty fifth Amendment, it's you know, Trump is
Speaker 1: a racist it's Trump is a sexist, It's Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: Moscow Tower, it's you know, all these different things it's
Speaker 1: supposed to, oh, the payoff to Stormy Down annuals. These
Speaker 1: are all promised as the magic pill to end the
Speaker 1: Trump nightmare. For Democrats were so shook by this whole thing.
Speaker 1: That never ends the nightmare, does it. The pill never
Speaker 1: tastes the way it's supposed to, It never has the
Speaker 1: intended effect. It's the sugar pill at best. Libs can
Speaker 1: get a placebo effect from and the placebo effect is like,
Speaker 1: maybe Trump won't be president again for four more years.
Speaker 1: That's not gonna work. That's not gonna be enough. They
Speaker 1: know that, which brings me to the Bill of Attainder
Speaker 1: or private bill discussion here they want Trump's taxes. Now,
Speaker 1: taxes are a protected category of information within the government.
Speaker 1: There's a good reason for that. The government forces you
Speaker 1: to give it a lot of personal information. How much
Speaker 1: money you make, how much you give a charity, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, all the way down the line.
Speaker 1: And it's one thing if you wish to share that
Speaker 1: with the public. But for the government to force you
Speaker 1: to give that private information and then to release that
Speaker 1: against your wishes. This is an invasion of privacy. And
Speaker 1: this is not going back to the concept of good faith.
Speaker 1: This is not a good faith exchange with the government
Speaker 1: because we give them all that information under the belief
Speaker 1: that they will keep it secret, they will maintain the
Speaker 1: confidentiality of and there are criminal statutes that apply here
Speaker 1: if you if some of the IRS leaks tax returns,
Speaker 1: they can go to prison, just like somebody who would
Speaker 1: leak classified information. Why does this matter so much, Well,
Speaker 1: because the New York State Assembly has passed a law
Speaker 1: that clears the way for congressional committees to skip through
Speaker 1: the security of tax return information and just hand it
Speaker 1: right over to the president's political enemies. Here's some CNN
Speaker 1: reporter or analysts talking a little bit about this, and
Speaker 1: then I'll dig deeper play to be clear. What this
Speaker 1: would require is the state's tax commissioner to go ahead
Speaker 1: and send Congress the president's state tax returns. It would
Speaker 1: be stripped of any federal information, and the request would
Speaker 1: have to come from one of three specific committees, one
Speaker 1: from the House or the Senate, or a joint committee.
Speaker 1: But it would have to be from those three committees,
Speaker 1: and it would be devoid of any federal information. But
Speaker 1: remember the president does have substantial business in New York,
Speaker 1: so we could get a very clear picture of his
Speaker 1: business in New York. He has buildings in New York,
Speaker 1: residential buildings. He also has a few one hotel that
Speaker 1: he collects management fees from, so we could see probably
Speaker 1: the most information specific information. You know. If Congress goes
Speaker 1: ahead and makes the request, the state tax commissioner would
Speaker 1: have to give it. This is a law passed by
Speaker 1: the legislature in the state of New York, my home state,
Speaker 1: that is meant to target one individual. That's what this is.
Speaker 1: We now have reached the point where you have state
Speaker 1: legislatures that are passing get Trump law. These people have
Speaker 1: no respect for the rule of law. They have no
Speaker 1: respect for justice as something that is above and beyond
Speaker 1: the reach of partisanship. This is a complete disgrace and
Speaker 1: it is going to raise issues from from a perspective
Speaker 1: of the constitutionality of passing laws that would some would
Speaker 1: argue a bill of a tainder. Quit a quick review
Speaker 1: here in case you like bill of a tainder that
Speaker 1: sounds familiar, Well, it is constitutionally prohibited. But a bill
Speaker 1: of a tainder, people also refer to it as a
Speaker 1: writ of a tainder, is essentially a legislative act that
Speaker 1: goes after one person says, one person did this thing,
Speaker 1: and we're going to get them for it. It is
Speaker 1: a legislative act that punishes and singles out and punishes
Speaker 1: an individual. And these became best known in history perhaps
Speaker 1: because Henry the Eighth used them back in the mid
Speaker 1: sixteenth century to execute a bunch of people he didn't
Speaker 1: like and take all their stuff and dispossess their heirs.
Speaker 1: Pretty nasty guy that Henry the Eighth. The Christopher Hitchens
Speaker 1: used to say about England, the Church of England founded
Speaker 1: on the family values of Henry the Eighth. Henry the
Speaker 1: Eighth is a guy who used bill of attainder very infamously.
Speaker 1: But the basic legal principle is that you have to
Speaker 1: pass laws that are universally applicable. You pass a law
Speaker 1: because this is a thing that should be done or
Speaker 1: should not be done. Not we don't like this person,
Speaker 1: we're passing a law to hurt them. Now what they've done.
Speaker 1: In New York, in Albany and the state legislature as
Speaker 1: they've opened this up so that it's enough, there's enough
Speaker 1: room that it could pass muster. But it's not done
Speaker 1: once again in good faith. They're not good at congressional committees.
Speaker 1: Aren't going to request the state tax returns of your
Speaker 1: average official. They're not going to request the tax returns
Speaker 1: of other people in government other than Trump appointees and
Speaker 1: executive branch officials. This is being done to open the
Speaker 1: door to get the information that they cannot otherwise get.
Speaker 1: They are changing law to get Trump. That is what
Speaker 1: is happening now that they don't understand how damaging this
Speaker 1: is to the public's faith and the rule of law,
Speaker 1: just goes to show you that they're once again either
Speaker 1: just partisan zealots or idiots or both. I think both
Speaker 1: is most likely here attained or comes from being tainted
Speaker 1: by the way. So the very passage of this law
Speaker 1: taints the person because it's meant to go after them.
Speaker 1: And as was pointed out there by that CNN, whoever
Speaker 1: it was a bill of attainder in this instance would
Speaker 1: give the information, well, they won't call it a bill
Speaker 1: of attainder. It's also sometimes referred to up a private
Speaker 1: bill is one that goes out for an individual but
Speaker 1: does not have a punishment specific to it. That's called
Speaker 1: a private bill, but a bill of a tainer actually
Speaker 1: establishes that somebody needs to be punished as well. The
Speaker 1: information that would be in Trump's state tax returns, the
Speaker 1: numbers that this that the other thing would be very
Speaker 1: similar what you see in his federal return. Right if
Speaker 1: you make if you make fifty thousand dollars in New
Speaker 1: York State, you report that same number to the federal
Speaker 1: government as you do to the New York state government.
Speaker 1: There's no difference. So this is an end run on
Speaker 1: the federal privacy of tax returns. All because Democrats have
Speaker 1: a bee in their bonnet about Trump notch not sharing
Speaker 1: his taxes. Keep mind, he has shared all kinds of
Speaker 1: records financial records already, that there's financial disclosures he has
Speaker 1: to do. This is now where we are. They will
Speaker 1: change the law, They will ignore laws in order to
Speaker 1: obstruct Trump, to stop Trump from doing what he should
Speaker 1: be able to do with prey of the United States,
Speaker 1: and they will pass new laws to help them hurt Trump.
Speaker 1: That is what they're doing. And yet they think they're
Speaker 1: the good guys in this whole process. Oh, we're gonna
Speaker 1: get Trump's taxes, they say, And then what what other
Speaker 1: laws are they willing to change or to get this president?
Speaker 1: I would wonder, I wonder where they draw the line.
Speaker 1: But at least we got to talk about a bill
Speaker 1: of a tainder today. But the founding father is very
Speaker 1: worried about this. There were there were there as specifics
Speaker 1: in the Constitution about it. What it's forbidden? No bill
Speaker 1: of a tainder ex post factor law, nor any law
Speaker 1: impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed. And
Speaker 1: no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
Speaker 1: Article one, Section nine, Article one, Section ten of the
Speaker 1: Constitution vans spills of a tender boom constitution. That's right,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. I cannot emphasize this enough. The
Speaker 1: track record demonstrate he does not actually want information. He
Speaker 1: wants to fight, but not the truth. The closer he
Speaker 1: actually comes to obtaining information, the further we run from it.
Speaker 1: Whatever your opinion on the Mower report, great, glad you
Speaker 1: have it, which you didn't get it here today, and
Speaker 1: you're not getting it from this committee because this committee
Speaker 1: undouted doesn't like the author I want to talk to
Speaker 1: the author of the report. They just want to talk
Speaker 1: about the report and make innuendo and attack the president.
Speaker 1: At the middle of the day when this committee who
Speaker 1: has charge of immigration, who has charge of intellectual property,
Speaker 1: who we've touched none of with a crisis at the border,
Speaker 1: we have an admission that the economy is good, jobs
Speaker 1: are happening, unemployment is his lowest rate. I guess at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, we can't find something that
Speaker 1: the MOE report lets them hang their I word impeachment on,
Speaker 1: which they can't even agree on because the president is
Speaker 1: continuing to do his job. And we're here again with
Speaker 1: the circus in full boors. And yet despite all that
Speaker 1: which is which is true, I'm seeing here this this
Speaker 1: poll circulating around about the historically strong opposition to President
Speaker 1: Trump at this stage of the game. This is at
Speaker 1: Quinnipiac Quinnipiac Pole, and you have here the date the
Speaker 1: president and the question is will you definitely vote against
Speaker 1: this president in the next election. The polling here and
Speaker 1: essentially without going through every everything here, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: Carter Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Everyone's in the thirties, although
Speaker 1: George HW. Bush was twenty one. He didn't win. That's noteworthy.
Speaker 1: He didn't win. He was the kind of Republican that
Speaker 1: Democrats pretend to like, even though they kind of hated
Speaker 1: him at the time. But now they pretend to like him,
Speaker 1: and they pretend to like him because he lost gracefully.
Speaker 1: That's the way that they like it. They like Republicans
Speaker 1: who say, oh, I'm gonna be really nice and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that I'm just not gonna win. But that's
Speaker 1: not good. Donald Trump, as of May twenty nineteen, has
Speaker 1: fifty four percent of people who were polled here saying
Speaker 1: that they will definitely vote against him in the next election.
Speaker 1: Now that's that's the possibility, of course, is that this
Speaker 1: poll will one, that sentiment will change. There are a
Speaker 1: bunch of possibilities to the polls not very good, which
Speaker 1: is also very much a chance, I think. And then
Speaker 1: there's maybe the media has been successful, successful in you know,
Speaker 1: creating this perception of an unsuccessful presidency, even though look,
Speaker 1: the results speak for themselves. The results should speak for themselves.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what unemployment is right now, three
Speaker 1: point five, three point four percent something like that. Lois
Speaker 1: it's been since nineteen sixty nine and fifty four percent
Speaker 1: of people say that they might vote against Donald Trump
Speaker 1: or died this poll. It could just be the media
Speaker 1: trying to convince everyone constantly that the president is some
Speaker 1: kind of heinous monster, and yet they're the ones complaining
Speaker 1: about how he won't reach out and buy partisan fashion.
Speaker 1: You know, Lindsay Graham at a moment that day where
Speaker 1: he said, you know, Trump, so Trump won't work with
Speaker 1: you on something, or you know, or Trump says things
Speaker 1: that you don't really like. Here's how you should handle
Speaker 1: that as adults play six team to have the president
Speaker 1: essentially saying I refuse to work with the Democrats and
Speaker 1: tell you know, they stop investigating me. Is this President
Speaker 1: Trump triple daring Democrats to impeach him? I think it could.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are some Democrats on the Hill that
Speaker 1: think just that. Um, you know, but this is right
Speaker 1: out of the art of the deal. In some ways,
Speaker 1: he was known to walk into boardrooms, throw a fit,
Speaker 1: walked out. But the difference here is, um, he can't
Speaker 1: go to another real estate, uh, you know person to
Speaker 1: deal with. There's only one Congress he has to deal
Speaker 1: with them, and you're already seeing his congressional allies starting
Speaker 1: to appeal to him to maybe rethink this decision. Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham tweeted just a couple of minutes ago something the
Speaker 1: effect of, I know they really mean, but you need
Speaker 1: to rise above it and be the better person, and
Speaker 1: to try to coax him back, because, as Phil Mattingly said,
Speaker 1: there are a whole slew of bipartisan legislative issues that um,
Speaker 1: the president is going to need to engage Congress on,
Speaker 1: Like does that tweet enough of good? God? See an
Speaker 1: report talking about Lindsay grahamtreet soho I read that. I
Speaker 1: read the verbet. I thought it was Lindsay Graham talking
Speaker 1: about his tweet. Uh, but I think that this is
Speaker 1: serious that they present this as the problem is that
Speaker 1: President Trump isn't bipartisan enough. The problem is that President
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't want to play nice with the other side.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrats still don't accept that he's the president.
Speaker 1: And the comparison to the Bertha movement under Obama is ludicrous.
Speaker 1: The Republican Party wasn't running around saying that President Obama
Speaker 1: wasn't born in this country. The Democratic Party is has
Speaker 1: been running around saying and the media has been magnifying it,
Speaker 1: although they also started the whole thing. They've been saying
Speaker 1: the president is a traitor and worked with Russian install
Speaker 1: the election, but he needs to be nicer to them,
Speaker 1: he needs to work with them. This is oh man,
Speaker 1: this is really going to be tough to get through.
Speaker 1: The next the next election, the next year and a
Speaker 1: year and a half now roughly not less than that,
Speaker 1: sixteen months. It's gonna be tough to get through. I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about the other Nazi debacle.
Speaker 1: I was going to get right into immigration, but I'd
Speaker 1: rather spend some time with you discussing the latest on
Speaker 1: Michael Avanati. Here. See, I remember, as somebody who works
Speaker 1: in the media, I remember when Michaelavonati was being harolded
Speaker 1: as some kind of a second usage of Harold Today,
Speaker 1: being hailed, being louded, fetted. It's fe with the French
Speaker 1: thing on a ted, not fet id, although that would
Speaker 1: work too, being fetted and celebrated as a kind of
Speaker 1: anti Trump feminist hero Michael Abanati. There was a time
Speaker 1: when Avanati was on CNN so often I figured Anderson
Speaker 1: Cooper must be a little nervous that Avanati might take
Speaker 1: his job. Oh no, without Anerson Cooper would see an NBCNN. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think somebody else could read the prompter. It would
Speaker 1: be fine. Oh no, Avanati was on all the time,
Speaker 1: in fact as a little oh no, we don't have
Speaker 1: time for it. We will will come back to it though.
Speaker 1: See this is a perfect little teaser. We're gonna give
Speaker 1: you a little taste of what it was like back
Speaker 1: in the day with Michael Avenati, the way the media
Speaker 1: was talking about him, possible twenty twenty presidential candidate, Michael Avanati.
Speaker 1: And now it turns out that not only is he
Speaker 1: a really bad lawyer and an early scummy guy, he
Speaker 1: has allegedly because I don't want to sue anybody here,
Speaker 1: allegedly stolen, according to a federal indictment, three hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars from Stormy Daniels. Oh good stuff. We will get
Speaker 1: into this and the media's complicity, the Democrats complicity in
Speaker 1: this whole thing in a moment. He's back with you now,
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. Michael Avanati also referred to as the
Speaker 1: creepy porn star lawyer, a guy that you probably know
Speaker 1: of because the media made him famous. They made him
Speaker 1: famous for a while. He was more than a regular
Speaker 1: in the CNN green room. He probably had his own
Speaker 1: green room at CNN. They loved Avanati. Why because he
Speaker 1: would go on TV and just slam and slander and
Speaker 1: defame the president. And for people that have Trump's arrangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: that is a kind of drug that they need. They
Speaker 1: have to hit the pedal and get the pill. Hit
Speaker 1: the pedal and get the pill. Avanadi made that happen
Speaker 1: for them. Do you think that that's any exaggeration We
Speaker 1: pulled for you just a little a little bit of
Speaker 1: a throwback, a little bit of a go back in time,
Speaker 1: a way back machine here to I don't know, maybe
Speaker 1: about a year ago, forget when when Avanati was effectively
Speaker 1: the savior of the Republic, the man who oh that's right.
Speaker 1: He was the human embodiment of that pill that would
Speaker 1: awake libs from the nightmare of the Trump presidency. That
Speaker 1: was Michael Avanati. He was the pill for a while.
Speaker 1: He was the one who was going to make it happen,
Speaker 1: going to destroy Trump, not just end his presidency, not
Speaker 1: just harm him politically, but also to go even beyond
Speaker 1: that and to get him, perhaps thrown into prison, to
Speaker 1: get him into all kinds of trouble, to take down
Speaker 1: his family. So Amanati was the savior of the republic
Speaker 1: in terms of our democracy, the sanctity of our democracy.
Speaker 1: All that sanctimoni is crap you here from libs all
Speaker 1: the time. Turns out, well, let's get into what really
Speaker 1: happened in a moment. But here's what they used to
Speaker 1: say about him. Just a little trip down memory lane,
Speaker 1: Play twenty Donald Trump's worst nightmare. Michael join us once again.
Speaker 1: It's Michael avanadis bringing Michael Michael Avanadi, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: He's out this contry, says he may be the savior
Speaker 1: of the republic. If you are something of a so
Speaker 1: so we get it. We got it. So you get
Speaker 1: the idea, You get the idea, You get the idea, right,
Speaker 1: you get the idea. Michael Abanati is the savior of
Speaker 1: the Republic. I mean, they just they ran all this stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, Oh my gosh, Michael on CNN every five seconds.
Speaker 1: They absolutely love this guy. You know, I thought he
Speaker 1: was thought he was just just totally fantastic, And it
Speaker 1: turns out he's not so fantastic. Here's what we have
Speaker 1: from this guy today. I'm trying to pull this. Oh yes,
Speaker 1: here we go, prosecutors. This is from NBC, very favorable
Speaker 1: to all things live. Prosecutors have accused Michael Avanati of
Speaker 1: spending money from his client that he took from his
Speaker 1: clients lavishly, including monthly payments on a ferrari. Of course,
Speaker 1: ambulance chaser. Abanadi had a ferrari. Of course he did.
Speaker 1: This is from the Southern District of New York. Oh right,
Speaker 1: where the really good lawyers are, right, the ones that
Speaker 1: are that. We're also going to take down Trump at
Speaker 1: one point, so we know we can trust the Southern
Speaker 1: District quote. Michael Abanati abused and violated the core duty
Speaker 1: of an attorney, the duty to his client. As alleged,
Speaker 1: He used his position of trust to steal an advance
Speaker 1: on the client's book deal. As alleged, he blatantly lied
Speaker 1: to and stole from his client to maintain his extravagant lifestyle,
Speaker 1: including to pay for, among other things, a monthly car
Speaker 1: payment on a ferrari. Far from zealously representing his client, Abanati,
Speaker 1: as alleged, instead engaged in outright deception and theft, victimizing
Speaker 1: rather than advocating for his client. His client in this case,
Speaker 1: Stephanie what's her whatever, Stormy Daniels, I forget her real name,
Speaker 1: Stephanie Clifford. I think, yeah, Michael Abanati took three hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars and use it for his own purposes from
Speaker 1: the publishing company that was putting out the Stormy Daniels
Speaker 1: Full Disclosure Book. This is the kind of stuff that
Speaker 1: is either provable or not. I think Avanadis did a
Speaker 1: whole lot of trouble Stormy Daniels, right, I think now
Speaker 1: former porn star, although I don't really know if I
Speaker 1: don't mean that to be I'm not being supercilious. I
Speaker 1: don't know if she continues to work in the field
Speaker 1: or not. But Stormy Daniels was given three hundred thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: or was supposed to get three hundred thousand dollars from
Speaker 1: a major publisher, and there are communications, according to the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York, that show that she was saying, hey,
Speaker 1: where's the money, and Avanti's like, I don't know, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep asking them for it, but he already had it.
Speaker 1: And you'll see this stuff about payments and emails and communications.
Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors live for that stuff, the text messages, the emails,
Speaker 1: the money transfers, because that don't lie. That's either it
Speaker 1: is or it isn't. And from what we can see here,
Speaker 1: unless the Southern District is or way off base, it is.
Speaker 1: And then and now he's got problems, my friends, he's
Speaker 1: got problems beyond that. He's also charged with trying to
Speaker 1: extort n Nike. I mean this came out I think
Speaker 1: in March. The formal charges were filed today extorting Nike
Speaker 1: of twenty trying to get twenty million dollars, saying that
Speaker 1: there were Nike essentially high school athletes were getting payments
Speaker 1: and it was coming through Nike somehow, and you know,
Speaker 1: bad things were going on. So this was an extortion scheme.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is a bad not just
Speaker 1: a bad lawyer, but he comes across as a really
Speaker 1: bad guy, someone who will exploit anyone and use them
Speaker 1: for his purposes and just has not an ounce of
Speaker 1: integrity or decency. And yet how many times was he
Speaker 1: on name, name your show? You know, and you look
Speaker 1: back now at when he went on, for example, Fox News,
Speaker 1: he went on Tucker Carlson's show, and Tucker asked him
Speaker 1: some real questions and it was, oh, you know, Michael
Speaker 1: Avonatis so brave going into Fox News where they're just
Speaker 1: being No, it's just Fox wasn't part of this embarrassment.
Speaker 1: I mean, every journalist on TV or whatever they call themselves,
Speaker 1: anchors on TV who had Michael Avanati on and treated
Speaker 1: him like royalty should be very should be deeply embarrassed
Speaker 1: by their role in this because they played a major
Speaker 1: role in elevating this guy. They created this character of Avenati,
Speaker 1: the great white Knight who was going to save the
Speaker 1: country from the evils of Trumpism, and it turns out
Speaker 1: the guy is scummy, totally unethical. But here's this other
Speaker 1: component of the story that I assure you you will
Speaker 1: not hear from anyone else in certainly in the mainstream
Speaker 1: media and maybe not anywhere else other than me today.
Speaker 1: Let's also not forget something Michael Avanati tried to try
Speaker 1: to cement his reputation as a possible candidate for president
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty by involving himself very directly in the
Speaker 1: massive campaign of lies and disinformation to destroy now Supreme
Speaker 1: Court Justice Kavanaugh. During those hearings. Avanati was the one
Speaker 1: who represented and supported and advocated publicly for Julie Sweatnick,
Speaker 1: who was a crazy person and a liar, said that
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh was part of these high school rape gangs that
Speaker 1: were going around and just all these gang rapes happening
Speaker 1: in these high school parties. She was in college mine
Speaker 1: at the time and still going to these high school
Speaker 1: parties where there were gang rapes, where no one ever
Speaker 1: said anything about them. And then she gave an interview
Speaker 1: where she was smiling and looked like a complete an
Speaker 1: utter buffoon, and may have in the process save because
Speaker 1: at that point, if you didn't under stand that this
Speaker 1: was this was a hit, this was a set up
Speaker 1: on Kavanaugh, you're you're just blinded by partisanship or not
Speaker 1: very smart. At that point, it could not have been
Speaker 1: more clear. A woman came forward, represented by an attorney, swearing,
Speaker 1: you know, signing sworn off at effidavits that things happened
Speaker 1: that no serious person really believed happened. Avanati was the
Speaker 1: one who did that. And now that we see where
Speaker 1: his integrity really falls on the spectrum, we see who
Speaker 1: this individual is and what he represents. I just would
Speaker 1: want to say, doesn't that also shouldn't that also factor
Speaker 1: into what was going home with Kavanaugh? That Avanati was
Speaker 1: the lawyer for one of the three women in the
Speaker 1: effort to destroy Kavanaugh. Doesn't that show you how underhanded,
Speaker 1: how slimy, how disgusting the Libs were willing to be
Speaker 1: to take down Kavanaugh. I think that that's I think
Speaker 1: it's worth remembering to be sure. I think it's worth
Speaker 1: keeping that as a part of the conversation. I know
Speaker 1: I had said that we would talk about immigration. We
Speaker 1: will get to that. There's some new stuff going on
Speaker 1: there for sure, some ICE detainer request information I want
Speaker 1: to share with you. Man, I got a lot. I
Speaker 1: got a lot to do, a lot to get through today.
Speaker 1: It's a busy show out here in California. If you
Speaker 1: want to line up the lines for a second, we
Speaker 1: could take a call. Eighty eight nine two eight two
Speaker 1: five eight eight eight nine hundred buck. We will hit
Speaker 1: a break. We'll be right back. Yeah. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I agree. I don't know if it's a good thing
Speaker 1: that star power and TV savvy is required for the job,
Speaker 1: but I think it is. And by the way, I
Speaker 1: think President Obama also had a lot of TV star
Speaker 1: power and that helped him pre Trump. But Trump is
Speaker 1: more evidence of this and looking ahead to twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: One reason why I'm taking New seriously as a contender
Speaker 1: is because of your presence on cable news. There is
Speaker 1: is he's speaking to Michael Avanati there. That was Brad
Speaker 1: stout Overs. Whatever there is is to take you serious
Speaker 1: is because you're out of about those and oh the
Speaker 1: sterious babe, look could do that. Okay about this? It
Speaker 1: is dark power, Delavis. That's why I am I television
Speaker 1: because bad Stelter is star power. Oh Man, Stalter. He
Speaker 1: walks around in a suit with these goofy new balanced
Speaker 1: sneakers on all days. Yeah, bad Stelter, it's got reliable
Speaker 1: voices today, is it? Oh Man? I'll never forget, never
Speaker 1: forget when when good old Stealthy tried to ambush me
Speaker 1: on a terrorism interview and got got buck slapped, oh
Speaker 1: so thoroughly, and then they refused to ever air the interview.
Speaker 1: That wasn't good. I wish you guys could see it.
Speaker 1: It was good. Excuse me, explain to me why you
Speaker 1: were able to say this is terrorism? Well? I was right,
Speaker 1: So are you asking me how I knew something was
Speaker 1: true before you imbeciles at sea, and I knew it
Speaker 1: was true because that's gonna be a longer conversation. Excuse me, sir, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why they had to take off and Audie seriously
Speaker 1: for president, folks Avanati for president. This is the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They complain about Trump all the time, say that he's unethical,
Speaker 1: he's a bad guy, he's a liar, all these things.
Speaker 1: They have all these complaints about moral character, they have
Speaker 1: all these complaints about the substance of the of the
Speaker 1: presidency and the man who holds the office. And then
Speaker 1: then they want to put forward better a Rock or
Speaker 1: Michael Avanati or look at all these candidates in fact
Speaker 1: we have. This is when this is when I start
Speaker 1: to think that Kamala Harris. The reason she hasn't done
Speaker 1: well so far, even though they really wanted to, the
Speaker 1: establishment media and the Democratic Party really wants Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: to break out, it's because there's some political skill that
Speaker 1: she just doesn't have. It's lacking. He doesn't have that
Speaker 1: X factor, that connection thing with people, I mean, which
Speaker 1: can often be built on a really on a fraud,
Speaker 1: or it can be a facade, but some at least
Speaker 1: can do it. I don't think she can even fake it.
Speaker 1: I don't think she has it. She was on an
Speaker 1: interview I don't even know who. Oh oh, well, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden Camorado see it. I'm really I don't know.
Speaker 1: I didn't mean for all the clips that ABCN and
Speaker 1: I swear I wasn't on the CNN website today just
Speaker 1: looking for clips to bash, although I did miss. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm a little let me, let me just revise this.
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit perturbed by CNN right now because
Speaker 1: I had to watch I had no choice when I
Speaker 1: was in Beijing if I wanted to see any news
Speaker 1: on television, and I couldn't use the internet, so I
Speaker 1: really was out of luck. I had no choice but
Speaker 1: to watch CNN International. And it's anti American propaganda. That's
Speaker 1: it's really worse than what all the stuff that RT
Speaker 1: puts out. I mean, what is more anti American? You're
Speaker 1: seeing an international editorial decision making or Russia today. It's
Speaker 1: a close call. It's tough to say, and CNN's coming
Speaker 1: from Americans. Russia today is not but Kamala. So that's
Speaker 1: why I'm my tolerance for CNN right now is at
Speaker 1: a particularly low level. As you can tell. I promise
Speaker 1: tomorrow I'll lay off the CNN basher. Although it's just
Speaker 1: so fun, I mean, does it ever? I don't know,
Speaker 1: it never tires for me. Kamala Harris with all of
Speaker 1: some Camarada over at CNN. Here's how it went. Play eleven.
Speaker 1: We have a little fun kicker that we like to
Speaker 1: do with all of the presidential candidates that come on.
Speaker 1: It's called candidate Mixtape. That was the musical sting for it.
Speaker 1: And we like talking at about music here on this program.
Speaker 1: So what is your favorite musical genre? Oh, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm I'm hip hop and reggae and as um those
Speaker 1: are those are some of my favorite. Okay, do you
Speaker 1: have a favorite band or a favorite musician. I'd say
Speaker 1: one of my favorites is Bob Marley. Good choice, you
Speaker 1: can't go wrong with that. That's a crowd pleaser. And
Speaker 1: on your mixtape, like your favorite three songs? Oh, okay,
Speaker 1: let's see, um I Aretha Franklin, Um, Uh anything Aretha Franklin. Um.
Speaker 1: How about a song? I would say Bob Marley and
Speaker 1: then um, I don't know. I love Cardi b how
Speaker 1: about a song? Okay, okay, you get the idea. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like Alison Camerata is talking to a robot.
Speaker 1: Like there's no there is no authenticity at all you
Speaker 1: get from Kamala Harris. Not Yeah, I like reggae and
Speaker 1: like hip hop and stuff. Maybe I don't know. Uh,
Speaker 1: I was just waiting for, you know, for Reverend Reverend
Speaker 1: al Sharpman to come in with Aretha Franklin ri ees
Speaker 1: pr CT. You guys remember that ri ees b r
Speaker 1: CT that happened on television. There are clips. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: making it up. Yeah, but that is actually my favorite
Speaker 1: reread regulent song is rsp ict. But Bob Marley, you
Speaker 1: can't think of a Bob Marley song. You probably haven't
Speaker 1: listened to that much Bob Marley, that would you would?
Speaker 1: What I heard there? And I could be wrong, although
Speaker 1: how often does team how often does that really happen?
Speaker 1: We know very infrequently. What I think happened there was
Speaker 1: you had Kamala Harris getting asked questions about something that
Speaker 1: she was processing, not as what she likes, but what
Speaker 1: do I think the audience? What will sound authentic? What
Speaker 1: does the audience want to hear from me, and she
Speaker 1: was trying to go into her memory banks to find
Speaker 1: those things instead of just what music she likes. You know,
Speaker 1: if somebody asked me on the fly, I would name
Speaker 1: a bunch of bands that probably some of you would
Speaker 1: be like, Buck, why are you so weird? You know?
Speaker 1: Why do you bring up the Google Dolls at every
Speaker 1: opportunity and say they're an underrated band? Because they're not
Speaker 1: that great, but they are underrated, and I think that
Speaker 1: people should celebrate their music a little bit more. You know,
Speaker 1: why do you admit publicly that you still listened to
Speaker 1: Dave Matthew band, for example, and have no shame about it?
Speaker 1: That's right. If I'm in a bad mood, I can
Speaker 1: listen to Dave Matthews and it makes me in a
Speaker 1: slightly better mood. Do I think that sometimes Dave sounds
Speaker 1: like somebody is strangling a cat? Yeah, sure, but still
Speaker 1: listen to it. I own that. I own that, So
Speaker 1: that's kind of where I am. I don't have to
Speaker 1: search deep into the memory banks. I'm not running for
Speaker 1: her office. But you know, this is like Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: She's a second offender of this sort because when they
Speaker 1: asked her what she listened to in college. She said Snoop,
Speaker 1: and she was in college before Snoop had any of
Speaker 1: the songs that she was talking about. So it's a
Speaker 1: little bit like when Hillary Clinton told reporters that she
Speaker 1: was named for a name for Sir Edmund Hillary, who
Speaker 1: climbed Mount Everest. Turns out that she was born after
Speaker 1: he climbed Mount Everest, So that would be tough. But
Speaker 1: the authenticity thing is Kamala Harris's problem. Otherwise she'd have,
Speaker 1: I think a clear path of the nomination. Really, I
Speaker 1: think Democrats wanted to be her in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: but she just isn't. It's kind of like Hillary all
Speaker 1: over again. Doesn't connect, doesn't resonate, and you know, hasn't
Speaker 1: yet said anything as crazy as Elizabeth Warren in terms
Speaker 1: of hurting your chances, but isn't doing a good job
Speaker 1: all right. Immigrations coming up next hour. Buck Sexton Remission,
Speaker 1: decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American again. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Former CIA analysts. No immigration for
Speaker 1: in the left is a very straight forward concern, very
Speaker 1: straightforward issue where on the one hand, you have Democrats
Speaker 1: who um love immigrants, especially from the Third World. They
Speaker 1: they want to increased diversity of the Third World into
Speaker 1: America large number, and they want people to be able
Speaker 1: to pursue their dreams and do all these great things.
Speaker 1: And they're the nice people. The Democrats and immigration are
Speaker 1: the nice people. Republicans are supposed to be the big, mean, meanings,
Speaker 1: the bad guys, the nasty people that believe in enforcing
Speaker 1: the laws that are on the books currently about immigration,
Speaker 1: that think that we should have a process that brings
Speaker 1: in higher skilled workers to benefit the Americans already here,
Speaker 1: that there's an assimilation process that can be overwhelmed if
Speaker 1: there are too many legal and illegal immigrants put together
Speaker 1: in the country over a period of time. But we're
Speaker 1: basically the mean people and the Democrats are the nice people.
Speaker 1: That there's no downside to what Democrats want, which is
Speaker 1: a broken system where the only certainty is there'll be
Speaker 1: more and more and more illegals coming to the country
Speaker 1: over time. That's the only thing we know for sure.
Speaker 1: What else will happen, we're not really clear on that,
Speaker 1: but we know they'll be more illegals. But there's no
Speaker 1: downside to this, they tell us sanctuary city policy, for example,
Speaker 1: no downside. They will often say, you'll hear this said
Speaker 1: that cities with more immigrants are safer. Well, the whole
Speaker 1: country is safer than it was thirty years ago. And
Speaker 1: so there's a lot of statistical fallacies that are bandied
Speaker 1: about about immigration. But you'll hear you'll hear people say
Speaker 1: things that are just flatly and obviously untrue, but they
Speaker 1: keep repeating them, and they must believe them to be true,
Speaker 1: or they think that we're too foolish to understand that
Speaker 1: what they say is not true. But on sanctuary city policy,
Speaker 1: for example, you'll be told that this promotes safety, the
Speaker 1: Democrat position. I mean, I'm here in California, which is
Speaker 1: a sanctuary state where you have laws that the California
Speaker 1: Legislature has passed or whatever, the California State Assembly, whatever
Speaker 1: they call it here that make it a crime for
Speaker 1: a private business owner to voluntarily comply with immigration and
Speaker 1: Customs enforcement efforts in the state to California that refused
Speaker 1: to allow, that would not allow contractors from within the
Speaker 1: state of California to bid to build the extension or
Speaker 1: the really the replacement fence at some places. It's additional
Speaker 1: fencing social an extension of the border fence that exists
Speaker 1: in the San Diego second couldn't bid for that. You
Speaker 1: had to bring in a Texas firm. Go Texas, bring
Speaker 1: in a Texas firm. It do that because State of
Speaker 1: California wouldn't allow it. So we know where they stand
Speaker 1: on this. And they say that the sanctuary city policy
Speaker 1: is a good thing because if you and I've never
Speaker 1: seen anything to support this other than just it's just
Speaker 1: a statement that is made and repeated a lot. They say, Well,
Speaker 1: if you enforce immigration law in cities, illegal immigrant communities
Speaker 1: are less likely to go to the police. Therefore we're
Speaker 1: all less safe. That's what they say. I don't believe this,
Speaker 1: but this is still what they say, right, That's what
Speaker 1: the storyline is. Well, I want to give you a
Speaker 1: different perspective on this one that looks at the reality
Speaker 1: of what happens when you have one political party that
Speaker 1: from the federal all the way down to the local level,
Speaker 1: Democrat Party no longer believes in enforcing immigration law and
Speaker 1: no longer believes that there should be any assistance and
Speaker 1: has not for a long time believe there should be
Speaker 1: any assistance from state and local authorities to immigration authorities
Speaker 1: on no other matter of criminal law. Is this the case?
Speaker 1: You know, if someone in the d EA asked for
Speaker 1: an assist from local law enforcement to do a drug bust,
Speaker 1: guess what they're going to get that assist. I mean,
Speaker 1: unless there's some extenuating circumstances that doesn't come to mind.
Speaker 1: But they're going to help them out because law enforcement
Speaker 1: tends to want to help out law enforcement because they're
Speaker 1: they're on the same team. And you think the team
Speaker 1: is rule of law on the American people. But because
Speaker 1: of sanctuary city policies, the hundreds of jurisdictions across the
Speaker 1: country that have some variation of we won't help and
Speaker 1: will even actively obstruct federal enforcement efforts when it comes
Speaker 1: to illegal aliens. That's the proper term. By the way,
Speaker 1: undocumented is a nonsense term that does not exist in law.
Speaker 1: But when cities do this, there are consequences. And here's
Speaker 1: here's an example of the consequences. Two teenagers. This was
Speaker 1: the NBC News Washington to teenagers. This is right in
Speaker 1: my area. This is near Swampville in DC. Charge in
Speaker 1: the death of a fourteen year old Maryland girl were
Speaker 1: arrested by Prince George's County police in another case last
Speaker 1: year and should have been detained. According to US Immigration
Speaker 1: and Customs Enforcement, Salvadoran's Jose Fuentes Ponce sixteen and Hoel
Speaker 1: Escobar seventeen were in the country illegally when they were
Speaker 1: arrested twenty eighteen on several charges included attempted first degree murder,
Speaker 1: attempted second degree murder, and participation in gang activity. They
Speaker 1: were released despite an ICE detainer. Let's just unpack this
Speaker 1: for a moment, shall we. You've got a couple of illegals,
Speaker 1: all right, both of whom are right near the age
Speaker 1: of you know, the age of adulthood where they could
Speaker 1: where they would be tried as adults. But they both
Speaker 1: could be tried as adults sixteen seventeen. That's not that
Speaker 1: unusual at all, especially for these kinds of crimes. Attempted
Speaker 1: first degree murder charge attempted second degree murder believed to
Speaker 1: be members of the MS thirteen gang, which gang members
Speaker 1: is what President Trump referred to as animals, not immigrants,
Speaker 1: Even though Beto O'Rourke this week went back to the
Speaker 1: well on that one and lied about that that's a lie.
Speaker 1: Were all the pinocchios from the Washington Post fact checker
Speaker 1: on that President Trump called immigrants animals, And it's so like,
Speaker 1: not cool. No, that's not what happened. You're for to
Speaker 1: MS thirteen murderers, rapists as animals. So let's at least
Speaker 1: try to get our facts straight. Democrats, and we're going
Speaker 1: to when we're going to, once again, in unhinged fashion,
Speaker 1: criticize President Trump for some reason or another. But here
Speaker 1: you had these two illegals. That's what they are. That's
Speaker 1: what the terminology is. Despite what Democrats want you to believe,
Speaker 1: you have two illegals, very serious charges, attempted murder charges.
Speaker 1: Immigration authorities say, hey, can you hold on to them.
Speaker 1: We're coming to get them. That's what a detained request is.
Speaker 1: Federal authority has the right to take them. Can you
Speaker 1: hold them until we get there? Can you give us
Speaker 1: an assist on this? And you know what, you know
Speaker 1: what the Maryland local authorities did. They released these two
Speaker 1: gang bangers, right, they released these two emissed their team
Speaker 1: members in the country illegally, never should have been in
Speaker 1: the first place. I mean, I guess I wonder if
Speaker 1: they ever applied to be dreamers, And I mean that seriously.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're probably near the age where they could
Speaker 1: have said their dreamers. But we're always told the dreamers
Speaker 1: are just Valedictorians. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't
Speaker 1: a lot of Valedatorian dreamers. I'm just saying, if they're
Speaker 1: going to tell us about the cases where someone gets
Speaker 1: a four point zero and you know, discovers a new
Speaker 1: kind of rocket fuel in high school and everything else,
Speaker 1: can we also then be honest about the cases where
Speaker 1: there are so called dreamers who were actually gang members
Speaker 1: and attempted or real murderers. Isn't that? Isn't that fairness?
Speaker 1: Isn't that If you're going to get a real sense
Speaker 1: of what's at stake and what's going on, don't you
Speaker 1: have to look at it as it is, not as
Speaker 1: the media would like to present it. But so they
Speaker 1: released and it was almost exactly a year ago they
Speaker 1: released these two guys despite the request. And you know
Speaker 1: what has happened since then? These two individuals have been
Speaker 1: arrested last week again. Oh, I'm sure they were. They
Speaker 1: were upstanding citizens, just wrongly arrested the first time around.
Speaker 1: Arrested again last week and charge with not attempted but
Speaker 1: actual first degree murder and related charges in the death
Speaker 1: of fourteen year old Arianna Funez Diaz, whose body was
Speaker 1: found in a creek on April nineteenth in the Riverdale
Speaker 1: area of Prince George's County. The suspects were fearful, according
Speaker 1: to police, that this young woman, a fourteen year old girl, folks,
Speaker 1: was going to go to police about a robbery that
Speaker 1: they had all committed back in April. So now let's
Speaker 1: be very clear about this. This fourteen year old girl
Speaker 1: is dead and I don't even know what the specifics
Speaker 1: are about how they killed her and maybe what they
Speaker 1: did before they killed her. I'm sure it was heinous
Speaker 1: and awful. I mean, her murder alone is hainous and awful.
Speaker 1: But if we know what we know what MS thirteen
Speaker 1: usually does. But this fourteen year old girl would be alive.
Speaker 1: But for the bleeding heart libs who believe in sanctuary
Speaker 1: city policy, you can draw a straight line here. This
Speaker 1: is not a hard one to figure out. A year ago,
Speaker 1: ration authority said those are MS thirteen gang members. They're
Speaker 1: bad news. They're not legally allowed to be in the country,
Speaker 1: please hold them for us. And you know what, Prince
Speaker 1: George's County Maryland authority said, Nope, sorry, can't do that.
Speaker 1: Sanctuary city let them go. So they let them go,
Speaker 1: and now they killed a girl fourteen years old, dead,
Speaker 1: family never gonna get to see her alive again. Does
Speaker 1: that get factored into our discussions about immigration? I want
Speaker 1: to know, you know Kate Steinley and San Francisco on
Speaker 1: that pier staring at her father as a bullet takes
Speaker 1: her life away, a bullet shot by an I legal
Speaker 1: alien who had been deported seven times. I think San
Speaker 1: Francisco very proud of it's illegal alien status. Does that
Speaker 1: get brought up or not? Are we not allowed to
Speaker 1: discuss this? Is it somehow racist to talk about sanctuary
Speaker 1: city policy and the downside of it? I'm sure the
Speaker 1: Lib media says, yes, it is of course racist. You
Speaker 1: can't discuss any bad parts of sanctuary city policy. That's
Speaker 1: just a manifestation of your white privilege. You have to
Speaker 1: ignore it. You have to pretend if you're a good
Speaker 1: person in the immigration debate, now, if you're a good
Speaker 1: human being, you must ignore the very real human cost
Speaker 1: in lives. Never mind the costs in educational cost, healthcare costs,
Speaker 1: rule of law, all these things that come from a
Speaker 1: legal immigration not allowed to talk about it. You're a
Speaker 1: bad person if you even speak of these things. So
Speaker 1: I would like to know that the next time some
Speaker 1: lib wants to have a debate on TV about, you know,
Speaker 1: the dreamers and sanctuary policy, will they say, even if
Speaker 1: it means MS thirteen gang members are not transferred over
Speaker 1: to federal authorities for immigration purposes, and that results in
Speaker 1: people getting raped and murdered, I like sanctuary city policy.
Speaker 1: If libs would at least say that, I would give
Speaker 1: them credit for being open and honest about their intentions.
Speaker 1: But they won't say that. They'll they'll say that that's
Speaker 1: that this doesn't really happen. That's not a real concern.
Speaker 1: This is not something that we need to discuss. They're
Speaker 1: all valedictorians, they're all dreamers. It's all amazing, there's no downside.
Speaker 1: They're lying to you, They're lying to all of us.
Speaker 1: They lie about immigration all the time. In fact, the
Speaker 1: entire immigration discussion has been infected with so many lies
Speaker 1: from the media and such a left wing bias that,
Speaker 1: if nothing else, Trump has done us a great service
Speaker 1: as a country by finally kicking over the log and saying,
Speaker 1: this is what's really going on here, this is what
Speaker 1: is really happening now. I am not happy with what's
Speaker 1: going on at the southern border. Obviously, situation the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is in right now, with one hundred thousand plus
Speaker 1: illegals pouring in every month is unacceptable. Some of it
Speaker 1: is the administration's fault for not focusing on immigration right
Speaker 1: out of the gate, right after the Trump presidency. But
Speaker 1: you know, they're trying to throw this guy in his
Speaker 1: family in prison with the Russia stuff, and you got
Speaker 1: judges that overturn every action that Trump takes at the border.
Speaker 1: You got Congress, including Republicans and Congress who are whimps
Speaker 1: on the border. I mean, it's not fair to say
Speaker 1: this is all Trump. He has taken action to show
Speaker 1: that he is serious on the issue, but it has
Speaker 1: not been successful yet. The results are not there. The
Speaker 1: border is worse in many ways than it has ever been.
Speaker 1: And it hurts me to say that, but it is true.
Speaker 1: But liberals can't even have a real discussion about it.
Speaker 1: If you if you brought up with any of your
Speaker 1: little friends, what happened here in Prince George's County and said,
Speaker 1: what about that aspect of sanctuary city policy? Does that
Speaker 1: make us safer? Does defying a federal law enforcement request
Speaker 1: when you yourself or in law enforcement. And I know,
Speaker 1: by the way, I know that I'm not criticizing the
Speaker 1: local cops who in some cases have to release these individuents.
Speaker 1: This is their chain of command telling me you got
Speaker 1: to do this or else you're going to be in trouble. Right,
Speaker 1: this is a political decision that's made at the top
Speaker 1: of the chain of command for local and state law enforcement,
Speaker 1: by state legislatures, by elected politicians. They're the ones that
Speaker 1: say we are a sanctuary You know, we are a
Speaker 1: sanctuary city. Remember that guy in Philadelphia a little dance?
Speaker 1: Got more on the border? Coming up, your team, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. So here's the Prince George's County jail
Speaker 1: director who is telling people, remember I just folks you
Speaker 1: about this case. The two MS thirteen alleged MS thirteen
Speaker 1: gang members now believed to have committed first degree murder
Speaker 1: of a possible witness against them in other crimes. During
Speaker 1: the crimes Americans won't do. Apparently, they they were released
Speaker 1: killed this young girl. Here's the county jail director for
Speaker 1: Prince George's County responding to the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
Speaker 1: slam of them. Here's what they say, play fifteen and
Speaker 1: a detainer is not a warrant, it's a civil detainer.
Speaker 1: It's actually a request for localities to hold inmates till
Speaker 1: I decides whether they want to come form or not.
Speaker 1: And following that guidance, Prince George's County does not notify ICE. Yeah,
Speaker 1: guidance from the Maryland Attorney General says nope, you don't
Speaker 1: notify ICE. Don't help him out, no detainer. Sorry, So
Speaker 1: let's understand this. It's a decision, a decision made in
Speaker 1: this case by the Attorney General who's an elected official
Speaker 1: in Maryland, a Democrat, of course. I'm sure. I'm just guessing,
Speaker 1: but it's Maryland, come on. Although I know the governor
Speaker 1: is technically a Republican, so maybe I'm wrong. Whoever it is,
Speaker 1: they've got this now on their record. There are real costs.
Speaker 1: They are real costs to ignoring the law, to violating
Speaker 1: the law, to being complicit in the abandonment of principle
Speaker 1: because it is politically useful, and a young girl lost
Speaker 1: her life. It was taken from her viciously by a
Speaker 1: couple of thugs who never should have been in the
Speaker 1: country in the first place. But local law enforcement acting
Speaker 1: on Democrat advice wouldn't help out. Meanwhile, if you think
Speaker 1: that Democrats really care about law enforcement, here's what a
Speaker 1: refreshment member of Congress says about what is going on
Speaker 1: at our southern border right now. I mean, this is stunning.
Speaker 1: So you Kevin McLean and who was accused by a
Speaker 1: representative Lauren Underwood here of well, you can hear it
Speaker 1: from Democrat Underwood herself. Play eight. Why do these tragedies
Speaker 1: keep happening? So they're happening because the crisis is exceeding
Speaker 1: the resources provided. That's why we've asked for more and
Speaker 1: we've asked for a more authority to deal with it,
Speaker 1: to prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.
Speaker 1: But at this point, with five kids that have died,
Speaker 1: five thousand separated from their families, I feel like, and
Speaker 1: the evidence is really clear that this is intentional. That's
Speaker 1: an appalling accusation. Our men and women fight hard to
Speaker 1: protect people in our custody every single day. It isn't
Speaker 1: appalling and stupid accusation. There is not a single person
Speaker 1: who works for Customs and Border Patrol who wants to
Speaker 1: see little kids die in custody, not a single one,
Speaker 1: I can assure you, and you already know that. But
Speaker 1: that's the degree of Democrat demagoguery is so extreme that
Speaker 1: a member of Congress thinks that she's going to score
Speaker 1: points with the far left constituents by suggesting that there's
Speaker 1: an intentional policy of letting kids, letting little kids in
Speaker 1: custody die. Little kids die in custody because they're brought
Speaker 1: over a dangerous journey, because they're in stressful circumstances with
Speaker 1: parents in some cases who are not really their parents.
Speaker 1: They're part of this recycling of children program because of
Speaker 1: all the fraud that's going on in our border, and
Speaker 1: they get sick and immigrations of Customs and Border Patrol
Speaker 1: is not the Red Cross. They're a law enforcement organizations.
Speaker 1: They're not standing at the border with vaccinations and children's
Speaker 1: tail in all, although they're increasingly having to do that.
Speaker 1: Hundreds and hundreds and hundred showing up at one time
Speaker 1: in one place, they're trying to process them and if
Speaker 1: a kid fall sick with a fever in the first hour,
Speaker 1: they've got him in custody and they don't take him
Speaker 1: to the hospital speedily enough. That's not trying to kill
Speaker 1: a young kid. That's just they don't have the resources
Speaker 1: to handle. You know, a million people from a third
Speaker 1: world piling into America and making a mockery of our system.
Speaker 1: But Democrats like the mockery of the system. They think
Speaker 1: this is great. They don't want to they don't want
Speaker 1: to change it. They want to want to make the
Speaker 1: processing even faster. Appalling, appalling, But on many things Democrats
Speaker 1: are appalling, So I suppose we should not be surprised.
Speaker 1: More thoughts coming, including roll calls. Stay with me, he's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America. Buck sex in his back seams.
Speaker 1: You know, I just got back from a China a
Speaker 1: few days ago. It's why I was died last week.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate one all the well wishes for my
Speaker 1: return and also your your feedback on the various and
Speaker 1: a very talented guest host that we had over the
Speaker 1: course of my my absence. Needless to say, very glad,
Speaker 1: very glad to be back and plan to zealously guard
Speaker 1: my time with you for the foreseeable looks. I feel
Speaker 1: like I was. I think that's the longest I've been
Speaker 1: out from the show since I started the show. So China, China,
Speaker 1: do we have it? If we got the drop, Inta,
Speaker 1: you gotta just let her China, China, there we go.
Speaker 1: Don't whenever you hear a man mark, don't be shy
Speaker 1: because you know it's China time. China, there you go.
Speaker 1: I told a bunch of my colleagues over there, I said,
Speaker 1: have you got seen big trouble in little China? And
Speaker 1: none of them had, which I was shocked. Which has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with China, by the way, But it's
Speaker 1: just an opportunity to bring up a great cult classic.
Speaker 1: But you've been asking me what do I think about
Speaker 1: some of you have been writing me, but what do
Speaker 1: I think about the intellectual property theft component? As I
Speaker 1: mentioned to you, there are whole There are whole stores
Speaker 1: that are out operating the open in Beijing and Shanghai.
Speaker 1: It's a little more under the radar, a little You
Speaker 1: have to walk through some shady not that I know
Speaker 1: about this, walk through some shady parking lots and go
Speaker 1: through some side doors and you know, they kind of
Speaker 1: just show you some of the wares in a dark room,
Speaker 1: but in Beijing it's right out in the open. They'll
Speaker 1: selling fake Rolexes, fake Paddock Philippe, fake Panorai or pan
Speaker 1: or Ray. I mean these very very expensive watches for
Speaker 1: the ladies out there. Louis Vutan handbags. Not to be
Speaker 1: gender normative about handbags. Maybe you want a man bag,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but Louis Vuitton handbags? What else? At Channel?
Speaker 1: All these famous and they just all fakes. They're selling
Speaker 1: fakes all over the place. Some of them are pretty
Speaker 1: good fakes. They actually have different degrees of fake. So
Speaker 1: there's that kind of ellectual property theft. Then there's a
Speaker 1: much more concerning kind, which or at least more concerning
Speaker 1: to a national security side of things. And we see
Speaker 1: another story about this now, Huawei executive accused by UF
Speaker 1: startup of involvement in trade secrets theft. This is from
Speaker 1: Cnex Labs claims that a top Huawei executive, remember Huawei
Speaker 1: is a major Chinese telecommunications company, was part of a
Speaker 1: conspiracy to steal it's SSD computer storage technology with help
Speaker 1: from China's shiam In University. I don't know how you
Speaker 1: say that early, but you get the idea. There's allegations
Speaker 1: now made in a lawsuits. This is a civil lawsuit
Speaker 1: that's heading the federal court, but they're saying that Huawei
Speaker 1: engaged in a multi year conspiracy to steal the San Jose,
Speaker 1: California companies solid state drive computer storage technology, and that
Speaker 1: they used the Chinese university to help in this process.
Speaker 1: This is happening, folks, every day. It's happening all the time.
Speaker 1: They're hacking there, stealing, the are finding ways to enter
Speaker 1: in and suck up as much information as they can.
Speaker 1: And the economy of the future is going to be
Speaker 1: I mean, the economic advantage of the future is going
Speaker 1: to be mostly in information and natural resources, and those
Speaker 1: are the two things. China has a real strategy that
Speaker 1: it is executing on to eliminate any advantage that we have.
Speaker 1: All right, China is voraciously stealing intellectual property voraciously. And
Speaker 1: China is also doing everything that I can. I mentioned this,
Speaker 1: you think yesterday on the show with its Belt and
Speaker 1: Road initiative to get access to natural resources in the
Speaker 1: Third World, to set up these pipelines and these ford
Speaker 1: operating bases for economic purposes with the idea that they'll
Speaker 1: be follow on bases built that are military in nature,
Speaker 1: and this is how they extend the Chinese imperial reach
Speaker 1: that they're going to grow around the world. But the
Speaker 1: theft of intellectual property, the theft of trade secrets, this
Speaker 1: is where we're going to look back at this and say,
Speaker 1: how could America have been so asleep while this was
Speaker 1: going on? And if nothing else, Trump, with his punch
Speaker 1: him in the nose mentality, has raised this to the
Speaker 1: level where it is finally getting national attention. He has
Speaker 1: raised this to the point where we now talk about
Speaker 1: it openly and expect the Chinese to at least look
Speaker 1: us in the eye across the negotiating table and we say,
Speaker 1: you have to knock this crap off. I don't think
Speaker 1: they're going to knock it off. It's too valuable to them.
Speaker 1: But the scale of the scope and scale of this
Speaker 1: is so vast that if we do not get a
Speaker 1: handle on it, if we do not work very actively
Speaker 1: against it, we're gon we're gonna find out much sooner
Speaker 1: than we think that we no longer have in a
Speaker 1: technology advantage of the Chinese, and we don't have a
Speaker 1: population size advantage if we don't have a technology advantage,
Speaker 1: and if we don't have a wealth advantage, what do
Speaker 1: we have? So I've got a lot of thoughts on China.
Speaker 1: We'll keep working through those as we go forward, but
Speaker 1: I also want to get to your thoughts, which means
Speaker 1: it's time for Roll Call. You're right back, hey, team Buck.
Speaker 1: It's time for Roll Call, La La La and Los
Speaker 1: Angeles edition of Roll Call. It's nice out here. Oh look,
Speaker 1: today it went from beautiful Sonny fell very very much
Speaker 1: like a West Coast guy, you know, getting a little
Speaker 1: bit of a little bit of color, and then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden it started raining like a monsoon and
Speaker 1: there was hail. So you never know what you're gonna
Speaker 1: get out in this place, at least when it comes
Speaker 1: to weather. When it comes to politics, you pretty much
Speaker 1: do you know? All right? Laurie kicking us off roll
Speaker 1: Facebook dot Com slash buck Sexton, Laurie writes, Bucks, so
Speaker 1: glad you're back. My podcasts are not automatically downloading, despite subscribing,
Speaker 1: on subscribing and resubscribing and all kinds of other tech tactics.
Speaker 1: Is this a conspiracy, a shadow band? What is going on? Well, Laurie.
Speaker 1: That's very, very disturbing for me to hear, and I
Speaker 1: certainly hope that that's not a widespread problem. I don't
Speaker 1: know what could be going on there, but if I
Speaker 1: hear from other folks, we will look into it further.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's your connection, I don't know. Yes, please do subscribe, folks,
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Buck Sexton Show podcast. That would be fantastic.
Speaker 1: Brian writes, Glad you're back home safe as always. You
Speaker 1: left the Freedom Hunt in great hands. Interested to hear
Speaker 1: your analysis on the government surveillance culture that is China.
Speaker 1: See if you can get Ammi Horrowitz on your show
Speaker 1: for a quick interview. Smart guy running on the Democratic
Speaker 1: ticket for the sole purpose of talking truth to the
Speaker 1: socialist gibberish during the Democratic debates. He needs sixty five
Speaker 1: thousand unique donors to get on the stage at the debates.
Speaker 1: Hopefully his sane rational points will sway some die hard
Speaker 1: liberals who only watch MSNBC to think outside the box
Speaker 1: of Orange Man bad. Sorry I missed you in DC.
Speaker 1: You missed a great week to be there, and more
Speaker 1: and more stuff here. Thank you so much, all the best, buddy, Brian. Brian,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Man, appreciate you writing in and
Speaker 1: all of your helpful thoughts, pithy quips, witticisms, all that
Speaker 1: good stuff. Wade, Hey, Buck, I'm a reporter with media eye.
Speaker 1: Oh oh not, that's that's a different kind of that's
Speaker 1: a that's a media request. Whoops, sorry about that. That's
Speaker 1: let me see, let me go back. Wait, I'll try
Speaker 1: to get back to you offline. Josh right, Buck, no
Speaker 1: Tuesday podcast? What happened? Please post the show? All right? Producer, Mark?
Speaker 1: Do we did? We not post a podcast? It was? Why?
Speaker 1: Why is everyone saying there was no podcast? I can
Speaker 1: check on that. Let's check on that, because that's very
Speaker 1: sad for all involved. I mean, I finally come back.
Speaker 1: It is the return of the Buck. Return of the Buck.
Speaker 1: That's not even close. Return of the Mac is a
Speaker 1: great song. That's all you need to know. Let's figure
Speaker 1: out if the podcast actually went up, because if it didn't,
Speaker 1: that makes me sad on the inside, which we do
Speaker 1: not want. Michelle heard your show today. You were spot
Speaker 1: on regarding Buddha Judge. I thought the same thing. You
Speaker 1: were spot on regarding every point. However, you sounded very,
Speaker 1: very tired or or relax, like you had a bit
Speaker 1: of wine. I was drinking wine myself as I listened,
Speaker 1: so it could have possibly affected my audio intake. But
Speaker 1: everything sounded as it was touched by a good spot
Speaker 1: of good natured inebriation. No, Michelle, what that was was jetlag.
Speaker 1: I mean I tried to get on a good sleep
Speaker 1: schedule and everything when I came back, but it's it's
Speaker 1: too twelve hours. It was a twelve hour time difference.
Speaker 1: So when I was finishing up the show yesterday, it
Speaker 1: was like I had basically gone through the night without sleep.
Speaker 1: You know. It was so what felt like nine pm
Speaker 1: for all of you felt like nine am with no
Speaker 1: sleep before it for me. So think of it like
Speaker 1: if I just stayed up all night to do the
Speaker 1: radio show and it was, you know, four or five
Speaker 1: am instead of six pm when you were listening. That's
Speaker 1: so if I sounded at all different, it was just
Speaker 1: it was just the jet lag catching up with me.
Speaker 1: No wine tomorrow, I can tell you, although that would
Speaker 1: have been fun. It'd be nice if I could do
Speaker 1: a show with a little wine to me once in
Speaker 1: a while, just just to give it a go, just
Speaker 1: to see what happens. Sarah totally agree. Buck, Aquaman movie
Speaker 1: was awful. Waste of time watching it, Sarah. Some people
Speaker 1: gave me a little heat on this, including producer Mark.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I just thought it was just
Speaker 1: completely unwatchable. And there are all these moments where Aquaman's like, yeah, look,
Speaker 1: I'm just a bro even though I'm an Aquaman, and
Speaker 1: he had these one liners that were cringe inducing. I
Speaker 1: did not like it. I did not enjoy the Aquaman.
Speaker 1: I did enjoy as I said, they will not grow
Speaker 1: old and a star is born. John rights, Our country's
Speaker 1: tax code, especially in California, is clear as muddy water.
Speaker 1: All right, my friend John, I agree. He also sent
Speaker 1: me a very nice recommendation on tequila Terrence. Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: welcome back. Just a guess regarding Tianamen Square. But could
Speaker 1: it be that we're in the middle of the thirtieth
Speaker 1: anniversary of the eighty nine protests fifteenth of April to
Speaker 1: June fourth of nineteen eighty nine as an expat living
Speaker 1: in Korea. In the case of Michael Spevore, a Canadian
Speaker 1: detained in China on charges more more talked about in
Speaker 1: Canada than the Western media, perhaps you could keep his
Speaker 1: situation public awareness shields high Terence. I don't know anything
Speaker 1: about Michael Spivore, who is detained in China right now,
Speaker 1: and nothing about the guy, so I have to look
Speaker 1: into that. But in terms of the closure of Tenneman Square,
Speaker 1: it is I think it was because they said they
Speaker 1: had some high level visitors there. But it's China. So
Speaker 1: one thing that's interesting about it is the government will
Speaker 1: lie to you in a way that they're not even
Speaker 1: trying to be honest, like they know that you know
Speaker 1: they're lying, and they don't care. That's a difference between
Speaker 1: the way our government lies to us. I mean, our
Speaker 1: government has to at least pretend that they care if
Speaker 1: we're being lied to, worth their line to our faces.
Speaker 1: The Chinese government, it's like, nope, we're just gonna say.
Speaker 1: In the Soviet Union back in the day, they'll just
Speaker 1: they just lied. Did not matter Bill Rights, Hey Buck
Speaker 1: or Buck Sexton show staff. I used to listen to
Speaker 1: the show of the Android app podcast Addict when it
Speaker 1: was offered via Blazed TV. My wife still listens via
Speaker 1: the Apple podcast, but I can only sound find your show,
Speaker 1: it seems via iHeartRadio. Is there anything your staff can
Speaker 1: do to get it available via podcast addict or is
Speaker 1: it something exclusive? I get all the usual podcasts via
Speaker 1: their services yours apps and thanks, oh disregard. I found
Speaker 1: that after traditional searching. All right, Bill, will you found it?
Speaker 1: So I'm glad we made it through. I'm glad we
Speaker 1: made it through. That. That is a good thing. Michael
Speaker 1: rites WHP Radio Harrisburg replaced your first hour again tonight
Speaker 1: with some podcast. The podcast is females talking about history.
Speaker 1: You may have forgotten. Just wanted you to be aware
Speaker 1: of this. It's the second time I've noticed it. Oh, Michael,
Speaker 1: have is this things you may have missed in history class?
Speaker 1: Is that the podcast that they're running there? I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's I've tried to listen to that podcast. I tried once.
Speaker 1: That's all so, Pablo rights, hey back. I just saw
Speaker 1: a cut scene from the View with Bato. All I
Speaker 1: could see when he spoke was Jonah Ryan from VEEP.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've ever seen the show, but
Speaker 1: the character is tall gangli and is a complete narcissist.
Speaker 1: Shields high. Yeah, Pablo Betto is done. He's like you
Speaker 1: could put a fork in him. He's done. He's like toast.
Speaker 1: He wanted to bring together America and just give us
Speaker 1: all a hug and make our spirit rise. But instead
Speaker 1: he's just not going to even come close to winning
Speaker 1: the presidency, not even close, not even in the realm
Speaker 1: of realism. So that that didn't last very long at all,
Speaker 1: did it. I guess there's only a room for one young,
Speaker 1: youthful media darling candidate, and that role is being filled
Speaker 1: by Mayor Pete Bouddha Judge Boota judge excellent. Woo, let's
Speaker 1: see we have Sean Ahi Buckbeard. Keep me in your
Speaker 1: thank you for inadvertently help you lift My rides are
Speaker 1: getting rides for my lift job. Rather, whenever I'm driving,
Speaker 1: I want to catch up on your podcast, but in
Speaker 1: the interest of seeming politically neutral, I pause the show.
Speaker 1: It seems that whenever I listen, it's not long before
Speaker 1: I get another ride. This also keeps your show going
Speaker 1: for me for most of the ninth Thanks and shields Hi,
Speaker 1: Sean a fan since real News. Well, thank you, Sean.
Speaker 1: And yeah, maybe it's just your time between rides flies
Speaker 1: by because you're listening to the most fantastic radio show
Speaker 1: slash podcast in the country. At least in its time slot.
Speaker 1: So yeah, man, check it out, listen to it makes
Speaker 1: the time fly, everybody. If you've got long rides ahead,
Speaker 1: down on a bunch of the Buck, sex and podcasts.
Speaker 1: It's like we're hanging out. But also if you need
Speaker 1: to take a potty break or you want to go
Speaker 1: get a beer, you can pause me, and I have
Speaker 1: no say in the matter. I don't get to be like, wait,
Speaker 1: I'm not finished. So it's even more fun. It is
Speaker 1: even better, Eric, I hope you had a good time
Speaker 1: at China. Buck, Beware of the geopolitical foe of our
Speaker 1: time that hands out one point five billion dollar loans
Speaker 1: to our former vice president's child. We're in real trouble.
Speaker 1: If we'd begun peddling the Biden narrative that China, who
Speaker 1: has been wargaming preamptive strikes on our ford operating basis,
Speaker 1: is no threat to the US and our influenced throughout
Speaker 1: the world. I fear that they're involved in Venezuela is
Speaker 1: being ignored by our media, who China watches and listens to.
Speaker 1: We would become involved militarily. The actions would likely be
Speaker 1: a political loser here at home, and the media would
Speaker 1: likely completely ignore the proxy war with China that it
Speaker 1: would become. You know, I've been skeptical along that we
Speaker 1: were going to be able to get what we wanted
Speaker 1: in Venezuela to happen. The Maduro regime has lasted this long,
Speaker 1: does not care that. They do not give any consideration
Speaker 1: to the misery of the Venezuelan people and despots. One
Speaker 1: thing that despots have to be good at is staying despots,
Speaker 1: otherwise they don't last long at all. They stand atop
Speaker 1: a mountain of force. There is no consent, not even
Speaker 1: the real facade of consent in a despotism like Venezuela.
Speaker 1: So that means that you got to be good at
Speaker 1: force if you're going to force everyone to do what
Speaker 1: you want, and that tends to be the case. Unfortunately.
Speaker 1: As to China, yeah, China is a the geo political
Speaker 1: foe of our time, and there are ways that you
Speaker 1: can frame that discussion that make it seem a bit
Speaker 1: less ominous. I mean, I do think the Chinese want
Speaker 1: continued prosperity. So there are economic ties, and there are
Speaker 1: economic areas that are crossovers where there could be good
Speaker 1: things for both sides. But you can really tell when
Speaker 1: you're there. The Chinese feel like the world is theirs
Speaker 1: for the taking. I mean they think that they will
Speaker 1: be the global hedgemon. That China's influence way of looking
Speaker 1: at things. You know, China is going to become an
Speaker 1: imperial power instead of a regional power very soon. That's
Speaker 1: going to be the next step. And then it's doing
Speaker 1: it right now with economic ties. It'll eventually do it
Speaker 1: with Ford operating bases and military ties and a blue
Speaker 1: water Navy. All right, that's it from Los Angeles today.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go have some fun on the left coast,
Speaker 1: maybe drink a couple of mohitos until tomorrow, show my
Speaker 1: friends you have your orders. Shield tie