Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. After the Attorney General
Speaker 1: had to deal with an onslaught of character assaults today
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill. He should look at the rest of
Speaker 1: the left and say, are you not entertained? Because he
Speaker 1: crushed those fools. We'll talk about what this means for
Speaker 1: the Muller Report going forward and also the Inspector General
Speaker 1: investigation to find out about how the deep state spine
Speaker 1: got going. Plus updates on Venezuela and a whole lot
Speaker 1: more gone up on the Buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the bus Sexton Show where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Magnom mistake,
Speaker 1: you're a great American Again, The Buck Sexton Show begins
Speaker 1: an he's a great guy. No, welcome to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sex and Show. Everybody. Quite a show today here in
Speaker 1: the swamp in Washington, DC. Case you didn't know what
Speaker 1: the swamp is, I know you all do, but I
Speaker 1: guess technically, for accuracy's sake, I should refer to it
Speaker 1: as Washington, d C. Where I am coming to you
Speaker 1: right now with this show, doing it doing it live, Well,
Speaker 1: we'll do it live from DC. And he had the
Speaker 1: Attorney General getting all kinds of heat, as we knew
Speaker 1: he would from the Democrats, the desperate Democrats looking for something,
Speaker 1: anything to latch onto in their Trump deranged fantasy of
Speaker 1: Russia collusion and obstruction. And you know, if they if
Speaker 1: they had one really decent candidate, if they had one
Speaker 1: really decent can to date for the presidency, maybe they'd
Speaker 1: be a little bit less reliant on trying to jam
Speaker 1: these narratives into the brains of the American people. But
Speaker 1: it's just not going to work. It's just not going
Speaker 1: to work. In fact, if anything, I think today was
Speaker 1: a victory thanks to the efforts of Attorney General bar
Speaker 1: a victory for those of us who want answers about
Speaker 1: what was done to Trump, not what Trump did, what
Speaker 1: was done to Trump. The Democrats today on the committee
Speaker 1: up on Capitol Hill came after bar with everything they had.
Speaker 1: They did everything that they could to make him look
Speaker 1: like he was a pro Trump partisan, that he was
Speaker 1: not ethical back and they failed. For any honest observer,
Speaker 1: they failed. And it was worse than that for the
Speaker 1: Democrats because if you watch some of the hearing, which
Speaker 1: I know you have lives and jobs and families, so
Speaker 1: you didn't but I had to. And when you were
Speaker 1: watching the hearings, what you saw were Democrats who were
Speaker 1: also unnerved by the fact that Bar's not backing down.
Speaker 1: Bar is not backing down from any of what he
Speaker 1: has said in the past. He's not going to get
Speaker 1: pushed into irrelevancy. He's not going to bend the knee
Speaker 1: to the Democrats and their little media lackeys. He knows
Speaker 1: what went on here. He knows what happened when they
Speaker 1: tried to push him, for example, on the spying on
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign, which absolutely happened, and he has said, oh,
Speaker 1: I'll look into whether it was legit, but they spied,
Speaker 1: And just keep repeating that to yourself whenever you need
Speaker 1: a little bit of a sanity check when you're surrounded
Speaker 1: by Democrat lefties who think that Trump was taken orders
Speaker 1: from putin. The Obama administration allowed, and increasingly looks like
Speaker 1: ordered from the top spying on the Trump presidential campaign
Speaker 1: using the United States intelligence community. This is the biggest
Speaker 1: political scandal of my lifetime. There's no question about it.
Speaker 1: And the word spying applies. Barr said today when pushed
Speaker 1: on this, that he thought it was quote a good
Speaker 1: English word and notes all the faux outrage because the
Speaker 1: press uses it routinely. They've used it tons of times.
Speaker 1: They didn't mind the use of the word spying when
Speaker 1: they thought that it was leading to a conclusion that
Speaker 1: the president of the United States committed treason essentially and
Speaker 1: cheated in an election. Then they thought spine because it
Speaker 1: added to the gravity, it added to the seriousness of
Speaker 1: the charges. Right then they thought, oh, absolutely, we'll use
Speaker 1: the term spying. But now that we know that there
Speaker 1: was no crime, now that we know that Trump was
Speaker 1: the guy that they set up, And I like the
Speaker 1: word spy because of the connotation, because, oh, spying is serious.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, spying is very serious. And that's why this,
Speaker 1: I think sent a shiver up some spines, not just
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill today, but here in the center of
Speaker 1: the swamp where some of the federal bureaucracies like the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, like the FBI are located. When Barr,
Speaker 1: when asked about this said quote, many people seem to
Speaker 1: assume the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single
Speaker 1: confidential informant and a fis a warrant. I'd like to
Speaker 1: find out if that is in fact true. What if
Speaker 1: the spying was even more extreme, more wide ranging, more
Speaker 1: intrusive than we have been led to believe. You and
Speaker 1: I both know that is almost certainly the case. Does
Speaker 1: anyone really think that there'll be some justification for this?
Speaker 1: Does anybody really think that there'll be information that can
Speaker 1: be pulled together in order to make it seem like
Speaker 1: this was legitimate, adequately predicated spying. Of course not, of
Speaker 1: course not. So Barr is going to use the word spying.
Speaker 1: He is going to find out the extent of the
Speaker 1: spying against Trump and his campaign and his associates. He's
Speaker 1: not going to apologize for this nonsense, sniveling, sanctimonious letter
Speaker 1: that was clearly dropped by Mueller the night before this
Speaker 1: hearing in order to make things more difficult for Bar.
Speaker 1: He's not going to back away and say, yeah, I
Speaker 1: was supposed what he's supposed to dance to Muther's tune
Speaker 1: on the release of this information. Who's the Attorney General?
Speaker 1: Mueller or Barr? Who's been confirmed by the Senate Mueller?
Speaker 1: Or are is Mueller all of a sudden the Senior
Speaker 1: Justice Department? Is he the attorney General? I just I
Speaker 1: would like some clarity on that from all the people
Speaker 1: saying that, well, you know, Barr didn't do things exactly
Speaker 1: as Muller would have wanted with the release. All that
Speaker 1: the all the Special Counsel has for his mandate in
Speaker 1: terms of the process is handing the report. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's what he gets to do. Barr then gets to
Speaker 1: determine whether it gets released at all, how much of
Speaker 1: it gets released, and he invited Muller to be a
Speaker 1: part of that process. He invited Muller to do what
Speaker 1: he could to make sure that they were all on
Speaker 1: board Mullard. Mullard said, no, Smuller's a little hack known
Speaker 1: this all along. Muller is the part is And these
Speaker 1: are terms you'll hear apply to Bar, but they're actually
Speaker 1: projecting Smuller. They knew exactly who they were getting. They
Speaker 1: knew exactly Komey's buddy. Anyone who's buddies with Komey is suspect,
Speaker 1: by the way, And I really mean that mccomi is
Speaker 1: a weirdo, a sanctimonious weirdo. And then there's another thing
Speaker 1: that might have gotten a bit of attention today. It
Speaker 1: might have gotten some people all of a sudden focused
Speaker 1: on this. There are active leak investigations going on. Attorney
Speaker 1: General bar confirmed that multiple leaks or investigations into leaks
Speaker 1: of classified information. I think that there's a new sheriff
Speaker 1: in town and his name is Bill Barr. And Democrats
Speaker 1: don't realize what they're really in for. When this Inspector
Speaker 1: General report comes out, when we have more information about
Speaker 1: what happened here, we're going to see. In my this
Speaker 1: is my prediction, we're going to see that the Obama
Speaker 1: administration not only refused to tell Trump about the alleged
Speaker 1: Russian penetration of efforts into his campaign, which is a
Speaker 1: huge red flag, but was complicit all along trying to
Speaker 1: destroy the Trump campaign and use the intelligence community and
Speaker 1: and FISA and the FBI to do it object disgrace,
Speaker 1: the dirtiest of politics from the Democrats. No surprise, We've
Speaker 1: got more coming up. Stay with me. My question was
Speaker 1: why did you say you were not aware of concerns
Speaker 1: when weeks before your testimony, mister Muller and expressed concerns too.
Speaker 1: That's a fairly simple, Well, I answered a question, and
Speaker 1: the question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing
Speaker 1: frustration over the accuracy relating to findings. I don't know
Speaker 1: what that refers to at all. I talked directly to
Speaker 1: Bob Muller, not members of his team. Bar was a
Speaker 1: boss today on Capitol Hill. It was just the Varsity
Speaker 1: against the jv today. It was a guy who why
Speaker 1: he's there, knows what he's doing, knows the law, against
Speaker 1: a bunch of just little, a little quizzling leftist political hacks.
Speaker 1: The Democrats trying to undermine this man, catch him in something,
Speaker 1: show him up, make him look bad. That's all this
Speaker 1: is about. They know they're not going to get anything real,
Speaker 1: they know they're not going to be able to unearth
Speaker 1: something that all of a sudden will change the narrative here.
Speaker 1: They're just looking to take shots at him. They're just
Speaker 1: looking to try to get him in a moment where
Speaker 1: he looks bad. And it didn't happen at all. Democrats
Speaker 1: look pathetic today, pathetic going after him and this whole
Speaker 1: thing with Muller's letter, which as we know, Oh why
Speaker 1: was the Mueller letter released last night? How did this happen? Folks? Oh?
Speaker 1: Is does anyone want to claim this is a coincidence?
Speaker 1: Is anybody that's stupid to think, well, Mazie Horono. Is
Speaker 1: that stupid? We'll talk about her later. Is anybody other
Speaker 1: than maze Horrono? That's stupid that they would think that
Speaker 1: this wasn't leaked to maximize the embarrassment to the Attorney
Speaker 1: General right before he goes on Capitol Hill, and keep on.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't be embarrassed at all. Mueller should be embarrassed.
Speaker 1: Muller is a little prima donna, a whiny, little self righteous,
Speaker 1: sanctimonious bureaucrat. Happens to a lot of people. It's been
Speaker 1: decades working for the federal bureaucracy. I'm just telling you
Speaker 1: it happens to a lot of them. They might start
Speaker 1: off as just good, honorable patriots, and there are a
Speaker 1: lot of good and honorable patriots in the federal bureaucracy still.
Speaker 1: But the people that rise up the ranks and they
Speaker 1: become institutionalist. First, the bureau becomes a single most important
Speaker 1: thing in the government, not the will of the American people,
Speaker 1: not the rule of law. The institutionalists, as we know,
Speaker 1: hate Trump. They have a seething, a seething rage toward
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. And I think Muller
Speaker 1: is in that category too. Mueller thinks that these institutions
Speaker 1: he served all of his life are so important and
Speaker 1: Trump Trump says mean things about them, and Trump therefore
Speaker 1: is a threat. This letter leaked. I thought Mueller didn't
Speaker 1: leak everybody. I thought Muller was just a tight ship.
Speaker 1: Oh you mean that he plays political games. You mean
Speaker 1: that this is the usual Potomac two step, the Potomac
Speaker 1: two step check. You'll keep this card in your pocket,
Speaker 1: and one day you'll need a favor. See who gets
Speaker 1: that reference. Yeah, that's right, that's right. Movie quotes when
Speaker 1: you don't expect them. I agree with the Newt new
Speaker 1: to Loot agree with Newt on the letter league here
Speaker 1: play twelve. I assume somebody wanted to leak it to
Speaker 1: maximize the embarrassment to bar and to set up the
Speaker 1: questions for the hearings in the next two days. You know, look,
Speaker 1: the deep state in Washington has played these games for
Speaker 1: the whole history of the country. This is not something
Speaker 1: new Muller could at any point have decided he wanted
Speaker 1: to refute it. And as I understand the actual key sentences,
Speaker 1: the distortion is by the news media. Yeah, Mueller's upset
Speaker 1: because the media didn't pick up the narrative that he
Speaker 1: wanted them to. That's not his job. That's not the
Speaker 1: thing that he was assigned to do. That's not his call.
Speaker 1: That would be like Mueller calling up to complain about
Speaker 1: the content the Bucks extent show. Sorry, Mueller special counsel
Speaker 1: doesn't get to make that decision. I do Mueller's whininess here, though,
Speaker 1: I'm glad this has been exposed. I'm glad that he
Speaker 1: was snitty, a very good word to use from the
Speaker 1: Attorney general here. I'm glad that that has been aired
Speaker 1: out for the American people so that we know who
Speaker 1: we were really dealing with all along. Mueller was a headhunter.
Speaker 1: Mueller was going for scalps from this administration. That was
Speaker 1: the purpose that he set himself to, not justice, not
Speaker 1: the sanctity of our democracy. Crap, total crap. And now
Speaker 1: they realize they have a formidable adversary, an adversary who
Speaker 1: does stand for justice, who does stand for sanity, common sense,
Speaker 1: respect for the rule of law, an attorney general Bar
Speaker 1: And that's why they spent so much of today just
Speaker 1: trying to find some way to make Bar look bad.
Speaker 1: But even slimy Sydney Bloomenthal, of course went after bar
Speaker 1: and here's how that went for in place seventeen. Recall
Speaker 1: about whether you gave information to somebody in the White
Speaker 1: House about an ongoing criminal investigation in the Southern District,
Speaker 1: New York, or the Eastern District, New York, or the
Speaker 1: Eastern District of Virginia, or the Department of Justice. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I just don't recall providing any substantive information
Speaker 1: about a case. Is there anything that would refresh your
Speaker 1: recollection if I probably looked over a list of cases
Speaker 1: and thought about it, But I don't recall. You know
Speaker 1: what those investigations are. We've discussed them at your confirmation
Speaker 1: here in correct. I think you're twelve or eighteen cases, right.
Speaker 1: You don't know what those investigations are, right generally, But
Speaker 1: I know I can't remember each of them. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you one last time. You can't recall whether you
Speaker 1: have discussed those cases with anyone in the White House,
Speaker 1: including the President United States. My recollection is I have
Speaker 1: not discussed those that you don't recall for sure, I
Speaker 1: can say very surely I did not discuss the substance
Speaker 1: of it. Will you recuse yourself from those investigations. No, yes,
Speaker 1: there it is no shut up Blumenthalia clown. I love
Speaker 1: this guy. Man is badgering him. He's you know or
Speaker 1: did you you know they's talking about over a dozen cases.
Speaker 1: Did you ever mention any of this to the president? Ever?
Speaker 1: And he's like, I mean not in substance, but you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm an attorney general. You know your clowney Andy,
Speaker 1: you know, Blumenthal thinks he's got him. Or will you
Speaker 1: recuse yourself? Oh you mean, will I Jeff Sessions myself? No,
Speaker 1: boom mic drop, deal with it. That's what they're up
Speaker 1: against now with Barr. They think that this is gonna
Speaker 1: be Jeff Sessions two or they're hoping it'll be Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions two point zero. You know, they can scare him
Speaker 1: into recusing himself and not standing up for the rule
Speaker 1: of law because in this instance, my friends, when you're
Speaker 1: talking about the Russia collusion fiasco, this this conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: made into a massive federal investigation to take down a president.
Speaker 1: That's what happened here. And when you're looking at that
Speaker 1: and you talk about somebody who is defending the rule
Speaker 1: of law, defending justice and the resumption of innocence and
Speaker 1: the integrity of the legal process we have. When you're
Speaker 1: talking about someone who does those things, they are by
Speaker 1: definition on the side of President Trump in this case.
Speaker 1: You cannot stand for justice in this whole mess. You
Speaker 1: cannot stand for the rule of law and not seem
Speaker 1: to be defending President Trump because President Trump is the
Speaker 1: wronged party here. And that's what the Democrats and their
Speaker 1: little media allies can't seem to wrap their very tiny
Speaker 1: brains around that. The reason that Barr looks so wrong
Speaker 1: to them and evil and bad and all this stuff
Speaker 1: is because by standing for rationality and reason and truth
Speaker 1: and fairness, he inherently seems like he's doing Trump's bidding
Speaker 1: to them, because all they have done is pervert those things,
Speaker 1: to undermine the process, to weaponize the intelligence community in
Speaker 1: the DOJ in an effort to get Trump. So anyone
Speaker 1: who stands in the way of their weaponization to them
Speaker 1: looks like the president's lackey. But in reality, the person
Speaker 1: who is standing in their way is doing what any
Speaker 1: attorney general should do. Because the Democrats have lost their
Speaker 1: minds and have abandoned any sense of fairness or decency
Speaker 1: in this process because they are that psychotically devoted to
Speaker 1: the destruction of President Trump. Maybe, look, we're almost at
Speaker 1: the end of the first term here. It's all been fine,
Speaker 1: meaning that the Trump presidency has worked out really well.
Speaker 1: It's been a good presidency. Hasn't been perfect, hasn't delivered
Speaker 1: all of his promises. We talk about that a lot,
Speaker 1: and we'll continue to talk about that, but it's been good.
Speaker 1: It's done a good job. It's way better than Hillary
Speaker 1: would have been. Economy strong, country feels like it's run
Speaker 1: by somebody that has a normal sense of what normal
Speaker 1: human beings want, and the left just hates him for it.
Speaker 1: They just hate him. I mean all of this. They
Speaker 1: can dress it up in whatever language they want, they
Speaker 1: can try and make it seem like it's something else,
Speaker 1: but they hate Trump. And because Bar is an obstacle
Speaker 1: to their pathological Trump hatred, now they hate bar too.
Speaker 1: And I just love Bars. No, I'm not gonna recuse myself. Please.
Speaker 1: He's too slick, he's too smart, he's too ethical, he's
Speaker 1: too honest for them, and they hate him because of it.
Speaker 1: Man A bar Bar did a great job today, and
Speaker 1: it is a reminder that you know, Trump hasn't always
Speaker 1: had the best people. But with this guy, he's got
Speaker 1: the best people. When it comes to the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. We'll be right back. Remember when the
Speaker 1: left called the Green New Deal bold, or how about
Speaker 1: their bold defensive anti semitism in the House. I think
Speaker 1: they're mistaking bold for something else, because the way I
Speaker 1: define bold is the taste of freedom I get every
Speaker 1: morning with my Black Rifle Coffee. Black Rifle delivers the
Speaker 1: best roast or coffee right to your door, and Black
Speaker 1: Rifles Coffee Club makes things easy. Just pick your blend
Speaker 1: and the amount you want, and Black Rifle ships your
Speaker 1: coffee right to your door every month, hassle free, no lines,
Speaker 1: no running out, just great coffee ship right to your
Speaker 1: door every month, hassle free. Plus, when you join their
Speaker 1: Coffee Club, you'll receive discounts and offers not available to
Speaker 1: other customers. When you drink Black Rifle Coffee, you're supporting
Speaker 1: a company that gives back to veteran and first responder causes,
Speaker 1: and serves coffee and culture to those who truly love America.
Speaker 1: For a bold cup of America's best coffee, visit Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot com, slash buck and get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash
Speaker 1: Buck Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck for twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: I think the bar should resign. He missed characterised the
Speaker 1: Mulla report. He should resign, and the interests of the
Speaker 1: department should step down. Dale Bar really should resign. The
Speaker 1: bar summary as misleading as this, allowing the White House
Speaker 1: to create this false narrative and misleads American people again,
Speaker 1: and then he does a press conference misleading American people.
Speaker 1: He should have never been confirmed and certainly not confirmed
Speaker 1: unless he committed to recusing himself from an investigation in
Speaker 1: which he had an obvious bias, went to Congress and
Speaker 1: lied and misrepresented Robert Muller's own viewpoints. Did the Attorney
Speaker 1: General lie to Congress? I think his statement is deliberately
Speaker 1: false and misleading, And yes, most people would consider that
Speaker 1: to be a lie. Lies, lies, lies, misrepresentation. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: so bad, he's so terrible. They never give you any specifics.
Speaker 1: They never tell you what did he lie about, what
Speaker 1: did he misrepresent? What did he say that was untrue?
Speaker 1: They've got nothing, They've got absolutely nothing, and they cling
Speaker 1: to this though, I mean, this is the central narrative.
Speaker 1: Undermine Bar, attack Bar because on the merits, not only
Speaker 1: is Bar beyond any reasonable criticism with anything he's done,
Speaker 1: but the overall story here does not change. There were
Speaker 1: no charges against the President United States about collusion or
Speaker 1: about obstruction. Didn't happen. Muller report. Muller took his best
Speaker 1: shot at Trump and it wasn't enough because it wasn't there.
Speaker 1: They don't have it. So now they're attacking Bar and
Speaker 1: they're freaking out. Oh but they did take a moment
Speaker 1: to stop and attack Lindsey Graham on this thing, too, placlabate.
Speaker 1: You have to have specific intent to obstruct justice if
Speaker 1: there's no underlying reluctant to do this. We rarely do.
Speaker 1: But the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that
Speaker 1: Muller found there was no collusion. That is not correct.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Lindsey Graham, but your defensiveness is showing. To
Speaker 1: talk about everything that went into it and the next
Speaker 1: breath is storted is a stunning, stunning mischaracterization of what
Speaker 1: the whole exercise is, especially about reveals what I talked
Speaker 1: about before, that he's sitting there today not as the
Speaker 1: chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but as a human shield
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump, and it would appear again we try
Speaker 1: to offer just a gavel to gavel coverage. But that phrase,
Speaker 1: or the lack of it, it's absence from federal code.
Speaker 1: This no collusion mantra. This is so important. I mean,
Speaker 1: Brian Williams is not a smart guy. He's an actor.
Speaker 1: He's an actor playing a smart news anchor on TV,
Speaker 1: and he's a decent actor. But also he's a fabricator.
Speaker 1: He got so used to playing other, playing somebody else
Speaker 1: on TV that he actually thought he was somebody else
Speaker 1: and you know, there he was killing Bin Laden with
Speaker 1: Seal Team six and oh wait, no he wasn't. But
Speaker 1: this attack on bar an attack on anybody who And
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham in this case, for saying no collusion, as
Speaker 1: though we're the ones, as though it's the folks that
Speaker 1: believed all along that Trump was being set up as
Speaker 1: he was, that this is an ambush, as it was,
Speaker 1: we're the problem here. They were the ones that insisted
Speaker 1: on this term collusion. They were the ones that kept
Speaker 1: on accusing the President of Russia. Collusion became shorthand for
Speaker 1: working with the Russians to cheat in the election. Now,
Speaker 1: I've said on this show many times that they are
Speaker 1: intentionally avoiding the term conspiracy so that when the time
Speaker 1: comes and here we are, when there are no criminal
Speaker 1: charges because there was no conspiracy, they will say, well,
Speaker 1: but collusion is the collusion is a willingness to work
Speaker 1: with somebody else, or collusion is whatever they say it is.
Speaker 1: This takes us back to how democrats and leftists want
Speaker 1: to pick the words we have to use, want to
Speaker 1: choose our language in these debates. For us, they chose
Speaker 1: collusion very intentionally, and now we see why they made
Speaker 1: us use the word collusion. And now they go, ha ha,
Speaker 1: there's there's no real crime. Although there is collusion when
Speaker 1: it comes to companies and price fixing that can be
Speaker 1: but you know, haha, there's no collusion. Why are they're
Speaker 1: saying there's no collusion because it's not really a thing. Well,
Speaker 1: they're the ones that insisted on this. That was the narrative.
Speaker 1: The narrative was collusion. It's not the Russia Trump conspiracy.
Speaker 1: It was Russia Trump collusion for two years. And now
Speaker 1: they act like it's on us. And now they put
Speaker 1: people like Maxine Waters forward, who you know, just all
Speaker 1: she does is yell about how everybody should be impeached
Speaker 1: all the time. Who casts a vote for Maxine Waters
Speaker 1: and feels good about themselves for doing it? I just
Speaker 1: I really am curious. I mean, we're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: Mazie Horono come up in a moment. Maizie Horono is
Speaker 1: the dumbest person in the entire United States Congress. Maxine
Speaker 1: Water is pretty close, though. Maxine Waters gives her some
Speaker 1: some real competition. And look, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: very dumb members of Congress, but Maxie Waters right up there,
Speaker 1: and she's taking this opportunity Capitol Hill, grandstanding today, a
Speaker 1: lot of cameras everywhere to say that not all I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, she's the one who says, you know, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.
Speaker 1: President Trump should impeached. Oh it's not just President Trump
Speaker 1: who should be impeached for what? Who knows, who cares,
Speaker 1: doesn't even matter, Just impeach you, that's her position. But
Speaker 1: that Bill Barr himself should be impeached and removed from
Speaker 1: office play clib six. I think that Barr should resign,
Speaker 1: and if he does not resign, he should be facing
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings. Also, he has abdicated on his responsibility. He
Speaker 1: has lied, He has used the very words coming right
Speaker 1: out of the president's mouth, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion,
Speaker 1: and made a decision that despite what the Special Counsel
Speaker 1: put into that report about a ruction of justice, he said,
Speaker 1: he made the decision that he had not obstructive justice.
Speaker 1: It is outrageous and he needs to go. What did
Speaker 1: he lie about? Can they just tell me how, bar Lie?
Speaker 1: Just once, just once, I'd like to know, what do
Speaker 1: you lie about? There is no collusion, folks, Okay, there
Speaker 1: is no crime of working with the Russians to the election.
Speaker 1: It didn't it didn't happen. So what are we talking
Speaker 1: about now? That the tortured logic and the violence done
Speaker 1: to language that Democrats are engaging in here just goes
Speaker 1: to show you there's no intellectual honesty, no decency, or
Speaker 1: integrity that they approach this issue with at all. It's
Speaker 1: just all politics, pure and simple. Who is the dumbest
Speaker 1: member of Congress. It's a tough competition. There are some
Speaker 1: real doozies. I mean there are some. There are some
Speaker 1: straight up dumb asses in Congress. Let's be honest about it, folks.
Speaker 1: We're friends. We can talk about this, right, we don't
Speaker 1: have to hold back. There are some dumb asses. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it is about a beautiful, incredible state
Speaker 1: like Hawaii that the people of Hawaii can't do better
Speaker 1: than than Mazie Harrono. But I would offer you you
Speaker 1: that she edges out, she edges out the the the
Speaker 1: dumbest members of Congress just a little bit. She's number one.
Speaker 1: I think she's number one. She is a level of
Speaker 1: stupidity that should never be in a position of authority.
Speaker 1: And the fact that she's in the not just the
Speaker 1: in the in the Congress, that she's a senator. She's
Speaker 1: not just one of the hundreds of members of the House,
Speaker 1: but she's one of the one hundred US senators. Hawaii,
Speaker 1: I love you. Your state's amazing, It's gorgeous. I probably
Speaker 1: want to live there. But what are you doing with
Speaker 1: Mazie Harona? Come on, I know those you listen to
Speaker 1: the show like Buck, I didn't vote for her, but still,
Speaker 1: come on, Hawaii, get your game together. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what manager Harona was saying today too. Just further embarrassed.
Speaker 1: We're gonna We're gonna do a little bit of an
Speaker 1: amazing session. Here. Here's what she said to bar Policlip fourteen.
Speaker 1: You called a press conference to once again try to
Speaker 1: clear Donald Trump before anyone had a chance to read
Speaker 1: the Special Consol's report and come to their own conclusions.
Speaker 1: But when we read the report, we knew Robert Mueller's
Speaker 1: concerns were valid and that your version of events was false.
Speaker 1: You used every advantage of your office to create the
Speaker 1: impression that the President was cleared of misconduct. You selectively
Speaker 1: quoted fragments from the Special Consol's report, taking some of
Speaker 1: the most important statements out of context and ignoring the rest.
Speaker 1: You put the power and authority of the Office of
Speaker 1: the Attorney General and the Department of Justice behind a
Speaker 1: public relations effort. She's a clown and a moron, and
Speaker 1: she's debasing her office with this statement that you'll note
Speaker 1: has has no substance to a substance to it whatsoever.
Speaker 1: He tried to clear Trump by releasing the entire report,
Speaker 1: which he did not have to do. He could have
Speaker 1: kept the entire reports secret, would have been completely He
Speaker 1: would have been completely within his power and authorities. Attorney
Speaker 1: generals say, Nope, the report's not going public, thank you.
Speaker 1: He released the whole thing with what less than five
Speaker 1: percent of it redacted. Oh and as to the redacted report,
Speaker 1: what two members of two Democrats in the Congress have
Speaker 1: actually read it. It's like they didn't even take the time.
Speaker 1: They didn't even care because they know there's nothing. There's
Speaker 1: nothing in those redactions that'll change anything. This is just
Speaker 1: all political theater for them. This is for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: this is an opportunity to try to score cheap points.
Speaker 1: And that's what she was doing there. She said Muller quote,
Speaker 1: Muller's concerns were valid, and your version of events was false.
Speaker 1: It was false. That's interesting because Muller never claimed that
Speaker 1: anything that the General Barr said was incorrect or untrue.
Speaker 1: Producer might just told me zero zero goose egg, not
Speaker 1: a zilch. Democrats have read the unredacted MULA report. Two
Speaker 1: Republicans have. They care so much about it that they
Speaker 1: don't care at all. I guess the Democrats, um, you know,
Speaker 1: they're they're not going to look into those secret sections
Speaker 1: because there's nothing in those secret sections to help their case.
Speaker 1: But Mazie Horrono says that the version of events that
Speaker 1: bar presented was false. Someone please tell Mazie Horono to
Speaker 1: go read a book, go read something, Go read the
Speaker 1: Maula report. How about that version of events was false?
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is a top mind. Mazie Horrono, I think
Speaker 1: would have would have difficulty trying to, you know, order
Speaker 1: off a menu with numbers off of it if her
Speaker 1: staff didn't put it in front of her. And here
Speaker 1: we are listening to her trash this man, trash him,
Speaker 1: trash his integrity. What a joke, an unfunny one at that.
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is like my legal spirit animal up there. Man,
Speaker 1: He's just answering all their questions. Knows this stuff backwards
Speaker 1: and forwards, and they're so seething men. They wish they
Speaker 1: had ab Jeff Sessions. I'm not gonna addsway headed questions today.
Speaker 1: You know they like that, They like dealing with Sessions.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to be mean about the guy, but
Speaker 1: you know they don't like dealing with Barry. This guy
Speaker 1: was ready and then some for this man. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration is lucky to have him in this role. But
Speaker 1: heron no, not enough for her to go out from
Speaker 1: one time decide that she needs to try to score
Speaker 1: more cheap political points. Play fifteen. You are no different
Speaker 1: from Rudy Giuliani or kellyank Hanway or any of the
Speaker 1: other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the
Speaker 1: grifter and lawyer who sits in the oble office. You
Speaker 1: once turned down a job offer from Donald Trump to
Speaker 1: represent him as his private attorney. At your confirmation hearing,
Speaker 1: you told Senator Feinstein that, quote the job of attorney
Speaker 1: general is not the same as representing and quote the president.
Speaker 1: So you know the difference. But you've chosen to be
Speaker 1: the president's lawyer and aside with him over the interests
Speaker 1: of the American people. To start with, you should never
Speaker 1: have been involved in supervising the Robert Mueller investigation. You
Speaker 1: wrote a nineteen page unsolicited memo which you admit was
Speaker 1: not based on any facts, attacking the premise of half
Speaker 1: of the investigation. And you also should have insisted that
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein recused himself. He wasn't just
Speaker 1: a witness to some of the President's obstructive behavior. We
Speaker 1: now know he was in frequent personal contact with the president.
Speaker 1: A subject of the investigation. You should have left it
Speaker 1: two career officials. Rosenstein is a career official, you moron.
Speaker 1: Herono is an idiot, an idiot, and she's speaking to
Speaker 1: a better person, a more honorable, smarter, better person, and
Speaker 1: trying to tear him down because her constituents, the people
Speaker 1: that vote for Maisie Herono, are a bunch of loons
Speaker 1: who still believe that the president United States should be prosecuted,
Speaker 1: should be out of office, duced down. There a bunch
Speaker 1: of babies, a bunch of babies. You lost. Hillary was horrible. Hello,
Speaker 1: Hillary was a travesty of a candidate. Deal with it. Instead,
Speaker 1: what they try to do, find some way to justify
Speaker 1: the loss, to try to come up with a way
Speaker 1: to undermine the victory of the president. You know, justify
Speaker 1: that that this didn't really happen. You see it. He cheated,
Speaker 1: he cheated. They say, oh, yeah, sure he did. What
Speaker 1: are they gonna say the next time around? Man, I
Speaker 1: just I just hope Trump cleans whatever whatever silly COMI
Speaker 1: the Democrats put up for their you know, their next candidate.
Speaker 1: Oh Trump just cleans his or her clock, I really do.
Speaker 1: I hope he just runs the table like like Reagan
Speaker 1: in his second term. Just uh, it would be amazing,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it. Look, here's here's how you know that heronos
Speaker 1: a joke. She's saying that that Rosenstein, Rosenstein. You know
Speaker 1: he's a problem now. But but if if before Barr
Speaker 1: came along, they had replaced Rosenstein or they had moved
Speaker 1: him aside, guess what that would have been catastrophic anyone
Speaker 1: who did not try to take down the president. And
Speaker 1: I think Rosenstein wanted to. He was gonna wear a wire.
Speaker 1: But because he didn't succeed, he's unaccepted to them. Just
Speaker 1: just one more. They mean. Herono is so insane that
Speaker 1: she actually goes to the point of telling telling bar
Speaker 1: that he needs to play Clip twenty one. You got
Speaker 1: to hear this. But now we know more about your
Speaker 1: deep involvement and trying to cover up for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Being Attorney General of the United States is a sacred trust.
Speaker 1: You have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign.
Speaker 1: I have some questions for you, dumbest human being in
Speaker 1: the United States Congress. It's Mazie Herono. She wins first prize,
Speaker 1: number one, top of the top of the chart. Baby
Speaker 1: going double platinum. Stupid Mazie Herono should resign. Sky was
Speaker 1: Attorney General under a different administration. He's work in the
Speaker 1: Office of Legal Counsel, which is the absolute best of
Speaker 1: the best the DJ has and he's going to resign.
Speaker 1: Why what did he do? Because she doesn't like him,
Speaker 1: because he's being them, He's beating the Democrats. He's smarter
Speaker 1: than they are. He knows the system better than they do.
Speaker 1: They don't like it. They've gotten used to some novices
Speaker 1: that Trump has put in positions that honestly weren't very
Speaker 1: weren't very wise. Bill Barr's not in that category at all.
Speaker 1: They don't know how to handle him. So what do
Speaker 1: they do? They attack like the little slimy cowards they
Speaker 1: are calling into question Bill Barr's heronor should be ashamed
Speaker 1: of herself, But she's too stupid to know that she
Speaker 1: should be ashamed. I offered Bob Mueller the opportunity to
Speaker 1: review that letter before it went out, and he declined.
Speaker 1: On Thursday morning, I received a letter from Bob, the
Speaker 1: letter that's just been put into the record, and I
Speaker 1: called Bob and said, you know, what's the issue? Here?
Speaker 1: Are you? And I asked him if he was suggesting
Speaker 1: that the March twenty fourth letter was inaccurate, and he
Speaker 1: said no, but that the press reporting had been inaccurate
Speaker 1: and that the press was reading too much into it.
Speaker 1: And I asked him, you know, specifically, what his concern was,
Speaker 1: and he said that his concern focused on his explanation
Speaker 1: of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction,
Speaker 1: and he wanted more put out on that issue. But
Speaker 1: he was very clear with me that he was not
Speaker 1: suggesting that we had misrepresented his report. There you have
Speaker 1: the Attorney General explaining this really quite strange circumstance of
Speaker 1: the special Counsel, Bob Muller complaining but not really complaining,
Speaker 1: not really clear what he wanted. What is going on here, folks?
Speaker 1: We got Andy McCarthy in the house to answer this
Speaker 1: in a whole lot more. Annie McCarthy Course of National View,
Speaker 1: also a Fox News contributor and a former assistant US
Speaker 1: Attorney for the Southern District of New York for a
Speaker 1: couple of decades. Andy, Great to have you, that's great
Speaker 1: to be with you. What do you make of this? Look,
Speaker 1: we got a lot to talk about today from the
Speaker 1: hearing and bar and what comes next. But first on
Speaker 1: this Muller, as as Bar called that kind of snitty email,
Speaker 1: What the heck is a special counsel doing here? Andy?
Speaker 1: To me, it looks like Muller's just being kind of
Speaker 1: a whiny little punk, you know. I think worse even
Speaker 1: than the letter buck is the fact that they leaked
Speaker 1: at the night before what they had to know was
Speaker 1: going to be very combative, difficult testimony today in the
Speaker 1: Senate and tomorrow in the House. So, you know, for
Speaker 1: those people who aren't in the kind of business that
Speaker 1: we used to be in in law enforcement and intelligence,
Speaker 1: when you're getting people suited up to testify the next
Speaker 1: day and somebody drops a stink bomb in the middle
Speaker 1: of your your prep like that, it is a It's
Speaker 1: not a good experience. So I think it's really an
Speaker 1: excusable thing to do. It. Also, I think brings to
Speaker 1: the floor something that we've talked about before, and that
Speaker 1: is that it looks like we have a difference in
Speaker 1: philosophy of what a prosecutor's supposed to do and what
Speaker 1: a prosecutor's job is. Mallar, I think I'm surprised to
Speaker 1: see seems to be of a view that a prosecutor's
Speaker 1: job is to script a narrative and pepper it with
Speaker 1: the occasional process crime indictment. And Barr is kind of
Speaker 1: old school and thinks the prosecutor's job is to decide
Speaker 1: is there enough evidence to charge or is there not?
Speaker 1: And if there's not, you're supposed to shut up. That's
Speaker 1: you know, when I was a prosecutor for twenty years,
Speaker 1: that that was the way I always heard it. But
Speaker 1: what is Maller's objection? This is what you know? It's
Speaker 1: not that it's inaccurate, right, so that that there's nothing
Speaker 1: there's no point of fact that Bob Barr, Bill Barr.
Speaker 1: I gotta make sure I don't do that that Bill
Speaker 1: Barr got wrong. Well, then what is Muller talking about?
Speaker 1: What is this? Oh? That the context and this and
Speaker 1: that that didn't feel like it's so right? I mean,
Speaker 1: is Muller you know, it sounds like he feels like
Speaker 1: he didn't get a fair shot doing an open call
Speaker 1: for like an acting part or something. I mean, it
Speaker 1: just seems like, what are you talking about, dude? Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: that's precisely it. What he consumed himself with, and I
Speaker 1: think what his staff was consumed with was writing a
Speaker 1: narrative about collusion and obstruction that the press could pick
Speaker 1: up on, and perhaps leaving a trail with a narrative
Speaker 1: that Congress might be able to pick up on and
Speaker 1: impeach the president with. What they were not content to do,
Speaker 1: which is what they were there for, is the job
Speaker 1: of prosecutors, which is, you know, was there enough evidence
Speaker 1: to charge or was there not? And what I thought
Speaker 1: buck was the most amazing and presumptuous thing about all
Speaker 1: of this is that Muller did not do the job
Speaker 1: he was retained to do. This basically came to him
Speaker 1: mainly as an obstruction case. He was brought on the
Speaker 1: week that the FBI opened an obstruction investigation and the
Speaker 1: president had fired Komey. It was pretty clear already by
Speaker 1: then that there was no there there on collusion. So
Speaker 1: this was teed up for Muller when he took the
Speaker 1: case as an obstruction case, and the only thing we
Speaker 1: arguably needed him for. I don't think we needed a
Speaker 1: special counsel, but for those who did, really the main
Speaker 1: question for him to answer was was there enough evidence
Speaker 1: to charge on obstruction or was there not? He wouldn't
Speaker 1: do the job that he was retained to do. He
Speaker 1: got criticized in the press, so that when it was
Speaker 1: found out that he hadn't made a decision, that's what
Speaker 1: got him all in a snit, you know, the fact
Speaker 1: that he was being criticized in the media for not
Speaker 1: making the one decision that he was needed to make.
Speaker 1: And then what he wants to do Buck is tell
Speaker 1: everybody else how to do their job. So I always
Speaker 1: it always drives me nuts with people who don't do
Speaker 1: their own job to then tell the Attorney General how
Speaker 1: he's supposed to handle the responsibilities that are actually imposed
Speaker 1: on him, not on the special Council in the regulations.
Speaker 1: As Barr said today, once Muller turned in his report,
Speaker 1: he's done, and it's up to the Attorney General to
Speaker 1: decide whether the report gets released, how much of the
Speaker 1: report gets released, and the form that that release takes.
Speaker 1: And it's amazing to see Barr get criticized the way
Speaker 1: he has been, when in point of fact, usually when
Speaker 1: somebody doesn't get charged, the public and the Congress don't
Speaker 1: get any information. And here Bar basically bent the rules
Speaker 1: to put out what I think is like something like
Speaker 1: ninety five of a four hundred and forty eight page
Speaker 1: report against somebody who wasn't charged, right. I mean the objection,
Speaker 1: and this came up a lot today in the hearing.
Speaker 1: The objection is about what bar has done just seemed
Speaker 1: to be just un serious. I mean, this idea that
Speaker 1: he two weeks before he released all the information, he
Speaker 1: didn't do what Mueller wanted him to do. It's not
Speaker 1: Mueller's call, and there's nothing he'd be right, I'm as
Speaker 1: far as Mueller's concerned. What the regulations provide is that
Speaker 1: the special Counsel gives a confidential report to the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: and then the special counsel is done. The special Council
Speaker 1: is aligne prosecutor, you know, And what I mean by
Speaker 1: that is an inferior officer or a subordinate official in
Speaker 1: the executive branch. He doesn't get to tell the Attorney
Speaker 1: General what to do, and the and the regulations make
Speaker 1: clear that it's up to the Attorney General to decide what,
Speaker 1: if any of the report gets put out and how
Speaker 1: much of it. So, you know, I just think that,
Speaker 1: as you say, a lot of this is much ado
Speaker 1: about nothing, especially when we now have the report and
Speaker 1: we can read it for ourselves and what's the any
Speaker 1: I saw you were speaking to Anni McCarthy, everybody Fox
Speaker 1: News and National Review. You're heard of Muller as a diva,
Speaker 1: which I appreciated by the way that I got a
Speaker 1: chuckle out of that one. But I think I see
Speaker 1: where you're going with it. And you know, what does
Speaker 1: this tell us about Mueller overall? I mean that he's
Speaker 1: that he's writting this snitty letter that I think is
Speaker 1: is just kind of intellectually indefensible about how the media know?
Speaker 1: Why is he so concerned with the media coverage of this?
Speaker 1: I thought Muller was the steely eyed professional, no politics here,
Speaker 1: just the facts, ma'am. I mean all that stuff that
Speaker 1: seems like a joke to me now, Andy, I mean
Speaker 1: it has for quite some time. But I feel like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, what do you take from what Muller has
Speaker 1: done here and what should we take in terms of
Speaker 1: who is really running this investigation against the president? Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's the tactics of somebody who, Let's put
Speaker 1: it this way, when Roger Stone was arrested, they sent
Speaker 1: so many law enforcement vehicles to arrest this, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: nearly seventy year old man in his bathrobe that CNN
Speaker 1: almost couldn't find any place to park. You know, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is this is a game that's been
Speaker 1: played from the beginning. And what I have complained about
Speaker 1: from the beginning is that the entire exercise was designed
Speaker 1: to craft a narrative, not to bring charges. So for example,
Speaker 1: if you look at the George Papadopolis case, uh, you
Speaker 1: know what that should have been was a half a paragraph,
Speaker 1: you know, honor, about such and such a date he
Speaker 1: told a lie to the FBI to wit and then
Speaker 1: you know that he should about the time of the meeting,
Speaker 1: you cite the statute in and you're done. Instead, he
Speaker 1: accompanies that with a fourteen page narrative statement that has
Speaker 1: a lot of it's almost collusion. It feels like collusion.
Speaker 1: Lots of Russians around, who knows what's going on here?
Speaker 1: And then you flip to the end and it's a
Speaker 1: process crime. And he did the same thing of Stone,
Speaker 1: and he did the same thing with Mike Flynn. All
Speaker 1: of it has been about a long narrative, most of
Speaker 1: which buck. If these cases were actually tried in court,
Speaker 1: the court would have struck most of his factual recitations
Speaker 1: as surplusage because they didn't have anything to do with
Speaker 1: the charges that were brought, or they barely had anything
Speaker 1: to do. So the whole exercise that we had seen
Speaker 1: up until the time we saw his report was all
Speaker 1: about telling this grand narrative at peppered occasionally with some
Speaker 1: teeny tiny process charges. And why anybody thought his four
Speaker 1: hundred and forty eight page report was going to be
Speaker 1: any different from the way he had handled these indictments
Speaker 1: when it was the same people doing the same thing,
Speaker 1: writing the same charges, is beyond me. So he simply
Speaker 1: did a bigger version in the report of what he
Speaker 1: did all along, which was he tended to the narratives
Speaker 1: and there was very little reason to have a prosecutor here.
Speaker 1: And I just we're going to go to a quick
Speaker 1: break everybody, but we'll bring Andy backing the side of
Speaker 1: Andy real quick. The thing that the left and the
Speaker 1: Democrats have really latched onto here is, oh, well, well
Speaker 1: he couldn't bring charges against the president. Well then what
Speaker 1: was all of this really You know, first of all,
Speaker 1: is that even really true in a sense that couldn't
Speaker 1: he have written we would we recommend charges and leave
Speaker 1: it up to the OLC And the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: whether or not they act on that. I mean, is
Speaker 1: there anything stopping him from writing that in his report. No,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what would happened. But if he was taking
Speaker 1: the position that there was no reason for me to
Speaker 1: recommend charges because there's Office of Legal Counsel at the
Speaker 1: Justice Department guidance that says a sitting president can't be charged,
Speaker 1: then why did he take the case at all. He
Speaker 1: should have just handed the investigative file back and said,
Speaker 1: there's nothing for me to do here because the president
Speaker 1: can't be charged. But that's not how it works. First
Speaker 1: of all, the rule is not that the prosecute that
Speaker 1: the president can never be charged. He can't be charged
Speaker 1: while he is in office. So you still have to
Speaker 1: do the investigation, and you still have to determine whether
Speaker 1: the charges can be filed or not. The guidance is
Speaker 1: not a reason not to do the investigation. And the
Speaker 1: decision he was called on to make was not the
Speaker 1: application of the OLC guidance. The decision he was called
Speaker 1: to make was was there enough evidence to charge or
Speaker 1: was there not. If he decided that there was enough
Speaker 1: evidence to charge, then it would be up to the
Speaker 1: Justice Department to decide whether to invoke the guidance and
Speaker 1: direct the prosecute and not to return the charges. But
Speaker 1: the case still has to be investigated. And again, it's
Speaker 1: not that the president can never be charged, it's just
Speaker 1: that he can't be charged while he's in office. So
Speaker 1: the investigation still has to be done. It was on
Speaker 1: Mueller to do it, and he's trying to make up
Speaker 1: excuses for why he didn't do what he was retained
Speaker 1: to do. Is there any you know what? We're going
Speaker 1: to come back with Annie McCarthy, your Natural Review and
Speaker 1: Fox News contributor, Annie McCarthy, the man you want to
Speaker 1: hear from all this stuff. We're going to come back
Speaker 1: in just a moment. Team stay with me or We're
Speaker 1: back with Annie McCarthy of National Review and and Fox
Speaker 1: News contributor and somebody who's really been critical. His voice
Speaker 1: has been critical on this issue, not just because the
Speaker 1: President says so, it's been true. Andy, the is there
Speaker 1: a we're talking about ulla right before we're in a break.
Speaker 1: Is there a good faith defense of Mueller's hole? You know,
Speaker 1: we were kind of maybe thinking charges, but then didn't
Speaker 1: do charges because there's a bunch of reasons but the
Speaker 1: main reason is the Office of Legal Counsel the deal.
Speaker 1: Jay says, we couldn't charge him. Is there a good
Speaker 1: faith argument that I'm missing or is this just smearing
Speaker 1: the president? Basically, no, it's not. It's not a good
Speaker 1: faith There is no good faith argument. I mean, here, well,
Speaker 1: let me tease out what I think is the only
Speaker 1: relevant piece of this buck. And I still don't think
Speaker 1: it does the trick. But let's let's bend over backwards
Speaker 1: and see if we can't help here, right. Um, the
Speaker 1: idea behind the guidance is that, um, if you charge
Speaker 1: a sitting president, it is catastrophic for the country because
Speaker 1: the president has to govern under a cloud, and he's
Speaker 1: got to govern with these big distractions of trying to
Speaker 1: defend himself from a criminal case. So the idea is
Speaker 1: that you know, something that's serious, you know, we don't.
Speaker 1: We don't want to burden the president with that under
Speaker 1: the circumstances. And what he took that to mean was that,
Speaker 1: in evaluating the evidence he had to bring to bear
Speaker 1: with each call that he had to make the need
Speaker 1: for having you know, absolutely serious, super duper. I'm sure
Speaker 1: there's enough evidence here to charge and he was not
Speaker 1: ready to make that call because of the hesitancy that
Speaker 1: the guidance provided him, not saying that he couldn't charge
Speaker 1: or could charge, but that he just raised it to
Speaker 1: a different specter of seriousness. I mean, the argument is
Speaker 1: so obtuse, it's actually difficult to articulate. And when you
Speaker 1: get to the bottom line, Barr asked him, he testified,
Speaker 1: and this is not the first time he's testified for this.
Speaker 1: Barr asked him three times when they met, whether when
Speaker 1: he told them that he was not going to make
Speaker 1: a decision about obstruction. He was asked three times, is
Speaker 1: that because of the OLC guidance? And he told the
Speaker 1: Attorney General no, according to the Attorney General testimony, So
Speaker 1: he didn't return the charges because, however he wants to
Speaker 1: dress it up, he couldn't bring himself to say that
Speaker 1: there was evidence that you could prove beyond a reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt that there was an obstruction crime. Here again important
Speaker 1: to underscore here, that doesn't mean the conduct was good.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that the public, in evaluating the conduct,
Speaker 1: might come away saying, Okay, maybe not a crime, but
Speaker 1: this is not really what I want out of my president.
Speaker 1: It's not no one is saying that this is not
Speaker 1: something that, as Bar said today, we're going to have.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have an election in eighteen months. And if
Speaker 1: people look at this and they want to go yuck, I,
Speaker 1: you know, no matter how good the policy is, this
Speaker 1: is not the guy I want in the White House,
Speaker 1: then the president is going to have to live with that.
Speaker 1: So no one is endorsing this conduct. But the point
Speaker 1: simply is a prosecutor's job is to decide, as he
Speaker 1: put as Bar put it today, the binary choice there
Speaker 1: is enough evidence to charge or there's not. And ordinarily,
Speaker 1: if there's not enough evidence to charge, you shut up.
Speaker 1: Because the idea is, we don't want the Justice Department
Speaker 1: tanking people who are presumed innocent under the Constitution, unless
Speaker 1: you're going to formally charge them, in which case they
Speaker 1: get all the protections of the Constitution to defend themselves.
Speaker 1: They get they get, you know, assistance to counsel, they
Speaker 1: get the right to confront witnesses, they get a right
Speaker 1: to put on a defense. What we don't want the
Speaker 1: Justice Department doing is saying, all right, we're not going
Speaker 1: to charge you, and then they smear you with all
Speaker 1: the evidence and then how do you confront that? How
Speaker 1: do you know? What do you do in that circumstance.
Speaker 1: So that's the point, and he is Bill Is Bill
Speaker 1: Barr the best guy that really Trump could have in
Speaker 1: this role right now? Because I had to say, I
Speaker 1: thought the way he handled that hearing today, they couldn't
Speaker 1: lay a glove on him. Yeah, I think he'd be
Speaker 1: the best guy under any circumstances. Buck. I mean, the
Speaker 1: thing to remember with Barr is number one, he's done
Speaker 1: this job before. Number Two, he's I think he's very scrupulous,
Speaker 1: but he's smart, and he's savvy, and he knows Washington.
Speaker 1: And most importantly for these purposes, he knows two things
Speaker 1: that not all attorneys general. No. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: as far as the law is concerned, he was before
Speaker 1: he was the attorney general under the first President Bush,
Speaker 1: he was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel.
Speaker 1: Those are the lawyers, lawyers in the Justice Department who
Speaker 1: make policies, the best lawyers in the government going that job.
Speaker 1: And secondly, before he was a prosecutor, before he was
Speaker 1: a lawyer, he worked at the CIA, so he understands
Speaker 1: the counterintelligence mission of the Justice Department. I think in
Speaker 1: a way that is unique among at least in recent times,
Speaker 1: the attorney generals we've had served, and we've had a
Speaker 1: number of very good attorneys general. I just don't think
Speaker 1: they've got that. Yeah, So he is. He is the man,
Speaker 1: the man for this job at this time. Annie McCarthy
Speaker 1: is the man for this interview in this topic at
Speaker 1: this time though, Annie McCarthy, everybody, Fox News and Natural Review.
Speaker 1: Andy always illuminating, my friend. Thank you for making the
Speaker 1: time for us. Thanks so much, Buck, I have a
Speaker 1: good one, All right, team, we'll be right back. Investigation
Speaker 1: into the Trump campaign began on July thirty first, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: after a foreign government contact at the FBI about comments
Speaker 1: made by George Papadopolis. Is that accurate or were there
Speaker 1: other precipitating events that helped lead to this. That is
Speaker 1: the account that has been given in the past as
Speaker 1: to how it got Cohen, you've previously said that you
Speaker 1: think it's possible that the Federal Bureau of Investigation improperly
Speaker 1: spied on the Trump campaign. I assume that's a reference
Speaker 1: to the FISA warrant for Carter Page. Is that what
Speaker 1: you have in mind? Or there are other circumstances that
Speaker 1: you've got in mind. There many people seem to assume
Speaker 1: that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single
Speaker 1: confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I'd like to find
Speaker 1: out whether that is in fact true. This is the
Speaker 1: biggest single moment, in my opinion, of the entire show
Speaker 1: trial they put on today for the Attorney General on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill. But this is the most important thing that
Speaker 1: we all need to be aware of and be prepared
Speaker 1: to get some answers about. And that is what started
Speaker 1: the whole Russia collusion fiasco. What was the true origin
Speaker 1: of it? We had, as you who listened to the show,
Speaker 1: no George Papadopolis on for an hour last week telling
Speaker 1: us about his story and how this just doesn't add
Speaker 1: up that they would start an FBI full field investigation
Speaker 1: based upon the kind of contacts that Papadopopolis had and
Speaker 1: how those contacts came to be, Who who originated them,
Speaker 1: Who came up with this as an idea that should
Speaker 1: that should receive government resources and attention. You know, when
Speaker 1: did all this happen? How did all this happen? And
Speaker 1: that we got into this mess of the Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: delusion because of Papadopolis and Carter Page, and that is
Speaker 1: what the biggest media outlets in the country were feeding
Speaker 1: the American people. I mean, that's what we were being told.
Speaker 1: That is absolute bullcrap. It's just bullcrap. There's no way,
Speaker 1: there's no way that that alone was enough to get
Speaker 1: all of this going. And there is absolutely no way
Speaker 1: that the conversations that Papadopoulos was having with different individuals
Speaker 1: somehow just magically made their way onto the radar of
Speaker 1: the FBI and American intelligence services, and they really took
Speaker 1: this as some kind of a national security threat worthy
Speaker 1: of a counterintelligence investigation. It just doesn't add up. It
Speaker 1: does not add up. And that's why there's such a frenzy,
Speaker 1: an absolute frenzy to undermine the attorney General. They've got
Speaker 1: a formidable I mean, we were just talking to Andy
Speaker 1: about this. They've got a formidable opponent the left, the damns,
Speaker 1: the anti Trump radicals, formidable opponent in Bill Barr. This
Speaker 1: guy is a legal superstar. He understands these laws better
Speaker 1: than all of the members of Congress. He understands the
Speaker 1: dj better than all the members of Congress who were
Speaker 1: questioning him. Today, including the Republicans. By the way, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's as sound and adept a legal mind as you
Speaker 1: will find anywhere. And so what do they do what
Speaker 1: the left always does, cry, whine, complain, and attack, attack,
Speaker 1: attack attack. That's where bro Cuomo comes in. Hey, you
Speaker 1: got a law degree. Where's bro Cuomo's law degree from?
Speaker 1: You know, I got on the back of a crack
Speaker 1: a jackbox Cuomo style. He said things like this about
Speaker 1: one of the most esteemed and skilled lawyers to hold
Speaker 1: the attorney general position in my lifetime. This is how
Speaker 1: CNN's newest star anchor, despite their thirty percent drop in
Speaker 1: ratings recently. That's right, twenty six I think was the
Speaker 1: official number. Here's how bro Cuomo talks about actual legal
Speaker 1: mind and not make believe legal mind Bill Barr PLI
Speaker 1: clip five. But it shows that this ag has been
Speaker 1: an agent for the president more than for the American
Speaker 1: people or a political hack. You just want to be
Speaker 1: that blunt about it, a political hack, a kinder word,
Speaker 1: would be a mercenary for the president. You don't have
Speaker 1: to be a lawyer to understand why William Barr got
Speaker 1: this job, how he auditioned for it, how he conducted
Speaker 1: himself during the hearings, and how he conducted himself at
Speaker 1: the initial press conference with the letter and the second
Speaker 1: press conference. He tried to shape the narrative. Everything that
Speaker 1: we had been reporting about this letter and the ag
Speaker 1: trying to shape the narrative has turned out to be true.
Speaker 1: Cuomo and Lemon are morons, So start with that. Also.
Speaker 1: I love Lemon saying a kinder word than Hack would
Speaker 1: be a mercenary. I don't know if that's kinder. I
Speaker 1: don't know if Lemon knows what a mercenary is, but
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that that's a kinder word. But the
Speaker 1: things that they're saying about about Bill Barr, No, there's
Speaker 1: no meat on the bone here. They don't explain what
Speaker 1: justifies these comments, these assessments of Barr. They just know
Speaker 1: that Barr isn't going to bow to the public pressure.
Speaker 1: That Bar doesn't care what the New York Times editorial
Speaker 1: page says about him, doesn't care what the you know,
Speaker 1: the network CNN and MSNBC, and you know what they're
Speaker 1: saying about him night after night on TV. He knows
Speaker 1: what happened here. Bar is not a fool. He's been
Speaker 1: in this game for decades. The Democrat left got caught
Speaker 1: with their hands in the cookie jar. They thought they
Speaker 1: could override the will of the American people with a
Speaker 1: deep state media coup to get rid of Trump, and
Speaker 1: it failed. And now they're bitter about it. They're angry
Speaker 1: about it. They don't think that this is something that
Speaker 1: should be allowed to stand. They want to get another shot.
Speaker 1: They want to use the Attorney General for the State
Speaker 1: of New York, or they want to use some spinoff
Speaker 1: investigation from Muller. If you want to talk about an
Speaker 1: agent for somebody or a partisan hack, look no further
Speaker 1: than Bob Oh He's such a saint Muller with his
Speaker 1: I don't like the way that the press was reporting
Speaker 1: on the letter that Barr wrote about my very important
Speaker 1: report that I wrote so that Congress can impeach the president.
Speaker 1: Mueller's a hack, Mueller's an agent for the Democrats. Muller
Speaker 1: might as well be walking around with a Hillary twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen button on his shirt. As far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 1: he has showed us this. He has shown us he's
Speaker 1: not a man of character in this situation, that he
Speaker 1: is not a man of integrity and honor and I
Speaker 1: can point to why, unlike bro Cuomo and Don Lemon
Speaker 1: Monsieur Don Lemon, I can cite chapter and verse what Mueller.
Speaker 1: First of all, what we were just talking about. Muller
Speaker 1: doesn't make a decision, that's his job. Why didn't he
Speaker 1: make a decision because he would have lost on the
Speaker 1: merits folks, better to leave it open. You know. This
Speaker 1: is like the guy that's going to try out for
Speaker 1: the varsity team and then says, oh, no, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to try out, and then just goes around telling
Speaker 1: everybody I would have made the team, but I didn't try.
Speaker 1: That's what Mueller's doing here with impeaching, with the prosecuting
Speaker 1: the president. Well, I would have prosecuted the president, but
Speaker 1: I didn't go for it, So now he leaves it
Speaker 1: to Congress. It's a slimy, underhanded tactic. Okay, that's being
Speaker 1: an agent for the other side. That's being a political hack.
Speaker 1: Threatening George Papadopoulos's wife, telling George Popadopoulos's wife that she
Speaker 1: should leave George because what he's going to get too
Speaker 1: weeks in a minimum security country club prison for lying
Speaker 1: about a non crime, sending a swat team that looks
Speaker 1: like it's ready to take on, you know, the Sinaloa
Speaker 1: cartel on their home turf, sending them in to go
Speaker 1: get Roger Stone. They could have called Roger Stone at
Speaker 1: his home and said, hey, Roger, take off the silk pajamas,
Speaker 1: throw on a pinstripe suit. We'll see you in half
Speaker 1: an hour, please come down. Guaranteed Roger Stone would have
Speaker 1: turned himself in, no foss, no muss, It would have
Speaker 1: showed up. No serious person believes otherwise you're gonna send
Speaker 1: a pre dawn raid to his home. Oh and CNN
Speaker 1: just happened to be there. I wonder does Muller get
Speaker 1: a check send to him from CNN for all the
Speaker 1: good work he's done for them, or does they have
Speaker 1: to wait a little bit, Let let the heat die down.
Speaker 1: Talk about being a political hack, please, Andrew Weissman of
Speaker 1: the Muller team is a political hack. Genie Rie of
Speaker 1: the Muller Team's a political hack, and Mueller's the biggest
Speaker 1: hack of all. Go back and look at what happened
Speaker 1: at the FBI with the anthrax investigation on mother's watch,
Speaker 1: destroyed an innocent person. Mother's not a good guy, folks,
Speaker 1: And we're seeing a lot of this at the very
Speaker 1: top reaches the very most important positions in the national
Speaker 1: security apparatus of this country, people who should not have
Speaker 1: had the power they had. Komi Muller, McCabe, Brennan Clapper,
Speaker 1: Sally Yates, Lauretta Lynch. These are not good people, They're
Speaker 1: not ethical people. They were playing dirty political games, using
Speaker 1: their positions in power and really hurting people along the way.
Speaker 1: And where is the accountability for all this? Where is
Speaker 1: any sense that this would not happen again? I can't
Speaker 1: tell you we've reached that yet, despite the fact that
Speaker 1: they were not able to finish off this presidency with
Speaker 1: the Muller probe, which was a disaster from the start.
Speaker 1: I knew it. I said it on the show. Never
Speaker 1: should have been allowed to happen from day one. Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions was wrong not to fight harder on this one.
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions was wrong to get steamrolled by the deep
Speaker 1: state left in the media, and he did. And I
Speaker 1: think Jeff's a good guy and an honest guy, but
Speaker 1: he was not ready for this street fight and he
Speaker 1: got got. We are up against very determined political enemies
Speaker 1: that do not play fair, that do not care about
Speaker 1: the rules. They have been able to use processes to
Speaker 1: slow down this president, to harm this president those around him.
Speaker 1: I want payback. I want retribution and I want people
Speaker 1: that abused government power to pay the price for the games,
Speaker 1: the games that they thought they'd get away with. Also
Speaker 1: they could help Hillary win. What a disgrace. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. I got a piece that just broke that
Speaker 1: I want to tell you all about, one that I'm
Speaker 1: sure is going to get a lot of attention and
Speaker 1: perhaps put some Democrats on edge. Nellie Or's high honey
Speaker 1: emails to d o J about Russia collusion should alarm
Speaker 1: us all. The author is my colleague and boss over
Speaker 1: at The Hill, John Solomon, who was an investigative journalists
Speaker 1: who also is executive vice president for Digital at Hill TV,
Speaker 1: where I work on this show Morning in Rising rather
Speaker 1: in the Morning, John, thanks so much for joining. I
Speaker 1: tell us about the high honey emails you write about
Speaker 1: here on the Hill dot com. What did Nellie Or
Speaker 1: get herself into? Yeah, this is going to be an
Speaker 1: interesting development because if you remember about eight nine months ago,
Speaker 1: she testified on Capitol Hill and when she was asked
Speaker 1: in her testimony, why we're working for Fusion GPS. That's
Speaker 1: the Christopher Steele firm. That's the Hillary Clinton firm, the
Speaker 1: DNC firm that did all of the Russia dirt digging
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump, assembled it into the dossier. He just
Speaker 1: spread it around Washington and got the investigation started. While
Speaker 1: you were working for that firm, did you share any
Speaker 1: of your Russia research with anyone beside your husband, the
Speaker 1: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Orb, Christopher Steel or Fusion
Speaker 1: And she answered no. And now we have pretty clear
Speaker 1: evidence that she sent a total of three hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty nine pages worth of email and research to DJ
Speaker 1: email accounts, sometimes to her husband, other times to three
Speaker 1: of his colleagues in the International Criminal Prosecution Division. So
Speaker 1: she was spreading around things like the discovery of the
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort ledger in Ukraine that obviously was dirt that
Speaker 1: would stick to Manafort and Trump. She sent articles that
Speaker 1: highlighted Carter Page going to Moscow and giving the famous
Speaker 1: speech there and then suggesting he had a connection to
Speaker 1: gas problem. As you know, that became a big part
Speaker 1: of the feisal warm. She then sent around articles about
Speaker 1: the Russian ambassador Sergey Kissiak attending in the audience that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump gave a foreign policy speech. Well, it was
Speaker 1: that attendance that ultimately led Jeff Sessions to have to
Speaker 1: recuse himself from the Russian investigation because he was in
Speaker 1: the audience and the same audience with the ambassador Kissiac.
Speaker 1: So all of this, she's using her marital privilege, her
Speaker 1: marital backdoor with Bruce Or to get this information into
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. And I think it raises two questions.
Speaker 1: One a question of conflict of interest. Should a spouse
Speaker 1: on the payroll of a political candidate be allowed to
Speaker 1: use her husband's connections to flow information into the Justice Department?
Speaker 1: And two? Did she give accurate testimony? Was that answer
Speaker 1: she gave accurate in light of the emails that we found.
Speaker 1: You got three hundred and thirty nine pages of emails.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of stuff she was sending, very partisan,
Speaker 1: very edgy, very anti Trump. And I think there are
Speaker 1: some members of Congress, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan among them,
Speaker 1: that are now raising questions about the actor of her testimony.
Speaker 1: In fact, I'd keep an eye out tonight to see
Speaker 1: if they make a decision on sending a referral to
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. On this matter. So Nellie or may
Speaker 1: have lied under owe to Congress. Effectively, she may have
Speaker 1: committed the crime that is. That is the concern that
Speaker 1: these emails clearly raised, and she deserves the benefit of
Speaker 1: doubt and ton investigations done. But when you look at
Speaker 1: the volume of what she was sending and what she
Speaker 1: was sending, it's clearly the sort of Russia research that
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS was doing. In fact, she identified her her
Speaker 1: testimony very specific people she was researching to Oligarch's name,
Speaker 1: dry Posca and ronat Osmet Both of their names show
Speaker 1: up in the research that was sent to the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: She talks about how she was trying to find any
Speaker 1: connection between Donald Trump and organized crime, any article she found,
Speaker 1: any think tank stuff she found that even remotely connected
Speaker 1: down Trump to Russia. It was being sent to the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. So when you take her own words and
Speaker 1: you're then compared to the emails, it looks like the
Speaker 1: very thing she was researching for Fusion GPS he was
Speaker 1: sending to the Justice Department. And that's something that she
Speaker 1: did not acknowledge in her testimony. Effects she emphatically stated
Speaker 1: no when asked if she shared it outside of Fusion GPS.
Speaker 1: So I would expect people like medals in Jordan on
Speaker 1: these oversight committees to make a decision soon on whether
Speaker 1: they asked the Justice Department to investigator testimony. And do
Speaker 1: we have any sense of whether these DOJ officials took
Speaker 1: specific action based on any other things she sent or
Speaker 1: do we know if they responded to either other people
Speaker 1: in DJ about it or to her directly. Do we
Speaker 1: just have any visibility of that yet? Great question. Well,
Speaker 1: there are a series of emails that have really caught
Speaker 1: the Congressional Investigator's attention. Keep in mind Congress didn't have
Speaker 1: access to these emails. They only came out under FOYA
Speaker 1: just a few weeks ago through Judicial Watch, and I
Speaker 1: think their significance is only being discovered now. But in
Speaker 1: March and April, some of the prosecutors in the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: specifically those based on my earlier reporting, who are working
Speaker 1: on a very specific Russian oligarch targeting program, there was
Speaker 1: an effort to recruit Russian oligarchs to find out what
Speaker 1: they knew about Pewton and what they knew about Trump
Speaker 1: and other other things. Those oligarcs included too that Nellie
Speaker 1: was researching Oligdara Poska and Renat ashmed it. For some reason,
Speaker 1: Bruce Or's colleagues, he's the Associate Deputy Ury General, pretty
Speaker 1: high ranking in the Justice Department. They asked for permission
Speaker 1: in the National Crime Division to reach out to his
Speaker 1: wife and get some information. And they start sending emails.
Speaker 1: You're such an expert, we want to talk to Ennis.
Speaker 1: I think we could benefit from both of us can
Speaker 1: benefit from the contact. So there's not only Nellie Or
Speaker 1: flowing her information or outbound to the Justice Department. At
Speaker 1: some point the Justice Department comes in and ask for
Speaker 1: her help. Now what they asked for is highly redacted,
Speaker 1: so we can't see the full amount. But what I've
Speaker 1: been told from my reporting is it specifically dealt with
Speaker 1: the Russian oliguard program. So you got a Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: paid researcher now working on the Justice Department on a
Speaker 1: program that has an intersection with Donald Trump. It's why
Speaker 1: those conflict alarm bells are going off in some members minds.
Speaker 1: Nellie Or's high honey emails to DJ about Russia collusion
Speaker 1: should alarm us. All that is the piece. It is
Speaker 1: up on the Hill dot Com right now. Also checkout
Speaker 1: Hill dot TV in the mornings. Sure you'll see not
Speaker 1: just me, but also John in the near future talking
Speaker 1: about this piece. John Solomon, everybody, John, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thanks Buck, appreciate the attention to the story team. We'll
Speaker 1: be back in just a moment. You are now entering
Speaker 1: to the Freedom Hottle Operation Center. All the programs must
Speaker 1: be cavs strictly need to know Team Buck is cleared
Speaker 1: and ready for the Buck brief. A lot of the
Speaker 1: policies that we've put in plays has kind of helped
Speaker 1: lead the devastation in Venezuela, and we've sort of set
Speaker 1: the stage for where we are arriving today. This particular
Speaker 1: bullying and the use of sanctions to eventually intervene and
Speaker 1: make chee change really does not help the people of
Speaker 1: countries like Venezuela, and it certainly does not help and
Speaker 1: it's not in the interest of the United States. Ilaan
Speaker 1: Omar Democrat member of Congress isn't anti Semite. We know
Speaker 1: that it's not one or two statements, it's lots of statements.
Speaker 1: She just takes Israel the task all the time, and
Speaker 1: by Israel, I mean the Jewish people and Democrats try
Speaker 1: to run cover for her because she's protected. Why she protected,
Speaker 1: She's a female, minority, Muslim, three things. You add them
Speaker 1: all together, and if you're left wing, if she a Republican,
Speaker 1: by the way, she would get scorched by the media.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't matter that she's she's African, she's Muslim, she's female,
Speaker 1: that wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter. But because she's a Democrat,
Speaker 1: then all those things become her shield, they become her protection,
Speaker 1: and they are her protection for the Democrat left because
Speaker 1: her most important contribution to the Democrat cause is as
Speaker 1: somebody who is bringing together different victim classes that the
Speaker 1: intersectional left will use as a club to attack other people. Right,
Speaker 1: they will bludgeon people with having ilhan Omar call them out,
Speaker 1: say they're racists, say they're Islamophobic. You know that that's
Speaker 1: they like that. They like that ability that she's going
Speaker 1: to have. But the good news is I have the
Speaker 1: ability to say that she seems like an ignor Ramist,
Speaker 1: not quite as as ignorant as Occasio Quartez, but in
Speaker 1: ignoramus who's also an anti semit dident and has this
Speaker 1: streak of anti Americanism. Well, let me just start with
Speaker 1: the ignorant part of this. As the situation in Venezuela
Speaker 1: continues to be very tense as we're on air tonight,
Speaker 1: and I think it's important that everyone understand that Venezuela
Speaker 1: is not really our fight. Keep saying this. We cover
Speaker 1: it here because it's important enough as a news story,
Speaker 1: and it's interesting that the dynamics for Venezuela are are
Speaker 1: interesting for us to understand. Well, of course, what happens
Speaker 1: when you have too much control of an economy in
Speaker 1: the hands of the state. And but you know, I
Speaker 1: was on Kennedy's show on Fox Business last night talking
Speaker 1: to her about what I think about Venezuela, and this
Speaker 1: is what this is just a quick review of that
Speaker 1: playlip one. Remember we're talking about a narco state here
Speaker 1: as well. Some of the top officials, I mean, the
Speaker 1: number three, four and five guys I believe in the
Speaker 1: Venezuelan government on the Maduro side are sanctioned narco traffickers
Speaker 1: by the Treasury Department. You got a bunch of cocaine
Speaker 1: kingpins run around with people starving. Their money is becoming
Speaker 1: basically worthless, and now they're telling people to shoot on
Speaker 1: unarmed protesters in the streets. Guess what, They're not going
Speaker 1: to play an ice anytime soon. They don't care what
Speaker 1: we tell them, with the international community tells them. So
Speaker 1: I just think that this this just turns into force
Speaker 1: on force Kennedy, and we'll see who wins in the end.
Speaker 1: I'm just hoping the US doesn't get pulled into a
Speaker 1: military situation here, because as bad as it is, it's
Speaker 1: still not our fight. It's still not our fight. And
Speaker 1: people say, what happens buck if they take some Americans
Speaker 1: hostage or something, Well, you know, if we got to
Speaker 1: go in and save Americans, we got to go in
Speaker 1: and save Americans. But that doesn't mean we go in
Speaker 1: and then set up camp. Doesn't mean we go in
Speaker 1: and patrol the streets. Say that this is going to
Speaker 1: be a place that the United States is going to
Speaker 1: take under it, you know, it's going to militarily intervening.
Speaker 1: And I have to say I'm a little bit surprised
Speaker 1: at some of the rhetor are coming out of the
Speaker 1: administration right now all this. I mean, Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Mike Pompeo on this point about military action in Venezuela
Speaker 1: said this play three. President has been Crystal Claire and
Speaker 1: incredibly consistent. Military action is possible. If that's what's required,
Speaker 1: that's what the United States will do. We're trying to
Speaker 1: do everything we can to avoid violence. We've asked all
Speaker 1: the parties involved not to engage in that kind of activity.
Speaker 1: We'd prefer a peaceful transition of government there where Maduro
Speaker 1: leaves at a new election is held. But the President
Speaker 1: has made claire in the event that there comes a moment,
Speaker 1: and we'll all have to make decisions about when that
Speaker 1: moment is, and the President will ultimately have to make
Speaker 1: that decision. He's prepared to do that if that's what's required.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that's just a warning that's put on the table.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is like before you interrogate somebody, you know,
Speaker 1: you put the six shooter on the table and the
Speaker 1: old cop movies and say, all right, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a conversation here, and you're not really planning on using
Speaker 1: that six shooter, but you're just letting them know that
Speaker 1: it's there. I think Pompeo's just letting the Venezuelan thug
Speaker 1: regime of Majuro know, you guys better not try anything
Speaker 1: crazy and if that's wood he's that's where he's gonna stop,
Speaker 1: then that's fine. This is the only place where I
Speaker 1: have a word where I have real a sense that
Speaker 1: there needs to be caution for administration. Other than that,
Speaker 1: I think they're handling Venezuela very well. That brings me
Speaker 1: back to ilhan Omar, who's on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Speaker 1: So this isn't just some random number of Congress This
Speaker 1: is somebody who, at least in theory, could have a
Speaker 1: powerful voice in US foreign policy. And as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: she's both ignorant and exposes her own biases and prejudices
Speaker 1: in a regular basis. To her comments about how Venezuela
Speaker 1: is having the terrible trials and tribulations that are currently
Speaker 1: has because of US policy, I would say to that, like,
Speaker 1: what what's the US put? What do the United States
Speaker 1: do to destroy the economy of a country that has
Speaker 1: the largest proven oil reserves in the world, which Venezuela does.
Speaker 1: What do the US do to hyper inflate the currency
Speaker 1: of a country that until about fifteen years ago was
Speaker 1: one of the wealthier South American countries per capita? And
Speaker 1: what did we do exactly? The answer is she doesn't
Speaker 1: have an answer because she just now she's talking about
Speaker 1: the sanctions of things that we've put in place because
Speaker 1: Maduro is seizing power. Really, every day he's in office
Speaker 1: is a seizure of power because he's not a legitimate
Speaker 1: office holder. But it's our fault. It's on us that
Speaker 1: this is the case. And this blame America first attitude,
Speaker 1: which the left is, this is where you're going to
Speaker 1: find it. You find the blame America first on the
Speaker 1: left is deeply unsettling but pervasive. They have a lot
Speaker 1: of this. And then I'll just on ilhan Omar on
Speaker 1: what she likes and uh and doesn't like. You know,
Speaker 1: she obviously doesn't like the state of Israel, but she
Speaker 1: also for somebody that fled real oppression and misery in
Speaker 1: an entirely Islamic country, Somalia. She's somebody who you think
Speaker 1: would be have a little more gratitude about America, have
Speaker 1: a little more of a sense that, you know, this
Speaker 1: country is pretty incredible and pretty special, and maybe doesn't
Speaker 1: We don't always need to. It's not fair, it's not wise,
Speaker 1: it's it's not just to always try to undermine this country.
Speaker 1: You think that maybe that would be more of her.
Speaker 1: But that's not her approach. That's not her approach. She
Speaker 1: takes this left wing Chomskyite view of every problem anywhere
Speaker 1: in the world is somehow the result of US foreign
Speaker 1: policy missteps. It's it's bumbling. But this is this is
Speaker 1: where we are. Just one other quick thing that came
Speaker 1: up in Venezuela. Whatever happened to the people in Venezuelas
Speaker 1: in their ability to fight back against the government. Why
Speaker 1: is it that the military is so in military support
Speaker 1: for the regime. It's so very, very important. And why
Speaker 1: aren't you seeing maduro thugs getting ambushed in the streets
Speaker 1: when they open up on people with volleys of live
Speaker 1: fire as they have. Well, here's an exchange with an
Speaker 1: MSNBC report that may illuminate some of that play clip two.
Speaker 1: With the help of Russia and other outside forces, Maduro
Speaker 1: is hanging on, and not only hanging on, but he
Speaker 1: appears to still control the military. You have to understand
Speaker 1: in Venezuela, gun ownership is not something that is open
Speaker 1: to everybody. So if the military have the guns, they
Speaker 1: have the power. And as long as Nicholas Madoudo controls
Speaker 1: the military, he controls the country. Just a reminder for
Speaker 1: us all the Second Amendment is in this country ultimately
Speaker 1: a check against government tyranny. That is why it exists. Yes,
Speaker 1: it also gives you the ability to defend yourself in
Speaker 1: your home, but it was written into the Constitution as
Speaker 1: a check against government tyranny. In Venezuela right now, the
Speaker 1: situation would be very different if you had an armed
Speaker 1: populace that could fight back. But if you have a
Speaker 1: disarmed population, which is what is the case in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: there is no reasonable means for them to try and
Speaker 1: fight back against military rule on the streets. They're not
Speaker 1: just going to go out there and challenge the military
Speaker 1: in street fights where one side has machine guns and
Speaker 1: the other side has rocks and bottles. That's not going
Speaker 1: to work. So there is a you know, this is
Speaker 1: why that the lessons of Venezuela are important for us
Speaker 1: to understand in this country and to remember you don't
Speaker 1: want the government control of the entirety the economy. Social
Speaker 1: justice is not a smart way to run an economy.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, when they want to take
Speaker 1: your guns, you got a problem. Don't let them. Department
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security is looking to expand on a program
Speaker 1: that I just launched, or they will be testing DNA
Speaker 1: at the US Mexico border to establish that these are
Speaker 1: in fact family units that are showing up, that these
Speaker 1: are not children who are being rented. As we know
Speaker 1: has happened, that has been a problem that has faced
Speaker 1: immigrations and Customs enforcement and border patrol. We know that
Speaker 1: there have been instances of this. We know there's massive
Speaker 1: fraud occurring at the border. And now the Trump administration
Speaker 1: and their efforts to try and come up with ways
Speaker 1: that within the executive and law enforcement authority they have,
Speaker 1: they're coming up with ways to at least lean up
Speaker 1: the mess that is currently our southern border, if not
Speaker 1: control it entirely, make it slightly less catastrophic. And here's
Speaker 1: what CNAs reporting today on this. They'll start this DNA
Speaker 1: testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute
Speaker 1: individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling.
Speaker 1: The rapid DNA testing, as it's known, involves a cheek
Speaker 1: swab and ken on average, provide results in about ninety minutes.
Speaker 1: According to a senior ICE official. The pilot program will
Speaker 1: run for two to three days, and this is the
Speaker 1: Trump administration trying to crack down on this practice. No,
Speaker 1: I think this is where you see that there will
Speaker 1: be there will be challenges I think to this. I
Speaker 1: mean the Democrats will come up with some way to
Speaker 1: say that this is this is bad, that we should
Speaker 1: be we should not be supportive of this, we should
Speaker 1: find this unconstitutional or whatever. I mean, There'll be some
Speaker 1: crazy challenge to because ultimately Democrats do not want enforcement
Speaker 1: to get better. The results of all this, for those
Speaker 1: of you are wondering, they've got to create some kind
Speaker 1: of a database. No, the results of all this will
Speaker 1: be destroyed. And if there's a case where the child
Speaker 1: is accompanied by an uncle, a grandparent, etc. Then they
Speaker 1: have to have legal documentation with them to prove that
Speaker 1: they are in fact a family unit. And they're also,
Speaker 1: I think, going to prosecute people that try to scan
Speaker 1: the system, which they should be doing. They should be
Speaker 1: prosecuting people who try to scan the system scan the
Speaker 1: system because they're violating our laws. And you and I
Speaker 1: don't get to violate the laws with impunity. If you
Speaker 1: or I were to lie to federal law enforcement, we
Speaker 1: wouldn't be told, oh, well you have a good reason
Speaker 1: for that lie, and we understand that things are tough
Speaker 1: right now, and so we're going to let you go. No,
Speaker 1: this is where the law either applies or it doesn't.
Speaker 1: And I think that at the at the southern border
Speaker 1: right now, the Trump administration has had enough. They recognize
Speaker 1: that this is a massive scam, that this needs to stop,
Speaker 1: and they have to start putting disincentives in place. They
Speaker 1: need to disincentivize people from continuing. And even just I
Speaker 1: think the value of some prosecutions for fraud at the
Speaker 1: border will make people think twice about all the other
Speaker 1: frauds they're engaged in, lying about their age, lying about
Speaker 1: their circumstance. You know, I've heard people who will say,
Speaker 1: in the context of the Mueller probe, for example, where
Speaker 1: any lie of any kind, even if the very very
Speaker 1: small lie and doesn't really matter and there's no criminal
Speaker 1: conduct at issue, any lie is to be treated severely.
Speaker 1: You know, any lie is a huge problem. And then
Speaker 1: when I say, well, what about what's going on at
Speaker 1: our southern border, you know, it doesn't that make the
Speaker 1: system break down? They want to pretend that well, we
Speaker 1: can and expect people that are fleeing persecution we can't
Speaker 1: expect people that are coming from such difficult circumstances to
Speaker 1: tell the truth, really, and so now is there an
Speaker 1: exception for my life is tough, So I'm gonna lie
Speaker 1: to federal law enforcement officials I've been told. I think
Speaker 1: we actually even had a former assistant US attorney on
Speaker 1: this show to discuss this that if they prosecuted immigration
Speaker 1: violators or people that lie at the border in order
Speaker 1: to get into this country, that is all that our
Speaker 1: federal courts would be doing because their lives being told
Speaker 1: all the time. So in a sense, they've they've overwhelmed
Speaker 1: the system, including the system's ability to maintain the basic
Speaker 1: integrity of the truth that is the very foundation of
Speaker 1: everything that's going on. If you can lie to border patrol,
Speaker 1: if you can lie to customs enforcement, then how can
Speaker 1: they do their jobs. If you're just really going to
Speaker 1: rely on them to be able to know who's telling
Speaker 1: the truth and who's not without there being any penalty line,
Speaker 1: then the whole system starts to collapse. So this DNA
Speaker 1: swab issue will be helpful. This This isn't going to
Speaker 1: fix everything. That's not going to make all the problems
Speaker 1: go away, but one thing that I want you to
Speaker 1: keep an eye out for is there'll be some crazy
Speaker 1: objection to this. There will be some you know group
Speaker 1: that decides, you know what we are, We're going to
Speaker 1: challenge this in court. We find this to be you know,
Speaker 1: an unacceptable I don't know what their illegal grounds will be,
Speaker 1: but they'll they'll just say that this is, you know, discriminatory,
Speaker 1: a disparate impact, will come up with some crazy legal
Speaker 1: theory to say that this shouldn't be happening. And that
Speaker 1: just goes to my overall thesis that Democrats oppose enforcement
Speaker 1: of the law that can punish illegal aliens and anything
Speaker 1: that will take away the magnet for illegal aliens, anything
Speaker 1: that will make them less likely, less inclined to break
Speaker 1: our laws and come across our southern border. Democrats oppose
Speaker 1: is a knee jerk reaction from them. They will not relent.
Speaker 1: They will not be partners in trying and they will
Speaker 1: not relent on this, and they will not be our
Speaker 1: partners in finding a way to shut down this migration issue.
Speaker 1: They just won't do it. They because they benefit from it.
Speaker 1: As we know, they view this as as votes. You know,
Speaker 1: I just saw this past a couple of days, some imagery,
Speaker 1: some photos of hundreds of people crossing, hundreds of people
Speaker 1: crossing at a time. This is happening every day, my friends.
Speaker 1: This problem continues on and really gets worse because the
Speaker 1: larger the number of people through any one part of
Speaker 1: the immigration system, the larger the number that get into
Speaker 1: the country, the bigger the prize, so to speak, politically,
Speaker 1: the bigger the prize for those who will push for amnesty.
Speaker 1: So for Democrat purposes, that's the single that's everything. This
Speaker 1: means that they will be in power, and that's why
Speaker 1: they're willing to throw the rest of immigration system under
Speaker 1: the bus, because ultimately they think they'll sort it out
Speaker 1: once they destroy the Republican Party. Immigration is a means
Speaker 1: to destroy the Republican Party. That's why Democrats love it
Speaker 1: so illegal immigration, that's why they love it so much.
Speaker 1: And that's also why the urgency from the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is so necessary. I'm glad that they see this for
Speaker 1: what it is now. I wish that there had been
Speaker 1: a greater focus on this earlier on in Trump's term.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna just skip over that. But the president's
Speaker 1: doing what he can now. Is it too late? I
Speaker 1: don't know. My friends will keep covering it here. I
Speaker 1: don't know if it's too late. Sovereignty is eroding every day.
Speaker 1: Sports Illustrated now has a model in a burkini? Can
Speaker 1: the swimsuit issue truly get woke? That is the piece
Speaker 1: in the Washington Post here about the first ever Sports
Speaker 1: Illustrated Swimsuit issue with a burkini in it. And let
Speaker 1: me just say that, you know, this is I might
Speaker 1: get myself into little trouble here, but that's okay. A
Speaker 1: burkini is a version of a bikini that is covering
Speaker 1: a woman's skin all the way up to her wrists
Speaker 1: and down to her ankles. It is somewhat form fitted,
Speaker 1: but you also often wear some kind of a shawl
Speaker 1: or something on top of it. So look, it's not sexy, okay,
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry. I know that we're supposed to say, oh,
Speaker 1: all cultures have the same have the same good things,
Speaker 1: and that's the same degree of worthy attributes and the
Speaker 1: same kinds of drawbacks. It's just not true. It's just
Speaker 1: not true. The bikini is a wonderful invention of modern
Speaker 1: times and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, which I don't
Speaker 1: think people particularly care or talk about it anymore. But
Speaker 1: there was a time, you know, when I was growing
Speaker 1: up in the nineties, man, the swimsuit issue came out
Speaker 1: and people love and by people, I mean all my
Speaker 1: high school friends in me. We thought it was amazing.
Speaker 1: The celebration of female beauty is something that I think
Speaker 1: our society shouldn't shy away from. And I also think
Speaker 1: that if we're going to live in a country where
Speaker 1: we have free speech as well as the melting pot
Speaker 1: approach that we're supposed to have to new cultures and
Speaker 1: immigrants and everything else, then we got to say things
Speaker 1: like I'm just not okay with them. Barkini. Now when
Speaker 1: I say I'm not okay with it, if someone wants
Speaker 1: to wear it, that's their call. I don't you know.
Speaker 1: People can dress however they want to dress. I just
Speaker 1: am not going to be made to celebrate what I
Speaker 1: think looks ridiculous on a beach, which is a woman
Speaker 1: wearing coverage from her neck all the way down to
Speaker 1: her feet like she's in some kind of a wetsuit,
Speaker 1: and being told look and wet suits are necessary for things, right,
Speaker 1: I'm but and being told that it's this is sexy
Speaker 1: that this is. This is similar to Kathy Ireland back
Speaker 1: in the day in the nine Remember that Kathy Island. Guys,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about, Uh, you know, in
Speaker 1: a sports illustrated spread in a bikini. No, this is
Speaker 1: not sexy. And and also the whole Islamic covering of
Speaker 1: women is not based in liberation. The leftists all try
Speaker 1: to contort reality here because they really really don't want
Speaker 1: to be seen as as critical of Islam. They really
Speaker 1: don't want to be seen as as ever being unfavorable
Speaker 1: to what they view as a non white religion of
Speaker 1: oppressed people, even though Islam is soon to be the
Speaker 1: biggest religion in the world based on current trends. So
Speaker 1: it's not an oppressed faith, it's not a faith tradition
Speaker 1: that is cringing in fear and corners of the world.
Speaker 1: In fact, Islam tends to make other religions cringing fear
Speaker 1: if we're going to talk about religious conflict. But that's
Speaker 1: perhaps conversation for another time. But the whole notion of
Speaker 1: Islamic covering of women has to do with the oppression
Speaker 1: of women and all also this idea that women who
Speaker 1: allow themselves to be shown in public and to express
Speaker 1: their femininity and their beauty invite bad things to happen
Speaker 1: to them from men. This is true, and Islamic societies
Speaker 1: all throughout the Middle East that men can't be expected
Speaker 1: to behave themselves and not do terrible things if women
Speaker 1: are going to walk around in a short skirt or
Speaker 1: this is this is commonplace teaching. Many moms, and people
Speaker 1: make all kinds of excuses for this than everything else.
Speaker 1: But if you're looking for the motherload of oppression of
Speaker 1: women in motherload's a good term. I guess a motherload
Speaker 1: of oppression of women in any part of the world,
Speaker 1: Islam is number one by far. And this idea that
Speaker 1: we're going to celebrate the burkini as somehow equivalent to
Speaker 1: the bikini, no, I'm not going to play this game.
Speaker 1: I opt out of this. It's not sexy, it's not exciting,
Speaker 1: it's not stylish, and I think that to borrow from
Speaker 1: a Oriana Falacci on this one, I don't like it
Speaker 1: when people tell me that anyone has to wear a
Speaker 1: medieval rag or else. And that's true of the hijab
Speaker 1: in many cases, and it's certainly true of the Barkinian
Speaker 1: plenty of places. Hey, team Buck, it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Does anybody have a recommendation for a really good Spotify
Speaker 1: workout playlist? I've been listening to the same workout music
Speaker 1: way too much lately because I've actually been reasonably consistent
Speaker 1: about getting the gym. So if you have a good
Speaker 1: Spotify send me a link to your Spotify workout playlist
Speaker 1: on Facebook. Those of you who don't know what Spotify is,
Speaker 1: think of it like what people used to do with
Speaker 1: CDs now they do with an app. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I used to make fun of Spotify, and then I
Speaker 1: started using it, and then I found it was pretty
Speaker 1: pretty handy. Facebook dot Com slash Buck Sexton for all
Speaker 1: of your roll call needs, And with that, I say
Speaker 1: we just get right to it. Philip Rights Shields time Buck,
Speaker 1: Time for a buck deep dive into Venezuela. I heard
Speaker 1: your guests from Heritage last night, Duck your question about
Speaker 1: US military intervention. Tucker's Republican guests last night all but
Speaker 1: advocated our intervention, and with John Bolton advising the President,
Speaker 1: I'm very concerned that once again we will add to
Speaker 1: our long list of military interventionist failures abroad. In the
Speaker 1: name of doing something. We don't even know who Juan
Speaker 1: Guido is or what his policies will bring. Bring us
Speaker 1: a deep dive on the issue, Philip, I like the
Speaker 1: idea of a deep dive on it. Let me say
Speaker 1: this as to where I think this all goes. The
Speaker 1: more likely scenario, in my mind, than an intervention upfront,
Speaker 1: meaning now, would be an intervention after the fact of
Speaker 1: some kind. We would rather just see if Guido can
Speaker 1: win this on his own, although we are giving some
Speaker 1: assistance and help. I think that the call for US
Speaker 1: action will get louder if, in fact Maduro wins, which
Speaker 1: is a very real possibility. So in terms of US
Speaker 1: military intervention, we shouldn't do it. It's not our fight,
Speaker 1: it's not our problem. And I hope that there's not
Speaker 1: a hawkishness that wins the day in this White House,
Speaker 1: because I know that some of the advisors around Trump
Speaker 1: are very pro US intervention. As a general matter, they're
Speaker 1: pro US intervention. I do think that this situation venezue
Speaker 1: Venezuela illustrates, however, that just because we don't intervene doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that nobody intervenes. In fact, it is often the
Speaker 1: case that, or let me step back, The absence of
Speaker 1: US intervention in a foreign country is not like It's
Speaker 1: not like there's a ban on other countries intervening too.
Speaker 1: We seem to think that foreign policy that the US
Speaker 1: does not, even when the US does not engage in
Speaker 1: a certain foreign policy act, that other countries won't have
Speaker 1: the same kind of impetus, the same decision making processes.
Speaker 1: And it is often true that where the US does
Speaker 1: not intervene, there is a foreign power vacuum that will
Speaker 1: be filled by someone else. So that's something that I
Speaker 1: think we all need to remember. The absence of US
Speaker 1: intervention is not sovereignty respected. For whatever the situation is,
Speaker 1: the absence of US intervention often turns into Chinese Russia.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't mean the US should intervene all the time.
Speaker 1: It just means we should be aware of that. Adam
Speaker 1: writes Buck. When it comes to the elites, why can
Speaker 1: we not exploit the not in my backyard, every human
Speaker 1: being has and forced them to live with the policies
Speaker 1: they push. When it's close to home, they will change
Speaker 1: their tune shields high, Adam, I agree with you in principle.
Speaker 1: I just don't know how we would execute this plan
Speaker 1: in fact. So yeah, I think that at any time
Speaker 1: that somebody's advocating something that they themselves would reject, they
Speaker 1: would not accept living under the rules that they're pushing
Speaker 1: for the rest of us, or they don't take action
Speaker 1: that is commensurate with the degree of fervor that they're
Speaker 1: pushing the plans and all the rest of us. But
Speaker 1: climate change is a great example of this, but there
Speaker 1: are many others as well that should be an indicator,
Speaker 1: that should be a red flag to you. I you know,
Speaker 1: here's something that and I'm not trying to get into
Speaker 1: the vax discussion. I know there's a lot of news
Speaker 1: coverage right now because of the outbreaks of measles across
Speaker 1: the country, but I would say this one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why because people say, well, Buck, you don't you
Speaker 1: don't just take scientific consensus on climate change as fact,
Speaker 1: but you do take that as fact on the overwhelming
Speaker 1: safety and usefulness of the primary vaccines that we're all
Speaker 1: recommended to take and be given as children. And I say, well, yes,
Speaker 1: but everyone that's ever And I'm just saying this to
Speaker 1: illustrate the point about consistency. So I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: get into a whole vaccination discussion here, so you can
Speaker 1: please please don't send me vacstruth dot net slash. I
Speaker 1: get it. It's fine, thanks, I've got it covered. But
Speaker 1: the truth is that the people that are advocating for
Speaker 1: vaccination as the standard, they have been vaccinated, they get
Speaker 1: their kids vaccinated. They put their money where their mouth is.
Speaker 1: And that's a very different thing than what you see
Speaker 1: with the climate change crowd, where they're telling all of us,
Speaker 1: you know, don't don't fly in any kind of aircraft,
Speaker 1: and they're flying private. You know, they're telling all of
Speaker 1: us keep your carbon footprints small. But their house is
Speaker 1: twenty times the energy usage of a normal house and
Speaker 1: they don't. And they say the world's going to end
Speaker 1: unless we stop this. So that that hypocrisy is very
Speaker 1: instructive and it's something that nobody should should just gloss
Speaker 1: over or ignore. Michael writes Buck. So now the left
Speaker 1: calls one crazy racist in Pittsburgh the neo Nazis in Pittsburgh.
Speaker 1: It's a subtle change, but it makes a big difference,
Speaker 1: you know, Michael, I see, I see this time and
Speaker 1: again where one of the favorite tactics of the left is,
Speaker 1: or really of the mainstream media acting on behalf of
Speaker 1: the left, is when they claim that a single incident
Speaker 1: or a single individual is representative of a larger hole,
Speaker 1: and when they choose to actively exaggerate the threat or
Speaker 1: the degree of support for and I mean this whole,
Speaker 1: this white nationalist scourge that we keep hearing about. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is like five hundred guys spread out across the
Speaker 1: country who are losers. There's there is no white nationalist scourge.
Speaker 1: There is no white nationalist uprising that's waiting to happen.
Speaker 1: White nationalist terror is not what's keeping people in law
Speaker 1: enforcement up at night. I mean, I'll tell you this.
Speaker 1: And I just have this conversation recently with a friend
Speaker 1: of mine who's still on the he's still on the
Speaker 1: Intel side, he's the he's on the DHS side, I
Speaker 1: can tell you that. And he was very um disconcerted
Speaker 1: by the internal bureaucratic frenzy for analysis, papers and information
Speaker 1: on the white nationalist terror threat. And this is becoming
Speaker 1: a something that within the government. Now you're you're hearing
Speaker 1: from all different to all different parts of the you know,
Speaker 1: intel community, and at least the ones that deal domestically
Speaker 1: that we all have to be worried about white nationalism.
Speaker 1: He just says that there's obviously a politically motivated appetite
Speaker 1: for this right now, and Democrats want to just create
Speaker 1: as much that the idea of being you create as
Speaker 1: many think papers as possible on a very limited white
Speaker 1: nationalist pool, a very very minimal white nationalist threat in
Speaker 1: this country. And then you say, but look at all
Speaker 1: these papers on white nationalism. This must be a really
Speaker 1: big deal. You know. This is like stocking the pond
Speaker 1: with fish and then saying, WHOA, where'd all these fish
Speaker 1: come from. There's a lot of fish in this pond.
Speaker 1: Must be more, you know. That's what they're doing with
Speaker 1: white nationalist analysis. And there are no comparisons that anybody
Speaker 1: should really draw between the Islamic jihattiest threat and white nationalists.
Speaker 1: There are no white nationalist states, there are no major
Speaker 1: transnational white nationalist terror organizations. There is not a fifteen
Speaker 1: hundred year history of white nationalist ideological, ideologically based violence.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is all. This is all just the
Speaker 1: media trying to create a boogeyman that they're comfortable opposing
Speaker 1: because some of the other boogie men issues out there
Speaker 1: the media doesn't want to talk about. I mean, they
Speaker 1: always find that in a radical Islam is something that
Speaker 1: they want to downplay. Russia they've overplayed, They've made people
Speaker 1: terrified about Russia, even though Russia is not nearly the
Speaker 1: national security challenge and threat that they pretend it is.
Speaker 1: And they've as a result, largely underplayed the threat from China,
Speaker 1: which is are no question, our biggest national security challenge,
Speaker 1: the biggest economic challenge, all the above. Let's see here,
Speaker 1: Joe sah Right, buck, it's time to remind the libtards
Speaker 1: in NYC, in New York State about how petty these
Speaker 1: sobs are with their hatred of President Trump. We all
Speaker 1: cried and prayed for the thousands killed and injured in
Speaker 1: New York City on nine eleven, two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: We contribute to the nine to eleven Fund. Perhaps the
Speaker 1: next time the liberals get hit will just kick back
Speaker 1: and think, well, you reap what you sow. We will
Speaker 1: never set foot in New York State again. Joseph, Joseph,
Speaker 1: you know, look, I think I'm picking up that you're
Speaker 1: very angry about what they're doing to Trump in New
Speaker 1: York State. But I wouldn't. I wouldn't connect these things
Speaker 1: to nine to eleven and the sense of unity we
Speaker 1: had after that about I think I know what you're
Speaker 1: trying to say, but I'm I wouldn't draw the same
Speaker 1: kinds of comparisons, Keith Rights. How can Trump be an
Speaker 1: anti Semite when he stood up for Israel every time? Keith,
Speaker 1: That's a very good point, isn't it. Son in laws,
Speaker 1: son of laws, and Jew, daughters of Jew stand up
Speaker 1: for Israel, close friends with Net and Yahoo. He's an
Speaker 1: anti semit h. That's weird, isn't it? Very very weird?
Speaker 1: Ryan Rights? Hey, buddy Genghis Khan apologist in the house
Speaker 1: watch out ever talk to a Mongolian. Their perspective on
Speaker 1: Genghis is fascinating. Not only do their chests swell with pride,
Speaker 1: they credit him with their current democratic traditions. They'll point
Speaker 1: out that Genghis signed a rough equivalent of the Magna
Speaker 1: Carta nine years before King John. He outlined four basic
Speaker 1: democratic principles such as equality under the law, religious tolerance,
Speaker 1: and representation through things like the Wise Men's Counsel. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm going native on Mongolian civic websites, but I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting the Mongolians love democracy and perceived Genghis Khan
Speaker 1: as a founding father of all that. Who are we
Speaker 1: to complain? I bet I could make a lefty's brain
Speaker 1: explode with this kind of nuance. Ryan. There are Genghis
Speaker 1: Khan revisionists and even apologists out there, and they look
Speaker 1: Gega with Geanghas did was incredible. What Genghis did was
Speaker 1: create the most dominant military machine in its time, really
Speaker 1: of all time, and change human history in ways that
Speaker 1: I think we in the West are still very limited
Speaker 1: in the education we get on this. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're if you've got a carpet in your home somewhere,
Speaker 1: if you've got which I'm sure a lot of you do,
Speaker 1: if you ever use the post office, if these are
Speaker 1: all things that you can credit to the Mongols, yep,
Speaker 1: the spread of these things and the usage of these
Speaker 1: things among many many other traditions and inventions. Team, that's
Speaker 1: going to be it for today's show. I hope you
Speaker 1: thought it was as fantastic as I did. Excited to
Speaker 1: talk to you tomorrow. As always, no matter what comes
Speaker 1: our way, shields high