Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Mulla report is out.
Speaker 1: I've read it. Guess what, No collusion, no obstruction, exoneration
Speaker 1: for the president, but no exoneration for the deep state
Speaker 1: coup against him. We will dig into that and much
Speaker 1: more coming up on the Buck Sexton Show. This this
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show or the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake, Americans, You're a great American. Again the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. The Special Counsel's reports states that his
Speaker 1: quote investigate did not establish that members of the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
Speaker 1: election interference activities. I am sure that all Americans share
Speaker 1: my concern about the efforts of the Russian government to
Speaker 1: interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Council report
Speaker 1: makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our
Speaker 1: election process. But thanks to the Special Council's thorough investigation,
Speaker 1: we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these
Speaker 1: schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. Welcome to the Buck section Show, everybody.
Speaker 1: No collusion, no conspiracy. The report is out. I have
Speaker 1: been rummaging through it all day. It is a somewhat
Speaker 1: exhausting and frustrating procedure to get through as much of
Speaker 1: this as I have have. But we knew what the baseline,
Speaker 1: fundamental foundational conclusions were, and none of that changes. The
Speaker 1: President of the United States did not, nor did anyone
Speaker 1: this is very important, Nor did anyone associated with his
Speaker 1: campaign work with or offer to work with the Russians
Speaker 1: to overturn or undermine the election results. None of them.
Speaker 1: It did not happen. This was a conspiracy theory without evidence.
Speaker 1: This was an effort at a soft coup by deep
Speaker 1: state actors loyal to the permanent branch of government known
Speaker 1: as the federal bureaucracy and to Hillary as the Democrat
Speaker 1: candidate who repre presents the party that most affiliates with
Speaker 1: and is supported by the deep state elements of the
Speaker 1: federal government, the Democratic Party. And now we know that
Speaker 1: this was all a lie. We were put through two
Speaker 1: years of hell as a country. Here this insane effort
Speaker 1: to create the president as traitor narrative will hopefully now
Speaker 1: finally come to an end. Although I have to say
Speaker 1: I don't even know if we can count on that.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we can really say definitively that
Speaker 1: the president of the United States will no longer have
Speaker 1: to deal with those lies because the people who are
Speaker 1: currently supposed to be the guardians of our republic, the
Speaker 1: people who are supposed to be telling us the truth
Speaker 1: about what's happened here, the truth about their own reporting,
Speaker 1: don't think they did anything wrong. The press is patting
Speaker 1: themselves on the back in this whole situation. The press
Speaker 1: seems to believe that they've managed this whole thing beautifully. Oh,
Speaker 1: just give them some more Pulitzers. That's what they do anywhere.
Speaker 1: They just give themselves awards talking about how wonderful they are.
Speaker 1: Now the president finally can look around and say, can
Speaker 1: you stop with the crazy No collusion, no conspiracy. The
Speaker 1: fundamental reason that the very underlying justification for this entire
Speaker 1: investigation was wrong. The main media narrative for the last
Speaker 1: two years about how that they were any moment now.
Speaker 1: They kept putting people on TV Brannan and Clapper and
Speaker 1: this whole slew of so called national security experts, imbeciles,
Speaker 1: all of them on this saying that there was gonna
Speaker 1: be collusion. We were gonna find collusion wasn't true. This
Speaker 1: was a lot. There was no effort to conspire with
Speaker 1: the Russians. The Russians cooked up a social media disinformation
Speaker 1: campaign on their own. The Russians hacked some emails, They
Speaker 1: did some stuff here and there. Obama knew about it
Speaker 1: and didn't really talk about it, didn't make a big
Speaker 1: deal of it because you know what, and you can't
Speaker 1: lose sight of this. They all assume that Hillary was
Speaker 1: gonna win anyway, because it wasn't that big a deal.
Speaker 1: It didn't really matter, and they knew it. But then
Speaker 1: when Hillary lost, they couldn't accept that reality, so they
Speaker 1: invented a new reality. Oh my gosh. The Russian interference
Speaker 1: the election was just so powerful. The Russians were spreading
Speaker 1: some disinformation on the web. Who cares. Now we're told
Speaker 1: that this is meant to prevent the next round of
Speaker 1: you know, the next round of Russian interferency, Like this
Speaker 1: is nonsense. This was always about getting Trump. They're lying
Speaker 1: to you today. This was always about getting Trump. This
Speaker 1: wasn't about If it were Russian interference the election, you
Speaker 1: could have just had a normal DOJ investigation. The reason
Speaker 1: for the Special Council was that they wanted to get Trump.
Speaker 1: The reason that this is a very important point, it's
Speaker 1: central to what we have to still find out. The
Speaker 1: reason that they did not tell the Trump campaign that
Speaker 1: George Papadopolis passed along a rumor to some guy at
Speaker 1: a bar in London. This was that's the beginning of
Speaker 1: all this. This is crazy. But the reason they didn't
Speaker 1: tell the Trump campaign that that had happened, that this
Speaker 1: was going on and there were concerns about Russian penetration
Speaker 1: of the campaign, was that the people making these decisions
Speaker 1: in the federal government really believed, at least some of
Speaker 1: them did, that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was working with the Russians. Why do they
Speaker 1: believe that rumor mill just kind of heard it from
Speaker 1: some other people. They should be so deeply ashamed of themselves.
Speaker 1: They profaned, I mean, all these senior FBI guys and djos,
Speaker 1: they profaned the offices and the authority that they have
Speaker 1: as part of this hyper partisan scheme to take down
Speaker 1: the president the United States. This is the biggest political
Speaker 1: scandal of my life. The media got it entirely wrong.
Speaker 1: They approached it all from the wrong angle. It was
Speaker 1: the spying and the collusion between senior government officials, the media,
Speaker 1: and the Democrat Party that should have been the focus
Speaker 1: of this, not this make believe theory that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration worked with the Russian on this, which I've been
Speaker 1: telling this from the start. I'll never forget him. President
Speaker 1: Trump look me in the eyes and said it himself.
Speaker 1: It's a stupid plan. It doesn't even make any sense.
Speaker 1: If the Russians were gonna do this, why would what
Speaker 1: would the Trump campaign bring to the party. Nothing, There's
Speaker 1: no reason. If the Russians wanted us so disinformation about Hillary,
Speaker 1: they can do exactly what they did, which is get
Speaker 1: access to information that makes Hillary look bad. But the
Speaker 1: information doesn't even make her look that bad. All this
Speaker 1: is we're supposed to lose all sense of proportionality, all
Speaker 1: sense of judgment, an intellectual fairness, because you have to
Speaker 1: suspend all of that in order to come up with
Speaker 1: the most damaging narrative possible for Trump and that Hillary
Speaker 1: was robbed and they stole the election for Hillary. But
Speaker 1: ultimately they can't get around this. No conspiracy, it did
Speaker 1: not exist. It was not there. Muller, who was sending
Speaker 1: dozens of guys look like a police platoon, like they
Speaker 1: were going in after see your Alqaida leadership. When they
Speaker 1: arrested Roger Stone. They locked Manaphoor up in solitary confinement
Speaker 1: for months on end after a no knock raid on
Speaker 1: his home early in the morning. They sent George Papadopolis
Speaker 1: to prison for a couple of weeks for lying about
Speaker 1: a total non issue. They didn't give anyone a pass,
Speaker 1: knowing the benefit of the doubt. Muller and his people
Speaker 1: and wifsmen on the rest of the squad of angry
Speaker 1: Democrats were dead set on taking Trump down on this
Speaker 1: conspiracy issue with the Russians. And they couldn't do it
Speaker 1: because it wasn't there. And remember it's not that they
Speaker 1: couldn't prove it, my friends, they couldn't even mount a
Speaker 1: serious case to bring to court. They couldn't even come
Speaker 1: up with charges, and not just charges against Trump, charges
Speaker 1: relating to collusion or conspiracy. Now I have to use
Speaker 1: these terms interchangeably. There were no conspiracy charges involving the
Speaker 1: Russians in the election with anyone in Trump's world. This
Speaker 1: is a very high bar that had to be cleared.
Speaker 1: There was always the possibility. In fact, Rudy Giuliani, the
Speaker 1: president's lawyer, told me this that there were concerns, Well,
Speaker 1: what if some guy did pull a kind of Papadopolis
Speaker 1: like situation where he was freelancing and thought he'd be
Speaker 1: some kind of a hero and reached out to the
Speaker 1: Russians and said, how can I help you hack in
Speaker 1: and maybe gave them some proprietary information or something like that,
Speaker 1: and that could have happened. But it didn't happen. It's
Speaker 1: not that we still asked the question maybe kind of
Speaker 1: sort of yes, no, maybe so about conspiracy with the Russians.
Speaker 1: It is definitively not the case that Trump or the
Speaker 1: campaign worked with the Russians. It did not happen. Attorney
Speaker 1: General Barr has said, after two years, this is where
Speaker 1: we are at. Plicklipped to the Special Council did not
Speaker 1: find any conspiracy to violate US law involving Russian linked
Speaker 1: persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign. So
Speaker 1: that's the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation,
Speaker 1: thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants, and witness interviews, the
Speaker 1: Special Council confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to
Speaker 1: illegally interfere with the two sixteen presidential election, but did
Speaker 1: not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded
Speaker 1: in those efforts. Did not find. After all, this Muller
Speaker 1: wasn't just shaking the tree, he was cutting it down
Speaker 1: with a chainsaw, trying to get answer this. Here he
Speaker 1: went after everybody, ruined reputations through people in prison, set
Speaker 1: loose this team of over zealous prosecutors on anyone in
Speaker 1: Trump's world. No collusion, no conspiracy. There was no Trump
Speaker 1: cheating in the last election. It did not happen. And
Speaker 1: don't don't let them change the subject. This was the
Speaker 1: central allegation. This was the central accusation leveled against the president,
Speaker 1: meant to undermine his entire presidency. They have been dragged
Speaker 1: through hell and back, based on lies concocted by left
Speaker 1: wing pro Hillary partisan Democrats, by a media apparatus that
Speaker 1: is corrupt beyond belief, that has no ethics in its
Speaker 1: journalistic approach, and that view themselves as activists, not as
Speaker 1: purveyors of objective truth. I don't care what they say.
Speaker 1: They know that they're they're trying to win for the
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance against Trump. They know it. But now you
Speaker 1: have the other questions that remain. As I was reading through,
Speaker 1: there's really a report in two parts. There's the whole
Speaker 1: Russia collusion part of it, which I'll have some more
Speaker 1: thoughts on, but I just want to start with that's
Speaker 1: the single most important thing, the single thing that we
Speaker 1: cannot lose sight of, because that is what they told
Speaker 1: us was central to this entire case. But now you
Speaker 1: have obstruction. Oh yes, Now now we turn into this
Speaker 1: more gray area, amorphous, and this is where the Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to try to launch their case for impeachment
Speaker 1: against the President United States. It's exactly what I said
Speaker 1: was going to happen yesterday. I've predicted this not surprising.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of folks who are paying attention
Speaker 1: to predicted this pretty accurately. But on the question of obstruction,
Speaker 1: I have very important, very specific thoughts on this. I
Speaker 1: will come back to them right after this break. After
Speaker 1: finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Council's report
Speaker 1: goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President
Speaker 1: could amount to obstruction of the Special Council's investigation. After
Speaker 1: carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report,
Speaker 1: and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and
Speaker 1: other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney Gentleman I concluded that
Speaker 1: the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient
Speaker 1: to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.
Speaker 1: No obstruction of justice. Now, the media that got this
Speaker 1: wrong and the Democrats are saying, well, there's not exoneration either,
Speaker 1: but that's not the standard that our criminal justice system
Speaker 1: works under. This was a criminal investigation, although there was
Speaker 1: no underlying crime for the investigation, which I would argue
Speaker 1: and I think many others do as well, really largely
Speaker 1: invalidates this entire process. That this was all meant to
Speaker 1: be a get Trump operation from the start, which we
Speaker 1: knew it was. We have been you and I have
Speaker 1: been correct on this from the very beginning. But then
Speaker 1: they figured, well, if we can't get him on the collusion,
Speaker 1: we'll get him on the obstruction. They didn't get him
Speaker 1: on that either. Now they're going to say, however, that
Speaker 1: there was ample evidence. It's just that there could not
Speaker 1: have been a prosecution of the president under obstruction because
Speaker 1: of the way that Muller wrote up this report. And
Speaker 1: let me say this, for Muller to take the position
Speaker 1: that he will not take a position is dirty politics.
Speaker 1: That's all it is. This is dirty pool and everyone
Speaker 1: knows it. Muller and his whole team spent two years
Speaker 1: to basically give us nothing, nothing that we really care
Speaker 1: about with regard to Russian interferencing election. We already knew
Speaker 1: about Russian interference election. Nothing with regard to the president
Speaker 1: or any of his top people involved with Russians in
Speaker 1: a way that makes us sit up and show legitimate
Speaker 1: concern about something that happened, because it didn't happen. And
Speaker 1: now on obstruct here's the very simple overview of what's
Speaker 1: really going on with obstruction. The President of the United
Speaker 1: States was the top or was the subject and the
Speaker 1: target of a witch hunt, and he did not like that.
Speaker 1: And when you are an innocent person and law enforcement officials,
Speaker 1: for obvious reasons of politics, come after you and everyone
Speaker 1: around you, trying to ruin you, trying to destroy you,
Speaker 1: you tend to get upset. And when you are the
Speaker 1: leader of the free world, when you are the president
Speaker 1: the United States, the commander in chief, the head of
Speaker 1: the executive branch, and you have a country to run,
Speaker 1: and you know you haven't done anything wrong. You did
Speaker 1: not collude with the Russians, Your people did not collude
Speaker 1: with the Russians. This was all a fairy tale, although
Speaker 1: a very damaging, very destructive one. Yes, you get mad,
Speaker 1: you say things like how do I make this end?
Speaker 1: Where do we go to make this thing stop? But
Speaker 1: the analysis I'm hearing today from people about how, oh, well,
Speaker 1: innocent people would never say this, or an innocent person whatever,
Speaker 1: that is complete crap. Trump had to sit through after
Speaker 1: winning an election that is so improbable in terms of
Speaker 1: what the predictions were and what we were told the
Speaker 1: numbers were that it's almost hard to believe even at
Speaker 1: this point that he's the president United States. But Trump
Speaker 1: has had to spend two years with this just massive
Speaker 1: lie being used as the as the primary tool of
Speaker 1: opposition against his administration, and he's supposed to sit there silently.
Speaker 1: The Mulla report goes through his public statements, his public pronouncements.
Speaker 1: You know here, you know all these different aspects of
Speaker 1: what the President has said about the investigation. It goes
Speaker 1: through in detail the firing of James Kobe. It talks
Speaker 1: about General Flynn and now security advisor. What happened all
Speaker 1: around this, And I mean, ultimately, what you have is
Speaker 1: the president lashing out because he was quartered by this
Speaker 1: deep state coup and had to fight his way out
Speaker 1: of it. So I'm sorry, but I don't really care
Speaker 1: what Mueller thinks about how the President was taking the
Speaker 1: ambush that Mueller's buddy set up for the president. We'll
Speaker 1: be back in just a moment. More on then, we've
Speaker 1: got to dive deep into obstruction. Stay with me. He
Speaker 1: special counsel indicates that he wanted you to make the
Speaker 1: decision or that it should be left for Congress. Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to
Speaker 1: leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not
Speaker 1: his view, since we don't convene grand juries and conduct
Speaker 1: criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not. I didn't
Speaker 1: talk to him directly about the fact that we were
Speaker 1: making the decision, but I am told that his reaction
Speaker 1: to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney
Speaker 1: general to make that decision. It is the prerogative of
Speaker 1: the attorney general make the decision, and Bill Barr made
Speaker 1: the right decision here. But that the press is trying
Speaker 1: to call him, of course, a tool of Trump, a hack.
Speaker 1: Let me let me be very clear about this. There
Speaker 1: is nobody in the role of attorney general. It is
Speaker 1: not possible to find a human being to be the
Speaker 1: Attorney general at this time that the media and the
Speaker 1: Democrats would accept. If the Attorney General did not hand
Speaker 1: down an indictment of the press the United States, no
Speaker 1: one would be acceptable. Because Barr is gold standard level
Speaker 1: ag material, has already been the attorney general. He's well
Speaker 1: respected in legal circles. No serious person thinks that Barr
Speaker 1: is unserious. But you're already seeing all these Democrats and
Speaker 1: different pundits going on TV. Oh Bars, you know, he's
Speaker 1: Trump's you could say, wingman. Remember I think I think
Speaker 1: a previous Attorney general referred to himself as as a
Speaker 1: different president's wingman. Remember when that happened. But they're trying
Speaker 1: to undermine Bar even though the press conference that they
Speaker 1: were complaining about, the press conference that it was before
Speaker 1: the report came out. Meanwhile, the press conference was meant
Speaker 1: so that people could understand what's in the report and
Speaker 1: what they're being presented with and to give it some context.
Speaker 1: Those who were saying that there's spin. I kept hearing,
Speaker 1: Oh there's spin, There's there's not spin. He's saying, this
Speaker 1: is what we're giving you. These are the findings. It
Speaker 1: was as as neutral and straightforward as a lawyer I
Speaker 1: think could possibly be on this. And that's what you know.
Speaker 1: Bar was in the in the role here of top
Speaker 1: lawyer for the country. And this idea that the Congress
Speaker 1: is the one who should make the decision, and that's
Speaker 1: what we came into with that sound bite. That's just insane.
Speaker 1: No one takes that position that that does not make
Speaker 1: any sense. Why would the Congress be left with that
Speaker 1: role when that's not the role of congress. Congress doesn't
Speaker 1: doesn't have a prosecutorial does a prosecutorial function to play here?
Speaker 1: And what are they really going to do. They're going
Speaker 1: to say that there wasn't even enough to bring obstruction
Speaker 1: charges and a note that also by the Special counsel's
Speaker 1: own admission, there are questions as to whether you really
Speaker 1: could even claim, but they're under any context, you can
Speaker 1: claim that some of the acts that Trump took were
Speaker 1: obstruction because of his constitutional authority. The president can fire
Speaker 1: the FBI director, he can do that. He has the
Speaker 1: right to do that for any reason or no reason.
Speaker 1: So how are you going to claim that that's obstruction
Speaker 1: when he's allowed to There are other areas as well
Speaker 1: where I think the Muller team was stretching to the limited,
Speaker 1: to the limits of credulity in order to just leave
Speaker 1: open enough space for the Democrat media avalanche to just
Speaker 1: flow in and fill in the blanks with whatever they
Speaker 1: want to say about all of this. The decision was
Speaker 1: not to be left to Congress. It's not Congress's decision
Speaker 1: to make. It was really Mueller's decision. And he wouldn't
Speaker 1: make it, and he wouldn't make it because it wasn't there.
Speaker 1: He didn't have it, but he didn't want to say
Speaker 1: that on obstruction. So what did he do created this
Speaker 1: whole Well, I don't know. Let's leave it for Attorney
Speaker 1: General bar and Rod Rosenstein, who I mean. Today, I
Speaker 1: was at the Hill. I was talking to a bunch
Speaker 1: of Democrats, but all this different stuff, and I was
Speaker 1: hearing how well, you know Rosenstein. One of the Democrats
Speaker 1: that came on said Rosenstein should have refused himself, and
Speaker 1: I just practically, you know, choked on my tongue. Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: So now now Rosenstein is insufficient for the left. There
Speaker 1: was a time when the president removing or impeding Rosenstein
Speaker 1: was the DJ equivalent of like Pearl Harbor. It was
Speaker 1: the worst thing that any human being could possibly do.
Speaker 1: Now we're told that Rosenstein. Yeah, Rosen probably should have
Speaker 1: accused himself. Actually, but Democrats were opposed to that the
Speaker 1: whole time and would have reacted with an insane level
Speaker 1: of you know, outrage if you would remove Rosenstein. I mean,
Speaker 1: that would have been a complete from their perspective, complete catastrophe,
Speaker 1: totally unacceptable, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And
Speaker 1: now they're saying, oh, maybe rosin should recuse them because
Speaker 1: they didn't get the outcome they want. When they don't,
Speaker 1: when Democrats don't get the outcome they want in this process,
Speaker 1: what do they do? They say the people were the
Speaker 1: wrong people, they're Trumpers, they can't be trusted. They attack
Speaker 1: the integrity of people like Bill Barr, attack it just
Speaker 1: because they didn't get what they didn't get what they
Speaker 1: wanted here. But Barr has also been a thorn in
Speaker 1: the side of the media recently because he is very
Speaker 1: good on his feet. There was a fantastic moment when
Speaker 1: Barr slapped down some reporters for a brief q and
Speaker 1: a after the press conference. That set the tone for
Speaker 1: everything today. But here's what happened when they asked Barr
Speaker 1: about whether he was protecting Trump. This is what they're saying.
Speaker 1: Play seven. I'm the general side of Democrats who have
Speaker 1: questions in some of the process. Here, a Republican appointed
Speaker 1: judge on Tuesday said, you have created an environment that
Speaker 1: has caused a significant part of the American public to
Speaker 1: be concerned about these redactions to clear the president on obstruction.
Speaker 1: The president is fund raising off of your comments about spine,
Speaker 1: and here you have remarks that are quite generous to
Speaker 1: the president, including acknowledging his feelings and his emotions. So
Speaker 1: what do you say to people on full sides of
Speaker 1: the aisle, we're concerned that you are trying to protect
Speaker 1: the president. Actually, the statements about his sincere beliefs our
Speaker 1: record nice in the report that there was substantial evidence
Speaker 1: for that. So I'm not sure what your basis is
Speaker 1: for saying that I am being generous to the president.
Speaker 1: Is there is there another precedent for it? No? Okay,
Speaker 1: so unprecedented as an accurate description, isn't it. I love
Speaker 1: that you went out of your way to, you know,
Speaker 1: be so nice to Trump by saying it was unprecedented.
Speaker 1: But he goes, is there a precedent? No, there's no precedent,
Speaker 1: so it's unprecedented. It's like, but this is what you're
Speaker 1: dealing with the media. They're like a bunch of little
Speaker 1: idiot children running around. They don't know anything. They don't
Speaker 1: even think through it. They're saying that I don't even
Speaker 1: know who that reporter was. I can't tell by her
Speaker 1: voice whoever it is. She just knows, attack bar, attack bar.
Speaker 1: That's her job. Her job is to attack bars, not
Speaker 1: to get to the truth. It's not to find useful information.
Speaker 1: It's do a little bit of grandstanding for your left
Speaker 1: wing producers back in the studio and for your left
Speaker 1: wing audience and whatever networks or whatever publications she represents,
Speaker 1: and attack Bar's credibility by saying he's protecting Trump by
Speaker 1: saying that this is an unprecedented situation, which is a
Speaker 1: completely objective and factual description of the situation. But see
Speaker 1: if objective and factual in any context benefits Trump, then
Speaker 1: objective and factual information itself cannot be trusted. You see,
Speaker 1: this is the degree of craziness that the Democrats are
Speaker 1: living in. This is the degree of insanity that they
Speaker 1: have created for all of us to have to deal with.
Speaker 1: I find it just beyond words that anyone in the
Speaker 1: media could think that they have done a good job
Speaker 1: on this, that they have handled this whole thing well,
Speaker 1: there were so many people. There are best selling left
Speaker 1: wing authors who write books, who've written books recently titles
Speaker 1: like proof of Collusion. This is whackadoo stuff, This is nuts,
Speaker 1: And the speculation in the media was all meant to
Speaker 1: add fuel to the fire right. This is what the
Speaker 1: media doesn't understand by running stories every night about like
Speaker 1: oh this, and having all these analysts that go on
Speaker 1: TV say, oh, I'm very sure there's gonna be collusion,
Speaker 1: very sure there's gonna be collusion. No opposing voices on CNN,
Speaker 1: no serious doubt brought to bear, and they're reporting lots
Speaker 1: of fake news stories, lots of stories that have to
Speaker 1: be retracted. All of them are anti Trump, by the way,
Speaker 1: that's not a coincidence. And they think that that just
Speaker 1: constant drumbeat of undermining the president, suggesting that the President
Speaker 1: of the United States is a traitor that now they
Speaker 1: can just walk away from that. Because the President was
Speaker 1: kind of angry about this whole situation and thought about
Speaker 1: firing Sank to comy re fired him or whatever was
Speaker 1: there was relentless speculation in the news media about the
Speaker 1: president's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning,
Speaker 1: there was in fact no collusion, and as the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that
Speaker 1: the President was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief
Speaker 1: that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his
Speaker 1: political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White
Speaker 1: House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered
Speaker 1: access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides
Speaker 1: to testify freely, and asserting no privileged claims. And at
Speaker 1: the same time, the President took no act that in
Speaker 1: fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses
Speaker 1: necessary to complete his investigation. Not only, and this is
Speaker 1: what bar is telling, it's so important that the president
Speaker 1: not obstruct this investigation, didn't use bleach bit didn't destroy,
Speaker 1: you know, phones and servers with hammers or phones with hammers,
Speaker 1: didn't try to erase thirty thousand emails. Not only did
Speaker 1: Trump not do that, the Trump team, the Trump White House,
Speaker 1: the President himself gave more than what was required in
Speaker 1: terms of sharing, waived executive privilege, said you can, and
Speaker 1: they could have very well said now we're going to
Speaker 1: claim executive privilege over the following things that would have
Speaker 1: been completely legitimate. But this was very open, very transparent.
Speaker 1: Bar didn't have to even share this report with anyone.
Speaker 1: It could have been an entirely secret report. Obviously the
Speaker 1: politics of that would have been difficult, but it would
Speaker 1: be legal, would be within the guidelines, would be within
Speaker 1: this system. You know, we're always told, don't undermine the system,
Speaker 1: don't undermine our you know, our institutions. That's what they
Speaker 1: always say. But the president, attorney general, they received No
Speaker 1: there's no credit from the other side for this because
Speaker 1: it was never about this is this is what if
Speaker 1: you get nothing else from what we've seen here. This
Speaker 1: was never about getting the truth. This was always about
Speaker 1: getting Trump. This was always about revenge for Hillary's defeat
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen and for the rejection of the elite
Speaker 1: leftist ideology that Hillary represents, and that in a post
Speaker 1: Obama America a lot of Democrats thought was the unbounded
Speaker 1: future of this country without without any real opposition, without
Speaker 1: any you know, it was going to be Hillary for
Speaker 1: eight years because their side had won, their belief their
Speaker 1: ideas had won. Turned out that was not the case,
Speaker 1: and they could not handle it. I have more on
Speaker 1: the media reaction to this, and also my friend Sean
Speaker 1: Davis from the Federalists will be joining talk about what
Speaker 1: he sees. He's a guy who gets very deep in
Speaker 1: the weeds on this report and has been getting deep
Speaker 1: in the weeds on all MULA reporting, stretching back to
Speaker 1: the very beginning of this whole fiasco. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a really interesting conversation with him, and then we've
Speaker 1: got later on the show some updates on where the
Speaker 1: Democrats are in the field, and I've got some thoughts
Speaker 1: on in the aftermath of the Notre Dame disaster for you,
Speaker 1: a lot of things. So we're gonna not just do
Speaker 1: this topic for the whole show, I promise, but we
Speaker 1: got more on this coming up. And they're having a
Speaker 1: good day I'm having a good day too. It was
Speaker 1: called no collusion, no obstruction. There never was, by the way,
Speaker 1: and then never will be. And we do have to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of these things. I will say,
Speaker 1: And this should never happen. I say this in front
Speaker 1: of my friends wounded warriors, and I just call them
Speaker 1: warriors because we just shook hands and they look great,
Speaker 1: they look so good, so beautiful. But I said in
Speaker 1: front of my friends, this should never happen to another
Speaker 1: president again, this hoax, This should never happen to another
Speaker 1: president again. Thank you. And yet I worry that it
Speaker 1: will unless there's a real effort to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this. I worry that the Democrats view this
Speaker 1: whole thing as, in some sense a limited victory for themselves,
Speaker 1: because while they didn't prove any of this, because it
Speaker 1: was all a lie, they did manage to slow down
Speaker 1: the administration, to use this as a tool of opposition,
Speaker 1: to grind away at the President and his allies with
Speaker 1: this mess, with this disaster of an investigation that, even
Speaker 1: though was unsuccessful in the end, really did punish the
Speaker 1: administration because the process, as I always say, the process
Speaker 1: was the punishment they were hoping for. More. But they
Speaker 1: certainly got some degree of punishment out of this in
Speaker 1: this entire situation. But if we're looking for the media
Speaker 1: to have any honesty about this, we are going to
Speaker 1: be looking for a very long time. This is just
Speaker 1: a collection of some of the things that you were
Speaker 1: hearing today from the so called guardians of our Republic,
Speaker 1: who just next weekend at the White House correspondence dinner,
Speaker 1: will be celebrating themselves a bunch of self deluding, self loving,
Speaker 1: self loathing nerds, all gathered together in one place. Play ten.
Speaker 1: That is the cardinal. You do not brief the White
Speaker 1: House on criminal investigations before that information is public, let
Speaker 1: alone a criminal investigation into the present hitting. Yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: of course, even though the report says he's not exonerated
Speaker 1: choosing to do this press conference using the word spying,
Speaker 1: briefing the president's legal team on this, you know. And
Speaker 1: so the difference between bar and Jeff Sessions, I think
Speaker 1: is that he was going to be a truck lackey
Speaker 1: of the president. It turns out that this Attorney general
Speaker 1: is I don't know how many Senate Democrats thought that
Speaker 1: they would say that they missed Jeff Session. I mean,
Speaker 1: they aren't even pretending anymore to try to follow the rules.
Speaker 1: That's the thing that's so disturbing. They just don't even care.
Speaker 1: By the way, occase you're wondering, what does collusion look like,
Speaker 1: it looks like the Attorney general briefing the Attorney general's
Speaker 1: lawyer's briefing the president before Congress of the public. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they're all just idiots and they don't
Speaker 1: know what the process is. But notice how they complain
Speaker 1: and to the process is being violated, and then don't
Speaker 1: tell us in what way because they're just complaining. This
Speaker 1: is just whining. They don't even know. They're just unhappy
Speaker 1: because they're not getting the toy they want. They don't
Speaker 1: know and don't care that they don't deserve the toy,
Speaker 1: that it's not for them, that it's for someone else. Right,
Speaker 1: they're little, screaming, whiney children. They don't know anything. I mean,
Speaker 1: the CNN eight person mega panel that was on that
Speaker 1: I saw a little bit of it. It was ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Not a single person up there had a word of
Speaker 1: not even pro Trump, just skepticism of the CNN claims
Speaker 1: about how all this looks so bad for the president
Speaker 1: looks bad for the president. Look, the whole thing looks
Speaker 1: terrible for CNN. The CNN should have to just start
Speaker 1: again from zero, from scratch and actually become a real
Speaker 1: news organization. That's what should happen here. I have Sean
Speaker 1: Davis joining me in a couple of minutes and he's
Speaker 1: going to break more of this down. Team. We have
Speaker 1: so much more show, so stay right there. So one
Speaker 1: of the most important things that we should all take
Speaker 1: away from Muller Report day, I've got our friend Sean Davis,
Speaker 1: who has been digging deep into the details of this
Speaker 1: report all day to day as well as for the
Speaker 1: last two years when it comes to all things Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: He's a guy who actually reads all the things that
Speaker 1: are released from Capitol Hill and looks at the footnotes
Speaker 1: and does research on them. So someone that we really
Speaker 1: do need to talk to here. Sean Davis is co
Speaker 1: founder of The Federalist. The Federalist dot com one of
Speaker 1: my favorite websites. Also a website that happened to get
Speaker 1: all this Russia stuff right for the last two years,
Speaker 1: which is which is nice. They got that going for them. Sean,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for making the time. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So what are the things today you see? You're like, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is new, Like I've already been telling folks. Obviously
Speaker 1: there's no collusion, no obstruction, there's no charges, we know
Speaker 1: all that stuff. What did you see in this report
Speaker 1: that you say, oh, that's really interesting and new. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the most interesting thing other than the fact
Speaker 1: that a team of dedicated anti Trump partisans had two
Speaker 1: years and twenty million dollars to dig up anything they
Speaker 1: could on collusion and couldn't find any like that. To me,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty big deal. It's not like these people
Speaker 1: all went in with an open mind, you know, didn't
Speaker 1: really have strong feelings one way or about the other
Speaker 1: about Trump. The lead prosecutor on this was a Hillary's
Speaker 1: victory night party, which ended up being so sad. So
Speaker 1: these are all people with a really vested interest in
Speaker 1: the outcome, and even they couldn't find collusions. So that's
Speaker 1: the most interesting thing to me personally assigned. From that,
Speaker 1: what was most interesting to me and the report is
Speaker 1: what was not included, which was any information whatsoever about
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton campaigns admitted collusion with Russians that helped
Speaker 1: cook up this entire conspiracy theory in the first place.
Speaker 1: And it's a weird thing given that Muller was ostensibly
Speaker 1: appointed to investigate Russian interference in our twenty sixteen elections.
Speaker 1: So Christopher Steele has mentioned i think fourteen times in
Speaker 1: a four hundred forty eight page report, never once mentions
Speaker 1: that he was also working on behalf of a sanctioned
Speaker 1: Russian oligarch, was even lobbying on his behalf to a
Speaker 1: top DJ official while all this was going on, does
Speaker 1: not mention even the name of Fusion GPS, which, at
Speaker 1: the same time time it was working for Hillary and
Speaker 1: employing Christopher Steele, was also working on behalf of a
Speaker 1: Russian holding company they had been charged with money laundering,
Speaker 1: invading US sanctions, namely Prevason, and that that company's top attorney,
Speaker 1: the woman who was in this infamous June ninth Trump
Speaker 1: Tower meeting that created so much hysteria, was the point
Speaker 1: person for the Clinton campaign firm that hired the spy
Speaker 1: who cooked all this stuff up in the first place.
Speaker 1: So it's super weird to me that in a report
Speaker 1: this four hundred forty eight pages about Russian inclusion, we
Speaker 1: don't get a single mention of a pretty glaring example
Speaker 1: of Russian inclusion that happened during the entire campaign, And
Speaker 1: I think those emissions really tell the story of this
Speaker 1: entire investigation from beginning to end. And as to the
Speaker 1: Muller decision, and I read through the sections and the
Speaker 1: report where they talk about how they came to the
Speaker 1: decision essentially to not decide, I found the whole thing
Speaker 1: deeply disingenuous. If what do they think was going to
Speaker 1: happen here, then how are we supposed to react to, Well,
Speaker 1: we just decided we're not going to decide, to let
Speaker 1: someone else decide. Well, I think I have to quote
Speaker 1: musical and philosophical luminary Getty Lee, if you choose not
Speaker 1: to decide, you'd still have made a choice from Rush
Speaker 1: great band. Check it out. He clearly made a decision
Speaker 1: not to charge, not to indict, and he can dress
Speaker 1: up the decision with all the excuses he wants, which
Speaker 1: he clearly does. But in reading the obstruction section of
Speaker 1: the report, I was really reminded of how much it
Speaker 1: resembled that embarrassing press conference that James Comey did in
Speaker 1: July of twenty sixteen over why he wasn't going to
Speaker 1: indict Hillary. So he goes up there and said she
Speaker 1: committed no crime, she did nothing wrong, We're not charging
Speaker 1: her with anything, and then proceeded to spend an hour
Speaker 1: dragging her through the mud in a way that made
Speaker 1: it impossible for her to ever defend herself and clear
Speaker 1: her name. And I say this as someone who doesn't
Speaker 1: like Hillary and thinks she should have been charged. But
Speaker 1: the job of a prosecutor is to look at the
Speaker 1: facts and then to make one decision do I charge
Speaker 1: the person or not? And to not charge and then
Speaker 1: go and completely smear someone and drag them through the
Speaker 1: mud in an unofficial proceeding where they have no way
Speaker 1: of clearing their name. It's just unconscionable. And it's why
Speaker 1: Democrats at that time we're calling for Komy's head. Now
Speaker 1: fast forward three years and you have Mueller doing the
Speaker 1: exact same thing to Trump in his report that Coomy did,
Speaker 1: and it shows just how irresponsible and abusive those two
Speaker 1: men are as prosecutors. It's no surprise that the BFFs
Speaker 1: and that Mueller was Komy's mentor. So I read through
Speaker 1: all that I was so nonplused by it, so unimpressed.
Speaker 1: The whole thing read to me as little more than
Speaker 1: a pretext and a roadmap to impeachment that they knew
Speaker 1: they didn't have the juice to pull off an indictment,
Speaker 1: let alone in a conviction, so they left all these
Speaker 1: little breadcrumbs and asserted things like mean tweets is being
Speaker 1: a facial evidence of obstruction of justice. I found the
Speaker 1: whole thing absurd. Now Weissman's obviously an anti Trump Democrat.
Speaker 1: A bunch of the others, Uh what genie Ree actually
Speaker 1: just heard from someone today about how in the interactions
Speaker 1: with the Genie Ree, how nasty she was and how
Speaker 1: how you know, aggressive she was and in dealing with
Speaker 1: people who were interacting with special counsel. I thought that
Speaker 1: was an interesting side note of off camera. But is
Speaker 1: if someone says to you, Sean proved to me that
Speaker 1: Muller is an anti Trump partisan, what is you? What
Speaker 1: is your your short version case for that? Look at
Speaker 1: the results? I mean, didn't demand, to my knowledge, didn't
Speaker 1: hire a single Republican. The person who he picked to
Speaker 1: be in charge U with a guy who was hoping
Speaker 1: to celebrate Hillary Clinton's victory at the Jabbt Center on
Speaker 1: that election night, and that didn't turn out too well.
Speaker 1: Genie reef Are going to sake was a Clinton Foundation
Speaker 1: lawyer before she got tapped to go over to the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. And it's impossible to read through this report,
Speaker 1: both the collusion section and the obstruction and not come
Speaker 1: away with the belief, having read between the lines and
Speaker 1: read the lines and read the footnotes, that this whole
Speaker 1: thing was designed and written to get Trump. And so
Speaker 1: you say, will prove that it was that he was
Speaker 1: a partisan, that he's just going after Trump. The proof
Speaker 1: is in what he didn't put in there, which is
Speaker 1: nothing about the Hillary Clinton campaigns known admitted documented collusion
Speaker 1: with Russians. Christopher Steele, this foreign spy, by the way,
Speaker 1: who's hired on behalf of a campaign. I was told
Speaker 1: that was wrong. This is a guy who, in his
Speaker 1: own debunked and discredited dossiers said he had gotten information
Speaker 1: directly from Kremlin officials. If that's not collusion or conspiracy
Speaker 1: to spread dirt on a political opponent to interfere with
Speaker 1: US democracy, then the turn has no meaning. So I've
Speaker 1: never aller did. This whole thing is absurd. I've never
Speaker 1: gotten an explanation for this. I'm wondering if any, if
Speaker 1: any lives have thrown something up in your way on
Speaker 1: this one. They keep saying, oh, well, the Trump Tower meeting,
Speaker 1: he should they should have called the FBI right away
Speaker 1: and not even accepted the meeting. And I say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. So someone says they have damaging
Speaker 1: information or political opponent because they're a foreigner, you're supposed
Speaker 1: to say, I can't even talk to you. Meanwhile, Hillary
Speaker 1: on behalf of Hillary Clinton, as we all know, there
Speaker 1: was the hiring of Christopher Steele, who's a foreigner, and
Speaker 1: the fact that he's British doesn't doesn't change the fact
Speaker 1: that he's not an American citizen. He's a foreigner working
Speaker 1: on behalf of a campaign, but using Russian sources who
Speaker 1: are giving him the information. Like why is that? Okay,
Speaker 1: I've never gotten that explanation. Oh, they don't explain it.
Speaker 1: They just ignored and pretend to it will go away,
Speaker 1: similar to how Muller handled it. Maybe if you just
Speaker 1: pretend it never happened, you'll never have to explain it.
Speaker 1: But it's not just that Christopher Steele was a foreigner
Speaker 1: working on behalf of the campaign. At the same time
Speaker 1: he was scheming with DOJ to get Trump affiliates spied
Speaker 1: on using false information. He was also working on behalf
Speaker 1: of a sanctioned Russian oligarch in Oleg Deripaska. He in
Speaker 1: fact kept on referring to him in his conversations with
Speaker 1: Bruce or at Jay is our favorite tycoon. This is
Speaker 1: a guy who was trying to set up interviews between
Speaker 1: dry Post and DJ as a pretext to get him
Speaker 1: into the United States since he couldn't get a visa
Speaker 1: as a sanctioned of Russian oligard. So there is no
Speaker 1: explanation for the double standard. Instead, the liberals and left
Speaker 1: wingers and media just pretend that that never happened and
Speaker 1: hope that people will forget it. Ever did speaking to
Speaker 1: Sean Davis, co founder of The Federalist, You know, Sean,
Speaker 1: I had to do live coverage starting very early this
Speaker 1: morning and then all through into the afternoon on the Hill,
Speaker 1: so I missed, but it was seeing snippets here and
Speaker 1: there and could see the monitors in the distance. CNN.
Speaker 1: Were you able to watch some of the CNN eight
Speaker 1: person meltdown panel today? And I'm just wondering if you
Speaker 1: could give us your your your view of how the
Speaker 1: lib media is reacting to the report today. Overall, I
Speaker 1: did not watch CNN today, one because I'm, like you know,
Speaker 1: all other three hundred and thirty million Americans, completely uninterested
Speaker 1: in what they have to say. And number two, I'm
Speaker 1: not massochist. I did see people talking about it. I
Speaker 1: saw several journalists, Philip Bump at the Washington Post, Julia
Speaker 1: Aiaf wherever she is now, saying you know what, in
Speaker 1: reading this Mueller report, I can only conclude that the
Speaker 1: American press nailed it. Their journalism was so good that's amazing.
Speaker 1: They're they're in a different reality. I mean, these are
Speaker 1: people hanging around at Jamestown ready to gulps and kool aid,
Speaker 1: waiting for the spaceship to come down. They're completely delusional.
Speaker 1: They have more in common with delusional cultists than they
Speaker 1: do with actual purveyors of fact and reason, and their
Speaker 1: entire behavior today has been a complete embarrassment, both to
Speaker 1: them personally and of their profession. The other part of
Speaker 1: this that really stuck out to be today was we really,
Speaker 1: we know now beyond any any reasonable doubt. I think
Speaker 1: you could say that this whole FBI investigation at least
Speaker 1: according to the FBI, and according to the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: was started because George Papadopoulos that this pretense that a
Speaker 1: guy who is peripherally kind of tied to a presidential campaign,
Speaker 1: who is mouthing off about something that was widely rumored
Speaker 1: to have happened, and people have known for a while
Speaker 1: that there was some hacking that had gone out, that
Speaker 1: they would start this whole investigation, and then based on
Speaker 1: a Papadopoulos had said, I feel like it must go
Speaker 1: all the way to the top Seawan because otherwise, why
Speaker 1: didn't they tell the Trump campaign? You got a guy
Speaker 1: who's running on saying crazy stuff. We're worried the Russians
Speaker 1: are going to exploit him. Right, if it was a
Speaker 1: real counterintelligence investigation, they should have warned the campaign, But
Speaker 1: they used this as an excuse to pretend like Donald
Speaker 1: Trump must be the one given the orders. That's exactly right,
Speaker 1: and we're going to eventually find out that this just
Speaker 1: this claim that nobody in Trump world was being investigated,
Speaker 1: that the entire thing didn't start until the FBI got
Speaker 1: wind of this conversation London. That's a total lie. They
Speaker 1: may have not started a particular investigation with a particular
Speaker 1: name on it until pop it off list conversation was transmitted.
Speaker 1: But they were investigating Trump people long before then, and
Speaker 1: so I think it's important to step back and look
Speaker 1: at what was happening in twenty sixteen. They used this
Speaker 1: kind of nonsense. They used the dossier, They used innuendo
Speaker 1: as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign. That
Speaker 1: was the insurance policy. They then used the intelligence they collected,
Speaker 1: the information they collected from that campaign to cast down
Speaker 1: on the legitimacy of Trump's election. This was the execution
Speaker 1: of the insurance policy. Then when they became when Trump
Speaker 1: became president, they used that information to force the recusal
Speaker 1: of Attorney General so they could again take things over
Speaker 1: and hold Trump hostage. That's what the whole Trump meeting
Speaker 1: about the dossier on January sixth was about. Was about
Speaker 1: making it impossible for Trump to take control of this
Speaker 1: agency from the people who were waiting on Hillary Clint
Speaker 1: to take it over. And then finally, the Mueller investation
Speaker 1: was a pretext and under this justification of it being
Speaker 1: a counterintelligence program to eventually get rid of the president
Speaker 1: for obstruction. Okay, that's what happened. It's not even debatable anymore.
Speaker 1: The facts are clear. There was an attempted coup on
Speaker 1: the president. It failed. It failed twice, it failed prior
Speaker 1: to Comy's firing, and it failed with the Moeller investigation,
Speaker 1: and sadly, nobody on the left is ever going to
Speaker 1: let it go. They will take it to their graves,
Speaker 1: believing that Trump was a Russian spy who stole the
Speaker 1: election from Hillary. Sean Davis of the Federalists, everybody follow
Speaker 1: him on Twitter and check out the Federalist dot com
Speaker 1: for his latest and all the other fund writers over
Speaker 1: their Sean actual work on this one, sir, Thanks for
Speaker 1: making the time always a pleasure. Thank you, Buck team.
Speaker 1: We'll be back with a whole lot more. CIA and
Speaker 1: Intel agencies have become bastions of liberals. I see is
Speaker 1: the headline here on the Drudge Report Today World discussing
Speaker 1: all things Mueller and looking into what was the basis
Speaker 1: Not just for this investigation, but how did so many
Speaker 1: people get this so wrong? You got this piece here
Speaker 1: by Bill Bill Gertz with a subtitle of the former
Speaker 1: CIA analyst says agency's dominated by liberals. He could be
Speaker 1: talking about me, folks, but he's not but you all
Speaker 1: know I have been saying this for a long long time.
Speaker 1: John Gentry, however, the guy who's named in this piece,
Speaker 1: he spent twelve years as a CIA analyst, criticized former
Speaker 1: senior intelligence leaders, including SI director Brennan, Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence James Clapper, former DEPUTYCI director Mike Morell, along with
Speaker 1: former analyst Paul Polar, for breaking decades long prohibitions of
Speaker 1: publicly airing their liberal politics in attacking Trump. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you it's it's more than that. Though. It's more
Speaker 1: than just these guys. There is now an institutional bias.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you this. I have many friends still on
Speaker 1: the inside they know this too. There is an institutional
Speaker 1: bias in the federal government toward the left. The federal
Speaker 1: government donations for federal government employees in the last election,
Speaker 1: I think it was over ninety percent went to Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: So when you think about this in terms of votes,
Speaker 1: if you have massive institutions, which the federal bureaucracies are,
Speaker 1: with a tremendous number of people as well as a
Speaker 1: whole lot of power and sway because they're the ones
Speaker 1: who are implementing government authority day to day, especially at
Speaker 1: places like DJ and FBI. If nine out of ten overall,
Speaker 1: now I don't think it's not an at ten of
Speaker 1: the FBI, but if nine out of ten across the
Speaker 1: federal government are little Hillary Bots, that is really meaningful,
Speaker 1: and that's really troubling because it means that there is
Speaker 1: a similar bias at work in the federal bureaucracy and
Speaker 1: especially in the federal National Security apparatus as you would
Speaker 1: see on a college campus where nine out of ten
Speaker 1: professors are super liberal. So I do think that this
Speaker 1: is a much bigger problem. And one of the reasons
Speaker 1: that you see this happening is that to get a
Speaker 1: job at a place like the CIA, to get a
Speaker 1: job at the place like the DJ the FBI, you
Speaker 1: tend to have to have advanced degrees and degrees that
Speaker 1: come from institutions that already lean very left. And so
Speaker 1: this is the prophecy coming true of if the campuses
Speaker 1: are overrun with leftist professors and leftist group think, the
Speaker 1: people that are coming out of them, especially those who
Speaker 1: have spent additional time through their advanced degree programs, getting
Speaker 1: a master's in international relations, getting a master's in journalism,
Speaker 1: or getting as you know, these kinds of things. I
Speaker 1: guess usually you don't. Some people get masters in journalist
Speaker 1: And look at Ben Rhodes, Obama's National Security Propaganda director
Speaker 1: for the for his White House, he was a creative
Speaker 1: writing major. So some people do have some some funky degrees.
Speaker 1: But the era of Trump has only has exposed this.
Speaker 1: It's been around for much longer than that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that the only people in the
Speaker 1: CIA whoever whine about the Hatch Act are a bunch
Speaker 1: of whiney liberals. People who are more conservative leaning in
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy are much less quick to point to
Speaker 1: kind of petty rules about politicization, because, for one, we're
Speaker 1: just not We're just by nature, and conservatives are not
Speaker 1: a bunch of little whiny tattle tales. You know, being
Speaker 1: a whiny tattle tale is very much a characteristic of
Speaker 1: the progressive left. He said, is he tweeted this get
Speaker 1: him in trouble? That They love to do that. You know,
Speaker 1: that's dared to blaycat, that's get this person fired. They
Speaker 1: love that. That's just that's just culturally and psychologically, the
Speaker 1: profile of a leftist tends to line up with somebody
Speaker 1: who's a whiney loser and probably an in cell. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. They also are the ones that always complain
Speaker 1: about Hatch Act and politicization because they know that they
Speaker 1: dominate these institutions and they'll never be held to account
Speaker 1: for it. They'll never be told that they're overly political
Speaker 1: and what they're pushing or what they're doing in the
Speaker 1: office because they've got the conservative so outnumber. So the
Speaker 1: State Department, for example, is just overrun with leftists, just
Speaker 1: chuck full of leftists. And you should know this because
Speaker 1: it's not just a problem for Trump, It's gonna be
Speaker 1: a problem going forward for a long time. We need
Speaker 1: ideological balance in the federal bureaucracy, the same way we
Speaker 1: need ideological balance on college campuses. And that's going to
Speaker 1: have to be an active process, and the first step
Speaker 1: is awareness of what's going on. I'm just wondering what
Speaker 1: it would take for there to be some soul searching
Speaker 1: from the media. I mean, I honestly am just just
Speaker 1: curious at this point. What would have to happen for
Speaker 1: the media to finally admit that they got this whole
Speaker 1: thing wrong. I mean, you had, you had the MSNBC
Speaker 1: panels melting down. Today. You had Nicole Wallace going after
Speaker 1: bar saying that he made excuse after excuse for all
Speaker 1: this stuff, that they're that he's Mueller's man. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're maligning the current Attorney general specifically because the Attorney
Speaker 1: General refuses to go along with what they've done here,
Speaker 1: which is a deep state coup to undermine and destroy
Speaker 1: a presidency. I mean, it's it's completely and utterly unacceptable,
Speaker 1: and yet they think that they've done a good job.
Speaker 1: I mean, I you know, I can't imagine what's going on.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine what's happening in the minds of anybody
Speaker 1: who works in any of these newsrooms. Anyone who who
Speaker 1: is a journal out there and didn't actually go along
Speaker 1: with this whole Russia collusion thing. They must think that
Speaker 1: they're peers, that the other people that are involved in
Speaker 1: this whole process, that the other journalists that they've been
Speaker 1: working with have completely lost their minds. And now, I
Speaker 1: don't know if there's a lot of people that fall
Speaker 1: in this category. I do know there are some. However,
Speaker 1: I do know there are some individuals for whom this
Speaker 1: whole Russia collision. In fact, one of the more entertaining
Speaker 1: things that I've seen is that you have Glenn Greenwald,
Speaker 1: who was a very far left guy, but he's been
Speaker 1: running around saying that this is crazy. He's been running
Speaker 1: around saying that the journalists should be ashamed of what
Speaker 1: they have done here, ashamed of it. And he's right.
Speaker 1: At least he's taking the perspective of what really matters
Speaker 1: in this profession. And it's a profession that we are
Speaker 1: told and often reminded by the journalists themselves, has real
Speaker 1: implications for American society, right. I mean, we're told that
Speaker 1: the journals are the the firefighters, so to speak, of
Speaker 1: our democracy, and yet when we ask for accountability from them,
Speaker 1: when we start to say, hold on a second, is
Speaker 1: there some way that you know, we could at least
Speaker 1: come to some accountability on this, they say, whoa, WHOA,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, you know, accountability. That's just crazy,
Speaker 1: that's just we can't have accountability for what's happened here.
Speaker 1: But how can they demand so much respect? How can
Speaker 1: they demand so much in the way of public acclaim
Speaker 1: and then not be held to account for what they've done,
Speaker 1: not have people say that this was so damaging and
Speaker 1: it's not just a function of damaging politically. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a presidency that was unfairly and
Speaker 1: unjustly forced to fight for its life for the last
Speaker 1: two years. And now that we're we're being told that
Speaker 1: there was no collusion. Now we're being told that we
Speaker 1: aren't allowed to give the president any slack in fighting back.
Speaker 1: It's it's the pushing back against the lies that's the problem,
Speaker 1: you see. I mean, this is straight out of the
Speaker 1: Soviet playbook. This is a stunning, a stunning departure from
Speaker 1: the way that all this is supposed to work, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, just the fact that Muller took the presumption
Speaker 1: of innocence and eradicated that all along with it, with
Speaker 1: the way the investigation was conducted, and the way they're
Speaker 1: going after people prosecutions along the way. This indictment drops,
Speaker 1: that indictment drops. All this meant to muddy the waters
Speaker 1: around Trump. But then when all said and done, it
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, when it's finally time
Speaker 1: to stand up and do the right thing and be
Speaker 1: clear about the declination decision, which means that the declining
Speaker 1: of bringing charges that's all he has to do. He
Speaker 1: won't do it won't do it. I mean, others have
Speaker 1: been pointing out today. I think this is a very
Speaker 1: important observation that with Muller, it's clear when you read
Speaker 1: this report that they were desperate, I mean desperate to
Speaker 1: do everything they could to take down Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was the anti Trump dream team that was assembled
Speaker 1: of people that were ideologically, personally, professionally invested in the
Speaker 1: destruction of this presidency, in the destruction of President Trump
Speaker 1: at all those around him, and even with that right
Speaker 1: against him, they weren't able to do it. And now
Speaker 1: they're saying, oh, but I mean, I can't believe some
Speaker 1: of stuff. Maggie Haberman from the New York Times saw saying, well,
Speaker 1: he didn't fire Mueller, but he but he tried to
Speaker 1: fire Muller. Well, no, if he tried to fire Muller,
Speaker 1: he would have fired Mueller because he has that constitutional
Speaker 1: prerogative first of all, and he also could just fire him.
Speaker 1: There's there's no real you know. This is why when
Speaker 1: you when you get into the corruption component of this,
Speaker 1: or the corrupt intent component, which is necessary for the
Speaker 1: obstruction charge to be leveled and to stick in a court,
Speaker 1: the president is the opposite of an obstructor. In this case,
Speaker 1: the president shared so much information that he did not
Speaker 1: have to share, and the press still clings to the narrative.
Speaker 1: They cling to this this transparent lie that first of all,
Speaker 1: they were on the right side of this, or they
Speaker 1: knew what was going on all along and they somehow
Speaker 1: now or vindicate. I mean, the press's claims of vindication
Speaker 1: surrounding are just just just completely bonkers. I think the
Speaker 1: media will never really recover from what's happened here. I
Speaker 1: think the media will never really be in a position
Speaker 1: to look any American that was paying attention to what
Speaker 1: they've done in the last two years and say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, we know what we're doing here. We were honest.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think they do know what they're doing.
Speaker 1: What they're doing is acting as the propaganda arm of
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party in the left, and this was their moment.
Speaker 1: I mean, you have to keep you have to keep
Speaker 1: in mind that an entire I was gonna say, an
Speaker 1: entire generation of journalists, really the boomer journalists. Now all
Speaker 1: the people that are you know, fifties, sixties and their seventies,
Speaker 1: I guess are boomers in their fifties, but you know
Speaker 1: that that range of journalists. So they're at the at
Speaker 1: the pinnacle those who are still working, Uh, they're at
Speaker 1: the pinnacle of you know, the pyramid over at CNN
Speaker 1: and five I mean not not Fox, at CNN and MSNBC,
Speaker 1: in all these places. And they've grown up with this.
Speaker 1: The greatest thing that journalism ever did was destroy Richard
Speaker 1: Nixon and get him to resign. You know, that's the
Speaker 1: greatest thing that's ever happened in the history of journalism.
Speaker 1: And they clearly saw this. And it's almost like they
Speaker 1: took out the playbook from Watergate and tried to replay
Speaker 1: it piece by piece. They had former Watergate people that
Speaker 1: were coming on TV trying to always compare this to Watergate.
Speaker 1: This was supposed to be their Watergate moment, the destruction
Speaker 1: of a Republican presidency at the hands of the press,
Speaker 1: the crowning achievement. And you have to keep in mind
Speaker 1: that now for those Democrat boomer journalists, they have been
Speaker 1: deprived of two things. Many of them feel like they've
Speaker 1: been deprived of two things that are essential essential for
Speaker 1: them to feel like their careers have really reached their
Speaker 1: peak and worthwhile one is the coronation of Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: who is the ultimate you know, feminist, glass ceiling breaking
Speaker 1: left wing democrat made into the president, right, that was
Speaker 1: what was going to happen. So they were deprived of
Speaker 1: Hillary's coronation, and they're also now deprived of their Watergate moment.
Speaker 1: So they're very angry and very bitter, and this is
Speaker 1: going to translate into some horrifically nasty bias that will
Speaker 1: be the defining, defining characteristic of the media I think
Speaker 1: going into the twenty election when it comes to Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, the stuff that they're going to say about
Speaker 1: this president. The only good thing is this. You know,
Speaker 1: they've said so much that wasn't true, and they've gone
Speaker 1: to such a crazy, such extreme lengths to try and
Speaker 1: defame and destroy this president that most people who don't
Speaker 1: have Trump's arrangement syndrome, most people who aren't overcome with
Speaker 1: emotion at the thought of Trump winning perhaps a second term,
Speaker 1: you know, emotion in a bad way, like they have
Speaker 1: to cry and scream at the sky. Those people recognize
Speaker 1: that they say this stuff about Trump all the time,
Speaker 1: it's not true. It doesn't it just doesn't matter. They
Speaker 1: have been crying wolf every day for over two years.
Speaker 1: I mean, you just become numb to it after a while.
Speaker 1: Everything Trump does is a crisis. Everything Trump says is
Speaker 1: in atrocity. You know, he's literally worse than a Hitler.
Speaker 1: This has become it's it's incapable. Actually, I mean, you
Speaker 1: can't it's impossible to parody this because it's so absurd.
Speaker 1: You can't out absurd the view that the Democrat main
Speaker 1: stream has propagated about the President of the the United States,
Speaker 1: and that there's just there's not even a recognition of
Speaker 1: that from the press today. I mean that they're they're
Speaker 1: pretending like, oh, yeah, we've got it right all along.
Speaker 1: Is completely wacko, but that is what we are dealing
Speaker 1: with here. I mean, I have been watching everything that's
Speaker 1: going on in the you know, the different meatia outlets
Speaker 1: that I can see. I mean I was. I was
Speaker 1: on Fox to Night with Brett Barret, which was obviously fun.
Speaker 1: Sorry I didn't have more time for a team, but
Speaker 1: they snuck me in at the end. Believe it or not.
Speaker 1: I'm able to run out sometimes do a hit and
Speaker 1: come back and do radio. So how do I do that?
Speaker 1: Ninja moves? But I definitely have some ninja radio, TV moves.
Speaker 1: I have to pull out, but I did manage to
Speaker 1: get in there and throw my two cents on the
Speaker 1: table about what today really means and here's what we
Speaker 1: just you have to you have to just hold this tight,
Speaker 1: you know, keep this up against your bosom at night
Speaker 1: when you're thinking about I mean, do we all have bosoms?
Speaker 1: Or is that just a lady thing out? I think
Speaker 1: we all have a bosom, John, do we all have
Speaker 1: a bosom? Doesn't everyone have a bosom? Right? Yeah? But
Speaker 1: bosom is is it? Bosoms? Yeah? Bosom, buddy, exactly. Cling
Speaker 1: to your your bosom this truth. There was no collusion.
Speaker 1: Obstruction is a stretch and a fantasy for the left.
Speaker 1: And ultimately justice has prevailed. The cost has been high,
Speaker 1: and it has not been without downside, but justice ultimately
Speaker 1: has prevailed here. The president has won after all the
Speaker 1: stuff they've thrown on him, after the Mueller and the
Speaker 1: angry Democrats and the deep state stuff, who all the
Speaker 1: stuff that they tried so much, so often, and I
Speaker 1: just it's it's amazing in a sense, it's amazing that
Speaker 1: Trump has been able to withstand all of this. I
Speaker 1: don't I don't know if he didn't. If he wasn't Trump,
Speaker 1: I think he would have. This would have cracked another person.
Speaker 1: They wanted to lock him up. They wanted to lock
Speaker 1: up Don Junior. Whatever happened to those stories. I kept
Speaker 1: hearing about how Donald Trump Junior lied under oath. Media
Speaker 1: was repeating this all the time, all the rumors, they're
Speaker 1: gonna lock up Don Junior. Oh, they didn't bring any
Speaker 1: charges against Don Junior. In fact, it makes it's made
Speaker 1: clear in the report itself that Don Junior, you know,
Speaker 1: there's no charges to bring because he didn't break the law.
Speaker 1: Is anyone gonna give him an apology and even gonna
Speaker 1: apologize to Donald Trump Junior? I don't think so, because
Speaker 1: this served the Left's purpose was to smear the president's son.
Speaker 1: They wanted to ensnare his family. I mean, nothing was sacred.
Speaker 1: Nothing was sacred to the Democrats in this process, other
Speaker 1: than power and their lust for it. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: There is no serious person out there who would suggest
Speaker 1: somehow that you could even you could even rig America's elections,
Speaker 1: in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of
Speaker 1: votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in
Speaker 1: the past or that there are instances in which that
Speaker 1: will happen. This time that was President Obama three weeks
Speaker 1: before the twenty sixteen election. This is just I know,
Speaker 1: we've been talking a lot about the report. Look, it's
Speaker 1: Mother Report Day, it's a big thing. And next hour
Speaker 1: we got some other stuff coming your way. So don't
Speaker 1: don't think I'm gonna talk to you about the Notre
Speaker 1: Dame Cathedral. I have some thoughts on that. Also. I
Speaker 1: want to do a little in memorium for a teacher
Speaker 1: of mine who just passed away, and you know that
Speaker 1: will obviously not be about the Mulla Report, and something
Speaker 1: on the measles outbreaks across the country. So we have
Speaker 1: other topics that are slated for you coming up here shortly.
Speaker 1: But I just want to say that one part of
Speaker 1: this discussion that seems to always get lost is that
Speaker 1: the whole notion of the Russian interference having an effect,
Speaker 1: like being something that we need to be concerned about
Speaker 1: is just completely absurd, absolutely absurd. Meaning Okay, yeah, we
Speaker 1: can investigate Russian interference and tell the Russians to knock
Speaker 1: it off, but that any sentient being would take the
Speaker 1: position that Russia buying. Maybe I'm spending a couple of
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars on Facebook ads. I mean, a US
Speaker 1: presidential election is a massive, multi billion dollar media fight
Speaker 1: that involves hundreds of millions of people in this country
Speaker 1: who have, you know, the views in many cases, that
Speaker 1: they've been thinking about or developing for decades. And they're
Speaker 1: saturated with all these different all the messaging from our culture,
Speaker 1: from our political acts, from our news and information services
Speaker 1: that are out there, and you think that some Russian
Speaker 1: bots here and there may make any appreciable difference in this.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what I've said to people recently,
Speaker 1: is you know, this is like if I walked up
Speaker 1: to a billionaire and I gave a billionaire a dollar
Speaker 1: bill on the street, it would be a true statement
Speaker 1: for me to say I've made that billionaire richer, and
Speaker 1: I could walk around saying I've enriched this billionaire. He
Speaker 1: is a wealthier man because of me, folks. That's right,
Speaker 1: I've made this billionaire even wealthier. And I'd sound like
Speaker 1: a lunatic, right, I'd sound like a crazy person because
Speaker 1: no one, no one would think for a moment that
Speaker 1: the one dollar I gave this person who has a
Speaker 1: billion of them makes any difference in any way, shape
Speaker 1: or form. That's essentially what Russia did here with their
Speaker 1: whole interference in the election. They did some Facebook ad buys,
Speaker 1: they release some information about Hillary and Bernie. I mean,
Speaker 1: Hillary was looking at Federal Espionage Act charges, for Heaven's sake,
Speaker 1: and she did it. I mean, she was guilty, and
Speaker 1: they you know, if you weren't done with Hillary over that,
Speaker 1: trust me, you weren't going to be done with Hillary
Speaker 1: because the DNC. We already knew the DNC was in
Speaker 1: the tank for Hillary. People were openly talking about it.
Speaker 1: So you know, you can never prove this one way
Speaker 1: or the other. And that's why the Left clings to it,
Speaker 1: the whole Russian interference the election. But any person who's
Speaker 1: being reasonable, reasonable and rational would have to say that
Speaker 1: this is silly. I mean, it's it's been absurd from
Speaker 1: the beginning. It's not even a good plot to try
Speaker 1: and steal the election. Today I got very tired because
Speaker 1: I had to do I think I did like six
Speaker 1: hours of different live coverage, interviews at the Hill, I
Speaker 1: did Fox and Friends this morning obviously three hour show,
Speaker 1: and I did Brett Bear Show, it's been a very
Speaker 1: you know, day of a lot of media stuff. And
Speaker 1: I said, I stumbled on my words at the hill,
Speaker 1: and I said that it's a bad strategy stragedy. And
Speaker 1: I think, you know, it's almost like mixing strategy and tragedy.
Speaker 1: And that's what the Russia collusion narrative was to begin.
Speaker 1: It's a bad strategedy because it's just a strategic tragedy.
Speaker 1: It makes no sense. It's it's a terribly stupid thing
Speaker 1: to do. You're gonna put yourself in a position where
Speaker 1: And this was how did I know that they're from
Speaker 1: day one? How did I know this Russia collusion thing
Speaker 1: was a fairytale's nonsense because it never made any sense.
Speaker 1: It never held up. Even if you believe the president
Speaker 1: was evil in a trader, which obviously I don't, it's
Speaker 1: not even a good plot. So that's how I knew,
Speaker 1: and I was right, and the rest of the media
Speaker 1: was wrong. After eight hundred years, we were the steward
Speaker 1: of this iconic representation of Western civilization and Catholicism Christendom,
Speaker 1: and of all years, twenty nineteen, at the height of
Speaker 1: our sophistication and technology, we were found wanting and we
Speaker 1: didn't protect this icon, and we don't build them anymore.
Speaker 1: There's great churches and cathedrals that go up all over
Speaker 1: the world, but they're in Poland, they're in Cairo, they're
Speaker 1: in the Ivory Coast, They're in Brazil, they're in India.
Speaker 1: It's almost as if the places that are less affluent,
Speaker 1: without the technology of Western Europe and the United States
Speaker 1: are like we used to be. They still believe in transcendence,
Speaker 1: they still believe in something other than this world. And
Speaker 1: so it's going to be very hard in our society
Speaker 1: to ever built a cathedral, get much less to repair them,
Speaker 1: because we don't believe in what they represented. There's Victor
Speaker 1: Davis Hansen, I think, making some really astute points about
Speaker 1: why the Notre Dame fire was so emotional for so
Speaker 1: many people. Yes, it's, as I said, the day of
Speaker 1: it was like watching some of the great masterpieces in
Speaker 1: one of the great museums of the world, whether it's
Speaker 1: the Ufizzi Gallery or the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Louver,
Speaker 1: watching them just burn in real time. But also, why
Speaker 1: is it that whenever you talk about the truly incredible
Speaker 1: and beautiful structures of Western civilization. You are really pulling
Speaker 1: from centuries past. Why is it the case that we
Speaker 1: don't make something like a Notre Dame cathedral anymore? Why
Speaker 1: don't we have that same desire? We certainly we have
Speaker 1: better technology than we ever have before. We are we
Speaker 1: are more capable in building, we are more capable in
Speaker 1: marshaling resources. Yeah. I can't think of a time time
Speaker 1: in this country. I can't speak for all other countries,
Speaker 1: but I can't think of a time when there was
Speaker 1: something underway, a construction in a way that was that
Speaker 1: was truly timeless and beautiful, and that was meant to be,
Speaker 1: you know, for all time, a structure that was a
Speaker 1: house of worship, a house of God. You just don't
Speaker 1: see that happening the same way. And I think it's
Speaker 1: worth asking the question why that is. Why is it
Speaker 1: that when you go to Europe, for example, and you
Speaker 1: say I want to see the great cathedrals of Europe,
Speaker 1: you're generally looking at things that have been around, or
Speaker 1: I mean almost entirely. I think you could argue have
Speaker 1: been around for centuries, but you're not going to find
Speaker 1: anything that was built ten years ago and that is
Speaker 1: truly awe inspiring and amazing. We have technological marvels now,
Speaker 1: we have engineering marvels, but our technology is not being
Speaker 1: used for that transcendence, for that desire to connect this
Speaker 1: world with the next world. I think that, in fact,
Speaker 1: our technological prowess has started to intrude on that part
Speaker 1: of the mind and really that part of the of
Speaker 1: the soul that seeks more in our day to day life,
Speaker 1: that would that would like there to be manifestations of
Speaker 1: the eternal here in this world. We just don't. We
Speaker 1: don't have that, at least I don't see it in society.
Speaker 1: I don't see this around us. You know. One thing.
Speaker 1: I live in a part of DC where there's a
Speaker 1: there's a very beautiful Catholic church nearby, but it's quite old,
Speaker 1: and all of the particularly beautiful churches that I know
Speaker 1: of are quite old, and they've been around for a
Speaker 1: long time. And it's not like we've just recently, or rather,
Speaker 1: it's not like we've forgotten how to build stone structures.
Speaker 1: It's not. People might tell me, oh, buck, but there's
Speaker 1: so much expense involved with this, and well, we're so
Speaker 1: much wealthier than we used to be as a society
Speaker 1: as well. I mean the French government is so much
Speaker 1: wealthier than it was at the time of the construction
Speaker 1: of something like a Notre Dame cathedral. Where is that impulse,
Speaker 1: that desire to make something that is truly spectacular so
Speaker 1: that people feel an elevation of the spirit when they
Speaker 1: walk in. All of the most incredible structures, All the
Speaker 1: most incredible things that you see in Western in the
Speaker 1: countries that we think of as Western civilization, are very old.
Speaker 1: You know. When I say incredible, I mean those that
Speaker 1: inspire a belief that there's something, a touch of the
Speaker 1: divine in them. Yeah, I know, you could say back.
Speaker 1: But then the modern marvels, which I think is the
Speaker 1: name of a show on Discovery or History Channel, the
Speaker 1: marvels we've created. Look at the you know, the empire,
Speaker 1: state building and skyscrapers. But those are engineering marvels. They're
Speaker 1: not built to create a feeling in people who enter
Speaker 1: them or who see them that this world is not
Speaker 1: the only world, and that there can be something else
Speaker 1: beyond just steel and load bearing walls and functionality. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we've become, esthetically in the West, prisoners of
Speaker 1: a kind of functionality. I think we're I think we
Speaker 1: are obsessed with a convenience. Not just the convenience of
Speaker 1: the phones that we carry around in our hands all
Speaker 1: the time now that completely run our lives, but the
Speaker 1: convenience of you know, the elevators that go super fast
Speaker 1: and the doorways that are are large enough to meet
Speaker 1: all the fire code needs. I mean, this is what
Speaker 1: we do all the time, and functionality certainly has its place.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that we should try to build, you know,
Speaker 1: the pyramids all over again. That would probably be a
Speaker 1: waste of time and resources. Right There's there's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons that we so revere ancient structures and buildings.
Speaker 1: It's because of how incredible it was that they were
Speaker 1: built in that time. And when you think about eight
Speaker 1: hundred years ago Notre Dame, you're you're involved in that
Speaker 1: building project. This is before this is before the printing press.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is before way before them discovery of electricity.
Speaker 1: Although I guess, in a kind of dark irony, it
Speaker 1: was I believe in electrical fire that took down the
Speaker 1: roof and the main spire of Notre Dame Cathedral. I
Speaker 1: think it was just a minor renovation glitch where some
Speaker 1: there was some electrical spark, and that was all that
Speaker 1: it took. I'm reminded also of how in the In
Speaker 1: the fountain Head, which is a book I know people
Speaker 1: have I'm not not going to get too into iron Rand.
Speaker 1: I know people have very very strong feelings on her
Speaker 1: and her work and both both directions. But there is
Speaker 1: this slamming of the of the the poor esthetics and
Speaker 1: the illumination of you know, true genius in architecture. And
Speaker 1: I think that we now have forgotten that there is
Speaker 1: this part of us that sees buildings and structures as
Speaker 1: more than just a place to put things and do things.
Speaker 1: That they can be artwork and in and of themselves,
Speaker 1: and they also can be portals to the divine for
Speaker 1: many of us. And I know you've had, those of
Speaker 1: you who are listening, you've had this feeling. You've walked
Speaker 1: in I mean, I've walked into Notre Dame. I've walked
Speaker 1: into some of the other great cathedrals in France and
Speaker 1: some of the churches in the great churches and cathedrals
Speaker 1: and basilicas and mausoleums of Italy. I remember walking into
Speaker 1: the Church of Saint Francis of Assizi in ASSISI, and
Speaker 1: there's something of a transportational effect you feel and supported
Speaker 1: into another era, into another realm when you walk into
Speaker 1: that church. And we just don't have that anymore. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean to beat up on the small neighborhood
Speaker 1: church that obviously doesn't have the incredible resources to make
Speaker 1: stained glass windows and all. I'm not saying that at all.
Speaker 1: I do think that we spend a lot of money
Speaker 1: now and a lot of religious structures in this country
Speaker 1: seem to be much more concerned with making sure that
Speaker 1: there's ample parking and air conditioning, and less concerned with
Speaker 1: is this a place that the very the physical reality
Speaker 1: of it has its own aspirational intent. It's a fancy
Speaker 1: way of saying I do think that we end up
Speaker 1: going to a lot of things that look like a
Speaker 1: costco in this country, but really it's supposed to be
Speaker 1: a house of worship. I understand the prayers and the
Speaker 1: relationship with God or the most important thing. And you
Speaker 1: lift up your your voice and praise of God through song,
Speaker 1: and that matters more than you know, whether you hit
Speaker 1: the right notes or not, even doesn't matter. What matters
Speaker 1: is what's in your heart. I understand all of that,
Speaker 1: and I'm not I'm not trying to get too deep
Speaker 1: into the theological side of it. I just mean from
Speaker 1: it an architectural and esthetic side. I think Victor Davis
Speaker 1: Hansen makes a very important point that we could use
Speaker 1: more of that aspiration to what is so beautiful that
Speaker 1: it's a reminder that there must be a God. And
Speaker 1: that's what the great cathedrals of Europe do, That's what
Speaker 1: the great works of Christian art throughout the centuries, that's
Speaker 1: what they that's what they really do. This is why
Speaker 1: when you go see the Piata, for example, Michelangelo's Piata,
Speaker 1: which I've seen in real life, you see it and
Speaker 1: you're a little awe struck for a moment. That's the
Speaker 1: purpose of it. It's supposed to be so beautiful that
Speaker 1: it is more than just the skill of the sculpture.
Speaker 1: It's supposed to be so beautiful that you think to yourself,
Speaker 1: there is something more here than just you know, feeding
Speaker 1: ourselves tang alive as long as we can, if we're lucky,
Speaker 1: maybe getting to reproduce and then just turning into dust.
Speaker 1: There's something more than that. And whether it's a building
Speaker 1: or a painting or a sculpture that can have that effect.
Speaker 1: I think that that's something that needs to be celebrated.
Speaker 1: I think that there's something that we need a restoration
Speaker 1: of that. I mean, I'm here at Washington, DC, and
Speaker 1: you can tell the architectural sense in DC is meant
Speaker 1: to evoke Western civilization stretching back to ancient Greece and
Speaker 1: the kind of grandeur of the federal government and the
Speaker 1: seat of the government here. And this is all very
Speaker 1: intentional the way that you know, whether my just talking
Speaker 1: about the monuments, talking about many of the government buildings themselves.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot of columns, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of this kind of neo classical architectural decision decision making.
Speaker 1: And that's not just because they thought it looked cool.
Speaker 1: It's because they're trying to show us something. It's a
Speaker 1: reminder of what our roots are, what our heritage is
Speaker 1: as a as a as a civilization really does stretch
Speaker 1: all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome and
Speaker 1: the Judeo Christian roots of all of what we see
Speaker 1: now throughout all what we have seen throughout Europe and
Speaker 1: in the New World too. So I know, I don't
Speaker 1: usually talking about architecture and the philosophy of architecture. But
Speaker 1: there is something about that is the near destruction of
Speaker 1: Notre Dame. That's a reminder that we could build things
Speaker 1: that are more beautiful. And I don't think that that's
Speaker 1: a superficial thing. I think that we should try to
Speaker 1: bring back that divine aspiration in the buildings that we construct.
Speaker 1: All of us have had those teachers in life, I
Speaker 1: would guess. I would wager that had a profound impact
Speaker 1: on more than just your ability to learn in that subject,
Speaker 1: but the way that you thought about maybe an entire field,
Speaker 1: or maybe how you thought about yourself, ways that you
Speaker 1: grew as a person as a result of that teacher
Speaker 1: bringing the best out of you, seeing skills and ability
Speaker 1: that perhaps others quickly overlooked. I always remember a man
Speaker 1: at Saint David's, the private Catholic school that I went
Speaker 1: to growing up in New York City, named Bill Ryan.
Speaker 1: William Ryan, and my older brother. I think my little
Speaker 1: brother had him as a teacher as well, but Bill
Speaker 1: Ryan just had He created this whole world of learning
Speaker 1: and history and stories. This was in the in the
Speaker 1: fourth grade. He loved baseball and he loved the Bible.
Speaker 1: He would tell anecdotes from a history and then intersperse
Speaker 1: it with talking about sports teams. He would sling starbursts
Speaker 1: around the room to people with reckless abandoned Sometimes just
Speaker 1: because he was in a good mood, he would throw
Speaker 1: you a starburst. Or if you got a tough questioned right,
Speaker 1: he would just reach into this little cupboard and throw
Speaker 1: you a starburst. I was always partial to the red starburst,
Speaker 1: but also the lemon starburst was pretty good. I would
Speaker 1: even eat the pink ones, even though I wasn't a
Speaker 1: particularly a fan of them. But Bill Ryan also read
Speaker 1: the Lord of the Rings trilogy to us. He would
Speaker 1: verset the Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings,
Speaker 1: and in doing so got us all used to understanding
Speaker 1: story as a necessary part of history and of our learning.
Speaker 1: And he was just in a credible guy. Played classical
Speaker 1: music constantly in the background when he wasn't giving a lecture.
Speaker 1: If we just had classroom study time, he would put
Speaker 1: on Tchaikovsky, he would put on Prokofiev, Mozar, Beethoven, and
Speaker 1: just you never forget that kind of an experience at
Speaker 1: a very young age, when he created this whole this
Speaker 1: atmosphere of a love of history and an understanding of
Speaker 1: why you need to know the stories that come before you.
Speaker 1: And there's just something in the way that he would
Speaker 1: talk about whether it was ancient Greece or ancient Rome,
Speaker 1: ancient Egypt, with a lot of ancient history, so medieval history.
Speaker 1: And it was obviously at a fourth grade level, so
Speaker 1: we weren't going that deep into the subject matter. But
Speaker 1: he instilled did appreciation in me and I know in
Speaker 1: many of my classmates that stays with us to this day. Well,
Speaker 1: there's another teacher very much like that that I had
Speaker 1: in high school, although he had quite a different and
Speaker 1: more I think you could say serious, austere approach maybe,
Speaker 1: but it was a truly brilliant guy and was a
Speaker 1: very dedicated, very dedicated instructor of young men. And his
Speaker 1: name was John Connolly. He was a teacher at Regis
Speaker 1: High School for fifty two years. Okay, he taught at
Speaker 1: my high school for fifty two that's five two years,
Speaker 1: which is astonishing. He received a lot of awards from
Speaker 1: the school for this. But you know John Connolly, who
Speaker 1: wore a fedora and a kind of trench coat all
Speaker 1: the time as he come into the school. Was a
Speaker 1: man of a tremendous learning and tremendous ability and talent,
Speaker 1: and really expected everybody to show up ready to go
Speaker 1: all the time. He was a big fan of the
Speaker 1: pop quiz, but also somebody who every time he would lecture,
Speaker 1: you got the sense from him that he never had
Speaker 1: enough time because the subject matter was something that if
Speaker 1: he could, he would spend the rest of the day
Speaker 1: talking to you about it and making you learn more
Speaker 1: about it. And you know, he had his funny his
Speaker 1: funny moments. He used to claim that whenever he handed
Speaker 1: out our exams or tests back to us, that all
Speaker 1: of a sudden he learned this new word would you get?
Speaker 1: And which was what'd you get? Because everyone wants to
Speaker 1: know what somebody else got that was sitting next to them,
Speaker 1: But would you get? And he told his fair share
Speaker 1: of I think what you'd call relatively corny jokes, but
Speaker 1: he did so in a very very serious tone. I
Speaker 1: think he had a handful of advanced degrees, including a
Speaker 1: history and it was the first person who ever taught
Speaker 1: me economics. But anyway, John Connelly has passed away, and
Speaker 1: I just think it's remarkable that he taught it at
Speaker 1: Regi's High School for fifty two years. And I just
Speaker 1: got word of this from my little brother yesterday. But
Speaker 1: he's up there in the in the pantheon of great
Speaker 1: instructors that I have had, there are a number that
Speaker 1: that really stick out. I meant and Bill Ryan to
Speaker 1: at the beginning, from Saint David's, John Connolly from Regis
Speaker 1: High School, Professor Hadley Archy's from Amherst College. These individuals
Speaker 1: really mattered in my life and the lives of many
Speaker 1: other people. And in the case of each one of
Speaker 1: those teachers, I could tell you folks who have studied
Speaker 1: with them who have gone on to very prominent roles
Speaker 1: in all different walks of life, public sector, private sector.
Speaker 1: So it really matters. And so while I'm one that
Speaker 1: occasionally gives a bit of pushback on the oh, no
Speaker 1: one works as hard as teachers, and you know the
Speaker 1: teachers unions and all that stuff, I'm somebody who also
Speaker 1: deeply appreciates truly great teachers. And John Connolly at Regis
Speaker 1: High School was one of them. So I just wanted
Speaker 1: to give him a short tribute here on the air
Speaker 1: because I had him for at least two of my
Speaker 1: four years in high school, so he was somebody who
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time with and studied with him.
Speaker 1: I think I had three courses with him over the years,
Speaker 1: maybe two courses, but fifty two years teaching the same
Speaker 1: high school. It's pretty remarkable, asn't in folks. I know
Speaker 1: that he would say Deo at Patria, and God bless
Speaker 1: John and his family. We'll be back in a moment.
Speaker 1: Measles are making a comeback. This is something that should
Speaker 1: really concern everyone. This is a disease that had been
Speaker 1: in America largely almost entirely eradicated because there's a very
Speaker 1: very effective vaccine against it. There have been a number
Speaker 1: of pretty high profile cases in the last few weeks
Speaker 1: of measles outbreaks across the country affecting hundreds of people.
Speaker 1: And this is raising a lot of questions, one that
Speaker 1: I think we don't ever get to talk about, and
Speaker 1: there's no interest, it seemed to me. And addressing the
Speaker 1: following proposition, we have a number of people who are
Speaker 1: showing up every day at our southern border who come
Speaker 1: from countries and when I say a number of talking
Speaker 1: thousands a day, about one hundred thousand a month who
Speaker 1: come from countries where they do not have the same
Speaker 1: vaccination of vaccination protocols that we do. At what point
Speaker 1: are we allowed to say that this poses a health
Speaker 1: risk to the broader US population. Now, for anyone who
Speaker 1: says that this is unfair, it's unseemly to talk about
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in this way, I would just point out
Speaker 1: that they're already forced at the border, meaning our border
Speaker 1: patrol has to segregate the population of illegal aliens coming
Speaker 1: in by infectious or communicable disease. There are people who
Speaker 1: are separated out because they have had different forms of influenza,
Speaker 1: there are people that have lice and scabies, and you know,
Speaker 1: you start to break this down, and in particularly, I
Speaker 1: believe in McAllen, Texas, they've had these facilities for a
Speaker 1: while where they put people who have a serious or
Speaker 1: infectious disease. That is a real health concern. I think
Speaker 1: that's legitimate public discourse. And the government's unwillingness to even
Speaker 1: say that this is a concern, or rather the media
Speaker 1: and the Democrat Party pretending that this is rooted in
Speaker 1: something other than a concern for public safety and public
Speaker 1: health just shows you the length of the dishonesty that
Speaker 1: they're willing to go to here. Measles is not something
Speaker 1: to mess around with. And I see that there's a
Speaker 1: story about an airlines that's the Israeli Airline airline stewardess
Speaker 1: who came down not long ago with measles and now
Speaker 1: has been an a coma for ten days and cannot
Speaker 1: breathe because she needs a rest. I mean she cannot
Speaker 1: breathe out a respirator. So the MMR vaccine, which is
Speaker 1: a measles momson rubella, is ninety seven percent effective one
Speaker 1: dose alone. That's for two doses one dose is ninety
Speaker 1: three percent effective. And a lot of people now are
Speaker 1: deciding that they're not going to get these vaccinations. You know,
Speaker 1: they've been three hundred and twenty nine confirmed cases of
Speaker 1: measles in Brooklyn and Queens just since October, and these
Speaker 1: tend to be in the ultra Orthodox Jewish community in
Speaker 1: the New York City area. New York has declared a
Speaker 1: public health emergency as a result of this. So it's
Speaker 1: not I'm not saying that it's just from our southern border,
Speaker 1: but these outbreaks of measles show us that we have
Speaker 1: to be concerned about public health issues that involve vaccinations,
Speaker 1: and large numbers of unvaccinated individuals coming across at the
Speaker 1: southern border is a legitimate public health concern. I mean,
Speaker 1: the government can or the media can pretend that there's
Speaker 1: nothing to see here and that nobody should should care
Speaker 1: about this or give it a second thought. But I'm
Speaker 1: telling you it will be much worse if, in fact
Speaker 1: we reach some kind of a pandemic stage, whether it's
Speaker 1: a form of influenza that's incredibly lethal, which has happened
Speaker 1: in the past, Folks, this is not just wanton scaremongering.
Speaker 1: In the twentieth century and the Spanish influenza epidemic killed
Speaker 1: millions of people around the world, A normal flu season
Speaker 1: kills many, many, many thousands, tens of thousands of people
Speaker 1: around the world. So it's not unfair to think about
Speaker 1: these things. And I just I worry about the trust
Speaker 1: that the American people will be able to have in
Speaker 1: their government if it comes to pass that we have
Speaker 1: had a lot of Americans put in jeopardy and might
Speaker 1: even start losing people because the government was unwilling, for
Speaker 1: reasons of political correctness, to say that a massive number
Speaker 1: of vaccinated people coming across the southern border, among other
Speaker 1: ways that unvaccinated people come into this country is a
Speaker 1: public health risk and needs to be understood as such.
Speaker 1: Government's supposed to protect our security and safety first and foremost,
Speaker 1: and that includes at the southern border. We'll be right back,
Speaker 1: seeing Bud. It's time for roll ball team. It's been
Speaker 1: quite a day to day. I must say, I am
Speaker 1: looking forward to getting to the weekend here pretty soon.
Speaker 1: As my friend Reggie aka Redd says at the Hill,
Speaker 1: Thursday is really just Friday, Junior. So tomorrow I'm hoping
Speaker 1: we're going to be able to have a little bit
Speaker 1: of a deep breath moment after this whole Muller report,
Speaker 1: bombshell situation, all that stuff, and just chill and enjoy
Speaker 1: the weekend a little bit. I mean, you have to
Speaker 1: take yourself out of all this stuff ultimately. And maybe
Speaker 1: this doesn't benefit me because I do a talk radio
Speaker 1: show mostly about politics, but ultimately none of this really
Speaker 1: will affect your life all that much. So I can
Speaker 1: tell you that you can take some comfort in knowing
Speaker 1: that the fact that the deep state coup was an
Speaker 1: obvious effort to undermine the election. They weren't successful, and
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. We all got our
Speaker 1: own problems to focus on. So that's the happy side
Speaker 1: of things. I suppose Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: is where you need to go if you want to
Speaker 1: get in on this role call action. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get to it, Jonathan, Right, keep up the good fight. Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm an African American. I have personally changed careers under
Speaker 1: Trump to get into an industry and made twenty thousand
Speaker 1: more per year under the current president. Can't argue with
Speaker 1: dollar signs, well, one cannot. Like a man personally, Results
Speaker 1: are results. I'm not sure why anyone would believe a
Speaker 1: Russian spy would want American economy at the best level
Speaker 1: in forty years. Lunacy logic will always rule the week.
Speaker 1: Stay strong, keep them high, Jonathan. All right, well, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Man. I appreciate it great to
Speaker 1: have you listening to the show, and I'm glad that
Speaker 1: you have been able to capitalize on the strong economy
Speaker 1: and move forward in your career. Some very very important
Speaker 1: stuff to be sure, Jeremy. I like how you said
Speaker 1: the government isn't there to ensure your failures. Life isn't
Speaker 1: fair and government cannot change that. My dad used to
Speaker 1: say all the time, but equal does not always mean fair,
Speaker 1: and fair does not always mean equal. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of Trump paters that are going to need new prescriptions
Speaker 1: for their Trump de arrangement syndrome because they're going to
Speaker 1: have a big flare up today. Keep up the good work,
Speaker 1: shields high, Jeremy. Yeah, government is not supposed to take
Speaker 1: away all of your pain. In fact, a good government
Speaker 1: protects your rights and limits the pain it inflicts on
Speaker 1: you as a result. One of the reasons why we
Speaker 1: have a government based on the protection of rights and
Speaker 1: the restraint of power. Right we are trying to restrain
Speaker 1: the government's ability to intrude on your lives is that
Speaker 1: it's usually not for openly malevolent purposes that a government
Speaker 1: take certain actions. Governments always have an explanation for why
Speaker 1: they're doing a certain thing, and usually it's to help
Speaker 1: the very people that can be negatively affected by it.
Speaker 1: Right the government is or to help other people at
Speaker 1: the expense of one group. Governments think that they're doing
Speaker 1: the right thing, that's why they do it. It is
Speaker 1: not usually the case that they understand that what they're
Speaker 1: doing is destructive and wrong, and they do it anyway.
Speaker 1: They always have an explanation for it. That's why we
Speaker 1: have rights, and that's why we have a system of
Speaker 1: limited government in place. Brian from Alabama, Good day, Buck.
Speaker 1: The Green New Deal, No one is bringing up the
Speaker 1: fact that if all the industries that would be devastated
Speaker 1: by eliminating cows, the big mac or whopper is going
Speaker 1: to be a turkey burgher and restaurants in general, many
Speaker 1: are beef central. Then there are the ranchers, and also
Speaker 1: no milk or cheese, a central ingredient of pizza and
Speaker 1: Italian cooking. Then why just cows are no other animals flatulent?
Speaker 1: I know my dog farts. It's a true fact. And
Speaker 1: whereas peta on getting rid of cows, not a peep
Speaker 1: from those liberals. Yeah, Brian, the Green New Deal is absurd.
Speaker 1: It's absurd. It's not that I think that it's not great,
Speaker 1: or that there's some parts of it I disagree with.
Speaker 1: It is a preposterous document. The ideas that it contains
Speaker 1: are ridiculous, meaning worthy of ridicule, not things that should
Speaker 1: have to be taken seriously. But unfortunately, because the Left
Speaker 1: has embrace climate change as this kind of insane religion.
Speaker 1: We have to take it seriously because they want to
Speaker 1: make us do these things. They want to make our
Speaker 1: lives more difficult with all these different programs that they
Speaker 1: would put in place. Remember, just like I said before,
Speaker 1: all under the rubric of making our lives better. They
Speaker 1: don't think they're making our lives bad. They don't think
Speaker 1: that they're creating a more difficult situation for us. They
Speaker 1: think that they're helping us with the Green New Deal.
Speaker 1: They think that things are going to be better because
Speaker 1: of the Green New Deal. So that's why we have
Speaker 1: those limitations on government in place. Joshua, all right, Buck,
Speaker 1: thanks for coming out to talk tank in Fort Wayne
Speaker 1: last weekend. I thought i'd give you a hand, and
Speaker 1: you'll be forced to talk about Mayor Pete more and
Speaker 1: more in the coming months. His only real accomplishments as
Speaker 1: a mayor are his smart roads, and that are actually
Speaker 1: quite dumb. He turned the two lane one roads in
Speaker 1: and out of downtown into one lane road to accommodate
Speaker 1: bike traffic. Now commutes have doubled in time. The residents
Speaker 1: of Indiana are known as hoosiers. Indianian is a mouthful,
Speaker 1: and Indian isn't quite appropriate either Oh good, good point.
Speaker 1: My family has been here since eighteen o three, and
Speaker 1: even we don't know where the name comes from. It's
Speaker 1: either a slurring of who's here, which you could call
Speaker 1: out if someone sensed outside your camp, or who's ear,
Speaker 1: which would be asked after picking up a body part
Speaker 1: after frontier tavern brawls. WHOA, that's pretty intense, hoosiers. I
Speaker 1: did not. This is what usually political pundits will say,
Speaker 1: Oh the Granite State, or oh the Hoosiers from Indiana,
Speaker 1: Granite State from New Hampshire. People say this stuff because
Speaker 1: it's a little bit of trivia that makes it seem
Speaker 1: like you have some as a political person I'm talking
Speaker 1: about now, some connection to this state that you just
Speaker 1: flew into for the interview or to cover the primary
Speaker 1: or whatever. But yes, you're right, Indiana Nansen's is not
Speaker 1: a not a thing, not an easy thing to say.
Speaker 1: Let's see here we have next up, Sean. It writes
Speaker 1: a question for you. If a pregnant woman has a
Speaker 1: few drinks before driving herself to abortion clinic and gets
Speaker 1: in an accident, the baby dies before it can be aborted,
Speaker 1: is the mother charged with murder? I believe if someone
Speaker 1: hid her car and baby dies, they would be charged
Speaker 1: with murder. What's up with that? Well, Sean, Uh, that's wait.
Speaker 1: If a pregnant woman has a few drinks, gets in
Speaker 1: an accident, the baby dies, the mother charged with murder,
Speaker 1: that's a good question. I don't. I don't believe she
Speaker 1: would be. But there are cases where a third party,
Speaker 1: not the mother, kills a woman or and the baby
Speaker 1: inside her, and they do charge it as a double murder.
Speaker 1: So I don't. I don't know. It might be up
Speaker 1: to the discretion of the prosecutor. I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: this this case, this theoretical that you have developed for
Speaker 1: me to muse over her, how this would be handled.
Speaker 1: I really don't know. Andre's my man andres Hotty Buck.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your insight and recommendations. The books you know
Speaker 1: go right to my Amazon wish list. Movies I check
Speaker 1: them out. That brings me to Unplanned I saw it.
Speaker 1: It's a very touching, emotional watch. I can't comprehend how
Speaker 1: people find the killing of babies just something that's done.
Speaker 1: It's a traumatic experience women may or may not talk about,
Speaker 1: but as a fella, it tugs at my mind and heart.
Speaker 1: Sad stuff, Shield's Eye andres I need to see I planned.
Speaker 1: I haven't yet. I'm sure it's a very emotionally, you know,
Speaker 1: difficult to watch, and that's maybe one reason why I
Speaker 1: haven't gotten around to it quite yet. But I will
Speaker 1: see it. Richard, Hey, Buck, you really should consider setting
Speaker 1: up a fact checker site in the future. In the
Speaker 1: judgment of the truthfulness of statements. The fact checkers could
Speaker 1: issue something like one to five buck slaps based on
Speaker 1: how bad the lie is. Each slap could have a name.
Speaker 1: For example, five could be five could be the nuclear
Speaker 1: buck slap. I kind of like it, Richard, I just
Speaker 1: don't have the time right now to set up a
Speaker 1: website specifically devoted to knocking down all the lies that
Speaker 1: are out there. Bill, forget Fortnite. If you do, try
Speaker 1: a new video game, check out Tom Clancy's The Division two,
Speaker 1: played out on the streets of a Washington, DC and
Speaker 1: ruins after the collapse of the government following a terrorist
Speaker 1: attack on the us PS. Keep up the great work well, Bill,
Speaker 1: That sounds cool. I have not played video games in
Speaker 1: a very long time. The only video game I allow
Speaker 1: myself to play in recent years has been Chess, on,
Speaker 1: I have a chess program on my phone because I
Speaker 1: do enjoy chess. Mark right, Buck love the show. Need
Speaker 1: to set you straight on English language usage. The word
Speaker 1: is cacophony, not okay, wait what cacophany? Not cacafany. It's
Speaker 1: a kaka, not caca. Thank you, thank you for the correction,
Speaker 1: my friend. Alrighty. Next up here in our inbox, which
Speaker 1: remember facebook dot com slash buck sexon. That's the way
Speaker 1: to do it. We got Jeffrey who writes, hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: greetings from Post Falls, Idaho, home of Buck Knives. So
Speaker 1: the last couple of days you talked about Bernie the
Speaker 1: socialist Sanders as a Cudley grandpa. Just wondering where you
Speaker 1: ever came up with the idea on Earth that the
Speaker 1: old wrinkley curmudgeon from Vermont was Cudley. I'd rather hug
Speaker 1: a porcupine or cuddle with a king Cobra. I'd disowned
Speaker 1: my grandpa if he was anything like the burn Do.
Speaker 1: The Freedom had a huge favor. Never referred to Bernie
Speaker 1: as Cuddley. Love you, Buckman, shields high and keep up
Speaker 1: the good fight, my beloved brother. You are the best.
Speaker 1: Jeff Well, Jeff you're the best and you're my beloved brother,
Speaker 1: So thank you so much for writing in. And I
Speaker 1: agree with you on the Bernie thing. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: that's the way they try to they try to position him.
Speaker 1: You know. The positioning the media created for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was that he was kind of the wild, loose cannon
Speaker 1: uncle that just shows up and says crazy things sometimes,
Speaker 1: but you gotta love him anyway. And then turned out
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden's actually a weird hair sniffer and a
Speaker 1: definitely a bizarre guy who makes people uncomfortable. And with
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, you know, they're trying to say that he's
Speaker 1: the Cudley old grandpa. But yeah, he's the cull old
Speaker 1: grandpa who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, all right, So
Speaker 1: he's a commie Cudley grandpa. And I don't think he's
Speaker 1: anywhere near as as nice and as affable as he
Speaker 1: is presented to be. I just think that that's a
Speaker 1: construct of the media. Remember what we've seen on display
Speaker 1: from this whole Russia collusion mess is still the power
Speaker 1: of the need of the media to come up with
Speaker 1: a constructing idea and then make it a reality through
Speaker 1: just repetition and the practices of propaganda. All right, we
Speaker 1: got through today, team. It has been a wild ride.
Speaker 1: No collusion, no obstruction, a president exonerated. The fight's not over,
Speaker 1: my friends. We have a lot more ahead of us,
Speaker 1: and we know the twenty twenty election is already looming.
Speaker 1: But at least tomorrow it's Friday. Hopefully we'll get to
Speaker 1: just kick back, relax, let the good times roll a bit.
Speaker 1: I will talk to you then, Shields high,