Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The day after the
Speaker 1: Muller meltdown on Capitol Hill. That Democrats are spinning like
Speaker 1: the madmen and mad women they are. They're still thinking
Speaker 1: maybe they're going to impeach. This is crazy town, folks,
Speaker 1: It's the swamp. We'll talk about that and much more
Speaker 1: coming up on the buck Sexton Show. This is the
Speaker 1: bus Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, Americana,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, The buck Sexton Show begins analyst,
Speaker 1: he's a great guy. No, So, we had a very
Speaker 1: good day today the Republican Party, our country. There was
Speaker 1: no defense of what Robert Mueller was trying to defend.
Speaker 1: An all fairness, Sir Robert Mueller, whether his performance was
Speaker 1: a bad one or a good one. There's no defense
Speaker 1: to this ridiculous hoax, this witch hunt that's been going
Speaker 1: on pretty much from the time I came down on
Speaker 1: the escalator with our first lady. It said disgrace what happened.
Speaker 1: But I think today proved a lot to everybody. In fact,
Speaker 1: some of my biggest opponents wrote things today that I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have believed they would have written, and I appreciate
Speaker 1: that they did that. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: President Trump taking a little bit of a victory lap,
Speaker 1: some bit of a victory dance, certainly merited yesterday after
Speaker 1: we learned that the biggest single takeaway, which is that
Speaker 1: Mueller was a figurehead, that this was all a cover,
Speaker 1: It was a front for a highly highly partisan Get
Speaker 1: Trump operation to be hidden behind this man's esteemed public career.
Speaker 1: But I knew it was. I knew it was all
Speaker 1: smoking mirrors because they said the same thing about Comy
Speaker 1: and Comey is a total jerk, Comey is a comiist,
Speaker 1: and Mueller was just just there to provide a shield
Speaker 1: against criticism and make this thing look like it wasn't
Speaker 1: that dirty, you know, this was this was just you know,
Speaker 1: when you're in the kitchen and if you're feeling really lazy,
Speaker 1: you instead of sweeping, you just kick everything under the
Speaker 1: under the stove and the fridge. I mean not that
Speaker 1: any of you do that, but that's that's basically what
Speaker 1: Mueller's job was, just make it seem like things were
Speaker 1: okay when you're really just moving all the dirt around,
Speaker 1: making sure nobody sees it. You'd think that after yesterday,
Speaker 1: Democrats would at least take a day or two off.
Speaker 1: You don't, probably move to their other favorite their other
Speaker 1: favorite pastimes, like just trashing America. Why don't Democrats just
Speaker 1: do that for a day too. You know, let the
Speaker 1: stench of the of the stink bomb that Muller dropped
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill waffed away, and you know, let AOC
Speaker 1: explain to Americans how much he hates America. We've strathed
Speaker 1: so far away from what has really made us powerful
Speaker 1: and just and good and equitable and productive. And so
Speaker 1: I think all of these things sound radical compared to
Speaker 1: where we are. But where we are is not a
Speaker 1: good thing. And this idea of like ten percent better
Speaker 1: from garbage is shouldn't be what we settle for. Ten
Speaker 1: percent better as America from from garbage. Huh. Made It's
Speaker 1: so weird why people who aren't anti American radicals feel
Speaker 1: a little uncomfortable with the left wing Democratic Party today.
Speaker 1: It's it's so weird, is it? Where do we get
Speaker 1: these ideas that maybe they don't like America so much,
Speaker 1: maybe they maybe they've got some problems with this. I mean,
Speaker 1: they want to control it. They want to pillage it,
Speaker 1: they want to pill for it. They want to be
Speaker 1: in power. But that's not the same thing as liking.
Speaker 1: You know, you don't necessarily if you are brought in
Speaker 1: to run a company and you think the company has
Speaker 1: been run like crap and you want to fire everybody
Speaker 1: and you want to change how it does business and
Speaker 1: you want to you know, do you love the company
Speaker 1: that you're taking over. No, but you might still want
Speaker 1: to do that because that's how Democrats have view America.
Speaker 1: They think we're a failing corporation, even though they don't
Speaker 1: understand corporations, and they kind of hate corporations except for
Speaker 1: them huge ones that give them a lot of money.
Speaker 1: So there's this whole cognitive dissonance. Right, Democrats hate big
Speaker 1: business except for like Google, right, and ge and NBC.
Speaker 1: But no, no, they're not going to switch to AOC
Speaker 1: dominating the news cycle again with how much she hates
Speaker 1: America or ilhan Omar saying, as she said, I played
Speaker 1: the audio for you yesterday, we need to be more
Speaker 1: scared of white men. That that's what she was saying.
Speaker 1: I'm not making it up. Sitting Member of Congress on
Speaker 1: the Foreign Relations on the Foreign Relations coming the House.
Speaker 1: Democrats will go to the mat to defend every stupid
Speaker 1: anti Semitic utterance she makes. In this case, it seemed
Speaker 1: to be an anti anti white male utterance. And no, no,
Speaker 1: Democrats are still trying to do the whole Oh no,
Speaker 1: we won thing from yesterday. We got what we needed
Speaker 1: to get out of that to move on to impeachment.
Speaker 1: This is this is where I start to wonder how
Speaker 1: much longer we have in this country, or we can
Speaker 1: actually all live in the same country together, Like we
Speaker 1: might have to consciously uncouple from Democrats if they stay
Speaker 1: with this, like we'll divide up the country in half
Speaker 1: or something. They can have their half, we'll have our half,
Speaker 1: and they can you know, they can turn their half
Speaker 1: of the country into you know, the streets of San
Speaker 1: Francisco right now, with you know, the poop patrols and
Speaker 1: the needles everywhere and all this other stuff. They can
Speaker 1: run it, all right, they can run They're part of
Speaker 1: the country. That way we'll run. We'll run a country
Speaker 1: where you have rule of law, contracts are enforced, individual
Speaker 1: responsibility is still expected. Um. But no, no, they they
Speaker 1: still think that they got pretty close to what they
Speaker 1: need for impeachment, at least some of them do. And
Speaker 1: I sit here and I just wonder how much worse
Speaker 1: could it have gone. What you realize is that they
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what happened yesterday. Bob Muller could have stood
Speaker 1: up and said, I was I was totally used in
Speaker 1: this process. I knew Trump didn't collude. Within the first
Speaker 1: month of taking this job. I was, you know, told
Speaker 1: to go fly fish, while they would just use my
Speaker 1: name as a battering ram against anyone who tried to
Speaker 1: criticize what was going on. And I think what's been
Speaker 1: done to the president is unfair and this never should
Speaker 1: have happened. If Muller had said all of that, I
Speaker 1: assure you. I assure you, Adam Schiff would still be
Speaker 1: running around talking about impeachment. Twenty is unquestionably the only
Speaker 1: way he gets removed from office, So we can never
Speaker 1: lose sight of that. I have tried to put the
Speaker 1: political question out of my head, that is, does an
Speaker 1: impeachment help us in twenty twenty or does it hurt
Speaker 1: us politically? Because I don't think it's the right question
Speaker 1: to ask. But we do need to be realistic, and
Speaker 1: that is the only way he's leaving office, at least
Speaker 1: at this point is by being voted out. And I
Speaker 1: think our efforts need to be made in every respect
Speaker 1: to make sure we turn out our people. But on
Speaker 1: the policy question, what's the best thing, what's the right
Speaker 1: thing for the country. Should we put the country through
Speaker 1: an impeachment? I haven't been convinced yet that we should.
Speaker 1: And going through that kind of momentous and disruptive experience
Speaker 1: for the country I think is not something we go
Speaker 1: into lightly. But he hasn't been convinced that we shouldn't.
Speaker 1: You notice the door is still open. I mean that
Speaker 1: is such a shifty shift. You know, Well, clearly, the
Speaker 1: only way that Donald Trump is not going to be
Speaker 1: president at this point is going to be if he
Speaker 1: if he is elected out office. That's not shift being reasonable.
Speaker 1: That's just him recognizing that Republicans have a majority in
Speaker 1: the Senate. Folks. He's not saying, oh, you know, well,
Speaker 1: this is a very reasonable position. I'm thinking he's trying
Speaker 1: to make it sound like he's being reasonable. Well, let's
Speaker 1: let's be adults here. I mean, the only way is
Speaker 1: is he's going to get removed from office. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: because of Republicans having a majority in the Senate and
Speaker 1: they would need two thirds to remove him from office anyway,
Speaker 1: which is never gonna happen. Meanwhile, he goes, oh, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure about the impeachment or whether we impeachment is
Speaker 1: not about what it would do for our political fortunes.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, he's presenting, it's really about whether it's
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. Okay, Well, they've been saying
Speaker 1: to the president, committed treason. He's basically hitler. He's running
Speaker 1: concentration camp. So if it's about right and wrong and
Speaker 1: he's really wrong, don't you impeach him? You know what
Speaker 1: else do you need to know? They're they're just they
Speaker 1: don't have the courage of their crazy convictions. They're not
Speaker 1: even sure what they want to do, but they want
Speaker 1: you to believe that it's not all a cynical political calculation.
Speaker 1: It's about what's right. I mean, these people are this
Speaker 1: is bonkers. This is bonkers. Oh, let's hear from a
Speaker 1: Is it really is Andy McCabe winning this one, lying
Speaker 1: under oath to his own FBI McCabe leaking and then
Speaker 1: yelling at people pretending that they leaked when he's their
Speaker 1: boss at the FBI. That is it that Andy McCabe
Speaker 1: here we're talking about. Is it a different Andrew McCabe.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Let's let's hear from him. It's at
Speaker 1: the very beginnings of this invest instigation, we confronted some
Speaker 1: very hard choices, choices that we knew would have negative
Speaker 1: repercussions on our organization and on us personally, and we
Speaker 1: made those choices anyway because it was our job and
Speaker 1: our duty to do so. I feel strongly that that's
Speaker 1: the same position Congresses in now, and they should step
Speaker 1: up to the plate and do their job. It doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that the president will be removed from office, or
Speaker 1: should be removed from office, or will be impeached, but
Speaker 1: it is absolutely clear to me that the time has
Speaker 1: come for Congress to pursue a dedicated impeachment inquiry. I
Speaker 1: think it would solidify their position legally as they begin
Speaker 1: the process of going into court to fight over access
Speaker 1: to witnesses, and it would provide a more coordinated and
Speaker 1: coherent approach to having other witnesses come in and testify. Oh, okay,
Speaker 1: an impeachment inquiry now, by the way I want. And
Speaker 1: that was acting FBI director now disgraced and fired acting
Speaker 1: former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. I want in Andrew
Speaker 1: McCabe lying under oroath inquiry? Where's that? I want a
Speaker 1: felony commission while in the employee of the FBI inquiry
Speaker 1: about Annie McCabe, the guy remember who had struck in
Speaker 1: page in his office talking about the insurance policy. That's
Speaker 1: the same guy, Folks. Do we ever get to find
Speaker 1: out more about that or do we just get to
Speaker 1: find out if he's above the law? We always here,
Speaker 1: Oh Trump's not above the law? Is Annie McCabe above
Speaker 1: the law because he lied under growth? Which how many
Speaker 1: people in the much touted list of prosecutions that Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi was putting up yesterday for everybody to see, how
Speaker 1: many of them were caught for We're nailed for lying
Speaker 1: under oath or maybe just misremembering, or maybe not even lying.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't believe a General Flynt intentionally lied
Speaker 1: about anything. I've gone over this one hundred times with
Speaker 1: a lot of people, including people who have talked to
Speaker 1: one of the FBI agents who was in the room,
Speaker 1: and I do not believe it General Flynt and actually
Speaker 1: lied about anything. I think that they tripped him up.
Speaker 1: I think that he might have forgotten what he said,
Speaker 1: or he you know, you know, he's talking to people
Speaker 1: all the time, and who knows. But you know, if
Speaker 1: you're Hillary Clinton, you can you can delete emails under
Speaker 1: subpoena and they don't treat that as destruction of evidence.
Speaker 1: If you are General Flynn, you forget about a completely
Speaker 1: legal and legitimate conversation you're having with an ambassador. And
Speaker 1: Sally Yates, that evil little partisan hack from the DOJ
Speaker 1: trot's out something. Maybe he violated the Logan Act theory
Speaker 1: so they could send over I mean, the whole it's
Speaker 1: all so dirty, folks. These people are horrifying, horrifying the
Speaker 1: way they've abused their power, abused everything because they because
Speaker 1: Trump is such a threat to them. He's not really
Speaker 1: a threat to the country. He's a threat to the
Speaker 1: people that you have seen this process, whether it's McCabe
Speaker 1: or the Democrats or the media, their sense of how
Speaker 1: important they are, of how meaningful what they do day
Speaker 1: in and day out, is, of their world view, of
Speaker 1: their approach to things, of their virtue. Trump is a
Speaker 1: threat to all of that, and that's why they're so
Speaker 1: hysterical about all this, and this is why you've seen
Speaker 1: them just living in this fantasy, this alternate reality where
Speaker 1: they can come up after what we saw yesterday, which
Speaker 1: was a complete debacle for those who believe that the
Speaker 1: president was, you know, going to be shown to have
Speaker 1: been a horrible lawbreaker and this was gonna start off
Speaker 1: impeachment a total debacle. And yet they're still coming out
Speaker 1: of it saying, oh no, we we got what you know,
Speaker 1: we got what we wanted. Oh my god, now let's
Speaker 1: go to the impeachment inquiry. Like Democrats are a guy
Speaker 1: that just has no grounds to sue you, but it'll
Speaker 1: just keep filing frivolous lawsuits to sue you and sue
Speaker 1: you and sue you and just harass you. I mean,
Speaker 1: Democrats have turned into Trump stalkers. If you have anything
Speaker 1: to do with Trump, his family or the administration, they're
Speaker 1: gonna drag you. They're gonna send you subpoenas, They're gonna
Speaker 1: drag in front of Congress. They're just gonna harass its harassment.
Speaker 1: It is harassment. There's no good faith, there's no decency,
Speaker 1: there's no ethics. These people are a bunch of hysterical
Speaker 1: nincome poops and instead of feeling a little ashamed after
Speaker 1: what we saw yesterday, they're emboldened in some cases today,
Speaker 1: which is just wow. Doubling down on the crazy weem
Speaker 1: we have more. We're gonna have my friend Annie McCarthy
Speaker 1: join us later on. I haven't I wanted to get
Speaker 1: some of my favorite voices on this top again. So
Speaker 1: later on the show, probably closer toward the end of
Speaker 1: the show of Annie McCarthy, will have Sean Davis, also
Speaker 1: from the Federalists joining. He's been I mean, I've been
Speaker 1: spitting some fire on Twitter. I need more of you
Speaker 1: on Twitter. Darn it. I need more Team Buck to
Speaker 1: actually have Twitter accounts. But I've been spitting fire on Twitter.
Speaker 1: You should check that out. And h man, we have
Speaker 1: so much show, stay with me. Is it true? The
Speaker 1: evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the
Speaker 1: president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian
Speaker 1: election interference, as stated in Volume one, page seven, we
Speaker 1: found insufficient evidence of the president's called culpability, So that
Speaker 1: would be a yes without partner, that would be a yes, yes,
Speaker 1: thank you. Isn't it true? The evidence did not establish
Speaker 1: that the president or those closed him were involved in
Speaker 1: the charge Russian computer hacking or active measure of conspiracies,
Speaker 1: or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any
Speaker 1: Russian official, Volume two, page seventy six. Correct. I leave
Speaker 1: the answer to the report, so yes, is that any
Speaker 1: true Your investigation did not establish the Trump campaign conspired
Speaker 1: or coordinated with Russian government and the election interference activity.
Speaker 1: Volume one, page two, Volume one, page one seventy three.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Yes, yes, thank you. Couldn't prove it, can't
Speaker 1: prove it. And given the attention, the resources, the time
Speaker 1: spent on trying to prove, including particularly stretched theories of
Speaker 1: the law to get us there, still couldn't prove it,
Speaker 1: still couldn't come up with Trump actually worked with the Russians. Well,
Speaker 1: part of this has been what I've been saying along,
Speaker 1: which is this was not even a good idea, It's
Speaker 1: not even a good plot. If Trump were willing to
Speaker 1: do that, it wouldn't make any sense to do it.
Speaker 1: And yet here we are being told that nothing, nothing,
Speaker 1: can ever make this stain against administration go away. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got Chris Coon's running around saying that this is
Speaker 1: not a hoax of course not, of course, not Congressman Coons.
Speaker 1: I do think an important part of Muller's testimony was
Speaker 1: that he detailed a number of ways in which the
Speaker 1: President and his senior team attempted to interfere with the investigation.
Speaker 1: I don't believe it was a hoax or a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: I think it was an important and appropriate investigation, and
Speaker 1: I think the fact that Special Counsel Muller was able
Speaker 1: to complete his investigation is something we all should be
Speaker 1: proud of. Oh yeah, after yesterday, we should all be
Speaker 1: real proud of what happened here. I don't know how they.
Speaker 1: I don't know how these people go on TV and
Speaker 1: say these things and just don't feel like complete idiots
Speaker 1: all these different I mean the Democrats yesterday. First of all,
Speaker 1: why does Nadler I mean not that I'm some some
Speaker 1: fashion plate or or fashion critic. Why does Nadler walk
Speaker 1: around with his pants up to like his like the
Speaker 1: middle of his chest? Am I the only one who's
Speaker 1: I just noticed this yesterday? I've heard of the people
Speaker 1: talking about this. It seems like a strange anyway, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, but I'm just Nadler seems like a weird dude, yea.
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Cummings and Chiff I guess they're willing to
Speaker 1: say anything that makes their rapidly anti Trump constituencies feel
Speaker 1: like it's all gonna be okay, Orange Man Bad. Don't worry.
Speaker 1: These beliefs that you that you have been indoctrinated with
Speaker 1: over the course of the last two plus years. It's
Speaker 1: not indicative of a weak mind or an emotionally fragile person.
Speaker 1: Trump really is the worst thing since Hitler in the universe,
Speaker 1: according to Lips. I mean, they don't move away from
Speaker 1: this that you cannot unconvince them of this, and Pelosi
Speaker 1: and the rest of them have no interest in bringing
Speaker 1: the truth out here. So this is where we're up against. Folks. Oh,
Speaker 1: we've got more. And I'm not saying they have to
Speaker 1: conclude that impeachment is JUSTIFI, but commencing and impeachment proceeding
Speaker 1: is what the Justice Department thought this report would elicit
Speaker 1: that they were expecting to have to turn over grand
Speaker 1: jury evidence, to have to turn over underlying ever, in
Speaker 1: the course of an impeachment proceeding being commenced. And I
Speaker 1: think that if Donald Trump is reelected and in the
Speaker 1: second term, maybe a reporter ends up in jail. Maybe
Speaker 1: one of those investigators being investigated for the third time
Speaker 1: now ends up in jail. I think that every Democrat
Speaker 1: that blinked when this document came out will have some
Speaker 1: explain Engineer Muller, what what is MSNB season, Nicole Wallace,
Speaker 1: what is she talking about? It doesn't even make sense. No,
Speaker 1: I think that what a reporter is arrested and from
Speaker 1: second term and the thing in the what reporters arriving?
Speaker 1: If you were to talking about arresting reporters. You know
Speaker 1: who was really scary on that front. Barack Obama. You know,
Speaker 1: he used the Espionge Act more than every president before him,
Speaker 1: combined Barack Obama's Department of Justice HM who listed a
Speaker 1: Fox News reporter as an unindicted co conspirator in an
Speaker 1: espionage case. Barack Obama, you know, I just oh, but
Speaker 1: but there, You know, I think Jake Tapper asked him
Speaker 1: a hard question once about this one, so that that
Speaker 1: then balances it all out. Oh yeah, they took Obama
Speaker 1: to task. They were outraged. There was a There was
Speaker 1: a sternly worded editorial one The New York Times about
Speaker 1: how Obama was a true threat to press freedom. But
Speaker 1: you know, they forgot about that after a day. It
Speaker 1: wasn't that sternly worded. Trump is going to jail. A
Speaker 1: reporter is whining about the Muller report. It just she
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. Well, one thing that, you know,
Speaker 1: I've got a couple of New York though. I'm here
Speaker 1: in New York City, decks my dad's birthday. Happy birthday, Dad.
Speaker 1: I got great parents and a great family. It's one
Speaker 1: of the biggest blessings in my life, probably the single
Speaker 1: biggest blessing I have, you know that, and being relatively
Speaker 1: healthy and above ground, and then having having great parents
Speaker 1: and great siblings. So I'm here in New York City,
Speaker 1: So I got New York on the mine. I just
Speaker 1: there's another video out there of youths throwing buckets of
Speaker 1: water at police officers on duty. At this time, it
Speaker 1: was two female police officers and people are laughing and
Speaker 1: they're videotaping it. And this comes after a similar incident
Speaker 1: where they're you know, they're throwing water, throwing buckets of
Speaker 1: water at cops who are trying to make an arrest.
Speaker 1: This is gonna get out of hand very quickly, and
Speaker 1: you know, that the left. You know, if all of
Speaker 1: a sudden people are throwing stuff at cops and then
Speaker 1: someone instead of throwing a you know, a water balloon
Speaker 1: or a bucket of water, all of a sudden a
Speaker 1: brick hits a cop in the head, and the police
Speaker 1: feel like they're you know, have to defend themselves, and
Speaker 1: things get things get violent. Do you think that they're
Speaker 1: gonna say, oh, maybe we should have tried to instill
Speaker 1: more respect in young people in their interactions with police.
Speaker 1: Maybe democrats shouldn't. With the exception of Komi and Muller,
Speaker 1: who are the super cops, you know, they should have capes.
Speaker 1: Guys are not just cops, they're super cops. That, by
Speaker 1: the way, is a slide movie reference. And I wonder
Speaker 1: who will get that mark? Do you have anything for
Speaker 1: that one? Yeah, that's right, this is next level. This
Speaker 1: is next level movie quote and Ninjura, these guys are
Speaker 1: not cops, they're super cops. They should have caps. Don't
Speaker 1: google it, don't cheat. But back to a real subject matter.
Speaker 1: Here for a moment, they throwing of water at cops
Speaker 1: and they're laughing about it's just indicative of the district. Look,
Speaker 1: I know it's just water, But okay, what if what
Speaker 1: if it's something other than water? What if it's not
Speaker 1: just water? What if they stre throwing other things at cops.
Speaker 1: It's indicative of a lack of respect for law enforcement
Speaker 1: that people would laugh about this, find this amusing. I
Speaker 1: think is is troubling, and I think this is going
Speaker 1: to go into a a very bad place very quickly.
Speaker 1: And it's indicative also of you know, de Blasio, who's
Speaker 1: going to be in this Democrat Democrat debate, you know
Speaker 1: next week. Guy doesn't know anything, has no idea what
Speaker 1: the heck he's doing, but he somehow runs the largest
Speaker 1: city in the country, and he also has a police
Speaker 1: force that is largely turned against him. Just just one
Speaker 1: more note here. I talk about things how Democrats have
Speaker 1: gone crazy, and I know that. And we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: a little more about climate change because oh guess what,
Speaker 1: it's hot, so that means that there must be evidence
Speaker 1: of catastrophic climate change. It's also known as summer. We'll
Speaker 1: get we'll get to that in a few moments. How
Speaker 1: whacked out are the Democrats right now? I mean, how
Speaker 1: how desperate are they to out looney each other in
Speaker 1: order to get the votes of leftists who it's hard
Speaker 1: to overstate the bonkers, the degree of bonkers that we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, Kirsten Gilliban, They're really they're testing out.
Speaker 1: I feel like I have to be human thesaurus here
Speaker 1: on radio, because there's how many different ways can you
Speaker 1: think of to say someone just is not dealing in reality,
Speaker 1: that they're crazy, that they're insane, that they're looney, that
Speaker 1: they're I'm running out of ways, but that's what we're
Speaker 1: dealing with. I mean. Jillibrand put out today what she's
Speaker 1: calling a quote climate change moonshot plan. Who wants to
Speaker 1: take a guess how much the climate change moonshot plan
Speaker 1: is going to cost? Who wants to take a guess?
Speaker 1: Ten trillion dollars? There you go. She's gonna mobilize quote
Speaker 1: ten trillion dollars in public and private funds over the
Speaker 1: next decade to achieve her goal. Senator Jillibrand called for
Speaker 1: an excise tax on fossil fuel production, hoping to generate
Speaker 1: a one hundred billion dollars a year to come back
Speaker 1: climate change. She also said she would put a fifty
Speaker 1: two fifty dollars per metric ton price on carbon to
Speaker 1: detercompanies from using fossil fuels. This is a massive tax
Speaker 1: increase on everything that is productive and worthwhile in our economy.
Speaker 1: And for what spending money to come back climate change?
Speaker 1: We don't even know how to do that. How we
Speaker 1: would do that, spending money to come back climate change?
Speaker 1: And with what mechanism? And this this, we'll get back
Speaker 1: to this because of course it's it's hot outside, so
Speaker 1: we're hearing now about the climate change thing. But they
Speaker 1: write about spending trillions of dollars as though it's, you know,
Speaker 1: no big deal. Yeah, what's what's another ten trillion to
Speaker 1: add into the mix here? And I know Trump, I
Speaker 1: haven't I'm not skipping, and I had to. I want
Speaker 1: my friend Maddy, Maddy Duppler, whom I called Dupples. I've
Speaker 1: known her for ten years. She couldn't come on today.
Speaker 1: I want to have her come on, probably to Marrow,
Speaker 1: talk about the budget deal, because she's all she does
Speaker 1: look at budgets and numbers, and this budget deal that
Speaker 1: Trump's gonna sign, it's a bad deal for it's too
Speaker 1: much more, spending too much money. I know, I'm the
Speaker 1: Ebenezer Scrooge of the federal government. But I will not
Speaker 1: forget that. I came into conservative media at a time
Speaker 1: when the single biggest concern of our political ideology was
Speaker 1: overspending and debt, and it has only gotten worse since then.
Speaker 1: And nobody seems the care. And I know that Trump
Speaker 1: right now is riding high in this great economy, but
Speaker 1: in how we're going to feel in a year if
Speaker 1: all of a sudden there's some real not just shakiness,
Speaker 1: there's a real correction from all the debt out there,
Speaker 1: from all the all the promises to pay that are
Speaker 1: going to have to be met, and we did nothing.
Speaker 1: Now I know, I know no one really wants to
Speaker 1: hear about it. Everyone wants to just add let's let's
Speaker 1: get the party going. The left is nuts. Pelosi and
Speaker 1: or old crew can't can't figure anything out. So Trump
Speaker 1: is gonna win. That's the good news. The bad news
Speaker 1: is that the economy craters and another Republicans watch, We're
Speaker 1: gonna get socialism, folks, That's what comes next. Trust me.
Speaker 1: In the month of August, our members will accelerate a
Speaker 1: drumbeat across the nation. We will make won't own August
Speaker 1: for the people. We won't own August and make it
Speaker 1: too hot to handle for the Senate not to take
Speaker 1: up our bills. I guess what, Nancy, the Senate's not
Speaker 1: going to take up your bills. So you can talk
Speaker 1: about that as much as you want, and I know
Speaker 1: it's issue. Looks she was trying to be a little
Speaker 1: funny there, I see. Unlike libs, I hate just just
Speaker 1: eradicating joy and humor as a as a matter of course,
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's something we should all strive
Speaker 1: to do. Libs like to eliminate humor and joy. That's
Speaker 1: they they they wanted because it's that way they have
Speaker 1: tremendous control. You know. The most interesting part of the
Speaker 1: conversation we had with Kevin Williamson yesterday, who, look, I
Speaker 1: know some of you probably like Puck. Kevin Wimson, very
Speaker 1: talented writer, really want to I'd say he's one of
Speaker 1: the ten best columnists in the United States right now
Speaker 1: for pure writing ability. I'm not saying I agree with
Speaker 1: everything you write, so I do agree with a lot
Speaker 1: of it, but for just pure skill with the pen,
Speaker 1: so to speak, or with the keyboard, he's top ten.
Speaker 1: But his point about how the Libs want to just
Speaker 1: control they want to show that they can control these institutions.
Speaker 1: That is that is an important insight. It's not so
Speaker 1: much about the individual necessarily, although there is a messaging
Speaker 1: that comes from that. I always say, you don't have
Speaker 1: to burn down every village. You don't have to burn
Speaker 1: down every house. Sometimes you just burned down one with
Speaker 1: everyone watching, and the point is made. But what you
Speaker 1: see here is that they also want to be able
Speaker 1: to dictate what is acceptable at these institutions in general,
Speaker 1: and then the institution though, So it's not just to
Speaker 1: punish the individual that they're going after. It's to make
Speaker 1: sure that that institution is kept within the certain boundaries
Speaker 1: of the Left sets for it. Yeah, Pelosi saying that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a drumbeat across the country, that's
Speaker 1: that's definitely not going That's not going to happen. It
Speaker 1: is not going to be your reality here. But I
Speaker 1: do think we have to remember that this is not
Speaker 1: going to stop. This is not going away either. There's
Speaker 1: just going to be a Democrat effort to smear the president,
Speaker 1: to keep this in the headlines, to make sure that
Speaker 1: everyone continues to think about this and talk about this.
Speaker 1: And you know, you can't You can't let them set
Speaker 1: the narrative because then they're just going to be focused
Speaker 1: in on he was not exonerated all the time. There's
Speaker 1: not exonerated. And this this is crazy, right, this new
Speaker 1: standard that has been set up. Um Tree Gouty spoke
Speaker 1: about this, and uh, and I think that the Trey
Speaker 1: pretty much hit it on the head. You have no
Speaker 1: duty to prove your own innocence. In fact, you can't
Speaker 1: prove your own innocence. And then you you factor into this,
Speaker 1: John that sixty Democrats wanted to impeach President Trump before
Speaker 1: Muller set a single solitary word in his report. I mean,
Speaker 1: how would you react if you were accused of a
Speaker 1: crime for which you could be hanged? What would your
Speaker 1: reaction be? I mean, I think your defense would be
Speaker 1: pretty vigorous. Yep, you would be pretty upset about that,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you? If you were accused of treason. I think
Speaker 1: any one of us, anybody listening to this, if you're
Speaker 1: accused of treason and then the response you got from
Speaker 1: your inquisitors was well, we couldn't prove it, but we're
Speaker 1: still gonna say that you're guilty because you couldn't unprove it.
Speaker 1: And that's why this never never goes away. In Tyler,
Speaker 1: that's why there's really no no end in sight to
Speaker 1: the insanity from the left here, because they've managed to
Speaker 1: create a storyline where there's no it never goes away. Okay,
Speaker 1: we don't have the evidence yet, but we might, so
Speaker 1: let's just say that it's any day now, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have the evidence. Just like you know, they say any
Speaker 1: day now, Trump's gonna go to prisoner. He's not going
Speaker 1: to be an office anymore. This is they're they're trying
Speaker 1: to wish away this presidency, and that's why they're gonna
Speaker 1: They're gonna stick to this no matter what happens. They're
Speaker 1: gonna keep going. In fact, today in the Oversight Committee,
Speaker 1: in less than an hour, we're gonna start and they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna issue subpoenas for Jared Kushner Ivanka Trump's emails.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're never gonna stop going after the president,
Speaker 1: in the first family and anything associated with the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: So we know that's going to happen. But remember this,
Speaker 1: most of the country knows the truth, which is there
Speaker 1: is no basis for impeachment. There is no basis for impeachment.
Speaker 1: Democrats have not accepted that yet. In fact, I think
Speaker 1: there are a lot of Democrats who are are gonna
Speaker 1: right now. They're a little uncertain about how to make
Speaker 1: it seem like yesterday wasn't so terrible. But they'll be
Speaker 1: right back on the same talking boys next week. It
Speaker 1: never stops, you can't. There's like a shield of perception
Speaker 1: that you can never pierce with these leftists, with these libs,
Speaker 1: it will never really go away. You're you're unable, You're
Speaker 1: incapable of making them understand that there's just not there's
Speaker 1: just nothing to support what they're saying anymore. I mean,
Speaker 1: here's a perfect example of this. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: the the Chuck Todd, the Chuck Todd response after yesterday.
Speaker 1: That Chuck Todd, it's a he's a very lucky guy.
Speaker 1: D the job he does do it, let's all tell you,
Speaker 1: a very lucky guy. But here's what he had to
Speaker 1: say about the Muller hearing to our panel. I asked
Speaker 1: the question, is it mission accomplished? If that was the goal,
Speaker 1: If that was the goal, that's his complete failure on
Speaker 1: that front. Look, I think on substance Democrats got what
Speaker 1: they wanted. They got him to confirm that that he
Speaker 1: didn't make a charge because of the of the Justice
Speaker 1: Department memo. He confirmed that you can still indict him
Speaker 1: on these charges after he leaves office, and he seemed
Speaker 1: to confirm the idea that under any other circumstance he
Speaker 1: likely would have filed some charges. So they some substance
Speaker 1: of what they wanted him some of that, but he
Speaker 1: provided such what do you call it uncomfortable clarity. It
Speaker 1: would he as they were using him for clarity, he'd
Speaker 1: somehow fog it up. But he doing how he would
Speaker 1: do certain things, and so look on optics, this was
Speaker 1: a disaster. But he directly refuted the president's notion that
Speaker 1: he had been Again that's what I mean on substance.
Speaker 1: They got what they wanted out of him. But because
Speaker 1: they were looking for this traumatic moment that would capture
Speaker 1: the imagination and I think for those members of the
Speaker 1: Member House Judiciary Committee, Democrats do believe they should start impeachment.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just delusional. It's just delusional. They got,
Speaker 1: first of all, what he said about how it didn't
Speaker 1: make a charge because the OLC. Muller specifically after the
Speaker 1: hearing was like, no, No, that's not what I was saying.
Speaker 1: He chose not to choose. That is that is the
Speaker 1: Muller position on this. He chose not to choose to
Speaker 1: indict or not to indict, which is bizarre. But then
Speaker 1: when you know, seemed to confirm, he didn't seem to
Speaker 1: confirm anything. This is Democrats saw in that hearing what
Speaker 1: they wanted to see, irrespective of what the actual hearing was,
Speaker 1: which was a meltdown of the whole mulleris America's top cop.
Speaker 1: You know, this guy's indefatigable. You'll never be able to
Speaker 1: corrupt him. And he's being totally fair to Trump and
Speaker 1: he's all squared away and he knows exactly what's going on. No,
Speaker 1: this is Weissman and his little Democrat band ruining lives,
Speaker 1: bankrupting people, threatening people, destroying people because they're left wing
Speaker 1: partisan hacks, because they are vile, dishonorable lives in power.
Speaker 1: That's what the That was the real takeaway from yesterday.
Speaker 1: But the takeaway for like Chuck Todd here, I don't know, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I don't know what hearing he was watching. The optics
Speaker 1: were a disaster. It wasn't just the optics, dude. It
Speaker 1: was the recognition, the moment of of understanding that we
Speaker 1: all came to that, oh, this whole thing was a fraud,
Speaker 1: was a scam, meaning that it's not the Mueller Report,
Speaker 1: it's not the Mueller Commission. It was just put somebody
Speaker 1: there as a shield against criticism and to give a
Speaker 1: false sense of credibility and gravitas this whole thing so
Speaker 1: that it has a better chance of ruining trumping those
Speaker 1: people around him because we can't create the outcry and
Speaker 1: the political pressure to shut this sham down. But that's
Speaker 1: not that's not optics. That's the very heart and soul
Speaker 1: of the whole thing. Yea. And in fact, that the
Speaker 1: fact that I mean this hour, we still have Democrats
Speaker 1: saying maybe they're gonna peach anyway. I mean, so we
Speaker 1: go through all this for what what was the whole
Speaker 1: part of the Mueller probe. They're gonna they're gonna peach
Speaker 1: him now, even even after everything we've seen, the I
Speaker 1: means they're gonna peach in the beginning, by the way,
Speaker 1: I say, go for it. They should try. I think
Speaker 1: they'd be delivering the president. I think they'd be delivering
Speaker 1: four more years the president. I really do, but we'll
Speaker 1: see more coming up. And we put together a commission
Speaker 1: where we had every angle person in Europe running for
Speaker 1: office in any one of the NATO states take a pledge.
Speaker 1: A pledge, a public pledge that I'm the only one
Speaker 1: I'm aware of has taken so far that if, in
Speaker 1: fact I find out anything at all that is going
Speaker 1: on in terms of trying to all the election, whether
Speaker 1: it's helping me or not helping me, I will immediately
Speaker 1: go to the intelligence community, the FBI. This president said
Speaker 1: he'd accept that information is outrageous, it is un American,
Speaker 1: and it's close to treason us. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: supposed to be virtue signaling from Biden, but it's really
Speaker 1: idiot signaling. He's showing us all that he's an idiot
Speaker 1: and he hasn't known anything. This is also one of
Speaker 1: those This is a point a narrative that I can't
Speaker 1: seem to pierce with logic. I can't get leftist to
Speaker 1: understand this. If you think that information about a political
Speaker 1: opponent that comes from a foreign source is somehow illegal
Speaker 1: and treasonous, I need to know how Christopher Steele giving
Speaker 1: Russian subsource information to the FBI and to journalists on
Speaker 1: behalf of Hillary is not treason US. That's point one
Speaker 1: point two. If a campaign was being told let's say
Speaker 1: by a by Russia, I mean, oh, Russia, Russia. We've
Speaker 1: all been made to think that Russia is about to
Speaker 1: invade herself. It could be any foreignunt. You could be
Speaker 1: if a Chinese source in Beijing said, hey, we've got
Speaker 1: video of Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: straight up saying, you know it's gonna you know, give
Speaker 1: Bill half a million dollars and I'll make sure that trade,
Speaker 1: that trade agreement goes through. You give Bill a half
Speaker 1: million dollars for one of his speeches that are so good.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna go to Beijing and give speech. You know,
Speaker 1: eat some wan toms, talk to some ladies. You know.
Speaker 1: If that video existed and the and the Chinese offered
Speaker 1: that to the Trump campaign in twenty sixteen, is the
Speaker 1: expectation really going to be that you'd say, oh, I don't,
Speaker 1: I can't, I can't see that video. This is idiocy.
Speaker 1: Of course, you'd say, let me see the video. Of course,
Speaker 1: evidence of corruption overseas by your political candidates fair game,
Speaker 1: of course it is. Okay, let's do the true thought
Speaker 1: experiment away that even libs would have a hard time
Speaker 1: slithering her away from. What if Donald Trump? What if
Speaker 1: the videos, the so called Golden Shower videos. I know
Speaker 1: it's gross, but what if it really existed? And what
Speaker 1: if a Russian official had sent those videos to the
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign something he was saying, hey, guys, delivering you
Speaker 1: the election. Here's Trump with up which you know, who
Speaker 1: knows that this would have even changed the election result?
Speaker 1: But here's Trump with a bunch of Russian prostitutes doing
Speaker 1: some very unspeakable things. There you go. Does anybody think
Speaker 1: that the Hillary campaign would sit on those and say,
Speaker 1: oh no, sorry, we're not going to run that it
Speaker 1: came from a foreign source. NBC sat on a tape
Speaker 1: that was from an open mic from what ten years ago,
Speaker 1: you know, offset on a show and classic October surprise.
Speaker 1: I mean, the corporate media was in the bag colluding
Speaker 1: with the Hillary campaign. You think that they would have
Speaker 1: been too too ethical to use the video of the
Speaker 1: Golden Shower videos if they had, if they had existed,
Speaker 1: which they don't. But I'm just when you when you
Speaker 1: play this out This is such a stupid point. I
Speaker 1: can't accept a thing of value. Okay, if you see
Speaker 1: something reported by the BBC, does that mean you can't
Speaker 1: use it? What if it's reported by the BBC and
Speaker 1: then it's picked up by the New York Times? Is
Speaker 1: that a thing of value from a foreign source that
Speaker 1: your campaign can't use? This is idiocy, folks. It's a
Speaker 1: non point point. And that's why Biden's virtue signaling is
Speaker 1: really idiot signaling. But that's not surprising. Bombshell. Today is
Speaker 1: a turning point. Today was historically bad for President Trump.
Speaker 1: Today was a turning point. Rumblings of the word impeachment,
Speaker 1: breaking news, the bombshell out of the White House. I
Speaker 1: believe this is the beginning of the end. All the
Speaker 1: walls closing in on him, the walls closing in on him.
Speaker 1: You think this is a tipping point. December first, twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: you can mark it down. This is the day that
Speaker 1: everything changed. Donald Trump is in a lot of trouble.
Speaker 1: Trump is in trouble. The president will resign another hour,
Speaker 1: another bombshell. This is a tipping point. Trump's going down.
Speaker 1: This president could be impeached, resignation, resignation. I don't think
Speaker 1: this president is going to serve out his term. Mister
Speaker 1: Trump will not serve out his term. He will not
Speaker 1: serve out his term. No way. Donald Trump is out
Speaker 1: and he's done, and it's over. It's over. Oh but
Speaker 1: it's not over, is it. I love this. The walls
Speaker 1: are closing in. It's the beginning of the end. For
Speaker 1: that's like over the last two years there you just
Speaker 1: hear this stuff all the time, just constant nonsense from
Speaker 1: all these different journals who are wrong and wrong and
Speaker 1: wrong again, and they never learn the lesson. They don't
Speaker 1: care that they're wrong, They don't care that what they've
Speaker 1: been saying is untrue. They say it because they want
Speaker 1: it to be true, and more importantly, their audience wants
Speaker 1: it to be true. And this is where you have
Speaker 1: this enormous disconnect in the media right now. And here's
Speaker 1: the basics of the disconnect. You have many different channels
Speaker 1: that are offering trying to present this as as as
Speaker 1: traditional journalistic enterprises, which they are not. They are advocacy organizations.
Speaker 1: They are propaganda machines fighting for one side of the
Speaker 1: ideological spectrum under the false flag of journalistic neutrality. But
Speaker 1: they keep doing this, they keep on being wrong, and
Speaker 1: it's because that's what their audience wants to hear. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. That's why there's no accountability for the wrongness. Really,
Speaker 1: I mean, yet some people figure out that CNN is
Speaker 1: a sham and that it should be I mean, CNN
Speaker 1: really should be scrapped and restarted, and then they should
Speaker 1: basically fire all the prime time hosts. They should get
Speaker 1: rid of half of the editorial staff they currently have,
Speaker 1: bring in people who don't approach their jobs, like Democrat
Speaker 1: Party activists. Maybe bring in some conservatives at least you
Speaker 1: have some balance to be off camera on the producers side.
Speaker 1: And then, but you know, they would say that that's
Speaker 1: not going to work because there's really no need for
Speaker 1: a twenty four to seven wire service anymore, which is
Speaker 1: effective what we're talking about. I mean, if you're not
Speaker 1: going to do opinion, how much news is there really
Speaker 1: on any given day that people want to hear? Not
Speaker 1: enough to fill twenty four hours if you're just cutting
Speaker 1: opinion out of it entirely. But CNN is a joke,
Speaker 1: and it still makes a lot of money. It's very influential,
Speaker 1: it's a very powerful corporate brand. People will advertise that,
Speaker 1: you know, CNN is considered very safe because it's been
Speaker 1: around for a long time as an advertising play, even
Speaker 1: though they've got hosts who are every bit is controversial,
Speaker 1: every bit is risky is what you'd see on far
Speaker 1: left stations these days. And there was one moment of
Speaker 1: honesty though that came out on this last last night,
Speaker 1: and it came from a buddy. You know, we haven't
Speaker 1: heard from him in a while. We haven't gotten a
Speaker 1: chance to hang with our friend gurgling with Gurgan or
Speaker 1: David gergens Arch. The girls are on Jever Talks for
Speaker 1: there's Rick Niction Reagan back in or dayson you know,
Speaker 1: you know, he goes on TV. I used to do
Speaker 1: panels with him. I was like, what is this guy
Speaker 1: mumbling about the niction Reagan for White House or Watergate?
Speaker 1: And but you know, he's old and he mumbles, and
Speaker 1: he's apparently worked for every president stretching back to Abraham Lincoln.
Speaker 1: So they like to put this guy on TV. But
Speaker 1: he did say something somewhat astute last night, maybe by accident.
Speaker 1: And occasionally he's just gonna hit a bull's eye because
Speaker 1: he fires enough rounds right here you go gurgling with
Speaker 1: Gergen actually hit the center of the target. You know,
Speaker 1: they presented things. Frankly, we haven't talked about much on
Speaker 1: CNN aspects with this that are on the right, but
Speaker 1: we don't you know, we haven't visited because we don't
Speaker 1: put much stock in a lot of what they're are going.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, I did not think it was a disaster.
Speaker 1: Brought up rings we were talking about. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: You don't talk about it on CNN because you don't
Speaker 1: have any conservatives on seeing anymore. You don't have any
Speaker 1: Republicans who aren't never Trumpers and never Trumpers are doing
Speaker 1: the work of the Democratic Party. That is. That is
Speaker 1: a fact. It's just a fact. It's one thing. If
Speaker 1: you want to just you know, step aside and make
Speaker 1: arguments about but you know, make arguments about different policy
Speaker 1: issues and still be conservative, you don't. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: you have to be a cheerleader for Trump, no, of
Speaker 1: course not. But if you are actively trying to tear
Speaker 1: down the administration even when the administration is pursuing conservative policy,
Speaker 1: because you're never Trump, of you have such principles, guess
Speaker 1: what you're doing the other sides work for them. There's
Speaker 1: no other there's no alternative reality or that's what's happening.
Speaker 1: So they don't have anybody on CNN who presents the
Speaker 1: point of view that at least half the country has
Speaker 1: that the Mueller probe is a sham, that this whole
Speaker 1: thing has been shown to be a politicized get Trump operation.
Speaker 1: To make the case, you know, I had, for example,
Speaker 1: some of you may have seen this clip. I wish
Speaker 1: we had. We don't have it handy right now though,
Speaker 1: has that planned for you? But I know I had
Speaker 1: this this moment where a guy who's at Democrats Ratus
Speaker 1: was on my show at the Hill when I used
Speaker 1: to be at the Hill, and I said, you know,
Speaker 1: he came at me with the whole Russia collusion thing.
Speaker 1: You know, well he donald Trump was willing to take
Speaker 1: foreign you know, the storyline is basically Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: willing to take foreign opo research which shows a willingness
Speaker 1: to take a thing of value from a foreign government,
Speaker 1: which is in itself a violation of campaign finance and
Speaker 1: you know, undermines our democracy. All this stuff. And I
Speaker 1: said to this guy, Okay, back up a second, buddy,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton through you know, her campaign, through a law firm,
Speaker 1: hired a foreigner to go ask a bunch of other foreigners, Russians,
Speaker 1: no less, for information to destroy Trump, and not only
Speaker 1: ran that in the press as a thing of value,
Speaker 1: if that is in fact what you would call information
Speaker 1: like this, but ran it through the intelligence community and
Speaker 1: got the FBI to try and legally take down the
Speaker 1: Trump administration with their opo. How is that not a
Speaker 1: thing of value? From These are Russian government officials that
Speaker 1: were the subsources for the Steel dossier. Folks, Russian government officials.
Speaker 1: They didn't walk around, you know, a village in a
Speaker 1: you know, outside of a lot of astok and say, hey,
Speaker 1: anybody got any dirt on Trump? They went to obviously,
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele is going to go to Russian government officials,
Speaker 1: which what he did, and probably Russian government intelligence officials
Speaker 1: and said, hey, what have you got for me on Trump? Why?
Speaker 1: Why is that? Okay? I still I never get to
Speaker 1: hear an explanation of this. I've never heard anyone explain this.
Speaker 1: Oh it's not really you know, they hired it, hired.
Speaker 1: They just get all huffy, but they never have an answer.
Speaker 1: I never get told what and there's so many different
Speaker 1: areas of this whole thing where you just don't ever
Speaker 1: get answer. I mean, I look at people now. I've
Speaker 1: tried to tell Democrats that I think are somewhat reasonable,
Speaker 1: though there's very few of those these days, especially on
Speaker 1: this Russia collusion stuff. And I say, you really think
Speaker 1: that the three FISA warrants on Carter Page was legit?
Speaker 1: Does anyone ever, you know, all these serious journals on
Speaker 1: an MSNBC Gurgle and Groan Carter Page or Russian spar
Speaker 1: does anyone ever try to defend how? I mean, that's
Speaker 1: so stupid. He was never even not only was he
Speaker 1: never charged with a crime. My friends, they never knew
Speaker 1: theoretically what crime he may have been committing, other than
Speaker 1: the crime of talking to Russians, which the FBI knew
Speaker 1: he was doing for years before that, and in fact,
Speaker 1: he had helped the FBI. If the new standard for
Speaker 1: we can open a fives A case on you is
Speaker 1: you talk to foreigners sometimes and travel to foreign countries,
Speaker 1: then any person in the United States can have their
Speaker 1: four with the Amendment rights just stripped from them the
Speaker 1: moment that there's a political incentive to do so. I
Speaker 1: talked to foreigner here, I've talked to I talked to
Speaker 1: foreigners all the time. I do foreign travel, I have
Speaker 1: foreign friends. Oh man, I know people not just in
Speaker 1: the US, but intelligence community all over the world. So
Speaker 1: you know, I've got intelligence contacts. So I guess if
Speaker 1: I were going to work for a campaign, the FBI
Speaker 1: could just open up three fives a warrants on me
Speaker 1: based on what we've seen here. That's that's totally what
Speaker 1: goes on. So I mean Gurgan's pointment, things are right
Speaker 1: discussions or we don't even talk about here, and she
Speaker 1: and yeah, no, duve, it's gonna say something else, but no, duh,
Speaker 1: it's on radio. So that's the best I can do
Speaker 1: right now. They don't even know what the arguments that
Speaker 1: the right makes are anymore. There's no representation. When was
Speaker 1: the last time you saw a real debate. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean some of my favorites, like you know, my
Speaker 1: buddy Dan Bongino, watching him crush libs is fun. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know that there's there's other guys out there that
Speaker 1: some libs, But I mean two people who are somewhat
Speaker 1: intellectually evenly matched on the issue of the dossier. Do
Speaker 1: you ever see this debated by two people who know
Speaker 1: the facts? Never? This has become a completely polarized separate uh,
Speaker 1: you know, because because I'm sure that there are plenty
Speaker 1: of conservatives. I called out the guy publicly who's the
Speaker 1: author of proof of Collusion. I forget his name. He's
Speaker 1: some professor from like the University of Weed Smoking and
Speaker 1: somewhere in the in New England. And he, you know,
Speaker 1: I said, why don't we debate this? I said, Dave
Speaker 1: Rubin will host and we can actually debate this year's you. Oh,
Speaker 1: I would never anybody who thinks that there's not proof
Speaker 1: of collusion. This was the guy wrote to me. And
Speaker 1: he who thinks that's not worth talking to? Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: here we are two years in and with more information
Speaker 1: the trend here is a very important thing to keep
Speaker 1: in mind. With more information, their side looks worse all
Speaker 1: the time. For the last twelve months. That's been the case.
Speaker 1: The more we learn, the more obvious it is that
Speaker 1: they have no interest in getting to the truth, and
Speaker 1: that they've been lying about what happened in this investigation
Speaker 1: all along. It really, it really is stunning, I'm you know,
Speaker 1: and today the day after this whole thing. The the
Speaker 1: clinging to the narrative that you've seen is just astonishing,
Speaker 1: it really is. It's just amazing. But they won't they
Speaker 1: will not give it up. They will not change their
Speaker 1: their view on this thing at all. I just want
Speaker 1: to you know, we got Sean Davis joining us later.
Speaker 1: He had a great tweet storm today. It's one of
Speaker 1: the reason why I want to have Sean on the show,
Speaker 1: just to get his take on things. You know, Sean's
Speaker 1: over the Federalist Eat a great teet term Brich about
Speaker 1: how much we've been lied to and all the stuff
Speaker 1: that's gone on. Here here's what Sean wrote. Quote. We
Speaker 1: were told Trump inquisitor was a calm, even handed Republican
Speaker 1: with impeccable credentials who was trusted by everyone. What we
Speaker 1: learned yesterday was that the inquisition was run by the
Speaker 1: Democrat lawyer for Hillary Clinton's aid, who destroyed evidence with
Speaker 1: a hammer. We were told that the evidence of alleged
Speaker 1: Russian collusion was rock solid the work of America's top
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies. In reality, it was pure fiction, cooked up
Speaker 1: by a Clinton funded foreign contractor on the payroll of
Speaker 1: a sanctioned Russian oligarch. We were told the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: was never spied on or wire tap by US by agencies.
Speaker 1: We now know the campaign was indeed wire tapped, that
Speaker 1: honeypots were deployed to entrap campaign affiliates, that overseas intel
Speaker 1: assets were used to set up meetings as pretexts for
Speaker 1: more spying. We were told our nation's intel agencies would
Speaker 1: never use false information to justify secret surveillance of American citizens.
Speaker 1: In reality, the FBI pedaled lies to the fis A
Speaker 1: court that were cooked up by a foreign spy and
Speaker 1: a EOJ official's wife, both funded by Clinton. We were
Speaker 1: told that our government's top secret keepers would never lead
Speaker 1: classified or confidential information to the media. What actually happened
Speaker 1: is that top intel officials repeatedly leaked, often illegally, to
Speaker 1: cement a false narrative to support further spying on US citizens. Finally,
Speaker 1: we were told that America's top cops and spies would
Speaker 1: never foment a coup to overturn election results they didn't like.
Speaker 1: We now know the most powerful unelected people in government
Speaker 1: cooked up lies as part of an orchestrated scheme to
Speaker 1: overthrow the duly elected president. Those are just some of
Speaker 1: the points that was all from Shawn. He'll be joining
Speaker 1: us later in the show. Those are just some of
Speaker 1: the points though, that you will never hear represented on
Speaker 1: CNN from anyone. No one ever gets to make the
Speaker 1: case there or on MSNBC. That's why Gergan's don't even
Speaker 1: talk about yeah exactly, because that audience would start to
Speaker 1: melt if they were presented with the facts while we
Speaker 1: are doing this, while we are sitting here, as I
Speaker 1: pointed out before, or for the hour we're going to
Speaker 1: be debating this another one hundred million dollars of debt
Speaker 1: it's been racked up another how many thousands of people
Speaker 1: are poured across our border? How much more control have
Speaker 1: we yielded to cartels who truly control and run our border.
Speaker 1: All the agencies that are helping if they're doing detention, security,
Speaker 1: hospital watch, sandwich making, handing out hygienic items and milk,
Speaker 1: and transportation, we're building new detention facilities of the border.
Speaker 1: They're not controlling the border. We're not doing anything to
Speaker 1: stop and deal with the problems that we've got with
Speaker 1: cartels managing the border. And we're sitting here in a
Speaker 1: fishing exhibition for emails alleging that we're trying to do
Speaker 1: down in compliance with the law is being complied with?
Speaker 1: In what universe? Is this what we're supposed to be
Speaker 1: doing for the United States of America, for the people
Speaker 1: of this country who are watching their country racking up
Speaker 1: mountains of debt three hundred and twenty billion dollars over
Speaker 1: existing spending levels, which would still give us a trillion
Speaker 1: dollar deficit. Well done, Congress, it's well done. And you're
Speaker 1: going to have that kind of level of spending while
Speaker 1: we've got wide open borders. What are we doing for
Speaker 1: the people of United States? Congressman Roy's got a point,
Speaker 1: doesn't He's actually got a bunch of points. Our immigration
Speaker 1: system is supposed to be run for the benefit of
Speaker 1: the people who are already here. Our immigration system is
Speaker 1: not an open ended charity. It is not a soup
Speaker 1: kitchen with endless soup courtesy of you, the taxpayer, and
Speaker 1: to the political benefit of the Democratic Party. That is
Speaker 1: not what the immigration system is supposed to be. But
Speaker 1: Democrats have conflated illegal and legal immigration intentionally. They have
Speaker 1: lied about this at every stage. They've lied about the
Speaker 1: crisis of the border over and over again. There was
Speaker 1: no caravan. The caravans won't get there. This isn't a
Speaker 1: systematic violation of the law. They'll show up in court. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: even if they don't show up in court, we shouldn't
Speaker 1: deport them, you know. Now it's all about the focusing
Speaker 1: on the conditions of the border and is a messaging
Speaker 1: loss for the Republicans. Every time that we're talking about
Speaker 1: whether or not we're doing enough for the children of
Speaker 1: the border, the Democrats are getting their way because then
Speaker 1: that becomes the focus instead of we are in the
Speaker 1: midst of an illegal alien invasion of the United States.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening. It is intentional. Hundreds of thousands of people.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of people. In addition, by the way,
Speaker 1: to the million legal immigrants that we bring in each year,
Speaker 1: which I will note is a lot, and a country
Speaker 1: should be able to have a conversation about going forward.
Speaker 1: Maybe it should be a half a million. Maybe we
Speaker 1: should have a merit based instead of a chain or
Speaker 1: family based. They would say family reunification. Now they're changing
Speaker 1: the terminology used to be chain migration. But instead of
Speaker 1: a family based system, it should be a skills based system.
Speaker 1: These are the conversations we should be having an immigration
Speaker 1: but instead it's always all, look at what's going on
Speaker 1: to the border. Oh Democrats, the ones who care so much,
Speaker 1: they're the ones who care about the children of the border.
Speaker 1: The big mean Republicans they don't care at all. AOC
Speaker 1: continues to get away with saying stupid, nasty, defamatory things
Speaker 1: about border patrol about it. This is the woman who
Speaker 1: can compare them to concentration camps and still is treated
Speaker 1: with seriousness by her fellow Democrats. They think that she's
Speaker 1: somebody who we should listen to, which tells you really
Speaker 1: all you need to know about the Democratic Party. Right now,
Speaker 1: here's AOC. I know you haven't heard from in a while.
Speaker 1: You probably were enjoying that, But here's what she has
Speaker 1: to say about what's going on along the southern border.
Speaker 1: Because right now, what the administration is doing is that
Speaker 1: they are using the for profit suffering of the children
Speaker 1: as a bargaining chip so that they can continue to
Speaker 1: slip in more negative provisions that will ultimately cause more
Speaker 1: KAM And how do you respond to Republicans who are
Speaker 1: talking about the physical barriers being part of any package
Speaker 1: that deals with the actual crisis in terms of the
Speaker 1: traffic coming across. If they want to do that, that's fine.
Speaker 1: Have them negotiate in appropriations, have them make their case,
Speaker 1: but they should not be using a humanitarian crisis as
Speaker 1: a bargaining chip to make sure that they pursue their
Speaker 1: little torture project, A torture project, she says, I've got
Speaker 1: to tell you if I were a member of border
Speaker 1: patrol who had been working over time in all senses
Speaker 1: and trying to do everything possible to get food, clothing, shelter,
Speaker 1: medical care for the migrants coming to the border, completely overwhelmed.
Speaker 1: The migrants know what they're doing is wrong. They know
Speaker 1: they're lying, they've been told, they've been scripted with the
Speaker 1: words they're supposed to say. The whole thing is a scam.
Speaker 1: But Border patrol role is doing their best to make
Speaker 1: sure that everyone's safe and okay and they're being processed,
Speaker 1: and AOC is running around saying that they're running torture chambers,
Speaker 1: torture chambers or torture project. I mean, this is why
Speaker 1: when the Democrat media says that their job is to
Speaker 1: speak truth to power, why doesn't someone why doesn't somebody
Speaker 1: challenge her on this. Does she really think it's it's
Speaker 1: the process, it's the intent of those at the southern
Speaker 1: border who are working for the federal government that they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're torturing children. That's a horrible thing to say,
Speaker 1: an utterly horrifying thing for them to say, for her
Speaker 1: to say, And she continues to get away with this.
Speaker 1: I know one more note. I think immigration is the
Speaker 1: most important issue in the country right now. The economy
Speaker 1: is doing pretty well, but immigration is going terribly. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is Trump is failing on immigration, but it's not
Speaker 1: his fault. So that's you know, if the buck stops
Speaker 1: with him, it's terrible. But when I look at the
Speaker 1: when I look at the buck, this is starting to
Speaker 1: sound weird. But when I look at what's going on,
Speaker 1: you just had another case, another instance of a judge,
Speaker 1: a federal judge, who has decided that he is going
Speaker 1: to overrule the executive branch of the government and say that, sorry,
Speaker 1: you can't make enforcement decisions about immigration. You can't have
Speaker 1: new regulations via executive executive authority or prosecutorial discretion about asylum. Now,
Speaker 1: what's interesting is that you already had a district judge
Speaker 1: in DC. Look at this. Remember, the Trump administration's new
Speaker 1: rule was going to be you have to apply for
Speaker 1: asylum in the first country you get to, which would
Speaker 1: mean for all these Central American migrants Mexico. The fact
Speaker 1: that Beto O'Rourke says it's inhumane to tell people from
Speaker 1: Guatemala that they need to wait in Mexico. I didn't
Speaker 1: realize that Mexico was a torture chamber. It's actually a
Speaker 1: pretty well off country with a lot of nice stuff
Speaker 1: going on and good food. And I did have its
Speaker 1: highest murder it ever the last six months, but still
Speaker 1: over one hundred million people lived there. Okay, it's it's
Speaker 1: not a war zone. Plenty of people are fine. I
Speaker 1: was just there last week. But the new Trump administration
Speaker 1: rule is going to be you have to apply for
Speaker 1: asylum in the first country you get to, instead of
Speaker 1: effectively jurisdiction or a country nationality shopping as an assilee.
Speaker 1: And now you've got a federal judge. One federal judge
Speaker 1: looked at in DC and said, no, the administered Trump
Speaker 1: administration can do this. So I guess what happened. Another
Speaker 1: federal judge in California and Obama pointee has shut this
Speaker 1: thing down universal nationwide injunction. So the Trump administration comes
Speaker 1: up with a way to stop the crisis, They this
Speaker 1: would really make a huge difference. And then what happens
Speaker 1: a federal judge comes along and says, sorry, you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to stop this crisis. So who are we really
Speaker 1: to blame it? How much accountability can I really put
Speaker 1: on the shoulders of Trump and his team when federal
Speaker 1: judges who are Obama appointees, who are leftist activists that
Speaker 1: the bench was stacked with over the eight years of Obama. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell's starting to balance that out with more and
Speaker 1: more conservative constitutionalist judge is getting on the federal bench.
Speaker 1: But if a federal judge is going to stop Trump
Speaker 1: from doing anything about the border every time he does anything,
Speaker 1: it isn't a convenient, folks, that every time the administration
Speaker 1: does anything to enforce our laws and to get a
Speaker 1: more secure border, the responses some Obama appointed federal judge says,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. So the borders a disaster right now?
Speaker 1: Who's to blame? It's happening on Trump's watch? But is
Speaker 1: it Trump's fault that the federal judges appointed by Obama
Speaker 1: think that their president, I don't know. Each passing week
Speaker 1: brings another proofpoint. The climate change is happening right now,
Speaker 1: reshaping our planet for the worse, moving so quickly that
Speaker 1: at some point we will not be able to recover
Speaker 1: no matter what we do, and the world will be
Speaker 1: so much worse for our children and grandchildren. Carbon levels
Speaker 1: in the atmosphere are at the highest point ever in
Speaker 1: human history. Just days ago, NBC reported this will be
Speaker 1: the hottest July on record. Last month, June was the
Speaker 1: hottest June on record. We all know the consequences are
Speaker 1: going to be devastating, just devastating to our planet. It's summertime, chucky,
Speaker 1: it gets warm in the summer. Everyone listening to this
Speaker 1: knows that even the little kids, the toddlers that listen
Speaker 1: to Buck Saxon Show, Buck Saxon Show, Toddler squad, Yah,
Speaker 1: what's up. There's probably a few of them that listen
Speaker 1: to My mom and dad are making dinner or something,
Speaker 1: you know. They all though everyone knows it's summertime, it's hot.
Speaker 1: How do we take these people serious? Oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: There are a few ways to be more intellectually lazy
Speaker 1: and to engage in more base demagoguery than to just
Speaker 1: be a climate change catastrophist. I mean catastrophists in general
Speaker 1: tend to be people that really just want attention and
Speaker 1: power and don't care about the consequences of what it
Speaker 1: is that they're saying. And it's just an easy way
Speaker 1: to get attention. It's an easy, relatively lazy way to
Speaker 1: get people losing all. The world's gonna end tomorrow. You know,
Speaker 1: it reminds me very much of the Parks and Recreation show,
Speaker 1: the group called the Reasonable Lists. So I've brought up
Speaker 1: before the Reasonable Lists named themselves that, because how can
Speaker 1: you how can you think the Reasonable Lists are crazy?
Speaker 1: And their thing is every year they haven't and the
Speaker 1: world's gonna end every year, and then they're wrong every year.
Speaker 1: But then they realize that, oh, it's going to end
Speaker 1: next year, and people keep showing up for their end
Speaker 1: of the World party, and you know this is Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer is throwing an end of the World party as
Speaker 1: long as you give in power and donations and attention,
Speaker 1: and we know that there'll be no accountability for him
Speaker 1: being wrong. I just want to sit down and look
Speaker 1: at people in the eyes who think that they have
Speaker 1: a grasp of what is really happening in the world,
Speaker 1: and have them tell me that despite decades of being
Speaker 1: just wrong on this and always having always having to
Speaker 1: redo the data, always having to go back and look
Speaker 1: at this again, despite decades of being wrong, now they've
Speaker 1: got it nailed to the point where if they if
Speaker 1: we don't make dramatic changes, dramatic changes in the way
Speaker 1: that we live our lives and essentially put the Democrats
Speaker 1: in charge of more of our lives, the left, the
Speaker 1: statest authoritarian left, in charge of more than ever before.
Speaker 1: If we're not willing to do that, the world is
Speaker 1: going to end. It sounds so stupid when I even
Speaker 1: say it. But this is an article of faith. They
Speaker 1: believe this. They think it's true. They think this is
Speaker 1: or at least they convince other imbeciles that it's true.
Speaker 1: And they're they're manipulating them, they're they're abusing them. I mean, Mark,
Speaker 1: can't they just accept that it's hot because it's summertime.
Speaker 1: We really have to go this is the same idiotcy
Speaker 1: and we can't when there's a big, a big snowstorm
Speaker 1: in the winter, they'll go, oh, climate change just causing
Speaker 1: the wets are wetter and the hots are hotter and
Speaker 1: the colds are colder. And no, folks, you know, this
Speaker 1: is not this is not happening, and there is believe
Speaker 1: it or not, there's no constituent that there's there's nobody
Speaker 1: out there who's saying, hey, I just want Big Oil
Speaker 1: to send me a check, and I don't care if
Speaker 1: that means that the world ends for my kids. That
Speaker 1: that doesn't exist. I I it's such a it's such
Speaker 1: a mass hysteria that we're in the middle of with this,
Speaker 1: and that this has become attached to signs keep on.
Speaker 1: The scientific community has been thoroughly corrupted. I mean, I
Speaker 1: would say that environmental science and biology are now getting
Speaker 1: pretty close to where the humanities are, which is just
Speaker 1: overrun with left wing groupthink. They've tried to appropriate, they've
Speaker 1: tried to take over, and they really have taken over
Speaker 1: climate science, environmental science, and think about the incentive structure.
Speaker 1: And it's not hard to find people in the climate
Speaker 1: in the climatology community who are going to stand up
Speaker 1: and say climate change is really important, because one that
Speaker 1: means they're really important. You know, what do you want
Speaker 1: to be. Do you want to be the guy who's like, hey,
Speaker 1: look at weather patterns and try to determinate how it'll
Speaker 1: affect crap yields? Go or the guy who's like, I
Speaker 1: am here to save the planet from the warming that
Speaker 1: will be catastrophe can destroy us all, And I'm a
Speaker 1: scientist and you must listen to me because I'm going
Speaker 1: to save us all. I think most people would opt
Speaker 1: for door number two there. And then when you add
Speaker 1: into that the money that's attached to you, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you want to grant right now, do you want
Speaker 1: to tell corporate because there's a shakedown of major corporations
Speaker 1: with us too. They have to they have to donate
Speaker 1: to these they'll donate to these different nonprofits that are
Speaker 1: doing climate research and all these different science science affiliations
Speaker 1: at universities. They'll they'll get money from the government to
Speaker 1: do more climate research. So you can either be really
Speaker 1: important and have a lot of money and say the
Speaker 1: world is going to end and only you can come
Speaker 1: up with a way to stop it, or you can
Speaker 1: be a glorified weatherman, and in fact weatherman are much
Speaker 1: more useful. I feel like I'm actually unnecessarily or unfairly
Speaker 1: disparaging weather men and women because what they do, they're
Speaker 1: usually right, and they provide a useful service. Climatologists do not.
Speaker 1: They do not provide a useful service. They have just
Speaker 1: become this echo chamber of lunacy. And you even hear
Speaker 1: it now from from Democrats in the Senate in a
Speaker 1: way and in the House of Kasia Quartesse at twelve
Speaker 1: years really not thirteen years, twelve years until we can't
Speaker 1: turn it around. I remember seeing, Uh, I'm let to
Speaker 1: say what it's not Fahrenheit nine eleven an inconvenient truth.
Speaker 1: Al Gore was saying that by now it would already
Speaker 1: be irreversible until you get China and India on board.
Speaker 1: All this is nonsense until you get the major other developing,
Speaker 1: massive industrial countries to take huge steps that would be
Speaker 1: wildly trillions and trillions of dollars of wealth just evaporating
Speaker 1: because of this craziness. Do you think any of them
Speaker 1: are gonna do that? And they think the Libs think
Speaker 1: that you and I are the crazy ones. We're the
Speaker 1: ones that just don't get it, We're the ones that
Speaker 1: won't obey the science on this one. I just look
Speaker 1: at them and think, how is it, how is it
Speaker 1: possible to have been so swindled, so bamboozled, brainwashed so
Speaker 1: that you will really believe that in last week they
Speaker 1: don't even have a plan. They get all upset and
Speaker 1: hysterical when you point this out, Okay, what are we
Speaker 1: really gonna do? AOC's Green New Deal is stupidity, that
Speaker 1: cow farts and rebuilding all the buildings. Thing wasn't an accident.
Speaker 1: That's what you'd have to do if you were really
Speaker 1: going to stop enough CO two from going into the
Speaker 1: air to turn this thing around. As they think, so
Speaker 1: what is the plan? If that's not really the plan,
Speaker 1: but we have to have a plan. What is the plan?
Speaker 1: They don't even know. All they know is they want
Speaker 1: the power to do absolutely anything under the rubric of
Speaker 1: defeating climate change. And that's what ultimately this is about.
Speaker 1: It's about control. It's definitely not about saving the planet.
Speaker 1: Bunch of loons. Bob Muller was trying to defend the
Speaker 1: indefense that report was incoherent, is written, and it was
Speaker 1: worse as played out on Live TV. No Nancy's Pelos,
Speaker 1: who was trying to put on a happy face yesterday
Speaker 1: with the press conference. But it was surprising to me
Speaker 1: that even members of the Democratic Party were last night
Speaker 1: recognizing that this was, as one commentator called it, a
Speaker 1: train wreck. Its charges, as has been demonstrated today in
Speaker 1: the hearings, are could be indictable of senses by anybody else,
Speaker 1: not the President of the United States and the President
Speaker 1: when he's no longer president, but the American people. I
Speaker 1: think that if we go to down that path, we
Speaker 1: should go in the strongest possible way. And that's all
Speaker 1: I'm going to say about the subject impeach or not
Speaker 1: question that Democrats have somehow not come to a conclusion about.
Speaker 1: Yet there's still there's the possibility there may be. Well,
Speaker 1: who knows. Let's bring on our friend Sean Davis, who
Speaker 1: has been spitting fire on Twitter in the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours. Some fantastic stuff. My friend Sean. He is
Speaker 1: co founder of the Federalist. The Federalist dot com, one
Speaker 1: of my favorite websites out there. Mister Davis, good to
Speaker 1: have you on, sir, good to be on. Thank you
Speaker 1: for having me. I gotta say, after the huge debacle yesterday,
Speaker 1: I had thought that maybe there would be a little
Speaker 1: more just keep the heads down from the Democrats and
Speaker 1: wait to start calling Trump a racist again. But I'm
Speaker 1: seeing the Pelos, Sas and some others that are saying,
Speaker 1: do you think they're really keeping impeachment open as an
Speaker 1: option in their minds or they just saying that because
Speaker 1: to say impeachment is closed is an admission that the
Speaker 1: debacle yesterday has ended that. Oh, I actually think it's
Speaker 1: a little bit of both. I think they have worked
Speaker 1: themselves into a corner, having worked their base into this fever,
Speaker 1: that there's a good segment of the party that they
Speaker 1: can't let down. They can't just say no more impeachment,
Speaker 1: So I feel like they have to keep that option
Speaker 1: alive just for their own political survival. But I think
Speaker 1: they also understand, at least the smarter heads in the
Speaker 1: party like Pelosi, that impeachment was going to be a
Speaker 1: disaster for them and it was going to be a
Speaker 1: guarantee for Trump's reelection, And they understand that the sooner
Speaker 1: they can take this train into the station and get
Speaker 1: everyone off, the better for their own party. So they've
Speaker 1: got a real problem here because they're stuck between their
Speaker 1: base and a hard place. Yeah, I feel like yesterday,
Speaker 1: in a sane world, should have been ironically helpful to
Speaker 1: the Democrats because it was so clear that Muller was
Speaker 1: a figurehead that this was really it was really all
Speaker 1: a con right. I mean, the whole purpose of Mueller
Speaker 1: being assigned was so that we couldn't criticize him. He
Speaker 1: was Saint Muller. He was going to save America from
Speaker 1: the scourge of Trump. Turns out that just a bunch
Speaker 1: of very clearly partisan Democrats were given effectively an unlimited
Speaker 1: budget and mandate you just destroy Trump and everybody in
Speaker 1: his orbit everything they could, anything they wanted to, and
Speaker 1: they couldn't even pull it off. But you would think
Speaker 1: that in a normal world Democrats would say, Okay, so
Speaker 1: I guess we're not going to impeachment and that would
Speaker 1: be to their benefit. It sounds to me like they're
Speaker 1: still thinking maybe, oh, they're still playing footsie with it.
Speaker 1: And that's because for them, I don't think impeachment was
Speaker 1: ever actually about the facts. For them, impeachment was about
Speaker 1: getting the orange bad man, and he will always be
Speaker 1: the Orange bad man no matter what happens with collusion
Speaker 1: or obstruction, and they have always wanted to get rid
Speaker 1: of him because he committed the unforgivable crime of beating
Speaker 1: Hillary in twenty sixteen. So it shouldn't really be all
Speaker 1: that surprising that the total collapse of Mueller in his
Speaker 1: investigation and the whole collusion thing didn't really save their
Speaker 1: desire for blood. All they care about is getting rid
Speaker 1: of Trump, and if they have to use Mueller to
Speaker 1: do it, great, and if they don't have to use
Speaker 1: him to do it, great. He was just a bit
Speaker 1: player in a much larger passion play against Trump. For
Speaker 1: the Democrats, what do you think their next moves are?
Speaker 1: I mean, is this thing? They don't have anything left
Speaker 1: really on collision unless they go the impeachment political route.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like they've exhausted. I do you
Speaker 1: see something else? I mean, you were an investigator up
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hell, you know how this stuff goes. Do
Speaker 1: you think the Democrats have another hand to play here
Speaker 1: or are they just going to have to batten down
Speaker 1: the hatches for this IG report when it comes out
Speaker 1: in allegedly September. Oh no, they have all kinds of options.
Speaker 1: And again, their whole goal has been to paralyze and
Speaker 1: get rid of Trump in the Mullar investigation and the
Speaker 1: whole collusion nonsense was just a means to do that.
Speaker 1: But remember they control the House, they have subpoena power,
Speaker 1: So now they're going to use what Pelosi euphemistically called
Speaker 1: accountability investigations. They're going to try and paralyze the White
Speaker 1: House by investigating every single little thing they do, whether
Speaker 1: it's subpoena in the White House or every agency or
Speaker 1: leaking stuff about different Cabinet secretaries. Their war is going
Speaker 1: to continue. So no, I think impeachment proceedings maybe off
Speaker 1: the table because of how poorly Muller's chest stimony went.
Speaker 1: But their inquisition against Trump, they've got a you know,
Speaker 1: another eighteen months. They have to run that thing until
Speaker 1: they get to twenty twenty, so they're not going to stop.
Speaker 1: What should Trump do in response to all this? How
Speaker 1: if you were advising his White House in this fight,
Speaker 1: what would you tell him? That's a good question. The
Speaker 1: first thing is you have to you have to clear
Speaker 1: the air on all the Spygate stuff. Bar needs to
Speaker 1: finish his investigation and make all the public Durham needs
Speaker 1: to announce indictments because somebody's got to go to prison
Speaker 1: for what went on there. The IG needs to finish up.
Speaker 1: The documents need to be classified. But I also think
Speaker 1: Trump needs to just focus on the stuff he ran
Speaker 1: on in the recent people voted for him, which was
Speaker 1: securing the border, securing the economy, making sure trade deals
Speaker 1: make sense, making sure people are able to keep more
Speaker 1: of their money instead of it going to the government,
Speaker 1: and trying to fix the healthcare system. I think that's
Speaker 1: what people actually care about. The Russias spygate stuff is
Speaker 1: interesting to us, but it's not the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that affects your everyday life. And it says everyday life
Speaker 1: issues that affect you, know, how much money you have
Speaker 1: to spend on a mortgage or school. That's what people
Speaker 1: vote on, and that's what Republicans in the president should
Speaker 1: be focusing on. Is there any mechanism that the White
Speaker 1: House could use to try to get some of this
Speaker 1: stuff going in the opposite direction? It just feels like
Speaker 1: our side, it feels like the White House feels like
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is always playing defense. There's only defense.
Speaker 1: I mean, except for Trump's Twitter and his public statements.
Speaker 1: But I mean, in terms of the mechanisms of the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: is there a fight fire with fire option here? Oh?
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, that's more of an existential question. It
Speaker 1: makes our lives as conservatives a lot more difficult when
Speaker 1: we're constantly going to war against a bureaucracy that's run
Speaker 1: by liberals, a media that's run by liberals, educational establishments
Speaker 1: that are run by liberals. We pretty much are always
Speaker 1: going to be reactive rather than proactive, just because of
Speaker 1: how the power balance in these institutions are. But I
Speaker 1: think Trump can do a lot to turn the tables,
Speaker 1: and in the smaller stuff is a good example. They
Speaker 1: never expected a president to do what he did. Comee.
Speaker 1: Never expected that he would get fired for trying to
Speaker 1: blackmail and extort the president. You know, Mueller never thought
Speaker 1: this guy would actually say, no, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: meet with you. I'm not playing your little perjury trap game.
Speaker 1: They certainly never in a million years thought that Barr
Speaker 1: would come in and get a declassification authorization from the
Speaker 1: President and then appoint his own prosecutor to go after
Speaker 1: the investigators. So Trump has a lot of ways where
Speaker 1: he can seize the initiative and force the other side
Speaker 1: to play on his terms rather than doing what we
Speaker 1: regularly have to do, which is play on their terms
Speaker 1: do you have faith in. I mean, I've I've been
Speaker 1: saying along and I think that Bar. I mean, my
Speaker 1: two favorite in terms of their competency. It's not like
Speaker 1: a personal favorite, but my two on the level of
Speaker 1: competence a competency favorites in the administration are Bar and Pompeo.
Speaker 1: I think Barr showed himself to be both unflappable and
Speaker 1: really on his game and knows and knows what time
Speaker 1: it is, so to speak, this guy from Menneicet that
Speaker 1: Dave assigned. I mean, what's your sense of whether this
Speaker 1: IG report is going to actually get the goods? Because
Speaker 1: the last IG report seemed to be nothing but political
Speaker 1: bias and then somehow the IG comes out with a
Speaker 1: conclusion that's, well, there's no actual political bias here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So we got to separate two things. There's the Durham
Speaker 1: bar investigation. Durham's the prosecutor from Connecticut, and then there's
Speaker 1: the IG report. I expect the IG report to be
Speaker 1: a total dud. The IG does not exist to root
Speaker 1: out corruption within agencies. It exists to investigate things and
Speaker 1: then tell the world, don't worry, it was just one
Speaker 1: or two people here doing some isolated bad things, but
Speaker 1: the agency as a whole is safe and protected. And
Speaker 1: don't you worry, I got it locked down. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what we're going to see when he comes out
Speaker 1: with his report on the FISA stuff. As far as
Speaker 1: Durham and bar are concerned, Durham is the real deal.
Speaker 1: This was a guy who rooted out corruption as a
Speaker 1: US attorney at the FBI when it turns out the
Speaker 1: FBI was framing innocent people for murders committed by FBI informants,
Speaker 1: and in fact, it was Mueller's own FBI that was
Speaker 1: hiding evidence from the courts during that and it was
Speaker 1: something I think back in two thousand and two or
Speaker 1: two thousand and three that was so heinous. Several of
Speaker 1: the men who were in prison for life were freed
Speaker 1: and granted something like one hundred or two hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars settlement for the wrongful convictions based on falsification and
Speaker 1: lies by FBI agents. So Durham went up against the mob,
Speaker 1: and he went up against the FBI, and he came
Speaker 1: out clean. So I think, just character wise and experience wise,
Speaker 1: he's the perfect person to be doing this current job
Speaker 1: of rooting out the corruption related to Spygate before we
Speaker 1: let you go. Sean, just wondering watching that thing happened
Speaker 1: yesterday on Capitol watching finally Muller have to stand up
Speaker 1: and present the truth, in some sense, right, the truth
Speaker 1: of who he is and his role in this investigation.
Speaker 1: Were you. I gotta say, I didn't really see it coming.
Speaker 1: It was a little I was taken aback by how
Speaker 1: utterly convincing, and then in a sense how much I
Speaker 1: felt like a fraud had been exposed after two years,
Speaker 1: the fraud of the investigation, which is that this guy
Speaker 1: was a figurehead and that it was never this honest, bipartisan,
Speaker 1: good faith investigation at all. You're exactly right. We got
Speaker 1: a little glimpse of it at his bizarre May twenty
Speaker 1: ninth press conference, and I remarked in an article at
Speaker 1: the time that he looked more like a dottering octogenarian
Speaker 1: senator out to lunch than he did this commanding former
Speaker 1: FBI figure. And I wondered, coming into the testimony yesterday,
Speaker 1: maybe he was just having a bad day and we
Speaker 1: were going to see the Bob Muller of old show
Speaker 1: up and really put on a tour to force performance
Speaker 1: I was shocked at how feeble he was, how little
Speaker 1: command he had over even the simplest of details, and
Speaker 1: it was shocking. I think that's why you saw the
Speaker 1: response you did from pretty much everyone left and right,
Speaker 1: and it showed that his name was used and abused
Speaker 1: by a bunch of people who just wanted the veneer
Speaker 1: of his credibility to be wrapped around the witch hunt
Speaker 1: that they had planned to do from the very beginning.
Speaker 1: Sean Davis everybody co founder or the Federalist read his
Speaker 1: latest at the Federalist dot com. You can also follow
Speaker 1: Sean on Twitter if you want to see how you
Speaker 1: can get after the libs on Twitter. Sea N M.
Speaker 1: Dav Sean Davis, Thanks so much, Sean, appreciate having you
Speaker 1: any Buddy's always fun. Thank you, Buck. All right, we'll
Speaker 1: hit it in the sect team. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: The Mueller Report was not written by Bob Muller, and
Speaker 1: that a lot of the findings and conclusions that were
Speaker 1: in there were written by a bunch of lawyers that
Speaker 1: didn't like Donald Trump, that had supported and in some
Speaker 1: cases represented Hillary Clinton. So I think that that was
Speaker 1: a fact that came out. The other big winner if
Speaker 1: you will as Attorney General Bill Barr, because if Bob
Speaker 1: Mueller didn't answer those questions, Bill Barr needs to people
Speaker 1: need to know the answers to the questions. That's Congress
Speaker 1: In Ratcliffe giving his assessment, his his after action report
Speaker 1: on what yesterday on Capitol Hill. With that testimony by
Speaker 1: Bob Muller. I wanted to hear from the man himself,
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy, on this, so we got him in the
Speaker 1: mix today. Andy's, of course, formerly of the Southern District
Speaker 1: of New Yorkers, a federal prosecutor. Now he's with National
Speaker 1: Review where he is a senior editor, author of a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of books. Fox News contributor Andy, Great to
Speaker 1: have you back, Great to be with you. All right,
Speaker 1: I just want your your top line. I mean, you
Speaker 1: know you're you. You finished watching that whole thing yesterday,
Speaker 1: and the first thoughts that are coming out or you know,
Speaker 1: first thoughts in your mind, first words out of your mouth,
Speaker 1: or what. There's no way that Bob Muller either ran
Speaker 1: this investigation or had anything to do with the report.
Speaker 1: You know, I just think he was I had always
Speaker 1: thought Buck that he was staff driven, just because I
Speaker 1: thought that we could recognize those of us who have
Speaker 1: watched some of these guys over the years. Some of
Speaker 1: the legal theories and investigative tactics that were used are
Speaker 1: sort of notorious linked with some of the people on
Speaker 1: Muller's staff. So it was clear to me that he
Speaker 1: was given his staff free reign. But you know, I
Speaker 1: kind of pooh pooed what a number of people in
Speaker 1: the Trump camp told me about, you know, that Muller
Speaker 1: had kind of lost his fastball. I figured, you know,
Speaker 1: you're getting spun a little bit, which is kind of
Speaker 1: what happens. But it sure looked at me like that
Speaker 1: was true yesterday. Yeah. How I mean, you Andy, you
Speaker 1: worked in the prosecutorial arm of the federal government. I
Speaker 1: feel like the American people must have those who were
Speaker 1: approaching this not even necessarily completely fair minded, but just
Speaker 1: being objective at what they saw. It's hard to come
Speaker 1: away from this enough feel like this was there's a
Speaker 1: dishonesty in attaching a you know, a high profile individual
Speaker 1: like I mean, it was called the Mueller Report. We've
Speaker 1: been referring to this all along, and you know, his
Speaker 1: credibility was used to sell this. You know, it's it's
Speaker 1: like I signed, you know, I I signed a star
Speaker 1: pitcher for my baseball team, and it turns out that
Speaker 1: when I show up, you know, to watch from the stands,
Speaker 1: it's actually like a bunch of triple A guys. I'm like,
Speaker 1: what happened here? I mean, it's just it just felt
Speaker 1: like it was not what was advertised at all in
Speaker 1: a way that was fraudulent. Yeah, and it's then the
Speaker 1: consequences of that book, which I completely I agree with
Speaker 1: your point, but the consequences of it are even deeper,
Speaker 1: I think in this sense. You know a lot of
Speaker 1: us have complained from the beginning that Muller was tin
Speaker 1: eared in assembling his staff, to put it mildly, and
Speaker 1: he had a lot of activist Democrats on a staff
Speaker 1: that in an investigation that was fraught with politics, and
Speaker 1: the comeback to that always was well, but you don't
Speaker 1: have to worry about that because the Rock River Republican
Speaker 1: Bob Muller is the guy who's at the Helm, and
Speaker 1: he's not an activist Democrats, So what are you all
Speaker 1: worrying about? And of course, you know, it's turns out
Speaker 1: that he hasn't really been at the Helm at all,
Speaker 1: except in name only so you know, number one, he
Speaker 1: really was not running the show. It was these activist
Speaker 1: Democrats who were doing that. And secondly, Buck, you know,
Speaker 1: you're not supposed to have a special counsel unless the
Speaker 1: Justice Department is so conflicted that it's necessary to bring
Speaker 1: somebody in from the outside to run the investigation. Well,
Speaker 1: Mulla was the guy from the outside, and who did
Speaker 1: the recruit not just activist Democrats, but activist Democrats who
Speaker 1: had high ranking positions in the Justice Department whose conflict
Speaker 1: was the reason we supposedly had to have a special
Speaker 1: counsel in the first place. Annie McCarthy, everybody check out
Speaker 1: his latest at National Review dot com. And you know, Annie,
Speaker 1: to me has been such a fascinating component of this
Speaker 1: whole saga because you know, those of you who listened
Speaker 1: to this show and have for a long time know
Speaker 1: that he was very fair minded. In the early stages
Speaker 1: of the investigation, he said, Okay, we got a special counsel,
Speaker 1: we got to look into this, see what they do.
Speaker 1: And he is now right along I mean I read
Speaker 1: all of his stuff and I obviously have him on
Speaker 1: the show on a regular basis. We're right alongside each
Speaker 1: other in terms of what an outrage we think this
Speaker 1: is and how ridiculous we think this is. So it's
Speaker 1: just it's frustrating because I really don't think there'll be
Speaker 1: any justice here. The only accountability that will really matter
Speaker 1: is making Democrats stu in four more years of Trump
Speaker 1: as president. I mean, just that's the if you want
Speaker 1: to feel like all has been set right in the world,
Speaker 1: or at least there has been some payback for what
Speaker 1: has been done that is wrong. Trump for four more
Speaker 1: years as president will melt lib minds, and that will
Speaker 1: mean that all this stuff that they've done, all these
Speaker 1: deep state which hunt nonsense efforts, it was all for naught.
Speaker 1: They were unable to achieve what they sought out to do,
Speaker 1: what they were so willing to debase themselves to do,
Speaker 1: which was to find anything, anything that they could to
Speaker 1: destroy Orange Man Bad Trump. That's what this wall was.
Speaker 1: So if they fail in that objective, because he wins
Speaker 1: four more years as president, that's the only way to
Speaker 1: repudiate all the underhanded, disgusting tactics that they've engaged in.
Speaker 1: And so that for me at least raises the stakes
Speaker 1: a bit for the next election. It's not just about
Speaker 1: Trump and all the policies. It's also about justice. Dare
Speaker 1: I say, I'm not going to answer that. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to engage in discussion about what happened after the
Speaker 1: production of our report. That's in my purview. I am
Speaker 1: not going to get into that. I don't want to speculate.
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily credit what you're saying outside our purview,
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to answer that question, Sir. I
Speaker 1: do not accept your characterization what occurred, and I am
Speaker 1: not familiar with that. I don't know when I found
Speaker 1: that out. Yeah, I'm not gonna talk about that. I'm
Speaker 1: going to pass on that. Yeah, and I'm curious as
Speaker 1: to why, well I can't get into it. Did he
Speaker 1: lie to you? Guys too can't get into that? Did
Speaker 1: you interview mipson can't get into that is MIPS and
Speaker 1: Western intelligence or Russian intelligence can't get into that. A
Speaker 1: lot of things you can't get into, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: I want to I want to start pulling the it's
Speaker 1: outside my purview whatever that's now a thing. Whenever somebody
Speaker 1: asked me a question, I don't want to answer it.
Speaker 1: Just say, ah, it's outside my purview. Hey, Buck, did
Speaker 1: you did you take out the trash and clean the dishes? Uh,
Speaker 1: it's outside my purview. Yeah, did you did you do
Speaker 1: the work last night that you're supposed to do in
Speaker 1: preparation for today? That's outside my purview. That's that's gonna
Speaker 1: be a fun one. Uh. Just just a note here,
Speaker 1: because I am in in New York City. You've got
Speaker 1: a de Blasio bike lane project. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: the Blasio might be the dumbest mayor in the United States,
Speaker 1: in any city with over one hundred thousand people, or
Speaker 1: maybe just in any city. I do think that he
Speaker 1: may he may be the least competent mayor. And the
Speaker 1: I shouldn't say the dumbest, the most incompetent is really
Speaker 1: the way I think that the city would function better.
Speaker 1: This is this is really true. The city would function
Speaker 1: more efficiently if in fact, you did not have Deblasio
Speaker 1: and there was no mayor, like it would be a
Speaker 1: better thing for the largest city in this country. Of
Speaker 1: Deblasio wasn't even making any decision whatsoever. But you you
Speaker 1: have this big fifty eight million dollars bike safety plan
Speaker 1: that's going to be coming out. Mark, do you ever bike?
Speaker 1: Are you a bike guy, I don't feel like getting murdered.
Speaker 1: You know. They have had seventeen people die this year
Speaker 1: on bicycles alone in New York City, and I think, look,
Speaker 1: Libs are obsessed with creating bike lanes in very, very
Speaker 1: crowded cities. They're obsessed with it, and I think it's
Speaker 1: because of their climate change mania. They view this as
Speaker 1: the way that you know, Europeans live there, very stately
Speaker 1: and unordered lives. And there's a lot that when you
Speaker 1: add it all together, you look at it say, Okay,
Speaker 1: I understand why the Libs like when people are cycling places,
Speaker 1: because your CO two emissions from cycling are pretty minimal.
Speaker 1: But all I can tell you is that a lot
Speaker 1: of people I come across who are in major urban
Speaker 1: areas on bicycles, at least a lot of the ones
Speaker 1: that I remember, are just nuts. I mean, they're going
Speaker 1: twenty five miles an hour on those things. They're going
Speaker 1: the wrong way up and down the street. There was
Speaker 1: a character created for the show Portlandia who is a
Speaker 1: militant bicyclist who's always yelling, you know, on your left,
Speaker 1: on your left, you know. And if you dealt with
Speaker 1: some of this stuff too, the people that think that
Speaker 1: they can just go any way they want in traffic
Speaker 1: on the bicycle as fast as they want to go,
Speaker 1: and all they have to do is in the last
Speaker 1: two seconds before they run over some granny yell you know,
Speaker 1: on your right and that's enough. The worst is cars
Speaker 1: versus bicycles because I live in Long Beach, New York,
Speaker 1: and they don't observe stop signs, They go the wrong
Speaker 1: way on the streets. They just act like there are
Speaker 1: no cars, yeah, no bike lane. So it's not like
Speaker 1: they should be riding in the street and getting in
Speaker 1: my way. Now I know that they are. Some of
Speaker 1: you think they're nerdy, probably a lot of you. But
Speaker 1: those electric scooters are far safer. People are in much
Speaker 1: better control. They're much more comfortable because you can just
Speaker 1: step on and then take off. You don't have to
Speaker 1: you're not exercising, so it's not like going to help
Speaker 1: your heart anything. But that means you also don't show
Speaker 1: up to a work meeting because if you're a man
Speaker 1: wearing a suit on a bicycle, that just can't be fun.
Speaker 1: I see these guys who do this. They're in a
Speaker 1: business suit and they're on their bike. Here in New
Speaker 1: York City. I just don't see how that. You know,
Speaker 1: don't you have to also do the thing where you
Speaker 1: take your pant leg and you roll it up. It
Speaker 1: doesn't get caught in the gears, all right, think so yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it just doesn't mean what you smell when you get
Speaker 1: to work. Of course, do you think it to be
Speaker 1: some smelly comie and you're saving the earth by not
Speaker 1: taking a car or the subway or a bus. Sorry
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not into it. I mean, sixty million
Speaker 1: dollars on a safety program that is going to be
Speaker 1: dubious at best. But then again, to Blasio's wife, I think,
Speaker 1: spend eight hundred million dollars on a health a mental
Speaker 1: health initiative that nobody can point to anything that has
Speaker 1: been done of benefit. I mean it takes some it's
Speaker 1: real special to spend eight hundred million dollars on nothing,
Speaker 1: or or to spend eight hundred million dollars and have
Speaker 1: nothing to show for it. That's that's almost a skill
Speaker 1: in and of itself. I don't know how anyone could
Speaker 1: do that. But that's what's going on in the city
Speaker 1: and at Blasio is still running for president. It's the
Speaker 1: craziest part. We got the Democrat debates next week. We
Speaker 1: got two nights and debates. What is Wednesday Thursday? Is
Speaker 1: that remark? No, it's Tuesday, Wednesday. I mean, none of
Speaker 1: these Democrats seem like serious people to me. It's it's
Speaker 1: really so far an absolute clown show. But maybe one
Speaker 1: of them will break out a deside. I think the
Speaker 1: first Democrat that starts to look like he or she
Speaker 1: is in some command of reality, we'll be able to
Speaker 1: break out of this pack. But those that are raising
Speaker 1: their hands for things like health, you know, medicare, Medica,
Speaker 1: not just Medicare for all, Medicare for all for illegal aliens,
Speaker 1: there's just no way that there's no way they can
Speaker 1: win doing holding the positions that they hold. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure they're going to bring up that it was one
Speaker 1: hundred and eight degrees in Paris today, and you know
Speaker 1: climate they love to talk about climate change. It's it's
Speaker 1: been a hundred and eight degrees in Europe before, folks.
Speaker 1: This is none of this stuff is really new. I
Speaker 1: just wish that there were some I don't know that
Speaker 1: there's not even a way to have a conversation with
Speaker 1: these people anymore, but Yeah, the cyclists in particular are
Speaker 1: you know, you get a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: Sandernistas in the cycling community in the urban. So I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about those of you that ride your bicycle
Speaker 1: on the weekend you're in your hometown or that's not
Speaker 1: I mean the people that want to go into the
Speaker 1: biggest cities in the country and they only want to
Speaker 1: ride their bikes and they want to do whatever they
Speaker 1: want on them, and it just makes it's such a hazard. Man.
Speaker 1: I've almost been clipped several times by and they're always
Speaker 1: going the wrong way down the street, because that's I'm
Speaker 1: a New Yorker, right, I'm always looking and looking, but
Speaker 1: you know it's a one way street. There's no car coming,
Speaker 1: and you know there's double park cars though. Sometimes I'm
Speaker 1: telling you it's a dangerous world out there. Mark, keep
Speaker 1: your head on a swivel. Roll calls up next. Ain't
Speaker 1: no party like a Team Buck party, because a Team
Speaker 1: Buck party, don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll call. They did a
Speaker 1: red I guess it's called a reskin of Twitter. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a re a rebrand of Twitter. I don't know
Speaker 1: what you necessarily call it, but they do a It
Speaker 1: looks different now and I don't like it. I like
Speaker 1: the old version. I haven't seen the yet. Very few
Speaker 1: of you. Yeah, the desktop version stinks. The phone's the same. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's good news. He's the same on the phone, same
Speaker 1: on the phone. All right, Right here we go, roll
Speaker 1: call Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton. That's how you
Speaker 1: send me your thoughts, send me your messages. Let's get
Speaker 1: to it, Brad hey Buck. On Tuesday's podcast, you talked
Speaker 1: about the left and how they'd like to get Al
Speaker 1: Frankin back in office and even possibly even possibly run
Speaker 1: against Trump. I thought I was going to wreck my
Speaker 1: car laughing when you said it. You think watching Biden
Speaker 1: versus Trump as a train wreck, watching what Trump would
Speaker 1: do to Al frank And during an election would be
Speaker 1: too enjoyable. I'm still trying to figure out how the
Speaker 1: Dems went so crazy so fast. They seem completely clueless
Speaker 1: about the American people and our values. Thanks for all
Speaker 1: you do, shield time well, Brad, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: my friend. I do appreciate it. So Yes, indeed, that's
Speaker 1: I think you're probably right that Trump would defeat Frankin
Speaker 1: rather easily. But it's not an experiment where we're going
Speaker 1: to get to really play out. So it's just theorizing
Speaker 1: right now. Van, hey Buck, I don't usually rush, but
Speaker 1: I was listening to him today while driving and I
Speaker 1: heard a Buck Sextant Noble Gold commercial. I was much
Speaker 1: more excited to hear the commercial than the show. Keep
Speaker 1: on breaking through Shield's eye. All right, Van, thank you,
Speaker 1: my friend, appreciate that. Yes, Noble Gold's a great sponsor,
Speaker 1: a great company, and it's nice to have my voice
Speaker 1: get to a few different places like that. Let's see here,
Speaker 1: John rights, Hey Buck, No one's cutting mustard. The correct
Speaker 1: phrase is cut the must really think of eighteenth century
Speaker 1: conscripts being mustard into formation. If one was physically unable
Speaker 1: to muster, then that individual could not cut the muster.
Speaker 1: I've been listening ever since you're interviewed on Glen's show.
Speaker 1: You should work with YouTube history channels like Kings and
Speaker 1: Generals to produce more history shows. Well, thank you so much, John,
Speaker 1: I mean, I do love doing the history shows, and
Speaker 1: you know, I'm probably gonna move to like a tropical
Speaker 1: island at some point and just do history podcasts and
Speaker 1: like write, you know, books, and that may be where
Speaker 1: life is heading. Wow, is cut the mustard? Wait, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, Where does the phrase cut the mustard
Speaker 1: come from? This is what I just looked up on
Speaker 1: dictionary dot com. To cut the mustard is to reach
Speaker 1: or surpass the desired standard performance, or more generally, to succeed.
Speaker 1: For instance, Beyonce I really cut the mustard in her
Speaker 1: new song. When don't we start saying cut the mustard?
Speaker 1: What is the origin of it? The word mustard goes
Speaker 1: back via French the Latin mustum, which is an altogether
Speaker 1: different substance. This is all on dictionary dot com. It
Speaker 1: was the juice squeeze from grapes before it was made
Speaker 1: into wine. Mustard is so named because the condiment was
Speaker 1: originally made by making mustard seeds into a paste with
Speaker 1: must What does mustard have to do with excellence? It's
Speaker 1: not exactly clear why we say cut the mustard. Some
Speaker 1: have provoked proposed literal derivation, such as cutting down mustard plants.
Speaker 1: Others suggest a connection to the phrase passing mustard. When
Speaker 1: a soldier gets approval after troops are assembled. It sounds like,
Speaker 1: my friend John, you are teaching me a new phrase.
Speaker 1: But I think that cutting the mustard is in fact
Speaker 1: still Mark, what do you think isn't cut the mustard
Speaker 1: a phrase you've heard before? I have. I prefer cutting
Speaker 1: the cheese, though, Yes, well that's a different, that's a
Speaker 1: different I know what that is. So I apparently dictionary
Speaker 1: dot com says cut the mustard is a phrase, So
Speaker 1: I'm not. I was about to eat a little bit
Speaker 1: of humble pie with some mustard on it. But anyway,
Speaker 1: all right, let's see here, Ricky, Greetings. We aren't acquainted,
Speaker 1: but I just wanted to say, keep out the good fight,
Speaker 1: and if you have any sway at all with poetas,
Speaker 1: ask him to consider being more strategic with the tweets
Speaker 1: and do not cause the dams to close ranks. Again
Speaker 1: to him, that is bad. Well, I wish I could
Speaker 1: say that I had that kind of sway with Potus,
Speaker 1: but I've only I spoke to him. I haven't spoken
Speaker 1: him in a year. But I do know people around
Speaker 1: him in the White House. I don't think they could
Speaker 1: listen to me on this one. But I'll do what
Speaker 1: I can. I'll do what I can. I do it.
Speaker 1: I don't I do what I can. Taylor, right, someone
Speaker 1: obviously forgot to tell Epstein that you can't hide from
Speaker 1: the Clintons, not even in jail. All right, So Taylor,
Speaker 1: I assume you're referring to the fact that Epstein was
Speaker 1: found in a cell last night with some marks, some
Speaker 1: bruises or is it clear? Mark? What was it a suicide?
Speaker 1: At temper? Was he attacked? It wasn't clear from the
Speaker 1: headlines I saw this morning. Do we know yet? I
Speaker 1: did not see the story. I'll look at them. That's
Speaker 1: all right, you know. But this is what I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you. If for some reason Epstein does not live
Speaker 1: to see a trial, then I got to tell you. Wait,
Speaker 1: jailed killer. Here we go. This is in the New
Speaker 1: York Post jailed killer cop. Question about Jeffrey Epstein's injuries.
Speaker 1: Investigators suspect that Epstein was assaulted in a Lower Manhattan
Speaker 1: lock up and questioned a hulking X cop who's housed
Speaker 1: in the same unit. Holding to law enforcement sources, he
Speaker 1: was placed on suicide watch after he's found sprawled on
Speaker 1: the floor of his cell, nearly unconscious and with injuries
Speaker 1: to his neck. Authorities are leaning away from the idea
Speaker 1: the convicted pedophile did it to himself, either to commit
Speaker 1: suicide or merely get transferred out of the infamous Metropolitan
Speaker 1: Correction Center. The marks are more consistent with being choked. Epstein,
Speaker 1: sixty six, has refused to cooperate with investigators. Huh Nicholas
Speaker 1: Tartalioni is a former Briarcliff Manner cop who faces the
Speaker 1: death penalty and for drug related killings upstate. He was
Speaker 1: wearing earbuds when investigators went to ask him about the incident.
Speaker 1: People are looking at this guy. Wow, folks, Let's just
Speaker 1: get this clear right now. If and I think that's
Speaker 1: what my friend Taylor here is going for, Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: does not live to see trial. It's because this is
Speaker 1: a cover up and they let him die in prison,
Speaker 1: meaning that they did not keep him safe. This guy,
Speaker 1: he's got dirt on people he was. There's all this
Speaker 1: evidence that's, you know, testimony that's been given by his victims.
Speaker 1: So there's no reason for them to lie about how
Speaker 1: this guy liked to make videos of people in sexual
Speaker 1: acts with underage girls. Well, you know, have you heard
Speaker 1: any names coming out of that? I mean, well, there
Speaker 1: have been some people that have been publicly named. They
Speaker 1: very much claim that it's all a lie. But according
Speaker 1: to some of his victims, there were other, you know,
Speaker 1: grown men who were caught up in this process, and
Speaker 1: we have not heard who those names are. So if
Speaker 1: all of a sudden it comes out that, you know,
Speaker 1: Epstein is dead, I think it's pretty clear that someone
Speaker 1: got to him in prison. It would be like a
Speaker 1: mob hit in prison. Look, this is people want this
Speaker 1: story to go away. Nobody gets the deal that Epstein got.
Speaker 1: Nobody it does not. That is not something that happens
Speaker 1: in the justice system. No one prays on underage girls, systematically,
Speaker 1: has a mountain of evidence against him, and essentially gets
Speaker 1: away with the most minor slap on the wrist. It's
Speaker 1: just it just doesn't happen. So there must be some
Speaker 1: reason for it. And the pressure that was brought to
Speaker 1: bear on someone. We haven't found out who it was.
Speaker 1: Acosta lost his cabinet position. There must have been something
Speaker 1: going on here, folks. There was someone that gave the
Speaker 1: order to make this Epstein case go away. Somebody was
Speaker 1: doing that. So I'm just saying, that's what do you think? Mark?
Speaker 1: And I just wanted to let you know. NBC New
Speaker 1: York is reporting that sources say it was a suicide
Speaker 1: attempt or they might be a suicide attempt, and who's
Speaker 1: placed on suicide watch? He I mean that's possible too. Okay,
Speaker 1: good to know, but I'm just saying if he has
Speaker 1: taken out in prison, it is not a coincidence. Yes,
Speaker 1: And I just want to say that before anything happens.
Speaker 1: This guy does not make it to trial, it is
Speaker 1: not And if he manages to evade justice because of
Speaker 1: some double jeopardy protection, then you know the fix has
Speaker 1: been in all along. So I'm I've got concerned. I
Speaker 1: have very real concerns about where all this is going.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure we're gonna see just a stard team.
Speaker 1: I didn't get into as much roll call today as
Speaker 1: I meant it Tomorrow It'll be Friday. You know what
Speaker 1: that means, double roll call. So well hear more from
Speaker 1: you then, Facebook dot com Slashbuck Sexton, please do send
Speaker 1: of your thoughts, sen of your well wishes, your your
Speaker 1: high fives, your prayers, all of the above here in
Speaker 1: New York City. Because my dad's birthday, I want to
Speaker 1: give a shout out to my dad, the patriarch of
Speaker 1: the Sexton family. He is a man who looks twenty
Speaker 1: years younger than his age, and we love you dad,
Speaker 1: Happy birthday, and she'll tie