Speaker 1: Mr Garbusch Off, tear down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you're
Speaker 1: satisfied with is not the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: take it to a bank. Together, we will make America
Speaker 1: great again. You'll never sharender. It's what you've been waiting
Speaker 1: for all day. The buck Sexton Show joined the conversation
Speaker 1: called Buck toll free at eight four four nine hundred buck.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine hundred to eight to five
Speaker 1: the Future of talk radio. Buck Sexton. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, great to have you with me, honor, privilege,
Speaker 1: and pleasure. Have you in the Freedom Hut eight four
Speaker 1: or four nine buck eight four or four nine hundred
Speaker 1: to eight two five. Should you have any thoughts, opinions, queries, sonnets,
Speaker 1: high coups. Actually don't call him with the high ku
Speaker 1: because that's just but you're welcome call him with anything
Speaker 1: you want. Actually, so please do give us a ring.
Speaker 1: Let us know what your thoughts are on all things.
Speaker 1: We have much to discussed today. Obviously, gonna take a
Speaker 1: trip down Memo Lane. You gotta get into the latest
Speaker 1: on release the memo. Man I got. I got mixed emotions,
Speaker 1: mixed feelings about what this is all gonna turn into.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing all this reporting, including right on Fox News,
Speaker 1: that it's about to happen, not like while I'm on air,
Speaker 1: although wouldn't that be interesting. Probably tomorrow, people are saying
Speaker 1: maybe Monday. As I have told people earlier today when
Speaker 1: I was on out Numbered on Fox News, which the
Speaker 1: show I love doing. It's great show. It's really fun,
Speaker 1: it's really uh good conversation, upbeat, really like it. Um,
Speaker 1: but that was earlier to then, and I just said, look,
Speaker 1: there's there's not a there's not another option here other
Speaker 1: than release the memo. There's no other Hey, what do
Speaker 1: you to this point? I mean, this is this is
Speaker 1: like you're gonna turn this memo into the into the roswell,
Speaker 1: you know, landings and aliens and stuff. You can't do that.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, We've been talking about this for weeks. It's
Speaker 1: been a NonStop news cycle on the memo. But you
Speaker 1: know what, Sorry America, think about what that message. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's actually gone to the point where it's almost comical.
Speaker 1: I know, it's about really serious stuff. Think about what
Speaker 1: the message would be that this is sending neither the
Speaker 1: President nor the Congress really has the ability the right
Speaker 1: to tell the American people about what a subservient branch
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, subservient part of not branch part of the
Speaker 1: government has been up to. Yeah, that's a good precedent
Speaker 1: to set to set. Let me tell you one of
Speaker 1: the things that most separates us from all these scary
Speaker 1: countries around the world. And people will talk about fascism
Speaker 1: and a police state somebody who knows something about how
Speaker 1: intelligence works in this country, but also in other countries too.
Speaker 1: One of the things about different intelligence agencies is they
Speaker 1: spend a lot of time learning about what intelligence is
Speaker 1: like in other countries. Right, And here's a sign of
Speaker 1: a country that you've got to be concerned about. When
Speaker 1: you're i think, when you're talking about liberty and rule
Speaker 1: of law and civil rights and all that all that
Speaker 1: good stuff. When the intelligence agencies or agency, if it's
Speaker 1: kind of one super agency, when they are accountable to
Speaker 1: no one except the leader, and in fact, in many
Speaker 1: ways are more powerful than the leader, then you've got
Speaker 1: a really bad situation going on. And what you will
Speaker 1: also see historically is that there are plenty of times
Speaker 1: when whoever was running the intelligence agency of any given country,
Speaker 1: And this is definitely in the in the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: and that's when we really have had the whole notion
Speaker 1: of a modern intelligence organization. Right before that, it was
Speaker 1: very different. And before you had mass communication and you know,
Speaker 1: it was tough to be doing stuff at a certain
Speaker 1: speed and uh before you had phones, right before you
Speaker 1: had radio. Um. But you had people that would be
Speaker 1: senior in the intelligence agency who would end up running
Speaker 1: the country, right people that were the higher ups of
Speaker 1: whatever the internal security service was, and they end up
Speaker 1: running the country. That's because they can amass so much
Speaker 1: power because if they don't have any restrictions on the
Speaker 1: information they can get on people. Think of what that
Speaker 1: means for their sway in politics, even if they don't
Speaker 1: have elections, although you know a lot of countries have
Speaker 1: elections that are for show. And you look at some
Speaker 1: of the different stands for example, and you got, yeah,
Speaker 1: their elections, the one candidate wins percent of the vote
Speaker 1: and has for the last thirty years. But there are elections.
Speaker 1: I always love that too. What's why not just go?
Speaker 1: You know, why stop at ninety eight or I just
Speaker 1: want to maybe so they put some people on notice.
Speaker 1: It's like, hey, maybe we could say later on that
Speaker 1: you were part of that naughty two percent that didn't
Speaker 1: vote for the same guys running the country for twenty
Speaker 1: or thirty years. The bottom line here, folks, is you
Speaker 1: can't have an intelligence and law enforcement apparatus that is
Speaker 1: above the law and above people, above the people, we
Speaker 1: the people. You just can't do it. And this whole
Speaker 1: conversation has, I think, on so much more damage, so
Speaker 1: much more damage to our trust and faith and institutions
Speaker 1: then was necessary. Does anyone really think that the FBI
Speaker 1: doesn't have people who make mistakes? I also noticed that
Speaker 1: we're so focused in the f I. FBI is a
Speaker 1: subsidiary of the Department of Justice. This is all really
Speaker 1: d o J. And the d o J was run
Speaker 1: by recently Loretta Lynch and before that Eric Holder. Anybody
Speaker 1: really think that they were running a shop that wasn't political.
Speaker 1: Come on, right, we all know, we're all we're all
Speaker 1: big boys and girls here. We all know this. This
Speaker 1: is not surprising. And I've been trying to avoid what
Speaker 1: the Democrats want us to do here, which is to
Speaker 1: make this all about the institutions. Oh, they've been complaining
Speaker 1: the institutions from the very beginning, and I always want
Speaker 1: to respond to them. In this instance, what could be
Speaker 1: a bigger abuse? I mean, if we're not worried about
Speaker 1: the FBI, the d o J involving itself in a
Speaker 1: partisan fashion, or really in any fashion, and a presidential
Speaker 1: election hoping to turn it one way or the other
Speaker 1: by using spying powers, If that doesn't worry us, what's
Speaker 1: the point of having an over site committee. I mean,
Speaker 1: if Congress isn't going to use and and look I
Speaker 1: think they have and they will and probably tomorrow we're
Speaker 1: gonna find out what's in this memo and everything else.
Speaker 1: But if they're not going to use their oversight powers
Speaker 1: for this, then what do they have oversight powers? Now,
Speaker 1: let's let's all just keep it real here, let's not
Speaker 1: get caught up in the nonsense. There is just, frankly,
Speaker 1: no way that this memo was going to be suppressed,
Speaker 1: That that was gonna be okay, that was never gonna
Speaker 1: be okay. I've been trying to tell you all along here. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I actually went to Twitter today just so I
Speaker 1: kind of had a written version of my prediction for
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen. You know what, We're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: some other stuff on the show too, because I'm sure
Speaker 1: you start to get memo fatigue. I got memo fatigue,
Speaker 1: and one of the things that keeps me going with
Speaker 1: it it is just every time I want to move
Speaker 1: off the memo and talk to you. But you know,
Speaker 1: like we talked Cartel's North Korea, we cover a lot
Speaker 1: of ground near the economy clearly right. My latest s
Speaker 1: campades in the kitchen with cooking. I'll tell you about
Speaker 1: that too later on a lot of things. Netflix shows
Speaker 1: action movie quotes. You know you listen. But every time
Speaker 1: I see a false narrative from the left about this memo,
Speaker 1: I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, I'm not I
Speaker 1: can't let them get away with it. I almost have
Speaker 1: a compulsion two shoot down their lies because it bothers me.
Speaker 1: It really does bother me. And they've tried so many
Speaker 1: different dishonest and in some cases quite slimy tricks to
Speaker 1: either make the memo go away. You're making it's not
Speaker 1: a big deal. I've written out what I think is
Speaker 1: going to happen. So here's my my memo prediction for tomorrow,
Speaker 1: and we'll see how accurate I am based on this.
Speaker 1: Number One, Fusion GPS dossier usage confirmed for FISA warrant.
Speaker 1: I think we will see the Fusion GPS played a
Speaker 1: role here. Now we already think that that it will
Speaker 1: be confirmed, which is different. That is different, Okay. Number
Speaker 1: two other unspecified things still kept classified, also part of
Speaker 1: the warrant. Now I can't tell you what that is.
Speaker 1: I don't have access anymore, which is a good thing
Speaker 1: because if I did, I couldn't talk to you about
Speaker 1: any of this anymore. But that's I think gonna be
Speaker 1: a part of this as well, which then leads into
Speaker 1: number three. Democrats will argue that this is a tiny
Speaker 1: part of the overall picture. So you're gonna have the
Speaker 1: the GPS dossier Hillary APO was used by the spying
Speaker 1: apparatus at least in some level, in some way to
Speaker 1: look at Trump people. I think that will be confirmed tomorrow.
Speaker 1: These are my predictions. And then the Democrats will say, well,
Speaker 1: but those other stuff, and so therefore number three here
Speaker 1: is that they will argue, this is a tiny part
Speaker 1: of the overall picture. What's the other stuff? Oh, I
Speaker 1: can't tell you that sources and methods, sources and methods.
Speaker 1: The number four is going to be the the d
Speaker 1: o J. However, to anybody who is being honest about
Speaker 1: this looks bad. And what I mean by that is
Speaker 1: this was a presidential election. Everyone the the threshold, the
Speaker 1: bar or what should be needed to use the spying
Speaker 1: apparatus of the United States government, and we're talking to
Speaker 1: high level stuff here, the threshold for using that against
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign. You know, I remember, you know, when
Speaker 1: I was working on the intelligence side that we got
Speaker 1: so many lectures and ethics training and had legal repercussions
Speaker 1: and ramifications like you do not mess around on US
Speaker 1: soil with a B or C. You do not do
Speaker 1: these things, those things, And it was really and FISA
Speaker 1: is treated within the community at least it used to
Speaker 1: be as highly sensitive, very close hold stuff. And you
Speaker 1: you know, and if you ever were to have abused
Speaker 1: FISA in any way, it was not you were I mean,
Speaker 1: the least of your problems was gonna be that you
Speaker 1: were getting fired. Right, So, given that that the Department
Speaker 1: or Justice could have allowed this to happen, even if
Speaker 1: it is not immediately provable that this was just a
Speaker 1: political hit, on Trump. Based on what they released probably tomorrow,
Speaker 1: they're just gonna look like a combination d O J
Speaker 1: is gonna look incompetent and dishonest. Now, not the whole place,
Speaker 1: not everybody, but those individuals that were involved in this
Speaker 1: doesn't it does not pass the smell test that they
Speaker 1: would have done this that. Think about it this way. Everyone,
Speaker 1: you're in the room, okay, and put yourself This is
Speaker 1: a very useful exercise with any of these highly political
Speaker 1: government cases stories that we've been talking about here. Put
Speaker 1: yourself in the shoes. You're in the room, and so
Speaker 1: and says, hey, so, I think you know, I've got
Speaker 1: a couple of sources that are saying something about Trump Russia.
Speaker 1: By the way, that was out there in the open source, right,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people say, oh Trump and Russia,
Speaker 1: and there's all these connections. I've even heard rumors with
Speaker 1: no factual basis, Oh Russia, organized crime. Trump. People just
Speaker 1: say this stuff. Right, it's a presidential campaign. You're sitting
Speaker 1: in the room and they go, hey, you know what,
Speaker 1: I've got this guy who's doing work for the d
Speaker 1: n C. Now maybe they didn't know that, but who
Speaker 1: knows what they know we're finding that out. I've got
Speaker 1: this guy that was doing work for the d n
Speaker 1: C and and he's got some really really bombshell level
Speaker 1: stuff on Trump. Uh, why don't we just whyn we
Speaker 1: just start tapping some phones and some people around Trump
Speaker 1: and see what's going on with that. That that would
Speaker 1: not send up the biggest, brightest red flags for any
Speaker 1: honest government employee at that level within the d o
Speaker 1: J is mind boggling. It's just mind boggling. And so
Speaker 1: then that brings me to again playing our game here
Speaker 1: of are you in the are you in the shoes
Speaker 1: of the government bureaucrat that praised me what they had
Speaker 1: to know that this was bad and they did it anyway,
Speaker 1: probably because I thought Hillary would win. They get away
Speaker 1: with it. But also never forget that if they had
Speaker 1: ever gotten information during this surveillance that was truly game
Speaker 1: over for Trump, it would have been game over for Trump.
Speaker 1: It was a risk that they were taking too. They
Speaker 1: could have been heroes, the heroes of the hashtag resistance.
Speaker 1: Oh and then number five on my list, so number
Speaker 1: one was the Fusion GPS dossier confirmed. Number two other
Speaker 1: unspecified things also part of the five's activity number Three,
Speaker 1: Democrats will argue this a tiny part of the overall picture.
Speaker 1: Four D O J top level will look bad. Five
Speaker 1: And this is the annoying part everyone. But I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna tell you the Russia conspiracy theory lives on. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna go away based on this memo. But this
Speaker 1: is a battle I think that the Democrats are about
Speaker 1: to lose. Is just a question how badly what kind
Speaker 1: of casualties, so to speak, does the Russia collusion conspiracy
Speaker 1: narrative take once this memo is out there on the street,
Speaker 1: and you know it could be tomorrow, which I mean, well,
Speaker 1: a very interesting freestyle Friday. I mean tomorrow night. You're
Speaker 1: always welcome to call with action movie quotes. But things
Speaker 1: could get things could get feisty tomorrow night on this
Speaker 1: radio show if we got a memo to work with.
Speaker 1: So there is that I see some lines lit. Do
Speaker 1: feel free to call in. We've got lines open here
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hunt. We've got a lot more to discuss.
Speaker 1: Talk about Trump's visit to West Virginia today. Also, maybe
Speaker 1: I'll get to this, Uh, this teacher on California, he's
Speaker 1: just saying idiotic, terrible stuff about the military, you know,
Speaker 1: they're there're really only a few things left in the
Speaker 1: country that you you publicly degrade at your peril, no
Speaker 1: matter who you are, there are only a few things left,
Speaker 1: you know. Unfortunately, the military is still one of them.
Speaker 1: So I can't imagine how anybody could be so thoughtless
Speaker 1: and so dumb. But we might get into a little
Speaker 1: bit of a discussion there as well, because I want to.
Speaker 1: I want to address some of the idiotic points that
Speaker 1: were made. Um and I got a whole lot of
Speaker 1: stuff talking about, so when he had a quick break,
Speaker 1: and we'll be right back. The neat media is part
Speaker 1: of the deep state. The elite media group has survived
Speaker 1: by being in collusion with the senior bureaucracy, the City
Speaker 1: of Washington, the senior reporters, the senior bureaucrats, the senior lobbyists.
Speaker 1: They all hang out together, They all talked to each other,
Speaker 1: they all compare notes when they get to read this.
Speaker 1: What the American people need to understand is that the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, in a series of steps that clearly violated
Speaker 1: the law, tried to both protect Hillary Clinton and tried
Speaker 1: to destroy Donald Trump, and both actions were illegal. Uh
Speaker 1: and we're now in a situation, I believe where you're
Speaker 1: gonna see a requirement in the near future for an
Speaker 1: independent council literally to clean out the senior FBI and
Speaker 1: the senior Justice Department and to go after people who
Speaker 1: have left office who were part of the Obama team
Speaker 1: that was so clearly violating the law. That's former Speaker
Speaker 1: new Gingrich. Obviously, I know you all know that. But
Speaker 1: just to give the man credit for his words, I
Speaker 1: agree with everything he said except this I am not
Speaker 1: clear on. And I think this might and I'm trying
Speaker 1: to be responsible and how I say they're respectful and
Speaker 1: how I say this, I don't think they broke the law.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that they didn't do something really bad.
Speaker 1: But just hear me out here, when we're talking about
Speaker 1: not bringing if we're talking about the FBI and the
Speaker 1: d o J not bringing charges against Hillary, that's not
Speaker 1: breaking the law. That is refusing to enforce the law
Speaker 1: for political reasons. Not the same thing Hillary broke the law. Yes,
Speaker 1: So if he's talking about Hillary, no question she broke
Speaker 1: the law. But the whole Comie McCabe apparatus, they might
Speaker 1: be guilty of ethics violations. I think they certainly are
Speaker 1: guilty of ethics violations in their duties at the FBI,
Speaker 1: but official misconduct maybe you could get them for that,
Speaker 1: for not unless you get some real clear evidence of
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, violating the Hatch Act. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're starting to stretch here, right, So let's I want
Speaker 1: to keep our expectations in line with what is possible,
Speaker 1: with what is likely to be, which is what is
Speaker 1: likely to happen, and not just what sounds good or
Speaker 1: makes us feel good. And then on the spying portion
Speaker 1: of this, laws that may have been broken. Again, I'm
Speaker 1: speaking generally here, and I can't I don't know if
Speaker 1: if Newt was referring to specific law breaking or what
Speaker 1: specific law breaking is referring to. But here's what needs
Speaker 1: to be kept in mind. If the FBI used information
Speaker 1: for a FISA warrant that was real, they did not lie,
Speaker 1: they did not falsify, but they decided to use open
Speaker 1: source or non classified information in the case of Fusion
Speaker 1: GPS to get a warrant and went through the appropriate processes.
Speaker 1: That's an abuse of power. But and as you know,
Speaker 1: I've talked to former Prosecutor Andy McCarthy, who we all
Speaker 1: know in respect here on the show, and he agrees
Speaker 1: with me on this, that's an abuse of power, but
Speaker 1: that's not No one's going to prison for that, So
Speaker 1: we shouldn't set our expectations beyond what is likely here.
Speaker 1: Prison for leaking, Yes, that's a crime, but who did
Speaker 1: the leaking, We don't know, we have some guesses. Also, generally,
Speaker 1: very hard to prove a leak, unless somebody's like, hey,
Speaker 1: here's any I'm sending an email with, like, here's that
Speaker 1: classified thing that I'm not supposed to tell you what.
Speaker 1: Some people do do that, But generally, if it's a
Speaker 1: leak to a reporter and it comes from inside the government,
Speaker 1: because usually information is widely disseminated enough that you can't
Speaker 1: really narrow it down and anyway, So I just would
Speaker 1: note that right now there's a lot of attention, a
Speaker 1: lot of fervor around the issue of the memo and
Speaker 1: the release of the memo, very very unlikely that anyone
Speaker 1: is going to prison unless I am missing a statute.
Speaker 1: And if any of you out there are lawyers and
Speaker 1: you think I'm I'm missing it, let me know any
Speaker 1: of your prosecutors. Although prosecutors tend to be KG about
Speaker 1: calling into political talk shows unless they're former prosecutors. Uh,
Speaker 1: I don't see it. I don't see criminal charges coming
Speaker 1: from this. This is a massive political scandal, and I
Speaker 1: think the only remedy will be for we the people
Speaker 1: to take a political action in response to it, and
Speaker 1: also to fire a bunch of bumps that needs to
Speaker 1: happen to it. But and that's already started to happen.
Speaker 1: We got more to stay with me. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America. Buck Sexton is back, but spoken to
Speaker 1: a number of sources who have said that McCabe had
Speaker 1: actually asked members of the FBI um an FBI official
Speaker 1: actually to alter the three O two whether the three
Speaker 1: O two's, those are the witness interviews that the FBI
Speaker 1: conducts with the witnesses. There was one person in particular
Speaker 1: that they believe McCabe had asked the FBI agents to
Speaker 1: alter the three O two s. And I think this
Speaker 1: is significant. It doesn't mean that they altered the three
Speaker 1: O twos, but even the fact that if they were
Speaker 1: asked allegedly, if this actually happened, that is a huge violation,
Speaker 1: huge violation. And another very important question here is when
Speaker 1: the warrant was issued, who kept reauthorizing the warrant over
Speaker 1: and over again, as her friend Sarah Carter, she's a
Speaker 1: Fox News contributors here on Shawn Show a lot at
Speaker 1: nine pm, and she's pointing out that if they did
Speaker 1: change if if people in the fb I changed official records,
Speaker 1: if that was going on, then you are getting into
Speaker 1: criminal territory. Can't do that. That's not something that's on
Speaker 1: the list of Oh, yeah, sure you can. You can
Speaker 1: do this, and then you'll be uh, you'll just be fired. No, no, no.
Speaker 1: You cannot change witness statements, you cannot tamper with evidence.
Speaker 1: So we'll have to see that may be a part
Speaker 1: of this too. I can't imagine there are any huge
Speaker 1: surprises in this memo because if there were, I have
Speaker 1: a sense that they would have leaked. That's why I
Speaker 1: think the fusion GPS component is the one thing that
Speaker 1: is likely to be confirmed in it. But speaking of
Speaker 1: criminal sentencing and situations, the Mueller team, it's just hit
Speaker 1: the hit the wires today. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team
Speaker 1: is postponing the sentencing of former National Security advisor and
Speaker 1: and general or decades Mike Flynn. They say they're doing
Speaker 1: this because of the status of the investigation, and that's
Speaker 1: got people asking questions about what this means for Russia, right,
Speaker 1: the Russia prope Russia. Ah, here's what I think about this.
Speaker 1: I believe that Flynn should be pardoned. I'm sorry, I'm oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm not sorry actually because I'm saying I
Speaker 1: think you should be pardoned. But this is not a
Speaker 1: this is not justice. It is not justice for General
Speaker 1: Flynn to be facing any kind of confinement. I get
Speaker 1: a sense here that his deal probably I don't know,
Speaker 1: but he's cooperated and they're extending him here there. They
Speaker 1: want to get more cooperation from him. But I think
Speaker 1: Flynn knows that he can cooperate without any damage to
Speaker 1: his honor or anything, because there's when it comes to
Speaker 1: Russia collusion, it's nothing for him to cooperate on. There's
Speaker 1: nothing here. So sure he'll answer whatever questions they've got.
Speaker 1: He'll he'll be as helpful as he possibly can. And
Speaker 1: that to me, this this signals and I'm reading in
Speaker 1: between the lines here, but to me, extending out the
Speaker 1: sentencing of Flynn meaning waiting before you see what the
Speaker 1: Flynn sentence is is just Mueller buy more time to
Speaker 1: have Flynn at least the prospect of Flynn in the
Speaker 1: background to sweat somebody, so to speak, here, to help
Speaker 1: put the pressure on someone. So that is a reason
Speaker 1: that you would see the Flynn sentencing extended a bit longer.
Speaker 1: But I mean, come on, you lied about a non
Speaker 1: crime the FBI, what's the real damage here? Maybe they're
Speaker 1: gonna say no, this is what might come up. The
Speaker 1: only way I think you see Flynn not getting pardoned
Speaker 1: by the president is if there's no jail time, still
Speaker 1: would have a felony on his record, so means he
Speaker 1: can't uh well, I guess it depends on the state right,
Speaker 1: But can't vote, can't on a firearm, all kinds of
Speaker 1: problems that come with felony, colony record. But we'll see
Speaker 1: if Trump is willing to pardon him. I mean, you
Speaker 1: can imagine for me, it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: It also would have the little added wonderful bonus of
Speaker 1: making liberals completely lose their minds. I mean, it would
Speaker 1: be think about it, twenty four hours. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the constitution has been lit on fire. But this is
Speaker 1: the president's constitutional prerogative. He has. He absolutely has the
Speaker 1: There is no person who can say that the President
Speaker 1: does not have the authority to pardon Michael Flynn. He
Speaker 1: absolutely positively does. But they're still gonna say, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the rule of laws. But it doesn't matter. They don't
Speaker 1: even care. They just hate Trump. This is all nonsense.
Speaker 1: I mean, the arguments they've been making against the memo
Speaker 1: release have just been laughable. I'm seeing people get all
Speaker 1: all sanctimonious, but all sources am not. Though some people's
Speaker 1: lives will be in dangerous, this is not. I I
Speaker 1: assure you, there's nothing that's gonna come out of this
Speaker 1: new Nois memo that you're gonna be like, oh wow,
Speaker 1: I'm glad I'm not that guy. You don't want to Well,
Speaker 1: maybe in terms of FBI people's careers, but not like
Speaker 1: a safety issue. So the arguments have been made, I
Speaker 1: think they've been made in bad faith, but they still
Speaker 1: they still got Flynn on the hook. Here. See if
Speaker 1: they can extend this out a little bit. I wonder,
Speaker 1: what do we get a sense here of what his?
Speaker 1: What I'm trying to see what his? Yeah, here we go.
Speaker 1: They don't want to tell the judge it on Fox
Speaker 1: News this to sentence Flynn until they can tell the
Speaker 1: judge that he helped in the case and Flynn, if
Speaker 1: Flim were ever asked test find a trial, he would
Speaker 1: be a better witness if still facing the prospect of sentencing.
Speaker 1: So they're just holding us over him. And this is
Speaker 1: why I really have always resented this notion that there's
Speaker 1: no cost really to this investigation that you know, we
Speaker 1: were just trying to get at the truth here. People's
Speaker 1: lives are being ruined. You know, we sit here, folks,
Speaker 1: how many times we have to go through this? Now,
Speaker 1: we got this with the Trump administration. The same thing
Speaker 1: happened with the whole uh plaime leak fiasco. They knew,
Speaker 1: they knew who the leaker was. The leaker, it was
Speaker 1: an accident and he did not intend to leak anything
Speaker 1: on purpose, and they agreed with that, and it was
Speaker 1: just that, look, and that does happen. I've said before,
Speaker 1: classified accidentally does slip out. Sometimes that does happen. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's okay, but it happens. And that's taken
Speaker 1: into account when someone's going to be punished for it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't happen a hundred times on an unsecured server,
Speaker 1: and you know, over and over and over again, and
Speaker 1: nobody knows what Hillary style, but it does happen. But
Speaker 1: that was all just to get Cheney. Here we are
Speaker 1: again that we had one Republican administrator, the last Republican administration,
Speaker 1: they managed to create this false story to get a
Speaker 1: special counsel going, and they almost they almost took down
Speaker 1: the Vice president with it. That was what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do. And now we've got another one. You'll notice
Speaker 1: no special counsel during the Obama years, despite all the
Speaker 1: stuff that we could have looked into more there, Man,
Speaker 1: I would have liked the special council just on fast
Speaker 1: and furious. No one even really talks about it anymore. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, let's just let's just start a federal government
Speaker 1: program where we where we tell gun dealers to sell
Speaker 1: guns illegally two people that we know we're going to
Speaker 1: then make their way down to the cartels. Oh that's right,
Speaker 1: who killed thirty thousand people last year? No special counsel
Speaker 1: for that, right, people are dying a border patrol agent dive,
Speaker 1: but no no special counsel there? Why, Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: because Eric Holder was running the Justice Department. I brought
Speaker 1: this up today when they're asking about how oh Trump passed.
Speaker 1: Did Trump asked if if McCabe was on his team
Speaker 1: or is her on his team? Eric Older publicly proclaimed
Speaker 1: that he was president this is he was President Obama's wingman,
Speaker 1: and then you'll be working very closely together. You know,
Speaker 1: they can't have it both ways. Is the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice a a subservience political organism too? The executive branch
Speaker 1: or is it its own branch of government? They can't
Speaker 1: keep shifting the storyline. I mean they do, but it's
Speaker 1: not fair, it's not right. It is dishonest for them
Speaker 1: to keep shifting the storyline. And that's what we've seen
Speaker 1: going on here. Find it very, uh, very disconcerting that
Speaker 1: this is in fact where we are with it. And man,
Speaker 1: I just want them to I just want them to
Speaker 1: give us this this frigging memo. You know, I've had enough.
Speaker 1: I've had I don't if I have to see one
Speaker 1: more headline on SENNA, one more thing from Adam Schiff.
Speaker 1: You know, are so bad that guy. This is what
Speaker 1: the Democrats put up there for us too to fight against.
Speaker 1: It makes it makes the job of getting annoyed with
Speaker 1: their lies a little bit easier because these are not
Speaker 1: some of these democrats that are making the case, and
Speaker 1: these are not likable peoples, are not compelling personalities, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. Ron in Alaska, you got thoughts, I got time.
Speaker 1: What's up? Hey? How are you doing? Buck Shield? Tie?
Speaker 1: She'll tiey, buddy. I'm good. Listen. I believe this goes
Speaker 1: back to my high school days, but in in history.
Speaker 1: But I told my teacher back then that there has
Speaker 1: been a government within our government since the JFK assassination
Speaker 1: and it hasn't changed since in all these years. And
Speaker 1: it's my belief that the president should go and get
Speaker 1: either a point or a special prosc and purge all
Speaker 1: these FBI, d O J possibly looking in S A,
Speaker 1: passibly looking at C I A, and and get rid
Speaker 1: of the people at the top levels that uh where
Speaker 1: the corruption lies. Because this a lot of these are
Speaker 1: Obama holdovers and and he really should have had em
Speaker 1: purged when he took over, but I guess it couldn't happen.
Speaker 1: I don't know why. But but at any rate, h
Speaker 1: the corruption and the lies that are going on in
Speaker 1: Washington right now, the American voters better wake up, and
Speaker 1: I'm telling them they'd better wake up, because if we
Speaker 1: continue the way we're going, we're gonna lose this country. Uh.
Speaker 1: We we have people that that are not they're so
Speaker 1: corrupt that that that they have no allegiance to the
Speaker 1: country anymore, and and they're willing to do anything that
Speaker 1: they want to obtain their goals. Well, it's definitely true.
Speaker 1: There are people with a lot of power in our
Speaker 1: government ron who are gonna We're gonna do what they
Speaker 1: can do. They'll they'll do what they can to hurt
Speaker 1: the country if it means that they get to inflict
Speaker 1: their political wishes on us in some way. Thank you
Speaker 1: for calling it from Alaska, my friend shield Side. Uh,
Speaker 1: we got a lot more to get into here. My friends.
Speaker 1: Talk a bit about Trump's speech today in West Virginia.
Speaker 1: We'll discuss that and uh, and a whole lot more.
Speaker 1: So stay right there. So comey, formerly FBI director just
Speaker 1: put out a tweet before I came on air. Here's
Speaker 1: what it says. All should appreciate the FBI speaking up.
Speaker 1: I wish more of our leaders would, but take heart.
Speaker 1: American history shows that in the long run, weasels and
Speaker 1: liars never hold the field, so long as good people
Speaker 1: stand up. Not a lot of schools or streets named
Speaker 1: for Joe McCarthy. Okay, uh, you know, call me the guru. UM,
Speaker 1: explain to me who who are the weasels and liars? Year?
Speaker 1: So as he saying, is he saying the president's a
Speaker 1: weasel or a liar? Is that? Is that what's going on?
Speaker 1: I feel like he is do we all do we
Speaker 1: all think that we can move past? Oh Comey, he's
Speaker 1: he's not a partisan player. He's not trust me, he's been.
Speaker 1: He just does what's best for Comey all the time.
Speaker 1: I remember, rich lawyer. Stop thinking of it as an
Speaker 1: FBI Guy's not an FBI guy. He's a rich lawyer.
Speaker 1: All right. That changes things very very quickly, I believe.
Speaker 1: Justin in Winston Salem, North Carolina, what's up? Justin? Hey?
Speaker 1: How's it going? But I'm good. Yeah, I just wanted
Speaker 1: to make a comment regarding your last caller there from Alaska. UM,
Speaker 1: I'm probably as far away from him as uh as
Speaker 1: he is from me. I'm from Wednesday of North Carolina.
Speaker 1: I'm twenty nine years old, and uh, well, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to let him know that the American people have
Speaker 1: woken up. We woke up last year when we voted
Speaker 1: Donald Trump end office. Uh we need to change, and uh,
Speaker 1: well he's the first start. Problem is we can, you know,
Speaker 1: go about this process of special prosecutors and all that,
Speaker 1: but nothing ever happens to the Democrats, you know, And
Speaker 1: I think it's a big problem. So I mean, what
Speaker 1: do we have to do to really prosecute the Democrats?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll be all these high ranking officials and
Speaker 1: all that, and they seem to just scathe off and
Speaker 1: you know, skip sentences and uh, really get away with all,
Speaker 1: you know, justin I don't think I'm being I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm being uh, you know, what's the word. I'm trying.
Speaker 1: I don't think I have tunnel vision here when I
Speaker 1: say that, I don't ever see Republicans playing the game
Speaker 1: quite the same way that Democrats do with this stuff.
Speaker 1: I've Saturday before and told you about all the different,
Speaker 1: very clearly politically motivated prosecutions of top level Republicans across
Speaker 1: the country. I've gone on the list, right, Rick Perry, Um,
Speaker 1: Chris See, Scott Walker McDonald, former governor of Virginia. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are all political prosecutions, and they all went nowhere,
Speaker 1: by the way, except for McDonald. The Supreme Court had
Speaker 1: to reverse that because it was such a stretch to
Speaker 1: get him on corruption. And you see the other side
Speaker 1: of it here, like it just doesn't they don't. The
Speaker 1: game isn't played the same way. And I don't really
Speaker 1: have an answer for that other than start to say
Speaker 1: that I just think that democrats power is the power
Speaker 1: is the reason for the existence of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: It's not it's not a sense of shared principle. It's
Speaker 1: larger state and the emotional trajectory of the people that
Speaker 1: call themselves Democrats at any point in time. But I
Speaker 1: don't have a clear answer for other than I see
Speaker 1: it too, man, I cannot Why do we not have
Speaker 1: a special counsel under Obama? Never even discussed, really, right,
Speaker 1: it just never happened. We had a special counsel under Bush,
Speaker 1: we have a special counsel under Trump. And people say, well,
Speaker 1: we have a special counselor to Clinton because we need
Speaker 1: needed one, or we at least need an investigation. I mean,
Speaker 1: the guy was doing all kinds of flagrantly illegal and
Speaker 1: improper stuff, so and not like, oh, maybe we'll find something.
Speaker 1: We keep investigating. We know what he did, Andy Loddon
Speaker 1: and growth then he got away with it. So I mean,
Speaker 1: and that's our political history for the last twenty plus years. Right,
Speaker 1: So this is scary stuff. But justin you're right, we
Speaker 1: woke up. We uh, we defeated the Hillary machine and
Speaker 1: against all odds and as it seems now against Stephen
Speaker 1: the wishes of some of the deep state of the
Speaker 1: d o J. Thanks for calling your brother. Good to
Speaker 1: talk to you from North Carolina. I appreciate it. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's talk Larry in Johnsville, Ohio? Was it Larry? All right? Buck?
Speaker 1: Enjoy your show, enjoy your calls. Larry. What's going on?
Speaker 1: I got a couple comments about the state of the
Speaker 1: Union address. I think you're either be a thorough investigation
Speaker 1: by the c I, a FBI, a BC. Whoever whoever
Speaker 1: scorted super glue on all of them democratic seats had
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted. It is mean to spread all that
Speaker 1: super glow. And it's not environmentally friendly either, that's true.
Speaker 1: And one another observation, Uh, somebody I had to send
Speaker 1: Nancy Pulski some more polly grip because I think she
Speaker 1: was having trouble with her dangers. Either that or depends
Speaker 1: was righting up winter. She did not look happy. I
Speaker 1: will agree that she did not look happy at that
Speaker 1: state of the Union. Larry and Larry, yes, sir, and
Speaker 1: that new Supreme Court just was that him or a
Speaker 1: statue of course which I don't know. Did he not
Speaker 1: stand up or something? He nothing? I didn't see that,
Speaker 1: but okay, I'll write him a strongly worded Larry. Thanks
Speaker 1: for calling it from Ohio, my friend Shields. It was
Speaker 1: like Larry adds a special flavor to the show. I appreciate.
Speaker 1: Here from Barry down in Biloxi, Mississippi. What's up, Barry? Hey,
Speaker 1: what how are you doing? I'm good man, thank you
Speaker 1: for your call. I'm wondering. I'm wondering why have we
Speaker 1: not hurt anything at all about Hatch Act violations. I mean,
Speaker 1: I thought federal employees couldn't even wear a campaign button
Speaker 1: or have a poster, and here these people are spending
Speaker 1: their whole time on the job uh favor in their
Speaker 1: political candidate and and trying to wipe out the other guy.
Speaker 1: Does that still exists? Yeah, I mean the Hatch Act.
Speaker 1: I don't think the Hatch Act is. I think you
Speaker 1: just get fired for it. So the Hatch Act is
Speaker 1: not a criminal statute. I think the penalty is just firing,
Speaker 1: and so it's it's rarely enforced. Yes, you're right, you
Speaker 1: can't wear You know, when I was in the CIA,
Speaker 1: I couldn't show up at a campaign event say hey,
Speaker 1: I'm buck, I'm from the CIA, and the CIA supports
Speaker 1: this guy, right, which you know may may not have
Speaker 1: been a good thing for that candidate. Um, but that
Speaker 1: you know, I could have gotten fired for that under
Speaker 1: the Hatch Act. But it's not a criminal thing. So
Speaker 1: that's why it doesn't have quite the same impact. And
Speaker 1: also I'll just say it, and I can't tell you
Speaker 1: very more than just my own impression. I only ever
Speaker 1: heard Hatch Act complaints from Democrats about Republicans when I
Speaker 1: was in government, never the other way. So we're just
Speaker 1: less snowflake like I guess when it comes to that stuff.
Speaker 1: But thanks very for calling team our two coming up.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now, because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. Africa and
Speaker 1: Hispanic unemployment have both reached the lowest levels ever recorded.
Speaker 1: That's something very very special. And when I made that
Speaker 1: statement the other night, there was zero movement from the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They sat there stone called, no smile, no applause. You
Speaker 1: would have thought that on that one they would have
Speaker 1: sort of at least clapped a little bit, which tells
Speaker 1: you perhaps they'd rather see us not do well than
Speaker 1: see our country do great. And that's not good. There's
Speaker 1: one more, very important promise we're keeping. No longer are
Speaker 1: we making apologies for America. We don't apologize anymore. We're
Speaker 1: proud of our history, we're confident in our values, and
Speaker 1: we're grateful to our heroes, and we are determined to
Speaker 1: create a brighter future for all of our people. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the buck Sex and show everybody our too
Speaker 1: is up and running here. That was President Trump earlier
Speaker 1: today in West Virginia. And some times I pose the
Speaker 1: question as a means of getting into some analysis here
Speaker 1: in the show, why do they hate Trump so much?
Speaker 1: And you know that answer he or that that excerpt
Speaker 1: we just played for you where you talked about how
Speaker 1: no more apologizing for America and a different view of
Speaker 1: America's role in the world, that's one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why they hate him so much, and that hatred burns
Speaker 1: so brightly in the minds of leftists and Democrats that they,
Speaker 1: in fact do, I think, want to see the country
Speaker 1: suffer rather than see it prosper under Trump. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's an overstatement. I don't think it's an unfair
Speaker 1: point for the president to make. I think it's actually
Speaker 1: quite clear that that is what we are dealing with.
Speaker 1: The economy is very strong. The comments that have been
Speaker 1: made by many Democrats in response to the tax reform,
Speaker 1: I think that that might come back to haunt them,
Speaker 1: even as far down aline as the mid terms. I
Speaker 1: really do, and Trump certainly thinks so. With these corporations
Speaker 1: giving tremendous bonuses to everybody, that Nancy Pelosi called crumbs,
Speaker 1: that was a bad that could be like deplorable. That
Speaker 1: does that make sense? Deplorable and crumbs, those two words
Speaker 1: they seem to have a resemblance. I hope it has
Speaker 1: the same meaning. But she called it crumbs. When people
Speaker 1: are getting two thousand and three thousand dollars and one
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, that's not crumbs. It's a lot of money. Now,
Speaker 1: most of the Democrats, and even including Pelosi, aren't so
Speaker 1: so dumb that they can't understand why it's bad politics
Speaker 1: to say that a few thousand dollars for a family
Speaker 1: in this country, that's you know, earning somewhere in the
Speaker 1: in the median income of fifty thou dollars a year.
Speaker 1: Let's say, Uh, most people can understand why that's bad politics.
Speaker 1: But what you see exposed again in again with the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and this is the Democrat party of today. And Trump
Speaker 1: understands this, which is why I think he's got so
Speaker 1: much confidence. Although Trump certainly never lacks in confidence, but
Speaker 1: confidence in the GOP's fortunes going into the mid terms
Speaker 1: because otherwise you look at the historical the the historical
Speaker 1: record for midterm elections the party in power, I think
Speaker 1: they've only been three times stretching back to the Civil War,
Speaker 1: that the party that was in power did not lose
Speaker 1: seats in a mid term in the midterm election. Right,
Speaker 1: it was George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, and I'm forgetting
Speaker 1: what the third one was. Sorry, but pretty good that
Speaker 1: I pulled that out of thin air though, Right, Steve,
Speaker 1: come on, I mean, give the guys some credit. So
Speaker 1: it's generally speaking unlikely that you will have gains for
Speaker 1: Republicans the mid terms, and it's a question will they lose,
Speaker 1: you know, three seats or twenty seats um But I
Speaker 1: think Trump is feeling pretty confident about it because the
Speaker 1: economy is strong, and because the Democrats keep exposing themselves
Speaker 1: for all of us who care to pay attention to it,
Speaker 1: for all of us who I want to know what's
Speaker 1: really going on, exposing themselves as having a disdain for
Speaker 1: just normal people. You can say, for the folks. Democrats
Speaker 1: just doesn't doesn't really lock in with their preferred narrative
Speaker 1: about what's going on in the country. They just don't
Speaker 1: have a place for people who are not in a
Speaker 1: protected category, are not a an oppressed group or a
Speaker 1: victimized group. I mean, if you're just somebody who wants
Speaker 1: to live your life, do your thing, and not have
Speaker 1: the government as a barrier to your own pursuit of
Speaker 1: happiness and success, whatever that may be, the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: doesn't really have a place for you. You know, hard
Speaker 1: work is not something that you can really talk about
Speaker 1: when your first concern, as it is for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: is where you fit into the patriarchy, where you fit
Speaker 1: into the various layers of oppression, you know, the we
Speaker 1: haven't talked about intersectionality in a while, but intersectionality is
Speaker 1: not just a fancy campus college campus term that Democrats
Speaker 1: throw around to sound like they know what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: It also has infected the beliefs and the policies of
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party, which is that everything has to be
Speaker 1: broken down into these groups. These are balkanized smaller versions
Speaker 1: of the electorate, and then you have to pander to them,
Speaker 1: and you have to turn them against each other and
Speaker 1: use them against the the opposition, which is the Republican
Speaker 1: Party of course, which is now because of Trump and
Speaker 1: the messaging from it, a party once again of just
Speaker 1: working folks just don't really need to be constantly lectured
Speaker 1: about there there inadequacies when it comes to progressive ideology
Speaker 1: that they just ideology. They just want to be able
Speaker 1: to of support their families, be left on their own
Speaker 1: and do their thing, and that's a good thing. But
Speaker 1: on immigration, I will continue to hit this subject because
Speaker 1: I think that, well, we know it's a very important
Speaker 1: policy matter. This is where we're really going to see
Speaker 1: what the what the Trumpsters made of when it comes
Speaker 1: to negotiating and acting as a dealmaker while he's the president.
Speaker 1: This is not gonna be easy. He's gonna have to
Speaker 1: thread the needle here quite a bit. But on immigration,
Speaker 1: some of you actually brought it up here earlier on
Speaker 1: the show that maybe this initial offer of one point
Speaker 1: eight million dreamers, who would I know doc our recipients.
Speaker 1: I said, you know the problem with dreamers, It is
Speaker 1: a it is a use useful shorthand, right, so DOCCA
Speaker 1: is not really quite as a specific a way to
Speaker 1: refer to them. Anyway, Trump maybe is doing this just
Speaker 1: a show. The Democrats are entirely un serious about immigration
Speaker 1: and cannot allow Trump a win on this, even if
Speaker 1: it means that Trump would be giving away more than
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people in his base would
Speaker 1: be willing or would be happy with him giving away.
Speaker 1: And here is what what Trump said about it earlier today.
Speaker 1: If the Democrats choose to philibuster a framework that includes
Speaker 1: a generous path to citizenship or something that is not fair,
Speaker 1: we are not going to improve it. We're just not
Speaker 1: going to improve it. So we'll either have something that's
Speaker 1: fair and equitable and good and secure we're gonna have
Speaker 1: nothing at all. We will be demonstrating that we are
Speaker 1: very very serious. One of the reasons I gave a
Speaker 1: number that was I thought a very generous number was
Speaker 1: because I wanted to see whether or not they were
Speaker 1: interested in approving that. Because if they don't approve something
Speaker 1: within that sphere that means very simply that then that
Speaker 1: can to approve it at all. They want to use
Speaker 1: it for an election issue, but it's now an election
Speaker 1: issue that will go to our benefit, not their benefit. See.
Speaker 1: I think the conventional wisdom going into this immigration negotiation
Speaker 1: would have been something like the following. Trump needs the
Speaker 1: support of his base going into it. He wants to
Speaker 1: get the best deal he can, and the best deal
Speaker 1: means the one that secures the border and and does
Speaker 1: the most for interior enforcement and for workplace enforcement with
Speaker 1: the immigration system. And so there's no reason for him
Speaker 1: to make an initial offer that would include any kind
Speaker 1: of amnesty because he wants to see what we'll see
Speaker 1: what kind of deal he can get first. Instead, Trump
Speaker 1: just goes, all right, let's just let's just show our
Speaker 1: cards right away. This is what I'm willing to do.
Speaker 1: What are you willing to do? And it has made
Speaker 1: it to the Democrats don't really have a lot of
Speaker 1: room to run. What are they gonna say, No, it
Speaker 1: has to be an amnesty for everyone, or no, we
Speaker 1: won't take it. We won't take an amnesty for one
Speaker 1: point eight million unless it doesn't come with a wall
Speaker 1: on any of these other border security provisions that Trump
Speaker 1: has insisting on. I think that's tough. I think that's
Speaker 1: a really tough sell for them if they forced a shutdown.
Speaker 1: I think that the government's was to run in the
Speaker 1: money February eighth, maybe something like that, and something like that, John,
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong with me now, I think it's something
Speaker 1: like early February. The governments could rite out of money
Speaker 1: and Democrats got shellacked in the last shutdown, right, They
Speaker 1: got wasted and they had to turn that around. It
Speaker 1: wasn't a shutdown was it was actually a weekend, which
Speaker 1: I know people say the government shutdown every weekend on
Speaker 1: holidays anyway, But it wasn't even really a shutdown. I mean,
Speaker 1: the government was by the time we were telling the
Speaker 1: stories on air, I was like, whoops, that's over with.
Speaker 1: Democrats had to pull out of that. They had to
Speaker 1: back off because they knew that public opinion wasn't with them.
Speaker 1: You're gonna stop providing services to citizens taxpayers because of
Speaker 1: a population of illegals. Really, that's a tough one for
Speaker 1: the mid terms. Uh. They really just want to keep
Speaker 1: the issue alive as long as they can, I think,
Speaker 1: because it means that they'll just run with the storyline
Speaker 1: of a racist, heartless, unfeeling GOP. But if Trump makes
Speaker 1: them an offer that allows a couple of million to
Speaker 1: get amnesty and they turned that down, who are the unfeeling,
Speaker 1: un serious legislators? You know which party is just playing
Speaker 1: games with this? I think it becomes quite clear. So
Speaker 1: while I was concerned at first about the direction Trump
Speaker 1: was going in on immigration specifically, now I can see
Speaker 1: some of the wisdom in this. I still would have
Speaker 1: a problem with amnesty for almost two million people, because
Speaker 1: it's never the number is never the number. And everyone
Speaker 1: I know who is really gone deep on this issue
Speaker 1: is aware of this and agrees with me. But Trump
Speaker 1: may not have to do any there might have to
Speaker 1: be any amnesty, and in the meantime, any government shutdown
Speaker 1: that happens because of it would look entirely hollow. It
Speaker 1: would just be the most obvious grandstanding you could possibly
Speaker 1: see from folks like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and whomever,
Speaker 1: because they'll they'll walked away from If you think about
Speaker 1: how you sell that one. They walked away from amnesty
Speaker 1: for two million people, and now they can pretend they
Speaker 1: care so much about this two million people. If they
Speaker 1: walk away from amnesty for the for Dhaka as proposed
Speaker 1: by Trump at this opening of negotiations, because they don't
Speaker 1: want a wall, then I think it's also just clear
Speaker 1: to anyone who is going to be even a little
Speaker 1: bit honest, Democrats are just pro illegal immigration. They're not
Speaker 1: trying to deal with legal immigration. They actually want more
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, which I think is already true, but it
Speaker 1: will be more apparent, it will be more demonstrable. We
Speaker 1: can show people that that's in fact the case. So
Speaker 1: we will see how this how this dispute is resolved
Speaker 1: or not over what to do about Dhaka, and and
Speaker 1: how we will go go forward on the immigration because
Speaker 1: this has got to be a centerpiece for Trump right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, if he loses the House, you know all
Speaker 1: this talk we have right now about we're gonna be
Speaker 1: so frustrated. Oh yeah, we needed sixty votes in the
Speaker 1: Senate to basically get anything done. This is This is
Speaker 1: the Senate's constructs that they can all just worry about
Speaker 1: fundraising and getting reelected and not have to take any
Speaker 1: tough votes. They like the sixty threshold, I think, make
Speaker 1: no mistake about it. In a house passes stuff all
Speaker 1: the time, we're like, oh, that would be great. Oh
Speaker 1: it will never get through the Senate. Why we have
Speaker 1: a majority, Oh, because we need Democrat votes for that too.
Speaker 1: What's the point of a majority if you need Democrat
Speaker 1: votes to do anything. I'm just throwing lots of stuff
Speaker 1: out there today. But yeah, I think you should pardon
Speaker 1: General Flynn Trump, by the way, and I think that
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell should just say, you know what, unless it's
Speaker 1: constitutionally prescribed otherwise. And there are some things that are
Speaker 1: constitutionally mandated, you know, removal from office for a president,
Speaker 1: for example, two thirds. But this whole you've gotta be
Speaker 1: able to get sixty two. Beat a filibuster. No, no
Speaker 1: more of this. This is gard this is garbage, This
Speaker 1: is self imposed ineptitude, and we can't allow this to
Speaker 1: continue on the way that it is. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: if we lose the House and goes in the mid terms,
Speaker 1: We're all be sitting around like, oh, you know what
Speaker 1: Trump could have done, if only, if only, He's got
Speaker 1: to do it now. That's why immigration has to be
Speaker 1: a place where he does it now. Time is not
Speaker 1: on the side of those who wish to uh secure
Speaker 1: the border and get something worthwhile from Trump's majority in
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate. Well, I was right, but
Speaker 1: I wasn't right about all of it, or I didn't
Speaker 1: get all of it. When I said that mid terms,
Speaker 1: I told you correctly that everyone going back to Civil
Speaker 1: War basically loses with with three exceptions. And yes, it
Speaker 1: is true that George Bush in his first mid term
Speaker 1: picked up seats. It is also true that Nixon in wait,
Speaker 1: did I know, did I get the Nixon went wrong? Oh,
Speaker 1: he picked up two Senate seats. Okay, so it depends
Speaker 1: on whether we're looking at the House or the Senate.
Speaker 1: But Nixon picked up two Senate seats, and but he
Speaker 1: lost House seats. But he picked up the House. I mean,
Speaker 1: he picked up the Senate Roosevelt picked up in thirty four.
Speaker 1: And then also I see here Clinton picked up in
Speaker 1: his first he picked up five five House seats in
Speaker 1: his first midterm election. So or no, was that a
Speaker 1: second midten sorry, his second midterm election? Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 1: So I was close. So I mean the ones I
Speaker 1: said were correct, but I left one or two out.
Speaker 1: But I mean, FDR, does that really count? I guess
Speaker 1: it counts. Kenny in Saugus Sagas. How do we say
Speaker 1: that in Boston? You would say it's Sagas. It's just
Speaker 1: north of Boston, so I usually say it's just north
Speaker 1: to Boston over the eight miles north. How is the
Speaker 1: chowder in Saugust It's very chowy. Yeah, it's very good. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I want to I'm here to scour your wisdom,
Speaker 1: to pick your brain. I want to know one thing.
Speaker 1: They're discrediting this memo. Obviously, this is the campaign that's
Speaker 1: been lodged here. Um. I heard something about the FBI
Speaker 1: had broken a meeting to discuss the memo and at
Speaker 1: the White House and to uh decide what they wanted
Speaker 1: to leave in, what they could release and they will
Speaker 1: make an alterations. And at the same time, simultaneously Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff then Maline Noonez I'm saying he's making changes to it.
Speaker 1: And so I'm thinking that that's connected, that there's there's
Speaker 1: probably they probably did that just to support that. And
Speaker 1: then there's another thing Washington Post. I read a story
Speaker 1: online that says, how come Trump is in a hurry
Speaker 1: to release this memo? Isn't this crazy? Couldn't he released
Speaker 1: it months ago? Look? There, there's Okay, So you're bringing
Speaker 1: up a lot of good points, and so let me
Speaker 1: make sure that I addressed them each in turn. About
Speaker 1: the edits, I saw that last night. I think Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: my favorite used sham wile salesman. I think he uh
Speaker 1: he tweeted something about how their edits made, and now
Speaker 1: we find out the edits were minor and structural. It
Speaker 1: also doesn't really matter, right because they're contesting parts of
Speaker 1: the memo anyway, So to say that some of it
Speaker 1: was edited, what does that even? Who? Who even really
Speaker 1: care at that point because they're gonna be contesting everything
Speaker 1: that it says, and they're gonna declassify it's going to
Speaker 1: be public information. So it just struck me as very
Speaker 1: petty and very desperate. And I think that's where much
Speaker 1: of the resistance to releasing the memo has gone. They've
Speaker 1: become kind of petty and desperate. So no, well, what
Speaker 1: do we really Let's be realistic, right, Kenny, What do
Speaker 1: we think could possibly have been changed in there that
Speaker 1: would be worth risking the veracity of the rest of
Speaker 1: the memo that they insert at the last moment. It
Speaker 1: just doesn't make sense, right. One of the reasons you
Speaker 1: know that certain conspiracies aren't real is because it's not
Speaker 1: even good for the conspirator. Doesn't make any sense. So
Speaker 1: you and then you brought up a few other things.
Speaker 1: What else did you want me to hit on? Uh?
Speaker 1: That was the Well, it was something with the FBI
Speaker 1: meeting with them off and uh. Oh. Also they said
Speaker 1: that Trump, they said that Trump was in a hurry
Speaker 1: to release this memo. But from what I'm understanding is
Speaker 1: he could have actually uh ordered its release yea months ago. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he like he's the president. He could have said he
Speaker 1: could have ordered the executive branch to de classifies. Like,
Speaker 1: no one's gonna tell the commander in chief. You can't
Speaker 1: tell the American people about whatever that It doesn't work
Speaker 1: that way, right. The commander in chief can really and
Speaker 1: people would argue with me on this, but I've got
Speaker 1: plenty of president to back it up. The president can
Speaker 1: do what's called real time which is not a legal definition,
Speaker 1: but real time declassification, which is just the president can
Speaker 1: tell the American people about whatever he wants. Functionally speaking,
Speaker 1: that is how it works, and no one ever contests
Speaker 1: that is not how it works. So the president can, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he can confer with other people and try to respect
Speaker 1: the processes that are in place for classified but he
Speaker 1: can be classified whatever he wants. And I would just
Speaker 1: note Kenny that people now are complaining. I'm seeing some
Speaker 1: of the Democrat apparatus out there, journalists and talking heads
Speaker 1: and lawyer types that are saying, well, why do you
Speaker 1: go through the why do you go through the House process?
Speaker 1: If he just could do it himself, as though that's
Speaker 1: now a bad thing, and we all know if Trump
Speaker 1: had just declassified it, they'd say that he's meddling and
Speaker 1: he's causing problems, and you know he's so anyway, he
Speaker 1: can't win either way, Kenny, thanks to the call, the
Speaker 1: good question, my friend. Great to talk to you up
Speaker 1: in Ugas. I like it, I learned, I learned lots
Speaker 1: of new towns on this show. My America g are.
Speaker 1: If he's getting better in the Freedom Hunt, he's back
Speaker 1: with you now, because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the fuck never stops. There's a new poll
Speaker 1: from Monbouth where the president's approval rating has ticked up
Speaker 1: to This is out of the thirties where President Trump
Speaker 1: has wallowed, one might say, for most of the time
Speaker 1: since is inauguration a b y? Why do we think?
Speaker 1: I mean, they did pass tax reformed by a Christmas deadline, Okay,
Speaker 1: after a year of failing to repeal in a place
Speaker 1: Obamacare and fighting with each other. But I know that
Speaker 1: the tax reform plan, at least in many polls, he
Speaker 1: is viewed by a majority of Americans negatively. The polling
Speaker 1: on tax reform was really bad in December. It's actually rising,
Speaker 1: becoming more popular, and either people are responding to their
Speaker 1: own personal data or they're responding to these stories of
Speaker 1: corporations feeling a boost and sharing it with their workers,
Speaker 1: and that is a positive for him. It's it's a
Speaker 1: legislative success and the economics. All the polls are moving
Speaker 1: in Donald Trump's direction have been for the last one month.
Speaker 1: The president's favorable has moved up five since tax reform
Speaker 1: was enacted in December, and his unfavorable has dropped three
Speaker 1: that's an eight point improvement in one month. Now he's
Speaker 1: still upside down. He's got a long way to go.
Speaker 1: But make no mistake, the president's numbers are on the move.
Speaker 1: Equally important the right track wrong track, and these are
Speaker 1: the real clear politics average. The right track, wrong track
Speaker 1: has improved thirteen points in selection day. On election Day
Speaker 1: two thousand sixteen, the Americans felt overwhelmingly this nation's on
Speaker 1: the wrong track, and there's been a thirteen point improvement
Speaker 1: since Trump took over. You know what, another shorter way
Speaker 1: of talking about these polls would be just this is
Speaker 1: all about results. Wasn't it funny? That was a CNN
Speaker 1: clip initially that we played there and then we followed
Speaker 1: up with ari A. R. Fleischer over at Fox. But
Speaker 1: in that CNN exchange, you had a B. Stoddard, she
Speaker 1: used to be with the Hill where it whish who she? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I forget she with the Hill still now? I don't
Speaker 1: wish She's moved on somewhere else, I think. But she's
Speaker 1: talking to to Jim Shooto of CNN and they're going
Speaker 1: back and fourth over like whoa. Okay. So so the
Speaker 1: there are two very interesting takeaways from that. One is
Speaker 1: that people looked at tax reform negatively, and I know
Speaker 1: at CNN that's like a cause of celebration, right, Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, it's great hit tax reform. But let's understand
Speaker 1: what that means. It just means that the propaganda apparatus
Speaker 1: of the media is still so powerful that it is
Speaker 1: able to convince a majority of the American people that
Speaker 1: the government letting some Americans keep some percentage more of
Speaker 1: the money that they are earning is a bad thing.
Speaker 1: That's amazing, isn't it. How how is that possible? You
Speaker 1: might wonder to yourself, how would it be possible that
Speaker 1: they would be able to convince some of that? And
Speaker 1: they're clearly annoyed at that is fading, that that concept
Speaker 1: of more money in the pockets of private citizens is
Speaker 1: bad somehow. But then also the well why is it
Speaker 1: rising since tax reform was enacted? Well, gee, I've got
Speaker 1: some ideas. Let's think about this, folks. Well, we got
Speaker 1: a couple of political analysts on there before. Why would
Speaker 1: tax reform after it happens become more popular? Do do do?
Speaker 1: Do? Do Do? Do? Right? I feel like I probably couldn't
Speaker 1: actually play in the Jeopardy theme. It would be some
Speaker 1: kind of a rights thing. But I just sang it
Speaker 1: for you because I that's how much I care now.
Speaker 1: But the reason is quite obviously that it's gonna happen,
Speaker 1: and now people are seeing it, and I've got I
Speaker 1: have friends, I have friends, I know people personally who
Speaker 1: were saying, all of a sudden, I've got a little
Speaker 1: more money in my in my bank account. Each paycheck
Speaker 1: is a little bit bigger, and it helps. It helps.
Speaker 1: It also creates a sense that we are moving forward
Speaker 1: here right. It creates a sense that things can get
Speaker 1: even better. And you know, I've seen now economists are
Speaker 1: now economists make weather men look infallible. But nonetheless, I've
Speaker 1: seen some predictions, some prognostications for the future where economists
Speaker 1: are saying that they think unemployment could be at three
Speaker 1: point five percent next year. So whether that happens or not,
Speaker 1: we will have to see. But that's certainly really low.
Speaker 1: But this is the big problem that Democrats are gonna have.
Speaker 1: They're they're not used to having to contend with an
Speaker 1: objective reality of a Republican president who is making real
Speaker 1: gains in the economy for the very people that he's
Speaker 1: been saying he would do it for right that this
Speaker 1: is going to be a tough hill for them to
Speaker 1: overcome when you look at the benefits of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration and how it's rolling out for people right now,
Speaker 1: I think that the Democrats aren't going to have much
Speaker 1: of a line. And that's when you get into just well,
Speaker 1: they they got to come up with something they hate Trump, right,
Speaker 1: and so you know, maybe they can take a page
Speaker 1: from the Maxi and Waters playbook here and just come
Speaker 1: up with some other stuff about Russia. They absolutely hated
Speaker 1: demotics television, absolutely interfering with SPA. What now we're talking
Speaker 1: about r T those who are one and that that's
Speaker 1: Maxi Waters, so sitting member of Congress. There's one about
Speaker 1: urt uh. That's the Russia Today channel that's been around
Speaker 1: for over ten years and is a an open Kremlin front,
Speaker 1: right it is. It is Kremlin propaganda. People who have
Speaker 1: worked there have come out and talked about it. It
Speaker 1: is funded as a Kremlin front. There is really no
Speaker 1: question about this. And yet you'll still have people with
Speaker 1: so much uh self righteousness, say, oh my gosh, Russia
Speaker 1: might meddle in future elections unless we do more. And
Speaker 1: I said, well, what meddaling are we're really talking about.
Speaker 1: There'll be these Facebook sock puppets that spread mean rumors
Speaker 1: about Hillary if it is that easy, If if creating
Speaker 1: some fake accounts overseas determines a presidential election the United States,
Speaker 1: we got even bigger problems in Russia. Everybody, I gotta
Speaker 1: wonder what's going on with folks. But when you look
Speaker 1: at the amount of information a noise out there, especially
Speaker 1: in an election year, the notion that Russia would be
Speaker 1: able to cut through all that and be the decider,
Speaker 1: be the difference maker, it's just preposterous on its face,
Speaker 1: But that's what they're I bring up Russia and Maxie
Speaker 1: Waters what Maximum Water here? Because um, she's indicative of
Speaker 1: where this is all going. It's gonna be Russia. They're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna run an election campaign, meaning the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the d n C. They're gonna run on the president
Speaker 1: United States is a UH is a cheater who worked
Speaker 1: with the Russians, betrayed his country. And that's why you
Speaker 1: should vote for Democrats because what else do they have?
Speaker 1: They don't want to. They're not gonna run on Obamacare
Speaker 1: because anybody who actually has Obamacare will just tell you
Speaker 1: horror stories about how bad it is. For the most part,
Speaker 1: that's been my experience. Again, I know people who have
Speaker 1: had to get plans off of the exchanges, and they
Speaker 1: are generally very displeased with the plans that they have
Speaker 1: gotten off the exchanges. Yeah. I mean, it's great to
Speaker 1: have healthcare when you have an eight thousand dollar or
Speaker 1: ten thousand dollars deductible and even when you hit the deductible,
Speaker 1: you're only seeing doctors that you really don't want to see.
Speaker 1: So they have nothing to run on. Really, they're gonna
Speaker 1: run on Trump as a racist who won't and who
Speaker 1: won't amnesty twelve million people and Russia. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's gonna be good enough. The only hope as I
Speaker 1: see it, the only hope that there is for the
Speaker 1: Democrats take this for what it's worth, is if there's
Speaker 1: a massive turn in the economy. Um, I think that's
Speaker 1: the only way that they look. Maybe they'll win one
Speaker 1: or two seats on balance, but you know, all these
Speaker 1: elections are comes down to the candidate and the specifics
Speaker 1: of the race, but overall our national level, if the
Speaker 1: economy is as strong as it is right now, I
Speaker 1: just don't see how they can turn this thing around.
Speaker 1: I really don't. And I still know people who despite
Speaker 1: some there's been some rockiness in the markets this week,
Speaker 1: I still know people who are saying this is gonna
Speaker 1: get even better. It's gonna be even better this year.
Speaker 1: I like to be optimistic. I'm gonna continue to be
Speaker 1: optimistic about the economy until until it's clearly wrong. How
Speaker 1: about that? That'll be my plan. Team lines are open
Speaker 1: if you want to chat, and by all means eight
Speaker 1: four four n eight to five eight four four buck.
Speaker 1: Also don't forget buck sexen dot com and you can
Speaker 1: check out gear from the team Team Bucky gear on
Speaker 1: Buck sexing dot com. And if you have not listened
Speaker 1: yet to the Fall of Constants and Nopal parts two,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you it is chearing up the history podcast charts.
Speaker 1: It's going all the way to the top baby history podcasts.
Speaker 1: It's definitely beating out that history of the suffragette movement
Speaker 1: in thirty parts that I'm sure is there. So check
Speaker 1: that out. Check out the history podcast. Um and uh,
Speaker 1: that's that's what I got on that I realized something.
Speaker 1: I don't know what to do about this exactly. I
Speaker 1: for some reason just wanted to get to Malta because
Speaker 1: I really like it as a storyline. But I now
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, maybe you know, I skipped over the seat
Speaker 1: of the first Siege of Vienna, But I feel like
Speaker 1: now it's already been done, right, So I can't go
Speaker 1: back to I can't go back to the first Siege
Speaker 1: of Vienna. I had to do multi first. So some
Speaker 1: of you are like, what are you talking about, buck,
Speaker 1: don't worry about it. All makes sense, I think, hopefully. Um,
Speaker 1: and when we come back, Oh wow, I've got a
Speaker 1: little bit of news about vote. Remember I mentioned before
Speaker 1: something about voting and whether you can vote if you're
Speaker 1: a felon. That just there's a breaking news story on that.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll discuss that and some other wonderful stuff. Stay
Speaker 1: with me so a team. I don't have a whole
Speaker 1: lot on this, but I just wanted to note that
Speaker 1: I mentioned before for felons, because we're talking about whether
Speaker 1: General Flynn should be or Mike Flynn should be pardoned.
Speaker 1: And this just came in a few minutes ago. This
Speaker 1: is Miami Herald. A federal judge ruled that Florida's lifetime
Speaker 1: ban on restoring voting rights for felons violates the US Constitution.
Speaker 1: US District Judge Mark Walker said Florida's vote restoration process
Speaker 1: and fairly relies on the personal support of Governor Rick
Speaker 1: Scott for citizens to regain this fundamental right. Walker ruled
Speaker 1: in a case brought by the Fair Elections Legal Network
Speaker 1: at Washington, d C. Group that challenge the constitutionality of
Speaker 1: the Florida system. All Right, So if this Walker's decision
Speaker 1: came nine days after the state approved a ballot measure that,
Speaker 1: if passed in November, would restore the voting rights of
Speaker 1: about one point two million felons, I would just note
Speaker 1: everyone that we are all quite aware that Democrats are
Speaker 1: certainly aware that the overwhelming number of felon voters they
Speaker 1: expect will vote Democrat. Right, this is why Democrats are
Speaker 1: so in favor of restoring voting rights for convicted felons.
Speaker 1: That didn't mcculloff also do this in Virginia. Wasn't that
Speaker 1: a big fight with tera mcculiffe um. I think I
Speaker 1: think it was so. Anyway, that's that's an update from
Speaker 1: whether you can vote as a felon or not. And
Speaker 1: I know you can't own a you can't legally own
Speaker 1: a firearm, although for violent felons they tend not to
Speaker 1: be like, oh gosh, I already served that ten years
Speaker 1: for armed robbery. I better not getting a legal gun
Speaker 1: for my next one. Right that tends not to slow
Speaker 1: them down necessarily. Um. But that's the story that I
Speaker 1: had for you on or that's the only updated here
Speaker 1: for you on voting and felons and felons rights. So
Speaker 1: I didn't I didn't talk about it originally because I
Speaker 1: wasn't really sure what are what are important analytic takeaway
Speaker 1: could be or but but you know what, this guy
Speaker 1: is such an idiot that I feel like we should
Speaker 1: just I don't want to skip over this entirely because
Speaker 1: it's it's indicative of a of a mindset that's much
Speaker 1: more widespread on the left than certainly the mainstream Democrats
Speaker 1: want admitute This guy, Gregory Salcido, he is a teacher
Speaker 1: out in California, and he's on video and this is
Speaker 1: what this is what he had to say about the military.
Speaker 1: Think about the people who you know, you're freaking stupid,
Speaker 1: Uncle Louis or whatever. They're done. They're not like high
Speaker 1: level thinkers are not academic people that intellectual people. They're
Speaker 1: the freaking the lowest stuff I loan, they're not talented people.
Speaker 1: That's how when president talks says we have the best military,
Speaker 1: and with presidents where I'll say that the way it
Speaker 1: was Obama ways anybody, I was like, no, the data
Speaker 1: is in, we don't have a good military. We it's
Speaker 1: a lot that our military should do. Joined the military.
Speaker 1: It's because you have no other options, because you didn't
Speaker 1: take care of business, academic, you cause your parents didn't
Speaker 1: love you enough to push you, and then you didn't
Speaker 1: love yourself enough. Don't you ever freaking bring them to
Speaker 1: your military. To this guy, I don't understand what we
Speaker 1: let to freaking military guys come over here and recut
Speaker 1: you at school. We don't have pimps come into school.
Speaker 1: It would be hard to think of a more stupid, incorrect,
Speaker 1: and offensive rant that one could come up with. It mean,
Speaker 1: if you were writing the role in a movie of
Speaker 1: moron who who defames the military, I'm not sure you
Speaker 1: you could manage to be quite as offensive as this guy.
Speaker 1: Or you have to try really hard, and you have
Speaker 1: to wonder, how could anyone be so ungrateful and dumb
Speaker 1: and and just disgraceful. I think General Kelly white House
Speaker 1: chief of Staff, nailed it pretty well well. I think
Speaker 1: the guy I ought to go to hell. Um, I
Speaker 1: just hope he enjoys the liberties in the in the
Speaker 1: lifestyle that that we have fought for. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: a guy going to Hell is a pretty good That's
Speaker 1: certainly a good start. And you know, this is all
Speaker 1: stories saying, I don't know why people do this thing
Speaker 1: of they they start sending you know, you never send
Speaker 1: anyone death threats because now, first of all, you just
Speaker 1: never do that. But also now they're turning the guy
Speaker 1: into a victim in the backlash. And instead of there's
Speaker 1: this just being a teachable moment, now he gets to say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, the right wing is coming after me, although
Speaker 1: the left wing is, or at least the mainstream Democrats
Speaker 1: are annoyed too. Because this goes to show that in
Speaker 1: this country, if you're anti military, you're times out of
Speaker 1: a hundred you're on the left right. Times out of
Speaker 1: a hundred, you're like a Democrat registered Bernie Sanders voter.
Speaker 1: Maybe you're about the Working Families Party or something, or
Speaker 1: you know, Communist Party USA, but you're on the left.
Speaker 1: If you're anti military, there's just no place for that
Speaker 1: at all on the right. I mean, as there shouldn't
Speaker 1: be for it anywhere. I also just think it. It
Speaker 1: made me well. It reminded me of how this guy
Speaker 1: is so wrong, he's so dumb. When I think of
Speaker 1: some of my friends growing up who were not only served,
Speaker 1: but served in in combat and some really some really
Speaker 1: tough stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan, and my parents, if
Speaker 1: they're listening to show, they certainly know who I'm thinking of.
Speaker 1: A couple of them were friends of mine for many,
Speaker 1: many years. There are two guys in particular, UM, both
Speaker 1: one and them both one of the Marine Corps. And
Speaker 1: not only were they yeah, I'm trying to think of
Speaker 1: the this way to describe them, the guys that everybody
Speaker 1: you know knew and liked and went to great schools,
Speaker 1: but also the two of them came from very well
Speaker 1: off backgrounds financially speaking, UM, and they both went into
Speaker 1: the Marine Corps and both went into combat U one enlisted,
Speaker 1: one as an officer. And they saw us. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've I've been out for it with with one of them. Actually,
Speaker 1: I've been out with both of them over drinks to
Speaker 1: talk about it. But one of them, particular, I mean,
Speaker 1: he was he was in uh, the Fallujah part of
Speaker 1: the world when things were particularly spicy over there, and
Speaker 1: he saw some really you know, he saw some really
Speaker 1: fierce combat. And I just so so, you know, I
Speaker 1: just have personal experience with friends of mine who served,
Speaker 1: who I knew growing up, and so that's why when
Speaker 1: he tells a story about, you know, no options, I'm like, actually,
Speaker 1: a lot of the people that I know who went
Speaker 1: to serve had nothing but options and had excelled in
Speaker 1: everything they had ever done, and could have done anything
Speaker 1: they wanted to do, even if they hadn't excelled at
Speaker 1: everything they'd ever done, but they wanted to serve the
Speaker 1: United States Marine Corps. They wanted to serve the United
Speaker 1: States military. You know that this guy is not this
Speaker 1: this idiot who was speaking about this is not uh,
Speaker 1: he's almost not worth the time that I've already spent
Speaker 1: on him. But I do think that it's for for one,
Speaker 1: it's it gives me an opportunity to say that I
Speaker 1: was always so impressed, uh, both in my time in
Speaker 1: Iraq and Afghanistan and then just state side as well.
Speaker 1: I spent time at lots of different military facilities doing training,
Speaker 1: and I guess I don't know the state side stuff
Speaker 1: I can probably talk about, although not all of it's
Speaker 1: on of it and not allowed to talk about. Uh.
Speaker 1: But I was always so impressed with our military, and
Speaker 1: uh it was such an honor to be around them
Speaker 1: as a civilian intelligence analyst and to be even some
Speaker 1: little small part of what they were doing day to
Speaker 1: day overseas. And and then also it's just it is
Speaker 1: a reminder for me, or for all of us, that
Speaker 1: there exists on the left, this this distaste for the
Speaker 1: military that I think just has to come from a
Speaker 1: sense of the uh well, one of a wild ignorance
Speaker 1: of what the milit This guy doesn't know an even
Speaker 1: milit he doesn't know anything. This guy is a complete imbecile.
Speaker 1: But also for a lot of a lot of leftists,
Speaker 1: the military just makes them uncomfortable. It makes them feel,
Speaker 1: you know, that that there are people who would be
Speaker 1: willing to sacrifice what those in our military do and
Speaker 1: and have the virtues of those who serve in uniform.
Speaker 1: It makes the people that would criticize the military just
Speaker 1: makes them feel so uncomfortable and small and less then
Speaker 1: so they lash out other shows just talk at you
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hud. We have a mission. We fight
Speaker 1: for the truth in a team effort and buck us
Speaker 1: back with our next play. There's been talk of raids
Speaker 1: on California businesses for a while. I'm saying that it's happened.
Speaker 1: This week is seventies seven businesses in northern California. Immigrations
Speaker 1: and Customs enforcement officers have gone in, and let's say raids.
Speaker 1: They make it sound like they're swooping in there with
Speaker 1: swat teams and guys who are repelling off the helicopters.
Speaker 1: Move Move Move. It's not like that they show up,
Speaker 1: probably wearing windbreakers that say ice on them, Ice ice baby,
Speaker 1: And you know they probably show up and they say, hey,
Speaker 1: do you have papers for all your workers? And I'm
Speaker 1: I'm guessing it's I'm not saying it's a pleasant experience,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it's They're not exactly rolling the
Speaker 1: flash bangs in there, like weir, you may have illegal
Speaker 1: workers in this meat processing factory. Move Move Move. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's what the way that it goes. But
Speaker 1: I'm sure that they've gone in and they're checking the workers,
Speaker 1: and in California, that makes businesses nerve. I wonder what
Speaker 1: what percentage of hourly wage paying businesses in California have
Speaker 1: have at least one illegal immig work. I have no idea.
Speaker 1: That's not like a retroical question where I'm about to
Speaker 1: say and I'm bucked. So I've got an answer, but
Speaker 1: I'm guessing it's probably pretty high. But this is one
Speaker 1: of the many different facets of the discussion of immigration that,
Speaker 1: as I've been said, we're gonna have. But you know,
Speaker 1: then you get into some of the media on this
Speaker 1: and you think they need to do some more were
Speaker 1: research on these topics. Uh. Joy Read, who is a
Speaker 1: host at MSNBC. Now, look, we've had some we've heard
Speaker 1: some dumb things said. This week on air, we had
Speaker 1: Kirsten Gillibrand with chained migration. So that was pretty bad
Speaker 1: for a sitting US senator. Joy Read is not a
Speaker 1: sitting US senator, but she is a host at MSNBC,
Speaker 1: and I'm assuming she gets paid a whole lot of
Speaker 1: money to do that job. And she weighed in on
Speaker 1: the issue of MS thirteen and here's how it went.
Speaker 1: And give the speech tonight in which he makes it
Speaker 1: sound like the biggest issue in the United States are
Speaker 1: the biggest one is MS thirteen, a gang nobody that
Speaker 1: doesn't watch Foxos has ever heard of. So it makes
Speaker 1: it sound like they're the biggest Nobody that's never watched
Speaker 1: Fox News has ever heard of m S thirteen. How
Speaker 1: Mara Salvatrucha thirteen an international criminal gang that has infiltrated
Speaker 1: UH dozens of states across the country. A gang that
Speaker 1: is well known actually in the DC area. Some of
Speaker 1: you who live in some parts of sort of sort
Speaker 1: of the Beltway region will be like, yep, we've had
Speaker 1: really terrible problems with m S thirteen. There were two
Speaker 1: young women murdered in their parents with the State of
Speaker 1: the Union address that was in Long Island. You're in
Speaker 1: the New York areas at an hour or so from
Speaker 1: where I am doing this show right now. So and
Speaker 1: and the gangs, yes, they say they started in US prisons,
Speaker 1: but their local the locusts of power. Oh maybe because
Speaker 1: the border is porous, and so MS thirteen gang members
Speaker 1: can go back and forth. And that's actually an advantage,
Speaker 1: isn't it to be able to leave the country where
Speaker 1: you're doing the crimes and go to a country where
Speaker 1: you can have relative safe haven because there's no effective
Speaker 1: rule of law in place right Al Salvador, Honduras, parts
Speaker 1: of Mexico. But this is what you're going to get,
Speaker 1: the propagation of ignorance when it comes to immigration, because
Speaker 1: they would rather tell people lies about things like m S.
Speaker 1: Thirteen and make this a make gang activity that ties
Speaker 1: to border security and immigration, making an issue of just
Speaker 1: Fox News making a problem of the of the Fox
Speaker 1: News sphere instead of having to attack to tackle it
Speaker 1: and deal with it, which you know, I think that
Speaker 1: once we start to force one of the most important
Speaker 1: things we could do for the immigration debate, in my
Speaker 1: humble opinion, would be to force states to start keeping
Speaker 1: much better stats on illegal alien crime and what's going
Speaker 1: on in the States that has to do with illegal
Speaker 1: aliens breaking the law. In general, the Feds have pretty
Speaker 1: decent stats and and there's a high percentage, especially when
Speaker 1: you add in drug crimes, a lot of illegal alien
Speaker 1: drug crime, and so that's already well established. But if
Speaker 1: you're talking about violent crime, as I've been mentioned to
Speaker 1: you on the show, then you've really got to get
Speaker 1: into what's going on at the state level. That's where
Speaker 1: you get state prisons and the activities of law enforcement
Speaker 1: that wouldn't be federal necessarily, And that's where I think
Speaker 1: you'd see that this is a is a big issue
Speaker 1: m and MS thirteen is frightening because I've told you
Speaker 1: it's also it's incredibly violent, and the gang initiations are
Speaker 1: are brutal, beyond the brutal, beyond imagination. Um. But they're
Speaker 1: also often doing the bidding of bigger transnational criminal organizations.
Speaker 1: And this is all part of the storyline that you
Speaker 1: would be hearing if the media cared to talk much
Speaker 1: about this, but they have, and I would also not.
Speaker 1: You see how it's always whenever we're talking about legal immigration,
Speaker 1: there's always this focus on Well, of course, the Valedictorians
Speaker 1: the most sympathetic stories possible because they're trying to push
Speaker 1: a narrative. I get that. Well, you'll notice that they
Speaker 1: you don't hear a lot of stories. You don't read
Speaker 1: a lot of stories about other forms of legal immigration
Speaker 1: that are going on, that aren't coming from south of
Speaker 1: the border, that aren't involving Mexico and Central American countries. Yeah,
Speaker 1: are we allowed to have it? Is it racist? Is
Speaker 1: it xenophobic? Does it make you a bad person if
Speaker 1: you think that a people who come here from China
Speaker 1: specifically to have a baby on US soil so that
Speaker 1: the baby has citizenship, but then go back to China
Speaker 1: right away, so the person is raised in China but
Speaker 1: then has US citizenship. And this means that later on
Speaker 1: they can come here for for school or for whatever
Speaker 1: they want to do. Are we allowed to object to that?
Speaker 1: Is that not scamming the system? I think actually some
Speaker 1: guy just got in trouble, by the way in I
Speaker 1: think it was Massachusetts for marrying nine women so that
Speaker 1: they could become permanent residents. Right, it was a fraudulent
Speaker 1: marriage scheme. These are there are all these different ways
Speaker 1: that people are abusing the system and enforcement is very low.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, it's not like the guy got to
Speaker 1: wife number two or three and they figured out that
Speaker 1: he was engaged in fraudulent marriage nine and he was busy.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of that's a lot of marriages. That's like,
Speaker 1: that's like Larry King novel marriages. He's got I think
Speaker 1: he's yeah, I went there like seven or eight. Hey,
Speaker 1: buck back off, I'm lucky number seven. But Larry, Larry,
Speaker 1: I think he managed to seven He's managed to seven wives. Um,
Speaker 1: but is he still on that channel, by the way,
Speaker 1: the one that's the he wasn't even a weird you know,
Speaker 1: he's still doing a thing, right. I forget what it
Speaker 1: is when of these guys, he was just never ever
Speaker 1: going to give up, never done with, never done with media,
Speaker 1: and never done with you know, Hey, there's always time
Speaker 1: for another wife. But yeah, this guy had had nine people. Buck,
Speaker 1: it could have been true love the whole time, with
Speaker 1: all the different ones. Okay, I mean, look whatever, it's
Speaker 1: not my life. Um, but the different ways that the
Speaker 1: immigration system are scammed, it just should be bothersome to
Speaker 1: all Americans. And that's never the discussion we get to have.
Speaker 1: We never get to talk about fixes. It's just all
Speaker 1: we've heard about our dreamers. I want more of a
Speaker 1: discussion of Remember the Trump administration set up in office
Speaker 1: to set up the statistics of illegal alien crime. I'd
Speaker 1: like to know what those numbers are. We should all
Speaker 1: be much more familiar with that. We should know what
Speaker 1: some of the statistics involved here are. That makes makes
Speaker 1: it possible for us to make better decisions. Show, Um,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into a roll call obviously later on. Also,
Speaker 1: we've got a phenomenal congressional candidate joining was a former
Speaker 1: Navy seal. He's gonna tell you his story, and we've
Speaker 1: got a lot more coming. Oh and also Miko on
Speaker 1: Morning Joe said something interesting for a change. We'll be
Speaker 1: back with that. Stay with me. I do not watch
Speaker 1: Morning Joe because it is on MSNBC. I also don't
Speaker 1: watch it because I think it's a smug, boring show
Speaker 1: full of people who don't say anything particularly insightful. But occasionally,
Speaker 1: any show that's on cable news might stumble upon an
Speaker 1: interesting exchange, and that actually happened on Morning Joe earlier today.
Speaker 1: So this guy, Michael Wolf, we all know him because
Speaker 1: of fire and fury. He's been getting all kinds of
Speaker 1: heat because he came out and said things like if
Speaker 1: it rings true, it is true. And he is now
Speaker 1: a h an emblem, a symbol of the era of
Speaker 1: fake news, anti Trump journalism in which we find ourselves.
Speaker 1: And he has said some really nasty stuff about various
Speaker 1: people in Trump's orbit, including that the really the nastiest
Speaker 1: has to do with the insinuations that he has made
Speaker 1: recently that Nicky Haley, the U S Ambassador United Nations
Speaker 1: and a former governors you all know that she has
Speaker 1: had an affair with Donald Trump, which is such a
Speaker 1: grotesque and unfair charge that even repeating the charge that
Speaker 1: he made makes me feel uncomfortable because it feels like
Speaker 1: it's something that should not be repeated, even as as
Speaker 1: quoting someone else. But we have have to smash the lie,
Speaker 1: and to smash the lie, you have to define it.
Speaker 1: You do have to say it. And he wrote in
Speaker 1: the end of the book about how Nicki Haley's spent
Speaker 1: very close to Trump talking about her future, spending a
Speaker 1: lone time, and then he went on the Bill Maher show, um,
Speaker 1: which I for a whole bunch of reasons, have have
Speaker 1: never been asked to appear on. I don't think ever
Speaker 1: will be because I would smoke fools, because that's what
Speaker 1: I do. But the Bill mar Show had this guy on,
Speaker 1: I think it was last week. I did not watch.
Speaker 1: I do not watch it. And he said, well, if
Speaker 1: you want to know something else that you know that's
Speaker 1: interesting about Trump and he's having an affair, And they said,
Speaker 1: what do you mean. He goes, well, you know, if
Speaker 1: you look at the end of my book, you'll get
Speaker 1: a hint. He was not subtle about it. And so
Speaker 1: he's basically he's basically sad that Nicky Haley he's having
Speaker 1: an affair at the president United States, which is just
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy is a client. I want my
Speaker 1: twelve dollars back for the kindle download of this guy's book,
Speaker 1: Fire and Fury. But Mika, oh, look at this. Mika
Speaker 1: had had enough. Finally, here here is how this exchange went.
Speaker 1: Let's put this next question, uh, in the entire credibility
Speaker 1: of your book, which was written really quickly. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: your book. Let's let's let's put it on this next question.
Speaker 1: Do you regret inferring anything about Nicki Haley. I. I
Speaker 1: didn't infer anything about Nicki Haley. What I inferred was
Speaker 1: that the president is um um is that many of
Speaker 1: the people around the president believe he is still involved
Speaker 1: with various women. But you said she spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time in private time with that's I totally totally.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's exactly what people report and now, and
Speaker 1: specifically that was about her bid to become the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State. So everywhere in the White House they were
Speaker 1: suddenly in a in a in quite a pen that
Speaker 1: this was actually happening. Has embraced it. Um, I'm going
Speaker 1: to go as far as to say that you might
Speaker 1: be having a fun time playing. So hold on, so
Speaker 1: you see what he's doing there by the way, you know,
Speaker 1: depending on which audience this guy Wolf is talking to,
Speaker 1: he he just changes what he's saying or changes what
Speaker 1: he's inferring. And she's got him here on this one
Speaker 1: because it is not it has not been murky what
Speaker 1: his insinuation has been. She's not saying you explicitly said it,
Speaker 1: but you you know, this is like saying, oh, you
Speaker 1: know who I think is the dumbest person in Congress?
Speaker 1: Franci loc Well, I think people would figure out who
Speaker 1: I'm referring to, right, you know, it's it's not I
Speaker 1: didn't technically name anyone in Congress, but it's I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not being I'm not being clever there. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're not big clever. So he continues on with this,
Speaker 1: let's put this next question, Uh, the entire credibility of
Speaker 1: your book, which was written really quickly, excuse me, your book.
Speaker 1: Let's let's let's put it on this next question, do
Speaker 1: you regret inferring anything about Nicki Haley. I. I didn't
Speaker 1: infer anything about Nicki Haley. What I inferred was that
Speaker 1: the president is um um is that many of the
Speaker 1: people around the president believe he is still involved with
Speaker 1: various women. Now, but you said she spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time in private time with that's I totally, totally.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's exactly what people report and now, and
Speaker 1: specifically that was about her bid to become the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State. So everywhere in the White House they were
Speaker 1: suddenly in a in a in quite a panic that
Speaker 1: this was actually happenings why they pushed has embraced it. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go as far as might be having
Speaker 1: a fun time. I'm playing a little game dancing around this.
Speaker 1: But you're slurring a woman. It's disgraceful. It's and and um,
Speaker 1: Mika again, she has been accused of nothing. She has
Speaker 1: decided to deny what she has not been accused of.
Speaker 1: Certainly I didn't accuse her of this. The wait, are
Speaker 1: you are you suggesting that much suggesting the language is
Speaker 1: not ambiguous in any way, and the things that you've
Speaker 1: said in the way you've come. Are you kidding? You're
Speaker 1: on the Saturday Morning Joe. We don't be as here, well, no,
Speaker 1: not of a set of Morning Joe. Are you kidding me?
Speaker 1: If you don't get it, you don't get about I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: this is awkward. You're here on the set with us.
Speaker 1: But we're done, Michael Will thank you. We're gonna go
Speaker 1: to break now. Look I give her some credit for
Speaker 1: finally dropping the hammer there. Although I love this. Excuse
Speaker 1: excuse me, sir, this is the set of Morning Joe.
Speaker 1: Like like this is, you know, sixty minutes in the
Speaker 1: eighties or something like. Just just just calm yourself there
Speaker 1: a little bit. All right, I've seen a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff on Morning Joe. It's not impressive. But this guy,
Speaker 1: this is why this matters. I mean, forget about them,
Speaker 1: get thing because at this point that he's become he's
Speaker 1: become pretty toxic. Well you'll notice that when it was useful,
Speaker 1: the media was all playing along. They're all going on
Speaker 1: with this, and I told you I want my twelve
Speaker 1: dollars back from Kindle or whatever it was for doubling
Speaker 1: this guy's nonsense book. But when it was damaging the
Speaker 1: Trump you know, this is a common theme when it
Speaker 1: was useful for them. There, Oh, we gotta look at
Speaker 1: this guy, and we got a book him for all
Speaker 1: these interviews and everything else. You know, you look at
Speaker 1: the way they treat him, and then you compare that
Speaker 1: to say, I don't know, compare that to like the
Speaker 1: way the media responded to and Coulter's book Audios America,
Speaker 1: which Trump read and then took some messaging from to
Speaker 1: become the next president of the United States. Oh no,
Speaker 1: I can't have you know, they they've got all these
Speaker 1: problems about and she talks about it on air all
Speaker 1: the time. But this guy, Michael Wolf, he comes along
Speaker 1: with this book. He's just saying nons and stuff. You
Speaker 1: read the book, you go, there's no way, and you
Speaker 1: can always tell to this whole reconstructed conversations. I can't
Speaker 1: remember what I said to like my family or my
Speaker 1: girlfriend twelve hours ago. There's notion that your journalists like.
Speaker 1: And then he furrowed his brow and said something that's
Speaker 1: just perfect for my book right then, like, no way,
Speaker 1: no way. I've sat in a fair amount of high
Speaker 1: level government meetings. I've been around people and important national
Speaker 1: security topics were being discussed, and it's very rare for
Speaker 1: someone to say something that you're like, Wow, that's a
Speaker 1: real doozy. That's quite that's quite a line, you know,
Speaker 1: Mr President, I don't dance. You know, that's not It
Speaker 1: works in clear and present danger, but that's not the
Speaker 1: way the old Potomac two step Jack. You guys remember
Speaker 1: that scene in clear and present danger. It's good, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: You know you're going to keep this one in your
Speaker 1: back pocket. I do sound just like the President, So
Speaker 1: I'm just putting that out there. Getting a little heat
Speaker 1: lately for some of my impressions. But go back and
Speaker 1: watch that movie. I could be that actor whatever his
Speaker 1: name is. Anyway. But this whole Michael wolfbook, they used it.
Speaker 1: They trashed Trump yea to borrow from the one and
Speaker 1: only for a second Rush Limbaugh, the whole notion of
Speaker 1: the drive by media. The reason it's such a great
Speaker 1: thing to say it's stuck for solo because it's so true,
Speaker 1: right Michael Wolf. It's like he's the guy in the
Speaker 1: back seat with two tech nine just spraying all over
Speaker 1: the place. And yeah, you know, now they'll now, they'll
Speaker 1: let him go to prison. But you know they drove
Speaker 1: him there. You know, they let him do his thing,
Speaker 1: They let him smear a bunch of people, and they
Speaker 1: let him it is. It is just appalling. And finally
Speaker 1: now he really gets called out for it, and it's
Speaker 1: on an issue, a me to issue, which is also
Speaker 1: a a place where you'll see plenty of big media
Speaker 1: names playing folks in the news. This is now a
Speaker 1: brand issue for them, right. They want to be the
Speaker 1: person that speaks out against any an me too stuff,
Speaker 1: and uh, you know it's it's not an active bravery
Speaker 1: to stand up now and call it out for for
Speaker 1: me too. I will. This is kind of funny. I
Speaker 1: just I just saw this before today on the five,
Speaker 1: but there was a total change of pace. But they
Speaker 1: do text from mom. Do you ever see this? They have,
Speaker 1: some of them do these texts from their mom? I
Speaker 1: always I have some. I have some. It's pretty funny. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I have some conservative friends here in New York, and
Speaker 1: I I keep all of my personal correspondence in in
Speaker 1: privacy and always will unless they were to give me
Speaker 1: permission explicitly and say you can use this stuff, because
Speaker 1: I get great stuff. I'm like, man, I want to
Speaker 1: steal some of my friends lines and throw them on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and I get great stuff sent to me all the time.
Speaker 1: The conservative underground in New York City is a very
Speaker 1: very well well read and witty group of folks because
Speaker 1: we have to be you know, you gotta be ready
Speaker 1: for whatever. But that's I guess I'll have to think
Speaker 1: about a way to get that going another time. I
Speaker 1: would love to have some of my stealth conservative friends
Speaker 1: calling here. We'd have to give them. It would have
Speaker 1: to be like one of those shows where they do
Speaker 1: the guy who's in the witness protection or something, and
Speaker 1: they do the word you know they met. They make
Speaker 1: the voice all weird. I didn't do a good job
Speaker 1: of that impression at all, but and they blur out
Speaker 1: the face. We have to do that with the Conservatives
Speaker 1: because I want them get in trouble with their Wall
Speaker 1: Street jobs or whatever else they do here. But these
Speaker 1: are just segment ideas that I have. So uh yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: so good for me. Back to Morning Joe. Good for
Speaker 1: me because she finally did something worth while on Morning Joe. Uh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk to a retired Navy seal Purple Heart recipient.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk to him in just a moment here
Speaker 1: about his run for Congress. If fascinating, guy, Stay with
Speaker 1: me for that and much more. All right, everybody, So
Speaker 1: the midterms are always away, but we've already got some
Speaker 1: very interesting story shaping up, some different races across the
Speaker 1: ton of the country that are getting some attention. I
Speaker 1: want to introduce you to Dan Crenshaw. Dan is a
Speaker 1: retired lieutenant commander. He's running for Congress to replace retiring
Speaker 1: Republican Congressman Ted Poe. Crenshaw was medically retired after a
Speaker 1: ten year career in the Navy Seals. Dan revealed that
Speaker 1: he was hit by an I E. D blast in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan will on his third deployment. He lost his right
Speaker 1: eye and his left eye was badly damaged. He explains
Speaker 1: that after several miracle surgeries, he was able to regain
Speaker 1: sight in his left eye, and Dan Crenshaw retired the
Speaker 1: tenant Commander. Crenshaw is now running for Congress. Dahn, great
Speaker 1: to have you on, great to be here, Thank you
Speaker 1: for having me. All right, just just tell folks a
Speaker 1: little bit about your story. It's it's quite compelling, and
Speaker 1: it's good to see that people with backgrounds like yours
Speaker 1: are trying to get into the political arena. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean you you hit all the high points. Um did
Speaker 1: about five deployments overall. After I did get hurt, like
Speaker 1: I left the Navy kicking and screaming, I did two
Speaker 1: more deployments back to the Middle East, and then my
Speaker 1: last one two six team was in Korea mostly until
Speaker 1: the operations related. So, um, you know, one of the
Speaker 1: reasons I'm running is because I want people in Congress
Speaker 1: with a he said, relevant experience on some of the
Speaker 1: bigger issues are president is facing right now. That's Korea,
Speaker 1: that's the Iran, it's kind of terrorism, it's kind of
Speaker 1: prolifration issues. And uh, you know, the competition doesn't know
Speaker 1: anything about these. They just got talking points. And when
Speaker 1: it comes to national security, it comes to border security,
Speaker 1: comes to our defense, you can't rely on talking points,
Speaker 1: You can't rely on a think tank to tell you
Speaker 1: what to think. You need experience, and I think the
Speaker 1: people in our leadership in Washington needs folks who can
Speaker 1: hit the ground running. Um. It's important to me and
Speaker 1: it's important to the safety of our country. Talk to
Speaker 1: you a bit about Korea dance, specifically the North South issue.
Speaker 1: Kim Jong on What do you think about what the
Speaker 1: Trump administration has been doing thus far and what would
Speaker 1: you either like to see changed or more of with
Speaker 1: regard to North Korea if you were to be in Congress. Well,
Speaker 1: it's there's no easy answer to to solve in the
Speaker 1: North Spring crisis. UM. I think the President is trying
Speaker 1: a new track. I think there's method to the man
Speaker 1: is you. We need to create more leverage over the
Speaker 1: North Koreans and that's through China, and the President is
Speaker 1: doing that with a lot of a lot of rhetoric
Speaker 1: that maybe scares people. But if you don't have a
Speaker 1: credible threat on the table, that's a military action on
Speaker 1: the table. If it's not credible, if they don't think
Speaker 1: you'll do it. Uh. The Chinese willing act and we
Speaker 1: really need the Chinese to use their influence over the
Speaker 1: North Koreans to bring them back. And I think behind
Speaker 1: the scenes we might be seeing that. So I think
Speaker 1: there is some method to that to what seems like madness. Um.
Speaker 1: But we have to keep the pressure on. We have
Speaker 1: to look at what more sanctions we can do and
Speaker 1: isolate that regime and punish them for their bad behavior. Um.
Speaker 1: What what is new about this particular, Um, you know,
Speaker 1: new phase in North Korean relationships is the fact that
Speaker 1: they have an I CBM that can reach the United States.
Speaker 1: That when when this kind of saber rattling was occurring before,
Speaker 1: that wasn't the case. We didn't have to worry as much.
Speaker 1: But it is the case now and we do have
Speaker 1: to worry about the time when they can actually put
Speaker 1: a NUC their warhead on that I CBM that can
Speaker 1: reach the United States. That's the real ticking time bomb
Speaker 1: for to speak, that we do not want to see
Speaker 1: happen and we cannot let happen. Speaking to retired Lieutenant
Speaker 1: Commander Dan Crunshaw of the Navy Seals, he is running
Speaker 1: for Congress in the Texas Congressional District number two. Uh
Speaker 1: so tell me about being a Texan, Dan, I love Texas.
Speaker 1: I used to work for the Blaze out of Dallas
Speaker 1: and spent a lot of time down there. I love
Speaker 1: Texas too, you know. And UH, good answer, needless to say.
Speaker 1: And you know what's important to us and here in Texas,
Speaker 1: it's sport of security first, and it sported security second. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's economic freedom. Uh, it's patriotism, It's red, white and blue.
Speaker 1: That's what we're about, and that's the kind of value
Speaker 1: I want to bring to Congress. I feel like you
Speaker 1: can bring up the border security issue, by the way,
Speaker 1: and I've been chasing down some some connections between the
Speaker 1: surgeon and opioid deaths in this overdoses in this country,
Speaker 1: and also the rising power in Mexico of the cartels,
Speaker 1: which seems to me to be a story that's not
Speaker 1: getting nearly enough attention. A big part of that is
Speaker 1: that the border, even when there may be illegal alien
Speaker 1: crossings at at a downward tilts for a while, the
Speaker 1: border is still very much open to enterprising drug traffickers
Speaker 1: who have tremendous resources and a whole lot of economic
Speaker 1: reason to get across. Yeah, that's exactly right, And you
Speaker 1: really bring up a good point about how that might
Speaker 1: affect our opioid crisis that is really becoming a national
Speaker 1: security threat. We're losing people constantly to that all over
Speaker 1: the country. We were that that's something that I would,
Speaker 1: you know, I would support some kind of federal action
Speaker 1: and funding for m to combat that. And part of
Speaker 1: that is border security. Uh, you know, we probably probably
Speaker 1: do see a good deal of that drug trait coming
Speaker 1: from the southern border. It's also there's a lot of
Speaker 1: reasons there's an opioid crisis. It's it's over prescription. It's
Speaker 1: over prescribing these these drugs. It's it's bad pharmacies and
Speaker 1: corrupt pharmacies that are dealing them out. Um, can be down.
Speaker 1: That is huge. But you know, making sure our border
Speaker 1: is safe and secure is just so important to Texans.
Speaker 1: Were on the front lines. We we we would appreciate
Speaker 1: the rest of the country understood that. Um. We know
Speaker 1: when you when you hear rhetoric from the Democrats coming
Speaker 1: out of Joe Kennedy from Massachusetts, you know, I get
Speaker 1: it different up in Massachusetts. I know. I lived there,
Speaker 1: I went to I did, I went to Harvard. I
Speaker 1: get it. But we're in Texas. Were on the front lines. Um,
Speaker 1: we need we need to secure the border. We see,
Speaker 1: we see how porce it is, we see those kind
Speaker 1: of those raute lines that you're talking about from the
Speaker 1: drug trade. It's only a matter of time too. And
Speaker 1: one thing we need to be thinking about. There's really
Speaker 1: ungoverned territories on the other side. But what happens when
Speaker 1: when other entities like Okay to our ices want to
Speaker 1: use those same lines of entry. Uh. And and those
Speaker 1: interests of line between the drug cartels and you know
Speaker 1: chihata groups. What happens then yet, but we need to
Speaker 1: be worried about it. One more for you, and and
Speaker 1: that is and look, I'm putting you on the hot
Speaker 1: seat a little bit here, but you're running for office,
Speaker 1: So this shouldn't this shouldn't be a surprise or comes
Speaker 1: anything new to you? Your favorite all time military memoir? Jeeze?
Speaker 1: How about how about I give you a really cheesy one. Uh?
Speaker 1: You know, how about the book that got me started
Speaker 1: on this path? And it's a little cheesy, but it's
Speaker 1: written by Dick Marcinko. It's called Rogue Warrior. And you
Speaker 1: know it's if I hadn't read that book, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be here. Now, that's a great book. Twelve I was
Speaker 1: twelve years old, Uh, and you know that that's that's
Speaker 1: what set beyond this path. And I you know, I've
Speaker 1: read it was twelve and wanted to be a seal
Speaker 1: ever since. I like it. Good story, good answer, We'll
Speaker 1: take it. Dan. Where should people go if they want
Speaker 1: to learn more about your campaign and send some support
Speaker 1: your way? Please? Go to crunch Off for Congress dot com.
Speaker 1: That's c R E N s H A W fo
Speaker 1: R congress dot com. You can donate there. You can
Speaker 1: see my media appearances is talking about the issues on there.
Speaker 1: Please go there and check out the campaign and follow
Speaker 1: us on Facebook and Twitter. All the links are there.
Speaker 1: A great story, a strong candidate, Dan Crunch everybody down
Speaker 1: in Texas running for Congress. Dan, Thank you for your service,
Speaker 1: best to luck. Thank you very much. Dan. All right, team,
Speaker 1: so we are going to roll into a breaker. We're
Speaker 1: gonna get into some Team Buck roll call. See I'm
Speaker 1: I'm I'm back on my game today in terms of
Speaker 1: not getting things confused and in the head quite the
Speaker 1: same way as I did yesterday. We gotta some roll
Speaker 1: call and hear from all of you. All right, everybody
Speaker 1: gets the end of the show. So this is where
Speaker 1: you guys get to tell me what we're talking about
Speaker 1: with roll call. Team Buck. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: It is indeed. All right, let's see what we got
Speaker 1: up first. This is always a little risky, by the way.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I start reading stuff and I'm like, oh, I
Speaker 1: can't read that on the radio. So hopefully, hopefully we
Speaker 1: won't have any of that today, although that can happen
Speaker 1: for sure. Hey, you know, I gotta keep it spicy.
Speaker 1: You gotta keep you on your toes out there and
Speaker 1: radio listening land. Speaking of spicy, Miss Molly said that
Speaker 1: she thinks that we should have a cook off because
Speaker 1: I'm getting a little big from my breeches with my
Speaker 1: culinary skills, talking a big game about my ribbi searing
Speaker 1: and various other escapades in the kitchen. And I'm like, honey,
Speaker 1: we're on the same team. We don't do opposing teams.
Speaker 1: I'll let you know. I'll be the sioux chef. You
Speaker 1: get to run the kitchen. That's the way we'll do this.
Speaker 1: But she's she's got quite it when she puts her
Speaker 1: mind to it. She's actually quite a good hand in
Speaker 1: the kitchen. Um, I'm not gonna say that. I don't
Speaker 1: you know. One day I will do my version of eggs.
Speaker 1: I'll a buck and I will show you all, maybe
Speaker 1: on a Facebook live video, just how to make the
Speaker 1: best scrambled eggs there are. I mean, there are a
Speaker 1: few key tips I really should show you because the
Speaker 1: problem I have now there is anywhere I go and
Speaker 1: I order scrambled eggs. I'm like, hey, these are okay
Speaker 1: technically speaking, technically these are scrambled eggs, but they're also
Speaker 1: not as good as my scrambled eggs. I'm just saying, so, uh,
Speaker 1: let's get into some team Buck speaks. Here we get see,
Speaker 1: I just did it some roll call. Those novels that
Speaker 1: you were thinking about, this is from Alan, that were
Speaker 1: sold at grocery stores were called dime store novels back
Speaker 1: in the day. That's where you would find it was
Speaker 1: Nickel and dimes stores, and they were considered to be
Speaker 1: trash books for women. Yes, yes, Alan, that is correct,
Speaker 1: dime store novels. That is what I'm talking about. You know,
Speaker 1: the historical piece that it's always you know, her husband,
Speaker 1: you know, her husband left for the war, and then
Speaker 1: like the handsome guy comes through town, and then the
Speaker 1: husband returns from war, and then you know, the passion
Speaker 1: and the drama all that stuff. Um not that I
Speaker 1: didn't read them, I'm just I saw the covers of them. Sometimes.
Speaker 1: All right, here we go, uh, Ilsa writes in Buck.
Speaker 1: I never know if it does any good to send
Speaker 1: you messages here. Well, Elsa, you're getting your message read
Speaker 1: on the nationally broadcast radio show. But I don't know
Speaker 1: how else to get your attention. I don't remember remember
Speaker 1: how I reached you when I was actually getting you too.
Speaker 1: Right back about my husband's escape from communist Yugoslavia. But
Speaker 1: my concern today is with the Judicial Watch report. Another
Speaker 1: friend shared with me that was about the GOP flying
Speaker 1: DOCTA recipients to different areas on commercial flights of the country.
Speaker 1: What do you know about this? Several people are now
Speaker 1: saying that they will not vote for Republicans again with
Speaker 1: this report. It's true, ILSA, I will tell you I
Speaker 1: don't know much about it. Let me look into it,
Speaker 1: and if it's true, and if it's happening, I will
Speaker 1: come back to you with a with some analysis on it.
Speaker 1: But for right now, I just I don't know what
Speaker 1: the specifics are of the incident or the situation that
Speaker 1: you are citing, So I will take a a rain
Speaker 1: check on the question. If that's okay for now? Uh see,
Speaker 1: Oh here we go. Michael writes in man, your trade
Speaker 1: gaudy was the worst. You've done some real stinkers, but
Speaker 1: that one takes the cake. Hillary is still the best.
Speaker 1: What happened is still the best. Okay, Michael, thank you.
Speaker 1: I agree that Hillary is still the best, but you
Speaker 1: really the trade gutties your excuse me? Sure, or you're
Speaker 1: gonna answer to the question or not. No, you're in
Speaker 1: my courtroom. Sure. Really, it doesn't sound at all I trade.
Speaker 1: Come on, come on, I think it's a little bit.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's the worst. I think I've definitely
Speaker 1: done worst. I've done worse ones. I had to stop
Speaker 1: doing al Gore because my al Gore needed to be
Speaker 1: better than it was and it didn't sound enough like
Speaker 1: al Core. So I gotta work on my al Gore,
Speaker 1: Jessica writes in Hey Buck. And also, though al Gore
Speaker 1: is not really famous these days or he's not talked
Speaker 1: about the media, so maybe I don't have to work
Speaker 1: on my al Gore. You're all like, yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: way better plan, Jessica. With the next one, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I've been listening to Shields High podcast. But to be honest,
Speaker 1: I'm a person that learns better by reading literature myself.
Speaker 1: Is this all from a book that I can get
Speaker 1: my hands on? Uh? Well, Jessica, not really. It's my
Speaker 1: stream of consciousness about the different historical periods and and
Speaker 1: incidents that I'm talking to you about. I can give
Speaker 1: you some books to read that touch on the subject matter,
Speaker 1: and I could put that maybe up on Facebook as
Speaker 1: a response to you and everyone else can see it
Speaker 1: as well. I am very uh well, I'm I'm very
Speaker 1: fond of some of the works of Roger Crowley. He
Speaker 1: wrote a book on called Empire of the Seas, which
Speaker 1: was very good about the Ottoman advance across the Mediterranean.
Speaker 1: He also wrote a book called fourteen fifty three specifically
Speaker 1: about the fall of Constantinople. That's very good. A lot
Speaker 1: of my Crusades reading is actually a compilation of contemporary chroniclers,
Speaker 1: so that's more like a compendium of sources, you know, Folkler,
Speaker 1: of of Shart and uh other different other, other different,
Speaker 1: other people that were writing about it from the time period.
Speaker 1: So I don't have a book for you, but I
Speaker 1: can tell you that there are books that go into it.
Speaker 1: And the first two shows were scripted, and then in
Speaker 1: response to comments from all of you after that, I said,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm not gonna be a script anymore. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna kind of go and talk about it. And
Speaker 1: that seems to be working pretty well. Some of you
Speaker 1: seem to think that's a more stylistically, that's a better choice.
Speaker 1: So that's where we've been doing the Shields High. Let's
Speaker 1: see we get next. Um william writes the milk carton,
Speaker 1: the milk in cartons and all the cocoa packages I
Speaker 1: could get from m R. E. S. I mixed those
Speaker 1: with the coffee packs three years in Iraq. I love
Speaker 1: your Shields High episodes, but I understand the research and
Speaker 1: hard work. Maybe you should quit the podcast and make
Speaker 1: some nat GEO type TV episodes. Dream big, Buck, William William,
Speaker 1: I would love to do that. Maybe somebody should just
Speaker 1: come along and, you know, fund my my project. I
Speaker 1: mean the I think that a a TV series on
Speaker 1: La Panto would be really awesome, and I've said that before.
Speaker 1: Malta would be really cool too, because it it does
Speaker 1: it actually be a good movie. I think it would
Speaker 1: be a good movie in the epic cinematic genre. But
Speaker 1: it probably costs a lot of money, so uh, Damnian.
Speaker 1: Next up on roll call, Buck, have you ever thought
Speaker 1: about live streaming the show on a platform like YouTube
Speaker 1: or Facebook Live? As always, thanks to your service to
Speaker 1: our country and Shields High, Damian, Yes, We've thought about it,
Speaker 1: and yes, we are going to put something together where
Speaker 1: we're gonna be live streaming at some point in the
Speaker 1: future a portion of the radio show, if not all
Speaker 1: of the radio show. So the answer your question is, yes,
Speaker 1: we don't have it up yet. Facebook Live would be
Speaker 1: a lot of fun. I kind of like the idea though,
Speaker 1: of having something that's up on buck sex and dot
Speaker 1: com that's specific to the team, And I'd like to
Speaker 1: get away from relying on some of these third party
Speaker 1: social media platforms because I'm I'm losing faith in truck
Speaker 1: Us that they're well, I'm losing faith that they can
Speaker 1: be trusted. How about that? Uh next up here? Um, Tyler?
Speaker 1: Oh no, Tyler, we did that one yesterday. See I
Speaker 1: I I remember uh Doug Wright said, hey Buck while
Speaker 1: watching an old favorite. This scene stood out as a
Speaker 1: sum total of what we see from the Democrats resistance
Speaker 1: mindset for the past year. Oh it's Monty Python, She's
Speaker 1: a witch. I know that sketch. That's I kind of
Speaker 1: remember that one. I think. Uh, let's see who's next
Speaker 1: up on the list. Michelle says Trey Gaudy said from
Speaker 1: the start that he only spent x number of years
Speaker 1: in office. I don't believe there's any more to it
Speaker 1: than that. Uh, shields high. Well, Michelle, you may very
Speaker 1: well be right. Uh, I don't you know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: And while I do, it apparently not a particularly accurate
Speaker 1: impression of Trey Goudy. It is with It is a
Speaker 1: an impression done with fondness. I think that he's or
Speaker 1: not fondness. I don't know him, but you know, respectfully,
Speaker 1: i'm laughing with Trey. I'm not laughing at Trey, but
Speaker 1: I do think he'd be a very interesting pick for
Speaker 1: an administration. He certainly has the background, he's got the chops,
Speaker 1: as they say, to take a senior administration post. By
Speaker 1: the way, don't let me forget producer Mike that we
Speaker 1: need to get some of the emails going from official
Speaker 1: team buck at gmail dot com. I don't want to
Speaker 1: just be on the Facebook here, speaking of letting these
Speaker 1: platforms dominate everything that we're doing, which is increasingly the
Speaker 1: case all the time. Now. He got all this Facebook stuff,
Speaker 1: and I keep looking into I keep seeing these articles
Speaker 1: where they're saying, you know, there, it's like rewiring our brains,
Speaker 1: and yeah, it needs to we need to take of
Speaker 1: social media like TV. You wouldn't watch TV and three
Speaker 1: minute increments all day long. And that's the way you
Speaker 1: should a little bit of social media and then put
Speaker 1: it down, right, a little bit of social media and
Speaker 1: then put it down. Not a constant. Uh, it's like
Speaker 1: a slow rolling binge of just social media all the time, Ken,
Speaker 1: next one here, Buck. The whole issue is not about
Speaker 1: Trump being president. It's about Hillary not being president. Any
Speaker 1: other Republican candidate would have seen in the same position,
Speaker 1: and the fires of warrant would have been against their
Speaker 1: campaign manager. Your thoughts, Oh, you know, Ken, I don't
Speaker 1: think so, because I mean, look, I can't prove that
Speaker 1: you're wrong, because we don't know. We can't prove a
Speaker 1: negative here, can't go back and change history. But because
Speaker 1: of some of the associates that Trump had around him,
Speaker 1: I think that there's a case to be made that
Speaker 1: there was greater susceptibility because of manaforts and the like
Speaker 1: to the kinds of discretionary abuses at FBI and d
Speaker 1: o J. And I just realized we're closing up the
Speaker 1: shop here at the Freedom Hut for today. Freestyle Friday
Speaker 1: is tomorrow. Shields High