Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Paul Menaphort gets piled
Speaker 1: on by Democrats in prosecutors' offices who are deciding to
Speaker 1: make an example of him. Guy's gone away for over
Speaker 1: seven years. Now. We've got the latest on that for you.
Speaker 1: Plus this continuing to unravel scandal around college admissions. What
Speaker 1: really went on here? Should people be facing decades in
Speaker 1: federal prison? And also Trump has grounded all Boeing seven
Speaker 1: thirty seven Max eight flights. We've got a stack show
Speaker 1: team coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission where mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Ready, you're a
Speaker 1: great American? Again the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a
Speaker 1: great guy. No, Well, Manafort caught a break today. He
Speaker 1: defied the law, He tampered with witnesses, he lied to prosecutors,
Speaker 1: he laundered money, evaded taxes, and he left with a
Speaker 1: sentence that, in many respects fails to measure the severity
Speaker 1: of how he defied the justice system. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sex and Show. Democrats are a bunch of disgraceful,
Speaker 1: crazy liars these days. We know this. Blumenthal an exemplar
Speaker 1: of this didn't get a severe enough sentence. The guy
Speaker 1: Manafort is going away. He's seventy years old. He's going
Speaker 1: away for seven and a half years in federal prison.
Speaker 1: All right, Today we had a Obama appointee judge who
Speaker 1: is very harsh Sean Manafort said that she did not
Speaker 1: believe that he's contrite. He's only being contrite because he's caught.
Speaker 1: Let me just say that I have friends who are judges.
Speaker 1: I know some judges. They can pretty much say that
Speaker 1: to anybody. You know. The whole point is, you show
Speaker 1: up in court and show contrition. You could take thee well,
Speaker 1: you're only contrite because you're caught by the time they're
Speaker 1: in the court. Of course that's the case, right of
Speaker 1: course being caught as a part of this. But they
Speaker 1: didn't turn themselves in. Usually sometimes they do. So this
Speaker 1: is exactly what I expected to happen. And there's a
Speaker 1: lot here that we should pay attention to. HI mean,
Speaker 1: for one, Paul Manaford is getting crushed because he worked
Speaker 1: for Trump. Let's understand that not only would he not
Speaker 1: be facing the financial and personal ruination that he has
Speaker 1: been subjected to, they are making it even worse because
Speaker 1: they want him to be an example. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: they're feeding him to the rabid maniacs of anti Trump
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance land. That's one part of this. And on
Speaker 1: the other hand, they also want to send a message
Speaker 1: to anybody else who would ever even consider working for Trump,
Speaker 1: standing up for Trump, being aligned with him going into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, that if they can find a way, if
Speaker 1: they can create the pretext for it, they will ruin
Speaker 1: your life. That's why it's so important to them that Maniford,
Speaker 1: who they went through everything, He has a special counsel,
Speaker 1: numerous prosecutor's offices. This guy's as high profile a target
Speaker 1: as that you're going to find in the justices m
Speaker 1: I mean, if you ask somebody, this should tell you
Speaker 1: a lot. If you ask somebody in the DOJ hierarchy,
Speaker 1: would you rather be prosecuting the Manifort case or Chapo Guzman,
Speaker 1: I bet a lot of the what it said, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll take Manaphort much much bigger win for their career
Speaker 1: than putting away the biggest drug dealer. I mean, Chopo
Speaker 1: is not just a drug dealer. He's a human trafficker,
Speaker 1: a mass murderer, a. I mean, just go down the
Speaker 1: list of crimes. A drug dealer. Obviously, Paul Manaford is
Speaker 1: a tax cheat. And I also think that we always
Speaker 1: should be careful thinking that tax cheats should be punished
Speaker 1: in the most severe fashion by the state. When a
Speaker 1: lot of countries developed countries, we're always here. But I'll
Speaker 1: look at the great healthcare they have. And you know Sweden,
Speaker 1: people don't go to prison usually for tax fraud in Europe.
Speaker 1: Just say it. You know what happens when you don't
Speaker 1: pay your taxes in Europe, they seize your funds and
Speaker 1: they make you pay big fines and they financially punish you.
Speaker 1: Usually you don't go to prison for a long time.
Speaker 1: That's a uniquely American statist thing for the free world,
Speaker 1: you know. That's that's somewhere that I think we need.
Speaker 1: We have some work to do. And I hear these
Speaker 1: people who say, oh, Mana for it is rich and
Speaker 1: his white privilege, and that's why he's not going to
Speaker 1: jail for that long. He's going to jail for seven
Speaker 1: and a half years. Think about everyone, listens, think about
Speaker 1: where you were seven and a half years ago, what
Speaker 1: everything's happened between now, and then it's a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1: It's a long long time. As if that were not enough,
Speaker 1: new York State came along and has now charged him
Speaker 1: with sixteen crimes. That's right, sixteen crimes from New York
Speaker 1: based on a mortgage fraud. And this is from the
Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vans, another Democrat, another lib. You know,
Speaker 1: it starts. It starts to feel like maybe, if you're
Speaker 1: a Republican, you got to move to a red state
Speaker 1: just so you don't get if you're going to be
Speaker 1: a prominent person who's in public life, just so you
Speaker 1: don't get some lib prosecutor who wants to make a
Speaker 1: name for himself coming after you. So why is it
Speaker 1: so noteworthy that one they timed this thing out the
Speaker 1: same day that the second federal criminal trial ends with
Speaker 1: the judge giving Manafort his sentence. As if one federal
Speaker 1: criminal trial wasn't enough. Now, the state of or well
Speaker 1: New York City, actually it's the Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus
Speaker 1: Vans that he is bringing these charges. Well, it's the
Speaker 1: Manhattan dis attorney for the state of New York. He
Speaker 1: will bring these charges against Manafort. Is just indicative of
Speaker 1: how much. This is political because, as you know, Trump
Speaker 1: cannot pardon. Trump cannot pardon Manafort from New York crimes.
Speaker 1: So even if Trump were to say, on the president,
Speaker 1: this is too much. Manafort's bankrupted and ruined. He's seventy
Speaker 1: years old. The guy just wants to be with his wife.
Speaker 1: I'm going to pardon him. New York is going to
Speaker 1: make sure he goes to prison now for mortgage fraud,
Speaker 1: which I mean, I can tell you having been a
Speaker 1: been in a room where there was in a discussion
Speaker 1: about whether somebody should be charged with mortgage fraud who
Speaker 1: was a semi literate at best immigrant who didn't really
Speaker 1: know what he was doing was wrong. It was pretty
Speaker 1: clear definitely committed mortgage fraud. And this was when we
Speaker 1: found this out in the course of another investigation I
Speaker 1: was involved in, and I put my foot down and
Speaker 1: was like the and he, by the way, he was
Speaker 1: a he was a non white defendant. Okay, So just
Speaker 1: this whole thing about oh, people only care when the
Speaker 1: when the rich white people go to prison, that's not true.
Speaker 1: I was working in law enforcement at the time, and
Speaker 1: this guy was definitely not white and uh not even
Speaker 1: American really, Um, he was he was here. Well, I
Speaker 1: gotta remember his immigration status, but anyway, it wasn't from
Speaker 1: this country originally, and they wanted to put him away,
Speaker 1: and I just said, I'm sorry. The bank hasn't lost
Speaker 1: any money. All the payments have been made, everyone has
Speaker 1: been made whole here. So the bank was he was
Speaker 1: a slightly riskier loan that the bank anticipated, we're really
Speaker 1: gonna send. We're really going to separate this guy from
Speaker 1: I think he had six or seven children. We're really
Speaker 1: going to separate him from his wife and all his
Speaker 1: kids because of this. Now, you can say buck the
Speaker 1: law as the law, but as we know, this is
Speaker 1: the problem. The law isn't the law in this country anymore.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not the case on immigration, certainly not the
Speaker 1: case that our southern border, and it's not even the
Speaker 1: case when it comes to the Espionage Act. We have
Speaker 1: a two tiered justice system in this country. And it's
Speaker 1: not as much as as much as the left pretends.
Speaker 1: It's not just the rich and the poor. It's not
Speaker 1: a financial separation, there's a political separation. The left is
Speaker 1: willing to use the law for explicitly political means in
Speaker 1: a way that we on the right are just not
Speaker 1: willing to do We just don't do it. It's not
Speaker 1: in our makeup, it's not in our DNA, it's not
Speaker 1: in our ethos to view the Department of Justice and prosecutors'
Speaker 1: offices as weapons of politics or as implements of policy
Speaker 1: the same way that the left does. So that's why
Speaker 1: you have Nanifort now getting just the count of countless
Speaker 1: counts thrown against him, and they're coming at him with
Speaker 1: everything they have. He's a ruined man no matter what.
Speaker 1: There's so much glee in the media. People are saying
Speaker 1: that he didn't get enough time. I mean, he's sitting
Speaker 1: US Center, Bloomenthal in bluementhal is an imbecile, but saying
Speaker 1: he didn't get enough time, what would be enough time?
Speaker 1: Should you go away for twenty years? Blue, you know
Speaker 1: denang Dick. Should he go away for twenty years? Really
Speaker 1: for what he's paid, people will say, oh, Bucky chief
Speaker 1: of the fellow government, Yeah, they got him. Guess what
Speaker 1: he's paying twenty five million dollars in fines, So all
Speaker 1: the money that he didn't pay to the government, plus
Speaker 1: huge fines on top that, So the government's been made
Speaker 1: whole the financial crime has been wiped away in the
Speaker 1: sense that you know, there's there's the treasury got their dollars,
Speaker 1: and we know the treasury always gets their dollars. So
Speaker 1: who's the victim here? Why should this guy go away
Speaker 1: for so long? You know, a year or two in
Speaker 1: a minimum security thing. Yeah, that sounds about right to me.
Speaker 1: Maybe three, maybe seven and a half plus New York
Speaker 1: state charges on top of it. Come on, folks, this
Speaker 1: is appalling. This is appalling. And for all those who
Speaker 1: are saying, and this is another common thing you're hearing
Speaker 1: from the left wing media, Oh, man of Fort, he's
Speaker 1: only getting he's getting off light because he's rich and white.
Speaker 1: And look at all the drug sentences out there. Let's
Speaker 1: be clear that when people are dealing drugs and they
Speaker 1: plead to any kind of a distribution charge, usually usually
Speaker 1: there are other charges that they did not plead to.
Speaker 1: It's just that the distribution and possession charges are the
Speaker 1: most easy to prove in federal court. So that's what
Speaker 1: that's what they go with. But there's often they're often
Speaker 1: part of violent, violent drug gangs. There are people who
Speaker 1: have carried weapons while they were selling drugs, which is
Speaker 1: an additional felony. On top of that, there are people
Speaker 1: that have engaged in violence to protect their turf, but
Speaker 1: they can't prove it. And also, if you're talking about
Speaker 1: any kind of opioid sales, they're putting lives at risk.
Speaker 1: They're killing people. I mean, if you're selling opioids to
Speaker 1: people who are addicts and they're overdosing, you're guilty of homicide.
Speaker 1: So all that's, oh, it's just non violent drug rames.
Speaker 1: You know, I gotta walk that back sometimes because I'm
Speaker 1: sympathetic to the Hey, people shouldn't go away. You know.
Speaker 1: For marijuana, it's legal in some states, you know, but
Speaker 1: different substances are different things. You know, if I sell
Speaker 1: somebody at caffeine pill, that's not the same as selling
Speaker 1: them fentyyl. And if you're illegally selling fentyyl, then guess what,
Speaker 1: you were putting lives at risk. You might even be
Speaker 1: taking lives. So yeah, you should get a really serious sentence.
Speaker 1: So this whole oh, non violent, non violent crimes, and
Speaker 1: the way they're prosecuted for drugs versus white collar crimes.
Speaker 1: Nobody overdoses because Manaford doesn't pay his taxes. So let's
Speaker 1: let's try to line these things up and be honest
Speaker 1: about what's really going on here. And there's just another
Speaker 1: part of me too that I always try. I try
Speaker 1: to have some feelings, instincts ideas that are beyond politics,
Speaker 1: and that place of basic sympathy for a fellow American
Speaker 1: is one of them. I feel badly for people who
Speaker 1: have their lives ruined and are going to prison who
Speaker 1: have not done heinous things to be there. Paul Manafort
Speaker 1: has not done anything heinous and awful to go to prison.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he's not a criminal. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: he doesn't deserve to pay a price. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: he's not a terrible person, all right. He's not some awful,
Speaker 1: dangerous human being. He's got a wife, he's got family too,
Speaker 1: And even if people think that it's justice for him
Speaker 1: to go to prison, as I do, I do think
Speaker 1: it is just that he serves. Sometime. I don't take
Speaker 1: any joy in it, and I don't take any joy
Speaker 1: in the ruination of people as a general matter. I
Speaker 1: think there's something really sick and wrong with those who
Speaker 1: are cheering for the destruction of individuals and for their
Speaker 1: families along with them, and the left wing media and
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. It has become completely acceptable on the
Speaker 1: left to be rooting for members of Donald Trump's family
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted and sent to prison, to be rooting
Speaker 1: for people in Trump's inner circle like Maniford and others
Speaker 1: to be destroyed and sent to prison. This is disgusting.
Speaker 1: This is a disgrace. And especially because they don't even
Speaker 1: know what crime may or may not have been committed,
Speaker 1: they just want them destroyed. And they have no decency
Speaker 1: about this, no interest in mercy or grace or kindness.
Speaker 1: The Democrats, it's always so interesting to me. They think
Speaker 1: of themselves as the good, nice people because they have
Speaker 1: the policies that gives the poor people free stuff. But
Speaker 1: they conduct themselves in the political wars that are going
Speaker 1: on in this country right now as utter savages who
Speaker 1: run around bayonetting all the survivors all the time. I mean,
Speaker 1: they just don't care. And you see this with the
Speaker 1: glee that the imprisonment of a seventy year old man
Speaker 1: for almost a decade, who's not you know, he's going
Speaker 1: to be separated from his wife and his family probably
Speaker 1: will die in prison. Do they sleep better at night
Speaker 1: now because of this? Democrats feel like this is such
Speaker 1: a great thing. There's no collusion proven. He's not a trader.
Speaker 1: People call him a traitor, I say, based on what
Speaker 1: they didn't even know what he was doing lobbying in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: not in Russia, by the way, and was always trying
Speaker 1: to get the Ukrainian oligarch that he was working with
Speaker 1: and politicians to go in a more pro Western, pro
Speaker 1: American direction. So there's actually an argument you made that
Speaker 1: Manafort was useful to American ford policy interests, believe it
Speaker 1: or not. But he cheated on his taxes, but they're
Speaker 1: not mad about that. They don't care. What about how
Speaker 1: sharp did in his taxes? Everybody, even you want to
Speaker 1: play this game, how many MSNBC hosts owe some back taxes.
Speaker 1: But Maniford is tied to Trump, and anyone tied to
Speaker 1: Trump must be destroyed. And anyone who is destroyed, who
Speaker 1: is tied to Trump, that's a good thing to be celebrated.
Speaker 1: That's how the left thinks of things, because their souls
Speaker 1: have been corrupted by their hatred of this administration and
Speaker 1: the brainwashing of the media, and it is both sad
Speaker 1: and destructive. We'll be right back. So as a parent,
Speaker 1: How much sympathy would you have for these parents who
Speaker 1: are embroiled in this alleged cheating scandal. Zero zero? Okay,
Speaker 1: that was Elizabeth Warren in case you didn't know, a
Speaker 1: lot of people find it kind of rich that Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: Cherokee as she usually describe herself, has no sympathy for
Speaker 1: parents who are trying to get their kids into these
Speaker 1: elite schools. You know, this is one of these stories,
Speaker 1: my friends, that is getting the attention of all kinds
Speaker 1: of folks because there's lots of different ways to approach
Speaker 1: it and look at it. But this recurring theme that
Speaker 1: we have here in the Freedom Hunt of how the
Speaker 1: elites aren't nearly as exceptional as they think they are,
Speaker 1: and how that creates insecurities among them and we see
Speaker 1: them now more for what they are than at any
Speaker 1: other point in our history. The elite schools cheating scandal
Speaker 1: ties into all of that, because what is the first
Speaker 1: thing that people will fall back on. Who are the
Speaker 1: ones running things in this country? You know, the ones
Speaker 1: who are at the top of the power pyramid in
Speaker 1: this country. What's the one thing that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: there their symbol of meritocratic excellence at the one place
Speaker 1: where they they've they've earned it. Not with everybody, right,
Speaker 1: but usually it will be their school. What school did
Speaker 1: you go to? And this is a pretty recent phenomenon
Speaker 1: where that's now a part of your identity. Mean, I
Speaker 1: have to laugh. I see people that go to the
Speaker 1: gym where I am in DC still and you know,
Speaker 1: they're they're in their forties, they're in their fifties, and
Speaker 1: they're still wearing And I see the same folks over
Speaker 1: and over. They're still wearing all their their college gear.
Speaker 1: And you know, look, if you went through Ohio State
Speaker 1: and you want to rep Ohio State, that's great. But
Speaker 1: there's some people that show up with their Harvard Business
Speaker 1: School T shirt a little too often. You know, it's
Speaker 1: like I think you own other t shirts. People really
Speaker 1: take a lot of personal value from this experience. And
Speaker 1: the thing is they don't care if they how they
Speaker 1: got there. They just like the perception. There's a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of ego and vanity that plays into this whole
Speaker 1: school game and the arms race around it that pushes
Speaker 1: people to do all these crazy things to try to
Speaker 1: get into these schools. And I think this is a
Speaker 1: good thing for us to really pull apart and look
Speaker 1: at and what does it tell us not just about
Speaker 1: the nature of the academy in this country and how
Speaker 1: corrupted it is, but also are the elites really as
Speaker 1: elite as they pretend to be? That's coming up. This
Speaker 1: plays into a deep worry that the American people have,
Speaker 1: and I share that worry, you know, and we see
Speaker 1: it in politics. This was appealed to by Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and Bernie Sanders. You know, is the system rigg? Do
Speaker 1: you remember when Donald Trump said is the system rigged?
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders asked the same question. Turned out in this
Speaker 1: case it was right, and people believe that America's about
Speaker 1: equal opportunity. Of course, this system is rigged. Is this
Speaker 1: news to anybody that the education system in this country,
Speaker 1: at the elite institutions is rigged. It's a precious commodity.
Speaker 1: It's a credentialing system. It's not really intellectual and certainly
Speaker 1: not ethical. Training for the next generation elite schools, and
Speaker 1: the crush to get into them is all about gaming
Speaker 1: the system, influence, finding your way because just being the
Speaker 1: best in your class, just being a straight a student
Speaker 1: and a really good guy or gal that everyone, you know,
Speaker 1: class president all that. That doesn't cut into a lot
Speaker 1: of these places. I mean, you'll get in somewhere. You're
Speaker 1: not gonna get into your dream school necessarily. There's too many,
Speaker 1: too many high school too many students. And you're talking
Speaker 1: about that really upper echelon of the top fifty schools
Speaker 1: in the country, maybe the top one hundred, and how
Speaker 1: many millions of college students matriculate every year. I just
Speaker 1: think it's funny this. Oh my gosh, you mean that
Speaker 1: you mean to tell me that people are cheating to
Speaker 1: get into college. Of course they are. Now I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's okay. What's so interesting is when I try
Speaker 1: to get into the different aspects of this, I get
Speaker 1: a lot of heat from people, especially out on the
Speaker 1: Twitter sphere, and I'm saying, you know, do we really
Speaker 1: need people to treat this as a federal RICO investigation?
Speaker 1: You know, this is racketeering, you know, And there are
Speaker 1: some interesting parallels to be drawn between what the Advancement
Speaker 1: Office does, which is give us a check, and what
Speaker 1: was going on here, which is give the coach for
Speaker 1: this team a check. And there was a great analysis
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Today by a guy named Matt Levine that
Speaker 1: I think really explains this, and I think this is
Speaker 1: a unique take on this because he understands the insider trading.
Speaker 1: Insider trading law now just a real quick overview of that.
Speaker 1: You you cannot trade on non public information. That and
Speaker 1: people always think, well, that means you can't use information
Speaker 1: other people don't have. That's not true. People trade on
Speaker 1: information advantage all the time. It's not about fairness material
Speaker 1: non public information that violates a fiduciary duty you have
Speaker 1: or that someone has. That's where insider trading comes in.
Speaker 1: So if you're the officer of a company and you
Speaker 1: have a fiduciary duty to that company, you can't act
Speaker 1: on that information, and you can't give that information to
Speaker 1: someone else to act on, nor can they act on it.
Speaker 1: But it's not just that. It's not about what's fair,
Speaker 1: as this guy talks about it. It's not about what's fair.
Speaker 1: The stock market's unfair all the time. People have all
Speaker 1: kinds of advantages that are built in faster trading desks,
Speaker 1: faster execution on their orders, and by the In the
Speaker 1: same way, the college admissions process is not fair. You
Speaker 1: got you got minorities who get a huge advantage depending
Speaker 1: on what n not Asians, but blacks in Hispanic's huge
Speaker 1: advantage in the application brought just a fact. People get
Speaker 1: so uncomfortable you say, that's just a fact, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, we're not supposed to talk
Speaker 1: about this. Interestingly. Definitely know Muslim students don't have a
Speaker 1: big advantage when they apply. I always think that's, you know,
Speaker 1: so you can be a Middle Eastern, you know, Arab
Speaker 1: Muslim and that doesn't really help you to get into school.
Speaker 1: But if you are Native American, huge help to get
Speaker 1: into school. If you're a Black, huge help to get
Speaker 1: into school, same thing if you are Latino Hispanic. But
Speaker 1: the problem, you know, so they are all these different ways.
Speaker 1: And yeah there's legacy. But as i've legacy is not
Speaker 1: what people think. It's not the surefire thing that people
Speaker 1: think it is because there's too many people with kids
Speaker 1: that graduating from these schools, so legacies and up just
Speaker 1: competing against each other. For those who really want to know,
Speaker 1: I have friends who have worked in college admissions, and
Speaker 1: I've talked to them extensively about this, and they've worked
Speaker 1: at elite places Columbia University, Amherst College places that I know,
Speaker 1: you're competing always against buckets, meaning that you know, if
Speaker 1: you're a white middle class kid from Indiana, you're competing
Speaker 1: against other white middle class kids from the mid West.
Speaker 1: If you are a Latino, you know, musician from inner
Speaker 1: city Los Angeles, you're competing against other Latinos from the
Speaker 1: West Coast, maybe who play an instrument. I mean, they
Speaker 1: really look at you in buckets. I mean that's really
Speaker 1: your competition. You're not competing against the whole class. Men
Speaker 1: compete against men, women against women, although now that's probably
Speaker 1: gotten more complicated because what do they identify as? But
Speaker 1: they look at this as pulling together this diverse group,
Speaker 1: So you're competing against your own identity group within the
Speaker 1: diversity pool. But this Bloomberg analysis says that the real
Speaker 1: way that these people went wrong with this massive and
Speaker 1: it is it's amazing to read about this stuff. And
Speaker 1: people were They were clearly very desperate to get into
Speaker 1: schools that aren't exactly going to set you up for
Speaker 1: life either, which I find very strange. There must be
Speaker 1: such an anxiety among these parents, don't I don't like
Speaker 1: to be somebody who's acts like a school snob or anything.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you're going to a second or
Speaker 1: third tier UC school, University California school, you shouldn't have
Speaker 1: if you have to cheat to get in there, you
Speaker 1: should really think long and hard about whether you should
Speaker 1: be going to a four year college at all. But
Speaker 1: the problem that you had here with these people is
Speaker 1: that they they paid off the wrong person. And that's
Speaker 1: what this Bloomberg analysis said today. You have all these people,
Speaker 1: this guy Ricks well sorry, yeah, William Rick Singer who
Speaker 1: bribed SAT and exam administrators. I mean that is just
Speaker 1: that is just cheating the system. That's not a close call.
Speaker 1: Bribe coaches and administrators to use their admission skills to
Speaker 1: get people in, or their their admission clout to get
Speaker 1: people in. Operation Varsity Blues, which is a pretty watchable
Speaker 1: but terrible movie at the same time. I gotta say
Speaker 1: Varsity Blues, those of you who haven't seen it, it's
Speaker 1: Ali Larder's finest work. See some of you know who
Speaker 1: Ali Larders, you'll know it from Varsity Blues. But the
Speaker 1: problem is they paid off the wrong people. You're not
Speaker 1: supposed to pay off the coach. You're supposed to pay
Speaker 1: off the advancement office and what this really is at
Speaker 1: the universities treat these slots as a valuable thing. This
Speaker 1: is their property. This is a thing of value. So
Speaker 1: if you're going to game the system, you have to
Speaker 1: gain the system the way that they tell you to.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like you know, the air lines
Speaker 1: get to determine the first class seats cost twice as much,
Speaker 1: sometimes more than that as an economy seat, and it's
Speaker 1: not okay for you to just go and take one
Speaker 1: of those first class seats. You have to pay the
Speaker 1: price they want you to pay, even if no one
Speaker 1: else is going to sit in it. It's their property.
Speaker 1: You have to pay the price they want you to pay.
Speaker 1: And that's fundamentally I think why this is being treated
Speaker 1: this way. And then on top of that, there's fake
Speaker 1: foundation payments, there's money laundering, there's you know, wire frauds.
Speaker 1: I mean, people were trying to hide all this stuff too.
Speaker 1: And really the cover up stuff for the payoffs is
Speaker 1: going to end up being worse I think criminally for
Speaker 1: these people than the original payoffs. But got more on
Speaker 1: this in a minute. Team stay with me. That person
Speaker 1: thirty years from now is gonna be running some hedge
Speaker 1: fund right, and maybe raping and pillaging in the economy,
Speaker 1: running some nursing home, levering it up with debt. People
Speaker 1: are going to die a little bit overdose, a little
Speaker 1: bit on the pay meting whatever. Really nice conversation without
Speaker 1: talking about Donald Trump. I don't know why. In fact, exactly,
Speaker 1: I just got to say, America need to wake up.
Speaker 1: This is not the first thing our president essentially got where.
Speaker 1: He got through doing many of the similar things with
Speaker 1: taxes in his own in the White House. See the
Speaker 1: cheating scandal at MSNBC. It's it's it's always an opportunity
Speaker 1: to do a little virtue signaling talk, a little social
Speaker 1: justice act. Like the only problem in this country is
Speaker 1: that the rich people force everybody else to do all
Speaker 1: these bad things. They give them cancer, they take their homes,
Speaker 1: they do all these terrible things. I meanwhile, everyone at
Speaker 1: that table that was talking there at MSNBC, they're all rich.
Speaker 1: Isn't that It's not so weird how that happens. See
Speaker 1: you'll get a table of people, you know, Joe Scarborough
Speaker 1: with his big swoop of hair. The swoop, the Scarborough
Speaker 1: swoop does not compared to the sex and swoop. Okay,
Speaker 1: mine is like normal. His is you know, let's try
Speaker 1: and way too hard. And then you get Mika and
Speaker 1: you have a Jared artists and they're all sitting are
Speaker 1: these people were all very wealthy, multi multi multi millionaires,
Speaker 1: the Mika Joe you know Joe Mika situation. They're probably
Speaker 1: worth tens of millions of dollars between the two of them,
Speaker 1: but they're Oh, they hate people with more. That's one
Speaker 1: of the things about the rich left, but not the
Speaker 1: super rich left, is that they are always antagonistic toward
Speaker 1: people that have more than they do. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is just what you can expect, is that they
Speaker 1: use this as an opportunity to try and slam on
Speaker 1: those that they don't like. And they don't like anybody
Speaker 1: who has access in privilege and power who's not a liberal.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, if you're a liberal and you
Speaker 1: have those things, you get it, you get a pass.
Speaker 1: But this this turns into a whole white privilege thing
Speaker 1: for the left, the whole college cheating admission scandal. And
Speaker 1: if you look at the names of many of the
Speaker 1: people involved on this, they're they're not white. Based on
Speaker 1: the names of some of the people in the indictment,
Speaker 1: so some of them have foreign names. So it's not
Speaker 1: entirely a white privilege thing. It's a it's a wealth privilege,
Speaker 1: and wealth is a privilege. That is true. People who
Speaker 1: are wealthy are very, very lucky. But the left is
Speaker 1: just they're un serious when they talk about the issue
Speaker 1: of college admissions. You know, they love a firmative action,
Speaker 1: but we can't talk about a firmative action, but they
Speaker 1: pretend to hate legacy admissions. Meanwhile, I mean, you look
Speaker 1: at the people you know in the media. Your favorite
Speaker 1: CNN News anchor Jake Kapper, guess where his dad went
Speaker 1: to school? Darboth, Oh you mean he was a legacy
Speaker 1: to his school. Wow, I guess he just picked the
Speaker 1: right one. There, You got lucky picking the one school's
Speaker 1: dad went to, right. I mean, you look at a
Speaker 1: lot of people in the media and their legacies themselves.
Speaker 1: But then they go on TV and say, well, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm so opposed to legacy admissions because you know, they
Speaker 1: got theirs, and now they want to act like they're
Speaker 1: too good for that. One of the favorite games I
Speaker 1: see is people that are that are going on TV
Speaker 1: and saying, you know, well, I went to a fancy school,
Speaker 1: but I didn't need to to be as successful as
Speaker 1: I am before seeing me say buck, you say that, no, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no no. What I say is that people should
Speaker 1: work for a year or two before they go to school.
Speaker 1: And I wish I had done that, because I would
Speaker 1: have even made better use of the college that I
Speaker 1: went to and the very, yes, the very real privilege
Speaker 1: that I had a going to a place that opened
Speaker 1: some doors, not that many doors. Not really, it wasn't
Speaker 1: as useful as I had hoped. That would be Stephanie
Speaker 1: rule over at MSNBC. She's okay with cheating, by the way,
Speaker 1: as long as you do it the right way. This
Speaker 1: was interesting play eight. Anybody who actually works in the
Speaker 1: university will tell you this doesn't shot them entirely. We
Speaker 1: have seen this before. What makes this so egregious is
Speaker 1: that they didn't attempt to rig the system later. Most
Speaker 1: parents have their kids apply and if they don't get in.
Speaker 1: That's where you mentioned the check. The fact that you
Speaker 1: were trying to ride people up front, the chat, the
Speaker 1: fact that you're willing to break so many laws to
Speaker 1: do so. That's where the real issue. And here's the
Speaker 1: stupidity they could have rigged the system ahead of time.
Speaker 1: When their kid is in the seventh grade, they can
Speaker 1: meet with the development officer and a million dollars to
Speaker 1: make your kid good at fencing. These people aren't even
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting that she was correct there. You
Speaker 1: can meet with a development officer early on and by,
Speaker 1: and this is known. I know people whose families have
Speaker 1: done this. The other guy who's saying they waited too late,
Speaker 1: he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's not how
Speaker 1: this system works. But why is everyone so obsessed with
Speaker 1: this college system? And of course the media, because you
Speaker 1: get a lot of people in media that you know,
Speaker 1: they were literally people. Look, there are people that have
Speaker 1: a somewhat similar background to me and that they went
Speaker 1: to a school that's considered elited mission and they didn't
Speaker 1: want to go necessarily into Wall Street or into business,
Speaker 1: and so what do they do. They go into the media,
Speaker 1: and the only credential that many of them have to
Speaker 1: rest their hat on is wherever they went to undergrad
Speaker 1: And nobody really cares. But everyone still has this fixation
Speaker 1: on where they went to undergrad, especially on the East
Speaker 1: and the West coast. Most in the major cities and
Speaker 1: you think, why would somebody who's so wealthy. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of a lot of interesting layers here,
Speaker 1: but why would someone who's so wealthy care so much
Speaker 1: about his or her kid going to an Ivy League school.
Speaker 1: If you're that rich, the doors are going to be
Speaker 1: wide open. There's lots of connections. You know, you don't
Speaker 1: have to go to an Ivy League school in order
Speaker 1: to have connections and access. It just is helpful. But
Speaker 1: if you're really rich, you can just buy the access
Speaker 1: you need. Ah. But you see, there's also a need
Speaker 1: for the people who have been given everything, who have
Speaker 1: not had to fight for it, who have had the
Speaker 1: doors wide open for them all along. They have to
Speaker 1: feel like they have their respect of other people. And
Speaker 1: that's somehow they've earned it. And this is why Al
Speaker 1: Gore and George Bush and just go down the list
Speaker 1: of a lot of different politicians as you can think,
Speaker 1: for example, from very wealthy families that Kennedy's, you know,
Speaker 1: all Kennedy's. You know, you get to go if you're Kennedy,
Speaker 1: you get to go to Harvard. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: a Bush, you get to go to Yale. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're in Obama. You get to go to where
Speaker 1: the Obama daughters are. They already in school or they
Speaker 1: at Stanford. I forget where they are, but you know,
Speaker 1: you get to go to these places. Why does it
Speaker 1: matter so much to the very rich and very powerful
Speaker 1: that their children go to these institutions when the truth
Speaker 1: is that they don't need to. The reason is because
Speaker 1: of ego, ego for the parents that they've managed to
Speaker 1: get them into one of these elite institutions, but also
Speaker 1: the ego of the individual that they want everyone else
Speaker 1: to believe, believe that they have earned their privileged position
Speaker 1: later in life. I know plenty of Trustafarians. You know,
Speaker 1: somebody who grew up in New York City, Trustafarians who
Speaker 1: went to fancy schools and have done nothing with themselves.
Speaker 1: But they like that when they're socializing with their fellow elites,
Speaker 1: going to a job that maybe is at a fancy
Speaker 1: play but they don't have to work very hard at
Speaker 1: they can say, well, you know, I went to Brown. Brown,
Speaker 1: by the way, as a huge offender on this list.
Speaker 1: That's right, Brown University. I'm calling you out. You know
Speaker 1: they went to Brown, or they went to you know,
Speaker 1: the University of Pennsylvania or you know, you name it,
Speaker 1: and everyone's supposed to think, ooh, well, you know you
Speaker 1: must be one of the good smart people because you
Speaker 1: went there. And it's not because your parents were super rich.
Speaker 1: It's it's all personal branding. That's what drives so much
Speaker 1: of this, Especially for the ultra wealthy. You go to
Speaker 1: these schools because it adds a layer of you've earned it,
Speaker 1: even though everyone knows you haven't. For the kids where
Speaker 1: the libraries are donating everything else. What the social justice
Speaker 1: left doesn't want to talk about is that the overwhelming
Speaker 1: number of kids in these elite schools come from the
Speaker 1: top ten percent of income earners, which doesn't make you
Speaker 1: rich but obviously makes you not poor. And they're all
Speaker 1: fighting it out with each other, and there's so much
Speaker 1: more excellence in that upper middle class range. Then these
Speaker 1: schools can take academically that it's a total dog fight.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're in that category of somebody whose
Speaker 1: family makes one hundred and fifty to five hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a year, for example, and you know that's your
Speaker 1: household income, guess what you're fighting it out with every
Speaker 1: other kid from across the country who comes from a
Speaker 1: family with which is a family of means. It's a
Speaker 1: well off family, of course, but you're not donating a
Speaker 1: building to get in. And most of those kids are
Speaker 1: also the legacy kids, and the legacy kids tend to
Speaker 1: have very similar SAT scores to the overall admits. It's
Speaker 1: just legacy is what gives you a leg up on
Speaker 1: other kids that you're competing with of similar backgrounds. That's
Speaker 1: how these processes really work. I know everyone's gonna act like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's just all the rich kids and it's all white privilege,
Speaker 1: and Nope, that's not what's going on. But the left
Speaker 1: isn't interested in the truth. Don't you love it when
Speaker 1: you find a one hundred dollar bill inside of a
Speaker 1: jacket you haven't used for ages, it feels great. Well,
Speaker 1: imagine finding hundreds of dollars in the papers that are
Speaker 1: sitting in your filing cab at desk or the boxes
Speaker 1: in your attic. You know, from that four oh one
Speaker 1: K that you had in the job before last, the
Speaker 1: one you forgot about. That money is sitting there gathering
Speaker 1: financial dust, But it could be working much harder for you.
Speaker 1: In a precious metals ira, my friends at Noble Gold
Speaker 1: can see if you qualify, and they'll do all the
Speaker 1: heavy lifting for you, making you thousands could cost you nothing.
Speaker 1: Give Noble Gold a call at eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: four six five three four seven, or just text my
Speaker 1: name that's buc K to five eleven, five eleven. Again
Speaker 1: text Buck to five eleven, five eleven to receive their
Speaker 1: free Investors Guide. Plus, if you have a qualified IRA
Speaker 1: above twenty thousand dollars, they'll include a complimentary rare graded
Speaker 1: Morgan silver dollar valued at one hundred and fifty bucks.
Speaker 1: So text Buck to five eleven, five eleven or call
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six four six five three four seven.
Speaker 1: Individual results may vary invest wisely, standard text rates may apply.
Speaker 1: I think the judge should that she is incredibly hostile
Speaker 1: towards mister Mantiford and exhibited a level of callousness that
Speaker 1: I've not seen in a white collar case in over
Speaker 1: fifteen years of That was Manaford attorney Kevin Downing saying
Speaker 1: that Judge Amy Berman Jackson and Obama appointee, just saying
Speaker 1: was very hostile to his client. Well, what is the
Speaker 1: truth of this? What should we make of all these
Speaker 1: things coming together? Today? The state charges from New York
Speaker 1: the second set of federal charges. Here in DC, we
Speaker 1: got the man with all the answers and the man
Speaker 1: with the plan himself. Mister Andy McCarthy joins us now.
Speaker 1: He is former federal prosecutor decades in the Southern Distuct
Speaker 1: of New York. Also, he is a Fox News contributor
Speaker 1: and a editor at National Review. Andy, great to have you,
Speaker 1: but great to be with you. All right, so let's
Speaker 1: start with this, Andy, Is the stuff happening to Manafort fair?
Speaker 1: As in? Is this what would happen if he were not?
Speaker 1: I mean, we have one federal criminal trial, another federal
Speaker 1: criminal trial, and now a set of charges from New
Speaker 1: York State. What do you make of this? Well? I
Speaker 1: you know, I think some of it buck is nakedly political,
Speaker 1: some of it is terribly unfair, and some of it
Speaker 1: happened because mantaphor it's a bad guy, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's not always easy to sort all that out. But
Speaker 1: I think, if you know, the cosmic justice question is
Speaker 1: would he ever have been prosecuted if he didn't join
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign? And I think the answer to that
Speaker 1: is no. That's what got him on their radar. You know,
Speaker 1: I heard people say, today, while they were looking at
Speaker 1: him before the Trump campaign stuff happened. And my answer
Speaker 1: to that is, you know, he was doing stuff in
Speaker 1: Ukraine since two thousand and four, and they did look
Speaker 1: at him, and nobody ever prosecuted him, and we had
Speaker 1: I think I looked into this recently. I think there
Speaker 1: was a grand total of six Foreign Agent Registry Act
Speaker 1: violations that were prosecuted the last half center. I'm not
Speaker 1: half century, yeah, half century, the less fifty years, and
Speaker 1: only three of them I think ended up in actual
Speaker 1: charges of FARA violations. So I think, you know, if
Speaker 1: Mantafort's argument is a no one would have ever prosecuted
Speaker 1: me if I didn't come on their radar course of
Speaker 1: Trump and be they changed the rules in the middle
Speaker 1: of the game because they didn't used to prosecute what
Speaker 1: I did and now they do. I think he's got
Speaker 1: a very good argument. On the other hand, the case
Speaker 1: was built on tax fraud, money laundering fraud, and you know,
Speaker 1: witness tampering which he ultimately agreed to, and some bank fraud.
Speaker 1: And the fact of the matter is those are crimes,
Speaker 1: and you know, if they if they are investigated and
Speaker 1: it turns out you committed them, then you know, they
Speaker 1: get prosecuted, and maybe you came on the government's radar
Speaker 1: screen by something that was politicized. But you know, if
Speaker 1: you commit millions of dollars of fraud, however, you get
Speaker 1: on their radar screen, it's hard to feel too terrible
Speaker 1: for you. And look, I think I've thought along Anny
Speaker 1: that it strikes me as as some as pretty it's
Speaker 1: fair that he's going to do some prison time. I mean,
Speaker 1: I and it's I think it's also clear to your
Speaker 1: point that he did break the law. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's one thing. You know, if a guy is like
Speaker 1: Shade and his taxes a little bit and he owes
Speaker 1: the irs fifteen grand, you know, you're tell them to
Speaker 1: pay the fifteen grand, you know, the irs. I think
Speaker 1: it was what was it six it was millions, I
Speaker 1: mean a six million or ten million, it was a
Speaker 1: it's a large sum of money. Yeah, you know you
Speaker 1: got to pay a higher price for that, obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: deterrence prosecution of nothing else. But but you know, what
Speaker 1: I want to know is how do we explain New
Speaker 1: York State charges? I mean, it seems like to the
Speaker 1: point about what's nakedly political here that to me seems
Speaker 1: like they're just throwing that on top. They're they're doing
Speaker 1: a pylon here, so that there's no hope that mana
Speaker 1: for it. Even if Trump did commute or pardon him,
Speaker 1: wouldn't go to prison. Yet Now, I think, I think
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right that that is completely political. Unfortunately, we
Speaker 1: New Yorkers are living in a one party state where
Speaker 1: it's very political, and they don't mind it being political
Speaker 1: as long as the you know, the people on the
Speaker 1: wrong end of the sort of the the Republicans. So
Speaker 1: you know, what you hope is going to stop sinister
Speaker 1: prosecutors from doing stuff like this, is that the political
Speaker 1: blowback of nakedly using the political or using the prosecutorial
Speaker 1: power for political reasons is something that most people don't
Speaker 1: like and find frightening. I wonder if you know, the
Speaker 1: state that gave us Alexandria Ocasio Cortez will ever see
Speaker 1: it that way. On the other hand, there's always another
Speaker 1: handbuck um for for manaforts purposes. I remember when I
Speaker 1: was a prosecutor that we had a lot of cases
Speaker 1: where we could bring a racketeering case and New York
Speaker 1: could bring a bunch of crimes that could be fit
Speaker 1: into a racketeering prosecution, but they were state crimes, and
Speaker 1: we always needed to let them go first because if
Speaker 1: we went first under the New York State and we
Speaker 1: being the federal government under the New York State constitution,
Speaker 1: they have a doctrine that's called equitable double jeopardy, which
Speaker 1: means if you've been prosecuted by the Feds, you can't
Speaker 1: be prosecuted by the state. It's unusual because most of
Speaker 1: the country follows what's known as the dual sovereignty doctrine,
Speaker 1: which is that there's no double jeopardy protection from a
Speaker 1: subsequent state prosecution if you've been prosecuted federally, they deemed
Speaker 1: to be two different sovereigns, so they don't jeopardy each
Speaker 1: other out, so to speak. But in New York it's different.
Speaker 1: So I would imagine that Manafort has a very strong
Speaker 1: double jeopardy argument against the New York prosecution under the
Speaker 1: New York constitution. What's interesting is what happens if Trump
Speaker 1: pardons them. If Trump were to pardon them, that legally
Speaker 1: has the effect of vitiating, eradicating the underlying criminality, and
Speaker 1: that arguably would open the door for New York to
Speaker 1: prosecute him, because then there's nothing, you know, there's no
Speaker 1: federal jeopardy. So what I might do if I'd have
Speaker 1: to explore this a little more. But if I were
Speaker 1: Manaphort and I didn't really care that much at this
Speaker 1: late stage of my life about the stain of having
Speaker 1: convictions on it, he wants a commutation, not a pardon. Yeah, precisely. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that would that makes sense. And that's, by the way,
Speaker 1: I actually think that that's also a more fair because
Speaker 1: Menaphord broke the law. I'm not some manafort chill, but
Speaker 1: I can see what's going on here, and I mean
Speaker 1: Andy also, just do I put this aside. This kind
Speaker 1: of reminds me of see it just happened to be
Speaker 1: there when when Stone got arrested. Sure, the timing of
Speaker 1: this one within hours of the of the judge of
Speaker 1: federally sentencing him. I don't believe it. That's a coincidence,
Speaker 1: and we shouldn't, right, no, of course, Well, I mean
Speaker 1: in the business that you and I were in, m
Speaker 1: you know, we don't really believe in there's a presumption
Speaker 1: against coincidences, right they we hear about a lot of them.
Speaker 1: But when we investigate them very soon actually turn out
Speaker 1: to be coincidence. Yeah, yeah, I think that's toly fair.
Speaker 1: And just before, I mean, we got other things. I
Speaker 1: want to bring you back in a moment and get
Speaker 1: into the Lisa page the latest of what's going on
Speaker 1: behind closed doors on Capitol Hill about Russia collusion and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. But let me ask you this Manaford
Speaker 1: is facing. I heard this today on Fox, and I
Speaker 1: found this one hard to but I know that federal
Speaker 1: sentences and used to be somebody that was prosecuting them,
Speaker 1: so you know this very well. But federal sentences shock
Speaker 1: a lot of people with how severe they are. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you go the full you know, the full duration
Speaker 1: under the statute in prison U today though I saw,
Speaker 1: or I heard rather from Fox that the state charges
Speaker 1: level gets man could send him to prison for over
Speaker 1: one hundred years theoretically, and he isn't this little nuts
Speaker 1: well it's a mortgage fraud, but buck the federal charges
Speaker 1: that he faced in the two indictments, which is why
Speaker 1: I thought part of what Mueller did here was a joke.
Speaker 1: I think they aggregated to about three hundred years, and
Speaker 1: I remember it was one week about I want to
Speaker 1: say April or so of or March of twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: where one day he indicts Gates and Manifort for like
Speaker 1: two hundred years exposure, and then the next day he
Speaker 1: pleads out Gates and he gives him a sweetheart deal
Speaker 1: that caps them at five years or ten years, whatever
Speaker 1: it was. And if you look at what the Washington
Speaker 1: case was today, what Muller did was and this I
Speaker 1: think is a reprehensible practice. What he would do as
Speaker 1: he would stack charges when he initially charged someone in
Speaker 1: order to make it look like an overwhelming case in
Speaker 1: order to intimidate the persity charged, and then when it
Speaker 1: was time to plead them out, they plead him out
Speaker 1: to a song. So today Manaford pled guilty to a
Speaker 1: money laundering conspiracy and a witness stampering conspiracy. Each of
Speaker 1: those charges is supposed to be a twenty year charge,
Speaker 1: but Muller, to get the plea, gave him two five
Speaker 1: year charges, which meant that even though the sentencing guidelines
Speaker 1: were something like twenty five years, the most Manaford faced
Speaker 1: today was ten years. And then the judge only gave
Speaker 1: him forty seven months. So you know, I hear all
Speaker 1: these people talking about how, you know, he got really
Speaker 1: screwed today, But I got to say, you know, it
Speaker 1: could have been a lot worse if certainly, if I
Speaker 1: had been charging the case, it would have been a
Speaker 1: lot worse. Yeah, everybody, And he's told me, if you
Speaker 1: were guilty, you didn't want Andy to be your prosecutor
Speaker 1: back in the day. But I mean, that's what that's
Speaker 1: Justice Department guidelines. It's not me. I mean, that's you're
Speaker 1: supposed to charge the most severe, readily provable count. And
Speaker 1: what Mueller did was he basically gained the system to
Speaker 1: inflate things when he charged them, and then give away
Speaker 1: the store to get people a plead guilty. I mean,
Speaker 1: is that almost unethical what he's done in Andy? I mean,
Speaker 1: how would you describe Mueller's conduct. I would describe it
Speaker 1: as flouting Justice Department guidelines and that's not supposed to
Speaker 1: happen if you have adult supervision. But it seems to
Speaker 1: me that the Deputy Attorney General who was supposed to
Speaker 1: be supervising this thing basically let him do whatever he
Speaker 1: wanted to do. Yeah, and I've got some stories for
Speaker 1: about Rod Rosenstein. I don't know if you have stories,
Speaker 1: but I often tell you those offline. But he is
Speaker 1: not covering himself in He has not been covering himself
Speaker 1: in glory in the last last couple of years. Yeah, guys,
Speaker 1: we're going to come back with Andy here to talk
Speaker 1: to you, talk to him about some of that, the
Speaker 1: special counsel and all that. So I'll stay right there.
Speaker 1: When you want to spot that burglar when he's casing
Speaker 1: your home or after he's in. Asked John who's Blink
Speaker 1: camera alerted him to burglars trying to break in while
Speaker 1: he and his family were home, or Shannon, who's Blink
Speaker 1: camera caught a fief stealing packages. Both times, Blink video
Speaker 1: clips were sent to police to help convict the crooks.
Speaker 1: In a moment, I'll tell you how to get twenty
Speaker 1: percent off all Blink outdoor xt camera systems. Blink motion
Speaker 1: activated indoor and outdoor cameras are wire free, set up
Speaker 1: in minutes, and run on two lithium batteries that last
Speaker 1: up to two years, and blinks Live Feed option lets
Speaker 1: you monitor your home and check in on kids and
Speaker 1: pets from anywhere using your Blink smartphone app. No contracts,
Speaker 1: no subscriptions, totally affordable and right now, Blink outdoor xt
Speaker 1: camera systems are an impressive twenty percent off, but hurry.
Speaker 1: This sale ends March sixteenth at midnight Eastern. Visit blink
Speaker 1: protect dot Com slash sale again. That's blink protect dot
Speaker 1: Com Slash Sale b l I n K protect dot
Speaker 1: Com Slash sale. Link is an Amazon company and it
Speaker 1: works with Alexa. Okay team, We're back with Andy McCarthy
Speaker 1: of National Review and Fox News. Andy, a lot going on,
Speaker 1: this story not getting nearly as much attention as I
Speaker 1: would think it would or it should, And there have
Speaker 1: been some revelations from the closed door testimony. The transcripts
Speaker 1: are out of what Lisa Page, whoever knows had the
Speaker 1: relationship with Peter Struck at the FBI and was close
Speaker 1: to She was a senior FBI lawyer, very close to
Speaker 1: these Russia and Hillary, the Russia collusion investigation, the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton email investigation. What do you make of one her
Speaker 1: saying that Obama's DOJ essentially or people who ran the
Speaker 1: DOJAN the Obama administration, it was kind of a close
Speaker 1: call whether a charge Hillary or not, and then they
Speaker 1: actually didn't go for it. Well, Buck, I've always said
Speaker 1: from the beginning that there was no way that the
Speaker 1: Justice Department was going to let the FBI charge Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton with anything, forget about espionage anything. And I also
Speaker 1: said that Obama made it quite clear, not that I
Speaker 1: think he had to, that he did not want his
Speaker 1: Justice Department to charge Missus Clinton when he made public
Speaker 1: statements in April of twenty sixteen saying that he didn't
Speaker 1: he didn't think what she did was serious or anything
Speaker 1: worthy of prosecution. So the only thing I've always been
Speaker 1: really confused by in this whole thing and irritated by,
Speaker 1: is I don't understand why the FBI and Jim Comey
Speaker 1: took the bullet for this one. I've never understood that.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why. I think what Comey was trying
Speaker 1: to do was protect the reputation of the FBI by
Speaker 1: trying to show that they did a thorough investigation despite
Speaker 1: the politics here. But I don't know why he didn't
Speaker 1: just complete his investigation. They had this mountainous evidence of
Speaker 1: wrongdoing and then just dump it Loretto Lynch's lap and
Speaker 1: let her decline to prosecute. I don't know why the
Speaker 1: FBI took the bullet on this one and just with
Speaker 1: with the the molloprobe apparently wrapping up now and it's
Speaker 1: in its final stages. We keep being told that I've
Speaker 1: been told this by people, you know, offline at the
Speaker 1: doj um. You know that some of them actually said it.
Speaker 1: Now they've come forward and said and said that they
Speaker 1: think this is in the latter stages. Whatever that means.
Speaker 1: You know, Andy, what what is your sort of preparation
Speaker 1: for the end of this thing? You know, buckets really
Speaker 1: hard because we don't even know what the report is, right, um.
Speaker 1: You know, we know that the regulations require the special
Speaker 1: cancel to give a report to the Attorney General explaining
Speaker 1: his reasoning in either charging people or not charging them.
Speaker 1: Now that you don't have to do much explaining when
Speaker 1: you charge them, right, the indictments speak for themselves. But
Speaker 1: when you don't charge someone, it's very common, of course,
Speaker 1: within the Justice Department for a line prosecutor to explain
Speaker 1: to the supervisor, here's why I don't think we should
Speaker 1: charge and get approval for that, but that never becomes public.
Speaker 1: And here it seems to me that you also have
Speaker 1: the overlay of the fact that this is always masqueraded
Speaker 1: as a counterintelligence investigation. From the beginning. Counterintelligence investigations are classified.
Speaker 1: So you have three provisions, right. You have the regulations
Speaker 1: that say this is a confidential report from the Special
Speaker 1: Council to the Attorney General. You have Justice Department policy
Speaker 1: that you don't go public with the evidence on uncharged people.
Speaker 1: And you have classified information running through the investigation because
Speaker 1: it's counterintelligence. So I don't even know what's going to
Speaker 1: be in the report, but I don't see how that
Speaker 1: gets publicized and any at this point, is there anything
Speaker 1: that you think is is still outstanding that you you know,
Speaker 1: what do you really want to know? After I mean,
Speaker 1: we've been having you on this show for now going
Speaker 1: on two years to talk about where we've come in
Speaker 1: this whole process, and I know you've been writing a
Speaker 1: lot about it and analyzing it. I mean, how do
Speaker 1: you just overall assess what's happened here to the president?
Speaker 1: I mean, to me, it looks like there were some
Speaker 1: senior people in the government who really didn't want Trump
Speaker 1: to win, and they had a minimum of use their
Speaker 1: discretion and authority to use the investigative powers not just
Speaker 1: of the FBI, but of the of the intelligence communities.
Speaker 1: You said, going a counterintelligence fishing expedition, and it seemed
Speaker 1: like there's really not going to be any accountability for that. Well,
Speaker 1: I hope there is going to be accountability for that.
Speaker 1: I've never wanted Muller to take that on, but because
Speaker 1: I thought, you know, number one, he had enough to
Speaker 1: deal with. Investigate what he what we think he was
Speaker 1: told to investigate, which was whether there was involvement of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign in Russia's you know, cyber espionage against
Speaker 1: the election. Especially when I saw who he picked to
Speaker 1: investigate that, I never wanted him to do anything else.
Speaker 1: I wanted him to just stick to that and get
Speaker 1: it done. I think somebody else needs to I don't
Speaker 1: I don't like special counsels, but I think somebody needs
Speaker 1: to look at what happened with the investigators because it
Speaker 1: seems to me that there was abuse of the government's
Speaker 1: counterintelligence authorities in order for the incumbent administration to spy
Speaker 1: on the opposition campaign. I think the big ticket item
Speaker 1: out of Lisa pages testimony that we've heard about is
Speaker 1: that to me, it eliminates all doubt if there ever
Speaker 1: was any that Donald Trump was obviously the target of
Speaker 1: this investigation. You know, they structured it in a way
Speaker 1: that they could say they were only looking at the campaign.
Speaker 1: They were clearly looking at him. I mean she even says,
Speaker 1: you know, look, if he doesn't get elected, then there's
Speaker 1: no national security problem, right, I mean pretty much tells
Speaker 1: you everything that you need to hear. And I think
Speaker 1: what happened here, buck is everybody thought Hillary was going
Speaker 1: to win, and everybody figured this was counterintelligence and it
Speaker 1: was classified, so would never ever see the light of day.
Speaker 1: Missus Clinton would never have had any incentive to expose it.
Speaker 1: So this thing was going to die a death. If
Speaker 1: she had won. You would never have heard about Russia
Speaker 1: and the election again. But what happened was once Trump won,
Speaker 1: they knew that in ten weeks he was going to
Speaker 1: get access to all of the classified information. I'm with you,
Speaker 1: and and they had to justify everything. Yeah, they had
Speaker 1: to justify everything they had done beforehand. It makes sense,
Speaker 1: Annie will have you back. We get that report for sure,
Speaker 1: Annie mccarth, everybody Nashurreview and Fox News read his stuff
Speaker 1: on nasherview dot com. Andy, thanks so much, Thanks buck Well,
Speaker 1: there's clear evidence on the issue of collusion or people
Speaker 1: who wonder, what does collusion look like when its charged
Speaker 1: as a crime. Bob Muller has told us, have Democrats
Speaker 1: found any even of collusion? Yes, we have. Can you
Speaker 1: agree that there has been no evidence of collusion, coordination,
Speaker 1: or conspiracy that has been presented thus far between the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign and Russia. No, I don't agree with that
Speaker 1: at all. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion
Speaker 1: or conspiracy in plain sight. All you have right now
Speaker 1: is a circumstantial case. Actually, no, Chuck, you have seen
Speaker 1: direct evidence of collusion. I don't want to go into specifics,
Speaker 1: but I will say that there is evidence that is
Speaker 1: not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigations. I
Speaker 1: would look at it more of a tactical move. So
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi definitely wants to impeach the president. They just
Speaker 1: want to find more evidence. So she's staking out a
Speaker 1: position that ultimately I think she will come around if
Speaker 1: they do, in fact find their mythical animal that they're
Speaker 1: looking for on collusion, obstruction, or in any of Trump's
Speaker 1: business deals. So I see it as a tactical move.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't read a lot into it other than it's
Speaker 1: just something that they normally do. She's actually just saying
Speaker 1: something publicly that privately she's probably not saying to her members.
Speaker 1: Nevin Nuness is absolutely correct here. This is all about
Speaker 1: tactics with Nancy Pelosi. And you know, I never bought
Speaker 1: it for one second when she said there was not
Speaker 1: going to be impeachment. That's just that's just nonsense. You know,
Speaker 1: that's nonsense. The only reason they would not impeach is
Speaker 1: if they think the political winds have shifted strongly against them.
Speaker 1: It's not because they have respect for this system or
Speaker 1: they want the American people to have their say in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. That is all horse manure, you know it is.
Speaker 1: But don't you love how Adam Schiff runs around acting like, oh,
Speaker 1: there's already been all this evidence can't tell you what
Speaker 1: it is, and we still need to investigate. But there's
Speaker 1: plenty of evidence for this. People in the swamp here
Speaker 1: in DC have so thoroughly debased themselves in this effort
Speaker 1: to get Trump. And one thing that I find remarkable
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of a lot of ways
Speaker 1: on a policy level, there are a lot of things
Speaker 1: that you could point to to criticize Trump, to undermine Trump,
Speaker 1: but they put most of their eggs in the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion basket. And now that it's clear that's I'm not
Speaker 1: going to be labor this analogy. Now the eggs are
Speaker 1: going to hatch. But now that it's clear that's not
Speaker 1: going to be what they wanted it to be, they're
Speaker 1: just ready to move on to the next thing and
Speaker 1: say that an impeachment is what needs to happen here.
Speaker 1: And and I just find the whole thing to be
Speaker 1: so so disheartening because people who point out, and this
Speaker 1: occasionally comes up when I say that the Muller probe
Speaker 1: has been the most insane abuse of government power and
Speaker 1: authority you know in my lifetime, that this is completely outrageous,
Speaker 1: and that nothing like this ever happened to Obama, and
Speaker 1: nothing like this ever would have happened to Obama, and
Speaker 1: they say, oh, well, what about Birtherism. It's just such
Speaker 1: a pathetic response. I worked for during the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: For most of the Obama administration, I worked for one
Speaker 1: of the most right wing major media organizations in the country,
Speaker 1: The Blaze, which is now the Blaze Media, which is
Speaker 1: as you know, emerged with CRTV. I worked at the
Speaker 1: Blaze for six years, not a single person that I
Speaker 1: worked with, not one person ran with the birther conspiracy,
Speaker 1: thought that Obama was part of some international conspiracy to
Speaker 1: you'd be a Manchurian candidate who was really from some
Speaker 1: other country to take over this country. All this stuff,
Speaker 1: not one, not one. And yet this is now talked
Speaker 1: about like well because because of Birthers, and people say, well,
Speaker 1: look what Trump did, and I say, yeah, Trump. Trump
Speaker 1: wanted some publicity, so he said, okay, let's see your
Speaker 1: birth certificate. Obama showed the birth certificate. But this was
Speaker 1: not taken seriously by conservative media at the time. This
Speaker 1: is not something that you know, I in all my
Speaker 1: time on the air and on TV, I said, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I think the birther thing is real. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the entirety of the left wing media thinks that the
Speaker 1: President United States and his campaign worked with Russia to
Speaker 1: cheat Hillary out of the election. They all believe that
Speaker 1: this whole time. And I don't think we should let
Speaker 1: them off easily when they're going to try to just
Speaker 1: sort of tiptoe away backwards, not away from all investigations,
Speaker 1: just into other investigations and away from Russia collusion into
Speaker 1: you know, porn star payoffs and Trump's business dealings and
Speaker 1: you know, am I and David Pecker and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff. That's where they're heading. Speaking of the left
Speaker 1: wing media, this is what Sam Donaldson said on CNN
Speaker 1: about Tucker Carlson Place six. Can you think of Matt
Speaker 1: Lauer or any of the other people Charlie Rose saying, well, wait,
Speaker 1: a moment that was justin just it was fun. I
Speaker 1: maybe this is something that wasn't that important, was it.
Speaker 1: Yes it was important. It happened long ago, but yes
Speaker 1: it's still important. Your character is important, and what's happening
Speaker 1: today is a revolution when it comes to the way
Speaker 1: men treat women. Well, you say, but this is not that. No,
Speaker 1: this is vulgarity. This is hate speech. This is homophobic speech.
Speaker 1: This is the kind of speech that, if left unchecked,
Speaker 1: will change this country forever. It's just as bad and
Speaker 1: it should be punished in the way that the men
Speaker 1: were punished for what they did. This is the hate speech.
Speaker 1: That is homophobic speech. This is the kind of speech,
Speaker 1: if left unchecked, will change this country forever. I mean,
Speaker 1: Sam Donaldson, there is no one that you can find
Speaker 1: in the public sphere who it thinks that their their
Speaker 1: pronouncements are more important and are backed up with less
Speaker 1: intellectual haft than the network news anchors of yester year
Speaker 1: of of you know, years past, Dan Rather Sam Donaldson.
Speaker 1: These people don't know a darned thing about anything, and
Speaker 1: yet we're supposed to listen to them because they were
Speaker 1: on TV for years and their hair was just right.
Speaker 1: You know, it's such nonsense. This is the kind of speech,
Speaker 1: if left unchecked, will change this country forever. He says,
Speaker 1: what kind of hysterical pearl clutching is that? And Tucker
Speaker 1: said that on open radio. It's not like they taped
Speaker 1: private conversations. He said it a decade ago. It didn't
Speaker 1: change anything for anyone. But the left is desperate to
Speaker 1: maintain this little tool that they can use against conservatives,
Speaker 1: where they can crush conservatives at will. They really want
Speaker 1: to keep this going, and they know that if they
Speaker 1: fail here it will call into question whether they will
Speaker 1: be able going forward to do this and to crush
Speaker 1: conservatives at will. We'll talk more about Tucker here coming
Speaker 1: up in just a moment. Christ And that is why
Speaker 1: we're here. You can say to advertisers, drop the Americans
Speaker 1: support actual real news, because what you are support is
Speaker 1: hurting people and it's dangerous. Can you raise your hand
Speaker 1: if you think Fox News gives one damn about women?
Speaker 1: Are juice fos Fox News, Fox News. I think some
Speaker 1: of them were dropped on their heads when they were babies.
Speaker 1: And that was the Media Matters mob outside of the
Speaker 1: Fox News building in New York City today trying to protest,
Speaker 1: trying to get more sponsors to drop. And let me
Speaker 1: just say that these people are morons. I don't mince
Speaker 1: words about this. The people who support them, including people
Speaker 1: in media who support Media Matters, they are just they
Speaker 1: are disgraceful, they are cowards, and they should be ashamed.
Speaker 1: Media Matters is a fraud from top to bottom. It
Speaker 1: started out to balance out the two the overly pro
Speaker 1: Christian viewpoint in media, which is just on its face insane.
Speaker 1: But Media Matters is a taxpayer, a taxpayer advantaged political
Speaker 1: action committee. I mean, it's just a it's just a
Speaker 1: hit group on conservatives, immedia. It's sorrows funded. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is all the worst of the worst, and the
Speaker 1: people that go to work for Media Matters should be
Speaker 1: ashamed of what they do. They don't bring, they bring
Speaker 1: nothing constructive to the table. They aren't helping anyone. They
Speaker 1: don't do anything worthwhile. The entire media apparatus is already
Speaker 1: on their side of these political issues. You know, Media
Speaker 1: Matters is an organization that thinks that it's helping free
Speaker 1: or pretends, I should say that it's helping free speech
Speaker 1: and helping debate in this country by trying to take
Speaker 1: the does it or so news networks that all agree
Speaker 1: with each other and crush the one news network that doesn't.
Speaker 1: And talk talk radio, by the way, with it, I
Speaker 1: mean talk radio, the two things that the left just
Speaker 1: hates that they have not been able to stamp out
Speaker 1: yet our talk radio and Fox News. They've they've seized
Speaker 1: control of social media. My friends, I knew they were
Speaker 1: going to do it, and they've done it. Social media
Speaker 1: is now the domain the province of the left. We
Speaker 1: can still operate there, we can still use it, but
Speaker 1: when push comes to shove, it is hostile territory. We
Speaker 1: have one cable news channel with full spectrum cover. I
Speaker 1: know there are a few others. People say, what about
Speaker 1: One America. I haven't really watched much One America. I
Speaker 1: have some friends who work for One America, but it's
Speaker 1: not in it's not on all the different cable providers,
Speaker 1: so it's already at a huge disadvantage to say MSNBC
Speaker 1: and CNN. So you know, this is just I'm so
Speaker 1: thankful that Tucker is just finally saying enough, and I
Speaker 1: really hope that he continues to have the support he's
Speaker 1: had on the corporate side because this. I don't want
Speaker 1: to live in this country anymore and and have to
Speaker 1: deal with the whims of the the sadistic, vindictive left
Speaker 1: and all their speech policing and all their nonsense. I
Speaker 1: just think we've all had enough. We don't want to
Speaker 1: be subject to what the latest social media social justice
Speaker 1: mob thinks is necessary. And they've gotten away with the
Speaker 1: strategy for far too long, and it's all a joke.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous. The left never gets in trouble. Joy read
Speaker 1: I was gonna say joy by Joy bay Ha. Hello,
Speaker 1: I'm on TV. I'm a mourn but I get paid
Speaker 1: a lot to be the woman who goes, oh Trump
Speaker 1: is awful, but don't Joy read over at MSNBC, she
Speaker 1: wrote stuff that was clearly anti gay, and it was
Speaker 1: a long time ago, but she wrote subs anti gay,
Speaker 1: and then she pretended she didn't write it and that
Speaker 1: she was hacked and she was gonna get the FBI
Speaker 1: to investigate. She still has her job. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm okay with her still her job. And I think
Speaker 1: she's a clown and she should be mocked for that,
Speaker 1: but you know, she still has her job. You just
Speaker 1: go down the list, this guy Karasny, who is like
Speaker 1: the number two at Media Matters, behind David Brock, who
Speaker 1: is just a a gross human being. He said a
Speaker 1: bunch of stuff years ago that's come out now that
Speaker 1: that would be completely unacceptable to left. We just we
Speaker 1: know what it is. They just don't. And this is
Speaker 1: how they like it. This is how they like the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice to act, This is how they like
Speaker 1: the media outrage mobs to act. You know, the left
Speaker 1: always gets away with it and we don't. It's always
Speaker 1: just used as a as a cudgel, as a battergram
Speaker 1: against conservatives, and I just think it's so. There are
Speaker 1: some conservatives that came after me, and I've had a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, I've had far lefties come after me.
Speaker 1: I've had people from all kinds of far left organizations.
Speaker 1: And the last few days because I've been very vocal
Speaker 1: about how it doesn't matter to me what Tucker said.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. I don't approve of what he said
Speaker 1: at all. I think I think some of what Tucker
Speaker 1: said wasn't not smart stuff to say. But he says
Speaker 1: a lot of things. He's been saying a lot of
Speaker 1: things for a long time. And you know, he's a
Speaker 1: good guy with beliefs that I agree with, who treats
Speaker 1: the people he works with very very well. He's an
Speaker 1: important voice in this country. He's a family man. He's
Speaker 1: a father of I think three, it's been you know,
Speaker 1: married to his wife for decades. And you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: he likes to be a little years ago. He likes
Speaker 1: to be a little edgy. So what ten years later
Speaker 1: you're gonna fire him. I mean, this is insane. And
Speaker 1: as you know, the most important part of this is
Speaker 1: that if they get Tucker, it's just whoever comes next.
Speaker 1: They'll wait, they'll get that person too. Nobody that you
Speaker 1: know in the media, nobody worth listening to in the media.
Speaker 1: Who does enough content, who writes enough things, who is
Speaker 1: unscripted enough, is without sin. When it comes to the
Speaker 1: left's view of what's acceptable discourse, nobody. You know, there
Speaker 1: are some limits to this right there. I know there's
Speaker 1: some people that have gone further than others, and some
Speaker 1: people have made what you could accurately call, you know,
Speaker 1: a mistake, or have said something that was wrong or
Speaker 1: that was hurtful or that was but no, nobody's perfect
Speaker 1: on this stuff. And really the check on what somebody's
Speaker 1: saying on the content side of things should be what
Speaker 1: is there what is their audience really think of it?
Speaker 1: You know, do do people still show up to listen?
Speaker 1: Do the American people still show up to listen? The
Speaker 1: American people, or at least some of the American people
Speaker 1: care to hear what this individual has to say. You know,
Speaker 1: it should be the marketplace of ideas. It should not
Speaker 1: be some people who get to say, you don't have
Speaker 1: a license for this marketplace. Get out. We're taking it
Speaker 1: away from you because we don't like what you said
Speaker 1: ten years ago. I'm hoping this is a watershed moment
Speaker 1: with Tucker standing in defiance of the outrage mobs demands
Speaker 1: for him to take the knee. All they do now
Speaker 1: and this has been the case for years, the left
Speaker 1: wing outrage mobs to demand that you take the knee, apologize,
Speaker 1: engage in a kind of ritual self humiliation, and then
Speaker 1: they take your head. You know, I'm in kind of
Speaker 1: a Game of Thrones mood this week. But the left's
Speaker 1: paradig on the left's approach to speech that offends now
Speaker 1: on the right, not on the left, is that they
Speaker 1: pull a Prince Geoffrey, just just confess your sins and
Speaker 1: confess your sins and we will show you mercy. And
Speaker 1: you go okay, and you confess your sins, and then
Speaker 1: and then, and then the left goes, well, thanks for
Speaker 1: your confession. Now we know you're guilty. Off with his head.
Speaker 1: That's what they do. So why debase yourself? I put
Speaker 1: yourself through that process? And also what does that tell
Speaker 1: us about the people on the left and whether they
Speaker 1: have any honor the major media outlets, the Jeff Zuckers
Speaker 1: and the Brian Stelters and the you know, the just
Speaker 1: go down the list of all these different I can't
Speaker 1: even keep up at least if left wing organizations. You know,
Speaker 1: these people that make this big deal of oh Tucker
Speaker 1: and what he said is in the Washington Post media
Speaker 1: reporters and don't even know their names. What do they
Speaker 1: say about them, that they are a part of this process,
Speaker 1: and they have no shame. They there's no dignity that
Speaker 1: they have to protect here, no sense of decency. We
Speaker 1: are at a war for the soul of this country.
Speaker 1: Every day. You and I are in a war for
Speaker 1: the soul of this country. Doesn't always feel that way.
Speaker 1: Probably sounds grandiose when you hear me say it, but
Speaker 1: you know it's true. There are dark forces that are
Speaker 1: at work here that want to strip away our fundamental
Speaker 1: freedoms and rights, that do not believe in the genius
Speaker 1: of the founding, do not believe in individual liberty. They
Speaker 1: want control, they want their way, and they've been brainwashing
Speaker 1: into thinking things are true that are not true. And
Speaker 1: if you won't agree that those things are true, they
Speaker 1: want to come after you too. You bend the knee,
Speaker 1: You do what you're told, or they will destroy you.
Speaker 1: I refuse. I refuse. This is going to be a
Speaker 1: problem at some point, my friends. There will come a
Speaker 1: day when I will have to say I refuse, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure there will be consequences, but you know what,
Speaker 1: I will have to suffer those consequences because I refuse
Speaker 1: to play their game. The Left is unhinged, immoral, unfair,
Speaker 1: and has no interest in reforming itself right now. So
Speaker 1: if they want to make this a war for the
Speaker 1: soul of the country, which they already have, I say
Speaker 1: we fight back and stop surrendering and hope that they're
Speaker 1: nicer to us. Stop pretending that only through our capitulation
Speaker 1: can we reach some degree of peace and harmony. No,
Speaker 1: we all we reach is our own conquest. I say no,
Speaker 1: and so does Tucker. God bless him for it. Just
Speaker 1: last night here in DC, I drove past the AARP building,
Speaker 1: and I know it's a big, fancied building and it's
Speaker 1: an organization that a lot of people have heard of.
Speaker 1: But you know, the AARP is pretty left wing, really
Speaker 1: into the Affordable Care Act and pushes for progressive causes.
Speaker 1: So if you're a senior listening to this, I really
Speaker 1: want you to check out my friends at AMAC WHATA
Speaker 1: I recommend AMAC well. It has over one point five
Speaker 1: million Americans who are already members, and AMAC gives you
Speaker 1: all the great benefits that you might get from another
Speaker 1: senior organization, like discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistants,
Speaker 1: dental plans, so you get all that stuff. But also
Speaker 1: Amack is pushing for policies and for a future in
Speaker 1: this country that you agree with. So stand with AMAC
Speaker 1: as they fight the good fight by becoming a member today.
Speaker 1: The benefits are great, but the cause of conservatism is
Speaker 1: even greater. Tell your family and tell your friends join
Speaker 1: right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck. Amack is better, better for you,
Speaker 1: better for America. I'm here at the cafeteria PS One
Speaker 1: thirty in Brooklyn with these amazing kids. So I was
Speaker 1: spending time with fourth graders, seventh graders, and they are
Speaker 1: passionate about want to make sure they are healthy and
Speaker 1: the earth is healthy. And they believe in meatless mondays.
Speaker 1: And I want you to know while we're gonna do
Speaker 1: it for the whole school system because we need our
Speaker 1: kids to be healthy and a more balanced diet, more vegetables,
Speaker 1: war fruits, more meatless options, good for everyone, good for
Speaker 1: the earth too. We know that we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: do a lot for quite blobal warming and that food
Speaker 1: is looking at how our food is produced me and
Speaker 1: choosing some other options, striking a better balance. That's what
Speaker 1: this is all about. And I gotta tell you when
Speaker 1: you're talking to a ten year old and they know
Speaker 1: this is good for their body and good for the earth,
Speaker 1: that fruits are going in the right direction, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of induced as And kids told me that the
Speaker 1: food taste better now that they have these meatless options.
Speaker 1: Were getting a lot of great tasting food that they're
Speaker 1: excited to eat. They don't want to throw away or
Speaker 1: pass by. The actually want to eat their lunch. And
Speaker 1: as a parent, that is music to my ears. Always
Speaker 1: want our kids to eat their veggie. Now they're actually
Speaker 1: doing enjoy it. So Mayor Bill Deblasio of New York
Speaker 1: is a meat head, not a very smart guy. Amazing
Speaker 1: that he is the mayor of the largest city in
Speaker 1: the United States, given how deeply unimpressive he is. Just
Speaker 1: a man who learned the political system, the political game
Speaker 1: in New York City, just wrote it as a Democrat
Speaker 1: all the way to the top. And some are saying
Speaker 1: he now has presidential aspirations. Folks, So don't think for
Speaker 1: those of you who wanted his jump to oh back,
Speaker 1: de Blasio's your problem. Deblasio is not our problem. He's
Speaker 1: your problem. No, I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case,
Speaker 1: but he also illustrates a trend that you see among
Speaker 1: Democrats these days, and it is one that from the
Speaker 1: mouths of babes the most complex policy solutions shell low, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I do not care. And for any ten year olds,
Speaker 1: Team buck. Ten year olds, you guys are awesome, thank
Speaker 1: you for listening, but I do not care what you
Speaker 1: think about global warming. Okay, I'm just letting you know.
Speaker 1: We're gonna need a little more time on the subject,
Speaker 1: a little more time in the classroom before we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a real debate about global warming. To ten year
Speaker 1: olds don't know anything about policy, and that's not a
Speaker 1: put down. They're not supposed to know anything about policy.
Speaker 1: Four year olds don't know any about policy either. Most
Speaker 1: twenty five year olds don't know anything about policy. But
Speaker 1: we at least have to give them the option of
Speaker 1: voting and being involved, because some of them do and
Speaker 1: they're adults. But this idea of a meatless Monday to
Speaker 1: combat global warming, this is central planning for your kids
Speaker 1: lunch tray. That's what they're doing. So when I say
Speaker 1: things on this show that sound like it's men to
Speaker 1: rile you up, sounds like oh, Buck, you must be
Speaker 1: saying this just because people will get, you know, all
Speaker 1: fired up about it. No, no, no, that's not true.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you this because it's what's happening. You know.
Speaker 1: When I tell you that they're propagandizing to your kids
Speaker 1: and that the green energy agenda is really just a
Speaker 1: trojan horse for an entirely socialist state, I really mean it.
Speaker 1: That is what they are doing, That is the plan here,
Speaker 1: and that they would want to influence the food your
Speaker 1: child is eating should also tell you a lot about
Speaker 1: how devoted they are to this system. Now, I know,
Speaker 1: the good news is that for a lot of Americans,
Speaker 1: we're not giving up meat. It's not happening. I know
Speaker 1: people that whenever I say this, there are some people
Speaker 1: listen to this show who are like world class bodybuilders
Speaker 1: who are also vegans. There are a few that I've
Speaker 1: gotten and they're like, book, look at these ads. I
Speaker 1: did all this with Tofu. You know, maybe you're just
Speaker 1: some kind of special spect a man, And I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you I can't live on Tofu man, all right.
Speaker 1: I need all the red meat I could get. So
Speaker 1: for those of you who are listening to this and
Speaker 1: are vegans in impeccable shape and could could teach me many, many,
Speaker 1: many things about how to do the kettlebell swings. Just God,
Speaker 1: bless man or end woman. I just it's not for me.
Speaker 1: I can't give up meat. It is one of those joys,
Speaker 1: those few joys that you know I can enjoy day
Speaker 1: to day. I don't think there's a I don't think
Speaker 1: I go without eating at least some form of meat
Speaker 1: is in some form of protein on any day. But
Speaker 1: that this would come back global warming. Think of how
Speaker 1: foolish this is. What do they what do they think
Speaker 1: is happening by doing this? This is just propagandizing to children.
Speaker 1: This is brainwashing them. This is why you have twelve
Speaker 1: year olds who show up in Diane Feinstein's office And
Speaker 1: but what about your wold on you? And in twelve years,
Speaker 1: why are you a bad member of dushan? It were
Speaker 1: very very scout And I feel bad for those little
Speaker 1: kids because they are actually scared. They're not they're not pretending.
Speaker 1: You know, they still believe in Santa, and they still
Speaker 1: believe in catastrophic climate change. And Santa is at least
Speaker 1: fun that Santa, at least there's an upside catastrophic climate change,
Speaker 1: there's no upside. But I don't I don't see how
Speaker 1: any person can think that changing the lunch menu in
Speaker 1: New York City public schools so that they have meatless
Speaker 1: Monday is going to do anything other than allow adults
Speaker 1: to have some virtue signaling and to convince kids that
Speaker 1: they have to make completely inane, foolish, worthless changes in
Speaker 1: their day to day lives so that they can save
Speaker 1: the planet. This this is cult like behavior. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure if you were to look into the carbon footprint,
Speaker 1: if you if you did more, if anyone were to
Speaker 1: do more research on the carbon footprints used by some
Speaker 1: of our farming methods. And I told you about I
Speaker 1: think it was palm oil and how palm oil was
Speaker 1: supposed to be this this new biofuel and it was
Speaker 1: going to be amazing and doll and turns out that
Speaker 1: palm palm oil production and what's necessary in terms of
Speaker 1: the destruction of forests to create palm oil has been
Speaker 1: way worse for the environment, way worse for the environment
Speaker 1: than anything anything else that could have happened there. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know that then the just continuation of the status
Speaker 1: quo versus cutting down all these trees. And this happens over,
Speaker 1: this happens over and over again. And I always tell
Speaker 1: you about this book and it's just it's a little
Speaker 1: dry and it's a little academic, but seeing like a
Speaker 1: state and it just walks you through. It's an academic
Speaker 1: treatment of the side, but it walks you through how
Speaker 1: state planning because state planning and central planning is what
Speaker 1: I mean by day planning. Because central planning does not
Speaker 1: allow for localized improvisation, as in changes in approach, in
Speaker 1: strategy based on conditions and immediate results. Because central planning
Speaker 1: cannot handle those things as well as decentralized planning can,
Speaker 1: it is always doomed too massive failures. They are going
Speaker 1: to be enormous failures from central planning because of this.
Speaker 1: One thing that I'm hoping to spend more time talking
Speaker 1: about on the show is and this is you know,
Speaker 1: people have been asking about this recently. I have been
Speaker 1: thinking I want to get back a little bit to
Speaker 1: the roots of the Freedom Hunt from when I first
Speaker 1: started on the Saturday show and would do some pretty
Speaker 1: deep political philosophy with all of you. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: one thing that I don't know where else people are
Speaker 1: getting at these days. It's certainly not commonplace in conservative
Speaker 1: conservative media to see and to hear about, I mean,
Speaker 1: political philosophy at the level of we're really going to
Speaker 1: talk about the underlying systems of belief and understanding for
Speaker 1: why it is that socialism is destined to fail and
Speaker 1: not just socialism sucks. Look at Venezuela. There's more than
Speaker 1: just socialism sucks. Look at Venezuela. As I've been saying
Speaker 1: to you. But one of them is to borrow from
Speaker 1: borrow from the great thinkers on these issues, like von
Speaker 1: Meses and Hyak and look at why why does so
Speaker 1: forget about socialism and practice and the history of socialism,
Speaker 1: because we do a lot of that. But to my
Speaker 1: point about central planning and why it fails and why
Speaker 1: governments are doomed to keep repeating these same failures around
Speaker 1: central planning, here's what I can tell you. The root
Speaker 1: fallacy of socialism is that it inverts the relationship in
Speaker 1: a state where the producers are the ones making the decisions.
Speaker 1: What you really want are the consumers making decisions about
Speaker 1: what is being produced, because that is the natural order
Speaker 1: of an economic relationship, right, you know, if the producer
Speaker 1: can make the determinations for the consumer, then there is
Speaker 1: no check in balance really on what is being produced.
Speaker 1: Then there's really no way to to have those localized improvisations. Right.
Speaker 1: So here's a here's a way to to speak about
Speaker 1: this that's a little more down in in or I
Speaker 1: guess out of the weeds. You know, if I show
Speaker 1: up at a marketplace and I have nothing but gluten
Speaker 1: free cupcakes, and one of the producers today at the
Speaker 1: hill made gluten free cupcakes because she knows that I
Speaker 1: can't eat gluten, and it was someone else's birthday, but
Speaker 1: she didn't. She I'm always left out whenever I know
Speaker 1: it's that wa wah, whenever they order or pizza for
Speaker 1: the office, or there's a cake for someone's birthday. So
Speaker 1: one producer, producer, Jess, is very nice of her. She
Speaker 1: made gluten free cup and they were amazing, by the way,
Speaker 1: But I haven't. But let's say I showed up to
Speaker 1: market and all I have are gluten free cupcakes, and
Speaker 1: the people showing up, We're like, no, we like gluten
Speaker 1: in our cupcakes. We think it takes better. Well, if
Speaker 1: the producers are in charge, If I'm the producer and
Speaker 1: I'm in charge. I get to say no, no, I
Speaker 1: don't care take these muffins. Well then what happens, right then,
Speaker 1: how do we get happier consumers? Well, what we know
Speaker 1: is consumers will go somewhere else to get things. But
Speaker 1: if I'm their only option, because if I'm the central planner,
Speaker 1: now people are just getting something that they don't want, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a very simplified version of it.
Speaker 1: But what you want is I show up with a
Speaker 1: product and people are freely choosing to buy my product
Speaker 1: at the end, and that that is the driving force
Speaker 1: behind the transactions. Socialism inherently true socialism where the means
Speaker 1: of production are controlled by this state, and usually by
Speaker 1: some kind of central committee, you know, some kind of
Speaker 1: dictatorship of the proletariat. They're different versions of really the
Speaker 1: same thing. It's never really the proletariatives, you know. But
Speaker 1: it inverts that relationship. It perverts that relationship, and therefore
Speaker 1: you will always have dislocations and dysfunctions in the marketplace.
Speaker 1: That's a little a little basic Von meanses. We'll get
Speaker 1: into more von mess another time, team, but I do
Speaker 1: think that we should get into more probably be the
Speaker 1: third hour of the show. This time on the show
Speaker 1: because I know we've got to cover the news of
Speaker 1: the day, and I need to make good on the
Speaker 1: promise that we have for all of our radio stations
Speaker 1: across the country that people who tune in will get
Speaker 1: the news of the day, which we always do. But
Speaker 1: I'd like to dig deeper into this because I think
Speaker 1: that the more the more we can learn about socialism
Speaker 1: together and the history of it, the ideology of it,
Speaker 1: the structure of it, the more we realize what an
Speaker 1: unfathomably bad idea it is for this country. Global Apician
Speaker 1: Network the only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. I'm a big believer in making sure that
Speaker 1: you do all of the due diligence necessary on any
Speaker 1: deals you've got going on for business, on any employees,
Speaker 1: any hires you're bringing into your office or to your
Speaker 1: place of work, and you need the right people working
Speaker 1: with you on that. That's Global Verification Network. If you
Speaker 1: are currently working in HR somewhere, or if you're a
Speaker 1: small business owner all the way up to the CEO,
Speaker 1: you want to call Global Verification Network and tell them
Speaker 1: about your background investigation needs. They can work with you.
Speaker 1: They can tailor the program to your specific desires. It's
Speaker 1: the way to go. I'm telling you. They're headquartered in Chicago,
Speaker 1: but they have offices throughout the country, and the risk
Speaker 1: mitigation experts of Global Verification Network are the best in
Speaker 1: the business. Go to MYGVN dot com. That's MYGVN dot
Speaker 1: com or call eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned.
Speaker 1: We're going to be issuing an emergency order of prohibition
Speaker 1: to ground to all flights of the seven thirty seven
Speaker 1: Max eight and the seven thirty seven Max nine and
Speaker 1: planes associated with that line. Any plane currently in the
Speaker 1: air will go to its destination and thereafter be grounded
Speaker 1: until further noticed. So planes that are in the air
Speaker 1: will be grounded if they're the seven thirty seven Max
Speaker 1: will be grounded upon landing at the destination. Pilots have
Speaker 1: been notified, airlines have been all notified. Airlines are agreeing
Speaker 1: with this. The safety of the American people and all
Speaker 1: people is our paramount concern. Boeing has grounded it's a
Speaker 1: seven thirty seven Max planes after this terrible tragedy in
Speaker 1: Ethiopia where you had over one hundred and fifty or
Speaker 1: was one hundred and fifty seven people killed shortly after
Speaker 1: it took off from Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. And now
Speaker 1: people are really worried that these this one type of plane,
Speaker 1: the seven thirty seven Max, may have a a lethal
Speaker 1: flaw in the electronics, in the in the design of
Speaker 1: this very advanced aircraft in some way, which is why
Speaker 1: they're grounding these. You know, I know people gave that,
Speaker 1: they gave President Trump a very hard time for what
Speaker 1: he wrote on on Twitter about this. Uh here I'll
Speaker 1: give you, I'll give you exactly the tweet. He said, uh,
Speaker 1: this is a very a very Trump tweet, and he said,
Speaker 1: um that he thinks essentially that these planes are getting
Speaker 1: too advanced, too and too complicated. Actually, for some reason,
Speaker 1: I'm not able to I'm not able to find this
Speaker 1: one right now. But oh, here we go. Airplanes are
Speaker 1: becoming far too complex to why pilots are no longer
Speaker 1: needed but rather computer scientists from mit I see it
Speaker 1: all the time in many products, always seeking to go
Speaker 1: one unnecessary step further when often old and simpler is
Speaker 1: far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity
Speaker 1: creates danger. All this for great costs get very little gain.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but I don't want Albert
Speaker 1: Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying
Speaker 1: professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control
Speaker 1: of a plane. So people gave him a really hard
Speaker 1: time on this one. You know, they really gave the
Speaker 1: Trumpster some rough stuff over this. But I will say
Speaker 1: that I read years ago a piece I think it
Speaker 1: might have been in Business Insider, and it was looking
Speaker 1: at why this, Yeah, that's right, Air France. Here we go,
Speaker 1: Air France four four seven. And this was from the
Speaker 1: early hours of June two thousand and nine when Air
Speaker 1: France flight four four seven from Rio to Paris went
Speaker 1: missing and it just crashed and got killed two hundred
Speaker 1: twenty eight people on board, and there were there was
Speaker 1: crew error here, so so they the pilot did make
Speaker 1: a mistake, but that when they looked at them, they
Speaker 1: looked at the error and how it caused the error.
Speaker 1: It's because of the side stick. The control of the
Speaker 1: stick rather used in these airbus cockpits, and it's a
Speaker 1: very small lever and it doesn't feel like something that
Speaker 1: you know you you when you pull down on it
Speaker 1: to go up, it just feels like it's too small
Speaker 1: to be controlling the plane. It doesn't give you the
Speaker 1: real feel of this plane. And here I can This
Speaker 1: is from this business insider piece. Air France four four
Speaker 1: seven was four hours into its eleven hour overnight journey
Speaker 1: when it was overwhelmed by disaster. Two hours in Mark Dubois.
Speaker 1: The veteran captain was heading for a routine break. His deputy,
Speaker 1: David Robert, a seasoned flyer with sixty five hundred flying
Speaker 1: hours under his belt, was perfectly capable of coping with
Speaker 1: the tropical thunderstorm. As the airliner entered the worst of
Speaker 1: the weather, Bona told the cabin crew to prepare for turbulence.
Speaker 1: Eight minutes later, everyone on board would be dead. Himself
Speaker 1: seems to have been spooked, calling attention to a metallic
Speaker 1: smell and an eerie glow in the cockpit. A few
Speaker 1: minutes later, the outside air temperature plummeted, the peto tubes
Speaker 1: iced up, and an alarm sounded. This is a really
Speaker 1: harrowing story when they go into how this all happened
Speaker 1: and how this just this jumbo jetliner ended up crashing,
Speaker 1: killing everybody on board. And when they finally did the
Speaker 1: analysis of it, it came down to the tiny little
Speaker 1: joystick didn't didn't feel like it was really controlling the
Speaker 1: plane to the pilot. It's kind of hard to explain,
Speaker 1: but you know, when you have an actual you hold
Speaker 1: with both hands, you pull down, the plane goes up.
Speaker 1: A tiny little joystick that you just move with one finger,
Speaker 1: it just didn't There were some pilot skills that didn't
Speaker 1: kick in. They had one final exchange where the one
Speaker 1: pilot said climb, climb, climb, and the other said, but
Speaker 1: I've had to stick back the whole time, and then
Speaker 1: another pilot said, no, no, don't climb, No, no descend,
Speaker 1: give me the controls, give me the controls, and then
Speaker 1: damn it, we're going to crash. This can't be happening.
Speaker 1: What's going on? Ten degrees of pitch and then the
Speaker 1: recording gainst Air travel is very safe, my friends, but
Speaker 1: we still take risk every time we get up in
Speaker 1: the sky thirty five thousand feet or whatever, and even
Speaker 1: the most advanced systems can fail. And ultimately, you really
Speaker 1: want somebody in that cockpit who really knows what they're
Speaker 1: doing really understands not just the systems of the plane,
Speaker 1: but the base a flight. And there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot of questions asked about this bowing system going forward.
Speaker 1: That much is for sure. We have roll call coming
Speaker 1: up your team in just a minute. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: Do you miss being on the show or is it
Speaker 1: such a different time that it would be a different
Speaker 1: I don't miss it. You know, everything now is people
Speaker 1: don't like your politics. They everyone has to know your politics.
Speaker 1: When I kind of use Johnny's model, people couldn't figure out,
Speaker 1: well you and your Republican friends, well, mister, when you're
Speaker 1: Democratic buddies, I will and I would get hate mail
Speaker 1: from both sides equally. And I watched, well that's fabulous,
Speaker 1: That's exactly what I want. But when people see your
Speaker 1: one sided, it just makes it tough. And plus, you know,
Speaker 1: I did it when you know, Clinton was horny and
Speaker 1: Bush was dumb, and it was just a little easier,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, now it's all very serious. It's
Speaker 1: everything is just so so now. I just like to
Speaker 1: see a bit of civility come back to it. You know,
Speaker 1: hate to say it, but I miss Jay Leno, or
Speaker 1: at least Jay Leno's approach. What he described there is
Speaker 1: the way comedians should be. They should be devoted to
Speaker 1: their craft. They should be trying to make people laugh.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be a nasty virtue signaling opposition propaganda against
Speaker 1: Trump all the time, which is what it is. That's
Speaker 1: what comedians have become. That's what they do. And journalism
Speaker 1: is dead in this country. Comedy is dead in this
Speaker 1: country now. There are very few places where you can
Speaker 1: go and get real comedy that's just meant to make
Speaker 1: you laugh, that's not trying to preach, that's not trying
Speaker 1: to engage in some kind of moral preening on stage.
Speaker 1: Or it's also left wing all the time. And you know,
Speaker 1: this country is really has really been overtaken by a
Speaker 1: kind of mass psychosis where I mean, liberals just cannot
Speaker 1: handle things that disagree with them or where they where
Speaker 1: they don't like them. You know, liberals just can't handle
Speaker 1: ideas that bother them. They just can't do it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure they are up for it, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure it's something that they can they
Speaker 1: can process anymore, which is why they feel so justified
Speaker 1: in acting like every idea that makes them uncomfortable as
Speaker 1: a threat to the state is a threat to the
Speaker 1: integrity of this country and to our underlying values. They
Speaker 1: don't have a way of dealing with of processing thoughts
Speaker 1: that bother them and that upset them. And you know,
Speaker 1: I just I wish it that was not the case.
Speaker 1: And it also is unfortunate because nothing can be funny anymore.
Speaker 1: You can't make jokes. I can't tell you how many
Speaker 1: times on this show. I always feel very free because
Speaker 1: I know who's listening to the show. I know you
Speaker 1: who are listening to the show. But you know, we've
Speaker 1: had some Yeah, we've had some media matters, people that
Speaker 1: tune in. We've had some you know, some bad folks
Speaker 1: that try to do oppo research based on what I say.
Speaker 1: The good news is I'm smarter than all of them,
Speaker 1: and no more than all of them, and so they
Speaker 1: really have to misconstrue what I say or try to
Speaker 1: come up with some explanation, and they definitely don't want
Speaker 1: to ever debate me. I can't find a forum where
Speaker 1: I can really debate libs on the issues in a
Speaker 1: meaningful way. It just doesn't seem to exist anymore. They
Speaker 1: just won't do it, And those of you were saying, Buck,
Speaker 1: what about rising the show you do for the Hill?
Speaker 1: I just say, no, that's different because the mission of
Speaker 1: that show is both perspectives, but news that is down
Speaker 1: the middle. That is what I signed on for. It
Speaker 1: is not a it's not really a debate show. It's
Speaker 1: not Hannity and Combs, it's not crossfire. It's this is
Speaker 1: how the right sees it, this is how the left
Speaker 1: sees it, and it's presenting both points of view. How
Speaker 1: well does that work? I mean, I leave that up
Speaker 1: to you as the viewer, for those of you who
Speaker 1: watch it. But I don't get to do what I
Speaker 1: normally would do, which is dismantle arguments and when necessary,
Speaker 1: crush stupidity that has presented to me, because that's not
Speaker 1: the mission of that show. Right. It's like if I'm
Speaker 1: going in to teach a class somewhere, I'm not as
Speaker 1: the professor. I'm not there to ridicule the ideas of
Speaker 1: the kids. I'm there to teach them things and answer
Speaker 1: their questions. So if I start going after the kids
Speaker 1: for saying stupid things, I'm not doing my job anyway.
Speaker 1: I just comedy is another one of these areas where
Speaker 1: there's really just such a such a dearth of good material.
Speaker 1: And it's because any joke now you get in trouble from.
Speaker 1: Everything is racist, everything is sexist. One day, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you all about some of the behind the scenes corporate
Speaker 1: stuff that I've had to deal with in terms of
Speaker 1: not not some of it involving me, most of it
Speaker 1: not where someone will say, well, can you really say
Speaker 1: that not on radio? I'm very thankful that my radio
Speaker 1: bosses understand that what I do requires a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of freedom, and I stand by my words, and they
Speaker 1: stand by my right to stand by my words. But
Speaker 1: in some of the other you know, I worked at
Speaker 1: CNN for a little while. Some of this stuff that
Speaker 1: I was told beyond the scenes he can and can't say,
Speaker 1: and everything, it's just it's just all nonsense. Man. I
Speaker 1: just want to live in a country where we have
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, freedom of thought. I want real individual liberty,
Speaker 1: and I want everyone to grow up on the left
Speaker 1: and stop being such a bunch of huge babies, and
Speaker 1: let's all actually be able to laugh again. How about that?
Speaker 1: It wouldn't that be crazy? Jay Leno's right. They all
Speaker 1: want to know your politics and it's just nuts. Ain't
Speaker 1: no party like a Team Buck party, because a Team
Speaker 1: Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll Call. It is indeed
Speaker 1: time for Roll Call. Facebook dot com slashbox Sexton. You
Speaker 1: know how we roll, You know how we do. I've
Speaker 1: got some travel coming up, so that means I'll be
Speaker 1: doing the show from well, at least not in the
Speaker 1: next couple of weeks, but later on some interesting and
Speaker 1: slightly exotic locale. So we'll have Roll Call coming to
Speaker 1: you live from wherever the heck I happened to be.
Speaker 1: But all in due time, my friends, Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton, fill up rights, Hey Buck. I just
Speaker 1: looked up Dan Crenshaw's bio and it seems he was
Speaker 1: born in Aberdeen, Scotland, So unfortunately we won't be hearing
Speaker 1: Crenshaw twenty twenty four. Is that true? I did not
Speaker 1: I did not know this. He Oh my gosh, he
Speaker 1: was born in the UK. But was he born to
Speaker 1: a I got to look up his bio. I'm I'm shocked.
Speaker 1: Not Look, this isn't a big deal, but it certainly
Speaker 1: he seems to matter a bit he uh, where was
Speaker 1: his dad? That's interesting. Let me look into this a
Speaker 1: little bit. Let me look into his bio, his background
Speaker 1: in terms of you know, was his dad a a
Speaker 1: US citizen abroad for the government or something. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I gotta look into this, but I did not know
Speaker 1: he was born on four and soil. That is very interesting.
Speaker 1: So thank you for see the team is always bringing
Speaker 1: me all kinds of knowledge here. Patrick. Now keep in
Speaker 1: mind that there are people who say that Ted Cruise,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise was going to be a problem for president.
Speaker 1: There's it's kind of an unsettled question here, folks. When
Speaker 1: people say a natural born citizen Ted rus is born
Speaker 1: in Canada. Yep, mister, I'm from Texas and I love
Speaker 1: the constitution. That Ted Cruz, you know, the guy who's
Speaker 1: more Texas than any Texan I know, even though he's
Speaker 1: a Cuban Cuban parentage and born in Canada. Yes he is.
Speaker 1: Some people say not eligible to run for the presidency.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, I'm just putting that out there. Patrick writes,
Speaker 1: Buck I drive an uber in Middletown, Connecticut. I get
Speaker 1: the pleasure to transport social justice warriors from Wesleyan University
Speaker 1: on a daily basis. Needless to say, I get my
Speaker 1: own version of justice by making them listen to conservative
Speaker 1: radio here in the Trump Mobile. That's awesome, man. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That bit you did this morning with AOC full of
Speaker 1: ooms and likes nearly made me crash into a telephone pole.
Speaker 1: I laughed out loud, and they were not amused. Keep
Speaker 1: up the great work, shields I Patrick, Well, Patrick, I
Speaker 1: just want to say that it is my hope that
Speaker 1: perhaps via your Trump Mobile up in Middletown, Connecticut, we
Speaker 1: can win over some of these social justice warriors to
Speaker 1: reason and knowledge and wisdom. Just keep making them listen
Speaker 1: to the show. You should blast it a little bit
Speaker 1: more and maybe we'll get them to figure out what
Speaker 1: they haven't been able to figure out so far. Cindy, whoop, Cindy,
Speaker 1: it's loading for some reason on my screen, taking extra
Speaker 1: Oh here we go, hi Buck. My take on the
Speaker 1: college scandal is this, both students and parents knew what
Speaker 1: they were doing. How could they not? And the issue
Speaker 1: is not just fraud but also disenfranchising other students who
Speaker 1: were not legitimately allowed entrance because some cheater took their slot.
Speaker 1: So to speak. These cheating students should immediately be required
Speaker 1: to reapply to the school legitimately, and if they meet
Speaker 1: all the Entrance Centers and Requirements Act, SAT grades, essays, interviews, whatever,
Speaker 1: they may continue with their education at set University. If not, however,
Speaker 1: they should be allowed to finish out the current term
Speaker 1: and then exited from the university. Parents should not be
Speaker 1: able to buy their child's admittance to the university since
Speaker 1: they perpetuated fraud and should be prosecuted and fined. Those
Speaker 1: fines should go to scholarship funds for low income students.
Speaker 1: Really enjoy your show, Cindy, Well, thank you, Cindy. I
Speaker 1: agree with a lot of what you said. I just
Speaker 1: think it's important that we separate out the different schemes
Speaker 1: and artifices that were used here to gain illicit admission
Speaker 1: for different people that are covered in this indictment. And
Speaker 1: as I have been discussing here on the show, it
Speaker 1: is well known that if you write a big enough
Speaker 1: check and people say it's around the five to ten
Speaker 1: million dollar range for top tier schools, if you write
Speaker 1: a big enough check to the school, you can buy
Speaker 1: your way in. That has been well known for a
Speaker 1: long time. Everybody. Everybody knows this. So if you can
Speaker 1: buy your way into this school, then what is it
Speaker 1: really that we're talking about here in terms of defrauding
Speaker 1: the other students. Now, this is where the schools have
Speaker 1: the right to sell these things be you know, and
Speaker 1: that's what's important, is that this is essentially their property.
Speaker 1: That these slots are the property of the school, and
Speaker 1: they're a valuable thing. They're a thing of value that
Speaker 1: comes into play, to be sure. But when when you
Speaker 1: look at the way that the federal government does play
Speaker 1: in this sandbox, you know, look at what they do
Speaker 1: with Title MIND regulation and these campus sexual assault tribunals
Speaker 1: and all these different things. That's all federal regulation on
Speaker 1: the campus is based in the fact that the colleges
Speaker 1: rely on federal loan guarantees, federal student for federal student
Speaker 1: loans rather so that kids can even go to these schools.
Speaker 1: So there's federal money going into the program. So this
Speaker 1: becomes a very tangled legal web very quickly. So you know,
Speaker 1: I think that some aspects of this are good and
Speaker 1: some aspects are right, and you know, it depends on
Speaker 1: how we I mean in terms of the prosecution and
Speaker 1: what's going on here. So it's a lot of layers
Speaker 1: and it's really a music though it is the good news.
Speaker 1: The story is about what's going on with this admission
Speaker 1: scam stuff or pretty entertaining, so that we got that
Speaker 1: going for us, Michael Write, writes Buck, it's been hard
Speaker 1: to listen to the last couple of days when you
Speaker 1: talk about the legal immigration. It makes me so mad
Speaker 1: when I hear about the situation and how it seems
Speaker 1: almost impossible for us to change it. It's very demoralizing,
Speaker 1: and sometimes I have to fast forward the podcast because
Speaker 1: it seems like we are losing the fight. But today
Speaker 1: I was watching a recent YouTube video of Shapiro University
Speaker 1: of Michigan, and I saw the crowd and it gives
Speaker 1: me a little hope. Then I heard Rush mentioned he
Speaker 1: was doing an interview with him, and I know you
Speaker 1: filled in for Rush from time to time. Makes me
Speaker 1: feel good to know you and Shapiro, on the other
Speaker 1: young and talented conservatives are creating such great content backed
Speaker 1: by reason and founding principles, and so many people are
Speaker 1: gravitating towards It brings me hope that maybe we're slowly
Speaker 1: starting to win the hearts and minds of a new generation.
Speaker 1: I wish you would get out there more on YouTube
Speaker 1: or on other shows because you're so good at articulating
Speaker 1: arguments that are focused and easy to understand. Keep up
Speaker 1: the good work, Shields High, Michael, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: and I do appreciate that, and I have plans additional
Speaker 1: plans for the future that will be enacted soon. I
Speaker 1: hope as to more platforms and more ways to get
Speaker 1: out there and do more stuff. So thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: Kimberly writes, I'm all in on Crenshaw twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: That would be so awesome. Well, Kim, I was too
Speaker 1: until I found out that he wasn't born in America.
Speaker 1: Could could be a little bit of a problem, could
Speaker 1: be an issue natural born citizen folks. That's that's the
Speaker 1: that's the language, and you know people and subject the
Speaker 1: jurisdiction thereof right, So there's some stuff here, there's some
Speaker 1: stuff here. Matt writes, Buck, could you do a buckbrief
Speaker 1: on the mission and origin of the Young Turks? They
Speaker 1: seem to become ever more influential with the rise of AOC. Well,
Speaker 1: I have to look into the group. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: basically a bunch of far left commies who are using
Speaker 1: the Internet to substantial effect to build an audience of
Speaker 1: incredibly ignorant quasi socialist hashtag resistance folks, and I'll look
Speaker 1: into them more. But they really know, it's not that different.
Speaker 1: It's just another version of what you already see among
Speaker 1: the Nation and Salon dot com and other people on
Speaker 1: the far left, where it's a lot of a mixture
Speaker 1: of virtue signaling, identity, politics, socialism, and they're just doing
Speaker 1: it better with social media than some of these other
Speaker 1: groups are. And that's that's something that we'll continue to
Speaker 1: see and look at. I have a feeling that the
Speaker 1: young Turks and I will be crossing swords, so to speak,
Speaker 1: in the future. Scott rights, Good evening, Buck. Catching up
Speaker 1: on the podcast. You mentioned that you'll be going to China.
Speaker 1: On my first trip through China, I found myself unable
Speaker 1: to connect to my Gmail nor use Google Maps and
Speaker 1: Facebook all my most recent trip, I used Google Google
Speaker 1: Fi's phone service. The Chinese seller service Google contracted through
Speaker 1: does not limit or sense or what sites you visit.
Speaker 1: Another alternative is to use a VPN shields Hie. Scott, Well,
Speaker 1: thanks Scott, I got to look into all this stuff
Speaker 1: and find out how I can stay in communication and
Speaker 1: be able to do what I need to do when
Speaker 1: I'm going to China, although I haven't even gotten my
Speaker 1: travel arrangement squared away yet, so it might take me
Speaker 1: a little time. But there might be some Team Buck
Speaker 1: China stuff going on that is certainly the plan. Let's
Speaker 1: see here, Caroline rights, Hey Buck who I love your
Speaker 1: segment on and then there we go. I love your
Speaker 1: segment on the elite college scandal. You'll never guess from
Speaker 1: got into Harvard with mediocre SAT scores. David hag Yes,
Speaker 1: a kid from Parkland High School, capitalize on the shooting
Speaker 1: tragedy to thrust his anti gun fist in the air
Speaker 1: and propel his otherwise lackluster self into the elite IVY League.
Speaker 1: We'll see where it gets him Shields High. Carolyn, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll Carolyn. Harvard's allowed to admit whoever they want, and
Speaker 1: they all these schools take in people that I think
Speaker 1: you would find to be very unimpressive. And you know,
Speaker 1: we see look look at Al Gore, look at George W. Bush.
Speaker 1: I know he's a Republican, folks, but not exactly a
Speaker 1: brain scientist. Let's just be honest. You know, these people
Speaker 1: go to the most elite institutions, and Barack Obama graduated
Speaker 1: from Harvard Law School, was editor in chief of Harvard
Speaker 1: Law Review. Not a legal scholar in any way, shape
Speaker 1: or form, not somebody who's particularly articulate or well versed
Speaker 1: in the law, and yet he managed to be the
Speaker 1: editor in chief of Harvard Law Review. So when someone
Speaker 1: explained that to me, well, well, we can figure out
Speaker 1: the explanations. So you know, this is a really interesting
Speaker 1: eye opening moment for the country about what's really going
Speaker 1: on in these programs and in these schools. And I
Speaker 1: do think it's worthy of debate and discussion. So I
Speaker 1: think we should continue to put some focus on that.
Speaker 1: And speaking of focus, let's focus on the show tomorrow,
Speaker 1: because that's the next one we've got. Please share the podcast, folks,
Speaker 1: Tell a friend, Go on iTunes, download the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: subscribe to it. I will be talking to you all tomorrow,
Speaker 1: same time, same place, Shields. High Hiring is challenging, but
Speaker 1: there's one place you can go where hiring is simple,
Speaker 1: fast and smart, no matter what business you're in, no
Speaker 1: matter what field, no matter what part of the country.
Speaker 1: There's a place where you can grow your business connections
Speaker 1: to the right qualified candidates for the openings you have.
Speaker 1: That place is zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Zip
Speaker 1: recruiter sends your site to over one hundred of the
Speaker 1: web's leading job boards. But they don't stop there. With
Speaker 1: their powerful matching technologies, zip recruiter scans thousands of resumes
Speaker 1: to find people at the right experience and invites them
Speaker 1: to apply to your job. We are using zipp recruiter
Speaker 1: right now at my office in DC to find some
Speaker 1: great hires and we know we're going to get them
Speaker 1: because of zipp Recruiter. Right now, my listeners can try
Speaker 1: zipp recruiter for free at this exclusive web address, zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zip recruiter dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck one more time zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: Because zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire.