Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Welvandi gives a press
Speaker 1: conference and people start battling it out over whether he
Speaker 1: did say quid pro quos happened in Ukraine. Also Maddis
Speaker 1: mox Trump, a major shootout with Mexican drug cartels, and
Speaker 1: the war on testosterone ATAM more coming up on The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Ready, you're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a
Speaker 1: great guy. Now, welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody.
Speaker 1: Wonderful Friday here in NYC, mid late October really probably
Speaker 1: my favorite time of year in this town. The weather's great,
Speaker 1: good things happening here. So very much pleased that you
Speaker 1: can be joining us. For people like me who don't
Speaker 1: like the super hot weather, this is better. You know,
Speaker 1: I get too sweaty, you know what I mean? Producer Brandon,
Speaker 1: producer branded in the house today for producer Mark who
Speaker 1: what is he in like Tahiti or something? Pre is
Speaker 1: he on pre honeymoon scouting? Is that or Tahiti? Pittsburgh
Speaker 1: it's all. It's all the same. It's all the same,
Speaker 1: all right. So we've got some important stuff to get
Speaker 1: to today. Oh, a little bit of testimony that comes
Speaker 1: out that a State Department official told Congress that he
Speaker 1: thought that hunter Biden's Ukraine dealings. This is back in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. We're a little shady, maybe, but they were ignored.
Speaker 1: Of course they were shady. We'll get it. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that for sure. Also, we have a ceasefire between
Speaker 1: Turkey and the Syrian Kurds. We've got General Maddis out
Speaker 1: there mocking Trump, which look, Trump mocks Maddis. Maddis can
Speaker 1: mock Trump. We're all I expect everyone to be big
Speaker 1: boys in this world, and that's just the way it is.
Speaker 1: We'll talk perhaps about that. We'll have our friend Andy
Speaker 1: McCarthy joining us later on to talk about impeachment stuff,
Speaker 1: and my man Yone Grillo from down in Mexico where
Speaker 1: he's been one of the best international journalists covering the cartels,
Speaker 1: he'll tell us about I mean, there's video out there
Speaker 1: that's just it's jaw dropping of cartel members with fifty
Speaker 1: caliber rifles getting into gun battles with Mexican police and
Speaker 1: federalis and it's all about the arrest of a major
Speaker 1: cartel member anyway. So there's twelve police officers have been
Speaker 1: ambushed and the last and murdered in the last forty
Speaker 1: eight hours alone in one incident in Mexico. So some
Speaker 1: stuff happening there. So you've got a Friday. We're going
Speaker 1: to cover a lot of ground. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: start with something that is a little bit of a
Speaker 1: departure from what is at the top of the news
Speaker 1: cycle right now, because we'll get into that. Sure, you
Speaker 1: listen to the show, so you know that I will
Speaker 1: cover the most important news stories of the day every day.
Speaker 1: But I wanted to switch the switch to the script
Speaker 1: also because yesterday I had said to you that I
Speaker 1: was going to cover this topic, and then I did
Speaker 1: not cover this topic. So here's I just forgot. Because
Speaker 1: we're in the midst of rocking and rolling with the show.
Speaker 1: It just seemed to me like I had so many
Speaker 1: other things that I had to get to. The war
Speaker 1: on testosterone. I think yesterday I referred to it as
Speaker 1: whether testosterone has an effect on or has any connection
Speaker 1: to masculinity. Harvard University Press put out a tweet I
Speaker 1: think since deleted that raised the question does testosterone have
Speaker 1: a connection to masculinity in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: A lot of people looked at this and thought, yes,
Speaker 1: it does. And it's in reference though to a book,
Speaker 1: but a book that's part of a much larger effort.
Speaker 1: The book is written by a woman from I think
Speaker 1: Brooklyn College, Katrina car Kazis, and she has written a
Speaker 1: book that is about testosterone, the Myths of Testosterone, and
Speaker 1: she was interviewed in GQ magazine. Remember the basic myth
Speaker 1: and we'll go through some of the details here, is
Speaker 1: that testosterone has anything to do with masculinity. That's really
Speaker 1: the myth that they're trying to tackle. And this is
Speaker 1: how the interview in GQ magazine published this week went,
Speaker 1: how do you think the idea that masculinity is rooted
Speaker 1: in biology impacts the ways that our society view gender?
Speaker 1: And the author writes, as me too was heating up.
Speaker 1: There was a conversation between writers Roth Dolfin and Rebecca Treyster.
Speaker 1: She asked him what's the root of this and he
Speaker 1: said testosterone. I think he was joking, but people believe
Speaker 1: that and if we accept that gender hierarchies are tied
Speaker 1: to evolution in biology, then it seems impos able to change.
Speaker 1: So let's just understand. This is establishing right away what
Speaker 1: the purpose of this book is that gender characteristics are
Speaker 1: not only not only are they not deeply rooted in
Speaker 1: us at the cellular level, that there's really no biological
Speaker 1: basis for gender differences sex differences. They will say, of course,
Speaker 1: there is a physical difference between a male and a
Speaker 1: female body, but gender difference is intrinsic to the body,
Speaker 1: and therefore, in our psychology that is to be rejected.
Speaker 1: And now this is the recurring effort. It's not the
Speaker 1: first time this has happened. And I'll get into that,
Speaker 1: to pretend that science backs up this idea that there
Speaker 1: is no such thing as a genetic gender difference. Okay,
Speaker 1: and she continues on to this. Remember this isn't GQ magazine.
Speaker 1: There's trying to put this out there for people in
Speaker 1: the pop culture world who don't know very much, not
Speaker 1: even about science. Very few of us, let's let's be honest,
Speaker 1: very few of us have a science background very much
Speaker 1: about including really this author. By the way of the book,
Speaker 1: I'll deal with that This is another moment that when
Speaker 1: you look at the bio the background of someone who's
Speaker 1: being held up as a visionary in the field, like
Speaker 1: Bill Nye, the science guy. Hey, Bill Nye, the science guy,
Speaker 1: better deal with climate change. I'm a scientist. Man. Turns
Speaker 1: out Bill now the science guy. You know what, he
Speaker 1: has an undergraduate degree, Producer Brandon, in mechanical engineering. But
Speaker 1: that means he's a climate expert. Undergrad degree, not even
Speaker 1: a master's mechanical engineering. So you got that going for you,
Speaker 1: Bill Nye the science Guy. This author Katrina carkazis who
Speaker 1: who has written a book here on whether testosterone has
Speaker 1: any effect on gender. She is a cultural anthropologist. And
Speaker 1: I will admit to you now it probably shouldn't admit
Speaker 1: this on this show. I once took a class and
Speaker 1: called a cultural anthropology in college, and it was the
Speaker 1: ultimate what we called class like joke class. It was
Speaker 1: a class that you took if you knew you were
Speaker 1: going to be hungover on Friday's. This was the class
Speaker 1: that you took because what are you really? What are
Speaker 1: we re learning in cultural anthropology? It's really sociology as
Speaker 1: applied to history. So it's just a big it's just
Speaker 1: all a big left wing scan. Really. I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: some relevance, just like there's some stuff in sociology that's
Speaker 1: interesting or relevant, but it has become a discipline that
Speaker 1: is dominated by the left. Cultural anthropology is entirely dominated
Speaker 1: by the left. So she has a PhD in that
Speaker 1: no medical science background, a social science background that's made
Speaker 1: to sound a little bit like it's more sciency, and
Speaker 1: then we go on here. In this interview in GQ magazine,
Speaker 1: author has asked again about the testoster industry. She writes
Speaker 1: that testosterone often gives men a pass for their negative
Speaker 1: behavior and a pass for their success. With Titans of
Speaker 1: Wall Street, for example, testosterone didn't have anything to do
Speaker 1: with those men reaching the highest level in their field.
Speaker 1: There are other structures that elevated men and suppressed women.
Speaker 1: If biology and testosterone aren't the explanation, then we have
Speaker 1: much harder work to do of addressing the social causes.
Speaker 1: This is very straightforward, folks. The scientific community, which unfortunately
Speaker 1: now is riddled with activists all over the place, and
Speaker 1: particularly the social sciences, soft science is posing as real science.
Speaker 1: That's even worse, they are trying to undo what we
Speaker 1: already know about biology and science and gender. Then is asked, so,
Speaker 1: if we move away from the idea that biology explains
Speaker 1: the behavior we associate with gender, how could we open
Speaker 1: the definition of masculinity a little wider in our culture?
Speaker 1: I hope that she responds that we can stop attaching
Speaker 1: so many behaviors to masculinity as though they're exclusively the
Speaker 1: province of men, because they often happen to be things
Speaker 1: that are valued, like risk taking or athleticism. Conversely, I
Speaker 1: think we're reaching a point where we can shove more
Speaker 1: under the umbrella of masculinity, men staying home and parenting
Speaker 1: their children, or addressing their feelings in public in ways
Speaker 1: that are currently understood as non masculine. There are many
Speaker 1: things that are shared human behavior, et cetera. Folks, This
Speaker 1: is all about writing a book, which is part of
Speaker 1: a broader movement, by the way, as you know, the
Speaker 1: movement right now, the obsession of the progressive left is
Speaker 1: to undo what we already know about gender and gender
Speaker 1: roles and to say that it's a spectrum and it's fluid.
Speaker 1: In fact, I would argue this woman probably has a
Speaker 1: PhD in gender fluidity, which is really what this is
Speaker 1: the active is cause there are men and women are
Speaker 1: not distinct in any meaningful way. It's always a social construct. Well,
Speaker 1: if it's a social construct, that means that we can
Speaker 1: reconstruct that part of our society and nothing will stop that.
Speaker 1: Boys aren't a little bit more rambunctious and aggressive in
Speaker 1: the sandbox and don't want to play with dinosaurs and
Speaker 1: dump trucks because they're boys, it's because we make them.
Speaker 1: And girls don't like dresses and don't like things that
Speaker 1: are a little bit more associated with the feminine and
Speaker 1: don't want to know, bake cupcakes or whatever in the
Speaker 1: easy bake of it. They don't do that because the
Speaker 1: women's because we make them do it. Unfortunately, thousands of
Speaker 1: years of human history and who knows how long we
Speaker 1: could go back in our evolutionary history, prove that to
Speaker 1: be untrue. And science, which has xx and x y
Speaker 1: chromosome in every single cell of the human body differentiating
Speaker 1: between male and female, also proves that to be untrue.
Speaker 1: And this is not the first time this movement of
Speaker 1: erasing genders has been trying to appropriate science for what
Speaker 1: is clearly a social cause. By the way the erasing
Speaker 1: of gender does a lot of things. It's it's part
Speaker 1: of radical equality. It often translates this was the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union is very interested in in erasing traditional gender roles.
Speaker 1: Gotta have women, Gotta have women in the factories too.
Speaker 1: The state will take care of your babies. This state
Speaker 1: will take who does that sound like? By the way, wow,
Speaker 1: have you universal child care for everybody? And only the
Speaker 1: rich people will pay for it? The senator from Massachusetts. So,
Speaker 1: gender roles are under attacked by the left for very power,
Speaker 1: very important, very powerful reasons. This is not just an
Speaker 1: intellectual exercise and that which starts in the academy and
Speaker 1: starts with somewhat fringe books or publications like this. Although
Speaker 1: GQ is certainly relatively mainstream, it's very left wing. By
Speaker 1: the way. I've picked it up occasional in the airport,
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, it should be g Kami boom.
Speaker 1: But the good news is that there are actual, real
Speaker 1: scientists out there, like Heather Heying. I will address her
Speaker 1: criticisms of this book, of this denial of biological reality
Speaker 1: that is at the heart of so much progressive gender
Speaker 1: neutrality stuff. I'll base it off of some of her work.
Speaker 1: All right, So we're talking about testosterone. An unauthorized biography
Speaker 1: a new book that's out there right now which sounds
Speaker 1: like it could be a book with schwartzon egg on
Speaker 1: the cova and he's he's doing the flexing and he's like, hey,
Speaker 1: I don't want to Why are you looking at me
Speaker 1: like I'm crazy? I'm saying it could You don't know
Speaker 1: what the book's about until you write you must be
Speaker 1: using all the testosterone for the muscle growth. But it
Speaker 1: turns out that's not what the books about it all.
Speaker 1: The book is written by a left wing PhD academic
Speaker 1: who's trying to tell you that there's no link between
Speaker 1: testosterone and what we think of as male behavior or
Speaker 1: male male tendencies. And the basic argument that is leveled
Speaker 1: for this is that because women have testosterone as well,
Speaker 1: it can't be that testosterone causes these things because women
Speaker 1: have it too. Well, that's a stupid argument because men
Speaker 1: also have estrogen as well as testosterone. So it's about
Speaker 1: the biochemical balance in one system and cellular structure and
Speaker 1: things that, quite honesty, science is really just beginning to
Speaker 1: fully understand or research in any capacity. But it's much
Speaker 1: easier to just say, well, testosterone has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with gender roles, has nothing to do with As I said,
Speaker 1: what why are are men more aggressive than women in general?
Speaker 1: I mean, look at look at statistics about assaults over
Speaker 1: ninety percent. I think it's over ninety five percent. Might
Speaker 1: didn't be over ninety nine percent, but it's definitely over
Speaker 1: ninety percent of violent assaults in this country are committed
Speaker 1: by men. All right, So I guess I'm I'm gender
Speaker 1: bashing my own gender right now. We are We are
Speaker 1: more violent than the ladies out there than than females.
Speaker 1: Is that social construct or? Is that just because men
Speaker 1: are different than women? It's a very interesting, very interesting question,
Speaker 1: isn't it? Also? Why are men generally larger, heavier, physically
Speaker 1: stronger these sorts than women? Is that a social constructors?
Speaker 1: Because men and women? Now you might say, buck, this
Speaker 1: is such a this is ridiculous. We all know these things. Ah, yes,
Speaker 1: But the true radical progressives subverts that which you know
Speaker 1: to be true and forces you to bend the knee.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter how obvious the truth is. In fact,
Speaker 1: it is an exercise of their power to make you
Speaker 1: abandoned things that could not be more intuitive, more obvious,
Speaker 1: more based, in reason and rationality. If they can make
Speaker 1: you say men and women are the same, they can
Speaker 1: make you say anything. Ah. Now it all starts to
Speaker 1: make sense as a means of remaking society, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: I mentioned to you that there fortunately is still some
Speaker 1: sanity out there in the science world. And this from
Speaker 1: an actual biologist named Heather Heying, who has come under
Speaker 1: a lot of attack from the left for a bunch
Speaker 1: of reasons, probably because she still bases things in biology
Speaker 1: and science. So she wrote today in a thread, I
Speaker 1: haven't read the book in question, Testosterone and Unauthorized Biography,
Speaker 1: but it claims to debunk the idea that testosterone and
Speaker 1: masculinity are connected. It is full of confirmation bias. If
Speaker 1: this is true, it has zero evidence of evolutionary or
Speaker 1: statistical thinking. Then she goes on into some further detail here. Luckily,
Speaker 1: in a biology department in the mid nineties, declaring that
Speaker 1: females and males behave differently and are assumed to have
Speaker 1: asymmetrical interest was not yet a cancellable offense. See, this
Speaker 1: is all part of cancel culture too. Cancel culture extends
Speaker 1: to science. Say something people don't like, and you have
Speaker 1: to get fired. You can't be a scientist anymore, even
Speaker 1: if it's rooted in scientific fact. The truth can be
Speaker 1: too dangerous to society. In fact, scientific truth can be
Speaker 1: too dangerous to society the left believe. Heather goes on,
Speaker 1: here we are in twenty nineteen with an esteemed university press,
Speaker 1: Harvard publishing garbage pseudo research, and glossy magazines jumping on
Speaker 1: the let's hate on all that men are and might
Speaker 1: be bandwagon. If this subset of women really thinks that
Speaker 1: female dominated leadership and ways of being are the right
Speaker 1: move into the future, how about they model awesomeness in
Speaker 1: that realm. Instead, what we get from these radical left
Speaker 1: feminists is a mix of hateful, uninvestigative, juvenile, snarky pap.
Speaker 1: She says that she looked into this question in the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties specifically, and guess what testosterone is very much
Speaker 1: responsible for, not just physical changes right deeper voice, beard,
Speaker 1: Hey beard, there we go, producer Brandon, or your beard
Speaker 1: is way more masculine than mine, body hair, all these things.
Speaker 1: You see this as a teenager. We know these things
Speaker 1: from just living that testosterone is real and changes things,
Speaker 1: but that also has a change in behavior. They researched this.
Speaker 1: Back in the nineteen nineties, there was this movement to say, oh,
Speaker 1: testosterona and shirt. Here we are again being told that
Speaker 1: this is not there's no connection at all, and it's
Speaker 1: a denial of reality. And that's what so much of
Speaker 1: left wing based science turns into very quickly, whether it's
Speaker 1: climate change or this or people that there's you know
Speaker 1: when you talk about when life begins. There's all these
Speaker 1: different areas where the science is rejected by the left,
Speaker 1: but on gender specifically, they are aggressive about it. The
Speaker 1: left is aggressive about to nine gender, as I told you,
Speaker 1: because if you can eradicate gender roles, you can completely
Speaker 1: remake society in a pure Marxist authoritarian mold. That's really
Speaker 1: I know it sounds crazy, but it's the eradication of
Speaker 1: the family because family roles entirely change the state raises children.
Speaker 1: That is the goal here, and they're trying to leverage
Speaker 1: pseudoscience to do it. Oh, so what do we have
Speaker 1: coming up? I'm glad we talked about the war on testosterone,
Speaker 1: which some people might just say the war on testosterone
Speaker 1: is vox dot com, but you know, there's there's a
Speaker 1: war on testosterone that's going on out there in the
Speaker 1: scientific community. I want to talk to you about the
Speaker 1: ceasefire in Turkey, will hop though into the latest impeachment
Speaker 1: RUCKUS as well, and this situation in Mexico is just
Speaker 1: a reminder that we have a deeply corrupt, unstable, violent
Speaker 1: neighbor to our south in Mexico, and there's not a
Speaker 1: whole lot of media coverage of it. And I'd like
Speaker 1: to address why that is. He's back with you now,
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. We started to negotiate, and I think
Speaker 1: that obviously the sanctions and tarifts who are going to
Speaker 1: be very biting. I'm glad we don't have to do it.
Speaker 1: We'll be taking them off very quickly as soon as
Speaker 1: this is finalized. But this is an incredible outcome. This
Speaker 1: outcome is something they've been trying to get for ten years, everybody,
Speaker 1: and they couldn't get it other administrations, and they never
Speaker 1: would have been able to get it unless you went
Speaker 1: somewhat unconventional. I guess I'm an unconventional person. So there's
Speaker 1: a ceasefire that the President his team, really it was
Speaker 1: Pence and Pompeo negotiated for Turkey and the Kurds and
Speaker 1: the President. They're touting it as a huge, a huge victory. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: shelling is reportedly already underway once again, so there's still
Speaker 1: some fighting between Turkish and Syrian forces. The President says,
Speaker 1: though this is a I'm sorry Turkish and Kurdish forces,
Speaker 1: Kurdish Syrian forces, and President says that this is a
Speaker 1: good thing. And to that I would just I would
Speaker 1: say that the amount of outrage that I've seen generated
Speaker 1: on the left and the right over what would really
Speaker 1: be a couple of days of fighting. Now, granted it
Speaker 1: is between a NATO ally and an ally of ours
Speaker 1: on the ground, the Kurdish YPG militia, the Syrian Defense Forces,
Speaker 1: but the amount of outrage and the effort to try
Speaker 1: to make it seem that President Trump is responsible for
Speaker 1: all of what's gone on in Syria, that this civil
Speaker 1: war that's killed the half a million people, stretching back
Speaker 1: to twenty eleven, twenty twelve, that Trump, who's been in
Speaker 1: office only for a few years, and during that time
Speaker 1: the violence has been considerably less in the Syrian Civil
Speaker 1: War than it was in the latter part of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration or even in the really the second Obama
Speaker 1: terms when most of the heavy fighting was going on there,
Speaker 1: and everything is Trump's fault somehow. The situation of Syria,
Speaker 1: which has been unstable. I mean, go back and look,
Speaker 1: you'll see that the French were bombing Syria at one point.
Speaker 1: The amount of fighting that I mean I'm talking about
Speaker 1: back now, and the I think was the nineteen it
Speaker 1: was after the First World War in nineteen twenties. Maybe.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's been fighting going on in this part
Speaker 1: of the world for a very long time. These factions
Speaker 1: on the ground are going after each other and have
Speaker 1: been for as long as they've been around. It is
Speaker 1: just a place where you're going to see continued instability
Speaker 1: and violence. There's just no way around that. We promised
Speaker 1: the Kurds their own state, or I mean the international
Speaker 1: community I should say, promised the Kurds their own state
Speaker 1: back in the day, in the time of Woodrow Wilson.
Speaker 1: Never actually happened. The Kurds or the largest stateless people
Speaker 1: in the world. So there are anywhere from twenty to
Speaker 1: forty million people of Kurdish ethnicity and depending on which
Speaker 1: number you take, but they're still the largest non stated
Speaker 1: or non state minority in the world, and they are
Speaker 1: spread out really along Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. That's
Speaker 1: where the Kurdish population is mostly found. And we wanted
Speaker 1: to give them a state, but we don't have a
Speaker 1: state for them, and it's not going to happen anytime soon.
Speaker 1: And so the situation now is we've told the Turks
Speaker 1: back off, and there might still be some shelling and
Speaker 1: some fighting here and there, but it sounds like or
Speaker 1: at least there's the possibility that they may really indeed
Speaker 1: back off, and the Kurds are building some kind of
Speaker 1: alliance with the Assad regime in Syria, which would be
Speaker 1: helpful not just for pushing back on Turkish incursions into
Speaker 1: Syria in territory, by the way, but also against the
Speaker 1: Islamic state. What is a better circumstance that we have.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it was fifty soldiers we're talking
Speaker 1: about moving. People really have been reporting on this like
Speaker 1: like it was Pearl Harbor or nine to eleven, it
Speaker 1: was some catastrophic event that would change an era. It
Speaker 1: was some fighting in a place where there's been basically
Speaker 1: endless fighting stretching back now seven or eight years with
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of people killed. So why the focus
Speaker 1: on this as such a horrific event. And I might look,
Speaker 1: all all war is bad, every casualty is a tragedy.
Speaker 1: This is it's a nasty situation of there's no question
Speaker 1: about it. And for the US Special Forces soldiers who
Speaker 1: were embedded with these Kurds to have to leave them
Speaker 1: in this way unexpectedly, I can understand why they feel
Speaker 1: very upset about that. But the commander in chief, the
Speaker 1: President United States, is trying to make a decision that
Speaker 1: will get us out of a mission creep situation in Syria.
Speaker 1: And I mean, I remember when it was considered wise
Speaker 1: to avoid any US boots on the ground in Syria.
Speaker 1: I remember when that was the conventional wisdom. And now
Speaker 1: we have boots in the ground in Syria and we're
Speaker 1: being told, well, they won't stay there that long and
Speaker 1: and there won't be much of an escalation. Really do
Speaker 1: you trust that? Should any of us trust that? I
Speaker 1: think we all know the answer. You know, Rand Paul
Speaker 1: is saying we should get out of there. Trump is
Speaker 1: saying we should get out of there. The Democrats would
Speaker 1: be saying we should get out of there. Except it's
Speaker 1: more important to them to have a few news cycles
Speaker 1: where they can bash Trump than to make a decision
Speaker 1: for national security that could and very likely would save
Speaker 1: a lot of US lines down the line. It's just
Speaker 1: more it's that's the truth. That's more important to them
Speaker 1: to bash Trump than to do what is and what
Speaker 1: they believed until Trump was president was in the interest
Speaker 1: of US national security. And then they're also just lying
Speaker 1: about things and saying things that are really stupid in
Speaker 1: this process. Here's Nancy Pelosi play clip twice to the
Speaker 1: subject of conversation. Yet, as you know, that was the
Speaker 1: subject of conversation yesterday at the White House. I also
Speaker 1: pointed out to the President I had concerns that then
Speaker 1: l roads seemed to lead to putin. The Russians had
Speaker 1: been trying to get a foothold in the Middle East
Speaker 1: for a very long time, unsuccessfully, and now the President
Speaker 1: has given them opportunity. That is blather. That is a
Speaker 1: completely nonsense, garbage, factually untrue statement that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House, most powerful democrat in the country, just
Speaker 1: said on national TV in front of everybody. Because it
Speaker 1: was useful to the goal of bashing the president of
Speaker 1: the United States. The Russians have been trying to get
Speaker 1: a foothold unsuccessfully until Trump. I don't know if Nancy
Speaker 1: is a moron, or if she's just never looked at
Speaker 1: a map or doesn't know any history, or all of
Speaker 1: the above. The Russians have had a ba in Tartus
Speaker 1: on the Mediterranean for well since nineteen seventy one, over
Speaker 1: forty years Russians have had a base there, So I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure a military base that can accept all Russian
Speaker 1: nuclear sobs and Russian battleships and whatever else they've got.
Speaker 1: Pretty sure that's a foothold when you have a base
Speaker 1: on the Mediterranean that you've had for over forty years.
Speaker 1: But then add to that the notion that unsuccessfully the
Speaker 1: Russians all roads lead to Putin. This is part of
Speaker 1: the Putin's puppet narrative, the Nancy plosa. This is why
Speaker 1: you can't trust these people. And they talk about national
Speaker 1: security because it's all about political advantage for them. They
Speaker 1: have no real interest in doing what is best for
Speaker 1: the country, and their criticism is rooted in hatred of
Speaker 1: Trump more than it is hatred of the enemy. This
Speaker 1: is just the truth. The Russians, the Iranians. They flooded
Speaker 1: in in spet SNAs Russian Special Forces, Iranian IRGC Revolutionary
Speaker 1: Guard Corps. They showed Hezbulla fighters backed by the Iranians
Speaker 1: flooding in from Lebanon. I was in the Syrian refugee
Speaker 1: camps and talking to you and representatives there right after
Speaker 1: Hezbulla fighters from Lebanon had just gone in and essentially
Speaker 1: just eradicated a whole town on behalf of the regime.
Speaker 1: And we're now being told by Nancy Pelosi that until
Speaker 1: Trump came along, the Russians didn't have a foothold there
Speaker 1: is That is idiocy, that's an It's an indefensible statement,
Speaker 1: not only because of the base, but because the Russians
Speaker 1: went into Syria and turned the tide of that war
Speaker 1: for the Assad regime. While Obama was like, let's not
Speaker 1: get too involved, let's not do anything here. Don't want
Speaker 1: to be Bush. Can't be Bush. That was the sum
Speaker 1: total of the thinking of the foreign piles. It was
Speaker 1: really two things. Actually, can't be Bush and the Obama
Speaker 1: administration wanted to make sure that whatever they were doing,
Speaker 1: whatever we try to do in Syria, wouldn't upset the
Speaker 1: Iranians too much. Remember, the Iranians back the Assad regime.
Speaker 1: The Russians are tied to the Iranians. The Russians back
Speaker 1: the Assad regime, and the Iranians back Lebanese Hezbollah next
Speaker 1: door to Syria that also backs the Assad regime. And
Speaker 1: really Lebanon's a client state of Syria. But that's a
Speaker 1: whole other discussion. But with all of that, the storyline
Speaker 1: here is that Trump gave the opening. It wasn't the
Speaker 1: Russian bombing of Aleppo, for example, which was indiscriminate and
Speaker 1: vicious on behalf of the regime. It wasn't. That wasn't
Speaker 1: a foothold or Russian paramilitaries and intelligence officers on the ground.
Speaker 1: We blew up the Trump administration. President Trump as Commander
Speaker 1: Chief blew up two hundred Russian paramilitaries in the desert
Speaker 1: in eastern Syria who are on their way to attack
Speaker 1: our Kurdish allies. That's a pretty heavy day of losses,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Oh and those are Russians. They were not
Speaker 1: officially Russian military, but they're Russian paramilitary. And now, as
Speaker 1: I'm talking about this, not only Nancy Pelosi lying about it,
Speaker 1: but who really thinks that we're going to be able
Speaker 1: to figure this mess out better than Iraq, better than Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: What evidence is there that the political settlement that people
Speaker 1: talk about now as though that's just going to happen.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like a people talk about a negotiated
Speaker 1: settlement with the Taliban. I'm sitting here waving my hand saying, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: I would look, I spent a lot of time in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan about ten years ago. We're here in the same
Speaker 1: thing then that we're here, and now the security situation
Speaker 1: was just as bad, really actually worse now than it
Speaker 1: was then. It's the same story all over you. Oh,
Speaker 1: we can't leave until we have a negotiated seliment with
Speaker 1: the talent. We're not going to negotiate it seling with
Speaker 1: the Taliban. I mean, nothing that's worth the paper that
Speaker 1: it's printed on. So do we want to do? We
Speaker 1: want to live in reality before we're talking about people
Speaker 1: using pseudoscience to justify the eradication of gender roles, and
Speaker 1: it's just a denial of reality. Are we going to
Speaker 1: deny reality in the Middle East too? I'm hearing all
Speaker 1: these voices of people who sound like, oh, we could
Speaker 1: we could never have been okay, when could we? At
Speaker 1: what point would it be safe to quote abandon the courage?
Speaker 1: Remember we still have a thousand troops there and we're
Speaker 1: going around leveling sanctions against a NATO ally to get
Speaker 1: them to stop attacking the Kurds. A that's a pretty
Speaker 1: big deal. When would it be safe for us to
Speaker 1: leave when Syria's stable? When Syria's stable, but not because
Speaker 1: the Assad regime has taken over these areas. This is absurd.
Speaker 1: Who's the government of Syria? We don't want to say it.
Speaker 1: And there was a whole regime change mantra under the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Who's the government of Syria? Here's the answer?
Speaker 1: The Assad regime. Doesn't feel good to say it. It's
Speaker 1: not right. Shouldn't be the case, guys, A butcher. What's
Speaker 1: the alternative? Who what's the other answer? When you look
Speaker 1: at this, when you put the chess pieces on the
Speaker 1: board and look at things as they are and not
Speaker 1: as we either wish them to be or and don't
Speaker 1: get alinded by all this anti Trump criticism or this
Speaker 1: Trump is the worst person ever, worst commander in chief ever,
Speaker 1: not fit for the office. Look at what's really going
Speaker 1: on what were you supposed to do, Get a negotiated
Speaker 1: settlement with what? In what? That's better than we have
Speaker 1: right now in what way? Now there's this buffer zone
Speaker 1: that Turkey's talking about thirty kilometers along the Turkish Syrian border.
Speaker 1: But the Assad regime working with the Kurds and having
Speaker 1: an alliance with the Kurds that will be useful for
Speaker 1: suppressing the Islamic State. I'm not saying Asad wouldn't be
Speaker 1: willing to use the radicals for his own purpose at
Speaker 1: some point in the future, But you know, alliance has
Speaker 1: changed the middle of least all the time up to
Speaker 1: this point, the Jihadis of the Islamic State have wanted
Speaker 1: to kill Assad and his whole family and everybody who
Speaker 1: works for him and take over. So Assad and the
Speaker 1: Kurds can box in Isis and keep it from being resurgent.
Speaker 1: That's much better than what we've been dealing with. We
Speaker 1: help the Kurds in their own territory, by the way,
Speaker 1: defend themselves and then go and eradicate the Islamic States.
Speaker 1: So they've gotten a big benefit out of this too.
Speaker 1: They lived there, We didn't air drop them in from nowhere.
Speaker 1: We're like, hey, can you go do this fighting first
Speaker 1: in a country you've never been to. We were helping
Speaker 1: the courage protect their villages, their towns, their lives. But
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, this is a simple issue. Trump
Speaker 1: is evil. Trump is basically worse than Hitler, and everything
Speaker 1: he does is terrible. That's the subtexts of a lot
Speaker 1: of the foreign policy criticism that I'm seeing. And you
Speaker 1: can say, how could we abandon the Kurds? I keep
Speaker 1: pointing out, what were we supposed to do? Yeah? Should
Speaker 1: we have given them more warning? Absolutely? Should the President
Speaker 1: have gone about this as quickly as he did and
Speaker 1: what seemed like a somewhat haphazard fashion. Probably not. But
Speaker 1: is he right on these strategic importance of not allowing
Speaker 1: us to get drawn deeper into this conflict. Let the
Speaker 1: Russians and the Turks and the Kurds and the Syrians
Speaker 1: and the Iranians, let them figure this out. It's really
Speaker 1: not our problem. And people don't seem to want to
Speaker 1: hear that for some reason, as they so they want
Speaker 1: as though they want another generation of Americans from you know, everywhere,
Speaker 1: from from coast to coast, showing up and fighting over
Speaker 1: there for people who in many cases don't want us there,
Speaker 1: aren't grateful we're there, are attacking us, and even if
Speaker 1: we do stabilize our country for them, they'll say, you know,
Speaker 1: thanks and kick us in the butts on the way out.
Speaker 1: Get out. No done, Let other people do this. Would
Speaker 1: I go fight? I'll ask you what I go? Or
Speaker 1: how about this? Because I never saw the military serve
Speaker 1: in the CIA. Would I joined up in the agency
Speaker 1: and and go deploy and go try to help out things?
Speaker 1: Right now? To patrol the streets of Rocca. I would
Speaker 1: want to do that, Not that I'd be patrolling the streets,
Speaker 1: but you know, I wouldn't want to have that be
Speaker 1: something yeah, counterterrorism, things like that, But we don't need
Speaker 1: to have a major military presence in Syria to do that,
Speaker 1: and we shouldn't. Yeah, but this is where we are, folks.
Speaker 1: It's all it's really just all about attacking Trump. That's
Speaker 1: what this is all about. I do stand before you,
Speaker 1: as was noted here, really having a chief greatness. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not just an overrated general. I am the greatest,
Speaker 1: the world's most overrated. And this is no small part.
Speaker 1: I would tell you I owe New York, I owe
Speaker 1: New York for this because Senator Schumer have I thank
Speaker 1: you for bringing my name up in a rather contentious
Speaker 1: meeting in Washington where this grew out of. So I
Speaker 1: would just tell you too that I'm honored to be
Speaker 1: considered that by by Donald Trump. Because he also called
Speaker 1: Meryl Streep an overrated actress. So I guess I'm the
Speaker 1: Meryl Streep of generals, and frank you, that sounds pretty
Speaker 1: good to me. Look, General Maddis, I've heard from some
Speaker 1: of you who served under him and know him. You
Speaker 1: guys say that he's great. I don't know him, and
Speaker 1: you know the guy. You can't question the depth and
Speaker 1: duration of what he did for his country. So and
Speaker 1: he's allowed. He's allowed to Trump is going to poke
Speaker 1: at him, He's allowed to poke back, no question about it.
Speaker 1: I think Meryl Streep is kind of overrated. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say, why is you the best actress of all time?
Speaker 1: Who says so? I don't know. So maybe maybe I'm
Speaker 1: in the minority here, but I just think that calling
Speaker 1: him the Meryl Streep of actress of generals rather, I
Speaker 1: do think she's overrated. So there's that. I mean, not
Speaker 1: as overrated as Bruce Springsteen, for example, as a musician,
Speaker 1: where are you on Bruce Springsteen? Brandon? A little overrated?
Speaker 1: He's all right, but I'm not over rated. Let's just
Speaker 1: be honest about it. But a little over it. I'll
Speaker 1: take that one from me. At least you're not a
Speaker 1: Bruce Springsteen super fan. Not a super fan. Plus I
Speaker 1: don't hate them, but yeah, you know whatever. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network the only duals certified, veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. Global Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago, but
Speaker 1: they can handle your background checks anywhere across the country.
Speaker 1: And as you know, background checks are absolutely essential to
Speaker 1: your hiring process and to the health and future of
Speaker 1: your business. So you need people that you can trust,
Speaker 1: who don't outsource the work, who don't subcontract it out
Speaker 1: to foreign entities, and also maintain control of the servers
Speaker 1: and all data that you give them at all times.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network works with startups all the way up
Speaker 1: to Fortune one hundred companies, and all their employees are
Speaker 1: located here in the United States. A veteran owned, all
Speaker 1: American background check company. Global Verification Network for all your
Speaker 1: background check needs, any size company, any industry, anywhere in
Speaker 1: the country call eight seven seven six nine, five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine. Again that's Global Verification Network at eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five eleven seventy nine. Buck Sexton remission,
Speaker 1: decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence Magno mistake,
Speaker 1: American bring You're a great American Again, this is the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show activated former CIA analysts remember at buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: No that he also mentioned to me in the past
Speaker 1: the corruption related to the d NC server. Absolutely, no
Speaker 1: question about Dan. But that's it, and that's why we
Speaker 1: held up the money. Now there was a report demand
Speaker 1: for an investigation to the Democrats was part of the
Speaker 1: reason that he it was on the to withhold funding
Speaker 1: to the look back to what happened in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: certainly was part of the thing that he was worried
Speaker 1: about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely
Speaker 1: in the funding. Yeah, to be clear, you just described
Speaker 1: as a quid pro quo. It is funding will not
Speaker 1: flow unless the investigation into the into the Democratic server,
Speaker 1: Uh happened as well? We do. We do that all
Speaker 1: the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money
Speaker 1: at the same time for what was it the Northern
Speaker 1: Triagal countries. We're holding up eight at the Northern triagal
Speaker 1: And countries so that they so that they would change
Speaker 1: their policies on immigration. And I have news for everybody.
Speaker 1: Get over it. There's going to be political influence in
Speaker 1: foreign policy. I'm talking to mister Carl. That is going
Speaker 1: to happen. Elections have consequences, and foreign policy is going
Speaker 1: to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: The quid pro quo. Oh my gosh, they've got him now.
Speaker 1: They finally managed to get the why House cheapest to
Speaker 1: have Mulvaney to say this stuff. My friends. There was
Speaker 1: a flurry on media yesterday. Oh, people were all just
Speaker 1: so up in arms about the whole thing. There was
Speaker 1: a flurry of folks out there who were all saying that,
Speaker 1: ah see, Adam Schiff, it's been made so much worse.
Speaker 1: Now they've admitted it. They've admitted it. Okay, let's look
Speaker 1: at what he actually said. Mick mulvaney is telling this
Speaker 1: press conference of rapidly anti Trump reporters, almost all of them,
Speaker 1: that yes, there was a consideration of continuing military aid
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. There was a consideration about whether that would
Speaker 1: happen based on, in part, whether they would tell us
Speaker 1: what happened with the DNC server in twenty sixteen CrowdStrike.
Speaker 1: CrowdStrike was funded by Ukrainians. There's this strange twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election Ukrainian connection, and there's also concerns about corruption and
Speaker 1: they wanted that to be looked at. That is not
Speaker 1: the same thing as telling the Ukrainians, hey, you have
Speaker 1: to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, or
Speaker 1: else we are going to withhold military funds from your country.
Speaker 1: That is not the same they're gonna say it is.
Speaker 1: It's not the same thing. And then Mulvani's talking about
Speaker 1: how there are quid pro quos and foreign policy all
Speaker 1: the time. Of course there are, of course there are.
Speaker 1: Whether he mentioned the Northern Triangle countries Honduras, El Salvador
Speaker 1: and Guatemala being told, look, you guys got to help
Speaker 1: us more on some of these immigration issues, and we're
Speaker 1: gonna stop sending you checks courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Speaker 1: In fact, think about it this way, it would be absurd.
Speaker 1: You could very clearly argue it would be somewhat insane
Speaker 1: for there not to be a quid pro quo in
Speaker 1: aspects of foreign policy. The question is just is there
Speaker 1: a legitimate reason for the quid on our side? Is
Speaker 1: there some basis for it, whether it's help and foreign policy.
Speaker 1: So now we have to get do is it a
Speaker 1: legitimate line of inquiry for the President of the United
Speaker 1: States to push the Ukrainians or for his foreign policy
Speaker 1: and to push the Ukrainians to look at possible hacking
Speaker 1: involving the DNC servers and Ukrainian CrowdStrike and who looked
Speaker 1: at what and what they found out and Russia collusion
Speaker 1: origins stretching by the twenty sixteen, which the dj is
Speaker 1: actively investigating now. In fact, Durham Up in Connecticut, the
Speaker 1: US Attorney is looking at exactly that issue. And there's
Speaker 1: some interesting meeting in Italy and looks like we might
Speaker 1: be finding out some more about mister mif Sued pretty
Speaker 1: soon here. Remember mif Sued was part of the getting
Speaker 1: Papadopolis to tell Downer, the Australian diplomat, that he had
Speaker 1: heard something about Hillary's emails in the hands of the Russians.
Speaker 1: Remember that guy miff Sued. Who is he? Why do
Speaker 1: we know so little about him? And we know more
Speaker 1: the journals do more to find out about somebody who
Speaker 1: posts an anti CNN video meme online than they do
Speaker 1: about mith Sued who may be the point man for
Speaker 1: an entrapment scheme to begin the entire Russia collusion farce
Speaker 1: against President Trump. But is it illegitimate to look into
Speaker 1: corruption Ukraine? Is it illegitimate to try to find answers
Speaker 1: to these questions? Of course not so if there's a
Speaker 1: legitimate purpose that it would also be bad for Democrats
Speaker 1: and benefit Trump. Does not make it illegal for sure,
Speaker 1: and doesn't make it unethical, makes it too bad for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. And that's really what mulvanny was saying there,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, first of all, quid pro quos.
Speaker 1: Foreign policy is largely based on that you do this
Speaker 1: for me, I'll do this for you. You pay us
Speaker 1: this money, we'll give you this trade deal. You know,
Speaker 1: you help us on this foreign nation stabilization mission, and
Speaker 1: we'll give you this check for aid, you know, whatever
Speaker 1: it may be. It happens all the time. People are
Speaker 1: using this term quid pro quo like like it's some
Speaker 1: sort of in itself a smoking gun. Oh you did
Speaker 1: something for someone and they did something for you. And
Speaker 1: foreign policy that must be bad. But this is what happened,
Speaker 1: the Trump's arrangement syndrome. It fries the synapses of people's brains.
Speaker 1: They can't really, they can't really function anymore in the
Speaker 1: normal plane of human reason and understanding the quid pro quo. Oh,
Speaker 1: we found the quid pro quo. Move then he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we found the quid pro quo. But now he's everyone's
Speaker 1: trying to say, oh, and he's got to walk it
Speaker 1: back because it's unclear, and he made this situation worse. Well,
Speaker 1: it's because they've created this frenzy around that term, so
Speaker 1: that when he says, yeah, there is a quid pro quo,
Speaker 1: let's they see he's admitted, but he's not admitting to
Speaker 1: what they're saying. He's admitting to the Ukrainians did can't
Speaker 1: even know that the aid was under review. How can
Speaker 1: you have something that's it quit pro quo when you
Speaker 1: don't even know what is being offered and what the
Speaker 1: exchange is The answers you can't. But there's still Look,
Speaker 1: they think the future of the country is at stake here,
Speaker 1: and if you have to lie, if you have to
Speaker 1: go along with a flimsy story. But you think that
Speaker 1: the future of the country is really at risk. Is
Speaker 1: that the right thing to do? I think the Democrats
Speaker 1: certainly believe that it is. I think that they think
Speaker 1: whatever they have to do at this point in order
Speaker 1: to go after Trump is just fine. By the way,
Speaker 1: the reality here is that impeachment is an anti democratic process.
Speaker 1: Impeachment is elected officials deciding for political reasons to get
Speaker 1: rid of a or start the process of removing a
Speaker 1: president from power and from office. That we are even
Speaker 1: considering this in the year twenty nineteen going into the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election, or rather that the Democrats are offering
Speaker 1: this up as a necessary corrective, just goes to show
Speaker 1: you how corrupted their mentality has become with regard to democracy,
Speaker 1: our system of government, our sacred institutions. I don't care
Speaker 1: about any of it. This is just a pure power play.
Speaker 1: It is malice wrapped in revenge, or perhaps revenge wrapped
Speaker 1: in malice. That's what this is. A Nancy Pelosi more
Speaker 1: or less admitted as much that this is not about
Speaker 1: really what the voters want, although I'm seeing these polls
Speaker 1: that say fifty two percent fifty two percent of American
Speaker 1: people want Trump want the impeachment inquiry to continue. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, that's because the way they've set it up,
Speaker 1: this is what's all propaganda, folks, it's all it's all
Speaker 1: a game. It's all wrong. And if I were analyzing this,
Speaker 1: if we're back in the CI and analyzing this as
Speaker 1: though I was looking in a foreign country, I'd say, oh,
Speaker 1: this is quite clear. What they're doing is calling it
Speaker 1: an impeachment inquiry and just the very term. And the
Speaker 1: Democrats can set their own rules here what is the process,
Speaker 1: and they're supposed to respect the processes of the past
Speaker 1: and impeachment. They're not doing that, of course, but by
Speaker 1: calling it an inquiry, it make it sound like it's
Speaker 1: an investigation. Of course, you want the answers in an investigation,
Speaker 1: just like the Muller probe. Right, how could you not
Speaker 1: want the Muller probe to be completed? Don't we want answers?
Speaker 1: How could you want the impeachment inquiry to not be completed?
Speaker 1: Don't you want answers? Oh? I guess yeah, I want
Speaker 1: to answer sure. Ah. So, therefore, the public supports the
Speaker 1: impeachment inquiry, and very very soon that will morph into well,
Speaker 1: the public must support impeachment then, because why else would
Speaker 1: you have an impeachment inquiry is it's all dishonesty. It's
Speaker 1: all just meant to mislead people, to mobilize the anti
Speaker 1: Trump left and to give the Democrats a political weapon
Speaker 1: against him. Oh but here's what Pelosi play clip six.
Speaker 1: Please keep saying that people, impeachment is about the truth
Speaker 1: and the constitution of the United States, any other issues
Speaker 1: that you have, disapproving of the way the president has
Speaker 1: dealt with Syria, whatever this subject is, reluctance, cowardice to
Speaker 1: do something about gun violence, the cruelty of not wanting
Speaker 1: to help our dreamers and transgender people, the denial about
Speaker 1: a climate crisis that we face. The list goes on.
Speaker 1: That's about the election. That has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: what is happening in terms of our oath of office
Speaker 1: to protect and defend the Constitution and the facts that
Speaker 1: might support And we don't know where this path will
Speaker 1: take us, but could take us down a further path.
Speaker 1: But these two are completely separate. But if we say,
Speaker 1: let's let the voters decide, who said that, I'm saying,
Speaker 1: at what point might you say, let's just no, no,
Speaker 1: we the voters are not going to decide whether we
Speaker 1: honor our oath of office. They already decided that in
Speaker 1: the last Voters aren't going to decide this. Pelosi's coming
Speaker 1: out and saying that, of course, and we know that
Speaker 1: that's true. But I would also note that that list
Speaker 1: that she rattled off about cowardice to do something on
Speaker 1: gun violence, cruelty to trans people, climate change crisis, all
Speaker 1: these things, that is actually what is pushing the impeachment,
Speaker 1: all this stuff about process. They hate him because of
Speaker 1: the policies, and they hate him because of who he is.
Speaker 1: And then they've tried desperately to find some failure within
Speaker 1: his conduct of the presidency to create the pretext or
Speaker 1: remove him. But they hate him for all these other reasons.
Speaker 1: They would find something in the process, but it's the
Speaker 1: substance of Trump that they object to so much. It's
Speaker 1: the substance of this president that they cannot abide by,
Speaker 1: that they cannot accept. That's, my friends, that's what's really happening,
Speaker 1: which is why Nancy Pelosi feels the need to tell us, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's not about policy, that's for voters. This is about
Speaker 1: something more than that. Oh yeah, like what violating his
Speaker 1: oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. How
Speaker 1: has he done that? Exactly? Where's the constitutional violation? Where's
Speaker 1: the oath of office violation? Conducting foreign policy? What? What
Speaker 1: is the what's the problem here? But they just say
Speaker 1: these things and people believe it all. I guess you
Speaker 1: must have violated his oath of office. That's really that
Speaker 1: sounds really serious. Can have this guy around anymore? It's absurd.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats are really an increasingly absurd bunch. I
Speaker 1: wish we could go back to the mean. I wish
Speaker 1: we could go back to some sense of Democrat political
Speaker 1: normalcy for what I used to think of as a
Speaker 1: Democratic party in the past, which was one that you
Speaker 1: knew that these impulses were all under the surface for
Speaker 1: totalitarian cancel culture and open borders and modern monetary theories.
Speaker 1: Spend all the money you want, does matter. The rich
Speaker 1: will pay for it. Even if they can't. We'll figure
Speaker 1: it out. I all these you knew that it was there,
Speaker 1: but they used to go through the motions of trying
Speaker 1: to convince us that wasn't really what they're all about.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party today, it doesn't even try to hide
Speaker 1: the crazy. The crazies dancing around the streets yelling we're
Speaker 1: going strinkang. And with that, it's time we jump into
Speaker 1: our segment, the Black Rifle Coffee Wake Up Call. Oh
Speaker 1: how do you wake up every day? I gotta tell
Speaker 1: you I do it with a cup of Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: They have incredible varieties, different blends, delicious coffee, roast to order,
Speaker 1: small back. So if you're somebody that's really into your
Speaker 1: coffee like I am, I drinking a few times every day,
Speaker 1: and you also want to support a great veteran owned
Speaker 1: and operated company, please give my friends at Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee your coffee business. It's the best way you can
Speaker 1: possibly go. They'll deliver it to your door every month
Speaker 1: if you joined the coffee club, or you can just
Speaker 1: buy one off to try it, but I think go
Speaker 1: Coffee club right away. Black Rifle Coffee supports veterans and
Speaker 1: first responders. Give them a ring. You'll see yourself. Get
Speaker 1: your wake up call with Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck and get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash
Speaker 1: buck for twenty percent off your first purchase Black Riflecoffee,
Speaker 1: dot Com, slash buck. To date, every single witness, every
Speaker 1: single fact has not supported any aid, uh pause or
Speaker 1: or hold up in foreign aid being attached to any conditions.
Speaker 1: And that's been consistent with every witness that we've heard
Speaker 1: from so far. Mark Meadows telling us, Look, the quid
Speaker 1: pro quo has not been established behind closed doors either.
Speaker 1: The fact that Democrats are even having these hearing behind
Speaker 1: closed doors just tells you all you need to know
Speaker 1: about whether this is really an issue of transparency and
Speaker 1: accountability for government or if it's just dirty politics, which
Speaker 1: of the Democrats are excelling at and have for a
Speaker 1: long time, dirty politics. Look, the president's out there saying
Speaker 1: straight up they're going to look into what happened in
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election. Why is it the Democrats got
Speaker 1: to run the Special Council, got to do all these things,
Speaker 1: all these leftists, all these trumpeters, they got to have
Speaker 1: their version of twenty sixteen, used the government to do it,
Speaker 1: media beating the drums all along. This is what needs
Speaker 1: to happen. Why can't there be an investigation of the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election and the presentation of facts from it.
Speaker 1: Based on the people who are duly constituted in office
Speaker 1: right now with those powers. Here is our president talking
Speaker 1: about this. Our country is looking into the corruption of
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election. It was a corrupt election. Whether
Speaker 1: it's Coomy or McCabe or Struck or his lover Lisa
Speaker 1: Page and two great lovers, there was a lot of corruption.
Speaker 1: Maybe it goes right up to President Obama. I happen
Speaker 1: to think it does. What if that's true, By the way,
Speaker 1: I think it does too. I don't know. I always
Speaker 1: tell you what I know and don't know, but be
Speaker 1: prepared for this possibility. We've been all along because of
Speaker 1: what has been put out there, and obviously this is
Speaker 1: always you're always swimming upstream trying to get answers about
Speaker 1: the absurd theory that was used to destroy careers and lives.
Speaker 1: And it's really just a rejection of the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election results by crazy Democrats. But the theory that the
Speaker 1: president worked with the Russians left no trail, worked with
Speaker 1: the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the basis of all this, the Russia collusion conspiracy stuff.
Speaker 1: You look at all this and we know that Struck
Speaker 1: and Page and McCabe, these very powerful figures within the
Speaker 1: government hated Trump and abuse their powers against And that's now,
Speaker 1: that's a matter of record, a matter of fact. What
Speaker 1: we don't know and it will be very hard to
Speaker 1: find out, and they will start to claim executive privilege,
Speaker 1: and who knows how much other records already been destroyed.
Speaker 1: We don't know is when did Obama know that there
Speaker 1: was an investigation of the Trump campaign? Who briefed President
Speaker 1: Obama on the efforts, let's say, to entrap Papadopolis or
Speaker 1: to have Fiza on Carter page? Is it credible? Let's
Speaker 1: just start with things that whether it's credible or not credible.
Speaker 1: Is it believable that James Come at the FBI would
Speaker 1: not have briefed Obama on an ongoing surveillance of not
Speaker 1: one but two Trump campaign associates while there were also
Speaker 1: concerns about Russian interference in the twenty upcoming twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: Is that plausa? And what if it then becomes clear
Speaker 1: that Obama knew that this was going on, At what
Speaker 1: point do we take the next step of was he
Speaker 1: encouraging it? Did you think that this is something that
Speaker 1: should have gotten even further resources and attention. And what
Speaker 1: would the media that now pretends to care so much
Speaker 1: about truth transparency in the American way, how will they
Speaker 1: react if, in fact, we ever get to the point
Speaker 1: that it's clear President Obama himself knew. I mean, remember
Speaker 1: all the unmasking requests. We've talked about the US persons
Speaker 1: getting unmasked by very senior Obama administration officials. There was
Speaker 1: all this stuff. We've never gotten answers about why were
Speaker 1: they doing that? And you look back at the denials.
Speaker 1: Then we didn't know quite as much about Brennan and
Speaker 1: Komi and Clapper. I mean, these guys are loons, self
Speaker 1: obsessed loons who hate Trump, and we're willing to do
Speaker 1: very shady, abusive, unethical things. Wow, director of the CIA,
Speaker 1: while the director of the FBI, I mean, really scary stuff.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America buck sex in his back.
Speaker 1: So I do think it is helpful to Democrats, in
Speaker 1: terms of their electoral prospects, to as much as possible
Speaker 1: focus on slogans about Trump being a traitor and being
Speaker 1: crazy and on all these things, and avoid, for avoid
Speaker 1: discussion of their actual policy choices, because not only are
Speaker 1: their policy choices bad, they can't even really explain them.
Speaker 1: They cannot answer very important, straightforward questions on the point
Speaker 1: about how crazy though they think Trump is. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just a great example of anonymous source out
Speaker 1: there telling us, oh, my gosh, Trump is a madman.
Speaker 1: We can't handle him. What are we gonna do? What
Speaker 1: are we gonna do? Play clip twenty three. My good man,
Speaker 1: We've spoken to a Republican source who is in the room,
Speaker 1: and I'm told that they were alarmed at his demeanor.
Speaker 1: Quote everyone left completely shaken, shell shocked. He is not
Speaker 1: in control of himself. It is all yelling and screaming.
Speaker 1: And I asked the source, you know who's been in
Speaker 1: many meetings with them, has it changed? Is it worse?
Speaker 1: Because every week we talk about is it getting worse?
Speaker 1: And the source said percent. I asked, are you worried
Speaker 1: about his stability? And the source said yes. And the
Speaker 1: source went on to talk to other senior Republicans who
Speaker 1: were in the meeting. They were also shaken up. One
Speaker 1: used the word sickened. And also they got a sense
Speaker 1: of the Pentagon the generals who were there, and they
Speaker 1: were very upset and the same thing that this, this
Speaker 1: goes beyond, this is just enough enough enough, all right?
Speaker 1: This is how many times do we go through this cycle?
Speaker 1: This is its own new cycle. Trump is crazy. I
Speaker 1: think we didn't move on to the twenty fourth Amendment
Speaker 1: because he's crazy. They did this before, the year ago,
Speaker 1: year before that. To this CNN reporter talking about her source,
Speaker 1: if I were in the room with the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, and I truly believed, beyond any reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt that the president was having the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: mental breakdown, the president had lost his mind and was
Speaker 1: a danger. The things that they say are danger to
Speaker 1: the republic. If you believe that and you do not
Speaker 1: have the courage and the basic patriotism to step forward,
Speaker 1: I don't care what your job is, I don't care
Speaker 1: what your role is in this White House or what
Speaker 1: elected official or whatever, and speak about that the American people,
Speaker 1: you're a coward. Wait, people who are putting on the
Speaker 1: uniform overseas getting shot at. We got people that have
Speaker 1: lost limbs fighting for this country. People have died for
Speaker 1: this country, stretching back for our entire history. You're in
Speaker 1: a position of authority, in power, you're going to tell
Speaker 1: this reporter, Oh, I'm scared of the President's crazy. But
Speaker 1: you won't come forward and say why an anonymous source here, Oh,
Speaker 1: because it'd be so terrible for this person to speak that.
Speaker 1: Are you kidding me? They get a book, They get
Speaker 1: a book deal and an MSNBC contributorship in like five minutes. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's so scary to stand up in Trump. No, it's not.
Speaker 1: In fact, the money, the fame, the people thinking you're amazing,
Speaker 1: that's all on the anti Trump side. You want to
Speaker 1: be you want to be somebody that's that's marked. Try
Speaker 1: to be a Trump supporter in public. Try to be
Speaker 1: in public life and say that I think that President
Speaker 1: Trump is great. You know, there are a few places,
Speaker 1: there are a few places in American society where you
Speaker 1: can do it. You can do it, you know, as
Speaker 1: a you can do it at Fox News, you can
Speaker 1: do it on talk radio. A few places where it's
Speaker 1: a safe space to say that you like President Trump.
Speaker 1: But in the broader American society, culture, academia, entertainment media.
Speaker 1: Go to any major city, walk around with a Maga
Speaker 1: hat on and see how much fun that is. Any
Speaker 1: major city of the United States yeah, some people will
Speaker 1: be fine with it, but some people won't, and they'll
Speaker 1: let you know. But why can't this person, why can't
Speaker 1: the expect expectation be that if there's really such a
Speaker 1: need that the president of United States that is so
Speaker 1: scary and crazy that this person wouldn't come for and
Speaker 1: say something. No, another anonymous report about how the president's crazy.
Speaker 1: If you think the president's crazy, you don't tell a
Speaker 1: CNN propagandist to go and tell the American people that
Speaker 1: the president's crazy. You stand forward, you say it yourself,
Speaker 1: and if you don't, you're a coward. That's it. And
Speaker 1: you do it while you're there, by the way, while
Speaker 1: you're in office. You don't do it a year later
Speaker 1: when you're trying to You don't pull the mooch where
Speaker 1: the mooch was. Anything Trump did was amazing until all
Speaker 1: of a sudden he's not in Trump's good graces, and
Speaker 1: now you know everything Trumps does is terrible and he's
Speaker 1: crazy and he's gross. No, no credibility whatsoever. You can't
Speaker 1: do that. It's not allowed to anybody who's going to
Speaker 1: be reasonable and rational. But so they want to talk
Speaker 1: about how Trump is crazy. But then there's some other
Speaker 1: problems that they have because occasionally even left wing Democrats
Speaker 1: want to have some idea among different Democrat choices of
Speaker 1: what they're signing on for. Right, and this Medicare for
Speaker 1: all plan, which has been rightly pointed out by somebody
Speaker 1: on Team Buck yesterday who wrote in that it's not
Speaker 1: really Medicare for all. That's not the true description of
Speaker 1: the program. It's single payer. Is really a much more
Speaker 1: accurate description of what the Democrats want. The government pays
Speaker 1: for all your healthcare. Problem with that is, as we've
Speaker 1: been discussing, single payer is really expensive. Here is a
Speaker 1: fantastic montage Elizabeth Warren, who I think is now the
Speaker 1: standard bearer for single payer healthcare because look, Bernie's too
Speaker 1: old and it's not going to happen for him this cycle.
Speaker 1: I just don't. I don't think it's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he'll win, who knows, But how
Speaker 1: often am I really wrong? Elizabeth Warren is now picking
Speaker 1: up steam as the as the progressive favorite. She's the
Speaker 1: more adept spokesperson for Medicare for all. Here is what
Speaker 1: happens when you ask her Will this is very straightforward.
Speaker 1: Will taxes go up on the middle class in America
Speaker 1: if Medicare for All happens. Please play clip twenty two.
Speaker 1: Will you raise taxes on the middle class for paper
Speaker 1: to pay for it? Yes or noes? Costs will go
Speaker 1: up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for
Speaker 1: hard working middle class families, costs will go down. Hardworking
Speaker 1: middle class families are going to see their costs go
Speaker 1: down and bold their taxes go up. Well, but here's
Speaker 1: the thing. But here's the thing. I've listened to these
Speaker 1: answers a few times before. Will middle class taxes go up?
Speaker 1: Will private insurance be eliminated? Look, what families have to
Speaker 1: deal with is cost, total cost. That's what they have
Speaker 1: to deal with it. How much are your costs going
Speaker 1: to go? Different questions? How much will your tax it's
Speaker 1: how much are your costs different? How much? It's how
Speaker 1: much families end up an argument, but will you pay
Speaker 1: more in taxes? But why don't you want to answer
Speaker 1: that question? Because because it's a republican it's not a
Speaker 1: republican talk because different question. It's a question about where
Speaker 1: people are going to come out economically. Looks question cross
Speaker 1: will go down on the middle class, No low down. Hm.
Speaker 1: Notice how she's talking about costs. Interesting that she wants
Speaker 1: to go there because she won't tell you what's true,
Speaker 1: which is that to even begin to pay for this,
Speaker 1: which the what the Urban Institute says will cost and
Speaker 1: which is left wing, cost about thirty four trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in the next ten years. So you could spend almost
Speaker 1: every tax dollar currently taken by the federal government. We
Speaker 1: are pretty heavily taxed, Take every dollar, and you would
Speaker 1: basically spend it all on this program. Okay, so then
Speaker 1: let's look at her. Her dodge here of the question,
Speaker 1: but she dodged over and over and over again. We
Speaker 1: will taxes go up? Yes, or answer me that. You
Speaker 1: can tell us how it's going to be wonderful and
Speaker 1: you know, candy canes and unicorns and chocolate syrup rivers
Speaker 1: and whatever else you want to tell us. You can
Speaker 1: do that, but first you have to tell us that
Speaker 1: the taxes are gonna go up in the middle class.
Speaker 1: We can make an informed decision. Oh you know who
Speaker 1: didn't let us make an informed decision about the last
Speaker 1: healthcare overhaul, Barack Obama when he lied to the American
Speaker 1: people by saying if you like your healthcare plan, you
Speaker 1: can keep it. Millions of people were knocked off their plans.
Speaker 1: Most of them were then transferred onto Obamacare plans that
Speaker 1: were far inferior to what they were getting before. Then
Speaker 1: some people got on Obamacare plans that were subsidized, and
Speaker 1: they're a little bit better off. But a lot of
Speaker 1: people lost their plan, lost their doctor. And as I
Speaker 1: find more and more as I get old, of the
Speaker 1: practitioner matters. Just getting to od doctor is not good
Speaker 1: enough unless you just have a ear infection or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you have any kind of problem that
Speaker 1: requires real ongoing care, a difficult diagnosis, and any number
Speaker 1: of issues that we all deal with in the healthcare system.
Speaker 1: The doctor matters. You know, they like this one size
Speaker 1: fits all. Oh, but you know it's gonna be Medicare
Speaker 1: for all, but it's gonna be government paying for it.
Speaker 1: The governments can tell you who you can see and
Speaker 1: what they're allowed to charge. And central planning. This is
Speaker 1: all central planning. It always fails. It does not work.
Speaker 1: It doesn't work the way they say, well, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: they'll be uulously some doctors. And you look at foreign
Speaker 1: countries that have a single payer system, there's some healthcare there,
Speaker 1: But go speak to British people about how much how
Speaker 1: many wealthy Brits for heart surgery go to Thailand. Now,
Speaker 1: medical tourism from these European states that have free healthcare,
Speaker 1: Why is medical tourism such a big thing booming industry
Speaker 1: in India and Thailand? Seems kind of strange, doesn't it?
Speaker 1: Because those countries have these burgeoning medical systems where people
Speaker 1: pay cash and people pay for the services, knowing that
Speaker 1: it's very expensive here in America to have any of
Speaker 1: those procedures done because of the system we have in
Speaker 1: the way that health insurance companies allocate capital. But back
Speaker 1: to the issue of costs. Costs is also a very
Speaker 1: broad term for her to tell you what you're caught,
Speaker 1: what a cost would be for middle class family, she
Speaker 1: would have to know what your expenses would be, what
Speaker 1: your healthcare expenses would be. And the end she has
Speaker 1: no idea, she has no idea what the expenses will
Speaker 1: be from this press, absolutely know whatsoever. But the promise
Speaker 1: is that, well, you spend this amount on healthcare right now,
Speaker 1: you're going to spend less because we're going to siphon
Speaker 1: money from the wealthy and from corporations into your healthcare plan.
Speaker 1: We're going to do it so efficiently. We're going to
Speaker 1: allocate this capital so intelligently that you know you're going
Speaker 1: to have more money in your bank account at the
Speaker 1: end of the year as a middle class family under
Speaker 1: an Elizabeth Warren plan, that's just not going to happen, folks,
Speaker 1: just not going to happen. You're going to have to
Speaker 1: have taxes raised. And even with taxes raised, you're going
Speaker 1: to have tremendous structural, deep structural inefficiencies in the system,
Speaker 1: rationing long wait times. This is your healthcare future if
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren gets her way. We need to understand that.
Speaker 1: We need to be clear about that. She's not even
Speaker 1: clear about it, though, because she can't answer the basic
Speaker 1: question of how are you how are you going to
Speaker 1: pay for this? Wow tax it's costs to go down.
Speaker 1: For the middle class, they'll go down. But for the
Speaker 1: wealthy and for corporations, No, it's not just gonna be
Speaker 1: the It's never just the wealthy. There's not enough money.
Speaker 1: There's not enough money from the wealthy and the corporations
Speaker 1: to pay for this. They couldn't do it. And then
Speaker 1: think about what that would also do to the broader economy.
Speaker 1: Who invests, who starts new companies, who creates jobs for
Speaker 1: other people, People with capital concentrations of it, and they
Speaker 1: are more efficient with it in the government will ever
Speaker 1: be We already know this, But this is the dream.
Speaker 1: This has been the dream of progressives and socialists, that's right,
Speaker 1: socialists in America for over one hundred years. That's how
Speaker 1: close we should probably remind ourselves of this. That's how
Speaker 1: close they are at this point when they say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's not socialism, Well, this is what the socialists have
Speaker 1: wanted since the beginning of the twentieth century in America.
Speaker 1: This is what the socialists have wanted since the progressives
Speaker 1: of whist Nson. We're first trying to take ideas from
Speaker 1: the European continent and apply them here status authoritarian ideas
Speaker 1: at that of redistribution, of class warfare, of Marxism. But
Speaker 1: we're just I hope we don't have to learn the
Speaker 1: hard way, because Democrats will want us to learn the
Speaker 1: hard way, and they still they won't even learn the
Speaker 1: lesson when it is hard. Every single Democrat candidate for
Speaker 1: president raise their hand in favor of giving free healthcare
Speaker 1: to all illegal aliots. They want to give more to
Speaker 1: illegal aliens than they give to American citizens. You see that.
Speaker 1: As president, I will never allow the Democrats to take
Speaker 1: away your healthcare dollars and give them to people that
Speaker 1: are in our country illegally. I think that that's going
Speaker 1: to come back to haunt the Democrats. I thought it along.
Speaker 1: I said it on the Bill Marshaw back in August,
Speaker 1: that every Democrat. It was a two night debate, so
Speaker 1: technically there were some Democrats who weren't on the stage,
Speaker 1: who were still in the race, but one night, every
Speaker 1: Democrat at the debate said they all raised their hands,
Speaker 1: they all made it clear that they wanted to give
Speaker 1: healthcare to illegal aliens. I just want to think about
Speaker 1: this for beyond the fact that that's absurd, it's insane,
Speaker 1: and that any Democrat would ever think that that was feasible,
Speaker 1: it's just because how would you implement this. Does that
Speaker 1: mean that if somebody shows up in this country, someone
Speaker 1: crosses the border and says, hey, I need open heart surgery.
Speaker 1: I know I just ran across the border, but I
Speaker 1: need open heart surgery. We just say, okay, we're going
Speaker 1: to keep you in the country. We're not. We can't
Speaker 1: kick you out, because, of course, illegal aliens are the
Speaker 1: they are the foundation upon which this country is built,
Speaker 1: the Democrats believe. So you get to stay, and then
Speaker 1: you're going to have a procedure that will cost taxpayers
Speaker 1: about a million dollars. Why would anybody in the third world,
Speaker 1: why would anybody in developing countries not just come to
Speaker 1: America and demand world class medical treatment. It's worth it,
Speaker 1: I mean, it might be something that changes or saves
Speaker 1: your life. Right, So where do you do? You have
Speaker 1: to be an illegal that's here for a certain amount
Speaker 1: of time for this to to qualify for this, you
Speaker 1: have to be an a legal alien who falls into
Speaker 1: a specific category of certain nations for you to get
Speaker 1: these healthcare benefits that they've promised you. I have to say,
Speaker 1: it is just it is remarkable to me how extreme
Speaker 1: and unworkable many of these Democrat ideas and proposals are.
Speaker 1: And that may be why may Or Pete for example,
Speaker 1: recognizes that as much as all these polls and all
Speaker 1: these people in the media are telling you that anybody
Speaker 1: can beat Trump, and Trump's a paper tiger and Trump
Speaker 1: King and all this stuff, he was a little more
Speaker 1: Circumspect when he was asked about whether every single Democrat
Speaker 1: in the field right now would be able to beat
Speaker 1: for President Trump. Do you really believe that everybody on
Speaker 1: that stage can beat President Trump. I'm not so sure,
Speaker 1: and I think that in order to win, and in
Speaker 1: order to deserve to win, we've got to answer the
Speaker 1: fundamental problems that Donald Trump took advantage of to take
Speaker 1: over the Republican Party and get elected. And we got
Speaker 1: to find a way to do it that people can
Speaker 1: see where they fit and that unites the country. Look,
Speaker 1: we're never going to win everybody over, but I think
Speaker 1: it means a lot that with incredibly progressive proposals, I'm
Speaker 1: also getting Republicans saying that they would support me because
Speaker 1: they're so disgusted with what's happening in the Trump Way.
Speaker 1: I don't need a Republican I know a lot of Republicans.
Speaker 1: I don't know any Republicans who are jumping on the
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete vandwagon. I don't know any of I don't
Speaker 1: know any of those. I do know some that like Tulsey,
Speaker 1: not the only one. I'm just putting that out there,
Speaker 1: but he understands Mayor Pete understands that some of these
Speaker 1: are a disaster for the Termocratic party, and really the
Speaker 1: disastrous one the most disasters would be Bernie Sanders because
Speaker 1: the stuff that he would want to do, it's never
Speaker 1: going to happen. It can't get done. He can't defend that.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense. But it sounds good to people
Speaker 1: who will believe in fairy tales. What Bernie tells them
Speaker 1: sounds good that they believe in the magic of the
Speaker 1: federal government that can provide better healthcare, more healthcare, more
Speaker 1: cheaply to people, as if the government is in the
Speaker 1: in the business of business and is a creative force
Speaker 1: and not generally a restrictive and destructive force. This is
Speaker 1: where you have the baseline philosophical differences between or a
Speaker 1: right and left. Showing them seats Bernie Sanders, though, just
Speaker 1: highlights it in a way that even Democrats, I think
Speaker 1: are starting to figure out. Oh that guy's crazy. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence,
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, you're a great American again. This is
Speaker 1: the buck st didn't show formless CIA analysts remember at
Speaker 1: the ANIMI v. D. Bock Sexton it didn't, Buck Sexton. No,
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan would never issue a subpoena. I don't say
Speaker 1: right or wrong. He wouldn't do it. He had too
Speaker 1: much respect for our country. Nancy Pelosi hands him out
Speaker 1: like cookies. Everybody. I don't even know these people for
Speaker 1: the most part, people like that at destim I don't
Speaker 1: even know who they are. I've never even heard of
Speaker 1: some of them, most of them weaponizing the process against
Speaker 1: President Trump, against this White House? Is that really what
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is doing? And what can Trump you to
Speaker 1: fight back? Our friend Annie McCartney is back in the house.
Speaker 1: He is Fox Is contributor, author, also senior editor National Review.
Speaker 1: Any great to have you back, sir, fuck always great?
Speaker 1: All right, So, so how is this impeachment inquiry proceeding
Speaker 1: thus far? I mean, from the procedurals standpoint, what is
Speaker 1: kind of okay? What's dirty? And what are the Democrats
Speaker 1: really doing? Well? The Democrats from the beginning, Buck, have
Speaker 1: decided that the president's not fit for office. So they've
Speaker 1: already kind of made their decision, and they've been looking
Speaker 1: for a hook that they could hang it on in
Speaker 1: the way of impeachable offenses. But you know, the Muller
Speaker 1: investigation came up dry. So now they're onto the Ukraine thing.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is unusual and irregular in the
Speaker 1: sense that what generally happens, not that we have that
Speaker 1: much experience with impeachment, is that the president commits misconduct
Speaker 1: and we deduce from the misconduct whether it's so serious
Speaker 1: that impeachment is warranted. Here, instead, we have a situation
Speaker 1: where the Democrats decided ahead of time, before he ever
Speaker 1: stepped into the oval office, that Trump was unfit and
Speaker 1: they've been looking for something to sort of hang that
Speaker 1: conclusion on from the beginning. So this is what we like.
Speaker 1: What we now have is the Ukrainian episode in this effort. Now, Andy,
Speaker 1: what about the claims that the White House is making
Speaker 1: that they're not going to comply. How does that duel
Speaker 1: between the executive branch and the Democrat controlled House pushing
Speaker 1: forward on this impeachment inquiry? You know, where does that go?
Speaker 1: And what's the White House arguing about who does or
Speaker 1: doesn't have to testify? And what is the Democrat House
Speaker 1: majority going to say or Democrat led by Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: going to say? Yeah? But the important thing to remember
Speaker 1: what these kind of contests between the executive and the
Speaker 1: legislative branches is that they are political in nature. Impeachment
Speaker 1: is political in nature. It's not a legal process for
Speaker 1: assessing guilt. It's a political process for stripping political authority.
Speaker 1: So what the President is trying to do is demonstrate
Speaker 1: that the or demonstrate to the public, which is the
Speaker 1: court that matters here, that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate
Speaker 1: because the House the Constitution commits the authority to impeach
Speaker 1: the whole of it to the House of Representatives, not
Speaker 1: to the Speaker, and not to a cabal of partisan
Speaker 1: committee chairman. And because the House acts as an institution
Speaker 1: only when it votes, and the House has never voted
Speaker 1: to have an impeachment inquiry. The President is arguing that
Speaker 1: the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and he doesn't need to
Speaker 1: cooperate with it. Plus, he has a lot of privileges
Speaker 1: against cooperation, like executive privilege, most prominently, which is only
Speaker 1: going to be pierced by something that's in the nature
Speaker 1: of serious misconduct, and which he shouldn't be asked to
Speaker 1: give up unless the House, as an institution, votes to
Speaker 1: have an impeachment inquiry. So that's their position. The Houses
Speaker 1: position is that there's nothing in the Constitution that requires
Speaker 1: it to have a vote in order to inquire, that
Speaker 1: it has the standing committees that have authority, so they
Speaker 1: can conduct an impeachment inquiry through the offices of those
Speaker 1: committees without having to have a vote, and that their
Speaker 1: subpoenas are perfectly legitimate and the administration should honor them
Speaker 1: because Congress has oversight power whether it's conducting an impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry or not. And the political hammer that they hold
Speaker 1: in the equation is that if the president doesn't cooperate,
Speaker 1: they can always add an article of impeachment about failing
Speaker 1: to cooperate with legitimate demands for information by Congress. So
Speaker 1: this is the political battle that takes place, and it
Speaker 1: really depends on what the public thinks of all this.
Speaker 1: My own view of it, for what it's worth, is
Speaker 1: that the underlying conduct here related to Ukraine. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of things to criticize the president about
Speaker 1: in it, but I don't think any of it rises
Speaker 1: to the level of impeachable offenses. Do you well, I mean,
Speaker 1: would you describe it as as ugly politics by the president?
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you how do you gauge, how
Speaker 1: do you assess the whole Ukraine situation? Where where is
Speaker 1: the president vulnerable? And what's a fair way of framing it.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's unsavory conduct in the sense that
Speaker 1: the Congress voted for aid for Ukraine, the President signed
Speaker 1: off on the legislation. He should have just given the
Speaker 1: aid to Ukraine. There's nothing wrong in principle with a
Speaker 1: president asking a foreign government for help in an American
Speaker 1: Justice Department investigation. But the Justice Department didn't ask the
Speaker 1: President to lean on Ukraine for help. So the fact
Speaker 1: that he did it without you know, usually when these
Speaker 1: things happened buck in the Justice Department, it's because the
Speaker 1: Justice Department is doing an investigation, it realizes it needs
Speaker 1: assistant from assistance from a foreign government, and if the
Speaker 1: foreign government doesn't cooperate, like for example, the Saudis didn't
Speaker 1: cooperate with us in connection with the Kobar Towers bombing
Speaker 1: in the mid nineties, you asked the president to lean
Speaker 1: on the other government to help you here. There was
Speaker 1: no discussion apparently between Attorney General Barr and the president,
Speaker 1: and the president kind of unsolicited not only asked his
Speaker 1: Ukrainian counterpart to help Bar. He simultaneously asked him to
Speaker 1: help Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, who was the President's private lawyer
Speaker 1: and is conducting research in Ukraine that might be helpful
Speaker 1: to Trump's twenty twenty campaign to the extent it's damaging
Speaker 1: to Biden. So what what Trump risked doing is exactly
Speaker 1: what Justice Department doesn't want done, which is the sense
Speaker 1: that it's investigation of the twenty sixteen, you know, the
Speaker 1: abuses of power in connection with twenty sixteen, that that
Speaker 1: is political, rather than what the Attorney General has stressed
Speaker 1: up until now, which is that it's the Justice Department's
Speaker 1: obligation to look back at this kind of misbehavior and
Speaker 1: see if any crimes were committed and if any procedures
Speaker 1: have to be changed. So I think, you know, the
Speaker 1: way the President handled this, he potentially brings discredit and
Speaker 1: delegitimizes the Justice Department's investigation and bounds it up with
Speaker 1: his own twenty twenty reelection effort, which is exactly the
Speaker 1: way the Democrats have tried to portray the bar investigation
Speaker 1: from the beginning. So I think those things are all
Speaker 1: ways that I think you can legitimately say the President
Speaker 1: did not This was not perfect as the President as
Speaker 1: likes to say. On the other hand, buck, we have
Speaker 1: to like take a step back and realized Ukraine did
Speaker 1: get the aid, it never really did get hold held
Speaker 1: up in any way that was meaningful or harmful, And
Speaker 1: the Justice Department was never in communication with the White
Speaker 1: House or with the Ukrainian authority, so it didn't really
Speaker 1: affect the Justice Department's investigation. So the atmospherics are bad.
Speaker 1: But when you look at this and say, well, what
Speaker 1: harm actually happened doesn't appear to be any So to
Speaker 1: talk about it in the sense of an impeachable offense,
Speaker 1: which is supposed to be reserved for really egregious misconduct
Speaker 1: that does real harm, is really I think overwrought. What
Speaker 1: is the argument that you know, I keep hearing from
Speaker 1: Pelosi and others he violated his oath of office to
Speaker 1: the Constitution. Do they just is that just a general
Speaker 1: thing to say or is there some specific way they
Speaker 1: try to tie they said, I keep wondering what is
Speaker 1: the what is the alleged if not even crime, the
Speaker 1: alleged political crime that they think comes up in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Because I mean when you're pointing out, Yeah, there's some
Speaker 1: procedural uh, you know, some procedural missteps. It looks it
Speaker 1: looks a little sloppy the way the president did it. Sure,
Speaker 1: but what is the real I mean, because initially Andy,
Speaker 1: they were saying there's a possible campaign finance criminal violation,
Speaker 1: and that just that just faded away because that was
Speaker 1: too absurd to even hang their hats on. So what
Speaker 1: is it now? Yeah, So I think there's two things, buck,
Speaker 1: and both of them are pretty weak. One is that
Speaker 1: the president is supposed to take care that the laws
Speaker 1: be faithfully executed, and the Congress voted aid for Ukraine,
Speaker 1: which the President slow walk rather than delivering it to
Speaker 1: Ukraine on schedule. So that's outside the statute as the
Speaker 1: Congress enacted it and that the President signed off on.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, the president has almost cleanary
Speaker 1: authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign relations, and while
Speaker 1: he shouldn't delay aid for any but very good reasons,
Speaker 1: he's got the authority to do that. So I think
Speaker 1: it's a pretty weak argument. The other one that's even weaker,
Speaker 1: I think, is this new thing they're floating, which is
Speaker 1: about extortion and the idea that the president pressured the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians in order to get accommodations from them, including some
Speaker 1: that might have helped him politically. The problem with that
Speaker 1: book is that extortion is a domestic crime. It is
Speaker 1: not applicable to foreign relations, where we actually want the
Speaker 1: president to be able to squeeze foreign governments and put
Speaker 1: a lot of pressure on them in the service. This
Speaker 1: is what mulvanny was basically trying to say, perhaps in ourfully,
Speaker 1: He's like, we do quid pro quos the foreign governments
Speaker 1: all the time. That's very true, exactly right. So you know,
Speaker 1: what you're doing is apples, or what they're doing is
Speaker 1: apples and oranges. You know, Yes, there are situations where
Speaker 1: when somebody pressures another person, you know, threatening them with
Speaker 1: economic harm or other kinds of harm in order to
Speaker 1: get them to do something, that's extortion. And then so
Speaker 1: it's a federal crime, and it's a crime in most states.
Speaker 1: In foreign relations where we're not under the rule of
Speaker 1: law and we're not all dealing, you know, we're not
Speaker 1: all just like citizens under the same sovereign countries pressure
Speaker 1: or other countries in order to get them to do things.
Speaker 1: And sometimes that pressure gets to the point of war,
Speaker 1: so you know, it's it's not domestic law enforcement. And again,
Speaker 1: can you imagine what would be the point of having
Speaker 1: a president of the United States if the president could
Speaker 1: not use whatever was available to him to pressure governments,
Speaker 1: which are often rogue governments that are anti American, to
Speaker 1: do things that we want them to do in the
Speaker 1: interest of American security and global stability. Yeah. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure that George W. Bush said, you know, handover bin
Speaker 1: lad in Taliban or else, We're coming for you with
Speaker 1: everything we got. So and they were technically the government
Speaker 1: to Aphanison at the time, folks, So there was that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I don't think the Justice Department investigated Bush for extortion. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would certainly hope not any McCarthy everybody the one
Speaker 1: and only. Check out his latest on nash review dot com.
Speaker 1: Also great editorialist week in The New York Post on impeachment. Annie,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us or we'll talk to you soon. Thanks,
Speaker 1: but welcome back team. A massive gun battle in Kulia Khan,
Speaker 1: northwest of Mexico City, down in Mexico, involving one of
Speaker 1: the well the son of the most notorious cartel leader
Speaker 1: perhaps of all time, maybe only second to Pablo Escobar
Speaker 1: El Chapooman. His son was captured in Kuliya Khan. His
Speaker 1: son's name is Video Guzman Lopez. So he's a son
Speaker 1: of Joaquin Guzman Loeiro, who is known as El Chapo,
Speaker 1: the Sinaloa cartel leaders currently serving a life sentence plus
Speaker 1: thirty years. The Mexican police managed to find this son
Speaker 1: of El Chappo, and you would think that this would
Speaker 1: be a cause for celebration, but then the entire city erupted,
Speaker 1: erupted in chaos, gun battles. There were cartel sicarios, their
Speaker 1: assassins deployed in the streets with fifty caliber rifles. There
Speaker 1: were cartel members who had mounted machine guns. There's video
Speaker 1: all over the internet now social media of just gun
Speaker 1: battles raging. It sounds like Fulujah circa two thousand and five,
Speaker 1: just machine gun fire all over the place, smoke billowing
Speaker 1: into the air. And what was truly stunning is the
Speaker 1: Mexican authorities released, oh, Video Guzman Lopez released El Chapo's
Speaker 1: son because they were afraid of further bloodshed. That's right,
Speaker 1: my friends, a notorious cartel boss is captured and then
Speaker 1: released because the cartels can put so much firepower on
Speaker 1: the streets they can effectively take an entire city in
Speaker 1: Mexico hostage. They outgunned Mexican police and federal police units
Speaker 1: outgunned them. They were calling in for reinforcements, and the cartel,
Speaker 1: the cartel hitmen were able to just bring too much
Speaker 1: fire under their locations. They had to withdraw, stunning. We
Speaker 1: were gonna have my friend yone Grillo join us, Deady
Speaker 1: from Mexico City, but actually having trouble getting thrown the
Speaker 1: phone lines there. Will have to have you own back
Speaker 1: next week to tell us what's going on. So sorry
Speaker 1: about the the guest lineup changeup, but we'll have you
Speaker 1: own joining us when we can. And I just would
Speaker 1: note that Mexico had last year one I can't remember
Speaker 1: if twenty seventeen or twenty eighteen. It was one of
Speaker 1: those years, the worst year in the history of that
Speaker 1: country for murders. We have an opioid epidemic. Yes, I know,
Speaker 1: there's billions and billions of dollars that are going to
Speaker 1: be paid out now by drug companies that did have
Speaker 1: a very egregious hand in the opioid epidemic. But you know,
Speaker 1: what else has a big has a big part of
Speaker 1: the opiated epidemic. The car tells that are flooding this
Speaker 1: country with it, and the Mexican government while we think
Speaker 1: of it as somewhat in control of the situation, or
Speaker 1: I should say, we don't hear much about it, so
Speaker 1: people assume it can't be that bad. It's really bad.
Speaker 1: I mean, what does it mean. Imagine for a moment
Speaker 1: that there was a gang member in the United States
Speaker 1: who was seized in let's say Boston, you know, a
Speaker 1: good sized American city, and that gang member was able
Speaker 1: to put out the call that all of his hitmen
Speaker 1: needed to start attacking police units all across the city.
Speaker 1: And then the authorities in Boston were like, well, we
Speaker 1: can't handle all this heat, so we're just gonna let
Speaker 1: this guy go. What a sad day for the country
Speaker 1: of Mexico. That's the that's the response. You allow a
Speaker 1: cartel member to take a city hostage, you release him.
Speaker 1: What message does that send going forward? Anytime any member
Speaker 1: of the cartel who's senior enough gets picked up by
Speaker 1: Mexican marines and the federales or whomever, they're just gonna say, Okay,
Speaker 1: well now we're gonna we're gonna wire up a school
Speaker 1: with C four unless you let me free. You know,
Speaker 1: this is negotiating with terrorists in the worst possible way,
Speaker 1: with Narco terrorists. And it's just a big indicator of
Speaker 1: how deeply not just corrupt, but really unstable Mexico is.
Speaker 1: It's stable in so far as the cartels are able
Speaker 1: to keep poisoning American cities and killing tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of our American of our fellow Americans, making billions and
Speaker 1: billions of dollars in the process, also making hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions off of human smuggling at our southern border. You know,
Speaker 1: kids in cages, they yelled, Yeah, but the cartels are
Speaker 1: making a lot of money in that whole process. By
Speaker 1: the way, he's back with you now, because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. Now, team,
Speaker 1: I promise we're not going to do a daily Tulsie
Speaker 1: Gabbert defense here. Okay, We're not going to just have
Speaker 1: bucks it here every day and say that Tulsie. And
Speaker 1: when you wrote in that Tulsie's married, I know she's married. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not this show. This show is not some audio
Speaker 1: bouquet of flowers sent to Tulsie Gabbert on a regular
Speaker 1: basis in the hopes that she'll notice and perhaps come
Speaker 1: in for a lengthy interview that would clearly go viral
Speaker 1: and be fantastic. But I'm just I try to find
Speaker 1: the good in the Democrats that I can where I can,
Speaker 1: and that's why I also like to point out the
Speaker 1: really really bad Democrats, which reminds me of Hillary Clinton. Hello,
Speaker 1: what happened? She's back? Never going away. She will haunt
Speaker 1: your dreams. She's never going away, folks, she will always
Speaker 1: be around. She said something today in an interview, or
Speaker 1: maybe it was yesterday. Who cares, but she said the
Speaker 1: following about Tulsie Gabbert quote. They're also going to do
Speaker 1: third party again. I'm not making any predictions. That's means
Speaker 1: she is, but I think they've got their eye on
Speaker 1: someone who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming
Speaker 1: her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite
Speaker 1: of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and
Speaker 1: bots and other ways of supporting her so far, And
Speaker 1: that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she
Speaker 1: might not because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's
Speaker 1: a Russian asset. I mean totally. They know they can't
Speaker 1: win without a third party candidate. So I don't know
Speaker 1: who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you
Speaker 1: they will have a third, vigorous third party challenge in
Speaker 1: the key states that they most needed. Okay, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's in an amazing that Hillary Clinton says that she's
Speaker 1: not going to make a prediction, and then she goes
Speaker 1: on to make a prediction that she about the election,
Speaker 1: where she says, I guarantee you. So it's not even
Speaker 1: like a little bit of a prediction. This is a
Speaker 1: very very intense prediction from Hillary Clinton. But beyond that,
Speaker 1: more importantly, they hate Tulsea Gabbert because she is in
Speaker 1: some ways too nice to the opposition for their taste,
Speaker 1: and she hates Trump and she trashes Trump all the time.
Speaker 1: But she does not approach Republicans as though they are
Speaker 1: some evil, diseased, an unworthy group of people. She doesn't
Speaker 1: take the approach that they're just automatically to be dismissed.
Speaker 1: And what you find is that the Democratic Party today,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party today rejects that they want a total
Speaker 1: war scenario of politics where you either take the approach
Speaker 1: that Republicans are horrible people, that they're discussing, they're disgraceful
Speaker 1: and you shouldn't and anyone, I mean, I had a
Speaker 1: friend told me recently that you know that he was
Speaker 1: told by in a group chat of people for a
Speaker 1: business issue that anyone who voted for Trump is racist.
Speaker 1: And people challenge this guy on this and said, come
Speaker 1: on that. Can you know that's first of all, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of black and Hispanic voters who voted
Speaker 1: for Trump. I mean not as a percentage of the population,
Speaker 1: but there are still a lot of them across the country.
Speaker 1: To say anyone who voted for Trump is racist is
Speaker 1: such a and this guy doubled. Oh, note, it's true,
Speaker 1: anyone who voted for Trump is racist. And we've had
Speaker 1: different points in the process here where Democrats their official
Speaker 1: line from their biggest spokespersons has been you are complicit
Speaker 1: in Trump's racism, in his treason and his all these
Speaker 1: things if you vote for him. Trying so hard to
Speaker 1: really just force us to force people listening to believe
Speaker 1: that it's not even a choice anymore to vote for Trump,
Speaker 1: because if you do, you're a bad person, So you
Speaker 1: must then support his opponents, you must support the other side.
Speaker 1: Tulsie Gabber doesn't do that, at least not that I've heard.
Speaker 1: But to call her a Russian asset, I just wonder
Speaker 1: does anyone the Democratic Party have any scruples anymore? And
Speaker 1: they're not going to say Telsea Gabert is a veteran,
Speaker 1: she is a member of Congress. What basis is there
Speaker 1: that she's a This is even worse than the assad
Speaker 1: apologist stuff that used to say about her. Now they're
Speaker 1: saying that she's a she's a traitor, she's a tool
Speaker 1: of the Russian government, something they say about Trump too.
Speaker 1: Isn't that interesting? Isn't it also fascinating to watch people
Speaker 1: make allegations like this that are so flimsy and so
Speaker 1: without any any evidence whatsoever. But this becomes a tool
Speaker 1: because once you create the perception that there are Russian
Speaker 1: assets floating around who are doing whatever is opposed to
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party at any point in time, then that
Speaker 1: becomes a weaponient of itself. It just becomes a smear
Speaker 1: to be deployed at the whim of Democrats, including against
Speaker 1: a fellow Democrat in this case Telsey, Like soft butter
Speaker 1: on warm toast. Time to spread some freedom coast to coast.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Roll call time, everybody, you
Speaker 1: know what time it is? Time for the roll call.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton. If you want to
Speaker 1: do it that way, you can also kick it a
Speaker 1: little old school. Send us an email, team Buck at
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. That's right, producer Brennan, we have an email.
Speaker 1: Now we're fancy up in the freedom hunt. You know. Congratulations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we should start like smoking pipes and wearing ascots and
Speaker 1: talking about talking about THEATA, not theater, THEATA with a
Speaker 1: monocle of how else would one watch theater with a
Speaker 1: top hat? Maybe two? That's how I roll. Although you
Speaker 1: need a giant top hat from my head, I don't know,
Speaker 1: like slash ooh, yeah, there you go. He's he's like,
Speaker 1: he's probably the most famous top hat wearer of the
Speaker 1: last several generations other than mister Peanut. I guess, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's probably true, mister peanut. All right, here we go, Mitch, right, oh,
Speaker 1: here we go, Hey, Buck. I love your show. I
Speaker 1: drive over the road for a big company. I work nights.
Speaker 1: I listen every night. Thank you so much, Mitch. Also,
Speaker 1: why haven't the climate freaks mentioned the fact that carbonated
Speaker 1: beverages are carbonated with CO two? Are they willing to
Speaker 1: force soft drink makers, beer brewers, and champagne makers out
Speaker 1: of business? I'm guessing that we be many many billions
Speaker 1: of dollars removed from the economy and many tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of jobs lost. Surely, soft drinks, et cetera contribute
Speaker 1: way more CO two to the atmosphere than cows. Well, Mitch,
Speaker 1: my man, it's methane from the cows that's the problem.
Speaker 1: It's not the CO two that gets them so upset. Anyway,
Speaker 1: love your show, brother, Shield's High. Thank you appreciated, my man.
Speaker 1: I'm glad to keep you safe and warm on the
Speaker 1: road when you're driving around the country engaged in commerce
Speaker 1: and capitalism for America. How in this week's Democrat debate,
Speaker 1: how many candidates and how many times did they say
Speaker 1: that I am too ignorant to know how to spend
Speaker 1: my own money? And who and how many times a
Speaker 1: day did they say they knew how to spend my
Speaker 1: money better than me. Instead of adding to my government expense,
Speaker 1: They're free to raise charity money for any cause they
Speaker 1: are passionate about. They are all very good at raising
Speaker 1: money for a cause. Why not apply that skill to
Speaker 1: fund charity from those that agree with them and allow
Speaker 1: me to decide how to spend my money. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: may not be the most diplomatic person, but he understands
Speaker 1: this simple concept built on freedom. Yeah. Man, they want
Speaker 1: to take your money. They think that they can spend
Speaker 1: it better than you. They're more qualified to make those
Speaker 1: determinations about capital allocation fancy way to say spending. So yeah,
Speaker 1: you're you're picking up You're picking up what they're putting down.
Speaker 1: How and they want to pick up a lot more
Speaker 1: of your money too, which is not good. Kristen Rights
Speaker 1: trained to busan is amazing. You have to see it. Well,
Speaker 1: let's produce your branded pick over here. So what are
Speaker 1: we thinking? It's great. I've just seen so many zombie
Speaker 1: movies over the last you know, my lifetime whatever, but
Speaker 1: this one was very creative. It just was was special.
Speaker 1: You think the whole genre was used up, but they
Speaker 1: they found a new way to do it. So I
Speaker 1: think I'm gonna see the Joker movie today. By the way, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm probably get to see that tomorrow. Yeah, I'm I'm,
Speaker 1: I'm so, I'd just like to go check it out.
Speaker 1: I gotta know what's going on with the joker. And
Speaker 1: then we got TJ. See a joker. But I am
Speaker 1: not a Midnight Tooker. Steve Miller, Right, yes, yeah, I
Speaker 1: play my music in the sun. Though. Are we gonna
Speaker 1: keep doing this? No, I'm gonna stop, all right, t J.
Speaker 1: Buck If impeachment goes through, how much obligation do senators
Speaker 1: have to be in DC for the entirety of the
Speaker 1: hearings in the Senate? And how long do you think
Speaker 1: McConnell could drag it out? I only ask because this
Speaker 1: could be a major thorn in the side for several
Speaker 1: Democrat presidential campaigns, Warren Sanders, Klobuchar, Harris Booker. They're going
Speaker 1: to punish us with process. Should we not be obligated
Speaker 1: to return the favor? TJ? TJ. The problem with trying
Speaker 1: to punish Democrats with the processes, it's like throwing mudded pigs.
Speaker 1: They love the process, they love wallowing in the bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: So I just don't think that that's going to work out.
Speaker 1: I wish that we had the same mentality of abusing
Speaker 1: the various processes out there, but we just don't. Actually,
Speaker 1: I don't wish we had that mentality. I just it
Speaker 1: would be nice if we could fight fire with fire
Speaker 1: a little bit better. But that's kind of where we are,
Speaker 1: and I honestly don't I mean impeachment. The thing is,
Speaker 1: no one really knows how this will play out as
Speaker 1: a process because the Democrats are making it up as
Speaker 1: they go along. So unless you can get in the
Speaker 1: mind of Nancy Pelosi and know what her next move is,
Speaker 1: gonna be tough to know what's going on. Jonathan Buck,
Speaker 1: I think your best impression is your Pelosi. It always
Speaker 1: makes me laugh. I've been falling through with Pelosi for
Speaker 1: a while anyway, Thank you, Jonathan. I appreciate that. He
Speaker 1: also writes, I'm looking at the withdrawal from Syria and
Speaker 1: think it should be noted the Syrian Kurds, YPG and
Speaker 1: Iranian Kurds are not all the same. Tobarrow a Lord
Speaker 1: of the Rings analogy. It's like comparing the Woodland elves
Speaker 1: to the river Dale ones. Riverdale ones, isn't it? No?
Speaker 1: Is ver is the Riverdale Elves? No, that's Riverdale's a
Speaker 1: place in New York is in Riverdale like from Dawson's
Speaker 1: Creek or something isn't like River End or River River
Speaker 1: Run or something like that. I've actually never seen. Riverdale
Speaker 1: is also a show, That's what I'm thinking of. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a show. It's a it's a kind of a
Speaker 1: teen drama e show, right, but it's also a wealthy
Speaker 1: enclave leave a wealthy encliff technically of the Bronx. Yes,
Speaker 1: a bit of geography on the show today for the
Speaker 1: Buck section show. Um, but yeah, I don't know enough
Speaker 1: about the comparison you're making your job with him. But
Speaker 1: thank you so much, my friend for listening to show.
Speaker 1: I'm glad, Oh gay you like Pa Polsi. Pelosi's gonna
Speaker 1: send you a big hug over the weekend. Okay, President
Speaker 1: Trump is a total lunatic, uh Greg, Greg rats, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: longtime listener here. You've long been at the top of
Speaker 1: my list for clear, concise and comprehensive analysis without wasting
Speaker 1: time repeating the same points or puffing yourself up in
Speaker 1: the process. Thank you Greg for noticing that I do.
Speaker 1: I do note that there's some some hosts out there.
Speaker 1: There's only one who I think has earned the right
Speaker 1: to always talk about how awesome he is, and we
Speaker 1: all know who that is, and that's because he is
Speaker 1: the man. But there are some other hosts out there,
Speaker 1: who are you. I'm the best, I'm amazing, I'm the smartest.
Speaker 1: I I leave that to the people listening to determine
Speaker 1: how good or not good this show is. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't need to tell everybody how good the show is,
Speaker 1: because anybody who's smarter listens to the show knows it's
Speaker 1: really good. So here we go. Greg writes, in regard
Speaker 1: to assault rifles, my preferred term is modern sporting rifle.
Speaker 1: This term has been used widely among the Second Amendment community,
Speaker 1: and a couple years ago the Washington Examine or had
Speaker 1: an op ed and why this is the term that
Speaker 1: our side should adopt. I've included a link. Keep up
Speaker 1: the good work, best wishes, shields high Greg. Greg, thank you.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can see what you're saying, and I
Speaker 1: appreciate the desire to use the term modern sporting rifle.
Speaker 1: I just I don't think that the other side will
Speaker 1: play along or that one so we could just use
Speaker 1: different terms for the same thing. And m I don't
Speaker 1: really know where that ends up. Where that goes Sean.
Speaker 1: The Joker is not a superhero or super villain movie.
Speaker 1: It's dry for a drama and weak as a horror film.
Speaker 1: If you watch it expecting anything like a superhero movie,
Speaker 1: you will be severely disappointed. It is literally a boring
Speaker 1: backstory movie. The only thing making it worthwhile is when
Speaker 1: he is when he takes Robert de Niro out. Have
Speaker 1: you heard this that it's boring from anybody? This is
Speaker 1: the first someone doesn't like the Joker movie. That might
Speaker 1: be the first, I think. I think that's somebody from
Speaker 1: people just don't like certain things. Why so serious? Heath
Speaker 1: Ledger's Joker was really scary and really good at the
Speaker 1: same time. I still like Jack Nicholson's what It's just
Speaker 1: I don't know. He was special. That's the one I
Speaker 1: grew up on, so I always have a place in
Speaker 1: my heart. You just don't like it at all or
Speaker 1: just not above Heath Ledger. I mean he did a
Speaker 1: pretty good job, I guess for what it was. I
Speaker 1: mean that original Tim Burton Batman was pretty cool at
Speaker 1: the time. It holds up reasonably well. Some of the
Speaker 1: action sequences are really pretty lame, but it holds up reasonably. Well,
Speaker 1: i'd say, um, yeah, I don't know. Yeah, that's maybe.
Speaker 1: I wish I can remember the actor's name from the
Speaker 1: Adam West. Remember I think he's holding Kim basic or
Speaker 1: at one point and he's like, if anybody else calls
Speaker 1: you beast, I'll rip their lungs out. Remember remember that line? Classic.
Speaker 1: So someone just said that I spoiled Well, I just
Speaker 1: spoiled Jo. How could I spoil Joker and spoiled Joker?
Speaker 1: It's one of our other producers is writing inybody telling
Speaker 1: me this is nonsense. That's nonsense. I don't even know
Speaker 1: the end. How could I spoil it under the ending?
Speaker 1: Good point? So anyway, it is what it is? All right? Um,
Speaker 1: I'll Ali rights or is it Ali Ali? Ali? Could
Speaker 1: be other? Your last thought is right? The Democrats using
Speaker 1: the Middle East to line their pockets is that they
Speaker 1: cause global chaos. There was gun running, all right? Cool,
Speaker 1: appreciate that, Sammy Number one. I love your show. I
Speaker 1: listened to you on the iHeartRadio app. And the news
Speaker 1: breaks comes through the NBC fakes news though. I hope
Speaker 1: there's something you can do about that. No, Unfortunately I
Speaker 1: don't news breaks. I don't get to control number two.
Speaker 1: I heard this morning there are seven million unfulfilled jobs
Speaker 1: or unfilled jobs in the US. Trump should give the
Speaker 1: worthless govern employees a pink slip, tell them their jobs
Speaker 1: waiting for them in the private sector. Sammy, it'd be
Speaker 1: nice if we could do that, but it's not going
Speaker 1: to happen because people tend to think that any shrinking
Speaker 1: of government jobs is a terrible thing and really really bad.
Speaker 1: And that's just sort of where it is. So I
Speaker 1: wish it were true, and there you have it, or
Speaker 1: I wish that were feasible. I should say, and there
Speaker 1: you have it. Ah, here you go. Jeremy, your joker
Speaker 1: sounds a lot like you're Elizabeth Warren. I guess they're
Speaker 1: similar in personality shields high. I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know about that. I don't know. I'm gonna I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna say I'm gonna sign off for that one, meaning
Speaker 1: that my impersonations is the same. You can say whatever
Speaker 1: you want on Elizabeth Warren's personality where J's really gonna
Speaker 1: just restore all the greatness of America's middle class by
Speaker 1: just taxingly, you know what, out of the rich people.
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, my daddy, My daddy always told me that
Speaker 1: if you take two flying pigs and you throw them
Speaker 1: through the back door of an oldsmobile, you're just gonna
Speaker 1: have a pig sandwich. Makes no sense, but who cares,
Speaker 1: because you know, Elizabeth Warren just makes stuff up as
Speaker 1: she goes along. Yeah, there we have. It just doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like Heath Ledger the joker. Everyone's a critic only person.
Speaker 1: That's all right. So we gotta close up to Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut this episode. This time, you have a couple of
Speaker 1: days here over the weekend, not just to listen to
Speaker 1: the show and catch up on old shows, but also
Speaker 1: be like, Hey, if you're at a dinner party and
Speaker 1: the conversation's lagging, if you're hanging out with a friend
Speaker 1: and you've got nothing to say, if you're on a
Speaker 1: date and the lady or the guy is just not
Speaker 1: interesting enough for you, just be like, So, there's this
Speaker 1: thing called The Buck Sexton Show. It's on iTunes or
Speaker 1: the iHeart app or anywhere you listen to podcasts, download
Speaker 1: and listen to it. That would be an early Christ's
Speaker 1: present and Birthday present for me. So please check that
Speaker 1: out and we will talk to you all on Monday.
Speaker 1: She'll tie