Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom huge the attack on Catholic
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett from Democrats, Hunter Biden's questionable activities in
Speaker 1: a new Senate report, footage from Kenosha comes out to
Speaker 1: bolster the self defense claim Rittenhouse, the Brianna Taylor announcement
Speaker 1: about police coming out later today, and Trump Band's critical
Speaker 1: race theory. This is the Buck Sexon Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: passionable intelligence. Make no mistake, you're a great American Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexon Show begins analyst, he's a great guy. No, welcome,
Speaker 1: friends to the Buck Sexton Show, and honor and privilege
Speaker 1: to have you here with me. As always fired up
Speaker 1: here for the election season, getting ready to see where
Speaker 1: all of this goes. And I am a little surprised.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest with you that at a time
Speaker 1: when there's a to call it a heated election would
Speaker 1: be quite an understatement, and to call it an acrimonious
Speaker 1: Supreme Court battle would also be an understatement. But there's
Speaker 1: a relative pause here in the main narrative from the left.
Speaker 1: I think that perhaps, and I've been saying this all along,
Speaker 1: that my expectation is that they will say completely unhinged,
Speaker 1: insane things. Let's recall it was not long ago they
Speaker 1: were accusing the you know, the grown up equivalent of
Speaker 1: an altar boy of Brett Cavanaugh, that they were accusing
Speaker 1: him of being a serial gang rapist from high school.
Speaker 1: And they will say anything to try to stop Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett. The problem is their usual attacks, even if
Speaker 1: they lie, I think they've recognized they're going to have
Speaker 1: to get really creative with their evil. They're they're going
Speaker 1: to have to extend themselves, get a little bit to
Speaker 1: outside their comfort zone with the usual sexist racist. I mean,
Speaker 1: they could call Amy Coney Barrett a sexist, but I
Speaker 1: think we all recognize that wouldn't really work all that well.
Speaker 1: You know, they could claim that she had, you know,
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted somebody in high school or college without any
Speaker 1: evidence or any underlying, believable, credible story whatsoever. But that
Speaker 1: probably would also be a bad idea. So what are
Speaker 1: they turning to here and what is this really all about?
Speaker 1: They're having to go after her Catholicism. Comparing the possible
Speaker 1: elevation of Coney Barrett to the Supreme Chord as a
Speaker 1: chapter in a real life version of the Handmaid's Tale.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure that the Handmaid's Tale they got the
Speaker 1: whole reference. Isn't it in the Gospel of Luke that
Speaker 1: Mary says I'm to be a handmaid of the Lord
Speaker 1: when she is told that she will give birth to Jesus. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the Handmaid's Tale, that's what they're telling us. It would
Speaker 1: be if we had the elevation of any Coney Barrett
Speaker 1: to this Supreme Court seat, and they have the votes.
Speaker 1: The Republicans have the votes, So the narrative so far
Speaker 1: hasn't worked. They're trying to come up with something. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they really believe that defaming a Catholic
Speaker 1: for her faith, I mean, for just being a mainstream
Speaker 1: believing Catholic defaming one is a good idea right before
Speaker 1: the election, although I will say Catholics who in majority
Speaker 1: vote Democrat have largely turned into a you know, for
Speaker 1: a lot of Catholics, I should say their Catholicism is
Speaker 1: something more akin to being in the rotary club. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit more like like a community organizer
Speaker 1: group where you go twice a year and you know,
Speaker 1: you tell people you're Catholic, but you don't really believe it,
Speaker 1: like you don't believe any of that stuff. And there
Speaker 1: are a lot a lot of those Catholics are going
Speaker 1: to vote Democrat. A lot of those Catholics are going
Speaker 1: to be fine with all of this because they don't
Speaker 1: take offense to the slandering of their faith, because it's
Speaker 1: really more of a of a cultural and social tradition
Speaker 1: for them. But maybe it's gonna back far on them.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you that. I can't know in advance.
Speaker 1: I somebody who was raised Roman Catholic and went to
Speaker 1: Jesuit school and studied for years in school the Scripture
Speaker 1: and the New Testament. I'm amazed at how many Catholics
Speaker 1: think that the Democrats are the ones that really represent
Speaker 1: their ideals. But nonetheless, that's what ends up, That's what
Speaker 1: ends up happening. That's the new reality that we all
Speaker 1: live in here. So they're going to try the process moves,
Speaker 1: They're going to try to just do what they can
Speaker 1: to prevent this from happening. As I've said, here's Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer saying that they're going to use tools to delay this.
Speaker 1: Play twelve. Do you believe that you have tactical options
Speaker 1: to slow them down. Yes, A, we have tactical options
Speaker 1: to slow them down. We will use every tool in
Speaker 1: the tool kit. Now, admittedly McConnell has changed things to
Speaker 1: change the rules, so we have fewer tools and they're
Speaker 1: less sharp, but every tool we have we will use.
Speaker 1: I mean, what are they going to do. They're going
Speaker 1: to try to prevent access to the building. I think
Speaker 1: that's a very a very likely pathway here. You know,
Speaker 1: the activists, the Democrat stormtroopers, they're they're the ones it'll
Speaker 1: make sure that people can't actually show up and vote
Speaker 1: on this. They're going to say, well that this is
Speaker 1: a terrible day for women's rights. Isn't an amazing The
Speaker 1: Democrats argue consistently that the elevation of an eminently qualified
Speaker 1: mother of seven to the Supreme Court is somehow a
Speaker 1: loss for women. Yes, modern feminism has done so much
Speaker 1: for women, hasn't It negated huge parts of who they
Speaker 1: are and undermined motherhood. But anyway, I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: not new. We've been saying that for a long time.
Speaker 1: I only wish that people would wake up to this reality.
Speaker 1: They really, they really want to force as many women
Speaker 1: as possible. And look, women should be allowed to choose
Speaker 1: whatever their destiny. If they don't, if they don't want
Speaker 1: to get married enough kids, great, you're allowed to do that,
Speaker 1: of course. And if you want to be a person
Speaker 1: who's only chasing a that's fine. But a lot of
Speaker 1: women that I know have been pressured into being little
Speaker 1: cubicle warriors, you know, trying to make partner at the
Speaker 1: at the you know, the city law firm or something,
Speaker 1: and they're miserable. They're absolutely miserable because they don't have
Speaker 1: time to have a family, they don't have time to
Speaker 1: raise kids. They're doing these things. But if you even
Speaker 1: say that out loud, people shout at you. Oh, you're
Speaker 1: like one of the bad people in the Handmaid's Tale.
Speaker 1: Or this is the same way that the left has.
Speaker 1: They have a few cultural cultural analogies that they like
Speaker 1: to make, or that they have a few cultural references
Speaker 1: that will come up constantly in politics. They love Harry
Speaker 1: Potter and they love The Handmaid's Tale. Those are the
Speaker 1: two things. I don't know other people like Harry Potter too,
Speaker 1: but they're the liberals need to read another book. But
Speaker 1: I think that they're going to do everything that they
Speaker 1: can to frighten people around Amy Coney Barrett, and it's
Speaker 1: not gonna work, but it does create a frenzied state
Speaker 1: of mind for the Democrat base, so that then they're
Speaker 1: more willing to do the insane things that Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: can't say out loud, can't tell people they're going to
Speaker 1: do or they should do, but he is hoping that
Speaker 1: they will, and then they're just going to say things
Speaker 1: that are obviously factually wrong. I mean, here's CNN's Allison Camarada,
Speaker 1: for example, making a claim that anybody with a passing
Speaker 1: familiarity with our legal system and the constitution would know
Speaker 1: is not really an accurate statement. Play three. I think
Speaker 1: one of the interesting discussions about abortion is that the
Speaker 1: country is generally divided, I mean almost split right in
Speaker 1: half about how they view it. However, in the latest
Speaker 1: Gallop polls, twenty percent of the country, Oh, I should say,
Speaker 1: only twenty percent of the country wants to outlaw it. Okay,
Speaker 1: So you can feel differently about the different nuances of it,
Speaker 1: but only twenty percent wants to outlaw it. And that's ultimately,
Speaker 1: you know, obviously, what would happen if Roe versus Wade,
Speaker 1: we're done way with and so it's just interesting. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously we're seguing into a political stance here, but if
Speaker 1: the country does, you know, would support the direction that
Speaker 1: this is going in. She left out that eighty percent
Speaker 1: of the country believes that third term abortion should be illegal,
Speaker 1: or maybe it's seventy some odd percent now, but huge
Speaker 1: majority of the country thinks that third term abortion should
Speaker 1: be illegal. Europe, which is a very progressive place, Europe,
Speaker 1: has restrictions on abortion. Most eurowe depends on the European country,
Speaker 1: but there are European countries where, you know, the first
Speaker 1: trimester you're allowed to but beyond that they say that
Speaker 1: this you know, the science, this is the European argument.
Speaker 1: I mean, the real argument is life at conception, but
Speaker 1: the European argument in these states would be that pain
Speaker 1: and consciousness because of the development of the fetus has
Speaker 1: reached a stage where four months in and this is
Speaker 1: a baby. Obviously Democrats won't admit that, No, it's not
Speaker 1: a baby, it's something else. It's just a clump of
Speaker 1: cells that's growing that looks a lot like a human
Speaker 1: that has a heart and a brain. But what she
Speaker 1: says about how it would obviously be outlawed is obviously untrue.
Speaker 1: There would be some states that outlawed. There would be
Speaker 1: some places that don't want abortion to happen, but there'd
Speaker 1: be other states. It would become a states issue, which
Speaker 1: makes a whole lot more sense than the Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade decision. And then you'd have places where there was
Speaker 1: this practice going on, you'd have other places where there wasn't.
Speaker 1: Federal funding would probably have to change. You wouldn't have
Speaker 1: federal funding for clinics that do abortion. So I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be a huge victory for the pro life movement, obviously,
Speaker 1: no question about that. But it wouldn't be illegal everywhere.
Speaker 1: But they're just going to say things like it would
Speaker 1: be illegal well where where specifically? And I think that
Speaker 1: you know, California and the morality, for example, in New
Speaker 1: York and California of its abortion practices would feel very
Speaker 1: different to a lot of the residents if they couldn't
Speaker 1: force Texas and Alabama and Wyoming to also have abortion right,
Speaker 1: if they couldn't force these other states to do it
Speaker 1: under federal law. So there's also that there's the creeping
Speaker 1: fear of, oh my gosh, what if people can actually
Speaker 1: stop and think about what has been going on and
Speaker 1: who has been supporting this, and how grotesque and immoral
Speaker 1: it is. But this is the most they can do.
Speaker 1: It's really all about Row. I mean, the people that
Speaker 1: say Amy Coney Barrett is such a setback for women
Speaker 1: and that they're all terrified about her more than anything else.
Speaker 1: It's Roe v. Wade, which is now a plank in
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party. It's really essential to the Democrat ethos
Speaker 1: in a way where I don't think that they can
Speaker 1: handle the prospect of not having that horrible Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision in place. I think it emotionally damages and drains
Speaker 1: them just to think about it. But they haven't come
Speaker 1: up yet with the Amy Coney Barrett destruction routine. They
Speaker 1: haven't shown us their hand. I'm wondering what it will be.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it will just be process. They'll be Catholic bashing,
Speaker 1: they'll be anti women stuff, of course, But maybe it
Speaker 1: really is just they're pulling the fire alarms in Congress
Speaker 1: and forming human chains at the front door and hoping
Speaker 1: that does it. You're in the freedom mind. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Justice Ruth Vader Gigsburg lived
Speaker 1: an inspiring life. She paved the way for women in
Speaker 1: the law, and America warns the passing of the true
Speaker 1: public servant. The Constitution of the United States provides that
Speaker 1: the President shall appoint judges to the Supreme Court. And
Speaker 1: before the week is out, after we honor the life
Speaker 1: and memory of Justice Ginsburg, President Donald Trump will do
Speaker 1: just that. This Saturday, President Donald Trump will nominate another
Speaker 1: principled conservative, a woman, to the Supreme Court of the
Speaker 1: United States. And after the United States Senate fulfills their
Speaker 1: duty to advise and consent, we're going to fill that seat.
Speaker 1: They're going to fill the seat, folks. I gotta say,
Speaker 1: I'm pleased that the Republicans really never missed a moment.
Speaker 1: I think there are a couple of things that come
Speaker 1: together on this one. One is that by filling, by
Speaker 1: filling the seat, they are likely more likely to keep
Speaker 1: their seats. So this is one of those great moments
Speaker 1: where political self interest coincides with the supposed policy preferences
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party, right with the obligation to voters
Speaker 1: that the Republican Party has. So what's best for our
Speaker 1: Republican politicians is also best for the people. Who voted
Speaker 1: for them. Look at that. It's amazing how that comes together.
Speaker 1: That's that's very encouraging. It. It does not seem at
Speaker 1: all to me like there's going to be some wavering
Speaker 1: on the part of Republicans and mccollins and Murkowski they
Speaker 1: can duck out and you know, this may be this
Speaker 1: may be an instance, this may be a sort of
Speaker 1: kumstance where you say, well, let's let them do that,
Speaker 1: or I should say, not not be too hard on
Speaker 1: punishing them, because we'd rather have Colins and Murkowski than
Speaker 1: a Democrat, and they don't want to lose reelection, so
Speaker 1: they're taking this more moderate path. But you just remember
Speaker 1: you can't trust them though, so they're going to be
Speaker 1: Republicans you can't really count on. It's better than a Democrat,
Speaker 1: but not not much. Mid Romney. I was very hard
Speaker 1: on him in the first twenty four hours when well,
Speaker 1: to be fair, there was an announcement that came out
Speaker 1: from someone close to Romney. According to the media, I
Speaker 1: think they tried to set the narrative beforehand. I think
Speaker 1: something was going on here because there was an announcement
Speaker 1: that said that mid Romney was not going to vote
Speaker 1: on a Supreme Court nominee until after the election, or
Speaker 1: you know, would not think that was appropriate. And then
Speaker 1: the Romney camp, such as it is, said no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's not true. So something something happened there for sure.
Speaker 1: But that was why I initially thought Romney was going
Speaker 1: to make Benedict Arnold look like a team player. Turns
Speaker 1: out even Romney seems like he's going to hold the
Speaker 1: line play for I think there's some perception on the
Speaker 1: part of some writers and others that, to you, what
Speaker 1: happened with Merrick Garland was unfair. I don't agree with that.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether you think it was a good
Speaker 1: decision or not, but it wasn't unfair because it was
Speaker 1: consistent with history, it was consistent with precedent, it was
Speaker 1: consistent with the Constitution. So the idea that the Merrick
Speaker 1: Garland decision was unfair and therefore it has to be
Speaker 1: made up by doing something which also wouldn't make a
Speaker 1: lot of sense, which is saying to President Trump, you
Speaker 1: can't get your nominee either. That just doesn't follow for
Speaker 1: me that Garland decision was consistent with history. The decision
Speaker 1: to proceed with the new nominee is also consistent with
Speaker 1: history and precedent. And that's where I come out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: my friends, mid Romney's correct. Here. Look at this, the
Speaker 1: Americ Garland thing. Not the same situation, folks, Not the
Speaker 1: same deal. It's very straightforward. There's no reason that they
Speaker 1: can try to pretend. And sorry, Democrats, elections have consequences.
Speaker 1: The one thing Obama said, the one quote from Obama
Speaker 1: that I gotta say, is useful and true. So what
Speaker 1: is one of our maximus on this show. We give
Speaker 1: credit where it's due, and we're giving credit to Mit
Speaker 1: on this one so far, and we're gonna give credit
Speaker 1: to even Barack Obama for elections got consequences. Yes, it
Speaker 1: is obvious, but it is true. So I think that
Speaker 1: we are going to go forward here and the Libs,
Speaker 1: I will say, watching them squirm over this one. They're
Speaker 1: just so upset about this. Oh my gosh, they're gonna
Speaker 1: have a conservative Supreme Court and it's not even gonna
Speaker 1: be that conservative. You see here, here's the problem. And
Speaker 1: I want to I want to say this before we
Speaker 1: start making fun of more silly Libs. Because of what
Speaker 1: a conservative's judicial philosophy is. We don't get as much
Speaker 1: perceived or actual political value out of a Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: We don't want a super legislature of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm advocating for. That's not what those
Speaker 1: of you listening to this show want. Maybe some of
Speaker 1: you want that, but I mean, generally speaking, that's not
Speaker 1: what we want, because all we're asking for is that
Speaker 1: there are judges who understand the law and apply the
Speaker 1: law based upon what it says and what the intent
Speaker 1: of the Constitution has written with its amendments. Is not
Speaker 1: that they have something they prefer and then they shoehorn
Speaker 1: that into a dishonest, pseudo legal framework to give people
Speaker 1: the policy outcome that they prefer. That's legislation, that's not
Speaker 1: the judicial the judicial realm. And that's why I think,
Speaker 1: you know, as conservatives, it's not like we're gonna get
Speaker 1: We're gonna get a Supreme Court that says, Okay, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have universal concealed carry across the country in every jurisdiction,
Speaker 1: which I think we should have. But and you're gonna
Speaker 1: you know that they're gonna have a flat tax only
Speaker 1: of fifteen percent, and we're gonna you know, that would
Speaker 1: be great, that would be great, but it's not gonna happen, right,
Speaker 1: we don't. We don't have a conservative Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: not a magic wand for conservative policies. So so liberals
Speaker 1: should really chill out a little bit about this. But
Speaker 1: the problem is a liberal leading Supreme Court is a
Speaker 1: magic wand for their desired outcomes and policies. So they're
Speaker 1: losing that. It's like a kid that's take having his
Speaker 1: favorite toy taken away. They're look, I want it back.
Speaker 1: They're so sad about this. Too bad. Elections have consequences,
Speaker 1: too bad. But that's the key difference you're gonna see here.
Speaker 1: So in the on the one hand, I want to
Speaker 1: tell all the Democrats and liberals out there just calm down. Okay,
Speaker 1: the world's not gonna end. It's actually gonna be a
Speaker 1: better place. But they won't like it as much. But
Speaker 1: the law will be the law. That's all we want.
Speaker 1: We want the law to be fair and applied evenly
Speaker 1: and equally and morally, not to have it be some
Speaker 1: scam to make Chuck and Nancy happy. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts. The iHeart radio app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. So Rebublicans are committed to forcing a conservative
Speaker 1: justice onto the court forty two days before the election,
Speaker 1: someone who could destroy the Affordable Care Act and overturn
Speaker 1: Row and strike down carbon pollution legislation the Democrats might
Speaker 1: pass in the future, then you just have to make
Speaker 1: those Republicans pay the political price, every single cent of it,
Speaker 1: because every single vote makes a difference for what the
Speaker 1: universe of the possible is going to be going forward.
Speaker 1: And that counts for election night and whether the election
Speaker 1: night is close and they try to steal it through
Speaker 1: the courts and the Supreme Court justice they just confirmed,
Speaker 1: and that pertains to whether the Democrats can add justice
Speaker 1: as to the Supreme Court at the election, or grant
Speaker 1: statehood to DC in Puerto Rico, adding new senators, or
Speaker 1: anything else. All of those discussions depend upon maximizing the
Speaker 1: short term political price over the next forty days so
Speaker 1: that it can pay off one term. That should be
Speaker 1: the plan. No one can lose sight of that. I
Speaker 1: just love listening to the Libs panic over this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's really enjoyable. I just want to make a montage
Speaker 1: of Libs in a frenzy around how they think America
Speaker 1: is over because we don't have Ruth Bader Ginsburg anymore
Speaker 1: to hold up the far left agenda in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: It's not true. It's gonna be okay. America is gonna
Speaker 1: be okay, folks, despite what they may be saying. But
Speaker 1: they often transition immediately into telling us what they really believe,
Speaker 1: which is that they just they need more power so
Speaker 1: that they can use power against the other side. They
Speaker 1: will in the same sentence, they'll they'll in the same breath.
Speaker 1: It feels like, say that Republicans don't respect norms, so
Speaker 1: give us more power so we can destroy all the
Speaker 1: norms like a like a child that's, you know, gotten
Speaker 1: a little sand in his eye from somebody playing with
Speaker 1: a toy near them in the sandbox. The liberal response is,
Speaker 1: now they're going to run over there and and bash
Speaker 1: the kid on the head with their little plastic pail
Speaker 1: right there. They want to they want to escalate, so
Speaker 1: they claim outrage at the initial minor. It's not even
Speaker 1: an infraction, but we'll call it an infraction. They're they're
Speaker 1: what they're doing, what the Republicans are doing is one
Speaker 1: hundred percent legitimate legal within the rules. You know, that's it.
Speaker 1: I mean, if somebody were to claim after a Super
Speaker 1: Bowl that, hey, we missed that we missed that final
Speaker 1: field goal because they tried to they ice the kicker
Speaker 1: with a time out beforehand. That's not fair, that doesn't count.
Speaker 1: People would laugh at them, right, they'd say, no, those
Speaker 1: are the rules, right, those are the rules. This is
Speaker 1: about having an adult perception, an adult view of life,
Speaker 1: and liberalism is a refuge for a lot of people
Speaker 1: from that. They think that there's some some emotional safe
Speaker 1: space that they create through these left wing echo chambers
Speaker 1: of the media and Hollywood and academia, where they don't
Speaker 1: have to grapple with what is a reality that they
Speaker 1: find uncomfortable. They'll just negate it. They'll come up with
Speaker 1: narratives that pretend that what has happened has not happened.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, that those aren't really the rules, that there's
Speaker 1: some price that has to be paid by Republicans for
Speaker 1: all that. It's nonsense. It's done. Say, look, if they
Speaker 1: want to advocate for more power for the left, of course,
Speaker 1: that is politics, that is the very very heart of
Speaker 1: our system. Fine, go for it. But to pretend that
Speaker 1: there's some grave injustice that has been done here. No,
Speaker 1: what's really happened is we've lifted up the rock of
Speaker 1: our system and looked underneath and seen a lot of
Speaker 1: kind of creepy, crawley, unsettling stuff about our judicial system,
Speaker 1: which the liberals have weaponized and used to their advantage
Speaker 1: for political purposes for decades. I'm conservative, sit around. I mean,
Speaker 1: I have to sit here and say in a Rov.
Speaker 1: Wade is bad law. It is an indefensibly dishonest application
Speaker 1: of the law and a Supreme Court precedent with massive
Speaker 1: implications for the country. And we just sit here and
Speaker 1: you know, okay, hopefully one day we'll overturn go through,
Speaker 1: we go through the system. And that's just one of many,
Speaker 1: many examples. I mean, I want to take it all
Speaker 1: the way back to Wickard v. Filburn, where they're saying, effectively,
Speaker 1: commerce of any kind has to be interstate commerce because
Speaker 1: even intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce, and therefore you can
Speaker 1: regulate all commerce at a federal level. That's the decision
Speaker 1: that has been the many headed hydra of judicial will
Speaker 1: overreach for now going on one hundred years. I mean,
Speaker 1: it goes back to World War two era, I believe.
Speaker 1: So that's a terrible decision, But that's another one that
Speaker 1: needs These are things that need to be revisited, right,
Speaker 1: these are areas, and yes, with it Obamacare, all though,
Speaker 1: with Justice robertson the court, I think out of a
Speaker 1: collegial and professional deference to that Bush pick Oh, I
Speaker 1: thought Bush was going to give us great judges. Nope, Nope,
Speaker 1: not so much. Who could have thought that Roberts would
Speaker 1: really just be the second incarnation of Justice Kennedy? Who
Speaker 1: could have thought that that? Well as some people, I think,
Speaker 1: we're worried about it at the time. But and even
Speaker 1: Gorsetch with the LGBTQ decision based on the Civil Rights Act,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, even Gorsetch gets a little bit
Speaker 1: of a progressive impulse to do what he thinks should
Speaker 1: be done instead of what the law says is to
Speaker 1: be done. But they're they're back back to the limp panic.
Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating and it's very entertaining. It's very
Speaker 1: it's very fun to watch them as they continue on
Speaker 1: with this nonsense. And here's an example. Because they've now
Speaker 1: I think, woken up to they can whine about it
Speaker 1: as much as they want. But the Supreme Court thing,
Speaker 1: this is happening, right like they have the votes, It's
Speaker 1: gonna happen. Trump's gonna name the justice on Saturday. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying what I've told you, of course. I
Speaker 1: mean my other prediction is they're gonna try to do
Speaker 1: physical blocks of this. I mean they're going to try
Speaker 1: to just do something to shut down the system, not
Speaker 1: to use the rules within it, but to actually just
Speaker 1: override the system of the United States Congress and the
Speaker 1: Senate and the confirmation process. So I'm not saying they've
Speaker 1: given up, but they spend a couple of days you're
Speaker 1: not gonna hear a lot more about it was her
Speaker 1: dying wish. It was Ruth Bader Ginsberg's last wish. We're
Speaker 1: hearing that for forty eight hours. Who cares I do?
Speaker 1: I cares zero. Every other rational, well adjusted American cares zero.
Speaker 1: That is not a thing that that does not matter. Right,
Speaker 1: this should be like me telling the irs. You know, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, my uncle Mortimer over here says that I
Speaker 1: don't have to pay taxes, So that was his last wish. Sorry, no,
Speaker 1: that's a nothing. No one cares, So they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to let that one go. That's gonna be, that's gonna
Speaker 1: be dropped by the wayside. I think, dude, like it
Speaker 1: was the last wish, no, no no, and the assaults,
Speaker 1: which is why I mean I disagree. Some Republicans are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we should have I should say some commentators on the
Speaker 1: writer saying we should have a different shouldn't be any
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett. It shouldn't have to be a woman. No, no,
Speaker 1: we want a woman if we want this to happen.
Speaker 1: Because I know this will sound crazy, but you have
Speaker 1: to remember we're dealing with crazy here. The left has
Speaker 1: gone nuts. They're not rational, they're not reasonable, they don't
Speaker 1: care if we put forward a male Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1: They would absolutely run the Cavanall playbook over again. They
Speaker 1: would try to would they would accuse this whoever. It doesn't.
Speaker 1: You can find any judge, any judge anywhere, any conservative
Speaker 1: judge anywhere the country who's a man, and they would
Speaker 1: find someone to come forward and say he raped me,
Speaker 1: he sexually assaulted me, he abused me, and that person who,
Speaker 1: just like the ones who came out against Cavanaugh, would
Speaker 1: think that she was doing a great service for women
Speaker 1: to save Roe v. Wade, completely justifying the lie. Son
Speaker 1: wouldn't feel even the least bit like she was being
Speaker 1: a political hatchet woman. And what she's doing is grotesque
Speaker 1: and horrific. No would think that she's a hero. Oh remember,
Speaker 1: why would Christine blasi Ford come forward? That was what
Speaker 1: they were saying. Why would Christine because she wants to
Speaker 1: be a hero to the left. No, she does. She
Speaker 1: risks everything and gains nothing. I remember that in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: I remember people saying that, and I and you can
Speaker 1: check this when although I guess you have to dig
Speaker 1: through some of the tweets, you listen to those early shows.
Speaker 1: I was like, Christine blasie Ford is not telling the truth, folks.
Speaker 1: She's either confused or just a liar, but she's wrong
Speaker 1: very early on. And I will say that that process
Speaker 1: also for a lot of conservatives. I wouldn't say it
Speaker 1: radicalized us, but it stealed our courage a bit. It
Speaker 1: showed us that anybody could be Supreme Court now Supreme
Speaker 1: Court Justice then nominee Kavanaugh. That the Libs, in their
Speaker 1: lust for power, would do this to the people that
Speaker 1: you respect and love the most. And not feel of
Speaker 1: moments for more so, for it, do you're conservative, whatever
Speaker 1: has to be done to stop you, to ruin you,
Speaker 1: is fair game. There's no morality, no decency, no no
Speaker 1: honor that would prevent a Democrat from doing what they
Speaker 1: did to Kavanaugh. They've never backed away from it, they've
Speaker 1: never apologized for it. It It was the most grotesque political
Speaker 1: character assassination I have ever seen. It was all lies,
Speaker 1: and that was That was a sea change I think
Speaker 1: in the thinking of a lot of people on the right.
Speaker 1: This is why also like the never trumpers, these people
Speaker 1: they but wait a bat, we mean, I mean the
Speaker 1: Goldberg French article that now everyone's kind of just laughing at.
Speaker 1: I mean, those guys, I'm sorry there. It's just weak.
Speaker 1: It's just weak tea. It's it's it's not it's not
Speaker 1: intellectually worthy, it's not morally worthy. It's just they've boxed
Speaker 1: themselves into a position, these never trumpers, and now they'll
Speaker 1: desperately try to use, to use the most eloquent prose
Speaker 1: they can to be pusillanimous backstabbers to their own side.
Speaker 1: That's what really happens here with the never trumpers today.
Speaker 1: And it's It's sad, but it's true because if you
Speaker 1: saw what happened with Cavin, I mean, there's just no
Speaker 1: justification for that. It can never be okay and it
Speaker 1: should never be forgotten. And a lot of us remember
Speaker 1: that's why when the Libs cry over this, our response
Speaker 1: over the possible elevation of Amy Coney Barrett, I think
Speaker 1: it's who it will be when the Libs cry over
Speaker 1: at our response is crime Moor. Libs. They earned this,
Speaker 1: They earned this. And I also remember when people were
Speaker 1: saying that it was sexist and wrong to even suggest
Speaker 1: during the Obama presidency that Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be
Speaker 1: too old, maybe time to retire. The Libs said no,
Speaker 1: they would not give up their superstar hero RBG. And
Speaker 1: now they're paying the price for that decision. You know,
Speaker 1: elections have consequences. Decisions have consequences. The decision to go
Speaker 1: after Kavanaugh, the decision to keep RBG in place, well
Speaker 1: beyond I mean, how many cancer treatments, how many health
Speaker 1: scares was she able to have before reasonable people would
Speaker 1: just say, look, they're three hundred and thirty million Americans.
Speaker 1: I don't think we have to have somebody as the
Speaker 1: Supreme court justice. There's a lot of good judges in
Speaker 1: the country. Nope, they wouldn't let it go. The cult
Speaker 1: of personality would not allow it. We had to hear
Speaker 1: about not only is she the greatest jurists that the
Speaker 1: liberals have ever come across in their lifetime, but we
Speaker 1: had to hear about the all the overhead presses and burpies,
Speaker 1: and that there was this creepy cult of RBG that
Speaker 1: they created. It was it was weird. It was weird.
Speaker 1: She was right about Kaepernick, I will say that said
Speaker 1: the Kaepernick protests were basically stupid and disrespectful. She was
Speaker 1: a smart lady. There's a smart lady, There's no question
Speaker 1: about that. I just think she's wrong on some critical
Speaker 1: moral issues of our time. She was smart. But now
Speaker 1: now it's just ram at home time, folks. May it happen.
Speaker 1: Get ready for what the other side's gonna do. Though.
Speaker 1: What makes me uncomfortable is just that I can't I
Speaker 1: know they're going to do something so sickening and underhanded
Speaker 1: to try to stop this. It just makes me comfortable
Speaker 1: because I can't see what it is yet, because they
Speaker 1: really have so few options that nothing within the realm
Speaker 1: of sanity would be acceptable, possible, or sufficient. So what
Speaker 1: would a crazy Lib do to stop Amy Coney Barrett
Speaker 1: from becoming an ex Supreme Court justice. That's the question
Speaker 1: we have to ask to understand what the Democrats are
Speaker 1: going to do next. You're in the Freedom Hud, this
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: want to talk about who I'm meeting with, but I've
Speaker 1: spoken to many and we're getting close to a decision.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be doing it on Saturday. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: meeting on Saturday. A lot of paperwork to do, and
Speaker 1: I think it's going to go very quickly. Go ahead,
Speaker 1: part Oh, I don't think so. I will det nine justices.
Speaker 1: You did that with the unsolicited millions of ballas at
Speaker 1: this ending, it's a scam, it's a hoax. Everybody knows
Speaker 1: that they really aren't doing everything they can. The Democrats
Speaker 1: are doing everything that they can conceive of to undermine
Speaker 1: the sanctity, integrity, reliability of this election and also of
Speaker 1: our very processes of government. And what's pretty astonishing, but
Speaker 1: I think very obvious, is that they do this knowing,
Speaker 1: knowing that it's going to send the country down a
Speaker 1: very dark path if Trump wins. Right, they understand that
Speaker 1: they're making these decisions right now, not because they think
Speaker 1: Trump is going to cheat, but they worry Trump is
Speaker 1: going to win. It's not the same thing, and they
Speaker 1: want to have some excuse. They want to have some
Speaker 1: mechanism for agitation, just like Marxist. Right, what's the most
Speaker 1: important thing. It's not that you have solutions. It's not
Speaker 1: that you have good ideas. It's that you know how
Speaker 1: to exploit people's frustrations, envy, their agitation at their own
Speaker 1: failures and at other people's successes. That's all you need.
Speaker 1: And Trump's success here and getting reelected will drive them insane.
Speaker 1: Now is it going to happen? I you know that
Speaker 1: I'm putting everything that I've got into this. But it
Speaker 1: ain't over until the zoftig female vocalist sings, so we
Speaker 1: shall have to see. And I did appreciate Keilly mcinenny.
Speaker 1: She said this yesterday. It's it's exactly what I did
Speaker 1: my show. And later on the day I see Kelly
Speaker 1: mcinenny is saying the same thing about Don Lemon. You know,
Speaker 1: Kelly's an old friend of mine now almost a decade.
Speaker 1: Here's what you said about that the LIB plans here
Speaker 1: play nine. Democrats cannot win their argument on the merits,
Speaker 1: they cannot win on president, so they must search and destroy.
Speaker 1: John Lemon said the quiet part out loud last night.
Speaker 1: He said this, We're going to have to blow up
Speaker 1: the entire system if the president does his job as
Speaker 1: outlined in the Constitution. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 1: We fight to protect the system, We fight to protect
Speaker 1: the constitution. When Democrats say out right, we are going
Speaker 1: to blow up the entire system because we do not
Speaker 1: get our way. This president will proceed undaunted by Democrat threats.
Speaker 1: President Trump will fulfill his duty. President Trump will appoint
Speaker 1: the next Supreme Court justice. President Trump will protect religious liberty.
Speaker 1: President Trump will protect our freedom of speech. President Trump
Speaker 1: will protect our Second Amendment under this president, and our
Speaker 1: rights will be upheld, our Constitution safeguarded, and this president
Speaker 1: will fill that. Kayley's been in a great job as
Speaker 1: Press secretary, and she's laying it down there. Why is
Speaker 1: it that when the left is upset, we all just
Speaker 1: assume that there will be riots, that bad things will happen,
Speaker 1: and that that doesn't filter into our broader political conversations
Speaker 1: about maybe there's a political party here that needs a
Speaker 1: major rethink, realignment, needs to spend some time and introspection.
Speaker 1: It's not the Republicans. Folks. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, I don't know. We won't call them fascist comments,
Speaker 1: fascist fascism, fascists, called fascism, fascism, fascist, fascist, notions of fascism, xenophobic, racist,
Speaker 1: ste magogue racist, sexist, xenophobic, autocratic, and fascistic. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is a fascist one like a fascist or a tyrant
Speaker 1: or an autocrat fascist Rhederick, fascist language fascists. I'm glad
Speaker 1: that you're starting talking about fascist Hitler, fascist Rhederick. He's
Speaker 1: talking the way fascist taught autocratic fascist in Nazi Germany
Speaker 1: before the rise of Hitler, fascist language Hitler, fascist Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler,
Speaker 1: hill Hitler, Hitler Hitler from what Ado Hitler preached in
Speaker 1: the early thirties. Let's just say it once and for all,
Speaker 1: you know, Morning Joe really is for people with ninety
Speaker 1: five IQs who think they have won twenty IQs. But
Speaker 1: in case you didn't already know that, I hope that's
Speaker 1: supercut of what they talk about on Morning Joe or
Speaker 1: they're discussing Donald Trump. I just I saved you. I
Speaker 1: don't know that shows on for like three four hours
Speaker 1: in the morning. You know it's sitting around Joe Scarborough,
Speaker 1: Wax and Philosophical and MSNBC. That's right, just doing the
Speaker 1: little dance for the Libs. Oh, Joe is a Republican,
Speaker 1: but now he's seen the light. Do your little dance
Speaker 1: for the Libs. Joe, do what they want like a
Speaker 1: little puppet, little Mary in that. Oh, they pay you
Speaker 1: very well. Who needs integrity? Who needs to stand for something?
Speaker 1: To care about something? Oh? Oh, I'm sorry. It's all
Speaker 1: because of Trump. Scarborough and Mika were super buddy buddy
Speaker 1: with Trump while he was running for president, but then
Speaker 1: he decided he didn't like him so much, so now
Speaker 1: it's he's a fascists, what frauds. All the worst people
Speaker 1: in America TV journalist. They really are the worst. The worst,
Speaker 1: the most worthless, the most worthless as compared to their
Speaker 1: pay scale are TV journalists and the most replaceable and
Speaker 1: yet most arrogant at the same time, it's it's pretty amazing,
Speaker 1: pretty Summark. Where did that super cut even come from?
Speaker 1: Of that's that was great? It's going to give it
Speaker 1: a How do we know? I believe Tom Elliott from
Speaker 1: grabyan oh gramy okay, because because that's a great one.
Speaker 1: Just fascism, always a fascist, always a fascist, always a fascist.
Speaker 1: How is Donald How are we even having this conversation anymore?
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a fascist because of what exactly? Because
Speaker 1: he sounds like a fascist? How is that true? Like?
Speaker 1: What are they even saying? It's just it's just words
Speaker 1: fascism for the left, which, as we know, fascism is
Speaker 1: a ideology that shares the same roots. It's a collective
Speaker 1: of ideology, shares the same roots of communism and the
Speaker 1: fascists and the communists. We're fighting over the same recruits
Speaker 1: in the nineteen thirties and into the nineteen forties, and
Speaker 1: you know, there's just there's not you know, democratic socialism
Speaker 1: is what the fascists in Nazi Germany were, we're called. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: they say this, It reminds me. There's a movie from
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighties. I think I think it might be
Speaker 1: a wit Stillman movie called Barcelona, and there's an American
Speaker 1: who's like a naval attache, who's clearly a Reagan style
Speaker 1: Republican and and he walks around and these these left
Speaker 1: wing Spaniards, because Spain is very left wing at the time.
Speaker 1: They're all these countries, European countries that you know, are
Speaker 1: much less impressive now than they were three, four or
Speaker 1: five hundred years ago, and they want to blame somebody,
Speaker 1: so that they tend to blame America. That's there's that grease.
Speaker 1: It's definitely true, and grease hasn't been that awesome. And
Speaker 1: oh god, going back now a couple of thousand years, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, but you go back to uh to the
Speaker 1: Barcelona movie, and they just walk around a people call
Speaker 1: an American who wears a military uniform. They just say fascist. Fascist.
Speaker 1: That became the the political slam that they would throw
Speaker 1: around that and it was true for a while. People
Speaker 1: would just say fascist is a word that has used
Speaker 1: to mean I think your politics are ugly and I
Speaker 1: don't like you, But that's not what fascism actually is.
Speaker 1: So so I think it's interesting that they complain about
Speaker 1: the demagoguery of the other side, or they say that
Speaker 1: Trump is a demagogue, is a demagogue and of course
Speaker 1: a fascist. But then they use terms that are inaccurate
Speaker 1: to describe a guy that they don't like, just because
Speaker 1: they're sparing them effectively, that's what they're doing. But this
Speaker 1: is all part of the crime. More lib phenomenon, cry
Speaker 1: more lib as we should say to them about Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett. And and I'm going to say this, I
Speaker 1: plan on being a sore winner if we are victorious
Speaker 1: in this reelection. I'm not gonna say, oh, it's okay, Libs,
Speaker 1: you know you'll get them next time. And we're all
Speaker 1: Americans and everything else. No, I mean, we all are
Speaker 1: Americans and the country is going to be better off
Speaker 1: if Trump wins. But no sympathy, no sympathy for the Libs.
Speaker 1: If they lose politically, right, like I said, they get
Speaker 1: they get the benefit of living in a country that
Speaker 1: will be wealthier, better, more rule of law, base, more prosperous,
Speaker 1: so they'll be safer, they'll be wealthier, they'll be treated
Speaker 1: equally under the law under Trump presidency more than they
Speaker 1: would under Biden presidency. So that's why I don't feel
Speaker 1: sorry for them, because it's just an emotional state that
Speaker 1: will be violated for them all, it's all psychological. It's
Speaker 1: not based in reality. And of course they are left
Speaker 1: wing interests and things that won't benefit as much fro
Speaker 1: Trump winning. But I mean, you're average American, even if
Speaker 1: they don't know it would be better off with Trump
Speaker 1: as president for former years. Joe Biden is a loser.
Speaker 1: Democrats have known this for decades. But Hillary was Hillary
Speaker 1: was supposed to be there their dynasty for eight years,
Speaker 1: and we know this. They tried, she lost to Obama.
Speaker 1: They tried again, she lost to Trump. Right, it was
Speaker 1: all it was all on a Hillary, and they didn't
Speaker 1: have a bench that they could go to, so they
Speaker 1: put forward this guy who's you know, it's like they've
Speaker 1: brought a journeyman professional uh you know, basketball player at
Speaker 1: a retirement and everyone's like, look, the guy's got two
Speaker 1: bad knees. He was never that good to begin with,
Speaker 1: and they're saying, no, let's make him the franchise player
Speaker 1: of a brand new expansion team. He's worth twenty million
Speaker 1: dollars a year. And we're looking at them like, you
Speaker 1: guys are nuts. We know who this guy is. This
Speaker 1: guys is impressive. Why would we I mean, this is
Speaker 1: the There are so many fundamental questions that Democrats can't
Speaker 1: answer today that they should be forced to answer. Why
Speaker 1: would why would democrats expect us to believe that a
Speaker 1: presidential candidate who had run three times previously and who
Speaker 1: was a third tier even fourth tier candidate, then now
Speaker 1: when he's passed his prime too old for the job,
Speaker 1: clearly show signs of slowing down election, now he should
Speaker 1: be the lead of the free world. This, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's just a retread. I mean, this is a a
Speaker 1: rebrand of a weak brand. Whatever works, whatever works, That's
Speaker 1: all you're going to hear. And the way they plan
Speaker 1: to get this done is merely by saying over and
Speaker 1: over again that Trump is a fascist and that he's
Speaker 1: basically Hitler. And meanwhile, the people that are telling you
Speaker 1: if you don't wear a mask constantly, including outdoors, for
Speaker 1: which there is no scientific evidence to support that that's
Speaker 1: a good idea. None doesn't exist, They can't have there's
Speaker 1: not a single study that shows there is any considerable risk.
Speaker 1: Whatso not one outdoors doesn't exist. Walk around New York
Speaker 1: City right now, ninety five percent of people on the
Speaker 1: street are wearing masks outside by themselves, and people say,
Speaker 1: oh buck, but maybe it's more No, it's not more convenient.
Speaker 1: It's annoying and uncomfortable. They're doing it because they've been brainwashed.
Speaker 1: All right, I keep my mask in my back pockets
Speaker 1: that if I have to go into a store or something,
Speaker 1: I can, and so I do. But in that environment
Speaker 1: where we have such an abuse of science, such an
Speaker 1: abuse of these they're claiming that Trump is the fascist.
Speaker 1: If he had even authoritarian tendencies, never mind an actual
Speaker 1: authoritarian design on the future of this country. He was
Speaker 1: given the greatest opening imaginable for that, a pandemic disease
Speaker 1: that they say he didn't take seriously enough. Trump could
Speaker 1: have been the one to say, federal executive order, shut
Speaker 1: down the following businesses, federal executive order from from the
Speaker 1: White House, from the desk of the President, everyone has
Speaker 1: to do X, Y and Z, you know, and he didn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, some things obviously, shut down the travel but
Speaker 1: I'm talking about really oppressive tactics to deal with this virus,
Speaker 1: including counterproductive ones. The most oppressive voices during this have
Speaker 1: been Democrats all along. Some Republicans have gone along with them,
Speaker 1: but the people pushing for the most draconian, scientifically unsupported
Speaker 1: responses to this virus have been Democrats. But they call
Speaker 1: Trump the fascist. Look, ultimately, it's just there. They don't
Speaker 1: like him, and so they're going to say terrible things
Speaker 1: about him. Whether they're true or not doesn't matter in
Speaker 1: the least to them. They simply do not care. They'll
Speaker 1: say anything that they think will work in the public
Speaker 1: mind to make him seem like a bad person, a
Speaker 1: person of bad character who's done a bad job. The
Speaker 1: words are almost irrelevant. You know. They could call him,
Speaker 1: you know, a stupid potty head or something, and you know,
Speaker 1: like like a third like a three year old, you know,
Speaker 1: a stupid silly you know whatever. I can't even think
Speaker 1: of what three year olds say. But you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, I mean, they could they have the same effect.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what they're doing. It's just what
Speaker 1: I don't like Trump. I don't like Trump. Uh. You know.
Speaker 1: John Heilman another one of these lib journals. He's just
Speaker 1: sort of clinging to a form of relevance. And now
Speaker 1: that people know more about the world, I think than
Speaker 1: know that they should not listen to people like this.
Speaker 1: Here's what he says about Trump play five, and someone
Speaker 1: commented the quo was nice. Death culture got there at GLP,
Speaker 1: and that really is. I mean, this is the other thing.
Speaker 1: It goes back to another, like said one of the
Speaker 1: core I mean it really does. I'm using a phrase
Speaker 1: like death cults about one of the great American political
Speaker 1: parties in our nation's history. To say that we would
Speaker 1: have one seemed hyperbolic, But it increasingly does feel like
Speaker 1: the Republican Party has become a death cult and it's
Speaker 1: all about Donald Trump. And I do think again, one
Speaker 1: of the things that sets Trump apart, like what are
Speaker 1: the things that set Trump apart from every other president?
Speaker 1: The pathology of the lying, the cruelty of not taking this,
Speaker 1: you know, not making the virus central when any other
Speaker 1: president of any party that we've ever experienced in our
Speaker 1: lifetimes would have made the virus friends center. Republicans are
Speaker 1: a death cult. Yeah, we want people to die. Sure,
Speaker 1: we don't care about people dying. Where did the most
Speaker 1: people die from this pandemic? Per capita? Blue states run
Speaker 1: by Democrats, where Democrats are in charge of state and
Speaker 1: local health authorities and Democrats are in charge of setting
Speaker 1: policies new York, New Jersey, Massachusetts the worst hit place. Illinois,
Speaker 1: Michigan the worst hit places by COVID nineteen. Democrats in charge.
Speaker 1: But Trump is running the death cult. Governor Cuomo sends
Speaker 1: thousands of seniors with COVID nineteen back into their nursing
Speaker 1: homes by order of the state, creating a huge spike
Speaker 1: in deaths in those nursing homes from COVID. But Trump
Speaker 1: is running a death cult because of what decision that
Speaker 1: he made exactly. Oh, his rhetoric or his tone or
Speaker 1: it's pathetic, isn't it. Their arguments are just garbage. You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom This is the Buck Sex and Show
Speaker 1: podcast charges today in the case involving Brianna Taylor, a
Speaker 1: EMT who was killed in Louisville, Kentucky, back in March.
Speaker 1: This case has gotten a tremendous amount of attention from
Speaker 1: the media. You've seen celebrities like Lebron James, I mean huge,
Speaker 1: you know, followings on social media have a have taken
Speaker 1: a lot of time to focus on this case. Here's
Speaker 1: what we know after today. There are three officers involved
Speaker 1: in this raid. It was it was executing a search warman.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't call it a raid. It was executing a
Speaker 1: search warrant. And we have been told that it was
Speaker 1: a no knock, a no knock raid, that was what
Speaker 1: they said. Turns out that wasn't true. They did knock,
Speaker 1: the police did announce their presence, so they banged the
Speaker 1: door and said police open up. And then a guy
Speaker 1: involved here, Kenneth Walker, who was believed to perhaps alleged
Speaker 1: to be involved in the drug trade, he shot at
Speaker 1: those officers. The officers return fire, and in returning fire,
Speaker 1: they accidentally hit Brianna Taylor. Look, it's a tragedy, all right.
Speaker 1: That woman did not deserve to get shot at all.
Speaker 1: That was not a It was not justified in the
Speaker 1: sense that she posed any kind of a threat and
Speaker 1: that the officers meant to shoot her. But she was
Speaker 1: in the line of fire for officers who were returning
Speaker 1: fire because one of the officers was shot by Briannic
Speaker 1: Taylor's boyfriend. So here we have a case where the
Speaker 1: cops say open up, police, then they enter after giving
Speaker 1: notice of their and some guy pulls out a gun
Speaker 1: and shoots an officer. What do we expect the officers
Speaker 1: to do? What is the you know, what does the
Speaker 1: mob and we're preparing for riots across the country now
Speaker 1: because of this case. What are we demanding of police
Speaker 1: officers in this circumstance? How many of them have to
Speaker 1: get shot before they return fire? Now, we're really to
Speaker 1: believe that this guy, Kenneth Walker, didn't know that these
Speaker 1: were cops. Three am. They're knocking on the door, they're
Speaker 1: saying police, and he opens up start shooting. You know,
Speaker 1: there is a culpability here for not knowing who you're
Speaker 1: shooting at two, meaning who you're attempting, who you're trying
Speaker 1: to shoot. The problem on the other end here is
Speaker 1: that police, in trying to return fire on Kenneth Walker,
Speaker 1: hit a bystander in this case. Now, there are charges
Speaker 1: that have come from this, and I'm trying to read
Speaker 1: into this because it's just it's just just breaking today,
Speaker 1: breaking now. Actually as I'm as I'm addressing you with
Speaker 1: this and I'm trying to make sure that I get
Speaker 1: these these correctly. But there are three charges of effectively
Speaker 1: reckless endangerment from one of the officers. From what I understand,
Speaker 1: it's that they're saying he fired his weapon too many
Speaker 1: times under the circumstances and endangered other people. It's a
Speaker 1: Class D felony, could go to prison for five years.
Speaker 1: So really this is they wanted to charge an officer
Speaker 1: with something so that they could say that they put
Speaker 1: charges out there because people are so you're so upset
Speaker 1: about the death of this woman, and look, it is
Speaker 1: just be very clear about this. It is a tragedy
Speaker 1: that Brianna Taylor died. Okay, it is a tragedy. This
Speaker 1: young woman died. It was it was an accident. It
Speaker 1: was a tragic accident. These law enforcement officers were not
Speaker 1: trying to shoot her. They were returning fire and she was.
Speaker 1: It was in a dark hallway in an apartment building
Speaker 1: and she got hit. And you know, the family is
Speaker 1: going to receive a large I believe actually already has
Speaker 1: received a large payment from a city of Louisville. I mean,
Speaker 1: this should not have happened. But to say that the
Speaker 1: officers involved were criminal, were racist, were were murderers, which
Speaker 1: is what we've been led to believe by the media
Speaker 1: for a long time here, right, this is part this
Speaker 1: has been a BLM rallying cry over Brianna Taylor for months.
Speaker 1: It is not the case. It is simply not the
Speaker 1: case that they murdered this woman, that it was excessive
Speaker 1: or brutal force. It was exactly what I described to you,
Speaker 1: police returning fire legitimately, and the Black Attorney General for
Speaker 1: Kentucky said exactly that it was a justified use of
Speaker 1: force from police officers to open fire on Kenneth Walker.
Speaker 1: So you know, this is just a question of you know,
Speaker 1: what are you supposed to expect. What are the officers
Speaker 1: going to do now? The charges against them, the charges
Speaker 1: against them, or rather against one officer, two of the
Speaker 1: officers are facing no charges. I mean to me, this
Speaker 1: is just they want to say that they found a
Speaker 1: criminal charge here. And this is a troubling precedent that
Speaker 1: keeps getting set in different places across the country, where
Speaker 1: because the mob is so upset, let's at least give
Speaker 1: them something, let's charge to play kate the mob. We
Speaker 1: saw this in that terrible case in Omaha where there
Speaker 1: was a lawful self defense and the individual there, Gardner,
Speaker 1: was essentially fed to the angry mob, I mean, fed
Speaker 1: to the wolves over this one because it was a
Speaker 1: black BLM protester who attacked him, and the mob doesn't
Speaker 1: doesn't want anyone to think they're allowed to defend themselves
Speaker 1: against the tactics of BLM, so they brought in a
Speaker 1: special prosecutor. Here we have the Kentucky ag saying we're
Speaker 1: going to charge these men even though officers Mattingly and Cosgrove,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, we charge a man one officer, even though
Speaker 1: officers Mattingly in Cosgrove were justified in their use of
Speaker 1: force because the third officer fired, you know, fired too
Speaker 1: too many rounds. I mean, put a reckless endangerment charge.
Speaker 1: Come on, we know what this is, folks, putting a
Speaker 1: criminal charge on someone to try to mollify the mob,
Speaker 1: and you know what, it's not going to work. Get
Speaker 1: ready for mayhem, because that's what the left does. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Remember just subscribe on Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's
Speaker 1: get a view from the front lines of the fight. Friends.
Speaker 1: We now have Congressman Matt Gates with us. He is
Speaker 1: the well, of course congressman from down in Florida, also
Speaker 1: podcast host. He's got a new book out, Firebrand Dispatches
Speaker 1: from the front Lines of the Maga Revolution. He is,
Speaker 1: indeed on those front lines congressman. Great to have you on.
Speaker 1: Oh thanks for having me. Buck. Let's start with this man,
Speaker 1: because you're in DC right now, You're you're in the Capitol.
Speaker 1: There are protests going on, more stuff expected. What do
Speaker 1: you think is going to be happening on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: while we have this super intense election and then monumentally
Speaker 1: fierce battle over a Supreme Court seat going on at
Speaker 1: the same time. Well, you know, the Michael Bloomberg political
Speaker 1: operation wrote a memo that had a few things in
Speaker 1: it that were right. One is that it's very difficult
Speaker 1: to convince people to vote for Joe Biden, that there
Speaker 1: needs to be a modelization effort more than a persuasion effort.
Speaker 1: They view that as a losing battle. And also that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is likely to win the vote on election day.
Speaker 1: And so the entire scenario you see playing out from
Speaker 1: the legal vector to kind of the street theater that
Speaker 1: you see going on, you know, just outside the window
Speaker 1: where I am right now, is that they want to
Speaker 1: create space between Donald Trump's election day win and some
Speaker 1: other moment to try to deprive him of the presidency
Speaker 1: or undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. And during the
Speaker 1: pendency of that period of time. They want to create
Speaker 1: confusion over mail in ballots when they were postmarked, what
Speaker 1: can be counted, and the hopes that that will allow
Speaker 1: them to take power even if it is not that
Speaker 1: which is vested to their political operation on election day
Speaker 1: as a result of the electoral College. So I think
Speaker 1: we're in that dire a circumstance and I think that
Speaker 1: it just shows how transformational President Trump is that these
Speaker 1: are the links they're going to. And we've seen reporting
Speaker 1: that the Bloomberg operation is spent a lot of money
Speaker 1: to pay off I mean, you're a conection from Florida's
Speaker 1: you know the political scene down there as well as
Speaker 1: the national level. Very well, they're spending money. Bloomberg is
Speaker 1: spending money to pay off the debts of convicted felons
Speaker 1: as part of this mobilization. What can you tell us
Speaker 1: about that? Yeah, well, not all convicted felons, like not
Speaker 1: if you're white, Buck. So they have written memos identifying
Speaker 1: specific racial and like voter propensity segments of the felon
Speaker 1: population that are trying to get their rights restored, and
Speaker 1: they're going and paying off those specific things to try
Speaker 1: to incentivize the vote. Now, that's a very dangerous thing
Speaker 1: to do. It's a felony in the state of Florida
Speaker 1: to either directly or indirectly offer something of value in
Speaker 1: exchange for someone altering their voting behavior, not even who
Speaker 1: they would vote for or not, but whether they would
Speaker 1: vote or not. And in this case, you literally have
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg political operatives writing the confession saying that they
Speaker 1: are doing these payoffs for these political outcomes. I've encouraged
Speaker 1: our state Attorney General to direct the statewide prosecutors started
Speaker 1: an investigation. She says she's on top of it, and
Speaker 1: so I'm hopeful that we'll be able to determine if
Speaker 1: this is even legal what's going on, because let me
Speaker 1: just tell you something. If Sheldon Addelson was like forgiving
Speaker 1: casino debt for people that we're going to go vote
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump, they would be storm in his house
Speaker 1: like it was Roger Stone. To point out that is
Speaker 1: a terrifying thought. By the way, it's like a zero
Speaker 1: dark thirty moment. All of a sudden, they come in
Speaker 1: through the windows. They're repelling in with the MP fives
Speaker 1: to get Roger Stone. Of course, as we know, very
Speaker 1: very different when there's a Democrat who is in the
Speaker 1: government's crossairs. Tell us what you're expecting here for how
Speaker 1: they can block the Amy Coney Barrett nomination. We know
Speaker 1: that they can't do it on votes. We know they
Speaker 1: can't do it under the constitution. But they're the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Schumer out there, among others, are making this
Speaker 1: case that they you know, Pelosi said a quiver of arrows.
Speaker 1: Schumer as well, he's just being Schumer making stuff up.
Speaker 1: But he's saying, Oh, we're gonna find a way. Is
Speaker 1: there is there something we're not looking I've been saying
Speaker 1: that that they're gonna lie down in the streets, they're
Speaker 1: going to block access to the building, they're gonna pull
Speaker 1: the fire alarm, They're gonna, you know, things like that.
Speaker 1: Is there something we're missing, either procedurally or otherwise. No.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, we have the power and we damn
Speaker 1: well better use it or will demoralize our own base.
Speaker 1: My expectation is that Mitch McConnell is going to hold
Speaker 1: this vote a very approximate to the election, probably before
Speaker 1: the election. I'm also expecting the Democrats to try to
Speaker 1: use a various procedural endeavors to try to jam that,
Speaker 1: but I don't think they'll be successful. But like, what's
Speaker 1: rich to me, Buck is that they spent years saying
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump was undermining our institutions, that he was
Speaker 1: just like great threat to throw off all norms of democracy,
Speaker 1: and now because he's likely to get reelected, Democrats are
Speaker 1: talking about packing the court and like maybe even impeaching
Speaker 1: the Attorney General of the United States just to create
Speaker 1: a procedure bomb the Senate. Ludicrous. Yeah, they're they're threatening
Speaker 1: the very institutions that they claim Trump has been a
Speaker 1: threat to for years. I think the irony is lost
Speaker 1: on very few people that have not suffered from intense
Speaker 1: TDS over the last few years. So your book, Matt,
Speaker 1: you're you're talking about being on the front lines of
Speaker 1: the Maga Revolution. And right now, obviously the president's out
Speaker 1: there making this case to the American people. But why
Speaker 1: why he should get four more years? For you? And
Speaker 1: when you're speaking to whether your constituents or you're you're
Speaker 1: just addressing a national audience on cable news or shows
Speaker 1: like this one, what are the what are the biggest
Speaker 1: points that you that you make about why Trump should
Speaker 1: get why has he earned. You know, the first time around,
Speaker 1: it was based on ideas, charisma. You know, the promise
Speaker 1: of Trump. Right now, we've had him for four years.
Speaker 1: What are the big areas where you say, look at
Speaker 1: this and it will be that. Based on what we've
Speaker 1: already seen, Donald Trump has changed politics by keeping promises.
Speaker 1: You look at our relationship with Israel. You look at
Speaker 1: the way we became an energy producing country, an energy
Speaker 1: dominant country, and then of course building the strongest economy
Speaker 1: that the United States has ever known. This is a
Speaker 1: guy who's done it once. He can do it again.
Speaker 1: But I think he's done something even more important for
Speaker 1: the next generation of conservatives. He's led a political realignment.
Speaker 1: No longer are we going to be the Republican party
Speaker 1: that invades everywhere and invites every illegal alien to cross
Speaker 1: our borders just because it's good for corporate America to
Speaker 1: have cheap labor. No longer are we going to accept
Speaker 1: trade deals that impoverish regular towns in our country so
Speaker 1: some multinational corporation can add a little bit to their
Speaker 1: next bottom line. So I think there's a real America
Speaker 1: First theme to our politics. I think that's animated in
Speaker 1: specific policies. You know, I think that Republicans frankly didn't
Speaker 1: do the president a great deal of service at the
Speaker 1: beginning when we had unified control of the government. We
Speaker 1: should have done a lot more on immigration, We should
Speaker 1: have done it a lot more on entitlement form. I
Speaker 1: blame the failed leadership of Paul Ryan on that. And look,
Speaker 1: the reason the Russia probe went on so long is
Speaker 1: because you had folks like Trey Gaudy out there shilling
Speaker 1: for the FBI, you know, saying that they were doing
Speaker 1: nothing wrong, when the rest of us were saying, look,
Speaker 1: this is a coup underway. Because they do not like
Speaker 1: this man so much, they will let any any end,
Speaker 1: or they will let the ends justify any means. And now,
Speaker 1: in fact we know people are getting indicted and impleading
Speaker 1: guilty for changing evidence before a secret court. So the
Speaker 1: book is kind of my walk through that and my
Speaker 1: hope that going forward we're a populist, excited party and
Speaker 1: that we're not going back to the Bushes or the
Speaker 1: Chaineys or the next you know, the next iteration of
Speaker 1: establishment conservatism. How is it looking for us in Florida
Speaker 1: right now? And this is obviously I mean, I think
Speaker 1: people will say Florida Ohio are the two most important.
Speaker 1: I mean, you gotta get Florida and Ohio. Are we
Speaker 1: going to be in a position on election day to win?
Speaker 1: And why? I mean you're probably Look, you're optimistic. I'm optimistic.
Speaker 1: So we both think Trump will win Florida. But why
Speaker 1: is going to win Florida. I want the audience to
Speaker 1: hear that. So I'll give you a look. At twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: I was very involved in Governor de Santis's campaign. There
Speaker 1: was no poll we ever took during the general election
Speaker 1: where we were ahead. We were always like two, three,
Speaker 1: four points behind, and then you know some polls we
Speaker 1: would maybe be tied at the end. Ron de Santis
Speaker 1: wins a very close race. The turnout model in Florida,
Speaker 1: I think is going to really be good for the
Speaker 1: president because you've got a lot of seniors that are
Speaker 1: NPAs that are not here for the webtobia. I mean
Speaker 1: the web tobia for senior voters in Florida is year
Speaker 1: round golf, not riots in the streets and reparations coming
Speaker 1: out of people's bank accounts. And so I think that
Speaker 1: that will help this date. Also, Miami Dade County looks
Speaker 1: very different for Joe Biden than it did for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: These a lot of working class Hispanics in Miami Dade County,
Speaker 1: maybe just a generation or two removed from actual socialism,
Speaker 1: and they don't want to go back. They want to
Speaker 1: be a part of building a great country, and they
Speaker 1: I think are very turned off the Joe Biden Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris embrace of what you see going on in Portland
Speaker 1: and San Francisco and some of these places where quality
Speaker 1: of life is deteriorating rapidly. How's the President in spirits
Speaker 1: these days? I know you're in constant contact with him. Hey,
Speaker 1: he is real excited about this Supreme Court pick. You
Speaker 1: know when we talked about it the other day, he
Speaker 1: talked about the sizzle, the substance, just getting someone that
Speaker 1: was a total package that could really go in there
Speaker 1: and add something to the jurisprudence of our country and
Speaker 1: really build on this Trump legacy of reshaping the court,
Speaker 1: like all these Republicans that were the never Trumpers, And oh,
Speaker 1: he violates norms, like would they have preferred Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: to make these three picks? We'd have like the purple haired,
Speaker 1: genderless warlord from the chaz as the next Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justice rather than the folks we have there who I
Speaker 1: think are going to interpret the Constitution and not embrace
Speaker 1: the judicial activism. That's very antidemocratic. Florida Congressman Mac Gates.
Speaker 1: Everybody download his podcast. Also pick up his new book,
Speaker 1: Firebrand Dispatch from the front Lines of the Maga Revolution,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot Com, other places you can grab it. Congressman,
Speaker 1: great to see you man. Come back soon. Thanks Buck,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you man. You're in the Freedom hud. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. We've talked about the
Speaker 1: Brianna Taylor case today and the decision that was made
Speaker 1: there in Kentucky. And I also mentioned the Gardner case
Speaker 1: who tragically was was pushed to commit suicide because they
Speaker 1: were charging him with murder when he defended himself against
Speaker 1: assault outside of his own bar in Omaha, Nebraska. And
Speaker 1: now we have more footage as well in the Kyle
Speaker 1: Rittenhouse case. People are saying that he committed first degree murder.
Speaker 1: That's that's an outrage. Here here's the Fox right up
Speaker 1: of this additional video footage that aired last night on
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson's show. Newly released video footage from the night
Speaker 1: Illinois teenager Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two people during
Speaker 1: unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last month, could support the claim
Speaker 1: that the seventeen year old was being attacked by demonstrators
Speaker 1: and acted in self defense. The footage, provided by a
Speaker 1: nonprofit organization affiliated with Rittenhouse's defense attorney, was shown on
Speaker 1: Tucker Crossing Tonight on Tuesday and raised questions about the
Speaker 1: events that led up to the shooting. Rittenhouse faces felony
Speaker 1: charges including first degree intentional homicide. Okay, they're charging this
Speaker 1: kid with first degree murder, folks, but among many other charges.
Speaker 1: His attorneys argue Rittenhouse argue acted in self defense. So
Speaker 1: here's what you see in the video. The footage shows
Speaker 1: Rittenhouse running with a fire extinguisher. Rosenbaum appears to chase
Speaker 1: after Rittenhouse when a single gun shot is fired. Now Rosenbaum,
Speaker 1: Joseph Rosenbaum, is a convicted child molester who was committing arson.
Speaker 1: So those are the kind of people that are part
Speaker 1: of the BLM movement. Convicted child molester Joseph Rosenbaum was
Speaker 1: letting things on fire. Quote surrounded Rittenhouse, squeezed four shots
Speaker 1: surrounded ritten House rather squeezed four shots in Rosenbaum's direction.
Speaker 1: Seconds later, three additional shots were portedly fired by an
Speaker 1: unknown shooter. One bullet graze Rosenbaum's head, while another penetrated
Speaker 1: his right growing his left thigh in his back. Kyle
Speaker 1: Rittenhouse fired four shots initially that night, another four were fired.
Speaker 1: We still don't know who fired them. No one else
Speaker 1: has been arrested or charged at this point. According to
Speaker 1: video's narration, an unidentified protester strikes Rittenhouse in the head,
Speaker 1: causing him to fall to the ground. Another protester attempts
Speaker 1: to jump on Rittenhouse, who then fires two shots into
Speaker 1: the air. Yet another protester then strikes ritten House in
Speaker 1: the back of the head with what appears to be
Speaker 1: a skateboard. While reaching for the team's rifle, Rittenhouse fires
Speaker 1: a single shot, striking the man in the chest. The
Speaker 1: video appears to show another protester advancing with a handgun
Speaker 1: aimed at ritten House, who fired off around and struck
Speaker 1: the man. Arm struck the man in the bicep. So
Speaker 1: you got a convicted cham molester who's lighting fires A
Speaker 1: bunch of you know who has the first exchange here
Speaker 1: with ritten House. A bunch of shots ring out, likely
Speaker 1: at ritten House. Someone's firing at him, and then the
Speaker 1: mob tries to and we've seen this video many times,
Speaker 1: physically assault him. The mob tries to take his weapon
Speaker 1: and I'm sure kill him with it. Somebody who's who's
Speaker 1: attacking him has a pistol in his hand when he's
Speaker 1: doing it. I think they just didn't believe that Rittenhouse
Speaker 1: would actually use his rifle. I really think that that's
Speaker 1: a big part of this. They figured, you know, he's
Speaker 1: just some you know, maga hat wearing, you know, wannabe.
Speaker 1: They just figured that he wasn't really going to do
Speaker 1: anything with it, and so they could attack him and
Speaker 1: beat him senseless, maybe kill him. And that's and they
Speaker 1: found out at least some of the people attacking him
Speaker 1: at that was not true that he was willing to
Speaker 1: use the rifle that he brought to that that riot
Speaker 1: scene in self defense. And this is this, friends, is
Speaker 1: is a really a foundational issue for our rule of
Speaker 1: law in this country. Do you have the right to
Speaker 1: defend yourself? The police officers in the Brianna Taylor case,
Speaker 1: they were being shot at after they knocked and said police,
Speaker 1: If if we're going to say that they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to shoot back. Then you're you're saying that cops can
Speaker 1: never shoot. So at least they didn't try to charge
Speaker 1: those cops with murder, but that would have been out
Speaker 1: It would have been outrageous beyond words. But they are
Speaker 1: charging one officer with three counts of of of reckless endangerment.
Speaker 1: There's that. And then you also have this case in
Speaker 1: Kenosha where someone used a rifle to defend himself. They're
Speaker 1: charging the first degree murder, I mean, a depraved really
Speaker 1: the high crime in our legal system. I mean, you
Speaker 1: could get the death penalty for first degree murder. They're
Speaker 1: going to execute this kid because he didn't allow himself
Speaker 1: to get beaten to a bloody pulp and maybe murdered
Speaker 1: with his own weapon or murdered with the weapons that
Speaker 1: these other lunatics who are rioting had. How could any
Speaker 1: person of good faith and any person with a decent
Speaker 1: sense of justice see what's happened in some of these cases,
Speaker 1: See what happened in Omaha where when a prosecutor reviewed
Speaker 1: the footage it's on video, said, yeah, you can't actually
Speaker 1: tackle a guy to the ground who's got a gun
Speaker 1: and try to beat his face in and think that
Speaker 1: he's not gonna shoot you. Sorry, that was the first
Speaker 1: pass at it. But oh no, the mob demands a scalp.
Speaker 1: The mob demands there has to be charges against people
Speaker 1: who are trying to defend themselves. It's appalling, friends, it
Speaker 1: should not be happening. But this is increasing the country
Speaker 1: that we live in where prosecutors know that it's not
Speaker 1: just their election prospects, because prosecutors in many places have
Speaker 1: to write district attorneys have to run for office. It's
Speaker 1: an elected position. And other prosecutors who are just on
Speaker 1: a line, prosecutors, as they say, they don't want their
Speaker 1: careers to stall out. They want to be elevate if
Speaker 1: they want to be the attorney general for a state
Speaker 1: or maybe the Attorney general United States. They want to
Speaker 1: be an a USA or the US attorney. They don't
Speaker 1: want to just be a district you know, an assistant
Speaker 1: district attorney. And then there's the safety considerations that are
Speaker 1: raised for that for the prosecutors and the politicians that
Speaker 1: are that are pushing for some of these things, because
Speaker 1: if you if you believe in self defense, now you
Speaker 1: may and you're a public figure, you may find yourself
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of a mob gathering outside of
Speaker 1: your home. You may find yourself in a situation where
Speaker 1: you have an angry mob that has gathered and that's
Speaker 1: threatening your wife and children because you believe the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment and the right to self defense are in fact
Speaker 1: the law. Because they are, but people don't want that,
Speaker 1: They don't want that attention. We are seeing a very
Speaker 1: a very unfortunate period here of cowardice that is growing
Speaker 1: within the legal system, and the angry mob is exploiting it.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the bus show past. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Our friend will Rick Cardella from
Speaker 1: the Washington Examiner is back in the mix, back in
Speaker 1: action here with us now. He is at the Washington Examiner.
Speaker 1: Will great to have you. Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1: So I know you're you're very very clear on your
Speaker 1: your thoughts on the legitimacy. If we're going to say
Speaker 1: that the Senate has rules beyond what are kind of
Speaker 1: official rules, right that the senators get that the mcconnal
Speaker 1: rule doesn't preclude if anyone even cares, which I honestly don't,
Speaker 1: But the McConnell I mean meaning that, you know, I
Speaker 1: think that the rules are the rules, but if people
Speaker 1: are going to hold them to the McConnell rule, there's
Speaker 1: no reason not to fill the seat. Explain. Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: the McConnell rules. But if it is a rule, and
Speaker 1: that's if that's what the left wants to use, that's
Speaker 1: the exact reason why Donald Trump has the authority to
Speaker 1: nominate a judge and for the Senate to hold a vote. Look,
Speaker 1: you know, he said, you know, this is when Barack
Speaker 1: Obama was president. Obviously in twenty sixteen Arms Starring twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: when the Senate won, when the GOP won the Senate,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama was president. That's when there was Anton and
Speaker 1: Scalia died there after. If they wanted to Barack Obama
Speaker 1: nominated somebody, Miss McConnell said, Look, we just had an
Speaker 1: election here in the mid terms. We took the Senate.
Speaker 1: The people obviously want to change. Let's wait and see
Speaker 1: what happens for the next election. You know, let's make
Speaker 1: this a referenda about judges. Twenty sixteen was in part,
Speaker 1: in large part about the next president nominating judges, and
Speaker 1: that GOP Senate approving them. So if the McConnell rule
Speaker 1: is the reason, or they're left using the McConnell rule
Speaker 1: of the reason not to appoint judges is absurd. It's
Speaker 1: the exact reason why they should nominate and appoint judges.
Speaker 1: What do you think they're gonna do? I mean, I
Speaker 1: keep asking people this because I'm wondering if there's some
Speaker 1: you know, some plot that I haven't. I'm just sitting
Speaker 1: here trying to war game out because you you know, man,
Speaker 1: they are losing their minds over this empty seat right now.
Speaker 1: You know, the timing for them. Look, the timing for
Speaker 1: them is bad. There's snowkind the Democrats, they know they
Speaker 1: they are. Is it not good for them? I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna pretend like I'm not kind of enjoying how bad
Speaker 1: it is for them. Do you do you see any
Speaker 1: pathway that they have, in any realm to try to
Speaker 1: stop this? You know, what are they gonna do? No?
Speaker 1: And I see I see their attempts as damaging. Look
Speaker 1: what they're left is saying right now is we want,
Speaker 1: we want the opportunity to appoint a judge. Well, they're
Speaker 1: coming up with every way to violate the Constitution or
Speaker 1: to denote it entirely, but thinking, you know what, we're
Speaker 1: going to pack the courts with people who like liberal orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: The problem here with these things being so content is
Speaker 1: that leftist activist judges turned the court into a political
Speaker 1: body where once stood a neutral legal institution, and it's
Speaker 1: completely insulated from the body politic from democratic prost The
Speaker 1: left did that, and what they're saying is, hey, you
Speaker 1: know what, we're going to double down more in this lunacy,
Speaker 1: and it's not going to win over any of the people.
Speaker 1: This is actually going to probably helped Donald Trump coming
Speaker 1: up in the twenty twenty election. It helped him in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen when Mitch McConnell said the twaite for the
Speaker 1: next election, people in large part wanted Donald Trump or
Speaker 1: to be the one to appoint these judges. I don't
Speaker 1: think people. And this is going back. I read Robert
Speaker 1: Bart's book. I'm read reading his book, Attempting of America.
Speaker 1: He wrote nineteen ninety. Even at that time, Americans and
Speaker 1: polls and so on showed that they wanted neutral justices,
Speaker 1: not activists on the court. And I think that still
Speaker 1: holds today, and I think that works in Trump's favor,
Speaker 1: and the left just going bananas saying he's gonna he's
Speaker 1: packing the court because he gets to nominate another justice
Speaker 1: is absurd. They're coming up with these crazy we're gonna
Speaker 1: get two more states and we're gonna have four more senators.
Speaker 1: You know, they want to add Puerto Rico in the
Speaker 1: DC in order to you know, they want to abolish
Speaker 1: the electoral College. They want to destroy the Constitution, and
Speaker 1: at the same time say hey, look we're trying to
Speaker 1: save I mean, that's that's that's pure absurdity. Speaking of
Speaker 1: will rot Cardella down the Washington Examiner. Uh, there are
Speaker 1: protests that I see friends of mine in DC are
Speaker 1: posting video from their windows of the marches in the
Speaker 1: straits that are going on there. I think people often
Speaker 1: forget DC is, after San Francisco, the most liberal, most
Speaker 1: Democrat heavy major city in America, and by by party affiliation,
Speaker 1: I mean DC the swamp is as blue as it gets.
Speaker 1: And you have these marchers as well as the people
Speaker 1: that come from out of state, these more antifas style
Speaker 1: agitators who will join in with the lunatics in DC.
Speaker 1: Are you expecting, I mean, are there preparations going on
Speaker 1: now for you know, unrest, riots, things like that leading
Speaker 1: up to the election and beyond. I mean, how are
Speaker 1: things looking down in DC? Well, they should be prepared
Speaker 1: because since May twenty fifth, since the George for the
Speaker 1: George floyd A death, there's been something going on every
Speaker 1: single day. Riot. You know, Donald Trump had his RNC
Speaker 1: acceptance speech on the White House that was a debacle.
Speaker 1: This goes on every single day. And I want to
Speaker 1: add that the DC is not liberal. These are socialist Marxists.
Speaker 1: These are people who are down for the cause. I'm
Speaker 1: talking to everyday, people on the street, on the streets,
Speaker 1: the people who live here. You know, I'll walk down
Speaker 1: the street without a mask on. I'll have people telling
Speaker 1: me to put one on. Give him, you know, looking
Speaker 1: at me, nasty walking completely around, walking on the street.
Speaker 1: They'd rather dodge cars and walk there. Why kids, they
Speaker 1: don't wear a mask if I'm walking or running. Why
Speaker 1: why can't we get doctor Fauci? Mean he loves the
Speaker 1: press so much. Tell everybody, hey, stop stop yelling at
Speaker 1: people who are by themselves out in open air. You know,
Speaker 1: on a sunny day to wear a mask, you're being
Speaker 1: a jackass. Because that is what the science universally says. There.
Speaker 1: There's absolutely no justification for a person by himself, out
Speaker 1: in open air having to wear a mask. It does
Speaker 1: not exist. Why why can't we hear that from these
Speaker 1: health authorities? It would be nice to, you know, de
Speaker 1: escalate some of the insanity a little bit. Well, it's
Speaker 1: typical of the expert class, the elite class. What if
Speaker 1: there's no panic, why would anybody listen to doctor Fauci.
Speaker 1: You see this guy on Times one hundred lists again.
Speaker 1: I say this every time I come on that in
Speaker 1: Style magazine with the sun glasses on it. He's sitting
Speaker 1: there with his legs for us. If people aren't panicked
Speaker 1: or scared or yelling at each other, they would look
Speaker 1: at doctor Fauci for anything. Six months ago, no one
Speaker 1: knew who this guy was. Six months later, he still
Speaker 1: hasn't gotten a thing right, not one thing right. Tells
Speaker 1: you wear a mask, don't wear a mask. Beat you know, kids,
Speaker 1: this is going to harm. Remember that whole thing where
Speaker 1: he was talking to Rampall several months ago about how
Speaker 1: this is terrible for kids and it's going to give
Speaker 1: them the Kawasaki disease. That just disappeared. Never did anybody
Speaker 1: say this guy was brutally wrong. It just disappear year
Speaker 1: out of the headlines, and people are still listening to
Speaker 1: them again. I think it would be a good move
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump to fire him ahead of the election
Speaker 1: and say we're not going to be run by an
Speaker 1: unelected expert class anymore, and they're not going to put him.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to allow them to put Americans against Americans.
Speaker 1: I think that would be a good move for him.
Speaker 1: I think so too. I'm I'm worried that we're already
Speaker 1: transitioning now into another moving of the goalposts where because
Speaker 1: you're seeing this well, I mean it's coming out from
Speaker 1: some of the different folks. I saw the testimony today
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill from red Field over at the CDC,
Speaker 1: and they're already starting to say, well, you know, even
Speaker 1: when the vaccine comes, like, we got to keep all
Speaker 1: these restrictions in place. Oh so now it's now it's
Speaker 1: post vaccine lockdown world we're supposed to live in. It
Speaker 1: means people are completely insane. Oh yeah, they look, they've
Speaker 1: hold and they love the control. Look. I want to
Speaker 1: tell the viewers out there that a mask walking past
Speaker 1: somebody's not going to help you. There's only one way
Speaker 1: that this disease spread long before ask mandates and now,
Speaker 1: and that's fifteen minutes close contact, mainly indoors. If you're
Speaker 1: an older, vulnerable person, that's what you should probably want
Speaker 1: to avoid. You don't really need to worry so much
Speaker 1: when you're at the grocery store. These are not major
Speaker 1: vectors per spread. The mask will not protect you if
Speaker 1: you're in a situation with somebody who's fifteen minutes or
Speaker 1: longer of close contact that's talking, shaking hands indoors. I
Speaker 1: don't know why the CDC just won't come out and
Speaker 1: say that they think that. I think that they think that,
Speaker 1: you know, these vulnerable people wear a mask and then
Speaker 1: that can hang out in those situations. Still, the CEC
Speaker 1: actually has it on their website. Thing. It's not going
Speaker 1: to make it different. It may help. Well, what also
Speaker 1: what may help is if I cover my call for
Speaker 1: sneeze with my hand or or my arm, so you know,
Speaker 1: it's very inconsistent. No one knows what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: That's the problem here, and no one's been fired for it. Again,
Speaker 1: Look all these Americans, we make a mistake at our jobs,
Speaker 1: we get fired, okay, and then we have a hard
Speaker 1: time on our resume getting another job because we don't
Speaker 1: have a recommendation. This has never happened. This isn't going
Speaker 1: to happen to doctor Fauci. And the problem is it
Speaker 1: hasn't happened since he was in then, since he was
Speaker 1: a bureaucrat in the eighties. He's probably made how many
Speaker 1: several hundred mistakes, still has a job. It's fascinating, and
Speaker 1: no American can really identify with it, because if we
Speaker 1: make the same mistake, we're out of a job. Well, Rocardella,
Speaker 1: the Washington Examine, everybody will always going to talk to
Speaker 1: you man, come back soon. Thanks, fuck, thank you. You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Eye. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we've wanted to see a Phase four relief bill get
Speaker 1: to the American people. It's why the Chief of Staff
Speaker 1: and Secretary Minution have been in negotiations. Unfortunately, though, they've
Speaker 1: been in negotiations with a fundamentally un serious partisan named
Speaker 1: Speaker Pelosi, who when we would exceed what she asked
Speaker 1: for was school funding, let's say, she then would reject
Speaker 1: the money that was an excess of what she had
Speaker 1: previously asked for. Democrats I think showed what they were
Speaker 1: about when they fill a buster bill that would have
Speaker 1: provided three hundred dollars a week to the American people
Speaker 1: through December twenty seventh. They fillip us for debt I
Speaker 1: believe last week. So at this point the onus is
Speaker 1: really on Speaker Pelosi. So we encourage her to send
Speaker 1: one off bills, perhaps airline funding or other elements that
Speaker 1: we could work through the process to get to the
Speaker 1: American people. It's always been this president's priority to do that.
Speaker 1: Why isn't there a COVID relief bill? Everyone agrees there
Speaker 1: should be. The government continues to mandate that businesses can't operate,
Speaker 1: can't open. There's not a COVID relief bill because Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi doesn't want there to be, and her claim is
Speaker 1: just not enough. So nothing is better than something. In
Speaker 1: Pelosi's view, If you're suffering right now, if your business
Speaker 1: is closing, if you can't pay your bills, Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: wants it to be clear that you need to keep suffering.
Speaker 1: And then their justification forward is, oh, no, I want
Speaker 1: to get you more. Well, let me tell you that's
Speaker 1: very little comfort. To people who have a hard time
Speaker 1: actually paying the bills that they currently have. It's very
Speaker 1: little comfort. Indeed, the other thing that you're hearing a
Speaker 1: lot these days now is we've returned, We've returned to
Speaker 1: mask shaming just in time for the election. I'm seeing
Speaker 1: a lot of this now, and I'm so fed up
Speaker 1: with New Yorkers who are overwhelmingly Democrats eight to one
Speaker 1: Democrats who are just little mask maniacs. Now they're wearing them.
Speaker 1: They're on a bicycle by themselves by the Hudson River,
Speaker 1: nobody around them. They're moving fast. They got a mask on,
Speaker 1: and look if they want to do what that's I
Speaker 1: don't care. But they're doing it, and they expect you
Speaker 1: do it too. Outside bend the knee, wear a mask.
Speaker 1: Why because that's what the good people do. You see,
Speaker 1: this is how this is how democrat brainwashing works. This
Speaker 1: is how they this is how they do things. I
Speaker 1: gotta say I liked earlier today there wasn't trying to
Speaker 1: see if I can if I can find it here
Speaker 1: on the fly. There was a Matt Walsh tweet. When
Speaker 1: the left is upset about something, we board up our
Speaker 1: homes and call in the national guard. He writes, there's
Speaker 1: no both sides argument here. Leftism is evil. It's a
Speaker 1: blight on the earth and everything about it. It's bad.
Speaker 1: I agree, I agree. I don't. I don't respect the
Speaker 1: Democrat ideology. I don't think that it has some some
Speaker 1: good stuff anymore. I think they've really become uh, they've
Speaker 1: really become terrible. They've really become something that just just
Speaker 1: just needs to be defeated. But the mask mania is
Speaker 1: just a part of it. And there was there's a
Speaker 1: fast oh sorry, the mask shaming. Of course, here's Chris Cuomo,
Speaker 1: who likes to lecture America about obeying the COVID rules
Speaker 1: while he's going between his various houses in the Hampton's
Speaker 1: as a multi millionaire checking to see how while he's
Speaker 1: COVID positive and very sick. But you know, he's a
Speaker 1: good guy to listen to. On this play thirteen third
Speaker 1: worst loss of life in our history. I'm sorry for
Speaker 1: the family's loss, and I'm sorry that you had to
Speaker 1: hear this from your president. It affects virtually nobody. It's
Speaker 1: a it's an amazing thing. Then this, I'll never lie
Speaker 1: to you. Press secretary tells you the death toll has
Speaker 1: the president awake at night so worried that he stands
Speaker 1: maskless in front of a tight crowd again tonight, telling
Speaker 1: jokes instead of holding maybe a moment of silence for
Speaker 1: the two hundred thousand stolen by this pandemic. Maybe trying
Speaker 1: to prevent some of these good people in this crowd
Speaker 1: we're too close together and without masks, from sharing their fate.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of them were wearing masks. I watched
Speaker 1: the rally last night. Asn't happened. A lot of them
Speaker 1: were wearing masks. Not everybody, but if a mask works,
Speaker 1: shouldn't that You know, why do we never get partial credit?
Speaker 1: This is this is important. Think about this. You have
Speaker 1: a hundred people in a room, and you don't know
Speaker 1: how many of them have COVID, maybe two, maybe ten,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a small number. But fifty percent of
Speaker 1: the people are wearing masks. Of masks are so effective,
Speaker 1: then we should feel like we're probably gonna be okay. Right,
Speaker 1: it's not that easy for this to spread. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying fifty percent is better than zero. It's substantially better,
Speaker 1: isn't it. And then there was a big chunk from
Speaker 1: what I could see on the screens big chunk of
Speaker 1: that were in masks, even though let's also remember that
Speaker 1: if they're outside, they should they wear a mask. Is
Speaker 1: that the same thing wearing a mask outside? Where was
Speaker 1: all this uh outrage from a quom over at CNN
Speaker 1: when there were daily mask gatherings outside, sometimes masked, a
Speaker 1: lot of times not masked. Over the BLM movement. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I haven't forgotten yet that the blue check mds out there,
Speaker 1: and not all of them, but a lot of them.
Speaker 1: We're trying to convince us that well, even if it
Speaker 1: spreads the virus, these BLM protests are worth it. That's
Speaker 1: what they were saying. That was the real That was
Speaker 1: the real story from even if it spreads the virus,
Speaker 1: the BLM protests are worth it. Oh okay, I'm never
Speaker 1: letting that go. There's something else I want to tell
Speaker 1: you about too, because there's so little time. I mean,
Speaker 1: we look, we've lost the COVID narrative battle on the
Speaker 1: right and people that try to keep this all in perspective,
Speaker 1: We've we've lost the you know that, the dominant narrative
Speaker 1: and all of this because the left has just been
Speaker 1: they've been utterly, relentless. But you know, there was a
Speaker 1: piece that's making the rounds now from a former senior
Speaker 1: former senior scientist at Fiser in the UK talking about
Speaker 1: PCR testing. Now, I don't want to get to you,
Speaker 1: look do I I'm not a scientist, but I can
Speaker 1: read and I understand a lot of stuff, certainly more
Speaker 1: than seeing that anchors do. And here's what I can
Speaker 1: tell you what he's saying about the test. There's a
Speaker 1: very small percentage of overall when these when these PCR
Speaker 1: tests are done, a very small percentage of people actually
Speaker 1: have COVID. Who are you know, when they're when they're
Speaker 1: doing these tests. Let's say it's for every ten thousand
Speaker 1: tests they're doing. You know, let's say if you're looking
Speaker 1: at one percent of people that actually have COVID, you
Speaker 1: extrapolate that number. There's always also a false positive rate,
Speaker 1: and the false positive rate for PCR testing on COVID
Speaker 1: right now is looking to be like it's substantial. They're not.
Speaker 1: They're not exactly sure what it is, but it's built
Speaker 1: in that it has to be substantial. And right now,
Speaker 1: based on very he walks you through how based on
Speaker 1: very widespread testing where they're doing thousands and thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of tests every day there, at least in the UK.
Speaker 1: He's talking in the context of the UK, based on
Speaker 1: the numbers that they see of the percentage of the
Speaker 1: population with COVID overall that are doing these tests. Because
Speaker 1: of vast majority of people that do the tests do
Speaker 1: not do not come back or do not actually have COVID,
Speaker 1: I should say, and the false positive number by percentages,
Speaker 1: the false positive number is larger than the positive number
Speaker 1: per every ten thousand tests done. Now it's not a
Speaker 1: lot out of one hundred. You think, okay, well two
Speaker 1: percent of cases are false positives. We'll think about how
Speaker 1: many false positive cases then you're generating every day, and
Speaker 1: when you're doing ten thousand tests, and if only one
Speaker 1: percent of the population actually has COVID, but two percent
Speaker 1: of the population is testing positive through these and that's
Speaker 1: it's established. I mean, this is not a conspiracy. PCR
Speaker 1: testing has a false positive rate. They'll find a strand
Speaker 1: of like decade RNA from a virus infection from six
Speaker 1: months ago positive. So it's at least two or three
Speaker 1: percent false positive rate. If you're oh, and I know
Speaker 1: this sounds a lot but if your overall actual COVID
Speaker 1: positivity out of every ten thousand percent sample is about
Speaker 1: one percent, and your PCR test false positive is two
Speaker 1: or three percent, guess what. Most of the cases in
Speaker 1: the UK under this model that they're reporting as COVID
Speaker 1: positive who are overwhelming to get asymptomatic don't actually have COVID.
Speaker 1: Look at the numbers in New York. We're below one
Speaker 1: percent of cases are positive in New York City. So
Speaker 1: if you have a two or three percent false positive, right,
Speaker 1: you're doing ten thousand test today. Guess what? Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to The Busson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Oh,
Speaker 1: I can't forget about that Senate report and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: Son Hunter Biden and what we see going on with
Speaker 1: going on with all that. Here's a thread that explained
Speaker 1: some of this from Kim Strasslo at the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: The Johnson Grassy report raises the many and disturbing conflicts
Speaker 1: of interest surrounding Hunter's business dealings while Joe was vice president,
Speaker 1: but it also made clear the Democratic nominee as not
Speaker 1: being straight with the public, Joe Biden last year said
Speaker 1: I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
Speaker 1: That's pretty definitive, right, Yet, accordinated testimony from former Obama
Speaker 1: official Amos Hochstein, he briefed Joe and his concerns about
Speaker 1: Hunter and Bisma in twenty fifteen. October twenty fifteen, and
Speaker 1: shortly after his conversation with Vice President Biden, Hunter, Biden
Speaker 1: contacted Hackstein and asked to meet. According to Hackstein, Hunter
Speaker 1: became aware of Hackstein's West Wing conversation with the Vice President,
Speaker 1: who had mentioned it to Hunter. So Joe Biden was
Speaker 1: specifically briefed on the US government's concerns about Hunter and Barisma,
Speaker 1: and he specifically brought up those concerns to his son.
Speaker 1: How does that comport with I have never spoken. If
Speaker 1: Joe isn't asked about this at the debate, it's journalistic malpractice.
Speaker 1: Well then we know it's not going to happen. The
Speaker 1: report similarly shows that despite former Secretary of State John
Speaker 1: Kerry saying he had no knowledge of any of any
Speaker 1: of this, he in fact was also briefed on Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: Seems a lot of people in the Obama administration knew
Speaker 1: this was a problem, but nobody acted. This is all
Speaker 1: relevant given Biden's claim he has a more ethical choice
Speaker 1: in this election, voters might legitimately ask if the wink
Speaker 1: not approach to Hunter's wheeling dealing will be business as
Speaker 1: usual in a Biden administration. So now that that's that's
Speaker 1: a very good version of the takeaway here that you
Speaker 1: should all have from this. But I'll give you some
Speaker 1: of the specifics. As people are saying Hunter Biden, you
Speaker 1: know was m oh, I love this. The New York
Speaker 1: Times Republican inquiry finds no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: That's the that's the New York Times headline. The New
Speaker 1: York Post headline, same same sort they're talking about. Quote.
Speaker 1: Senate report links Hunter Biden to prostitution or human trafficking ring. Oh,
Speaker 1: that seems like a very different takeaway than what the
Speaker 1: Democrats had. Hunter Biden sent thousands of dollars to people
Speaker 1: who appear to be involved in the sex industry, according
Speaker 1: to report released Wednesday by Republicans in the US Senate.
Speaker 1: The report says, this is the New York Post version,
Speaker 1: Unspecified records show that Biden sent funds to nonresident alien
Speaker 1: women in the United States who are citizens of Russia
Speaker 1: and Ukraine and who have subsequently wired funds they recie
Speaker 1: from Hunter Biden to individuals located in Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 1: The records also note that some of these transactions are
Speaker 1: linked to what appeared to be Eastern European prostitution or
Speaker 1: human trafficking rings. The allegations are containing a footnote to
Speaker 1: a section of the report that details potential criminal concerns
Speaker 1: and extortion threats involving the son of Democratic Vice presidential
Speaker 1: and former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic president of
Speaker 1: nominee Rather, and other members of the Biden family. The
Speaker 1: report sites extensive public reporting concerning Hunter Biden's alleged involvement
Speaker 1: with prostitution services. Records then filed the committees do not
Speaker 1: directly confirm or refute these individual reports. So, yeah, they're
Speaker 1: saying Hunter Biden plays a lot of spends a lot
Speaker 1: of money on prostitutes who are tied to human trafficking. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I understand Xabach, that's the son. It's not Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: is it. Do you think let's just let's ask the question,
Speaker 1: just so we could all be on the same page here.
Speaker 1: Do you think that if Donald Trump Junior was sending
Speaker 1: thousands and thousands of dollars to prostitutes that he was
Speaker 1: now using the services of and including prostitutes who might
Speaker 1: be tied to human trafficking ring, so they themselves are
Speaker 1: perhaps being human trafficked and their money that the proceeds
Speaker 1: they're making from that process is going to the horrific
Speaker 1: process of human trafficking other people as well, you know,
Speaker 1: from the overlords that are doing all this stuff, Russian
Speaker 1: mob and so on and so forth. Do you think
Speaker 1: that if if Donald Trump Junior was involved in that,
Speaker 1: it would not be the biggest news story in the
Speaker 1: country for a couple of days and all the news
Speaker 1: outlets would be saying, oh my gosh, yeah, we all
Speaker 1: know this, right. I mean, the double standard is mind blowing,
Speaker 1: but it is certainly it is certainly real. You know,
Speaker 1: you can't avoid it. You can't can't assume that it's
Speaker 1: gonna get any better either. It's actually gonna get worse
Speaker 1: between now an election day. But the Barisma stuff, Look,
Speaker 1: I was working with John Solomon at The Hill dot
Speaker 1: Com at the time when he was breaking those stories,
Speaker 1: and they were pushing all this stuff on the Barisma
Speaker 1: you know, friends, Yeah, there's it's corrupt. It's bad. It's
Speaker 1: also not going to win us the election. It's also
Speaker 1: not going to lead to the the ultimate gotcha moment.
Speaker 1: Democrats are fine with corruption on their side, and the
Speaker 1: media will just ignore how gross it is so we
Speaker 1: can make as much noise about it as we want.
Speaker 1: But it just this dog won't hunt friends. The Bearisma
Speaker 1: thing is not I was never a proponent of how
Speaker 1: this is going to take down. I know some people
Speaker 1: on some shows, you know, it's a constant, you know, Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Bearisma update and everything else. I don't like making false
Speaker 1: promises to my audience about what I think is going
Speaker 1: to be achievable by the GOP or achievable by our
Speaker 1: side in politics. I didn't do it with Benghazi. I
Speaker 1: didn't do it with Hunter, with the Hunter Biden Beisma thing.
Speaker 1: I certainly haven't done it with the Durham probe or
Speaker 1: how many months now if I've been telling you, I
Speaker 1: don't think the Durham probe is gonna lead to really
Speaker 1: much of anything. I always tell this audience the truth.
Speaker 1: Too much respect for you and too much care for
Speaker 1: your respect for me to do otherwise. So while the
Speaker 1: Beisma story is interesting and it's valid, I'm not I mean, look,
Speaker 1: clearly the guy it's it's corruption, but it's not criminal
Speaker 1: corruption that is going to cost Joe Biden the election.
Speaker 1: So how much more do we really want to talk
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a little amusing and because the double
Speaker 1: standard and everything with the Democrats, and it's also galling,
Speaker 1: but how much more do we really talk about? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about Hunter Biden. I mean, the guys a
Speaker 1: degenerate loser, and you know, Joe Biden is obviously gonna
Speaker 1: you know, they're not gonna hold him accountable. The media's
Speaker 1: not gonna hold him account for his son, even if
Speaker 1: they would do that to a Republican. So I think
Speaker 1: it's a story that I'll keep you updated on. But
Speaker 1: don't expect you know, uh, you know, smoking gun here,
Speaker 1: don't don't expect bombshell. You know, Hunter Biden. This this
Speaker 1: guy impregnated a stripper in the back of a CD
Speaker 1: club in DC and then try to fight the paternity payments. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's who the soon to be if the Democrats have
Speaker 1: their way, President of the United States. Son Is media
Speaker 1: has no problem with it. You're in the freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks, keeping it real, It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Roll call everybody. Thank you so much for sticking with
Speaker 1: us at this point in the show. Um, I think
Speaker 1: that this is one of our favorite parts of the show.
Speaker 1: So it's always fun when you get to this point.
Speaker 1: And uh, let's then let's jump into it, shall we. Uh?
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton, teampocket, iHeartMedia dot com
Speaker 1: if you want to email us, or if you want
Speaker 1: to send a Facebook message, Instagram, Buck Sexton, let's do it.
Speaker 1: Brad Rites, Hey, Buck, I like that you played President
Speaker 1: Trump's reaction to rbg's passing. I consider myself to be
Speaker 1: good at reading people in their expressions. I encourage you
Speaker 1: and your listeners to check out the actual video of
Speaker 1: that reaction. If you watch his eyes, you can see
Speaker 1: a very genuine person who cares about a life. You
Speaker 1: would never get that kind of reaction out of Hillary
Speaker 1: when she learned of Benghazi, or Biden when she referred
Speaker 1: to when he referred to George Floyd. They just look
Speaker 1: like someone who lost a pawn in a chess game.
Speaker 1: Shields high, you know, Brad, I do think that Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't get enough credit for what is really a fundamental
Speaker 1: human decency and sympathy that is a part of who
Speaker 1: he is. I think that the left likes it just
Speaker 1: always portray him as an evil monster who's racist and
Speaker 1: a sexist and a rapist and all these things. But
Speaker 1: people who actually know the guy will tell you that
Speaker 1: he can be very sympathetic. He likes to help people out.
Speaker 1: He can be too loyal, It's one of his It
Speaker 1: is one of these things you know when you go
Speaker 1: to a job interview and they say, you know, tell
Speaker 1: me your weaknesses, and you say, so, I take too
Speaker 1: much into my own hands and share too much of
Speaker 1: the credit, right. I mean, people try to play that.
Speaker 1: But there are some failings that come from a good place,
Speaker 1: and I mean loyalty can be one of them. It
Speaker 1: is possibly be too loyal the people that work with you.
Speaker 1: It is possibly too loyal the people that you've appointed
Speaker 1: into certain roles. And I think Trumps that is his thing. Now.
Speaker 1: His loyalty doesn't extend to people who trash him or
Speaker 1: who go against him. Obviously, people are saying, oh, but
Speaker 1: look who works for Trump? Yeah. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: go at Trump, he's gonna go back at you. But
Speaker 1: you see the people that he gave jobs too, and
Speaker 1: that he's stuck stuck with through a lot, and yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta say that's one of the areas where I
Speaker 1: think the President. I appreciate where he's coming from on it,
Speaker 1: but it has been a tough thing for him, and
Speaker 1: I think it's cost him at different times. Chris next
Speaker 1: up here, Hey, bucking Mark, completely enjoy your daily podcast
Speaker 1: and have since your two hours show at the Blaze.
Speaker 1: Love to hear Mark as your residence sports anchor. Or.
Speaker 1: At least I will until the Mets, Knicks, Giants or
Speaker 1: Rangers actually start winning, whereupon he'll become an obnoxious and
Speaker 1: insufferable New Yorker just won't let you know that another
Speaker 1: Californian has left the building. No longer will I pay
Speaker 1: the highest income, sales, carbon or gas taxes in the nation.
Speaker 1: No longer will my exceedingly high taxes go toward a
Speaker 1: bottom five education, roads, crime, homelessness, or friendliness. Idaho doesn't
Speaker 1: have the lowest taxes in the nation, but the whole
Speaker 1: state is so friendly that I've strained my arm muscles
Speaker 1: waving to everyone. Masks are mostly optional. I love it
Speaker 1: an Idaho. I moved here and instantly my daily anger
Speaker 1: with the Left, and they're stupid, shortsighted policies, subsided. So
Speaker 1: don't move here. I need you to stay edgy and angry,
Speaker 1: because that's why you're so entertaining. Well, Chris, don't worry
Speaker 1: about that, because it's certainly getting more and more tense
Speaker 1: in New York these days. I can't handle these lives.
Speaker 1: They're they're just nuts. They're just nuts. But Mark's not
Speaker 1: in New Yorker. You actually don't really have You don't
Speaker 1: really haven't much of a New York I mean I
Speaker 1: can pick it up a tiny bit, you don't really
Speaker 1: have much of it. I used to, and then when
Speaker 1: I decided I wanted to be into broadcasting, I realized
Speaker 1: you can't have a New York accent and be doing
Speaker 1: play by play for games. So I got rid of it.
Speaker 1: What are the like? What makes a what makes a
Speaker 1: good play by play? And like I could say on
Speaker 1: a political talk radio, one thing that I always look
Speaker 1: for is is this somebody who has has a cadence
Speaker 1: that is easy and enjoyable to listen to and follow
Speaker 1: and beyond that is saying things that are not exactly
Speaker 1: the same that everyone else is saying. Right, those are
Speaker 1: just some of the things you want for a good
Speaker 1: political talk radio host. What makes a good play by
Speaker 1: play guy? Huh? I was always told when I was
Speaker 1: coming up by my mentors to be conversation. Act like
Speaker 1: you're having a conversation with the audience, even though you're
Speaker 1: telling them what's happening. And you want good energy, you
Speaker 1: want a good cadence. You don't want somebody to be boring.
Speaker 1: You want a play by play guy to pick the
Speaker 1: right spots to go crazy, like Mike Breen for example.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people aren't watching the NBA,
Speaker 1: but when you did, he's the main guy on ESPN
Speaker 1: and ABC calls the finals and whatnot. But he has
Speaker 1: a signature called bang and he knows when to pull
Speaker 1: it out at the right time. So the best guys
Speaker 1: like that just know when to have the right energy,
Speaker 1: pick their their moments, and are always clear and concise.
Speaker 1: We have a you know, call things and they set
Speaker 1: up their analyst. Well that's always important too. Who's the
Speaker 1: guy who is like, uh, it's pandemonium baby? Is that
Speaker 1: the Dick fight tal. Yeah, he's not a play by
Speaker 1: play announcer. He's a color commentator. Wait what wait what
Speaker 1: that's not the same thing the play by play guys.
Speaker 1: The one who goes they score, and one's like, and
Speaker 1: Smith passes the ball. Due guys passes the ball back
Speaker 1: to Johnson. Johnson that's okay, But isn't that? Oh wait,
Speaker 1: so color commentary? How who who? Nowadays? Mark, it's you
Speaker 1: Mark Albert play by play or color comments play by play.
Speaker 1: So nowadays a color commentator usually is a former player
Speaker 1: or coach. So they're analyzing what just happened and giving
Speaker 1: you background information and telling you why it happened, stuff
Speaker 1: like that. And they were kind of as a team.
Speaker 1: I got announced, you got the one guy who's like,
Speaker 1: and they're passing it through and they're doing you know,
Speaker 1: and then the other guy's like, yeah, that was a
Speaker 1: really like good call. Or those two they work together exactly.
Speaker 1: Now I understand, okay, because I was like, how does
Speaker 1: that work? Or there's one guy doing one guy doing
Speaker 1: the play by play, one guy do because I've heard
Speaker 1: before in the radio, just straight play by play, right,
Speaker 1: that'll happen too. Yeah. Baseball games there's a difference between
Speaker 1: radio and television. On television, the analyst will speak more.
Speaker 1: On radio, you want to hear what's happening. So that's
Speaker 1: what I was, Okay, All I learned something new every day, Adams,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck producer Mark is gorgeous or whatever I have
Speaker 1: to say to get this aired. But what's your opinion
Speaker 1: on this? Hey, Adam, here you are, buddy success. If
Speaker 1: the Republicans end up not confirming a new Supreme Court justice,
Speaker 1: do you think it's really because is they want to
Speaker 1: gain brownie points with the left should Biden end up winning?
Speaker 1: Or are we to believe this great moral quandary? We
Speaker 1: know believe it to be this great moral quandary when
Speaker 1: we know it's not love your show, shields high are No.
Speaker 1: I think they're gonna do it, Adam. So I don't
Speaker 1: think I think that they're gonna do it. So I
Speaker 1: can't really answer your why would Republicans not do it?
Speaker 1: Because there is no good reason. So they're gonna do it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna We're gonna get this. I don't overpromise on
Speaker 1: this show. That's one thing I try very hard. I
Speaker 1: don't overpromise to you guys. What I think is gonna happen.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna get this Supreme Court nominee through,
Speaker 1: and I think we're gonna do it before the election.
Speaker 1: I think it needs to happen before the election, David writes,
Speaker 1: is amyk Cooney Barrett willing to not be liked Roberts
Speaker 1: changed his mind because he wants to be liked, David,
Speaker 1: is a good question. I'd like to say. The answer
Speaker 1: is yeah, although I don't have much to go on
Speaker 1: with that other than my gut, my instinct. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I think she probably is. As a mother
Speaker 1: of seven who is pro life and avowedly pro life
Speaker 1: and is a Catholic and doesn't care that people mock
Speaker 1: her faith, I think she probably is willing to take
Speaker 1: the slings and arrows, so to speak. Kirk Buck, on
Speaker 1: Monday's show, you played AOC's comment that we must vote
Speaker 1: for Biden to protect our democracy and protect the most
Speaker 1: innocent and vulnerable. Are you kidding me? What irony? It is?
Speaker 1: The left and r G RBG. You guys got to
Speaker 1: stop writing rg B ruth Bader Ginsburg RBG, God rest
Speaker 1: her soul that are responsible for maintaining and supporting laws
Speaker 1: that actually do kill the most innocent. It is the
Speaker 1: innocent in the womb via abortion. I'm sorry, but that
Speaker 1: one tops them all. As you often say, the left
Speaker 1: has absolutely no shame. It shows that we are not
Speaker 1: just in the middle of a political battle, but we
Speaker 1: are oftentime in the middle of a spiritual battle. The
Speaker 1: fight over the next Supreme Court seat is for sure
Speaker 1: both well said Sir Well said Scott buck As a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice, where are the inherent a political standard
Speaker 1: needs to be met or where the inherent political stentard
Speaker 1: needs to be met? We had a justice holding on
Speaker 1: for pure political purposes while RBG had a right to
Speaker 1: serve until death. No one wants to discuss the ethical
Speaker 1: breach of why she chose to do so. By the way,
Speaker 1: your Sports Talk with producer Mark cracks me up. Reminds
Speaker 1: me of hanging out with the girlfriend back in the
Speaker 1: day talking sports love the show. Whoa, Scott, Hey, I
Speaker 1: know what you're saying with that, Like I'm the girl
Speaker 1: that needs producer Mark to explain how the touchdowns happen
Speaker 1: or something whatever. I mean, that is exactly what happens. Whatever,
Speaker 1: I demand the recount, All right, everybody, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening today. Check ont bucksexon dot com. Pass the
Speaker 1: buck to somebody in your life Tell them to download
Speaker 1: this show. Iheartapp, Spotify, iTunes. Till tomorrow, she'll high