Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump's victory lap
Speaker 1: continues while Democrats are licking their wounds over Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: But are we going to have the reckoning that we should?
Speaker 1: Will we get the answers about this attempted coup and
Speaker 1: whole people responsible? Plus jose Smollett walks free. You have
Speaker 1: got to be kidding me. We'll break down the latest
Speaker 1: from this hoaxter coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America, You're a great American Again, The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, it's
Speaker 1: lasted a long time. We're glad it's over. It's a
Speaker 1: one hundred percent the way it should have been. I
Speaker 1: wish you could have gone a lot sooner, a lot quicker.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people out there that have
Speaker 1: done some very very evil things, very bad things, I
Speaker 1: would say, treasonous things against our country. And hopefully that
Speaker 1: people that have done such harm to our country we've
Speaker 1: gone through a period of really bad things happening, those
Speaker 1: people will certainly be looked at. I've been looking at
Speaker 1: them for a long time, and I'm saying, why haven't
Speaker 1: they been looked at? They lied to Congress, many of them.
Speaker 1: You know who they are. They've done so many evil things.
Speaker 1: I will tell you, I love this country. I love
Speaker 1: this country as much as I can love anything. My family,
Speaker 1: my country, my God. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: President Trump with a little bit of righteous indignation there
Speaker 1: after the ordeal he was put through for the last
Speaker 1: two years by power mad and crazed Democrats, a media
Speaker 1: apparatus that just covered itself in dishonor. And now we
Speaker 1: should be finding out whether there's going to be consequences
Speaker 1: for all of this. Now we have to start getting answers.
Speaker 1: Of course, that Democrats are running around acting like they're
Speaker 1: the ones that are the truth seekers here, that they're
Speaker 1: the ones that are trying to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of it. We all know that that's nonsense, that's not true.
Speaker 1: But Jerry Nadler, for example, in the Congress, he's still
Speaker 1: stick into the script play four. The Attorney General's comments
Speaker 1: make it clear that Congress must step into get the
Speaker 1: truth and provide full transparency to the American people. The
Speaker 1: President has not been exonerated by the Special Council, Yet
Speaker 1: the Attorney General has decided not to go further or
Speaker 1: apparently to share those findings with the public. Park We
Speaker 1: cannot simply rely on what may be a hasty partisan
Speaker 1: interpretation of the facts. Earlier this month, the House passed
Speaker 1: the resolution calling for a full and complete release of
Speaker 1: the Special Council's report by voted four hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: to nothing. We now call on the Attorney General to
Speaker 1: under that request, to release the report and the underlying evidence,
Speaker 1: and to appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer our
Speaker 1: questions without delay. So let's just be clear about this.
Speaker 1: The idea that it was a hasty letter from Barr,
Speaker 1: this was an initial complaint that you heard from Democrats,
Speaker 1: and it's not true. Barr knew about Mueller's findings three
Speaker 1: weeks ago and has spent the last three weeks going
Speaker 1: over the report in detail, going over all the information,
Speaker 1: and Rosenstein, who was there for the entirety of the
Speaker 1: Special Council overseeing it, signed off. So that was just
Speaker 1: a talking point that was necessary for them as there
Speaker 1: were grambling for as the Democrats were scrambling for something.
Speaker 1: That was what they did. That was the talking point
Speaker 1: that they put forward. It wasn't true at all, but
Speaker 1: they don't really care much about that. They just wanted
Speaker 1: to buy themselves some time. You look at the biggest
Speaker 1: contributors to this hoax, hosts at CNN and MSNBC, the
Speaker 1: newsroom of The New York Times, the Washington Post, congressman
Speaker 1: like Swalwell Schiff, Mark Warder of Virginia astonishingly irresponsible on
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion issue. Will any of them face any consequences?
Speaker 1: Kelly and Conway White House Senior counselor. She says, well,
Speaker 1: you know how I got an idea. How about someone
Speaker 1: actually resigned for being such a bunch of big, fat
Speaker 1: dumb liars. Play six grab Adam Schiff. He believed that
Speaker 1: the scandals of a size in a scope, probably bigger
Speaker 1: than Wardergate, and that there's plenty of evidence collusion. He
Speaker 1: had to resign today. He's been on every TV show
Speaker 1: fifty times a day for act to the last two years,
Speaker 1: promising Americans that this president would either be impeached or indicted.
Speaker 1: I promise you. Unfortunately, none of the Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to resign. In fact, I bet that they have become
Speaker 1: more well known, are more liked in their districts because
Speaker 1: they're in Democrat far left Democrat districts, and they have
Speaker 1: great contacts now on cable news, and this was all
Speaker 1: a win for them. Let's not make any mistake about it.
Speaker 1: For most members of the media and most Democrats in Congress,
Speaker 1: who went at the President hard on this even though
Speaker 1: their liars, even though they were wrong, they benefited and
Speaker 1: will continue to benefit. The only way that doesn't happen
Speaker 1: is if Republicans decide to fight back, to investigate the investigators,
Speaker 1: to demand accountability for what was done here. Devin Newness
Speaker 1: certainly understands the stakes, what's involved, and that there needs
Speaker 1: to be a house cleaning of deep staters at places
Speaker 1: like dj and the FBI who had a hand in
Speaker 1: all of this. Play Three, Let's not forget it is
Speaker 1: likely that this investigation started in late twenty fifteen, but
Speaker 1: for sure by early twenty sixteen by Clinton operatives and
Speaker 1: likely people at the highest levels of the FBI and
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. Let that sink in a second, our
Speaker 1: counterintelligence capabilities in this country were turned against a political party.
Speaker 1: The American people should be ticked at this, and thank
Speaker 1: god we finally have an Attorney General, We finally have
Speaker 1: the grown ups back in charge to get the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice back on its feet and clean out these
Speaker 1: dirty cops. Either there's going to be justice served on
Speaker 1: the people who perpetuated this hope for three and a
Speaker 1: half four years, or if there's not, you are going
Speaker 1: to have generation of Republicans and conservatives in this country
Speaker 1: who will not trust the Department of Justice or the FBI.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's basically the choice. Why would anyone who's
Speaker 1: paying attention trust the Department of Justice or the FBI
Speaker 1: on politically sensitive investigations At this point, how can we
Speaker 1: think that there's going to be equal justice for Republicans
Speaker 1: and for Democrats. Look at just the conduct of the
Speaker 1: investigators during the Hillary Clinton email case versus what the
Speaker 1: Special Council the Muller Probe did. There was an obvious
Speaker 1: effort to try and get as rack up as many
Speaker 1: process crimes, as many prosecutions as possible of anybody associated
Speaker 1: with Trump, and there was clearly a desire on the
Speaker 1: part of the FBI not only to avoid any prosecution
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton and her top aids for what they did,
Speaker 1: but to make sure that they weren't put under too
Speaker 1: much duress or pressure along the way. We cannot have
Speaker 1: a two tiered justice system in this country for Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans. We cannot have a separation of justice expected
Speaker 1: for those on the left and those are on the right.
Speaker 1: But that is increasingly what we are faced with. If
Speaker 1: people of goodwill and good faith lose their trust in
Speaker 1: the DOJ, in the FBI, we are heading down a
Speaker 1: very dark path because the real threat of authoritarianism isn't
Speaker 1: from some external invading force. It comes from within. The
Speaker 1: real threat to your liberties and your way of life
Speaker 1: is from within this country. It's not external, it's not
Speaker 1: going to be external anytime soon. But when you have
Speaker 1: one political party that thinks that it should be able
Speaker 1: to use the prosecutor's powers and use the investigative authorities
Speaker 1: of the federal government to go after their political enemies
Speaker 1: in pure revenge seeking, which is all this whole thing was.
Speaker 1: Hilary should have won, not Trump, anything to destroy Trump.
Speaker 1: That's what was motivating this, and people bought into it.
Speaker 1: It was a mass hysteria. They lost their bearings, you
Speaker 1: could say they lost their marbles. Perhaps they haven't learned
Speaker 1: a lesson at all. Some are doubling down, some are
Speaker 1: pretending like it didn't happen. Very few are showing any
Speaker 1: contrition whatsoever. And that's just a reminder that if they
Speaker 1: can do this again, my friends, if they can create
Speaker 1: some story, create some massive scandal that benefits them politically,
Speaker 1: even if it's all based on lies, they'll do it,
Speaker 1: and they won't think twice about it. They have not
Speaker 1: changed their approach. I think it's very important that we
Speaker 1: all recognize that there is the only thing that Democrats
Speaker 1: are sad about this week is that their coup failed.
Speaker 1: The loss of face, the loss of integrity, the loss
Speaker 1: of decency, all that stuff. They just view that as
Speaker 1: the cost of doing business. Their true believers, Trump is
Speaker 1: a threat not just to the policies they like, but
Speaker 1: the way they see themselves, their view of themselves in
Speaker 1: the world around them. That is something they cannot abide.
Speaker 1: That is something they will not accept. And they view
Speaker 1: the only reasonable approach to Trump as the completely unreasonable
Speaker 1: desire to weaponize apparatuses of the federal government that once,
Speaker 1: you know, once you turn that on, once you flip
Speaker 1: that switch, you can't go back. You know, once turns
Speaker 1: into a game of political gotcha at the FBI and
Speaker 1: the dj Where does that stop? But you just think
Speaker 1: back to what they've tried with all these other Republicans.
Speaker 1: This was a long time in coming, the nightmare that
Speaker 1: they put Donald Trump and his family and his White
Speaker 1: House and his supporters through for the last two years.
Speaker 1: This is just a continuation what's already there. The Trump
Speaker 1: up charges against Rick Perry in Texas. Remember, oh, they're
Speaker 1: gonna bring felony charges against Rick Perry. The John Doe investigations,
Speaker 1: all an effort to take down Scott Walker and Wisconsin
Speaker 1: by a left wing powermad prosecutor, trying to take down
Speaker 1: Chris Christie for Bridgegate, trying to not just send away
Speaker 1: Bob McDonald Virginia for I think it was eleven years,
Speaker 1: but his wife for accepting gifts. She wasn't even a
Speaker 1: public official. Supreme Court had to strike it down, say
Speaker 1: what are you doing? The wife isn't in a corrupt
Speaker 1: public official. You're gonna send her to jail too. Disgusting.
Speaker 1: All of these politically motivated now Ted Stevens federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: hid exculpatory evidence so that Senator Ted Stevens would lose
Speaker 1: a Senate seat that, by the way, it was necessary
Speaker 1: for the passage of Obamacare. This is how they've been
Speaker 1: playing the game for years. It's just now they did
Speaker 1: it all in against Trump and they failed. God bless
Speaker 1: this president for his endurance. I have to tell you,
Speaker 1: if it's amazing what he is dealing with, what he's
Speaker 1: been put through, he is. He almost has superhuman powers
Speaker 1: of endurance and and just psychological grit to go through
Speaker 1: all this. And people were wildly reporting on how his
Speaker 1: son was going to go to prison, maybe Ivanka was
Speaker 1: going to go to prison, gleefully reporting on that. I
Speaker 1: will tell you this, we will not forget. I will
Speaker 1: not forget, and you will not forget. We are in
Speaker 1: an ideological war with the Democrat Party and with the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. They do not play by any rules. They
Speaker 1: do not seek good faith, they do not seek converts.
Speaker 1: They do not want agreement, They just want submission. I
Speaker 1: say no, and I say we should fight back to
Speaker 1: the Jose Smalltt situation is jaw dropping right now. I
Speaker 1: will give you the details of it when we come back.
Speaker 1: First of all, I want to thank my family, my friends,
Speaker 1: the incredible people of Chicago and all over the country
Speaker 1: and the world, who have prayed for me, who have
Speaker 1: supported me, who have shown me so much love. No
Speaker 1: one will ever know how much that has meant to me,
Speaker 1: and I will forever be grateful. I want you to
Speaker 1: know that, not for a moment was it in vain.
Speaker 1: I've been truthful and consistent on every every single level
Speaker 1: since day one. I would not be my mother's son
Speaker 1: if I was capable of one drop of what I've
Speaker 1: been accused of. This has been an incredibly difficult time,
Speaker 1: honestly one of the worst of my entire life. But
Speaker 1: I'm a man of faith, and I'm a man that
Speaker 1: has knowledge of my history, and I would not bring
Speaker 1: my family, our lives, or the movement through a fire
Speaker 1: like this. I just wouldn't. So I want to thank
Speaker 1: my legal counsel from the bottom of my heart, and
Speaker 1: I would also like to thank the State of Illinois
Speaker 1: for attempting to do what's right now. I'd like nothing more. Okay,
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't take it. I can't take it anymore.
Speaker 1: I can't take anymore. All right, So here's what happened.
Speaker 1: I mean, Jesse Smalltt is a pathological liar. Start with that.
Speaker 1: He is now claiming some kind of vindication because the
Speaker 1: state's attorney, in a move that has everybody furious, pulled
Speaker 1: all of the felony charges against him and let him walk.
Speaker 1: Not only did these states attorn he decided to pull
Speaker 1: the felony charge, did not inform a Chicago PD beforehand,
Speaker 1: didn't while they had their induction ceremony for new recruits
Speaker 1: going on, so that they wouldn't be able to quickly
Speaker 1: respond or know what's happening. And the judge in the
Speaker 1: case immediately sealed it, sealed all evidence. He will never
Speaker 1: get to see what the evidence was. They are keeping
Speaker 1: the bond that he paid I think it was ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars and made some weird comment about how he
Speaker 1: has to do. He's going to do more community service.
Speaker 1: They said, he's not vindicated by this. You know, they're
Speaker 1: not exonerating him. I mean, they made that clear. But
Speaker 1: this is the double standard of justice, my friends. This
Speaker 1: guy could not be more obviously guilty. If there is
Speaker 1: such a thing as filing a false report, Jesse Smollett
Speaker 1: is guilty of it. He wasted countless man hours, lots
Speaker 1: of Chicago PD resources, a city with a major homicide problem,
Speaker 1: all as part of this vanity Mimi Me project. He
Speaker 1: defamed Trump supporters all across the country. And he will
Speaker 1: not be held to account at all. Why because the
Speaker 1: prosecutors friends with him, likes him, thinks he's suffered enough. This,
Speaker 1: my friend, starts to get very close to what you
Speaker 1: could call political nullification, whereby if someone is a really
Speaker 1: important Democrat, oh you mean, like Hillary Clinton, he or
Speaker 1: she just will not face the full brunt of the
Speaker 1: justice system. In fact, in this case, will not face
Speaker 1: anything from the justice system. This is an abject, grotesque
Speaker 1: failure of the Chicago or in this case, the Northern
Speaker 1: District of Illinois State's Attorney's office, or I guess now
Speaker 1: that's the federal attorney whatever the point is, it's it's
Speaker 1: the state's attorney for Illinois, and it's an embarrassment. What's
Speaker 1: amazing to me that there's some lib journals or see
Speaker 1: Jusse's innocent because they dropped the charges. Are those people morons?
Speaker 1: They probably think OJ's innocent too. They dropped the charges
Speaker 1: against Jesse because they think that he wasn't going to
Speaker 1: get that much time. This is what one of the
Speaker 1: lawyers involved said, and they seal the whole thing up
Speaker 1: and try to make it go away, and they're just
Speaker 1: hoping to ride out the news cycle. Now some people
Speaker 1: are pretty pretty upset about this. Thankfully, Chicago Police Department
Speaker 1: Superintendent Eddie Johnson played twenty three. I'm sorry twenty five.
Speaker 1: But again, at the end of the day, this mister
Speaker 1: Smilett who committed this, this this hoax period, if he
Speaker 1: wanted to clear his name, the way to do that
Speaker 1: was in a court of law so that everyone could
Speaker 1: see the evidence. You all know what the bond, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we all we all know, we all know. Yeah, so look,
Speaker 1: it's still a hoax. We were right, But we're also
Speaker 1: right that there's a two tiered justice system. One four
Speaker 1: protected left wing Democrats and one for everybody else. Jesse
Speaker 1: Smollett protected. You know, it's got connections into the Obama's
Speaker 1: got connections to the Democrat Party. They like Jesse, so
Speaker 1: he doesn't get in trouble for this whole thing. But
Speaker 1: just there, here's the real intelligence test. Anyone who looks
Speaker 1: at what happened today and thinks that maybe Jesse was
Speaker 1: actually telling the truth, given that we have his co
Speaker 1: conspirators on video and their confessions and the check. That
Speaker 1: person is not smart. So just remember that it's a
Speaker 1: great intelligence test. Anyone who doesn't think that Jesse committed
Speaker 1: a hoax is not very bright. We'll be right back,
Speaker 1: but I do think we will see Small get back
Speaker 1: to work because the narrative is once again changed from victim,
Speaker 1: you know, to villain back to victim. It's been very confusing.
Speaker 1: As Ryan was saying, people don't know what to believe
Speaker 1: and we may never really know what happened on the
Speaker 1: street that night in Chicago. But for his fans, for
Speaker 1: his friends, this is a triumphant moment that he can
Speaker 1: now get back to what he wants to do. It
Speaker 1: does work. This is why people hate the media because
Speaker 1: the people like Brade Celter like us back to victims.
Speaker 1: Fat Brian, are you a complete imbeciles? It's a fair
Speaker 1: question to ask. No one thinks, not even the people
Speaker 1: that drop the charges against him, think that he is
Speaker 1: even a little bit not guilty. Forget about innocent. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is as open and shut a case. They have
Speaker 1: video of the two guys who attacked him buying the
Speaker 1: stuff they attacked him with. There's a check that he
Speaker 1: wrote to them for the attack. I mean He said
Speaker 1: that there were two white Maga hat wearing supporters who yelled,
Speaker 1: this is Maga country. And now we're to believe that
Speaker 1: the Nigerian, the two Nigerian brothers who are clearly not white,
Speaker 1: just attacked him on the street. And it was freezing
Speaker 1: late at night in Chicago. What and he didn't know
Speaker 1: right away that it was them. Think about that for
Speaker 1: a moment. He didn't know that there was these guys
Speaker 1: that attacked him. Why would they attack him? What I mean,
Speaker 1: it's you don't even want to go through the analysis
Speaker 1: here because it's so stupid. And anyone who believes that
Speaker 1: Jesse Smalling. I had some guy today it's coming after
Speaker 1: me on Twitter who claims to be an innocence expert
Speaker 1: for people that are wrongfully convicted. And he's, oh, you
Speaker 1: don't know what you're talking about. I said, is this
Speaker 1: a hoax or not? Just answer the question. The guy
Speaker 1: would ask the question, Okay, is this a hoax? Or
Speaker 1: I know a lot about this? I have a JD. Okay,
Speaker 1: is this a hoax or not? Because if you think
Speaker 1: this is not a hoax, you're not very smart. It
Speaker 1: could not be more obvious this is a hoax there
Speaker 1: were lib journals for a moment today who once again
Speaker 1: the theme they never learn the lesson, they never figure
Speaker 1: out why they were wrong. They don't care why they
Speaker 1: were wrong because they think they were wrong for the
Speaker 1: right reasons. But there were lived journals today who were
Speaker 1: celebrating this like this is a victory for those who
Speaker 1: believe Jesse all along. So they were wrong in the beginning.
Speaker 1: We all know that they're wrong, and now they're going
Speaker 1: to be wrong on this issue again. They're that dense,
Speaker 1: I will say, it raises some serious questions about you know,
Speaker 1: does the profession of journalism just need not only more
Speaker 1: ethical but just smarter people. Does it just need more
Speaker 1: intelligent people. Thankfully, there were some out there who weren't
Speaker 1: going to have any of this nonsense not on their watch.
Speaker 1: Chicago PDE Superintendent Eddie Johnson, who has seemed like a
Speaker 1: total professional this whole time. Here's what he said about
Speaker 1: the decision to withdraw all charges while the pd is
Speaker 1: having its new recruits ceremony, sealing the evidence so that
Speaker 1: nobody can see what the evidence was. Judge doing it
Speaker 1: right away. I mean, this is as clear of a whitewash,
Speaker 1: cover up, set up as you could ever see in
Speaker 1: a court. It is a complete slap in the face
Speaker 1: to the justice system. And here's what Eddie Johnson had
Speaker 1: to say about a play twenty three. I'm sure we
Speaker 1: all know what occurred this morning. My personal fan is
Speaker 1: that you all know where I stand on this. Do
Speaker 1: I think justice will serve? No? Where do I think
Speaker 1: justice is? I think this city is still old. An apology,
Speaker 1: and let me digress for a moment. When I came
Speaker 1: on this job, I've been a cotton now for about
Speaker 1: thirty one years. When I came on this job, I
Speaker 1: came on with my honor, my integrity, and my reputation.
Speaker 1: If someone accused me of doing anything that will circumvent
Speaker 1: that that, I would want my damn corse to clear
Speaker 1: my name. That's now not what Jesse Smaller is doing.
Speaker 1: He's he's running around claiming that he has been telling
Speaker 1: the truth all along. Jesse Smollett is a shockingly, disgustingly
Speaker 1: dishonest person, and yet he now has supporters. I see
Speaker 1: that they're they're saying that his career is going to
Speaker 1: be on the rebound. And that's right. He was. He's family,
Speaker 1: friends with, or close to a very senior Obama White
Speaker 1: House official, and apparently in Chicago, that's all you need
Speaker 1: to get the very very special treatment. I mean, this
Speaker 1: isn't this isn't getting the benefit of the doubt. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is like royal family level stuff. This is crazy.
Speaker 1: This is an embarrassment to the justice system, and the
Speaker 1: fact that this state's attorney would do this just goes
Speaker 1: to show you how corrupt and political the Democrat Chicago
Speaker 1: machine really is. Although ram Emanuel, because he's on the
Speaker 1: way out, so you got to remember that Ram Emanuel
Speaker 1: is packing up his office like I think this week.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's basically out of there. He did have
Speaker 1: some decent words to sam this play. Twenty six. Did
Speaker 1: this all in the name of self promotion, and he
Speaker 1: used the laws of the hate crime legislation that all
Speaker 1: of us collectively over years it put on the books
Speaker 1: to stand up to be the values that embody what
Speaker 1: we believe. This is a whitewash of justice. A grand
Speaker 1: jury could not have been clearer. You cannot have because
Speaker 1: of a person's position, one set of rules apply to
Speaker 1: them and another set of rules apply to everybody else.
Speaker 1: In another way, you're seeing this play out in the
Speaker 1: universities where people pay extra to get their kids a
Speaker 1: special position universities. And now you have a person, because
Speaker 1: of their position and background who's getting treated in a
Speaker 1: way that nobody else would ever get close to. This
Speaker 1: type of treatment. This is with altidout a white watch
Speaker 1: of justice and sends a clear message that if you're
Speaker 1: in a position of influence and power, you'll get treated
Speaker 1: one way, how the people will be treated another way.
Speaker 1: It's not just that's Smalltt, you see. Ram Emanuel gets
Speaker 1: some of it right here, but he leaves out some
Speaker 1: important details. Where does Smalllett derive his power from. Yes, connections,
Speaker 1: connections to people like the White House Obama staffer that
Speaker 1: they mentioned, White House advisor staff or whatever she was.
Speaker 1: That certainly helps. But Smaller is also a double protected minority.
Speaker 1: He is African American, and he is openly gay. He's
Speaker 1: remember of the LGBTQ community. And so the Democrats, because
Speaker 1: of their intersectional politics, believe that he is inherently oppressed,
Speaker 1: that he is inherently victimized, and they will added to
Speaker 1: his fame, celebrity, and connections. Putting all that together, he
Speaker 1: is almost invulnerable. Folks. There's very little that they would
Speaker 1: not go to bat for Jesse Smollett over because he
Speaker 1: fits into categories that the left elevates and that the
Speaker 1: left protects. You add a little bit of celebrity and
Speaker 1: money into that situation and you have this and absolute debacle.
Speaker 1: But the good news is you and I both know
Speaker 1: this guy could not have been more guilty. He's in
Speaker 1: moron and he's a disgrace. So there's that. It's still
Speaker 1: a hoax and we were right, but the system is
Speaker 1: even grosser than we thought. Court case out of the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit that probably won't hear about elsewhere, but I
Speaker 1: want to tell you a little bit because it shows
Speaker 1: you once again what we're dealing with here with the
Speaker 1: open borders judiciary. Which court, which court circuits that you
Speaker 1: know which one? The Ninth Circuit, the libmaniac central of
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit. They decided that Kate Steinley's family was
Speaker 1: not able to sue the city of San Francisco because
Speaker 1: San Francisco was playing host to a seven five times
Speaker 1: deported convicted felon Garcia Jose Garcia Zarate. On July first,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, Kate Steinley was murder She was with her
Speaker 1: father on a peer in San Francisco on an otherwise
Speaker 1: beautiful day, she was hit by a bullet from a
Speaker 1: forty caliber handgun that Zarat picked up and fired, he
Speaker 1: claims accidentally. He was deported five times and was released
Speaker 1: from jail a couple of months before the incident, released
Speaker 1: from jail despite the fact that there was any detained
Speaker 1: a request for him. But you know what San Francisco did.
Speaker 1: They chose not to inform Immigrations and Customs enforcement. So
Speaker 1: the City of San Francisco just says that they're not
Speaker 1: going to comply with requests from the federal government, that
Speaker 1: law enforcement in San Francisco does not have to assist
Speaker 1: or help federal law enforcement. And what they are doing
Speaker 1: in this process is aiding a bet, aiding and a
Speaker 1: betting a convicted felon illegal alien. That's what the City
Speaker 1: of San Francisco, by official policy does, and it gets worse.
Speaker 1: You know, in December of twenty seventeen, a jury in
Speaker 1: San Francisco, which is just the craziest politics of any
Speaker 1: place in the country, second only to or rather DC,
Speaker 1: is second only to San Francisco in terms of political affiliation.
Speaker 1: So remember that the swamp is full of libmaniacs. But
Speaker 1: a San Francisco jury acquitted Zarate of all murder charges,
Speaker 1: including man slaughter. So the federal government, Ah, maybe the
Speaker 1: federal government will swoop in on these smalllett thing I think.
Speaker 1: I think that's very unlikely, but they can sometimes, and
Speaker 1: they do. The federal government swoop in and charge him
Speaker 1: with possession of a firearm and assault the deadly weapon
Speaker 1: and involuntary manslaughter. This reminds me of that case I
Speaker 1: told you about where the federal US attorney in Philadelphia
Speaker 1: decided that the three years sentence that a armed robber
Speaker 1: god for almost shooting off the leg of an Asian
Speaker 1: American immigrant small business owner in front of his wife
Speaker 1: and children when he's trying to rob him was not enough,
Speaker 1: So the Feds had to step in because justice. Well,
Speaker 1: here the Feds once again had to step in because
Speaker 1: a San Francisco jury did not think that Kate Steinley's
Speaker 1: family deserve justice. Why I leave to you, I can't
Speaker 1: imagine being on that jury and thinking that. But what
Speaker 1: we have now is a federal judge saying that no,
Speaker 1: you cannot sue. You cannot sue the city of San Francisco,
Speaker 1: even though even though they engaged in what many would call,
Speaker 1: you know, an illegal policy that led directly to the
Speaker 1: murder of Kate Steinley. I mean, if they had told
Speaker 1: Ice that they had this person in their custody, Ice
Speaker 1: wanted him and wanted to deport him. So why didn't
Speaker 1: they act, Well, because they don't have a problem with
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, because they do not agree with the federal
Speaker 1: law that says that illegal aliens should not be in
Speaker 1: this country. And now you have courts, federal courts that
Speaker 1: give special rights to illegals, you know, illegals now who
Speaker 1: are supposed to have no right under any normal understanding
Speaker 1: of the law, and no right to challenge different aspects
Speaker 1: of federal government policy visa either status. They get all
Speaker 1: kinds of due process now, you know, legal aliens are
Speaker 1: under the left wing interpretation of a law. Illegal aliens
Speaker 1: are able to challenge their right to enter the United States,
Speaker 1: to even be in this country that anyone anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world can say, no, no, I want to up
Speaker 1: here in a US court because I think I have
Speaker 1: a right to be in America. You know, this is
Speaker 1: this is the claim they find that's there's no standing.
Speaker 1: Oh no, your daughter was killed by an illegal in
Speaker 1: San Francisco, and San Francisco won't assist federal law enforcement.
Speaker 1: That's that's not a liability claim. When you look at
Speaker 1: the way that the courts are treating illegal aliens, it's
Speaker 1: very clear that there are enough courts that really believe
Speaker 1: that they're on a mission, and the mission is to
Speaker 1: allow as many illegals as possible to get into this
Speaker 1: country and stay for good. That is the plan. That's
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do. You know, I spoke to
Speaker 1: former DHS Secretary j Johnson today. You can see the
Speaker 1: interview tomorrow on Hill TV. That's right, an Obama DHS secretary.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you you know, he's also a
Speaker 1: former US attorney and he's a guy who said to me,
Speaker 1: and I think he said this on air too, that
Speaker 1: he owned the issue of the southern border for three years,
Speaker 1: that he was all over and I will tell you this,
Speaker 1: he is not able to answer the questions that I
Speaker 1: have for him on this issue. I mean, when I
Speaker 1: asked him, I had to really push to get an
Speaker 1: answer on should illegals because he kept saying, well, you know, illegals,
Speaker 1: they have a process, they have a process, they get
Speaker 1: more pro So, okay, Well, if the process keeps them
Speaker 1: here for five years and then finally they're denied asylum,
Speaker 1: should they be deported? And at that point he's willing
Speaker 1: to say yeah, I mean sure they should be deported.
Speaker 1: He doesn't mean that he knows they won't be. Everyone
Speaker 1: knows they won't be. Everyone's just being dishonest about this.
Speaker 1: Here's a fun fact. This came up in my conversation
Speaker 1: with mister Johnson, former DHS secretary under the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: obviously a left wing guy. Do you know that when
Speaker 1: an illegal in this country who claims asylum is denied
Speaker 1: asylum in court, then he has an automatic right, doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what said in that court, an automatic right to
Speaker 1: challenge the deportation order that comes from the denial of
Speaker 1: the asylum claim. So you get into this country scott free,
Speaker 1: you get a court date three or four years in
Speaker 1: the future, maybe five, who knows, maybe ten. We don't
Speaker 1: even know how fast they're going to process the almost
Speaker 1: a million cases that are in the backlog right now,
Speaker 1: with one hundred thousand more people coming in a month, folks.
Speaker 1: But even then, when you assuming you show up, which
Speaker 1: very few of them do. For their hearing, they just
Speaker 1: stay in the country. If you show up for your
Speaker 1: asylum hearing and you're told no, they can't just support you.
Speaker 1: Now you get to claim more process, more court time,
Speaker 1: more taxpayer dollars to challenge the deportation order against you
Speaker 1: after your denial of asylum. How long is that going
Speaker 1: to take. This is how they overwhelm and destroy the
Speaker 1: immigration system. This is how they create de facto open borders.
Speaker 1: They are doing it right now. This is happening in
Speaker 1: this country today with President Trump sitting in the Oval Office.
Speaker 1: If we can't win this fight with this president right
Speaker 1: now at our back, we are never going to win
Speaker 1: this fight. And make no mistake about it. If we
Speaker 1: have open borders, we become a different country. The left
Speaker 1: promise to fundamental transformation under the Obama administration. This is
Speaker 1: a way that they can truly achieve fundamental transformation. They're
Speaker 1: not the change the laws. They just have to create
Speaker 1: a reality where the laws are broken in systematic fashion
Speaker 1: when it comes to immigration. I got to talk to
Speaker 1: you about the holding accountable the left on the lies
Speaker 1: about Russia coming up here. I'm not going to let
Speaker 1: this stuff go. I know that there's this some people
Speaker 1: are kind of like, oh, well, you know they were wrong,
Speaker 1: and no, no no, no, I don't want to move on.
Speaker 1: I want to do some donuts in their front yard
Speaker 1: with my four by far. I want to metaphorically curb
Speaker 1: stomp some libs for being wrong on Russia. Let's do
Speaker 1: that together. I'll be right back. Morning Coffee is an
Speaker 1: American institution. That's why when it comes to starting my day,
Speaker 1: I reach for the most American coffee on the market,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle coffee. This is how I get every day started,
Speaker 1: It's how I get my energy going. And it just
Speaker 1: tastes so delicious. Black Rifle coffee should replace whatever other
Speaker 1: coffee you're drinking out there. If you're not already on
Speaker 1: the Black Rifle Coffee Club, I'm telling you you need
Speaker 1: to join. It makes it so easy. They'll ship the
Speaker 1: coffee right to your door, and they'll ship it month
Speaker 1: after month, and you'll be supporting a company that is
Speaker 1: founded by special operations veterans that is really into delicious,
Speaker 1: high quality coffee, and you're just gonna love everything they do,
Speaker 1: the branding, the T shirts, everything, While liberals threatened to
Speaker 1: further tax your hard earned money with their socialism Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee is fueling the fight for freedom by upping
Speaker 1: their offer to twenty percent off your first purchase. Take
Speaker 1: advantage by visiting Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and
Speaker 1: receive twenty percent off your order. Again, that's Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot Com slash buck for twenty percent off Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash Buck. Well, I don't if I've receive benefitation,
Speaker 1: but I think I suspected that there was more than
Speaker 1: there actually was, and I am relieved that there has
Speaker 1: been determined that there was not a criminal conspiracy with
Speaker 1: the Russian government over our election. I think that is
Speaker 1: good news for the country, and so I still point
Speaker 1: to things that were done publicly or efforts to try
Speaker 1: to have conversations with the Russians that were inappropriate. But
Speaker 1: I'm not all that surprised that the high bar of
Speaker 1: criminal conspiracy was not met. I am surprised at that
Speaker 1: second part of the instruction of justice in terms of
Speaker 1: how it came out. Not good enough, former CI director Brennan,
Speaker 1: not even close. I've been saying all week that if
Speaker 1: the intelligence community was a stock, it is plummeting right
Speaker 1: now because the people who run. It don't seem like
Speaker 1: they're very smart or very ethical, at least the ones
Speaker 1: who did under the Obama administration. Oh, and we'll return
Speaker 1: to that in just a moment. That's the former director
Speaker 1: of the Central Intelligence Agency, a place where I once worked,
Speaker 1: a place where I still have many friends, and does
Speaker 1: do some pretty incredible stuff, although a lot less incredible
Speaker 1: stuff than most people think from watching James Bond movies,
Speaker 1: but does do some interesting work and has many, many,
Speaker 1: many good people who work there. We're all embarrassed, and
Speaker 1: all the ones that I know who are realistic about
Speaker 1: the world agree with me that it is embarrassing that
Speaker 1: John Brennan went so off the rails. And he remember,
Speaker 1: he was the one who said that what the president
Speaker 1: did is tantamount to treason, that what the president did is,
Speaker 1: you know, is beyond the pale. And I just have
Speaker 1: to tell you that this is one of these moments
Speaker 1: where we shouldn't allow it to pass without a full
Speaker 1: accounting of what has been done. I don't want to
Speaker 1: let them just skate off, you know, like nothing happened.
Speaker 1: I don't want them to be able to ride off
Speaker 1: into the sunset. Oh it's over now, because I do
Speaker 1: think that their plans of investigation and impeachment, you know,
Speaker 1: they were hoping to have more on the obstruction piece.
Speaker 1: Maybe when the Mueller report is released in a few weeks,
Speaker 1: they're saying, now it's gonna be a few weeks, they'll
Speaker 1: latch onto something and they'll have squalwell and these other
Speaker 1: clowns have a reason to go on TV again because
Speaker 1: they'll say, oh, we need to investigate this. But there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a shockwave that has gone through
Speaker 1: Democrat Democrat circles right now because the Mulla Report so
Speaker 1: clearly is favorable to President Trump, which anybody who was
Speaker 1: paying attention should have known it would be all along.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't know. There was always that possibility, and I
Speaker 1: believe even Giuliani said that there was, you know that
Speaker 1: this was a concern that he had as the president's lawyer.
Speaker 1: There's always that possibility. Could you imagine for a moment
Speaker 1: if Papadopolis, let's say it really had directly engaged with
Speaker 1: a senior FSB agent and had said, Hey, you know
Speaker 1: it would be a great idea. Let's work together. I'll
Speaker 1: find out the email email address that you should go
Speaker 1: for and we'll do a spear fishing hack of the
Speaker 1: DNC servers. And you know, and this is and Papadapa,
Speaker 1: Papadopolis did not do any of this. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: just just take for a moment, you know, this, this theory.
Speaker 1: If he had been part of that conspiracy, even without
Speaker 1: telling Trump or anybody else, they would all have claimed absolute.
Speaker 1: The other side, the anti Trump collusion side, would have
Speaker 1: claimed that they were right all along. There was campaign
Speaker 1: even if he was the lowest level coffee boy, didn't
Speaker 1: matter that there was campaign collusion with the Russians. Here
Speaker 1: it is Trump has to step down. Trump is finished.
Speaker 1: That was really the bar that they set. The bar
Speaker 1: wasn't just Trump giving an order to do this, or Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, through back channel directly communicating with Putin or
Speaker 1: one of his top guys. No, no, no, anybody in
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign working with the Russians to hack the
Speaker 1: DNC server and the Podesta email. That would have been
Speaker 1: sufficient for them to claim that they were right all along.
Speaker 1: And they couldn't even get that, folks, never mind true,
Speaker 1: I mean, we knew Trump didn't do it. I mean
Speaker 1: that everyone knew. Trump knew, and Trump told me collusion.
Speaker 1: Such a stupid idea, and he was right. The President
Speaker 1: told me that is this stupid idea wouldn't even make sense.
Speaker 1: You didn't get it's not gonna work. It's a huge risk.
Speaker 1: You're gonna owe the Russians. Trump knows. You don't want
Speaker 1: to owe the Russians. That's a very bad position. Trump Trump,
Speaker 1: somebody understands leverage. He understands how that game goes. You
Speaker 1: don't want to owe the Russians. I've been talking about
Speaker 1: his patriotism and the ethics and other things that would
Speaker 1: have prevented him because I do believe the President Trump
Speaker 1: loves this country. I really do. I think he loves America.
Speaker 1: I believe that this president loves this country, does not
Speaker 1: look down on it, does not you know, trash talk
Speaker 1: it to make himself feel bigger or better. I think
Speaker 1: he loves this country. But the left obviously thinks that
Speaker 1: he's going to destroy it, and so they were willing
Speaker 1: to destroy anything on the way. Now here's one thing
Speaker 1: that came up, the coup. What really happened here? Who
Speaker 1: was involved in this effort to try and remove the
Speaker 1: President of the United States from office using these mechanisms
Speaker 1: of the federal bureaucracy, the Democrat dominated media. Who was
Speaker 1: really at the center of this? Who was involved? How
Speaker 1: far up the chain? Remember who was in office when
Speaker 1: Trump was running, President Obama. Whose handpicked CIA director was
Speaker 1: it that ran around with these stories of treason and collusion?
Speaker 1: Was President Obama's pick John Brennan. You know who could
Speaker 1: have counted on Sally Yates over DJ to be a
Speaker 1: left wing partisan and do what's right by the Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. It was President Obama whose attorney general would
Speaker 1: have known early on about the Russian intrusion efforts into
Speaker 1: into Facebook. And that's right. It was Lauretta lynch On
Speaker 1: behalf of President Obama. What if this goes further and
Speaker 1: higher than we have been led to believe flayclip thirty.
Speaker 1: I think it was very high up. I think what
Speaker 1: happened is a disgrace. I don't believe our country should
Speaker 1: allow this ever to happen again. This will never happen again.
Speaker 1: We cannot let it ever happen again. It went very
Speaker 1: high up and it started fairly low, but with instructions
Speaker 1: from the high up, this should never happen to a
Speaker 1: president again. We can't allow that to take question. I
Speaker 1: don't want to say that, but I think you know
Speaker 1: the answer. Just to be clear the question there, it's
Speaker 1: a great question from Steve Doocy over at um Fox News.
Speaker 1: Did it reached the west wing of the Obama White House?
Speaker 1: Trump said, I think you know the answer. I don't
Speaker 1: want to answer, but I think you know the answer.
Speaker 1: What happens if and when we find out that President
Speaker 1: Obama was in on this, think about that moment of reckoning.
Speaker 1: Let me back up from that for one second. What
Speaker 1: are the chances that President Obama did not know about
Speaker 1: this theory that Trump in that moment of just absolute
Speaker 1: grinding electoral warfare, the summer of twenty sixteen, the fall
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen. What are the chances Obama didn't know
Speaker 1: about this rumor, this theory, these investigations into Russia, collusion
Speaker 1: and Trump. I think the chances are effectively zero that
Speaker 1: he did not know. It's not conceivable that they did
Speaker 1: not tell President Obama what's going on here. We know
Speaker 1: they didn't tell President Trump that there may have been
Speaker 1: when he was a candidate, Russian efforts to influence the
Speaker 1: campaigns or to contact him. But how much did Obama know?
Speaker 1: You know, the left will fight to prevent that information
Speaker 1: for coming out. They will fight like they are defending
Speaker 1: the Holy Grail. Although, as we know, if liberals were
Speaker 1: exposed to the Holy Grail, it would be like what
Speaker 1: happens at the end of Raiders of a Lost Ark.
Speaker 1: They would not do well. But Obama knew about this, folks.
Speaker 1: This went all the way to the top. This was
Speaker 1: an effort to take down Trump. Did the last president
Speaker 1: have a hand in it? There's a question that I
Speaker 1: want to put forward. There's a question that I want
Speaker 1: an answer to. You're probably familiar with the AARP, right,
Speaker 1: but you know AARP is actually pretty left wing, and
Speaker 1: they fought tooth and nail for a government run healthcare system.
Speaker 1: So if you're a senior out there you're listening to
Speaker 1: the I got an idea, Try the conservative alternative to
Speaker 1: the AARP. That's AMAC, all right. AMAC was founded by
Speaker 1: an Air Force veteran, Dan Webber over a decade ago
Speaker 1: to represent not only conservative views, but policy that's good
Speaker 1: for America. AMAC advocates for border protection, fixing, social security,
Speaker 1: fiscal responsibility, and oh, by the way, when you join AMAC,
Speaker 1: you get discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance, dental plans,
Speaker 1: even sell service options. So put your money where your
Speaker 1: heart is on this one. Stand with AMAC is they
Speaker 1: fight the good fight by becoming a member today, Join
Speaker 1: right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's am
Speaker 1: AC dot us slash buck. Just type that into your browser.
Speaker 1: AMAC dot us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you,
Speaker 1: better for America. Potentially big new questions in the Russia
Speaker 1: investigation and the corresponding lack of answers from the White
Speaker 1: House and any kind of collusion with the Russians. And
Speaker 1: then there's the Russia investigation. We know the Russian were
Speaker 1: involved in interfering with the election. How do you explain
Speaker 1: the metaphord allegations as anything but collusion? And it's on
Speaker 1: the question of collusion, possible collusion with Russia. Fact it's Russia.
Speaker 1: Fact it's Russia. Don Lemon, missieur Don Lemon, he is
Speaker 1: a guy who is on TV. Is he a journalist?
Speaker 1: I don't even think he thinks he's a journalist. What
Speaker 1: exactly does Don Lemon? What would you say you do
Speaker 1: here at CNN Sea is the worst of all of
Speaker 1: all the offenders on the Russia collusion stuff. The worst.
Speaker 1: You know, they they were the most aggressive on it,
Speaker 1: the most relentless. They put all these former national security
Speaker 1: types on TV to say just wildly stupid things. And
Speaker 1: you know, the speculation was reckless, and speculating isn't something
Speaker 1: you can just do and just get away with all
Speaker 1: the time. That's not okay, you know, just because well
Speaker 1: I was just speculating. Man, that's not an acceptable response
Speaker 1: in all situations, at all times. But that's the way
Speaker 1: that CNN approached all this stuff. So now, look, if
Speaker 1: there were a serious enterprise, a serious journalistic venture, now
Speaker 1: would be the time, wouldn't it for them to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: you know what we got two columness. It was kind
Speaker 1: of like the way that we reported on WMD's back
Speaker 1: in the day. We just accepted too many official narratives
Speaker 1: that we were getting, not even official narratives, really former
Speaker 1: official narratives. And you know, we're sorry. That's that would
Speaker 1: at least show a shred of integrity. That's not what
Speaker 1: they're going to do. Though. Oh no, no, I have
Speaker 1: to say I'm usually not a name caller, but every
Speaker 1: time Tucker Carlson calls Brian Stelter, hellot shot see it
Speaker 1: edwar because they look like Jeff Zucker. Every time Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson calls Brian Stelter a eunuch, I laugh a little bit.
Speaker 1: It's childish, I know, but I do kind of laugh
Speaker 1: a little bit because he's one of these guys who
Speaker 1: runs interference for the worst elements over at CNN, and
Speaker 1: CNN employs a number of people as quote journalists. All
Speaker 1: they do is just pick fights within trash conservative journalists
Speaker 1: all day long and try to get them fired. That's
Speaker 1: all they do. You remember, CNN is not a benevolent
Speaker 1: actor in any sense. They also thought that it was
Speaker 1: appropriate to docks private citizens if they do things at
Speaker 1: CNN doesn't like for starting a meme about CNN. Remember,
Speaker 1: they threatened to docks that guy put his information out there,
Speaker 1: so you get threats and maybe get fired. CNN showed
Speaker 1: up at the home of a woman who had been
Speaker 1: allegedly brought into a Russian Facebook group online and so
Speaker 1: she wanted to have like a Trump rally or something,
Speaker 1: or a Maga rally. They're standing on her front lawn
Speaker 1: questioning her like she's a bad person. She didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong. She did nothing wrong. You know, essentially may
Speaker 1: have been the equivalent of politically catfished that they went
Speaker 1: after her. So there's a lot of bad stuff that
Speaker 1: goes on over at CNN, and it's become an increasingly
Speaker 1: bad place. It is toxic. It is not a place
Speaker 1: where a conservative can be himself or herself in any
Speaker 1: meaningful way, and therefore it's just a propaganda organ of
Speaker 1: the left. These are just obvious observations. This is just
Speaker 1: what's happening. But Unich Stelter, as producer, Mike writes it
Speaker 1: because he knows it's going to make me laugh. Unich
Speaker 1: Stelter over at CNN had this to say about their
Speaker 1: Muller coverage. A team reporting is what adds the most value.
Speaker 1: Finding out something new, putting out new information into the
Speaker 1: world is the best feeling in journalism. It's the greatest
Speaker 1: value add That's what hundreds of journalists have been doing
Speaker 1: trying to solve pieces of this Trump Russia puzzle. So
Speaker 1: don't be fooled by the partisans who cherry pick the
Speaker 1: worst mistakes of individual journalists for the craziest ideas from
Speaker 1: commentators and claim that's the entire media. It's not. We're
Speaker 1: waiting for the facts because here is what I know.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're going to hear this from the right
Speaker 1: for the next days and weeks to come to the
Speaker 1: press is basically made all of this up to take
Speaker 1: down President Trump, because this is just following a trail
Speaker 1: that Trump created, because they pretty much did. I mean,
Speaker 1: can we just get real about this for a second.
Speaker 1: We think that they did this, because they did. Can
Speaker 1: we start from that recognition? Can we start from that truth?
Speaker 1: That's what happened here, folks. Let them contain the hundreds
Speaker 1: of jodialists that added value to the registry tragged ulf
Speaker 1: pieces of the championship peddle. They didn't add value, They
Speaker 1: ran fake news. Trump's charge of fake news upset CNN
Speaker 1: so much because they so often engage in the process
Speaker 1: of peddling fake news on acceptable We do not have
Speaker 1: to keep playing the game they want us to anymore.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I know some of you have
Speaker 1: told me this, and I don't want to skip over
Speaker 1: because you're right. You know, I let MSNBC off a
Speaker 1: little sold. It's just because I know CNN better and
Speaker 1: I've watched more CNN as oppo research to what they're doing.
Speaker 1: I'm not as familiar with what goes on at MSNBC Bratti,
Speaker 1: What are there Chris Matthews play eleven. Here's Chris Matthews.
Speaker 1: No further indictments, no charges against the president. Why it
Speaker 1: was there never an interrogation of this president? How can
Speaker 1: they let Trump off the hook? How can they let
Speaker 1: him off the hook? Two years of investigation with the
Speaker 1: press was more or less openly rooting for the president
Speaker 1: United States to be indicted, to be ruined, to be humiliated,
Speaker 1: to humiliate all his supporters as well for casting their
Speaker 1: votes for a Russian asset. Maybe he send his children
Speaker 1: to prison, Maybe they give them the metaphor or treatment
Speaker 1: solitary confinement. That's where manipord is right now, folks, And
Speaker 1: they weren't harsh enough on him. These people not only
Speaker 1: have no ethics, they have no judgment. They cannot take
Speaker 1: reasonable positions. Their emotions intrude upon the processes by which
Speaker 1: the rest of us way different things. Is this as
Speaker 1: severe as that? Is this as big a deal as that?
Speaker 1: They can't do it because their emotional impulses, as brainwashed
Speaker 1: libs take over. There's just there's even more of the something.
Speaker 1: This was what you know for those who are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: they were just following the facts. Here's what Hakim Jeffries
Speaker 1: remember of Congress. Here's what he said about the president.
Speaker 1: PLA twelve. The American people deserve to know whether Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is either a a legitimate president, be a Russian asset,
Speaker 1: see the functional equivalent of an organized crime boss, or
Speaker 1: d just a useful idiot who happens to have been
Speaker 1: victimized by the greatest collection of coincidences in the history
Speaker 1: of the Republic. A Russian asset, a crime boss, a
Speaker 1: useful idiot. These are things that are said by members
Speaker 1: of Congress about the President United States. All of them
Speaker 1: are wrong, all of them are baseless. And is he
Speaker 1: going to apologize? Now? This is one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why I always tell you, folks, we do not apologize
Speaker 1: to the leftist mob, because they never apologize for anything.
Speaker 1: I will apologize, and I would recommend that anyone else
Speaker 1: do as well, for reasons of honor, dignity, and self respect.
Speaker 1: I make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. I'm not saying I
Speaker 1: will never apologize as a rule. That would be stupid.
Speaker 1: But I will not apologize to the leftist mob because
Speaker 1: they are not worthy of an apology, and they have
Speaker 1: no principles, So on what grounds are they demanding an apology?
Speaker 1: President Trump is taking a victory lap. But it's not enough,
Speaker 1: because now it's time for retribution, righteous retribution. Now it's
Speaker 1: time for there to be a special council appointed to
Speaker 1: look in to how all this happened, a special council appointed,
Speaker 1: or a very thorough and aggressive investigation within the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice of what happened to this FISA, these FISA applications.
Speaker 1: How is it that Carter Page and George Poppadopolis were
Speaker 1: supposed to be the center of this international conspiracy? What
Speaker 1: morons could possibly believe that? Oh, that's right. The most
Speaker 1: powerful ones in the United States government at the time,
Speaker 1: at least on the bureaucratic national security side, FBI director,
Speaker 1: CIA director. These people are obviously way out of their
Speaker 1: depth with the shocking because they were running major government agencies.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Jeff Sucker is an anxious man tonight.
Speaker 1: He's been caught doing the one thing journalists are not
Speaker 1: allowed to do. He intention only misled his audience. In
Speaker 1: a fair world, Jeff Zucker will be running a car wash.
Speaker 1: He'd be selling time shares, in Cancoon, he would not
Speaker 1: be in the news business. Sucker himself knows that very well.
Speaker 1: He knows he's an impostor in a fair world scene
Speaker 1: and wouldn't call itself a news network at all. It's
Speaker 1: far less than that, and it has been for a
Speaker 1: long time now. You'd think a news network might learn
Speaker 1: from debacles like this, and yet under the leadership of
Speaker 1: Jeff Zucker, Scenn's recklessness and its dishonesty have only accelerated. Yes,
Speaker 1: talk take it to him. Tucker's been great lately. I
Speaker 1: mean he's great in general. He's Jesus been great lately.
Speaker 1: Just going right at just going right at Jeff Zucker
Speaker 1: and write at that right at the heart of darkness
Speaker 1: with Jeff Zucker there, I mean, just the guy who
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's all very personal for him. It's
Speaker 1: a personal few with Trump. His network was weaponized against Trump.
Speaker 1: There's been tremendous damage done to the whatever we think
Speaker 1: of as cable news journalism as a result of this feud.
Speaker 1: I mean absolutely the case that that Zucker has done
Speaker 1: tremendous damage. And my friend David Harsanyi wrote a piece
Speaker 1: yesterday and The Federalist and you know, David's just he's
Speaker 1: a humble guy and a really excellent, really excellent editorialist.
Speaker 1: And you know, he wrote a piece that just said
Speaker 1: that the media has done tremendous damage to the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, Time magazine had a cover of the White
Speaker 1: House morphing into the Kremlin. The cover of Time magazine
Speaker 1: that is completely preposterous. I'd also note that this stuff
Speaker 1: was not without consequence. I know that we always have
Speaker 1: to get into as well as the rhetoric really inspiring
Speaker 1: the bad guy. But you know, there was a guy
Speaker 1: named James Hodgkinson who was a Bernie Sanders supporter who
Speaker 1: liked this group a race Republicans, who showed up to
Speaker 1: a baseball field a few miles from where I'm sitting
Speaker 1: right now and tried to murder on bunch of members
Speaker 1: of Congress because they were Conservatives and almost killed Steve's Kalie.
Speaker 1: Steve's leeze almost almost bled out on the ground. If
Speaker 1: you didn't have two members of Capital Police there to
Speaker 1: return fire, would have been all over. We would have
Speaker 1: had a mass assassination of conservatives in Congress because of
Speaker 1: the rhetoric of the left. Least, according to James Hodgkinson,
Speaker 1: and yet they take no responsibility for any of this.
Speaker 1: As I was saying to you during the height of
Speaker 1: the collusion insanity, if people really believed that the President
Speaker 1: United States was a Russian asset, what should they not
Speaker 1: be willing to do? At that point? Where do they
Speaker 1: draw the line? It's a scary question. If I really
Speaker 1: believe the President United States was a foreign trader or
Speaker 1: rather working for a foreign power and a traitor to
Speaker 1: his country, you know, what lengths would I go to?
Speaker 1: What laws would somebody be willing to break if they
Speaker 1: really thought that were the case. Then this is where
Speaker 1: it's so hard for me to really gauge whether these
Speaker 1: people were cynical. You know that that the Jeff Zuckers
Speaker 1: of the world were cynical as they promulgated this theory,
Speaker 1: as they propagated this lie. Or were they true believers?
Speaker 1: Were they really bought into this? I think a lot
Speaker 1: of them in the media were. I saw somebody yesterday,
Speaker 1: and I will not get into specifics about who. As
Speaker 1: you know, I do not criticize my friends in media
Speaker 1: on air. I just I'm upfront with you about that.
Speaker 1: Some of you have sent me messages, Hey, this person
Speaker 1: said this, why don't you take them a task? Well,
Speaker 1: if you know that I'm friends with that person, you
Speaker 1: know why. And I tell you this truthfully. It's It's
Speaker 1: not an ironclad rule in the sense that if somebody
Speaker 1: really steps out of line, if I feel a need,
Speaker 1: I'll say something. But generally speaking, I don't trash friends
Speaker 1: because I think personal loyalty is an important part of
Speaker 1: having honor as a human being. I think personal loyalty matters.
Speaker 1: That said, some of the never Trumper Russia collusion theorists
Speaker 1: that I've known in the past, the stuff that I
Speaker 1: have seen them coming up with in the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours to justify their positions, I think that they
Speaker 1: have really been broken psychologically. I think they need help.
Speaker 1: Something is wrong with them that they cannot accept what
Speaker 1: has happened here. And it was a very powerful moment
Speaker 1: on Fox News over the weekend where the formidable Molly
Speaker 1: Hemingway of the Federalist was up against Philippe Rains he
Speaker 1: of running around Fox News wearing shorts with a suit
Speaker 1: top and cursing and friends of mine. Because that's the
Speaker 1: thing that happened. She had to tell him just straight up.
Speaker 1: Philippe it's over, and that needs to be said a
Speaker 1: lot more here, meaning that the collusion theory this story
Speaker 1: is over no more. And there should also be accountability
Speaker 1: for those who spread this thing, and maybe, if not accountability,
Speaker 1: at least some sense of I'm sorry. I've seen a
Speaker 1: couple of libs, a few libs, be like I got
Speaker 1: ahead of myself on this one. I admit it. Now.
Speaker 1: Whether that's too little, too late, I will leave to you,
Speaker 1: but at least it's something. At least it's something. But
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani, who I spoke to you yesterday, and I
Speaker 1: always have a great time talking to Rudy, and I
Speaker 1: gotta look, I've got a fondness for Rudy just because
Speaker 1: he's he was my mayor growing up in New York,
Speaker 1: and his son was a classmate of my awesome little brothers,
Speaker 1: So you know, there's kind of a little bit of
Speaker 1: a connection there in the family. And his son's a
Speaker 1: great guy too. But so I like, I like the mayor,
Speaker 1: and he's one of those people that I'll call mister mayor,
Speaker 1: even though I generally don't like. See I'm honest about
Speaker 1: my inconsistency, even though you know I'm honest when I
Speaker 1: tell you that, I'm a statist who doesn't want smoking
Speaker 1: in any public places, even if the owners want it.
Speaker 1: I know, status buck very statist. And also when it
Speaker 1: comes to public figures, I don't like the retention of
Speaker 1: titles they no longer have. But I mean it's rooted.
Speaker 1: Giuliani's America's mayor. Come on, So he asked, Bro, Cuomo,
Speaker 1: do you even lift bro? That's what Cuomo said to Giuliani,
Speaker 1: and Giuliani lifted his massive pinky ring and said, I
Speaker 1: lift this son. What's up? But Cuomo and Giuliani had
Speaker 1: a little exchange on this. Should there be an apology?
Speaker 1: Play five? I am outraged by the behavior of these networks. Okay, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusions,
Speaker 1: no collusion, Here's here's collusion. Here's my case apologize. Never,
Speaker 1: here's my case never. Never. I didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1: These questions are real. I think needed to be regarded
Speaker 1: as such reason they needed to be investigated. Did you
Speaker 1: heard what people say that that you don't hear what
Speaker 1: people on this network did? How about this network should apologize?
Speaker 1: How about Jeff Ducker? Jo I ask you to apologize
Speaker 1: for everything the president says it's not true. No, okay, good,
Speaker 1: so we're even. But you ask me to apologize for
Speaker 1: what I do when I do, no apologies from pro Cuomo.
Speaker 1: He was busy lifting. No apologies. Huh. Interesting. You would
Speaker 1: think that maybe there would be some reflection necessary here,
Speaker 1: considering that I watched many a clip and played many
Speaker 1: of them on air. Here where Cuomo was very clearly
Speaker 1: a believer in this theory. And and this this is
Speaker 1: what this is where ethics and decency really come into play,
Speaker 1: because here, here's the here's the truth of all this.
Speaker 1: You can always find a way to, you know, smear
Speaker 1: somebody and tell a story and technically you're not lying.
Speaker 1: You know, I could say about anybody, run. I could
Speaker 1: run a headline on a news story, you know, John
Speaker 1: so and so pedophile question mark well, and then I
Speaker 1: could go on the piece. There are people who were
Speaker 1: saying that this guy's a pedophile. Um, I won't name them,
Speaker 1: and they're anonymous sources, but there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people think this guy's a pedophile. So, you know, is
Speaker 1: he having you know, underage relations and should he spend
Speaker 1: the rest of his life in prison? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm just asking questions, would that be ethical to do
Speaker 1: to somebody? You could do it. You could do it.
Speaker 1: You could play that game. You know, is you know
Speaker 1: John Smith a murderer? Question mark? Oh, people are saying
Speaker 1: that he might have killed somebody. The body was never found.
Speaker 1: You could play this game all day. Is the President
Speaker 1: a trader? Question mark? Is in the same category. It
Speaker 1: is an outrage to bring up, an outrage to suggest
Speaker 1: unless you have real proof, real evidence. The Steel dossier
Speaker 1: was what we in the intelligence community would have thought
Speaker 1: of as a fabrication. My friends, he was full of it.
Speaker 1: His sources were not vetted. There's a whole process that
Speaker 1: we go through of how does this person know this?
Speaker 1: What are this person's motivation? I mean, I will say
Speaker 1: within the community, for people who actually know what they're doing,
Speaker 1: what Steel did would not have gotten through. You can't
Speaker 1: just say I wrote this long report, I don't really
Speaker 1: name anybody in it, I don't have any sources. I
Speaker 1: don't tell you how the source knows this. You got
Speaker 1: to say this source knows this because X, this source
Speaker 1: has this motivation. You've got to get into specifics about
Speaker 1: who you're talking about here. But you know, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna put a government document out there in the same
Speaker 1: in law enforcement, you know, who is your confidential informant?
Speaker 1: How does he know about this? You don't just take
Speaker 1: that take it on faith, take their word. But they
Speaker 1: wanted to take this stuff on faith. That was always
Speaker 1: the plan, because they just wanted to hear what they
Speaker 1: were hearing. Do they ever learn their lesson folks, Democrats
Speaker 1: in Congress? Democrats to me, this is going to be
Speaker 1: a theme today. Did they ever learn really they ever
Speaker 1: learn anything? Or do they just keep dubling down, keep
Speaker 1: sticking with what they thought in the past. This Russia
Speaker 1: collusion thing is a moment that you should always remember
Speaker 1: because you're really seeing who these people are. You're seeing
Speaker 1: whether they have any intellectual integrity whatsoever, any honesty, any decency.
Speaker 1: Because remember, there was a lot of damage done to
Speaker 1: people over this whole Russia hoax. People went to prison,
Speaker 1: people were hounded by prosecutors. People had to pay tens,
Speaker 1: if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases
Speaker 1: even more than that for legal fees for what for
Speaker 1: a theory created by an oppo researcher paid by Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Now oppo research can get handed to the FBI and
Speaker 1: used to ruin your life. That's the country that we're
Speaker 1: going to live in. Now. Everybody should be appalled by this.
Speaker 1: Everybody should be outraged by this. But Democrats aren't. They
Speaker 1: liked this whole thing. There are some names out there
Speaker 1: that should live in infamy over the Russia collusion catastrophe,
Speaker 1: the lies, the many many lies they told about this.
Speaker 1: And this is a little bit of a then and
Speaker 1: now back and forth from some of those names you've got,
Speaker 1: for example, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Maxine Waters, just
Speaker 1: to name a few. These are elected members of United
Speaker 1: States Congress who have completely clowned themselves and they don't
Speaker 1: really change anything. They don't change a bit based on
Speaker 1: the new facts, based on the new information, here's Adam Schiff.
Speaker 1: Then and now play ten certainly say with confidence that
Speaker 1: there is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia.
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. Make the request,
Speaker 1: if the request is to nighted subpoena, if the subpoenas
Speaker 1: are denied, we will halt people before the Congress, and yes,
Speaker 1: we will prosecute in court as necessary to get this information.
Speaker 1: That doesn't seem like he's changed anything. And did that
Speaker 1: sound like an apology to you? I didn't feel an
Speaker 1: apology that. I didn't hear an apology. I just heard No,
Speaker 1: let's keep investigating. We need more information, more information, more information.
Speaker 1: The president may go to prison. This guy was saying,
Speaker 1: doesn't think, doesn't think he owes him an apology. I mean,
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff is a snake. We all know that. Speaking
Speaker 1: of snakes, Eric Swalwell a little venna now play nine.
Speaker 1: It's so obvious that they were eager to collude with Russia.
Speaker 1: Now we're seeing the evidence that there was a conspiracy
Speaker 1: to cover up. It's looking more and more wolf that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was a part of a criminal campaign, a
Speaker 1: criminal transition, and now presides over a criminal presidency. I
Speaker 1: stand by what I have said about seeing evidence position
Speaker 1: and that he has that. I think the American people
Speaker 1: want to know whether this president violated conduct while whether
Speaker 1: he violated not only the law, but that honor code
Speaker 1: that we all count on. Oh, so he's a criminal.
Speaker 1: President or criminal transition, criminal criminal criminal turns out he's
Speaker 1: not any of those things, and Swallow stands behind what
Speaker 1: he says. Is this his version of accountability. This is
Speaker 1: supposed to be standing up speaking the truth. Come on
Speaker 1: here we are you know this one's this one's going
Speaker 1: to be good. Though. At least Maxine Waters is kind
Speaker 1: of entertaining. Swallowell and Shift are just boring. They're just boring,
Speaker 1: bad liars. Maxine Waters is, she's really interesting. Play this
Speaker 1: president and his allies I believe and others believe colluded
Speaker 1: with the Russians to undermine our democracy. And we're not
Speaker 1: going to stop talking about. All I know is this.
Speaker 1: If he thinks he can stop me from talking about
Speaker 1: impeach forty five, he's got another thought coming. I am
Speaker 1: not intimidated by him. I'm gonna keep saying that we
Speaker 1: need to impeach him. He's been saying no collusion, no collusion,
Speaker 1: no collusion, over and over again for a long time now,
Speaker 1: and he's going to try and conclude that they're This
Speaker 1: report is proving that there's no collusion. And you have
Speaker 1: a lot of his sickle fans, who will you take
Speaker 1: the nod from him? And they'll say the same thing.
Speaker 1: But we cannot allow them to get away with this.
Speaker 1: I mean, she just operates in a fact free zone, right,
Speaker 1: just doesn't matter to her, She doesn't care she's operating
Speaker 1: in a fact free zone. She just wants to keep
Speaker 1: saying that he's guilty of collusion. She's not going to
Speaker 1: stop saying he's guilty of collusion. And that the Robert
Speaker 1: Muller pro which we went through yesterday on the show,
Speaker 1: interviewed what five hundred people, thousands of subpoenas, just the
Speaker 1: most thorough scrub through investigation anybody could ever ask for,
Speaker 1: with whatever resources it wanted, and all the authority the
Speaker 1: federal government could possibly confer on anyone, and they said no,
Speaker 1: no collusion, and that there are still Democrats in the
Speaker 1: Congress who won't change a note. What are we supposed
Speaker 1: to make of that? What are we supposed to think
Speaker 1: of these people and the people who vote for them
Speaker 1: and think this is okay? You know, it does start
Speaker 1: to feel like we're in a little bit of a
Speaker 1: scary country, my friends, when very obvious facts, whether it's
Speaker 1: that Jesse Smollett is a liar and it is a
Speaker 1: hoax and Anyone who does not understand that is not smart.
Speaker 1: The same thing is true Russia collusion, though that was
Speaker 1: a hoax. It is no longer possible to be a
Speaker 1: smart and well informed person believe that the President worked
Speaker 1: with the Russians to overturn the election. That's just creative writing.
Speaker 1: It's just fantasy land. Now. It's not a good faith,
Speaker 1: serious debate that any person could have. You know, they
Speaker 1: are now flat earthers. They are flat earthers. If you
Speaker 1: think that they're still collusion, you're in that category. There
Speaker 1: is no evidence. In fact, there's a mountain of evidence
Speaker 1: contrary to that position. But Democrats in the Congress won't apologize,
Speaker 1: CNN won't apologize. Who does? Who will be held accountable
Speaker 1: for this? Where is the accountability on this issue? I
Speaker 1: ask you, We're gonna have to look for a long time.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling I don't think anytime soon we
Speaker 1: will we will get any satisfaction on that front. That
Speaker 1: much is for sure. We'll be right back. There's only
Speaker 1: one dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting company
Speaker 1: out there, and it is Global Verification Network. For those
Speaker 1: of you who either work in the HR department of
Speaker 1: a company or have your own company. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: background checks are essential, and you want to work with
Speaker 1: the best company that will get them done efficiently and
Speaker 1: will tailor their program and how they do it to
Speaker 1: your need. So whatever size company you are, from a
Speaker 1: startup all the way up to a fortune one hundred,
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network can come up with all of your
Speaker 1: solutions and whatever business intelligence and vetting you need. They
Speaker 1: can work with you on that too. They are absolute pros.
Speaker 1: I know the CEO. I trust him. You can trust
Speaker 1: him to go to MYGVN dot com again, that's my
Speaker 1: GVN dot com or call Global Verification Network at eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. Let
Speaker 1: me just tell you exactly what my message is. The
Speaker 1: Republican Party will soon be known as the Party of Healthcare.
Speaker 1: You why the Party of healthcare? President Trump says now
Speaker 1: there could be a renewed focus on this issue because
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has announced that it is siding
Speaker 1: that's right. Trump's dj is siding with a district court
Speaker 1: that has already found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. That's right.
Speaker 1: Another challenge in the courts to the constitutionality or the
Speaker 1: lack thereof of Obamacare. And here's the basics of why
Speaker 1: they're saying it's on constitutional. As you know, the Congress
Speaker 1: voted to get rid of the individual mandate. The individual
Speaker 1: mandate was only possible because it was considered a tax
Speaker 1: thanks to John Roberts, who went into overdrive, i mean,
Speaker 1: pulled out all the stops. Remember are so called conservative.
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts did everything that he could to make
Speaker 1: sure that Obamacare would be pulled out of the pulled
Speaker 1: out of the fire, and saved. And that included saying
Speaker 1: that something that is a penalty is actually attacks, and
Speaker 1: something that has attack is actually a penalty. It was
Speaker 1: a shocking inversion of the truth and reality. But they
Speaker 1: were willing to do it. They were, at least five
Speaker 1: justices were willing to do it. Thankfully, they did not
Speaker 1: allow for if you remember that original Obamacare, the major
Speaker 1: Obamacare decision. They did not allow for the incredible coercion
Speaker 1: of the states by the federal government to effectively say
Speaker 1: you either expand this medicaid program. You're going to expand
Speaker 1: medicaid in your state, or we're gonna take all your
Speaker 1: medicaid dollars that was struck down in the initial Obama
Speaker 1: Obamacare ruling, but the rest of the law state. Now
Speaker 1: this circuit court, I think it's the fifth Circuit, which
Speaker 1: is a pretty solid conservative yup, it is the fifth Circuit. Fuck,
Speaker 1: even when you don't know if you're right, you're right.
Speaker 1: Come on, And they're saying that because the tax is
Speaker 1: no longer valid, and the tax was the only way
Speaker 1: that you could keep the individual mandate, and the individual
Speaker 1: mandate was necessary to the overall architecture of the Obamacare law,
Speaker 1: then it's all null and void. They're saying that once
Speaker 1: the you know, the mandate is no longer in place,
Speaker 1: the rest of Obamacare has to be invalidated. Essentially, this
Speaker 1: is a similar attack on the individual mandate as the
Speaker 1: thing that funds all the rest of this. Will this work,
Speaker 1: I don't know. We will see. You can never tell.
Speaker 1: With conservative justices. Some of them, particularly Roberts, could get
Speaker 1: a little little waffly, little waffler on this one. We'll
Speaker 1: go back and forth. And also, I think Kavanaugh, by
Speaker 1: the way, is more liberal than a lot of people
Speaker 1: that they were so busy trying to convince everyone that
Speaker 1: Cavanaugh was some kind of sex predator who was part
Speaker 1: of a roving underage rape gang in high school. I mean,
Speaker 1: the most horrific and stupid lie that could be leveled
Speaker 1: against anybody in that circumstance. And the Democrats, Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: they believed that too. One of the big themes today,
Speaker 1: isn't it folks? The media and the Democrat Party believe
Speaker 1: obviously untrue, massive lies when it benefits them, and they
Speaker 1: somehow never learned the lesson. They never say, hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: how did you know? How did you know that Cummington
Speaker 1: wasn't what they said it was. How did you know
Speaker 1: that Kavanaugh wasn't a secret serial gang rapist at high school?
Speaker 1: How did you know that Jesse Smollett was lying? How
Speaker 1: did you know that Obamacare? I'm sorry that Russia collusion
Speaker 1: was a hoax. Obamacare is kind of a hoax too,
Speaker 1: but a little different. They never want to ask, because
Speaker 1: I could walk them through it. You know, an evidentiary
Speaker 1: standard is all you have to do. You apply an
Speaker 1: evidentiary standard and then you can come to much better conclusions.
Speaker 1: They don't want to come to an evidentiary standard. They
Speaker 1: want to come to an ideologically satisfying one one that
Speaker 1: feels good that's what they want, or one that serves
Speaker 1: the purpose and feels good that's even more exciting. So
Speaker 1: there you have it. House Democratic leaders today, according to
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, here urge colleagues quote to focus on
Speaker 1: healthcare and other issues of greater concern to voters following
Speaker 1: the completion of the Special Council's report. Even as some
Speaker 1: members argued they need to do more to wold President
Speaker 1: Trump accountable, many Democrats appeared eager to pivot back to healthcare,
Speaker 1: an issue that cut their way during last year's midterms.
Speaker 1: Democrats planned to roll out new healthcare legislation after because
Speaker 1: they saw an opportunity to capitalize politically from a new
Speaker 1: legal filing by the Justice Department late Monday. That's at
Speaker 1: the Trump administration backs a full invalidation of the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act. So we're about to have another fight over
Speaker 1: healthcare here. Look, we did not manage to repeal in
Speaker 1: a place and that is on the Republicans. And yes,
Speaker 1: John McCain played a very large role in that failure.
Speaker 1: That is on the Republicans. There's no question about it.
Speaker 1: We are going to have to fight the socialized medicine
Speaker 1: fight in this election, and I worry, my friends. I
Speaker 1: worry that people have been so thoroughly misled on this issue,
Speaker 1: and there's been so much disinformation out there that they've
Speaker 1: really come to believe that Medicare for all is feasible,
Speaker 1: that Medicare for all is something that we could just do.
Speaker 1: Let me just tell you that Medicare is the single biggest,
Speaker 1: as you know, single biggest budgetary whole buster that we have,
Speaker 1: and it is the Medicare expenses that are driving a
Speaker 1: huge percentage of yearly deficits in this country, and they're
Speaker 1: only going to get worse. But let's just imagine for
Speaker 1: a moment that you are in a true Medicare for
Speaker 1: all system. What do you think that would mean for
Speaker 1: doctors who are well regarded and who have good practices,
Speaker 1: and they would be overwhelmed. There are already a lot
Speaker 1: of doctors that don't want to take Medicaid and fewer
Speaker 1: and fewer that want to take Medicare. When you don't
Speaker 1: expand the supply, when you don't incentivize people to go
Speaker 1: to medical school and do residency and all that for
Speaker 1: what is it ten years? When you don't take people
Speaker 1: through that process and explain to them that this is
Speaker 1: that there are necessary incentives, or else you're just going
Speaker 1: to be overstressing and already stressed market. You know what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. We're gonna all be waiting six months
Speaker 1: for routine medical care, six months to see a specialist.
Speaker 1: At a minute, you know that that will become standard
Speaker 1: and we will reach a point at which the debt
Speaker 1: is unsustainable. But just like how the left never learns
Speaker 1: its lessons on anything, they never changed their mind, They
Speaker 1: never realized they were wrong. Do you think that when
Speaker 1: they draw us into near bankruptcy as a country, we
Speaker 1: become insolvent from a creditor perspective, we are a deternation
Speaker 1: with no hope of getting out. Do you think at
Speaker 1: that point they'll say, oh, you know, maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 1: have made all of these unsustainable promises. Maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 1: have told the American people that they would have their
Speaker 1: healthcare paid for, all the all the free college they
Speaker 1: could ever want, all this stuff free, free, free. We've
Speaker 1: seen this throughout the twentieth century when socialism has been tried.
Speaker 1: Free is the most expensive thing of all. When the
Speaker 1: government tries to do it because they always fail. Maybe
Speaker 1: free today, but it gets very very expensive tomorrow. It's
Speaker 1: free until they run out of the supply, and then
Speaker 1: it's free until they have to mandate more supplies, and
Speaker 1: then it's free until they don't have the raw materials
Speaker 1: to mandate the manufacturing of the supplies. So the people
Speaker 1: you know, and so on and so forth, it's never
Speaker 1: really for the same. The same basic economics applies to healthcare.
Speaker 1: We are always dealing with a Democrat left that thinks
Speaker 1: that they have the high ground on science, on facts,
Speaker 1: on logic, and on their primary positions, and some of
Speaker 1: the biggest, some of the biggest fights that they've engaged in,
Speaker 1: certainly over the last two years, they've abandoned facts and
Speaker 1: logic and reason and been demonstrably shockingly wrong, just flat
Speaker 1: out wrong, and they don't take into account going forward.
Speaker 1: Maybe they have something to learn from the other side.
Speaker 1: I at least respect my liberal friends who willing to
Speaker 1: sit down with me and listen to what I have
Speaker 1: to say and really hear it and occasionally take on
Speaker 1: some of what I'm telling them. But that's become really
Speaker 1: unfashionable now on the left. You have to be a
Speaker 1: true believer, not a true thinker. You have to really
Speaker 1: just embrace the feeling of the ideas, not the ideas
Speaker 1: behind the ideas. When it comes to buying wine, a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't make selections that have to do
Speaker 1: with taste, right. I mean, look, I have the same situation, folks.
Speaker 1: I just base my decision on what bottle looks kind
Speaker 1: of cool and honestly what's on sale. But that's all
Speaker 1: changed because of First Leaf. First Leaf's a wine club
Speaker 1: that makes it easy to discover new wines that you'll love.
Speaker 1: They've created a club experience that's customized to you. By
Speaker 1: rating the wines you receive, First Leaf determines your likes
Speaker 1: and dislikes and uses a custom algorithm and a professionally
Speaker 1: trained wine concierge's team to send you only wines you'll love.
Speaker 1: You see, I started by answering three quick questions about
Speaker 1: my wine drinking preferences, and then First Leave created an
Speaker 1: introductory six pack of wine for me, all for just
Speaker 1: twenty nine ninety five. It's amazing. I'm telling you, I
Speaker 1: love the wines they've sent me, and I'm getting a
Speaker 1: whole bunch more. Sign up with my link and you'll
Speaker 1: get an exclusive intro offer six bottles of wine for
Speaker 1: only twenty nine ninety five plus free shipping. Just go
Speaker 1: to try first leaf dot com slash buck Again try
Speaker 1: first leaf dot com slash buck. That's six bottles of
Speaker 1: wine only twenty nine ninety five. Try first leaf dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. Congress has to take this crisis seriously.
Speaker 1: We need to treat climate change like the existential threat
Speaker 1: that it is. We need to pass a green new deal.
Speaker 1: This should be our nation's moonshot. When John F. Kennedy said,
Speaker 1: let's put a man on the moon in the next
Speaker 1: ten years, not because it's easy, but because it's hard,
Speaker 1: he didn't know whether he could put a man on
Speaker 1: the moon, but he knew it was something worth fighting for.
Speaker 1: He knew it was a goal and ambition that he
Speaker 1: wanted to take off when he was unwilling to not
Speaker 1: something that would measure how great we are as a country.
Speaker 1: This is the same Kirsten jilla Brand doesn't know anything
Speaker 1: about anything from what I can understand, but she is
Speaker 1: someone who has a prominent platform from which she can
Speaker 1: spew all the usual you know, Democrat nonsense. You know,
Speaker 1: she is somebody who is out there making the case
Speaker 1: for why she should be the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: which is in itself a somewhat sobering situation. The fact
Speaker 1: that she's even having any kind of conversation about how
Speaker 1: she thinks she should be the president, I think is
Speaker 1: a shock and people should be shocked by it. But
Speaker 1: to treat climate change like an existential threat. You know
Speaker 1: what one of the great frustrations is of the of
Speaker 1: the climate change debate, and as we talk about it
Speaker 1: is going to continue to be a frustration is they've
Speaker 1: been wrong before and they don't care. In fact, one
Speaker 1: thing we see from the Muller probe fiasco and the
Speaker 1: whole Russia collusion delusion is that they're not chastened at
Speaker 1: all by this. They don't learn any lessons, they don't
Speaker 1: think that they were really wrong. And that's a mindset
Speaker 1: that is the norm among people on the left. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is the mindset that is really a defining characteristic
Speaker 1: now of the liberal mind and the contemporary progressive fake liberals.
Speaker 1: But you know what I mean, I hate the term
Speaker 1: liberal for them because they're anti liberal. And I've in
Speaker 1: many different ways over the years made the case that
Speaker 1: we should not call them liberal, but here we are
Speaker 1: status they're progressives, they're leftists, they're authoritarians, whatever, all those things.
Speaker 1: They are anti liberal. But they don't learn lessons from this.
Speaker 1: And it really also goes to the very basic philosophical
Speaker 1: underpinnings of why somebody thinks like a conservative or thinks
Speaker 1: like a liberal. A liberal approaches the world based on
Speaker 1: emotion and holding positions, in particular, how ideas feel to them.
Speaker 1: That's very, very important. A conservative says, well, what do
Speaker 1: we know about how this idea has worked in the
Speaker 1: past to give us a sense of how it would
Speaker 1: work in the future. And that requires some honesty with self,
Speaker 1: That requires the ability to self reflect and not self delude.
Speaker 1: But the progressive left, they are masters at self delusion.
Speaker 1: They don't care when they get things wrong. They can
Speaker 1: always find an explanation, or they convince themselves that they're
Speaker 1: not wrong, which may be an even more stunning turn
Speaker 1: about here. I mean, they convinced themselves that there's no problem,
Speaker 1: that everything is fine, that they did what they were
Speaker 1: supposed to do. Look what CNN and others are doing
Speaker 1: now with their coverage. Look what Jeff Zucker said. How
Speaker 1: they have no regrets. They did a great job on
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. See, we have learned one thing from the
Speaker 1: other side. When you're dealing with people who are dishonorable
Speaker 1: and who will say anything, you do not apologize to them.
Speaker 1: You do not bend the knee. You do not reach
Speaker 1: out as an act of good faith and hope that
Speaker 1: it is returned, because they certainly won't. And Jillibrand saying
Speaker 1: that we need to treat climate change like an existential
Speaker 1: threat is silly. In ten years or twelve years, whatever
Speaker 1: it is, there will not be the data, There will
Speaker 1: not be the factual basis to support these crazy claims.
Speaker 1: But they won't take that as any kind of a
Speaker 1: moment to reflect. They won't be chasened by their silliness.
Speaker 1: They'll just switch right into the next narrative. Well, no,
Speaker 1: the next ten years is when we'll really know if
Speaker 1: climate change is going to kill all of us. And
Speaker 1: then it'll be the next ten years, and then the
Speaker 1: next ten years until this emotional fad, which is really
Speaker 1: what climate change is, to use green ideology to impose
Speaker 1: socialism until that is either defeated in the marketplace of
Speaker 1: ideas thoroughly enough or people just grow tired of it.
Speaker 1: Jilla Brand is really trying to make this a signature
Speaker 1: issue for ourselves Play twenty one. We know the climate
Speaker 1: change isn't something that should be treated like a game.
Speaker 1: Just look at what's happening around the country, all over
Speaker 1: the world. Look at the extreme weather becoming more and
Speaker 1: more normal. Look at the flooding in the Midwest. Lives
Speaker 1: were lost. I was just in Iowa. Four people had
Speaker 1: already died. Look at the wildfires across our western states.
Speaker 1: How many people died in those California fires. Look at
Speaker 1: the damage and devastation in Puerto Rico and the US
Speaker 1: Virgin Islands. Whole communities leveled. Home still not rebuilt. In
Speaker 1: New York we got hit with Superstorm Sandy. That was
Speaker 1: five years ago. We didn't still haven't rebuilt. And for
Speaker 1: those who lost lives, lives of their loved ones, it's
Speaker 1: never going to be the same. This is a perfect
Speaker 1: example of climate change demagoguery, perfect example of it. This
Speaker 1: is exactly what you should expect when people are I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just like the fires and it's scary and like
Speaker 1: all the bad things and like everyone's just like gonna die,
Speaker 1: and like it's so scary, and I just I'm so scared,
Speaker 1: and are you scared? And are you listening to me?
Speaker 1: And I'm just so scared doesn't really mean anything. It's
Speaker 1: just an excuse to get emotional, hyper ventilate a little bit,
Speaker 1: to engage in all kinds of bombast and hyperbole. Does
Speaker 1: she stopped to think? Okay, yes, the camp fire in
Speaker 1: November twenty eighteen killed eighty six people. Do you know
Speaker 1: what the second deadliest fire in the history California was?
Speaker 1: It was the Griffith Park fire in nineteen thirty three,
Speaker 1: which is before anybody is making the case that we
Speaker 1: had catastrophic CO two emissions, So it was, you know,
Speaker 1: going on one hundred years ago was the second. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Every you know, every hundred years, maybe we
Speaker 1: have a catastrophic fire in a state like California, and
Speaker 1: every ten or fifteen years we have a really bad
Speaker 1: fire that kills about ten or fifteen people that that's
Speaker 1: supposed to be evidence of climate change. I mean, no
Speaker 1: serious person could think this way, No serious onlooker could
Speaker 1: see any of this and think to themselves, yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: that makes the case for me. But Kirsten Julie Brand
Speaker 1: is entirely unserious. Julie Brand is somebody who is just
Speaker 1: hoping that demagoguery and flimsy talking points and the fact
Speaker 1: that she's a woman and going to push very hard.
Speaker 1: How important is that she's a woman that that will
Speaker 1: take her all the way to the White House. Does
Speaker 1: she think she can really win? I don't know. I
Speaker 1: certainly hope she can't. I've heard stories about how she
Speaker 1: is a really nasty person, by the way, and completely
Speaker 1: without any ethical core, will just say whatever and do
Speaker 1: and do whatever that benefits are at any given time.
Speaker 1: But remember that with climate change, we will never have
Speaker 1: the satisfaction of these people admitting that they're wrong. I
Speaker 1: am more certain more certain that the climate change alarmists
Speaker 1: are wrong about the world being over in twelve years
Speaker 1: than I was even about how Russia collusion was a hoax.
Speaker 1: And as you know, I've known Russia collusion was a
Speaker 1: hoax from the very beginning and never wavered from that,
Speaker 1: or that Jesse Smollett was a hoax. They didn't learn
Speaker 1: from that either. They never learn we are dealing with
Speaker 1: very powerful, very vain babies in the media, and we
Speaker 1: should deal with them accordingly. You're right back. There is
Speaker 1: a measles emergency in Rockland County, New York that is
Speaker 1: so severe that anyone effective at the stroke of midnight tonight,
Speaker 1: anyone who was under eighteen years of age and unvaccinated
Speaker 1: is barred from public places for the next thirty days
Speaker 1: unless they receive the MMR vaccination. We keep seeing these
Speaker 1: outbreaks of diseases that we had previously thought we had
Speaker 1: conquered through vaccination. And I know that the issue of
Speaker 1: vaccines specifically is very contentious for some people. I do
Speaker 1: not find it to be contentious. I think the MMR
Speaker 1: vaccine has proven itself. In fact, I wish there were many,
Speaker 1: many more vaccines and more effective vaccines. I am eagerly
Speaker 1: awaiting the day when there is a well, not really
Speaker 1: a vaccine, but some form of cure. Although it would
Speaker 1: come perhaps in vaccine form because it's an autoimmune disease
Speaker 1: and there might be a way to use anyway for
Speaker 1: celiac disease. That would really be something that I would celebrate.
Speaker 1: So I want more, not less vaccinations, and more effective ones.
Speaker 1: But this is going to become a bigger problem, folks,
Speaker 1: because and there's a few reasons for one is the
Speaker 1: back and forth over vaccines that still exists, where you
Speaker 1: have some people that just don't want the government involved
Speaker 1: in telling them they have to do this. Some people
Speaker 1: think it causes autism, even though I keep seeing all
Speaker 1: these studies that say that that is not the case.
Speaker 1: I don't please don't send me you know, vaxertruth dot
Speaker 1: com or something. I don't. I understand people have different
Speaker 1: opinions on this. I don't need to see more of
Speaker 1: what I've seen unless you have something from an actual,
Speaker 1: pure reviewed medical journal of some kind. I've seen the
Speaker 1: websites that are out there. But this is dangerous. And
Speaker 1: a part of this is that the flux of recent
Speaker 1: illegal aliens into the country is going to play into
Speaker 1: this problem and which you're going to see, and this
Speaker 1: is really a prediction, but I think it will come true.
Speaker 1: You're going to see that there'll be some outbreaks of
Speaker 1: very serious diseases that are linked to illegal aliens who
Speaker 1: were led into the country because of either loopholes or
Speaker 1: because of straight up breaking the law. And that's going
Speaker 1: to raise some big questions. I think you'll also, by
Speaker 1: the way, see the government or certainly the media and
Speaker 1: some people in the government try to downplay or even
Speaker 1: lie about it. They're going to say, we don't know
Speaker 1: if just because we think that the patient that was
Speaker 1: the first person affecting this area is in legal alien
Speaker 1: that that's how it got into the area. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: you have people showing up at our southern border who
Speaker 1: do have communicable diseases that are very very serious, and
Speaker 1: we know this because they're in detention and they're being
Speaker 1: treated for these diseases HIV, tuberculosis, influenza, which obviously the
Speaker 1: flu is common, but you know, the flu is actually
Speaker 1: very dangerous that many people die from it every year.
Speaker 1: And I just think that this is going to raise
Speaker 1: some very difficult questions going forward, because the press is
Speaker 1: going to feel like we can't report honestly. Much of
Speaker 1: the press is going to say, we don't want to
Speaker 1: report honestly on the health risks of mass importation of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens from a third world because that seems xenophobic
Speaker 1: and racist and all these other things. But there are
Speaker 1: real health risks. There are real health risks. You know.
Speaker 1: I've been telling you about this book that I read,
Speaker 1: just finished it, The Lost City of the Monkey God,
Speaker 1: and it's okay. It's not great. But the most interesting
Speaker 1: part of the book is the discussion in it about
Speaker 1: the eradication of people in the New World by Old
Speaker 1: World diseases, most notably small pox, although there's also plague
Speaker 1: and other things, but smallpox was that was the real killer.
Speaker 1: And when we talk about the genocide of Native Americans,
Speaker 1: ninety percent of the killing was done by diseases that
Speaker 1: were just diseases that Europeans had and had immunity to
Speaker 1: at some level, and the people in the New World
Speaker 1: did not, or at least had survivability that the people
Speaker 1: in the New World, the native tribes in the New
Speaker 1: World did not. That's where ninety percent in Central America, Mexico,
Speaker 1: North America, the killing came from those diseases. And you know, smallpox,
Speaker 1: and you read about the history of it is just
Speaker 1: an astonishingly nasty and a horrible disease that killed so
Speaker 1: many people. But there's also a leash leishmaniasis outbreak, which
Speaker 1: is a parasite somewhat similar malaria in that sense that
Speaker 1: affects the people in the book who go to this
Speaker 1: who go to this site, and leashmaniasis is very hard
Speaker 1: to treat. You can't really you can suppress it. And
Speaker 1: the mucosal variety of it is called white leprosy, and
Speaker 1: it's a horrible disease and it wastes away parts of
Speaker 1: your face and it's really terrible disease. And in the
Speaker 1: book it talks about how leashmaniasis is a big problem
Speaker 1: in the third world. It is a problem in Central America.
Speaker 1: And in recent years, you know, there have been cases
Speaker 1: of leashmaniasis in Texas, in Oklahoma, I think it sites.
Speaker 1: I think there's been a few in Florida, and there
Speaker 1: are concerns that it's going to spread further and further up. Now,
Speaker 1: that's just one health risk that people aren't particularly familiar
Speaker 1: with that if they were, I think they'd be very,
Speaker 1: very concerned. And you know, are we allowed to have that?
Speaker 1: You talk about national security? What about national health? Discussion
Speaker 1: about when you have hundreds of thousands of people who
Speaker 1: are coming in and are not being in any substantive
Speaker 1: way checked for serious communical little diseases. What does that
Speaker 1: mean for us? What does that mean for the people
Speaker 1: already in this country, all three and twenty million of us.
Speaker 1: It's a question we should be able to ask. But
Speaker 1: I know we're not really supposed to rock and roll.
Speaker 1: Fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. Roll call. You know what that means?
Speaker 1: Your thoughts here via Facebook, Facebook dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Kevin starts us off today. Hey bok podcast listener here,
Speaker 1: you keep losing points from your man card. The lu
Speaker 1: Lemon pants thing is the latest example. First, just the
Speaker 1: name lu Lemon is enough to get a deduction. Men
Speaker 1: should only wear Levi's or Dockers. Secondly, any pair of
Speaker 1: pants that are tapered are for snowflakes. What's next elastic bottoms? Also,
Speaker 1: please forgive me if this is not the preferred way
Speaker 1: to get on roll call. I hate Facebook almost as
Speaker 1: much as I hate communism. From Kevin Kevin with the
Speaker 1: lu Lemon pants, I understand the name is a little
Speaker 1: fru fru, no question about it. The name's a little
Speaker 1: hoity twitty. But don't knock them till you try a
Speaker 1: big guy. I'm just saying, those Lulemon pants, once you
Speaker 1: put them on, they feel like butter baby. I'm They're
Speaker 1: so soft and so smooth. I think you'll be surprised
Speaker 1: how much you really enjoy rocking those LULUs. You don't
Speaker 1: have to call them LULUs. You can call them your
Speaker 1: man pants. Honey, I'm wearing my man pants, you know,
Speaker 1: the ones that are in the that are in the
Speaker 1: next to the next to the ladies leopard print at
Speaker 1: lu Levin, you know, because they have some fun. Actually,
Speaker 1: not even leopard print. I think they did, like snakeskin
Speaker 1: print is very popular, all right, Michael, Not that I've
Speaker 1: been to the lu Lemon store, obviously, Michael rides. Hey buck,
Speaker 1: let's talk about them more aerodynamic naked Russian that jumped
Speaker 1: on an airplane. You said, do we know if he
Speaker 1: has a degree in astrophysics? I don't. Instead of astrophysics,
Speaker 1: you should have said aeronautical engineering. Engineers are always doing
Speaker 1: all the work that scientists then get credit for. Nothing
Speaker 1: a scientist has ever done was useful. It's what the
Speaker 1: engineers did that was useful. That's what the useful science is.
Speaker 1: Without engineers, science is just philosophy. Now that you know this,
Speaker 1: maybe you'll give credit where credit is due from now on, Michael,
Speaker 1: I stand corrected, my friend. Although I'll notice that whether
Speaker 1: it's aeronautical engineering or astrophysics, you did not you did
Speaker 1: not tell me whether or not you agree that a
Speaker 1: naked pilot or naked passenger is more aerodynamic. I think
Speaker 1: it should be more aerodynamic, But there are some areas
Speaker 1: that would perhaps create drag. There are some areas that
Speaker 1: would create wind resistance, some for us more than others.
Speaker 1: So I don't really know. This is a a problem
Speaker 1: for aeronautical engineers to solve. John right, the media has
Speaker 1: had two years of keeping the discussion on what President
Speaker 1: Trump may have done wrong. They're in dire straits now
Speaker 1: because they cannot discuss what has been going on for
Speaker 1: two years, the economy and job creation. So I think
Speaker 1: that's why we're seeing all this panic, trying to come
Speaker 1: up with different angles so they don't have to discuss
Speaker 1: the real world. Well, I think John, they're just trying
Speaker 1: to lay low for a couple of days here, and
Speaker 1: they figured by next week, nobody will remember what a
Speaker 1: bunch of crazy maniacs they were on this whole collusion issue.
Speaker 1: And I think that's really where we are. That they
Speaker 1: planned to just move past this and pretend like nothing
Speaker 1: really happened, that they weren't really trying to convince the
Speaker 1: American people for over two years really that there was
Speaker 1: a terrible Russia collusion that happened that costs Trump the art,
Speaker 1: cost Hillary the election. They were gonna act like it
Speaker 1: didn't even happen. In fact, they're gaslighting in epic fashion
Speaker 1: by suggesting that it's really the other way, meaning that
Speaker 1: they did a great job and we should all be
Speaker 1: thankful for the great job they did. You know, it
Speaker 1: would be fun to live in such a crazy town,
Speaker 1: but that's the town that they live in. Crazy town, Jen,
Speaker 1: fantastic show. I find an interesting that now we are
Speaker 1: proven correct with them other report. There's nothing on my
Speaker 1: Facebook page about it. If it have been the other
Speaker 1: way around, I know my Facebook page would have been
Speaker 1: full of stories with gloating Dems. Well, Jen, I'm sure
Speaker 1: that's probably true. Yes it is. It is the case
Speaker 1: that you know, we're not seeing a lot now that
Speaker 1: not seeing a lot about this in some news outlets.
Speaker 1: But we were right, Jen, and that's very important. Do
Speaker 1: not let that one sort of slip away. We were
Speaker 1: right this whole time, despite the fact, you know, here
Speaker 1: you are listening to a radio show. I don't have
Speaker 1: a news room with hundreds of reporters. I don't have
Speaker 1: billions of dollars of resources at my disposal. I don't
Speaker 1: have any of these things. But I knew all along
Speaker 1: that this day was coming. Did you never had me
Speaker 1: a single day on this radio program where I said, maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe there was collusion, maybe maybe the criminal
Speaker 1: conspiracy to thwart the election was real. That never happened
Speaker 1: one day, And if the evidence had been there, I
Speaker 1: would have said, you guys, I could be wrong on
Speaker 1: this one, but never one day. So how is it
Speaker 1: that I'm able to have certainty on that issue and
Speaker 1: all these other people not only have certainty in the
Speaker 1: in the wrong direction, but refuse to admit that they
Speaker 1: had that wrong certainty letter on Well, because the mainstream
Speaker 1: media is full of overpaid cry babies who aren't really
Speaker 1: interested in ethics and aren't really interested in the truth.
Speaker 1: They have an agenda. Their agenda is largely about their
Speaker 1: own identity, their own prospects and pay and careers, and
Speaker 1: their their privileged place in society, and then also the
Speaker 1: ideas that the left supports. So you know, someone like
Speaker 1: like Brad Stelter of it SIA this, He's like, how
Speaker 1: do I get the biggest contract passes, let's c ann
Speaker 1: how do I make Uncle Jeff happy, Jeff Zucker. And also,
Speaker 1: how do I make sure that when I go to
Speaker 1: the c AA holiday party that everyone's going to be
Speaker 1: really nice to me? Well, we know what the answers
Speaker 1: to those questions are, or we know what the moves
Speaker 1: are in response to those desires. So there you have it, Jen,
Speaker 1: courtesy of Brian Stelter himself. I think I've told you,
Speaker 1: but Stelter is the only person whoever interviewed me got
Speaker 1: crushed in the interview because he tried to come at
Speaker 1: me on something. He tried to come at me on
Speaker 1: terrorism analysis and just had no idea what he was
Speaker 1: talking about, and it was He also is somebody who
Speaker 1: had to redo interviews of my interview several times. He
Speaker 1: has very very weak on air skills and refused to
Speaker 1: refuse to even have the decency to tell me that
Speaker 1: they pulled the interview for a Sunday. They interview me
Speaker 1: on a Friday. It was supposed to air on a Sunday,
Speaker 1: and I asked them because I said, if I'm going
Speaker 1: to promote it Sunday morning on social media, please let
Speaker 1: me know if this is not going to run. And
Speaker 1: I asked them, they said it was running, and then
Speaker 1: it just didn't run, and I knew it wasn't going
Speaker 1: to run because he got slapped around, which is the
Speaker 1: way it would go every time. Let's see back, where
Speaker 1: do is that be a round? That's so big it is?
Speaker 1: It's like so violent of you, Richard. While McConnell is
Speaker 1: preparing to put the Green New Deal to a vote
Speaker 1: in the Senate, how about we go ahead and vote
Speaker 1: on expanding the Supreme Court as well. It's the democrats ideal.
Speaker 1: Let's take care of it now, and Trump can appoint
Speaker 1: two new justice as well. Richard. I think I understand
Speaker 1: your sentiment here, but I don't think that we should
Speaker 1: take the democrats willingness to destroy our democratic institutions and
Speaker 1: just just and beat them to the punch by messing
Speaker 1: them up ourselves. And that's not how we do things.
Speaker 1: We have principles, Richard. I know there's a fight fire
Speaker 1: with fire ethos that sometimes we have to embrace, but
Speaker 1: on this one, I think it's better off if we
Speaker 1: just if we just stick to stick to being right.
Speaker 1: Joe rides Buck. I'm in DC for the week. Can
Speaker 1: I get a picture with you? I want to make
Speaker 1: my brother jealous. He's a huge fan. Joe. I would
Speaker 1: love to say yes, but unfortunately tomorrow, my man, I'm
Speaker 1: heading down to El Paso, Texas, so I'm actually not
Speaker 1: going to be here, and I did not get this
Speaker 1: in time. But I appreciate the offer, the thought, and
Speaker 1: I wish, I wish I could make it happen and
Speaker 1: tell your brother thank you so much for listening to
Speaker 1: the show. But unless you happen to be on the
Speaker 1: next flight to El Paso, my friend, I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: sure we're going to make it happen. Karen, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I love your show. Just want to tell you that
Speaker 1: I also wanted to make a comment about the comfortable
Speaker 1: clothes for men. Suddenly I purchased some stretchy denim pants
Speaker 1: from my husband from Costco. A few days after he
Speaker 1: warred them, he requested at least three more pair. The
Speaker 1: lady at the checkstand said, finally guys are getting on board.
Speaker 1: It was hilarious, Karen. A little bit of stretch in
Speaker 1: the fiber, it just makes things more comfortable. It's just true,
Speaker 1: and your hubs figured that out. You know, comfort is comfort,
Speaker 1: you know, it's like food that tastes good taste good
Speaker 1: people can try to fight it, they can try to
Speaker 1: come up with all kinds of other explanations, but people
Speaker 1: want to be comfortable. And I'm one of those people
Speaker 1: that wants to be comfortable. So I like those stretch
Speaker 1: I wear sweats a lot. I'll tell you, I'm not
Speaker 1: exactly when no one's around, I'm not exactly a fashion plate.
Speaker 1: So I'm very into really comfortable sweats missty Hold on
Speaker 1: a second, Misty, it's loading up. Hey, Buck, would you
Speaker 1: please make the sound bites with media all thing vailable
Speaker 1: for us to share their hilarious shields him. Misty, I
Speaker 1: would like to. I don't really know how we would
Speaker 1: do that. I can tell you that one thing that
Speaker 1: you could do is obviously clip them off the podcast
Speaker 1: of the show, so you could just go to those
Speaker 1: parts of the show in the beginning of the segment
Speaker 1: and then just record it yourself to an MP three. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: I don't really know. A producer Mike could probably post
Speaker 1: it on Facebook. I'll ask them. We'll see. But thank you,
Speaker 1: Misty for righting in Gina or is it Gianna? I
Speaker 1: think it's Gina. Hi Buck, so listening to you extolling
Speaker 1: the virtues of man. Lulu Lemon. Okay, okay, so I oh,
Speaker 1: here we go. So I get being comfortable. I wear
Speaker 1: leggings and flowy large blouses for comfort. But your man
Speaker 1: license is in question with the Lulu Lemon yogas in
Speaker 1: your closet. On the upside, you mentioned under armor as
Speaker 1: an alternative. See, that's what I'm talking about. Keep it real, Buck,
Speaker 1: keep it real. Oh and by the way it's pronounced Gina,
Speaker 1: she'll tie up. She knew that I was going to
Speaker 1: go there, and she beat me to it. Well played, Gina,
Speaker 1: well played, all right. Team. That's it from today here
Speaker 1: in Washington, DC. Honor and a privilege to have been
Speaker 1: with you this time. Please share the podcast with a friend.
Speaker 1: I'll be talking to you tomorrow, same time, same place,
Speaker 1: Shields High. Don't you just love it when you find
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars bill inside a jacket you haven't used
Speaker 1: for ages. It's a great feeling, right Well, imagine finding
Speaker 1: one hundreds of dollars in the papers that are sitting
Speaker 1: in your filing cabin or in those boxes in your attic.
Speaker 1: You know, from that old four h one k paperwork
Speaker 1: from the job before last, the one you forgot about
Speaker 1: while that money's just sitting there gathering dust, it could
Speaker 1: be working much harder for you In a precious metals IRA.
Speaker 1: My friends at Noble Gold can see if you qualify
Speaker 1: and they'll do all the heavy lifting for you. Could
Speaker 1: make you thousands and costs you nothing. Give Noble Goal
Speaker 1: to call at eight seven seven six four six five
Speaker 1: three four seven or text my name Buck that's Buck
Speaker 1: to five eleven, five eleven and received their free Investors Guide.
Speaker 1: Plus for all qualified iras above twenty thousand dollars, they'll
Speaker 1: include a complimentary rare graded Morgan Silver Dollar value it
Speaker 1: at one hundred and fifty dollars. Go to noblegol Investments
Speaker 1: dot com or text Buck to five eleven five eleven.
Speaker 1: Individual results may vary invest wisely. Standard text rates may
Speaker 1: apply