Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt, a political hit on
Speaker 1: Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh that could derail the entire process.
Speaker 1: Will Republicans show some backbone and stand up to all
Speaker 1: of these Democrat machinations. Will discuss that, and also the
Speaker 1: latest on the page Struck d O j FBI collusion racket.
Speaker 1: We've got some text message to tell us just what's
Speaker 1: going on there. That and much more coming up on
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. This is the bucks Sexton Show
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. No mistake, American, You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show begins. No, I don't know. It
Speaker 1: depends on the process. I'd like to see a complete process.
Speaker 1: I'd like everybody to be very happy. Most importantly, I
Speaker 1: want the American people to be happy because they're getting
Speaker 1: somebody that is great. I want him to go in
Speaker 1: at the absolute highest level. And I think to do that,
Speaker 1: you have to go through this. If it takes a
Speaker 1: little delay, it will take a little delay. It shouldn't
Speaker 1: certainly be very much. But again, this is something that
Speaker 1: should have been brought up long before this. They had
Speaker 1: the information in July, as I understand it. That's a
Speaker 1: long time ago, and nobody mentioned it until the other day.
Speaker 1: It's very you know, it's very unfortunate that didn't mention
Speaker 1: it sooner. But with all of that being said, it will,
Speaker 1: I'm sure work out very well. You're talking about a
Speaker 1: an individual who is as high equality individual as you'll
Speaker 1: ever see. I have not spoken to Judgica. Don't next question.
Speaker 1: What a ridiculous question. Welcome to the Buck, Sex and Shore. Everybody.
Speaker 1: You know, they they held it to the eleventh hour.
Speaker 1: They had a dirty trick up their sleeve, and they've
Speaker 1: they've deployed it against Kavanaugh. Um. That is yet yet
Speaker 1: another reminder of what we're dealing with here, folks. The
Speaker 1: truth of the matter is as follows. They pretend that
Speaker 1: they don't like Trump because he breaks norms. They pretend
Speaker 1: that that Trump is to course, that he's a vulgarian,
Speaker 1: that he's dishonest, that he lies, and that's why they
Speaker 1: don't like him, that's why they're so vicious toward him.
Speaker 1: But the truth is that the Democrats are just as
Speaker 1: vicious to anybody who gets in their way. The truth
Speaker 1: is that the left has a will to power, and
Speaker 1: if you get in the way of that, you will
Speaker 1: find yourself the victim of the nastiest smears, character assassination,
Speaker 1: criminal investigation. Perhaps we've seen the abuse in d J.
Speaker 1: We've seen the abuse, and FBI we know how they
Speaker 1: do things, and that is certainly what is going on
Speaker 1: right now with Kavanaugh. I can tell you that my
Speaker 1: opinion on this will change if there is new information.
Speaker 1: I do not believe his accuser, Professor Ford, I do
Speaker 1: not believe that she is telling the truth. I'm allowed
Speaker 1: to not believe that she is not telling the truth.
Speaker 1: And that despite what everybody says based on all of
Speaker 1: the factors at hand here, based on everything that you
Speaker 1: can pull together about this, and just the unbelievable convenience
Speaker 1: of the whole thing for Democrats, I mean, wow, what
Speaker 1: a what a surprise. They just so happened to find
Speaker 1: somebody to try to pull a an Anita Hill against
Speaker 1: a Clarence Thomas, so to speak. Here, they just so
Speaker 1: happened to find somebody with a sexual allegation against somebody
Speaker 1: who was just about to become a Supreme Court justice. Um,
Speaker 1: and you know, this is the this is the playbook,
Speaker 1: this is what they do. This is how they do it.
Speaker 1: And if Christine Blase for Blaze, Ford's accusation is enough
Speaker 1: to ruin Cavanaugh, it's enough to ruin anyone. If Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: could fall victim to this, any of us could fall
Speaker 1: victim to this. Okay. It means that the new standard,
Speaker 1: the new process is. All it takes is an accusation
Speaker 1: from Democrats of sexual and propriety in your past, and
Speaker 1: you're done, and you're ruined. And I'm sorry, but it's
Speaker 1: just not it's just not fair, it's not right, it's
Speaker 1: not enough, but just and also remember this, this is
Speaker 1: why I don't want to hear their complaints about Trump anymore.
Speaker 1: I don't care about Trump's you know, previous dalliances. I
Speaker 1: don't care that he's a playboy. I don't care that
Speaker 1: he you know, uses course language, or that he can
Speaker 1: be you know, selfish or else. Trump is the political
Speaker 1: juggernaut that we need right now to crush the leftist
Speaker 1: machinery that destroys all of the very you know, thoughtful
Speaker 1: and principled and kind and ethical people that we try
Speaker 1: to put forward in public service. You know, we we've
Speaker 1: tried Romney, We've tried Rubio We've tried Bush. They just
Speaker 1: smash these people. They can't smash Trump. Say what you
Speaker 1: will about him, they can't smash him. And as long
Speaker 1: as he's going to push for policies that I like,
Speaker 1: and he can withstand this stuff that they try, and
Speaker 1: they tried everything by it. They've tried to havanall Trump
Speaker 1: ten times over and then some. But it is in
Speaker 1: fact his in vulnerability to leftist attack that in many ways,
Speaker 1: above and beyond anything else, makes Trump so valuable at
Speaker 1: this moment in our politics. So if we can take
Speaker 1: one silver lining from this whole debacle right now with
Speaker 1: kavanaughts that at least we are reminded that putting forward
Speaker 1: somebody who's a boy scout to try to fight against
Speaker 1: the Democrat machine in politics is a fool's errand, and
Speaker 1: we're not going to play that game anymore. Now. I
Speaker 1: also have some breaking news for you. President of the
Speaker 1: United States has ordered the immediate declassification of a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of stuff, including portions of Carter pages FISA, all
Speaker 1: FBI three or twos with Bruce, or all FBI reports
Speaker 1: of interviews prepared and connection with all Carter page visa applications,
Speaker 1: and the release of some FBI text, including I believe
Speaker 1: James Comy's text messages without redaction. Now, I do not
Speaker 1: yet have the ability. You know, I'm on air with you.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be reading this all tonight, so I can't
Speaker 1: tell you with the specifics because it just happened while
Speaker 1: I'm on air here. They just yeah, they released comies too.
Speaker 1: They just released all of this information. So I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be combing through this as best I can as we're
Speaker 1: on air, and as I we'll certainly dive deep into
Speaker 1: it tomorrow. But this is huge, folks, this is huge.
Speaker 1: The immediate declassification. Potus did it. He did it. I've
Speaker 1: been asking to do it for months. You've been waiting
Speaker 1: for me to do it for months now. The f
Speaker 1: behind the d o J got nowhere to hide, folks,
Speaker 1: nowhere to hide. And you know what, God, this president
Speaker 1: is amazing. He's he sees, he sees what they do
Speaker 1: this week, he knows what they've done, what they've done
Speaker 1: to Kavanaugh, and he says, you know what, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna if you're gonna show up and you're gonna try
Speaker 1: to go nuclear, I'm gonna go nuclear too. If you
Speaker 1: if you think you can be tough, I can be tougher.
Speaker 1: You want to play this game, you want to You
Speaker 1: want to skewer a good man like Cavanaugh, You want
Speaker 1: to ruin his reputation. Yeah, how are you gonna look
Speaker 1: mainstream media and Democrat lackeys when all this information about
Speaker 1: Carter Page, about Combe, about struck about all of them,
Speaker 1: All this Russia collusion garbage is finally left out in
Speaker 1: the sun for everyone to see, and left out for
Speaker 1: everyone to see it rot because it is a mountain
Speaker 1: of lies and it's all about politics, just like Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna be diving into this. But Potus has
Speaker 1: ordered the declassification, folks. That is the breaking news that
Speaker 1: I've got for you. As we are here on the show.
Speaker 1: You're no stranger to character assassination tactics and an early
Speaker 1: hostile political climate and environment. These allegations about Judge Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: just came out over the weekend. Uh do you find
Speaker 1: them credible? And do you think this is a political hit.
Speaker 1: I don't know how to say anything about Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: other than I love this person. I've known him since
Speaker 1: I worked alongside him. This is so wildly out of character,
Speaker 1: and I loved it that so many young women who
Speaker 1: had gone to high school with Bratt with Judge Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: came forward and attested to his character. So I do
Speaker 1: not I trust Brett Kavanaugh, and he has emphatically denied
Speaker 1: the charges. I will say this, the process, I think
Speaker 1: is very unfortunate for the senator, for Senator Feinstein to
Speaker 1: sit on these rather old allegations week after week after week,
Speaker 1: as well as Brett having gone through six full FBI investigations.
Speaker 1: I think there's a real serious process problem here, Which
Speaker 1: is a nice way of ken Starr saying he thinks
Speaker 1: that this is bogus. He thinks this is bogus, and
Speaker 1: he was a special prosecutor, and of course the left
Speaker 1: completely vilified him. Now, anybody who even has a word
Speaker 1: of criticism for Muller is treated like some kind of
Speaker 1: of traitor to our institutions. But when it was Clinton
Speaker 1: being investigated, oh my gosh, ken Starr was was was
Speaker 1: torqua mata? Ken Starr was? Was Was this evil, puritanical,
Speaker 1: vile fellow? Right? I canna say, actually, ken Starr was very,
Speaker 1: very engaging and very interesting fellow. Today when I got
Speaker 1: to interview, that was from Rising. We played that clip
Speaker 1: for you there, But you know that this is where
Speaker 1: you start to look at the Okay, who do you believe?
Speaker 1: We're gonna play the who do you believe? Game? You
Speaker 1: have Kavanaugh who had so many women come to write
Speaker 1: about his character and his his sterling reputation, how well
Speaker 1: he treated them, that you had all these media people
Speaker 1: running around with a false conspiracy that this must have
Speaker 1: been planned beforehand. Right there, you had sixty five women
Speaker 1: all gathered together to say this is not the Cabanaugh
Speaker 1: that they knew, and that he was so good to them,
Speaker 1: and so what what was the response? What was the
Speaker 1: response beyond that they said, Oh, well, clearly this must
Speaker 1: have been some kind of a plot. You know, it's
Speaker 1: just not possible that this many women would come together
Speaker 1: this quickly unless they had planned. Oh nope, it turns
Speaker 1: out they just did. They just did. Um. This is
Speaker 1: a man who is already folks on the DC Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals, has had six FBI investigations, okay six. None
Speaker 1: of this has never come up. No problem people talk
Speaker 1: about is drinking. I mean, I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: really resent this thing about Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark
Speaker 1: Judge people talking about how they used to drink beer.
Speaker 1: You know, when I was a teenager, I drank a
Speaker 1: lot too, Okay, I mean, you know, we all will
Speaker 1: go through a little phase. Hey, So I just don't
Speaker 1: like that that's being used against them, like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: they drank a lot of beer. Yeah. There' huge difference
Speaker 1: between drinking a lot of beer and a a premeditated,
Speaker 1: multiple person attempted sexual assault. Right. I mean a lot
Speaker 1: of us drink a lot of beer. Not a lot
Speaker 1: of us are sex predators. But I just don't they're
Speaker 1: they're trying to link those two things, like, well, he
Speaker 1: partied a lot, you know, you know, Keg's big Keg
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh or whatever. It's dis graceful. But now we look
Speaker 1: at this this woman, Professor Ford, and what we find
Speaker 1: is somebody who if we were to try to draw
Speaker 1: up a caricature of who would be willing to step
Speaker 1: forward and be this person, be the Anita Hill of
Speaker 1: this whole proceeding, who tries to take down Kavanaugh, tries
Speaker 1: to sink his nomination preventive becoming a Supreme Courts I
Speaker 1: mean to have a a Democrat registered and has donated,
Speaker 1: you know, not a lot of money, but donated Democrats.
Speaker 1: A Democrat professor of psychology and I think sociology or
Speaker 1: something at a kind of you know, middle of the
Speaker 1: pack California, you see school. So you've got a California liberal,
Speaker 1: California professor who is clearly anti Trump. Her online presence
Speaker 1: shows that she opposes Trump policies. She does not like
Speaker 1: the president. She's obviously a huge progressive. People are saying
Speaker 1: she's also an activist. When you add all that together,
Speaker 1: you have the person that, if I were to guess,
Speaker 1: I would say, well, yeah, this is who this is
Speaker 1: who might be willing to to uh step forward and
Speaker 1: fabricate something. Because that's what Kavanaugh was saying. Very important.
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh is not saying this was a misunderstanding. Kavanaugh statement
Speaker 1: that came out today, is not claiming that there was
Speaker 1: some you know, Misshapper mix up and you know, he
Speaker 1: didn't mean it and maybe he grabbed her but he
Speaker 1: thought he was He was just drunk and didn't lies
Speaker 1: what was going on, but he didn't have any ill
Speaker 1: intent or anything like this. Uh. Capital was saying that
Speaker 1: she's a fabricator. I mean, she's a liar. She has
Speaker 1: making this up. So that's a big charge, right. This
Speaker 1: is a major, a major departure from a a you know,
Speaker 1: he said, she said where there could be some you know,
Speaker 1: mixed signals or there should be could be some misunderstanding
Speaker 1: or anything. No, no no, no, he's just saying. This is
Speaker 1: a This is a straight up lie. This is not
Speaker 1: something that has occurred. And by the way, that does happen, folks. Okay,
Speaker 1: I would remind you all that the u v A
Speaker 1: Lacrosse uh case, I'm sorry, the uv A fraternity. I
Speaker 1: was thinking of Duke Lacrosse uv A fraternity. Those are
Speaker 1: both high profile rape cases. Worthy. The victim lied about
Speaker 1: being raped, lied about everything. In the case of uv A,
Speaker 1: it was even lied about the whole you know, was
Speaker 1: it straight up fabrication. In the case of Duke, it
Speaker 1: was made up things, but there was actual contact between
Speaker 1: the people at a location. This does happen. We have
Speaker 1: cases where it has happened. And and if I can
Speaker 1: just put this and now, look, I can't tell you definitively.
Speaker 1: If more information comes out, you know, five more women
Speaker 1: who have credible stories come forward, or you know, one
Speaker 1: more woman even comes forward and says, you know, Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: did something similar to me or there said, that's what
Speaker 1: we see in these other cases that people say fall
Speaker 1: into this meat to this meat too rhetoric or this
Speaker 1: meat too movement. Um, that's you know, I understand that.
Speaker 1: But we also have to remember, folks, that the stakes
Speaker 1: here for a lot of liberals are essentially existential for
Speaker 1: liberalism in their mind. Not only could they lose their
Speaker 1: preferred method of winning national policy victories, which is to
Speaker 1: have the Supreme Court handed to them, they might have
Speaker 1: to live in a world where a Supreme Court will
Speaker 1: tell I mean, you know what, this, this policy that
Speaker 1: you have claimed is a is an inalienable right, this
Speaker 1: policy of abortion. It is in fact not in the constitution,
Speaker 1: which of course it is not. It is not a
Speaker 1: constitutionally protected right, which of course it is not. And now,
Speaker 1: state by state, you're gonna have to make the case
Speaker 1: that you know, murder for convenience is a good thing. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know, that's a very different world than it's a
Speaker 1: constitutional right. Yeah, you won't be talking about abortion rights
Speaker 1: quite the same way when some states say no, actually
Speaker 1: there's there's no right to an abortion. And this was complete,
Speaker 1: This was a talking about a fabrication, but I remember
Speaker 1: having Bob Bland of the Women's March sit on my show,
Speaker 1: and some of you who watched that episode a rising
Speaker 1: remember she said that millions of women's lives are at
Speaker 1: stake here, millions of women's lives are at stake if
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh gets and they're gonna They're gonna die if Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: becomes a Supreme Court justice because of all the women
Speaker 1: that are going to die from botched abortions. That that's
Speaker 1: the storyline to that. I just want to say this, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's insane, folks, but you have to you have to
Speaker 1: listen to insane people when they tell you why they
Speaker 1: do what they do, or people that have a disconnect
Speaker 1: from reality, how do they see things? If people in
Speaker 1: the Women's March, if the Women's movement and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff around, not just you know, Trump, but the
Speaker 1: progressive left in general, if they really believe that millions
Speaker 1: of lives would saying what are they not willing to do?
Speaker 1: Forget about what they're willing to do? Where do they
Speaker 1: draw the lines? What would you be willing to do
Speaker 1: if you thought you could save millions of lives? Is
Speaker 1: making an unfounded allegation to ruin a man's career in reputation,
Speaker 1: is that within the bounds of what you do save
Speaker 1: millions of lives? If you really thought you're saving millions
Speaker 1: of lives, what do you think it would be worth consideration?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't it? It would be dishonorable? Would you just fight
Speaker 1: in your own mind? We'll be right back and explained
Speaker 1: the situation any better than the Senior Center from May
Speaker 1: and put it yesterday evening when she said, if they
Speaker 1: believed Judge Kavanaugh has accused her, why didn't they service
Speaker 1: this information earlier so that he could be questioned about it.
Speaker 1: And if they didn't believe her and chose to withhold
Speaker 1: the information, why did they decide at the eleventh hour
Speaker 1: to release it. It's really not fair to either of them.
Speaker 1: The way it was handled. It's not fair. But it's
Speaker 1: not about fair, is it, folks? It's about politics. They
Speaker 1: held this because this was all a strategy. This was
Speaker 1: all planned. I do not believe for one second that, oh,
Speaker 1: she she didn't want people to know, She didn't want
Speaker 1: people to find out about this. She called the tipline
Speaker 1: at the Washington Post she was trying to sink Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe she didn't want her name at hatched
Speaker 1: to it originally, but then she changed her mind. How
Speaker 1: many people do you think how many people would if
Speaker 1: they really didn't want to come forward, if they really
Speaker 1: didn't want their name to be attached to something, would
Speaker 1: take this step of having a polygraph done preemptively just
Speaker 1: in case, you know, in the future it was decided
Speaker 1: that maybe they would need to. Yeah, maybe maybe they
Speaker 1: would need that that back up. I have a polygraph done.
Speaker 1: That's that's a big step, right, That's something that you
Speaker 1: don't just have waiting on the side in case you
Speaker 1: needed But in this situation. Uh, they did claim that
Speaker 1: in this situation, we're supposed to believe that, and that
Speaker 1: the timeline speaks for itself. Folks. The the hearings were
Speaker 1: all about delay, delay, delay, delay, that's what Democrats are
Speaker 1: trying to do. The hearings were all about Democrats finding
Speaker 1: a way to push this beyond the election so that
Speaker 1: they'd have a chance of taking the Senate. And then
Speaker 1: they it stopped this whole thing from happening, and you know,
Speaker 1: the Trump would have to essentially they would demand Merrick
Speaker 1: Garland or else there would be no you know, we'd
Speaker 1: have to wait another two years for another election. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that's what the Senate would would probably go for. No,
Speaker 1: they they believe that this is Merrick Garland seat and
Speaker 1: they're gonna they're gonna get him in that seat. But
Speaker 1: the timeline was is essential and tells you everything you
Speaker 1: need to know. They wanted delay, and now at the
Speaker 1: eleventh hour it is not an accident that they have
Speaker 1: a perfect excuse for delay. And we they really want
Speaker 1: us to believe that this just happened this way. I mean,
Speaker 1: how stupid do they think we are? And you have
Speaker 1: all these people, these credulous talking heads in the media,
Speaker 1: and and and of course these very dishonest Democrats in
Speaker 1: Congress is saying, oh, no, you know, this is just
Speaker 1: this is just the way that it happened. You know,
Speaker 1: we had no she didn't even she didn't even want
Speaker 1: to come forward. Somebody leaked it. Oh somebody leaked it. Huh,
Speaker 1: just just somebody. I can tell you this. If I
Speaker 1: told the member of the Senate, hey, I've got a story,
Speaker 1: don't tell anybody either. And and and you know, and
Speaker 1: I wanted to keep that quiet. Whither I leaked it
Speaker 1: to somebody or the senator leaked to somebody, but regardless,
Speaker 1: somebody involved the your main a decision, either Feinstein or
Speaker 1: Ford to spill the beans. Somebody did it, and the
Speaker 1: motivation was explicitly political. The motivation was to try and
Speaker 1: delay the hearing and hope that the Senate can actually
Speaker 1: get through this nominee. And folks, I've I just have
Speaker 1: I have no patience with these lies anymore. And I
Speaker 1: really have no patience with Democrats. I think that they
Speaker 1: there's zero good faith ever extended from them on any
Speaker 1: of this stuff. But the timeline speaks for itself. It's
Speaker 1: all so transparent and so obvious to me that this
Speaker 1: is what's gone on here. And yet we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to go through what will be a really, really ugly week.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be like Bork. It's gonna be like Clarence
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas all over again. Actually here we've got a
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas uh clip. This is a circus. It's a
Speaker 1: national disgrace, and from my standpoint as a black American,
Speaker 1: as far as I'm concerned, it is a high tech
Speaker 1: lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deigned to
Speaker 1: think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas,
Speaker 1: and it is a message that unless you cow town
Speaker 1: to an old order, this is what will happen to you.
Speaker 1: You will be lynched, destroyed caricature by a committee of
Speaker 1: the U. S. U. S. Senate, rather than hung from
Speaker 1: a treat Clarence Thomas treated terribly in these But by
Speaker 1: the way, they should get rid of these show trials.
Speaker 1: They really should. They should just get rid of it.
Speaker 1: If you have the votes in the Senate, just do it. No,
Speaker 1: no more of this grand standing. We don't need this
Speaker 1: because you know how folks think of it this way.
Speaker 1: How many Democrat nominees to the Supreme Court can you
Speaker 1: think of that were dragged through the mud, that were
Speaker 1: treated terribly and that had to withdraw because of just
Speaker 1: the horrific ordeal they were put through. This is what
Speaker 1: democrats do. This is who they are. This is people
Speaker 1: who have that mindset, that have a left wing ideology.
Speaker 1: They think that it's anything goes to get power. The
Speaker 1: ends justify the means. Conservative mind is much more. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess we gotta live within the system
Speaker 1: we've got and let's see what we can do here.
Speaker 1: And you know, they have the votes and this is
Speaker 1: they're the ones always lecturing us on respect for institutions,
Speaker 1: and they disrespect institutions at every opportunity, every chance that
Speaker 1: they get. Um. That's something that I think is is
Speaker 1: he gonna get. A defining characteristic of of the left
Speaker 1: is that they like they like institutions where they control them,
Speaker 1: and they'll burn them into the ground when they don't.
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court and the whole process of getting
Speaker 1: a nominee through is no different. It really is is
Speaker 1: no different. Um. And you know then you've of course
Speaker 1: got the legal analysis industrial complex out there trying to
Speaker 1: tie all this to Thomas and and Anita Hale and
Speaker 1: all that play clip twenty. This is CNN's tube in
Speaker 1: one of the worst analysts out there. He was the
Speaker 1: supervisor at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Nita Hill worked
Speaker 1: for him. Uh. And there was a pattern of harassment
Speaker 1: that you know, and and um, she was treated miserably
Speaker 1: by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Um. And you know, in
Speaker 1: the twenty seven years that have followed, every single piece
Speaker 1: of evidence that has come forward has suggested that she
Speaker 1: was telling the truth and he was lying. That's not true.
Speaker 1: He's lying. But also she wasn't treated miserably. She was
Speaker 1: trying to ruin a man's reputation and prevent him from
Speaker 1: reaching the pinnacle of his career. Uh and doing so
Speaker 1: for partisan reasons. And oh, by the way, I remember this, folks,
Speaker 1: she didn't pay some terrible costs. They've made her a hero.
Speaker 1: She has an HBO movie about her or Carrie Washington
Speaker 1: plays her, and it couldn't be any more favorable to her. Okay,
Speaker 1: they made her a hero. Don't believe this false martyr crap.
Speaker 1: I believe Professor Ford. I think she's credible, and I
Speaker 1: think when the investigation is finished and when she testifies
Speaker 1: and judge kavin who testifies, I think a majority of
Speaker 1: Senators will find her credible. And I don't think. I
Speaker 1: didn't never thought kavan Or should get get appointed because
Speaker 1: he was picked by a president who said I'm only
Speaker 1: going to pick someone who repeals Roe V. Wade and
Speaker 1: vetted by a group whose mission was that. The president
Speaker 1: said I'm only going to pick someone who repeals health care,
Speaker 1: and he was vetted by another group, the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 1: So I said he shouldn't be on the bench before this,
Speaker 1: But now we've got to get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 1: Do you believe her story? Well, I can tell you
Speaker 1: it really does have a ring of truth to it.
Speaker 1: The fact that she can refer to therapist notes, so
Speaker 1: that she did bring it up before. I am skeptical
Speaker 1: of polygraphs, but for those who believe them, Uh, she
Speaker 1: has passed a polygraph test. So I'd say at this
Speaker 1: point the fact that she would come forward to defend
Speaker 1: herselves adds credibility to a chart. Schumer, Durbin, these people
Speaker 1: are all scummy, dishonest, and they're being highly dishonorable in
Speaker 1: this whole situation with with Kavanaugh. Let me let me
Speaker 1: just break this down for a moment. That the notion
Speaker 1: that there's a ring of truth to it, a ring
Speaker 1: of truth to this. Uh, well, this woman professor fords allegations. Uh,
Speaker 1: I would I would beg to differ with that. It
Speaker 1: is plausible. It is certainly plausible if this happened. I
Speaker 1: cannot guarantee anybody based on the fact that it did
Speaker 1: not happen. But to say that it has a ring
Speaker 1: of truth leaves out some very important important facts. First
Speaker 1: of all, that Kavanaugh completely and utterly denies it, not
Speaker 1: in part, not on the facts, uh, you know, in specifics,
Speaker 1: not little bits here and there, or this was a
Speaker 1: misunderstanding capital completely not the denies it, and based on
Speaker 1: everything else we know about his character and background, I
Speaker 1: think that that has wait, just like it wouldn't a
Speaker 1: court of law. Folks, you know, is this person a
Speaker 1: credible witness or not? This is absolutely a who do
Speaker 1: you believe? Situation. There is no way to definitively prove
Speaker 1: either way what happened, which is why the Democrats have
Speaker 1: gone with this as a ploy to take down Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: because it cannot He cannot be proven innocent. But this notion,
Speaker 1: there's a ring of truth. And I wrote about this
Speaker 1: today on the Hill dot com and which I said
Speaker 1: that the Kavanaugh nomination absolutely must go through. The Republicans
Speaker 1: cannot show cowardice or weakness here. It's not just this
Speaker 1: seat on the Supreme Court that's at stake. It's countless
Speaker 1: other decent public servants that Democrats don't like, that Democrats
Speaker 1: feel would thwart their left wing status agenda, and that
Speaker 1: they would use this same tactic. You know, if it
Speaker 1: works on cabinet's gonna work on anybody. Remember what they
Speaker 1: did amid Romney folks. Mitt Romney, they said, was a
Speaker 1: person who was giving people cancer, who was abusing dogs,
Speaker 1: who was a bully in high school. All this just
Speaker 1: just made They found some little story of some kind
Speaker 1: that somebody would say, and then they just ran with
Speaker 1: all the rest of it is made stuff up. And
Speaker 1: yet and they're doing it now and even worse fashion
Speaker 1: to cabinet. But for the ring of truth statement the
Speaker 1: Durban Maid here, why is it that Ford does not
Speaker 1: remember what day this happened, what month this even happened,
Speaker 1: or where it happened. I'm sorry, folks, I have been very,
Speaker 1: very drunk a number of times in my youth, just
Speaker 1: saying I've been so drunk that I probably was, you know,
Speaker 1: putting my imminent or immediate health at risk. But I
Speaker 1: have been there before. I have never not known at
Speaker 1: all where I was. And by that, we don't even
Speaker 1: know if Ford was drunk. I mean, it seems stands
Speaker 1: likely or reason to believe that perhaps she had a
Speaker 1: few drinks. That doesn't matter except insofar as was that
Speaker 1: what affected her memory, But she claims to not know
Speaker 1: where it happened. I'm sorry if you had an incident
Speaker 1: that was so traumatic that you feel they need to
Speaker 1: speak out about a thirty plus years later, um and
Speaker 1: and nothing. Remember she she was not she by by
Speaker 1: her own admission, I mean she she was not physically harmed.
Speaker 1: She was threatened. She says, she was put in a
Speaker 1: position where she was very scared. But if you were,
Speaker 1: it's scared, you wouldn't remember where that happened. You wouldn't
Speaker 1: tell your parents about it. Really, you keep this, you
Speaker 1: would keep this to yourself for that many years? Was
Speaker 1: there was there supposed to be? What? Because she was ashamed? Nothing? Really?
Speaker 1: When I say nothing happened to her, I mean there
Speaker 1: was no actual physical sexual assault that by her own
Speaker 1: description that that occurred. I mean it wasn't really it
Speaker 1: was an attempted I guess. She says, well, no, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: She says she was groped. Pardon me, She says she
Speaker 1: was groped. Okay, she was groped. She wouldn't she wouldn't
Speaker 1: tell somebody about this. That there wouldn't be I mean,
Speaker 1: if we're gonna and I would also note groped. This
Speaker 1: would if this weren't a court at all, this would
Speaker 1: be adjudicated groped where they grab her arm and I
Speaker 1: know they said I put her when she grabbed the
Speaker 1: chest or in her in her in her general area.
Speaker 1: I mean where where was she grabbed. That makes a
Speaker 1: big difference to say she was groped. That's a very
Speaker 1: specific allegation. To she remembers that, she remembers the boys,
Speaker 1: she remembers all the things she would need to be
Speaker 1: able to try and sing Havana, but she doesn't have
Speaker 1: those details. Those are questions that people should want answers to,
Speaker 1: and I'm sorry this notion of the ring of truth.
Speaker 1: I do not believe that it is likely. I won't
Speaker 1: say impossible, that is likely that given the situation that
Speaker 1: she has described, she can't remember where it happened, how
Speaker 1: many houses did she go party and where this kind
Speaker 1: of you know, really you don't know where it now.
Speaker 1: I would say to you, once you put time in
Speaker 1: location into the situation, then you could in fact disprove
Speaker 1: an allegation. Once you have a situation where we know
Speaker 1: what the date range is or what the date is specifically,
Speaker 1: now you could have Kavanaugh perhaps being able to show,
Speaker 1: you know, I was traveling with my family overseas or whatever,
Speaker 1: or I was in another town. But because There's no
Speaker 1: date attached to any of this. It's just well, this
Speaker 1: thing happened at a party, and I remember it was him,
Speaker 1: and I knew him from our social circle. So you
Speaker 1: have to believe me because I have a right to
Speaker 1: be believed. I I I do not think that has
Speaker 1: the ring of that this has the ring of truth,
Speaker 1: but Durbin wants to believe it because the Democrats want
Speaker 1: to believe it. Because at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: this is about being able to kill babies at will.
Speaker 1: That's what this is really about, folks, that's really This
Speaker 1: is not really about me too. This is not really
Speaker 1: about sexual assault. The Democrats had a president who was
Speaker 1: a rapist for two for for two terms, didn't really
Speaker 1: bother them at all, still doesn't bother them this day.
Speaker 1: A rapist, not an attempted rapist, but somebody who actually
Speaker 1: was credibly accused on the record by a woman of
Speaker 1: rape and has never really denied it. And other women
Speaker 1: also claim that he sexually assaulted them. So for them,
Speaker 1: this is not at its core about any of that.
Speaker 1: This is about the possibility of Roe v. Wad getting overturned,
Speaker 1: and this is about an entire Democrat left apparatus that
Speaker 1: is devoted to abortion on demand, all nine months of
Speaker 1: a pregnancy, for any reason or no reason, And what
Speaker 1: it would mean to the Democrat Party if they no
Speaker 1: longer had the top cover of the federal government saying yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, abortion always for any reason and any reason
Speaker 1: at any stage of pregnancy is fine. If that went away,
Speaker 1: there are people who would lose a lot of their power,
Speaker 1: and there are people who would have a lot of
Speaker 1: explaining to do about the morality and ethics of their
Speaker 1: of the positions that they've been advocating for a long time.
Speaker 1: All these people pushing planned parenthood, all these people running
Speaker 1: around saying that, you know, it's all about access for
Speaker 1: for women to have abortions, especially the disproportioned number of
Speaker 1: minority females who have abortions. You know, the thinking that
Speaker 1: they're doing great work, people like Chelsea Clinton saying that
Speaker 1: it's unchristian to not be able to have abortion, and
Speaker 1: they have really perverted core parts of our ethical fabric.
Speaker 1: I mean, these people have embraced evil and they are
Speaker 1: desperate to avoid that reckoning. And so it's important that
Speaker 1: you remember that because that is what is at stake,
Speaker 1: That is what is in the background. That is what
Speaker 1: it is pushing all of this right now. It's really
Speaker 1: not about what Kavanan did or didn't do to some
Speaker 1: woman thirty years ago. For Democrats, it's about this is
Speaker 1: a possible reversal of Roe v. Wade in their mind,
Speaker 1: and they'll do anything, and I mean anything that they
Speaker 1: can to stop this. I think that's what we've seen.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about the the page
Speaker 1: struck text exchanged, the most recent one. How they were
Speaker 1: constructing a narrative, folks. I mean they they were using
Speaker 1: the dossier and they were using uh, fragmentary intelligence information
Speaker 1: to try and convince people and members of the media
Speaker 1: specifically that there was a they're there with the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion thing, and there wasn't. We'll get we'll get into
Speaker 1: that that's coming up. Background investigation is critical when you're
Speaker 1: hiring people to join you in your business, whether it's
Speaker 1: large or small, you want to make sure the people
Speaker 1: that you're bringing on are who they say they are,
Speaker 1: have the skills and clean histories in terms of no
Speaker 1: criminal nonsense, nothing like that going on. That's why you
Speaker 1: need somebody who is discreet, who is efficient, and who
Speaker 1: you can call and count on and trust. That's Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. I know the CEO personally, Mark Buckman. He's
Speaker 1: a great guy and he really cares about this business.
Speaker 1: He as a former Navy veteran, knows how much your
Speaker 1: personnel matter to you day in and day out. And
Speaker 1: he runs a veteran owned and operated business that can
Speaker 1: handle whether you're a start up all the way up
Speaker 1: to a fortune one company for all your vetting and
Speaker 1: background investigation needs. Make sure you go to my GVN
Speaker 1: dot com again, that's my g VN dot com Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned buck Sextons decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence or make no
Speaker 1: mistakes American, let me you're a great American again. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show for analysts. No tough day
Speaker 1: for Mr Manaford for his accepted responsibility and he wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure that his family was able to remain
Speaker 1: safe and uh live a good life. He's accepted responsibility
Speaker 1: and this is for conduct that dates back many years.
Speaker 1: And everybody should remember that Maniford pleads guilty in his
Speaker 1: second trial and America sleeps suddenly as a result. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's this is the whole thing is such as far
Speaker 1: as I think that one of the really unfortunate lasting
Speaker 1: effects of this whole Russia collusion insanity, I really do
Speaker 1: believe this is going to be that people aren't able
Speaker 1: to think of the Justice Department, UH and the FBI
Speaker 1: the same way. Ever, again, how could they, I mean,
Speaker 1: how could any of us after what we've seen going
Speaker 1: on here, after all of the political shenanigans that have
Speaker 1: clearly been at work. We we look and this is
Speaker 1: you can separate this out. I'm not saying, oh, you
Speaker 1: can't trust now now in the FBI arrest somebody for
Speaker 1: being a murderer or a drug dealer or whatever. All
Speaker 1: the most murders are prosecuted not by the FEDS. But
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, if you know they're there
Speaker 1: are bad guys out there, and the FBI is dealing
Speaker 1: with the bad guys. I mean for politically sensitive investigations.
Speaker 1: I mean in areas where the prosecutor is in fact
Speaker 1: making decisions that could have consequences all the way up
Speaker 1: to you know, who is the president United States. That's
Speaker 1: where there's a lack of trust at the DJ. And
Speaker 1: that's because there should be a lack of trust. I
Speaker 1: encourage you to not trust them, and it's because if
Speaker 1: you've been following this case, and also if you have
Speaker 1: an understanding of what the mentality is in these organizations,
Speaker 1: as I do because I used to work at the CIA,
Speaker 1: they really do believe that they're kind of a government
Speaker 1: unto themselves. They view themselves as a separate power within
Speaker 1: the governing apparatus of this country that needs to continue
Speaker 1: to function the way that it does in order to
Speaker 1: protect all of us. So they do believe at some
Speaker 1: level there if not above the rules, there's they're definitely
Speaker 1: playing by a different set of rules. Um. But Manafort,
Speaker 1: let me just dive into this for a second. Manafort
Speaker 1: is now cooperating, and everyone's like, oh, Manafort, he's got
Speaker 1: stuff in Trump. Man of Ford doesn't have anything on
Speaker 1: Trump because there's nothing to have, and there's just this
Speaker 1: desperation the media to have to put it in some context,
Speaker 1: to have some way of saying, oh, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: Manafort is gonna flip any Danel, just like you mean
Speaker 1: Cohen flipped with all of his incredible information on Trump.
Speaker 1: There's nothing there unless they think that, you know more
Speaker 1: gossipy stuff about who Trump may or may not have
Speaker 1: had an affair with or anything else. Yeah, I'm sure
Speaker 1: there's some of that. I mean, I'm sure Manaphort probably
Speaker 1: has some stories about Trump using salty language and doing things,
Speaker 1: are acting in a way that you know, the elite
Speaker 1: media would disapprove of. But you know, I have a
Speaker 1: biggers here, which is that Manafourt's you know, he had
Speaker 1: to he had to face two trials. He has spent
Speaker 1: all this money and all this time in dealt with
Speaker 1: all this, and he's been targeted. He has been targeted
Speaker 1: because he had the temerity to think that he should
Speaker 1: be allowed to work with the Trump organization and attach
Speaker 1: himself to the Trump campaign. You know, you look at
Speaker 1: these different names, you know, and I shouldn't put Manifort
Speaker 1: in Kavanaugh on the same sentence because I believe Kavana
Speaker 1: was innocent, and I think that Manaford obviously did break
Speaker 1: the law. But you have all these people that are
Speaker 1: in Trump circle who have either they've either tried to
Speaker 1: charge with the crime or have charged with the crime.
Speaker 1: And we know that prosecutorial discretion is a very real thing,
Speaker 1: and they can always decide not to bring charges or
Speaker 1: to let somebody off really easy. And I think the
Speaker 1: message for everyone is abundantly clear here, which is, if
Speaker 1: you try to get involved with Trump, and if you
Speaker 1: try to play that game, you are going to suffer
Speaker 1: the consequences. Um, you are going to find yourself on
Speaker 1: the wrong side of an effort. Two. Well, even the
Speaker 1: score out right. Guy. Remember a lot of the I D. Bology,
Speaker 1: or a lot of the belief behind why there need
Speaker 1: to be people punished around Trump is because they're complicit
Speaker 1: in the theft of the election from Hillary. That's a
Speaker 1: that's a big part of this, and they really believe it.
Speaker 1: By the way, Lindsay Graham had some words about the
Speaker 1: d o J and the FBI plate three. Please what
Speaker 1: I wish Jeff would talk about. I wish some of
Speaker 1: my colleagues would talk more about that's what's going on
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice and the FBI. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: send a letter to Day to Rosenstein. These new text
Speaker 1: messages from Stroke and Page about leaking information about the
Speaker 1: FISA warrant process to the media is just one in
Speaker 1: a series of events that screamed for special counsel. How
Speaker 1: much more has to be uncovered? At the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice regarding a political agenda. The Department of Justice and
Speaker 1: the FBI were political operatives when it came to Trump.
Speaker 1: They weren't investigators. And this screams for a special counsel.
Speaker 1: So I agree with you if you shouldn't beat on
Speaker 1: Sessions personally. But I don't know why Rosenstein, who's in
Speaker 1: charge of this process, doesn't see what I see and
Speaker 1: out of control Department Justice and FBI. And what's good
Speaker 1: for the goose is good for the for the gander,
Speaker 1: Let's have a d J investigated by somebody outside the
Speaker 1: Department Justice, I mean, investigating the investigators. This is this
Speaker 1: wouldn't be the first time. And I spoke to Ken
Speaker 1: Star today, he of the special special prosecutor back in
Speaker 1: the nineties, and you know, he's all he's all for
Speaker 1: getting the bottom this thing of the DJ, and he
Speaker 1: he believes in it. He believes, by the way, in
Speaker 1: a special counsel, and generally thinks that someone has to
Speaker 1: be able to hold the president accountable. So the big thing, though,
Speaker 1: the big takeaway from Lindsay Graham's uh SoundBite there is
Speaker 1: that I agree with the senator about these text messages.
Speaker 1: I mean how much more information can we really have
Speaker 1: about people acting poorly at the d o J mean,
Speaker 1: how much more or sure proof can we have? Then
Speaker 1: the text messages between Page and Struck, where when you
Speaker 1: read them you just see, Okay, these are people who
Speaker 1: are a little bit drunk with their own power. They
Speaker 1: realize they are kind of the nexus of this, this
Speaker 1: moment in American politics and therefore the world where they
Speaker 1: can put their hands on the they can put their
Speaker 1: thumb on the scale for either Hillary or for Trump,
Speaker 1: and they just or they could have done either, which
Speaker 1: is what they should have done, but they decided to
Speaker 1: do it for Hillary. And they hate Trump and they're
Speaker 1: trying to take Trump down, and they're playing very dirty.
Speaker 1: I mean, all this leak stuff to the media. I
Speaker 1: don't want a Department of Justice that is that is
Speaker 1: selectively telling the media things to damage one person's reputation.
Speaker 1: I don't want a Department of Justice that that will
Speaker 1: use its ability. Remember they're the ones that can run
Speaker 1: even secret warrants on you as an American citizen. They
Speaker 1: can run a secret warrant on you without any real
Speaker 1: meaningful do you didial review or do process and then
Speaker 1: decide what to leak out to the general public. I
Speaker 1: think that's a huge issue. And these these text messages
Speaker 1: between Struck and Page, which you know, my colleague at
Speaker 1: the Hill, John Solomon, broke this story of the weekend.
Speaker 1: They also show that they knew that there was nothing
Speaker 1: when the Special Council was appointed. They were aware, meaning
Speaker 1: Page Instruck were aware that there really was nothing about
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. So they had to reach out to the
Speaker 1: press and get the word out about well, we got
Speaker 1: this and that and and they were helping to construct
Speaker 1: this whole thing. Well, if there was a lot of
Speaker 1: there there, they wouldn't have had to do any of that.
Speaker 1: But we know that they were trying to find a
Speaker 1: way to convince at least a portion of a portion
Speaker 1: of the public. Guys that I just make a kind
Speaker 1: of whistling sound. The way that is that what Obama does,
Speaker 1: John do We know is that it's a little bit
Speaker 1: of a whistle when he talks. I have a little
Speaker 1: bit of wistonic common you know, I don't know, it's funny.
Speaker 1: And I listened to uh a fair amount of people
Speaker 1: on TV, and I always find that amazing. Everyone has
Speaker 1: their ticks, you know, they're their go to words, and
Speaker 1: I'm aware of what some of mine are, but I won't.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say them now. All of you
Speaker 1: are gonna write me now and say, Buck, I know
Speaker 1: what yours are. Isn't Obama's intellectual stammer that he has wit?
Speaker 1: Which which one is that? You mean you when he
Speaker 1: goes looking up exactly look up? You know, we gotta go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know Obama has that thing, which I guess if
Speaker 1: you think that he's some kind of super genius, you
Speaker 1: assume that that's some level of like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: Obama is amazing. But for the rest of us, I
Speaker 1: think it, Well, we don't need we don't need get
Speaker 1: an Obamba. Right now, it's gonna plenty time to talking
Speaker 1: about Obama because he's gonna the Democrats are gonna figure
Speaker 1: out really quickly that Hillary is not a a successful
Speaker 1: surrogate for them, and they're gonna to turn around and say, oh,
Speaker 1: we're really gonna need Obama out there more. And I
Speaker 1: don't think he's gonna be as good either, because Obama
Speaker 1: versus Trump on the public stage doesn't go the way
Speaker 1: that Obama thinks it will. I'm not saying that Obama
Speaker 1: doesn't have areas where he's strong and is a problem
Speaker 1: for Trump, but he does not. Obama is not used
Speaker 1: to be made fun of. He does not. No one
Speaker 1: made no one really got to make fun of him
Speaker 1: when he was president. That was a no no. And
Speaker 1: Trump does not care and I don't think Obama can
Speaker 1: handle it. Honestly, I did also want to have our friend.
Speaker 1: What's Devin Newness Devin Nenez Newness said the following about
Speaker 1: those text messages in FISA plane nineteen, the carter page FISA.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just that they used the Clinton Dirt two
Speaker 1: as a basis to go out and get the FISA.
Speaker 1: They also used planted news stories to corroborate the the
Speaker 1: dossier in front of the court, they actually matched this dossier,
Speaker 1: never telling him the court that actually know those were
Speaker 1: odd of news stories by the Clinton campaign, UH and
Speaker 1: the FBI. So these these people are really dirty, really dirty.
Speaker 1: Devin Newness is right. They they were playing both sides
Speaker 1: of it right, The FBI, the people involved in this investigation.
Speaker 1: The FBI were making sure that the public new certain
Speaker 1: things and they would increase the pressure so they would
Speaker 1: have a freer hand to push the investigation where they wanted,
Speaker 1: and then they also were able to operate in in
Speaker 1: secret and you know, get warrants and do all kinds
Speaker 1: of things. You know, Peter Struck's big moment of glory
Speaker 1: when he was testifying before the Congress, the thing where
Speaker 1: he was like, oh you know, I've I've got you now,
Speaker 1: you know? Is all they was that one FBI agent
Speaker 1: without and by the way, he was the deputy Chief
Speaker 1: of count of Intelligence. He's a very senior FBI agent,
Speaker 1: But one guy. I couldn't get through all these different
Speaker 1: layers of review without other people figuring out what's going on.
Speaker 1: That's just not true generally speaking. Whoever is lead or
Speaker 1: point some of these things would be given a lot
Speaker 1: of difference by his colleagues. And if it's just a
Speaker 1: question of you showing some some bad judgment, I don't
Speaker 1: think people are gonna stand up the deputy Chief Encounter
Speaker 1: Intel because what what if, by the way, what if
Speaker 1: he did all this stuff and and Hillary does win?
Speaker 1: You know, now he's on the right side of the angel,
Speaker 1: so to speak, and everyone's gonna say, oh, well, it
Speaker 1: was a good thing that you were willing to step
Speaker 1: in and make sure we protected our democracy with Hillary Hello,
Speaker 1: that we were going to make sure that Hillary has
Speaker 1: her rightful place. You know, the impulse in this country
Speaker 1: for dynastic politics, this notion that we should have political families.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know why people won't. More people
Speaker 1: aren't on my team with this one. We do not
Speaker 1: need people based on their last name to be in office.
Speaker 1: We do not need it. We need to stop this
Speaker 1: from happening. But I suppose that's a conversation weren't for
Speaker 1: another time that Look, the text messages about Struck and
Speaker 1: Page tell the tale. They were leaking. They were dirty.
Speaker 1: There was nothing, there's no rush a collusion, and the
Speaker 1: whole point of this investigation was to get at the
Speaker 1: Trump team and to take people down, and to also
Speaker 1: justify investigative steps that had already been taken by the
Speaker 1: anti trumpers. So it's exactly what you and I have
Speaker 1: been saying along, folks. It's exactly what our discussion, our
Speaker 1: analysis has been has been saying. I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you about the Bob woodwork book coming up here
Speaker 1: in a second. So I've read a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: it over the weekend. Let me tell you. Part of
Speaker 1: it is that it's but there's some stuff in there.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that. Stay with me. The black rifle
Speaker 1: coffee revolution is underway, my friends, and it is sweeping
Speaker 1: away all of that comic coffee that you don't want
Speaker 1: to drink, that you don't need to drink, and replacing
Speaker 1: it with a patriotic brew. My friends, that's what you want.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you right now, I have converted so many
Speaker 1: people in my office to black rifle. They see the
Speaker 1: k cups on my desk. I keep a little stash,
Speaker 1: and I'm I'm making friends left and right because they
Speaker 1: are all like, hey, I don't want that crappy car
Speaker 1: fee that just comes in those corporate boxes. I want
Speaker 1: black rifle coffee because I love America veterans and delicious,
Speaker 1: absolutely delicious coffee. Look, it's just a lot better, folks.
Speaker 1: The quality of black rifle coffee is better than what
Speaker 1: you're getting in a vast majority of office spaces unless
Speaker 1: you have some little European guy named Alfonse who is
Speaker 1: measuring the foam on your latte. You want black rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you got a Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck again Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: and you'll get fifteen off your order. Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. Did you, Bob Woodward hear anything
Speaker 1: in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage
Speaker 1: or collusion? I did not, And of course I looked
Speaker 1: for it, looked forward hard, and uh so you know,
Speaker 1: there we are. We're gonna see what Mueller has and
Speaker 1: doubt maybe right, he has something that doubt in the president.
Speaker 1: Don't know about secret witness or somebody who has changed
Speaker 1: their testimony, as you know, that often happens, and that
Speaker 1: can break open or turn a case. But you've seen
Speaker 1: no collusion, No collusion, says Woodword, just like he's borned
Speaker 1: from the Trump talking points there, right, no collusion got
Speaker 1: to be all caps though with an exclamation point or else.
Speaker 1: It's not really clear. I mean, what are we really
Speaker 1: talking about, your folks, We're talking about collusion? No collusion. Uh.
Speaker 1: The Woodword book, I've been reading it. I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: quite through it. I got I don't know. I'm probably
Speaker 1: who cares into it. Um. One thing I'll say is
Speaker 1: that is that there's a lot in there that's well
Speaker 1: known and kind of already known by everybody. So I
Speaker 1: guess wood Word finds Woodword sees part of his role
Speaker 1: as as chronicling the administration. You know, he's he's somebody
Speaker 1: who's telling you, taking you through the whole story and
Speaker 1: all of it. I would also know that wood Word
Speaker 1: is not anywhere near as gifted a writer as you'd
Speaker 1: be led to believe based on all the hype around him.
Speaker 1: His his his prose a little boring. It's very kind
Speaker 1: of sterile, and there's there's just not there's no swagger
Speaker 1: in it. That's that's the best way I can say it. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and also think that this I I just read this,
Speaker 1: and I said, there's no way that anybody can have
Speaker 1: these these recollections this clearly, I just I don't buy it.
Speaker 1: If somebody asked me what was said in my editorial
Speaker 1: meeting today for let's say, for Rising, you know, if
Speaker 1: they asked me what was said on that meeting twelve
Speaker 1: hours later, I mean, if they jog my memory, I
Speaker 1: might be able to tell them, yeah, we kind of
Speaker 1: talked about that topic, but chances are I'm not going
Speaker 1: to remember much of anything. And the recreations he does
Speaker 1: of these conversations in the book and he does it
Speaker 1: all over the place. He just reads a little bit
Speaker 1: like a Hollywood screenplay, like, oh, and this guy says this,
Speaker 1: and then that guy said that, and then he's got
Speaker 1: kind of the timing in there of what the response was.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think what I think what really
Speaker 1: does is that he opens uh. The reason he gets
Speaker 1: he gets a lot of access because of his name
Speaker 1: and all that Woodword and Burgenstein, and I understand, but
Speaker 1: his particular style is all about if you cooperate with him,
Speaker 1: you get to be one of the creators of this narrative.
Speaker 1: You don't get to create it entirely, but at least
Speaker 1: you get to say and you get to maybe get
Speaker 1: your cool one liner in there. And remember he keeps
Speaker 1: it all anonymous. So do you want the opportunity to
Speaker 1: make yourself sound good? Then you gotta talk to Woodward.
Speaker 1: Do you want the opportunity to make it sound like
Speaker 1: you're the smart person in the room. If you don't
Speaker 1: talk to Woodward, the other people in the room will
Speaker 1: talk to him. And so you feel like, well, I
Speaker 1: might as well have some voice in this whole process.
Speaker 1: But that all men might make for good access and
Speaker 1: an interesting book. I'm not sure it makes for an
Speaker 1: accurate book at all. And I know General Madison, some
Speaker 1: others have come out and said that they are not
Speaker 1: accurately quoted, or there are other parts of the bo
Speaker 1: that are that are problematic, and that does not surprise
Speaker 1: me in the least. But I can tell you that
Speaker 1: so far it's really unimpressive. You know, it makes me
Speaker 1: want to It makes me I just want to shoot that.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean anything, do you remember that, Mike, I
Speaker 1: want to shoot? Uh No, but it makes me want
Speaker 1: to read maybe I'm a Rosa's book or finish Fire
Speaker 1: and Fury, Fire and Fury. I'll say this, it might
Speaker 1: have been made up, but at least it was really
Speaker 1: good reading. It was really entertaining. Woodward's books so far
Speaker 1: is pretty boring. I'm a Ross's book, I'm sure has
Speaker 1: a lot of fiction in it, but it probably has
Speaker 1: a little more sass and a little more panash than
Speaker 1: than what worldwards God. But yeah, I didn't find any collusion, folks,
Speaker 1: because there is no collusion, because, as I've said to
Speaker 1: you from the very beginning of this investigation, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: even make sense for there to be collusion. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense, there is no reason for Trump to have
Speaker 1: done to ord to do it, put aside whether he'd
Speaker 1: be willing to do it the bad idea. It's a
Speaker 1: highly ineffective way to try to throw an election, and
Speaker 1: the risks are enormous, And because there was enormous, he
Speaker 1: didn't do it, because if he had done an he'd
Speaker 1: be caught. You know, this is everything else at this
Speaker 1: point is kind of just nonsense. I want to talk
Speaker 1: a bit hurricane politics though, Oh yes, that's still happening.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that in just a moment. The President
Speaker 1: continuing to dispute the official death toll of close to
Speaker 1: three thousand people in Puerto Rico, carelessly spreading conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has become the conspiracy theorist in chief. He's
Speaker 1: in the most powerful office in the world, and he's
Speaker 1: promoting conspiracy theories. The President continues to spread conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: even about hurricanes, suggesting the death toll in the wake
Speaker 1: of Hurricane Maria was inflated by Democrats to make him
Speaker 1: look bad. Death told denialism. There's an interesting new phenomenon.
Speaker 1: This is hurricane denialism. It's modern day holocaust stile, modern
Speaker 1: day holocaust denial. Now, I want you to remember how
Speaker 1: they fixate on that term denialism here when it comes
Speaker 1: to Trump and his response to what was what wasn't political,
Speaker 1: tax folks, it was political. The way that they came
Speaker 1: at him on on the hurricane in Puerto Rico and
Speaker 1: the aftermath of it. They have never counted the number before,
Speaker 1: and they've never counted it that way. And this idea
Speaker 1: that you're gonna say the three thousand people were killed
Speaker 1: by a hurricane. Anytime you say that, people assume that
Speaker 1: three thousand people died from the actual storm, not three
Speaker 1: thousand people died on an island in excess an island
Speaker 1: of millions of people, in excess of what we would
Speaker 1: expect because of different infrastructure situation and and because of
Speaker 1: you know, lack of electricity or whatever the case. Maybe,
Speaker 1: I mean, there was a lot. You know. They keep
Speaker 1: saying the official death count is three thousand. They don't
Speaker 1: know the real number is seven hundred, which I would
Speaker 1: note over a six month period is is a statistically
Speaker 1: not a particularly huge variation in a death count. Remember,
Speaker 1: we're talking about people that are dying from old age.
Speaker 1: Do people are dying from diseases they had before the hurricane.
Speaker 1: Now you know the promisee this, I fall into the
Speaker 1: trap now right, you fall into the trap right away.
Speaker 1: But they used they come up with these statistics. And
Speaker 1: when you say the statistics are are inflated or are
Speaker 1: are problematic in some way, then you're heartless. So your
Speaker 1: only response, the only response that for Trump that's really allowed,
Speaker 1: is to sit there and say, yeah, you're right, I
Speaker 1: guess I just don't care about Puerto Rico. I guess
Speaker 1: the the massive federal response that we had was just
Speaker 1: in my imagination. And you know, that's your only option
Speaker 1: because if you challenge them on the numbers, if you
Speaker 1: challenge them on the reality of what they did or
Speaker 1: did not do to try to get to this three
Speaker 1: thousand uh, they just say that you're you're a mean person.
Speaker 1: They say that you're you're a bad human being. And
Speaker 1: and this is this is why, you know, Democrats play
Speaker 1: all these games so dirty. They played this one very dirty.
Speaker 1: And I think that the way that they've been able
Speaker 1: to try to connect Maria, as I've been saying all
Speaker 1: along to the Bush administration response to Katrina, this is
Speaker 1: this is it's like they have a playbooks as though
Speaker 1: they they get Democrats all in the room, they say,
Speaker 1: how do we really tarnish this president? How do we
Speaker 1: really hurt him when it comes to the elections. But
Speaker 1: the denial ism point, just remember this, they say to
Speaker 1: denialism is a very loaded word for Democrats. They will
Speaker 1: say this about climate change, right, your climate change denier,
Speaker 1: or you're engaging in climate change denialism. And when you
Speaker 1: try to push back on this, what you realize is
Speaker 1: that there using that term specifically because it evokes Holocaust
Speaker 1: denial in the mind. Right, That's why they're they're calling
Speaker 1: just like you know, uh, By the way, I don't
Speaker 1: think a lot of people know this, but the term uh,
Speaker 1: neo conservative was was coined early on by liberals And
Speaker 1: it was not that there's any kind not that there's
Speaker 1: really anything to connect in neo conservative with neo nazi,
Speaker 1: but they just knew that there was a there was
Speaker 1: a connectivity in people's minds about it. So that's why
Speaker 1: they were like neo conservative. That was what the the
Speaker 1: the the origins of this, that was what they were
Speaker 1: going for. So the terminology absolutely matters. And to say
Speaker 1: it's denialism is and that one guy who I didn't
Speaker 1: know what that was. That one person on TV said
Speaker 1: that they're engaging in dialism, denialism, akin of what happened
Speaker 1: to Holocaust. Um, folks, this is a it was a
Speaker 1: natural disaster for which the federal government and I'm not guessing.
Speaker 1: I spoke to the rep in Congress for Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: She said in no uncertain terms that there was a
Speaker 1: tremendous response. There was a lot of resources. We sent
Speaker 1: them so much stuff that they couldn't handle all this
Speaker 1: stuff we sent. You know. Part of this is also
Speaker 1: that nobody on the island of Puerto Rico, uh or
Speaker 1: rather nobody in the media talking about the response in
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, wants to look at what was the response
Speaker 1: like on the island itself, What was local government able
Speaker 1: to do, what was the what was the standing of
Speaker 1: the power grid before this hurricane even hit? But you know,
Speaker 1: this is this is why they set it up the
Speaker 1: way they do, because even just talking to about this
Speaker 1: right now, trying to get to a more honest place
Speaker 1: with regard to the the hurricane situation and and all
Speaker 1: the all the rest of it. Um, they say you're
Speaker 1: they say you're mean, and you're you're falling into their trap,
Speaker 1: which is, oh my gosh, three thousand people died and
Speaker 1: you don't even care. Oh my gosh, how could you
Speaker 1: be so so heartless about all of this? So far,
Speaker 1: it looks like, um, well, I I guess we're in
Speaker 1: the we're still in kind of the worst phase of
Speaker 1: the flooding in in North Carolina. Um. But it's the
Speaker 1: response so far has been I think what would be expected.
Speaker 1: I won't say it's good or it's bad, but it's
Speaker 1: it's what would be expected. The death toll has risen
Speaker 1: to twenty people in the Carolinas. I'll be very curious
Speaker 1: to see, you know, if this uh, you know, afterwards,
Speaker 1: if they're gonna do the same kind of methodology as
Speaker 1: they didn't in Maria to see what the long term
Speaker 1: effects of this are. My guests would be that we'll
Speaker 1: have a much more accurate account, um, and that will
Speaker 1: mean that the number is actually much lower. And then
Speaker 1: they'll say, we'll see Trump cares more about people in
Speaker 1: North Carolina, because you know, the Carolina actually vote for
Speaker 1: the president, and Trump doesn't care about people Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: And let's be honest about it too, They say, that
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't care about Puerto Rico because of racism. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think they've been pretty open about that. They they
Speaker 1: really think that Donald Trump has been uh, has has
Speaker 1: turned a blind eye, has been disinterested in the fate
Speaker 1: of Puerto Rico after Maria, because it is full of
Speaker 1: the island has Puerto Ricans on it, I mean not
Speaker 1: all Puerto Ricre, but a lot of the people on
Speaker 1: the islander Puerto rican and and they've been saying this,
Speaker 1: I mean they've been saying along the Trump is racist.
Speaker 1: So in the Carolina is that one apply? We'll see,
Speaker 1: But you know there are one of our continuing theses
Speaker 1: here on the show is just that everything is political.
Speaker 1: But you know, you see that whether absolutely falls into
Speaker 1: that and into that category now. And i'd also note, folks, um,
Speaker 1: you know, people died during Hurricane Sandy. I remember it,
Speaker 1: you know, remember and then remember with Chris Christie and
Speaker 1: the hug on the beach with Obama. I mean, York
Speaker 1: City was in terrible shape, and there were whole parts
Speaker 1: of New Jersey that were essentially on the Jersey shore
Speaker 1: that were basically swept away, and there was not this
Speaker 1: effort to blame Obama because we all realized I didn't look,
Speaker 1: I didn't blame Obama. I'm like, it was a really
Speaker 1: bad storm. It's not it's not Obama's fault. Obama couldn't
Speaker 1: have done anything about it, because this is a normal
Speaker 1: rational response to these things. You know, it's terrible, it's
Speaker 1: a tragedy, but you know, there there is a time
Speaker 1: when you got to say, yes, stuff happens. And Sandy
Speaker 1: was a stuff happened situation. And I was there, and
Speaker 1: I was you know, it affected me, and it was, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it was for a lot of people, incredibly
Speaker 1: painful because they lost their homes and there were people
Speaker 1: who lost their lives. There are people who got swept
Speaker 1: away by the storm surge. So you know, Sandy was
Speaker 1: was the other version of how the media covers a
Speaker 1: or or doesn't really cover a media a weather event.
Speaker 1: They were not tying into Obama at all. It was
Speaker 1: not something that in any way, shape or form, they
Speaker 1: put on the Obama administration. And I'm just I'm telling
Speaker 1: you if they had wanted to, if they had really
Speaker 1: looked into what they could have told those stories. This
Speaker 1: is where we see the bias. This is where you
Speaker 1: have the uh you know that the recurring bias that
Speaker 1: that goes on with the mainstreams narrative all the time,
Speaker 1: and you know that's they're gonna try to find a
Speaker 1: way to make the Florence you have, you know, a
Speaker 1: hurricane Florence. You've had all this prep time and the
Speaker 1: federal government saying you've got to get ready for this,
Speaker 1: and you've got to be prepared for for everything, and
Speaker 1: all the warnings and brock Long out there. If there
Speaker 1: is anything at all that they can pin on Trump,
Speaker 1: that they will, And that's why a lot of this
Speaker 1: just gets drowned out. After a while, you reach this
Speaker 1: point where you say, you know what, I it's it's
Speaker 1: always Trump's full. If everything is Trump's fault, that it
Speaker 1: starts to feel like nothing is Trump's full, if everything
Speaker 1: is oh my god, Trump is the worst guy ever.
Speaker 1: Then you get this place you say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: are they being objective about anything? There's one more note here.
Speaker 1: I saw this. I saw the very well known photo.
Speaker 1: Now these dogs that were in a cage. I read
Speaker 1: earlier that it turns out that the owner of the
Speaker 1: dogs hadn't left on The owner was in medical need
Speaker 1: and and was being rescued at the same time as
Speaker 1: the dogs are being rescued. So that is, assuming that's true,
Speaker 1: that's different than what the initial sense of that story was.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you. And I know this is focusing
Speaker 1: on one little little part of all this, but you know,
Speaker 1: I know my own family, for example, and I know
Speaker 1: that if there were if there were a hurricane and
Speaker 1: a storm surge and for some reason, you know, the
Speaker 1: family dog couldn't come with us, my mom would be there,
Speaker 1: you know, up to her waist holding the dog, waiting
Speaker 1: for waiting for reinforcems, waiting for help to come. I mean,
Speaker 1: these people who leave their dogs behind, I just I don't.
Speaker 1: I can't. I cannot in any way understanding enrages me
Speaker 1: and I can't in any way understand it. And that
Speaker 1: that they have to put out all these public service
Speaker 1: announces and saying don't leave your dog behind. You know,
Speaker 1: it makes me wish that there was like licensing for dogs.
Speaker 1: But you know, then again that would be big government,
Speaker 1: so we don't really want that. Hopefully, these dogs that
Speaker 1: are being saved, because a lot of them are going
Speaker 1: to get adopted quickly. I'm sure that will happen. Um,
Speaker 1: we have much more coming up, teams, so stay right there.
Speaker 1: If it isn't Hillary in November, does your act change?
Speaker 1: Does you'll out my actual change because I'll need to
Speaker 1: learn to speak Spanish because I will move to Spain win,
Speaker 1: I'm moving to Africa. I need the coming to your
Speaker 1: country if you'll let me in our Canada. I'm also
Speaker 1: reserving my resid my ticket to get out of here.
Speaker 1: If he wins, maybe it's time for me to move.
Speaker 1: I can't afford to go. He can't possibly really be
Speaker 1: trying to be elected to become president. I get my
Speaker 1: house in another country just in case, so we'll always
Speaker 1: be that threatened to leave the country, and I will
Speaker 1: leave that. I'm pretty sure they haven't. Producer Mike, can
Speaker 1: we get a fact check on that? That's a fun
Speaker 1: little montage. Uh, not not much in the way of
Speaker 1: not much in the way of celebrities leaving the country
Speaker 1: because of Trump's election. Why do people even think that
Speaker 1: that's a threat? You know, what are we supposed to
Speaker 1: care like? We we can't handle life without a few
Speaker 1: of these entertainers who are fiercely clinging to whatever privileged
Speaker 1: perch they they have. That that's usually the case, but
Speaker 1: we couldn't exist without them staying here. You know that
Speaker 1: this is because the the era of Trump derangement syndrome
Speaker 1: and which we find ourselves is one where the the
Speaker 1: culture now rewards people for saying insane things about the president. Uh.
Speaker 1: You see this with what's what's the crazy redhead who
Speaker 1: did the thing with the beheading with the Trump you
Speaker 1: know Griffin, Kathy Griffin. She was actually on my show recently,
Speaker 1: but not this show on on Rising, and I didn't
Speaker 1: get a chance to interview her. It was one of
Speaker 1: my colleagues. But she has been elevated because of this.
Speaker 1: You know, this is there's really a perverse incentive, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean when you stand up and say you're gonna
Speaker 1: leave the country because you don't like who the president is,
Speaker 1: as long as it's a Republican and especially if it's Trump,
Speaker 1: there's never this moment for people like that, for these
Speaker 1: different celebrities and these whiners, when they have to step
Speaker 1: back and say, hold on a second. You know, maybe
Speaker 1: I love the country more than I love the president
Speaker 1: or the presidency. You know, maybe I love America more
Speaker 1: than I love My ideas being reflected back to me
Speaker 1: by whoever's in power all the time. You know, they
Speaker 1: don't take that approach. They take the the tantrum approach,
Speaker 1: you know, they take the cry baby, whiney approach to things.
Speaker 1: And what I think is so interesting about that is
Speaker 1: that they are rewarded for it. That people think that, oh, man,
Speaker 1: you know, you you've shown us how much you really.
Speaker 1: The fact that you even say that you would leave
Speaker 1: the country, it just shows how much you care. Man,
Speaker 1: you know, it just shows us how much. And then
Speaker 1: you you look at someone like a Kathy Griffin. She
Speaker 1: is now bigger than ever before. She's traveling all over
Speaker 1: the world, and she's this martyr for the cause. And
Speaker 1: that's why I and this ties into the whole cabin
Speaker 1: all things today to I don't want to hear it anymore,
Speaker 1: where people do something that is not brave, that is
Speaker 1: not hard, and that will benefit them personally and professionally,
Speaker 1: in this case, trashing a Republican or trashing Trump, and
Speaker 1: then act like there's some kind of martyr. I I
Speaker 1: just don't. I can't deal with it anymore. We see
Speaker 1: this over and over again. You know, whoever it is,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, some fired FBI flak who some
Speaker 1: some flunkey from d O J who all of a
Speaker 1: sudden has you know, a bank account with half a
Speaker 1: million dollars in it because hashtags instance. I mean, the
Speaker 1: left takes care of their people, and if you take
Speaker 1: one for the team, they have your back. It's one
Speaker 1: of the most powerful things about progressivism is that the
Speaker 1: institutions and the cultural uh, the the cultural capital of
Speaker 1: the progressive left is used for its fighters all the time.
Speaker 1: And that's why the celebrity is saying this stuff. It's
Speaker 1: just so funny to me, and this is a way
Speaker 1: of advancing, this is a way of going forward with
Speaker 1: their careers. But they act like it's gonna be such
Speaker 1: a big thing, you know, as I've been saying with
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh accuser Ford, she will no matter what happens
Speaker 1: now be considered, she'll get on the lecture circuit. She'll
Speaker 1: be giving fifty thousand dollars a speech, fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: of speeches, my guess pretty soon, okay, um, And and
Speaker 1: she's going to be more well known, more famous than
Speaker 1: she's ever been. She'll if she doesn't have tenure already
Speaker 1: in her college, she'll get tenure. All these doors will
Speaker 1: open to her. But but people are gonna tell us
Speaker 1: all week, oh my gosh, it's so hard, and she's
Speaker 1: the thought that she's done this. Yeah, she's gonna get
Speaker 1: death threats from some Trump supporters, which is terrible and
Speaker 1: nobody should do that. But I know people in media
Speaker 1: who get death threats from liberals all the time, and
Speaker 1: it doesn't make them some kind of national hero. No,
Speaker 1: no one's sitting around talking about that. But on the
Speaker 1: other side of it, they don't get anybody rushing to
Speaker 1: sign them to a big book deal or to make
Speaker 1: them make their life easier, make everything so much better
Speaker 1: for them, right, So you know, that's that's I think
Speaker 1: in another part of this that that doesn't really get
Speaker 1: enough attention. But the it's it's like college kids. You
Speaker 1: stand up and say, I'm about to speak truth to
Speaker 1: power in an auditorium surrounded by people who agree with me,
Speaker 1: and this is gonna be hard to say, but I
Speaker 1: think Trump is a monster, and ever goes yeah, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're so save. No, you're not brave. If you say
Speaker 1: something that everybody around you will love you for and
Speaker 1: will benefit you in every possible way, that is not
Speaker 1: That is not what brave is. You could say it's strategic,
Speaker 1: you could say it's smart, you could say it's self serving.
Speaker 1: It is not brave. The left needs a refresher on
Speaker 1: what the word brave actually needs. And it's certainly not
Speaker 1: threatening to leave the country and then not leaving, as
Speaker 1: all these celebrities we've seen have done. Buck Sextons decoding
Speaker 1: the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake,
Speaker 1: you're a great American again, this is the buck Sexton
Speaker 1: shows no. But this oslot that we're seeing does require
Speaker 1: require us not only to be vigilant, but be more
Speaker 1: aggressive and demand more, demand more of our leaders who
Speaker 1: represent basic American values of respect, decency, equality, giving hate
Speaker 1: no safe haven. This is deadly earnest. We are in
Speaker 1: a fight for america soul and we have leaders. We
Speaker 1: have leaders. At the time when that occurred, when these
Speaker 1: guys are accompanied by white supremacists and ku klux Plan
Speaker 1: and those who objected making a comparison saying they're good
Speaker 1: people in both groups, what has become of us? Our
Speaker 1: children are listening and our silence is complicity. So thanks
Speaker 1: to you, our children, my grandchildren will grow up in
Speaker 1: the world that's far more just open minded, humane. But
Speaker 1: our work is not yet done by any stretch of
Speaker 1: the imagination. The stakes are much too high. And as
Speaker 1: I said, we faced with an administration and some of
Speaker 1: his most ardent right wing supporters from the klu Klux Klan.
Speaker 1: The head of the ku Klux Klan is endorsed, and
Speaker 1: they all, right, who are trying to undo all the
Speaker 1: progress you have made in a little the Barack and
Speaker 1: I have made with you. Despite losing in the courts
Speaker 1: and in the court of public opinion, these forces of
Speaker 1: intolerance remained determined to undermine and roll back the progress
Speaker 1: you all have made. This time they not you have
Speaker 1: an ally in the White House. This time they have
Speaker 1: an ally. There are small percentage of the American people,
Speaker 1: Virland people, some of them the dregs of society. And
Speaker 1: instead of the dregs of society, he says, no, I
Speaker 1: think we've had enough. I think we've had enough Biden.
Speaker 1: We've had enough Biden the dregs of society. Now, if
Speaker 1: we're really going to play this game, I think there
Speaker 1: are dregs of society that support both political parties. But
Speaker 1: this is this is taking the whole notion of a
Speaker 1: deplorable even further and just going all in with the
Speaker 1: stuff that we've been told this entire time about Trump,
Speaker 1: even though Trump is the first president in history, and
Speaker 1: I mean this is relevant because Biden was speaking at
Speaker 1: the Human Rights Campaign's National Dinner, which is for lgbt
Speaker 1: Q rights. Biden was the first. I'm sorry, Trump was
Speaker 1: the friend. Biden wasn't the first to do anything. Trump
Speaker 1: was the first president ever come into office waiving a
Speaker 1: rainbow k Pride flag on stage, as as he would
Speaker 1: remember that he did that before he gave one of
Speaker 1: his town halls. Trump is the first person to ever
Speaker 1: become president who is completely on board with same set marriage.
Speaker 1: So I just think it's interesting that Barack Obama was
Speaker 1: very much against same sex marriage because politically speaking, he
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure that he had UH, particularly black
Speaker 1: churches in the South, on board for his first election
Speaker 1: and did not want to cause any problems by opposing
Speaker 1: traditional or seeming like he was not a supporter of
Speaker 1: traditional marriage. So it was just a political calculation, you see. So,
Speaker 1: but Barack was allowed to be a political calculator when
Speaker 1: it came to UH the gay rights movement. It is
Speaker 1: not the case that any Republican would get such the
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt. But even beyond that that a
Speaker 1: Republican don't even get any any credit for the stay
Speaker 1: in this movement. But more to the point here, Biden
Speaker 1: thinks he's running, folks, Biden really truly believes that he
Speaker 1: is the answer to what ails the country, that he
Speaker 1: is the one. Biden is the one that we have
Speaker 1: been waiting for or um. I will tell you this
Speaker 1: is a bit, this is a little bit of a
Speaker 1: of a jaw dropper, but I do think that he is.
Speaker 1: If you look at the polling among Democrats, he is
Speaker 1: certainly one of the most favorable possible candidates for the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party going going into twenty twenty. And he thinks
Speaker 1: that he made he made a mistake by not running
Speaker 1: the last time. Now, I think Trump would have absolutely
Speaker 1: wife the floor is Biden, just because there's nothing about
Speaker 1: Biden that's impressive. I mean, Trump, who is very good
Speaker 1: at insults, said it quite well. If it wasn't for
Speaker 1: Obama making Biden a vice president, Biden would kind of
Speaker 1: be just another senator from a state that not a
Speaker 1: lot of people pay all that much attention to. No
Speaker 1: offense Delaware. I love you, Delaware, but people tend not
Speaker 1: to lead the news cycle with what's going on. Hi,
Speaker 1: I'm in Delaware. So Biden's out there given this speech.
Speaker 1: Called then the dregs call some Trump supper. He said some,
Speaker 1: he didn't say all. But first, the Trump supporters is
Speaker 1: the dregs of society. I would just note that there
Speaker 1: are ah plenty of folks, plenty of folks on all
Speaker 1: sides of the political spectrum who none of us would
Speaker 1: want to be associated with or hang out with. But
Speaker 1: it is only the Democrats who consistently get away with
Speaker 1: this pretense that you know, we have to have every Republican,
Speaker 1: every candidate has to be asked, hey, you know, what
Speaker 1: do you think of David Duke? Which is the ultimate
Speaker 1: political version of the when did you stop beating your wife? Question? Hey,
Speaker 1: what do you think about the neo Nazi? Just being
Speaker 1: asked about it is a way of tainting anybody who
Speaker 1: gets gets the question thrown their way, So you know,
Speaker 1: that's why they're still talking. But by the way, have
Speaker 1: you seen David Duke anywhere since the election? No? I
Speaker 1: I almost think that David Duke is some kind of
Speaker 1: a Democrat plot where they hold him in some basements
Speaker 1: somewhere and then they they let him out just when
Speaker 1: there's a Republican who has a real shot of winning
Speaker 1: a national election. They're like, oh, it's time to unleash
Speaker 1: the David Duke and and they let him go. And
Speaker 1: then he runs around and says, you know, I support
Speaker 1: the person on the right. Meanwhile, I mean, you could
Speaker 1: do the same thing, and you never hear this, but
Speaker 1: there is an American Communist Party still. Do you know
Speaker 1: who the American Communist Party support in the last election, Well, actually,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if it was. I think it was Hillary,
Speaker 1: It could have been Bernie Well. In the general they
Speaker 1: supported Hillary. So there you go. That's right. Do you
Speaker 1: ever hear that the American Communist Party supports the Democrat No,
Speaker 1: of course not, because no one in the media wants
Speaker 1: to talk about that. And they would say to you, oh, well,
Speaker 1: that's because the American Communist Party is irrelevant, to which
Speaker 1: I would say, yes, so is David Duke. Why are
Speaker 1: we even talking about this? But Biden is um somebody
Speaker 1: who has mistaken has this mistaken belief that the rhetorical
Speaker 1: gifts and and political skills of Barack Obama have somehow
Speaker 1: translated to him. I can assure you all they have not.
Speaker 1: I know you already know that although he is not
Speaker 1: the only Democrat retread that is clearly angling for a
Speaker 1: come back. It's not just Biden, folks, there's another one. Hello,
Speaker 1: she's back, She's bad, She's ready for action. Hillary Clinton, folks,
Speaker 1: I you know this. I have been saying all along.
Speaker 1: He's like, bug, tell me it's not true. It is accepting.
Speaker 1: Go gosh, Mom, I have a cold. I can't really
Speaker 1: do the Hillary voice right now. Uh. The fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is that Hillary is still doing stuff that
Speaker 1: I don't think she'd be doing unless she still wanted
Speaker 1: to be a player. And Hillary has new interest in
Speaker 1: being a player for anybody else. Folks. Hillary, it does
Speaker 1: not have any interest in, uh, just helping the party
Speaker 1: for the sake of the party. I don't think he
Speaker 1: really cares about Democratic Party. Hillary cares about the Clinton Party,
Speaker 1: and she doesn't want that party to stop in. No
Speaker 1: party like a Clinton Party, because the Clinton Party involves
Speaker 1: a lot of corruption. She wrote an editorial in the Atlantic,
Speaker 1: kind of interesting choice much or why she started to
Speaker 1: go with the Atlantic? American Democracy is in crisis. Our
Speaker 1: democratic institutions and traditions are under siege. We need to
Speaker 1: do everything we can to fight back. What does this
Speaker 1: even mean? That our institutions and traditions are under siege?
Speaker 1: I hear this a lot. This. This is meaningless to me.
Speaker 1: Under siege? How what institution is under siege? Now? What? Oh?
Speaker 1: The media, the incredibly hyperpartisan and uh and you know,
Speaker 1: one sided mainstream media. They're they're getting some pushback. Oh. No,
Speaker 1: I thought the media was all about the free expression
Speaker 1: of ideas. I didn't think that the media needed some
Speaker 1: kind of socially enforced monopoly. I thought that they would
Speaker 1: just impress us all with their great work. I didn't
Speaker 1: think that we had to sit around and worry about
Speaker 1: and whether the media was feeling like they were getting
Speaker 1: enough love. Yeah, here we are, um, here we are
Speaker 1: with Hillary. Oh. The first line in this piece is fantastic.
Speaker 1: It's been nearly two years since Donald Trump won enough
Speaker 1: electoral College votes to become president United States. On the
Speaker 1: day after, in my concession speech, I said, we owe
Speaker 1: him an open mind and the chance to lead. I
Speaker 1: hope that my fears were overblown. They were not. I
Speaker 1: just love them that she starts with one enough Electoral
Speaker 1: College votes to become president of the United States. That's
Speaker 1: another way of saying one the election. Hillary, That's right,
Speaker 1: that's how you win the election. This is the among
Speaker 1: the the stupid talking points and childish tantrums that you
Speaker 1: see from Democrats. This fixation on the popular vote as
Speaker 1: though it means something is one of the most is
Speaker 1: one of the just the most pathetic. Really, Yeah, there's
Speaker 1: a reason folks that Republicans go go to certain states
Speaker 1: battleground states because they know they're not gonna win New York.
Speaker 1: They know they're not gonna win California. They would spend
Speaker 1: more resources and more time and messaging on some of
Speaker 1: the mega blue states if it were a popular vote
Speaker 1: count because and by the way, people like me who
Speaker 1: have lived in New York basically their whole adult lives
Speaker 1: were Republicans would actually, I mean I vote, but other
Speaker 1: people would go out and vote who wouldn't vote because
Speaker 1: they realized that it actually doesn't matter. It doesn't just
Speaker 1: get kind of canceled out because all the electoral votes
Speaker 1: go to the Democrats. So anyway, it's a different race.
Speaker 1: But Hillary wrote this editorial, it's it's the usual stuff.
Speaker 1: Trump is a liar, Trumps the words Trump is terrible.
Speaker 1: It's this long editorial and you know where it is, folks.
Speaker 1: This is Hillary trying to keep her name out there,
Speaker 1: trying to be a part of the hashtag resistance. Because
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, Hillary Clinton thinks she's running for president again.
Speaker 1: You think I'm crazy, That's fine. She is waiting in
Speaker 1: the wings for her opportunity, and she thinks she's gonna
Speaker 1: get it. The FBI says home title theft is one
Speaker 1: of the fastest growing crimes out there. Brace yourselves, because
Speaker 1: having your credit card stolen is nothing compared to the
Speaker 1: hell you're in for when a thief steals your home's title. Look, folks,
Speaker 1: it's not hard for the bad guys to do this,
Speaker 1: and they go after Americans. Remember, the thieves are all
Speaker 1: over the world. They don't have to be near you.
Speaker 1: They just need internet access. They take you, they find
Speaker 1: your home's title, they replace your name with an alias,
Speaker 1: and then they borrow to the hilt. They use your
Speaker 1: equity for the purpose of securing a loan. They take
Speaker 1: that money, then you get stuck with the loan payments.
Speaker 1: Identity theft monitoring does not protect you. But you know
Speaker 1: what does home title lock for just pennies today at
Speaker 1: home title Lock protects my most viable asset, my family's
Speaker 1: home registered now and you can get a free screening, folks.
Speaker 1: Check it out for yourself, a free analysis. It's a
Speaker 1: hundred dollar value free when you go to a home
Speaker 1: title lock dot com. Again, that's home tidle lock dot
Speaker 1: com to protect your most viable asset, your family's home.
Speaker 1: Check it out. Why do we have to mix football?
Speaker 1: You know, the season just started, it was so much
Speaker 1: this patriotic bulls, you know, the flyovers and the flag
Speaker 1: on the field and the singing and the baseball. It
Speaker 1: has two songs now, like I forgot that they sing
Speaker 1: the national anthem at the beginning of the seventh inning,
Speaker 1: like I forgot what country I'm in? And six endingsland.
Speaker 1: You know, I think it's kind of funny that that
Speaker 1: you're here and now that was obviously Bill Moore, who
Speaker 1: likes to be a little provocative. But you know, if
Speaker 1: things were going a little differently, meaning that if if
Speaker 1: the left had one this one over the anthem, uh,
Speaker 1: then I think they feel very differently about it now.
Speaker 1: They want to either just forget about it, move on
Speaker 1: past it. Because I think that a lot of players
Speaker 1: realized that as much as the NFL is a major
Speaker 1: American sports franchise and as much as it's uh generating
Speaker 1: billions of dollars of revenue, people care more about patriotism
Speaker 1: and respecting the troops than they do about who's going
Speaker 1: to win the next NFL game. And that's true of
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans. Um. And I think that that's
Speaker 1: another you see, it's one of these moments where the
Speaker 1: left it's like, Okay, well, what's with all that stuff? Anyway?
Speaker 1: Who cares? Let's move on to something else. And it's
Speaker 1: because if if push came to shove, they weren't really
Speaker 1: going to to win with this one. This was not good.
Speaker 1: This was not going to be a winning issue for them.
Speaker 1: You know. I also saw over the weekend not that
Speaker 1: not that I'm gonna start talking to you about sports
Speaker 1: a lot. I know it's not really my area. I
Speaker 1: don't sound like somebody who because I don't watch much sports,
Speaker 1: but I I had two things. One is that I
Speaker 1: watched a boxing match with Canela and Triple G because
Speaker 1: my older brother likes boxing, so we had some bro time,
Speaker 1: actual bro time where we watched a boxing match together
Speaker 1: and John, do you know that costs eighty dollars to
Speaker 1: watch that thing on pay per view? Now, I know
Speaker 1: how these fighters get a hundred million dollar pers or whatever. Uh.
Speaker 1: And also they call it a purse. I was found
Speaker 1: that kind of funny. Um. But you know, I I
Speaker 1: watched boxing, and the problem of boxing is if you
Speaker 1: grew up watching the Rocky movies, you're used to people
Speaker 1: just throwing these giant haymakers and just clocking each other
Speaker 1: all the time. And then when you watch an actual
Speaker 1: boxing match, it's so very different. I mean, there's so
Speaker 1: much more. Um. You know, I don't know science to
Speaker 1: its sweet, the sweet science of boxing. I watched some
Speaker 1: boxing over the weekend. That was a reminder of why
Speaker 1: I generally don't watch much boxing. But also some some
Speaker 1: stats came out, some stats came out about the whole
Speaker 1: Serena Williams phenomenon. I'm gonna keep it short on the
Speaker 1: sports stuff today, but I did think it was worth
Speaker 1: noting that there was there was this whole storyline out
Speaker 1: there that Serena Williams, you will recall through it antrum
Speaker 1: and she got into trouble, and of course she she
Speaker 1: said that it was sexist and maybe even racist. That
Speaker 1: was implied. No one said that. But usually when Serena
Speaker 1: Williams gets in trouble, there'll be people who say that
Speaker 1: that it somehow race plays a factor. And I know
Speaker 1: that those who believe in intersectionality in American society, the
Speaker 1: idea that all these different groups are competing and oppressing
Speaker 1: one another and we have to balance that out. That uh,
Speaker 1: race is always a factor. That's what we're told. We're
Speaker 1: told that race is always a factor. So Sir Serena
Speaker 1: Williams lost her her lost her cool and engaged in
Speaker 1: a tantrum of sorts. And you know we we then
Speaker 1: were told that it was because she was a female.
Speaker 1: And you know, she she broke a rackete. I mean,
Speaker 1: she did some bad stuff and she said that a
Speaker 1: man would have gotten away. This became a line a
Speaker 1: man would have gotten away with it. Well, Jason Whitlock,
Speaker 1: who is a sports analyst, that I here's actually pretty thoughtful. Um,
Speaker 1: not that I would know. I don't really know much
Speaker 1: about sports analysts, but he has all the numbers here
Speaker 1: compiled for all fines from the United States Tennis Association
Speaker 1: from eighteen. And who wants to guess whether men or
Speaker 1: women get more fines for unsportsmanlike conduct and bad behavior
Speaker 1: in the court. Anyone to take a guess. Men get
Speaker 1: a much higher number of fines for these things. Racket
Speaker 1: abuse men sixty six women, Audible obscenity men three four
Speaker 1: women a hundred forty. Unsportsmanlike conduct men two seven, women
Speaker 1: sixty seven. Now I bring this up for two reasons.
Speaker 1: One is that it was it was obvious to many
Speaker 1: of us right away that this notion that Serena Williams
Speaker 1: was being penalized for being a woman was preposterous, and
Speaker 1: it was that a man and would get away with it.
Speaker 1: Was just a self justifying and uh, you know, essentially
Speaker 1: get out of jail free card for losing her cool
Speaker 1: because she was getting her butt kicked on that tennis court. Look,
Speaker 1: she's the greatest of all time, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: she's the greatest and when it comes to sportsmanship, and
Speaker 1: she's quite far from that. And she was getting her
Speaker 1: clock claimed on that tennis court and she didn't like it.
Speaker 1: But but you know, you also then look at this
Speaker 1: and and notice that disparate impact is when one group
Speaker 1: claims that they are, even if it's not on a
Speaker 1: specific basis, Even if it's not something that on on
Speaker 1: each individual case is true in the aggregate, a group
Speaker 1: is affected more by something than another, and that there's
Speaker 1: something unjust about that inherently disparate impact would be for example,
Speaker 1: more young black drivers are pulled over on a stretch
Speaker 1: of highway than anybody than anybody else. Well, you could say,
Speaker 1: is there any one incident where a black iver was
Speaker 1: unfairly pulled over? Or is this just the overall number?
Speaker 1: And the answer is disparate impact theory looks at the
Speaker 1: overall number and says, well, there must be bias here. Well,
Speaker 1: if you were to apply that to tennis and to
Speaker 1: women's well too, professional tennis in general, there's a disparate
Speaker 1: impact against men, not against women. But we all know
Speaker 1: that the reality is men, because of testosterone and society
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it, are more likely to
Speaker 1: drop salty language. Not the only ones to do it,
Speaker 1: but they're more likely to do it. They're more likely
Speaker 1: to smash things because men like smash, and so this
Speaker 1: all makes sense to us, right, But when you look
Speaker 1: at the numbers that Serena Williams thing was all alive,
Speaker 1: but now now everyone's kind of moved on from it,
Speaker 1: they forgot I mean, I obviously haven't, because I found
Speaker 1: the whole thing very distasteful, and I thought it was
Speaker 1: really mean that Osaka, who had one our first uh one,
Speaker 1: her first major tournament, had it really stolen from her
Speaker 1: in terms of her moment of glory by Serena Williams tantrum.
Speaker 1: But social justice and the ideology of the left came
Speaker 1: into this, and once again, social justice, what's wrong. There's
Speaker 1: no question that social media can be a pretty gross place.
Speaker 1: You've seen it, I've seen it, But that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that it's always that way. In fact, one of the
Speaker 1: great things about social media is that I can talk
Speaker 1: to many of you. I have a much better way
Speaker 1: to connect with you than I ever would have before.
Speaker 1: And occasionally, just occasionally, there is an opportunity for something
Speaker 1: really fun or coincidental to happen on social media. So
Speaker 1: I had my older brother down in the swamp with
Speaker 1: me down in d C this past weekend, and he,
Speaker 1: among many things, is the co founder of an incredible
Speaker 1: muffin company you can check out if you want to
Speaker 1: check them out and just go to Susie's dot com
Speaker 1: and you'll see they have these gluten free, really good ingredient,
Speaker 1: delicious tasting muffins. But we went to this food show
Speaker 1: where you have all these innovative food brands that show up,
Speaker 1: and it's mainly for people in the industry, but I
Speaker 1: got to try all kinds of stuff. Man, there was
Speaker 1: some amazing Imagine walking around a huge convention center and
Speaker 1: it's just all of the newest and most delicious granola
Speaker 1: bars and jerky and different sweet treats and chocolates and
Speaker 1: all kind I mean, it was just everything was there.
Speaker 1: I mean they had so much uh delicious food, I
Speaker 1: mean really snacks, but delicious food that they were handing
Speaker 1: out to people. So we're hanging out. My my brother
Speaker 1: mentioned something to me because he said, I forget even
Speaker 1: how it came up, but I said something like, you know,
Speaker 1: James Woods of Twitter accounts really funny. You should follow it.
Speaker 1: You know, he's he's really sharp guy. And my brother
Speaker 1: told me, and I didn't realize this at the time, well,
Speaker 1: you know, James Woods was friends with grandma, with our grandmother,
Speaker 1: And I said, what do you what do you mean?
Speaker 1: James Woods was friends with our grandmother. I didn't. I
Speaker 1: didn't know that, and it seemed like pretty rare and
Speaker 1: him thing to find out. And he said, yeah, I
Speaker 1: know a long time ago when when my grandmother was
Speaker 1: a uh an actress, not really professionally, but did did
Speaker 1: a fair amount of a theater here and there. And
Speaker 1: I think she did do some paid work. I know
Speaker 1: she had been a commercial model. But my grandmother was
Speaker 1: in a play and she was quite a bit older
Speaker 1: than James Woods. He was just starting out his career
Speaker 1: and they got along very well, and she thought very
Speaker 1: highly of him. And you know, they worked together on
Speaker 1: this play for a whole season or whatever you call it,
Speaker 1: when the play goes on. So James Woods tweeted something
Speaker 1: at me last night, and I figured, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna give this a go. I'm wondering if
Speaker 1: this family lore is true. So I responded to him
Speaker 1: as an aside, my mother recently told me that you
Speaker 1: were acquainted with my dearly departed grandmother Jean, a wonderful
Speaker 1: and elegant woman. I believe you did a play with
Speaker 1: her many years ago. I wanted to tell you that
Speaker 1: Grandma Jean thought of you as brilliant, funny and talented. Well.
Speaker 1: James Woods soon thereafter responded, I always said Jean was
Speaker 1: the best judge of character. Seriously, Jean was a lovely woman.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry she is no longer with us, Buck, but
Speaker 1: I guarantee she enriched the lives of all she knew.
Speaker 1: She made mine better in the early starving actor days
Speaker 1: for sure. Now, that was a really nice little message
Speaker 1: from James Woods. I have to say, I've always thought
Speaker 1: he was a good actor, and I know he's also
Speaker 1: obviously a good guy. And it's just so funny. What
Speaker 1: a small world that my grandmother many many years ago
Speaker 1: would have been acting in a play with James Woods.
Speaker 1: And then without either of us ever knowing, we're interacting
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and turns out that we have this connection
Speaker 1: and he totally remembers her. So I thought that was
Speaker 1: kind of fun. You know, occasionally social media is not
Speaker 1: the terrible cesspool of the worst of humanity. Occasionally there's
Speaker 1: something that comes from it that's a kind of fun
Speaker 1: and nice, other than talking to all of you, which
Speaker 1: is always fun and nice. That's why always say use
Speaker 1: the roll call for Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Grandma Jeans was amazing. Many of you listening to this
Speaker 1: would have really liked her. She was a devout Catholic,
Speaker 1: but she was really into the theater. Obviously she did
Speaker 1: this play with James Woods. She was into ballroom dancing.
Speaker 1: She would tell us to listen. She was a big
Speaker 1: proponent of listening to the music, kind of that music
Speaker 1: from the you know, the thirties and the forties. Um,
Speaker 1: so you know, I think you you know Frank Sinatra
Speaker 1: and all that. She's she was truly one of a kind,
Speaker 1: an elegant woman, and she's very much missed. She was
Speaker 1: a throwback to another era and all in all the
Speaker 1: best ways. And I just thought it was so funny
Speaker 1: that James Woods and her knew each other. So anyway,
Speaker 1: it was nice, and I appreciated James being so so
Speaker 1: gallant and uh and friendly about the whole thing. We
Speaker 1: We have roll call, which is going to become up
Speaker 1: here in just a moment, team, so get ready for that.
Speaker 1: You know. That's always that's always exciting stuff. And I
Speaker 1: get to hear from all of you, So that's coming up.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Ain't no party like a Team Buck party,
Speaker 1: Because a Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got
Speaker 1: bucks turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Alright,
Speaker 1: roll call time. Let's see what we got here. First, up,
Speaker 1: and if you want to be a part Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash Buck Sexton, very easy way to reach out
Speaker 1: to me and the rest of the team. We have
Speaker 1: Darby up first, our brother Darby, he writes, and had
Speaker 1: a feeling I wasn't alone on the whistling. Thank you, Buck,
Speaker 1: and thank you the rest of the freedom hunt that
Speaker 1: suffer along with me. By the way, I bought some
Speaker 1: E O D Fudge today as soon as I heard
Speaker 1: Aaron and michaela on your show. They're both American heroes,
Speaker 1: Shields High Well Derby. I'm sure that fudge is gonna
Speaker 1: taste extra delicious. So thank you so much for checking
Speaker 1: it out and always good to hear from you, Ted writes.
Speaker 1: Buck Kavanaugh's mistake was his unequivocal denial. Heck, I was
Speaker 1: once stumbling drunk in high school. I can't remember much else.
Speaker 1: That is what Kavanaugh should have said, because it would
Speaker 1: have given him a necessary measure of believability. These carte
Speaker 1: blanche carte blanche denials that suspects issue are too cute
Speaker 1: by half. Well, Ted, I gotta say I disagree with
Speaker 1: you on this one, because if he said that he
Speaker 1: didn't remember anything, uh, then he would in fact be
Speaker 1: in in much worse shape. Uh. So that's that's I
Speaker 1: think what you you need to keep in mind here.
Speaker 1: I mean, if if he had said I don't know
Speaker 1: what happened, then whatever the accusers has happened is the
Speaker 1: only record of what happened. So I don't think that.
Speaker 1: I don't think on this when your advice would be
Speaker 1: a good idea for Kavanaugh. Uh, Paul, Right, Why is
Speaker 1: no one criticizing Cortes for woman splaining in a three
Speaker 1: thousand dollar outfit while trying to relate to economically disaffected people, Paul,
Speaker 1: Some people did criticize her for that, and she this
Speaker 1: is about Occasio. Alexandra Ocasio Cortes. People did criticize her,
Speaker 1: and then in response to all of this, she said
Speaker 1: that she did not get to keep the clothing. It
Speaker 1: was part of a photo shoot, so she felt that
Speaker 1: criticism was unfair. Um. I prefer to focus on her
Speaker 1: policy instead of her fashion choices, because her policy is
Speaker 1: uh humorous enough for for for my money without having
Speaker 1: to get into any discussion of how she chooses to
Speaker 1: dress herself or what she wears. But I appreciate hearing
Speaker 1: from you, Paul, Uh, Ralph, right here we go. Uh.
Speaker 1: This post was removed by Facebook. I am repeating it.
Speaker 1: Um I am. If it is again removed, I will
Speaker 1: verify social media political agenda bias f y I, boys
Speaker 1: and girls. I am a conservative Republican and support Donald
Speaker 1: Trump an percent. I vote straight ticket. I'm also an
Speaker 1: avid hunter and owned many guns. I harvest and eat
Speaker 1: wild game. I support the n r A. I don't
Speaker 1: think I am special. I support your right to do
Speaker 1: legally as you choose. I all support your right to
Speaker 1: speak freely. However, if you okay, if you choose to
Speaker 1: express your opinion of my way of being with insults,
Speaker 1: I support my right to block you. Okay, Ralph, thanks
Speaker 1: for the update. Good to talk to you, Carol writes.
Speaker 1: I'm a fan. You asked well, Carol, I'm a fan.
Speaker 1: Thank you for writting, and you asked for a series
Speaker 1: to watch. Try Bosh on Amazon, fauda in Israeli series,
Speaker 1: and border Town, a finished series on Netflix. Try Deep
Speaker 1: State and Berlin Station on Epic, and try Borrigan on MHz.
Speaker 1: Based on listening to you, I think you'd like all
Speaker 1: of them. Wow, a lot of a lot of foreign stuff.
Speaker 1: Danish suite, s BR Spigen. I'll have to check out
Speaker 1: and the finished series too, that'll be interesting. I tried
Speaker 1: an episode of Berlin Station and I liked it, so
Speaker 1: I should go back and give it a second shot.
Speaker 1: I think I thought it was pretty good. Michael writes,
Speaker 1: listen to some of Obama speeches. He can't miss it.
Speaker 1: His lisp especially noticeable when he's lying using some of
Speaker 1: his strong man arguments, are trying to sound legit. It's
Speaker 1: clear as a bell um. Alright, Michael, Well, I will
Speaker 1: go back and listen to some of his I've never
Speaker 1: picked that up. I don't know what's wrong with me.
Speaker 1: I just somehow it just didn't just didn't happen for me.
Speaker 1: Never heard it, Jim Rights, roll call, Sorry, Jack, Ryan
Speaker 1: is a waste of time, terrible production from makeup to
Speaker 1: the acting. Not sure what you saw in it either
Speaker 1: than a reflection of your awesome life. Maybe we are
Speaker 1: spoiled with the high quality of Netflix and HBO, etcetera. Amazon.
Speaker 1: Amazon looks like they got new HD cameras like back
Speaker 1: in the early two thousand's. I quit after the first one,
Speaker 1: but watched two more because you spoke highly of it.
Speaker 1: From what I saw, they were trending towards sympathizing with
Speaker 1: Muslim extremists. Shields High. You know, Jim, I think you, buddy, Buddy,
Speaker 1: I think you bailed a little early on this one.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to the production value part of it,
Speaker 1: although Amazon is one of the wealthiest companies in the world,
Speaker 1: so I feel like they can probably pay for whatever
Speaker 1: they want to pay when it comes to their series.
Speaker 1: But maybe in this one they got a little a
Speaker 1: little tight fisted. I don't know. But as for sympathizing
Speaker 1: with Muslim extremists, look, the show has the bad guys
Speaker 1: as actual gee hottests and doesn't do the whole Oh
Speaker 1: they're ge hottest, but they're actually they're actually being run
Speaker 1: by a Blackwater like organization of Americans, you know, some
Speaker 1: nonsense like that. So the bad guys are g hottests,
Speaker 1: and I that doesn't change from what I can gather.
Speaker 1: So I think it's pretty good, my friend. I don't know.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Look,
Speaker 1: there's some stuff that's ridiculous, I've but it's a TV show.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be that guy who sits around.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, you know, it's not the most realistic
Speaker 1: thing I've ever seen. I mean, there's some things here
Speaker 1: and things here aren't exactly realistic, and I just think,
Speaker 1: you know, it should be more realistic. That's not fun
Speaker 1: for anybody. Sorry, But by guys, by the way, about
Speaker 1: my voice that I had a cold over the weekend,
Speaker 1: so I woke up with a cold on Sunday, Allen writes, Buck,
Speaker 1: totally enjoy your take on current affairs. I wonder if
Speaker 1: you think that c Ford would have come out with
Speaker 1: her accusation if the nominee for Supreme Court was a
Speaker 1: choice of the Democrats instead of Republicans. This is separate
Speaker 1: from whether the accusation is true or not. Perhaps some
Speaker 1: bias on her part. Regarding this, Alan, I think it's
Speaker 1: a political hit. I've been very clear about that. If
Speaker 1: there's new evidence, I'll change my mind if I think
Speaker 1: that that's required. I mean, if I think that that's
Speaker 1: where the facts lead us. But I think this is
Speaker 1: a political hit, pure and simple. I do not I
Speaker 1: do not believe this woman. I do I do not
Speaker 1: believe her, so that that's not to say that I
Speaker 1: would never believe her, but based on what I've been
Speaker 1: told so far, and I would just know, there's no
Speaker 1: point in telling me old buck if to wait. There's
Speaker 1: no process, but I'll hear her testimony. Sure, that's but
Speaker 1: that's in a sense going with your gut feeling as well,
Speaker 1: because there's no official process, there's no not gonna be
Speaker 1: adjudication of what happened there. And I don't believe her.
Speaker 1: I think that it's a little to the whole thing's
Speaker 1: a little too convenient. The timing is a little too convenient,
Speaker 1: the nature the allegation when it was released that she
Speaker 1: took a polygraph before she didn't want it to come out,
Speaker 1: but she had already polygraphed herself. The whole thing feels
Speaker 1: a little just it's it's too too much of a coincidence,
Speaker 1: and I'm not I'm not buying it. Also, doesn't remember
Speaker 1: the house. I'm sorry. I can't remember any time in
Speaker 1: my life where something important happened in a in a
Speaker 1: location and I have no idea what the location was,
Speaker 1: so I I have a very tough time with that too,
Speaker 1: because keep in mind, folks, if she if she could
Speaker 1: tell you what the house was or what time of
Speaker 1: year was she maybe, you know, if she is a fabricator,
Speaker 1: what if Kavanaugh was out, you know, at the beach
Speaker 1: with his family. What if you could prove that he
Speaker 1: was away by saying it was at a party. And
Speaker 1: you know, how is he supposed to be able to
Speaker 1: fight back against that she can't tell him where it
Speaker 1: was or when it was. That's quite an allegation. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, another one here, James retz Buck, I'm shocked
Speaker 1: that you've never noticed that annoying Obama whistle. I almost
Speaker 1: feel bad for you, because now that you've been made
Speaker 1: aware of it, you'll have to suffer with it like
Speaker 1: the rest of us. Thank God he's no longer president,
Speaker 1: so hopefully we won't have to suffer much more of it.
Speaker 1: Shields high Man, James, I gotta go. You guys are
Speaker 1: gonna really do this to me. You're really gonna do
Speaker 1: this to me. You're gonna make me go back and
Speaker 1: listen to some Obama speeches. That's what has to happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, team, I'll do it. I'll do it for you,
Speaker 1: but I'm gonna to go back and listen to a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of Obama. That's uh, that's that, Jim right.
Speaker 1: Daniel Patrick moynihan was a senator from New York, not
Speaker 1: New Jersey. Shrillery held his former seat. Now it's Jill
Speaker 1: a brand pretty stinky seat. I have some deep dive
Speaker 1: info about moynihan if you're interested. Oh, Jim, thanks for
Speaker 1: the correction, Thanks for the heads up. Good to hear
Speaker 1: from you. Uh run rights. Hold on a second, where
Speaker 1: whoa hey buck and joined the new show is always?
Speaker 1: I had two quick notes like you. I found my
Speaker 1: public speaking class to be one of my most valuable courses,
Speaker 1: but it almost got me arrested. Wow. N seven my
Speaker 1: senior year in high school. Our assignment was to speak
Speaker 1: on a controversial topic. I took it a heart and
Speaker 1: proposed legalizing pot. Never used it, but part of my
Speaker 1: premise was that it's a gateway. It's gateway properties were
Speaker 1: at least due in part where he had to buy
Speaker 1: it um. Before I got to my next class, I
Speaker 1: was hustled off the school security office. They interpreted my
Speaker 1: familiarity with the subject matter to mean I was a
Speaker 1: user and at worst a dealer. Wow. Second topic the
Speaker 1: attempt by Kamala Harris to smear Brett Kavanaugh by leaving
Speaker 1: out the they said part of his story regarding birth
Speaker 1: control is just like the lie that is still on
Speaker 1: President Bush regarding yellow cake uranium. And if if if
Speaker 1: not fake news, then at least fake reporting and part
Speaker 1: of why the media has deserved the mistrust shields iron.
Speaker 1: All right, Ron, thanks for writting in my friend. Good
Speaker 1: to hear from you, Max, Right, is this where listeners
Speaker 1: submit roll call messages? Well, Max, your question made it
Speaker 1: under roll call and I just wrote back to you. Yes,
Speaker 1: it is where people put roll call messages. Randall writes, Buck,
Speaker 1: I heard you on radio tonight, dream by commute at
Speaker 1: home and always it makes my drive more tolerable, tolerable
Speaker 1: here in southern California. You asked about Netflix recommended series
Speaker 1: are several that I like her Altered Carbon Slasher, Mine Hunter,
Speaker 1: and on Amazon, I like Eureka, Grim, Hannibal, The First American, Lafayette,
Speaker 1: The Lost Hero, Bosh, John Adams, burn Note is Evil
Speaker 1: Dead and Army of Darkness, and Ash Versus The Evil
Speaker 1: Dead series on Showtime Billions is very good and last
Speaker 1: man Standing. Randall, you are a fault of information when
Speaker 1: it comes to series on TV. My friend, thank you
Speaker 1: for writing in I'm not to take notes on some
Speaker 1: of this um and uh. Also, former Navy veteran and
Speaker 1: Black Rifle coffee drinker and Strike Force energy user Randall,
Speaker 1: you are a superstar Team buck member. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Shields Hie to you as always as well. Team. That's
Speaker 1: it for today in the hut, I'm gonna try to
Speaker 1: drink some throat coat tea and get myself back in
Speaker 1: action for tomorrow. Please do a share word of this podcast,
Speaker 1: spread it far and wide. I'm excited to be with
Speaker 1: you as always, Shields High Snippy dot com folks, if
Speaker 1: you heard of it yet, you should because if you're
Speaker 1: tired of all of these left wing moderators and shadow
Speaker 1: banning and all the stuff that's going on now to
Speaker 1: suppress conservative thought in social media, and you know what's happening,
Speaker 1: all right, this is a real thing that's going on
Speaker 1: all the time. If you're sick of all that nonsense
Speaker 1: and you just want to be able to have a
Speaker 1: place where you can share your thoughts, connect with other
Speaker 1: conservatives or does anybody for that matter, and talk without
Speaker 1: fear of political bias or agenda. Snippy dot com is
Speaker 1: a new, up and coming social media site where you
Speaker 1: can post, you can follow writers, you can just get
Speaker 1: going with the conversation. It's totally free and there's no agenda,
Speaker 1: no left wing moderators, no conversational health, none of that stuff.
Speaker 1: Go to snippy dot com. I've got on a out.
Speaker 1: You should too. Snippy dot com totally free to join,
Speaker 1: or you can try the snippy dot com app and
Speaker 1: get the conversation going.