Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A Trump tweet triggers
Speaker 1: the Libs. Did the Inspector General in the intelligence community
Speaker 1: change the rules for whistleblowers at a very convenient time?
Speaker 1: What's up with John Durham's Ukrainian leads? And how could
Speaker 1: that affect Biden? Plus there is new information about emissions
Speaker 1: from planes that will make you realize that all this
Speaker 1: climate change stuff is pretty crazy. That I'm more coming
Speaker 1: up in the Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence mag no mistake, American.
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. Now, welcome to the Buck sex
Speaker 1: to show everybody. Great to have you here with me
Speaker 1: on this fantastic Monday. I hope it's fantastic. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling that there will be some very very nasty
Speaker 1: political back and forth going on, that's for sure. That's
Speaker 1: not a surprise. You have this fight over the whistleblower
Speaker 1: now extending into territory that I think is it couldn't
Speaker 1: be any more obvious that we are in an entirely
Speaker 1: partisan fight here. It has really nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the law. If anything, it's the Democrats undermining the rule
Speaker 1: of law and deciding that rules don't really matter when
Speaker 1: power is at stake. And if Trump is the one
Speaker 1: who currently has power, anything you have to do to
Speaker 1: push him aside, anything you have to do to make
Speaker 1: sure he is no longer going to be president, is
Speaker 1: on its face, automatically justified. But there was one piece
Speaker 1: that hit over the weekend from the Federalist, And I've
Speaker 1: got to tell you, the Federalist has been doing some
Speaker 1: excellent work on this recently, and it had to do
Speaker 1: with the Inspector General report the whistle blower. And here's
Speaker 1: what we know it is. It is now the case.
Speaker 1: It is now known that, as my friend Shawn Davis
Speaker 1: here writes, the Intel community secretly gutted the requirement of
Speaker 1: first hand knowledge when it comes to a whistleblower complaint.
Speaker 1: This is why last week I started to say that
Speaker 1: this was a hearsay complaint, which would also explain why
Speaker 1: there were so many different factual errors in it. Right,
Speaker 1: the person didn't really hear the conversation, heard about a
Speaker 1: conversation that someone else heard about, or perhaps was on
Speaker 1: the call directly. We don't know, but it was not
Speaker 1: firsthand information. And this is why this little tidbit. For
Speaker 1: those that laugh, who think that the notion of a
Speaker 1: deep state is some kind of a joke, they would
Speaker 1: need to explain to me why this would have happened
Speaker 1: in this way. Calling all the coincidence theorists out there
Speaker 1: not conspiracy theorists, because the conspiracy seems quite clear to me.
Speaker 1: Here's what Sean writes at the Federalist dot com. Between
Speaker 1: May twenty eighteen and August twenty nineteen, the intelligence community
Speaker 1: secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct firsthand knowledge
Speaker 1: of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's
Speaker 1: behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires
Speaker 1: potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to
Speaker 1: Congress to have direct firsthand knowledge the alleged wrongdoing that
Speaker 1: they are reporting. The brand new version of the whistleblower
Speaker 1: complaint form, which was not made public until after the
Speaker 1: transcript of Trump's July twenty fifth phone call with the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian President and the complaint addressed to Congress or made public,
Speaker 1: eliminates the first hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to
Speaker 1: file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge
Speaker 1: of underlying evidence and only heard about wrongdoing from others. Really,
Speaker 1: does that even want to venture that that's just happenstance?
Speaker 1: How often do you think in recent years they have
Speaker 1: amended the form for whistleblowers? How often do you think
Speaker 1: in recent years they've changed for the purposes of the
Speaker 1: intelligence community, inspector general what classifies as a whistleblower. I'm
Speaker 1: willing to guess this is a rare occurrence. I'm willing
Speaker 1: to bet I'm willing to tell you that it is
Speaker 1: a rare occurrence. So then we have to ask the
Speaker 1: question why, now, why did it happen in this way? Well,
Speaker 1: it's quite obvious, isn't it. There are people inside the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy. And we know this. We know this from
Speaker 1: Comey and struck in Page and Brennan and Clapper and
Speaker 1: McCabe and Yates. Remember Sally Yates refused to do her
Speaker 1: job as acting Attorney General while they were waiting to
Speaker 1: get a real Attorney General of Trump's choosing in the
Speaker 1: role obstruct and resist. This is a rallying cry that
Speaker 1: we have seen from some of the top elements of
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy, and eventually we have to come to
Speaker 1: grips with the possibility that our bureaucratic overlords really do
Speaker 1: think that they and not the people we vote for,
Speaker 1: hold power under the constitution, that they would subvert the
Speaker 1: very system that they claim to be protecting. Did you
Speaker 1: see anything like this during the eight years of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration? If I asked you for a single a solitary,
Speaker 1: senior level national security official who broke regulation and even
Speaker 1: broke law, as we see with Annie McCabe, the former
Speaker 1: FBI director, in order to do something damaging to President Obama,
Speaker 1: do you think you could think of one? Oh? No.
Speaker 1: The only thing that perhaps comes close would be the
Speaker 1: comments of some of the senior officers around General Stan
Speaker 1: McCrystal during a time of war, by the way, when
Speaker 1: McCrystal was a very highly regarded theater commander and a
Speaker 1: rolling Stone journo recklessly and just shamelessly decided to print
Speaker 1: what was really just idle side chatter and gossip about
Speaker 1: how McCrystal thought that or that Obama didn't really know
Speaker 1: anything about the military and didn't really know anything about
Speaker 1: national security. By the way, fact check he didn't, especially
Speaker 1: at that time. But that was considered a swipe, a
Speaker 1: slap at the commander in chief, and the crystal was
Speaker 1: relieved of duty. But there was no effort to subvert.
Speaker 1: There was there was no one coming forward leaking highly
Speaker 1: sensitive stuff lying to inspector generals. And in this case,
Speaker 1: he is we see now changing the rules so that
Speaker 1: somebody could be weaponized as a quote whistleblower, all in
Speaker 1: order to embarrass this president. I go back to the
Speaker 1: Federalist here by Sean Davis. The internal properties of the
Speaker 1: newly revised Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form which the Intelligence
Speaker 1: Community Inspector General requires to be submitted of the under
Speaker 1: the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act show. The document was
Speaker 1: uploaded on September twenty four, twenty nineteen, just days before
Speaker 1: the anti Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public.
Speaker 1: The complain alleges that Donald Trump broke the law, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: Previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG
Speaker 1: and D and I until recently provided to potential whistle blowers,
Speaker 1: declared that any complaint must contain only firsthand knowledge of
Speaker 1: alleged wrongdoing, and that complaints provide only hearsay, rumor or
Speaker 1: gossip would be rejected. Anyone want to take a guess
Speaker 1: at whether that's a coincidence. Oh, they just happened to
Speaker 1: change this, because if the bureaucracy had internal hurdles to
Speaker 1: the weaponization of this whistleblower complaint against Trump, well that's
Speaker 1: a big problem, isn't it. The reason they went this
Speaker 1: route instead of just leaking to the press is that
Speaker 1: they like to create this narrative of, Oh, we're respecting
Speaker 1: the process. This is coming from within. Oh this is
Speaker 1: an expert, the New York Times claims on Ukraine, a
Speaker 1: highly trained intelligence professional of some kind. Right, they're doing
Speaker 1: this is the Ford playbook, but instead of for a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court confirmation for a so called whistleblower complaint against
Speaker 1: the president of the United States. The circumstance here is
Speaker 1: obvious and it is shameful. We should look at this
Speaker 1: and understand exactly what has happened here. Democrats really were
Speaker 1: banking on using the Mulla Report as the blueprint for
Speaker 1: Trump's impeachment. The problem with that is normal people look
Speaker 1: at it and say, if they can't even tell us
Speaker 1: what the offense is, If they can't even say the
Speaker 1: president broke the law here, but we can't charge the president,
Speaker 1: how upset are we really supposed to be? And by
Speaker 1: the way, if they made that claim about the president
Speaker 1: breaking any specific law in the Mulla Report, they would
Speaker 1: have opened themselves up to the repudiation of sane or
Speaker 1: legal minds coming around and saying, ah, that's not even
Speaker 1: close to, never mind being provable, but even being chargeable.
Speaker 1: Luck with that. So instead they left it vague and
Speaker 1: open ended. Weissman, who really wrote the Muller Report, not Muller,
Speaker 1: tried to hand it off to Congress. Congress dithered. Why
Speaker 1: did Congress dither for months after the Muller Report Because
Speaker 1: they were waiting to see what the public perception of
Speaker 1: this would be and how much their little lackeys in
Speaker 1: the media would be able to drum up and create
Speaker 1: this sense that, oh gosh, there needs to be impeachment
Speaker 1: of Trump to hold them accountable. Wasn't working. So they
Speaker 1: found this this whistleblower. My friends had help, had help
Speaker 1: writing this, drafting, this strategizing around this. I'm sure Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff was involved in those conversations, and who knows how
Speaker 1: many high powered anti Trump left wing lawyers in the
Speaker 1: swamp in DC were also a part of it. They've
Speaker 1: been lying to you already. You know that the media
Speaker 1: has said things about this phone call that were not true,
Speaker 1: and they do not correct them. The media also pretends
Speaker 1: with it's stupefying to see this. The stupidity that they
Speaker 1: project is stupefying in and of itself, that fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a month for Hunter Biden while his dad is
Speaker 1: pointment on Ukraine policy that anyone who thinks that this
Speaker 1: is not just shady, it's one hundred percent shady, but
Speaker 1: cause for real investigation is crazy. No, no, no, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: They don't get to set up endless investigations of anyone
Speaker 1: they want, of Trump and anyone around him, and shut
Speaker 1: down any investigation of anyone they don't want. They have
Speaker 1: weaponized the law enforcement process for politics. That's been one
Speaker 1: of their primary avenues of obstructing and attacking Trump and
Speaker 1: those around him. Now that Trump says, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm the commander in chief the Department of Justice works
Speaker 1: for me, and there's a completely legitimate predicate for looking
Speaker 1: into Hunter Biden's actions in Ukraine. You know what the
Speaker 1: response of that is from the left, just gnashing of
Speaker 1: teeth and wailing in the streets and freaking out and
Speaker 1: screaming about treason in the betrayal of our democracy. Here's
Speaker 1: a new rule we should institute on the buck sex
Speaker 1: and show. Anytime you hear democrats say someone's betraying our democracy,
Speaker 1: it means they're using emotion in place of an argument
Speaker 1: and they have nothing else. It means they're weak and
Speaker 1: they're cornered, and they're caught and they know it. But
Speaker 1: the whistleblower rules had to change, just like the rules
Speaker 1: about showing your taxes before you can be president or
Speaker 1: run for president a certain state. That has to change.
Speaker 1: The same people who change and break laws will turn
Speaker 1: around on the left, these democrats the same day and
Speaker 1: tell you how much they respect the law. They are shameless,
Speaker 1: like Adam Schiff who says this wasn't partisan, utterly without shame.
Speaker 1: We are in a fight. This is a political war,
Speaker 1: make no mistake about it. They don't care about the process.
Speaker 1: They don't care about the Constitution. There's no willingness to
Speaker 1: engage in fair play. There's no decent conduct we can
Speaker 1: expect from the left. So strap in, put on a
Speaker 1: helmet and get ready for things to be rough. When
Speaker 1: I announced I was running, I said that I was
Speaker 1: we were in a battle for the soul of this nation.
Speaker 1: I said, our core values are very Democracy was at risk,
Speaker 1: and I doubt whether anybody here today doubts that to
Speaker 1: be the case. Folks, we have a president who's violated
Speaker 1: his oath of office, a president has put at risk
Speaker 1: our national security. How Joe Biden, how in what way
Speaker 1: has the president done these things? You say you will
Speaker 1: notice this week the history onics will be truly epic.
Speaker 1: You will have Democrats saying things like Trump has betrayed
Speaker 1: his country, Trump has betrayed his oath of office, tent
Speaker 1: amount to treason. Perhaps we'll say we'll hear that again,
Speaker 1: like we did from John Brennan a couple of years ago. Brennan,
Speaker 1: I should note, put it out a tweet over the
Speaker 1: weekend which was really an open call for another bureaucrat
Speaker 1: soft coup. Brennan said, more or less, Hey, just you know,
Speaker 1: there's no limits to how many whistleblowers can come forward.
Speaker 1: So he just wants people inside the bows of the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy to find information twisted in some way and try
Speaker 1: to then take it to the Democrats in Congress. Oh,
Speaker 1: there we go, because they've already tried the leaks. They've
Speaker 1: done leaks to the press, just as General Flynn. They've
Speaker 1: done thee We'll commit felonies to stop Trump. They they've
Speaker 1: already gone that route. Not enough. Now they're trying to
Speaker 1: use the process and the whistleblower protections that they've changed
Speaker 1: in order to use them against Trump. Biden says he
Speaker 1: has put our national security at risk. How I would
Speaker 1: like someone if if we had a real media, And
Speaker 1: we don't, because ninety percent of the news media are partisans.
Speaker 1: They are activists who are pretend to be journalists, and
Speaker 1: they do a great disservice to this country because most
Speaker 1: Americans rely on the news media to be an informed
Speaker 1: part of the electorate. Well, if the news media is
Speaker 1: willing to lie about all of these things and be
Speaker 1: difficult when we try to push them for where did
Speaker 1: you get this idea? Why do you think that you're
Speaker 1: not biased? Oh, they get so huffy about it. It's
Speaker 1: very hard for most people who are trying to live
Speaker 1: their lives to chase down real information. If you're listening
Speaker 1: to this show, congrats you managed to chase down real information.
Speaker 1: But there are a lot of people out there who don't,
Speaker 1: and the media is incredibly dishonest. If they weren't so dishonest,
Speaker 1: they would ask someone like Joe Biden, how exactly has
Speaker 1: President Trump put at risk our national security? That's a
Speaker 1: bold claim, that's a major thing to say. Why get oh?
Speaker 1: Perhaps also it should be noted that the javelin anti
Speaker 1: tank missiles that were discussed briefly on that phone call
Speaker 1: that zelens President Zelenski said they were about to buy
Speaker 1: more of. The Obama administration was unwilling to sell those
Speaker 1: anti tank Javelin missiles to the Ukrainians. And we are
Speaker 1: told and have been for years, that it is Trump
Speaker 1: who is the one who is in Putin's pocket. Really,
Speaker 1: Trump will do things that Obama was scared to do,
Speaker 1: explicitly because it would upset Putin. Right, Obama wouldn't do
Speaker 1: these things because Obama was scared that it would make
Speaker 1: the Russians mad. Trump will send these missiles, sell these
Speaker 1: missiles I'll probably give them a nice discount they buy
Speaker 1: in bulk to the Ukrainians. And you'll notice the narrative
Speaker 1: about Trump is Putin's puppet. They've never gone back to
Speaker 1: revisit that. They've never said, hold on a second, maybe
Speaker 1: we should give more thought to this. So there we
Speaker 1: have it once again, the press. It was useful for
Speaker 1: a time. What they were saying was useful, and now
Speaker 1: what they're saying isn't so. Or rather, now what they
Speaker 1: would have to say about that issue isn't useful, so
Speaker 1: they move on to something else. It is stunning that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is the Democrats leading candidate, and it should
Speaker 1: show you this is what we're really dealing with. They
Speaker 1: like Biden so much just because, yeah, there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of Obama nostalgia there. But Biden is clearly not
Speaker 1: a particularly sharp guy at all, but he is palatable
Speaker 1: enough to independent voters in centrist that they think maybe
Speaker 1: the Democrats can do what they always do and fool
Speaker 1: just enough of the elector to thinking that they're not
Speaker 1: a party of left wing socialist whackos, so that they'll
Speaker 1: have a presidency for at least four years and they
Speaker 1: can start to undo all of the things that President
Speaker 1: Trump has been doing that has made your life and
Speaker 1: my life easier and better. Every American deserves to confront
Speaker 1: their accuser. So this is a cam as far as
Speaker 1: I'm concerned. I want to know who told the whistle
Speaker 1: blower about the phone call. I want to know why
Speaker 1: they changed the rules about whistleblower is not the hearsay
Speaker 1: rule has changed just a short period of time for
Speaker 1: the complaint was fouled. The sounds like a legal document.
Speaker 1: Who help him? Who helped this guy write it or
Speaker 1: this girl write it. We're not going to try the
Speaker 1: president of the United States based on hearsay. Every American
Speaker 1: has the right to confront dereccuser, and yet the media
Speaker 1: is working very hard to make sure that no one
Speaker 1: really finds out very much at all about this person.
Speaker 1: Look at the zeal with which, for example, that des
Speaker 1: Moines registered reporter went after the old tweets of a
Speaker 1: private citizen who had become a short term public figure
Speaker 1: merely for the purposes of raising millions of dollars for
Speaker 1: a children's hospital. Look at how a journal and He's
Speaker 1: not alone of this. A lot of other journals would
Speaker 1: have taken the same approach because they are spiteful, nasty,
Speaker 1: and in their minds underpaid and underappreciated people. But they
Speaker 1: need to go after every fact, every bit of information
Speaker 1: when it's useful to the narrative, when it's not. All
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you see a much more lackadaisical approach
Speaker 1: from the left wing media. Who is this whistleblower? Isn't
Speaker 1: this so interesting? Does this person really expect to go
Speaker 1: back to the bowels of the bureaucracy and just have
Speaker 1: a normal paper shuffling, bureaucratic life. Of course not. In fact,
Speaker 1: we've already seen that there are public fundraising efforts on
Speaker 1: behalf of the whistleblower and for his legal defense. I
Speaker 1: said it as soon as this happened. I stand by it.
Speaker 1: I think it is very likely that I am correct.
Speaker 1: We'll have to see the whistleblower's identity will become publicly known,
Speaker 1: and the whistleblower at that point will be treated as
Speaker 1: a hero of the resistance, will be given at least
Speaker 1: a six figure if not seven figure book advanced, probably
Speaker 1: six figures, but and will very possibly, if not just
Speaker 1: be a regular guest on seeing an an MSNBC become
Speaker 1: a contribute one of those networks, and you might say, well,
Speaker 1: what if the person's not that interesting, not that good
Speaker 1: at TV, doesn't have that much to say to that,
Speaker 1: I would respond, look at all the people seeing an
Speaker 1: MSNBC already have on who are part of the resistance. Boring, repetitive, uninteresting,
Speaker 1: not knowledgeable. But they serve a purpose. And one of
Speaker 1: the purposes of media. Left wing media dominance is to
Speaker 1: show people that if you are useful to the narrative overall,
Speaker 1: you will be taken care of. You will get speaking
Speaker 1: engagements and book deals and contributor contact contracts, even if
Speaker 1: you're as lame and boring as Comey's little assistant who
Speaker 1: I see on CNN all the time. Guys never sent
Speaker 1: anything worthwhile or interesting in his life on television, but
Speaker 1: CNN's got him there. Why because he was part of
Speaker 1: Comey squad. He's doing the defense. It's propped up as
Speaker 1: a defense of the FBI. No, it's a defense of
Speaker 1: James Comey. The FBI doesn't really need defending. I mean,
Speaker 1: we know that there's some bad apples there, but no
Speaker 1: one's worried about the kidnapping investigations that the Omaha Office
Speaker 1: of the FBI is doing these days. We wish them
Speaker 1: well and we thank them for their service to all
Speaker 1: of us. Right, it's just the bureaucrats, the deep state,
Speaker 1: swamp folks in DC and the people at the top
Speaker 1: of the bureaucracy. That's where we have the questions, and
Speaker 1: that's where the left knows they can exert power, so
Speaker 1: they will defend those people in whatever way they can.
Speaker 1: But the whistleblower is now getting the Blasi Forward treatment.
Speaker 1: I had to be reminded of this recently by my friend.
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, I don't even know who reminded me. It
Speaker 1: was someone on Twitter that you will call Blasi Forward
Speaker 1: at one point who was just being hailed as a
Speaker 1: feminist superhero by the mainstream media, but was making some
Speaker 1: very strange claims, like, for one, she needed a second
Speaker 1: door put on her house because during renovations. You remember this,
Speaker 1: a second door put on her house during renovation, and
Speaker 1: that that need and this is now based on something
Speaker 1: that happened thirty years ago that she barely remembers, but
Speaker 1: that need for a second door on her house came
Speaker 1: from the fear of what she said Brett Kavanaugh did
Speaker 1: to her at a high school party thirty some od
Speaker 1: years ago. We use the word credible a lot, and
Speaker 1: the media tries to conflate credible with true, which is
Speaker 1: not the same thing credible in the parlance that they use.
Speaker 1: It is just not obviously false and malicious. Still could
Speaker 1: be false and malicious. But as I've been trying to
Speaker 1: tell you, you walk into a police station and say, hey,
Speaker 1: my cousin's been kidnapped by a Mexican drug cartel, that's
Speaker 1: a credible and if you know some of the details
Speaker 1: and you've thought about it before, and you could make
Speaker 1: a credible claim, But then it could all be a
Speaker 1: hoax and be fake. To say that it's credible to
Speaker 1: start with is not a judgment on whether it is true.
Speaker 1: It just means it's not clearly untrue. Well, blasi Ford's
Speaker 1: claim out having a second door and that that sparked
Speaker 1: these memories I find not credible, meaning that on its
Speaker 1: face it makes no sense. Blasi Ford's other claim in
Speaker 1: the media, you will recall, defended her on this thought
Speaker 1: that this was a place where they could make a stand.
Speaker 1: Blasi Ford claimed that she did not like to fly,
Speaker 1: and therefore there was going to be a delay and
Speaker 1: whether she could actually get to Congress and testify about
Speaker 1: this during the hearing, and people said, no, sorry, that
Speaker 1: you got to show up. Now. We're not gonna let
Speaker 1: the Democrats just run with the media for as long
Speaker 1: as they want to completely poison the well before we
Speaker 1: can even have any kind of hearing here. And we
Speaker 1: were told, oh, but she's scared of flying, some of you,
Speaker 1: some of you will remember this. I had, honestly, it
Speaker 1: had slipped my mind until it came up recently and
Speaker 1: then I realized, oh, my gosh, that's true. They did
Speaker 1: say that. And then it came out that Blasi Ford
Speaker 1: likes to fly all over the place for fancy vacations,
Speaker 1: ski vacations, beach vacations. So she's scared of flying and
Speaker 1: can't it to Congress because of that. But she's not
Speaker 1: scared of flying when it comes to going on fancy vacations.
Speaker 1: You see. This is where if the media were honest,
Speaker 1: they would say, oh, wow, so she's a liar. But
Speaker 1: of course they didn't do that. What did they do?
Speaker 1: They said, well, yes, of course she's This must be
Speaker 1: part of the trauma that comes from thirty years of
Speaker 1: having to live with you know, Brett Kavanaugh's groping and
Speaker 1: attempted sexual assault that she can't remember key details of.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, based on what the career
Speaker 1: sex crimes prosecutor who interviewed her said after she gave
Speaker 1: her testimony, it wouldn't have even been You couldn't have
Speaker 1: even made an arrest, meaning it was not credible. Her
Speaker 1: claims were not credible enough to even affect an arrest
Speaker 1: if there were a criminal statute that would come into play.
Speaker 1: They're doing the same thing with the whistleblower. That's why
Speaker 1: I'm going through all this now. Now we're hearing the
Speaker 1: whistleblowers life is in jeopardy. That's a lie. The whistleblower's
Speaker 1: life is in jeopard in the same way that anyone
Speaker 1: who is involved in American politics in a contentious ways
Speaker 1: life is in jeopardy. Any one of us could be
Speaker 1: a target. Any one of us are under threat at
Speaker 1: any point in time for speaking out on contentious political issues.
Speaker 1: Trust me, I know we received death threats. They always
Speaker 1: act like, oh, it's only the anti Trump people that
Speaker 1: have to be scared. Really, it's the nastiest stuff I've
Speaker 1: ever seen, is what liberals who want to restore civility
Speaker 1: in our discourse, will write to people who defend Trump
Speaker 1: and don't believe that these deep state machinations should be
Speaker 1: allowed to go on the nastiest stuff I have ever
Speaker 1: seen to date. But they've done what they did with
Speaker 1: Lazi Ford. Oh, this person's life is under threat because
Speaker 1: you know what that also does. It creates more time
Speaker 1: for them to figure out what the public relations campaign
Speaker 1: will be when when the whistleblower comes forward, which will happen,
Speaker 1: whistle blower is going to come forward, and then they
Speaker 1: also will use that, They use that as a buffer.
Speaker 1: They use that as a way of slowing down any
Speaker 1: effort by the news media, who are happy to out
Speaker 1: people for any number of reasons, even if it's bad
Speaker 1: for national security. We've seen this before, and we've seen
Speaker 1: the major newspapers New York Times, Washington Post. They'll they'll
Speaker 1: name people that really are going to be put in
Speaker 1: jeopardy if what the newspapers are writing is true, and
Speaker 1: they just don't care. But by saying that the whistleblower's
Speaker 1: life is in danger, what they do is throw a
Speaker 1: brush back pitch at anyone who wants to try to
Speaker 1: get to the truth of what has happened here, because
Speaker 1: if they preemptively before the PR campaign with Schiff and
Speaker 1: Pelosi and you know, Stephanopolis and matt Ow and Cooper
Speaker 1: and all the rest before, that can all be put
Speaker 1: in place and put in motion for maximum political impact.
Speaker 1: If somebody were to say, figure out what's going on here?
Speaker 1: I mean, and to be honest with you're like, I'm
Speaker 1: somebody who, if I poked around, could probably figure out.
Speaker 1: There's a reasonable chance. I should say I could figure
Speaker 1: out who this is. But I'm not going to do
Speaker 1: that because I don't want to start poking around inside
Speaker 1: the IC because then we know what the Democrats would do.
Speaker 1: They'd say, oh, there's violations of law going on here.
Speaker 1: They can break the law all the time, but other
Speaker 1: people can't. It's one of the big lessons you have
Speaker 1: to take away from this. But they're going to pretend
Speaker 1: that if anyone does find out who this is and
Speaker 1: names the person, that it's a horrible threat, that it
Speaker 1: will scare away future whistleblowers and that this person's life
Speaker 1: is in danger. Oh this just like Blasi Ford was
Speaker 1: so traumatized she needed two doors and couldn't fly lies.
Speaker 1: Both of those were lies, but they acted like they
Speaker 1: believe them. And that's one of the more egregious things
Speaker 1: that you will see our media doing on a regular basis,
Speaker 1: And it's pretending to be short term morons for the
Speaker 1: purposes of protecting a long term political narrative. Short term
Speaker 1: morons by, for example, not understanding what is so clear
Speaker 1: to anybody who pays attention to it, which is that
Speaker 1: the reality of the Clinton Foundation is that the Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation had its donations drop off a cliff after Hillary
Speaker 1: lost the election of twenty sixteen. The Clinton Global Initiative
Speaker 1: had to be shut down, and the Clinton Foundation overall
Speaker 1: is just a shadow of its former self. Is that
Speaker 1: because all these donors, including international donors, stopped caring about charity?
Speaker 1: Or is it because something else was going on there
Speaker 1: and we all knew it. Oh, but the journals, they
Speaker 1: they're so busy doing investigative reporting on whether whether or
Speaker 1: not they can find someone who will say something bad
Speaker 1: about a prominent Republican from thirty years ago that can't
Speaker 1: be proven one way or the other, that they never
Speaker 1: stopped to ask questions about what is essentially the biggest front,
Speaker 1: the biggest slush fund for access Pedala and selling that
Speaker 1: anyone has ever seen, which is the Clinton the Clinton Foundation. Oh,
Speaker 1: but now they want to tell us that we need
Speaker 1: to play fair and that Trump is doing all these
Speaker 1: terrible things, betraying our country, betraying a zote of office.
Speaker 1: I'd like some specifics please, and you know how we
Speaker 1: might get some specifics if the whistleblower comes forward. We
Speaker 1: all understand that right now. What's happening is the whistleblower
Speaker 1: is in discussions with Adam Shift and other Democrats. They
Speaker 1: want their hearing, they want their Aha moment. You know
Speaker 1: you can't handle the truth Trump. They want all that,
Speaker 1: and they're going to find a way to try to
Speaker 1: get us to that and everything in the meantime about
Speaker 1: oh the safe field the whistle blower, and the whistle
Speaker 1: blower needs money for the legal defense and all this
Speaker 1: straight out. They're running the same playbook all over again.
Speaker 1: This is Russia collusion plus Blasi Ford equals Ukraine phone call,
Speaker 1: hunter Biden stuff. Your Republican colleagues say, well, the call
Speaker 1: is the call. There's nothing here rises to the level
Speaker 1: of high crimes and misdemeanors. Why they're wrong and remains
Speaker 1: to be seen because it's not just what happens in
Speaker 1: the call. As part of the sequencing of events as well,
Speaker 1: you withdraw a couple hundred million dollars worth of assistance
Speaker 1: to a country, and then a couple of days later say,
Speaker 1: by the way, can you help me with my campaign?
Speaker 1: In other words, there's a sequencing there. What is your
Speaker 1: message to the White House in terms of cooperation? To
Speaker 1: the White House? Speak the truth, honor your oath of
Speaker 1: office to the Constitution of the United States, Speak the truth,
Speaker 1: and let us work together to have this be a
Speaker 1: unifying experience, not of dividing one for our country. Don't
Speaker 1: make this any worse than it already is. Ah, so
Speaker 1: much to work with here, folks. Speaker Pelosi as shameless
Speaker 1: as shift, just a little bit less grotesque, right, but
Speaker 1: very shameless. I love this. Uh, use this as an
Speaker 1: opportunity to unify the country. It's like she's running the
Speaker 1: Pelosi Inquisition. Confess your crimes and then we shall punish you,
Speaker 1: but it shall be good for your soul in the afterlife.
Speaker 1: Confess your crimes. Wait, but I didn't commit crimes? How
Speaker 1: dare you? You must confess? But this actually kind of
Speaker 1: reminds me of the what is it Monty Python? Right,
Speaker 1: and didn't they the whole inquisition thing back then? But yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to confess. That's the only thing. Resistance to
Speaker 1: the resistance is automatically considered to be evidence of wrongdoing. Right,
Speaker 1: you are guilty because you resist. They tried this with
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh too, Remember that they once they couldn't win the
Speaker 1: argument on the facts, once it was clear that Christine
Speaker 1: blasi Ford was a little crazy and probably a liar,
Speaker 1: but definitely not telling the truth, especially what she knew
Speaker 1: she was saying or not. And once it was clear
Speaker 1: they weren't gonna win that, then they started saying, oh,
Speaker 1: because Kavanaugh was angry at the accusations, that's how we
Speaker 1: know he's guilty. And as I've said to you, any
Speaker 1: male with any honor whatsoever, I don't care what society,
Speaker 1: you know, what country, what background, whatever, any male who
Speaker 1: was accused of sexual assault that he had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with and did not do, would be in that
Speaker 1: forum in that manner would be outraged. You know I would.
Speaker 1: I would have gone, you know, the whole next level.
Speaker 1: I would have completely lost my mind. Remember Alpaccino, instead
Speaker 1: of a woman five with a man, I was ten
Speaker 1: years ago. I'd take a flame throw out at this place.
Speaker 1: Not a very good movie, by the way, It's really
Speaker 1: just that one line that everybody remembers. I can't even
Speaker 1: remember the plot of Scent of a Woman. It just
Speaker 1: was Alpaccino yelling, which is tens Unfortunately post The Godfather,
Speaker 1: that's most of his You gotta fight for every inch,
Speaker 1: remember every given Sunday. It's just just yelling speeches. I
Speaker 1: could actually probably go into The Devil's Advocate, which I
Speaker 1: think is an underrated movie, I will say because it
Speaker 1: has Keanu So you guys have probably picked up on this.
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm a I'm a big Keyanu Reeves fan.
Speaker 1: I just think KEIANU Reeves is great. I really do.
Speaker 1: He's apparently a very cool, low key guy. He likes
Speaker 1: to do two gun drills in his spare time. He's
Speaker 1: actually quite good at them. You can see video of
Speaker 1: him online. He really him. And Busy and Point Break
Speaker 1: is a top ten all time buddy cop movie. But
Speaker 1: I digress. All right, So Pelosi here back to Pelosi
Speaker 1: what she's saying. She says that it will be unifying
Speaker 1: if Trump just admits his wrongdoing, which is it's so disingenuous.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, sure, the White House is just gonna say,
Speaker 1: you're right, we betrayed the Constitution. Let's all be friends. Now.
Speaker 1: These people are rabid with anti Trump patriot we know that.
Speaker 1: But I also like the construction here of in other words,
Speaker 1: some of you will recall that infamous interview with Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson with that woman who uh, I can't remera she's
Speaker 1: from the BBC, as you kept saying, but so so
Speaker 1: in other words, what you're saying so so in other words,
Speaker 1: so so what you really mean is so in other words,
Speaker 1: and he kept having to say, no, that's not what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. What I'm saying, I'm not saying the thing
Speaker 1: that you are pretending that I'm saying. We had Adam
Speaker 1: Shift last week read off a fake transcript, right, a
Speaker 1: fake transcript in the Congress of what the Trump phone
Speaker 1: call was, so that people could use that SoundBite and
Speaker 1: know what the talking points are on the narrative. And
Speaker 1: then he said, oh, well, it's it's a it's a
Speaker 1: far short, it's a it's a parody understood, showing us
Speaker 1: just how not self aware Adam Shift really is. And
Speaker 1: you had Nancy Pelosi now doing a similar routine with well,
Speaker 1: you know what, what what Trump did is, in other words,
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo. No it, quid pro quo is
Speaker 1: quite clear. You ask for a thing, or you do
Speaker 1: a thing, and a thing is done for you in return.
Speaker 1: I mean, this reminds me of the whole firing of Komy.
Speaker 1: There's really no feasible way that they could have said
Speaker 1: that Komby getting fired was illegal, was illicit, because Trump
Speaker 1: can fire Komy for any reason or no reason. The
Speaker 1: president of the United States can make decisions based on
Speaker 1: foreign policy. He could withhold aid from Zelenski if he
Speaker 1: didn't like Zelenski's tie. That is his prerogative as the
Speaker 1: president running foreign policy. He is the head of the
Speaker 1: executive branch. Libs keep creating these little fantasy stories, and
Speaker 1: they always get past one thing. What is the violation
Speaker 1: of law? What is the violation that Trump committed? They
Speaker 1: don't say it, and you know why, because they don't
Speaker 1: have it. This guy is should not be president, period.
Speaker 1: And when you say that, folks on Fox come after you.
Speaker 1: I remember the Tony's when he got up there and
Speaker 1: cursed a lot of you. Okay, well, you know this
Speaker 1: is Kabar, so it's not an FCC violation, but it
Speaker 1: is still a Sunday morning you choose to go that
Speaker 1: we are at We are at a moment in our
Speaker 1: lives in this country where this guy is like a gangster.
Speaker 1: He's come along and he's said things done things we
Speaker 1: say over and over again, this is terrible. We're in
Speaker 1: a terrible situation. We're in a terrible situation, and this
Speaker 1: guy just keeps going on and on and on without
Speaker 1: being stopped. MM Stelton wants to know that the audience
Speaker 1: is shocked right now that m okay, oh there you
Speaker 1: have welcome back the box section show. You got de
Speaker 1: Niro there on CNN. I'd be curious to know what
Speaker 1: is the basis for for hearing DeNiro's political opinion about anything.
Speaker 1: This is the classic. Oh, this is a famous guy
Speaker 1: who I'd be willing to bet hasn't hasn't read a
Speaker 1: book covered a cover about anything relating to politics or
Speaker 1: the world in probably a decade, maybe several. I'm just guessing,
Speaker 1: but I think that's fair. And he's on TV going
Speaker 1: a you know, bleep him, bleep him. I can't say
Speaker 1: what he says, obviously, you know, he's a little little
Speaker 1: bit a little bit out of order. You know, Denier,
Speaker 1: You're a little bit a little bit out of order.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy played a gangster in some reasonably
Speaker 1: good gangster Okay, I know a lot of you gonna
Speaker 1: say the best gangster movies of all time. Fine, but
Speaker 1: it's been a long time, all right. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think that mister Jinx would be upset at his
Speaker 1: owner going on TV and drop an F bombs to
Speaker 1: talk about Trump. But here's why I think this is
Speaker 1: this is a a moment that is illuminating. This tells
Speaker 1: us something de Niro's view. The reason he's invited on
Speaker 1: CNN to spout in Puntafica, the reason that he's on
Speaker 1: the you know, the I'm sure they probably had some
Speaker 1: movie or something they were promoting, who cares, But the
Speaker 1: reason CNNA News, ostensibly a news program, Brad Stelter with
Speaker 1: reliable sources, they bring him on because of his blank
Speaker 1: him attitude about Trump, because that's what CNN thinks about Trump.
Speaker 1: They really don't like this guy. He is a threat.
Speaker 1: He is a rebuke to things that they find very
Speaker 1: very important, and that's just simply unacceptable to them right,
Speaker 1: So they are okay with losing their minds about how
Speaker 1: terrible he is all the time. So I just you
Speaker 1: knows stunning stuff. Do we have, um? Do we have
Speaker 1: the little little throw down with with Tapper and and
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan? Here? Yeah, here we go, um play because
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan, you know the Sunday shows, everyone gets the
Speaker 1: in the political world. They get there, they're talking points
Speaker 1: and they're they're marching orders than by watching these Sunday shows.
Speaker 1: Let's let's hear what Jim Jordan had to speaking of CNN,
Speaker 1: what he had to put up with at CNN plate too.
Speaker 1: According to the Acting Director of National Intelligence, the transcript
Speaker 1: is in alignment with the whistleblower complaint. We all see it.
Speaker 1: We all see it's a conversation. Zelinsky wants military aid
Speaker 1: and President Trump asks him to look into the bidens.
Speaker 1: I can't believe that that's okay with you. He wants
Speaker 1: swamp in his country like the president is doing here?
Speaker 1: That what he said? What Tapper, who's the biggest, the
Speaker 1: biggest fraud in many ways in mainstream journalism, because he's
Speaker 1: mister oh, I just call call balls and strikes down
Speaker 1: the middle. He's a Democrat, operative and not a nice guy. Okay,
Speaker 1: So add all those things together is somebody who I
Speaker 1: have nothing good to say about. And notice how he
Speaker 1: jumps to is we'll talking military aid and and then
Speaker 1: this other thing. Yeah, the way that it's asked for,
Speaker 1: the words used matter. Why do they think it's okay?
Speaker 1: Or why do they think rather that we won't notice
Speaker 1: that they keep rewriting what was said. Remember what we
Speaker 1: say here on the show, on the Bucks Accent Show.
Speaker 1: If what Trump has done or said is so bad,
Speaker 1: why do they have to lie about it? Why can't
Speaker 1: they just say what he said? Why can't we hear
Speaker 1: what really happened? And that's why Jake Tapper goes, oh,
Speaker 1: we see this. No, I don't agree with that. I
Speaker 1: don't see this the way that he sees this. I
Speaker 1: don't agree that. It's just a clear help me out
Speaker 1: on this thing, asking a foreign head of state to
Speaker 1: have his legal people talk to your legal people about
Speaker 1: a completely legitimate line of inquiry that has already been
Speaker 1: the subject of some legal spotlight and some legal investigation.
Speaker 1: There's no law against this. They can keep saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's so terrible, it's so bad. There is no law
Speaker 1: against is, no law is broken whatsoever. The campaign finance
Speaker 1: thing they try to allege is a joke because any action,
Speaker 1: any action taken by a foreign head of state that
Speaker 1: would be of benefit to a US president going into
Speaker 1: an election year could be considered a campaign contribution. So,
Speaker 1: you know, if if Trump gets the president of Mexico,
Speaker 1: if he gets I haven't even talked to you about
Speaker 1: Monsieur Trudeau. Trudeau is having a very big problem recently
Speaker 1: because even more horrible racist things came out about him, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: It's Trudeau is just just a total He's a classic
Speaker 1: lib phony, hypocrite, fraud. But but the Libs love him.
Speaker 1: The Libs love him not as much anymore. But if
Speaker 1: Trump signed a deal with them, that would absolutely be
Speaker 1: benefit to his administration, would help. So is that a
Speaker 1: campaign contribution? How is how is information from a foreign
Speaker 1: head of state going to be a campaign contribution? How
Speaker 1: do you even engage that? It's absurd? But these people
Speaker 1: say this, you know, smug, Oh my gosh, the smugness
Speaker 1: from Tapper could cloud an entire continent. You know, you've
Speaker 1: got Jim Jordan, and Jim Jordan did a pretty good job.
Speaker 1: I would have done a little better. I like Jim Jordan.
Speaker 1: I also think for the Sunday shows, maybe Jim should
Speaker 1: put on a jacket. I'm just gonna say it. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna say it. But now we can continue with
Speaker 1: this back and forth. So but I had to. I
Speaker 1: just had to jump in there because Tapper is rewriting
Speaker 1: what was said in the transcript. He's just like, well,
Speaker 1: it's clear that this is No, it's not clear that
Speaker 1: that's what happened. It's not clear that there was give
Speaker 1: us by the way the asking for an investigation could be.
Speaker 1: I talked to my attorney general, mister President Trump, and
Speaker 1: he says, this has already done, so you know this
Speaker 1: is all over. That's what could have happened there. That's
Speaker 1: why there's no law against this, because you'd be completely
Speaker 1: limiting the president's ability to work in the realm of
Speaker 1: foreign policy. But continue with this, Uh, this nasty little
Speaker 1: exchange with Tapper, play it with you. Zelinsky brings up
Speaker 1: he wants to drain the swamp in his country like
Speaker 1: the president is doing here. The President says, do me
Speaker 1: a favor. Can you figure out what happened in twenty sixteen?
Speaker 1: I thought we all cared about what happened in the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen elections. And after Zelinsky says this important sentence,
Speaker 1: in addition to that investigation, I want to do all
Speaker 1: investigations in an open and candid way. Only then does
Speaker 1: the President bring up Biden. And my guess is, if
Speaker 1: you ask the American people when they look at what
Speaker 1: happened with Joe Biden's son, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: I don't know that what happened with Joe Biden's son.
Speaker 1: He got paid fifty thousand dollars Jake thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: month for several years now, and the ukraining prosecutors said
Speaker 1: there's no evidence of wrongdoing. Come on the vice press.
Speaker 1: Thousand dollars a month. This is Kapper playing the more
Speaker 1: on because he's caught. Well, what, I there's nothing in
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars I was on it. Oh do you
Speaker 1: mean that the appearance of corruption that is very obvious.
Speaker 1: There could be grounds for investigation. Oh no, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: What the Libs will then tell us is the only
Speaker 1: bad prosecutor is the one that Joe Biden was brag
Speaker 1: about getting fired through an explicit quid pro quo about
Speaker 1: funding for the loan guarantees for the Ukrainians. The only
Speaker 1: bad prosecutor Ukraine is apparently this guy Shoken, who we've
Speaker 1: been told, oh, the whole West wanted him gone. If
Speaker 1: this is all narrative creation, what's the What are we
Speaker 1: even talking to here? A bunch of EU bureaucrats and
Speaker 1: a number of journalists who all just parrot each other.
Speaker 1: We don't know, but oh, okay, the prosecutor said there's
Speaker 1: nothing there. These are the same people who when the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice looks at their looks at this complaint
Speaker 1: dismissible or complaint and says, sorry, nothing there. Or when
Speaker 1: Bill Barr says sorry, we're not prosecuting the president based
Speaker 1: on this nonsense Mulla report that doesn't even recommend prosecution,
Speaker 1: they say that's illegitimate. Oh but the word of some
Speaker 1: prosecutor that none of them could even name off the
Speaker 1: top of their heads, that's sacro sank Tapper, really, do
Speaker 1: you know how investigations start? They start with a story
Speaker 1: that makes sense about the possibility of wrongdoing based on
Speaker 1: some facts or allegations at hand. That's how they start.
Speaker 1: If Tapper really thinks that Hunter Biden getting fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a month from a company that is desperate to
Speaker 1: curry favor with the United States government. If that isn't
Speaker 1: not at least worthy of looking into for the possibility
Speaker 1: of a quid pro quo. What if Hunter Biden told
Speaker 1: his dad, Hey, get this guy fired or else the
Speaker 1: money gets turned off for me. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that happened, but it certainly seems plausible. And the only
Speaker 1: way we would know is if there's investigation, because we
Speaker 1: definitely know they weren't paying Hunter Biden fifty k a
Speaker 1: month because he's so smart and knows so much about
Speaker 1: Ukrainian natural gas and was so useful. We know that
Speaker 1: for sure. But Tapper z, oh, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: I don't see any I don't see anything wrong with that,
Speaker 1: you know, And he could tell he's getting and he's
Speaker 1: just ready to just come back with a salvel here,
Speaker 1: nasty Tapper, keep playing it. The Vice president's son gets
Speaker 1: paid fifty dollars a month and gets hired by a company.
Speaker 1: If you have an industry he has no experience in,
Speaker 1: and oh that's fine, And all you folks in the
Speaker 1: president didn't because oh, no problem here go try telling
Speaker 1: Nat taking that message to the American people, you want
Speaker 1: to propose the law. It's only fifty thousand in a year.
Speaker 1: And when they see the Vice president's son getting paid
Speaker 1: fifty thousand a month in the field and an industry
Speaker 1: he has no experience in, I kind of want when
Speaker 1: one hunter Biden didn't those board meetings so and he
Speaker 1: just looked at his phone, check out the sports he's
Speaker 1: getting paid fifty thousand. And then when the company that's
Speaker 1: paying him that money is under investigation, guess what, Daddy
Speaker 1: comes running to the rescue the Vice president. I stags,
Speaker 1: not what halfire, sir, that process, sir, that's not what happened.
Speaker 1: Tapper doesn't know what happened. It doesn't know. I wonder
Speaker 1: if Tapper has an easy and ready answer for the
Speaker 1: fact that Choken, now in sworn court affidavits in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: has said, and this has just come out in the
Speaker 1: last week, he was fired for looking at Barisma that
Speaker 1: he was investigating it. It wasn't over with. I just
Speaker 1: love how the whole premise here that the Libs are
Speaker 1: running with is that this thing was totally on the
Speaker 1: up and up Ukraine, which is a wildly corrupt country. Oh,
Speaker 1: but in this situation, there's nothing to see. It was
Speaker 1: all handled by the book. They think we're all morons.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's a lot to look at it. And
Speaker 1: I would note when taperstagel if you let a propose
Speaker 1: a law, he's not saying that that the fifty thousand
Speaker 1: a month is not on It is not immediately illegal,
Speaker 1: it is grounds for investigation in a corruption probe. That's
Speaker 1: what Trump was referring to. Obliquely, I might add, by
Speaker 1: the end of the conversation, the possibility of are you know,
Speaker 1: can you look into this? Can you whatever? They could
Speaker 1: have come back to Trump the next day and said, hey,
Speaker 1: we don't have anything on this. We've already looked at this. Sorry,
Speaker 1: and Trump you know that. But this is just a
Speaker 1: conversation about what the president would like to get answers
Speaker 1: on Let's see this is notice how that they just
Speaker 1: keep they obscure and defly. Then oh, if you want
Speaker 1: to propose a law that makes these are the same idiots.
Speaker 1: I mean, CNN is part of the whole emoluments clause delusion,
Speaker 1: where you will hear I've read articles in New York
Speaker 1: I mean the Washington Post will put stuff forward that
Speaker 1: says more or less, well, you know, because a bunch
Speaker 1: of foreign diplomats eat at the Trump Hotel, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a violation of the emoluments clause. Really, they think
Speaker 1: the emoluments clause is to say that someone who owns
Speaker 1: a part or controlling interest in an entity where it's
Speaker 1: open to the public and people can buy things, that's
Speaker 1: that's an unlawful acceptance of gifts under the minds, I mean,
Speaker 1: are they morons? Do they really believe? I mean, the
Speaker 1: same people who will tell you that a diplomat going
Speaker 1: into Trump Hotel and having a cheeseburger apparently owns US
Speaker 1: foreign policy and controls Trump thought nothing of Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: giving a speech in Russia while his wife was Secretary
Speaker 1: of State in which he accepted five hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: You know, if someone gives you a dollar for the
Speaker 1: soda machine, they're trying to be nice. If someone gives
Speaker 1: you a million dollars quote for your advice because your
Speaker 1: dad is the most important politician in the world to
Speaker 1: their company, that's a bribe. Reasonable people, intelligent people can
Speaker 1: think this stuff through. But you know, not people in
Speaker 1: the mainstream media who they look, they're going They're going
Speaker 1: to the barricades on this one. They know this is
Speaker 1: really important. They have to win this fight in the
Speaker 1: public's eye. Or what are they gonna do an Oh,
Speaker 1: then they're gonna present another They lost on the Muller impeachment.
Speaker 1: They couldn't get enough there. Now they've come up with this,
Speaker 1: they're gonna do a third one. I mean, I do
Speaker 1: think at some point even the Libs realize how crazy
Speaker 1: that would see them, although maybe not. To me, this
Speaker 1: reminds me of Watergate. We just don't have file cabinets anymore.
Speaker 1: In Watergate, they dispatch people to break in and get information,
Speaker 1: and in the course of it broke the law and
Speaker 1: then there was a cover up. In this case, the
Speaker 1: fact that this president is asking for dirt from a
Speaker 1: foreign leader for an ongoing political race which endangers the
Speaker 1: security of our country, It to me is the same thing. Look,
Speaker 1: I think there's some things that are above politics, and
Speaker 1: one of them is that, like everyone in Congress, I
Speaker 1: swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States,
Speaker 1: no one is above the law, and that includes the president.
Speaker 1: Sounds like you're suggesting that in a Booker administration, the
Speaker 1: child of a president or vice president, it would not
Speaker 1: be okay for them to be joining foreign boards while
Speaker 1: the president or vice president is conducting foreign policy as
Speaker 1: required by the law. I'm hearing you incorrectly or hearing
Speaker 1: you correctly. Look, I'm watching what's going on with the
Speaker 1: Trump family right now and Trump properties, and I just
Speaker 1: find that deeply offensive to just any kind of independent
Speaker 1: sense of what's honorable, ethical, not to mention, in consistence
Speaker 1: with the monuments clause. I just do not think that
Speaker 1: that children of presidents of vice presidents during an administration
Speaker 1: should be out there doing that. But this any implications
Speaker 1: right now, any whatsoever. Look, Joe Biden is a statesman.
Speaker 1: He is truly an honorable man. Blah blah blah, propaganda
Speaker 1: point I wanted to get to here. Yeah, we don't
Speaker 1: have to hear anybody Cory Booker, Sorry about that. The
Speaker 1: point I have to get to here is, notice how
Speaker 1: what Cory Booker says, if you were to take him seriously,
Speaker 1: which I think would be your first mistake, or rather,
Speaker 1: if you were to take him at his word and
Speaker 1: think that he's being honest with this whole with this situation,
Speaker 1: if you listen to Corey Booker, which you would find
Speaker 1: very quickly is that you would have presidents and anyone
Speaker 1: who runs for right, It couldn't be just the president, right,
Speaker 1: it would have to be secretary of State. It would
Speaker 1: have to be other people in the government. If you
Speaker 1: any elected officials, senior elected official. If you have children,
Speaker 1: they can't work in the private sector anymore. They'd have
Speaker 1: to be government stooges. They'd have to be government bureaucrats.
Speaker 1: If what if what Cory Booker says is true, and
Speaker 1: that the Trump children conducting their business around the world, right,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, although she's actually
Speaker 1: in government a White House advisor. If what Cory Booker says,
Speaker 1: if we take that seriously, it would mean that if
Speaker 1: you were a developer or if you were a businessman,
Speaker 1: if you would, you would have to sell all of
Speaker 1: your businesses and all of your properties. Nothing could continue.
Speaker 1: Think about this rationally for a moment the whole you know,
Speaker 1: even at with federal gifts, I think there's a thirty
Speaker 1: thirty dollar limit. You know, you have to report any
Speaker 1: gift over thirty dollars, And there's a reason for that.
Speaker 1: There's a principle at work there too. No one really
Speaker 1: thinks that you're going to do an official, an official
Speaker 1: act in violation of ethics and law for twenty bucks,
Speaker 1: the same way that nobody should really think reasonably than
Speaker 1: any one, any one group individual going into a Trump
Speaker 1: hotel to either stay the night or get some food
Speaker 1: is going to have any influence on foreign policy. This
Speaker 1: is crazy, This is nuts. But this is what they say.
Speaker 1: They're actually telling you this. They really believe, you know,
Speaker 1: they cannot see the difference. And this is where you
Speaker 1: really this is where the disparity and justice disparity law
Speaker 1: at the LIPS comes together. They think that a foreign
Speaker 1: diplomat walking into Trump Tower and buying buying a burrito
Speaker 1: bull is similar ish to Bill Clinton getting a check
Speaker 1: for half a million dollars while his wife is Secretary
Speaker 1: of State from a state back bank in a very important,
Speaker 1: powerful country. Oh but they think the second one is
Speaker 1: just fine. You're elected president. Would you allow this son
Speaker 1: or daughter of your vice president serve on the board
Speaker 1: of a whale company outside this country? Probably not. But
Speaker 1: I think that the problem that we've got again with
Speaker 1: this issue is that it's a distraction from the fact
Speaker 1: that Look, as far as I'm concerned, leave Joe Biden alone.
Speaker 1: Just leave him alone on this issue of what this
Speaker 1: president has done that has been about corrupting America's democracy,
Speaker 1: being in cahoots with a foreign leader to yet again
Speaker 1: try and manipulate the election of the president of the
Speaker 1: United States. Yeah, judgment, though, I'm not going to be
Speaker 1: distracted by what this president is trying to play, which
Speaker 1: is a game because he knows that he is actually
Speaker 1: probably looking at an indictment and is trying to then
Speaker 1: distract from the realities of his behaviors that have been
Speaker 1: in violation of our moral or ethical and probably our
Speaker 1: legal rules and morals. That's just embarrassing. It's just embarrassing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know what Maamala Harris thinks she
Speaker 1: is saying there, but as somebody who's listened to that
Speaker 1: sound about a couple of times, it's it's it's astounding,
Speaker 1: you know, I just sort of, yeah, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: and democracy, and you know, Joe Biden's like he's he's
Speaker 1: real cool, but like Trump isn't. And I'm not going
Speaker 1: to get distracted. What what is she even saying? But
Speaker 1: it shows us they're not trying to show us what's
Speaker 1: really going on. But it does show us what was
Speaker 1: really going on because she just she is just trying
Speaker 1: to stay on message, which is Trump bad, Biden good.
Speaker 1: And that is the message, Trump bad, Biden good. That's
Speaker 1: the Democrats, whatever they have to say. She's asked about
Speaker 1: whether or not somebody could serve on a foreign board,
Speaker 1: and they're leaving out some very important details. It's not
Speaker 1: just a foreign board of a company. Look, there's some
Speaker 1: judgment involved here in these matters. You look at this
Speaker 1: with with federal with federal judges and the Supreme Court, recusal.
Speaker 1: Recusal is usually a judgment call, right, But in this instance,
Speaker 1: it is incredibly poor judgment. And that's at a minimum
Speaker 1: for Hunter Biden when his dad is the point man
Speaker 1: on policy for a country that desperately needs us help
Speaker 1: to sit on a board. As I've said, there are
Speaker 1: almost there are one hundred and ninety five countries in
Speaker 1: the world. Joe Biden was put in charge of Obama's
Speaker 1: Ukraine policy and like a month or two later, Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's asked to be on this board. Oh, that's a coincidence.
Speaker 1: So it's not just on a foreign board, it's on
Speaker 1: a board in a country, at a company full of corruption,
Speaker 1: at a company that we know is involved in all
Speaker 1: kinds of shady dealing. So it's even more. It's even
Speaker 1: more than they say, But the way that they it's
Speaker 1: all about how they frame it. It's all about what
Speaker 1: they're trying to do to make people think that if
Speaker 1: you're up on this stuff, if you're up on the facts,
Speaker 1: if you understand what's going on, then then you think
Speaker 1: that Trump is bad and corrupt. And they're just hoping
Speaker 1: that we don't do our own homework on this, that
Speaker 1: they're hoping that people will just take what they're being
Speaker 1: force fed by the left wing media, which then brings
Speaker 1: me to of all the people that you could think
Speaker 1: of in the world, and I really mean this, of
Speaker 1: all the people in the entire world, who should never
Speaker 1: ever think that they're in a position to start telling
Speaker 1: the rest of us how foreign policy has been sold
Speaker 1: by the Trump administration to the highest bidder. Who would
Speaker 1: be and I mean this, who would be the worst
Speaker 1: person on planet Earth to do that? Who would be
Speaker 1: the person that you would look to and say, wow,
Speaker 1: no self arness whatsoever. Well, here's a hint. She's back
Speaker 1: play two three. But of course we all know that
Speaker 1: she has just announced the opening of an impeachment inquiry
Speaker 1: into the President on the basis of evidence that he
Speaker 1: betrayed his oath of office to uphold the constitution and
Speaker 1: protect and defend our country. He has turned American diplomacy
Speaker 1: into a cheap extortion racket. He has denigrated, and, let's
Speaker 1: be honest, stabbed in the back the career foreign service
Speaker 1: officers who serve bravely and selflessly no matter the politics
Speaker 1: of the administration that they are working under, and now
Speaker 1: they are caught in the crossfire. I was proud to
Speaker 1: serve with foreign service officers and civil servants at the
Speaker 1: State Department, and I know firsthand that they deserve the
Speaker 1: support and gratitude of all Americans. Wow, a cheap extortion racket.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton says, she who was running a charity as
Speaker 1: a global front for donations to the Bill and Hillary
Speaker 1: and Chelsea Clinton private jet fund fifty million dollars. They
Speaker 1: had to disclose a fifty million dollars spent by the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation on private jet travel. Who do you think
Speaker 1: was on those jets? Folks? Oh, that's right, that's that's
Speaker 1: good work. If you can get it, take a lot
Speaker 1: of money from foreign governments and foreign foreign actors and
Speaker 1: then make sure that you get to fly over the
Speaker 1: world private and they pay for it. That's nice, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Never mind, think about all the expenses that were picked up,
Speaker 1: all the all the hotel bills and all the perks,
Speaker 1: as if the Clintons weren't rich enough. So when we say, oh,
Speaker 1: it went to a charity, yeah, but you know they
Speaker 1: were on the board of the charity. They were running
Speaker 1: the charity, and the charity is gonna pay for their
Speaker 1: lifestyle and their brand. It was all a brand enhancement
Speaker 1: tool too. And the second she wasn't going to be president,
Speaker 1: about half of the donations just disappear almost overnight. So
Speaker 1: strange how people just didn't care about charity as much
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen as they did in twenty sixteen. And
Speaker 1: they did that. They pulled the Tapper maneuver at CNN
Speaker 1: when I was there in twenty sixteen, I'd say, guys
Speaker 1: that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund right for
Speaker 1: buying access. We understand that for at least the belief
Speaker 1: that one is buying access in favor with the Clinton's
Speaker 1: it's who. No, it's not. I don't understand. What are
Speaker 1: you talking about. Easier to play dumb than have to
Speaker 1: defend the indefensible. That's what they were doing. And now
Speaker 1: we know. But then for Hillary Clinton, she of I
Speaker 1: was running the State Department when Benghazi happened, when we
Speaker 1: lost our first US ambassador killed in the field since
Speaker 1: the Vietnam War, when a did not come for hours
Speaker 1: and hours and hours, as are men and women in
Speaker 1: the CIA and the State Department were pinned down in
Speaker 1: danger of being overrun. Where was Hilly? What happened that night?
Speaker 1: What did Obama know? When did he know it? Oh,
Speaker 1: we'll never find out. Executive privilege. Where are the calls
Speaker 1: for transparency on that one? Oh, but we know what
Speaker 1: they really cared about. We know what really mattered to
Speaker 1: Obama and to Hillary Clinton at that time. That the
Speaker 1: media not call it a terrorist attack, that the media
Speaker 1: pretend that maybe there was something else going on. Just
Speaker 1: just delay it. You can't delay the finding forever, but
Speaker 1: just make it seem like there's some questions. Maybe it
Speaker 1: was about a video. You see a video that led
Speaker 1: some people to do something on the anniversary of nine
Speaker 1: to eleven in Benghazi would look pretty bad for Obama's
Speaker 1: reelection effort, right, mister bin Laden is dead. In general,
Speaker 1: motors is alive. The big slogan for Obama's reelection would
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been a good look for four brave Americans
Speaker 1: to be killed doing their jobs in a dangerous country,
Speaker 1: A country made more dangerous. I would note the Obama
Speaker 1: Hillary Samantha Power foreign policy decision to overthrow that government,
Speaker 1: and a lot of dictators took note of what happened
Speaker 1: to Kadafi. After we said, hey, we don't want we
Speaker 1: don't want violence and mayhem. When Kadafi puts down this uprising,
Speaker 1: well then it flipped the other way, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, the violence and mayhem was directed at everybody
Speaker 1: around Kadafi, including Kadafi who was unspeakably violated on video
Speaker 1: and in the street. Yeah, I think Kim Jong un
Speaker 1: and others took note of that. I'm gonna tell you
Speaker 1: right now. I think the Assad regime was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna go We're not gonna go down this.
Speaker 1: We don't care what we have to do, We'll do anything.
Speaker 1: That was the the brilliance of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy
Speaker 1: on display. What did we get out of that involvement
Speaker 1: in the toppling of a Libyan dictator? What do we
Speaker 1: get there? Oh, that's right, there were open air slave
Speaker 1: markets operating on the shores of Tripoli. Ice Is set
Speaker 1: up a franchise there that at one point was one
Speaker 1: of the most active outside of Syria and Iraq. Anywhere
Speaker 1: is libyas I'm thriving multi confessional democracy where everyone's respecting
Speaker 1: human rights, And what were we doing there? Exactly? No
Speaker 1: one the press really seems to ask any of these
Speaker 1: questions because they don't care. They'd rather pretend that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton is not the most venal, the most corrupt, self
Speaker 1: dealing politician. Oh, the only one who comes close as
Speaker 1: her husband, I was gonna say, of her generation, but
Speaker 1: laughable levels of corruption, never prosecuted nothing, No one ever
Speaker 1: did anything. I wouldn't I thoroughly believe based on everything
Speaker 1: we know about the Komey's FBI in twenty sixteen, when
Speaker 1: you had the CEO of Overstock dot Com come out
Speaker 1: and say that he was approached by the FBI and
Speaker 1: that they shut down an investigation from the very top,
Speaker 1: that looked like it was going to prove that Hillary
Speaker 1: would more or less accept bags of cash. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: find a way to make it seem like, oh, this
Speaker 1: is just for this is just for building schools, and
Speaker 1: you know in Botswana or something, right, they have some
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation excuse for it, but no bags of cash
Speaker 1: for Hillary that that would have happened. The FBI shut
Speaker 1: it down. Now Hillary Clinton is out there and she's
Speaker 1: getting media attention and they're propping her up as a
Speaker 1: voice of a voice of probity, a voice of ethics.
Speaker 1: And they don't understand why we think that they're so
Speaker 1: full of it. They're crazy. Why the media has completely
Speaker 1: corrupt and inept and not to be trusted. This is
Speaker 1: beyond parody. Hillary Clinton out there saying that Trump has
Speaker 1: created a cheap extortion racket out of our foreign policy.
Speaker 1: When that Hillary Clinton elevated. Hillary Clinton elevated selling US
Speaker 1: foreign policy to the highest bidder, to an art form,
Speaker 1: and was never held to account for because she was
Speaker 1: going to be the next the first female president, a Democrat,
Speaker 1: a progressive, a leftist with the highest level connections imaginable,
Speaker 1: and an entire Democrat media apparatus in love with the
Speaker 1: idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency. She knew she was untouchable,
Speaker 1: so they set up this operation which made them fabulously wealthy.
Speaker 1: Oh buck, No, it's just that. Yeah. The speeches were
Speaker 1: in part in response to all the Clinton Global Initiative
Speaker 1: and Clinton Foundation stuff. Right, Oh, look at all the
Speaker 1: great charity. Let's pay them a half a million dollars
Speaker 1: for a speech. The charity was affront that allowed for
Speaker 1: the laundering of money to the Clintons under the guise of, oh,
Speaker 1: we just really need to hear their speaking. Their global leadership,
Speaker 1: as evidenced by the Clinton Foundation is so important. Here's
Speaker 1: a check for four hundred grand Hillary. Here's a check
Speaker 1: for three hundred and fifty grand Hillary. Here's a check
Speaker 1: for like one hundred and fifty grand, Chelsea. Which I
Speaker 1: wouldn't listen to Chelsea about how to open up a
Speaker 1: lemonade stand. I really wouldn't. But I'm an honest fellow
Speaker 1: one I know the dishonest when I see them. And
Speaker 1: this week she delivered a powerful speech at the United
Speaker 1: Nations Climate Actions Summit that should be required viewing for
Speaker 1: every lawmaker. She spoke for so many in her own
Speaker 1: generation when she condemned world leader's lack of urgency and
Speaker 1: responding to climate change by saying, you have stolen my
Speaker 1: dreams and my childhood with your empty words. Now I know,
Speaker 1: she engendered a backlash from the climate change deniers, from
Speaker 1: the anti anything coalition that takes on those who stand
Speaker 1: up and speak out and actually live in an evidence
Speaker 1: based world instead of a fact free world. So she
Speaker 1: did engender this backlash, which only made her message more significant,
Speaker 1: more important for every one of us to pay attention to.
Speaker 1: What a delusional, pandering liar Democrats. The whole, the whole
Speaker 1: show is over now right. They had this sixteen year
Speaker 1: old girl. Just the whole point of having her as
Speaker 1: the messenger was so that conservatives would say, why are
Speaker 1: you trotting out a sixteen year old who knows nothing
Speaker 1: about science, who knows nothing about the world or economies,
Speaker 1: or law or even politics, and have her lecture. And
Speaker 1: I mean she looked like she was deeply emotionally upset
Speaker 1: when she was talking about this climate change issue. So
Speaker 1: they're exploiting the fear of a sixteen year old girl.
Speaker 1: And the Hillary response you get here, I know or
Speaker 1: I'm almost done with Hillary. You know. The Hillary response
Speaker 1: is to say that this was the evident in space
Speaker 1: versus the non evidence space. Really, why not have a
Speaker 1: scientist make this case and speaking for her generation. I
Speaker 1: was one sixteen, and let me tell you this. I
Speaker 1: thought climate change when I was sixteen was garbage because
Speaker 1: I like history and I remember things, and I know
Speaker 1: what has been said about this cyclically stretching back for
Speaker 1: a hundred years. Oh, this is gonna happen. Oh that's
Speaker 1: gonna happen. We're gonna run out of food, We're gonna
Speaker 1: have overpopulation, we're gonna have an ice age, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a overheating because of climate champ because of a
Speaker 1: global warming, and now it's climate change. I just, oh,
Speaker 1: if you was look at this and you understand this
Speaker 1: is nuts, it's insane. But all the inspiration that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton is talking about, she's Hillary is a woman who
Speaker 1: says she will say whatever she has to say for
Speaker 1: maximum personal benefit at any point in time. It does
Speaker 1: not matter how dishonest it is. It does not matter
Speaker 1: what she said the day before or what she'll say
Speaker 1: the day after. So in that sense, she is almost
Speaker 1: it's the perfect left wing politician, because it is all
Speaker 1: a charade to get to power. It's all just play acting.
Speaker 1: It's all just meant for public consumption so that you
Speaker 1: can create the perception you need to put yourself into power.
Speaker 1: That's what Hillary says. That's what Hillary does, That's who
Speaker 1: she is, flat out and now here we are being
Speaker 1: told by her that every lawmaker should listen to Gretteth Thunberg.
Speaker 1: I would just say every lawmaker should be in a
Speaker 1: position to say, I'm sorry, I don't listen to speeches
Speaker 1: by people who are unqualified on the subject matter by
Speaker 1: virtue of age and knowledge. I do not. I do
Speaker 1: not think that that's normal. I do not think that
Speaker 1: that's healthy. And I still think it's amazing that there
Speaker 1: are some libs to this day who claim that when
Speaker 1: someone like me points out, you might as well ask
Speaker 1: her about the FED rate, which I said on Fox News,
Speaker 1: and I stand behind one hundred percent that I'm right.
Speaker 1: You might as well ask about the fact it doesn't know.
Speaker 1: She can have an opinion, but she doesn't know anything,
Speaker 1: So why does it matter. Why do we have to
Speaker 1: hear from her? Oh, that's right, because she's a victim.
Speaker 1: She's a victim by the fact, by the mere reality
Speaker 1: of her age and the fact that she's advancing a contentious,
Speaker 1: a contentious political agenda and is really a mobile human
Speaker 1: shield for a left wing agenda. That's what's going on.
Speaker 1: That's what they were doing, and Hillary just tries to
Speaker 1: capitalize on that too. One thing, We are lucky, folks,
Speaker 1: If nothing else, Donald Trump spared us from Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: as president, and we should be forever thankful for that.
Speaker 1: I am forever thankful to Trump for at least that
Speaker 1: one thing. Some of the stuff that they would talking
Speaker 1: about impeaching him from before, trying to cover up to
Speaker 1: be paid to cover up his sex with Stormy Daniels,
Speaker 1: or being moved to James Comey, which told amost everybody
Speaker 1: wants to be I always got to Famili was like
Speaker 1: trying al Capone for tax evasion, but now we got
Speaker 1: him for extortion and being an accessory I believe to murder,
Speaker 1: I mean, let's be clear, Yeah, murdered by the Russians
Speaker 1: of Ukrainians. We forget what the context is. The Russians,
Speaker 1: his friend Putin, are invading a peaceful democratic country. Congress
Speaker 1: voted to give weapons to that country to defend itself
Speaker 1: against an attack. He was withholding those until he got threatened,
Speaker 1: even by Lindsey Graham that was too much even for him.
Speaker 1: But what he was saying, basically, he was delaying the
Speaker 1: self defense weapons that Ukraine needed. This is perfect, a
Speaker 1: perfect example of what I'm talking about here. There you
Speaker 1: have former Democrat Representative Barney Frank on the Bill mar
Speaker 1: Show who is making the claim that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: guilty of murder because of a foreign policy decision that
Speaker 1: the Democrats say that they don't like. If that is
Speaker 1: not the dumbest thing you have heard in a very
Speaker 1: long time, I would like to know what is especially
Speaker 1: considering that, as he said there, okay, the Ukrainians are
Speaker 1: supposed to get the Congress approved of the funding for
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians to get weapons. His claim, Barney Frank's claim
Speaker 1: here is that because Trump put a pause on some
Speaker 1: of those weapons or or was you know, involved in
Speaker 1: a delay of the delivery of those weapons, that the
Speaker 1: truth here is that that is somehow similar to being
Speaker 1: involved in a murder. Well, hold on a second. The
Speaker 1: Democrat administration of Barack Obama, as we discussed earlier in
Speaker 1: the show, refuse to send lethal aid, including those very same,
Speaker 1: those very same Javelin anti tank missiles, because seriously, what
Speaker 1: the Russians gave. The Russians created this separatist this separatist movement,
Speaker 1: and funded and trained it and sent spetsnaz in to
Speaker 1: pretend that they were Ukrainians. They did all the stuff
Speaker 1: in East Ukraine, in the Dunbass region, and the armor
Speaker 1: that the Russians were able to bring was of a
Speaker 1: level of sophistication that they could overrun. It's really turned
Speaker 1: into in some places in Ukraine. It's similar to trench warfare.
Speaker 1: You have these these battle lines drawn up, and having
Speaker 1: armor in those near those trenches is obviously an enormous
Speaker 1: advantage if you don't have the kind of weapons that
Speaker 1: can take out an advanced Russian tank. But the Obama
Speaker 1: administration would not give the Ukrainian I spoke to Obama's
Speaker 1: former director for Ukraine at the NSC and he told
Speaker 1: me straight up, Yeah, we would not give them Javelin
Speaker 1: anti tank missiles. Sorry, wouldn't give them sniper rifles either,
Speaker 1: because in this trench style warfare in Eastern Ukraine, distance, distance, marksmanship,
Speaker 1: lethality over a long distance became very very important. So
Speaker 1: we weren't sending them sniper rifles. We weren't sending them
Speaker 1: javelin anti tank missiles. Trump changed that, but if there
Speaker 1: was a temporary pause in that, or even the possibility
Speaker 1: of a pause, Democrats like Barney Franks say they've got
Speaker 1: him on murder. This is insane. These people are nuts
Speaker 1: that this is not this is stuff that should be
Speaker 1: laughed at. Instead, you got everyone ooh, yeah, We've got
Speaker 1: Trump on murder. He's like al Capona and we're just
Speaker 1: getting him on tax evasion, but we really get him
Speaker 1: on murder. It's a very very stupid point or sorry,
Speaker 1: and accessory to murder. If we're going to use his
Speaker 1: see I will, I will use their their words. Still crazy,
Speaker 1: still insane, and accessory to murder, though, what a whacko,
Speaker 1: a total and utter wacko. But they're going forward with
Speaker 1: this impeachment. And I'm seeing now that you know, I've
Speaker 1: thought all along that impeachment was going to happen. I'm
Speaker 1: seeing now that there's a a report about Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: saying that this will happen. This was on the Associated Press,
Speaker 1: that this could happen by the end of the year,
Speaker 1: that they and this makes sense to me. The truth
Speaker 1: about the politics of impeachment for the president, No one
Speaker 1: really knows. No one can really tell you whether or
Speaker 1: not the president being impeached would be more of an
Speaker 1: issue for the backlash or more damaging to the president. Right,
Speaker 1: So it is it a benefit to Democrats? Is it
Speaker 1: a benefit to the GOP if Trump is impeached and
Speaker 1: not in roof from office? No one really knows. A
Speaker 1: lot of people will pretend to know. I believe very
Speaker 1: strongly that if Trump is impeached, his base will rally
Speaker 1: to him. But remember this is going to be a
Speaker 1: likely a very narrowly decided election in the vote totals,
Speaker 1: So it's not whether whether the base generally speaking, I
Speaker 1: think this is fair to say, it's not so much
Speaker 1: whether the base will come out in support of Trump
Speaker 1: because of impeachment. They're going to come out regardless. The other.
Speaker 1: The other issue, the bigger issue, is whether people that
Speaker 1: are in the middle, that are persuadable, that are independent,
Speaker 1: that could vote either way, will view impeachment positively or negatively. Well,
Speaker 1: they think, oh man, Trump was impeached, he must be bad.
Speaker 1: I got to vote for the Democrat, or they think
Speaker 1: this really is the witch hunt that Trump has been
Speaker 1: talking about all along. There really is this psychotic hatred
Speaker 1: of this president. Look, I'm gonna tell you this too.
Speaker 1: If it wasn't for nine to eleven, and there was
Speaker 1: a delay period in there, if you had had Bush
Speaker 1: in office for another year or two, I'm telling you
Speaker 1: they would have moved to impeach him too. There was
Speaker 1: a lot of talk toward the end of the Bush
Speaker 1: administration about how Bush was a war criminal, how Cheney
Speaker 1: should be brought up on official war criminal charges. There
Speaker 1: media was starting to run with that and that There
Speaker 1: were also people suggesting that Bush had a fascistic and
Speaker 1: hilarian political plan for America. You know, we're he's going
Speaker 1: to use the threat of radical Islam in order to
Speaker 1: know I'm not. It was not as mainstream as the
Speaker 1: Trump is his Hitler stuff, which is completely mainstream on
Speaker 1: the left, that Trump is a fascist and he's the worst,
Speaker 1: the worst president in history. The most powerful, most revered
Speaker 1: Democrats in politics and in the media will say things
Speaker 1: like that about Donald Trump. But this is just they
Speaker 1: can't handle not being in power. Remember, Bush also wasn't
Speaker 1: a legitimate president to them. Bush stole the election right,
Speaker 1: Bush fee gore Florida the recount, and then HBO made
Speaker 1: a movie which completely misrepresented what really happened in Florida
Speaker 1: in terms of what side was really pushing for what
Speaker 1: in the courts, and you know, they were doing everything
Speaker 1: they could to make sure that there would just be
Speaker 1: a vote total. Never once was there a vote total
Speaker 1: in Florida by any recount that would have had al
Speaker 1: Gore win, and yet they act like it was stolen
Speaker 1: from him. These are people who are Unfortunately, the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the Left have tied their politics so closely to
Speaker 1: their sense of identity and their sense of self worth
Speaker 1: that disagreeing with the money on any of this is
Speaker 1: in their minds an assault on who they are as people,
Speaker 1: which is why also they get so upset about climate change,
Speaker 1: because that's the area of public policy that I think
Speaker 1: the Left now has most associated with virtue and has
Speaker 1: touched all the fear and irrational sectors of their brains.
Speaker 1: That's where we are speaking, which I've got more for
Speaker 1: you on the climate change I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about. I mean, we're obviously going to get into
Speaker 1: impeachment a lot in the months ahead, so I don't
Speaker 1: want to overdo that in any one given day, but
Speaker 1: I will be back with you here to talk climate
Speaker 1: change in just a moment. The United States currently accounts
Speaker 1: for about fifteen percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. China
Speaker 1: accounts for roughly thirty percent of greenhouse gas emissions. How
Speaker 1: do we even if we get to net zero? How
Speaker 1: do you get China, India and the other countries to
Speaker 1: be good? China is doing a lot. Yes they're still
Speaker 1: building a bunch of qualified power plans, Yes they are,
Speaker 1: but they are now moving plants away from the cities
Speaker 1: there that the Communist Party wants to stay in power
Speaker 1: in China, and they listen to the public when the
Speaker 1: public says, I can't breathe the air Sheshyping is not
Speaker 1: a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents. I just
Speaker 1: I have to know he has to he is, I mean,
Speaker 1: Mike Bloomberg. He this is a it's important for us.
Speaker 1: I always remember this. It's you can be smart in
Speaker 1: one area on one thing and be a bit of
Speaker 1: a dumbass and others. And Bloomberg, who's a self made
Speaker 1: billionaire many many tens of times over, clearly has a
Speaker 1: mind for business and his story in that regard is
Speaker 1: pretty amazing. But he also is a guy who thinks
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be able to drink big sodas and that
Speaker 1: if you ban guns enough New York City, you're going
Speaker 1: to stop violence. And he's just wrong. He just doesn't
Speaker 1: alway's talking about. And here you have him saying that
Speaker 1: Jijinping is not a dictator. Hm. Maybe explain that to
Speaker 1: the protesters in a Hong Kong there, Mike Bloomberg, maybe
Speaker 1: give a little more thought to what really goes on
Speaker 1: in China if you speak out against speak out against
Speaker 1: the regime in any way, never mind the terrible conditions
Speaker 1: in prisons and how people are executed. And it's just
Speaker 1: China is a mafia accricy okay, it is a mafia
Speaker 1: state and the head mafia don is Jijin Ping. We
Speaker 1: should never forget that. But the point about climate change
Speaker 1: here is one that Bloomberg doesn't have an answer to,
Speaker 1: and that is, even if what we say we should
Speaker 1: do as a country, even if we achieve that, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be nearly enough because America is only fifteen percent
Speaker 1: of global emissions and the big spike in global emissions
Speaker 1: is coming from China and India. Never mind the fact
Speaker 1: that the third world, well I'll get to the third
Speaker 1: world in a moment, but we can continue now with
Speaker 1: Mike Bloomberg making a jackass of himself. Sheshyping is not
Speaker 1: a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents or he's
Speaker 1: not going to survive. But he's not a dictator. No,
Speaker 1: he has to he has a constituency to answer too. Dictators,
Speaker 1: my friend, all have constituencies in the sense that they
Speaker 1: can't just kill absolutely everybody, right, They can't just use force.
Speaker 1: They have to be able to have some form of government.
Speaker 1: They have to have some way of keeping the lights on.
Speaker 1: You know this. But this is like saying, well, Mussolini
Speaker 1: wasn't a fascist. You know, the trains ran on time
Speaker 1: and the lights were on. Not very clever stuff from
Speaker 1: mayor Bloomberg, who I will say it was a good mayor.
Speaker 1: I know, people get mad at me when I say it.
Speaker 1: I give credit where it's due. He was he was
Speaker 1: a good mayor. But here's the other part of this
Speaker 1: that I think is so interesting. It turns out that
Speaker 1: plane emissions, which aren't a This is what people would
Speaker 1: would criticize me for bringing this up. Who are climate
Speaker 1: change freaks? The climate change supermaniacs because they would decide
Speaker 1: that well, they would tell you that it's a small
Speaker 1: percentage overall that air travel, small percentage overall of emissions.
Speaker 1: It's like five percent I think overall. Okay, well, it's
Speaker 1: getting bigger all the time, and it's estimated that within
Speaker 1: a couple of decades I'm sorry, two point five percent
Speaker 1: of global of global emissions, but it should be by
Speaker 1: twenty fifty based on how much this was just a
Speaker 1: study publish with a weekend, based on how much plane
Speaker 1: travel is increasing, by twenty fifty, it could be twenty
Speaker 1: five percent of all CO two emissions. A quarter of
Speaker 1: all CO two emissions will be plane will be from planes.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you right now, you do not want
Speaker 1: to be on a solar powered plane. Okay, that's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. It's nowhere near that. Airframes in particular,
Speaker 1: you look at Boeing and the problems that it's going through.
Speaker 1: Airframes are very difficult to adjust and change, even relatively
Speaker 1: minor adjustments to airframes. That's why the planes really planes
Speaker 1: that are newer, you know, the Supermax is an example
Speaker 1: of this, are re upt versions of older air frames
Speaker 1: with just better avionics electronics, and it's the moment you
Speaker 1: start messing with the actual structure of it, you throw
Speaker 1: off a lot of things. And in a similar way,
Speaker 1: if you change the basic fuel source for planes, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have all kinds of other stuff that you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to adjust for and get involved with the electronics,
Speaker 1: the avionics. It's just not a straightforward thing to switch out.
Speaker 1: It's not easy to do. Does anyone think that there's
Speaker 1: gonna be less air travel in China and India in
Speaker 1: the decades ahead? In fact, I think the fastest growing
Speaker 1: air travel market in the world is the internal Chinese
Speaker 1: travel market. More and more people in China want to
Speaker 1: fly to other Becaustrona's very big places fly to other
Speaker 1: places in China for travel, to see family, to explore,
Speaker 1: and that's not going to change. So we have yet
Speaker 1: another place where the problem is going to get much bigger.
Speaker 1: First of I don't think CEO two emission is a problem,
Speaker 1: but the numbers that we're seeing. We keep assuming that
Speaker 1: we have these static realities of CO two emissions, that
Speaker 1: the numbers as they are now are going to continue
Speaker 1: to be the numbers in five years. This is why
Speaker 1: I keeps saying that no one can see the future.
Speaker 1: Technology is going to change, consumer behavior is going to change,
Speaker 1: habits will change, and that's why when they start doing
Speaker 1: these projections out to twenty fifty, they just this is nonsense.
Speaker 1: It's nonsense. They they have no idea what the technology
Speaker 1: usage will be. And if anything, the developing world as
Speaker 1: it gets more developed, well this isn't that complicated. But
Speaker 1: as there's more economic activity and more consumption and just
Speaker 1: more prosperity, oh my gosh, all across the Third World,
Speaker 1: there'll be more people in cars, more people flying planes.
Speaker 1: And even if we are reducing our CO two footprint,
Speaker 1: which I think is unnecessary and self defeating and stupid,
Speaker 1: in those countries, just based on the fact that there'll
Speaker 1: be so much greater activity, there will be more and
Speaker 1: more CO two put up in the air. You know,
Speaker 1: even if you have some of the if some Third
Speaker 1: world countries get to twenty percent of twenty percent of
Speaker 1: their grid, or let's say fifty percent of their grid
Speaker 1: is all renewable based, eighty percent of their grid is
Speaker 1: renewable based, whatever numbers you want to use, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be some percentage of it that is not And even
Speaker 1: in creating renewable energy. A lot of the time you
Speaker 1: actually spew off a lot of CO two. You know,
Speaker 1: see see how much energy? How much CO two is
Speaker 1: expended in the creation of those solar panels that people
Speaker 1: put on the rules all the time. You start to
Speaker 1: look at that analysis and you change your mind a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff. Oh and then there's this other
Speaker 1: piece in Time magazine about lifestyle changes. I thought this
Speaker 1: was fantastic because one of the problems that you have
Speaker 1: these climate change activists keep running into is that they
Speaker 1: really like to have their global conferences, their climate change conferences,
Speaker 1: in incredibly fancy locales where everyone pretty much arrives on
Speaker 1: a private jet, certainly by air travel of some kind,
Speaker 1: but a lot of private jets, and you have the
Speaker 1: likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and others who will fly in
Speaker 1: their private jet to be at a conference where the
Speaker 1: real takeaway is everybody else needs to fly less in
Speaker 1: jets of any kind and drive less and use less
Speaker 1: and consume less. Think about it this way, energy consumption
Speaker 1: itself is going to be It creates the emission of
Speaker 1: CO two in our current system, and that means for products,
Speaker 1: so things that you buy. You know, if you buy
Speaker 1: a laptop computer, the energy and the resource mining and
Speaker 1: everything that went into that is going to be expelling
Speaker 1: CO two. It's just not possible. This is really just
Speaker 1: a fight against human prosperity as a as a religious
Speaker 1: belief and an excuse to assert total control. The reason
Speaker 1: this Time Magazine piece is out and the reason that
Speaker 1: it says that individual habits should not be considered a disqualify. Essentially, hey,
Speaker 1: we want to fly on our private jets, so like,
Speaker 1: let's all just agree that what one person does doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: It's about collective action. Is they're trying to get rid
Speaker 1: of the hypocrisy that has always dogged this movement. Hypocrisy
Speaker 1: is one of the big weakness, is one of the
Speaker 1: big weak areas of the climate change alarmist because the
Speaker 1: most you know, the al Gores and the Dicaprios and
Speaker 1: the you know, the people that are the biggest evangelists
Speaker 1: for climate change catastrophe make no attempt whatsoever in their
Speaker 1: own lives to change things, make no attempt to modify
Speaker 1: their own behavior. They only want to modify your behavior.
Speaker 1: And if they do modify individual behavior, it's virtue signaling
Speaker 1: you know they've got. They'll have eight hummers in a
Speaker 1: garage in Los Angeles, but you'll see them taking photos
Speaker 1: of themselves in front of the Tesla like they're, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm doing my part. It's ridiculous. We see this for
Speaker 1: what it is. Man the left, they get so touchy
Speaker 1: about climate change, they just lose their minds on I
Speaker 1: don't know how it's possible that so many people could
Speaker 1: be so utterly brainwashed, but they are. The way I
Speaker 1: see this is that we've got a big structural problem
Speaker 1: in this country, and that is we've got a government
Speaker 1: that works great, fabulously for the wealthy and the well connected.
Speaker 1: It works great for giant corporations, it's just not working
Speaker 1: for much of anyone else. When we stand together, we
Speaker 1: can accomplish extraordinary things and it gets back them with
Speaker 1: Mandela said, think big, not small. What can we do
Speaker 1: an example, I came here to a Hampshire four years ago.
Speaker 1: I talked about raising the minimum wage to fifteen bucks
Speaker 1: an hour, and everybody told me I was crazy, too
Speaker 1: radical an idea. Well, the American people workers have stood
Speaker 1: up and now we have seven states in the US
Speaker 1: House of Representatives that have already voted to raise the
Speaker 1: minimum wage the fifteen bucks an hour. I would just
Speaker 1: like to know why we have not raised the minimum
Speaker 1: wage to five hundred bucks an hour. That's way more
Speaker 1: than fifteen. The fat cats, the millionaires, the billionaires, they
Speaker 1: can afford to paint, but they don't want to do it.
Speaker 1: In fact, I don't like to be mean about millionaires
Speaker 1: because I Bernie Sanders am also a millionaire, a socialist
Speaker 1: millionaire with three houses. So it's really billionaires would have
Speaker 1: bad guys, oh, my friends. The class warfare that you
Speaker 1: will see from Democrats, which it never seems to dawn
Speaker 1: upon Democrats that they are simultaneously the party of class
Speaker 1: warfare and the party of the coastal super ultra wealthy
Speaker 1: elites in media and entertainment, Wall Street, super wealthy libs
Speaker 1: all over the place. The wealthiest enclaves in the country
Speaker 1: are LIB dominated. But somehow it makes Democrats feel good
Speaker 1: to talk about how bad rich people are. And the
Speaker 1: very rich Democrats who listen to this, including some who
Speaker 1: are saying it themselves, they feel that because they adhere
Speaker 1: to an ideology, that they support an ideology of radical
Speaker 1: redistribution of wealth via government, although not for themselves. They
Speaker 1: don't want their money, you know, they want fancy accounts,
Speaker 1: and they want to fight this at every turn. But
Speaker 1: for everybody else, they want the radical redistribution of wealth.
Speaker 1: With that in mind and that in play, they think
Speaker 1: that they get a dispensation. They think that they are
Speaker 1: immune to this stuff. Right, it's only the it's the
Speaker 1: bad Republican millionaires that we have to worry about, you know, Sanders,
Speaker 1: they're time at minimum wage. And I find the minimum
Speaker 1: wage discussion very frustrating because it's quite clear that minimum
Speaker 1: wage does not do what people who are proponents of
Speaker 1: it says it will do. But I also know that
Speaker 1: at every poll you see people like a higher minimum wage.
Speaker 1: It does appeal to an emotional, not an economic, an
Speaker 1: emotional sense of fairness. Meanwhile, somehow, despite minimum wage laws,
Speaker 1: I've worked many jobs in my life where I made
Speaker 1: less than minimum wage, including worked for no wage and
Speaker 1: under the guise of an internship or whatever, junior counselor
Speaker 1: at a camp of all these things where you're doing labor,
Speaker 1: you're doing real work, but you're not getting paid for it.
Speaker 1: And I think that it's a very important economic lesson
Speaker 1: for everyone to do a job. Before you decide what
Speaker 1: your job should be in life, you should have done
Speaker 1: a job or you get paid money and you see
Speaker 1: what you are getting paid and how hard you work,
Speaker 1: and that would really affect where you want to go
Speaker 1: with your future career. I believe that. But minimum wage
Speaker 1: that Bernie Sanders document in Raising a fifty, I think
Speaker 1: it's about hit in New York City. Actually fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: an hour? Is that right? Producer? Mark? Does that sound
Speaker 1: right to you? I think minimum wage is going to
Speaker 1: be increased here to fifteen dollars an hour. So it
Speaker 1: already was, oh, it already was okay, Yeah, So I
Speaker 1: mean everybody can get excited about, you know that the
Speaker 1: cost of all the food that they're eating all the
Speaker 1: time going up, or restaurant's just going out of business.
Speaker 1: It's going to be one. It's going to be one
Speaker 1: or the other. Minimum wage is a very mixed bag,
Speaker 1: expect when you raise the minimum wage, what you do
Speaker 1: is exactly what microeconomists would tell you you do, which
Speaker 1: is you squeeze the balloon and in some places it
Speaker 1: gets you know, gets thicker, and in some places there's
Speaker 1: less air, in some places there's more. In some places
Speaker 1: there's less air. Some people will make more money, other
Speaker 1: people will get fired, other people will have their hours
Speaker 1: cut back because a business has to deal with prices
Speaker 1: that are market based, and a business has to deal
Speaker 1: with costs and inputs and outputs that are beyond just
Speaker 1: what the business dictates. Look I would love it if
Speaker 1: the Bucks Exton Show was making fifty million dollars a year.
Speaker 1: I would give producer Mark a big raise. I'd give
Speaker 1: myself an enormous race. But that's not what happens. There
Speaker 1: are external forces that tell you what you can make,
Speaker 1: what you can spend, and what the reality of your
Speaker 1: businesses and what the bottom line may be. And if
Speaker 1: you ignore those you do so much your peril. And
Speaker 1: minimum wage is just a government mandate that ignores those things.
Speaker 1: But we should all be prepared for more of this.
Speaker 1: This is the Democrat message, just as it was under Obama.
Speaker 1: Really is not we want to make the economy function.
Speaker 1: We want to make the economy bigger and better and
Speaker 1: healthier across the board, which will help people the most.
Speaker 1: The matches from Democrats is some people are doing better
Speaker 1: than you, and because they're doing better than you, you're
Speaker 1: not doing as well as you should. And therefore the
Speaker 1: answer is not, how do you make it easier for
Speaker 1: everyone to be prosperous, to have more take home pay,
Speaker 1: more money in the bank, more economic security. Though economic
Speaker 1: security is really philosophically speaking, it's a fiction. I mean,
Speaker 1: who knows a financial security, I should say, is a fiction.
Speaker 1: I mean, you never know what's going to happen. That's
Speaker 1: really no such thing as true financial security. But this
Speaker 1: is going to be very effective, these stories that they tell,
Speaker 1: just as it was back when Obama's running for re
Speaker 1: election in twenty twelve and Mitt Romney the vulture capitalist.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, Mitt Romney, he wants to steal Grandma's healthcare.
Speaker 1: He wants to give people cancer just so he can
Speaker 1: light his cigars with thousand dollars bills. I don't think
Speaker 1: Mitt want to do any I don't think it's a
Speaker 1: cigar smoker, for one, so we could start there. In fact,
Speaker 1: I'm quite sure. I feel like if someone tried to
Speaker 1: put a little mulcha flavored something in mits latte, he'd
Speaker 1: be like, WHOA, settle down, it's not a crazy party anyway.
Speaker 1: I think that the class warfare rhetoric is gonna get
Speaker 1: he's gonna be overwhelming, and it's going to be something
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are really banking on. It'll be Trump
Speaker 1: is awful, yea, Socialism that's the shorthand for what the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election will be turned into by Democrats. Trump
Speaker 1: is awful, but yea will take money away from you
Speaker 1: and give it to other people. And once we've done that,
Speaker 1: everything will be better, even though all of history shows
Speaker 1: us that this is going to make us less wealthy
Speaker 1: and just enlarge the bureaucracy and hurt productivity and not
Speaker 1: do the things that say it's going to do. But
Speaker 1: issue with socialism, folks, is that Democrats just don't understand
Speaker 1: why it fails, or they refuse to believe that it
Speaker 1: fails for any reason other than a lack of will
Speaker 1: to do it the right way. It's not that that
Speaker 1: socialism is inherently, deeply wrong and flawed. It does not
Speaker 1: work and it is not right. But Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren and others will be promising you that if you
Speaker 1: only give them the authority to the power to enact
Speaker 1: it the way they want to act, it'll all be better.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks. Keeping it real, it's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. Team buck at iHeartRadio dot com
Speaker 1: if you want to send us email for the roll call,
Speaker 1: if you want to do it on Facebook, Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck Sex and remember everybody, we are now
Speaker 1: going up with the podcast every day by three Eastern.
Speaker 1: You can listen on iTunes on iHeartRadio anywhere where you
Speaker 1: listen to podcasts, we will be there. Please do listen
Speaker 1: to Buck Sex and show tell people. Spread the word
Speaker 1: not just that the show is as a podcast, but
Speaker 1: that we are out now in time for drivetime. Anyone
Speaker 1: who wants to can listen to this show as their
Speaker 1: daily news deep dive. You can listen in the afternoon
Speaker 1: lunchtime on the West coast, but certainly in the afternoon
Speaker 1: and for your drive home. And the more that we
Speaker 1: see those those numbers we're already seeing it. The more
Speaker 1: we see those numbers spike on the podcast, the more
Speaker 1: cool stuff we can do here and the good guys
Speaker 1: win essentially. So do what you can to help us
Speaker 1: out with this. It is much appreciated. Please do spread
Speaker 1: the word post to your on Facebook page, you send
Speaker 1: a text message with the iTunes link that I will
Speaker 1: put up on Twitter today send a text message with
Speaker 1: that to a friend of yours who you think should
Speaker 1: get some good information finally from the world of news,
Speaker 1: and we thank you very much for all you're doing
Speaker 1: so far to help us get the word out. All right,
Speaker 1: Paul Rights Hey, Buck Hope Ball as well. I have
Speaker 1: three questions and a funny aside. While listening to your
Speaker 1: show over the weekend, I kept hearing quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: I must have heard it a dozen times until I
Speaker 1: finally just said out loud, quid pro quid bro cuomo,
Speaker 1: quidbro cuomo, and crack myself up. Maybe you can run
Speaker 1: with that, maybe I can thank you, Paul. My serious
Speaker 1: questions are this, given that Democrats are moving toward impeachment,
Speaker 1: what do you think it's possible likely there will be
Speaker 1: Democrat defectors who will vote against I don't think no.
Speaker 1: I don't think Paul, that there will. I think the
Speaker 1: Democrats always move in lockstep. I think they will hear again,
Speaker 1: I do not. I would not expect, and I don't
Speaker 1: think you should expect that there will be any kind
Speaker 1: of Democrat defection from impeachment. They're gonna They're gonna all
Speaker 1: vote for it. I really think they will just look
Speaker 1: at Obamacare. Man, not a single, not a single Republican vote.
Speaker 1: Democrats all just jump jumping on board the train. And
Speaker 1: then he writes, Secondly, if said impeachment proceedings do start up,
Speaker 1: do you think that the hearings will overshadow the Democratic
Speaker 1: primary debate coverage? And if that does overshadow the coverage,
Speaker 1: is it possible that Biden regains his lead over other candidates?
Speaker 1: Love the show, Love the hair shields high, love the email, Paul,
Speaker 1: thank you you do I think that the No, I
Speaker 1: don't think that will overshecks. Remember, the debates only happen. Sometimes.
Speaker 1: The hearings will feed into a lot of the Democrat primary.
Speaker 1: The whole impeachment inquiry will be leveraged shamelessly by all
Speaker 1: the Democrats running, and they'll be talking about all the time.
Speaker 1: So I think they would view them as the Democrat
Speaker 1: The left will view the Democrat primary and the impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry as complementary efforts. That's what I think is going
Speaker 1: to happen. And I tend to be right, as you know,
Speaker 1: because you listen to this show and then overshadow, Yeah, overshadowing.
Speaker 1: I don't really think that's the case and Biden. Look,
Speaker 1: I don't know how many more times I can say
Speaker 1: that I don't think that. I don't think the Biden's
Speaker 1: gonna win, but he's still at the top of the pack,
Speaker 1: so I don't think he's gonna win the nomination. But
Speaker 1: I could be wrong. Let's see, Brian Buck it's looking
Speaker 1: more and more like your original prediction may hold true.
Speaker 1: Hillary's ego can't hold back from taking another run at
Speaker 1: the presidency. Come in and rescue the Democratic Party. Lol.
Speaker 1: I've always enjoyed CBS Sunday Morning as most of their
Speaker 1: stories are usually feel good stories, they get your mind
Speaker 1: thinking in other arenas, and usually bipartisan. During the last
Speaker 1: few years they've become more obvious in their pro socialist agenda. Well,
Speaker 1: they teat up Hillary and Chelsea nicely with a full
Speaker 1: interview to day. Give me your thoughts if you still
Speaker 1: think this may happen. PS. Have you ever seen did
Speaker 1: you ever end up watching Searching for Sugar Man? I
Speaker 1: have not yet seen Searching for Sugar Man, so I
Speaker 1: should just get that out of the way right now.
Speaker 1: I would like to watch it. Never gotten around to it,
Speaker 1: although these days with the writing and other things, I've
Speaker 1: got going on. It's very hard to spend a full
Speaker 1: two hours to in a movie watching a movie. As
Speaker 1: for whether, no, I don't think. Here's the only way
Speaker 1: that I could teach that I could see Hillary. I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, Chelsea, but that's not for a few years. Oh,
Speaker 1: they're gonna try to run her. They're gonna try to
Speaker 1: run her for Senate first. They're gonna try to run
Speaker 1: else Clinton for New York State Senate or rather for
Speaker 1: a New York State Senate seat. They're gonna try that.
Speaker 1: I'm very confident they're gonna get that a go, but
Speaker 1: it's not going to be for a little bit. How
Speaker 1: would Hillary hello, how would Hillary all of a sudden
Speaker 1: be back in the mix and running for a president,
Speaker 1: maybe even being the Democrat candidate, Democrat nominee. It would
Speaker 1: have to be because there's some implosion of the Democrat
Speaker 1: primary and you have no more you know, Biden falls away,
Speaker 1: and then you just have a really fractured Democrat Party
Speaker 1: and maybe if they got some kind of a break
Speaker 1: in the impeachment against Trump, that they found something they
Speaker 1: could use more. I don't know, but I'm saying it
Speaker 1: would have to be a an outlier type of event,
Speaker 1: something that nobody could foresee. And I think that's I
Speaker 1: think it's very I think it's very unlikely. Let's see
Speaker 1: we have here, Elton. Enjoy your show, especially the podcast
Speaker 1: that's now available in the late afternoon. Whoo, keep up
Speaker 1: the great work and tell producer Mark Hey, thumbs up.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, you get thumbs up, buddy, good job. I'm
Speaker 1: glad all these things happen. We got the Pluto TV
Speaker 1: show starting, we get the earlier show, the podcast at earlier.
Speaker 1: When you come on board, I'm just noticing. I'm noticing
Speaker 1: there's a lot of team buck love for producer Mark. Well,
Speaker 1: it is all me. Well, there you go, so that
Speaker 1: the team figures you do the talking, I do everything else.
Speaker 1: That's right, Elton rights. Your show is like an island
Speaker 1: in a sea of lib Democrat propaganda. My wife is
Speaker 1: a yellow dog Democrat, which I've learned to accept after
Speaker 1: thirty three years of marriage. Look forward to your Pluto
Speaker 1: TV show soon again. Thank you for insights and extensive
Speaker 1: research into the day's events, Your faithful listener, Elton in Birmingham,
Speaker 1: all right, appreciate that. Let's see what we got here.
Speaker 1: Next one is John. He writes, Okay, okay, kid bashing
Speaker 1: that's just fine with me. But kitten bashing that's just
Speaker 1: too much. How could you, sir? Okay, of course that
Speaker 1: was not kid bashing in the least quite the contrary.
Speaker 1: You nailed it. Another case of the left's favorite tactic, victimology.
Speaker 1: Same deal as David Hogg or Blase fraud instead of
Speaker 1: Blasi Ford. Same thing as Omar and AOC. And if
Speaker 1: this expert Greta wants to claim she's entitled to address
Speaker 1: the world body and be listened to, she's clearly claiming
Speaker 1: adult status. All right, thank you for writing and I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Ted Right Buck, I love your show and
Speaker 1: truly think you are the next Rush. That Cats segment, however,
Speaker 1: upset me. Mark's disrespect for Team Buck Cat fans is abhorrent.
Speaker 1: His statement was to use his own word disgusting. Well
Speaker 1: used to hear Trump soundbites all the time, like China
Speaker 1: and you're a horrible person. Maybe cat hating Mark that finesse.
Speaker 1: Oh man, They're they're saying that because producer John does
Speaker 1: drops and you have to do other things during the show.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know. Producer Mark, they're calling
Speaker 1: you out. I just don't have the time to do
Speaker 1: drops anymore, I admit it. There we go. Well, and
Speaker 1: I did not say anything mean about the people who
Speaker 1: like cats. I just said mean things about cats. I
Speaker 1: love all members of team Buck. There we go. That's
Speaker 1: that's a man who's hoping to keep the lights on
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hunt for a few more years at least.
Speaker 1: Good stuff, Thank heavens. All right, Ted, thanks for writing
Speaker 1: in Benny rights. I'm fed up as you and Bongino say,
Speaker 1: new rules now apply. I don't care if it looks petty.
Speaker 1: I don't care if it looks vindictive. I don't want
Speaker 1: to hear as Republicans were above that. We're in charge
Speaker 1: of the Senate. How about backing up our president. I
Speaker 1: want investigations opened and hundreds of subpoenas issued for everything
Speaker 1: from every lie told under oath to Congress, to both
Speaker 1: collusion hoaxes, diffusion GPS, to Flynn and Trump leaks, etc.
Speaker 1: If it's okay for Dems and Muller to wield the
Speaker 1: power of Congress, then by God, the Republicans better wake
Speaker 1: up and return fire politically speaking, Shield's high, Benny, all right, Benny,
Speaker 1: you're fired up there, my friend. Thank you so much. Please, everybody,
Speaker 1: do subscribe on iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: The show's out every day, three Eastern as you know,
Speaker 1: so we want to be your drive time choice across
Speaker 1: the country for the day's politics and events. We will
Speaker 1: talk to you tomorrow. Shield's High