Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. General Flynn has his
Speaker 1: day in court for a sentencing hearing, but it does
Speaker 1: not go as planned. Will have the details. Also, is
Speaker 1: there going to be a shutdown or not? It looks
Speaker 1: like the White House might have been backtracking a bit
Speaker 1: today on previous promises and what happens when an eleven
Speaker 1: year old is dancing on stage in drag and the
Speaker 1: media covers it that. I'm more coming up on the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again The buck Sexton Show beginst. No, President Trump
Speaker 1: should understand there are not the votes for the wall
Speaker 1: in the House or the Senate. He is not going
Speaker 1: to get the wall in any form. I asked the
Speaker 1: people at Customs of Border Protection what would it cost
Speaker 1: to have scanners to scan all the vehicles coming in.
Speaker 1: They said three hundred million dollars. That's a four cry
Speaker 1: from five billion, in a much more effective way to
Speaker 1: have a secure border. Most of us, speaking for myself,
Speaker 1: consider the wall immral ineffective, expensive to spend billions of
Speaker 1: dollars on an immoral, ineffective, and expensive wall. Don't waste
Speaker 1: billions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to build
Speaker 1: something that will not make our border more secure. Border
Speaker 1: security is enormously important, but I think building a wall
Speaker 1: is a very costly and inefficient way to do that.
Speaker 1: So many lies, so many lies, and so little time
Speaker 1: to knock them all down. Welcome to the buck Sex
Speaker 1: and show everybody. Democrats are in full scale talking points
Speaker 1: mode right now. They're all in on this idea that
Speaker 1: a wall just cannot happen. A wall cannot happen, and
Speaker 1: the GOP as of now, according to Mitch McConnell, is
Speaker 1: not willing to go to a shutdown send a majority leader.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell has declared the government's going to stay open
Speaker 1: and that the White House will be flexible, flexible on
Speaker 1: its border wall demands. Why I would like to know
Speaker 1: why they think this is a good idea. Why is
Speaker 1: it that the Republicans are the ones who once again
Speaker 1: are running to cave on the signature issue of this presidency.
Speaker 1: What is the difference now? What has changed in their calculation?
Speaker 1: A week ago Trump was having his I Am Spartacus
Speaker 1: moment on this one. You know, he said, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll shut it down, Stephen Miller over the weekend, Presidents
Speaker 1: Senior a in the White House, Oh, we'll shut it down.
Speaker 1: You know. I'm not here to say everything that Trump
Speaker 1: does is advisors do is great. Often quite the opposite.
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you what I think about what's
Speaker 1: best for the country and what the reality of the
Speaker 1: agenda is that was promised by these people who were
Speaker 1: given power, including the President of the United States, to
Speaker 1: follow through on that agenda. You know, they were not
Speaker 1: saying build the existing fences and add to border patrol
Speaker 1: over time hours. No, they were saying build the wall.
Speaker 1: Not seeing this get through right now, not seeing how
Speaker 1: it's gonna happen. Now. There are a bunch of ways
Speaker 1: this could play out, and I will get into them.
Speaker 1: But I do want to note that my initial inclination here,
Speaker 1: which is the GOP is unwilling to have a shutdown
Speaker 1: battle right before the Christmas holiday. They think they're gonna
Speaker 1: lose on this one. They think the Democrats and their
Speaker 1: media allies are going to manage to convince people that
Speaker 1: Republicans are being reckless, that all that just means that
Speaker 1: this is Lucy pulling the football and we are Charlie
Speaker 1: missing by a mile and landed on our butts. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have the shutdown fight. Oh it's going to
Speaker 1: be the you know, now is our moment to finally
Speaker 1: do what's right here. Nope, that's that is That is
Speaker 1: not how this is going to play out. Unfortunately, that
Speaker 1: is not what is likely to happen. I don't know
Speaker 1: how the president. I'm just gonna say it. I don't
Speaker 1: know how the president can win reelection if the wall
Speaker 1: promise is not in any way fulfilled, meaning that that
Speaker 1: construction has not started. I don't know, you know, because
Speaker 1: this is how I see this playing out right now.
Speaker 1: They're not going to do the shutdown. They're going to
Speaker 1: get a another continuing resolution, and you know they're gonna
Speaker 1: push They're gonna push this off into January and then
Speaker 1: they'll have another Oh no, we gotta have a big thing,
Speaker 1: and then they're gonna push it off again. No politician
Speaker 1: wants to make a hard choice. No members of Congress
Speaker 1: want to do what's necessary and what's responsible here. They
Speaker 1: want to do what's easiest and what's going to get
Speaker 1: them reelected. It's all driven by self interest, and we're
Speaker 1: gonna be told, you know what, Okay, fine, maybe the
Speaker 1: president is going to order them to find the money
Speaker 1: somewhere else. I'm already seeing this. This is the storyline.
Speaker 1: All the President's gonna find the money somewhere else for
Speaker 1: the wall. Okay, where find five billion dollars? That's I'm
Speaker 1: sure they can find that somewhere in the budget. But
Speaker 1: how are they gonna Oh well, okay, well, you know what.
Speaker 1: The President's also gonna just the President's going to tell
Speaker 1: the military that this should be done, this is the
Speaker 1: way it should go, and we will respond to this.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, guess what happens? Then a federal judge
Speaker 1: is going to block it, you know, just just the
Speaker 1: same way that a federal judge said no travel band,
Speaker 1: even though it was within the president's constitutional authority to
Speaker 1: implement that travel band. As we know from the from
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, they're gonna say, oh, some judge somewhere
Speaker 1: in the country is going to come up with a
Speaker 1: pretext to stop them, stop the building of the border wall,
Speaker 1: or stop the funding of it. They're the reapportionment of
Speaker 1: funding from within the federal government so that they could
Speaker 1: build a wall. No, no, no, they're gonna they're gonna
Speaker 1: find it. So then the judge shuts this thing down.
Speaker 1: It turns into a court battle, and you know what
Speaker 1: they're gonna tell us for twenty twenty because that's how
Speaker 1: long this thing's gonna extend out with with no wall
Speaker 1: in place and no funding for a wall. You know
Speaker 1: what they're gonna tell us, Oh, well, we need to
Speaker 1: give Trump four more years and we need a supermajority
Speaker 1: in Congress. Now that's what we need, a supermajority in
Speaker 1: Congress to get this done. I think it's now never.
Speaker 1: They're either willing to have this fight and do everything
Speaker 1: that they can to start building this wall. It's going
Speaker 1: to be piecemeal, it's gonna take a long time. It's
Speaker 1: not going to be an easy thing to do. But
Speaker 1: they either win the fight to begin construction, or you know,
Speaker 1: we gotta start thinking about a way to live under
Speaker 1: a democrat socialist regime because that's where this country's heading.
Speaker 1: And I don't like saying it, but that's what's that's
Speaker 1: what's going to happen. That's where we're gonna be. We've
Speaker 1: basically lost the healthcare fight. I know other conservatives don't
Speaker 1: want to tell you that. They're, oh, you know, we're
Speaker 1: gonna we're gonna repeal and replace Obamacare. Really, when how
Speaker 1: you had a chance, didn't do it, it's only going
Speaker 1: to get harder. In fact, we're only moving further to
Speaker 1: the left, more government spending, more dependency on the government
Speaker 1: subsidizing healthcare. You think we're gonna have some great moment
Speaker 1: of clarity on this one, all of a sudden, the
Speaker 1: Milton Friedman spirit is going to overtake the country. We're
Speaker 1: going to realize that a free market and healthcare is
Speaker 1: going to be better. No, of course not. People like
Speaker 1: free stuff. It's rational to like free stuff. The whole
Speaker 1: government system we have now when it comes to healthcare
Speaker 1: and a whole lot of things, is premised on not
Speaker 1: really letting you know, not really making it clear that
Speaker 1: you are paying for it, that that this doesn't come
Speaker 1: without cost. You know, they don't want you to know that.
Speaker 1: They want to obfuscate that. They want to make it
Speaker 1: hard to understand that we're losing the fight over healthcare.
Speaker 1: What's the replacement plan? You know, got all these Republicans
Speaker 1: in Congress and their staffs and their offices, and I
Speaker 1: go over and I interview them the whole thing I
Speaker 1: always want asking what exactly do you do here? Guys
Speaker 1: don't have an Obamacare replacement plan, you haven't won the fight.
Speaker 1: In fact, Amacare is more popular now than it's ever
Speaker 1: been based on the polling, it is more popular now.
Speaker 1: You could say, well, buck, that's because they you know,
Speaker 1: we have some stop gap measures and the Congress said,
Speaker 1: you don't have to pay the penalty. But the reason
Speaker 1: people sign up for Obamacare insurance that the main driver
Speaker 1: is not actually whether or not they have to pay
Speaker 1: the penalty. It's whether or not they get subsidies. Because
Speaker 1: in some cases the subsidy covers essentially their entire cost
Speaker 1: of premium. So it's effectively like having free health insurance
Speaker 1: with limited access to the private health insurance market and
Speaker 1: a high deductible. But that's what it is. You know,
Speaker 1: we were told that Republicans would would fight. I mean
Speaker 1: I came into media on healthcare issue at the healthcare
Speaker 1: issue time, right. I came in when Obamacare was the
Speaker 1: dominant subject matter, when the Tea Party was Yeah, we
Speaker 1: worried about the debt and the deficit, But what was
Speaker 1: really pushing the debt and deficit healthcare spending, Medicare and medicaid.
Speaker 1: That's where the problem is. Obamacare has only made that worse.
Speaker 1: And Obamacare was compelled commerce, and we were told that
Speaker 1: this is terrible, and it is terrible, it's wrong, it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: But what are we going to do about it? You know?
Speaker 1: I start to worry that conservatism is accepting of its
Speaker 1: toothlessness when it comes to policy, when it comes to
Speaker 1: the way this country is governed and how that affects
Speaker 1: the three hundred and twenty million or so people who
Speaker 1: live here, that we just make really interesting arguments and
Speaker 1: never expect to actually win. And what's most frustrating right
Speaker 1: now with Trump and the Oval office. And I know
Speaker 1: it's a lame duck Congress, but we still do have
Speaker 1: a majority. What's most frustrating is that Republicans are essentially
Speaker 1: now being told even when you win, you lose. Even
Speaker 1: when we have this is political miracle of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration that defeats the most propped up establishment back candidate imaginable.
Speaker 1: We can't we can't follow through, we can't execute. We're
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, the right conservatism. Trump is
Speaker 1: m whatever. A lot of promises, not all of execution.
Speaker 1: I know there's are people would say, oh buck the
Speaker 1: economy and yeah, the economy is good. Stock market is
Speaker 1: not so good, but the economy is good. Unemployment still
Speaker 1: really low, regulations better than it was. Healthcare is not
Speaker 1: much better, it's not it's been two years. The wall
Speaker 1: hasn't been built. Still at war in Afghanistan, still have
Speaker 1: troops in about a third of Syria. So what exactly
Speaker 1: are the are the are the huge winds here the worst? Okay,
Speaker 1: we are not in the Paris Climate Agreement. Fine, that's good.
Speaker 1: Iran sanctions are back good. I mean, there are good things,
Speaker 1: but all those key issues, those core issues that motivated
Speaker 1: sixty three million people to vote for President Trump. Where
Speaker 1: are we now in this process? Do we think that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a better time to have this
Speaker 1: fight or after the Democrats are done turning Trump and
Speaker 1: everybody around him, everyone he's ever known or loved, practically
Speaker 1: is going to get the most intrusive, taxpayer funded examination
Speaker 1: of everything they've done, said, and everywhere they've been imaginable.
Speaker 1: You think then they're really going to have the fighting
Speaker 1: spirit when we're having debates about a possible impeachment. That's
Speaker 1: when Trump and those around him are going to say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's get the wall. It is now or never. I
Speaker 1: am frustrated that. I'm also frustrated because of what happened
Speaker 1: with General Flynn, where you have I think increasingly the
Speaker 1: conclusion we have to draw from this is that yes
Speaker 1: he was set up. Yes they went after him, and
Speaker 1: there was you know, they were playing dirty pool. But
Speaker 1: Flynn also messed up. He messed up with the lobbying
Speaker 1: for Turkey. He messed up by lying, I don't I'm
Speaker 1: waiting for him to say that he didn't actually lie.
Speaker 1: I'm waiting for someone to produce the three O two
Speaker 1: that the original three O two from either Struck or
Speaker 1: the other agent that was in the room that says
Speaker 1: that you know that that we have that moment of wow,
Speaker 1: they actually set this guy up. That still could happen,
Speaker 1: but it hasn't happened yet. In the meantime, Flynn is saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: I lied. And we had the scene today with a judge,
Speaker 1: a judge who brought up that some might make the
Speaker 1: argument that Flynn sold out his country. It's a federal
Speaker 1: judge speaking to a three star general. It's been a
Speaker 1: frustrating day for the gendat. It doesn't mean that we've lost.
Speaker 1: And I'm not I'm not all fatalistic about this now.
Speaker 1: I just I'm disappointed that the White House, I think,
Speaker 1: has had the establishment whispering in its ear too much
Speaker 1: on this one, and they just they won't have this fight.
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Schumer and their whole gang cannot win on
Speaker 1: the issue of immigration. If the debate has had in
Speaker 1: public and if people hear what they really think and
Speaker 1: what they really believe, they can't win. But if we
Speaker 1: don't have that, if we allow it to be business
Speaker 1: as usual, then yes, either shutdown won't happen or would
Speaker 1: be blamed on Republicans and Pelosi and Schumer, you know,
Speaker 1: laugh all the way to the election of the Beeto
Speaker 1: Biden ticket that everyone's talking about right now. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: Just yeah. Just double up, double up on the lightweights.
Speaker 1: That's the way to go. Double up on the lightweights,
Speaker 1: and you'll have it like a you know, a middleweight
Speaker 1: running for press. That sounds great, That sounds great. All right,
Speaker 1: we got we got a lot of I will talk
Speaker 1: to you about the Flint situation in detail. The second hour,
Speaker 1: we'll break down what happened today. We've got a former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor joining us to talk about that, also, my
Speaker 1: friend Sean Davis, the federalists, they've been doing excellent work.
Speaker 1: He'll give us his sense of it. And in the
Speaker 1: third hour, I'll tell you about the story I saw
Speaker 1: in the Daily Wire about an eleven year old dressed
Speaker 1: in drag and these media stories that are hailing this
Speaker 1: as some kind of victory. Ah. I mean, well, the
Speaker 1: world hasn't gone mad, but a lot of people in
Speaker 1: and half. You've got got much more show coming. Team,
Speaker 1: stay with me. Schumer and I have set me to
Speaker 1: Schumer and I have said that we cannot accept the
Speaker 1: offer they made of a billion dollars slushman for the
Speaker 1: President to implement his very wrong immigration policies. So that
Speaker 1: won't happen. So what's the way out? Well, we've said
Speaker 1: before very clearly that we could possibly come together around
Speaker 1: a CR for all seven bills more better than that,
Speaker 1: six bills that have already passed the Senate committees and
Speaker 1: one bill that CR for Homeland Security six and one
Speaker 1: or all seven under a CR. So as you're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump's not going to get anything he wants
Speaker 1: out of this. I thought elections were supposed to have consequences.
Speaker 1: Apparently only when Democrats win to elections have consequences. Notice,
Speaker 1: the discussion had been until today that Trump weren't five
Speaker 1: billion for the wall and the Democrats were offering one
Speaker 1: point five billion for border security overall? What do they
Speaker 1: expect that one point five billion is going to do
Speaker 1: to change the situation. If we had a real press corps,
Speaker 1: Democrats would be asked questions like, what are you going
Speaker 1: to do to stop all the illegals from coming into
Speaker 1: the country? What are you going to do about the
Speaker 1: caravans and the family the tens of thousands of family
Speaker 1: units that are showing up at the southern border? Well,
Speaker 1: what's your policy for that? How does just continuing the
Speaker 1: status quo make anything better? Words, the answer is it
Speaker 1: doesn't make anything better, and they don't want to make
Speaker 1: anything better. I also just love the ridiculousness of Democrats
Speaker 1: pretending that all of a sudden they care about wasteful
Speaker 1: government spending. You know, oh yes, oh a billion dollars
Speaker 1: slush faun Oh good heavens, what will we ever do
Speaker 1: about that? Also, they say that the border wall is racist.
Speaker 1: By the way, at sixteen, the President went to the
Speaker 1: heart of what I call his brown menace theory. These migrants,
Speaker 1: they're dirty people, They bring disease. This border wall thing
Speaker 1: is about controlling the browning of America. Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: fixated on the southern border, as he was the day
Speaker 1: that he announced this campaign. It is not about securing
Speaker 1: the borders. It is about xenophobic, racist, bigoted beliefs he believes,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately, maybe the facts will bear this out. His
Speaker 1: base is scared of anyone who is not visibly white,
Speaker 1: and it's just all slanders. I want to know, if
Speaker 1: a wall is racist, shouldn't we be watching Democrats talk
Speaker 1: about how they want to tear down the existing wall
Speaker 1: and say the San Diego sector which has been keeping
Speaker 1: out a flood of illegals. I mean, if a wall
Speaker 1: is racist, why aren't they telling us that we need
Speaker 1: to take down the wall that do exist and the
Speaker 1: fencing that's already there. Oh, it's only a new wall
Speaker 1: is racist, that only more fencing is racist. That's a
Speaker 1: fascinating position. I'd love to hear Schumer and Pelosi try
Speaker 1: to explain that one sometime what do Americans really care about?
Speaker 1: If you based it on what gets media coverage, If
Speaker 1: you were to look at this and make your decisions
Speaker 1: based upon what the journalist class thinks matters, it's just
Speaker 1: an endless array of sob stories about everybody who tries
Speaker 1: to come to the country illegally, and then Trump the
Speaker 1: latest evil thing that someone that knew Trump wants somewhere
Speaker 1: thought he did. I mean, it's just that's what the
Speaker 1: media focuses on all the time. Meanwhile, now, look, I'm
Speaker 1: not a big pole guy. I think that polling is
Speaker 1: often an invitation for somewhat lazy analysis. But I did
Speaker 1: think that this is an important reminder because it's exactly
Speaker 1: what if you would if I had been asked to guess.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure you feel the same way. What do Americans?
Speaker 1: According to this gallop Pole site is the biggest problem
Speaker 1: the biggest problems in America right now? You know what
Speaker 1: they say based on the percentages government, immigration, healthcare. That's
Speaker 1: about right, that's about right. That makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: And immigration is a problem, yes, in many ways, but
Speaker 1: the American people are not with the progressive left on
Speaker 1: advocating for unlimited legal immigration continuously and just pretending it's
Speaker 1: either not a problem or just saying that they want
Speaker 1: more of it. American people are not on board for
Speaker 1: that by and large. Maybe twenty or thirty percent are,
Speaker 1: but the rest of the country is not. Why is
Speaker 1: government a problem? Well, I think that's kind of self evident.
Speaker 1: That's a whole that's a whole show right there. Why
Speaker 1: is government a problem? I think a lot of it.
Speaker 1: They'll also has to do with our expectations. There's so
Speaker 1: much overpromising, there's so much that government is involved in
Speaker 1: that it's not good at that. It's understanding that, the
Speaker 1: understandable that people across across the board from all sides
Speaker 1: of the political aisle are frustrated with what's going on
Speaker 1: with government because it is not doing what it has
Speaker 1: set out to do. It is not particularly effective, and
Speaker 1: there are important conversations to be had about this. You know,
Speaker 1: there's there's whole discussions about I mean, I got on
Speaker 1: a little healthcare a rent before, but government's going to
Speaker 1: be in charge of more of your healthcare in five years,
Speaker 1: in ten years than it is now, So we might
Speaker 1: as well start to figure out how to make it
Speaker 1: less terrible at it, you know, how to make it
Speaker 1: less of an unaccountable bureaucracy than it already is. The
Speaker 1: free marketeers are losing ground every day, and we do
Speaker 1: not have a look for all the things about President
Speaker 1: Trump that I think on a policy On a policy level,
Speaker 1: I like now he is. He is for a muscular
Speaker 1: federal government. He is not a limited government, small government guy.
Speaker 1: Not what it comes to trade, not when it comes
Speaker 1: to a whole lot of issues. He wants the government
Speaker 1: to be very involved in aspects of trade and commerce.
Speaker 1: And so where are we heading with all of this?
Speaker 1: Not to a very good place? You know, I'm starting
Speaker 1: to get a little Maybe it's just this week with
Speaker 1: all the bad news about I want to say bad news,
Speaker 1: it just mean negative news. I don't think the news
Speaker 1: is nearly as damaging as they want to pretend it
Speaker 1: is about Trump and everybody around him, but they make
Speaker 1: it sound like any day and any day now we're
Speaker 1: going to have that moment where that moment where we
Speaker 1: all realize, oh no, they finally got him. The President's
Speaker 1: not going to be able to continue an office because
Speaker 1: of this. This is just not reality based. But unfortunately
Speaker 1: it's good ratings for the media to do this and
Speaker 1: it feeds into what is essentially a left wing delusion. Here,
Speaker 1: very interesting column from sarab A. Maria should have reached
Speaker 1: out to him, but I got busy with some things today.
Speaker 1: But he wrote in the New York Post about this,
Speaker 1: about how in his home country of Iran. He's now
Speaker 1: a US citizen, but he was born in Iran. How
Speaker 1: even the most educated, the most sophisticated people believe in conspiracies,
Speaker 1: and particularly in the case of Iran, the conspiracies are
Speaker 1: either related to Jews or America or both. That's where
Speaker 1: the conspiracy theorists go. And it's hard to parody the
Speaker 1: level of conspiracy mongering that goes on in Iran. It,
Speaker 1: by the way, it's also true and other it's true
Speaker 1: in Iran, it's true in Egypt. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: the Mid East is a very conspiracy might have played.
Speaker 1: People say the same about Russia and parts of Eastern Europe.
Speaker 1: I think too, where the general public, including the most
Speaker 1: sophisticated players, are believers in conspiracy theories. We have that
Speaker 1: problem in this country now too, And we have this
Speaker 1: problem in a way that mirrors the problem, let's say,
Speaker 1: in another advanced, industrialized Western democracy like France, where instead
Speaker 1: of believing that the reason in France the yellow vests
Speaker 1: are rioting and why there's so much public support for them,
Speaker 1: it's because the French elite, the establishment, is making stupid
Speaker 1: decisions that are disconnected from the reality of people's day
Speaker 1: to day lives and that are ideologically based and that
Speaker 1: are unsound in practice. Instead of accepting that, they think that, oh,
Speaker 1: there's this is the result of some right wing forces.
Speaker 1: There's an excuse. They find an excuse to not deal
Speaker 1: with the real problem that is at the heart of
Speaker 1: the hatred against Trump and the Trump movement as well.
Speaker 1: The elites of both parties, stretching back for decades now,
Speaker 1: have been inect at the following things. They have been
Speaker 1: inect at creating a more stable Middle East. For example,
Speaker 1: they have been inept at dealing with the debt. In fact,
Speaker 1: that debt is by far worse than it has ever been.
Speaker 1: They cannot reform entitlements, They cannot come up with major
Speaker 1: improvements to the healthcare system that are that are government mandated.
Speaker 1: They cannot control the border. They can you know, you
Speaker 1: go down this list. Neither side can figure this out,
Speaker 1: and they both say they can figure this out. Neither
Speaker 1: side can make real progress on these matters. In fact,
Speaker 1: they just keep getting worse. And maybe Trump won't be
Speaker 1: able to solve this either. That's looking increasingly likely right now.
Speaker 1: But at least it gives us a moment to say,
Speaker 1: we're going to try something else because you clowns in
Speaker 1: both parties can't get this done, meaning you in the establishment,
Speaker 1: you who have been you know, the Bush dynasty advisors
Speaker 1: that the Clinton hangers on, you know, the old not
Speaker 1: been able to do what you said you would do.
Speaker 1: You cannot fix the major problems of this country. So
Speaker 1: at least we're going to go to somebody else. We're
Speaker 1: gonna try something different, and if nothing else, it's a
Speaker 1: rebuke of the inability of the elites to handle these problems.
Speaker 1: And what do they come back with, well, something that
Speaker 1: would be right at home in Tehran. A complex conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory promulgated, propagandized by the very elites who feel rattled
Speaker 1: to feel that their position is threatened by the slow
Speaker 1: revelation that the public has had that those people in
Speaker 1: charge don't know what the heck they're doing. They're not
Speaker 1: that smart, and we need to do something about it.
Speaker 1: Instead of accepting those basic facts, the media, the GOP
Speaker 1: and Democrat establishment have looked at Trump like some sort
Speaker 1: of space alien and created effectively an alien invasion narrative,
Speaker 1: the Russia kaloo Jan fable to explain this instead of
Speaker 1: dealing with We've got more coming up, teams, stay with
Speaker 1: me if we've never seen a president of the United
Speaker 1: States who actually acts more in some ways like a
Speaker 1: common grifter. And I looked up the definition of grifter
Speaker 1: the other day in the dictionary, and it seems to
Speaker 1: suit Donald Trump perfectly in terms of the way he
Speaker 1: has conducted himself all his life, but including astonishingly enough
Speaker 1: in his presidency. The idea of being a grifter while
Speaker 1: at the same time being president of the United States,
Speaker 1: a glimplam artist, a con man, someone who lies, somebody
Speaker 1: who uses instruments at his command to obtain and do
Speaker 1: things that are untoward and underhanded, like what they you get.
Speaker 1: Carl Bernstein, beloved by the left wing mainstream media, on
Speaker 1: this rant about how Trump is a man? Where are
Speaker 1: the details? How has he been akhn man as president
Speaker 1: the United States? Where is the khana? I want to know?
Speaker 1: Because he lies about unimportant matters, because he exaggerates, because
Speaker 1: he over sells, because he trolls liberals. I mean, but
Speaker 1: but where is the Khan that we're supposed to care about?
Speaker 1: It's what exactly and at what point do we start
Speaker 1: to realize as a nation? I think, you know, we
Speaker 1: already realize it. But when does the rest of the
Speaker 1: country catch onto the fact that if you unleash the
Speaker 1: media and the prosecutorial arm of the federal government on
Speaker 1: a person and everyone around that person with the obvious
Speaker 1: mission of search and destroy, the person's going to be ruined.
Speaker 1: Their reputation will be ruined, their professional life will be ruined,
Speaker 1: their personal life may be destroyed, and at the end
Speaker 1: of all that, they may lose their freedom as well.
Speaker 1: Nobody could withstand this. You know. One of the things
Speaker 1: that has been most amazing about Trump has just been
Speaker 1: his willingness to stay in the fight. You know, I've
Speaker 1: had days where I thought, man, maybe Trump has just
Speaker 1: he's just had it. Man, he doesn't need this. They
Speaker 1: don't want to do this. In a nice life, A billionaire,
Speaker 1: beautiful wife, lovely kids, grandkids, doesn't need to do this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, he's got a very big ego. Everybody in
Speaker 1: politics has a very big ego. But and I wonder
Speaker 1: if he would have signed on for this knowing what
Speaker 1: he was going to be put through. But this sends
Speaker 1: people always talk about the undermining or institutions, and they
Speaker 1: discuss how, oh Trump does this and that. What I
Speaker 1: always think is anyone who is looking at what Trump
Speaker 1: and the people around him are being put through, anyone
Speaker 1: who's paying attention to this is coming away with the
Speaker 1: following message. If you have a good life, if you're happy,
Speaker 1: if you're successful, if you have you know, a good
Speaker 1: family and you've been either you're just and but the
Speaker 1: successful doesn't mean rich. It just means you know you
Speaker 1: have what you need and what you what? What do
Speaker 1: you need to be happy in life? And you know
Speaker 1: you've acquired enough that you're comfortable whatever that means for you.
Speaker 1: Would you really want to challenge the machine? Do you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of this effort to change
Speaker 1: things in this country for the better, to restore some
Speaker 1: sense of sanity and public discussions about issues that we've
Speaker 1: been lied to. I mean, I keep telling you we're
Speaker 1: lied to about immigration all the time. I mean the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, the so called guardians of truth lie to
Speaker 1: you about immigration all the time, and when they get
Speaker 1: pushed on it, they just get upset. They get angry.
Speaker 1: You know. I had I had someone today come in
Speaker 1: to Rising from the Natural Resource Defense Counsel arguing for
Speaker 1: why it's some big win this this plan in Poland
Speaker 1: with the two hundred nations to limit you know, to
Speaker 1: limit their CO two and they're gonna stop climate Chase.
Speaker 1: I said, look, not only is this unenforceable, but today
Speaker 1: is based upon things like China promising to meet its
Speaker 1: benchmarks in ten years about less pollution. You know what's
Speaker 1: going to happen in ten years, China's gonna show up
Speaker 1: at the next meeting, you know, and get a lot
Speaker 1: of pad on the back from everybody around, you know,
Speaker 1: whoever the representatives are from China, and nothing will have changed,
Speaker 1: and we'll just go We'll just keep going through this,
Speaker 1: We'll keep going through this whole process. But if you
Speaker 1: ask very basic questions, as I did, like why do
Speaker 1: we even care about this when even if everybody did
Speaker 1: exactly what they if every country at this you probably
Speaker 1: we don't even know if you paid attention to this.
Speaker 1: They just had essentially the follow up to the Paris
Speaker 1: Climate Accord meeting. They had it in Poland, and the
Speaker 1: US is fortunately because the Trump not signing on for
Speaker 1: all this nonsense. But even if they did what everyone
Speaker 1: says they're gonna do at this meeting, they wouldn't even
Speaker 1: maintain or they wouldn't keep CO two levels below, or
Speaker 1: you know, they wouldn't keep the temperature below because of
Speaker 1: CO two levels what is necessary to avoid quote catastrophic
Speaker 1: climate change. So even if they did this perfectly, it's
Speaker 1: not enough, but they still want to pat themselves in
Speaker 1: the back. I mean, this is just a big self
Speaker 1: congratulation circle for everybody who supports it, for everybody who's there,
Speaker 1: this is meaningless. It's nonsense, and they become hostile to
Speaker 1: you for pointing this out. It's obvious, but they respond
Speaker 1: with hostility and outrage. And oh, the science says. If
Speaker 1: I have one more person that could not tell me
Speaker 1: the temperature at which water boils, explain to me that
Speaker 1: the science says the following climate change nonsense, I'm going
Speaker 1: to lose my mind. But then there's also this part
Speaker 1: of me that that sees what the Trump effect is,
Speaker 1: if you will, or maybe you'd call it the Mueller effect,
Speaker 1: where you have people getting destroyed because they want to
Speaker 1: stand for the truth, the people getting destroyed because they
Speaker 1: want to be able to have an open and honest
Speaker 1: conversation about things that really matter, because they think that
Speaker 1: it will be better for the country in the short
Speaker 1: run and the long run if there's honesty around important
Speaker 1: public policy issues, and honesty requires a willingness to hear
Speaker 1: uncomfortable things, uncomfortable truths, uncomfortable theories ideas. Otherwise, what you
Speaker 1: have is this echo chamber effect getting stronger and stronger
Speaker 1: all the time, where the so called eletes, the the
Speaker 1: the enlightened class among us get to determine what you know.
Speaker 1: And I want to know why do they think Whenever
Speaker 1: I sit down with some of these climate change alarmis,
Speaker 1: they go, what, very few of them were better than
Speaker 1: I was at school. I'm just going to be honest
Speaker 1: with you. I mean, very few of them are people
Speaker 1: that academically, because I know who they are and I
Speaker 1: know what their backgrounds are. The ones that go on
Speaker 1: TV to talk about this that they wouldn't they wouldn't
Speaker 1: have wowed me in the class from they wouldn't have
Speaker 1: outdone me in the classroom if we had been in
Speaker 1: the same place doing this. So why am I supposed
Speaker 1: to think that they they know so much more on
Speaker 1: this and that I'm so crazy that I can't even
Speaker 1: question it. What is this based in? It's really based
Speaker 1: in this this elitism that people have bought into on
Speaker 1: the left, and it's it's a hallmark of the Democratic Party. Now,
Speaker 1: you don't have to be smart. You just have to
Speaker 1: support the smart the smart people, which are the Democrats.
Speaker 1: You don't have to know anything. You just have to
Speaker 1: say you're for the Party of science and math and facts,
Speaker 1: which are the Democrats. But they're not the party of
Speaker 1: science and maths. In fact, they think a man can
Speaker 1: be a woman. They got big problems in the fact
Speaker 1: department the Democratic Party, big problems indeed. And I know
Speaker 1: I got a little I got off this topic here,
Speaker 1: but you know, Carl bernste It was really referring to
Speaker 1: this then. And I think there's a lot of talk
Speaker 1: because the Trump Foundation, the charitable foundation started by Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: is going to be shut down because the New York
Speaker 1: State Attorney General, who big surprised, another huge, huge Democrat,
Speaker 1: says that there was a shocking pattern of illegality. So
Speaker 1: they're just dissolving this. They're dissolving the chair of the
Speaker 1: Trump charity. I don't know much about the Trump Charity.
Speaker 1: I'd have to look into this and see, you know,
Speaker 1: what was really going on here? Was it probably poorly? Ron?
Speaker 1: Maybe who knows? I wouldn't wouldn't surprise me. Is that bad? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's not you should have charity should be. But this
Speaker 1: is this is where I have to turn around and say, Okay,
Speaker 1: does anybody think that there has been a prosecutor so
Speaker 1: far who was taking it upon himself or herself to
Speaker 1: really dig into the Clinton Foundation, and we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about corrupt charities and illegal dealing through charities. Is
Speaker 1: there anybody out there who would look at what's going
Speaker 1: on with the Clinton Foundation and come away with the
Speaker 1: conclusion that this was not shady, that all of this
Speaker 1: was on the up and up. Now they don't even look,
Speaker 1: They don't even pay any attention. This is two tier
Speaker 1: justice system. We have one for Democrats, one for Republicans.
Speaker 1: It's a huge problem. It's pulling this country apart. You
Speaker 1: can't trust those left wing social media sites. They're engaged
Speaker 1: in lots of shadow banning, engaged in all kinds of
Speaker 1: bias with the algorithms and the different ways that they
Speaker 1: decide what you see and when you see it. Snippy
Speaker 1: dot com doesn't have any of those problems. Right. If
Speaker 1: you've looked at snippy dot com in the past and left,
Speaker 1: look again. Thousands of my listeners have joined snippy dot com,
Speaker 1: which is a new social media site where you can
Speaker 1: express your opinions and get a fiery conversation going about
Speaker 1: whatever subject is top of mind. Snippy is totally unbiased.
Speaker 1: It's a place where people are free to express their
Speaker 1: thoughts and share their opinions. Don't get stuck in the
Speaker 1: rut of wondering if your stuff is getting seen, which
Speaker 1: is a problem for people now on Facebook and on Twitter.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're a conservative, you worry about this.
Speaker 1: Snippy is totally free to join. This is a free service,
Speaker 1: free to post, free to set up your account. So
Speaker 1: just go to snippy dot com today and let your
Speaker 1: opinion matter. No banning, no shadow banning, no suppression of
Speaker 1: conservative thought ever. Now, with an updated user interface and
Speaker 1: exciting new features available on the Apple App Store, snippy
Speaker 1: dot com your new alternative social media. We're arguing that
Speaker 1: he was certainly ambushed and that the FBI that we know,
Speaker 1: had clear political bias. We've seen that time and time again.
Speaker 1: One thing we're one hundred percent sure on is that
Speaker 1: the President made the right decision in firing James Coming
Speaker 1: because every single day we learn more and more all
Speaker 1: of the things that he did that were so far
Speaker 1: out of bounds for what the FBI director should do.
Speaker 1: And we'll see how that plays out in court today.
Speaker 1: Just one more, that's one thing that we're one So,
Speaker 1: what the heck happened today in federal court in Virginia.
Speaker 1: What was Judge Sullivan doing? And what does it mean
Speaker 1: for Flynn, for the Mueller probe, for justice and the
Speaker 1: rule of law in America. To make sense of those
Speaker 1: very straightforward issues, we have our friend Sean Davis back
Speaker 1: in action here. He is the co founder of The Federalist.
Speaker 1: You can also follow him on Twitter at Sean ce Davis,
Speaker 1: where he fights for truth, justice and the American way
Speaker 1: all the time. Sean, great to have you, man, great
Speaker 1: to be here. Thank you for having me. All Right, Well,
Speaker 1: what happened today with Judge Sullivan, with Flynn with a
Speaker 1: special counsel, It just seemed like a real blow to
Speaker 1: the confidence of the American people that the folks who
Speaker 1: have all this power understand the law. Yeah, So what
Speaker 1: happened was today was to be the sentencing for Flynn,
Speaker 1: who pleaded guilty to one charge of making false statements
Speaker 1: to the FBI. The stem back to a January twenty four,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, interview he had with counter intel FBI agent
Speaker 1: Peter Struck and another agent whose name has been redacted
Speaker 1: from the filings, and what has happened over the last
Speaker 1: year or so through a series of filings, through a
Speaker 1: lot of documents, learn people started to cast doubt on
Speaker 1: what actually happened with that flee wondering, well, did he lie?
Speaker 1: Why have we not seen the original FBI document from
Speaker 1: that conversation with how they wrote down what he actually
Speaker 1: said or what they said he said. And late last
Speaker 1: week the judge ordered all those documents to be filed.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that they weren't filed and made available over
Speaker 1: a nearly two year long investigation until Judge Sullivan ordered
Speaker 1: them to be made available. And then on Monday, late
Speaker 1: last night, they Judge Sullivan ordered the original three O
Speaker 1: two to be filed and they looked through that. That
Speaker 1: gets us to this morning and this afternoon, which was
Speaker 1: the flee And what happened was, through a series of
Speaker 1: court filings, flends people had kind of intimated that maybe
Speaker 1: he didn't lie, Maybe the Feds had been a little
Speaker 1: wishywashy with the evidence. Maybe this was all coercion I'd
Speaker 1: been given the lawyer. And what Judge him at Sullivan
Speaker 1: did is he gave Flynn an opportunity to just take
Speaker 1: those intimations from the filing head on. He said, do
Speaker 1: you want to withdraw your plea? And Flinn said no.
Speaker 1: And I think that kind of took Sullivan a back,
Speaker 1: having read the filings in the implications that were in there,
Speaker 1: and he said, so you did lie. Yes, I did lie.
Speaker 1: Did you know you you could have had a lawyer? Yes,
Speaker 1: I knew. Did you know that lying to the Federals
Speaker 1: of Crime? Yes? I knew that. And that seemed to
Speaker 1: set the judge off because he has a reputation of
Speaker 1: wanting all the facts from the FBI. He took the
Speaker 1: extraordinary measure of requiring all these documents to be made public.
Speaker 1: He got them and he looked and said, wait, there's
Speaker 1: nothing there. There number one and number two, I'm giving
Speaker 1: you the opportunity to withdraw the plea and you're not
Speaker 1: doing it. What on earth is going on? And that
Speaker 1: seemed to set the tone for the whole hearing. But
Speaker 1: then there was that exchange where he said, couldn't someone
Speaker 1: make the case that you sold out your country? And
Speaker 1: then the judge went to a recess and then came
Speaker 1: back and said, that's not what I meant to say. Well,
Speaker 1: what do you make of that? Yeah, that that was
Speaker 1: really odd and it seemed to be based on a
Speaker 1: mischaracterization of the facts, which I think is why the
Speaker 1: judge came back. He seemed to be under the impression
Speaker 1: when he made the initial charge, said well, you could
Speaker 1: have been charged from the Logan Act. You are an
Speaker 1: unregistered foreign agent while you were a national security advisor.
Speaker 1: You know, I might even say you're a traitor. The
Speaker 1: actual facts were that he had stopped that work for
Speaker 1: Turkey or for Turkish interests before he became national security advisor,
Speaker 1: so it kind of wasn't operative there. So that was
Speaker 1: a very strange outburst from the judge. Although taken outside
Speaker 1: of the legal context, I kind of agree with him.
Speaker 1: The charges that they gotten him to plea to in
Speaker 1: my mind, are not nearly serious as serious as the
Speaker 1: ones they didn't go after him on, namely being an
Speaker 1: unregistered agent of a foreign government. I think that's far
Speaker 1: more serious than making false statements to the FBI in
Speaker 1: an interview which they actually had no business. Yeah, I agree,
Speaker 1: And I think this is a this is a part
Speaker 1: that doesn't get enough attention. I think that Flynn. Look,
Speaker 1: I think Flynn got hosed. I mean, yes, he lied,
Speaker 1: but they you know, they set him up to lie,
Speaker 1: and they obviously didn't do similar things with Hillary or
Speaker 1: any of her top people. Of the emails, and everyone
Speaker 1: sees that disparity and understands that that's just that's the
Speaker 1: two tier justice system we have at work for Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans unfortunately. But on this Flynn stuff, being involved
Speaker 1: with guys who are trying to get a Turkish, a
Speaker 1: Turkish dissident from Pennsylvania extradited to Turkey for charges of
Speaker 1: being involved in a coup, that nobody who knows the
Speaker 1: issue that I know, have any belief that he actually
Speaker 1: was involved in where he will be tortured and disappeared
Speaker 1: is not okay, No, it's not. And That's part of
Speaker 1: my I have so many problems with the Mueller investigation,
Speaker 1: namely because it's very one sided. You had Tony Podesta,
Speaker 1: the brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, who was an
Speaker 1: unregistered foreign agent. He was Paulman of Forts Partner. You
Speaker 1: had Mercury Public Affairs doing the same thing. None of
Speaker 1: those people got charged. John Podess's brother didn't get charged,
Speaker 1: even though he was doing the thing. You had Andrew McCabe, who,
Speaker 1: according to the Department of Justice Inspector General, lied four
Speaker 1: times to federal agents, including I believe three times under
Speaker 1: Oh okay, where are the false statement charge? Yeah, why
Speaker 1: hasn't he been charged? By the way, do we ever
Speaker 1: get an answer to that? I have no idea. We
Speaker 1: know that Hillary and her people made false statements, they
Speaker 1: weren't charged. We know that Hillary's people not only were
Speaker 1: not charged, but fact witnesses posing his attorneys were allowed
Speaker 1: to be in these depositions and interviews with him, and oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, at the end of that, they got immunity.
Speaker 1: So my beef is not specifically with how Flynn was
Speaker 1: charged or why if he lied, he deserves to pay
Speaker 1: the consequence. I don't understand this two tiered system of justice.
Speaker 1: This two America's where if you have the right politics,
Speaker 1: you can do whatever you want to get off scott free.
Speaker 1: But if you have the wrong politics, my goodness, we're
Speaker 1: going to make sure you go to prison or you
Speaker 1: have the convict scarlet letter on you for the rest
Speaker 1: of your life. It's it's the miscarriage in the misapplication
Speaker 1: of justice across both spectrum, both political parties, that I
Speaker 1: find so disturbing. Here, why do you think that this
Speaker 1: got pushed off that the Flynn sentencing got pushed off
Speaker 1: to March. I'm seeing a lot of different theories about this,
Speaker 1: and after today I see here and I say, well,
Speaker 1: I could believe a couple of different things. What do
Speaker 1: you think? Well, so, I don't know. I'm not in
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan's head. The impression that I got was that
Speaker 1: he was very upset by the kind of tiptoeing games
Speaker 1: that Flenn's counsel were trying to play. He was upset
Speaker 1: about the unregistered foreign agent stuff. He was upset that
Speaker 1: Flynn was saying he took responsibility while kind of intimating
Speaker 1: and filings that maybe it wasn't his fault. It seemed
Speaker 1: to me very clear that the judge wanted to sentence
Speaker 1: Flynn to some amount of prison time, despite the recommendation
Speaker 1: from the prosecutors that he gets none. And so I
Speaker 1: think what he is doing, especially in light of this
Speaker 1: far a case that came up yesterday with two of
Speaker 1: Flynn's Turkish associates, that he wants to give Flynn another
Speaker 1: ninety days to help DJ in any way he can
Speaker 1: cooperate in that case, and then at the end of
Speaker 1: ninety days, we'll kind of see where his attitude is
Speaker 1: and what his contributions are, and then the judge will
Speaker 1: sentence in them. So I think what the judge was
Speaker 1: actually doing was restraining his own impulse to want to
Speaker 1: sentence Flynn to prison and give him one more chance
Speaker 1: to show that he accepts responsibility for what he did.
Speaker 1: You know, I why did Flynn Lee? People ask me
Speaker 1: this all the time, and I say, look, the heads
Speaker 1: of the intelligence community in general, in the last two years,
Speaker 1: if they were a stock, the stock has plummeted. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't think of because of people like Brennan,
Speaker 1: because of people like Hayden and Clapper. The place where
Speaker 1: I used to work does not have the same luster
Speaker 1: in the public's eye as it once did. And I
Speaker 1: think rightfully so, but I think you got to put
Speaker 1: Flynn in that category two at this point, What the
Speaker 1: heck was he thinking? Well, I mean, yeah, it's I
Speaker 1: will say my confidence in the intelligence community has been
Speaker 1: in very low in the tank for a while, starting
Speaker 1: with James Clapper lying to Congress under oath about mass surveillance,
Speaker 1: John Brennan lying to Congress under oath about spying on
Speaker 1: Congress itself. Who knows what gets into the heads of
Speaker 1: these people. Why did he think he didn't need a lawyer?
Speaker 1: Clearly you have two FBI agents. They're trying to ring
Speaker 1: you up. Then, even knowing that they had the transcripts
Speaker 1: of his phone calls, apparently chose to give them very
Speaker 1: different characterizations than what they had in front of them.
Speaker 1: Who knows why people do what they do. But if
Speaker 1: he lied, he deserves to be held accountable for it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: But I mean, I think we can just and this
Speaker 1: is just I'm just expressing my frustration of this at
Speaker 1: this point. But you know, Sean, there are limits too stupid, right,
Speaker 1: Usually you run to a place of such stupid to
Speaker 1: not tell the truth when the guys that are there
Speaker 1: are going to go back and look at exactly word
Speaker 1: for word what you said, and to not have a
Speaker 1: a your present, and to think that you could compose
Speaker 1: on the spot and get away, it's just it just
Speaker 1: defies belief. And there was no crime. I mean, the
Speaker 1: other part of this that gets me frustrated is just
Speaker 1: that there's, to your point, you know who gets charged
Speaker 1: and who doesn't. People need to understand that's everything. Forget
Speaker 1: about trial by jury, forget about a vigorous defense. The
Speaker 1: decision to prosecute is the decision to destroy. But Flynn
Speaker 1: should know that he should. Yeah, I mean, I have
Speaker 1: no reason why the same question could be asked. Why
Speaker 1: did McCabe lie Apparently he thought he could get away
Speaker 1: with it? Why did Clapper lie he thought he could
Speaker 1: get away with it? Why did Brennan lye he thought
Speaker 1: he would could get away with it? Yeah, three of
Speaker 1: those four guys were right. So if you're just playing
Speaker 1: the odds there, maybe it's not such a terrible decision
Speaker 1: to make, beyond the terrible moral and ethical components of it,
Speaker 1: and so on. A much simpler taking us to a
Speaker 1: simpler time, a simpler issue. Sean we're speaking of Sean
Speaker 1: Davis of the Federalist Everyone, the Federalist dot com where
Speaker 1: you go to read his latest bump stocks. The administration said,
Speaker 1: their band, but it's not that easy, is it. No,
Speaker 1: So they came out issued a new rule today, or
Speaker 1: finalize the new rule today, which characterizes bump stocks, which
Speaker 1: are just a piece of plastic you put on a
Speaker 1: gun which uses the recoil of the gun to move
Speaker 1: your finger back and forth across the trigger, as opposed
Speaker 1: to you moving pressing it deliberately. The problem with that,
Speaker 1: regardless of how you feel about bump stocks, is that
Speaker 1: they have no legal statustatory authority to characterize bump stocks
Speaker 1: as machine guns because there's a very very specific definition
Speaker 1: in federal law which happens to match actual physics and
Speaker 1: mechanics of a gun that says a machine gun is
Speaker 1: one where you pull the trigger once and it fires
Speaker 1: a bunch of bullets. A bump stock, even if it
Speaker 1: gives you the ability to fire real fast, it doesn't
Speaker 1: eliminate the need mechanically and physically on a gun to
Speaker 1: pull the trigger for each round. All it does is
Speaker 1: accelerate your to fire by manipulating how many and how
Speaker 1: often your finger goes back across the trigger. So I
Speaker 1: think the courts are going to take a very hard
Speaker 1: look at this rule. I think if they are facelessly
Speaker 1: applying the statute and the law, it will get tossed
Speaker 1: out pretty quickly because you simply cannot have an agency
Speaker 1: going in redefining the law unilaterally when Congress has already
Speaker 1: specifically said no, this is what this thing means. You
Speaker 1: don't get to go change it because you feel like it.
Speaker 1: Sean Davids to the federalist everybody, Sean, always get to
Speaker 1: talk to you, man. Always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Buck team rolling into a quick break here, we'll be
Speaker 1: back in just a few moments. Introducing a new conservative
Speaker 1: alternative to liberal based email services I patriots dot Us.
Speaker 1: I patriots dot us is not a left wing full
Speaker 1: of progressive ideas company. Okay, This is a secure private
Speaker 1: email service that includes more of what you want without
Speaker 1: all the ads in spam. With ipatriots dot us, you
Speaker 1: get thirty gigs of cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and
Speaker 1: a whole lot more your email. Your files are all
Speaker 1: safe with ipatriots premium anti virus, anti spam encryption system.
Speaker 1: They won't sell your information or support liberal agendas. Like
Speaker 1: most of the free email providers out there. Ipatriots dot
Speaker 1: us is compatible with most mobile devices iPhone, iPad, Android,
Speaker 1: Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry. Works on any Windows or Mac computer.
Speaker 1: Show your a Patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us now,
Speaker 1: choose your membership program and input your desired ipatriots email address.
Speaker 1: During checkout, enter promo code. This is important. Promo code
Speaker 1: buck for ten percent savings during your first year of membership.
Speaker 1: You know, you have so many different legal interpretations of
Speaker 1: what really has gone on here with FLYNT and what
Speaker 1: the applications are. And you know, you've got very very
Speaker 1: smart people coming at this from different perspectives, in some
Speaker 1: cases wildly different perspectives. And I know that Judge Knaps
Speaker 1: is run around speaking of different perspectives Judge Politano, and
Speaker 1: he's saying that he thinks Trump could be indicted based
Speaker 1: on what they already have. Right now, I'm just like, Judge,
Speaker 1: what are you talking about? I like Judge Nat, but
Speaker 1: I think he's I think he's way off on this one.
Speaker 1: But I for example, you know you got Durst saying
Speaker 1: that Flynn was coerced here. But that didn't seem to
Speaker 1: hold water today based on what the judge was saying
Speaker 1: to him. But you know, here's the Durst play eleven.
Speaker 1: I don't believe it was a valid play. I think
Speaker 1: that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to a crime
Speaker 1: of which he was innocent. He was coerced by threats
Speaker 1: against his son, threats against his fortune. And the reason
Speaker 1: I think he was innocent is even if he told
Speaker 1: an untruth, which it seems as if he did, it
Speaker 1: was not a material untruth. The government already knew everything
Speaker 1: they asked him about. They knew that he had conversations
Speaker 1: with the diplomat, they knew the nature of the conversations.
Speaker 1: They had recordings of it. And when you ask a
Speaker 1: question that you already know the answer to and you
Speaker 1: have proof of the answer, there's only one purpose to
Speaker 1: the question, and that is to elicit a lie to
Speaker 1: do a morality test, and that is not a proper
Speaker 1: function of the FBI. I hope the judge will agree
Speaker 1: with that. It will take a lot of courage for
Speaker 1: the judge to throw out a plea that has already
Speaker 1: been accepted by him. Didn't look like that judge is
Speaker 1: ready for that today. We got ninety days now to
Speaker 1: figure out what's going to happen here. But I think
Speaker 1: that the dirsh is right here on the issue of
Speaker 1: material a material lie. You know, if I'm asked, you
Speaker 1: know who I emailed last week, and I name nine
Speaker 1: out of ten people, and that tenth person is just
Speaker 1: a memory lapse, that isn't a material lie necessarily. I mean,
Speaker 1: it could be. But you know, if they asked me
Speaker 1: what I had for breakfast two weeks ago, and I
Speaker 1: think I had a bagel, but really I had corn flakes,
Speaker 1: that doesn't matter unless there's some reason for it to matter.
Speaker 1: You know, it can't just be a function of your
Speaker 1: recollection of a fact is different from what they believe
Speaker 1: it is or what they can prove it is. Because
Speaker 1: memory is imperfect and it has to also matter. It
Speaker 1: has to matter. That's what material means. It has to matter.
Speaker 1: And Flynn's lye did not matter. So but they apply
Speaker 1: that statute now in a way where they can effectively
Speaker 1: get you. They'll say anything matters. You know, we've got
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy, he's got a different, a different take on
Speaker 1: this from play thirteen. This is one of the one
Speaker 1: of the real curiosities of the way this has been covered.
Speaker 1: What's happened here is Muller has recommended something that I
Speaker 1: think is almost certain to happen anyway. That is, if
Speaker 1: Muller hadn't made any recommendation of no jail time, this
Speaker 1: judge would impose no jail time on General Flynn because
Speaker 1: his crime, if his crime is trivial. And on the
Speaker 1: other side of the ledger, he's given thirty three years
Speaker 1: of decorated heroic service to the United States, and he's
Speaker 1: a first defender. In a normal case, he would get
Speaker 1: no jail time. But with Muller making a motion to
Speaker 1: get him no jail time, the coverage will now be
Speaker 1: he got no jail time because of the explosive cooperation
Speaker 1: he gave to the Muller investigation. And I just don't
Speaker 1: think there's any evidence that he did that. And yet
Speaker 1: now we're in a position where it sounded like, and
Speaker 1: we just talked to Sean about this, it sounded like
Speaker 1: the judge was about to give him jail time. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the whole the whole thing is such a mess.
Speaker 1: And then you have Jonathan Turley. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: we're going with the big legal eagles who are appearing
Speaker 1: on all the networks. Is here Jonathan Turley who is
Speaker 1: saying that this is actually serious. He says that it
Speaker 1: is matural that this is serious play twelve. And you
Speaker 1: can see why the original agents reportedly didn't believe he
Speaker 1: was intentionally lying. You know. So the question is is
Speaker 1: this a sort of a case of being you know,
Speaker 1: charge as a crime for being a chump? I mean
Speaker 1: because he goes to this meeting without a lawyer. They
Speaker 1: I passed the protocol to let the White House Council
Speaker 1: be aware of this interview in this request, and it
Speaker 1: just snowballs out of control. And that violation of protocol,
Speaker 1: I wrote in a column recently, is a very serious one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that the I'm sorry, So what he views is
Speaker 1: serious is what the FBI did. So, you know, you
Speaker 1: got people coming to this from from all over the place,
Speaker 1: you know, people who are saying that, oh, he's guilty,
Speaker 1: he lied. You know, closed the you know, closed the
Speaker 1: book on this, and it's all over with. For you'd
Speaker 1: like to think that in a case like this, there
Speaker 1: could be some agreement over what's really gone on here,
Speaker 1: over over what matters. So far, most of the facts
Speaker 1: are in agreement, although I need to understand how is
Speaker 1: it that the original FBI agents didn't think he was
Speaker 1: because they compared it to transcripts later on and then
Speaker 1: they looked at what he said and they compared it,
Speaker 1: But they didn't keep an exact transcript of what he said.
Speaker 1: From what I understand, they were taking notes. So how
Speaker 1: is it possible, And I'm just thinking through this with
Speaker 1: all of you, how could he be caught in a
Speaker 1: lie later on based only upon the notes and therefore
Speaker 1: the recollection of the FBI agents talking to him. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: you need the specificity of his exact words and the
Speaker 1: exact words of the transcript and compare them side by side. Well,
Speaker 1: they don't have a transcript of what Flynn told the
Speaker 1: FBI agents. From what I understand, it wasn't recorded. And
Speaker 1: beyond that, where does it actually get dealt with whether
Speaker 1: this is material or not? And what if the FBI
Speaker 1: guy taking this down struck wasn't telling the truth. We
Speaker 1: just we're not allowed to believe it. That's possible. So
Speaker 1: a lot going on in the legal world. I want
Speaker 1: to bring in some expertise and some legal background to
Speaker 1: weigh in and all this. We have Sidney Powell with
Speaker 1: us now. She's a former federal prosecutor. She used to
Speaker 1: work specifically a lot of appeals level issues and then
Speaker 1: also the author of License to Lie and a London
Speaker 1: Center fellow. Sidney, thank you so much for joining us
Speaker 1: on the program, My pleasure, Buck, thank you for having
Speaker 1: me enjoy your show. Thank you. So please tell me
Speaker 1: just what's your reaction to what happened today at the
Speaker 1: Flinn sentencing in that courtroom, because it seemed like the
Speaker 1: judge didn't even really know what was going on what
Speaker 1: happened today. I think he has a number of concerns
Speaker 1: that were raised by both what the government's been filing
Speaker 1: and what the defense filed, and by the very nature
Speaker 1: of the plea itself, as well as the factual basis
Speaker 1: for the plea, and they weren't all resolved today. So
Speaker 1: I was very glad that General Flynn accepted his offer
Speaker 1: of additional time in postponing the sentencing. The story that
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are missing is that
Speaker 1: the judge has additional questions that he is going to
Speaker 1: be asking the prosecution in particular as well as the
Speaker 1: defense giving them a chance to answer them, one of
Speaker 1: which is, how were these statements that General Flynn made
Speaker 1: even material to the investigation that the FBI was supposedly
Speaker 1: conducting since they knew the answers to the questions they
Speaker 1: went over to ask him, And that goes to the
Speaker 1: very validity of the factual basis for the plea itself.
Speaker 1: I also would want to know, and perhaps I missed
Speaker 1: this Sydney, but to my understanding, it has still not
Speaker 1: been made clear what exactly the crime was that they
Speaker 1: were supposed to be investigating when they went to speak
Speaker 1: to General Flynn. Well, there wasn't one. Well there you go.
Speaker 1: I think that was actually made clear today because he
Speaker 1: got the government to admit that there was no crime
Speaker 1: in General Flynn talking to Ambassador Asley Act. And in fact,
Speaker 1: when he when the Special Counsel Assistant mentioned the possibility
Speaker 1: of the Logan Act, he was practically laughed out of
Speaker 1: the courtroom. And Judge Sullivan said, oh, you mean that
Speaker 1: statute that nobody's ever been prosecuted under, And the whole
Speaker 1: courtroom burst out in laughter. Right, So you know, why
Speaker 1: would I keep hearing from people? Oh? Well, Flynn lied.
Speaker 1: Flynn lied, and that's all that matters, and that's all
Speaker 1: that anybody's supposed to care about here. Meanwhile, from from
Speaker 1: what we're actually hearing, there was a decision made. I mean,
Speaker 1: did you ever see anything like this when you were
Speaker 1: working as a as a federal prosecutor or? The FBI
Speaker 1: is like, well, there's no crime here, let's just go
Speaker 1: ask this person a bunch of questions and hope that
Speaker 1: he lies or she lies about something. No. I've never
Speaker 1: seen anything like this in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: It is beyond appalling. You know, how are we to
Speaker 1: make of all that? I mean, you've got James come
Speaker 1: running around saying that the FBI, the FBI's reputational damage
Speaker 1: is the result of Fox News and Trump and Republicans
Speaker 1: who have no spine. Meanwhile, he acts like Andy McCabe,
Speaker 1: who was acting FBI director, wasn't fired for lying under
Speaker 1: oath several times according to the Inspector General report, which,
Speaker 1: as I understand it is also prosecutable. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's like we're living in a bizarre o land
Speaker 1: where no one's really keeping track of what's happened Sydney. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are three federal felonies outline that should be indicted
Speaker 1: already in the special in the Inspector General's report, And
Speaker 1: I mean, why haven't they been indicted? I mean, this
Speaker 1: two tiered system of justice we have just it's an
Speaker 1: article that you that you wrote, and we're speaking to
Speaker 1: Sidney Powell, who's a former federal prosecutor and author of
Speaker 1: License to Lie. An article that you wrote, you know,
Speaker 1: got my attention. It's one of the reason why we
Speaker 1: wanted to have you on the program. Although also saw
Speaker 1: you do some very good analysis on Fox and Friends
Speaker 1: that this notion that people don't lie about lying, rather
Speaker 1: than that when you're prosecuted by the federal government and say, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gonna plead to a one zero, zero one charge,
Speaker 1: then you must be guilty, end of story, end of case.
Speaker 1: What's what's your as somebody who did this, It was
Speaker 1: involved in hundreds and hundreds of federal prosecutions. Well, what's
Speaker 1: the truth of this? Well it happens all the time now.
Speaker 1: I mean when I was a federal prosecutor, and I'm
Speaker 1: not going to mention how old I am, I could
Speaker 1: probably be your mother. But you know, we did not
Speaker 1: do this. We always thought and I worked for nine
Speaker 1: different US attorneys from both political parties in three different
Speaker 1: districts across the country. I mean, every US attorney I
Speaker 1: work for said, listen, they're more than enough dangerous crimes
Speaker 1: out there. You don't need to be making anything up,
Speaker 1: and you don't need to go looking for something. You know,
Speaker 1: prosecute what we've got. We've got plenty. But the prosecutors, now,
Speaker 1: it's like the higher profile, a more higher profile person
Speaker 1: they can take elm is the way they look at it.
Speaker 1: You know, the higher the CEO or the CFO or
Speaker 1: the general or whatever, the prouder they are of themselves,
Speaker 1: and the bigger notch they get on their belt for
Speaker 1: doing it. Well, that's not the way we worked at all.
Speaker 1: So you have this whole different mindset of what a
Speaker 1: prosecution is, and they pride themselves on seeing how many
Speaker 1: crimes they can throw at people. So it leaves people
Speaker 1: with no choice but to plead guilty, because the beating
Speaker 1: they're taking by pleading guilty isn't as bad as the
Speaker 1: beating they're going to take if they try to fight it.
Speaker 1: Just look at the difference between General Flynn and Paul Manaford.
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort just tried to reach out to a potential
Speaker 1: witness that he didn't even know was on General Special
Speaker 1: Counsel's witness list, and he finds himself in solitary confinement
Speaker 1: and had all his assets frozen, so he can't hire counsel,
Speaker 1: all his children's assets frozen, and see to do how's
Speaker 1: he to fight? Yeah, I think that that's a that's
Speaker 1: a part of this this story overall with the Special Council,
Speaker 1: that people don't have enough of an appreciation of. I
Speaker 1: know of somebody. I had a friend who was a
Speaker 1: criminal defense attorney and he was involved in a very
Speaker 1: very high profile case where somebody he just told me
Speaker 1: straight up, He's like, look, this person pleaded guilty because
Speaker 1: it was take the plea or go bankrupt and then
Speaker 1: probably go to prison for three times as long as
Speaker 1: you'll get if you don't take the plea, and he
Speaker 1: just figured, I can't I can't win. They feel like
Speaker 1: there's absolutely no way out and the only thing they
Speaker 1: can do is plead guilty. And if that happens to
Speaker 1: somebody in the position of General Flynn, imagine what they
Speaker 1: do to poorer people who have no resources, no financial resources,
Speaker 1: no community resources, no sterling career to hold up on
Speaker 1: and point too, and you know they're just totally screwed.
Speaker 1: Did you have an opinion on either the reputation or
Speaker 1: just the ethics that you've seen from this special counsel
Speaker 1: so far? But about some of the individuals involved specifically,
Speaker 1: what do you think of or did you know of Mueller?
Speaker 1: What do you think of or did you know of Weissman?
Speaker 1: I mean the people that are running this, because you
Speaker 1: are very conflicting things about this in the media. Oh well,
Speaker 1: I mean this is easy. Andrew Weissman is the lead
Speaker 1: villain in my book, License to Lie, and one of
Speaker 1: only three ethics complaints I've ever filed in my life
Speaker 1: as against Andrew Weissman and two of his colleagues in
Speaker 1: License to Lie, And why was why do you fill
Speaker 1: that out? At me? Tell people? I think people should
Speaker 1: know about who this Weisman guy is, and from a
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor, you know, as well from somebody who
Speaker 1: was ostensibly on the same team, so to speak. What
Speaker 1: was Weisman doing? What do people need to know about
Speaker 1: this guy? Muller's number two. Yeah, they literally made up crimes.
Speaker 1: They destroyed Arthur Anderson, an eighty five thousand jobs, all
Speaker 1: for nothing. The Supreme Court reverse rested in a unanimous
Speaker 1: decision two years later, finding that they literally had not
Speaker 1: charged the valid crime against Anderson, and the jury instructions
Speaker 1: were so devoid of criminal intent that Justice Rnquist, writing
Speaker 1: for the unanimous court, said, it was shocking how little
Speaker 1: criminal intent the jury instructions required, so that anybody could
Speaker 1: have been convicted the way they instructed the jury. And
Speaker 1: then they made up a crime against four Merrill Lynch executives,
Speaker 1: sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison for a year
Speaker 1: on an indictment that didn't stay to federal offense. While
Speaker 1: they actually yellow highlighted the evidence they knew proved their
Speaker 1: innocence and surgically exercised it from the meager summaries they
Speaker 1: gave the defense in preparation for the trial, and they
Speaker 1: hid that evidence for six years. It was only by
Speaker 1: accident that we discovered it when the third team of
Speaker 1: prosecutors accidentally gave me the disc that had the yellow
Speaker 1: highlighted information on it. And I think that's one part
Speaker 1: of this that aside that people generally don't have an
Speaker 1: appreciation of or they don't have an understanding of and
Speaker 1: that is that even when prosecutors engage in egregious misconduct,
Speaker 1: the sanctions against them, I mean, the real oversight is
Speaker 1: pretty limited. Oh, absolutely nothing. Nothing happened to them. I
Speaker 1: mean one of the cases in my book is the
Speaker 1: Ted Stevens case, the senator from Alaska, whose Judge Sullivan
Speaker 1: is the judicial hero of my book because he threw
Speaker 1: out the conviction against Senator Ted Stevens for egregious government misconduct,
Speaker 1: hiding evidence that showed he was innocent, and it costs
Speaker 1: the Alaska the state of Alaska, their Senate seat, changed
Speaker 1: the balance of power in the United States Senate. What
Speaker 1: happened to those prosecutors? Nothing? And the first Department of
Speaker 1: Justice by that time, it's astonishing, And by that was
Speaker 1: a vote that was necessary to get Obamacare through, if
Speaker 1: memory serves exactly. Yeah, So you know, what do you
Speaker 1: do about the team? I mean, one of them got
Speaker 1: a thirty day suspension, but neither of them served it.
Speaker 1: One served a one day suspension. What can we do?
Speaker 1: It feels like there is a two tier justice system.
Speaker 1: It feels like somehow the left and the statists and
Speaker 1: the progressives have managed to take over some of the court,
Speaker 1: or maybe they just use the corridors and the levers
Speaker 1: of power differently than than people who are constitutionalists and
Speaker 1: people on the right view. But you know, I can't
Speaker 1: find any prominent left wing pro Hillary pro Obama folks
Speaker 1: who get the same kind of treatment from the federal
Speaker 1: from the federal prosecutors offices. No, there isn't one that
Speaker 1: I know of. Ever, we've got to we've got to
Speaker 1: curb the power of federal prosecutors in general. They just
Speaker 1: have way too much power, and they have absolute immunity.
Speaker 1: They can send an innocent person to prison for the
Speaker 1: rest of their lives knowing they're completely innocent, and not
Speaker 1: a single thing happens to him. That's just that's stunning. Well,
Speaker 1: the book that I can recommend everybody check out is
Speaker 1: License to Lie, author Sidney Powe, former federal prosecutor. Sidney,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us on the show,
Speaker 1: and we'd be honored to have you back sometime. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Buck anytime at all. I really appreciate the work that
Speaker 1: you do. All right, team, rolling into a quick break,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back. What impact does it have when
Speaker 1: the president calls Michael Cohen a rat some of who's
Speaker 1: cooperating with an investigation and questions how his office was
Speaker 1: rated by the FBI. It undermines the rule of law.
Speaker 1: This is the President of the United States calling a
Speaker 1: witness who has cooperated with his own Justice Department a wret.
Speaker 1: Say that again to yourself at home and remind yourself
Speaker 1: where we have ended up. This is not about Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats. This is about what does it mean to
Speaker 1: be an American? What are the things that we care
Speaker 1: about above our policy disputes which are important. There's a
Speaker 1: set of values that represents the glue of this country
Speaker 1: and they are under attacked by things just like that.
Speaker 1: We have to stop being numb to it. Whether you're
Speaker 1: Republican or Democrat, you need to stand on your feet,
Speaker 1: overcome your shame and say something. Oh the sanctimony from
Speaker 1: sanc to Coomy. It continues on every time this guy
Speaker 1: gets a chance. It's always about America and fundamental decency
Speaker 1: and our values. Meanwhile, was it about fundamental decency for
Speaker 1: him to try to take down a president with leaks
Speaker 1: to a newspaper about a private conversation. Yet with the
Speaker 1: President the United States and the Oval Office, I'm just
Speaker 1: wondering is that was that about fundamental decency? Anyone any
Speaker 1: want to get into that one? Oh? What about leaking
Speaker 1: classified documents? Would that would that be? Or even just
Speaker 1: sensitive documents? What about the lack of honor that Comy
Speaker 1: displayed forget about the law for a moment, just the
Speaker 1: lack of honor as a person where he would, as
Speaker 1: a senior government official, sit down with the President the
Speaker 1: United States and for purely personal gain and out of spite,
Speaker 1: leak the details of a conversation to the media. Jam
Speaker 1: off the President United States as if he doesn't have
Speaker 1: more important things to do, then suffer to play Kate
Speaker 1: Komey's massive six foot eleven and change ego when it
Speaker 1: comes to league and classified documents. Coomey, who's down on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill? And look, he loves all the attention. He
Speaker 1: loves all of this. Komey didn't really want to talk
Speaker 1: about that when Katherine Herridger Fox News asked him play.
Speaker 1: Look four. My understanding is that when you shared your
Speaker 1: memos with your legal team, that there was a follow
Speaker 1: up for a classified containment operation by the Bureau. Was
Speaker 1: there a spill of classified information when you shared those memos? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna talk about something like that. Wanted to
Speaker 1: talk about whether classified information was I'm not gonna talk
Speaker 1: about it one way or another. Woo Coomey got a
Speaker 1: little didn't like that. One didn't like all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: he's not the tall guy in the room. All of
Speaker 1: a sudden, he's not so into, you know, being America's
Speaker 1: lecturer in chief here a post formally held by Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: By the way, I love to lecture the American people,
Speaker 1: but you know, Comy loves to lecture the American people too.
Speaker 1: And then you know, there's just so much here that
Speaker 1: when you look at it, I mean, Comy is is
Speaker 1: symptomatic or he is a symptom of the broader problem,
Speaker 1: which is the establishment hated Trump. They still hate Trump.
Speaker 1: And look, there's a lot of reason to criticize Trump.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of stuff about him that you could
Speaker 1: pick on that's completely legitimate. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, he saved us from Hillary. What he accomplished
Speaker 1: politically is just short of a miracle. And there's finally
Speaker 1: a person who's in the Oval office, A finally person
Speaker 1: who's the head of the executive branch of our government
Speaker 1: who's willing to talk about issues that you weren't supposed
Speaker 1: to talk about it till now. I mean, we're having
Speaker 1: the discussion we're having on immigration. As much as I'm
Speaker 1: frustrated about it, as much as i worry that Trump's
Speaker 1: not going to be able to follow through on his promise,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he hasn't, under saying I'm worried. At
Speaker 1: least we can discuss whether we want continued, constant illegal
Speaker 1: immigration just flowing into the country and really talk about
Speaker 1: what the costs are to this country. Talk about the
Speaker 1: cost in dollar figures, in in lives due to the
Speaker 1: cartels and the opioids that are just flooding into this country.
Speaker 1: That's the only conversation now we can have because of Trump.
Speaker 1: But the left and the Democrats and the statusts all
Speaker 1: working together here view him, view Trump and the ideas
Speaker 1: that he represents, put aside the manphisic and the ideas
Speaker 1: that he represents. Like that though the working, normal, everyday
Speaker 1: American is getting a raw deal from his government. Now
Speaker 1: that the elite that the establishment aren't nearly as brilliant
Speaker 1: and wonderful as they would love to make, all the
Speaker 1: rest of us believe that their privileged positions do not
Speaker 1: come from being superior to us in skill, in acumen, inability,
Speaker 1: but because of connections and playing the system and exploiting
Speaker 1: their own levers to get to where they are, whether
Speaker 1: it's in government or outside of it. All of that
Speaker 1: is very threatening to these people, which is why you
Speaker 1: had the establishment within the government working together to defeat
Speaker 1: and then destroy Trump when they couldn't defeat him, and
Speaker 1: that's why win. For example, he gets asked, why didn't
Speaker 1: he tell Sally Yates, who was the acting Attorney General?
Speaker 1: Why not tell Sally Yates about what was coming up
Speaker 1: here with this interview with Flynn. Here's what he said,
Speaker 1: Play clip three. You didn't tell Sally Yates about this
Speaker 1: interview with Michael Flynn. The FBI was conducted until the
Speaker 1: day of Why did you wait until the day of
Speaker 1: Saliates about that investigation? The days I have interview because
Speaker 1: I knew that if anything came of the interview, if
Speaker 1: it advanced our investigation, the attack from the Trump administration
Speaker 1: would be that an Obama holdover it intineered it, and
Speaker 1: so I had to make the decisions separate from her,
Speaker 1: to leave them with their only opportunity to challenge it
Speaker 1: would be to burn down the entire FBI. To my
Speaker 1: shock and horror, they've tried to do just that in
Speaker 1: the face of silence from people in this building. So Coomy,
Speaker 1: McCabe and struck they are the FBI or were they
Speaker 1: employees of the FBI. I noticed the sensitivity about an
Speaker 1: Obama holdover Sally Yates engineering this because they knew that
Speaker 1: was a real thing. We got more on sactic comy
Speaker 1: coming up here at a moment. Team stay with me.
Speaker 1: I think the last person that we're going to take
Speaker 1: any lecture from about the values of this country is
Speaker 1: from a self admitted liar and leaker that we know
Speaker 1: James Comey to be. There's no doubt that he did
Speaker 1: a tremendous number of things wrong and brought out age's
Speaker 1: corruption to the FBI. He led it with a political
Speaker 1: bias that is unheard of at an agency like that,
Speaker 1: and so he'll be the last person that we're going
Speaker 1: to take any type of lecture from. What we know
Speaker 1: is that we're fighting every single day to make America
Speaker 1: better for the people of this country. It's why the
Speaker 1: President is so focused on making sure we have a
Speaker 1: strong economy, getting good trade deals, defeating isis, remaking the judiciary,
Speaker 1: and fighting for border security like we were seeing him
Speaker 1: do this week, like you've seen him do every day
Speaker 1: since he took office. This is a president who's fully
Speaker 1: committed to supporting and reflecting the values of the American people.
Speaker 1: And we certainly won't be lectured by Sarah huckeby Sanders
Speaker 1: breathing fire in James Collmey's direction, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I liked it. I like I've callmy is the worst.
Speaker 1: I mean, call me is the guy who reminds me
Speaker 1: of the people that I had to always be concerned
Speaker 1: about in the CIA and the intelligence community, the kind
Speaker 1: of people who would throw you under the bus just
Speaker 1: to show that they were doing their job and feel
Speaker 1: and feel so self righteous about it and never stop
Speaker 1: to think, is this really fair? Is this important? Is
Speaker 1: this a full reflection of this person's contributions to, you know,
Speaker 1: to the fight to defending this country. Someone like James
Speaker 1: Comey just because the rules are the rules until the
Speaker 1: people that he wants to impress get in trouble, and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden, if it's Hillary Clinton, the
Speaker 1: rules aren't the rules. Anymore, then the rules have got
Speaker 1: a change. These people are very dangerous. Remember, tyranny is
Speaker 1: not the draconian application of law to everyone. A real
Speaker 1: tyranny is the capricious application of the law based upon
Speaker 1: whether somebody is part of the in group or not,
Speaker 1: part of the favored sector or not. Because if everyone
Speaker 1: has to live under our totalitarian but draconian rather laws,
Speaker 1: and everyone has to live under the very strict, various
Speaker 1: your laws, at least you know what to expect. But
Speaker 1: James Coomey's FBI is if you're a very prominent political
Speaker 1: figure and you're a conservative, you know you're getting a
Speaker 1: different treatment. And it also comes from you know, these
Speaker 1: guys are all humans too, right, They're all they all
Speaker 1: have egos. They want the glowing treatment of the media.
Speaker 1: They want to be written about the New York Times
Speaker 1: for being you know, America's last honest copper. You know, whatever, right,
Speaker 1: they love all that stuff. You know, Komy loves it.
Speaker 1: And you know that Komy likes this moment that he
Speaker 1: has in the spotlight after all the damage that he's
Speaker 1: done to the FBI. And I know FBI folks who
Speaker 1: will say that, I mean, James Comey's is a disgrace,
Speaker 1: a disgrace. And I can tell you if somebody who
Speaker 1: worked the CIA, Mike Hayden and John Brennan, they've disgraced
Speaker 1: the CIA with what they've done, particularly Brennan. I mean, Hayden,
Speaker 1: I don't know what. I still am shocked at some
Speaker 1: of the stuff that he said, but part of me
Speaker 1: just doesn't want to believe that. It's I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I work for my guy, I just have.
Speaker 1: But Brennan. Brennan is office rocker and really dangerous and
Speaker 1: wacko guy when it comes to the conversation in this
Speaker 1: country about the rule of law and the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's really bad news. But you know, Kobe
Speaker 1: really likes to just just give this this constant lecture.
Speaker 1: It's all about America and the foundation of our ethics
Speaker 1: and values, and it's it's not about being partisan, but
Speaker 1: it is about being partisan with James Coom. That's the problem.
Speaker 1: Play clip five. People who know better, including Republican members
Speaker 1: of this body, have to have the courage to stand
Speaker 1: up and speak the truth, not be cowed by mean
Speaker 1: tweets or fear of their base. There is a truth
Speaker 1: and they're not telling it. Their silence is shameful. The
Speaker 1: top Republicans who are remaining in the House Sex session,
Speaker 1: do you see any chaking that mantle coming up and
Speaker 1: defending the MBI taking on the president. Not yet to
Speaker 1: my view, to their everlasting shame. I hope they'll overcome
Speaker 1: to realize someday they got to explained to their grandchildren
Speaker 1: what they did today. No sank to Komey. No one's
Speaker 1: gonna have to explain to their grandchild. No one's gonna care.
Speaker 1: All right, you're you're you're not the most You're not
Speaker 1: the center of this of this national drama that's going
Speaker 1: to be you know, written about and and be the
Speaker 1: story that everybody tells their kids for future generations. No,
Speaker 1: it just it's a petty bureaucrat with too much power,
Speaker 1: too much self absorption, and no no ability to self reflect.
Speaker 1: I mean, just this guy is scary in that regard.
Speaker 1: Such a false humility, and false humility is the scariest
Speaker 1: kind coming from this guy. It's really distressing. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: Bob Goodlatt is asking some very important questions about all this.
Speaker 1: Here's Bob Goodlett on Kobe and the Special counsel on
Speaker 1: how all this has gone down Play seven. It's also
Speaker 1: very interesting that when Loretta Lynch told mister Komey to
Speaker 1: treat the Clinton investigation as a matter, he didn't seek
Speaker 1: a special counsel. And when Loretta Lynch met with President
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton on the tarmac right before the announcement was
Speaker 1: made regarding that investigation, he didn't seek a special counsel,
Speaker 1: although he claims he thought about one. But when he
Speaker 1: was fired, that's when he engaged in leaking documents in
Speaker 1: order to get a special counsel appointed. And based on
Speaker 1: now that we have, near the end of this investigation,
Speaker 1: based upon, in my opinion, very false premises, good Lad
Speaker 1: raises something very interesting here about Komey. That is that
Speaker 1: there is a clear he had a clear willingness to
Speaker 1: keep it under the vest, keep things quiet, keep it
Speaker 1: on the down low, as long as he was doing
Speaker 1: going to be FBI director. As long as James he
Speaker 1: gets what he wants, we don't have to worry about
Speaker 1: the constitution and the foundation of this country and the
Speaker 1: ethics and the morals of George Washington and Ben Franklin
Speaker 1: and blobde blobdy blah. As long as James Comy gets
Speaker 1: to stay as FBI director. None of that seems to matter.
Speaker 1: It's what Comy loses his job that all of a
Speaker 1: sudden he goes scorched earth. Oh isn't that interesting when
Speaker 1: Comy would have to return to private life and get
Speaker 1: paid seven figures again, I mean, he was paid a
Speaker 1: million dollars a year plus from what I understand to
Speaker 1: be an advisor at a hedge fund in Connecticut. And
Speaker 1: it just so happened that that hedge fund was one
Speaker 1: of the very few that Coomy's mentee, pre Berarra didn't
Speaker 1: go after with a vengeance looking for insider trading. Isn't
Speaker 1: that's a very good investment. I gotta say that for
Speaker 1: that edge fund, very good, very good to have Comey
Speaker 1: as an advisor on your saff advising on what exactly,
Speaker 1: Oh don't ask not supposed to ask you, Comy. Coomey's
Speaker 1: not for sale. You know one one thing I forgot.
Speaker 1: I keep bringing up that that Scooter Libby the other
Speaker 1: Special Council debacle, another Republican administration, Democrats trying to make
Speaker 1: that seem like, oh my gosh, treason and as terrible
Speaker 1: was all crap, all garbage. They're just trying to destroy
Speaker 1: a good man because they're angry about Bush and they're
Speaker 1: angry about, you know, losing the election and the fact
Speaker 1: that they have to run some some slomial like John Kerry.
Speaker 1: You know, they they ran with this thing with the
Speaker 1: Scooter Libby, but it was based on it was just
Speaker 1: based on spite that they went after him. But you
Speaker 1: know Fitzgerald, who was also Comey's lawyer right now, he
Speaker 1: was the one who went after Conrad black On on
Speaker 1: his services fraud. That's the thing we keep being told,
Speaker 1: which I would know got overturned by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You know, we keep being told that you gotta trust
Speaker 1: these guys. This is the system. They're professionals. And then
Speaker 1: when you look at the really big cases, the cases
Speaker 1: that matter, Republicans get treated terribly and there's no corollary
Speaker 1: on the other side. There's there's no equivalent. You know,
Speaker 1: there's no Democrats who are getting destroyed based on prosecutorial
Speaker 1: zeal and I think that that's noteworthy. And you know,
Speaker 1: also I think it's not worthy that Comy doesn't really
Speaker 1: want to answer certain questions. Bob Goodlatt brought that one
Speaker 1: up play six the year and a half after James
Speaker 1: Comy was fired, he's still playing games with the Congress
Speaker 1: over this issue. We've interviewed fourteen other witnesses, all of
Speaker 1: whom who had security clearances but lost them when they
Speaker 1: were fired, went and got them back on a temporary basis.
Speaker 1: James Comy refused to do that. So if you read
Speaker 1: the transcript, you'll note a number of times when he's
Speaker 1: asked about it matter, he said, well, that's classified. And
Speaker 1: the point is, even if we had moved the interview
Speaker 1: into a classified setting, he still would not have been
Speaker 1: able to answer the questions that he knew the answers
Speaker 1: to because they were classified and he didn't have clearance
Speaker 1: to talk about them. That's the kind of things we've
Speaker 1: had to put up with, mister Komy. You know, we're
Speaker 1: never really going to get a lot of these answers. Unfortunately.
Speaker 1: I hate to be the one I to tell you that,
Speaker 1: just like I was telling people right after Romney lost
Speaker 1: to Obama, you're never going to see justice for what
Speaker 1: happened in Benghazi. No one's really going to be held accountable.
Speaker 1: That was right. I don't know if we're ever going
Speaker 1: to get all these answers. Very frustrating. I wish it
Speaker 1: wasn't the case. I don't know if we're ever going
Speaker 1: to get these answers, because the fix is in the
Speaker 1: people who make these determinations about the information, who make
Speaker 1: the determinations about who gets prosecuted, who gets let go,
Speaker 1: who gets the second chance, who gets crushed. They are
Speaker 1: of the left. Now, they're not all hardcore progressives, but
Speaker 1: they're Democrats. They opposed the Republican Party, and they, unlike
Speaker 1: many of their Republican counterpart arts adj and the federal
Speaker 1: judiciary and elsewhere, are not willing to abuse their power
Speaker 1: in the same way. There is not an equivalency here
Speaker 1: between the left and the right. It's unfortunate, but this
Speaker 1: is the world we're living in now. The left is
Speaker 1: weaponizing the law that's happening right before our very eyes,
Speaker 1: and it's gotten a lot of help from some folks
Speaker 1: in the deep state. I want to share some titles
Speaker 1: with you from a couple left wing publications about something
Speaker 1: that happened recently that touches on the double standard whenever
Speaker 1: issues of the trans or LGBT community are involved and
Speaker 1: the media is covering it all right, This one from
Speaker 1: the Daily Beast quote RuPaul loves drag kid Desmond, you
Speaker 1: will too fiercely. Back in June, The Today Show promoted
Speaker 1: this same individual quote, Meet the ten year old drag
Speaker 1: kid taking over social media with an inspiring message quote,
Speaker 1: it really is amazing being in the spotlight because I
Speaker 1: get so much support and I'm an inspiration to so
Speaker 1: many people, which is one of my number one goals,
Speaker 1: Desmond told The Daily Beast. I like all the fame
Speaker 1: and helping the LGB community fight for our rights. This
Speaker 1: is about an eleven year old boy, and I have
Speaker 1: to hat tip the fine writing over at the Daily
Speaker 1: Wire for finding this piece. Amanda pressed to Jacomo is
Speaker 1: the one who gets the byeline here. Just about a
Speaker 1: week ago in eleven year old Boy eleven folks in
Speaker 1: New York in a Brooklyn gay bar called three Dollar Bill,
Speaker 1: an eleven year old boy was put on stage dressed
Speaker 1: as a as a female, I mean dressed as an
Speaker 1: I guess as a woman or as a girl, and
Speaker 1: they try to make him a Gwen Stefani lookalike in
Speaker 1: full drag makeup, a blonde wig and a crop top
Speaker 1: as he danced on stage to a no doubt song
Speaker 1: and collected dollar bills from adult males who were at
Speaker 1: the club viewing this. Now, I would just want to
Speaker 1: point out that if an eleven year old girl showed
Speaker 1: up at a just a a I guess a straight
Speaker 1: bar or just a standard bar and was gyrating on
Speaker 1: a stage eleven years old folks gyrating on a stage
Speaker 1: for the amusement and whatever, you know, just for the
Speaker 1: viewing pleasure, I don't even know what to say of
Speaker 1: a bunch of adult males. People would rightly be completely horrified,
Speaker 1: They would be outraged. There might even be I don't
Speaker 1: know that they probably would be arrests made for endangering
Speaker 1: the welfare of a child. There might it might even
Speaker 1: fall under some kind of visual exploitation statute. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just know that this would never be okay. And
Speaker 1: if a bunch of friends of mine, heterosexual friends of mine,
Speaker 1: peers of mine, said, yeah, you know, we're at the
Speaker 1: bar last night, and they had an eleven year old
Speaker 1: girl in a crop top dancing on stage while adults
Speaker 1: threw money at her, I would probably call the police
Speaker 1: without even necessarily knowing what the crime is that I
Speaker 1: would want them to be arrest of woe. I would
Speaker 1: just I would just freak out. And what I guess
Speaker 1: isn't really surprising or shouldn't be surprising, is that I
Speaker 1: was seeing I was seeing blue check journos today, you know,
Speaker 1: left wing, progressive activist journalist types who were defending this.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry, but but there's an obvious double standard
Speaker 1: that exists in the way the media views LGBTQ and
Speaker 1: transgender issues when it comes to exploitation and what would
Speaker 1: fall under you know, exploitation in a in a heterosexual context.
Speaker 1: I mean, to have a sexualized eleven year old dancing
Speaker 1: on stage is at a minimum morally abhorrent, and it
Speaker 1: may also be something that that violates certain statutes. I mean,
Speaker 1: once you get into some of the some of the
Speaker 1: law that exists I think people are you know, generally
Speaker 1: doesn't come up because you just obviously, you know, there's
Speaker 1: so many of these laws and unless you're somebody that's
Speaker 1: violating them, you tend not to think about this. But this,
Speaker 1: whenever it comes to any kind of exploitation of a child,
Speaker 1: I mean, the laws are incredibly strict, as they should be,
Speaker 1: and it covers a lot more than actual you know,
Speaker 1: physical touching. Or any kind of physical abuse. There's a
Speaker 1: lot more that is swept up into those laws, and
Speaker 1: I was just amazed to see how many people were
Speaker 1: trying to say that this is I mean, look, the
Speaker 1: Daily Beast was writing pieces of selling media is celebrating this.
Speaker 1: They're celebrating an eleven year old who was being dressed
Speaker 1: up and danced on stage for the amusement of gay
Speaker 1: men at a gay bar. And this is supposed to
Speaker 1: be normal, And okay, why why would anyone think that?
Speaker 1: But you know, this is also then this goes to
Speaker 1: the the over zealousness with which some people are trying
Speaker 1: to turn every issue that affects the LGBT community into
Speaker 1: a kind of a crusade. Right, they have lost all
Speaker 1: sense of objectivity. I mean, this is also what you
Speaker 1: see with people who are advocating for eleven, twelfth, thirteen
Speaker 1: year olds to start transgender, you know, procedure procedures. I
Speaker 1: would just start taking you know, hormones at a very
Speaker 1: young age to start you know, the the sex change
Speaker 1: operation before they're even eighteen. I mean, this is just
Speaker 1: no normal person would think this. But then again, you know,
Speaker 1: we had we had the miss or whatever. It does
Speaker 1: not Miss USA, but the Miss World pageant and there
Speaker 1: was a transgender contestant and a female beauty pageant, and
Speaker 1: we're supposed to think. I mean, you know, they're telling me,
Speaker 1: as a heterosexual male, that if I think it's bizarre
Speaker 1: and highly unattractive for a man to present as a
Speaker 1: woman because I am only attracted to women, there's something
Speaker 1: close minded about that. There's some kind of bigotry involved,
Speaker 1: because they really live in this fantasy world. They think
Speaker 1: that there's like magic that's happening here where a man
Speaker 1: can become a woman, and therefore men who are attracted
Speaker 1: to women should be attracted to a transgender woman. Right.
Speaker 1: If you're not, they think there's something strange about you.
Speaker 1: This is crazy, This whole thing is nuts, and that
Speaker 1: they're even unable to see how it could affect children
Speaker 1: and the abuse that is inherent in this kind of
Speaker 1: a thing. I mean, the idea that you would let
Speaker 1: eleven year old in any context dance in a sexual
Speaker 1: fashion for the amusement of adult adult anybody is horrifying.
Speaker 1: But this is how depraved the Left has become. They're fine,
Speaker 1: We're really starting to see the length they're willing to
Speaker 1: go to on this and just what they're willing to sacrifice,
Speaker 1: and any decency, any integrity, any honor that can be
Speaker 1: sacrificed to the LGBTQ trans crusade, including what it involves children.
Speaker 1: Row called Tom everybody. Man, I can't believe it's already
Speaker 1: almost when day, or as somebody said to me, it
Speaker 1: is halfway to hump Day, which is halfway to Friday. Yes,
Speaker 1: that is that is technically a true thing that was
Speaker 1: said to me. So we're getting their team almost there
Speaker 1: for the holiday, almost ready to rock out and forget
Speaker 1: all of our troubles with some delicious egg nog. Perhaps
Speaker 1: I know that my family we do we do ham
Speaker 1: on Christmas. We go big with the roast. That honey
Speaker 1: glaze roast ham m good. Before I get into roll call,
Speaker 1: I just I gotta say something about this. I sometimes
Speaker 1: have this, uh, this feeling that social media is going
Speaker 1: to destroy humankind. I mean just meaning that social media
Speaker 1: can be away from the worst people in society to
Speaker 1: get attention for themselves everything else. And this weekend I
Speaker 1: managed to cook a steak for Miss Molly and me
Speaker 1: that I and she would agree. And she's a very
Speaker 1: good cook and she can be a tough critic. I
Speaker 1: think even she would agree that the steak was basically perfect.
Speaker 1: I mean it was really really well done. It was
Speaker 1: a boning RIBI so it was a tomahawk, and man,
Speaker 1: I seared that guy and I put a little time
Speaker 1: in there, and it was cast iron pan and it
Speaker 1: just and if you haven't seen it, it's on my Instagram.
Speaker 1: I think I put it up on Facebook too, just
Speaker 1: to you. I was proud of my work because I've
Speaker 1: really been trying to trying to improve my cooking technique.
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who's had much cooking experience and I
Speaker 1: want to get better at this. And so I remember
Speaker 1: I shared this. I thought to myself, you know, it's
Speaker 1: so nice. Sometimes the social media you get to do,
Speaker 1: you get to do nice things. You know. Sometimes you
Speaker 1: get to just share, you know, a photo of a puppy,
Speaker 1: or you get to you know, put out there that
Speaker 1: you know, you made really nice burgers for your family,
Speaker 1: just something that you think. It's not political, right, this
Speaker 1: is I'm just a human being, man, I'm just a
Speaker 1: person like everybody else. And I put this steak up
Speaker 1: there and it's just a steak. I didn't I was
Speaker 1: in editorializing. I wasn't. I thought, if there are a
Speaker 1: few things that we can all still agree on in America,
Speaker 1: we can celebrate a perfectly seared Tomahawks steak should be
Speaker 1: on that list. And yet some guy who's a blue
Speaker 1: check Twitter person. So from a verified account, some guy
Speaker 1: named Jerry Saltz wrote in response to my steak, my
Speaker 1: non political steak tweet. Oh look at this steak. It
Speaker 1: is so good. Here's here's a short eight second video
Speaker 1: of its sizzling. This guy who has a half a
Speaker 1: million Twitter followers. Uh, this guy who is somebody that
Speaker 1: you know, he would think wouldn't be acting like such
Speaker 1: a mediac responded to my tweet quote symbol of a
Speaker 1: very lonely man with bad daddy issues. I was flabbergasted.
Speaker 1: I don't know this guy. I've had no He apparently
Speaker 1: won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism for New York Magazine
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen. Guy's got a half a million Twitter followers.
Speaker 1: You know, he looks kind of like, you know, a
Speaker 1: less a less attractive version of Woody Allen. But you know,
Speaker 1: he's a guy who writes for New York Magazine, And
Speaker 1: I sort of sit here, I think to myself, what
Speaker 1: exactly can I do now where I don't have to
Speaker 1: expect that I'm gonna get all this all this nasty
Speaker 1: blow back and all this stuff. You know, is there
Speaker 1: anything that's sacred? I mean, first of all, the notion
Speaker 1: that a steak cooking a steak is a symbol of
Speaker 1: a lonely man with daddy issues. It's so stupid. I
Speaker 1: think it's the dumbest thing I've ever read online from
Speaker 1: a person with a real platform and who works in
Speaker 1: media for a living, who is a writer for a living.
Speaker 1: I also thought about sharing a photo of miss Molly
Speaker 1: as she was wearing a black rifle t shirt in
Speaker 1: the kitchen with me just looking absolutely stunning and lovely
Speaker 1: and saying, I don't think. I don't think that I'm
Speaker 1: a very lonely man. I think I think that that's
Speaker 1: a pretty uh that's that's quite a stretch there, buddy.
Speaker 1: And yet, and yet, this was an exchange I had
Speaker 1: on social media, and you know what there was I
Speaker 1: thought about, you know, because I don't like it when
Speaker 1: people do this. I could have really dragged the guy
Speaker 1: and gone after him and made a huge thing of it.
Speaker 1: But you know, I don't know people say dumping things
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and not everyone who says dumb things on
Speaker 1: Twitter is a bad person. I don't want to be
Speaker 1: one of those people that really just you know, just
Speaker 1: turns turns the blade even you know it pushes it
Speaker 1: even deeper and turns it around and really twists it.
Speaker 1: So I decided I was just gonna be saying, you
Speaker 1: know what, I'll I'll let other people decide on this.
Speaker 1: One man, this is pretty dumb. But I let it go.
Speaker 1: And then I realized, you know what, in the in
Speaker 1: the spirit of Christmas, I'm gonna try to be even
Speaker 1: nicer for the rest of the month that I would
Speaker 1: normally be on Twitter. I don't know if I'm going
Speaker 1: to succeed, but despite the fact that there are mean
Speaker 1: trolls out there, including trolls with big followings and a
Speaker 1: lot of people that you know, want to want to
Speaker 1: be reading their stuff, I'm gonna try to be even
Speaker 1: nice because that's what Christmas is all about. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's actually about the birth of Jesus Christ, our Savior,
Speaker 1: but let's put that aside for a moment. Let's we
Speaker 1: won't even get into that. Be able Dully forget about
Speaker 1: that part of it. And I went to a whole
Speaker 1: Christmas music spectacular at the Kennedy Central last weekend. No
Speaker 1: talk of Jesus in this, which is interesting. I thought
Speaker 1: it is supposed to be Christmas songs and a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, all out woful Christmas is you, which
Speaker 1: it's not really what Christmas is not about. How I want,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody who's my love interest to you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. I mean, I'm just saying a little
Speaker 1: bit of taking the Christ out of Christmas is a
Speaker 1: thing that happens with a lot to a lot, far
Speaker 1: too frequently in our in our country these days. But
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to be even nicer on Twitter. That's
Speaker 1: one of my little Christmas resolutions for the depress of
Speaker 1: the month. And I'm already probably too nice. So but
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna stop cooking steaks. In fact, I've already
Speaker 1: got a I've got later this week. I think I'm
Speaker 1: going for let mignon with some rosemary from my rosemary plant.
Speaker 1: Oh what's up? All right? Roll Call is next? Liberty,
Speaker 1: Truth and great Hair. Feel those funky beats. It's time
Speaker 1: for roll Call. But I know I gave you a
Speaker 1: head fake before. I'm the roll call, but this time
Speaker 1: I'm really I'm really getting getting into it. So here
Speaker 1: we go Facebook dot Com slash buck Sexton to be
Speaker 1: a part of the role call partey. Eric writes, I
Speaker 1: find this whole Michael Flynn in front of the judge
Speaker 1: thing to be very punscious, pilot, Like, if the judge
Speaker 1: doesn't like it, why doesn't he put a stop to it? Well, Eric, judges,
Speaker 1: federal judges have a lot of authority. They have a
Speaker 1: lot of power to do all kinds of things. I
Speaker 1: think people generally don't realize. The judges can go well
Speaker 1: beyond the sentence and guidelines. They can go well, hello
Speaker 1: the sentence and godelines. Judges can even set aside. People
Speaker 1: really don't know this one, and I bring this up
Speaker 1: and they usually say no way. Judges can set aside
Speaker 1: a jury verdict. They say, no, we're going to set
Speaker 1: aside that jury verdict and impose their own sentence. Now,
Speaker 1: that's regular and obviously would raise a lot of eyebrows,
Speaker 1: but they can do it. So as to why the
Speaker 1: judge is doing what he's doing here, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of theories about it. Right now, I think that people
Speaker 1: got a little bit of a dose of reality today.
Speaker 1: If we think that federal judges are not a part
Speaker 1: of the very system that is being abused to go
Speaker 1: I approve of people for political purposes, I think we're
Speaker 1: missing We're missing the point. They're federal judges. Prosecutors are
Speaker 1: very cozy, They're very much part of the same team
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. Judges are just there to
Speaker 1: be a traffic cop in the process. But they're not
Speaker 1: Judges are not advocates for the citizenry over the state.
Speaker 1: Understand I remember, remember who pays the judges, the federal government.
Speaker 1: That's where they're drawing their paycheck. Now, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean they're judges who are very very much
Speaker 1: devoted to the Constitution and the rule of law and
Speaker 1: are an essential bullwork in defense of individual liberty, because
Speaker 1: there are But just I think that we've seen, or
Speaker 1: we were led to believe by some people that maybe
Speaker 1: weren't paying critically close attention, that federal judges are going
Speaker 1: to be our saviors. You know. It's like with this
Speaker 1: Obamacare ruling. I mean, I think that this is not
Speaker 1: gonna stand up, and so this federal judge. If anything,
Speaker 1: has made it harder for Republicans. I think of the
Speaker 1: long term, because this is going to get overturned, and
Speaker 1: then they're gonna say, see, our our judges quote, our
Speaker 1: judges uphold Obamacare, and that's the law of land. Your
Speaker 1: judges try to overturn Obamacare and they fail. So that's
Speaker 1: there's a There's a whole show to be had here,
Speaker 1: many shows, probably a whole a series that we could
Speaker 1: just do on the politicization of the judiciary and what
Speaker 1: it means for this country and some of the pitfalls
Speaker 1: that come from it. Thomas, what's up? A man said, whoh, Thomas,
Speaker 1: this is very long. I'm wondering what Robert Mueller's game
Speaker 1: is here, Buck. What prompted him to refer flynn sentencing
Speaker 1: hearing to be conducted at this time when he knows
Speaker 1: the statute of limitations for his recommended charges doesn't expire
Speaker 1: for another four years, and he hasn't ended his investigation
Speaker 1: or submitted a final report to the DOJ. The timing
Speaker 1: here doesn't make any sense. Having Flynn testify against his
Speaker 1: partners would not be dependent on Flynn being sentenced for
Speaker 1: his alleged crime. And now the prospect of Flynn being
Speaker 1: charged by Judge Sullivan for higher crimes would invalidate any
Speaker 1: further testimony or appearance in court, as well as witness
Speaker 1: against as well as a witness against his former business partners.
Speaker 1: Is that the deal between Muller and Flynn that Mueller
Speaker 1: will insulate Flynn from testifying against his partners, that exchange
Speaker 1: for more information, Shield Tie, Judge Sullivan should be outraged.
Speaker 1: What's going on then, Shield side, Thomas, You're doing a
Speaker 1: lot of very good thinking on this, a lot of
Speaker 1: very good analysis. I have to tell you, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the answer is here, and I
Speaker 1: think it's important to tell you when I really don't know.
Speaker 1: I have some ideas, I certainly have some analysis to
Speaker 1: offer up on it, as I have been throughout this show,
Speaker 1: but it's not exactly clear to me what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Remember we're going off of imperfect information. Even for a
Speaker 1: federal trial. You know, indictments tend to be are sealed
Speaker 1: in the first place. But not only do we have
Speaker 1: sealed indictment issue, we also have the issue of classification
Speaker 1: and ongoing investigation. Right they're claiming that some of this
Speaker 1: information is classified, so we can't see it perhaps under
Speaker 1: any circumstances. And there's a lot that we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to sift through here. Why would this judge delay the
Speaker 1: center sing until March. Why would the judge say that
Speaker 1: maybe he sold out? That Flynn sold out his country,
Speaker 1: which he then apologized for. Very irregular, A really unsteady
Speaker 1: day in the federal court today, I mean, not a
Speaker 1: day that gives people a lot of confidence in what's
Speaker 1: going on with the federal judiciary. So I'm open to
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of different theories about this one.
Speaker 1: I do think that Flynn's liability here, the real liability,
Speaker 1: had to do with the lobbying for Turkey, and with
Speaker 1: trying to keep his son out of federal criminal jeopardy,
Speaker 1: and also just wanted this whole thing to end. But
Speaker 1: you know that that leaves a lot open territory for
Speaker 1: wolves Flynn just saying he's guilty. You know, Annie MacArthur
Speaker 1: wrote this piece of the Weekend where he's like Flynn
Speaker 1: lytte it looks like Flynn Lyne. And that's that's the
Speaker 1: case as far as we know it. Flynn did lie.
Speaker 1: Why would he lie? Why a lot of the FBI
Speaker 1: about this. What purpose would that serve? I find it
Speaker 1: very hard to believe that the former director of the
Speaker 1: Defense Intelligence Agency did not know or would not have known,
Speaker 1: that this conversation was monitored. It had been reported in
Speaker 1: the press that the conversation was monitored, which is why
Speaker 1: it was a thing in the first place. So even
Speaker 1: if he didn't know for some reason that this conversation
Speaker 1: had been recorded and transcribed as part of counterintelligence monitoring,
Speaker 1: then which by the way, is a huge breach of
Speaker 1: protocol that this information even got out there and somebody
Speaker 1: committed a felony leak to get Flynn. And then the end,
Speaker 1: did the FBI try to set Flinn up? Absolutely, the
Speaker 1: FBI was trying to set Flint up. And I I want
Speaker 1: to see the FBI. A few people in the FBI
Speaker 1: COMI struck McCabe, Sally Yates, you know, these pro institutionalist,
Speaker 1: pro Hillary holdovers in the Department of Justice. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're the ones that decided that they were going to
Speaker 1: get Flynn, and that's what happened here. But he made
Speaker 1: it way too easy for them. I mean, I can't
Speaker 1: tell you that Flynn didn't mess up here because he did,
Speaker 1: and the lobbying for Turkey. I saw this to you
Speaker 1: yesterday the show, and go back and listen to it.
Speaker 1: I can't see a defense of this. I think this
Speaker 1: was really shady and showed very poor judgment, just as
Speaker 1: I said to you yesterday before the whole ordeal today
Speaker 1: in the Federal Court. I don't know why a three
Speaker 1: star general would think that advocating on behalf of Turkey,
Speaker 1: which is really an autocracy. Now. I mean, they say
Speaker 1: it's a democracy, but ERDAUA has effectively made it a
Speaker 1: Turkish version of Putin's Russia. Or maybe Putin is a
Speaker 1: Russian version of Erduan's Turkey. So this is not a
Speaker 1: This is not a regime that he should have been
Speaker 1: that in any way Flynn should have been lending his
Speaker 1: credibility to him and involved with any He should have
Speaker 1: known better on that one. Now, should his life be ruined,
Speaker 1: should thirty years of service all be forgotten? Should he
Speaker 1: been targeted because he's part of Trump's inner circle? No, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. But there's a lot. You know, multiple
Speaker 1: things can be true at the same time. It can
Speaker 1: be true that Flynn showed poor judgment and that Flynn
Speaker 1: was targeted by the FBI, and that's what I think
Speaker 1: happened here. It can be true that Flynn lied and
Speaker 1: that he never should have been put in a position
Speaker 1: for that lie to have been a criminal matter. You know,
Speaker 1: multiple things can be true at the same time. Rick writes, Buck,
Speaker 1: still love your show. Pretty sure that will never change.
Speaker 1: Heard your Christmas movie list and wasn't surprised you'd never
Speaker 1: heard of the movie The Apartment, released in nineteen sixty,
Speaker 1: directed by Billy Wilder and starring Jack Lemon and Shirley McClain.
Speaker 1: Although some might think it dated now, I think the
Speaker 1: underlying message of right and wrong is still relevant. It
Speaker 1: is definitely a Christmas movie that will take you through
Speaker 1: the gamut of emotions and very worth seeing. Merry Christmas
Speaker 1: to you and miss Molly shield tie Oss, Rick, oh Rick,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for letting me know what The
Speaker 1: Apartment's all about and for the con message. Miss Molly
Speaker 1: sends you a big hog and and a Christmas kiss
Speaker 1: on the cheek. And yeah, man, I think that that's
Speaker 1: a movie that I'll have to watch over this holiday season.
Speaker 1: I'm just laying low. I'm gonna be doing reading and
Speaker 1: thinking and resting and maybe even get to the gym
Speaker 1: for the first time in a while. That would be nice.
Speaker 1: I do not have any exciting plans this year. I
Speaker 1: think that that's gonna be gonna be the way that
Speaker 1: we way that I rejuvenate a little bit here. You
Speaker 1: need to need to chill. Dale Rights. Hey, Buck, really
Speaker 1: appreciated your shout out to Trading Places as a great
Speaker 1: Christmas movie. Sometimes people forget about it. It remains not
Speaker 1: only my favorite Christmas movie, but one of my top
Speaker 1: five comedies of all time. Randolph Mortimer truly an all
Speaker 1: star cast and also very educational with respect to concepts
Speaker 1: of the market and buying on margin. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: the Trading Places people would say forty eight hours. I
Speaker 1: think Trading Places is Eddie Murphy's second best movie after
Speaker 1: Beverly Hills Cop. I know that might be a little
Speaker 1: controver schell, but I put it ahead of Beverly Hills Cop.
Speaker 1: I think it's really really entertaining, very very well done.
Speaker 1: And so there you have it, all right, team, that's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for today in the hunt, We're gonna
Speaker 1: have an exciting, informative, and invigorating week. You're on radio
Speaker 1: looking forward to it. I will talk to you all tomorrow,
Speaker 1: shield Hie. I really love posting on snippy dot com
Speaker 1: because I know that whatever I put up there is
Speaker 1: gonna stay, and it's not getting intentionally buried under layers
Speaker 1: of supposedly neutral algorithms or terms of service nonsense. When
Speaker 1: we all know that there's a lot of left wing
Speaker 1: bias on the other social media sites, checkout snippy dot com. Okay,
Speaker 1: if you've looked at Snippy in the past and left,
Speaker 1: you need to go back and check it out again.
Speaker 1: They're updating it all the time with exciting new features.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com is a social media site that does
Speaker 1: not have any of the left wing bias or progressive
Speaker 1: conversational health initiatives going on. So you know that whatever
Speaker 1: you're posting is what people are seeing, and you can
Speaker 1: communicate with other folks about the Second Amendment, about the Constitution,
Speaker 1: about any issue that comes to mind, without worrying about
Speaker 1: shadow banning or any of that other nonsense. All right now,
Speaker 1: snippy dot com has an updated user interface and exciting
Speaker 1: new features. Also available in the Apple App Store and
Speaker 1: available for Android. Snippy dot com is your new alternative
Speaker 1: social media