Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The declaration of emergency
Speaker 1: has occurred, but the President of the United States still
Speaker 1: has much work to do. We'll talk about where the
Speaker 1: immigration fight stands. And also, oh, it looks like Jesse
Speaker 1: Smollett was in fact engaged in hopes. We will talk
Speaker 1: about that and how we saw it all coming coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. Remember the actor and musician Jesse
Speaker 1: Small from the hit show Empire was attacked and beaten
Speaker 1: early this morning in Chicago, where two individuals yelled out
Speaker 1: racial and homophobic slurs. Investigators say one of the offenders
Speaker 1: wrapped a rope around Smalett's neck with a noose around
Speaker 1: his neck and hospitalized. Empire star Jesse Smalett was the
Speaker 1: victim of a vicious racist and homophobic attack and his
Speaker 1: attackers hurled racial and homophobic slurs. Not only homophobia, We're
Speaker 1: talking about racism, We're talking about hate with steroids. The
Speaker 1: offenders uttered this is anaga country, and Senator Corey Booker
Speaker 1: said the vicious attack when actor Jesse was an attempt
Speaker 1: at modern day lynching. Kamala Harris calling the attack and
Speaker 1: attempted modern day lynching. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: tweeting the racist, homophobic attack on Jesse Smollette is an
Speaker 1: affront where humanity. I'm so shaken by the story. This
Speaker 1: is horrible to report. This is a horrible story, rendous
Speaker 1: and unacceptable, absolutely despicable. Whom this is America in twenty
Speaker 1: night Taylor Oh, looks like the media got this one
Speaker 1: wrong too. Folks, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. My
Speaker 1: we have a lot to talk about today on President's Day,
Speaker 1: and I'm, for one, I'm very much looking forward to it. Now.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to limit the amount of end zone
Speaker 1: dancing that we do today on the show. But those
Speaker 1: of you who listen daily know that we have been
Speaker 1: on this Jesse Smollett fiasco from the start. That as
Speaker 1: soon as I heard the details of this attack, I said,
Speaker 1: I don't buy it. And then as soon as we
Speaker 1: heard his reaction, Jesse Smollett, this actor from the show
Speaker 1: Empire to the police, didn't want to give them his phone,
Speaker 1: give redacted Ragger I said, no, I'm sorry. This is
Speaker 1: just no. This is not credible, This is not believable.
Speaker 1: This is one of these instances where we should all
Speaker 1: take a step back and say, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: does this make sense? But did the media do that? No?
Speaker 1: They did not. They did not. They saw an opportunity
Speaker 1: to run with their preferred narrative, and they decided to
Speaker 1: take it. The narrative, of course, being that Trump has
Speaker 1: made this country so much more racist than it was previously,
Speaker 1: that he's such a terrible person, and that Trump's supporters.
Speaker 1: Remember this was really about his supporters as well, Our
Speaker 1: vile bigots, anti gay, violent, nasty, horrible people and so
Speaker 1: weird as to be walking around Chicago at two o'clock
Speaker 1: in the morning with a noose to throw around a
Speaker 1: black actor's neck while they yelled this is maga country.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I didn't think so. In fact,
Speaker 1: as you know, I've been doing updates on this, stretching
Speaker 1: back now for a couple of weeks, saying, mmm, something's
Speaker 1: up here, folks. Maybe I remember I told you, Maybe
Speaker 1: there was an exchange of some kind, Maybe he did
Speaker 1: have some kind of a fight, but or he just
Speaker 1: made the whole thing up, but it seemed to me
Speaker 1: a little bit much for him to just wholesale have
Speaker 1: had nothing to base this on. So what we find
Speaker 1: out now is that two brothers who just came back
Speaker 1: from Nigeria. I believe they were born in Chicago. I
Speaker 1: believe they are US citizens, just came back from Nigeria,
Speaker 1: their weightlifters. One of them had been on Smallett shows
Speaker 1: as an extra. They wanted to break into acting. And
Speaker 1: the reporting, now this is not confirmed by the Chicago
Speaker 1: Police Department yet, but the reporting says that Smallett paid
Speaker 1: them a few thousand dollars to engage in this faux
Speaker 1: hate crime against him, and that the rope that was used,
Speaker 1: and this was always we can go through what some
Speaker 1: of the tells were here, how do we know this
Speaker 1: was crap? Might be a worthwhile exercise to go back
Speaker 1: and look at some of it, but that the rope
Speaker 1: was bought at a Chicago store at Smollet's behassed by
Speaker 1: these two individuals, the two brothers, for him, and that
Speaker 1: this was all it was all a hoax, It was
Speaker 1: all a put on. It was a plot for attention,
Speaker 1: for sympathy, to raise his profile. And now here we are,
Speaker 1: with a few weeks gone by of bashing Trump, bashing
Speaker 1: his supporters. Look at how racists they are. Look at it,
Speaker 1: and it's a fake. It's a fake. And then, without
Speaker 1: any any shred of decency or honesty, the media trends
Speaker 1: around and says, oh, no, we yeah, we handle this
Speaker 1: one right, We did this one the right way. And oh,
Speaker 1: the people who are running around and celebrating that this
Speaker 1: is a hoax, they didn't understand how terrible it really
Speaker 1: is out there, all these hate crimes that happen, and
Speaker 1: they don't understand how awful it is in this country,
Speaker 1: all these victimized groups. I like crunch the numbers over
Speaker 1: the weekend, and let me tell you that the desire
Speaker 1: for there to be hate crimes to report on them
Speaker 1: in the media obviously greatly outstrips the number of real
Speaker 1: hate crimes that occur in any given year, because there
Speaker 1: are lots and lots and lots of high profile, very
Speaker 1: fake hate crimes that are reported, as we know, and
Speaker 1: Island fact go through and give you a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of them later on this hour, just just to give
Speaker 1: you a taste, just just to jog the memory of
Speaker 1: you know, how many fake How many fake robberies do
Speaker 1: you hear about? How many fake murders do you hear about?
Speaker 1: Very few? How many fake hate crimes you hear about?
Speaker 1: A lot? A lot. So we have a society now
Speaker 1: that is obsessed with victimhood and with victimhood as a
Speaker 1: means of hurting other people, right, using that victimhood, wielding
Speaker 1: it as a club, as a weapon against people that
Speaker 1: you don't like or that you disagree with, and seizing
Speaker 1: power for yourself in the process too. Victimhood is not
Speaker 1: just a passive thing. It's not just for sympathy. It's
Speaker 1: in the pursuit of power. Right. When people claim victimization,
Speaker 1: they want the state to act on their behalf. They
Speaker 1: want the state to pass laws or to take action
Speaker 1: against those that they say are victimizing them. And when
Speaker 1: you're talking about the victimization of a group at the
Speaker 1: hands of another group, whether it's white males or conservative
Speaker 1: or whatever it may be, your lack of individual culpability
Speaker 1: is no protection. Right. You know, no one is saying
Speaker 1: that you or I would have to, for example, pay
Speaker 1: reparations because of something that we had done. It is
Speaker 1: because of our existence in a class that under the
Speaker 1: logic of reparations, had previously and historically oppressed another class,
Speaker 1: and so therefore you and I today must pay for this.
Speaker 1: We've done nothing wrong, but it doesn't matter because it's
Speaker 1: about the collective, not the individual. This is obviously very
Speaker 1: disturbing stuff. But even though the media should feel utterly humiliated,
Speaker 1: this coming after the BuzzFeed fake news debacle, which came
Speaker 1: right before the Covington kids mess, where the media or
Speaker 1: saw an opportunity to tell a story about Trump world,
Speaker 1: I mean, they are really they are delusional. They have
Speaker 1: lost it. They're not reasonable, rational people anymore. They see
Speaker 1: a maga hat and they don't have any ability to
Speaker 1: reason through things. Anywhere. It's always, oh my gosh, this
Speaker 1: maga hat. It is truly triggered for them. It drives
Speaker 1: him into fits of rage or fear. They view the
Speaker 1: maga hath the supporting garment, if you will, of this administration,
Speaker 1: as as some have said on TV, almost like the
Speaker 1: almost like a white hood for the KKK, or or
Speaker 1: a Nazi symbol, a swastika. That's the same kind of
Speaker 1: emotional reaction that they give to it. And it's appalling
Speaker 1: and it's stupid. That it's unfair and it's destructive. But
Speaker 1: this is what we are up against. This is how
Speaker 1: the other side views it, and we should at least
Speaker 1: know that much as we talk about it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you had people blaming Trump for this. I mean, here,
Speaker 1: here's Maxine Waters play seven. We'd have to understand this
Speaker 1: is happening. It's coming from the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: He's dog whistland every day. He's separating and dividing, and
Speaker 1: he is basically embolding those folks who failed this way.
Speaker 1: Does she apologize to Trump now for that? I want
Speaker 1: to know is how is Trump responsible for a lie?
Speaker 1: A thing that did not happen? How can Trump be
Speaker 1: responsible for a non action? You know, am I responsible
Speaker 1: for the nuclear war that did not happen on the
Speaker 1: Korean peninsula yesterday? I don't know how it could be
Speaker 1: held responsible for that. It didn't happen. Is it my fault?
Speaker 1: This starts to feel like we're walking around some kind
Speaker 1: of you know, an insane asylum. Lives are the ones
Speaker 1: just walking in circles muttering to themselves? What are they
Speaker 1: talking about? I would note that even though they're wrong
Speaker 1: on this, you know where they're gonna go with it. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's raising awareness. Oh it shows us while this one
Speaker 1: may be untrue and I'm being This is what the
Speaker 1: meeting has been saying all day. People have come at
Speaker 1: me on Twitter about this too, that what this shows
Speaker 1: us is that there are some people who just don't
Speaker 1: want to believe in all that there's all this hate
Speaker 1: and racism that occurs in the country all the time.
Speaker 1: And to that, I say, no, I just didn't want
Speaker 1: to believe that this was one of those times because
Speaker 1: it wasn't. And I was right with libs though being
Speaker 1: right doesn't matter, it's about the narrative. Being right isn't
Speaker 1: a defense. I think that I obviously thought Jesse Smollett
Speaker 1: was lying all along. I was right. You know what
Speaker 1: that proves to libs that I don't see how racist
Speaker 1: and bad America really is and there must be maybe
Speaker 1: I'm some alt right bad person myself. There must be
Speaker 1: something wrong with me. Meanwhile, I'm right, they were wrong.
Speaker 1: Does that factor into this at all? And I've known
Speaker 1: I was known I was right all, you know, for
Speaker 1: days and days and days now, And it's not like
Speaker 1: this was some big surprise. I was on Fox on
Speaker 1: Friday saying This is not believable. This is implausible, I
Speaker 1: think was the word I used. It just doesn't add up,
Speaker 1: does not make sense. Now, now there's this effort to
Speaker 1: try and protect us. See, they don't want to they
Speaker 1: don't want to go there. The media doesn't want to
Speaker 1: have to reckon with the fact that they are an
Speaker 1: ideological monolith, that they all think the same way, that
Speaker 1: they all have these biases that they bring to these
Speaker 1: this subject matter, and that they're desperate to have the
Speaker 1: in group, to have their fellow journalists think highly of them.
Speaker 1: And they all have internalized this wokeness, this social justice
Speaker 1: crap that is intellectually garbage and that hurts the country,
Speaker 1: that hurts relationships between normal Americans day and day out.
Speaker 1: This idea that we're we're all just this big intersection
Speaker 1: of different layers of oppression, and this is how they
Speaker 1: approach it, and that the only way to self actualize,
Speaker 1: the only way to reach one's potential is to tear
Speaker 1: down other people who are outside of the preferred victimology narrative.
Speaker 1: There's no honesty now around this. There's no effort to
Speaker 1: try and fix in the media what's been broken here
Speaker 1: here here's one of these from from Vox, which is
Speaker 1: a laughing stock as as a site. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just the most left wing garbage ee garbage you could
Speaker 1: find anywhere. And one of their one of their explainer
Speaker 1: people or whatever, goes on CNN and just says things
Speaker 1: that aren't true. But it doesn't. See, the truth doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter these people. They want to always tell us, oh,
Speaker 1: Trump lied about this little thing or that little thing.
Speaker 1: These people don't care about the truth. They're propagandists. Here's
Speaker 1: what they said. Here's what one of the Vox propagandist
Speaker 1: said about smaller play for the MAGA quote. I remember
Speaker 1: reading about the story and looking for a real reputable
Speaker 1: media outlet reporting on that, and I could not find one. Right,
Speaker 1: the people who were repeating that quote, we're not news outlets.
Speaker 1: We're not media outlets. It was repeated by sure people
Speaker 1: who maybe had good intentions of wanting to spread the
Speaker 1: story and had empathy for what they thought was, you know,
Speaker 1: a real story. But we can't confuse celebrity tweets with
Speaker 1: the media and the press. And you know, so you're
Speaker 1: saying actors and activists, yeah, who were rushing to his side,
Speaker 1: they're friends with him, and they support him, and they're
Speaker 1: concerned about a pots blake. Are not the same as
Speaker 1: Chicago reporters who are trying to find out what happened exactly,
Speaker 1: And it is different. And look, we don't know what
Speaker 1: happened to Jesse, but what we do know is that
Speaker 1: racism is alive and well in this country. Homophobia is
Speaker 1: alive and well in this country. Oh, there we go,
Speaker 1: that's what we know. So this was all, by the way,
Speaker 1: we do know. That mean that this guy's a liar,
Speaker 1: you know, to what extent and how much and on
Speaker 1: what issues? But smallest line. Okay, now we're at the
Speaker 1: smallest lying part of this unless all the reporting out
Speaker 1: there is unless that's a lie, which I now we're
Speaker 1: getting into conspiracy territory. No, smallllet's not telling the truth
Speaker 1: about this. So but notice the transition into there's nothing
Speaker 1: that the media should learn about this that they believe
Speaker 1: this ridiculous story the whole line. And oh and she's
Speaker 1: she's wrong. By the way, he did and see Ann
Speaker 1: reported on this. He told police in the initial that yes,
Speaker 1: they yelled, this is maga country. So whether he heard
Speaker 1: somebody else say that, and he goes, yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: good line. I'll lie about that too, or that was
Speaker 1: in his initial you know, initial telling to police of
Speaker 1: this fable. Doesn't really matter. But this is maga country,
Speaker 1: is what somebody who hates Trump supporters but doesn't know
Speaker 1: any would think that a Trump supporter would say this
Speaker 1: is maga country in Chicago at two o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 1: Nobody would say that. It reminds me of the UVA
Speaker 1: that fake gang rape that was reported on by Rolling Stone,
Speaker 1: and you know, the media leapt all over it. You'll
Speaker 1: remember that the young woman who allegedly was gang raped
Speaker 1: and had glass in her back from being thrown on
Speaker 1: a glass table and ran out of a crowded party
Speaker 1: at the University of Virginia bleeding after being horribly and
Speaker 1: this was all, of course a complete fabrication, a total lie.
Speaker 1: But afterwards her friend said to her, you better not
Speaker 1: tell anybody about this because quote, it will ruin your
Speaker 1: social life. No normal human being on planet Earth, never
Speaker 1: mind at the University of Virginia, is going to tell
Speaker 1: their friend who has glass in their back after been
Speaker 1: brutally attacked. Don't tell anyone because it ruined your social life.
Speaker 1: These are tells about fabrication. These are lies. This is
Speaker 1: how we know, and this is Maga Country is a lie.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. And then I see the attacker
Speaker 1: masked and he said, this Maga Country punches me right
Speaker 1: in the face. So I've punched back. And then we
Speaker 1: started tussling. You know, it's very icy. I noticed the
Speaker 1: rope around my neck and I started screaming and I said,
Speaker 1: and there's a rope around my neck. I want them
Speaker 1: to see that I fought back. And I want a
Speaker 1: little gay boy who might watch this to see that
Speaker 1: I fought back. And it does not take anything away
Speaker 1: from people that are not able to do that, but
Speaker 1: I fought back. They ran off. I didn't What a
Speaker 1: nutbar that guy is. What a loon? First of all,
Speaker 1: the whole no one ever said that he that that
Speaker 1: the this is Maga Country line. Well he said it,
Speaker 1: So I think we can dispense with that, right because
Speaker 1: now in retrospect, everybody says what I was saying all along,
Speaker 1: which is this is Maga country. Nobody's gonna say that
Speaker 1: this is you can do this tell It's like, this
Speaker 1: is Maga Country. Yeah, you know, it's like, that's what
Speaker 1: somebody who's an actor in Chicago thinks that people who
Speaker 1: vote Trump sound like euge Maga country. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: what is that all about? It's just bizarre for him
Speaker 1: to say that there's there's no basis in but people
Speaker 1: believed it. They believed it. They gave him the puff
Speaker 1: piece interview over at ABC. You know, I want to
Speaker 1: see that I fought back. How crazy do you have
Speaker 1: to be to go on a national TV interview and
Speaker 1: lie about something like this? I mean, how how whackoed
Speaker 1: do you really have to be as a person to
Speaker 1: do that. This guy's got got problems. But I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna say, a team, we were right all along. We
Speaker 1: saw this coming, we were correct, We did all of
Speaker 1: our updates. And while the lib media is not going
Speaker 1: to give us any credit for it, you know what,
Speaker 1: it's nice to be right. It's nice to be correct.
Speaker 1: I'm pissed off. What is it that has you so angry?
Speaker 1: The attackers? Attackers, But it's also the attacks. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, at first, it was a thing of like, listen,
Speaker 1: if I tell the truth, then that's it, because it's
Speaker 1: the truth. Then it became a thing of like, oh,
Speaker 1: how can you doubt that, like you, how do you
Speaker 1: not believe that it's the truth. And then it became
Speaker 1: a thing of like, oh, it's not necessarily that you
Speaker 1: don't believe that this is the truth. You don't even
Speaker 1: want to see the truth. I don't think he wants
Speaker 1: to see the truth because he's not a meeting with
Speaker 1: cops today in Chicago, So you can take that for
Speaker 1: what it's worth. Jesse Small at what a what an
Speaker 1: incredible hoax? This whole thing has been incredible the sense
Speaker 1: of not believable and amazing at the same time. Andy
Speaker 1: no is a writer for Quilette. We've had him on before.
Speaker 1: He's done a lot of great work on Antifa and
Speaker 1: just exposing the looney left for what it is, and
Speaker 1: he's pulled together a threat. It is an epic threat
Speaker 1: on Twitter that I want to share with you on
Speaker 1: just all the hoaxes out there in the Trump era
Speaker 1: that are it's always the same story, Oh my gosh, Trump,
Speaker 1: all the hate, all the hatefulness because of Trump, and
Speaker 1: then we go, oh, no, what happened, And well it
Speaker 1: turns out nothing happened. But we're not supposed to take
Speaker 1: this as meaning anything, right that there are all these
Speaker 1: hoaxes out there doesn't mean anything, is what Andy writes
Speaker 1: the following Right after Donald Trump's election, the Southern Poverty
Speaker 1: Law Center really stoked panic. A pro gay Episcopal church
Speaker 1: in Indiana was vandalized with hile Trump, a swastika, and
Speaker 1: an anti gay slur. Turns out it was a gay
Speaker 1: Oregon player who did it. He was only charged with
Speaker 1: a misdemeanor. Days after the Pittsburgh massacre, Trump supporters were
Speaker 1: blamed for Nazi vandalism at a Brooklyn synagogue and fires
Speaker 1: in a Jewish community. Turns out the perpetrator was a
Speaker 1: gay black man who had worked with City Council on
Speaker 1: Initiatives to fight hate crimes. One week before the presidential election,
Speaker 1: a black church in Mississippi was burned in an arson attack.
Speaker 1: Vote Trump was written on the building. After much panic,
Speaker 1: an investigation revealed the man responsible was a church member,
Speaker 1: Andrew McClinton, who was himself an African American. In November
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana
Speaker 1: said two white racist Trump supporters brutally assaulted her, ripped
Speaker 1: off her her job, and robbed her. The story went
Speaker 1: totally viral it was a lie. Media never identified her
Speaker 1: by name after the hoax was revealed. Trumpet his supporters
Speaker 1: were blamed for a spate of anti Semitic KKK and
Speaker 1: Nazi graffiti on the campus of Nassau Community College in
Speaker 1: Long Island in twenty sixteen. The student responsible a left
Speaker 1: winger named Joskirat Sainy from South Asia. In December twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: a Muslim woman said she was attacked by three white
Speaker 1: Trump supporters in New York City on the subway. She
Speaker 1: said they try to rip off her her job. Yasmin
Speaker 1: Suade lied but care. The Council on American Islamic Relations
Speaker 1: said Muslims are under tremendous stress and pressure, which results
Speaker 1: in incidents like this. In September twenty eighteen, a black
Speaker 1: woman in Long Island said Trump supporters confronted her and
Speaker 1: told her she didn't belong here. Her car tire was
Speaker 1: slashed the next day, and a hateful note was left
Speaker 1: behind saying go home. Turns out she made up the
Speaker 1: whole story herself. In November twenty eighteen, students at Goucher
Speaker 1: College demanded social justice training and safe spaces after racist,
Speaker 1: Nazi and KKK graffiti was found on campus. Someone even
Speaker 1: wrote the names of black students. Trump was blamed for
Speaker 1: this right away, but Flynn Arthur, a black student, was responsible.
Speaker 1: In twenty seventeen, at Saying Olaf College, it was royal
Speaker 1: by mass protests in response to anti black notes found
Speaker 1: across campus. Class was canceled at administrative administration's cave to demands.
Speaker 1: An investigation found that Samantha Wells, one of the alleged
Speaker 1: black victims, who was herself black, fabricated the entire incident.
Speaker 1: In November twenty sixteen, a Philadelphia and neighborhood was rattled
Speaker 1: when property was vandalized with pro Trump and anti black messages.
Speaker 1: William Tucker Black was identified as the vandal through CCTV
Speaker 1: footage in November twenty sixteenth. Okay, you know what we
Speaker 1: could do. I mean, this is an incredible threat that
Speaker 1: and he pulled. It goes on and on and on
Speaker 1: and on. I could do a whole hour of the
Speaker 1: show just reading off all these are all hoax hate crimes.
Speaker 1: Folks that received national le These are all reported on.
Speaker 1: These aren't just in the deep and the FBI statistics
Speaker 1: somewhere national level attention, big news story hoaxes, people lying
Speaker 1: about it. If we're in such a hateful, awful country,
Speaker 1: if the environment right now is so destructive and evil
Speaker 1: and anti gay, and anti black, and anti women and
Speaker 1: anti minority because of Trump, why do we have so
Speaker 1: many fake hate crimes that are occurring that or what
Speaker 1: we're basing this narrative of, oh, there's a rise in
Speaker 1: hate crimes on in the first place. When do we
Speaker 1: get to take a step back and say, maybe the
Speaker 1: left's got it wrong here, maybe they're being yeah, ideologically blinded.
Speaker 1: I ran the numbers, by the way, you know what,
Speaker 1: the you know what the hate crimes which include mean comments,
Speaker 1: which the whole other conversation. But where the First Amendment
Speaker 1: stops and hate crimes begin. But hate crimes, according to
Speaker 1: the FBI, about one and forty thousand people will will
Speaker 1: will be a victim of or could see a hate
Speaker 1: crime on any given year. One and forty thousand. There
Speaker 1: are eight thousand total reports of hate crimes in any
Speaker 1: given year. This is not an epidemic, my friends. Most
Speaker 1: of those crimes are to property. It's vandalism, it's people
Speaker 1: saying and writing things, We'll be right back. It confirms
Speaker 1: what I've been arguing for a very long time, which
Speaker 1: is that the investigation was always about President Trump, and
Speaker 1: it was going on for many months before May of
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, the Bureau went overt in its case filing
Speaker 1: system to say that they were opening a case officially
Speaker 1: on President Trump, But they had been investigating him for
Speaker 1: a very long time before then under the auspices of
Speaker 1: counter intelligence, hoping to be able to make a case
Speaker 1: on him. Sir, friend Andy McCarthy saying what absolutely needs
Speaker 1: to be said now, Some senior officials at FBIDJ were
Speaker 1: going after Trump. That's all. This was all the Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: Sanctity of our elections. Mumbo jumbo is just that. It's garbage, claptrap, nonsense, malarkey.
Speaker 1: People were trying to cover up for what their real
Speaker 1: agenda was. They don't care about the harm done to
Speaker 1: the faith and trust that the American people are really
Speaker 1: required to have in these institutions of justice and law enforcement.
Speaker 1: They thought they had a bigger, more important mission stopping
Speaker 1: Trump and getting vengeance for Hillary Clinton. That's one part
Speaker 1: of this too. You'd be one thing if Trump had
Speaker 1: defeated some really wonderful and worthy person you know, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but I can't just let this go. It would be
Speaker 1: at least a little bit more understandable to me that
Speaker 1: they would violate their oaths, that these fbidj stooges would
Speaker 1: do the things that they've done if the person who
Speaker 1: was running against Trump was, even if I disagreed with
Speaker 1: him or her, a really good person. I mean, Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's a nightmare, all right. The Clinton's, the whole Clinton
Speaker 1: dynasty is a nightmare of corruption, lies, self dealing, just
Speaker 1: the worst in the contemporary American politician. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: all encapsulated in the Clintons, both of them. What book,
Speaker 1: Why are you being so mean? I'll just you know,
Speaker 1: I just want to give ladies a little high five,
Speaker 1: maybe a little squeeze, and see what's going on, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, everyone makes all these excuses for Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: for Hillary Clinton. Why, I've got a big country, three
Speaker 1: hundred twenty million people. That's the best that we can do.
Speaker 1: And these f behinddo ja guys, they're so upset because
Speaker 1: they want a Hillary. They wanted Benghazi Hillary to be
Speaker 1: the one who was in charge, so much better than Trump.
Speaker 1: What are they smoking over there? But it was always
Speaker 1: about getting Trump, and they use counterintelligence as the open
Speaker 1: doorway to get where they needed to go. That was it.
Speaker 1: They abuse the discretion that they have, and I want
Speaker 1: you'd always remember this, you know, if Pete never that
Speaker 1: the whole thing about how a prosecutor can inde a
Speaker 1: ham sandwich, I can tell you law enforcement can investigate
Speaker 1: anybody for anything. I mean, it's really easy to do.
Speaker 1: I've been there. I've written the justification statements for counter
Speaker 1: terrorism investigations. I've created the legal record for this in
Speaker 1: my past. Okay, where we got to look at this
Speaker 1: guy for this reason and this reason and this reason.
Speaker 1: Now it was counter terrorism, So the stakes were high,
Speaker 1: and I was always trying to be ethical and legal
Speaker 1: in all my acts. I had no interest in investigating
Speaker 1: somebody who I didn't think was a threat. I had
Speaker 1: no interest in investigating somebody that there was not a
Speaker 1: real predicate to look into. But if I had wanted to,
Speaker 1: if you wanted to just go after somebody for a
Speaker 1: certain reason, it's not hard to do. And when you
Speaker 1: add into it all this stuff seis confidential informants and
Speaker 1: you know, all these different ways that they can create
Speaker 1: these investigations. The moment you have account our intelligence component
Speaker 1: to it. They have built in cover ups. Oh that's classified.
Speaker 1: Can't tell you about that. Oh we can't show you
Speaker 1: what we told the fire as a chord. Oh they're
Speaker 1: using the dossier, They're using opposition information as the justification
Speaker 1: for this. How much more transparent can it be that
Speaker 1: this was a political hit? So you know, Andy McCarthy
Speaker 1: is just saying that this is telling us more we
Speaker 1: already know, which is absolutely true. Even the dish hey
Speaker 1: thirsh even he waited on this whole notion of the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment and removing Trump from office. And how
Speaker 1: you know these these FBI guys, their stories don't add up.
Speaker 1: Parts of this are are a problem, Parts of this
Speaker 1: are missing. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: Play clip fourteen. I think McCabe and Rod Rosenstein really
Speaker 1: believe that the President had obstruct to justice. I think
Speaker 1: they were wrong, but they honestly believed it, and they
Speaker 1: were looking for a way short of impeachment to remove
Speaker 1: him from office. I think any law enforcement official who
Speaker 1: thinks that the twenty fifth end and operates in a
Speaker 1: case like this is disqualified from serving in government. Absolutely true.
Speaker 1: Rosenstein should be fired. He should have been fired a
Speaker 1: long time ago. The only reason he can't be fired
Speaker 1: is if he got fired. The Dems have created this
Speaker 1: whole Oh my gosh, Rosenstein, he's the Mueller Probe, He's
Speaker 1: the saint of the Mueller Probe. They'd act like, oh,
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. This is all narrative building. They've set this
Speaker 1: up all along. There can be no accountability for Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: There can be no responsibility for these actions that he's taken,
Speaker 1: because the moment you do anyth against Rosenstein, they view
Speaker 1: it as a strike against the Muellerprobe, the heart of
Speaker 1: the Mueller Probe, because he's there, watching over it, making
Speaker 1: sure that it goes on without the smaller probe. I've
Speaker 1: told it it's gonna end soon. I have it on
Speaker 1: good authority. It's gonna end soon. And it's got it's
Speaker 1: got nothing. It's going nowhere. Unfortunately, because the Democrats are insane,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that the Russia collusion delusion stops. They'll
Speaker 1: just come up with new investigations, new ways to approach this,
Speaker 1: new rationalizations for what should be a deeply a deeply
Speaker 1: embarrassing episode for the FBI and the DOJ. But which
Speaker 1: Democrats are gonna just grab onto like a dog with
Speaker 1: a bone. They're gonna think this is great, let's just
Speaker 1: let's go over They'll go over all the same material too,
Speaker 1: because they've brainwashed their side. I speak to Democrats about this.
Speaker 1: They really think that there's some there was some plot
Speaker 1: the hack and the emails with Trump, and they don't
Speaker 1: understand how crazy they sound, and that that could be
Speaker 1: done with out there being any hard evidence of this
Speaker 1: emerging at this point, with all the emails pulled and
Speaker 1: the phone records, and never all these people under oath
Speaker 1: and being prosecuted for even the slightest misremembering or deviation
Speaker 1: from the facts or lying or whatever you want to
Speaker 1: call it, they still have nothing. And yet the Democrat
Speaker 1: line on this doesn't change at all. Oh well, he
Speaker 1: still must include it. We just haven't found it yet.
Speaker 1: They'll never stop this because it was never about getting
Speaker 1: to the truth. Unfortunately, it has been successful. As I
Speaker 1: have said so many times here because it does bear repeating,
Speaker 1: this was always about slowing down and hurting the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: This was always about an opposition. This was hashtag resistance
Speaker 1: to what Trump was trying to accomplish. And there's no
Speaker 1: way to fully gauge just how damaging this has been.
Speaker 1: There's no way for us to really know what it is.
Speaker 1: Is that the full, you know, the full drawback of
Speaker 1: this whole investigation has been for Trump in terms of
Speaker 1: policy and what he's been able to accomplish. They just
Speaker 1: figured that, you know, they knew that it would be bad,
Speaker 1: It would be sand in the gears, it would slow
Speaker 1: things down, it would hurt Trump's agenda, it would make
Speaker 1: his life as president more difficult, and that alone, in
Speaker 1: their view, was sufficient. That alone, as the left sees, it,
Speaker 1: was enough to justify all of this. So unfortunately, there's
Speaker 1: not going to be that much of a haha moment,
Speaker 1: even though a lot of us, I think would like
Speaker 1: one when this whole Muther probe goes nowhere, because it's
Speaker 1: gone already far enough for them just by hurting Trump's presidency,
Speaker 1: just by creating this whole apparatus of irritation and anxiety
Speaker 1: and obstruction, I mean, this was an obstruction effort of
Speaker 1: all things Trump, and unfortunately, in that regard, the Libs
Speaker 1: have been pretty successful. It is upsetting, to say the least,
Speaker 1: But then you look at the other side of this
Speaker 1: and where the Libs are going to have to go here?
Speaker 1: I just thought this was kind of this was this
Speaker 1: was quite a thing during campaign stopping because you got
Speaker 1: all these Democrats now that they're running. Elizabeth Warren was
Speaker 1: at a rally in Georgia and somebody was holding a one,
Speaker 1: two and twentieth sign and this is how that went
Speaker 1: and play nineteen. Yes we're gonna do this. So I thought,
Speaker 1: what we do today, I'm just so glad you're here.
Speaker 1: I thought, what we do today is that I talk
Speaker 1: a little bit, just kind of introduce myself who I am,
Speaker 1: a little bit of my story. Well, we'll make this happen,
Speaker 1: and then we're there. We're there, hold on, hold on,
Speaker 1: We'll get to lots of policy. I absolutely promise I
Speaker 1: have a little They promise, can we can we turn
Speaker 1: her off for a minute? Who thinks that this woman
Speaker 1: is someone? Yeah, I'm gonna get me a beer. Who
Speaker 1: thinks that this is a person that anyone wants to
Speaker 1: vote for? Piera? I am Massachusetts Libs? What is up
Speaker 1: with you? I'm not talking about Massachusetts conservatives in the House.
Speaker 1: Thank you for all you do. Massachusetts Libs, what is
Speaker 1: wrong with you? This is where you want to be
Speaker 1: your senator. I just want to talk and be really
Speaker 1: annoying and loud all the time. And oh it's horrible,
Speaker 1: isn't it. So the good news is Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to keep doing what they do, and they're not very
Speaker 1: good at it. Discussion of the twenty fifth Amendment was
Speaker 1: simply Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me
Speaker 1: in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet
Speaker 1: officials might support such an effort. Rosenstein was actually openly
Speaker 1: talking about whether there was a majority of the cabinet
Speaker 1: who would vote to remove the president. That's correct, counting
Speaker 1: votes or possible votes. What seemed to be coursing through
Speaker 1: the mind of the Deputy Attorney General was getting rid
Speaker 1: of the President of the United States. Well, one way
Speaker 1: or another. I can't confirm that, but what I can
Speaker 1: say is the Deputy Attorney General was definitely very concerned
Speaker 1: about the president, about his capacity and about his intent
Speaker 1: at that point in time. The CABE is a slimy,
Speaker 1: a slimy loser, folks. Bad guy. Bad guy came across
Speaker 1: in this interviews. Well. Notice how when asked about Rosenstein
Speaker 1: bringing up the twenty fifth amendments to remove a president
Speaker 1: from office. He goes, well, you know, I can't confirm it,
Speaker 1: that's what he of course he could confirm it. He's
Speaker 1: not an idiot, but he just doesn't want to admit.
Speaker 1: He does not want to admit what is planly obvious.
Speaker 1: What he really doesn't want is to have to answer
Speaker 1: some questions like, oh, were you hoping to engage in
Speaker 1: a coup against the president United States? Using the law
Speaker 1: as a pretext, using the constitution, abusing a an amendment
Speaker 1: of the Constitution as a pretext to remove a president.
Speaker 1: Their plan is a stupid plan. Rosenstein's gonna wear a
Speaker 1: wire to get the president? What, oh, they're gonna get
Speaker 1: him saying that he fired Coomy because of Russia. Guess what,
Speaker 1: even if they did that, that's not a twenty fifth
Speaker 1: Amendment thing. Comy was a lanky clown, a self righteous,
Speaker 1: self interested clown. I mean, so much of what McCabe says,
Speaker 1: I watched the whole thing, by the way, all of it.
Speaker 1: So much of what McCabe says here just confirms what
Speaker 1: many of us have known all along, which is that
Speaker 1: there really was, there really was a deep state effort
Speaker 1: against the president. That's real. You know, we keep being
Speaker 1: told by the media, Oh, that thing that you think
Speaker 1: that we were doing or we were saying about Trump,
Speaker 1: or that the government was you know, at the top
Speaker 1: level of the bureaucracy trying to do about Trump, that
Speaker 1: you're crazy, that wasn't happening. We weren't doing that. And
Speaker 1: then with the passage of time and more facts coming out,
Speaker 1: Oh no, they were doing that. Yeah, no, that's actually
Speaker 1: a thing that they were doing, that was happening. Sure
Speaker 1: we were surveiling the Trump campaign. Sure we were, you know,
Speaker 1: thinking about wearing a wire against the president and said, sure,
Speaker 1: we were thinking about invoking the twenty fifth Amendment. Was
Speaker 1: it long ago or they were telling us that that
Speaker 1: was absolutely not the case. This should be investigated as this.
Speaker 1: People keep comparing this to Watergate. This is way worse
Speaker 1: than Watergate. And I don't know, people say that about
Speaker 1: all worse than Watergate, you know, it's an alliteration. But
Speaker 1: this is way worse than Watergate. This is using the
Speaker 1: intelligence community to try and drum up a criminal investigation,
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution of the president and his top people, maybe
Speaker 1: go after the president's own family, his own children. Utter disgrace,
Speaker 1: that the media sits around and goes, oh, well, I
Speaker 1: guess yeah, they did want to just remove the president.
Speaker 1: Could you imagine if somebody had had a discussion and
Speaker 1: not just anyone the Attorney General for all intents and purposes,
Speaker 1: the acting Attorney General, and wanted to have a discussion
Speaker 1: about or you know whatever deputy Attorney general about removing
Speaker 1: the president the United States because they think he's crazy.
Speaker 1: If anyone had said that about Obama, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that person would have to leave the country. I
Speaker 1: don't think that they'd be able to, you know, go
Speaker 1: and buy a gallant of milk and piece the rest
Speaker 1: of their lives. But with with you know, with Rosenstein McCabe,
Speaker 1: you know, it's no big deal. Rosenstein comes across to me.
Speaker 1: He's one of these guys who you know, he's he's
Speaker 1: played the game. There's something there's something wrong with him.
Speaker 1: There's something wrong with them. And the same thing with McCabe.
Speaker 1: These are guys who have been bureaucratic in fighters for
Speaker 1: a long time and they've they've made compromises in those
Speaker 1: in those organizations to get where they are. Can tell
Speaker 1: you that it comes across and all this information and
Speaker 1: that they would be so sanguine in talking about the
Speaker 1: possible removal of president United States. Could you imagine what
Speaker 1: that would do to this country? Could you just just
Speaker 1: theoretically for a second, think if they managed to get
Speaker 1: like Tillerson and this guy and that guy and a
Speaker 1: few other cabinet officials, they convinced them, yeah, we're going
Speaker 1: to remove the president because we think he's not of
Speaker 1: sound mind. When you have ninety percent approval rating for
Speaker 1: this president Republican Party, this is the kind of thing.
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly. This is the the kind of thing that
Speaker 1: pulls a government apart. This is the kind of situation
Speaker 1: that undermines the legitimacy of a governing system in a
Speaker 1: way that it maybe never recovers from. You're gonna have
Speaker 1: some elites just be yeah, you know, sorry, you're not
Speaker 1: the president anymore because we say so what? And notice
Speaker 1: how they never stop and think, maybe we've got this wrong.
Speaker 1: If it can't be the twenty fifth Amendment coup maneuver,
Speaker 1: then it's got to be the criminal investigation with Muller.
Speaker 1: They were doing everything that they could possibly think of
Speaker 1: to take down this president. And I keep trying to
Speaker 1: remind everybody who will listen. What do they have to
Speaker 1: show for it? What proof can they provide us that
Speaker 1: there was anything sufficient to justify what happened here? All
Speaker 1: this concern that they have, all of this, Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the president's crazy, he's a criminal, he worked with Rush,
Speaker 1: all this stuff. What have they been able to find? Nothing? Nothing?
Speaker 1: I just I can't tell if if they're just not
Speaker 1: very if they're the main driver of this is that
Speaker 1: they're not very smart, or they're just deeply unethical, or
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of different ways that we
Speaker 1: could go with this. How could the FBI acting director,
Speaker 1: How could Komey and McCabe and Brannan and Rosenstein, all
Speaker 1: these different figures have been so wrong unless they were
Speaker 1: blinded by ideological hatred of this president, unless they really
Speaker 1: believed all this propaganda that the president was some monster
Speaker 1: who's going to destroy America, a clear and present danger
Speaker 1: to the future of this country. And how embarrassed should
Speaker 1: they be now that, after all that they've tried to
Speaker 1: do to this president, not only do they have nothing
Speaker 1: on him, the country's actually doing well. He's actually a
Speaker 1: good and pretty effective president. All the decades of service
Speaker 1: that these men and women, Sally Yates, and there are
Speaker 1: obviously some women involved in this. True all of that,
Speaker 1: and what wisdom did they bring to bear with these decisions?
Speaker 1: They have forever tainted, forever tainted the reputations of the FBI,
Speaker 1: the CIA, the Department of Justice. So many of the
Speaker 1: people that are the most vocal critics of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration have always been holding out that the biggest problem
Speaker 1: with Trump, you see, is that he undermines institutions. He
Speaker 1: undermines these institutions. What could undermine these institutions more than
Speaker 1: having the senior bureaucrats of the government who are employees
Speaker 1: of the president, trying to find any excuse, pathetically desperately
Speaker 1: looking for an excuse to get read of this president
Speaker 1: based on what that they don't like him. Lindsey Graham,
Speaker 1: Jesus for what it is, Blakelift twelve. So through good
Speaker 1: reporting by sixty minutes, there's an allegation by the acting
Speaker 1: FBI director at the time that the deputy Attorney General
Speaker 1: was basically trying to do an administrative coup take the
Speaker 1: president down through the twenty fifth Amendment process. The deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General denies it. So I promise your viewers the
Speaker 1: following that we will have a hearing about who's telling
Speaker 1: the truth, what actually happened. Mister Kabe, you remember, was
Speaker 1: dismissed from the FBI for leaking information to the press,
Speaker 1: So you got to remember the source here. Yep, that's right.
Speaker 1: Why hasn't McCabe faced charges yet? I've heard from so
Speaker 1: many people last few months, in particular, whether it's dealing
Speaker 1: with Stone, Roger Stone, or pop adop lists or all these.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're tied to Trump and you lie
Speaker 1: even about what you had for breakfast in the morning,
Speaker 1: you lie about anything, and Muller gets you, that's justice,
Speaker 1: That's what they tell us. Why is it not then
Speaker 1: justice for McCabe to face criminal prosecution? You know, I
Speaker 1: wonder how many people Andy McCabe has sent to prison
Speaker 1: because his handwritten notes of a meeting were different than
Speaker 1: their recollection of the meeting. I wonder. I bet the
Speaker 1: answer is a lot. Put a lot of people in
Speaker 1: prison for that. You know. This is why you know,
Speaker 1: we ask a lot. We expect a lot of senior
Speaker 1: law enforcement officials because they have a lot of power,
Speaker 1: a lot of authority, and the most dangerous place of
Speaker 1: interaction for citizens with their government is law enforcement. That
Speaker 1: is the most dangerous place for your average American in
Speaker 1: terms of where there could be abuse, where corruption and
Speaker 1: politicization is truly terrifying. It's the IRS and law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Although you could argue that IRS is essentially an agency
Speaker 1: set up to enforce the tax code, so it does
Speaker 1: have it an enforcement mission. But law enforcement overall, that's
Speaker 1: where if you have political activists, people that really view
Speaker 1: their mission not as enforcing the law, but as enacting
Speaker 1: some kind of ideological agenda and collecting scalps along the way,
Speaker 1: destroying people, destroying the opposition along the way. That should
Speaker 1: be deeply disturbing to anyone, regardless of where they fall
Speaker 1: on the political spectrum. But but don't view it that way.
Speaker 1: Libs know that just as they have an ideological hold
Speaker 1: on the academy, so colleges and universities and schools, on Hollywood,
Speaker 1: on the national press and the media, they also have
Speaker 1: taken root at the highest levels of the federal bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: just how Libs have overtaken law schools now and the
Speaker 1: legal profession is increasingly, not entirely, but increasingly a province
Speaker 1: of the progressive left. The legal profession. Mind, not even
Speaker 1: just law schools. A lot of lib lawyers running around.
Speaker 1: Same thing is true of the federal bureaucracy, and that's
Speaker 1: what was in action here with McCabe and Comy and
Speaker 1: all the rest of them. But you know, the question
Speaker 1: was never even asked in this whole sixteen minutes a
Speaker 1: long interview, in this whole sixteen minutes interview. You know,
Speaker 1: mister McCabe, why do you think that any of this
Speaker 1: was justified? What do you have now? What can you
Speaker 1: tell us? What can you show us to justify all
Speaker 1: of this investigating the answers? He's got nothing. What I'll
Speaker 1: tell you is that if somebody really wants to investigate you,
Speaker 1: trust me, they can find a reason. So if they
Speaker 1: don't have to explain why they're investigating, it just becomes
Speaker 1: a weapon. Global Verification Network is the only dual certified,
Speaker 1: veteran owned background investigation and adding company. Okay, this is
Speaker 1: a company that you can trust because I trust them,
Speaker 1: I know them, and I know that in this area
Speaker 1: of having background checks done, Global Verification Network is second
Speaker 1: to none. You should check them out to headquartered in Chicago,
Speaker 1: but they have risk mitigation experts across the country and
Speaker 1: whatever size your company, whatever industry you're in. You could
Speaker 1: be a huge four to one hundred company or all
Speaker 1: the way down to startups. Global Verification Network. Make sure
Speaker 1: that they tailor their programs to your needs. Call them
Speaker 1: yourself and see make sure you tell them you heard
Speaker 1: about them from Team buck eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. That's eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five one one seven nine. Or go to my
Speaker 1: GVN dot com again, that's my GVN dot com. We're
Speaker 1: going to be signing today and registry National Emergency and
Speaker 1: it's a great thing to do because we have an
Speaker 1: invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and
Speaker 1: it's unacceptable. I could do the wall over a longer
Speaker 1: period of time I didn't need to do this, but
Speaker 1: I'd rather do it much faster, and I don't have
Speaker 1: to do it for the election. I've already done a
Speaker 1: lot of wall for the election twenty twenty. And the
Speaker 1: only reason we're up you're talking about this is because
Speaker 1: of the election. So the President did as I as
Speaker 1: I had thought he would declare last week, and I
Speaker 1: know I was out Friday, so I didn't get a
Speaker 1: chance talking guys about this, But the presidents declared the
Speaker 1: national emergency, which is not nearly as as big of
Speaker 1: a big of a deal, big of a shock in
Speaker 1: terms of the process here as a lot of people
Speaker 1: are pretending it is. I do think that we need
Speaker 1: some context, some understanding of the history of just how
Speaker 1: many times this has happened in the past. The answer
Speaker 1: is many times, and also the need for this right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, there should be a real understanding that the
Speaker 1: President of the United States has tried to do everything
Speaker 1: that he can in order to get a wall built
Speaker 1: on our southern border, get barriers put in place, and
Speaker 1: that there's such opposition from Democrats on this, that there's
Speaker 1: such a they think a political win here for them
Speaker 1: to oppose all of this. It just strikes me as
Speaker 1: as the height of dishonesty that you have all these
Speaker 1: Democrats who are acting like this is such an unthinkable,
Speaker 1: unthinkable maneuver. How could he ever do this? Why would
Speaker 1: he ever do this? Meanwhile, he's gone out of his way,
Speaker 1: out of his way to try and bring them in
Speaker 1: on this. You know, eighteen times, by the way, Obama
Speaker 1: used emergency declarations to appropriate to unilaterally transfer funds that
Speaker 1: were not appropriate by the Congress from and for I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: other presidents, including Bush and Obama used emergency declarations eighteen times.
Speaker 1: That was the number that I was looking for. That
Speaker 1: seems pretty simch. And now you sit around you asked
Speaker 1: cold on a second, what are those eighteen Well, well
Speaker 1: that's isn't that the point? If it were was this
Speaker 1: terrible Oh no, If it was this terrible decision the
Speaker 1: president had made, then what about all the other emergency declarations? Right?
Speaker 1: If it sets this precedent, did the other eighteen time
Speaker 1: setup precedent? This is within the president story statutory authority,
Speaker 1: and people cannot like that. People can take any number
Speaker 1: of different positions about how they disagree with it, But
Speaker 1: to say that it's lawless is to say that the
Speaker 1: law has no meeting. President is going with a duly
Speaker 1: declared statute here. There's nothing about this that is that
Speaker 1: is unacceptable. And I just want to remind you that
Speaker 1: remember in Trump Trumphy Hawaii, Trumphy Hawaii, we were told
Speaker 1: by all these legal member that was the Muslim ban, right,
Speaker 1: all these so called legal experts, all the Muslim ban.
Speaker 1: It's it's unconstitutional, it's terrible, it's wrong. Oh, actually the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court upheld it. Trump was right. Did you have
Speaker 1: any of the journo firefighters for our democracy come out
Speaker 1: and say, Wow, we got that one really wrong. Maybe
Speaker 1: we should, maybe we should have a little introspection, Maybe
Speaker 1: we should be a little bit more willing to think
Speaker 1: about why we get these things so wrong. No, no, no no,
Speaker 1: none of that, and none of that, no interest whatsoever
Speaker 1: in that. They just move on to the next area
Speaker 1: of their so called expertise. They move on to the
Speaker 1: next issue that they supposedly have such a deep understanding of.
Speaker 1: And you know, I just have to say that I'm
Speaker 1: I'm really, I mean I am in case you have
Speaker 1: a notice running out of patience with all the media's lies.
Speaker 1: You know, I've I've gone now to a place where
Speaker 1: I think the only way to deal with them on
Speaker 1: this stuff, whether it's the border, any number of other issues,
Speaker 1: is just to call them out and really and really
Speaker 1: fight them on it. You know, not just say that
Speaker 1: they're wrong, but point out that they're dishonest, that they're
Speaker 1: a disgrace. So I think the President is right here.
Speaker 1: I know. I didn't get a chance to talk about
Speaker 1: this on Friday, when the declaration initially went down, I
Speaker 1: obviously was covering this, or rather reading up on this
Speaker 1: and watching the video again and everything all weekend. So
Speaker 1: I'll give you my thoughts on where this all stands.
Speaker 1: You know, I am a little bit disappointed that it
Speaker 1: came to this, that the President wasn't able to maneuver
Speaker 1: in a more adept fashion so that this one was
Speaker 1: not necessary. But I also look at this as I
Speaker 1: think the president's doing what he doing what he should do,
Speaker 1: and I give him credit for being willing to fight
Speaker 1: on this issue. You know, there is if you really
Speaker 1: dig into this, there is funding for the creation of
Speaker 1: new wall, which means that that it is happening. It's
Speaker 1: just happening more slowly. And I think it sets up
Speaker 1: twenty twenty for a kind of showdown over immigration and
Speaker 1: the wall that the president, especially given where the national
Speaker 1: conversation has been on this, I think the president is
Speaker 1: likely to win on that issue. I think the President's
Speaker 1: likely to get his way on the issue of the wall,
Speaker 1: which is which is a good thing, and to win
Speaker 1: four more years in office as a result. So while
Speaker 1: this is imperfect, it's not it's not a total loss
Speaker 1: and it could over the long run. I think actually
Speaker 1: work in the President's favor more than we realize right now.
Speaker 1: But I've got more on that coming up in a moment.
Speaker 1: This is part of a national security who's never done
Speaker 1: this under a national emergency where president but we declared
Speaker 1: national emergency to promote democracy in Belarus, to promote democracy,
Speaker 1: and is involved. But it didn't affect money that Congress
Speaker 1: refused to appropriate. They didn't affuse to appropriate it. They
Speaker 1: passed a law specifically saying the president could have this authority.
Speaker 1: It's in the Plane Statute. That's a decision that Congress made.
Speaker 1: And people don't like that, they can address it. I
Speaker 1: guarantee you this. If Donald Trump had said he's invoking
Speaker 1: the National Emergency Military construction authority to build a security
Speaker 1: perimeter in Iraq or Afghanistan around a military installation in Syria,
Speaker 1: there would not have been one word of objection from Congress.
Speaker 1: This is defending our own country. Stephen Miller is not
Speaker 1: exactly a warm and fuzzy guy, the president's advisor, mostly
Speaker 1: on immigration, but he's sharp. He says a lot of
Speaker 1: very astute stuff, especially on the issue of immigration, and
Speaker 1: he's correct. You know we have all of these people,
Speaker 1: and I gotta tell you, I find some of the
Speaker 1: conservatives and conservatives on this issue a little annoying, a
Speaker 1: little preachy, without really understanding the full context here. National
Speaker 1: emergencies have been declared many, many times before for much
Speaker 1: lesser issues than this. Congress gave the president the authority
Speaker 1: to do this, as as Miller says, it is plainly
Speaker 1: in the language of the statute. So for people to
Speaker 1: say that this is wrong, that Trump shouldn't do this,
Speaker 1: even if it's in the statute, what they're really saying
Speaker 1: is that the Congress was wrong when they gave the
Speaker 1: president this authority. But that doesn't mean the president's wrong
Speaker 1: for using that authority. As I've been saying, and others
Speaker 1: I think have picked up on this a little bit
Speaker 1: more in the last few days, this idea that we
Speaker 1: really need to be careful with how we go forward here,
Speaker 1: because we don't want to set a president that Democrats
Speaker 1: will abuse. Democrats have already been abusing the authority of
Speaker 1: the president on issues of immigration, on a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of issues, Obama said dozens of times he did not
Speaker 1: have the unilateral authority to prevent the deportation of people
Speaker 1: that were in America illegally, and that the Congressional statutes
Speaker 1: on illegal aliens in this country must prevail. Guess what
Speaker 1: he couldn't get what he wanted from Congress, changed his mind,
Speaker 1: said yeah, now we have dhaka, and not only do
Speaker 1: we have it the hashtag resistance. Judiciary Ninth Circuit, among others,
Speaker 1: refused to allow the current president the discretion to undo
Speaker 1: the discretion of his predecessor. I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: last president says I only want strawberry ice cream, and
Speaker 1: this president comes along and says, no, you know, I'd
Speaker 1: actually like you know, I'd actually like mint chocolate chip
Speaker 1: ice cream. Oh, if you can't do that, the last
Speaker 1: president said he likes strawberry ice cream. Well, hold on
Speaker 1: a second. I thought the presidents allowed to decide one
Speaker 1: way or the other. Of course he is. But judges
Speaker 1: view themselves as political actors the same way that the
Speaker 1: head of the FBI or the head of the CIA.
Speaker 1: You know, all these different institutionalists that hold themselves up
Speaker 1: as the guaranteurs of our democracy. What we're seeing is
Speaker 1: that they're really just people who can't separate out their
Speaker 1: role in the government from their partisan ideology. But but
Speaker 1: Miller here is correct. I don't find the argument about
Speaker 1: overreach from Trump compelling because Democrats are definitely not. There's
Speaker 1: no serious person who's going to say, well, if you
Speaker 1: have a President Sanders, you know, fine, fine, have President
Speaker 1: Sanders declare an emergency on trying to take all everyone's guns,
Speaker 1: or have a President Kamala Harris say that, you know,
Speaker 1: climate change means that we have to have an additional
Speaker 1: dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline or whatever, twenty
Speaker 1: five percent than every gallon of gasoline soul. It'll go
Speaker 1: into the courts and she'll, hey, you know, she'll she'll winner,
Speaker 1: shall lose, just like what we have now. Don't think
Speaker 1: for a second that President Trump's decision on his own
Speaker 1: to hold back his own and to hold back his hand,
Speaker 1: that that's going to result in good faith from Democrats.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just that's an unserious position. That's not
Speaker 1: a perspective that any person who knows the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: should be taking. And remember that, you know, the way
Speaker 1: that Trump has set this whole thing up. We finally
Speaker 1: are having a conversation about this. If nothing else, there's
Speaker 1: a greater awareness of what the Democrats really believe in
Speaker 1: what they really think about the border, and that's a
Speaker 1: part of this that I have to say as I
Speaker 1: go forward. I'm not a fan of the bill that
Speaker 1: the President signed, but that said, at least now I
Speaker 1: think there's an awareness of the American people that could
Speaker 1: be a major determining factor the next election for what
Speaker 1: everyone's going to think about how this is going to go. That's,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm hopeful, at least I am hopeful. I
Speaker 1: can't say that I have an answer here to all this.
Speaker 1: You know, you also have the data. You know, Democrats
Speaker 1: always talk about data like they care about what the
Speaker 1: realities of the border, whether it's you know, somehow every
Speaker 1: data set supports they're thinking on how illegals are great,
Speaker 1: illegals aren't a problem, the border secure. You know. The
Speaker 1: dumbest talking point you hear is, oh, the border crossings
Speaker 1: are actually at record lows, well record low compared to what,
Speaker 1: let me put it you this way. New York City
Speaker 1: had over two thousand murders in nineteen ninety three. I
Speaker 1: forget what the exact number is, but New York City
Speaker 1: over two thousand murders. A couple of years ago, New
Speaker 1: York City had roughly three hundred murders. If the number
Speaker 1: of murders doubled in one year, would people be able
Speaker 1: to say, oh, that's no problem, because in nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety three, they had two thousand murders. So you know,
Speaker 1: then the murders double in one year, there's nothing to
Speaker 1: see here. This is idiocy. This is what democrats are doing.
Speaker 1: They're saying, well, because the country was just straight up
Speaker 1: being invaded by illegals every day at some point during
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties the early two thousands, that there's not
Speaker 1: a problem anymore. No, in fact, the problem is even worse,
Speaker 1: given that the illegals already in the country are a
Speaker 1: huge issue, and adding to that number makes it even
Speaker 1: more unsustainable, makes our immigration system even more burdened. It's
Speaker 1: a it's a bigger catastrophe in that is unfolding right
Speaker 1: before us. Because you have twenty million illegals in America.
Speaker 1: So the extra five hundred thousand, you know, we are
Speaker 1: at a tipping point, we are at the point of
Speaker 1: no return. But you hear this talking point, Oh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's historic lows across the Gether border. Fifty thousand a month.
Speaker 1: Does anyone care? What what the what the number was
Speaker 1: twenty thirty years ago. You know, it's already too many.
Speaker 1: If I have a rowboat, okay, and and the rowbot,
Speaker 1: rowboat's not a good idea, you know, if I have
Speaker 1: a boat and it can it can take fifty people.
Speaker 1: And you had in you know, and a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago, I had forty people come on my rowboat
Speaker 1: or on my boat, and now it's at ninety. Now
Speaker 1: it's way over capacity. And then we every day now
Speaker 1: another person, another person, another person. It's a crisis that
Speaker 1: my boat is overloaded. That a lot of people came
Speaker 1: a few days ago and only a few people coming now.
Speaker 1: It doesn't change the fact that the boat is overloaded.
Speaker 1: And if you don't stop, the whole thing's gonna sink.
Speaker 1: That's the way to think of the illegal alien problem
Speaker 1: in this country. They, of course don't view it that way.
Speaker 1: Tom Hooman understands that they're ignoring the data. They're ignoring
Speaker 1: the data on drugs, on illegal immigration, on all of
Speaker 1: the place sixteen And look, if you look at the data,
Speaker 1: they're all ignoring the data. The data is clear. Every
Speaker 1: place a war barrier has been built, has resulted in
Speaker 1: decreased illeg immigration to increase drug flaw. It's proven. So
Speaker 1: they're ignoring the data. And if they want to run
Speaker 1: for president, they need to understand their first their first
Speaker 1: order business to protective country. So another thing they talk about,
Speaker 1: what most drugs come to the port of entry, Well, no,
Speaker 1: that's not true. Most drugs are seized data port of
Speaker 1: entry because every vehicle stopped, every person's talked to, so
Speaker 1: of course they're gonna find more drugs there. So again
Speaker 1: using the data against this president. This is about political
Speaker 1: hatred for this president and not about national security of
Speaker 1: public safety. It's all true. What he's saying is true.
Speaker 1: They hate this president. They oppose this president, and they
Speaker 1: also are the Democrats are favorable toward illegal immigration. They
Speaker 1: believe in illegal immigration as a good thing for this country.
Speaker 1: They want more of it. And I think that that's
Speaker 1: very dangerous for a number of reasons, you know, And
Speaker 1: if they disagree that it's dangerous, then I want to
Speaker 1: know why shouldn't we You know, they can't have it
Speaker 1: both ways. I want a legal and orderly immigration system.
Speaker 1: I want people that obey US law to come into
Speaker 1: the country. I want our laws in the interior the
Speaker 1: country to be enforced when it comes to legal aliens,
Speaker 1: because my expectation is that everybody, everybody is subject to
Speaker 1: US federal law on our soil, and that the laws
Speaker 1: have meaning. You know, otherwise I don't want to pay
Speaker 1: my taxes. Okay, if the laws have no meaning, because
Speaker 1: it's not a big deal if you break them, then
Speaker 1: I don't want to pay my taxes. So I just
Speaker 1: want clarity from the federal government on that point. But
Speaker 1: if it's no problem for legal aliens, if it's no
Speaker 1: problem for legal aliens to be in the country more
Speaker 1: than to be coming in more people to be scamming
Speaker 1: the asylum system, then I need an explanation of why
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be open borders, Why why we shouldn't be
Speaker 1: in a position where we just take as many people
Speaker 1: as we absolutely possibly can. You know, there's there's no
Speaker 1: You get no answers from a left about this. They
Speaker 1: never explain what the downside is. They only jump down
Speaker 1: your throat when you say there's a downside, but they
Speaker 1: never they never explain what the downside is, So which
Speaker 1: is it? They cannot answer my question about if there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with illegal immigration, which is their position de facto.
Speaker 1: Why don't we want more illegal immigration? Why shouldn't they
Speaker 1: be pushing for more legal immigration. They'm telling you they
Speaker 1: don't have any answers to this. They have no response
Speaker 1: when pushed on this, And if we had an honest
Speaker 1: press corps, they would be hammering this point all the time.
Speaker 1: But we do not, as you know, have an honest
Speaker 1: press corps. We have a bunch of left wing activist hacks.
Speaker 1: Much to my chagrin. Everybody says, well, less people are
Speaker 1: coming and came, you know back early when there's a
Speaker 1: million people a year, But they got to understand the
Speaker 1: dynamics of who's coming back. Then I was a board
Speaker 1: chol agent. If there's a million people, most of them
Speaker 1: were arrested and removed the same day because their Mexican nationals.
Speaker 1: Now we have a cartel members are that are are
Speaker 1: planning what's happening because they're using the loopholes to move
Speaker 1: people in the country to claim asylum. To the loopholes,
Speaker 1: they don't leave. I mean, ninety two percent of them
Speaker 1: loser case in front of immigration judge and only two
Speaker 1: percent leave. So it's a whole different dynamic That's why
Speaker 1: the numbers that the total numbers come across isn't as
Speaker 1: important as who's coming across. I don't even know we
Speaker 1: pulled out a brake. I don't even know that that. Tom,
Speaker 1: their former ICE director, Tom Homan, was going to wait
Speaker 1: on that one too. But sure enough, there is right
Speaker 1: right right where I needed them on that because you
Speaker 1: hear this, Oh, the number is not that high compared
Speaker 1: with what the number used to be. Yeah, but every
Speaker 1: fifty thousand that comes and now is staying for ever
Speaker 1: they're going to stay. That makes a huge difference as well.
Speaker 1: So you already have a huge, as I pointed out,
Speaker 1: illegal alien population. But beyond that, whoever shows up now
Speaker 1: under the current system and claims asylum, they're not going anywhere.
Speaker 1: And there is an amnesty on the horizon if Democrats
Speaker 1: get back in power. We all know this. We all
Speaker 1: know this. There is a there is an absolute Democrat
Speaker 1: mandate to get a multi million person amnesty done. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind, whatever whatever the number is that they
Speaker 1: tell you, whatever the number is that they tell you,
Speaker 1: that's just going to be a fraction of what the
Speaker 1: overall number is. Who either officially or unofficially get asylum
Speaker 1: because they stay in the country forever. It'll just be
Speaker 1: a if they say at three million, it'll be more
Speaker 1: like six or ten. Don't believe them. They don't don't
Speaker 1: want you to know the truth here, just like how
Speaker 1: they're telling you, oh, there's no crisis the border because
Speaker 1: there used to be more people legally coming over. Well,
Speaker 1: we didn't have twenty million already in the country illegally.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, as home and points out here,
Speaker 1: a lot of the people that were coming in illegally
Speaker 1: back in the nineties, as soon as they were caught,
Speaker 1: they were deported. Now, deportation is supposed to be if
Speaker 1: you're a Democrat, you think deportation is reserved for really
Speaker 1: really bad MS thirteen guys, and that's pretty much it.
Speaker 1: Nobody else should get deported. Nobody else should get sent
Speaker 1: back to Mexico or in this case, you know a
Speaker 1: lot of them will be from Honduras or from wherever.
Speaker 1: We have on the books right now a law that
Speaker 1: we can deny visas from countries that don't take back
Speaker 1: their four nationals that come here illegally. We don't use it.
Speaker 1: We're not willing to use it any By the way,
Speaker 1: here's a story on immigration that you're not going to
Speaker 1: see covered very widely. You're not going to see a
Speaker 1: lot of people who have interest in this. But I
Speaker 1: certainly care about it, and I have a feeling all
Speaker 1: of you do too. Dozens, This is the Washington Examiner. Today.
Speaker 1: Dozens of demonstrators occupied and vandalized a privately owned US
Speaker 1: Border Patrol museum near El Paso, Texas. Museum director David
Speaker 1: Ham told The Washington Examiner his staff and guests worried
Speaker 1: for their safety Saturday when a group of about fifty
Speaker 1: protesters entered the facility, defaced property, and refused to leave
Speaker 1: the ground. Quote say it loud, say it clear, Border
Speaker 1: Patrol kills. Group members standing inside and outside the facility yelled.
Speaker 1: Security cameras set up outside of the private museum and
Speaker 1: captured protesters pulling into the parking lot and putting on
Speaker 1: face masks before going in around two fifteen pm local time.
Speaker 1: It was really intimidating to our staff, plus their kind
Speaker 1: of aggressive attitude of museum officials said. The museum is
Speaker 1: a nonprofit, it's a political So you had a bunch
Speaker 1: of as we know, left wing Border Patrol, left wing
Speaker 1: antiboard patrol, lunatics storming a border patrol museum and saying
Speaker 1: that border patrol kills people. You know, this is this
Speaker 1: is the true left is anti law enforcement in this country.
Speaker 1: You have a little bit of a break in that
Speaker 1: tradition on the left wing right now because they're so
Speaker 1: they're just all given the FBI a foot massage all
Speaker 1: the time. Oh, the FBI is so wonderful. All the
Speaker 1: Muller probe is amazing. You know anything from the Muller probe. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's just partisan politics. I mean, they're not really in
Speaker 1: any way concerned with bolstering the reputations of these law
Speaker 1: enforcement agencies over the long term. But but Democrats in
Speaker 1: the left, they think the cops are racist, that the
Speaker 1: cops are far often they are too violent, you know,
Speaker 1: all this stuff. And yet and yet the FBI is
Speaker 1: beyond border patrol. Those here, border patrol is terrible. They
Speaker 1: hate border patrol. You know, the Border Patrol is aware
Speaker 1: of this too. I spoke to a lot of those
Speaker 1: guys when I was out in San Diego visiting them
Speaker 1: a few weeks back, and they're aware of the politics
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party plays here. They're aware that the same
Speaker 1: people to chant abolish ice, would really like to abolish
Speaker 1: border patrol, and they would like to abolish any local
Speaker 1: law enforcement or sheriff's departments that are helpful to immigration
Speaker 1: and customs enforcement on this issue, that are that are
Speaker 1: helpful to the enforcement of our laws. This is a
Speaker 1: battle for the future of the country. This is why
Speaker 1: I find this topic so important for this show, so
Speaker 1: we spend the time that we do want it. This
Speaker 1: is a battle for the future of America, make no
Speaker 1: mistake about it. And the Democrats are not on the
Speaker 1: side of the rule of law here. They're not on
Speaker 1: the side of truth They're not on the side of justice.
Speaker 1: They're on the side of power lawlessness that leads to
Speaker 1: their power. And they don't really care about all these
Speaker 1: legal aliens either on some deep personal level. That's just
Speaker 1: virtue signaling from them. They really just care about being
Speaker 1: able to hashtag how much they care about them, which
Speaker 1: is not the same thing. Some of you may recall
Speaker 1: Lara Logan, she was a CBS reporter on the Rise,
Speaker 1: I mean, somebody who I think was the heir apparent
Speaker 1: to some of the the bigger platforms in the legacy media.
Speaker 1: She says, I believe South African incredibly beautiful and a
Speaker 1: very sharp reporter, and she was reporting on the Terrier
Speaker 1: Square protests early on in the the Arab Spring Revolution,
Speaker 1: and the reporting on this was always a little bit
Speaker 1: for those of us that were following it closely, there
Speaker 1: was always just effort to not really say exactly what
Speaker 1: had happened. But later on it came out that she
Speaker 1: was she was sexually assaulted by a by a mob.
Speaker 1: She was gang raped in the middle of Terior Square
Speaker 1: by a bunch of Egyptian protesters, separated from her camera crew.
Speaker 1: Just just the worst kind of vicious mob activity. And
Speaker 1: because so many reporters, I think were very invested in
Speaker 1: the narrative of, oh, this uprising and it was this
Speaker 1: flowering of democracy in Egypt, which we know was wasn't
Speaker 1: really what's happening. It was actually really an Islamist uprising
Speaker 1: in many ways, but they they didn't they didn't want
Speaker 1: to tell this story the way that they would have otherwise.
Speaker 1: There was a muted rage from the press, even when
Speaker 1: one of their own was violated in this way, because
Speaker 1: they didn't want it to taint the whole movement in Egypt,
Speaker 1: which would show itself to be largely a movement of Islamists,
Speaker 1: and you know, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power and
Speaker 1: a lot of very bad stuff bubbling up from from
Speaker 1: under the surface there. But the media's treatment of Lara
Speaker 1: Logan after this, I think was disgusting. I think the
Speaker 1: way that they've never really come to grips with what
Speaker 1: happened to her as a colleague of Theirs, and how
Speaker 1: they failed to really report on this, failed to really
Speaker 1: talk about it. And she was very critical of Islamism
Speaker 1: and out of radical Islam after this and saying that
Speaker 1: the press was essentially blind to this, and she's right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the mainstream media in America takes this position
Speaker 1: of you know, Muslim societies and Islamists in those societies
Speaker 1: are every bit as moral and ethical as what we
Speaker 1: have in Western democracies. No, that's just not really true.
Speaker 1: You know, Islamists are contrary to liberal values. Islamists are
Speaker 1: not feminists, right, I mean, this is where you get
Speaker 1: into this debate that's fallen out of the public eye
Speaker 1: for a while now. But you know, the left wing
Speaker 1: media likes to treat Islam is much more progressive and
Speaker 1: open minded than it is. So she has said some
Speaker 1: very interesting things about that. I've actually always wanted to
Speaker 1: have her on radio. We're gonna reach out to her again.
Speaker 1: I don't know if she'll come on the show or not.
Speaker 1: But she recently gave an interview where she was talking
Speaker 1: about where they remember she was CBS. She was doing
Speaker 1: I think it was sixty minutes sometimes a correspondent. It's
Speaker 1: a big foreign core, big foreign core for them. She's
Speaker 1: a big deal. And then this terrible thing happened to
Speaker 1: her and the media. I was like, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: her story doesn't really fit in with and this this
Speaker 1: is the you know, in an era where me too
Speaker 1: is such a I mean, this woman was was brutally
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted by a mob, but it was a mob
Speaker 1: that the press did not want to demonize. They didn't
Speaker 1: want to demonize them. That's just what it came down to.
Speaker 1: So there was a muted reaction about this. And I
Speaker 1: remember this, and I've covered I've covered Lara Logan's story
Speaker 1: on this show, stretching back now I think twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: for so many years ago. But she talked recently about
Speaker 1: this media that she knows very well, and she knows
Speaker 1: as somebody who was once an insider with them and
Speaker 1: has now been because she's spoken truth on a number
Speaker 1: of it she was, including Islam. She's kind of an
Speaker 1: outsider with them now and has seen that they're willing
Speaker 1: to push her off the island. You know, she's no
Speaker 1: longer a member of the family. And here's what Lara
Speaker 1: Logan of CBS News had to say about this play
Speaker 1: twenty two. How do you know you're being lied to?
Speaker 1: How do you know you're being manipulated? How do you
Speaker 1: know there's something not right with the coverage when they
Speaker 1: simplify it all and there's no gray's no gray, it's
Speaker 1: all one way. Well, life isn't like that. If it
Speaker 1: doesn't match real life, it's probably not. Something's wrong, right.
Speaker 1: All the coverage on Trump all the time is negative.
Speaker 1: There's nothing. There's nothing, no mitigating policy or event or
Speaker 1: anything that has happened since he was elected that is
Speaker 1: out there in the media is that you can read about, right, Well,
Speaker 1: that tells you that's distortion of where things go in
Speaker 1: real life. Because although the media has always been historically
Speaker 1: always been left leaning, we've abandoned our pretense or at
Speaker 1: least the effort to be objective today. The former executive
Speaker 1: editor of The New York Times has a book coming out,
Speaker 1: Jill Abramson, and she says, we would do I don't know,
Speaker 1: dozens of stories about Trump every single day, and every
Speaker 1: single one of them was negative. She said, we have
Speaker 1: become the antique Trump paper of record. Well, that's not
Speaker 1: our job. That's a political position. That means we've become
Speaker 1: political activists in a sense. And some could argue propagandists, right,
Speaker 1: and there's some merit to that. Absolutely true. Everything she
Speaker 1: says there, and you know, she's a she is an insider,
Speaker 1: and the sense that she worked at CBS. She works
Speaker 1: at CBS and was very highly regarded for a while
Speaker 1: inside the mainstream media. Everything she says there is true.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not possible that the media is unbiased
Speaker 1: because everything they tell you about Trump is that he's horrible.
Speaker 1: You look around and you see what's happening in the country,
Speaker 1: and you see what's objectively going on. You say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, everything's not horrible. So how can
Speaker 1: every story about Trump be about how terrible he is?
Speaker 1: You know? And then for those who say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: there's it's not a bias they're just reporting what's what's there,
Speaker 1: what the facts are. Well, how is it that half
Speaker 1: the country doesn't view this president is terrible? But all
Speaker 1: of the news coverage you see for most of these
Speaker 1: outlets reflects on him as absolutely terrible. You know, you're
Speaker 1: being lined too. And she said I think also in
Speaker 1: this interview that she thinks that you know that there
Speaker 1: is a sense of committing professional suicide here and that
Speaker 1: she recognizes that this is going to be held against her.
Speaker 1: And it's true the lib media never forgets. She even says,
Speaker 1: go look at things like Breitbart to get another get
Speaker 1: the other side of the equation. You know, I read
Speaker 1: lib stuff all the time. I know what they think.
Speaker 1: Libs don't know what I think. I had idiots today
Speaker 1: trying to tell me what I think about this or
Speaker 1: that because I didn't believe Jesse Smallett. I didn't believe
Speaker 1: Jesse Smallett because he's an imbecile and his lie wasn't
Speaker 1: even clever. I don't not believe Jesse Smallett because of
Speaker 1: you know what my white privilege or be. You don't know,
Speaker 1: But the Libs don't even know what you and I think.
Speaker 1: They don't even care to familiarize themselves with the other
Speaker 1: side of the argument. So I mean, I give Lara
Speaker 1: Logan credit up. I've always thought that she was a
Speaker 1: particularly interesting voice, and I think that she's been marginalized
Speaker 1: by the left because she's not as useful to them
Speaker 1: now and because she'll speak the truth. But Mike, let's
Speaker 1: get her on the show. Let's reach out. It reminds me,
Speaker 1: we gotta also talk about this Amazon aftermaths or and
Speaker 1: I was up. I was up in New York over
Speaker 1: the weekend, and you know, I gotta tell you, for
Speaker 1: the first time in a while, I'm a little worried
Speaker 1: about my hometown in terms of where it's going. I
Speaker 1: think that it's I think that it's glory days are
Speaker 1: behind it. I really do. And I think that it's
Speaker 1: just going to start to turn. It's on the way now.
Speaker 1: I really feel that the Amazon situation is kind of
Speaker 1: the Canaria in the coal mine, because you know, Wall
Speaker 1: Street's not really based in New York anymore. It's Wall
Speaker 1: Street is the financial industry. In fact, there's very few
Speaker 1: financial financial institutions that are even on Wall Street. But
Speaker 1: I think that the city and the social justice left
Speaker 1: and the democrat control. I think that it's now on
Speaker 1: the glide path downward toward not quite Detroit status. But
Speaker 1: it's going to start looking more like La with all
Speaker 1: the dysfunction and all the problems. Well, I'll explain why
Speaker 1: with this Amazon thing coming up, I seem to blame
Speaker 1: Amazon for walking away. But let me ask this. You
Speaker 1: also argue that it was a fair deal. Why did
Speaker 1: fellow progressives not trust you that you had come up
Speaker 1: with a good, fair deal? You call it on solid foundation,
Speaker 1: chuck it said democracy. I have no problem with my
Speaker 1: fellow progressives of critiquing a deal or wanting more from Amazon.
Speaker 1: I wanted more from Amazon too. But the bottom line
Speaker 1: is this is an example of an abuse of corporate power.
Speaker 1: Amazon just took their ball and went home. And what
Speaker 1: they did was confirmed people's worst fears about corporate America.
Speaker 1: Here's the one percent dictating everyone else, even though we
Speaker 1: gave them a fair deal. And I think it's going
Speaker 1: to frustrate people all over this country to see a
Speaker 1: company treat a neighborhood and a city like that. Everything
Speaker 1: that Kaiservillehelm Deblasio formerly known as Varrenville Helm, don't forget
Speaker 1: it changed his name as an adult. Yeah, because it's
Speaker 1: hard to run as like mister blue collar union guy
Speaker 1: in New York City when your name is Varrenvilhelm. Much
Speaker 1: better to be Billy Dublasio. Oh yeah, Billy Deblasio. Like
Speaker 1: I on a pizzeria was they put the pepperoni in
Speaker 1: all the perfect places on the pizza. So he changed
Speaker 1: his name, isn't it if you didn't know? That's true? Story?
Speaker 1: Actually did change his name as an adult, Warren Wilhelm.
Speaker 1: I think I was on I was guest hosting Rush
Speaker 1: Limbaugh Show years ago when I said I talked about
Speaker 1: Kaiser Wilhelm and people thought that I was making it up,
Speaker 1: and no, no, they checked it out. It turns out
Speaker 1: it's true. But this is amazing. Libs managed to scare
Speaker 1: Amazon away, and that is what they did. They scared
Speaker 1: Amazon away, and yet now they want to blame Amazon
Speaker 1: for this. You know, you have people like aoc Ocazio
Speaker 1: Quartez who are so deeply and shockingly ignorant of everything. Really,
Speaker 1: I mean, it just has no knowledge base to to
Speaker 1: speak of. It's like it's like we have an actor.
Speaker 1: She sounds the part, she looks the part. They they
Speaker 1: like the optics of Ocazio Quartez. But the substance is
Speaker 1: all just blather and I'm not gonna I'm not gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, beat around the bush here. It's kind of
Speaker 1: true about Bernie Sanders as well. You know, they like here,
Speaker 1: I sound like I kid about the people, and I
Speaker 1: want them all to have more stuff, and I want
Speaker 1: them all to have the free things. And you know,
Speaker 1: the billionaires and the millionaires, they're gonna pay all the
Speaker 1: stuff and you're not gonna pay anything. They do this,
Speaker 1: and well then when you get into the math and
Speaker 1: the reality of what the programs are that these people
Speaker 1: like Sanders and Okazi Quartez are push doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: But I would just know that, or rather I would
Speaker 1: note that the Amazon situation is a is a disaster
Speaker 1: for progressives. I mean, here is a digital company, right,
Speaker 1: an internet based company that is a monument to successful
Speaker 1: online capitalism, and it's going to bring tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of jobs into New York and it's going to and
Speaker 1: people say, oh no, the jobs are already there. Just
Speaker 1: means people are going to relocate there. Look, I've seen
Speaker 1: what parts of New York are like when there are
Speaker 1: jobs in the area and there are restaurants and their
Speaker 1: services that cater to the people that are in the
Speaker 1: area now because of the jobs and the homes. I've
Speaker 1: seen it. Okay, so this the pretense that some are
Speaker 1: going through that oh it doesn't matter that Amazon's not
Speaker 1: going to be there. That's just these people, you know
Speaker 1: that they don't know anything. They're just making stuff up.
Speaker 1: The same way that Occasio Cortez this is it's hard
Speaker 1: to believe that anybody in a position of authority could
Speaker 1: be quite this stupid. But it is true that she
Speaker 1: believes that the money that they were going to give
Speaker 1: in tax incentives, which means we're going to, if you
Speaker 1: come here, take less of your money in taxes as
Speaker 1: an inducement to get you to come here. She seemed
Speaker 1: to think that now that money is just money that
Speaker 1: we have, right. So, so Ocasio Cortez math is, Hey,
Speaker 1: if you buy this sweater from my store, I'll give
Speaker 1: you twenty percent off the hundred dollars that it costs,
Speaker 1: so it's eighty dollars. She thinks, oh no, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to sell that to the customer. Now. I just
Speaker 1: happen to have twenty bucks and a sweater. She doesn't
Speaker 1: get it. She doesn't understand how the very basics of
Speaker 1: economics or just the basics of an economics transaction works here,
Speaker 1: but they don't care. I find it fascinating that the
Speaker 1: same people who are telling us that Trump lacks intellectual
Speaker 1: curiosity and knowledge, they think that Okazia Cortez is just wonderful.
Speaker 1: They think that she's just fine. And whether it's Deblasio
Speaker 1: or Kazio Cortesi and all these socialists, this is what
Speaker 1: they are. These are socialists. They are socialists. They think
Speaker 1: that money is not really yours. Private property is not yours.
Speaker 1: Whatever you have as whatever the state dames to let
Speaker 1: you keep, whatever the state feels that you should have,
Speaker 1: that's what you have. All property is collectively owned, and
Speaker 1: therefore the state determines what you should and should not have.
Speaker 1: That this is a fundamentally inverse view of your relationship
Speaker 1: with the states. That's at the heart of all this
Speaker 1: collectivist rhetoric from the Okazia Cortez is the Deblasio's, the Sanders.
Speaker 1: They say it's just a little bit, just a little
Speaker 1: bit more to redistrut and spread around. But when you
Speaker 1: really push a little bit deeper into what they believe
Speaker 1: in what they say. They think that, you know, seventy
Speaker 1: percent tax rate, ninety percent tax rate, it's all fair game,
Speaker 1: that whatever the state decides to take from you is fine.
Speaker 1: I take the position that the state should be at
Speaker 1: being an absolute minimum and that we should have a
Speaker 1: flat tax, and that all this other stuff is just
Speaker 1: is just nonsense. But you know, we're nowhere near that
Speaker 1: right now. And unfortunately the Republicans are somewhat complicit in
Speaker 1: this because we're still spending too much money. We're still
Speaker 1: spending too much money. We're twenty two trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: the whole. No one wants to talk about this. What
Speaker 1: they do want to talk about is Okazio Cortez and
Speaker 1: the depth of her stupidity is some is a site
Speaker 1: to behold. It's it's remarkable. She, for example, over the
Speaker 1: weekend on a one of these ask me anything. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's like a social media politician. I mean, she's now
Speaker 1: a quick She's the Kardashian of left wing social justice politics.
Speaker 1: Just lots of photos, lots of Instagram, all this stuff.
Speaker 1: She said that the wall is immoral, like another wall
Speaker 1: play clip twenty here, John, No matter how you feel,
Speaker 1: about about the wall. You know, I think it's a
Speaker 1: moral abomination. I think it's like the Berlin Wall, a
Speaker 1: moral abomination. It's like the Berlin Wall. She should have
Speaker 1: to defend this statement any time that she goes out
Speaker 1: in public and the reporters there, any time that she's
Speaker 1: going to debate any Republican that a wall at our
Speaker 1: southern border is like the Berlin Wall. This is like
Speaker 1: saying that a wall at a prison is immoral because
Speaker 1: it keeps people in. And you say, well, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, isn't isn't the wall there it's supposed to
Speaker 1: protect us and doesn't have a legitimate purpose. You know,
Speaker 1: if I built if someone if the government built a
Speaker 1: wall around my house and wouldn't let me out, yeah
Speaker 1: that's immoral. But if somebody builds a wall around a
Speaker 1: prison so that let people out, well that's not immoral,
Speaker 1: that's just common sense. They're both walls, though, so I
Speaker 1: guess you can make the case that it's all immoral. Right,
Speaker 1: A wall as a wall, doesn't matter why it's there.
Speaker 1: These are inanimate objects that people are imbuing with their
Speaker 1: own politics and with their own political proclivities. But o'kazi Cortez.
Speaker 1: Is the wall or southern borders like the Berlin Wall,
Speaker 1: first of all, is a It's just a slap in
Speaker 1: the face to people that were trying to escape communism.
Speaker 1: And what that wall in Berlin really represented. It wasn't
Speaker 1: that we It wasn't the West didn't want people to
Speaker 1: commit us that the East didn't want to let people out.
Speaker 1: We have a very different problem here. We have a
Speaker 1: country that we're trying to prevent people from flooding, and
Speaker 1: they are open borders, folks. This is what the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They don't want to say it, even though they support it.
Speaker 1: They support open borders, now, no question about it. They
Speaker 1: just don't like the title. They don't like the wording
Speaker 1: because they know that it won't play well in the
Speaker 1: Heart and they know that it won't play well in
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin and Andy, and
Speaker 1: they want power. So they're dishonest. The Democrats are fundamentally
Speaker 1: dishonest about their view of capitalism, as we see with Amazon,
Speaker 1: their view of boorders, pretty much their view of a
Speaker 1: whole lot of public policy these days. I saw not
Speaker 1: one but two movies team over the weekend, which I know,
Speaker 1: I know some of you are who you gotta catch
Speaker 1: your breath for a second, Buck, that's crazy, you're a
Speaker 1: wild man. Two movies over a long weekend. Not only
Speaker 1: did I see two movies, one of them, I will
Speaker 1: have you know, I saw in a theater like a
Speaker 1: normal American human, that's right. I went to the movies,
Speaker 1: actually the movies, and I saw Into the spider Verse,
Speaker 1: the new Spider Man movie. Miss Molly really wanted to
Speaker 1: see it. I said, all right, honey, we'll go see it.
Speaker 1: And a few things to say about this. First of all,
Speaker 1: I've seen so many these Spider Man movies. I do
Speaker 1: like comic books. So if you're somebody who doesn't like
Speaker 1: comic books and comic book stories, obviously you're never gonna
Speaker 1: like this stuff. But as somebody who thinks that generally
Speaker 1: comic book movies are comic book rather turned into movies
Speaker 1: are terrible, this was actually really creative and really well done.
Speaker 1: I'm not a big cartoon person. I didn't care. I
Speaker 1: thought it was very The visuals are very creative, the
Speaker 1: music was good, the storyline moved. I thought it was
Speaker 1: pretty excellent. And people said, oh, Buck, the director's left
Speaker 1: wing Guys, if if you're gonna not look at movies
Speaker 1: because the director's left wing, you're only you're gonna have
Speaker 1: one Clint Eastwood movie a decade to watch. Okay, You're
Speaker 1: not gonna have a lot of stuff to tide you over.
Speaker 1: So that's one part of it, I mean. And another
Speaker 1: thing is I saw the movie, and I didn't know this.
Speaker 1: We were able in stadium seating now in this New
Speaker 1: York theater, so you don't have to stare at somebody's head.
Speaker 1: You know, if somebody has a hat on or something,
Speaker 1: you can't see it. And I got a giant head,
Speaker 1: so I know, right this is a pot calling the
Speaker 1: kettle black. But I could see everything clearly. But also
Speaker 1: they allowed for you to reserve your seats. Now, when
Speaker 1: you go into check in, you actually pick your seats
Speaker 1: and you reserve your seats. It's a far more civilized experience.
Speaker 1: And I assume, and I didn't even know this, you
Speaker 1: could probably reserve your seats in advance. So I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that I'm sold on going to the movies anymore
Speaker 1: as an activity, but I'm saying that I no longer
Speaker 1: despise it with the fiery heat of a thousand sons.
Speaker 1: I'm open to the idea of going to movies when
Speaker 1: you can have stadium seating and you can pick your
Speaker 1: seats beforehand, makes it a more civilized experience. And as
Speaker 1: I said, the movie itself was good and I think
Speaker 1: it's good family fair, so if you wanted to go
Speaker 1: see it with your kids, a good movie to see.
Speaker 1: There is some really funny stuff. And the way that
Speaker 1: I read about how they did this, I was so
Speaker 1: curious afterwards. I think they use one frame instead of
Speaker 1: two frame per second for the cartoon and a lot
Speaker 1: of places to make it seem more like a comic
Speaker 1: book brought to life, and I think that that visually
Speaker 1: worked pretty well. The other movie I saw was Miss
Speaker 1: Molly and I on a rainy night in New York
Speaker 1: City decided we were going to watch something, and we
Speaker 1: watched this movie, The Witch. Not to be confused, there's
Speaker 1: a South Korean movie that came out pretty recently called
Speaker 1: The Witch, which isn't that. That's not this. This is
Speaker 1: more or less if the Salem Witch Trials had an
Speaker 1: origin story, and I will tell you it's it's a
Speaker 1: little bleak and a little relentless. There's no there's nothing
Speaker 1: uplifting or beautiful or sweet or kind or you know,
Speaker 1: so just know that it was. It was creepy. Man,
Speaker 1: it was well done and really disturbing for what it was.
Speaker 1: Do not watch this obviously, with the first ten minutes
Speaker 1: there's a scene that is going to haunt you, and
Speaker 1: I think it actually kind of crossed the line. I'll
Speaker 1: be honest with you. I think the scene was a
Speaker 1: little know some of the actors in it, they're British actors.
Speaker 1: One plays the wife of or not the wife the
Speaker 1: sister of Katlan Stark from Game of Thrones. She's the
Speaker 1: Queen of the Veil. Those of you who are Game
Speaker 1: of Thrones people, she's them the wife in this movie.
Speaker 1: I've seen the guy who plays the lead actor or
Speaker 1: a million times a different thing. I can't remember what
Speaker 1: he's in there, but I've seen him a bunch of things.
Speaker 1: But man, this this whole New England wilderness, which thing
Speaker 1: they really if you want to be I think it's
Speaker 1: super spooky because there's also a demonic and satanic possession
Speaker 1: component to it. So if you're like me and you
Speaker 1: think that the that the the Exorcist, it's a little
Speaker 1: bit of The Exorcist meets The Blair Witch Project. If
Speaker 1: you like scary stuff the which I think it's on
Speaker 1: demand now you can get a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of different cable riders. Really, you know, I had nightmares.
Speaker 1: It's really scary. It'll it'll put you on edge if
Speaker 1: you're if you're somebody who likes that kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: if someone who wants to be happy and think that
Speaker 1: life is you know, life is good and fun. And
Speaker 1: I would say go to the Into the Spider Verse.
Speaker 1: But two movies, both of which were what you know,
Speaker 1: they gave you what you wanted. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: want to be freaked out the which definitely did the job,
Speaker 1: and if you wanted to have some fun and see
Speaker 1: some cool visuals and a pretty good take on the
Speaker 1: Spider Man stuff, then I think Into the Spider Verse
Speaker 1: was also very good. Now I have to see A
Speaker 1: Star is Born and maybe that Roma movie just so
Speaker 1: I can well the Stars. A Star is Born and
Speaker 1: is supposed to be pretty good. But the Roma movie,
Speaker 1: the critics love it, but nobody's seen it, so that'll
Speaker 1: be a good one to see. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: Beto O'Rourke in that the intelligentsia says it's amazing, but
Speaker 1: the rest of the world is like, who who cares?
Speaker 1: Hasn't want anything? No one, no one even wants to
Speaker 1: see it. But anyway, more coming up, teams, stay with me,
Speaker 1: seeing Bucking. It's time for roll call. All right, roll
Speaker 1: call Tom, everybody. I hope you're having a good President's Day.
Speaker 1: I find the whole President's Day holiday to be a
Speaker 1: little weird. He totally honest with you. I don't know
Speaker 1: why we have a holiday celebrating our presidents. It strikes
Speaker 1: me that this is not necessarily something that we should
Speaker 1: be nationally mandated to celebrate it. Look, we've had some
Speaker 1: good presidents, we've had some bad presidents. Nonetheless, people seem
Speaker 1: to like getting the day off, so nobody really cares
Speaker 1: about it. I hope you are having an excellent President's Day,
Speaker 1: and I am certainly happy for the long weekend. I
Speaker 1: was up in New York, had a lovely time up
Speaker 1: there on this Molly, and now I'm back in the
Speaker 1: swamp in DC so I can bring you all of
Speaker 1: the information from the front lines of liberal insanity. First
Speaker 1: up in roll Call, Facebook dot Com slashbuck sex that
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the roll
Speaker 1: call bonanza. Dale writes, Hey, Buck, you have proven once
Speaker 1: again that you are a smart guy. Right from the
Speaker 1: get go. You called the Jus Smollett incident for what
Speaker 1: it was. You courageously spoke up and addressed the obvious
Speaker 1: holes in the story while the other media entities rallied
Speaker 1: behind and then prompted mister Smollett up with his tail.
Speaker 1: And as with the Blasi Ford testimony, you face warnings
Speaker 1: and rebuke, but you had it right all along and
Speaker 1: weren't afraid to speak out on it. Thanks again for
Speaker 1: all you do to advance the conservative cause, and from
Speaker 1: team Buck, big time shields high well Dale, you know,
Speaker 1: thank you very much. Man. I appreciate when somebody like you,
Speaker 1: who's obviously a very valued and much appreciated listener to
Speaker 1: the show, gives me a little shout out for Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was not somebody that waited on the sidelines on
Speaker 1: this one. I was not somebody who was afraid of
Speaker 1: the possible backlash. I came out early and often, and
Speaker 1: you just go back and listen to the show saying, ah,
Speaker 1: this story doesn't make sense. This story doesn't make sense. Now,
Speaker 1: I didn't want to go so far as to say
Speaker 1: outright that he was entirely lying or a fabricator right
Speaker 1: from the get go, because now we see that maybe
Speaker 1: there was some kind of an attack, but it was
Speaker 1: orchestrated by him, right. I couldn't say that it was
Speaker 1: entirely made up or what aspects of or made up.
Speaker 1: I just knew it wasn't what he said it was
Speaker 1: very obviously and was consistent on that and did the
Speaker 1: how many times did we talk about it on this
Speaker 1: show in the last couple of weeks? I said, all right,
Speaker 1: we're gonna Jessie small Att update. You know, I just said,
Speaker 1: we knew where this was going. Seth right, digging Ben
Speaker 1: Weinarten as a guest host, Well, Seth, you were not
Speaker 1: alone there. I know. I know my man Ben did
Speaker 1: a great job, as he always does. And we go
Speaker 1: way back. Ben and I where colleagues and buddies back
Speaker 1: at the Blaze many years ago. And I'm very pleased
Speaker 1: that he's willing to take the reins when I have
Speaker 1: to be out and do a fantastic job guest hosting
Speaker 1: the show. Oh, speaking of, well that's not guest hosting,
Speaker 1: but appearing as a guest I will be on Shannon
Speaker 1: Bream's show for those of you who are hearing this
Speaker 1: tonight around eleven pm Eastern on Fox News. I'm guessing
Speaker 1: talking about Jesse Smollett because some folks know, I, even
Speaker 1: among conservatives, have been saying very loudly and for quite
Speaker 1: some time that this whole thing is BS. So I
Speaker 1: will probably get a chance to talk about that tonight.
Speaker 1: Andy Right, buck Love the show. It's not a coincidence
Speaker 1: at the Center pass to bill introduced by centers Kamela Harris,
Speaker 1: Corey Booker and Tim Scott making lynching punishable as a
Speaker 1: hate crime. This needs to be investigated. It connects the
Speaker 1: deep state, the DNC, the MSM, and Hollywood all working together.
Speaker 1: If we get to the bottom of this, we'll expose
Speaker 1: the swamp and open a lot of eyes. Andy, I
Speaker 1: don't know what you're talking about, man, I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to Lynching is already obviously a heynous crime, So I
Speaker 1: don't understand what you are what you're going for here,
Speaker 1: but I'll look into it. Taylor writes Buck All, my favorite,
Speaker 1: my all time favorite country artist is Chris Leedieux. Close
Speaker 1: second is the tie between George Strait and Garth Brooks Taylor.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I will add that to my
Speaker 1: Spotify country playlist, which I now am going to be
Speaker 1: playing in the background during some of my cooking sessions
Speaker 1: at home. Patrick writes roll Call, asking for a friend.
Speaker 1: If those who claim the US is attempting to support
Speaker 1: a coup in Venezuela by supporting the duly elected president
Speaker 1: will also deny that. McKay, the FBI, Rodenstein, and the DOJ,
Speaker 1: We're not attempting a coup against our country's president. Shields.
Speaker 1: I I'm a dog trainer, and you are one hundred
Speaker 1: percent correct about Dalmatians. Patrick says, well, thank you, Patrick.
Speaker 1: I like being correct, especially being one hundred percent correct,
Speaker 1: so appreciate that. And as for your comments about the coup, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting that a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of people who are worried about the US being involved
Speaker 1: in a coup in Venezuela think that the term coup
Speaker 1: for what happened with McCabe and some of these senior
Speaker 1: DOJ and FBI officials is just completely unthinkable. Meanwhile, I
Speaker 1: think it's completely applicable. I don't think it's unthinkable at all.
Speaker 1: I think that they were trying to find a way
Speaker 1: to put a thin legal veneer atop what was the
Speaker 1: removal of a duly elected president, mostly because of what
Speaker 1: had already happened. I think at the FBIOND the DOJ,
Speaker 1: they knew that if we ever got the answers, if
Speaker 1: we ever found out what they had done during the campaigns,
Speaker 1: during the general election, there would have been held to pay.
Speaker 1: So they had to keep doubling down and going further
Speaker 1: with their rogue investigations in order to justify the previous
Speaker 1: rogue investigations and politicization and all the grotesquely unfair behavior
Speaker 1: we saw from McCabe and Combe and all the rest.
Speaker 1: Richard writes, I have a theory about New York and California.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are purposely destroying those states to force the
Speaker 1: residents to flee to the prosperous red states. Their national
Speaker 1: base is concentrated in blue state enclaves, and they recognize
Speaker 1: that they'll be doomed as a national party unless they
Speaker 1: can spread out the stupid people across more states. If
Speaker 1: you talk to people in Texas, many will tell you
Speaker 1: the reason Ted Cruz had a hard time against O'Rourke
Speaker 1: is because of all the Democrats moving there from California.
Speaker 1: We know, Richard, I am familiar with this phenomenon of
Speaker 1: people leaving states like New York and California, and then,
Speaker 1: even though they often leave four reasons of Democrat mismanagement,
Speaker 1: incredibly high taxes, bad economic policy, overregulation, all these things,
Speaker 1: when they get to their new state of residents, whether
Speaker 1: it's Florida or Texas or Nevada, they are happy to
Speaker 1: have the lower tax burden but want some of the
Speaker 1: same liberal economic and redistributive policies that they had fled previously.
Speaker 1: So I guess this just goes in. The Libs won't
Speaker 1: learn their lesson category, but this is something that we
Speaker 1: have to keep an eye on it. It is definitely
Speaker 1: something that occurs. And I just wish that the Libs
Speaker 1: out there would stop constantly trying to impose their failed
Speaker 1: policies and failed ideas and all the rest of us.
Speaker 1: But they won't. They do not learn their lessons. Michael,
Speaker 1: All right, So let's say the cops believe Smallett and
Speaker 1: found two guys in the area that fit the description.
Speaker 1: Would Smallett have let them go to prison for a
Speaker 1: hate crime? I bet he would have, because you know,
Speaker 1: Trump supporters deserve it anyway, even if they didn't actually
Speaker 1: do anything, he should face the same sentence that they
Speaker 1: would have. Now, Michael, I think that you raise a
Speaker 1: couple of interesting points here. One is that I do
Speaker 1: believe that when people are willing to make fake allegations,
Speaker 1: it's not much of a leap to think that they'd
Speaker 1: be willing to let an innocent person go to prison
Speaker 1: for those allegations, especially if an innocent person going away
Speaker 1: would prevent the fabricator of the allegation from having to
Speaker 1: face justice himself or herself. So I can't say that's
Speaker 1: happening in this instance or that did happen, but it
Speaker 1: does not to me seem to be much of a
Speaker 1: leap to suggest that it could very well happen. Now.
Speaker 1: Next on the list, here is the punishment for being
Speaker 1: a fabricator of a hate crime. I've always said that
Speaker 1: people who are willing to ruin someone else's life with
Speaker 1: what is demonstrably in bad faith allege, Right, So this
Speaker 1: is where you're you're gonna run into interference on this one,
Speaker 1: or where people are going to disagree. They're gonna say, well,
Speaker 1: if you punish people for let's say, making a false
Speaker 1: rape allegation, then people who have in rape will be
Speaker 1: afraid to come forward. And what I say to this is,
Speaker 1: you're not punishing people because a rape allegation cannot be proven. Obviously,
Speaker 1: that would be unjust, unfair, that would not be right.
Speaker 1: What you are saying is that for a false rape
Speaker 1: allegation that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to
Speaker 1: have been false and maliciously leveled, then yes, you obviously
Speaker 1: should have consequences for that, and I think the consequences
Speaker 1: should be severe. I think the consequences for somebody that
Speaker 1: is alleging a felony that could ruin someone's life should
Speaker 1: be felonious and severe. In return, the same thing about
Speaker 1: a hate crime. If you try to destroy somebody's life
Speaker 1: by lying about their involvement in a hate crime or
Speaker 1: lying about their committing a hate crime, you should face
Speaker 1: a severe penalty, not just a false statement. Okay, they
Speaker 1: shouldn't just be walking into the police and saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I lost my iPhone, I want to collect the insurance
Speaker 1: on it when you didn't. When you're just trying to
Speaker 1: engage in an insurance fraud, right, which that part of
Speaker 1: it's probably very illegal, but the lying to the cops
Speaker 1: would be a misdemeanor. I think if you lie about
Speaker 1: someone else's conduct to implicate them in felony behavior, and
Speaker 1: it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you've
Speaker 1: done so, then you should face felony consequences. And I
Speaker 1: don't really see a serious counter argument to this. You're
Speaker 1: gonna remember, we've had all these libs telling this now
Speaker 1: for two years, that process crimes are real crimes, that
Speaker 1: lying under oath to the FBI or lying to Congress
Speaker 1: even on about non criminal behavior is very serious, should
Speaker 1: be taken very seriously. Well, lying about somebody else committing
Speaker 1: a rape, or committing a hate crime, or any number
Speaker 1: of different things that are felonies that should be treated
Speaker 1: as an incredibly serious offense as well. And I do
Speaker 1: not believe that those who are taking the other side
Speaker 1: of this argument interacting in particularly good faith, because I
Speaker 1: think that the argument is quite clear. I think that
Speaker 1: this should be it should be punished severely when you
Speaker 1: were lying about somebody else's conduct to get them severely punished,
Speaker 1: whatever the issue, whatever the crime may be. All right,
Speaker 1: seeing that's going to be it for this edition of
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Be with you every day for
Speaker 1: the rest of the week, looking forward to it. Talk
Speaker 1: to you then, Shields Tie. You're probably familiar with the AARP,
Speaker 1: you were someone you know might be a member. But
Speaker 1: did you know that the AARP is all about left
Speaker 1: wing politics. They often lobby for progressive causes, and they
Speaker 1: fought tooth and nail for government run healthcare. So I
Speaker 1: recommend you check out AMAC for a senior's organization. Why
Speaker 1: AMAC Well, AMAC was founded by an Air Force veteran
Speaker 1: and advocates for the America that you want to see
Speaker 1: as well advocates for border protection, fixing, solar security, and
Speaker 1: all kinds of policy that is conservative and good for
Speaker 1: this country. Also, AMAC gets value for its members with
Speaker 1: discounts on car insurance, hotels. Roadside assistant said, more so,
Speaker 1: stand with AMAC as they fight the good fight. Become
Speaker 1: a member today, Join right now at AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck. Tell your family,
Speaker 1: tell your friends. AMAK is better, better for you, better
Speaker 1: for America.