Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Inspector General's testifying on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill. We also have the Attorney General saying, not
Speaker 1: so fast, libs. This report isn't the end of whether
Speaker 1: or not the spying on Trump was elicit and perhaps illegal.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that. Plus we know who Time Magazine's
Speaker 1: Person of the Year is. We've got so much more
Speaker 1: coming up on the buck Sexton Show. This is the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Mag Noo, mistake American? Great,
Speaker 1: you're a great American? Again, The buck Sexton Show begins analyst,
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. No. I think our nation was
Speaker 1: turned on its head for three years. I think based
Speaker 1: on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and
Speaker 1: hyped by an irresponsible press. And I think that there
Speaker 1: were gross abuses of faiza and inexplicable behavior that it
Speaker 1: is intolerable in the FBI. In one area I do
Speaker 1: disagree with the IG, and that was whether there were
Speaker 1: sufficient predication to open a full blown counterintelligence investigation, specifically
Speaker 1: using the techniques that they did to collect intelligence about
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. The greatest danger to our free system
Speaker 1: is that the incumbent government used the apparatus of the state,
Speaker 1: principally the law enforcement agencies and the intelligence agencies, both
Speaker 1: to spy on political opponents, but also to use them
Speaker 1: in a way that could affect the outcome of the election.
Speaker 1: And I think when you step back here and say
Speaker 1: what was this all based on, it's not sufficient. The
Speaker 1: core statement, in my opinion, by the IG is that
Speaker 1: these irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactorily explained.
Speaker 1: The question really is what was the agenda after the
Speaker 1: election that kept them pressing ahead after their case collapsed.
Speaker 1: This is the President of the United States. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Bucks Accent show. Friends. That was Attorney General Barr
Speaker 1: with some very important comments that everyone needs to keep
Speaker 1: in mind right now, given the unbelievable mendacity of the press,
Speaker 1: the willingness to skip past what has happened here. Oh
Speaker 1: that's right. The Inspector General that the media has been
Speaker 1: telling us, of course, is so trustworthy and great because
Speaker 1: he didn't completely annihilate every aspect of their narrative, just
Speaker 1: the fact that the Steel dossier was a fraud. Carter
Speaker 1: Page did nothing wrong enormous mistakes, tremendous blunders, and we'll
Speaker 1: get into whether they were just mistakes in a minute.
Speaker 1: But the only thing they don't really have quite yet
Speaker 1: is somebody from the FBI saying, you know what, let's
Speaker 1: abuse the investigative process. Let's weaponize FIZ against a presidential campaign,
Speaker 1: signed agent so and so sending to agent so and
Speaker 1: so with a declaration and signature at the bottom. That's
Speaker 1: basically all they're missing. But to protect the institution of
Speaker 1: the FBI, they're willing to say, we don't know. We
Speaker 1: couldn't get an explanation for it. I have some explanations
Speaker 1: to offer up today to you here on the show.
Speaker 1: It was sunning. I saw Carter Page last night. I
Speaker 1: was at Fox News. I had a nice chat with Carter.
Speaker 1: We've always gotten along very well. I know that Carter
Speaker 1: is now about to embark on a series of lawsuits.
Speaker 1: I hope the Carter Page becomes a very, very wealthy
Speaker 1: man as a result of those lawsuits, because he deserves
Speaker 1: to be, not the nineteen billion dollars level wealthy that
Speaker 1: was written in the dossier. Again, at dossier that only
Speaker 1: morons could believe was true, and that was never verified,
Speaker 1: and that people from the most elite media institutions across
Speaker 1: the LIBS spectrum kept pretending was mostly true had not
Speaker 1: been discredited. How many times have you heard this? By
Speaker 1: the way, I just have to I have to hat
Speaker 1: tip some of my friends in conservative media. Sean Davis
Speaker 1: has been a beast on this one. Molly Molly Hemingway
Speaker 1: also fantastic, both of them at the Federalists, among others,
Speaker 1: who are just going around and pulling out old tweets
Speaker 1: of these idiotic, dishonest frauds who are very well paid
Speaker 1: journos with big platforms at NBC and CNN and The
Speaker 1: New York Times saying things that are just now we
Speaker 1: know flatly on true. Do you sense any apology coming
Speaker 1: from them. Do you sense any of them coming forward
Speaker 1: to say, wow, we really missed this one and let's
Speaker 1: all keep this in perspective. They're trying to just whistle
Speaker 1: past this one like nothing has happened. What did happen,
Speaker 1: beyond any reasonable doubt, is the weaponization of law enforcement
Speaker 1: against the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, and they continue
Speaker 1: the continuation of that weaponization past his actual election victory.
Speaker 1: For reasons that the FBI admits are utterly inexplicable to them.
Speaker 1: I do not think they are inexplicable to us. I
Speaker 1: think we all know, my friends, if somebody in the
Speaker 1: law enforcing community signs that they have their suspect, they
Speaker 1: have their person, they know that they don't have to
Speaker 1: do a lot to keep going. They know that they
Speaker 1: don't have to change that much in order to get
Speaker 1: that one last warrant to search the person's home, or
Speaker 1: to get that arrest warrant to bring them in. And
Speaker 1: if they're willing to break the rules, if they're willing
Speaker 1: to stack the deck, as I like to say, all
Speaker 1: it takes is, you know, drop a little DNA here,
Speaker 1: and drop a firearm there, whatever it may be. You know,
Speaker 1: place the murder place and prints on the murder weapon.
Speaker 1: You all watch detective shows, you know that's an egregious misconduct,
Speaker 1: right that violates the oath of that law enforcement officer
Speaker 1: and violates the law. Now we are told, for example,
Speaker 1: and I would like someone to explain this to me,
Speaker 1: and I know that they can't. That's why I put
Speaker 1: out that challenge. I also know that they better keep
Speaker 1: these little MSNBC, CNN national security experts, all these other
Speaker 1: people that have built careers. Somebody wrote a book called
Speaker 1: Proof of Collusion. The guy's an idiot. There is no
Speaker 1: proof of collusion. Do you think he's going to retract
Speaker 1: that one? I challenged him to a debate ones that
Speaker 1: was funny. It was oh, I would never never deigned
Speaker 1: to debate somebody, somebody who actually worked in the intelligence
Speaker 1: community has some idea what he's talking about, clown And
Speaker 1: none of them take any accountability for this. None of
Speaker 1: them care that they were lying about this in many cases,
Speaker 1: or that they ran with something that is It is
Speaker 1: unfathomable that they really could believe this. They have neither
Speaker 1: common sense nor sense of justice at the FBI and
Speaker 1: the press. This is a national scandal. President Trump came
Speaker 1: into drained the swamp. In a sense, this is the
Speaker 1: swamp in self immolation. This is the establishment class in
Speaker 1: DC and of the press showing us who they really
Speaker 1: are and what they really believe in. No accountability, no honesty.
Speaker 1: Just stare everybody in the eye and say, what are
Speaker 1: you going to do about it? We're in charge and
Speaker 1: the other people who are supposed to make sure that
Speaker 1: we can't do that, Like President Trump, We're going after them.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening here. You have the biggest scandal in
Speaker 1: terms of politics and in many ways in terms of
Speaker 1: national security, because this does what undermines our elections and
Speaker 1: undermines our institutions, is that now any president who comes
Speaker 1: into office who does not think that leftists throughout the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy are a threat to his or her presidency is
Speaker 1: being foolish. Not just the Russia collusion, mass prous or
Speaker 1: struck Page, McCabe, comy, look at all these individuals. This
Speaker 1: is that that's the top rung of the FBI. These
Speaker 1: are the people running the whole institution. Tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of FBI agents commanded by these people, and we're told that, oh, no,
Speaker 1: there was a legitimate predicate, a legitimate predicate. You could
Speaker 1: only think that there was legitimate predict for the investigation
Speaker 1: known as Crossfire, Hurricane, and particularly the fives warrant of
Speaker 1: Carter Page. If you're a moron. They're telling us openly
Speaker 1: now that they are completely and utterly stupid. And that
Speaker 1: is their defense because if we start to look a
Speaker 1: little bit deeper, we may find out that there's something
Speaker 1: else there. You will notice that yesterday in interviews, and
Speaker 1: Sanctacomy is running around, and he's actually a great help
Speaker 1: to our side, the side of the truth seekers, because
Speaker 1: Sanctacomy shows you how rotten the federal bureaucracy had become
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration, and really for many years building
Speaker 1: up to that, just how utterly partisan and disgraceful the
Speaker 1: top rung of federal law enforcement had become. And let's
Speaker 1: remember this, the most dangerous, the most dangerous organization to
Speaker 1: your liberty in this country is not the NRA, how
Speaker 1: to debate, how to debate, to live last, not Fox
Speaker 1: News as the NRA talking. But it's amazing, you know,
Speaker 1: the NRA is such a boogeyman. It used to be Haliburton.
Speaker 1: You know, this is just a thing that people say
Speaker 1: when they have nothing else to say. The biggest threat
Speaker 1: to your liberties is, in fact, a partisan federal law
Speaker 1: enforcement apparatus that is scarier for you and for your
Speaker 1: ability to have your own thoughts, pursue your own destiny,
Speaker 1: pursue your own life and a freedom than anything else
Speaker 1: in the federal government. It's not even close. And once
Speaker 1: we are told that we should be acclimated to this
Speaker 1: kind of partisanship, what's left after that? Oh no, unless
Speaker 1: they have a signed confession. I did this because I'm
Speaker 1: a hyperpartisan pro Hillary stooge. What are we told? Oh
Speaker 1: that's right, we know now, not explained why all these
Speaker 1: errors happened. Not explained? Huh. Attorney General Barr, who they're
Speaker 1: all going to say as a Trump stooge, But it's
Speaker 1: not going to work. Not only is he a world
Speaker 1: class legal mind, which anybody who's ever worked in DC
Speaker 1: in the upper reaches of the DJ will admit as true,
Speaker 1: by the way, including honest Democrats. He was the attorney
Speaker 1: general under George H. W. Bush. The guy's been in
Speaker 1: the game forever. He knows exactly what kind of swamp
Speaker 1: games are being played here. And that's why he's such
Speaker 1: a threat to the left. That's why they hate him.
Speaker 1: Now they're going to, by the way, they're going to
Speaker 1: come after him with everything they have. I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: surprised if they had some emotionally disturbed person come forward
Speaker 1: and say, you know, forty years ago at a party,
Speaker 1: he made a move on me and then I said no,
Speaker 1: and he, you know, grabbed my behind or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: just they'll make something up, anything to take this guy
Speaker 1: down now anything, because he is such a threat to
Speaker 1: the narrative. They're never going to recover if we find
Speaker 1: out the truth. No serious person could watch CNN and
Speaker 1: think that they're seeing anything other than dishonest, propagandistic, overpaid
Speaker 1: vain stooges. That is what the lineup is over there
Speaker 1: in prime time and throughout the day. Same thing at MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Same thing with the New York Times editorial page, the
Speaker 1: Washington Post editorial page. These people have betrayed their charge
Speaker 1: of informing the public. They are propagandists without remorse. And
Speaker 1: that then brings me to the single most important hole
Speaker 1: in all of this, not explain the seventeen major errors
Speaker 1: in the Carter Page fives. I had a Democrat that
Speaker 1: I promp bumped into last night at Fox tell me
Speaker 1: that she still thinks that Carter Page is a traitor
Speaker 1: after I chatted with him a little bit, and still
Speaker 1: thinks that it was legitimate to investigate him. These people
Speaker 1: are insane. Well, what's it going to take. We have
Speaker 1: the Inspector General saying there's nothing, there's nothing to prove
Speaker 1: Carter Page was a Russian agent. In fact, he was
Speaker 1: really working for the US government against the Russians, and
Speaker 1: then deep state left wing anti trumpers used the fact
Speaker 1: that in good faith, carter Page was trying to help
Speaker 1: the United States government against a Russian counterintelligence threat as
Speaker 1: the basis for pretending he was a counterintelligence threat. But
Speaker 1: people still want to believe. They can't They can't accept
Speaker 1: that they were so swindled, and they also can't accept
Speaker 1: that maybe all their hatred toward Trump, toward carter Page,
Speaker 1: towards so many people in this saga was misplaced. Ultimately, though,
Speaker 1: I think it is about ego. Leftists love the pretense.
Speaker 1: They love to think of themselves as erudite, as brilliant,
Speaker 1: as worldly, as knowledgeable, and they've been swindled like silly
Speaker 1: little children with this Russia collusion mess. All of them.
Speaker 1: They don't want to believe that, though they don't want
Speaker 1: to accept that this is reality not explained. They say,
Speaker 1: somebody tell me how this works. You are a senior
Speaker 1: FBI agent, who, by the way, also was one of
Speaker 1: the agents who tweeted Viva la Resistance in all those
Speaker 1: text messages that came out. But we're not supposed to
Speaker 1: believe he has a political bias. Folks, did you know that.
Speaker 1: Did anyone mention that in the media. We already know
Speaker 1: that this is one of the individuals who was part
Speaker 1: of the whole cabal of anti trumpers at the FBI.
Speaker 1: That guy decided to find out if Carter Page was
Speaker 1: being helpful to the CIA, and then they said, oh,
Speaker 1: actually he's not being helpful. He has not in fact
Speaker 1: working for the side of the United States government. And
Speaker 1: this changed the information presented to the FISA court. Now
Speaker 1: I need somebody to give me an explanation for how
Speaker 1: you could do that. That's not an error, that's not
Speaker 1: a typo. That's malicious, and it's maliciousness that we can
Speaker 1: point to and say, hold on a second, Is this
Speaker 1: just the one time that they got a little sloppy
Speaker 1: with the way they were stacking the deck? Is this
Speaker 1: just the one time when they thought they just pushed
Speaker 1: a little too far? And then you look backwards, you
Speaker 1: work backwards from this proposition if it wasn't if it's
Speaker 1: not explained why all these errors happened, But this one
Speaker 1: seems to be inexplicable in a way that could only
Speaker 1: lean to one thing, bias against Trump. If this instance
Speaker 1: of changing what was in the FISA warrant on Carter
Speaker 1: page was about bias against Trump, work backwards backwards from that.
Speaker 1: Maybe all the other omissions, lack of checking the facts,
Speaker 1: lack of presenting contrary information, maybe that's all biased. Two friends,
Speaker 1: this is what Coomy is concerned about. And this is
Speaker 1: why the Attorney General has come out and said, not
Speaker 1: so fast. We have somebody else looking at this. Come
Speaker 1: yesterday and one of his super smile interviews said that
Speaker 1: the Attorney general, and he's trashing the Attorney General. By
Speaker 1: the way, the Attorney General is ten times the legal
Speaker 1: mind and ten times the ethical human being that James
Speaker 1: Comey has ever been. We all know that has Attorney
Speaker 1: General bar ever been slapped down by his own institution
Speaker 1: for breaking clear regulation as part of a personal vendetta
Speaker 1: against the President the United States Because James Comey has
Speaker 1: let's remember the facts here, James Comy also lied, lied
Speaker 1: to the American people. We will get into that. We
Speaker 1: have the proof. Do you know that MSNBC and CNN
Speaker 1: are not even running the hearing this morning? What does
Speaker 1: that tell you? They know they've got to skip past
Speaker 1: this as fast. Hope, just pretend that none of this happened,
Speaker 1: that there'll be no accountability that nobody will ask any questions.
Speaker 1: How could they have gotten all this so wrong? Rachel
Speaker 1: Maddow Show has four million people watching this a night
Speaker 1: all about Russia collusion and Kremlinology and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: all lunacy. The has been made. They've been made fools of.
Speaker 1: They don't understand this. They've been made fools of. They've
Speaker 1: been exploited. Their their bias and political idiocy has been
Speaker 1: used against them. Or perhaps they just accept that they're
Speaker 1: going to be exploited in this way and they don't
Speaker 1: care because it was entertaining while Rachel Maddow was pretending
Speaker 1: to present them with some complicated theory. But Comey lied,
Speaker 1: and there's more than just that. This isn't over yet.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General is going to make sure of it
Speaker 1: because he said, you know, if there's even a one
Speaker 1: percent chance my wife thinks that's true, that's terrible. And
Speaker 1: I remember thinking, how would your wife think there is
Speaker 1: a one percent chance you were with prostitutes being at
Speaker 1: each other in Moscow. I'm a flawed human being, but
Speaker 1: there's literally zero chance that my wife would think that
Speaker 1: was true. So what kind of marriage to what kind
Speaker 1: of man, does your wife think there's only a ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent chance you didn't do that? And I said
Speaker 1: to him, sir, when he started talking about it, I
Speaker 1: may order you to instigate that, I said, So that's
Speaker 1: up to you, but you want to be careful about
Speaker 1: that because it might create a narrative they were investigating
Speaker 1: you personally. And second, it's very difficult to prove something
Speaker 1: didn't happen. Did you believe his denial? Honestly, never thought
Speaker 1: these words would come out of my mouth. But I
Speaker 1: don't know whether the current presidented states with prostitutes peeing
Speaker 1: on each other in Moscow in twenty thirteen. It's possible that,
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's also possible that James Comey was
Speaker 1: paid on by prostitutes. I don't know. I wasn't there.
Speaker 1: Call me is scum. Let's continue with our exploration here
Speaker 1: former FBI Director James Comey, who you will recall was
Speaker 1: a hero, really the grand hero of the resistance against
Speaker 1: Trump for a long time. Comey is so ethical bypartisan
Speaker 1: served under multiple administrations of both parties. Oh, James Comey's
Speaker 1: fantastic James call me is an actual threat to your freedom.
Speaker 1: James Comey was somebody you should have been concerned about
Speaker 1: in the role that he had. There was about Trump
Speaker 1: and fascism. Trump has done nothing fascistic. James Coomy, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, likes the Soviet method of let's dirty
Speaker 1: you up and then present you with information and hey,
Speaker 1: nice presidency. There be a shame if something happened to it.
Speaker 1: As if that's not enough. Remember he is the FBI.
Speaker 1: He was the FBI director. I am an FBI agent,
Speaker 1: some of you will catch that, but he was the
Speaker 1: FBI director and this is what he said. I think
Speaker 1: this was back in twenty seventeen. Remember this whole review
Speaker 1: was of the FIZA process, not the investigation origins of
Speaker 1: Crossfire Hurricane, although the Inspector General had decided to give
Speaker 1: a little bit of cover to his institution over that one.
Speaker 1: But here is what Comey said about that phiz of
Speaker 1: process play twenty three. A total confidence that the FIZA
Speaker 1: process was followed and that the entire case was handling
Speaker 1: at a lawforce months away by DJ and the FBI.
Speaker 1: I think the notion that Fiser was abused here is
Speaker 1: they're a former FBI or the notion that fi was
Speaker 1: abused his nonsense. I ask you is called me a
Speaker 1: moron or a liar. I actually don't think he's a moron.
Speaker 1: I just think he is a deeply insidious liar, somebody
Speaker 1: who presents himself as a guardian of truth. It's very
Speaker 1: much like our media. They pretend that they're offering up
Speaker 1: objective information, they're informing the public. They play this very
Speaker 1: important role, but in reality they are propagandists, and they
Speaker 1: hide behind this shield, call it the fake tapper. They
Speaker 1: hide behind this shield of neutrality, of objectivity, so they
Speaker 1: can't really be criticized or challenged because they're just trying
Speaker 1: to present the facts to the people. Call me here,
Speaker 1: has always done the same thing. Oh, this is about
Speaker 1: the institution, the FBI. We got to just play it straight,
Speaker 1: you know. James Comey always speaks to us us the
Speaker 1: way a kind of annoying cub Scout leader used to
Speaker 1: speak to me back in the day. A little bit
Speaker 1: too paternal, a little too like pad on the head.
Speaker 1: Oh it's okay, Maybe one day you'll learn how to
Speaker 1: tie that knot except James Comey's a moron. James Comey
Speaker 1: is going around telling us things that we can check
Speaker 1: and see are not true. Now maybe again, I perhaps
Speaker 1: shouldn't say he's more I think it's more just that
Speaker 1: he's caught here because yesterday so he might have no
Speaker 1: choice in a sense. So now he's just going full propaganda,
Speaker 1: running around doing what he can, because he also is
Speaker 1: going to need the left wing media to rally to
Speaker 1: his side if and when the full truth of all
Speaker 1: of this comes out, which, by the way, I think
Speaker 1: is very much that Brennan and Comy and McCabe and
Speaker 1: perhaps Clapper two really just concocted this bizarre theory and
Speaker 1: ran with it and then use the dossier. It just
Speaker 1: was the poison that seeped through the top of the
Speaker 1: federal government and anybody who wanted to believe because there's
Speaker 1: such cry babies that Hillary needed to be our president.
Speaker 1: That's really what the you know, they act like we
Speaker 1: could have had, you know, Jesus is our president. Although
Speaker 1: by the way, if you see there's a poll out
Speaker 1: that most Democrats actually think that Obama was a better
Speaker 1: president to George Washington. So you know, I guess Jesus
Speaker 1: already was our president in the sense, you know, because
Speaker 1: he's the greatest president in the history of the world.
Speaker 1: No one could ever be better. Wow, But they act
Speaker 1: like there was some terrible tragedy that the wildly corrupt,
Speaker 1: an opportunistic, and self indulgent in self dealing Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: who covered up for her sexual assaulting, philandering, lying, cheating,
Speaker 1: disgrace of a husband while while he was president. By
Speaker 1: the way, I know some other presidents did some wilder
Speaker 1: stuff in their earlier days, but not in the Oval Office,
Speaker 1: for Heaven's sakes. And yet that poison of the dossier
Speaker 1: spread throughout the upper reaches of the federal government and
Speaker 1: gave an excuse to anyone who didn't believe it was
Speaker 1: possible that President Trump was going to win that it
Speaker 1: couldn't be. Ah. This meant that there were some psychological
Speaker 1: escape hatch for those deep staters, whom I know very
Speaker 1: well because I used to work near them. The ones
Speaker 1: who used to complain about anyone making a joke about
Speaker 1: the greatness of Reagan as a Hatch Act violation, or
Speaker 1: the ones who would snicker and tell petty jokes about
Speaker 1: how stupid the president of the United States was when
Speaker 1: it was Bush before they would go in to brief
Speaker 1: him because that used to happen, Or who would cover
Speaker 1: up for say, Nancy Pelosi finding out that the war
Speaker 1: in Iraq was going particularly well at one point had
Speaker 1: turned around less US casualties, less Iraqi casualties, and she
Speaker 1: looked at it like we had told her that she
Speaker 1: wasn't getting any birthday presents this year. Yeah. People, they
Speaker 1: are in the federal government. They exist. I know because
Speaker 1: I saw them and I knew them. And some of
Speaker 1: those people took it upon themselves to try and destroy
Speaker 1: the President, and in the process they have absolutely shaken
Speaker 1: the faith that any of us should have that we
Speaker 1: can trust the Department of Justice or the FBI in
Speaker 1: a politically sensitive matter to do the right thing. The
Speaker 1: FBI's defense, Let's be very clear about this, the FBI
Speaker 1: seventeen major errors in the Fiser report omissions. If they
Speaker 1: were building a case for prosecution, the people that were
Speaker 1: involved would be disbarred because they would have to they
Speaker 1: have to disclose this exculpatory The same rules, in a sense,
Speaker 1: applied different punishments in this case. Penalties punishments got a
Speaker 1: lot caught up between the two there, But there's not
Speaker 1: really all that much accountabilit There's been some accountability from
Speaker 1: a cave call me got fired one of the best
Speaker 1: things Trump has done since he was an office. Should
Speaker 1: have fired him day one, and Commy knew that, which
Speaker 1: is why he was trying to play this game of Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't you know, I got this dossier here, I
Speaker 1: don't know about this. Does anyone not believe that the
Speaker 1: federal government, probably Clapper, maybe Comey, leaked to CNN that
Speaker 1: the dossier was briefed to the president United States to
Speaker 1: create this as a news story so then they could
Speaker 1: report on it without reporting it. This is a classic
Speaker 1: propaganda technique, by the way, run it through somebody else
Speaker 1: as a cutout. That's what they did. I know propaganda.
Speaker 1: I studied it. I'm actually familiar with how this works
Speaker 1: at different government when you look at what other governments
Speaker 1: do and how they influence the process of public opinion
Speaker 1: with a hidden hand, with what you'd call black propaganda,
Speaker 1: which is where they're pretending that it comes from somewhere
Speaker 1: it doesn't. There's great propaganda where you don't know, it's
Speaker 1: just like leaflets dropped out of a plane or something.
Speaker 1: But then there's black propaganda, which is, oh, this comes
Speaker 1: from this organization, but it actually comes from the government,
Speaker 1: or this comes from the opposition, but it actually comes
Speaker 1: from the party in power. That's what we're talking about
Speaker 1: here in terms of the tactics that have been used.
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham understands what's going on here. The Inspector General
Speaker 1: is testifying on Capitol Hill. As I said, CNN, MSNBC
Speaker 1: not carrying this one live, Nope. Other things. Hey, let's
Speaker 1: talk about a there's a couple of ducklings that got
Speaker 1: lost from a local pond down in Tuscaloosa, and you know,
Speaker 1: fortunately a zookeeper came over, and they'd rather talk about that.
Speaker 1: I don't want to talk about the Inspector General report. Mmm.
Speaker 1: I'm amazed. I'm still seeing liberals pretending that this isn't
Speaker 1: anything other than devastating to their argument. Their only defense
Speaker 1: at this point is there were all of these lies
Speaker 1: that were circulating about Trump and the Trump campaign. There
Speaker 1: are all these lies. They are all lies. None of
Speaker 1: it has been true. Russia collusion a lie. All the
Speaker 1: things that were being said in that dossier that were
Speaker 1: worth including in a dossia of that. I mean, they
Speaker 1: basically got the spellings of people's names right in the campaign.
Speaker 1: That's it. Everything else a lie, And liberals are saying, see,
Speaker 1: it was a legitimate investigation, A legitimate investigation based entirely onlines.
Speaker 1: That is what they offer you. You're going to accept that.
Speaker 1: That's the new standard. These people are appalling, simply appalling.
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham understands that. Now I mentioned to you the
Speaker 1: doctoring of information. How is this an error? How is
Speaker 1: this a mistake? Do they keep it? It says not explained.
Speaker 1: That's what we can't find an explanation for it. But
Speaker 1: because we can't find an explanation, we don't know. This
Speaker 1: is just another version with the Libs do with jeehottest terrorism.
Speaker 1: We may never know the real motive. I mean, the
Speaker 1: guy was running around with an a long walk bar
Speaker 1: t shirt on an iHeart isis on his backpack. But
Speaker 1: you know, maybe he was upset because he got stuck
Speaker 1: in traffic that day. We may never know the real motive.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could do this with anything. Never really know.
Speaker 1: Can't get inside his head. We'll explain to me what
Speaker 1: you think the motive is here at play clip twenty one,
Speaker 1: if you would please, Producer Brandon. When you read this report,
Speaker 1: what they find is that a lawyer supervising the FISO
Speaker 1: process at the FBI, according to mister Harrowitz, doctored an
Speaker 1: email from the CIA to the FBI, and he's going
Speaker 1: to be referred for criminal prosecution. Why is that important?
Speaker 1: Carter Page, who's been on the receiving end of all this.
Speaker 1: The foundation to believe he was a foreign agent comes
Speaker 1: from a docier that we'll talk about it in a minute,
Speaker 1: and that docier provided by Christopher Still and we'll talk
Speaker 1: about him in a minute. They claim that carter Page
Speaker 1: meets with three people known to be Russians, Russian agents,
Speaker 1: people associated with Russian carter Page, while being wire tapped
Speaker 1: by his government, says, I don't know two of these people,
Speaker 1: and to this day, there's no proof that he ever
Speaker 1: met two of those three to this day. So why
Speaker 1: was somebody referred for criminal prosecution? Lindsey Graham continues here
Speaker 1: play clip twenty two. The third person, he says, yeah,
Speaker 1: I met him. I told the CIA about my meeting
Speaker 1: because I was a source for the CIA. So they
Speaker 1: would have you believed that carter Page is working against
Speaker 1: our government, not with our government. So carter Page in
Speaker 1: the su twenty seventeen is trying to tell anybody and
Speaker 1: everybody I was working with a CIA. I reported my
Speaker 1: contact with this person, and nobody believed him. The CIA
Speaker 1: had told the FBI it was true earlier, but it
Speaker 1: never made it through the system. Somebody got so rattled
Speaker 1: at the FBI they asked mister klein Smith to check
Speaker 1: it out. He checks it out. He communicates with the CIA.
Speaker 1: Is carter Page a source for you? And an email
Speaker 1: exchange they say, yes he is. What does mister klein
Speaker 1: Smith do. He alters the email to say, no, he's not,
Speaker 1: and you caught him. How is that an error that
Speaker 1: somebody could make in good faith? You can't. There's no way.
Speaker 1: You can't come up with an explanation other than this
Speaker 1: person understood. Remember a person had tweeted out or texted
Speaker 1: out rather than not tweeted, you know, Vivla resistance. This
Speaker 1: person knew that the whole fiz on carter Page that
Speaker 1: they had. If it turned out he was a government source,
Speaker 1: that what's the claim going to be? That the Russians
Speaker 1: are running him as a double agent against the CI.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is insane, but all of his contacts
Speaker 1: with Russians would be completely explicable, would be completely understandable
Speaker 1: in this context. And so they hit it. They hid
Speaker 1: something that would have deep six, that would have ended
Speaker 1: their entire fishing expedition against the Trump campaign. It was
Speaker 1: a willful act. And we're supposed to believe that this
Speaker 1: was just mistakes, just errors made here and there. No,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, and I think Attorney General Bar knows that
Speaker 1: that's also not the case. You know what the fun
Speaker 1: thing is, Spector General doesn't know what Bar knows. Komy
Speaker 1: doesn't know what Bar knows, and they're worried, and they
Speaker 1: should be. I want to know for you all, there
Speaker 1: was a very important exchange yesterday where you had Komy
Speaker 1: say that, maybe in during one of his interviews, because
Speaker 1: he's going on a press blitz now to try to
Speaker 1: save whatever remnants of his reputation he thinks he has.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's he's about as honorable and decent as
Speaker 1: Michael Lavnati at this point, somebody who the Democrats at
Speaker 1: one point were raising as a possible presidential contender. But
Speaker 1: he said, you know, Barr is going to keep looking.
Speaker 1: Bar is going to keep trying to find things and maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, eventually he'll find some way to justify this.
Speaker 1: Oh I think he will. Here's play a clip two.
Speaker 1: Here here's Komy trying to trying to start the little
Speaker 1: war on bar himself. The Attorney General has to be
Speaker 1: the steward of an organization that's a political so he
Speaker 1: has to be both a political appointee and a guardian
Speaker 1: of the a political nature of investigations. The justice statue
Speaker 1: wears a blindfold because you cannot be peaking at your
Speaker 1: political boss or your friends when you're making decisions. It's
Speaker 1: certainly hard to explain a lot of his conduct over
Speaker 1: the last year as consistent with that role of balancing
Speaker 1: the political and a politically seems to have leaned on
Speaker 1: the political entirely. I mean, the only reason really for
Speaker 1: him to make a statement in a commentary about the
Speaker 1: Inspector General report, as with Dorham, is really too sent
Speaker 1: a message to the President that you know, don't worry,
Speaker 1: we were still supports. Yeah. I know, it looks like
Speaker 1: that you told whoppers to the American people about a
Speaker 1: vital institution for two years. But I got this, We're
Speaker 1: going to find something. We'll keep dig until we find
Speaker 1: something that justifies what you've been saying for two years.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a role for the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of the United States. You know why he's saying this,
Speaker 1: because Durham is going to find something. He's going to
Speaker 1: find it. It's out there. Friends. They offer you no explanation.
Speaker 1: They offer you that this was just all a coincidence,
Speaker 1: that this just happened. It was just a bunch of oopsies.
Speaker 1: They tell you that the single most important, single biggest
Speaker 1: investigation perhaps in the history of the FBI, in many ways,
Speaker 1: was handled by people who are such abject morons that
Speaker 1: they neither have any sense of fairness nor their own
Speaker 1: procedures and rules, And that somehow, if they were trying
Speaker 1: to continue an investigation against a presidential campaign and then
Speaker 1: a president despite the evidence, if that was their goal,
Speaker 1: they managed to do it. But they managed to do
Speaker 1: it all by accident. It just happened that way. Where
Speaker 1: maybe there's something else here. I think we all know
Speaker 1: there's something else here. How did all of this get started?
Speaker 1: Who decided that they needed to even consider this crossfire
Speaker 1: hurricane investigation against Papadopoulos, who was under investigation by federal authorities.
Speaker 1: We know that it was Flynn, it was Maniford, it
Speaker 1: was Papadopoulus, it was Carter Page. When did all of
Speaker 1: that begin and how and what stories were told. All
Speaker 1: we need, friends is one email, one text message from
Speaker 1: one of these deep state conspirators that Durham is looking at,
Speaker 1: and the whole thing comes crashing down. Wait and see
Speaker 1: when you want to spot that burglar when he's casing
Speaker 1: your home or after he's in, well, you can ask
Speaker 1: John who's Blink camera alerted him to burglars trying to
Speaker 1: break in while he and his family were home, or Shannon,
Speaker 1: whose Blink camera caught a thief stealing packages. Both times
Speaker 1: Blink video clips were sent to police to help convict
Speaker 1: the crooks. Blink motion activated indoor and outdoor cameras are
Speaker 1: wire free, set up in minutes, and run on two
Speaker 1: lithium batteries that last up to two years. And when
Speaker 1: you're away, blinks Live feed option lets you monitor your
Speaker 1: home and check in on kids in's from anywhere using
Speaker 1: your Blink smartphone app. No contracts, totally affordable. In fact,
Speaker 1: Blink systems start at just seventy nine ninety nine. Thanks
Speaker 1: to Blink, home security just got easier. Visit blink protect
Speaker 1: dot com, slash Buck, blink protect dot Com slash Buck
Speaker 1: Again home security made so simple blink protect dot com.
Speaker 1: Slash Buck also available on Amazon at a best Buy.
Speaker 1: Blink is an Amazon company and it works with Alexa.
Speaker 1: I just want to note that the Inspector General has
Speaker 1: said that is it is not possible to rule out
Speaker 1: political bias in the FBI's seventeen carter page fis errors.
Speaker 1: They asked, can you say it wasn't because of political bias?
Speaker 1: And then the answer was I do not know. So
Speaker 1: they don't know. You know why, because how they how
Speaker 1: do they explain somebody doctoring information to look worse for
Speaker 1: carter page and therefore continue the fights against the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and risk criminal prosecution. Friends, this is a big deal.
Speaker 1: You can't do that. I remember a long time ago
Speaker 1: a guy in the NYPD, I think he used as
Speaker 1: turned into a scandal. He used a warrant for phone
Speaker 1: records for either his wife or his ex girlfriend or something,
Speaker 1: you know, to see if she was seeing somebody whatever.
Speaker 1: That guy got in a lot of trouble. I think
Speaker 1: he ended up normally getting fired. I think he lost
Speaker 1: his pension due and just barely escaped prison. If memory serves,
Speaker 1: it was a big deal, and I was just for
Speaker 1: getting some phone records of somebody that you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: not that that was okay, but wasn't a presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: It's a big deal. They can't explain, Oh, we have
Speaker 1: no explanations. We're all we're all supposed to act like
Speaker 1: we're as dumb as the FBI's pretending that the people
Speaker 1: involved in this were. Oh, we don't know, it's a
Speaker 1: presidential campaign. Yeah, you get a little sloppy sometime times.
Speaker 1: You know, things happen a little bit. Oh who cares? Stunning,
Speaker 1: stunning stuff that we see. But like I said, it's
Speaker 1: it is not over, thankfully. It just just a little
Speaker 1: more that I wanted to get to here on what
Speaker 1: you need because what you're being told about this today
Speaker 1: is a lie. What the media is presenting to you
Speaker 1: is not true. Lindsey Graham, I will say, has done
Speaker 1: a fantastic job today so far. My friend Molly Hemming
Speaker 1: over at the Federalists has this. Graham begins by noting
Speaker 1: that if you think takeaway of report with something about
Speaker 1: its predication, it's proof you did not read the report.
Speaker 1: Says his goal is to educate people about the actual
Speaker 1: contents of the report and how it was spun by
Speaker 1: implicated parties. He'll says, he'll assume for the sake of argument,
Speaker 1: that the investigation started. Fine notes that there are essentially
Speaker 1: no standards for opening a counterintelligence probe. Discussing the violations
Speaker 1: of rule of law systemic failure, people at the bias
Speaker 1: level of government took law into their own hands. It's
Speaker 1: as if j. Edgar Hoover came back to life, the
Speaker 1: old FBI that had a chip on its shoulder and
Speaker 1: wanted to intimidate people. Lindsay Graham read texts from probe
Speaker 1: officials like Struck in page showing extreme partisan bias against Trump. God,
Speaker 1: Trump is a loathsome human. Struck wrote, oh my god,
Speaker 1: he's an idiot. These are the people involved in this probe.
Speaker 1: No political bias. But remember the inspector General report. I
Speaker 1: told you this before on Hillary Clinton's EMO said, yeah,
Speaker 1: there was some stuff here and there that wasn't handled appropriately,
Speaker 1: and but no, no no, no political bias. Well, if you
Speaker 1: look at the decisions, it seems that there is quite
Speaker 1: a lot of bias, And if you look at their
Speaker 1: communications leading up to those decisions, there's quite a lot
Speaker 1: of bias. Graham's explaining how FBI blatantly doctored evidence and
Speaker 1: failed to mention exonerating evidence in order to use sorry yeah,
Speaker 1: Graham to use in order to secure a warrant to
Speaker 1: spine an innocent US citizen. Notes of the manipulation of
Speaker 1: evidence changed Carter pages help to his country. To the opposite,
Speaker 1: notes that attorney who doctored that evidence in order to
Speaker 1: violate Carter page of civil liberties also happen to have
Speaker 1: extreme partisan bias against Trump. Graham notes that news rooms
Speaker 1: in America share this extreme bias. The FBI guy who
Speaker 1: doctored et evidence texted Viva larraisis stance. If you're wondering
Speaker 1: whether or not he's a part of the resistance, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're lying to you. There's bias all over the place here.
Speaker 1: Couldn't be any more obvious, couldn't be any more clear.
Speaker 1: But they don't have smoking gun evidence of bias. But
Speaker 1: that's asking a lot, isn't it. Haven't we been told
Speaker 1: all along in the Trump impeachment fiasco, which we'll get
Speaker 1: to in just a moment, have we been told all
Speaker 1: along that you know, you don't need to even be
Speaker 1: a firsthand, a firsthand source of something, right, You can
Speaker 1: just hear something from somebody else hearsay is better than
Speaker 1: firsthand evidence. They actually had people say that in Congress,
Speaker 1: better than firsthand evidence. But now, oh no, all the
Speaker 1: rules change very quickly. Unless you have somebody who writes
Speaker 1: a confession about their political bias, you can't actually think
Speaker 1: that they did anything wrong. You can't think that maybe
Speaker 1: just based upon the decisions they make and what they've
Speaker 1: shared about the way they view the world, about the
Speaker 1: way they view the president specifically and the election, and
Speaker 1: maybe they would have done things a bit differently. My friends,
Speaker 1: it is very damaging to the FBI that this has
Speaker 1: been allowed to occur, and I have to tell you
Speaker 1: it is a whitewash. You cannot trust the FBI anymore
Speaker 1: on a politically sensitive investigation unless there is a house cleaning.
Speaker 1: And by the way, FBI Director Ray should go. He's
Speaker 1: an institutionalist. I'm not saying he's a anti Trump zealot.
Speaker 1: He's an institutionalist. I've told you about this, I've broken
Speaker 1: this down. People who have worked for these places for
Speaker 1: decades think that they are in fact more important than
Speaker 1: the elected leaders who oversee them, that their judgment matters more,
Speaker 1: that they're the true professionals, and that there's also a
Speaker 1: built in need to protect this edifice of government execution,
Speaker 1: even in the face of tremendous malfeasance. So this is
Speaker 1: where we are. They're not going to do They're not
Speaker 1: going to reform willingly on their own. There has to
Speaker 1: be a lot more. By the way, Lindsay Graham also asked,
Speaker 1: is it spying of the Inspector General if we look
Speaker 1: at if the FISA court now reviews all this information
Speaker 1: and sees that there were omissions, there were errors, there
Speaker 1: were lies told to get that FISA on carter page,
Speaker 1: and that the dossier was a central and necessary part
Speaker 1: of it, which was a huge lie to media told
Speaker 1: for a very long time. Oh no, the dossier wasn't
Speaker 1: a big thing. The dossier wasn't a part of it.
Speaker 1: Thank Heavens for some of my conservative for media friends
Speaker 1: who are just running around just just you know, rhetorically
Speaker 1: throat punching some of these lib journals on Twitter for
Speaker 1: the lies that they told in twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen. Oh,
Speaker 1: the dossier is not a big part of this. There's
Speaker 1: super secret sources you don't know about. That's what they
Speaker 1: used to say, just to keep the narrative. Keep the
Speaker 1: lies alive as long as you can, let them do
Speaker 1: as much damage, Let them slow down the Trump presidency
Speaker 1: as much as possible. Perhaps you'll get more people like
Speaker 1: Roger Stone indicted for process crimes. Send in a bunch
Speaker 1: of federal agents to kick in his door in the
Speaker 1: middle of the night with automatic weapons pointed at his
Speaker 1: head while he's standing there in his silk pajamas having
Speaker 1: a martini. Is it spying, Senator Graham asks, it's illegal surveillance.
Speaker 1: Inspector General Horowitz responded, my friends, that's also called spying.
Speaker 1: Surveillance is a fancy French word for spying. It can
Speaker 1: be legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances. If you
Speaker 1: lie intentionally to spy on somebody, that's a problem. If
Speaker 1: you lie to create the predicate for surveillance, then you
Speaker 1: are in fact engaged in spying. They did spy on
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign. They were trying to take them down.
Speaker 1: And keep in mind the mere fact that they had
Speaker 1: this FISA open, the mere fact that Papadopoulos was being
Speaker 1: looked at, and crossfire hurricane, that story of Russia collusion
Speaker 1: was used as a weapon itself against Trump. So they
Speaker 1: created They use lies and in some cases intentional lies
Speaker 1: to create investigations, and then reported on those investigations to
Speaker 1: convince the American people that President Trump was a traitor.
Speaker 1: That is what happened here. And there are people who
Speaker 1: have been covering this, running around with this story, throwing
Speaker 1: gasoline on the fire of the story for years. None
Speaker 1: of them. Yet, I have not seen a single person
Speaker 1: say I was wrong, I'm sorry. Not one. How is
Speaker 1: that possibly? Have you heard James Komy say that he's
Speaker 1: sorry that he was wrong? He had full confidence everything
Speaker 1: was fine with the FISA. I'm sure now he'd do
Speaker 1: one of his oh you know, the Socratic coomy on
Speaker 1: the one hand and on the other And you know,
Speaker 1: some people say this about me, and I would never
Speaker 1: say anything bad about them, except those people deserve to
Speaker 1: be locked up in prison forever. And you know, Comy
Speaker 1: is an absolute disgrace. And by the way, people in
Speaker 1: the FBI, including like Pajama boy over at c N
Speaker 1: who's former FBI and and Asha Rangapa, who's probably the
Speaker 1: worst national security analysts on it's between her and this
Speaker 1: this woman Juliet Kayam or two the two dumbest national
Speaker 1: security analysts on TV, I think, or at least at CNN.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure there's some at MSNBC. Oh. I
Speaker 1: Malcolm Nance is also really wrong a lot at mc MAN.
Speaker 1: This would be a fun game the dumbest national security
Speaker 1: analyst on TV. I mean, I'd go down a list.
Speaker 1: There's a whole there's a whole bunch of them. I
Speaker 1: can't remember. They had a couple of like, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a couple of one star generals that used to go
Speaker 1: on CNN who are also just just I think Hurtling
Speaker 1: was one. I mean he might have been a three star,
Speaker 1: four I don't even know. Guy's an idiot. So they
Speaker 1: really find the worst of the worst. It's amazing. They
Speaker 1: do a really good job of that. It's almost like
Speaker 1: the movie Major League, where they're trying to create the
Speaker 1: worst baseball team to have the most losses so they
Speaker 1: can relocate the team. That's how CNN picks it's national
Speaker 1: security analysts. Let's get the people that are wrong the most,
Speaker 1: that know the least, or that are the most compromised,
Speaker 1: the most un ethical. That's where you get the mccabees
Speaker 1: and the Brennan's and the Clappers and you know those guys.
Speaker 1: These are the people who were running the national security
Speaker 1: apparatus under Obama, and gee, I guess it's such a
Speaker 1: shock that every single foreign policy challenge the Obama administration
Speaker 1: touch was a disaster, and how the Islamic State took
Speaker 1: over enough territory to control the lives of four or
Speaker 1: five million people at one point. We're getting hit with
Speaker 1: major terrorist attacks every couple of months, either here or
Speaker 1: in Europe, mass casualty attacks inspired by or directed by
Speaker 1: the Islamic State. It's almost like the people that were
Speaker 1: running things under Obama had no idea what the heck
Speaker 1: they were doing. But back for a moment to this
Speaker 1: situation that we see unfolding here where everyone's spinning and
Speaker 1: spinning and spinning and trying to evade accountability for what
Speaker 1: they did here with the Russia collusion story, just remember this,
Speaker 1: my fellow Americans. Since the lib journals are willing to
Speaker 1: pretend that spying on a presidential candidate is no big deal,
Speaker 1: and they're willing to lie about Russia Trump collusion for
Speaker 1: years despite zero evidence. There is no level of lying
Speaker 1: too disgraceful for them. None. They will lie about anything
Speaker 1: their mendacity knows no bounds. Keep that in mind as
Speaker 1: you see what has really gone on here. It is
Speaker 1: disheartening as an American to see this. Be honest with you,
Speaker 1: people that I know who aren't even particularly or in
Speaker 1: any way supportive of President Trump, they see this, and
Speaker 1: the ones who are smart and who are honest say
Speaker 1: that this is this is going to haunt us for
Speaker 1: a long time because we do need institutions like the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice to function not as weapons of the
Speaker 1: social justice left. We do need the establishment to be
Speaker 1: transparent and not to defend itself, not just at all costs,
Speaker 1: but as its first priority, which is what we see
Speaker 1: happening here in se in the swamp. President Trump has
Speaker 1: been so clarifying in so many ways, and while I
Speaker 1: wouldn't wish any of this on any president for that matter,
Speaker 1: it is astonishing to watch the President continue to take
Speaker 1: all this incoming and give it back twice as good
Speaker 1: as he's getting it. It's pretty amazing. I understand you
Speaker 1: want to do whatever you have to do to keep
Speaker 1: your family safe and secure, but there's one thing that
Speaker 1: can feel a little strange and maybe you don't want
Speaker 1: to deal with it. Life insurance. The first time I
Speaker 1: had to deal with life insurance. I was in my twenties,
Speaker 1: I was deploying overseas and I figured, well, I've got
Speaker 1: to do the responsible thing and take out a policy
Speaker 1: in case the unexpected happens. So you need to do
Speaker 1: the same to make sure your family is safe facing
Speaker 1: an uncertain future. And that's why I want you to
Speaker 1: check out my friends at Ethos Life Insurance. You see,
Speaker 1: with Ethos there's no hassle. It's modern life insurance for
Speaker 1: people who don't want to waste a lot of time
Speaker 1: and detailed contracts and people that are trying to oversell them.
Speaker 1: Something ethos Is approach is simple. They just take technology,
Speaker 1: industry expertise and a human touch to find the right
Speaker 1: policy for your budget. Only takes about ten nights and
Speaker 1: you can make sure your family has the financial security
Speaker 1: they need. Get a fast, free and personalized quote right
Speaker 1: now at Ethoslife dot com. Again that's Ethoslife dot com.
Speaker 1: We got some political stories to get into today, other
Speaker 1: than the grotesque politicization of the FBI and the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. We've got a Biden's story. We've got a
Speaker 1: poll about the best presidents according to Democrats, and Republicans.
Speaker 1: That'll all be fun. But you know what's continuing on
Speaker 1: is this impeachment ruckus. And there's even a report that
Speaker 1: I saw flittered out there that maybe some Republican senators
Speaker 1: would vote to convict President Trump. Mitch McConnell, cocaine Mitch
Speaker 1: and have a none of that. He's out there saying
Speaker 1: that he would be surprised. I'm glad to hear he'd
Speaker 1: be surprised if there were, in fact sixty seven senators
Speaker 1: to remove the president play twenty please Brennan. That would
Speaker 1: be They're totally surprised if there were sixty seven senators
Speaker 1: to remove the president. That remains my view. However, we
Speaker 1: are obligated under the Constitution to turn to it when
Speaker 1: it comes over, and we will. I have to say,
Speaker 1: I'm not hopeful. Well, no, I'm not expecting that Republican
Speaker 1: senators are going to use the Senate trial as an
Speaker 1: opportunity to really make the Democrats pay for what they've done,
Speaker 1: because they should. That would be justice, that would be fair,
Speaker 1: that would be right. They should do everything they can
Speaker 1: to humiliate the sham put forward by Nancy Pelosi and
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and all the rest of them.
Speaker 1: They should try to humiliate this narrative as best they can.
Speaker 1: I worry though, that the Senate, because it has this
Speaker 1: grandiose sense of itself as the place where the passions
Speaker 1: of the House go to be a bit cooled off,
Speaker 1: that they won't do what they really need to do. Remember,
Speaker 1: you have Pelosi running around still telling people this, and
Speaker 1: I look at I can't imagine anyone is so incapable
Speaker 1: of sound thinking that they would believe it. But she
Speaker 1: still runs around saying that she really wishes she didn't
Speaker 1: have to impeach the president play a teen. I wish
Speaker 1: it were not necessary. I wish the president's actions did
Speaker 1: not make it necessary, but he did. And we would
Speaker 1: be delinquent and our oath of office if we did
Speaker 1: not impeach him for not honoring his oath of office.
Speaker 1: Does anyone believe that, I mean, I really put out this. Please,
Speaker 1: if you're out there you believe that, send me an email.
Speaker 1: Let's let's let's get you to call into the show,
Speaker 1: or you know, I'll read whatever you're write it. I
Speaker 1: just want to know, does anyone believe I mean Democrats?
Speaker 1: Does anyone believe her. She keeps saying this, it's the
Speaker 1: most absurd thing I've ever heard. But they've got to
Speaker 1: just try to dress this up, this whole impeachment nonsense.
Speaker 1: They have to make it seem like something other than
Speaker 1: what it is. It is an absolute joke, except it's
Speaker 1: unfortunately quite serious because it involves the President of the
Speaker 1: United States and institutions of government that do, unfortunately have
Speaker 1: a lot of power, a lot of power overall our lives.
Speaker 1: Even look, there are some out there who understand what's
Speaker 1: really at stake here. Kevin McCarthy, for example, understands this
Speaker 1: play fourteen. You've got to understand what impeachment means. Impeachment
Speaker 1: is the removal of the highest elected person in this land.
Speaker 1: I don't care if you think Americans who support President
Speaker 1: Trump are deplorables, but you do not have the right
Speaker 1: to disqualify their vote just because you do not like
Speaker 1: President Trump. This is what happens when you have an
Speaker 1: entire ideology that has really fallen into a stage of totalitarianism,
Speaker 1: which is the truth of the Democratic Party. They don't
Speaker 1: get have the power to be totalitarians, but they think
Speaker 1: in the terms. They think along the lines of supposedly
Speaker 1: benevolent totalitarians. They want to control every aspect of your life,
Speaker 1: what you think, what you say, what you do, everything,
Speaker 1: because they think they know better than you. They want
Speaker 1: to control the economy, They want to control your conduct
Speaker 1: in your home with your family, tell your kids where
Speaker 1: they can go to school. There is nothing that is
Speaker 1: beyond their purview. At the federal level, mind you, they
Speaker 1: want to control all of it. They think it's going
Speaker 1: to be better for everybody. And if you stand in
Speaker 1: their way, you are an impediment to utopia. You are
Speaker 1: somebody that needs to be crushed and destroyed to encourage
Speaker 1: the others to borrow from Voltaire. What we are seeing
Speaker 1: play out now, anything is justified because the power to
Speaker 1: make the United States a perfect liberal paradise is too
Speaker 1: compelling to skip, It's too compelling to pass, And so
Speaker 1: that's why they'll even go out there. I mean, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is making a fool of herself daily. No one
Speaker 1: seems to care. Adam Schiff is a liar, No one
Speaker 1: seems to care. Jerry Nadler is a joke, just continues
Speaker 1: on so a Team. I appeared last night on Fox
Speaker 1: News is Fox News at Night. With Shannon Bream, and
Speaker 1: you all know, I think Shannon's great. I was on
Speaker 1: with a liberal named Jessica Tarlov, and she's a liberal.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, she's believes the stuff that she says.
Speaker 1: I guess thinks that I don't know. If you watch
Speaker 1: the segment, you'll see it was just it's pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: We talked about this sheriff in Houston who had called
Speaker 1: out by name the Republican Senate, specifically Ted Cruz and
Speaker 1: also Mitch McConnell for not passing the Violence Against Women
Speaker 1: Act that the Democrats have passed. Yeah, you had this
Speaker 1: a sheriff who says, you know who, Sidern, you are
Speaker 1: you on this police chief? Police chief ripped these two Republicans.
Speaker 1: And it look we can all sit around here and
Speaker 1: pretend that that's not a bizarre political statement for somebody
Speaker 1: to make, or an unfair political statement, because this is
Speaker 1: about a sheriff's as a sergeant I believe in his
Speaker 1: Houston PD who was killed by a male acquaintance. And
Speaker 1: this goes to the So the boyfriend loophole is what
Speaker 1: is getting attention here, the boyfriend loophole. And this is
Speaker 1: a talking point. You'll hear a lot in the media
Speaker 1: when they decide to talk about this, because remember, gun
Speaker 1: control is really it's not about saving lives for most liberals,
Speaker 1: because they don't know any lives that it would save.
Speaker 1: It's just about the virtue signaling of I don't like violence,
Speaker 1: and oh my gosh, those big bad gun owners in
Speaker 1: the NRA they do. This is such a brainless and
Speaker 1: destructive position, but it's a very common one among liberals
Speaker 1: that they really think the other side doesn't care about
Speaker 1: preventing violence against women. That convinced themselves that this is true.
Speaker 1: It's horrifying, it's untrue. But then again, liberals convinced themselves
Speaker 1: of a lot of things that are completely irrational beliefs
Speaker 1: about their political opponents. They commenced themselves, for example, that
Speaker 1: we don't care about the planet's future, and if the
Speaker 1: human race is extinct because of fossil fuels, well we
Speaker 1: were getting paid off by fossil fuels or something, so
Speaker 1: we don't care about any of that. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is this is absurd. I mean, this is not a
Speaker 1: serious clan that could be made from one person another,
Speaker 1: But liberals say it all the time. It's just become
Speaker 1: built into the system of the talk points and the
Speaker 1: memes and the bleeding of the sheep from Animal Farm
Speaker 1: repeating in a four legs good, two legs bad. That's
Speaker 1: what they do. Go back if you have it in
Speaker 1: a while, go back and read Animal Farm again. It's
Speaker 1: basically just an instruction manual for how limberals conduct themselves
Speaker 1: all the time. It's very readable, Precy Brandon, you ever
Speaker 1: read it, One of the finest, one of the finest
Speaker 1: satires in you know, the English language. Really, it's amazing
Speaker 1: in this grade school but I think I need to
Speaker 1: It's one of those things you read it in grade
Speaker 1: school and it's fine, but and you get some of it.
Speaker 1: But go back and read it as an adult, different perspective.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's a total Yeah. It totally nails the
Speaker 1: leftist mentality which has just put us in control. The
Speaker 1: rules don't apply to us. They should apply to everybody else, though,
Speaker 1: because we're going to do this amazing stuff when we're
Speaker 1: in control, and so everybody else who has to get
Speaker 1: crushed along the way, that's too bad for them, because
Speaker 1: we're going to do great things. And all the hypocrisy
Speaker 1: and all the changing of the rules and all the
Speaker 1: maipulation of standards along the way, that's all justified, that's
Speaker 1: all justified. But back to this Houston police chief, Art
Speaker 1: Asservado slimming McConnell over the Violence Against Women Act. The
Speaker 1: problem is that the Houston police chief, you would think
Speaker 1: you would know that state law in Texas already made
Speaker 1: the guy who shot this police sergeant in Houston, the
Speaker 1: guy was already a prohibited possessor. He had already been
Speaker 1: convicted of dimesdimmunor domestic violence. And in almost half of
Speaker 1: all states that's already that's already a prohibited possessor situation
Speaker 1: under the currently existing Violence Against Women Act, which really
Speaker 1: is it's a whole bunch of things going to this.
Speaker 1: It funds education about domestic violence, women shelters, hotline programs,
Speaker 1: a lot of things to help with domestic violence. And
Speaker 1: it's been a bipartisan issue for years and years now.
Speaker 1: Democrats refuse to just reauthorize it as is, even though
Speaker 1: they're still funding for the programs. They refused to reauthorize
Speaker 1: the bill which comes up every couple of years. They
Speaker 1: wanted to change it around and add I think LGBTQ
Speaker 1: and specific tribal authority protections, and then I think they
Speaker 1: try to work some other stuff in there, and it's
Speaker 1: just turned into this. You know, Democrats are grandstanding, Oh,
Speaker 1: Republicans don't want to protect people from gun violence because
Speaker 1: of the NRA, suggesting that the NRA doesn't care about
Speaker 1: gun violence. Meanwhile, I mean, how many NRA members are
Speaker 1: ever responsible for any form of gun violence versus the
Speaker 1: general population? Go check out that statistic, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, the NRA is bloodthirsty killers. It evaporates as
Speaker 1: a talking point. But I just thought it was interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean, I called out that ossiveto I mean, here
Speaker 1: we have an incident where the guy who got the
Speaker 1: gun was already it was already illegal for him to
Speaker 1: purchase a gun. We don't know how he got it. Necessarily,
Speaker 1: he might have had it after By the way, you're
Speaker 1: supposed to turn in your firearm if you are convicted
Speaker 1: of a domestic but maybe he just didn't turn it in.
Speaker 1: So it's already illegal from to have the gun. And
Speaker 1: this this sheriff down in Houston is calling out Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell and Kentucky for not doing what the Democrats say
Speaker 1: he must do. And a piece of national legislation that
Speaker 1: would have done nothing to stop this incident. Zero, it's
Speaker 1: already illegal, already illegal. What we're gonna make it even
Speaker 1: it's illegal to kill somebody for one, obviously, but it's
Speaker 1: also illegal for him to even have the fire in
Speaker 1: the first place, so he got an illegal gun. So
Speaker 1: now you're gonna blame Mitch McConnell for not having another
Speaker 1: law that would make it illegal again. For it's just
Speaker 1: it doesn't make any sense. But you know, my counterpart
Speaker 1: last night at Fox who's a liberal. You know we
Speaker 1: have to stop gun violence. Okay, how oh you know
Speaker 1: nationally we need a nationalized background check so that we
Speaker 1: have a registry or you know, we need it. There's
Speaker 1: always and no, this wouldn't stop anything. We live in
Speaker 1: a country. We live in a world where there are
Speaker 1: bad people who do violent things. I'm live in a
Speaker 1: country we have a lot of firearms. There are other
Speaker 1: countries where they have a lot of farms too, by
Speaker 1: the way, you know, and this is I don't know
Speaker 1: see where we just keep getting sucked into the same discussion.
Speaker 1: But the part of this that gets me so annoyed
Speaker 1: New York that law that I told you about where
Speaker 1: you can't transport your gun out, And the New York
Speaker 1: lawyers for this, when pressed by by a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: admitted that they don't really know what the extent of
Speaker 1: law is and that it wouldn't save anybody anything. They
Speaker 1: have that law because New York City is a Democrat stronghold,
Speaker 1: and Democrats ideologically, emotionally are opposed to legal gun ownership,
Speaker 1: and they don't like people who want to own guns legally.
Speaker 1: Those people are generally Republican, generally the others, so they
Speaker 1: want to find a way to stick a thumb in
Speaker 1: their eye. And that's what the law was about. No
Speaker 1: person thought that law was going to save anyone anything,
Speaker 1: So why have them the books, but just to harass,
Speaker 1: just to annoy, just make life a little bit harder
Speaker 1: for legal gun owners in New York City. It's a
Speaker 1: little bit, really. You see this not just in New York.
Speaker 1: This is true in a lot of other places as well.
Speaker 1: They have laws in the books that no serious person
Speaker 1: thinks are going to save any lives. But they know
Speaker 1: that it's going to annoy people who own guns. And
Speaker 1: if it annoys people who owns guns, well that in
Speaker 1: and of itself then is of course that's a worthwhile endeavor,
Speaker 1: something that we should seek to impose on people. It's very,
Speaker 1: very frustrating to see this, But it's frustrating to have
Speaker 1: a gun control conversation with shrill, emotional libs because they
Speaker 1: just want to talk about how they want to save
Speaker 1: lives and we don't, and that's idiocy. And of course
Speaker 1: libs also know nothing about guns or gun laws too.
Speaker 1: And unfortunately that was a bit the case last night
Speaker 1: that I was dealing with. Just I was dealing with
Speaker 1: a counterpart on the other side in terms of a
Speaker 1: conversation over guns. She just doesn't know anything about gun
Speaker 1: laws or guns. So that the point is a liberal
Speaker 1: sits there and says, you don't care about dead kids
Speaker 1: from gun violence, and I sit there and say, well,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the laws and what we can do
Speaker 1: about this. I mean, I know I didn't hurt anybody.
Speaker 1: I don't know what are we're having. We're having an
Speaker 1: adult policy conversation. We're having a ye're bad, you're Republicans,
Speaker 1: you like guns. This is what liberals do all the time.
Speaker 1: That's the liberal approach. Because it's now a cultural issue,
Speaker 1: it's much more pushed by politicians as a way to
Speaker 1: separate out left and right, as a way to separate
Speaker 1: out people who believe in the supremacy of the state
Speaker 1: versus those who believe in individual liberty, the right to
Speaker 1: defend oneself, and the right to bear arms, the right
Speaker 1: to bear arms if necessary against the state. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: why we have it as a defense against tyranny. Liberals
Speaker 1: still think that that's so crazy. Look back in history,
Speaker 1: very sophisticated, advanced, wealthy societies all of a sudden go tyrannical,
Speaker 1: and the population has no firearms. Guess what, things go
Speaker 1: a lot worse. Of course, the left rejects all of this,
Speaker 1: and they reject any good faith effort from conservatives to
Speaker 1: work with them on trying to add to the mountain
Speaker 1: of laws already in the books about guns. There's all
Speaker 1: kinds of laws about where you can take your gun,
Speaker 1: what kind of guns you can own, prohibited possessor, background checks,
Speaker 1: all these things. We already have all these laws, more laws,
Speaker 1: more laws, more laws, more lass. No. Endless regulation is
Speaker 1: not good for business. Endless regulation is not good for freedom.
Speaker 1: These are straightforward propositions that the left does not either
Speaker 1: understand or care to understand. I'm not really sure necessarily
Speaker 1: which one it is. Speaking of guns and law enforcement,
Speaker 1: a really bloody shootout yesterday in Jersey City, which is
Speaker 1: just just across the river from Manhattan where I'm doing
Speaker 1: this show right now. I can actually see Jersey City
Speaker 1: from my bedroom window. And you had a one detective
Speaker 1: and three civilians killed during a shootout and standoff at
Speaker 1: a Jersey City kosher market on Tuesday. This was a
Speaker 1: story that you could tell they were ready to make
Speaker 1: this a big national, a big national headline, and then
Speaker 1: it sort of dropped out of the headlines. It was
Speaker 1: mentioned last night briefly when I was on Fox, and
Speaker 1: then today you can see a lot of other news
Speaker 1: organizations are not are not picking up on this one
Speaker 1: in the way that they would if the circumstances were different.
Speaker 1: And I think we have some idea as to why
Speaker 1: it was an attack on a kosher market, a Jewish
Speaker 1: owned delhi essentially delicatessen in Jersey City, and the people
Speaker 1: and the mayor has already said that he believed that
Speaker 1: there was that this delicatessen was targeted, and I was wondering, well,
Speaker 1: what do we mean by targeting? I mean, if they're
Speaker 1: talking about targeting them because they are Jewish. Now we're
Speaker 1: in hate crime slash perhaps terrorism territory, depending on that
Speaker 1: motivation and what the background situation was. And it turns
Speaker 1: out that the two people engaged in the shooting have
Speaker 1: ties to a group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites.
Speaker 1: Now why is the media so much less interested all
Speaker 1: of a sudden in this story. Well, because this would
Speaker 1: be it looks to be at this point with the
Speaker 1: information that's come in, an anti Semitic hate crime, a
Speaker 1: murderous anti Semitic hate crime committed by an African American
Speaker 1: male African American female. So two black assailants who are
Speaker 1: tied to this group or have been tied to this
Speaker 1: group in the past, the Black Hebrew Israelites. And so
Speaker 1: there won't be a teachable moment here about white nationalism,
Speaker 1: about how Trump is creating all of his anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: There won't be any of that at all. They'll just
Speaker 1: say that this was a very tragic incident. Law enforcement responded,
Speaker 1: and maybe there'll be some discussion about guns, because I
Speaker 1: believe that one of the Hebrew Israelites had a long
Speaker 1: gun in this in this market, and there was this
Speaker 1: long standoff with law enforcement. But because it wasn't a
Speaker 1: situation involving the white nationalist that we always hear about
Speaker 1: from the media, this will not be a major news
Speaker 1: story for very long at all, and we all know that.
Speaker 1: Perhaps also worth pointing out that the black Hebrew Israelites
Speaker 1: are the group that many of you may have seen
Speaker 1: back during the Covington kids fiasco. Remember the Covington kids
Speaker 1: that were reported on by a lot of major news
Speaker 1: outlets for you know, smirking, staring at at just a
Speaker 1: wonderful Native American leader and you know, spiritual healer or
Speaker 1: whatever they were saying this guy was. And then it
Speaker 1: turned out that there are kids on a school trip
Speaker 1: and a bunch of adults were yelling racist epithets at
Speaker 1: them and antagonizing them, and that Native American activist guy
Speaker 1: went up in their faces banging a drum in their
Speaker 1: faces because some of them were wearing maga hats. And
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to do that, it seems, according to
Speaker 1: a lot of left wing adults, even if your kids
Speaker 1: not allowed to do that. And they reported in the
Speaker 1: Commington kids in a way that was reckless, And now
Speaker 1: there's a major lawsuit underway, and I know, I look,
Speaker 1: I'm all for it. You know this is I see
Speaker 1: my friend Dan Bongino is suing The Daily Beast. God
Speaker 1: bless him. Dan. I hope you take him to the cleaners.
Speaker 1: I hope you you know, I hope you own the
Speaker 1: Daily Beast in a year called the Bongino Beast. I
Speaker 1: hope it's yours. And that's what should happen, actually be
Speaker 1: a good, good paper. Bongino. Dan's kind of a big guy.
Speaker 1: Looked like maybe he's like selling some kind of a
Speaker 1: you know, supplement for the gun show, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. But nonetheless, I'm happy. I think Dan's doing
Speaker 1: the right move there. The commingin kids are suing I
Speaker 1: believe you know, they're suing a whole bunch of different
Speaker 1: publications for the fake news that was spread about them.
Speaker 1: Devin Newness, I think, is also suing CNN for lying
Speaker 1: about him. I mean, it's it's time to start. Let's
Speaker 1: test out some of these defamation laws. Let's test out
Speaker 1: these libel laws. Let's see what really works here and
Speaker 1: what doesn't, because these organizations need to be held to
Speaker 1: account for what they do. But I can just tell
Speaker 1: you right now you're not going to see very much
Speaker 1: about they a black male assailant here tied to the
Speaker 1: Black Hebrew Israelites, murdering a couple of Jewish people in
Speaker 1: a delicate test in He left a note apparently as well,
Speaker 1: and I mean here, let me give you who are
Speaker 1: the Jersey City shootout suspects follow the Black Hebrew Israelite Movement,
Speaker 1: a group who believes the members are descendants of the
Speaker 1: ancient Israelites. There was a note with religious writings in
Speaker 1: the U haul. He and Graham allegedly drove to the scene,
Speaker 1: but a motive, including any alleged nexus to Hayter Tara,
Speaker 1: remains under active investigation, so they haven't really found that yet,
Speaker 1: but they do think they went right to this Jewish delicatessen.
Speaker 1: Law enforcement had no media details on Graham, but a
Speaker 1: neighbor tells News for she lived near him and he
Speaker 1: turned into a dark person after he met a woman
Speaker 1: who is a former health aide and claims Graham's coerced
Speaker 1: into a militant religion. He could not identify chanting and
Speaker 1: reading of the New Testament translated into evil and could
Speaker 1: hear this from her home. It sounds like radicalization along
Speaker 1: the lines of what you'd expect from the Black Hebrewis
Speaker 1: relites who do a little bit of reading from parts
Speaker 1: of the Bible and then they, you know, they chant
Speaker 1: epithets at people. I mean, I've seen them on the streets.
Speaker 1: They call white people the devil. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: the this is the group. And they also are anti Semitic.
Speaker 1: But because the target doesn't fit, you know, because this
Speaker 1: person can't be blamed on Trump, it's just not there
Speaker 1: will be There'll be no national conversation had about this.
Speaker 1: No one's going to come together and say, oh, we
Speaker 1: really need to focus on this. Let's have a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of panels on CNN with ten people at a time,
Speaker 1: all talking about how, you know, Trump is basically responsible
Speaker 1: for the shootout in Jersey City. They're not going to
Speaker 1: do that, and this should surprise no one, because media
Speaker 1: is full of a bunch of propagandistic hacks who have
Speaker 1: no decency or ethics whatsoever. Not everybody, but most of them.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine they vote for it because we did
Speaker 1: nothing wrong. There was absolutely nothing done wrong. They've analyzed
Speaker 1: my conversation every way you can. And when you talk
Speaker 1: about you know, the word favor was mentioned, and it
Speaker 1: was mentioned, not me a favor. If you just saw
Speaker 1: the way it was, it was nothing to do with me.
Speaker 1: This has to do with the United States. The word
Speaker 1: was us, Can you do us a favor? Then we
Speaker 1: talk about the country and we talk about seeing the
Speaker 1: attorney General of the United States. When you look at it,
Speaker 1: and that was just a part of it. It was
Speaker 1: a congratuental Toory Quoll And there were two of them.
Speaker 1: Nobody even mentioned the other one. We had another one
Speaker 1: where they won. Originally he won the election. And I
Speaker 1: think it's a disgrace that people can make impeachment out
Speaker 1: of nothing. That was a perfect conversation. An impeachment out
Speaker 1: of nothing, my friends, that's what's going on. I don't
Speaker 1: want to spend too much more time on impeachment today.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to know the president understands what this is.
Speaker 1: And also really interesting comment here flagged by a left
Speaker 1: wing journalist named Michael Tracy. He wrote that Jeffrey Tubin
Speaker 1: made an interesting point just now on CNN quote it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what the actual articles of impeachment are. No
Speaker 1: one will remember. It just matters that Trump is impeached. Yep,
Speaker 1: that's all this is impeach him, to impeach him, Orange
Speaker 1: Man bad. That is the impeachment. That's all it is,
Speaker 1: Trump bad. They have nothing beyond that. And this is laughable.
Speaker 1: By the way, I was very pleased there was all
Speaker 1: this legal analysis of that I saw after the fact.
Speaker 1: When I came and told you guys yesterday how absurd
Speaker 1: it was to say that he was obstructing Congress by
Speaker 1: going to the courts. A lot of prominent national lawyers
Speaker 1: were like, yeah, that's you can't do that. You can't
Speaker 1: say you're not allowed to go to court. That's obstruction. Sorry,
Speaker 1: that's what the Democrats are doing. It's it's preposterous. But
Speaker 1: that is where that is where it is, all right now.
Speaker 1: I wanted to move on to something else. Oh wait, no,
Speaker 1: Michael Bloomberg. Michael Bloomberg still out there. He's still getting
Speaker 1: more votes, still getting more people to come to his side.
Speaker 1: How's my Bloomberg coming along? What do you think that's
Speaker 1: getting there? Right? It's a bit Morty Goldman from Family Guy.
Speaker 1: I don't know that one, but you know, I think
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sounds a little he's like a little bit down
Speaker 1: here because he's about five foot two, he's worth fifty
Speaker 1: billion dollars, you know, and he doesn't like big sodas,
Speaker 1: maybe because they make him feel shut of. But here's
Speaker 1: what he said about his version or his view of impeachment.
Speaker 1: Play eight. I think it is very sad for this
Speaker 1: country that I can say the following. But unfortunately the
Speaker 1: evidence seems to be serious enough that I would if
Speaker 1: I was in the Senate in the House, I would
Speaker 1: vote for impeachment. But I don't think we should do
Speaker 1: this lightly. I think it's a great danger you influence
Speaker 1: the political process fundamentally. I think the electorate should decide
Speaker 1: who they are led by, and they have an opportunity
Speaker 1: to throw them out every four years. Wow. That sounds
Speaker 1: almost at the end somewhat reasonable, Like how about we
Speaker 1: just have an election? What could be more obvious at
Speaker 1: this point than that? And yet here we are, here
Speaker 1: is what we are being told. I am really trying
Speaker 1: to find I'm trying to find this poll that I
Speaker 1: you gotta see it. Oh, here we go. I found it.
Speaker 1: I love this one. This is amazing. So one of
Speaker 1: my consistent themes stretching back here to the many years
Speaker 1: of the buck Sex and show what of my themes
Speaker 1: has been that Democrats like the worship of politicians, and
Speaker 1: people say that Trump has a cult around him. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's true, although I do think
Speaker 1: that Trump is a very charismatic figure in a lot
Speaker 1: of people do support him in a way that is
Speaker 1: exceeds what you usually see for support of Republican politician.
Speaker 1: But Democrats tend to deeply invest themselves in their leaders.
Speaker 1: They deeply invest themselves and the people that they put
Speaker 1: intelected office. And Obama was a whole level beyond what
Speaker 1: because to support Obama was more than anything else, a
Speaker 1: way of telling everybody about who you were as a
Speaker 1: supporter of him. And if you are of a liberal mindset,
Speaker 1: if you support Obama, you are a good person. You're
Speaker 1: not a racist person. And you want a better America.
Speaker 1: You want a multicultural, diverse America, you want socialism in
Speaker 1: or whatever all these. You want to help people. You
Speaker 1: want to be a good lib good liberals. You support
Speaker 1: Obambam and not to support him, you worship him. I
Speaker 1: mean you think that Obama is beyond any real criticism
Speaker 1: or any real accountability. And I would also note and
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to take this back to the conversation
Speaker 1: we've been having on the show today about all the
Speaker 1: things going on in the realm of the inspector General report.
Speaker 1: But notice how all this happened while Obama was president.
Speaker 1: Very little talk about that, right, somehow it's never connected.
Speaker 1: They never make the connection to Obama. These people worked
Speaker 1: for Obama, he's the commander in chief, he's had an
Speaker 1: executive branch. But there's no I don't think that's an accident.
Speaker 1: But this was a Monmouth University poll that just came
Speaker 1: out yesterday, and I love this that this is great
Speaker 1: tells you a lot who was a better president? Very
Speaker 1: straightforward question, who was a better president? Among Republicans, thirty
Speaker 1: seven percent said Donald Trump. Forty four percent said George Washington.
Speaker 1: So a lot of Republicans think that Trump is better
Speaker 1: than Washington. But most Republicans do, in fact, think that
Speaker 1: the first president, who was also commander in chief of
Speaker 1: the military, defeated the British, etc. Etc. The first president
Speaker 1: gets the nod as as a better president in the
Speaker 1: grand scheme of things than Trump three years in Trump
Speaker 1: eight years in. Maybe a different conversation, but for now,
Speaker 1: most Republicans, I think are making that judgment call in
Speaker 1: that's fine, but this was amazing. Among Democrats, twenty nine
Speaker 1: percent think that George Washington is better than Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: Sixty three percent of Democrats, I think Barack Obama was
Speaker 1: a better president than George Washington. Now, could I just
Speaker 1: based on what I just want to be based on
Speaker 1: what thing? What was the what was the transformational moment
Speaker 1: in American politics that Obama getting elected? Is that really
Speaker 1: by being elected he was a better president than George Washington?
Speaker 1: Is that really what we're um, didn't win any wars,
Speaker 1: didn't didn't preside over some booming economy, didn't you know,
Speaker 1: no great foreign policy, state craft, or what's the what
Speaker 1: exactly is the you know, I'm kind of started the
Speaker 1: socialist revolution that we're in the midst of in this country.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe I guess that's why the Democrats like
Speaker 1: him so much. But sixty three percent think he's better
Speaker 1: than George Washington. That's that's a that's a solid majority. Um.
Speaker 1: And I think that if you ask Democrats is Barack
Speaker 1: Obama the greatest president of all time? You'd have a
Speaker 1: huge a huge number of them would say yes. Which
Speaker 1: is just I'm amazing. But you know, he's probably not
Speaker 1: going to be the Democrats all time favorite president no
Speaker 1: matter what, Joe Biden, because he's not going to be president.
Speaker 1: That's the main thing. I think that would probably slow
Speaker 1: him down for all of For that purpose, I also
Speaker 1: would note that there is speaking of slowing down. It's
Speaker 1: a smooth transition. He's a smooth operato. That was not
Speaker 1: in tune, but it was a song lyric and I
Speaker 1: thought I needed to throw it in there. Biden has
Speaker 1: signaled to aids that he would serve only a single term,
Speaker 1: according to Politico Today, which is another way of saying, guys,
Speaker 1: I know him too old and I don't have it
Speaker 1: in me, but like, we can't let Trump win, so
Speaker 1: vote for me and then I'll pass the baton to
Speaker 1: somebody else who can actually get this done. Now he won't.
Speaker 1: They say the guy said seven years old, folks, I
Speaker 1: mean he would be solidly into his eighties at the
Speaker 1: end of his first term. I mean, there's that anybody
Speaker 1: allowed to think that maybe that's a it's a little
Speaker 1: bit old to be pressed. I'm not saying it's too
Speaker 1: old to you know, write books, travel with family, you know,
Speaker 1: do cool things. Of course, right, I'm not saying people
Speaker 1: are as young as they feel. But if you're gonna
Speaker 1: have the nuclear codes, I do think that people are
Speaker 1: allowed to ask questions about whether or not you are
Speaker 1: in optimal health and can handle the rigors of that
Speaker 1: job from just a physical and psychological perspective because of
Speaker 1: your age. Biden, well, his advisors are saying that he's
Speaker 1: thinking about he has not not yet done this, thinking
Speaker 1: about a one term pledge in order to get this done.
Speaker 1: He's thinking about signing a one term pledge. And the
Speaker 1: idea I suppose would be that Biden would then pick
Speaker 1: a favorite of the establishment and a younger considerably so.
Speaker 1: Not gonna be Bernie Sanders. Is it gonna be Elizabeth Warren? No.
Speaker 1: I think he'd like it to be Kamala Harris, probably
Speaker 1: if I had, if I had to pick. But Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris's campaign was such a non starter that maybe that
Speaker 1: will look a little too a little too much like
Speaker 1: the elites don't care what the people who vote for
Speaker 1: them actually think about who should be in charge. So
Speaker 1: here's what the political wrote about this. While the option
Speaker 1: of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for
Speaker 1: now settled on an alternative strategy, quietly indicating he will
Speaker 1: almost certainly not run for a second term, while declining
Speaker 1: to make a promise that he and his advisor's fear
Speaker 1: could turn him into a lame duck and sap him
Speaker 1: of his political capital. According to four people who regularly
Speaker 1: talk to Biden, all of whom ask for anonymity to
Speaker 1: discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he
Speaker 1: will run for reelection in twenty twenty four, when he
Speaker 1: would be the first octogenarian president. He's going to be
Speaker 1: eighty two years old in four years, and he won't
Speaker 1: be running for reelection. Biden's trying to He's got to
Speaker 1: change things up. He knows that he's a weak front runner.
Speaker 1: I know that his support has been durable, but he
Speaker 1: knows he's a weak frontrunner, and that support would shift
Speaker 1: over in a moment if if things all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: if there was just a change in the narrative. So
Speaker 1: they know that Biden's not I feel very confident in
Speaker 1: my prediction to you that Biden is not going to
Speaker 1: be the guy. I still think that that is the case.
Speaker 1: I still believe that there'll be but then who, But
Speaker 1: then who? Here we are? I read about politics all
Speaker 1: day long. I speak to people in d C, New York,
Speaker 1: across the country, trying to just pull sources and see,
Speaker 1: you know, who knows what about what campaign? Nobody knows
Speaker 1: who the Democrat winner of the primary is going to be. Nope,
Speaker 1: I mean I say nobody knows. Nobody even feels confident.
Speaker 1: They don't even have a pick that they'll say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I really believe that this is going to be the one,
Speaker 1: which means that you're still gonna have this. You still
Speaker 1: have these outlied situations, And people say, Michelle Obama, I'm
Speaker 1: still hello, She's still there, folks. She's just waiting. It's
Speaker 1: doing a little bit of yoga, wandering the woods of Chappaqua,
Speaker 1: drinking some rose, just waiting for the opportunity to present
Speaker 1: herself again as your next president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is the only dual certified, veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. They are federally certified as
Speaker 1: a veteran owned small business and they are headquartered at
Speaker 1: Chicago with officers throughout the nation. Their rismunigation experts work
Speaker 1: with startups all the way up to Fortune one hundred companies.
Speaker 1: So for all of your background check needs, call Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. No data or client information is ever offshore
Speaker 1: and all of their employees located here in the United States.
Speaker 1: Keep it all here at home in the US and
Speaker 1: go with a veteran owned and operated company. For all
Speaker 1: of your background check needs Global Verification Network. Call eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine Again
Speaker 1: that's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: Or go to MYGVN dot com Again, that's MYGVN dot
Speaker 1: com Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned. Countries are
Speaker 1: finding clever ways around having to take real action like
Speaker 1: double counting emissions reductions and moving their emissions overseas and
Speaker 1: walking back on their promises to increased ambition or refusing
Speaker 1: to pay for solutions or loss and damage. This has
Speaker 1: to stop. What we need is real drastic emission cuts
Speaker 1: at the source. Greta Thunberg, everybody, Greta Thunberg Time Magazines
Speaker 1: Person of the Year. Who needs the massive protests in
Speaker 1: favor of freedom and individual rights and human dignity and
Speaker 1: liberty in Hong Kong? Who needs any of that to
Speaker 1: be highlighted by a magazine that at least has name recognition,
Speaker 1: if not readership. It doesn't have readership. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: forget about Hong Kong im. Look forget about Trump or
Speaker 1: the whistleblower or all these other names that we're out
Speaker 1: there as possible. Time Magazine Person of the Year Greta
Speaker 1: Thunberg is Time Magazine's Person the Year. I mean actually
Speaker 1: was sitting there talking about the complicated policy decisions that
Speaker 1: are currently being made by countries all over the world
Speaker 1: around climate change. You do have to ask yourself, hold
Speaker 1: on a second. So she's not doing this reason she
Speaker 1: doesn't know anying about any of this stuff, right, doesn't
Speaker 1: understand government, she's sixte years old. Doesn't understand government policy,
Speaker 1: doesn't know how parliament's work, doesn't know how you know,
Speaker 1: just doesn't understand economics. None of this has no idea. Okay,
Speaker 1: remember when you were sixteen, you didn't really know any
Speaker 1: of that stuff. So and she probably knows less than
Speaker 1: you because she hasn't been in school in a year,
Speaker 1: so she's really, you know, a year behind. This is
Speaker 1: the media cheering for truancy, but someone's writing speeches for her. Now,
Speaker 1: I would ask this question, and I mean this, Would
Speaker 1: people be okay with me write or not forget about?
Speaker 1: Takeing me out of this? Would people be okay with
Speaker 1: conservatives writing speeches and having a twelve year old recite them?
Speaker 1: And then would they? Would they then put that person
Speaker 1: on news channels and make them a global news phenomenon
Speaker 1: to have a twelve year old read speeches written by
Speaker 1: adults to attack their political enemies? What would anyone? Would
Speaker 1: anyone be okay with that? Will anybody huh? Nothing? No? Okay?
Speaker 1: Then this is absurd. It's just completely bizarre. I don't
Speaker 1: know how anyone can take themselves seriously if they take
Speaker 1: this movement seriously. You've got a child going around telling
Speaker 1: governments that she knows nothing about, giving them advice about
Speaker 1: a scientific problem she knows nothing about. And now she's time.
Speaker 1: Now they're they're elevating her in every way that they can.
Speaker 1: I mean, it really is. You know how far liberals
Speaker 1: at this point from design, They're just gonna worship the
Speaker 1: son or something. There's something of a of a a
Speaker 1: spiritual regression that the left is engaged in where they're
Speaker 1: just looking for some person to be the savior other
Speaker 1: than you know, like Jesus, but you're looking for someone
Speaker 1: else to be their their spiritual salvation. And you know
Speaker 1: this is this does remind me of a situation where
Speaker 1: you have a false prophet. I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: person who is really there's a pretense here that the
Speaker 1: the Thunberg phenomenon is about combating climate change, but it's
Speaker 1: really a religious movement because you would have to the
Speaker 1: only way you could explain worshiping a sixteen year old
Speaker 1: who doesn't know anything and thinking that people should have
Speaker 1: to listen to her because government should have to listen
Speaker 1: to her and then use force to make their populations
Speaker 1: do what she says. The only way that you could
Speaker 1: think that any of that is possible is if you
Speaker 1: in fact view this as a religious belief. If this
Speaker 1: is not really in any meaningful way about science or
Speaker 1: the data or anything else, then it starts to make sense.
Speaker 1: But this is you know, worshiping a child god essentially.
Speaker 1: You know, there are different societies where they worship you know,
Speaker 1: certain you know, animal figures as a god, although worship
Speaker 1: you know different. You know, ancient Egypt, they had sort
Speaker 1: of huge, huge annoid animals that were elevated as different gods.
Speaker 1: You know, and then some cultures they elevate you know,
Speaker 1: child god. He's now on the cover of Time magazine
Speaker 1: for Person of the Year. By the way, not just
Speaker 1: this is the most important thing. She's done nothing, there's
Speaker 1: she's just got She's a big news story. It's just
Speaker 1: all a construct of the media. But the people that
Speaker 1: are behind this, and I know you're probably seeing buck
Speaker 1: who cares Time magazine, Yes, but it's going to look
Speaker 1: at their psyche. They have an opportunity to actually shine
Speaker 1: a light on what's going on in Hong Kong, which
Speaker 1: is important, which matters. There are millions and millions of people.
Speaker 1: They're singing our national anthem, they're holding up our American flag.
Speaker 1: They want freedom from our greatest enemy and competitor on
Speaker 1: the world stage, China. They want the continuation of rights
Speaker 1: that they have been promised under agreement with the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party. And journalists who claim to be about in
Speaker 1: forming the public and making sure that credit phone. I'm
Speaker 1: also just I was still I'm never gonna forget. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't believe that day when I was at Fox
Speaker 1: and they're saying, don't bash children. I was not bashing children.
Speaker 1: I just was pointing out that adults who listened to
Speaker 1: children about climate change are not very smart, and they
Speaker 1: really can't defend themselves because there's no defense for thinking
Speaker 1: that Greta Thunberg is someone that anybody should listen to
Speaker 1: on this stuff. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping
Speaker 1: it real, It's time for roll call Boma Bad. That's
Speaker 1: one of my favorite one. That's a good one. I
Speaker 1: need some Brandon. Do you have a good Do you
Speaker 1: have like a good chill Spotify playlist you can share.
Speaker 1: I need some new music, but like not, don't don't
Speaker 1: get I hate when people like, oh, I have a
Speaker 1: lot of great music and they just give me all
Speaker 1: this stuff from the seventies. Everyone needs to stopped worshiping
Speaker 1: all the music of the seventies. There's some good stuff there,
Speaker 1: but I want stuff from like the last you know, Oh,
Speaker 1: I have a lot of classic fifteen or twenty I know,
Speaker 1: But I don't need you to give me a playlist
Speaker 1: of the Rolling Stones. I can download the Rolling Stones playlist,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. I'll see I'm trying. Yeah, anything,
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of new bands that are really
Speaker 1: like I was told by Spotify that I listened to
Speaker 1: a lot of modern rock, and I was like, I
Speaker 1: guess that's is that the same as contemporary rock? I
Speaker 1: think it were splitting hairs, you know, like spy versus yeah,
Speaker 1: see call that see I like, I like where your
Speaker 1: head's on on that one versus illegal surveillance. There you go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I gotta you know, And I still have
Speaker 1: the the Internet still out of my place and cable
Speaker 1: I have. It's like I'm Tom Hanks and castaway. I'm
Speaker 1: about to start talking to Wilson the volleyball. It's absurd.
Speaker 1: So are you writing your your book by candlelight? No,
Speaker 1: I have to go to a place I go to
Speaker 1: my my siblings or my parents, or I go to
Speaker 1: an internet calf. I mean I have a coffee shop
Speaker 1: where they have I have to like go like you know,
Speaker 1: I'm like this vagrant now as to travel from Wi
Speaker 1: Fi hotspot to Wi Fi hotspot? What's taken so long?
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, Verizon FiOS, get your act together.
Speaker 1: It's out of control. It's been days how many? And
Speaker 1: they know? I mean, it's a crude. It's not just me.
Speaker 1: It's not like I don't know how to turn on
Speaker 1: my Internet. It's like hundreds and hundreds of people that
Speaker 1: are affected. There was a fire apparently down in the
Speaker 1: you know, in the Wi Fi thing. I don't know,
Speaker 1: and hopefully they put the fire out. The fire's definitely out,
Speaker 1: but so is Buck's Wi Fi. And how can I
Speaker 1: spread freedom and crush commies if I'm not even connected
Speaker 1: to the internet and stream music? How can I get
Speaker 1: my my six Trump retweets in one morning NBD that
Speaker 1: happened today? How can I get that to be twelve
Speaker 1: if I don't have Wi Fi access? Uncalled for? I
Speaker 1: think it's totally uncalled for it, you know. And also
Speaker 1: now we really didn't we need to start a campaign.
Speaker 1: I think I think the Trumpster needs the Buckster in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. I think he needs him to help out
Speaker 1: down at the White House. I'm just saying, you know, Chief,
Speaker 1: they can call me chief propagandas are. I don't even care.
Speaker 1: Come up with some fun title. It'd be great, you know,
Speaker 1: But just they should say, Buck, come down to the
Speaker 1: White House. We need you to crush libs all day
Speaker 1: for us. Just crush libs. That's the early job. It'll
Speaker 1: be amazing, many problems I would enjoy it so much
Speaker 1: it'd have to sound I'd be like midnight, it's still
Speaker 1: beat the White House, like who is next? Are you
Speaker 1: not entertained? Libs? Are you not entertained? I was thinking
Speaker 1: on the way here that you should propose to him
Speaker 1: an idea to have a White House radio station. It's
Speaker 1: it's it's a broadcast out of the White House. It's
Speaker 1: obviously his own bedia and you could be like the
Speaker 1: program direct. I'm sure there's all kinds of laws that
Speaker 1: that would filate, but I like where your head is
Speaker 1: at right exactly. Oh, they say, they say that he's
Speaker 1: an authoritarian. Why can't he just set up a radio station?
Speaker 1: Then I have the bucks to run it. So I
Speaker 1: think that would be I think that would be kind
Speaker 1: of fun. Um, that's something something to consider for sure.
Speaker 1: Um all right. I did say, um, let's see who
Speaker 1: we go here. I did say we'd get to roll call,
Speaker 1: so we will do that. I do not like when
Speaker 1: I take away too much of your role call because
Speaker 1: people actually get mad, they're like, hey, we don't take
Speaker 1: phone calls. Stop stop trespassing on the roll call time.
Speaker 1: That's when the team gets to be heard, and that
Speaker 1: is where we are right now. All right, Damon, this
Speaker 1: is coming in on team Buck on iHeartMedia at iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: dot com. Buck. Yesterday, as I listened to your show
Speaker 1: during the roll call segment, someone suggested another segment of
Speaker 1: your show called buck fever. You kind of spoke as
Speaker 1: if you had no idea what they're talking about. You
Speaker 1: need to get out of the city more often, as
Speaker 1: if you had no Oh sorry. Buck fever is a
Speaker 1: state of mind while deer hunting and you have finally
Speaker 1: seen or have shot at a buck. The person becomes
Speaker 1: so pumped up with adrenaline they begin to physically be
Speaker 1: shaken to the point where they miss some of the
Speaker 1: most simple shots. Kind of fundy to harass another of
Speaker 1: this horrific mistake shields high. By the way, if you
Speaker 1: ever want to try your hand at bow hunting, whitetail
Speaker 1: deer in Indiana or turkey hunting the spring, you let
Speaker 1: me know. Sean, US Army retired Sean, thank you for
Speaker 1: your service and thank you for thank you for updating me.
Speaker 1: You know, I thought buck fever is what happens at
Speaker 1: cepack when you know some of the conservative collegiate ladies
Speaker 1: have too many tequilas or something. You know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I was just about to say, after a first date,
Speaker 1: you leave her worth buck fever. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know when all the ladies are like,
Speaker 1: I need a selfie, you know, and I'm like, hey,
Speaker 1: we could take some self We got a little buck fever.
Speaker 1: You know that's fine. I wish that was what happened.
Speaker 1: I'm like, excuse me, whatever, I would like to take
Speaker 1: a full of me. I'm here. Hello. No, I don't
Speaker 1: think they want to take uh, you know, photos with
Speaker 1: um what's uh? I can't remember what I was. I
Speaker 1: can't remember I was saying. So it doesn't matter now.
Speaker 1: But Sean, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Justin,
Speaker 1: hey there Buck love the show. In honor of your
Speaker 1: Christmas and Birthday wishes, I've been shamelessly promoting your show
Speaker 1: justin you're the man. Thank you so much. That really
Speaker 1: really means a lot. It does help. I've noticed the
Speaker 1: sound issues have miraculously disappeared in the absence of producer Mark. Guys,
Speaker 1: we're throwing you know, we'll leave a producer market. The
Speaker 1: trench is taking grenades, and I mean, what is the magic?
Speaker 1: What is the you know the voodoo that you do
Speaker 1: so well, it's a spell. Producer, Brandon, what are you
Speaker 1: doing on the audio? First off, just so you know,
Speaker 1: none of these people writing in pro me I am not.
Speaker 1: I mean, how many family members do you have? Family members?
Speaker 1: I don't know. We gotta normalize everything. This brings me
Speaker 1: to my next point. Justin writes, Oh no, don't go anywhere, producer, Brandon.
Speaker 1: Catch up on a on a grilled cheese, producer Brandon,
Speaker 1: How could you? This is the stuff of nightmares and commies.
Speaker 1: Tomato soup on the side would be a civilized thing
Speaker 1: to do. You savage shields high Justin? Justin, by the way,
Speaker 1: co sign on all of that. That's true. I would
Speaker 1: use the word adult instead of savage. Again, I have
Speaker 1: the palette of a middle school kid. I just I
Speaker 1: don't know. I like my cats up. Where are you
Speaker 1: on mayonnaise? Just with tuna fish. I'm gonna tell you something.
Speaker 1: I was never really a mayo guy. But there's this
Speaker 1: mayo that's made by this company and they're not a
Speaker 1: sponsor anything. But I'm just you know, sir Kensington. Okay,
Speaker 1: that and I actually met a guy who was involved
Speaker 1: in founding this company a long time ago, and he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're starting a Mayo company, and I thought Mayo. You know,
Speaker 1: Hellman's has got that lockdown for the last fifty years, right,
Speaker 1: everyone know this looks like it's like, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: which is the ketchup? Right? Is there any ketchup other
Speaker 1: than other than Hines that you ever really see? What's wait,
Speaker 1: there's one other one of the people. There are other
Speaker 1: ones Hunts because I know this Hunts hums his bootleg Hines.
Speaker 1: Let's not get crazy. But I remember this guy told
Speaker 1: me this and I said, all right. You know, at
Speaker 1: some point I just picked one up at the grocery store.
Speaker 1: The mayonnaise is amazing. Yeah, like I look for excuses
Speaker 1: to put it on things. It's that good. It's kind
Speaker 1: of way I feel about Natella, which is all Natella
Speaker 1: can make. You're like, oh, I'm really hungry. All I
Speaker 1: have is this old leather shoe that I found in
Speaker 1: the back of an alleyway. You spread some Natella on
Speaker 1: that old leather shoe. It's it's delicious. Dude, Natella, you
Speaker 1: put it on anything, You'll eat it. No Tela on Mazza.
Speaker 1: You should try that. Is that really a thing? Yeah?
Speaker 1: On that? Well, I like the Mazza, so yeah, I'll
Speaker 1: put in Mazza has gluten. Those you're trying to kill me?
Speaker 1: Are you trying to take over the Freedom Hunter? This
Speaker 1: is you're trying to make trying to make the bucksure disappear.
Speaker 1: Has no yeast, but it has Uh yeah, I must
Speaker 1: say it has. It's because it's wheat. If it has weird, yeah,
Speaker 1: yeast is the Yeah. No, I actually can't even eat
Speaker 1: unleavened bread at church. So that's a problem for communion.
Speaker 1: But that's a conversation for another time. Let's see Jakester Brandon.
Speaker 1: What have you done? I'm on team Brandon. Thanks from Jake.
Speaker 1: Do you want to just say thank you Jake for
Speaker 1: the this, this, this producer Brandon revolution that has occurring
Speaker 1: right now? Thanks Jake, whoever you are. Man, I gotta say,
Speaker 1: we got we got more, we got more love for
Speaker 1: producer Brandon while he's making sure the Hut continues to roll.
Speaker 1: Then that anybody could could ever imagine? Um? All right, John,
Speaker 1: and I do believe that's how I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's Joon or June. Hey Buck your show on December
Speaker 1: tenth was awesome. Thank you so much for all your
Speaker 1: knowledge in this process and everything you shared. You know,
Speaker 1: I wanted to email you so many times, but damn
Speaker 1: that show was great. Well they'll call you jay On
Speaker 1: if it's June or John. But thank you so much.
Speaker 1: That's really really kind of you. And you know, I
Speaker 1: put a lot of work into show every day, so
Speaker 1: it means a lot when people care about it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we go, we go all in, we go
Speaker 1: all in. We do this show every single day, Jacob,
Speaker 1: So we're up buck arguing that Friends is better than Seinfeld's,
Speaker 1: like arguing that a grilled chicken breast is better than
Speaker 1: a ribi, or that soccer is a thing that Americans
Speaker 1: should watch or play. Bring back Commy Bear shield side Jacob,
Speaker 1: um look man to each his own. I just think,
Speaker 1: if you're really just going to ask me what's the
Speaker 1: most what's the most exciting show to watch? On the replay,
Speaker 1: I probably see The Office more than anything else, which
Speaker 1: is just say I'm sheer genius. I mean that show
Speaker 1: because you can pick it up at any episode, any
Speaker 1: season and just throw it on and you're good. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, like what the story. Every episode is kind
Speaker 1: of a standalone, which is amazing. I mean, there's obviously
Speaker 1: storylines that go through it, but if you know the
Speaker 1: basic storylines, you can just jump in anywhere. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: And the writing is incredible. I mean, Dwight Trude and
Speaker 1: what's his name Michael Scott are two of the best
Speaker 1: comedic act two of the best comedic characters, and the
Speaker 1: actors doing it an amazing job. Oh agreed, I totally agree,
Speaker 1: but I just can't. Seinfeld is less than than friends
Speaker 1: in your eyes. I just can't agree with. I know
Speaker 1: you can't. That's I understand. That's a controversial take, as
Speaker 1: they say, that's what the kids. That's the most controversial take.
Speaker 1: That is my most controversial take. That And also, even
Speaker 1: though I can't drink beer, so people think it's a
Speaker 1: sour grapes situation or sour hops, perhaps because you know
Speaker 1: Celiac stuff, I always thought beer was kind of overrated.
Speaker 1: I'm just I was never like, oh, I really want
Speaker 1: a beer, you know. And I saw all these beer
Speaker 1: commercials or everybody has like a six pack and they're
Speaker 1: dancing with ladies on a beach somewhere and everything, and
Speaker 1: I was like, hey, you know what when because I
Speaker 1: haven't had a drink in four years, but when I
Speaker 1: did drink, same thing I would rather have, like a
Speaker 1: soda or a milkshake, a strawberry milkshake. Somehow a strawberry
Speaker 1: milkshake doesn't sound as bad to me as eating strawberry
Speaker 1: ice cream. And I can't explain that. I just feel
Speaker 1: like straw I know, I just feel I just feel
Speaker 1: like in milkshake form, it's a little bit more palatable.
Speaker 1: But I want to see that data from the food
Speaker 1: industry on whether it's really true that strawberry is the
Speaker 1: third most popular ice cream flavor, because I just think
Speaker 1: this is a lie perpetuated by the communists. I just
Speaker 1: think that there's no way that strawberry ice cream is
Speaker 1: really something that everybody wants to eat. I just find
Speaker 1: it hard to believe. Jen Hey Bunk love your podcast
Speaker 1: listen every day. I was listening yesterday and you made
Speaker 1: some interesting points about what Schiff is doing. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to have three separate but equal branches, and yet it
Speaker 1: seems that Schiff has been lording over the entire government.
Speaker 1: Checks and balances seem only to be working in one direction.
Speaker 1: Some random judge is able to block Trump at every turn,
Speaker 1: but there seemed to be no check on what the
Speaker 1: House is able to do. I realize there are benefits
Speaker 1: when you have majority of the House, but changing rules
Speaker 1: in the fly to push for impeachment seems contrary to
Speaker 1: our entire system. Everyone listens to show is like so
Speaker 1: smart and so nice. It's really an honor to get
Speaker 1: to talk to you folks every day. It's like I
Speaker 1: have the coolest, best group of people as an audience
Speaker 1: of anybody in the media business, period anywhere. But she
Speaker 1: does write ps team Seinfeld at the end, so point
Speaker 1: for Brandon, point for the bad guys can tell you, yeah,
Speaker 1: producer Brandon gets another, gets another one on the board,
Speaker 1: Buck sexty. If you read this solid read, definitely read
Speaker 1: it would confirm you should read again. Then really you're
Speaker 1: not interested in Oh no, it's the guy who's gonna
Speaker 1: tell me how to how to care my celiac disease. Dude,
Speaker 1: stop stop, no more, stop writing in with this no more.
Speaker 1: I've had enough. Tim Hey, Buck, regarding your uninformed opinions
Speaker 1: on veganism, who right out the bat, look at that
Speaker 1: shots fired? Please stick with your exemplary political inside info.
Speaker 1: That's where you excel, and I thank you for that. However,
Speaker 1: your take on veganism is so far off that I
Speaker 1: charge you with not actually watching the Game Changers documentary.
Speaker 1: The point of the movie is that we don't require
Speaker 1: meat for nutrition, with empirical mixed in evidence with anecdotal
Speaker 1: posing to convince the kids. While so I agree, it's
Speaker 1: still a personal choice to meet in dare industry insures
Speaker 1: we don't have that right shields high also meet his
Speaker 1: all the best, Tim, All right, Tim, I'll take it. Look, Tim,
Speaker 1: I like when people disagree with me, especially when they
Speaker 1: wanted to be a little funny about it. And and
Speaker 1: I like that they're willing to be wrong as you
Speaker 1: are about being a vegan. But like that's cool, that's
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm just kidding. Tim. You're respectful and very
Speaker 1: kind man, and I'll appreciate you. Listen to the show,
Speaker 1: and maybe you know, if I were vegan, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to try to work out so hard in the
Speaker 1: gym so that I don't explode behind this desk like
Speaker 1: job of the hut. All right, Roal Collin continues here
Speaker 1: and we'll switch to the Facebook side of the equation,
Speaker 1: and with that we have Amy Amy Rights. Hey, my
Speaker 1: name is Amy. I'm interesting connecting with some of the
Speaker 1: bucks actions show charged with internships. Here's how I can
Speaker 1: be reached. Well, Amy, thank you so much for writing in. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we don't have interns on this show because there's only
Speaker 1: two of us, so we don't really I don't really
Speaker 1: have space in here, so we don't really have interns.
Speaker 1: Although that would be kind of kind of fun. I
Speaker 1: don't know, do you want to how to get interns?
Speaker 1: Could we could we get like a little producer Brandon,
Speaker 1: a little producer Brandon have to wear like the Brandon
Speaker 1: hat every day, the Brandon sweatshirt, you know, like the
Speaker 1: rock DJ thing. Sure, okay, see we get a little
Speaker 1: little little mini Brandon maybe, but or brand Brand Debt
Speaker 1: Brandta Brenda. I've been thinking about that. Yeah, let's give
Speaker 1: us some thought. I'm sure if we asked, I heart,
Speaker 1: we could probably get an intern in here. But no, Amy,
Speaker 1: right now, thank you so much for interest. But we
Speaker 1: actually we don't have an intern program. We don't have interns.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what an intern will do around here.
Speaker 1: Probably just yeah, I think that what would we do.
Speaker 1: I mean, we just have to have an intern there
Speaker 1: who stares at Producer Marks sometimes and goes, mmmm, behave
Speaker 1: yourself Producer Mark, uh, Matthew sent me, Oh, here we go.
Speaker 1: The batman grappling hook does exist. There even is one
Speaker 1: that goes in a cannon. It uses five five six
Speaker 1: blanks to fire and it goes on any ar fifteen
Speaker 1: lower Wow titanium grappling hook. Mini, that's a real thing.
Speaker 1: This audience is amazing, man, like they know they seriously.
Speaker 1: The good news is that when the zombie apocalypse apocalypse comes,
Speaker 1: Team Buck is going to make sure that I'm x
Speaker 1: filled that here. I'm not even gonna have to like
Speaker 1: set up a plan there. All of a sudden, there's
Speaker 1: gonna be black helicopters or that's right, they'll be black,
Speaker 1: and they'll just like swoop me up and we'll go
Speaker 1: back to the Freedom Hunt compound that you guys have
Speaker 1: all set up with all the delicious, storable food and
Speaker 1: munitions and clean water we could ever need, and lots
Speaker 1: of old history books and of course an ample store
Speaker 1: of chocolate and mescal and some bulldogs because you know,
Speaker 1: we need companionship of the canine variety and we're good
Speaker 1: to go. So that's the game, Brandon, you come with us,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean we'll have a little like like
Speaker 1: rock area, you know, like posters of guns and roses
Speaker 1: and stuff. You know, you'll be you'll be good. Thank
Speaker 1: you my own personal grappling hook, and we'll get you
Speaker 1: a grappling hook, all right. I'm sure you take out
Speaker 1: some zombies with it, if nothing else, for sure, it's
Speaker 1: pretty helpful. I think team the show is done today,
Speaker 1: which is sad because the show is amazing and it
Speaker 1: goes by so quickly. But we're gonna do another one
Speaker 1: tomorrow and pretty much every weekday after that until Christmas one.
Speaker 1: We'll be off for a few days, but we don't
Speaker 1: need to worry about that right now. I will miss
Speaker 1: you all, so please do spread word. Pass the buck.
Speaker 1: Pass the buck. That means you tell somebody about the show,
Speaker 1: say hey, download this on iTunes, post it to your
Speaker 1: Facebook page, the link on iTunes or on the iHeart app.
Speaker 1: Until tomorrow, Shields High