Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The forever coup is
Speaker 1: upon us. Rashida to leave of Congress, wants to arrest people.
Speaker 1: The ruckus over Syria continues. Where's Hunter Biden? And Third
Speaker 1: world blackouts in California. We'll talk about that and much
Speaker 1: more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake America. You're a great American Again the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Secton Show. Everybody. Happy Columbus Day to all of you,
Speaker 1: to all with no just kidding. You're not listening to
Speaker 1: at the night some of you at least aren't. I
Speaker 1: would say that Columbus Day is not one that we
Speaker 1: should just give up to the other side. We shouldn't
Speaker 1: accept what the liberals are saying, the leftists are saying. Now.
Speaker 1: I believe there's the movement to foot to call it
Speaker 1: Indigenous People's Day. I would prefer that we just celebrate
Speaker 1: the holiday as it was initially intended, which is the
Speaker 1: discovery of America by the European world, and as we
Speaker 1: know there's a lot of history that's very messy, that's
Speaker 1: violent and bad and oppressive, and that's true of all
Speaker 1: human beings all over the world, for all of history.
Speaker 1: So that's nothing particularly new or distinct about Columbus Day.
Speaker 1: I wonder if there'll be any protests here at Columbus Circle.
Speaker 1: Who would have thought years ago that that would be
Speaker 1: a place a lightning rod for the social justice warriors.
Speaker 1: The tearing down of history as we have known it
Speaker 1: and the replacement of it with narratives all focused on oppression,
Speaker 1: and as I've explained to you in different shows at
Speaker 1: different times, what you won't hear are the leftists who
Speaker 1: want to argue for the replacement of Columbus Day with
Speaker 1: Indigenous People's Day. You won't hear a discussion about, well, okay,
Speaker 1: can we discuss the oppression of Native peoples in the
Speaker 1: new what we call the New World by other native
Speaker 1: peoples that the Aztec Empire, for example, which Cortez, through
Speaker 1: all kinds of scheming and machinations, was able to overturn
Speaker 1: with a few hundred men. The Aztec Empire was built
Speaker 1: on slavery and oppression and mass murder, human sacrifice. Do
Speaker 1: we talk about anything. No, that's just that's all fine,
Speaker 1: I guess, because you know those were the traditions of
Speaker 1: the time. You won't hear much discussion of that. All
Speaker 1: those things are true. By the way. You also won't
Speaker 1: hear much about the Comanche, for example, and what is
Speaker 1: now the Midwestern United States and the Great Plains area,
Speaker 1: and their willingness to sometimes exterminate neighboring tribes and take
Speaker 1: all their stuff and all their land. You won't hear
Speaker 1: much about that. You know. This is this is where
Speaker 1: if we're going to do the history, let's really do
Speaker 1: the history. If we're going to have a discussion about
Speaker 1: what used to happen in the world, then let's really
Speaker 1: have it, and not just pick and choose things that
Speaker 1: are favorable to a leftist narrative of European colonialism and
Speaker 1: depression and never talking about any of the good stuff either.
Speaker 1: This is like when people complain about America, and I
Speaker 1: always want to say, well, maybe also thank us for computers,
Speaker 1: most of the major technological advancements of the last seventy
Speaker 1: five years or so, and also the greatest period of
Speaker 1: human prosperity and relative peace in not just the modern world.
Speaker 1: If you're going to argue simply for material prosperity. More
Speaker 1: people lifted out of poverty in the last fifty years
Speaker 1: than in all of human history before that because of
Speaker 1: a system that America is the leading force for capitalism. Baby,
Speaker 1: that's right, good things, good things. How do we go
Speaker 1: from Columbus to capitalism? That's just the magic of the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. That's what we do here. But maybe
Speaker 1: I'll go back to Columbus later on. Maybe we'll talk.
Speaker 1: It would be fun to do an entire series on
Speaker 1: Cortez and the Conquistadors. I've mentioned this before. The history
Speaker 1: shows of the great battles of Cross and Crescent, like
Speaker 1: Lepanto and Malta and others. Will return to that in
Speaker 1: the Shields High series we do here on the show
Speaker 1: or as a part of the show, but I also
Speaker 1: want to do a whole series and in in the Conquisators.
Speaker 1: Amazing stuff, so much that's missed in history class too.
Speaker 1: How many how many Americans even know that? I would
Speaker 1: mention the planes what are known as the planes Native
Speaker 1: Americans formerly when I was in high school, for its
Speaker 1: planes Indians, But that's of course not the term, not
Speaker 1: the preferred nomenclature anymore, that they got horses from the
Speaker 1: Spanish conquistadors, that they did not have domesticated horses in
Speaker 1: the New World. And in fact, one of the great
Speaker 1: advance manages that Cortez and other Spanish conki sat Or
Speaker 1: in particular, had were the horses that they brought with
Speaker 1: them as part of that military conquest. Steel gunpowder horses.
Speaker 1: You have that the other side doesn't. It's usually gonna
Speaker 1: be a better day for you than for them. But
Speaker 1: now shall we turn to the news of the day.
Speaker 1: My friends. Oh, we have so much to do, and,
Speaker 1: as is often the case, so little time to get
Speaker 1: through it. The best single thing that I read all weekend.
Speaker 1: I spent a lot of time of the weekend reading,
Speaker 1: as I tend to do, as I'm sure many of
Speaker 1: you do. But the best thing that I read all
Speaker 1: weekend was from Matt Taiebe. Now, mister Tayibi is a
Speaker 1: man of the left. I wouldn't say that I could
Speaker 1: speak to exactly how he would self describe or what
Speaker 1: would be the proper designation for him on the left
Speaker 1: man of the left, but does engage in what you
Speaker 1: could call traditional journalism. Any he finds out and presents
Speaker 1: information that is new to people. And I always have
Speaker 1: a respect for that. And I don't mean leaks from
Speaker 1: powerful people in one political party in government for example,
Speaker 1: and then the pretense that that is the real journalism.
Speaker 1: And all these people who are you know, CNN, White
Speaker 1: House Correspondence, they're doing such hard work. No, they're just
Speaker 1: taking gossip that's handed to them by officials and then
Speaker 1: printing news stories based on it. They're not digging and finding.
Speaker 1: And I mean, in general, it's fun to speak in
Speaker 1: generalities because at least then you can always get out
Speaker 1: of it when someone challenges you. But the truth is
Speaker 1: the Taiebe sometimes does very very good work. He's best known,
Speaker 1: I think, or at least for me, perhaps he's best
Speaker 1: known for being the guy who popularized the term face
Speaker 1: sucking vampire squid in reference to the Goldman Sachs investment bank.
Speaker 1: And what happened after the financial financial what do we
Speaker 1: call it, the Great Recession, the financial downturn of two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, and how Goldman Sachs was bailed out
Speaker 1: one hundred cents on the dollar, all of its counterparty
Speaker 1: risk taken up by the government one hundred cents on
Speaker 1: the dollar. No haircut for Goldman huh Lehman went Dunzo
Speaker 1: bear Stearns rap rap. But Goldman Sachs didn't lose anything.
Speaker 1: In fact, made a ton of money, had some of
Speaker 1: its best years after the collapse. It's good to be
Speaker 1: very tied in with the federal government. A very bad
Speaker 1: economic lesson, a very bad financial lesson for this country, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: But perhaps we'll return to that another day. But he
Speaker 1: wrote a piece about the Taiebi wrote a piece in
Speaker 1: Rolling Stone called We're in a permanent coup. Americans might
Speaker 1: soon wish they had just waited their way out of
Speaker 1: the Trump era. Yeah, you don't say. He goes into
Speaker 1: some of the time that he had spent, particularly in
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, as a journalist as a reporter there,
Speaker 1: and how there were just different periods and different moments
Speaker 1: when a one group of military general's advisors would say,
Speaker 1: all right, we're just gonna seize We're just gonna seize
Speaker 1: power in Moscow. And then it was famously at one
Speaker 1: point a race between between Gorbachoff and some of them
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Yeltsin rather whatever one of those Russian guys.
Speaker 1: The effort to oh no, it was I'm sorry. It
Speaker 1: was first Gorbachof, and then later there was an effort
Speaker 1: against the Yeltson different coups. They placed Mikhail Gorbachof under
Speaker 1: arrest an attempt to seize Moscow. In nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: Boris Yeltson's crew quote drove to the Russian White House
Speaker 1: in ordinary cars, beating KGB coup plotters who were trying
Speaker 1: to reach this seat of Russian government back in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety one in armored vehicles. A key moment came when
Speaker 1: one of Yeltsen's men, Alexander Rutskoy, who two years later
Speaker 1: would himself lead a coup against the Yeltson, prevailed upon
Speaker 1: a major in a tank unit to defy KGB orders
Speaker 1: and turn on the criminals. We have long been spared
Speaker 1: this madness in America, Taiebe writes. Our head counting ceremony
Speaker 1: was election day. We did it every four years in
Speaker 1: the Trump era. That's all over. You see, this is
Speaker 1: the necessary context, This is the necessary backstory for everything
Speaker 1: that you're seeing now about the Ukraine phone call and
Speaker 1: Russia collusion and Trump paying off Stormy Daniels and camping
Speaker 1: all of us. This is the forever coup. This is
Speaker 1: the effort by the establishment in politics, in media, and yes,
Speaker 1: within the federal bureaucracy itself, which is now the de
Speaker 1: facto fourth branch of our government. This is their effort
Speaker 1: to undo the twenty sixteen election, but also, and in
Speaker 1: many ways more importantly, to prevent this from ever happening again.
Speaker 1: This was not supposed to happen. They did not think
Speaker 1: it would happen. Remember, back in twenty sixteen, the belief
Speaker 1: of the New York Times and many others going into
Speaker 1: election day was over ninety percent certainty that Hillary Clinton Hello,
Speaker 1: would be President of the United States. That was a
Speaker 1: charming Hillary hillo for you, by the way, in case
Speaker 1: you were wondering, In case you missed her, My Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren is getting to the point now where I might
Speaker 1: just start doing Elizabeth Warren for you on the air
Speaker 1: and see if you can tell the difference. We're getting
Speaker 1: to that level. But they thought Hillary was going to win.
Speaker 1: There were certain she was going to win, and then
Speaker 1: when she didn't, they had a mental breakdown, a mass
Speaker 1: mental breakdown, And ever since then they've been trying to
Speaker 1: find some way to engineer, some way to end the
Speaker 1: Trump president presidency prevent a second term and also prevent
Speaker 1: another interloper usurper. Not an interloper because he cheated in
Speaker 1: the election, although they've tried that routine, because he's not
Speaker 1: supposed to be the president. They're not okay with this.
Speaker 1: And what's even more frightening to the deep state and
Speaker 1: the political establishment, which does include no small share of Republicans,
Speaker 1: by the way, what's even more frightening to them is
Speaker 1: that President Trump has done, despite what you're hearing right now,
Speaker 1: a good job. The economy is very strong. We have
Speaker 1: not been hit with a mass casualty international terrorist attack.
Speaker 1: We are not escalating a war. We're not taking dozens
Speaker 1: or hundreds of US casualties a month. We're not starting
Speaker 1: a war. We are not bowing down in some cases
Speaker 1: previously as we saw literally bowing as the president was
Speaker 1: fond of doing when it was President Obama, bowing to
Speaker 1: foreign leaders all over the world. We are pursuing the
Speaker 1: interests of the American people and doing so unapologetically. And
Speaker 1: the results are in, and the results do not leave
Speaker 1: enough leeway for the deep state on the left to
Speaker 1: argue that they would do or at least to convince
Speaker 1: I should say, they'll certainly argue to convince people that
Speaker 1: they would do a better job. Really, you believe that
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders would do a better job as president of
Speaker 1: the United States? Who can really think that and be
Speaker 1: serious afterwards? That Joe Biden, Oh, we'll get to Biden
Speaker 1: and Hunter Biden and that whole mess the media's own goal,
Speaker 1: as they would say in soccer or football. If you
Speaker 1: don't like callings, you know, it's soccer. But they scored
Speaker 1: on themselves. They didn't mean to by bringing up the
Speaker 1: whole Ukraine situation, because what Hunter Biden did is wrong,
Speaker 1: is gross. Maybe it's not illegal, but it's clearly influenced
Speaker 1: peddling and influence selling. And anybody says otherwise as a
Speaker 1: liar or isn't paying attention. But the forever coup is, or,
Speaker 1: as Taiebi writes about it, the permanent coup is upon us.
Speaker 1: They will not relent, They will not accept this circumstance.
Speaker 1: And even if Trump wins a second term, by the way,
Speaker 1: they will continue to try and ouced him from office.
Speaker 1: They believe some of these talking points you hear that
Speaker 1: he is a clear and present danger to our democracy,
Speaker 1: a republic, but they like to call it a democracy.
Speaker 1: They believe that anything that they have to do, anything
Speaker 1: that would work against this president, is well well within
Speaker 1: their justification. They'll just find a way to say, sure,
Speaker 1: if it hurts Trump, if it helps us, we'll do it.
Speaker 1: Why aren't they Why aren't the leftist, the Democrats, the Commyists,
Speaker 1: the Brennanists having an armored column on the way to
Speaker 1: the White Oh, because it wouldn't work. You have to
Speaker 1: start ask yourself the question, though, if they thought it
Speaker 1: would work, would they do it? How far are we
Speaker 1: from being in a country where when you have the
Speaker 1: former heads of the intelligence community under the previous administration
Speaker 1: saying the current president is a traitor, as they have
Speaker 1: done many times, the current government is run by a
Speaker 1: pawn of the Russians who has sold us out. How
Speaker 1: far are we from some members of the deep state,
Speaker 1: at least considering what we saw in the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: of the nineteen nineties, and I've seen in so many
Speaker 1: other countries, an actual forcible seizure of power. Now you
Speaker 1: may say, Buck, that's insane, that's crazy, that would never
Speaker 1: happen to that. I would point out that Congresswoman Rashida Talib,
Speaker 1: who is a radical, has openly discussed Congress considering arresting
Speaker 1: people who do not arresting White House employees or former
Speaker 1: White House employees who do not show up to be
Speaker 1: a part of Congress's impeachment inquiry charade. That's right, seizing people,
Speaker 1: taking away their freedom, arresting them because they will not
Speaker 1: do this. Maniacal left wing Democrat majority in Congress is bidding.
Speaker 1: Once you start arresting some people because they do what
Speaker 1: the White House says and not what the Congress says,
Speaker 1: where does that stop and start? What are the outer
Speaker 1: boundaries of that? How far can that go? And how
Speaker 1: far are we from a country where people not just
Speaker 1: in secret plot to overturn a presidency, but decide the
Speaker 1: moment is upon us getting the cars race to the
Speaker 1: White House, We're going to seize power. How far away
Speaker 1: is that really from the thoughts of some of these leftists.
Speaker 1: I think it's fair to ask. I think it's fair
Speaker 1: to wonder. It's definitely getting closer. I just want to
Speaker 1: cut through it all and keep it very real with
Speaker 1: people about what we're up against. We have homophobic psychopaths
Speaker 1: running the United States today, that's the reality. We have
Speaker 1: a Secretary of State, as was mentioned, that believes that
Speaker 1: gay people are sinners based on who they are. If
Speaker 1: Mike Pence, God bless him, ended up in the White House,
Speaker 1: sitting behind that desk in the Oval Office, he would
Speaker 1: have us all in concentration camps hoping to prey away
Speaker 1: the gay That's what we're actually up against. You know,
Speaker 1: I've talked about the gay agenda, and when I was
Speaker 1: growing up, people were terrified of me pushing this gay agenda. Listen,
Speaker 1: the gay agenda is to survive until tomorrow. And you
Speaker 1: ask LGBT people of color, you ask trans women of
Speaker 1: color what that's like. And they're not so much concerned
Speaker 1: about what Joy Reid might have said twelve years ago
Speaker 1: on a blog that is evolved now into really an
Speaker 1: alliance with us. They're worried about what's happening right now
Speaker 1: on Pennsylvania Avenue, and they're wondering why the media didn't
Speaker 1: rain down a firestorm on these people, these homophobic psychopaths,
Speaker 1: who are derailing the conversation and turning back the clock
Speaker 1: on everything we've worked so hard on. So I guess
Speaker 1: I'm just here today to implore the viewers to please,
Speaker 1: I can't I can't handle it. Stay focused on isn't
Speaker 1: that amazing? That that was all played on national television
Speaker 1: on cable news on MSNBC a guest without any pushback
Speaker 1: whatsoever from the host, without any Hey, maybe that's a
Speaker 1: little that this White House is homophobic psychopaths who want
Speaker 1: to put people in concentration camps. And then they turn
Speaker 1: around and want to lecture us. Then the leftists want
Speaker 1: to say Trump's rhetoric is out of control, Trump's rhetoric
Speaker 1: could lead to violence. Well, there's this there's this person
Speaker 1: who is being given a major platform on the premier
Speaker 1: leftist network MSNBC, Sorry, CNN. They're saying that the president
Speaker 1: is a psychopath who wants to put people in concentration camps.
Speaker 1: Does that seem extreme to anyone? What does the left
Speaker 1: say these days? That doesn't feel like it's extreme. No,
Speaker 1: The Trump rallies are his strong supporters. I mean, lock
Speaker 1: her up, I mean all the things he says, all
Speaker 1: the vicious, mean things he says. They love it. There
Speaker 1: are these people in this country. They're good Americans. Otherwise
Speaker 1: they'll probably give you the shirt off their back. They'll
Speaker 1: help you if you need. But they have this fixation.
Speaker 1: They want to return this country to the white Christian
Speaker 1: country that they believe it should be again. They don't
Speaker 1: want the diversity, and they follow him for her this,
Speaker 1: But they're not the country. We are diverse people. We
Speaker 1: are good and strong because of that, and we're going
Speaker 1: to come back to that, I assure you. Oh yes,
Speaker 1: let's hear from Sam and Donaldson, who is not very smart,
Speaker 1: who is not very impressive, but existed in a media
Speaker 1: environment where if you're the guy with the hairpiece on
Speaker 1: television getting to sound like this, the whole country how
Speaker 1: to listen to you because you were a news anchor.
Speaker 1: They love to do this. They love to bring I
Speaker 1: think that I was on CNN and I'm just playing
Speaker 1: this up. We're going to get a whole old, the
Speaker 1: whole range of left wing crazy here as this forever
Speaker 1: coup continues on anything to stop Trump. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: they'll say, well, but Trump is so mean. I know
Speaker 1: there was some video that was shown at a conference
Speaker 1: that has all this violence in it, another saying Trump
Speaker 1: isn't he? Trump had nothing to do with it. But
Speaker 1: they're gonna say Trump's inspiring violence. And yet The things
Speaker 1: that are said about this president on a daily basis
Speaker 1: are insane. These people are nuts, I guarantee you. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've I've interviewed Mike Pence, I've interviewed his daughter. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've met I've met friends with people on his staff.
Speaker 1: Mike Pence is like the last person on earth who
Speaker 1: would put anybody in a concentration camp. All right, He's
Speaker 1: an incredibly nice, decent, considerate human being, and anyone who
Speaker 1: knows him knows that I'm talking about putting people in
Speaker 1: concentration camps. But how crazy is that rhetoric compared to
Speaker 1: say what AOC and other de amocrats would say about
Speaker 1: what's going on, what was going on in our southern
Speaker 1: border with the detainment of people who were coming into
Speaker 1: the country illegally, concentration camps. I'll never forget when the
Speaker 1: former governor of Michigan, when I was in the Bill
Speaker 1: mar Show, I was trying to have a discussion about
Speaker 1: how Democrats are now for open borders, which is insane,
Speaker 1: but they basically are. They do not believe in any
Speaker 1: real enforcement of immigration laws. And Jennifer Graholm turned on
Speaker 1: HBO in front of millions of people watching and yelled
Speaker 1: kids in cages, kids in cages, as though that was
Speaker 1: a refutation of what I was saying, which is that
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is absolutely insane on the issue immigration. Now,
Speaker 1: it's indefensible because they won't even defend what they want.
Speaker 1: They'll just say it, and when you push them on it,
Speaker 1: they'll yell kids in cages in your face. It's like
Speaker 1: arguing with toddlers a lot of the time. Then, as
Speaker 1: we know, Democrats will use children for the purposes of
Speaker 1: advancing arguments that are intellectually indefensible, but emotionally the residence
Speaker 1: is what they're looking for. That above and beyond anything
Speaker 1: else we were hearing there from Sam Donaldson, just the
Speaker 1: very kind of political analysis you would expect from somebody
Speaker 1: who's not used to having to know anything and not
Speaker 1: used to being challenged. Oh White House correspondent for CBS
Speaker 1: or ABC or whoever he was. Trump supporters want or
Speaker 1: quote return this country to the white Christian country they
Speaker 1: believe it should be again. They don't want the diversity.
Speaker 1: This is just a repeat of Okay, so everyone who
Speaker 1: supports Trump is racist, right, That's what they always say,
Speaker 1: And then they wonder why we won't listen to them
Speaker 1: when they then want to lecture us on the best
Speaker 1: way to tackle climate change or what we're gonna do
Speaker 1: with healthcare, because they're not willing to make real arguments
Speaker 1: without always attacking the basic decency and morality of the
Speaker 1: other side. Sam Donaldson, you know CNN actually will have
Speaker 1: on I love this. They'll have on Dan rather sometimes
Speaker 1: to talk about journalism. A man who exists from an
Speaker 1: era in which if he were not the luckiest man imaginable.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy was being beamed into the homes
Speaker 1: of millions of Americans who really had no There are
Speaker 1: only three choices when this guy was making his career.
Speaker 1: It's all you needed, were the execit CBS to be like, well,
Speaker 1: this guy looks and sounds the part. He's a newsman.
Speaker 1: These guys are not impressive people. But CNN still clinging
Speaker 1: to this fiction that journalism used to be this great
Speaker 1: and noble endeavor and it's been corrupted. No, now we
Speaker 1: just know who these people were, and thanks to social
Speaker 1: media in particular, we have an understanding of just how
Speaker 1: partisan they are, what kind of activists they really are.
Speaker 1: Sean Donaldson, Oh, this is what I think about Republicans
Speaker 1: Trump supporters, Thanks buddy, but oh we want a little
Speaker 1: more crazy. Maybe this is to remember, these are the
Speaker 1: people that are telling you there's not an effort at
Speaker 1: a coup. This isn't where they're not going to do
Speaker 1: anything to get rid of Trump before the action can
Speaker 1: even happen. And oh, it's Trump's rhetoric that's so troubling.
Speaker 1: Here's the former national security advisor and oh, we're going
Speaker 1: to get into Syria. Don't worry, We're going to talk
Speaker 1: about any Obama illustration's foreign policy, which now a lot
Speaker 1: of people in the media are conveniently forgetting about. But
Speaker 1: here's former a former national security advisor to Obama, Susan Rice,
Speaker 1: just on how terrible Trump is. It's appalling, and it's
Speaker 1: so much worse than I imagined. Every day a lie,
Speaker 1: a disparagement, and a trashing of the institutions and the
Speaker 1: norms that we all believe have held us together. And
Speaker 1: what's so extraordinary is it's all about him. I mean,
Speaker 1: we talk about foreign policy and he says his doctrine
Speaker 1: is America First. What I think we're seeing is it's
Speaker 1: really me first. And that's how he is governing. Everything
Speaker 1: is about him and so the notion that you could
Speaker 1: attack a whistleblower with legal protections in our system, which
Speaker 1: is set up to enable transparency and to guard against
Speaker 1: precisely the kinds of abuses he's perpetrating, and to assume
Speaker 1: that that's therefore he's called it worse than that, he's
Speaker 1: called it close to being a spy, treason. In effect,
Speaker 1: he's not just the whistleblower, but the people who the
Speaker 1: whistleblower talked to in the White House. So he is
Speaker 1: arrogating to himself the the institutions of the state is yeah,
Speaker 1: I am the state, right, That's what we're seeing now.
Speaker 1: It's that that is not an exaggeration. That's how serious
Speaker 1: it is. Yes, yes, that's it's not an exaggeration. That's
Speaker 1: say what I am the state loud the fourteen famously said,
Speaker 1: and Trump is, oh, he's exactly the same. Maybe they
Speaker 1: can do another think piece at the New York Times.
Speaker 1: I think they did one about two weeks ago that
Speaker 1: Trump's not going to leave office when he loses. This
Speaker 1: is the stupidity that we all have to live with
Speaker 1: that that they can say any any level of hysteria.
Speaker 1: Trump's putting people in concentration camps. Trump is a dictator.
Speaker 1: Trump is a fascist. Trump isn't going to leave office.
Speaker 1: This is mainstream. That was Anderson Cooper, Oh, beloved, beloved
Speaker 1: by Democrats, a left wing, a left wing so called
Speaker 1: journalist who when you look at what's really gone on
Speaker 1: at CNN, all that's happened is that the mask has
Speaker 1: dropped at CNN, and we now know that this is
Speaker 1: what it has always been. They're just unable to hide
Speaker 1: it very well, which is a left wing propaganda organ
Speaker 1: But the stuff about how Trump is now every bit
Speaker 1: is he's really monarchical, right, He's maniacal. He's monarchical. Think
Speaker 1: of a crazy word to say about this president, they
Speaker 1: will say it. So then I would ask you when
Speaker 1: we talk about a deep state, and she was discussing there,
Speaker 1: Susan Rice was discussing Trump's feelings about people within the
Speaker 1: government who are supposed to be working for the implementation
Speaker 1: to implementation of Trump policies. There have been illegal leagues.
Speaker 1: There have been efforts to collude behind the scenes for
Speaker 1: parties and reasons against this president. So how should he
Speaker 1: react to that? You should think that that's fine. Did
Speaker 1: you ever see anything like this during the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: were there any government officials who were keep in mind,
Speaker 1: people like McCabe breaking the law, people like Comy breaking
Speaker 1: regulations all to settle a score with the president. Of
Speaker 1: course not. There are just some things that they the
Speaker 1: left do that we don't do. The left likes cancel culture.
Speaker 1: Conservatives the right we don't. Culturally speaking, we're not into it.
Speaker 1: The left likes Boycott's, conservatives don't. And as somebody who
Speaker 1: used to be a federal government employee working at the
Speaker 1: Central Intelligence Agency, I can tell you that conservatives also
Speaker 1: just suck it up and deal with it when they
Speaker 1: are somebody who is at the head of government that
Speaker 1: we don't like, because we have this thing called an election,
Speaker 1: and the election will determine whether or not this person
Speaker 1: stays in power. It is really such a slight It
Speaker 1: is so unfair, unfounded. When you hear these democrats in
Speaker 1: these libs claim that Trump may not leave office. Trump
Speaker 1: supporters wouldn't. We would not be okay with that. That's
Speaker 1: such a whore. It's like saying that we'd be okay
Speaker 1: with Trump putting people on concentration camps. They tell me,
Speaker 1: they say these things about Trump that are so awful
Speaker 1: that are going to happen, and I end up looking
Speaker 1: And this happens frequently in my discussions with increasingly shrill
Speaker 1: and hysterical liberals. They think that the people that vote
Speaker 1: for Trump would allow the things that they're worried that
Speaker 1: would happen. It's never the stuff that has happened, really,
Speaker 1: it's always the story that they tell themselves about what
Speaker 1: would happen. Unless we have the destruction of the Trump residency,
Speaker 1: it can't even be allowed to go to the next
Speaker 1: election because I think they realize that if there is
Speaker 1: another election and Trump loses, let's just say in a
Speaker 1: sense that will legitimize it, he will have had four
Speaker 1: years in office. He will have been the president. And
Speaker 1: if there's a peaceful transfer of power, all of that
Speaker 1: whining and crying about how Trump would he's a dictator,
Speaker 1: He's gonna leave office. It'll be shown to be exactly
Speaker 1: what we already know it is, which is the hysteria
Speaker 1: of people who are emotionally and psychologically damaged. Because after
Speaker 1: eight years of an Obama administration that catered to every
Speaker 1: cultural and psychological whim of the progressive left in this country.
Speaker 1: After that, now you have a president who doesn't just
Speaker 1: go politically the opposite direction, but speaks about these issues
Speaker 1: differently and calls out those who are used to being
Speaker 1: able to get their way and say whatever they want
Speaker 1: and just just here clapping, just one standing ovation after another.
Speaker 1: Now there is another side to these discussions that happen
Speaker 1: in public. There is another another voice out there that
Speaker 1: should be heard. If what Susan Rice and Sam Donaldson
Speaker 1: and whoever that was on MSNBC said were true about
Speaker 1: the president, why does half the country still support him?
Speaker 1: Because we're all so evil, we don't care about our
Speaker 1: fellow human beings, We don't care about it. What is
Speaker 1: more likely that the terrible things that the left keep
Speaker 1: claiming are going to happen never happen because they're hysterical
Speaker 1: and they've lost it, or that half the country just
Speaker 1: doesn't care about America or they're fellow Americans anymore. I
Speaker 1: think we all know the answer, But unfortunately, Liberals, they're
Speaker 1: never going to stop. Do you think that the Democrats
Speaker 1: will impeach you, Well, I think it's a hoax, and
Speaker 1: I think if they do, they're going to suffer at
Speaker 1: the ballot box because the only thing impeachable. Is the fraud.
Speaker 1: I'm not the American people because he made up my conversation.
Speaker 1: He made a conversation that didn't exist. He never thought
Speaker 1: in a million years that I was going to release
Speaker 1: the real conversation. And when it did, the whistle blower
Speaker 1: turned out to be totally inaccurate. Meaning you can make
Speaker 1: your own determination. They say a lot of things about
Speaker 1: the whistleblower, they protect him. I think we have to
Speaker 1: find out who the whistleblower is that would give all
Speaker 1: this false information. And also Adam Shift, something has to
Speaker 1: be done. How can somebody stand up before Congress and
Speaker 1: make a speech about my conversation, which is Ward Award
Speaker 1: reading my conversation and it's a fraud. He made it
Speaker 1: up himself. Well, there's no accountability for any fraud against
Speaker 1: this president. Anything that is done by anyone on the
Speaker 1: left to hurt Trump is excused, is in fact encouraged.
Speaker 1: It goes beyond just being excused. People view this as
Speaker 1: a noble a noble calling, sliming, smearing, attacking this president
Speaker 1: with falsehoods, whatever you have to do, it's all part
Speaker 1: of the hashtag resistance. It's like my friend over at
Speaker 1: the wall Street Journal, Kim Strassol Resistance at All Costs,
Speaker 1: that's her book. It's totally true. We should have Kim on,
Speaker 1: by the way, we'll have Kim on later this week.
Speaker 1: But they'll do anything in order to resist Trump, and
Speaker 1: anything is therefore justifiable to resist Trump. And that's a
Speaker 1: very important distinction that we should all be we should
Speaker 1: all be aware of going forward. And if you looked
Speaker 1: at this from the other side, if you look at
Speaker 1: this from the other perspective, I keep hearing how Obama
Speaker 1: would have been impeached one hundred times over if he
Speaker 1: had done the things that Trump has done. And to this,
Speaker 1: I say, well, if that's true, why do Democrats even
Speaker 1: pretend that they shouldn't impeach the president every day? It's
Speaker 1: a different story, it's a different narrative. Well, we're not
Speaker 1: sure if we should impeach Trump. We absolutely shouldn't peach Trump.
Speaker 1: Impeach him for this, impeach him for that. What about
Speaker 1: proposing a legislation that would do something that would make
Speaker 1: the lives of American people better? I mean, Democrats spend
Speaker 1: all their time with Trump hatred and so very little
Speaker 1: time on anything constructive. I think it's because when you
Speaker 1: look at some of the policies, what are the big
Speaker 1: ideas that they are putting forward? The Green New Deal, Wow,
Speaker 1: single payer, medicare for all. These are things that are
Speaker 1: fantasies even if a Democrat won the election. That's the
Speaker 1: big that's the big secret here. That's really the part
Speaker 1: of this that they don't want to get into. Even
Speaker 1: if they were in power, they would not do the
Speaker 1: things that they say they want to do. So then
Speaker 1: why pretend, Well, because they set the goalpost even further
Speaker 1: and then they'll get closer to it. Right, Oh, we
Speaker 1: want the Green New Deal, but world will accept cap
Speaker 1: and trade, or you know, we want the single payer,
Speaker 1: but we'll accept a massive expansion of Obamacare that creates
Speaker 1: creates a specific public option. That that's what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do. That's what the plan is here. Old. Oh
Speaker 1: by the way, Lee Zelden is just saying, hey, how
Speaker 1: about some rights for Republicans from the Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: who are always talking about how Trump is destroying institutions.
Speaker 1: Trump is eliminating all the guardrails of the guardrails of
Speaker 1: our democracy. These guys all think that someone's going to
Speaker 1: be inscribing their words and in marble near a statue
Speaker 1: in DC play eighteen. If you would, my good man,
Speaker 1: let's hear from Representative Zelden on this. How about the
Speaker 1: Democrats provide the Republicans and the President the same exact
Speaker 1: rights that they would demand if everything was reversed. You're
Speaker 1: talking about an appeachment of the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: and everything is going to happen behind closed doors, offering
Speaker 1: no protection whatsoever, no transparency, no accountability, no due process. Substantively,
Speaker 1: you should know every single word that we just heard,
Speaker 1: but instead you heard none of the American public heard
Speaker 1: none of it because Chairman Chief instead chooses to put
Speaker 1: his own spin to it. And that's outrageous. And the
Speaker 1: American public are fed up with what they are watching.
Speaker 1: It is disgusting, isn't it. Oh, let's have an impeachment
Speaker 1: of the president, but all of the testimony right now,
Speaker 1: it happens in secret. Let's have secret testimony. But then
Speaker 1: we'll trust Adam Schiff, who is a liar, to be
Speaker 1: the one who translates like he did before. Remember, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm going to pretend that I'm reading a transcript of
Speaker 1: the President's speech. That's just something I made up. The
Speaker 1: words are not the words, my friends. The evidence is
Speaker 1: not the evidence. This is a Kafka esque nightmare, one
Speaker 1: that they're dragging not just the president of the United
Speaker 1: States into, but the entirety of the American people, which
Speaker 1: is the plant. That's what they're doing. That's why we are,
Speaker 1: in fact, in the permanent coup, or as I am
Speaker 1: calling it to the forever coup. We are in the
Speaker 1: midst of it. You might as well understand that beat
Speaker 1: him like a drum. If I get the nomination and
Speaker 1: here's the deal, and you go to you go to
Speaker 1: three foreign governments, not just all about me, three foreign
Speaker 1: governments and ask them to come in and interfere in
Speaker 1: the sovereignty the sacredness of the American electoral process. Come on,
Speaker 1: come on, this is outrageous. How if in fact, the
Speaker 1: House doesn't move and let the facts forward, they may
Speaker 1: And what does the next unethical president if we elect
Speaker 1: another one, what's that say they can do? What's that say?
Speaker 1: What's going to happen? They have to know there's consequences.
Speaker 1: I may be the last guy to public recall for impeachment,
Speaker 1: but I'm the only reason there is impeachment going on.
Speaker 1: Because this president has I've written extensively about how this
Speaker 1: president our democracy is a literally at stake. It's not
Speaker 1: a joke. This most corrupted administration in modern American history,
Speaker 1: maybe every been in modern American history. Democracy at stake,
Speaker 1: most corrupt administration in modern American history. I wonder how
Speaker 1: blue collar Joe would define that. One. I love this
Speaker 1: a lot, Democracy at stake. And yet they're the ones
Speaker 1: who don't want to have an election. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that want you avert the choice of the American people
Speaker 1: from happening in twenty twenty. They want to take us
Speaker 1: in a different direction than that. Why not just make
Speaker 1: all the effort right now, all the energy, to just
Speaker 1: focus it on beating the president of the next election.
Speaker 1: And I know that they, as I've said, they'll complain
Speaker 1: and say, oh, but he won't leave office and he's
Speaker 1: a fascist. I mean, that's just stupid. People say that
Speaker 1: are morons, But there are a lot of people out
Speaker 1: there saying it, very famous, very prominent ones. That's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. And it's not going to happen because one,
Speaker 1: it's just a fantasy that liberals tell themselves to make
Speaker 1: them feel better about the crazy stuff, they say. But
Speaker 1: also the Trump supporters wouldn't allow that. Look, he loses
Speaker 1: the election, he loses the election, he's out. We have
Speaker 1: the system, we have. We are the ones who respect
Speaker 1: the system. The leftists are the ones who don't. Our
Speaker 1: democracy is at stake. This comes after what was it
Speaker 1: about the first year after the election? All you saw
Speaker 1: were these think pieces, think pieces which is glorifying them,
Speaker 1: These left wing hacks all coming up with ways to
Speaker 1: explain how the popular vote should really matter more. We
Speaker 1: should eliminate the electoral college, we should put more Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices on the Supreme Court. They're willing to completely
Speaker 1: change the system and to reimagine it and then remake
Speaker 1: it in the image of their own power. And yet
Speaker 1: they turn around to lecture us about how Trump is
Speaker 1: a threat to democracy. Really, when is it too much?
Speaker 1: When is it too silly, too absurd for anybody to
Speaker 1: have to take this seriously anymore? Unfortunately, I guess we
Speaker 1: have no choice because this is what the other major
Speaker 1: political party in this country has embraced. The Fact that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden admits that he's the reason impeachments going on
Speaker 1: is interesting. What about all that stuff and the Muther
Speaker 1: report that the ten possible instances of corruption was that
Speaker 1: was that not enough for impeachment? I'm confused. I was
Speaker 1: told at the time that was more than enough for impeachment.
Speaker 1: Of course, the American people didn't really buy it though.
Speaker 1: Oh so they had to come up with another, another
Speaker 1: soft coup, another effort to undo the results of the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. And so now they've settled on this,
Speaker 1: somebody working with Adam Schiff behind the scenes. It checks
Speaker 1: off so many of the boxes. Foreign interference in the election,
Speaker 1: quid pro quo corruption, Oh Trump is the worst. And
Speaker 1: yet they still have no evidence of this quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: They have no evidence in any action whatsoever was taken
Speaker 1: in response to a phone call between the President United
Speaker 1: States and a counterpart in which he's allowed to say
Speaker 1: what he wants to say about corruption in that country.
Speaker 1: That it affects Hunter Biden is just an unfortunate situation
Speaker 1: for Democrats. Sorry, the same Democrat party who are apparently
Speaker 1: still fine with Hillary Clinton's DNC paying paying a foreigner
Speaker 1: to run around and ask foreigners for information for dirt
Speaker 1: on the now president of the United States, then candidate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. So I just would wonder I would like
Speaker 1: to ask, I'd like to just dig in for a
Speaker 1: moment into at what point do we get to talk
Speaker 1: about the foreign interference in the election that they paid
Speaker 1: for and used our own intelligence community to launder the
Speaker 1: dossier to create this phony pretext for an investigation of
Speaker 1: Trump campaign figures? When do we get to feel outrage
Speaker 1: about FISA warrants against Carter Paige? When do we get
Speaker 1: to feel like Papadopoulos The start, the excuse for the
Speaker 1: start of a full field FBI investigation is absurd and
Speaker 1: also a massive abuse of power. Oh, I think soon soon,
Speaker 1: I hope if the US Attorney for the State of Connecticut, Durham,
Speaker 1: is able to release his report and we see what
Speaker 1: really happened there. I think Democrats are also trying to
Speaker 1: counter balance what they must know is going to look
Speaker 1: terrible for anybody who's being honest about the situation when
Speaker 1: that report about FISA abuse and all the things that
Speaker 1: were done to this president by people in the government,
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party and the media, the lies, the scheming,
Speaker 1: the plotting, the misleading of the American people, the massive
Speaker 1: amount of time spent on just nonsense, the special counsel.
Speaker 1: The special counsel was a joke. Should never have happened.
Speaker 1: If the FBI and the dj want to look into
Speaker 1: Russian interference, God bless go for it. Oh how many
Speaker 1: Russians have been brought to justice as a result. I
Speaker 1: think they are pressing charges against Maria Boutina. Oh. I
Speaker 1: hope we all sleep better at night now knowing Maria
Speaker 1: Boutina is not going to single handedly throw the next election.
Speaker 1: These people are loons, loons. But I also recall that
Speaker 1: we were told that Joe Biden did nothing wrong. Oh
Speaker 1: the media, oh CNN, just so so sanctimonious about this.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden did nothing wrong in Ukraine? How could they know?
Speaker 1: Were they out there? Were they? Do they speak Ukrainian?
Speaker 1: Were they meeting with Ukrainian officials behind the scenes. No,
Speaker 1: they just go with the talking points that they're told.
Speaker 1: They have no idea what Joe Biden did or didn't
Speaker 1: do in Ukraine. In fact, really nobody in this country
Speaker 1: does fully because Ukraine's incredibly corrupt and the investigation at
Speaker 1: least allegedly was tainted or shut down early. Maybe it was,
Speaker 1: maybe it wasn't. We should find out. I thought we
Speaker 1: wanted more facts. I thought this was all about getting
Speaker 1: to the bottom of it, finding out more information. Ah. Yes,
Speaker 1: But then we have Joe Biden, for example, being or
Speaker 1: telling us all that nothing bad happened in Ukraine. But
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden just stepped down from the board of the
Speaker 1: Chinese company. Remember he got over a billion dollars from
Speaker 1: China after flying to China on Air Force two with
Speaker 1: his dad. Who's going to give Hunter Biden a billion dollars?
Speaker 1: Guy couldn't last six months as a public affairs officer
Speaker 1: in the Navy without hitting positive on a drug test.
Speaker 1: I believe for cocaine. You're gonna give this guy billion
Speaker 1: dollars based on what Oh, based on the fact that
Speaker 1: his dad's vice president. That's right, That's why you're gonna
Speaker 1: give a billion dollars to a company that he's very
Speaker 1: involved in. And that's not even Ukraine, where he was
Speaker 1: getting fifty thousand dollars a month to be on a
Speaker 1: board seat of a company that he had no expertise
Speaker 1: and whatsoever. I have to ask the question, what will
Speaker 1: this Chinese company do without Hunter Biden's considerable expertise in nothing.
Speaker 1: I just wonder if they'll be able to make it
Speaker 1: through the next quarter. I guess they'll be okay. So
Speaker 1: on the one hand, we're told nothing bad happened, but
Speaker 1: also now Hunter Biden is stepping down from this Chinese
Speaker 1: company and Joe Biden telling us that this would not
Speaker 1: happen again. Play seventeen. No one in my family we'll
Speaker 1: have an office in the White House, we'll sit at
Speaker 1: in meetings as if they're a cabinet member, will in
Speaker 1: fact have any business relationship with anyone that relates to
Speaker 1: a foreign corporation or a foreign country. Period period, end
Speaker 1: of story. And what I'm not going to let you
Speaker 1: all do is take the focus off the problem. No one.
Speaker 1: No one has asserted my son did a single thing wrong.
Speaker 1: No one has asserted that I have done anything wrong
Speaker 1: except the lying president. That's the only thing that's the focus.
Speaker 1: Actually a lot of people have asserted it, so that's
Speaker 1: that's not true. A lot of people think that there
Speaker 1: was more than just a little bit of smoke around
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's payoffs in Ukraine. It's not just the president.
Speaker 1: In fact, people broke the story before the President even
Speaker 1: knew about it. But I will say this because we
Speaker 1: keep it real here, can I defend the giving of
Speaker 1: very senior positions in a White House to family members
Speaker 1: that this administration has engaged in. I cannot. I will
Speaker 1: not defend it. I cannot defend it. I do not
Speaker 1: agree with it. So so Joe's fighting back in an
Speaker 1: area where he's got he's got some room to run,
Speaker 1: no question about it. We are not some third world kleptocracy.
Speaker 1: We should not have family members that are not elected officials,
Speaker 1: that are just being given very senior roles in government.
Speaker 1: It's not a good look, it's not right. I do
Speaker 1: not agree with it, Come what may. But that's not
Speaker 1: what we're really talking about, is it with Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: and Joe Biden. Oh No, what we're talking about there
Speaker 1: is that there was a payoff going on here from
Speaker 1: companies tied to foreign governments that were very much interested
Speaker 1: in currying favor of the then vice president the United States.
Speaker 1: So Hunter Biden stepped down, and we're told now from
Speaker 1: this Chinese company, oh, there's no problem him here. Well,
Speaker 1: of course there's a problem. That's why he's stepping down.
Speaker 1: I didn't do anything wrong, but I promise I'll never
Speaker 1: do it again. Is a really interesting place for the
Speaker 1: vice president and his son to be in right now,
Speaker 1: and that is where they are. So I guess this
Speaker 1: has been more complicated for the Democrats, this latest effort
Speaker 1: to this latest effort to derail the Trump presidency. Oh wait,
Speaker 1: there's one more. Joe Biden wants you don't know even
Speaker 1: though his son is stepping down. There's no conflict, no
Speaker 1: conflict at all. Playclip fourteen if you would mark the producer.
Speaker 1: My son and I do not and never have, nor
Speaker 1: did my son The Attorney General and I talk about
Speaker 1: their policies at all, So there would never be any
Speaker 1: conflict that I ever in fact influenced because I didn't
Speaker 1: know period. I've never discussed, never discussed this with my
Speaker 1: son while I was vice president or since being vice president,
Speaker 1: except in the recent past when I was told by
Speaker 1: his lawyers that he is going to be issued a statement. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's let's examine that denial for one second. First of all,
Speaker 1: we have the photo of Biden and his son golfing
Speaker 1: with a Barisma executive, So yeah, I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: should buy that that. He may never talked about anything,
Speaker 1: having you with any of this, But then beyond that,
Speaker 1: I would just want to know We really think that
Speaker 1: this that Joe Biden Hunter Bid had never talked about
Speaker 1: Ukraine while the sons in the board of this company
Speaker 1: a gatting fifty thousand dollars a month. That just didn't
Speaker 1: come up. Your dad's the vice president. You decided to
Speaker 1: take this board seat. You're not going to talk to
Speaker 1: your dad about and maybe not even talk about this
Speaker 1: in a nefarious fashion. Hey dad, you think that they
Speaker 1: are actually gonna what have you heard from the prosecutor?
Speaker 1: Are they gonna be tearing down this company? Are we
Speaker 1: gonna see some executives getting fired or getting arrested? I mean,
Speaker 1: I would be curious about that if I were on
Speaker 1: the board of Barisma, Ukrainian natural gas company. But is
Speaker 1: it feasible? Is it plausible that Hunter Biden and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden never talked about this? Of course not So if
Speaker 1: it's not plausible, then what does that mean about Hunter
Speaker 1: or Joe Biden's denial? Here? What means he's lying? We
Speaker 1: don't surprise anybody if Joe Biden was lying. No, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is a third tier hack Democrat who just happened
Speaker 1: to get lucky because the Obama administration needed somebody who
Speaker 1: wasn't a challenge to Obama's supremacy, right, couldn't have Hillary
Speaker 1: be the vice president? And m well, what about the
Speaker 1: next step? Then? Oh, I guess they had to find
Speaker 1: somebody like Joe Biden. That's that's and it's only because
Speaker 1: of his connection to Obama that he's even really a
Speaker 1: national level figure in the first place. This guy is
Speaker 1: deeply unimpressive, it's accomplish. Nothing strikes me as quite strange
Speaker 1: that we even have to have this discussion that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden should be the front runner for the Democrats. The
Speaker 1: truth is the Democrats should be embarrassed that he is
Speaker 1: their front runner. But I guess they're just not. They choose,
Speaker 1: They choose not to be until they have another front runner,
Speaker 1: which is gonna be any day now. I think she
Speaker 1: has been a mom diplomat and deserved better than the
Speaker 1: shabby treatment she received from this president and from the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State. So I'm I think we're all deeply
Speaker 1: in her debt for representing the country so well around
Speaker 1: the world and for so long. I also want to
Speaker 1: express my appreciation for not just what a great champion
Speaker 1: she was of the rule of law in Ukraine, but
Speaker 1: also the respect she has for the rule of law
Speaker 1: here at home. Well, she may be a wonderful woman.
Speaker 1: I don't know her, but she may be very much
Speaker 1: a wonderful woman. If you remember the phone call I
Speaker 1: had with the president, the new president. He didn't speak favorably,
Speaker 1: but I just don't know her. She may be a
Speaker 1: wonderful woman. So that's this the Marie Yavanovich. Here's what
Speaker 1: was ambassador or involved in foreign relations with Ukraine. I
Speaker 1: think she was a former ambassador there, but she's now
Speaker 1: one of the people who's testified behind closed doors about
Speaker 1: the whole Ukraine phone call. I would just note that
Speaker 1: we've seen this play out too many times to forget
Speaker 1: about what really happens here, which is that the media
Speaker 1: and the Democrats build up any government official who is
Speaker 1: useful for the purposes of Trump bashing, becomes the single
Speaker 1: most incredible, most ethical, most amazing person to have ever
Speaker 1: worked in the government, and then invariably some time passes
Speaker 1: and we find out, oh, no, that person was either
Speaker 1: not nearly that impressive, not nearly that important even in
Speaker 1: the issue at hand, or to take it even a
Speaker 1: little bit further, person was an anti Trump partisan. The
Speaker 1: person was a hack had an axe to grind with
Speaker 1: the President United States. And therefore all of the testimony
Speaker 1: that was given and all the things that we were
Speaker 1: told have to be looked at in a very different light.
Speaker 1: So I would just note that this is what we
Speaker 1: will be told again. This is the situation where we
Speaker 1: put in once more. Anyone who is speaking negatively about
Speaker 1: the President on this issue of Ukraine, you will be
Speaker 1: told is the most amazing, most incredible public servant to
Speaker 1: have ever done anything. And the people who speak in
Speaker 1: at some level in a defensive Trump, we will be told,
Speaker 1: are hacks who can't be trusted, their Maga hat wearing partisans,
Speaker 1: and they'll be Oh and by the way, this also
Speaker 1: has the effect of signaling to folks who are going
Speaker 1: to be testifying about one thing or another in front
Speaker 1: of Adam Schiff and his committee that you want to
Speaker 1: be someone that the New York Times is writing about
Speaker 1: as a hero of the Republic, or do you want
Speaker 1: to be somebody who is part of Trump's web of
Speaker 1: fascism and corruption and destruction and all this other stuff.
Speaker 1: So there you have it. Um, By the way, I
Speaker 1: do want to see I just see this now that
Speaker 1: there was a Saturday Night Live sketch or this is
Speaker 1: a total digression, but live sketchro of the weekend about
Speaker 1: the origins of the Oscar the Grouch movie. It was
Speaker 1: one of the better I would recommend you check it out.
Speaker 1: It was one of the better things I've seen on
Speaker 1: SNL in quite a while. But they made There also
Speaker 1: was a reference on I think it was on SNL
Speaker 1: to The Irishman, which is a Martin Scorsese movie, which
Speaker 1: is another gangster Does this guy only make gangster movies? Why?
Speaker 1: Why is this? Is this like Good Fellows but with
Speaker 1: Irish guys? Is that what this is? The Irishman? I
Speaker 1: gotta say, I know, people, this is gonna get me.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get booed for this. But I think Scorsese's overrated.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it. I thought Gangs in New
Speaker 1: York was a crappy movie. And you know some of
Speaker 1: the gangster movies he's made, Yeah they were. They were
Speaker 1: good in their day and everything. But like I'm gonna depart,
Speaker 1: it is very watchable, it's very entertaining, but it's kind
Speaker 1: of a ridiculous movie, especially the ending. It's just just
Speaker 1: come on a mess and I do want to see
Speaker 1: The Joker. I may go see Joker this week. In fact,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm already thinking maybe I'll go see The Joker
Speaker 1: on Thursday, so i'd have an opportunity to talk to
Speaker 1: you about it. This is something that you you should
Speaker 1: always remember whenever the critics now absolutely just intensely hate
Speaker 1: a movie that people are going to see, Chances are
Speaker 1: it's a worthwhile thing to see because critics now view
Speaker 1: themselves not as people that are trying to assess the
Speaker 1: value and the impact of an artistic endeavor. They are
Speaker 1: there to be the gatekeepers and the custodians of the
Speaker 1: ultimate wokeness. They're the ones to make sure that they're
Speaker 1: enforcing social justice orthodoxy on the rest of us. But
Speaker 1: I hear that the Joker movie with Joakin Phoenix is good,
Speaker 1: So I'm going to try to see that this week.
Speaker 1: Maybe be able to give you guys my review of
Speaker 1: The Joker here in the show as soon as Friday.
Speaker 1: But when I come back, I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about Syria, So just give me a second. You
Speaker 1: are now entering the Freedom Hot Titical Operation Center. All
Speaker 1: sensitive programs Muskie Caps strictly need to know Team Buck
Speaker 1: is cleared and ready for the Buck brief. I don't
Speaker 1: think our soldiers should be there for the next fifty
Speaker 1: years guarding a border between Turkey and Syria when we
Speaker 1: can't guard our own borders at home. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: A lot of people very upset right now about what's
Speaker 1: going on in Syria with the Turkish incursion. There have
Speaker 1: been casualties. I think last I saw about a dozen
Speaker 1: or so Syrian Kurds members of the YPG, this militia
Speaker 1: which really comes from the PKK, which is in factly
Speaker 1: designated terrorist group and a separatist group that wants a Turkey,
Speaker 1: a Kurdish homeland in what is now northern Syria and
Speaker 1: southern Turkey. People are using this though, first and foremost,
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to bash the president. Seeing a lot
Speaker 1: of people who know very little about reality in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, about military occupation, about counterinsurgency, about counter terrorism,
Speaker 1: who all of a sudden have all the answers in Syria.
Speaker 1: So I want to take a not just a contrarian
Speaker 1: point of view, although I think that's important. I want
Speaker 1: to take a realist perspective on what is going on
Speaker 1: here because there are conflicting emotions. I do have a
Speaker 1: and I'm honest with you about this. I have a
Speaker 1: fondness for the Kurdish people. I think Turkey's not an ally.
Speaker 1: I think Turkey's not really a friend. I think Turkey
Speaker 1: should be kicked out of NATO. So I've got a
Speaker 1: lot of thoughts on this stuff. I think the Turks
Speaker 1: have not been that helpful in Afghanistan, have not been
Speaker 1: that helpful in Iraq, have not been that We're unhelpful
Speaker 1: in Syria. Just kicked the doors wide open, let all
Speaker 1: the jihadists filter into Syria to fight against the Assad regime. Turkey.
Speaker 1: In many ways, southern Turkey and the border with Syria
Speaker 1: became something akin to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan
Speaker 1: during the fight against the Mujahideen. And in this case
Speaker 1: we're talking about all kaind of guys philisberg into Syria
Speaker 1: to fight against the Asadrashi. So there were some very
Speaker 1: very shortsighted decisions made. I think that by Riduana, the
Speaker 1: Turkish leadership. Riduana is an ISLAMISTI he's a authoritarian. He's
Speaker 1: not a friend of the United States. He's just not.
Speaker 1: And I think there's not nearly enough attention being paid
Speaker 1: to the fact that we cannot control everything, and if
Speaker 1: the Turks are going to lash at an act in
Speaker 1: this way, most of the ire should be directed at
Speaker 1: the Turks and the Turkish government instead everything everything that
Speaker 1: Turkey does. People are saying, well, Trump gave the green
Speaker 1: light for this. Trump didn't tell the Turks. In fact,
Speaker 1: he's on the opposite. He said, do not do this.
Speaker 1: And today you have, or the last forty eight hours,
Speaker 1: I should say, you have discussions going on about what
Speaker 1: actions the United States will take to punish the Turks
Speaker 1: for exactly what they have done here. Please, if you would,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, would you play a Treasury Secretary manuche in
Speaker 1: saying look, we're ready to rock and put some sanctions
Speaker 1: here on the Turks. Play twenty three. The National Security team,
Speaker 1: not yesterday in the situation room, will be meeting again
Speaker 1: this morning. I think you know this is an evolving
Speaker 1: situation where monitoring the situation carefully. As I said, the
Speaker 1: sanctions are ready to go. We'll be updating the President
Speaker 1: this morning and when he makes the decision will activate it.
Speaker 1: Sanctions ready to go. So when people say that it's
Speaker 1: the green life and the president. That's not fair, that's
Speaker 1: not what's happened here. I mean, yes, the president did
Speaker 1: move about fifty troops. We still have about a thousand
Speaker 1: or so at least that we're told about in Syria.
Speaker 1: And as a result, the Turks now have started to
Speaker 1: seize territory. But a fascinating thing is also happening, my friends.
Speaker 1: So so keep in mind that the Turks are the
Speaker 1: ones that are making the situation the mess that it
Speaker 1: is right now, and they have agency, they have they're
Speaker 1: making their own decisions, and they deserve some blame in
Speaker 1: this process. And the Trump administration is saying, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but this is not okay, and we are going to
Speaker 1: punish you economically. The good thing is that Turkey's economy
Speaker 1: is not some powerhouse, so if we want to make
Speaker 1: things hurt a little bit, we can. But now you
Speaker 1: have the reports about the release of iss ISIS militants,
Speaker 1: terrorists who are in Kurdish custody. You have some family
Speaker 1: members of ISIS militants who it's belief have already been released.
Speaker 1: And looking at this now, what we see is the
Speaker 1: Syrian government coming in and taking control of some of
Speaker 1: these areas after the US has backed out of them.
Speaker 1: Now this is being reported on as Syrian troops are
Speaker 1: entering towns in northern Syria. This is being reported on
Speaker 1: as a as a show of how terrible things are.
Speaker 1: Trump's decision here is awful. All right, Well, let's let's
Speaker 1: look at this for a moment. What was the alternative
Speaker 1: for everyone who keeps telling me, Oh, we've abandoned the Kurds,
Speaker 1: and it's terrible, and I do feel badly for those
Speaker 1: Kurdish fighters who are briefly keep in mind though, also
Speaker 1: I'm trying to give you more of a perspective here,
Speaker 1: because the narrative is being driven by two things right now,
Speaker 1: anti Trumpism and interventionism. And interventionism from a military and
Speaker 1: national security establishment and a lot of so called experts
Speaker 1: and think tanks in DC, and people go on TV
Speaker 1: here in New York. I don't know what the heck
Speaker 1: they're talking about. Never learn the lessons of this is
Speaker 1: not our fight, we shouldn't be doing this. They never
Speaker 1: learned that lesson. It's always, oh, but what but what
Speaker 1: happens after we leave? Yeah, bad things will happen. What
Speaker 1: happens if we stay? If we can't leave, Syria. How
Speaker 1: are we ever going to leave Afghanistan. We're going to
Speaker 1: be in Afghanistan forever. This is now. This is something
Speaker 1: that the American taxpayer, to the two tens of billions
Speaker 1: of dollars a year, is just going to continue to
Speaker 1: just pay for. Why what are we doing there? There
Speaker 1: are plenty of countries where their terrorist groups operating international
Speaker 1: jihattist entities that are targeting America. We're gonna invade all
Speaker 1: of them too. Leave a thousand, five thousand, ten thousand
Speaker 1: US troops. Some of your saying, buck, we are Look
Speaker 1: at all the bases we have all of the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but we try not to set up new bases and
Speaker 1: countries that are in the middle of a war or
Speaker 1: where terrorists control whole pieces of territory and can attack
Speaker 1: those bases. That's we try to avoid. That. We don't
Speaker 1: always succeed, But I keep coming back to, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: and also the fighters, the Kurdish fighters, they weren't We
Speaker 1: didn't pick them up and air drop them in some
Speaker 1: foreign country and say, hey, will you guys do all
Speaker 1: the fighting for us? This is their country. The Kurds
Speaker 1: that we're talking about here that took Rocca that took
Speaker 1: the fight to ISIS and took thousands of casualties. They
Speaker 1: were targets of the Islamic States, So we helped them
Speaker 1: defeat an enemy in their own country. That needs to
Speaker 1: be remembered. Yeah, we're glad that we partnered up with them.
Speaker 1: But the narrative right now has turned to do well
Speaker 1: the Kurds did are fighting for us? No, we help
Speaker 1: the Kurds do fighting they needed to do. Oh, you're
Speaker 1: not hearing that for other people? Are You're not hearing
Speaker 1: this part of the discussion. Yeah, the Kurds. Oh, what's
Speaker 1: a debt of gratitude as well? I don't know why
Speaker 1: no one seems to understand this right now. I know
Speaker 1: that sounds that's completely anathema because we've backed off and
Speaker 1: we we've backed away from commitments to continue assisting them
Speaker 1: in certain parts of northern Syria that are right along
Speaker 1: the Turkish border, and the Turks are being deeply unhelpful,
Speaker 1: which they frequently are in the region, almost always. You
Speaker 1: won't let us do certain flight, certain kinds of missions
Speaker 1: from the you know, the air base in injer Lick
Speaker 1: in Turkey. I mean, there's all kinds of all kinds
Speaker 1: of restrictions, that the Turks are just a constant pain
Speaker 1: and they're supposed to be a NATO ally And wow,
Speaker 1: I mean, compare what it's like dealing with the polls
Speaker 1: and then dealing with the Turks, or name a NATO
Speaker 1: country that's been helpful to us in recent years. So
Speaker 1: we helped them do fighting they needed to do in
Speaker 1: their own country. That gets left out of this discussion.
Speaker 1: I think that's something we need to remember. And then
Speaker 1: there's this other part of it. Okay, what are we
Speaker 1: supposed to do here? We're going to leave US troops
Speaker 1: there for how long? I know that the Turks fired
Speaker 1: on a place where they knew there was some US
Speaker 1: military presence. They're claiming it was an accident. Some people
Speaker 1: say they were sending a message. Tough to know exactly
Speaker 1: without being there on the ground and really knowing the
Speaker 1: circumstances of it. I mean, I could be persuaded right
Speaker 1: now that it was either it was either incompetence or
Speaker 1: sending a message. It really depends on some of the
Speaker 1: additional details and factors. But Okay, what are we really
Speaker 1: going to do? How long does our commitment to the
Speaker 1: curts continue? Are we going to set up an independent
Speaker 1: Curtistan in Syria. We thought about doing that in Iraq,
Speaker 1: and then we realized that that would lead to civil
Speaker 1: war and all kinds of problems most likely so, and
Speaker 1: that would also mean that we were showing up and
Speaker 1: helping to dismember a nation state in a way that
Speaker 1: we felt would be beneficial to us. Yeah, sure of
Speaker 1: beneficial to the region. But there was no Curtis. There's
Speaker 1: no there's Kurtistan in theory or Curtistan in practice in
Speaker 1: northern Iraq, but it's really a federal region that's still
Speaker 1: very much a part of the The Iraqi government wants
Speaker 1: to send troops up, they'll send troops up. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is it's not an independent country. Are we going
Speaker 1: to carve that out of northern Syria? Okay, who's going
Speaker 1: to administer that? Is it going to come out of
Speaker 1: Syrian government territory? Will the Syrian government accept that? Are
Speaker 1: we going to try to take a piece of Turkey? Well,
Speaker 1: of course not. The Turks would lose their minds. In
Speaker 1: fact that the Turks are already losing their minds about
Speaker 1: the fact that we've been working with the YPG militia.
Speaker 1: As it is But then we get to a point
Speaker 1: that is always lost in this discussion. Assad won the
Speaker 1: Syrian Civil War. The Syrian Civil War was being fought
Speaker 1: for years, with over a half a million dead, by
Speaker 1: the way, all occurring under the Obama administration. This gets
Speaker 1: lost in the discussion today too. The Assyrian Civil War
Speaker 1: was won by the Assad regime because Assad stayed in power. Sure,
Speaker 1: he lost control over some parts of his country to
Speaker 1: this day, but does anyone really think that over the
Speaker 1: long term he will not re establish control in those areas?
Speaker 1: Why are we thinking that it's such a terrible thing though?
Speaker 1: We keep hearing O the Russian backed Assad regime. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, the Russian backed Assad regime. Who else is
Speaker 1: going to be in charge in this country? There's no
Speaker 1: talk about really a political settlement anymore where Asad's not
Speaker 1: in charge. But someone going to try to fight a
Speaker 1: war against Assad on behalf of who exactly we're worried
Speaker 1: about the resurgence of ISIS. So was the plan to
Speaker 1: keep US military in Syria to fight alongside the Kurds
Speaker 1: to stave off any military action for the Turks, to
Speaker 1: stave offy action from Assad to take back the territory
Speaker 1: in a country that's still technically Syria, there is no
Speaker 1: other country to deal with, and just try to push
Speaker 1: back on any Iranian interventionism in Syria and possible attacks
Speaker 1: against our troops and our interest there indefinitely. That was
Speaker 1: that's really the plan is for us to stay there
Speaker 1: and back the Kurds up for the next twenty years,
Speaker 1: thirty years. Well, if it's not to set up a
Speaker 1: country inside of Syria, and what is there going to
Speaker 1: be a UN mandate for that? Will the Arab League
Speaker 1: go along with that? I mean, what what was the plan?
Speaker 1: No one ever talks about this. What was the plan
Speaker 1: supposed to be? They say, they mocked this notion of
Speaker 1: a forever war, even though we've been in Afghanistan for
Speaker 1: almost twenty years now going on twenty years, still in
Speaker 1: Iraq going on, you know what, seventeen years. So someone
Speaker 1: explained to me what the plan was supposed to be
Speaker 1: in Syria and for all these people that are pointing
Speaker 1: to the casualties that the Kurds are taking, and I look,
Speaker 1: I feel badly about it. I think the Kurds have
Speaker 1: done excellent fighting for their interests and our interests, and
Speaker 1: they're brave, and they're trying to carve out really a
Speaker 1: piece of civilization at a very uncivilized part of Syria,
Speaker 1: trying to have some rule, some rule of laws, some order.
Speaker 1: And I respect all of that, but I also recall
Speaker 1: all of the US troops that have been fighting in
Speaker 1: Iraq and Syria for how many years? How many of
Speaker 1: them are currently still missing limbs, rehabilitating injuries, dealing with PTSD.
Speaker 1: How many families gold star families are there who lost
Speaker 1: a loved one fighting in a rock Afghanistan? For what exactly?
Speaker 1: At this point? Stability, continuation of the status quo. Is
Speaker 1: that why our military exists to hold together countries that
Speaker 1: can't hold themselves together. And I also have a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of ingratitude not just from a lot of the
Speaker 1: people in that country, but from the region, from the
Speaker 1: Muslim world, from the rest of the world. No, I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I don't find that circumstance acceptable. And
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, if the Kurds have
Speaker 1: to do their own fighting and settle their own disputes
Speaker 1: on their own problems in Syria, but that means that
Speaker 1: some of you listening to this who are going on
Speaker 1: I can't even count how many deployments in the Middle
Speaker 1: East don't have to show up in Syria and try
Speaker 1: to prevent the Turks from killing the Kurds and the
Speaker 1: Syrians from killing the Kurds, and the Russians from backing
Speaker 1: the Syrians from killing the Kurds. Who are killing Isis?
Speaker 1: Who are this mess? This hornet's nest? If that means
Speaker 1: that some of you listening to this or your children
Speaker 1: perhaps aren't going to have to go out there and
Speaker 1: do this and do this fighting, yeah, I'm willing to
Speaker 1: accept the situation as it is playing out right now
Speaker 1: in Syria. Do we learn the lesson or not. It's
Speaker 1: going to be hard, all right. As I've been telling you,
Speaker 1: after the Second World War, we accepted a circumstance where
Speaker 1: basically half the world was condemned to totalitarianism, servitude, and slavery.
Speaker 1: But you know, it was a win because at least
Speaker 1: it was a Nazi Germany. That's what we thought at
Speaker 1: the time. Right, find me a war, give me the
Speaker 1: aftermath of it, and I'll tell you about how not
Speaker 1: everybody wins. And I don't just mean on the losing side,
Speaker 1: I mean not everybody wins on the winning side. Find
Speaker 1: me a war, and you'll have a situation that will
Speaker 1: remind us all that we don't want to fight wars
Speaker 1: that should be a guiding principle. I think that's getting
Speaker 1: lost right now. I think it's also being just we're
Speaker 1: just being screamed out by people who haven't learned the
Speaker 1: lessons of what's happened in the Rock and Afghanistan. Do
Speaker 1: I think what Trump is doing is perfect. I think
Speaker 1: that he's managing this process, but of course not. But
Speaker 1: on the fundamental question of is Syria are fight? I
Speaker 1: still stand very firmly in the corner of it is
Speaker 1: not our fight. We do not want to be there
Speaker 1: a day longer than we have to be, and I
Speaker 1: do not think we have to be there anymore. ISIS
Speaker 1: is different? Could ISIS be resurgent? Yeah, of course they
Speaker 1: could be resurgent in Iraq too. Hopefully we've learned some
Speaker 1: lessons about what happened in Iraq. Although ISIS is getting
Speaker 1: a whole other thing is the rise in Jehadism and
Speaker 1: and other things in Iraq. Right now, we're not even here,
Speaker 1: We're not hearing about that. It's never going away, folks,
Speaker 1: We're never going to win this thing, so we never
Speaker 1: have to fight it again. We should accept that and
Speaker 1: understand that instead of just allowing all this propaganda about
Speaker 1: how Trump is terrible to overtake us. How concerned should
Speaker 1: we be about abandoning an ally like the courage that
Speaker 1: maybe twenty years down the road. This comes to I
Speaker 1: think sectarious state. Pompeo, the intelligence services, the foreign countries
Speaker 1: that are working with us have it about right that
Speaker 1: ISIS is not defeated. We have got to keep the
Speaker 1: pressure on ISIS so they don't recover. We may want
Speaker 1: a war over, we may even declare it over. You
Speaker 1: can pull your troops out, as President Obama learned the
Speaker 1: hard way out of Iraq. But the enemy gets to vote,
Speaker 1: we say in the military, and in this case, if
Speaker 1: we don't keep the pressure on, then ISIS will research.
Speaker 1: That's it's absolutely a given that they will come back.
Speaker 1: The same argument for Afghanistan, folks. Taliban's gonna be researching.
Speaker 1: Taliban is going to take over that country. So we
Speaker 1: stay forever. That's it. There is no there is no
Speaker 1: reasonable future in which there's not the possibility of ISIS resurgence.
Speaker 1: Oh no, actually there is. You know what it's called
Speaker 1: the Assad regime. As bloodthirsty and horrible as it is,
Speaker 1: the Asad regime is in charge. Looks like that's what's happening.
Speaker 1: So we got to pick our pathway here. At some point.
Speaker 1: I know Mattis. People say he's a genius and he's brilliant.
Speaker 1: Well the genius just didn't manage to figure out a
Speaker 1: rock in Afghanistan. I don't think they're gonna figure this
Speaker 1: one out either. NBC News it's not having its best
Speaker 1: week ever, folks. NBC News is looking like a place
Speaker 1: that has a lot of trouble. Well, we've known about
Speaker 1: this for some time now, but this is in relation
Speaker 1: to the Ronan Pharaoh book Catch and Kill. And I've
Speaker 1: said it before. Ronan Pharaoh had the single worst TV
Speaker 1: I've ever seen on the worst TV show I've ever
Speaker 1: seen on cable news, literally the worst one I've It
Speaker 1: was like watching this Skybriday is like have a TV
Speaker 1: show and just sort of good to read off supraptors
Speaker 1: that it's two o'clack, So who's really watching this anyway?
Speaker 1: And I look like they just pulled me out of
Speaker 1: a high school class and now they put me on TV.
Speaker 1: So here I am, and but I worked at the
Speaker 1: State Department for like six months, so I know some things.
Speaker 1: It's it was astonished bad. I mean, and by the way, no,
Speaker 1: no one really denies that. I mean, it was horrible.
Speaker 1: It was almost as bad as Hillary Clinton's on air
Speaker 1: performance at NBC, where I'm sorry, Chelsea Clinton pardoned me
Speaker 1: hello her performance at NBC NBC where she was making
Speaker 1: the six or seven hundred K for being the worst
Speaker 1: on air correspondent in the history of one air correspondence media.
Speaker 1: What a business? What a business? I really should open
Speaker 1: like a I don't know, I was gonna say falafel stand,
Speaker 1: but maybe a hot dog stands something like that, just
Speaker 1: you know, capitalism business. But I'd open up like a
Speaker 1: suite of them, a whole bunch of them, and you know,
Speaker 1: Papa Buck would find a way to make some money.
Speaker 1: But NBC, okay, what's going on here? You got Rodan Faraoh,
Speaker 1: who is now the lead journalist i'd say, in the
Speaker 1: in the me Too movement era on that issue, even
Speaker 1: though he sold his credibility to try and take down Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: I mean, he wrote that piece about Ramirez and it
Speaker 1: was a joke and it wasn't I mean, I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say it wasn't funny, but I mean it was preposterous,
Speaker 1: and it was an obvious effort to leverage the brand
Speaker 1: that he had built as the meat you guy, the
Speaker 1: exposure of Harvey Weinstein as the predator that he is.
Speaker 1: He leveraged that, which was good work. We do. We
Speaker 1: don't live in a fantasy world here. It was Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein needed to get got as they say, he needed
Speaker 1: to be exposed. He people should have known about it,
Speaker 1: and of course people covered it up for years and years.
Speaker 1: And power corrupts, and he was a powerful guy and
Speaker 1: he was corrupting the people around him. One of the
Speaker 1: parts of that story that I still find we're going
Speaker 1: to find out more about, I should say, is that
Speaker 1: there had to be had to be a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of enablers along the way who were just never held accountable.
Speaker 1: They just would never told what was or they've never
Speaker 1: been brought up and made to answer for what happened there.
Speaker 1: So the latest year is that this book Catching Kills
Speaker 1: coming out and it's I haven't been able to read
Speaker 1: it yet. I'm gonna say I'm gonna have to read it. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to read it, I think, which means
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be adding to the take here, the take
Speaker 1: home pay for a Rodent Farrell in this book, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to read it. I'd be very curious to
Speaker 1: see how deep into the details of NBC brass he
Speaker 1: goes with all of this. But here's what we know.
Speaker 1: That there was stuff that was happening at NBC that
Speaker 1: was way out of line. That there was a culture
Speaker 1: of one covering up for Harvey Weinstein, which I don't
Speaker 1: know how any executive could sleep at night having just
Speaker 1: the faintest idea about the sort of things that Weinstein
Speaker 1: was up to. Democrat, by the way, big Democrat, you know,
Speaker 1: I said that ever gets Harvey Weinstein, Democrat, friend of
Speaker 1: the Clinton's, friend of the Obamas, gave I think one
Speaker 1: of the Obama children a job an internship. So Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein's not just some guy. Harvey Weinstein was left wing
Speaker 1: Democrat media royalty. This guy was one of the most
Speaker 1: powerful figures in one of the most important areas of
Speaker 1: liberal dominance, which is entertainment media. Entertainment media. Look what
Speaker 1: I do every day, I inform people, we try to
Speaker 1: entertain you. But our megaphones in the news business are
Speaker 1: generally speaking much smaller than what you get with, especially
Speaker 1: with movies. Back in the nineties and the early two thousands,
Speaker 1: when Weinstein was making some of his biggest films, you know,
Speaker 1: a big movie, you know, I feel like sometimes, how
Speaker 1: many of you saw Shakespeare in Love? Or how many
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think one of the one of the
Speaker 1: biggest Weinstein movie. He made a ton of big movies.
Speaker 1: I can't even think of them. But I saw Shakespeare
Speaker 1: in Love. It was entertaining. It's a little corny, but
Speaker 1: it's entertaining at one instead of saving private Ryan though,
Speaker 1: which wow, right, that strikes me. It's just outrageous. A
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of that decision making those absurd.
Speaker 1: It is true. I remember when what was a Colin
Speaker 1: Jost my old high school classmate, does it or was
Speaker 1: that It made some comment about how it used to
Speaker 1: be the case that the best movies, the movies that
Speaker 1: everyone wanted to see, also have won Oscars. In the
Speaker 1: last ten years, the movies that are getting nominated and
Speaker 1: winning Oscars, I've never even heard of these things, and
Speaker 1: they're overwhelmingly trash and boring and just all about politics.
Speaker 1: They're glorified fictional editorials, all on the big screen, all
Speaker 1: on the silva screen movies. Man, what can you do?
Speaker 1: I am watching The Americans by the way, on Netflix,
Speaker 1: which I'm only a couple episodes into it. I started
Speaker 1: it once before I'm restarting. I'm gonna get through the
Speaker 1: whole thing, So I think I'm really gonna like it.
Speaker 1: All right, So Ronan Farrell, what do we know about
Speaker 1: based on what he's already told us, Well, there's some
Speaker 1: very some very bad stuff going on at NBC. And
Speaker 1: now you have NBC News President Noah Oppenheim, who has
Speaker 1: been pushing back against the claims that have been made. Here,
Speaker 1: here we go. NBC News president pushed back against this.
Speaker 1: On Monday, one day before the book's release, Oppenheim told
Speaker 1: his staff in the memo obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, quote,
Speaker 1: Matt Lauer's actions were abhorrent, and the anger and sadness
Speaker 1: he caused continued to this day. As we've said since
Speaker 1: the moment he was fired, his abuses never should have happened.
Speaker 1: Ronand Pharaoh's book takes that undeniable fact and twists it
Speaker 1: into a lie alleging we were a company with a
Speaker 1: lot of secrets. We have no secrets and nothing to hide.
Speaker 1: Now that we've read Pharaoh's book, it's clear his smear
Speaker 1: rests on the allegations that NBC management knew about and
Speaker 1: took steps to hide Lower's misconduct before his firing. Without that,
Speaker 1: he has no basis on which to rest his second
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory that his Harvey Weinstein reporting was squash up
Speaker 1: or tech Lauer. Pharaoh alleges there employees who report Lower's
Speaker 1: behavior prior to November of twenty seventeen and were paid
Speaker 1: settlements to silence them. Not only is this false, the
Speaker 1: so called evidence Pharaoh uses in his book to support
Speaker 1: the charges collapse under the slightest scrutiny. The note goes
Speaker 1: on to share the NBC Universal Legal Team analysis that
Speaker 1: only three examples that Pharaoh alleges are Laur related before
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen with even minimal detail, and they involve employees who,
Speaker 1: by their own admission, made no complaint to management and
Speaker 1: whose departure agreements were unrelated to Lauer and completely routine.
Speaker 1: Those three examples reference a woman who was named in
Speaker 1: the book and who Pharaoh says shared the account of
Speaker 1: for incident with then anchor Ann Curry, an on anchor
Speaker 1: personality who departed in twenty twelve and senior member of
Speaker 1: the Today Show team who departed in twenty seventeen with
Speaker 1: a seven figure payout. Folks, here's a simple wave just
Speaker 1: clarifying this. I do not believe for a second that
Speaker 1: NBC brass didn't know that Matt lower this stuff. Doesn't
Speaker 1: people know about this? They they spend all this time
Speaker 1: around this guy. They're paying this guy twenty five million
Speaker 1: dollars a year for what Oh, because he's the franchise,
Speaker 1: all right. This is they're all taking care of each other.
Speaker 1: The executives attached themselves to the talent. The talent attaches themselves.
Speaker 1: The executives they can, you know, justify whatever they want
Speaker 1: in terms of payment as long as it falls in
Speaker 1: the overall budget of the show, even though they they could.
Speaker 1: Does anybody miss Matt Lauer? Oh no, what will we
Speaker 1: do without Matt Lower to tell us about the best
Speaker 1: recipe for a feta and watermelon salad in the summer,
Speaker 1: and you know, then talk some real hard hitting politics
Speaker 1: and then have a puppy run on stage. Oh, look
Speaker 1: at this season's great most popular puppy. The whole Morning
Speaker 1: show thing is it's like, it's just not for me.
Speaker 1: It's just not for me. I don't understand. I never watch.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've seen some of it, but it was
Speaker 1: never a Today Show watcher. I get at people want
Speaker 1: to kind of ease into their day and it's kind
Speaker 1: of lighting everything else. But twenty five million dollars a
Speaker 1: year for that guy, I think I'm not even got up.
Speaker 1: At thirty. He was the highest paid man in news
Speaker 1: for years and years. He had a button installed on
Speaker 1: his desk to lock the door. The NBC brass didn't
Speaker 1: ever think that that was kind of weird. Oh oh,
Speaker 1: because he needed security so badly. I think, think about
Speaker 1: how that would go. What's he go? I mean, if
Speaker 1: somebody were threatening him, He's gonna lock them in the
Speaker 1: office with him. It's a bit strange, isn't it. Oh No,
Speaker 1: someone's running on the office looking for Matt Lauer. At
Speaker 1: least now he can press the weird creepy button under
Speaker 1: his desk, so then the person can't get I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, folks, come on, I told you. I used
Speaker 1: to hear just in the I heard in the grapevine.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just would hear rumors about laur with
Speaker 1: different staffers and everything else. And that was when I
Speaker 1: was very early in my media careers. Like, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Matt Lower. Everybody knows this. Everyone Ask any woman who
Speaker 1: if particularly if she's under the age of thirty five
Speaker 1: and works on any TV show. You know, if you
Speaker 1: ask any if you know anybody, ask them if the
Speaker 1: host of the show is you know, if he's a dog,
Speaker 1: Ask if he's a guy that you can't trust from
Speaker 1: what they all know. They all know in the same
Speaker 1: way that they'll know that if if someone's a really
Speaker 1: good guy and respectful and professional and does their job
Speaker 1: and treats everybody well, and people know this stuff, I'll
Speaker 1: just tell you this. I'm wondering when I'm wondering when
Speaker 1: people are going to figure out some of the stuff
Speaker 1: that's gone on over at CNN. I don't have the
Speaker 1: goods otherwise I would, But I know, I know some
Speaker 1: rumors about some stuff. Do we really we really think
Speaker 1: that this was only going on with lur and at
Speaker 1: NBC we think it's CNN is remember NBC, MSNBC, they're
Speaker 1: you know, one is kind of there's just extensions of
Speaker 1: each other. We think CNN escape this. We know, Look,
Speaker 1: we know that Fox had to fire a lot of people,
Speaker 1: and there was a lot of suck erasment settlements there.
Speaker 1: And let's not we would never pretend that that was
Speaker 1: there wasn't some bad stuff and some bad things going on.
Speaker 1: There absolutely was. But they clean house, They clean house
Speaker 1: over there, nothing at CNN. Huh hm. That's interesting because
Speaker 1: I've heard some things about some stuff. That's all I
Speaker 1: can say. But I've heard some things about some stuff,
Speaker 1: and I tend to know I tend to be right
Speaker 1: when I hear those things. But is there anyone looking
Speaker 1: at it over there? No? Instead, what CNN has done
Speaker 1: is they've just tried to silence any dissenting voices inside
Speaker 1: or outside. They have people whose only job really is
Speaker 1: to just go on offense against anyone who's a danger
Speaker 1: to CNN's brand, a threat to the CNN, a CNN umbrella.
Speaker 1: But look, I hope that ronand Farrow is able to
Speaker 1: land some real punches here with this book, because this
Speaker 1: this is going on, the the covering up for power. Look,
Speaker 1: they're powerful democrats, hours of democrat. These are all democrats.
Speaker 1: Why were they? Why was it being covered up in
Speaker 1: this way, not just internally at NBC but elsewhere too,
Speaker 1: And why is it that Harvey Weinstein was able to
Speaker 1: get away with what he did as long as he
Speaker 1: did and in a fashion that's so aggressive and egregious that,
Speaker 1: once again, it's not possible. It is not credible. I
Speaker 1: want to talk about credible or not credible. It's not
Speaker 1: credible that NBC executives didn't know why what Matt Lauer
Speaker 1: was doing. It's not credible that a lot of people
Speaker 1: didn't know about Weinstein. In fact, we know that people
Speaker 1: did know, they just chose not to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: So I guess I got to add this to the
Speaker 1: stack catch and kill. I got to read about this one.
Speaker 1: I don't know when I'll get to it. I'll get
Speaker 1: to it, hopefully relatively relatively soon. But one other thing
Speaker 1: I wanted to point out that this just reminds me
Speaker 1: because I mentioned Kavanaugh before, Where are the where are
Speaker 1: the referrals currently about those who lie about Justice Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: to try to tear him down during his confirmation process?
Speaker 1: That's illegal, folks, that's illegal. We're talking about meet too.
Speaker 1: What about the fake me too? Which is what Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: exposed the politicized Me Too Walstree Journal as a piece
Speaker 1: Today has Justice Sprent Kavanaugh neared a year in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. The anniversary was used to relitigate the unverified
Speaker 1: allegations against him. No news though regarding the four false
Speaker 1: accusers whom the Senate referred for potential criminal inquiry. This week,
Speaker 1: nine Republicans asked the Justice Department for an update. These
Speaker 1: criminal referrals were not made lightly, says the letter saw
Speaker 1: I'm a GOP Senator's Chuck Grassley, Lindsay Graham, Mike lead,
Speaker 1: ted Cruz, John corn and Mike Crapo, Tom Tillis, John Kennedy,
Speaker 1: and Marsha Blackburn. One lurid tale was that a nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five young mister Kavanaugh assaulted a warmer assaulted a
Speaker 1: woman on a boat in Newport, Rhode Island. The accuser
Speaker 1: soon recanted, Yeah, but that's a problem. You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to lie, to try to destroy someone and then say whoop,
Speaker 1: sorry my bad. Two of the referrals relate to Michael Avanati,
Speaker 1: the lawyer now facing an April trial for ledge theft
Speaker 1: from Stormy Daniels. He and one of his clients told
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee to hit evidence that mister Kavanaugh participated
Speaker 1: in gang rape in women raping women in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 1: A third Avanatti client purportedly signed a sworn statement saying
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh spiked party punch bowls with queludes. According to NBCs.
Speaker 1: He subsequently denied that and claimed, mister Avanati quote twisted
Speaker 1: my words, folks. These are lies told to Congress. These
Speaker 1: are crimes. What about what about rule of law? What
Speaker 1: about our democracy? These were crimes. These people committed crimes
Speaker 1: to try to help their side, the Democrats, to destroy Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Does the rule of law matter or does it not?
Speaker 1: Is this a serious country when it comes to breaking
Speaker 1: the law or is it a partisan country? Well, for
Speaker 1: some reason, no updates, no further in formation, nothing to
Speaker 1: speak of here. I find that a problem, folks. There
Speaker 1: needs to be consequences for people who sign sworn statements
Speaker 1: to destroy other human beings in violation of law. Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh or anyone else for that matter. I'd like to
Speaker 1: know why there's been no movement on this. I'm curious.
Speaker 1: You could say it's no secret that we are meeting
Speaker 1: here today at a very perilous juncture across roads, one
Speaker 1: of extinction or opportunity. I am sad to report that
Speaker 1: there is no middle road on the climate crisis. We
Speaker 1: will either address the problem meaningfully and in accordance with
Speaker 1: scientific consensus, or we will not. The statement is not
Speaker 1: a matter of radicalism. It is a matter of fact.
Speaker 1: And many of the decisions we make, particularly as executives
Speaker 1: and policy makers, will either contribute to destruction or preservation,
Speaker 1: and that contribution is measured in the form of emissions,
Speaker 1: injustice and inequality. That we must choose whether this moment
Speaker 1: will lead us to regression or evolution. All of this
Speaker 1: means that rising to the challenge of the climate crisis
Speaker 1: demands not only that we act meaningfully, but also that
Speaker 1: we change society. The two are inextricable, and meeting the
Speaker 1: climate crisis will require the largest economic mobilization we may
Speaker 1: have ever tried to pursue as a human species. And
Speaker 1: that is what a Green New Deal is all about.
Speaker 1: It's all crazy, that's for sure. Come on, folks, extinction,
Speaker 1: extinction of the human race. This is a sitting member
Speaker 1: of Congress. Where are the people? Where's SNL on this one?
Speaker 1: Why is anyone making fun of it. This is insane,
Speaker 1: This is lunacy, and yet she says it and thinks
Speaker 1: she sounds smart when she does it. The extinction versus
Speaker 1: opportunity will be measured with emissions, by emissions, justice and equality. Okay,
Speaker 1: if this really is the scientific crisis they say it is,
Speaker 1: or the crisis rooted in scientific certainty that they say
Speaker 1: it is, what do emissions, justice and equality have to
Speaker 1: do with it? What's that got to do with any
Speaker 1: of this stuff. Emissions, clearly I get that part, But
Speaker 1: justice and equality? Why is climate change about equality? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, because this is all meant to be an
Speaker 1: excuse for a massive status authoritarian takeover based in the
Speaker 1: scientific consensus, to allow a government to form that would
Speaker 1: not just be supra national one world government, of course
Speaker 1: that's the ultimate aim here, but also that could control
Speaker 1: any aspect of your life. And if you if you disagree,
Speaker 1: you are trying to destroy the planet. It's hard to
Speaker 1: think of a theory that is more bonkers and more
Speaker 1: terrified at the same time then what they are now
Speaker 1: advancing openly in public here in the Democratic Party AOC.
Speaker 1: What she's saying here, she's this is nuts, folks. Mandatory
Speaker 1: blackouts in California. You know, we were just talking a
Speaker 1: second ago about Okazio Cortez with We're all gonna go extinct.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, omg, Like what are we gonna do?
Speaker 1: We're gonna go stink. It's so scary. And lets they
Speaker 1: can like control all the things and like and that,
Speaker 1: like get rid of the electoral college because it's like
Speaker 1: the worst college ever. There's no pier, there are no CAGs,
Speaker 1: there's like no frat parties. Yeah, listen to that person
Speaker 1: about what we should do with the with trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars of wealth and the direction of the global and
Speaker 1: US economy with it. She knows what she's talking about. Folks. Wow,
Speaker 1: going off the rails of a crazy train via the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal. That is what is happening. But California
Speaker 1: has turned into a laboratory of left wing insanity. It
Speaker 1: is a one party state and it is really the
Speaker 1: model of what the Democrats would like to achieve in
Speaker 1: the whole country. And they think they can do it
Speaker 1: in part through the legalization of illegals to change the
Speaker 1: electorate forever. People say, oh, but illegals can't vote, Well
Speaker 1: if they're legalized, guess what you know, what happens after
Speaker 1: they're all legalized, the people are gonna say, well, they
Speaker 1: should also have a way to become citizens. And even
Speaker 1: if they don't become citizens, then also their children, as
Speaker 1: we know through birthright citizenship, are immediately citizens. And look
Speaker 1: if my parents were illegals, and then one political party
Speaker 1: is like, no, they didn't break the law. They're totally
Speaker 1: allowed in this country. They're the heart and soul of
Speaker 1: the American dream. People love their parents. I'd want to
Speaker 1: vote for the party that said that too, and not
Speaker 1: the party that said, yeah, maybe maybe breaking laws and
Speaker 1: skipping the immigration line and all that is something that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't advocate for human nature being what it is.
Speaker 1: I understand that, but one party state in California has
Speaker 1: not worked out that well for the Californians. And the
Speaker 1: most recent example of this is the PG and E,
Speaker 1: which I think was the name of I think that's
Speaker 1: the utility company from Aaron Brockovich too, right. I think
Speaker 1: it's the same the one that Aaron Brockovich goes after.
Speaker 1: Very interesting if you ever are curious, read about the
Speaker 1: cancer clusters that Aaron Brockovich, hero of the trial lawyers
Speaker 1: and democrats across the country. And of course, from the
Speaker 1: movie with Julia Robert all anyone knows in the movie
Speaker 1: find out that you'll find that the cancer clusters that
Speaker 1: she established are no more prevalent than the national norm,
Speaker 1: meaning that, yeah, people get cancer. They get cancer all
Speaker 1: over the country. It's a terrible thing. But why is
Speaker 1: it anyway, The science behind all that stuff is something
Speaker 1: that'll be interesting to look into. National Review did some
Speaker 1: good work on this. But you know, people want to
Speaker 1: believe in heroes, and I get it, so they don't
Speaker 1: really No one really wants to dig too far into that.
Speaker 1: But PG and EAS the utility company in California, and
Speaker 1: here's where things stand. It's poorly run, which is not surprising.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of environmental regulations and as we know,
Speaker 1: California has been hit with these terrible wilf wildfires. People
Speaker 1: are dyeing the wildfires, losing their homes in it, and
Speaker 1: so now the state of California has whole sections of
Speaker 1: it that go into a mandatory blackouts. They turn off
Speaker 1: the power for hours and hours at a time if
Speaker 1: there's two if the wind is too high. The problem
Speaker 1: being here that if the wind is too high, there's
Speaker 1: the possibility of branches or trees falling, falling on power lines.
Speaker 1: Falling power lines cause fires. Then the brush and debris
Speaker 1: clearing situation, the forestry situation in California is terrible for
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of reasons, and you get these big fires,
Speaker 1: and instead of dealing with what why are the fires
Speaker 1: worse now? What's been happening? They just say, oh, it's
Speaker 1: climate change. It's not climate change. Just stop with that crap.
Speaker 1: People say this stuff, they say it, they get mad
Speaker 1: at you, they say, okay, show me the evidence, and
Speaker 1: then there's no evidences. They put the scientists, but the scientists,
Speaker 1: it's not an argument, as much as I know libs
Speaker 1: like to pretend that it is. But you have these
Speaker 1: rolling blackouts now in California, which for those of you you
Speaker 1: like me who have spent considerable amounts of time in
Speaker 1: what is known as the developing were the Third World,
Speaker 1: that's just a fact of life in a lot of places,
Speaker 1: including major cities like oh Powers going out for a
Speaker 1: few hours. Why because they've got a crappy power grid
Speaker 1: and not enough power generation going on, so all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, you're just in darkness. It's like, well, I
Speaker 1: guess we can't work for a few hours. And it's
Speaker 1: always a really a signals to you how efficient an economy,
Speaker 1: how efficient a government is, when they just say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess we're gonna be in the dark for a
Speaker 1: few hours because we can't figure this out. That now
Speaker 1: happens in California, which is the fifth If it were
Speaker 1: a country, it will be the fifth largest economy in
Speaker 1: the world on its own and is the home to
Speaker 1: probably more high tech, world class high tech startups than
Speaker 1: any other place in the world. And the power goes out,
Speaker 1: they can't keep the light. They literally can't keep the
Speaker 1: lights on the whole seconds to California. Now, to this,
Speaker 1: you always have people pointing out. They'll say, oh, but
Speaker 1: California is such a wealthy state and so many people
Speaker 1: still live there. Yeah. But as I've been telling everybody,
Speaker 1: California has only been a Democrat looney bin for about
Speaker 1: twenty to thirty years now, depending on how you want
Speaker 1: to gage it. Really it's changed. California was a reliably
Speaker 1: Republican state until the eighties, at least in national elections.
Speaker 1: It has changed recently and dramatically. And you know, one
Speaker 1: of the things that you see when you look at
Speaker 1: how central planning and state control of an economy and overregulation.
Speaker 1: It doesn't fail all at once, It doesn't fail overnight.
Speaker 1: It takes time. So those who point to California and say,
Speaker 1: but look at it. It's such a populous state, at
Speaker 1: such a wealthy state. Yes, but people moved there and
Speaker 1: we're living there and choosing to go there before all
Speaker 1: the crazy stuff was happening. Now. In fact, California on
Speaker 1: net is losing population, losing population in places like Nevada
Speaker 1: and Texas. The tax burden is very very high, as
Speaker 1: we know, and once you're in a state, it becomes
Speaker 1: very hard for a lot of companies to relocate out
Speaker 1: of this state. And so there is a degree of
Speaker 1: they can milk the cow, so to speak, for a
Speaker 1: long time they had a very fat, very happy cow
Speaker 1: in California. I'm really belaboring this analogy. But it takes
Speaker 1: a while before you run out of milk. It takes
Speaker 1: a while before you see how destructive the government policies are.
Speaker 1: Because you have accumulations of wealth and population and some
Speaker 1: degree of statewide just cohesiveness, cohesion among people about how
Speaker 1: they lived in line with what they want to do.
Speaker 1: California is incredibly rich and natural resources, incredibly rich, and
Speaker 1: well just rich as a state, and yet there's a
Speaker 1: real feeling that it's destroying itself. And they never learn
Speaker 1: the lessons that they always have some external some external
Speaker 1: person or organization or something of Trump obviously, but other
Speaker 1: things that they'll point to as why they have Why
Speaker 1: is the homelessness population exploding there? Why can't they keep
Speaker 1: the lights on? Why are they having droughts? This is
Speaker 1: all bad management. These are all decisions made by the
Speaker 1: government at the state of California and at the state
Speaker 1: and local level, and they just pretend that there's no
Speaker 1: lesson to be learned, that there's no problem. They're wrong.
Speaker 1: What they are doing is slowly destroying was one of
Speaker 1: the most beautiful and really most incredible states in the country.
Speaker 1: And just as socialist do in so many places, as
Speaker 1: stateist do in so many places, they keep telling you
Speaker 1: that everything's fine as they're destroying and blaming everybody else.
Speaker 1: And by the time we figure out how messed up
Speaker 1: it really is, it's too late to change it. That's
Speaker 1: what I think we're heading to with that state. You're
Speaker 1: going to see real disasters happening there, disasters of government
Speaker 1: failure and the latest round of power outages, blackouts, intentional blackouts.
Speaker 1: Here's just another example of state can't get it, can't
Speaker 1: get its act together, doesn't know what it's doing. Like
Speaker 1: soft butter on warm toast. Time to spread some freedom
Speaker 1: coast to coast. It's time for roll Call Team Bucket.
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com for all of your role call needs,
Speaker 1: my friends. That is where you send us the stuff,
Speaker 1: That is where you let us know what's up. You
Speaker 1: can also send us a message on Facebook at Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck section. Tomorrow we launch the Pluto
Speaker 1: TV stream of the show. It's very exciting. You can
Speaker 1: watch me as I'm talking about all the things. So
Speaker 1: if you prefer, if you're a visual learner, perhaps that
Speaker 1: will be your favorite way to consume the show. But
Speaker 1: do check it out. It'll be fun. As we go along.
Speaker 1: We'll also start to have some guests openly in person.
Speaker 1: Some fun in here. Come out the coast, I have
Speaker 1: a few laughs. It'll be great. Poluto TV and also
Speaker 1: the podcast. Please do share the podcast so that we
Speaker 1: continue to boost those numbers. And I just want to
Speaker 1: crowd out as many libs on the top one hundred
Speaker 1: list as possible from iTunes, so and from the from
Speaker 1: my heart, I heard our radio. So I want to
Speaker 1: crowd out lib podcasts. I need your help to do that.
Speaker 1: We're already doing well, but we want to do a
Speaker 1: lot better. That means you got to share this by
Speaker 1: just town, Just town. It's free. Just tell somebody, Hey,
Speaker 1: just check out the boxex and show this guy's kind
Speaker 1: of smart, know some things. It's a smart guys, wicked smart.
Speaker 1: That's for you, Boston. I miss you, all right, William writes,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck. Even though ag Barr signed off on the
Speaker 1: indictment of the two Giuliana Ukraine associates, this does not
Speaker 1: negate the fact that the failure to give the president's
Speaker 1: attorney that heads up may be construed as a hostile
Speaker 1: active entrapment by the administrative state at d jay William Um, okay, William,
Speaker 1: I don't really know what that is. But I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure what you're hostile active entrapment by
Speaker 1: the administrative Say, yeah, I have to look at that,
Speaker 1: my friend. But in interesting nonetheless, Bob Bright's Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: give Jim Gaffigan a listen He's got a hilarious special
Speaker 1: on Netflix, and one of his recurring characters is a
Speaker 1: long way towards Elizabeth Warren. Gaffigan isn't trying to imitate Warren,
Speaker 1: but you'll know it when you hear it. The voice.
Speaker 1: I mean, I thought if you heard it, you'd identified
Speaker 1: some things you could employ your impression, as you've mentioned
Speaker 1: his work in progress, Shields high Bob, all right, Bob,
Speaker 1: I'll check it out. I'm gonna have me a beer.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren beergate the most awkward lame. Do you see
Speaker 1: that you don't talk? I did not know. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: She's like, oh yeah, hi everybody, I'm gonna have me
Speaker 1: up here, and everyone's like, finally, just have the Why
Speaker 1: do you gonna tell us you're gonna have a beer?
Speaker 1: You know that sounds ridiculous. Also, your impression is getting better,
Speaker 1: thank you. I think it's better than the Hillary screech.
Speaker 1: Hillary screech is just there are different people, Yeah, that
Speaker 1: the different people that that's also it's just more of
Speaker 1: a of an instinctual That's how I feel whenever I hill.
Speaker 1: That's what I hear when Hillary speaks, even though technically
Speaker 1: she does not sound like Iago from m Aladdin. Yes, Jeff,
Speaker 1: that's fantastic and I never put these two and two
Speaker 1: together there, right, Wow, that's really yeah. See um, all right,
Speaker 1: here we go. Dorothy writes, how can we help the president?
Speaker 1: Let him know we support him? Well, Dorothy, Step one,
Speaker 1: vote for him. Step two, tell other people to vote
Speaker 1: for him. Step three tell people listen to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton show. Boom your step by step guide to the awesome.
Speaker 1: So there is that. Let's see here. I don't have
Speaker 1: a name on this one, but it seems Oh, Mark
Speaker 1: and Louisiana. Yeah, Mark and Louisiana. I'm saying it almost right, Louisiana, Buck,
Speaker 1: you're justin Trudeau impression reminds me of Peter Seller's portrayal
Speaker 1: of Chief Inspector Clouseau from the Pink Panther movies. If
Speaker 1: you've not seen any of the Pink Panther films, then
Speaker 1: I urge you strongly to see one. There's nothing funnier
Speaker 1: than seeing an Englishman playing a French detective shields, high muzzles, level,
Speaker 1: go Navy beat Army Inspectator Clouseau froms the Pink Pansila movie.
Speaker 1: I remember when everybody from France kind of sound like
Speaker 1: descent as the movie and then you always it was
Speaker 1: like does he have a berets that he carries around
Speaker 1: with him just in case? No, something like these somethings
Speaker 1: like that, Producer Mark, maybe you maybe you'll bring me
Speaker 1: to the wedding. I'd us the toast in the French
Speaker 1: accent so I can say, ah, bon chance and brodcer Mark,
Speaker 1: now you've have it. Sounds like a good way to
Speaker 1: have a really quick divorce. Oh wow, okay fine. Then
Speaker 1: then then Trudeau will not show up at Joe Whether
Speaker 1: it's funny because people listen the actual Trudeau, he's much
Speaker 1: more like, hello everybody, I'm a liberal Canadian and uh
Speaker 1: he sounds like more more like mister Rogers. Yeah, he's
Speaker 1: much more like, oh hello, I just I have this
Speaker 1: very soft, inoffensive voice. Hey, and I just talk. He
Speaker 1: talks like this all the time. But I prefer if
Speaker 1: he's if we took if we took Trudeaux and made
Speaker 1: him sound more like Pierre's or lamber jack who cuts
Speaker 1: down the trees and where's the black and red check shirt?
Speaker 1: Like the Lamba Jackson. Do you sound like Pierre Escargo
Speaker 1: from all that? I don't know if you ever watched
Speaker 1: that show. There's a gugo. No, it was a character.
Speaker 1: All that is like kids as Keenan Thompson back in
Speaker 1: the day in my era. I first of all, I
Speaker 1: think I'm have to change my name to Pierre Escargo.
Speaker 1: That'd be great, Escargo. You'll make millennials happy. That's right.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit of cultural but I can culturally
Speaker 1: appropriate whatever I want from France. I will take their baguettes,
Speaker 1: I will take zeir brie, I will take their women olive.
Speaker 1: The above. Well, if you're being justin Trudeau, you have
Speaker 1: to say poutine and smoked meats rye more that the
Speaker 1: French Canadian. I should probably go up to Montreal just
Speaker 1: I could work on my French Canadian accent a little bit.
Speaker 1: Jay to the ce j C. I can't. This isn't
Speaker 1: coming up, all right, Well whatever, that's all right. Let's
Speaker 1: go to our next one. Here, James a great name. WHOA,
Speaker 1: this is really long, Hey, Buck, I come not to
Speaker 1: praise Buck nor bury him. I extend an honorable hand
Speaker 1: of aids. He can go to weddings and anywhere he
Speaker 1: pleases and eat with gusto. I'm not sure we can
Speaker 1: get there for producer Mark's wedding, but definitely for future events. Mazeltov,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark love the show. All right, there we go.
Speaker 1: Thank you appreciate that, Tim Buck. Chadwick Moore was an
Speaker 1: excellent guest as well as a guest host. Rather, his humor,
Speaker 1: sarcasm and insights regarding political power as a driving force
Speaker 1: behind the LGB activism are confirmation of what I have
Speaker 1: observed having my two children in major campus universities. Oh, Tim,
Speaker 1: I think I read this last week and I forgot,
Speaker 1: but thank thank you so much for that, my friend,
Speaker 1: And I'm glad that people liked hearing from Chadwick. He's
Speaker 1: a new new buddy of mine and it was his
Speaker 1: first time ever hosting three hours on radio. So we skipped,
Speaker 1: we skipped all the like local show stuff for him
Speaker 1: and went right to national syndication as a guest host.
Speaker 1: Which that's how it's how we roll. Um. All right,
Speaker 1: let's see we have here next up? Done? Did it done? Facebook?
Speaker 1: Dot Com? Slash Bucks Sexton. I wasn't really singing. I
Speaker 1: know some of you are look booked. Don't sing whatever
Speaker 1: if you want me to not say, if all of
Speaker 1: you share the podcast with one person. I promise I
Speaker 1: will stop singing, but I'll know by looking at the
Speaker 1: numbers all of you have to share it. That's that's
Speaker 1: the that's the trade off we're gonna make here. Let's
Speaker 1: see Rory, all right, whoa, here we go. Greetings and salutations.
Speaker 1: I must admit your imitation of a scotsman's accent was
Speaker 1: humorous yet to Hollywood onto other matters, Hey, Rory, Hey
Speaker 1: Lottie akin Akin, it's not perfect impression onto other matters.
Speaker 1: I listened to your podcast in regards to the left
Speaker 1: war on the First Amendment created within the created with
Speaker 1: any thoughts on the boiling frog theory. Look at AOC's
Speaker 1: ideology and policy desires, Union Seminary, having students confess their
Speaker 1: sense to plants, CNN's town Hall for LGBTQ, a nine
Speaker 1: year old transgender really, etc. Etc. They pushed their ideologies
Speaker 1: upon society a little by little. Eventually they reached their
Speaker 1: ultimate goal. Their ideologies become agendas and policies. In nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety three, at Camp Pendleton during Marine during training, marines
Speaker 1: were asked if they would confiscate firems from US citizens.
Speaker 1: Of those asked, ninety four percent answered no, Well, that's
Speaker 1: that's important to here. There's even more here PostScript. I
Speaker 1: don't have that a cure taste to enjoy frog legs
Speaker 1: as kape it symbol because meat and potatoes are our
Speaker 1: main staple and diet in life. Hey, Laddie Rory, thank you, Laddie.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it. From the Freedom Hut today tomorrow
Speaker 1: Plute TV. It's on my friends. Check it out. Download
Speaker 1: the Pluto TV app for free. Also share the podcast
Speaker 1: until tomorrow. Happy Things, Happy, thanksgiving up, that's the wrong day,
Speaker 1: Happy Columbus Day. Shields Hot