Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Impeachment Hearing's day three
Speaker 1: are upon us. Most of it's boring, but there were
Speaker 1: some worthwhile parts we'll dive into together. Plus the revenge
Speaker 1: of the interagency consensus. Did the DNC try to get
Speaker 1: dirt from Ukraine? Phil chick fil A bends the knee
Speaker 1: and is fart Gate now a thing that in more
Speaker 1: coming up? This is the buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American Great, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again The buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember no
Speaker 1: welcome the buck Sexton Show. Everybody another day, another eachman inquiry.
Speaker 1: The inquisition continues on, Oh my, it is going to
Speaker 1: be the case. It seems that Adam Schiff will tell
Speaker 1: us the same story more or less every day. Now
Speaker 1: he'll tell us the same thing day in and day
Speaker 1: out as we are. Then I suppose going to just
Speaker 1: cave and say anything, We'll do anything, Just please stop
Speaker 1: this serious tone about the threat to our democracy from
Speaker 1: Trump's phone call to Zelenski. That didn't change anything, no investigation.
Speaker 1: Ukrainians got the money for the aid and the weapons
Speaker 1: that Trump would give them that Obama Wooden's But here
Speaker 1: we are going through this nonsense yet again. I would
Speaker 1: note that there was a lot of what we've seen before. Today.
Speaker 1: You had witnesses including Pence Vice and Pence's aid a
Speaker 1: SIGNFOS State Department, Jennifer Williams, and also Lieutenant Colonel Vinmanton,
Speaker 1: hero of the hashtag resistance right now, Oh, isn't that
Speaker 1: a surprise too? Exactly nobody, but he is out there
Speaker 1: giving a lot of his opinions. She's giving her opinions
Speaker 1: a little bit. She seems like she is not someone
Speaker 1: who wanted to be caught up in this, but is
Speaker 1: going to answer questions. He definitely, Vinman wants to be there.
Speaker 1: He's part of this thing. He got this running, he
Speaker 1: got this in motion, so we already know what we're
Speaker 1: dealing with here, which is also why he's very it's
Speaker 1: very very touchy about making sure that, for example, he's
Speaker 1: always referred to as Lieutenant Colonel Vinmanton, and even if inadvertently,
Speaker 1: for example, Devin Nunez just refercs him as mister Vinman,
Speaker 1: must correct him right away. Also showing up in full
Speaker 1: dress uniform for his testimony, there's a lot of theatrics
Speaker 1: around mister Vinman right now, and I would just remind
Speaker 1: you that many of the same journos and Democrat members
Speaker 1: of Congress who will try to use Vinman's service in
Speaker 1: the military as a shield for many criticism for what
Speaker 1: he is trying to do now, which has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with his military service. He was at the National
Speaker 1: Security Council, a body comprised of advisors to the president,
Speaker 1: mostly civilians. That's not his military service. He's there as
Speaker 1: an advisory a member of an advisor committee to the president,
Speaker 1: and in that capacity he absolutely can be criticized. But
Speaker 1: many of the Democrats and the members of Congress who
Speaker 1: want you to feel that Vinman is beyond criticism, how
Speaker 1: how dare you critique his motives or motivations? Did they
Speaker 1: feel that way about the ambush by hashtag resistance Obama
Speaker 1: voting deep staters like Sally Yates setting up General Flynn
Speaker 1: and then trying to get him not just fined which
Speaker 1: they did, and ruined which they did, but sent to prison,
Speaker 1: which they are still rooting for. So when is military
Speaker 1: service a shield against all criticism? Oh, when it's a
Speaker 1: Democrat trying to take down the president. But if it's
Speaker 1: somebody else, if it's somebody who's in Trump's good graces,
Speaker 1: somebody who is trying to help implement the Trump agenda,
Speaker 1: then military services no shield whatsoever. So I'm just glad
Speaker 1: we established the double standards right up front. Let's be
Speaker 1: very clear about those double standards. And also a well
Speaker 1: I'll get into that in a moment. The backstory that
Speaker 1: we keep getting from these different individuals. Vinmn, for example,
Speaker 1: even when often talked about how proud he was of
Speaker 1: his dad and leaving the Soviet Union, and that's all fine,
Speaker 1: I just don't care, it doesn't matter. But you'll notice
Speaker 1: that this is a recurring theme. Look at how honorable
Speaker 1: and decent and wonderful these public servants are. Public servants
Speaker 1: who have made it quite clear they objected to President
Speaker 1: Trump's decision making on Ukraine. They didn't like that. For example,
Speaker 1: as Vinman said, he didn't use the talking points that
Speaker 1: he was supposed to. Oh, how dare you not use
Speaker 1: the talking points on the phone call that a bunch
Speaker 1: of I used to prepare talking points the CIA for
Speaker 1: you know, we would look at talking points for different
Speaker 1: senior officials. I mean, this is not a This is
Speaker 1: not an unusual activity. And guess what. Plenty of times
Speaker 1: you know the CI director you write up talking points,
Speaker 1: He's like me, thanks, Who cares? Doesn't really matter. It's
Speaker 1: there for the benefit of the decision maker, for the
Speaker 1: person who is actually in the exchange, in the for ay,
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish a goal. You're just there in an
Speaker 1: advisory role. But the backstory of DMan very important. The
Speaker 1: backstory of these other officials that have come forward, the
Speaker 1: ones who are clearly trying to advance the narrative of
Speaker 1: inappropriate behavior that the president engaged in. Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 1: Inappropriate is a very subjective way to talk about this,
Speaker 1: isn't it. I mean, I thought it was inappropriate for
Speaker 1: President Obama, for example, to in a desperate attempt to
Speaker 1: salvage some foreign policy legacy for himself, for his administration
Speaker 1: and therefore for the handoff to Hillary Clinton to run
Speaker 1: the Democratic Parties foreign policy going forward. I thought it
Speaker 1: was wildly inappropriate for Obama to send pallets of cash,
Speaker 1: actual pallets of cash, to the terrorist regime in Tehran,
Speaker 1: all in an effort to try to curry favor with
Speaker 1: them to get an Iran nuclear deal done that was
Speaker 1: all about legacy for Obama and as we know, didn't
Speaker 1: even last into the Trump administration. I thought that was inappropriate.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying Obama couldn't do it, although maybe he
Speaker 1: should have gotten the Senate to ratify it as a
Speaker 1: treaty so that the next president couldn't just say see
Speaker 1: you later. But I think I don't think it's inappropriate.
Speaker 1: I don't think a lot of things are inappropriate. I
Speaker 1: don't care what an NSC detail thinks about the president's conduct.
Speaker 1: I just don't care. I don't have to care. I
Speaker 1: don't care, especially given that, why doesn't someone ask Viniman?
Speaker 1: Maybe they will later on in his testimony, but why
Speaker 1: doesn't someone point out that there's no credit being given
Speaker 1: by these deep state elements to Trump for doing what
Speaker 1: Obama would not do and what was so necessary sending
Speaker 1: the Javelin missiles, which was a major It is a
Speaker 1: provocation to the Russian government, but one that if you
Speaker 1: want to help the Ukrainians you're going to have to
Speaker 1: do if you're serious about it. But the backstory about
Speaker 1: vin Men that we have to hear have to be
Speaker 1: told that he also was advising Zelenski at one point
Speaker 1: about how to interact with our government and the Trump
Speaker 1: administration and perhaps to even ignore some aspects of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's requests. Is that not a bit of a
Speaker 1: problem for people? Which team are you're playing for? When
Speaker 1: you're doing that, you don't advise a foreign government about
Speaker 1: how to do an end run on your own government
Speaker 1: that you work for? Is request from a spirit of that?
Speaker 1: That's you know, you don't tell a foreign government, hey,
Speaker 1: nullify whatever the commander in chief is asking of you.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about that. That came across in testimony today.
Speaker 1: I wonder how much focused the media you'll put on that.
Speaker 1: But my favorite moment, I mean, this is the best
Speaker 1: thing that has happened so far in all this testimony.
Speaker 1: My favorite moment came when Devin Newness is asking for
Speaker 1: a very important information about the chain of transmission of
Speaker 1: information from VINMIN to anybody else who was involved in this.
Speaker 1: Please begin that, producer, Mark, what as you know the
Speaker 1: intelligence community has? I haven't teen different agencies? What agency
Speaker 1: was this individual from? If I could interject here, we
Speaker 1: don't want to use these proceedings, it's our time, but
Speaker 1: we need to protect the whistle blower, if please stop,
Speaker 1: I want to make sure that there's no effort to
Speaker 1: out the whistle blower through the use of these proceedings.
Speaker 1: If the witness as a good faith belief that this
Speaker 1: may reveal the identity of the whistle blower, that is
Speaker 1: not the purpose that we are here for. And I
Speaker 1: want to advise the witness accordingly, mister Vinman, you testified
Speaker 1: in your deposition that you did not know the whistle
Speaker 1: blower rank. Remember at Lieutenant Colonel Viman. Please ooh, clap
Speaker 1: back at Devin Newness. How dare you? I mean, he's
Speaker 1: obviously not trying to be disrespectful. I understand he's entitled
Speaker 1: to have his rank said, but you know, just maybe
Speaker 1: maybe slow your role a little bit. You're speaking too,
Speaker 1: They're speaking to Congress. They understand what they're dealing with.
Speaker 1: Here a few problems with this. Adam Schiff keeps saying
Speaker 1: that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity. That
Speaker 1: is a lie. That is not true. The whistleblower, and
Speaker 1: we could all read the statute. The whistleblower, at the
Speaker 1: discretion of the Inspector General of the Intelligence community can
Speaker 1: remain anonymous unless the Inspector General decides that it's probably
Speaker 1: going to come out anyway, or the Inspector General decides
Speaker 1: to pass it along to the Department of Justice because
Speaker 1: it could be involved in a criminal prosecution. Someone explained
Speaker 1: this to me. If what the president did is so terrible,
Speaker 1: then shouldn't it be referred to the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: for possible prosecution? Or they won't do that because of
Speaker 1: course the Attorney General was appointed by this president. But
Speaker 1: they don't get to make that determination politically. They should
Speaker 1: make it based on what the facts of the case
Speaker 1: may be. Whistleblower is not entitled to ironclad anonymity. That's
Speaker 1: just not accurate. They keep pretending that that's the story.
Speaker 1: People repeating this and saying this just not true. Plus,
Speaker 1: we've all already heard this name. We all we've all
Speaker 1: been told by reputable in so far as they go
Speaker 1: media outlets who this guy is. So now we are
Speaker 1: to sit around and say we don't know. This is
Speaker 1: Soviet style suppression of information in the public domain because
Speaker 1: people are running a scam, because Schiff is running a
Speaker 1: massive scam. But it gets so that's one part of this,
Speaker 1: But it gets a bit worse there's a special right
Speaker 1: now that Adam Schiff has created for someone to just
Speaker 1: say that they are not going to answer a question.
Speaker 1: They're under oath in front of Congress, not antwer question,
Speaker 1: not that they're not playing the fifth, they're not claiming
Speaker 1: that there is an exemption for classified information. They're not
Speaker 1: going to answer the question because maybe sort of kind
Speaker 1: of it could lead to some people understanding who the
Speaker 1: whistleblower is. That's a new one that gives the witness,
Speaker 1: I would note a lot of discretion. Well, can you
Speaker 1: tell us what you had for breakfast last week? No,
Speaker 1: because got to protect the whistle blower's identity. How are
Speaker 1: you going to challenge him on that subjective judgment of
Speaker 1: the witness? Now answer what he wants, don't answer what
Speaker 1: he wants. Is fine. This is why Schiff is disgusting
Speaker 1: and this is a farce. But we have to go
Speaker 1: through this farce together. But it gets better. Continue on
Speaker 1: with the questioning from Congressman Newness. Please, Lieutenant Colonel Benman,
Speaker 1: you testified in the deposition that you did not know
Speaker 1: who the whistleblower was. I do not know who the
Speaker 1: whistleblower is. That is how is it possible for you
Speaker 1: to name these people and then out the whistleblower. Per
Speaker 1: the advice of my counsel, I've been advised not to
Speaker 1: answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community. This
Speaker 1: is Are you aware that this is the Intelligence Committee
Speaker 1: that's conducting an impeachment hearing? Of course, I am. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: the appropriate place for you to come to to testify
Speaker 1: would be the Intelligence Committee about someone within the intelligence community. Frank, Remember,
Speaker 1: per the advice of my counsel and the instructions from
Speaker 1: the chairman, I've been advised not to provide any specifics
Speaker 1: on who I've spoken to withinside the intelligence community. What
Speaker 1: I can offer is that these were properly cleared individuals,
Speaker 1: or was a properly cleared individual with a need to known. Well,
Speaker 1: this is I mean, you can really you can plead
Speaker 1: the fifth, but you're here to answer questions, and you're
Speaker 1: here under subpoena, so you can either answer the question
Speaker 1: or you can plead the fifth And then Adam Shift
Speaker 1: jumps in and says, no, no no, there's a special Shift
Speaker 1: rule where you don't plead the fifth or which, by
Speaker 1: the way, the reason they don't want that is because
Speaker 1: of the optics of it. Why are you pleading the
Speaker 1: fifth about who you talk to you with regard to
Speaker 1: official government business when you're discussing with the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: Why what is what is the justification for that? Exactly,
Speaker 1: you're worried about self incrimination. You didn't do anything wrong,
Speaker 1: so why would you plead the fifth? There is no
Speaker 1: reason to plead the fifth. There's also no reason for
Speaker 1: him if he is telling the truth that Vinman does
Speaker 1: not know the whistleblower, then there's no basis for him
Speaker 1: to withhold information about who he spoke to because he's
Speaker 1: gonna say, well, theoretically that could be the whistle blower.
Speaker 1: Here's reality. We all know that he is the one
Speaker 1: who talked to the whistleblower. We just have to get
Speaker 1: the proof. We just have to get it one hundred
Speaker 1: percent because otherwise the shady Democrats will lie about it.
Speaker 1: So what is the likeliest scenario here? The likely scenario
Speaker 1: is that Vinman told Charmela about the call, and then
Speaker 1: these guys, you know, worked together and cooked up a
Speaker 1: whole scheme. But then he's like, well, I don't know
Speaker 1: if I'm going to be the one that raises the
Speaker 1: complaint let's give you plausible deniability about whether or not
Speaker 1: I'm the one who's bringing this complaint as the whistleblower.
Speaker 1: That's possible. Otherwise, why is he not discussing who he
Speaker 1: told about the call? I mean, he claims that it
Speaker 1: was a person with a need to know. He's just
Speaker 1: he's just making a subjective determination there. Why would somebody
Speaker 1: not on that phone call in the intelligence community have
Speaker 1: a need to know about a presidential action? The president's
Speaker 1: conduct is not reviewable under whistleblower's statutes by subordinate employees
Speaker 1: inside the federal bureaucracy, So how can anyone have a
Speaker 1: need to know about that? My friends, you see exactly
Speaker 1: what this is. The Democrats are just twisting and contorting
Speaker 1: the law and regulations in bad faith in order to
Speaker 1: this narrative alive as long as possible that there was
Speaker 1: just a honorable public servant who couldn't stand the inappropriateness
Speaker 1: presidential phone call with another head of state that led
Speaker 1: to no action and no consequence whatsoever. But they've got
Speaker 1: to just keep this going in the media today, You're
Speaker 1: gonna CNN, Oh my gosh, those whistleblowers were so I mean,
Speaker 1: rather witnesses were so believable. The best of this country
Speaker 1: on display today against evil fascist Donald Trump. Worse than
Speaker 1: a hitler, Donald Trump. We know exactly where this is going.
Speaker 1: It's appalling, sometimes even a little bit amusing because it's
Speaker 1: so absurd. But we're going to be subjected to this continuously.
Speaker 1: And if you thought that today was boring, just wait
Speaker 1: till they bring out the next round of witnesses. About
Speaker 1: two weeks after that July tenth meeting, President Trump and
Speaker 1: President Silinsky had their second call, the now infamous j
Speaker 1: twenty fifth call. Colonel Ventman, what was your real time
Speaker 1: reaction to hearing that call? Without hesitation? I knew that
Speaker 1: I had to report this to the White House Council.
Speaker 1: I had concerns, and it was my duty to report
Speaker 1: my concerns to the proper, proper people in the chain
Speaker 1: of command. And what was your concern It was inappropriate.
Speaker 1: It was improper for the president to requested to demand
Speaker 1: an investigation into a political opponent, opponent, especially a foreign power,
Speaker 1: where there's at best dubious belief that this would be
Speaker 1: a completely impartial investigation, and that this would have significant
Speaker 1: implications if it became public knowledge and it would be
Speaker 1: perceived as a partisan play, it would undermine all Ukraine policy,
Speaker 1: and it would mine our next discurity. Those are all
Speaker 1: opinions that have nothing to do with breaking any law, folks.
Speaker 1: All right, So we just heard from Lieutenant Colonel Vinman
Speaker 1: a second ago there, and I was just getting into
Speaker 1: how absurd this whole thing is. He's talking about how
Speaker 1: the president's phone call was improper. Okay, says him, says you, Vinman,
Speaker 1: I say here, and I keep saying this, what is
Speaker 1: improper about the president at when? When? When corruption is
Speaker 1: a major issue, a consensus, interagency consensus issue for foreign
Speaker 1: policy in Ukraine? What is improper about asking your counterpart
Speaker 1: as the president United States to look into corruption including
Speaker 1: and they keep saying this, this debunked conspiracy theory about
Speaker 1: the about Ukraine interfering in the election, and the debunked
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories of the of the right. I have to
Speaker 1: wonder what was the right wing somehow able to take
Speaker 1: over Politico because here's the story that they published in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. KIV officials
Speaker 1: are scrambling to make amends with the President elect after
Speaker 1: quietly working to boost Clinton. Oh wait, but I thought
Speaker 1: it's a debunked conspiracy. This hasn't been retracted. No one
Speaker 1: said this is false. But this is Politico, a favorite
Speaker 1: left wing website and magazine on politics. I'm confused. If
Speaker 1: we had real journalists, there are some, but overwhelmingly we don't.
Speaker 1: If we had a real journalism profession in this country,
Speaker 1: we would have answers to the question already. Did Democrat
Speaker 1: operatives Alexandra Chalupa's name keeps coming up? There are others
Speaker 1: as well. Did Democrat operatives try to get information about
Speaker 1: Paul manif than the Trump campaign chairman, from the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: to use as dirt on him. We need a hard
Speaker 1: and fast answer to that question. The Libs don't want
Speaker 1: us to have one, because here's the problem. As much
Speaker 1: as they will try to do the usual double standard
Speaker 1: dance of oh but mana for it's so bad and
Speaker 1: he went to prison. Yeah, but guess what, folks, That
Speaker 1: would be foreign interference in the election, wouldn't it, And
Speaker 1: in fact, it would be the party in power using
Speaker 1: foreign relations as a tool of partisan politics against a
Speaker 1: challenging a challenger presidential campaign. A little more from this
Speaker 1: political piece. Since I'm feeling frisky today, let's do it.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was
Speaker 1: boosted by officials of a former Soviet block country had
Speaker 1: taken a shot there on Russia stuff. Ukrainian government officials
Speaker 1: try to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly
Speaker 1: questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating
Speaker 1: a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were
Speaker 1: investigating the matter, only to back away after the election,
Speaker 1: and they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump
Speaker 1: and his advisors. A Politico investigation found end quote is
Speaker 1: that who's responsible in conservative circles for that conspiracy? Is
Speaker 1: that really Giuliani's fault? The political report of this in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen is John Solomon's fault? At Politico actually competitor
Speaker 1: of the Hill where John was publishing his stories and
Speaker 1: where I used to work, is it? I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: did they make that happen or Oh, have you seen
Speaker 1: any effort whatsoever to follow up on this to get
Speaker 1: more information? Why don't we have people under oath to
Speaker 1: defying about this? Because here's the for me, at least
Speaker 1: even more interesting component the story here says that Ukrainian officials,
Speaker 1: in an effort to curry favor with Hillary Clinton. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, everybody thought Hillary was going to win. So
Speaker 1: if you're a foreign government that's used to a whole
Speaker 1: lot of corruption like Ukraine is, and you know that
Speaker 1: the incoming administration in twenty sixteen into twenty seventeen would
Speaker 1: be in a position to really help or really hurt you,
Speaker 1: would it perhaps be a smart play if you thought,
Speaker 1: because remember what the consensus was, ninety seven percent to
Speaker 1: three percent, or whatever the New York Times had on
Speaker 1: election day. If you were ninety seven percent sure in
Speaker 1: your mind that Hillary Clinton was going to be the
Speaker 1: next president of the United States, and you needed the
Speaker 1: good graces of Hillary Clinton in order to fend off
Speaker 1: the Russians, wouldn't you perhaps be willing to buy some
Speaker 1: goodwill give a little information on a admittedly sketchy fellow
Speaker 1: like Paul Manafort. Now I also will point out that
Speaker 1: I think that the standard the Democrats have set up
Speaker 1: of you can't have information from a foreigner, which they
Speaker 1: don't abide by in any sense. Christopher Steal is a foreigner.
Speaker 1: The dossier was based on foreign sources, So I mean,
Speaker 1: they're total frauds on that to begin with. But I'm
Speaker 1: somebody who believes that if information is relevant to a
Speaker 1: presidential campaign, information is relevant to a presidential campaign. I
Speaker 1: think that this new way if a British tabloid newspaper
Speaker 1: were to break a major story about a presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: or are we supposed to say, up, can't see it,
Speaker 1: foreign source, it's idiocy. This is a this is not
Speaker 1: a standard that you could really apply. But the Liberals
Speaker 1: have convinced themselves this is a real standard. But if
Speaker 1: you're the Ukrainian government, wouldn't you or some people within
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian government, wouldn't you think, hey, let's let's help
Speaker 1: seal the deal here for seal the deal here for Hillary,
Speaker 1: and maybe pass along information that looks bad for Trump.
Speaker 1: Why do the Democrats so desperately not want confirmation of
Speaker 1: this because it would blow an enormous hole in their
Speaker 1: whole scam. And the scam is to pretend that only
Speaker 1: Republicans do this sort of thing. The scam is to
Speaker 1: pretend that they would never leverage foreign sources of information
Speaker 1: in a presidential campaign. Oh my god, foreign interference in
Speaker 1: our election. Oh no, the political story continues. Quote. A
Speaker 1: Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Speaker 1: Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian embassy in
Speaker 1: Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump top
Speaker 1: campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia. According to people with
Speaker 1: direct knowledge of the situation, the Ukrainian efforts had an
Speaker 1: impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and
Speaker 1: advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Speaker 1: Ukraine's vote to the east Russia. My friends, this is
Speaker 1: part of the This is Politico, which is a major site,
Speaker 1: left wing, a major site telling the American public in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen that Democrat collusion with Ukrainian sources was part
Speaker 1: of the genesis of the whole Russia collusion narrative. Where
Speaker 1: why do we believe that this is not true or
Speaker 1: what what reason we have to believe? And keep in mind,
Speaker 1: all of the senior Ukraine policy people at the time,
Speaker 1: could people like Vin men and the various ambassadors who
Speaker 1: have come forward, not Solomon because they hate him because
Speaker 1: he's kind of pro Trump. He's a Trump appointee. But
Speaker 1: the other ambassadors that came forward last week, the guy
Speaker 1: with the big bow tie, I think it was Kent,
Speaker 1: was his ambassador Kent. They could theoretically be implicated in
Speaker 1: this too. They're the ones say, oh, my gosh, Trump
Speaker 1: asked for an investigation of Ukraine. It's the most horrible
Speaker 1: thing ever. But was it at least feasible? Is it
Speaker 1: plausible that they would have at least been aware of
Speaker 1: this effort? That makes perfect sense, And no one yet
Speaker 1: has been able to find a reason why it's not
Speaker 1: true to dig up dirt on metaphor who was operating
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. All these things line up. None of this
Speaker 1: sounds like it's crazy, like it doesn't make sense, and
Speaker 1: it's been reported on and no one's been able to
Speaker 1: prove otherwise. But doesn't it seem like perhaps some of
Speaker 1: those senior Obama era Ukraine policy officials, the interagency consensus
Speaker 1: as it was at the time, maybe some of them
Speaker 1: knew that there were Ukrainian officials and some Democrat operatives
Speaker 1: stomping around trying to find dirt on Trump. What would
Speaker 1: happen if we found out now that some of the
Speaker 1: very same people who are claiming it was a horrible
Speaker 1: crime against humanity or whatever they're saying. It's not even
Speaker 1: a crime. It's inappropriate, improper for the President to ask
Speaker 1: for an investigation of exactly what Politico is talking about here,
Speaker 1: which is the origins of the Russia collusion lie which
Speaker 1: the Democrats ran with for over two years, the origins
Speaker 1: of it as it pertains to Ukraine, and also whether
Speaker 1: there was corruption going on in Ukraine that involved the
Speaker 1: Biden family. There was a whole bunch of stuff that
Speaker 1: the President mentioned in that phone call. What would we
Speaker 1: think of these brave, selfless, nonpartisan public servants if it
Speaker 1: turned out that when information was coming from the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: it was that was bad for Trump. That's fine, it's
Speaker 1: just when Trump wants information from his Ukrainian counterpart that
Speaker 1: could be theoretically bad for a Democrat unacceptable. Can't have that.
Speaker 1: And now let's also put our thinking caps on for
Speaker 1: a moment here. This report is in Politico is all
Speaker 1: about whether there or Ukrainian or Ukrainian government officials trying
Speaker 1: to give damaging information on Manifort to Democrats, Hillary people,
Speaker 1: Obama people in order to take down the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Do we believe then that it is it feasible. I
Speaker 1: can't prove this. Is it feasible that those individuals weren't,
Speaker 1: meaning the Democrats who would have been in receipt of
Speaker 1: this information on Maniford and perhaps other Russia Trump connection conspiracies,
Speaker 1: that they wouldn't have been requesting actively seeking that information, because,
Speaker 1: my friends, there, what we would have is Democrats actively
Speaker 1: seeking foreign interference in the very election that they claim
Speaker 1: was stolen. Because of foreign interference in the election, all
Speaker 1: of their credibility, all of this stuff would just come
Speaker 1: crashing down around them. The impeachment proceeding would have to
Speaker 1: come to a screeching halt, or at least for anybody
Speaker 1: with an IQ over ten, they'd realize it should come
Speaker 1: to a screeching halt. But here we are pretending like
Speaker 1: we don't have this information and hearing from all of
Speaker 1: these different so called witnesses who have an ax to
Speaker 1: grind against the president, who are sharing their thoughts and
Speaker 1: feelings about something, and I simply just don't care what
Speaker 1: their thoughts and feelings are with any of this. Nor
Speaker 1: does the law a nor should a Congress that took
Speaker 1: its job and its powers with any seriousness. But the
Speaker 1: Democrats in this Congress are so desperate because the president
Speaker 1: is doing so well on what matters that they feel
Speaker 1: they have to throw some wrench into the gears. They
Speaker 1: have to try some desperate ploy to shift the narrative
Speaker 1: to damage this president politically, because otherwise he's going to
Speaker 1: cruise to reelection and they know it. That's what all
Speaker 1: of this is really about today. Don't lose sight of
Speaker 1: that for one second. You've described this as a demand,
Speaker 1: this favorite that the president asked. What is it about
Speaker 1: the relationship between the President Nited States and the President
Speaker 1: of Ukraine that leads you to conclude that when the
Speaker 1: President Nited States asked a favor like this, it's really
Speaker 1: a demand, Chairman. The culture I come from the military culture.
Speaker 1: When a senior asks you to do something, even if
Speaker 1: it's play and pleasant, it's it's not. It's not to
Speaker 1: be taken as a request. It's to be taken as
Speaker 1: an order. In this case, the power disparity between the
Speaker 1: two leaders. My impression is that in order to get
Speaker 1: the White House meeting, President Zelinski would have to deliver
Speaker 1: these investigations. Does Vinman think he's in sociology class here?
Speaker 1: It's you all of a sudden, you know, a gender
Speaker 1: studies professor, waxing philosophical on on power disparity. What the
Speaker 1: heck is this? Well, I come from military culture. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's great. We understand You've made that very clear of him,
Speaker 1: and we get it. Zelenski doesn't come from the United
Speaker 1: States or military culture and is certainly not a subordinate
Speaker 1: officer to President Trump. So if you're going to play
Speaker 1: the whole, you know, did you order the code read?
Speaker 1: Meaning Trump orders Zelenski to do the code read here?
Speaker 1: There has to be a chain of command. There is
Speaker 1: no chain of command. Zelenski could very easily have come
Speaker 1: back a deret. You later said, you know what, I asked.
Speaker 1: My guys already looked at that. There's just nothing to
Speaker 1: see there, I mean. And that's that. You know, there
Speaker 1: are all these extra legal rights that the libs are
Speaker 1: creating in this there's so much smoke screen, and you
Speaker 1: have people like Schiff who are just the most dishonest
Speaker 1: human beings you could find anywhere, and they keep creating
Speaker 1: these acts like the right to anonymity for the whistleblower
Speaker 1: that is not a statutory right, but they're pretending that
Speaker 1: it is, and the media is going along with it.
Speaker 1: No efforts in the media right now to find out
Speaker 1: who the whistle blower is. You might ask Buck, why
Speaker 1: were there some initial efforts, because remember Shift said that
Speaker 1: then whistle blower had to testify. So they were going
Speaker 1: to do the whole thing that they always do, where
Speaker 1: they construct this narrative of the selfless, heroic public servant
Speaker 1: with no politics whatsoever. What they've done with vin Men
Speaker 1: and Kent, then the other ambassadors that nobody remembers from
Speaker 1: last week, Ivanovitch, just gonna know how to say her name. Oh,
Speaker 1: the heroic public servants. Okay, they were going to do
Speaker 1: that for the whistleblower, but then they realized, oh, whistleblower's
Speaker 1: got some political baggage here. Even the Inspector General noted
Speaker 1: that there was the belief or there was reason to
Speaker 1: believe that he had political bias. Well, if it's clear
Speaker 1: this is all just a political hit job from inside
Speaker 1: the bureaucracy, because there are a lot of feckless federal
Speaker 1: bureaucrats who hate Trump everything he stands, will do anything
Speaker 1: to stop him. That's nothing new. Doesn't that undermine the
Speaker 1: whole case. This is about the sectuary of our democracy
Speaker 1: and undermining our national security for personal benefit, and all
Speaker 1: these other gaseous phrases we hear from Democrats. You don't
Speaker 1: give a crap about any of this. Well, I leave
Speaker 1: that to your I leave that to your analytic capabilities.
Speaker 1: My friends, I think we all know the answer here
Speaker 1: and then you had Jennifer Williams. Here's what she had
Speaker 1: to say. It played twenty four. On July twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: along with several of my colleagues, I listened to a
Speaker 1: call between President Trump and president's Lenski, the content of
Speaker 1: which has since been publicly reported. Prior to July twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: I had participated in roughly a dozen other presidential phone calls.
Speaker 1: During my closed store deposition, members of the committee asked
Speaker 1: about my personal views and whether I had any concerns
Speaker 1: about the July twenty fifth call. As I testified then,
Speaker 1: I found the July twenty fifth phone call unusual because,
Speaker 1: in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it
Speaker 1: involved discussion of what it appeared to be a domestic
Speaker 1: political matter. After the July twenty fifth call, I provided
Speaker 1: an update in the Vice President's Daily Briefing book indicating
Speaker 1: that President Trump had a call that day with President's Lensky.
Speaker 1: A hard copy of the memorandum transcribing the call was
Speaker 1: also included in the book. I do not know whether
Speaker 1: the Vice President reviewed my update or the transcript. I
Speaker 1: did not discuss the July twenty fifth call with Vice
Speaker 1: President or any of my colleagues in the Office of
Speaker 1: the Vice President or the NSC. A little unusual, that's
Speaker 1: what this woman. I don't think she's hashtag resistance, by
Speaker 1: the way, which is why she's just like, yeah, this
Speaker 1: is what I heard, like a little unusual. Okay, you're
Speaker 1: going to appeach the president because he had a phone call.
Speaker 1: I was a little unusual enough it happened. Think about this, folks.
Speaker 1: So much depends on getting this right, because if there
Speaker 1: are four more years of this president, we will not
Speaker 1: recognize our United States of America. We must win. Now.
Speaker 1: We already know Donald Trump and as allies will do
Speaker 1: anything they can to hold on to power. But their
Speaker 1: playbook is not going to work on me. We all
Speaker 1: know climate change his existential threat to us all. The
Speaker 1: first thing I'll do as president is re during the
Speaker 1: Paris climbing to Chord, which I helped put together bring
Speaker 1: all almost two hundred nations to Washington, DC to make
Speaker 1: them keep the commitment to in fact up the ante
Speaker 1: on climate change and get to zero met zero emissions
Speaker 1: by twenty fifteen, by thirty thirty five. Make sure that
Speaker 1: fifty percent of that is already done. Ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: beating Donald Trump's not going to be easy. The first
Speaker 1: thing the next president is going to have to deal
Speaker 1: with is inherited a divided nation, a world in disarray.
Speaker 1: You know, we need a leader who on day one
Speaker 1: has the proven ability to unite this country, to bring
Speaker 1: people together. That's what I've done my whole career. Existential
Speaker 1: threat after existential threat from the Democrats. Isn't it to astonishing?
Speaker 1: Climate change is an existential threat. Trump is an existential threat. Basically,
Speaker 1: vote for Democrats or we're all gonna die. Is the
Speaker 1: d n c's mantra. Vote for Democrats or the world
Speaker 1: is going to end. Not an exaggeration, This is not hyperbole.
Speaker 1: This is what they are offering you. Unless you vote
Speaker 1: against Trump, everybody's gonna die. I don't find that unifying.
Speaker 1: Call me strength, I don't find that compelling. I don't
Speaker 1: find it honest or helpful. I find it insane. But
Speaker 1: here I am I'm the crazy one. I'm a New
Speaker 1: York City. I think ninety percent of Manhattan, the island
Speaker 1: i'm currently on, voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election.
Speaker 1: I guess nine out of ten people here think that
Speaker 1: I'm the crazy one. What does that say? Climate change
Speaker 1: an existential threat? We will not recognize the United States?
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete says he's an existential threat to this country
Speaker 1: will no longer be America if President Trump wins. Maybe
Speaker 1: they should just come down. Maybe it's time for the
Speaker 1: Democrats to just take a step back, take a deep breath,
Speaker 1: and try not to be so utterly crazy. But that
Speaker 1: brings me to what I start to think is a
Speaker 1: real threat to this country, at least a threat to
Speaker 1: the unity of this country, to our future as a
Speaker 1: political entity where we can solve disputes through the process
Speaker 1: about what should be happening in this country, about what
Speaker 1: government is doing and what rights people have, to solve
Speaker 1: it through good faith and understand that ultimately, even if
Speaker 1: we don't get everything we want, this country is the richest, freest,
Speaker 1: most prosperous political entity ever to have existed. In the
Speaker 1: history of the world, and therefore we can handle some disputes,
Speaker 1: including disputes that don't end up going our way. If
Speaker 1: that changes, then it's not clear to me that we
Speaker 1: will be able to recognize our country all that much longer.
Speaker 1: But this scorched earth politics what exactly the Attorney General
Speaker 1: bar was talking about over the weekend. The ends justify
Speaker 1: the means, stop at nothing. You want to do good,
Speaker 1: and therefore the people who oppose what you're trying to
Speaker 1: do must be bad. That mentality has completely overtaken the
Speaker 1: left and the Democratic Party and the socialists therein, and
Speaker 1: it's getting more and more troubling. They no longer are
Speaker 1: happy even to have legal victories or cultural victories. They
Speaker 1: expect legal victory in the culture war. They expect cultural
Speaker 1: victory in the same and then they want to go
Speaker 1: around and force people to bend the knee, and if
Speaker 1: they won't do that, then they plan to just throw
Speaker 1: them on the ground and baying at the survivors, so
Speaker 1: to speak. That's where we are now, my friends, that's
Speaker 1: what we face from the opposition. And yet another example
Speaker 1: of this is Chick fil A. Now I am because
Speaker 1: of my genetic issue with Celiac disease, not somebody who
Speaker 1: can speak very well about how good Chick fil a
Speaker 1: is because I can basically eat nothing. I can have
Speaker 1: their waffle fries, which are just okay, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it. As French fries go, they are just producer mark.
Speaker 1: You like the waffle fries, That's the only thing, of
Speaker 1: course I do. I like everything about Chick fil A.
Speaker 1: I mean, people tell me that the chicken sandwiches are
Speaker 1: like amazing, They're like addictive, and the spicy chicken sandwich
Speaker 1: is a die f. I can't touch any of it
Speaker 1: basics like I mean, they have grilled chicken nuggets. Now,
Speaker 1: I've had the that's what I do when I'm stuck
Speaker 1: in an airport. And I have supported Chick fil A
Speaker 1: because I like the way I like their customer service.
Speaker 1: I like the way that they treat their employees, that
Speaker 1: they close on Sunday, they do all these things that
Speaker 1: they're a Christian values company. The third largest fast food
Speaker 1: company in the United States. I was unaware of that,
Speaker 1: by the way, after McDonald's, and I believe Starbucks is
Speaker 1: number two now in terms of if you count Starbucks
Speaker 1: as fast food. Yeah, yeah, but the chicken nuggets, the
Speaker 1: grilled chick Look, no one really wants grilled chicken nuggets.
Speaker 1: It's like diet food, right, So I you know, I
Speaker 1: understand that that's not a fair way for me to judge.
Speaker 1: The chicken nuggets are okay. But Chick fil A is
Speaker 1: obviously a very very successful business model. But it has
Speaker 1: come under a lot of scrutiny in recent years because
Speaker 1: it is a traditional Christian values company, and as a
Speaker 1: traditional Christian values company, there is some conflict with the
Speaker 1: LGBTQ community, with the woke left, with the social justice warriors.
Speaker 1: There are our problems that they have with this. And
Speaker 1: so here is what Chick fil A decided to do.
Speaker 1: After years of being a staunch supporter not just of
Speaker 1: Catholic I mean sorry, Christian rather values, but also Christian charities,
Speaker 1: Chick fil A is cutting off donations to the Salvation Army.
Speaker 1: They're getting rid of donations to the Salvation Army and
Speaker 1: the Fellowship of Christian Athletes because of their stands on
Speaker 1: same sex marriage. So because those organizations, and remember those
Speaker 1: organizations do not discriminate against anyone, they provide services, relief assistants,
Speaker 1: help food, shelter, advice everything to people irrespective of religious
Speaker 1: belief of gender, ethnicity, you know, you name anything, right.
Speaker 1: They do not discriminate as a sexual orientation. But the
Speaker 1: organization does support and it's I believe the Salvation Armies
Speaker 1: officers so to speak, are or think they're ministers or deacons.
Speaker 1: I mean they are. I believe that's there. That's a
Speaker 1: standard for them, and they espouse traditional marriage beliefs. The
Speaker 1: charity is now getting money cut off to it Salvation Army,
Speaker 1: which I think, well, I'll get into their their statement
Speaker 1: that they have put out as a result. But you
Speaker 1: know these people that are always going to ring in
Speaker 1: the bell and they want the money on the street
Speaker 1: and Christmas time they raising all this money. They really
Speaker 1: they do a lot of good for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: GLAD which is a it is the gay and lesbian
Speaker 1: I forget what the rest of the but GLAD is
Speaker 1: an LGBTQ advocacy organization, a very very powerful one, very
Speaker 1: well funded, a lot of a lot of sway in
Speaker 1: media world and in corporate America in general. GLAD in
Speaker 1: response in response to what Chick fil A did here
Speaker 1: which I and I keep in mind, there was also
Speaker 1: a controversy recently with Ellie Goulding, who I don't even
Speaker 1: know who. I know she's a singer. I don't even
Speaker 1: know what her songs are, but you know, I'm out
Speaker 1: of the loop these days. She wouldn't perform at the
Speaker 1: halftime ceremony of a I think it was an NFL
Speaker 1: game on Thanksgiving because there there was raising money I
Speaker 1: think for the Salvation Army, if if memory serves, and
Speaker 1: so she wanted them to make a statement of support
Speaker 1: or to make a donation to a pro LGBTQ charity.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just tough to keep up with all
Speaker 1: this stuff anyway. So there's been a bit of controversy
Speaker 1: right now generated by the left by these different social
Speaker 1: justice warriors and people trying to outdo one another on
Speaker 1: their wokeness. A bit of controversy with regard to the
Speaker 1: Salvation Army. Remember an organization that just helps people, A charity,
Speaker 1: A charity that just helps people. They're going after that
Speaker 1: and glad. The LGBT Advocacy Organization responded officially to Chick
Speaker 1: fil A bending the knee to the LGBT community by
Speaker 1: cutting off the Salvation Army because the Salvation Army is
Speaker 1: for traditional marriage as a policy matter, Glad responded in
Speaker 1: this way quote In addition to refraining from financially supporting
Speaker 1: anti lgbt Q organizations, Chick fil A still lacks policies
Speaker 1: to ensure safe workplaces for lgbt LGBTQ employees and should
Speaker 1: unequivocally speak out against the l anti LGBTQ reputation that
Speaker 1: their brand represents. Ah See, this is the problem with
Speaker 1: bending the need to wokeness. They do not take it
Speaker 1: as a gesture of good faith. They do not take
Speaker 1: it as conciliation. They see it as weakness, and then
Speaker 1: they expect more. Now you've conceded that you're a bigot,
Speaker 1: so you better listen to everything they say going forward,
Speaker 1: or else are going to keep calling you a bigot,
Speaker 1: which you've already admitted to you by changing your behavior
Speaker 1: based on what they say you should do. Have the
Speaker 1: executives at Chick fil A who came up with this
Speaker 1: decision to cut off the Salvation Army of all things,
Speaker 1: have they learned nothing in have they seen nothing in
Speaker 1: recent years? Let's be very clear about this. The lgbt
Speaker 1: activist community, there are LGBTQ people I know who are
Speaker 1: very active Christians, and they have a different view of
Speaker 1: this matter. Many of them do, I should say, but
Speaker 1: the LGBT community of activist groups and the tremendous influence
Speaker 1: they have in culture and media and in corporate America now,
Speaker 1: they do not accept, they will not accept any organization
Speaker 1: that still advocates for traditional marriage. They expect those organizations
Speaker 1: to be attacked and destroyed, including it. It's just a
Speaker 1: matter of time before this becomes even more overt religious organizations.
Speaker 1: One of the problems that they will run into, however,
Speaker 1: with this is that when they try to get the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church to abandon its traditional marriage, dance and other
Speaker 1: Christian denominations. Although these days there's so many Christian denominations,
Speaker 1: and you know some of them. I look at it,
Speaker 1: and I mean, seriously, it looks like some kind of
Speaker 1: a like youth rock concert where everyone's just like having
Speaker 1: a great time and no one's actually talking about morality
Speaker 1: or ethics or Jesus or the gospel. But that's a
Speaker 1: whole another conversation for another day. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: want to go to a rock concert, just go to
Speaker 1: a rock concert. I don't know. I mean, that's how
Speaker 1: I but then again, I grew up Catholic, so we
Speaker 1: have a lot of incense and you know, singing and
Speaker 1: other things. But what you see happening here is the
Speaker 1: move toward ostracizing and eventually actively condemning any traditional marriage
Speaker 1: advocacy anywhere as the equivalent of being a racist, for example,
Speaker 1: you know that this is it's no longer going to
Speaker 1: be Oh, those are your religious beliefs. You believe that
Speaker 1: this is a covenant between a man and woman and God.
Speaker 1: And so as long as that's not official state policy,
Speaker 1: you can still to know. If you even speak that allowed,
Speaker 1: you will be punished. The state will be brought down
Speaker 1: on your head, the culture will be brought down on
Speaker 1: your head, the media will come after you, even if
Speaker 1: you are a charity that has saved millions of people
Speaker 1: from deprivation, despair, and perhaps even worse during their darkest times.
Speaker 1: Here is how the Salvation Army responded to this move
Speaker 1: by Chick fil A to drop them as a partner,
Speaker 1: a corporate partner that sponsors some of what they do. Quote,
Speaker 1: We're sad to learn that a corporate partner has felt
Speaker 1: it necessary to divert funding to other hunger education and
Speaker 1: homelessness organizations areas in which the Salvation Army, as the
Speaker 1: largest social services provider in the world, is already fully committed.
Speaker 1: The Salvation Army said in a statement, quote, we serve
Speaker 1: more than twenty three million individuals a year, including those
Speaker 1: in the LGBTQ plus community. In fact, we believe we
Speaker 1: are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ population.
Speaker 1: They are helping twenty three million people a year. But
Speaker 1: because the organization and its leadership and its Christian roots
Speaker 1: still adhere to adhere to a policy preference, really a
Speaker 1: religious and an ethical preference, or marriage as it was
Speaker 1: traditionally known until the oberg Felt decision the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: in this country. You know, between a man and a
Speaker 1: woman that chair. All the good stuff they do doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter. They have to not just be punished, but
Speaker 1: they have to. This organization now needs to be humiliated.
Speaker 1: It needs to be treated like it's a pariah organization.
Speaker 1: We are not going to last very long as a
Speaker 1: country going forward. If we have to know the politics
Speaker 1: of every restaurant owner when we go into a restaurant,
Speaker 1: if we have to know you know, I had a
Speaker 1: friend recently tell me that she has she knows people.
Speaker 1: She's obviously conservative, so she's cool, but she knows people
Speaker 1: who won't go to soul Cycle, which is one of
Speaker 1: these bicycle cycling classes into it, won't go to Soule
Speaker 1: Cycle anymore because the owner has supported Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: if this is the way that the society is going
Speaker 1: to go, if we're going to accept the hyper politicization,
Speaker 1: politicization of everything, extend no grace, no forgiveness, and no
Speaker 1: sense of kindness and decency to each other, irrespective of
Speaker 1: political differences, we are heading for very dark and dangerous
Speaker 1: times as a country. Forget about climate change. That's pull,
Speaker 1: it's a distraction. It's nonsense. It's not going to do
Speaker 1: anything to you. I promise you. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: you already know this, but I promise you. You know,
Speaker 1: in ten years they'll still be saying, well, we are
Speaker 1: wrong about ten years ago, but now it's really gonna
Speaker 1: be bad. I mean, this is just, this is just
Speaker 1: there's there's a part of people's brains that like to
Speaker 1: think about how it's all going to end and the terribleness,
Speaker 1: and it's just it's it excites the brain to think
Speaker 1: about the end, and then it excites the socialist to
Speaker 1: think that they can take over all aspects of the
Speaker 1: economy and day to day life based upon this hyperventilating
Speaker 1: fairy tale. They tell each other about how the world
Speaker 1: is going to end unless we stop using certain light
Speaker 1: bulbs and take shorter shower. This is absurd, But this
Speaker 1: is a This is a bad day when an organization
Speaker 1: that is as successful as Chick fil A bends the knee,
Speaker 1: and when a group that you would think should at
Speaker 1: least get some extension of faith, of good faith and
Speaker 1: people treat it with a little bit of just respect
Speaker 1: for the good that it does is being trashed because
Speaker 1: they have a different view of marriage. This is not
Speaker 1: going to end well unless we start to turn the
Speaker 1: situation around. All right, team, there's a lot going on
Speaker 1: right now in Hong Kong. We haven't updated you on
Speaker 1: the story in a while. It is getting particularly violent.
Speaker 1: The standoff is getting worse. We want to bring in
Speaker 1: our friend Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China.
Speaker 1: You see him all the time on Fox News. Also
Speaker 1: hear him on the John Bachelor's Show. Gordon, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. Tell us what is going on
Speaker 1: right now in Hong Kong. Yeah, at this moment, there
Speaker 1: are two things of importance. One of them is that
Speaker 1: there was a standoff at Hong Kong Polytechnic University where
Speaker 1: they're about six protesters in the university buildings and they
Speaker 1: were completely surrounded by police. Was a siege. About eighty
Speaker 1: or so escape, there's maybe a hundred left. The others surrendered.
Speaker 1: Those who were eighteen or above were arrested. Those below eighteen,
Speaker 1: they were merely photographed, their Hong Kong identity card numbers
Speaker 1: taken and they were let go at least for the moment.
Speaker 1: The other development is extremely troubling, and I think it's
Speaker 1: because siege imping. The Chinese ruler believes he has the
Speaker 1: advantage because the siege at Hong Kong Polytechnic is winding down,
Speaker 1: and that is there was an attack on Albert Hoe,
Speaker 1: a leading pro democracy figure. There was an attempt to
Speaker 1: burn down the premises of the Epic Times, a newspaper,
Speaker 1: and it seems like we were starting to see thug
Speaker 1: rule in Hong Kong. And this was related, of course
Speaker 1: to China, because China for the most part controls the
Speaker 1: political activities of thugs. In the territory are now, what
Speaker 1: do you think the response from the Chinese government is
Speaker 1: going to be in the day's ahead. It feels like
Speaker 1: there's been an escalation the violence I feel. I remember
Speaker 1: a few days ago there was video of a policeman
Speaker 1: in Hong Kong shooting a protester at at effectively point
Speaker 1: blank range in the chest. So there's been there's been
Speaker 1: real violence. Do you think that what prevents Xi Jinping
Speaker 1: from just saying do what you gotta do, lock it
Speaker 1: down and start really essentially go the Tienamen Square route. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that they police have pretty much orders to
Speaker 1: do whatever they want, which is the reason why eight
Speaker 1: days ago, in that incident you mentioned, a Hong Kong
Speaker 1: traffic cop told the revolver on a protester who was
Speaker 1: obviously unarmed, shot him in the torso. And this wasn't
Speaker 1: an open place where the officer could have retreated. There
Speaker 1: was no threat at all to his life, the no
Speaker 1: threat of all to property damage, nothing. And so we
Speaker 1: have seen a much more aggressive attitude on the part
Speaker 1: of the police, and indeed, in this Hong Kong Polytechnic standoff,
Speaker 1: some of the tactics of the police have really been horrific.
Speaker 1: There's this video going around showing a protester lying completely
Speaker 1: prone on the ground Hong Kong policeman stomping on his head. Also,
Speaker 1: people who are trying to surrender from Hong Kong Polytechnic
Speaker 1: were met with robert bullets and with tear gas. So
Speaker 1: I think the police essentially can do what they want now.
Speaker 1: I think what prevents China from formally deploying the People's
Speaker 1: Armed Police or the People's Liberation Army is that they
Speaker 1: know that the protesters will fight them, and that not
Speaker 1: only the protesters will take casualties, but so will China's forces,
Speaker 1: and the casualties will be high on both sides. I
Speaker 1: think that's the deterrent right now with siege and pain,
Speaker 1: is there any real effort to negotiate between the two sides.
Speaker 1: Who's in charge of that? You know? Whatever happened to
Speaker 1: carry lamb and how are the how are those processes
Speaker 1: playing out if they're playing out at all. Yeah, dialogue
Speaker 1: between the two sides is completely broken down. First of all,
Speaker 1: it is difficult to negotiate with protesters because there's so
Speaker 1: many different types of protesters right now, Nobody speaks for
Speaker 1: the movement. Nobody wants to speak for the movement. On
Speaker 1: the other side, Carrie Lamb speaks for nobody, but cijin Ping,
Speaker 1: she is not making decisions. China has completely taken over
Speaker 1: the Hong Kong government as it's taken over the Hong
Speaker 1: Kong Police Force, so talking to her is not really
Speaker 1: a productive and also cijan Ping doesn't want to talk.
Speaker 1: He wants to settle this with harsh measures, as we
Speaker 1: have seen over the last several months. Now, what do
Speaker 1: you think that the outcome here is going to be? Gordon?
Speaker 1: I mean, how does this It feels like it's gone
Speaker 1: on for so many months at this point, where does
Speaker 1: his head and how does it end? Yeah? Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, protests have gone on since April, and they've
Speaker 1: been going on continuously since June, so we're now in
Speaker 1: our sixth month. I don't know where this ends, of course,
Speaker 1: but there's several outcomes, some of which I think most
Speaker 1: people don't expect. One of them is that the protesters
Speaker 1: just outlast China because China itself is fragile, and I
Speaker 1: think that sig Ping, the Chinese ruler, is certainly going
Speaker 1: to be held to account for these hardline policies that
Speaker 1: have triggered the unrest. So there are any number of
Speaker 1: things that could happen, but one of them is and
Speaker 1: I think the most likely, is just continued standoff in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong. And every time that the protests look like
Speaker 1: they're going to peter rat I'm sure Beijing is going
Speaker 1: to do something to enrage people, just as it did
Speaker 1: a couple days ago by declaring that the Hong Kong
Speaker 1: courts have no jurisdiction to interpret the Basic Law, which
Speaker 1: is Hong Kong's mini constitution as they call it. Possible
Speaker 1: off ramp you could see for Hijan Ping to de
Speaker 1: escalate the situation without without losing a lot of face.
Speaker 1: Is there something feasible or if he were to say, okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to reevaluate this and essentially call off the
Speaker 1: dogs that you know, it would just look like he's
Speaker 1: weak and there could be real ramifications. I mean, is
Speaker 1: there an off ramp? You know, there probably is an
Speaker 1: off ramp. I don't think it'll be taken, but we
Speaker 1: do know that some of the senior officials in the
Speaker 1: Hong Kong government privately do not like what's going on,
Speaker 1: and sometimes they murmur things in public. So it's possible,
Speaker 1: not likely, but it's possible that you could see senior
Speaker 1: Hong Kong government officials try to reach out to the
Speaker 1: various parts of the protest movement. For a number of reasons,
Speaker 1: I don't think that they will, and I don't think
Speaker 1: the protesters will talk to them at this point. So
Speaker 1: no likely off ramps in the immediate future. To the
Speaker 1: degree that we can tell, and we're speaking to Gordon
Speaker 1: changing everybody author of the coming collapse of China, Gordon,
Speaker 1: to the degree that that we can tell, or that
Speaker 1: you can tell, what is sentiment in mainland China among
Speaker 1: just you know, the general Chinese population about what's going
Speaker 1: on in Hong Kong. Is there are there pockets of
Speaker 1: support for this that could turn into something beyond just
Speaker 1: what we see in Hong Kong. Essentially, is is this
Speaker 1: going to maybe get a little bit of a wind
Speaker 1: in the sales of some of the pro freedom folks
Speaker 1: inside of China or is that just a fantasy at
Speaker 1: this point? That's a great question, Buck. I think their
Speaker 1: pockets of support for the Hong Kong protesters inside mainland China,
Speaker 1: mostly in Goandong Province, which surrounds Hong Kong um. But
Speaker 1: also I think that people in China by and large
Speaker 1: do not sympathize with people from Hong Kong, never have,
Speaker 1: probably won't in our lifetimes. But that's not to say
Speaker 1: that protests can't spread into the mainland, because people in
Speaker 1: China got their own grievances, especially related to the economy,
Speaker 1: which is in serious trouble book. So it's not growing
Speaker 1: at the six point zero percent pace that they claim
Speaker 1: for the third quarter. It's more like one percent, maybe
Speaker 1: even negative, and that is causing and will cause a
Speaker 1: lot of loss to people who are not accustomed to
Speaker 1: losing money. So, as Arthur Waldron of the University of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania points out, Chinese regimes unravel from the outside in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong is on the periphery of China, and you
Speaker 1: could see the same dynamic occur as we've seen in
Speaker 1: the past throughout China's imperial period. So Hong Kong could
Speaker 1: be a ticking point that has real ramifications for their regime.
Speaker 1: How that play out, well, I think it would play
Speaker 1: out this way, and that is I would like to think,
Speaker 1: and here I'm hoping, probably more than assessing, but I
Speaker 1: would hope to think that Americans would see that they
Speaker 1: have common cause with the protesters in Hong Kong because
Speaker 1: the same power that is encroaching on their autonomy China
Speaker 1: is also attacking our democracy. And I don't think the
Speaker 1: American political establishment is there yet, but you're starting to
Speaker 1: see many voices, especially in the Senate and even some
Speaker 1: in the House, that are starting to think that we
Speaker 1: need to be much more supportive of people in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: There is the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act
Speaker 1: of twenty nineteen. It passed the House. It probably will
Speaker 1: pass the Senate, both with veto proof majorities, and that
Speaker 1: could be the start of a more robust response to China.
Speaker 1: But I think that we need to stand with the
Speaker 1: kids in Hong Kong argually, because that's our fight. What
Speaker 1: what do you think the Trump administration should do? And
Speaker 1: how how would you assess how Trump has handled this
Speaker 1: so far? Well? I think Trump has handled this in
Speaker 1: the way that the American foreign policy establishment has wanted
Speaker 1: him to, which is to speak up about it, but
Speaker 1: not to do too much, and also to talk to
Speaker 1: the Chinese behind the scenes, at which I'm sure has occurred.
Speaker 1: Trump I thought The President made a really really good
Speaker 1: comments at his You and General Assembly speech in September.
Speaker 1: He's talked about it in August. He's also spoke about
Speaker 1: it in October. I think we're going to hear more
Speaker 1: from the President on this, largely because this is something
Speaker 1: that's becoming unavoidable as we're seeing more and more scenes
Speaker 1: of what's happening. And I think that, as as I said,
Speaker 1: as I hope more people will see this as our
Speaker 1: fight as well. So I do see reaganesque comments coming
Speaker 1: from President Trump, especially as time progresses. Have you seen
Speaker 1: a change? I mean, you're somebody that operates in the
Speaker 1: same echelon as a lot of the folks who are
Speaker 1: experts on China that go on TV, and I mean
Speaker 1: you know those folks, you know what they write. Have
Speaker 1: you seen a change in sentiment among the Chinese foreign
Speaker 1: policy and a US Chinese foreign policy intelligencia, specifically about
Speaker 1: the trade war, because I mean I remember in the
Speaker 1: early days of this, it was going to be fire
Speaker 1: and brimstone, and it was crazy, and now we just
Speaker 1: don't hear a lot about it. Gordon, why aren't we
Speaker 1: hearing so much about the trade war? Well? I think
Speaker 1: that President Trump has won many of the arguments on
Speaker 1: the trade bar when what we call a trade war,
Speaker 1: I should say, because this is really a broader economic war,
Speaker 1: and indeed it's even a more comprehensive struggle than that.
Speaker 1: But put that aside for the moment. People were saying,
Speaker 1: you know, in twenty eighteen, Oh, China's got all the
Speaker 1: copper upper hand, It's got all the cards, it's got
Speaker 1: more political will, and people has started to look at
Speaker 1: the relationship between China and the United States have seen that. No,
Speaker 1: when you look at objective factors, the US has almost
Speaker 1: all the high cards. And as a question of political will,
Speaker 1: that's still up in the air because you have President Trump,
Speaker 1: who has actually, I think played the Chinese very well
Speaker 1: right now. He's taken a strong hand and he has
Speaker 1: pushed the Chinese in ways that they probably thought were
Speaker 1: not possible. So I think that's good in terms of
Speaker 1: the way China watchers look at this, it's become inescapable
Speaker 1: how bad China has behaved. And so we're starting to see,
Speaker 1: I think, a new consensus. And if you want to
Speaker 1: think about any one example in the last week, it's
Speaker 1: that New York Times revelation of four hundred and three
Speaker 1: pages of Communist Party documents on the treatment of the
Speaker 1: Leakers and Cossacks in the northwestern part of China what
Speaker 1: China call, said John and what the local inhabitants call
Speaker 1: Chinese occupied East Turk of stand Gordon, changing everybody. Gordon,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for making the time. We appreciate your expertise.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Buck. We got an update for
Speaker 1: you on the Epstein situation. I don't even know. It's
Speaker 1: not really an investigations. It's a lot of things all
Speaker 1: tied together. You have the guards who the two guards
Speaker 1: who apparently fell asleep in the Manhattan Correctional Facility here
Speaker 1: in New York City and Epstein. Then Epstein killed himself
Speaker 1: while they were asleep, and they altered the logs somehow
Speaker 1: to cover up what had happened. And we're supposed to
Speaker 1: believe it's all a coincidence. I just we're being told
Speaker 1: that they fell asleep, it was an accident. Highest proof.
Speaker 1: I mean, if there was one time in the careers
Speaker 1: of these two guards not to fall asleep, it was
Speaker 1: this time, and they fell asleep. I bit strikes me
Speaker 1: as a little coincidental that this happened with this particular
Speaker 1: prisoner who might have had and now we'll never really
Speaker 1: know information in his head about pedophilia and some of
Speaker 1: the most powerful people, wealthy people, influential people in the world.
Speaker 1: It's it's just very coincidental, and I really liked I
Speaker 1: saw a clip from Tucker Carlson's show recently. It was
Speaker 1: an old clip where he points out that when you
Speaker 1: upset the state, the big s state, if you're Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: they send squat teams in your house to humiliate you
Speaker 1: and they tip off Sea and remember that one see
Speaker 1: and I was like, we're just got lucky. What a
Speaker 1: bunch of liars. As the place is such a dis grace,
Speaker 1: it's disgusting. But you know, they humiliated roger Stone, this
Speaker 1: n armed people. They could have just called and said,
Speaker 1: turn yourself in tomorrow, you're underrest. One hundred percent chance
Speaker 1: that Roger Stone would have said, all right, I'll be
Speaker 1: in court tomorrow or I'd rather I'll be in the
Speaker 1: station house or whatever it is tomorrow. But no, No,
Speaker 1: they send people in at six am with guns and
Speaker 1: guns and more guns to terrify him and create a spectacle.
Speaker 1: But Epstein was allowed to turn himself in. Epstein the
Speaker 1: first time around was given the most pampered treatment of
Speaker 1: anybody you've ever heard of in prison, and he was trafficking.
Speaker 1: And I believe over thirty four victims have been identified,
Speaker 1: young girls. How can anyone look at that part of
Speaker 1: our system and not say, there's really something wrong here.
Speaker 1: Why are we supposed to always be We're supposed to
Speaker 1: be quiet and believe this system is good and fair,
Speaker 1: And there's no only, by the way, when the system
Speaker 1: is crushing Republicans all the time, and then the system
Speaker 1: is great. But we see what goes on here with Epstein,
Speaker 1: and and we're told, well, no, you have to believe it.
Speaker 1: You have to think that they knew what they were
Speaker 1: doing here somehow. And if you ask too many questions
Speaker 1: about who in power influenced this whole process, then you
Speaker 1: are a conspiracy theorist. No, I don't think so. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's the case at all. I'm still wondering
Speaker 1: when there'll be more information, more evidence out there about Epstein.
Speaker 1: By the way, the British Royal Prince Andrew, right, that's
Speaker 1: the one, the second son of Queen Elizabeth. He his
Speaker 1: pr director or whatever the guy's title was resigned before
Speaker 1: the BBC interview, so clearly he knew that this was
Speaker 1: not going to go well, and yet he did that
Speaker 1: interview anyway, and then you, I mean, it's it's still
Speaker 1: pretty stunning to me that there's not more curiosity among
Speaker 1: journalists with so many of these pieces out there. And
Speaker 1: I'm telling you it's because they're they really they know.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a sense that they know that digging
Speaker 1: too deep with the Epstein thing could lead to places
Speaker 1: that a lot of lib journals just don't want to go.
Speaker 1: Forget about all the underage victims for the lib journals,
Speaker 1: that's not that's not worth the risk here if it
Speaker 1: could really damage one political party a whole lot. All right,
Speaker 1: welcome back. I know, team, we've talked about the impeachment
Speaker 1: stuff for quite a bit today. I don't want to
Speaker 1: spend too much time on it. We've I just there's
Speaker 1: a there's a couple couple of things I wanted to
Speaker 1: throw in the mix, and then we'll move on to
Speaker 1: some other stuff too that I did not get to before.
Speaker 1: One is the the clear theatrics of this Vinman fellow.
Speaker 1: I mean, he really is auditioning for an MSNBC contributor role.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any doubt about it. Here is
Speaker 1: what he said. He's testifying about this in front of Congress,
Speaker 1: and and you know, break out the world's smallest violin
Speaker 1: for this guy. Play it please, Dad. I'm sitting here
Speaker 1: today in the US capital talking to our elected professionals.
Speaker 1: Is proof that you made the right decision forty years
Speaker 1: ago to leave the Soviet Union come here to the
Speaker 1: United States of America in search of a better life
Speaker 1: for our family. Do not worry. I will be fine
Speaker 1: for telling the truth. Oh why are we even hearing
Speaker 1: about this? Why is he's bringing up his father? Who's
Speaker 1: talking about? What is? This is ridiculous. We can't know
Speaker 1: who the whistleblower is. This guy's gonna tell us about,
Speaker 1: you know, his life story and his family history, and
Speaker 1: break out the handkerchiefs for all the tears and the
Speaker 1: whole thing. And oh, you know, mister president, I don't
Speaker 1: dance you know his Jack Ryan moment. And how dare
Speaker 1: are you coming here and bark it me like some
Speaker 1: kind of junkyard dog. I am the President of the
Speaker 1: United States. Sorry, mister President, I don't dance the old
Speaker 1: Potomac two step Jack. It's the best scene in that movie. Man,
Speaker 1: It's great. There's that clear present danger, so much better
Speaker 1: than the Jack Ryan Amazon show. Somebody should really find
Speaker 1: the Jack Ryan Amazon people and be like, you need
Speaker 1: to talk to Buck Sexty. I'll help you. See your
Speaker 1: third season doesn't doesn't stink because right now your your
Speaker 1: second season's garbage anyway, So yeah, we we. When I
Speaker 1: talked to you about the theatrics and stuff from Vinman,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm I'm just referring to what exactly was
Speaker 1: going on here, which is Vinman is like, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: look at me, I'm speaking the truth about this. In
Speaker 1: some ways, Vinman was really the origin of this whole thing,
Speaker 1: right He's he clearly told somebody who concocted the whole
Speaker 1: whistleblower scheme. But you know, Vinman was one who was like,
Speaker 1: I'm so troubled by this because he was upset that
Speaker 1: there would be a lack of bipartisan consensus on on
Speaker 1: Ukraine policy. And also, I do think it's worth pointing
Speaker 1: out as we go through this, who really cares that
Speaker 1: much about Ukraine in this country? I mean, let's be
Speaker 1: real here for a second. I'm not saying it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter at all, but this is not a core national
Speaker 1: security interests of the United States. It's just not. But
Speaker 1: you know, all Ukraine policy if we get it wrong there,
Speaker 1: I mean Obama got every foreign policy question wrong for
Speaker 1: all years, wrong on everything wrong and maybe wrong on
Speaker 1: Syria wrong, and a rock wrong in Afghanistan wrong. Just
Speaker 1: go through a country? Was anyone? Oh my gosh, Obama's
Speaker 1: foreign policy decision making is not within the interagency consensus.
Speaker 1: Who cares? You know, we're all supposed to care. We're
Speaker 1: all supposed to think that this is um, it's great.
Speaker 1: Any let's go, let's switch into oh wait, no, no,
Speaker 1: there's one more, there's one more. My man, my man, jacketless.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan. He he had a moment where he got
Speaker 1: to expose once again that they're someone's lying and I
Speaker 1: think we almost lying. But someone's lying about the whistle
Speaker 1: blower and knowing the identity of it. Because here's that
Speaker 1: would play play Jim Jordan, please, mister Jordan on call readout.
Speaker 1: Certainly after the first call, there were probably a half
Speaker 1: a dozen or more people that I read out. Those
Speaker 1: are people with the proper clearance and that the need
Speaker 1: to know in this case because of the sensitivity of
Speaker 1: the call, and mister Eisenberg told me not to speak
Speaker 1: to anybody else. I only read out outside of the
Speaker 1: NFC two individuals, two individuals das Kent and one other person.
Speaker 1: And you're not willing to tell us who that other
Speaker 1: individual is. Mister Chairman. Point of order, Mister chairman. Mister chairman,
Speaker 1: point of order, gentle wis suspend counsel. Uh. Mister Chairman,
Speaker 1: I would ask you to enforce the rule with regard
Speaker 1: to the disclosure with regard to the intelligence songs. UM.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. You know, as I indicated before this committee,
Speaker 1: will not be used to out the whistle blower. Um
Speaker 1: that same Chairman, don't lose you are recognized again, mister Jordan.
Speaker 1: Mister Chairman, I don't see how this is outing the whistleblower.
Speaker 1: That the witness has testified in his deposition that he
Speaker 1: doesn't know who the whistle blower is. You have said,
Speaker 1: even though no one believes you, you have said you
Speaker 1: don't know who the whistle blower is. So how is
Speaker 1: this outing the whistle blower to find out who this
Speaker 1: individual is? Jordan, this is your time for questioning. You
Speaker 1: can use it and we like, but your question should
Speaker 1: be addressed to the one liked, and your questions should
Speaker 1: not be addressed to trying to out the whistle blower. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: Notice how Chiff can't answer that question. Chief is ruling
Speaker 1: on this. They're giving this witness some kind of special
Speaker 1: immunity from answering a question based on the premise that
Speaker 1: it could be outing a whistle blower that they say
Speaker 1: they don't even know who the whistle blower is. Now
Speaker 1: we're not idiots. Clearly, what they are trying to do
Speaker 1: is just create a fig leaf, create a facade of
Speaker 1: not knowing that what happened here was the what was
Speaker 1: was Vinman was all a Homer Cash who brought up Biden.
Speaker 1: We got to protect Biden. Biden, who's going to bring
Speaker 1: back the establishment and he'll be great for this country.
Speaker 1: And he talked one of Biden's little buddies in the
Speaker 1: in the deep state, reportedly this fellow Eric Charmela, but
Speaker 1: we don't know officially. And then the whistleblower must be
Speaker 1: the person that was told about the call. And then
Speaker 1: he came up with this idea of well, I'll use
Speaker 1: the you know, the interagency process and go to the
Speaker 1: Inspector General and maintain anonymity through it and through it,
Speaker 1: and that way we can talk about this and not
Speaker 1: worry about leaking classified information, etc. Etc. Obviously, that's why
Speaker 1: they won't tell us who he told about the phone
Speaker 1: call and the claim that this person had a need
Speaker 1: to know. I would I mean, I can't know, because
Speaker 1: I don't know who the person was, but I would
Speaker 1: almost certainly tell you that is false, almost certainly tell
Speaker 1: you that that is a lie. Now, need to know
Speaker 1: is always there's a bit of discretion and gray area. Well,
Speaker 1: who really has a need to know? You've got to
Speaker 1: have the clearance. That's the legal groundwork for this right.
Speaker 1: You can't tell someone something classified unless they have a
Speaker 1: clearance for that level of information. But beyond that, need
Speaker 1: to know is always a but I'm telling you, in reality,
Speaker 1: I gotta haven't need to know. He's like an anti Trumper,
Speaker 1: and Vinman knew that he could all spun up about
Speaker 1: this and that they would come up with some some
Speaker 1: scheme to use this as a grounds for impeaching the president.
Speaker 1: I mean impeaching the presence they're gonna do it on
Speaker 1: this people are out of their minds. All right, I'll
Speaker 1: I just there was some some left in the cutting
Speaker 1: room floor from before that I wanted to get to
Speaker 1: here on the stuff. But let's talk about democrats and
Speaker 1: they're crazy. Uh oh wait, wait wait, wait, wait, hold on,
Speaker 1: there's one more thing. Speaking of those who talk to
Speaker 1: us like we're idiots and like we can't figure anything
Speaker 1: else out. CNN hired Andy McCabe, the former acting FBI
Speaker 1: director who was at the center of all these shenanigans
Speaker 1: with you know, Comey and the special Counsel and getting
Speaker 1: all the Russia collusion nonsense laundered through the f behind
Speaker 1: the DJ to make it seem like it was legitimate.
Speaker 1: McCabe lied under oath multiple times. He lied about leaking,
Speaker 1: leaking that not only he was guilty of, but also
Speaker 1: that he was blaming subordinates for that's the kind of
Speaker 1: guy he is. How dare you leaked information that I
Speaker 1: actually secretly leaked myself. You're lucky I don't fire you
Speaker 1: for doing the thing that I actually did. That's who
Speaker 1: Andy McCabe is. So before they do the whole Oh,
Speaker 1: he's America's last best boy scout. He's amazing enough about that,
Speaker 1: but CNN hired him right away because if your hashtag resistance,
Speaker 1: you know, you can go to CNN and they'll pay
Speaker 1: you and they'll take care of you. And you know
Speaker 1: that's what goes on over there. But here's what McCabe
Speaker 1: says about the folks in the federal bureaucracy and the
Speaker 1: way that they It's just never about politics, he tells
Speaker 1: us play at twenty police. We don't know in the FBI.
Speaker 1: We don't ask each other our political beliefs, we don't
Speaker 1: talk about political issues. I think there is, of course
Speaker 1: no deep state. There is no resistance within the bureaucracy
Speaker 1: across the government agencies pushing against this president. But what
Speaker 1: there is in that bureaucracy are thousands and thousands of
Speaker 1: men and women who are committed to the rule of law.
Speaker 1: And we now have an administration that frequently finds itself
Speaker 1: bumping up against those laws that we rely on to
Speaker 1: govern this country. And so when people across government stand
Speaker 1: up for those rules and point out those transgressions, we
Speaker 1: see how they're treated by this president and by his administration. Nice,
Speaker 1: sanctimonious monologue going here, what are the laws that he
Speaker 1: brushed up against? By the way, what are those laws?
Speaker 1: Laws like the one that Sally Yates said that was
Speaker 1: being violated when she refused a lawful order from the President,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court had to say actually acting at
Speaker 1: Trinity General, maybe learn, maybe learn what the statute says
Speaker 1: before you decide you're not going to do something because
Speaker 1: you don't like it. Who's really lawless? The people who
Speaker 1: and it must have been a small circle and it
Speaker 1: was Obama pointees most likely folks who leaked highly classified
Speaker 1: information about General Flynt's phone called the Washington Post and
Speaker 1: an effort to take him down. That's a felony. So
Speaker 1: who are those Those are those people who are just
Speaker 1: trying to do their best to obey the rule of
Speaker 1: law and the thousands and thousands of men of women.
Speaker 1: What about Annie McCabe, Why would he lie under oath
Speaker 1: to the Inspector General of the FBI. I thought Annie
Speaker 1: McCabe apparently brushes up against the law. Isn't that weird?
Speaker 1: He has problems staying with the law. As the f
Speaker 1: BE Eye director, I am FPI agent. You've never seen
Speaker 1: a point break, have you? I have not, dude, you're
Speaker 1: totally missing out. Keanu Reeves better. A Rourke sounded a
Speaker 1: little bit alike. I prefer Jack Bower. It's probably a
Speaker 1: better show. So anyway, you got deep state McCabe telling
Speaker 1: you there is no deep state. What a surprise. By
Speaker 1: the way, he's gotta get criminally prosecuted, folks. He lied,
Speaker 1: he lied under oath. They're gonna go after. They're gonna
Speaker 1: writ to Roger Stone, they gotta go after McCabe. You know,
Speaker 1: when it comes to criminal law, forget about the whole
Speaker 1: cultural wokeness social justice stuff for a second. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, do we have to live under the rules
Speaker 1: that they make? Well, that's really hard because they change
Speaker 1: your rules all the time. We can't allow that with
Speaker 1: criminal law. The law is gonna be the law. That's
Speaker 1: the way this is gonna have to go. But I
Speaker 1: love CNN brings on CNN on McCabe to talk about
Speaker 1: the absence of the deep state. Is just like CNN
Speaker 1: this past weekend bringing on Dan Rather, the original king
Speaker 1: of fake news, for using falsified documents to try to
Speaker 1: throw a presidential election. They use him to talk about
Speaker 1: truth and accuracy in the media. These people have neither
Speaker 1: a sense of shame nor a sense of irony. His
Speaker 1: inability to say words sometimes worries me tremendously. He is
Speaker 1: having trouble word finding. When he said to United Esh
Speaker 1: instead of United States. These aren't words he signed slips
Speaker 1: of the tongue. These are words. He can't find them.
Speaker 1: And this is happening over and over again. Comedians joke
Speaker 1: about it, but it's not a joking matter. I think
Speaker 1: there is a neurological issue that is not being addressed.
Speaker 1: And if he had an MRI of his head over there,
Speaker 1: I would be very pleased, because I think he needs
Speaker 1: CNN puts on air here, this is a this is amazing.
Speaker 1: You really cannot make this stuff up. CNN puts on
Speaker 1: air a doctor, doctor David Shiner, who was apparently Obama's
Speaker 1: former doctor I see here on our sheet, who is
Speaker 1: giving life once again to the theory that Trump is insane.
Speaker 1: I mean, actually, like not of sound mind is either
Speaker 1: senile or suffering from dementia, has gone crazy. You know,
Speaker 1: they even tried they tried this against Reagan too, by
Speaker 1: the way, you'll remember that that was what they were
Speaker 1: saying about Reagan. But now they're saying it about Trump. Uh,
Speaker 1: at what point do you think they feel silly running
Speaker 1: the playbook so many times in a way that's so
Speaker 1: obvious what they're doing right there there there once again,
Speaker 1: here we are with all maybe we got to remove
Speaker 1: Trump with the twenty fifth amendments. You know, they're they're
Speaker 1: starting this whole thing again based on slurred words. If
Speaker 1: slurred words are going to be taken as evidence for
Speaker 1: a doctor to diagnose from a far which is by
Speaker 1: the way, not a smart thing to do on national TV,
Speaker 1: on a cable news network, If slurring words gonna be
Speaker 1: a problem, what do they think of Joe Biden? Well,
Speaker 1: that's gurgling, gurgen. But you know, I just want to
Speaker 1: know why don't they have somebody on CNN diagnosing Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's mental health forgets where he is, says really stupid
Speaker 1: things that no one can believe. How dumb it is
Speaker 1: what he said. I mean, you know, confuses things that
Speaker 1: are not close together. I mean, really, not only Trump,
Speaker 1: but CNN's unbiased only idiots really believe that. Now there's
Speaker 1: a mentality among the CNN audience that I'm familiar with,
Speaker 1: where they they like to think that the people they're
Speaker 1: watching are the smart, good people, and therefore are the
Speaker 1: real journalists. So they know that there is really no
Speaker 1: Santa Claus that CNN is a partisan organization. It is
Speaker 1: a wing of the Democratic Party now and it does
Speaker 1: Democrat left wing bidding all the time, all day long
Speaker 1: on air. But they still like to cling to that
Speaker 1: pleasant fiction that maybe they really are just journalists over there.
Speaker 1: So the CNN audience will never, will never flee from
Speaker 1: them because they're doing what they want them to do.
Speaker 1: They're they're playing out this this myth in real time.
Speaker 1: But CNN is the real, honest, good place where the
Speaker 1: journalist stuff happens. But you know, this, this whole impeachment
Speaker 1: for us, unfortunately, is going to Oh wait, we got
Speaker 1: Senator Patrick Lahey here talking about how there's witness intimidation
Speaker 1: with the tweet. Is that what this is? This is
Speaker 1: this is going to be amazing. Play clib ten place
Speaker 1: if you will. If I could ask you, how do
Speaker 1: you think the impeachment and choired testimonies aren't going well?
Speaker 1: You know, the Closed Doors had Republicans and Democrats there.
Speaker 1: I think some of the Republicans thought they could pull
Speaker 1: the press by claiming we want to be in that room. Well,
Speaker 1: of course there are Republicans in that room, and I
Speaker 1: think it stopped the theatrics go down. This is a
Speaker 1: very serious thing. Where the things the ambassador, she said
Speaker 1: the other day, and then had the president tweet to
Speaker 1: try to intimidate her. I was a prosecutor for eight years.
Speaker 1: I know an intimidation. What did you think when she
Speaker 1: said that she felt threatened by that call? When I
Speaker 1: was a prosecutor, I would have thought I would have
Speaker 1: called that witness tam Park procuter or I don't know
Speaker 1: a witness. These politicians, you know, they really some of
Speaker 1: them would just they'd be doing all of us such
Speaker 1: a favor if they would, uh, you know, give it up,
Speaker 1: go spend time with their families, you know, go help
Speaker 1: out in their commune. And he's volunteer, do stuff where
Speaker 1: you don't have cameras on you all the time, or
Speaker 1: urban mumbling for fifty years, rum mumble for another fifty years,
Speaker 1: or no serious legal analyst with any intelligence whatsoever really
Speaker 1: thinks that it was witness intimidation for the president to
Speaker 1: tweet out that this person is bad at her job.
Speaker 1: That's an opinion. If the president no longer has First
Speaker 1: Amendment rights because someone is going to testify against him.
Speaker 1: I'd like to know how they're going to actually enforce
Speaker 1: these rules, but there are there is no universal applicability
Speaker 1: of the rules Democrats are always applying against Trump. It's
Speaker 1: never okay the standard we've created for him is now
Speaker 1: going to be the standard, because it's either so in
Speaker 1: violation of legal and constitutional norms that it would be
Speaker 1: it would be preposterous, or even beyond that, they just
Speaker 1: have no chance of of realistically speaking, they have they
Speaker 1: have no chance of using it as a means to
Speaker 1: test their own side. They just won't do it anyway.
Speaker 1: I find uh yeah, Patrick said her Patrick leahy Man.
Speaker 1: Democratic parties not sending us their best, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Or maybe this is their best. The people who are
Speaker 1: the most morally pliable, dishonest and just they're relentless, stop
Speaker 1: at nothing pursuit of power. I suppose the Democrats have
Speaker 1: stacked their stacked their roster with people who fall into
Speaker 1: that category, and maybe that makes them happen. Colin Kaepernick
Speaker 1: is making headlines again. So this guy from the people
Speaker 1: that I know, and I have brothers who know a
Speaker 1: lot about football. I don't know that much about football.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure Mark you know about what is the
Speaker 1: Kaepernick situation here? Just bring everybody up to speed from
Speaker 1: what is this guy doing now? Like what happened this recently?
Speaker 1: So last week around Tuesday, the NFL said they were
Speaker 1: going to give him a workout, and a lot of
Speaker 1: people think that it was something part of some sort
Speaker 1: of settlement with between him in the league. So Saturday
Speaker 1: was supposed to the workout at the Falcons facility that's
Speaker 1: the old team in Atlanta for those people who are
Speaker 1: not two up on football, and they couldn't agree on Basically,
Speaker 1: Kaepernick wanted his own film crew there, but the NFL
Speaker 1: was just going to use the Falcons film crew and
Speaker 1: then distribute it to everybody, all thirty two NFL teams.
Speaker 1: Kaepernick didn't like that. He wanted an independent film crew
Speaker 1: and he wanted it open to the media. So he
Speaker 1: ended up doing his own his own workout an hour
Speaker 1: later than the NFL's mandated workout at a high school,
Speaker 1: open to the media and all that. What do you
Speaker 1: think is I mean, was this just for the spectacle? Why? Why?
Speaker 1: I think it's just two parties that can't agree on
Speaker 1: anything two that wanted to one up each other. I mean,
Speaker 1: does this Does anyone really even think that this guy
Speaker 1: would come back in the league, And I mean he
Speaker 1: was wasn't here. I don't think he wants to come
Speaker 1: back in the league at this point. I think this
Speaker 1: is all a spectacle. I just I don't even understand
Speaker 1: how this guy is managing to still be in the
Speaker 1: news cycle that he is. And I mean, I know
Speaker 1: he's woken and social justice and he's created this whole
Speaker 1: your character of you know that that the TV that
Speaker 1: the TV viewing audience I suppose is interested in. And
Speaker 1: he's now something of a martyr for social justice because
Speaker 1: he took a knee, did wear pigs in cop uniform.
Speaker 1: So I haven't forgotten about that one. But here we
Speaker 1: could we could hear from it. We have. We've got
Speaker 1: a Kaepernick clip somewhere along here. Where are you go?
Speaker 1: Let's hear what this gentleman does? He gonn play it.
Speaker 1: I've been ready for three years. I've been denied for
Speaker 1: three years. We all know why I came out here,
Speaker 1: showed it today in front of everybody. We have nothing
Speaker 1: to hide, So we're waiting for the thirty two owners,
Speaker 1: thirty two teams, Roger Goodell, all of them to stop running,
Speaker 1: Stop running from the truth, stop running from the people.
Speaker 1: We're out here, We're ready to play, We're ready to
Speaker 1: go anywhere. My agent, Jeff Nally, is ready to talk
Speaker 1: to any team. I interview with any team at any time.
Speaker 1: I've been ready. I'm staying ready, and I'll continue to
Speaker 1: be ready. What if he's just not good enough? Does
Speaker 1: that ever? Does that ever a factor into the car?
Speaker 1: What if he's gotten a little older, a little slower,
Speaker 1: and he's actually just not good enough and he's a
Speaker 1: prima donna and would be a big pain in the
Speaker 1: neck for any team to deal with. Isn't that possible,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, Yeah, He's not a good enough NFL player
Speaker 1: to be warranting that kind of distraction in the locker room.
Speaker 1: If he was Tom Brady, if he was Aaron Rodgers,
Speaker 1: a player to that level, a Hall of Fame type player,
Speaker 1: any owner would sign him because winning is everything. But
Speaker 1: Kaepernick isn't that great of a quarterback to have the
Speaker 1: distraction that it would be at this point in the
Speaker 1: locker room, and the potential that you have half the
Speaker 1: locker room that won't agree with him, and half that
Speaker 1: will agree with him, and that'll fracture a locker room,
Speaker 1: which kills the season. And wasn't there a player recently
Speaker 1: who was like a troublemaker and someone signed him and
Speaker 1: they had to get rid of him right away? I
Speaker 1: forget what this will? Oh? Antonio Brown? Yes, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: what happened with him? Well, the Patriots are a different animal.
Speaker 1: You didn't. You know, Belichick keeps a very tight ship
Speaker 1: and Antonio Brown's a little bit of a mental case,
Speaker 1: but he's a great player. But they released him immediately
Speaker 1: because he wasn't conforming to Patriot standards, right. So he
Speaker 1: came in and he was like, I'm gonna do it
Speaker 1: my way and they were like you're out. Yes, And
Speaker 1: now there are also rape allegations against him. Well that's
Speaker 1: a that's that's the other reason nobody has signed him since.
Speaker 1: Ah yeah, okay, well there you go, if you like.
Speaker 1: I knew there's something going on there. Oh, but we
Speaker 1: we got to switch gears here because I promised we
Speaker 1: talked about this um at the top of the show.
Speaker 1: Fart Gate, Dun Dun dune. It's a thing. It was
Speaker 1: blowing up on social media last night. It was shaking
Speaker 1: the room even I know it was explosive. This was
Speaker 1: MSNBC's Chris Matthews talking to Eric Swalwell. Is this childish?
Speaker 1: Is it worthy of the Bucks Act and Show to
Speaker 1: discuss this? I don't know, but it was a big
Speaker 1: news story last night. I don't make the rules. This
Speaker 1: is how the exchange went audio on my friends taxpayer
Speaker 1: dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help him cheat an election.
Speaker 1: It's so childish. I know, it's so dumb. Oh man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it came across loud and clear though we all know
Speaker 1: what that was. We all know what it was. And
Speaker 1: then you had the you know, amateur detectives, the various
Speaker 1: sleuths online who were all taking to taking to social
Speaker 1: media to indicate what they whether it was whoever whoever
Speaker 1: smelt it, dealt it, or whoever denied it supplied it.
Speaker 1: I swell, well, if you look at the video, he
Speaker 1: kind of pauses for a second, and so people initially
Speaker 1: were suggesting that that was the that was the moment
Speaker 1: of recognition that he just let it, He just let
Speaker 1: one rip, He just let a let a stinky sneeze
Speaker 1: go on air and then people were saying, but no,
Speaker 1: it might have been Chris Matthews that did this, because
Speaker 1: Chris Matthews was deadline and I don't know, you get
Speaker 1: the lav mic the lav mic would it pick up
Speaker 1: that ambient noise? But that was on a national TV hit,
Speaker 1: And I can tell you that some things, you know,
Speaker 1: some things do happen when you're doing live TV. I'll
Speaker 1: never forget once Judge Ni Piro, who's who's great, a
Speaker 1: lot of fun, but she had me on her show
Speaker 1: and she was wearing a dress and I was wearing
Speaker 1: a suit, and under the lights on that show, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you, it was like one hundred and five degrees
Speaker 1: and I started sweating and sweating and sweating, and every
Speaker 1: time they would go away from me to her or
Speaker 1: a clip, I could see in the monitor and I
Speaker 1: would just take flop sweat off my forehead and just
Speaker 1: fling it across the room because it looked like I
Speaker 1: was in the midst of some kind of panic attack.
Speaker 1: I was actually just really hot, because it's really hot
Speaker 1: on those lights, so stuff can happen. But Swallowell is
Speaker 1: not gonna live this one down for a while. I
Speaker 1: will say that noise was really a perfect SoundBite encapsulation
Speaker 1: of his abandoned primary campaign. So there's that producer, Mark,
Speaker 1: Do you have a theory on whoever supplied it, denied it,
Speaker 1: or whoever smelt it dealt it? Just by his face?
Speaker 1: It was him, you think, so right? I've made that
Speaker 1: face before many times. Yeah. Have you ever done it
Speaker 1: in like a quiet room with a lot of people
Speaker 1: in it? You know where I've been tappened to me.
Speaker 1: I've been told by friends it can happen sometimes in
Speaker 1: the gym. Oh that's bad because but also you figure,
Speaker 1: so I'm told that if you're in the gym, people
Speaker 1: are gonna have headphones on. But let's say you're in
Speaker 1: the gym and everybody has headphones on, and you think
Speaker 1: you're safe, and then you you were to just relax
Speaker 1: and let it, let you know, let nature have its
Speaker 1: take its course there, and you engaged in your own
Speaker 1: aerosol bombing of your athletic facility. And then you see
Speaker 1: perhaps see a beautiful uh you know, woman in her
Speaker 1: in her late twenties or early thirties working out near
Speaker 1: you who does not have headphones on because she prefers
Speaker 1: to just listen to the music coming over the PA system.
Speaker 1: Then you have to think in your head, well, she's
Speaker 1: a psychopath, did well, but did she did she here
Speaker 1: or not? And that can that can be troublesome for
Speaker 1: some people. I'm told some people just working out, you
Speaker 1: know you can't help it. I will say, I can't
Speaker 1: control your yoga instructors. And it is known that once
Speaker 1: you kind of get the you get that energy flow going,
Speaker 1: gotta let it all flow, and that can mean stuff
Speaker 1: happens in there. So we see, we're all adults here.
Speaker 1: It's nature. It's no big deal. It happens. It happens.
Speaker 1: But neither mean nor producer Mark. We are very gentlemanly
Speaker 1: in the freedom hudding here. So this is this is
Speaker 1: not This is not some zoo. We don't allow things
Speaker 1: to get crazy and uncouth. We're too close together those
Speaker 1: quarters in here, so we gotta we gotta keep it clean,
Speaker 1: all right. Roll calls coming up like soft butter on
Speaker 1: warm toast. Time to spread some freedom coast to coast.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call Facebook dot com, slash buck
Speaker 1: Sexton or Team Bucket, iHeartMedia dot Com. There we go. Now,
Speaker 1: let's get to it, shall we. Chris buck Shield Time
Speaker 1: a man. I hear you and the others say the
Speaker 1: rot in the FBI is limited to the top. I
Speaker 1: used to think so too, but I'm having serious doubts.
Speaker 1: Any organization that relies on handwritten notes and refuses to
Speaker 1: record interviews except wire taps and secret recordings, of course,
Speaker 1: as the norm is suspicious. An organization that made its
Speaker 1: bones going after the mafia with tangential crimes like tax
Speaker 1: evasion has embraced the win in any way necessary. That
Speaker 1: is their mentality. I'm not defending criminals, but this approach,
Speaker 1: where did I just lost it? This approach has changed
Speaker 1: the character of the FBI. It's no longer about criminal intent.
Speaker 1: They'll go after people for a lying or any number
Speaker 1: of tactics to secure a conviction. I'm not saying this
Speaker 1: is always unwarranted, but I believe this core attitude is
Speaker 1: so pervasive it corrupted the entire organization and corrupt and
Speaker 1: political top officials. You're looking at the beginning of something terrifying, Chris.
Speaker 1: I do think, unfortunately, especially at that level the FBI,
Speaker 1: or rather at the FBI level, so federal crimes, there
Speaker 1: is a common mentality of we want to put wins
Speaker 1: up on the board. You gotta get collars, as we
Speaker 1: send the MYPD, you gotta get convictions against people, and
Speaker 1: that that mentality of putting points on the board can
Speaker 1: influence decision making about things that can have a really
Speaker 1: big effect on people's lives. So yeah, here we go.
Speaker 1: Let's see what we have here, Christian um, Men at
Speaker 1: Work are definitely Aussies. They were my favorite band of
Speaker 1: the eighties. Yes, the Buck is right even when he
Speaker 1: doubts himself, because the Bucks should not doubt himself, that
Speaker 1: is for sure. Um Robert rights Men at Work as
Speaker 1: an Australian band and their best song is down Under.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's right. So there's who could it be
Speaker 1: knocking at my door? And then there's also I come
Speaker 1: from a letting down Under. That's why I thought Men
Speaker 1: at Work was ausy because they're definitely ausy. And something
Speaker 1: something about a vegemite sandwich that's in there too. Can
Speaker 1: you hear? Can you hear the thunder? Come on? Producer
Speaker 1: Mark segment me, babe, let's do it. You gotta h
Speaker 1: should call me babe, you know what I mean? I mean,
Speaker 1: I know we're close, but this is rock star. I'm
Speaker 1: in the Rockstar mode I'm trying to give, you know,
Speaker 1: trying to get the crowd of one fired up in here.
Speaker 1: All right, fair enough, didn't you take the harassing course
Speaker 1: of the company gave. That's a fair point, Julia writes
Speaker 1: book Awesome, Awesome Show. Yesterday, a friend of mine, who
Speaker 1: also indulges in the Buck Sexton Show said that Netflix's
Speaker 1: War Machine with Brad Pitt was based on General McCrystal
Speaker 1: and his staff's Shenanigan's Shields High. Is that true? I
Speaker 1: didn't know about that, and thank you so much, Juliet,
Speaker 1: thank you for listening. I haven't seen Brad pitt War Machine.
Speaker 1: I'm really behind my show is because I have to
Speaker 1: go home after the Bucks Exton show every day and
Speaker 1: write for hours and hours to put out this book
Speaker 1: on Crushing Commies that I'm going to be releasing for
Speaker 1: all of you probably in January or February. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: coming soon. So I don't have a ton of time
Speaker 1: for the shows because right now I got in the
Speaker 1: queue the Americans, Peaky Blinder's latest season. There's some other
Speaker 1: stuff that I want to see that i've although I
Speaker 1: will say at night, I've been watching this Netflix series
Speaker 1: on World War two. It's like World War two in color.
Speaker 1: It's pretty good. It's pretty good. It's they do a
Speaker 1: good job. They do some of the major events. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know all the stories already, and I've learned very
Speaker 1: little new stuff, but pretty good. Little bit. We'll enjoy
Speaker 1: it a little bit. I don't know what it is
Speaker 1: watching like World War two movies before you go to sleep,
Speaker 1: and actually it's as crazy as it is. I don't
Speaker 1: know what I like watching the old footage and stuff.
Speaker 1: It just kind of like zones me out, and then
Speaker 1: you know, I can, like I can go to sleep easily.
Speaker 1: So sometimes I watch, you know, the most cataclysmic battles
Speaker 1: of all history, and I'm like, oh, okay, now it's now.
Speaker 1: Now I know everything will be okay in the world,
Speaker 1: So I guess I can go to sleep. Here we go.
Speaker 1: Michael writes buck Willow was a great movie, directed by
Speaker 1: Ron Howard and story by George Lucas. It is one
Speaker 1: of Valcomer's top three roles doc Holiday, being number one,
Speaker 1: of course in Tombstone. Back in the eighties when kids
Speaker 1: movies were a little dark. It deserves a rewatch Shields high. Michael,
Speaker 1: I don't know about willow Man. It has some cool
Speaker 1: sequences in it. I will give you that, but I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to me it is very much right out of
Speaker 1: the Lord of the Rings universe. So you gotta see,
Speaker 1: you gotta see. Let's see what we get here, Michelle, Right, Buck,
Speaker 1: I got some great responses and private messages for thanking
Speaker 1: me for referring you, and you need have some new
Speaker 1: members of Team Buck and then let's see what we
Speaker 1: have here. I continue making clips with you. Thank you
Speaker 1: for your work. Continue to fund on. Thank you, Michelle.
Speaker 1: Please continue posting clips and spreading the word about the show.
Speaker 1: The single most helpful thing you can do for us
Speaker 1: here in the Freedom Hunt is that tell people about
Speaker 1: what we've got going on here, Tell them about this show,
Speaker 1: tell them to watch this show. Here we go skip.
Speaker 1: I'm dismayed to suggest the lack of effective law enforcement
Speaker 1: in the major sanctuary cities is not a new occurrence
Speaker 1: and will tragically devolve into a similar outcome. California in
Speaker 1: the mid eighteen hundreds, as a result of the gold Rush,
Speaker 1: collapsed into veritable lawlessness in which the police were either
Speaker 1: totally ineffective or unwilling to enforce law and order. This
Speaker 1: set the scene for statewide vigilante retaliation on the part
Speaker 1: of disgruntled citizens. There were many labels creatively describing these
Speaker 1: loosely organized groups. One was called the Safety Committee. Law
Speaker 1: enforcement in my town is in a downward spiral, and
Speaker 1: outraged citizens are demanding chain to the town council voted
Speaker 1: recently to create a safety committee with an emphasis on
Speaker 1: volunteer neighborhood watch. Perhaps a necessary solution as our police
Speaker 1: are proven to be ineffective, but as a slippery slope
Speaker 1: vigilante violence shields high, we'll skip. I don't know what
Speaker 1: town that is, but I hope everything's okay. Man, Thank
Speaker 1: you for thank you for writing in and sorry about
Speaker 1: the difficulties that you are facing. Ronnie chick fil A
Speaker 1: caving to the LGBT. Uh can you check this out? Yeah, Ronnie,
Speaker 1: we talked about on the show. So I'm a step ahead.
Speaker 1: The buck delivers boom m. Somebody also wrote here Gina
Speaker 1: higin Buck slapshot stars Paul Newman and a few other
Speaker 1: seventy stars you may or may not recognize. Excellent hockey
Speaker 1: flick pre Mighty Ducks enjoy shields High. Clearly we've got
Speaker 1: another vote for mighty ducks here. Yeah, and that's bad
Speaker 1: on me not realizing it was Paul Newman will slap shop. No, No,
Speaker 1: I mean I don't see it, so I can't. I can't,
Speaker 1: can't hit you on that one. Um William writes, are
Speaker 1: you available to chat? Um? I don't know, probably not.
Speaker 1: Thanks for writing that message. I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that means. Well, that's another Bucks bad. A
Speaker 1: technology that's if somebody's on your page that can click
Speaker 1: that probably accidentally. Okay, as if you're a business, Oh,
Speaker 1: because I'm a business, that's true. I'm I'm a business
Speaker 1: of Buck helped spread that business. Tell people about it.
Speaker 1: iTunes every day three o'clock Eastern. Download that show. Listen
Speaker 1: to a best podcast out there. All right, Team Shields
Speaker 1: High