Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off, tear down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with is not when the President of the
Speaker 1: United States take it to a bank. Together, we will
Speaker 1: make America great again. You'll never sharender. It's what you've
Speaker 1: been waiting for all day. The Buck Sexton Show. Join
Speaker 1: the conversation called Buck Toll free at eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred Buck. That's eight four four nine hundred to
Speaker 1: eight to five The future of talk radio. Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: My friends and I stared down the barrel of an
Speaker 1: Air fifteen the way you have not. We have seen
Speaker 1: this weapon of war mow down people we know and
Speaker 1: love the way you have not. How dare you tell
Speaker 1: us we don't know what we're talking about. Never again
Speaker 1: should a student be silent, fight unshot. Never again should
Speaker 1: anyone fear going to school. The time for change wasn't now.
Speaker 1: The time for change was years ago. Are you for
Speaker 1: taking steps to save us? Or are you for taking
Speaker 1: n r A blood money? We are not letting the
Speaker 1: United States be run by that terrorist organization. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Buck Sex and Show. Everybody you just heard of. There
Speaker 1: a number of students getting together, Uh, students, teachers, coaches,
Speaker 1: counselors getting together at schools across the country from what
Speaker 1: I understand, but particularly those who were involved directly in
Speaker 1: Florida speaking out there. There's now a broader movement to
Speaker 1: involve other schools. There's talk about a a walkout, UM
Speaker 1: that may maybe occurring. This is from this is expected
Speaker 1: to be occurring perhaps later on. UM. You have students
Speaker 1: that are gathering together saying that it's time to change
Speaker 1: our gun laws. Will you address this a bit yesterday?
Speaker 1: And there's something going on here, It's not normal to
Speaker 1: expect that there would be so much vitriol. Let's understand this.
Speaker 1: I get it. You have students that are traumatized. Specifically,
Speaker 1: we're talking now about those who are actually at the
Speaker 1: high school in Parkland when this mash shooting happen. And
Speaker 1: I understand that there's psychological trauma to be dealt with,
Speaker 1: that the community needs to come together, that these students
Speaker 1: deserve our support. I think I hear that there's also
Speaker 1: similar efforts to get students activated in their political activism
Speaker 1: across the country. It makes me think, Okay, so this
Speaker 1: is now turning into a movement, or they're trying to
Speaker 1: turn it into a movement. M hmm. What is so
Speaker 1: different about this time and this incident from others? I'm
Speaker 1: asking the questions I don't necessarily have the answers. What
Speaker 1: is it about this incident specifically that makes the students
Speaker 1: that are speaking up and and being given considerable air
Speaker 1: time by the national news media. What is it that
Speaker 1: makes them so angry, specifically towards the n r A.
Speaker 1: The n r A is the focus of so much
Speaker 1: of the anger here, the National Rifle Association. I remember
Speaker 1: being a high school student and I would not have
Speaker 1: pretended to know much at all about the n r
Speaker 1: A or what it does. Um. We're also seeing a
Speaker 1: very clear effort in the media to create an in
Speaker 1: vulnerability for the speech of students that were either at
Speaker 1: that school or just now. Any student who comes forward
Speaker 1: and wants to speak on behalf of those students, he's
Speaker 1: also going to be given this the same invulnerability for
Speaker 1: their comments and statements. It doesn't have to be accurate,
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be true, doesn't have to make sense
Speaker 1: because it comes from a place of victimhood, because they've
Speaker 1: been victimized because a group of students were murdered in
Speaker 1: cold blood by a psychopath. And I haven't really heard
Speaker 1: enough of that word used, and I think I'd like
Speaker 1: to return later in the show into why I use
Speaker 1: it and what some of the real implications are for
Speaker 1: our understanding of this mass slaughter. When we use terms
Speaker 1: like psychopaths, we should also use terms like evil and
Speaker 1: understand how it applies in this case. I don't mean
Speaker 1: in a general sense. I mean in as scientific a
Speaker 1: way as possible, evil as a term used by the
Speaker 1: those who spend their lives trying to understand the psychological
Speaker 1: processes of the brain, can't come up with a coherent
Speaker 1: or rational explanation for why an individual acts the way
Speaker 1: he or she does, and is left with nothing more
Speaker 1: on a clinical level. Then the diagnosis a diagnosis of
Speaker 1: evil that I think is far and away the most
Speaker 1: accurate description of Nicholas Cruz and what occurred on that day,
Speaker 1: And I can return to more specificity on that in
Speaker 1: a moment. But the the I or the fury of
Speaker 1: these students is directed towards the National Rifle Association as
Speaker 1: the bad guy here. The National Rifle Association that the
Speaker 1: students are young, that they can't vote, that they don't
Speaker 1: have a background, or even a baseline. For get about
Speaker 1: a background, No one to expect you have to have
Speaker 1: a PhD and gun studies to have an opinion here.
Speaker 1: But it is usually a necessity and a national level
Speaker 1: policy discussion to have a baseline of knowledge about the issue.
Speaker 1: Right if I were running around and I were sixteen
Speaker 1: years old, and I said that I wanted us to
Speaker 1: have a much lower tax rate, and somebody asked me, well,
Speaker 1: do you know what the top tax rate is right now?
Speaker 1: And I said, I have no idea. People would be
Speaker 1: less likely to take my policy proposal seriously in this
Speaker 1: instant instance, though, because they have suffered a tragedy, or
Speaker 1: because a community a school has suffered a tragedy, we
Speaker 1: are to listen without responding. And that's actually not how
Speaker 1: policy discussion works. It's not how the First Amendment worked,
Speaker 1: It's not how we could arrive at any constructive solutions
Speaker 1: to this problem. Nobody really wants to be lectured by
Speaker 1: a group of kids that seem very angry at an
Speaker 1: organization that has nothing to do with what just happened.
Speaker 1: It is not the fault of the n r A.
Speaker 1: I would note that if you're going to blame the
Speaker 1: n r A, you might as well blame the manufacture
Speaker 1: of the rifle and claim that they are the ones
Speaker 1: responsible for this. The seller of the gun, even though
Speaker 1: he did it completely legally, he must be responsible for this.
Speaker 1: The person that manufactured the rounds, use the actual ammunition,
Speaker 1: they're they're responsible for this. No, no no, no, no. You
Speaker 1: cannot erode moral culpability here in the name of some
Speaker 1: political agenda. The only person responsible for the heinous acts
Speaker 1: in Florida last week is Nicholas Cruz. There are people
Speaker 1: who could have done more to stop it. There is
Speaker 1: certainly a discussion that we are having now about what
Speaker 1: should have been done to stop it. But I'm not
Speaker 1: seeing a lot of reasonable, good faith discussion in the
Speaker 1: national media about what should result from this in terms
Speaker 1: of law changes to law. Now, what I'm seeing is
Speaker 1: the vilification of an organization that just represents law abiding
Speaker 1: gun owners, of whom there are, as you know, tens
Speaker 1: of millions, let's say, roughly sixty million in the country.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty fair estament. Over three d million firearms
Speaker 1: in private hands in the United States is also the estimate,
Speaker 1: you got sixty million people, You've got a handful of
Speaker 1: terrible school shootings. It seems to me like we're now
Speaker 1: supposed to just sit back and allow the left because
Speaker 1: we know that there is a hand behind this. We
Speaker 1: know that the media is part of this construct and
Speaker 1: part of this narrative that asked dispersions to cast blamee
Speaker 1: on sixty million long binding gun owners here and much
Speaker 1: of the intelligentsias such as it is, and the left
Speaker 1: is coming out with the same stuff they've said in
Speaker 1: the past. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. But
Speaker 1: they think that by emotionalizing the moment, by making this
Speaker 1: a time of emotional blackmail, listen to the sobbing children
Speaker 1: on this policy issue, or else you're a bad person,
Speaker 1: then the ideas and arguments that have failed in the
Speaker 1: past will get through because we'll all be scared because
Speaker 1: we don't want to be bad people, because we are caring,
Speaker 1: because we are considerate, because we do want our kids
Speaker 1: to be safe. We want all kids to be safe.
Speaker 1: Notice how the issue somehow becomes a separation between those
Speaker 1: who want to stop child uh stop the shootings in school,
Speaker 1: school shootings and those who don't There's no such thing
Speaker 1: as a constituency that doesn't want to stop school shootings.
Speaker 1: So why is that the tone that this takes almost
Speaker 1: automatically after one of these events. After one of these instances,
Speaker 1: we're hearing that students are planning more protests and walkouts
Speaker 1: from class. Well, I'd like to know what the specific
Speaker 1: demands are here, But I would also note that this
Speaker 1: is not how policy is made. Yeah, that they are
Speaker 1: allowed to raise whatever objections they want, right, they have
Speaker 1: first moment rights to we we know this, But what
Speaker 1: the media is doing is very underhanded and what many
Speaker 1: of the supporters of the narrative that's being presented, which
Speaker 1: is that the n r A is the problem here.
Speaker 1: Forget about dealing with mental health, forget about background, forget
Speaker 1: about all that the n r A is the problem.
Speaker 1: They want to they want to take down and take
Speaker 1: a part of the National Rifle Association. And there's just
Speaker 1: no way that there aren't elements of the left, adults
Speaker 1: with money and funding and connections who are tied into this.
Speaker 1: I just don't see how it. At a minimum, you've
Speaker 1: got the major broadcast networks other than Fox that are
Speaker 1: just running with this as though they are a political
Speaker 1: action committee, CNN, MSNBC another. So right then and there,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that they're giving a lot more
Speaker 1: airtime to young people on this issue than they would
Speaker 1: young people on other issues. As I said, you do
Speaker 1: not tend to hear a lot of interviews of the
Speaker 1: families of those killed by illegal aliens in this country
Speaker 1: on CNN. CNN anchors do not ask the children of
Speaker 1: those killed by illegal aliens on TV as they are crying,
Speaker 1: what do you think about illegally? Should we have fewer
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in the country? Crying child who lost his
Speaker 1: dad to a drunk driver, a legal alien who has
Speaker 1: been deported you know, fifteen times or whatever the number is. No,
Speaker 1: they don't do that because they're forming narratives, and they
Speaker 1: don't like that one, this one. They like the notion
Speaker 1: that the n RA is behind a mass slaughter of
Speaker 1: children at a school of school shooting. It is deceptive,
Speaker 1: it's disgusting, it's unfair, and yet that's the plan. They
Speaker 1: figure that if they are able to create an environment
Speaker 1: of fear, then the arguments don't really matter anymore. This
Speaker 1: is where the Left actually excels at promoting a a
Speaker 1: an approach to an issue, a feeling, a sensibility around it,
Speaker 1: where it's not about the specific issues or the arguments,
Speaker 1: it's just about, Oh, I don't want to be I
Speaker 1: don't want to be on the wrong side of that.
Speaker 1: To bar from Obama, you don't want to be on
Speaker 1: the wrong side of history, as he used to constantly say. So,
Speaker 1: now all of a sudden, we're seeing the first breaches
Speaker 1: in the wall. We're seeing the breaks in the day.
Speaker 1: You're seeing people that are saying, hold on, maybe you know, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: this time we will do something. The administration sounds like
Speaker 1: they're they're going to do something. Is it because we
Speaker 1: have come up with new ideas? Maybe there are some
Speaker 1: that I haven't really heard much of before, and we'll
Speaker 1: talk about them. But is it really just another instance
Speaker 1: of the left creating an environment of moral blackmail. You
Speaker 1: better be with us on this, you better do what
Speaker 1: we say on this issue, or you're a bad person,
Speaker 1: or you don't care about children getting shot. That is
Speaker 1: the underlying message of the left right now. And whether
Speaker 1: you know or not that their policy are that the
Speaker 1: an assault rifle band or background check expanse or any
Speaker 1: of this is useless. Is irrelevant because you don't want
Speaker 1: to be a bad person. You don't want to be
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of history. This is what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do right now. They've tried it in the past.
Speaker 1: It has failed, will it fail this time on the
Speaker 1: issue of guns. It's worked on other things. You look
Speaker 1: at the context for discussion of any number of issues.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at what the left did by
Speaker 1: weaponizing discussions of race and racism for political per is
Speaker 1: over the course of decades, very effective for them. It
Speaker 1: finally started to they finally kind of overplayed their hand
Speaker 1: in the last you could argue ten or fifteen years
Speaker 1: maybe where it didn't have the same accusations of racism,
Speaker 1: didn't have the same punch as they used to. Now
Speaker 1: there are other things that are career enders for people
Speaker 1: that are just weaponized politics, right, accusations in place of argument.
Speaker 1: They're trying to do that on guns right now. It's
Speaker 1: not about having a an exchange of ideas about a
Speaker 1: second amendment about the right to bear arms. No, it's
Speaker 1: are you a good person or do you want do
Speaker 1: you want children to not be shot in school? Yes
Speaker 1: or no? If the answer is yes, you don't want
Speaker 1: the new shot in school. Then you have to do.
Speaker 1: Then you have to give the left it's gun control agenda.
Speaker 1: You have to cave. You have to give in no
Speaker 1: questions asked, Well, I'm not I'm not playing that game.
Speaker 1: I'm not going along with that. I want policy that's
Speaker 1: based on reason and argument and sound logic. And no,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be cowed into silence because people
Speaker 1: have suffered a personal tragedy or we're near a tragedy
Speaker 1: in the case of many of these students, that that
Speaker 1: gives you sympathy. It does not give you a greater
Speaker 1: understanding and wisdom about national level policy than other people.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't. And I think the media is shameless
Speaker 1: exploitation of tragedy involving miners, tragedy involving children. Here is
Speaker 1: just yet another reason why we should we should always
Speaker 1: maintain a healthy disrespect and disdain for the mainstream media.
Speaker 1: I'll be uh, I want to know what you think
Speaker 1: about all this. We're gonna get into the specifics that
Speaker 1: are out there. Eight four four eight to five eight
Speaker 1: four four buck bump stock band, what do you think
Speaker 1: a R fifteen band? If you're under third, what do
Speaker 1: you think improving background checks, whatever that means. You know,
Speaker 1: we can go down this whole list. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: some of them. I want to know what you think
Speaker 1: as well, so light up the lines will be right back.
Speaker 1: I was talking about how we should have not ostracized him.
Speaker 1: You didn't know this case, Okay, we did. We know
Speaker 1: that they're baby, that they are mental health issues. And
Speaker 1: I am not a psychologist, but we need to pay
Speaker 1: attention to the fact that this isn't just a mental
Speaker 1: health issue. About we stopped blaming the victims for something
Speaker 1: that was the shooter's fault. I don't think anyone's blaming
Speaker 1: the victims. I don't really know what that young woman
Speaker 1: who's been given a national media platform is referring to.
Speaker 1: But you'll notice from the tone of some of the
Speaker 1: students that they are angry and they are expressing. Some
Speaker 1: of them the ones that I'm seeing that are getting airtime.
Speaker 1: I remember. This reminds me of after nine eleven. A
Speaker 1: lot of people that we're affected by nine eleven. I
Speaker 1: remember being at school finding out whether I was in college,
Speaker 1: finding out whether or not my uncle made it out
Speaker 1: of one of the towers. I didn't know for the
Speaker 1: first few hours a friend of mine, a young woman
Speaker 1: I had known since I was in the fourth grade,
Speaker 1: found out that day that her sister died. And I
Speaker 1: was there at the school, you know, when when the
Speaker 1: news came down. Um, But I also remember that there
Speaker 1: were people who decided that it was time to start
Speaker 1: cutting campaign commercials for the Democrat Party and for John
Speaker 1: Kerry and saying, you know, see, it was Bush's fault.
Speaker 1: And then when you'd say, well hold on a second,
Speaker 1: well hold on whoa, It's like, oh, how dare you?
Speaker 1: You know, they remember that the whole And I'll due
Speaker 1: credit to Ann Coulter for being the one who's willing
Speaker 1: to say hold on, these these aren't v nine eleven widows.
Speaker 1: These are four widows of nine eleven. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of other a lot of other widows and widowers and
Speaker 1: you know, children lost their parents. It's you know, we're
Speaker 1: not hearing from them, We're just hearing from the four
Speaker 1: and the representative of the whole group. Always be careful
Speaker 1: about this. You know, media is very slippery on this
Speaker 1: issue when it comes to exploiting tragedy for political ends.
Speaker 1: There are the producers and the bookers on these shows
Speaker 1: at CNN MSNBC. They are making decisions based upon who's
Speaker 1: going to give them the most anti Trump, anti n
Speaker 1: R A shout fast, so then they're sanctimonious, ignorant anchors
Speaker 1: can go, oh will you don't feel like the children's
Speaker 1: tragedy deserves to be heard? And the whole thing, we
Speaker 1: know how the game is played, we know how they're
Speaker 1: doing this, and this is what they're up to. By
Speaker 1: the way, I mentioned before they I stumbled for a
Speaker 1: second because I want to make sure I had the
Speaker 1: right date. And seeing there's a plan, there are plans
Speaker 1: going forward for a major march akin to in terms
Speaker 1: of size, the Women's March. It will be an anti
Speaker 1: uh anti gun march. I don't know what if they
Speaker 1: have an official name yet, a gun control legislation March
Speaker 1: or you know whatever they're gonna call it for march,
Speaker 1: a march on March. And there are others as well,
Speaker 1: And they've got tens of thousand people signing petitions and
Speaker 1: this is now becoming a point of political mobilization and
Speaker 1: action for the Democrat left. You're also seeing stuff like
Speaker 1: a billboard in Louisville, Kentucky that somebody vandalized with huge
Speaker 1: writing it says kill the n r A. So there's
Speaker 1: something wrong here, my friends. We are going to dig
Speaker 1: into it together and we'll talk more about what's happening.
Speaker 1: Right after this break. He's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton is back, and I think that it's really
Speaker 1: important that we come together now since adults are not
Speaker 1: doing it for us. I remember the first time I
Speaker 1: heard about Sandy Hook. I remember talking about Virginia attacks.
Speaker 1: That will be different because the people who are deeply
Speaker 1: affected by the shooting, the people who saw it, are
Speaker 1: the people speaking out. Because we keep telling them that
Speaker 1: if they accept this blood money there against the children,
Speaker 1: they say, that's topper. Gun laws do not decrease gun violence.
Speaker 1: We call we could just play all day news clips
Speaker 1: of teenagers, kids who are telling us what gun control
Speaker 1: policy should be, saying things about gun laws that are
Speaker 1: not true. I couldn't believe yes or seeing at CBS
Speaker 1: left up the tweet about how it's easier to get
Speaker 1: an a R fifteen than to buy cold medicine. That's
Speaker 1: not just fake news, it's malicious news. They're really trying
Speaker 1: to turn up the heat on this problem, turn up
Speaker 1: the heat on the debate make this nasty, Make it
Speaker 1: not a problem that we have to solve as a country,
Speaker 1: as a as a nation. Make it a US versus them.
Speaker 1: You heard it, and that young woman she said, you know,
Speaker 1: it's either you're with the children or you're against them.
Speaker 1: With them or against them. This is a this is
Speaker 1: a repeat. You'll hear more and more of that. You
Speaker 1: either want to stop child murder in school or you don't,
Speaker 1: That's what they'll say. But there's no one who wants
Speaker 1: kids to get shot in school, no one. So what
Speaker 1: are they talking about? Why do they have to be
Speaker 1: so inflammatory? Here's something to keep in mind, my friends,
Speaker 1: as we go forward and continue to cover this. How
Speaker 1: is it that the passions on this issue are even
Speaker 1: more elevated right now with greater distance from the actual
Speaker 1: event than they were in the first forty eight hours.
Speaker 1: Why are the kids that are speaking about this becoming
Speaker 1: more aggressive? Why are we seeing signs kill the n
Speaker 1: r A in Louisville Now? Why are we hearing these
Speaker 1: refrains like you're with the children or you're against them.
Speaker 1: You either want to stop child murder in school or
Speaker 1: you don't. Now days after the event, I just think
Speaker 1: it stands to reason that if this were based on
Speaker 1: the emotions of the moment, you would hear the most
Speaker 1: over the top inflammatory rhetoric and these accusations at the
Speaker 1: n r A. You'd hear it more in the beginning,
Speaker 1: and then it would turn into a policy debate. But no,
Speaker 1: actually you're hearing this stuff now. It's getting worse. The anger,
Speaker 1: the rage from one side of the political spectrum to
Speaker 1: the other over guns is escalating as we have distance
Speaker 1: from the event. That doesn't make sense, doesn't make sense
Speaker 1: unless unless there is a guiding hand behind this, unless
Speaker 1: there's more going on here than just spontaneous student protests
Speaker 1: over gun control and gun violence. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: these kids don't believe it. I'm sure they do. But
Speaker 1: then again, there's a reason why we don't let sixteen
Speaker 1: year olds vote on national policy issues. There's a reason
Speaker 1: why they don't get to pick our representatives, and there
Speaker 1: there's a basis for all of that. You know, the voting.
Speaker 1: It should be sixteen, maybe it should be twelve. Do
Speaker 1: we have five year old voting? We have journalists who
Speaker 1: seemed to think that it was respectable and responsible to
Speaker 1: use their children as props as anti Trump attacked vessels.
Speaker 1: You know, my daughter came up to me and said,
Speaker 1: why does Donald Trump hate women? Mommy? And she's only three.
Speaker 1: I don't think that your daughter said that at three,
Speaker 1: but a lot of journalists were doing that. Those of
Speaker 1: you who are paying close attention to the the commentary
Speaker 1: at during the election, we'll remember that was a trend
Speaker 1: for a while. There's a trend going on here, but
Speaker 1: it seems that it's getting angrier as we get further
Speaker 1: from the event. And I don't believe it's because of inaction.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think that the Trump administration has shown
Speaker 1: I know they have shown quite a willingness to discuss
Speaker 1: these issues and look at them. Here's the President himself.
Speaker 1: Safety is a top priority for my administration. That is
Speaker 1: why when governors from across the nation visit the White
Speaker 1: House next week, we will be discussing at great length
Speaker 1: what the federal and state governments can do to keep
Speaker 1: our students safe. This includes implementing common sense security measures
Speaker 1: and addressing mental health issues, including better coordination between federal
Speaker 1: and state law enforcement to take swift action and when
Speaker 1: there are warning signs. President is taking this issue very seriously.
Speaker 1: He's listening to what's being said. He's going over the
Speaker 1: proposals that are out there now. He says, state and
Speaker 1: federal and local, we're working on it. We are. He's
Speaker 1: not saying there's nothing. I'm not going to hear it.
Speaker 1: Everything is fine. And yet you turn on the news
Speaker 1: and you'll hear students who are being elevated into the
Speaker 1: national discussion, who are saying stuff like to the president.
Speaker 1: And I think that it's really important that we come
Speaker 1: to the president. The ball is in your cordinal. You
Speaker 1: are either with us or you are against us. If
Speaker 1: you are against us, then that means you are signing
Speaker 1: our death certificates. You are letting more children die every day.
Speaker 1: There is no middle ground here. You are either with
Speaker 1: us and helping children survive, helping children feel safe to
Speaker 1: go to school, or you are against us. We are
Speaker 1: very confident because unlike every other you get the idea
Speaker 1: that was a seventeen year old. Mr. President. You're with us,
Speaker 1: you're against you, you're signing children's debt certificates. If you
Speaker 1: don't ban a R fifteen, that's really that's what we're
Speaker 1: supposed to take away from this. That's quite a lot
Speaker 1: of culpability, A lot of blame that's put on the
Speaker 1: president for something that he has nothing to do with.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind that Congress would have to pass the
Speaker 1: legislation first, and yet it's all put at the feet
Speaker 1: of Trump. You see, this is what's really happening here. Everyone.
Speaker 1: Do we think that there would be quite the same tone,
Speaker 1: quite the same approach if you had a Democrat president? Now,
Speaker 1: of course not. This issue of guns is now being
Speaker 1: tied into the issue of hashtag resistance. Gun control is
Speaker 1: now being hijacked by the left, by the institutional left,
Speaker 1: the money, the movers and shakers, the sauros Is, the MSNBC's,
Speaker 1: the CNNs, and the rest of them, in order to
Speaker 1: mobilize progressive elements of our society against the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: In yet another way, it's yet another front of the
Speaker 1: never Trump, anti Trump war. It immediately becomes about the president.
Speaker 1: And that's why there's so much fury behind this movement
Speaker 1: and this effort right now. That's what's different from the
Speaker 1: school shooting versus other school shootings. And and you have
Speaker 1: a president who's willing to say, we should actually address
Speaker 1: this in whatever way we can, let's talk about it,
Speaker 1: and they're saying Oh no, you're the blood is on
Speaker 1: the president's hands. There's a particular anger right now. There's
Speaker 1: a particular rage about gun control because Donald Trump is president.
Speaker 1: That's what's going on here in the background. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that that's what's got all these students fired up.
Speaker 1: Some of them or I'm sure being told things by adults.
Speaker 1: Others are being are being encouraged to whatever their initial
Speaker 1: impulse is about this, and a lot of them are
Speaker 1: I'm sure the ones from the school. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about in general, because this is now a movement.
Speaker 1: This is beyond the school. So now we've gotta listen
Speaker 1: to kids that are marching that didn't even go to
Speaker 1: the school. Now, all kids have a special say in this,
Speaker 1: as long as they're pro gun control. They're not just
Speaker 1: mobilizing for the school, They're mobilizing for all schools. This
Speaker 1: is now going to turn into a student movement of sorts. Ah.
Speaker 1: Now it all starts to fit together, doesn't it. It's
Speaker 1: about a whole lot more than one school shooting and
Speaker 1: the government's response to it. You are seeing the apparatus
Speaker 1: of the left in action and mobilizing through the exploitation
Speaker 1: of a terrible event in which seventeen young people were
Speaker 1: murdered in school by a classmate who was a psychopath,
Speaker 1: who was evil. And yet I'm hearing so much about
Speaker 1: how the n r A is murder. The n r
Speaker 1: A is guilty of murder. Trump is going to have
Speaker 1: blood in his hands if he doesn't do what the
Speaker 1: kids are demanding. This is not how sound policy has
Speaker 1: made and this is not how adults have discussions. It's
Speaker 1: how the left wants the discussion to go though, and
Speaker 1: we will see more and more of their fingerprints all
Speaker 1: over this. Keep in mind as we go along here,
Speaker 1: as we expose what's really happening, they will say the
Speaker 1: nastiest things. They'll say that you are either with the
Speaker 1: children or against them. You either want to stop child
Speaker 1: murder or you don't care. You're complicit in child murder
Speaker 1: if you don't do what they say. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is ideological hostage taking. It's a disgrace, and it's really
Speaker 1: what's going on. All right, I want to hear from
Speaker 1: you eight four four, eight to five. We will take
Speaker 1: some calls right after this break. All right, every single
Speaker 1: line is lit here in the Freedom Hut. So let's
Speaker 1: rack and stack and take some calls. But first I
Speaker 1: just wanted to note that I got a piece of
Speaker 1: information from one of our own here in the hut. Brandon,
Speaker 1: who's running the board today, told me something, just to
Speaker 1: give you a sense of how far and wide the
Speaker 1: tentacles of a tragedy like this go, Brandon, tell him,
Speaker 1: tell them what you told me. I unfortunately know one
Speaker 1: of the teachers that was killed in the in the shooting.
Speaker 1: When the name started to come out, Um, I hadn't
Speaker 1: spoken to Scott Beagle since high school. Went to high
Speaker 1: school with him, Long Island, dix Hills High School, Half
Speaker 1: holl Hills High School, East Long Name. Uh, so he
Speaker 1: was your classmate. He was my classmate plenty classes. I
Speaker 1: hadn't spoken to him since, so, I mean, it's an acquaintment.
Speaker 1: He was your high school class man and he but
Speaker 1: I remember him being such a sweet and nice kid.
Speaker 1: So I remember as soon as I saw his face
Speaker 1: and name, I know that I know. And he was
Speaker 1: one of the He was one of the heroes of
Speaker 1: the incident, right. He was one of the ones who
Speaker 1: ran to open the door to to save some kids.
Speaker 1: He was the geology teacher who opened his unlocked door
Speaker 1: to let more students in, and before he can relock it,
Speaker 1: that's when he got shot. And they're saying that his
Speaker 1: body blocked the door from more casualties. So he's a hero,
Speaker 1: and uh, I don't know if you want me to say.
Speaker 1: His wife apparently gave a little brief statement because Scott jokingly,
Speaker 1: I guess, said something that if he was ever killed
Speaker 1: in any of these situations, so by the quote, you'll
Speaker 1: he never believed that would have happened. Promise me, if
Speaker 1: this ever happens to me, you will tell them the truth,
Speaker 1: tell them what a jerk I am, and don't talk
Speaker 1: about the hero stuff. So of course his wife, he
Speaker 1: was saying that as a joke to his wife, thinking
Speaker 1: that this would never happen to him. So when his
Speaker 1: wife spoke, she still read that she did. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: all right, Brandon, thank you for sharing that that you
Speaker 1: know that personal connection with all this. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get into your call, folks. We've got every line lit,
Speaker 1: like I said, so we got a lot to go
Speaker 1: to here. Vincent in Greensboro, North Carolina, Hey, Vincent, Hi, Bud,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to hear, but loss of his friend there,
Speaker 1: that's Uh, horrible to hear. Um. I just couldn't help.
Speaker 1: But I've been listening to this topic now for days
Speaker 1: on just about every radio show there is, and I
Speaker 1: don't remember any time where somebody screamed and yelled for
Speaker 1: what they wanted when they were a kid, and they
Speaker 1: just got what they wanted because they demanded it. Um.
Speaker 1: But I feel like this's just a program because these protesters,
Speaker 1: like a lot of the protesters we've seen in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years, to me, just looked like bankrolled
Speaker 1: protesters that really are uh dupes. Uh, they're pretty much
Speaker 1: A lot of them will say whatever they're told, maybe
Speaker 1: some of them believe it. Do you think some of
Speaker 1: this anti gun stuff, whether a current or what we're
Speaker 1: going to see, is AstroTurf. It's not. This is not
Speaker 1: the grassroots exactly, because I don't I don't remember meeting
Speaker 1: too many people who agree with that. Somebody you say, oh, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's guns are dangerous, blah blah blah, but a lot
Speaker 1: of people will never flat out say there they want
Speaker 1: to give up their their firearms. It is a god
Speaker 1: given right to hone one uh not just because it's
Speaker 1: written down in the Constitution. Of the Bill of Rights,
Speaker 1: and uh, uh, well, Vincent, I appreciate you sharing thoughts
Speaker 1: and thank you for calling in, Sir, Shields High. Let's
Speaker 1: take Uh, we've got a lot of calls coming from
Speaker 1: North Carolina. We got a whole bunch of North Carolina
Speaker 1: calls here. Well, it's all right, we'll take one more
Speaker 1: and then we'll take it up and I'll take it
Speaker 1: up to Boston. We gotta get lots of different geographical
Speaker 1: regions in North Carolina is very very heavy on the
Speaker 1: lines right now. Um, we love you North Carolina. Mike
Speaker 1: in North Carolina, Hey, buddy, Hey Buck, I totally agree
Speaker 1: with everything Vincent said on the ellin of rules. Um,
Speaker 1: so let me get took it. Um. She said that
Speaker 1: people wouldn't be killed with a knife. Me and Lissashi killed. Well,
Speaker 1: he defeated thirty men by so um taking the swords
Speaker 1: away from Japan. Uh. During the that time, spawn ningas
Speaker 1: and so the assassination was ran rapid. And to get
Speaker 1: to the last bit about Japan, Tojo said, Uh, the
Speaker 1: reason we have our Second Amendment rfle a rifle behind
Speaker 1: every blade of grass, right, thank you, yes, sir, that's
Speaker 1: why they couldn't invade America. Yeah, yeah, Mike, thanks for
Speaker 1: calling it from North Carolina, Man Shields. Hi John, and
Speaker 1: also Greensboro, North Carolina. Hey John, how are you doing, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm good. Thank you for a call that was calling
Speaker 1: about the gun control also, yeah, of course, man, that's
Speaker 1: the that's the issue. Do your issue of the hour,
Speaker 1: go for it. We all need to hear the word control,
Speaker 1: because that's what it's all about. We never hear all
Speaker 1: of this left is crying when any other person, child,
Speaker 1: adult is killed any other way. We just had a
Speaker 1: child killed by a drunk illegal alien last week, and
Speaker 1: we're to sail in North Carolina. I'm still waiting for
Speaker 1: a politician to cry over that child. John. I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm gonna guess you haven't seen anyone, anyone in the
Speaker 1: family of that child killed interviewed on CNN and a
Speaker 1: national news broadcast on the issue of legal aliens. Yeah,
Speaker 1: no alcohol band, no eagle alien band, no, no, no
Speaker 1: kind of band, and no tears. Yeah. I mean the
Speaker 1: politicization of this, of this by the left, I mean,
Speaker 1: to use child victims in a sense as as issues
Speaker 1: or as as politicized policy weapons. It's just so tasteless.
Speaker 1: But that's what they're doing exactly. And then the other
Speaker 1: thing is, let's talk about making the school safety. I
Speaker 1: have to barcode with my fingerprints in and out of
Speaker 1: work every time I go into parking lot. If I
Speaker 1: go into where our truck drivers come like to use
Speaker 1: the restroom, I got a barcode to get back in
Speaker 1: the building. It works fine. Oh, we got about six
Speaker 1: hundred people working here Tilton the times a day. It works,
Speaker 1: in and out, in and out, in and out. And
Speaker 1: then we could have some the concealed carry holders taking
Speaker 1: additional course and carry the faculty carry on campus. And
Speaker 1: I would also add, you know, if you get to
Speaker 1: concealed carry older's you also got have people, you know,
Speaker 1: it could be kind of a package training we do
Speaker 1: individuals that also understand more about de escalating physical confrontations.
Speaker 1: In general, you get more teachers that are also trained
Speaker 1: as first responders. I mean, I I think I think
Speaker 1: there's a whole lot of ways that we could consider
Speaker 1: trying to make school look. Schools among the softest of
Speaker 1: soft targets, right, They're they're wide open generally speaking to
Speaker 1: the to the public. Uh, you've got you know, kids
Speaker 1: that can't defend themselves. Especially you're talking about an armed
Speaker 1: to sound active shooter situation. So yeah, I think it
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense to talk about, especially in
Speaker 1: areas where you think that. I mean, look, this isn't
Speaker 1: just this isn't a school with with thirty students. There
Speaker 1: is a school with almost three thousand, right, I mean
Speaker 1: this is a really big institution and one armed guard
Speaker 1: on the premises one for three thousand. My college had
Speaker 1: sixteen hundred students, had its own police department, if we
Speaker 1: want to go, had its own on campus, and they
Speaker 1: were all armed officers and they were all deputized under
Speaker 1: Massachusetts state law. Uh, they were armed. And I think
Speaker 1: we had for a campus of sixteen hundred six officers
Speaker 1: on any given time, you know. So they just by
Speaker 1: way of comparison, they got three thousand kids and they
Speaker 1: only had one one officer. And John, thank you for
Speaker 1: calling in from Greensborough. H one more Kenny and Boston Kenny.
Speaker 1: We got about a minute, but I want to get
Speaker 1: you in before we get going with some other stuff.
Speaker 1: You're go ahead, right, how you doing? Um? I'm seeing
Speaker 1: a parallel being revealed between this Sparkland gun control movement
Speaker 1: and the Me Too movement in the sense that they
Speaker 1: both have a they want to call this non political
Speaker 1: and then engage in politics, and then they want to
Speaker 1: forbid any questioning or uh, going after the victims at
Speaker 1: all in any you know anything. You have to just
Speaker 1: listen to them and were they wanted as as a
Speaker 1: with a me too movement, and accusation becomes tantamount to
Speaker 1: a conviction. And all of that shows me that I
Speaker 1: think that's all that's the Me too movement is largely
Speaker 1: being orchestrated by the left. Yeah, I see the parallel
Speaker 1: to Kenny. It's in a student observation. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much for calling him my friend. We gotta roll into
Speaker 1: a break coming up here. I know today was Tuesday,
Speaker 1: but I kind of had a case of the Mondays.
Speaker 1: I didn't really sleep that well last night. It just
Speaker 1: felt like how many get my day started at? So
Speaker 1: much work to do? Oh that's right, I got a
Speaker 1: whole cupboard full of Black Rifle coffee. Black Rifle is
Speaker 1: the world's premium, small batch groas to order Conservative coffee company,
Speaker 1: and the stuff is delicious and it is the way
Speaker 1: to kick start your day. I have coffee first thing
Speaker 1: in the morning. And then usually in the early afternoon.
Speaker 1: So I'm hitting Black Rifle twice. You could say I'm
Speaker 1: doing a Black Rifle Coffee double tap, and it is
Speaker 1: absolutely what I'd recommend for all of you to go
Speaker 1: check them out, vote with your dollar, fuel the revolution,
Speaker 1: and visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash Buck, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck. When you go to
Speaker 1: the website, make sure you use the coupon code Buck
Speaker 1: one five that's Buck fifteen, and I get you fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck coupon
Speaker 1: code Buck fifteen. Support veterans, support the Freedom Hut, and
Speaker 1: support a fantastic coffee company. Black Rifle. He's back with
Speaker 1: you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth,
Speaker 1: the fuck never stops. After the deadly shooting in Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: I directed Attorney General to clarify wha there's certain bub
Speaker 1: stock devices like the one used in Las Vegas are
Speaker 1: illegal undercurrent law. That process began in December, and just
Speaker 1: a few moments ago I signed a memorandum directing the
Speaker 1: Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that
Speaker 1: turn legal weapons into machine guns. Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: buck Sex and show everybody. In the last hour, we
Speaker 1: talked about the student protests and the growing movement to
Speaker 1: call for gun control in the aftermath of the park Land,
Speaker 1: Florida school shooting. And now we just had President Trump
Speaker 1: talking today about what he's willing to do in response,
Speaker 1: or what he's willing to consider. At least we are
Speaker 1: looking at, or I should say, the federal government is
Speaker 1: now looking at the issue of an a R fifteen ban,
Speaker 1: which I don't think we'll ever go through. UM. Today,
Speaker 1: in fact, the Florida state legislature voted out a proposal
Speaker 1: to ban a OUR fifteens, and sure enough the media
Speaker 1: was there and taking photos of children from the Parkland
Speaker 1: High School that were in attendance. Douglas, I forget the
Speaker 1: school where the shooting occurred. Marjorie Stoneman. Douglas and the
Speaker 1: kids were very upset about the bill not going through.
Speaker 1: But this is the process now we have. This is
Speaker 1: the way laws are actually made. It is not based
Speaker 1: upon whoever has the most passion in the moment. It
Speaker 1: is based upon a yeah, democratic legislator, democratically elected legislature
Speaker 1: taking action or not. So they did not pass an
Speaker 1: air fifteen band in Florida. They're now turning to state
Speaker 1: and they say local bands if they can't get a
Speaker 1: federal band. This is also what brings me to the
Speaker 1: There are very well connected and financed adults who are
Speaker 1: pushing this agenda and using children as props to get
Speaker 1: what they want. That has happening right now. There is
Speaker 1: no way that all of a sudden, here we are,
Speaker 1: days after the event. You have these policies that are
Speaker 1: just agreed upon at the grassroots student level, that are
Speaker 1: all of a sudden now mobilized and getting a lot
Speaker 1: of national level press. Do we really think a lot
Speaker 1: of high school kids generally know the difference between state
Speaker 1: and local firearms laws and where the federal ban would
Speaker 1: end and the local band would begin, etcetera, etcetera. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. This is being fed to some students,
Speaker 1: or rather the agenda is being promoted through students as
Speaker 1: vessels for the message, because the students are not to
Speaker 1: be contradicted publicly because they are victims. That's the game
Speaker 1: that the Democrats play. It's disgraceful they are using traumatized
Speaker 1: children as props in a political fight. But here we are.
Speaker 1: That is what they are doing. You're also noticing that
Speaker 1: many of the journalists out there that are pushing the
Speaker 1: different politicians, Democrats, etcetera, that are pushing for action just
Speaker 1: expose that they do not particularly view the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: is really a part of the constitution. They just don't
Speaker 1: think that that it counts the same way as other stuff.
Speaker 1: And that's how you get people like uh Well as
Speaker 1: a finance reporter, usually at CNBC, but he he has
Speaker 1: an idea for how we could handle the gun problem.
Speaker 1: The scariest part of these conversations with so many of
Speaker 1: them said, you know what, I like the idea. There's
Speaker 1: part of us that actually would like to do something
Speaker 1: like this, but we are scared about two things. Part
Speaker 1: of it is we're scared about the the economic potential
Speaker 1: boycott that could happen, both from the n r A
Speaker 1: and gun owners who say, you know what, if JP
Speaker 1: Morgan does this, we're we're not going to use their cards.
Speaker 1: The other thing that's even more nerve racking, though, is
Speaker 1: a lot of them said, you know what, I don't
Speaker 1: want to put my employees in harm's way. I actually
Speaker 1: think that there could be an incident if we were
Speaker 1: to do this. I don't want to bring attention out
Speaker 1: to ourselves. And that's a very very scary thing, you know.
Speaker 1: Now he was talking about banks not working with or
Speaker 1: refusing to work with companies who sell guns, and as
Speaker 1: if that's not enough, Keep in mind now that would
Speaker 1: be imagine if if you had this with any other
Speaker 1: constitutionally protected right, you know, using that you had that
Speaker 1: kind of discrimination going on by major institutions that are
Speaker 1: tremendously fed federally regulated. And don't even get me started
Speaker 1: on it. Uh you know, where to banks and in
Speaker 1: the and the federal government begin as a whole other question.
Speaker 1: But also notice how it's not enough merely to just
Speaker 1: say that he thinks that there would be issues with
Speaker 1: a effectively a financial system boycott of firearms manufacturers and
Speaker 1: gun sellers, cutting them off um the financial markets because
Speaker 1: of their constitution constitutionally protected right to bear because people
Speaker 1: want to bear arms, and because they to do so,
Speaker 1: they need to be able to sell them. Look at this,
Speaker 1: they want to regulate out of existence the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: We see them say this, we see this get support,
Speaker 1: and then they turn and say, oh no, no no, we
Speaker 1: just want common sense. Remember that was the Obama line,
Speaker 1: common sense gun reform. Then you say, well, it's not
Speaker 1: common sense because it won't work. So that's nonsensical. What
Speaker 1: you're talking about doesn't make sense. Oh well, in that case,
Speaker 1: you just want dead children. You're a bad person. Do
Speaker 1: what I say, or else I'll tell everybody you just
Speaker 1: don't care about dead children. That's that's the way the
Speaker 1: Democrats are advancing the advancing the ball on this one
Speaker 1: of my friends, that's what they are doing. And it
Speaker 1: is very troubling, very troubling. Indeed, it's not going away
Speaker 1: because this is now a movement. This is instead of
Speaker 1: the Women's March, You're going to have the gun control March.
Speaker 1: This will be the manifestation of the resistance hashtag resist
Speaker 1: since anti Trump left, using children as the vanguard, so
Speaker 1: that anyone who contradicts them on a policy level, who
Speaker 1: makes the counter argument, I'm not saying to do it
Speaker 1: in a mean way. I'm not saying call the kids.
Speaker 1: You know you're I'm not gonna call. Remember, we're going
Speaker 1: way beyond just the kids who are at the Marjorie
Speaker 1: Douglas School. Now, now we're talking about just kids in
Speaker 1: general at schools. They're gonna be organized for this purpose. Thousands,
Speaker 1: perhaps tens of thousands of students across the country doing
Speaker 1: walkouts and marches and rallies, but they're all going to
Speaker 1: be put under this rubric of well, well, they're the
Speaker 1: next victims unless we take action. Don't you want to
Speaker 1: prevent them from being victims? Aren't you anti gun violence
Speaker 1: in schools? Oh? I guess I am, Well, then you
Speaker 1: better do what we say. Ban the a R fifteen
Speaker 1: nationally banned the air fifteen at the state level, which
Speaker 1: I would know other states have done. I live in
Speaker 1: New York State. In fact, here, the way that it's
Speaker 1: ended up being implemented they've created because they haven't been
Speaker 1: semi on the rifles because they can't get that through.
Speaker 1: So now you just have New York State compliant a
Speaker 1: R variants, which if you've seen, are not particularly pleasing
Speaker 1: to the eye, but function the same way in air
Speaker 1: fifteen does just no collapsing stock, uh, no carrying handle.
Speaker 1: I think maybe they mandated some changes to the real system.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but there's there's some a R compliant
Speaker 1: New York State a R compliant guns that are being sold,
Speaker 1: that have been sold, and in Connecticut they banned, They
Speaker 1: banned air fifteen, said you have to turn them in.
Speaker 1: They just went with confiscation, and it's estimated that there
Speaker 1: are over a hundred thousand I think now technically illegal
Speaker 1: a rs in the state of Connecticut, just because because
Speaker 1: there's you know, the sheriffs aren't gonna go and kicking
Speaker 1: indoors I guess and taking firearms from people that they
Speaker 1: legally purchased and they're legally allowed to have a gun.
Speaker 1: But in Connecticut they said, well, we're gonna you have
Speaker 1: to turn it in now, and a lot of people
Speaker 1: didn't turn the men. So there's that. Ah, this is
Speaker 1: where this whole discussion is going. Just understand the politics
Speaker 1: beyond it now. I know we've got a lot We
Speaker 1: took some calls in the last hour on guns and
Speaker 1: gun control and this issue. Um, we're going to continue
Speaker 1: talking to this yere on the show. I don't want
Speaker 1: to spend too much of our time tonight on this
Speaker 1: because we're gonna be back on it tomorrow and this
Speaker 1: is now front and center. It has replaced immigration. I
Speaker 1: thought at this point in February, team we'll be talking
Speaker 1: immigration immigration. Nope, we have moved to gun control now.
Speaker 1: And so this will be a continuing theme here on
Speaker 1: the show. So if you don't get a chance to
Speaker 1: talk to us about it today, if you're calling in
Speaker 1: or you've been waiting on hold, I know a lot
Speaker 1: of you have. I promise there'll be lots of opportunities
Speaker 1: going forward because this is now a focus of the
Speaker 1: left and we have to engage on this to make
Speaker 1: sure that bad policy does not result. Um. But coming
Speaker 1: up in this hour, I just want to give you
Speaker 1: a sense where we're going a little more on the
Speaker 1: the Russian troll factory and what's real and it's not
Speaker 1: with all that, and what's serious analysis and what's hysterical hyperbole.
Speaker 1: Then we will talk about the latest casualty of the
Speaker 1: Mueller investigation. A lawyer who had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: anything but said the wrong thing to Mueller. Whoops. Now
Speaker 1: he's facing federal felony. He's a citizen of the Netherlands.
Speaker 1: By the way, I think this is interesting in the US.
Speaker 1: US extends federal law to pretty much everybody it can
Speaker 1: all over the world. It's it's an interesting thing. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, this is where you start to see other
Speaker 1: countries come on, right, But Us' is like Oh no,
Speaker 1: we're gonna this is when you start to make laws
Speaker 1: about meddling and meddling elections and just wait till that
Speaker 1: blows back on us. Trust me. But this lawyer who
Speaker 1: is now stand is taking a plea deal and also
Speaker 1: one of Manaforts associates. So we've got some upbates in
Speaker 1: mull investigation. But I think in some way his most
Speaker 1: interesting coming up this hour and it will be later on.
Speaker 1: We have a guest joining as a lawyer to talk
Speaker 1: about uh. And I see now some of the networks
Speaker 1: I had planned this interview all day. I see some
Speaker 1: of the networks have actually run interviews on this in
Speaker 1: the last hour or so. What if the fix was
Speaker 1: in against General Flynn. What if they actually knew that
Speaker 1: he wasn't intentionally lying or doing anything that was a crime,
Speaker 1: but they decided that it was essential to get Flynn
Speaker 1: in order to create the appearance of legitimacy for the
Speaker 1: rest of the Muller probe of Trump's people and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. Right, what if they stacked the
Speaker 1: deck to go after General Flynn. What if they were
Speaker 1: going for his scalp and they cheated to do it.
Speaker 1: I mean the prosecutors can't prove that yet, but there
Speaker 1: is an argument that we may in fact find out
Speaker 1: whether or not that happened, and there's some reason to
Speaker 1: believe that it did. There's some reason to believe that
Speaker 1: it did. We are going to look at that later
Speaker 1: on in this hour because Flynn maybe withdrawing there's there's
Speaker 1: some word out that Flynn maybe withdrawing his guilty plea.
Speaker 1: Why would he do that? Well, there's a judge that's involved,
Speaker 1: the very important judge, a judge who was one of
Speaker 1: the few who has held the status and yes, even
Speaker 1: the deep staters to account in the past, Judge Emmitt Sullivan.
Speaker 1: He is saying that the FBI has to produce information
Speaker 1: here about the Flynn guilty plea, all of the information.
Speaker 1: Perhaps that will be very interesting because I have a
Speaker 1: feeling and we will talk about why that this may
Speaker 1: uncover that Flynn got the flip side of Hillary Clinton justice.
Speaker 1: You see, with Hillary and her top aids, it was
Speaker 1: how do we bend the law, how do we bend
Speaker 1: over backwards to do everything we can to make sure
Speaker 1: that there's zero legal jeopardy here. We have seen not
Speaker 1: just the converse of that process, the the flip side
Speaker 1: of that goin but with the same actors involved, Peter Struck,
Speaker 1: James Comey, Deputy Director McKay, but the same people involved.
Speaker 1: We see how they do the one trial or the
Speaker 1: one case. We see how they do the other case.
Speaker 1: You know which of these things is not like the other? Oh? Well,
Speaker 1: one involves a Republican president. One involves the hope, the
Speaker 1: singular hope of the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton. Hmm. Looks
Speaker 1: like they were treated quite differently. We will get into
Speaker 1: that later on this hour. You will definitely want to
Speaker 1: hear that, and then we'll talk also about the some
Speaker 1: of the specific gun policies. I haven't gone to yet.
Speaker 1: I wanted to hold off because we've got Sean Davis
Speaker 1: from the Federalist joining us in the third hour, and
Speaker 1: then we'll just kind of freestyle it and talk about
Speaker 1: whatever comes to mind. So a lot more coming with
Speaker 1: all of that. First, let me tell you, my friends,
Speaker 1: I take information security very seriously, and I also think
Speaker 1: it's critical to have the best information you can at
Speaker 1: all times. That's why I'm all about Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: They are a dual certified veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company, in fact, the only company of its kind
Speaker 1: that qualifies in that way. They're veteran owned and operated.
Speaker 1: Go to my g VN dot com to check out
Speaker 1: what these guys do. They are headquartered in Chicago and
Speaker 1: they are risk mitigation experts. If you are going to
Speaker 1: hire someone, if you're going to rent somebody a property
Speaker 1: that you own, or just engage with a major client,
Speaker 1: any business transaction, you want to know who's on the
Speaker 1: other side of that transaction. You want to know is
Speaker 1: that someone you can trust? Is this somebody that you
Speaker 1: can exchange financial and commercial interests with? Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: can be the difference between between big success and failure
Speaker 1: on this one, my friends, check them out my g
Speaker 1: VN dot com, my g VN dot com or call
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five seven nine eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine. You can
Speaker 1: imagine my surprise when you have so many in the
Speaker 1: media and in the Democrat Party and even some Republicans,
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans actually, who are treating the indictment
Speaker 1: of thirteen Russians tied to social media campaign a tiny
Speaker 1: one in terms of the budget, an inconsequential one in
Speaker 1: terms of what it did, and you can imagine my surprise. However,
Speaker 1: when over at MSNBC I hear some analysis that is
Speaker 1: actually quite sound, is actually right on the mark. Here's
Speaker 1: what Adrian Chen, a journalist, had to say about what
Speaker 1: went on with the whole Russia interference situation. Essentially, it's
Speaker 1: so fial media marketing campaign with ninety people, a couple
Speaker 1: of million dollars a few million dollars behind it, um,
Speaker 1: run by people who have, you know, a bare grasp
Speaker 1: of the English language and not a full understanding of
Speaker 1: who they're targeting, what they're targeting. Um. I think if
Speaker 1: you think about that in terms of just a normal
Speaker 1: marketing campaign, that's not going to be a very good
Speaker 1: bang for your book. There's not a lot of people saying, well,
Speaker 1: let's let's hold back. You know, maybe it's not all
Speaker 1: of that big of a deal. Maybe it's not all
Speaker 1: that big of a deal. You know. He makes some
Speaker 1: really really worthwhile points in there too, about how it
Speaker 1: is the case that people were able to tell generally
Speaker 1: who these troll accounts were and what was going on
Speaker 1: because in a lot of them the grasp of English
Speaker 1: wasn't even very good. Well, voll Trump, he is best though,
Speaker 1: love hug and kisses Kremlin. I mean, come on, it's
Speaker 1: just wasn't going to be that effective no matter what.
Speaker 1: It was minuscule when compared to the massive media echo
Speaker 1: chambers on both sides when it comes to the election,
Speaker 1: it's just complete nonsense. But here we we got a
Speaker 1: guy who's want to say, look at maybe people shouldn't
Speaker 1: shouldn't just totally freak out about this, And yeah, that's
Speaker 1: all I'm trying to say about this too. We shouldn't
Speaker 1: freak out about It's not that big a deal. People
Speaker 1: want to make it a big deal because Hillary lost.
Speaker 1: But you see, this is what it brings us back
Speaker 1: to the point about how they were willing to overlook
Speaker 1: it when they thought Hillary was gonna win, because that
Speaker 1: was their their actual judgment at the time. Not that
Speaker 1: big a deal, don't rock the boat. Hillary is gonna win.
Speaker 1: We'll forget all about this. That was their real feeling
Speaker 1: about it. If you don't believe me, just remember this.
Speaker 1: There's President Obama said, there is no serious person out
Speaker 1: there who would suggest somehow that you could even you
Speaker 1: could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so
Speaker 1: decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence
Speaker 1: that has happened in the past or that there are
Speaker 1: instances in which that will happen this time. And so, uh,
Speaker 1: I'd invite Mr Trump to stop lining and go try
Speaker 1: to make his case to get votes, and if he
Speaker 1: got the most votes, then it would be my expectation
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and
Speaker 1: pledge to work with him to make sure the American
Speaker 1: people benefit from an effective government. What Obama said there
Speaker 1: is all true. Actually, hey, look, I give credit. I
Speaker 1: give credit where it's due. Some people are just you know,
Speaker 1: raw raw whatever they think. You know, the conservative populace
Speaker 1: movement wants to hear. Right now, I just tell you
Speaker 1: what I think in any given moment, and what Obama
Speaker 1: said there is true. It being very very hard for
Speaker 1: any one person reging election, be very hard to reg
Speaker 1: an election period. It would be I mean, if you,
Speaker 1: for example, we're to make sure that there was no
Speaker 1: voter I D in place in a whole lot of states,
Speaker 1: and you know, I mean that that would at least
Speaker 1: make it easier. I'm not saying you could, but it
Speaker 1: make it easier. But nonetheless, it would be very hard
Speaker 1: to do alright, realistically, and they knew this, and they
Speaker 1: knew it before and they know it now. But they're
Speaker 1: just so self indulgent when it comes to their anti
Speaker 1: Trump rage that they'll justify anything with it. And that's
Speaker 1: why this whole troll factory. So, I mean, it's funny,
Speaker 1: you know. I was just explaining to a Miss Molly
Speaker 1: a little bit about this, and she's one of the
Speaker 1: great things about our relationship. But she's not somebody who's political.
Speaker 1: You know, she's she's up on what goes on in
Speaker 1: the world, but she's not. It's just she's got other
Speaker 1: things in her mind. It's great and I don't go
Speaker 1: home and have to you know, oh, did you read
Speaker 1: the latest piece in the Weekly Standard. I'm like, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's not it's not how it goes. I was explaining
Speaker 1: this to her and she's kind of like, wait, what,
Speaker 1: how many people? How much money? What? And I was like, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a kind of what situation like this
Speaker 1: is not what they're trying to make it into. And
Speaker 1: that's what is so so exasperating. That's a good word
Speaker 1: for EXASPERA gosh, it's so tired of it. But we
Speaker 1: gotta keep fighting Fox, gotta get the shield high because
Speaker 1: they're they're gonna push on this. This is all about remember,
Speaker 1: all about impeachment and long term all about it. That's
Speaker 1: why they are clinging to the narrative because if they
Speaker 1: are able to they don't. They're not going to get
Speaker 1: removal unless they win the Senate and the House. But
Speaker 1: even if all they can manage is to, let's say,
Speaker 1: take the House, which I think is unlikely, but that's
Speaker 1: what they're hoping, they'll they'll impeach to the president on
Speaker 1: this issue even without a Muller. A Muller never mind
Speaker 1: a smoking gun with anything. I mean, I didn't even
Speaker 1: mention it yet I gotta talk about it. Right after this,
Speaker 1: this latest guy that Muller got, everyone just like, what
Speaker 1: is what is this? Why are we even so he
Speaker 1: he was I have to look, I have to give
Speaker 1: you the details. It's so insignifican again and so nonsensical
Speaker 1: in the broader scope of what Mueller is supposed to
Speaker 1: be looking for here with Russia collusion, that you're forced
Speaker 1: to sit around you say to yourself, what are we
Speaker 1: even spending our tax dollars on here? With he's some
Speaker 1: Dutch lawyer who said something that no one cares about.
Speaker 1: The FBI is now facing prison time. Is crazy. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the fuck never stops. When you return
Speaker 1: an indictment that no one is ever going to be
Speaker 1: tried on, um, you do it because you're trying to
Speaker 1: craft a narrative or make a statement. And I think
Speaker 1: what happened with Mueller's case is the original collusion angle
Speaker 1: that they were proceeding on, which is that the Russians
Speaker 1: hacked the election and that Trump may have been or
Speaker 1: Trump people may have been complicit in the hacking, is
Speaker 1: something that a they don't have evidence of and be
Speaker 1: even if they hadn't, they couldn't prove in court. That's
Speaker 1: a big hole in a collusion case. What Mueller probably
Speaker 1: wanted to do was put to rest any claim that
Speaker 1: Russia hadn't actually uh interfered with our election, and I
Speaker 1: think this indictment is an attempt to do that, But
Speaker 1: it's far afield from what the original collusion allegation was.
Speaker 1: As our friend Annie McCarthy, who was just laying out
Speaker 1: some of his thoughts on Fox News about the Muller
Speaker 1: and Diamond from last week. Very important that we all
Speaker 1: understand they're creating a narrative with all this that Mueller
Speaker 1: is actually bringing a federal case against thirteen Russians, really
Speaker 1: as part of the news cycle. That's what this is about.
Speaker 1: This is it's a news story. It's not actually a
Speaker 1: federal prosecution is not going to go anywhere. The mean anything,
Speaker 1: never going to get these guys. And as I've said
Speaker 1: to you also, I think there's a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: other problems with information warfare as a charge that a
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor, effectively federal prosecutor is is levying against another
Speaker 1: country and what that means for our country. And do
Speaker 1: we ever meddle? I don't know. I think maybe sometimes
Speaker 1: it might have happened somewhere just saying the meddling. But
Speaker 1: you have the Mueller probe continuing on. As we discussed
Speaker 1: last week, there was there were the indictments, and then
Speaker 1: today you have two more bits of information add into
Speaker 1: all this. One you have a colleague of Paul Manaforts
Speaker 1: Gates who has been flipped, we are told who has
Speaker 1: been flipped and is going to testify against Maniport and
Speaker 1: they're gonna be They're gonna try to nail them on
Speaker 1: some fraud stuff and some wire fraud, bank stuff, you know,
Speaker 1: just things that have nothing to do with Russia collusion. Nothing.
Speaker 1: But I've I've said this along you those of you
Speaker 1: who have been listening to the show for a while
Speaker 1: and now over a year on air here in National syndication,
Speaker 1: those have been listening to me for a while now.
Speaker 1: I have been very consistent on this point. This is
Speaker 1: going to grind along, and it's gonna chop up the
Speaker 1: lives of a whole bunch of folks that have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with conspiring with the Kremlin to mess with
Speaker 1: a U. S election. But the left just wants they
Speaker 1: just want to feed bodies into the system that they
Speaker 1: just want scalps. They want people to be punished so
Speaker 1: that there is some sense of wrongdoing from the Trump camp,
Speaker 1: right just because if if anyone goes to pre it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. What for if it's tax evasion, which may
Speaker 1: very well be involved in the Menaphort charge, well then
Speaker 1: they're bad people that around Trump. Keep Menaphort got canned
Speaker 1: during the campaign. It's not Trump's fault. If Manaford was
Speaker 1: doing shady stuff in Ukraine beforehand and whatever. And as
Speaker 1: we all know, the Trump campaign was a little bit
Speaker 1: of an improvisation. I could say that an improvisation. And
Speaker 1: some of the people that were affiliated with an associate
Speaker 1: with the Trump campaign. And this also goes to a
Speaker 1: lot of the never Trump sentiment. You know, all the
Speaker 1: in the political world, the so called best and brightest
Speaker 1: and most connected, we're not going to work for Trump.
Speaker 1: At the beginning. I know because I know a lot
Speaker 1: of those folks. They were running over to the Rubio
Speaker 1: and Cruise campaigns and Jeb Bush, although Jeb Jeb exclamation
Speaker 1: point fizzled out pretty quickly. But it was Rubio and
Speaker 1: Cruz that were attracting the political high rollers so to speak,
Speaker 1: in the in the early days, not Trump. And that's
Speaker 1: why Trump put such a premium on loyalty, because he
Speaker 1: he was really able to see, you know, who's who's
Speaker 1: with me? You know, it wasn't just who's with me
Speaker 1: because you think I'm gonna win, Who's with me because
Speaker 1: they believe? But that meant that there were other people
Speaker 1: who were just opportunists, and Manafort was one of them,
Speaker 1: right manaforts Like yeah, sure, Donald, like I'll come and
Speaker 1: ride this way for a while with you. Why not,
Speaker 1: you know? And if I'll do it for some shady Ukrainians,
Speaker 1: I'll do it for you, right who cares well? Now?
Speaker 1: Manaforts in a in some trouble. Innocent until proven guilty,
Speaker 1: but it looks like he's in a rough spot. Then
Speaker 1: you get this other guy today, and I have to
Speaker 1: read this to you, so I get to make sure
Speaker 1: I get all the specifics clear. The son in law,
Speaker 1: according the Washington Post, here son in law of Russian
Speaker 1: Uh well, here's what the opening paragraph is. The Dutch
Speaker 1: son in law of one of Russia's wealthiest men pleaded
Speaker 1: guilty Tuesday and Federal court in Washington to making false
Speaker 1: statements in Special Counsel Mueller's probe of Russian interference in
Speaker 1: the US presidential election. Alex van der Zwan was charged
Speaker 1: with line to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates.
Speaker 1: Who's that who served as a top official on President
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign and a longtime business partner of former campaign
Speaker 1: chairman Paul Manafort. Based in London, Venders Juan worked for
Speaker 1: the law firms Scatting Arts, very famous, very high end
Speaker 1: uh law firm well known here in New York City.
Speaker 1: A lot of my law school buddies wanted to go
Speaker 1: work there, which worked with Maniford and Gates when they
Speaker 1: served as political consultants in Ukraine. Uh So, this guy
Speaker 1: is thirty three years old and he's pleaded guilty to
Speaker 1: a felony. We don't know what his punishment's going to be.
Speaker 1: He could serve up to six months in prison. But
Speaker 1: now he's a convicted film which I would know what
Speaker 1: means that at least under US law. I mean he's
Speaker 1: a Dutch citizen. Under US law, he could uh not
Speaker 1: practice law anymore as it convicted flans. I don't know
Speaker 1: how that affects him in Europe, but who knows. But
Speaker 1: here's the thing he talked about when he last spoke
Speaker 1: to Gates, and he was off by like a month.
Speaker 1: And they're saying that, you know, that's a big deal.
Speaker 1: It's an ice facing a federal criminal charge. What does
Speaker 1: this vendor's wound guy have to do with anything? Who knows?
Speaker 1: But Mueller's just he's just out taking people down. You
Speaker 1: you know, say what you will about this. You can't
Speaker 1: look at this and not think, how does the Mueller?
Speaker 1: How do Mueller's tactics compared to the FBI's tactics with
Speaker 1: Hillary's emails. Just always keep that in the back of
Speaker 1: your mind and I think you'll understand what's really work here.
Speaker 1: Speaking of which Flynn, was Flynn ambushed? Did they stack
Speaker 1: the deck? Did they cheat to get Flynn's scalp. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about that in just a few minutes. So there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of reporting on Russia collusion last few days.
Speaker 1: There's this whole indictment of the thirteen guys tied to
Speaker 1: the troll factories and the sock puppet maneuvers, all the
Speaker 1: stuff you've seen on Facebook, what we've been talking about
Speaker 1: here on the show. But there's something else that's happening
Speaker 1: in the legal world right now that touches on these
Speaker 1: investigations over Russian interference and theoretical collusion and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff that has to do with the status of
Speaker 1: General Michael Flynn's plea plea do you? So, let's bring
Speaker 1: on somebody who has particular inside in this. We have
Speaker 1: Margot Cleveland with us. She is a senior contribute to
Speaker 1: the Federalist and a lawyer who served nearly twenty five
Speaker 1: years as a career law clerk for federal Apple appellate
Speaker 1: judge and and AGC professor in the College of Business
Speaker 1: at University of Notre Dame. And you are involved in
Speaker 1: this case, Margot, Well, I'm involved in the sense that
Speaker 1: I've been researching it after I started seeing the media
Speaker 1: just ignore all of these problems that have been coming out,
Speaker 1: and when I dug into it more, I realized that
Speaker 1: there is a huge issue of whether or not in
Speaker 1: the plea agreement there was information with help from Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hold On, let me just tell everybody what the title
Speaker 1: of Margot's pieces here, It's how a plea re per
Speaker 1: soul from Michael Flynn could uncover more federal corruption. Margot,
Speaker 1: I read your whole piece. It's really interesting, I think
Speaker 1: very important. I'm somebody who it's very agitated about the
Speaker 1: possibility of federal overreach and prosecutorial misconduct, and this seems
Speaker 1: like it's at least possible right now and trending towards
Speaker 1: likely that there's something going on here with this. Can
Speaker 1: you walk us through what's what what may in fact
Speaker 1: be the case with this Flynn plea deal, and why
Speaker 1: you're seeing it that way? Okay, sure, So after he
Speaker 1: put guilty. Within a week, the judge who accepted his
Speaker 1: guilty plea was taken off the case and a new
Speaker 1: judge was given the case, which by itself, that was
Speaker 1: pretty mysterious. Usually if there's a procusal, it would happen
Speaker 1: before they accept a plea deal. So that was the
Speaker 1: first thing that kind of came out as weird. And then, um,
Speaker 1: it was last week there was a ending order that
Speaker 1: was entered in the case and it was the first
Speaker 1: time I took a look at it, and it required
Speaker 1: the government to turn over any exculpatory evidence to Flynn.
Speaker 1: And at that point it was actually a revised standing order.
Speaker 1: The judge had done it back in December, I think
Speaker 1: it was. And when I looked at a little bit more,
Speaker 1: I thought, you know what, if there is this evidence
Speaker 1: that's not out there, this judge has given the green
Speaker 1: light that this is the basis to withhold the guilty play,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to withdraw a guilty plate. Now whether or
Speaker 1: not the government withheld evidence, I don't know. We'd have
Speaker 1: to wait to see what comes out. But you've got
Speaker 1: to keep in mind who the players are in the
Speaker 1: Flynn case. So we had that FBI duel the ones
Speaker 1: who were texting back and forth, and one of those
Speaker 1: was the individual who had actually interviewed Flynn, which is
Speaker 1: what he was charged with line to the FBI on
Speaker 1: So you look at that, and he originally, the FBI
Speaker 1: agent had originally said he didn't think Flynn was lying.
Speaker 1: Mure set he didn't think Flynn was lying. But then
Speaker 1: Flynn gets indicted on this. So can you how could
Speaker 1: that be possible? Margot? I mean, you've got how could
Speaker 1: some FBI d o J officials think that someone did
Speaker 1: not lie and then that person is charged with lying
Speaker 1: for the circumstances under review. That just seems you know,
Speaker 1: how much faith can we put in the process when
Speaker 1: one FBI guy goes, no, there's no lie and another says, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there's a lie, right, And and that's the
Speaker 1: part that's really concerning, that you have those statements and
Speaker 1: then he gets charged. Now it could be that they
Speaker 1: had more evidence that contradicted something he said in the
Speaker 1: interview that came out later, or that showed that he
Speaker 1: really didn't forget the scenario that was that was some
Speaker 1: of the testimony, that he didn't recall something, or the inconsistent,
Speaker 1: see would be something that maybe he forgot, so who knows,
Speaker 1: maybe they discovered something else. But when you look at
Speaker 1: all the players that were involved in this, they've got
Speaker 1: all of this stuff coming out that is throwing questions
Speaker 1: about their credibility. And if this comes forward, now the
Speaker 1: government has to turn over the savidence. And it sounds
Speaker 1: like that Flynn took the plea deal before he was
Speaker 1: given some of this exculpatory evidence. So again we don't
Speaker 1: know yet what this evidence is. But the judge who said,
Speaker 1: on this case, excuse me, who is currently honest? Judge Sullivan? Right,
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan. Yeah, he's He's a very interesting guy with
Speaker 1: some of his previous decisions too. He is not friendly
Speaker 1: to the government playing games with this exactly. He is
Speaker 1: the judge who when he discovered the withholding of evidence
Speaker 1: in Steven's in the in the Senator to Steven's case
Speaker 1: in Alaska, right, exactly exactly, he was irate. He ordered
Speaker 1: an investigation. He did not tolerate it. So if there
Speaker 1: is nothing, I will absolutely trust Sullivan. So if Sullivan
Speaker 1: comes out and it clears it, I have no concerns
Speaker 1: about the flint component of it is it is it
Speaker 1: a settled matter? And we're speaking to Margot Cleveland. Everyone
Speaker 1: senior contribute to the federalist and she's a lawyer, Margot,
Speaker 1: is it a federal is a federalist? Sorry? Is it
Speaker 1: settled law that you if you take a plea deal
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence that it's found later does not matter? How
Speaker 1: does that work? So essentially forever listening, if they the
Speaker 1: Feds come to me and say you're looking at five years,
Speaker 1: or you plead guilty today and you'll get a six
Speaker 1: month suspended sentence, and if it came out you know
Speaker 1: two weeks after that that the Feds actually knew I
Speaker 1: was innocent all along. Does that matter? It depends on
Speaker 1: where you are. This is an issue that is not
Speaker 1: resolved in the court yet. And that was one of
Speaker 1: the things that I found interesting about Judge Fullisan standing order.
Speaker 1: But the lower courts are actually is split on this.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has never said whether or not withholding
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence in a plea case will result in the
Speaker 1: plea being thrown out. If it's withheld and you go
Speaker 1: to trial, you get a new trial. But in a
Speaker 1: plea case, the courts have different views but this is
Speaker 1: where it's key Judge Sullivan. Sullivan's view is that you
Speaker 1: must turn this evidence over, and if you don't, that
Speaker 1: is a basis for a plea to be withdrawn. He
Speaker 1: is a district court judge in d C. And there
Speaker 1: are at least two, if not three, district court cases
Speaker 1: in d C that have held that. And again that's
Speaker 1: one of the key points that I was trying to
Speaker 1: make in this in this article, trying to take the
Speaker 1: kind of mushy legal stuff and make it pretty clear
Speaker 1: that in his court, if they withheld material exculpatory evidence,
Speaker 1: it would be a basis to withdraw a plea. So
Speaker 1: if it does get with drawn, we're going to know
Speaker 1: there's some problems there. But if it does get withdrawn,
Speaker 1: I mean, Margot, I know you're you're you're a lawyer's
Speaker 1: you're keeping it right on the straight and error here,
Speaker 1: But I'm gonna come out and say, if they withdraw
Speaker 1: the plea, it's because Flynn was getting hosed and this
Speaker 1: was a setup. That's what that means to me. You
Speaker 1: don't have to agree with that, but that's how I see, right,
Speaker 1: and I don't think that's necessarily the case. Flynn might
Speaker 1: have planned for valid reasons, maybe he knew he did
Speaker 1: something wrong, or he might have planed for invalid reasons
Speaker 1: that he was concerned about what it would do to
Speaker 1: his family and the long process, So it could have
Speaker 1: gone one way or the other from a personal standpoint.
Speaker 1: And then how how often does it defend in the
Speaker 1: federal case change a guilty plea unless there's new information
Speaker 1: that would change the status of their I mean, just
Speaker 1: how I've never heard of that happening. Well, it actually
Speaker 1: happens where they try to do it a lot, and
Speaker 1: and usually it's not these high profile cases. But from
Speaker 1: my perspective, the bigger issue if he would draw us
Speaker 1: the plea is that the evidence was withheld. So you
Speaker 1: can kind of look at it two ways. There's the
Speaker 1: Flynn matter of him personally, and then there's a matter
Speaker 1: of what does this say about the prosecutors involved in
Speaker 1: the case. And I think the second issue is the
Speaker 1: one that has broader ramifications. Obviously to Flynn it matters,
Speaker 1: but the broader ramifications if he is able to withdraw
Speaker 1: the plea is that this process was corrupted. That's what
Speaker 1: That's what I mean. It would seem to me pretty
Speaker 1: clear that we're dealing with a bunch of prosecutorial headhunters here,
Speaker 1: which is not a good thing when you're talking about
Speaker 1: an open ended, massive special counsel investigation. Oh. Absolutely, And
Speaker 1: and just to clarify, what I mean is Flynn could
Speaker 1: have done something wrong, whether or not the prosecutors were
Speaker 1: good or bad. But the problem of the plea going
Speaker 1: through in this context is it is showing that there
Speaker 1: would be broader corruption if this providence was withheld. And
Speaker 1: I do want to make one more point here that
Speaker 1: this is really tying into the whole Phis A Court process,
Speaker 1: which really triggered my interest in this when I read
Speaker 1: the House memo that came out and then the Grassly
Speaker 1: Grand memo. The process of the five A Court was
Speaker 1: completely abused from what they said in those memos, and
Speaker 1: I wrote a couple of articles on that that you
Speaker 1: can take a look at it the federalists. But this
Speaker 1: all is going to a broader problem with how the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice is handling things, or I should say,
Speaker 1: select individuals. And to me that shocking because I've known
Speaker 1: some U S. Attorney's assistants, attorneys who have the most integrity,
Speaker 1: and to me, this is what is the most disturbing
Speaker 1: about it. But when we saw from the Ted Stevens thing,
Speaker 1: for example, Senators Ted Stevens, if that doesn't happen, by
Speaker 1: the way, we probably don't have Obamacare. For everybody listening,
Speaker 1: a bunch of federal prosecutors knew that he had expeltatory
Speaker 1: evidence and they hit it. It was terrible exactly. They
Speaker 1: literally were like, oh, we know this guy is innocent,
Speaker 1: let's nail him anyway because he's got in our next
Speaker 1: to his name and he's a senator from Alaska. That's
Speaker 1: what happened there. Margot Cleveland, everybody check out her piece
Speaker 1: how a plea reversal from Michael Flynn could uncover more
Speaker 1: federal corruption. It is really compelling reading. It's up on
Speaker 1: the Federalist dot com. Margot, please stay with it and
Speaker 1: if you have updates, we would love to have you
Speaker 1: back to explain what's going on here. Okay, great, sounds wonderful,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Thanks so much, Margot. Alright, team, we're
Speaker 1: gonna roll into a break. We come back. We are
Speaker 1: going to talk with our friend Sean Davis about what's
Speaker 1: going on with the various fixes that are or whether
Speaker 1: the fixes or not, the various actions that people are
Speaker 1: talking about on guns in the as a result of
Speaker 1: the tragedy and Florida. We'll get into that more. Stay
Speaker 1: with me, Welcome back everyone. So we have been talking
Speaker 1: a lot about guns here in the Freedom Hunt because
Speaker 1: of what happened in Florida. This is the center of
Speaker 1: the national policy discussion right now. It's not immigration, it's
Speaker 1: not even Russia right now. It is in fact, guns,
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment, gun control, what to do about school shootings.
Speaker 1: So there are proposals now on the table. Unlike in
Speaker 1: some previous shootings, there are at least real ideas that
Speaker 1: are being forward and not by everyone, but by some,
Speaker 1: and therefore we should spend some time looking at them
Speaker 1: and judging them on their merits. And to help us
Speaker 1: do that now we have Sean Davis. He is co
Speaker 1: founder of The Federalist. The Federalist dot com is one
Speaker 1: of my favorite commentary sites. You guys should all be
Speaker 1: quite familiar with it. Shawn's the co founder and he
Speaker 1: joins us now. Sean, thank you so much, Thank you
Speaker 1: for having me. Can you just let's let's work through
Speaker 1: what are some of the the biggest takeaways in terms
Speaker 1: of policy from the horrible tragedy in Florida. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can throw some of your way Sean also, if
Speaker 1: there's any I'm leaving out, but I just wanted to
Speaker 1: start with, what do you think about age restrictions for
Speaker 1: buying an A R. I'm seeing that get a lot
Speaker 1: of play. I think they're utterly silly, devoid of information
Speaker 1: on who's responsible for the bulk of mass shootings, and
Speaker 1: just you know, fundamentally at odds with what we know
Speaker 1: about how criminals work and about how human nature works.
Speaker 1: For example, rost out that at the New York Times said,
Speaker 1: you know what, because all these shooters are young men,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't let anyone under thirty by an a R fifteen,
Speaker 1: which number one. It's just it's so silly. There's so
Speaker 1: many other guns out there that are are more powerful,
Speaker 1: have a bigger range, better terminal ballistics, and yet d
Speaker 1: a R has captured UH gun controllers imagination for some reason.
Speaker 1: And then the other issues, looking at the actual data
Speaker 1: of who commits mass shootings in the US, you would think,
Speaker 1: looking at news coverage that it's always alienated young men, teenagers,
Speaker 1: early twenties, and that's just not the case. In fact,
Speaker 1: the majority fifty five percent of mass students in this
Speaker 1: country are committed by middle aged men. Men between the
Speaker 1: ages of thirty and fifty is the majority of mass
Speaker 1: shootings in the US. So these age based restrictions, they
Speaker 1: are their wild attempts to try to come up with
Speaker 1: some way, somehow to ban this gun or that gun,
Speaker 1: but they're just not rooted in the reality of what's happening.
Speaker 1: I think that's the You've made a number of points
Speaker 1: and everybody should keep in mind, but the the the
Speaker 1: one that sticks out the most for me is that
Speaker 1: this would not go to the heart of the problem
Speaker 1: because you're not even necessarily going to legally never mind
Speaker 1: their illegal possession of weapons, which we know is always
Speaker 1: also an issue that comes in here, but too legally
Speaker 1: possessed weapons. People in the age range of mass shooters,
Speaker 1: there will be plenty of them that will be able
Speaker 1: to get them. As you said, so people over thirty
Speaker 1: are engaged in plenty of mass shootings too, So that
Speaker 1: wouldn't stop the problem. Okay, So that one doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like it that that falls in that category for me, Shaun.
Speaker 1: If people say, well, how big a deal is it?
Speaker 1: I would also point out that there's no way it
Speaker 1: would stop at just the a R fifteen because the
Speaker 1: you ban or you you have an age based restriction
Speaker 1: for the a R. People would rightfully say, well, it's
Speaker 1: not really that different from a lot of other rifles,
Speaker 1: and then bam, you'd have a list of like fifty
Speaker 1: to rifles minimum right there. There's no saving a gun
Speaker 1: controller um, because you know, once you get grant the
Speaker 1: principle that it's okay to band this gun or that
Speaker 1: gun or this calibra, that caliber, there's no limiting principle
Speaker 1: on it. Um. And I guess we've talked about this before.
Speaker 1: My big complaint with this debate is it's not actually
Speaker 1: about guns. It's not about gun control. What we are
Speaker 1: having is a debate with guns is proxies about human nature.
Speaker 1: In the nature of man. There are people on one
Speaker 1: side of the debate who thinks that if you congest
Speaker 1: regulate these tools have the right mix of laws, you
Speaker 1: can regulate out of the heart of man an inclination
Speaker 1: or ability to do evil. And then on the other
Speaker 1: side you have people who say, you know what, people
Speaker 1: have been murdering each other for the entirety of human history. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, going back to the very beginning, and the
Speaker 1: most wicked, devastating tool of death that has ever been
Speaker 1: devised is the wicked human heart. And rather than pretending
Speaker 1: like we can just put these things under lock and
Speaker 1: key and then bad people won't want to do bad things,
Speaker 1: maybe we should give good people the ability to defend
Speaker 1: themselves against the bad people. The whole debate, I would
Speaker 1: I would agree with with everything that you just deserted.
Speaker 1: I would also add to it that I think that
Speaker 1: guns becomes also an ideological proxy battleground for the cultural
Speaker 1: left and the right that it's just a way of showing,
Speaker 1: you know, the people and Blue strongholds coastal areas and
Speaker 1: Democrats strongholds of the country, they don't like people who
Speaker 1: own guns. They actually they think that people who own
Speaker 1: guns are roobs and hillbillies and their gross and so
Speaker 1: this is one of the reasons why it becomes such
Speaker 1: an emotional issue for them, because it's a way of throwing,
Speaker 1: you know, throwing some stuff at the other guys. No,
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. It's it's a cultural chivalist
Speaker 1: um and in fact, in a lot of quarters, especially
Speaker 1: in media, you know, we mock people on the left
Speaker 1: for not knowing the slightest thing about guns and just
Speaker 1: messing up in embarrassingly bad ways, basic stuff like at
Speaker 1: one point USA Today said a hot new accessory creation
Speaker 1: the chains I knew you're gonna go with the chainsaw
Speaker 1: on the rail system. That's my favorite too. How can
Speaker 1: I not go after the chainsaw? Theyonet so, but they
Speaker 1: that ignorance is almost a badge of a badge of courage.
Speaker 1: It signifies that they are not going to solely themselves, um,
Speaker 1: but by getting into the mud with these icky, knuckle
Speaker 1: dragging buck tooth hillbilly gun clingers, and you know they're
Speaker 1: they are so much more high minded they don't even
Speaker 1: need to learn about I've said this and I'm so
Speaker 1: happy that someone someone agrees with me. Sean, I've been
Speaker 1: saying that it is viewed as an issue where it's
Speaker 1: the only issue I know of in journalism where to
Speaker 1: be wrong is actually to score points among your own
Speaker 1: because it shows your disdain for the issue. It's like
Speaker 1: it's the equivalent of if a of the announcer ever
Speaker 1: brings somebody on TV and doesn't have their name right,
Speaker 1: that's like the most one oh one thing ever, and
Speaker 1: you can assume that a lot of times they would
Speaker 1: only do it because I don't even care to know
Speaker 1: this person's name with the gun with the anti gun
Speaker 1: crowd in journalism, they didn't even care to know the
Speaker 1: difference between automatic and a semi automatic because it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter because they're all bad. That's actually the mentality they have.
Speaker 1: It is, it is, and they'll get mad at you
Speaker 1: if you nitpick them on stuff like that, like, oh,
Speaker 1: because I didn't know this was a Ruger versus a Rimington's,
Speaker 1: and I can't regulate guns that when it's actually no.
Speaker 1: The last time you tried this, you regulated guns by
Speaker 1: feature and you put stupid features on there that had
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing to do with anything, and then patted yourselves
Speaker 1: on the back for having done a real good job.
Speaker 1: And in fact, one of the people who backed that
Speaker 1: fault weapons ban, Carolyne McCarthy New York, was asked on
Speaker 1: National TV about one of those cosmetics features that was
Speaker 1: listed and banned in the law, and it was with
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson. He said, okay, you you banned a barrel
Speaker 1: for out what's the barrel shroud? And she himmed in
Speaker 1: hod it was appeared she had no idea what it was.
Speaker 1: And finally she said, oh, it's the shoulder thing that
Speaker 1: goes up. Like, you can't have people with that level
Speaker 1: of knowledge writing into law specific definitions that banned this
Speaker 1: thing or that thing. You actually have to know what
Speaker 1: you're doing, just as you wouldn't want a mechanic who
Speaker 1: didn't know the difference between a ranch and a screwdriver
Speaker 1: taking apart your engine. It's just dumb. And also let
Speaker 1: me that these bands they put in place, people can
Speaker 1: get arrested for this stuff. I think that's often lost here.
Speaker 1: It's not like we're no longer offering this product at
Speaker 1: your local CDs or something. If they put a magazine
Speaker 1: ban in place in a certain state, they will arrest
Speaker 1: people for that there. And in looking back again at
Speaker 1: the nineties four law, they had things on there like,
Speaker 1: you know, if it has a bayonet lug, not even
Speaker 1: a beyonet, a bayonet lug, it's ban. Or if it
Speaker 1: has a muzzle break or a collapsible stock, well, you
Speaker 1: know what people did to get around it is they
Speaker 1: would pen and weld the stock, and then they would
Speaker 1: pen and weld level device under the barrel cut off
Speaker 1: suddenly it's compliance. The gun functionally was no difference than
Speaker 1: it was before. I want to ask you. We're speaking
Speaker 1: to Sean Davis of The Federalist, Everybody's co founder of
Speaker 1: the Federalist. You can check out his latest on the website.
Speaker 1: UM one that that is getting a lot of attention.
Speaker 1: And then I think is a is a good faith
Speaker 1: effort and at least worthy of discussion. Well, I guess
Speaker 1: they're all worthy discussion, but worthy of perhaps further investigation.
Speaker 1: Is David French in National Review. Although he said it's
Speaker 1: not his idea, he's forwarding the proposal for a temporary
Speaker 1: restraining order for the purchase of firearms. What say you,
Speaker 1: Sean Davis, and correct me if I'm wrong. He was
Speaker 1: talking about related to mental health. Correct, yes, sorry, So
Speaker 1: I should have explained it. So it's a it's a
Speaker 1: it's a temporary straining order based on a mental health
Speaker 1: adjudication to prevent somebody for a period of time for
Speaker 1: forgetting a gun. They'd have to go in front of
Speaker 1: a cord. There obviously be some So this was essentially
Speaker 1: a version of a much because it's very hard to
Speaker 1: get somebody adjudicated mentally incompetent, which is a good thing
Speaker 1: because we actually don't want people to be able to
Speaker 1: be locked away unless there's very good reason. But this
Speaker 1: would be to say, hey, look, the same way that
Speaker 1: you can't have a gun because of a domestic violence
Speaker 1: conviction in the past, or if you've ever been the order,
Speaker 1: have you ever been under a protective order? I believe
Speaker 1: there's also some restrictions in some states. UH in this case,
Speaker 1: if the people around you think you're nuts, you can
Speaker 1: go before a judge that they can say, all right,
Speaker 1: you for this period of time, no gun for you.
Speaker 1: You know, I like David French a lot. I know
Speaker 1: where he's coming from. UM. In principle, I don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with his idea. I think that's fine. In practice,
Speaker 1: I have lots of concerns because it's there's just so
Speaker 1: many things that go into the details of that. You know,
Speaker 1: what's going to re required, what's the evidentiary standard, what's
Speaker 1: your ability UM to go and argue your own case
Speaker 1: in court. If it turns out a bunch of co
Speaker 1: workers or neighbors who are mad at you, UM have decided,
Speaker 1: you know, they don't like these gun humps, so they're
Speaker 1: gonna get this guy's guns taken away, but assuming it
Speaker 1: could all be done in a good faith way where
Speaker 1: you can mitigate or eliminate the the chances of chicanery
Speaker 1: or revenge based targeting of gun owners. I don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with it. I think that I think it's
Speaker 1: totally fair what I wish we would do, however, rather
Speaker 1: than everyone trying to come up with clever new laws
Speaker 1: to put on the books, I really do wish we
Speaker 1: would enforce the laws that we have now, because what
Speaker 1: we had in Florida was a kid who told me
Speaker 1: envisited thirty nine times he had put on YouTube that
Speaker 1: he wanted to shoot up at school. All his classmates
Speaker 1: knew it, the FBI knew it, and they did nothing.
Speaker 1: So what on earth is a new law going to
Speaker 1: do when you have a regime which we saw in
Speaker 1: Florida where all of the warning signs were there, everyone
Speaker 1: knew this guy was a ticking time bomb and nobody
Speaker 1: didn't think about it. Jean, is there anything that you
Speaker 1: think that really was there anything that's at the top
Speaker 1: of your list before we let you go, that you
Speaker 1: think should be done here in response to the shooting? Yeah? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I think, um, knowing what we do about each cowards
Speaker 1: to love targeting defense with people who can't shoot back, um,
Speaker 1: knowing what we do about that. Maybe we should stop
Speaker 1: making our schools completely defenseless and soft targets. Maybe we
Speaker 1: should give teachers and employees and administrators who are already
Speaker 1: licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe
Speaker 1: they've gone through extra training. You're already trusting these people
Speaker 1: with your children all day long. It's about time we
Speaker 1: give people who are already trained and licensed to do
Speaker 1: this stuff the right to protect the children under their
Speaker 1: charge while they're at school. Let's stop broadcasting to these
Speaker 1: evil cowards so they can go into these gun free
Speaker 1: zones and turn them into free fire zones and start
Speaker 1: sending the message that if you set foot on this
Speaker 1: campus with a gun intent on doing harm, we're going
Speaker 1: to put you down. Sean Davis, co founder of the Federalists.
Speaker 1: Check out the Federalist dot com for more of their writing. Sean,
Speaker 1: always appreciate you make the time. My friend talks soon.
Speaker 1: It's a pleasure, sir. Thank you say we're gonnaroll into
Speaker 1: a quick break. Will be right back. So I see
Speaker 1: that Jay Law was initially reported, and for those who
Speaker 1: are not into this kind of stuff, I'm assuming that
Speaker 1: a very small percentage of this audience subs ribs to
Speaker 1: People magazine or reads US weekly. My only connection to
Speaker 1: pop culture is Miss Molly. She keeps me informed, so
Speaker 1: I don't say things like, you know, who are who
Speaker 1: are the Kardashians again or whatever. She makes sure that
Speaker 1: I know what's going on in the world other than
Speaker 1: politics and national security and political philosophy and whatnot. But
Speaker 1: it turns out that Jay law Jennifer Lawrence, actress of
Speaker 1: many films, is not taking a break from acting for
Speaker 1: the I initially thought she was, and I came on,
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, oh no, because you know, truth
Speaker 1: be told him kind of a jailaw fan. You know,
Speaker 1: I appreciate, I celebrate her whole catalog. I think it's
Speaker 1: it's got a nice, nice body of work. Um. And
Speaker 1: yet here we are being told in advance that we
Speaker 1: can expect there to be some politics coming out of
Speaker 1: Miss ms Lawrence the next year because activism to celebrities,
Speaker 1: they never do activism. That's not at least I never
Speaker 1: hear about. Maybe that's a better way to put it.
Speaker 1: I never hear about activism that isn't in the realm
Speaker 1: of progressive virtue signaling. Why can't we have more celebrities
Speaker 1: whose activism is I want to, you know, raise lots
Speaker 1: of money for charter schools in the inner city. I
Speaker 1: want to raise lots of money for uh A specific
Speaker 1: cancer research program or whatever it is, all these good things.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I'd like to see more really
Speaker 1: big name celebrities out there that are are raising money
Speaker 1: for you know, St. Jude's. Why is it that we
Speaker 1: always have these celebrities that are global warming I got
Speaker 1: to go to international summits and talk about global warming,
Speaker 1: or you know, it's it's always a transgender rights global warming,
Speaker 1: just something that's in the progressive vanguard. I would have
Speaker 1: so much more respect for what they're doing if they
Speaker 1: leverage their celebrity for something that was just clearly of
Speaker 1: public benefit and not some form of brand enhancement for themselves.
Speaker 1: Because when you do things like you know, Leonardo DiCaprio
Speaker 1: with this whole climate change thing. The guy's literally flying
Speaker 1: around the world on his private jet to go to
Speaker 1: climate change meetings. You know, talk about this and they're
Speaker 1: not to be mean, but I mean, I don't even
Speaker 1: think the guy. I think it's unlikely the guy has
Speaker 1: like a tenth grade reading level, and yet he's gonna
Speaker 1: lecture the whole world on the most among the most
Speaker 1: complicated scientific issues facing the international community today. Although I
Speaker 1: don't think it's really I don't think the answer is
Speaker 1: that complative. The answer is we don't really have to
Speaker 1: do anything, and it's gonna be fine. But I know
Speaker 1: people yell at me for that. Don't use the paper bags, buck,
Speaker 1: don't use them. Why what's gonna happen? The earth will mouth? Uh? Anyway,
Speaker 1: So Jay Law is gonna be doing activism next year.
Speaker 1: I saw that today. She's good. I mean, I like
Speaker 1: Jay Law. Not not quite as good as Jessica Biel,
Speaker 1: but she's close. You know, they're they're in a similar
Speaker 1: similar category. Um, And I'm gonna switch out to George
Speaker 1: Clooney before I get myself into trouble. And George Clooney
Speaker 1: is also talking about doing more politics. Now they're saying
Speaker 1: maybe even Clooney twenty. Now here's the thing about that,
Speaker 1: And just this is not a knock on the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: It's just a statement of reality. Until now, when a
Speaker 1: well known celebrity said he or she was thinking about
Speaker 1: running for the presidency. It was an understandable reaction for
Speaker 1: a lot of us to just say, oh, that's a
Speaker 1: version of brand enhancement, right, this is a lot of
Speaker 1: free press, and you know, they'll get their name out there.
Speaker 1: But remember, if we're gonna be honest about it. When
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was first running in this twenty six cycle,
Speaker 1: a lot of people said that about Trump. A lot
Speaker 1: of people. I remember that White House corp White House
Speaker 1: or was it the White House cor Respondence dinner where
Speaker 1: Obama made a Trump joke or was it the other Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think like the Smith dinner. I forget what it's called. Anyway,
Speaker 1: they made a joke about Trump, you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. Yeah, they made he made some joke about Trump.
Speaker 1: Obama did, and Trump was just like, oh really, it
Speaker 1: was the correspondence dinner. Yeah, that's right. And and Trump
Speaker 1: was just like, oh really, oh really. And then later
Speaker 1: when he started to run, people were like, this is
Speaker 1: all a publicity stunt. Well, clearly it wasn't. Because he's
Speaker 1: now the president of the United States. That just means
Speaker 1: that when you've got a celebrity, now whether it's Clooney
Speaker 1: or Oprah or any of them. You are in a
Speaker 1: position where you gotta at least look at it on
Speaker 1: the merits and say, okay, maybe maybe what would George
Speaker 1: Clooney be a formidable political candidate? I'm not sure, but
Speaker 1: I can't say definitely not because the guy looks like
Speaker 1: a political candidate, which unfortunately means a lot these days
Speaker 1: because of our mass media environment. It's all chain so much,
Speaker 1: hasn't it. You know, did anybody in like eighteen eighty
Speaker 1: know what the president even looked like or sounded like.
Speaker 1: I mean a few people did, but for the most part,
Speaker 1: you voted for a platform. You have some rough idea
Speaker 1: of what you know this guy or that guy stood for.
Speaker 1: Maybe you heard him at a speech, you know. I
Speaker 1: mean back in the day, the presidents were like doing
Speaker 1: their own dry cleaning, and it was a very different,
Speaker 1: very different environment. Now it's all about mass media. Now
Speaker 1: it's all about the propaganda involved here, and uh, well,
Speaker 1: it's propagand if you think it's a bad thing, it's
Speaker 1: just public relations. If you think it's a good thing,
Speaker 1: but you have celebrities that are gonna increasingly get an
Speaker 1: apolot there's no question about it. They're gonna get into politics.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be a result of Trump's success, just a
Speaker 1: side effect, you could say, of a reality TV star
Speaker 1: what she was, who is now the commander in chief
Speaker 1: and the leader of the free world. I don't think
Speaker 1: that j Law is gonna go quite in that direction,
Speaker 1: but I'd be I'd be torn, you know, there's a
Speaker 1: part of me that would be like, come on, Jay Law,
Speaker 1: we can make you a conservative. Yet, although I'm sure,
Speaker 1: I'm sure her politics are very progressive and annoying, and
Speaker 1: I'm okay with some level of that. I'm all right
Speaker 1: with people that have their own beliefs and thoughts but
Speaker 1: aren't too aggressive about mixing the platform they have for
Speaker 1: one thing, in this case, acting with their political political
Speaker 1: prescriptions for the rest of us. But we know that's
Speaker 1: not how it goes That's not how it goes down.
Speaker 1: They always they always try to, oh I'm at the oscars,
Speaker 1: let me make my political speech now, right, It's not
Speaker 1: like they're generally separating these things out. So we'll see
Speaker 1: Jane Law, Clooney, probably some others out there are going
Speaker 1: to get into the game too. We'll see where all
Speaker 1: this ghost team. Um, we're gonna talk to you about
Speaker 1: stress in a moment. Got some thoughts on it. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. I like to share a little bit of
Speaker 1: wisdom that I've acquired in my thirty six years on
Speaker 1: this earth. A lot of you were like, yeah, whipper snapper,
Speaker 1: double that number and then listen to your wisdom. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: I think that I have picked up some things. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm sharing it for my my younger millennials, my not
Speaker 1: yet gray bearded millennial listeners, and some others. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that I've I've come to understand as
Speaker 1: I get older, is that it is on you as
Speaker 1: an individual to figure out what works for you in
Speaker 1: terms of managing stress. I don't think there's nearly enough
Speaker 1: that is talked about. There's nearly enough talk in our
Speaker 1: society about this specific issue. And when you look at
Speaker 1: any number of ailments out there, you see that stress
Speaker 1: is a direct contributor and in some cases, I would
Speaker 1: I would argue the root cause of some of the
Speaker 1: problems that you see out there. I mean, stress obviously goes.
Speaker 1: Cardiac events are related to stress, and heart heart disease
Speaker 1: and UH and cancer are still you know, the two
Speaker 1: big lethal diseases that we have to worry about in
Speaker 1: this country, but stresses in everyday life, and it's really
Speaker 1: important to get a sense of how you can manage
Speaker 1: it yourself. I just I'm thinking about it because the
Speaker 1: average American, according to this study that was linked up
Speaker 1: on the Drudge Report today, the average American has sixty
Speaker 1: bad days a year according to the survey, which means
Speaker 1: you spend two months a year thinking that you're having
Speaker 1: a bad day. So it's it's more than just having
Speaker 1: a case of the mondays, because that would be fifty two, right,
Speaker 1: So it's so you get you're averaging over we the
Speaker 1: American people are averaging over one bad day each week.
Speaker 1: And eighty percent of those twenty four hour periods that
Speaker 1: are ranked in this survey as stressful are from work
Speaker 1: related stress, which I would have assumed. There's other stuff
Speaker 1: too that are that are cited in the study illness,
Speaker 1: financial worries, feeling unclean or disheveled. Now, I've had some
Speaker 1: days where I felt unclean or disheveled in the office
Speaker 1: that ruined my day in my previous career before media,
Speaker 1: but I have to tell you that those were self
Speaker 1: induced um, I had no one to blame but myself
Speaker 1: for wearing the same clothing to the office the next day.
Speaker 1: The headache that I may or may not have been
Speaker 1: nursing was the result of active decision making on my part.
Speaker 1: And while I may have been in throbbing and lingering
Speaker 1: pain for the day at the office, in my earlier days,
Speaker 1: sometimes it was worth it. I'm just saying there were
Speaker 1: times when it was. It was an even trade off, right.
Speaker 1: It's like misery at work, keeping the waste paper basket
Speaker 1: close and still worth it, still worth it. Not anymore
Speaker 1: now I'm like, oh my gosh, somebody, somebody tries to
Speaker 1: get me to drink more than two glasses of anything.
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh god, come on, what's going on here.
Speaker 1: I know I'm a I'm a lightweight, but it is
Speaker 1: what it is. You got you gotta understand who you are.
Speaker 1: You know, know thyself to thine own self be true,
Speaker 1: said the buffoon halona Us in Hamlet. People always think
Speaker 1: Hamlets said it. No, you know who you know who
Speaker 1: corrected us as a country on that one share from Clueless.
Speaker 1: That's why we all know that line now, see very
Speaker 1: important movie. So anyway, so you get sixty seven per
Speaker 1: cent of an individual's uh se percent rather of an
Speaker 1: intervitor's dissatisfaction or any given day was related to sleep.
Speaker 1: You gotta get enough sleep. This is you know. My
Speaker 1: parents told me this growing up all the time, and
Speaker 1: they were totally right. And I would stay up super
Speaker 1: late and then I have to get up. And I
Speaker 1: remember going and going into my high school and just
Speaker 1: feeling day after day like I was in some zombie
Speaker 1: state of about to fall over any minute. Its because
Speaker 1: I didn't getenough of sleep. I go to bed, like
Speaker 1: to two o'clock in the morning. Mom's listening, She's like, really,
Speaker 1: you're up that late. Yeah. Sometimes I would just stay up.
Speaker 1: Parents are go to bed, like watch TV, watch HBO
Speaker 1: at two am. There was some interesting stuff on HBO
Speaker 1: a two am. So anyway, I would stay up super late.
Speaker 1: It's really really bad for you. We all have this us.
Speaker 1: We all have our our achilles heel, whether it's financial,
Speaker 1: whether it's just dealing with workplace situations, or any number
Speaker 1: of things. How you manage it is one of the
Speaker 1: most important things in life. It really is, I mean
Speaker 1: not important on an existential being, a virtuous, worthwhile person level.
Speaker 1: But important on a how you're taking care of yourself,
Speaker 1: and I finally taken care of yourself. It is so
Speaker 1: very very important. I used to think certain things were
Speaker 1: maybe a little frivolous or oh no, no, no, You've
Speaker 1: got to find what whether if you gotta get some
Speaker 1: outdoors time to paint, if you gotta watch birds, if
Speaker 1: you The main thing they talk about in here is
Speaker 1: actually getting to the gym, which I know all of
Speaker 1: us are like, uh gosh, I mean I have the
Speaker 1: same thing. I'm like, I gotta go to the gym.
Speaker 1: I feel like a hamster on a wheel, a hamster
Speaker 1: that you know shouldn't have eaten so many bacon cheeseburgers
Speaker 1: this week that all said, I've never left the him,
Speaker 1: and I always trying to remind myself of this. It's
Speaker 1: like one of the struggles that I have day day
Speaker 1: to day. I've never gone to the gym and left
Speaker 1: the gym, been like I wish I hadn't done that,
Speaker 1: And yet and yet every day I'm like, I'm kind
Speaker 1: of tired. I got a lot of I got a
Speaker 1: radio show to get ready for. I don't think I
Speaker 1: really want to do this. Probably the most important single
Speaker 1: stress relief you can do and and in fact, ah,
Speaker 1: sleeping is is critical, right, Sleeping is really really really essential.
Speaker 1: And that means also if you have to take catchup
Speaker 1: naps the next day, twenty minute naps. They've done a
Speaker 1: lot of study on it, really really important. You don't
Speaker 1: have to call it a CS tho. We don't have
Speaker 1: to make this some big cultural event, you know, it
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily have to involve uz uzo and like lying
Speaker 1: out in the sun by the beach, although that sounds
Speaker 1: really nice actually now, but like it doesn't have to be.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of Greek he has to the only place
Speaker 1: I've ever really spent much time where they had that.
Speaker 1: But um, the other thing that you should keep in
Speaker 1: mind is that for people actually who are older now,
Speaker 1: they are finding more and more that weight bearing exercise
Speaker 1: is critical, really good for your for your sense of
Speaker 1: well being, really good for your physical and for your
Speaker 1: mental health. I think that we haven't yet made this
Speaker 1: switch as a culture because people think of weight training
Speaker 1: generally as some guy who like has no knack who's
Speaker 1: in the gym and is trying to lift some giant thing.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't have to be heavyweights. But it's just
Speaker 1: resistance training for older people. And so anybody fifty five
Speaker 1: and above, resistance training means you're gonna be you know,
Speaker 1: limber and spry and energetic and on it longer. And
Speaker 1: the research on all this is very compelling. So and
Speaker 1: it also is really helpful for dealing with stress people.
Speaker 1: And this survey also said they have a drink when
Speaker 1: they're really stressed. You know, sometimes sometimes you've got to
Speaker 1: sit back and have a a glass of whatever your
Speaker 1: favorite is. You know, it's all about it's all about moderation.
Speaker 1: I believe the ancient Greeks referred to it as metron,
Speaker 1: a state of perfect balance. They tried to achieve this
Speaker 1: in all things physically, philosophically. Oh yes, sometimes you just
Speaker 1: bring ancient Greece into a conversation because and I think
Speaker 1: I just did that. But it is important to achieve balance.
Speaker 1: So I'm just saying, we're all stressed folks. We've all
Speaker 1: got our stuff, family, stress, work, stress, everything else. If
Speaker 1: you've got less than sixty rough days a year, you're
Speaker 1: doing well. According to this study, most folks have about
Speaker 1: sixty bad days a year, and regardless of whether it's
Speaker 1: a hundred bad days, or ten bad days. How you
Speaker 1: deal with them is just critical because I'm telling you know,
Speaker 1: because constructive ways of relieving stress means you'll have fewer
Speaker 1: bad days. I don't care what the sign says in that,
Speaker 1: I just know that that's true. So some some free
Speaker 1: Graybeard millennial life wisdom on the show today. We are
Speaker 1: going to run into a quick break and we'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Well. I tend not to talk about the
Speaker 1: weather here on the show because you've got a lot
Speaker 1: of other radio stations that do that. But I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna gloat for us second that it is uh so
Speaker 1: gorgeous right now in New York City. I think it's
Speaker 1: in the high sixties right now. I mean it is.
Speaker 1: It is crazy warm in this town, which for this
Speaker 1: time of year feels is very very very unexpected. I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that wherever you're listening across the country, you also
Speaker 1: maybe took the chance to go outside and see if
Speaker 1: you could enjoy a little white zin. You know, yeah,
Speaker 1: at sixties six degrees here in New York, so you know,
Speaker 1: across the country, I'm assuming it's got to be pretty warming.
Speaker 1: Some places, I think, oh yeah, we're getting crushed with
Speaker 1: like a winter storm in a couple of days. That
Speaker 1: sounds about right. Yeah, that's what I thought. I was
Speaker 1: all happy for a moment here. I was gonna maybe
Speaker 1: go up to the roof of my building tonight. And
Speaker 1: it also makes me want to make snarky remarks about
Speaker 1: global warming. One of the problems that I've always had,
Speaker 1: Never mind the inaccuracies around the previous predictions and all
Speaker 1: the hysteria of people who are just so deeply, deeply
Speaker 1: concerned earned with global warming, I'm still flabbergasted. Fun word
Speaker 1: that we should throw around more that when you ask
Speaker 1: somebody of the stature of say Melinda Gates of the
Speaker 1: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the richest people in the
Speaker 1: world or in the top two or three. I think
Speaker 1: sometimes depending on how what kind of day Bezos is having,
Speaker 1: he may be number one, but among the very richest
Speaker 1: people in the world. And you ask Bill and the
Speaker 1: Lindia Gates with their biggest concern is and they're trying
Speaker 1: to deal with h diseases like malaria and others, and
Speaker 1: sure enough you'll find out that it is it is
Speaker 1: climate change that is their number one concern. Speaking to
Speaker 1: a friend of mine about this, earlier today. I just
Speaker 1: couldn't believe it, he said there, and I'm like, wow,
Speaker 1: people at that level, with that access to expertise and
Speaker 1: knowledge and information, and sure enough, but it would be nice.
Speaker 1: Or the reason I bring this up is that much
Speaker 1: of the country would be in great shape if it
Speaker 1: got an average of two or three degrees a year warmer.
Speaker 1: And people say all the seas would rise. We got
Speaker 1: a lot of land will be all right. Land has
Speaker 1: been shifting continuously, as we know, over time, and there
Speaker 1: is no such thing as a perfect temperature. There's no
Speaker 1: such thing as global homeostasis. To bring back a word
Speaker 1: from anatomy class, which is your body trying to maintain
Speaker 1: an equilibrium homeostasis. It's fun to throw it out there sometimes, like, hey,
Speaker 1: how are you feeling? I hit my homeostasis today. Oh really,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, I did. Anyway, it's warm here.
Speaker 1: It's not global warming, but it will be fine with
Speaker 1: me if it were. Uh. So there you have it,
Speaker 1: all right, Let's get to some Let's get some roll call. Please,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll call. I love our
Speaker 1: voiceover guy. His voice is awesome roll call. So let's
Speaker 1: get it going here. Uh, Daniel writes in with the following, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: are there going to be more episodes of Shields High?
Speaker 1: The fourth step fourth episode was the last one I
Speaker 1: listened to back in January. I've been itching to hear more, Daniel.
Speaker 1: The answer is yes. The problem is there's just not
Speaker 1: enough Buck to go around these days. I'm I'm running ragged,
Speaker 1: as they say, trying to keep up with all my
Speaker 1: various responsibilities and obligations. And Shields High as a labor
Speaker 1: of love. I just put it out there because I
Speaker 1: like it and and you have asked for it, and
Speaker 1: that's why we It's a it's an additional product that
Speaker 1: we've done here in the Freedom Hunt, and it's just
Speaker 1: out there for people to listen to and folks to
Speaker 1: enjoy and who believe in the brand. I'm actually gonna
Speaker 1: be speaking to a friend this week, someone I work with,
Speaker 1: about whether we might be able to find an even
Speaker 1: better home for it on buck Sexton dot com, and
Speaker 1: the idea being that then I could also add links
Speaker 1: and reading material and make it a really more fully
Speaker 1: interactive experienced photos and or really paintings, not photos of paintings. Right,
Speaker 1: there's no photo graphs that I know of in the
Speaker 1: fifteenth century at least. Uh no photographs back then, and
Speaker 1: uh yeah, So thank you for your your question about it,
Speaker 1: and I know I'm I really enjoy doing it too.
Speaker 1: But as you can imagine, it takes up quite a
Speaker 1: bit of time. And the more you guys spread it
Speaker 1: around we look at the numbers, the more folks listen
Speaker 1: to it and and share it and interest there is
Speaker 1: the easier days for me to ask the bosses here
Speaker 1: to let me devote time and resources to it. Glenn,
Speaker 1: Glenn is the next up at bad Here Netflix, Amazon
Speaker 1: suggestion Longmire is great, but have you tried Justified? Timothy
Speaker 1: Oliphant is the star, although the co star, Walton Googin's
Speaker 1: his character Boyd, is great. I think it is on
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime. Yes, I can tell you, Glenn, I have
Speaker 1: tried Justified. I got a few episodes in and did
Speaker 1: not finish it for reasons that I cannot think of
Speaker 1: right now. I probably just got distracted with something else. Um,
Speaker 1: but I've heard very good things and what I saw
Speaker 1: was very good, so I'll probably go back and check
Speaker 1: it out again. It had a great pilot, which is
Speaker 1: so essential both in getting a show made from a
Speaker 1: production standpoint, and then in drawing people in to listen
Speaker 1: to it. Uh. Next we get Michael here with oh,
Speaker 1: but thank you, I would not for the for the suggestion.
Speaker 1: Miss Molly and I are are going back and forth
Speaker 1: now between the marvelous Mrs Mazel, which I highly recommend, Brandon,
Speaker 1: uh and Mike. But Mike's not here right now in
Speaker 1: the room. Have you seen it? No, I'm telling you
Speaker 1: that you have Netflix right yeah. Oh no, it's on
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime. Do you have Amazon Prime? No? See, that's
Speaker 1: the thing I would recommend the marvelous Mrs Mazel to
Speaker 1: any of you are listening. It's Uh, it's fun for me,
Speaker 1: especially because a lot of it is filmed in and
Speaker 1: around places I know in New York City. Ah. Then
Speaker 1: there's also Ozark, which I'm liking more than I thought
Speaker 1: I would. If you liked Breaking Bad, as I said,
Speaker 1: you have to check out Ozark. I really should get
Speaker 1: like Netflix to sponsor the show. I'm like a Netflix fiend,
Speaker 1: old books, Netflix and take out food. That's pretty much
Speaker 1: the center of my fun wheelhouse. That's that's what gets
Speaker 1: me going. Oh and coffee, of course, black rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: I feel like garths sometimes in Wayne's World, when he's
Speaker 1: got the spot, he's got all the sponsor gear on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. We were in bed. You need copeat sponsors.
Speaker 1: He's covered in reebok And that's one of the great
Speaker 1: Waynes World is a great movie too. Um, but I
Speaker 1: do drink black rifle. I love it, and I love coffee.
Speaker 1: Next up here is James. Um. I've been solving New
Speaker 1: York Times styled cross words for about four decades. One
Speaker 1: of the most frequently used abbreviations uh in the grades
Speaker 1: is n r A. Clueing comes off as Second Amendment defenders,
Speaker 1: Warren Lapierre's organization, peace loving Group, etcetera. I've practically written
Speaker 1: in n r A over three to five written in
Speaker 1: pardon me, over three to five thousand times in the grids.
Speaker 1: That's that seems like a lot. So my question to
Speaker 1: you is can I expect to see n r A
Speaker 1: reclude or use less often in the puzzles? Why can't
Speaker 1: the New York Times be more likely more like the
Speaker 1: daily twenty square inches of decency of plumb, thought, provoking, ingenuity, etcetera. Uh,
Speaker 1: great job on your show, Buck and shields high, James,
Speaker 1: I have a confession to make. I have never done
Speaker 1: a crossword puzzle in a newspaper I think. Ever, it's
Speaker 1: actually just not something I've ever done. So I have
Speaker 1: no knowledge, background, or insight to offer on this whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I'm just not a crossword puzzle guy. I did play
Speaker 1: some chess growing up, so I enjoyed chess, and I'm
Speaker 1: better at chess than I let on. I always downplay,
Speaker 1: like I can barely play because I like to hustle people.
Speaker 1: You could call me a chess shark. That means that
Speaker 1: you know I wear like a shiny leather, shiny leather
Speaker 1: vest and a pocket protector at the same time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's up, chess shark? Uh? But anyway, I was I
Speaker 1: was thinking of one of those those jackets that people
Speaker 1: used to wear and like the seventies that are I
Speaker 1: don't know, I is it vinyl. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's whatever it is. I was trying to, like, like
Speaker 1: with the wide collar and the big chain and everything
Speaker 1: with leisures. Yeah, like a leaser, So I got a
Speaker 1: leaser shoe. Well, lease your suit while I'm playing chess.
Speaker 1: So therefore I also wear my pocket protector because I
Speaker 1: don't want to get ink stains in my shirt pocket. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Next up we have uh Jen who is Oh? Jen
Speaker 1: is asking me if I can do an interview for
Speaker 1: her international TV news outlet. Well, um, I don't know, Jen.
Speaker 1: I just saw this now, so let me get back
Speaker 1: to you in a few minutes. I don't even know
Speaker 1: what this is, what this is talking about. I'll have
Speaker 1: to check this. Sometimes this happens, folks. Producers reach out
Speaker 1: to you on Facebook and they're like, hey, you want
Speaker 1: to come to The BBC tends to do that. So
Speaker 1: whenever I see the BBC writing me on Facebook, it's like, hey,
Speaker 1: they missed Sexton. Just wondering perhaps you could give us
Speaker 1: five minutes of your time to come on the radio
Speaker 1: show later. We're hoping you can give this a former
Speaker 1: Central Intelligence age see Perspective on the following I'm all
Speaker 1: BBC emails are read in my head in that voice.
Speaker 1: That's how I just assume that's how they go. So, oh,
Speaker 1: here we go. Paul Paul's writing into chied me a
Speaker 1: little bit. That's okay, Paul, remember the team you can.
Speaker 1: I want friendly and constructive criticism to just not all
Speaker 1: caps profane criticism. But Paul writes in in very very
Speaker 1: friendly manner. Change the narrative, Buck, quit talking about the
Speaker 1: Russian collusion, and start talking about the Trump economic success. Paul.
Speaker 1: I certainly try to do that, and I will keep
Speaker 1: trying to do that. So let's just say that I
Speaker 1: appreciate the helpful reminder. Without my friends, Freedom Hunt is
Speaker 1: closing up for the day. Thank you, as always for
Speaker 1: being here until next time, which is tomorrow. Shields High