Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Bombshell indictment drops today
Speaker 1: Julian Assange. They're going after him under the Espionage Act.
Speaker 1: This is a major escalation. What does it mean about
Speaker 1: the future of the First Amendment and journalism in this country? Also,
Speaker 1: the war of words between Pelosi, the Dems and Trump
Speaker 1: heats up. Will have that for you and oh so
Speaker 1: much more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with passionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American. Let you're a great American Again the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, welcome
Speaker 1: to the bar Sex and Show everybody. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being here. Coming to you live from Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: I wanted to say, Sonny, Los Angeles, but LA, you
Speaker 1: have let me down with the weather in the last
Speaker 1: couple of days. I don't know what to say other
Speaker 1: than that, you know, a couple of days ago, I
Speaker 1: was on a rooftop getting sun, feeling like I was
Speaker 1: one of these cool LA people. And now it's very,
Speaker 1: very cloudy. There was hail yesterday. It was a big
Speaker 1: hill storm here. People getting pelted it's no fun. We
Speaker 1: had some big things breaking just as I get on
Speaker 1: the air today. The biggest one, of course, is this indictment.
Speaker 1: I want to spend some time on this. We'll return
Speaker 1: to the feud between Trump and Pelosi. What it means
Speaker 1: going forward for the big I fight, Oh I the
Speaker 1: impeachment word. And then is Buddha Judge? Is he the
Speaker 1: one poised to leap to the front of the Democrat pack?
Speaker 1: I'm starting to think so. Betto is pretty much toast.
Speaker 1: Wait why am I toast? Bettos pretty much not gonna
Speaker 1: make it happen. Boota Judge, however, he is more formidable
Speaker 1: than these other Democrat clowns. And in an environment where
Speaker 1: a political experience at a national level doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: really matter all that much anymore. Look at our current president.
Speaker 1: Can a mayor from the Midwest with an interesting and,
Speaker 1: let's be honest, very strong resume, can he be the
Speaker 1: real Democrat contender? I will tell you this, I find
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge more concerning than Joe Biden. I am very
Speaker 1: I don't care what the polls say, very confident that
Speaker 1: Trump will be able to defeat Joe Biden because Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I don't mean this in a mean way. It's just
Speaker 1: not a winner. He's just not a winner. It's just
Speaker 1: not going to happen. Bernie is kind of the wild card.
Speaker 1: You know, who knows what's gonna happen with Bernie. He
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders might win an if and this is a
Speaker 1: giant if you had a massive cyclical economic recession in
Speaker 1: the six months or twelve months before, basically, if it
Speaker 1: started let's say this fall, then I think Bernie socialism
Speaker 1: as much as you. I think, oh no, that people
Speaker 1: wouldn't want higher taxes. Socialism is appealing to people when
Speaker 1: they feel scared. Socialism becomes the warm security blanket that
Speaker 1: the government offers you. Oh, we're going to make sure
Speaker 1: it's those rich people. They're the reason, you see the
Speaker 1: economy has gotten bad. They're the reason that things for
Speaker 1: you aren't working out. We're going to take from them
Speaker 1: and give, give, give to you. When people get scared,
Speaker 1: they want to believe in the tooth fairy. They want
Speaker 1: to believe in Santa Clause, and Santa only takes from
Speaker 1: the rich people. They say, so, what's the big deal,
Speaker 1: But we'll get there first. Let's do this a sane
Speaker 1: story here. I'm at a little surprised that this is
Speaker 1: the direction the Department of Justice is going in right now,
Speaker 1: because it's going to open up. It is opening up
Speaker 1: right now as we speak. I mean, this just broke
Speaker 1: on the major sites late this afternoon that the Justice
Speaker 1: Department has hit Julian Assange with eighteen additional charges, I believe,
Speaker 1: most of which carry a penalty of up to ten
Speaker 1: years in prison. Now, Asange, I'm assuming, let's start with this,
Speaker 1: He's going to fight this. This guy's gonna fight I
Speaker 1: cannot think of a world in which Louian Osange is
Speaker 1: taking a plea deal. He's too much of a and
Speaker 1: whatever you think of him, and I think, and I
Speaker 1: spent a solid hour or interviewing him for a podcast
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago, he has a very a
Speaker 1: very high self regard. I mean, he really has a
Speaker 1: kind of messianic complex about information and about transparency and
Speaker 1: governments wanting to keep secrets from the people and the
Speaker 1: reason just like with so many different conspiracy theorists. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying Osange is a conspiracy theorist, but what
Speaker 1: they say is powerful because it taps into something that
Speaker 1: there is people who say a grain of truth. I
Speaker 1: would often say, no, there's a there's a foundation of truth.
Speaker 1: It's what they build on top of that that can
Speaker 1: be so misleading or false or destructive. But it's more
Speaker 1: than just a grain of truth. Right. You can't do
Speaker 1: much with a grain of anything. But if you have
Speaker 1: a foundation of truth and then you build lies on
Speaker 1: top of it, you have something that can be both
Speaker 1: very effective as propaganda but also very misleading governments. And
Speaker 1: I used to work as you know it says that
Speaker 1: at the top of the show every day, Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: former ci by It's former NYPD Intelligence Division analyst, is
Speaker 1: what it should really say. Some of you have said,
Speaker 1: wait a second, YPD. I was in the MYPD Intelligence Division,
Speaker 1: which was a civilian contract unit that was doing counter
Speaker 1: terrorism K essentially running counter terrorism cases in the New
Speaker 1: York City area, in helping the MYPD with that, working
Speaker 1: with the YPD on that we were MYPD employees. But
Speaker 1: conversation for another time, back to Assange. Here's the problem.
Speaker 1: They're going to say that what Asange has done here
Speaker 1: is well, they're going to say, first and they already
Speaker 1: are saying this, that he's not a journalist. And this
Speaker 1: is an argument that I've had to have with many people.
Speaker 1: What is a journalist? Now? You can think, as I do,
Speaker 1: that Assange for all of his self deluded narcissism. You
Speaker 1: can think that Assange is a good guy and a
Speaker 1: warrior for truth. Or you can think that he's a
Speaker 1: slimy guy who does Russia's bidding. And you want to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of what happened in Sweden, whatever
Speaker 1: that stuff's all about. These I think the charge there
Speaker 1: was called sex by surprise, I mean that I think
Speaker 1: that's what the which is a thing in Sweden. I
Speaker 1: don't know anything about the truth of that case or not.
Speaker 1: Those are purely allegations, and he is he should be
Speaker 1: entitled to at least illegal, if not media presumption of
Speaker 1: innocence on those matters. There's not really a presumption of
Speaker 1: innocence when it comes to the publishing of classified information,
Speaker 1: and in the sense that there's no dispute in the
Speaker 1: facts about whether that happened. Assange admits that. So now
Speaker 1: the issue is does he fall under the Espionage Act?
Speaker 1: And if he falls under the Espion, which is a law,
Speaker 1: as people often point out from the early twentieth century,
Speaker 1: at a time when it is often forgotten now, at
Speaker 1: a time when the First Amendment was under a very
Speaker 1: real assault. You have people who will often say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's like yelling fire in a crowded theater, and they
Speaker 1: think that that's an argument ender. Well, they forget that
Speaker 1: that was in reference to a Supreme Court That was
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court justice making that reference about handing out
Speaker 1: pamphlets that were opposed to the First World War, a
Speaker 1: socialist handing out anti war pamphlets, which anybody now would
Speaker 1: recognize as protected speech. But he was saying, well, that's
Speaker 1: like yelling fire in a crowd. At the there was
Speaker 1: active speech suppression. People often forget now that there was
Speaker 1: a series of laws passed in the early eighteen hundreds
Speaker 1: called the Alien and Sedition Acts. You know what sedition
Speaker 1: was whatever the United States government at the time decided
Speaker 1: it was, including for people publishing newspapers. Also, at that
Speaker 1: time you had newspapers that were known to be supportive
Speaker 1: of different candidates, known to be supportive of different political
Speaker 1: ideologies and parties. I would say that newspaper because we
Speaker 1: borrowed from the British system, where it's also you're now
Speaker 1: a Labor Party, a Tory sorry, a Labor Party paper,
Speaker 1: a Tory paper, a conservative Marxist, they're open about that.
Speaker 1: In this country we have this facade of journalism is
Speaker 1: a subjective thing, which is a lie, does not exist.
Speaker 1: There are objective facts. There's no objective journalism. People should
Speaker 1: be honest about what they think, who they are, what
Speaker 1: they believe, and they present you facts as such, because
Speaker 1: without facts, you have no credibility, no matter who you are.
Speaker 1: But at the earliest days of our republic, there were efforts,
Speaker 1: there were laws passed by the Congress that were in
Speaker 1: direct contravention to the First Amendment, and people were threatened
Speaker 1: with imprisonment. I believe some people were sent for short
Speaker 1: periods of time to prison. John Adams made to look
Speaker 1: so good by Paul Giamati in that HBO series. John
Speaker 1: Adams was a proponent of this can't have really dangerous
Speaker 1: thoughts about you know, the US and the War of
Speaker 1: eighteen twelve was looming, and they didn't know that at
Speaker 1: the time, but you know, you had the problems with Britain,
Speaker 1: and you had the debts and impressment of our sailors
Speaker 1: on the open seas, and all this stuff going on,
Speaker 1: you can't have people saying crazy stuff. That's edition really
Speaker 1: and is its edition now? To say that there aren't
Speaker 1: thirty seven genders? You might be laughing, but I'm in California.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure we could find people who think that
Speaker 1: it is sedition to say there aren't thirty seven genders?
Speaker 1: Why not forty? Why not a nice even number? Why
Speaker 1: make it thirty seven? Hard? I think Harvard University is
Speaker 1: one that listed at thirty seven on the application. Julius
Speaker 1: Songs accused it violing the Espionage Act. Okay, let's work
Speaker 1: through this together. What has he done? He took information
Speaker 1: that was classified, and he claims through his organization that
Speaker 1: they never and this is the big dispute is going
Speaker 1: to be, did they endanger sources? Because that's the one
Speaker 1: place where even like journalists are supposed to protect their sources.
Speaker 1: But keep in mind journalists, then that's kind of a
Speaker 1: handshake agreement. There's no legal legal protection really for sources,
Speaker 1: certainly not at the federal level. And the Obama administration
Speaker 1: showed that they would throw journalists in prison if they
Speaker 1: did not reveal their sources. So there's no real source
Speaker 1: protection for journalists. That's just a you know, scout's honor thing.
Speaker 1: But we all understand that endangering sources is very real
Speaker 1: from a national security perspective. It's it is legally protected,
Speaker 1: as it should be. But we've gotten used to a
Speaker 1: left wing press corps in this country that overwhelmingly takes
Speaker 1: it upon themselves to publish whatever classified information they want
Speaker 1: whenever they want, over the objections, often of the national
Speaker 1: security agencies, the United States Military. They think they're the
Speaker 1: arbiters of it. The New York Times, the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: they make the decisions as to what is in America's
Speaker 1: national security interest. Now they don't have any legal protection
Speaker 1: for those and by the letter of the law, and
Speaker 1: I love when journalists argue with me on this because
Speaker 1: they're always wrong and they're so ignorant. By the letter
Speaker 1: of law, there is no particular protection for journalists for
Speaker 1: publishing classified information. In fact, the New York Times publishing
Speaker 1: classified information, which it has done many, many times, The
Speaker 1: Washington Post, many other outlets now too. The Intercept loves intercepts.
Speaker 1: It give them something classified, they'll want to publish it, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, don't do that. But I'm saying
Speaker 1: if one were to do that. You know, they love
Speaker 1: publishing classified information. There are many others that have published
Speaker 1: classified information right and they assume that the DJ policy
Speaker 1: will hold that you don't. You don't go after the journalists,
Speaker 1: You only go after the person who passes along the information. Now,
Speaker 1: for I have long argued that that's a distinction that
Speaker 1: is perhaps a clean one for legal purposes, but the
Speaker 1: moral distinction there is much hazier. That journalists who do
Speaker 1: some of the things that we have seen journalists do
Speaker 1: in this country are betraying their country. They can think
Speaker 1: it's transparency, but it is a betrayal of the country
Speaker 1: to take information that you know to be harmful, for
Speaker 1: it to be aired out publicly, and just to do it.
Speaker 1: But how do we then balance that out in a
Speaker 1: society where we know that the government will often hide
Speaker 1: stuff from us. Well, right now we're seeing this. They don't.
Speaker 1: They keep saying sources and methods about the fives of
Speaker 1: warrants used in the Russia collusion hoax. They keep yelling,
Speaker 1: you know, sources and methods whenever they need to cover
Speaker 1: up something that Komi or Brannan or any of these
Speaker 1: people did. We try to get that information the government
Speaker 1: claimed secrecy. We're trying to fight through that. So the
Speaker 1: government does overclassify, hide things, and use secrecy as a
Speaker 1: means of evading accountability, because that is always what the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy wants to do. Federal bureaucracies want to evade accountability,
Speaker 1: and they will abuse the power that they have to
Speaker 1: that end. So we have this difficult balancing act. Right,
Speaker 1: we have this First Events supposed to protect the free press,
Speaker 1: also protect freedom of speech as a general proposition. The
Speaker 1: free speech rights of the first of the New York
Speaker 1: Times and their First Amendment protections are no different from yours,
Speaker 1: and don't never forget that they don't have any special protection.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice may have said, well, if you're
Speaker 1: a government employee, we're going to hold you to a
Speaker 1: different standard than someone who works in the New York Times.
Speaker 1: But this is going to be messy, my friends, bringing
Speaker 1: of charges against Julian Assange in this way, not just
Speaker 1: for the hacking. I think they could have gotten him.
Speaker 1: I think they probably had a decent line at getting
Speaker 1: him on those and that's a universally applicable law. We're
Speaker 1: going to have the federal government now adjudicating who is
Speaker 1: a journalist and who gets the protections handed to journalists,
Speaker 1: not by the Constitution per se, but by the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, just deciding who and who to prosecutor who
Speaker 1: not to. I know that you may be saying, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's probably the best way, but that gives the government
Speaker 1: a lot of power. Think about what it means for
Speaker 1: the government to adjudicate who's a journalist and who's not
Speaker 1: under a Bernie Sanders administration. Think about what it means
Speaker 1: the federal government to determine who's a journalist and who's
Speaker 1: not under an Ocasio Cortez heaven forbid administration. You think
Speaker 1: they're going to be fair minded about it. They're trying
Speaker 1: to kick us off of social media platforms. They're trying
Speaker 1: to kick us off of Facebook and Twitter, and they
Speaker 1: want us gone. Half the country is not allowed to
Speaker 1: hold the beliefs that it does. So this is this
Speaker 1: is important. Whatever you think of Assange, this matters. We
Speaker 1: have a lot more on this, and also the Pelosi
Speaker 1: Trump fight, and it's going to be a busy day
Speaker 1: here in the Freedom hud. Friends. We will be right back. Ah.
Speaker 1: This is this is so typical. We've got New York
Speaker 1: Times here on the front page talking about how the
Speaker 1: assans the superseding indictment. Remember they already charged him. He's
Speaker 1: right now in British custody. I'm assuming there's some negotiation
Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes about whether they were going
Speaker 1: to have to give the Brits some kind of guarantees that,
Speaker 1: for example, I don't think anyone thinks the death penalty
Speaker 1: is on the table, but the death penalty couldn't be
Speaker 1: on the table. But now he's got these additional counts
Speaker 1: and the superseding indictment, it looks like the Brits are
Speaker 1: going to hand him over to US. And New York
Speaker 1: Times is saying, this rage's major First Amenment issues, and
Speaker 1: here's where you're going to see Trump's arrangement syndrome come
Speaker 1: into play. They're going to act like this administration when
Speaker 1: it comes to press freedom, is this horrible tyrant, and
Speaker 1: that what Trump is doing is destroying First Amendment protection
Speaker 1: for journalists, and the media is going to rally behind
Speaker 1: a Sane even though many of you will recall it
Speaker 1: was a Sane that they hated not long ago because
Speaker 1: of what he did or his role in the release
Speaker 1: of the DNC emails that prevented Queen Hillary, Yes, Queen Hillary,
Speaker 1: Queen Hillary from becoming the next press of the United States.
Speaker 1: So all of these people that were at one point
Speaker 1: very very angry with Julian Asange and the press right
Speaker 1: because he played for the wrong team on that one.
Speaker 1: He all of a sudden wasn't helpful to them. They
Speaker 1: loved as Songe when it came to Chelsea Manning and
Speaker 1: the release of classified American classified information about the US
Speaker 1: Warrener Rock in Afghanistan. They thought he was great then,
Speaker 1: but then they hated him because he released the Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders DNC, which was just telling us we already knew
Speaker 1: that they were in the tankment. Everybody knew they were
Speaker 1: in the tank for Hillary. Of course they were in
Speaker 1: the tank for Hillary. The whole system was in the
Speaker 1: tank for Hillary. But we had proof when those emails
Speaker 1: came out. Not a single email was fabricated. By the way,
Speaker 1: It isn't noteworthy noteworthy point of accuracy. But then you
Speaker 1: get to what's going to happen now. The press sees
Speaker 1: this as an opportunity to get on their soap boxes
Speaker 1: and unite and lock arms about how terrible Trump is
Speaker 1: on the First Amendment. They are going to hope that
Speaker 1: we all forget that. It was the Obama administration that
Speaker 1: listed James Rosen from Fox News as an unindicted co
Speaker 1: conspirator in a classified league investigation. It was the Obama
Speaker 1: administration that pulled the Associated Press's phone records. It was
Speaker 1: the Obama administration that prosecuted a journalist for not revealing
Speaker 1: a source for a book, or threatened to prosecute him.
Speaker 1: They're going to put him in prison. I spoke to
Speaker 1: that journalist. But the facts aren't going to get in
Speaker 1: the way of the narrative. My friends. They're going to
Speaker 1: start saying Trump is the biggest threat to the First
Speaker 1: Amendment ever. That's what they're going to say, even though
Speaker 1: he's not even as big a threat as the last
Speaker 1: guy to hold the office of the presidency was. But
Speaker 1: they're gonna hope you forget that. We'll be back. He's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America. Buck sex in his back.
Speaker 1: Big fight brewing over the Espionage Act and this Julian
Speaker 1: Assan's indictment. I just wanted to want to close the
Speaker 1: loop on this one, because this is this is going
Speaker 1: to set up a whole New Line. Every everything is
Speaker 1: about Trump all the time, right. I mean, we're going
Speaker 1: to talk to my friend, and I wish that wasn't
Speaker 1: the case, but that's what the media does. We're going
Speaker 1: to talk to my friend, Tyler Merritt, great guy, CEO
Speaker 1: of nine Line Apparel, spec Ops veteran, he was one
Speaker 1: of those elite combat helicopter pilots. He was an APACHE
Speaker 1: pilot and flue with different Special Operations units. He's going
Speaker 1: to join us to talk about the Eddie Gallagher case
Speaker 1: and also John Walker Lynde being released later on the show.
Speaker 1: But as you see with the Eddie Gallagher case, the
Speaker 1: Navy seal that people are accusing of war crimes before
Speaker 1: they even have access to the information, before they've heard
Speaker 1: his defense, they're just saying, oh, you must be guilty
Speaker 1: of war crimes. Because you know, they like to take
Speaker 1: the most negative anti American view possible, and much of
Speaker 1: our leftist press they think that that gives them some
Speaker 1: kind of moral high ground. That's something they like to do.
Speaker 1: But you know the fact that matters. The press does
Speaker 1: have often has an anti American or far left bias
Speaker 1: that runs contrary to the interests of what you think
Speaker 1: you'd see from normal Americans. But when you add Trump
Speaker 1: into the mix, anything that can be used as some
Speaker 1: kind of rhetorical ideological weapon against Trump will be used
Speaker 1: as such. Anything out there that they can do to
Speaker 1: make Trump the problem and use it to that is
Speaker 1: part of the obsession they. I was going to say
Speaker 1: they can't help it. I don't know if that's quite true,
Speaker 1: but it's almost like they can't help themselves. They're so
Speaker 1: unbelievably and completely wrapped up in their hashtag resistance mania.
Speaker 1: And with this Julian Assan situation, you will see people
Speaker 1: completely abandoned. They are previous criticisms of Assange. They're oh
Speaker 1: journalists who but a year ago, but a few months ago,
Speaker 1: maybe even we're saying he's a stooge for the FSB,
Speaker 1: which is the Federal nayaslas bisi pleas nesti, which is
Speaker 1: the Russian domestic intelligence service. Say that one five times
Speaker 1: real fast. It's fun. It's anything federal naya, it's fun
Speaker 1: to say. Right Russian words. I know about five Russian words,
Speaker 1: that's three of them. The other words are yet and
Speaker 1: those Dania. So I know I miss commy bear too.
Speaker 1: I just thought about that some of you are like
Speaker 1: Buck Commy Beart, Yeah, I know there's a possibility it
Speaker 1: might happen. But back to Asange, they're going to forget
Speaker 1: about all the criticisms they had of him in the past.
Speaker 1: They're going to abandon the line of argument that he's
Speaker 1: not really a journalist because he was doing the bidding
Speaker 1: of a he was operating as a foreign a non
Speaker 1: state foreign intelligence service. That's been the knock on Assange
Speaker 1: for a while, and there were some in the journal
Speaker 1: community that in the context of Russia collusion, DNC, the hacking,
Speaker 1: they were willing to go along with that. Now they're
Speaker 1: gonna just he's going to be the ultimate free speech martyr,
Speaker 1: not because they cared that much about free speech. I
Speaker 1: assure you this. If the Obama administration had decided to
Speaker 1: bring these charges against Assange, there would have been much
Speaker 1: more muted Yeah, some people would write some medatorials. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to say there'd be nothing much more muted
Speaker 1: criticism of the administration's decision, because ultimately, journalists care first
Speaker 1: and foremost about having their ideas in power, having the
Speaker 1: people they like and support, making decisions that affect the
Speaker 1: rest of the country. And the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: That is why they are activists more than they are journalists.
Speaker 1: They're seeking an outcome. They're not just providing information for
Speaker 1: the sake of informing the public. That's a lie. That's
Speaker 1: why journalism, speaking of foundations before, contemporary American journalism is
Speaker 1: built upon a fraudulent foundation that they're unbiased, they're nonpartisan,
Speaker 1: and they don't have an agenda. They absolutely have an agenda.
Speaker 1: You know, I tell you I have an agenda. My
Speaker 1: agenda is to support conservative values and beliefs, to explain
Speaker 1: what's going on around you know, around the country and
Speaker 1: around the world, and to do so honestly and in
Speaker 1: a way that brings both information and some entertainment value.
Speaker 1: And you can listen to me, and then if you
Speaker 1: want to go listen to some COMI podcasts somewhere from somebody,
Speaker 1: you can do that and decide who's right. But I
Speaker 1: make a compelling casty. I'm honest about it, or at
Speaker 1: least I hope it's a compelling case. But I tell
Speaker 1: you where I'm coming from. I don't sit here and say, well,
Speaker 1: I have no opinions, and now let me give you
Speaker 1: one hundred opinions in a row, but I have no opinions.
Speaker 1: I don't pull the Anderson Cooper, the Jake Tapper. I
Speaker 1: don't even think MSNBC thinks that they're journalists. But oh no,
Speaker 1: we're just objective, Joy, ABC News. We're just objective journalists. Man, Yeah,
Speaker 1: sure you are. Go go walk around any newsroom that's
Speaker 1: not Fox News or the Wall Street journal in the
Speaker 1: country with a maga hat on and see what people
Speaker 1: say and how they look at you. Oh yeah, we're objective.
Speaker 1: Like we're all a bunch of idiots. The mainstream media
Speaker 1: does think that everyone who doesn't agree with them is
Speaker 1: an idiot, So I guess it's not surprising at all.
Speaker 1: But there will be a massive shift in the tone
Speaker 1: and in the respect for and everything around Assange because
Speaker 1: this is going to become another line of attack going
Speaker 1: into the election cycle that Donald Trump is now they've
Speaker 1: been saying he's a threat to journalism like a bunch
Speaker 1: of little babies. I wish we had some of the
Speaker 1: bed Stelters destroyed. The first to bebbed by sag that
Speaker 1: I have a huge dweeb and I should have my
Speaker 1: own cable douche show. But I do because it look
Speaker 1: like jib zeppu. You know, that's not really to a
Speaker 1: normal person, Trump making fun of Brian Stelter is not
Speaker 1: a threat to the First Amendment. It's kind of funny.
Speaker 1: It's not actually eliminating any of our rights to free
Speaker 1: speech and free expression. It is, in fact responding to
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. With the First Amendment, it is speech
Speaker 1: against speech, which is what we want the marketplace of ideas.
Speaker 1: You know, when Trump calls some Democrat stupid, or calls
Speaker 1: some Democrat or Republican low energy or low iq or
Speaker 1: whatever it is, that's not a threat against that person.
Speaker 1: And that is just the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: who granted has a very big bully pulpit, but it
Speaker 1: really is matched on the other side by the media,
Speaker 1: and he's using his First Amendment rights. That's always so
Speaker 1: funny to me too, this claim that Trump is such
Speaker 1: a threat to our democracy a much bigger threat. And
Speaker 1: having been in a country where the press, just recently
Speaker 1: being in China, where the press do the bidding of
Speaker 1: the government explicitly, I mean, you have state controlled media.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to be so worried after eight years of
Speaker 1: ninety percent of journalists essentially giving Barack Obama carte blanche
Speaker 1: to do whatever he wanted, and you know, just just
Speaker 1: write trying to write the most flowery sonnets about Obama's
Speaker 1: genius and poise and coolness and all this other stuff.
Speaker 1: How much doth the press love Obama? Let me count
Speaker 1: the ways? Right, That's what it was for eight years.
Speaker 1: That is far more dangerous to your freedoms, far more
Speaker 1: dangerous to your rights than what then the dynamic. Forget
Speaker 1: about the reality of Trump or second, and just think
Speaker 1: of the dynamic right now, you know, forget about the
Speaker 1: tweets and all that, the specifics of whether you like
Speaker 1: them or not. You have a president who has the
Speaker 1: entirety of the media in opposition to him, and we're
Speaker 1: supposed to be so where that is so worrisome, not
Speaker 1: at all that you could you could argue that that's
Speaker 1: actually a pretty good balance in some ways, meaning that
Speaker 1: you have a check on the president's ability. And I
Speaker 1: would argue that with Trump, which you have, is the
Speaker 1: first time that it feels like an even playing field
Speaker 1: in the messaging war. And that's why the journalists and
Speaker 1: the left hate him so much. We've got we've just
Speaker 1: been led to believe that the left should always have
Speaker 1: a platform, information platform based information dominance in American politics
Speaker 1: and news, and it doesn't have to be that way.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be that this is this is
Speaker 1: how they can say. Other Wise intelligent or at least
Speaker 1: reasonably intelligent journalist will say the press is in biased.
Speaker 1: Look at Fox News, like, are you a moron? That's
Speaker 1: one channel versus the dozens and dozens of news channels
Speaker 1: out there that offer completely and utterly left of centered,
Speaker 1: a far left perspective on what's going on in America
Speaker 1: every day. And then your answer is there's one channel
Speaker 1: that doesn't do that. I know some of you yelling
Speaker 1: me buck One America News. I love Pisobic, high five Pisobic,
Speaker 1: But you know, the One America is working on it,
Speaker 1: working on it. Not quite at the ratings yet from
Speaker 1: a understand of Fox. But I get your messages. Some
Speaker 1: of you are like, fuck, you gotta give One America
Speaker 1: more love. I like some of the One America folks.
Speaker 1: I don't really know the moll Tommy Larron came from there,
Speaker 1: my buddy Tommy Larren. She's originally so I gotta give
Speaker 1: One America credit for finding her, Just like those of
Speaker 1: you that have been a little critical of my former employer.
Speaker 1: You know, I am always and forever thankful to Glenn
Speaker 1: Beck for bringing me into the business man. He got
Speaker 1: me started in media. He gave me my start. You
Speaker 1: got it. You always have a there's a defference in
Speaker 1: a respect to those that give you your first break,
Speaker 1: and for me that that's Glenn Beck. But back to
Speaker 1: the war over the First Amendment that we're about to
Speaker 1: see a play out. I wanted to tell you this
Speaker 1: all today because in the days ahead, you know, I
Speaker 1: want to get I want to get in front of
Speaker 1: this because I can see it playing out right now.
Speaker 1: I can see how they're going to position all of this,
Speaker 1: and that Trump is a tyrant storyline is just going
Speaker 1: to get magnified. And the Assan's trial, assuming that he
Speaker 1: is transferred into US custody, is going to be an
Speaker 1: opportunity not really to fight out the First Amendment, because
Speaker 1: they'll whenever happens in the Assan's trial, they will cast
Speaker 1: aside the next time around they either like or don't
Speaker 1: like someone. Democrats don't base decisions about violation of law
Speaker 1: anymore at these high levels when there's politics involved in
Speaker 1: a case, it's do they like the person or not?
Speaker 1: What do they want to have happen? What the laws
Speaker 1: are in place don't really matter. You know, did Hillary
Speaker 1: violent the Espionage Act? Yes? She did. Do Democrats care? No,
Speaker 1: of course they think that that doesn't matter, doesn't doesn't
Speaker 1: cut the mustard. By the way, why do people say
Speaker 1: that is Mark is one able to cut mustard? That
Speaker 1: I don't think so? No, you know, wouldn't you cut
Speaker 1: like the bree or the saucy song or something that
Speaker 1: was kind of bougier sounding that I meant it to be.
Speaker 1: But you know, I don't think you cut the mustard.
Speaker 1: But they are willing to push aside the law whenever
Speaker 1: it suits their interests, and that's what they'll that's what
Speaker 1: they'll push aside the law in this case if they
Speaker 1: want to. But I think we'll have to see the
Speaker 1: specifics of the evidence against Assange. I then there's one
Speaker 1: other thing that I'm perhaps out on my own on
Speaker 1: this one. I know a lot of a lot of journalists,
Speaker 1: or I shouldn't say journalist, A lot of national security
Speaker 1: people disagree with me on this. I don't really understand
Speaker 1: how it is that we can make the case that
Speaker 1: somebody who is not a US citizen and not on
Speaker 1: US soil has an obligation to protect the government secrets
Speaker 1: of the United States. And this is this is I'm
Speaker 1: on my own on this one. Not a lot of
Speaker 1: people make this case, but I've, as somebody who used
Speaker 1: to work in the secret world and now work in
Speaker 1: the open world, I've I've wondered about this for quite
Speaker 1: some time. If I violate state secrets from the Chinese,
Speaker 1: let's which I'm not. I was not over there. Just
Speaker 1: before anyone gets any ideas, I was not doing anything
Speaker 1: other than you know, learning and being a tourist. But
Speaker 1: if I were to violate the Chinese government's state secrets laws,
Speaker 1: would the United States be obligated to hand me over?
Speaker 1: What if I just talk to some dissidents as a
Speaker 1: journalist and the Chinese government said, you know that that's
Speaker 1: not acceptable. Why should And in this case, he's an
Speaker 1: Aussie citizen, and I know people are going to say,
Speaker 1: well buck, the Australian government is willing to give him
Speaker 1: over and they'll play ball in this right, But should
Speaker 1: they should they because they're the Aussies and they're close
Speaker 1: friends and allies, they will and they have, or they're
Speaker 1: they're willing to not make a fuss about it, I think.
Speaker 1: But this opens up a very interesting, whole separate part
Speaker 1: of the analysis here, which is, do I, as an
Speaker 1: American citizen, do I have an obligation to protect the
Speaker 1: secrets of any country that is not America? I would
Speaker 1: argue to you, and maybe this is just an intellectual exercise,
Speaker 1: though I don't think it is. Think of my China example.
Speaker 1: But I would argue to you the answers, No, I
Speaker 1: only have an obligation to protect American government information as
Speaker 1: an American citizen. I don't have an obligation to protect
Speaker 1: Russian or Chinese. And put aside the fact that I'm
Speaker 1: an X spy, I mean, I mean just as an American,
Speaker 1: and I think that should be the case across the board.
Speaker 1: So don't we have to apply that logic to Assange
Speaker 1: as well? Why is he on the hacking thing? Look,
Speaker 1: you can't hack. I understand that there are laws against
Speaker 1: hacking in Australia, In Great Britain, I mean that's a crime,
Speaker 1: right stealing as a crime, you can't do certain things.
Speaker 1: But publishing classified according to the United States, is that
Speaker 1: only because the Australia and the British recognize those classifications
Speaker 1: as valid too. Maybe. I mean, you know, there's there's
Speaker 1: some intricacies here, to be sure, But I just think
Speaker 1: we all need to be very clear that I do
Speaker 1: not I feel I feel no moral obligation as an
Speaker 1: American to protect the secrets of a government that is
Speaker 1: not my government. So don't we have to think a
Speaker 1: little bit about what that really means. If we have
Speaker 1: a whistleblower in this country who publishes all kinds of
Speaker 1: embarrassing stuff about the Russian government but name sources, and
Speaker 1: the Russians say, look, it's not the embarrassing information that
Speaker 1: we oppose, it's the naming of our sources and putting
Speaker 1: them in danger. So so hand that guy over to
Speaker 1: an uncle Vlad and company, because we got to handle
Speaker 1: this the old Russian way. Would we hand that person
Speaker 1: over assuming they were not working, by the way, for
Speaker 1: the United States government, They just did this on their own.
Speaker 1: They did this for themselves. For whatever reason, We're going
Speaker 1: to hand them over. I would be curious to know
Speaker 1: what some of the folks out there would think about
Speaker 1: this one. But as you can tell, this is this
Speaker 1: is a case that we're going to hear about for
Speaker 1: quite some time, and it brings up a lot of things.
Speaker 1: But we've also got Pelosi and Trump squaring off. They're
Speaker 1: really making the case, folks, that it's Trump who's the
Speaker 1: political big mean meaning they just want to They just
Speaker 1: want to get things done. Democrats just want to They
Speaker 1: just want to be friends. No, they don't. We all
Speaker 1: know this, But at some level, I think the Democrat based,
Speaker 1: the left wing base enjoys the bald face lie from
Speaker 1: prominent Democrats about how they want to reach across the aisle.
Speaker 1: They want to do infrastructure. It's it's gaslighting, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's meant to be brazen. It's it's meant to
Speaker 1: be an insult. Pelosi pretending she wants to work with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is an insult, not just a Trump, but
Speaker 1: to all of us too. We know, we know that's
Speaker 1: a joke. I love more on this though, coming up,
Speaker 1: team stay with me when I'm not where. I think
Speaker 1: we all to pull the trigger on that. The fact
Speaker 1: that the matter is all that we've seen in recent days,
Speaker 1: people refusing to testify, people tending to listen to this
Speaker 1: White House when they'll have to all these things bother
Speaker 1: me tremendously, but I did not want to rush to
Speaker 1: adjustment on anything. I believe in going through the steps.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, many members are just at that
Speaker 1: point of what is the next step for me? The
Speaker 1: next step the camel that broke the straw. The straw
Speaker 1: that broke the camel's back was having another witness not
Speaker 1: show up to a committee after they're supposed to. But
Speaker 1: for other members, they're all looking at what that step
Speaker 1: will be. But I think there is truly a feeling
Speaker 1: that this is becoming not just obstruction but a cover
Speaker 1: up of what happened. Oh, it's obstruction of obstruction. You see,
Speaker 1: obstruction of obstruction. They're coming up with new legal theories
Speaker 1: all the time. Here. Trump is the worst president in
Speaker 1: the history of the world. He's destroying the country. He
Speaker 1: can be impeached one hundred times over. But we're not
Speaker 1: sure if we should impeach him yet. We really want
Speaker 1: to play the process out. These people are such idiots. Oh, Congress,
Speaker 1: you guys are fun. I mean, there's a million reasons
Speaker 1: to impeach the present. We must, our constituents demand. The
Speaker 1: country needs the impeachment of Donald Trump. But we got
Speaker 1: to slow this down a little bit, you know, just
Speaker 1: you know, kick it back to neutral, relax little see
Speaker 1: if maybe impeachment's the way to go. Which is it? Folks,
Speaker 1: can't be both. It can't be both. Trump can't literally
Speaker 1: be worse than Hitler, as the Democrats seem to think,
Speaker 1: but not necessarily be worthy of impeachment. It cannot be
Speaker 1: both things. You know, they're they're anti Trump. Hysteria goes
Speaker 1: beyond the courage. They would need to do something about it,
Speaker 1: that much is for sure. Another one want to see
Speaker 1: that they've already got the conclusion, but they want to
Speaker 1: see the process play out. The suspect is already guilty,
Speaker 1: but we want to see a trial first. That is
Speaker 1: how Craft's approach impeachment, and that is why they are clowns.
Speaker 1: We got more on me. She's a mess, luckless face it.
Speaker 1: She doesn't understand it, and they sort of feel she's
Speaker 1: disintegrating before the RUSS. You know, she's a mess. Luckless
Speaker 1: face it, she doesn't understand it, and they sort of
Speaker 1: feel she's disintegrating before the RUSS. She does not understand it.
Speaker 1: They want to have her understand and it before we
Speaker 1: it's finished. Its signed as you know, Mexico has approved
Speaker 1: the deal, Canada has approved the deal, and they're waiting
Speaker 1: to get a signal for her. Now I would say this,
Speaker 1: the farmers should start talking to the Democrats in the House.
Speaker 1: The Senate's ready to approve it, the Republican Senate, but
Speaker 1: the Democrat House is not. Pelosi does not understand, all right,
Speaker 1: So you get a team. Welcome back to the Bucks
Speaker 1: Accent show. That was Trump today. He was at a
Speaker 1: meeting where he was talking about the sixteen billion dollars
Speaker 1: in federal aid that's going to the farmers who have
Speaker 1: been hits, particularly in the Midwest. You know, the Chinese
Speaker 1: are very strategically trying to that's right, involve them, involve
Speaker 1: themselves in the American election process by making sure that
Speaker 1: they target parts of the country with their trade policy
Speaker 1: that they think will be politically damaging for Trump. So
Speaker 1: they're very aware of this. There's all kinds of ways
Speaker 1: that you could talk about foreign interference in elections. Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele a foreigner relying on foreign sources Russians to create
Speaker 1: the Steel dossier to feed to the journalists and the FBI.
Speaker 1: THEO you need to a miracle, I give you the FBI.
Speaker 1: That's all foreign interference. The election too. But now you've
Speaker 1: got Trump standing before the American people to talk about
Speaker 1: the sixteen billion dollars in federal aid. And look, this
Speaker 1: is this is smart politics for them. I know. People say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's not free market, Well, you know, it's not free
Speaker 1: market to the Chinese are engaging in all this tariffs
Speaker 1: and jacking up the prices on us and stuff they've
Speaker 1: been doing for a long time, the intellectual property, theft,
Speaker 1: all of it. That's not free market. That's not obeying
Speaker 1: that's not obeying the rules of the marketplace and then
Speaker 1: letting the best man win. They're cheating. No one denies,
Speaker 1: at least no one of this country who knows anything
Speaker 1: denies that they're cheating. But the consensus opinion from the
Speaker 1: so called smart set had been for a very long time.
Speaker 1: Now we just sit back and take it. When it
Speaker 1: comes to the Chinese, we have no means of fighting back.
Speaker 1: We're the biggest economy in the world, the most powerful
Speaker 1: military in the world, the most culturally influential country in
Speaker 1: the world. But China can do whatever it wants to
Speaker 1: us in terms of trade, and we just sit and say, well,
Speaker 1: maybe they'll stop one day. I don't think so. But
Speaker 1: you had President Trump decide that he was going to
Speaker 1: turn this discussion about Look, he understands what are the
Speaker 1: people really want to hear about. I mean, he's having
Speaker 1: this meeting, you know, to talk about the sixteen billion
Speaker 1: dollars in federal aid. I get it right, He's you
Speaker 1: gotta make his case for the American people about why
Speaker 1: there needs to be some patience in dealing with this
Speaker 1: trade ward. Trade war is not going anywhere, and the
Speaker 1: markets are starting to price this in, you know. So
Speaker 1: the Trump administration saying, all right, we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: try to batten down the hatches a bit and prepare
Speaker 1: for a longer haul here. And I think that much
Speaker 1: of that is just the Chinese trying to wait this out.
Speaker 1: Much much better deal for the Chinese going to come
Speaker 1: from Buddha Judge or Sanders or Biden or whomever administration.
Speaker 1: So why not wait a little bit. They've got enough,
Speaker 1: They've got enough in the tank to deal with this
Speaker 1: for a year. So Trump says, all right, we're gonna
Speaker 1: get the sixteen billion dollars. We're gonna try to offset
Speaker 1: some of the pain that growers in Midwestern states are
Speaker 1: going to have as a result of this, and you've
Speaker 1: got some stocks and bonds taken a hit today. I
Speaker 1: don't know how much any of you care about that,
Speaker 1: but that did happen. But that's not really where the
Speaker 1: political fight is right now. As much as as much
Speaker 1: as the economic conditions here are on everyone's minds, what
Speaker 1: really seems to be capturing our imaginations at this moment
Speaker 1: is that the Democrats are simultaneously telling the American people
Speaker 1: that the president is as a criminal, that the president
Speaker 1: should be impeached, that the president cannot even finish out
Speaker 1: the eighteen months that he has left in office. They
Speaker 1: are dead set on finding some process to prematurely end
Speaker 1: his administration. That's what they want to do. And even
Speaker 1: if they don't get to the eventual goal along the way,
Speaker 1: if they can do damage the administration, well, and that's
Speaker 1: a benefit to them too. So they feel like this
Speaker 1: is win win. They feel like there's no matter what
Speaker 1: happens here, they're happy with the outcome of using the
Speaker 1: process as some kind of weapon against Trump. But it's
Speaker 1: one thing to do that, and as gross and irresponsible
Speaker 1: as I see that to be, it's another thing to
Speaker 1: do that, which is what democrats have been up to
Speaker 1: for quite a while. Now. We've all known. I've been
Speaker 1: saying it, You've been saying it. We're aware, we know
Speaker 1: what the game plan is here. But they do this
Speaker 1: and then they turn around and get mad at Trump,
Speaker 1: or at least pretend that, oh, I'm so mad at Trump.
Speaker 1: They pretend to be upset at him because he's not
Speaker 1: being more bipartisan, because he's not going to take it
Speaker 1: lying down, because he's not accepting of this status quo
Speaker 1: where Democrats can go in front of the microphones and say,
Speaker 1: the press the United States is a crazy person, needs
Speaker 1: to be removed from office, all these things. You know,
Speaker 1: it needs to be impeached, although they're not sure they're
Speaker 1: going to do it, but he needs to be impeacher.
Speaker 1: Just not sure they're going to do it. And then
Speaker 1: walk up to him and say, hey, mister press, and
Speaker 1: let's let's talk about a couple of trillion dollars of
Speaker 1: infrastructure spending. Let's really work together on this, let's let's
Speaker 1: really see eye to eye on this issue. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: that's not the way the world works. Some of you
Speaker 1: may recall one of my favorite, one of my favorite
Speaker 1: Chaney moments. That's right, Dick Cheney. Cheney, remember at leased
Speaker 1: to do that, kind of like the penguin. That was
Speaker 1: John Stewart who popularized that. It says nothing like Cheney,
Speaker 1: but that just became a thing that they did, kind
Speaker 1: of like Halloa, Hillary, does it sound like her? No?
Speaker 1: But do you know who I'm talking about? Yes, you do.
Speaker 1: I'm still running. She might, she might. I know, you say,
Speaker 1: she's not tactically running, but I think in her heart
Speaker 1: of hearts, Hillary thinks she's still She's still running. But
Speaker 1: I remember when Cheney, the press was all, oh, good heavens,
Speaker 1: there was all this pearl clutching and oh the press
Speaker 1: got the vapors that were so upset when Vice President
Speaker 1: Cheney had some very choice words for the shrouner from Vermont,
Speaker 1: ley Ers Chalulenge kind of like gurgling Gurgan from Shion
Speaker 1: and pretty much the shame guy. But pad Laye from
Speaker 1: from Vermont said some terror. I forget what it was,
Speaker 1: but you know, he basically, you know, Chaney is like
Speaker 1: a war criminal who is horrible or something like that.
Speaker 1: He said something really nasty about Chaney. I don't remember
Speaker 1: what it was, so leave that part of it out.
Speaker 1: But Cheney um responded to him outside of a committee
Speaker 1: here and remember something where where lay had said those
Speaker 1: things with in in New York City. We referred to
Speaker 1: it as you know, a New York goodbye, go something
Speaker 1: something yourself to Lahy. And I think that sometimes such
Speaker 1: words are very much called for. I think that sometimes
Speaker 1: that is the way to deal with people. I think
Speaker 1: that Democrats do need to be called on their stuff,
Speaker 1: and harsh language is sometimes called for. It depends on
Speaker 1: the setting. He wasn't in fun of little kids or anything.
Speaker 1: And Trump isn't going to sit around and have Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi and these other Democrats do the whole impeachment circuit
Speaker 1: going on seeing at an MSNBC and then sit down
Speaker 1: with them and act like everything's cool. Are we really
Speaker 1: supposed to blame him for that? Are we really to
Speaker 1: take it as some terrible offense? Nancy Pelosi certainly thinks,
Speaker 1: so play the latest from crazy Nancy. The President again
Speaker 1: stormed out, I think what first, pound the table, walk
Speaker 1: out the door. Next time, have the TV cameras in there.
Speaker 1: While I have my say, that didn't work for him either.
Speaker 1: And now this time, another temper tantrum. Again. I pray
Speaker 1: for the President of the United States. I wish that
Speaker 1: his family, or his administration or his staff would have
Speaker 1: an intervention for the good of the country. An intervention,
Speaker 1: she prays for him. What a classic Democrat politician tactic here,
Speaker 1: you know, what a what a backhanded slap at the
Speaker 1: President United States. Oh, she praised for him. She wants
Speaker 1: there to be an intervention because she cares so much
Speaker 1: about President Trump. You see, she just thinks that he's unwell.
Speaker 1: She wants people to step in to help him. Of
Speaker 1: course not she's playing into the Trump derangement craziness, that
Speaker 1: the president is crazy. They won't stop. They bring, you know,
Speaker 1: on these different cable networks that hey, Trump, they'll bring
Speaker 1: psychiatrists and psychologists and pet therapists and you know whatever
Speaker 1: life coaches. They'll bring them on it. Oh, you know,
Speaker 1: I think the president really has had some kind of
Speaker 1: a you know, some kind of an aneurysm or something,
Speaker 1: and he just doesn't you know, it's just like just lunacy.
Speaker 1: And they won't stop. They won't stop. The President United
Speaker 1: States is presiding over the best economy that this country
Speaker 1: has seen, really in my lifetime. I mean, you could
Speaker 1: argue that the dot com boom was you know, was
Speaker 1: as hot, but that obviously that the air got let
Speaker 1: out of that bubble pretty quickly. This is probably the
Speaker 1: best economy that the American people have enjoyed in my
Speaker 1: lifetime in many ways. I mean, at least looking at
Speaker 1: the numbers, best best unemployment statsin's nineteen sixty nine. I'm
Speaker 1: not that old, although I do have the bearing of
Speaker 1: an older man. Nonetheless, they still want to tell people
Speaker 1: who watch these cable networks on the left and who
Speaker 1: believe that these different newsrooms are not full of leftist
Speaker 1: activists posing as journalists. They want them to believe that
Speaker 1: the president is crazy, is crazy. All evidence of the
Speaker 1: contrary be damned. The president is insane. And that's Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi going out. That's why I like it that the
Speaker 1: President responds and just says that, you know, actually think
Speaker 1: Nancy's a little crazy. You gotta you gotta fight fire
Speaker 1: with fire. You've got to be willing to look these
Speaker 1: people in the eye and say I'm not going to
Speaker 1: be held back by some sense of deference and good
Speaker 1: faith that is not shared on the other side. Democrats
Speaker 1: are deeply personally disrespectful to this president in a way
Speaker 1: that might affect the two major parties for a long
Speaker 1: time after Trump isn't an office. They have been telling
Speaker 1: us now for years that the president is crazy, and
Speaker 1: yet the country's doing well, and they don't seem to
Speaker 1: be able to square this. In fact, I think it
Speaker 1: drives them crazy that he's been as successful as he's been,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that they keep telling us that he's
Speaker 1: actually nuts. And they're journalists who have built careers on
Speaker 1: either on one of two storylines. The president has to
Speaker 1: be removed from office because he's a crazy person, or
Speaker 1: the president colluded with Russia, and they go back and
Speaker 1: forth on this. Some of them believe both things are true.
Speaker 1: This is a mass psychosis, and this is along the
Speaker 1: lines of climate change is going to end the world
Speaker 1: in ten years. Donald Trump is a threat to the Republic.
Speaker 1: When you have these leftist echo chambers in the media
Speaker 1: throughout the media that keep feeding this, to feeding people this,
Speaker 1: and they have an economic incentive to do so. It
Speaker 1: keeps their ratings at least where they are. I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at CNN's ratings, their way down, but still
Speaker 1: makes a lot of money it's a legacy institution that
Speaker 1: can rest on its laurels. Unfortunately, but you look at
Speaker 1: the way that they package all the different stories. They
Speaker 1: take everything and try to twist it into an anti
Speaker 1: Trump moment, and that is that becomes a self reinforcing cycle.
Speaker 1: This becomes a closed circuit. You know, everything everything cycles
Speaker 1: back to Trump is bad. Everything cycles back to Trump
Speaker 1: is the worst. And this is not This is not normal.
Speaker 1: When I mean, this is not healthy. She's saying that
Speaker 1: there should be an intervention for Donald Trump. I'm here
Speaker 1: to tell you that Democrats need an intervention. Trump broke
Speaker 1: them psychologically. How many people do you know in your
Speaker 1: life think about this who have cut off friends, maybe
Speaker 1: even cut off family members because they voted for Trump.
Speaker 1: Who think that someone wearing a Maga hat is some
Speaker 1: kind of horrible offense. And you know, maybe if you
Speaker 1: get punched or slapped or something for wearing one, you
Speaker 1: know you were asking for it. How many people I
Speaker 1: know people who feel that way and they think that
Speaker 1: Trump is crazy. Only one side can be right on
Speaker 1: this one. You know. There are the people that have
Speaker 1: convinced themselves that Trump is a trader, is a lunatic,
Speaker 1: you know, is all these things and have no skepticism
Speaker 1: about the narratives that they've been fed by the left
Speaker 1: wing press. And the people that run the left wing
Speaker 1: press and own the left wing media are overwhelmingly not
Speaker 1: just Hillary partisans, but people who viewed the elevation of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton into the presidency as a crowning moment in
Speaker 1: their media life cycle. You know, this was this was
Speaker 1: something that they've been wetting them in. The Boomers who
Speaker 1: run these left wing places would have felt like Hillary
Speaker 1: was eight years of glory, would have been the best
Speaker 1: years of their careers, of their media entities, and that
Speaker 1: was robbed from them. It broke them psychologically. They can't
Speaker 1: seem to pick themselves up. They can't get passed the
Speaker 1: loss of the twenty sixteen election. And so Trump is
Speaker 1: right to recognize this for what it is and not
Speaker 1: just keep doing. You know, if Mitt Romney were in office,
Speaker 1: and I know some things about Mit, I like some
Speaker 1: things I don't. If Mit we're in office, he'd keep
Speaker 1: extending his hand and get it slapped away. Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: want to keep extending his hand to get it slapped away.
Speaker 1: He wants to slap back. I think that's the right move.
Speaker 1: I think that's the right move. All right, team, We've
Speaker 1: we've got a whole much more coming up, so stare
Speaker 1: right there. We'll be back. They've been unwilling and unable
Speaker 1: to sit down and solve any real problems, whether it's
Speaker 1: the crisis at the border, whether it's infrastructure or anything else.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to have a meeting where you accuse
Speaker 1: the president of the United States of a crime and
Speaker 1: then an hour later show up and act as if
Speaker 1: nothing's happened. The idea of that is insane. How many
Speaker 1: how many times do we have to have a redo
Speaker 1: before the Democrats accept the results? The bottom line is
Speaker 1: there was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and it's
Speaker 1: time for them to actually do some real work. They
Speaker 1: don't want to do any real work. Democrats wanted to
Speaker 1: dig in with exactly what they have, especially right now,
Speaker 1: because they can't. They can't give the president to win
Speaker 1: in their minds, and which means any bipartisan action of
Speaker 1: any kind. Right because if they do something with President Trump,
Speaker 1: then how do they come back and tell us that
Speaker 1: he's Hitler? You're working with Hitler? Oh no, of course not.
Speaker 1: So they won't do anything with Trump that's off the table,
Speaker 1: and they don't know what to offer from their side
Speaker 1: because they don't know who their candidate's going to be
Speaker 1: and how wacky far left that candidate is going to
Speaker 1: end up. So what have they got hashtag resistance? You know,
Speaker 1: I'll say this, when when they were running against Obama
Speaker 1: in the first you know, in the early stages of
Speaker 1: the there was a focus on things like Obamacare and
Speaker 1: how it was bad and how that was not a
Speaker 1: good thing. There's a focus on how the economy was weak.
Speaker 1: There were Republicans were making a case about the mismanagement
Speaker 1: of government by the chief executive at that time, President
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, And there were policy issues that were at
Speaker 1: the and the size of the debt and the Tea Party,
Speaker 1: and there were issues that were being discussed with Democrats.
Speaker 1: Right now, it's it's just all orange man bad. Trump
Speaker 1: is hitler. Trump is a criminal. He didn't colude with Russia,
Speaker 1: but let's just say he coluded with Russia. There's no
Speaker 1: evidence that he committed a crime, but let's just say
Speaker 1: there's evidence he committed a crime. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: what we're up against, this is what we have to
Speaker 1: deal with now. And there are enormous media entities and
Speaker 1: just interests in general. Billions of dollars of money is
Speaker 1: at stake here for people who have built entire enterprises
Speaker 1: on destroying Trump switching power to the Democrats. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot at stake here for the people that
Speaker 1: are trying to tell you that, oh no, they're the
Speaker 1: honest arbiters of what's happening. They're they're the ones that
Speaker 1: are just just bringing you the facts, you know, facts first,
Speaker 1: apples and bananas and all this stuff. I don't think
Speaker 1: so there's not going to be no one, no serious
Speaker 1: person thinks that there's going to be any bipartisan bipartisan
Speaker 1: action from not on anything meaningful what do you now
Speaker 1: in the election? But so the pretense and the Democrats
Speaker 1: that they're reaching out, yeah, they reach out after they say,
Speaker 1: you know, imagine if I showed up at your dinner
Speaker 1: party and I said, well, you know, I think you're
Speaker 1: a criminal and that this, uh, the car in the
Speaker 1: front driveway is stolen. But I do like the suffle
Speaker 1: you've made. I don't think you'd say, well, he's a
Speaker 1: really polite fellow. I appreciate the compliment about the suffle.
Speaker 1: This is what Democrats you're doing to Trump. This is
Speaker 1: not normal. They're not criticizing his policies and saying, but
Speaker 1: we can work on this stuff. They're saying he's a
Speaker 1: crazy person and he should be removed from office, and
Speaker 1: then they're going to sit down with him and think
Speaker 1: that he's going to treat them in a normal way.
Speaker 1: Really asks the or, it really forces you to ask
Speaker 1: the question, who's crazy in this one? I gotta say,
Speaker 1: I think it's crazy, Nancy. I'm just crazy like a
Speaker 1: fox back. He's holding the line for America buck sex
Speaker 1: in his back. Why is it that the Democrats don't
Speaker 1: ever have people like Justin Amash on their side? Why?
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering, when was the last time you can
Speaker 1: remember a Democrat elected official during the Obama years coming
Speaker 1: out and taking a deeply anti Obama stance, not opposing
Speaker 1: him on a matter of policy, but but criticizing Obama
Speaker 1: personally on some matter. Doesn't happen? And yet now I
Speaker 1: see and I haven't yet talked about it on the show,
Speaker 1: so I wanted to get to it today that Justin
Speaker 1: Amash has tweeted up. Mueller's report describes a consistent effort
Speaker 1: by the president to use his office to obstruct or
Speaker 1: otherwise corruptly impede the Russian investigation, the Russian election interference
Speaker 1: investigation because it put his interest at risk. I mean, one,
Speaker 1: I think he's wrong and this is just not this
Speaker 1: is an incorrect take. I don't think it's a very
Speaker 1: smart take, and much better lawyers than justin Amash have
Speaker 1: looked at this and said, sorry, there's nothing here. The
Speaker 1: president did not How can you impede an investigation that
Speaker 1: was not impeded? How can you impede an investigation that
Speaker 1: was not impeded and you could have very easily impeded
Speaker 1: it at any point in time. And then on top
Speaker 1: of that, not to be labor the word here, but
Speaker 1: how can you impede an investigation that was premised on
Speaker 1: a falsehood to begin with? Is an investigation of something
Speaker 1: that did not happen worthy of protection from the executive
Speaker 1: branch officials that or from an executive branch official that
Speaker 1: has the whole government to run. I guess Democrats say
Speaker 1: the answer is yes. They really just can't handle it.
Speaker 1: They really cannot handle being out of power. This is
Speaker 1: this is just a denialism that keeps just rearing its
Speaker 1: ugly head over and over again. You know, they have
Speaker 1: not gotten past twenty sixteen. You know what, folks, if
Speaker 1: we win in twenty twenty, if Trump gets re elected,
Speaker 1: I do think that there's going to be some I
Speaker 1: can't begin to tell you. I can't predict what it
Speaker 1: will be, or there will be ramifications that will shock
Speaker 1: many of us. I think you might finally have some
Speaker 1: of those Hollywood starlets. I mean here, I am coming
Speaker 1: to you from Los Angeles. You might finally have some
Speaker 1: of them moved to Canada or moved to New Zealand
Speaker 1: or wherever it may be. Go back to Amash here
Speaker 1: for a second. Why does he want to pile on?
Speaker 1: Why would he want to help the Democrats at this
Speaker 1: stage too? Is he too self involved or too stupid?
Speaker 1: And I have to ask, I don't know, you know,
Speaker 1: too self righteous to see that this has all been
Speaker 1: a get Trump operation from the start, that the Muller
Speaker 1: probe was conducted in bad faith by anti Trump Democrat partisans.
Speaker 1: Oh Muller used to be Republican. Yeah, I guess what
Speaker 1: Amash is a Republican. Look at some of the people
Speaker 1: that hate Trump more than anyone Republicans, at least by
Speaker 1: party affiliation, although you have had a lot of people
Speaker 1: like the Comies of the world say, well, you know, no,
Speaker 1: I'm an independent. Independent is what a former Republican who
Speaker 1: doesn't want to look like a turncoat right away calls
Speaker 1: himself when he switched over to being a team being
Speaker 1: on team Democrat, I'm an independent. Yeah, doesn't work for me,
Speaker 1: you know, on the rooftop here when people are sitting
Speaker 1: around talking about how Trump is destroying the country in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles a lot too much at A lot of
Speaker 1: that are on you. Let me tell you, I gotta
Speaker 1: get these people a little bit of a different perspective.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they're ready for it yet, though,
Speaker 1: I can't imagine, because when they've been to people have
Speaker 1: been told so many times that this is the worst
Speaker 1: president ever. And you try to explain to them that
Speaker 1: that is that is a a completely unjustifiable and an
Speaker 1: hysterical point of view. They then they don't assume that
Speaker 1: maybe you're worth listening to. They think that you must
Speaker 1: be deranged. And I've come across this a few times.
Speaker 1: I try not to engage too much with the far left,
Speaker 1: you know, la hipster crowd on this stuff. But I've
Speaker 1: I've made the I've made some very early in roads.
Speaker 1: But I guess Justin Amash wants to make some in
Speaker 1: roads too, And that's why is he auditioning for a
Speaker 1: job at CNN. Is that what this is? When was
Speaker 1: the last time a Democrat broke ranks to do something
Speaker 1: for the Republican Party on a really, really important issue
Speaker 1: where the stakes were high and it wasn't in the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party's interest for that to happen. Here's an example,
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion in West Virginia voting yes on Kavanaugh. That
Speaker 1: was helpful for the Democrats because if Mansion had not
Speaker 1: done that, all the polling in West Virginia showed that
Speaker 1: he was going to get crushed for the reelect, so
Speaker 1: they let him break ranks. Democrats are okay with head
Speaker 1: fakes that help the Democrat Party, or they're okay with
Speaker 1: a small term sellout for big for big time gain, right,
Speaker 1: or a small time sellout for big time gain, but
Speaker 1: on a critical issue. And when was the last time
Speaker 1: they have a situation like John McCain on healthcare. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: we're right there, We're at the we're at the one
Speaker 1: yard line. Oh no, our team's going to intentionally fumble it.
Speaker 1: Someone on our team is going to hand it to
Speaker 1: the other side. There are a few things that you
Speaker 1: have to, if not admire, at least are instructive to
Speaker 1: pay attention to when it comes to Democrats, and one
Speaker 1: of them is their party discipline. As much as I'd
Speaker 1: like to say that I can believe this analysis that
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi has lost control of the Democratic Party, that
Speaker 1: the radicals now run it, and that's true to an extent.
Speaker 1: It's true from a messaging perspective, But when it comes
Speaker 1: to the exercise of raw power, Democrats march in lockstep.
Speaker 1: And if I'm wrong, by the way, tell me I'm
Speaker 1: show me, show me where you've had the Democrat that
Speaker 1: has I mean, look look at Obamacare. Every Democrat voted
Speaker 1: for it. Not a single Republican voted for it. Every
Speaker 1: Democrat not one defection on a massive mess of a
Speaker 1: healthcare law that has now put us on a path
Speaker 1: towards single pair, which we all knew from the beginning
Speaker 1: of this at Oh, it won't do that. It's Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney's plan from Massachusetts. Thanks Mitt. Mitt Romney's plan started
Speaker 1: with the Heritage Foundation you hear all these things. Now,
Speaker 1: now they're pushing for single pair for you know, universal
Speaker 1: universal healthcare paid for by the government, and we all
Speaker 1: know where that leads to. Right, you're going to run
Speaker 1: a business. The business is going to say, well, I
Speaker 1: could pay a lot of money for private health insurance,
Speaker 1: or I could just tell these people, get you get
Speaker 1: your government health insurance, go get your Obamacare, you go
Speaker 1: pay for the plan that's on the exchange in your
Speaker 1: state of We all know where that's going to lead.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna leave to do a free market, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. But the free market in healthcare is something
Speaker 1: that's at this point. It's it's like a it's like
Speaker 1: a fantasy. But Amash just, I know that was a
Speaker 1: little that was a little sour. I agree I should have.
Speaker 1: I need to tone it down a little bit. It's true.
Speaker 1: We're so far from a free market healthcare. Don't even
Speaker 1: get me started. I could spend three hours of talking
Speaker 1: even all the deficiencies in the healthcare system and how
Speaker 1: our medicine is not nearly as good as we think
Speaker 1: it is. It's way too expensive. The incentive structure for
Speaker 1: a lot of healthcare professionals is not in line with
Speaker 1: their patients. It's there's a lot of stuff. I got
Speaker 1: a lot of thoughts on this one. But I've also
Speaker 1: got a thoughts on Justin Amash sitting around talking about
Speaker 1: how the president is. The president broke the law and
Speaker 1: now he's now he's a hero to the left. I
Speaker 1: hope it's worth it too him. You know what I
Speaker 1: think this is, this is a guy that on a
Speaker 1: few issues, you know, he skews a little libertarian on
Speaker 1: a few issues, he gets some attention to think on
Speaker 1: drones and on privacy, and he's one of these guys
Speaker 1: and he hasn't been in the spotlight much, and this
Speaker 1: is a way to do it. It is always a
Speaker 1: temptation for somebody on the right to sell out and
Speaker 1: go to the left, because they'll make it really cozy
Speaker 1: for you at first. You know, maybe you'll even get
Speaker 1: a contributorship at a network, Maybe you'll get a nice
Speaker 1: little fat book deal, you put on the board of
Speaker 1: a company, if you're really lucky that they make it
Speaker 1: seem like defecting is good for you. But then once
Speaker 1: they've used you, I mean, they'll never really respect you.
Speaker 1: If you were fighting for conservative causes, No matter how
Speaker 1: much you've abandoned them, they'll never really think you're part
Speaker 1: of the team. But our side doesn't learn. We have
Speaker 1: we have defectors. We have people that want to get
Speaker 1: that one or two lines of oh sweet sweet stuff
Speaker 1: in the New York Times about them. And I think
Speaker 1: that's what's going on here with mister Amash, Congressman Amash.
Speaker 1: It's just it's just so disappointing, man. I mean, come on,
Speaker 1: you really think that after all the President's been through
Speaker 1: this two year long investigation, all the lies, all the
Speaker 1: efforts to lie to the files a cord which they
Speaker 1: clearly did, to do obscure the origins of the dossier,
Speaker 1: to work with the media with part of pro Hillary
Speaker 1: partisans in the media and in the deep state of
Speaker 1: the FBI and the dj to concoct this whole massive
Speaker 1: narrative of lies. After all of that, the real problem
Speaker 1: is Trump not obstructing justice, but like thinking about it, or,
Speaker 1: as Nancy Pelosi formulates it, now, the cover up of
Speaker 1: the non obstruction, of the non collusion. That's where we are, folks.
Speaker 1: Democrats think that the president should no longer be the
Speaker 1: president because of the cover up of the non obstruction
Speaker 1: of the non collusion. I don't know what they're going
Speaker 1: to pile on top of this, but it'll probably be
Speaker 1: the obstruction of the cover up, I'm sorry, the obstruction
Speaker 1: of the non cover up of the non obstruction of
Speaker 1: the non collusion. I think I've got them all together now.
Speaker 1: And then throwing the emolument's clause in the twenty fifth Amendment,
Speaker 1: and just these people are insane. They're always trying to
Speaker 1: find some new way to get some new excuse or
Speaker 1: why he's not really the president. I mean, why not
Speaker 1: just live in reality for a little bit and put
Speaker 1: forward one of your candidates make the case to us
Speaker 1: all that Trump should not be the president. If it's
Speaker 1: so obvious that he broke the law and should be impeached,
Speaker 1: then it should be obvious enough a case to make
Speaker 1: the American people that he shouldn't be president again. You
Speaker 1: know what they're terrifying of, and this is what you know.
Speaker 1: I think they'll be Democrats who are broken psychologically if
Speaker 1: Trump gets re elected. But a lot we're broken the
Speaker 1: first time around, and it's not like they all went away.
Speaker 1: What does it mean for the Democratic Party if Trump
Speaker 1: wins reelection? And what I mean by that is, how
Speaker 1: do they get taken seriously when they've told us all
Speaker 1: this stuff, Oh, the worst president ever, and he's this
Speaker 1: monster orange man bad, he's basically Hitler, He's worse than
Speaker 1: Stalin all the things that they've been saying, and then
Speaker 1: he gets reelected, he beats whatever candidate, whatever, whatever, whoever
Speaker 1: it is that they put forward after this ruckus primary season.
Speaker 1: What will that mean about their ability to with the
Speaker 1: American people and the power of the stories that they tell,
Speaker 1: their credibility as a political party. I mean, think about that.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping they're not going to try to blame it
Speaker 1: on Russia again, although maybe they'll blame it on the Chinese.
Speaker 1: If you're an enterprising foreign government, you know, or hostile
Speaker 1: intelligence service, you know that all you have to do
Speaker 1: is do something to mess up the next election, and
Speaker 1: that'll really drive a divide. I mean, and I mean
Speaker 1: something minor. You don't have to hack into voting machines
Speaker 1: or anything. Just create some fake Facebook accounts and make
Speaker 1: some noise online, and then the losing party can point
Speaker 1: at that and say, see the other side cheated. And
Speaker 1: we know that if the Democrats are the ones that lose.
Speaker 1: They don't have the media running endless stories on it,
Speaker 1: and people want to give themselves pull. It serves for
Speaker 1: all their Facebook sock puppet reporting. What a joke? What
Speaker 1: a joke? Oh man, Facebook dot com, slashbuck sex and
Speaker 1: if you want to send me some thoughts, that's a
Speaker 1: great way to do it. We are going to be
Speaker 1: joined in the next hour. I got a couple of
Speaker 1: guests joining. I wanted to bring in some voices today,
Speaker 1: and I maybe trying to bring in some voices tomorrow too.
Speaker 1: We've got our friend Inez Felcher Bernie Sanders has a
Speaker 1: pretty radical anti charter school proposal that he's rolled out.
Speaker 1: The burn doesn't like charter schools, don't want him. No
Speaker 1: charters not allowed. And then you also have my friend
Speaker 1: Tyler Merritt, CEO of Nineline Apparel, Specops veteran who's Apache pilot.
Speaker 1: They'll be joining in the next hour as well to
Speaker 1: talk about both the Eddie Gallagher case, this Navy seal
Speaker 1: that the press is trying to just railroad, just trying
Speaker 1: to just send him, to send him off in the
Speaker 1: prison and you know, bury the key somewhere, and also
Speaker 1: the latest on the release of John Walker Lynd American Taliban.
Speaker 1: You will call he has been called in the past.
Speaker 1: So we got that and more team and we will
Speaker 1: be right back. When I'm asking a lot of voters
Speaker 1: about you, they say, if you win the nomination, you're
Speaker 1: going to be on stage with pres In Trump, not
Speaker 1: just on these primary debate stages, but on stage in
Speaker 1: a general election. He's gonna be tough. He's gonna take
Speaker 1: punches at you rhetorically. Are you ready for that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look what he's gonna do. And I got
Speaker 1: a fair amount of familiarity with bullies. I'm gay, I'm
Speaker 1: from Indiana. I get it is. He's going to try
Speaker 1: to get your attention, and he's going to try to
Speaker 1: get under your skin. He's going to try to distract us.
Speaker 1: And the challenge in confronting Trump is that there are
Speaker 1: certain things that he does that you have to respond to,
Speaker 1: just morally. When he lies, you got to correct the lie,
Speaker 1: which will keep you busy because he does it so often.
Speaker 1: When he does something wrong, you got to point to it.
Speaker 1: But it can't be about him. Any energy that ghost
Speaker 1: his way, including energy the ghost is way in the
Speaker 1: form of criticism, turns into a kind of food. He
Speaker 1: just devours it and gets bigger. And what we've got
Speaker 1: to learn is how to kind of stiff harm him.
Speaker 1: Uh So, it's it's almost like a sort of crazy
Speaker 1: uncle management, crazy uncle management mayor Pete Buddha Judge says
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump. Now, let me tell you what I
Speaker 1: see happening here with Buddha Judge. I was always, I
Speaker 1: always was filled with a kind of disdain for the
Speaker 1: Beto O'Rourke mania because the guy was just such a
Speaker 1: just there's such an emptiness, I mean based on on
Speaker 1: what should we elect this guy to anything? Really not
Speaker 1: really clear what he stands for. All that was clear
Speaker 1: was that he was a somewhat you know, visually appealing
Speaker 1: to middle age Democrat women guy who you know, gave
Speaker 1: semi inspiring but sacharin speeches about America sometimes and was
Speaker 1: essentially up against Ted Cruze, who the left absolutely hates
Speaker 1: because Ted is very smart and very effective for servitism.
Speaker 1: And that's that was it. But I recognize that there's
Speaker 1: this lane, there's this celebrity worship lane that can be
Speaker 1: cleared out by the Democrat apparatus for a certain kind
Speaker 1: of candidate. And so while I've been saying that Beto
Speaker 1: is opously. They're not even asking for opposition research on
Speaker 1: the money anymore. That just came out. I think yesterday
Speaker 1: no one even's taking the time to try to slap
Speaker 1: down the Aurora candidacy because everyone thinks that this is
Speaker 1: this is pretty much he's toast. But Mayor Pete Buddha Judge,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, seems to have fit into that
Speaker 1: young progressive has a kind of telegenic media savvy quality
Speaker 1: that they're they're they're starting to elevate this guy, and
Speaker 1: he is moving his way up the ranks. Um, I
Speaker 1: don't think that he's I don't think that he's going
Speaker 1: to be the nominee. I will say that, but who
Speaker 1: knows at this point, right, I mean, it's you still
Speaker 1: have Biden and Bernie in the number one, number two slot.
Speaker 1: But if anyone at this point you think is gonna
Speaker 1: have a breakout, it's not gonna be. We talked about
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris yesterday. I just don't think she has the
Speaker 1: political skills at the national level. I just don't think
Speaker 1: she has it. You know, I would see as a
Speaker 1: default candidate they'd fall back on who's a little younger
Speaker 1: than Bernie or Biden. I would see Booker before, I'd
Speaker 1: see Kamala Harris right now. And you know, I am Spartacus.
Speaker 1: That's gonna stay with that guy for quite a while.
Speaker 1: But Buddha Judge is at least from a resume perspective.
Speaker 1: And I'm not somebody who thinks, you know, mid Romney
Speaker 1: had a great resume right at Harvard Business School and
Speaker 1: all this money and everything, and he got crushed by Obama.
Speaker 1: And Obama had a great resume too, with the whole
Speaker 1: Harvard Law school thing. I mean this is people get
Speaker 1: very into all these labels and the resume. But Booda
Speaker 1: Judge served in Afghanistan. He's a veteran. There's there's some there,
Speaker 1: there's some there there for this guy, and you're gonna
Speaker 1: see it. It's gonna happen pretty soon. Here this next
Speaker 1: i'd say sixteen to ninety day period. Here we go
Speaker 1: classic journalist stuff. This next sixteen to ninety days will
Speaker 1: be critical for a mayor p Booha judge. But if
Speaker 1: you're going to see a Democrat who has that breakout,
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna see it pretty soon, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna be vudu judgment. We'll see how he does in
Speaker 1: the debates, And first debates are in June, right, so
Speaker 1: they're coming up very soon. He's going to be on
Speaker 1: that stage. And if he comes across like not a
Speaker 1: total lunatic and somebody who's a fighter, he's gonna be
Speaker 1: top three, if he's not already there on the pole.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna keep an eye on this guy. He
Speaker 1: stole Beto's lunch, but he's now having a bit of
Speaker 1: a feast. Why do you steal my lunch? So mean?
Speaker 1: May repeat? Why are you so mean to Betto? Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton mission to coding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence, mag No mistake, America. You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show. The CIA analysts got
Speaker 1: some good news for all of you, got some good
Speaker 1: news to share. It's not great news, so I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to get you that excited. Maybe I should oversell
Speaker 1: a little bit the best news. Et No, it's it's fine.
Speaker 1: The news is fine. You know that I liked the
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollette case mostly because we hear in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: Knew along that he was lying, and that's why we
Speaker 1: kept doing those updates of the crazy lies that he
Speaker 1: was telling. Right, the two Nigerian brothers caught on video
Speaker 1: buying the rope and the Maga hats and then pouring
Speaker 1: bleach on him and him having a sandwich in his
Speaker 1: hand when he went back to the apartment later, and
Speaker 1: it's two am, and it's Chicago, and this is Maga
Speaker 1: Country and all this stuff that said, and those of
Speaker 1: us who live in a reality based universe where like that,
Speaker 1: that did not happen. So it's interesting that he's telling
Speaker 1: everybody that happened, because it did. It did not happen.
Speaker 1: So you end up finding yourself in a position where
Speaker 1: you say, okay, So, given that that did not happen,
Speaker 1: what should be the consequences for Jesse Smollett. And since
Speaker 1: everybody in law enforcement knew that he had filed false
Speaker 1: reports and that this is a crime, there was a
Speaker 1: sense that maybe there will be some kind of punishment
Speaker 1: for him, and then he evaded all punishment. Right then,
Speaker 1: he had the attorney general for whatever it is, the
Speaker 1: Northern District of Illinois or something, the state attorney general
Speaker 1: or the prosecutor that was assigned to the case. I
Speaker 1: can't remember what a specific title is Kim Fox I
Speaker 1: believe was her name. Just make the whole thing go away,
Speaker 1: and to seal the records of the case right away
Speaker 1: so that people couldn't look and see what overwhelming evidence
Speaker 1: of Jesse Smollett's mendaciousness was already in the hands of prosecutors,
Speaker 1: and that if this was not filing a false report,
Speaker 1: then nothing in fact could qualify as filing a false report.
Speaker 1: It could not have been more obvious than he was
Speaker 1: that he was guilty. I mean, this guy was the
Speaker 1: this is the filing the false police report level of
Speaker 1: guilt that you can't make it up, right, I mean
Speaker 1: you can't. You can't think of a situation where this
Speaker 1: guy would be more obvious in the way that he
Speaker 1: made this whole thing up. But anyway, the good news
Speaker 1: I have to give to you today, because you know
Speaker 1: this is gonna be fun, is that an Illinois judge
Speaker 1: has ordered that Jesse Smollet's criminal case file will be unsealed.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, this is going to be good stuff. This
Speaker 1: is exciting because then we now we get to return
Speaker 1: to what we knew before was an overwhelming mountain of
Speaker 1: evidence that he lied and there were some people I
Speaker 1: would know who after Smollett gave his little, his smug
Speaker 1: statement of how he would never do this, he walked
Speaker 1: into that court room and he never would do this,
Speaker 1: and other people who said, see, you know, the system
Speaker 1: is the system. He got to you know, he innocent
Speaker 1: until proven guilty. There are a lot of people that
Speaker 1: were being really disenject us on this matter, and I
Speaker 1: have to say, I am pleased. I am pleased that
Speaker 1: now they are going to have to answer to the evidence.
Speaker 1: Now jose Smallt's not being charged, which is still a
Speaker 1: complete outrage, but at least now we can sift through
Speaker 1: how they had everything on him. And this goes to
Speaker 1: show you that if you're if you are a politically
Speaker 1: connected person, and you are a protected person. In this case,
Speaker 1: Jesse Smallett is both a minority and part of the
Speaker 1: LGBT community, so that gives him a kind of from
Speaker 1: the perspective of intersectional leftist politics, that's a double protection, right.
Speaker 1: He's in two categories of oppression, so he's even more
Speaker 1: invulnerable to criticism and to the rules that we would
Speaker 1: want to apply to everyone, regardless of their race, sexual orientation,
Speaker 1: or anything else. You know, Smallett gets a special he
Speaker 1: gets to get out of jail free cards on this one.
Speaker 1: And yet now we'll finally be able to get some
Speaker 1: of the evidence and see it, and that will be fun.
Speaker 1: I also wanted to talk to you about something else
Speaker 1: that's been coming up a lot this week, and that
Speaker 1: is the fight over this Alabama law, which I've talked
Speaker 1: about on the show, but just just want to revisit
Speaker 1: something that is it's applicable to the abortion debate right now,
Speaker 1: but it's often the case when the left and the
Speaker 1: right debate any issue, and that is we know what
Speaker 1: their arguments are. I can make and maybe some day
Speaker 1: be kind of although if people tuned in and didn't
Speaker 1: know what I was doing, they would probably tune out
Speaker 1: right away. But whenever anyone wants, if they want me
Speaker 1: to make the argument from the left, I can do it.
Speaker 1: And I know and not just because I do a
Speaker 1: show with somebody who is very progressive every morning at
Speaker 1: the Hill. But I mean I can tell you what
Speaker 1: they're going to say. They can't tell you what we say,
Speaker 1: or at least they're not willing to repeat the case
Speaker 1: as we would make it publicly. They always have to
Speaker 1: pretend that we say things that we don't say on
Speaker 1: an abortion. This is certainly the case. Here's an example
Speaker 1: of it from ilhan Omar. When she's not being an
Speaker 1: anti Semite, she likes to get up and misrepresent, well
Speaker 1: slander the religious crimean community in this country that does
Speaker 1: not believe an abortion, and then go on to just
Speaker 1: misstate the whole case play it. I rise today to
Speaker 1: defy the horrifying attacks happening against women's reproductive rights all
Speaker 1: across this country. Religious fundamentalists are currently trying to manipulate
Speaker 1: state laws in order to impose their beliefs on an
Speaker 1: entire society, all with complete disregard for voices and the
Speaker 1: rights of American women. Their recent efforts, like those in
Speaker 1: Alabama in Georgia are only the latest in a long
Speaker 1: history of efforts to criminalize women's women for simply existing. Okay,
Speaker 1: there you go, to criminalize women for existing. This is
Speaker 1: such a astoundingly dishonest and stupid formulation of the pro
Speaker 1: life argument that I have to wonder is ilan Omar
Speaker 1: just ignorant of the truth or I can't tell you
Speaker 1: it's it's not clear. There's a part of me that
Speaker 1: wants to believe that she knows better, but is just
Speaker 1: being a demagogue to criminalize being women. That's not what's
Speaker 1: happening here, because, first of all, as we know, not
Speaker 1: all women are pregnant at any given time, not all
Speaker 1: woman will ever become pregnant, and a choice is made
Speaker 1: in the whole pregnancy thing. Not to take it too
Speaker 1: far into those details, but the argument over life is
Speaker 1: very simple and at its core, and that is it's
Speaker 1: about a life. This is about another human being that,
Speaker 1: through the miracle of a pregnancy, is going to be
Speaker 1: brought into this world. And does that other human being,
Speaker 1: because it is another life, have rights. Democrats can use
Speaker 1: all these words, they can talk about criminalizing women and
Speaker 1: criminalizing bodies and reproductive rights, and these are all these
Speaker 1: are all obscuring. Is that is a tiny baby in
Speaker 1: a mother's womb. Is that a life or not? That
Speaker 1: is everything because everything else flows from that. It's not
Speaker 1: clear to me if they just don't understand this argument
Speaker 1: or they're afraid to engage in the argument because they
Speaker 1: know they're wrong. Ilhan Omar, I'm not sure which side
Speaker 1: of that she falls on. Either. We've got ins Felcher
Speaker 1: joining us in a moment to talk about Bernie Standers
Speaker 1: and charter schools, and then we'll discuss Eddie Gallagher's case
Speaker 1: and John Walker Lynn's release with Tyler Merritt. That's coming up.
Speaker 1: Thood Marshall's core belief was pretty simple, not complicated. He
Speaker 1: believed that it is and I quote, the right of
Speaker 1: all of our children, whatever their race, to an equal
Speaker 1: stought in life and to an equal opportunity to reach
Speaker 1: their full potential as citizens. End of quote. I agree
Speaker 1: with what Thirdgood Marshall said, and in my view, the
Speaker 1: only way to accomplish that goal is to guarantee every
Speaker 1: person in our country a quality education as a fundamental
Speaker 1: human right, regardless of their income. Charter schools could be
Speaker 1: feeling the burn, my friends, Bernie Sanders going even further
Speaker 1: than some of his Democrat colleagues by saying that he
Speaker 1: wants to halt all new funding for charter schools, have
Speaker 1: a whole review of current charter schools. This will have
Speaker 1: a disreportioned impact on a lot of minority students, by
Speaker 1: the way, So what is going on here? What is
Speaker 1: the truth of charter schools as it stands? Right now?
Speaker 1: In this country, we have Inez Felcher Stepman with us now.
Speaker 1: She is a senior contributor at The Federalist or the
Speaker 1: Federalist also as it's sometimes known by those of us
Speaker 1: who can't speak English. She knows school stuff very very well.
Speaker 1: She's an education expert. Also an old friend of mine
Speaker 1: in as great to have you great. By the way,
Speaker 1: the Federalist is also known as the Federalist Society online
Speaker 1: by a bunch of leftists who can't tell the difference
Speaker 1: between those two organizations. So oh good, good to know.
Speaker 1: I think I caught some of that on the Twitter
Speaker 1: this week, but I stayed out of that one. I
Speaker 1: figured the leftist baby will start using the Google to
Speaker 1: learn the difference. But tell me what is Sanders? Let's
Speaker 1: start with this. What is Bernie who wants free college?
Speaker 1: So in that sense he's at least willing to change
Speaker 1: it up at the university level, have other people pay
Speaker 1: for the student's educations in the future. What's his deal
Speaker 1: with charter schools in this He put out this plan
Speaker 1: last week where he called for as you mentioned in
Speaker 1: the beginning of moratorium on charter funding, he also called
Speaker 1: for a total ban on for profit charter schools. That
Speaker 1: would be charter schools that contract with a for profit provider.
Speaker 1: So that's not really clear how that would even happen.
Speaker 1: Because there's a relatively small amount of general money that
Speaker 1: goes to charter schools. Theoretically one could cut that off,
Speaker 1: although I don't know why you'd want to cut off
Speaker 1: the one part of federal investment in education that actually
Speaker 1: has shown some results, but theoretically can cut that off
Speaker 1: in terms of a moratorium. I mean, he doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to understand or perhaps you know, as the good socialists
Speaker 1: that he is, he doesn't actually care that most American
Speaker 1: education decisions are actually made on the state level, So
Speaker 1: it's not really clear how he would implement that kind
Speaker 1: of moratorium. Nevertheless, that's what he's calling for. So he
Speaker 1: wants a moratorium. Why, I mean, what's the what's the
Speaker 1: reason that he and leftists like him give for this?
Speaker 1: And then I'm sure there's a a more more cynical
Speaker 1: but more true reason as to why they want to
Speaker 1: cut off this funny So work us through both of those, sure,
Speaker 1: So I think I think with Bernie, the general argument
Speaker 1: would be that charter schools quote drained funds from public
Speaker 1: schools because they provide parents with an alternative and some
Speaker 1: parents take advantage of that alternative. In fact, not only
Speaker 1: are there three million kids over three million kid attending
Speaker 1: charter schools today in the United States, there's another million
Speaker 1: kids who are waiting desperately on wait lists trying to
Speaker 1: get into charter schools. So Bernie Sanders sets this is
Speaker 1: a bad thing. He thinks that everybody should go to
Speaker 1: their assigned public school even if it's not working for them,
Speaker 1: which is a case, especially in some low income areas
Speaker 1: that have high percentages of at risk students or minority students,
Speaker 1: and that's why there are more minority students than the
Speaker 1: general population who are on golden charter schools. Charter schools
Speaker 1: have moved into urban areas with schools that are struggling
Speaker 1: and have attempted to meet that need in providing alternative
Speaker 1: to parents. So perversely, Bernie Standers has argued that because
Speaker 1: charters disproportionately serve poor kids and minority students, that this
Speaker 1: is quote unquote segregation. Right. I'm sure that's what the
Speaker 1: KKK that was on the bullet points for the first
Speaker 1: KKK meeting was provide better options to minority students in
Speaker 1: urban areas. But nevertheless, that's one of the arguments he's
Speaker 1: making against us unbelievably, he says the charter schools perpetuates
Speaker 1: so schools that in the case there's something like a
Speaker 1: Success Academy in Harlem in New York, which is a
Speaker 1: pretty well known charter school, you had almost entirely young
Speaker 1: black students. There are also some Hispanic students there, but
Speaker 1: almost entirely young black students who are dramatically outperforming their
Speaker 1: peers across all races at the state level. And what
Speaker 1: there's some kind of objection to this from Bernie Sanders. Yeah,
Speaker 1: according to Bernie Sanders, because some of those schools, like
Speaker 1: Success Academy have higher percentages of state black or Hispanic
Speaker 1: students than the state average, for example, which is not
Speaker 1: a good comparison, by the way, because what they should
Speaker 1: be doing is looking at the particular neighborhood in which
Speaker 1: the charter school is and what public school, what traditional
Speaker 1: public school those kids would have been attending, and oftentimes
Speaker 1: those public schools are as if not more segregated than
Speaker 1: the charter schools which they're attending. Yeah, it's a very
Speaker 1: perverse kind of logic that he's using. He's saying these
Speaker 1: schools are going in and serving a need, and they're
Speaker 1: serving that need disproportionately for the students that are have
Speaker 1: the worst options in our current system, which also correlates
Speaker 1: with them being a minority student. And he says because
Speaker 1: of that, charter schools are perpetuating segregation. There is no
Speaker 1: more segregated system than the system that is based on
Speaker 1: neighborhoods or zip code. So I would argue that the
Speaker 1: traditional public school is the one that is perpetuating segregation,
Speaker 1: and that charter schools are merely offering in most cases
Speaker 1: better alternative to parents to schools that aren't working, and
Speaker 1: those parents are disproportionately minority and lower income, because those
Speaker 1: are the folks who can't afford to pick up and
Speaker 1: just move to a more expensive area where the school
Speaker 1: might be better. What do charter schools do that upsets
Speaker 1: left us so much? Why is Bernie Sanders against it? Well,
Speaker 1: another big reapons against that this charter school tends not
Speaker 1: to although some charter schools are, but the vast majority
Speaker 1: of charter schools tend not to be unionized. Right, so
Speaker 1: the staff of charter schools tend not to be unionized,
Speaker 1: and that is a big no no for certain parts
Speaker 1: of the left, and they also have more operational freedoms,
Speaker 1: and in exchange, they deliver results that are in a
Speaker 1: way that they're more accountable to parents, right because because
Speaker 1: parents actually choose charter schools as opposed to being forced
Speaker 1: to send their kid to a particular zoned neighborhood school,
Speaker 1: those parents then have that choice if they're not happy
Speaker 1: with the education that their children are receiving, to take
Speaker 1: their dollars and go down the street or go across
Speaker 1: town and find somewhere that works better for their kid.
Speaker 1: And that is really threatening to the education establishment. They
Speaker 1: like having all the REGs, you know, they like accountability
Speaker 1: by you know, form and paperwork. What they don't want
Speaker 1: is accountability directly to parents to know that they are
Speaker 1: not really offering the kind of education that's going to
Speaker 1: make their children into or citizens into you know, successful
Speaker 1: adults after graduation from high school. So they don't want
Speaker 1: that kind of accountability because I think they know that
Speaker 1: they will not staff up as well as they like
Speaker 1: to pretend. What should the policy be of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration when it comes to charter schools? And how I
Speaker 1: mean it always seems to me like conservatives have a
Speaker 1: more compelling argument on education than they make in the
Speaker 1: public square, and going into an election cycle, I'd like
Speaker 1: to hear not just Trump, but people across the Republican
Speaker 1: Party saying, you know, charter schools that disproportionately benefit minority students,
Speaker 1: help them accelerate and exceed and do very well. That
Speaker 1: seems like something that we should promote, and we should
Speaker 1: force leftists to say, no, it's teachers unions that we
Speaker 1: want to protect. But you know, what should the policy be,
Speaker 1: how should they make this case? So what's unfortunate, as
Speaker 1: we've seen one of the rare areas of bipartisan overlap
Speaker 1: or agreements disappear in the Trump era. Right, So, it
Speaker 1: used to be that Republicans and Democrats actually both supported
Speaker 1: to some extent charter schools, although they've always been members
Speaker 1: of both parties that were against them, but there was
Speaker 1: some some bipartisan work. We have a lot of mayors,
Speaker 1: Democratic mayors in large cities who support charter schools, right,
Speaker 1: build a Lazio's predecessor supported charter schools. Build the Blasio
Speaker 1: does not. Unfortunately, what we've seen in the Trump era
Speaker 1: is that in fact, Democratic support for any kind of
Speaker 1: school choice they always were a little, you know, scared
Speaker 1: for the most part of a private school choice that
Speaker 1: allows students to attend private schools as well. The charter
Speaker 1: schools seemed to be for a while something that Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats could agree on because, as you say, it
Speaker 1: was serving some of the media students successfully. Charter schools
Speaker 1: were successfully serving a population that had been left behind
Speaker 1: by the traditional public school system, and so there was
Speaker 1: a certain lot of support there. But unfortunately, what we've
Speaker 1: seen is particularly white Democrats have turned again charter schools.
Speaker 1: So there's some really interesting polling out there, but shows
Speaker 1: that Bernie is on the wrong part of this issue
Speaker 1: from Democrats who are either Hispanic or African Americans. So
Speaker 1: Democratic voters or Hispanic and African American actually support charter
Speaker 1: schools at pretty solid majorities. But white voters, white Democratic
Speaker 1: voters have seen their support for charter schools dropped from
Speaker 1: about the same, you know, little over fifty percent all
Speaker 1: the way down to twenty seven percent in the last
Speaker 1: few years. And I think that's because it's literally the
Speaker 1: Orange Man Bad effect. They've associated school choice and charter
Speaker 1: schools with Trump. Therefore they were against it even when
Speaker 1: they were in favor of it, you know, just a
Speaker 1: few years ago when those polls were taken. So I
Speaker 1: think we're seeing the bottom fall out. But it's interesting
Speaker 1: to me that Bernie's view is tracking white Democratic voters.
Speaker 1: He's not been doing as well in the polls for
Speaker 1: a variety of reasons with minority Democratic voters, and this
Speaker 1: position of his is not going to help him there
Speaker 1: because the majority of minority crap support charter school. Inez Felcher, Statman, everybody,
Speaker 1: lady who knows a thing or two about education, Senior
Speaker 1: contributor at the Federals and as thanks so much for joining.
Speaker 1: We'll talk to you soon. Thanks for hatting, but that's
Speaker 1: always good to be in the Freedom Hut team. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Some big stories out there involving not
Speaker 1: just national security, but specifically of enemy combatants and war
Speaker 1: crimes and what's going on with those who serve, how
Speaker 1: are they being treated by this country? A couple of
Speaker 1: stories coming together here. Also a possible situation unveiling right
Speaker 1: now that could change the way people view the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: and it's pardon powers. We've got a lot of things
Speaker 1: to work through here. We're joined by our friend Tyler
Speaker 1: Merritt to work through them all. He is the CEO
Speaker 1: of nine Line Apparel. Nineline has in the past been
Speaker 1: a fantastic sponsor here on the show, but Tyler is
Speaker 1: a veteran of the special operations community himself and a
Speaker 1: good friend of mine, as well as being a stalwart
Speaker 1: patriot and a great all around dude. Tyler, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for giving us your time. No, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for having me on. All right, man, let's
Speaker 1: let's start. So we got two very different stories but
Speaker 1: both getting a lot of attention in military community, national
Speaker 1: security community. Let's start. Let's start with Eddie Gallagher. So
Speaker 1: this guy's a Navy seal who is accused of war crimes,
Speaker 1: at least in the press. Can you give us some
Speaker 1: of the background on this story to tell us what
Speaker 1: we need to know? And then why is it that No,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, this has risen all the way
Speaker 1: up to the President having discussions and the possibility of
Speaker 1: a pardon, and people are really fired off about this.
Speaker 1: What's happening? Sure? So, kind of like the Mulla Reports,
Speaker 1: several hundred pages. Most people don't read it. They just
Speaker 1: like to look at the headlines and then very similar
Speaker 1: situation occurred. New York Times reporter decided to release this
Speaker 1: story about Eddie Gallagher, the murderer, a guy who likes
Speaker 1: to go oversee and snipe young women with this sniper rifle,
Speaker 1: and he likes to stab children. And that's the story
Speaker 1: that was pushed out. Fast forward to a few months later,
Speaker 1: where I actually had the opportunity to watch a lot
Speaker 1: of video that was held by the Navy, this exculpatory
Speaker 1: evidence that we talked about last time, and it shows
Speaker 1: very clearly that Eddie Gallagher did not commit any type
Speaker 1: of murder. He attempted to provide first age for this
Speaker 1: isis combatant, this fighter who had received wounds from from
Speaker 1: bombs that we dropped. We killed forty individuals. He was
Speaker 1: one that was left alive and he eventually died to
Speaker 1: come to those wounds. Fast forward a year plus later,
Speaker 1: and there were a few inappropriate pictures that were taken
Speaker 1: after this individuals died, and that's what was published that
Speaker 1: this Navy seal committed murder, no substantiated evidence, no corroborative evidence,
Speaker 1: and he finds himself in prison for almost eight months
Speaker 1: until people became very outspoken. The President became aware, and
Speaker 1: he ordered his release from prison while he defended himself
Speaker 1: so he could have access to counsel. Well, since then
Speaker 1: he was put in conditions that were commensurate with prison conditions.
Speaker 1: He wasn't allowed to speak with his attorney without a
Speaker 1: command representatives president, and then they would take the phone
Speaker 1: away because it was a phone used by the military
Speaker 1: and they needed it. So that is extremely embarrassing to
Speaker 1: say that this individual has presumed guilty and then giving
Speaker 1: no actual rights to adequate counsel. And then take it
Speaker 1: one step further. The Navy has admitted to putting tracking
Speaker 1: software on files that were released to the Defense counsel,
Speaker 1: and when that defense counsel pushed it on to other
Speaker 1: entities in the Air Force and other military entities, that
Speaker 1: track software went into those computers all the way up
Speaker 1: to the President of the United States. Attorney has malware
Speaker 1: that allows the Navy to access all files on that computer,
Speaker 1: which is wildly illegal. So you have an individual been
Speaker 1: put in prison for the better part of a year,
Speaker 1: presumed guilty, condemned widely by the leftist media, to include
Speaker 1: my favorite two time failed presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, saying
Speaker 1: that the possibility of Trump pardoning this individual as atrocious,
Speaker 1: and I would say to everyone who's listening to learn
Speaker 1: the facts, to learn that the president has been given
Speaker 1: the information and this is a big embarrassment in the Navy.
Speaker 1: As the commander in chief, I think it's a wise
Speaker 1: decision to put an end to this madness. Who is
Speaker 1: against Eddie Gallagher? I mean you mentioned these leftists, but
Speaker 1: why do they believe, I mean, based on what do
Speaker 1: they think that this, this decorated navy seal is a
Speaker 1: heinous work from I mean, this is this is what
Speaker 1: they're spreading around them and I see some of this
Speaker 1: on social media. What makes them believe? It's very easy
Speaker 1: to pass judgment on individuals that you don't understand. So
Speaker 1: there is a prejudice and there's a lack of understanding.
Speaker 1: So what had occurred is that Eddie Gallagher took pictures
Speaker 1: with him and a substuon makes next to the deceased,
Speaker 1: with the caption that was sent out saying something to
Speaker 1: the effect I got them with my hunting manif by
Speaker 1: Bully Eagle allegedly, And this is what sparked the controversy.
Speaker 1: And what people don't understand, well, that's not right, you
Speaker 1: know that that's not condoned within UCMJ. It's not murder.
Speaker 1: It's something that requires tunitive action if it's true, but
Speaker 1: you don't go to prison for it. So the jumping
Speaker 1: to the conclusion that this individual committed murder based on
Speaker 1: the circumstantial evidence at best, there's no civilian court system
Speaker 1: in the world where this would have occurred. It's only
Speaker 1: in the outdated UCMG actions. And if he sound guilty,
Speaker 1: he will go to prison for the rest of his life.
Speaker 1: The mandatory minimum sentience is life in prison. So this
Speaker 1: twenty year Navy sealed decorated war hero could go to
Speaker 1: prison for the rest of his life for a crime
Speaker 1: that he wholehearted did not commit. Yet a isis Taliban fighter,
Speaker 1: piece of you know what is released from prison after
Speaker 1: seven I wanted to get to that. Next, we're speaking
Speaker 1: of Tyler Matt Everybody's CEO of nine Line Apparel and
Speaker 1: Special Operations veteran Tyler John Walker Lenz getting out getting
Speaker 1: out a few years early, seventeen years into a twenty
Speaker 1: year sentence for betraying his country. Somebody who was out
Speaker 1: there on the battlefield tracking down all manner of bad guys.
Speaker 1: What does it say to you, what do you take
Speaker 1: from an American who was willing to take up arms
Speaker 1: on the other side of that battlefield from you and
Speaker 1: your brothers over there in Afghanistan. Yeah, so there's a
Speaker 1: mandatory minimum sentence for a hero like Eddie Gallagher to
Speaker 1: go to jail for committing murder overseas on Talivin fighter,
Speaker 1: which he couldn't do. I would hope I would have
Speaker 1: hoped that there was a mandatory minimum sentence for any
Speaker 1: American who decides to take up arms against America. And
Speaker 1: I know that he stated that he didn't actively participate.
Speaker 1: He just carried weapons and grenades and helped them with propaganda.
Speaker 1: And guess what, everything that you just stated that is
Speaker 1: aiding a foreign enemy that's attempting to murder us. So
Speaker 1: you should go in jail and rotten jail for the
Speaker 1: rest of your life, no questions asked. I don't even
Speaker 1: know why this is a debate, because you're you're not
Speaker 1: setting the right precedent. You join the Navy, become a seal,
Speaker 1: potentially go to prison for the rest of your life
Speaker 1: based on speculatory evidence, or join isis I worry about it?
Speaker 1: You'll be in prison for maybe twenty years get out
Speaker 1: for good behavior. What kind of an example are we
Speaker 1: trying to set. It's it's the fact that this is
Speaker 1: both happening this week, these two stories. And I know
Speaker 1: that we have a higher expectation, of course of those
Speaker 1: who fight on our side than on any side, but
Speaker 1: particularly for something like the Taliban and al Qaeda. And
Speaker 1: people need to understand that at the time that John
Speaker 1: walker Lynde, John walker Lynde went and spent time in
Speaker 1: Bin Laden's guesthouse, I mean this, he was there when
Speaker 1: it was al Qaeda and the Taliban in a synergistic
Speaker 1: relationship as one. So this isn't some oh it's a
Speaker 1: native insurgency fighting against which is also not true even now.
Speaker 1: But he was there when when al Qaeda was deeply
Speaker 1: in match and meshed in this group, and after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, that he would have been fighting with them
Speaker 1: is just is just utterly appalling me. WHI I got
Speaker 1: Eddie Gallagher people in the press. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to say, uh, Tyler, that there are people
Speaker 1: in the press who want to see Eddie Gallagher, if
Speaker 1: not swinging from the gallows rod in prison forever without
Speaker 1: knowing the full fat. Yeah, it's much easier to just
Speaker 1: jump on the bandwagon. And when the New York Times
Speaker 1: and some other media outlets are are putting out false narratives,
Speaker 1: Navy seal kills children, Navy seal kills women, that's what
Speaker 1: they read, that's what they start talking about. Then they
Speaker 1: start jumping to how can they set the example, how
Speaker 1: can they be the standard bearer and stand up for
Speaker 1: those poor innocent children of Iraq. Well, this is the
Speaker 1: seventeen year old military's mail who we tracked. He was.
Speaker 1: I mean, you were in the CIA. You understand that.
Speaker 1: You know there's devices that people carry stupidly, and we
Speaker 1: track them and then we drop bombs on them. And
Speaker 1: that's what occurred this day. And then afterwards the chaos
Speaker 1: of Mosul. Eddie comes along and sees that this individual
Speaker 1: is being drugged from a humdi by Iraqi forces. And
Speaker 1: he walks through and says, I got this, and he
Speaker 1: starts providing. First date, that's what occurred, then pictures. Then
Speaker 1: pick four a week context before we'll let you go. Tyler,
Speaker 1: it is moral Dale on Monday, and you're a veteran.
Speaker 1: I know that your company nine Line Apparel employs a
Speaker 1: lot of veterans. I know it's not Veterans Day when
Speaker 1: we think of Memorial Day. Obviously, these are two things
Speaker 1: that are inextrincably and forever linked those who lost their
Speaker 1: lives in battle as well as those who served. What
Speaker 1: do you just want to say to everybody out there?
Speaker 1: What should what should be on their minds as we
Speaker 1: go into a long weekend. We're look, people are supposed
Speaker 1: to take time off re lack to be with family,
Speaker 1: enjoy themselves. But if you're going to reflect on Monday,
Speaker 1: what should they be reflecting on? Hey, listen, a lot
Speaker 1: of people get upset and they say, hey, this is
Speaker 1: Memorial Day, not Veterans Day. Don't thank me, thank the
Speaker 1: people that laid down their lives for all of us.
Speaker 1: And I think you can have a great time. You
Speaker 1: can have a barbecue, you have your friends over drinks
Speaker 1: and alcohol. At some point, take a moment, take a second,
Speaker 1: get everyone to bow their heads or enter into any
Speaker 1: type of moment of silence, and just remember those who've
Speaker 1: paid the ultimate sacrifice. And if you don't know of someone,
Speaker 1: do a simple Google research, because there's a lot of
Speaker 1: unsound heroes out there. I'm sure from your local town,
Speaker 1: your local community, that should be honored and should be remembered.
Speaker 1: So I just ask and implore you to do little
Speaker 1: brow research, have fun, but pay some homage to those
Speaker 1: who who are no longer with us. Tyler Mares, CEO,
Speaker 1: Tyler Merritt's CEO of nine Line Apparel, Tyler, my friend,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us, and thank you
Speaker 1: for your service, sir, Thank you all right, team, we'll
Speaker 1: do some roll call when we come back. Ain't no
Speaker 1: party like a team Buck party, because a Team Buck
Speaker 1: party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up to eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for a role call Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. That is how you get in on this
Speaker 1: role call action, my friends, please do let's get to it,
Speaker 1: Adam Bucks. Since every one of the president's decrees are
Speaker 1: taken to court, why not sign like three hundred of
Speaker 1: them with minor, non impacting language and keep all the
Speaker 1: parties and judges so busy that it gets through shields high. Well, Adam,
Speaker 1: what you're referring to here, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: this could really work, but you're saying, essentially, why don't
Speaker 1: we go Olynsky in response to Olynsky height tactics, and
Speaker 1: you know that's not what Trump did. But what Trump
Speaker 1: did do to become president was just to sign that no,
Speaker 1: I'm not playing by their rules anymore. I'm not playing
Speaker 1: by the O. Republicans have to be good, honorable people
Speaker 1: with no skeletons in the closet. Democrats get to be
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Democrats get to be the Clintons, or they
Speaker 1: get to have their political career launched in the living
Speaker 1: room of a admitted domestic terrorists like Bill Aires. Oh
Speaker 1: that's right, Barack Obama. Democrats can get away with all
Speaker 1: kinds of things because they don't really profess to have principles.
Speaker 1: They're just vessels for the achievement of or the achieving
Speaker 1: of power, whereas Republicans, it's all you know, this republic.
Speaker 1: You always hear us being accused of hypocrisy by the
Speaker 1: left when we're just imperfect. But we do try to
Speaker 1: have principles. We do state and defend those principles. Doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that we always live up to them. Democrats, The
Speaker 1: funny hypocrisy from them is that they don't pretend to
Speaker 1: have any principles to live up to. Most of the time,
Speaker 1: it all depends on how useful they are to the cause.
Speaker 1: And that's how you see so many of these horrifically
Speaker 1: immoral or amoral or both democrats out there who keep
Speaker 1: getting put into positions of authority in power despite the
Speaker 1: fact that they don't even deny the behavior that would
Speaker 1: be such an egregious offense to so many normal human beings.
Speaker 1: So yep, that's what I got for you on that,
Speaker 1: my friend, whether we could do this thing with the
Speaker 1: court saying, I don't know, it's an interesting idea. You
Speaker 1: raise an interesting point by bringing it up. K Rights,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, thanks for telling us about your trip to China.
Speaker 1: I lived in Shanghai, so it was fun getting your
Speaker 1: take on the food. I thought everything was terrible. One
Speaker 1: thing I think is mentioned worthy is that people don't
Speaker 1: realize you have to register with the police everywhere you go.
Speaker 1: Hotels will do this for you. But definitely maybe appreciate
Speaker 1: the US even more. Love your show Original Saturday Squad.
Speaker 1: K Yeah, kay, I acted under the impression because it's
Speaker 1: real that my burner phone, I had a Chinese cell
Speaker 1: phone when I was over there, that everything I said
Speaker 1: and did was certainly being recorded, and some of it
Speaker 1: might have been actively monitored. And I don't think I'm
Speaker 1: some big deal, but to be an XCIA and current
Speaker 1: national media figure of whatever kind I am, that gets
Speaker 1: you high enough on the Chinese security services radar that
Speaker 1: it's very likely you're going to be monitored. I mean,
Speaker 1: I look your cell phone. Keep in mind, your cell
Speaker 1: phone and everything you do on it is already stored
Speaker 1: in this country. It's just a question of whether there's
Speaker 1: active access to it and perhaps even monitoring of it.
Speaker 1: You know, without a court order. There's no court orders
Speaker 1: in China. They want to look at it, they look
Speaker 1: at it. They want to hear in real time, They
Speaker 1: hear in real time. There you have no individual rights.
Speaker 1: So that was a reminder. Look this country. And I
Speaker 1: know I keep saying it, my friends. If you're having
Speaker 1: a tough day, if you're tired, if you're beaten down,
Speaker 1: if things haven't been going your way recently, just remember this.
Speaker 1: If you're listening to this in America and you're an American,
Speaker 1: this is the greatest country in the world. We are
Speaker 1: all so lucky to be living here at this time.
Speaker 1: And I know that doesn't make all the pain and
Speaker 1: all the frustration go away, not by any stretch of
Speaker 1: the imagination. But at least I'm telling you. You know,
Speaker 1: you spend some time in a smog filled traffic jam
Speaker 1: of twenty million people where all the food is in
Speaker 1: brown sauce and nobody seems to have much of a
Speaker 1: sense of humor, you start to appreciate America. You start
Speaker 1: to appreciate America a lot of brown sauce, which usually
Speaker 1: has soy sauce, which is not good, Okay, not good
Speaker 1: for me because Celiac disease. Those who don't know, the
Speaker 1: number two ingredient in soy sauce is not soy, it's wheat.
Speaker 1: Soy sauce is effectively wheat sauce, which which is poisoning
Speaker 1: someone like me. But I digress. I know some of
Speaker 1: you are like Buck, Celiac disease in your red beard
Speaker 1: are not that interesting? Well, it's interesting to me, Stephen
Speaker 1: writes Buck. What happened? The ihear radio podcasts haven't been
Speaker 1: able to download for days? Stephen, We've had some problem
Speaker 1: with the platform. Hey, at least I'm an America in see.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell myself that we had some problem with
Speaker 1: the plot. We tried to upload it. It It didn't go.
Speaker 1: Hopefully it's uploaded now. I'm sorry if things have gotten delayed.
Speaker 1: It frustrates nobody more than it frustrates me when we
Speaker 1: don't have that podcast up and running right away. Mike. Right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: glad to have you Backbud, Glad you made it back
Speaker 1: from China. We're not hearing about you being arrested for
Speaker 1: some kind of social act. Pretty harsh. All Aquaman thought
Speaker 1: was that it was pretty decent retelling of the story.
Speaker 1: If you understand the different kingdoms, it would have made
Speaker 1: more sense to you. But as far as following the
Speaker 1: comic book line for an old comic book fan, they
Speaker 1: told the story pretty good, Mike. Maybe they told the
Speaker 1: story good, but the movie stunk. I'm sticking to my
Speaker 1: guns on that one. Or am I trident as it were?
Speaker 1: All right, Teane, that's gonna be it. Tomorrow from La
Speaker 1: I'll be with you live. Of course, I will talk
Speaker 1: to you then, have a fantastic evening. Shields High