Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Trump arrangement syndrome is
Speaker 1: all too real. The Democrats have lost their minds, not
Speaker 1: just about the current president and Russia collusion and the
Speaker 1: fight between Congress and the executive branch, but also on
Speaker 1: climate change and a whole host of other issues. We're
Speaker 1: going to try to help them with a little therapy
Speaker 1: through truth today on The buck Sexton Show. That and
Speaker 1: much more coming up. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Mag No mistake, American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome
Speaker 1: to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, great to have you here.
Speaker 1: I wanted to start with something maybe a little a
Speaker 1: little different today. I want to start with a premise
Speaker 1: we often discuss here on the show, the ways in
Speaker 1: which I think the liberals, the progressives, the left in
Speaker 1: this country are detached from reality, that they have lost
Speaker 1: it in some way, that there is a mass hysteria
Speaker 1: well extraordinary popular delusions. In the Madness of Crowds by
Speaker 1: Charles Mackie, which was published back in eighteen forty one,
Speaker 1: has a quote that I wanted to start off the
Speaker 1: show with today because I think as you hear it,
Speaker 1: you'll think, huh, so, it is possible for a large
Speaker 1: portion of a country's population to effectively lose it on
Speaker 1: an issue. Here's what he wrote. This is the nineteenth
Speaker 1: century Scotsman. In the reading of the history of nations,
Speaker 1: we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and
Speaker 1: their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness when they
Speaker 1: care not what they do. We find that whole communities
Speaker 1: suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad
Speaker 1: in its pursuit. That millions of people become simultaneously impressed
Speaker 1: with one delusion and run after it till their attention
Speaker 1: is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.
Speaker 1: Sober nations have all at once become desperate gamblers, and
Speaker 1: risked almost their existence upon the turn of a piece
Speaker 1: of paper men. It has been well said, think in herds.
Speaker 1: It will be seen that they go mad in herds
Speaker 1: while they only recover their senses slowly and one by one. Yep,
Speaker 1: doesn't that sound like the modern Democratic Party to you?
Speaker 1: They've gone mad in a herd, and we can only
Speaker 1: bring them back one by one. But they are in
Speaker 1: the grips of a total delusion, a delusion that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump worked with the Russians, even though the evidence now
Speaker 1: shows them. They have been presented with over four hundred
Speaker 1: pages of evidence and two plus years of feverish speculation
Speaker 1: and unbounded analytic craziness from all the major newspapers and networks,
Speaker 1: and with a few left out of that about how
Speaker 1: this was just going to be a day of destruction
Speaker 1: for Trump when the truth was fondly found. Now the
Speaker 1: truth is out, and guess what, they refuse to accept
Speaker 1: it as the truth. But I do start to think
Speaker 1: that liberalism has morphed because of all the different echo
Speaker 1: chambers that it can rely on, because of the minence
Speaker 1: that it has in much of American culture, and certainly
Speaker 1: the American media landscape is ninety percent liberal. Colleges are liberal. Increasingly,
Speaker 1: the federal government is full of liberals. And with all
Speaker 1: of this happening, it seems clear to me that there
Speaker 1: is a real condition here, a kind of psychological medical
Speaker 1: condition known as liberalism that for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: it goes from being an organizing an organizing philosophy for
Speaker 1: different ideas and policy theories to something a bit more clinical.
Speaker 1: And if you think that that's an exaggeration, I just
Speaker 1: bring you that there is now for climate change, which
Speaker 1: is another area of abject hysteria for liberals. I mean
Speaker 1: they think that it's okay they advocate for terrifying ten
Speaker 1: year olds into thinking the world will end in ten years,
Speaker 1: and they don't see a problem with this. And in fact,
Speaker 1: once they have successfully brainwashed those ten year olds, they
Speaker 1: will deploy them. They will deploy them to harangue you
Speaker 1: and me, to browbeat us into submission. And if you
Speaker 1: have any problem with this, if you say I don't
Speaker 1: think the world's really going to end in ten years,
Speaker 1: this is crazy. They say, Oh, you're one of those Trumpsters,
Speaker 1: aren't you just always running around with your maga hat
Speaker 1: on supporting Trump. No, I'm just not somebody that has
Speaker 1: lost it. And that's the way you have to speak
Speaker 1: about this. Now, let me share with you a piece
Speaker 1: published today in CNN of all places, and it's about
Speaker 1: climate change anxiety. How this is now becoming a crippling
Speaker 1: fear for otherwise functioning adults. They have been so propagandized,
Speaker 1: they have been so brainwashed by the left wing Democrat
Speaker 1: media industrial complex that they are terrified. They are literally
Speaker 1: losing sleep and crying because the world is going to
Speaker 1: end because of climate change. Kind of like the elderly
Speaker 1: people that couldn't sleep at night because they're worried they
Speaker 1: would have their last day on Earth before the Mueller
Speaker 1: report came out. These are not normal thoughts. This is
Speaker 1: these are not the mental processes of people that are
Speaker 1: well adjusted. Something has gone wrong here. The synapses are misfiring.
Speaker 1: Here's this piece about climate change anxiety. You could also
Speaker 1: call it hysteria from CNN quote a student in Wendy
Speaker 1: Peterson Boring's climate change class said she woke up at
Speaker 1: two am and then cried for two solid hours about
Speaker 1: the warming ocean. This is a computer science major, Boring said. Boring,
Speaker 1: an associate professor of History, Religious Studies, Women in Gender
Speaker 1: Studies of Course at Willamette University in Oregon, has been
Speaker 1: teaching about climate change for a little over a decade.
Speaker 1: In that short time, she has watched her students fear, grief, stress,
Speaker 1: and anxiety grow. Back in two thousand and seven, it
Speaker 1: was the mouse in the room, then it became the
Speaker 1: elephant in the room. By twenty sixteen, those concerns and
Speaker 1: fears began to flood over. I'm just telling you what's
Speaker 1: being reported by liberals about their state of mind. They've
Speaker 1: got a problem. They've got a problem when it comes
Speaker 1: to Trump. They've got a problem when it comes to
Speaker 1: climate change. They are in the grips of what Mackie
Speaker 1: described in the nineteenth century as a mass delusion. And
Speaker 1: people don't like to admit this. They don't want to
Speaker 1: unravel this in their own brains, because no one wants
Speaker 1: to think that they could fall for some silly conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory and have it overtake their their thoughts and their
Speaker 1: sense of well being and change their relationships with people.
Speaker 1: I see this happening all the time. I hear people
Speaker 1: say that, you know, oh, I came across another person
Speaker 1: who says, you know, he or she won't date a
Speaker 1: Trump supporter. What kind of nonsense is that? What kind
Speaker 1: of narrow minded political bigotry has the left embraced while
Speaker 1: it's now pervasive. It's so pervasive that the American Psychological Association, Sure,
Speaker 1: that's an interesting bunch to go on a junket with
Speaker 1: the Vegas. They created a sixty nine page climate change
Speaker 1: guide to help mental health providers. That's right. Now psychologists
Speaker 1: are having to create documents to deal with the apparently
Speaker 1: very real psychological condition of climate change hysteria. When are
Speaker 1: liberals going to tone it down and back off a
Speaker 1: little bit? How much is too much? I think it's
Speaker 1: only going to get worse. I wish I could tell
Speaker 1: you that I had a belief that they would finally
Speaker 1: recognize how counterproductive this is, how insane all of this is.
Speaker 1: But no, that is that is not the case. You
Speaker 1: have this, uh, this species die off news cycle from
Speaker 1: earlier in the week about how you know, all a
Speaker 1: million species are at risk of dying a million species
Speaker 1: because because of us, because of human beings. And now
Speaker 1: we're supposed to dramatically change This isn't just stuff that
Speaker 1: is theoretical. We're going to change our lifestyle, change our economies,
Speaker 1: change our political systems to deal with the threat of
Speaker 1: species die off because of climate change. You know, it's
Speaker 1: either Trump is going to ruin the world cause a
Speaker 1: nuclear war destroy America, or climate change is going to
Speaker 1: end the world. Can we just figure out like a
Speaker 1: better way to do drug pricing and you know, maybe
Speaker 1: make some more efficient choices in the school system. I mean,
Speaker 1: can we have normal political conversation at some point or
Speaker 1: is it always, oh my gosh, we're all gonna die
Speaker 1: because Republicans or usually it's because Trump. I'm not the
Speaker 1: one putting out as a as a medical association guidance
Speaker 1: for how to deal with people that aren't getting their
Speaker 1: way politically. This is the Libs are doing this now.
Speaker 1: I'm just here to provide you with some refuge of sanity,
Speaker 1: and I hope you at least can look forward to that.
Speaker 1: You can come here. This is where this is where
Speaker 1: we approach things as they are. This is where where
Speaker 1: we approach reality and understand it as such. You had
Speaker 1: back in nineteen eighty and this was fascinating. This is
Speaker 1: from a guy who's an environmentalist skeptic out of Denmark
Speaker 1: pull this together and he had all this great stuff
Speaker 1: today online. And this is from the Carter administration, Jimmy
Speaker 1: Carter's administration, where we were told that here let me
Speaker 1: read you. This is from the government report, the US
Speaker 1: government projections called the Global two thousand Study. This is
Speaker 1: from nineteen eighty and I'm just going to read you
Speaker 1: some of what this is. The United States government under
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter, the President United States. This was put forward
Speaker 1: the media launched onto this in nineteen eighty, almost the
Speaker 1: year that I was born. Here's what it says. If
Speaker 1: present trends continue, the world in two thousand will be
Speaker 1: more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable
Speaker 1: to disruption than the world we live in now. Serious
Speaker 1: stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible. Despite
Speaker 1: greater material output, the world's people will be poorer than
Speaker 1: they are today. False, dramatically, demonstrably, clearly false. Let me
Speaker 1: go back to this global two thousand report from the
Speaker 1: US government. All the smart scientists working for Jimmy Carter,
Speaker 1: this is what they thought. Quote For hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of the desperately poor, the outlook for food and other
Speaker 1: necessities of life will be no better. For many, it
Speaker 1: will be worse. Life for most people on Earth will
Speaker 1: be more precarious in the year two thousand than it
Speaker 1: is now. In less the nations of the world act
Speaker 1: decisively to alter current trends, extinctions of plant and animal
Speaker 1: species will increase dramatically, hundreds of thousands of species, perhaps
Speaker 1: as many as twenty percent of all species on Earth
Speaker 1: will be irretrievably lost as their habitats vanished, especially in
Speaker 1: tropical forests. All of this was wrong. All of this
Speaker 1: was wrong. This is the smartest minds in the United
Speaker 1: States government of the Carter administration forty years ago. Does
Speaker 1: anybody care that they were all wrong? Time Magazine in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty there will be environmental nightmares as man invades
Speaker 1: their wild habitats and pollutants rained down on them. Five
Speaker 1: hundred thousand to two million species of plants and animals
Speaker 1: may die off in the next two decades. That was
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty. We're now four decades after that, So they're
Speaker 1: saying two million species die off? Does anyone anyone? Just
Speaker 1: I know I can't hear you right now, but do
Speaker 1: you want to guess how many species have actually disappeared
Speaker 1: in the last forty years? And that includes plants, insects, everything.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred and seventy two eight hundreds? Is that two million?
Speaker 1: Keep in mind we're discovering new species all the time, too,
Speaker 1: That is that two million, eight hundred and seventies. If
Speaker 1: you told me Buck, I'm gonna give you two million
Speaker 1: dollars and then you actually gave me eight hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy two dollars. I would be very disappointed, very very disappointed.
Speaker 1: Keep that in mind, all right, I've got more for
Speaker 1: you on this, on the liberal delusion and the madness
Speaker 1: of the left when we come back. I don't think
Speaker 1: last week's hearing was actually about having staff questioned the
Speaker 1: Attorney General. I think it's as my colleague said earlier,
Speaker 1: I think it's all about trying to destroy Bill Barr
Speaker 1: because Democrats are nervous. He's going to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of everything. He's gonna find out how and why
Speaker 1: this investigation started in the first place. The Attorney General
Speaker 1: said three and a half weeks ago in front the
Speaker 1: Senate Finance Committee, spying did occur, said it twice, Yes,
Speaker 1: spying did occur. Third, he said, there's a basis for
Speaker 1: my concern about the spying that took place. And maybe
Speaker 1: the most interesting thing two terms he used, frankly, I
Speaker 1: find frightening. He said there was in his judgment he
Speaker 1: thinks there may have been unauthorized surveillance and political surveillance. Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: there was, And that is why the Democrats are a
Speaker 1: bit desperate right now. And that's also why they're going
Speaker 1: after Attorney General bar. I got some breaking news for
Speaker 1: you here. Oh, not of the kind that I particularly
Speaker 1: want to share with you, but it is. The news
Speaker 1: is what it is. The House Judiciary Committee has voted
Speaker 1: twenty four to sixteen to hold Attorney General Bill Barr
Speaker 1: in contempt in the fight over the unredacted Muller Report.
Speaker 1: This is toothless noise and nonsense from the Democrat cry babies,
Speaker 1: overcome with their Trump's Arrangement syndrome, their climate change hysteria,
Speaker 1: their need for safe spaces, and for the destruction of
Speaker 1: their political enemies through any means possible. Now, they're both
Speaker 1: very fragile and very aggressive at the same time. That's
Speaker 1: what you see on the left. But Bill Barr they're
Speaker 1: going after. Here's how this goes. The good news is
Speaker 1: that the only people who could prosecute the Attorney General
Speaker 1: for the contempt of Congress would be the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: So I don't think there's actually going to be anything
Speaker 1: that comes with this other than Democrats looking like the
Speaker 1: bunch of whiney cry babies that they are. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: they want the Attorney General to release information that is
Speaker 1: under congressionally pass statute not authorized to be released to
Speaker 1: the Congress. There is such a thing. There are limitations.
Speaker 1: Congress doesn't just get to say I want this thing.
Speaker 1: Therefore I get this thing. That's not how it works.
Speaker 1: But they want him to effectively violate that law. Who
Speaker 1: wants to guess if Congress would be willing to go
Speaker 1: after him if he did break that law by the way,
Speaker 1: I think that they would say, give us, give us
Speaker 1: the six e grand jury material or else. And then
Speaker 1: he said, all right, final, I'll authorize giving you that
Speaker 1: material and say, oh, look at it. Look at Attorney
Speaker 1: General bar willing to undermine the law itself by giving
Speaker 1: us the six e grand jury material. These people are
Speaker 1: utterly unserious. They really are, these democrats. They don't care
Speaker 1: about how foolish this all this to anyone understands anything.
Speaker 1: They don't care that this is just going to go
Speaker 1: into a protracted court battle, and that their response to
Speaker 1: so much of what the administration has done here that
Speaker 1: has been transparent, that has been in good faith, that
Speaker 1: has been all right, we'll go along with this machinery
Speaker 1: of intended parts in destruction, that is the Mueller pro
Speaker 1: will release the report. Bar didn't have to release the
Speaker 1: report at all. The only thing the Special Council Regulation
Speaker 1: says is that a report will be delivered to the
Speaker 1: Attorney General. Attorney General bar would have been completely within
Speaker 1: his rights to hold the entire report. I would have
Speaker 1: recommended that, but he could have done it. Instead, he
Speaker 1: released all but two percent of the report. And even
Speaker 1: CNN is befuddled by how stupid the Democrats look here
Speaker 1: Play fifteen. I find it odd that the Democrats decided
Speaker 1: to use this as the thing to hold the Attorney
Speaker 1: General and in in contempt over. I mean, they have a
Speaker 1: lot of things to be mad at him over they
Speaker 1: accused him of misleading testimony. Obviously, he didn't show up
Speaker 1: for a hearing in the past week. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot of things that they can be mad about, and
Speaker 1: this one. This is a report that is ninety two
Speaker 1: percent public. Only eight percent of it was unredacted the
Speaker 1: Attorney General last week, and this testimony said only two
Speaker 1: percent of volume two, which is the thing that the
Speaker 1: Democrats say they care most about, the obstruction part is redacted.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's kind of hard to understand how
Speaker 1: they went nuclear so quickly on this. It seems rather
Speaker 1: like they have started a constitutional crisis, not the other
Speaker 1: way around. Yep, the Democrats started this constitutional crisis. Don't
Speaker 1: forget that too. For a few weeks now, I've been
Speaker 1: reminding you that Mother's Day is fast approaching. Now it's
Speaker 1: just days away. So one hundred Flowers is here to
Speaker 1: pick out a gorgeous bouquet for you that will show
Speaker 1: her she's loved. One eight hundred Flowers still has amazing
Speaker 1: offers on beautiful Mother's Day bouquets and arrangements starting at
Speaker 1: twenty nine ninety nine. Now that's an offer that Mom
Speaker 1: would approve of. There's still time to have your bouquet
Speaker 1: delivered on Mother's Day, but you've got to get moving.
Speaker 1: With an amazing selection of sweet streets in bouquets. One
Speaker 1: in hundred Flowers has everything you need for Mother's Day,
Speaker 1: and she'll never guess how great of a last minute
Speaker 1: deal you scored. Mother's Day bouquets and arrangements starting at
Speaker 1: twenty nine ninety nine is an amazing offer, but you
Speaker 1: have to order today. Trust one in hundred Flowers to
Speaker 1: make Mom feel loved. Order today from one hundred flowers
Speaker 1: dot com to order beautiful and vibrant Mother's Day bouquets
Speaker 1: starting at twenty nine ninety nine. Go to one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com slash buck. That's one in hundred
Speaker 1: flowers dot com slash buck. Mother's Day is Sunday, so
Speaker 1: order today and save at one eight hundred flowers dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. President Trump has a new favorite word,
Speaker 1: and every time he uses it, he is lying, and
Speaker 1: that is the word spy. His baseless claims of spies.
Speaker 1: This is the president in the United States telling people
Speaker 1: don't believe what this federal government is doing, and that
Speaker 1: has very, very dangerous consequences. The notion that somehow the
Speaker 1: FBI implanted, planted someone inside the campaign to spy on
Speaker 1: the campaign is just not true. There's absolutely no evidence
Speaker 1: there was a spy. He wants you to believe that
Speaker 1: his campaign was spied on, and it's one of the
Speaker 1: worst things that we've ever seen from government. The media
Speaker 1: is a total disgrace. Okay, So to start with that
Speaker 1: total disgrace, and you know, there you have just some
Speaker 1: of the usual anti Trump voices with the hysteria, the
Speaker 1: nonsense about how there wasn't spying. Here's a headline from
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, and this is something I know quite a
Speaker 1: bit about because I was a part of the unit
Speaker 1: of the NYPD that was accused of this. The headline
Speaker 1: is quote after spying on Muslims, new York Police agree
Speaker 1: to greater oversight. Now, hold on a second. Here, I
Speaker 1: was in this unit of the NYPD. I was working
Speaker 1: day after day in day out on these very cases
Speaker 1: with these individuals, working with the undercovers, working with the
Speaker 1: people that were confidential informants, and all of the stuff
Speaker 1: that was being done, all of it was memorialized in writing.
Speaker 1: There was a criminal predicate, there was a reasonable suspicion standard,
Speaker 1: there was I mean, we were going through we had
Speaker 1: lawyers reviewing everything. It was all done within what we're
Speaker 1: thought to be the boundaries of legitimate law enforce And
Speaker 1: but because of political sensitivities, people are saying, well, you're
Speaker 1: you're looking for terrorism. What's all this stuff, what's all
Speaker 1: the surveillance of mosques that's going on. Most terrorist plots
Speaker 1: against the city of New York have a nexus in
Speaker 1: a mosque. Because most of the major terrorist plots against
Speaker 1: the city of New York, at least for the last
Speaker 1: twenty years or so, have involved radical Islam. You know,
Speaker 1: we can get sad about this or we can be
Speaker 1: upset about that reality. But that's just the truth. I
Speaker 1: had friends who worked in the White Nationalist unit. There
Speaker 1: was a white nationalist unit of the NYPD. They were very,
Speaker 1: very bored, nothing to do. There was an anarchist terrorist
Speaker 1: unit there there. You know, there are different cyber terrorism
Speaker 1: units that we had, all kinds of stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: who was really busy the hey, we have to stop
Speaker 1: guys who want to yell Allahu akbar blowing up Times Square.
Speaker 1: That unit, that was my unit. We were busy with
Speaker 1: things to do. But let me just get back to
Speaker 1: this headline here in the New York Times. After spying
Speaker 1: on Muslims, New York Police agreed a greater oversight. There
Speaker 1: was no spying. It was it was surveillance, you see,
Speaker 1: it was surveillance. It was legally predicated investigative work. I
Speaker 1: could play these games all day. The word spying appears
Speaker 1: in this New York Times right up, over and over again.
Speaker 1: And do you know what they're really talking about in
Speaker 1: some of these cases. They are talking about reporting on
Speaker 1: stuff that is out in the open. We're not talking
Speaker 1: about FISA here, folks. We're not talking about using the
Speaker 1: most technologically advanced and invasive capabilities the federal government has.
Speaker 1: We're talking about Hey, did you hear what that he
Speaker 1: mom said about how like we need to strike against
Speaker 1: the infidels and you know, maybe somebody should take up jihad.
Speaker 1: Yeah he said it in front of the congregation. But
Speaker 1: you know that's spying. It's in a public place, but
Speaker 1: that's spying, okay. And I just want to know where
Speaker 1: the boundaries are. I want to know what the real
Speaker 1: rules are supposed to be. I want to know what
Speaker 1: they contend. Here is now the new guide post for
Speaker 1: we'll qualify as the spying. I mean the Democrats that
Speaker 1: they're just so it's hard to have a conversation with
Speaker 1: them because they're so delusional on all this stuff. And
Speaker 1: that's really the theme of the of the show today
Speaker 1: is just the Democrats have They've lost their minds on
Speaker 1: a lot of issues, on the climate change stuff, on
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. No longer able to have a normal conversation
Speaker 1: with them. And here, if we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: how how crazy it can get, you might as well
Speaker 1: take a moment to hear from I just want to
Speaker 1: make sure I have the right guy. Oh, yes, that's right,
Speaker 1: Steve Steve Cohen play sixteen. We've got a man who
Speaker 1: has been suggested might be financially dependent on the Russians.
Speaker 1: Why would he be financially dependent on the Russians? Will
Speaker 1: we now know? He lost over a billion dollars in
Speaker 1: a decade in the eighties and nineties. He was broke.
Speaker 1: No bank would loan him a penny. He was broke,
Speaker 1: and if it weren't for him being president, he'd be
Speaker 1: in prison with Michael Cohen today as individual one. And
Speaker 1: he obstructed justice, as the Muel Report says it. So
Speaker 1: we are in danger. We are in danger of hearing
Speaker 1: the dumb stuff ever uttered by any human being. That's
Speaker 1: what we're in danger of. What the heck is Steve
Speaker 1: Cohen talking about? I mean that is really that is
Speaker 1: a if you were creating a symptom chart. Ever you're
Speaker 1: in the doctor's office, they have all like that, you know,
Speaker 1: if you have a coff or if you have and
Speaker 1: they walk you through some of they have these charts
Speaker 1: on the walls. If you had a symptom chart of
Speaker 1: Trump's arrangement syndrome, you could put Steve Cohen's little monologue
Speaker 1: there right on it financially dependent on Russia, and we
Speaker 1: are in danger. He lost a billion dollars and was broke.
Speaker 1: Where is the evidence of a financial dependence on Russia?
Speaker 1: Where or is he getting this from? This is a
Speaker 1: member of Congress, my friends. This is not just some
Speaker 1: crazy guy who's ranting on the internet somewhere in some
Speaker 1: comments section, he's saying that Trump maybe still depended on Russia.
Speaker 1: There's so much of Trump's background, finances, everything, the Muller Report.
Speaker 1: Don't you think that Mueller would have been able to
Speaker 1: figure out if all of Trump's money came from Russia.
Speaker 1: Don't you think that we would know at some level
Speaker 1: if that were the case. At this point, any same
Speaker 1: person would say yes. But we're not talking about same
Speaker 1: people anymore. We're talking about something else here. With these
Speaker 1: anti Trump lives. We are in danger of a political
Speaker 1: schism in this country based upon the reality based and
Speaker 1: the Trump deranged and crazy. We might already be there,
Speaker 1: and I don't know how we come back from it.
Speaker 1: But that's what makes me think we're in danger. But
Speaker 1: you have tens of thousands of FBI agents on the
Speaker 1: front lines every day doing work to protect America. To
Speaker 1: keep this country safe. And when the Attorney General undermines
Speaker 1: the integrity of those agents by suggesting they're involved in
Speaker 1: spying against a president, what does that do to the reputation? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's deeply concerning because ordinary folks will accept what the
Speaker 1: president says, what the Attorney General says, and that hurts
Speaker 1: our ability to be trusted as FBI agents in courtrooms
Speaker 1: and at doorways. So it's a very bad thing. Sank
Speaker 1: to Comy here in full effect, with an assist from
Speaker 1: a mainstream lib reporter there, Nora o'donald now is going
Speaker 1: to be taking the Dan rather set at cbscving news.
Speaker 1: I wonder how long before she's engaged in her own
Speaker 1: massive fake news scandal. But sank to Comy takes that,
Speaker 1: takes what she's given them, and runs with it. This
Speaker 1: is a classic. This is the media has been doing
Speaker 1: this now for two years. What they say is anytime
Speaker 1: Trump criticizes anything that's gone on with the FBI with
Speaker 1: regard to thus spying. We'll get into that in a second.
Speaker 1: The way this was handled, we've seen the text messages
Speaker 1: from Page and Struck. We know that there was bias
Speaker 1: against Trump. We know that they hated for President Trump,
Speaker 1: and they were working to undermine him, to destroy his candidacy,
Speaker 1: to destroy his presidency. We know that James Coomy, as
Speaker 1: a former FBI direct leaked memos to The New York
Speaker 1: Times to get payback. I mean, this is not ethical,
Speaker 1: okay stuff to do. But when you point that out,
Speaker 1: when you say, hold on a second, there was bad
Speaker 1: behavior at the FBI, behavior that the Inspector General found.
Speaker 1: Why Why did Andy mccabbe get fired right before he
Speaker 1: was going to start collecting his pension. Why did James
Speaker 1: came get fired by the President United States? Why were
Speaker 1: these actions taken? You know, struck Page demoted from their jobs,
Speaker 1: from their roles. Why has all this happened? Because none
Speaker 1: of them did anything wrong. But you see that the
Speaker 1: straw man that Nora Nora O'Donnell sets up there is well,
Speaker 1: there's all these tens of thousands of FBI and he's
Speaker 1: doing all this good work. No one's saying that everyone
Speaker 1: the FBI is bad. No one saying the FBI is
Speaker 1: not a great American law enforcement institution. Trump is merely
Speaker 1: saying that some of the people running it did really
Speaker 1: bad stuff. And if it weren't hurting Trump. I'd promise
Speaker 1: you the Lib media who usually love to dump all
Speaker 1: over law enforcement, now this is the same Lib media,
Speaker 1: and I have not forgotten that under Obama were completely
Speaker 1: willing to go along. Cops are racist, not a cop,
Speaker 1: cops cops plural in general. Racist cops are not to
Speaker 1: be trusted. Cops engage in, you know, the racist hunting
Speaker 1: of minority men. Know all this stuff, there was there
Speaker 1: was no there was no effort at pushback from the Nora.
Speaker 1: O'donald's a hold on a second. You know, vast majority
Speaker 1: law enforcement is doing a great job day to day
Speaker 1: across the country. Yeah, there are a couple of bad
Speaker 1: cops here and there, of course, but there's a couple
Speaker 1: of bad everything's in any large profession there. That wasn't it.
Speaker 1: It was no Black lives matter. We need to hear
Speaker 1: more from them, We need to hear about how racist
Speaker 1: and terrible the cops are. And then people like me
Speaker 1: would say, you have millions of interactions between law enforcement
Speaker 1: and American men and women across the country every year,
Speaker 1: and you have less than a hundred law enforcement involved
Speaker 1: fatal shootings in the country. Three hundred and twenty million
Speaker 1: people in this country less than one hundred law enforce
Speaker 1: involved shootings, and we're gonna act like this is a
Speaker 1: national crisis. That needs to be the biggest news store
Speaker 1: in the country, and that is going to justify, at
Speaker 1: least to the left, actions including people like neighborhoods on fire, looting,
Speaker 1: CBS's look what happened in Ferguson. Look what happened in Baltimore.
Speaker 1: You know that where was the media? They're saying, Hold
Speaker 1: on a second, law enforcement is doing a great job
Speaker 1: in this country. It's not fair to tar them all
Speaker 1: with the same brush because of or paint them all
Speaker 1: at the same brush because of what's you know, gone
Speaker 1: on in a few places here or there. It's just
Speaker 1: not fair. They weren't saying that, but oh no the FBI.
Speaker 1: Oh every time Trump criticizes the FBI's seen your face
Speaker 1: who have engaged in bad behavior. Then you have this
Speaker 1: the media. It's an assist I mean, it's like she
Speaker 1: threw she threw the ball up in the air for
Speaker 1: Comby to dunk it. That's what that was. Don't you
Speaker 1: think the FBI has all these great people everywhere? Republicans
Speaker 1: are the ones who like the FBI the Libs and Democrats,
Speaker 1: the ones who usually like, oh, law enforcement can't trust them.
Speaker 1: They enforce the law. The laws a disproportionate impact in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases on minorities. Therefore law enforcement must
Speaker 1: be racist. That's usually their position. Who are the ones,
Speaker 1: by the way, who want to do have been pushing
Speaker 1: harder for a criminal justice reform. It's actually the right,
Speaker 1: it's not the left. But then we have the usual
Speaker 1: sank to Coomy nonsense here about about the FBI does
Speaker 1: not spy. Remember John Brennan said the CIA does not spy.
Speaker 1: I mean, so he's just an imbecile. Guys, the head
Speaker 1: was the head of a spying agency. I don't know
Speaker 1: how people show up to work there and not think
Speaker 1: what kind of bozos used to run this place? I
Speaker 1: think that, and I haven't been in the building and
Speaker 1: got it over a decade now. But here's the Komi
Speaker 1: version of what the FBI does and whether they're spy
Speaker 1: or not. Play eleven. The FBI doesn't spy. The FBI investigates.
Speaker 1: We investigated a very serious allegation that Americans might be
Speaker 1: hooked up with the Russian effort to attack our democracy.
Speaker 1: The Republicans need to breathe into a paper bag. If
Speaker 1: we had confronted the same facts with a different candidate,
Speaker 1: say a Democrat candidate, where one of their advisors was
Speaker 1: talking to a foreign adversaries representative about that adversary's interference
Speaker 1: in our election, they would be screaming for the FBI
Speaker 1: to investigate. And that's all we did. That is a lie.
Speaker 1: All of what he said there is a lie. Foreign
Speaker 1: who's wait speaking the foreign representative? So now we're going
Speaker 1: to now we're going to play this game, or we
Speaker 1: don't have the facts that we have? Is that what
Speaker 1: we're doing sankt to Komy because Papadopopolis was approached by
Speaker 1: somebody who was sent to him by the FBI as
Speaker 1: a setup. So for who's the foreign representative of the
Speaker 1: country here, or we're going to go back to the
Speaker 1: meeting and Trump Tower, is that that wasn't what started
Speaker 1: the investigation, Folks that have nothing to do with anything.
Speaker 1: And that meeting that you know, if if that's a
Speaker 1: terrible meeting and that's illegal, then you have to explain
Speaker 1: to me why paying for Russian OPO research for the
Speaker 1: dossier is okay. If you pay for the activity, then
Speaker 1: it's fine. I know a lot of guys I would say, WHOA,
Speaker 1: I didn't know that was the case. So homie though,
Speaker 1: saying the FBI does not spy and investigates, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just that's just a lie. What the FBI does
Speaker 1: with the counterintelligence powers that it has. I mean you
Speaker 1: could always call that, you could call any spying investigating.
Speaker 1: If if I you know, if I task somebody to
Speaker 1: show up in a foreign country and try to get
Speaker 1: access to their sensitive information, they're investigating. You know, we
Speaker 1: can play these word games all day. The FBI engages
Speaker 1: in counterintelligence activity. The FBI is considered a member of
Speaker 1: the intelligence community. Local law enforcements not a member of
Speaker 1: the intelligence community. Your state you know, your statees or
Speaker 1: your state state troopers, they're not members of the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: Why is the FBI a member of the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: Because there's a difference between intelligence and law enforcement, and
Speaker 1: the FBI does both. I know because I've worked with
Speaker 1: FBI in their intelligence capacity and I worked foreign intelligence agency.
Speaker 1: This definitely isn't hard. But Comey's a clown and a liar,
Speaker 1: and his day is coming, folks. When we see what
Speaker 1: really happened here, we see what he signed off on
Speaker 1: what he was a part of. I mean, a lot
Speaker 1: of people saying, oh, hey, I guess I misread James Comey.
Speaker 1: All you really have to know about this guy other
Speaker 1: than the fact that he says stupid things like the
Speaker 1: FBI does not, by it clearly does. Okay, the FBI spies.
Speaker 1: We have this this uh, And then there's an interesting
Speaker 1: kind of gray area and conversation here. In a lot
Speaker 1: of other countries, the primary federal law enforcement agency does,
Speaker 1: in fact do spying. Does in fact, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: do M I five like work? Right that you have?
Speaker 1: You have a domestic intelligence agency that is engaged in that. Here,
Speaker 1: the FBI does domestic intelligence agency work. But we still
Speaker 1: call a law enforcement agency, you know, we don't. We
Speaker 1: have a slightly different system. But the FBI really doubles
Speaker 1: double hats on this. But if all you really up
Speaker 1: to know about James Comey's a following that he took
Speaker 1: the position that Martha Stewart, Okay, I know you're buck,
Speaker 1: what do you I know, I'm all hung up on
Speaker 1: the Martha's just trust me on this one, Okay. He
Speaker 1: took the position to the shock of his colleagues, some
Speaker 1: of whom I have talked to. Okay, in the federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor community, that Martha Stewart saying she was innocent of
Speaker 1: insider trading was itself a form of fraud because it
Speaker 1: propped up the stock price of her company. The most convoluted,
Speaker 1: nonsensical legal theory imaginable under the circumstances. That was a comyism.
Speaker 1: And now he's here's probably a mullerism too. Muller would
Speaker 1: go for some nonsense like that as well. Comey is
Speaker 1: not a good guy. He had a lot of people
Speaker 1: at the FBI apparently brainwashed with all of his Holier
Speaker 1: than now bullcrap, and we're going to find out more
Speaker 1: about what Comy really did, and it's not going to
Speaker 1: look good for this guy. We consider a report recommending
Speaker 1: that the House of Representatives hold Attorney General William Barr
Speaker 1: in contempt of Congress for defying a valid subpoena issued
Speaker 1: by this committee. This is not a step we take lightly.
Speaker 1: It is the culmination of nearly three months of requests
Speaker 1: to cushions and negotiations with the Department of Justice for
Speaker 1: a complete, unredacted report by Special Counsel Mueller into Russian
Speaker 1: interference in the twenty sixteen election, along with the underlying
Speaker 1: evidence unredacted report. Madler is demanding, what is really going
Speaker 1: on with this fight that is brewing or it's actually underway,
Speaker 1: I should say brewing between the executive branch and Congress.
Speaker 1: What are the Damns demanding? What is all this about?
Speaker 1: Our friend Shaun Davis joins us now. He's a co
Speaker 1: founder at the Federalist. You can see the Federalist dot
Speaker 1: com for all the fantastic work and writing that they
Speaker 1: do over there. But Sean also was chief investigator for
Speaker 1: Senator Tom Coburn, so he knows a thig or two
Speaker 1: about the infighting on Capitol Hill over getting the documents
Speaker 1: and how all this stuff works. Good man to talk
Speaker 1: about us today, Sean, Thanks for making the time, Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me, all right, Sean, First off, the report
Speaker 1: has been released. Okay, the Mueller's Special Council Report is
Speaker 1: out there. I think two percent of it is redacted,
Speaker 1: over four hundred and forty pages released, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: are demanding what what is their beef here? Can you
Speaker 1: just walk us through what are they claiming? The problem is? So,
Speaker 1: as best I can tell, Democrats are demanding a couple
Speaker 1: of things. They are demanding a full, unredacted report, which
Speaker 1: includes grand jury information which by law, the Attorney General
Speaker 1: can't share with anyone. And they're also demanding what they're
Speaker 1: calling all of the underlying evidence, all of the interviews,
Speaker 1: all the documents from the White House, all the transcripts,
Speaker 1: all the White House staffers notes. And while I am
Speaker 1: sympathetic to them to their request when it comes to
Speaker 1: asking for, say, DOJ documents, kind of stuff that falls
Speaker 1: within typical congressional oversight of an agency they created, like
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, the demands that they're making now
Speaker 1: they're silly and they're just not based in reality or
Speaker 1: based in law. I kind of laughed at that NAD
Speaker 1: clip when he says we've been demanding this report for
Speaker 1: three months. Well, the report hasn't existed for three months.
Speaker 1: It's barely existed for even two if that. So I
Speaker 1: think I think he's a little out to lunch on this,
Speaker 1: and I think what's actually going on because a couple
Speaker 1: of things. Democrats are mad that there was no collusion
Speaker 1: and no obstructions, so they're trying to scramble and recover
Speaker 1: from that, because that was a pretty big blow. I
Speaker 1: think they're terrified at what Bar is going to under
Speaker 1: uncover with the spygate and the improper and illegal spying,
Speaker 1: and so they're trying to dirty him up ahead of
Speaker 1: those findings coming out. And then I think number three,
Speaker 1: they're still all angry that the Republican House held Eric
Speaker 1: Holder in contempt for withholding Agency DJ documents on Fast
Speaker 1: and Furious stuff. They had nothing to do with the
Speaker 1: White House or executive privilege, and so they're trying to
Speaker 1: get a little revenge here. But what they're not doing
Speaker 1: is engaging in any sort of good phase back and
Speaker 1: forth in order to get the information they say they want.
Speaker 1: I mean, they went in about a span of a
Speaker 1: week from saying that Bill Barr is a liar to
Speaker 1: maybe somebody should go maybe maybe somebody should tell the
Speaker 1: Sergeant at Arms and Congress to go arrest him if
Speaker 1: he won't show up. I mean, this is just unhinged
Speaker 1: stuff now. And what you're seeing is generally what happens
Speaker 1: with a delusional person when the gravity of reality starts
Speaker 1: to set in. Okay, so they got out on a
Speaker 1: limb with this absurd Russian collusion theory for two years,
Speaker 1: those of us with a brain and common sense and
Speaker 1: the ability to follow basic facts kind of new from
Speaker 1: the beginning there was nothing there there. So they're having
Speaker 1: a really really difficult time grappling with the fact that
Speaker 1: Saint Robert of Mueller came back and said, actually, there
Speaker 1: was no collusion at all, and by the way, even
Speaker 1: if there was obstruction, which we're not even sure there was,
Speaker 1: I'm not charging him with it. So like to understand
Speaker 1: their behavior and how unhinged it is, you have to
Speaker 1: appreciate how badly they have been damaged by the fact
Speaker 1: that there was your Russian collusion number one and number two,
Speaker 1: that there was likely a whole lot of impropriety, both
Speaker 1: from House Democrats like Adam Schiff who is legally leaking information,
Speaker 1: as well as all of the shenanigans going on at
Speaker 1: DJ and the FBI and probably even the CIA regarding
Speaker 1: the spying against the Trump campaign. So they've got a
Speaker 1: whole mess they're trying to get themselves out of. And
Speaker 1: they've apparently decided that William Barr is going to be
Speaker 1: the fall guy here and they're going to take out
Speaker 1: all their anger on him. And they're making this claim
Speaker 1: and we're speaking to Sean Davis from the Federalist Here Sean,
Speaker 1: they're making this claim that they want the unredacted report
Speaker 1: to be available to them. But my understanding is that
Speaker 1: there are statutes, specifically statutes regarding grand jury information six
Speaker 1: six E information that Congress is effectively asking the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice to violate congressionally congressionally valid statute that absent
Speaker 1: a court order, they would be violating. So Congress is
Speaker 1: basically telling the Department of Justice to break the law
Speaker 1: or else they're going to force the law against them.
Speaker 1: You're exactly right. So there was a couple of different
Speaker 1: categories of redacted information and what was made public by
Speaker 1: Bar in the four hundred forty eight page Moll report.
Speaker 1: There was classified information. I think there was ongoing matters
Speaker 1: which was related to I think ongoing Roger Stone litigation
Speaker 1: and litigation against the Russian hackers. There was some privacy
Speaker 1: stuff in there, like you know, people mentioned who never
Speaker 1: had any charges or anything against them. They were tertiary
Speaker 1: characters and there's no need to drag their names through
Speaker 1: the mud. And then there was grand jury information. Now
Speaker 1: Bar has made available to Congress to a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of people. I think the entire judiciary. Some of their
Speaker 1: staffers said, hey, you can come look at every single
Speaker 1: thing that's in that report. We've removed all the redactions
Speaker 1: except the grand jury information, which under the federal rules
Speaker 1: of Criminal Procedure I think rules sixty is why they
Speaker 1: call it sixt information, we cannot law disclosed grand jury information.
Speaker 1: And not only are Democrats demanding that grand jury information,
Speaker 1: they haven't even gone over to DJ to see the
Speaker 1: rest of those reactions that were removed. I mean, they've
Speaker 1: been given like ninety eight percent of what they asked for,
Speaker 1: and they've been given one hundred percent of what's allowable
Speaker 1: on under law. And instead they've just decided they're going
Speaker 1: to have this long drawn out temper tantrum so they
Speaker 1: can make them feel self feel better about the fact
Speaker 1: that there was no collusion. What are they really trying
Speaker 1: to accomplish? You're like, what's the if you if you
Speaker 1: were you know, behind enemy lines so to speak, in
Speaker 1: the office of you know, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and all these different figures that are creating this ongoing
Speaker 1: really seems obsessive news cycle around the Mulla Report, as
Speaker 1: though we don't have a book length and a heavy
Speaker 1: book at that report with all kinds of information everything,
Speaker 1: and it was very oppositional to Trump. It was a
Speaker 1: prosecutorial document, not a fair minded document, not supposed to
Speaker 1: take both sides. What do you think their game plan?
Speaker 1: What are the Democrats trying to get out of this?
Speaker 1: Is there a smart strategy at work here from their
Speaker 1: side or are they just a little crazy? Is this
Speaker 1: just a symptom of Trump having broken them in some way?
Speaker 1: I think it's probably a little bit of both. So again,
Speaker 1: they're reeling from the fact that there was no collusion
Speaker 1: and they had really penned all their hopes on that
Speaker 1: they'd hoped they were going to be able to impeach
Speaker 1: him for either being a treason this Russian Asian or
Speaker 1: having a structured justice violating total law, and they didn't
Speaker 1: get either of those. So they have a ravenous base,
Speaker 1: which has been told by both the members of Congress,
Speaker 1: Democrat lawmakers and their friends and media for years that
Speaker 1: Trump was a trees in Russian Asian and they're out
Speaker 1: for blood. And so they've got this issue where apparently
Speaker 1: for the moment, they've decided they're not going to impeach Trump.
Speaker 1: We'll see how long that lasts. And so you have
Speaker 1: this base that's just frothing just once Trump's head on
Speaker 1: a pipe and they're told there's going to be no impeachment.
Speaker 1: So I think a lot of this is some space
Speaker 1: saving from Democrats trying to show that they really are
Speaker 1: tough and they really are going to get a pound
Speaker 1: of flesh out of the Trump administration, and so they're
Speaker 1: going to try and go to whatever links they can,
Speaker 1: probably short of impeachment unless they talk themselves into that,
Speaker 1: to show how big and tough they are. So I
Speaker 1: think that's the first part, and then the second is
Speaker 1: I do think they are legitimately worried about what Bars
Speaker 1: and the Inspector General DJ's report on improper spying is
Speaker 1: going to show. And the best way they can blunt
Speaker 1: that because they obviously can't deal with facts and realities
Speaker 1: we've seem from the collusion narrative, but the best way
Speaker 1: they can deal with the bar spygate report coming out
Speaker 1: is to just destroy the messenger. Attack the messenger before
Speaker 1: it does, so hopefully when it comes out they can say, oh,
Speaker 1: you can safely ignore this, this corrupt, lying, contemptible A
Speaker 1: Jorney general was behind it, and you don't need to
Speaker 1: pay attention to anything he says. So I think it's
Speaker 1: a little bit of base pleasing, a little bit of crazy,
Speaker 1: and a little bit of defensive preparation for the Spygate
Speaker 1: reports that are going to come out. Co sign that
Speaker 1: sounds about right to me, Sean Davis. Everybody check out
Speaker 1: his latest at the Federalist dot Com. Also follow him
Speaker 1: for the wreckage of liberals that he leaves behind in
Speaker 1: the digital space. Sean Davis on Twitter, He's check him
Speaker 1: out there, and Sean, thanks for all your work and
Speaker 1: good to talk to you as always, same here, Buck,
Speaker 1: It's always a pleasure. Thank you for having me see him.
Speaker 1: We live in the age of the Kardashians, and the
Speaker 1: New York Times has managed to descend to that level.
Speaker 1: The fact is less we clear Donald Trump is rich
Speaker 1: and this is not a shock. Apparently he was clever
Speaker 1: about what he was able to do with the tax code,
Speaker 1: and in fact, the other taxpayers helped make him rich
Speaker 1: because he did legally what he was allowed to do.
Speaker 1: I would love to see the Salzburger family release all
Speaker 1: of their records, show us all the different tax advantages
Speaker 1: that their companies have taken over the years. How did
Speaker 1: they do it? For example, when they sold the Boston Globe.
Speaker 1: I think that this kind of one sided, dishonest attack
Speaker 1: is part of what is sickening American politics and making
Speaker 1: it harder to get decent people to write. I think
Speaker 1: Newt's stepping onto a pretty important, pretty important ground here
Speaker 1: with this new to loot. We gotta have new back
Speaker 1: on the show. It's been a while I having a
Speaker 1: nude on, like maybe a year or two now, Pruiser, Mike,
Speaker 1: let's make a no, let's get let's get nude on.
Speaker 1: I like new He was actually here the other day.
Speaker 1: I'm talking to his people. They didn't know this, but
Speaker 1: I'm already talking to him. Let's see you look at that, dude.
Speaker 1: We're Mike. We we have like a mind meld here,
Speaker 1: my friend. You know, from from New York to DC.
Speaker 1: You can't even It's like it's like we're sitting next
Speaker 1: to each other. Um No, it's He's one of the
Speaker 1: voices in the in our current moment. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think new Victor, Davis Hansen, these are really important perspectives
Speaker 1: on all things Trump. They bring a degree of wisdom
Speaker 1: and knowledge to the Trump movement that I think is
Speaker 1: really useful, really helpful. But on the Trump tax issue
Speaker 1: there is this is another manifestation of Trump's arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: Today you had all these journalists trying to hyperventilate over
Speaker 1: Trump's tax returns, which I suppose this was just leaked
Speaker 1: from someone somewhere in New York State, his tax returns
Speaker 1: from nineteen eighty five to eighty six, I think, and
Speaker 1: it showed that he took losses, I think, the biggest
Speaker 1: losses of any taxpayer in the country. And it showed
Speaker 1: that he took loss carried forward, which is a one
Speaker 1: hundred percent legal acceptable in the tax code thing to do.
Speaker 1: Now you can argue with whether or not you think
Speaker 1: that that should be the case in the tax code
Speaker 1: or not. I would note that, you know, if you
Speaker 1: want people to take risks and if you want to
Speaker 1: spur investment, you probably don't want them to Also, after
Speaker 1: they've lost a ton of money, gets socked with really
Speaker 1: high taxes on whatever money they have. But newt here
Speaker 1: is is also pointing out that you know, other people
Speaker 1: would not be able to handle this kind of assault.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are so many individuals where if you
Speaker 1: went after their taxes back now we're talking, went back
Speaker 1: there almost thirty years. You know, this is what they'll
Speaker 1: They could not get the mainstream media could not and
Speaker 1: would not get Barack Obama's college records. I'm sure you know,
Speaker 1: they could have sued, they could have gone to court,
Speaker 1: they could have on something. They didn't even want them.
Speaker 1: They even want them. We've still never seen Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: SAT scores, We've never seen his grades. You would say, Barkwell,
Speaker 1: who cares. Oh, we cared about John Kerry's. We cared
Speaker 1: about George W. Bush's, we cared about you know, but
Speaker 1: what taxes? Now, this is how sacro sanct Oh, we
Speaker 1: must see the person's side, not just the last ten years.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to see them now, back into the eighties apparently,
Speaker 1: you know, and I'm reminded of how they went after
Speaker 1: Romney on the tax issue. Romney, who I mean, talk
Speaker 1: about a guy who is just the most squared away.
Speaker 1: You know, he's the guy that you feel like he
Speaker 1: probably pays more than he shoot in taxes just because
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to stiff Uncle Sam. You know, he's
Speaker 1: a very spit and polish by the book, by the
Speaker 1: rules individual and Harry Reid very famously, you recall, went
Speaker 1: on the floor of the Senate and said, mitt Romney
Speaker 1: hasn't paid taxes in ten years. Now, you may say, buck,
Speaker 1: a lot of people knew that that wasn't true, but
Speaker 1: plenty of people probably didn't know that, and it was
Speaker 1: a real smear. And Harry Read later kind of chuckled
Speaker 1: about how Romney didn't win, and so who cares that
Speaker 1: he lied about? It was just a lie. It was
Speaker 1: just a lie. It was just defamation done from the
Speaker 1: sanctity of the Senate floor though, so there you can't
Speaker 1: bring any kind of legal challenge to it. There's no
Speaker 1: defamation from the Senate floor. That's just an exemption for it.
Speaker 1: So he was able to do that. And I'm just
Speaker 1: reminded of how you know this is. This is why
Speaker 1: so many, so many people who saw Trump early on
Speaker 1: as an important political phenomenon and really as the start
Speaker 1: of a political movement. We need somebody who can withstand
Speaker 1: all this stuff. Romney couldn't take the heat, or at
Speaker 1: least maybe Romney could handle the heat, but didn't know
Speaker 1: how to fight back effectively. And if you if you lose,
Speaker 1: you still lose. You know, even if you lose gracefully.
Speaker 1: That has been the mantra for Republicans stretching back for
Speaker 1: a long time. Well you lose, but lose gracefully. And
Speaker 1: you know, we eked out a win against al Gore
Speaker 1: in two thousand against al Gore, folks, guy's a clown,
Speaker 1: guy's a joke, and barely we're able to defeat al Gore.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is remarkable stuff when you think about
Speaker 1: who the Democrats have put forward, and then we you know,
Speaker 1: we finally Trump comes along and ends the Clinton dynasty
Speaker 1: at least for the foreseeable future. But they're going after
Speaker 1: him on this tax thing, acting like it's a big story.
Speaker 1: None of this is new, None of this really is
Speaker 1: is information that is gonna change anything. But they're fixated
Speaker 1: on this. They are fixated. You know, the media does
Speaker 1: have an obsession. Of the obsession is to find the
Speaker 1: thing that will end Trump. Whatever that thing is. They've tried.
Speaker 1: They thought it was campaign finance, they thought it was
Speaker 1: porn star payoff, they thought it was the Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: They thought it was his dealings with the Trump Tower
Speaker 1: Moscow that they keep going through all these different iterations
Speaker 1: of ending the Trump presidency, and this is an extension
Speaker 1: of the mass psychosis that they have. It really is
Speaker 1: speaking about taxes, though, I gotta say, I'm I don't
Speaker 1: know how much longer I'm gonna be able to last
Speaker 1: in a blue in any blue state, whether it's DC
Speaker 1: or New York or his tax stuff is just out
Speaker 1: of control. And I talked to friends of mine, particularly
Speaker 1: friends that have moved to Florida in the last couple
Speaker 1: of years, and you've got some nice red parts of Florida, lovely,
Speaker 1: lovely beaches, and way better tax treatment. Governor Chris new
Speaker 1: New had some interesting comments to make about these blue
Speaker 1: states and what's facing them in the tax situation. Play
Speaker 1: clip one. What you're do in Connecticut, I'd actually make
Speaker 1: them manage The problem with places like New York and
Speaker 1: Connecticut and California is they don't manage themselves. They don't
Speaker 1: put themselves in a position to be successful because they
Speaker 1: worried more about the politics and less about what actually
Speaker 1: gets you know, better results. When businesses screened to the
Speaker 1: state of Connecticut, you need to get taxes, stop abusing us,
Speaker 1: or we're walking away. And then they did walk away
Speaker 1: and What was Connecticut's response. Nothing, it's insulting, so businesses saying,
Speaker 1: you know, we want to work with a government. We
Speaker 1: want to work with communities and administrations that actually listen
Speaker 1: to us. That's what New Hampshire does, Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Idaho.
Speaker 1: These are the states that I'm competing with to get business.
Speaker 1: It truly is an international market. There are the states
Speaker 1: that are well run and have decent tax climate and
Speaker 1: states that are losing people because they don't. And I
Speaker 1: got to tell you, I think that these a lot
Speaker 1: of these blue states are kind of coasting on legacy
Speaker 1: and the wealth accumulation that they've had in the past,
Speaker 1: and the infrastructure that was put in place a long
Speaker 1: time ago, particularly the private sector infrastructure, meaning of the
Speaker 1: jobs and the companies that are there. I think you're
Speaker 1: going to see continued flight from New York, California, Connecticut.
Speaker 1: There are just other places better, Especially if you're a
Speaker 1: young guy or galen. You think about starting a family,
Speaker 1: it's too tough to make it work in these blue states.
Speaker 1: They're too dysfunctional, the taxes are too darn high. It's
Speaker 1: also important that we stopped seeing religion use as a
Speaker 1: kind of cudgel, as if God belonged to a political party,
Speaker 1: and if he did, I can't imagine it would be
Speaker 1: the one that sent the current president into the White House.
Speaker 1: Don't you love that Democrat tactic? That's Mayor Pete, who's
Speaker 1: supposed to be so areudite, so sophisticated, gold plated resume
Speaker 1: above the fray they say about Mayor Pete, he says
Speaker 1: we should stop using religion as a cudgel. So let
Speaker 1: me use religion as a cudgel here, let me use religions.
Speaker 1: Let's just not do that thing we're doing. But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna do it one more time when I'm asking you
Speaker 1: not to do it. If he did, he would hate
Speaker 1: If God belonged to a political party, he would hate Republicans.
Speaker 1: I think that that's given that the Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: the party of death on demand with abortion, that right
Speaker 1: right there, right then, and there falls apart from me.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's a serious argument that can
Speaker 1: be made. I don't think that that's a serious a
Speaker 1: serious case. And I think what's so fascinating here is
Speaker 1: that the Democrats have done a bit of rewriting of history,
Speaker 1: and you're going to see this from Mayor Pete, where
Speaker 1: gay marriage is now viewed as something that the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party was all four and that they they were the
Speaker 1: ones that, you know, had this big breakthrough of how
Speaker 1: gay marriage should be the law of the land, when
Speaker 1: in reality, Barack Obama ran as a traditional marriage candidate.
Speaker 1: This just gets completely wiped out of the history. Barack
Speaker 1: Obama ran in favor of additional marriage, and then, in
Speaker 1: a classic Democrat move, was like, yeah, I just did
Speaker 1: that to fool those fool those rubes who go to
Speaker 1: church in the Bible Belt, you know, enough of them
Speaker 1: that they would vote for me. I didn't really mean it.
Speaker 1: I wasn't really serious about it. We had our discussion
Speaker 1: about Democrat takeia earlier in the week. If they lie
Speaker 1: and it is a lie that benefits the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: then it's okay. Then it's not something that we should
Speaker 1: that they will look down upon. They think that that's fine.
Speaker 1: We are going to have a very interesting Democrat primary
Speaker 1: going forward here, because you're going to see efforts to
Speaker 1: try to win over white working class voters, many of
Speaker 1: whom are are Christian and at least somewhat church going,
Speaker 1: and you've got a political party with the Democrats that
Speaker 1: not just abortion on demand, but thinks that the distinctions
Speaker 1: between male and female don't make any difference anymore, or
Speaker 1: at least they're willing to erase those distinctions on a whim.
Speaker 1: Believe that the transgender movement is the new civil rights movement.
Speaker 1: Believe that it is in fact offensive to say things
Speaker 1: like men cannot get their periods or women are not
Speaker 1: the only ones who get periods. I can't even keep
Speaker 1: up with the lunacy here, the anti scientific, non scientific
Speaker 1: lunacy of the left. And they're going to try to
Speaker 1: appeal to people who, at least in some states, in
Speaker 1: some places have a more traditional view of society and
Speaker 1: morality and just American public life. And the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is an increasingly radical party. They have not tacked toward
Speaker 1: the center. They are not taking a more centrist approach
Speaker 1: at all, even though right now it seems to me
Speaker 1: that they are all in on Biden, which I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, you know, maybe I'm out on a limb
Speaker 1: here because I've been saying this all along. I do
Speaker 1: not understand how anybody could think that this guy is
Speaker 1: really a serious contender. And I really appreciated this today,
Speaker 1: I saw none other than Ronald Reagan himself. Folks, you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't want to take my word for it,
Speaker 1: here's what Ronald Reagan said back in trying to make
Speaker 1: sure I have this one set up the campaign to
Speaker 1: This is from the Campaign to Succeed Reagan and Biden
Speaker 1: launched his bid for the presidency. This is from National
Speaker 1: Review Today in June of nineteen eighty six. And here
Speaker 1: is what Reagan said about about Biden first meeting with
Speaker 1: Ken d and the VP Howard Lake. Getting back from Tennessee,
Speaker 1: Reagan wrote on June fifteenth, this is what he wrote
Speaker 1: about him. Some talk about Senator Biden, now candidate for president.
Speaker 1: I saw him on CNN last night speaking to John F.
Speaker 1: Kennedy School at Harvard. He's smooth but a pure demagogue,
Speaker 1: out to save America from the Reagan doctrine. Ooom, smooth
Speaker 1: but a pure demagogue. A perfect, perfect description of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden from Rob Reagan himself. And who has been I'm
Speaker 1: the one who's been telling you all week. I didn't
Speaker 1: even know about this Reagan quote until today that Biden
Speaker 1: is the quintessential say whatever he has to say at
Speaker 1: any point in time politician, no big ideas, no big thoughts,
Speaker 1: no core of belief or purpose other than the greater
Speaker 1: glory of Joe Biden. And say what you will about
Speaker 1: some of the and I will say a lot about them.
Speaker 1: A lot of these Democrats who are running right now
Speaker 1: for the nomination. I do think there are some true
Speaker 1: believers among them. I think Bernie Sanders is a true believer. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: he's a true believer. And Communism, baby, it's coming back,
Speaker 1: make it a comeback. I do think he's a true believer. Though.
Speaker 1: I think that Elizabeth Warren, as much as she is
Speaker 1: a phony, she's such a phony that she's even convinced
Speaker 1: her she believes some of her own bs. I think
Speaker 1: that she believes it. I think that I think Andrew
Speaker 1: Yang he's a true believer, although I don't find him
Speaker 1: bothers him like I do some of these other candidates.
Speaker 1: I think he's an interest. I think he's wrong on
Speaker 1: some stuff, but he's earnest and he's You're like, who's
Speaker 1: Andrew Yang. I think he's at maybe one percent of
Speaker 1: the vote or something. But he has ideas. He's an
Speaker 1: ideas guy, and he'll talk about his ideas. I give Yang.
Speaker 1: I give Yang credit, and I Ernie Clinton interrupt you here, Buck,
Speaker 1: did you hear Yang's policy or ideas on paying politicians? No,
Speaker 1: what do you say? I thought it was really interesting
Speaker 1: I read about last week. He talked about the salaries
Speaker 1: of the president and our congressman and senators, how they
Speaker 1: need to be greatly increased. If we paid them way more,
Speaker 1: then they'd be less likely to be reliant on um,
Speaker 1: you know, on payoffs and bribes and all that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff that you know that they give me too.
Speaker 1: I mean, we can debate, we can debate what the
Speaker 1: lobbyist is. What I was trying to say, it's an idea.
Speaker 1: It's a real idea of folks. So you know, Yang's
Speaker 1: got some real ideas. But but Biden, as Reagan said,
Speaker 1: pure demagogue. Perfect description. Received a lot of feedback about
Speaker 1: a video I posted last week, and I want to
Speaker 1: provide some background. You see, I've lived across the street
Speaker 1: or next door to this particular plant parenthood, one of
Speaker 1: the most heavily protested plant parenthoods in America. For the
Speaker 1: last fifteen years. I've seen men and women and teens
Speaker 1: try to go there for routine healthcare for checkups for
Speaker 1: PAP schmeres, for breast exams, for STD screenings, and yes,
Speaker 1: for abortions. I have seen firsthand the insults, the slurs,
Speaker 1: the attacks, and the racism that those protesters aim at,
Speaker 1: mostly young girls going there for clinical care. As an
Speaker 1: activist and an advocate, I know why pushing back against
Speaker 1: harassment and discrimination or an must even when they're uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: But last week I wasn't a patient escort. I was
Speaker 1: a neighbor and a concerned citizen, and I was aggressive.
Speaker 1: And you're a jerk, Brian Simms, You're scummy. Apology not accepted,
Speaker 1: at least not by me, feeling not by any of
Speaker 1: you either. You will recall that Representative Simms from the
Speaker 1: Great State of Sylvania achieved quite a bit of notoriety
Speaker 1: earlier this week when he really viciously harassed and harangued
Speaker 1: an elderly woman who was standing outside of a planned
Speaker 1: parenthood clinic in Philadelphia praying, and then did the same
Speaker 1: thing to a couple of teenage girls, videotaping them, trying
Speaker 1: to humiliate them, and really doing all of this in
Speaker 1: a very menacing, nasty fashion. He wasn't engaging with them.
Speaker 1: He wasn't trying to have a conversation. He was trying
Speaker 1: to publicly humiliate them, not just public as in on
Speaker 1: the street in front of this planned parenthood, but then
Speaker 1: to post this like he's some kind of hero, posted
Speaker 1: to his social media accounts. He was proud of these interactions.
Speaker 1: And just to remind you of State Rep. Simms's tone
Speaker 1: and approach to teenage girls who are trying to convince
Speaker 1: women not to kill the babies in their wombs at
Speaker 1: a planned parenthood, here is what Simms said to these
Speaker 1: young girls. Lay clip nine. Oh you've got here is
Speaker 1: a bunch of protesters, a bunch of pseudo Christian protesters
Speaker 1: who've been out here shaming young girls for being here.
Speaker 1: And so here's the deal. I've got one hundred dollars
Speaker 1: to anybody who will identify any of these three. So
Speaker 1: I'm gonna donate the plant parenthood. I'm gonna donate to
Speaker 1: plant parents. So look a bunch of white people standing
Speaker 1: out of a plant parents shaming people. There's nothing Christian
Speaker 1: about what you're doing. Nothing Christians at all about what
Speaker 1: you're doing. Hi, nothing Christian or loving or godly about
Speaker 1: what you're doing. So I've got one hundred dollars to
Speaker 1: anybody who will identify one hundred dollars rich What makes
Speaker 1: you think that it's your job to tell women what's
Speaker 1: right for their bodies? And the truth is, I'm not
Speaker 1: really asking because I don't care. Shame on you. Notice
Speaker 1: how much wokeness and social justice idiocy this complete moron
Speaker 1: worked into that very short exchange that we played for you. Says,
Speaker 1: there's nothing godly about what these girls say they're doing,
Speaker 1: which is praying for the babies that are being aborted
Speaker 1: in this clinic. I'm pretty sure that that's quite godly
Speaker 1: to pray for the souls of the deceased, because that
Speaker 1: is what is happening in this facility. He notes that
Speaker 1: they are white, as though that's and he kind of
Speaker 1: spits it out like that's a slur in and of itself.
Speaker 1: These white girls standing outside there is there a problem
Speaker 1: with that representative sims are white teenage girls not allowed
Speaker 1: to protest, only non white teenage girls out of protests.
Speaker 1: I just it seemed like a very strange thing to
Speaker 1: note in his aggressive verbal assault on these on these girls,
Speaker 1: I mean, and then the one hundred dollars offer to
Speaker 1: docks them to humiliate them. He should know that that
Speaker 1: could very well if that and and oh, there are
Speaker 1: so many social justice warriors online, so many people who
Speaker 1: work for despicable smear organizations like Media Matters and you
Speaker 1: know the Daily Codes and you name it, all these
Speaker 1: different websites. I mean basically a leftist website. As a
Speaker 1: website without any honor or integrity, you can start there.
Speaker 1: Any number of them would be happy to docs meaning
Speaker 1: to share the private contact information home addresses of these girls.
Speaker 1: And where is the media on this? I would ask,
Speaker 1: where's the rest of the media. This has now gotten
Speaker 1: a lot of attention. People have been talking about the story.
Speaker 1: I've obviously been talking about it for days because the
Speaker 1: same media that maybe a week or so ago, maybe
Speaker 1: two weeks ago, was telling us that criticism of ilhan
Speaker 1: Omar is immoral and reckless, because even though she's a
Speaker 1: public figure, saying stupid and immoral and reckless things by
Speaker 1: criticizing her, those of us on the right are giving
Speaker 1: oxygen to the hatred and the threats against her. So
Speaker 1: we were, in effect, if you criticize ilhan Omar, the
Speaker 1: left was saying, you're putting her life in danger. That
Speaker 1: was the storyline, ilhan Omar is a public figure and
Speaker 1: her comments are not just fair game. It is necessary
Speaker 1: to push back on the anti Semitism and the stupidity
Speaker 1: of somebody like an ilhan Omar. As much as the
Speaker 1: Left wants to protect her, and oh they're so, they
Speaker 1: want to just she's in a special category because of
Speaker 1: all the she represents all these different victim classes all
Speaker 1: put together, and that means that she's special and you
Speaker 1: can't hold her to the same standards of speech you
Speaker 1: would other members of Congress. That's what the Left is doing,
Speaker 1: creating and enforcing a massive double standard for ilhan Omar.
Speaker 1: Where is that standard though, of criticizing somebody, whether you're
Speaker 1: right in the criticism or not, can put them in
Speaker 1: harm's way and therefore it's immoral for you to do so.
Speaker 1: Where is that standard when it comes to a number
Speaker 1: of teenage girls who a public official, not just a
Speaker 1: public figure. Representative Brian seems states openly and really puts
Speaker 1: out a bounty on the privacy of these girls, asking
Speaker 1: for them, paying to pay for them to be docked,
Speaker 1: like it's the DNC paying for the dossier, and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, if you pay for the bad behavior.
Speaker 1: It makes it okay, huh not. The mother of the
Speaker 1: teen girls who were confronted by Representative Simms had some
Speaker 1: thoughts on how she, as a mother of young girls,
Speaker 1: a mother of young girls who were out there praying
Speaker 1: for the souls of murdered babies at a planned parentod clinic,
Speaker 1: how does she feel as a mom about this play eight.
Speaker 1: It was a shocking experience. What is not seen in
Speaker 1: that video was our first interaction with mister Simms. He
Speaker 1: approached us about twenty minutes before that came in. I
Speaker 1: would say he came in hot. He came in yelling
Speaker 1: at us, and really was yelling very directly at the girls,
Speaker 1: very specifically at the girls. So I moved myself in
Speaker 1: between him and the girl asked him, you know, please
Speaker 1: talk to me. Let's let's have a conversation and the
Speaker 1: two of us as two adults. But he continued to
Speaker 1: yell at the girls, and then eventually he laughed in
Speaker 1: about ten minutes later, as when he came back videotaping us.
Speaker 1: So after our first altercation with him, I went and
Speaker 1: talked to my girls and told them, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: really sorry this happened. I'm really proud of you guys
Speaker 1: for being here. Sadly, ironically, the two older girls looked
Speaker 1: at me and said, mom, that was nothing compared to
Speaker 1: what people were screaming at us at the March for Life.
Speaker 1: This guy is a maniac. You're hearing here from the
Speaker 1: mom of these young girls. This wasn't even a heat
Speaker 1: of the moment thing. He initially accosted them. The mother
Speaker 1: steps and says, we're adults, why don't we talk, and
Speaker 1: he goes, no, no, no. Brian Simms wants to yell
Speaker 1: at a bunch of teenage girls. This guy looks to
Speaker 1: be maybe about my age, maybe a little older. I mean,
Speaker 1: I do have a youthful appearance, and I would never
Speaker 1: scream at teenage girls for protesting for any reason, because
Speaker 1: there's an inherent level of menace from a six ft
Speaker 1: tall adult male screaming and threatening a bunch of teenage girls.
Speaker 1: That's just not okay. A decent person, an honorable person,
Speaker 1: an honorable man, a real man wouldn't do that. This
Speaker 1: guy did it, not only to do it once, then
Speaker 1: he came back to videotape it because he was so
Speaker 1: proud of it, and now he wants to claim in
Speaker 1: his non apology apology video, Oh, it's just because I've
Speaker 1: seen all the horrible things that are said. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The left likes to play this game a lot these days.
Speaker 1: Well maybe I was out of line with this, but
Speaker 1: there are a lot of other people that do bad
Speaker 1: things and that just kind of makes what I did okay. No, sorry,
Speaker 1: you don't get to just muddy the waters on what
Speaker 1: morality is here, on what ethics are individual culpability is
Speaker 1: what matters, not what someone else did somewhere else that
Speaker 1: influenced your thinking at this point in time, for an
Speaker 1: interaction with the human being that had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with those other things you're talking about. That some people
Speaker 1: may have been mean to women going into planned parented
Speaker 1: clinics at another time and another place does not justify
Speaker 1: this guy acting like a lunatic when women, young women
Speaker 1: are trying to pray outside of a parentered clinic this time.
Speaker 1: But you see this, You know this is the lack
Speaker 1: of accountability on the left is astonishing, But it's the
Speaker 1: reality because they know that the media is not going
Speaker 1: to pick up the mainstream media is not picking up
Speaker 1: the story, not touching this story, and this comes the
Speaker 1: same week where you had a former city councilwoman for
Speaker 1: the City of New York saying that you know, it's
Speaker 1: not a human being in the womb. I mean the
Speaker 1: stupidity on display from the left on these issues, the
Speaker 1: straw men they set up on the abortion issue too.
Speaker 1: It just tells you all you need to know about
Speaker 1: how morally decrepit the modern Democratic Party is and really
Speaker 1: how there's no coming back for them with all this stuff.
Speaker 1: They will never change their minds because their party has
Speaker 1: been degraded, ethically, degraded in a way where they would
Speaker 1: have to form a new party. Once the final recognition
Speaker 1: comes in of what they've been doing, they'll have to
Speaker 1: form an entirely new party, and they're not willing to
Speaker 1: do that because they want power. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: You are now entering the Freedom Hottital Operation Center. All
Speaker 1: sensitive programs MUSTY keeps strictly neat to know. Team Buck
Speaker 1: is cleared and ready for the Buck Brief. Almost one
Speaker 1: year ago, after a drawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal,
Speaker 1: President Trump implemented the strongest pressure campaign in history against
Speaker 1: the Islamic Republic of Iran. The goal remains simple, to
Speaker 1: deprive the outlaw regime of the funds that is used
Speaker 1: to stabilize the Middle East for four decades and instead
Speaker 1: of iz Iran to behave like a normal country. Up
Speaker 1: to forty percent of the regime's revenue comes from oil sales.
Speaker 1: It's the regime's number one source of cash. Before our
Speaker 1: sanctions went into effect, Iran will generate as much as
Speaker 1: fifty billion dollars annually in oil revenue. Overall, Today we
Speaker 1: estimate that our sanctions have denied the regime well north
Speaker 1: of ten million dollars. Our goal has been to get
Speaker 1: countries to see supporting Iranian oil entirely. Last November, we
Speaker 1: granted exemptions from our sanctions to seven countries and to Taiwan.
Speaker 1: With this this to give our allies and partners to
Speaker 1: wean themselves off of Iranian oil and to ensure a
Speaker 1: well supplied oil market. Today, I am announcing that we
Speaker 1: will no longer grant any exemptions. We're going to zero,
Speaker 1: going to zero across the board. I'm a Secretary of
Speaker 1: State Pompeo letting everybody know that the noose is getting
Speaker 1: tightened around the Iranian economy and the showdown between Trump
Speaker 1: and Tehran is heating up. Now you have the Iranians
Speaker 1: today threatening to end compliance with parts of the nuclear deal.
Speaker 1: The US is also threatening new sanctions. We've got a
Speaker 1: lot of movement here in US Iranian relations. We've got
Speaker 1: a great guest right now to help us work through
Speaker 1: it all. Jonathan Schanzer, Senior vice president at the Foundation
Speaker 1: for Defense of Democracies. Jonathan. Always good to have you on,
Speaker 1: Great to be with you. Buck. All right, let's start
Speaker 1: first with what is the before we talk about the
Speaker 1: Iranian response thus far and what they're threatening. What is
Speaker 1: the change that's happened in the last week or so
Speaker 1: from the Trump administration position in terms of how we
Speaker 1: are approaching Iran. Now, okay, so a couple of things.
Speaker 1: Number One, we were issuing waivers. We were allowing certain
Speaker 1: countries to continue to buy Iranian oil. We have zeroed
Speaker 1: that out. We're not really giving waivers on anything anymore
Speaker 1: related to Iran, not with its civilian nuclear program, really
Speaker 1: not with much of anything at this point. So we've
Speaker 1: done that. The Iranians are definitely feeling the financial squeeze.
Speaker 1: They're getting blocked out of markets. Companies are afraid to
Speaker 1: do business with Iran because they know that they have
Speaker 1: a choice. They can either do business with US, the
Speaker 1: world's largest economy, or with the Iranians, which is a
Speaker 1: far smaller one that carries with it a good bit
Speaker 1: of risk. So the news is tightening. As Secretary Pompeo said,
Speaker 1: in the meantime, you've got people in Iran who are
Speaker 1: increasingly growing restless and unhappy with the way that the
Speaker 1: regime has decided to allocate the resources that it has.
Speaker 1: And now the US today actually just imposed news sanctions.
Speaker 1: So now you've got oil off the table, You've got
Speaker 1: petrochemicals and other oil products off the table. And then
Speaker 1: just today you've now got iron, steel, aluminum, copper, all
Speaker 1: the precious metals that they sell that's also off the table.
Speaker 1: So all the major things that give are on cash
Speaker 1: foreign currency are just drying up, and you can just
Speaker 1: feel the pressure mount. What's supposed to happen if some
Speaker 1: of these countries we had been giving a waiver two
Speaker 1: so that they could do business with essentially buy stuff
Speaker 1: from Iran, mostly oil, right, but other if those countries say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm sorry, We're not going to dance
Speaker 1: to America's tune on this one. What do we do.
Speaker 1: So it really depends. You know, there are countries like
Speaker 1: China in Russia that will some of there knows that
Speaker 1: the United States and we don't really have a major response,
Speaker 1: But there are other countries, those that are a bit
Speaker 1: more plugged into the US led economy, or perhaps we
Speaker 1: have a little bit more leverage, we can start to
Speaker 1: sanction them or their businesses, or their banks or the
Speaker 1: people that are facilitating these transactions. And that's something that
Speaker 1: people just don't want. You have to remember that we
Speaker 1: still have the most powerful banking system in the world,
Speaker 1: that the dollar is still the most ubiquitous currency, the
Speaker 1: one that everybody uses around the world. So people want
Speaker 1: access to our system. It's trusted, the dollar is still king,
Speaker 1: so uh, it's there's a real fear of engaging in
Speaker 1: this kind of uh of transaction. But also remember that
Speaker 1: if we determine the risks because it's our system, it
Speaker 1: can really hurt other countries and other companies as they
Speaker 1: look to do business around the world. Now, the EU
Speaker 1: is still in the nuclear deal with Iran, do we
Speaker 1: have concerns that there are EU countries that aren't going
Speaker 1: aren't going to go along with the sanctions we have
Speaker 1: in place, you know, do we think we have the
Speaker 1: leverage to force them to keep playing ball our way?
Speaker 1: This is I would say, one of the sort of
Speaker 1: tense things that are happening right now between US and
Speaker 1: the Europeans. It's not just NATO. Uh, there's this and
Speaker 1: uh and and really it stems from when the President
Speaker 1: left the nuclear deal. He did so right in the
Speaker 1: middle of negotiations with the Europeans. We had been working
Speaker 1: our Dippo mats, were working with Theirs to try to
Speaker 1: find some kind of a compromise, and right in the
Speaker 1: middle of that, the President decided he had had enough
Speaker 1: that he didn't think that they were moving quick enough,
Speaker 1: and so he pulled out. So there has been tension
Speaker 1: really high. Sat in a meeting with British diplomats and
Speaker 1: I've never seen such tension before. They were particularly grumpy
Speaker 1: about about the President's decision. So you have this tension
Speaker 1: that has existed. They want to try to keep a
Speaker 1: run in the deal. They want to run to continue
Speaker 1: to limit its nuclear activities and the United States and said, look,
Speaker 1: this wasn't working in the first place. Not only do
Speaker 1: we find out that they had all sorts of secrets
Speaker 1: that they had kept from the IAEA. But on top
Speaker 1: of that, they've been spending money all around the world
Speaker 1: to disrupt the Middle East, to sponsor terrorism, and to
Speaker 1: engage in a bunch of other behaviors that we don't like.
Speaker 1: And so what the Europeans have decided to do to
Speaker 1: try to sweeten the deal is they've been talking about
Speaker 1: something called an SPV special purpose vehicle, which would be
Speaker 1: a way of maintaining trade outside of the normal channels
Speaker 1: that would impact the United States, so they could find
Speaker 1: themselves sort of inoculated from sanctions. We have not seen
Speaker 1: any significant use of this, but it doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the Europeans still won't think about using it. So we're
Speaker 1: trying to deter them and to keep them with us
Speaker 1: because a divided West is not one that's ultimately going
Speaker 1: to get the Iranian regime to bend. And on the
Speaker 1: Iranian threat, now, the Iranians are saying that they are
Speaker 1: going to back out, even though the Europeans are still
Speaker 1: in this deal with them, because the Trump administration pulled
Speaker 1: out of this deal. The Iranians are now saying that
Speaker 1: they will move away from some of the obligations under
Speaker 1: the deal, including enriching uranium, right, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: some pretty red line level stuff in terms of the deal,
Speaker 1: not necessarily red line in terms of a military strike,
Speaker 1: but this is important stuff that's in the deal. What
Speaker 1: do you make of this one? Do you think the
Speaker 1: Iranians will do it? And too? If they do it,
Speaker 1: what are we going to do? I think there was
Speaker 1: always a risk that they were going to start to
Speaker 1: do this, that they were going to start to violate
Speaker 1: the deal incrementally, and I would expect that that's exactly
Speaker 1: what they're going to do. They're going to sort of
Speaker 1: raise the temperature slowly over time and probably not go
Speaker 1: for for, you know, large amounts of enriched uranium right away.
Speaker 1: And so now they've just said, look where you've been
Speaker 1: out of the deal for a year, we're not getting
Speaker 1: what we want. We want more, you know, financial transactions
Speaker 1: with the West and US sanctions are harming that. So
Speaker 1: we're going to do what you know that that you
Speaker 1: don't want us to do, which is to enrich So
Speaker 1: I think they start off small and moving crementally. The
Speaker 1: question is how much will the United States put up with?
Speaker 1: How much before the Europeans actually join our side? And
Speaker 1: this is I think this is going to be the
Speaker 1: interesting part to watch. Do the Iranians understand who they're
Speaker 1: playing with here and do they understand how to keep
Speaker 1: the Iranians with them while also preventing us from taking
Speaker 1: more drastic measures. Is this the right move, Jonathan? I mean,
Speaker 1: I see what's going on here at the administration, and
Speaker 1: I've we've talked about the Iran deal before here in
Speaker 1: the show. It's clearly a very flawed deal. Obama administration
Speaker 1: was just desperate for a foreign policy legacy, and you
Speaker 1: know that that all still very much stands for me.
Speaker 1: But I'm hearing people say Bolton, who is a hawkish
Speaker 1: guy on a whole bunch of weather truck in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: or on a whole bunch of things and has been
Speaker 1: for a long time. This is these are the kind
Speaker 1: of moves that could lead to miscalculation and perhaps even
Speaker 1: unintended military consequences. That's that's concerning to me. I mean,
Speaker 1: is this the right move to people who are just
Speaker 1: saying in the back of their you know, people are
Speaker 1: thinking the back of their minds, the Trump administration cannot
Speaker 1: engage in some kind of Mid East war, you know,
Speaker 1: we need four years here, preferably eight of no wars
Speaker 1: the Mid East. Is this Iranian stuff getting close to
Speaker 1: the line for you or is this what we have
Speaker 1: to do? You know, it's it's unclear to me, you know,
Speaker 1: exactly what the Iranians next move would be. I think
Speaker 1: we actually just had an event today where hr McMaster
Speaker 1: said that there are two ways of challenging in the
Speaker 1: United States, and one is through asymmetrics and the other
Speaker 1: way is just to be stupid. In other words, if
Speaker 1: the Iranians decide they want to challenge the United States,
Speaker 1: the only way they can do that is, you know,
Speaker 1: is by way of insurgency or through terrorism. There there
Speaker 1: is no way for the Iranians to challenge the US
Speaker 1: in a conventional fashion and win. The US would crush
Speaker 1: the Iranian military. So, you know, when we think about
Speaker 1: what does a war mean, you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: hard to define. Can we imagine a situation where the
Speaker 1: Iranians deploy their militias in Iraq, which is apparently one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why Pompeo went to Iraq just the
Speaker 1: other day to confer with Iraqi leadership because of specific
Speaker 1: and credible concerns yeah, we can imagine a scenario like that,
Speaker 1: or perhaps harassment of our navy, you know, in the
Speaker 1: Strait of Hormus. We can certainly imagine that. But in
Speaker 1: terms of a full on war, it's very hard to
Speaker 1: imagine the Iranians deciding that they want to trifle with
Speaker 1: a powerful military like ours. But could you see a
Speaker 1: situation where we start having regime change conversations if you know,
Speaker 1: if they do miscalculate on the Iranian side, Let's say
Speaker 1: they do unleash the Shia militias in Iraq to go
Speaker 1: after not just the Iraqis, but our interest in that
Speaker 1: country too, go after the ambassy. There's a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of war gaming. We could do theorizing, but based on reality,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, the US starts blowing up
Speaker 1: IRGC headquarters, there's air strikes. Is this that we break
Speaker 1: it we buy it situation. I'm just trying to gauge
Speaker 1: your concerns about over involvement in Iran. Sure, and look,
Speaker 1: I think all those things are valid, especially after what
Speaker 1: this country has gone through over the last twenty years
Speaker 1: and the challenges that we've had in Afghanistan and Iraq,
Speaker 1: and to a far lesser extent Syria, and so you know,
Speaker 1: I don't want to discount those. But what you know,
Speaker 1: so far, we're not hearing anything from this administration about
Speaker 1: an invasion or about regime change. What we're talking about,
Speaker 1: at least, what we're hearing is UH, you know, severe
Speaker 1: maximum UH financial pressure, trying to get the administration to
Speaker 1: or rather to get to get the Iranians, according to
Speaker 1: administration demands UH to change core behaviors. Right that, Pompeo
Speaker 1: laid out a number of things that he's just expecting
Speaker 1: the Iranians to do, but he summed it up in
Speaker 1: one very easy sentence. He said, I just want the
Speaker 1: Iranians to be like a normal country. Right, so that means,
Speaker 1: you know, stopping terrorism and missile provocations and propping up
Speaker 1: dictators and murderers. It's that kind of thing that we're
Speaker 1: trying to get from them. And so far everything that
Speaker 1: we've done is is financial pressure. Now we have just
Speaker 1: actually ordered a carrier group into the Persian Gulf. But
Speaker 1: as Ambassador John Huntsman's that, this is a one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand tons of diplomacy that ultimately we're backing up what
Speaker 1: we're asking for from the Iranians with the threat of
Speaker 1: military force, but we don't necessarily see anything where the
Speaker 1: US is geared toward battle. And my hope is that
Speaker 1: it stays that way, that we're going to be able
Speaker 1: to avoid conflict and to get the Iranians to back
Speaker 1: down on the uranium enrichment, but also a lot of
Speaker 1: the other things that have caused us concern for quite
Speaker 1: some time. Yeah, having spent some time in a rock
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan, I just I just don't want anyone listening
Speaker 1: to this to end up, you know, walking the streets
Speaker 1: of Tehran trying to make sure that a bunch of
Speaker 1: militias aren't shooting at each other again. You know. It's
Speaker 1: just I think we got to make sure we all
Speaker 1: learn the lessons of what we've seen is as you
Speaker 1: mentioned for the last twenty or so years, of what
Speaker 1: is possible and what is a good idea. But always
Speaker 1: good to talk to you, mister Jonathan Schanzer from the
Speaker 1: Foundation of Defensive Democracies, Thanks for being on the show,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. All right, team give you a
Speaker 1: national security deep dive. Very interesting stuff going on with
Speaker 1: they wrong though, so I think it was important that
Speaker 1: we cover all of that, you're gonna hear a lot
Speaker 1: of whining from the press about how Trump is crazy
Speaker 1: when it comes to Iran. Not true, and that's why
Speaker 1: I like to bring on people who really know what's up,
Speaker 1: know what time it is when it comes to foreign policy,
Speaker 1: like mister Schanzer. We'll be right back. I worry that
Speaker 1: we're in the same position as the nuclear industry was
Speaker 1: in the early fifties. We have an amazing new technology
Speaker 1: with real potential, but we are not being honest about
Speaker 1: the risks and our incapacity to store a wasteful and
Speaker 1: harmful byproduct. The pattern that I've seen in my industry
Speaker 1: is one of deceit. We're not honest about what we collect.
Speaker 1: The problem number one, it seems to me as a
Speaker 1: user agreement. Why don't we just require social media companies
Speaker 1: to write user agreements in plain English? Would that help
Speaker 1: put the problem? I think that that user givement would
Speaker 1: just say we're taking all your data. Yes or Now
Speaker 1: that's a lot of honesty from the founder of board
Speaker 1: and internet company that he's testifying. The guy's name is
Speaker 1: Massi Edge Jaglowski. I don't know how to say that
Speaker 1: as close as I can get he was at a
Speaker 1: Senate Banking Committee hearing. And you know, sure enough, people
Speaker 1: are starting to wake up to what we've been talking
Speaker 1: about here on the show for a long time, and
Speaker 1: that is that the entire Internet system, of social media
Speaker 1: and all these massive platforms, this is a surveillance system, folks.
Speaker 1: They are they are taking all of your data and
Speaker 1: doing things with it, and you don't know what it
Speaker 1: is and the month you are the product as in
Speaker 1: your information, your personal habits, your likes, your wants, your needs,
Speaker 1: and you're giving it to a third party. Now, it's
Speaker 1: okay if you're okay with that, but it should at
Speaker 1: least be open and honest. The fact that Google's motto
Speaker 1: until pretty recently was don't be evil. I think Google
Speaker 1: doth protest too much. I think Google knew they had
Speaker 1: a problem. But speaking of technology and evil, as some
Speaker 1: of you know, I think that robo calls are the
Speaker 1: most annoying thing happening in the world of technology right now.
Speaker 1: I absolutely hate them. Right it's Susie, Do you know
Speaker 1: that you've qualified for a new tour of the Bubba?
Speaker 1: You know, No, Susie, No, I do not qualify. This
Speaker 1: is not true. This is a lie. You've won a cruise.
Speaker 1: I have not won a cruise. Susie, stop it. Why
Speaker 1: are you such a doubter? Because I know you're lying,
Speaker 1: Susie or whatever your name is that's calling me. There's
Speaker 1: now a new This is a safety tip for all
Speaker 1: of you out there. The Federal Communication Commission has been
Speaker 1: putting out warnings about this for robo callers who do
Speaker 1: what's called a whangeiri scam. I never heard this before.
Speaker 1: A whangeari scam is Japanese for one ring and cut.
Speaker 1: What they do is call you, particularly from a number
Speaker 1: in Sierra Leone or Mauritania. You can see the country
Speaker 1: codes from them two two two or two three two,
Speaker 1: and it's at an odd hour of the night. They
Speaker 1: call once and hang up, and then you think, wow,
Speaker 1: someone's calling me at this hour of the night and
Speaker 1: they hung up like I missed their call. They must
Speaker 1: need to talk to me. You call them back and oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. It's calling into a toll number where you
Speaker 1: will get billed. You will get billed as if you're
Speaker 1: calling a nine hundred number. That's the scam. So not
Speaker 1: only are robo callers annoying and trying to sell products.
Speaker 1: Now they're straight up thieves and people are Look, I
Speaker 1: would fall for this if I ton't know about it.
Speaker 1: People fall for this one all the time, calling you
Speaker 1: from a number you don't know it rings. Once hangs up,
Speaker 1: you figure this must be important. They're calling me at
Speaker 1: an odd hour of the night and you call and
Speaker 1: then they just try to keep you on the phone
Speaker 1: however they can as long as they can, and you
Speaker 1: for it. Robocallers, friends, this is a This is a scourge.
Speaker 1: There should be a bipartisan effort to eradicate robocalls and
Speaker 1: to severely punish and I mean, like I want to
Speaker 1: get I want to get crazy East German stazi on
Speaker 1: these robocallers. Track them down, find him, punish them because
Speaker 1: they need to be stopped. This evening, we are in
Speaker 1: the presence of a true legend, an extraordinary athlete who
Speaker 1: has transformed golf and achieved new levels of dominance. Tiger
Speaker 1: Woods is a global symbol of American excellence, devotion, and drive.
Speaker 1: Tiger endured knee surgery and four excruciating back surgeries. I
Speaker 1: know that you remember too. That's not good, but it
Speaker 1: ended up good, including a spinal fusion. In two thou seventeen,
Speaker 1: he fell from number one in the world rankings to
Speaker 1: one thousand, one hundred and ninety ninth. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that even if he had one leg, I don't believe
Speaker 1: that Tiger's injuries were so profound that for two years
Speaker 1: he could barely swing a club. As Tiger said, there
Speaker 1: was a point in time I didn't know if I'd
Speaker 1: ever do this again, if he'd ever play again. But
Speaker 1: Tiger fought through the terrible pain, and he fought all
Speaker 1: the way back to the Summit of Gold. People love
Speaker 1: a comeback. Trump, I think, in particular, loves a comeback.
Speaker 1: I think actually the in the Art of the Deal,
Speaker 1: there's on the front cover that made me something about,
Speaker 1: you know, the way to make a great comeback, which
Speaker 1: ties into it's not a secret that Trump had tremendous
Speaker 1: financial difficulties back in the eighties and the nineties as
Speaker 1: a real estate investor and casino operator. I will say,
Speaker 1: I don't know how it's possible to lose money running
Speaker 1: a casino. It's like a license to run a ATM machine.
Speaker 1: But he did lose money doing it. I guess there's
Speaker 1: stuff I don't know about the casino business right now,
Speaker 1: somebody who listens in, that's like bucket's very hard. You
Speaker 1: don't understand. Okay, fine, but President Trump gave the Medal
Speaker 1: of Freedom to Tiger Woods and none other then Nobel
Speaker 1: Prize Laureate, which really makes you think twice about how
Speaker 1: important and profound the Nobel Prizes. Paul Krugman shared this quote.
Speaker 1: I'm old enough to remember when presidential Medals of Freedom
Speaker 1: were given for showing courage and making sacrifices on behalf
Speaker 1: of the nation in the world. Tiger Woods hits golf
Speaker 1: balls for money. That's from Paul Krugman, New York Times
Speaker 1: op ed columnist and overall curmudgeon who's wrong about everything,
Speaker 1: you know, leftist curmudgeon who really hasn't had a good
Speaker 1: idea from what I've seen in the last twenty years.
Speaker 1: He seems to forget that the mental freedom went to
Speaker 1: Arnold Palmer in two thousand and four. George W. Bush
Speaker 1: gave that one, Jack Nicholas in two thousand and five,
Speaker 1: Charlie Seaford in two thousand and fourteen Obama gave that one.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so you have people here who are getting
Speaker 1: the you know, getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom and
Speaker 1: they're golfers. In fact, there are other people. I think
Speaker 1: there's been some actors. And you know, here's my thing
Speaker 1: about this, I don't really care who gets the Presidential
Speaker 1: Medal of Freedom. I kind of think the whole thing is,
Speaker 1: I don't know, like trophies for adults who cares. Really,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really strike me, especially when you're giving it
Speaker 1: to people of cultural note and people that are you know,
Speaker 1: civilians that are doing things that are entertaining interesting worthwhile
Speaker 1: inspiring whatever whatever it may be. But can we at
Speaker 1: least just have criticism of Trump that's based in some reality.
Speaker 1: Can we not have people saying that Trump is a
Speaker 1: bad guy and doing bad things because he does exactly
Speaker 1: what his predecessors have done. Wouldn't that be nice if
Speaker 1: we could just have that as a rule. But the
Speaker 1: Paul Krugman's of the world, if they're going to criticize
Speaker 1: Trump and act like he unprecedented, Remember they used to
Speaker 1: say that all the time, They say it less now
Speaker 1: because they kept on finding out it. It wasn't unprecedented.
Speaker 1: Every president before this president has done something very similar.
Speaker 1: I'll leave you with this. Here's Tiger Woods in a
Speaker 1: grateful I'm not a golf fan, but I like a
Speaker 1: comeback story too, So we can have a little moment
Speaker 1: of moment of zen here with Tiger Woods enjoying the
Speaker 1: experience that he had. I know this was a few
Speaker 1: days ago, but we didn't talk about it here play nineteen.
Speaker 1: I just want to say, this has been an unbelievable
Speaker 1: experience and to have the support that I've had for
Speaker 1: all these years, some of you from my entire life,
Speaker 1: and some of you for more than half of my life.
Speaker 1: You've seen the good and the bad, the highs and
Speaker 1: the lows, and I would not be in this position
Speaker 1: without all of your help. In ninety seven, yes I
Speaker 1: won the Masters, and hugging my dad and my mom.
Speaker 1: My dad's no longer here, about my mom's here. I
Speaker 1: love your mom. Thank you. You know it was a
Speaker 1: nice moment for the guy. Look, he's he's made mistakes,
Speaker 1: no question about it. He's but he's paid some. He's
Speaker 1: paid the price monetarily and otherwise. Miraka loves a comeback.
Speaker 1: Trump loves a comeback. I love a comeback. So I'm
Speaker 1: glad that Tiger managed it. And now we'll do some
Speaker 1: roll call rock and roll. Fellow patriots, we made ours
Speaker 1: go up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Indeed,
Speaker 1: it is it's time for roll call. Um, let's get
Speaker 1: in to it, shall we? First? Oh Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton if you want to be part of
Speaker 1: the action, as you know, And just to reminder, folks,
Speaker 1: next week I will be spending some time in the
Speaker 1: People's Republic of China as opposed to the People's Republic
Speaker 1: of DC. So we are lining up a rock star
Speaker 1: group of guest hosts for you. But I'll be out
Speaker 1: for the week and we're gonna have assuming we get
Speaker 1: everybody slotted in properly and according to their schedules, we
Speaker 1: should be having. Well, we don't know everybody, yets. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't say, but I think certainly Raheem Kassam, Harland Hill,
Speaker 1: Ben Wein Gardner. We got a whole bunch of folks,
Speaker 1: so it's gonna be fun. Rachel writes, Hey, Buck, you
Speaker 1: ask for a book recommendation. I have one. I know
Speaker 1: you like history and was wondering if you've heard or
Speaker 1: read the book The Silk Roads by Peter Franco Pan.
Speaker 1: It's a great read. I have not and that sounds awesome.
Speaker 1: Rachel and I just wrote it down because that sounds
Speaker 1: like a perfect thing to read on the plane to China.
Speaker 1: You have a China. You have a China, drop mark.
Speaker 1: Don't be shy about it. By the way, if you
Speaker 1: ever want to throw, you've got it there. It's it's
Speaker 1: in front of you. There we go. Don't ever be
Speaker 1: during roll call. Don't be shy with those drops. Stetson,
Speaker 1: cool name, Hi again, Buck. You made me think of
Speaker 1: something last night. Even if Congress succeeded somehow and impeaching
Speaker 1: and removing Trump from office, that wouldn't bar him from
Speaker 1: running in twenty twenty. The twenty second Amendment doesn't prevent it.
Speaker 1: In orders anything an article too apparently interesting. Huh well, Stetson,
Speaker 1: I I suppose that's true, but I think he would
Speaker 1: be very hard for a president who had his own
Speaker 1: party go along with removing him from office to run
Speaker 1: and win. But I think that that is I guess
Speaker 1: you're correct. You could be removed from office and then
Speaker 1: technically run again. Lowell. All right, Buck, I listen into
Speaker 1: your podcast every day. You are, in my opinion, the
Speaker 1: most honest provider of the news of the day. Thank
Speaker 1: you well, Lowell. In my opinion, you have by far
Speaker 1: the most wise and excellent taste in podcasts. I drive
Speaker 1: a one hundred fifty two hundred miles a day and
Speaker 1: live deep in the country of northeastern Michigan. I'm out
Speaker 1: of the range of conservative radio here. But I also
Speaker 1: quit listening to broadcast news ten years ago. Got tired
Speaker 1: of being told what to think. I just want the
Speaker 1: news one time and not all day long. I'm so
Speaker 1: much less stressed than happier in life in general. Tell
Speaker 1: everyone to turn off the broadcast news, just listen to
Speaker 1: your podcast. The hardest part of my day is when
Speaker 1: I'm in a customer's home and they have CNN or
Speaker 1: MSNBC on. Oh the horror. I get caught laughing at
Speaker 1: the stupidity that comes out of their mouths, or grumbling
Speaker 1: under my breath a bit shields hie ps. I love
Speaker 1: the new web page layout and the Beard kudos. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Lowell. Appreciate it, my friend, and I
Speaker 1: agree with you that folks should just stop watching broadcast
Speaker 1: news and they should listen to the Bucks. Next in
Speaker 1: show that is That is the answer to the question
Speaker 1: that we are posing to ourselves here, Jeff writes, awesome
Speaker 1: radio book. Really like hearing your background experience applied to
Speaker 1: current topics. Shields High, Thank you, Jeff. Yeah, I didn't
Speaker 1: go to like journalism school, and just I just want
Speaker 1: to be a journalist and I just want to report
Speaker 1: and be like a reporter. No. I I was going
Speaker 1: to be a government guy, and then I was going
Speaker 1: to be a private sector making money guy, and then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden became a media guy. So kind
Speaker 1: of just go where the wind takes me. Christopher. Right, So,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if this is how you do roll call. Well, Christopher,
Speaker 1: you're fighting out now. If you're listening that it is.
Speaker 1: I'm on the left coast, I know, but I'm a
Speaker 1: podcast listener. I'm upset about those god awful commercials that
Speaker 1: came out of nowhere. I know you need advertising, but
Speaker 1: can you do something about this? I would even pay
Speaker 1: to avoid them, Shields High. Well, Christopher, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: at some point we'll go to a paid subscription podcast model.
Speaker 1: If enough folks were interested in that, I'd be happy
Speaker 1: to do that. I think that would be that would
Speaker 1: be great in a lot of ways, and do some extras.
Speaker 1: But we're We're working on all kinds of plans. I
Speaker 1: will it is duly noted and everyone listening to the
Speaker 1: show has certainly heard that. It has noted that the
Speaker 1: commercials are not what you are liking to hear on
Speaker 1: the podcast, And maybe we'll do a subscription. I was thinking,
Speaker 1: and if I got enough people interested in this, I
Speaker 1: would just do a subscription that was specifically for a
Speaker 1: Shields High and that was like history and those kind
Speaker 1: of deep dives. It wouldn't need that many people that
Speaker 1: would want to subscribe to make it make it worthwhile
Speaker 1: from a production standpoint. You know, we got to I
Speaker 1: don't know, a couple of thousand folks. I think even
Speaker 1: that would probably be worthwhile. Which is a tiny, tiny,
Speaker 1: tiny fraction of how many people are listening to this.
Speaker 1: You know, it is less than less than a one
Speaker 1: That is less than one percent of who was listening
Speaker 1: to this show every day. So I got to figure
Speaker 1: that out. I gotta take a look and to see
Speaker 1: if that's a possibility. I like the digital world endless possibilities,
Speaker 1: although people have to get used to if you want
Speaker 1: certain content in the digital realm, you've got support either.
Speaker 1: It's like artists, my friend. You know, someone had to
Speaker 1: pay Michelangelo's bills. You know Michelangelo needed pasta to eat too.
Speaker 1: Did I just compare myself doing history podcast to Michelangelo?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I leave that to you, David riots Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm Oss, been a fan since the beginning. I used
Speaker 1: to listen to you when I was serving as a
Speaker 1: US naval attache in Tunisia, and still do now that
Speaker 1: I'm retired and live in Jerusalem. Can you please do
Speaker 1: a deep dive on the Wigers and PRC re education
Speaker 1: camps People's Republic of China. That is Thanks David, Well, David,
Speaker 1: thank you for being Oss. It's an honor. You know.
Speaker 1: I'm approaching now. We're not quite at a decade of
Speaker 1: the Bucks Exton Show, but we're getting into the in
Speaker 1: the realm of we'll have to have some real thought
Speaker 1: about where we'll do a live event for ten years
Speaker 1: of the Bucks Exton Show. I think we're at year
Speaker 1: eight now, so it's coming up on us pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: And as for the Wigers and re education camps to
Speaker 1: the People's Republic of China, I like that idea as
Speaker 1: a topic. I just think that I probably should wait
Speaker 1: to do a deep dive on weager oppression until I
Speaker 1: come back from China. If that's okay, I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna not poke that bear or the dragon if you
Speaker 1: will before I head over there. I'm just going as
Speaker 1: a tourists, just going to hang out, do some things,
Speaker 1: see some sights, you know, come out to the coast
Speaker 1: that a few lefts. That is the plan. But thank
Speaker 1: you so much, David. Eric has written me this. This
Speaker 1: military officer was one of the best Air Force officers ever.
Speaker 1: He was instrumental in planning Operation Bolow in Vietnam, that
Speaker 1: Delta decisive air to air combat blow against the Miggs
Speaker 1: in Vietnam fighter pilot the Memoirs of legendary Ace Robin Olds.
Speaker 1: I will also write this one down. Eric. I've never
Speaker 1: heard of it, but it sounds cool and if you
Speaker 1: recommend it, I will check it out. In Rights WHOA Kevin?
Speaker 1: This is? This is long, so I'm not gonna get
Speaker 1: to this right now, but I will read it. I promise.
Speaker 1: Here we go. Michael writes Buck, I'm sorry, my friend.
Speaker 1: I no longer believe that all these left wing politicians
Speaker 1: and bureaucrats will face justice unless something big changes and
Speaker 1: I don't think that anything is really going to change
Speaker 1: shields High Michael, I agree with you. I don't think
Speaker 1: that there's going to be a reckoning in terms of
Speaker 1: consequences for the various Deep State actors and people that
Speaker 1: were working so hard to destroy, undermine Trump's campaign and
Speaker 1: then destroy Trump's campaign or his presidency. Rather, I don't
Speaker 1: think that those people are going to be held to
Speaker 1: account in any serious way. And I do not mislead you,
Speaker 1: and I do not need to leave this audience by
Speaker 1: saying things that I know who get people riled up
Speaker 1: and get attention, but I think aren't true. Though. Who
Speaker 1: are OSS know that I was saying right away after
Speaker 1: Romney lost the twenty twelve election that you can forget
Speaker 1: about any real justice for what happened in Benghazi because
Speaker 1: the people that are responsible for it in charge, and
Speaker 1: that's just the way it went. I said this, people
Speaker 1: got mad, and he said no, buck the hearings and
Speaker 1: Trey Gaudy and it nope, nope. Hillary got away with it.
Speaker 1: No real consequences for her didn't even factor into her
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen campaign all that much, which was pretty but
Speaker 1: that's because the emails. I think were Benghazi Hillary became
Speaker 1: lock her Up Hillary because of the emails. But I
Speaker 1: don't think that you'll see justice meeted out against the
Speaker 1: individuals responsible. But that doesn't mean that there won't be
Speaker 1: some measure of justice achieved. If we find out the truth,
Speaker 1: then at least the American people know, or those in
Speaker 1: America who have an open mind to the truth will
Speaker 1: know what really happened and can maybe bring some electoral
Speaker 1: consequences to the party that was responsible for it, which
Speaker 1: as we know is the left and the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: But no, I don't think I think they're all gonna skate.
Speaker 1: I even think somehow Andy McCabe lying under oath doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: They're gonna find a way to just stretch that out.
Speaker 1: And you know, he's he's a martyr to the anti
Speaker 1: Trump left, so they'll let him. They'll let him skate,
Speaker 1: and they really will. We have Dave Writes got a
Speaker 1: question if a professional baseball player says he did not
Speaker 1: want to go to the White House because of what
Speaker 1: the President did not do to help Puerto Rico. FEMA
Speaker 1: can do so much. They're only allowed to bring it
Speaker 1: back to the original state before the emergency. So my
Speaker 1: question is if a person has on a one time
Speaker 1: with the president chooses to boycott the sports dinner with
Speaker 1: the president, that does not make sense. He has the
Speaker 1: opportunity to talk to Trump and confront him about the situation.
Speaker 1: Why not take the opportunity, Oh, Dave, because people like
Speaker 1: to do a lot of virtue signaling, and you know, oh,
Speaker 1: they won't talk to they won't talk to this president.
Speaker 1: Oh no, not this president. Of this president so bad
Speaker 1: and scary. Ah. Yeah, that's that's the basics of it.
Speaker 1: That's the more or less. Let's see we have here.
Speaker 1: Michelle writes, horse Racing Nation has a film of the
Speaker 1: Kentucky Derby. An angle work clearly shows war a Will's
Speaker 1: foot got in between Maximum Security's back feet and caused
Speaker 1: him to veer to the side. The stewards might not
Speaker 1: have had access to this angle. This proved it is
Speaker 1: war of Will that should have been disqualified. This is
Speaker 1: why the jockey of War of Will did not lodge
Speaker 1: a complaint. I personally will never watch another horse race again.
Speaker 1: We need to all protest this until Maximum Securities win
Speaker 1: is restored. According to Bob Baffair for Baffort, I don't
Speaker 1: know he's the best bafforld in the Baffort. Thank you. Producer.
Speaker 1: Mike's actually an American, he knows these things. He's the
Speaker 1: best three year old in the country. And the disqualification
Speaker 1: was completely wrong. Mike. What do you make of Michelle's
Speaker 1: missive here she spot on and exactly what I said yesterday.
Speaker 1: When mainstream media says that the day all got it right,
Speaker 1: that means that they got it wrong. And she's right,
Speaker 1: they got it wrong. He should have won. There we go.
Speaker 1: Now it's between Michelle and producer Mike. Now it's gospel.
Speaker 1: Now we know they got it wrong. Exactly. That's gonna
Speaker 1: be it for today's edition of The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Please do a spread word about the podcast, and if
Speaker 1: you don't catch us live sometime on the radio, always
Speaker 1: know you can listen on iTunes. We will talk to
Speaker 1: you tomorrow. She'll high Thank you.