Speaker 1: Do you have opinions that you feel like you can express.
Speaker 1: I think we all do. Are you looking for a
Speaker 1: place to stir up some conversations, let your thoughts and
Speaker 1: your opinions be heard. I want to introduce you to
Speaker 1: an alternative social media site, snippy dot com. Snippy is
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its
Speaker 1: users the ability to discuss topics freely without any suppression
Speaker 1: from administrators. Check in for a quick update about current events,
Speaker 1: or spend hours scrolling through users posts, Write your thoughts
Speaker 1: and strike up conversation. Snippy's founders have intentionally created a
Speaker 1: forum where anyone can feel free to express their thoughts, frustrations, ideas, anything. Really,
Speaker 1: it's a place where discussion is valued, a place where
Speaker 1: your opinion matters, and it's totally free. Go to snippy
Speaker 1: dot com now to express yourself. No shadow banning, no
Speaker 1: character limit, no suppression of conservative thought ever. Check out
Speaker 1: the website at snippy dot com or download the app.
Speaker 1: No censorship, no agenda. Joined snippy dot com to get
Speaker 1: the discussion rolling. You are entering the freedom hunt. President
Speaker 1: Trump lays a SmackDown on globalists at the United Nations
Speaker 1: and make sure that everybody knows that he does plan
Speaker 1: to put America's interest first and he doesn't care what
Speaker 1: those assembled leaders think of it. Also, the allegations against
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh seemed to be falling apart under further scrutiny. Will
Speaker 1: a third allegation emerge just in time to delay the hearing.
Speaker 1: We've got that and the latest on Rod Rosenstein and
Speaker 1: the possible Amendment removal soft coup coming up on the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck sex To Show begins. No, I honor the
Speaker 1: right of every nation in this room to pursue its
Speaker 1: own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not
Speaker 1: tell you how to live, or work or worship. We
Speaker 1: only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return. That's right, folks,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. President Trump at the
Speaker 1: U n and just saying, look, we we believe in
Speaker 1: our own sovereignty. We believe that this nation we the
Speaker 1: American people, believe that this nation is first and foremost
Speaker 1: four Americans, and it is our primary concern. Our own polity,
Speaker 1: our own political family, matters more than any consortium of
Speaker 1: leaders and bureaucrats around the world. Sorry, United Nations, by
Speaker 1: whether you went should be in like some in the
Speaker 1: Pacific somewhere, you know, let them all just to send
Speaker 1: there instead of blocking traffic in New York City, in
Speaker 1: my hometown, we just don't need it in the right
Speaker 1: Brandon blocks the traffic. It's not cool. We don't we
Speaker 1: don't need that. But you know, it was interesting to
Speaker 1: see the way that some of the assembled presidents and
Speaker 1: prime ministers and despots and all the rest of the
Speaker 1: the the assorted big players on the world stage responded.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, here, here's a clip that got
Speaker 1: a lot of attention today when the remember the U
Speaker 1: n you and general assemblies happened this week, so you know,
Speaker 1: all the different member nations show up and lots of meetings,
Speaker 1: great chance for journalists to speak to the Prime minister
Speaker 1: of you know, Derka, Derkistan. And here is what Trump
Speaker 1: said at one point, and they laughed. But I have
Speaker 1: a feeling that you my friends and the rest of
Speaker 1: the American people who actually care about this country, not
Speaker 1: laughing play thirty best than two years, my administration has
Speaker 1: accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of
Speaker 1: our country. America's so true. I didn't expect that reaction,
Speaker 1: But that's okay. America's economy is booming like never before.
Speaker 1: Since my election. We've added ten trillion dollars in wealth.
Speaker 1: The stock market is at an all time high in history,
Speaker 1: and jobless claims are at a fifty year low. President
Speaker 1: Trump in in his sweet spot there he he says
Speaker 1: something that is he's right in line with his thinking,
Speaker 1: which is that he is administration's accomplished a lot. I
Speaker 1: would note that a lot of what he has accomplished
Speaker 1: is undoing the add decision making of the previous administration
Speaker 1: on Iran, on regulations, on the economy, on taxes. That's progress, folks.
Speaker 1: Undoing obama Ism is progress, and liberals and the left
Speaker 1: hate him for it, but it is definitely a good thing,
Speaker 1: something to be celebrated. Now, you'll note that the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, maybe a lot of these foreign countries, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, look at the United States with no
Speaker 1: shortage of envy and feel quite a bit, you know,
Speaker 1: depending on the country, feel quite a bit. You know,
Speaker 1: why are they so successful, prosperous, free and happy? And
Speaker 1: you know our country, our country stinks. That's right. There
Speaker 1: are crappy countries in the world. The president will actually
Speaker 1: say it sometimes it's true. That doesn't mean the people
Speaker 1: from that country are crappy, but there are crappy governments.
Speaker 1: What is North Korea not a crappy country? Is that
Speaker 1: the game we play? Now? No, there's a whole you know.
Speaker 1: You you start at the very top, there's you know,
Speaker 1: America and Western European countries, in Japan and Australia and
Speaker 1: you know countries, but things are great, and then you
Speaker 1: work your way all the way down. You end up
Speaker 1: in the crappy countries and they get to show up
Speaker 1: at the u N too, and you know, they have
Speaker 1: their reasons and rationalizations for why they're not doing as
Speaker 1: well as other countries. But when the presidents referring to
Speaker 1: accomplishing a lot, he doesn't mean the Paris Climate Treaty,
Speaker 1: which was nonsense. He doesn't mean the kind of things
Speaker 1: that are gonna get him a standing ovation at the
Speaker 1: u N. He doesn't mean getting a Nobel Peace Prize
Speaker 1: just for being Trump. Oh you remember that with Obama.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being Obama. It's amazing. Here's your Nobel
Speaker 1: Peace Prize. Even Obama was embarrassed I think by that
Speaker 1: a little bit, not totally, but a little bit because
Speaker 1: it was embarrassing. They should have been embarrassed. Joke. But
Speaker 1: the president speaking about all that's been accomplished for the
Speaker 1: American people in this country where he is actually president.
Speaker 1: You always got the sense that Obama aspired to be
Speaker 1: president of the world. Trump just wants to be president
Speaker 1: of America for eight years, do his best, and then
Speaker 1: go back to doing whatever the heck he wants, playing
Speaker 1: a lot of golf, do whatever he feels like. That's
Speaker 1: that's Trump's gool. And remaking American politics in the process
Speaker 1: and reshaping the political landscape in ways that has taken
Speaker 1: a wrecking ball to the establishment in many ways, not
Speaker 1: as much as I would like, but in many ways
Speaker 1: um and has finally put us on an even footing
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fights with the propagandistic left
Speaker 1: wing media. Trump had some other good stuff to say
Speaker 1: as well. We withdrew from the Human Rights Council and
Speaker 1: we will not return until real reform is enacted. For
Speaker 1: similar reasons, the United States will provide no support and
Speaker 1: recognition to the International Criminal Court as far as America
Speaker 1: is concerned. The i c C has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy,
Speaker 1: and no authority. The i c C claims near universal
Speaker 1: jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles
Speaker 1: of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender
Speaker 1: America's sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy. America is
Speaker 1: governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and
Speaker 1: we embraced the doctrine of patriotism. America is governed by Americans.
Speaker 1: We embrace patriotism. Those are things that you would assume
Speaker 1: any president saying them, all Americans would unite behind. But
Speaker 1: of course for Trump to say that at the United Nations,
Speaker 1: the left and the so called intelligentsia and the international
Speaker 1: international community bureaucrats, they feel like that's a slap in
Speaker 1: the face. There is this mentality, this ideology of a
Speaker 1: one world government. People call it cosmopolitanism sometimes, and it
Speaker 1: has become commonplace among progressives, especially the international relations scholar
Speaker 1: set right. The people that are work at the State
Speaker 1: Department are working international media outlets, places like CNN and
Speaker 1: an NBC that have a more global footprint, and you know,
Speaker 1: they really think of them as more citizens of the world.
Speaker 1: We're citizens of the world. No, no, that's not true.
Speaker 1: We're not citizens of the world. We are citizens of
Speaker 1: this country. I care about what's going on in this country.
Speaker 1: I mean as a human being. Obviously you care about
Speaker 1: progress and suffering and all those things the rest of
Speaker 1: the world. But you can only worry about the politics
Speaker 1: going on here first and foremost. Everything else is a distant,
Speaker 1: distant second. This is almost revolutionary thinking to come from
Speaker 1: a president. It feels like right now, but that's really
Speaker 1: just a commentary on what was going on with the
Speaker 1: previous presidency. It should in no way feel revolutionary to us,
Speaker 1: but it does. Why is that? Oh, that's right, because
Speaker 1: we've been through eight years of Obama, who went to
Speaker 1: the United Nations and said things like the future will
Speaker 1: not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Speaker 1: One of the most bizarre and unsettling things a commander
Speaker 1: in chief of this country has ever said. First of all,
Speaker 1: he's not a theologian. He shouldn't be picking sides about
Speaker 1: any religion or any religious dispute. It was. It was
Speaker 1: just outrageous. But they all clapped. They all clapped because Obama,
Speaker 1: you know, they have to clap for him. I think
Speaker 1: the President has done a very good job so far
Speaker 1: at the United Nations by being who he is and
Speaker 1: speaking his mind. And maybe, and this is my hope
Speaker 1: for other countries. You see, I want good things to
Speaker 1: happen for all people. As a conservative, the the basic
Speaker 1: entity that we are concerned with our individual human beings,
Speaker 1: their rights, their dignity. I want all human beings to
Speaker 1: live in freedom and prosperity and have uh you know,
Speaker 1: rule of law, and I want everybody to have life,
Speaker 1: liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can't ensure it
Speaker 1: for everybody, though, I can only work here in short,
Speaker 1: in this country. But what we can do as Americans
Speaker 1: is promote through our own country such a and obviously
Speaker 1: beneficial and and positive model for the rest of the
Speaker 1: world to follow on their own accord. Because that's the
Speaker 1: only way it will really work. That we have an effect,
Speaker 1: and we already are having this effect all the time.
Speaker 1: I mean, I wanted to write a book and I
Speaker 1: actually talked to a publisher about it a year or
Speaker 1: two ago, and uh, they they, I'll be totally frankly,
Speaker 1: they bailed on the idea, which was amazing to me
Speaker 1: because it would have been a great book. But then
Speaker 1: I got caught up in other things. But it's really
Speaker 1: just on how awesome is how awesome America is for
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. And after all the bowing
Speaker 1: to foreign leaders and the criticizing of a America and
Speaker 1: the confronting the you know, the bad parts of our
Speaker 1: history that we had for eight years, to have a
Speaker 1: president who's like, you know, the world really benefits from
Speaker 1: us in so many ways that sure we want to
Speaker 1: hear their opinion. Sure we have allies and great countries
Speaker 1: that are really like like family members to us when
Speaker 1: it comes to the nations of the world, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: there are countries that feel like family. But America's our first,
Speaker 1: is our first and greatest concern. And a president who
Speaker 1: is willing to come forward and say that not only
Speaker 1: is America the priority for the people living here, but
Speaker 1: also the rest of the world wouldn't be It wouldn't
Speaker 1: be too much to ask for a hey, you guys
Speaker 1: are pretty great once in a while, instead of complaining
Speaker 1: about our foreign policy and complaining about you know, our
Speaker 1: our either cultural appropriation or cultural imperialism, and I think
Speaker 1: American American and cultural cultural imperialism most parts of the
Speaker 1: good thing. The more of our stuff that other countries
Speaker 1: can can take, the better, especially in terms of the
Speaker 1: way we approach rule of law and um which is
Speaker 1: why this debate over Cavana, which by the way, we're
Speaker 1: going to dive deep into that today. The latest on it,
Speaker 1: I mean, the whole thing is a con it's a smear.
Speaker 1: These people are lying or they're delusional, and I've been
Speaker 1: saying this all along, and it's it's more clear than ever.
Speaker 1: But I'll get into those details. Don't think we're not
Speaker 1: gonna spend time on that today. We certainly will. But
Speaker 1: I wanted to give a moment to the president today
Speaker 1: at the United Nations UM and and also note that
Speaker 1: this is a presidency that does not have a an
Speaker 1: almost unhealthy focus on foreign policy and foreign conflicts. The president,
Speaker 1: who you'll notice is not getting us entangled in in
Speaker 1: wars that we don't have to be in, is not
Speaker 1: constantly meddling in the foreign affairs of other countries in
Speaker 1: ways that don't affect us interests directly. And we're really
Speaker 1: having conversations about about America first, if you will, as
Speaker 1: a country, and that's that's a good thing. You know.
Speaker 1: I don't really need to sit here and get into
Speaker 1: fierce debates with people about whether we're training the free
Speaker 1: Syrian Army properly in Syria or not, as we did
Speaker 1: on the obamaministration. The answer was no, we were not.
Speaker 1: But you know, there are other things for us to
Speaker 1: be focused on, and Trump is doing that and he's
Speaker 1: you know, they laugh, they laugh when he says he's
Speaker 1: doing great things. And the great thing about Trump is
Speaker 1: he laughs right back. He's like, yeah, you guys, remember
Speaker 1: when Obama made fun of me at that comedy dinner
Speaker 1: and then I came back, took his job, and uh,
Speaker 1: basically pulled apart his legacy. Right. I don't think the
Speaker 1: UN members should just be, you know, yucking it up
Speaker 1: at Trump's expense. Not that he's gonna do anything bad
Speaker 1: to them, but I think that some of them who
Speaker 1: who are laughing not with him but at him, they
Speaker 1: will they will have to look back on this and say, wow,
Speaker 1: we really underestimated this commander in chief, this leader of
Speaker 1: the free world. That's what I thing's gonna happen. We
Speaker 1: believe survivors. Let my wife's throw We believe survivor. He's
Speaker 1: forgotten Ted Cruise and Frid Cabins having off for caving
Speaker 1: off for women's rights, for right of every marginalized community kids.
Speaker 1: Tell Carna very in a minute, that was at a
Speaker 1: restaurant here in TC, blocks from where I'm currently doing
Speaker 1: this show, where Ted Cruz was trying to have dinner
Speaker 1: with his wife like a normal person trying to have
Speaker 1: dinner with his wife, and this group smashed racism d
Speaker 1: C tracks him down, mobs him in the restaurant, gets
Speaker 1: up in his face, and causes a confrontation. My friends,
Speaker 1: one day this is going to turn into violence. And
Speaker 1: I can tell you this, if any of these punks
Speaker 1: ever showed up around me or some of the people
Speaker 1: that I know in this business and we were with
Speaker 1: a significant other they started yelling in my face, I
Speaker 1: would take that as a threat, and if I feel threatened,
Speaker 1: I would respond, and all of a sudden this would
Speaker 1: get out of control very quickly. What they did to
Speaker 1: the center is a disgrace. But these people are disgusting.
Speaker 1: And what you see is that liberalism now really is
Speaker 1: very close to leftists. True progressive believers have something on
Speaker 1: the on the line of of a mental health issue,
Speaker 1: I mean, a real disorder, and they view progressive ideology
Speaker 1: as some kind of outlet for their rage because it's
Speaker 1: just not normal. Normal, healthy, socialized people do not show
Speaker 1: up at restaurants and scream it's strangers for no reason, okay,
Speaker 1: and there's no reason to scream at Ted Cruise. They
Speaker 1: have nothing, and they said, really, we didn't play all
Speaker 1: it because it's no need to. But they said really
Speaker 1: nasty stuff they comment on his appearance, and it reminds
Speaker 1: me the CNN audience. I used to go on CNN,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people watching CNN are you know, nice,
Speaker 1: normal people. They don't realize how bias CN is because
Speaker 1: they don't pay that much attention. But there's a good
Speaker 1: core of CNN watchers who are just a bunch of savages,
Speaker 1: a bunch of left wing you know, if they're dudes,
Speaker 1: they're beta male, basement dwelling maniacs. And there's a lot
Speaker 1: of that out there. And the people that did this
Speaker 1: the Ted cruise. It just makes me so angry. This
Speaker 1: does not happen both ways. This is not a two
Speaker 1: way street, whether it's Antifa or these uh, these leftist
Speaker 1: smash racism. I mean they're chasing a Latino out of
Speaker 1: a restaurant with his wife to smash racism. That's the
Speaker 1: group is called smash racism. I mean they probably should
Speaker 1: be called you know, smash i q s because they're
Speaker 1: all morons. But this is what they do. And you'll notice,
Speaker 1: do think they're gonna cover this much on on the
Speaker 1: on CNN, these other networks, on MSNBC. No, No, they're
Speaker 1: not gonna spend any time on this. They should be
Speaker 1: embarrassed by this, but they're not. They view this as,
Speaker 1: you know, they're vanguard, their frontline ideological troops, making a
Speaker 1: play to get some attention. That's all I see this
Speaker 1: as I don't ever want to hear the left whine
Speaker 1: about Trump is phil mean, he's look what he says
Speaker 1: to journalists. Remember a couple of months ago, when the
Speaker 1: biggest problem in the country for a couple of days,
Speaker 1: Trump is still mean to journalists. He's eroding the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: A bunch of cry babies. I told you so at
Speaker 1: the time, and I was right, And you know I
Speaker 1: was right a bunch of cry babies. Oh it's so
Speaker 1: hard for using people are making some of the millions
Speaker 1: of dollars to do a job that any third rate
Speaker 1: male model could do. Oh you know, here I am
Speaker 1: outside of the Trump is mean to me and so sad. Journalism. Also,
Speaker 1: the thing about journalism is journalism is basically just a conversation. Now,
Speaker 1: it's just a it's just a form of communication where
Speaker 1: we can all anybody can be a journalist. You got
Speaker 1: access to the internet, you can publish stuff. If people
Speaker 1: read it, hey you're a journalist. It doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: And journalism as a concept doesn't hold water the way
Speaker 1: it used to. And and certainly journalism as nonpartisan, unbiased,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a complete joke. But and back to this,
Speaker 1: I I just it keeps happening. It happens here in
Speaker 1: d C. And it's one of the reasons why I
Speaker 1: get to speak to all of you. I'm behind enemy
Speaker 1: lines here, folks. You are my lifeline to sanity. You
Speaker 1: every night, all of you listening to this show. Because
Speaker 1: the crazies that I deal with, you know, on the
Speaker 1: streets here. They're chasing after Ted Cruz. They're everywhere in
Speaker 1: this city, and a lot of them work for different
Speaker 1: government agencies and bureaucracies, which is pretty scary. All right, everybody,
Speaker 1: let's play a game. What is the dumbest thing that
Speaker 1: has been said on CNN all week? Not pop up up,
Speaker 1: don't just jump in and start throwing out I know
Speaker 1: and I can do that too. They've probably been a
Speaker 1: lot of very very stupid things said on CNN recently,
Speaker 1: but I have to that I think are the incredible
Speaker 1: Hulk and the Thing, if you will, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a this is Batman versus Superman. This is a
Speaker 1: clash of titanic stupidity on CNN for the the dumbest
Speaker 1: comments that I've heard recently. That there's a lot of
Speaker 1: others that could certain Like, I mean, we could always
Speaker 1: throw in some gurgling with Gurgan bird nuction for Reagan,
Speaker 1: impeachment nuction Reagan. There's a lot of that we could
Speaker 1: throw in there. But I want to get to to
Speaker 1: a couple that just blew my mind. I'm gonna put
Speaker 1: this one in the number two slot. I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: this the runner up dumbest thing I've heard on CNN. Uh,
Speaker 1: and it's from Simone Sanders. Was this on the on
Speaker 1: the Tapper panel. Tapper loves to have lots of really
Speaker 1: very unimpressive analysts on his panel for a guy who
Speaker 1: takes himself quite seriously. But here here's what was said
Speaker 1: on the panel. I don't even know who this analyst is.
Speaker 1: PLAIP twelve the senim a joining leader calling this a
Speaker 1: smear campaign is uh? Is a is a small dog
Speaker 1: whistle to the base of the Republican Party, maybe even
Speaker 1: Trump's base, talking about the suggesting that he doesn't believe
Speaker 1: these women. No, No, it's it's not a a dog whistle. Um.
Speaker 1: A dog whistle is something that you're hoping only some
Speaker 1: people here. When you call this a smear campaign, CNN
Speaker 1: political analyst, you are flatly saying this is not to
Speaker 1: be believed. This, this is not credible. The people making
Speaker 1: the allegations are doing so for political reasons. They are lying.
Speaker 1: That's not a dog whistle. You know, if I go
Speaker 1: to the store and I say, hey, I would like
Speaker 1: to buy some hamburger meat, that's not a dog whistle
Speaker 1: that I would like to actually buy some hot dog. No,
Speaker 1: it's a request to buy hamburger meat. I just I
Speaker 1: don't think she understands what a a dog whistle is um.
Speaker 1: Or maybe she's so used to talking about dog whistles
Speaker 1: on TV and having everybody think that that's that's great
Speaker 1: that she throws in them. But I just want to
Speaker 1: help her out. It's not a dog whistle when he
Speaker 1: calls it a smear campaign, it is straight up a whistle,
Speaker 1: meaning everybody can hear it. I mean, he's saying this
Speaker 1: is crap. He is blowing the whistle on this, and
Speaker 1: I am glad. Wow. She served as national press secretary
Speaker 1: for Bernie Sanders Man. It was not a not an
Speaker 1: intelligent comment. I don't know this person is um. But
Speaker 1: then you had and this wasn't from a political person.
Speaker 1: This was one of these segments where I saw people
Speaker 1: commenting on her on social media just in reference to it,
Speaker 1: and I thought, come on, it can't really be what
Speaker 1: people are saying it was. It can't actually be that
Speaker 1: that stupid. There's no way that somebody would go on
Speaker 1: TV and do this. It turns out no, no, it
Speaker 1: was that bad. You had a legal analyst going on
Speaker 1: CNN on Brooke Baldwin Show, who I like Brooks. She's
Speaker 1: a very nice lady. I know her a little bit
Speaker 1: socially that I haven't seen her in a couple of years,
Speaker 1: and and I think that she generally tries to do
Speaker 1: a pretty a pretty even handed job on this stuff.
Speaker 1: But she um had this person on who is supposed
Speaker 1: to be a legal expert of some kind, and here
Speaker 1: is what was said, play clip twenty nine, please and
Speaker 1: I And it's it's disturbing to me because during the break,
Speaker 1: I'm scrolling through Twitter, and I'm looking at people actually
Speaker 1: saying and applauding the judge in the sentence and then
Speaker 1: in the same breath wanting to defend Kavanaugh. And and
Speaker 1: it's it's disturbing to me because again, like Riva said,
Speaker 1: this is a monumental, defining moment this week when you
Speaker 1: have someone like Coffee going to prison and then in
Speaker 1: the same breath, having Kavanaugh possibly going to the highest
Speaker 1: court in the land. And so anyone that's defending Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: could not in the same breath now applaud this um
Speaker 1: jury for or this uh, this verdict that the judge
Speaker 1: is handed down in the same breath. That just doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense. Yeah, this is somebody who is a
Speaker 1: former prosecutor, folks, who apparently doesn't understand the very basic
Speaker 1: idea in our legal system of the presumption of innocence,
Speaker 1: innocidential proven guilty, or even just you know, having some
Speaker 1: due process or basic logic and reasoning. All of that
Speaker 1: seems to be abandoned here. All of that is pushed
Speaker 1: pushed aside in favor of scoring some cheap political points
Speaker 1: for an audience. I mean, the CNN audience, I can
Speaker 1: assure you, is a bunch of rabid Kavanaugh haters. And
Speaker 1: that was one of the reasons why I stopped doing CNN.
Speaker 1: I realized at some point, and I really mean this,
Speaker 1: I didn't respect the audience and I didn't like that.
Speaker 1: I don't like doing something like that on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: Is when I was a contributor there, I was paid
Speaker 1: to be a political commentator at CNN national security analyst,
Speaker 1: but I didn't like it because I knew that when
Speaker 1: I was talking, I didn't respect the audience. You know,
Speaker 1: I come onto this show every night and one of
Speaker 1: the things that motivates me is I think I have
Speaker 1: the best and then I remember says, oh, I think
Speaker 1: I have the best audience, but I really do. I mean,
Speaker 1: I am inspired by the people listen to this show. Uh,
Speaker 1: They've supported me for years. They've shown tremendous humor and
Speaker 1: kindness and humility and have taught me so much over
Speaker 1: the years that I've been doing the Bucks Exton Show,
Speaker 1: and I come to this show every night. I gotta
Speaker 1: I gotta give this audience is or the best I
Speaker 1: can give them every single night. When I was at CNN,
Speaker 1: quite honestly, I kind of wanted to end every segment
Speaker 1: by flipping them the double bird to the audience. Hey
Speaker 1: are you sitting at home? Double bird? There you go
Speaker 1: take that one, Brandon. Isn't that what it's called? You
Speaker 1: flip the bird? Right? I'm not Yeah, that's what it's called,
Speaker 1: all right. Or a bronx is a bronx salute the
Speaker 1: one finger, No, that one finger salutes the middle finger.
Speaker 1: The bronx salute is like when you make a like
Speaker 1: a noise. Right, do we know you guys are in
Speaker 1: New York? What do you got for me? Yeah? I
Speaker 1: haven't heard of the bronx. I think bronx cheer bronx.
Speaker 1: That's what I was thinking of. But when you google
Speaker 1: Bronx salute, actually the picture comes up of a New
Speaker 1: York Yankee given the middle finger. Well, there you go.
Speaker 1: You're onto something there, so I'm not. I'm not as
Speaker 1: crazy as I thought I was onto something. But this,
Speaker 1: let's just let's just pull this apart for a second.
Speaker 1: That Cosby who has had I mean, producer, Mike, what's
Speaker 1: the number? Fifty sixty women? I mean it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's a it's like a full you know, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a full football roster. Is worth the people. It's
Speaker 1: like fifty or sixty people have accused this guy of
Speaker 1: sexual assault of some kind. I mean eight of dozens
Speaker 1: and dozens of women, and they all have basically the
Speaker 1: same story. He slipped something in my drink, or he
Speaker 1: gave me some drugs and then he took advantage of me.
Speaker 1: There's a sixty actually has a complete list of the sixty.
Speaker 1: Cosby astonishing Bill Clinton, I mean Bill whoops, that was freudy.
Speaker 1: And Bill Clinton is a serial rapist, That's what I
Speaker 1: was about to say. But no, he's just a one
Speaker 1: off rapist and a sexual abuser and sexual assaulter. But
Speaker 1: but Cosby is a serial sexual predator who has had
Speaker 1: all this evidence presented against him, a lot of it
Speaker 1: from and remember and he was an adult and these
Speaker 1: were adults, and this was you know, stretching back in
Speaker 1: some cases, you know, a couple of decades, but the
Speaker 1: specifics were never in question. He did know these women,
Speaker 1: he was at these places with them. There's mountains of
Speaker 1: evidence against this guy, and he was just afforded the
Speaker 1: right to a trial by jury and he was found guilty.
Speaker 1: To compare that activity that he engaged in and that
Speaker 1: process that he was given in any way to what
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh has been put through right now and what's going
Speaker 1: on with the Kavana situation is a monumental idiocy. It
Speaker 1: is aggressively stupid, and there's a lot of aggressively stupid
Speaker 1: out there right now. I think that the biggest thing
Speaker 1: that I was getting attacked for because I've been very
Speaker 1: vocal on social media, on Twitter and specifically in defensive
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh from the beginning that I've been and you know,
Speaker 1: producer Mike knows, because I've been setting up it's you know,
Speaker 1: people are gonna come at me, but they and they have,
Speaker 1: but I have been all in on this is BS
Speaker 1: Derek this is a hit. And I know you know this,
Speaker 1: but not everybody. Now people have woken up a little
Speaker 1: bit on the more woke, you could say, on the
Speaker 1: on the conservative side. But I from the beginning I
Speaker 1: smelled the rat. I smelled the rat. No way, this
Speaker 1: was legit. And what I keep seeing in my my
Speaker 1: mens as they say, I mean the responses to me,
Speaker 1: and I mean from from Blue Check. Oh, I'm so
Speaker 1: big and serious journalists a lot of them, and people
Speaker 1: with followings, you know, Soli Dad O'Brien and people like that.
Speaker 1: You know, do you remember who she is, Mike? You
Speaker 1: remember her? She had the worst morning show I think
Speaker 1: ever put on TV. Absolutely I do. I mean her
Speaker 1: Her morning show was. Her morning show was like the
Speaker 1: the jar jar Binks of morning shows. And my old
Speaker 1: friend Will Caine, who, by the way, God bless him,
Speaker 1: is doing great, really well at ESPN building out a
Speaker 1: radio show there. I'm so happy for all the success
Speaker 1: put I used to feel bad he had to sit
Speaker 1: on this panel with Sola Dad and you know, just
Speaker 1: kind of deal with her every day. And she was
Speaker 1: the host, so it wasn't like he was a co host.
Speaker 1: And man, that was rough anyway, she's terrible. She and
Speaker 1: others have come after me, and they keep refew referring
Speaker 1: to Kavanaugh as a rapist. And I see here, and
Speaker 1: I go, do I have to be the one who
Speaker 1: points out that nobody says he's raped anybody, nobody that
Speaker 1: that has never even been alleged. Rape is a specific
Speaker 1: physical act of illegal uh, physical penetration. Okay, that is
Speaker 1: what rape is. Rape is not, you know, I I, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, pulled my pants down for a second at
Speaker 1: a fraternity party. You know that's not rape. It may
Speaker 1: be indecent exposure. I'm not saying it's okay, maybe criminal,
Speaker 1: but it's not rape. And you'll you'll notice that there's
Speaker 1: such a uh, such a frenzy, a frenzy on this
Speaker 1: to just try and paint Kavanaugh in some way as
Speaker 1: a rapist, I mean to try and create the association
Speaker 1: in people's minds that Kavanaugh is talked about in the
Speaker 1: same category as Bill Cosby. I mean to talk about
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh in the same category as Bill Cosby, to speak
Speaker 1: about them in the same sentence, in the way that
Speaker 1: this woman on National TV, given airtime on on CNN
Speaker 1: that she did is really ethically and morally. No different
Speaker 1: from referring to somebody who allegedly, um, you know, allegedly
Speaker 1: punched somebody in the face, to somebody who's a a
Speaker 1: you know, mass murderer. You know, so assault, I mean, right,
Speaker 1: punching somebody would be assault. And I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: allegation from his college years. We expose themselves, right, but
Speaker 1: I mean assault. Okay, that's not okay, that's a crime.
Speaker 1: It's an allegation. But there's a lot of difference between
Speaker 1: an allegation of assault and being a mass murderer. Bill
Speaker 1: Cosby is a serial rapist. In the dozens and dozens
Speaker 1: and dozens to speak about him in the same sentence
Speaker 1: as if if everything that has been alleged about Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: so far it's true and it is not. These women
Speaker 1: are lying. I will say it to you in plain English,
Speaker 1: because that's the kind of relationship we have. They are lying,
Speaker 1: or there's another possibility they believe what they are saying,
Speaker 1: but they are delusional, or their their memories have faded
Speaker 1: into a near delusion where they think something happened and
Speaker 1: it did not. You know, I actually I want to
Speaker 1: spend a little more time on that notion. Uh in
Speaker 1: just a moment. Let let me let me hit a
Speaker 1: quick pause here, team. I want to tell you more
Speaker 1: about this, uh memory and what we know about memory
Speaker 1: as it affects people's ability to identify accusers, and how
Speaker 1: it plays out in the criminal justice system, because I
Speaker 1: think there's some very interesting stuff on this and it's
Speaker 1: not getting no surprise, not getting nearly enough attention from
Speaker 1: the media, and it's very relevant to our conversations about
Speaker 1: what's really going on here with Kavanaugh. So I've got
Speaker 1: that coming up. Stay with me, you know, I was
Speaker 1: just in the break. I'm talking to producer Mike here,
Speaker 1: and I'm not gonna say that I am an honorary
Speaker 1: member of Dirsh's legal advisory squad or something, but for
Speaker 1: some reason, the DIRSH and I are always kind of
Speaker 1: on the same wavelength. I I I'm about to start
Speaker 1: telling you about the Innocence Project Act and what liberals
Speaker 1: usually say about memory, and producer Mike is like, but
Speaker 1: you know, you know that I can get you audio
Speaker 1: of DIRSH talking about this. Alan Dershowitz for those who
Speaker 1: don't know, we call him the DIRSH, just like you know,
Speaker 1: I try to call Joe Concho my buddy, my my
Speaker 1: hill colleague, the conch. I don't think he likes it.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't he hasn't really taken to it.
Speaker 1: And if somebody doesn't like their nickname, I have a rule.
Speaker 1: Even if they kind of make an offhand remark about
Speaker 1: you know, I don't really like you, gotta stop. But
Speaker 1: here's here's what the dirsh the durst likes it. I've
Speaker 1: said it to him before. Here's what he thinks about memory.
Speaker 1: When it comes to criminal cases, play it. It depends
Speaker 1: on how tough the lawyer is in his cross examination
Speaker 1: of the accuser. And he must be or she must
Speaker 1: be tough. She can't just be allowed to say, well,
Speaker 1: I thought about it, then I didn't remember it, and
Speaker 1: then it took me six days to reconstruct my memory.
Speaker 1: A good cross examining lawyer has to be gender free,
Speaker 1: has to raise the same kinds of tough questions about
Speaker 1: repressed memory and how to reconstruct memory, and exactly what
Speaker 1: she was told by whom she was told it, who
Speaker 1: made suggestions to her? How did her memory improve over time?
Speaker 1: We know that biologically memories don't improve over time. They
Speaker 1: received over time. How did her memory get so much
Speaker 1: better over six days of briefing with her lawyer. That
Speaker 1: is a subject of appropriate cross examination, and any woman
Speaker 1: or man who was afraid to be tough in cross
Speaker 1: examining her or cross examining him should not have that job. Hey,
Speaker 1: the Dirsh is wrong on some stuff. He's a big lib.
Speaker 1: He hates the Second Amendment. There's some things where he's
Speaker 1: way off. But man, if I ever got into a scrap,
Speaker 1: I'd want the Dirsh to be my counsel. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you of all the of all the TV lawyers,
Speaker 1: a producer, Mike, let me, let me ask, who's your friend?
Speaker 1: You can get any TV lawyer to be your guy.
Speaker 1: You're you're you're caught in Alabama for a murder you
Speaker 1: did not commit when you were robbing a store and
Speaker 1: it turns out they checked the tire treads because you're
Speaker 1: your cousin. And you know how the story ends. Um,
Speaker 1: who's your Who's your TV lawyer? Though, man, real life,
Speaker 1: real life TV lawyer. Yeah, it has to be the DRS.
Speaker 1: You go the Dirsh. Yeah, I think so too. It's
Speaker 1: definitely not Avanati. You'd end up in like a Turkish prison.
Speaker 1: You get said something, you get sent to you can
Speaker 1: send a git Mo Avanati were your lawyer, you would
Speaker 1: not want that. But but here's here's what I wanted
Speaker 1: to get into with you. And and I'm actually I
Speaker 1: don't even have as much time as as I wanted
Speaker 1: on this one. UM, And so you know what, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe I'll I'll extend this a little bit into the
Speaker 1: I'll extend this a little bit into the next the
Speaker 1: next hour. Let's let's plan on doing that. But he
Speaker 1: here's the very short version. Memory does get worse over time.
Speaker 1: All of these different UH structural defenses that you have
Speaker 1: in a normal proceeding, the right to UH cross examine,
Speaker 1: the right to confront the accuser, the right to you know,
Speaker 1: to outside council UH, the ability to question memory, the
Speaker 1: ability to question those are all being swept aside because
Speaker 1: they're saying it's not a criminal proceeding, but it's about
Speaker 1: a criminal action. So they want a political consequence for
Speaker 1: a criminal action that they allege without any ability to
Speaker 1: defend it through normal criminal defense procedure. That's what the
Speaker 1: capital hearing is supposed to turn into. And on the
Speaker 1: question of memory specifically, UH, there are some ways in
Speaker 1: which you can look at this and maybe the women
Speaker 1: think they're telling the truth, but they're not. That's not
Speaker 1: unprecedented at all. In fact, it happens with some frequency.
Speaker 1: I will tell you more about that in just a moment.
Speaker 1: I start my day the same way every day, with
Speaker 1: a cup of delicious Black Rifle coffee. Black Rifle is
Speaker 1: incredibly high quality stuff. I mean, Black Rifle is delicious. Okay.
Speaker 1: It is small batch, roach to order coffee. It also
Speaker 1: is a company run by veterans. In fact, the founders
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle Coffee are friends of mine, and they
Speaker 1: are veterans of the Special Operations communities. These guys love patriotism, freedom,
Speaker 1: America and really delicious coffee. Why buy coffee from a
Speaker 1: bunch of comedies who don't support your values, don't care
Speaker 1: about this country the way that you do, and honestly,
Speaker 1: very unlikely their coffee tastes as good I've even got.
Speaker 1: Don't tell anybody some of the progressives I work with
Speaker 1: in d C drinking Black Rifle, not even because they
Speaker 1: support the message, but because the coffee is so good.
Speaker 1: Try for yourself. It'll be your coffee. Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. You get fifteen percent off your
Speaker 1: first order again Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck Team,
Speaker 1: go check it out. You have met her. We did
Speaker 1: not travel on the same social circles. She was not
Speaker 1: a friend, not someone I knew. You don't remember every
Speaker 1: being at parties with her? Ever, I do not. And
Speaker 1: this is an allegation about a party in the summer
Speaker 1: of two at a house near Connecticut Avenue in East
Speaker 1: West Highway with five people present. I was never at
Speaker 1: any such party. The other people who are alleged to
Speaker 1: be present have said they do not remember any such party.
Speaker 1: A woman who was present, another woman who was present,
Speaker 1: who is Dr Ford's lifelong friend, has said she doesn't
Speaker 1: know me and never remembers being at a party with
Speaker 1: me at any time in her life. I never did
Speaker 1: any such thing. Never did any such thing. The other
Speaker 1: people alleged to be there, I don't recall any such thing.
Speaker 1: If such a thing had happened, it would have been
Speaker 1: the talk of campus. The women I knew in college
Speaker 1: and the men I knew in college says, it's inconceivable
Speaker 1: that I could have done such a thing. And then
Speaker 1: New York Times is reported that just last week, the
Speaker 1: person making the accusation was calling other classmates saying she
Speaker 1: was not sure that I had done this again again,
Speaker 1: just asking for a fair process where I can be
Speaker 1: heard and I can defend my integrity. People generally in
Speaker 1: high school. I think all of us have probably done
Speaker 1: things we look back on in high school and regret
Speaker 1: or cringe a bit. But that's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: We're talking about allegation of sexual assault. I've never sexually
Speaker 1: assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything
Speaker 1: close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many
Speaker 1: years thereafter. And the girls from the schools I went to,
Speaker 1: and I, uh, we're saying that all through all these
Speaker 1: years that are in question, you were a virgin. That's correct.
Speaker 1: Never has sexual intercourse with anyone in high school? Correct?
Speaker 1: And through what years in college? Since we're proving into
Speaker 1: your personal years many years after I'll leave it at that,
Speaker 1: many years after. That was a pretty good rundown of
Speaker 1: what you got from that exclusive interview that Martha McCallum
Speaker 1: had last night with Judge Kavanaugh. Notice how people keep
Speaker 1: preferring him as Brett Kavanaugh on the media and Dr
Speaker 1: Ford that's that's not an accident. Folks, Kavanaugh's credentials if
Speaker 1: we're gonna go there. I know this is a little point,
Speaker 1: but but just keep it in mind when you're hearing
Speaker 1: all this coverage Kavanaughs. Kavanaughs credentials and academic background far
Speaker 1: exceed hers, but he is always referred to by certain
Speaker 1: people of media's Brett Kavanaugh, Brett Kavanaugh. And she's always
Speaker 1: doctor or Ford. I mean, she's professor Ford. He just
Speaker 1: like psychology, sociology at some California school. Okay, fine, but
Speaker 1: you know, I I noticed all these little things in
Speaker 1: the reportage of this, and and we should we should
Speaker 1: call it out. You should be aware of it because
Speaker 1: they're they're trying to get you to make certain distinctions
Speaker 1: about all this. But bottom line, folks, this is all
Speaker 1: a con. This is all a hit. In fact, President
Speaker 1: Trump called it a combra. Do we have that, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: He finally came out and said, it's a straight up Cohn,
Speaker 1: which I was very We'll get it, all right, We'll
Speaker 1: we'll grab that. Oh we got it. Here here's here's
Speaker 1: the president hit it. I think he's just a wonderful
Speaker 1: human being. I mean, I think it's horrible. What the
Speaker 1: Democrats have done. It's an they're really kind of honest,
Speaker 1: just they're trying to convince. You know, they don't they
Speaker 1: don't believe it themselves. Okay, they know he's a high
Speaker 1: quality president. They don't believe him. It's just resist and obstruct,
Speaker 1: resist and obstruct a hundred percent correct. The President is
Speaker 1: spot on here. Okay. I think the President is doing
Speaker 1: a phenomenal job of and has shown a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of restraint on this issue given everything else that's going on.
Speaker 1: I think the President has been really um impressive thus far.
Speaker 1: And now he's reacted under the circumstances to because he
Speaker 1: could have just gone off the handle and crazy tweets
Speaker 1: and everything else. No, No, he understands the stakes here.
Speaker 1: He knows he knows that a lot of conservatives and
Speaker 1: and I mean traditional you know, evangelical and and uh
Speaker 1: you know conservative socially Christians voted for Trump understanding the
Speaker 1: stakes here, and the Supreme Court was at the center
Speaker 1: of that. So he knows, he gets it, and he
Speaker 1: knows the Cavanal is a good man, and most importantly,
Speaker 1: he knows this is all bull. It is all complete bull.
Speaker 1: It is just complete bull. Crap, and we need to
Speaker 1: understand that and and not allow them to bully us
Speaker 1: into doubting ourselves on this Kavanaugh. And so that's why
Speaker 1: I love. It's a con. It is a con, the
Speaker 1: whole thing. I am. I was certain day one. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm nine and certain. Now. I mean, you know, theoretically
Speaker 1: aliens could land and tell me that they had a
Speaker 1: time machine, and you know, maybe this, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: why it's you know, because to borrow from zero dark thirty,
Speaker 1: you know, certainty freaks people out. But I'm sure this
Speaker 1: is a god and Trump came out and said it,
Speaker 1: and God bless him for it. All right, He's completely
Speaker 1: correct here, But a few important things from Kavanaughs. Kavanaughs denial,
Speaker 1: and but he noticed on his denial, it's not a
Speaker 1: Keith Allison denial. It's not a Rosenstein denying that he
Speaker 1: was going to use the amendment to take this president
Speaker 1: out of office. To know, I mean, it's a it
Speaker 1: is a straight up no way, no, how absolute no.
Speaker 1: But he put out some markers. He's very very smart,
Speaker 1: all right. I mean Kavanaugh to become a d C.
Speaker 1: Circuit judge, to be his level in the legal profession,
Speaker 1: and he's not getting it because you know, he's you know,
Speaker 1: his mommy or daddy wrote a big check. He's not
Speaker 1: getting it because he's the right ethnicity for the job. Right,
Speaker 1: He's getting because you're wicked smart. He understands that he
Speaker 1: is setting up very specific allegations, or rather very specific markers,
Speaker 1: not allegations, of that the person making these allegations has
Speaker 1: to be careful that she doesn't trip on. For example,
Speaker 1: what he says that he was a virgin all throughout
Speaker 1: high school. Now he is asking for people to believe
Speaker 1: that this guy, with an impeccable record his entire life,
Speaker 1: not only all of a sudden, decided to hold the
Speaker 1: girl down, rip off her bathing suit, raper and and
Speaker 1: just I mean completely throw away his life in the process, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, he would have been you know, scum,
Speaker 1: deserve to go to prison had he done that. He
Speaker 1: did not. But let's also remember, but that is a
Speaker 1: thing that you just forgotta you know, hold the woman down.
Speaker 1: I mean, he is his life is over that he
Speaker 1: would just do that and be a virgin. Now I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that's impossible. I don't want to, you know,
Speaker 1: yell at me and say, oh, but but Buck, you
Speaker 1: know this is I've heard of this story where no, no,
Speaker 1: it's highly highly unlikely. Though, Okay, a an aggressive, violent
Speaker 1: sexual predator who has never had sex before and is
Speaker 1: a teenage boy who is otherwise well adjusted and happy
Speaker 1: and loving family would be quite a stretch. And it
Speaker 1: also goes to show you how he's willing. He's willing
Speaker 1: to talk about anything in order to get to the
Speaker 1: truth here. I mean, he's willing to stand and fight,
Speaker 1: but he also is going to expose himself. Pardon the
Speaker 1: turn of phrase there, but he's going to be willing
Speaker 1: to show a side of himself in this process. Um
Speaker 1: that is embarrassing. He will go even further. By the way,
Speaker 1: I don't mean that it's embarrassing that he's a virgin.
Speaker 1: It's not at all. It's embarrassing that he has to
Speaker 1: talk about his teenage sex life on national TV as
Speaker 1: a soon to be hopefully Supreme Court judge. Don't even
Speaker 1: get me started. I mean, there's a whole I would
Speaker 1: advocate for. And I know it's easy to say that now,
Speaker 1: but you know, my my basic advice would be, you know,
Speaker 1: wait as long as you can, and you know, wait
Speaker 1: till college if you can, you know, if anybody was
Speaker 1: asking me, But that's a whole other discussion. And wait
Speaker 1: till marriage if you can, but at least at least
Speaker 1: until you're a fully functioning adult, you know, or close
Speaker 1: to it in college. Um, so that's an aside. But
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh then also I had to discussed drinking and partying.
Speaker 1: And you know, see this is part of the of
Speaker 1: the trial of so called rape culture on campus or
Speaker 1: the frat bro rape culture on campus, frat bro for
Speaker 1: a fraternity brother, and he had to speak about this
Speaker 1: because this this was another that came up play for
Speaker 1: Was there ever a time that you drank so much
Speaker 1: that you couldn't remember what happened the night before that
Speaker 1: never happened. You never said to anyone, I don't remember
Speaker 1: anything about last night that did not happen. Did you
Speaker 1: ever have any sense that any kind of the description
Speaker 1: of the behavior that I just described with these, you know,
Speaker 1: women being taken into rooms and raped or having sex
Speaker 1: with a number of men, consensual or otherwise, that that
Speaker 1: was going on at the parties that you were at.
Speaker 1: I never saw any such thing, any such thing. I
Speaker 1: certainly never participate in any such thing, but I never
Speaker 1: saw or heard of any such thing, and we we
Speaker 1: were I was focused on trying to be number one
Speaker 1: in my class and being captain to the varsity basketball team,
Speaker 1: in doing my service projects, going to church. The vast
Speaker 1: majority of time I spent in high school was studying
Speaker 1: or focused on sports and being a good friend to
Speaker 1: the boys and the girls that I was friends with.
Speaker 1: We have these great lifelong friendships. Everything about this guy
Speaker 1: comes across as a good guy. And you know what
Speaker 1: you really got a sense of from that interview last night.
Speaker 1: I think the left hates him even more because deep
Speaker 1: down they know he's a good guy. It isn't just
Speaker 1: about Row, though. It's primarily about the threat that he
Speaker 1: poses as a good guy by the way to Row
Speaker 1: versus Wade, and it's really a threat to planned parenthood v. Casey.
Speaker 1: But that's a whole another time. We can get into that. Um,
Speaker 1: it's much more likely that abortion rights would be truncated
Speaker 1: than entirely overturned to begin with, I'm sorry that I
Speaker 1: used a term abortion rights abortion, but they always call
Speaker 1: it abortion rights. Uh. But you know, you also really
Speaker 1: get the sense that they hate this guy because he
Speaker 1: does actually treat women so well because he is a
Speaker 1: constitutional conservative who has advanced women throughout their careers, because
Speaker 1: he's a good guy, and he is everything that the
Speaker 1: beta males at Vox and think progress in these places
Speaker 1: who are all, oh a huff Post and CNN, a
Speaker 1: lot of these beta males. And I gotta tell you something,
Speaker 1: and you know, I'm just gonna say it, and I
Speaker 1: don't really care about the fact that this is. This
Speaker 1: would really you know, tick some people off. Um, when
Speaker 1: I was in college and some guys, you know, we're
Speaker 1: getting a little a little grabby with a girl or
Speaker 1: you know, or things are out of line. It was,
Speaker 1: in my experience, the alpha male conservatives who were the
Speaker 1: ones that actually would step in and say, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: show some respect, or hey, back off. It was the
Speaker 1: the the you know, the random Republican from the lacrosse
Speaker 1: team who would say, hey, take your hand off or whatever.
Speaker 1: Remember just this is totally anecdotal, but I mean, I
Speaker 1: can tell you this, if somebody was actually getting hands
Speaker 1: e with a a woman at a fraternity party, you
Speaker 1: would have much rather had buck sex did in the room.
Speaker 1: Then as reclined in the room to defend her honor.
Speaker 1: That much. I can promise you, you you know Klein and
Speaker 1: his ILK, if they would, they would absolutely they would
Speaker 1: file a report with the Dean. I'd actually step in
Speaker 1: and do something about it. And I actually have a
Speaker 1: I mean, I can tell you stories. I have a
Speaker 1: background of having to step in and occasionally do something
Speaker 1: about it. You know, the buck can be surprisingly fierce
Speaker 1: when challenged, kind of like a honey badger. But I
Speaker 1: just I wanted to share that with you. For a
Speaker 1: brief moment, I got more on these allegations. Why are
Speaker 1: they reporting on rumors as though they're really Oh, in
Speaker 1: the memory, I didn't even get into the memory. You
Speaker 1: know what, we'll do memory when we come back the
Speaker 1: truth about memory when it comes to witnesses. I know,
Speaker 1: I lost track of that for a moment, and then well,
Speaker 1: isn't that doesn't that tell you something? I lost track
Speaker 1: of my memory segment? And then we'll discuss these allegations
Speaker 1: that are really rumors being reported as as news stories
Speaker 1: and questions of or issues of fact when they are not.
Speaker 1: That's coming up and the face of multiple allegations against
Speaker 1: Judge kavan Or, the FBI should reopen the background check investigation,
Speaker 1: and we should conduct a hearing where the appropriate witnesses
Speaker 1: are called in respect given both to the accuser and
Speaker 1: the accused. Anything less will be reviewed will be viewed
Speaker 1: by the American people. And I believe judged by history
Speaker 1: as a stain on Republicans in the Senate and a
Speaker 1: stain on the integrity of the Majesty of the Supreme Court. Well,
Speaker 1: I think Chuck Schumer's a stain. So there's that. Uh.
Speaker 1: But this notion the FBI should reopen the investigation. You know,
Speaker 1: we we have heard liberals talk about many times about
Speaker 1: how eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Usually this is when they
Speaker 1: are using DNA evidence via the Innocence Project to get
Speaker 1: people off for various crimes. Uh. And and sometimes to
Speaker 1: get people off like in the case of the Central
Speaker 1: Park jog is where I think it's I think the
Speaker 1: exoneration is incredibly dubious. But we know that memory fades
Speaker 1: over time. And one of the recurring themes that you
Speaker 1: can see from from different cases where someone has been
Speaker 1: has been wrongly convicted, which does happen and is terrible.
Speaker 1: It's one of the worst things in a society that
Speaker 1: prides itself on justice and law and order. One of
Speaker 1: the worst things that can happen is the state locking
Speaker 1: you up, taking away your freedom, ruining your life with
Speaker 1: no cause. So that's why you know better that this
Speaker 1: notion we have of better a number of guilty go
Speaker 1: free than one innocent man goes to prison. I think
Speaker 1: that's very important for us. But this this this idea
Speaker 1: that memory will improve, or that that that the second
Speaker 1: accuser here, Ramirez, spent six days talking to her lawyers,
Speaker 1: and that that kind of jobs. Remember her lawyers weren't there.
Speaker 1: They don't know anything. So her lawyers are helping her
Speaker 1: reconstruct the memory or the lawyers trying to understand what
Speaker 1: her risk of defamation is, meaning could she be legally
Speaker 1: liable or could she get caught perjuring herself based on
Speaker 1: these memories that she's saying. Also very noteworthy of the
Speaker 1: New York Time. Well, I'll get into the reporting on
Speaker 1: this in a moment after the break, But it is
Speaker 1: a it is a constant in the files of the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project and these other groups that try to overturn
Speaker 1: sentences that people get sent away for life, sometimes put
Speaker 1: on death row based on eyewitness testimony. That is wrong
Speaker 1: and it's not that the eyewitness was lying, that the
Speaker 1: eyewitness misremembered. In fact, there are cases. There was a
Speaker 1: case that was written about recently where a young girl
Speaker 1: was grabbed by two guys. So you know, here we'll
Speaker 1: talk about a very horrific, very real sexual assault. Grabbed
Speaker 1: by two guys. They took her driving. She had been
Speaker 1: at a party. She was I think sixteen or seventeen.
Speaker 1: They were roughly her age, and they sexually assaulted her,
Speaker 1: and she she went to the police right away. She
Speaker 1: said that one of the two guys was the wrong guy.
Speaker 1: She identified somebody who was at the party with a
Speaker 1: hundred other people while she was out driving with the
Speaker 1: two other guys. But she was traumatized. And so that
Speaker 1: can happen right away, you're gonna tell me that thirty
Speaker 1: years later. This woman who says she's not sure, I'm
Speaker 1: talking now about the exposure one. Never mind, I think
Speaker 1: it's also possible for blass Ford. But the one who
Speaker 1: says she's not even sure if it was Kavanaugh, and
Speaker 1: we're supposed to take this is some kind of a
Speaker 1: real allegation. We're supposed to take this is something that
Speaker 1: is merits FBI investigation. No, when it comes to innocence.
Speaker 1: On the left, they will challenge eyewitness testimony in so
Speaker 1: many ways, and and in many cases rightfully so. But
Speaker 1: now they'll pretend that eyewitness testimony that's not even eyewitness
Speaker 1: testimony is sacrosanct. Right, you cannot challenge that this is
Speaker 1: all there needs to be. They the women in question here,
Speaker 1: the two women accusers with very shaky stories, and they're
Speaker 1: referring to additional people as witnesses who heard a rumor
Speaker 1: that maybe kind of sounded like this. That's not witnessing anything.
Speaker 1: That's a rumor, and rumors are, as we all know,
Speaker 1: from being normal human beings, often false and based on nothing.
Speaker 1: But this is all part of the strategy, It is
Speaker 1: all part of the con It is is a smear tactic,
Speaker 1: as we know, uh moral mission and the way that
Speaker 1: they've constructed these allegations in just a moment, actually has
Speaker 1: this been uh for the girls? For your family? What
Speaker 1: what have you guys? Give us whatever window you feel
Speaker 1: comfortable of saying about what this has been like for
Speaker 1: you as a family. This it's very difficult, it's very
Speaker 1: difficult to have these conversations with their children, which we've
Speaker 1: had to have um, some broader terms for our youngest,
Speaker 1: but they know it's bread and they know the truth,
Speaker 1: and we told them at the very beginning of this
Speaker 1: process this will be not fun. Sometimes you're going to
Speaker 1: hear things that people feel strongly, and you need to
Speaker 1: know that. And just remember, you know your dad. She's
Speaker 1: receiving death threats. That is the wife of Judge Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: She is receiving death threats, as are her children. We
Speaker 1: often hear about the accusers death threats, meaning the death
Speaker 1: threats against the accusers. We do not hear nearly as
Speaker 1: much about the death threats against Kavanaugh's family, including his
Speaker 1: his young kids. It goes without saying anyone who would
Speaker 1: make a death threat to to to anybody that they
Speaker 1: do not know and do not have, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: what I would I make a death threat to somebody
Speaker 1: if they were you know, an imminent harmed or imminent
Speaker 1: threat to someone in my family. Sure, but that's what
Speaker 1: a normal person would do. And anyone it makes a
Speaker 1: death threat against a public figure over politics is a ycopath.
Speaker 1: Anybody who does it. It's I'm amazed at how much
Speaker 1: now because the Internet age we live in, people do
Speaker 1: this all the time. And it's disgusting. But then again,
Speaker 1: there are Blue Check journalist running around calling Kavanaugh rapist,
Speaker 1: which he's not even accused of doing. Why don't they
Speaker 1: just say Kavanaugh is also a spy for the Russians.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just making stuff up. But if we're
Speaker 1: going to look at, you know, the the collateral damage
Speaker 1: here of the left's maniacal anti Kavanaugh strategy, we should
Speaker 1: at least be willing to talk about what it's doing
Speaker 1: to his family as well. And I've been so pleased
Speaker 1: to see. I mean a lot of a lot of conservatives,
Speaker 1: including some who are not typically big defenders of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, but they've just been They've just been warriors
Speaker 1: on this issue. I mean, you know, the Shields High
Speaker 1: Club on Kavanaugh. You know, Matt Walsh, uh and Culter obviously,
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro, you know, David Harsani at the Federals, Molly
Speaker 1: Hemingway at the Federalists has been lightening it up. Shawn
Speaker 1: Davis also, I mean, the whole bunch of folks, the
Speaker 1: Federalist I mean, just you know, the people have been
Speaker 1: really my buddy Betty John's Benny Johnson over at the
Speaker 1: Daily Caller that they've been spitting fire on this, and
Speaker 1: I'm so because you're you're you're putting put yourself out there,
Speaker 1: my friends. The the opposition, as we know from what's
Speaker 1: been going on recently, will play so dirty and they're
Speaker 1: looking to take out anybody who stands in their way.
Speaker 1: But there are there is real harm that is being
Speaker 1: done by the people that are pushing these on these lines,
Speaker 1: and they're they're ruining people's peace of mind, They're ruining
Speaker 1: their lives. And the only way to prevent that is
Speaker 1: if Kavanaugh prevails here, meaning that the that the only
Speaker 1: way that we're not gonna have lives ruin is of
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh receives justice. And I was I was very pleased
Speaker 1: to see him say that. You know, he's he's absolutely
Speaker 1: going anywhere place six. I'm not gonna let false accusations
Speaker 1: try us out of this process, and um, you know,
Speaker 1: we're looking for a fair process where I could be
Speaker 1: heard and defend the my integrity, my lifelong record, my
Speaker 1: lifelong record of promoting dignity and equality for women, starting
Speaker 1: with the women who knew me when I was fourteen
Speaker 1: years old. I'm not going anywhere. That's what I like
Speaker 1: to hear he's been put through hell, but he's got
Speaker 1: his shield and it's up high on this. Uh. By
Speaker 1: the way, this story that was the second one to break,
Speaker 1: which I can never think of Ronan Pharaoh's reporting the
Speaker 1: same way because now he's he's he's a leftist, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's also willing to be. That doesn't mean that he
Speaker 1: doesn't report true things, folks. I'm not saying all the
Speaker 1: other reports weren't great. And you know that there are Look,
Speaker 1: there are plenty of very left wing reporters. I had
Speaker 1: one on On Rising recently who did interesting work on
Speaker 1: on private prisons, and I agree with him. I mean,
Speaker 1: and he did really good work on it. I mean,
Speaker 1: just because your ideology is one thing or another doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that you're never telling the truth and never right.
Speaker 1: But you know, I I gotta say that some of
Speaker 1: the stuff that we've seen here from the from the
Speaker 1: New York Times, the Washington Post, even for them, it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: I mean, even for my expectations of how they would
Speaker 1: approach this. You know, the New York Times, for example,
Speaker 1: gave this a kind of auxiliary report, this addendum to
Speaker 1: the Roman Pharaoh reporting. And Pharaoh has been very defensive
Speaker 1: about it. But the at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: he was not able to corroborate key details that you
Speaker 1: would need. Two And he rushed out the report because
Speaker 1: he knows that the time and timing is everything. So
Speaker 1: he turned himself into an oppo researcher. That's what he did.
Speaker 1: I mean, people can argue about it, but they're wrong.
Speaker 1: That's what he did. On the New York Times though,
Speaker 1: and and on Ramirez, I thought this was really interesting. Um,
Speaker 1: I thought this was something that you know, how did
Speaker 1: they get around this one? Uh, the witness that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be the corroboration here is not really a witness.
Speaker 1: Play place thirteen place Jane, the corroborating witness, which he
Speaker 1: says has all the details, including Kavanaugh's name, Where did
Speaker 1: that winn has come from? And where did that witness
Speaker 1: get the information about this from? If if that person
Speaker 1: doesn't know Ramirez, Uh, he remembers it from from He
Speaker 1: was in the same dorm, same same little building on
Speaker 1: Yale's old campus, and he remembers it clearly. I asked him,
Speaker 1: you know, because he's gonna be very careful. No, as
Speaker 1: I've said, he heard it from someone who was there.
Speaker 1: That's hold hold on, hold positive positive. That's called a rumor.
Speaker 1: He heard it from someone who was there, That is
Speaker 1: called a rumor. Was it one of the incredibly drunk
Speaker 1: people who was at this little gathering. That's not reporting, folks,
Speaker 1: that's rumormongering. It's just not so. Not only, I mean
Speaker 1: this is key. Not only are they willing to say
Speaker 1: that the that the preponderance of the evidence has to
Speaker 1: be in Kavanaugh's favor um, not all are they willing
Speaker 1: to say that the uh, that it's on him to
Speaker 1: prove his innocence, which is the opposite of what it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be. They're also willing to change basic journalistic standards.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is folks. Everything is out the window.
Speaker 1: Everything gets pushed aside because that's how important this is
Speaker 1: the left. There are no rules right now. But you
Speaker 1: can say, well, Buck, why you know they're they could storm,
Speaker 1: You know that they could like mobs the Senate, and
Speaker 1: and that they could. Why why aren't they engaging just
Speaker 1: an out right violence, although with Ted Cruz came coming
Speaker 1: pretty close. Uh, And I would say, well, that's because
Speaker 1: it would be politically counter their interest to do that, right,
Speaker 1: They still have to maintain some facade of agreeing with
Speaker 1: the institutions in the process. Here they're not willing to
Speaker 1: go the still day quite yet. Here, you know, they're
Speaker 1: not willing to storm government buildings or anything, because that
Speaker 1: would work against them. They don't want to tear the
Speaker 1: government down. They want to control the government, and they
Speaker 1: want to use propaganda, lies, and smear tactics to do so.
Speaker 1: They're not going to assault the government. And obviously, although
Speaker 1: I'm concerned and I have been truly concerned about Judge
Speaker 1: kavanaugh safety in this whole process, I think that they
Speaker 1: recognize that anybody on the left who was such a
Speaker 1: zealot that they would even consider something so horrific as
Speaker 1: to his to attempt violence against the Supreme Court nominee
Speaker 1: would destroy any good faith that center people in the
Speaker 1: center and on the right could ever have towards the
Speaker 1: left when it comes to the Supreme Court for for centuries,
Speaker 1: I mean, it would be gone. So that's the only
Speaker 1: thing that I believe, So the only outer limits of
Speaker 1: what the progressives are willing to do here. It's not
Speaker 1: there's no level of dishonor they won't stoop too. There's
Speaker 1: no level of lies. They won't stoop too, They just
Speaker 1: won't necessarily engage in in violence or in an acts
Speaker 1: of of destruction, you know, physical destruction because it would
Speaker 1: hurt their interests. Um, but they'll they'll light reporting standards
Speaker 1: on fire like it's a pire. I didn't really mean
Speaker 1: for that to rhyme, but it did. But you know
Speaker 1: that they'll just to make a bonfire of journalistic standers.
Speaker 1: There we go. That's way better, way better. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of stuff that they're willing to engage in here
Speaker 1: because it's so important to them. They think so much
Speaker 1: rides on this. Sorry, and then we had Roman Ronan
Speaker 1: pharaoh as well. I can continue that clip. We had more.
Speaker 1: Why did she come forward? She came forward because Senate
Speaker 1: Democrats again looking at this claim. She came forward because
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats were looking at this claim. So did Senate
Speaker 1: Democrats contact her? Senate Democrats oppo research jogged her memory
Speaker 1: all of a sudden. Nobody believes this is credible. Nobody
Speaker 1: thinks that. I want to say nobody. I mean that
Speaker 1: anyone with a rational functioning mind on this issue, who
Speaker 1: would approach it without all the heated politics of Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, he's gonna overturn Roe v. Wade would say,
Speaker 1: this is if this isn't a lightweight allegation in terms
Speaker 1: of the evidence, what is someone did something to me?
Speaker 1: Can you tell us where, when, how, who? Any you
Speaker 1: know this person did this thing. I can't tell you
Speaker 1: when exactly had happened. I didn't tell any of the time.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence that I kept it quiet for a
Speaker 1: very very long time. Now I understand this is where
Speaker 1: a lot of people would come out and say, oh,
Speaker 1: but Buck, this is um you know. The this is
Speaker 1: when we'll hear about people that won't talk about there.
Speaker 1: They're they're terrible, uh you know, they're repressed memory and
Speaker 1: and how it's you know, after a serioussault. You know,
Speaker 1: we have to separate these two things out for a moment.
Speaker 1: I I have a hard time believing that a college
Speaker 1: aged woman who was drunk and had a man exposed
Speaker 1: himself for a moment, was so traumatized by that mere sight,
Speaker 1: which is what we are saying, that she wouldn't tell
Speaker 1: anyone about it. She wouldn't tell campus administrators about it,
Speaker 1: She wouldn't anything in the universe of that kind of conduct.
Speaker 1: And everybody that works on a college campus even the
Speaker 1: eighties would have come right to her side and you know,
Speaker 1: and there would have been severe punishment I think for
Speaker 1: the individual involved. And you know, but I don't believe
Speaker 1: that she was. I'm just telling you what I believe.
Speaker 1: I don't believe she's so traumatized by that. Well, think
Speaker 1: about what we're talking about here, the sight of the
Speaker 1: of a of you know, the male organ. Uh, my
Speaker 1: understanding is he didn't actually touch her. That would be
Speaker 1: a slightly different allegation, but my understanding is that he
Speaker 1: kind of showed her. Whoever this individual was, it was
Speaker 1: not Brett Kavanaugh. I do not believe that. Uh. And
Speaker 1: by the way, people say back, well, how can you
Speaker 1: say you don't believe because I've actually looked at the
Speaker 1: evidence and there's a lot of evidence that this is bull.
Speaker 1: If the evidence changes, then I won't believe it's bull.
Speaker 1: The other side says, there's an accusation with no evidence
Speaker 1: and they believe it. So, you know, we're supposed to
Speaker 1: sit around and say, well, let's wait for all the
Speaker 1: evidence to come in before we come to a judgment. No,
Speaker 1: there's lots of evidence. The evidence says these women are
Speaker 1: either lying or they believe something that's not true. So
Speaker 1: that's that's where we are on this um oh and
Speaker 1: Ronan Pharaoh's thing. I just want to note, you know
Speaker 1: that the timing of this. I'm gonna tell you this
Speaker 1: right now. I almost tweeted this out today and then
Speaker 1: I didn't because I figured maybe'n getting ahead of myself,
Speaker 1: because I think Avanati has there's some stuff being said
Speaker 1: about Avanati's third claim, right he's representing somebody's making the
Speaker 1: third claim that makes me think that we're not that
Speaker 1: that might not be it. But I would not be
Speaker 1: surprised if some very very vague because it's so flimsy
Speaker 1: allegation emerges Thursday in the morning, or maybe Wednesday night,
Speaker 1: but Wednesday night or Thursday morning, just in time to
Speaker 1: uh deep six the hearing to just you know, to
Speaker 1: push off this hearing on Thursday. And you know what else,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised by if the Democrats and their
Speaker 1: media lackeys, or do I have it backwards, the media
Speaker 1: and their Democrat lackeys claim that this is just well,
Speaker 1: it's just you know, the good detective work that everyone's
Speaker 1: doing on this. Now they're gonna act like This isn't
Speaker 1: orchestrated that it's all a coincidence and we're all just
Speaker 1: a bunch of huge morons who can't figure out what's
Speaker 1: really going on here. You know, folks, this is this
Speaker 1: is what we were up against. This is how the
Speaker 1: other side plays the game. Is something you've got it,
Speaker 1: It's something you gotta um. They have embraced evil with this.
Speaker 1: They may not recognize it as such, but that's what
Speaker 1: has happened, and so we are fighting back against evil.
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of any cabinet members that are even
Speaker 1: talking about that. It is completely and totally absurd. No
Speaker 1: discussion with me about the amendment anywhere either. So you
Speaker 1: can now report that there are two senior leaders that
Speaker 1: have said that your statement, your question was ludicrous. If
Speaker 1: it's so ludicrous, why did the Deputy Attorney General have
Speaker 1: discussions about it behind the scenes. I find I find
Speaker 1: the question ludicrous. I've been involved. I've been at the
Speaker 1: center of this administration along with lots of other folks
Speaker 1: for uh, from virtually day one, I think it was
Speaker 1: actually day three or four. I've never heard anyone talk
Speaker 1: about a whisper about it, joke about it in any
Speaker 1: way I've been in a lot of meetings with a
Speaker 1: lot of senior officials from this government, juice slapping down
Speaker 1: this nonsense about the twenty at the moment, I mean,
Speaker 1: I gotta say, who has been telling you all along?
Speaker 1: The Pompeios A rock star producer, Mike, I've been pro
Speaker 1: I've been the pro Pompeo camp since before it was cool. Yes,
Speaker 1: thank you, sir, thank you. I mean, this guy is legit.
Speaker 1: He's the real deal. Nicky Haley also good. But you know,
Speaker 1: I know people are saying buck Nicky Haley. Four. I
Speaker 1: hear that. I hear that. Look, if if she if
Speaker 1: she does well with this administration, if she's if she
Speaker 1: plays ball with Trump on policy and doesn't get caught
Speaker 1: up in you know, all the all the media love
Speaker 1: that she's getting at least too caught up too soon,
Speaker 1: then yeah, I could see that as well. But first
Speaker 1: of all, anytime anybody calls an Accosta question ludicrous, they've
Speaker 1: got my vote. So you start with that. I love
Speaker 1: that that he's just like, your question is ludicrous, man,
Speaker 1: you know, And that's the way we need to start
Speaker 1: referring to these imbeciles, you know, instead of saying, oh,
Speaker 1: my gosh, like you really believe what the president is
Speaker 1: lamentarian candidate for the Kremlin and for Russia's be like,
Speaker 1: how do you are? You such a fool? You're such
Speaker 1: a clown. This is when I was talking talking to
Speaker 1: the President about this in the Oval office. That's his attitude.
Speaker 1: He's like, these people are out of their minds. They
Speaker 1: are out of their minds. The ones who think that
Speaker 1: I had some plot with Putin, do Facebook puppets and
Speaker 1: and do some online I mean, really think of the
Speaker 1: level of risk and also the level of sophistication of
Speaker 1: the communication plan just to get that going that it
Speaker 1: would have required. It's just it's complete nonsense. By the way,
Speaker 1: Papadopolis you heard it here first, folks, Papadopopolis is coming
Speaker 1: out saying he wants stuff declassified because when you when
Speaker 1: you see what they knew about Papadopolis, I'm telling you
Speaker 1: and producer Mike, we should cut this as a segment
Speaker 1: to hold for later because I'm this is gonna be
Speaker 1: and I told you so. When you see what the
Speaker 1: federal government knew about Papadopolis, I mean, what the FBI
Speaker 1: and d through through their surveillance of the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: that they even pretended for a moment, you know, many
Speaker 1: many months later, that he was a legitimate national security
Speaker 1: in Trace said, oh yeah, Papadopoulos was the reason to
Speaker 1: get this investigation started. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.
Speaker 1: What I've been told is that, and this is all
Speaker 1: very you know, it's still very sensitive, not yet not
Speaker 1: yet out there. But they had information on Popadopolis that
Speaker 1: was exculpatory in terms of Russia collusion, meaning he had
Speaker 1: he had no interest in Russia collusion at all, and
Speaker 1: they held it. That is a cardinal sin. For a
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor or, for any federal agency to withhold exculpatory
Speaker 1: evidence against the U. S. Citizen in any kind of
Speaker 1: an investigative or criminal proceeding. That's as dirty and gross
Speaker 1: as it gets. I think that happened. I think Rod
Speaker 1: Rosenstein knows, and they're desperate to keep this stuff out
Speaker 1: of the public eye. But the twenty five Amendment, you know,
Speaker 1: this is how you gotta deal with these anti Trumper's,
Speaker 1: my friends. You gotta just you gotta just start to say,
Speaker 1: you know what, man, you're you're just nuts. I can't
Speaker 1: even really engage too deep in this conversation because you're
Speaker 1: not making any sense, you're not living in the real world,
Speaker 1: and you're just pursuing a political agenda at the expense
Speaker 1: of your own credibility and and and any anything that
Speaker 1: anybody could ever construe as being reasonable. But we have
Speaker 1: more Rosenstein. Let's talk about the latest on Rosenstein that's
Speaker 1: coming up. Google engages in political censorship, Facebook engages in
Speaker 1: political censorship, Twitter ditto. Okay, how many of these platforms
Speaker 1: have to be out it as places where there's left
Speaker 1: wing politics at work before we all realize that we
Speaker 1: should start building our own we should start going somewhere else.
Speaker 1: I've talked to you about it before on the show,
Speaker 1: and guess what now, I've partnered up with a company
Speaker 1: that really is doing it, snippy dot com. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com is a new social media platform where there is
Speaker 1: no censorship, there's no conversational health monitoring. You get to post,
Speaker 1: you get to engage with people, post photos, write your
Speaker 1: own stuff, follow writers you like, whatever it is that
Speaker 1: you wanted you to share your thoughts because you should
Speaker 1: be heard and you shouldn't have to worry about shadow
Speaker 1: banning or being pulled off of somebody's list, or any
Speaker 1: of the other stuff that's going on snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: Totally free to join, free to post all free stuff
Speaker 1: snippy dot com check it out team legally Ron Rosen
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein was at the center, he of firing Comy
Speaker 1: with his letter, and yet Mueller is investigating the firing Comy,
Speaker 1: which is indirectly investigating himself. He signed a fist, a
Speaker 1: warrant that's going to come up under somebody's investigation. He
Speaker 1: was the adjudicator of information that was released by the
Speaker 1: d o J to the House Intelligence Committee and other committees.
Speaker 1: He was involved in Uranium one and he saw no collusion.
Speaker 1: Yet he's basically entrusting Mueller to look for collusion where
Speaker 1: it wasn't. He was in the Hilly email scandal, and
Speaker 1: yet he said that there was no violation of confidentiality
Speaker 1: or classified information. Yet he helped get an indictment against
Speaker 1: General Cartwright for that for leaking. So he's got a
Speaker 1: lot of conflict of interest. And I think that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump should just say, you know, Rod, you're doing a
Speaker 1: great job. There's thousands of things you can do at
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, but you're not going to get yourself
Speaker 1: into a situation where you have these conflict of interests.
Speaker 1: If you want to resign and go write a book
Speaker 1: where Michael Wolfe and Alma Rossa left off, go ahead,
Speaker 1: but we like you just do something else, but you're
Speaker 1: not going to be involved in the state anymore. And
Speaker 1: that would be a lot better than firing him. We're
Speaker 1: pushing very hard to make sure that he comes in
Speaker 1: under oath to Congress and UH and let the American
Speaker 1: people judge for themselves. I can tell you that if
Speaker 1: he does not UH, there are a number of us
Speaker 1: that are standing by really with impeachment documents and said
Speaker 1: we cannot have this kind of activity continue at d J. Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein a a case in point of why you
Speaker 1: cannot allow Democrat hacked lawyers who are appointed to positions
Speaker 1: of power by Obama to stay behind in very prominent
Speaker 1: positions of authority in the Department of Justice with a
Speaker 1: Republican president period, but more than any other president this one,
Speaker 1: it simply cannot be allowed to happen again. Um, there
Speaker 1: has to be a full political house cleaning with these
Speaker 1: kinds of sensitive positions. You know, if you want to
Speaker 1: leave behind some some Bernie Sanders supporting priest drivers in
Speaker 1: the Department of Commerce. That's your call. But Rosenstein and
Speaker 1: uh and some of these others that we've seen in
Speaker 1: the so called hashtag resistance are a reminder of how
Speaker 1: important it is to have the right people in the
Speaker 1: right places for a new administration. Rosenstein should be fired
Speaker 1: in terms of his performance, but he should not be
Speaker 1: fired because we don't want to turn him into a martyr.
Speaker 1: You know, this is what we've been discussing this week,
Speaker 1: and that's definitely the case. Anie McCarthy over at National
Speaker 1: Review has some really and look, Andy, we wanted to
Speaker 1: have Andy on it. He's been very busy lately, but
Speaker 1: we always reach out whenever I talked about one of
Speaker 1: his articles. Uh, you know, I think Andy's as good
Speaker 1: as it gets in the game of of analyzing this stuff.
Speaker 1: Obviously other people realize that too, not just National Review
Speaker 1: with Fox News. I mean, he's doing a great job
Speaker 1: and really helping the country. I mean we have a
Speaker 1: greater understanding of these things because of a lot of
Speaker 1: Andy's research and writing. And he just crushes Rosenstein in
Speaker 1: a piece day. I mean, he absolutely it's actually from
Speaker 1: two days ago, absolutely crushes him. Rod Rosenstein's resistance is
Speaker 1: the piece weasel words, weasel moves from an emotionally overwrought
Speaker 1: deputy Attorney general eager to ingratiate himself with Democrats. And
Speaker 1: he writes Rod Rosenstein and is even a weasel when
Speaker 1: repudiating his weasel moves. Here is the Deputy Attorney General's
Speaker 1: non denial denial of a New York Times report Friday
Speaker 1: that he brainstormed about ousting President Trump in May. Of
Speaker 1: The New York Times story is inaccurate and factually incorrect.
Speaker 1: He says, I will not further comment on a story
Speaker 1: based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the
Speaker 1: Department on advancing their own personal agenda. But let me
Speaker 1: be clear about this, based on my personal dealings with
Speaker 1: the president, there is no basis to invoke the amendment.
Speaker 1: And then Andy goes into parts this little bit and
Speaker 1: this is really interesting, and he writes the Time story
Speaker 1: is inaccurate and factually incorrect. Rosenstein won't say exactly what
Speaker 1: is wrong in the report. He is careful not to
Speaker 1: say the gist of the report is wrong. He just
Speaker 1: hopes that if he sounds indignant enough, you will hear it.
Speaker 1: That way, the Times may have gotten a few details wrong,
Speaker 1: but you can bet the stories essentially true. You can't
Speaker 1: trust anonymous sources. This from the guy who, in approving
Speaker 1: a Fizer warrant application to spy on an American political campaign,
Speaker 1: relied on anonymous sources, some of them Russian operatives, who
Speaker 1: were channeling information through a foreign spy from whom the
Speaker 1: Justice Department continued to take information even after telling a
Speaker 1: federal court that the spy had been cut out of
Speaker 1: the investigation for leaking to the media. And my favorite,
Speaker 1: Rosenstein knows there is no basis to invoke the twenty
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment against President Trump. Of course, that does not
Speaker 1: respond to what the Times report actually says, which is
Speaker 1: that back in May of seventeen, he was an emotional
Speaker 1: wreck because Democrats were being mean to him. Rosenstein urged
Speaker 1: that there might at that time be a basis to
Speaker 1: remove the president under the twenty fifth Amendment if he
Speaker 1: could get enough top officials to agree that Trump was
Speaker 1: unfit to discharge his duties. Um, and then, I mean
Speaker 1: Andy goes on into some length here, but he here.
Speaker 1: Here are the highlights about why Rosenstein is basically somebody
Speaker 1: who never should have had this job, and his and
Speaker 1: his and as a resistance figure. Uh, you know, it
Speaker 1: comes to grousing about Trump's unfitness. Why are tapping the president,
Speaker 1: invoking the twenty five Amendment, appeasing democratic demands for a
Speaker 1: special counsel um an investigation supported by the Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at all of these things, and
Speaker 1: what you find is that Rosenstein is at the center
Speaker 1: of all the ills that have been deviled the Trump
Speaker 1: administration regarding Russia collusion, that that Rosenstein himself is much
Speaker 1: to blame here for a lot of what has gone on,
Speaker 1: a lot of what we have seen when it comes
Speaker 1: to the the the Russia collusion fantasy. And yet he
Speaker 1: cannot be fired because of the way he has bureaucratic
Speaker 1: the manu for to this position where if he is fired,
Speaker 1: people will say that Trump is obstructing the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: What a waste for the country. Uh and what a
Speaker 1: real what real damage he has done here all because
Speaker 1: of what what is so terrible about Trump? Again, they
Speaker 1: talk about his his gruffness, his lack of decorum, his vulgarity,
Speaker 1: his comments that really bothers them so much that they
Speaker 1: think that they should weaponize the Department of Justice. That
Speaker 1: they should create a I mean, we are, we are
Speaker 1: entering an American now, my friends, were the only institution
Speaker 1: of government power that has not been thoroughly politicized is
Speaker 1: the military, everything else, FBI, d O J. Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, go down. I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: non elected. Obviously, the politicians that we elect, they're going
Speaker 1: to be politicians, right, But I mean the the institutions
Speaker 1: that are supposed to be above politics, the institutions that
Speaker 1: are supposed to be about more than just short term
Speaker 1: political gain when you look at them, when you look
Speaker 1: at what has happened since Trump became president. One of
Speaker 1: the legacies of the Obama administration is too so deeply
Speaker 1: radicalize people that were in the government bureaucracy into this activist, progressivist,
Speaker 1: my progressive mindset that they couldn't help themselves but use
Speaker 1: whatever power they had in government to try and oppose
Speaker 1: policies and oppose a politician they didn't like. It is
Speaker 1: such a disgrace and it's so destructive. And really the
Speaker 1: great irony of the Trump administration so far is that
Speaker 1: people who have been complaining about how Trump is undermining institutions,
Speaker 1: which is you'll hear this all the time. This is
Speaker 1: a talking point that you'll constantly here. Those same people
Speaker 1: are doing more to undermine institut tuitions than Trump could
Speaker 1: have ever dreamed of. Any politically charged investigation that goes
Speaker 1: before the FBI now is suspect, and it should be.
Speaker 1: And that's not a legacy of Trump, that's a legacy
Speaker 1: of Obama and the progressive left. Background investigations can be
Speaker 1: tricky business. You need the right answers, obviously, and you
Speaker 1: need them pretty quickly. And if you have any questions
Speaker 1: about a difficult case of somebody that you're gonna hire,
Speaker 1: is this person really uh credential the way they say,
Speaker 1: Do they have any problems with the law that they're
Speaker 1: not telling us about any any lawsuits in their background?
Speaker 1: You need to be able to get somebody on the
Speaker 1: phone who will talk to you right away about the
Speaker 1: issue and resolve that. That's Global Verification Network, my friends.
Speaker 1: Global Verification is run by a veteran CEO who is
Speaker 1: a friend of mine, and he is the best in
Speaker 1: the business. You should go check out for yourself the
Speaker 1: kinds of cases the Global Verification handles. They do not
Speaker 1: outsource anything. They don't say and anything overseas. They don't
Speaker 1: say any of information overseas. This for any of your
Speaker 1: background investigations or vetting, is what you want. Go to
Speaker 1: my GVN dot com or call eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: five eleven seventy nine. That's eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five s nine. Are millennials saving marriage. Some of you
Speaker 1: may be chuckling right now, but I've got data to
Speaker 1: back this up. Don't start. Don't start your laughter. Gen
Speaker 1: X and gen Y and baby boomers listening to this show,
Speaker 1: don't you start your chuck laying. Okay, I've got I've
Speaker 1: got the numbers here. Peace On Bloomberg gets into this
Speaker 1: in some detail. Millennials have caused the divorce rate to
Speaker 1: drop by almost twenty between two thousand and eight and
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. In a sense, I'm talking about a subject
Speaker 1: that I have zero expertise in and many of you
Speaker 1: know much more about than I do. Is I am
Speaker 1: not yet and never have been married, But I do
Speaker 1: have some thoughts on this, especially as I see what's
Speaker 1: happened among my own my own peer group, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's different rates of marriage across across the country by
Speaker 1: region or different age ranges for marriage and people marry later.
Speaker 1: For example, in New York City, I think for guys,
Speaker 1: the average is close to thirty one or thirty two
Speaker 1: now in New York City, whereas if you go into
Speaker 1: you know, Oklahoma, I think it's closer to you know,
Speaker 1: twenty three or twenty four. I'm just guessing about that
Speaker 1: second number. I don't know for sure, but Bloomberg has
Speaker 1: crunched the numbers here. And here's what I see going on. Um,
Speaker 1: you have people who have seen what's going on their
Speaker 1: parents generation. For one, the Boomer generation had a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of divorce, as we know, and in fact, it
Speaker 1: almost became a uh, it almost became kind of normal
Speaker 1: for people to get married two three times now. Putting aside,
Speaker 1: I'm not getting into any of the religious or or
Speaker 1: ethical considerations, you know, I'm not here to judge and
Speaker 1: on that stuff. And as I said, I've never married,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I do know this marriage, based
Speaker 1: on everything that I've been told, including from talking to
Speaker 1: divorce lawyers about this is very expensive when it ends. Uh.
Speaker 1: And as a means of destroying wealth short of a
Speaker 1: gambling addiction or having a life threatening disease. Uh, divorces
Speaker 1: right up there. So it's a very bad financial decision
Speaker 1: to get married and then get divorced, especially once you
Speaker 1: started doing this a few times. I mean, I always
Speaker 1: thinking about somebody like Larry King, who still thinks, by
Speaker 1: the way, that either he should be brought back out
Speaker 1: of retirement. You know, hey, I'm the only guy that
Speaker 1: can ask answer the question or asked the questions. He
Speaker 1: doesn't answer them, he asked them. Uh, he still thinks
Speaker 1: that he should make some kind of an appearance on
Speaker 1: the scene. You know, we we just won't. We just
Speaker 1: won't be able to get the answers we need without
Speaker 1: Larry King. I mean, these guys that that whole generation
Speaker 1: I'll say, I mean the explosion of mass media for
Speaker 1: and the timing of it for folks like Dan rather
Speaker 1: than Larry King. Some of you might disagree that these
Speaker 1: guys are all really mediocritis who just were in the
Speaker 1: right place at the right time. I know that would
Speaker 1: be considered, uh within the media business, you know, sacrilege,
Speaker 1: but it's really not. They aren't particularly impressive. They just
Speaker 1: happen to be the guys, and they were really in
Speaker 1: the right place at the right time. And there are
Speaker 1: many others. I mean, I'm not just picking on those two.
Speaker 1: There there are a whole lot of them where you
Speaker 1: could say people would call them pioneers, and I would
Speaker 1: just want to say, well, you know, there's there's pioneers,
Speaker 1: and then there's people that just happen to get lucky.
Speaker 1: You know, some people strike gold just when they think
Speaker 1: they're going to, you know, dig the hole for the outhouse,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. So with divorce, when we
Speaker 1: see Larry King had seven marriages, why I brought him up?
Speaker 1: And I'm always always thought that must have been really
Speaker 1: rough to make those uh alimony payments. Although I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe he signed a lot of what Brandon, what do
Speaker 1: you call them? Pre nups? Thank you? Um, he might
Speaker 1: have signed a lot of pre nups. I think once
Speaker 1: you get to wife number six, you're probably like, you
Speaker 1: know what, I might have my lawyers take a look
Speaker 1: at this. But this is a big social chance, this
Speaker 1: drop in in the divorce rate, and and it it
Speaker 1: all it's it's there's some very good stuff about this
Speaker 1: and very not so good stuff about this. On the
Speaker 1: good stuff side, I would say, obviously this means there
Speaker 1: are fewer people that are having the wealth wealth destruction
Speaker 1: of divorce, and then also yes, the pain of divorce
Speaker 1: for the people involved, and of course when they are
Speaker 1: children and the families, and you know, I saw this,
Speaker 1: I didn't realize how damaging it was some of my
Speaker 1: friends growing up I had. I had a good number
Speaker 1: of friends whose parents got divorced in in our grammar
Speaker 1: school years, you know, in early in high school, and
Speaker 1: it was ugly. But I didn't realize the impact that
Speaker 1: it had on some of their psyches until later on.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have friends that are now in there,
Speaker 1: they're mid thirties, and I can tell they're still kind
Speaker 1: of haunted by some of the stuff that happened in
Speaker 1: those divorces. Uh. But but we saw this stuff happen,
Speaker 1: and I think that now there's a much greater recognition
Speaker 1: of how long lasting those those ill effects can be
Speaker 1: from a very nat from a very nasty divorce. So
Speaker 1: that's for one. Also, you have all these celebrities who
Speaker 1: are married Larry King, there are many others married three,
Speaker 1: four or five times. You know, once you get to
Speaker 1: three and up start to wonder like, maybe maybe don't
Speaker 1: go the whole marriage out. I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe I shouldn't judge, but it feels like three is
Speaker 1: a lot. It feels like three is probably, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe maybe a time to just date for a
Speaker 1: while and see how things go. I don't know, But
Speaker 1: then I've never been married, so you know, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't speak of what I know here. Uh Boomers.
Speaker 1: By the way, I don't want to. I don't want
Speaker 1: to bash any boomers because we have a lot of boomers.
Speaker 1: To listen to this show. My parents are boomers, so
Speaker 1: the people I love most in the whole world are boomers. Um.
Speaker 1: But uh, Gray divorce is a phenomenon of the boomer
Speaker 1: generation as well, where people fifty five to sixty four
Speaker 1: get divorced, and that doubled from the generation above them
Speaker 1: and the baby boomer generation. So not only do you
Speaker 1: have a lot of divorce among the boomers, you had
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, divorce in basically pre retirement
Speaker 1: age among boomers, which is kind of interesting. But then
Speaker 1: you get to what I'm seeing going on with my
Speaker 1: peer group, and that is marriage as almost a luxury. Good. Now,
Speaker 1: let me explain, marriage for a lot of people is
Speaker 1: getting it's later on, and it's after education is finished.
Speaker 1: It's after people have really gotten established in their careers.
Speaker 1: This is where you get into your early thirties and
Speaker 1: urban areas. Getting married in your early thirties for guys
Speaker 1: is now standard. For for ladies, it's a little more
Speaker 1: like in the late twenties still, but for guys mid
Speaker 1: thirties all the way up into the late thirties. So,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, yours truly not as much of
Speaker 1: an odd duck. Buck is not as much of an
Speaker 1: odd duck as you might think, well, at least on
Speaker 1: this issue. But it's also now the case that younger,
Speaker 1: less educated, poorer people who are having children are less
Speaker 1: and less likely to be married. An older, more stable
Speaker 1: financially and more established people are the ones who are
Speaker 1: getting married and staying married. So you know, there there's
Speaker 1: definitely the clear upside here, like we don't people getting
Speaker 1: you know, you don't want people getting divorced. I think
Speaker 1: that marriage has gone through a I think that the
Speaker 1: Boomers basically took marriage to the brink of extinction in
Speaker 1: some ways. I mean they're not extinction, okay, fine, but
Speaker 1: they they made it something that people didn't take quite
Speaker 1: as seriously as any generation before that. Uh, and now
Speaker 1: it seems to be rebounding a bit with the millennials.
Speaker 1: But we've gone through a period here where no one
Speaker 1: really takes that till death to us part seriously the
Speaker 1: way they used to. You know, on the left, for sure,
Speaker 1: conservatives tend to be married and tend to stay married
Speaker 1: a little different for us, but liberals view marriage as
Speaker 1: almost like leasing an apartment. It's really Ah, yes, there's
Speaker 1: some financial obligations, but it's a somewhat temporary state of affairs.
Speaker 1: And I just wonder what the long term implications are here.
Speaker 1: And the fact that people are getting married later, staying
Speaker 1: married longer, and in higher percentages is good, but that
Speaker 1: you have poorer and you know that the less affluent,
Speaker 1: less educated folks aren't getting married at all. Ever, Uh,
Speaker 1: that is a big destabilizing factor. And I think that's
Speaker 1: going to happen, very long term negative implications. So again
Speaker 1: it's somebody with no marriage expertise. Those are my thoughts
Speaker 1: on marriage. Be sure to light me up in the
Speaker 1: Facebook comments Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. Some of
Speaker 1: you may recall that I have a particular hatred for mosquitoes.
Speaker 1: I just I think mosquitoes should not exist. They have
Speaker 1: killed more people than any other animal in the history
Speaker 1: of our species. We are really fighting a constant war
Speaker 1: against mosquitoes, both in terms of the spread of disease
Speaker 1: right malaria and dengey and zekea and you know, West
Speaker 1: Nile virus, all this different stuff you get from mosquitoes.
Speaker 1: Malaria still kills huge numbers of people around the world
Speaker 1: every year. And and also just because they're annoying. I
Speaker 1: will never forget in New York City, in my tiny
Speaker 1: studio apartment getting eaten alive when I was trying to
Speaker 1: go to sleep by a mosquito, and it uh kept
Speaker 1: me up all night because when I try to fall
Speaker 1: sleep and it would land on me right when I was,
Speaker 1: you know, about to sleep and would start eating me
Speaker 1: and make my hands itch. And I managed to use
Speaker 1: my reading light like a flashlight and smack it against
Speaker 1: the wall and kill this thing. And it was one
Speaker 1: of the happiest moments that I could remember in recent
Speaker 1: memory at that time. It was really because it took
Speaker 1: me about three hours to get this guy. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: hate mosquitoes. And you're saying, Buck, why are you telling
Speaker 1: me this story? It's a dumb story. I know it's
Speaker 1: late in the show. I know you're probably, you know,
Speaker 1: a little run down because you work like a maniac.
Speaker 1: Your show Rising is incredible given that you have to
Speaker 1: deal with progressive and left wing stuff all the time.
Speaker 1: How do you do it? Anyway? I'm telling you about
Speaker 1: it because there's a news story here. And I've discussed
Speaker 1: with you in the past that if I had my way,
Speaker 1: we would, in fact, uh find a way to eliminate
Speaker 1: mosquito from the face of the earth. That turns out
Speaker 1: that there is a way to genetically modify mosquitoes. Good news,
Speaker 1: my friends. Courtesy of NPR. Here there is a gene
Speaker 1: editing tool known as Crisper that can engineer mosquitoes with
Speaker 1: a gene drive which transmits a sterilizing mutation. And once
Speaker 1: they release these mosquitoes with this mutation into cages filled
Speaker 1: with unmodified mosquitoes, all the insects were wiped out. That
Speaker 1: all the insects um this could be a way to
Speaker 1: use mosquitoes to kill all the other mosquitoes. And I
Speaker 1: think this is awesome. And I know people are gonna say, oh,
Speaker 1: birds eat them and whatever. You know what, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of species out there. I am anti mosquito. I
Speaker 1: think we should eradicate all of them, and now science
Speaker 1: hashtag science may make it possible. With all this, we've
Speaker 1: got roll call coming up. Rock and roll, fellow atriots.
Speaker 1: We made ours go up to eleven. It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call, all right. You know what it is. It's
Speaker 1: roll call. That's because we got the cool intro to
Speaker 1: make it all happen. Facebook dot com, slash buck sex
Speaker 1: and if you want to be a part of this party, Ray,
Speaker 1: First up in our session, Buck, do you recall when
Speaker 1: all the damn's left d C for recess, which allowed
Speaker 1: many judges et cetera to be appointed. Now, I'm curious
Speaker 1: who showed up at their get togethers plotting this Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: Tobacco was the accuser. They're great shows. Well, Ray, I
Speaker 1: like that you're thinking outside the box. And I can't
Speaker 1: say that I I know um much about what you're
Speaker 1: talking about, but thank you for writing in and nice
Speaker 1: to hear from you. All right, Amy, Right, here's the deal, Buck,
Speaker 1: I believe something happened to Blasi Ford, and she has
Speaker 1: likely convinced herself that some good can come from that
Speaker 1: awful experience. If she can take out a conservative Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justice nominee. She knows it wasn't Kavanaugh, and she
Speaker 1: has no intention of testifying under oath. Her testimony was
Speaker 1: carefully crafted to be indefensible by the accused. This is
Speaker 1: why they omitted time place, et cetera. Blasi Ford is
Speaker 1: at least intelligent enough to know that testifying under oath
Speaker 1: would be a very bad idea for her because something
Speaker 1: she would need to say would cause her to perjure herself.
Speaker 1: Her testimony obviously cannot stand up to any scrutiny, or
Speaker 1: she would be doing the stormy Daniel's routine. And let's
Speaker 1: be honest about things. The d n C, after witnessing
Speaker 1: the success of the Me too movement, decided that the
Speaker 1: political climate was right for these types of accusations. They
Speaker 1: are grooming potential accusers. Uh, and there we have it. Amy,
Speaker 1: thank you for writing in um. Yes, it's me too.
Speaker 1: Was destined to be weaponized. In fact, I was thinking
Speaker 1: yesterday a bit about how if somebody was to go
Speaker 1: back into the archives of this show they would find
Speaker 1: that I was worried about when this would go too
Speaker 1: far or be used for political purposes. Very early on,
Speaker 1: I mean right around the time that the Weinstein allegations
Speaker 1: came out, I guess a year ago, because it was
Speaker 1: inevitable once you have a political movement like this that
Speaker 1: has so much attention, and that also drives corporate and
Speaker 1: therefore financial decision making. Remember, people are getting fired. Stock
Speaker 1: share price has gone down because people like Les Moonvest
Speaker 1: have gotten ousted or under investigation. So there have been
Speaker 1: real consequences for this movement beyond just either just just
Speaker 1: for the victims and well justice for the accused in
Speaker 1: some of these cases like Weinstein, where justice means he
Speaker 1: gets sent to prison. But yes, I knew that they
Speaker 1: would eventually reach a point where they weaponized it, and
Speaker 1: I think we are there. Um all right, now we
Speaker 1: have uh Peter who writes, Hey, Buck, I appreciate your
Speaker 1: strong stand on the issue of abortion. Kavanaugh. I've seen
Speaker 1: it suggested online that in addition to being a professor,
Speaker 1: Blasi Ford also works or work for the abortion drug
Speaker 1: maker UH Concept Therapeutics or Corcept Therapeutics. I saw a
Speaker 1: picture of a biography page that had a listed probably
Speaker 1: from a conference. Also, Debbie Ramirez, the other accuser, worked
Speaker 1: for a liberal nonprofit safe house Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence
Speaker 1: pretty logical. The politics unlikely, Abortion is a strong motivating
Speaker 1: factor in these accounts. PS. Here is a picture of
Speaker 1: our awesome shelter dog, Sheba in you pug mix, a
Speaker 1: perfect apartment dog. Your dog is very cute. It kind
Speaker 1: of looks like a German shepherd and a beagle had
Speaker 1: a baby. Uh And as to your yeah, what you're saying, Peter, obviously,
Speaker 1: I agree that politics are very heavy motivation here. Anyone
Speaker 1: who denies that is being disingenuous. It's too obvious, it's
Speaker 1: too clear. So there you haven't. Uh No, let's by
Speaker 1: the way, a shelter dog, very very cute. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: committed in my mind to getting an English bulldog, but
Speaker 1: I gotta wait a little bit until I figure out
Speaker 1: some things, some life things. Conversation for another time. Team
Speaker 1: Michael rides High Box. Judge Kavana needs a good PR person.
Speaker 1: Do you think he could get Hillary to help him
Speaker 1: with the bimbo eruptions. She has extensive experience in that
Speaker 1: field and might help him get a speedy confirmation. Shields
Speaker 1: High from Connecticut. Well, Michael, you know the the parallels
Speaker 1: here to what was Well, I shouldn't say parallels, but
Speaker 1: the comparison between the way Democrats are talking now about
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh on the flimsiest of possible allegations versus the way
Speaker 1: that they referred to the very credible, named on the
Speaker 1: record and serial allegations against Bill Clinton tells you all
Speaker 1: you really need to know. I mean, they are not,
Speaker 1: in fact honest brokers here and never have been. In fact,
Speaker 1: they have embraced the dark side. And I mean that.
Speaker 1: I don't mean that in a in a funny Jedi sense.
Speaker 1: I mean that, in a uh they the The underlying
Speaker 1: reason for all of this is that they would have
Speaker 1: to wrestle, at least some of the millions of people
Speaker 1: in this country who really believe that planned parenthood is
Speaker 1: some kind of force for good. They would have to
Speaker 1: wrestle with the absence of a federal decree from the government,
Speaker 1: the most powerful government in the world, that tells them
Speaker 1: that is a constitutional right to have an abortion um
Speaker 1: And they would then have to think, well, as this
Speaker 1: now the closest thing in this country's history to a
Speaker 1: legal regime where immorality was in fact enshrined in law,
Speaker 1: similar to the dreads Gont decision, that's what they don't
Speaker 1: want to deal with. And that's what because the abortion
Speaker 1: would stay legal in states, but those states that had
Speaker 1: abortion would be on very different ground trying to defend
Speaker 1: their practices. And if it's no longer a constitutional right,
Speaker 1: it would then be subject to whatever the state legislature
Speaker 1: designs at any given time, and those winds could shift
Speaker 1: rather rapidly. Whereas a constitutional decree, as long as you
Speaker 1: can hold, as long as you can hold the Supreme Court, um,
Speaker 1: you can keep that indefinitely. So that's why they're also
Speaker 1: very upset about this, because they don't want the reckoning
Speaker 1: with their own consciences. Mark writes book, has anyone been
Speaker 1: able to get Keith Ellison on record giving the party
Speaker 1: line that the accusers should be believed and that Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: should step down or not be confirmed due to these allegations.
Speaker 1: I think that as a candidate for state attorney general
Speaker 1: and someone who could have direct interaction with Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: his view is directly relevant and would be quite telling.
Speaker 1: Shields High. Um. Yeah, they're not gonna get Keith Allison
Speaker 1: on the record for that, Mark, because they don't want
Speaker 1: to talk about Keith Ellison. Because Keith Ellison is a
Speaker 1: credibly accused domestic abuser, recent domestic abuser, and he's also black,
Speaker 1: which means that they view him as a very important
Speaker 1: asset to the Democratic Party. Uh, they view him as
Speaker 1: somebody who is you know, as a minority constituency that
Speaker 1: he speaks to, and and they won't I mean, there,
Speaker 1: they'll be very slow to throw him under the bus,
Speaker 1: so to speak. So there we have it, uh, Jeff writes,
Speaker 1: I just wanted to mention that with all these crazy
Speaker 1: tweets that have been floating around, I'm actually very concerned
Speaker 1: that the left has become violently unhinged. It's like they've
Speaker 1: been changed at the molecular level. They cannot comprehend common
Speaker 1: sense or common decency, just venting. I'm at a loss. Well, Jeff,
Speaker 1: you're not alone, my friend. I feel the same way.
Speaker 1: In fact, whenever I see one of these incidents like
Speaker 1: we were just subjected to, where you have somebody, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, along the lines of what just happened with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz who's trying to have dinner with his wife.
Speaker 1: I mean, there needs to be some basic human understanding that,
Speaker 1: you know, we should all be allowed to have a
Speaker 1: quiet dinner with with our significant other without people screaming
Speaker 1: in our face about politics who don't even know us
Speaker 1: um and and the fact that that is not universally condemned.
Speaker 1: It just goes to show you what the other side
Speaker 1: it has become, and what having a a stranglehold on
Speaker 1: pop culture and most of the news media and academia,
Speaker 1: it's allowed these people to create these existences where they
Speaker 1: just frankly can't confront and they can't deal with ideas
Speaker 1: that challenge their own ideas. They don't view it as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to learn. They view it as an attack
Speaker 1: on their very sense of self. And that's something that's
Speaker 1: quite different between the left and the right these days.
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated by progressives who are really well informed or
Speaker 1: really thoughtful on on any issue. I almost always think
Speaker 1: they're unbelievably wrong, but I'm at least very interested in
Speaker 1: speaking to them. Progressives, however, are in general and it's
Speaker 1: really a part of the ideology. It's not true of
Speaker 1: all of them, but it's true of most of them.
Speaker 1: It is. It is the exception to come across the
Speaker 1: progressive who does not feel this way. Progressives just want
Speaker 1: what they believe to be reflected back to them. They
Speaker 1: don't want anyone who challenges them, and they react anger,
Speaker 1: with anger, and with emotion to even rather gentle intellectual
Speaker 1: challenges of whatever it is that they hold dear. So
Speaker 1: I think that's an important part of this too. To
Speaker 1: keep in mind. Um, here we go one second here, uh,
Speaker 1: Aries rights Buck, you were talking about how you could
Speaker 1: feel Trump's patriotism after we interviewed him. I will suggest
Speaker 1: his early supporters saw it early on. I will also
Speaker 1: suggest other conservatives who were so alarmed by Trump's patriotism
Speaker 1: they saw it as fascism and had to oppose him
Speaker 1: to the point of risking Hillary getting elected aren't patriots
Speaker 1: at all. I'm not surprised by what the left is doing,
Speaker 1: and I think they're capable of much much more. As
Speaker 1: you alluded to, uh suggesting Brett Kavanaugh should need more security,
Speaker 1: I think everything from the deep state spying on Trump
Speaker 1: to the attempted destruction of Kavanaugh is a conspiracy. I
Speaker 1: find it way too convenient that Chuck Schumer, that's editor
Speaker 1: that seemed to organize the protests of Kavanaugh, didn't have
Speaker 1: anything to do with the conspiracy to take down Trump.
Speaker 1: As he's the one who brought it up, saying Trump
Speaker 1: shouldn't mess with the intel agencies. So called leaders the
Speaker 1: conservative movement like Ben Shapiro, who couldn't recognize Trump for
Speaker 1: the patriot he was because they couldn't recognize how evil
Speaker 1: our future enemy China is with their crackdown on Christianity
Speaker 1: and the burning of crosses and churches, and also their
Speaker 1: pockets don't feel a little lighter. Are not true American patriots, um,
Speaker 1: and are poor excuses to be leaders in our movements.
Speaker 1: They are aiding and abetting agents of evil. UM. Well,
Speaker 1: a lot a lot in there. Let me take the
Speaker 1: notion of um the deep state and conservative conservatives who
Speaker 1: won't at this point see, well, they're the conservative that
Speaker 1: still don't see the benefits of Trump and the conservatives
Speaker 1: who are early on were adamantly opposed to Trump, right.
Speaker 1: Uh And and I think that what you see are
Speaker 1: that there there are folks now who are so desperate
Speaker 1: to not be wrong because they think that they live
Speaker 1: in the life of the mind, and it would be
Speaker 1: it would really undermine their sense of self. I mean this.
Speaker 1: You know that there are conservatives who suffer from similar
Speaker 1: maladies to the progressives, and one of them is this
Speaker 1: notion that the that Trump can't be good or Trump
Speaker 1: can't be better than they thought, because that would mean
Speaker 1: that some conservatives were really, really wrong. I will say
Speaker 1: this though, if you are a conservative who is currently
Speaker 1: um who is currently out there, And by the way,
Speaker 1: I do not he mentioned Ben Shapiro on there. I
Speaker 1: like in respect Ben, I've got nothing critical to say
Speaker 1: about him on on this matter. I think he's very
Speaker 1: fair minded when it comes to Trump. Um. But as
Speaker 1: to you know what what goes on now, I mean
Speaker 1: anyone who's out there, and there are people, there are
Speaker 1: some prominent conservatives advocating for voting for Democrats in the midterms. UM.
Speaker 1: So that to me is being a Democrat. That to
Speaker 1: me is is taking your concerns with Trump way too far. UM.
Speaker 1: So you know that. And you see this with Bill Crystal,
Speaker 1: by the way, with Evan McMullen, who was a stealth
Speaker 1: Democrat run on a on an ostensibly Republican ticket. He's
Speaker 1: a Democrat, he's not a Republican. Because he's now talking
Speaker 1: about the greatness of Beto O'Rourke. If you think Beto
Speaker 1: O'Rourke is great, Robert O'Rourke. If you think he's great,
Speaker 1: you're a Democrat. I mean, that's you're allowed to think that,
Speaker 1: but don't lie about what you are. And Bill Crystal
Speaker 1: tried to put that guy forward and I had him
Speaker 1: on this show, and I to this day regret not
Speaker 1: well diving deeper. I guess, but I couldn't tell the future.
Speaker 1: So he sounded conservative. He's very anti Trump, but it
Speaker 1: turns out it was all really a dodge. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was all a ruse, a hustle. So that's something
Speaker 1: that that really bothers me. I hate, I hate dishonesty
Speaker 1: about what people are and what they stand for. To you,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be it for today. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here in the Hut. We are going to
Speaker 1: have a crazy week in the news cycle, so I'll
Speaker 1: be sure to check in here each each night or
Speaker 1: whenever you listen. And remember on Apple Podcasts, you can
Speaker 1: always listen on demand and the podcast goes up usually
Speaker 1: around seven pm now each day, so you should be
Speaker 1: able to listen to it early if you get a chance.
Speaker 1: Talk to you tomorrow. Shields High