Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Thoughts on the Comy
Speaker 1: interview from over the weekend. Of course, we'll discuss those,
Speaker 1: my friends. Also, the state of California is balking at
Speaker 1: sending National Guard to help out on the border. We'll
Speaker 1: get into that and update on the aftermath of air
Speaker 1: strikes in Syria. And of course, in the third hour,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about what wokeness is doing to your favorite
Speaker 1: TV shows and movies that are more coming up. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember no one, welcome, my friends
Speaker 1: to the Buck Sexton Show. I'm coming to you live
Speaker 1: from California. I'm visiting out here in Los Angeles for
Speaker 1: for a few days this week. Very much enjoying my
Speaker 1: time out here. We have a lot to get to.
Speaker 1: This Comy thing was you know, I I promised that
Speaker 1: I'm not going to spend too much time this week
Speaker 1: talking talking about Comy or or sank to Comy as
Speaker 1: I like to call him, because the sanctimony with this
Speaker 1: guy is it is a tornado of sanctimony every time
Speaker 1: he appears on TV. This interview was was hard to
Speaker 1: take and many ways hard to watch. But I feel
Speaker 1: like I've known comys in my day. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of us have. And if you if you understand
Speaker 1: who this guy is, then everything starts to make sense.
Speaker 1: If you really put into context who this individual, who
Speaker 1: he reminds you of, who he operates like in your
Speaker 1: own life, you be like, yeah, I've known some I've
Speaker 1: known some comys in my day. Uh. And just as
Speaker 1: as I mentioned before, we've got some some more stuff
Speaker 1: on Syria to talk about. Also California and the National
Speaker 1: Guard going to the border. That's that's gonna be an
Speaker 1: interesting piece as well. So here's here's what I got
Speaker 1: for you on the whole comy thing went on for
Speaker 1: a long time. I went back today and read through
Speaker 1: the transcript of it too, and not a lot of
Speaker 1: news breaking in this, but if you look between the lines,
Speaker 1: if you read between the lines a bit, you find
Speaker 1: that is a very problematic figure. This this Mr Komy
Speaker 1: fellow and has at various points in his career taken
Speaker 1: actions and made decisions that a non Komy would probably
Speaker 1: be ruined for I mean, this guy, he's a a
Speaker 1: savvy political infighter, make no mistake about it. You know,
Speaker 1: he is the boy scout who will stab you in
Speaker 1: the back. So you think, oh, this guy, you know,
Speaker 1: anyone can trust him. Then all of a sudden, Ah,
Speaker 1: what's that in my back? What happened? You didn't see
Speaker 1: it coming because it came from Comy. I want to
Speaker 1: break down those some of his And this is who
Speaker 1: he is, right, that's what his the vibe, the feeling
Speaker 1: you get about this guy. You know, I've told some
Speaker 1: of my friends recently that he's the one who, you know,
Speaker 1: if you weren't late, for if you weren't caught by
Speaker 1: the dean when you were late for school, he was
Speaker 1: the one who would just like give the Dina heads
Speaker 1: up that you were late. You know, is he right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean technically maybe, But is it helpful? Is is
Speaker 1: that is that the cool thing to do? Is that
Speaker 1: the right move? Is that showing good judgment? No? I
Speaker 1: don't think the world's a better place because you didn't
Speaker 1: get away with being ten minutes late to first period.
Speaker 1: You know, it's who Comey is. He's He's America's hall monitor.
Speaker 1: It's not somebody that I have a lot of admiration
Speaker 1: or respect for, and that's putting a modeling, not someone
Speaker 1: that I can honestly stomach spending too much time reading
Speaker 1: about or or analyzing. But we'll do some of it today. Um.
Speaker 1: He also reminds me of some of the government employees
Speaker 1: I knew who were really quick to point out if
Speaker 1: anyone had violated even the most arcane regulation, even the
Speaker 1: most minute in the NYPD that had the patrol guy
Speaker 1: this big thick guide and you always knew. And this
Speaker 1: was told me by different sergeants on on the force
Speaker 1: that I worked with in my time there. You know,
Speaker 1: you knew if somebody was on your on your side
Speaker 1: or not, based on how deep in the weeds they
Speaker 1: go in the patrol guy to find something to get
Speaker 1: you onto Jammu Up. I remember a guy telling me that,
Speaker 1: you know, when he worked in the equivalent of the
Speaker 1: Internal Affairs Bureau, there were the guys who I think
Speaker 1: m IPD and I even forget. I think they call
Speaker 1: it an investigations or whatever, but and it's it's the
Speaker 1: it's what in the movies that have they know we're
Speaker 1: from the Internal Affairs and all the all the good
Speaker 1: guy cops who played by the road instet of rules
Speaker 1: or super hostile to them. That's not how it works
Speaker 1: out in real life internal affairs. In real life every
Speaker 1: goes yes, sir, what do you need? Um? But there
Speaker 1: were the guys who would as part of the internal
Speaker 1: affairs component, they would get you on having your addresses
Speaker 1: of the m y p D. If your address changed
Speaker 1: and you didn't officially updated on your driver's license. They
Speaker 1: make a big deal of that. Does anyone really care?
Speaker 1: Are you not an effective law enforcement officer because the
Speaker 1: records have you at the wrong address or something? If
Speaker 1: you move because people move in New York all the
Speaker 1: time because the rents are so expensive, and you know
Speaker 1: you've got really no choice. Um. But you know that's
Speaker 1: those Those are the differences between the people that you
Speaker 1: can count on and the people that you can't write,
Speaker 1: those who would go to the depths of of the
Speaker 1: patrol guy to find a way to get you. And
Speaker 1: that's who Comy is, except for himself, very clear about
Speaker 1: that in this interview as well. He'll he'll find a
Speaker 1: way to justify sending anyone else down the river, throwing
Speaker 1: someone else under the bus. But he was always just
Speaker 1: acting from the most pure motives. He was always the
Speaker 1: guy who when he was breaking the rules, he was
Speaker 1: doing it actually for the best possible intentions. That's what
Speaker 1: he was really all about. So with that here, let's
Speaker 1: get into some of the specifics from his his interview, like,
Speaker 1: for example, where he talked about the the leak of
Speaker 1: information that he had Comey leaks some stuff play clip one.
Speaker 1: Presidents tweeted innumerable times calling you a leaker. What's your
Speaker 1: response to President Trump? Look, it's true. I mean I'm
Speaker 1: the one who testified about it. That's how people know
Speaker 1: about it. I gave that unclassified memo to my friend
Speaker 1: and asked him to give it to a reporter. That
Speaker 1: is entirely appropriate. Why not do it yourself? Why not
Speaker 1: do it openly, transparently, For one very practical reason. At
Speaker 1: the end of my driveway was a horde of media,
Speaker 1: and my thought was, if I give it to one reporter,
Speaker 1: then what's my answer to all the others about why
Speaker 1: I won't answer their questions. That's not an answer that
Speaker 1: that doesn't cut it right, because I wanted to be fair.
Speaker 1: This is what I mean by you know, he's the
Speaker 1: guy who the rules really apply to everyone else, but
Speaker 1: not really to him. But he's he's holier than thou,
Speaker 1: but he gives himself an indulgence when necessary. I had
Speaker 1: to have a cutout give it to the paper because
Speaker 1: I didn't want to seem unfair. Well, then you're cut out.
Speaker 1: Is the guy who's being unfair, but you're the one
Speaker 1: who empowered him. So how does that make any difference?
Speaker 1: The answers, of course it doesn't. He's also stating that
Speaker 1: the memo is unclassified. Well, according to Chuck Grassley in
Speaker 1: the Senate, that's not true. And beyond that, even if
Speaker 1: it's unclassified, the fact of the matter is that he
Speaker 1: was using his access as the FBI director two wage
Speaker 1: a personal war against the president to indulge a personal
Speaker 1: vendetta against the person who he answered to in the
Speaker 1: executive chain of command. There's this weird there's this weird
Speaker 1: theory that the media has been running around with it
Speaker 1: like the d o J and the FBI are are
Speaker 1: really their own branch of government. And I think that
Speaker 1: what's been on earth and all of this in part
Speaker 1: is that they think of themselves as their own branch
Speaker 1: at the very top level at least, I mean not
Speaker 1: the rank and file, but you know, FBI director or
Speaker 1: attorney general. They think that they are in a separate
Speaker 1: category of government. They're not just another executive branch employee.
Speaker 1: And I think that that led to a very troubling
Speaker 1: and obvious hubrists with people like James Comey. I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy really thinks that he's just got a better
Speaker 1: way all the time, and when he breaks the rules,
Speaker 1: it's because he knows the rules so very well. When
Speaker 1: he does something that's wrong, it's because, oh, it's just
Speaker 1: so right. It's really kind of a got a kind
Speaker 1: of while when you think about it. Um. But so
Speaker 1: he admitted that he leakes he leaked stuff, and he
Speaker 1: says it's unclassifiedable. We'll see, we'll see. There are other
Speaker 1: parts of the interview I think where we got a
Speaker 1: much better sense even of how self serving all of
Speaker 1: his justifications really are. One of the parts of it
Speaker 1: that made me the most annoyed because he's not the
Speaker 1: only one who has done this. You've had this from
Speaker 1: former cy I director Brennan as well, but that they'll
Speaker 1: suggest that like maybe Russia has got something on Trump,
Speaker 1: still maybe they've got something on them, and given their
Speaker 1: level of access to government information, including all kinds of
Speaker 1: sensitive collection platforms that are out there, and investigations for
Speaker 1: the FBI side of things too on national security related matters.
Speaker 1: This suggestion, when you've just left that role, that there
Speaker 1: maybe something that is compromising the President United States. He's
Speaker 1: wildly irresponsible. It just is people can sit around and say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: you know, tell me he's he's great and he's doing
Speaker 1: his best, and he just wants to serve his country.
Speaker 1: And I see this and I say to myself, Uh,
Speaker 1: he really is acting like a wounded, uh, wounded and
Speaker 1: aggrieved high school kid here who gets to just lash
Speaker 1: out and cause problems for the country because he has
Speaker 1: problems with how he was fired. And I would know
Speaker 1: it's not like he was fired in and it was
Speaker 1: you know, he's out on his butt on the street
Speaker 1: and he can't make a living. You know, I can't
Speaker 1: can earn a dollar. The guy had plenty of ways
Speaker 1: that he used to work. Doesn't talk about this very much.
Speaker 1: I've brought it up here on the show. He worked
Speaker 1: at one of the biggest hedge funds in the world
Speaker 1: as an advisor for a while. I've told you in
Speaker 1: part why I think that decision was made because he
Speaker 1: was friends with pre Berrara, who was making a name
Speaker 1: for himself as the U S. Attorney for the Southern
Speaker 1: District of New York by going after very prominent hedge
Speaker 1: funds on insider trading with insider trading probes and charges
Speaker 1: in some cases. So it's a it's a good insurance
Speaker 1: policy to have a guy on the payroll who could
Speaker 1: get on the phone or maybe meet for lunch with
Speaker 1: the U S Attorney and be like, hey, my guys
Speaker 1: are good. You know. That's all you have to say.
Speaker 1: By the way, nothing technically illegal about that, right. If
Speaker 1: you're friends with the U S. Attorney and he says,
Speaker 1: you know, hey, how are things going at that place,
Speaker 1: he goes, oh, yeah, my guys are all They're all good,
Speaker 1: they don't do anything bad. There's nothing illegal about that,
Speaker 1: And the U S Attorney gets the message without having
Speaker 1: to get the message. Maybe he wants to be in
Speaker 1: on the uh gonna be an advisor to a major
Speaker 1: hedge fund, later, wants to be on the board of
Speaker 1: some companies, or in the case of pre Varr, wants
Speaker 1: to run over to CNN and be a CNN analyst
Speaker 1: right away. And apart joined the hashtag resistance, which is
Speaker 1: what he has done. Um, but this is this interview
Speaker 1: went on. It was a full hour when for a
Speaker 1: long time and Stephanopolis, who I have to say, And
Speaker 1: I don't mean this in a mean way, but Stephanopolis
Speaker 1: is one of the great mysteries to me. I don't
Speaker 1: understand how he has the job that he has. I
Speaker 1: could not be I mean, yeah, he's a Clinton operative.
Speaker 1: He knows a lot of the Clinton people, and I
Speaker 1: get that there are connections, but the fact that they
Speaker 1: think they have to pay this guy a hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars to to ask a lot of questions that anyone
Speaker 1: would ask him, by the way, to not ask some
Speaker 1: questions that should have been asked. What were some of those?
Speaker 1: I'll get into all that and more. I want to
Speaker 1: hear from all you folks if you would like to
Speaker 1: chat with me, not even California. So it's always nice
Speaker 1: to hear from the team when I'm on the road
Speaker 1: eight four four eight to five eight four or four
Speaker 1: nine hundred bucks. So we're gonna get into a little
Speaker 1: more because there's some very important stories that intersect with
Speaker 1: this coming interview, right, So it's not just me sitting
Speaker 1: here making fun of him for being a lanky, weirdo
Speaker 1: with no self awareness, although that's a part of it too. Uh.
Speaker 1: There are some some stories that we get a little
Speaker 1: additional insight on or information that well, a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of different stories that that came into this interview. So
Speaker 1: we'll do some of that this hour, and then I'll
Speaker 1: talk to you about the National Guard situation with California
Speaker 1: and the border, how Trump's actually doing versus how the
Speaker 1: media pretends he's doing with the country, with the economy. Uh.
Speaker 1: Follow up on the serious strikes. I'm still um skeptical
Speaker 1: of how useful or or important they were in the
Speaker 1: grand scheme of things. In the third hour, some random topics.
Speaker 1: I think we'll be talking about sugar wokeness and how
Speaker 1: it affects the way that we couldn't like sugar. That's
Speaker 1: a topic, Oh it is on this show. Uh. And
Speaker 1: there's one other thing that I was hoping to talk
Speaker 1: to you about the third hour, and I'm totally blanking
Speaker 1: what it is now, but it's gonna be amazing that much,
Speaker 1: I can promise you. All Right, team hitting a quick break,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. This is a man without courage.
Speaker 1: He didn't have courage to tell the President to his
Speaker 1: face he was wrong. Instead, he leaked it. He didn't
Speaker 1: have courage to walk out of the meeting, which he
Speaker 1: said was an improper meeting when he was in the
Speaker 1: presence of the president. He showed no courage. Look, I
Speaker 1: think one of the reasons that the President talks to
Speaker 1: me from time time as I tell him exactly what
Speaker 1: I think. At every point in time, I told Obama
Speaker 1: what I thought, I told Clinton what I thought. If
Speaker 1: you're the head of the FBI, you gotta look the
Speaker 1: president in the eye and you have sas president, you're wrong.
Speaker 1: I agree with the dirsh I've been staying on a
Speaker 1: lot like it. But it's true. Comy is is posing
Speaker 1: as some kind of moral hero all the time. Let
Speaker 1: in reality he's really kind of a self serving snake.
Speaker 1: Why not Why do you have to get fired? Let's
Speaker 1: just start with let's start with some of these very
Speaker 1: basic questions. Why don't you get fired? Why couldn't he resign?
Speaker 1: If Trump is, as he says, such a stain on
Speaker 1: government and the FBI and all the others, all the
Speaker 1: other really really terrible stuff that Comey says about the
Speaker 1: current president United States, Why don't you get pushed out?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't it seem like a pretty straightforward thing to say, Oh,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, Um, if he was so bad,
Speaker 1: then I think it's fair to say that you should
Speaker 1: have known he was so bad. And the way for
Speaker 1: a public official to stand on principle is not to
Speaker 1: try to protect his or her job and uh perks
Speaker 1: and prerogative, but actually to say, hold on, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: say this is wrong now and have an impact by resigning, now,
Speaker 1: you know. I just I thought it was um very
Speaker 1: telling that in all this talk with Comy, by the way,
Speaker 1: it never comes across that this is a guy who,
Speaker 1: when it might go against his interests, is brave what
Speaker 1: it might go against his interests, will speak truth to power.
Speaker 1: And there were so many things he said that we're
Speaker 1: also just complete another craft. I mean going into the
Speaker 1: transcript here for a second. Uh, he said, Well, for
Speaker 1: a bunch of reasons. It's sort of built over the
Speaker 1: course of the investigation. First of all, we had the
Speaker 1: problem that President Obama had twice publicly basically said there
Speaker 1: was no there there in an interview with Fox on
Speaker 1: Fox in an interview in sixty minutes. I think both
Speaker 1: times he said that George step Anopolis and he said,
Speaker 1: so that's his Justice Department. Stephanopolis says, did that surprise you?
Speaker 1: It really did surprise me. He's a very smart man
Speaker 1: and a lawyer, and so it surprised me. He shouldn't
Speaker 1: have done it. It was inappropriate. So Obama saying that
Speaker 1: there was no there there in the Hillary investigations inappropriate.
Speaker 1: Did Comey ever, stopped to think that maybe it's more
Speaker 1: than inappropriate. Maybe it was effectively a command given two
Speaker 1: Laretta Lynch and whoever else was at d o J
Speaker 1: involved in this to make sure that this happened that way.
Speaker 1: You know, if you think about it in another context,
Speaker 1: if somebody went on TV, let's say that the CEO
Speaker 1: of a company, and you know, he was like, well,
Speaker 1: everybody should sell all of my uh my top company officers,
Speaker 1: they should all sell their stock, and they did that
Speaker 1: before there was gonna be some really bad news. Uh,
Speaker 1: that would be a problem, right. People would say, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know it's uh the lead guy is
Speaker 1: adding a tony here. That's really bad. And by the
Speaker 1: way that I mean, if it's inside information or something.
Speaker 1: Somebody could go to prison for that, but it would
Speaker 1: be considered a signal. It doesn't matter if he says
Speaker 1: it's the individual. If he's like, yeah, I mean look,
Speaker 1: if I held stock, I'd sell it right now. That's
Speaker 1: all you need, all the all the necessary folks who
Speaker 1: know what's going on, they would take that as okay, Well,
Speaker 1: the guy at the top is saying, you know, sell,
Speaker 1: so we gotta sell. And when the guy at the
Speaker 1: top in this case, Obama says there's no they're they're
Speaker 1: guess what. Who who at the d J. Let's let's
Speaker 1: like walk this back for a second. Who the d
Speaker 1: J is gonna say? You know what? Obama just told
Speaker 1: the whole country that Hillary's email investigation is like a
Speaker 1: is a nothing burger, But I would like to make
Speaker 1: it a sudden something burger with cheese. I would like
Speaker 1: to add some special sauce and grilled onions to the
Speaker 1: something burger that I'm going to make of Hillary's email investigation.
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone's gonna do that. Then we could
Speaker 1: all agree, right, I'm not I'm not pushing too far here.
Speaker 1: I'm not going off and it never never land. There's
Speaker 1: no one at the d O Jay, who, after Obama
Speaker 1: had publicly said there's nothing going on, there was going
Speaker 1: to say otherwise full stop. Your life would have been
Speaker 1: made miserable. Oh you would have Can you imagine the
Speaker 1: d It doesn't matter what level you are, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, you're gonna get all of your all your
Speaker 1: communications audited. Your family. You know your family is gonna
Speaker 1: have people parked outside their house. You know, reporters are
Speaker 1: gonna be all over the whole thing. So what did
Speaker 1: call me do? He goes along to get along? Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: he's the last honest cop in America even there was
Speaker 1: never actually a cop, you know what I mean. He
Speaker 1: acts like he was Mr FBI g Man kicking indoors.
Speaker 1: That was also not something he was ever doing. Comy
Speaker 1: is a politically connected lawyer, and that's it. And that's
Speaker 1: what came across in the interview. We got a lot
Speaker 1: more stay with me. He's holding the line for America Bucks.
Speaker 1: Next it is back a couple of years back, he
Speaker 1: gave a speech saying, if we fall in love with
Speaker 1: our own virtue, we can go sideways. At any point
Speaker 1: over the last two years, did you fall prey to that?
Speaker 1: Did you fall in love with your own virtue. I
Speaker 1: don't think so, but I worried about it constantly. And
Speaker 1: the guard rail for that, because that's a big worry
Speaker 1: I have about myself, was to surround myself with people
Speaker 1: who will hit that, hit at the certainty, hit at
Speaker 1: the pride, to make sure I've thought about things well.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna teach. I'm gonna travel around and speak about leadership,
Speaker 1: but I want to offer them a vision of here's
Speaker 1: what it should look like. Values matter. This president does
Speaker 1: not reflect the values of this country. He I don't
Speaker 1: know if you call this. He's too virtuous to fall
Speaker 1: in love with his own virtue. That was his answer,
Speaker 1: And that is how he feels about it. By the way,
Speaker 1: that comy can't hear you over the sound of how
Speaker 1: awesome he is. That's what he's trying to tell you.
Speaker 1: M This guy is a real piece of work, really
Speaker 1: is Uh. That's not a problem that normal people have.
Speaker 1: Are they falling in love with how how virtuous they are?
Speaker 1: And I think somebody I would tell you this. And
Speaker 1: I have friends who are on the prosecutorial side, federal prosecutors,
Speaker 1: some people who are very actually very close friends of
Speaker 1: mine are prosecutors and uh, and they struggle with this,
Speaker 1: you know, they struggle with what's what's fair, what's just
Speaker 1: and not just? Well, that's what the rules are. The
Speaker 1: rules are the rules. Put that person away for twenty years.
Speaker 1: The rules are the rules. Because they know that the
Speaker 1: rules are subject to interpretation, there are gray areas. Some
Speaker 1: people get the benefit of the doubts. Some people what
Speaker 1: I had, I had a Jesuity used to say, the
Speaker 1: doubt of the benefit is that a thing? I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's a thing or not. The doubt of
Speaker 1: the benefit, um, but you know what, what we're going
Speaker 1: for with that, and you comey is reflective of a
Speaker 1: system that I think very obviously has been corrupted. It's
Speaker 1: been corrupted in some very serious ways. I was asked
Speaker 1: earlier today, you know, what do you think about This
Speaker 1: was by a friend out here in California. What do
Speaker 1: you think about the swamp? I said, well, let's just
Speaker 1: take a step back for a moment. When you have
Speaker 1: had the intense politicization of academia, college campuses, colleges across
Speaker 1: the country, and universities, of law schools, of graduate schools,
Speaker 1: and of the media, entertainment media more so than than
Speaker 1: anything else. But news media too, although I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe their neck and neck. I mean they're both nine
Speaker 1: plus percent liberal. But when you've had that happen, and
Speaker 1: then you have certain career tracks within the federal government
Speaker 1: that put certain schools and background and educational achievement of
Speaker 1: one kind or another, you know, elevate that. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: then it really matters. When law schools are all social
Speaker 1: justice warrior factories, and most of them have become that now,
Speaker 1: and most of these advanced degree programs that aren't specifically
Speaker 1: related to a a real discipline, right, I mean, if
Speaker 1: you're getting a master's or a PhD and applied mathematics,
Speaker 1: I think that that's probably not going to be too politicized.
Speaker 1: But with the rest of them, because they're so left wing,
Speaker 1: that matters. That's why you have all these state department
Speaker 1: people and FBI people, because they go to these left
Speaker 1: wing well and the best schools, I'll just say it,
Speaker 1: the most elite, the most uh hard to get into.
Speaker 1: They're not nearly as elite as they think they are
Speaker 1: because of all the different diversity demands and social justice
Speaker 1: warrior initiatives that are on hand at any given time.
Speaker 1: But you know, they're the best of what we've got
Speaker 1: in terms of the eliteism of their admissions. And yeah,
Speaker 1: that means it. Now you're gonna have a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, Sally Yates hates Trump, McCabe hates Trump. You know, uh,
Speaker 1: Comey obviously hates trauma. You got on the line. You know,
Speaker 1: Brendon hates Trump, Clapper hates Trump. What do all these people?
Speaker 1: How is it possible that we can't have one person
Speaker 1: from the prior administration that's in a supposedly non political
Speaker 1: role who is in fact non political. All these very
Speaker 1: senior government officials who you know, they just want to
Speaker 1: be right on the front lines of opposition to Trump
Speaker 1: and his agenda. And it can't be a coincidence. There's
Speaker 1: something bigger going on here. And I think this is
Speaker 1: a big part of of what the swamp really is.
Speaker 1: And I think that Comey is an example of exactly
Speaker 1: how out of control much of this is. I mean,
Speaker 1: Comey somebody who, as I was saying, has made decisions
Speaker 1: at key points in his career that show that he's
Speaker 1: a political player, and of the decisions that he made
Speaker 1: had a real impact on history. And I think he relished.
Speaker 1: He pretends in this interview with Stephanopolis to dread it,
Speaker 1: to have all of this on the one hand. On
Speaker 1: the other and you know, he he poses as someone
Speaker 1: who you know is losing sleep over this all the time.
Speaker 1: And I don't even think that it's a case where
Speaker 1: you could say that, you know, Comy is like the
Speaker 1: punchest pilot of all this. You know, well, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever the whatever, I'm supposed to do, whatever the people
Speaker 1: want here. No, he had an agenda the whole time.
Speaker 1: He in a gendera the whole time, and it was
Speaker 1: whatever's gonna make him look the best, whatever would allow
Speaker 1: him to be the best commist that he could be
Speaker 1: very important part of the There's so much in the interview,
Speaker 1: touches on the Hillary email investigation, the tarmac, Lauretta Lynch
Speaker 1: and all that. UM. A few things that I wanted
Speaker 1: to get because I could talk about this at length
Speaker 1: and not really hit on some very meaty point pins
Speaker 1: that we need to we need to do um And
Speaker 1: I'm trying to avoid it though, And before we close
Speaker 1: this out, I might have to get into some of
Speaker 1: the the really petty, childish stuff. So in the one hand,
Speaker 1: you've got this guy who's like, you know, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: the conscience of America. I'm going to go around and
Speaker 1: give speeches on ethics and leadership and it's all about
Speaker 1: the truth and being more than just somebody who's out
Speaker 1: for the self and all this. And then he's like,
Speaker 1: but I didn't like the shoes the president was wearing.
Speaker 1: But you know, I thought that the president is not
Speaker 1: as handsome as he thinks he is and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: You're just his hands aren't that big. His hair is
Speaker 1: kind of weird. Why do that unless you can't help
Speaker 1: yourself because you're a huge phony, which is you know,
Speaker 1: does he call him phony comy because he probably should.
Speaker 1: I know he's been great lion comey and grandstanding comby.
Speaker 1: I think phony comy is better better, although I I
Speaker 1: do like my formulation of sancta coomy. He is very
Speaker 1: sancta comus. Uh. But here's the the part of it
Speaker 1: that some of the parts that I thought were particularly
Speaker 1: worthwhile from the and I won't make you sit through
Speaker 1: and listen to too much of his of the clips.
Speaker 1: I'm sure a lot of you watched this, but if
Speaker 1: we're if we're analyzing this together, some very worthwhile moments
Speaker 1: that struck me, like, for example, on the whole notion
Speaker 1: of the tarmac meeting and how that came about. The
Speaker 1: truth is that he's never had a real, really worthwhile
Speaker 1: explanation for this. Here quote, I don't know what they
Speaker 1: talked about. This is for remember, Rhoda Lynch is having
Speaker 1: a personal meeting with Bill Clinton while his wife is
Speaker 1: under FBI investigation for actually breaking federal laws, which is
Speaker 1: what she did. She broke the law. They didn't charge her,
Speaker 1: but she broke the law. Okay, And any person who
Speaker 1: looks at this realizes this stinkst I haven't and only that.
Speaker 1: But Comey excuses this while simultaneously using it as the
Speaker 1: justification for being the one who steps in front of
Speaker 1: the American people and says there should be no charge
Speaker 1: against Hillary. So it's not that bad the tarmac meeting,
Speaker 1: he will say, But also, oh, I had to step
Speaker 1: in front and give that whole speech about the extreme carelessness. Right.
Speaker 1: And when when Steph Stephanopolis asked him about the tarmac meeting,
Speaker 1: he said, I don't know what they talked about. I
Speaker 1: credit Lauretta Lynch because I think she's an honest person,
Speaker 1: saying we talked about grandchildren and other things. I find
Speaker 1: it hard to believe that Bill Clinton would have tried
Speaker 1: to obstruct justice by walking across the tarmac in front
Speaker 1: of a bunch of FBI agents. Okay, here's another interpretation
Speaker 1: on this one that I think is much more in
Speaker 1: line with how the Clinton's approach everything. Of course, they
Speaker 1: thought that they could do this. Hillary was able to
Speaker 1: get away with the email thing. Hillary was. There's never
Speaker 1: been a real investigation of the Clinton Foundation, despite what
Speaker 1: is so blatantly and obviously a massive influenced peddling scheme
Speaker 1: where the sitting Secretary of State was effectively selling influence
Speaker 1: to her foundation on the premise that would turn into
Speaker 1: influence with the next president United States. And you know,
Speaker 1: the husband taking enormous fees to give speeches while his
Speaker 1: wife is Secretary of State from foreign governments, my friends,
Speaker 1: And somehow this is not a big thing. You know
Speaker 1: that they can go in there and seize Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: the personal lawyer for president from sees his attorney client
Speaker 1: privileged documents. But we've never really had anyone looked long
Speaker 1: and hard at the Clinton Foundation. The reason that Loretta
Speaker 1: Lynch was so reckless about meeting with Bill Clinton on
Speaker 1: the tarmac is because they figured we're at the top
Speaker 1: of this system. We run the swamp, nothing's gonna happen
Speaker 1: to us, so of course we can do this. It's
Speaker 1: it's a similar thinking too with with hooting and the
Speaker 1: way that he uses or his you know, his people
Speaker 1: will use nova chuk or polonium to poison someone. You
Speaker 1: might say to yourself, well, why would you use a
Speaker 1: chemical weapon that is so obviously going to be tied
Speaker 1: back to Russia? That's the point, because he can. What
Speaker 1: are we gonna do. We're gonna throw more sanctions on him?
Speaker 1: Oo Putin's really scared, right If it doesn't matter, why
Speaker 1: do it? Because you can? Why would Loretta Lynch meet
Speaker 1: with Bill Clinton because they wanted to talk about whatever
Speaker 1: they were talking about. I think quite clearly she probably
Speaker 1: gave him a very um vaguely worded but clear enough
Speaker 1: for him to understand Na that don't worry, we got
Speaker 1: this covered. You know Hillary is gonna be fine, and
Speaker 1: that's all that was needed. Yeah, because think about the
Speaker 1: risks of what they're doing. If they really thought they'd
Speaker 1: get in trouble, how stupid can you be? No, they
Speaker 1: know that they're above the system. They know that they're
Speaker 1: above the law. And that's why. Remember Laura Lynch never
Speaker 1: even refused herself. Okay, you've got Jeff Sessions, who's just
Speaker 1: trying to be a good, honorable guy, who pulled himself
Speaker 1: out of the bar fight that is the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: investigation because he thinks that's the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch is right in the middle of the bar
Speaker 1: fight over Hillary Clinton's EMIL investigation and didn't even didn't
Speaker 1: even start to didn't stop the think for a second,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I should I should accuse myself from this.
Speaker 1: This looks dirty, this looks bad. Another thing in all this,
Speaker 1: and because look they covered a lot of ground is
Speaker 1: a long interview, right, I think ten million people watching,
Speaker 1: more people watch Stormy Daniels. Though, I'm just saying more
Speaker 1: interest in Stormy Daniels Trump thing than there wasn't. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's salacious, and it's a word that's gotten
Speaker 1: a lot of use over last year. We should come
Speaker 1: up with something else, maybe scirreless, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know that there needs to be some other It's the
Speaker 1: salacious dossier, the salacious allegations against Trump. There's gotta be
Speaker 1: something else. Dossier another word that. Now, dossier was a thing.
Speaker 1: And now if you say the dossier ever knows what
Speaker 1: you're talking about. But on the notion of or on
Speaker 1: the issue of classified information, this was an important part
Speaker 1: of all this, James Comey, with that, this is about
Speaker 1: the Hillary email stuff. Reason number two. I have to
Speaker 1: talk about it very carefully. Classified information came into the
Speaker 1: possession of the U. S Intelligence community in the early
Speaker 1: part of it indicated there was material out there that
Speaker 1: raised the question of whether Loretta Lynch was controlling me
Speaker 1: and the FBI and keeping the Clinton campaign informed about
Speaker 1: our investigation. Now I don't believe that, and I don't
Speaker 1: believe that's true, but there was material that I knew
Speaker 1: someday when it's declassified, and I thought it would be
Speaker 1: decades in the future, would cause historians to wonder, was
Speaker 1: there some strange business going on? There was Loretta Lynch
Speaker 1: somehow carrying water for the campaign and controlling what the
Speaker 1: FBI did. This is a massive steamy pile of you
Speaker 1: know what, This is just atrocious. This is so beyond
Speaker 1: what anyone could reasonably be expected to believe. James Comey
Speaker 1: is saying here, I can't tell you about it, can't
Speaker 1: give any specifics, and it wouldn't come out for decades.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm a guy who really worries about
Speaker 1: his legacy. But I'm not in love with my own virtue,
Speaker 1: because I'm too virtuous to be in love with my virtue.
Speaker 1: But let me just say that I was. I was
Speaker 1: worried about those historians in decades from now, when they're
Speaker 1: thinking about building a life size statue of Comy at
Speaker 1: twelve feet tall, and when they're worried about what has
Speaker 1: happened in the past, they might look at this and say, well,
Speaker 1: there was this now declassified information that Comey says it's
Speaker 1: not credible, but that made them think that maybe Loretta
Speaker 1: Lynch was involved investigator. I mean, this is this is
Speaker 1: just it's just nonsense. It's not real. What does this
Speaker 1: even mean? He's worried about what historians are gonna think
Speaker 1: in a few decades. Who thinks that way? Who the
Speaker 1: who the heck is gonna care in a few decades? Well,
Speaker 1: what does he's really worried? But this is I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's more that he's delusional at the legacy
Speaker 1: of comey or then he really thinks that he can
Speaker 1: just get away with making something up his own story.
Speaker 1: It's class pod can't tell you about it, which I
Speaker 1: guess he he does think he can do that. But
Speaker 1: that's just a non factor in all of this um
Speaker 1: and and ultimately his his whole justification for the decision
Speaker 1: they came to on the Hillary emails, it's just garbage
Speaker 1: and not letting it. If Lauretta Lynch couldn't be the
Speaker 1: one to make the statement the American people, why couldn't
Speaker 1: her number two? It had to come from the FBI.
Speaker 1: That's a total that's a comy decision. That is, it
Speaker 1: was the ultimate grand standard move, the ultimate grand standard move.
Speaker 1: And you could say, well, Buck, why would he later
Speaker 1: on talk about the Wiener investigation. Look, I didn't make
Speaker 1: up the name, all right, that's what else? What else
Speaker 1: am I gonna call it? Don't don't look at me
Speaker 1: the Ween they're investigating Weener. Get your mind out of
Speaker 1: the gutter. Um. But what are they gonna They're gonna
Speaker 1: suppress that information, take the act of step of not
Speaker 1: letting the public know they're looking into Wiener's Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: we're looking at the weiner server. So oh, I gotta
Speaker 1: run a break. All right, We'll be our back. Sorry.
Speaker 1: It was the first time he met Donald Trump. What
Speaker 1: was your impression? He had impressively quaffed hair that looks
Speaker 1: to be all his I confess I stared at it
Speaker 1: pretty closely, and my reaction was I must take gackle
Speaker 1: of time in the morning. Tie was too long, as
Speaker 1: it always is. He looked slightly orange up close, with
Speaker 1: small white um half moons under his eyes, which I
Speaker 1: assume are from tanning goggles. What does this have to
Speaker 1: do with anything? Why is the former FBI director talking
Speaker 1: about the current president United States like he's a you know,
Speaker 1: a sixth grade girl on no offense to sixth grade girls,
Speaker 1: but come on, didn't like his hair. Looks like he's
Speaker 1: a handing bad guys. An embarrassment. Grayson in Mesa, Arizona.
Speaker 1: What are you think of my friend field side Buck
Speaker 1: against oss here? Hey, um, you know I just picked
Speaker 1: up here brit Hume with Brett there this afternoon on
Speaker 1: Fox UM, and he was pointing out a lot of
Speaker 1: things that were left out, the questionable things that were
Speaker 1: cut out, key questions that Stephanopolis was asking, we've only
Speaker 1: got about forty seconds, my friend, So what are some
Speaker 1: of them? Well, the questions that regarding comey um uh,
Speaker 1: him taking on and assuming roles that are delegated to
Speaker 1: like the justice of partner where he became instead of
Speaker 1: his role as the FBI director, he was became judge,
Speaker 1: jury and execute. Yeah, he was running the DJ and
Speaker 1: the FBI by is by his own decision. Grace and
Speaker 1: appreciate you calling him and I gotta run into the
Speaker 1: next block here. He's back with you now, because when
Speaker 1: it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: Welcome to our two of the Bucks extent show, my friends.
Speaker 1: Great to have you here. So we we've gone through
Speaker 1: a lot of the comy stuff. I want to I
Speaker 1: want to move past. I want to move past coomy palooza.
Speaker 1: Like no Buck, Buck, We've got a favor and the
Speaker 1: only prescription is more comy, not true. I know you've
Speaker 1: had enough, probably of comy. I've had enough at this point.
Speaker 1: I do. I think it's done now too, meaning it's
Speaker 1: fading away. He doesn't have staying power, you know. He
Speaker 1: has all the charm of a of a recently divorced
Speaker 1: I R. S auditor who's just looking to looking to
Speaker 1: rage at the world. You know what I mean. It's
Speaker 1: not good. It's not good. He's he's in a rough space.
Speaker 1: He's he's not a guy that people really are gonna
Speaker 1: want to have around all that much. And I haven't
Speaker 1: even gotten a see it just happens. I was gonna
Speaker 1: start making fun of his, like Zen Lake tweets that
Speaker 1: he puts out. And also I saw something greasing. I
Speaker 1: thought it must be photoshopper. He's like doing a jumping
Speaker 1: jack or something and he's like, yeah, you come anyway.
Speaker 1: We're moving on from that though, But it's all that
Speaker 1: stuff is important. His his justifications for what he did
Speaker 1: are not compelling. Um. He holds other people to a
Speaker 1: very extreme standard within the law, but holds himself to
Speaker 1: whatever standard he comes up with. UM. And he is
Speaker 1: very very sanctimonious. But there's some real stuff that's also
Speaker 1: happening right now that has to do with the law
Speaker 1: on how people are tree dude within the context of
Speaker 1: the law, whether it is it is fair or not
Speaker 1: to them. Uh. And Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, has had
Speaker 1: his stuff seized, as you know, We've talked about it
Speaker 1: here and just today a judge has said that there
Speaker 1: well that a judge has denied the temporary restraining order
Speaker 1: that Cohen has asked for with regard to all of
Speaker 1: his um all of his everything. Really, I mean, they
Speaker 1: seized all of his stuff. And imagine someone came into
Speaker 1: your home. Not just someone, Imagine the FBI came in
Speaker 1: and took all of your documents, your phones, your computers,
Speaker 1: and was able to go through everything and without any
Speaker 1: prohibitions on what could be seen. Now you're gonna, I
Speaker 1: understand what the what the left and the Democrat, the
Speaker 1: anti Trump folks they say here is Oh no, don't worry.
Speaker 1: They're gonna bring in a taint team, which is what
Speaker 1: it is called, and they will try to separate out
Speaker 1: what is privileged from what is not. Well, here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Once they already have it that doesn't really feel like
Speaker 1: that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Once the
Speaker 1: FBI or once the people from the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: once federal prosecutors have access this information, guess what the
Speaker 1: tie is gonna go to the prosecutor here. If it's
Speaker 1: close to not being privileged, guess what it's not privileged.
Speaker 1: If there's any way they could justify it not being privileged.
Speaker 1: Guess what, that's where it's gonna go. And then there's
Speaker 1: another level too of when you know, think aback, think
Speaker 1: back to when you were in school. You're like me
Speaker 1: and you were not somebody who really liked math, and
Speaker 1: there were copies of the textbook that had the answers
Speaker 1: in the back, and the whole thing was, you know,
Speaker 1: you're gonna you know, you're you're gonna get to the
Speaker 1: you're able to check your own work that way. But
Speaker 1: I have to admit sometimes I was like, wow, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I got the answer here, and I'm just
Speaker 1: kinda I'm gonna kind of make up how I got
Speaker 1: there and just make sure I've got the answer. That's
Speaker 1: always the temptation. If prosecutors have all this information handy. Now,
Speaker 1: I know people are gonna say the taint team is
Speaker 1: going to separate it out. But the the taint team,
Speaker 1: first of all, they work for the they work for
Speaker 1: the the other side. There for the other team, people
Speaker 1: are gonna say, oh, they're not gonna be there. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be independent independent, how they all know what they're
Speaker 1: working on. When you can tell me these people don't
Speaker 1: talk Oh, yeah, sure, you're you're gonna After all, we've
Speaker 1: seen all the shenanigans with Loretta Lynch, the tarmac meeting Hillary,
Speaker 1: the emails, breaking the blackberries, using bleach bit to erase
Speaker 1: their hard drives and no charges there. And you know,
Speaker 1: after all the stuff we have seen to shake our
Speaker 1: confidence in the nonpartisan nature of the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: now they want us to be like, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: so they got all of Trump's lawyer stuff, but they're
Speaker 1: gonna be really judicious about what they keep what they don't. Right,
Speaker 1: this is laughable, This is preposterous. And to finish off
Speaker 1: my math answer analogy, I still have nightmares about being
Speaker 1: in the middle of math exams that I'm not doing
Speaker 1: well and and it's it's like a stress to this day,
Speaker 1: you know, I have like a dream where it's like no,
Speaker 1: like I don't know, I can't do quadratic equations anymore.
Speaker 1: But they well, once they have the answers, they can
Speaker 1: find other ways to get there, meaning once they have
Speaker 1: the information, they'll find another way to get it, not
Speaker 1: through the process of what the FBI just sees, you know,
Speaker 1: And you could say, well, buck, you know, if if
Speaker 1: Cohen's done anything shady, then he deserves whatever he gets.
Speaker 1: And to that, I just respond, you know, you don't
Speaker 1: know anyone who hasn't done anything shady. If you're doing stuff,
Speaker 1: and if the government wants to wants to make an
Speaker 1: example of you, they'll find a way to make it
Speaker 1: look like you're shady. You know. One of the things
Speaker 1: that I actually talk about in the earlier days of
Speaker 1: the Buck Section show, one of the the the favorite
Speaker 1: topics that I would hit that I felt like never
Speaker 1: got enough attentions. One my mantras here, right, I like
Speaker 1: to do things that I think are really important, but
Speaker 1: other people are focused on other stuff. It was over criminalization,
Speaker 1: and I became very familiar with all these different stories
Speaker 1: of people that faced really serious repercussions and meant, in
Speaker 1: some cases, pretty long stretches in prison for conduct that
Speaker 1: not only wasn't criminal in nature, but wasn't even problematic
Speaker 1: or damaging in terms of what it really did, but
Speaker 1: just violated some either obscure or uh, you know, obscure
Speaker 1: iss a good But sometimes it's really it's not even
Speaker 1: just that it's obscured, it's it's that they don't even
Speaker 1: know if it's a statute or not that they don't
Speaker 1: even the people enforcing it aren't clear on what's covered
Speaker 1: and what's not. So how are you supposed to know? Oh,
Speaker 1: ignorance of the law is not not a defense. Well, actually,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about some of the stuff, ignorance the
Speaker 1: law should be a defense. But I bring that up
Speaker 1: just because when you're more familiar with those cases. And
Speaker 1: there's a book even written by a Harvey silver Gate, uh,
Speaker 1: three Felonies a Day, where he says, you know you're
Speaker 1: you're committing felonies every day, you don't even know it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make you bad person, doesn't mean you go
Speaker 1: to jail. But if you were really being strict in
Speaker 1: your application a law, you're probably committing felonies on a
Speaker 1: pretty regular basis. Um. One of the ones that comes
Speaker 1: up often is exceeding authorized use of a computer and
Speaker 1: how people do that without realizing it, um. And and
Speaker 1: also just exceeding the terms of service and what that
Speaker 1: can mean all kinds of stuff. Maybe we could have
Speaker 1: you be interesting to. I'll go, you know, that's a
Speaker 1: book that I've cited before, and I'll be on and
Speaker 1: I just know the title, haven't read it, so now
Speaker 1: I've just given myself a little additional homework. I'll go back,
Speaker 1: I'll check that one out. But if they have all
Speaker 1: your stuff and they want to get you, they will.
Speaker 1: That's the point. There's a way to get you. And
Speaker 1: if you're a lawyer and you've been dealing with clients
Speaker 1: who have complicated legal relationships with international entities and a deal, like,
Speaker 1: they're gonna be able to get you the same way
Speaker 1: that I think it's Donald Rumsfeld some years ago admit
Speaker 1: or the I'm not admitted, but but offered that he
Speaker 1: writes a letter every year the I R S where
Speaker 1: he's like, I've I've done the best I can with this,
Speaker 1: but I know that if you really come after me,
Speaker 1: you'll tell me that some of this is wrong. Just
Speaker 1: understand that I can't understand this, and I have a
Speaker 1: lot of resources, and I'm a really smart guy, and
Speaker 1: I've done my best. And he actually sends that letter
Speaker 1: to the I R S every year just to make
Speaker 1: a point. And he's right. If they if they wanted
Speaker 1: to overturn all of his books and look at all
Speaker 1: this stuff, uh, they wanted to pour through it, they
Speaker 1: would find they would find things that are wrong. And
Speaker 1: maybe could even make a case that some of it
Speaker 1: was it was criminal in nature, a criminal violation of
Speaker 1: the tax code, even by accident. And the same thing
Speaker 1: is true to the broader tax codes. So that's when
Speaker 1: people say, oh, we've got a taint team. We're gonna
Speaker 1: separate out the stuff that uh, he's attorney client privileg
Speaker 1: from what's not. That's that's a judgment call, and that
Speaker 1: you're already putting a lot of weight on the side
Speaker 1: of what the prosecutors want and what they're gonna get
Speaker 1: when they have possession of this, when it's when it's
Speaker 1: something that they already have and uh in their hands.
Speaker 1: Um and and it's all meant to show that they'll
Speaker 1: just do anything to get to get Trump and his people.
Speaker 1: And it was tied into the article I I've mentioned
Speaker 1: as well about how article I read over the weekend
Speaker 1: about how Trump the whole president is coming to an end,
Speaker 1: which I'll talk to you more about later on. But
Speaker 1: that's not happening, but they think it is. And they
Speaker 1: think that this latest tough guy tactic of taking all
Speaker 1: of Cohen's information, taking all of his electronic devices, pouring
Speaker 1: through his files. I sometimes want to ask. I wish
Speaker 1: I could sit down and actually force people at places
Speaker 1: like MSNBC and CNN to answer the question, why do
Speaker 1: they really think they're gonna find? What do they think
Speaker 1: they could produce at this point? Realistically? Although what's realistic
Speaker 1: for them? I don't know's I think they're all stuck
Speaker 1: in a delusion. But realistically, that would not only show
Speaker 1: that what they think about Trump is true, but also
Speaker 1: that his base would say, people like me even would say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, that's too much. Come on, what's it really
Speaker 1: going to be. It's just not not gonna happen. But
Speaker 1: it's troubling to see that with all the all the
Speaker 1: politicization of the judicial process that has occurred in the
Speaker 1: Trump era, right the primary, the general election, and afterwards,
Speaker 1: all the stuff we've seen, people like Comy are the
Speaker 1: ones making the decisions about what attorney client privilege does
Speaker 1: and does not mean for Trump, and they expect us
Speaker 1: to believe that that's fine, that there's no problem here,
Speaker 1: then he'll get a fair shake. The swamp is deep,
Speaker 1: my friends, The swamp is very very deep. Eight four
Speaker 1: four five You want to chat eight four four I
Speaker 1: gotta talk to you about this latest situation with California
Speaker 1: and the National Guard. One of the one of the
Speaker 1: more interesting UM questions I asked people out here is,
Speaker 1: so what do you think about governance in California? And
Speaker 1: I've been trying to talk to as many folks is
Speaker 1: as I can about that. Oh you know, I sat
Speaker 1: next to a guy at breakfast today who I won't
Speaker 1: say which one, but I know from a farm from
Speaker 1: one of these commercials where they they are advertising a
Speaker 1: and he's an actor, right, he's not. He's not actually
Speaker 1: somebody that suffers from the condition. Um. But I sat
Speaker 1: next like, that's the guy from that commercial, and he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I've got a I've got an embarrassing condition. You know.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like, that's the guy from the commercial.
Speaker 1: And I thought of myself. You know, I never people
Speaker 1: that I don't know but you know from something. I
Speaker 1: almost never will go up with them in santydaying or whatever.
Speaker 1: And although all of you have you ever see me
Speaker 1: anywhere because I so rarely actually have person to person
Speaker 1: contact with members of Team Buck that like, by all
Speaker 1: means come over and give me a high five, you know,
Speaker 1: we can have a drink. But I was sitting there
Speaker 1: was like, does this guy like it when people say, hey,
Speaker 1: you're the guy from the commercial. It the guy with
Speaker 1: the problem, the problem, you know, the problem with the thing.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? You know, I got an
Speaker 1: embarrassing medical issue. But he doesn't actually have it right,
Speaker 1: So that's so he's an actor playing a guy with
Speaker 1: an embarrassing medical issue. And do you think your stuff?
Speaker 1: You're like, well, you know, do you want to be
Speaker 1: the in public? You know, I think the answers you
Speaker 1: leave the guy aload no matter what, obviously, but I
Speaker 1: just thought it's kind of funny. I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I like them. People like, hey are you Buck? I'm like,
Speaker 1: I am indeed, um, but I'm known for different things.
Speaker 1: All right. Uh, the California situation that we'll talk about
Speaker 1: that stay with me. I got some calls up, but
Speaker 1: I've also got to talk to you about what's going
Speaker 1: on with California and the National Guard sent that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be sent to the border. But Scott in Long Beach, Mississippi,
Speaker 1: you're up first. Scott, Hey, Hey, how are you doing?
Speaker 1: But I'm good. Thanks for the call. I just had
Speaker 1: a angle to add on the radar on Cohen's office.
Speaker 1: One thing I ever heard anybody bring up is uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they they're looking for any criminal stuff they
Speaker 1: can find. But right now, a team of n FBI
Speaker 1: agents is going to get to review this stuff. But
Speaker 1: even if Trump's lawyer, if the Laurie wins the court
Speaker 1: and gets it reviewed by a master, I've heard that
Speaker 1: master is going to be a judge. Well if that
Speaker 1: judge is no Obama pointing, what if this is just
Speaker 1: all one big fishing expedition to look for stuff to
Speaker 1: use against Trump in the election? Right? Well, I've been
Speaker 1: saying this too, that I think that some of the information,
Speaker 1: forget about whether it's used in a legal proceeding against
Speaker 1: Trump for any of his people. I think you may
Speaker 1: see leaks of it exactly. And now we're talking about
Speaker 1: the equivalent of you know, what about is it okay
Speaker 1: if somebody can the FBI come in and sees uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a president's medical records, or then just all
Speaker 1: of a sudden stuff gets leaked. I mean it just
Speaker 1: seems strange. Well what it surprives you? I mean, look,
Speaker 1: look how they haven't gone after a leak or so
Speaker 1: far coming people they convicted the leak in anything well,
Speaker 1: all this stuff is that. That's a very good point.
Speaker 1: It's not that hard to get. You know. You'll notice
Speaker 1: that of all the of all the anti Trump leaks
Speaker 1: out there, there has not been a single conviction of
Speaker 1: number my conviction, not even a single person charged. And
Speaker 1: these are leaks that would have come from a pretty
Speaker 1: small circle of individuals. I mean, you look at the
Speaker 1: leak over the phone call between the Russian ambassador and
Speaker 1: incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. There's not a lot
Speaker 1: of people that have access to this stuff exactly, So
Speaker 1: the SDI gets to look at all his tony clients information.
Speaker 1: Was to keep that from leaking like a sieve to
Speaker 1: the d n C and of the Democrats to start
Speaker 1: digging up all the dirt they can possibly dig up
Speaker 1: before election. No, I I see it the way you do.
Speaker 1: I think it's a big problem. Scott, so will continue
Speaker 1: to follow closely, and I appreciate you calling in Shields
Speaker 1: high So this California story, I just mentioned it, but
Speaker 1: it's I'm here in Cali, I'm in l A, So
Speaker 1: I feel like it caught my eye. In particular, such
Speaker 1: a lovely state. I mean, the water here is so
Speaker 1: beauty full, the food so great. People are really fun.
Speaker 1: But the government here is just just bonkers. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've got all kinds of problems. But now you're Governor
Speaker 1: Jerry Brown, who has rejected Trump's terms for the National
Speaker 1: Guards deployment to the US Mexico border. They're supposed to
Speaker 1: be four hundreds. Like it's not that big of uh,
Speaker 1: not that big of a group here, but you know,
Speaker 1: four hundred troops are supposed to be sent to the
Speaker 1: border to help out, and they have determined, meaning that
Speaker 1: Governor Brown has decided that the work that they would
Speaker 1: be doing at the border is too close to immigration enforcement. Now,
Speaker 1: my understanding is that the stuff that there would be
Speaker 1: doing involves like vehicle maintenance. And here I'm trying to
Speaker 1: see what the actual list is, because it's not that
Speaker 1: they're not tracking, the National Guard is not grabbing and
Speaker 1: arresting people trying to cross the border, And um, what
Speaker 1: was the what were the specifics here? Uh? Hold on
Speaker 1: a second, Oh yeah, here it is they would not
Speaker 1: allow its troops to fix and repair vehicles, operate remote
Speaker 1: control surveillance cameras, or perform other tasks under Trump's plan.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean stuff that's not arresting people are
Speaker 1: actively involved in immigration, uh law enforcement, they still won't
Speaker 1: let they won't let them do. And this is just
Speaker 1: another version of saying that that they are not they
Speaker 1: are opposed. They've got the resources, right, Governor Brown here
Speaker 1: in California, how's the resources at his disposal? He could
Speaker 1: help out with the border sending some National Guard troops
Speaker 1: down to the border. Other border state governors have completely
Speaker 1: gone along with this. I think Trump says he's gonna
Speaker 1: senda where he's asked for. Remember, the governors have to
Speaker 1: all sign off on this. Trump's gonna ask for a
Speaker 1: total of four thousand to help out with border related tasks, which,
Speaker 1: especially as we get into some of the warmer months,
Speaker 1: you have a lot higher rate of of border crossings.
Speaker 1: So and I think they're acting a surge. You got
Speaker 1: all this publicity around the so called caravan. That's not
Speaker 1: the last caravan you're gonna see. It's certainly not well.
Speaker 1: Mostly illegal crossings have nothing to do with caravans. There's
Speaker 1: people crossing every day. But what can we think about
Speaker 1: this other than Governor Jerry Brown doesn't really believe in
Speaker 1: the mission of border patrol and the federal government's mission
Speaker 1: of securing the border. I think he's just not someone
Speaker 1: who believes him, you know. And this is not surprising
Speaker 1: if you follow the trajectory of politics and states that
Speaker 1: have a very large illegal alien population, they are now
Speaker 1: states that are there are favorable toward a near open
Speaker 1: border status. And this is why we can't even really
Speaker 1: have a very productive discussion with the Democrats, because it
Speaker 1: used to be hey, and even a state like California be, hey,
Speaker 1: how do we cut down on illegal crossings? You know
Speaker 1: how the in the what to do about illegals in
Speaker 1: the country was considered a separate part of the discussion.
Speaker 1: But everyone was as recently as I would say ten
Speaker 1: years ago, everyone was, at least theoretically in the political
Speaker 1: class on board for securing the border. There was a
Speaker 1: bipartisan consensus, Yeah, we need a secure border. Sure, fine,
Speaker 1: And that's gone now. California used a secure border as
Speaker 1: a bad thing because the people that are illegal in
Speaker 1: California have a tremendous amount of sway in the country,
Speaker 1: in the state rather well in the country as well. Um,
Speaker 1: and there are many people that have either familial bonds,
Speaker 1: ties of kinship, friends, colleagues, coworkers whatever in the legal
Speaker 1: alien population who also view any enforcement of border security
Speaker 1: as some kind of slap in the face, some kind
Speaker 1: of attack on them. So sure enough, the Governor Brown
Speaker 1: here is backing down. I think Trump called him governor Moonbeam. Uh,
Speaker 1: he's backing off of that, No surprise. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: Syria coming up here in just a few minutes. And
Speaker 1: also what Trump's really do it stay? Since election day,
Speaker 1: we've created three million new jobs, three millions. And and people,
Speaker 1: if I would have said that prior to the election
Speaker 1: that will create in a short period of time three
Speaker 1: million jobs, that would have said, that's ridiculous, that's an exaggeration,
Speaker 1: how could it be possible. We would have taken a
Speaker 1: lot of heat. But we've created three million new jobs,
Speaker 1: and now the numbers even higher than that. So since
Speaker 1: election day, three million new jobs. Unemployment rates for Hispanics?
Speaker 1: Are there any Hispanics in the room now? I think
Speaker 1: for Hispanics, the we have the lowest level ever recorded.
Speaker 1: The story of many, many millions of people who come
Speaker 1: to this country to look for an opportunity, and our
Speaker 1: president has now restored the capacity of people like me
Speaker 1: that started a business from the trunk of our cars
Speaker 1: to become a very prominent company where we impact over
Speaker 1: fifty families, and thinking Mr President very happy that right
Speaker 1: before he was elected, we had a town hall meeting
Speaker 1: and I took the liberty of elected him. I said,
Speaker 1: we're going to elect you in November, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: see you soon. My god, I look prophetic today. So
Speaker 1: of the country, according to Rasmus in approves the job
Speaker 1: that President Trump is doing, which is really high for
Speaker 1: a president at this stage of the game, higher than
Speaker 1: Obama's approval at this point in time. And yet you
Speaker 1: can see that there are completely there are narratives that
Speaker 1: are so different right now of what's going on in
Speaker 1: the country that you have to think that we're talking
Speaker 1: about a different country. Right You have, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: a narrative of an administration that is letting the letting
Speaker 1: the American people's business be business and let them do
Speaker 1: what they do, trying to take the constraints the shackles
Speaker 1: of government regulation off of our backs and uh off
Speaker 1: of the labor that we all do and in our
Speaker 1: our jobs or do today lives. And and then the
Speaker 1: other hand you have you have people that are supposed
Speaker 1: to be informing us about this and talking about what's
Speaker 1: really going on that that matters to all of you.
Speaker 1: And what you are left with is people who say
Speaker 1: things like, oh that this weekend of The New Yorker
Speaker 1: published an essay, and they would just say, oh, it's
Speaker 1: just it's just they can essee me, and it's now like,
Speaker 1: you know, we rooted. They went out, there's opinion me in.
Speaker 1: But what they published is obviously a reflection of what
Speaker 1: they think we should all read and know, not that
Speaker 1: that many people read The New Yorker in the first place,
Speaker 1: but it was a piece on how this is the
Speaker 1: basically the we're in the end times of the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: And it was a completely serious piece in the sense
Speaker 1: that this was not not trying to be a a
Speaker 1: send up of things. This was not meant to be
Speaker 1: a parody. This is totally serious that we are in
Speaker 1: the phase of the end. It's like the Berlin Wallace
Speaker 1: coming down that the Trump presidency is about to end,
Speaker 1: and pointing to the Michael Cohen record seizure as the
Speaker 1: evidence that that's really all the evans you need that
Speaker 1: this is all coming down and all falling apart. You know,
Speaker 1: you wonder at what point they stopped making these predictions,
Speaker 1: At what point being wrong becomes problematic enough for them
Speaker 1: that they will no longer keep at it. Because last year,
Speaker 1: I remember The New Yorker and I actually pulled some
Speaker 1: of this over the weekend to read The New Yorker
Speaker 1: was writing about It was one of those publications that
Speaker 1: found it fashionable to write about how fascism was coming
Speaker 1: to America the courtesy of Trump, right, that Trump was
Speaker 1: going to be a fascist, And it's just isn't an
Speaker 1: amazing when you think with this Trump is gonna be
Speaker 1: a fascist? They say, Meanwhile, the guy is being stymied
Speaker 1: and block left and right by random federal judges. And
Speaker 1: his response is never you know, sees that federal judge
Speaker 1: and take him into custody. You know, he's like, all right,
Speaker 1: I think that guy is wrong, but you know, we'll
Speaker 1: see you in court, and we're not gonna just run
Speaker 1: rough shot over all different parts the judiciary. We will
Speaker 1: go through the process. They talk about a president who
Speaker 1: is undermining all of our institutions. Meanwhile, he plays within
Speaker 1: the guidelines as president of the institutions more so than
Speaker 1: his predecessor. Did you know Obama was the one who
Speaker 1: was like an off a pen on the phone, and
Speaker 1: he was just gonna do stuff whether or not it
Speaker 1: was within his constitutionally delegated authority to do so. Trump
Speaker 1: is like, well, okay, I wanted to do that, but
Speaker 1: I guess I can't right now, and we'll see and
Speaker 1: we'll move on to other stuff. Trump is the one
Speaker 1: who's made serious efforts to negotiate with the other side
Speaker 1: on issues like immigration. His immigration offer of amnesty for
Speaker 1: DACA DOCCA covered individuals is more than anyone would have
Speaker 1: imagined a Republican in his position would have started out with.
Speaker 1: And Democrats were like, no, yeah, they don't want it,
Speaker 1: No part of it not enough for them. And you
Speaker 1: see the the focus still on on Cohen and the
Speaker 1: lawyer and the Russia probe. And I know we've all
Speaker 1: I mean, part of me likes the comy story because
Speaker 1: it's so it's such a good way to illustrate grandiose bureaucrats.
Speaker 1: I think that all of us getting a solid dose
Speaker 1: of sancta comey is a pretty is pretty worthwhile in
Speaker 1: that sense. But I also don't want to give this
Speaker 1: guy much more attention and much more of our of
Speaker 1: our viewership and and spending our our very precious hours
Speaker 1: listening to him drown on about leadership and ethics, because
Speaker 1: I think that ultimately he is well, not just a
Speaker 1: waste of our time. I think he's pretty destructive. I
Speaker 1: think he's doing a lot of things that are very
Speaker 1: problematic for the country and certainly problematic for the federal bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: and the notion of civil servants as public servants instead
Speaker 1: of well self servicing and self promoted. But Trump is
Speaker 1: out there and he's still making the case. And I
Speaker 1: think that as long as as long as the economy
Speaker 1: holds together and we're able to forestall a debt crisis,
Speaker 1: it's coming, but hopefully it won't hit at a point
Speaker 1: that is too damaging for the Trump presidents. As long
Speaker 1: as all that's happening, he's in pretty good shape and
Speaker 1: we'll be in pretty good shape for the mid terms.
Speaker 1: Here's what he said, by the way, about what's going
Speaker 1: on with companies coming into the country nineteen. We're working
Speaker 1: on new trade deals that are gonna be great deals.
Speaker 1: Where as you know, very tough on Cuba's not fair,
Speaker 1: not fair what happened. Companies are moving back into our country. Now,
Speaker 1: we have billions of dollars and even trillions of dollars
Speaker 1: going to become ming back in already started Apple three
Speaker 1: fifty billion dollar investment. So many of the companies are
Speaker 1: bringing back their money. They're putting it to work. Chrysler
Speaker 1: is opening up a big, beautiful plant in Michigan, and
Speaker 1: so many other car companies, and it's a whole different story.
Speaker 1: They all want to be part of it. What would
Speaker 1: the narrative from the mainstream media be like if none
Speaker 1: of this was happening. I think it's a fun thought experiment.
Speaker 1: What would they be saying if you didn't have record
Speaker 1: low unemployment, record low Hispanic and African American unemployment, if
Speaker 1: you didn't have companies bringing back billions of dollars to
Speaker 1: repatriating it into the States, also promising to have more
Speaker 1: jobs here. Think about what it would sound like that.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's at This is quite a feat, and
Speaker 1: it's really an extenuate or a an extension of what
Speaker 1: he did during the primary. He's at with the entire
Speaker 1: media apparat not just opposed to him, but actively rooting
Speaker 1: for him to be criminally charged, indicted, and thrown out
Speaker 1: of office. All the above, and that you have entire
Speaker 1: media entities that have devoted themselves to that process. That's
Speaker 1: what they want to happen here. Fortunately, the country is
Speaker 1: actually doing well and people can see that, and so
Speaker 1: there's a counterbalance, the counterbalancing force of reality against the
Speaker 1: destructive media narrative about Trump. Is is is remarkable, It
Speaker 1: really is. You know, if if we were at a
Speaker 1: time of stagnation and you know, unemployment was going up
Speaker 1: and the kind of could you imagine, what would they
Speaker 1: even be saying? I don't know what. They just focus
Speaker 1: on that instead of what they're doing with the Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion fairy tale they've been telling for so long.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I just I feel like, you know,
Speaker 1: you get it here because you won't hear it a
Speaker 1: whole lot of other places. I like to tell you
Speaker 1: that you know what Trump is doing. It is working
Speaker 1: in ways that matter to you and me every day.
Speaker 1: And they can talk about Michael Cohen until they're blue
Speaker 1: in the face. All Right, we got to I want
Speaker 1: to update you on Syria the aftermath of those strikes,
Speaker 1: so we'll hit that coming up. Stay with me. You
Speaker 1: are now entering the freedom technical Operations Center. All sensitive
Speaker 1: programs musty keeps strictly need to know. Team Buck is
Speaker 1: cleared and ready for the Buck brief. The sole reason
Speaker 1: we are there is to take out Isis. But as
Speaker 1: we start to see in the world, community watches as
Speaker 1: Syria kills innocent men, women and children, backed by Bashar
Speaker 1: al Assad, backed by Russia, backed by Iron the United
Speaker 1: States and its allies had to act. And so that's
Speaker 1: exactly what we did. We believe we degraded their ability
Speaker 1: to use chemical weapons. So there you had a State
Speaker 1: Department spokeswoman Heather, Now we're on the strikes. Some follow
Speaker 1: up to the strikes in Syria. By the way, if
Speaker 1: you didn't get a chance to read it, please do
Speaker 1: check out on the on the Hill dot com. I
Speaker 1: wrote on this, Uh, my title was something along lines
Speaker 1: of Trump's serious strike hits the mark, But you know,
Speaker 1: instability looms. Um, there there's a or escalation looms rather, UM,
Speaker 1: I have concerns about that. But here here's more of
Speaker 1: what I'm thinking. After that whole thing happened, I spent
Speaker 1: time obviously wrote about it. Over the weekend. I spent
Speaker 1: more time thinking as well about why do we fire
Speaker 1: these missiles off and blow up of a bunch of
Speaker 1: chemical weapons factories in Syria. I think that the the
Speaker 1: eventual answer we're gonna come to on this is that
Speaker 1: it won't really mean very much. It doesn't mean all
Speaker 1: that much. And I'm not sure that you can say
Speaker 1: anything has been accomplished other than messaging here. And how
Speaker 1: important you think that is is a very debatable proposition,
Speaker 1: you know. On the one hand, yeah, I get it.
Speaker 1: We we don't want to be living in a world
Speaker 1: where dictators think that they can use chemical weapons with
Speaker 1: impunity on their own people. I understand that. But I
Speaker 1: also see this and think to myself, you're talking about
Speaker 1: dozens of people killed in a very inhuman and h
Speaker 1: or inhumane and brutal fashion. But you've got a half
Speaker 1: a million people have done in the Syrian Civil War,
Speaker 1: and this is not stopping that war. In fact, that
Speaker 1: might you could argue it could uh, it could prolong it.
Speaker 1: I could make it. Now. I don't think that standing
Speaker 1: up against chemical weapons will prolong it, but a a
Speaker 1: greater US involvement that may come from that strike could
Speaker 1: make this thing drag on even longer. And then you
Speaker 1: also have this notion that we've really affected their chemical
Speaker 1: weapons program, which I gotta tell you I find I
Speaker 1: find tough. I know, I've I've seen some of the
Speaker 1: analysis on this. I think maybe Maddest last week said that,
Speaker 1: you know, we've put or I don't don't quote me
Speaker 1: on that one. I'm not sure it was Maddest, but
Speaker 1: people were saying ti the administration, we've set their chemical
Speaker 1: weapons program back, you know years, you know, many been
Speaker 1: in months that this will be really meaningful as a
Speaker 1: a way of hitting them at basically taking their capability offline.
Speaker 1: I find that tough. I find that tough to believe
Speaker 1: because I think I mentioned this to you a bit
Speaker 1: last week. Even saren gas, which is a nerve gas
Speaker 1: more more advanced and more terrifying and say chlorine gas
Speaker 1: or or even mustard gas. But saren gas has been
Speaker 1: around since it was initially came from pesticide research. They
Speaker 1: were trying to find something that was really effective at
Speaker 1: killing bugs. So you've got world War two era technology.
Speaker 1: That's what we're when we're discussing saren gas. It is
Speaker 1: a World War two era technology. It is not hard
Speaker 1: to come up with this. And even if you were
Speaker 1: to assume as and I think the the big assumption
Speaker 1: assume that the chemical weapons facilities and capabilities that the
Speaker 1: Assad regime has or just completely wiped out by those
Speaker 1: US strikes. I think that's I think it's uh, it's
Speaker 1: a tough sell for me that they won't be able
Speaker 1: to relatively quickly reconstitute that and use it as they
Speaker 1: see fit. Now, even mon they don't. They don't have to,
Speaker 1: nor nor will they use chemical weapons on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: Even even before we did this strike, it was relatively speaking,
Speaker 1: a rare tactic for them. Um. But by the way
Speaker 1: Trump Trump spoke about this and and the Syrian and
Speaker 1: Russian response, John Place seventeen, did our generals do a
Speaker 1: great job. And you know with way over hundred missile
Speaker 1: shut in, they didn't shoot one down? The equipment didn't
Speaker 1: work too well, their equipment and uh, they didn't shoot
Speaker 1: one you know you heard, oh they shot forty down,
Speaker 1: then they shot fifteen down. They watched. Then I called,
Speaker 1: I said, did they know, sir? Every single one hit?
Speaker 1: Its started? Think of that? How do you not one shot? Now,
Speaker 1: it's good to know that America has the capability to
Speaker 1: get past things like the surface to air missile systems
Speaker 1: that the Syrians have that they've gotten or borrowed or
Speaker 1: been able to leverage Russian technology in order to have
Speaker 1: UM But that also doesn't deal with the fundamental problem
Speaker 1: of the Syrians civil war and the conventional weapons usage
Speaker 1: that's killing four more people than anything that's happening to
Speaker 1: deal with the chemical weapons side. So I know the
Speaker 1: administration feels strongly about this, and it seems like Trump
Speaker 1: has very much set a line for all right actions
Speaker 1: over there that we're not going to get, which is
Speaker 1: that's critical. That was my big concern going into this,
Speaker 1: because I remember when I talked to you about this
Speaker 1: on Friday, I said, I'm I'm hoping. I kind of
Speaker 1: knew that there was gonna be a striker like I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that they don't really do this, but if they do,
Speaker 1: at least it should be limited. And I think that
Speaker 1: the precedent that it sets as well when it comes
Speaker 1: to constitutional well, you know this is how much can
Speaker 1: I even be upset about the president when all presidents
Speaker 1: basically do this. You know, I see a national security
Speaker 1: problem somewhere, I'm just gonna fire some missiles at it.
Speaker 1: That seems to be the approach of it's a bipartisan approach.
Speaker 1: There's something that I really don't like, and I'm president.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna send some missiles and blow it up. You know,
Speaker 1: it's the war powers at constitutional Who knows. One of
Speaker 1: the more acrimonious debates that doesn't seem to go anywhere
Speaker 1: is does the president need to confer with Congress or
Speaker 1: not before declaring war. I get people on both sides
Speaker 1: of that one that are completely convinced of the the
Speaker 1: rightness of their position and think that the other side
Speaker 1: is just just nuts um. But you know, Syria, Well,
Speaker 1: we'll see what ends up happening in the in the
Speaker 1: months ahead. That will give us a much better sense
Speaker 1: of whether they really are just limiting this to a
Speaker 1: a a one off against assad that that maintains the
Speaker 1: red line that Obama abandoned, but that does not drag
Speaker 1: us deeper into this thing. It was a big It
Speaker 1: was a big promise that Trump made during the campaign
Speaker 1: that we would not be fighting I think he was
Speaker 1: just reruning on the stupid wars on a pretty regular basis.
Speaker 1: We're not going to fight stupid wars. We're not going
Speaker 1: to do that. And sure enough, I think that This
Speaker 1: is going to be the real rubber meets the road
Speaker 1: moment of whether or not Trump keeps that promise, because
Speaker 1: I don't want it, You don't want it. It's it's
Speaker 1: a terrible idea for us to start putting ourselves in
Speaker 1: a place or we are responsible for what happens in Syria,
Speaker 1: were responsible every time somebody sets off an I e.
Speaker 1: D or or puts a puts a car bomb somewhere.
Speaker 1: That just we've got other things that we've got to
Speaker 1: do with our resources and our people. We've got a
Speaker 1: country to build here and continue building. I think that's
Speaker 1: a that's a fair way to look at it, all right.
Speaker 1: I want to get into some cultural stuff in the
Speaker 1: next hour. It'll be fun, including wokeness and how it
Speaker 1: destroys all your favorite movies and TV shows if you
Speaker 1: let it. We'll talk about that coming up. Enough with
Speaker 1: revisiting things, stop being surprised every time you watch an
Speaker 1: old movie or TV show and find some of the
Speaker 1: ideas in it are old. A recent article by Molly
Speaker 1: Ringwold got a lot of attention because she revisited The
Speaker 1: Breakfast Club and her other eighties movies and found them troubling.
Speaker 1: In the age of me too. She said she was
Speaker 1: taken aback by the scope of the ugliness. Oh please,
Speaker 1: they were teen comedies, not snuff films. So there that's
Speaker 1: are we can said of. There you welcome to our
Speaker 1: three of the Buck Sexton Show. There you had Bill Maher, uh,
Speaker 1: left wing comedian, Uh, saying what I've been saying. So
Speaker 1: this is good news in a sense. This this makes
Speaker 1: me happy that even people on the left are figuring
Speaker 1: out that this game that the left has really enjoyed
Speaker 1: playing for a while, this game of Hey, let's go
Speaker 1: back and look once again at everything that was made
Speaker 1: as as art and entertainment from decades ago and apply
Speaker 1: the current, the current standards of being woke, of being
Speaker 1: a social justice warrior to it. You're not gonna have
Speaker 1: anything left. You're not gonna have any music left, You're
Speaker 1: not gonna have any TV shows left. Uh, it's all.
Speaker 1: A lot of books are gonna be forbidden. Bill Maher
Speaker 1: is seeing what I've seen for a long time now,
Speaker 1: which is that the progressive left has decided that it
Speaker 1: it will wield its power beyond its ability to even
Speaker 1: describe its outer limits when it comes to being censors
Speaker 1: of entertainment, pop culture and what is acceptable in discourse.
Speaker 1: As I've been mentioned that there are no outer limits
Speaker 1: to this. There's no place where I can say, Okay,
Speaker 1: well they'll they'll leave that alone, because with the exception
Speaker 1: as noted here of of hip hop music, for for
Speaker 1: whatever reason, they don't really get into the misogyny and
Speaker 1: the particularly although some of you are also gonna say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Buck, there's a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: casual adultery and uh and drinking and pickup truck talk
Speaker 1: where there's not a lot of labor going on in
Speaker 1: the back of pickup truck, but maybe other stuff in
Speaker 1: country music. And I would say that may be true
Speaker 1: as well. I'm not as familiar with country music and
Speaker 1: as as I am with hip hop music. As an
Speaker 1: urban dweller, um, I know more about the hip hop
Speaker 1: side of things. Believe it or not. For some of you,
Speaker 1: you're like, I do not believe it, Buck, but that
Speaker 1: against some of you also believe when I tweeted out
Speaker 1: a photo of a stretch pink Hummer this past weekend
Speaker 1: that it was really my car. Uh So some people,
Speaker 1: you know, some people believe some stuff. I went, I
Speaker 1: bet us I bet that stretch pink Hummer. I put
Speaker 1: a photo up on Twitter of it. It was really
Speaker 1: like double stretch too. It was it's like the biggest
Speaker 1: car I've I've seen um and it was pink, pink,
Speaker 1: and it was a Hummer. Uh, it's gotta cost a
Speaker 1: couple hundred thousand dollars or something. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's gotta be really maybe a hundred fifty grand to
Speaker 1: and her grand. Very expensive. Nonetheless, I view, uh, this
Speaker 1: is a threat. I view this wokenus component as a
Speaker 1: a threat to all of the things that we can
Speaker 1: enjoy together society. It's a big problem because it it
Speaker 1: pulls us apart one of the things that really brings
Speaker 1: us together. And I don't know if any of you saw.
Speaker 1: There was a over the weekend, a video making the
Speaker 1: rounds of a professional hockey player, and there was adorable
Speaker 1: little girls. There were their brothers and her dad, and
Speaker 1: he keeps trying to throw a puck over the plexiglass
Speaker 1: to her and and one of the I think her
Speaker 1: brother grabs one, and then another brother gets another one,
Speaker 1: and the guy comes over this hockey player a third
Speaker 1: time to make sure this girl and she gets the
Speaker 1: puck you know, she gets the little puck thrown to
Speaker 1: her over the plexiglass divider at the at the ice
Speaker 1: hockey game, and she has this look of just pure
Speaker 1: unfiltered joy in her face, and it's just really cute
Speaker 1: and funny, and it's it's it was a great, little,
Speaker 1: great little moment. And I think that sports, movies, TV,
Speaker 1: these are a lot of things that actually bring us
Speaker 1: into a place where we can agree and like them together. Right, Food,
Speaker 1: doing doing another thing I like to talk about here
Speaker 1: on the show, a lot of food because I like food. Um,
Speaker 1: but those are things that that are common ground for us.
Speaker 1: You know, if I'm sitting down, uh oh, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who actually I like to chat with uber drivers, right,
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who doesn't usually sit completely silently in the
Speaker 1: in the car. I feel like I'm driving with this
Speaker 1: fellow or this madam, and I would like to, uh
Speaker 1: like to engage in some kind of friendly banter, little
Speaker 1: chit chat, a little back and forth. And you know,
Speaker 1: what's the place where you can prett easily go talk
Speaker 1: about sports, talking about movies, talking about TV shows. You know,
Speaker 1: these days, for me, it's you know, what do you
Speaker 1: watch on Netflix, and most people, unless they just don't
Speaker 1: want to talk to you all, you can find some
Speaker 1: way to say, yeah, we we can discuss this. And
Speaker 1: that's why I find it troubling beyond just the irritation
Speaker 1: of social justice warriors who find who won't let us
Speaker 1: find humor in anything, who refuse to accept that a
Speaker 1: world that is constrained by their vision of what is
Speaker 1: acceptable today is not only going to be stunted and
Speaker 1: and is going to be way less interesting and exciting
Speaker 1: than would otherwise be. It also negates much of the
Speaker 1: shared culture and history that we have as a society
Speaker 1: that brings us together. And now I know some of
Speaker 1: you're thinking, oh, buck ah, you're taking this beyond TV
Speaker 1: shows too. Yeah, of course, this is where we get
Speaker 1: into UH statues that have to come down, and this
Speaker 1: is where we get into UH mascots and whether they're
Speaker 1: offensive or not, and all these other parts of what
Speaker 1: is shared in this country that is now subject to
Speaker 1: the political whims of the moment. And the response from
Speaker 1: the left on this is always the same, destroy, pull
Speaker 1: it down. And I've been bringing these to your attention
Speaker 1: in recent weeks. A pooh from The Simpsons, and it
Speaker 1: is an amazing Hank Azaria who does that who's a
Speaker 1: he's a white guy like me, he does that voice.
Speaker 1: I have to sit here and say, I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm allowed to do an impersonation of Hank Azaria doing
Speaker 1: an impersonation of an Indian convenience store owner. I don't
Speaker 1: think that I'd be able to do that without risking
Speaker 1: some kind of backlash. Right, So that's where you can
Speaker 1: see the rules here. Don't aren't even clear, don't even
Speaker 1: make any sense. The Breakfast Club with Molly Molly Ringwald's essay,
Speaker 1: That's what Bill Mahr was talking about there. Um, there
Speaker 1: are a bunch of oh a friends, which is whenever
Speaker 1: Ms Molly wants to upset me, she tells me that
Speaker 1: I'm not being very chandler. I'm being much more ross.
Speaker 1: Those who got the show know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Those who don't are like Buck, what is wrong with you?
Speaker 1: But anyway, the the you, you find any show and
Speaker 1: it'll either be homophobic, transphobic, um sexist, And I just say,
Speaker 1: you know, at some point we also need to understand
Speaker 1: that art is allowed to be offensive. Right, There's a
Speaker 1: difference between celebrating every aspect of an artistic work of
Speaker 1: one kind or another, and also allowing for the space
Speaker 1: for there to be art that will push buttons in
Speaker 1: the first place. And and and this is also why
Speaker 1: whenever we start to have this conversation, you can see
Speaker 1: that UH liberals respond just with it with a rage,
Speaker 1: because they're drunk on the power they have in this
Speaker 1: current moment and they don't want to have to defend it.
Speaker 1: They like being able to be the censors because if
Speaker 1: they control the culture, they will control politics. And they
Speaker 1: know it, and they know that's why it's so essential
Speaker 1: to them, and that's why they're they're willing to just
Speaker 1: just keep on pushing through despite all the contradictions. Sugar
Speaker 1: is bad for you doesn't mean it's not delicious. Doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that I don't like some very sugary things myself.
Speaker 1: Of course I do. It's a it's a weakness. I
Speaker 1: have to be aware of it. But I just note
Speaker 1: that as I looked through more and more information about
Speaker 1: UH opioids and how the pain epidemic in this country,
Speaker 1: which was really an opioid epidemic in response to concerns
Speaker 1: over chronic pain, but but how that all happened and
Speaker 1: how the scientific community, in this case, the medical community
Speaker 1: was way off the mark in the nineties and in
Speaker 1: the early two thousands, and practicing good medicine at the
Speaker 1: time was in many cases incredibly dangerous and really counterproductive
Speaker 1: for people. But I'm just reminded of of how, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm here in California and you have the whole you know,
Speaker 1: nanny state in full effect. And I was talking people
Speaker 1: today about you know, so, how how how's that whole
Speaker 1: high speed rail thing coming along? You're like, not so good,
Speaker 1: not so good, pretty expensive, and that's a pretty bad
Speaker 1: idea too. Um. But sure enough, you've got the paper bag,
Speaker 1: only no plastic bag, so you've got that ban. I
Speaker 1: think you're going to see more and more efforts to
Speaker 1: regulate what we eat as essentially treating sugar as a
Speaker 1: UM a public health crisis. I really do believe you're
Speaker 1: gonna see this. UM just noting that over the weekend,
Speaker 1: I think, I yeah, I saw an interview on Reason
Speaker 1: dot COM's website with Gary Talbos, who I've had on
Speaker 1: the show. I had him on almost maybe a year ago,
Speaker 1: give or take a month. I've always thought his work
Speaker 1: was really interesting on you know Why do we have
Speaker 1: some of the health problems, particularly diabetes and obesity. Why
Speaker 1: is there just been an enormous surge in the those
Speaker 1: issues and sugar is the most likely culprit. And I
Speaker 1: just have to take a moment laugh because you know,
Speaker 1: much of the policy here in California is based on
Speaker 1: or or should say, much of the conversation around policy.
Speaker 1: The policy is not in fact based in scientific fact.
Speaker 1: But they have this idea that science can solve everything.
Speaker 1: And I do think the technology makes the world better
Speaker 1: in so many ways. I think that technology is is
Speaker 1: advancing our lives and advancing human progress in in remarkable ways.
Speaker 1: But science is is a is a constant series of
Speaker 1: questions and answers, and it's it's not there's this thing
Speaker 1: we know and no more questions asked. And just as
Speaker 1: with opioids, how twenty years ago people are saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, there's really not a lot of evidence that
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's addictive. Oh yes, it is. Right. If
Speaker 1: you give people oxyconon, they're going to get at some point,
Speaker 1: they're gonna get addicted. People might have a different biochemistry,
Speaker 1: it might be more addictive for some than than for others,
Speaker 1: but they were wrong, wrong, wrong on this, and this
Speaker 1: is here in America and this is in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: And another place where they've just been wrong, wrong, wrong
Speaker 1: is sugar and the roll of sugar in our diets
Speaker 1: and how it's just eat is creating wreckage all around
Speaker 1: um and there's a there's a profit motive and putting
Speaker 1: more sugar into stuff, it's become very very cheap. There
Speaker 1: was a time when sugar was actually and many of
Speaker 1: you know this, you know this history, sugar was actually
Speaker 1: very expensive and hard to get and that and also
Speaker 1: the labor that it required was backbreaking, really difficult stuff,
Speaker 1: and that was why it relied predominantly in the Caribbean
Speaker 1: and in parts of the America's where sugar could be
Speaker 1: grown and relied on slavery. So it was really nasty,
Speaker 1: tough work, and the sugar cane had to be processed right,
Speaker 1: it had to go through the process right away. But
Speaker 1: now it's become in really the twentieth century, became such
Speaker 1: a bigger part of our diets, and the advice that
Speaker 1: we were all getting, the advice that we were getting
Speaker 1: on the food pyramid and and for what we should
Speaker 1: be doing in our day to day diance was just wrong, folks.
Speaker 1: It was bad. I remember being in science class in
Speaker 1: the fifth grade and we're all learning the food pyramid
Speaker 1: and they're telling me to eat six to twelve servings
Speaker 1: of rice and grain and white bread and you know,
Speaker 1: all day long. It's just terrible. This is terrible for us.
Speaker 1: I mean this notion that I think back to people
Speaker 1: thinking that peanut butter and jelly was a healthy snack. No,
Speaker 1: it is not a healthy snack, right, But if you
Speaker 1: were growing, if you were a child of the eighties
Speaker 1: like me, people thought a lot of Penny and jay
Speaker 1: and people say, oh, that's a pretty good that's a
Speaker 1: pretty good option. But like a snack, yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: just give me a whole bunch of uh, processed carbs
Speaker 1: and then some some gelatinous sugar and throw a little
Speaker 1: peanut butter on there, which has an incredibly high calorie
Speaker 1: and fat content and doesn't even have the benefits of say,
Speaker 1: almond butter or some of the other nut butters out there. Um.
Speaker 1: But the scientific community was wrong on that too, uh
Speaker 1: And whatever research was done on it, a lot of
Speaker 1: it was actually put forward by the sugar companies, and
Speaker 1: the sugar lobby, which is even more amazing when you
Speaker 1: think about it, that the war on high fat food. Um,
Speaker 1: the notion that bacon and butter and uh, I know right,
Speaker 1: this is it enrages me too, that these things are
Speaker 1: bad for you. This became the conventional wisdom, and it
Speaker 1: was and it still is kind of still seeing people
Speaker 1: trying to push back and oh no, you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's really good for you. You you need you know,
Speaker 1: you need these processed carbs in your diet, not really
Speaker 1: very very little. Uh. You know. My problem here as
Speaker 1: I sit here is and I like, I like to
Speaker 1: just indulge too much in some of the things that
Speaker 1: are good for you in smaller amounts, right, I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't like a little bit of bacon. I like
Speaker 1: a lot of bacon. French fries I know are not
Speaker 1: good for you, but I just eat them because I
Speaker 1: can't help it. Because that's of all the food weaknesses
Speaker 1: I have. I'm like, well, I mean, let's get aside
Speaker 1: of fries, right, I should probably cut that. I'd probably
Speaker 1: live five years longer if I just stop eating French fries.
Speaker 1: But I can't help myself. Although out here, you know,
Speaker 1: they've got they've got in and Out Burger here in California,
Speaker 1: which the burgers are amazing. I obviously get them with
Speaker 1: no bun I gotta let us wrap um. But the
Speaker 1: fries are kind of weak sauce. I'm just gonna say
Speaker 1: that the fries are on the week sauce side. Uh.
Speaker 1: But anyways, sugar is going to be something that there
Speaker 1: are gonna be fights over sugar, and I think California
Speaker 1: is gonna be at the forefront of that. They're gonna
Speaker 1: be efforts to tell you that sugar should be regular. Look,
Speaker 1: we had it in New York with the big drinks
Speaker 1: right the BLOOMBERGI in. You know, you shouldn't be having
Speaker 1: too much sugar in your drinks. Uh. And now is
Speaker 1: a sixty ounce big gulp a good idea for anyone?
Speaker 1: Probably not. Do I think that the government should tell
Speaker 1: you that you can have it? No, if they want
Speaker 1: to put up signs that lets you know that you're
Speaker 1: ingesting a few uh thousand calories um by drinking this
Speaker 1: stuff over the worse of you know, a few days,
Speaker 1: or you know, over the course of a week. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's good for them to give you the
Speaker 1: full knowledge of it. But I just also look at
Speaker 1: this as the response to science and government don't really
Speaker 1: mix that well when it comes to policy. Shouldn't be
Speaker 1: oh well, we're gonna get it right this time. Forget
Speaker 1: about individual freedom, Let's just have more nanny state. And
Speaker 1: whether it was nanny state in dealing with pain, because
Speaker 1: that was all very it was all very regulated, and
Speaker 1: this was government policy to uh, you know what drugs
Speaker 1: would be allowed and what amounts and um, you know
Speaker 1: how quick and you tie in the h ms and
Speaker 1: how they were trying to get people in and out
Speaker 1: in and out of these opposite very very quickly. Uh.
Speaker 1: That was disastrous for the opioid epidemic in this country.
Speaker 1: And also the big farmer. Don't even get me started.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that all day. But all but sugar
Speaker 1: is is a scourge that I wish I had known
Speaker 1: about when I was younger. I mean just little things
Speaker 1: that I think about. A big glass of orange juice.
Speaker 1: I thought that was healthy. That is not healthy. You
Speaker 1: are basically having the equip blent of a coke in
Speaker 1: terms of yeah, it's got some vitamin C. Great. The
Speaker 1: vitamin C absorption is not as good because it lacks
Speaker 1: the fiber of an actual orange that you would eat
Speaker 1: and the amount of sure orange juice can actually be
Speaker 1: used as a sweetener in other foods. So when you
Speaker 1: think about orange juice is something that I know, I
Speaker 1: guess we're not going to have an o J sponsor
Speaker 1: on the show anytime soon, But what can you do? Uh?
Speaker 1: But when you think about orange juice is something like
Speaker 1: honey that you would put in something else to sweeten it. Now,
Speaker 1: imagine drinking a glass of honey first thing in the morning,
Speaker 1: and and you'd be like, wow, that's a bad idea, right,
Speaker 1: But this our whole conception of this and scientists and
Speaker 1: the food pyramid and what you should eat and what's healthy,
Speaker 1: they were wrong about all this, and it was government policy,
Speaker 1: and the government policy was being pushed along by private
Speaker 1: sector interest that could care less about what was making
Speaker 1: you healthy. Talbots, I think, is a fashionating guy on
Speaker 1: this um. He's done the most interesting He's a journalist,
Speaker 1: he's not even scientist, but he's on the most interesting
Speaker 1: research on why is it that we can't seem to
Speaker 1: figure out what really causes people to to gain way
Speaker 1: to have all these these these health related issues from
Speaker 1: weight gain and when you look at the cost to
Speaker 1: our society in all kinds of ways, but particularly just
Speaker 1: the medical cost of of having people that don't have
Speaker 1: the proper instruction about the roll of sugar in the diet.
Speaker 1: It's vast, It's it's enormous. And I but I know
Speaker 1: this is happening. I just had this and I was
Speaker 1: walking around today in the in the galleria here, and uh,
Speaker 1: seeing all these different places that are just slinging sugar
Speaker 1: drinks at you as fast as they can. H this
Speaker 1: is gonna be a fight with the nanny state that
Speaker 1: looms ahead. I'm I have a I have a feeling,
Speaker 1: and I tend to be read about these things. All right,
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about political scientists in
Speaker 1: a moment here. Uh. One of my basic feces you've
Speaker 1: heard me on the show UM say before, I think,
Speaker 1: is that we shouldn't call it political science. And I've
Speaker 1: got a great data point as to why that is.
Speaker 1: You could also call a lot of these people who
Speaker 1: professional political scientists clowns after hearing what I have to say.
Speaker 1: But it has to do with the worst president of
Speaker 1: all time? Who is it? According to our highly educated
Speaker 1: political science class. We'll tell you when we get back.
Speaker 1: I don't think the political scientists are scientists. And I
Speaker 1: say this as someone who technically has an academic background
Speaker 1: and wrote an honors thesis and political science at Amer's College.
Speaker 1: My thesis, by the way, was on a college speech
Speaker 1: a college campus speech codes. You can imagine how popular
Speaker 1: that was among the various political science professors who love
Speaker 1: those speech codes because they want to protect people from
Speaker 1: scary thoughts. But they're there. I couldn't help but be
Speaker 1: struck by this, because, as I've said, I don't believe
Speaker 1: that political scientists are scientists. I think that there it's
Speaker 1: a discipline, but it's really like a multidisciplinary analysis of
Speaker 1: history and contemporary you know, political forces. And anyway, I
Speaker 1: think at Harvard they actually call it politics instead of
Speaker 1: political science. I think the political science as a as
Speaker 1: a a discipline. That's the word I was looking for.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say doctrine, but that would have been wrong.
Speaker 1: As a discipline is it's just improperly named. Anyway, you
Speaker 1: get this piece on Yahoo News where they still still
Speaker 1: a lot of people use Yahoo. It's kind of amazing
Speaker 1: to me. Uh, Yahoo is still a thing. But Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is ranked the worst president in US history in
Speaker 1: this According to a Presidents and Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey,
Speaker 1: Trump is lower than President Nixon on this one. Um,
Speaker 1: so that's pretty amazing. Even among conservatives. Abraham Lincoln unsurprisingly
Speaker 1: takes the top prize. This says, So they do this
Speaker 1: study every four years, and it's from social science researchers
Speaker 1: from the American Political Science Association Section on Presidents and
Speaker 1: Executive Politics. WHOA, there's a crazy seminar to go to
Speaker 1: at some point. Hey man, did you go to the
Speaker 1: American Political Science Association Section on Presidents and Executive Politics?
Speaker 1: Last year? It was wild? Man? Did you see what
Speaker 1: they had there with the ice luge? It was crazy? No,
Speaker 1: not really. I don't think that that's the way it goes.
Speaker 1: But but this is funny to me for a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of reasons, because it's actually a great example of
Speaker 1: keep this in mind. These are people who, at least
Speaker 1: theoretically from what we know, spend their entire professional lives,
Speaker 1: spend countless hours of their day trying to find ways
Speaker 1: to better understand politics in general and American politics more specifically.
Speaker 1: And what we find out is that they are incapable
Speaker 1: of putting together some pretty basic and rational thoughts. Here,
Speaker 1: what we find out is that they would put Trump
Speaker 1: lower on the list. Lower on the list, then say, oh,
Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson, who was a clan apologist who set resegregated
Speaker 1: the federal government, who wished the South had defeated the
Speaker 1: North in the Civil War. I mean Woodrow Wilson was
Speaker 1: a bad guy, by the way, all kinds of eugenicist
Speaker 1: inclinations as well. And you notice that they don't want
Speaker 1: to or at least they haven't yet named renamed Woody Woo,
Speaker 1: which is the School of International Relations at Princeton University.
Speaker 1: They let that go. They put Trump way ahead of
Speaker 1: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, as we know, gainst a complete
Speaker 1: pass to this day for one of the darkest episode
Speaker 1: certainly in twentieth century American politics, where he put Americans
Speaker 1: in internment camps, Japanese Americans put in internment camps. So
Speaker 1: so Woodrow Wilson was a racist, segregationist, uh eugenicist, and
Speaker 1: who actually took took actions based on those ideas. Not
Speaker 1: these these are not just like personal attacks. And f
Speaker 1: DR was a constitution shredding, uh, semi authoritarian, and they
Speaker 1: say Trump is worse. I mean, Trump is even worse
Speaker 1: then some of those nineteenth century presidents we've had in
Speaker 1: the run up to the Civil War that everyone's like, well,
Speaker 1: that guy was really bad. Uh. But this just goes
Speaker 1: to show you how completely out of touch political scientists are,
Speaker 1: not not with the public, which is that goes without
Speaker 1: saying um, but with the reality around them. And also
Speaker 1: it goes more towards my theory of I just don't
Speaker 1: believe the political scientists are really scientists. Yeah. I know,
Speaker 1: they can do regression analysis and there. They can throw
Speaker 1: some numbers on these things and they can make it
Speaker 1: look sciencey, but the discipline is really politics, and politics
Speaker 1: is the study of history and human power dynamics and
Speaker 1: relations between groups and individuals right and the individual in
Speaker 1: the state. Okay, and philosophy. And there's a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of stuff thrown into it, but it is not a science.
Speaker 1: Is poorly named. I'm like a one man band here,
Speaker 1: I know, but we should all just call it politics
Speaker 1: and stop calling a political science because political scientists are
Speaker 1: a bunch of bozos. Based on this study, Trump is
Speaker 1: the worst president ever Wow, guys. Yeah, all the low
Speaker 1: unemployment and economic growth and prosperity is just terrible. Are
Speaker 1: we got roll call coming up? Stay with me, well, team,
Speaker 1: I'm out here in Los Angeles and that's always a
Speaker 1: fun time that the weather is nicer than New York.
Speaker 1: I saw video of a a subway stop that I
Speaker 1: take on a regular basis that it looked like the
Speaker 1: end times. We had some kind of a flash flood
Speaker 1: from rain in New York City, or at least in
Speaker 1: the subways. So being in l A that part of
Speaker 1: it's really nice out here at our I heart HQ
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles or in the Los Angeles area. I'm
Speaker 1: actually in what is the Valley, which is kind of
Speaker 1: like l A but kind of not. But I'm enjoying
Speaker 1: it out here. It was freezing cold for l A
Speaker 1: last night. Thought I will say, for some reason, wherever
Speaker 1: I go it's a lot colder than it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be when I'm there, I am not good not good
Speaker 1: luck when it comes to weather. The other thing about
Speaker 1: l A is that even though I take I take
Speaker 1: Uber pretty much everywhere here, I'm not somebody who gets
Speaker 1: any joy out of driving. I like to just sort
Speaker 1: of sit back and relax. I don't really particularly get
Speaker 1: excited about being the guy fighting the traffic. Even still
Speaker 1: so much time in cars out here. I need to
Speaker 1: be able to walk to places. So that's that's my
Speaker 1: only thing on l A for right now. But I'm
Speaker 1: having a good time out here meeting with all kinds
Speaker 1: of important folks from radio land and get a chance
Speaker 1: to chat with them. So with that, let me stop
Speaker 1: just I'll hopefully have some better stories about my l
Speaker 1: A tre I just got in yesterday and so I
Speaker 1: haven't been able to hang out with T Swift or
Speaker 1: or I don't know if Cardi B is l A based,
Speaker 1: but I like to throw in Cardi B references now
Speaker 1: because I just found out who this artist is and
Speaker 1: apparently that's what the cool kids listen to right now.
Speaker 1: So you know, maybe I'll go by the set of Gosh.
Speaker 1: I don't even know. They don't They don't do Leno
Speaker 1: or or Letterman out here, so what are the shows
Speaker 1: that they do out I don't know. I need to
Speaker 1: learn more about l A. With that rambling sense of
Speaker 1: whatever I've got in my head, it is time for
Speaker 1: your thoughts, my friends, some roll call the show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks keeping it real just say keeping it real.
Speaker 1: I don't know why. That just sort of and for
Speaker 1: those who don't know, that's from the movie Clueless, because
Speaker 1: because I'm keeping it real. And then that became a
Speaker 1: phrase that everybody continue to use. I think it's still
Speaker 1: or people will say keeping it one hundred now as
Speaker 1: well for shorthand. But I just I like our announcer
Speaker 1: keeping it real. All right, let's get into all of
Speaker 1: the latest good stuff here from roll Call. If you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of it, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck sextent, that is all you need and you
Speaker 1: can send us a message there. We read them all,
Speaker 1: we enjoy them all, and uh we try to get
Speaker 1: as many on the air as we can. So we
Speaker 1: have Amy first up here. She writes, Oh my gosh, Buck,
Speaker 1: read some Comy excerpts from the book in a Valley
Speaker 1: girl accent. It would be comedic gold or read some
Speaker 1: in a vale girl accent. Since Comy is being such
Speaker 1: a little girl. Well, Amy, I tend to agree with you. Um,
Speaker 1: I have a I have a very negative view of
Speaker 1: of Comy based on his public persona. I feel like
Speaker 1: I really understand who comy is. As I've been discussing
Speaker 1: throughout the show. I feel like it's quite clear this
Speaker 1: is someone who has gone through life with an irrationally
Speaker 1: high self regard. And uh, that's that explains a lot.
Speaker 1: I think that that takes us pretty close to where
Speaker 1: we where we are with all this, UM, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for the note. We have Phil up Next,
Speaker 1: he writes, Buck great show Friday, Creed on your playlist
Speaker 1: negates any chick artists you may find there. You get
Speaker 1: to keep your man card. Thank you very much, Phil.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that I'm gonna hold onto my man card
Speaker 1: and I needed h. He also writes, Creed morphed into
Speaker 1: an even more powerhouse band, alter Bridge, which I highly
Speaker 1: recommend to any Freedom Hunt listener. Will Philip, I can
Speaker 1: tell you, in fact, you can fact check me on
Speaker 1: this one because of my public Spotify playlists that I
Speaker 1: have alter Bridge on there, so I am familiar with
Speaker 1: and enjoy alter Bridge. I I like any of that
Speaker 1: kind of that kind of power rock stuff I'm into,
Speaker 1: especially if if it's more positive sounding. My only problem
Speaker 1: with some of the heavier rock is the moment people
Speaker 1: start doing the growl are you ready? You know all
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff that's I don't like that. It's scary,
Speaker 1: it sounds a little mean. I like the rock that's
Speaker 1: melodic and and inspiring. And now I sound like a
Speaker 1: huge dork. But you know what, I own it. I
Speaker 1: own it. I let it, I let it, let it roll.
Speaker 1: Uh See, this is what I tell us Molly when
Speaker 1: she says that my shoe choice, for example, is old
Speaker 1: man like. I see, yes, but my feet are comfortable
Speaker 1: and I don't care if people don't like the shoes
Speaker 1: that I wear. Except when I'm on TV. I have
Speaker 1: conceded on that one. Now you will notice I I
Speaker 1: do not wear if I ever wear boat shoes on TV. Now,
Speaker 1: it's because I'm in a very very comfortable environment and
Speaker 1: I feel like I might as well, you know, just chill.
Speaker 1: But generally speaking, I wear shinable shoes. That's the new
Speaker 1: that's the new regime. I mean, we're in boat shoes
Speaker 1: right now, don't worry. But in general, I on TV,
Speaker 1: we're shopable shoes, all right. Next up, we get Erica.
Speaker 1: She writes, I was listening to the last Thursday show
Speaker 1: and your discussion of opioid addiction. I found the idea
Speaker 1: you expressed last month about how people aren't being killed
Speaker 1: by prescription drugs rather by o ding on illegal drugs
Speaker 1: flowing in through our week border. I saw this chart
Speaker 1: with an article and how the reconfiguration of OxyContin caused
Speaker 1: the jump to illegal drug use. Well, Erica, first of all,
Speaker 1: thank you for your message. And let me be clear
Speaker 1: about what I was at least trying to say, if
Speaker 1: not what I did say about all this, uh, the
Speaker 1: the the truth about OxyContin and about opiod over to
Speaker 1: overdoses complicated and and I would commend to you all.
Speaker 1: And I actually tweeted at him over the weekend just
Speaker 1: to let him know how great I thought. His book
Speaker 1: was Sam Canonez uh maybe Queen Nonez. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: how you pronounce his name, but his book Dreamland is
Speaker 1: so good. I'm almost done with it. I'm reading three books.
Speaker 1: Uh well, sorry, I see that sounds like a humble brag,
Speaker 1: but it's really just because I my attention gets scattered
Speaker 1: and I forced myself now to be reading a novel.
Speaker 1: So I'm reading three books simultaneously, not at the same time,
Speaker 1: but contempt maybe contemporaneously is a better way to describe it.
Speaker 1: And one that makes it sound less like I should
Speaker 1: punch myself in the face. But yeah, one of them
Speaker 1: is Dreamland. It's really really good. But to to your
Speaker 1: point about the deaths, people still die for prescription drug overdose,
Speaker 1: no question. In fact, I I think I've mentioned you
Speaker 1: before on this show. I had two very close childhood
Speaker 1: friends as obviously as we got a bit older, who
Speaker 1: both overdosed on prescription drugs. I don't know the specifics.
Speaker 1: I never wanted to um uh in any way be
Speaker 1: insensitive to the family, so I didn't ask. I just
Speaker 1: knew it was prescription drugs. It might have been entirely accidental,
Speaker 1: or it might have been from abuse, but I anyway,
Speaker 1: the point being, uh, people still certainly die in pretty
Speaker 1: large numbers, unfortunately from prescription drugs. But the spike, the
Speaker 1: big spike in depths we've seen over the last five
Speaker 1: or six years comes from fentanyl, which is almost entirely
Speaker 1: illegally obtained and in many cases even illegally created fentanyl
Speaker 1: and heroin. So you've had a pretty consistent number of
Speaker 1: opioid or prescription rug overdoses, and the last five or
Speaker 1: six years it's the illegal stuff, and there's a complicated
Speaker 1: relationship between how opioids in the prescription drug market because
Speaker 1: of H and this is all A lot of this
Speaker 1: is covered in Dreamland. There are other articles are other
Speaker 1: places you can read on it that are really good.
Speaker 1: But pain management through the nineties got this whole makeover
Speaker 1: where people started prescribing, including first line medical professionals. Primary
Speaker 1: care doctors were told that not only should they prescribe
Speaker 1: opioids because they were very unlikely to be addictive, but
Speaker 1: they were under an obligation to and to treat pain
Speaker 1: as one of the you know, initial markers of health
Speaker 1: that they look for when you first go into an office.
Speaker 1: And now, of course, unlike blood pressure, pain is not
Speaker 1: objective what kind of pain you're in. So there was
Speaker 1: this an enormous explosion of UH prescription drug usage from opioid,
Speaker 1: opioid derived or opioid drugs. Oxycotton the most famous which
Speaker 1: contains see CoDown and and they used to get people
Speaker 1: really big doses I mean doctors which describe really big
Speaker 1: doses of of oxy oxycotton on a daily basis for people. Um.
Speaker 1: But there are others as well, UM that I've been
Speaker 1: learning learning more about recently. I vicul in, percocet. Uh.
Speaker 1: There are a few others that am actually blanking on
Speaker 1: right now that are that are pretty widely prescribed, but
Speaker 1: the big spike has been from fentanel and which is
Speaker 1: incredibly powerful, potent, very very dangerous, and heroin and the heroine.
Speaker 1: The heroin explosion of this country comes hand hand in
Speaker 1: glove with illegal alien population in uh in this country
Speaker 1: from Mexico and Central America, predominantly from Mexico. Now, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I've had this discussion with people recently and they say,
Speaker 1: isn't it so unfair? And I think it's important for
Speaker 1: all of us keeping mind as we discussed this, because
Speaker 1: I'll speak to you very honestly about the problems of
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, the problems of terrorism and there it reminds
Speaker 1: me that there's a cross over here. Right. Let's say
Speaker 1: one percent of the illegal immigrant population this country is
Speaker 1: involved in the drug trade. That's, by the way, I
Speaker 1: can't even say that's a wild guess. I'm just making
Speaker 1: up that number because that's easy. Uh. It might be
Speaker 1: considerably less than that, it might be considerably more. But
Speaker 1: let's say one percent of the illegal immigrant population is
Speaker 1: involved in the drug trade in some capacity, transporting, selling,
Speaker 1: whatever um. That would be like saying, within the Islamic
Speaker 1: population of this country, what what percentage or actual radicals
Speaker 1: And if you said less than one percent, I think
Speaker 1: that would be a fair a fair estimate. But the
Speaker 1: problem is that you can you can still have a
Speaker 1: massive problem even if only one percent of the legal
Speaker 1: alien population is importing heroin from Sinaloa in Mexico, from
Speaker 1: Nyaret and from other parts of the Mexican highlands that
Speaker 1: can easily grow poppy and easy grow poppy flowers. So
Speaker 1: to say that it's unfair, that's true, it's unfair to
Speaker 1: the ninety percent of the population that isn't involved, But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean you don't have a huge problem and
Speaker 1: it isn't contained within a certain group of people. UH.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the problems. This is one
Speaker 1: of the big challenges of public policy discussion that involves
Speaker 1: national security issues but also sensitive issues that affect people
Speaker 1: in their day to day lives and how they feel
Speaker 1: they're treated. So UH, opioids. I find this topic fascinating
Speaker 1: on a whole bunch of of levels, and it's something
Speaker 1: we'll continue to talk about here in the HUT I
Speaker 1: am apologizing right now because I just I realized I've
Speaker 1: gone a little bit over and oh wait, wait, one
Speaker 1: more here from Lauren. She writes back, I just realized
Speaker 1: you're in soul Cow. If you and Miss Molly ever
Speaker 1: wants surf lessons, you know who to ask. Well, Lauren,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I want to end on a
Speaker 1: happy note, and Lauren gave us a happy note there. Sure,
Speaker 1: if I can ever get the time and the inclination
Speaker 1: to get up on a surfboard, if Miss Molly feels
Speaker 1: like she's up for it, we'll come down and check
Speaker 1: it out. She's out here doing some work too, so
Speaker 1: we're actually simultaneously in Los Angeles area. Um with that,
Speaker 1: my friends, I gotta close up the hut very much.
Speaker 1: Enjoying my time with you as always out here in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. I will be here every day and then
Speaker 1: Thursday actually in San Diego, but i'll be here every
Speaker 1: day this week until then, So please send me your thoughts,
Speaker 1: send me your recommendations for the best places to do
Speaker 1: fun stuff in l A. And until next time, my friends,
Speaker 1: Shields High