Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom much huge GDP number today,
Speaker 1: looks like the economy under Trump is doing just great.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's talking about a fight for the soul of America,
Speaker 1: But what the heck is he really talking about? Does
Speaker 1: he even know? And George Papadopolis, the man at the
Speaker 1: center of the Russia collusion delusion, He's going to spend
Speaker 1: a good chunk of time list today to tell us
Speaker 1: what really happened as a target of the deep state.
Speaker 1: Attamore coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, Bring You're a
Speaker 1: great American again, The Buck Sexton Show begins. No, it's
Speaker 1: a blowout number. You know. I'll just say Trump policies
Speaker 1: to rebuild the economy, lower taxes, regulations, opening energy trade reform. Look,
Speaker 1: this stuff is working. The first quarter is supposed to
Speaker 1: be the worst quarter of the year, so it comes
Speaker 1: in at three point two percent tells me, among other things,
Speaker 1: that the prosperity cycle we have entered into is continuing.
Speaker 1: It's strong, it's got legs, and it's got momentum. And frankly,
Speaker 1: It's going to go on for quite some time. This
Speaker 1: is the new Trump economy. Some people don't like that,
Speaker 1: or they don't agree with that. I respect the differences,
Speaker 1: but I'll tell you I think the Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sex and Show blowout number here on a Friday,
Speaker 1: GDP grow three point two percent the first quarter. Just
Speaker 1: a reminder, you know. I like to spend some time
Speaker 1: on the show to make the case to all of
Speaker 1: you that President Trump is in fact doing a very
Speaker 1: good job overall as president. Not perfect. Some stuff I
Speaker 1: would want it differently, but certainly not what the left
Speaker 1: is telling you. It's a fight for the soul of
Speaker 1: the nation and what are we gonna do? And how
Speaker 1: are we ever gonna live for four more years of Trump.
Speaker 1: I do worry about what the psychological damage will be
Speaker 1: to the left if Trump does win reelection, and I
Speaker 1: think right now he is in a very strong position.
Speaker 1: I know a lot can change between now and then.
Speaker 1: I do worry about a cyclical recession. I'm gonna keep
Speaker 1: saying it because I'm hoping it won't come true, and
Speaker 1: if I say it, it it won't happen. But Trump as
Speaker 1: commander in chief, Trump as a steward of the American economy,
Speaker 1: and with the ideas and the policies that he's pushing,
Speaker 1: things are actually going pretty well. There is a lot
Speaker 1: of there is a lot of sense of optimism and growth.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile the left is running around saying all kinds
Speaker 1: of just crazy stuff, Green New Deal, Medicare for All,
Speaker 1: increasingly embracing at least socialist tone, if not socialist intent.
Speaker 1: And that's why I like to hear from a man
Speaker 1: Larry Couldlow. He's just He's great, isn't he Couldlow really
Speaker 1: is a very effective communicator, very very charming guy and
Speaker 1: smart understands the economy really well. Here's here's what he
Speaker 1: says about this idea of the Democrat left and can
Speaker 1: they really win pushing all this socialist nonsense playclibit. I
Speaker 1: mean the socialist winning. The Democratic Party can't win. They
Speaker 1: cannot win. No, nobody wants to u Universal Healthcare cup
Speaker 1: GDP by fifteen percent, the Green New Deal, which would
Speaker 1: destroy I mean nobody that that socialist message is a
Speaker 1: sure loser. I hope he's right, I really do. I
Speaker 1: think he is right. But we have a long time
Speaker 1: and the medium and it think think about how much
Speaker 1: ferocity they direct at Trump on a regular basis, we
Speaker 1: think about their willingness to try to come up with
Speaker 1: a lot of different ways to just make Trump make
Speaker 1: a negative news cycle for Trump. I mean, honest analyzes
Speaker 1: of media coverage of this president usually put negative coverage
Speaker 1: around ninety percent. So most of the major media outlets
Speaker 1: when they run a story on Trump, nine out of
Speaker 1: ten times, it's just obviously negative. Now they're going to
Speaker 1: have their second opportunity in the post Russia collusion delusion
Speaker 1: situation of the Mulla report already being out, and after
Speaker 1: the Billy Bush tape, and after the campaign finance porn
Speaker 1: star payoffs. I mean, they've they've thrown all this stuff
Speaker 1: at Trump and they just can't beat him. They just
Speaker 1: can't figure out how to do it yet. So there's
Speaker 1: going to be a particular desperation you can smell it,
Speaker 1: you can feel it coming from the left in order
Speaker 1: to stop this president from getting four more years. And
Speaker 1: I don't know, and I really mean this, I don't
Speaker 1: know if they will be able to psychologically handle for
Speaker 1: more years of Trump. He's already broken them, so what's
Speaker 1: he going to do break them again? Can they be rebroken.
Speaker 1: Is there going to be another night like that night
Speaker 1: when Trump defeated Hillary, when they're all these people gathered
Speaker 1: together for their big coronation party of whoever the Democrat
Speaker 1: is supposed to be. We don't really know yet. Right
Speaker 1: now people say Biden, I don't think that's going to last.
Speaker 1: But we'll talk more about where I am on Biden.
Speaker 1: Can Democrats handle former years of Trump? Well? What will
Speaker 1: some of them actually start to flee to Canada or
Speaker 1: who knows where. I don't know if anyone really has
Speaker 1: the answer, because the way that they have responded to
Speaker 1: this president so far is just it does feel like
Speaker 1: and look like a form of psychosis. And Biden launching
Speaker 1: his campaign the way he did, talking about Charlottesville right away,
Speaker 1: and this pretense that we're gonna have a return to
Speaker 1: normalcy when I don't even know what normalcy is supposed
Speaker 1: to be. The Obama years were normalcy. The Obama administration's policies,
Speaker 1: the bowing to dictators, the giving palettes of cash for hostages,
Speaker 1: the Iranians, after completely abandoning some of the fundamental precepts
Speaker 1: of US foreign policy in the Middle East because you
Speaker 1: didn't want to upset the Iranian mulas, that that's return
Speaker 1: to normalcy. You know, you didn't build that demonizing job
Speaker 1: creators or those who build well for themselves and others
Speaker 1: through the fruits of their labor, that that's what we
Speaker 1: want to go back to. It doesn't seem like something
Speaker 1: that anybody should be particularly excited about. What will Biden's
Speaker 1: policies be. I don't even know if Biden knows what
Speaker 1: his policies and the economy are supposed to be. He's
Speaker 1: one of these guys who has been in living off
Speaker 1: the off of the public's checkbook for a very long time,
Speaker 1: I think thirty or forty years now. He's never really
Speaker 1: had a private sector job. In that sense, he represents
Speaker 1: much of what was rejected in the last election, that
Speaker 1: the politics of the permanent political class, and Biden's already
Speaker 1: I don't even get me started on how you know,
Speaker 1: was essentially an unlicensed and unwanted massage therapist for anybody
Speaker 1: within arm's reach for the last twenty years or so. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. What are his economic policies going to be?
Speaker 1: A good Low brought up what he thinks Biden, well,
Speaker 1: he thinks of Biden doesn't even know what Biden's gonna do.
Speaker 1: Play nine. What I don't know is whether Joe Biden
Speaker 1: will run on the kinds of pro growth economic policies
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is put in place, and whether Vice
Speaker 1: President Biden will work to keep the prosperity cycle going.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's a blue collar guy. I get that. But
Speaker 1: here's the point. Under President Trump, blue collar workers are booming.
Speaker 1: Blue collar employment is booming the best since I was
Speaker 1: here last in the nineteen eighties, Wages are booming. Will
Speaker 1: mister Biden promote growth policies or will he promote you know,
Speaker 1: big centralized government collective as policy like the rest of
Speaker 1: his party. We'll have to wait and see. A strong
Speaker 1: economy is usually a big winner come election time. That's
Speaker 1: all said. I mean, what are the policies that Biden
Speaker 1: is going to push, less prosperity, higher taxes. We know,
Speaker 1: because that's the Democrats love to do that. What do
Speaker 1: they really think is going to be a compelling pitch
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden on the economy? All this class warfare
Speaker 1: stuff appeals to the left wing base, but people that
Speaker 1: are just trying to do the right thing, pay their bills,
Speaker 1: pay their mortgage, pay their rent. They don't. They don't
Speaker 1: just want to hear about the millionaires and the billionaires.
Speaker 1: They want to hear about how they're going to have
Speaker 1: opportunity and the government's going to take its boot off
Speaker 1: their neck and its hand out of their pocket. Biden
Speaker 1: going to provide that. Biden is kind of a cipher
Speaker 1: and no one really knows what he thinks about a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff because he's not somebody who has
Speaker 1: a particular philosophical position on anything. It's just what does
Speaker 1: it do for Biden at any given time. Old school
Speaker 1: politics for an old school dude. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: going to be enough in case Hillary Clinton loses. If
Speaker 1: she loses, we've got an insurance policy. Well that was
Speaker 1: the insurance policy. Now she lost, and now they're trying
Speaker 1: to infiltrate the administration to really it's a coup. I
Speaker 1: think it's far bigger than Watergate. I think it's possibly
Speaker 1: the biggest scandal in political history in this country. So
Speaker 1: let's see how high it goes up. Because it's inconceivable
Speaker 1: when it goes to Clapper, Brennan, Comy, these people, I
Speaker 1: would imagine that some other people maybe a little bit
Speaker 1: higher up also knew about it, and maybe a lot
Speaker 1: higher up. We know who he's talking about. The president
Speaker 1: there is starting to prepare the American people for the
Speaker 1: truth that I believe is going to come out very
Speaker 1: soon that President Barack Obama at the time knew a
Speaker 1: whole lot about what was going on and did nothing
Speaker 1: to stop it. I think what we will see is
Speaker 1: that President Barack Obama, well I'll get more into this
Speaker 1: later on the show, but I just this idea that
Speaker 1: it was a coup, that this was something that we
Speaker 1: need to understand fully to prevent in the future. That is,
Speaker 1: we have to stay on this because the left is
Speaker 1: absolutely not going to want to get to the truth,
Speaker 1: because the truth is that they tried to cheat in
Speaker 1: the election that they always they claimed that Trump was
Speaker 1: the cheater. The reality is the Left was the cheat,
Speaker 1: was the cheater. The progressive Left were the ones who
Speaker 1: were pushing this whole story and engaging in the deceptions.
Speaker 1: Perhaps before the fives accord, I think very likely, almost
Speaker 1: certainly that occurred. I think that the progressive Left has
Speaker 1: so much to be ashamed of, but they're not ashamed
Speaker 1: of anything, because I don't think they're really capable of shame.
Speaker 1: That's not something that's really in their vocabulary. And that's
Speaker 1: why when the President uses this language when he says
Speaker 1: it's a coup and it's far bigger than Watergate. Good good.
Speaker 1: That is what we That is how we should talk
Speaker 1: about this. We're gonna have a whole conversation later on
Speaker 1: in the show about the kind of words the left
Speaker 1: wants us to use now in the ways that they
Speaker 1: try to control the language. But I mean, I'm just
Speaker 1: here to tell you that, you know, we have used
Speaker 1: their verbiage. They insisted that we say collusion for two
Speaker 1: years and then when we said no collusion, so well,
Speaker 1: collusion is not really a thing. I mean, they'll just
Speaker 1: change the rules as they go along. They'll change the rules.
Speaker 1: And now that the great hope of the Democrat left
Speaker 1: is and I think that there there may be a
Speaker 1: great irony here that the effort to take down Trump
Speaker 1: may help ensure his reelection. But the Democrat left believes
Speaker 1: that this was rather that Joe Biden is somebody who
Speaker 1: can make can make it all happen, and he can
Speaker 1: defeat Trump. He's the one. And this is Trump talking
Speaker 1: about his soon to be perhaps number one opponent, on
Speaker 1: the Democrats side. Play clip two. When you look at Joe,
Speaker 1: I've known Joe over the years, He's not the brightest
Speaker 1: light bulb in the group. He talked about the way
Speaker 1: the world is today. Well, I'll tell you the way
Speaker 1: the world is today is we have a strong military,
Speaker 1: We have choice for our veterans. We have the biggest
Speaker 1: tax cut in the history of our country. We are
Speaker 1: a country respected again the country. As much as the
Speaker 1: left wants to believe it's going to hell in a handbasket,
Speaker 1: the country is doing well. We do not have the
Speaker 1: Occupy Wall Street movement popping up in city after city,
Speaker 1: you know, deciding they're going to set up these Marxist
Speaker 1: encampments and demand changes to policy and send Antifa running
Speaker 1: around to break things and threaten people and act all crazy.
Speaker 1: We don't have the Black Lives Matter movement marching around
Speaker 1: the city saying that hops or racist who are murdering
Speaker 1: black young black men for sport, for effectively for entertainment,
Speaker 1: or out of out of some deep seated racism. This
Speaker 1: is what was being said under the years of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration that I was at the rallies. I actually
Speaker 1: remembered debating Van Jones on this, and he tried to
Speaker 1: say that, oh, that's not what said. I said, I
Speaker 1: have photos of the placards, I have video of the chance.
Speaker 1: I know exactly what was being said at Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter rallies. You know, racist cops murdering, racist pigs. Terrible,
Speaker 1: terrible stuff. That's all that's gone away, at least for
Speaker 1: now under the Trump administration. In what way was the
Speaker 1: country unified under the Barack Obama years? So this is
Speaker 1: where when Biden does this whole oh the soul of America?
Speaker 1: Where was this this bringing together? Yeah, there was a
Speaker 1: moment there in the early stages of the Barack Obama
Speaker 1: presidency where you have this historic rise of a of
Speaker 1: a president, first African American president. You know, there was
Speaker 1: I'm not going to deny reality. There was a moment
Speaker 1: there where I think you had a particularly high level
Speaker 1: of excitement and enthusiasm for a new president. But then
Speaker 1: Obama started making decisions as president, started doing things, started
Speaker 1: pushing policies and ideas, and that did not bring the
Speaker 1: country together. Obamacare, for example, was as partisan an exercise
Speaker 1: as you could possibly have from the legislative branch. Obamacare
Speaker 1: was not about bringing people together or unifying them. It
Speaker 1: was about making the Republicans wallow and suffer in silence. Remember,
Speaker 1: elections have consequences. It was we won, you lose. Take it.
Speaker 1: That's what the Democrat attitude was. And I think Trump
Speaker 1: is absolutely right when he points this out and that
Speaker 1: this soul of American nonsense from Joe Biden, it's just
Speaker 1: pathetic play. For so when Biden makes the same and
Speaker 1: talking about the soul, I mean the soul. Take a
Speaker 1: look at the Obama you know, I heard somebody say
Speaker 1: before that there was s dissension and division. People forget
Speaker 1: there was tremendous division during the Obama administration, tremendous division.
Speaker 1: We actually have great spirit right now. We do have
Speaker 1: good spirit right now. We also have good jobs numbers,
Speaker 1: good stock market, good employment numbers. You know, everything is
Speaker 1: is trending in the right direction, everything except perhaps the border.
Speaker 1: I know, you know, I'm not going to go a
Speaker 1: whole show without bringing up where we are on the border.
Speaker 1: I'm very troubled by this. Border Patrol Chief Brian Hastings,
Speaker 1: who I've interviewed numerous times, had this bombshell to drop.
Speaker 1: And just as numbers, you know, they can tell us
Speaker 1: to ignore numbers. The Democrats can say that doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: Numbers do matter. Play clip six. As of yesterday, four
Speaker 1: hundred and forty thousand apprehensions along the Southwest border. We
Speaker 1: need a change in in the current outdated laws that
Speaker 1: we're dealing with for this current graphic, in this crisis
Speaker 1: that we have four hundred forty thousand apprehensions along the
Speaker 1: southwest border, no end to this insight. The courts are
Speaker 1: blocking Trump. The Democrats are complicit in the massive illegal
Speaker 1: invasion in this country. They're not willing to take this on.
Speaker 1: They don't want it to change. So I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not sitting here to tell you everything's all just fantastic
Speaker 1: in Trump's America. But I do think it's better than
Speaker 1: what we had going on in Obama's America. I think
Speaker 1: that there's a very clear case to be made for that.
Speaker 1: And really, what upsets the liberals the most it's just
Speaker 1: Trump and his tweets. I keep asking, what's the terrible
Speaker 1: thing that Trump has done? What has made people's lives
Speaker 1: markedly worse in this country? And I get nothing. I
Speaker 1: get all his tweets are mean. He says mean things
Speaker 1: to Jim Acosta really that that's now the barometer for
Speaker 1: whether the president is literally worse than a hitler, as
Speaker 1: they always say. I don't think so, my friends. We
Speaker 1: need to talk a bit more about the revelations of
Speaker 1: regarding the deep state. I know these Struck page text
Speaker 1: messages now have come out and people are looking at
Speaker 1: those again. And there's the suggestion that Struck, a senior
Speaker 1: FBI agent, may have wanted to establish contacts in the
Speaker 1: administration during the transition in order to essentially set people up.
Speaker 1: I think is what we believe was going to happen,
Speaker 1: just like they did too, General Flynn, right, they were
Speaker 1: trying to take people down, and it was partisan and
Speaker 1: it was all done in bad faith. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about Maria Boutina coming up here because
Speaker 1: she just got sentenced today officially in federal court. I
Speaker 1: might have a slightly different take on that than a
Speaker 1: lot of other folks. And then in the second hour
Speaker 1: to day on the show, we got George Papadopolis, who's
Speaker 1: going to join us, and I'm gonna let him really
Speaker 1: tell you his story, because remember he was central, he
Speaker 1: was the New York Times, a Washington Post. They said
Speaker 1: Papadopolis was the reason the FBI got this whole collusion
Speaker 1: investigation started. That is crap, and we will get into
Speaker 1: why and hear it from him. She had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the Muller investigation. The Muller team was aware
Speaker 1: of Maria, they were with this case. The interviewed her
Speaker 1: as part of the cooperation, and obviously she didn't appear
Speaker 1: anywhere in the Muller report. I found it curious that
Speaker 1: that was mentioned that what she did was during the
Speaker 1: time of Russian election interference has led by the judge,
Speaker 1: when in fact, had she been involved in any of that,
Speaker 1: I would imagine Special Council Muller would have mentioned it
Speaker 1: somewhere in his four hundred pages if she had anything
Speaker 1: to do with it, But he should not. Maria Bouttina,
Speaker 1: remember that name. Maria Butina was the young Russian woman
Speaker 1: red hair, and if you kind of remember, you can
Speaker 1: visualize because she was in the papers a lot for
Speaker 1: a few days, and she led to this this frenzy
Speaker 1: of speculation in the press about how there was a
Speaker 1: Russia NRA collusion axis. You know, there was this massive
Speaker 1: plot to run Russian assets through the NRA, and then
Speaker 1: you know, use that to influence our election or something.
Speaker 1: All this stuff, and it got even worse. There was
Speaker 1: a suggestion, based on what and now is recognized as
Speaker 1: a joke, that she wrote to an American you know, acquaintance,
Speaker 1: that she was trading sex for access. I mean they
Speaker 1: called her essentially a prostitute and a spy, and that
Speaker 1: was completely unfair. I mean, they smeared this woman. The
Speaker 1: press smeared her, the prosecutors initially smeared her. And now
Speaker 1: she's she's been sentenced today to eighteen months, with nine
Speaker 1: of them counted towards the time, already served eighteen months
Speaker 1: for being an unregistered foreign agent of Russia. Now, let
Speaker 1: me say this, the register, the registration of a foreign
Speaker 1: agent is an area of the law where you usually
Speaker 1: would not see this kind of very aggressive prosecution. I
Speaker 1: believe she was held in solitary for all too just.
Speaker 1: I might have a check on that, but that that's
Speaker 1: a hallmark of the Muller probe and all the people
Speaker 1: involved here. Now, Maria Bucchina was not actually a part
Speaker 1: of them. She was not a Mueller specific target. They
Speaker 1: spun that off to I think the eastern district of
Speaker 1: New York, the Eastern District of Virginia. But there was
Speaker 1: all this stuff about how she was, you know, working
Speaker 1: through the NRA and the collusion and this not the
Speaker 1: other thing. And when push comes to shove, Maria Bouttina
Speaker 1: was essentially working on and she was, according to the
Speaker 1: indictment and her guilty plea, doing this at the behest
Speaker 1: of the Russian government. But she was supposed to make
Speaker 1: friends in America and then have back channels for communication
Speaker 1: to try to improve US Russian relations. Now could that
Speaker 1: be I'm not naive. Could that be an opening for,
Speaker 1: you know, an easy opening to commit espionage down the line? Sure?
Speaker 1: Of course? Could that have been her intent all along? Yeah? Maybe?
Speaker 1: Did she Maria Boutina commit any act of or try
Speaker 1: or conspire to commit any act of espionage to get
Speaker 1: her hands on classified information, to work to thwart the
Speaker 1: legitimate either processes of the government, or to in some
Speaker 1: way involve herself in the election. No, none of that happened.
Speaker 1: None of that happened. She was effectively doing what we
Speaker 1: in DC call networking. She was making friends and trying
Speaker 1: to create relationships of influence. If she were not, and
Speaker 1: this is where I'm going to this and I know
Speaker 1: that some people may disagree with me on That's fine.
Speaker 1: I don't care. I mean, people are entitled their opinion whatever.
Speaker 1: If she were not a Russian and if we were
Speaker 1: not living through the Russia hysteria witch hunt situation, I
Speaker 1: don't believe that she would have faced any criminal charges whatsoever.
Speaker 1: If Maria Boutina were from France. Do you think that
Speaker 1: she would have faced charges for conspiracy to act as
Speaker 1: a foreign agent without registering in this country, and that
Speaker 1: they would they would want prison time. They got eighteen months.
Speaker 1: That's a real prison sentence for her, of course not.
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons why I'm so pleased
Speaker 1: that we're going to have George Papadopoulos joining us later
Speaker 1: on in the program, because you know, the media wants
Speaker 1: to just drive past all this wreckage that they have created,
Speaker 1: you know, they they want to find some way to
Speaker 1: just move on to the next conspiracy that undermines Trump
Speaker 1: and that's bad for the administration. Mean, that really is
Speaker 1: their goal, and I refuse to allow them to do
Speaker 1: that because they did real damage here. They hurt people,
Speaker 1: and the environment of near psychosis they created where people
Speaker 1: are so concerned about Russia and so concerned about you know,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen in the Muller pro of the
Speaker 1: Muller investigation, that then led to overreach of all kinds,
Speaker 1: to people's reputations being destroyed, to these very aggressive raids
Speaker 1: against individuals, whether it's Papadopolis or Stone or you know,
Speaker 1: Maniport and all these different people who are at worst
Speaker 1: guilty of essentially white collar and process crimes. But the
Speaker 1: hysteria had spread throughout the federal government, and it should
Speaker 1: really put us all on edge. It should really make
Speaker 1: us all feel very uncomfortable that all it took for
Speaker 1: some of the most powerful people in the national security
Speaker 1: bureaucracy to become deep state left wing activists was this
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory that there was collusion between the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and Russia. That's all it took. And then they abandoned
Speaker 1: so many of their professional and ethical obligations, and they
Speaker 1: decided that sure enough, they would not give any benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt to the people that they were investigating.
Speaker 1: It was just going to be a headhunting expedition. They
Speaker 1: were going to get scalps, They're going to get people.
Speaker 1: I guess that's done a scalp hunting expedition, same idea.
Speaker 1: They were going to make people pay for this. Did
Speaker 1: it matter to them? Did it matter to Muller along
Speaker 1: the way that the fundamental premise of this investigation was false,
Speaker 1: that the entire initial purpose of the investigation was based
Speaker 1: on stories that were not true, based on a reality
Speaker 1: that had not occurred. They just don't care. They just
Speaker 1: don't care. This was payback, my friends. It was payback
Speaker 1: all along. And they didn't get everything they wanted, but
Speaker 1: they did score some points along the way, and they're
Speaker 1: not done yet. So we need to get ready for
Speaker 1: battle here because these people should not benefit from what
Speaker 1: they did, and they certainly shouldn't get their person in
Speaker 1: the White House next. And in that moment, I knew
Speaker 1: the threats of this nation wasn'tunlike any I had ever
Speaker 1: seen in my lifetime. I wrote it to time. They
Speaker 1: were in the battle for the soul of this nation.
Speaker 1: Oh that's even more true today. I was talking about
Speaker 1: people that went because they felt very strongly about the
Speaker 1: monument to Roberty Lee, a great general. Whether you like
Speaker 1: it or not, he was one of the great general.
Speaker 1: People were there protesting that taking down of the monument
Speaker 1: of Roberty Lee. Everybody knows that President Trump does not
Speaker 1: accept the left's narrative of events where he is a
Speaker 1: supporter of neo Nazis and white nationalists. Of course, the
Speaker 1: left is not willing to move past this. They will
Speaker 1: miscategorize and misrepresent what he says. It is really the
Speaker 1: core of their Trump is evil. That is what this
Speaker 1: gives them license to say in their minds. That's why
Speaker 1: they won't stop. They won't allow this to be an
Speaker 1: honest discuss because I think that Trump didn't handle this
Speaker 1: as well as he could have. I think that what
Speaker 1: he said wasn't under the circumstances, what I would have
Speaker 1: advised or would have wanted him to say. But he
Speaker 1: didn't say that. This was you know that the white
Speaker 1: nationalists are good and that Neo Nazis are fine people.
Speaker 1: That's just a lie, and people are lying about what
Speaker 1: he said, and very intentionally. But I thought it was
Speaker 1: so interesting today because this debate broke out, at least
Speaker 1: on social media, about whether it is now racist to
Speaker 1: say that Robert E. Lee is a great general. You
Speaker 1: can't say Robert E. Lee's a great general. Now when
Speaker 1: you talk about great you can have a whole discussion
Speaker 1: about you know, Alexander the Great conquered a lot of
Speaker 1: the known world at the time, amazing military feats, but
Speaker 1: was not a guy that I think if you put
Speaker 1: him in the current context in terms of the amount
Speaker 1: of people that he killed along the way, that you
Speaker 1: would necessarily think was a great guy. And then you
Speaker 1: have Genghis Khan for example. If you say Genghis Khan
Speaker 1: was a great, a great military mind, a great war leader,
Speaker 1: does that mean that you're okay with the genocide that
Speaker 1: the Mongols engaged in on a pretty regular basis. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Mongols would go in and if you haven't ever
Speaker 1: heard it, I would recommend Dan Carlin's hardcore history on
Speaker 1: this one. The Mongols would go in and they would
Speaker 1: kill an entire city. If the city resisted, everybody, everything, men, women, children,
Speaker 1: everyone dies, whole cities. No one saying that Gengghiz Khan
Speaker 1: murdering every man, woman and child in a city is
Speaker 1: ethical or good. But if you're talking about military capability,
Speaker 1: the expansion of state authority under arms, and yeah, then
Speaker 1: guess what, it's pretty impressive, pretty impressive what Genghis Khan
Speaker 1: pulled off and in so many ways. Genghis Khan was
Speaker 1: one of the great military leaders of all time, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that he's a good guy or everything
Speaker 1: he does is okay. And the case of Roberty Leeds
Speaker 1: obviously an even more nuanced discussion with was he fighting
Speaker 1: for Virginia? Was he actually fighting for slavery? People argue
Speaker 1: about this stuff all the time. I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people in South right now are yelling as they
Speaker 1: hear this. He was not pro slavery. I know this.
Speaker 1: I've read biographies of Lee. But he fought for the Confederacy,
Speaker 1: and there is now a very active effort to make
Speaker 1: everyone who took up arms for the Confederacy to be
Speaker 1: akin to Nazis. That's really what the that's what the
Speaker 1: left and the Democrat Party today. Remember the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: of the of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and
Speaker 1: the ku Klux Klan. That's that's all Democrat Party stuff.
Speaker 1: But now the Democrat Party are very brave warriors for
Speaker 1: truth and justice on this issue, you know, after the fact,
Speaker 1: and they really want to believe that anybody that had
Speaker 1: anything to do with the Civil War on the side
Speaker 1: of the Confederacy was it was morally equivalent to a
Speaker 1: Nazi And I think that's you know, that is that
Speaker 1: is unfair. That is unfair. Although these conversations in history,
Speaker 1: they do come up in other context too, And it's
Speaker 1: interesting to see how people get very very tense, very
Speaker 1: uncomfortable when you point out things like, Okay, it's one
Speaker 1: thing to admit a member of the Nazi Party, It's
Speaker 1: it's another thing to be a member of let's say
Speaker 1: the SS. But is every Wehrmacht conscript that fought for
Speaker 1: the Germans and the Second World War? Are they all
Speaker 1: the equivalent of the guys running the death camps? I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that that's they fought for the wrong side,
Speaker 1: They fought for an evil side. Is every person who
Speaker 1: fights for the wrong cause to be held accountable for
Speaker 1: everything in that cause? I mean, what if you are
Speaker 1: facing the ruination or destruction of your and your family
Speaker 1: unless you're willing to serve. What if you're fighting for
Speaker 1: nationalist causes, meaning that love of the nation not national socialism?
Speaker 1: You know? Is that a see? People, you can even
Speaker 1: have this discussion if you say that there are great
Speaker 1: not meaning great men, so that there are great generals
Speaker 1: who fought for the Confederacy. That is a military judgment.
Speaker 1: But today I saw because Trump said that or tweeted
Speaker 1: that Robert E. Lee was a great general. This caused
Speaker 1: all kinds of stir. You know, if I were to
Speaker 1: study the tactics of Rommel, who was very well respected
Speaker 1: as a tactician, no one saying that, you know, he
Speaker 1: was okay that he fought for the Nazis. But if
Speaker 1: you study the tactics of Rommel and say that he
Speaker 1: was a great tactician, does that mean that you were
Speaker 1: advocating for Nazi Of course not. But it's very hard
Speaker 1: to have adult conversations these days when there are so
Speaker 1: many leftists who are just looking for a way to
Speaker 1: bash the opposition and everyone involved with it, in their
Speaker 1: political opponents as just racist. That's they love to go
Speaker 1: with racist and now white nationalist alt right. You know,
Speaker 1: there are areas where they could criticize Trump and it
Speaker 1: would be at least a real exchange about something meaningful.
Speaker 1: But what they'd rather do is just debase, defame, and
Speaker 1: smear and really go after the person and really suggests
Speaker 1: that he's just an evil human being. It's not enough
Speaker 1: to say they don't like his policies, and this is
Speaker 1: common among Democrats all over the place. It's not that
Speaker 1: you and I are disagree with them, say on climate change,
Speaker 1: because you know, there was a map that was floating
Speaker 1: around the internet yesterday and all over social media at least,
Speaker 1: and it showed what is going to happen to Los
Speaker 1: Angeles if we don't stop climate change. And my friend
Speaker 1: David Harsanyi pointed out that what's going to happen is
Speaker 1: that if people believe this, you would think that they
Speaker 1: would be willing to sell their beachfront Malibu mansions at
Speaker 1: a considerable discount. But they're not, and they won't. Why
Speaker 1: is that they really think that the Los Angeles shore
Speaker 1: is going to be underwater in ten years. You don't
Speaker 1: want to be locked into a a ten million dollar
Speaker 1: home that's not going to be around in ten years.
Speaker 1: That's not a good idea. But it's not that we're
Speaker 1: wrong on that. It's that we're evil, We're bad, we're
Speaker 1: bad people. That is what the left believes, and they
Speaker 1: also believe a lot of other things that are not true.
Speaker 1: Here's Joe Biden, who was on the View today. Joe
Speaker 1: seems to have a very close relationship with Megan McCain,
Speaker 1: which just I'm just noting that that's what I've picked
Speaker 1: up on. But Joe said this about the Obama administration
Speaker 1: that he served in play thirteen. I'm very I'm incredibly
Speaker 1: proud to have served with him. And the thing I'm
Speaker 1: proudest of is we coincidentally, we're each in a different
Speaker 1: part of the country, and we were each talking to
Speaker 1: groups of people that were being televised, and at the
Speaker 1: same day, purely coincidentally, D asked the question, what are
Speaker 1: your proudest of your administration? I know what I said.
Speaker 1: It turns out he said the same thing, and probably
Speaker 1: a little more clearly than I did. That not one
Speaker 1: single whisper of scamper, not one. He's amazing. I know,
Speaker 1: he's the best. He's the smartest, the most handsome, the
Speaker 1: best dresser. He's amazing. Do you remember the tan suit
Speaker 1: he wore. He was so handsome in it. Remember Operation
Speaker 1: Fast and Furious? Remember Benghazi? Remember the Irs targeting conservatives
Speaker 1: in an election year. None of that is None of
Speaker 1: that is worthy of scandal. Huh interesting. Here's a little preview, though,
Speaker 1: I think where this conversation will go pretty soon. You
Speaker 1: know what. The real scandal with the Obama aministration is
Speaker 1: going to end up being the complicity of Obama's top
Speaker 1: national security officials in the Spygate collusion conspiracy theory. And
Speaker 1: I do believe that not only will we find out
Speaker 1: that this was essentially created almost out of just fabricated
Speaker 1: out of thin air with the dossier, but that beyond that,
Speaker 1: I think Obama knew a lot more about this than
Speaker 1: anybody wants to admit. I think Obama let this play out.
Speaker 1: And therefore, when we know the full scope of the
Speaker 1: deep state spying and the efforts to have a soft
Speaker 1: coup against the president, there will be and the media
Speaker 1: will never admit this because they still think that there
Speaker 1: was collision. I mean, they're crazy, but the media, you
Speaker 1: can't worry about them. They'll never come to an honest conclusion.
Speaker 1: The information will be out there and we will know
Speaker 1: that Obama knew enough that he should have stopped this,
Speaker 1: and he didn't, and he didn't because he didn't want to,
Speaker 1: and he didn't want to because this was the ultimate
Speaker 1: backdoor way to stop Trump and we all know it.
Speaker 1: Speaking of which, we have George Popadoppolis joining for the
Speaker 1: full hour coming up here. He's gonna take you right
Speaker 1: into the heart of the deep state conspiracy theory. We
Speaker 1: have that coming up here in just a moment. I know, FBI,
Speaker 1: guess these are the best in the world. But the
Speaker 1: people leading at Komi and McCabe and Strook and Page
Speaker 1: and all of these people. The lawyer who admitted frankly
Speaker 1: how crooked things were. I mean, when that testimony comes out,
Speaker 1: it's already come out partially, when that testimony comes out
Speaker 1: from the attorney for the FBI, you'll see. So I
Speaker 1: really say, now we have to get down because this
Speaker 1: was a coup. This was an attempted overthrow of the
Speaker 1: United States government. President Trump saying what I think did
Speaker 1: happen here, which was a deep state effort to undo
Speaker 1: to first prevent the election of Donald Trump, and then
Speaker 1: to undo the election of Donald Trump, and to use
Speaker 1: some of the most powerful tools in the federal government's
Speaker 1: surveillance and law enforcement arsenal to accomplish that task. We
Speaker 1: have a lot of unanswered questions here, things that I'm
Speaker 1: not going to let us fall by the wayside, and
Speaker 1: there's justice that still very much needs to be done.
Speaker 1: With that in mind, I want to bring our friend
Speaker 1: George Papadopoulos. Now I'm sure you've heard the name before.
Speaker 1: He got caught up right in the center of what
Speaker 1: became the Muller Probe and the FBI's earlier efforts to
Speaker 1: investigate Russian interference in the election. He ended up taking
Speaker 1: a guilty plea and spending a short stint in jail
Speaker 1: for Muller's, in my opinion, radically over zealous and politicized
Speaker 1: prosecutorial efforts. But he is the author and he's on
Speaker 1: a book tour right now of Deep State Target How
Speaker 1: I got caught in the crosshairs of the plot to
Speaker 1: bring down President Trump. He's also a former Trump campaign advisor.
Speaker 1: George Man, is so good to have you on. I
Speaker 1: know we talked before, but I'm glad to get you
Speaker 1: on the radio show. Oh, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: having me. It's a real honor, George. So I want
Speaker 1: to spend some time. It's a Friday, and you know
Speaker 1: there's not the world's not on fire right now with
Speaker 1: some huge, crazy story that we got to spend our whole,
Speaker 1: all of our time on. I want to get into
Speaker 1: because this is what's coming next. You your story. Carter
Speaker 1: Page's story. How did this whole Russia collusion narrative get
Speaker 1: spun up? So if you would just walk me into
Speaker 1: it's the summer. I mean, I want you to take
Speaker 1: us back to the beginning a little bit here, and
Speaker 1: then work us all the way through to when Muller
Speaker 1: is threatening you, threatening your girlfriend, saying all kinds of
Speaker 1: stuff that I want you to explain to everybody. Tell
Speaker 1: me what was going on the summer of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Your Trump campaigns in full swing, you're an advisor, you
Speaker 1: get some offer to go to the UK. What happens? Yeah, well, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a very complicated story. And I'm just going to
Speaker 1: say this first. My entire case was never about Russia,
Speaker 1: was about Israel, and Bob Muller himself stated that unequivocally
Speaker 1: in his report. For some reason, reporters either intentionally overlooked
Speaker 1: it or they just did not read the fine Prince.
Speaker 1: But if you see the Bob Muller report, and I've
Speaker 1: even tweeted this on my accounts at George Poppa nineteen,
Speaker 1: he stayed said George Poppidapolis had search warrants and other
Speaker 1: surveillance warrants issued upon him to look into his quote
Speaker 1: substantial context to Israel, but unfortunately for them, they said
Speaker 1: that the evidence wasn't sufficient to charge me with the
Speaker 1: FARO violation. So why am I bringing this up Because
Speaker 1: all of my encounters with these Western intelligence operatives, including
Speaker 1: as you just mentioned in the summer of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: they targeted me for those ties and not Russian ties,
Speaker 1: because of course I have no Russian ties. I've never
Speaker 1: been to Russia. I've never met a Russian official in
Speaker 1: my entire life. And as somebody who was working for
Speaker 1: five years at a neo conservative think tank in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. With people like Scooter Libby, dug Fights and
Speaker 1: set Cropsy, the last thing I was doing was promoting
Speaker 1: Russian interest throughout my entire career. So I just want
Speaker 1: to qualify exactly what my case was about at the
Speaker 1: thirty thousand foot level and now get into the specifics
Speaker 1: when I was meeting with these operatives. Joseph Mipsud, who
Speaker 1: by the way, has recently been outed last week living
Speaker 1: two blocks away from the usmbassy in Rome, and right
Speaker 1: now the Italian government has issued some sort of inquiry
Speaker 1: into him and the university that he's currently being paid by,
Speaker 1: called Ling campus. It's going to highlight probably another reason
Speaker 1: why Donald Trump called the Italian Prime Minister last week,
Speaker 1: and they probably discussed this person. And we're going to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of exactly who was running this
Speaker 1: person at me. But let's let me get back to
Speaker 1: the summer of twenty sixteen. In twenty sixteen, I had
Speaker 1: been working for a company named the London Center for
Speaker 1: International Law Practice. Yeah. Yes, And anybody who does a
Speaker 1: simple superficial examination of this organization, you won't find any
Speaker 1: Russians working there. You'll find a lot of ex Western
Speaker 1: diplomats working there, the top lawyers of the biggest law
Speaker 1: firms in the world affiliated with this organization, and many
Speaker 1: six CIA types who were directly or indirectly involved with
Speaker 1: this company. Now, immediately upon joining the Trump campaign, and
Speaker 1: as I just stated, I was working for this company,
Speaker 1: they were horrified and they said, before you go, please
Speaker 1: come with us to Rome where we need you to
Speaker 1: meet some very important people. And a woman named Arvind
Speaker 1: or Sambe, who is a very important woman who's never
Speaker 1: been discussed before and involved in the Russia probe, but
Speaker 1: she's heavily involved in my case, and I think also
Speaker 1: related to the Bruce or involvement in the Trump Tower
Speaker 1: meeting or the Trump Tower investigation because arvind Or Sambe,
Speaker 1: who was a director at this company I was working for,
Speaker 1: unbeknownst to me at the time, had we used to
Speaker 1: work directly with Bob Muller after nine to eleven, and
Speaker 1: she actually was working as a legal at TACHE for
Speaker 1: the FBI in the UK while she was also affiliate
Speaker 1: affiliated with this company I worked for. So she tells me,
Speaker 1: why don't you go to Rome. We're going to introduce
Speaker 1: you to some people there who are going to help
Speaker 1: you with your Trump campaign stuff. And I said, of course,
Speaker 1: that's great. I go to Rome to this university called
Speaker 1: Link Campus now wise Link Campus significant because Link Campus
Speaker 1: has been written about extensively by David Ignatius of the
Speaker 1: Washington Post and others. And this is a CIA FBI
Speaker 1: training school in Rome that it trains not only Italian
Speaker 1: intelligence officials, but the CIA and FBI. Previous directors and
Speaker 1: deputy directors have actually spoken at this university and have
Speaker 1: even taught courses at this university. So it's a very
Speaker 1: prominent school in Rome. And that's where I meet Joseph Mipsud.
Speaker 1: Now Joseph Mipsod just to fast forward and to summarize
Speaker 1: who this person is. For the last two years, he's
Speaker 1: been characterized by Bob Muller as the man who was
Speaker 1: a Russian agent who fed me information in late April
Speaker 1: that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails and I was clusing,
Speaker 1: hold on one second. This is just I want to
Speaker 1: make sure everyone's following everything you're telling me. You're so
Speaker 1: you're you're on a Trump campaign, and someone approaches you,
Speaker 1: this woman you just mentioned and says, come to this
Speaker 1: university because we'd love to talk to you. Basically, like
Speaker 1: you know, this is like connection, building rapport, that kind
Speaker 1: of thing. And Joseph mipsued he has been accused by
Speaker 1: Muller of being essentially a Russian intelligence cutout. Yes, he
Speaker 1: has been accused and portrayed to the world for two
Speaker 1: years as a Russian cutout who was feeding me information
Speaker 1: about the Russians possessing Hillary Clinton's emails. Now, I just
Speaker 1: want to make it clear. Joseph Mipsud was introduced to
Speaker 1: me by an FBI intermediary that I used to work
Speaker 1: for in London named Arvinder Sambe. And when I get
Speaker 1: to Rome. I am introduced to Vincenzo Scotti, who was
Speaker 1: the former Foreign Minister of Italy and acted as the
Speaker 1: rector of this university, and he passed me along to
Speaker 1: meet Joseph Mipsud. Now, why is this meeting in romeso importance?
Speaker 1: Besides that it led to this incredible espionage scandal that
Speaker 1: we've been living last couple of years. Just today, just today,
Speaker 1: meaning this morning in Italy on the front page of
Speaker 1: one of Italy's largest newspapers, Il Foglio. And I'm fortunate
Speaker 1: that my wife is Italian and she reads these papers,
Speaker 1: and she had many connections to the Italian government, so
Speaker 1: she knows Mipsud's network over there. She showed it to
Speaker 1: me and she said, do you know what this is?
Speaker 1: I said, no, what does it say? Joseph Mipsud's lawyer,
Speaker 1: Stephen Rowe, this prominent Swiss attorney who's representing him, went
Speaker 1: public and stated that when George Papandapolis was introduced to Mipsud,
Speaker 1: Mipsod was working quote undercover. Now what does that mean
Speaker 1: when if I'm introduced to this person Joseph Mipsued at
Speaker 1: a spy school that trains a CIA and FBI and
Speaker 1: he quotes undercover when he's meeting with me, and then
Speaker 1: tells me three weeks after I meet with him that
Speaker 1: the Russians have Hillary Clinton's emails, which I believe, and
Speaker 1: I think many people now who know my case believe
Speaker 1: there was some sort of counter intelligence sting operation. Again,
Speaker 1: this was a dangle. This was tell we would call
Speaker 1: this a dangle. They they set you up by putting
Speaker 1: forth this guy, and they put you in the position
Speaker 1: and they offered up this information and then you know,
Speaker 1: keep going. But that's that's the terminology for this. Keep going. Yes,
Speaker 1: So this is very important. So fast forward after Joseph
Speaker 1: Mipso introduces me to no One in the Russian government
Speaker 1: or no one of any substance in Russia, which I
Speaker 1: had been actively seeking at that time, he one day,
Speaker 1: as I'm trying to distance myself from him, on April
Speaker 1: twenty sixth, tells me that the Russians have Hillary Clinton's emails. Now,
Speaker 1: the dates are very important here because timelines have consequences.
Speaker 1: And wait, I just gotta jump in Hillary Clinton's emails,
Speaker 1: not Podesta DNC emails. I never heard the word DNC
Speaker 1: and I never heard the name John Podesta Okay, because
Speaker 1: because because the Hillary Clinton email thing, that was a
Speaker 1: rumor that was out there that even I heard myself
Speaker 1: at the time about Russia. But keep going, yes, so
Speaker 1: that's what I thought he was doing. I thought he
Speaker 1: was validating rumors. And I also didn't understand why or
Speaker 1: how this individual who couldn't even introduce me to the
Speaker 1: Russian ambassador in London could have this information that apparently
Speaker 1: the rest of the world wanted or wanted to know about.
Speaker 1: So I was very suspicious about this person. And why
Speaker 1: is it important to understand that this meeting that he
Speaker 1: told me this information on was on April twenty sixth,
Speaker 1: because about ten days before Joseph Mips had told me
Speaker 1: this information, I was contacted by the Australian embassy and
Speaker 1: I met with a woman named Erica Thompson over lunch
Speaker 1: by this Israeli diplomats, which there's a lot of suspicion
Speaker 1: about who this person really was, and he's actually there,
Speaker 1: he's being scrutinized actually in Israel itself, from what I've
Speaker 1: been told presently, at an Israeli diplomat who I had
Speaker 1: been put in touch with, who hated Trump called Christian
Speaker 1: Cantor in mid April told me one day, I want
Speaker 1: to introduce you to my quote unquote girlfriend, and his
Speaker 1: quote unquote girlfriend just happened to be an Australian intelligence
Speaker 1: officer who also worked as a top assistant to Alexander Downer.
Speaker 1: Later on I would find that out, and I'm sitting
Speaker 1: there and I'm a little shocked that two potentially intel
Speaker 1: officers from two different countries are dating. We're living together,
Speaker 1: So I didn't believe the story. Anyways, I went along
Speaker 1: and I was just listening to this woman, Erica Thompson
Speaker 1: in mid April tell me and that Trump is a
Speaker 1: pariah and that his views on global security and trade
Speaker 1: are viewed as hostile to Australian interests and even to
Speaker 1: British interests. And you know, many pundents at the time
Speaker 1: we're talking about Trump this way, even to this present day,
Speaker 1: around the world, many leaders don't like him. So I
Speaker 1: laughed it off. I didn't think too much about it.
Speaker 1: And then Joseph Mipsot on April twenty six tells me
Speaker 1: this information. And five days after Joseph Mipso tells me
Speaker 1: this information, I'm approached by two DA officials from the
Speaker 1: USMBC in London named Gregory Baker and Terrence Dudley, and
Speaker 1: these two officials, I'll never forget it. The moment they
Speaker 1: meet with me. Gregory Baker starts speaking to me in Greek,
Speaker 1: suggesting that he knew that I was fluent in Greek
Speaker 1: and other languages. And Terrence Dudley began to speak to
Speaker 1: me about his thesis at TuS University, which had to
Speaker 1: do with the energy business and the Caucuses, which I
Speaker 1: was a recognized expert on in the Mediterranean. So I
Speaker 1: right away felt that they were sent to meet me.
Speaker 1: I wasn't cleared by who, but I played along and
Speaker 1: they were spending probably the equivalent of a thousand dollars
Speaker 1: on me over four meetings, over drinks and dinner, probing
Speaker 1: me about my ties to the Israelis. They were probing
Speaker 1: me about what Trump was doing with Russia. And then
Speaker 1: they were telling me that I should go meet with
Speaker 1: the US Defense at Shay and Athens who I had
Speaker 1: known previously, Captain Robert Palm. Where we were George, George,
Speaker 1: hold on, wait before we get the attache. I got
Speaker 1: to go into a quick break here. I want you
Speaker 1: to continue on exactly where we are everyone, We're talking
Speaker 1: to George Popadopolis, the man himself at the center of
Speaker 1: the Special Council Russia Collusion, Delusion Storm. He's got a book,
Speaker 1: Deep State Target, How I got caught in the cross
Speaker 1: airs of the plot to bring down President Trump. We're
Speaker 1: going to have more with George, a lot more coming up.
Speaker 1: We're back with George Papadopolis, author of Deep State Target,
Speaker 1: How I got to the crossairs of the plan to
Speaker 1: bring down President Trump. George was right at the center
Speaker 1: of this, all right. So, George, as we left off,
Speaker 1: you were then being set up for a meeting. You said,
Speaker 1: where defense at tesche Where? Yes, in Athens. Now, I
Speaker 1: just want the listeners to understand, these people don't reach
Speaker 1: out to you unless they know that who you are
Speaker 1: and what connections you have. And I was on a
Speaker 1: almost first name basis with the presidents and prime ministers
Speaker 1: in Israel, Cyprus, Greece, and my connections were so high
Speaker 1: in Egypt that I ended up brokering the meeting between
Speaker 1: Trump and CC at the UN General Assembly. So my
Speaker 1: contexts were all in the Mediterranean. And that's and this
Speaker 1: is what all of these operatives wanted to know about
Speaker 1: That's why they tell me, you know, you need to
Speaker 1: go to Athens and you need to meet with Captain
Speaker 1: Robert Palm, who I had met I think a year before,
Speaker 1: and the US Army at Sache, I forget his name,
Speaker 1: and I want to meet the US Army at Sache
Speaker 1: in May at his house, we had a nice dinner
Speaker 1: and in Athens the US Army at Sache and he
Speaker 1: was probing me as well. And then I met Captain
Speaker 1: Robert Palm, who a couple of days after, I met
Speaker 1: with the Greek defense minister who was a friend of mine,
Speaker 1: Panos Komenos, and where Pantos Kaimenos essentially was telling me
Speaker 1: that he wants to be Native's best friend and there's
Speaker 1: an opportunity for this grease Israel alliance to basically upend
Speaker 1: the previous security How does this time to Russia in
Speaker 1: the investigation though, because now we're getting down into the weeds,
Speaker 1: people might start to lose this. So what does this
Speaker 1: have to do with them thinking you're at the center
Speaker 1: of Russia collusion? Well no, no, this is actually the
Speaker 1: main point I'm making is I have nothing to do
Speaker 1: with Russia. I was targeted for a completely different thing,
Speaker 1: and all these operatives were testing me to see what
Speaker 1: I knew about this sensitive part of the world. Then
Speaker 1: you have this person, Joseph Mipsud, throwing this unsolicited information
Speaker 1: in my lap about emails. So he told you about
Speaker 1: the emails. You did not tell him, of course not.
Speaker 1: I mean I was. I was having a conversation with
Speaker 1: him as if I'm doing it with you right now,
Speaker 1: and you dropped bizarre information in my lap that I
Speaker 1: didn't ask you for, like you have a gun and
Speaker 1: I didn't ask you if you have a gun or not.
Speaker 1: So that's what this information was. It was unsolicited. I
Speaker 1: didn't want it, and he never told me how he
Speaker 1: received it. Now, why is this so important? You're right,
Speaker 1: let's not get into the weeds with the military Atach's
Speaker 1: target meeting with me about other topics about Alexander Downer. Now, Now,
Speaker 1: Alexander Downer wanted to meet with me about ten days
Speaker 1: after Joseph Mipsud told me this, and three days after
Speaker 1: the US defense, the DA guys met with me in London,
Speaker 1: and who messaged me to set up this meeting between
Speaker 1: Downer and I. That same lady, Erica Thompson, who I
Speaker 1: was introduced to in mid April by the Israeli diplomats,
Speaker 1: and she messaged me on May six. I looked back
Speaker 1: at my records the same day that I was meeting
Speaker 1: the DA and she said, my boss, Alexander Downer would
Speaker 1: like to meet you on May tenth. Would you like
Speaker 1: to meet with him? I said, of course, I go
Speaker 1: to this meeting with Alexander Downer. I write about this
Speaker 1: extensively in my book of how bizarre this meeting was,
Speaker 1: and I feel immediately upon sitting down that this is
Speaker 1: an asset that was sent to make contact with me,
Speaker 1: that he was spying on me. I testified under oath
Speaker 1: to Congress about my belief that he was spying on me,
Speaker 1: and I revealed to the FBI and Bob Muller himself
Speaker 1: that I felt that Alexander Downer was spying on me
Speaker 1: and recording my conversation because of his very bizarre behavior
Speaker 1: and his use of his phone and how he was
Speaker 1: pointing at me and other things. So when I met
Speaker 1: with Alexander Downer, there's this nonsense or this fake story
Speaker 1: of he and I being drunk in a meeting and
Speaker 1: talking about emails. This was a very belligerent diplomats. He
Speaker 1: The first thing I did when I said down at
Speaker 1: the table was being shocked because he's telling me to
Speaker 1: stop quote bothering his good friend David Cameron, and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump should stop bothering his good friend David Cameron. And
Speaker 1: I didn't understand what was happening. And then he started
Speaker 1: getting into these tangents about Cyprus and why my ideas
Speaker 1: on Cyprus are a threat the British because he doesn't
Speaker 1: believe that the Church should leave Cyprus. And George, George,
Speaker 1: I gotta cut in here for a second because we
Speaker 1: have to go again into a commercial break for a moment,
Speaker 1: but we're going to come back talking to George Papadophlus. Everybody.
Speaker 1: He is laying out the whole story. And this is
Speaker 1: where the investigation, the IG report, this is where everything
Speaker 1: is heading. Is what happened with George Popadopolis, the fbhind
Speaker 1: investigation carter page. We're getting it from the man himself,
Speaker 1: deep State target. How I got in the crosshairs of
Speaker 1: the plan to bring down President Trump is the book.
Speaker 1: George Papadoplas is the man. We have more with George.
Speaker 1: What happened in that meeting with Downer and then what
Speaker 1: came after that that's going to be in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, team. We've got George Papadopholis with us here
Speaker 1: for a deep dive into how he became the deep
Speaker 1: State target, which is also the title of his book,
Speaker 1: which I highly recommend to all of you who want
Speaker 1: to know what really happened in this spygate scandal. George,
Speaker 1: you were telling us about the meeting with Alexander Downer.
Speaker 1: Please continue. Yes. So, I was reached out to by
Speaker 1: Alexander Downer's assistant who had contacted me initially on April fifteenth,
Speaker 1: and she contacts me on May sixth and says, I
Speaker 1: would like Alexander Downer would like to meet with you.
Speaker 1: And on May sixth, I was reached out to by
Speaker 1: the DA at the US Embassy. So I go and
Speaker 1: I meet with Alexander Downer on May tenth. And this person,
Speaker 1: his behavior was so disturbing that I ended up reporting
Speaker 1: him to Bob Muller and fby myself because I felt
Speaker 1: that he was spying. I mean recording my conversation and
Speaker 1: let me explain to you what was happening in this meeting.
Speaker 1: I sit down and right away he tells me that
Speaker 1: your boss and you better leave my good friend David
Speaker 1: Cameron alone. And I didn't understand what he was talking about,
Speaker 1: but I think something was happening between David Cameron and
Speaker 1: Trump regarding the Muslim band comments. Then he starts to
Speaker 1: probe me about the US China relationship and my ties
Speaker 1: to Cyprus and Israel and why those are threatening and
Speaker 1: why I shouldn't be advising Donald Trump about those issues. Now,
Speaker 1: this is important to understand because it deals. It goes
Speaker 1: right into the Stefan Helper meeting, which I'll get to
Speaker 1: in a second, about Israel and Cyprus. After he starts
Speaker 1: asking me about the Mediterranean and China, he begins to
Speaker 1: pull his phone out, and I felt that he was
Speaker 1: overtly spying on me, as he was holding it up
Speaker 1: front and looking in a very stern manner in my face.
Speaker 1: So I didn't understand what this person was doing instead
Speaker 1: that he except that he was asking me questions. Okay,
Speaker 1: we get it. He's creepy, he's weird. George, you met
Speaker 1: with Downer in them one? Yeah. So then after that,
Speaker 1: I don't remember Russia ever being brought up by me.
Speaker 1: I don't remember the contents of anything regarding Russia. So
Speaker 1: this story where he disclosed information to the FBI about
Speaker 1: me and Russia makes no sense. And of course there's
Speaker 1: no official intelligence from Australia. And for everybody at home,
Speaker 1: this is what's so important. You are the person who
Speaker 1: is listed, and you've gone through all your contacts and
Speaker 1: conversations here and this is all on the record now
Speaker 1: with a special counsel. You were the person the FBI
Speaker 1: was saying, oh, we need to start a full field
Speaker 1: investigation in July of twenty sixteen because someone tied to
Speaker 1: Trump knows about the Hillary emails that were hacked by Russia.
Speaker 1: And what you're telling us is that this is all
Speaker 1: crap and they set you up. Basically, well, that's a
Speaker 1: very good way to put it. And I told the FBI,
Speaker 1: I told Muller, and I told Congress. I never told
Speaker 1: down or anything about these emails. And even Downer himself
Speaker 1: has contradicted himself at least three times in subsequent interviews
Speaker 1: he's given about whatever he thought was said self. Course,
Speaker 1: so the three texts for the entire investigation on you
Speaker 1: was based on a false premise, which is that you
Speaker 1: were running around drunk and running your mouth about how
Speaker 1: Hillary's emails got hacked by the Russians and you knew
Speaker 1: about it, and the Trump camp pay knew about it.
Speaker 1: You're telling me that is because that's the story of
Speaker 1: the media ran with. You're telling me that is a lie.
Speaker 1: Of course it's a lie. And I'll just quote Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: Congressman Mark Meadows from a podcast he gave I think
Speaker 1: two weeks ago where he stated that Papadopolis was around
Speaker 1: five percent of the predicate that went into whatever this
Speaker 1: investigation was, A ninety five was about to doociate an
Speaker 1: other things. So of course this was just a convenient
Speaker 1: cover story where you have a Clinton ally like Alexander
Speaker 1: Downer lying about a meeting and stating, oh yeah, this
Speaker 1: guy said something about emails, and it just becomes a
Speaker 1: convenient cover story for Americans to simplify things for Americans. Okay,
Speaker 1: And so once that meeting happens, you're done with the
Speaker 1: Downer meeting. It's very weird. When do you realize that
Speaker 1: the federal government is coming after you? I started, I
Speaker 1: didn't have an idea until I was interviewed by the
Speaker 1: FBI in January of twenty seventeen, but I did believe
Speaker 1: that my meeting with Stefan Helper in September of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: where he paid me three thousand dollars for a paper
Speaker 1: on the Israeli energy business and he flew me to London,
Speaker 1: I felt that he was recording in spine on me
Speaker 1: because he was very bizarre and very hostile the way
Speaker 1: that Downer was. So I didn't understand anything except I
Speaker 1: was having very strange, unproductive meetings with these various people
Speaker 1: until the FBI came to my house in January twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: And I had a right when Trump takes right when
Speaker 1: Trump actually becomes president, right around then you get an
Speaker 1: FBI visit. I'm attending the inauguration at a party with
Speaker 1: ranks previous two days before the FBI comes to my house.
Speaker 1: And I believe the FBI came to me and Flynn
Speaker 1: within forty eight hours of one another, so clearly they
Speaker 1: wanted to get after him and I very quickly, and
Speaker 1: there's probably the reason for that, that's just that has
Speaker 1: yet to be understood. So they come to my house.
Speaker 1: They're talking to me for three hours about numerous contents,
Speaker 1: things including the Israeli angle that I just told you about.
Speaker 1: And then they asked me if I heard anything from
Speaker 1: Russians or about hacked emails, and I say, of course not.
Speaker 1: But a Maltese man named Joseph Mitsa told me this information.
Speaker 1: And then later on we find out that this person
Speaker 1: and had been working as an operative for Western intelligence.
Speaker 1: So I'm not clearest to exactly what I lied about
Speaker 1: or what my entire case was really about regarding Russia
Speaker 1: when we now know it was a complete setup. Right,
Speaker 1: So the FBI came here to talk to you, and
Speaker 1: you told them all this stuff. And then when does
Speaker 1: the Special Council enter the picture? So the special counsel
Speaker 1: for you enters the Yeah, the Special Council answers the picture.
Speaker 1: When I'm arrested in a savage like manner in the
Speaker 1: summer of twenty seventeen, after I'm coming off a flight
Speaker 1: from Italy going back to the United Wait, So you
Speaker 1: spoke to the FBI in January twenty seventeen, the Special
Speaker 1: Council arrested you. You had no other contact in the
Speaker 1: summer of twenty seventeen, No, nothing, nothing. I was arrested
Speaker 1: in a savage like manner without even understanding what I
Speaker 1: had done wrong? If how did they arrest? You? Tell
Speaker 1: me about the takedown? I want to know. Sure, sure,
Speaker 1: So I'm I'm on a shuttle bus, you know those
Speaker 1: famous shuttle buses. I had Dullars Airport, and I'm looking
Speaker 1: across from me, and I see two men in suits
Speaker 1: and ties while everybody else is in sweatpants because we're
Speaker 1: all coming off a fifteen hour flight. And I know
Speaker 1: that these ragents. And as soon as I get to
Speaker 1: the kiosk, they rushed me to a room where there's
Speaker 1: seven agents. They're waiting for me. They're rummaging through my
Speaker 1: bags looking for something, and whoever reads my book will
Speaker 1: understand what I think they were looking for, because we
Speaker 1: don't have time to talk about it now. But I'm
Speaker 1: then told I'm under arrest. My Miranda rights aren't read
Speaker 1: to me. I have handcuffs and shackles thrown around my
Speaker 1: hands and feet. I'm thrown in the back sheet of
Speaker 1: a black tinted out SUV and I'm in a cell
Speaker 1: without being given access to my lawyers. UM and I'm
Speaker 1: looking in front of a judge the next day where
Speaker 1: I'm looking where they're saying, you're looking at twenty five
Speaker 1: years in prison without me even being shown on arrest warrants,
Speaker 1: read my miranda rights or told initially why I was
Speaker 1: being arrested. So if you read my book, you'll understand
Speaker 1: why I think the FBI, well, they were what they
Speaker 1: were trying to do was charging you with some nonsense
Speaker 1: substruction of justice charge that made no sense and a
Speaker 1: lyne to the FBI, and then they had this far
Speaker 1: violation apparently with my Tis Israel. But that was what
Speaker 1: their nonsense case was all about. Of course, they used
Speaker 1: tactics probably that the KGB would use on their own
Speaker 1: citizens to you know, screw me up psychologically. And that's
Speaker 1: why I probably pled guilty so quickly without actually understanding
Speaker 1: what my case was really all about, because when you're
Speaker 1: dealing in these counterintelligence investigations, so much exculpatory evidence that,
Speaker 1: especially in my case, which is it's clear now was
Speaker 1: is never provided to the defendant. And at that point,
Speaker 1: this is twenty seventeen, people think Russia collusion is real.
Speaker 1: They think that Trump's in the pocketarction you got, you
Speaker 1: got totally ambushed by these guys. What is the lie
Speaker 1: that they claimed that you told that then led to
Speaker 1: your what was a two week prison sentence. My eleven
Speaker 1: nights in this minimum security camp, which looked more like
Speaker 1: a university dorm than a prison, was because and it's
Speaker 1: in my record now on the of my status of
Speaker 1: effec is because I misremembered when I met Joseph Mipstood
Speaker 1: a year before the FBI came to my house. They
Speaker 1: say that I said I met him in April or
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, and before I joined the campaign initially, but
Speaker 1: then they showed documents that suggested I met him while
Speaker 1: I was on the campaign. So it was so stupid,
Speaker 1: so ridiculous that I don't want to speak for the
Speaker 1: honorable judge who sentenced me, of course, and I'm not
Speaker 1: doing that, but to get an eleven night sentence for
Speaker 1: a federal crime, you know, people even in the prison
Speaker 1: were laughing about it and saying, what on earth was this?
Speaker 1: And I think, what was it like when you dealt
Speaker 1: with Did you get to talk to Muller directly and
Speaker 1: did you ever get to look at him and just
Speaker 1: be like, why are you doing this to me, dude?
Speaker 1: I explained in my book the moment when I realized
Speaker 1: the FBI set me up, and it was in December
Speaker 1: of twenty seventeen, when they pretty much made it clear
Speaker 1: to me that Joseph Mipsod had been working for them
Speaker 1: the whole time. But we don't have time for me
Speaker 1: to get into the exact details. But I never saw Mueller.
Speaker 1: I was dealing with Andrew Goldstein, this guy Zelinski, and
Speaker 1: Janie Ree and the FBI agents who took me down.
Speaker 1: And what were they? What were they like though Jeanie
Speaker 1: Reim and she's part of the Special Council? Were they
Speaker 1: Did you think that they were fair minded? No, of
Speaker 1: course not. These people. My impression of them was that
Speaker 1: they were Hillary Clinton's personal lawyers, that they basically were
Speaker 1: out to get any scalp they can, just to show
Speaker 1: case that this is what happens when Hillary Clinton loses,
Speaker 1: this is what happens when her honors, you know, in
Speaker 1: the mud, and when you help a person like Donald
Speaker 1: Trump get elected president. There was no crime here. I
Speaker 1: think Muller and the FBI and even Peter Struck, according
Speaker 1: to his own text messages, that there's no they're there
Speaker 1: regarding Russia collusion. They knew there was nothing going on
Speaker 1: with us in Russia, especially in my case, where I
Speaker 1: explained to you, I was under investigation for a completely
Speaker 1: different thing that had nothing to do with and Fara,
Speaker 1: especially far with Russia is one thing because people were
Speaker 1: all paranoid about Russia. Fara with Israel is not something
Speaker 1: that in any normal time anybody would be prosecuted criminally
Speaker 1: for in Washington, DC. It just wouldn't happen. I know
Speaker 1: that wouldn't happen. Well, like I said, I'll just I
Speaker 1: just will refer you and the listeners to actually read
Speaker 1: the Muller report and you'll see what he writes about
Speaker 1: that aspect. No, no, I've seen the part of it.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that you got I mean, you got homes,
Speaker 1: my friend, That's what that was all about us. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: and I agree with you. So when they actually told
Speaker 1: me they were going to charge me with that, I
Speaker 1: was half laughing, half shocked, because, like you said, this
Speaker 1: doesn't happen in normal times. Clearly there was a vendetta
Speaker 1: against the Trump campaign and anyone who even made a
Speaker 1: slight mistake was going to have the kitchen sing thrown
Speaker 1: at them. And in my case, they went to the
Speaker 1: extent where they were probably going to try and jeopardize
Speaker 1: a security relationship with our one of our top allies
Speaker 1: just to put me in jail. So it just goes
Speaker 1: to show you the depths of hell that these people
Speaker 1: went to to go after myself and probably Michael Flynn
Speaker 1: and Roger Stone and people like Corsi, who fortunately didn't
Speaker 1: plead guilty. But this was a real witch hunt. This
Speaker 1: was a persecution. I don't even call it a prosecution.
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm just very happy now to finally
Speaker 1: have a chance to breathe and get my story out
Speaker 1: and hopefully it's used now to assist the new investigations
Speaker 1: into the investment. Right. I want to I want to
Speaker 1: take us there next, George. I want to know what
Speaker 1: you want answers to what you hope the Inspector General
Speaker 1: and the DOJ. I mean, I have people that I trust.
Speaker 1: I don't know, George, how you feel about this, but
Speaker 1: people that I trust say that that bar is a
Speaker 1: good man and an honest man, and he wants answers
Speaker 1: about what happened, including to you. So I want to
Speaker 1: come back to this part of the story in a moment.
Speaker 1: We're talking to George Papadopolis, author of Deep State Target,
Speaker 1: which you can get now on Amazon, and we'll be
Speaker 1: right back with George. Stay with me, all right, everyone,
Speaker 1: we're talking to George Papadopolis, man at the center of
Speaker 1: all this Russia collusion nonsense. As he's been pointing out,
Speaker 1: he had nothing to do with Russia, knew nothing about Russia,
Speaker 1: never been to Russia, and yet the Special Counsel came
Speaker 1: after him like he was Pablo Escobar. Deep State Target
Speaker 1: is George's book. George, Okay, so now you know you
Speaker 1: went to this, you went through this whole process. Clearly
Speaker 1: they came after you. They're trying to justify stuff, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, that had been done all along the way.
Speaker 1: They're trying to cover their tracks by using you as
Speaker 1: a fall guy. Your a scapegoat for both the FBI
Speaker 1: deep state effort and then for the Special Counsel Mueller
Speaker 1: to justify what they're doing and create this perception of
Speaker 1: some kind of international nexus of collusion. What do you
Speaker 1: want answers to now? What do we have to find
Speaker 1: out in order to get some justice and accountability here? Well,
Speaker 1: that's a great question, and I think Congress already has
Speaker 1: a lot of these answers, but they're being coy and
Speaker 1: what do I mean my testimony the Congress has been
Speaker 1: recently released, I think two weeks ago. I testified in
Speaker 1: front of the House Oversight Committee four months ago where
Speaker 1: I was in front of Mark Meadows, John Rathcliffe and others,
Speaker 1: where if you actually look at the transcript now, all
Speaker 1: two hundred and thirty nine pages of it, it's actually
Speaker 1: a very fast read. You can almost infer yourself that
Speaker 1: Congress or members of the US government themselves are in
Speaker 1: possession of transcripts of my meetings with people like Joseph Mipston,
Speaker 1: Alexander Downer, and Stefan Helper. So what that suggests to
Speaker 1: me is that these clearly were people looking to entrap me,
Speaker 1: and they were working with the FBI or the CIA,
Speaker 1: or even probably the British Intelligence services to either spy
Speaker 1: on me or to dirty me up. And now the
Speaker 1: US government has is in possession of those. I want
Speaker 1: those to be released if they are, if they do exist.
Speaker 1: I know Mark Meadows has been tweeting a lot lately
Speaker 1: about so called tapes. The puppet up was tapes that
Speaker 1: he wants released, So I'm very curious to see what
Speaker 1: he's talking about and who was actually recording me, if
Speaker 1: not one of those men or all three of those men.
Speaker 1: So that's the first thing. The second thing is, of
Speaker 1: course Donald Trump must declassify the three O two is
Speaker 1: the FISA warrants and the FISA applications, because I have
Speaker 1: been told myself that I had a FISA warrants issued
Speaker 1: on me, and I also was told by somebody that
Speaker 1: Michael Flint had a FISA warrant issued on him as well,
Speaker 1: not simply this harder page FISA. So it's going to
Speaker 1: be very interesting to see how Stefan Helper as well,
Speaker 1: who is basically spying on Flynn and I at different times,
Speaker 1: is going to be revealed as an informant of the
Speaker 1: Intelligence services. And now the information, no matter how DADA was,
Speaker 1: was being fed to the FIST accord from him. So
Speaker 1: I want to just see, you know, the three things
Speaker 1: I really want to have exposed are the rolls of
Speaker 1: the three men I just labeled, Alexander Downer, Stefan Helper,
Speaker 1: and Joseph Mipsud. I want all the FISS declassified, and
Speaker 1: I want the three O two is declassified because by
Speaker 1: doing this you're really going to get to the origins
Speaker 1: of how this investigation all started, and it will prove
Speaker 1: once and for all how dirty and sellacious the information was,
Speaker 1: the evidence was that was used to basically target us
Speaker 1: and illicitly spy on us. And now that we have
Speaker 1: all this new information out, including that the docier was
Speaker 1: a fake and Joseph Mipsud was never a Russian spy,
Speaker 1: I'm very curious to see what kind of information was
Speaker 1: used to get FISA warrants and wire cap members of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. So I think the only way to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of that is, of course, if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump declassifies it. And I'm very happy people like
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows and John Ratcliffe are the on the worst
Speaker 1: are going on the on the offensive now and on
Speaker 1: the on offense now and asking him to do it.
Speaker 1: So it will be a good time to be an
Speaker 1: American when that's revealed. It's going to be a great
Speaker 1: moment in American history. And by doing that, it'll probably
Speaker 1: safeguard Trump's re election in twenty twenty, because if he
Speaker 1: doesn't go on the offensive, you might have rogue CIA
Speaker 1: and FBI elements who might go after him again and
Speaker 1: we might have an entire new scandal next year. So
Speaker 1: I think he has to put a stop hit and
Speaker 1: that and that's the only way he can do it.
Speaker 1: We've only got about a minute, George, and this has
Speaker 1: been fascinating. I just want to ask you. Has anyone
Speaker 1: from the White House kind of just reeched out to
Speaker 1: you to say, you know, keep your chin up and
Speaker 1: stay in the fight. You know, I know that my
Speaker 1: attorneys are very close with people working in the White House.
Speaker 1: I am just keeping out of it. I don't want to,
Speaker 1: you know, be viewed as somebody interfering in anything, because
Speaker 1: I understand that they're so ongoing investigations with Muller and
Speaker 1: there's clearly going to be new investigations by bar and
Speaker 1: Horowitz and Hoober. So I'm not reaching out to them.
Speaker 1: I don't know if my lawyers have been in touch
Speaker 1: with them. But my goal right now is simple, and
Speaker 1: that is going on programs like yours, going on TV
Speaker 1: and exposing the truth and giving names, dates and details
Speaker 1: of encounters that I had that I believe we're clearly
Speaker 1: set ups, and they were setups that were designed, as
Speaker 1: you stated earlier, to use me as a fall guy
Speaker 1: to justify this elicit scandal and investigation into the Trump
Speaker 1: presidency which almost led to his impeachment. All Right, George,
Speaker 1: George Papadopolis, Everybody, Deep State. Target is the book. It
Speaker 1: is available on Amazon now. George Man, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us and really telling your story in
Speaker 1: a way that we needed to hear it. And we're
Speaker 1: going to follow up with you as we get more answers.
Speaker 1: Thanks again, my friend, absolutely, thank you. Buck. How crazy
Speaker 1: is the Left when it comes to the troll of language.
Speaker 1: It's a recurring theme on the show, My friends. I
Speaker 1: like to talk to you about it because the Left
Speaker 1: thinks that they can and sometimes do, win debates merely
Speaker 1: by telling us what words we can use in the debate,
Speaker 1: what words we can use in the discussion. And in
Speaker 1: something called Common Wheel magazine, which I had never heard
Speaker 1: of before I saw this piece on my alma mater,
Speaker 1: Amherst College, which looks all New England e and cutesy
Speaker 1: and all the stuff you see the literature online, and
Speaker 1: you know it's one of the more elite liberal arts colleges.
Speaker 1: You know, that's write a little pat on the back there.
Speaker 1: Who cares? Well? Apparently I do, because I just brought
Speaker 1: it up. But no I don't, But yes I do,
Speaker 1: But no I don't, But no, it's really a school
Speaker 1: that you would think has its feet on the ground
Speaker 1: based on the way it projects itself. But when I
Speaker 1: was there, it was already losing its mind, and now
Speaker 1: it has just completely gone wacko. There's a piece up
Speaker 1: on something called the Common Language Guide, the Common Language Guide,
Speaker 1: and this is from the Amirst College Office of Diversity
Speaker 1: and Inclusion. Now Amerst only has eighteen hundred students and
Speaker 1: has an Office of Diversity and Inclusion staff of twenty people.
Speaker 1: There are twenty full time staffers whose only job is
Speaker 1: just to talk about diversity and inclusion at this school
Speaker 1: where there are only eighteen hundred students. To begin with
Speaker 1: the table, I gotta walk you through some of this.
Speaker 1: The table of contents. General terminology is ms race and ethnicity,
Speaker 1: gender and gender identity, sexual and romantic identity, class, politics
Speaker 1: and policy, global power, and inequality and disability. This is
Speaker 1: fascinating and it is a very interesting look into the
Speaker 1: mind of the AOC far left Bernie Sanders esque wing
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party today. It lays out with surprising
Speaker 1: specificity terminology like accomplice, which I hadn't heard in this
Speaker 1: context before, and this is what it So, there's a
Speaker 1: term that the left, and some of this is I
Speaker 1: just want you to hear some of the left wing
Speaker 1: words that they are now using in order to win debate,
Speaker 1: to win discussion, and we are told that we should
Speaker 1: all use these as well. Ally is somebody who does
Speaker 1: things the left likes. So if you are very pro
Speaker 1: and this is all covered in this Amherst College Common
Speaker 1: Language Guide, to keep in mind it's so Orwellian because
Speaker 1: this is uncommon language. This is terms that they've either
Speaker 1: changed the definition of or made up wholesale. So that
Speaker 1: brings me to things like ally, which is if you
Speaker 1: do things the left likes, you're an ally, you're one
Speaker 1: of the good people. Accomplice is one of the bad people.
Speaker 1: This is quote a term coined by the Indigenous Action
Speaker 1: Network to critique the ways in which ally, as an
Speaker 1: identity term, has been deployed absence of action, accountability, or
Speaker 1: risk taking. There has been some critique of this because
Speaker 1: of its association with criminality, when many marginalized communities are
Speaker 1: viewed as already always criminal. Okay, let me unpack this
Speaker 1: a little bit. Or we're taking a drive down. We're
Speaker 1: going off the rails into left wing crazy train here.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening. They are using this term now to
Speaker 1: indict people who take a position that is non active
Speaker 1: right or rather or refused to take a position the
Speaker 1: left likes. So think of it this way. If you
Speaker 1: oppose the left, you're a bad guy. But if you
Speaker 1: just won't do anything, if you won't be an ally
Speaker 1: to left wing causes, then you are an accomplice to
Speaker 1: I guess right wing bad people causes. Right. That's the
Speaker 1: way they use this term. And their only problem with
Speaker 1: it is not that this will obviously be abused, but
Speaker 1: that the word accomplice kind of like some say the
Speaker 1: word thug has racial undertones. They're concerned that accomplice, because
Speaker 1: of its us the criminal use in the criminal justice system,
Speaker 1: has racial undertones. I don't know what to tell you, folks.
Speaker 1: This is it gets it gets crazier, it gets crazier.
Speaker 1: Here we go fragility, hegemony, horizontal violence, inclusion, intersectionality. Now
Speaker 1: you'll hear me talk. This is kind of like the
Speaker 1: one oh one Progressive Action vocab deep dive. That's what
Speaker 1: we're really doing here. So if you listen to this
Speaker 1: and you go through this, maybe maybe it's worth listening
Speaker 1: to this part of the show More Than Once podcast
Speaker 1: at My Friends Intersectionality, you hear me talk about it.
Speaker 1: Those who were like, what is that? Which is fine
Speaker 1: because I didn't know what intersectionality was until about two
Speaker 1: or three years ago, I think, and I'm somebody who
Speaker 1: likes to think of a pretty decent vocab Here's how
Speaker 1: they define. Intersectionality a term coined by Kimberly Crenshaw to
Speaker 1: name the intersections of multiple mutually reinforcing systems of oppression, power,
Speaker 1: and privilege. This was first used to describe the experiences
Speaker 1: of black women in the legal system. Intersectional theorists look
Speaker 1: at how the individual experience is impacted by multiple axes
Speaker 1: of oppression and privilege. These forces compound and complicate one another.
Speaker 1: Microaggressions the verbal nonverbal indignities and denigrating messages targeting people
Speaker 1: of historically and presently marginalized backgrounds that communicate hostile, derogatory,
Speaker 1: or negative slights and insults. The accumulation and frequency of
Speaker 1: such everyday occurrences can have a negative impact on the psychological, emotional,
Speaker 1: and physical well being of the person impacted. That's right, folks. Microaggressions,
Speaker 1: which the left beliefs can include and remember microaggressions added
Speaker 1: up are what creates intersectionality, which is the intersections of
Speaker 1: mutually reinforcing systems of oppression. Right, So intersectionality is the
Speaker 1: oppression matrix. Think of it that way, like we're all
Speaker 1: in the matrix. Neo intersectionality is the oppression matrix, and
Speaker 1: microaggressions are in some cases the not just subtle but
Speaker 1: unintentional and unknowing infractions of intersectionality. According to the Left,
Speaker 1: like in fractions that add up to intersectionality. So you
Speaker 1: don't think necessarily what you're doing is wrong. If you
Speaker 1: say to somebody who has a really funky name and
Speaker 1: it is clearly not American based on their accent, hey
Speaker 1: where are you from? You think that you're asking on
Speaker 1: a college campus. Hey, like you seem like you have
Speaker 1: a cool personal story, and I would like to establish
Speaker 1: some common ground with you as a human being who
Speaker 1: just respects and likes other human beings. So tell me
Speaker 1: where you're from, or tell me something about you, like
Speaker 1: you know where you grew up. Intersectionality and microaggression theory
Speaker 1: tells you how dare somebody assume that you are the other?
Speaker 1: You might say, well, hold on a second, their name
Speaker 1: is really unusual and their accent is really unusual. It's
Speaker 1: a pretty good no. You can't make that get you
Speaker 1: don't know. You don't know they came from some other place,
Speaker 1: and you're by asking them if they come from somewhere else,
Speaker 1: you are other rising them. Now, I'm sure that they
Speaker 1: would not apply this logic to somebody who's like, my
Speaker 1: name is fence Fence and video rgger like that's fine
Speaker 1: because spens Fencing doesn't fit into intersectional oppression theory, and
Speaker 1: therefore microaggressions against sence Fenson don't count. See what I'm
Speaker 1: doing where we're just we're really getting into how all
Speaker 1: this stuff, all this stuff ties together for the leftist.
Speaker 1: Then they got into their own definitions of oppression and
Speaker 1: prejudice and privilege and power and social identity and social justice,
Speaker 1: an anti oppression orientation to social and political organizations. That
Speaker 1: is the that is the definition that they use. Oh
Speaker 1: do you do you think? Do you think that we
Speaker 1: are even a little bit done with this common common
Speaker 1: language guide? Folks? Does this all sound common? How many
Speaker 1: of you walk around? And I gosh, like, am I
Speaker 1: intersectional like microaggression theory that I'm reading? Right now. It's
Speaker 1: just like really upsetting me and I feel triggered. I
Speaker 1: need a safe space. You don't use any of those
Speaker 1: words because you're you're not brainwashed by the left. They've
Speaker 1: created a whole separate way of speaking about reality that
Speaker 1: is steeped in a victim mindset, and that uses terms
Speaker 1: that not only signal to other people that they are
Speaker 1: part of the virtuous and good left, but that they
Speaker 1: use these terms because you're supposed to use them, and
Speaker 1: by using them, you are buying into the ideology. You know.
Speaker 1: This is like, instead of saying the legal aliens, say undocumented,
Speaker 1: instead of saying political correctness, talk about intersectionality, and everybody's
Speaker 1: going to know what side of that issue you're on,
Speaker 1: which is that political correctness is not something we have
Speaker 1: to worry about. Then they get into the isms able ism, ageism,
Speaker 1: six cis, sexism, classism, ethnocentrism, eurocentrism, heterosexism, racism, sexism. They
Speaker 1: have an a guide two isms here. You cannot make
Speaker 1: this stuff up, folks. This is and they're saying this
Speaker 1: is common. How many of you who have ever heard
Speaker 1: or said the word cis? I can't even read it.
Speaker 1: Cis sexism, which, if you're wondering, is the system of
Speaker 1: belief that cis gender individuals are the privileged class and
Speaker 1: are more natural, normal, or acceptable then transgender, gender, queer,
Speaker 1: nine bond, non binary, and or gender nonconforming. This belief
Speaker 1: manifests itself as the systematic denial of rights to trans
Speaker 1: and non binary people and their routine mistreatment. So if
Speaker 1: you have any issue at all with transgender rights, or
Speaker 1: transgenderism or the transgender transgender agenda, say that ten times fast.
Speaker 1: You are a cis sexist who is admitting microaggressions in
Speaker 1: a system of intersectionality and are opposed to social justice
Speaker 1: and are therefore an accomplice instead of an ally. See
Speaker 1: we did. They're bringing it all together, bringing it all home.
Speaker 1: There's more. The Amherst College president. Remember this is my college.
Speaker 1: I went here. I have very little affiliation with it.
Speaker 1: Now it has not gone on. Notice that they used
Speaker 1: to love to hear me talk about foreign policy to
Speaker 1: all the kids and invite me up there. And now no,
Speaker 1: I do not get invited up there. They do not
Speaker 1: want to hear from me because I'm conservative. Therefore it's
Speaker 1: it's like I'm the black sheep of the Amherst family.
Speaker 1: Now they pretend that I don't exist. They're not into
Speaker 1: the buster. I want to tell you what happened though
Speaker 1: on campus, because this was so bizarre and so radical
Speaker 1: a document that the president took it down. But just
Speaker 1: do you think that Do you think it stopped their folks? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: it goes on. Let's keep this deep dive going. So
Speaker 1: we're back talking about this college Common Language Guide that
Speaker 1: was put out that is really a piece by piece
Speaker 1: explanation that goes through the words you're supposed to use,
Speaker 1: the very politically charged and very specifically chosen and manufactured
Speaker 1: words and concepts that go along with them that favor
Speaker 1: left wing, very progressive ideology. And here's a there's an
Speaker 1: analysis of it written by Rand Cooper, who's an also
Speaker 1: an Amerst alum, And this just gives you a sense
Speaker 1: of what this guide is like. Quote, reading the guide
Speaker 1: is like stumbling into a trade journal article where specialized
Speaker 1: language demarcates territory and warns off intruders, bristling with acronyms
Speaker 1: and niche designations. It elaborates a system of identity via
Speaker 1: a profusion of phyla QTPoC af ab assigned female at
Speaker 1: birth FtM, mx x TX a response by trans folks
Speaker 1: who reject the terms FtM and MTF. I don't, folks,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what this stuff is, and I
Speaker 1: read about this a fair amount. We wander into the
Speaker 1: internal gender politics squabbles, as when we learned that boy,
Speaker 1: a term describing a masculine presenting queer Black woman whose
Speaker 1: gender presentation can be more fluid and or androgynous than
Speaker 1: completely masculine, was purposely coined to be different from stud
Speaker 1: ag aggressive girl because of the rigid conformity to masculinity
Speaker 1: in those communities. Meanwhile, TURF trans exclusionary radical feminist denotes
Speaker 1: feminists who reject trans women because they were once boys.
Speaker 1: While this view has been rejected by most queer and
Speaker 1: trans communities, the guide notes that TURF ideology still does
Speaker 1: infiltrate many women's spaces. End quote. I mean, I have
Speaker 1: no idea what the heck I just read to you, Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, and I'm somebody who spends a fair amount
Speaker 1: of time trying to understand the left and leftist ideology,
Speaker 1: and you know, trans exclusionary radical feminist. That is my
Speaker 1: first ever experience with that, which which yeah, that's the
Speaker 1: thing that we're talking about here. And then you get
Speaker 1: into some other stuff. I mean, this is there is
Speaker 1: a the common language guide, and this does feel very
Speaker 1: soviet in a way. Is the most uncommon language imaginable
Speaker 1: because it's it's made up. It's made up language. It's
Speaker 1: words that did not exist until about five minutes ago.
Speaker 1: And now we're in a situation where if you don't
Speaker 1: use these terms, who don't understand these terms? You are?
Speaker 1: Who wants who come on class? Who's who knows what
Speaker 1: you are? Ah, yes, that's right. You are part of
Speaker 1: the problem because you, my friend, are an accomplice instead
Speaker 1: of an ally Dividing people in this way, it's a
Speaker 1: very very powerful tool to get social you know, social obedience.
Speaker 1: This author that wrote is Peace writes another basic problem
Speaker 1: lies in its language. Amorous Guy defines social justice as
Speaker 1: a vision of the world where all people and can
Speaker 1: live and be perceived as fully human on all levels.
Speaker 1: But if this is the vision animating the document, then
Speaker 1: why does it sound so non human? Trapped in its
Speaker 1: arid jargon, one thirst for something resembling living language. Instead,
Speaker 1: what we get is an endless proliferation of bureaucratic dicta
Speaker 1: and a roster of attitudes ordained by FIAT, and so
Speaker 1: it may have originated in a search for understanding intolerance
Speaker 1: devolves into a relentless categorization of human experience, driven by
Speaker 1: a nearly compulsive preoccupation with the ways people can and
Speaker 1: wound one another. Yeah, this is language that I have
Speaker 1: to say, is meant to shut down debate. That's what's
Speaker 1: so fascinating about this. This is language that if you
Speaker 1: use it, you are essentially waiving. The white flag was
Speaker 1: out a microaggression. I don't know, can I say white
Speaker 1: flag not clear? If you embrace the terminology, you are
Speaker 1: accepting all that goes into it. If you don't understand
Speaker 1: or reject the terminology, then you're part of a problem.
Speaker 1: This was so orwelly in and out of control that
Speaker 1: the president of Amherst College, Carolyn Martin, who might I
Speaker 1: can't say I know or have met. The former president
Speaker 1: Amerge used to be Marks was his last name. I
Speaker 1: kid you not, and President Marks at my college graduation
Speaker 1: told all of us instead of Hey, great job, guys,
Speaker 1: here's some advice for the future. That Amherst was not
Speaker 1: living up to its social justice obligations because while you
Speaker 1: guys got to go here, a lot of people with
Speaker 1: less economic means did not, So we need to take
Speaker 1: in more poor people who don't pay. It's a great
Speaker 1: thing to say to a whole bunch of people whose
Speaker 1: families and the students with massive student loans and families
Speaker 1: that really, in many cases took quite a hit struggle
Speaker 1: to pay for the tuition. But Carolyn Martin initially took
Speaker 1: it down. This common language guide from Ambers College, where
Speaker 1: you get all the different left wing jargon jammed into
Speaker 1: one document. She took it down. She said that this
Speaker 1: is not something that is going to representative of where
Speaker 1: the school should be ideologically, and you know, she had
Speaker 1: some problems with it, at least the way it was presented.
Speaker 1: Rock and roll, fellow patriots, we made ours go up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll call, indeed Friday roll call,
Speaker 1: which is bittersweet because bitter sweet symphony. That's life is
Speaker 1: what we have to handle right now. Trying to make
Speaker 1: some money, trying to sell some something. Then you die.
Speaker 1: I don't, I forget what the you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about, Mark, It's a good song. Everybody who's my
Speaker 1: age secretly loves Bitter Sweet Symphony. Right, yeah, fun fact
Speaker 1: about that song or not so fun, depending on who
Speaker 1: you are. They sampled some Rolling Stones music in it
Speaker 1: without giving any legal attribution or payment, and so the
Speaker 1: you know, the Rolling Stones actually own the rights to
Speaker 1: that song. Isn't that pretty crazy? As if the Rolling
Speaker 1: Stones need the cash, But you mess with the Stones,
Speaker 1: you get the rock sun. So they do it all right.
Speaker 1: Let's see here we have a first up well that
Speaker 1: is long Buck after three years, is from Thomas of
Speaker 1: ever escalating invasion of our southern border. Don't you think
Speaker 1: it is time we get some direct, real answers from
Speaker 1: the intransigent progressives, simply yes or no answers like the
Speaker 1: ones always insisted on by these snobs at these oversight
Speaker 1: interrogation hearings. Does the US have or not have active
Speaker 1: embassies in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: Does the immigration law specify that anyone requesting refugee or
Speaker 1: a silent status apply at the nearest embassy or consulate?
Speaker 1: Yes or no? Would it not be less of an
Speaker 1: encumbrance an expense to transport a dozen lawyers to each
Speaker 1: of those countries to process applications for refugee or asylum
Speaker 1: status rather than have ten thousand of them illegally lawyering
Speaker 1: in our country awaiting status determination, yes or no. Where
Speaker 1: is the benefit of having thirty five million illegals in
Speaker 1: this country absorbing benefits intended for actual US citizens? Why
Speaker 1: are we spending US tax payermoney on third world countries
Speaker 1: that refuse to cooperate with our laws? What is the
Speaker 1: purpose of having foreign embassies and consults of citizens of
Speaker 1: foreign countries refuse to comply, etc. Thomas very interesting thoughts
Speaker 1: and analysis here. The difference between a asylum claim and
Speaker 1: a refugee claim, I believe is that asylum claims happen
Speaker 1: inside the United States, so you get into you get
Speaker 1: to America and say I want asylum. Refugees apply externally
Speaker 1: to US borders, So that is an important distinction. Brian
Speaker 1: writes Buck good opening on Rising today on Biden's run. Wow,
Speaker 1: somebody who is part of team Buck who watches Rising?
Speaker 1: That's that's always fun. Why is nobody on either side
Speaker 1: of the media game talking about Biden and his son
Speaker 1: along with then Secretary of State John Kerry and his
Speaker 1: stepson's blatant corruption in Ukraine and China some seriously messed
Speaker 1: up stuff that Glenn Beck went into detail on last week. Week.
Speaker 1: No one is picking up on it on any network
Speaker 1: outside the Blaze. Well, I can tell you, actually, my
Speaker 1: my colleague John Solomon has broken some big stories on
Speaker 1: this one. John has been on the forefront of it.
Speaker 1: So yes, indeed, my colleague John Solomon and the executive
Speaker 1: director for Digital to Hill. He has been really the
Speaker 1: one pushing this story. And I think Glenn probably picked
Speaker 1: up on some of his reporting. But Brian, we talk
Speaker 1: about it here on the show. You know, I should
Speaker 1: have John on probably next week. Maybe I'll do that.
Speaker 1: Maybe you've given me quite an idea, my friend. I
Speaker 1: like it. I like it like that, Yeah, baby, I
Speaker 1: like it like that. You guys remember that. I get so,
Speaker 1: I get so. I like it. Like Mark, that is
Speaker 1: not quite as good of a song, But I refuse
Speaker 1: to believe that you have never had a few shots
Speaker 1: off to kill it too many and swayed those hips.
Speaker 1: My friend, Maybe not to that song, but I've done
Speaker 1: that all right, fair enough, fine, be that way. Corey
Speaker 1: rights the chief from the classic Beverly Hills cop that's
Speaker 1: the quote. Wow, look at you. There's just the man
Speaker 1: who wrecked the buffet at the Harrow Club this morning,
Speaker 1: who disabled an unmarked unit with a banana. You must
Speaker 1: be the pride of your department. If you go listen
Speaker 1: to that on the YouTube or something, you're gonna say, Wow,
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton really does sound like that crotchety old police commissioner.
Speaker 1: You will say that that will be how you feel.
Speaker 1: Podcast listener just heard the Beverly Hills cop quote Brian
Speaker 1: Original Saturday Squad. All right, so a lot of you owen. Yes,
Speaker 1: I got the Beverly Hills cop reference from Thursday's show,
Speaker 1: just playing it on Google Play. All right, but alright,
Speaker 1: alright you guys. You know you guys got me here,
Speaker 1: But savor the flavor. It's not gonna happen again. Well,
Speaker 1: actually know it probably will happen again. TJ rites ps.
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino had your rising clip on his podcast this morning.
Speaker 1: Ye ye, M I gotta I gotta tell you guys something.
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino has always been a super nice and stand
Speaker 1: up guy to be in this business. And there are
Speaker 1: not that many people that I could say that I've
Speaker 1: interacted with who have gone out of their way to
Speaker 1: be helpful, and you know they're being helpful. So I'm
Speaker 1: a I really am a big Dan Bongino supporter. I
Speaker 1: think he's a great dude, and I think it's really
Speaker 1: cool to see him have a I mean, he's at
Speaker 1: a breakout in the last twelve or eighteen months where
Speaker 1: he's really now built built a Dan Bongino empire, and
Speaker 1: I'm happy for him. And he's a great dude, and
Speaker 1: he has been a behind the scenes friend to Team
Speaker 1: Buck for for years now. Oh and also DJ wrote
Speaker 1: this Buck, go ahead and tell Jamal that his new
Speaker 1: nickname for Elizabeth Warren e Ubs is lame. She should
Speaker 1: just embrace Pokahonas instead. Her path the nomination just around
Speaker 1: the Riverband? Huh huh, well, okay, um hmmm. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's gonna work, my friend, I don't know
Speaker 1: what just around? Oh? Is that? Is that from the
Speaker 1: movie Pocahontas? Mark fact check? Is that from Just Around
Speaker 1: the Riverband? Is that from like Pocahonas? I'm in kind
Speaker 1: of a singing mood today, all right, Taylor Beverly Hills
Speaker 1: cop reference, Jeremy Beverly Hills cop reference. All right, all right,
Speaker 1: you guys, Yeah, yeah, you got me. I gotta make
Speaker 1: a little harder for this team. The movie quotes, the
Speaker 1: sly movie quotes maybe aren't sly enough. That is from Pokahontas.
Speaker 1: It is from Pocahonas. Just google. I just always know
Speaker 1: that one that's like, can you sing with all the
Speaker 1: voices of the mountain? I'm like, I don't think the
Speaker 1: mountain has voices, and I don't think the wind has
Speaker 1: colors with which one can paint. So to paint with
Speaker 1: all the colors of the wind, I don't think that
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense. Pokehontas, maybe write some lyrics
Speaker 1: that makes just putting that out there. Jeremy also writes
Speaker 1: Mayor Bill Deblasio, proposing a green new Deal and regulations
Speaker 1: for NYC and hearing about Connecticut's unreasonably high taxes further
Speaker 1: reinforces my choice to live in the middle of the country.
Speaker 1: I think you should consider moving off the coast and inland,
Speaker 1: where your dream four hundred square foot apartment will cost
Speaker 1: about the same as your cell phone bill versus the
Speaker 1: cost of a kidney in DC. Just food for thought.
Speaker 1: Shields high, Jeremy, if we can set up a major
Speaker 1: media hub where I can find gainful employment in the
Speaker 1: middle of the country. That sounds great to me. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, Unfortunately, I gotta I gotta be where the
Speaker 1: jobs are for somebody in my business, and that tends
Speaker 1: to be New York and DC. If you're gonna do politics, Kimberly,
Speaker 1: I'm not usually one to fuss, but I'm making an
Speaker 1: exception the podcast. Your voice is so low. I had
Speaker 1: the volume up in twenty six. Still love you, bunches,
Speaker 1: Oss Kimberly. Well, Kimberly, I don't think that was a
Speaker 1: problem for everybody, so it might just be your setup.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you yeah, your nay, but I haven't
Speaker 1: heard that from it. Usually when I get three or
Speaker 1: four complaints about podcast issue, volume or something, that's usually
Speaker 1: on our end. But if it's just one I've only
Speaker 1: seen one today, then it's usually on somebody else. Although
Speaker 1: Glenn just wrote in here here we go, Glenn, Hey,
Speaker 1: podcast listener, I heard you talking about the Avengers movie.
Speaker 1: I wanted to point out that every time I see
Speaker 1: the movie Captain America Winter Soldier, I can't help but
Speaker 1: think how the bad guys Hydra are a textbook definition
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party. They want to eliminate all conservative
Speaker 1: and potential opposition with their warships. Ask Mark if he
Speaker 1: made that connection, Mark, did you make that connection? I
Speaker 1: try to separate politics in my fun movies, so no,
Speaker 1: I don't think of it that way. That's probably a
Speaker 1: smart move, dude, you know, because see I have this
Speaker 1: thing where I try to do that as well. But
Speaker 1: if somebody really goes out there as a actor and
Speaker 1: says just crazy, annoying things, I can't I don't know.
Speaker 1: I can't always let it go, you know. I wish
Speaker 1: I was better with that, but I'm certain actors kind
Speaker 1: of I mean, Tim Robbins for a while was just insufferable.
Speaker 1: Oh my friend with the chihuahua that tries to pee
Speaker 1: on my foot during the interview, Alissa Milano, that's right,
Speaker 1: that chihuahua. It smelled conservative on me and tried to
Speaker 1: replace it with some other smell. That's what happens. I
Speaker 1: don't remember his name. He was a decrepit little chiuaua,
Speaker 1: not quite as decrepit as the docks in with the
Speaker 1: bad back that tried to bite my face off at
Speaker 1: the baby shower in New Jersey. Story that many of
Speaker 1: you have heard perhaps a story I'll have to tell
Speaker 1: you another time. It's just an important safety tip for
Speaker 1: all of you. Just because a dog looks decrepit and
Speaker 1: super old doesn't mean without knowing the dog or the
Speaker 1: getting the owner's permission, you should try to lift it
Speaker 1: up like a baby near your face. It is a
Speaker 1: bad move, even with a docsent looks like it could
Speaker 1: have a heart attack at any moment. It is not smart.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm here for to keep you guys safe. Thomas,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. The Avengers Superhero. A lot of
Speaker 1: movies are subpar at best. I try to like them.
Speaker 1: I just can't do it. Shields High, I mean, Thomas,
Speaker 1: to me, the Avenger movie, it's like all this you know,
Speaker 1: noise and you're whoo and all these guys flying around ohoo,
Speaker 1: and all this stuff that's going on, and yeah, there's
Speaker 1: not a lot beyond that, you know, it's just it's
Speaker 1: and it's always I feel like the movie always ends
Speaker 1: the same way. There's just a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: the Earth is gonna end, but then there's all these
Speaker 1: people flying around or monsters or something, and the Avengers
Speaker 1: and Hulk is like Hulk strong and like grabs them
Speaker 1: thing and smash Hulk smash, and then you got Iron
Speaker 1: Man who's shooting ray guns out of his hands, out
Speaker 1: of his out of his you know wherever. Julian, Beverly
Speaker 1: Hills Cop, you are correct, not a bad impression either,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Julian. I think that. I think that Beverly
Speaker 1: Hills Cop commissioner impression is one of my one of
Speaker 1: my sleepers, one of my better ones. Wayne Buck love
Speaker 1: the beard. Thank you so much. Wayne. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: You know, people are very they're very It's interesting because
Speaker 1: I've never been personally subject to this before. They're either
Speaker 1: really into the beard or they're like shave. Now. There's
Speaker 1: not a lot of middle ground from the folks that
Speaker 1: I know in life. So that's the thing. Oh it's Friday,
Speaker 1: so we've got double roll call. Remember Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton. If you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the roll call action, that is the way to
Speaker 1: do it. You can just write it on Facebook and
Speaker 1: I always loving people go I don't know if this
Speaker 1: is the right place, but I'm gonna write. Trust me,
Speaker 1: if you're writing me a Facebook message at Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slashbuck Sexton, it's the right place. I believe my
Speaker 1: friend Rahim Kasam is going to be in for me
Speaker 1: on Monday. I'm taking a couple of days of R
Speaker 1: and R, which I'm very much looking forward to. Hopefully
Speaker 1: you get some sunshine. But not time for that quite yet.
Speaker 1: We got a little more roll call on the flip side.
Speaker 1: Stay with me, seeing Buck, it's time for rollball. It
Speaker 1: is time for the role call. The best call is
Speaker 1: the role call. I guess this is the second role call,
Speaker 1: so maybe I shouldn't be quite as excited, but I
Speaker 1: get excited. Folks. I like to hear from all of you.
Speaker 1: Harry sent me a link that I cannot read on
Speaker 1: air because it's a link. Roger Buck, my question should
Speaker 1: have been more clear the leftist catterwall about student loan
Speaker 1: debt and how college should be free. How is it
Speaker 1: fair for some to risk their lives to earn their
Speaker 1: college education while others do nothing? Shields high. Now, Roger's
Speaker 1: a very good point, you know. I mean, the GI
Speaker 1: bill is earned. The GI Bill is the American people
Speaker 1: fulfilling their end of a contract with our brave men
Speaker 1: and women who serve this country in the military. Right,
Speaker 1: That's that's an earned thing. That's not a giveaway. That's
Speaker 1: you know, I give you money, you give me apples. Right,
Speaker 1: This is a transaction, and if you don't give somebody
Speaker 1: money for their apples, that's not good. We owe this
Speaker 1: to those who served. That's a different thing than people saying, wow,
Speaker 1: I just think it'd be nice to give free college
Speaker 1: to folks. Victor Or as hey Buck not familiar with
Speaker 1: the Mormon faith, ay, I recommend going to see the
Speaker 1: Book of Mormon on Broadway. It'll tell you everything you
Speaker 1: need to know. Plus it's absolutely the funniest thing I've
Speaker 1: seen since Team America World Police. I'm sure their temples
Speaker 1: are swell. Still no comparison to European Catholic cathedrals and churches.
Speaker 1: Shields High. Love you, Victor. Victor, I can tell you
Speaker 1: I did see the Book of Mormon, and I remember
Speaker 1: when my former boss and now longtime friend and mister
Speaker 1: Glenn Beck saw the Book of Mormon, and I remember
Speaker 1: hearing them talk about it a bit. I thought it
Speaker 1: was a little profane. I thought it was a little
Speaker 1: there was a little too much cursing for me. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who is proof, but I do think
Speaker 1: that there there are some limits, and I didn't love
Speaker 1: it as much as a lot of other people. So
Speaker 1: there is that. Mary writes, I just fell in love
Speaker 1: with you, Billy, I mean Buck. Oh Mary, look at
Speaker 1: you with your own Beverly Hills Cop quote throwing that
Speaker 1: my way. I like it, Mary, I wish your show
Speaker 1: would do a special investigative report on members of Congress
Speaker 1: who owe the i RS tax money and are behind
Speaker 1: on their payments. Mary. I like that you're coming up
Speaker 1: with ideas for the show, but I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that one specifically is gonna turn
Speaker 1: out the masses. If you know what I mean, David,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna fall for the banana the tailpipe, Rosewood.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work. Buck, You guys really, I
Speaker 1: got a lot of Beverly Hills Cop fans in this audience.
Speaker 1: Look at that dude, you guys. Uh yeah, there you go.
Speaker 1: Katie writes, you are a talented analyst and talk show host.
Speaker 1: Please don't sing man who let the dogs out? Oh
Speaker 1: oh sorry, Katie, I know it's terrible. It's terrible. I
Speaker 1: should code read myself. Let's see Pablo rights, Buck, it
Speaker 1: was funny when you said that Biden should do the opposite.
Speaker 1: An hour prior to that, I just watched the Seinfeld
Speaker 1: episode the opposite. Biden could run on that premise alone.
Speaker 1: He could give it a good run. Shield side. Thanks, Pablo.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, if you're talking about foreign policy
Speaker 1: and you do whatever the opposite is of whatever Joe
Speaker 1: Biden wants you to do, you're gonna be in real
Speaker 1: good shape. You know, you're you're gonna you're gonna be
Speaker 1: right a lot more than you're wrong. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: an important one. Jonathan writes, When you were at the border,
Speaker 1: did anyone ever mention the correlation between the surgeon caravan
Speaker 1: numbers and the surge and the drug a drug epidemic.
Speaker 1: I read in the Washingtimes the cartels are using the
Speaker 1: caravans as a distraction all the border patrols overwhelmed doing
Speaker 1: humanitarian work. The cartels sneak through their stuff, an age
Speaker 1: old military tactic where you offer a diversion while the
Speaker 1: real job is being done. In fact, to be stupid
Speaker 1: for the cartels not to do it, Jonathan, the cartels
Speaker 1: one hundred percent are doing that. I know they're doing that.
Speaker 1: Border patrol told me they're doing that. It happens on
Speaker 1: a regular basis. They know what's happened. There's nothing they
Speaker 1: can do about it, though. They have to process. If
Speaker 1: they get three hundred people to turn themselves in at
Speaker 1: once in the border, they have to process. They have
Speaker 1: to check them for medical issues. They have to take
Speaker 1: them the hospital if need be. They got to get
Speaker 1: them food. They can't say, oh, no, we see a
Speaker 1: truck two miles down, We got to stop and leave
Speaker 1: you guys alone here. And no, if they leave them alone,
Speaker 1: guess what then they can just run into the country.
Speaker 1: So that's not how it works anyway. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much team for joining me here on this fantastic freestyle Friday.
Speaker 1: I will be talking to you all on Tuesday. Please
Speaker 1: tell somebody about the show this weekend. Be like, hey,
Speaker 1: listen to this guy on podcast, Buck Sexton. He's kind
Speaker 1: of fun sometimes, except when he sings Shield's Eye.