Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt. Is the Senate trial
Speaker 1: almost over or is it just the end of the
Speaker 1: beginning or perhaps the middle. We'll get into that and
Speaker 1: then also CNN is concerned that there's not enough diversity
Speaker 1: of those in charge of the fight against coronavirus. We
Speaker 1: got Brexit, the super Bowl, and oh so much more.
Speaker 1: Oh my, coming up on the Buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexon Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American great, You're a great American again, The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexon Show begins. Analyst, he's a great guy. Now, Hello, team,
Speaker 1: good to be back, misterius. Sorry to be gone yesterday.
Speaker 1: Down with my good friends to Stansbury Research yesterday in Baltimore.
Speaker 1: We got a book draft in book will be coming
Speaker 1: out in the next ninety days. Turn it around as
Speaker 1: quickly as possible to get it out in the out
Speaker 1: in the public for election time. As these things go,
Speaker 1: you got to make sure you time it properly. But
Speaker 1: I did miss doing the show yesterday. I trust my
Speaker 1: friend and colleague Madison Jessiato kept you all informed and entertained.
Speaker 1: Here in the Freedom hunt. I was able to catch
Speaker 1: a good amount of the latest round of last minute
Speaker 1: desperate arguments from the Democrats about why we should extend,
Speaker 1: extend this sham of a trial because we need more witnesses.
Speaker 1: Remember when they say to you, as they have been endlessly,
Speaker 1: when they say to you that a trial without witnesses
Speaker 1: is not in fact a trial, that leaves out that
Speaker 1: the Democrats alone called seventeen witnesses. The Democrats did not
Speaker 1: allow any Republican witnesses, nor did the Democrats allow for
Speaker 1: the president's counsel to be present at any phase of
Speaker 1: the depositions. And there was no cross examination of these witnesses.
Speaker 1: So they were able to line up an entirely one
Speaker 1: sided case so that they could use that evidence, whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, You could use the testimony
Speaker 1: of those individuals to get the House of Representatives to
Speaker 1: have an entirely party line vote to impeach the President
Speaker 1: of the United States. And then when it made its
Speaker 1: way over into the Senate, they realize, well, we don't
Speaker 1: have the majority, so party line vote won't do it.
Speaker 1: In fact, we need a two thirds majority, sixty seven.
Speaker 1: That's a tough number to get to, and so they
Speaker 1: had no open what do they do now? They try
Speaker 1: to extend it, But the processes has been entirely unfair
Speaker 1: all along for those who are now claiming if it's
Speaker 1: a trial, which is interesting because it's not a criminal trial.
Speaker 1: So really the only procedural safeguards that are in place
Speaker 1: are what appears fair to those running it in the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate. So if it's not a criminal trial,
Speaker 1: then it's up to the people that are constitutionally bound
Speaker 1: to hold this process. But if we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about fairness, how about this. It is an essential characteristic
Speaker 1: of our system of justice that when someone is accused
Speaker 1: of something, they have the right to contest to cross
Speaker 1: examine that accuser. In this case, not only is there
Speaker 1: no ability to contests to cross examine the accuser the whistleblower,
Speaker 1: we are not allowed to know officially who the whistleblower is.
Speaker 1: The American people are being told that there's a political
Speaker 1: process underway to judge a president and perhaps remove him,
Speaker 1: and to end a presidency before it has even completed
Speaker 1: its first four year term, because we know he's going
Speaker 1: for eight and there's no willingness to name the central
Speaker 1: accuser of this whole thing, the person who got it
Speaker 1: all started. How could anyone claim that this is fairness.
Speaker 1: Why is it the case that we have no ability
Speaker 1: to cross examine the individual who may have very well colluded.
Speaker 1: There's that word conspired behind the scenes with Adam shaff
Speaker 1: members of his staff in order to bring this absurd
Speaker 1: complaint against the President of the United States. So this
Speaker 1: hasn't been fair. And that then brings to where I
Speaker 1: depart from some of their conservatives out there, who say,
Speaker 1: let's do the witness thing. Mid Romney we know, has
Speaker 1: said that. Susan Collins of Maine has said that. But
Speaker 1: Lamar Alexander, Oh, Lamar Alexander, Democrat of Tennessee, has said,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Republican of Tennessee has said that he will
Speaker 1: not not push for witnesses, that enough is enough on
Speaker 1: this one. Let's just understand that there's no good faith
Speaker 1: coming from the other side. So if the main reason
Speaker 1: that many people give for why we should extend this
Speaker 1: and have witnesses is that it would make the process
Speaker 1: seem more fair to the American people, No, you can't
Speaker 1: reward the tyrannical, maniacal efforts of Democrats to cheat at
Speaker 1: every phase of a process, and then when they haven't
Speaker 1: gotten their way, when really the whole process was boomed
Speaker 1: from the start because of the way they approached it,
Speaker 1: when they haven't gotten what they want at the end
Speaker 1: of it, to give them another shot just because you
Speaker 1: want to see him like you're the good guys, This
Speaker 1: is foolishness. This is foolishness. This should be finished, off
Speaker 1: ended done. Does anyone really believe that if we were
Speaker 1: to allow for a week as Adam Schiff is not saying,
Speaker 1: we need a week of witnesses, does anyone really believe
Speaker 1: that if we pushed for and if the Senate voted
Speaker 1: in favor of this, Democrats would then say, when the
Speaker 1: inevitable result of an acquittal happens for the president, that Okay,
Speaker 1: it was a fair trial and the president was acquitted.
Speaker 1: I guess, I guess we made a mistake on this one.
Speaker 1: I guess we had an error in judgment. Nobody thinks that,
Speaker 1: no intelligent human being believes that that is the case.
Speaker 1: No one thinks that if we play nicer with the
Speaker 1: Democrats at this phase, there will be anything to benefit
Speaker 1: the Republicans, or just our general perception of this that
Speaker 1: results from the Democrats willingness to admit that this whole
Speaker 1: thing was unfair and a scam all along. So why
Speaker 1: is it that we on the right seem so unwilling
Speaker 1: to learn, not even lessons of the past, the lessons
Speaker 1: of last week, of the last three months. Why do
Speaker 1: we refuse to learn the lesson? I can't really give
Speaker 1: you a clear answer. All I can say to you is, well,
Speaker 1: we seem to think that we get a merit badge,
Speaker 1: We get a pat on the head as conservatives for
Speaker 1: being too nice to Democrats who have been engaged in
Speaker 1: all kinds of historyonics, cheating, false accusations, just the worst
Speaker 1: kind of behavior. Why reward Pelosi a nadler, and Schiff
Speaker 1: and Schumer with additional days to smear the president when
Speaker 1: that's all this is? There is nothing new. I do
Speaker 1: not care what John Bolton has to say. If John
Speaker 1: Bolton says, yes, there was a quid pro quo, it
Speaker 1: will not change my opinion of these proceedings one bit,
Speaker 1: because ultimately there's no crime, The president didn't do anything wrong,
Speaker 1: and there's nothing to see here. It's stunning that there
Speaker 1: are still so many who don't seem able to figure
Speaker 1: out what's really going on. There is a stop at
Speaker 1: nothing approach from the opponents of this presidency to tear
Speaker 1: this president down because he is such a threat to them,
Speaker 1: to their privileges, to their power, to the perception of
Speaker 1: them as wise, erudite people that should be running the country.
Speaker 1: The political class, the media class. He's a threat to
Speaker 1: all of this, so they hate him for it, and
Speaker 1: they view whatever they have to do as necessary against
Speaker 1: this president. I mean, really with Democrats at this point,
Speaker 1: it reminds me of the old story of what the
Speaker 1: scorpion and the frog. Some people I've heard say the
Speaker 1: turtle and the frog, the same idea the scorpion and
Speaker 1: the frog. The very short version of this is there's
Speaker 1: a river. Frogs can swim, Scorpions can't. Scorpion goes up
Speaker 1: at the frog and says, hey, can you take me across?
Speaker 1: And the frog says, hold on a second, you're a scorpion.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get stung. Scarpion says, come on,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sting you. Yeah. I sting everything else,
Speaker 1: and I sting people all the time, but I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna sting you. I just want to get across the river.
Speaker 1: He goes all right, scarpion hops in the frog's back,
Speaker 1: gets out in the middle of the river. Sure enough,
Speaker 1: damn stings him before he drowns because now he's paralyzed.
Speaker 1: Looks up at the frog, looks up the scorpion and says,
Speaker 1: why do you do that? Now we're both gonna die?
Speaker 1: What does the scorpion say? It is in my nature?
Speaker 1: We know what is in Pelosi and Schumer and Schiff
Speaker 1: and the Democrat socialist left nature. We know who they are,
Speaker 1: we know how they play the game. We think that
Speaker 1: there's something to benefit our side, something to benefit the
Speaker 1: country by dragging out this boring, disgraceful sham of an impeachment,
Speaker 1: horrible judgment. Any conservative who is advocating for witnesses, I
Speaker 1: think is showing really bad judgment on this issue. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying they do so in bad faith. I just
Speaker 1: think they're wrong. How much more do we have to see?
Speaker 1: Why take the risk? By the way, who knows? Let's
Speaker 1: remember this, speaking of the nature of Democrats, you know
Speaker 1: the Democrat party as the scorpion that will kill the
Speaker 1: frog even if it sinks both of them. Right, That's
Speaker 1: that's who we're really dealing with here. Cavanon was about
Speaker 1: to sail through. They tried, you know, oh well, his
Speaker 1: credentials are impeccable. There's really no case against him. Everyone
Speaker 1: loves him and he's great, God great's job, brilliant, gold
Speaker 1: standard resume, everything's lining up. What do they do at
Speaker 1: the eleventh hour Try to out a bunch of crazy
Speaker 1: people to lie about it and then have the whole
Speaker 1: media appara to say, well, there's no evidence and these
Speaker 1: stories don't even add up, and it all seems like bs.
Speaker 1: But you know, let's destroy this guy's life because we've
Speaker 1: got to make sure we don't have a conservative on
Speaker 1: the court. You want to give them another week, remember
Speaker 1: the game last time. Let's have the FBI investigate the
Speaker 1: allegations of it. Was the dumbest thing I've ever heard
Speaker 1: in my life. FBI's not there's nothing to investigator. That
Speaker 1: can't figure anything out. FB has not some super secret
Speaker 1: squad of investigators that has a time machine. This is absurd.
Speaker 1: But the whole there are some Republicans We'll all look
Speaker 1: like I'm more even handed and fair minded. What I mean,
Speaker 1: We're going into Super Bowl Sunday. As John Madden would say,
Speaker 1: just wap it down. And this thing, it's absurd. It
Speaker 1: needs to stop. The message we want to send is
Speaker 1: that we understand how the other side plays. The message
Speaker 1: we want to send is that we've already seen enough
Speaker 1: frogs drowned to know that we're not going to give
Speaker 1: a piggyback to a scorpion anymore. How about that for
Speaker 1: a lesson, GOP You're in the freedom Hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. We're dealing with a purely
Speaker 1: partisan impeachment with bipartisan opposition, no crime, no violation of
Speaker 1: law in an election year. Okay, never happened before, no investigation,
Speaker 1: no due process, nothing. And what they're telling you, I mean,
Speaker 1: we can talk all we want, and we will, but
Speaker 1: but what are we talking about at the end of
Speaker 1: the day. We're talking about removing a president of the
Speaker 1: United States from a ballot in an election that's occurring
Speaker 1: in months. Who thinks that's a good idea, particularly when
Speaker 1: you're dealing with a purely partisan in eachment that was
Speaker 1: warned about from the Framers. Okay, so the only appropriate
Speaker 1: result that won't damage our country horribly, maybe forever, but
Speaker 1: certainly for generations, is a verdict of acquittal. Sipoloni has
Speaker 1: done a fantastic job throughout He's really made an he's
Speaker 1: earned a name for himself, a worthwhile name at that.
Speaker 1: He is an excellent lawyer, and he's been among the
Speaker 1: strongest of all the people speaking in defense of the president.
Speaker 1: Although you know, the dirsh really got under the Libs
Speaker 1: skin on this stuff because they are even lying about
Speaker 1: how he's now abandoned one of his defenses. I might
Speaker 1: get to that later if we have time. I have
Speaker 1: other things to talk about that other than impeachment. Some
Speaker 1: of you been saying buck enough on the beachment, like
Speaker 1: I'm trying. So there's the obsession of the media. It's
Speaker 1: the obsession of the people that their job is to
Speaker 1: actually bring you facts and things that matter. So, yes,
Speaker 1: got some updates on coronavirus. People are saying that there's
Speaker 1: a racist response to coronavirus in the media. What people
Speaker 1: just don't want to die from a preventive from an
Speaker 1: infectious disease. That there's not this We don't we don't
Speaker 1: need to make this about wokesm right, We don't need
Speaker 1: to make this a woke issue. We can just make
Speaker 1: this that people don't want to die from an infectious disease.
Speaker 1: But but back to what the Democrats have been pushing
Speaker 1: for here all along. Think about this for a moment.
Speaker 1: Imagine if they got their way. Imagine for a moment
Speaker 1: if the Democrats did, in fact manage to remove this president.
Speaker 1: They talk about how they want this country brought back together.
Speaker 1: They've got these candidates like Joe Biden who will say, oh,
Speaker 1: I need to unify this country. I've been so polarized.
Speaker 1: What could be more polarizing than in an election year
Speaker 1: after We've had three years of really exceptionally good governance
Speaker 1: from this president, a record that is crushing. This is
Speaker 1: the best presidential record of my adult lifetime, of any president.
Speaker 1: That's just a fact. There's no one else who can
Speaker 1: compare the first three years of their presidency. For as
Speaker 1: long as I've been old enough to really pay attention,
Speaker 1: no one else who can compare to what Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has done. And you get an election coming up. They
Speaker 1: say he's horrible, he's in a front of the constitution,
Speaker 1: he's all these things, and so they won't allow the
Speaker 1: American people to make a determination about him. They won't
Speaker 1: allow the political process to play out. Instead, they are
Speaker 1: pulling all of the fire alarms in the building. You
Speaker 1: know they can't win the debate, so what do you do.
Speaker 1: You make a lot of noise, you bang on the doors,
Speaker 1: you pull the fire alarms. They're desperate to do something,
Speaker 1: and that's what we see going on here Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: for example. The good news for Joe Biden, or rather
Speaker 1: the good news from Maziehrono, is that Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: dumber than any current sitting editor. So congratulations to Maisie
Speaker 1: Herono because Joe Biden is dumber than she is, which
Speaker 1: is stunning. That's quite an achievement com we have. Well
Speaker 1: we'll get to Masie Arono in a moment. But here
Speaker 1: here's Joe Biden talking about this, not when he's asked
Speaker 1: about whether this is partisan, because Biden, by the way,
Speaker 1: has always said we should not have partisan impeachments. Play
Speaker 1: clip twenty four mark only in nineteen seventy four, wrong
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety eight. Why isn't it wrong now because
Speaker 1: it's not a partisan impeachment. He violated the constitution. Perry
Speaker 1: Democrats voted for the House. Well, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the facts, the underlying facts tours whether the Constitution has
Speaker 1: been violated. That's the issue. That's the issue. The com
Speaker 1: was the Constitution violated. Even if it's a party line period,
Speaker 1: even if it's party line vote, it just goes and
Speaker 1: reflects on those who know in fact, in their heart
Speaker 1: and their head that in fact it's a violation of
Speaker 1: the Constitution to do what he did and at vote no.
Speaker 1: That's party line vote, But that doesn't make it right.
Speaker 1: A party line vote that is based upon something that
Speaker 1: doesn't relate to a constitutional violation is a different thing. Blather,
Speaker 1: Just confused, mister magoo blather from Joe Biden here Ersten.
Speaker 1: A partisan impeachment or a partisan impreachment is uh, you
Speaker 1: know when there's not the partisans who are being partisan
Speaker 1: because the Constitution and the thing about the Yeah what
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, folks, I got it. I laughed. I actually led,
Speaker 1: which is a rare thing for me. That happens sometimes
Speaker 1: when I'm reading through Twitter. But I laughed because Tucker
Speaker 1: had this whole thing about how I'm even just thinking
Speaker 1: about it, that's the whole thing about how Joe Biden
Speaker 1: should be Did you see this Prouser Mark, how Joe
Speaker 1: Biden shouldn't be in the race. He should be feeding
Speaker 1: pigeons from his ice cream coating Flooria and they had
Speaker 1: a little graphic of him breaking off bits of his
Speaker 1: ice cream code and feeding it to pigeons in Florida.
Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's fair at this point.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The bus Essen Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Mitch Kano is a very ruthless person.
Speaker 1: He can cut the voltinos what he needs to do,
Speaker 1: and this is why he took the last day or
Speaker 1: so to really put pressure on his caucus so that
Speaker 1: they would not be that fourth volders coming forward here
Speaker 1: saying that they have their votes. I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 1: we're still hoping, because you know, that's what we do
Speaker 1: around here. That's a that's a campaign at as far
Speaker 1: as I could serve for cocaine. Mitch Mazie Horrono dumbest
Speaker 1: current member of the Senate. Joe Biden, formerly of the Senate,
Speaker 1: dumber than Mazie Horono. But you have Rono's saying Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell is a quote, very ruthless person, cocaine, Mitch. Don't
Speaker 1: play games. Cocaine. Mitch is a very ruthless person. So
Speaker 1: I think that she's cut a free campaign commercial for
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell. And give give Mitch credit. He's apparently exerting
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of authority among his caucus,
Speaker 1: exerting a lot of authority among members of the Republican
Speaker 1: members of the Senate to make sure that they don't
Speaker 1: fall victim to the absurd, absurd demand now that the
Speaker 1: Senate has to do the work that Democrats were unwilling
Speaker 1: to do. Democrats don't play by the rules. And then
Speaker 1: they turn around and say, well, you have to play
Speaker 1: by the rules now, No, that that's not how this
Speaker 1: is going to go. That's not how this should work.
Speaker 1: It would be an error. I don't even care. By
Speaker 1: the way, and people that say they want witnesses, and
Speaker 1: I'm talking about conservatives now including something that I think
Speaker 1: are very smart and that I really like as people,
Speaker 1: I think they're very wrong on this, because even if
Speaker 1: you extend this thing out and nothing bad comes of it,
Speaker 1: we should re establish here, or I guess, just establish
Speaker 1: a new principle that the other side doesn't get to
Speaker 1: cheat and then hold us to the most precise and
Speaker 1: extreme interpretation of inherently subjective rules. Anyway, they don't get
Speaker 1: to say we're gonna go, We're gonna go bare knuckle.
Speaker 1: You guys have to be really nice and generous with
Speaker 1: the rules. Trump Ism is a rejection of that wholesale
Speaker 1: that is the great thing about the president instead of
Speaker 1: sitting there while you know over ninety percent of the
Speaker 1: media just trashes a Republican and they and the Republican
Speaker 1: just has to meekly take it, as you know, the
Speaker 1: commander in chief Trump's like, no, you're a bunch of
Speaker 1: fake news, your clowns, you're jerks, And he's right to do.
Speaker 1: So why is it that only on our side that
Speaker 1: the president should always get trashed by people pretending to
Speaker 1: speak truth to power when they're just little lackeys of
Speaker 1: the left. So I think it's important here. It's about
Speaker 1: it's about establishing a principle that principles have to apply
Speaker 1: to both sides in politics. We're not going to do
Speaker 1: this anymore where where we're boy scouts, we're the hall
Speaker 1: monitors and they get to be the bad boys skip
Speaker 1: in school, smoking cigarettes around the corner, riding on motorcycles
Speaker 1: or whatever the cool kids do. I've actually never been
Speaker 1: on a motorcycle, so I note. I gotta say. People
Speaker 1: sometimes approach me and they ask me about theories that
Speaker 1: they have. I don't want to call them conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: because when when I've had folks reach out to me,
Speaker 1: especially about Epstein things, I'd up saying, yeah, I think,
Speaker 1: I think you're probably right. Yeah I think, and that
Speaker 1: might be considered a conspiracy theory. But there are conspiracies,
Speaker 1: and sometimes you have to theorize to understand what the
Speaker 1: conspiracy is. But generally when people ask me, especially those
Speaker 1: who trust me listening to day in day out, if
Speaker 1: they see me on the street, or if they write
Speaker 1: me an email and they say, have I've got I've
Speaker 1: got this kind of out there theory, And I always
Speaker 1: appreciate that they trust me to analyze it for them,
Speaker 1: and I tell them the truth. I think, now that's
Speaker 1: a little too far off, or you know, I'll try
Speaker 1: to say something if it's really out there, like I
Speaker 1: appreciate your creativity or you're thinking outside the box. Those
Speaker 1: of you who know this show, well, no, that's my
Speaker 1: most affectionate and respectful way of saying I don't see it,
Speaker 1: but you're still you could be right. You could be right.
Speaker 1: I just don't think it's probably in a particular instance
Speaker 1: the case. But I've had people come up to me
Speaker 1: recently they want to talk to me about what is
Speaker 1: going on with and I say, come up to me. Yes,
Speaker 1: some of talk to me, but also reach out to me.
Speaker 1: What's going on with John Roberts? Why why is John Roberts?
Speaker 1: Do they people have I said, do they have something
Speaker 1: on him? Do they does the left have something on him?
Speaker 1: And I would be inclined to say no because there's
Speaker 1: no evidence of that, right, I don't have any evidence
Speaker 1: of that. But I also can't say that that's completely
Speaker 1: crazy because I have no way of explaining to you
Speaker 1: why when they did this whole Q and a session
Speaker 1: thing with senators, where do they have, Oh, we get
Speaker 1: to have the one team the president's defense team or
Speaker 1: the prosecutors, the House managers trying to make the case
Speaker 1: to remove the president. Questions posed by senators and you
Speaker 1: had Senator rand Paul who posed a question and this
Speaker 1: was the response. This was the response of the Chief
Speaker 1: Justice who's presiding over all of this. A producer Mark,
Speaker 1: please please play whichever twenty two. I have a question
Speaker 1: to present to the desk for the House Manager Chief
Speaker 1: and for the President's Council. Thank you. The presiding officer
Speaker 1: declines to read the question as submitted. What why that's stunning?
Speaker 1: Why does the presiding officer in this case the the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who's really just supposed
Speaker 1: to be a traffic cop. No offensive traffic cops, but
Speaker 1: you know, supposed to be a traffic cop, determining that
Speaker 1: the process proceeds as agreed by the Senate. But the
Speaker 1: Senate is running the show. He's just there. He's not
Speaker 1: really there as a judge. He's there a little bit
Speaker 1: more just as a you know, a guy to referee
Speaker 1: a little bit. But he doesn't have the same power,
Speaker 1: he would say in a federal court where the judge
Speaker 1: gets to determined like, you know, judge can clear the room,
Speaker 1: judge could send you to prison. Judge has a lot
Speaker 1: of power in a courtroom. He's just there to kind
Speaker 1: of make sure that the teas are crossed and the
Speaker 1: eyes are dotted, and you know, no one keeps everybody
Speaker 1: up too late, they break for lunch, that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: Why did the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refuse
Speaker 1: to read aloud rand Paul's question. It's not up to that,
Speaker 1: he's just reading out questions. Well, here is what rand
Speaker 1: Paul's question was. Quote. This was out on Twitter. My
Speaker 1: question today is about whether or not individuals who were
Speaker 1: holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans
Speaker 1: conspired with shift's staffers to plot impeaching the president before
Speaker 1: there were formal House impeachment proceedings. Do you know why
Speaker 1: we are told that John Roberts would not read out
Speaker 1: this question because they have to protect the whistleblower. There
Speaker 1: is no absolute statutory protection for the identity of the
Speaker 1: whistle blower. It does not exist. There's protection from retaliation
Speaker 1: inside the government for that government employee for raising and complaint.
Speaker 1: That's fine. The whistle blower can keep his little civil
Speaker 1: service job. That's not what we're talking about here. But
Speaker 1: to pretend like the whistleblower is some super state secret
Speaker 1: that the name Eric Scharamella cannot be. You can't. If
Speaker 1: you put this out on social media, you'll get banned.
Speaker 1: If you put this out on different platforms, they will
Speaker 1: take your account down. They'll suspend you. It's absurd. Why
Speaker 1: how is how are we at this point? This really
Speaker 1: does feel like something out of the Soviet Union. This
Speaker 1: is one of the only things that has happened in
Speaker 1: the Trump presidency that is so absurd. Even though even
Speaker 1: knowing that the Trump are the anti Trump Democrats are
Speaker 1: a bunch of deranged fools, this is so absurd that
Speaker 1: I can't even explain to you how we really got here.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even make sense. There's no real dispute here.
Speaker 1: We've already had news organizations or pour on his name.
Speaker 1: There's no statutory protection from uttering his name. Bring it.
Speaker 1: Arrest me for saying Eric Scharamela. You gotta be kidding me.
Speaker 1: This guy wants to work to undermine and destroy a
Speaker 1: presidency from inside the government. Don't don't the American people
Speaker 1: and don't the senators who are supposed to vote on
Speaker 1: this have a right to know if there was collusion
Speaker 1: conspiring among Democrat partisans with this individual before the impeachment
Speaker 1: process had even started. Why don't his motives matter? People
Speaker 1: that this is absurd, By the way, there's so much
Speaker 1: intellectual dishonesty around this. People say, oh, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: He presented the complaint, the complaint was true. Well, the
Speaker 1: complaint is true in so far as there are narratives
Speaker 1: that are injected into it that are highly debatable and
Speaker 1: arguable about what the motivations of the president were, about
Speaker 1: what benefit would have been conferred on the president and
Speaker 1: his reelection even if this quid pro quo had gone through.
Speaker 1: The initial complaint reads like an editorial. There's all these
Speaker 1: assumptions baked in about the president didn't have a legitimate
Speaker 1: reason to do this, and the president didn't have any
Speaker 1: other considerations in the temporary hold on aid to Ukraine,
Speaker 1: aid that was an excess of what his predecessor Obama
Speaker 1: would give. But oh, that's right. We're told now that
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine is an urgent national security interest
Speaker 1: to the United States. I don't know what is wrong
Speaker 1: with the Chief Justice, because it's only possible to say
Speaker 1: that you put aside whether there's any statutory protection for
Speaker 1: the whistleblower's name, and there is not, and there's there's
Speaker 1: no claim other people's right cancer. You gotta protect the whistleblower,
Speaker 1: protect firm retaliation. It's the Inspector General of the intelligence
Speaker 1: community can make the determination wholly on his own at
Speaker 1: any point in time, by the way, to release the
Speaker 1: name publicly say yes, this is the whistle blower because
Speaker 1: he believed it would come out later. They've created this
Speaker 1: absurd alice in wonderland alternate universe where the name isn't
Speaker 1: already out there and we have no need to know
Speaker 1: what the name is officially. But even if you take
Speaker 1: this claim or it's beyond crazy, even but even if
Speaker 1: you accept that there's some need to protect the identity
Speaker 1: of the whistle blower, Eric Scharamella, even if you believe that,
Speaker 1: how could they know they're protecting the identity of the
Speaker 1: whistleblower by asking about holdovers from the Obama National Security
Speaker 1: Council conspiring with Shift staffers to plot impeaching the president.
Speaker 1: How could they know if that would touch on the
Speaker 1: whistle blowers identity or not. Because they all claim they
Speaker 1: don't know who the whistle blower is. Adam Shift says
Speaker 1: he does not know who the whistleblower is, So well,
Speaker 1: how do we know that there'sn't somebody else at the
Speaker 1: Obama National Security Council involved? They can't know. No, Their
Speaker 1: whole point here is to shut down any inquiry into
Speaker 1: this area, because you know what happens if we find
Speaker 1: out the answer Rampaul's question. The whole thing collapses, and
Speaker 1: they know it. They know it because we understand the
Speaker 1: reality here. Just like I was right the entire time
Speaker 1: about every aspect of Russia collusion, I'm telling you I'm
Speaker 1: right about this. Sharamella and some other Democrat partisans inside
Speaker 1: the MSc, the National Security Complex reached out, someone reached
Speaker 1: out to shift's staff and they worked with them to
Speaker 1: create this complaint. And the whole thing was meant as
Speaker 1: a partisan hit job from the beginning. It's not about
Speaker 1: fear for the Constitution or anything else. And the motivations
Speaker 1: matter tremendously because your motivations, if you're talking about a
Speaker 1: political process to remove a president, should be known to
Speaker 1: the people that are judging whether or not that president
Speaker 1: should be removed. But here we are. So when people
Speaker 1: ask me what do they have on John Roberts, I
Speaker 1: don't know. But just remember this, Bush judges not so good.
Speaker 1: Sometimes Trump judges pretty fantastic. From what we've seen. You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hut. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: The analogy is not applicable to the president situation because first,
Speaker 1: to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was
Speaker 1: opposition research that was purchased. Oh, let's back up for Mecca.
Speaker 1: They're they're back back up for a second. Um um
Speaker 1: how Keem Jeffries how Keem Jeffries. Uh is asked a
Speaker 1: question about whether or not there was foreign interference foreign
Speaker 1: interference in the election based on the fact that you
Speaker 1: had a foreigner, Christopher Steele, paid to go ask a
Speaker 1: bunch of foreigners, mostly Ukrainian subsources, about gossip about the
Speaker 1: president of the United States, and then that was used
Speaker 1: through the FBI apparatus to get an investigation going of
Speaker 1: Carter Page. We know that this was all bunk, This
Speaker 1: was all garbage. It was crap. But isn't that foreign interview.
Speaker 1: Isn't going around to ask a bunch of Ukrainians what
Speaker 1: they think about someone running for president and then presenting
Speaker 1: that under really false pretenses to the FBI. How is
Speaker 1: that not foreign interference the election? Hakim Jeffreys here says
Speaker 1: it's because it was paid for. Oh okay, So under
Speaker 1: this logic, let's be very clear. If President Trump had said, hey,
Speaker 1: Zelenski open an investigation into the Bidens. I'll give you.
Speaker 1: I'll give you a million dollars cash. Well, the Jeffrey's
Speaker 1: rule says that that's okay because it's paid for. That's
Speaker 1: for an interference and election that's paid for. I saw
Speaker 1: my friend Annie McCarthy over the weekend's Peace and National Review.
Speaker 1: I totally agree with this. I've been saying all along.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't have even done anything if there had been
Speaker 1: investigations of the Bidens. Look at the Clintons. Hillary was
Speaker 1: under indictment for over a hundred violations I'm sorry, under investigation,
Speaker 1: rather than indictment under investigation for over one hundred violations
Speaker 1: of the Espionage Act, which she did violate. She was
Speaker 1: running for president as somebody under felony investigation, and also
Speaker 1: the destruction of evidence that happened. They did everything they
Speaker 1: could COMI made sure the whole thing was massage so
Speaker 1: that nothing bad would happen to Hillary and her buddies.
Speaker 1: And they ignored that, and she did win the popular
Speaker 1: vote despite the fact that she's just like a horrible
Speaker 1: candidate who's so unethical it's insane. And the Clinton Foundation
Speaker 1: and they know there's no there's nothing, nothing to see there.
Speaker 1: It was all on the up. They have shut the
Speaker 1: whole thing down and Hillary didn't become president basically, But
Speaker 1: Sure was a great charity. It wasn't about anything else.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a pass through a slush fund for Clinton access. Sure.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm sure the government of Saudi Arabia or
Speaker 1: all these other places that are giving money the Clinton Foundation,
Speaker 1: it's because they care so much about women's empowerment and
Speaker 1: climate change. But this is what the media wants you
Speaker 1: to believe. They want you, they want to treat you
Speaker 1: like we're all so dumb, we can't understand anything that's
Speaker 1: going on here. How Keem Jeffries has asked the question,
Speaker 1: what about the foreign interference that occurred with the Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign against Trumpets as well? I was paid for Oh okay,
Speaker 1: that's a great answer. Not people are not asked to
Speaker 1: explain this. I've been saying this all along. They're not
Speaker 1: asked to explain why. That's not why what happened with
Speaker 1: the dossier was not foreign interference in the election. But
Speaker 1: even beyond that, this, the entire Democrat case here is
Speaker 1: based upon the and this is where Annie McCarthy's piece
Speaker 1: in National Review comes into play. What I've been saying
Speaker 1: that this Democrats the corruption is the water in which
Speaker 1: they swim. It wasn't it wasn't going to derail Biden's presidency.
Speaker 1: Just the announcement of an investigation in Ukraine. Nobody even
Speaker 1: cares about Ukraine. I know Democrats will oh Ukraine. No
Speaker 1: one cares about Ukraine. Really, none of these people talking
Speaker 1: about it do. Oh but if Ukrainian Prosecutor General or
Speaker 1: whatever he's called it announced that they're looking into Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: that would have ended. No Democrats would be fine with that.
Speaker 1: This whole thing is bonkers. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. It's
Speaker 1: a little bit interesting to me and my colleague, the
Speaker 1: Deputy White Housecounts, referred to this. It's a little bit
Speaker 1: ironic to me that you're going to be questioning conversations
Speaker 1: with foreign governments about investigations with when three of you,
Speaker 1: three members of the Senate, Senator of Menendez, Senator Leahy,
Speaker 1: and Senator Durban sent a letter that read something quickly
Speaker 1: like this. These were they wrote the letter to the
Speaker 1: Prosecutor General of Ukraine. They said they're advocates talking about
Speaker 1: the Congressman, they're strong advocates for robust and close relationship
Speaker 1: with Ukraine, and we believe that our cooperation should extend
Speaker 1: to such legal matters regardless of politics. And their concern
Speaker 1: was ongoing investigations and whether the Mueller team was getting
Speaker 1: appropriate appropriate responses from Ukraine regarding investigations. Of what the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, and you're asking about whether
Speaker 1: foreign investigations are appropriate, I think it answers itself. Jays Eklo,
Speaker 1: I know I've been given a lot of high fives
Speaker 1: to Sippoloni here, but Jay Saklo has also really impressed
Speaker 1: me in this process. I love the Jennifer Rubin thing.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if he actually it was in front
Speaker 1: of a real judge. He's on I won a bunch
Speaker 1: of cases in front of the Supreme Court, but other
Speaker 1: than that, he's never been in front of a real judge.
Speaker 1: I don't know how the Washington I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know how someone could be I think she's a performance artist. Now.
Speaker 1: I think Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, who pretends
Speaker 1: to be a conservative so that she can have this
Speaker 1: this make believe situation of criticizing the people on her
Speaker 1: own team because she's the truth teller, when really she's
Speaker 1: just doing the bidding of the Democrats. There's a whole
Speaker 1: slew of people. Now, I meant got Tom Nichols. Tom,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm so I'm so disappointed, you know, I'm so disappointed.
Speaker 1: And what's happened with that guy? He now is saying
Speaker 1: he will vote for Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump. That's
Speaker 1: how conservative he is. This is what some of these
Speaker 1: never trumpers, I mean, they've just spiraled. The derangement is
Speaker 1: just worse and worse and worse. You're going to vote
Speaker 1: for a socialist over Trump because you hate what so much?
Speaker 1: The mean tweets. I think some of the Trump tweets
Speaker 1: are fantastic, by the way, not all of them, but
Speaker 1: some of them. When he retweets me, that's amazing. I
Speaker 1: haven't gotten a Trump reaching in a while. The way,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, I'm a little sad about that. What's going on?
Speaker 1: You know what? What where's the low reach out to
Speaker 1: the Trump team immediately? Yeah, can complain, you know, I'm like,
Speaker 1: I need like at least one every couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: You know, he's one to take complaints level head. He
Speaker 1: does like when people criticize something that he's doing. He
Speaker 1: loves a big he loves constructive criticis you know that
Speaker 1: I'll get him tweet about you, but not a good way.
Speaker 1: That's all right, because like book Sexton, his hair is absurd. Okay,
Speaker 1: he doesn't know what he's anyway. I mean, your hair
Speaker 1: is basically a darker version of Trump. You know, that's what.
Speaker 1: He should love it, but he might he might slap
Speaker 1: it down, or he might be angry that he can't
Speaker 1: grow a beard like yours. Have we ever seen him
Speaker 1: with facial hair like the rows I've seen, I've seen
Speaker 1: photoshop Trump beard. Sure, and I you know he's a
Speaker 1: clean shaving Yeah. I don't think it was a beard guy. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So like I did have someone once tell me in
Speaker 1: DC that I had Trump hair, but it was not
Speaker 1: a This is many years ago. It was not. I
Speaker 1: don't think they got met it as a compliment. I
Speaker 1: think he was a mean lib. And I just say
Speaker 1: before or after Trump was in politics, way before. Oh
Speaker 1: yeah yeah, back then people just not the Trump hair. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I mean obviously the Trump here. Now I have
Speaker 1: to wonder. You know, there were different times in history
Speaker 1: when very well known leaders set trends. You know, Alexander
Speaker 1: the Great, for example, went clean shaven, and it is
Speaker 1: believed that that was one of that was different from
Speaker 1: Greek Macedonian men same idea at the time would have
Speaker 1: would have had beards, and then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: you went through a period of non beardedness. I think
Speaker 1: also Julius Caesar, is you know that there's there was
Speaker 1: not a lot of facial own ancient room to begin with,
Speaker 1: but Julius Caesar clean shaven. You have these different figures
Speaker 1: through history. I think maybe the Trump hair could in
Speaker 1: time become a thing. So you think everyone's gonna do
Speaker 1: their hair? Not everyone, but I think it might be
Speaker 1: not everybody because you gotta have a lot to pull
Speaker 1: off that that is swoop. To pull off a swoop
Speaker 1: at that level is not an easy thing to do.
Speaker 1: And I'm somebody that respects a good swoop. But I
Speaker 1: think you might see some people with the Trump hair
Speaker 1: going for not just impersonators. You know that I pack
Speaker 1: last year, which I'm going to this year. The announcement
Speaker 1: was official today. You can check that out. So go
Speaker 1: to seapack, everybody hang out with the Buster. I was
Speaker 1: told that I did the best on the spot Trump
Speaker 1: impression for the Daily Caller of all the assembled random pundits.
Speaker 1: So well, congratulation, thank you. I know I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: you a medal. I got that going for me, which
Speaker 1: is nice. Where was I on this secalo calling out hypocrisy?
Speaker 1: Foreign investigations. Foreign investigations are fun as long as they're
Speaker 1: investigations of Republicans. But beyond that, the entire premise that
Speaker 1: the Democrat, the Democrat, the Democrats case against Trump so speak,
Speaker 1: is that there was no basis to ask questions about
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, and that asking questions about Hunter Biden is
Speaker 1: a massive abuse of power, important enough to impeach a
Speaker 1: president because it amounts to cheating in the election. Those
Speaker 1: are all enormous leaps, nor miss leaps, I would say, unfounded, absurd,
Speaker 1: ridiculous leaps. But that's what they've had to do. They
Speaker 1: take nothing, They make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Speaker 1: They take something that's so small and decide to make
Speaker 1: it so much bigger, which has been the case all along.
Speaker 1: Oh but well, I wanted to get Rand Paul the
Speaker 1: way in on the why, because I don't have an
Speaker 1: answer for you why the Chief Justice would not answer
Speaker 1: rans question. Here's the senator himself asking that place six.
Speaker 1: As you may have noticed, we had something slightly atypical downstairs.
Speaker 1: I asked a question and the question was refused. Now
Speaker 1: it's been reported that this questions about this or about that,
Speaker 1: and it's been refused for one reason or another. I
Speaker 1: can tell you that my question made no reference to
Speaker 1: any whistleblower or any kind of person or a complaint
Speaker 1: from a whistleblower. I think it was an incorrect finding
Speaker 1: to not allow a question that makes no reference. I
Speaker 1: gotta say this, Why hasn't Why hasn't any Republican senator
Speaker 1: read aloud into the record from the floor of the
Speaker 1: Senate everything that we have been told and everything that
Speaker 1: has been reported about the whistle blower thus far, they
Speaker 1: have immunity, Not that they need it, because there's no
Speaker 1: crime or there's no statutory protection anyway, but at least
Speaker 1: then we could say it is officially out there in
Speaker 1: the record. This the journalists that are just waving their hands,
Speaker 1: you do not know the name of that, We do
Speaker 1: not know the name of the whistle blower. That is
Speaker 1: really disconcerting. This is this is one of the most
Speaker 1: egregious abandoning, one of the most egreedist moments of abandoning
Speaker 1: supposed a journalistic principle that I've ever seen. I do
Speaker 1: not understand how anyone thinks that it is acceptable and
Speaker 1: that still wants to claim the title of journalist to
Speaker 1: pretend that there's not a national interest and that it
Speaker 1: is not news to see who this to know who
Speaker 1: this person is, and people say, oh, it's about his safety.
Speaker 1: Everybody I know in conservative media basically gets death threats.
Speaker 1: All that. I mean, They're like, you know, you're in
Speaker 1: the public conversation. There are crazies out there that will
Speaker 1: write your horrible things. People write horrible things to me,
Speaker 1: and I'm super nice, so I don't know what the
Speaker 1: problem is. Mostly nice all the time, So it's just bizarre.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so now we'll move on to the I'll
Speaker 1: try to get that I'm hoping that this is all
Speaker 1: I'm hoping Monday, we don't have to talk anymore about
Speaker 1: the Senate trial because it's over. That is my hope
Speaker 1: and prayer. Right now. We will see if that is
Speaker 1: the case. But then we'll get into what is the narrative,
Speaker 1: and one way, one way or another, there will be
Speaker 1: a fight over the main takeaway of this whole Senate trial.
Speaker 1: One way or another, there'll be this argument about what
Speaker 1: did we really learn here. This is also why I
Speaker 1: don't think that it makes any sense to make any
Speaker 1: concession to the Democrats at this point, because they already
Speaker 1: have their narrative. They've already told us what it is,
Speaker 1: and it will not change. I guarantee you it will
Speaker 1: not change based on any decision made the next couple
Speaker 1: of days about witnesses. Here's what Speaker Pelosi is saying
Speaker 1: about this, Producer, Mark, would you please play clip four, Well,
Speaker 1: he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if
Speaker 1: you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial,
Speaker 1: if you don't have witnesses and documentation, and that I
Speaker 1: would hope that the Senators, if it comes to a tie,
Speaker 1: or if there's a question of hearing testimony or doctor
Speaker 1: perceiving documents, would leave it up to the Chief Justice
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court, Republican appointed in a Republican majority court.
Speaker 1: I would think that they would have confidence and the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice of the United States. That is really his title.
Speaker 1: And that's interesting to me that they're afraid of breaking
Speaker 1: a tie with the Chief Justice of the United States.
Speaker 1: Does the president know right from wrong? I don't. So
Speaker 1: here you have Nancy Pelosi is saying that there was effectively,
Speaker 1: there hasn't been a trial. If the trial does not
Speaker 1: give the Democrats what they want, hasn't even been a trial.
Speaker 1: The president will not be acquitted. This is delusional. This
Speaker 1: is really the definition of delusional. No, Nancy, the president,
Speaker 1: when the Senate votes, assuming that it votes the way
Speaker 1: we all believe it will, he will be acquitted, just
Speaker 1: like he is the president. But this takes us to
Speaker 1: the fundamental the the origin story of Trump't arrangement syndrome. First,
Speaker 1: the first symptoms of Trump't arrangement syndrome as they manifested
Speaker 1: themselves after the twenty sixteen election, and that was the
Speaker 1: not my President marches. That was unsettling. I remember I
Speaker 1: was in New York City. I was walking across flat
Speaker 1: Iron flat Iron Area, which is one of my favorite
Speaker 1: parts of the any name for the flat iron building
Speaker 1: because it looks like a flat iron and there were
Speaker 1: these marchers, you know, and they were all screaming, not
Speaker 1: my president, not my president, just yelling, you know, and
Speaker 1: shouting in unison, walking down and marching down the street.
Speaker 1: And I kind of wanted to be like, you can
Speaker 1: you can chant I hate the president, the presidents of buffoon.
Speaker 1: He's a bad guy, you know. I hear he order
Speaker 1: his stakes well done and has them with catch up.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you can say that stuff if
Speaker 1: you want, But to scream not my president, no, that's
Speaker 1: just wrong. That would be like screaming I'm not screaming.
Speaker 1: I'm not screaming. No, you're allowed to do that, but
Speaker 1: you're wrong, right. And then this initial impulse from the
Speaker 1: left to pretend that they were not living in the
Speaker 1: reality in which they were actually living is troubling in
Speaker 1: and of itself. But this is not the first time.
Speaker 1: Let's just do a little quick review of Democrat delusion
Speaker 1: on very big issues, on momentous, serious things. Democrats lose
Speaker 1: the two thousand election, they say it is illegitimate. Democrats
Speaker 1: lose the twenty sixteen election, they say it is illegitimate.
Speaker 1: They lose in the Supreme Court, they say it is illegitimate.
Speaker 1: They lose a Senate impeachment trial, they say it is illegitimate.
Speaker 1: Guess what, when they lose the twenty twenty election, they
Speaker 1: will say it is illegitimate. Now, this is not the
Speaker 1: argument that you hear from Conservats. We're not always saying, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, they cheated, it's not real, the results don't matter. No,
Speaker 1: that is not what happens. That is not the reality
Speaker 1: of the conservative opposition to the left and the socialist Democrats.
Speaker 1: I don't know why they really think that this is
Speaker 1: an acceptable place to always go, but that is what
Speaker 1: they do. They have, They have this tendency, and it
Speaker 1: really has become It really has become, I think, a
Speaker 1: psychological crutch for Democrats to accuse the other side, to
Speaker 1: accuse the other spectrum, the other side of the spectrum
Speaker 1: ideologically of doing the things that they themselves do over
Speaker 1: and over and over again. A great example of this
Speaker 1: is they claim Trump is destroying institutions and destroying the
Speaker 1: rule of law, and in order to stop Trump from
Speaker 1: doing that, Democrats maniacally undermine and destroy institutions of government
Speaker 1: and the rule of law. But any anything to tear
Speaker 1: down Trump, anything to do whatever they can to bring
Speaker 1: him down. So Pelosi says that he will not be acquitted,
Speaker 1: even though we believe he is going to be acquitted.
Speaker 1: And if that happens, that's a binary it's a yes
Speaker 1: or no, it's not Pelosi gets to determine whether that
Speaker 1: acquittal counts or not. No, that's not all this is
Speaker 1: going to go. Will there be Democrat votes for it?
Speaker 1: That's the big the big question. Play clip seven here. Mark, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm increasingly optimistic that Republicans will move to a final
Speaker 1: verdict before TUSI. The president will be acquitted in a
Speaker 1: bipartisan manner. We're not blocking anybody's witnesses. We're just not
Speaker 1: going to legitimize the House. Choosing not to call a
Speaker 1: witness dumping in our lab and put us in a
Speaker 1: spot where if you called the witness should be dealing
Speaker 1: the courts out of judicial review of impeachment. Hopefully we'll
Speaker 1: get a bipartisan acquittal. This president deserves no less. Hopefully
Speaker 1: they will not extend this farce even further, allowing as
Speaker 1: to do more damage, waste more time. It's time to vote, Republicans,
Speaker 1: it's time to vote in the Senate, and this thing
Speaker 1: shut it down. Acquittal for the president, and let's move
Speaker 1: on to reelection. You're in the freedom hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. But I also am very
Speaker 1: proud of our managers. We believe that they have been
Speaker 1: magnificent custodians of the Constitution by dint of their content,
Speaker 1: their presentation, their historic perspective, and their tone. They had
Speaker 1: made us all proud. And I've told our colleagues they
Speaker 1: give us a magnificent example to follow, and they do
Speaker 1: one of the most entertaining parts of this whole Shamona.
Speaker 1: I do want to move to other topics, but I
Speaker 1: just impeachment is and so I think we're almost done here.
Speaker 1: For I think it's almost I do believe Cocaine Mitch
Speaker 1: because he's a ruthless person. As Mazie Herono says, very
Speaker 1: person Cocaine minched on playing of games. I do think
Speaker 1: that this will be over soon. But I will take
Speaker 1: some solace in the humor that has occurred here, the
Speaker 1: unintentional humor we've seen from Democrats, And one of my
Speaker 1: favorite parts of that has been watching Nancy Pelosi pretend
Speaker 1: to have a tremendous, deep reservoir of love and respect
Speaker 1: and admiration for a Constitution that I'm quite sure she
Speaker 1: has neither read nor understood, but sure enough, just a
Speaker 1: lot of impatient managers in the Constitution. They've done a
Speaker 1: phenomenal job. They've made us all so proud. This is
Speaker 1: people will look back who are who are honest? They
Speaker 1: will look back and what the Democrats have done here
Speaker 1: with disdain, disdain, because now this will be this is
Speaker 1: a precedent that has been set, This will be used
Speaker 1: again in the future. Anytime you have a a president
Speaker 1: who has the opposition party in majority in the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives, impeachment just becomes a petty weapon, a vote
Speaker 1: of censure, a vote of oh look how much we
Speaker 1: hate this guy. And I do think that we should
Speaker 1: remember there is the possibility at some point in the
Speaker 1: future of a president who engages in conduct who of
Speaker 1: either party it could happen. I mean, we all know
Speaker 1: it's going to be a Democrat, but it could be
Speaker 1: either party theoretically, who engages in conduct that is so egregious,
Speaker 1: so illegal, or so deeply depraved and morally wrong depraved.
Speaker 1: I mean, what really is to pray though? When you're
Speaker 1: in president odd States and you got things going on,
Speaker 1: and you know you got interns running around and so
Speaker 1: maybe even to pray. I don't know how we're going
Speaker 1: to get Democrats to agree with that is, but conduct
Speaker 1: that is so bad that any normal person would say, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: the guy's got to go, and there will be this
Speaker 1: president said of well is this really? Is this really
Speaker 1: bad conduct? Is this? Does this call for the ultimate
Speaker 1: sanction against a president? Well? Remember what the Democrats did.
Speaker 1: They did this whole thing where there was a weak case,
Speaker 1: and they they pumped it up. They tried to make
Speaker 1: it seem like something that it wasn't. They did not
Speaker 1: care about what this would do to the institutions of
Speaker 1: government that they claimed to care so much about. And
Speaker 1: now that precedent becomes a built in defense for any
Speaker 1: president who decides that he or she doesn't want to go,
Speaker 1: even when it's really time to go. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: democrats don't think that far ahead. They got problems, like
Speaker 1: they think they're gonna lose the next elections. Maybe we
Speaker 1: should spend a little time on that. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The bus Essence Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. He said, Impeachment light they're going to crush
Speaker 1: you in November. Well, I'm glad he's acknowledged it's going
Speaker 1: to be me. He's so worried about me, he got
Speaker 1: himself in this mix to begin with. Look this, I
Speaker 1: find this defense absolutely astounding. Yeah he did it, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. I mean, George Washington's rolling over his
Speaker 1: grave and his farewell and dress saying, you know, the
Speaker 1: greatest threat to republics is being interfered with by foreign countries. Anyway.
Speaker 1: You know, when the dust ris didn't do the same
Speaker 1: conscience law I did, desuits didn't do the same constitute
Speaker 1: at Joe Biden shounds a lot. He's half asleep some
Speaker 1: of the time. He really, this is gonna be the
Speaker 1: President United States of this guy. I mean, say, what's
Speaker 1: you're all about? Trump? The guy is dynamic, you know
Speaker 1: what he's talking about. He's got beliefs, he's got positions.
Speaker 1: It's highly engaging, highly entertaining guy reasons. The guys you
Speaker 1: know you beat me in November. Look, Joe Biden has
Speaker 1: always been and I say this as much as I can.
Speaker 1: I say this as a as a student of the game,
Speaker 1: the game of politics. Joe Biden is a mediocrity. He
Speaker 1: always has been he and I actually give him credit
Speaker 1: in a sense for getting so much further along. He's
Speaker 1: getting so much further along in his career then anybody
Speaker 1: could have anticipated based upon his background, his skill set,
Speaker 1: his work ethic, all of these things. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at Biden back in what was the two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight when or no, two thousand and yeah,
Speaker 1: two thousand and when he was running for president thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, yes, and you know, trying to be the
Speaker 1: nominee then didn't really get above one percent of the vote.
Speaker 1: I mean, nobody thought this guy should be president. And
Speaker 1: then Obama, who did have a meteoric rise and was
Speaker 1: very effective in getting and getting himself elected to office.
Speaker 1: There's no question that you can't Unlike Pelosi, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna be like Obama wasn't good at get at winning elections. No,
Speaker 1: Obama was good at winning elections. Say what you will.
Speaker 1: That is a fact, Pelosi. You know, Oh, acquittal, He's
Speaker 1: not acquitted. No, that's that's a that's a yes or no.
Speaker 1: That's a true or false statement. And Trump will be acquitted.
Speaker 1: Obama did win elections. You know who didn't win elections?
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. Joe Biden did not win elections. Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: only been able to win elections in Delaware and no offense.
Speaker 1: But Hi, I'm in Delaware. I actually was in Delaware yesterday,
Speaker 1: so I could have taped that and that would have
Speaker 1: been true. I'm technically not in Delaware now. I'm in
Speaker 1: New York City with producer Mark hanging out, having a
Speaker 1: great time. But Delaware is a relatively small, not particularly
Speaker 1: you know, earth shaking state when it comes to its political, national,
Speaker 1: political importance. I'm not saying this. I've been to the
Speaker 1: Delaware beaches. They're quite lovely one, very nice people in Delawares. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to anybody. But if you're looking at
Speaker 1: a place where you're going to find the next president
Speaker 1: United States, you wouldn't think it's a guy who's just
Speaker 1: done exactly what he thinks he needs to do in
Speaker 1: order to stay in office in a state where if
Speaker 1: he had kind of harnessed the political Democrat party apparatus,
Speaker 1: that's what you can do. This guy's a career politician.
Speaker 1: A lot of people around him, though, a lot of
Speaker 1: family members. As we see get rich and then Joe
Speaker 1: Biden gets rich by giving speeches based on the time
Speaker 1: he's been on government, because Obama said, all right, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna pull a guy out of relative political obscurity, and
Speaker 1: Biden was like below Kucinich at well, I mean, Biden
Speaker 1: was a joke in two thousand and eight, and now
Speaker 1: we're supposed we're supposed to believe it. He's this great politician.
Speaker 1: No Obama needed somebody who was of the establishment and
Speaker 1: wasn't really going to cause problems and gave this this
Speaker 1: this talking point really of foreign policy credibility, when really
Speaker 1: they're a foreign policy reliability with Joe Biden, the reliability
Speaker 1: being that he's reliably wrong. It's wrong all the time.
Speaker 1: So that's that's a one reason to you know, that's
Speaker 1: one reason to have him around. Just ask Joe Biden
Speaker 1: what should I do on this foreign policy challenge, and
Speaker 1: then whatever he tells you, do the opposite of that thing,
Speaker 1: and you'll be in great shape. I'll never have to worry.
Speaker 1: So now I take you to Oh, well, before I
Speaker 1: was going to move on to some of these other
Speaker 1: candidates for a second, this is also why you have
Speaker 1: such a ridiculous process that was playing out, and that
Speaker 1: isn't playing out now with impeachment because Democrats are desperate.
Speaker 1: They're desperate. They should be desperate. Look at this field
Speaker 1: of candidates they put forward, Look at the positions that
Speaker 1: they're advocating for. But Joe Biden, also, this guy was
Speaker 1: like bottom of his class at law school, has told
Speaker 1: a lot of lies in the past two about his background.
Speaker 1: He's a very Guy's really am a bs er And
Speaker 1: people will say, well, Buck Trumps would be, yeah, but
Speaker 1: Trump's are really successful Trump. When Trump bs is, it's
Speaker 1: like because he wants to get a billion dollar you know,
Speaker 1: office tower built somewhere or something. You know, he's a salesman.
Speaker 1: When Biden's bs against, like he's just making stuff up
Speaker 1: about his background because he wants people to think he's
Speaker 1: he's real smart. He's not. So he's a very unimpressive fellow.
Speaker 1: He's too old for this. And also, I mean the
Speaker 1: thing with that thing Tucker says about him feeding the
Speaker 1: seagulls in Florida, Yeah, that was It's very funny because
Speaker 1: it's very very true. And there must be some sense
Speaker 1: the Democrats must know that this is not gonna He's
Speaker 1: not gonna work. By the way they should if I'm
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, and I'm clearly not because I don't talk
Speaker 1: about people stroking the blonde hair on my legs at
Speaker 1: the public pool. Weird stuff, by the way, weird stuff.
Speaker 1: But if I were Joe Biden, the pledge, I would
Speaker 1: make the only the only way that he gets around
Speaker 1: this because he is he is too old. And remember
Speaker 1: age is age is not just the number we're talking
Speaker 1: about this. There's some people who are incredibly I mean,
Speaker 1: there are eighty year olds listening to the show who
Speaker 1: are like, Buck, I'll do more push ups than you
Speaker 1: all outrun you. And that's real. I know that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is not one of them. I meaning that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden mentally has clearly gotten a little fog ear, a
Speaker 1: little slower. He's just not up for this. And it was, oh,
Speaker 1: it's so mean. Look what they say that Trump is
Speaker 1: crazy and that he's too People have said he's too
Speaker 1: fact to be president because it's a health risk. They're insane.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are. They make health an issue when they
Speaker 1: want and then when you bring it up on the
Speaker 1: other side, it's, oh, why are you being so cruel?
Speaker 1: And when Hillary like flops into the back of a
Speaker 1: car in the height of an election season and everyone's
Speaker 1: supposed to pay no attention to it. How many times
Speaker 1: have you flopped into the back of a van recently
Speaker 1: when you're asking to have the nuclear codes in a
Speaker 1: matter of months. I think it's legitimate, right, And you
Speaker 1: remember they tried to hide that at the media. Oh,
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. It's conspiracy. It's crazy. But Biden is
Speaker 1: a deeply unimpressive fellow. He's not up for this. If
Speaker 1: I were Biden, I would say that I was only
Speaker 1: going to run for one term, and I would I
Speaker 1: would name my VP pretty much right now and have
Speaker 1: to be somebody who's who's younger and has a greater
Speaker 1: vibrancy that I think that would be. And not that
Speaker 1: I want to give the Democrats good advice, but I
Speaker 1: think that would be a smart move for him, because
Speaker 1: eventually the air is gonna the air is gonna come
Speaker 1: out of this Biden balloon for his election, and people
Speaker 1: are gonna there's not gonna be able to keep just
Speaker 1: pushing this thing through. But then you look at Bernie.
Speaker 1: Bernie's old Bernie. I mean, you know, we look. I
Speaker 1: do want good health for all these Democrats. You know,
Speaker 1: we're human beings. First, Bernie had had a heart attack.
Speaker 1: I mean the guy is also really up there and
Speaker 1: doesn't see him like he is up for this. Put
Speaker 1: aside his positions for a moment, Warren. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about Warren's health. I'm talking about what Warren had to say,
Speaker 1: because that is it was a wow moment here, Elizabeth Warren. Um,
Speaker 1: this gives you a a preview of the governance you
Speaker 1: could expect with Elizabeth Warren as president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Pretty smart. Please play Cliff twenty. I'm gonna have a
Speaker 1: secretary of Education that this young trans person interviews on
Speaker 1: my behalf and only is this person believes that our
Speaker 1: secretary or Secretary of Education nominee is someone who is
Speaker 1: committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and
Speaker 1: a full educational curriculum for everyone. Well, that person actually
Speaker 1: be advanced to be Secretary of Education. You like that?
Speaker 1: You like it? Yeah? Like it? You're gonna get it. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's unpack this for a moment. Elizabeth Warrenier is telling
Speaker 1: you the American voter said this publicly at a forum,
Speaker 1: town hall, whatever, saying that she is going to have
Speaker 1: a trans child. I believe they said it is going
Speaker 1: to be like a nine year old, but I don't
Speaker 1: know if I forget if she gave an age right
Speaker 1: before we cut that clip. But a child, a transgender child,
Speaker 1: would have the final say in an interview process for
Speaker 1: the Secretary of Education, a cabinet level position. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: thinks that's a normal, intelligent, groundbreaking thing to say. There's
Speaker 1: a lot going on here. First of all, I the
Speaker 1: obsession with pushing transgenderism on children. This should be a
Speaker 1: red line of sanity for people like this should not
Speaker 1: be happening the way that it is now. And all
Speaker 1: you have to do is look at the efforts to
Speaker 1: really dig into whether this is happening because of social
Speaker 1: pressure and ideological contagion, and or whether this is just
Speaker 1: the innate and natural state that they're eight year olds.
Speaker 1: That not only I mean, it's one thing for an
Speaker 1: eight year old or or you know, nine year old
Speaker 1: to think that he or she is a different gender,
Speaker 1: but that we need to immediately take dramatic action. To
Speaker 1: quote a firm that belief is this is this is
Speaker 1: crazy and this is a problem, and they're right now
Speaker 1: you see it a little bit. Just like the entire
Speaker 1: trends agenda, they will what is today on the edge
Speaker 1: in a year, in two years will be the demand.
Speaker 1: What today is the the vanguard, the forefront of this
Speaker 1: politicized issue, they will make the standard. It'll be a
Speaker 1: civil rights crusade. You know, of course we should give
Speaker 1: you know, hormone blocking therapy to fourteen, thirteen and fourteen
Speaker 1: year olds who think they're transgender. You know, of course
Speaker 1: we should engage in this, in this practice that even
Speaker 1: modern medicine, that this has never happened before. So people say, oh,
Speaker 1: doctors think this is safe or lying to you? They
Speaker 1: have no idea. No one really knows what's going to
Speaker 1: happen in twenty years when you give a thirteen year
Speaker 1: old puberty blocking treatment. This is this is insane, this
Speaker 1: is abuse. But put aside for a moment Elizabeth Warren's
Speaker 1: claim here about transgender children, which again she's just trying
Speaker 1: to be super woke. That's what this is. The wocust
Speaker 1: that she can be put aside that claim for a moment.
Speaker 1: Having a child of any of any background persuasion, I
Speaker 1: don't care. Just let's start with child. Put aside the
Speaker 1: transpart of this is irrelevant to me in this part
Speaker 1: of the conversation. Having a child interview an adult and
Speaker 1: having the president of the United States ask the child
Speaker 1: if the adults should get the job is a pretty
Speaker 1: good summary of how crazy libs have gotten. You know,
Speaker 1: this is the Greta Thunberg sin drome playing out now
Speaker 1: again in public for all of us to see. We're
Speaker 1: adults on the left are elevating and idealizing the political
Speaker 1: beliefs of children as unassailable and essential to the conversation
Speaker 1: that adults have about politics. This is the dumbest thing
Speaker 1: I've ever heard. I mean, this is this is beyond
Speaker 1: normal human stupidity. This is only possible through ideological brainwashing
Speaker 1: on the left. And let me just give you a
Speaker 1: well what a Felisobeth Warren just you know, before I
Speaker 1: picked my secretary off Defense, I would just want to know,
Speaker 1: I'd take a six year old and I'd have the
Speaker 1: six year old sit down with the four star general
Speaker 1: I'm considering, and I'd say, do you make do you
Speaker 1: make the six year old feel safe? And I'd ask
Speaker 1: him does he feel Because if you can't make a
Speaker 1: six year old feel safe, how can you be my
Speaker 1: secretary of defense. That's a really good question, Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: I suppose we'll have to answer it if you become president.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hut. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. I don't have a you know, one of
Speaker 1: those things. What do you call a thing that you
Speaker 1: blow into on your birthday that goes, you know, it
Speaker 1: makes the noise and is it? Is it a kazoo?
Speaker 1: What do we call it? Did you make the noise?
Speaker 1: One more time? Let me one more time? Twice is enough.
Speaker 1: I don't want to spoil you, but what's the thing called?
Speaker 1: You know when you do the oh my god, yeah,
Speaker 1: the thing I don't even I don't even know if
Speaker 1: I could ever. I don't know if I've ever known
Speaker 1: what this is called. I just know that it's like
Speaker 1: a party favor that you give the kids. That we
Speaker 1: don't have those today on fortune. We don't have party
Speaker 1: hats either. Party hats look particularly absurd on me because
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, you have to tell me when to
Speaker 1: bring this stuff here. Yeah, we don't have it, but
Speaker 1: I wanted to. I want to tell everybody that Producer
Speaker 1: Market and I are in here, and we are we
Speaker 1: are celebrating Brexit Day. Everybody, Hello, Brexit today. The UK
Speaker 1: is separating from the European Union today. It's fantastic. I hope.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of interviews on the BBC with
Speaker 1: guys who like, ohn't really care what happens with the EU.
Speaker 1: You know, my in governor, No like the different You
Speaker 1: know they don't all talk like that, right, I like
Speaker 1: some of them do. I don't really won't tell you anymore.
Speaker 1: A drunk englishman Hello, Ley, always find some old, crusty
Speaker 1: englishman a lot. I don't really care much about any
Speaker 1: of these things. Again, you watch a lot of movies, buck,
Speaker 1: I've never been to England, but I can imagine they
Speaker 1: don't all talk like that. I just want to walk
Speaker 1: around the pub be Brexit day, lad, it's going on,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean? No, I understand, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So I think Brexit Day is today at eleven pm.
Speaker 1: The European Union loses the UK after nearly fifty years
Speaker 1: of membership. It's forty some od years. I forget what
Speaker 1: it exactly forty seven years? So I mean this is
Speaker 1: if you believe in sovereignty, if you believe in national identity,
Speaker 1: if you believe in a nation state and a people
Speaker 1: getting to determine their future. This is a happy day
Speaker 1: for the folks of the UK. Of course, this was
Speaker 1: a bitterly it was bitterly divided when they initially had
Speaker 1: the Brexit referendum, and the establishment within the EU and
Speaker 1: within the Great and within Great Britain's political system was
Speaker 1: very opposed to this. Because there's there's a deep connection,
Speaker 1: a correlation between elitism in Western societies, including here, and internationalism.
Speaker 1: This is why people that go and get fancy degrees
Speaker 1: that are essentially worthless at fancy sounding but increasingly dumb
Speaker 1: and not particularly worthwhile institutions of higher learning, they train
Speaker 1: you to be very pro you know, pro I am F,
Speaker 1: pro un pro international criminal court, all of these things.
Speaker 1: Those people didn't like this, but the people had voted
Speaker 1: for Brexit are actually going to get, actually get a Brexit.
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Boris Johnson is the guy that you're gonna
Speaker 1: be hearing some speeches from on this one. They got
Speaker 1: flags lining Parliament Square and the Mall. They've got the
Speaker 1: Mall as a ceremonial avenue leading to Buckingham Palace. You know,
Speaker 1: I've only been I'm actually gonna go to London this spring,
Speaker 1: which would be fun because I've only been one. They
Speaker 1: ever been once before. I was twelve years old. I
Speaker 1: barely even remember. Maybe, man, I just remember. Remember everybody
Speaker 1: had a fancy accent and the food wasn't very good.
Speaker 1: That's what I remember. Do you think we have fancy accents? No,
Speaker 1: they think our accents are super unfancy. They all think
Speaker 1: Americans talk like this. I've heard how Brits try to
Speaker 1: impersonate us. I'm on to you, Brits. I got eyes
Speaker 1: on you, just like we try to impersonate. It's im
Speaker 1: quessions are perfect. Can we know exactly how they sound? No?
Speaker 1: I think so. Thanks for listening to the Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, if the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're
Speaker 1: reclaiming a very proud heritage as a manufacturing nation again.
Speaker 1: Do you remember when the previous administration, the head of
Speaker 1: the previous administration, I won't mention names, I'm sure you'll
Speaker 1: never guess the name, but said that you need a
Speaker 1: magic wand to create manufacturing jobs. Well, we found the
Speaker 1: magic wand because we're going to be hitting seven hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand manufacturing job in the not to listen it.
Speaker 1: Oh you do all these great deals. Everybody says, thank you, sir,
Speaker 1: this has never happened. Everybody said, it's impossible to do,
Speaker 1: it'll never never take place trade deals like this, And
Speaker 1: then we built our military, We've cut taxes, we've taken
Speaker 1: care of regulations, cut more than any other president and
Speaker 1: the history of our country. And we did that in
Speaker 1: three years instead of eight years. How many awesome trade
Speaker 1: deals can you remember, President Obama? Or just trade deals
Speaker 1: forget about also, we don't need that qualifier. How many
Speaker 1: really important trade deals do you remember President Obama getting
Speaker 1: done in his eight years? Eight years? I mean maybe
Speaker 1: there was. I'm sure that there was, if you can
Speaker 1: get some Obama pro Obama hacked from the administration years
Speaker 1: to come forward. But what about the trade deal we
Speaker 1: have with you know, the people of Micronesia or something.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm sure they have some deal somewhere that
Speaker 1: they'll point to you. But Micronesia, fun fact, part of
Speaker 1: the coalition of the willing under the Bush administration. Just
Speaker 1: just putting that out there, that was a real thing
Speaker 1: I think they sent. I'm not. I think they sent
Speaker 1: one guy, one person, so they were technically a part
Speaker 1: of the coalition of the willing some old them, old
Speaker 1: history from back in the day. But the president here
Speaker 1: is making a few points. One we were told. While
Speaker 1: everyone now who hates the president likes to pretend that, sure,
Speaker 1: the economy is booming. Oh, of course it's booming. Of
Speaker 1: course it's great. Because Obama was presiding over the weakest
Speaker 1: recovery since the Great Depression, because the job's numbers, because
Speaker 1: economic growth and prosperity on a GDP GDP reflected level,
Speaker 1: we're so weak. They had to come up with some
Speaker 1: explanation for why it was the way it was, and
Speaker 1: so beyond that, they just had to say, well, this
Speaker 1: is the new normal. Right. That was a storyline that
Speaker 1: you would hear under the Obama years, especially in the
Speaker 1: second term. You know, America, this is the way we're
Speaker 1: going to grow now. We got too many things here,
Speaker 1: too many problems, too much debt, whatever it is, too
Speaker 1: much foreign competition. You know, if you've been an investor
Speaker 1: in the last couple of years, if you've been invested
Speaker 1: in America doing great, you've been investing in like the
Speaker 1: international stock market and China. Let me tell you, it
Speaker 1: has not been a good time to be owning any
Speaker 1: any Chinese, any Chinese stocks. So that's a reflection now
Speaker 1: right now, what you have is the media trying to
Speaker 1: come up with a way to downplay Trump's successes. And
Speaker 1: he's trying to remind everybody as he's signing this trade
Speaker 1: deal that we were you know that Obama said that
Speaker 1: there would need to be a magic wand to bring
Speaker 1: back these manufacturing jobs, that there would there's no way
Speaker 1: to do these things. So it turns out if you
Speaker 1: remove regulation, you lower corporate taxes, and you just have
Speaker 1: a more pro business, pro you know, private property and
Speaker 1: respecting contracts, approach to economic activity, good things can happen. Oka,
Speaker 1: I hadn't get told you just I know this is
Speaker 1: a little dry, especially late and a Friday. We're about
Speaker 1: to get a roll call. We'll have some fun. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you about the stake that I had last night.
Speaker 1: That was truly I had a stake last night. It
Speaker 1: was almost like a religious experience. It was truly amazing.
Speaker 1: But here's what the US Mexico Canada Agreement does. If
Speaker 1: you're curious, because you probably won't hear this that many places.
Speaker 1: This is from the Office of the Trade Representative the
Speaker 1: United States Government. Agreement highlights include creating a more level
Speaker 1: playing field for American workers, including improved rules of origin
Speaker 1: for automobiles, trucks, other products, and disciplines on currency manipulation,
Speaker 1: Benefiting American farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses by modernizing and strengthening
Speaker 1: food and agriculture trade in North America. Supporting a twenty
Speaker 1: first century economy through new protections for US intellectual property,
Speaker 1: and ensuring opportunities for trade in US services. New chapters
Speaker 1: covering digital trade, anti corruption, and good regulatory practices, as
Speaker 1: well as a chapter devoted to ensuring that small and
Speaker 1: medium sized enterprises benefit from the agreement. So just trying
Speaker 1: to streamline, protect and facilitate business, just trying to do
Speaker 1: everything can. And then if you look at the actual
Speaker 1: agreement itself, it has telecommunications, digital trade, intellectual property, competition policy,
Speaker 1: state on enterprises, labor, environment, regulatory practice, is anti corruption.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a sweeping it's it's it's a major,
Speaker 1: a major agreement that will affect a lot of things
Speaker 1: and will make the business of the American people easier
Speaker 1: and that this president isn't just sitting around saying. Remember,
Speaker 1: the big Obama talking point for a long time was
Speaker 1: when Obama could when Obama couldn't follow through on the
Speaker 1: promises that he had made to Democrat voters, it was
Speaker 1: Republicans are obstructionist. That was always what we would hear.
Speaker 1: In fact, they said Republicans were such obstructionists that even
Speaker 1: when Obama decided that he wasn't going to go to
Speaker 1: them anymore and he was just gonna do end runs
Speaker 1: on them, it was because it was quote the right
Speaker 1: thing for him to do to use the pen on
Speaker 1: the phone. Remember that got a pen on the phone,
Speaker 1: and he would use that pen and phone via executive
Speaker 1: order to institute policy that he couldn't get the Republicans
Speaker 1: in the Congress to go along with because they are
Speaker 1: Republicans and they didn't want to do these things. But
Speaker 1: the excuse was always obstruction. Not only have Democrats generally
Speaker 1: been opposed to this president's policies and the hashtag resistance
Speaker 1: in the federal judiciary has just made his life much
Speaker 1: more difficult as president than it should be in a
Speaker 1: fair and just legal environment. They've been trying to destroy
Speaker 1: the president they've been you know, we're in the middle
Speaker 1: of an impeachment trial right now, and yet he is
Speaker 1: still delivering on promises, including in this case, a promise
Speaker 1: that involved Democrats. I would have to ask, I mean,
Speaker 1: for especially for those who are independent voters, or I
Speaker 1: would want to know what would they want the president
Speaker 1: to be doing differently. I don't mean fake you know,
Speaker 1: fake news people that they're going to put up and say, oh,
Speaker 1: he's a who's an independent? You know, they're going to
Speaker 1: find a lot of They're gonna find a lot of
Speaker 1: suburban moms in the Midwest who are going to be like,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, like I just think that Trump's super mean.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, he's super mean. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are some moms that feel that way that that's fine,
Speaker 1: but that's going to be a recurring thing. You'll see.
Speaker 1: They're gonna find suburban moms you're oh gosh, those tweets,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, those tweets are mean, and they're not going
Speaker 1: to find people that they can put forward as the
Speaker 1: independent or undecided voter, which is which is always the
Speaker 1: most the most beloved of all American voters at election season, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, no one cares about the buckster because I'm
Speaker 1: voting Republican and this sea of insane blue. But they're
Speaker 1: going to find all these people that, as I said that,
Speaker 1: do they think Trump is mean? They don't like his style.
Speaker 1: I would want to know what do they think that
Speaker 1: Trump should be doing differently? If you're really going to
Speaker 1: judge this presidency on the merits, what would be a
Speaker 1: better approach than what we were seeing from the president
Speaker 1: in terms of policy. Oh, I saw today that there
Speaker 1: is I think a Politico article. Politico is a politics
Speaker 1: site for people who think left of center is center,
Speaker 1: and in that are article they talk about the constitutional
Speaker 1: crisis that the president poses by trying to build this wall.
Speaker 1: It's not a constitutional crisis. This is not that big
Speaker 1: a deal. You should just be allowed to build a wall.
Speaker 1: Should happen. He's the commander in chief, Army Corps of
Speaker 1: Engineers signing them do this, protecting US national boundaries, borders.
Speaker 1: Should be allowed to do this. And the courts that
Speaker 1: are going to try to stop them from doing it
Speaker 1: are allowing ideology to dictate their legal interpretation, which we
Speaker 1: keep seeing. This is the nationwide injunctions you get from
Speaker 1: these federal courts or effectively, any judge who is a leftist,
Speaker 1: a leftist that happens to be wearing a black robe.
Speaker 1: Any judge can decide that they're going to override the
Speaker 1: policies of the President of the United States. You're going
Speaker 1: to you know, even in that environment, though the president
Speaker 1: has been able to deliver. And look, I hope we
Speaker 1: just have another fantastic economic year, because this is really
Speaker 1: good for the American people. We are getting wealthier, more comfortable,
Speaker 1: more secure. Worry about the fact that we got a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars year deficit. It's bad. No one seems to
Speaker 1: care anymore. I don't know. There's like a late on
Speaker 1: a Friday. So I feel like I'll just tell you
Speaker 1: this because I know people are buck Let's hear a
Speaker 1: producer Mark talk about hockey. We don't need to hear
Speaker 1: you talk about the deficit. It's boring. No one cares. Okay,
Speaker 1: twenty two trillion in counting, it matters. It matters at
Speaker 1: some point. There are pressures from carrying a debtload that large,
Speaker 1: pressures on the economy that affect all of us, but
Speaker 1: they're unseen. In many ways. It's not as straightforward as
Speaker 1: just oh gosh, it's making us all poorer or less free.
Speaker 1: That's a real thing. But also there's the possibility of
Speaker 1: this thing implodes and all of a sudden you have
Speaker 1: a real crisis. And when you have a crisis of
Speaker 1: that magnetude a financial crisis, and who knows what exactly
Speaker 1: it will be. But when that crisis hits, it's too
Speaker 1: late to turn it around without massive economic damage. If
Speaker 1: we're going to tackle it, the time would be now,
Speaker 1: but I know, go to a new election year. Everybody,
Speaker 1: everybody right now wants to believe that Uncle Sam is
Speaker 1: Santa Claus and there's an endless stream of money to
Speaker 1: just throw it everything we want for ourselves. It's not
Speaker 1: the way it works, folks. But that's my pitch. That's
Speaker 1: my pitch for today. And we got to care about
Speaker 1: the death of deficit, but nobody does. You're in the
Speaker 1: freedom hud. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast Live
Speaker 1: in Toronto, where the Stars virus got world scale attention.
Speaker 1: That's because the only people who died outside of Asia
Speaker 1: from that virus were in Canada, and most of them
Speaker 1: were in Toronto, with only forty four people dying in
Speaker 1: total in Canada. It had a huge impact on our city.
Speaker 1: We lost a lot of tourism, we lost millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: The most importantly, we saw a lot of stigma and
Speaker 1: racism towards Chinese people. It's important that we do not
Speaker 1: repeat those racist notions that happened here in Toronto, and
Speaker 1: we all need to be aware of this when we
Speaker 1: talk about the current coronavirus on our social media channels,
Speaker 1: we've seen lots of people saying things like this always
Speaker 1: happens in China and relating it a lot to the
Speaker 1: types of foods that Chinese people eat. But it's important
Speaker 1: to remember that Western food practices are what created mad
Speaker 1: cow disease, and also Western meat consumption has created a
Speaker 1: big issue with antibiotic resistance. We need to listen to
Speaker 1: and trust to public health professionals, and we need to
Speaker 1: not overreact, and we need to not use this as
Speaker 1: an excuse to be racist. Wokeness. Wokeness is more important
Speaker 1: than your safety, my friends. This was some videos making
Speaker 1: the rounds over the weekend. People sharing this all over
Speaker 1: social media in response to the coronavirus outbreak, which is
Speaker 1: obviously in China right now. I think under ten thousand
Speaker 1: cases and under two hundred deaths, but it could grow
Speaker 1: very rapidly. Here's the truth. We need to be able
Speaker 1: to speak about what caused this and where the risk
Speaker 1: factors are without people thinking that this is about whether
Speaker 1: or not there's some cultural offense. Given there's nobody, nobody
Speaker 1: is hearing about this and being racist against I mean
Speaker 1: when I say nobody, let me step back from that
Speaker 1: for a second. The conversation is not about more random
Speaker 1: morons on the internet who are racist, not just against
Speaker 1: Chinese people, but to be racist against any people. The
Speaker 1: other's people are always going to be around their morons,
Speaker 1: But we do have to understand if there was you know,
Speaker 1: if this is going to continue to be a problem,
Speaker 1: is there a a a food source or a way
Speaker 1: of handling certain food products animal products in this case
Speaker 1: that leads to what could be a pandemic. We want
Speaker 1: to stop that thing from happening. And when you know,
Speaker 1: when people's lives are at stake, when their health is
Speaker 1: at stake, all of a sudden, they get a little
Speaker 1: bit more uneasy, not some libs are still crazy about
Speaker 1: but a little more uneasy. But all we don't want
Speaker 1: to be culturally insensitive. They mentioned SARS. SARS comes from
Speaker 1: and they did analysis of this. SARS comes from the
Speaker 1: practice in a part of from eating the civet cat,
Speaker 1: which is I guess a type of wildcat and they
Speaker 1: eat it. And that's where Stars came from. So it
Speaker 1: does matter that there are certain practices and there's there
Speaker 1: are these videos that are making the rounds right now
Speaker 1: of what we would consider really kind of an exotic
Speaker 1: meat market. I suppose in Wuhan, which is where that
Speaker 1: this is. That's ground zero of this coronavirus outbreak. By
Speaker 1: the way, I wonder you know people have been this
Speaker 1: is for real, people have been doing searches on Corona
Speaker 1: beer and virus a lot now because there are people
Speaker 1: that think that they're most about I remember the first
Speaker 1: day I said, had nothing to do with sure enough,
Speaker 1: this is not a well named there's not a well
Speaker 1: named virus. I'd be willing to bet. And this is
Speaker 1: an aside to the bigger concerns here that you might
Speaker 1: actually see a little bit of a drop in Corona
Speaker 1: sales because of this, because that's just the way people
Speaker 1: oh coronavirus. And I don't know. I remember the band
Speaker 1: Anthrax after the Anthrax scare in this country was really
Speaker 1: upset about that situation, so that this this can happen. Uh,
Speaker 1: but this storyline that we're hearing now that you can't
Speaker 1: discuss the practices in the food practices in China and
Speaker 1: ow it affects us. First of all, it is true
Speaker 1: that most the flu virus that we're worried about year
Speaker 1: and a year out. You know, new strains of flu
Speaker 1: virus do tend to come out of livestock and you
Speaker 1: know animal food handling processes in China. This is just
Speaker 1: this is the truth. This is where it often that
Speaker 1: you know, bird flu, swine flew these things, they come
Speaker 1: out of China. So that's real. And for him to
Speaker 1: you know, this is a moment where oh, well, let's
Speaker 1: just let's make this about cultural criticism in some way,
Speaker 1: he brought up mad counties. I think I'm trying to
Speaker 1: how many people have actually been killed by mad cow disease.
Speaker 1: It's like a handful. I think four p four people
Speaker 1: in the United States have died of mad cow disease. Ever,
Speaker 1: so to say we're responsible for mad cow disease, it's
Speaker 1: kind of like, well, and I'm pretty sure you also
Speaker 1: have to eat like the brains of the cow for
Speaker 1: that to be an issue. So yeah, not. We We
Speaker 1: handle our produce and our livestock very very hygienically in
Speaker 1: comparison to what's done in some other countries. When you
Speaker 1: see the video in Wuhan of this market where they
Speaker 1: have bats and they have you know, big boa constrictors
Speaker 1: and they've got rats and dogs and cages and they're
Speaker 1: eating all these things. These are all these are all
Speaker 1: for human consumption, and it's just sort of laid out
Speaker 1: on tables and it's it's not it's not a hygienic practice. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's just not. So it's it's not to we're not
Speaker 1: putting down any individual. We're trying to find ways to
Speaker 1: avoid pandemic disease from happening. But in the world, this
Speaker 1: world on the left, in this country, better to say that,
Speaker 1: you know, our use of antibiotics and animals is equivalent
Speaker 1: to people eating what maybe contaminated bats or drinking bat soup,
Speaker 1: which I gotta tell you there are some things that
Speaker 1: I'd be willing to be a little risky in terms
Speaker 1: of giving it a shot. You will never catch me
Speaker 1: eating bat, bat anything on the list of animals as
Speaker 1: we've discussed. Bats are very low on the what I'm
Speaker 1: willing to eat, I would take I Actually, I think
Speaker 1: i'd go rat before i'd go bat. What do you think, Mark,
Speaker 1: would you go snake before you go rat? None of
Speaker 1: the above, None of you have to What if you're
Speaker 1: with Indiana Jones and Indiana Jones the Temple of Doom
Speaker 1: and the only food you have available is whatever they
Speaker 1: give you, I'll promise you that it will never happen.
Speaker 1: But if I had to choose one of those, I
Speaker 1: think I at least have heard of snake being eaten before. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you remember in Indiana Jones when he opens he's
Speaker 1: like slits open the boat, constrinking the Temple of Doom,
Speaker 1: and that guy is like eating and the babies, oh
Speaker 1: man eat buck. Yeah, that's a good movie. This isn't
Speaker 1: fear factor. Okay, I have bugs Like I did eat
Speaker 1: crickets in Mexico, and uh, I think they were not
Speaker 1: very good. So I would not recommend that people eat crickets.
Speaker 1: So people like it. It's protein. It is. It is protein.
Speaker 1: So eventually we're supposed to stop eating all like good meat,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to start just eating insects and vegetables,
Speaker 1: I think, until they realize that insects are living creatures too,
Speaker 1: and then they will tell us that we can't eat
Speaker 1: them either, and then that the plants have feelings. That's
Speaker 1: also where we're heading. Eventually, plant based burgers will be
Speaker 1: you know, it's veggie murder. So I don't know what
Speaker 1: we're supposed to just eat, like spores, molds, and fungus.
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure what we're gonna be left with.
Speaker 1: Doesn't sound exciting to me, though, you know, algae. Algae
Speaker 1: is a living thing. I don't know, you know, if
Speaker 1: we're really gonna be if we're really going to be
Speaker 1: true humanitarians, I don't think we can eat plants or algae.
Speaker 1: I think we just I think, you know, you just
Speaker 1: have to Humanity has to starve. How can we drink water?
Speaker 1: It might have feeling more single celled organisms? Am I
Speaker 1: just gonna just just ingest amibo without any sense of
Speaker 1: whether what are those Amibo's hopes in dreams? You know?
Speaker 1: What is that paramecium? Or that I'm running out of it?
Speaker 1: If you're over my head, yeah, I didn't pay attention
Speaker 1: to science. I'm just saying you know the flagellum. Am
Speaker 1: I just gonna eat flagellum without anyone even caring that
Speaker 1: flagellum has feeling sounds like a new product from Jello.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The bus Essen Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. The show ain't over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: keeping it real. It's time for roll call. So exciting
Speaker 1: to have some roll call time with all of you.
Speaker 1: So thank you for letting me do that. I always
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Missed you guys yesterday. Glad to be back.
Speaker 1: Not planning any more days away anytime soon. So that's
Speaker 1: the good news. Uh, here we go. Let's get to it,
Speaker 1: shall we. Here we go, Facebook dot com, slash buck
Speaker 1: Sexton exciting stuff. Oh I was gonna tell you, so
Speaker 1: I had to. I visited my friends at Sansbury Research
Speaker 1: last night talking about some book stuff, and then we
Speaker 1: had we had dinner, and we went to a place
Speaker 1: in Baltimore called the Prime Rib, which there are also
Speaker 1: offshoots of this, I believe in Washington, DC. I've never
Speaker 1: been to those ones, but the original Prime Rib is
Speaker 1: in Baltimore. It may be that may be the best
Speaker 1: steak place I've ever been in my life. It may
Speaker 1: actually be number one all time. It's that good. I'll
Speaker 1: have to go to Baltimore for Yeah, you gotta check
Speaker 1: it out. I will tell you what they have, the
Speaker 1: prime rib, so you can get prime rib obviously, but
Speaker 1: we also have the prime rib steak, which is a tomahawk,
Speaker 1: a rib by tomahawk, which is what I tend to
Speaker 1: go for. And and that's fine, even though it's a
Speaker 1: very distakes about the size of my head, there's no
Speaker 1: judgment there. I finish at all pretty much. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: morning I still feel a little heavy from them, the
Speaker 1: meat sectarians. Yeah, I was really I went after it.
Speaker 1: Um I didn't. By the way, I didn't think of
Speaker 1: any people go to steakhouse. So can I have a
Speaker 1: wedge salad? You're not being healthy. You're just having a
Speaker 1: bunch of lettuce drenched in blue cheese. Just just be
Speaker 1: a man and eat your steak. Yeah, I signed dishes.
Speaker 1: Ain't a Brussels and a sparrio. Whatever you want to
Speaker 1: do with that, that's fine. But people always take up
Speaker 1: all this room with the wedge salad. Ye, why why
Speaker 1: wedge salad? Yourself. When you're at a steakhouse, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have some delicious red meats. Those are delicious. Oh you
Speaker 1: can't have Yeah, I was gonna say, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Isn't that an outback steak? That is an out back
Speaker 1: steakhouse special? Yeah? Yeah, so yeah, I mean that maybe
Speaker 1: if that's kind of exciting. But I see people and
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, let me eat like a head of
Speaker 1: lettuce drenched in blue cheese. Which I'm not saying it
Speaker 1: tastes bad, it tastes good, but you're taking up precious room,
Speaker 1: precious volume in your gullet. Is that another word for gut?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, for the steak. But this is
Speaker 1: what happened to me though, And I feel a little
Speaker 1: I feel a little cheapish about this. Now. I was
Speaker 1: with some great friends last time. We had a great dinner.
Speaker 1: But I I saw this, this option on the on
Speaker 1: the steak for is there there's a party going outside? Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a Super Bowl tailgate about to happen. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: people are about to rock. Did we get invited to
Speaker 1: this party that's happening? Oh yeah, there's signs around the building. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm glad people are having fun while we try to
Speaker 1: save the republic. No, it's all good, it's fine. It's
Speaker 1: just I just hope they know that they sleep under
Speaker 1: a blanket of freedom that we provide them while they're partying.
Speaker 1: You know, it's because we're in here making sure the
Speaker 1: country continues to function and the presidency isn't ruined. Um.
Speaker 1: But so so I saw the steak and it was
Speaker 1: a tomahawk. Of course, I ordered medium rare. I might
Speaker 1: have actually, in retrospect, stepped it up to rare. I
Speaker 1: might just go all in. I saw this. Have you
Speaker 1: ever seen this before? There was an option for how
Speaker 1: to order your steak in terms of accoutrement. One of
Speaker 1: them was called oscar. Do you know what? Do you
Speaker 1: know what ordering your steak oscar is? I did not
Speaker 1: know this until last night. I was like, what is that?
Speaker 1: That sounds like fun? It is taking about a fist
Speaker 1: size of lump crab meat and just pouring Hollandaiz all
Speaker 1: over the lump crab meat and then putting one single
Speaker 1: thing of asparagus hashtag healthy on top of its healthy.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you it was amazing, but I felt
Speaker 1: a little judged, like the table looked at me like, really,
Speaker 1: you're getting a You're getting like a thirty two ounce
Speaker 1: tomahawk ribire right and whatever? It was big. It was
Speaker 1: a big steak. And then you're gonna have a fist
Speaker 1: size lump crab meat drenched ineffectively just butter with some herbs.
Speaker 1: That seems a little excessive, you know what I say
Speaker 1: to that? Challenge accepted exactly. Wowlenge was accepted. It was good,
Speaker 1: although I still I'm a little like, how do you
Speaker 1: eat on? Did you not eat all day? Correct? Okay,
Speaker 1: I did. I had a muffin from my my brother's company, Susie's.
Speaker 1: I did not eat any food other than that. But
Speaker 1: my stomach is like still a little fold today. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I would imagine there's not really a lot of room
Speaker 1: for anything. I recently went to Have you ever been
Speaker 1: to a Brazilian steakhouse? Oh? Yeah, I how did they
Speaker 1: keep bringing all day? I just have to eat there?
Speaker 1: And then one guy I went with did not eat
Speaker 1: any of the side dishes, didn't go to the salad bar, nothing.
Speaker 1: He was like, I'm just having me. I kind of
Speaker 1: appreciate this purist attitude because a lot of people they
Speaker 1: go to steakhouse and they fill up. When I see
Speaker 1: people at a steakhouse eating, if it's a good steakhouse,
Speaker 1: eating like bread, big things of bread, be shorthand that's
Speaker 1: not smart. No, I mean, look to eat his own,
Speaker 1: eat whatever you want. But if we're if you're really
Speaker 1: gonna go game time, you gotta save room. You gotta
Speaker 1: save room for the protein. Wow, the real we're really
Speaker 1: in the middle of a party, so usually they're downstairs,
Speaker 1: so I'm surprised that's right. Next Kay, Well we can
Speaker 1: go out there and you know, drink some of their
Speaker 1: booze and hang out and it'll be fun. All right.
Speaker 1: I gotta get to roll call, which means all of
Speaker 1: your thoughts brought to me here. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Here we go, let's get too Rich. I was go
Speaker 1: falling Tuesday during your show with your impressions of Bernie
Speaker 1: and Warren made me laugh out loud since I was
Speaker 1: honoring my birthday with their caucuses. I trust you will
Speaker 1: be following the candidates and giving your impressions along the way.
Speaker 1: Thank you again for your enjoyable commentary. Rich. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for writing in and your kind words are
Speaker 1: very much appreciated. Frank first love the show. My wife
Speaker 1: is the hockey fan of the family. But I think
Speaker 1: Producer Mark segments should be called Producer Mark's penalty box
Speaker 1: or maybe producer Marks not neutral zone. I think the
Speaker 1: penalty box is going to win out on this one.
Speaker 1: Let's see Mark, you even know what the neutral zone is?
Speaker 1: That was my question when I saw this man. Oh no,
Speaker 1: I thought that was just like a thing that he
Speaker 1: had made up. No, the neutral zone is like the
Speaker 1: area between the blue lines, like in the middle of
Speaker 1: the ice. This is why you gotta take you to
Speaker 1: a hockey game. Yeah, I guess I'm taking you. But whatever,
Speaker 1: same idea, we gotta go to hockey games. I guess
Speaker 1: I can learn some of these things. I did have
Speaker 1: a nice chat with a fellow who was a was
Speaker 1: a hockey player once, and he was he was very
Speaker 1: well known for this happened recently, actually a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: very well known for fighting. And he explained because I
Speaker 1: was very curious about this, he explained to me that
Speaker 1: first of all, they've cracked down a lot on fighting
Speaker 1: and hockey from when he played, because he's now retired,
Speaker 1: and you know, he was talking about playing. I guess
Speaker 1: fifteen or twenty years ago. And I said, I don't
Speaker 1: really understand. How is this okay? And he said, the
Speaker 1: first of all, if you really hurt somebody, day will
Speaker 1: something like you can get arrested, like if you hit
Speaker 1: somebody in the face, if you like really pray the ordinary,
Speaker 1: if you do something that's out of the ordinary. And
Speaker 1: I said, but I don't understand. How does it work?
Speaker 1: Is well, well, teams have like fighters, yeah, and it's
Speaker 1: known that they're going to be a fighter, and there's
Speaker 1: like a hole. It's almost like this ballet of there
Speaker 1: are these different guys that are involved in that component
Speaker 1: of the hockey match. But like most of it, like
Speaker 1: you would never if you started a fight with Wayne Gretzky,
Speaker 1: people would have looked down on you. He had a
Speaker 1: guy named Marty McSorley that was on his line specifically
Speaker 1: to protect him. Somebody hit him, mcsorley's coming after you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: see this this is what there's like, this whole thing
Speaker 1: about how it used to be line brawls, like the
Speaker 1: entire all five players on each side, even the goalies
Speaker 1: would get involved. Sometimes he go in the bench. It
Speaker 1: was crazy back in the seventies eighties even early nineties. Yeah,
Speaker 1: line brawls. Line brawls which like look at the time
Speaker 1: you're like, oh, this is awesome, but like looking back
Speaker 1: at it's like, oh, this is barbaric, and I hope
Speaker 1: these guys are are okay? Why it was not really
Speaker 1: a hockey figs I grew up. I remember I remember
Speaker 1: playing the game on Nintendo Blades of Steel, and this
Speaker 1: would happen. There'll be like bench clearing brawls. You could
Speaker 1: actually start. Well, there used to be NHL Hits Blades
Speaker 1: of Steel. Little. Yeah, I know it's the wrong generation
Speaker 1: for you, but still, yeah, that's a thing. Um, good
Speaker 1: good stuff. I did not know about all that. I
Speaker 1: did not know about line brawls. You learned something learning YouTube.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of videos of them. Kendall writes in
Speaker 1: First Buck. First off, I want to say I love
Speaker 1: your show Never Quit. It gets me through my days
Speaker 1: at work. I enjoy listening to your takes on everything
Speaker 1: and impressions. However, this message would have spurred from your
Speaker 1: January twenty eighth episode, when producer Mark brought up Techmo
Speaker 1: Bowl and the Raiders team with Bo Jackson being unstoppable.
Speaker 1: I love Techmo still play with my brothers when we
Speaker 1: go home to visit, but we had the rule, just
Speaker 1: like we did with Golden Eye and Odd Job. Another
Speaker 1: fave that you mentioned, which I love, you couldn't use
Speaker 1: the Raiders in any type of competitive setup like the
Speaker 1: season mode. Techmo was incredible, no penalties and great halftime shows.
Speaker 1: Thanks for keeping us on this topic or letting me
Speaker 1: get in on this topic. Keep up the fantastic show
Speaker 1: you guys. She'll tie. First of all, I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 1: not against you know, this is not nom There are rules.
Speaker 1: It's not against the rules to play with with odd
Speaker 1: Job in Golden Eye. You know, people can whine about this,
Speaker 1: but Odd Job as a character it's allowed. Then. As
Speaker 1: for Techmo, I don't know if that's if Bo Jackson
Speaker 1: is so much better than the other players that are.
Speaker 1: There was like a Michael Jordan basketball game where like
Speaker 1: basically every time you shot with Jordan you made it
Speaker 1: so if you're playing against that. There were certain video
Speaker 1: games back in the day, like we mentioned a couple
Speaker 1: of days ago, Madden No. Three with Michael Vick Unstoppable,
Speaker 1: Like certain players are just so good. Nowadays it's not
Speaker 1: as bad. Yeah, Like even though, like, for example, in hockey,
Speaker 1: Connor McDavid is the best player in the game, but
Speaker 1: he's not always going to score. He's not like Bo
Speaker 1: Jackson in Techmobile. Connor mcdays he really the most valuable
Speaker 1: player in the nh Oh yeah, he's Gretzky esque. What
Speaker 1: teams he played for? The Edmonton Oilers, actually same team
Speaker 1: Gretzky played for. I thought Gretzi was an la king.
Speaker 1: He was. See look at that from the video game trading.
Speaker 1: That was back when there was no salary cap. So
Speaker 1: basically the King's bought him and vandon't he needed money,
Speaker 1: and honestly, him being a king's what really started hockey
Speaker 1: in America. I hear Edmonton's lovely this time of year.
Speaker 1: By the way, you enjoy sticking your face in a
Speaker 1: freezer with with like wet hair. Western Canada not the
Speaker 1: best place to play hockey. So let's see we get
Speaker 1: here and now we have Steven Hey Buck tell producer
Speaker 1: Marked a man up and watch the Mandalorian and Steven
Speaker 1: I'll let you tell producer Marked there man up. He
Speaker 1: does get a lot of shade for things he can't control. However,
Speaker 1: I really like him on the show that's just the
Speaker 1: way Shields High See. He likes you. He just wants
Speaker 1: to watch him telling you the man up is a
Speaker 1: great message. Here we go. I'll take it. Yeah. PS,
Speaker 1: glad that Trump knows where Wisconsin is on a map,
Speaker 1: but it's actually been within within forty miles of my house.
Speaker 1: Very cool, Stephen, Thank you so much. Let's see next
Speaker 1: up here. We have so many messages. Jeff, hey buck
Speaker 1: love the show. First time message after two years of listening.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Jeff, appreciate it. I just want
Speaker 1: to say that you were correct. Do not listen to
Speaker 1: the ill informed listener. Porsche is that is the correct pronunciation,
Speaker 1: not Porsche. Oh oh, you and Mark keep up the
Speaker 1: good work. As for the ill informed listener, look up
Speaker 1: a Porsche commercial on YouTube. As proof, Shields High See
Speaker 1: us speak a tiny bit of said German, and when
Speaker 1: you've taken at least two years of high school level chairman,
Speaker 1: you know that the pronunciation is posha and not posh.
Speaker 1: Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance that
Speaker 1: sound like the sweetest chef. That's not sweetest German dude,
Speaker 1: but sound like the character like that. Yeah's how I
Speaker 1: would imagine the sweedih chef would speak German for some
Speaker 1: reason produce a Mark said German chef atone we cut
Speaker 1: e was very precisely and mechanically like we are doing
Speaker 1: the inside of a pm W. It's very special. They're
Speaker 1: having a real party outside. Man. I think they have
Speaker 1: anything to kill, you see anything to kill out there?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think this is just a line
Speaker 1: for the food. Oh, there's a line for the food. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So like just to paint the picture for everybody on
Speaker 1: the raid, one should just walk out there and tell
Speaker 1: those people who work on the music side of this
Speaker 1: business that producer markus here in producer Mark, don't wait
Speaker 1: in no lines. Yeah, I'll just walk to the front
Speaker 1: of the line. But basically, the kitchen and the performance
Speaker 1: areas right next to our studio. Jeremy, Jeremy spoken. Your
Speaker 1: discussion on the population for not being less than many
Speaker 1: American cities should be sufficient evidence for Democrats to want
Speaker 1: the electoral college. Too often they point to the middle
Speaker 1: of the country and think that only the electoral college
Speaker 1: favors Republicans. However, if the popular vote were to be used,
Speaker 1: this outproclaimed intellectuals of New England would be forgotten. Shields High, Well,
Speaker 1: Jeremy has spoken. Thanks so much, man, Buck, you are correct.
Speaker 1: Poor is a two syllable word. They even have a
Speaker 1: YouTube video out to help people pronounce it correctly. You
Speaker 1: are awesome, Shields High. You want to think I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: I'm right even when some people think I'm wrong, I'm right.
Speaker 1: Unlike producer Mark who thought that Clemson was in Alabama.
Speaker 1: It burns, it burns. We can't a little about that way.
Speaker 1: You know, he's right a lot, so we can't let
Speaker 1: him let that one totally slip. Erica listening to your
Speaker 1: Wednesday podcast when a Bloomberg ad came on, I was
Speaker 1: surprised and then amused. The ad got cut off mid
Speaker 1: sentence with a sound by a Trump. Yeah. Eric, I
Speaker 1: think we've explained this before. People are sending a lot
Speaker 1: of messages about this. There are rules for political ads,
Speaker 1: and you can't, you know, FCC rules, Federal Communication Commission
Speaker 1: rules that you can't not take ads on your air
Speaker 1: for political part, you know, for a political candidate of
Speaker 1: one side and all the other, especially if you're gonna
Speaker 1: be on terrestrial radio as we are. We're on one
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty stage now on the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: So that means that we have to I have no
Speaker 1: choice in our commercials but to take ads from Maya Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: And that includes the podcast as well. And that includes
Speaker 1: the podcast as well. So can't you any there's no
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sorry, guys, there's nothing we can do
Speaker 1: about that. So those of you that don't want to
Speaker 1: hear Bloomberg ads, but also you know, you know, listen
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg ads. He might be like, hey, why do
Speaker 1: you have that big soda? You don't need that big soda.
Speaker 1: I'm Mini Mike, and I approve this message, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. Like he said, listen to what is
Speaker 1: listen to what his ads are. Nicole writes, wow, the
Speaker 1: girl that is in fetter today, Um, okay, please come back.
Speaker 1: I'll just read that part. Thank you, Nicole, I missed
Speaker 1: you all. Thank you for having me back, or rather
Speaker 1: for wanting me back. I do appreciate that. Willie. In German,
Speaker 1: it's posha. If Ferdinand was French, the EO was not pronounced.
Speaker 1: Koch is pronounced wrong, does not matter which one c
Speaker 1: h and German is a soft G. In some areas
Speaker 1: it's a K. But it is the most common for
Speaker 1: it to be as a soft G Porsche. It was
Speaker 1: a soft G that was in German. Who guten tag? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Ike Nama Buck, I might teach producer Mark a little
Speaker 1: German in here v heysenz v hysnz Mark. Uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's I did take two yus of German in high school.
Speaker 1: I remember about thirty words, so fun, fun times, Robert Uh,
Speaker 1: he says, if I hold up the sign, but you
Speaker 1: can't see the sign, so that's no good ruth. Um,
Speaker 1: I've never heard a Republican adam your podcast. Um, so
Speaker 1: what's going on there? Well, I mean tell us some
Speaker 1: Republicans to advertise on the podcast. I don't know where
Speaker 1: are you g I mean Bloomberg is spelling one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars though, so there's a lot of money he's
Speaker 1: thrown around, right, that's that's not on us. I think
Speaker 1: Bloomberg just paid the company X amount of dollars. So
Speaker 1: it's on every podcast, and I think it's I think
Speaker 1: he's just blanketed the airway. Yeah, I'm sure Trump will
Speaker 1: follow sue once it's after the primary. He doesn't need
Speaker 1: to spend the money, now, why would he? Yeah, that'll
Speaker 1: be fun. Team. The weekend is upon us. I'm back
Speaker 1: every day next week. Very excited. So thank you so
Speaker 1: much as always for listening, for being here, Please pass
Speaker 1: the buck. Tell a friend to listen to the show. Also,
Speaker 1: if you have not already and you listen to us
Speaker 1: on radio or podcast, check out Pluto TV channel two
Speaker 1: forty eight the first until Monday. Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1: Everybody Shield's Hot.