Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Liberal Meeting is
Speaker 1: at it again. They're deciding that they're gonna go after Trump.
Speaker 1: On the Trump Tower Meeting, they're saying foreign interference. Trump
Speaker 1: said it's okay. They're in full meltdown over that. We'll
Speaker 1: get into that a much more coming up on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American. You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember he's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: I think you might want to listen. I don't know.
Speaker 1: There's nothing well withth listening. If somebody call from a
Speaker 1: country Norway, we have information on your opponent, Oh, I
Speaker 1: think i'd want to hear it. Do you want that
Speaker 1: kind of interference in our elections? It's not an interference.
Speaker 1: They have information. I think i'd take it. If I
Speaker 1: thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the
Speaker 1: FBI if I thought there was something wrong. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Oh man, here we go back
Speaker 1: to the old bag of tricks. Here for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: for the Libs, let's talk about foreign interference in our
Speaker 1: elections again. Oh gosh, the Trump Tower meeting where no
Speaker 1: information of any worth or any consequence was exchanged. They're
Speaker 1: looking for something, anything, now to revive the fortunes of
Speaker 1: the hashtag resistance after the flop of the Mulla report,
Speaker 1: Muller's pathetic press conference to try to breathe new life
Speaker 1: into the efforts to impeach Trump. The Democrats know that
Speaker 1: impeachment comes with risks. They're trying to make it less
Speaker 1: risky by trashing Trump with the same old narratives that
Speaker 1: they've used in the past, the same old nonsense. It's
Speaker 1: just ridiculous. And here they are asking the president, Oh,
Speaker 1: George Stephanopolis of ABC News, little Clinton operative sitting or
Speaker 1: actually standing there and get into that later, asking the
Speaker 1: President United States, why are you okay with that foreign interference.
Speaker 1: Let's think this through for a second, shall we. You're
Speaker 1: in a presidential campaign. There's opposition research coming in all
Speaker 1: over the place. People are saying all kinds of things.
Speaker 1: You're hearing rumors all over and if someone remember he
Speaker 1: wasn't president when this happened. He's just a campaign for president.
Speaker 1: And someone says they've got really, really critical information about
Speaker 1: your opponent that could change the course of the the race.
Speaker 1: You're gonna say, no, sorry, I don't I don't like
Speaker 1: where the information is coming from. Is that realistic? Does
Speaker 1: anyone think that would that would really wash? That would
Speaker 1: be the case? This is silly. What if they send
Speaker 1: an email to the president. What if somebody got Trump's
Speaker 1: phone number and send a text message, Hey, here's what
Speaker 1: you need to know. He opens his phone. There it is.
Speaker 1: He's supposed to say, ah, my eyes, I have to
Speaker 1: pretend that I forget this. I can never use this
Speaker 1: really valuable information that I have, or maybe it's not valuable.
Speaker 1: But you're supposed to what run away cry, say that
Speaker 1: you never wanted to see this in the first place.
Speaker 1: This is absurd. Is this is patternly absurd? Now that's
Speaker 1: just on its own. This this new standard of oh,
Speaker 1: maybe I've got information that proves that Hillary Clinton's a criminal,
Speaker 1: but no, no, don't give that to me. It's from
Speaker 1: a foreign government, and this is America. We don't do that, sir. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the Clinton campaign sent operatives to Ukraine to try to
Speaker 1: dig up dirt on Trump. But that's not even the
Speaker 1: biggest effort of foreign interference. That they were engaged in.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem for the Libs, for the Democrats. Enough
Speaker 1: people have read the reports, now understand what's going on
Speaker 1: that when Libs yell foreign interference, we yell back dossier.
Speaker 1: Here's the fundamental problem, the fundamental question that they cannot answer.
Speaker 1: How are we supposed to pretend that they care the
Speaker 1: Libs care about foreign interference at the election when officially
Speaker 1: and as a matter of record, not a theory, not
Speaker 1: something that you know, maybe kind of sort o, we
Speaker 1: don't know yet, as a matter of public record that
Speaker 1: all sides agree on the facts about the DNC on
Speaker 1: behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign hired a law firm
Speaker 1: that hired a foreign intelligence operative, a foreigner who was
Speaker 1: hired specifically because of his connections to Russians and time
Speaker 1: working on Russia. And he went around and spoke to
Speaker 1: when you could see it in the dossier, Russian government
Speaker 1: official who gave him anti Trump information, most likely disinformation.
Speaker 1: And then he was used by the DNC and their
Speaker 1: law firm, Perkins Coy to launder that information, give it
Speaker 1: the veneer of credibility, run with it to the American
Speaker 1: journalist Cadre. The journos and give it to the FBI
Speaker 1: and the DOJ, and they ran with it and even
Speaker 1: took it to the fives Accord and presented it as real.
Speaker 1: Where's the real foreign influence in the election in this situation,
Speaker 1: my friends, who's really using foreigners to try to change
Speaker 1: the results of the election to try to destroy political opponents.
Speaker 1: Trump's team, unbeknownst to Trump, including Maniford and Cohen and
Speaker 1: Trump Junior, sat down to have a meeting with the
Speaker 1: lady who said that she had really important information from
Speaker 1: Russia's prosecutor. Could have been information about Hillary Clinton being
Speaker 1: a criminal, because Hillary Clinton is a criminal. What's the
Speaker 1: what's the big problem this sanctimony about how, oh, it's
Speaker 1: so unpatriotic. If you're going to tell me that taking
Speaker 1: that meetings on patriotic, and then you're gonna mumble mumble,
Speaker 1: you know, mister rect misdirect about the dossier and the
Speaker 1: role of Christopher Steele and all of his Russian subsources,
Speaker 1: including Russian government officials, in an active measures campaign against
Speaker 1: Trump and against his people. You have no credibility. You're
Speaker 1: a hack. But the media is still they're still just
Speaker 1: trying to force feed this to the American people. Oh,
Speaker 1: just don't ignore what we know. Just believe what we say.
Speaker 1: Just take our word for take our version of these
Speaker 1: facts as all you need to know. This is just madness.
Speaker 1: It's madness what they're doing. But Trump's arrangement syndrome forces
Speaker 1: or induces this kind of mania. Anything that they can
Speaker 1: do to take down Trump, to stop him from four
Speaker 1: more years, they think is justified. A lot of them,
Speaker 1: I believe, could not and I mean CNN and the
Speaker 1: Washington Post and a lot of prominent Democrats cannot psychologically
Speaker 1: handle four more years of Trump. They will be broken,
Speaker 1: if they have not already been broken. And so whatever
Speaker 1: they have to do to stop him they think is
Speaker 1: inherently justified. I want an answer. I want somebody who
Speaker 1: is prominent in the Democratic Party. I want some of
Speaker 1: the masses of all these journals ringing around. How is
Speaker 1: the Steel dossier, with all of its Russian sources, which
Speaker 1: was successfully used against Trump, brought to the fires a court, unverified, unvetted,
Speaker 1: raw intelligence information. The DNC specifically went after somebody who
Speaker 1: had sources in Russia. How is that not foreign interference
Speaker 1: in our election? A foreigner talking to foreigners, creating compromise,
Speaker 1: compromising information on Trump and running it to our own
Speaker 1: intelligence community as well as all the journals that want
Speaker 1: to take Trump down. How is that not for because
Speaker 1: it was paid for, because he was able to convince
Speaker 1: the clowns at the FBI that this was legit. That's
Speaker 1: not an answer. I want an answer or else. I
Speaker 1: don't want to hear about the Trump Power meeting from
Speaker 1: any of these losers ever. Again, it's meaningless. They have
Speaker 1: no standards other than Trump derangement, and that's not a standard.
Speaker 1: We're just getting started here. I'll be right back. That's
Speaker 1: not the right answer. If a foreign government comes to
Speaker 1: you as a public official and I'll first to help
Speaker 1: your campaign, giving you anything of value, whether it be
Speaker 1: mining or information on your opponent, the right answer is snow,
Speaker 1: and I've been consistent about that. I think Chris Frey's
Speaker 1: statement is to correct state, and I'm hoping some of
Speaker 1: my Democratic colleagues will take more seriously the fact that
Speaker 1: Christopher Still was a foreign agent paid for about the
Speaker 1: Timocratic Party. Okay, folks, here's where I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: that the Lindsey Graham is wrong. I disagree with Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 1: Foreign government comes to you and says they have really
Speaker 1: important information. The right answer is no. That may sound
Speaker 1: really you know, you could pound your chest on that
Speaker 1: and say, see, look at how great we are and
Speaker 1: you know, keeping the American election just about Americans or whatever,
Speaker 1: which is also a whole other conversation. We've got a
Speaker 1: global media environment. We have an Internet that's global. There's
Speaker 1: information flowing all the time everywhere. Are we supposed to
Speaker 1: now track down where the information comes from? Constantly? If
Speaker 1: a president sees a new story from a foreign country,
Speaker 1: a former country's news service that's a state news are
Speaker 1: they not allowed to use that information? If? What if
Speaker 1: it's then picked up by other news organizations, but the
Speaker 1: origin of it is the state news service of some
Speaker 1: other country, They're not allowed to use that. That would
Speaker 1: be a contribution in a sense, wouldn't it. This is
Speaker 1: why these rules are ridiculous and this formulation is just wrong.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, look, Lindsay Graham, I think
Speaker 1: he's a I think he's an honorable guy and a
Speaker 1: well intentioned guy. I don't think he's I don't I
Speaker 1: don't think he's that wise, and I think that he's
Speaker 1: wrong on stuff. And I think he's wrong on this.
Speaker 1: Um here, here's let's play this scenario game. They keep saying, okay,
Speaker 1: because really they create all those Russia hysteria stuff. But
Speaker 1: let's say it's not Russia. Let's say it's some other country.
Speaker 1: Let's say it's someone else. All right, the Russian government
Speaker 1: is one thing. Let's say the French government comes forward
Speaker 1: and says, you know what, we've got information for you.
Speaker 1: You know Hillary in the last election, you know, Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, uh, sexually assaulted. I'm just this
Speaker 1: is a scenario. This is a hypeth edical but I'm
Speaker 1: just Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, sexually assaulted a young
Speaker 1: girl in France. And you know, we have real evidence
Speaker 1: that's come forward, and we you know, we have a
Speaker 1: real process. But you know, you should know that this
Speaker 1: is what happened. And the French government, you know, the
Speaker 1: minute the French Minister of remember it was the Russian
Speaker 1: senior lawyer. I forget what the guy's title was, A
Speaker 1: velance guy said she represented sort of the senior prosecutor. Well,
Speaker 1: what if the French minister of justice said, you know,
Speaker 1: we've got we've got reasonably that Bill Clinton assaulted a
Speaker 1: young girl and we wanted you to know that. We
Speaker 1: think the American people should know that. Does anybody want
Speaker 1: to sound like a total moron and tell me, oh,
Speaker 1: you can't use that information. Oh that's a that's a
Speaker 1: campaign contribution. Mc dare. This is idiocy. The moment you
Speaker 1: take this standard they say they're setting up, and you
Speaker 1: apply it more generally and and try to make it
Speaker 1: universally applicable, not just in this Russia collusion hysteria, it
Speaker 1: all falls apart. And when you add to this the
Speaker 1: very real prospect that Hillary Clinton may have taken a
Speaker 1: bribe or a husband may have taken a bribe from Russia.
Speaker 1: What if Vesslanskaia is like, look, here's the information. You know, Hillary,
Speaker 1: there was a meeting, it was arranged. Bill Clinton got
Speaker 1: a check for five hundred thousand dollars from a Russian
Speaker 1: bank to give a speech. No one gets paid a
Speaker 1: half million dollars for a speech. This is insane. But
Speaker 1: his wife was Secretary of State at the time. And
Speaker 1: then we had this agreement through an intermediary that Hillary
Speaker 1: was gonna, you know, de sanction the following Russians or
Speaker 1: something like that. What if that had happened that could
Speaker 1: have happened. That's not a crazy scenario at all. I mean,
Speaker 1: Hillary and Bill Clinton or wildly corrupt and the media
Speaker 1: pretending they weren't is one of the greatest knocks on
Speaker 1: their credibility that you could point to. It's laughable. And
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation is collapsing. No one cares for the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation anymore because it was all affront for influence
Speaker 1: peddling and access selling. Pretending to be a charity. It
Speaker 1: was a pass through for the Clinton brand and paying
Speaker 1: for their lifestyle and paying for their private jets and
Speaker 1: essentially creating a government in exile for the Clintons. And
Speaker 1: the media acted like, oh, oh, it's just a charity,
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong. You're nothing wrong that's going on at all.
Speaker 1: Absolute nonsense, total and complete nonsense. But let's say that
Speaker 1: there was information that there was a real quid pro quo,
Speaker 1: you know what, for what corruption, and the Russians had
Speaker 1: it and they were going to give it to Trump.
Speaker 1: You could say, well, buck, he has to take it
Speaker 1: to the FBI. Okay, But is he still not allowed
Speaker 1: to use the information? Does he have to wait to
Speaker 1: see if the FBI decides to bring charges or not.
Speaker 1: This opposition research. This is well, you know, what's fair
Speaker 1: is fair. What information you have is information you have?
Speaker 1: Are is the expectation now that if a foreign government
Speaker 1: had information about criminal activity or corruption of a US
Speaker 1: political candidate, that the opponent of that candidate is supposed
Speaker 1: to sit on it and not say anything because it
Speaker 1: comes from foreign source. Why if it's true, why would
Speaker 1: you do that? These rules that they're pretending to believe
Speaker 1: in don't make any sense. They don't make any sense.
Speaker 1: You got all these DC types that want to sound like, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, because this is an opportunity to do a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, virtue signaling about what a patriot
Speaker 1: you are. And I'm Jelova. Oh I would never take
Speaker 1: foreign information. Yeah right, sure, people journalists taken. Okay, here's
Speaker 1: another for those who are saying, no, no, buck, you
Speaker 1: don't get it, you don't take you don't take information
Speaker 1: from foreign government use it against your plut Okay, let's
Speaker 1: say the foreign government. Let's just move around some of
Speaker 1: the pieces that are already on the chessboard here. So
Speaker 1: Russian government source tells an American journalist, Oh, this is
Speaker 1: kind of like the Dacier, isn't it Russian government source
Speaker 1: tells an American journalist, Hey, you know, it turns out
Speaker 1: that you know, Hill got got paid off ten million
Speaker 1: dollars in an unmarked account for her and Bill to
Speaker 1: change their stance on uranium one. I mean, just straight
Speaker 1: illegal as it gets corruption, right, a straight up payoff,
Speaker 1: tells that journalist. That journalist then contacts somebody in the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign and says, yeah, I've got word from this.
Speaker 1: This looks real. I've got word from this Russian source
Speaker 1: that the Russian government prosecutors saying that you know, Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton took all this money and you know it looks real.
Speaker 1: Is that campaign person? Because the information comes through an
Speaker 1: American source as an intermediary, but it's originally Russian, do
Speaker 1: they have an obligation to not do anything with it? Oh,
Speaker 1: it's okay if it goes through a pass through. Guess what.
Speaker 1: That makes it pretty easy to get the information from
Speaker 1: any foreign government to any campaign official. Just put it
Speaker 1: through a journalist as it pass through. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It does not hold together. This is all narrative. It's
Speaker 1: all story building from the anti Trump resistance. When you
Speaker 1: poke at this, it falls apart. And if you thought
Speaker 1: for one second that they intended to leave by their
Speaker 1: own rules. Remember Adam Schiff, one of the most dishonest
Speaker 1: and sanctimonious of all the anti trumpers in the Congress.
Speaker 1: Remember what happened when he had Russian comedians Vladimir Kiztsov
Speaker 1: and Alexei Stolarov call him up pretending to have information.
Speaker 1: We have the audio. Let's listen. What did democrats do?
Speaker 1: I mean, what do they really do when they think
Speaker 1: they might get information from a foreign source that's damaging
Speaker 1: to their political opponents? Play clip five. Oh that you
Speaker 1: work for investigation regarding Trump and Russian governments? Yes, well,
Speaker 1: else some important information about it, and that is documented
Speaker 1: as well in mature as you want to provide to us. Yes,
Speaker 1: So Bussava met with Trump in New York at some
Speaker 1: point after the twenty thirteen Miss Universe pageant. Absolutely, and
Speaker 1: she got compromising materials on tramp after their short relations. Okay,
Speaker 1: and what's the nature of the compromise. Well, there were
Speaker 1: pictures of naked Trump, and so Putin was made aware
Speaker 1: of the availability of the compromising material. Yes, of course
Speaker 1: Buzza shared those materials with sub checking sub sharct shares
Speaker 1: those materials with Putin because she's a god daughter of
Speaker 1: Putin and Puttin decided to press on Trump. Does it
Speaker 1: sound like Adam Ship's like, whoa, whoa, Hey, I don't
Speaker 1: want any of this, compromise the word he used, their
Speaker 1: compromising information on Trump. I want to hear any of this.
Speaker 1: It's not the kind of stuff that we talk about
Speaker 1: here or America. We don't do that stuff. We don't,
Speaker 1: of course not. He wants to know all about it.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, sure, maybe he'd call the FBI, does anything
Speaker 1: that he wouldn't also call the Washington Post right after
Speaker 1: that if he thought this was real, and tell them
Speaker 1: that he's got a great story for them and they
Speaker 1: just have to sort of dig a little bit or
Speaker 1: help point them in the right direction. Folks, we're not
Speaker 1: all little kids here. We know how this game in
Speaker 1: politics has played. The Democrats play it dirtier than anybody else.
Speaker 1: They play without principles, they play without honor, And so
Speaker 1: when they turn around as they're doing today and try
Speaker 1: to wag a finger and scold everybody on the other side,
Speaker 1: the Republicans and Trump for not playing according to their
Speaker 1: own constantly changing and murky and bizarre rules, you know
Speaker 1: what we should do, ignore them because they're full of it.
Speaker 1: Some also defending the president as well, including Senator Tom
Speaker 1: kill Us of North Carolina, instead making it pointing it
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and her effort to try to get dirt
Speaker 1: on the Russia and the Trump campaign by hiring the
Speaker 1: opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which of course attracted with
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, the former British agent, to try to look
Speaker 1: into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. But
Speaker 1: those two situations not entirely synonymous. Get potested emails and
Speaker 1: leak those out those that's much different than what was
Speaker 1: happening with the Steel situation with the Steele dossier. But nevertheless,
Speaker 1: you're hearing Republicans make that case as a lot of
Speaker 1: them trying to defend what the president is doing. Right.
Speaker 1: But these two things, the dossier and what Trump is
Speaker 1: talking about here, these two things are not the same. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're not the exact same jets, but they're pretty dark close.
Speaker 1: But this is a classic CNN thing. This is this
Speaker 1: is what you hear over there all the time. They'll
Speaker 1: they'll say something like it's a really profound statement, and
Speaker 1: when you think about it, it's one of the dumbest
Speaker 1: things you've ever heard. Well, the dossier and what happened
Speaker 1: here with the Trump campaign and meeting at Trump at
Speaker 1: Trump Tower. It's not the same, right, but the same
Speaker 1: principle should be involved, the same standards should be applied.
Speaker 1: I really wonder is CNN staffing itself at the most
Speaker 1: senior levels with people who are just not all that bright,
Speaker 1: or who are so dishonest but in love with their
Speaker 1: own image and their overstuffed paychecks that they're willing to
Speaker 1: look stupid in front of smart and honest people and
Speaker 1: not care. I don't have an answer. I don't know
Speaker 1: which it is right now. There is no good answer
Speaker 1: to the question. Why does why do the foreign efforts
Speaker 1: of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign not get
Speaker 1: not get called foreign interference? But the Trump campaign taking
Speaker 1: a meeting where there was no interference. That's another important
Speaker 1: that's another important component of this. The Trump meeting was,
Speaker 1: at worst, you could say, an attempted acceptance of information
Speaker 1: from a foreign source, attempted but without success. That's the
Speaker 1: worst thing you could say. It had no impact on anything.
Speaker 1: The Veslant Sky meeting was a nothing, a zero, a
Speaker 1: nothing burger. The Christopher Steel dossier, relying on a foreign
Speaker 1: intelligence operative and foreign Russian government sources for that dossier
Speaker 1: was a remarkably effective piece of disinformation. The effects we
Speaker 1: are still living with to this day. So, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, you have something that was effectively meaningless but
Speaker 1: has been magnified into a huge problem, which is the
Speaker 1: Trump Tower meeting and the Trump campaign people talking to Veslandskaya.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you have an incredibly successful disinformation
Speaker 1: and smear campaign using foreign sources, paying a foreigner, relying
Speaker 1: on foreign government information. But when you point this out,
Speaker 1: libs just they realize their best defenses to act like
Speaker 1: this is they're a bunch of total morons, Like they
Speaker 1: can understand why these two things being treated incongruously, Why
Speaker 1: these two matters receiving entirely separate treatment, Why that's incredibly disturbing.
Speaker 1: It undermined that their whole premise, they're trying to really
Speaker 1: get this going all this may be the thing they
Speaker 1: believe that leads to impeachment right now, you know, and
Speaker 1: now they'll try this, and you know, next week it'll
Speaker 1: be the firing of Mueller, I'm sorry, or the attempt
Speaker 1: to fire Muller by with McGann, it'll be obstruction again,
Speaker 1: and the week after that it'll be They'll just keep
Speaker 1: coming back to these and they lose on the issue,
Speaker 1: they go away, they come back again, and they hope
Speaker 1: that they can break through and they'll tire out their opponents.
Speaker 1: They'll they'll exhaust people like me and you who don't
Speaker 1: believe their bull and eventually they'll get their way. Their
Speaker 1: plan is to just be engaged in relentless propaganda. That's
Speaker 1: what this is, a relentless propaganda campaign. That's why when
Speaker 1: they're saying that these are different things, as though that's yeah,
Speaker 1: of course they're different things. But the key similarity foreign
Speaker 1: information used to the benefit of a presidential campaign. That
Speaker 1: is irrefutable. That is a function of fact. So given
Speaker 1: that that is an irrefutable function of fact, why doesn't
Speaker 1: the press have to grapple with this? Why are Democrats
Speaker 1: being asked all the time to explain this? How is
Speaker 1: one foreign interference but the other is not? Why does
Speaker 1: the media get so upset about one and out the other?
Speaker 1: But this is like what I told you yesterday. Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton got a bigger check for one speech from a
Speaker 1: Russian bank that was all tied up with oligarchs in
Speaker 1: the Russian government. He got more money from one country, Russia,
Speaker 1: for one speech than has been spent at every Trump
Speaker 1: property combined over the course of two years by twenty
Speaker 1: two different foreign governments. And you see peace after peace
Speaker 1: about the emolument's clause and how they're buying Trump by
Speaker 1: spending money on burghers at his hotel, and nothing on
Speaker 1: how Clinton was selling his wife's office. That's what he
Speaker 1: was doing. This is extremely serious. The stark reality, the
Speaker 1: sad truth, is that we have a president in the
Speaker 1: United States who's not playing on America's team. He is
Speaker 1: invited yet again foreign interference in our presidential elections. He
Speaker 1: said that and finally admitted in fact that he sees
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with collusion, which is in fact what happens
Speaker 1: when you accept information from a foreign entity. And he
Speaker 1: said in effect that he'd do it again. He sees
Speaker 1: no problem with a president of the United States being
Speaker 1: beholden to a foreign power, even a foreign hostile power,
Speaker 1: as inevitably one would be if you accepted information and
Speaker 1: support from a foreign government. What a pile of bull
Speaker 1: from former Obama National security advisor Susan Rice, remember her,
Speaker 1: Remember Susan Rice, everybody, it was a spontaneous reaction to
Speaker 1: a video. That's what caused the death of for brave
Speaker 1: Americans that night in Benghazi, Libya. That's right, it was
Speaker 1: a spontaneous video. Wasn't a terrorist attack? Can't use the
Speaker 1: T word, not not you know, right before and action
Speaker 1: is about to happen, and Obama is up on the
Speaker 1: ballot and he says that General Motors is alive, been
Speaker 1: Ladden is dead, and he's basically defeated al Kaya. You
Speaker 1: can't use the T word, can't say terrorists. But Susan
Speaker 1: Rice has come back out here to spread the Democrat
Speaker 1: talking points. It's extremely serious. A president who is not
Speaker 1: playing on America's team. What a disgusting, unfair, ridiculous, disgraceful
Speaker 1: thing for a former senior bureaucrat to say, not playing
Speaker 1: on America's team. Meanwhile, a lot of America seems I
Speaker 1: think the president's doing just just a great job of
Speaker 1: playing on our team. Yeah, I'd like to know what
Speaker 1: Susan Rice thinks about Hillary Clinton accepting for an information.
Speaker 1: I mean, this has now become you know, this has
Speaker 1: now become a question of are people just going to
Speaker 1: actively deny reality or not. And I think there's unfortunately
Speaker 1: a lot of them. Will this Susan Rice little monologue
Speaker 1: here about the president and not playing an America's team
Speaker 1: because he's inviting foreign interference. He didn't invite foreign interference
Speaker 1: in our election. He just said, Look, I mean, I
Speaker 1: foubody's gonna tell me they got something. They gotta tell me.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk to them. How could this even be policed?
Speaker 1: How could this be adjudicated? Now you have others running
Speaker 1: around saying, oh, you know Mark Warner and the Senate
Speaker 1: in Capitol Hill, Well you know we've got to make
Speaker 1: laws to prevent this from happening. Where you can get
Speaker 1: a thing of value information? Okay, So if you meet
Speaker 1: with a foreigner who tells you I read this really
Speaker 1: great book on US Russia relations, you should check it
Speaker 1: out too. Is that a thing of value that might
Speaker 1: be a valuable insight? Do you have to report that? Now?
Speaker 1: Where does this stop and start? Who makes the decisions
Speaker 1: about what's valuable information versus what's just hearsay, what's just
Speaker 1: being passed along for no apparent or clear reason. Everyone
Speaker 1: now is supposed to think that Natalia Vizelnetskaya in the
Speaker 1: Trump Tower meeting was because she said that this is
Speaker 1: part of the Russian government's you know, support for the
Speaker 1: Trump candidacy. That that was the case. Maybe she was
Speaker 1: just a whacko, or maybe she had really really important
Speaker 1: information that would have changed the course of American history.
Speaker 1: That was true. You know, one thing that gets skipped
Speaker 1: skipped by with all of this is that the wiki
Speaker 1: leagues posted information from from Podesta and the DNC accounts.
Speaker 1: It was all true, you know, it was all real information.
Speaker 1: It wasn't disinformation. And don't we I mean, don't we
Speaker 1: get to factor into this then you know, maybe we
Speaker 1: should know some of this stuff. Journalists, as a matter
Speaker 1: of course, as part of their jobs, try to solicit
Speaker 1: classified and in fact illegal information for them to have
Speaker 1: or possess, all under this idea that they need to
Speaker 1: inform the American public about it, and they take it
Speaker 1: upon themselves to decide what should and should not really
Speaker 1: be classified. And you know what, this state of America's
Speaker 1: knowledge about what the government thinks should be secret ease
Speaker 1: at any given time. But oh, that's right, a president
Speaker 1: who's not playing on America's team, she says, and that's
Speaker 1: why they're they're they're waiting, you know that they're throwing
Speaker 1: all this stuff out there, and that's what today We
Speaker 1: know what today really was about. It's it's more than
Speaker 1: anything else. Why Why was Stephanopolis standing? Why was that
Speaker 1: that little smarmy smurf allowed to do in any for
Speaker 1: the president where he's standing and looking down at him?
Speaker 1: Did the people working with the president not understand what
Speaker 1: those optics were supposed to be. It's the President United States.
Speaker 1: Little little Stephanopolis, little mini Stepan Stephanous should be sitting,
Speaker 1: and I was gonna say at eye level, you know,
Speaker 1: he should be. He should be sitting and looking across
Speaker 1: the president at about naval level, and that's how the
Speaker 1: interview should go. He shouldn't be allowed to stand and
Speaker 1: look down at the president while he seated. That just
Speaker 1: strikes me as bad optics. I mean, I'm sure the
Speaker 1: President obviously allowed it to happen, but I think that
Speaker 1: was a mistake. And he asked the question that's been
Speaker 1: asked so many times before. There's nothing new about this.
Speaker 1: This is what they're gonna do there. They're gonna keep
Speaker 1: you know, they're gonna keep cycling. Mike is saying that
Speaker 1: if Stephanopolis sat down, he'd be out of frame one
Speaker 1: and two. Maybe his you know, his little legs would
Speaker 1: be dangling on the end of the chair, which is
Speaker 1: not that's not a power look for a little steff.
Speaker 1: I've seen little Stephie. He's a little, tiny fellow. You know.
Speaker 1: He's also, from what I'm told, not a nice not
Speaker 1: a nice guy, and a former Clinton operative who's allowed
Speaker 1: to be a journalist, an objective journalist. That people still
Speaker 1: say this stuff. I just want to laugh in their faces.
Speaker 1: They really believe this, They think that this is that
Speaker 1: anybody should believe this, That Stephanopolis is not playing for it.
Speaker 1: If you think Stephanopolis is not playing for a team,
Speaker 1: you're not smart enough to vote. And I wonder if
Speaker 1: you're smart enough to really like take care of yourself
Speaker 1: and you know, cook your own food. I mean, I
Speaker 1: really have questions. Essentially what you're saying there, Buck, I
Speaker 1: think is really right. That really wasn't an interview with
Speaker 1: George Stephanopolis. It was an interview with the Clinton's. You know, Yes,
Speaker 1: basically that's what he was. And so why do we
Speaker 1: have to pretend like it's anything other than that? And
Speaker 1: why would the White House go along with this? But
Speaker 1: do we know why they allowed the strange setup of
Speaker 1: having Papadopolis standing and looking down at the president when
Speaker 1: he's in his chair. I just thought that was such
Speaker 1: a weird decision. Did we see any any scuttlebut about that?
Speaker 1: I didn't see anything. But it's your I don't really
Speaker 1: actually even think about you just said it's a really
Speaker 1: good point. Yeah, man, Look, will you go back you
Speaker 1: look at that video. He's like looking it's like he's
Speaker 1: scolding the President United States, a little tiny Stephanopolis. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like he's he's telling the President that he wants
Speaker 1: to ride him around the office like a pony, which
Speaker 1: he probably could. Yeah, get a little saddle, little Steffie. Hey, hey,
Speaker 1: pay me one hundred million dollars. I'm such a good journalist. Hey,
Speaker 1: But this is what this is what they're doing, folks.
Speaker 1: They're trying to you know, they're they're trying to create
Speaker 1: some momentum for impeachment. And so they they put out
Speaker 1: these different versions. They'll say different versions of really the
Speaker 1: same thing, you know, and they want to say, oh,
Speaker 1: what gets traction, what gets people excited, what's going to
Speaker 1: get people fired up so that they'll go along with
Speaker 1: our our impeachment efforts here. And uh, you know, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is trying to you know, she's the one who's
Speaker 1: trying to see what fits here, and because I think
Speaker 1: she knows that this is risky and her future power
Speaker 1: and her time to Speaker of the House is at risk,
Speaker 1: which matters to her more than anything else based on
Speaker 1: the decision making here about whether to impeach or not. First,
Speaker 1: let's get onto Nancy's response to Trump play clibit. You
Speaker 1: make it sound as if it could be a common thing.
Speaker 1: It is not. And what the President said last night
Speaker 1: shows clearly, once again, over and over again that he
Speaker 1: does not know the difference between right and wrong. And
Speaker 1: that's probably the nicest thing I can say about him,
Speaker 1: because if he doesn't know the difference, it could explain
Speaker 1: some of his ridiculous behavior. And now to invite further
Speaker 1: involvement of foreign governments into our election, He's not inviting it.
Speaker 1: This is just not true. If what he says is
Speaker 1: so bad, can they just accurately refer to what he
Speaker 1: said and not make crap up? Could they just do that?
Speaker 1: Is that asking too much? He wasn't saying yeah, please
Speaker 1: foreign government to the world, semi all the information you can.
Speaker 1: But Pelosi has to know that. But she also knows
Speaker 1: that ultimately this is about the eye word, this is
Speaker 1: about impeachment. It is all political. And because it is
Speaker 1: so clearly political, you know that what Pelosi's going to
Speaker 1: do is say, oh, but this is not politics at all.
Speaker 1: This is classic Nancy gas lighting play nine. As we
Speaker 1: go down this path to seek the truth for the
Speaker 1: American people and to hold the president accountable, it has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with politics or any campaigns. It has
Speaker 1: everything to do if I may excuse me answer your question,
Speaker 1: it is everything to do with patriotism, not partisanship. What
Speaker 1: we want to do is have a methodical approach to
Speaker 1: the path that we are on, and this will be
Speaker 1: included in that. And no one is above the law. Yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: who believes Nancy there? This is about getting the truth
Speaker 1: the American people. Really, what are they going to have
Speaker 1: Muller testify on Capitol Hill? Let's just start with that.
Speaker 1: They want the answers to a ballet, They want the
Speaker 1: truth to a bally that the single moost obvious witness
Speaker 1: that they could call in this entire thing. They have
Speaker 1: no interest in calling. Anybody want to take a stab
Speaker 1: at how that's possible. Anyone want to try to tell
Speaker 1: me what's going on with that one? Oh you mean
Speaker 1: this is all political and Nancy's a joke and a liar.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's right. There we go, get ready for folks.
Speaker 1: So Iran is doing some bad stuff, really bad stuff.
Speaker 1: In fact, looks like they're going after shipping in the
Speaker 1: Straits of Horn moves oil tankers. This could be a
Speaker 1: big problem in the US response here. Well, we better
Speaker 1: gauge this appropriately because once they start attacking oil tankers,
Speaker 1: this can spile out of control real fast. We'll get
Speaker 1: to that next. You are now entering the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: Tanical Operation Center. All sensitive programs must be camps strictly
Speaker 1: need to know Team Buck is cleared and ready for
Speaker 1: the Buck brief. It is the assessment of the United
Speaker 1: States government that the Islamic public of Iran's responsible for
Speaker 1: the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Amon today.
Speaker 1: This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the
Speaker 1: level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar
Speaker 1: Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy
Speaker 1: group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency
Speaker 1: to act with such a high degree of sophistication. This
Speaker 1: has been a concern for a long time that the
Speaker 1: Iranians would escalate the fastest way they could think of,
Speaker 1: short of a direct attacks on Israel or a major
Speaker 1: terror attack through them on US US embassies or US personnel,
Speaker 1: and that is to create major global instability in the
Speaker 1: oil markets through attacks on shipping in the Strait of
Speaker 1: Horror Moves. On the Straight of Horror Moves is a
Speaker 1: place that has roughly twenty five to thirty percent of
Speaker 1: the world some say twenty it's twenty two thirty. Let's
Speaker 1: say close to a quarter to a third of the
Speaker 1: world's oil supply shipped through it on any given day.
Speaker 1: So just today, having one tanker that's a Japanese vessel
Speaker 1: that was hit with some kind of it looks like
Speaker 1: a c mine or perhaps a torpedo, that caused global
Speaker 1: oil prices to rise as high as four percent today,
Speaker 1: though that went back down a little bit, but people
Speaker 1: were concerned about a disruption in supply. Now you have
Speaker 1: to remember last month, you know, the last month there
Speaker 1: were four tankers attacked and the US blamed Iran for
Speaker 1: those incidents as well, and it is just based on
Speaker 1: the skill of these attacks, the technology and the weapons
Speaker 1: involved that the US assessment so far is that this
Speaker 1: is the Iranian regime. This is where we start to
Speaker 1: have to get really concerned learned about what the future
Speaker 1: of US policy against Iran is going to be. It
Speaker 1: comes also at a time when you have this effort
Speaker 1: to stop the sale of sophisticated billions of dollars of
Speaker 1: sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is the only regional
Speaker 1: country that's in any kind of real position to push
Speaker 1: back on Iran. Saudis have about a seventy billion dollar
Speaker 1: defense budget, and the Saudias because that Saudi Arabia is
Speaker 1: not just of but in a sense the primary Sunni
Speaker 1: majority state of the Muslim world. It's the place of
Speaker 1: the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. The Saudias have
Speaker 1: a historic and long standing animosity, you could even say
Speaker 1: hatred perhaps of the Shia Iranian regime. And if we
Speaker 1: want somebody to be a counterbalanced to Iran, it's gonna
Speaker 1: have to be the Saudis. So that's why antagonizing the Sadies,
Speaker 1: whether it's over the war in Yemen or over the
Speaker 1: really grotesque incident. But remember he wasn't one of ours,
Speaker 1: and they lied about that for a while. Jamaica Shogi
Speaker 1: not a US citizen, not even a permanent resident. The
Speaker 1: guy was here on a visa, So he's a Jamaica
Speaker 1: Shogi is a foreign national. That doesn't mean what happened
Speaker 1: to him was it okay, But it just means that
Speaker 1: that's not the United States government's urgent problem to deal
Speaker 1: with and fix. We don't change our foreign policy in
Speaker 1: response necessarily to what a foreign country does to a
Speaker 1: citizen of another foreign country. That's not how this works.
Speaker 1: American citizens interests come first in these situations. But the
Speaker 1: hitting of an oil tanker in the this is the
Speaker 1: Gulf of Oman, but it's right in right in the
Speaker 1: same waterway effectively, or right nearby to the Strait of Hormouse.
Speaker 1: And this is going to set everybody on edge because
Speaker 1: if the Iranians decide to go with the option that
Speaker 1: has been I mean I was writing assessments at the
Speaker 1: Blaze on this going back now eight nine years where
Speaker 1: look at the Irani I mean I did whole I
Speaker 1: remember this and some people who watched in the real
Speaker 1: news days know what I'm talking about at the Blaze
Speaker 1: that I would, I would stand up and do maps
Speaker 1: because map time with Buck was always a big, big
Speaker 1: hit in the Blaze days, at least we thought it was.
Speaker 1: And I'd walk through why this straight of hormones was
Speaker 1: such an important strategic choke point. It's because of the
Speaker 1: energy supplies that come out come out of the Gulf,
Speaker 1: and if the Iranians decided to create not just the
Speaker 1: disruption in supply, but the attendant ecological disaster of a
Speaker 1: major series of strikes on it. I mean, oil tankers
Speaker 1: are like big floating target practice. It's not hard at
Speaker 1: all for the Iranians to take them out. And as
Speaker 1: you know, one oil tanker getting hit, you have environmentalists
Speaker 1: concerned about species die off, and you know what it
Speaker 1: does to ecosystems in the water for who knows how long.
Speaker 1: What if you hit ten oil tankers, what if you
Speaker 1: hit twenty and all that all that oil, all those losses,
Speaker 1: What does that do to the global market? And what's
Speaker 1: really our response? What's our retaliation when it be Now?
Speaker 1: I hope it doesn't go to this place, but it
Speaker 1: obviously could go to this place, and just by I
Speaker 1: can't really show you. As talking about maps, the Gulf
Speaker 1: of Oman is really the outflow area from the Persian Gulf,
Speaker 1: and the Strait of Hormuz is the place where you
Speaker 1: have this this tightening of the sort of a bottleneck
Speaker 1: effect between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Speaker 1: So I mean this is right off the Iranian coast.
Speaker 1: I mean, Iran is all along this waterway and can
Speaker 1: very easily hit any number of these ships and tankers
Speaker 1: with either marine naval weapons or ground based weapons too.
Speaker 1: And there's not a whole lot that we can we
Speaker 1: can do about it. Now, the Iranians are saying this
Speaker 1: is all suspicious, and then it really know, what they're
Speaker 1: hoping is to have some level of deniability. And this
Speaker 1: is a classic tactic in Middle East with Middle East regimes,
Speaker 1: where we may know well and good that the Iranians
Speaker 1: are behind this, but they are going to say that
Speaker 1: they had nothing to do with this. This is a
Speaker 1: false flag. This is the you know, the Americans looking
Speaker 1: for another wm D moment, trying to attack Iran with
Speaker 1: any you know, all this is all John Bolton and
Speaker 1: some kind of you know, some scheme, some plot that
Speaker 1: he's put at work. You know. I also remember that
Speaker 1: it was what a week or two I forget what
Speaker 1: it was. It was a week or two ago when
Speaker 1: the administration was talking about how there's an escalation in
Speaker 1: the threat reporting coming out of this region, and there
Speaker 1: were concerns that Iranian boats were being outfitted for attacks.
Speaker 1: And there are all these other reports that came out
Speaker 1: in the anti Trump newspapers about how that was all
Speaker 1: lies and that intelligence doesn't really exist, and was it
Speaker 1: all lies? Does that intelligence not really exist? I think
Speaker 1: that we might want to go back and revisit who
Speaker 1: was saying what to whom about all that. But Trump
Speaker 1: is willing to see this through. He completely rejects the
Speaker 1: Obama administration approach to Iran, which was appeasement, which was
Speaker 1: trying to find some means of getting the Mullas to
Speaker 1: like us more. Trump did not like that approach at all.
Speaker 1: Here's what Trump says about how he deals with Iran.
Speaker 1: Play fifteen. Ran is not the same country. When I
Speaker 1: became president, Iran was a terror all over the world.
Speaker 1: They had just made this horrible deal for the United States,
Speaker 1: the Iran Nuclear o'deal, and I became president and I terminated,
Speaker 1: did the deal and a run now is in chaos.
Speaker 1: I still remember being on air at CNN and describing
Speaker 1: describing the transfer of hostages for pallettes of cash as
Speaker 1: paying a terrorist organiza or paying a terrorist regime for
Speaker 1: hostages and having all these CNN and let's go, oh no,
Speaker 1: this isn't. This isn't you know, it's a separate thing.
Speaker 1: It's money that was already owed to them. I mean
Speaker 1: the mental gymnastics these people went through because they realize
Speaker 1: it looked really bad that the Obama administration was just
Speaker 1: handing sending palettes of cash to the Mullahs to give
Speaker 1: us back people the iranis never should have had at
Speaker 1: the first place. You know, one thing that is very
Speaker 1: true across the Middle East is you know, people see
Speaker 1: two horses, a strong horse and a weak horse, they
Speaker 1: go at the strong horse. Strength matters in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: This is it's not a region where play by the rules,
Speaker 1: fair play can cosideration for the other side is respected,
Speaker 1: or is revered or even really considered to be necessarily
Speaker 1: a good thing in and of itself. It's all about
Speaker 1: who has the upper hand, and who has strength, and
Speaker 1: who shows strength and the Obama administration constantly showed weakness
Speaker 1: on Iran. This is why they had to have Ben
Speaker 1: Rhodes and the other national security apparatchicks in the Obama
Speaker 1: administration tell and effectively using their own words. Here, you know,
Speaker 1: dumbass twenty five year old journalists in DC, you don't
Speaker 1: know anything what they wanted them to say, so they'd
Speaker 1: go out and say it about the Iran deal so
Speaker 1: they could get through a deal that was not in
Speaker 1: any way painful for Tehran and was ridiculous, and Trump
Speaker 1: recognized it as ridiculous. So now we're out of it.
Speaker 1: The Europeans are all figuring out whether they're what they're
Speaker 1: going to do now. But it wasn't a good deal.
Speaker 1: It didn't deal with ballistic missiles, it didn't deal with
Speaker 1: terrorist activity. It gave way too much relief to an
Speaker 1: Iranian regime that just did not deserve it. And now
Speaker 1: we're at a place where the administration's got some tough
Speaker 1: choices to make because anything that involves US ground troops
Speaker 1: in the Middle East now the Trump administrations to think
Speaker 1: of it as a true last resort. And I do
Speaker 1: not want any of the neo conservative tendencies to all
Speaker 1: of a sudden overtake this administration, and we have we
Speaker 1: have this premise that is made to seem normal that
Speaker 1: if we can just get rid of the Mullah's and
Speaker 1: maybe just take over Iron for like six months with
Speaker 1: one hundred or a hundred ty thousand soldiers, we can
Speaker 1: make this great country out of it. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: We've learned that lesson in Iraq, We've learned that lesson
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. We are not doing that again. So then
Speaker 1: you have to ask, well, what do we do? What
Speaker 1: is the response? If the Iranians decide just to completely way,
Speaker 1: it would mean the Europeans would have abandoned them the deal.
Speaker 1: But I don't think they're going to do this because
Speaker 1: the Iranian state, the economy is weak, their military is
Speaker 1: good at at asymmetrical and terrorist stuff, but not a
Speaker 1: first world power by any stretch with the in terms
Speaker 1: of their military. So how do we get them to
Speaker 1: behave and what are our options? General Jack Keane had
Speaker 1: some thoughts on on this over at Fox. Here's what
Speaker 1: he said, Place sixteen more pressure that's got to bite
Speaker 1: more on them. They haven't changed them align aggressive behavior,
Speaker 1: but a couple of things have happened. There's less resources
Speaker 1: that they're providing to the proxies, and it's their proxies
Speaker 1: who are propping up lemon on running the war in
Speaker 1: Syria to civil war, running the war in Yemen as well.
Speaker 1: So that already is a significant improvement over where we are,
Speaker 1: but we got to continue to match pressure campaign to
Speaker 1: for sure here it is absolutely critically now. I think
Speaker 1: the General is correct, although that may not be enough
Speaker 1: in an of itself. Yeah, we need to keep the
Speaker 1: pressure on, Okay, but that's what we've been doing. What
Speaker 1: if the Iranian step out of line and cross the
Speaker 1: red line of blowing up tankers them? What air strikes?
Speaker 1: How many air strikes for how long? And what do
Speaker 1: we do if the Iranians then retaliate with and these
Speaker 1: are all these are the old concerns. This is what
Speaker 1: people have been writing reports and assessments on, stretching back
Speaker 1: for many years, for decades in some cases. What will
Speaker 1: Iran do when fully boxed into a corner? This may
Speaker 1: in a sense be an indicator of how well the
Speaker 1: Trump's strategy is working. That their behavior, you know, they're
Speaker 1: trying to see if we'll blink. They're trying to see
Speaker 1: if we will abandon the pressure campaign, if we'll decide
Speaker 1: that we don't need to do what the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has been doing. Essentially, people will get scared and say,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, we don't want to We don't want a
Speaker 1: hot war with Iran, so we better be the ones.
Speaker 1: America needs to be the one to back off. I
Speaker 1: think that would be a major mistake. I think that
Speaker 1: Iran has been a thorn in the side of America, Israel,
Speaker 1: and the rest of the world for far too long.
Speaker 1: The regime is an evil and illegitimate regime, and the
Speaker 1: pressure that we have on it is warranted. And we
Speaker 1: don't have to live in a world within Iran run
Speaker 1: by theocratic maniacs wet. We don't have to accept that.
Speaker 1: We've come to accept it, perhaps whether intentionally or not,
Speaker 1: because it's been around for so long, but that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that we have to really accept it forever. So
Speaker 1: tensions are very high. You'll see that headline, You'll hear
Speaker 1: people saying that a lot. It is true right now.
Speaker 1: But I hope that Trump stays the course because his
Speaker 1: instincts in dealing with the Mullahs I believe are correct.
Speaker 1: Fed's gone wild d OJ's stunning inability to prosecute its
Speaker 1: own bad actors. This from my colleague, former colleague at
Speaker 1: the Hill, mister John Solomon. Oh man, he loves, he
Speaker 1: loves to poke the Deep State in the eye with
Speaker 1: these pieces. It's really fun. Let's just get into some
Speaker 1: of the salacious details here on the Hill dot com,
Speaker 1: shall we. One was caught red handed engaged in nepotism, Another,
Speaker 1: a lawyer no less, admitted to shoplifting at a Marine
Speaker 1: Barracks store, a third leaked sealed court information to the
Speaker 1: news media, and a fourth engaged in fraud by turning
Speaker 1: a government garage into a personal repair shop. Four cases
Speaker 1: all saw solve in the past month, with suspects who
Speaker 1: cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and significant breaches
Speaker 1: of public trust. But these weren't your everyday purps. All
Speaker 1: were US Department of Justice employees who are supposed to
Speaker 1: catch other criminals while working for the FBI, the Drug
Speaker 1: Enforcement Administration, and US attorney's offices. Instead, they broke the
Speaker 1: law or violated the rules, and all managed to escape prosecution.
Speaker 1: They're proven transgressions. Recent Justice Department disciplinary files tell an
Speaker 1: undeniable story the DOJ is doing a poor job of
Speaker 1: punishing its own. This is one of these reads where
Speaker 1: you see that the federal bureaucracies, for all their talk
Speaker 1: about being public servants and how they just they only exist,
Speaker 1: they only you know, are around to do their best
Speaker 1: for America, to help the American people. For all of
Speaker 1: that talk, for all of that noise they make, they
Speaker 1: think they should live by a slightly or in some cases,
Speaker 1: very different set of standards. And this is a recurring
Speaker 1: theme today on the show. If we have double standards,
Speaker 1: we really have no standards, because you either punish certain
Speaker 1: infractions a certain way because that's what's right, or you don't.
Speaker 1: And if you don't, well then that's to change the
Speaker 1: way people view all punishments going forward. The DOJ is
Speaker 1: a place where you know, and I also say this,
Speaker 1: it's true, not just the DOJ, it's it's a lot
Speaker 1: of these government agencies. You will find that if you
Speaker 1: step out a line against the organization as one of
Speaker 1: their own, they will find ways to crush you and
Speaker 1: you will be punished to the maximum extent allowed by law.
Speaker 1: But if you're just doing stuff that's embarrassing to the
Speaker 1: organization in order to protect the organization, you know, the
Speaker 1: DOJ and these others. They're almost like self sustaining organisms,
Speaker 1: you know, self interested organisms. So if you come at
Speaker 1: your home agency with whistleblowers stuff, or you do anything
Speaker 1: like that, then you're likely to just get crushed. They will.
Speaker 1: They will go into time and attendance fraud on you.
Speaker 1: There's some classic stuff they do, you know, to just
Speaker 1: make you sound like a criminal, but really there's political
Speaker 1: or politicial reasons that they're trying to take you down.
Speaker 1: But if you just do stuff like you know, watch
Speaker 1: porn for twelve hours a day in your office from
Speaker 1: your government computer, you know, maybe they'll give you a
Speaker 1: slap on the wrist, but they don't want to make
Speaker 1: a big deal of it because that makes the whole
Speaker 1: agency look bad. This is stuff that really happens, by
Speaker 1: the way, it's classic though fed's gone wild. DJ's stunning
Speaker 1: ability to prosecute its own bad actors, and that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Man John Solomon, that guy, he does not have any
Speaker 1: qualms about slapping the Deep State across the face and say,
Speaker 1: what's up, Deep State? Take that. I challenge you to
Speaker 1: a duel. Deep States. We'll be right back Mexico's moving
Speaker 1: six thousand troops to their southern border. That's a lot
Speaker 1: of troops. If Mexico does a great job, then you're
Speaker 1: not gonna have very many people coming up. If they don't,
Speaker 1: then we have Phase two. Phase two is very tough,
Speaker 1: but I think they're going to do a good job.
Speaker 1: If Mexico does what they say they're going to do,
Speaker 1: it will be a huge help to what's going on
Speaker 1: in the border. These individuals are coming from these Northern
Speaker 1: Triangle countries primarily, but now from all around the world,
Speaker 1: as we've recently seen, coming to our border because they
Speaker 1: know that because Congress has failed to fix the loopholes
Speaker 1: and our immigration laws, that we can't detain them and
Speaker 1: they'll be released into our country. If they can't even
Speaker 1: get to the United States and have to remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico or get stock stopped in Guatemala or somewhere else
Speaker 1: in the Northern Triangle, then yes, that's going to change
Speaker 1: the entire dynamic. It's a humanitarian crisis, it's a border
Speaker 1: security crisis, it's a public safety crisis. Unfortunately, Congress has
Speaker 1: failed to fix the crisis, and now as we can
Speaker 1: see going through the reprogramming, issue efforts, and the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty budget they propose. They're not even willing to fund
Speaker 1: us properly to manage the crisis. So without the money
Speaker 1: and the resources and no changes to the laws, this
Speaker 1: crisis is not going to abate itself. That was the
Speaker 1: ICE Deputy director on the situation at the border, and
Speaker 1: Mexican promises to take action to help out here. Remember
Speaker 1: what I told last week. If Trump gets a deal
Speaker 1: in Mexico, all of a sudden is going to be
Speaker 1: more helpful. You know what, We're gonna be told, Oh
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. Oh, Trump didn't really get a deal.
Speaker 1: Trump didn't get a win. Let's not get crazy. We
Speaker 1: knew it. You knew it. I knew it. They cannot
Speaker 1: they cannot bring themselves in the press corps. The Democrats
Speaker 1: will not, to the point of denying clear obvious reality,
Speaker 1: will not give credit to Trump for anything. What was
Speaker 1: the big the big downside of his action? What was
Speaker 1: the big problem with him saying that we were gonna
Speaker 1: put tariffs in place and there was no big downside.
Speaker 1: It looks like there was a pretty big upside here.
Speaker 1: I mean when I say there was no big downside,
Speaker 1: it managed to work. They didn't have to put the
Speaker 1: tariffs in place. That's, you know, a negotiation where you're
Speaker 1: not willing to take any risks. It's not a negotiation
Speaker 1: where you're going to win very much either. This is
Speaker 1: a very simple formulation, no risk, no reward. Trump will
Speaker 1: take risks on policy where he thinks it's necessary. And
Speaker 1: six thousand troops to the Mexican southern border, which is
Speaker 1: the border with Guatemala. That could really help. Even if
Speaker 1: Mexico stops people from getting into the United States from
Speaker 1: Central America, then at least we don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about the giant loophole in our law that Congress won't
Speaker 1: fix that says if you're from a non contiguous country,
Speaker 1: you will not be able to be immediately deported, which
Speaker 1: is a huge, huge problem. And the scope of this
Speaker 1: problem or filling at the place where no one can
Speaker 1: deny that this is a massive issue, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that needs to be dealt with here
Speaker 1: and fixed. But when we think more about what the
Speaker 1: media has been willing to say about this and how
Speaker 1: they've acted in the past, I mean, I think we've
Speaker 1: got to understand here quite clearly that they've been lying.
Speaker 1: They've been lying about this. I mean, here's a DHS
Speaker 1: chief just making it, making it as straightforward as possible,
Speaker 1: what's going on here? Play thirteen. I want to make
Speaker 1: clear that this crisis is unlike anything we've ever seen
Speaker 1: in our border, and it in large part is due
Speaker 1: to the gaps in our immigration laws that are driving
Speaker 1: Any of our men and women on the border can
Speaker 1: tell you that DHS facilities are overflowing, that our resources
Speaker 1: are stretched stin Yep, all of that is true. This
Speaker 1: is a serious crisis. This is a problem that will
Speaker 1: not solve itself. The Trump administration is taking action, is
Speaker 1: taking pretty dramatic action, in fact, in order to make
Speaker 1: something happen here. And if judges don't stand in the way,
Speaker 1: I think that will be will be in a better
Speaker 1: place pretty soon. I think the Mexican government knows that
Speaker 1: Trump is serious about Look at the China tariffs. Oh,
Speaker 1: he'll never do it, it's a trade war, it's a
Speaker 1: bad idea. Oh, actually, he will do it, and he
Speaker 1: has done it already. And this is one of the
Speaker 1: biggest gambles on trade in the economy that any president's
Speaker 1: taken a long time. But Trump really believes in this.
Speaker 1: But to give you a sense of the dishonesty in
Speaker 1: the way this issue is reported on, a representative Dan
Speaker 1: Crenshaw has pointed to the way that Time Magazine and
Speaker 1: The Hill, where I used to work until a week ago,
Speaker 1: the way that they have reported on the microan crisis
Speaker 1: recently involves things like this. The Hill tweeted out the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is sending migrant children to the former Japanese
Speaker 1: to a former Japanese internment camp, and this is meant
Speaker 1: to get people to completely I think that they're aciting
Speaker 1: the the Time report here in the Hill though, so
Speaker 1: it's really a Time magazine report. I don't think that
Speaker 1: this was original reporting from the Hill. And yes, the
Speaker 1: Fort Sill this is reported by So so the Hill
Speaker 1: is getting is getting hit here, but they're just reporting
Speaker 1: on a report. It was Time magazine that said, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, Fort Sill, this is where there was the
Speaker 1: interment of Japanese Americans, and so this is a terrible thing.
Speaker 1: Dan Crenshaw understands that the people who are reporting on
Speaker 1: this as such, this is a bad faith reporting job
Speaker 1: from Time magazine. Time magazine is just a left wing
Speaker 1: rag and I think a lot of people are surprised
Speaker 1: that it still exists in any capacity, but it certainly does.
Speaker 1: But here's Crenshaw on saying on Time magazine, saying that
Speaker 1: these migrant children are being sent to the same place
Speaker 1: as the as the intern Japanese were play fourteen. And
Speaker 1: this is another example of the media. This was Time magazine.
Speaker 1: I think The Hill reported this year. They have a
Speaker 1: headline that says, you know, the administration is putting kids
Speaker 1: where we used to put where interment for Japanese americancerning
Speaker 1: World War To. The implication, of course, that they're going
Speaker 1: for is that, oh, we're putting people in concentration camps.
Speaker 1: Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. This
Speaker 1: is a military base. We are looking for places to
Speaker 1: house kids in a humane way. It's nonsense. It's used
Speaker 1: for something different now. It is not a concentration camp.
Speaker 1: It's not even close to that. They've said that they're
Speaker 1: going to open it up to media and let people
Speaker 1: come look at it. You can make your arguments without
Speaker 1: being so unbelievably dishonest. But they just can't help themselves.
Speaker 1: How are we supposed to trust members of the media
Speaker 1: when they put out stories like this. I just can't
Speaker 1: believe it. How are we supposed to trust them? Good,
Speaker 1: good question, Congressman Crunshaw. We're not supposed to trust them though,
Speaker 1: or we should not trust them. The Trump administration to
Speaker 1: send migrant children a former Japanese internment camps. That's the
Speaker 1: Time magazine piece. And what you find out if you
Speaker 1: read down a little bit, is that, Oh wait, the
Speaker 1: Health and Human Services Department under the Obama administration also
Speaker 1: used Fort Sill as a temporary emergency shelter for children
Speaker 1: attained at the border. That's right, the Obama administration send
Speaker 1: children to this site. Did anyone ever say in the
Speaker 1: media Obama sending refugee kids to same place used as
Speaker 1: Japanese internment camp? No, that was never Why is that, folks?
Speaker 1: Why did that never come up? Why was that never said?
Speaker 1: You know the answer. It's just fun to ask the
Speaker 1: question rhetorically, isn't it. No, And then you have the
Speaker 1: other reality that Fort Sill is a very large US
Speaker 1: military base and has been in continuous operation I think
Speaker 1: since the mid nineteenth century. So a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: goes on at Fort Sill. A lot of stuff happens there,
Speaker 1: you know. I'm I'm going to New York City this weekend.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be a New York City for the weekend,
Speaker 1: a visit family and be with my pops for Father's Day.
Speaker 1: And you could describe that as, you know, buck Sexton
Speaker 1: going to the city stolen from Native Americans for like
Speaker 1: whatever was a few dozen dollars in some wampum or something.
Speaker 1: But that's kind of a weird way to describe it.
Speaker 1: Is a lot of other stuff has happened in New
Speaker 1: York since then, And if you describe it that way
Speaker 1: out of nowhere, wouldn't that tell everyone a lot about
Speaker 1: what you are? You know, you have some agenda, buck
Speaker 1: Sexton heading to stolen Indian Land for the weekend, also
Speaker 1: known as New York City. Okay, well, I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess that's technically true, but it's not really how I
Speaker 1: would think of things. You know, this is the absurdity
Speaker 1: of the media, though for them, accuracy now turns into
Speaker 1: any any question, who's this person? You could say, someone
Speaker 1: who's never been in my kitchen? Remember that from was
Speaker 1: it Norman Cheers? I've set it before the show? I
Speaker 1: forget technically true, you could say that about any number
Speaker 1: of people. Someone who's never been in my kitchen, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't really tell you much. That was him doing trebec.
Speaker 1: That's that's right. That was in uh jein all I
Speaker 1: think right, yeah, no, that was that was in uh No,
Speaker 1: that was on the real cheers. I think he was
Speaker 1: on right or no. I thought it was him when
Speaker 1: he was playing alc Trebec. I think it was in
Speaker 1: the real chair. I don't know, wasn't it. We'll track
Speaker 1: it down. We'll track it down. Oh, I'm speaking to
Speaker 1: track it down. Track us down in a second. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. What is going on in the Dominican Republic.
Speaker 1: I've been to the DR a few times when I
Speaker 1: was very young. I barely remember it. I went with
Speaker 1: my family. I think I went once or twice. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was twice. Uh And it's getting all of this
Speaker 1: attention for all the wrong reasons these days. This is
Speaker 1: Fox News today is in the spotlight because there have
Speaker 1: been a series of deaths. For this year two last year,
Speaker 1: at least six American tourists have died on vacation in
Speaker 1: the Dominican Republic, and some of them in really suspicious
Speaker 1: and weird circumstances. Here, you had David Harrison, forty five
Speaker 1: of Merrill. This was last summer checks in the hard
Speaker 1: Rock Hotel and Casino in Punta Kana. He and his
Speaker 1: wife are there at the twelve year old son for
Speaker 1: several days. Harrison starts to feel ill. The next day,
Speaker 1: after lying in bed still not feeling well, he decides
Speaker 1: to join his wife in the hotel casino. He notices
Speaker 1: a strange smell. Very spoke. Oh sorry. The wife notices
Speaker 1: a strange smell coming from her husband. He begins to
Speaker 1: feel ill, returns to the room. She calls for an
Speaker 1: ambulance and he dies. Well. They say he had a
Speaker 1: heart attack. But her husband was very fit, very healthy person,
Speaker 1: and a bunch of these, a bunch of people Americans
Speaker 1: have all died of these same causes or similar circumstances.
Speaker 1: They're very sketchy. Producer, Mike, do you have a theory
Speaker 1: on this? Have you ever been in the dr Producer?
Speaker 1: And I don't think I'm ever gonna go. This is
Speaker 1: not making me want to sign up, I've got to say.
Speaker 1: And I feel bad because it's one of these countries
Speaker 1: where about twenty percent of the entire GDP and twenty
Speaker 1: percent of their whole economy comes from tourism. So if
Speaker 1: tourism starts off and you think about Aruba, which is
Speaker 1: a place that I've been to, which I will tell
Speaker 1: you is gorgeous and basically stress free vacation in terms
Speaker 1: of it's incredibly safe. The water is clean, there's no crime. Really,
Speaker 1: the doctors on the island are like Dutch trained and excellent,
Speaker 1: and like it's a very orderly clean place, and it's
Speaker 1: beautiful and like the food is great. You know, they
Speaker 1: lost Natalie Holloway got killed basically by this, by that psycho,
Speaker 1: and people didn't want to remember that. By the way,
Speaker 1: Gret event Sustern, I remember being in what was it
Speaker 1: high school or something and Gret event Suster your night,
Speaker 1: We've grap gate. You're Natalie Halloway. You know, every night
Speaker 1: it was like a Natalie Holloway update. And you know,
Speaker 1: the tourism dropped off after that. Dude, people didn't want
Speaker 1: to go. I don't blame that, this this one. That's
Speaker 1: this one event. And on top of everything you're mentioning
Speaker 1: in the drum, big Poppy got shot. Oh that's right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was about sports and they I saw the one
Speaker 1: they paid Yeah eight that they paid the hitmen eight
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. Yeah, it was like in There's like it
Speaker 1: was a definitely an assassination attempt on him, and he wasn't.
Speaker 1: I think it was an assassinate Big Poppy. I don't know, man,
Speaker 1: he's a lovable guy. I don't even get it. That
Speaker 1: takes a lot for me to say about a Red
Speaker 1: Sox guy. But you gotta love I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: I mean, you're a Philly guy and even you respect
Speaker 1: Big Pop and it's just crazy someone's gonna try to
Speaker 1: shot the guy in the back eight thousand dollars. But
Speaker 1: you know what's what's really scary is when you look
Speaker 1: at the stats for how how little it costs usually
Speaker 1: to pay for a hit on somebody. By the numbers,
Speaker 1: the lowest ever in the world, in the kind of
Speaker 1: open black will not open, but in the in a
Speaker 1: consistent black market I read was at the height of
Speaker 1: the violence in in Warez, the average hit, i mean,
Speaker 1: the average cartel hit on a person was the hitman
Speaker 1: was paid seventy dollars, which is just astonishing that actually
Speaker 1: came from a man yone Grillo in one of his books,
Speaker 1: I was like, Wow, seventy bucks, dude, seventy bucks. Somebody
Speaker 1: will walk up and just pop somebody, no, no questions asked.
Speaker 1: Think about that crazy world, right? I mean eight thousand
Speaker 1: is still I mean, first of all, who goes and
Speaker 1: shoot somebody that don't know under any circumstances. Eight thousand
Speaker 1: dollars seems like a shockingly low figure to go and
Speaker 1: shoot any human being in the back. But and then
Speaker 1: you add into that this guy's incredibly famous. You're obviously
Speaker 1: gonna get caught and go to prison forever. It just
Speaker 1: seems I don't know, man, I don't know if Big
Speaker 1: Poppy had some like sketchy associates or something. I haven't
Speaker 1: seen anything about that though, But really bad press, and
Speaker 1: I was looking to maybe go away for a week
Speaker 1: in the summer to a beach somewhere, and I feel bad.
Speaker 1: I think Dr Dude low on the list right now? Yes?
Speaker 1: Good in New Jersey much safer Jersey Shore. I don't
Speaker 1: know this Jersey Shore safer. I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike Clain, flip maybe what's the closest what's the
Speaker 1: closest beach to Philly? Where do Philly people go to
Speaker 1: the beach. So where do we go? Yeah, South Jersey.
Speaker 1: Well we'll head down the Atlantic Expressway instead of making
Speaker 1: a left and going north, we'll go south and avalon
Speaker 1: Stone Harbor, Kpe. May you know, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: we like to call that, what's that classy? Yeah right,
Speaker 1: it's classy. It's how it's how we do it on
Speaker 1: the weekends. Now we do exactly. Yeah. Yeah, here, indeed,
Speaker 1: everyone's got there a little weekend getaway stuff. On the
Speaker 1: East Coast DC, it's all Maryland Shore pretty much. People
Speaker 1: gone then of course in New York it's out east,
Speaker 1: which is a fancy way of saying Long Island and
Speaker 1: the Hampton's. But you've gotta be even if you're not
Speaker 1: taking a helicopter, you better be ready to sitt in
Speaker 1: traffic for a very long time. But anyway, what's the
Speaker 1: next what's the next beach destination on producer Mike's radar
Speaker 1: that is not the Dominican Republic. Yeah, I think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go actually to Kate may Um at some point
Speaker 1: this summer. I haven't been there in a while, so
Speaker 1: I have a friend who lives down there, and I
Speaker 1: think I'm gonna go do a little Kate may action.
Speaker 1: Just a question, producer, Mark, did you get the invitation
Speaker 1: from producer Mike to his little beach junk because I
Speaker 1: did not. I did not either. I'm I'm the host,
Speaker 1: you're the technical producer. I feel like you know we
Speaker 1: should be at least notified when the beach party happened. Man,
Speaker 1: I'll send pictures. Let it, Derek. Here we go. Now,
Speaker 1: now you all know what producer Mike isn't here. He's
Speaker 1: setting up the real the real attendees, the female attendees
Speaker 1: for his beach parties. That's whatever. I call out his name,
Speaker 1: and he's not in the studio. We know, we know
Speaker 1: what's actually what's actually going go it totalized, Man, No,
Speaker 1: k K I Actually I was trying to get down
Speaker 1: to DC once a long time ago, and I got stuck.
Speaker 1: I missed the last ferry out of Cape May, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: and and if you missed that ferry, and it's a
Speaker 1: holiday weekend, you have to drive all the way like
Speaker 1: up north and around and it's a total nightmare. So
Speaker 1: we actually ended up crashing. It's a really cute little town.
Speaker 1: I liked it. Yeah, it's nice, it's it's it's clean,
Speaker 1: it's fun, it's um you have really good restaurants, really
Speaker 1: clean beaches. What's the best beach you've ever been to?
Speaker 1: Since we're into the sort of summer season hearing people
Speaker 1: thinking about maybe getting away for a weekend. Best beach
Speaker 1: you've ever been to in the United States? In the US? Okay,
Speaker 1: I probably would say recently it was in San Diego
Speaker 1: and it was at the Hotel del and it was
Speaker 1: beautiful there. I'd say their beaches were really, really nice.
Speaker 1: San Diego's great. I don't know a a lot more people
Speaker 1: don't live there. Fantastic. I mean I feel like it's
Speaker 1: you know, you think La is so much more overcrowded.
Speaker 1: It feels like than Sa Diego, and the beach in
Speaker 1: San Diego is way better than the beach in l A. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: it's quiet, there's not a whole lot of people, you
Speaker 1: have to deal with any of the riff raft that
Speaker 1: you do up north. That's really a trick question, though,
Speaker 1: because the answer to what's the best beach in the
Speaker 1: United States, in my opinion, it always has to be
Speaker 1: something in Hawaii, but people don't think of that right away. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if Florida is nice, I like pomp Mark where are
Speaker 1: you win on this one? I mean, I haven't been
Speaker 1: to many beaches outside of New York, so I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to go with the one that's a block from
Speaker 1: my house in Long Beach. Oh look what he just did, dude,
Speaker 1: He just bigfooted us with the beach, a beach a
Speaker 1: block from his house. He's like, you suckers have to
Speaker 1: drive or fly. I just roll out of bed and
Speaker 1: go to the greatest beach ever producer mark for the win.
Speaker 1: I gotta say, buddy, you came through there in the clutch.
Speaker 1: Look at that. You never become the best at anything
Speaker 1: by facing a mediocre opponent. The person you're really competing
Speaker 1: against is yourself. He waits. That's when you've learned who
Speaker 1: you really are. The guy you were last time isn't
Speaker 1: the best of you. For god, you aren't ours. I
Speaker 1: would just tell people, and I do tell people, just
Speaker 1: get out and try it. It can be super scary,
Speaker 1: but there's so many connections friendships that you can make
Speaker 1: through adapted sports. How far can you push yourself? How
Speaker 1: far can we set that bar for you and your teammates,
Speaker 1: but also for those who are coming out behind us.
Speaker 1: If we explore and push the limits right now, how
Speaker 1: much further when you put this thing and in the future,
Speaker 1: push your limits and bring it. You may not feel
Speaker 1: like you aren't like everybody else, That's okay, Keep pushing forward,
Speaker 1: see where the road will lead. You may not feel
Speaker 1: like you're perfect, so that doesn't mean you can't be
Speaker 1: where you want to be. That is some promotional video
Speaker 1: from the Warrior Games. Warrior Games are the Olympics for
Speaker 1: wounded and sick veterans. I want to bring on some
Speaker 1: folks who can tell you exactly what this organization, what
Speaker 1: this athletic competition is all about. By the way, June
Speaker 1: twenty first to thirtieth is in Tampa, is when the
Speaker 1: Warrior Games occur. To tell us about this, we have
Speaker 1: Israel Del Toro, an Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Army
Speaker 1: Colonel Carrie Harball, director of the Warrior Games, and Travis Clayder,
Speaker 1: director of Communications for the Warrior Games. Travis Carry and Israel,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining otor to be with your
Speaker 1: Thanks for us here all right, So just given a
Speaker 1: little background, why don't we start with Carrie for a
Speaker 1: moment here. Carrie, just give us a little background on
Speaker 1: how the Warrior games came together and what this is
Speaker 1: all about. Sure, Warrior Games have been around now about
Speaker 1: almost ten years. Started off sort of as an inter
Speaker 1: mural activity with the Department Offense partnered with the Olympic
Speaker 1: Training Center out in Colorado Springs, and we joked that
Speaker 1: back then it was kind of, you know, white T
Speaker 1: shirts with our team names written in crayons on them,
Speaker 1: because it was wasn't much to it as we tried
Speaker 1: to figure out figure our way out of how to
Speaker 1: do a Paralympic event for our wounded warriors from all
Speaker 1: the service programs plus special operations where that fifth fifth
Speaker 1: program that the Department Offense and Congress recognize, and so
Speaker 1: it evolved over time, and in twenty fifteen we did
Speaker 1: the first iteration of a pure DoD run Warrior game
Speaker 1: without the Olympic Training Center's partnership, and we took that
Speaker 1: to a quantico in The Marine Corps were the hosts.
Speaker 1: Then it drifted to twenty sixteen to West Point, the
Speaker 1: Army were the hosts, then to Chicago in twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: with the Navy, twenty eighteen out in Colorado Springs with
Speaker 1: the Air Force, and then it was our turn the
Speaker 1: Special Operations Command, and we turned to our community that
Speaker 1: we're closest too, because our headquarters is located there at
Speaker 1: McDill Air Force Base in Florida, and we knew that
Speaker 1: we had incredibly generous community in the Tampa Bay area
Speaker 1: that really embraces the active duty and veteran service members
Speaker 1: in their families and that would be the perfect location
Speaker 1: for our Warrior Games twenty nineteen. And that's what we've done.
Speaker 1: We brought it in there. Three hundred athletes coming into town,
Speaker 1: two hundred US because each of the five programs bring
Speaker 1: in forty athlete team size, and then about one hundred
Speaker 1: foreign partner athletes because we've added to our games the
Speaker 1: foreign partners over the years, and we've got the UK, Australia, Canada,
Speaker 1: the Netherlands and in Denmark all coming in for this
Speaker 1: with about one hundred athletes total. Master Sergeant Master Sergeant
Speaker 1: del Toro, if I could ask you, how did you
Speaker 1: get involved in this? Well, I've been part of it
Speaker 1: since the beginning. Back in twenty ten. I was I
Speaker 1: had just finally re enlisted, came back in the military,
Speaker 1: and the Air Force had asked me where you participate
Speaker 1: in this? To kind of show hope for other service
Speaker 1: members who are injured or wounded. For the folks listening
Speaker 1: is Rael, what happened to you? I got hurt December
Speaker 1: two thousand and five. I was in an ID explosion
Speaker 1: at the bomb explode underneath my home v and I
Speaker 1: received third degree burns an eighty percent of my body,
Speaker 1: lost my fingers on both hands, and I have a
Speaker 1: sensitivity to the heat and cold now because of the
Speaker 1: loss of the two layer of scan that I had.
Speaker 1: And you were able to come back from that injury
Speaker 1: and that you received while in combat and re enlished
Speaker 1: and even competed in these athletic games. Yes, sir, So
Speaker 1: they gave me a fifteen percent chance to survive my injuries,
Speaker 1: and you know it was in coming four months and
Speaker 1: you know I woke up. They gave me the green diagnosis,
Speaker 1: you know, never walk again, restoring the rest of my
Speaker 1: life military crewer pretty much over and be stuck in
Speaker 1: the hospital for another year and a half. And two
Speaker 1: months after they told me that, I I left that
Speaker 1: hospital walking and breathing them my own end. And I
Speaker 1: wanted to continue to serve my country because people always
Speaker 1: ask me why it's like you can retire and make
Speaker 1: so much orange money as a retired guy. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's not about money. I love my job, I love
Speaker 1: certain my country, I love in the Air Force, I
Speaker 1: love being with my teammates. You know, I know plenty
Speaker 1: of people out there that have great paying jobs and
Speaker 1: they just hate their job. So why am I going
Speaker 1: to give up a job that I truly love? And
Speaker 1: so I fought and February of twenty ten, you know,
Speaker 1: I became the first one hundred percent disabled airman to
Speaker 1: ever realist in the Air Force. And since then, I've
Speaker 1: just been pushing myself to trying to show not only
Speaker 1: service members who are hurt, injured, ill, but anyone out
Speaker 1: there in the world that's having a bad day and saying, man,
Speaker 1: you can get through this. Just stay positive, believe in yourself,
Speaker 1: and you will overcome it. And that's what I've been
Speaker 1: doing since then and Israel and this is all remarkable
Speaker 1: off on its own and inspiring for everyone to hear.
Speaker 1: But you also now compete in athletic events. What's your event? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure right now, because I think they might
Speaker 1: have signed me up for the Ultimate Champion, meaning I'll
Speaker 1: be doing like about ten events. But if not, I'll
Speaker 1: be still doing a lot. I'll be cycling, shooting, shot put,
Speaker 1: this kiss one hundred meter dash, sitting, volleyball, and powerlifting
Speaker 1: and rowing. Wow, I wrote a little bit in college,
Speaker 1: so rowing is uh, you gotta really want to do
Speaker 1: it to be rowing. Yeah, I'm actually pretty psychic, least
Speaker 1: the powerlifting because just the other day I did a
Speaker 1: new max had two hundred and fifty pounds on the
Speaker 1: bench prints. That's the most sense maybe being hurt. So
Speaker 1: that was pretty over milestone graduate. Congratulations on that. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of the guys listening like, man, I
Speaker 1: gotta get back to the gym, Travis. I want to
Speaker 1: ask you just for for everybody across the country who's
Speaker 1: hearing about this, A lot of them is probably the
Speaker 1: first time, although we have a really really large current
Speaker 1: and former military listenership. But the Warrior Games for those
Speaker 1: who want to either be a part of it by
Speaker 1: showing up or watching it or just supporting the Warrior
Speaker 1: Games and this this whole effort, what do people need
Speaker 1: to know? Sure, Well, like you've mentioned, the game, start
Speaker 1: June twenty onet and run for the next ten days.
Speaker 1: The biggest thing that we can ask people to do
Speaker 1: is come out in person if you're in the area,
Speaker 1: if you're visiting Tampa Bay, right, yea. So it's held
Speaker 1: down in Tampa Bay, it's out in the community. It's
Speaker 1: free and open to the public. So the best thing
Speaker 1: you can do if you want to come out and
Speaker 1: support these wounded warriors, these heroes, is come out to
Speaker 1: the events. Come out to the athletic events, and cheer
Speaker 1: them on. That's the biggest way you can show your
Speaker 1: support and honor these guys, these men and women. So yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're in the area, stop out. It's over the
Speaker 1: course of ten days across various venues and as DT
Speaker 1: was saying, a lot of different sports. So no matter
Speaker 1: what you're into from an athletic standpoint, or if you
Speaker 1: just want to come out support the military, there's something
Speaker 1: some amazing competition to come out and watch. If you're
Speaker 1: not in the area, it's going to be live stream.
Speaker 1: So we're live streaming most about eighty to ninety percent
Speaker 1: of the athletic competition, So you can log onto DoD
Speaker 1: Warrior games dot com and you can see firsthand the competition.
Speaker 1: You don't even have to live in the Tampa area
Speaker 1: be visiting the Tampa area to see what's going on. Gentlemen,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for telling us about the Warrior Games.
Speaker 1: Master Sergeant Israel del Toro, Army Colonel Carry Harbaugh, and
Speaker 1: Travis Claytter, Thank you so much, gentleman. Really appreciate your
Speaker 1: time and important work on this issue. And we'll be
Speaker 1: cheering for you. Thanks for having a song. All right, team,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back. So what's going on with Justin Amash? Well,
Speaker 1: our friend David Harsani's got some thoughts. He's writing a
Speaker 1: piece on this. Meet Justin Amash, never Trump's newest shiny object.
Speaker 1: David harsanis a senior writer at The Federalist. David, great
Speaker 1: to have you back. Always read to be here. Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me all right, ma, So just for by
Speaker 1: way of review, because I haven't really talked about mister
Speaker 1: Amash on the show in detail. Why is he all
Speaker 1: of a sudden getting all this attention from the people
Speaker 1: who hate Trump? Well, he two weeks ago came out
Speaker 1: in you know he support supported impeachment. I guess there
Speaker 1: was no particular bill, but just in general. He said
Speaker 1: that the Attorney General had miss lantin American people and
Speaker 1: that the president had obstructed justice, and he laid out
Speaker 1: his reasoning in tweets and I think on Facebook as
Speaker 1: he does for all his positions, and that if you
Speaker 1: want to impeach Trump, who are immediately elevated in by
Speaker 1: you know, by the never trumpers and Democrats as a
Speaker 1: principal person and possibly even the next president of the
Speaker 1: United States. What exactly is you know, there's justin Amash
Speaker 1: is he's a libertarian, but you know he's saying that
Speaker 1: the presidented state should be impeached. What what is libertarian
Speaker 1: about that? I mean, to me, there's so much from
Speaker 1: the surveillance, surveillance operations, there's a lot of police state
Speaker 1: problems with what's going on here with the deep state
Speaker 1: and Trump and these people the FBI and DJ were
Speaker 1: clearly going after him. I where's all the outrage from
Speaker 1: Amash about about that? Which is? I don't think that's
Speaker 1: what about is him? Because that's central that he's saying
Speaker 1: you should be impeached. I'm like, well, look at the
Speaker 1: issue more holistically and is the other stuff okay? I
Speaker 1: just want to know where Amos stands on this. I mean,
Speaker 1: isn't he like mister fis US surveillance by the way,
Speaker 1: or he's all concerned about this stuff. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: think he's looking he looks at things holistically. Honestly, I
Speaker 1: think he's very um tunnel visioned, bill by bill things
Speaker 1: like that. And I just don't think I stepped back
Speaker 1: and say, I actually think he's a principled guy. I
Speaker 1: think his positions to me, like I would like to
Speaker 1: see Justin Amash be a judge not a politician, because
Speaker 1: I don't think he believes in any sort of incrementalism
Speaker 1: towards getting you know, moving towards the goals that he
Speaker 1: wants for as libertarianism goes, or anything else. So I
Speaker 1: do think generally as a principled guy, which makes what
Speaker 1: you just said more confusing to me, because clearly, as
Speaker 1: a libertarian, even though I've seen many libertarians abandon this,
Speaker 1: they're the concern of the you know, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: they're less concerned at the FBI or the surveillance state
Speaker 1: than they used to be. But let's just say that
Speaker 1: having a administration using that those mecca, you know, that
Speaker 1: those institutions against another political campaign, seems to me to
Speaker 1: be a far bigger problem than the supposed obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: which is well within which Trump, you know, was well
Speaker 1: within his powers to do, like firing, the firing his
Speaker 1: FBI director, et cetera. So I don't really understand that position. Um,
Speaker 1: but generally, I mean, I think he's been a pretty
Speaker 1: principled guy. So, you know, I don't really get it.
Speaker 1: What is he trying to accomplish? Though? Why be the
Speaker 1: loan Republican? Why people are now saying, who was it
Speaker 1: one of these guys who's who's so not conservative that
Speaker 1: he can go on CNN and call himself a conservative
Speaker 1: and CNN's okay with it. So whatever that means he's saying,
Speaker 1: was it Lewis Matt Lewis about Yeah? Yeah, the Daily Beast,
Speaker 1: which you know also known as woke dot Com, that
Speaker 1: Ama should consider running for president. Well, here's the thing
Speaker 1: that bugged me about that is that when you look
Speaker 1: at Amasha's views on stuff, they are way outside anything
Speaker 1: and never Trumper would ever kind of want to support, right, So,
Speaker 1: I mean, he doesn't believe in any kind of gun control,
Speaker 1: basically doesn't believe in any kind of like restriction environmental
Speaker 1: to constriction restrictions. It's just tons of stuff. He's he's
Speaker 1: you know, a we actually have some pretty cool positions.
Speaker 1: What you're telling me justin Amash is like it's like Buck,
Speaker 1: you can get that RPG you've always wanted. Absolutely like
Speaker 1: so in my so, I live in two worlds. As
Speaker 1: you know, as a columnist that can be all principled
Speaker 1: all the time and stuff like that, but I'm also
Speaker 1: a realist, right and you're not going to get certain
Speaker 1: kind of legislation. It's not going to happen. You have
Speaker 1: to work within a system when you're a politician. Doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you give up and surrender all the time, but
Speaker 1: you have to be realistic. And nothing he believes in
Speaker 1: is sort of realistic. In DC today, we are not
Speaker 1: in a libertarian moment. Whatever the opposite of a libertarian
Speaker 1: moment is, that's exactly what we're in. So um, you know,
Speaker 1: his positions don't work that way. So I why he
Speaker 1: did he do this? I don't know. Maybe he likes
Speaker 1: to be a contrarian. I'm not sure. Maybe he really
Speaker 1: believes it, that's listen, he may. The thing though, is,
Speaker 1: you know, we can't be surprised if someone tries to
Speaker 1: primary him. They act like they act like the Republicans
Speaker 1: are lockstepping behind Trump in some unprecedented way. No, this
Speaker 1: happens with every president. So there was no never Obama
Speaker 1: movement that didn't exist, you know what I'm saying. So
Speaker 1: I think this president actually has to deal with more
Speaker 1: internal you know, pushback than most. So I don't know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's one guy that's look at you. We got we
Speaker 1: got a political commist here who's ending who's ending a
Speaker 1: dings damon with I don't know, this is an active bravery,
Speaker 1: David Harsanyi. This is so much principle going on here.
Speaker 1: Speaking of principle, I'm gonna I'm gonna redirect this here
Speaker 1: for a moment. Uh. The flavor of the day is
Speaker 1: that Trump should have like called a five alarm fire
Speaker 1: and the FBI and everything else about the meeting at
Speaker 1: Trump Tower where nothing even really happened. And my favorite
Speaker 1: game of the day is ask a liberal how Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele a foreigner gathering information directly from Russian government sources,
Speaker 1: government agents, and government officials on Trump, knowing that this
Speaker 1: is during the campaign to hurt Trump. So you got
Speaker 1: a foreigner speaking to foreign government officials and then running
Speaker 1: that stuff back to not just the press, but also
Speaker 1: our own government. How is that not foreign interference the election?
Speaker 1: I get every time I bring this up, liberals start
Speaker 1: sputtering about things that are just non sequitors. It's nuts.
Speaker 1: The position is nuts. I saw David from right, well,
Speaker 1: if Trump had sent an investigator to Moscow to look
Speaker 1: into stuff, that would be different. Can you imagine if
Speaker 1: Trump had sent a staffer to Moscow during the election,
Speaker 1: what we would be talking about today. I mean, basically,
Speaker 1: a meeting that amounted to nothing in Trump Tower has
Speaker 1: ballooned into a giant conspiracy. If he had actually sent
Speaker 1: a staff or to Moscow, that would have been okay
Speaker 1: if he had done what Hillary did, if he had
Speaker 1: if he had worked through a lawyer. He like when
Speaker 1: he answered that question, and the other day I said, sure,
Speaker 1: as long as you work through a lawyer, uh and
Speaker 1: the and the RNC, and you get Kremlin sources to
Speaker 1: you know, to sift it through some you know other
Speaker 1: you know, uh Opo research firm, then it's okay. But
Speaker 1: I wouldn't take it myself. But yeah, I mean, it's ridiculous,
Speaker 1: it's it just strikes me. It's totally unserious. And I
Speaker 1: think that, But yeah, it's not even hypocrisy or what
Speaker 1: about is them? First of all, these people want to
Speaker 1: be back in power, so it's not what about is them?
Speaker 1: I'm talking about people who want to come back into power.
Speaker 1: But it's this this idea that you can have two
Speaker 1: sets of rules for just because you know, for both parties,
Speaker 1: you can't. You can't have government this way, you can't
Speaker 1: have a debate this way, and you can't have a
Speaker 1: society where there are two separate, you know, sets of
Speaker 1: rules for different kinds of people. Well, I think that's
Speaker 1: also what really gets to the heart of why so
Speaker 1: many people on the right are just we're I mean,
Speaker 1: and I put myself in this category. We're just tired
Speaker 1: of it. And I know there's this this you know,
Speaker 1: not this inexact and some are bothered by, but this
Speaker 1: paradigm of wartime versus peacetime conservatism in the ideological spectrum
Speaker 1: right now, and the and the fight between the two
Speaker 1: sides over what the future should look like. Every time
Speaker 1: I have it, I have somebody who used to be
Speaker 1: on the right start to tell me about Trump's obstruction,
Speaker 1: and then I asked them about anything Hillary related, which
Speaker 1: involved the same the same presidential campaign, and in fact,
Speaker 1: many of the same people instituting rules that are clearly
Speaker 1: a double standard, you know, at the DOJ, the FBI. Uh,
Speaker 1: they act like this is somehow not a part of
Speaker 1: the conversation. And I just think that's bad faith. I
Speaker 1: think that's just indefensible. Yeah, of course it's bad faith.
Speaker 1: I mean this the whole what aboutism charges bad faith?
Speaker 1: Of course I want to know. I want to know
Speaker 1: if there was hypocrisy, because I want to know what
Speaker 1: rules we need to be following. You can't simply can't
Speaker 1: do you know, just you know, throw that away because
Speaker 1: it's inconvenient in your argument. But um, I actually you know,
Speaker 1: I have I think it is shape to get you know,
Speaker 1: to have a rush and give you information about another candidate.
Speaker 1: But anyone who's been in DC for ten minutes knows
Speaker 1: well that there's all kinds of information being thrown around,
Speaker 1: and it comes from all kinds of different places. And
Speaker 1: in the end, Hillary was much more reliant on Russian information,
Speaker 1: and the media was much more reliant on information that
Speaker 1: came from the Kremlin through Democrats than they were through Trump.
Speaker 1: So how can you have this discussion and ignore ignore
Speaker 1: that fact Yeah, it just seems to me to be
Speaker 1: completely bizarre. But everyone should check out what David's up
Speaker 1: to at the Federalist dot com. Also follow him David
Speaker 1: Harsani at Twitter. He's a senior editor at The Federalist. David,
Speaker 1: great to have you, my friend. Thanks for making the time.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it anytime. Thanks for having And if you
Speaker 1: decide to go a Mash twenty twenty, you got to
Speaker 1: come break that news on this show. I might, I might.
Speaker 1: All right, Matt, thanks so much, team will be right back.
Speaker 1: Well it's real simple. Then Democrats are doing absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: while the Mexicans are stepping up working with the President
Speaker 1: to try and stop the illegal flow of immigrants coming
Speaker 1: into the country. Democrats in Congress for the longest time
Speaker 1: refuse to even acknowledge the fact there was a problem.
Speaker 1: Now we're starting to see them acknowledge there was a problem,
Speaker 1: but doing absolutely nothing to fix it, which may even
Speaker 1: be worse now they know there's a problem and they
Speaker 1: still do nothing. They're so focused on attacking this president
Speaker 1: and trying to beat him up because they have no message,
Speaker 1: they have no agenda, that they can't even look at
Speaker 1: the real problems we have and do anything to try
Speaker 1: to fix them. Sarah Huckeybee Sanders is fierce. She has
Speaker 1: been a stalwart in this administration. She's dealt with more
Speaker 1: than her fair share of Trump't arrangement syndrome afflicted lunatics.
Speaker 1: She has had to just stand there and take abuse
Speaker 1: in public while she's trying to have a meal. She's
Speaker 1: been really viciously ridiculed by the entertain payment industry and
Speaker 1: by the late night talk show hosts, and they're horrible
Speaker 1: to her, absolutely horrible to her. But she's stuck in there,
Speaker 1: and I have to say she's one of those people
Speaker 1: who rose to the challenge. I did not think she
Speaker 1: was particularly strong in the role at the beginning. She
Speaker 1: obviously had had work to do on her on her presentation.
Speaker 1: I think anybody who hasn't done that job would probably
Speaker 1: be in something of the same position, or if they
Speaker 1: unless they'd had a really extensive interaction on camera and
Speaker 1: with the media or in the media. But I bring
Speaker 1: this up because the breaking news here is at Sarah
Speaker 1: Huckabee Sanders is going to be leaving the White House
Speaker 1: at the end of the month. That just broke a
Speaker 1: little bit before he went on air and President Trump
Speaker 1: says she is going to go to her home back
Speaker 1: to her home state of Arkansas. He did not name
Speaker 1: a replacement as of yet. She's been in the Press
Speaker 1: secretary role since July of twenty seventeen. And look, I
Speaker 1: think that her departure is something of a loss for
Speaker 1: the administration because she was very solid and really understood.
Speaker 1: Which here's the thing. She knows who these punks in
Speaker 1: the media are, and she's not going through the Oh no,
Speaker 1: I actually think they're great and it's fine. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: she knows they're punks. She knows the media is full
Speaker 1: of smarmy, self indulging Acosta clones, and she put a
Speaker 1: Costa in his place in ways that I think we're
Speaker 1: particularly necessary. And I think that her adversary relationship with
Speaker 1: the press illuminated for the American people, which is the
Speaker 1: most important thing. Just how disgracefully partisan much of the
Speaker 1: particularly the Washington press corps. You know, we talked about
Speaker 1: the media, and the media has so many levels. There's
Speaker 1: so many different components of the news media. You of
Speaker 1: local news, the national level networks, the major newspapers, but
Speaker 1: the DC based Beltway, political Capitol Hill, White House, covery
Speaker 1: media is among the most self righteous, perhaps is the
Speaker 1: most self righteous. Feels like they're the ones that are
Speaker 1: truly speaking truth to power when they're overwhelmingly doing the
Speaker 1: opposite whenever they can, when their people are in power.
Speaker 1: They're coddling power, they're giving backrubs to power. But they
Speaker 1: still think where they're doing that they're being brave and
Speaker 1: they should be praised and we should all be thankful
Speaker 1: for the work that they're doing. They are saving us
Speaker 1: from a lack of understanding, saving us from the ignorance
Speaker 1: of the American people, or the ignorance that we would
Speaker 1: be awash in were it not for their efforts to
Speaker 1: constantly educate us. But that Press Corps Sarah Sanders through
Speaker 1: the occasional Haymaker at and it was fantastic. I thoroughly
Speaker 1: enjoy it. I think it was necessary. I think that
Speaker 1: she's changed the game. I've only met her once, very briefly,
Speaker 1: but I was interested to know that she knew my name,
Speaker 1: which was pretty funny. I was like, oh, well, I
Speaker 1: guess she knows who I am. I only met her
Speaker 1: one time, but she'll she'll be a lost administration, but
Speaker 1: we'll see who they replace her with but Sarah Huckabee
Speaker 1: Sanders served Trump well and we wish her well going forward.
Speaker 1: Team Buck, It's time for roll call Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slashbuck Sexton. You know how the role call gets going
Speaker 1: mostly through Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton. That's how. So
Speaker 1: you can write me there, let me know what's going down,
Speaker 1: tell me where I'm wrong, tell me where I'm right,
Speaker 1: mostly where I'm right, hopefully occasionally where I'm wrong, just
Speaker 1: so I appreciate all the notes telling me where I'm right.
Speaker 1: That's how we like it. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: hanging out, Team Buck. This is from Brian Agreed on
Speaker 1: the Trump International Hotel bar. It's a great vibe there
Speaker 1: with friendly people where I felt comfortable and a good
Speaker 1: refuge from the swamp people of DC. Like you, I
Speaker 1: believe that barring a great depression style recession, Trump will
Speaker 1: win in twenty twenty hands down. That said, one other
Speaker 1: factor can change this, and that's the liberal state and
Speaker 1: deep state efforts to eliminate our electoral college. There's some
Speaker 1: shady stuff going on as of late, with leftist trying
Speaker 1: to eliminate significant votes in the middle of the country
Speaker 1: and assure liberal cities of the Germanting factor for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty elections. We have an electoral college for a reason,
Speaker 1: and more public attention and scrutiny needs to be brought
Speaker 1: to this. Both Prager, you and Glenn Beck have been
Speaker 1: going into it in detail. We all need to speak
Speaker 1: out against this assault on our constitution. Oh, Brian, I
Speaker 1: mean this is You're correct, this is all very important.
Speaker 1: They're really is an effort to tell people that the
Speaker 1: electoral college is an anachronism. There's no need for an
Speaker 1: electoral college. We should just get rid of it entirely.
Speaker 1: And the founders thought about this stuff in great detail,
Speaker 1: and we're very aware of the need for and the
Speaker 1: decision making behind the system of checks and balances we
Speaker 1: have in the constitutional framework that our government was constructed around.
Speaker 1: So yes, it's true that there are libs now who
Speaker 1: are willing to change the rules and change any number
Speaker 1: of rules. I believe that there would be a liberal
Speaker 1: consensus if they could, if they could pull it off,
Speaker 1: if they had the raw power, meaning the seats in
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate as well as the Presidency,
Speaker 1: they would engage in packing of the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: I think they would have no qualms about it. I
Speaker 1: think they would absolutely go for it. We need to
Speaker 1: be aware that the rules that we think we're playing by,
Speaker 1: even those rules can change, and those rules are not
Speaker 1: sacred to the left. John Rights, would you be interested
Speaker 1: in a Star Trek Picard, mister Sexton, I have no
Speaker 1: idea what you're asking me, really, other than I know
Speaker 1: that there's Jean Luke Piccard in Star Trek, but thank
Speaker 1: you for writing. Jeremy Buck, I know you've delved in
Speaker 1: the background in history of the Middle East, but maybe
Speaker 1: it would be worth it to spend some time during
Speaker 1: a future show on the civil war in Yemen, on
Speaker 1: the tanker attacks that occurred to the Gulf of a
Speaker 1: mom There's a discussion that are on in Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: are clashing over the civil war in Yemen. It seems
Speaker 1: like peace is nothing but a fairy tale in the
Speaker 1: Middle East. Shields Hie, Jeremy, Yeah, Jeremy, A deep dive
Speaker 1: on the Yemeni Civil War would probably be worthwhile, so
Speaker 1: I think a lot of the folks listening would appreciate that,
Speaker 1: as long as it wasn't too long and it was
Speaker 1: jam packed with information. So I will make a note
Speaker 1: of that. The very short version of a much longer
Speaker 1: story is that, yes, the Yemeni Civil War is now
Speaker 1: a proxy battle, and it is a Sunny Shia part
Speaker 1: of the Sunny Shia fight that is royaling the entire
Speaker 1: Middle East and will continue to and really has been
Speaker 1: a bat an ongoing battle in the Middle East since
Speaker 1: the eighth century or so. It's been going on for
Speaker 1: quite a while. Yeah, the situation Yemen. I mean, I
Speaker 1: was on Kennedy's show last night. We had a disagreement
Speaker 1: about this one. Sometimes we have a little bit of
Speaker 1: a feisty exchange. On Kennedy's show on Fox Business. She
Speaker 1: thinks that the seven billion one points had one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion. I think she's referring to the amount
Speaker 1: of arm sales over the eight years of the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: Then you get into the one hundred billion dollars plus category,
Speaker 1: and that's coming up on a decade. But what's left
Speaker 1: now is a seven billion dollar sale that the administration,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, wants to go forward with. And you
Speaker 1: have these senators who are saying, oh no, no, don't
Speaker 1: do at It doesn't really have any effect other than
Speaker 1: to make the senators who stand up and get to
Speaker 1: give a flowery speech about how Saudi Arabia's a dictatorship. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but are we not going to say they're an ally
Speaker 1: because they're an Allied state. And if we're going to
Speaker 1: start telling allied states that they're terrible but they're still
Speaker 1: our allies, we're gonna have a lot of problems and
Speaker 1: they're not going to stop what's going on. You know,
Speaker 1: Yemen is an extension of the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen is
Speaker 1: a large country that borders Saudi Arabia. So we can
Speaker 1: say whatever we want about how we don't want there
Speaker 1: to be civilian casualties in this fight, but Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: is going to do what it wants to do here,
Speaker 1: and we'd rather have the Saudis on our side, especially
Speaker 1: when we have to deal with the Iranians than the alternative.
Speaker 1: Here we go, John, Right, So listen to your show
Speaker 1: in the morning and usually enjoy a snack during it.
Speaker 1: Today you played a clip of two idiots on CNN
Speaker 1: almost breaking their arms patting themselves on their backs about
Speaker 1: how they are the defenders of truth. I almost spit
Speaker 1: out my delicious orange and chocolate combo. Is it possible.
Speaker 1: You could give us a little warning when playing clip
Speaker 1: from CNN. Well, John, no, I don't want to give
Speaker 1: you a warning because I want to make sure that
Speaker 1: you know you're on your toes, my friend, once you
Speaker 1: ready to rock, don't you already know what's going on?
Speaker 1: And that means that sometimes there's going to be some
Speaker 1: CNN nonsense on this show that will happen. That is
Speaker 1: a real thing. So there you have it. Here we go,
Speaker 1: John Rights, Hey, Buck, want to come to La. I
Speaker 1: like LA. I don't know why asking me about La
Speaker 1: specifically right now, but yeah? Or oh wait, La City?
Speaker 1: What's that? Oh? Los Angeles Chocolate Convention? Now I know
Speaker 1: why you're inviting me, man, chocolate to the bet. Chocolate
Speaker 1: is my weakness? Well, I guess I have several weaknesses,
Speaker 1: but chocolate is high on the weakness scale. Wayne Right.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden says, cure cancer. Sure, why not? I mean
Speaker 1: we cured baldness. Check it out, Wayne Biden. I meant
Speaker 1: to play that cliplerd in the week. I don't think
Speaker 1: we got to it. But yeah, Biden is now in
Speaker 1: this place where he'll he'll say anything and he can
Speaker 1: get away with promising whatever he wants to because ultimately
Speaker 1: the media will cover for him. That's just the way
Speaker 1: it's going to happen. Here we go, c K writes
Speaker 1: in Buck not sure if this is the right place
Speaker 1: for roll call? Oh it is, Ck, but just heard
Speaker 1: tonight's show where you told somebody that Dalmatians have a
Speaker 1: bad temperament. Fake news. I've had approximately twenty four dollars
Speaker 1: since nineteen eighty and some were social butterflies, some more reserved,
Speaker 1: but none were mean. Such a false narrative spread. Who
Speaker 1: knows why dogs? If all breeds are as good as
Speaker 1: their training and socialization. Joined the Dalmatian Owners of America
Speaker 1: page if you want to learn more from long time
Speaker 1: and new owners, breeders and fans enjoy your show, Well, Ck,
Speaker 1: you're dropping the Dalmatian knowledge here for everyone across the
Speaker 1: country to hear. And I can't say I totally agree
Speaker 1: with your All dogs are the same, which is how
Speaker 1: they're raised. Comment some dogs. There is a biochemistry to
Speaker 1: these animals, and some dogs are going to have a
Speaker 1: higher tendency toward aggression than others. It is true that
Speaker 1: the way the dog is raised is the single biggest
Speaker 1: determining factor. But you've also got to take into account
Speaker 1: the internal mechanics, if you will, the biochemistry of these animals,
Speaker 1: and you have a lesser margin for error with some
Speaker 1: breeds than you do for others. And you know, I was,
Speaker 1: I was going to go into a whole thing about
Speaker 1: how there's a new dog on my floor that's a poodle,
Speaker 1: and how I'm not sure that poodle should count as dogs,
Speaker 1: and then I start and then I start trashing poodles,
Speaker 1: and poodle owners always freak out at being it's so
Speaker 1: because poodle owners are very devoted to their poodles. And
Speaker 1: when I say, well, why don't you guys do the
Speaker 1: thing where you shave them all funny with the pom
Speaker 1: poms on the legs and the and they say, we
Speaker 1: don't do that, and you know, okay, but I'm just
Speaker 1: not a poodle guy. I'm just of the dogs. I
Speaker 1: like all dogs, but of the dog breeds out there,
Speaker 1: I think the one that I just I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't really get the poodle thing. The doodle thing.
Speaker 1: I understand, they're a little they're a little more of
Speaker 1: my speed. But the straight up poodles, oh, I know,
Speaker 1: they're so smart and everyone's gonna yell at me for look.
Speaker 1: You can like what you like. That's the good news.
Speaker 1: Different different strokes for different folks. Matt writes, a no
Speaker 1: party like a Canadian Society party for the study of
Speaker 1: education party. Matt, I don't know what you've I don't
Speaker 1: know what you've got in the I was gonna say
Speaker 1: that breathalyzer. What's that? The vaporizer up in Canada? But
Speaker 1: I could probably use some of myself right about now.
Speaker 1: Let's see, Irene, any chance if you're rejoining the Blaze
Speaker 1: for a platform more exposure, Irene, I haven't spoken in
Speaker 1: my old colleagues at the Blaze about that at anytime
Speaker 1: in recent months. I will have a new platform this summer.
Speaker 1: I can't give you specifics on the details yet, but
Speaker 1: there will be cool new stuff happening in the Freedom Hut,
Speaker 1: and that is for sure. That's definitely going down. And yeah,
Speaker 1: and also I have a book that I'm in the
Speaker 1: final stages of signing off on the contract to write,
Speaker 1: so that should be happening and hopefully the book will
Speaker 1: be out by Christmas time. And yes, I'm very much
Speaker 1: excited about it. Patty writes, I wish you were dressing
Speaker 1: shifts joke of a hearing. This is infuriating, innuendo, hypotheticals,
Speaker 1: lies all of shifts usual tactics. Yeah, I mean, shifty
Speaker 1: shift is the sketchiest of sketchy. We all know this,
Speaker 1: so shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when it turns
Speaker 1: out that he's not, in fact on the up and
Speaker 1: up in these hearings. Paul Right, hey bucks. Someone mentioned
Speaker 1: books about bureaucracy on Roll Call the other day. I
Speaker 1: think the penultimate work on the subject is PJ O'Rourke's
Speaker 1: Parliament of Whors. I'm assuming you've read it, but if
Speaker 1: you haven't, it is the most cynically honest take ever
Speaker 1: on the slug like workings of the US government. It's fierce, fiery,
Speaker 1: funny and accurate in an hl Menkin kind of way.
Speaker 1: For anyone trying to understand government should be required reading
Speaker 1: shields High. Well, you know, Paul, I've actually done a
Speaker 1: fair amount of work with PJ. We've done some fireside
Speaker 1: chats together. I write for an online magazine that he
Speaker 1: edits called American Consequences. So I'm familiar with pj's work,
Speaker 1: but I and I know PJ personally, but I have
Speaker 1: not read Parliament of Whorrs, so that's quite a title,
Speaker 1: certainly eyecatching. But I will have to look into this
Speaker 1: based on your recommendations. Let's see here, Me me Buck.
Speaker 1: I just completed a mandatory online HR course. I was
Speaker 1: a pauled I've read Sex on nine Mountain, binary and microaggressions. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: all the BS and the academic world has already infiltrated
Speaker 1: the business world. I'm glad I'm near the end of
Speaker 1: my career rather than the beginning. I'd find it really
Speaker 1: difficult to keep up the facade of all this political correctness.
Speaker 1: When I started the HR, thing was don't discriminate based
Speaker 1: on race. Now there are so many categories that protected
Speaker 1: classes that makes your head spin. The only endangered species
Speaker 1: that is not protected as white males. Mimi from California, Well, Mimi, yeah,
Speaker 1: it is true. Political correctness is now in charge of
Speaker 1: the corporate attitudes and companies across the country, which is
Speaker 1: certainly troubling, but it's one of the reasons why I
Speaker 1: support and like Trump. So I enjoy enjoy that aspect
Speaker 1: of Trumpism is that he at least fights back team.
Speaker 1: I'll be an NYC tomorrow up in New York City,
Speaker 1: so I'll be doing the show from there. Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: united with producer Mike producer Mark Shields High