Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Nancy Pelosi's living in
Speaker 1: an alternate universe, mid Romney's righteous turn coat vote, take
Speaker 1: your time, Iowa, no rush, nobody's pushing for the results?
Speaker 1: And what is the reason for the ugliest buildings in
Speaker 1: the world getting built? And can we stop it? That
Speaker 1: and more coming up. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins. CIA analysts
Speaker 1: had the state of the Union. As required by the
Speaker 1: Constitution of the United States, the President is to submit
Speaker 1: in writing or in person his statement of the State
Speaker 1: of the Union. What happened instead was the President using
Speaker 1: the Congress of the United States is a backdrop for
Speaker 1: reality show presenting a state of mind that had no
Speaker 1: contact with reality whatsoever. If there's somebody that has no
Speaker 1: contact with reality, it's pretty clear it's Nancy Pelosi. Hey,
Speaker 1: he'll hear his press cafference today, Vling and you know
Speaker 1: the President and the Pageman, you know, really a bunch
Speaker 1: of blathers. Oh yeah, welcome to the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I was so excited to talk to you. In case
Speaker 1: you didn't know what show you were listening to, this
Speaker 1: is in fact the Buck Sexton Show. Yeah, Speaker. Speaker
Speaker 1: Pelosi gave a press conference today in which she railed
Speaker 1: against Presidence President Trump's State of the Union, which if
Speaker 1: you look at the data or data if you like
Speaker 1: to go with soft a there, you see that not
Speaker 1: only did Republicans overwhelming you think it was excellent. I
Speaker 1: thought it might have been the best speech of Trump's
Speaker 1: entire presidency, certainly one of the strongest knights, one of
Speaker 1: the strongest moments, a pinnacle of Trump's political power and
Speaker 1: the consolidation of the Republican Party behind him so far.
Speaker 1: But if you look at the polls, you'd see that
Speaker 1: Independence overwhelmingly thought it was also a really good speech.
Speaker 1: So Republicans and Independence, I think that speech was awesome,
Speaker 1: Which means Nancy Pelosi only has one choice. She's got
Speaker 1: a fever, and the only prescription is more crazy, and
Speaker 1: that's what she decided to do. She gave this press
Speaker 1: conference today in which she attacked the President of This
Speaker 1: also is this is a personal feud. This is one
Speaker 1: area I have to say where Trump really excels. One
Speaker 1: of the special skills that this president has is he
Speaker 1: forces his opponents, or he I should say he induces,
Speaker 1: not really he forced. He induces his opponents to show
Speaker 1: us the full extent of their duplicity, their dishonesty, their craziness.
Speaker 1: He gets them to come out of their dug in
Speaker 1: fighting position, so to speak, and show us who they
Speaker 1: really are. And this has been a feature of Trump,
Speaker 1: and Trump is him now for years and so now
Speaker 1: as we look at what has gone on in the
Speaker 1: last few days, Nancy Pelosi has had to take preposterous lines,
Speaker 1: has had to say absurd things about this president because
Speaker 1: her party is in disrepair right now, disarray, but also
Speaker 1: it has become very personal between her and Trump. That
Speaker 1: is increasingly the storyline that is emerging. Trump doesn't like her,
Speaker 1: didn't shake her hand at this State of the Union.
Speaker 1: She tore up his speech afterwards. And now you could say, oh,
Speaker 1: this is not befitting a presidency. Well, it's also not
Speaker 1: befitting a Speaker of the House. That you could get
Speaker 1: into all the decorum issues. But let's just understand this.
Speaker 1: They've been trying to destroy this president for years. They
Speaker 1: don't just want him to lose an election, folks. They
Speaker 1: want to send him to prison, They want to ruin
Speaker 1: his reputation, ruin his life, ruin his family's lives if
Speaker 1: they can. At what point is it just a normal
Speaker 1: human emotion. At what point does he turn into Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh with just a parade of lunatic liars coming forward
Speaker 1: to destroy him, and he just lets it out that
Speaker 1: he's mad and this is a sham and it's wrong.
Speaker 1: When is the president allowed to feel that way? When
Speaker 1: is the president allowed to say, you know what, I've
Speaker 1: had enough. I'm not doing this anymore. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to play nicey nice with Nancy Pelosi after this ridiculous
Speaker 1: scam of an impeachment process. Enough's enough. But Pelosi recogn yes,
Speaker 1: I think she is savvy enough to understand that the
Speaker 1: momentum is all on President Trump's side right now, that
Speaker 1: President Trump is in fact the one who is looking
Speaker 1: like he will cruise to a reelection. You know, the
Speaker 1: Drudge Report today is saying a fifty nine point nine
Speaker 1: nine percent chance for reelection, I mean over sixty percent.
Speaker 1: And that's before Trump has even really gotten going. That
Speaker 1: State of the Union address was just Trump cracking his
Speaker 1: knuckles before he really decides, Sir Walpus leaves and get
Speaker 1: into it for his reelection. And look at the Democrats
Speaker 1: are already running for the hills. They're they're frightened, They're
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, what are we gonna do? And so
Speaker 1: they're just scrambling. Special counsel didn't work. I mean, I
Speaker 1: I've got a piece going up on the Hill dot com.
Speaker 1: It's up on the Hill dot com. Rather that just
Speaker 1: looks at how to understand impeachment. You have to see
Speaker 1: this as another failed Trump removable effort, because there have
Speaker 1: been so many of them. I mean, the two major
Speaker 1: ones have been the Russia collusion all alive by the way,
Speaker 1: Russia collusion, Special counsel that was meant to remove Trump,
Speaker 1: perhaps even with criminal charges. I remember at the very
Speaker 1: end they said, oh, well, we can't even charge the president.
Speaker 1: But that could have been a fight. They could have
Speaker 1: said we would criminally charge him, but we didn't. You know,
Speaker 1: he should have been criminally charged. So as you look
Speaker 1: at what's really happened here, they've been rolling out all
Speaker 1: these different reasons to remove the President of the United
Speaker 1: States from office. Now, this impeachment over the Ukraine phone call.
Speaker 1: They brought up a twenty fifth amendment, They brought up
Speaker 1: the emolument's clause, the Stormy Daniels payoff using this disgraced lawyer,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen. These are all just it's a continued effort
Speaker 1: to prevent the one thing that terrifies Democrats more than
Speaker 1: Trump himself, and that is a free and fair election
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty that allows the American people to make
Speaker 1: the choice that they want this president to do this
Speaker 1: for another four years. If Trump has already psychologically broken
Speaker 1: many of the Democrats, and I think he has, what
Speaker 1: comes up next? What is the next step? I asked that,
Speaker 1: and it is rhetorical. I don't have an answer I
Speaker 1: can offer up to you. Maybe they're just at full
Speaker 1: throttle crazy and they'll just keep their foot on the
Speaker 1: pedal and it doesn't change. I think that's the most
Speaker 1: likely outcome. They've already got the dial on the amplifier
Speaker 1: to eleven. It doesn't go any higher. This is spinal
Speaker 1: tap reference for some of you who may not catch that.
Speaker 1: But there's nothing beyond it. There's nothing more for them
Speaker 1: to do. They've already every dirty trick, every narrative, every
Speaker 1: lie all the things that they've tried to do, and
Speaker 1: not only has it not worked, It's not like Trump
Speaker 1: is limping through a presidency that he's you know, his
Speaker 1: policies are ineffective, his vision has been stymied and wounded.
Speaker 1: An No, that's not the case at all. Trump is
Speaker 1: actually delivered incredibly well. I mean the Job's report that
Speaker 1: just came out this week, it's everything is going in
Speaker 1: the right direction. You even have on the Drudge Report
Speaker 1: right now. And by the way, Drudge has not been
Speaker 1: all that pro Trump recently and last I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe the last couple of years really, but nine according
Speaker 1: to Gallop, ninety percent of Americans are satisfied with their lives.
Speaker 1: This country is in a golden age right now. Other
Speaker 1: people won't tell you this. It's just so much easier
Speaker 1: all you know, the end is near. Oh, it's all
Speaker 1: gonna crash and burn. And yeah, we've got problems. Things
Speaker 1: could change, I've got worries, I've got concerns. Bertie Sanders
Speaker 1: wins it's gonna change a lot. But Democrats have put
Speaker 1: themselves in a position where they feel they have no
Speaker 1: choice but to oppose what is good and prosperous and
Speaker 1: peaceful and happy for America. They have to pretend that's
Speaker 1: not really happening, because how can they achieve power when
Speaker 1: their opposition, when Donald Trump and the Republican Party are
Speaker 1: doing a good job of governing. No, they want to
Speaker 1: turn the whole country into Los Angeles or San Francisco,
Speaker 1: or increasingly here in New York City, which is at
Speaker 1: a big spike in crime. I mean, they want to
Speaker 1: inflict the policies of socialism, identity politics, wokeism. They want
Speaker 1: to inflict all of that on us, they would say,
Speaker 1: for our own good or because it's the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. And the only way that they can achieve
Speaker 1: the power to do that is to pretend that what's
Speaker 1: already being done by and large. Look, it's not perfect,
Speaker 1: I know that, but what's already being done by the
Speaker 1: government is pretty much on the right track, and the
Speaker 1: government is doing well. The government is doing its job.
Speaker 1: President Trump is succeeding. And there's no better example I
Speaker 1: can give you of how true this is now and
Speaker 1: how it's becoming inescapable, and now Democrats increasingly find themselves
Speaker 1: unable to have a counter narrative. You know, this is
Speaker 1: the common between storms, they'll come up with something. I mean,
Speaker 1: I made a joke on Twitter. I didn't realize how
Speaker 1: funny people would find it that. Just give it a matter,
Speaker 1: Just give it a few days, and you'll have a
Speaker 1: story in the New York Times about some former senior
Speaker 1: aide to President Trump who thinks that the president has
Speaker 1: deteriorating mental health and is not of sound mind and
Speaker 1: should be removed. You guessed it with the twenty fifth amendment.
Speaker 1: And then CNN will put some PhD from who knows
Speaker 1: what university and psychology on air, will say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if you look at the way President Trump blinked twice
Speaker 1: in that last speech, I mean clearly he might have
Speaker 1: the early signs of dementia. And they'll do this. They'll
Speaker 1: do this because their audience has been conditioned to believe
Speaker 1: there's always an ongoing removal effort. They don't treat their
Speaker 1: audience like adults who can recognize we lost the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. That means this guy's president for four years.
Speaker 1: See what we can do in the next election. That's
Speaker 1: the adult responsible approach to American politics. Democrats have completely
Speaker 1: abandoned that as a party. They have no interest in
Speaker 1: that it's the forever removal campaign against Trump. Remove him
Speaker 1: now today, find a way, whatever you gotta do, get
Speaker 1: him out of office. And not only is that destroying
Speaker 1: the very institutions of government that they pretend to care
Speaker 1: so much about, which we've discussed here many times. It's
Speaker 1: very true, but it also requires the negation of how
Speaker 1: successful Trump has been. And by the way, I don't
Speaker 1: think it's because Trump is some super genius. I just
Speaker 1: think he's not preconditioned. He's not brainwashed by the swamp
Speaker 1: and by the policy approach of the elites. He doesn't
Speaker 1: care when people say mean things about him. He just
Speaker 1: does what a normal person would think is probably the
Speaker 1: smart thing to do. Trump offers America a common sense
Speaker 1: presidency term you don't hear that much anymore. It is
Speaker 1: a common sense presidency. And for many people across the country,
Speaker 1: including a lot of you know who listened to this show,
Speaker 1: you knew that was what was really on offer, and
Speaker 1: that's what we have seen, and that if that was
Speaker 1: allowed to happen, it would work out pretty well. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a good thing when you don't have people in
Speaker 1: charge who believe that they can give everybody free healthcare.
Speaker 1: No one's taxes go up, everyone's medical attention and access
Speaker 1: will improve. And you know, we're all just going to
Speaker 1: be living in utopia. It's going to be you know, Xanadu,
Speaker 1: Shangri La Nirvana, different places of extreme happiness. You already
Speaker 1: knew that. But that's not the way the world works.
Speaker 1: So Trump looks at the way the world actually works.
Speaker 1: Notice how I haven't even talked about Pierre de Lecto yet.
Speaker 1: I will get to Monsieur Pierre de Lecto, Zimos famis
Speaker 1: turn Cult of Ziania Republic Party. We'll get there. Oh, Pierre,
Speaker 1: We're coming for you. Pierre. We got a lot to say.
Speaker 1: But here's the real, the real kicker for me. Pelosi
Speaker 1: today in her press conference, because she's just trying to
Speaker 1: buy the Democrats sometime, trying to reset the narrative in
Speaker 1: some way. Pelosi was making the claim that this is
Speaker 1: the Obama economy. That's when you know they're just they're
Speaker 1: up against the ropes. Man. I mean, you know, a
Speaker 1: couple more good shots from Trump and the Democrats are
Speaker 1: down for the twenty twenty count. It's the Obama We're
Speaker 1: in the fourth year of a Trump presidency, and it's
Speaker 1: the Obama economy. Really, that's that's the story that we're
Speaker 1: supposed to buy into. Now that Trump, who does things
Speaker 1: consistently that Democrats hate, say is terrible, say he's going
Speaker 1: to be bad for the economy. The economy is better
Speaker 1: than it has arguably better than it has ever been.
Speaker 1: I mean, the country is certainly wealthier than it has
Speaker 1: ever been. And you ask yourself, Okay, what are Democrats
Speaker 1: going to say about this? Oh, now they're back to
Speaker 1: what they tried for the first eighteen months when Trump's
Speaker 1: when Trump's unemployment numbers looked really good, the stock market
Speaker 1: was doing really well, it's Obama's It's Obama's economy. Still
Speaker 1: he's the reason things are still going so well. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's a really compelling talking point, isn't it. But this
Speaker 1: is this is what you say when you have no answer.
Speaker 1: And that's what the Speaker of the House, the most
Speaker 1: powerful Democrat right now in elected office in the country.
Speaker 1: That's what she's telling the American people in response that
Speaker 1: state of saying that it was disconnected from reality. Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi's disconnected from reality. And I wonder if Nancy's waking
Speaker 1: up with you know, with not a lot of energy
Speaker 1: and some headaches these days, Nancy looks like she is
Speaker 1: not up for this. If we're gonna talk about how
Speaker 1: Joe Biden looks like he's not up for this, I
Speaker 1: don't think Nancy looks like she's up for this either.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's just she's getting up there
Speaker 1: or if this is a little more self inflicted, but
Speaker 1: she looks like she could use some time off because
Speaker 1: what she was doing today in that press conference, it
Speaker 1: was just blather. It was actually a little embarrassing to watch.
Speaker 1: She's not embarrassed by it, of course, because whatever she
Speaker 1: thinks will help the Democrats. But that's where we are, folks.
Speaker 1: Just remember that the economy is so amazing right now
Speaker 1: that the Democrat talking point has switched and they'll have
Speaker 1: to abandon this because they know it won't work. The
Speaker 1: Democrat talking point has switched to, well, you can thank
Speaker 1: Obama for this, Oh yeah, because Obama was such an
Speaker 1: economic and free market based genius. Right, you're in the
Speaker 1: freedom hud. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. The
Speaker 1: presiding officer directs judgment to be entered in accordance with
Speaker 1: the judgment of the Senate as follows. The Senate, having
Speaker 1: tried Donald John Trump, President of the United States, upon
Speaker 1: two articles of impatient exhibited against him by the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives, and two thirds of the Senators present, not
Speaker 1: having found him guilty of the charges contained therein, It
Speaker 1: is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John
Speaker 1: Trump be and he is hereby acquitted of the charges
Speaker 1: in said articles acquitted. The President of the United States,
Speaker 1: Donald John Trump, acquitted forever. That is the verdict of
Speaker 1: the Senate. Democrats can say it's not a real acquittal,
Speaker 1: but we can just say it's not a real impeachment either.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is childish, right, this becomes this becomes stupid,
Speaker 1: this becomes something that's not even worth our time. But
Speaker 1: that's where they're going to go. They're going to just
Speaker 1: pretend that things they don't like don't exist, and the
Speaker 1: things they do like are much more important than they are.
Speaker 1: That's where all of this is heading now. I wanted
Speaker 1: to focus in on this point for at first, because
Speaker 1: Democrats have failed in this scheme once again, another scheme
Speaker 1: to remove this president before the verdict of the American
Speaker 1: people through a free and fair election can be heard.
Speaker 1: But so now we have the verdict of a Senate trial.
Speaker 1: The verdict of the Senate trial is that President Trump
Speaker 1: is acquitted, not guilty. And there were very, very few
Speaker 1: surprises in this Senate trial. I also first want to
Speaker 1: say Mitch McConnell, good job. They call Mitch McConnell the
Speaker 1: grim Reapers, as if that's going to make people think
Speaker 1: he's less less cool. I don't know if grim Reaper
Speaker 1: is better than cocaine Mitch, but I like both of them.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell held it together, held the line. You know
Speaker 1: what he started doing as soon as that sham Senate
Speaker 1: trial was over, confirming more excellent constitutionalist judges. That's what
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell went went back to doing right away, get
Speaker 1: that machinery rolling more and more judges so you can't
Speaker 1: have the hashtag resistance left wing judiciary. So that's a
Speaker 1: big win. Congrats to Mitch McConnell for not falling for
Speaker 1: the oh just or witnesses. He learned from the Cavanaugh Debaco.
Speaker 1: We should give credit to politicians who learn, especially when
Speaker 1: they're on our side. But then there's Pierre de Lecto.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. You realize this is war.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump will never forgive you for us. There there's
Speaker 1: a hymn that is a sign in my church. It's
Speaker 1: an old Protestant hymn, which is to do what is right,
Speaker 1: let the consequence follow. I know in my heart that
Speaker 1: I'm doing what's right. I understand there's going to be
Speaker 1: enormous consequence, and I don't have a choice in that regard.
Speaker 1: That's why, that's why I haven't been anxious to be
Speaker 1: in the position I'm in. When I heard there was
Speaker 1: going to be an impeachment investigation, as I heard the
Speaker 1: evidence it was coming forward, I dreaded the responsibility I'd have.
Speaker 1: But I was not willing to abvigate the responsibility given
Speaker 1: to me by the Constitution, nor to ignore my conscience
Speaker 1: out of personal and political significance. I mean considerations. I
Speaker 1: mean I had to follow my conscience. Team, I'm going
Speaker 1: to try to make you a deal. Here. We're going
Speaker 1: to dive into Pierre de Lecto, also known as mit Romney.
Speaker 1: We're going to dive into this now and I'm going
Speaker 1: to hope that we don't really have to talk about
Speaker 1: mid Romney again for the rest of this election cycle,
Speaker 1: and maybe maybe not even enough to talk about him
Speaker 1: again for longer than that on this show, because he
Speaker 1: doesn't deserve it. Let's just look at what happened here.
Speaker 1: There was an alignment among Republicans. Mitch McConnell had his
Speaker 1: caucus in line. Republicans knew this is an outrage. This
Speaker 1: whole impeachment is ridiculous. Even if everything the Democrats said
Speaker 1: was true, it's not enough to remove a president from
Speaker 1: off It's not even close. It's a traffic ticket for
Speaker 1: a president who cares. If everything they said was it
Speaker 1: was all based on supposition, on lies, on analysis that
Speaker 1: normal people could never believe. Oh it was going there
Speaker 1: was no reason to investigate the Bidens lie. Oh it
Speaker 1: would have changed the election, and Trump was demanding this,
Speaker 1: and that's illicit lie. I wasn't going to change the election.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and her husband were running a global slush fund,
Speaker 1: taking millions and millions of dollars from the Soudias, from
Speaker 1: whomever he wanted to give a speech, I think in
Speaker 1: North Korea at one point as long as the money's good,
Speaker 1: but oh no, there was no corruption with the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 1: That Democrats are willing to pretend that they are total morons,
Speaker 1: even dumber than they actually are, in order to get
Speaker 1: away with believing things that we know they don't believe,
Speaker 1: but presenting facts in a way that is useful to
Speaker 1: them in the short term. So here's what Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: has done. Mitt Romney broke ranks with Republicans. Doesn't change anything.
Speaker 1: He voted to convict on abuse of power, not on
Speaker 1: obstruction of Congress, which I should note at least he's
Speaker 1: not that dumb. Because Mitt Romney's not a dumb guy,
Speaker 1: we can't say he's not a dumb guy at all.
Speaker 1: He obviously understands understands how to be a rapacious capitalist
Speaker 1: and maybe destroy some companies to make himself very, very
Speaker 1: very rich in the process. Fine. Private equity can be
Speaker 1: a force for good and also can destroy small towns
Speaker 1: and put a lot of people on the unemployment line.
Speaker 1: That's the reality of it. I know a lot of
Speaker 1: people who worked in private equity. They will tell you
Speaker 1: that behind closed doors. Yeah, sure, sometimes it's you know,
Speaker 1: creative destruction, and sometimes it's just destruction. But Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: decided that his conscience dictated that he would have to
Speaker 1: go along on the abuse of power charge and join
Speaker 1: the insane, power mad, deranged anti Trump Democrats in the
Speaker 1: Senate and give them the only, the only glimmer of
Speaker 1: a silver lining that they've had all week. I mean,
Speaker 1: Democrats have just been getting shellack right now. Trump's State
Speaker 1: of the Union was huge. The Iowa caucuses, we'll talk
Speaker 1: more about. Still don't know who one, still don't know.
Speaker 1: Don't worry Iowa. It's cool, kick back, relax, come out
Speaker 1: to the coast, have a few laughs. Iowa doesn't have
Speaker 1: to rush right who at this point, who even cares
Speaker 1: who wins? They they they're already talking about New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: We'll dig into it a little bit. It looks like
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders probably is going to be the guy who
Speaker 1: wins in the end as I go on air here,
Speaker 1: But Buddha Judge is very close and some people said
Speaker 1: he was the winner, and you know it's not the
Speaker 1: winners Joe Biden. But we'll get there. We'll get there.
Speaker 1: So why did Mitt Romney do this? Let's really let's
Speaker 1: unpack this for a moment. It has no effect on
Speaker 1: the president whatsoever. It doesn't do anything. So it's a
Speaker 1: vote that's entirely for show. It's a show vote, so
Speaker 1: mitt Romney can show vote. This was about moral preening,
Speaker 1: because otherwise I would want to know for example, I mean,
Speaker 1: let's really break this down. Why would mit Romney demand
Speaker 1: that he needed more witnesses, which was what we're hearing
Speaker 1: from him last week. Oh I need more witnesses. I
Speaker 1: need to see more witnesses. If you're a juror in
Speaker 1: a murder trial, which I know this is not a
Speaker 1: criminal trial, which is why this whole thing. Also, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, it's just a political exercise.
Speaker 1: It's entirely political, but it is in fact the definition
Speaker 1: of political. But if you're a juror in a murder trial,
Speaker 1: you don't say, you know, I really need to hear
Speaker 1: from a lot more witnesses and a lot more evidence.
Speaker 1: And then when you're told sorry, there are no more
Speaker 1: witnesses at evidence, you go, oh, well, I'm totally sure
Speaker 1: this person's guilty. If you're totally sure they're guilty, why
Speaker 1: do you need more witnesses and evidence if you've already
Speaker 1: called if you can come to that conclusion with the
Speaker 1: evidence already presented, why would you demand to see more evidence?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that be I mean, you'd think this is a
Speaker 1: pretty straightforward proposition. But Mitt Romney just wanted a lot
Speaker 1: of attention here and he got it. And now I
Speaker 1: see a lot of people who are either never Trumpers
Speaker 1: or still they still cling to this this sense of highly,
Speaker 1: highly moral and often sanctimonious personal conservatism right that this
Speaker 1: is somehow a personal branding exercise for them. They're they're
Speaker 1: the good ones that even if they like some of
Speaker 1: Trump's policies, they think the Trump is a departure from
Speaker 1: the morality that is necessary for one to be a
Speaker 1: real conservative. And they're praising Mitt Romney right now and saying,
Speaker 1: I don't we'll get to I mean the media, of course,
Speaker 1: is Mitt Romney's a profile and courage. He's amazing Pierre
Speaker 1: de Lecto. Let's remember something, folks. The Pierre de Lecto
Speaker 1: thing is not insignificant. Mit Romney, as an actual human
Speaker 1: being whose face we know and whose name we know,
Speaker 1: had over a million Twitter followers and was verified on Twitter.
Speaker 1: That same guy created a sock puppet account on Twitter
Speaker 1: so that he could without consequence to himself talk about
Speaker 1: how great he was and take cheap shots at Trump
Speaker 1: in the random bowels of the Twitter Internet. This guy's
Speaker 1: worth two three million dollars, Okay, super rich. He's seventy
Speaker 1: some odd years old. He has a huge Twitter account,
Speaker 1: he has a huge public profile and following he creates
Speaker 1: a sock puppet account to pump himself up and to
Speaker 1: take cheap shots at the president. Who does that? I
Speaker 1: really think about that from a who does that? Somebody
Speaker 1: who is vain and petty. Now Trump is thin skinned,
Speaker 1: and sometimes I think he gets too far deep into
Speaker 1: it with people on personal issues, and I wish he'd
Speaker 1: focused for him. But then again, Trump is also attacked
Speaker 1: by more people in more ways any human being I've
Speaker 1: ever seen in my life, almost all of it deeply unfair.
Speaker 1: And he's still producing for us, and he's still a fighter.
Speaker 1: So at some point, you know, when do I have
Speaker 1: to say thank you for sleeping under the blanket of
Speaker 1: protection that he provides. Colonel Nathan are Jessup, United States
Speaker 1: Marine Corps, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, you know, at what point
Speaker 1: do we have to say thank you President Trump for
Speaker 1: dealing with all of this crap from these lunatics, And yeah,
Speaker 1: you're not perfect, but you're dealing with a highly imperfect situation.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump is a wartime conservative, and yes, sometimes
Speaker 1: there's mistakes that are going to happen. Sometimes he's gonna
Speaker 1: go too far, but he's also fighting the battle for us.
Speaker 1: Mid Romney's a turncoat. I mean he is. That's he
Speaker 1: just this was his opportunity forever in his own mind,
Speaker 1: to pull a McCain and be the one who's above politics.
Speaker 1: You'd say, why would someone do this? Well, why would
Speaker 1: someone be so petty and vain in the position? And
Speaker 1: the mit Romney's in is to create a sock puppet account.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, and you can go back.
Speaker 1: I don't know how much you want to dig into
Speaker 1: his background in politics and the way that he flip
Speaker 1: flops on major issues, the way that he was abortion
Speaker 1: should be legal and safe when he was in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: I mean, he was practically more pro abortion than Ted
Speaker 1: Kennedy when he was a governor. You look at the
Speaker 1: way that he's flip flopped on all these different issues
Speaker 1: and you start to see that maybe this guy's just
Speaker 1: just an absolutely rank opportunist in his political life. But
Speaker 1: I'm more interested here in the personal. So Mit Romney
Speaker 1: was a huge opponent of Trump's in the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election cycle, said that he was essentially a fraud and
Speaker 1: a liar and wasn't a success and all this other stuff.
Speaker 1: And you might at some point want to ask, well,
Speaker 1: if that's the way he feels, why would Pierre delecto
Speaker 1: bonjeu monsieur. Why would Pierre go and bend the knee
Speaker 1: and ask Trump to make him not just some random
Speaker 1: job in the administration secretary of state. And I see
Speaker 1: the os pure, the OsO pure hall monitor conservatives out there,
Speaker 1: some of them are saying, oh, because he wanted to
Speaker 1: be in between a reckless president and his foreign policy,
Speaker 1: and that he wanted to serve his country even under
Speaker 1: difficult circumstances. Of Donald Trump is commander in chief. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is better at foreign policy than Bush or Obama.
Speaker 1: I would argue that against anyone. I would win that
Speaker 1: argument against anyone. He is better at this again common sense.
Speaker 1: I'm not. It's not that he's some genius. I don't
Speaker 1: think that he could easily, you know, name a dozen
Speaker 1: countries in Asia off the top of his head, like
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that when there
Speaker 1: are choices, when their decisions and the executive level that
Speaker 1: have to be made, this is a guy who gets it.
Speaker 1: The results are what matters. And then Romney comes from
Speaker 1: that school of where I went to Harvard and I
Speaker 1: worked at pain and I'm so fancy and I'm so smart.
Speaker 1: How could this guy be doing better than me? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's deeply personal for mid Romney. It's not about fealty
Speaker 1: to the Constitution. It's not about, oh, this is what's
Speaker 1: required of my dignity and my honor as a member
Speaker 1: of the Senate and as an American, all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, I heard a speech yesterday. It was just pathetic.
Speaker 1: It really was. It was pathetic. No, Mit Romney is
Speaker 1: vengeful toward Trump because Trump represents a challenge to Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney's sense of who he is, which is midst the
Speaker 1: guy who leverages all the leverages, all the right institutions,
Speaker 1: has the right resume. Mit is the elite. He is
Speaker 1: the establishment. And you'd say, oh, buck, but Trump's abilionaire
Speaker 1: and he's so famous for something else. Yeah, but he
Speaker 1: won't play by elite establishment rules. He doesn't march to
Speaker 1: their tune. He doesn't do what they say, and that's
Speaker 1: not allowed. If anything, you can say that Trump has
Speaker 1: turned his back on the elites that were sucking up
Speaker 1: to him for so long because of his money and
Speaker 1: influence that mid Romney now has to do well. This
Speaker 1: guy was able to do what Mitt wasn't, which was
Speaker 1: when a presidential election and implement a lot of conservative policies,
Speaker 1: be fantastic with the judges he's put in place, preside
Speaker 1: over a booming act. The American people are getting spoilt.
Speaker 1: The Trump economy is so good. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: my concern, is that we forget what it's like to
Speaker 1: be in the midst of like a slow Obama recovery
Speaker 1: and be told, sorry, is the best it's going to get.
Speaker 1: Get used to it, you know, move to Sweden if
Speaker 1: you don't like it so much. Okay. Mitt Romney will
Speaker 1: forever be remembered for what he did yesterday. And what
Speaker 1: he did yesterday was just show us all that we
Speaker 1: should maintain a degree of humility in our own politics.
Speaker 1: We should always remember that we have the capacity to
Speaker 1: be wrong. I thought Mit Romney, based on everything that
Speaker 1: I could see and everything that I knew in the
Speaker 1: twenty twelve election. I thought Mitt Romney he seemed like
Speaker 1: a good guy, a good man. He did a great
Speaker 1: job in the first debate against President Obama, absolutely annihilated.
Speaker 1: I mean, if debates mattered and the media wasn't in
Speaker 1: Obama's pocket, that would have moved the needle. But then,
Speaker 1: of course, Candy Crowley physically, you know, stood in front
Speaker 1: of and did everything possible to help Obama in that
Speaker 1: second debate on that critical moment about Benghazi, because he
Speaker 1: and n's an unbiased news organization, and as we know,
Speaker 1: he lost, and he lost badly in twenty twelve. It
Speaker 1: wasn't even close. But I thought Mitt Romney was an
Speaker 1: honorable guy. And so in that I'm reminded that when
Speaker 1: you don't know someone, you don't know them. And a
Speaker 1: lot of us were, if not fooled by him, certainly misled.
Speaker 1: But it's tough when you're evaluating someone from Afar and
Speaker 1: you're also trying to pick them for a job, which
Speaker 1: is all we're doing. We elect politicians, we're not electing heroes.
Speaker 1: We elect people to let us on matters of policy,
Speaker 1: using the mechanisms of government that are in place. We
Speaker 1: do not put people in power and then just say, oh, wise, King,
Speaker 1: tell us what's next. And there's a reason for that,
Speaker 1: because we, as conservatives and as Americans. But let's start
Speaker 1: with conservatives should always be deeply skeptical of politicians, all
Speaker 1: of them. That's why I try to maintain some skepticism
Speaker 1: even of Trump, despite all his incredible successes so far
Speaker 1: in office. What am I going to be saying to
Speaker 1: you if the market absolutely tanks, unemployment triples, Trump starts
Speaker 1: a war, an unnecessary war where they're run, I'm going
Speaker 1: to tell you this is It's bad, it's a disaster,
Speaker 1: and we need to rethink a lot. I don't think
Speaker 1: anything that's going to happen, but I'm just saying we
Speaker 1: have to base our assessments on reality and have to
Speaker 1: maintain a healthy skepticism of all politicians. That's what holding
Speaker 1: them accountable would actually be. Holding accountable isn't saying everything
Speaker 1: someone does is amazing and perfect. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: why I tell you Republicans Trump, there's an nepotism problem here.
Speaker 1: There is. It's one that we're going to have to
Speaker 1: live with for a very long time politically, and it's
Speaker 1: one that I do not like and I cannot support.
Speaker 1: But okay, does that mean that I don't celebrate the
Speaker 1: ninety five policy that I think is correct and that
Speaker 1: I agree with. Of course not. It's great. We have
Speaker 1: to maintain that honesty. You have to maintain that integrity.
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney's integrity is he's very much a comiist. Actually,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, maybe you could say Comey is
Speaker 1: a Romneyist, but I think Romney is a comiust, which
Speaker 1: is that his entire identity is wrapped up in being
Speaker 1: better than on him, more virtuous than more virtuous than
Speaker 1: the others, whatever that means. I'm so deeply virtuous. Ah.
Speaker 1: That's why he went and asked for Trump's endorsement when
Speaker 1: he's running for Senate in Utah. That's why he bent
Speaker 1: the knee and said, make me your secretary of State.
Speaker 1: That's why he created some pathetic Twitter account to snipe
Speaker 1: at people online. It was utterly bizarre. And that's why
Speaker 1: this is a guy who changes what it means to
Speaker 1: have principles every other day depending on what's best for
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney. Just like James Comey, these guys really come
Speaker 1: and Romney should become best friends. They would get along
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. They both exude about the
Speaker 1: same amount of personal warmth and charm, and they both
Speaker 1: have shown their true colors to the country by inserting
Speaker 1: themselves in a national drama in a way that was
Speaker 1: all about them, while pretending that there was about everything
Speaker 1: other than them. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast team. I just want to
Speaker 1: clarify something I mentioned yesterday with the very exciting news
Speaker 1: that we are on wo are the biggest talk station
Speaker 1: in the country starting Monday, that nothing about the show
Speaker 1: you're listening to or watching right now changes at all.
Speaker 1: That is just an additional hour. I'll be doing four
Speaker 1: hours of radio a day starting on Monday. So those
Speaker 1: either listen to the podcast listen on our one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty affiliates across the country that watch us on
Speaker 1: Pluto TV the first channel two forty eight Boom check
Speaker 1: it out if you haven't already. That none of that
Speaker 1: changes during the same show, same time, same everything. I'm
Speaker 1: just for those in the New York area or those
Speaker 1: who have the iHeart app. If you want to listen
Speaker 1: on the iHeart app, you can listen anywhere in the country.
Speaker 1: Anywhere you have internet or sell access. Going to be
Speaker 1: doing a show for an additional hour, a New York
Speaker 1: centric New York Tri State area show for WR six
Speaker 1: or seven pm Mondays. By the way, team, I would
Speaker 1: love as many of you as possible to tune in those.
Speaker 1: Those numbers for listeners with a new show in the
Speaker 1: first few months are critical, so please listen on that
Speaker 1: I heeart app. Please spread the word and feel are
Speaker 1: in New York City listen listen on seven ten am
Speaker 1: war or you can also obviously get it on the
Speaker 1: iHeart app. But nothing changes for this show. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, the iHeart radio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Evil. It was erupt, it was dirty cups,
Speaker 1: it was leakers and liars, and this should never ever
Speaker 1: happen to another president. Ever. I don't know that other
Speaker 1: presidents would have been able to take it. Some people
Speaker 1: said no, they wouldn't have. But I can tell you,
Speaker 1: at a minimum, you have to focus on this because
Speaker 1: it can get away very quickly, no matter who you
Speaker 1: have with you, he can get away very quickly. It
Speaker 1: was a disgrace. Had I not fired James Comey, who
Speaker 1: was a disaster. By the way, it's possible I wouldn't
Speaker 1: even be standing here right now. We caught him in
Speaker 1: the act. Dirty cups, bad people. If this happened to
Speaker 1: President Obama, a lot of people would have been in
Speaker 1: jail for a long time already, many many years calling
Speaker 1: out Trump. Don't be shy, not that he ever is.
Speaker 1: He's absolutely correct here. He absolutely has the right idea.
Speaker 1: Speak truth about the dishonesty of Democrats. Let the American
Speaker 1: people know what you've been through. Let the American people
Speaker 1: know that it's very clear that the Democratic Party has
Speaker 1: been engaged in a series of soft coup attempts to
Speaker 1: undo the twenty sixteen election. And it's getting more and
Speaker 1: more desperate because they realize that unless something big changes,
Speaker 1: they're heading for a whole lot of heartache in the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election. Two. And they can try that the
Speaker 1: old Russia Russia, Russia playbook, But normal, well adjusted adults
Speaker 1: will just be like, maybe Trump won because he won
Speaker 1: because he's better at this than you guys are. President's
Speaker 1: right to be outraged by this impeach for what asking
Speaker 1: a foreign head of state about the Bidens. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is a third rate politician and a fifth rate intellectual,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to care so much about his wayward
Speaker 1: idiot son getting some attention from the President of the
Speaker 1: United States after he got over a million dollars paid
Speaker 1: to him to be on the board of a company
Speaker 1: we all know he never should have been on, I mean,
Speaker 1: the Democrat media school. Why would why would anyone have
Speaker 1: any questions about Hunter Biden, the crackhead who impregnated the stripper,
Speaker 1: then a lot about her, refused to pay per eternity,
Speaker 1: and currently it's just gotten remarried and maybe gonna actually
Speaker 1: face some child supporting now because people saw him driving
Speaker 1: around brown new Porsche. That guy. Why would anyone? Why
Speaker 1: would anyone have any questions? I don't know, Gee, gosh crazy,
Speaker 1: huh Hunter Bidens? This guy's squared aways. You know. Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's like a really sharp guy. He got the job
Speaker 1: because he's so smart. I don't think so. I don't
Speaker 1: think people believe that. The media though, is no one's
Speaker 1: ever found any no one's ever found any wrong doing?
Speaker 1: Oh really? Or do we do adj investigation of that?
Speaker 1: Because there's a whole lot more smoke there than there
Speaker 1: was about Russia Trump collusion, Star Wars, this, star War, this,
Speaker 1: my friends, for which of these investigations have we now
Speaker 1: found there is a greater legitimate basis? The President of
Speaker 1: the United States and his campaign worked with the Russians
Speaker 1: to hack into email and release them as part of
Speaker 1: some international scheme to throw the election to the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: That's Russia Trump collusion. Or the son of the Vice
Speaker 1: president of the United States is getting paid eighty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars plus a month for a no show job to
Speaker 1: be on the board of a company that's so corrupt
Speaker 1: it's ridiculous. And his father was running foreign policy in
Speaker 1: that country at the time for the United States when
Speaker 1: the country Ukraine desperately needed that US help and aid.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, that vice president also had
Speaker 1: a habit of telling them who to fire from the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's office, very hands on which one of those things
Speaker 1: is there more legitimate basis for investigation on? I'm just wondering.
Speaker 1: We all know the answer. Oh my gosh. Trump, look
Speaker 1: what he did. He asked a question about Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: and Joe Biden meddling in the election. Meddling the election.
Speaker 1: You know who meddles an elections. Fairly Democrats. What's up, Iowa.
Speaker 1: We'll get to it. We got some additional news about that,
Speaker 1: but Trump also called out Pelosi for her ridiculous comments.
Speaker 1: This mor I mean, I'm you know, the problem is
Speaker 1: you run out of words after a while talking about
Speaker 1: Democrats insane, unhinged, lunatic, ridiculous. I mean, these are not
Speaker 1: normal thought processes that they are going through. This is
Speaker 1: not what we should expect from normal, well adjusted people.
Speaker 1: But but hold on it. Let's go to what the president.
Speaker 1: He just spoke before before we came on, and here's
Speaker 1: what he had to say about Pelosi's claim that the
Speaker 1: economy right now you're four of Trump's presidency is the
Speaker 1: Obama economy. Please play it. We've done more than any
Speaker 1: administration in the first few years. You look at all
Speaker 1: of the things we've done. I watched this morning as
Speaker 1: they tried to take credit for the stock market from
Speaker 1: think of that. Let me tell you, if we didn't win,
Speaker 1: the stock market would have crashed. And the market was
Speaker 1: going up a lot before the election because it was
Speaker 1: looking like we had a good chance to win, and
Speaker 1: then went up tremendously from the time we won the
Speaker 1: election till the time we took office, which was November
Speaker 1: eighth to January twentieth, and that's our credit. That's all
Speaker 1: our credit. And leading up to that point was our
Speaker 1: credit because there was hope. And one of the reasons
Speaker 1: the stock market's gone up so much in the last
Speaker 1: few days is people think we're doing so well. They
Speaker 1: liked the State of the Union speech. That's right. It
Speaker 1: was a state of the Union speech that gave a
Speaker 1: lot of people confidence and hope. And I mean it
Speaker 1: was still one of them, one of the most incredible
Speaker 1: presidential spectacles, and it was a spectacle, but one of
Speaker 1: the most impressive ones I've ever seen, and I've watched
Speaker 1: a lot of them over the years. I've watched far
Speaker 1: too many of them, really, and very very few of them,
Speaker 1: as I've told you, are even a little bit memorable.
Speaker 1: But the only the only downside of this week really
Speaker 1: so far has been Pierre de Lecto's defection, which I
Speaker 1: think we should count the days until he just becomes
Speaker 1: a Democrat. More and more people who claim to be
Speaker 1: the true conservatives. This is now, but this is the
Speaker 1: end stage of the never Trump disease that the final
Speaker 1: days of never Trump is um are you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's shortness of breath and becoming a Democrat. That's
Speaker 1: what ends up happening when you when you've reached the
Speaker 1: terminus of Trump's arrangement syndrome. It's I'm now actually a
Speaker 1: member of the Democratic Party. I want Democrats to win.
Speaker 1: That's how conservative. That's how much I'm the real Republican.
Speaker 1: Bill Crystal former or what editor in chief of the
Speaker 1: Weekly Standard, right yep, voting for voting for Democrats, wants
Speaker 1: Democrats to win, says he's a Democrat now. Oh that
Speaker 1: that's how much he loves conservatism. Tom Nichols somebody that
Speaker 1: I don't even know how many you've heard of, but
Speaker 1: runs around telling everybody what an expert is expert he is,
Speaker 1: and how much he loves experts. I don't really know
Speaker 1: what he thinks he has expertise in other than talking
Speaker 1: about that. But he is also now a Democrat. You know,
Speaker 1: you have others as well, Republicans who you know, Evan,
Speaker 1: Evan McMuffin. He's also a Democrat now effectively, I mean
Speaker 1: wants Democrats to win. So this is this is why
Speaker 1: the the Pierre de Lecto position on this is so interesting.
Speaker 1: Pierre de Lecto is somebody who is holding himself up
Speaker 1: as a matter of principle. I mean, he's taking the
Speaker 1: position here that he only took this vote, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, is going to have electoral consequences. This is
Speaker 1: not enough vote. It's nothing vote in terms of what
Speaker 1: it does to Trump, but it might it could cost
Speaker 1: Republicans control the Senate. My friends. You know, it's going
Speaker 1: to put pressure on some different races on the Republican side.
Speaker 1: It's gonna relieve pressure on some Democrats. It meant that
Speaker 1: Cinema and Mansion who were wavering could go forward, you know,
Speaker 1: because if he even Romney votes for this, if even
Speaker 1: a Republican does well, then it gives them cover. You know.
Speaker 1: Colin said that she was voting for acquittal. Good for her,
Speaker 1: give her credit. She had to sort of that's the
Speaker 1: waters a little bit, but she did the right thing.
Speaker 1: In the end. It's only Republicans that have people from
Speaker 1: their own team who just who just bail. It's only
Speaker 1: Republicans that we find out eventually are fakes, are frauds,
Speaker 1: are people who cannot who should not have been trusted
Speaker 1: in any respect ever, And That's why when I look
Speaker 1: at what mid Romney did here, and I look at
Speaker 1: the way that he's setting this whole thing up, Let's
Speaker 1: be very clear, he claims to be the one that
Speaker 1: is so honest and good. I mean, Mitt's vote is
Speaker 1: something that was meant to be an inspiration according to Oh,
Speaker 1: we've got some of them talking about this. Could you
Speaker 1: play MSNBC getting all all excited about mid Romney eight
Speaker 1: And this was a moment that people who've known Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney for a long time have always thought he was
Speaker 1: capable of. But we haven't always seen right. Nobody's won
Speaker 1: big money betting on Mitt Romney to take big, bold
Speaker 1: public stands away from his own political self interest. That's
Speaker 1: not been something that he has done throughout the course
Speaker 1: of his career. But as long as I've known him
Speaker 1: and covered him and known his family, it thought has
Speaker 1: been that he's just a good, decent person deep down inside.
Speaker 1: And I had thought from the minute that the senators
Speaker 1: took the oath, and watching the senators take the oath,
Speaker 1: that swearing an oath before God for Mitt Romney is
Speaker 1: like unlocking his superpower. I mean, there's no one in
Speaker 1: that chamber who was going to take that oath more
Speaker 1: seriously and more personally. Oh spare me, Really, that's not
Speaker 1: the only that's not the only sound. We have so
Speaker 1: many we could play. Here's Elizabeth Warren also acent honorable
Speaker 1: beefcake Bit Romney is Tony. I want to get your
Speaker 1: reaction to what Senator Romney had to say today. He's
Speaker 1: the former governor of your state of Massachusetts. What was
Speaker 1: it like listening to that one Republican stand up and
Speaker 1: see this case basically the same way you do. I
Speaker 1: thought I was listening to a decent and honorable man
Speaker 1: who stood up and did the right thing. Oge, What
Speaker 1: a surprise. Democrat politicians like what mid Romney did. The
Speaker 1: media likes woodmid Romney did. He bailed the Democrats out
Speaker 1: from having just a disaster of a week politically. So
Speaker 1: that's the only thing that he really accomplished. And he
Speaker 1: may end up hurting you know, you had. What was it, well,
Speaker 1: Doug Jones, I think he was gonna he was going
Speaker 1: to vote to convict either way. Don't forget how important
Speaker 1: it is to someone like mitt Romney that the elites
Speaker 1: respect him at least a little bit. I mean, they
Speaker 1: never really respect him. The problem with turning on fellow
Speaker 1: Republicans in the desperate hunt for a personal legacy and
Speaker 1: some some just little smidgeon of approval from the media
Speaker 1: and the Democrats is that they use you, they quickly
Speaker 1: discard you, and then when all's said and done, they
Speaker 1: still think you're awful and think you're a turncoat and
Speaker 1: a traitor. MIT's gonna learn this. He's gonna learn this
Speaker 1: the hard way. But right now he thinks he probably
Speaker 1: is going to be invited to fancy university functions and
Speaker 1: he's going to be somebody who's acceptable and polite society.
Speaker 1: But the question that I would need some of these
Speaker 1: people who are not forget about the left. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's it's just purely transactional for them. Mit did them
Speaker 1: a favor. So they're gonna say he's honorable and great,
Speaker 1: and next week they're gonna go back to saying he
Speaker 1: gives old people cancer, he pushes Graham off the cliff,
Speaker 1: he abuses dogs, he was a bully in high school,
Speaker 1: he puts women in binders, whatever the heck that's supposed
Speaker 1: to mean. They're gonna go right back to that, but
Speaker 1: for a couple of days now, because it's useful to them.
Speaker 1: Mit Romney will be the great and honorable man. But
Speaker 1: I would want the MIT defenders, supposedly on the right
Speaker 1: to answer this for me. If MIT cares so much
Speaker 1: about conservatism and the Constitution, American prosperity, protecting the unborn,
Speaker 1: securing our borders, if he cares about those things, why
Speaker 1: is it that when it really counts, he's willing to
Speaker 1: backstab the most effective defender of all those things and
Speaker 1: hand the lunatic Democrats socialists a win in the process.
Speaker 1: Why how could he claim to care about those things
Speaker 1: and do this thing? Er delecto is a very shady character.
Speaker 1: You'll never know how he will turn out on the seeing, eh,
Speaker 1: Monsieur Pierre. It tells you one seeing he does the other.
Speaker 1: He's so honorable, so brave, except he betrays he's on side,
Speaker 1: and then curls, he's whis girls and says malthe MIT
Speaker 1: changes nothing other than really our opinion of MIT, and
Speaker 1: that's never going to change. And I will say this,
Speaker 1: Chris Wallace was right as far as Trump's concerned. It
Speaker 1: is war. That's that's not going to change either. You're
Speaker 1: in the freedom heart. This is the buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: She's playing hardball, like he does. Say, you know, when
Speaker 1: they go low, we go lower. That's what that's the
Speaker 1: only thing, that's the only thing that works with these
Speaker 1: criminals and fascists who are running the country right now. Sorry,
Speaker 1: but that's what works. When they go low, we go lower.
Speaker 1: At least she's correct. You know, when Joy Behar gets
Speaker 1: the answer to the test, right, I'll say so, And
Speaker 1: that is the Democrat approach. There's there's no there is
Speaker 1: no seller, there's no basement, there's no bottom floor of
Speaker 1: how low they were they are willing to go in
Speaker 1: their efforts to destroy this president. And instead they offer
Speaker 1: you the usual, the usual pretense of they're so honorable
Speaker 1: and decent and good and Trump is such a bad
Speaker 1: bad men, you know, the Democrats that they If you're
Speaker 1: somebody that thought that Trump's snub of Pelosi not shaking
Speaker 1: her hand was some egregious violation of governmental norms or
Speaker 1: or presidential duties or whatever, and then you thought that
Speaker 1: Pelosi ripping up the speech was like really cool and yes, queen,
Speaker 1: and the whole thing. You should really think long and
Speaker 1: hard about why you have no principles or why you
Speaker 1: don't understand even what a principle is. Then again, there's
Speaker 1: always Chuck Schumer speaking of no principles, telling us things
Speaker 1: that we know to be untrue, but that Chuck or
Speaker 1: doesn't care how untrue they are. Here he is on
Speaker 1: his colleague Mitch McConnell, who we should all be giving
Speaker 1: a round of applause to, because Mitch, there were a
Speaker 1: lot I knew conservatives. I knew some well known conservatives.
Speaker 1: You know, let's have more witnesses. Like, they didn't learn
Speaker 1: anything from Kavanaugh. They didn't learn anything. They just want
Speaker 1: to extend the clock to try dirty to try more
Speaker 1: dirty tricks. Why allow them to do that? If the
Speaker 1: whole process is tainted, why not just stop it when
Speaker 1: you can stop it? You know, there are there are
Speaker 1: principles in our judicial system. For example, you know, if
Speaker 1: you don't have a warrant and you run into somebody's
Speaker 1: house and you find evidence of a crime at day,
Speaker 1: you know you find the murder weapon. Even though they
Speaker 1: call this the fruit of the poison tree doctrine, even
Speaker 1: though you might be able to prove this guy as
Speaker 1: the murderer, guess what you violated norms and processes to
Speaker 1: get there. Those are important things. You violated someone's rights.
Speaker 1: You can't violate someone's rights and then convict them based
Speaker 1: upon that violation. The entirety of the Democrats impeachment and
Speaker 1: removal scam was effectively a fruit of the poison tree
Speaker 1: operation with the whistleblower. That whole thing, we never got
Speaker 1: to find out anything about that right, never get to
Speaker 1: find out we're Initially Schiff was saying we're gonna hear
Speaker 1: testimony from them, but then they would have asked him
Speaker 1: questions under oath, like so you and Shiff, you guys
Speaker 1: coordinated this right, and we would have found out that Schiff,
Speaker 1: who still claims he doesn't know who the whistleblower is.
Speaker 1: If you have any questions about what a dishonest, lying
Speaker 1: hack Adam Schiff is, he he looks the American people
Speaker 1: in the eyes, says, well, I don't know who the
Speaker 1: whistle blower is. I have no idea right. So many
Speaker 1: of the Democrats arguments are premised upon us all just
Speaker 1: being really stupid. Apparently maybe it's because they don't have
Speaker 1: better arguments to make, but I think there's also a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of condescension that comes to them They must
Speaker 1: really think we are quite stupid. They must really believe that.
Speaker 1: Here's Schumer, by the way, on Dolory, play McConnell and
Speaker 1: Schumer five, no, please play this has and I believe
Speaker 1: the people will realize that this was one of the
Speaker 1: largest cover ups in the history of our nation. I
Speaker 1: believe the American people will know who stood in the
Speaker 1: way of truth, who were afraid of the facts, who
Speaker 1: covered up, And make no mistake about it, the drip
Speaker 1: drip drip of evidence is going to keep coming out
Speaker 1: with each new revelation. Republicans are going to have to
Speaker 1: answer for their votes. They chose to turn their back
Speaker 1: on the American people and stand for a cover up.
Speaker 1: They chose to use ad hominem attacks and finger pointing.
Speaker 1: Leader McConnell couldn't even say bring himself to say what
Speaker 1: the president did was wrong when you asked him a
Speaker 1: few minutes ago. That's astounding. Maybe he believes what Dershowitz
Speaker 1: believes the president can do. This president can do anything
Speaker 1: he wants. No, just acquittal. Just say with me, say
Speaker 1: with me, Schumer, acquittal, it's over. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeart radio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Well,
Speaker 1: let's talk about risk. We absolutely must defeat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It's not about President Trump. This is Vice President Joe
Speaker 1: Biden going after you. Yeah, And I've got to say
Speaker 1: that I think we've begun to demonstrate on Monday, coming
Speaker 1: in first in the Iowa caucuses, my ability to put
Speaker 1: together the coalition that it's going to take to defeat
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, getting urban, rural, and suburban voters together, and
Speaker 1: by the way, reaching out not only to fellow Democrats,
Speaker 1: but independence and even some people leaving the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And as to the achievements of the Obama administration, I
Speaker 1: have enormous regard for those achievements. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: look at what President Obama was able to do with
Speaker 1: two terms, it's extraordinary. And I had his back during
Speaker 1: that period, even as a mayor in Indiana where it
Speaker 1: wasn't always easy to step forward and back up the president.
Speaker 1: But I think the volk of the credit for the
Speaker 1: achievements of the Obama administration belong with President Obama. Buddha
Speaker 1: Judge wants the Biden slot, and he's starting to make
Speaker 1: some gains there, Biden had a disastrous Iowa seventeen percent
Speaker 1: I think was the number. I mean, something really really weak.
Speaker 1: What I've I've been telling you all along, Biden's a
Speaker 1: third rate politician and a fifth rate mind. So not impressive,
Speaker 1: has never been impressive, will never be impressive. Just got
Speaker 1: really was right place, right time with Obama, right place,
Speaker 1: right time. That's all. That's all it really came down to.
Speaker 1: And that then brings me to Well, first, I do
Speaker 1: think that that Buddha Judge has been able to shift.
Speaker 1: He's been able to pivot and go from the smarter,
Speaker 1: the smarter, better rouric with a better resume, to perhaps
Speaker 1: the young he is articulate, he is intelligent, the young, articulate,
Speaker 1: intelligent establishment democrat candidate that they can rally behind. He
Speaker 1: sees a lane. Folks, you know that we talk about
Speaker 1: how things will shift. Buddha Judge now sees his lane
Speaker 1: is saying, Okay, old man, Biden, You're done. This is
Speaker 1: gonna be my lane now. That's what he's hoping for.
Speaker 1: And who knows what will happen in New Hampshire, where
Speaker 1: I think Biden has just taken the day off today.
Speaker 1: Remember Biden also hasn't been dragged into all this you know,
Speaker 1: senate trial nonsense. So he's been able to be in
Speaker 1: He was able to be in Iowa for a long
Speaker 1: time doing a lot of a lot of work, a
Speaker 1: lot of ground and a lot of ground and ground
Speaker 1: game stuff. And that then brings me to the Iowa situation,
Speaker 1: which I just have to laugh now. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is it's it's so ridiculous. Are the Democrats. It's such
Speaker 1: a debacle. And I sit here and I can tell
Speaker 1: you we don't we don't really know who won. I mean,
Speaker 1: we think it's probably Bernie. And Bernie also had a
Speaker 1: twenty five million dollar campaign campaign donation hall for the month,
Speaker 1: for the last month. That's more than his opponents had,
Speaker 1: I believe in the previous quarter. So there is Bernie
Speaker 1: momentum right now. It's a real thing. And that then
Speaker 1: brings us to, well, what the heck happened in Iowa?
Speaker 1: Did Bernie winn? Or did Buddha Judge win? It's one
Speaker 1: of the two. And this has gotten so out of
Speaker 1: control that here's the story from CNN. Democratic National Committee
Speaker 1: chair Tom Perez called for a re canvas of all
Speaker 1: results in Iowa on Thursday, as the state's Democratic Party
Speaker 1: continues to struggle to verify the data from Monday night's caucuses.
Speaker 1: The move is a significant step and raises further questions
Speaker 1: about how long the results of the Key Iowa coxes
Speaker 1: will remain outstanding. In a re canvas, all the numbers
Speaker 1: that were released by the state party would be checked
Speaker 1: against the results that we're recorded at caucus sites. Now,
Speaker 1: some of you probably aren't really paying all that much
Speaker 1: attention to this at this point because we're already focusing
Speaker 1: more on New Hampshire. And I think there's a mark.
Speaker 1: Isn't there like a Democrat debate on Friday? Is it right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're doing debate, debate on Friday. I don't know why.
Speaker 1: That just strikes me. Debate is like homework for all
Speaker 1: of us, right, I mean nobody really, No One's like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's Friday night and the mood is right, let's watch
Speaker 1: the debate TGIF. I used to watch that. Do you
Speaker 1: ever watch You know you're too young that I've known
Speaker 1: what TGIF is. It was on Friday's I forgetting what
Speaker 1: channel was on. But they would have Full House and
Speaker 1: then Family Matters, and then sometimes it was perfect Strangers.
Speaker 1: Then they moved to the show Dinosaurs. That was kind
Speaker 1: of a weird show. Watch that's the thing that they
Speaker 1: kept going. Yeah, which I loved Full House and Family Matter.
Speaker 1: I love Family Matters. Miracle guy I was. It wasn't
Speaker 1: just are just all the whole, but Oracle is a
Speaker 1: memorable one. Yeah, of course, and the show is kind
Speaker 1: of Bill it's around her. Yes, Jalil White was his name.
Speaker 1: I watched the show so many times that actually remember
Speaker 1: some of the names of the various cast members. You
Speaker 1: would do that more the Full House because they actually
Speaker 1: went on to stuff. Well that's that's true. Well you
Speaker 1: know that the dad is the no no, no, no no,
Speaker 1: not the dad and the dad he's from Diehart And
Speaker 1: that was when he first played this role of a
Speaker 1: of a police officer, Reginald Van Johnson something like that.
Speaker 1: You yes, yeah, yeah, he managed it and that was
Speaker 1: a really I thought that was a really good show.
Speaker 1: He made a cameo in Brooklyn nine nine because the
Speaker 1: main character and whoever Andy Sandberg plays is obsessed with Diehard.
Speaker 1: I'm also, I mean, I'm obsessed with Diehard too, so
Speaker 1: I gotta give Andy Samberg credit on that. I also
Speaker 1: think It's funny that the character of that Bronson pin
Speaker 1: shot or pin show, I don't know how you say
Speaker 1: it plays, you know what he plays in the Beverly
Speaker 1: Hills cop movie. He plays Serge who wants to make
Speaker 1: a cappuccino with a lemon fist and then he That
Speaker 1: was really the basis for the character. Belk Belky bartakamis
Speaker 1: in the show Perfect Strangers, which I watch many, many,
Speaker 1: many times. I've never seen that. You've never seen Perfect Strangers?
Speaker 1: Oh man, It's it's like he's a he's kind of
Speaker 1: a country country bumpkin immigrant from Greece and uh, you
Speaker 1: know he does like the dens of Joy and talks
Speaker 1: about milking goats, and he lives in Chicago with like
Speaker 1: his kind of curmudgeonly producer Mark Um. He has his
Speaker 1: own producer, Mark lives with him, so that's their roommates. Yeah,
Speaker 1: must be terrible to live with someone like me. I mean,
Speaker 1: one day, one day we gotta get missus Mark to
Speaker 1: call out of the show and just tell us, you know,
Speaker 1: what's going on in in Mark world? You know, for real,
Speaker 1: like what what the what? Mark? Behind the scenes is
Speaker 1: really like what I'm angry about today? Yeah, something like that,
Speaker 1: the penalty box as it were. But I watched t
Speaker 1: G I have like the show back back to Iowa,
Speaker 1: the debacle that is Iowa. We we don't know what
Speaker 1: the results are going to be. We don't know where
Speaker 1: this is going. All we know at this point is that, Wow,
Speaker 1: this is the best. This is the best the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party can manage under these circumstances. That is that is
Speaker 1: pretty astonishing. Maybe a few lessons from this. Why have
Speaker 1: an app for this? They're already this is not one
Speaker 1: even really seemed to think about this. There already are
Speaker 1: apps out there that can that can log and count
Speaker 1: and do all this, and they're you know, tried and true.
Speaker 1: Why create a new app for the iomacocause you know
Speaker 1: there's they've done some studies. I mean, I think I
Speaker 1: have probably fifty apps on my phone and I use
Speaker 1: like ten of them. Maybe even I'm more than that,
Speaker 1: Maybe it's closer to one hundred now and I use
Speaker 1: like ten of them. Of course, he's the iHeart Radio app.
Speaker 1: Fantastic place. Listen to Bucks Acton Show on wr Monday
Speaker 1: six to seven pm Eastern, as well as the Bucksacton
Speaker 1: Show every day six and nine Eastern national syndication across
Speaker 1: the country. So I guess we actually will technically be
Speaker 1: on a just producer mark are We're gonna be on
Speaker 1: the iHeart app at the same time in two places?
Speaker 1: Is that how that's going to work? Yeah, with two
Speaker 1: different shows, right, with two different shows. Yeah, and the
Speaker 1: podcast is at like four hours earlier than that, so
Speaker 1: just listen to that. Yeah, we had a lot of options.
Speaker 1: We we just we just go where the audience wants
Speaker 1: us to be. That's how we roll here, Buck sex
Speaker 1: and all the time. Bucks at twenty four seven Buck,
Speaker 1: that's the that's the new way to do it. So
Speaker 1: where was I? Oh, yes, there is this reality of
Speaker 1: they don't know what the heck is going on in
Speaker 1: Iowa and where days past this this is it's a
Speaker 1: bad look for the Democrats, especially because they're supposed to
Speaker 1: be the competent administrators, at least in their own minds.
Speaker 1: They're making all these promises about how if they have
Speaker 1: more power once they're in power, if they have even
Speaker 1: more ability to do what they want to do, it'll
Speaker 1: all just go so very very well for the country.
Speaker 1: Because they're basically very stable geniuses themselves, and this shows
Speaker 1: us that they have lots of work to do on
Speaker 1: that front. And it also I think as a reminder
Speaker 1: to many of us that you just don't want the
Speaker 1: government in charge of stuff. It shouldn't be. You know,
Speaker 1: if you want the government in charge of the absolute
Speaker 1: minimum necessary to have a government do the functions that
Speaker 1: are constitutionally prescribed, that's I mean, that's what you want
Speaker 1: in place. You want the absolute bare mimnium. Because government
Speaker 1: is not good at things. And I worked in the government,
Speaker 1: I know something about this. The government is not good
Speaker 1: at most things. So that's what I take from im.
Speaker 1: And then also that Joe Biden dramatically underperformed and everyone
Speaker 1: looks at this now and says, wow, maybe Biden does
Speaker 1: have a glass jaw, so to speak. Maybe Biden is
Speaker 1: not the front runner that so many were saying he was,
Speaker 1: And that the rest of us who just watched politics
Speaker 1: politics all the time are saying, the Democrats have got
Speaker 1: to be kidding, right they they really think that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is going to beat Donald Trump. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom hud. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Miss Hutchinson. I also want to think thank
Speaker 1: you about bringing up the poverty draft and this idea
Speaker 1: of a bootstrap. You know, this idea and this metaphor
Speaker 1: of a bootstrap started off as a joke because it's
Speaker 1: a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap,
Speaker 1: by your shoelaces. It's physically impossible. The whole thing is
Speaker 1: a joke. And yet aoc herself was, as she has described,
Speaker 1: a bartender who went on to become a congresswoman before
Speaker 1: the age of thirty, isn't that and didn't come from
Speaker 1: a lot of money, didn't come from a lot of privilege.
Speaker 1: May have benefited in the college application process, I don't know,
Speaker 1: may have benefited from the emphasis on diversity and applications,
Speaker 1: which is one of those areas of American society where
Speaker 1: we're all supposed to accept that that's the way that
Speaker 1: this is going to be. We're all supposed to say
Speaker 1: that a firmative action is a good and moral thing,
Speaker 1: but we're not allowed to talk about it. And if
Speaker 1: we talk about it, it makes people uncomfortable. It makes
Speaker 1: people uncomfortable. We have to shut up. Oh, okay, it's
Speaker 1: such a good thing that no one's allowed to really
Speaker 1: discuss it. That's good to know, but she resents the
Speaker 1: idea that what she did, which is pretty remarkable. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have somebody who is an ignoramus who is now
Speaker 1: one of the most famous politicians in the country as
Speaker 1: a massive social media following. She resents the idea that
Speaker 1: conservatives are constantly trying to reinforce across the country to
Speaker 1: people of all races, all ethnicities, all background all backgrounds,
Speaker 1: that you two can do this. She doesn't like that
Speaker 1: model because it's much better to create a culture or victimization,
Speaker 1: to perpetuate that mentality and to allow people to blame
Speaker 1: all of their problems on external factors and not present
Speaker 1: them with the empowerment and the responsibility the accountability necessary
Speaker 1: to make better choices in one's own life and then
Speaker 1: benefit from those choices going forward. No. AOC represents an
Speaker 1: ideology that tells you just give more authority, give more
Speaker 1: power to the government, and the government will take care
Speaker 1: of this. The government will take care of your healthcare,
Speaker 1: the government will take care of your schooling, of your
Speaker 1: housing or whatever, of your food. It's like we learned
Speaker 1: nothing from the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's like
Speaker 1: we've learned nothing from Venezuela and these other and when
Speaker 1: they bring up places like Norway and sweet Norway is
Speaker 1: a very small, homogeneous country with massive oil reserves that
Speaker 1: essentially pays for the welfare state. Okay, I mean, so
Speaker 1: is that is our plan to try to replicate that
Speaker 1: because we're very different. We're bigger than that, We're much
Speaker 1: more diverse than that, and we while we are the
Speaker 1: global oil and gas superpower, although the Democrats want to
Speaker 1: put a stop to that, we don't have a small
Speaker 1: population that can just have its schooling and its welfare
Speaker 1: programs paid for just off of fossil fuel revenue. Sweden
Speaker 1: is not really a socialist country. It is a high
Speaker 1: tax Asian country with a very large welfare state, which
Speaker 1: you could argue is a form of socialism. But then
Speaker 1: you also want to ask yourself, do we do we really?
Speaker 1: Do you really want to you want to live in Sweden?
Speaker 1: You think about that for a moment, You know, did
Speaker 1: you really want to elect Bernie Sanders, who I think
Speaker 1: it would be best off as the mayor of Stockholm?
Speaker 1: You really want that to happen? And by the way,
Speaker 1: what he's proposing in many ways is more radical than
Speaker 1: what you have in some of those countries, the programs
Speaker 1: that he's advocating for. You know, there's this story that
Speaker 1: didn't get nearly enough attention, and it was written by
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. Actually, because I think the Post is
Speaker 1: not a Bernie. I don't think the Post is pro Sanders.
Speaker 1: The Post is an establishment Oregan and they're more on
Speaker 1: the Biden Warren camp I did, but do we see
Speaker 1: who they? Who they? You know, endorsed. They haven't endorsed
Speaker 1: anyone yet, right, I don't believe anyone but the Times
Speaker 1: has yet. Yeah, the Times hasn't. The Des Moines Register, right, well,
Speaker 1: I mean the National No, no, there needs The New
Speaker 1: York Times endorsed Warren and closed the New yor right,
Speaker 1: the New York Times. Yeah, but the Washington Post hasn't.
Speaker 1: I don't think that no one cares about their endorsements anyway.
Speaker 1: It's all crap. But there was a story about how
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is planning all of these executive orders when
Speaker 1: he becomes president, including declaring a climate emergency and just
Speaker 1: usurping the legislative process and banning the export of crude oil,
Speaker 1: banning it. That's how dumb, that's how crazy these libs
Speaker 1: really are now they look at things that have been
Speaker 1: incredibly beneficial for this country. They look at things that
Speaker 1: have been working remarkably well, that have resulted in explosions
Speaker 1: of wealth and prosperity, and they say, let's stop that
Speaker 1: thing because of a fairy tale we keep telling each
Speaker 1: other one that is ultimately rooted in the need for
Speaker 1: a greater government control. Well, that is ultimately a function
Speaker 1: of the Democrats desire for more control over every aspect
Speaker 1: of your life. Green New Deal, they call it. That's
Speaker 1: that's quite a quite a euphemism. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: terrible idea, as we all know, and yet here we
Speaker 1: are still having to deal with people think it's a
Speaker 1: good idea. By the way, AOC also spoke about Russia.
Speaker 1: Limball is a very touching moment where he got the
Speaker 1: Medal of Freedom. Here is what the leader of the
Speaker 1: Democrat progressive side of the Aisle had to say, Play ten.
Speaker 1: The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an extraordinarily sacred award.
Speaker 1: We're talking about putting someone on the same level as
Speaker 1: Rosa Parks, you know, for example, in terms of their
Speaker 1: contributions to American progress. Russia. Limball is a violent racist,
Speaker 1: but even just on top of that, to do it
Speaker 1: in the middle of a State of the Union and
Speaker 1: not even dignify it with its own ceremony as it has.
Speaker 1: There's all sorts of norms that are being violated, not
Speaker 1: just for people's humanity, but also it truly just cheapens
Speaker 1: the value of it. Also, him pretending to be surprised
Speaker 1: was such a joke. This has been news all day.
Speaker 1: There have been multiple reports for multiple multiple news outlets
Speaker 1: saying that Rush Limbaugh was going to receive the Medal
Speaker 1: of Freedom and then Trump announced it and he had to, like,
Speaker 1: you know, pretend that this was some kind of Oprah
Speaker 1: momentum was so disingenuous. She's a moron, and Rush didn't
Speaker 1: know about this. And I know for a fact that
Speaker 1: Rush did not know about this. I've been told by
Speaker 1: people who would know. Sleeves bang, and yes, you're referring
Speaker 1: to AOC. Yeah, any more credit the vet. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: she also when she's talking about who's received the Medal
Speaker 1: of Freedom, she's leaving off, Oh, I don't know, such
Speaker 1: amazing luminaries like Tom Brokaw received the Medal of Freedom.
Speaker 1: Give me a break. Okay, that's you know, when we're
Speaker 1: talking about random lib journalists are getting this thing. I
Speaker 1: don't think we really need to hear about how oh
Speaker 1: it's it's mother Teresa. Okay, Yeah, a lot of people
Speaker 1: get the Medal of Freedom. Rush Lumba absolutely deserve the
Speaker 1: Medal of Freedom, and AOC is an imbecile. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. What's the ugliest major building you've ever seen?
Speaker 1: I don't you really think about this for a second.
Speaker 1: What is the building that you can think of that
Speaker 1: is the thing that looks like it's straight out of
Speaker 1: the coldest, darkest days of the Soviet Union. Because there's
Speaker 1: plenty of them around us in this country too, and
Speaker 1: there's a reason for that. If you think about the
Speaker 1: ugliest buildings you've ever seen, you may think of, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, the Department of Health and Human Services
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. If you've ever been there, or
Speaker 1: the FBI building in DC, the Hoover Building. I worked
Speaker 1: for a while at the NYPD Intelligence Division, and you'd
Speaker 1: go to a place here called one PP one Police Plaza.
Speaker 1: The main headquarters of the NYPD, and I used to
Speaker 1: joke that every time I went in there, I was
Speaker 1: worried that they were going to take me into a
Speaker 1: basement and start putting electrodes on me because it looked
Speaker 1: like the headquarters of the KGB. The KGB wait, it's fun,
Speaker 1: No one. If you ever seen knock knock, who's there
Speaker 1: the KGB and then slaps them the face, the KGB
Speaker 1: waits fun, No one, that's from the office. I always
Speaker 1: liked that one. But I've got the KGB in my
Speaker 1: mind because I think The Americans is such a good show.
Speaker 1: Why am I telling you about ugg buildings? Because President
Speaker 1: Trump wants to do something about it. There's a draft
Speaker 1: executive order. I think this is pretty interesting, folks, I
Speaker 1: really do. There's a draft executive order that would start
Speaker 1: to push the federal government in any new construction and
Speaker 1: new buildings away from modern designs that there would be
Speaker 1: essentially a more uniform esthetic code architecturally speaking, for the
Speaker 1: federal government, or effectively, you would have a neo classical
Speaker 1: uniformity to federal government buildings, things like the White House,
Speaker 1: the Congress right, the Capitol Building. I mean, that's everything
Speaker 1: should look a little bit more like that and a
Speaker 1: little bit less like the Hoover Building, which if you've
Speaker 1: ever been in it, and I have, if you've ever
Speaker 1: gone to some of these places, you know the DJ
Speaker 1: for example, still has some neo classical the facade, I mean,
Speaker 1: there are some of The Treasury Building is beautiful right
Speaker 1: next to the White House. But this all comes from
Speaker 1: a movement in architecture that we know as brutalism, and
Speaker 1: it stretches back to we mentioned Sweden before. It stretches
Speaker 1: back to Sweden. I believe it was called knee brutalism,
Speaker 1: and it was a reference to a really ugly cinder
Speaker 1: block looking cement house that an architect in Sweden referred
Speaker 1: to as as knee brutalism. And then brutalism just became
Speaker 1: the way we described it. And this became an architectural
Speaker 1: fad among or style among architects starting around the fifties
Speaker 1: into the sixties. The Brits picked it up. And now
Speaker 1: you might say, well, where did they find this from? Well,
Speaker 1: it really also was always influenced by the most functional, cold, lumpy,
Speaker 1: austere buildings of the Soviet Block. The Soviet Union didn't
Speaker 1: build big ugly cinder boxes, cinder block boxes, rather because
Speaker 1: they thought it looked so cool. They built them because
Speaker 1: they were easy, they were functional, and they didn't have
Speaker 1: a sense of style, panash, a sense of elevation through
Speaker 1: consc instruction. It was all just we will make you'll
Speaker 1: douce building because it will keep the rain off your
Speaker 1: head and keep you from freezing maybe in winter. That
Speaker 1: was it. I remember when I went to Prague for
Speaker 1: the first time. I think it's about thirteen years old,
Speaker 1: and on the way into the city, you know, pretty
Speaker 1: old city in Prague, that the Charles Bridge. It's just
Speaker 1: it's beautiful. I mean the Prague looks a lot of
Speaker 1: parts of Prague in the old city looks like something
Speaker 1: you'd see in a Disney movie or in a story book.
Speaker 1: But when you're going in there's these housing developments that
Speaker 1: that you can basically hear the Soviet national anthem playing
Speaker 1: in the background as you drive past them. You go, oh,
Speaker 1: look at that, just gray depressing concrete boxes. And this
Speaker 1: became an architectural style and it's a it's a shame
Speaker 1: they have marred America with this arcus. I mean, the
Speaker 1: worst architecture in the history of construction is brutalism. You know,
Speaker 1: you drive around even the New York area ran right now,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that's truehere. You are too, you probably you know,
Speaker 1: if you have a high school, for example, a big
Speaker 1: high school that was built in the seventies, it looks
Speaker 1: like someone took a concrete box and drilled a couple
Speaker 1: of holes in the windows and said, here's your high school. Enjoy.
Speaker 1: This is true of a lot of of you know,
Speaker 1: city sort of city council buildings, and you know, the
Speaker 1: opposite end of the spectrum, it would be something like
Speaker 1: the New York State Assembly House, which I believe, at
Speaker 1: the time it was built was the most expensive building
Speaker 1: to have ever been built in the United States, which
Speaker 1: which is garish but but pretty amazing too. Then that's
Speaker 1: the opposite in the SECD room, where you maybe spend
Speaker 1: a little too much money on things looking beautiful. But
Speaker 1: Trump is trying to take some action on this, and
Speaker 1: it's just so funny to watch people flip out and say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be you know, everything's gonna be Trump Tower.
Speaker 1: He's not. He's not. You're not gonna be. The White
Speaker 1: House is not going to be a gleaming glass tower
Speaker 1: with lots of gold, and that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: What this is trying to do is to re establish
Speaker 1: an esthetic for the federal government to build buildings that
Speaker 1: aren't so depressing. I know, you might say a punk
Speaker 1: who cares whatever, But you know, do you think the
Speaker 1: White House should look like a concrete bunker? Do you
Speaker 1: think it's an it's good that the White House looks
Speaker 1: like the White House? You know what? Do you think
Speaker 1: the Capitol building should look like a bomb shelter? Or
Speaker 1: you know, is there's something, is there's some magic, and
Speaker 1: then just take that across state governments and local governments,
Speaker 1: and all these government buildings made really in the sixties
Speaker 1: and the seventies are the worst. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: about and even at my college. I think I might
Speaker 1: have told some of you the story before on air.
Speaker 1: But in this art appreciation class that I took, which
Speaker 1: is a pretty decent class, it was really kind of
Speaker 1: a history of Western civilization slash art appreciation. It was
Speaker 1: all right, But to start it out, the guy says
Speaker 1: that the professor I don't remember his name now, but
Speaker 1: he says, you know, why does any of this stuff matter?
Speaker 1: And he's like, well, if you don't have aesthetics, if
Speaker 1: you don't understand what is aspirational, what is beautiful? What
Speaker 1: you know, why why people care about about art and
Speaker 1: about and about architecture and about music and about take
Speaker 1: a look at this. And he showed us the current
Speaker 1: library that we had there, which was it's brutalist modern architecture.
Speaker 1: It's like you took two concrete boxes and put another
Speaker 1: concrete box on top of it, and then she sat
Speaker 1: some slit windows put in. I mean, the thing is,
Speaker 1: it's ugly, it's depressing. You don't want to go inside.
Speaker 1: It feels like you're walking into a science experiment where
Speaker 1: they're going to put electrodes on you. It really does.
Speaker 1: And he showed us what before they came before some
Speaker 1: you know, new board of directors came along and said, well,
Speaker 1: brutalism and modernism is really what we need on this campus.
Speaker 1: So let's they tore down a stone, goth thick structure
Speaker 1: that was it was called Walker Hall. It was absolutely
Speaker 1: it was beautiful, and he showed us all these photos
Speaker 1: of it. Tore the whole thing down. And you know,
Speaker 1: you looked at one build, you looked at the original building,
Speaker 1: you would have thought to yourself, this is a place.
Speaker 1: It looked like something kind of an ad of Harry Potter.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a place where you'd go to
Speaker 1: learn wizardry, or this is a place where if you're
Speaker 1: gonna study chemistry, at least you're not gonna walk inside
Speaker 1: depressed every day. Now, I don't want to overstate how important,
Speaker 1: you know, buildings are and all the rest of it,
Speaker 1: but there is there is something here. And I think
Speaker 1: it's interestant that Trump, who's accused of being such a
Speaker 1: such a barbarian, and always he's so uncultured, and I
Speaker 1: mean he does order his stakes. Well done, folks. I
Speaker 1: don't one day I'm gonna talk to him about this,
Speaker 1: be like sir, what's with? I mean, okay, well done,
Speaker 1: but with ketchup. Then again, I am an aol I'm
Speaker 1: an aoli eater, which is just a fancy way of
Speaker 1: saying I like mayonnaise with oil in it, which is
Speaker 1: all really ali is. But Trump wants this executive order
Speaker 1: to go through. He wants to do this. You know,
Speaker 1: I think that some of the I'll just tell you,
Speaker 1: I think that some of the newer museums, I mean,
Speaker 1: for example, the East wing of the National Gallery of
Speaker 1: Art is an abomination. It's it's terrible, it's depressing, it's ugly,
Speaker 1: it's bad. I remember, you know, they they have read,
Speaker 1: they've redone all a lot of these buildings in recent years,
Speaker 1: and they make the interiors nice and they don't want
Speaker 1: to touch the exterior of them. But they really should
Speaker 1: go back to classical architecture and federal buildings. I think
Speaker 1: Trump's right on this one. I know it's not that
Speaker 1: big of a thing, but you know, modern architecture. I
Speaker 1: don't know what was wrong with people in the sixties
Speaker 1: and the seventies in this country and in Europe, but
Speaker 1: they built the ugliest structures in the world. We should
Speaker 1: they should all be you know, AOC says for the
Speaker 1: Green New deal we got, we gotta rebuild every building
Speaker 1: in the country. That's crazy. We obviously can't do that,
Speaker 1: but every brutalist building that we can tear down to
Speaker 1: the studs and over again, we should, and we should
Speaker 1: go back to an esthetic that is actually aspirational and
Speaker 1: elevating and worthwhile. Um I think the building we are
Speaker 1: in right now, Producer Mark, could be considered brutalist. It
Speaker 1: is what it is, a big concrete box. What it's
Speaker 1: actually known. The building we're in is known as one
Speaker 1: of the best architectural designs ever. What the old it's
Speaker 1: the old AT and T Building. That's where we are.
Speaker 1: Have you seen all the uh the stuff in the lobby?
Speaker 1: How beautiful lobby is the lobbies nice? Yeah? The outside
Speaker 1: of the building is a big red maybe not the outside.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm talking about architecture, not inferiors. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: it's a very famous building we're in right now. But
Speaker 1: I know it's famous, but I don't I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, and now you've told everybody where we do
Speaker 1: the show, by the way, so hopefully the crazy yeah,
Speaker 1: because they couldn't just google that. The crazies aren't going
Speaker 1: to be waiting for us in the lobby. You know.
Speaker 1: Now I'm gonna have to use the back entrance all
Speaker 1: the time. There is no dude. This building is a
Speaker 1: giant red brick box. That's what this building is. There's
Speaker 1: you want you want a beautiful building, you got to
Speaker 1: go back to the nineteen twenties. You go to the
Speaker 1: Chrysler building. You go, you know, that's that's where you
Speaker 1: actually have architectural aesthetic that's worthwhile. This thing is, this
Speaker 1: thing is just functional. The lobby is beautiful. The lot okay,
Speaker 1: the lot, but that's the part that's architecture that you're
Speaker 1: talking about interiors. I'm talking about the exterior. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the exterior. It's a different as a whole, the
Speaker 1: whole thing. That's what I mean. They'll redo the end anyway, Bruser.
Speaker 1: Mark and I have different aesthetics, obviously, but this building
Speaker 1: I do not think is particularly beautiful. I think the
Speaker 1: Chrysler Building art deco, neo classical. That's what we should
Speaker 1: all go to. And now let's talk about some things
Speaker 1: that matter all the rest of you. You're in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. All right,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark is actually technically correct as I look at
Speaker 1: the facade of the AT and T building that we're
Speaker 1: currently and it would classify as art deco, which I
Speaker 1: do like. But I still think it's a big, ugly
Speaker 1: red box. Wow. That's right. It's almost a minute. All right,
Speaker 1: you won this one. Yeah, where's Clemson? Where's Clemson. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying he's tastes. He is technically correct about the
Speaker 1: ugly red box that we are in it is a
Speaker 1: landmark Art Deco skyscraper from the nineteen thirties. Fine, whatever,
Speaker 1: I just you know what it is. Because we're here
Speaker 1: in the hut, I can't appreciate all the exterior beauty
Speaker 1: hut outside. So we can look at the building there
Speaker 1: we go. We should have an outdoor freedom hut to
Speaker 1: then we can check it out. There is plenty of
Speaker 1: brutalism down here, though. The ATNT building at thirty three
Speaker 1: Thomas Street, for example, is an example of brutalis So
Speaker 1: there are brutalist skyscrapers dotting Lower Manhattan. This happens to
Speaker 1: not be one of them. Blah blah. Producer Mark was
Speaker 1: technically correct. All right, Let's move on to something that's
Speaker 1: more important than Producer Mark being right. For example, let's see,
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk to you about some of the
Speaker 1: things that Trump is doing. Oh, we didn't really get
Speaker 1: into the prayer breakfast this morning. We didn't really have
Speaker 1: much of a discussion about that. Here is what the
Speaker 1: president says, play clip sixteen. Please about this. A lot
Speaker 1: of people out there that aren't liking what we're doing,
Speaker 1: and we're pursuing medical breakthroughs to save premature babies. Because
Speaker 1: every child is a sacred gift from God. Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: get enough credit for this, but he is the most
Speaker 1: outspoken president who has taken the most action on issues
Speaker 1: of life of any president that I can think of.
Speaker 1: He's somebody who when he came into office, I remember
Speaker 1: we were being told by many, many conservatives, now some
Speaker 1: of whom have become Democrats because they hate Trump so much,
Speaker 1: but we were being told that this was all affront,
Speaker 1: it was a hoax, that Trump was not going to
Speaker 1: follow through on these issues and he was not going
Speaker 1: to be a pro life president. Turns out those who
Speaker 1: were willing to believe, those who are willing to go
Speaker 1: along with it, were correct that he would be a
Speaker 1: pro life president. In fact, you'd be a very effective
Speaker 1: one and a reliable one. I think that that's important
Speaker 1: all also someone who is trying to do more for
Speaker 1: medical research and prescription drugs. I mean, he talked about
Speaker 1: breakthroughs to say premature babies, and this is an area
Speaker 1: where you see there's a lot of politics that influences
Speaker 1: some of these decisions. Because if you can save as
Speaker 1: the President highlighted during the State of the Union address,
Speaker 1: if you can save a I think it was a
Speaker 1: one pound I think the girl that they that they
Speaker 1: were cheering for had been I think a one pound
Speaker 1: premature baby and born at about twenty weeks and she
Speaker 1: lived there. Now she's a healthy, functioning young girl. Everything's fine. Well,
Speaker 1: if you are able to leave the mother's womb at
Speaker 1: twenty weeks, what does science say about whether or not
Speaker 1: that's a human being. It is clearly a human being,
Speaker 1: and in fact it's a human being who's viable, and
Speaker 1: viability keeps getting pushed further and further back. And this
Speaker 1: is a threat, very much a threat to the abortion lobby,
Speaker 1: which will never will never change any of its positions
Speaker 1: based on science, are based on breakthroughs. They just they
Speaker 1: have a view of this and it's a view that
Speaker 1: they will never they'll never switch from, they will never change.
Speaker 1: And then also Trump did take a bit of a
Speaker 1: swipe I think at Edmund Romney, at at Pierre de Lecto,
Speaker 1: at the Breakfast Play fifteen. I don't like people who
Speaker 1: use their faith as justification for doing what they know
Speaker 1: is wrong. Nor do I like people who say I
Speaker 1: pray for you when they know that that's not so.
Speaker 1: That was a double swipe. Actually you see the one
Speaker 1: was against mid Romney for being Oh my faith is
Speaker 1: pushing me to know he's mid Romney voted against Trump
Speaker 1: and not to go back into this conversation, but mid
Speaker 1: Romney voted against Trump because he hates Trump. It's not
Speaker 1: because God told him too, it's not because the Constitution
Speaker 1: demanded it of him. It's because he doesn't like Trump
Speaker 1: and this was the best chance he ever got to
Speaker 1: just stick a thumb in Trump's eye. But also that
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi says that she prays for Trump. First of all,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I can't be I'm not
Speaker 1: in Nancy Pelosi's mind. Well that would be interesting or
Speaker 1: her heart. Does she strike me as the kind of
Speaker 1: person who prays. Look, there are some some far left
Speaker 1: Libs who are concert including far left Libs who are
Speaker 1: who say they're Catholics, who are constantly advocating against church
Speaker 1: doctrine and policy, who I guess think that they are
Speaker 1: quite religious, even I mean actively. It's one thing to say, oh,
Speaker 1: I support the poor and you know these things that
Speaker 1: are really just virtue signaling dressed up is as religious
Speaker 1: faith for Libs. But there are other areas. I mean
Speaker 1: abortion is the most notable one. There are others actually
Speaker 1: being in favor of same sex marriage, for example, is
Speaker 1: against Catholic church teachings, not against all church teachings. And
Speaker 1: but you know, maybe Pelosi praised, maybe she doesn't. I
Speaker 1: can tell you this, she doesn't play. She doesn't pray
Speaker 1: for Trump. That I do not buy at all. I
Speaker 1: do not think that that's something that anybody believes in
Speaker 1: this whole process. So, you know, Trump this week has
Speaker 1: had a really strong one. I'm glad to see that
Speaker 1: he's pushing back, punching back, fighting back, and the results
Speaker 1: really do speak for themselves. But we're still going to
Speaker 1: need to hear it a lot. We're gonna need to
Speaker 1: hear it because the media doesn't want to talk about it,
Speaker 1: and we're going to need to hear it because this
Speaker 1: president has been able to keep faith with his base
Speaker 1: in a way that makes him very likely to get reelected,
Speaker 1: very likely to have people turn out for him, and
Speaker 1: even in some ways that are surprising. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: pushing for research for to say, premature babies. He's pushing
Speaker 1: for prescription drug prices to go down. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: taking action in areas that are really effective in helping people,
Speaker 1: and they're not necessarily things that when he was initially
Speaker 1: running for office you heard a lot about. He also claims,
Speaker 1: of course the wall is going to go up in
Speaker 1: that there'll be hundreds of miles of wall built. We
Speaker 1: got to see on that one. I think he's trying.
Speaker 1: I think he could have tried earlier and harder. But
Speaker 1: he's certainly telling us that by election day there'll be
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of wallop and that's gonna
Speaker 1: be that's gonna be very, very helpful for his prospects.
Speaker 1: So and I can tell you this, if Trump wins,
Speaker 1: he's gonna have to be praying for Nancy Pelosi and
Speaker 1: all the Democrats because they are they are going to
Speaker 1: be in absolute freak out mode. They're gonna think the
Speaker 1: world is ending. Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeart
Speaker 1: Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, team Buck,
Speaker 1: it's time for Roll of Fall Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton or Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. That
Speaker 1: is how you can become a part of all the
Speaker 1: action that is the roll call, which is how we
Speaker 1: get this show krack alacin at the end, And just
Speaker 1: as a reminder again those are you in the New
Speaker 1: York area or who have the iHeart app if you
Speaker 1: want to check out the New York centric show we
Speaker 1: will be doing. It's not just New York, but it'll
Speaker 1: be a little bit more of a New York flavor
Speaker 1: on wr six to seven Eastern starting this Monday. Please
Speaker 1: do but remember it changes the show you're listening to,
Speaker 1: does not change everything that you are doing right now listening, watching,
Speaker 1: that's exactly the same. We're not changing any of that.
Speaker 1: Still be three hours, still be on one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty affiliates across the country, and he still listen to
Speaker 1: us in Baltimore, in Ford, Wayne, in Austin, and in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. You know, I mean everywhere. You'll still be
Speaker 1: able to hear the show everywhere you're used to listen
Speaker 1: to it. So I don't think that's because I saw
Speaker 1: some people when I post the announced me this today,
Speaker 1: We're like, what do you mean, what happened to the
Speaker 1: other hours of the show. No, no no, no, no. The
Speaker 1: New Hour is an additional hour the wr WR, which
Speaker 1: is the station here in New York. That's an additional hour,
Speaker 1: so you can listen to that as as you like.
Speaker 1: If you're in the New York area, though, it is
Speaker 1: really important if your team Buck and you're in the
Speaker 1: Tri state area and you can get seven to ten
Speaker 1: WORE on your radio, please do tune in that way
Speaker 1: because that's going to be very very important to us
Speaker 1: going forward, and I think you'll like it. I'll be
Speaker 1: talking about like, Hey, the subway, I'm in New York. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm eating the pizza, but it's gluten free. But you know,
Speaker 1: really like it'll be a little more of a the
Speaker 1: producer Mark's local knowledge will also come in handy. He'll
Speaker 1: be able to tell us about all the greatest things
Speaker 1: about Long Island versus New Jersey or as I like
Speaker 1: to call it, Jersey. I'm sorry to disappointment, producer Mark
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with that show, that's true. But
Speaker 1: you can send me emails and tell me about these things.
Speaker 1: You're gonna be my You're gonna be my eyes and
Speaker 1: ears for those. But I don't know anything about Jersey.
Speaker 1: I don't live there yet. Yeah, but you will. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know You're you're providing all kinds of information and content.
Speaker 1: Apparently you study architecture and your spare time. I don't
Speaker 1: even know that's what I do. I don't even know.
Speaker 1: You know, oh, this building got yet, the building has
Speaker 1: got awards for design whatever. I know things about the
Speaker 1: building I work, you know, Yeah, yeah, it technically you see,
Speaker 1: it was technically correct. All right, let's get to Paul. Oh. No,
Speaker 1: did we get to Kyle? No, we did not. Here
Speaker 1: we go, Kyle buck. The Democrat attitude during the State
Speaker 1: of the Union tells you everything you need to know.
Speaker 1: They'd rather see this country tank than see it succeed
Speaker 1: under Trump's leadership. I don't know how they can't be
Speaker 1: happy for this country and all the success we've had,
Speaker 1: but I guess it'd be hard for them to get
Speaker 1: the votes if their base wasn't always enraged about something.
Speaker 1: Democrats pushed doom and gloom to gain power with empty
Speaker 1: promises and failed policies, and we actually are doing great
Speaker 1: as a country using the opposite formula. They do whatever
Speaker 1: they can to destroy those just stand against them. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm reading through this one a little fast. That has
Speaker 1: a terror has to be a terrible way to live.
Speaker 1: They all seem miserable. Kyle. Yes, I think you are correct.
Speaker 1: Democrats are opposing things that are objectively good and are
Speaker 1: upset about things that should make them happy, and that
Speaker 1: is an issue, that is a problem, Paul Buck Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi stated that you can't be acquitted without a trial,
Speaker 1: and that to be a trial there has to be
Speaker 1: witnesses and evidence in that trial. Using her logic, if
Speaker 1: President Trump were to be convicted by the Senate, there
Speaker 1: could be no conviction since there were no additional evidence
Speaker 1: or witnesses. I haven't earned any people discussing this since
Speaker 1: we all anticipate the present will be acquitted today. Your thoughts, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, Paul, they keep changing what constitutes a trial,
Speaker 1: what constitutes a fair hearing, what constitutes due process? So yes,
Speaker 1: I mean this is the issue along is how can
Speaker 1: you have voted for how can you have voted for
Speaker 1: impeachment on the basis of the evidence and witnesses presented
Speaker 1: and then say the Senate can't rely on that same
Speaker 1: body of information to come to its conclusion. How can
Speaker 1: That's not rational, that's not reasonable, that's not a good
Speaker 1: faith disagreement, that's dishonest. So I'm with you, Catherine rights
Speaker 1: Hi Buck Hi, Catherine to keep food super fresh in
Speaker 1: the freezer. Invest in a food saver. It vacuums all
Speaker 1: the air out of the freezer bag provided with the
Speaker 1: product to keep your meat as fresh as the day
Speaker 1: it was purchased. Stores food in the freezer for as
Speaker 1: long as six months. Huh. That sounds kind of cool, actually, yeah,
Speaker 1: because it's just me. The problem with buying a lot
Speaker 1: of fresh produce when you're a single guy is that
Speaker 1: you can't buy for one really, I mean, you're always
Speaker 1: you know, if I buy blueberries, it's like enough blueberries
Speaker 1: for five people. When you go to the store and
Speaker 1: you get a box or whatever, I mean, it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, I'm might sit there in the whole.
Speaker 1: It's not that big of a box of blueberries. It's
Speaker 1: more you don't need that many blueberries. The one sitting
Speaker 1: I mean, he'd like you portion it into four or
Speaker 1: five days. Yeah, But also, do you eat blueberries every
Speaker 1: day for five days? I mean, sure, blueberry? Are you too?
Speaker 1: Is this? I don't even like blueberries. What I'm saying
Speaker 1: you could. What is your favorite fruit, either grapes or apple?
Speaker 1: What kind of apple? I'm not really picky. See, I'm
Speaker 1: a Granny Smith. Guy. I like that sour tartness. I
Speaker 1: love going apple picking out on Long Island. That's fun.
Speaker 1: Where's the best place to do that. I think it's
Speaker 1: a carbis orchard is like nor Shore. Yeah, there's some
Speaker 1: nice stuff out there. Yeah, I'm for me. It's always
Speaker 1: a peach when it is proper ripeness is I think
Speaker 1: the greatest fruit. But if you're talking about just day
Speaker 1: to day, uh, I go, I go grapes or banana
Speaker 1: like ba I go grapes or bananas. Yeah, those are
Speaker 1: those are my favorites. Um oh, we went through cats.
Speaker 1: Let's see we got t J. Right. As an Iowan,
Speaker 1: I'm slightly embarrassed from my Democrat counterparts on behalf of
Speaker 1: all islands. I'd just like to say, we're sorry, but
Speaker 1: please don't take the first in the nation primary caucustatus
Speaker 1: away from us. I promise first of all, that Republicans
Speaker 1: will not batch it in twenty twenty four, nor did
Speaker 1: they batch it last night. Furthermore, it's crazy to think
Speaker 1: that party, that party can't even plan one state election,
Speaker 1: thinks that they can plan the lives of every American citizen.
Speaker 1: Wale TJ. WHI you've opened up for me here. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you for speaking speaking out about
Speaker 1: this from the great state of Iowa. Does anyone ever
Speaker 1: get on TV or anyone any politician ever say, you know,
Speaker 1: from the like not so bad state of or from
Speaker 1: the you know, sort of great state. I guess we
Speaker 1: have to pretend that all states are great. Look, some
Speaker 1: states are better than others. We're conservatives. We live in
Speaker 1: the real world. Now we can argue about what the
Speaker 1: realities of what states are better than others. But there
Speaker 1: are some states that, you know, they're just okay. I
Speaker 1: feel like, guess somebody who hosts say show that airs
Speaker 1: probably in every almost every state. No, I know, I'm
Speaker 1: not telling you which ones I like and don't line. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm from New York, so I can make
Speaker 1: fun of New Jersey. Meanwhile, like half of my friends
Speaker 1: are from New Jersey, so I can't really you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm moving there and I still hate it,
Speaker 1: you know, but like you don't hate it because you're
Speaker 1: moving there, so you don't hate it. That's home. It's
Speaker 1: only home because it's so close to him and happen. See,
Speaker 1: you're just it's the same thing if you're from Texas
Speaker 1: you have a you have a special dispensation to make
Speaker 1: as many jokes about Oklahoma as you want. Everyone knows
Speaker 1: it's not that you actually hate Oklahoma. I remember a
Speaker 1: Texans once told me they're building the wall on the
Speaker 1: wrong border because they want to build it at the
Speaker 1: northern anyway. But you know, if you're in New Yorker,
Speaker 1: you're allowed to make fun of New Jersey, if your
Speaker 1: Jersey allowed to make fun of you. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: think what the other great state. There was a stark
Speaker 1: going around somewhere. I don't know if it was an
Speaker 1: actual pole or something, but it had each state who
Speaker 1: they hate the most. Oh really, yes, that would be amazing.
Speaker 1: New Jersey hated everyone, Well, that is Jersey. But we
Speaker 1: gotta find we gotta find that, because I'm really curious
Speaker 1: to see what the There must be some state rivalries
Speaker 1: and I'm not even particularly probably, you know, not even really,
Speaker 1: you know, like Nevada and Arizona, or like the Sharks
Speaker 1: and Jets, and they've just got lots of beef, you know,
Speaker 1: on whichever side you pick. I don't know, I've never
Speaker 1: seen West Side Story. I might actually go the Spring
Speaker 1: Looks that opened here in New York City did it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Rubay Show. I've never seen the show. I've never
Speaker 1: seen Greece or West Side Story, Like the movies are either. Wow,
Speaker 1: I've never seen either of them, so I might might
Speaker 1: have checked that out. But and I'm sure like right
Speaker 1: now New Hampshire is like, what's up for month? Bring it?
Speaker 1: Who's got beef with Iowa? That's what I would want
Speaker 1: to know. There's got to be some state. I think No, Missouri.
Speaker 1: Missouri is probably like, what's up Iowa? Nice caucus he got,
Speaker 1: there'd be a shame if something happens to it. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Andrew, Hey Buck, you mentioned the debt a
Speaker 1: few days ago, and I'm sure you know most Americans
Speaker 1: probably think we owe all of our debt to China.
Speaker 1: The fact is only four point one two trillion is
Speaker 1: held by foreign countries. Then the remaining is debt we
Speaker 1: owe ourselves. I'm not sneezing at four trillion, but I
Speaker 1: think a big misconception is that we owe foreign governments
Speaker 1: twenty three trillion dollars. Just my thoughts for the day.
Speaker 1: Shield Side Well, Andrew, though it has to do that's
Speaker 1: that's true. It is that that foreign countries only own
Speaker 1: a portion of our debt. China has the biggest one,
Speaker 1: I think Japan and has a trillion or so. And
Speaker 1: this is by our debt. What they mean is really
Speaker 1: treasuries that they've bought US treasuries, which are promises by
Speaker 1: the US federal government to pay back with interest people
Speaker 1: that have bought those treasury bonds. The problem is that
Speaker 1: when you know debt is you have to give to
Speaker 1: price into debt the rate at which you're going to
Speaker 1: pay it back. And so if the debt gets too
Speaker 1: large eventually, even if the debt is to ourselves, people wonder, well,
Speaker 1: are we're actually going to be able to pay this?
Speaker 1: And then you have this is the problem with the
Speaker 1: rise of interest rates would be that you have to
Speaker 1: pay so much back to the debt that is owed
Speaker 1: to stay on time and not have a default, and
Speaker 1: American default that debt would be a big deal, very
Speaker 1: big deal. You end up crowding out other expenditures from
Speaker 1: the federal government just to pay interest on the debt itself.
Speaker 1: So it's still a problem. Even you know whoever we
Speaker 1: owe the money to, it still is an issue for
Speaker 1: a major issue for the financial system. Z with conditioning
Speaker 1: a to Ukraine with that country working to eliminate its corruption.
Speaker 1: How can PODS ignore a corruption trail leading back to
Speaker 1: the USA? How could PODUS ignore Biden's quid pro quo?
Speaker 1: Not acknowledging Biden's act would be a double standard. It
Speaker 1: could be presented as yet another mess in the previous
Speaker 1: administration that PODUS needs to address. How is it possible
Speaker 1: this administration to not use this argument? What are we
Speaker 1: saying not exactly because they v because they Oh, well,
Speaker 1: I think that they didn't do a good enough job.
Speaker 1: I will agree with you on this year. I think
Speaker 1: you're you're suggesting that the administration didn't do a good
Speaker 1: enough job explaining to people that it was completely legitimate
Speaker 1: to ask about Biden because there was there was clear
Speaker 1: evidence of corruption, or there was plenty of reason to
Speaker 1: believe to investigate for corruption because people don't pay people
Speaker 1: eighty thousand dollars a month for no reason. All right,
Speaker 1: that's is. And remember, folks, federal prosecutors, just to take
Speaker 1: a step back for a second, federal prosecutors wanted to
Speaker 1: send former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald's wife to prison. The
Speaker 1: wife to prison for McDonald accepting gifts from a businessman
Speaker 1: in Virginia whom he never did a single and they
Speaker 1: never even alleged he never did a single official act
Speaker 1: for him, but he hung out with him and accepted
Speaker 1: gifts from him, and they wanted to send McDonald to
Speaker 1: prison and his wife to prison. So when you're a Republican,
Speaker 1: that's how corruption laws applied. Your wife, who has no
Speaker 1: official duty or role whatsoever, as all of a sudden
Speaker 1: go to prison for corruption because some rich business guy
Speaker 1: like gave her a watch or center on a vacation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you do something, this is where the quid pro
Speaker 1: quos comes in. Yeah, if you give somebody a fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars rolex and then all of a sudden you
Speaker 1: get a government contract, that's corruption. But it's a lot
Speaker 1: of harder when it's Hey, I really like you, and
Speaker 1: I gave you a really expensive birthday gift, you know,
Speaker 1: or I gave an expensive birthday gift to your wife.
Speaker 1: When you're the governor of Virginia, but you've never done
Speaker 1: anything for me of any kind, and no one alleges
Speaker 1: you have, you know, is that Well, that's corruption if
Speaker 1: you're a Republican. And then you go to prison, your
Speaker 1: life is ruined. But if you're a Joe Biden's son,
Speaker 1: it's hey man, I'm just like on the boot of
Speaker 1: this company and like you know, I'm just racking out,
Speaker 1: partying with strippers and you know a little bit of
Speaker 1: drugs here and there and why not. So yeah, they
Speaker 1: didn't do a good enough job arguing about that. You're
Speaker 1: in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: podcast Maureen Rights, Hey Buck, and producer Mark as always,
Speaker 1: I love you guys. I listen to watch every day
Speaker 1: and I find myself missing you terribly on the weekends.
Speaker 1: As a licensed psychotherapist, I can tell you why there's
Speaker 1: pricing discrepancies for medical billing stuff. It used to be
Speaker 1: that a medical professional could bill insurance companies and get
Speaker 1: reimburse their builled fee. But then managed care aka socialized
Speaker 1: medicine came along and started cheating practitioners out of their fees.
Speaker 1: And about ten or twelve years ago, some exceptionally horrible
Speaker 1: managed care insurance companies started reimbursing practitioners just a mere
Speaker 1: twenty five percent of their fee. That's insane. So this
Speaker 1: became a real survival thing for practitioners. And made them
Speaker 1: start billing higher than their normal fee just so they
Speaker 1: could get closer to getting their actual fee reimbursed to them.
Speaker 1: So the explanation of benefits patients getting the mail will
Speaker 1: often show insanely high fees for various services. And while
Speaker 1: the high numbers freak people out, it's because they don't
Speaker 1: realize it's a survival ploy just so professionals can get
Speaker 1: paid a tiny fraction of what is listed on the
Speaker 1: explanation of benefits in hopes of getting their actual fees
Speaker 1: reimburse no more. And I'm actually familiar with this, and
Speaker 1: I know I know people who have told me about
Speaker 1: receiving bills for pretty standard treatment where their insurance will
Speaker 1: get builled a thousand dollars for it, and then they'll
Speaker 1: end up paying They'll end up paying, you know, some
Speaker 1: tiny fraction of that. So they bill for a thousand,
Speaker 1: hoping to get two hundred. But that just goes to
Speaker 1: show you, I mean, this is not the way that
Speaker 1: should work. This is not the way this game should happen.
Speaker 1: It should be price transparency. You should know what something costs,
Speaker 1: you should know what the bill will be. Anything else
Speaker 1: is just nonsense, right. Architecture architecture professor Mark Right. You
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about, of course I do. You
Speaker 1: should get paid for the work that you do. Correct,
Speaker 1: come with you, Shane buck love the show. I've been
Speaker 1: a listener for many years now. I've always found your
Speaker 1: analysis very accurate and astute. I look forward to each
Speaker 1: afternoon when your podcast is released to hear your commentary
Speaker 1: and take on the day's events. Congratulations on the news
Speaker 1: show on WR. It is well deserved and you will
Speaker 1: be fabulous. I wanted to get your opinion on school choice.
Speaker 1: I love the idea, and I've long been a proponent
Speaker 1: of this idea, even before it became a popular buzzword.
Speaker 1: At first glance, it seems like a great idea, but
Speaker 1: it comes at tremendous costs to the school district. My
Speaker 1: father served on our school district board for thirteen years,
Speaker 1: and when a parent wants to send their child to
Speaker 1: a charter school, the school district is responsible for one
Speaker 1: hundred percent of the cost. In most cases, this is
Speaker 1: more than fifty thousand dollars per year per student, and
Speaker 1: the state and federal government provide little to no funding
Speaker 1: to help out. I find this to be absurd. I
Speaker 1: went to college for far less than this. The parents
Speaker 1: do not directly see this cost, so they think they
Speaker 1: can send their child to charter schools for free. What
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on how to make this a viable
Speaker 1: program at that price? As at that price it will
Speaker 1: drive school districts further into debt shields high. Well, let's
Speaker 1: unpack this to get first of all, Shane, thank you
Speaker 1: for the kind words. So why is the charter school
Speaker 1: so expensive? Is a charter school so expensive per pupil
Speaker 1: because it's not getting enough funding to start out with?
Speaker 1: And is that because the public school is getting a
Speaker 1: huge amount of funding for administrators and costs that are
Speaker 1: in excess of what is necessary, especially for a school
Speaker 1: that is presumably failing. So you mean, i'd really have
Speaker 1: to look at the books for any endivident. I don't
Speaker 1: know if this is the case at in a lot
Speaker 1: of school district or if this is just the case
Speaker 1: that your dad on this school board dealt with, But
Speaker 1: I mean, it's all money coming from the taxpayer. So
Speaker 1: you know, if you're spending fifteen to twenty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: per student in a public school, why shouldn't that be
Speaker 1: able to be Why shouldn't that be the expense for
Speaker 1: a charter school? And if that's not the expense, we'd
Speaker 1: have to figure out why. And I bet if you
Speaker 1: dig deep, you'll find out it's because the public school
Speaker 1: system is full of graph corruption and waste. But I
Speaker 1: have to leave it there for right now, my friends,
Speaker 1: because this show has been amazing, but it's coming to
Speaker 1: a close until tomorrow when we unite again. Shields Hot