Speaker 1: Sorry to spoil the surprise, but if you're getting gift
Speaker 1: from me this Christmas, you're getting coffee from my favorite
Speaker 1: coffee company, Black Rifle Coffee. Every morning when I go
Speaker 1: into the hill, I have a steamy, hot, delicious cup
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle, just black. And that's also how I
Speaker 1: drink it. And the name of the coffee. By the way,
Speaker 1: it is delicious. Okay. The aromas, the different taste profiles
Speaker 1: that come through are incredible. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: this is a company run by and four veterans, including
Speaker 1: veterans of the United States Special Forces. These guys are amazing.
Speaker 1: Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things so easy. Just pick
Speaker 1: your blending amount you want and they'll ship the coffee
Speaker 1: right to your door. Check this out for yourself. They
Speaker 1: offer three, six and twelve month prepaid and pay as
Speaker 1: you go subscriptions. The best tasting, most energizing coffee imaginable,
Speaker 1: and they help veteran first responder causes. Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: is the gift that keeps on giving. Visit Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck for fifteen percent off.
Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunch, an epic throwdown in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office with President Trump, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer over the wall and the possible shutdown. Looks like
Speaker 1: maybe Republicans are growing a bit of a backbone here.
Speaker 1: We've got that and much more 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. Mag no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, you want to say,
Speaker 1: Here's what I want to say. We have a lot
Speaker 1: of disagreements here. The Washington Post today gave you a
Speaker 1: whole lot of pinocchios because they say you constantly misstake
Speaker 1: how much of the wall is built and how much
Speaker 1: is there. But that's not the point here. We have
Speaker 1: a disagreement about the wall, Washington, whether it's effective or
Speaker 1: or not on board of security, but on the wall.
Speaker 1: We do not want to shut down the government. You
Speaker 1: have called twenty times to shut down the government. Who
Speaker 1: say I want to shut down the government, We don't.
Speaker 1: We want to come to an agreement. If we can't
Speaker 1: come to an agreement. We have solutions that will pass
Speaker 1: the House and send it right now, and we'll not
Speaker 1: shut down the government. And that's what we're urging you
Speaker 1: to do. Not threatened to shut down the government because
Speaker 1: you let me just finish, because you can't pitch it down.
Speaker 1: You give me say something, mister President, you just say
Speaker 1: my way, or will shut down the government. We have
Speaker 1: a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do
Speaker 1: a cr that will not shut down the government. We
Speaker 1: urge you to take it. If it's not good border security,
Speaker 1: I will very welcome to the Buck Saxon Show. Oh man,
Speaker 1: it was good stuff today of the Oval Office. This
Speaker 1: is the Trump that we signed up for. This is
Speaker 1: the Trump that I want to see, the Trump that
Speaker 1: makes the case in front of the American people and
Speaker 1: holds the Libs feet to the fire so to speak,
Speaker 1: I mean makes them make the case publicly. And you
Speaker 1: could tell Pelosi and Schumer, oh, they wanted no part
Speaker 1: of what President Trump was bringing today because they know
Speaker 1: that Trump is better at this than they are. You know,
Speaker 1: without a completely in the tank for her press corps,
Speaker 1: Pelosi is exposed. She knows that, you know, Pelosi never
Speaker 1: asked to take tough questions from anybody. Pelosi doesn't have
Speaker 1: to really explain herself in any meaningful way. She just
Speaker 1: just treated like the queen all the time. And you know,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer same thing, treated like the King of the Democrats.
Speaker 1: And Trump was just saying, look, you know, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: we gotta have a wall here. I mean this, This
Speaker 1: whole debate, this whole discussion over a wall and whether
Speaker 1: we should have one or not, gets gets compleatly lost
Speaker 1: with the pensial efforts of the media to obscure what's
Speaker 1: really going on. And the dumbest talking point that I've
Speaker 1: heard on almost any subject is walls don't work. Of course,
Speaker 1: walls work. Walls work in the San Diego sector of
Speaker 1: the border. Walls have worked for as long as human
Speaker 1: beings have been building things. A wall is a barrier.
Speaker 1: To say that a wall does not work is like
Speaker 1: saying a lock does not work. How many of you
Speaker 1: have a lock on your door, on your front door,
Speaker 1: maybe on more than just that, maybe you're you know,
Speaker 1: all over your house, But how many of you have
Speaker 1: a lock. If I came to you and I said,
Speaker 1: a lock on your front door is stupid. I could
Speaker 1: get into your house. I could break through your window.
Speaker 1: Why do you lock your front door? Would you say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right, no more locks. No if I said locks
Speaker 1: don't work, because I could just you know, pick the lock,
Speaker 1: or I could kick the door, and you say locks
Speaker 1: don't work. No. Charity is never about what's perfect. Security
Speaker 1: is about trying to lessen the chance of something bad happened,
Speaker 1: or a lessen an occasion from arising the idea that
Speaker 1: a wall is supposed to stop everybody. No one says that,
Speaker 1: but let's just make it a little bit harder than Hey,
Speaker 1: I got to the border, I'm gonna walk across now.
Speaker 1: People say, well, buck, there's border patrol. Okay, fine, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why it's not just a wall. I appreciate when
Speaker 1: they say that, because they're really making the argument for me. Yes,
Speaker 1: we do have border patrol. We do have either some
Speaker 1: surveillance capability, and there are efforts to police and patrol
Speaker 1: the border of effectively, although they're not enough. A wall
Speaker 1: makes those efforts more successful, makes it harder for people
Speaker 1: to just continue to come into the country. And either
Speaker 1: the Democrats are just they are absolutely making it up
Speaker 1: as they go along on this thing. They're saying they'll
Speaker 1: give one point five billion. That's what they always get
Speaker 1: for board and security, ay, a pace for some things
Speaker 1: here and there, pays for some government employees and some
Speaker 1: other things, you know. And the Republican plan it's like, look,
Speaker 1: give us five billion and we'll get started building this wall.
Speaker 1: You know, it's now or never for a wall, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean, you remember Trump at all these different rallies.
Speaker 1: You remember what he was saying. He was you know,
Speaker 1: the proposal was not I'll get you give me sixty
Speaker 1: senators and I'll get a wall. You know, the president
Speaker 1: we can go into a government shutdown, they can decide
Speaker 1: not to immediately fund all aspects of eighty five percent
Speaker 1: the government gets fund. I mean, that's there's so much
Speaker 1: propaganda around this. It's not even a government shutdown. It's
Speaker 1: a partial government furlough. And it's really just a fragment
Speaker 1: of the government. So this is not catastrophic. But you know,
Speaker 1: it makes the point the Republicans they've got the lame ducks.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't they're looking at trying to get something done here.
Speaker 1: And you know that that Democrats the way they the
Speaker 1: way they fight this. You know, the way the way
Speaker 1: they're presenting this is that they say, uh, that that
Speaker 1: they don't want to spend the money, and that it
Speaker 1: doesn't work, and all these things are just are just nonsense.
Speaker 1: Five billion dollars, that's what they think is is so
Speaker 1: unexactly five billion dollars. I mean, when you look at
Speaker 1: how much money we've been spending overseas in recent years
Speaker 1: for things that do not benefit the American people nearly
Speaker 1: as much as actual border security would, you're telling we're
Speaker 1: gonna have five billion dollars for this. It is nonsense.
Speaker 1: But they know this is just about the politics. This
Speaker 1: is about who is going to as it always is
Speaker 1: with the shutdowns, who is going to get the blame,
Speaker 1: and Pelosi, Pelosi and Shuber wanting to be very clear
Speaker 1: that they're, you know, they're going to blame the president
Speaker 1: for this shutdown. Play seventeen. The bottom line is simple.
Speaker 1: The President made clear that he wants a shutdown his position.
Speaker 1: If he sticks to his position for a five billion
Speaker 1: dollars wall, he will get no wall, and he will
Speaker 1: get a shutdown. Let's see, Chucky, Let's see what he's got.
Speaker 1: Here's Pelosi. By the way, on. She calls it in
Speaker 1: this clip the Trump shutdown, which I think is just
Speaker 1: you know, because she does. I think she still stings that.
Speaker 1: Remember Trump said the Schumer shutdown, and that kind of
Speaker 1: stuck people. Remember, oh, yeah, the Schumer shutdown. When when
Speaker 1: Schumer's going to shut down the government and then he
Speaker 1: backed off of it, right or he backed off after
Speaker 1: the short shutdown? Play clip at twelve. Some wall has
Speaker 1: been reinforced by our military. Military has done a fantastic job.
Speaker 1: So the wall would get built. But we may not.
Speaker 1: We may not have an agreement today. We probably won't,
Speaker 1: but we have an agreement on other things that are
Speaker 1: really good. Nancy, would you like to say something, well,
Speaker 1: thank you, mister President's the opportunity to meet with you
Speaker 1: so that we can work together in a bipartisan way
Speaker 1: to meet the needs of the American people. I think
Speaker 1: American people recognize that we must keep government open, that
Speaker 1: a shutdown is not worth anything, and that you should
Speaker 1: not have a Trump shutdown. You have the Trump Trump down.
Speaker 1: You have a White House, you have the Senate, you
Speaker 1: have the House of Representatives, you have the vote. You
Speaker 1: should pass it. Trump. You could tell he got a
Speaker 1: little exasperate or there too, where Nancy says that Trump shutdown,
Speaker 1: He's like, you gotta be you gotta be kidding me. Really,
Speaker 1: But now Trump has said that if there is a shutdown,
Speaker 1: I think he just doesn't like that she's taken his
Speaker 1: taking his style there a little bit because he got
Speaker 1: the whole Schumer shutdown thing going. But Trump is saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's he's he's down to do this. In fact, he's saying,
Speaker 1: just straight up, I'm gonna do this. I'm gonna shut
Speaker 1: down the government if you do not give me the
Speaker 1: wall play eleven. Oh we don't have eleven. Oh we
Speaker 1: already played it. Yeah, Well, he says, I'm proud to
Speaker 1: shut down the government for border security, Chuck. People in
Speaker 1: this country don't want criminals and people that have lots
Speaker 1: of problems and drugs pouring into our country. Trump has
Speaker 1: drawn a line of the sand here. He's either doing
Speaker 1: it or he's not doing it, and I don't know
Speaker 1: how he backs off it. At this point, they're either
Speaker 1: giving him the money or he's gonna have to shut
Speaker 1: down the government. You know, the Democrats are fundamentally unserious
Speaker 1: about this, and that's why I like this approach. I
Speaker 1: want this out there. I want them to have to
Speaker 1: explain themselves because otherwise what happens is, you know, they
Speaker 1: all do this behind closed doors thing. They all have
Speaker 1: this discussion that we don't get to see, we don't
Speaker 1: know what's happening, and then no one gets any blame.
Speaker 1: And when there's no blame because you don't know who's
Speaker 1: responsible for what, there can't be any accountability. And if
Speaker 1: there's no accountability within the slimy politicians get away with
Speaker 1: saying whatever they want, and when it comes time for reelection,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll just they'll change it up and start saying, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I was a stalwart on the boarder. I
Speaker 1: was never gonna get know. They just make it up
Speaker 1: as they go along. It's just all a big bachanall
Speaker 1: of self interest on Capitol Hell for the most part anyway.
Speaker 1: And that's what's really going on. So I would like
Speaker 1: this to be out there for us to see. I
Speaker 1: want Trump to be making this case in front of
Speaker 1: the American people. You know who doesn't want it, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi to play fourteen. They're here to have a conversation
Speaker 1: careful way. So I don't think we should have the
Speaker 1: debate and trying to press on this. But the fact
Speaker 1: is the Senate of the House, Republicans could bring up
Speaker 1: this bill if they had the vote immediately and set
Speaker 1: the tone for what you want. If we thought we
Speaker 1: were going to get it passed in the Senate, Nancy,
Speaker 1: we would do it immediately, would get it passed very easily.
Speaker 1: In the House, we would, Nancy, I'd have it passed
Speaker 1: in two seconds. It doesn't matter though, because we can't
Speaker 1: get a pass in the center because we need ten
Speaker 1: Democrat volks. Let us have our conversation now. Depressing you know,
Speaker 1: it just doesn't make any sense. I don't understand what
Speaker 1: what what Nancy Pelosi even things she's saying here. There's
Speaker 1: some problem with as Trump says, transparency, with with finding
Speaker 1: out you know, why are Democrats so opposed to this?
Speaker 1: There's the Secure Fence Act was voted on big bipartisan
Speaker 1: majorities two thousand and six. Has really that much changed.
Speaker 1: This just used to be an area where the country
Speaker 1: was at least our elected leadership was pretending to be
Speaker 1: in wide agreement. But then Republicans, a lot of them
Speaker 1: sold out the donor class, a lot of them became
Speaker 1: kind of infected with this uh you know, ultra free market,
Speaker 1: free movement of people, libertarian, you know, mumbo jumbo, and
Speaker 1: they started believing this stuff. They started believing, you know, hey,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter the more of the merrier. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't really need a secure border. We don't need
Speaker 1: any border. Really. There are someone who say they're on
Speaker 1: the right who believe this. And then for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: they just realize, oh, this is this is ball game
Speaker 1: for us. This means everything else that they want will
Speaker 1: be made possible through continued illegal immigration and through the
Speaker 1: amnesty of the illegal aliens already of the country. And
Speaker 1: they know that they only have to win this fight
Speaker 1: and then they'll win all the others. That's why this
Speaker 1: is so important to them, and that's why they're willing
Speaker 1: to make arguments. They aren't even really arguments. It's just
Speaker 1: kind of you know, whining and accusations and oh it's
Speaker 1: so racist and xenophobic, and this is what they say.
Speaker 1: I have to deal with watching different pundits go on TV.
Speaker 1: I mean, this part of my job is knowing what
Speaker 1: all these clowns are saying all the time. And I heard,
Speaker 1: at least I've heard at least three people in the
Speaker 1: last couple of days say some variation of you know,
Speaker 1: experts agree that a wall won't work. And I sit
Speaker 1: here and I say to myself, well, I've been told
Speaker 1: by the head of Border Patrol, by senior ice officials,
Speaker 1: by former border patrol officials, of course a wall will work.
Speaker 1: So who are these wall experts who don't actually work
Speaker 1: in border security and don't know what they're talking You know,
Speaker 1: where is the where is the expert consensus so to speak,
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't have a wall. It just appears in
Speaker 1: media reports. You know, they ask somebody from like the
Speaker 1: you know, the Center for Migrant Rights AKA, like you know,
Speaker 1: a George Soros. I don't think that's probably a real place.
Speaker 1: So I'm just I tried to make that up off
Speaker 1: top of my head. But you know, some George Soros
Speaker 1: funded outfit somewhere that's saying, yay, you know it just
Speaker 1: all the experts agree a wall doesn't work. That's just
Speaker 1: this is buffoonish. He's buffoonish. If you're if you're trying
Speaker 1: to get you know, from point A to point B
Speaker 1: and there's a ten foot wall with patrol on one
Speaker 1: side of it, are you more or less likely to
Speaker 1: get from A to B. It's all about the numbers,
Speaker 1: all about the percentages. And the Liberals know this. They
Speaker 1: know this, but they're being so they're being so dishonest
Speaker 1: on it. Here here's where I am on this, though
Speaker 1: I got more on this. This is really important. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you. I had been very cynical as you
Speaker 1: listen to the show, no cynical about whether Republicans will
Speaker 1: hold the line on this one. And Trump hasn't done
Speaker 1: it yet, but he said we're gonna get a wall,
Speaker 1: and he after today's performance, I don't understand. I don't
Speaker 1: even know how it's possible that the president of the
Speaker 1: United States could walk away from this issue and not
Speaker 1: fight it, fight it out to the to the max.
Speaker 1: I mean, just just absolutely all in on this issue
Speaker 1: and then make Democrats defend the fact that you know
Speaker 1: that they were the ones that refused to budge on this.
Speaker 1: They refused to allow there to be this spending. And look,
Speaker 1: it's it's just the fact that we need a supermajority
Speaker 1: in the Senator else they won't let anything get through
Speaker 1: on the on this budgetary matter. They won't let anything
Speaker 1: happen and I would note that there's nothing constitutional about this.
Speaker 1: There's there's nothing written that says you need sixty senators
Speaker 1: to be able to do anything worthwhile in the Senate.
Speaker 1: This is this is all these different career as politicians
Speaker 1: in Capitol Hill. They set the system up so they
Speaker 1: can evade accountability. They set the system up so they
Speaker 1: can all tell their constituents their state or their district, oh, sure,
Speaker 1: I really want to do this thing for you. But
Speaker 1: then when push comes to shove, they don't get caught
Speaker 1: holding the bag because they don't want to do that thing,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to come out and say it.
Speaker 1: We need to push. Now is the time Trump can
Speaker 1: win this fight and change the whole conversation going into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. He can change it now, and he cannot.
Speaker 1: He cannot sell out his base on this one. We
Speaker 1: will remember remember I as a Trump voter. I will
Speaker 1: remember he said they got to give him the money
Speaker 1: or we're going into a shut Look, if the shutdown happens,
Speaker 1: then it's a huge disaster for Republicans and they get
Speaker 1: you know, well, then we'll have a talk. But they
Speaker 1: got to at least have the fight or else or else.
Speaker 1: The world's kind of words coming to us from them,
Speaker 1: from the president of this issue just have no meaning anymore.
Speaker 1: All Right, we got more coming, team. I'll be right back.
Speaker 1: His presentation to the press today. So when I said
Speaker 1: let's have this conversation, they said, oh, you want to
Speaker 1: keep it from the public. No, we don't want to
Speaker 1: contradict the president again and again in front of the public.
Speaker 1: But if that's what he wants, and that's what we
Speaker 1: have to do. I mean, what he was saying was
Speaker 1: just not factual. You get a little bit of crazy
Speaker 1: Nancy here saying the reason she doesn't want the discussion
Speaker 1: about the shutdown and immigration, all that stuff that happened,
Speaker 1: the reason she doesn't want that to be out in
Speaker 1: the open is for the president's own good Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. She cares so much about making sure that
Speaker 1: President Trump doesn't look bad. That's why she doesn't want to.
Speaker 1: Do you think Nancy Pelosi can even keep a straight face?
Speaker 1: Well she while she says this stuff. Do you think
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is even able to make the case with
Speaker 1: any seriousness that she is in fact it has the
Speaker 1: best has the best interests of the president at a heart. Here,
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody really believes. I don't think Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi believes that. I really don't. I think that if
Speaker 1: you were to spend just a couple of seconds thinking
Speaker 1: about it, you're like, yeah, buy that Nancy. Thanks though,
Speaker 1: So it's a nice idea, But no, no, she doesn't
Speaker 1: want this to be something that the American people get
Speaker 1: to see for themselves. She does not want people to
Speaker 1: be in a position to evaluate the arguments of both sides,
Speaker 1: because what is the Democrat argument here? Really, we won't
Speaker 1: spend money to build a wall. I mean, they'll think
Speaker 1: of the things that the federal government does, spend all
Speaker 1: kinds of money on your money, by the way, and
Speaker 1: your children, really your grandchildren's money. This would this would
Speaker 1: be low. Even if the wall didn't work nearly as
Speaker 1: well as I and many others like me think it will.
Speaker 1: If it had one tenth of the effect, it would
Speaker 1: be not even close to the most wasteful expenditures the
Speaker 1: government's made in the last five years, and not even close.
Speaker 1: I remember the Obama administration. Administration spent a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: on stimulus. Anybody remember anything we got from the stimulus
Speaker 1: prob A trillion dollars anything that was worthwhile. I don't
Speaker 1: even think the Obama administration remembers anything that was worthwhile
Speaker 1: this presentation to the press today. So when I said
Speaker 1: let's have this conversation, they said, oh, you want to
Speaker 1: keep it from the public. No, we don't want to
Speaker 1: contradict the president again and again in front of the public.
Speaker 1: But if that's what he wants, and that's what we
Speaker 1: had to do. I mean, what he was saying was
Speaker 1: just not Actually, you got a little bit of crazy
Speaker 1: Nancy here saying the reason she doesn't want the discussion
Speaker 1: about the shutdown and immigration, all that stuff that happened,
Speaker 1: the reason she doesn't want that to be out in
Speaker 1: the open is for the president's own good Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. She cares so much about making sure that
Speaker 1: President Trump doesn't look bad. That's why she doesn't want to.
Speaker 1: Do you think Nancy Pelosi can even keep a straight
Speaker 1: face while she while she says this stuff. Do you
Speaker 1: think Nancy Pelosi is even able to make the case
Speaker 1: with any seriousness that she is in fact it has
Speaker 1: the best has the best interests of the president at
Speaker 1: heart here. I don't think anybody really believes I don't
Speaker 1: think Nancy Pelosi believes that. I really don't. I think
Speaker 1: that if you were to spend just a couple of
Speaker 1: seconds thinking about it, you're like, yeah, buy that Nancy.
Speaker 1: Thanks though, So it's a nice idea, But no, no,
Speaker 1: she doesn't want this to be something that the American
Speaker 1: people get to see for themselves. She does not want
Speaker 1: people to be in a position to evaluate the arguments
Speaker 1: of both sides, because what is the Democrat argument here? Really,
Speaker 1: we won't spend money to build a wall. I mean,
Speaker 1: they'll think of the things that the federal government does,
Speaker 1: spend all kinds of money on your money, by the way,
Speaker 1: and your children, really, your grandchildren's money. Would this would
Speaker 1: be low Even if the wall didn't work nearly as
Speaker 1: well as I and many others like me think it will,
Speaker 1: if it had one tenth of the effect, it would
Speaker 1: be not even close to the most wasteful expenditures the
Speaker 1: government's made in the last five years, not even close.
Speaker 1: I remember the Obama inistration administration spent a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: on stimulus. Anybody remember anything we got from the stimulus
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars, anything that was worthwhile. I don't even
Speaker 1: think the Obama administration remembers anything that was worthwhile. The
Speaker 1: last time, Chuck, you shut it no, no, no, and
Speaker 1: then you won't wait any time quickly. And I don't
Speaker 1: want to do what you did twenty times have called for.
Speaker 1: I will shut down the government if I don't get
Speaker 1: my wool, none of us. If you want to know
Speaker 1: something you said you want to put that on, set it,
Speaker 1: I'll take it. Okay, good, you know what, I'll say, yes,
Speaker 1: if we don't get what we want one way or
Speaker 1: the other, whether it's through you, through military, through anything
Speaker 1: you want to call, I will shut down the government
Speaker 1: absolute enough, and I am proud and I'll disagree. I
Speaker 1: am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck,
Speaker 1: because the people of this country don't want criminals and
Speaker 1: people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into
Speaker 1: our country. So I will take the mental I will
Speaker 1: be the one to shut it down. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to blame you for it. The last time you shut
Speaker 1: it down, it didn't work. I will take the mantle
Speaker 1: of shutting down and I'm going to shut it down
Speaker 1: for border But we believe you shouldn't shut it down.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, everybody boo oom, Mike drop courtesy
Speaker 1: of El Presidente himself, mister Donald Trump, we got somebody
Speaker 1: who can show additional lights on this throwdown in the
Speaker 1: Oval Office today, Our main man, Sagar and Jetty is
Speaker 1: back in the house. He is the White House correspondent
Speaker 1: for the Daily Caller. He is there when all this wonderful, incredible,
Speaker 1: jaw dropping stuff goes on in the Oval Office and
Speaker 1: the West Wing. You name. It's good to have you back, Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me Buck, So were you in the
Speaker 1: room for this throwdown? This was quite a scene. Now,
Speaker 1: the way it works is only a select group of reporters,
Speaker 1: whoever is assigned to that day. You don't know what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. They're the ones that get to go,
Speaker 1: but we get to watch them all kind of come
Speaker 1: back in to our workspace. And there was just like
Speaker 1: a feeling of absolute disbelief. Nobody ever gets to see
Speaker 1: this type of thing play out in front of the cameras.
Speaker 1: But it's actually pretty amazing. You know. People were saying,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, I can't believe that the president do
Speaker 1: this in front of TV. I mean, this is how
Speaker 1: it usually works, right, But instead of reading about it
Speaker 1: in Tomorrow's Washington Post, with you know, people saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it was a heated Oval Office meeting, we just got
Speaker 1: to see it all for ourselves, which was great. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't understand this argument. I mean the fact that
Speaker 1: Pelosi made it, I think is in a sense it's great.
Speaker 1: You know that she's saying, we don't want to have
Speaker 1: a debate in front of the press. Why not, You're
Speaker 1: about to be speaking for the House. He's the president.
Speaker 1: Why can't we hear what you think on this? Why
Speaker 1: does it have to be behind closed doors and then
Speaker 1: filtered through you know, CNN, MSNBC in the New York Times?
Speaker 1: Correct Buck, I mean you and as the President said
Speaker 1: it pretty exactly right. I think where he said it's
Speaker 1: called transparency. Nancy, I mean, if you really can't, if
Speaker 1: you can't debate these things in front of the press,
Speaker 1: I mean, what are people particularly afraid of here? She
Speaker 1: actually said afterwards that the reason that she didn't want
Speaker 1: the press to be in there, it's because she felt
Speaker 1: bad correcting the president's facts and his misstatements. It was
Speaker 1: pretty striking. It was pretty striking to see how how
Speaker 1: how much they kind of uh were a big cowed
Speaker 1: by the President whenever he went after them in front
Speaker 1: of the in the Oval. Well, I also think that
Speaker 1: those are those are two politicians who, in particular are
Speaker 1: just not used to it. I mean they're not used
Speaker 1: to hostile treatment from the press for sure. I mean
Speaker 1: the press is always coddling and trying to take care
Speaker 1: of them and make sure that they look they look
Speaker 1: as good as possible. And I think the president. I
Speaker 1: watched the thing and I thought, wow, the Democrats really
Speaker 1: don't I mean, Nancy Pelosi kept harping on how you
Speaker 1: know he doesn't have the votes in the House. It's like, well, Nancy,
Speaker 1: why is that your argument for why this can't get done?
Speaker 1: You know, let's see if he has the votes in
Speaker 1: the House. You're right, And actually the House top has
Speaker 1: already come out and said, sure, we'll put a vote
Speaker 1: on the floor right now. If the president's argument on
Speaker 1: this is we have to negotiate with the Democrats because
Speaker 1: things gott again in order to get past the billerbuster
Speaker 1: proof majority, and there was just a major disconnect there.
Speaker 1: There's there's arguments that you know, Chuck shoot was saying, well,
Speaker 1: the President says everything on the border is fine, So
Speaker 1: why don't we just keep Why don't we just keep
Speaker 1: the current levels of funding for border security where they are,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, particularly interesting given how many legal
Speaker 1: limurants that we're apprehending at the border. We're at a
Speaker 1: record number for November twenty eighteen, and we just went
Speaker 1: through this whole caravan or are going through this whole
Speaker 1: caravan crisis. Yeah, you know. I also want to ask
Speaker 1: you about the situation of the Chief of Staff. I
Speaker 1: feel like I feel like the media is always more
Speaker 1: interested in this than the American people are. I don't
Speaker 1: really care all that much the Chief of Staff is,
Speaker 1: but there is a lot of skull duggery around this now,
Speaker 1: and there are people saying, oh, you know, nick Ers
Speaker 1: wouldn't take the job. Why wouldn't he take the job?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe the guy wants to write a novel.
Speaker 1: Who the heck knows I would. What can you tell
Speaker 1: us about where this stands and just your general sense
Speaker 1: of the White House right now on the morale inside. Yeah,
Speaker 1: sure so, I mean, yes, the Chief and the President
Speaker 1: have clashed in the past. They are leaving, as you said.
Speaker 1: I'm not myself also a great fan of Palace injury.
Speaker 1: But what I can tell you is that there are
Speaker 1: a couple of candidates that people are looking at, and
Speaker 1: the President wants to make a change, to move towards
Speaker 1: are to move towards dealing with the Democrats, knowing that
Speaker 1: he's going to have them in power in the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives, so he wants somebody who's more politically inclined
Speaker 1: and has a little bit more politically political experience. So
Speaker 1: to the people that are really at the top of
Speaker 1: his list is Mark Meadows. I know that Chris Christie
Speaker 1: is also being considered. His name is being tossed around there,
Speaker 1: and he's also looking at people like Ambassador Leightheiser is
Speaker 1: a US trade representative at Steven Mnuchin and the few others.
Speaker 1: But really the President has made a final decision and
Speaker 1: John Kelly is sticking around in his job until January second,
Speaker 1: at the very least, so he's got a little bit
Speaker 1: of time. Did you see that Piers Morgan has thrown
Speaker 1: his hat in the ring for Chief of Staff of
Speaker 1: the United States right White House? I know, I thought
Speaker 1: I was hilarious. Is the column title? One? Mister President,
Speaker 1: you've already hired the hired me once again we are
Speaker 1: compelling preach. I gotta tell you if I'm if I'm
Speaker 1: Alma Rosa, I view this as my opportunity to get
Speaker 1: back on the reality show. You know, this is the
Speaker 1: episode where they bring back somebody that got voted off
Speaker 1: the island. If I'm Alma Rosa, I say that I
Speaker 1: want to make amends and then I want to come
Speaker 1: back and I'll be the best chief of staff ever
Speaker 1: because even if the President doesn't take it seriously, and
Speaker 1: who knows, with this president, like maybe he would embrace
Speaker 1: her with open arms. I have no idea it would
Speaker 1: get her. It would get her in the news for
Speaker 1: a day or two. It would be kind of funny
Speaker 1: for us all to think about. But oh I would
Speaker 1: love it. Would the dark horse chief of staff candidate
Speaker 1: that I'm going to start pushing is Alma Rosa next
Speaker 1: time or next time I have a chance. And I
Speaker 1: gotta ask you this. The different folks that you talk
Speaker 1: to you in around the White House, we're hearing so
Speaker 1: much this week. I mean, they make it sound the
Speaker 1: media narrative yesterday was overwhelmingly animo. Now Trump's gonna get
Speaker 1: thrown in the slammer. Do you get that h or
Speaker 1: you know, they're gonna bring charges against them whatever. Do
Speaker 1: you get the sense that the people are really worried?
Speaker 1: You know, you know, you can kind of pick that up. No,
Speaker 1: they're no, they're they're so desensitized to this at the
Speaker 1: moment to all of this talk. I mean, how many
Speaker 1: times do we have to hear it's Muller time, or
Speaker 1: it's this time, or it's that time, and you know,
Speaker 1: Trump is really in danger this at this point. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, the President does spend a certain amount of
Speaker 1: his time thinking about any sense of certain aunt, certain
Speaker 1: amount of time tweeting about it. But there's no sense
Speaker 1: within the White House that an impending shoe is dropping,
Speaker 1: and it's not. You know, you see kind of like
Speaker 1: a frothing at the mouth and in a lot of
Speaker 1: the people who are in our media whenever anything happens
Speaker 1: with respect to the Muller case. And that's just not
Speaker 1: that's just not how it's received within the inside. There's
Speaker 1: just so much else that's going on there. Do you
Speaker 1: have it, By the way, do you have any kind
Speaker 1: of any prediction about about who's going to get the
Speaker 1: big job within the White House or are you totally agnostic.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't. I don't think the president one
Speaker 1: knows right now, I don't. I mean, what happens if
Speaker 1: he taps you on the shoulder when you're walking past
Speaker 1: the oval and he's like, hey, Sager, I like your work.
Speaker 1: You should talk you snap too, and you say, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: there you go. That is the right answer, Sager. When
Speaker 1: the when the commander in chief says, you know, jump,
Speaker 1: you say how high? Uh? Sager and Jetty everybody. You'll
Speaker 1: see him on Fox News, You'll see him at the
Speaker 1: Daily Caller where he's the White House correspondence. Soager Man
Speaker 1: always you to talk to you, see you soon. Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me, Buz. All right, team, we'll be
Speaker 1: back in a moment. If you've looked at snippy dot
Speaker 1: com in the past and left, look again. Thousands of
Speaker 1: my listeners have joined snippy dot com and are expressing
Speaker 1: their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy's an unbiased
Speaker 1: social media platform. It's all about conversation and community. And
Speaker 1: you know, the guy who was the head of Google
Speaker 1: was down there today where any of you convinced by
Speaker 1: that testimony that Google's not engaged in left wing bias
Speaker 1: in the search engine has a huge impact on what
Speaker 1: you see when you see it all right. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com is the beginning of the conservative revolution in social media,
Speaker 1: where we don't have to worry about what the left
Speaker 1: wingers in Silicon Valley want us to see. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com it's totally free to join. It's open to everyone.
Speaker 1: So join us at snippy dot com and let your
Speaker 1: opinion matter. No shadow banning and no suppression of conservative
Speaker 1: thought ever. Now, with an updated user interface and exciting
Speaker 1: new features, also available in the Apple App Store and
Speaker 1: now available for Android, Snippy is your new alternative social media.
Speaker 1: There's a very real prospect that on the day Donald
Speaker 1: Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That
Speaker 1: he may be the first president in quite some time
Speaker 1: to face the real prospect of jail time. Trump knows
Speaker 1: that he's facing some pretty strong criminal liability when he
Speaker 1: leaves office one way or another. And you know, even
Speaker 1: if you're sitting President Camp indicted, he's got to know
Speaker 1: his future looks like it's behind bars unless he cuts
Speaker 1: some sort of deal with the prosecutors. That's right, my friends,
Speaker 1: The left can't beat Trump and politics so they're trying
Speaker 1: to beat him with the law by destroying the law
Speaker 1: in the process, by weaponizing it, by bastardizing it, polluting it.
Speaker 1: And these are people that are being treated as as
Speaker 1: some kind of expert panel here. I mean, you got
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff and George and Georgetown law professor saying that
Speaker 1: the Trump is going to go to prison. You know,
Speaker 1: all we've seen so far from the prosecution and the
Speaker 1: special counsel and the people have gone down are the
Speaker 1: most heavy handed, one sided prosecutorial tactics imaginable. And what
Speaker 1: you've really been treated to, unfortunately, is a front seat view,
Speaker 1: a front seat to the most politicized and disgraceful series
Speaker 1: of investigatory tactics and prosecutions imaginable. Really, I mean, this
Speaker 1: stuff is all so clearly based in Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: And you get this when you look back at what
Speaker 1: they've been saying, oh along here, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: they keep telling us that there's going to be collusion,
Speaker 1: They're gonna be collusion, and then when we have a
Speaker 1: new revelation, it's never collusion somehow, it's always something else.
Speaker 1: It's always you know, oh, well, this guy didn't base taxes,
Speaker 1: or this guy did this thing, or this guy did
Speaker 1: that thing. And I'm telling you, if you're a prominent
Speaker 1: especially with international business ties, you're a prominent person in business,
Speaker 1: and they start doing things like going through all your
Speaker 1: communications and all of your taxes, and if you were
Speaker 1: tied to a political campaign, all your communications with that campaign,
Speaker 1: and they were trying to find something to prosecute you for,
Speaker 1: I assure you they could do it. They could do it. Now,
Speaker 1: keep in mind, in the case of Trump, they haven't
Speaker 1: been able to even say what the charge is yet.
Speaker 1: They're just telling you that he's a criminal all the
Speaker 1: time because they know that ultimately this is a This
Speaker 1: is a political investigation, not really a criminal investigation. But
Speaker 1: calling someone a criminal repeatedly these has political consequences. So
Speaker 1: it's useful for them, even though in a sense it
Speaker 1: undermines the very argument. Can we just hear what Trump did?
Speaker 1: It's criminal? Notice how they'll go to this Cohen plea
Speaker 1: deal and I know we're getting the Cohen. We're gonna
Speaker 1: find out how long he goes to prison. This week.
Speaker 1: He's gonna get like four or five years in federal prison.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty long time but no notice how when
Speaker 1: they discuss this, they say, oh, well, Cohen already pleaded
Speaker 1: to this, so it's on record, right, There are two
Speaker 1: important parts that Cohen pleaded to this payoff for Stormy Daniels,
Speaker 1: Stephanie Clifford. You know, I guess former porn star. I
Speaker 1: don't think she still does it, but I don't know
Speaker 1: former porn star Stephanie Clifford Stormy Daniels or is it
Speaker 1: also the other one mcdougaut, And I can't remember which
Speaker 1: one they're talking about with the specific pal, but it
Speaker 1: was one of these women that Trump paid off. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they got Cohen to say that he was a part
Speaker 1: of this and that Trump directed him to do it.
Speaker 1: He has nothing to lose by saying that. And there's
Speaker 1: no way that Trump can prove his innocence on it,
Speaker 1: because remember, he's trying to prove that he didn't tell
Speaker 1: him something, not that he did tell him something. So
Speaker 1: how do you do that, Because even if you have
Speaker 1: a record of the discussions, even if you have a
Speaker 1: record of all the actual transactions and emails around this
Speaker 1: whole payoff situation, all that you need is Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: and said, yeah, well, you know, I was walking into
Speaker 1: the bathroom and he saw him in a way and
Speaker 1: he said, hey, you pay off that lady with the money,
Speaker 1: and I'm not gonna pay you because I want to
Speaker 1: violate FCC regulations or FEC regulations, whatever sounds the scene.
Speaker 1: You know, that's all he has to do. You can't
Speaker 1: can't prove that Trump didn't say that, so that this
Speaker 1: is what I'm saying, is that doesn't prove anything that
Speaker 1: has said this. And the President is right insofar as
Speaker 1: it's not even a criminal act. It's not even a
Speaker 1: crime to have paid this woman off because it's something
Speaker 1: that any person under those circumstances might do and could
Speaker 1: legally do. You know, the very simple concept here is,
Speaker 1: you know, is a haircut a campaign expense? Well, you
Speaker 1: could say, Buck, if you don't get a haircut, the
Speaker 1: swoop is going to be out of control. And President
Speaker 1: Buck is not going to happen if he's got a
Speaker 1: crazy swoop. He's got to have a tame swoop. And
Speaker 1: I said, well, yes, you're correct. There are benefits that
Speaker 1: you could say come from the personal grooming of a haircut.
Speaker 1: But if you get a haircut every month and you
Speaker 1: keep getting a haircut, during the campaign. You know, guess what,
Speaker 1: it's not a campaign expenditure. And if somebody is saying
Speaker 1: they're gonna go public with a story about how you
Speaker 1: had an affair years ago and you pay them off,
Speaker 1: guess what, it's not qualified as an expenditure that has
Speaker 1: to be listed. And now people can say, yes it is, Well,
Speaker 1: guess what this would this need to be litigated and adjudicated.
Speaker 1: This has to go through the courts. We don't take
Speaker 1: this as a as a fate at home police here.
Speaker 1: We don't take this as something that's already been decided,
Speaker 1: that's already done. Why would we do that. But the
Speaker 1: way they've structured this look at I was really thinking
Speaker 1: of this today. It reminds me a bit of how
Speaker 1: they came after Kavanaugh. I really mean this. You'll notice
Speaker 1: how Kavanaugh, especially the initial allegation, it was all set
Speaker 1: up in a way that it was non falsifiable, and
Speaker 1: you know, they got her on They wanted her on
Speaker 1: the record in front of Congress, you know, without members
Speaker 1: of Congress harshly cross examining her, without really testing around
Speaker 1: in the facts. They just wanted to get her on
Speaker 1: the record and get her out of there. And it
Speaker 1: was all just a takedown effort. Right. Well, what they've
Speaker 1: done with Cohen is get him on the record. Trump
Speaker 1: has no official means of responding in court because it's
Speaker 1: just a plea deal that somebody else did. Right, There's
Speaker 1: no there's no challenge that Trump can level against this.
Speaker 1: But it then creates a document, a federal court document
Speaker 1: that has you know, Trump implicated in a crime that
Speaker 1: is only a crime because they had Cohen on all
Speaker 1: these other things that he didn't challenge this. We did.
Speaker 1: We've seen this by the way, we saw this with
Speaker 1: John Edwards, where there was you know, they and look
Speaker 1: they took him to court over this and the payoff
Speaker 1: the mistress. And guess what, Jerry said, No, it's not
Speaker 1: a crime. John Edwards did not go to jail, and
Speaker 1: his thing was way more sortid and messed up than
Speaker 1: situation we're talking about here. Because whether you believe him
Speaker 1: or not, the President says he didn't even have the affair.
Speaker 1: I will just say that that strikes me his although
Speaker 1: you know, although look this president, I think we all
Speaker 1: can agree is if we're being honest, he's got more
Speaker 1: than just you know the everyman. I for the ladies.
Speaker 1: He's definitely uh, you know, he's he's he's a playboy,
Speaker 1: There's no question about that. But why does a Stephanie
Speaker 1: keep getting your name, you know whatever, Stormy Daniels, that's
Speaker 1: the way everyone knows her. Why does the Stormy Daniels
Speaker 1: just have complete proof of some of their liaisons together? Why,
Speaker 1: you know, in the in the era of text messages
Speaker 1: and email and and you know, she doesn't have any
Speaker 1: as far as I know, there's no actual proof that
Speaker 1: she has produced of this affair other than they Oh
Speaker 1: there's a photo of them at events. Again, I'm sure
Speaker 1: they knew each other. And look, maybe the president, you know,
Speaker 1: even got a you know, got a little kind of
Speaker 1: a little fresh with her at some point before he
Speaker 1: was the president. But did this affair really happen? I think,
Speaker 1: you know, probably, but you know, it's not proven, and
Speaker 1: he doesn't he says no. So you know, you have
Speaker 1: to Nick dwaland account as well. But the real as
Speaker 1: you hear is just that they're running around calling the
Speaker 1: president a criminal. And that's the whole point of this.
Speaker 1: He's a criminal, he's a crimin. He's a racist, he's
Speaker 1: a racist. They just repeat these things these slanders against
Speaker 1: the president of the United States because they know that
Speaker 1: just the mere repetition does damage. Just saying this stuff
Speaker 1: over and over again brings people to the conclusion that, oh, gosh,
Speaker 1: there must be something wrong with this president. There must
Speaker 1: be And when I see people, not you, not me,
Speaker 1: but remember, they're trying to win over a certain portion
Speaker 1: of the electorate. They're trying to get those undecideds and
Speaker 1: the you know they're trying to get. It's all about
Speaker 1: suppressing the base and encouraging those in the middle, and
Speaker 1: encouraging your own base. And they think that by calling
Speaker 1: the president a criminal, they can accomplish that. By the way,
Speaker 1: you got of another. I mean, I had a guy
Speaker 1: on Rising earlier this week who, as I mentioned you,
Speaker 1: he had worked with Colomby as a former US attorney,
Speaker 1: And I mean, it's just it was just crazy to
Speaker 1: I mean, I was sitting there. I was like, I
Speaker 1: don't even know what to say to this guy. He's like,
Speaker 1: here's here's what I think happened, and went on this long,
Speaker 1: long tirade about how you know Russia collusion worked, and
Speaker 1: I said, you can't, none of this has any proof.
Speaker 1: You're just coming up with this whole theory. There's proof
Speaker 1: for not a single thing that he said, but he
Speaker 1: had this really elaborate theory about you know, they one
Speaker 1: of the emails at a certain time released and so
Speaker 1: this is just this is creative writing. That's what I
Speaker 1: said the guy, this is a creative writing exercise. You
Speaker 1: used to be a prosecutor, I said. He Actually, I
Speaker 1: didn't say this something. This just came out. I don't
Speaker 1: like to, you know, get saucy with my guests when
Speaker 1: they leave. But I kind of just muttered to myself
Speaker 1: and the mic was still on, and apparently he heard it,
Speaker 1: and I was like, that guy was a federal prosecutor.
Speaker 1: That's terrifying. So yeah, I mean it is terrifying that
Speaker 1: I think somebody who is so hyper parted. Look look
Speaker 1: at James Coleby, Look at the people who are making
Speaker 1: these decisions. We're supposed to believe that they're just on
Speaker 1: the straight and narrow and honest, nonpartisan observers of truth,
Speaker 1: defenders of democracy. Come on, here's another former Obama administration
Speaker 1: US attorney on what should happen to Trump pay for
Speaker 1: a play for It could be that President Trump procured
Speaker 1: the presidency by fraud. When immigrants procure their citizenship by fraud,
Speaker 1: we strip them of their citizenship. When a president procures
Speaker 1: his presidency by fraud, should we consider doing the same.
Speaker 1: That's what this whole charade is about. They want payback
Speaker 1: for Hillary. They want payback for all the all the
Speaker 1: self righteous, self indulgent lib boomers. Sorry, but lib boomers
Speaker 1: are the worst. At least, millennials don't have life experience
Speaker 1: that they should be able to fall back on. All
Speaker 1: these lib boomers, all of Hillary's contemporaries, and all these
Speaker 1: people that were ready for Hillary, and the women watching
Speaker 1: in the pink hats and all this stuff. They have
Speaker 1: not forgotten the hurt feelings, the tears, the deep sense
Speaker 1: of falling into the abyss after Hillary to not win
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election, and it's not enough for them.
Speaker 1: They're not satisfied with merely winning the next election. They
Speaker 1: want to erase Trump's victory and rewrite, in Soviet style
Speaker 1: in the history books that Hillary really won. They essentially
Speaker 1: want to strip Trump of the title. They don't want
Speaker 1: there to just be another title about. They want to
Speaker 1: strip Trump of the title and retroactively give it to
Speaker 1: Hillary and then gives, you know, and then have somebody
Speaker 1: else run against the President Pence in twenty twenty. That's
Speaker 1: what That's the only acceptable outcome to them. These people
Speaker 1: are hyperpartisans, they are loons. They're destroying any faith in
Speaker 1: the political process. They're destroying faith in the law too,
Speaker 1: which is even more dangerous in many ways. I have
Speaker 1: more on this and a bunch of other stories. Two
Speaker 1: teams stare it there introducing a new conservative alternative to
Speaker 1: liberal based email services, ipatriots dot Us. Ipatriots dot us
Speaker 1: is a new email service where privacy and protection are
Speaker 1: in your hands. My friends. Ipatriots is secure and includes
Speaker 1: more of what you want with all out all the
Speaker 1: ads and the spam. Plus you get thirty gigs of
Speaker 1: cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and so much more. Ipatriots
Speaker 1: dot us has premium anti virus, anti spam and encryption. Okay,
Speaker 1: you need to check this out of yourself. Ipatriot dot
Speaker 1: us is compatible with most mobile devices iPhone, iPad, at, Android,
Speaker 1: Windows Mobile, BlackBerry. It works on any Windows or Mac computer.
Speaker 1: Show your a patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us now,
Speaker 1: choose your membership program and input your desired Ipatriots email address.
Speaker 1: During checkout, enter promo code buck for ten percent savings
Speaker 1: during your first year of membership. Again, enter promo code
Speaker 1: buck for ten percent off during your first year of
Speaker 1: membership at ipatriots dot us. Go check it out. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a man who came in and said, I'm
Speaker 1: bigger than the House. I'm bigger than the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: I'm bigger than checks and balances, I'm biger than the
Speaker 1: judicial community. I'm bigger than the free press. And he's
Speaker 1: going to pay for that the rest of his life.
Speaker 1: I think the American people would support impeachment. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: will be must be impeached. Donald Trump is a criminal enterprise.
Speaker 1: It certainly looks like they are the kind of offenses
Speaker 1: that would call for impeachment hearings. You have this memorable
Speaker 1: phrase of individual number one. You know it's going to
Speaker 1: go down, I think in the history books, along with
Speaker 1: some of those memorable Watergate phrases. When the evidence becomes
Speaker 1: so clear to likely have a criminal sitting in the
Speaker 1: Oval office, what is the Congress left to do at
Speaker 1: that point? A criminal for whom they cannot even identify
Speaker 1: a single crime, nor provide one piece of evidence that
Speaker 1: the crime that they cannot identify was committed by him.
Speaker 1: This is Stalinist tactics. That is what they are doing.
Speaker 1: That is what they are engaged in. It's a disgrace,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know what happened. The old school
Speaker 1: civil liberties guys. They're just not around the acluse a joke,
Speaker 1: a cluse, Southern Property Law Center. They're just extensions of
Speaker 1: media matters now, I mean, they are left wing loon factories.
Speaker 1: But the Dirsh doesn't even like Trump. I asked him once,
Speaker 1: I said, do you ever speak the President? The Durst
Speaker 1: looked like he was gonna spit in my face. He
Speaker 1: was not happy with me for asking that question. Okay,
Speaker 1: the Drsh on the payments, the storm of Daniels said,
Speaker 1: this is a play five. It is absolutely textbook extortion,
Speaker 1: and there ought to be a prosecution of any person,
Speaker 1: man or woman who approaches any candidate or anybody else
Speaker 1: and says, unless you pay me money, I'm going to
Speaker 1: reveal a sex act that occurred. That is absolute classic extortion.
Speaker 1: And it's shocking that the Special Council looking into this,
Speaker 1: who has a broad mandate, he described it very broadly,
Speaker 1: isn't looking into the extortion to these payments had to
Speaker 1: be reported. They had to be reported after the election.
Speaker 1: The reporting time was after the election, so it couldn't
Speaker 1: have impacted the election. So the absurd notion that he
Speaker 1: won the presidency by fraud and should be stripped of
Speaker 1: the pregnancy reflects incredible ignorance about the timing here and
Speaker 1: how these statutes operate. This is a guy who's just
Speaker 1: speaking about the law, and look, I'm on some huge
Speaker 1: dursh Fano. We got into a throwdown once on CNN
Speaker 1: about gun control. I like the Durst. When he's right
Speaker 1: and he's on the law and on criminal justice, he's
Speaker 1: at least knowledgeable and honest about the law. There's so
Speaker 1: few voices these days. I mean, people just don't throw
Speaker 1: all of their principles out there, through all of their expertise,
Speaker 1: on a bonfire in order to tell the Libs and
Speaker 1: the left and the media what they want to hear
Speaker 1: on this stuff, which is the Trump is a criminal.
Speaker 1: How is it someone explaining that Stormy Daniels did not
Speaker 1: commit extortion. I've been wondering about this, and I didn't
Speaker 1: go to law school, but it seems like extortion to me,
Speaker 1: you know. David Letterman for those of you were David
Speaker 1: Letterman fans, which if you were, we got to have
Speaker 1: a talk. But you know, David Letterman was having an affairs.
Speaker 1: All came out, you know, with a much much younger woman,
Speaker 1: the whole thing. I mean, you know, these people, a
Speaker 1: lot of these big celebrity types are pretty disgusting. But
Speaker 1: he's got this affair with a younger woman and he
Speaker 1: the husband finds out and the husband, I forget the
Speaker 1: specifics of it, but the husband basically says, you know,
Speaker 1: I've got this screenplay. I want you to buy it
Speaker 1: for me for ten million dollars, which nobody gets a screenplay.
Speaker 1: This is absurd, right, ten million dollars and it's about
Speaker 1: a famous comedian on Late I TV. He's having a
Speaker 1: fair with one of his staffers. That guy, by the way,
Speaker 1: went to prison, prison for years. How is that different
Speaker 1: from what Stormy Daniels and Avanadi Because she hired a
Speaker 1: lawyer to create this this this veneer, this facade of
Speaker 1: a legal proceeding, and Stormy Daniels is treated with with
Speaker 1: all this you know respect by the media. I mean,
Speaker 1: let me just say that, to have intimate relations with
Speaker 1: somebody and then use that and look, there's a whole
Speaker 1: we're assuming that Trump had the relations and you know,
Speaker 1: there's a whole bunch of steps that we're going but
Speaker 1: to have it's in relation to somebody and then use
Speaker 1: that for personal financial gain and the threat of ruining somebody,
Speaker 1: I mean, it is It is disgusting. It's a disgusting
Speaker 1: thing to do to anybody. It's a it's a horror.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a horrifyingly you know, I imagine
Speaker 1: if of a man, you know, taped a woman in
Speaker 1: some kind of a sex act and then threatened, threatened
Speaker 1: to release it unless she gave him money, that guy
Speaker 1: would go to prison, and rightfully so and he should.
Speaker 1: Right But Stormy Daniel says, I'll tell everybody about our
Speaker 1: sexual affair unless you pay me X dollars. How is
Speaker 1: that not criminal? And as Dershwood, he's a criminal defense
Speaker 1: attorney for decade, He's saying, look, it's a crime. Have
Speaker 1: they even looked into this? Have they even looked into
Speaker 1: who leaked Flynn's phone conversation with ambassador kids are the act?
Speaker 1: It's amazing the only crimes they care about involve Trump
Speaker 1: associates and ways of trying to make it seem like
Speaker 1: Trump had something to do with them. Those the only
Speaker 1: crimes they care about. These people are destroying the criminal
Speaker 1: justice system. If we had any sense of equal justice,
Speaker 1: everything called me's done would, in fact, from the standpoint
Speaker 1: of Mueller, would have called me right now lined up
Speaker 1: for a whole series of felony charges. But it tells
Speaker 1: you what a one sided political witch hunt Mueller's engaged in,
Speaker 1: that all of these things go on and somehow it
Speaker 1: never quite becomes important. But going after General Flynn after
Speaker 1: his thirty five years of risking his life for America,
Speaker 1: that's okay, even though nothing Flynn has been accused of
Speaker 1: is comparable to what coming now has admitted. Any great
Speaker 1: minds think alike Newt and Buck linked up on this one.
Speaker 1: I mean producer Mike always, you know, producer Mike knows
Speaker 1: where my head's out on this stuff, and he's like, hey,
Speaker 1: I think I heard somebody I got a clip. But yeah,
Speaker 1: this is the notion of equal justice is just it's
Speaker 1: a farce. With this whole Muller probe, It's ridiculous. How
Speaker 1: is it possible that given all the people they're interviewing,
Speaker 1: all the stuff, that not a single Democrat of any
Speaker 1: kind yet has been has been prosecuted. You know, a Podesta,
Speaker 1: you know the Podesta group, you know, and nothing, none
Speaker 1: of the anti Trump leaks, felony leaks, you know, they're
Speaker 1: not getting prosecuted. And these people aren't gett prosecutor. It's
Speaker 1: it's only people that are tied to Trump that have
Speaker 1: the the doj I of Surron looking right at them
Speaker 1: all the time. And you know, there's there's just no
Speaker 1: effort to look at what was going on here to
Speaker 1: get this whole thing going. I mean, the dj fought
Speaker 1: to prevent disclosure of the fact that the DNC funded
Speaker 1: the dossier which they used to do the fis of
Speaker 1: warrants and get this whole FBI investigation going. I there
Speaker 1: should be such embarrassment from the so called elites in
Speaker 1: charge of stuff. There should be such a sense of
Speaker 1: letting the American people down and our outrage. It would
Speaker 1: be righteous if directed in the right directions. But it's not.
Speaker 1: We're being told all the time that the real enemy
Speaker 1: is you know, General Flynn for lying, I mean, I
Speaker 1: had I had to correct. I mentioned that easy federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor guy who was on rising. He said General Flynn
Speaker 1: having this, you know, conversation, Like, dude, that the conversation
Speaker 1: was completely fine. There's nothing wrong with the conversation you
Speaker 1: have with Kiselak, And if you wanted to talk about sanctions,
Speaker 1: that's fine too. A man, I'm you know, it really
Speaker 1: just troubles me because what you see is the other
Speaker 1: the other side, the other side has such a will
Speaker 1: to power, has such a desire for crushing their ideological
Speaker 1: enemies that they they're just utterly ruthless. And you know, conservatives,
Speaker 1: we walk around a lot and we're kind of play this,
Speaker 1: you know, who can be who's the purest and the best,
Speaker 1: and who can recite the most of the Constitution from
Speaker 1: memory all the time, and don't always think about, you know,
Speaker 1: who's going to win this brawl that's happening here. And
Speaker 1: we're we're you know, people are getting taken off the
Speaker 1: battlefield by the other side. I mean, we're taking losses here.
Speaker 1: They're going after Trump, they're going after his people. And
Speaker 1: this is not a this is not a fair game
Speaker 1: they're playing. And by the way, speaking of not a
Speaker 1: fair game, I mean there's there's comey out there. I
Speaker 1: one thing that I've taken from this whole debacle of
Speaker 1: the post Trump hysteria that left is engaged is I'm
Speaker 1: glad people will never think of these government bureaucracy directors
Speaker 1: in quite the same way, because you know, when I
Speaker 1: was in the CIA, it was still very much the
Speaker 1: case that we assume enough you were the if you
Speaker 1: were the FBI director, the CIA director, you know, you
Speaker 1: were thought of as somebody of real gravitas, and you
Speaker 1: were a defender of national security. You are a nonpartisan,
Speaker 1: you are a professional. Whether whether this was warranted or not,
Speaker 1: that was really the perception on the outside, and I
Speaker 1: always knew on the inside that that wasn't really the case,
Speaker 1: certainly at the AGE, certainly at the CIA. I mean,
Speaker 1: son looks some directors are more politically minded than others.
Speaker 1: But you know, but even more than that, these people
Speaker 1: are not necessarily in pressI if some of them are
Speaker 1: very impressive, some of them are very unimpressive. It depends
Speaker 1: on who we're talking about. And the fact that Komey
Speaker 1: was the FBI director. I mean, this guy I would
Speaker 1: not trust to teach my kid third grade social studies.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's just not somebody who I would want
Speaker 1: anyone emulating or taking advice from I mean, he is
Speaker 1: so just smart me. I remember, this is a guy
Speaker 1: who sat across from people for decades and you know,
Speaker 1: was he was the deciding voice in a lot of
Speaker 1: instances of memory. He was a US attorney in New
Speaker 1: York State. He was the one that wanted to go
Speaker 1: after Martha Stewart. It was Komy. He was the one
Speaker 1: that was like, yeah, she's got to go to prison.
Speaker 1: She didn't inside her trade, she didn't do anything wrong,
Speaker 1: but she lied about getting a phone call because she
Speaker 1: was scared, and they decided to send it to prison
Speaker 1: for it. And Nikomi was the one pushing for that. So,
Speaker 1: you know, don't don't let this whole COOMEI the seven
Speaker 1: foot tall boy scout thing fool you. He is very
Speaker 1: and first of all, I think he's very oviously, very ambitious,
Speaker 1: is why he wanted to stay on his FBI director.
Speaker 1: But I think he you know, Coomy's got a senate runner, Yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe even something bigger in his sights. Don't think he doesn't.
Speaker 1: This guy's a megalomaniac pretending to be this humble public servant.
Speaker 1: He's scary. But here's what Nude. Nude has been very
Speaker 1: good on this stuff. Play nine. If Comey had been
Speaker 1: a witness being interviewed by Mueller and he'd had two
Speaker 1: hundred and forty five I can't remembers, I suspect they
Speaker 1: would keep him in there for a thousand hours until
Speaker 1: he finally remembered. This is nonsense. Any person with a
Speaker 1: reasonable sense of judgment knows that they were breaking the
Speaker 1: law for the purpose of trying to defeat Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and then when the Trump won anyway, they went on
Speaker 1: breaking the law, including illegally leaking things. As a historian,
Speaker 1: it's hard to explain how unique it is to have
Speaker 1: the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation this deeply engaged,
Speaker 1: this dishonest, this patently fraudulent. I mean, nobody believes he
Speaker 1: didn't know two hundred and forty five times. And I
Speaker 1: think that it is a really sad commentary on how
Speaker 1: sick the system has gotten. Yep, everything, my friends, when
Speaker 1: it comes to government power, prosecutorial power, law enforcement, police power,
Speaker 1: everything rests on some sense of good faith and judgment.
Speaker 1: Here's here's an example of what I mean. A prosecutor
Speaker 1: can decline charges whenever he or she wants so. In
Speaker 1: a sense prosecutors could I mean, yes, prosecutors can be removed.
Speaker 1: I understand that, but you know, there's nothing to stop
Speaker 1: them from just saying, all right, you know we are
Speaker 1: not going to charge this person just because we really
Speaker 1: don't want to. They can do it prosecutor. Prosecutors have
Speaker 1: a tremendous man discretion police when they show up but
Speaker 1: they see a crime. I mean, police can say yeah,
Speaker 1: I didn't I didn't see you know, I don't think
Speaker 1: we need to make this arrest. They might face consequences
Speaker 1: to that later on, but that's always in the discretion.
Speaker 1: So when people discard all good faith in roles where
Speaker 1: they have government power, the system starts to break down.
Speaker 1: And that's what has happened in an effort to destroy Trump.
Speaker 1: People know they do not act in good faith. The FBI,
Speaker 1: the CIA, there was no good faith in their actions
Speaker 1: with regard to Trump. This was about pursuing an ideological vendetta,
Speaker 1: and they managed so far to largely get away with it.
Speaker 1: Not entirely. There have been some they've taken some losses
Speaker 1: on this by Peter King says the same thing about
Speaker 1: Comey's memory, which I read this transco over the weekend Yeah,
Speaker 1: Apparently all you have to do is just say yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't remember it. If for Komey, that'll fly, that's
Speaker 1: just fine. Play eight. To me, it's hard to believe
Speaker 1: that Jim Comey I would have forgotten all those different details.
Speaker 1: I'm on the Intelligence Committee. Jim called me, testified before
Speaker 1: us any number of times. I never recall him not
Speaker 1: being able to answer a question. Yeah, Komey was very
Speaker 1: shaky on the details on the facts and figures when
Speaker 1: it came time to speak for that on the record
Speaker 1: session with members of Congress last week. Very shaky indeed,
Speaker 1: and I'm jaking on things that are I mean, he
Speaker 1: should be embarrassed by them, except he knows the answers.
Speaker 1: He just wasn't giving the answers because he didn't want to,
Speaker 1: and because he knows that no one's going to press
Speaker 1: charges against the former FBI director who's trying to take
Speaker 1: Trump down for just saying I don't know. As far
Speaker 1: as I recall, that's all I remember. I'm his first
Speaker 1: dispense with a completely illegitimate issue, which is the fantasy
Speaker 1: dreamed up by some conservatives that Google and other online
Speaker 1: platforms have an anti conservative bias, as I've said repeatedly,
Speaker 1: no credible evidence supports this right wing conspiracy theory. I
Speaker 1: have little doubt that my Republican colleagues will spend much
Speaker 1: of that time. There is anything a laundry list of
Speaker 1: anecdotes and that of context statements made by Google employees
Speaker 1: as supposed evidence of anti conservative bias, but none of
Speaker 1: that will actually make it true. Democrats really don't want
Speaker 1: people to catch on to just how biased these social
Speaker 1: media platforms are. There are many reasons for this, but
Speaker 1: you've got a sense of it. Today you have the
Speaker 1: CEO of Google, one of the most powerful cash flow
Speaker 1: positive wealthy corporations in the world, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: is working to create a special censorship friendly Internet for China.
Speaker 1: So you've got Google employees. You don't want to work
Speaker 1: on anything that has a US military application to it,
Speaker 1: you know, I can't have any part of that. They're
Speaker 1: not a bunch of war mongers here for the American
Speaker 1: war machine, but they will work on making sure that
Speaker 1: people in China are remain enslaved by the state, at
Speaker 1: least mentally and intellectually not able to enjoy freedom. Google
Speaker 1: apparently is cool with that. There's a lot of money
Speaker 1: to be made in China, I understand, but you have
Speaker 1: this hearing that on Capitol Hill. I mean, there were
Speaker 1: there were some of the interesting stuff that you'd expect
Speaker 1: where you have members of Congress who kind of sound
Speaker 1: like for those of us who are roughly my age
Speaker 1: or maybe even ten or fifteen years old than me,
Speaker 1: you know, when one of the one of our grandparents
Speaker 1: back in the nineties should be like, hey do I
Speaker 1: work to VHSH machine? Hey, hey, do I get the
Speaker 1: VCR to rewind? You know? And it was always like
Speaker 1: the VCR was this really difficult thing that we had
Speaker 1: to help them struggle through, although I will admit that
Speaker 1: there were many times where I could not figure out
Speaker 1: how to get the time, how to get the clock
Speaker 1: to change on the VCR. But you had people today
Speaker 1: who were talking about technology, and these are the individuals
Speaker 1: who write our laws when it comes to technology, right,
Speaker 1: these are the people that we are counting on to
Speaker 1: know something about this. And sure enough, they sound like
Speaker 1: a bunch of people that couldn't even be bothered to
Speaker 1: read through the executive summaries that their taxpayer funded congressional
Speaker 1: staffs put together for them. But anyway, he had Sundar Peach,
Speaker 1: I who is the CEO of Google. Remember Google is
Speaker 1: owned by Alphabet now, so here about Alphabet the company
Speaker 1: as well. But you know, there was a big story.
Speaker 1: You know, you got this guy who's sang, for example,
Speaker 1: that conservatives are gonna that was you know, Nadler, who
Speaker 1: says all kinds of annoying stuff. But they're gonna say that,
Speaker 1: you know, conservatives wine about this. It's not true. Conservatives
Speaker 1: aren't being shout out in Meanwhile, I think it was
Speaker 1: just yesterday that Gavin McGinnis is a guy that I
Speaker 1: did Red Eye with a bunch of times back in
Speaker 1: the day. And look, I'm not going to pretend that
Speaker 1: Gavin is not a provocateur. He certainly is. He's a
Speaker 1: guy who likes to likes to get people a little
Speaker 1: fired up. He understands the effect that he has sometimes
Speaker 1: on conversation. And look, he's actually he's a good writer,
Speaker 1: and he's smart, and he's he's always been very nice
Speaker 1: to me when I've seen him, and I know he
Speaker 1: has this this affiliation of this group which I don't
Speaker 1: know that much about the background of it, to be fair,
Speaker 1: they called the Proud Boys, who turns out are not
Speaker 1: considered an extremist group by the FBI. That was fake news,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't mean they're not acting like a bunch
Speaker 1: of jerks. Again, I don't know much about them. I
Speaker 1: didn't even know there were a thing until a few
Speaker 1: months ago, and they formed I believe in support of
Speaker 1: Gavin McGinnis's ideas. Gavin McGinnis has distanced himself from the
Speaker 1: Proud Boys. You know, I don't. I don't have time
Speaker 1: to follow up on all. You know, go deep into
Speaker 1: all these things all the time. My point, you're just
Speaker 1: being Gavin McGinnis. Yes, he's controversial. He is somebody who
Speaker 1: says things that up. That's the left, and whether you
Speaker 1: like him or not, it should be concerning that he
Speaker 1: gets demonetized because what they're doing is, you know, they
Speaker 1: started out with Alex Jones, who very few people I
Speaker 1: know are willing to defend publicly, and now they've got
Speaker 1: Gavin McInnis, who you know, more people. Look my old
Speaker 1: boss Glenn who is a big free speech proponent, Glenn
Speaker 1: beck As. I understand that Glenn has come out and
Speaker 1: said that this is this is really troubling that, you know,
Speaker 1: Gavin one got fired as part of the new merger
Speaker 1: between Blaze TV or the Blaze Media and CRTV. And
Speaker 1: also now Gavin's kicked off of YouTube and he's been
Speaker 1: he's been banned from numerous platforms. And you know, people
Speaker 1: would say, oh, block this is one case, but yeah,
Speaker 1: where's the equivalent case on the left? Where do we
Speaker 1: have a case of a really prominent democrat who or
Speaker 1: not even that promise, just you know, somebody who's a
Speaker 1: public figure, that's a Democrat who lost their platform, who
Speaker 1: was demonetized or completely booted off of a major social
Speaker 1: media platform. You know, one of the great examples of
Speaker 1: this is look at Lewis Farrakon still on Twitter. Someone
Speaker 1: explained to me, how is it conceivable what Lewis Farrakon
Speaker 1: should still be on Twitter? But you can't have you know,
Speaker 1: you can't have Prager University stay on YouTube without getting
Speaker 1: videos blocked. You can't have prag your university on Facebook
Speaker 1: without getting videos blocked. I need someone to make these
Speaker 1: make these consistently anti conservative tendencies appear like they're not
Speaker 1: somehow intentional. I mean, I've seen it myself with some
Speaker 1: of the way that they treat any organization that is
Speaker 1: supportive of guns or gun rights. You know, that's all
Speaker 1: of a sudden very that that becomes very very testy,
Speaker 1: very difficult that oh, you know, gun rights, how could
Speaker 1: some buddy, Um. You know, the truth is that there's
Speaker 1: a bias because there's tremendous social pressure on these different
Speaker 1: people like preach I I mean these different social media
Speaker 1: you know, important guys who yes, they want these really
Speaker 1: successful companies, but they're so rich and so powerful as
Speaker 1: companies that they think that they're a little bit untouchable,
Speaker 1: meaning that no, you know, nobody can you know, those
Speaker 1: different ways of saying someone's untouchable, right, but meaning that
Speaker 1: nobody can stop them from what they're doing. Really, and
Speaker 1: they get social pressure. I mean people from within their
Speaker 1: social circle are always telling them, you know, you gotta stop.
Speaker 1: There's such there's so much hate. We can't allow hate speech.
Speaker 1: And then you find out, well where are you drawn
Speaker 1: the line on hate speech? And and you know, this
Speaker 1: is where there's also this this legal issue that you know,
Speaker 1: because you get other people that say, oh, it's a
Speaker 1: First Amendment, they can they can do whatever they want. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not true. Government regulates each in a lot of
Speaker 1: different ways. The government's not supposed to regulate content of speech,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't mean that content of speech can't get
Speaker 1: you in trouble in some way. Obviously, you know. I means,
Speaker 1: as James Comey said recently, any conversation could be illegal theoretically.
Speaker 1: And this platform versus publisher distinction meanings that they either
Speaker 1: act as a neutral party in this and they don't
Speaker 1: police content, or if they are policing content, they're publishers,
Speaker 1: and that means they're responsible for whatever goes up on
Speaker 1: their platforms. Big problem. So you gotta keep watching what
Speaker 1: goes on with these execs that go down on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 1: and we gotta keep the pressure on here to stop
Speaker 1: the social media bias. Omaha Steaks is America's original butcher
Speaker 1: since nineteen seventeen. Right now, Omaha Stakes is giving an
Speaker 1: amazing limited time offer to my listeners. When you go
Speaker 1: to Omaha Steaks dot com and entercode buck into search bar,
Speaker 1: you'll get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package.
Speaker 1: It's originally one hundred and ninety five dollars, now only
Speaker 1: forty nine nine. Order now and you'll get four handcut
Speaker 1: top sirloins, two savory premium pork chops, four chicken fried steaks,
Speaker 1: four Omaha Steaks Burgers, four snappy Coobasa sausages, all beef meatballs,
Speaker 1: four perfectly brown potatoes O Greta, four made from scratch
Speaker 1: caramel apple Tartlet's plus get four more burgers free. Omaha
Speaker 1: Steakes is a fifth generation family owned company with over
Speaker 1: one hundred years of experience. Again, get this limited time
Speaker 1: package for only forty nine ninety nine. When you go
Speaker 1: to Omaha Steaks dot com, type Buck in the search
Speaker 1: bar and add the family Gift Package to your card.
Speaker 1: Go to Omaha Steaks dot com type Buck in the
Speaker 1: search bar to send the Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package today.
Speaker 1: In a secret recording case, a federal judge has ruled
Speaker 1: in favor of James O'Keefe and Project Very Toss. This
Speaker 1: is a case with big First Amendment implications. It is
Speaker 1: a win for free speech. It is a win for
Speaker 1: government transparency. Why haven't you heard much about it yet?
Speaker 1: Why isn't it leading some major news broadcasts. Oh, that's
Speaker 1: right because it involved a conservative investigative journalist and his outfit,
Speaker 1: and we know the left can't have that. James o'keith, however,
Speaker 1: is with us now to explain just what's going on.
Speaker 1: He's the founder of Project Veritas. James, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you. Thank you all right, can
Speaker 1: you just give us a little bit of a backstore
Speaker 1: here on this case. It has to do with your
Speaker 1: right as a citizen and as a journalist to surreptitiously
Speaker 1: tape government officials. Right, tell us what's going on here. Well,
Speaker 1: this was a situation where there's twelve states in the
Speaker 1: United States that prohibit two party consent or prohibit recording
Speaker 1: people without their permission. One of those states is Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: That means that if you're recording someone, you need their
Speaker 1: permission to record them. Well, federal judge ruled yesterday this
Speaker 1: is pretty historic, the court said, And we sued the
Speaker 1: state of Massachusetts in federal cord taken us two years.
Speaker 1: But the judge ruled that's secretly recording government officials and
Speaker 1: police officers is a quote, basic vital and wealth sta
Speaker 1: most liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment unquote. And there's
Speaker 1: a forty four page order that this judge had issued.
Speaker 1: And remember this was not The New York Times. It
Speaker 1: wasn't the Washington Post. It was Project and Veritas that
Speaker 1: fought the law. And we have overturned a state law
Speaker 1: prohibiting recording people public officials without their permission. Pretty historic stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, just just so everyone's clear the the position then,
Speaker 1: and you said, there are a number of states where
Speaker 1: this is the case, but the position of the state
Speaker 1: of Massachusetts had been that. Let's say, James, you know,
Speaker 1: I was visiting the O'Keefe residence and things got things
Speaker 1: got a little rowdy, and we're having a party. The
Speaker 1: police show up, and you know, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you think the police are engaging in uh, you know,
Speaker 1: abusive behavior, and you pull out your phone to you know,
Speaker 1: in this in this analogy or in this storyline. I'm
Speaker 1: you know, I'm getting beat up by the cops. You
Speaker 1: pull out your phone, you record this. They could stop
Speaker 1: that and arrest you previously under Massachusetts law. Yes, there
Speaker 1: about eleven I believe eleven previous felony complaints or issues
Speaker 1: brought by the state in the last in recent time,
Speaker 1: so you could go to jail. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: we you know, Project gretas listeners are. I'm sure you're
Speaker 1: aware of what we do. I mean, we're constantly in
Speaker 1: court facing people who try to shut us down, silence
Speaker 1: us with using law fair using the state as a weapon,
Speaker 1: using these lawsuits as a weapons. This is a very
Speaker 1: this is a very significant case because it's never before,
Speaker 1: as far as I know, has a judge ever said
Speaker 1: that recording someone is a fundamental First Amendment right now.
Speaker 1: Other other courts have said that sort of hidden camera technology,
Speaker 1: as long as you're in the room with someone, you
Speaker 1: always have to be next to them when you're recording them,
Speaker 1: but you could always write down what they say, and
Speaker 1: you could always you know, they say the hidden cameras
Speaker 1: the extension of a pencil or it's the same thing
Speaker 1: as remembering what they say. So this judgment is I
Speaker 1: think it allows us to go to some of these
Speaker 1: other states like any California, Pennsylvania, which make it a
Speaker 1: crime to record people in thirty eight states, in the
Speaker 1: District of Columbius Legal and New York it's legal, but
Speaker 1: a lot of these other places it isn't. So this
Speaker 1: is a pretty huge, huge victory for the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: And to your point, you would think that these journalists
Speaker 1: would be shouting from the rooftops about how great this is.
Speaker 1: But I think they're a little contemptuous of the fact
Speaker 1: that I James o'keeith, was the one to achieve this judgment.
Speaker 1: Is there are there any of the major networks that
Speaker 1: have reached out on this one specifically James. I mean,
Speaker 1: our people are are people from any part of the
Speaker 1: of the media spectrum saying hey, you had a boy, No,
Speaker 1: because their hatred for me and Project burtas outweighs whatever
Speaker 1: marginal appreciation they have for the First Amendment. Well, what
Speaker 1: did you? Uh? What was what was the organization? Again?
Speaker 1: That was the Center for Medical Progress? Isn't that right?
Speaker 1: That was exposing planned parenthood and they were sued. Weren't
Speaker 1: they under our some version of surreptitious taping and you know, illegal,
Speaker 1: and they wanted to go after them in California. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm forgetting the details, but I am feeling you're familiar
Speaker 1: with them. Well, it was David Delight and a friend
Speaker 1: of mine. I didn't I've been working with Lylan David
Speaker 1: for some time. That particular investigation. David did California's the
Speaker 1: penal Code, which is Statute six thirty two California Penal
Speaker 1: Code prohibits. It's a misdemeanor to record people without their permission, right,
Speaker 1: But you know, we would make the argument, and I've
Speaker 1: made it before in federal court in California, that the
Speaker 1: recording government officials and people who receive taxpayer dollars, vice
Speaker 1: presidents of planned parenthood is a fundamental constitutional right as
Speaker 1: long as you're with the person. It's not like we're
Speaker 1: bugging people's homes. We're not filling them in their bedrooms.
Speaker 1: We're filling people doing public duties in public. And it's
Speaker 1: a really you know, I think that people think that
Speaker 1: hidden cameras it's unethical. I mean, it's not an invastion
Speaker 1: of privacy. We're not invading these people's privacy. We're simply
Speaker 1: trying to report on what people say and do in public,
Speaker 1: who are public figures. And that's what the federal judge
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts said. He said, the fundamental rights to record someone.
Speaker 1: And the reason why, by the way, Buck, it's so
Speaker 1: fundamental is because the people that I'm dealing with a
Speaker 1: there's so much venality in their behavior that the types
Speaker 1: of people who would say I never said that if
Speaker 1: I just wrote down what they said, they would call
Speaker 1: me a liar. So it's doubly important that we have
Speaker 1: the right to capture what people tell us in these investigations.
Speaker 1: Otherwise we're giving the culprits a way out. We're allowing
Speaker 1: them to say I never said that, when indeed they did.
Speaker 1: And this is not about journalism. Ethics are privacy Because
Speaker 1: the media loved it. When that guy Sterling who owned
Speaker 1: the basketball team, remember him, the guy in California was
Speaker 1: recorded on his bed by his lover, No one cared
Speaker 1: about privacy, even though was recorded on a bedroom they
Speaker 1: were laying in bed together. So this is not about
Speaker 1: ethics or privacy. But this is really about is it's
Speaker 1: about power. People don't want these people recorded. They don't
Speaker 1: want the government corruption exposed. That's what this is, in
Speaker 1: the final analysis, really about. And just just one more
Speaker 1: for you, James. The Time magazine cover going to journalists,
Speaker 1: what was your what was your take on this? Oh?
Speaker 1: This is the person of Yeah. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: at this point it's become a mockery. It's become a sham.
Speaker 1: I don't. I think the only people that take it
Speaker 1: seriously are journalists themselves. Journalists are so full of hubrious
Speaker 1: they're so they have no introspection. They're so it's gone
Speaker 1: so to their heads. And I know this because I'm
Speaker 1: I'm fighting in the trenches every day doing my work,
Speaker 1: getting attacked and maligned by them. I just think that
Speaker 1: they live in their own little bubble and and they're
Speaker 1: they're holding onto whatever last legacy they have. Time Magazine
Speaker 1: is a shell of its former self and it's become
Speaker 1: a mockery. But they all talk to each other on
Speaker 1: Twitter with their blue check marks, and they make them
Speaker 1: feel good about themselves. But I think it's it's it's stupid.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's kind of irrelevant. And the only
Speaker 1: people who care our journalists. I know you can't tell
Speaker 1: us what at least ahead of time, but can you
Speaker 1: give us a time frame or when is the next
Speaker 1: project very toss bombshell going to drop? Well, we had
Speaker 1: a huge fall as you you know, we did seven
Speaker 1: or eight different states and senators lying in deep state.
Speaker 1: I think a big theme right now is Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: with Google and Facebook and Twitter. We did a Twitter
Speaker 1: expose a year ago showing them engineers admitting to shadow banning.
Speaker 1: I think that's going to be a big theme over
Speaker 1: the next you know mcch happening today with the Google
Speaker 1: CEO being being cross examined in Congress. So that's one
Speaker 1: major theme. I can't even talk about it. What I
Speaker 1: can do on your show here is if you, if
Speaker 1: you see something, say something. If you're an insider, let's
Speaker 1: pull a reverse George Orwell on these guys and let's
Speaker 1: let's let's have them fear us. And if you're and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that you need to go public, but
Speaker 1: I'm saying, send us a message of Project veritas dot com,
Speaker 1: go to our website. I'll meet we could confidentially become
Speaker 1: a source for us, because that's how we produce a
Speaker 1: lot of these stories, as we have insiders come to
Speaker 1: us with information and we corroborate it. So I would
Speaker 1: say Silicon Valley is a big one coming up. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: It's one that I try to cover a lot here
Speaker 1: on the show because this is this is the new
Speaker 1: mainstream media dominance, and people need to understand that it
Speaker 1: comes from Silicon Valley, not from the news networks. James o'keith,
Speaker 1: everybody project very tassed. You can get a project verytass
Speaker 1: dot com. As he mentioned, James, I appreciate your work
Speaker 1: and your time. Man, thanks for calling in. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, team, we have more coming up here. I'm
Speaker 1: going to talk to you about Netflix shows in just
Speaker 1: a little bit. But now you've probably heard of snippy
Speaker 1: dot com. It's a new social media site. Well, if
Speaker 1: you've looked at snippy dot com and left, you need
Speaker 1: to look again. Thousands of my listeners have joined snippy
Speaker 1: dot com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring up
Speaker 1: lively conversations. Snipy is an unbiased social media plat form.
Speaker 1: It's all about conversation and community, and Snippy not only
Speaker 1: encourages freedom of expression, it guarantees its users the ability
Speaker 1: to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com is a place where everyone is free to express
Speaker 1: their thoughts and share their opinions. It is totally free
Speaker 1: to join and open to everyone. So join us at
Speaker 1: snippy dot com and let your opinion matter. No shadow
Speaker 1: banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever. All right,
Speaker 1: you need to check this out. They've got every you
Speaker 1: can need, politics, sports, current events, fashion, food, whatever you
Speaker 1: want to talk about. And now snappy dot com has
Speaker 1: an updated user interface and exciting new features, also available
Speaker 1: in the Apple App Store and now available for Android.
Speaker 1: Snippy is your new alternative social media. There's a petition
Speaker 1: on campus to remove the name of Clarence Thomas Spring
Speaker 1: Courts Justice from a building here. What's your thought on
Speaker 1: the petition? I honestly think he should be removed. We
Speaker 1: should probably just take his name off the building. It's
Speaker 1: not that big of a deal. I agree that should
Speaker 1: get removed. What's your thought on the petition? I agree,
Speaker 1: I don't think he represents the student body. I would
Speaker 1: sign it. Um. I think I'll probably sign the petition.
Speaker 1: And is there anything that you would point to as
Speaker 1: something that he's done that would warrant that? Oh? No, Um,
Speaker 1: do you mind if I get back to you. Is
Speaker 1: there anything that comes to mind that he's done that
Speaker 1: you would point to as something that you think disqualifies him.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I've done most much research on this.
Speaker 1: I just saw a Facebook petition about it, and that's
Speaker 1: kind of the extent of it. He is a historical figure, though,
Speaker 1: so is Hitler. Okay, is there anything that Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: has done that you would point to and say that's
Speaker 1: why we shouldn't have him I mean not in particular.
Speaker 1: I think, I guess just well, I don't know what
Speaker 1: he did. I mean, I don't really know anything about him.
Speaker 1: I don't really know that. Yes, that look, this is
Speaker 1: such a liberal community, and um to degrade that in
Speaker 1: any way is not really the scat way for things
Speaker 1: and isn't the liberal viewpoint though, like open mindedness and tolerance. Guess,
Speaker 1: but I think that's this way to twist the concept
Speaker 1: of liberalism. So all right, that's that's all from Campus Reform.
Speaker 1: That's Cabot Phillips, the interviewer doing campus reform does. Will
Speaker 1: just point out how wacko looney tunes like the various
Speaker 1: college campuses across the country are when it comes to
Speaker 1: professor's student body, all these different people, and how they
Speaker 1: have taken this incredibly left wing point of view that
Speaker 1: was from the Savannah College of Art and Design. That's
Speaker 1: that's what scatt is. I gotta say, I'm a big
Speaker 1: Savannah fan. You know, Nine Line Apparel and and Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee both have stores in Savannah. So I've been
Speaker 1: down there to visit and hang out with all those guys.
Speaker 1: And Savannah's a great, great town to see for a weekend.
Speaker 1: I really enjoy it anyway back to campus or form
Speaker 1: what they're doing here. I understand that there's a part
Speaker 1: of me that always feels this way too. And they
Speaker 1: used to do these segments on on my favorite cable
Speaker 1: news channel where they would ask people on the beach,
Speaker 1: you know who's like the first president that I'll go, oh, dude,
Speaker 1: like auto knows like Abraham Lincoln the first president. And
Speaker 1: we're all like, oh, you're such an iom. You know.
Speaker 1: That's that's the whole that's the whole stick, you know,
Speaker 1: go around and ask people. You know, so, what do
Speaker 1: we celebrated on the fourth of July? Are we celebrating
Speaker 1: how we should be thankful for things? To be like? Yeah,
Speaker 1: for the July is about giving thanks man, like, I'm
Speaker 1: thankful for being out here on the beach. Would zinc
Speaker 1: oxide on my nose? Uh? You know. So there's a
Speaker 1: limited there's a limited utility. It's one way to put
Speaker 1: it for those kinds of segments as a means of
Speaker 1: illuminating anything worthwhile other than just for our own amusement.
Speaker 1: I don't think the com many shows do this too.
Speaker 1: They do the man on the street stuff and they
Speaker 1: ask questions. And one of the one of the most
Speaker 1: common bits is when they'll ask people to weigh in
Speaker 1: on an event that hasn't happened yet or hasn't happened
Speaker 1: at all, but they know what they're supposed to say.
Speaker 1: And this is a kind of variation on that in
Speaker 1: a sense, because you can tell from from these different students,
Speaker 1: many of them. You would think that students in college
Speaker 1: would probably have some grasp of who is sitting Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices. But I've heard the statistics. I can't cite
Speaker 1: them from memory of how many people in this country
Speaker 1: can actually name all nine Supreme Court justices without looking
Speaker 1: it up. And it's a very very small number, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a less than one percent kind of number.
Speaker 1: But that said, Clarence Thomas is very well known, and
Speaker 1: he's somebody that they're saying that they should remove his
Speaker 1: name from a building, or that he shouldn't have his
Speaker 1: name on a building, and they don't know why I
Speaker 1: And so the the initial level of reaction you get
Speaker 1: to this this kind of a man on the street,
Speaker 1: of a man on the street sounds sounds so gender normative.
Speaker 1: The man on the street interview is these kids don't
Speaker 1: know anything and they're just a bunch of liberals living
Speaker 1: in a cocoon. And then that's all, sure, that's all
Speaker 1: fine and true due to an extent. But what's what
Speaker 1: I find really interested is how conservatism needs to understand
Speaker 1: that for liberals, it's enough just that they have the
Speaker 1: impulse to say and feel the way the left wants
Speaker 1: them to. Liberals don't really care. And you know, so
Speaker 1: this is this is a little bit of a counterintuitive taker,
Speaker 1: but liberals don't really care when you walk around the
Speaker 1: campus and people say, oh, I don't like Clarence Thomas. Why,
Speaker 1: oh I don't know, I don't even know who he is.
Speaker 1: I just well, all liberals care about is do they
Speaker 1: know they're not supposed to like him? And do they
Speaker 1: know that they should oppose him and everything that he
Speaker 1: stands for every facet of their lives. So if it
Speaker 1: if the outcome is what the left wants, they don't
Speaker 1: care about the process. If the process is knowledge or
Speaker 1: if it's related to having knowledge, here that's really irrelevant
Speaker 1: to the left. In fact, I think the left prefers
Speaker 1: that they see on campuses young people who will who
Speaker 1: are already able to vote and who will soon be
Speaker 1: out in their adult lives as yeah, working in companies
Speaker 1: and working you know, at businesses and stuff, but also
Speaker 1: as activists, and if they're really far left, as MSNBC
Speaker 1: anchors and so, you know, they just want the end
Speaker 1: product to be that you you know what the the
Speaker 1: cultural expectation of you is as a liberal. You know,
Speaker 1: so when when I ask and another great example this
Speaker 1: is climate change. When I ask somebody do you believe
Speaker 1: in climate change? It is really a cultural signaling. If
Speaker 1: I ask somebody that, as a liberal, I'm expecting them
Speaker 1: to just say yes and leave it there. And then
Speaker 1: it's it's almost like they've gotten the other part of
Speaker 1: a secret handshake, right Clarence Thomas another one, you know,
Speaker 1: do you believe in? Do you believe there should be
Speaker 1: dark money in politics? Nobody knows what does that even mean?
Speaker 1: People to talk about it, don't know what it means.
Speaker 1: But you know, then they'll say, oh no, well, well,
Speaker 1: as a liberally, I don't want you know, do you
Speaker 1: want do you want to get the money out of politics?
Speaker 1: There's a phrase you'll hear Liberals say it's an idiotic phrase,
Speaker 1: but they'll say it all the time, and they just know, well,
Speaker 1: as a liberal, I'm supposed to, you know, like a
Speaker 1: hamster hitting a pedal to get the treat I'm supposed
Speaker 1: to do this, I'm supposed to say this, And that
Speaker 1: is the approach on a lot of these issues. And
Speaker 1: because they've created the social currency on pretty much all
Speaker 1: college campuses. I mean, I know there's a few conservative
Speaker 1: campuses across the country and people I have friends who
Speaker 1: have attended them, and I know they exist, but ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of college campuses are overwhelmingly, i mean just
Speaker 1: liberal dominated enclaves. And so you know, when when you
Speaker 1: look at the when you look at what's happening on
Speaker 1: these campuses and the way kids respond to a question
Speaker 1: like what do you think of Clarence Thomas, and they
Speaker 1: all say, or overwhelmingly they'll say, you know, he's bad.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't have him here because we're tolerant. That's all
Speaker 1: the left wants. They view that as victory. They don't
Speaker 1: they don't care that people can get to the why,
Speaker 1: because if they can get to the why on that issue,
Speaker 1: they can get to the why on other issues. So
Speaker 1: understand that we have a problem here. We are losing,
Speaker 1: We are losing people in this ongoing battle for having
Speaker 1: people think about there, especially you know, young people, college kids,
Speaker 1: have them think about why they hold the ideas they do.
Speaker 1: The left just wants to process them in an almost
Speaker 1: machine like way to respond to certain things the way
Speaker 1: the left tells them to. I believe in climate I
Speaker 1: don't like conservatives. I don't like Justice Thomas. I don't
Speaker 1: like Justice Scalia or his legacy. You know, you get
Speaker 1: on the whole list. Think of all the issues that
Speaker 1: the left can encapsulate down to a very very small phrase, slogan,
Speaker 1: even a couple of words. That's what they're doing. They're
Speaker 1: trying to mobilize people for their own cause, and the
Speaker 1: way they get them to do it is by perpetuating
Speaker 1: the perception that by holding these beliefs, you're one of
Speaker 1: the good people, the cool people, the smart people. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I get it. We can make fun of these kids
Speaker 1: on campuses and they don't know anything in hahaha, But
Speaker 1: these know nothings are going to be voters soon. They're
Speaker 1: going to be people that are supporting the left irrespective
Speaker 1: of their lack of knowledge. So we have to combat
Speaker 1: this by making people more knowledgeable on campuses some very
Speaker 1: important news that I wanted to share with you all
Speaker 1: the official statistics. I shouldn't do that because now you're
Speaker 1: actually expecting something important. This isn't portant at all, some
Speaker 1: official statistics when it comes to Netflix shows, as in
Speaker 1: what are the top shows on Netflix? See one thing
Speaker 1: I do like about the digital era we are in now,
Speaker 1: apart from all the big brother surveillance and the tech
Speaker 1: platforms acting like left wing propaganda platforms, and you know,
Speaker 1: apart from all that, at least there's real there's real numbers,
Speaker 1: meaning that you know, you know who's downloading, you know
Speaker 1: who's watching, and you don't have to play this guessing
Speaker 1: game anymore. I'm amazed at how shall we say, easy,
Speaker 1: too easy to fudge. The numbers are for traditional TV,
Speaker 1: for example, for radio, for different media platforms out there,
Speaker 1: and I think that there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: played a lot of games over the years. But with
Speaker 1: digital stuff, you can know. And so that's why you
Speaker 1: got the top ten Netflix series by stream as of November,
Speaker 1: the end of November twenty eighteen, and this is remarkable. Uh, Brandon,
Speaker 1: what do you think is the number one most streamed
Speaker 1: show on Netflix? Here's a hint. It is not a
Speaker 1: new show or even a recent show. I feel like
Speaker 1: I saw the article or do you want me to
Speaker 1: lie to you? And then damn it, man, you've already
Speaker 1: seen this one. Where's producer Mike. I think he's going
Speaker 1: through his Friends DVDs because he doesn't have it on
Speaker 1: Netflix by right as a Friends? Oh no, you're wrong,
Speaker 1: Oh because I read the article about them spending one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars. Are high falutin fancy, man, you call
Speaker 1: me right now. You're you're actually you're you're very close. Uh?
Speaker 1: Friends is number three? All right? I think it's I
Speaker 1: think it's remarkable that even that Netflix is spending billions
Speaker 1: of dollars on content, billions of dollars. A show about
Speaker 1: people in their twenties dating and not doing a lot
Speaker 1: of work and hang out in a coffee shop from
Speaker 1: the nineties is the number three most stream show on Netflix.
Speaker 1: But You're Okay the number one show, though, is also
Speaker 1: it's not quite as old as Friends, it is not
Speaker 1: on air. What is the most stream show on Netflix? Dj? Brandon?
Speaker 1: Is it like breaking bad or something that's not a bad? Guess,
Speaker 1: I gotta gave you credit for you know least least
Speaker 1: making it making a go of it. It's the Office
Speaker 1: the most, which I like. I completely respect this decision
Speaker 1: that the public has made, I think because the thing
Speaker 1: what the Office is that it's in short chunks. The writing,
Speaker 1: especially for the first five or six seasons, the writing
Speaker 1: is just hilarious and brilliant and you can watch You
Speaker 1: know the problem I have with movies now, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you're the same thing. I never have over
Speaker 1: two hours to sit in one place and watch something,
Speaker 1: and I don't like watching a movie and not finishing it.
Speaker 1: So I'm just much more likely to watch a show.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, before I go to sleep. But I'm
Speaker 1: done with all my work. Do I have thirty minutes
Speaker 1: to watch an episode of the Office or any show
Speaker 1: for that matter that I want? Yeah? I do. So
Speaker 1: That's why I think the on demand and streaming habits
Speaker 1: of people are changing to accommodate that. I mean, dude, Brendan,
Speaker 1: what was the last the last time you watched a
Speaker 1: full two hour length movie that you had never seen before?
Speaker 1: I think yesterday. We've been We've discussed before. I'm a
Speaker 1: horror weirdo, so I watched a lot of horror stuff.
Speaker 1: But other than that, I mean, I've never seen Lord
Speaker 1: of the Rings, but see you don't You wouldn't rather
Speaker 1: watch American horror story in thirty second chunks than watch
Speaker 1: a full two hour long movie. Yeah, no, I would.
Speaker 1: I know it's commitment and I'm not going to say
Speaker 1: I always sit down and to do it. I'm usually
Speaker 1: maybe doing something. Are you a fan of the Strain?
Speaker 1: Speaking of horror, I actually like that on Hulu even
Speaker 1: though there was there was some there was some, you know,
Speaker 1: criticisms of it that I would offer. But did you
Speaker 1: like the Strain? Haven't seen it yet? But you should
Speaker 1: watch Into the Dark. It's a new monthly series on
Speaker 1: Hulu that's every month is a different horror about the holiday,
Speaker 1: like Thanksgiving, Halloween, Christmas. And it's good. Yeah, only three
Speaker 1: episodes in only an hour, I guess only now, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll check it out. So the Office Spell the Way
Speaker 1: on Netflix number one most stream show. The Chilling Adventures
Speaker 1: of Sabrina is number two. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: that means or is. It's a more adult version of
Speaker 1: Sabrina the Teenage which based on the comics. However, and
Speaker 1: I will say this to you buck, Are you serious? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And I watched it because again, horror, even if it's
Speaker 1: four kids, they push real left on that show about
Speaker 1: certain topics even though it's about you know, which horror
Speaker 1: has to be commie now. I mean, you know they
Speaker 1: can't Ark and Harror story the same thing. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: saw that. There's a whole abortion storyline the first season
Speaker 1: and the whole thing. Grey's Anatomy is number four. House
Speaker 1: of Cards number five, the British The Great British Baking
Speaker 1: Shows number six, Who Knew? Marvel's Daredevil number seven, and
Speaker 1: Narcos number eight. I think Narcos should be way. I
Speaker 1: think Narcos is one of the best shows ever. I
Speaker 1: put in the top ten, and they just canceled Daredevil,
Speaker 1: which I'm upset about. I'm upset about that too. I
Speaker 1: actually like Dared a lot. And The Haunting of Hillhouse
Speaker 1: is number nine, which I find bizarre because I don't
Speaker 1: think that's a good shown. It's just me. It was, man, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was kind of man. I'm glad it. See you've
Speaker 1: got the horror expert here, DJ Brandon. He knows it
Speaker 1: wasn't really that good, So folks, I hope I saved
Speaker 1: you some time. The Office and Friends are worth having
Speaker 1: on in the background, but Narcos and Daredevil you have
Speaker 1: not seen them. Highly recommend roll calls up next. The
Speaker 1: show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call, indeed,
Speaker 1: roll call from the Swamp. It is time to get
Speaker 1: into all of the latest insights, thoughts, quips, analytic additions,
Speaker 1: keeping me honest, all that good stuff that comes to
Speaker 1: us courtesy of roll call. And man, it's just so nice.
Speaker 1: This was the first morning in a week I've woken
Speaker 1: up and not felt like I had some weird foreign
Speaker 1: objects stuck in the glands around my throat. So you know,
Speaker 1: life is good. Life is good. The Holidays coming up.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a good week on Radio two, folks,
Speaker 1: John writes Buck the Christmas tree was chosen based on
Speaker 1: the size of the chimney. After it dried out, it
Speaker 1: was removed from the home trunk first. To clean the
Speaker 1: chimney with its dead branches, you dropped a chain tied
Speaker 1: to a rope. Just so you know, John, I have
Speaker 1: never heard this before, and my thought was that, based
Speaker 1: on what I had been told before and what I've read,
Speaker 1: that the Christmas tree is a tradition that we borrowed
Speaker 1: from pagan rituals in Europe, where there would be either
Speaker 1: a burning of what a coniferous tree, the fir tree
Speaker 1: that the Christmas tree actually is. So I've never heard
Speaker 1: this theory before that that's used to clean the chimney.
Speaker 1: But it is definitely interesting to me that that is
Speaker 1: a theory that you have raised. So I'll I'll take
Speaker 1: your word for it, pending further review. Sounds a little
Speaker 1: weird to me, but interesting for sure. Mike. Right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: you're talking about the Stormy Daniels payoff. What about the
Speaker 1: seventeen million dollars Congress has paid out for sexual conduct payoffs. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, Mike, what we have here with the Cohen
Speaker 1: payoff situation is, once again we're being told, as we've
Speaker 1: been told all along in the Russia Collusion Special Council probe, right,
Speaker 1: the investigating of the investigation of Donald Trump, which is
Speaker 1: what this is. This is the investigation of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: by his political enemies. That's what's going on. And the
Speaker 1: people who have been telling us that this is all
Speaker 1: about getting to the truth, getting to justice are also
Speaker 1: the ones who are now telling us that we need
Speaker 1: to understand that the crimes that are being uncovered don't
Speaker 1: deal with bad conduct or even necessarily criminal conduct. The
Speaker 1: crimes are in the process of how non criminal conduct
Speaker 1: is hand. Let me give it a little bit of
Speaker 1: a deeper details here on this one. For example, lying
Speaker 1: is the most obvious case we have where they're lying
Speaker 1: not about conduct that was criminal, to protect themselves. But
Speaker 1: we are supposed to believe that it's just a coincidence
Speaker 1: that these individuals who are put through the hellish, emotionally
Speaker 1: and financially draining experience of having to face the special counsel,
Speaker 1: that they're lying for no apparent reason. They're just lying
Speaker 1: because they're liars and lying is bad. And so that
Speaker 1: process crime gets wedged into all of this, and we
Speaker 1: don't have much further in terms of explanation. Okay, so
Speaker 1: that's one part of this. And then on the Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniel's payoff, we're supposed to be so outraged because this payoff,
Speaker 1: which was a completely legal payoff to make, was not
Speaker 1: reported to election authorities properly. Well, I gotta tell you something.
Speaker 1: The notion that election authorities are somehow these virtuous and
Speaker 1: why institutions, these these bodies that look at our election
Speaker 1: and it's you know, this is crazy. What I mean
Speaker 1: is that they can change the election law with a
Speaker 1: simple Act of Congress whenever they feel like, any time
Speaker 1: they feel like, because there's no underlying moral distinction that's
Speaker 1: being made here, right, they're not saying this is the
Speaker 1: this is the mallem in say versus maem mallem prohibitum
Speaker 1: distinction them we talk about here on the show. Mallem
Speaker 1: in say is don't kill people. You don't need the
Speaker 1: law to tell you don't kill people. And even if
Speaker 1: you didn't know there was a law that says don't
Speaker 1: kill people, I could morally and with clarity, reason you
Speaker 1: through why you don't just kill people? Or don't steal?
Speaker 1: Why should you not steal? We could? Why should you
Speaker 1: have to only be able to give, you know, twenty
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars to a political candidate because Congress says,
Speaker 1: so that's malim prohibitim. There's an arbitrariness to it and
Speaker 1: a lack of moral foundation in the rule that we
Speaker 1: are essentially trusting in this case the system and the
Speaker 1: elites who run it to make good decisions about where
Speaker 1: they're drawing the lines. But on election stuff, this is
Speaker 1: about as hazy and gray area and overly complicated as
Speaker 1: any area of law can get. And it's really just
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe it's bad because they say so.
Speaker 1: You know, what you have not seen in the investigation
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump and his associates is any talk of
Speaker 1: or I shouldn't say any talk any proof of There's
Speaker 1: lots of talk of it of what would be a
Speaker 1: crime that is truly appalling, a crime for which anybody
Speaker 1: would demand there is punishment and that that's what justice requires.
Speaker 1: You know. There's nothing about about stealing from people, about
Speaker 1: attacking people, about hurting people, about you know, it's always
Speaker 1: this stuff about how if you know Trump didn't report
Speaker 1: this properly, or you know, maybe he's hiding his taxes.
Speaker 1: You know, it's paperwork crimes. They're going after Trump on
Speaker 1: paperwork crimes primarily. And you know people would say, oh,
Speaker 1: buck well, paperwork crime could be stealing somebody's house. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I mean the crime is just the paperwork's not
Speaker 1: done properly. Where the crime is that the testimony was
Speaker 1: not given accurately. But there's no underlying crimes. And I
Speaker 1: know this is getting kind of philosophical about what does
Speaker 1: the law really prohibit? In what is the law? But
Speaker 1: I think that's where we are now because as we
Speaker 1: saw with Hillary, and it's not a what about is
Speaker 1: if it's true she broke laws, but they told us
Speaker 1: that was okay. They found they found a rationalization for
Speaker 1: Hillary breaking the laws okay. And with Trump they're trying
Speaker 1: to find a rationalization for how he did break the laws.
Speaker 1: That's what we're seeing play out in real time, and
Speaker 1: that's why people like me, I'm so little f that
Speaker 1: this has been a fair process and will continue to
Speaker 1: be and I'm sure it will continue to be an
Speaker 1: unfair process. Rito Rites, welcome back. Glad your voice box
Speaker 1: didn't crap out. You're absolutely right, sank Toakomy is exactly
Speaker 1: the term for his insufferable self. Does he truly think
Speaker 1: we don't know what he did? Or is he delusional?
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter, it's maddening. Merry Christmas. All my people are
Speaker 1: getting black Rifle coffee. We'll really thank you so much,
Speaker 1: and remember Black Riflecoffee dot com. Slash Buck make sure
Speaker 1: that that's where you go so that they know that
Speaker 1: you're part of Team Buck and the show gets credit,
Speaker 1: but you know you'll get a good discount. And I
Speaker 1: really do. I have coffee around stacked up next to
Speaker 1: my desk, and I think Black Rifle does a great job.
Speaker 1: And the guys who run the company or they're just
Speaker 1: they're they're great dudes and dudets, they're ladies worked there
Speaker 1: two So definitely check it out. And as for Sanktakomy, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Sanctakomey is somebody who should give us all a little
Speaker 1: bit of Paul when we think about how the government functions,
Speaker 1: who's in charge of it. And this is why this
Speaker 1: takes us really the roots of our conservatism. In many ways,
Speaker 1: we understand that individuals, that human beings, are driven by
Speaker 1: a whole range of emotions and feelings and beliefs and
Speaker 1: self interest. And so that's why we have limitations on
Speaker 1: government authority. That's why we want checks and balances. That's
Speaker 1: why we have so many clearly spelled out processes in
Speaker 1: place that are meant to protect you, the individual. It's
Speaker 1: not really about protecting the Government's about protecting you the individual,
Speaker 1: from the government, because historically we know that tyranny comes
Speaker 1: from governments that are unrestrained and that are not rooted
Speaker 1: in a respect for and a protection of natural law,
Speaker 1: so philosophical there too. Dale. Hey, Buck, glad your voice
Speaker 1: is back at I'm currently reading The Charm School by
Speaker 1: Nelson Demill, which is a Cold War era novel that
Speaker 1: takes place in the Soviet Union, involves army intelligence and
Speaker 1: the CIA. I know this as well before your time
Speaker 1: the agency, but I was curious if you've previously read
Speaker 1: the book and your thoughts aren't I if so, Shields
Speaker 1: High Dale, Dale, I've never read any of Demill's books.
Speaker 1: I will tell you that, I gotta be honest, never
Speaker 1: read anything Demill is written, so I really can't. I
Speaker 1: just know the name, but I really can't speak at
Speaker 1: all to his writing in general or in specific terms,
Speaker 1: so I'm sure it's great. I haven't read that much
Speaker 1: in the way of espionage thrillers. I tended to read
Speaker 1: more books about the history of intelligence and intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: so I'm not really your go to for espionage thriller
Speaker 1: book recommendations. Richard writes, Buck, could you ask this snippy
Speaker 1: dot com people to simplify their site? Seems like advanced
Speaker 1: trigonometry trying to post and like and add followers. Richard
Speaker 1: I will pass along your comment to the folks that
Speaker 1: I know to deal with customer service there, and just
Speaker 1: understand that it's a new it's a new social media site,
Speaker 1: and that means that they're gonna look, they're gonna be
Speaker 1: working out some things as they go, but unlike a
Speaker 1: lot of the other sites out there, they're not engaged
Speaker 1: in the shenanigans. And look, it's important that we as
Speaker 1: conservatives send a message to these social media really monopolies,
Speaker 1: I mean, these social media juggernauts and let them know
Speaker 1: that there will be consequences for their continued clear politicization,
Speaker 1: because that's what they're doing. They are politicizing social media
Speaker 1: in general. I mean they're politicizing the social media platforms
Speaker 1: in a way that are meant to help the left.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's what's going on. That's what we're
Speaker 1: seeing happening, and I just think we should all be
Speaker 1: very very clear about that. We have next up here
Speaker 1: rights Tia. Tia says, Hey, again, I've never seen Titanic.
Speaker 1: I've watched a documentary about the Titanic and that had
Speaker 1: me sobbing. I didn't dare watch the movie. Well, I
Speaker 1: guess you're one of the very very few is not
Speaker 1: seeing Titanic. But you're not missing much because I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure you know how it ends. All right, team, we
Speaker 1: got a fantastic show already in the works for you tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Please do tell some folks about this podcast. Remember, if
Speaker 1: you're ever out out of radio station range, you can,
Speaker 1: or you just don't have the time to listen live,
Speaker 1: you can listen to this pot and listen to the
Speaker 1: show in full on podcasts absolutely anytime you want. Just
Speaker 1: go on iTunes, you go on the iHeart app and
Speaker 1: listen to the Buck Saxon Show at your leisure on demand.
Speaker 1: It's a great way to do it. And with that
Speaker 1: until tomorrow, Shields High Oma Stakes are fantastic and right
Speaker 1: now Omaha Stakes is giving an amazing limited time off
Speaker 1: to my listeners. When you get to Omaha Steaks dot
Speaker 1: com and enter promo code Buck into the search bar,
Speaker 1: you will get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family
Speaker 1: Gift Package originally one hundred and ninety five dollars, now
Speaker 1: only forty nine ninety nine. Order now and you'll get
Speaker 1: four can cut age to Tendators, Top Surloins, two Savory
Speaker 1: Premium Port jobs, four Chicken fried stakes, four Omaha Steaks burgers,
Speaker 1: four snappy Cobasta sausages, all beef meatballs, and four perfectly
Speaker 1: brown potatoes. Oh Granta, Plus, you'll get four more burgers
Speaker 1: free and four perfectly brown potatoes. Oh grattaw you throw
Speaker 1: that all the mix. It's delicious. Omah Steaks is a
Speaker 1: fifth generation family owned company with over one hundred years
Speaker 1: of experience delivering perfectly aged beef handcut by master Butcher's
Speaker 1: in Omaha. Omaha Steaks dot com tight buck in the
Speaker 1: search bar and add the family Gift Package to your card.
Speaker 1: Omaha Steakes dot com tight buck in the search bar
Speaker 1: to send the Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package today