Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hudge. The Democrats hit on
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh gets even dirtier, even uglier. We will talk about
Speaker 1: whether the Republicans can show some backbone and stand up
Speaker 1: to this withering assault of lies. Also updates on the
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein gonna wear a wire maybe and even remove
Speaker 1: the president from office with the Amendment story. Crazy stuff there.
Speaker 1: And then finally how many illegal aliens are in the country.
Speaker 1: Some very smart people are going to tell you the
Speaker 1: numbers much bigger than you've been told. That and more
Speaker 1: coming up. This is the bus Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American
Speaker 1: Again The buck Sexton Show begins. Judge Brett Kavanaugh is
Speaker 1: a man of integrity with impeccable credentials and a proven
Speaker 1: judicial philosophy. On the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: he wrote more than three hundred opinions that reflect a
Speaker 1: strong record of support for limited government, religious liberty, and
Speaker 1: our Second Amendment. He's a conservative who will interpret the
Speaker 1: Constitution has written, and his record and career deserves the
Speaker 1: respect of every member of the United States Senate. But honestly,
Speaker 1: the way some Democrats have conducted themselves during this process
Speaker 1: is a disgrace and a disservice to the Senate and
Speaker 1: the American people. I am. When Judge Cavanaugh and I
Speaker 1: put forward to a vote, people would come out of
Speaker 1: the woodwork from thirty six years ago and thirty years ago,
Speaker 1: and I never mentioned it. All of a sudd that happens.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, it's shortly poltical. Did you guys ever
Speaker 1: look at each other and say, I'm out, this is enough,
Speaker 1: this is just isn't worth it. I'm not gonna let
Speaker 1: false accusations drive us out of this process. And um,
Speaker 1: you know, we're looking for a fair process where I
Speaker 1: could be heard and defend the my integrity, my lifelong record,
Speaker 1: my lifelong record of promoting dignity and equality for women,
Speaker 1: starting with the women who knew me when I was
Speaker 1: fourteen years old. I'm not going anywhere. Welcome the Bucks
Speaker 1: Action show, my friends. We are in the midst of
Speaker 1: one of the darkest weeks in our politics, in my memory,
Speaker 1: one of the ugliest partisan disputes I've ever seen. It
Speaker 1: is entirely the Democrats fault of their making The only
Speaker 1: upside from all of this is that we will never
Speaker 1: be forced to sit and smile or take seriously the
Speaker 1: notion that the Democrats in the era of Trump are
Speaker 1: the ones who care about decorum and honesty and truth
Speaker 1: and fairness. This should send a shutter down your spine.
Speaker 1: What is happening now to Kavanaugh could happen to any
Speaker 1: male you know. I know that liberals have a hard
Speaker 1: time with this concept. But when evidence is not even presented,
Speaker 1: when there is no evidence to speak of, when there's
Speaker 1: no corroboration, no witnesses, no eyewitness testimony of any kind,
Speaker 1: mine is a highly politically motivated accuser, and that soul
Speaker 1: accusation with flimsy details and in fact stories that don't
Speaker 1: add up or make sense. When that is taken as
Speaker 1: proof of guilt, we are all living in a quasi
Speaker 1: to tellarian society where any one of us can be
Speaker 1: crushed at any time. It is just a question of
Speaker 1: when the left deems it necessary. They don't have to
Speaker 1: destroy all of us, folks. They only have to take
Speaker 1: out some of us and the rest will fall in
Speaker 1: long The rest won't want to risk their reputations, their careers,
Speaker 1: their freedom, their families. Kavanaugh, from what I have seen
Speaker 1: so far, is a quiet warrior. Kavanaugh is a man
Speaker 1: who is willing to stand with his shield high. He
Speaker 1: is not backing down. He understands that he is facing
Speaker 1: total political war from the Democrats. There is nothing they
Speaker 1: will not say or do if it can prevent this
Speaker 1: man from becoming the next Supreme Court justice. Anything goes
Speaker 1: from their perspective as long as it serves their political purpose.
Speaker 1: They have no or they have no dignity. This whole
Speaker 1: process has been turned into not just a circus, but
Speaker 1: a mass character assassination. I said to friends who asked
Speaker 1: me on Friday, and I in folks, I in fact,
Speaker 1: uh spoke to a member of the Well. I spoke
Speaker 1: to a congressman last week and he said to me,
Speaker 1: you know, just as an aside off the record, there's
Speaker 1: gonna be another accuser. I said, do you know if
Speaker 1: but he goes no, but if there'll be one, And
Speaker 1: I said, yeah, I know. I agree. And I've spoken
Speaker 1: to friends of mine all last week saying, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: there's gonna that's the move here. They're going to come
Speaker 1: out with another accuser. Because Ford, this is this is
Speaker 1: not something that serious people can believe she was saying
Speaker 1: she can't make the hearing on time because she's afraid
Speaker 1: of flying. I have I how much do you want
Speaker 1: to bet that she flies whenever she feels like flying. Okay,
Speaker 1: we all know this, but they were desperate. They were
Speaker 1: just stalling, and their lackeys in the media will go
Speaker 1: along with anything, any story as long as it serves
Speaker 1: the purpose provides a temporary buffer between Ford and the
Speaker 1: American people finding out the truth. Here you have somebody.
Speaker 1: The first round of allegations from from Professor Ford involve uh,
Speaker 1: everyone who's been contacted saying they do not believe that
Speaker 1: it happened. Other than Ford, everyone denies it, including people
Speaker 1: denying under oath. Kavanaugh denied it right away under oath
Speaker 1: fully in its totality. He's not saying there was horseplay
Speaker 1: that was misunderstood. That would have actually been my first
Speaker 1: guess as to what happened here. I didn't think immediately, well,
Speaker 1: she must be fabricating this he but then we get
Speaker 1: more facts, and then he comes out and says this
Speaker 1: is all a lie. And then this other woman comes
Speaker 1: out and this is bull and I wish I could
Speaker 1: say the full word because that's what deserves to be said.
Speaker 1: This is total bull. Oh I didn't know if really happened.
Speaker 1: You know, I can't really remember. I was drunk, but
Speaker 1: I spoke to my lawyers for six days and and
Speaker 1: and now I think I'm sure that it probably was him. Maybe,
Speaker 1: but I was drunk, and I don't really know. Saying
Speaker 1: that he exposed himself to her, exposed himself. That's that's
Speaker 1: what the allegation is. Now, um and and everyone who's
Speaker 1: been contacted, including dozens the New York Times, reach out.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's all hands on deck of your folks,
Speaker 1: every liberal publication. You have a multibillion dollar media apparatus
Speaker 1: that is trying to take down kavan all right now,
Speaker 1: and this is and this is the best they can do.
Speaker 1: Here are two things, two concepts, two ideas that we
Speaker 1: must remember and and not let the left get away with,
Speaker 1: you know, pretending, aren't there Adoni this one that women
Speaker 1: do not ever make up allegations of sexual assault. I
Speaker 1: know there's a lot of sensitivities around this. I know
Speaker 1: rape is a terrible crime, and there are lots of
Speaker 1: women who have been raped who have never received justice.
Speaker 1: Most women who are sexually assault that never received justice,
Speaker 1: And the truth is there's really no such thing as
Speaker 1: full justice because no one can make that transgression go away.
Speaker 1: The only healing that's really possible is possible through the individual,
Speaker 1: and the justice system does what it can, but it
Speaker 1: can never really make that person who has suffered that
Speaker 1: assault entirely whole from from what they are, their experience
Speaker 1: had been previously in life. And I understand that. But
Speaker 1: if we're going to talk about highly political and politicized
Speaker 1: sexual assault allegations, there is a long history of not
Speaker 1: just overstatement or he said, she said, but complete fabrications
Speaker 1: to want a Brawley and an utter fabrication, a lie
Speaker 1: peddled by Al Sharpton, who is still treated with deference
Speaker 1: and love in respect by the entire Democratic Party, and
Speaker 1: resulted in the suicide of a blameless individual because of
Speaker 1: all the shame and pressure and misery that he was
Speaker 1: under because of her lie. She's a liar, lied about
Speaker 1: being raped and smeared with feces. Crystal Gail mangum oh
Speaker 1: name that probably very few of you know. She accused
Speaker 1: a good portion of the Duke lacrosse team of a
Speaker 1: gang rape against her boys, were losing their lives to prison.
Speaker 1: Most likely, if if it had gone through right, they
Speaker 1: were gonna be in prison for for decades. The the
Speaker 1: coach of the Duke lacrosse team was fired. He wasn't there,
Speaker 1: he didn't do anything. They just fired him because she
Speaker 1: was a liar. She fabricated a story about a gang
Speaker 1: rape wholesale. Why. I don't know, folks. There's lots of
Speaker 1: reasons we could come up with. We don't know. We're
Speaker 1: not her. Later on she ended up killing someone because
Speaker 1: they didn't press false charges, false statement charges against her,
Speaker 1: which they should always do in cases where it's provably
Speaker 1: false that a ray rape was committed. There are other stories.
Speaker 1: I did one on this show, I believe in the
Speaker 1: last twelve months, a woman claimed to be uh bound
Speaker 1: and raped by a police officer. I believe it was
Speaker 1: in Dallas. It was definitely in Texas. She didn't realize
Speaker 1: now that every moment of their interaction was on videotape,
Speaker 1: and he not only didn't rape her, he was entirely
Speaker 1: professional in the in in every moment of their interaction,
Speaker 1: including when she was being verbally belligerent and difficult. So
Speaker 1: why did she make that up? I can't tell you,
Speaker 1: but it happens. It happens. And then you have uh
Speaker 1: this uh woman, I'm actually blanking on her name, but
Speaker 1: the one who told the complete fabrication about the gang
Speaker 1: rape at University of Virginia, which all the same people
Speaker 1: now I see in the media who believe that and who,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, rolling Stone gang rape on campus. No
Speaker 1: one they ran with this, and and only you know
Speaker 1: what happened. A few conservatives came out and said, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think this really makes sense. My
Speaker 1: first reaction when I was told that story, but I
Speaker 1: remember my family was I don't buy it, and I
Speaker 1: to this day wish that I had come on radio
Speaker 1: the next day and said, that's that story is fake.
Speaker 1: And it's not because I don't think that women get
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted on campus. It's not because I don't I
Speaker 1: don't believe that those things happen. Of course, they happen,
Speaker 1: and they're terrible crimes and they should be punished the
Speaker 1: fullest extent of the law. It's that I know sometimes
Speaker 1: they don't happen, and we are in this frenzy period
Speaker 1: now of these kangaroo courts under the auspices of Title
Speaker 1: nine that give no due process to the accused, that
Speaker 1: are set up specifically so that the accusation is essentially
Speaker 1: a guilty verdict. And that mentality which the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: my friends, pushed down onto college campuses and encouraged on
Speaker 1: college campuses across the country, has now reverbed back to
Speaker 1: the very top of the federal government. And you're seeing
Speaker 1: it with sitting senators in the Judiciary Committee who are
Speaker 1: saying that they when they say they believe Professor Ford,
Speaker 1: what they are saying is that they believe that Judge
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist who just lied under oath.
Speaker 1: And they're saying all that with zero evidence and lots
Speaker 1: of red flags and reason to doubt the accusation before.
Speaker 1: I haven't even gotten into the reasons to doubt the
Speaker 1: second allegation. How about the timing, Oh, they just happened
Speaker 1: to have a second accuser who comes out after it's
Speaker 1: been established that. Oh, that's right, Professor Ford has to
Speaker 1: show up on Thursday and testifying her oath. That that
Speaker 1: gets negotiated when they realized they can't stall, they can't
Speaker 1: play games anymore. Fine, she has to agree to this. Oh,
Speaker 1: and then they have this New Yorker piece. Ronan Pharaoh's
Speaker 1: name is on it. The great savior of the Me
Speaker 1: Too movement, who truth be Told, has done some very
Speaker 1: good work on this issue. But he's a Democrat, he's
Speaker 1: a lib and it was only a matter of time
Speaker 1: before his work his credibility was used in a weaponized
Speaker 1: form for political purposes. That's where we are now. The
Speaker 1: story that he put out in the New Yorker is
Speaker 1: is shoddy, to say the least The New York Times
Speaker 1: because keep in mind, all these papers are running everywhere
Speaker 1: talking to everybody in Kavanaugh's life, and they are saying
Speaker 1: things like, yeah, there's a witness to Kavanaugh is exposing
Speaker 1: himself to this woman twenty some odd years ago. Oh
Speaker 1: if by witness you mean somebody who said they heard
Speaker 1: something from somebody else that sounded kind of like this.
Speaker 1: They're treating that as a quote witness because they are
Speaker 1: desperate because they've got nothing. So let me now add
Speaker 1: to this. I don't believe accuser number one or accuser
Speaker 1: number two. I think they both are willing to lie.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they're completely You know that they've never
Speaker 1: met Cavina on the fabricarty everything. But I think they're
Speaker 1: willing to lie about the circumstances of this. Maybe they've
Speaker 1: convinced themselves that they're telling the truth, So yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess they could pass up Polly. But polygraphs aren't used
Speaker 1: in court for a reason because they think that they
Speaker 1: are saviors here of the Democratic parties most important political issue,
Speaker 1: which is the right to abort a baby any time,
Speaker 1: for all nine months of a pregnancy, for any reason,
Speaker 1: as many times throughout your life as you want to do,
Speaker 1: and have the state protect access, have a state provide funding.
Speaker 1: That is what this is all about, plain and simple.
Speaker 1: And women have been radicalized, and yes, I will say
Speaker 1: that radicalized to be abortion extremists. And in that kind
Speaker 1: of an environment, if you think that you can save
Speaker 1: all of your fellow women from the the servitude of
Speaker 1: having to carry children to full term and bring them
Speaker 1: into this world, yes, I think it is reasonable to
Speaker 1: expect that there are people of that mindset who would
Speaker 1: lie under these circumstances. I think they're both lying And
Speaker 1: I have taken her riffic keep from people for this one,
Speaker 1: and I don't care. It's times some of us stand
Speaker 1: up and defend the truth. My friends, I know you
Speaker 1: are with me, I know we are together on this,
Speaker 1: but it's lonely right now on the truth side. It's
Speaker 1: rough out there. They are looking to take scalps to
Speaker 1: destroy people, not just Kavanaugh, anyone around him, anyone who
Speaker 1: defends him. They're keeping score too. This isn't gonna be
Speaker 1: over no matter if Kavanaugh is confirmed or not. But
Speaker 1: on this it's too important. I don't want to live
Speaker 1: in a country where the despotic, disgusting left can eliminate
Speaker 1: anybody they want from public life with the flimsiest, most
Speaker 1: preposterous of sexual assault allegations. I don't want to live
Speaker 1: in that country. So now we stand and fight, and
Speaker 1: we fight on this issue. We'll get into some of
Speaker 1: the Senate machinations and all that coming up in a moment.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Yeah, Democrats, the signal four months they
Speaker 1: put on whatever performance the far left special interests demanded,
Speaker 1: and throw all the mud, all the mud they could manufacture.
Speaker 1: It's not like they didn't warn us, but even by
Speaker 1: the far left standards, this shameful, shameful smear campaign has
Speaker 1: hit a new load. I'll get into the specifics in
Speaker 1: just a moment, But I want to be perfectly clear
Speaker 1: about what has taken place. Senate Democrats and their allies
Speaker 1: are trying to destroy a man's personal and professional life
Speaker 1: on the basis of decades old allegations that are unsubstantiated
Speaker 1: and uncorroborated. That Mr is where we are. This is
Speaker 1: what the so called resistance has become. A smear campaign,
Speaker 1: pure and simple, aided and abetted by members of the
Speaker 1: United States Senate. It is a massive smear campaign. Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: I've got to say, has been pretty strong on this rhetorically.
Speaker 1: I think that they should just hold the vote. And
Speaker 1: this is what I this is where I come down
Speaker 1: and all this just just have the vote. This is
Speaker 1: just nonsense. They made it clear to anyone who's being
Speaker 1: even the least bit objective. Oh, they just happened to
Speaker 1: get an accuser out right after the first accusers agree
Speaker 1: to testify, then a second one magically appears. Come on.
Speaker 1: Oh and after they held this the whole time, so
Speaker 1: they can wait till the very very end. This is
Speaker 1: all about delay. We know it's all political. We're not stupid.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are just shameless. I mean, I've never seen
Speaker 1: anything like this. They just act like they're like, you know,
Speaker 1: we're just really stupid and can't make simple can't come
Speaker 1: to simple judgments about what's happening. We're just really dumb.
Speaker 1: That's what democrats are saying to you all the time now.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you if you think there's a
Speaker 1: need to present evidence, you support rapists. This is what
Speaker 1: passes for argument now. I mean, the journalists that I'm
Speaker 1: engaging with on the left right now are just a
Speaker 1: pack of morons. They hate kavan all. They think that
Speaker 1: they're scoring some big win here against you know, progress,
Speaker 1: I mean against preppy white male privilege and oh he
Speaker 1: went to Yale and he's got a side part and
Speaker 1: all this stuff. They just hate him. They're ruining an
Speaker 1: innocent man, folks. Cavanaugh, based on everything we have seen
Speaker 1: him and told so far, isn't just not guilty. He
Speaker 1: is innocent. A show of hands, how many of you
Speaker 1: believe Judge Kavanaugh when he says this didn't happen. How
Speaker 1: can we believe the word of a woman or something
Speaker 1: that happened thirty six years ago. We this guy has
Speaker 1: an impeccable reputation. It wasn't nobody, nobody that has spoken
Speaker 1: ill will about him. Everyone that speaks about him. This
Speaker 1: guy is an altar boy, you know, a scout. He's
Speaker 1: you know, because one woman made an allegation. Sorry I
Speaker 1: don't buy it, but in the grand scheme of things,
Speaker 1: my goodness you there was no intercourse. There was maybe
Speaker 1: a touch. Can we really thirty six years later, she's
Speaker 1: still stuff on that had it happened. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: talking about a fifteen year old girl, which I respect,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a woman. I respect. We're talking about
Speaker 1: a seventeen year old boy in high school with a
Speaker 1: sponsoril running eye. Tell me what boy hasn't done this
Speaker 1: in high school? Please? I would like to know. Not
Speaker 1: the responses from that focus group of women I believe
Speaker 1: they are Republican women that CNN got together, and not
Speaker 1: not the responses that would have been expected, I think
Speaker 1: by the CNN moderator there. You'll notice that a lot
Speaker 1: of that is the stuff that that people would say.
Speaker 1: Kitchen tables around the country, you know, not not hashtag resistance,
Speaker 1: you know where female anatomy hats on their heads, kind
Speaker 1: of kitchen table places, but you know, just just normal
Speaker 1: Americans would say a lot of that stuff, not all
Speaker 1: of it necessarily, but a lot of it. It's say,
Speaker 1: it was a really long time ago is one allegation.
Speaker 1: This just doesn't really seem to add up. I don't
Speaker 1: understand why everyone on the Democrats side as well. Well,
Speaker 1: the thing is, you gotta be careful that you say
Speaker 1: this right, because we do know why they're doing it.
Speaker 1: It's not because they find the allegations so believable, because
Speaker 1: they're so desperate to believe the allegations. That's that's not
Speaker 1: the same thing. That is not the same thing. Uh.
Speaker 1: And those women, I think made a lot of the
Speaker 1: points and a lot of the argument that we're always
Speaker 1: told the women, you know, women have a right to
Speaker 1: be believed and women don't do this and women don't
Speaker 1: think that. Well, that was a whole bunch of women
Speaker 1: who clearly think that Kavanaugh is getting a raw deal here.
Speaker 1: That was a whole panel of women, and we didn't
Speaker 1: play all of it for either. It went on. I
Speaker 1: mean that there was a lot of really sense of
Speaker 1: stuff that they said. I mean, I keep seeing the
Speaker 1: stupidity on on Twitter right now, which most of you
Speaker 1: folks aren't on set off to worry about. But the
Speaker 1: stupidity on Twitter is it's at an eleven. I've never
Speaker 1: seen it as bad as it is right now. You
Speaker 1: have people all over the place who we're saying Cavano
Speaker 1: is a rapist, And to that, I say, no, one's no,
Speaker 1: no person. Even if you believe all the complete bs
Speaker 1: allegations that are out there right now about Kavanaugh, there
Speaker 1: is not a single person yet who has claimed Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: has raped thumb or in any way actually physically penetrated
Speaker 1: them against their will. Not one. So how is how
Speaker 1: is he even or how is it even theoretically possible
Speaker 1: that based on what we know, he's a rapist? But
Speaker 1: people are saying that. That's how interested they are in
Speaker 1: defaming him, That's how interested they are in destroying his
Speaker 1: character and ruining his chances to be a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1: They're just lying about him, and they feel good lying
Speaker 1: about him. They feel like it's something that they are
Speaker 1: doing for their team. It's thing that makes them. I
Speaker 1: feel like they're being helpful to the very important cause,
Speaker 1: and the cause is really they keep saying, to decide
Speaker 1: things for women. I I was over at a Capitol
Speaker 1: hill today. I asked, I gotta ask a couple of
Speaker 1: questions to Senator Coons. By the way, he's a very
Speaker 1: small fellow. I gotta ask a couple questions Senator Coons,
Speaker 1: and you know, he gave me the usual you know,
Speaker 1: he likes the sound of his own voice, and gave
Speaker 1: me the usual Democrat nonsense. But there was this whole
Speaker 1: group of a hundred and fifty Yale Law School students
Speaker 1: were all together, and then there was this recurring theme.
Speaker 1: They're getting up and they're giving these speeches, and they're
Speaker 1: all clapping for each other for how brave they are,
Speaker 1: for giving these speeches, basically about how brave they are.
Speaker 1: And these aren't litt kids, folks. I mean they're all
Speaker 1: twenty five, twenty six. I mean, these are adults, and
Speaker 1: you know they're they're standing up there and they keeps saying,
Speaker 1: you know, because Kavanaugh could be making decisions that affect
Speaker 1: women's women's rights for decades to come, It's like, what
Speaker 1: exactly does that mean that affect women's rights? Just say abortion? Well,
Speaker 1: why do is women's what women's right is Kavanaugh opposed
Speaker 1: to other than perhaps we don't even know, but perhaps
Speaker 1: quote a women's right to choose. In what way is
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh anti woman other than he doesn't think that it
Speaker 1: should be and in a policy of the United States
Speaker 1: government to make it legal in all fifty states and
Speaker 1: use taxpayer funds. By the way, that is what it
Speaker 1: is when planned parenters getting hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: from taxpayers and use taxpayer funds to commit abortion on
Speaker 1: an industrial scale, you know, sixty million, sixty million unborn
Speaker 1: killed and counting. That's what this is about for women.
Speaker 1: This is this is where women's rights by the left
Speaker 1: is really abandoning women's rights and feminism as a general
Speaker 1: issue because they don't really believe in gender. They don't
Speaker 1: believe in cis gender. They don't believe in gender binder,
Speaker 1: gender binder, that's the mit Romney thing, gender binary society,
Speaker 1: al female. They believe there's something else. They believe there's
Speaker 1: this whole spectrum of different genders out there that we
Speaker 1: need to understand and embrace and have a part of
Speaker 1: our of our day to day lives. You know, how
Speaker 1: can they explain it to you? No, but they're sure
Speaker 1: it's really important. So I I just note that this
Speaker 1: this panel of women was speaking about this in a
Speaker 1: way that I think a lot of just everyday folks
Speaker 1: would and you could tell the sea in a moderate
Speaker 1: is horrified. Oh my gosh, you're just you don't. Doesn't
Speaker 1: the woman have a right to be believed? And on
Speaker 1: this idea of the right to be believed, I've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of stupidity today about people say, well, Al
Speaker 1: Franken had stepped down. Yeah, Al Franken was a big
Speaker 1: voice for the me too movement, and then their photos
Speaker 1: of him groping a woman's breast while she's asleep. Photos
Speaker 1: being a very important word here. Al Franken did not
Speaker 1: step down, And I don't know. I thought it was
Speaker 1: a little honestly, under the circumstance, I thought it was
Speaker 1: a little well, no, there was additional I'm trying to remember.
Speaker 1: I think they're people that said he tried to stick
Speaker 1: his tongue down their throat. There were that was a
Speaker 1: few that was a few times that he was very
Speaker 1: aggressive with that. So it wasn't just the but just
Speaker 1: the grope photo. I would have been like, all right,
Speaker 1: I mean, she was wearing a flak vest and I
Speaker 1: don't think he actually even touched her skin. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's not okay, but you know that shouldn't have to
Speaker 1: step down. I mean, I I think by the way,
Speaker 1: the moment you get into these gray areas, the moment
Speaker 1: you get these gray areas, he was saying, what are
Speaker 1: you okay with rape? No, but the law makes lots
Speaker 1: of distinctions about whether it's you know, unwanted touching, actual penetration,
Speaker 1: sexual intercourt. There's all these are these are codified in
Speaker 1: the law. So can't we also talk about the different severity.
Speaker 1: They just say sexual assault, like you know, it's a
Speaker 1: paddle is a paddle them butt when you walk by somebody,
Speaker 1: as bad as tying somebody down and and forcefully physically
Speaker 1: raping and penetrating them, And of course not right. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's an idiot. But that's the way we're forced to
Speaker 1: talk about this a lot of the time, like it's
Speaker 1: all kind of the same. They say, well, the left
Speaker 1: is gone, you know, why are you defending capital The
Speaker 1: left is gone after you know, uh, Harvey Weinstein, and
Speaker 1: the left is gone after you know, Charlie Rose and
Speaker 1: those guys are predators. Weinstein is accused of rape. No
Speaker 1: one saying Kavanaugh raped anybody. They're saying he might have
Speaker 1: attempted rape, which I would know it was also a
Speaker 1: very really attempted rape. What's the different stuit attempted rape
Speaker 1: and like you know, grabbing and holding for a second
Speaker 1: when you're drunk and you think it's funny and then
Speaker 1: you realize she doesn't think it's funny, and then you
Speaker 1: let her go. I'm not saying that's not assault. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that's okay, but attempted rape. Did Kavanaugh say
Speaker 1: that he was going to have sex with her? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know that, I've never really because he tried to
Speaker 1: pull her bathing suit. Was she was I've never also
Speaker 1: understood this. He was just gonna pull her bathing suit off.
Speaker 1: I mean the whole as I try, and then another
Speaker 1: guy who's in the room jumped and knocked them over.
Speaker 1: The whole story is starting. I read her letter today, men,
Speaker 1: though the letter that she put out, the whole story
Speaker 1: strikes me as as not the way that you would
Speaker 1: expect this kind of situation to go down. You could
Speaker 1: say it does not ring true to me. A lot
Speaker 1: of other Democrats senators is that it does ring true
Speaker 1: to them. But just for a moment, onto double standards,
Speaker 1: we're having this whole discussion about Kavanaugh, and it has
Speaker 1: completely enraged me. I mean, I am as angry about
Speaker 1: this as I've been about anything in the world of
Speaker 1: politics for a very long time. And there's a clear
Speaker 1: double standard that is at work, and it's one that
Speaker 1: should be made note of because the Left is just
Speaker 1: plowing past this and they have no defense. There's no
Speaker 1: argument Keith Ellison has been credibly accused of domestic abuse,
Speaker 1: a very serious charge, by no less than two women.
Speaker 1: When Keith Ellison has asked about this, folks, he's running,
Speaker 1: he's he had been in Congress, he's running for Attorney
Speaker 1: General of Minnesota. When he's asked about this, this is
Speaker 1: what he says in response to those allegations. Play fifteen.
Speaker 1: Are you confident that no one else will step forward
Speaker 1: without any other allegations? Look, you know, in this political environment,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know what somebody might cook up,
Speaker 1: but I can tell you that there is absolutely nobody
Speaker 1: that I'm aware of whose who has any sort of
Speaker 1: through who's threatening or suggesting, or who ever ever made
Speaker 1: a prior accusation. There's nobody I'm aware of who would
Speaker 1: make an accusation. That's very weird. Nowhere in that statement
Speaker 1: does he say I am innocent of any of these charges.
Speaker 1: I did not do any of this. He says, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean something could happen. That's the statement. That is
Speaker 1: the statement if we're going to evaluate these things for
Speaker 1: credibility of a guy who knows there's others out there
Speaker 1: but isn't sure if they're going to come forward, but
Speaker 1: doesn't want to box himself in case they do. And
Speaker 1: there's no calls from Democrats to say that Keith Ellison
Speaker 1: should step down? Should you're not hearing that at all?
Speaker 1: On credit to my old colleague and friend See Cup
Speaker 1: for tackling this on her on her new show on
Speaker 1: See It And here's what she said about to play
Speaker 1: four teen. Keith Ellison, Democratic congressman from Minnesota, deputy chair
Speaker 1: of the d n C running for Attorney general in Minnesota,
Speaker 1: has been accused by two women of domestic violence. Not
Speaker 1: only aren't Democrats insisting that they be believed and that
Speaker 1: he stepped aside, He easily won his Democratic primary, but
Speaker 1: at least one of his accusers has said that her
Speaker 1: own party, the Democratic Party, has smeared and isolated her.
Speaker 1: How can Democrats explain a very obvious double standard in outrage.
Speaker 1: They can't, and as he knows that, which is why
Speaker 1: she asked the question. They can't. But the Me too
Speaker 1: movement has been weaponized for partisan purposes. Now as we
Speaker 1: all knew that it would it was. It was building
Speaker 1: to a point where you knew eventually it would happen.
Speaker 1: And I would note that, you know, one thing that
Speaker 1: gets lost is people like, oh, we've gone after all
Speaker 1: these left wing people in these media people. That's because
Speaker 1: they were old and no longer useful. If Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: had one useful to the left, If Hillary Clinton had one,
Speaker 1: I assure you they would not have done the Weinstein
Speaker 1: stories they were Ronan faraoud. They would not because it
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been embraced. Once the truth finally came out,
Speaker 1: it would have still been suppressed, just like the truth
Speaker 1: about Bill Clinton when he was in office was suppressed.
Speaker 1: These are leftists that have gotten caught up by these
Speaker 1: expose a s. These are left wing media folks. These
Speaker 1: are left wing uh you know, heads of networks that
Speaker 1: have been caught up in the Ronan Pharaoh expose a s.
Speaker 1: So I think that also bears repeating here um. But
Speaker 1: we're at the point now where that's all being used
Speaker 1: for this one moment, the ultimate partisan hit. This was
Speaker 1: not a wire in the sense of tapping the President's
Speaker 1: phone or installing a listening device. It would be a
Speaker 1: recording as if you know, I we sat down and
Speaker 1: we had coffee and I recorded at Washington, d C
Speaker 1: is a one party consent, so you know, anyone can
Speaker 1: basically record any type of one on one conversation with them. Obviously,
Speaker 1: taking such a move with the President would have been extraordinary.
Speaker 1: This is something that the Just Department uses in drug
Speaker 1: cases or game cases. This is something that Rosenstein brought
Speaker 1: up multiple times with FBI officials in this period of time.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just once, as the Justice Department has put
Speaker 1: out this person that was in the room saying it
Speaker 1: was sarcastic what Rosenstein brought it up later in the day,
Speaker 1: and as we point out in the story, Rosenstein was
Speaker 1: asked in the meeting whether he was serious about this,
Speaker 1: and he said that he was. So that contradicts um
Speaker 1: what the Justice Department happened. And that's why we felt
Speaker 1: comfortable and looked forward with the story. You know, with
Speaker 1: Rosenstein on Thursday, when I get back from all of
Speaker 1: these meetings that will be meeting at the White House
Speaker 1: and will be determining, uh, what's going on. We want
Speaker 1: to have transparency, we want to have openness, and I
Speaker 1: look forward to meeting with Rod at that time. Oh my, my, folks,
Speaker 1: big things going on here. You heard that. I was
Speaker 1: from Schmidt, the writer who broke the New York Times
Speaker 1: story about Rosenstein, saying that they're gonna wear a wire
Speaker 1: and wire up FBI agents who go talk to Trump,
Speaker 1: that they're going to remove them with them. This is
Speaker 1: straight This is now straight up you know, deep state
Speaker 1: legal coup or legalized or legal department coup. Right, this
Speaker 1: is this is a a form of lawfair mutiny against
Speaker 1: the President United States by his own executive branch. You'll
Speaker 1: notice that we're never told what why, why would Rosenstein
Speaker 1: have done this? Why would this have been necessary? We
Speaker 1: always then get some kind of mealy mouth, you know,
Speaker 1: like he's done, and you know, they never have an answer.
Speaker 1: What did he say that was so crazy? But that
Speaker 1: that Kim Jong on his little rocket man? They think
Speaker 1: that they think that that's so out of line. What
Speaker 1: was it that set them off in this way? So
Speaker 1: that's that's one part of this, but the the bigger
Speaker 1: news I think, and this was from today after that
Speaker 1: story broke on Friday, and there's a lot of pushback,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna be talking more about this in the
Speaker 1: next hour for sure. But so there was this morning
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of stories that are getting floated out
Speaker 1: there saying Rosenstein was had offered to resign to Kelly,
Speaker 1: the White House Chief of Staff. But my sources here
Speaker 1: in d C tell me something very interesting that what
Speaker 1: happened was that after that story broke on Friday, and
Speaker 1: that Rosenstein had already said he had you know, he
Speaker 1: has no part of it, he didn't do it, and
Speaker 1: all this stuff. After that story broke on Friday, the
Speaker 1: President requested, who have a meeting with Rosenstein, and Rosenstein
Speaker 1: immediately to uh, you know, to pre prepare the battlefield
Speaker 1: or I guess just prepare the battlefield beforehand. Um must
Speaker 1: have leaked or somebody in this office leaked that there
Speaker 1: was gonna that that he was going to offer his resignation.
Speaker 1: To try to get ahead of it. Rosenstein quit because
Speaker 1: the White House said they wanted to talk to him,
Speaker 1: and he assumed he was going to be fired and
Speaker 1: he wanted to be some kind of a hero, and
Speaker 1: then he found out later on in the day, Oh
Speaker 1: you mean they're not actually gonna fire me, Well, then
Speaker 1: I'm not going to resign. And then the story just
Speaker 1: went away. But you see, in this whole process, I
Speaker 1: believe the White House has exposed that Rosenstein is playing
Speaker 1: games with us, and has been playing games the whole time,
Speaker 1: that Rosenstein is in fact a demick, demock crat operative
Speaker 1: in the role of Deputy Attorney General, that he has
Speaker 1: not a fair player in this process, and that he
Speaker 1: is looking he is looking to protect himself so that
Speaker 1: he gets to be a resistance hero at the end
Speaker 1: of this whole thing. And that's what he is looking
Speaker 1: to do. That's his his goal here. Uh. And And
Speaker 1: the fact that to our knowledge he's had basically no meaningful,
Speaker 1: willingness or or ability to reign in the Mueller probe,
Speaker 1: I think tells you a lot. Because the Mueller probe
Speaker 1: is there has been a rogue elephant for a long time.
Speaker 1: He's running around trampling people. And Rosenstein has done nothing
Speaker 1: that we're aware of, at least to to reigin this in.
Speaker 1: And and if he has tried, he has certainly failed.
Speaker 1: But I think they caught him on this one. I
Speaker 1: think that he tried to get ahead of it and
Speaker 1: say that. So Rosensteed figured, Oh, they're they're meeting with me,
Speaker 1: they're gonna fire me. I'm gonna tell the press that
Speaker 1: I've already resigned. And then the White House said, why
Speaker 1: are you resigning? We're not We're not firing you, and
Speaker 1: he goes, Oh my bad. So we've got more Rose
Speaker 1: instead talk coming up here in just a minute. There's
Speaker 1: a lot to dig into here, folks. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: Background investigations are very important, folks. Been a lot of
Speaker 1: talk about investigations and backgrounds in the news. Now. You
Speaker 1: don't want to hire somebody and find out that you've
Speaker 1: got a big headache on your hands. You don't want
Speaker 1: a new employee who's got a long history of lawsuits
Speaker 1: or maybe even a criminal background that they weren't truthful about.
Speaker 1: You just want to make sure that you're working with
Speaker 1: people that can get you the answers about any vetting,
Speaker 1: any background investigation work that you need done. That's Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Global Verification is a dual certified veteran owned
Speaker 1: and operated company with headquarters here in Chicago, but offices
Speaker 1: throughout the United States. Nothing is ever offshore. They will
Speaker 1: not send your work to be done overseas, They will
Speaker 1: not send your data to be held overseas. This is
Speaker 1: the place you want for all your background investigation work.
Speaker 1: Go give them a call, or you can check out
Speaker 1: their website my GVN dot com. Again, that's m y
Speaker 1: g v N dot com. And when you speak to
Speaker 1: CEO Mark Buckman, tell him buck Sexton sent you, and
Speaker 1: I can tell you this. He has a perfect right
Speaker 1: to do it legally. He could do it without being
Speaker 1: guilty of obstruction of justice. Look, you're entitled to have
Speaker 1: a Deputy Attorney General who's not snooping around the White
Speaker 1: House trying to get people to get you removed from office. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you think that's the DIRSH doing what the DRST does
Speaker 1: so well these days, which is speaking some sense to
Speaker 1: the libs. And he's a lib, it's a big lib.
Speaker 1: But he has some connection to reason and the law
Speaker 1: and reality. He does not allow himself to be convinced
Speaker 1: by what he wishes were true about the law and
Speaker 1: about these processes. So this story that we talked about
Speaker 1: on Friday about Rosenstein, Uh saying that there were discussions
Speaker 1: about the twenty five amendment and also that he would
Speaker 1: wear a wire. We've we've gotten more information about this now,
Speaker 1: and you've got some reports that's say that the New
Speaker 1: that the the and by the way, you know, I
Speaker 1: said it early on, and then others are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a trap, it's a trap for Trump, and so yes,
Speaker 1: I said that early and now I heard that all
Speaker 1: weekend from people. I guess it's kind of obvious, but still, well,
Speaker 1: give myself a little pavment back. It's rough down here
Speaker 1: in the swamp, right, I got swamp rats coming at
Speaker 1: me from left and right. So Rosenstein said it, and
Speaker 1: then we find out that other places, other uh newspapers
Speaker 1: claimed that it was a joke, that the initial story,
Speaker 1: which I think broken The Times, was taking it literally,
Speaker 1: and and to that I would just say, you know,
Speaker 1: this is where this is where you see some of
Speaker 1: the shadiness of the mainstream media laid bear. Uh. They
Speaker 1: are claiming that there that they can stand by the reporter,
Speaker 1: but really what they would if if push came to
Speaker 1: show up, they would say, well, he made the comment,
Speaker 1: and so our interpretation of it was that he meant it,
Speaker 1: and even if it's a joke. So that's that's what
Speaker 1: the New York Times Washington Post have been brought down
Speaker 1: to now that they would make allegations based upon or
Speaker 1: they would they would not not make allegations. Well in
Speaker 1: this case, they're kind of alleging something, but they would
Speaker 1: report on something as though it were a true, factual
Speaker 1: statement when really it was a joke. But they will
Speaker 1: report jokes literally. Yeah. So you know, if if somebody,
Speaker 1: if somebody has a going away party thrown for them, like, oh,
Speaker 1: you guys, I told you not to do this. Man,
Speaker 1: I could just I I I'm I'm gonna kill you.
Speaker 1: You guys should have done this. New York Times reports
Speaker 1: person surprised by going away party threatens to kill everybody
Speaker 1: in the room. I mean technically, I guess true, but
Speaker 1: not really. That seems to be the way the Times
Speaker 1: does its reporting. Now. Then on another level, you have
Speaker 1: and and I I stand firmly behind this all right,
Speaker 1: the twenty fifth Amendment, which keeps getting talked about here. Okay,
Speaker 1: you keep having all these people that bring up the
Speaker 1: twenty Amendment. You have had h you have had an
Speaker 1: unbelievable number of people who have left this administration. As
Speaker 1: you could say, it's a little bit a little bit
Speaker 1: of a weak spot for the administration, a little a
Speaker 1: little bit a little bit of a weak spot. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of people leave it. And yet you cannot
Speaker 1: get a single prominent named Trump person from the White
Speaker 1: House who has departed to confirm that there has ever
Speaker 1: been discussion in any serious way about the twenty fifth Amendment.
Speaker 1: You know, we're having a lot of discussions right now
Speaker 1: about credibility and what can you believe? What should you believe?
Speaker 1: I do not find it credible. I simply do not
Speaker 1: find it believable that there could have been all these
Speaker 1: different times, because it must have been a lot, because
Speaker 1: we keep hearing a different people where there were discussions
Speaker 1: of removing the president because he was mentally unfit for office,
Speaker 1: only then to never have anyone come out and say, yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, that happened. You know, my name is such
Speaker 1: and such, I was in this White House that happened.
Speaker 1: The only exception of this is Amarossa. And I think
Speaker 1: you can all guess how credible I find that. Oh,
Speaker 1: we got more on that, We got more from the
Speaker 1: dirsh on this one, on the Amendment removing a president
Speaker 1: from office by you know, vote of the cabinets where
Speaker 1: the dors had to say play five. The twenty fifth
Speaker 1: Amendment obviously is inapplicable here. Twenty fifth Amendment was designed
Speaker 1: to prevent what happened to Woodrow Wilson, he had a
Speaker 1: stroke and he couldn't govern, or temporarily what happened to
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan. He shot. He had to turn over the
Speaker 1: vice present, so the vice president. It wasn't intended to
Speaker 1: remove a president who you disagree with his policies. You
Speaker 1: think the White House is in disarray. This is what
Speaker 1: I've been sent all along. They keep saying Trump is crazy,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, how is he crazy? Give me evidence
Speaker 1: of him being crazy? Because he, you know, doesn't support
Speaker 1: the policies you like. And he says that Jim Acosta
Speaker 1: is a hack and seeing in his fake news, both
Speaker 1: of which are true. Statements that to make him crazy.
Speaker 1: That just makes him normal. Because he likes to eat,
Speaker 1: you know, cheeseburger is well done. I mean that that
Speaker 1: may make him wrong, but it doesn't make him crazy.
Speaker 1: That he gets his stakes well done. Maybe a crime
Speaker 1: against humanity, but it doesn't mean he's not a good president.
Speaker 1: Where is there that's you know? So not only have
Speaker 1: we never had anyone come out to confirm the twenty
Speaker 1: five Amendment has been discussed in a meaningful way, We've
Speaker 1: also never had a single story where the president really
Speaker 1: sounded crazy, which is what you know, that's what unfit
Speaker 1: for office means. It doesn't mean I don't like the
Speaker 1: way that he's thinking about trade policy. Uh. And this
Speaker 1: is where you start to wonder if there's maybe a
Speaker 1: mirror imaging going on. That's what we would call it
Speaker 1: back in mild but now analyst days or an analysis
Speaker 1: which is what I was gonna say, which is just
Speaker 1: makes it sound cooler, But no, it's it's true if
Speaker 1: you if you mirror images when you think that somebody
Speaker 1: else is going to act the way that you do.
Speaker 1: And I think that some of the very big folks
Speaker 1: in the bureaucratic establishment are so hateful toward Trump that
Speaker 1: they just, you know, they have kind of lost it,
Speaker 1: and so they assume that he he's lost it. You know,
Speaker 1: that they see in him what they should be seeing
Speaker 1: in themselves. Oh wait, I didn't. We we've got actually
Speaker 1: got that. So on the Rosenstein story, it is. It
Speaker 1: is New York Times. But on the Rosenstein story, you
Speaker 1: have Schmidt, who was the the guy who broke this,
Speaker 1: defending it on Morning Joe of course play eight, and
Speaker 1: liberals are saying, oh, he was just being sarcastic. Tell me,
Speaker 1: with all of your reporting, with all of your information,
Speaker 1: when he talked about wearing a wire and talked about
Speaker 1: at a vote on the twenty amendment for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: was Rod Rosenstein being sarcastic. That's not what the depth
Speaker 1: and breadth of our reporting showed. It showed that in
Speaker 1: the meeting, Rosenstein had been asked whether he was joking.
Speaker 1: He said he was not, and then raised a new
Speaker 1: prospect of wiring FBI agents who were going into the
Speaker 1: Oval office to meet with the president about being the
Speaker 1: next director. Also, no pushback from the Justice Department on
Speaker 1: whether the comment about the twenty amendment was sarcastic. And
Speaker 1: what sort of gets lost in all of the noise
Speaker 1: around this story is the simple fact that in May
Speaker 1: of seventeen, less than four months into Donald Trump's time
Speaker 1: in office, senior officials at the top of the Justice
Speaker 1: Department we're talking about the amendment as a way of
Speaker 1: removing him from office. I just wish someone would confirm it.
Speaker 1: Rosenstein says no, so I guess he's a liar. If
Speaker 1: New York Times, there's only two options Rosen scene is
Speaker 1: a liar or the New York Times is wrong. I
Speaker 1: don't know which one to go with there. And oh, also,
Speaker 1: by the way that you know the president, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the president has managed to flush out so many people
Speaker 1: from the d o J. And I think that we've
Speaker 1: seen another instance of this year with what's going on
Speaker 1: with with the leaks, lush and leaks. Look at all
Speaker 1: this wordplay with the leaks that were going on from
Speaker 1: d o J today. I've got more on this on
Speaker 1: this story though, coming to you here in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com, folks, that is the new social media platform.
Speaker 1: It is up and coming for people who do not
Speaker 1: want moderators and left wing activists, you know, people that
Speaker 1: are in charge of conversational health, the kinds of platforms
Speaker 1: that do shadow banning all that stuff. Snippy dot com
Speaker 1: has none of it. I've got a profile and Snippy
Speaker 1: I can post there and check in and talk to
Speaker 1: folks whatever I want and know that there's not gonna
Speaker 1: be some shadow banning issue. James Woods, one of my
Speaker 1: favorite Twitter accounts, got kicked off at Twitter recently. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's crazy what's going on out there. If you want
Speaker 1: to make sure that you're building up a network of
Speaker 1: like minded patriots and friends and just people who want
Speaker 1: to talk to anything about go to snippy dot com
Speaker 1: and know that they're not going to kick you off.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna uh engage in any kind of left
Speaker 1: wing social engineering. They're just gonna let people have a
Speaker 1: conversations because your voice should be heard snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: Start your entirely free account at snippy dot com. During
Speaker 1: the campaign, is clearly Department of Justice FBI was tipping
Speaker 1: the scales for Clinton. This revelation after President Trump was
Speaker 1: sworn in shows they were trying to undermine the election.
Speaker 1: There's a bureau credit coup going on at the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice as an FBI, and somebody needs to look
Speaker 1: at it. We need Rod Rosenstein under oath before the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee. Articles of impeachment have been filed against Rosenstein
Speaker 1: under House rule. Those have now ripened to the point
Speaker 1: where any one member of Congress can force a vote
Speaker 1: on Rod Rosenstein's impeachment and if Rosenstein is not in
Speaker 1: the witness chair this week, Mark Meadows and I are
Speaker 1: prepared to call for that vote on an impeachment. We
Speaker 1: need to understand from Rosenstein and from the people in
Speaker 1: the room, why the Deputy Attorney General the United States
Speaker 1: felt it was appropriate to even joke about wearing a
Speaker 1: wire on the president while he is supposed to be
Speaker 1: overseeing an investigation. When this president is facing all these
Speaker 1: threats internally and externally, he does not deserve to have
Speaker 1: his own deputy attorney general joking about wearing a wire
Speaker 1: on him. That is so inappropriate. And you know what,
Speaker 1: if we don't get him in the witness chair this week,
Speaker 1: we may be taking a vote on his impeachment. Folks,
Speaker 1: there is a bureaucratic coup. That is true. Sorry, it
Speaker 1: is not much ado. I'm gonna stop rhyming now, but
Speaker 1: there is a bureaucratic coup underway, or there was. I
Speaker 1: think they're still trying and it's just in slow motion.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that I think that removing Rosenstein
Speaker 1: is the right thing. I think that you gotta let
Speaker 1: Rosenstein stay for now. If you were going to remove him,
Speaker 1: you wanted to do it at the very beginning to
Speaker 1: remove him at this point when it's I think so
Speaker 1: very clear that the Russia investigation is the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: part of it is running out of steam. By the way,
Speaker 1: how's all that in election interfere and stuff coming along? Yeah,
Speaker 1: they got those indictments against those Russians. Remember what a
Speaker 1: big deal they made about that. And a conspiracy to
Speaker 1: defraud the United States, which don't even really know what
Speaker 1: that means. I said that actually, what was his name,
Speaker 1: Hugh Hewitt got into it with me a while ago
Speaker 1: on Twitter about that. When I said that was an overreach,
Speaker 1: you said, no, it's not. Yeah, it is that conspiracy
Speaker 1: to defraud the United States. And unless you're stealing money
Speaker 1: from the United States government, you're defrauding them by putting
Speaker 1: propaganda on the internet. That now that that doesn't add
Speaker 1: up for me. Um, I think it was, and I
Speaker 1: might have been wrong. Maybe it wasn't here It was
Speaker 1: just one of those other one of those other people
Speaker 1: that host a radio show. Uh. So you know, I
Speaker 1: think that it doesn't make sense strategically to get rid
Speaker 1: of Rosenstein. Uh that all said, who's really defending their
Speaker 1: conduct at this point? That's not a partisan hack. I mean,
Speaker 1: how how can anyone look at this situation honestly and
Speaker 1: think to themselves, you know what, there's really there's really
Speaker 1: nothing going on here. Yeah, so maybe rosenst he made
Speaker 1: a comment about wearing a wire, but he was kidding.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you this, my friends. If somebody had made
Speaker 1: a comment about never mind the presser, yeah, let's say
Speaker 1: the president. If when I was at CIA, somebody said
Speaker 1: they were going to go into an oval office briefing
Speaker 1: and wear a wire, that wouldn't have been considered funny.
Speaker 1: I think the person would have been investigated, actually by
Speaker 1: our own internal security there. I mean, I think I
Speaker 1: think that would have been considered in such poor taste
Speaker 1: that it would have been treated almost like somebody that
Speaker 1: you know, yells bomb on an airplane or something like.
Speaker 1: It would not have gone over well. So so I
Speaker 1: do I am willing to believe that Rod Rosenstein said
Speaker 1: that as a joke, because it's such a dumb thing
Speaker 1: for him to say out loud at the Department of Justice. Uh.
Speaker 1: But I also think that it's possible that he felt
Speaker 1: so comfortable surrounded by other bureaucrat lawyers at did remember
Speaker 1: Rosenstein's in Obama pointing this guy was attorney general in
Speaker 1: Maryland is a lefty folks, is another yet another Democrat.
Speaker 1: This is this is where the Trump administration's achilles hell
Speaker 1: has been exposed, or not as Achilles heal a weak spot.
Speaker 1: Achilles seal means the whole thing comes down, but a
Speaker 1: weak spot. This is where you see the problem with
Speaker 1: the transition team. They didn't have experience, they didn't have
Speaker 1: the preparation in place they needed, and their decision making
Speaker 1: about things like should we keep Rod Rosenstein in place
Speaker 1: was really poor. The answer to should you keep an
Speaker 1: Obama appointee Hacks as deputy attorney general is no. When
Speaker 1: you're coming in as a Trump administration. You know, remember
Speaker 1: what what Bill Clinton did back in the day, got
Speaker 1: rid of all these different us you know, just just
Speaker 1: emptied it out, just emptied out DJ and made sure
Speaker 1: that they had loyalist folks. You know, we no longer
Speaker 1: live in this neutral, nonpartisan, uh fantasy land that we
Speaker 1: used to when it comes to our government, any position
Speaker 1: with power is inherently political in our government now, any
Speaker 1: position with power is inherently political. That doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: any person who holds that position has to act in
Speaker 1: a politicized fashion. But nobody in our in our federal
Speaker 1: government who has real power. I'm not talking about little bureaucrats.
Speaker 1: Nobody has real power at the top of these agencies,
Speaker 1: bureaucracies and UH and committees and all the rest of
Speaker 1: it is free of political And I was gonna say pollution,
Speaker 1: that might be too strong. But but but political leanings.
Speaker 1: So we should just dispense. I mean, all the way
Speaker 1: through the Supreme Court, the one place, as we've seen
Speaker 1: from the last couple of weeks or last you know,
Speaker 1: a month or two, the one place that's supposed to
Speaker 1: be above politics, the judiciary is perhaps now the most
Speaker 1: intensely political place of all. So think about that extending
Speaker 1: all the way down to the rest of the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: at the top level, at the level of a boss.
Speaker 1: And that's why the leave behind like or the stay
Speaker 1: behind like Rosenstein and others were the real bro The
Speaker 1: Comy was a stay behind. The President told me this,
Speaker 1: what was it, a couple of weeks ago. He should
Speaker 1: have fired Comy right off the bat. It was a
Speaker 1: huge mistake to keep coming. But people around him convinced him.
Speaker 1: And I understand this, you know, on National security and
Speaker 1: Justice Department stuff. You can make an argument for some
Speaker 1: degree of continuity. You can make an argument to you know,
Speaker 1: to have people and that you want to you know,
Speaker 1: have people that have that that show that these are
Speaker 1: non political officers. Well, if you're Trump and you took
Speaker 1: that step of good faith toward the other side, you've
Speaker 1: just gotten You've just gotten crushed because of it. And
Speaker 1: that's what we see happening with I don't think if
Speaker 1: fire ros because then they're gonna say, oh, he was
Speaker 1: they were just getting to the truth and Trump got
Speaker 1: rid of him and then this story because that that
Speaker 1: becomes the entire story for them, not that they've been
Speaker 1: running with this fantasy, this complete joke of Trump collue
Speaker 1: being with Russia. I haven't said this to you in
Speaker 1: a little while, my friends, but it's not even a
Speaker 1: good plan. And that's why from the beginning I've known
Speaker 1: it's not true. It's not a good plan. There's nothing
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration could reasonably have been doing to
Speaker 1: help Russia in this. It would have exposed them to
Speaker 1: incredible amounts of risk, and the downs the downside greatly.
Speaker 1: I always the upside, because it wouldn't even have been effective.
Speaker 1: What was this collusion supposed to be Russia? Hey, go
Speaker 1: hack Hillary's emails and then when you get them, we'll
Speaker 1: talk about them. Well, Russia was doing that on their own.
Speaker 1: They're hacking everybody anyway. They're hacking them long before Trump
Speaker 1: said anything about it. So what's the what is the
Speaker 1: Trump administration bring this? It's it's not even a good plan.
Speaker 1: And then you add so that's one layer of how
Speaker 1: I know that nothing happened. Then you had another layer
Speaker 1: of Trump and his guys who I mean, some of
Speaker 1: these people like Scaramucci and these others have no messaging discipline,
Speaker 1: have no sense of how to deal with a hostile
Speaker 1: press without stepping into a bear trap. And they also
Speaker 1: have So they've had that and the most sophisticated intelligence
Speaker 1: apparatus on the planet looking into them with essentially, for
Speaker 1: all intents and purposes, unlimited resources, and they got nothing,
Speaker 1: you know, a year and after they got nothing. So
Speaker 1: given all of that, given that reality, how are we
Speaker 1: even still having this conversation? Oh, that's right. If they
Speaker 1: fire Rosenstein, that's the only thing that the kids will
Speaker 1: be taught in school. If they fire Rosenstein, will just say, Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, they were getting close to the truth, and
Speaker 1: then Trump shut down the investigation because he's such a
Speaker 1: bad guy and he's so dishonest and blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: all that stuff. That's what happens here. That's why they
Speaker 1: shouldn't find Should rosen Seemed be fired for cause? Absolutely
Speaker 1: have've been fired a long time ago. This is the
Speaker 1: same guy who allegedly threatened a member of the House
Speaker 1: Oversight Committee with we're going to investigate you. Remember that.
Speaker 1: By the way, I completely I completely believe that, just
Speaker 1: because I mean there's nothing about it that did not
Speaker 1: ring true. I mean, you got Rosenstein, who's got his
Speaker 1: back up. By the way, Brandon, do we think Stein
Speaker 1: or Stein? You know, how how do we how do
Speaker 1: we differentiate? You go either way? All right? But I mean,
Speaker 1: if I'm putting you on the spot, you know, you
Speaker 1: go Rosenstein or rosen Stein. Fair enough, I go both,
Speaker 1: I go I go back and forth. And I'm from
Speaker 1: New York, so I've known a lot of Rosenstein's. I
Speaker 1: feel like I usually go Stein. Anyway. You know, he
Speaker 1: should be fired for cause, folks, but he's he's not
Speaker 1: going to be I think, uh And and it's best
Speaker 1: that he not be, because then it will just give
Speaker 1: an excuse, a kind of escape hatch for all the
Speaker 1: collusion maniac Democrats out there who are They're running out
Speaker 1: of room to run with this, this whole lie they've
Speaker 1: been telling themselves. So I think that's very I think
Speaker 1: it's very good that they not would be very smart
Speaker 1: to not fire Rosenstein. I've got much more coming off
Speaker 1: for you and just a sec folks day with me.
Speaker 1: There is a constitutional crisis that doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: looked at only through the lens of impeachment. When you
Speaker 1: have these attacks on the rule of law, when you
Speaker 1: have a president who spends so much time denigrating the FBI,
Speaker 1: UH and his own attorney general and so many others
Speaker 1: who are trying to do the jobs that they have
Speaker 1: been given, that's really a problem because you know, who
Speaker 1: does that help, I mean, who is actually benefiting from
Speaker 1: tearing down our law enforcement, our judicial authorities, and the like.
Speaker 1: So it may come to people saying, we now have
Speaker 1: the evidence, are we now think there are high crimes
Speaker 1: and misdemeanors. But I think that there are issues that
Speaker 1: have to be addressed, and there is the need to
Speaker 1: provide accountability to hold this administration to account. I mean,
Speaker 1: how much useless blather can one person put into a
Speaker 1: little mini monologue? Hillary was was reaching the the the
Speaker 1: upper limit for sure. Hello, she's back. What happened? You
Speaker 1: missed her? You missed her? Don't say you didn't miss her.
Speaker 1: I missed you. That's right. She of no political talent
Speaker 1: or skill. She who was just ruthless and self interested
Speaker 1: and devoid of any integrity or honesty. She's not gonna
Speaker 1: lectuous no notice how she starts. I think what she
Speaker 1: was talking wasn't that Cold Beart? Was that Cold Bear?
Speaker 1: She was talking me there? Okay, some point we'll talk
Speaker 1: later about how nothing is. You know, these comedians are
Speaker 1: not funny. You know what is Hillary Clinton doing in
Speaker 1: the Cold Beart Show? You look, it's like CNN people
Speaker 1: will get to go on the Cold Bear Show. What
Speaker 1: are they doing there? They're not? Are they celebrities? Are
Speaker 1: they journalists? You know? Is Hillary Clinton? What is she exactly?
Speaker 1: Why is she on the Coldbart Show to say? What?
Speaker 1: You know? Anyway? Uh? The truth is this, folks, all
Speaker 1: that stuff she started out saying about a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1: What's the constitutional crisis? They keep saying these things and
Speaker 1: they don't ever have any connection to any specific meaning.
Speaker 1: It just sounds good to them, right, What is the
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis he's talking about, criticize, criticizing the FBI, And
Speaker 1: first of all, it's criticizing about five people inside the FBI,
Speaker 1: a few of whom have been fired for misconduct against
Speaker 1: the sitting president United States. I would note and beyond that,
Speaker 1: you know what, what's the what's the constitutional crisis? The
Speaker 1: president is not allowed to criticize the FBI. That where
Speaker 1: is that in the constitution. I don't understand that the
Speaker 1: FBI works for the President's part of the executive branch.
Speaker 1: So do they work for them or not? I mean,
Speaker 1: is it a is it a military chain of command crisis?
Speaker 1: When a general you know, tells a few of his
Speaker 1: sergeant majors you know, you guys are not doing a
Speaker 1: good job. Some of her military like bluck, trust me,
Speaker 1: that's not how they say it. Say it a lot
Speaker 1: more salty than that. Yeah, I know. But is that
Speaker 1: is that a military chain of command crisis? Or is
Speaker 1: that just you know, the colonel or the captain or
Speaker 1: whoever telling them, telling the guys down the down the
Speaker 1: line of command, you know, shape up or ship out.
Speaker 1: That's not really how they say it, right, shape up
Speaker 1: her ship up the same idea. Maybe it is how
Speaker 1: they say probably throwing some more colorful language. Uh, it's
Speaker 1: always funny to me. When I was a c I A.
Speaker 1: You know, at at State side, everybody was very proper
Speaker 1: in Langley, and the moment you've got anywhere overseas, everyone's
Speaker 1: language just dropped like three levels in terms of much much,
Speaker 1: much saltier. But but Hillary is making these these charges,
Speaker 1: these allegations, and that crowd, that crowd of clapping seals
Speaker 1: at the Cold Air Show or or you know, they
Speaker 1: all think it's so great that Hillary saying these things
Speaker 1: attacks on rule of law? How how is he attacking
Speaker 1: rule of law? In fact, a much more honest reading
Speaker 1: of the facts would be that the quote rule of
Speaker 1: law or those who rule the law, meaning those who
Speaker 1: at the top of the d o J and the FBI,
Speaker 1: are attacking the president. That's what's really been going on.
Speaker 1: You know, you notice this president actually respects law enforcement.
Speaker 1: This president actually likes the day to day of what
Speaker 1: law enforcement does. Doesn't side instinctively with criminals, doesn't take
Speaker 1: the position that law enforcement is in the wrong. For
Speaker 1: eight years we had a president who did take that position.
Speaker 1: It was always okay, well, maybe this time it's not wrong.
Speaker 1: But in general, there's about things like it because the
Speaker 1: cops are racist. You know, this is the stuff you'd
Speaker 1: hear all the time. That's why it's just so rich
Speaker 1: to to hear Hillary say to all this president undermining
Speaker 1: the FBI. I think a lot of FBI guys probably
Speaker 1: like Trump a lot. Not the not the senior you know,
Speaker 1: the top echelon necessarily, but the rank and file. I
Speaker 1: guarantee you there's plenty of I know this, there's plenty
Speaker 1: of rank and file the FBI that likes Trump. Not
Speaker 1: as much rank and file in the intelligence community. On
Speaker 1: the military side, yeah, so d I A and other places,
Speaker 1: all the military and intel commands plenty. But on the
Speaker 1: civilian agency side, no, they're there a lot of lefties,
Speaker 1: a lot of Pinko Bernie Sanders voting, you know, Macha
Speaker 1: Latte drinking types over at c i A. A lot
Speaker 1: of that, uh, and the rest of the intel community
Speaker 1: in general. A lot of that stuff going on. Ouh.
Speaker 1: But they she just says these things that She's a
Speaker 1: perfect example of the brainlessness of much of the anti
Speaker 1: Trump opposition. They say things, they get people all excited,
Speaker 1: they get people, oh my gosh, it's terrible. But what
Speaker 1: what do the things they say actually mean? And what
Speaker 1: are we really supposed to do about what they say?
Speaker 1: She says there's a constitutional crisis, but doesn't establish what
Speaker 1: that crisis is. She says that there's assaults on the
Speaker 1: rule of law. Then she acts like Trump is so
Speaker 1: mean to law enforcement. Meanwhile, there were there were race
Speaker 1: riots in this country, folks. Under the Obama administration, there
Speaker 1: were race riots, and cops felt like they were not
Speaker 1: backed up in doing their jobs. Mike Brown, who was
Speaker 1: yes a thug and was shot trying to do serious
Speaker 1: bodily harm and or kill a police officer, was turned
Speaker 1: into some kind of an icon of the left, which
Speaker 1: is really pathetic. It's really grotesque elevating this person. But
Speaker 1: the left does this with other cop killers as well,
Speaker 1: as we know. I mean, you know Mumiya Abu Jamal,
Speaker 1: the woman in um Cuba, her name is escaped me
Speaker 1: right now. But you know, the Left has a long
Speaker 1: and sordid history of elevating cop killers and democrats, i mean,
Speaker 1: very powerful senior democrats take it upon themselves to support
Speaker 1: that rhetoric and support that idea that that cops are
Speaker 1: systemically racist, that when cops are involved in lethal force situations,
Speaker 1: they're usually in the wrong. It's usually because they're racially biased.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's always their fault, right, It's always
Speaker 1: the cops fault. That's their basic point of view on
Speaker 1: any of those issues. And so Hillary wants to act like, Okay,
Speaker 1: Trump is the problem when it comes to law enforce
Speaker 1: and he's a bad guy. It It is just completely nuts.
Speaker 1: You know. I am hearing some folks say that there's
Speaker 1: gonna be there's gonna be more revelations soon about what's
Speaker 1: in that FISA, which I think has the I think
Speaker 1: has the left a little concerned because they're they're running
Speaker 1: out of there's there's only so many good faith people.
Speaker 1: There's only so many good faith people that you can
Speaker 1: convinced with evidence and arguments. A lot of other people
Speaker 1: are just never gonna shift their their viewpoint on the stuff,
Speaker 1: no matter what. They hate. Trump peas gross, he's ikey,
Speaker 1: they hate Republicans, we're mean, we're racist, we're bad, and
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what you show them are. But the people
Speaker 1: that will listen to evidence. They are increasingly I think
Speaker 1: they're increasingly finding themselves feeling like this Russia collusion investigation
Speaker 1: is going nowhere. Also, notice how that tracks with the
Speaker 1: new cycle. You haven't had any big bombshells about Russia
Speaker 1: Trump collusion in a long time, and none of the
Speaker 1: bombshells are even really bombshells. But now it's all focused
Speaker 1: on twenty five Amendment and Kavanaugh's the story lines moved
Speaker 1: to all these other things. Mueller prob was still ongoing,
Speaker 1: you know, Mueller still putting people in serious criminal jeopardy
Speaker 1: for just having to even talk to the FBI. And
Speaker 1: you know, I should have, now that I think about this,
Speaker 1: allowed this is the thought that just came to me.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't really be surprising to any of us that
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh is being treated so shodily when it comes to process, specifically,
Speaker 1: because you've had a lot of Democrats and so called
Speaker 1: legal analysts who in service to the left, have just
Speaker 1: said things that are stupid. But if you're peutied enough,
Speaker 1: people start to think it's true, things like oh, there's
Speaker 1: no such thing as a perjury trap. You don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about prosecutors going after you. All you have
Speaker 1: to do is tell the truth. You know. That's what
Speaker 1: they were saying about the Mother probe for a long time,
Speaker 1: just like how now with Capital they're saying, Well, if
Speaker 1: you're accused, you should want an FBI investigation, you should
Speaker 1: want federal scrutiny of your life, and and bring in
Speaker 1: as many investigators as possible, because you know, only guilty
Speaker 1: people don't want that. This is a perversion of fundamental
Speaker 1: components of not just our justice system, but our our
Speaker 1: societal notion of justice. What comprises a just society? If
Speaker 1: the allegation, if the allegation of the accusation, he's treated
Speaker 1: the same as a guilty verde, even without any corroboration
Speaker 1: or supporting evidence. We are not long from having our
Speaker 1: our freedom stripped away. Folks. It means the worst people
Speaker 1: among us will find ways to destroy the best. The
Speaker 1: worst like Hillary Clinton, for example, I think one of
Speaker 1: the most significant things he did was get out of
Speaker 1: the wretched or On nuclear deal. He campaigned against it
Speaker 1: in he said it was the worst. You love that
Speaker 1: he did that fantastic glad to be part of it.
Speaker 1: But he's absolutely right, it's the worst diplomatic deal in
Speaker 1: American history. We've put sanctions back on, more sanctions coming
Speaker 1: back on in November. Will find other sanctions to put
Speaker 1: on as well, to pressure the Iranian government to change
Speaker 1: its behavior, and not just their nuclear weapons program, but
Speaker 1: their ballistic missile program and their militaristic across the Middle
Speaker 1: East in Iraq and Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. There are a
Speaker 1: real threat and the president's dealing well. So you can
Speaker 1: bet the President we'll have well to are strong words
Speaker 1: for the Iranian regime, which is among the worst of
Speaker 1: violators of you and Security Council resolutions, if not the
Speaker 1: absolute worst in the world. He'll call on every country
Speaker 1: to join our pressure campaign in order the thwart Irun's
Speaker 1: global torrent of destructive activity. Folks, the approach that this
Speaker 1: administration has to Iran is obviously very different from the
Speaker 1: previous administration. That goes without saying, and one thing that
Speaker 1: you'll note is that you know, Iranian belicosity, at least
Speaker 1: in the first year and a half or so of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, seems to be substantially less than what
Speaker 1: we can recall from the latter part of the Obama administration. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that Iran as a friend, or that
Speaker 1: they don't do anything bad. They're doing terrible things all
Speaker 1: over the place, but less that I see unless I'm
Speaker 1: missing something that is directly aimed at a provocation or
Speaker 1: even a humiliation of the United States in some way.
Speaker 1: The Iranians have not pushed for massive sectarian blood letting
Speaker 1: in Iraq using Shia militias. Yes, the Iranians are backing
Speaker 1: Huthis in Yemen, but we're backing the the government, the
Speaker 1: recognized government, I should say, in Iran. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think that you're gonna see this play out even
Speaker 1: more where there's this belief, Oh, if we continue on
Speaker 1: this path that Trump has put us on of holding
Speaker 1: the Iranians accountable, there's gonna be all this really bad
Speaker 1: stuff that happens. You know, the Iranians are gonna lash out.
Speaker 1: The Iranians are gonna exact revenge on us. Meanwhile, it
Speaker 1: looks like Iran's got its fair share of problems. Its
Speaker 1: economy is tanking right now. It has way fewer, far fewer,
Speaker 1: way fewer, far fewer international allies at its side than
Speaker 1: I think it would have expected at the end of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, and it just had this attack and
Speaker 1: this was pretty this was pretty astonishing. This was an attack, um,
Speaker 1: that was caught by that was on Irraani Iranian Revolutionary
Speaker 1: Guards that were in a parade in in Iran, oh
Speaker 1: and they were attacked by an Arab separatist group. The
Speaker 1: Iranians are saying that the perpetrators were backed by Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: the U A E and the us UH. A couple
Speaker 1: of does. Yeah, twenty five people, this was an afaz
Speaker 1: Iran We're killed in this attack at a parade ground.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this was going right for you know,
Speaker 1: the kind of center of the of the military power
Speaker 1: structure in turn, at least in terms of the optics
Speaker 1: of this, and going after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard during
Speaker 1: a parade is pretty bold stuff. Um. It doesn't exactly
Speaker 1: say who these fighters are, it's not yet clear for
Speaker 1: what I understand who they are. But Iran has its
Speaker 1: own in tonal problems, and it has a very weak economy,
Speaker 1: and you know, they're We've been waiting a long time
Speaker 1: for the Iranian regime to collapse. We've been waiting a
Speaker 1: long time for someone to come along and give it
Speaker 1: its last final push. I'm not saying bet on it.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's likely, but there is a very
Speaker 1: real possibility that the Trump administration is the one that
Speaker 1: sees the Iranian regime to its demise. Uh. The Iran deal,
Speaker 1: as as National Security Visor Bolton said, was just absolutely terrible.
Speaker 1: I mean it was it was wrong, not just an execution,
Speaker 1: but in conception everything about it. You're gonna let the
Speaker 1: Iranians have access to markets when they keep all the
Speaker 1: technology and all the facilities that they have, they just
Speaker 1: don't run them, and they don't advance even more, at
Speaker 1: least in the open. Who knows what they're doing in secret,
Speaker 1: And you expect that after ten years they're just gonna say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, it was fun flirting with the idea
Speaker 1: of being in nuclear power, but that we'd like to
Speaker 1: go back to not being that. Yeah, we we have
Speaker 1: no interest in that now that we're much wealthier and
Speaker 1: a much better isition, much more entrenched in the international community,
Speaker 1: more advanced ballistic missiles, been able to buy whatever they
Speaker 1: can buy from the North Koreans. Don't forget, folks, that
Speaker 1: the North Koreans, you know the problems of North Korean
Speaker 1: Iran when it comes to proliferation have to be thought
Speaker 1: of really simultaneously, or not always simultaneously, but they are connected.
Speaker 1: There are connections between the two. If you're worried, as
Speaker 1: we all should be, if we have national security concerns
Speaker 1: about what the North Korean regime is going to do
Speaker 1: with all of its uh nuclear technology, it's missile technology.
Speaker 1: The Iranians are a ready client for that kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: and they got even with all the sanctions are in place,
Speaker 1: lots of oil money and lots of ways to try
Speaker 1: and make it worth Iran's while. So that's that's another
Speaker 1: component of this I think is worth Remember we'll see
Speaker 1: what ends up happening this week with the speech speeches
Speaker 1: that are coming at the u N I mean, I
Speaker 1: I always think the u N is I mean much
Speaker 1: ado about nothing. I find the u N, as I
Speaker 1: believe most normal Americans do, to be a lot of
Speaker 1: hot era and and really kind of a waste of
Speaker 1: everybody's time. But some people seem to think that it
Speaker 1: does important things. I'm just not. I'm just not really
Speaker 1: seeing all that much of what it does that's so important.
Speaker 1: I just don't really get a lot of important stuff
Speaker 1: from the u N UM but I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you about something that is really important, I think,
Speaker 1: and that is how many illegal aliens are really in
Speaker 1: this country? That's right? I really think this a second.
Speaker 1: How many? Okay, I think you're all thrown out a number.
Speaker 1: You're telling me it's uh oh, let me guess eleven million.
Speaker 1: But you know what's really interesting, that number eleven million
Speaker 1: has been the same number we've been told for about
Speaker 1: ten years. Meanwhile, on any given day, there's you know,
Speaker 1: three thousand, you know, caught crossing the border in this sector,
Speaker 1: in that sector. You know, three thousand here, two thousand there.
Speaker 1: You started adding up these numbers, you know, a migrant
Speaker 1: surge of thirty thousand unaccompanied minors of the border. Actually
Speaker 1: it's a hundred thousand in company mine is the border,
Speaker 1: almost all of whom get to stay in the country.
Speaker 1: You're really telling me there are that many people that
Speaker 1: leave America forever who are here illegally. They go back
Speaker 1: to Mexico after they I don't think. So what if
Speaker 1: I told you that a nonpartisan, at very high level
Speaker 1: intellectual analysis of the number says that the real number
Speaker 1: is a lot higher. I'll tell you what it is.
Speaker 1: If you stay with me. Eleven million, folks, that is
Speaker 1: the number if you want to sound like you know
Speaker 1: what's going on when it comes to illegal immigration, the
Speaker 1: illegal alien population in this country and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. If if you want to sound like somebody
Speaker 1: who's in touch with all that, you need to know
Speaker 1: that the number is eleven million. That is what they
Speaker 1: will tell you. A little problem with that, though, that
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. I know we're told this, and
Speaker 1: this is everyone that I know that talks about immigration
Speaker 1: says this, with a few exceptions. But why would it
Speaker 1: be eleven million for the last decade or so? Why
Speaker 1: not eight million? Why not twelve million? The number stays static,
Speaker 1: and I think there are reasons, by the way, why
Speaker 1: it stays at that number, but I'll get to that
Speaker 1: in a moment. But what is the real number? What
Speaker 1: if I told you that a bunch of and I
Speaker 1: say this with all due respect, math super nerds at Yale,
Speaker 1: I wish I was a math super nerd. I'd be
Speaker 1: working at a quant hedge fund and calling into this
Speaker 1: radio show from my brand new Maserati. But what if
Speaker 1: I told you had a bunch of math super nerds
Speaker 1: at Yale Management School built a model, right, a computer model,
Speaker 1: looking at all the different numbers, and and and they
Speaker 1: crunch the numbers, really crunch the numbers thoroughly. And they're
Speaker 1: not political. They're not they're not advocating for any policy.
Speaker 1: In fact, you can argue that what they're doing will
Speaker 1: be more helpful to the pro amnesty side. What if
Speaker 1: this model tells us that, based on all the available
Speaker 1: real hard data, the number of legal limits in the
Speaker 1: country is not eleven million, it's more like twenty at
Speaker 1: a minimum, that would seem really significant to me. How
Speaker 1: how this isn't being picked up on by more folks
Speaker 1: I think is a bit of a surprise. Let me
Speaker 1: have again, with respect these Yale University math super nerds,
Speaker 1: explain to you a bit of what they did and
Speaker 1: how they did it. When it comes to counting the
Speaker 1: number of illegal immigrants history, conventional estimates provided by both
Speaker 1: the Pew Foundation and also the Center for Migration Studies
Speaker 1: UH suggests that that number is a little over eleven million,
Speaker 1: and those figures are arrived at via surveys where people
Speaker 1: are actually question as to whether or not they were
Speaker 1: born outside of the United States and whether they are citizens. Um,
Speaker 1: what we have done is something quite different. We have
Speaker 1: not administered surveys. Rather, we have collected both operational data
Speaker 1: such as deportations and visa overstays, and demographic data. We
Speaker 1: discover that the survey based result that there are loving
Speaker 1: point three million undocumented Imarrogrance seems to fall far short.
Speaker 1: We have a conservative estimate that says the number is
Speaker 1: at least uh sixteen point seven million, and over one
Speaker 1: million different scenarios, accounting for all of the variability into
Speaker 1: various parameters that we need for this model, on average,
Speaker 1: we're estimating something like twenty two million undocumented immigrants in
Speaker 1: the United States. Folks, did you hear that? I mean,
Speaker 1: at least it's at least fifty bigger than what they've
Speaker 1: been telling you. And I mean everybody, I mean everyone
Speaker 1: in media, everyone out there, because remember, there's no way
Speaker 1: to really count this. They count this via Pew survey.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, sir, are you illegal? Could you tell me
Speaker 1: if you really I had a government had a survey here. Rather,
Speaker 1: we're actually if the governmages they are you illegal? Do
Speaker 1: you think they're really going to answer that? You think
Speaker 1: that they have a way of getting that servant in
Speaker 1: the hands of every illegal I don't think so this
Speaker 1: is madness. Okay, this notion that the Pew survey data
Speaker 1: that somehow comes up with basically the same number every year.
Speaker 1: It's because they're they're sampling the same populations where they're
Speaker 1: they're not changing the necessary variables, you know, They're they're
Speaker 1: not actually looking at what the demographic shifts are. These
Speaker 1: guys that Yale are saying it's at least sixteen million,
Speaker 1: and it's more like twenty two million when they run
Speaker 1: the numbers a million times with their with their analysis.
Speaker 1: I think this is really significant, folks. I think this
Speaker 1: tells us a lot about one how we are operating
Speaker 1: in the dark when it comes to immigration and illegal
Speaker 1: immigration specifically because the government wants us to. You'll you'll
Speaker 1: notice that that they like to play this game of oh,
Speaker 1: come on, it's just gonna be you know, two or
Speaker 1: three million undocumented dreamers that we keep in the country,
Speaker 1: and like, oh, so you mean illegal aliens falling in
Speaker 1: a certain age range will just get to stay. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's only two or three million. Well, but it's
Speaker 1: also gonna be their parents and their families, so that
Speaker 1: will be more like five or six allion, and it
Speaker 1: will also be anybody that didn't sign up for the program,
Speaker 1: and that's not really five or six minut's gonna be
Speaker 1: more like seven or eight million. And you know, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you're basically at the ten million they
Speaker 1: told us that are illegal in the first place, that
Speaker 1: are just gonna be able to stay permanently legally. And
Speaker 1: then you started to ask, well, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: are we even doing Can we even trust the numbers
Speaker 1: they give us at the upper at the upper limit.
Speaker 1: The answer is no. You cannot think about think about
Speaker 1: what is going on here, folks. We are having debates
Speaker 1: over immigration, over numbers. How many people should we leave
Speaker 1: in this country? How big a drain on the economy
Speaker 1: is illegal immigration, How big a drain on the schools
Speaker 1: is illegal immigration? How much crime is caused via illegal immigration?
Speaker 1: And we're operating in this world where we think that
Speaker 1: the population is about half the size that it actually is.
Speaker 1: That's insane. I mean, this was a bit. If the
Speaker 1: government was a business when it comes to immigration, that
Speaker 1: would have been would have been shut down. Everybody who
Speaker 1: have been fired a long time ago. And the fact
Speaker 1: that there's not a much more aggressive effort to figure
Speaker 1: out really who's here and who's not. Now, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you this, folks. One of the problems is that I
Speaker 1: think the left likes the idea of the numbers being
Speaker 1: higher because that means that Republicans who are weak need
Speaker 1: on immigration are gonna get even weaker. That's right, Republicans
Speaker 1: that you can't count on to actually keep their promises
Speaker 1: and keep their word on immigration, they will see this
Speaker 1: and say, oh gosh, now I'm really you know, now
Speaker 1: we're really screwed. Now, I really have to figure out
Speaker 1: a way to, you know, somehow make this pitched the
Speaker 1: voter that we're going to control immigration, but in reality
Speaker 1: we're just we're gonna get voted out of office. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Republican Party becomes a permanent minority party if you
Speaker 1: get mass amnesty of elevenly, if you get mass amnesty
Speaker 1: at twenty two, and this country starts to feel like
Speaker 1: a very different place politically, I mean, what is that
Speaker 1: going to be? Like? The assumption is going to be
Speaker 1: that a vast majority of illegal aliens are gonna want
Speaker 1: considerable public assistance, so they're all gonna be going for
Speaker 1: a Democrats, And that's anohing by the way, that they're
Speaker 1: now trying to cut back on on the immigration for
Speaker 1: the trying to cut back on green cards going to
Speaker 1: people that are on public assistance. And this is considered
Speaker 1: a terrible and a heartless thing. So okay, two points
Speaker 1: to make on this. I mean, it's considered terrible and
Speaker 1: heartless by demagogues in the Democrat Party. But two points
Speaker 1: that I really want to make. This one is, okay, uh,
Speaker 1: it's already the law that you're not supposed to be
Speaker 1: on public assistance if you are an immigrant to this country.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're you're not supposed to come here and
Speaker 1: be able to stay if you're on public assistance. That's one. Two.
Speaker 1: Are are we really supposed to just take in the
Speaker 1: welfare cases of the rest of the world and people say,
Speaker 1: oh buck refugees and give me your tired, your poor
Speaker 1: and your huddled masses learning do you know the poem
Speaker 1: from a Statue of Liberty, which which all these all
Speaker 1: these journalists think is is a thing that's not just
Speaker 1: a poem. I mean, this would be like me walking
Speaker 1: around like, well, hold on, have you seen that that
Speaker 1: policy inscribed on that that brass statue in Central Park?
Speaker 1: You know the cat in the hat. I mean it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean anything. Okay, the poem has no has no,
Speaker 1: it's a poem. But but when we're talking about bringing
Speaker 1: in a certain number of immigrants who are going to
Speaker 1: need more help, going any more assistance, that's one part
Speaker 1: of the conversation. There's another part of the conversation though,
Speaker 1: that's what happens when we're already bringing in a million
Speaker 1: people a year, and then another half a thousand, a
Speaker 1: half a million visa overstays, and then, however many illegals
Speaker 1: are coming into the country. Beyond that, what is the treasury?
Speaker 1: What does the depths that look like when they start
Speaker 1: being able to legally access any in all public services
Speaker 1: that they choose to do you mean, do you think
Speaker 1: the country is a better place for that or not?
Speaker 1: Do you think the country is in stronger shape if
Speaker 1: we bring in more more welfare cases? So, you know,
Speaker 1: we can't even have though, and then this brings me
Speaker 1: back to my initial point. We can't even have a
Speaker 1: serious conversation about what to do with the finances of immigration,
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. So we know how many people are here illegally,
Speaker 1: and we don't We simply do not know, And I
Speaker 1: just wonder when we're allowed to be honest about that
Speaker 1: and then take action based upon it. Because I'm telling
Speaker 1: you think about it yourself. You don't even have to
Speaker 1: crunch the numbers like these math nerds did. I'm just
Speaker 1: jealous because they're good at math. The numbers at least
Speaker 1: twenty million folks, at least twenty million illegal aliens in America.
Speaker 1: And in the film, I show something that sadly President
Speaker 1: Obama did by coming to Flint and and um telling
Speaker 1: people the water was okay, it was so poison and
Speaker 1: then he pretended to drink from a glass of water
Speaker 1: and and then said it wasn't a stunt, and it
Speaker 1: was you cannot talk to people who have suffered so much,
Speaker 1: especially in this town where their jobs were eliminated thirty
Speaker 1: years ago. Then the economy was was ruined. The pipes
Speaker 1: are poison, And as I showed in the film, Obama
Speaker 1: sends the Pentagon in to use Flint as target practice,
Speaker 1: and for ten days and ten nights in a row,
Speaker 1: fires missiles and bombs into abandoned buildings, troops firing their guns.
Speaker 1: Nobody was told in advance that they were coming. Everybody
Speaker 1: thought it was a terrorist incident, and and and it's
Speaker 1: like the feeling that we're just what, we're nobody, and
Speaker 1: and America has forgotten us. We're still drinking out of
Speaker 1: bottled water. And and in this small little example, you
Speaker 1: see how sometimes the Democrats really screw it up. Michael
Speaker 1: Moore's movie Fahrenheit, the Fahrenheit eleven nine Brandon, have you
Speaker 1: seen it? No? No, Yeah, I wouldn't think so. Michael
Speaker 1: Moore's new movie is bombing. Uh, it's got I think
Speaker 1: it's made three million dollars the box office, which for
Speaker 1: a documentary is not bad because a lot of documentaries
Speaker 1: are made for like a hundred grand or less. But
Speaker 1: for Michael Moore documentary, that's a that's a disaster. I mean,
Speaker 1: he made I don't even know he made a huge
Speaker 1: amount of money off fare Knet nine eleven. And I
Speaker 1: think we get some sense of of what the problem
Speaker 1: is here. You know, he was you heard that he
Speaker 1: was actually taking Obama to task for what if if
Speaker 1: it's true, And I'm not even saying it is true.
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't know about this until Michael Moore
Speaker 1: brought it up. It is really really gross that President
Speaker 1: Obama would have showed up in Flint and said, I
Speaker 1: drink the water. The water is fine, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: water from flint, and he knew that that's uh, you know,
Speaker 1: let me just pretty this way. You know, if you
Speaker 1: if if I were doing a a radio ad and
Speaker 1: I said, hey, you know, I drink this product. It's
Speaker 1: totally safe, and like and and I'm not drinking that product,
Speaker 1: or like I'm I'm I'm faking the product that I
Speaker 1: guess TV have we better as you can see it
Speaker 1: a TV ad and I've drink something and it's not
Speaker 1: that product. People would have a problem of that, right,
Speaker 1: And that's just something very minor. Now you're talking about
Speaker 1: the safety of women and children and and men. I
Speaker 1: can't leave on men these days. Men are getting a
Speaker 1: rough rapidlately. But you're you're talking about the safety of
Speaker 1: human beings. And Obama, for a stunt, would say that,
Speaker 1: you know, he would drink the water from flint when
Speaker 1: clearly he would not. That strikes me as very problematic.
Speaker 1: But this is why Michael Moore's movie is probably not
Speaker 1: doing so well well. There are a few reasons. One
Speaker 1: is the the space of ha ha ha left wing
Speaker 1: propaganda that's kind of comedy. Uh, comedy commentary, you know
Speaker 1: that it's supposed to be kind of funny. But also
Speaker 1: commentary is so overdone right now. These people are all
Speaker 1: making the same jokes. It's it's really astonishing when you
Speaker 1: turn on you know, Jimmy Kimmel and you turn on
Speaker 1: Coldbar and you turn on They're making all the same jokes.
Speaker 1: It's all the same Trump jokes. Ha ha, he's orange
Speaker 1: ha ha. Milania like said something bad about him. It's
Speaker 1: all the same stuff. Uh. And so that that space
Speaker 1: is very full in a way that I think when
Speaker 1: Fair Knight Not a Lemon came out, it was it
Speaker 1: was getting there, but it wasn't quite there. Yes, there
Speaker 1: was the Daily Show, there's some other things. But now
Speaker 1: you've got that, plus you know, you've got the established
Speaker 1: networks doing this stuff, plus all these different digital outlets,
Speaker 1: and you know Netflix has this show, and you know
Speaker 1: Samantha b As a show and all these people. It's amazing.
Speaker 1: You just have to have the right politics. And you
Speaker 1: can be a very low talent hack and get a
Speaker 1: comedy show, but you have to have the right politics.
Speaker 1: Comedies very it's very difficult to be successful in comedy
Speaker 1: in less you have the right political persuasion. You'll notice
Speaker 1: people say, oh, there's no funny conservative comedians. Well that's
Speaker 1: not true. It's actually a lot of conservative comedians. I
Speaker 1: know a bunch of conservative comedians. They just don't get
Speaker 1: big shows. And you'd say, oh, buckets because they're not
Speaker 1: as funny. No, it's not true. It's just like the
Speaker 1: reality of the news world. You know, why do people
Speaker 1: get bigger jobs if they're part of the left wing
Speaker 1: less left wing machinery. Well, because there's a lot more
Speaker 1: opportunity and the people that are making the decisions at NBC.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know that the the ABC political panel
Speaker 1: the weekends has some of the dumbest people on TV
Speaker 1: that I can imagine on a pretty regular basis. But
Speaker 1: they must be well regarded by the executives at ABC,
Speaker 1: who are obviously liberals. So that's all you need. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't really have that on the conservative side.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's only one network that moves the needle
Speaker 1: that's conservative, and we all know it's Fox, and then
Speaker 1: that's it. Beyond that, you can be a conservatives getting
Speaker 1: hate elsewhere, but you're not finding a home with any
Speaker 1: real without any real meeting elsewhere. But but back to
Speaker 1: Michael Moore and and this movie that he's made that
Speaker 1: I'm not going to see that you're not going to see,
Speaker 1: I would imagine, well, some of you have probably seen it.
Speaker 1: I've spoken to friends, they've said a couple of people
Speaker 1: told me it's just really bad. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: you know, why do you have to watch a dishonest
Speaker 1: if things are so terrible in this country, why do
Speaker 1: you have to watch a completely dishonest portrayal of what's
Speaker 1: going on? Where all Michael Moore does is misrepresent the
Speaker 1: argument that he's apparently tackling. You know, this is this
Speaker 1: was the big gag in the Daily Show. Ha ha ha.
Speaker 1: Here's conservatives. They're so dumb, you know, and then our
Speaker 1: side wins. Yeah, you could call it clown nos on,
Speaker 1: clown nos off, that's what that's what's a good description
Speaker 1: of it, I think. And that's the game that they
Speaker 1: used to play. That way, you never lose, right, you
Speaker 1: make an argument, you mock people, and then they respond
Speaker 1: and say, well that's actually not the argument, and that's
Speaker 1: not even really that funny because you're missed and they go,
Speaker 1: oh no, no, man, I'm just a comedian. I'm just
Speaker 1: making jokes. Ha ha ha. You know this is this
Speaker 1: is the game they play. He kind of reminds me
Speaker 1: of I had one or two friends, uh growing up
Speaker 1: who well, it was really one in particular who he
Speaker 1: would do this thing where he was he was he
Speaker 1: was an underminer, but a close up underminer. So when
Speaker 1: when it was especially with in front of girls, he
Speaker 1: would say, you know, this is junior high we're talking about.
Speaker 1: He would say, you know, hey, this is my friend uck, Like,
Speaker 1: isn't he so cool? Like his feet smell really bad?
Speaker 1: Ha ha what I'm just joking, man, Like, it's just
Speaker 1: a joke, Like would would do this? And if you
Speaker 1: get mad at him, you're like, hey, like, why are
Speaker 1: you telling the girls that my fans like my feet
Speaker 1: are great? And he goes, oh, I'm just joking. I'm
Speaker 1: just joking. He did this to everybody. This was his routine.
Speaker 1: He was a very insecure and very troubled fellow. He
Speaker 1: did not go on to have a particularly successful or
Speaker 1: happy life, but I remember this as a This was
Speaker 1: a real pattern with this person, and that's kind of
Speaker 1: the way that liberals argue in this comedy commentary space.
Speaker 1: They want to be taken seriously, they want the big interview.
Speaker 1: But then that you know that that like Michael Moore,
Speaker 1: Michael Moore will sit down and he'll act like he's
Speaker 1: about to, you know, run for Senate, and then when
Speaker 1: he gets pushed on something and it's not going his way,
Speaker 1: then almost suddeny steps back and he goes on, come on, man,
Speaker 1: like we're just you know, we're just kinda more or
Speaker 1: less so than some of the others. To be fair,
Speaker 1: more or less so than Trevor Noah and Samantha By
Speaker 1: and these other they're really just pundits with people writing
Speaker 1: jokes for them. So that's that's all that you have there.
Speaker 1: But the ultimate reason that I think Farekneight Knight, sorry
Speaker 1: fare Nheight eleven nine is not successful is that he's
Speaker 1: criticizing Obama. And what Michael Moore doesn't realize perhaps and
Speaker 1: maybe he would say he doesn't care and he's so
Speaker 1: principaled and you know he's I mean, the guy's a
Speaker 1: grotesque fraud in my opinion. But uh, what what he
Speaker 1: would say is that he's just speaking the truth. But
Speaker 1: to liberals, you can't. It's not safe. It's not okay
Speaker 1: to criticize Obama. You're they're not at the place where
Speaker 1: they want to hear any criticism of Obama. Obama is
Speaker 1: perfect to them. Obama is the greatest, and anyone who
Speaker 1: deviates from that has really stepped outside of what is
Speaker 1: acceptable for liberals right, what has accepted liberal discourse. And
Speaker 1: and somehow, I guess Michael Moore maybe underestimated the the
Speaker 1: blowback from that, or didn't really understand what was going on.
Speaker 1: But I'm just telling you it was. It was very
Speaker 1: apparent to me as good as I heard. Oh he's
Speaker 1: going after Obama and some of this that's gonna get him,
Speaker 1: that's going to get him in the in the bad
Speaker 1: boy box, which is where he's gone, I think now,
Speaker 1: and some of this stuff and the left does not
Speaker 1: accept criticism of Obama. I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about some good news, because we've got a lot of
Speaker 1: news that has a little tough. I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you about some good news. And the news is
Speaker 1: that airline seats might be getting bigger, so your butt
Speaker 1: might be a little come fear in them, and this
Speaker 1: is through Congress. They might actually do something. Stay with me,
Speaker 1: I'll give you the details. Congress is generally useless, my friends.
Speaker 1: Congress is more often than not something that you have
Speaker 1: to ask the question, are are they just wasting our
Speaker 1: tax dollars and wasting everyone's time? But it turns out
Speaker 1: they may do something. They may do something useful. They
Speaker 1: may do something that for me at least somewhat earns
Speaker 1: their paychecks. They may require more legroom on planes, and
Speaker 1: as well as changing the rules on service animals and
Speaker 1: involuntary bumping. Here's what here's the story, as folks, Congress
Speaker 1: is considering ordering the f A to establish minimum airline
Speaker 1: seats sizes, investigate the size the number of airplane laboratories,
Speaker 1: and established new standards for allowing service animals to fly
Speaker 1: with their owners. That frozals are included in an f
Speaker 1: A funding plan. We're released by a house in the Senate. Uh,
Speaker 1: this would be great, folks, This would be really nice
Speaker 1: because currently, uh, the thirty four or thirty five inches
Speaker 1: that you are used to getting in between airline seats
Speaker 1: and coach or economy whatever they call it now is
Speaker 1: now under thirty inches. So you've lost a solid five
Speaker 1: inches and you only had thirty five I mean you've
Speaker 1: lost a big chunk of your leg room. Uh and
Speaker 1: and with existing safety rules means seats you know, could
Speaker 1: get as low as twenty seven inches, which is just crazy.
Speaker 1: You know. Airline travels the one place where it's somehow
Speaker 1: never gets a lot better. As I've gotten older, you know,
Speaker 1: they yeah, they've got the personal device thing and that
Speaker 1: or the personal screen in the back of the seat.
Speaker 1: But now we've all got personal devices, so I don't
Speaker 1: really get the airline a lot of credit for that.
Speaker 1: I end up using my laptop anyway. My laptop screen
Speaker 1: and my control over when I'm watching is way better
Speaker 1: than what's on the back of that seat. But airlines
Speaker 1: are it's just brutal, man. And you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: like always a reminder too. It's like, have I been
Speaker 1: hitting the gluten free muffins a little hard? Because I
Speaker 1: try to squeeze my butt into that seat, and I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is not this is not really going so well.
Speaker 1: I start to feel a little bit like it's it's
Speaker 1: time to get back into the squat rack because otherwise
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to be one of these guys who
Speaker 1: you know, always has to ask can I put the
Speaker 1: arm rust off between us. And I'm doing that because
Speaker 1: I want more space. But if there happens to be
Speaker 1: a lady thing next to you, it's a little bit like, well, hello,
Speaker 1: can we perhaps share a tiny bottle of really crappy chardonnay.
Speaker 1: So I don't I don't want to do that, obviously,
Speaker 1: But so this is where though my my inner I'm
Speaker 1: honest about. It's where my inner status comes out. There
Speaker 1: are a few things banning of smoking in restaurants. I
Speaker 1: know it should be left up to the establishment, but
Speaker 1: you know what, I like not having to breathe in
Speaker 1: other people smoke while I'm eating food. I'm just I
Speaker 1: know what. It makes me a big government kind of
Speaker 1: guy with that one, but I'm all about it. Noise restrictions,
Speaker 1: who I love. We should have much stricter noise restrictions.
Speaker 1: I get kept up at night by these, uh these
Speaker 1: booming bass sounds coming from cars that are on the
Speaker 1: streets several stories below my window. You know, you what
Speaker 1: is this with people? Also? Motorcycles? Why are motorcycles so alloud? Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean fine, if you want to get on a
Speaker 1: crotch rocket and you know, speed to your your untimely demise.
Speaker 1: That's on you. But do I have to hear it
Speaker 1: a quarter of a mile away? Do I have to
Speaker 1: hear you know? I just don't understand. That's where I
Speaker 1: like big government to kick and see this, folks, you
Speaker 1: got know what your limits are. You know. I don't
Speaker 1: like the government reaching into my pocket. I don't like
Speaker 1: high taxes, but I do like bands on smoking in restaurants,
Speaker 1: and I would like it if Congress could mandate more
Speaker 1: leg room on airplanes because they've Really it's the only
Speaker 1: business model that I know of where instead of you
Speaker 1: paying to be comfortable, I mean, that's true, it's some
Speaker 1: in some way, but you really have to frame it
Speaker 1: in the opposite direction. You pay for less discomfort. The
Speaker 1: more money you're willing to pay the airline, the less
Speaker 1: crap they put you through, The less your back will
Speaker 1: hurt when your flight is done, the less you will
Speaker 1: get sweaty and stressed out trying to get through security
Speaker 1: or or deal with other things. You know, That's that's
Speaker 1: how the airlines really make their money. It's the only
Speaker 1: business model I know of. I mean, maybe there's something
Speaker 1: else where that's the case, where you're paying not to
Speaker 1: be satisfied and thrilled with things. You're just paying for
Speaker 1: a lessening of pain. So if Congress could do this,
Speaker 1: I think it'd be fantastic. Or maybe I should just
Speaker 1: make sure that I can fit comfortably into a coach seat,
Speaker 1: which you know I can. It's a little it's a
Speaker 1: little snug on the sides, but I can get in there. Um,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into a roll call here in just
Speaker 1: a moment, team, so be sure to stick around for that,
Speaker 1: and remember if you want to send me your thoughts
Speaker 1: via roll Call, face book dot com, slash buck Sex
Speaker 1: and again, Facebook dot com, slash Buck section much more.
Speaker 1: Come and stay with me. It's time for roll call Team.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you here as always, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for hanging out. You know it is, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a particularly morose stay here in d C. In general.
Speaker 1: It was rainy and wet and kind of cold, and
Speaker 1: it's clear the summer's really over now, you know, it's
Speaker 1: we're longer and that like, oh maybe it's still nice
Speaker 1: in September, and the weather matches the city's mood. Because
Speaker 1: this is the ugliest I would assume since Trump was
Speaker 1: elected that this city has felt I wasn't here then,
Speaker 1: but it is. It is ugly. Uh, it is ugly
Speaker 1: here right now. People that I usually find myself able
Speaker 1: to engage in a civil back and forth. It's just
Speaker 1: not worth it, um, As I've been saying all day
Speaker 1: on the show, it's man, people really want a a
Speaker 1: federal Well, you know what I've been making, Mike, I've
Speaker 1: been making like, let let me get to a roll call.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that I got diverted again, but you are
Speaker 1: all my sanity as always, So thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining in and listening to the show, Harry, and
Speaker 1: if you want to write to me Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton Harry Shields high Buck catching up on
Speaker 1: podcasts and had to laugh at your hesitation about Hokum.
Speaker 1: I love your excellent vocabulary. Don't forget Hocum's brethren, Hui,
Speaker 1: Tommy Rot, balderdash, and many others. I love your even
Speaker 1: rational analysis of the world. Thank you well, Thank you, Harry,
Speaker 1: really appreciate you listen in. And you know, my friend,
Speaker 1: that's no malarkey you're throwing out there. That's no uh,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of hogwash. Did you put that
Speaker 1: one in there? That's a good hogwash is fun. That's
Speaker 1: not coca Mami. It's another fun one. Uh, Paul, next
Speaker 1: up here, he rights Mr Sexton. I've been listening to
Speaker 1: your podcast for months now and you have been a
Speaker 1: spot on I just want to tell you thank you
Speaker 1: until you're doing a fantastic job. I only wish Fox
Speaker 1: would give you a show so your reach would expand
Speaker 1: and open up the minds of those who do not
Speaker 1: listen to the podcast. Well, Paul, that makes two of us.
Speaker 1: I do have one question, since watching Steve Bannon's new documentary,
Speaker 1: Trumpet War, why do you think Sebastian Gorka and Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon were let go from the Trump team? I know
Speaker 1: Bannon was critical of President Trump at his son after
Speaker 1: getting fired, but he seemed like he was someone who
Speaker 1: was in his corner and would fight for him prior
Speaker 1: to his release. Gorka has never wavered in his support.
Speaker 1: Do you think they were let go so they could
Speaker 1: do more public appearances and work on behalf of President Trump. Finally,
Speaker 1: I think it's time for you to join out of
Speaker 1: the President's Cabinet. D j R FBI thoughts. Oh, Paul,
Speaker 1: thank you very much. It's very kind of you, and
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to the show. As to why Bannon
Speaker 1: and as to why Bannon left and why Gorka left,
Speaker 1: I really can't tell you, um meaning I don't know.
Speaker 1: I would tell you if I knew. I do know
Speaker 1: that there was a lot of and this is from
Speaker 1: contacts of mind, there was a lot of pushback inside
Speaker 1: of national security circles. Specifically when it came to Gorka.
Speaker 1: There were people that just they they had it out
Speaker 1: for Dr Gorka. That that I can tell you. I'm
Speaker 1: assuming Dr Gorka knows that in some detail, but I
Speaker 1: would hear hear from people because he was an outsider.
Speaker 1: I mean, he wasn't someone who came in and had
Speaker 1: spent you know, decades in the Intel community or decades
Speaker 1: in uh national security in this country. He's an outside
Speaker 1: academic and there was definitely pushed back. Now I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's why he left, but I do know
Speaker 1: that was a that was a real, a real situation
Speaker 1: that he was dealing with. And then as for Bannon,
Speaker 1: I think that's just you've got to alpha dog personalities
Speaker 1: with Trump and Bannon, and there can only be one
Speaker 1: when it comes to Trump, but I don't have any
Speaker 1: inside inside for you. I have been trying to get
Speaker 1: Mr Bannon to sit down with me for an interview
Speaker 1: on TV for a couple of weeks. Now I'm gonna
Speaker 1: continue trying. Hopefully that will come through and I'll have
Speaker 1: a chance to ask him some of these questions directly.
Speaker 1: But thank you so much. Uh, all right, next up,
Speaker 1: Adam writes this last week, you've been talking about abortion
Speaker 1: a lot. What if we took the logic of inconvenience
Speaker 1: as a justification for murder into other areas? How many
Speaker 1: people do you think could convince twelve jurors not to
Speaker 1: sentence them to death for almost any act? Shields high h, Adam,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for right again, Abbey. Right, so
Speaker 1: why did you block me? Not a fan of free speech? Well, Abby,
Speaker 1: I definitely didn't block you because I'm reading your note
Speaker 1: and getting your note on on air right now, so
Speaker 1: you weren't blocked. So there's that. So so we've established
Speaker 1: that you have not been blocked. And the only people
Speaker 1: that get blocked from my page, and I've got a team,
Speaker 1: so it's not just me that works on the Facebook
Speaker 1: page are people that post, you know, profane gross bad
Speaker 1: stuff which people do all the time. You know, we
Speaker 1: can't have that, But I mean for opinions people say,
Speaker 1: oh trust me, people write the emails tend to be
Speaker 1: meaner than the Facebook posts I find, although today Twitter
Speaker 1: has been just full of of nastiness. Uh, Jeremy. Rights.
Speaker 1: If accusations of sexual assault that are presented with absolutely
Speaker 1: no evidence and on the contrary, have been refuted by
Speaker 1: the very witnesses that the accusers named are enough to
Speaker 1: stop a Supreme Court nomination or any other nomination, where
Speaker 1: does that leave us as a country? This will peril
Speaker 1: lies are political system. Harry Reid was warned that Democrats
Speaker 1: would regret the nuclear option with judicial nominations, and they do,
Speaker 1: this will have the same outcome. Liberals are incapable of
Speaker 1: looking past their own noses, concerned only with the now,
Speaker 1: they will regret this as well, Jeremy. A big part
Speaker 1: of contemporary leftism or liberalism is a is the emotional
Speaker 1: response over the wisdom of of reason and experience. Right,
Speaker 1: So what what it feels like should be true is
Speaker 1: treated as true, or what what somebody feels like they
Speaker 1: should say, They just say, even if it's not supported
Speaker 1: by facts and evidence. So there's a big movement right
Speaker 1: now to convince everybody that there that the reason that
Speaker 1: there's the nuclear option was invoked is actually Republican's fault,
Speaker 1: Which is fascinating, isn't it the reason the nuclear option
Speaker 1: wasn't invoked? They say it's because of Republicans. That's the
Speaker 1: new that's the new hotness, as the kids say, that's
Speaker 1: the new story. And it's just historically inaccurate. It's just
Speaker 1: not true. And people can say whatever they want to say,
Speaker 1: but doesn't make it true. So we're up against a
Speaker 1: lot um jar right, Buck brown Eminem's Wayne's World two.
Speaker 1: We had to beat them to death with their own shoes.
Speaker 1: End quote. Jar, You are correct my tweet about brown
Speaker 1: Eminem's or rather my comment also tweeted about it about
Speaker 1: brown Eminem's Dr Ford. That is a reference to Wayns World,
Speaker 1: to the fantastic movie, which you all should check out
Speaker 1: when you get a chance. Actually, no, it's not fantastic.
Speaker 1: I take that back. It's kind of mediocred, not so good. Um,
Speaker 1: Wayne's World is a great movie. Wayn's World two is
Speaker 1: B minus maybe a C plus. Reader writes, I am
Speaker 1: sickened by the vicious smears of Mr Kavanaugh. The stories
Speaker 1: have basically fallen apart under even the slightest scrutiny. However,
Speaker 1: I worried the GOP doesn't doesn't have the spine to
Speaker 1: withstand the onslaught, no matter how ow transparent the Demn's efforts.
Speaker 1: Oh and Avannati jumping in just adds a whole another
Speaker 1: layer of sleeves. God help us shields high well, Rita,
Speaker 1: it's definitely true about Avanadi adding hilaryis sleeves. That that guy,
Speaker 1: everything about him strikes me as unethical and gross and slimy.
Speaker 1: He is perhaps the definite the human definition of unctious,
Speaker 1: or as some of you have taught me how to say,
Speaker 1: only aginus. So he's a gross, gross fellow. But the
Speaker 1: Democrats find him useful, so they embrace him at some level.
Speaker 1: I also worry, Rita, that the GOP does not have
Speaker 1: the spine to withstand this onslaught. I think that you know,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell is giving some inspiring words right now, but
Speaker 1: I can tell you that if this doesn't work out
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, Mitch McConnell is going
Speaker 1: to have plenty of reasons. He's gonna have plenty of
Speaker 1: ways of telling you, well, it wasn't you know, it
Speaker 1: wasn't his fault. It's not his fault that you know
Speaker 1: it didn't get through. So I hope Mitch is right
Speaker 1: when he says he at least get it to floor vote.
Speaker 1: But if that happens, folks, you know, people are saying
Speaker 1: that you could have a defection or two from the
Speaker 1: Republican side. I mean, Flake, I think is gonna defect
Speaker 1: just just out of spite because he's a He's a
Speaker 1: a prototypical, weak need, cowardly phony politician. That's you know,
Speaker 1: this is a guy who's said he he stood for
Speaker 1: things his whole career, but when it comes to personal
Speaker 1: slights and insults and feeling like he's cut out of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration everything else, he puts his own ego
Speaker 1: ahead of everything else going on in the country. So
Speaker 1: that is a an important thing to even mind here.
Speaker 1: We could we could lose even if it gets to
Speaker 1: the floor. Uh, Max, Right, Buck, I have a proposal
Speaker 1: for how you can handle this mess. You're probably not
Speaker 1: gonna like it, but hear me out. We withdraw the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh nomination and agree to order a comprehensive investigation on
Speaker 1: the condition that the Democrats commit to passing a resolution
Speaker 1: apologizing to Kavanaugh. If nothing is found to substantiate at
Speaker 1: the allegations, we not inate Amy Coney Barrett Center. Menendez
Speaker 1: is credibly accused of using the services of underage prostitutes
Speaker 1: and bribery. Of course, force Democrats to either sacrifice him
Speaker 1: or abandon the credible accusation standard of guilt. All this
Speaker 1: should blunt their momentum in the mid terms, but if
Speaker 1: they happen to take the Senate, we can still confirm
Speaker 1: Amy in the lame Duck. When the investigation concludes and
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh has vindicated, it will strike a blow for the
Speaker 1: presumption of innocence. And if RBG kicks the bucket, we
Speaker 1: can give her seat. Max, You're doing a lot of
Speaker 1: three D chess there, and I give you credit for
Speaker 1: making all those chess moves. But I think that the
Speaker 1: answer here is to stay the course. I think the
Speaker 1: answer is to is to get Kavanaugh through the The
Speaker 1: only way to achieve justice here is to make sure
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh gets a vote and gets voted into the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Everything else I think is falls far short
Speaker 1: of what is needed here. Lane right, Hey, Buck. I
Speaker 1: love a show I listen on podcasts following day. My
Speaker 1: wife and I love the show Blue Bloods and Binge
Speaker 1: watch it frequently. Was wondering if you've watched it and
Speaker 1: what do you think about it. I think you'd have
Speaker 1: a unique perspective from Lane in Utah. Well, and I
Speaker 1: have watched Blue blood I think it's a good show.
Speaker 1: I enjoy it. I think it's well done. I you know,
Speaker 1: I can't really speak too much to the kind of
Speaker 1: detective or patrolman side of the show because I was
Speaker 1: really only ever exposed to counter terrorism the MYPD and
Speaker 1: also the higher level bureaucratic managerial stuff at one police Plaza,
Speaker 1: so meeting with you know, inspectors and deputy chiefs and
Speaker 1: chiefs and all this kind of stuff. So I didn't
Speaker 1: really deal that much with the rank and file and
Speaker 1: my m IPD patrol, which is all I know a
Speaker 1: lot or or detectives, although no, actually that's not true.
Speaker 1: I dealt with detectives in the kind of terrorism cases,
Speaker 1: but patrol I really never dealt with, so I can't
Speaker 1: speak too much to it. I think that it's a
Speaker 1: I think it's a well made show. I think it's entertaining.
Speaker 1: I always kind of laugh because walb Work's brother, Donnie Wahlberg,
Speaker 1: just reminds me of of Mark Wahlberg, but not like,
Speaker 1: not as cool kind of, so it's a funny thing. Um. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that's it. Thank you so much for writing in Team.
Speaker 1: It is going to be a hell of a week
Speaker 1: for any of us that like to share our thoughts
Speaker 1: publicly or that are interested in politics. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: a nasty week. Be prepared to take some incoming if
Speaker 1: you're gonna fight the good fight for Kavanaugh and so
Speaker 1: you know, especially this week, my friends, Shields High