Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Tonight is the night
Speaker 1: we find out if President Trump is declaring a state
Speaker 1: of emergency at the border, what his plan is for
Speaker 1: the wall and to finally bring some security to our
Speaker 1: southern border. We'll talk about that and all of the
Speaker 1: latest coming up on the buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake American, You're a great American Again. The buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show begins as this idea that they need five billion
Speaker 1: five to seven, which they haven't even sent us a
Speaker 1: plan for until yesterday. We're looking at it now, is unrealistic.
Speaker 1: We want the symbol of America to stay as the
Speaker 1: statue of liberty, not a big concrete wall. The President
Speaker 1: is announced that he's going to address the country tomorrow
Speaker 1: night on the so called crisis of the border. I
Speaker 1: expect the president to lie to the American people. Why
Speaker 1: do we expect this because he has been lying to
Speaker 1: the American people, and it spokespeople continue lying to the
Speaker 1: American people. There is no security crisis at the border.
Speaker 1: The only emergency at the border is a humanitarian emergency.
Speaker 1: Caused by this war on children. The president has no
Speaker 1: authority to usurp congressional authority of the purse. Congress must
Speaker 1: appropriate funds. He cannot simply take funds appropriate for other
Speaker 1: purposes to build a wall because he declares the national emergency.
Speaker 1: And we would certainly oppose any attempt by the President
Speaker 1: to make himself a king and a tyrant by saying
Speaker 1: that he can approach create money without Congress. That is
Speaker 1: perhaps the most dangerous thing he is talking about since
Speaker 1: he became president. Lies, lies, falsehoods, half truths, miss truths.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are thrown that everything in the kitchen sink
Speaker 1: at the wall, at Trump. They're doing everything in their power,
Speaker 1: anything in their power and beyond it to try and
Speaker 1: stop Trump from securing our southern border. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show, my friends. It is go time here.
Speaker 1: Democrats are starting to lose this argument. They have been
Speaker 1: very self assured, very smug, and of course sanctimonious, because
Speaker 1: we are talking about Democrats. They've assumed along that the
Speaker 1: old rules about shutdowns would apply, that the media would rally,
Speaker 1: like the little lackeys they are, to the Demo krat's
Speaker 1: side and make sure that the blame, such as it is,
Speaker 1: goes to Republicans. The American people turn on their members
Speaker 1: of Congress for not opening the government in a timely fashion,
Speaker 1: Republicans cave, Democrats win, and the border in this case
Speaker 1: would not get secure. Doesn't look like that's necessarily going
Speaker 1: to be the case, now, does it. We have heard
Speaker 1: just to take a step back, because the border has
Speaker 1: been the single most important news story in the country
Speaker 1: for the last six months, with the only real exception
Speaker 1: being that period when the Kavanaugh nomination took over, and
Speaker 1: we got right in the middle of that fight here
Speaker 1: on the show, as you know, and thankfully good prevailed
Speaker 1: over evil in that one. And I'm not sure that
Speaker 1: the right side is going to win in this border battle,
Speaker 1: but we're getting close. But I wanted to take a
Speaker 1: step back from what's going to be discussed tonight is
Speaker 1: presidential address. It's going to happen at nine o'clock Eastern,
Speaker 1: as you know, it would be right right after we
Speaker 1: finish this show, so I can't I can't assess the
Speaker 1: address for you in over the course of this show,
Speaker 1: but certainly we'll talk about it tomorrow. But I wanted
Speaker 1: to give a context for what's coming tonight, because there's
Speaker 1: definitely going to be a pitch from the Presidence of
Speaker 1: the United States about why this wall needs to be built.
Speaker 1: The context, though, is that the Democrats and the left
Speaker 1: have no credibility on any issues relating to immigration whatsoever.
Speaker 1: They have lied and lied and lied. They said that
Speaker 1: the caravan was never going to reach our southern border.
Speaker 1: They said that there were that there were no criminals
Speaker 1: in the caravan. They said that the wall would not work.
Speaker 1: They say that walls have never worked. They say that
Speaker 1: there's no problem with our current asylum system. It's not
Speaker 1: being abused. People aren't lying, they don't have they're not
Speaker 1: using loopholes. There isn't a lack of interior enforcement at
Speaker 1: every stage of our immigration process right now involving our
Speaker 1: southern border where there's any concern or conflict whatsoever. The
Speaker 1: Democrats tactic is to lie about it and then attack
Speaker 1: the other side, and the biggest one right now. And
Speaker 1: this just requires gall I mean, this is nuts. Is
Speaker 1: they're saying, and we came in with this, that there's
Speaker 1: no crisis at the border. There's no crisis. They are
Speaker 1: willing just as they have redefined an illegal alien to
Speaker 1: be a quote undocumented immigrant. They're willing to redefine the
Speaker 1: word crisis to be effectively meaningless. What is it that
Speaker 1: you would call a situation where laws are being broken
Speaker 1: on a daily basis to the tune of thousands, tens
Speaker 1: of thousands over the course of a month, hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands over the course of a year. What is it
Speaker 1: you would call a circumstance that allows for the violation
Speaker 1: on a daily basis in thousands of cases of US sovereignty.
Speaker 1: What would democrats call a situation where hundreds, perhaps thousands
Speaker 1: of women on a monthly basis are sexually assaulted. What
Speaker 1: would democrats call a situation in which drugs are pouring
Speaker 1: across the border at rates that are terrifying even to
Speaker 1: longstanding veteran members of border patrol. The cartels are more
Speaker 1: powerful in Mexico right now than they have been in
Speaker 1: recent memory. There's an argument to be made they're more
Speaker 1: violent than they have ever been, and there's an argument
Speaker 1: to be made that they are more powerful than they
Speaker 1: have ever been. They're just not going toe to toe
Speaker 1: with the government in quite the same fashion as they
Speaker 1: have in the past. But more to the point, for
Speaker 1: all of us. The cartels are now the primary source
Speaker 1: of the poison, the opioids that are pouring in to
Speaker 1: cities and towns across the United States that are killing
Speaker 1: over seventy thousand of our fellow Americans every year. In fact,
Speaker 1: that cartels, as I have told you, are creating pills
Speaker 1: to look like pharmaceutical pills so that they can sell
Speaker 1: them more easily on the street because the da and
Speaker 1: have slapped down doctors for overprescribing opioids, probably too much,
Speaker 1: so I mean, they're probably people that are a lot
Speaker 1: of pain now because they can't get the opioids. And
Speaker 1: to fill that need, because you have a lot of
Speaker 1: addicts out there to fill that need, the cartels have
Speaker 1: swooped in. This has been going on for years, but
Speaker 1: it's more true now than ever before. If it's not
Speaker 1: a crisis, when you have tens of thousands of Americans
Speaker 1: dying from illegal poison that is overwhelmingly coming from one place,
Speaker 1: what is it? What is the definition of a crisis?
Speaker 1: Then you know why they don't want that to be
Speaker 1: the word that is used. Because the president has the
Speaker 1: authority to act if it is a crisis, He has
Speaker 1: the authority in statute. Democrats are running out of room
Speaker 1: with their lies. They do not want to secure the border.
Speaker 1: It's a joke. All they want to do is more
Speaker 1: are expeditiously processed those who arrive with overwhelmingly false claims
Speaker 1: or preproduced claims, fabricated claims of imminent violence against them,
Speaker 1: when in reality they just want access into the United States.
Speaker 1: They want to skip the rest of the millions of
Speaker 1: people who are trying to get into the country legally,
Speaker 1: and they don't care that their first act on US
Speaker 1: soil is fraudulent, the very act of being here and
Speaker 1: the premises under which they have entered the country are fraudulent.
Speaker 1: Democrats have no interest in stopping this, and I think finally,
Speaker 1: the American people are figuring this out. We do not
Speaker 1: believe these claims that they also want border security. They
Speaker 1: also believe that this is a problem. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: saying it's not a crisis. We've had thousands of people
Speaker 1: parked at one of our ports of entry or one
Speaker 1: of our border sectors, trying to overrun border patrol and
Speaker 1: throwing rocks at them. If that is not a crisis,
Speaker 1: I need them to explain to me what is and
Speaker 1: when you add on to this the massive hypocrisy of
Speaker 1: Democrats who themselves all summer when it came to the
Speaker 1: issue of family separation. Oh my gosh, why would they
Speaker 1: do this? Why are they separating you families that choke
Speaker 1: with the border from their children. This is they were
Speaker 1: saying that was a crisis, but everything else that's going
Speaker 1: on to the border they're claiming is not. I mean,
Speaker 1: they when it suits their needs, the news cycle, they
Speaker 1: think plays into their hands. Then they throw the term
Speaker 1: crisis around with reckless abandon the moment that the usage
Speaker 1: of the word crisis opens up an opportunity for the
Speaker 1: President of the United States to address the crisis, to
Speaker 1: do something about the crisis, they change their minds. Isn't
Speaker 1: that convenient? Isn't that a situation that if you are
Speaker 1: a cynical observer of what Pelosi and Schumer and the
Speaker 1: rest of the Democrat gang wanted, you would think, Oh,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what I would have expected. You know, you've
Speaker 1: got the truth here is that this is a political
Speaker 1: fight for the Democrats, has nothing to do with border
Speaker 1: security or national security. Democrats are in a panic because
Speaker 1: they know that if Trump follows through on this promise.
Speaker 1: It will be a symbol for everything else that he
Speaker 1: has promised. And they have been telling us all along.
Speaker 1: It will never happen. Trump won't. It's a joke. In fact,
Speaker 1: you're a rube, you're foolish, you're a clown. If you
Speaker 1: believed President Trump when he said he was going to
Speaker 1: build a wall, that you were unsophisticated and you're thinking
Speaker 1: about politics. That's what the Democrats and the media, but
Speaker 1: I repeat myself have been saying now for two years.
Speaker 1: They have already had to lick their wounds when it
Speaker 1: came to trying to take down this president, with all
Speaker 1: their negative stories, all their personal attacks, all of their
Speaker 1: hysteria over collusion, over the twenty fifth Amendment. Trump is
Speaker 1: a racist, you know, whatever it is. They've thrown everything
Speaker 1: they have a Trump. They haven't been able to take
Speaker 1: him down. And they thought they'd be able to. They
Speaker 1: really believe it they'd be able to derail this presidency.
Speaker 1: And not only have they been incapable of derailing the presidency.
Speaker 1: Now we stand on the precipice of the president achieving
Speaker 1: a political breakthrough. Hasn't happened yet, and we will see,
Speaker 1: but at least we are in the fight here, and
Speaker 1: Trump is leading the charge to get a political breakthrough
Speaker 1: that would not only change what's going on in our
Speaker 1: southern border and give us some hope of finally achieving
Speaker 1: control over who comes and who doesn't across our southern border.
Speaker 1: The entire narrative about Trump as some kind of a
Speaker 1: fraud who is fooling the gullible would be untenable. I mean,
Speaker 1: there would be betty in the media who would try
Speaker 1: to stick to it, but they would be the laughing stock.
Speaker 1: There'd be no way around it. They've been telling us
Speaker 1: all this time, for two years. The wall's never going
Speaker 1: to happen, and you're if you think it will, you're
Speaker 1: an idiot. In fact, if you think Trump's even going
Speaker 1: to try and get a wall, you're an idiot. Well,
Speaker 1: it looks like he's trying now, doesn't it. And if
Speaker 1: he manages to push this through, libs will lose their minds.
Speaker 1: This is a tense moment in politics. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of people who for them this is an issue
Speaker 1: of their own personal credibility, their professional future. A lot
Speaker 1: of journalists, members of congress activist organizations. They have built
Speaker 1: up this entire store of lies around the border and
Speaker 1: the whole thing just could come crashing down. It's going
Speaker 1: to be interesting, and I hope the President tonight gives
Speaker 1: us all he's got because the time is now. Some
Speaker 1: more of the details of what's going on at the border.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have also, my friend Annie McCarthy, I told
Speaker 1: him tonight, Andy, we're really going to need you to
Speaker 1: break down a legality here of whether they can or
Speaker 1: cannot build this border wall. But then I meaning whether
Speaker 1: the President has the authority also under the law, and
Speaker 1: then we'll talk to him about this arrest of an
Speaker 1: indictment of I should say indictment, not arrest, pardon me,
Speaker 1: indictment of Vessel Nitskaya, who is at the Trump Tower
Speaker 1: meeting this Russian lawyer that was getting some attention today.
Speaker 1: And you will help us break that down. We'll have
Speaker 1: White House correspondent from Daily Caller joining with the latest
Speaker 1: about what we can expect tonight in that address, and
Speaker 1: we have much more show coming. Oh and free healthcare
Speaker 1: for illegals in New York City. What a surprise, that's
Speaker 1: all coming up. Stay with me, team, Well, this is
Speaker 1: a very serious situation. President Obama called it a humanitarian
Speaker 1: crisis when twenty fourteen, when we saw tens of thousands
Speaker 1: unaccompanied children coming across the border exploiting gaps in our
Speaker 1: immigration law. But you know, this is an entirely contrived
Speaker 1: and phony crisis right now, and by that I mean
Speaker 1: the political crisis here in Washington where Miss Pelosi and
Speaker 1: Senator Schumer simply want to beat President Trump. They want
Speaker 1: to deny him what he's asking for, and they want
Speaker 1: the political benefit among their base for having done so.
Speaker 1: I think we can improve the security of our southern border,
Speaker 1: deal with the flow of heroin and other illegal drugs,
Speaker 1: human trafficking, and migrant movement across the border illegally, which
Speaker 1: was creating this crisis at the border. You know, he
Speaker 1: mentioned there, that was a Senator Cornyn, and he mentioned
Speaker 1: drugs the border and what's going on there. I actually
Speaker 1: have some stats here about the twenty seventeen to twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen narcotics situation at our southern border. There has been
Speaker 1: in terms of seizures and this is over the last year. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is what's going on now. A twenty two sent
Speaker 1: increase in heroin sees, a thirty eight percent increase in
Speaker 1: meth amphetamine ceased and a seventy three percent increase in fentanyl.
Speaker 1: These are the drugs that are heroin and fentanyl particularly
Speaker 1: are the ones that are killing so many of our
Speaker 1: fellow Americans. They're coming across the southern border. In fact,
Speaker 1: methamphetamine prices have dropped considerably meth right now speaking to
Speaker 1: a law enforcement contact about this recently, meth is more
Speaker 1: pure and cheaper on US streets when they're finding it
Speaker 1: then I think it at any time, the price of
Speaker 1: meth is plummeted, and the cartels are just trying to
Speaker 1: keep the markets open somewhat that meth amphetamine has almost
Speaker 1: become a loss leader for cartels, meaning that they're they're
Speaker 1: trying to keep their supply relationships going and they're making
Speaker 1: their money their illegal drug trade money on the fentyel
Speaker 1: and the heroine, and they're thrown in meth as kind
Speaker 1: of a sweetener of sorts, because so much of the
Speaker 1: drug trade now is focused on these opioids, because they're
Speaker 1: so powerful, so potent, and the market is large for them.
Speaker 1: This is a crisis. People are dying. They're dying because
Speaker 1: we do not have a secure southern border. This stuff.
Speaker 1: If it were so easy to get illegal fentael on
Speaker 1: the streets of America. If it was so easy to
Speaker 1: get a doctor to prescribe it, the cartels wouldn't be
Speaker 1: making billions of dollars doing it illegally. We'll talk more
Speaker 1: about the expectations for the president's speech tonight, and of
Speaker 1: course the already prepped medium backlashed against it. Coming up.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line or America, buck Sexton his back
Speaker 1: taking a republic for a political leader to try to
Speaker 1: seize power by the declaration of an emergency on made
Speaker 1: up facts, and you can look through history for the
Speaker 1: other autocrats, the other fascists, the other dictators who have
Speaker 1: tried to do and have in fact declared such things.
Speaker 1: It's disturbing. Steve Schman talk about the weakness, that its
Speaker 1: an idiot. How about that we're done with We're done
Speaker 1: with him, We're done with him. I just want to
Speaker 1: know that this is what passes for expert commentary on MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Say they are the fascist and the you know, the
Speaker 1: bad people and the stuff and the Hitler idiocy, idiocy,
Speaker 1: not even intelligent criticism of the president from a so
Speaker 1: called so called I don't even know if he I
Speaker 1: think he's now a Democrat. I don't know. He might
Speaker 1: as well be a Democrat if he's not. That's the
Speaker 1: guy who ran McCain's presidential campaign. By the way, he
Speaker 1: says a lot, doesn't it. You know, this is something
Speaker 1: I've been talking to a lot of people in DC
Speaker 1: about in recent weeks, because I've I've had my more
Speaker 1: than my fill of having to hear from you know,
Speaker 1: whenever you turn on the TV or you're you know,
Speaker 1: looking in different editorials, different papers, these never Trump Republicans.
Speaker 1: When are they going to wake up? I'm not saying
Speaker 1: they have to defend everything Trump does. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: anybody has to defend everything Trump does. I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't like some of the things that Trump has said
Speaker 1: and done. I don't agree with Trump on certain things.
Speaker 1: That's fine, but you got to pick a side, you know,
Speaker 1: you're on you're on one team on these issues that
Speaker 1: you're on the other team. And I just I can't
Speaker 1: help but notice that with a lot of these people,
Speaker 1: it's really they pretend that it's all about the republic,
Speaker 1: you know, they pretend that they're all concerned with how
Speaker 1: Trump is using this declaration of emergency to seize power
Speaker 1: and oh my gosh, and the constitution you're shredding it,
Speaker 1: when really they're just upset and in many cases bitter
Speaker 1: and envious of people that have been elevated because Trump
Speaker 1: has won. Trump has won the election, and his people,
Speaker 1: the people that are around him are not the standard
Speaker 1: GOP operatives. You have to remember that a lot of
Speaker 1: these voices you're hearing from the GOP establishment dynasties, from
Speaker 1: the McCain camp, from the Romney camp, from the Bush camp,
Speaker 1: the ones that are all such such principled critics of
Speaker 1: the administration, the ones that have a blinding hatred for Trump.
Speaker 1: What they really hate is that they're not important anymore.
Speaker 1: What they really hate is that many of these GOP
Speaker 1: operatives and talking heads and consultants thought that they had
Speaker 1: paid their dues and it was their turn, and in
Speaker 1: the Trump era they're shut out. And so what they're
Speaker 1: presenting to you and Schmidt is certainly in this category.
Speaker 1: There are many others as well, where they're presenting to
Speaker 1: you as principled criticism and opposition is really, I want
Speaker 1: the toys, and I don't have the toys, so I
Speaker 1: hate everybody. That's the tantrum that these anti Trumpers in
Speaker 1: the GOP are engaged in. So I am perfectly willing
Speaker 1: to hear from honest critics of the president. And as
Speaker 1: you know, I'm still on very good terms with some
Speaker 1: pretty well known critics of the president within the GOP,
Speaker 1: over at National Review and other places. And but you know,
Speaker 1: they call balls and strikes. They say the president did this, well,
Speaker 1: the President didn't do that. Well. I don't like the
Speaker 1: president personally. I like the president's policies. That's that is
Speaker 1: a principal position. And President Trump be the fascist, the hitler,
Speaker 1: and that's an idiot position. And the fact that they
Speaker 1: give airtime to people so they can say things like
Speaker 1: that tells you all you need to know about the
Speaker 1: journalistic ethics or really the lack thereof at these major networks.
Speaker 1: They are disgracing themselves. But I don't think they have
Speaker 1: any integrity to protect. And when you have no integrity
Speaker 1: to protect, you have endless options. So I guess there's
Speaker 1: that upside on this issue of the border and the
Speaker 1: possibility of a state of emergency declared so President Trump
Speaker 1: can start building this wall. Don't you think that if
Speaker 1: it were really about the effectiveness of the wall or
Speaker 1: the cost of the wall, and those two things go
Speaker 1: hand in hand, don't they. You know, if the wall
Speaker 1: is expensive and ineffective, it makes it even more of
Speaker 1: a political liability. But if it were about that, why
Speaker 1: such outrage about him starting this What they say is true,
Speaker 1: these phrases, you know, things people say, Oh, you give
Speaker 1: me a ten foot wall, I'll give you an eleven
Speaker 1: foot ladder. This is not These are not positions that
Speaker 1: have been thought out. These are slogans. This is trying
Speaker 1: to tap into a mob mentality to overcome a rational
Speaker 1: response to what is obviously an incredible problem we have,
Speaker 1: which has led to twenty million illegal aliens in the
Speaker 1: country at a minimum. That's the other issue that they've
Speaker 1: been lying to you about forever. You know, the more
Speaker 1: information we get about the board and about immigration, the
Speaker 1: more clear it is that there has been a by
Speaker 1: partisan effort to hide the reality of our southern border
Speaker 1: from the American people. And I've even read wonky analysis
Speaker 1: by national security geostrategists who say that this notion that
Speaker 1: the that the immigration that we are in undergoing right now,
Speaker 1: if you took out of this the domestic politics and
Speaker 1: the identity politics and all of the toxic racializing of
Speaker 1: the issue that the Democrats do to make it sound
Speaker 1: like this is really just about keeping America white. They
Speaker 1: say things like that publicly, they claim things like that
Speaker 1: on TV. Take that out from from this discussion for
Speaker 1: a moment and look at what's what has been going
Speaker 1: on and is going on at our border. Any other
Speaker 1: country would consider it a crisis. Any other country would
Speaker 1: be doing everything in its power to stop this from continuing.
Speaker 1: And from a geostrategic position, if you were to analyze this,
Speaker 1: you'd say, hold on a second. Not only do you
Speaker 1: have a mass of illegal, illegal intrusions into a country
Speaker 1: that are changing the body politic of the country and
Speaker 1: question that are that are reshaping its politics and having
Speaker 1: a profound impact on its culture. It's for a country
Speaker 1: that is contiguous with that country, which historically leads to
Speaker 1: real instability and leads to outcomes that you know, we
Speaker 1: don't even want to consider right now, but you know,
Speaker 1: political instability that can have long lasting ramifications. It's different
Speaker 1: when you have tens of millions of people from one
Speaker 1: country come to another country of a different culture, speaking
Speaker 1: generally a different language. When that country next door also
Speaker 1: has a history of having previously controlled owned that land.
Speaker 1: You know, there's this concept of irridentism, the idea that
Speaker 1: a country will want back the land that it previously had.
Speaker 1: There used to be groups that would talk a bit
Speaker 1: about this, also the ray Konquista, which was also a
Speaker 1: historical reference to the expulsion of the Muslim conquerors of Spain,
Speaker 1: which finally was successful in fourteen ninety two. And some
Speaker 1: of you have probably seen the movie El sid and
Speaker 1: you know how all that stuff went. But there is
Speaker 1: a difference between people coming from an ocean away and
Speaker 1: settling in America and a country on our border that
Speaker 1: does not really respect the border and has a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of We want to talk about foreign influence in elections,
Speaker 1: You want to talk about what the political implications are
Speaker 1: of having a foreign country having dispersed so many of
Speaker 1: its own people into another country. You know, no one
Speaker 1: ever thinks about this when you're talking about our southern border,
Speaker 1: or not saying, nobody but you. And if you want
Speaker 1: to see what I'm talking about, there's a book by
Speaker 1: Kaplan called The Revenge of Geography where he talks about
Speaker 1: how geography it's it's essentially an academic explanation of how
Speaker 1: geography is death. And he says, what's going on with
Speaker 1: Mexico and the United States is not standard nation to
Speaker 1: nation relationship here. And it's not standard immigration either. People
Speaker 1: coming back and forth, you people paying remittances. You have
Speaker 1: whole communities forming that are contiguous with the southern border
Speaker 1: that still have a tremendous affinity and connection to both
Speaker 1: legally and culturally to their home country. This is not
Speaker 1: a recipe for unity and success long term in this country.
Speaker 1: To allow this to continue. The number is now twenty million.
Speaker 1: What are we going to wait till it's thirty million? Wait?
Speaker 1: Over time it'll be forty million. And they're aligned to
Speaker 1: you about the numbers. Not only they aligned to you
Speaker 1: about the numbers, but they also don't want to have
Speaker 1: more accurate numbers to present you with because if the
Speaker 1: American people really knew what was going on, they would
Speaker 1: be completely outraged, and the Pelosi Schumer wing or the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party wouldn't have a leg to stand on anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean, they would have to just go open borders,
Speaker 1: which I would note I don't think that's an unthinkable
Speaker 1: position for them. Let me just take you back to this.
Speaker 1: You will recall that when Obama was pushing Obamacare, and
Speaker 1: I was right in the middle of that debate, I
Speaker 1: was just getting going in conservative media. I was at
Speaker 1: the blaze people like me, among many many other conservatives.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that I was some kind of a visionary.
Speaker 1: Here we were saying, this is a this is a
Speaker 1: pathway to to single payer? Is this is this is
Speaker 1: just meant to be a bridge to single payer? And
Speaker 1: they were saying, ah, no, this is just the Massachusetts
Speaker 1: plan that Mitt Romney came up with. This is actually
Speaker 1: a conservative plan, this is a Heritage Foundation plan. We're
Speaker 1: not going to use this as a bridge. And here
Speaker 1: we are o'cazeo, Cortez, Warren, whoever. The Democrat of the
Speaker 1: moment is what are they talking about Medicare for all,
Speaker 1: which is single payer? So what six years ago they
Speaker 1: were telling us was a slander against Democrats is now
Speaker 1: their policy. If we can't stop them now and build
Speaker 1: a border wall, I assure you it is well within
Speaker 1: the range of possibility that within six years, perhaps sooner
Speaker 1: than six years, especially if you have a Democrat president
Speaker 1: coming to twenty twenty, you will have a mass amnesty.
Speaker 1: That's not that's the first thing they're gonna do, a
Speaker 1: mass amnesty, and you will have an effort to have
Speaker 1: a comprehensive immigration reform that will not only have the amnesty,
Speaker 1: but will also do everything short of completely erasing our
Speaker 1: southern border. People can come and go as they please,
Speaker 1: come back and forth. You know. All they're all they're
Speaker 1: gonna want to do is tax productive activity in this
Speaker 1: country as long as they can find you when you're
Speaker 1: here to tax you. If you make enough to be taxed,
Speaker 1: which most illegals don't, then that's all fine. That's what
Speaker 1: they're gonna want. It'll be the closest thing to open
Speaker 1: borders of any country in the world. And some of
Speaker 1: my well intentioned but I think slightly delusional libertarian friends
Speaker 1: will say, oh, this will just make us richer and
Speaker 1: better off. Really, I'd like to see the evidence for that,
Speaker 1: and don't just point through we'll have a bigger GDP. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, that's like saying we'll have more more bodies
Speaker 1: in a room. Great, what are they doing there? But
Speaker 1: it's it's go time. The president knows it's go time.
Speaker 1: This issue has to be resolved and he should. He
Speaker 1: should declare a state of emergency in tonight. If he doesn't.
Speaker 1: If he doesn't do it, I think he's missing a
Speaker 1: huge opportunity. And more importantly, I think he's missing what
Speaker 1: needs to be done for the country. And I have
Speaker 1: not heard any compelling, any compelling reason for him not
Speaker 1: to do it, not a single one. You know, you
Speaker 1: have to remember that too, when when you hear the detractors,
Speaker 1: when you hear people who are opposed to this for
Speaker 1: some reason, there's always there's all this different stuff that
Speaker 1: they they throw at you, and when you deal with
Speaker 1: them one by one, you realize this is all flimsy.
Speaker 1: It's not that much money. It does work. Congress has
Speaker 1: voted for this on a bipartisan basis in the past.
Speaker 1: It isn't his power to declare an emergency. We do
Speaker 1: have the technical know how to build a barrier. So
Speaker 1: what really is the opposition to this? Don't let Trump win,
Speaker 1: That's all it is. Don't let Trump get his way.
Speaker 1: If he gets his way on this, the Trump movement
Speaker 1: is actualized, it is delivering, it is successful, it will
Speaker 1: have momentum. Ultimately, what this really is about for Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Schumer as they know if Trump gets this wall,
Speaker 1: he's going to win in twenty twenty, They're going to
Speaker 1: have Trump for another four years. What do you think
Speaker 1: they're willing to do to prevent that? What lengths or
Speaker 1: Democrats willing to go to to stop that from happening. Well,
Speaker 1: you're starting to see it. We've got more. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected,
Speaker 1: but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed
Speaker 1: by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.
Speaker 1: The jobs stay home might otherwise be held by citizens
Speaker 1: or legal immigrants. The public service they use imposed burdens
Speaker 1: on our taxpayers. Oh my gosh, that Bill Clinton is
Speaker 1: such a racist. How could he be such a racist?
Speaker 1: You know who else said stuff about how legal immigration
Speaker 1: was bad, Barack Obama? You know who well said stuff
Speaker 1: about how legal immigration is a cost both economically and
Speaker 1: socially in our country. Hillary Clinton. We can play audio
Speaker 1: of all these different people, Chuck Schumer. Illegal immigration was
Speaker 1: bad until a couple of years ago. Maybe you know,
Speaker 1: you go to the second half of the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: when all of a sudden they were trying to get
Speaker 1: comprehensive immigration reformed through and then we realize, oh, wait
Speaker 1: a second, they aren't really opposed to this. They like
Speaker 1: this because it gives them power, because it plays into
Speaker 1: the identity politics and the state dependence that Democrats need
Speaker 1: in order to achieve power. So we're not playing on
Speaker 1: the same We're not playing on team Border Patrol. They're
Speaker 1: playing on team Open Borders. And we've realized this. But
Speaker 1: just like the way that Americans who are paying attention
Speaker 1: to know the mainstream media is dishonest, the mainstream media
Speaker 1: is still pretends it's not. People have figured out a
Speaker 1: lot of them that the Democrats are dishonest, but doesn't
Speaker 1: mean everybody's figured it out when it comes to immigration. Certainly,
Speaker 1: mister Snoop Dogg himself has not figured it out. He's
Speaker 1: rather upset about what Trump is doing on the government
Speaker 1: shut down. Let us let us hear from mister Snoop
Speaker 1: play all you people for the federal government that got
Speaker 1: getting not getting paid right now, ain't no win the world.
Speaker 1: Y'all can vote for Donald Trump when he come back
Speaker 1: up again, if it is, if y'all do vote for him,
Speaker 1: y'all some stupid mother. I'm saying that to y'all early
Speaker 1: all you federal government people, that's not being paid, that's
Speaker 1: being treated unfairly right now, not being paid. That's so terrible.
Speaker 1: And this pump mother, I don't care. So I'm saying
Speaker 1: that to say this. When Dick get back on and
Speaker 1: y'all get your jobs back and it's time to vote,
Speaker 1: don't vote for that. Please, don't look what you do.
Speaker 1: He just don't give a y'all honest, blue collar, hard
Speaker 1: working people and suffering. So if he don't care about y'all,
Speaker 1: you really don't give a about us, So for him too.
Speaker 1: Funk everybody down with Donald Trump? I said, he yeah,
Speaker 1: Snoop Dogg Kim people shut the government down. Piece. I
Speaker 1: think we have a I think we have a Democrat
Speaker 1: twenty twenty candidate, folks. I think he's I think he's
Speaker 1: ready for Iowa. You know, if they're okay with their
Speaker 1: congress congresswoman speaking about Trump that way, why not have
Speaker 1: Snoop Dogg in the mix. Although if he ran, I'm
Speaker 1: sure a lot of a lot of million, tensi millions
Speaker 1: Democrats would vote for him. So there's that. Andy McCarthy's
Speaker 1: coming up. He's gonna make some legal sense of all this,
Speaker 1: so stick around for that. I want to introduce you
Speaker 1: to a new conservative alternative to all those super lib
Speaker 1: progressive email services I patriots dot Us. I patriots dot
Speaker 1: us is secure in private. It has more of what
Speaker 1: you want with none of the nonsense. All those ads
Speaker 1: in spam forget that stuff. With ipatriots, you get thirty
Speaker 1: gigs of cloud storage and larger attachment size is It's
Speaker 1: just a betterall, better overall email system for your use.
Speaker 1: And they won't sell your information or support liberal agenda
Speaker 1: items like a lot of those free email providers out there.
Speaker 1: So show your a patriot. Go check out I patriots
Speaker 1: dot us, knowing that it's compatible with most mobile devices iPhone, iPad, Android,
Speaker 1: Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, you name it. You got ipatriots dot us.
Speaker 1: Now choose your membership program and input your desired ipatriots
Speaker 1: email address. During checkout, you enter promo code buck that's
Speaker 1: buc K for ten percent savings during your first year membership. Again,
Speaker 1: enter promo code buck for ten percent savings during your
Speaker 1: first year of membership. There's no question that we will litigate,
Speaker 1: and there will be litigation. These are moments in our
Speaker 1: country where the beauty of the design of our democracy
Speaker 1: is being tested. And if you think about our democracy
Speaker 1: of the Republicans being a tabletop standing on four legs,
Speaker 1: there are three independent, coequal branches of government and a
Speaker 1: free and independent press. And so what is happening over
Speaker 1: and over again in the last two years is those
Speaker 1: other branches of government and the courts and the press
Speaker 1: will put the checks and balances on the outrageous conduct
Speaker 1: of this administration. If clares an emergency, I think that
Speaker 1: we will see again the checks and balances kick in,
Speaker 1: in particulars through the courts. Lawsuits are a coming, not
Speaker 1: a surprise, I think, But how will those shake out?
Speaker 1: Does the president have the authority to declare a state
Speaker 1: of emergency and build a wall? Is he, in fact
Speaker 1: the commander in chief who can do that? We have
Speaker 1: with us now, the one and only Andy McCarthy, writer
Speaker 1: for National Review, Fox News contributor, former federal prosecutor. Andy.
Speaker 1: Great to have you back. Happy new year, Block, Happy
Speaker 1: new year. Great to be here. All right. So we
Speaker 1: don't know as we go to air here whether the
Speaker 1: President will in fact a clary state of emergency tonight.
Speaker 1: But let's because because it doesn't have to be tonight, right,
Speaker 1: So it doesn't really If he does well, then he
Speaker 1: has He could also declare state of emergency in a
Speaker 1: week or a month, assuming the situation, the borders the same,
Speaker 1: and the president decides to what in your mind happens
Speaker 1: Andy if he goes that route, how does this play out?
Speaker 1: We know this much. One's going to file lawsuit over it. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I have mixed feelings about this book, just because I
Speaker 1: think it's it's really bad policy. I thought this when
Speaker 1: Obama did it. You know, one classic example with Obama,
Speaker 1: everybody thinks about his own immigration pronouncements, right, which were
Speaker 1: completely unsupported by statutory law and we're undertaken. Even though
Speaker 1: he wasn't relying on a statute that talked about declaring
Speaker 1: an emergency. He basically said that there was an emergency
Speaker 1: because Congress wouldn't do what he wanted it to do,
Speaker 1: so he just did it. And the press didn't seem
Speaker 1: to whipped up about that, but they're obviously always whipped
Speaker 1: up about Trump. I think it's bad policy for the
Speaker 1: president to do this sort of thing. You know, the
Speaker 1: way our governing framework is supposed to work, we really
Speaker 1: don't have three co equal branches. Of government. Congress is
Speaker 1: supposed to be the article one branch. They're supp is
Speaker 1: to be the ones making policy. It hasn't really been
Speaker 1: that way since the Progressive error. But that's not the
Speaker 1: way it's supposed to be, or the way it's supposed
Speaker 1: to be is that Congress writes the laws and the
Speaker 1: president carries them out. And the other thing that's interesting
Speaker 1: Herebuck is he does have, undoubtedly I think, statutory authority
Speaker 1: to do this, and those the statutes, which these kinds
Speaker 1: of statutes are strewn throughout the federal Code. One of
Speaker 1: the things I don't like about them is this is
Speaker 1: the way that Congress abdicates it's duty that we elect
Speaker 1: them to carry out. So they, you know, they take
Speaker 1: a bunch of their legislative authority and they delegate it
Speaker 1: to the administrative state agencies. And then they take another
Speaker 1: bunch of their authority and they delegate it to the president,
Speaker 1: and then they go on cable TV and complain that
Speaker 1: they don't like the way things are. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: they don't do the job that we sent them there
Speaker 1: for the other thing that's interesting about this book is
Speaker 1: the statutes allow him to declare a state of emergency
Speaker 1: and even allow him to reallocate or reprogram funds Defense
Speaker 1: Department funds. If he finds that it's a you know,
Speaker 1: it's a national emergency that requires the military, he can
Speaker 1: he the statutes say he can do this. There is
Speaker 1: nothing in the statutes that allows or calls for the
Speaker 1: court to be able to review this. The Congress has
Speaker 1: basically left us up to the president's judgment. But I
Speaker 1: think two things are interesting. One is, if there is
Speaker 1: an emergency on the border, it's caused by Congress's laws
Speaker 1: and you know, basically court decisions or litigation that the
Speaker 1: Justice Department was involved in. But the situation that we
Speaker 1: have with this new dominant class of asylum seekers who
Speaker 1: come to US, which are now predominantly families with children
Speaker 1: as opposed to know these are families with children from
Speaker 1: Central America rather than working age men from Mexico. So
Speaker 1: the demographic of the population that wants to come in
Speaker 1: has changed. Our law has not kept up with it.
Speaker 1: So it's it's basically overwhelmed our ability to deal with
Speaker 1: it administratively. But basically Trump would be invoking a statute
Speaker 1: to address an emergency that's been caused by statutes. Now, Andy,
Speaker 1: a lot of very important stuff that you on their
Speaker 1: courtesy of mister McCarthy, But one thing really struck struck
Speaker 1: me as as yours being there, which is that this
Speaker 1: this idea that you're telling me that the president probably
Speaker 1: does have the authority and it may not even be
Speaker 1: reviewed by courts. Is that is that right? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: here's the thing, Buck, there's that's a big deal, and
Speaker 1: there's yeah, well, there's what should happen, and there's what
Speaker 1: does happen. So we have a number of these laws
Speaker 1: that give the president sweeping authority to deal with crises,
Speaker 1: and most of these laws allow the president to decide
Speaker 1: whether there's a crisis or not unilaterally, and they don't
Speaker 1: allow for court review of that. The statutes basically say,
Speaker 1: if the president, in his judgment decides X, then we
Speaker 1: have to assume X, and then he can do the
Speaker 1: following things which are in the nature of legislation. Which
Speaker 1: is why I object to this. And it's correct for
Speaker 1: a number of my friends who are illegal analysts to
Speaker 1: say that should be judicially unreviewable because the statute doesn't
Speaker 1: allow for judicial reviews. But what I keep saying back
Speaker 1: down here on planet Earth, where President Obama in eight
Speaker 1: years put three hundred and forty judges on the federal bench,
Speaker 1: many of whom are progressive activists. The fact that statutes
Speaker 1: don't allow for judicial review has not to this point
Speaker 1: prevented them from engaging in judicial review, right, you know, so,
Speaker 1: I don't know that the fact that either the statutes
Speaker 1: say what they say or pass president indicates that the
Speaker 1: president has this kind of sweeping authority is going to
Speaker 1: back up a progressive activist who's been put on you know,
Speaker 1: the federal district court someplace. And what we've seen again
Speaker 1: and again and again is that these judges are willing
Speaker 1: not only to block the president but try to impose
Speaker 1: their orders as if they were national hamstrings on the
Speaker 1: president rather than you know, something that just affected that district.
Speaker 1: How would you assess your your certainty? We're speaking to
Speaker 1: Annie McCarthy, everybody of National Review and Fox News contributor,
Speaker 1: h Annie, how would you address assess your and address
Speaker 1: your your certainty about whether the president fundamentally has the
Speaker 1: power to do this? I mean, is this a is
Speaker 1: this a clear call? Is this a gray area issue?
Speaker 1: Because you're hearing people say he just flatly can't, right,
Speaker 1: But they're Democrats. Yeah, of course, right, I say, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is why this if this question is hard buck.
Speaker 1: If we were just dealing with the four corners of
Speaker 1: the statue, um, I'd say he absolutely has the authority.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have any I wouldn't have any hesitant. And
Speaker 1: what is the applicable statute? You know, I had it
Speaker 1: in front of me a second ago, and I should
Speaker 1: have known you were going to ask me that question. Ah,
Speaker 1: here it is. It's it's a section twenty two ninety
Speaker 1: three of Title thirty three of the US Code, which
Speaker 1: basically empowers the president to declare a national emergency and
Speaker 1: to reprogram funds to construct civil defense project if the
Speaker 1: president deems that they're essential to national defense. So the
Speaker 1: statute says, if the president decides that there is a
Speaker 1: national emergency, and you know, it enables him to do
Speaker 1: various things, including reallocate funds. So that's what the statute says.
Speaker 1: But when you have these these progressive analysts who are
Speaker 1: saying he absolutely doesn't have the authority, what they are
Speaker 1: assuming is something that doesn't that the statute doesn't say.
Speaker 1: But they may well turn out to be right about
Speaker 1: which is that some judge is going to look at that,
Speaker 1: and the Justice Department's going to say, there's nothing in
Speaker 1: this statute, your honor, that gives you the authority to
Speaker 1: review the president's decision. And the judge is going to say,
Speaker 1: I don't see anything in here that tells me I can't,
Speaker 1: and then we're off to the races. So right, see,
Speaker 1: But this is also really important. I think that very
Speaker 1: few people, because it hasn't come up much in the
Speaker 1: discussion the news coverage of this, would know that this
Speaker 1: isn't an implied you know, a lot of time with
Speaker 1: presidential authority, you get into implied power or you know,
Speaker 1: under his role as commander in chief or in his
Speaker 1: executive role, we assume, or we have in the past,
Speaker 1: you know, said there's the discretion here, And of course
Speaker 1: that's why we have Andy McCarthy in the show. He's
Speaker 1: actually got the statute right in front of him. You're
Speaker 1: telling me that, no, it is explicitly the law that
Speaker 1: he can do this, and I think people need to
Speaker 1: hear that and know that. Buck let me let me
Speaker 1: read you the first two lines of the statute. In
Speaker 1: the event of a declaration of war or a declaration
Speaker 1: by the president of a national emergency in accordance with
Speaker 1: the national emergency factism. That's a whole another statute that
Speaker 1: deals with when the president declares national emergencies that requires
Speaker 1: or may require the use of the armed forces. So
Speaker 1: what the statute explicitly says is in a situation where
Speaker 1: the president has declared that there's a national emergency that
Speaker 1: requires the armed forces, there's nothing in that statute that
Speaker 1: says a judge has the authority to second guess the
Speaker 1: commander in chief who we've elected on the question whether
Speaker 1: there is a national emergency that requires the use of
Speaker 1: the armed forces. Now, I don't agree that Congress should
Speaker 1: be giving the president these kinds of sweeping powers. I
Speaker 1: would prefer since we're not in the eighteenth century anymore,
Speaker 1: and it's not hard for Congress to convene. I'd rather
Speaker 1: we waited most of the time until there was an
Speaker 1: actual emergency and let the Congress pass a statute that
Speaker 1: tells the president what he can do. But this isn't
Speaker 1: like the law according to Andy, this is federal law,
Speaker 1: and the Congress has given the president this authority. That's
Speaker 1: really it's important stuff, and I'm glad I'm glad we're
Speaker 1: helping get it out there. People should really know. And yes,
Speaker 1: it will go into the courts real, real quick, ending
Speaker 1: before we have to go into a break. If the court,
Speaker 1: let's you know, the Ninth Circuit, if they enjoy this,
Speaker 1: how long before we'll get an answer as to whether
Speaker 1: the President is right? You know, it has to make
Speaker 1: it most likely. I know that the courts after, you know,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has to agree to take it. But
Speaker 1: what's the timetable here? Well, Buck, I think that if
Speaker 1: we go by the travel ban. The President put the
Speaker 1: travel ban into effect in January twenty seventeen, right after
Speaker 1: he got elected, and it ultimately was decided by the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court I believe in June of twenty eighteen, so
Speaker 1: about a year and a half. Now, that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that this is necessarily a model for everything else, but
Speaker 1: I can I can tell people from experience federal judges
Speaker 1: and courts in general, including appellate courts. You know, one
Speaker 1: of the great things about our system is we expect
Speaker 1: them to enforce the law because we don't put political
Speaker 1: pressure on them. They're not accountable to voters. But that
Speaker 1: always that also means that they marched to their own beat,
Speaker 1: and they decide things when they're good and ready to
Speaker 1: decide them. So we may think something's an emergency and
Speaker 1: it needs to be resolved right away, but you know,
Speaker 1: the courts get around to things when they get around
Speaker 1: to things. Andy, can we keep you here talking about
Speaker 1: velni Sky for just a couple of minutes after the break? Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, sure. Guys. We got Annie McCarthy. We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about this latest tie into possibly the Mueller probe
Speaker 1: or is it or isn't it? Or a southern district
Speaker 1: what's going on? A lawyer with ties into this whole
Speaker 1: Russia mess from the meeting at Trump Tower. She's gotten
Speaker 1: herself indicted and he's gonna explain what it means coming up.
Speaker 1: All right, we're back with Andie McCarthy here. Andy, So
Speaker 1: we've gone over national emergency powers in the president. But
Speaker 1: now tell me what is this about. Natalia Veselnitskaya, who
Speaker 1: was the lawyer who sat down with Don Junior, Kushner
Speaker 1: and Maniford and Trump Tower, also has ties to Fusion GPS,
Speaker 1: by the way, and that whole Ary Hillary connection. What
Speaker 1: do you make of this? She's been indicted for obstruction
Speaker 1: by the Southern District. People are confused, but they know
Speaker 1: there's something up. Yeah, well Buck. You know. This is
Speaker 1: very interesting to me because over a year ago I
Speaker 1: wrote a column about the curious case of Natalia vessel
Speaker 1: Nitskaya and the connection there, aside from what we knew
Speaker 1: about her in connection with the Don Junior and the
Speaker 1: Trump Tower meeting, is the fact that she was in
Speaker 1: the United States operating as a lawyer. And there was
Speaker 1: a lot of talk at the time that maybe the
Speaker 1: Justice Department had set Don Junior up by letting her
Speaker 1: come here to have this meeting. It turns out she's
Speaker 1: come a couple of times and only once at the
Speaker 1: behest of the Justice Department, and it wasn't that wasn't
Speaker 1: the time that she had the Trump Tower meeting. But
Speaker 1: she shouldn't have been allowed to come to the United States.
Speaker 1: This was my argument in the first place, because she's
Speaker 1: not eligible to work as a lawyer here, and what
Speaker 1: she said she wanted to do here was be a
Speaker 1: lawyer for a Kremlin connected a big business guy from Russia,
Speaker 1: the Katsis, who run a business called Prevazon Holdings that
Speaker 1: was connected up with the murder and the distribution of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars in fraudo and proceeds that was uncovered
Speaker 1: by this guy, Sergei Magnitsky, who the Magnitsky Act is
Speaker 1: named after. Yeah, I was not trying to implicate Catsi
Speaker 1: in the murder. I don't know that there's any evidence
Speaker 1: of that. But he was implicated and his business was
Speaker 1: implicated in the distribution of the fraudjo proceeds, and the
Speaker 1: Southern District did a money laundering civil forfeiture action to
Speaker 1: try to claim about fourteen million dollars of the proceeds
Speaker 1: from him, and she worked on the case to help
Speaker 1: represent him. But she's not a lawyer in the United States.
Speaker 1: She's not authorized to practice law here, and I think
Speaker 1: the Southern District was pressured by the judge to allow
Speaker 1: her to come into the United States for purposes of
Speaker 1: the litigation. And as I pointed out in the piece
Speaker 1: I wrote over a year ago, you know, while she
Speaker 1: was here, she really didn't too much of anything of value,
Speaker 1: at least that the court of the government could detect
Speaker 1: for purposes of the case. But she did build American
Speaker 1: taxpayers a lot of money to stay in the plaza
Speaker 1: and was the high life for a few weeks. So
Speaker 1: why is she arrested, Well, she's now they're saying that
Speaker 1: in connection with this representation that she really shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been allowed to participate in because she's not again, she's
Speaker 1: not eligible to be a lawyer. Here, she provided the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York with essentially false exculpatory evidence
Speaker 1: about the connection of the catsives to the scheme and
Speaker 1: whether the Russian government was involved at all in the
Speaker 1: murder of Magnitsky. And as you may recall, Buck, one
Speaker 1: of the big things that she's pushed here is she's
Speaker 1: been basically Putin's activist in the United States to try
Speaker 1: to get Congress to repeal the Magnitsky Act. Putin hates
Speaker 1: the Magnitsky Act because it allows the government to try
Speaker 1: to attach millions of dollars that belongs to his cronies
Speaker 1: and maybe part of his own personal fortune for all
Speaker 1: I know. But one of his big pet peeves has
Speaker 1: been to try to get this thing repealed, and she's
Speaker 1: been his point person on that. And the way that
Speaker 1: they this stick works is that you know, she basically
Speaker 1: runs around and says it was Magnitsky and this guy,
Speaker 1: Bill Browder, who with the real frauds who stole all
Speaker 1: the money, and they've pinned the whole thing on the
Speaker 1: poor Kremlin, and the Kremlin's innocent. That's her, you know,
Speaker 1: that's the that's the thing that she pedals and he
Speaker 1: hold that thought. We gotta we gotta hit a quick
Speaker 1: commercial break and we come right back you we can
Speaker 1: finish with what this means about the Muller probe. Everybody
Speaker 1: stay with me, all right, Andy, Sorry, we you know,
Speaker 1: we gotta we gotta keep the lights ons. We gotta
Speaker 1: go to our commercial break there. But but just tell
Speaker 1: me what. So we're talking about Vezelnitzkaya. She's the lawyer
Speaker 1: at Trump Tower. Initially they say it's about adoptions. She's
Speaker 1: there with Donald Trump Junior, with Jared Kushner, with Mana Ford.
Speaker 1: You're saying she has been the prutent and the Kremlin's
Speaker 1: point person in the US, effectively working as an agent
Speaker 1: of influence for Russia, trying to get the Magnitsky Act
Speaker 1: for Peel. The Magnitsky Act name for Serage Magnitsky, which
Speaker 1: we know about because of Bill know about a lot
Speaker 1: of people know about it because of Bill Browder his
Speaker 1: book read Notice where essentially there's a huge fraud, the
Speaker 1: Russians try to steal a bunch of money, Magnitsky figured
Speaker 1: it out, and they killed them in prison. It's used
Speaker 1: to sanction bad people around the world. Now we find
Speaker 1: out that she, meaning Vezlnitskaya, who was essentially playing what
Speaker 1: playing the Southern District for fools, and so now they're
Speaker 1: going to prosecute her for obstruction. Is that is that
Speaker 1: pretty much where we are right now? Yeah, you've basically
Speaker 1: nailed that she was involved in the case against prevason holding,
Speaker 1: that the Southern District brought Prevason Holding is run by
Speaker 1: the cats of Family, who are pals of Putins, and
Speaker 1: she basically provided evidence that was exculpatory of them and
Speaker 1: exculpatory of the Russian government in connection with the murder
Speaker 1: of Magnitsky. And so does this have anything you know,
Speaker 1: people reporting on them today. You know lawyer a lawyer
Speaker 1: tied to Trump Tower meeting indicted and there was all this, Oh,
Speaker 1: this sounds like Muller. But from what you're telling me,
Speaker 1: this sounds like she just got into a jam. That
Speaker 1: is that is truly unrelated at least with regard to
Speaker 1: these charges to Russia collusion, Trump Tower meeting or any
Speaker 1: of that stuff. Is that your reader or is there
Speaker 1: another layer to this? Well, I think that is my
Speaker 1: read book. But let's let's caveat this with what we've
Speaker 1: experienced in connection with Cohen. Right, So, Michael Cohen was
Speaker 1: also prosecuted by the Southern District for crimes that was
Speaker 1: seemingly unrelated to Trump, and that led him to be basically,
Speaker 1: you know, squeezed and put him in a position where
Speaker 1: you know, Muller was able to get out of him
Speaker 1: or the Southern District was able to get out of him. Um,
Speaker 1: I guess Smaller also additional information over which she was prosecuted.
Speaker 1: Remember Muller than pro secuted him for making false statements
Speaker 1: in a transaction that shows that the Trump organization was
Speaker 1: negotiating this Trump Tower in Moscow throughout twenty sixteen. They
Speaker 1: didn't cut it off at the beginning of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: as Trump had represented. So you know, if they have
Speaker 1: her jammed up and they can acquire her presence, I
Speaker 1: don't know if she's actually been arrested. I assume if
Speaker 1: she's in Russia, we'll never see her again. But if
Speaker 1: they can actually arrest her and get her to provide
Speaker 1: information that could run down to the benefit of Mueller's
Speaker 1: investigation if what we've seen in Cohen's case is any indication.
Speaker 1: But we'll just have to wait it out and see
Speaker 1: what happened. Andy MacArthur, everybody of Natural Review read his
Speaker 1: latest there also look for him on Fox News and
Speaker 1: Andy as always my friend. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being really generous with your time today and we will
Speaker 1: talk to you soon. Thanks so much, Bucky, great to
Speaker 1: tell take care. You know, I had a chance, and
Speaker 1: I know we went along there with Andy. He's one
Speaker 1: of he's one of the most knowledgeable, humble and nicest
Speaker 1: guys in the business. You know, I can tell you
Speaker 1: that Andy, and it's not just me who falls this category.
Speaker 1: You know, if I have a question about something, I
Speaker 1: can reach out to Andy, so because I never want
Speaker 1: to you know, get ahead of my skis or or
Speaker 1: you know, mess up on a legal matter. You know,
Speaker 1: I can go to Andy and he's alway. He's just
Speaker 1: very generous with his time. He's a really good dude.
Speaker 1: And you know, uh credit to Fox for for picking
Speaker 1: him up and understanding how important his voice is in
Speaker 1: the current, the current conversation about the entirety of our
Speaker 1: justice system and what's really happening. But I had a
Speaker 1: chance today on On Rising, and actually this was a
Speaker 1: pre tape interview, so you're getting a little preview of
Speaker 1: what's coming up tomorrow WOA, and we had we had
Speaker 1: a phenomenal sit down with Grover Norquist. That guy is
Speaker 1: a mean, lean tax analysis machine. We had a lot
Speaker 1: of fun talking about taxes. Man. He gets into the
Speaker 1: those taxes. But I talk to a woman who is
Speaker 1: a long time judge in the immigration courts, and there's
Speaker 1: some very important takeaways from that interview that you can
Speaker 1: see on Hill Dot TV tomorrow. One of them is
Speaker 1: that the court this idea that people are showing up
Speaker 1: at our border and they just want their day in
Speaker 1: court is preposterous. Okay, because the backlog it is being
Speaker 1: made worse. I'm just gonna say it's the backlog is
Speaker 1: being made worse right now by the shutdown. So the
Speaker 1: backlog is going up, and it's already eight hundred thousand cases,
Speaker 1: eight hundred thousand cases. You have judges who are seeing
Speaker 1: fifty or sixty immigration cases a day. I think about
Speaker 1: how many hours in a day there, How can you
Speaker 1: spend any real time? I mean, this is just this
Speaker 1: is pro forma and you know, I asked, and there's
Speaker 1: different categorization of what kind of individuals are coming before
Speaker 1: them with an immigration system. But I said, you know
Speaker 1: what is the you know, she was very clear, and look,
Speaker 1: I could tell the judge leans a little leans a
Speaker 1: little left. And I'm going to get into that in
Speaker 1: a moment. When I said, you know, what is the
Speaker 1: number of people who are no shows for their hearings?
Speaker 1: You know what is that? What is the number of
Speaker 1: people who just do not ever, you know, show up
Speaker 1: when called? And she said, it's about ten percent of
Speaker 1: immigrants don't show up for their hearings. Now, keep in mind,
Speaker 1: if you miss your hearing date, you go to the
Speaker 1: back of the line, which could mean you know more,
Speaker 1: you know, more years of waiting. And if you miss it,
Speaker 1: for example, because of the government shutdown, if you miss
Speaker 1: it through no fault of your own, if you miss
Speaker 1: it and you're in default, I assume they or you know,
Speaker 1: you're just a no show, whatever they call it. I
Speaker 1: assume that they probably moved to removal proceedings. But then
Speaker 1: they have to find you and you know, you got
Speaker 1: eight hundred thousand people the immigration court system right now
Speaker 1: who are trying to have their claims adjudicated, and you've
Speaker 1: got I asked her how many unaccompanied miners and she
Speaker 1: said this was anecdotal, so this was not an official statistic.
Speaker 1: I said, how many unaccompanied miners are staying in the
Speaker 1: country that you see, Meaning, if you show up at
Speaker 1: the border, you're sixteen, seventeen years old, what's the chance
Speaker 1: you get to stay in the country legally? Never mind
Speaker 1: if you just stay because you're not going to be deported,
Speaker 1: because you're not going to be deported. And she said
Speaker 1: it's about forty percent, so getting pretty close to half.
Speaker 1: And I can tell you this, half of them are
Speaker 1: being waved in by immigration judges and the other half
Speaker 1: are being told, well, you have to go home, but
Speaker 1: we got to figure out how to do that, and
Speaker 1: you're a low priority. So they're never going to get
Speaker 1: deported and sent back to their families in their home
Speaker 1: country where they're actually a citizen. So the immigration courts
Speaker 1: themselves are a huge problem in this whole process. The
Speaker 1: immigration courts have lots of these judges that have effectively
Speaker 1: a more of the merrier attitude that's going on here.
Speaker 1: You got to keep that in mind. Got a White
Speaker 1: House correspondent joining us at a moment to give a
Speaker 1: little preview what's coming up tonight. Vice President's basic point
Speaker 1: Democrats are ignoring a crisis and says the President really
Speaker 1: is considering declaring a national emergency to go around Congress.
Speaker 1: Your response, it's just not true. It's just simply not true.
Speaker 1: There was a bipartisan effort out of the United States
Speaker 1: Senate and the United States Congress to pass a funding
Speaker 1: of the government, and the President is holding it up
Speaker 1: because of his vanity project, which is this wall at
Speaker 1: taxpayers expense and at the expensive hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: workers who are working every day without being paid. So
Speaker 1: it's just simply not true. He's an emergency of his
Speaker 1: own creator. Is the President going to declare a national emergency?
Speaker 1: We're going to know here shortly after the show finishes up,
Speaker 1: but it looks very possible. We got somebody who can
Speaker 1: give us a bit of insight to the intrigue and
Speaker 1: the backstory going on at the White House right now.
Speaker 1: Amber Eighth is with us. She is the Daily Callers.
Speaker 1: White House correspondents she's with us. Amber, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining. Of course, thanks for having me Buck. All right,
Speaker 1: So what what did you hear from folks at the
Speaker 1: White House? First of all, I mean, is it clear
Speaker 1: that he is going to declare stat of emergency? Is
Speaker 1: this one of these things where he hasn't done it
Speaker 1: yet but everybody, everybody who knows kind of knows he's
Speaker 1: going to. Yeah, it's not totally clear. My sources haven't
Speaker 1: indicated one way or the other whether he's going to
Speaker 1: the only thing that I've heard definitively is that this
Speaker 1: speech is going to make news, and that's happening tonight
Speaker 1: at nine o'clock. The reason I'm leaning towards him declaring
Speaker 1: the national emergency is because of all of his statements
Speaker 1: over the past week. He first brought this up, I
Speaker 1: think it was last Wednesday, and then he repeated it
Speaker 1: again later where he said he would see how the
Speaker 1: government shut down negotiations went over the next few days
Speaker 1: to determine whether or not he would declare a state
Speaker 1: of emergency. Based on the fact that the negotiations haven't
Speaker 1: progressed at all. The Democrats are still all bringing something
Speaker 1: like one point six billion for the vague border security,
Speaker 1: whereas Trump of course wants five point seven for a wall,
Speaker 1: humanitarian aid, and a few other measures. The fact that
Speaker 1: there's still at that impast leads me to believe that
Speaker 1: the only way the president is going to get what
Speaker 1: he wants in terms of wall funding is to declare
Speaker 1: national emergency and bringing the military to build it. And
Speaker 1: so the the Democrats, their position right now is that
Speaker 1: there are they still they still have this one point
Speaker 1: whatever at one point seven billion, one point six billion
Speaker 1: that's on the table. But that's all that's on the table,
Speaker 1: right right, And that's not for a wall. That's the
Speaker 1: important distinction. That's not, you know, meeting the president sort
Speaker 1: of close to halfway for wall funding. They're talking about
Speaker 1: a much more vague version of border security, and what
Speaker 1: they're mainly referring to there is technology like sensors and cameras,
Speaker 1: what some people might refer to as a virtual wall,
Speaker 1: but it in no way includes flats or concrete walls
Speaker 1: or any kind of actual physical barrier on the border,
Speaker 1: which is really going to be a non starter for
Speaker 1: the president. And I would also note that this is
Speaker 1: not reported by other folks as much. I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: been on this one amber that the president as part
Speaker 1: of what he's asked for the border, there's emergency humanitarian
Speaker 1: funding essentially, more beds, more doctors, more judges, more lawyers, more,
Speaker 1: more of everything to deal with the border. But Democrats
Speaker 1: don't talk about any of that either. They're just like, Oh,
Speaker 1: he just wants his wall, that's all he wants. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I think that they're starting to lose this argument that
Speaker 1: the wall doesn't work, and enough people who are senior
Speaker 1: in border patrol down through the ranks of just season
Speaker 1: border patrol agents see and have seen recently at at
Speaker 1: the San Diego San Ya Cedro border crossing, that it
Speaker 1: does in fact work. So I think that line has
Speaker 1: been tough. I think the it's too much money when
Speaker 1: you're talking but Democrats is kind of laughable. So really
Speaker 1: this gets boiled down to it's just about political opposition
Speaker 1: to Trump more than anything else. That's exactly what it is.
Speaker 1: Because this wall wasn't something that Trump just dreamed up
Speaker 1: out of nowhere. You could make the argument that perhaps
Speaker 1: the idea of a concrete wall all the way across
Speaker 1: the border wasn't realistic, but the wall is something that
Speaker 1: border patrol agents have been asking for and they've specifically
Speaker 1: asked for the latest sort of what Trump calls the wall,
Speaker 1: which is the steel slaps, because they want something that
Speaker 1: see through so that they can see threats coming on
Speaker 1: the other side of the border. An important aspect of this,
Speaker 1: and this is something that came out yesterday, as if
Speaker 1: the President does decide to declare a state of emergency,
Speaker 1: he would face a congressional challenge. They can pass a
Speaker 1: joint resolution nullifying the state of emergency. But yesterday the
Speaker 1: White House said that the one point of agreement between
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans was that there is in fact to
Speaker 1: crisis at the border. So it's going to be difficult
Speaker 1: to convince, especially the Republican led Senate, to vote against
Speaker 1: the president's state of emergency when Democrats have already admitted
Speaker 1: there's a crisis going on. Yeah. I've started off the
Speaker 1: show today talking about how this idea that there is
Speaker 1: no crisis at the border when all summer we were
Speaker 1: being told is because they wanted to run lots of
Speaker 1: footage of you know, babies crying, and you know, they've
Speaker 1: been telling us there's a crisis all along. Now that
Speaker 1: Trump is trying to address the crisis and use his
Speaker 1: powers which we've which have been established here. We've talked
Speaker 1: to Annie McCarthy, we'll be talking to Anthie McCarthy about this.
Speaker 1: Established the powers to do this, he has them under statute.
Speaker 1: There's no crisis line. I think it's desperate. I think
Speaker 1: the Democrats are. They're running out of leeway. Well, especially
Speaker 1: when this was the same party that was trying to
Speaker 1: blame the president and blame border patrol agents for the
Speaker 1: death of two children on the border. But when you
Speaker 1: look into that, you find us actually policies that are
Speaker 1: encouraging illegal immigration and encouraging families to try to cross
Speaker 1: the border. The family of the I believe he was
Speaker 1: eight years old, the eight year old boy who died,
Speaker 1: maybe he was seven. His family admitted that they brought
Speaker 1: him to the border because they thought that he would
Speaker 1: have an easier time getting the family into the United States.
Speaker 1: So when you have policies that encourage things like that,
Speaker 1: you encourage parents to bring children on their truck across
Speaker 1: the border. There's no physical barrier there to stop them.
Speaker 1: They can claim asylum as soon as they get one
Speaker 1: foot on US soil. Those are all things that need
Speaker 1: to be addressed. I think the wall is one starting point.
Speaker 1: Broader immigration reform will be the next step. And I
Speaker 1: want to switch gears from moment we're speaking, we're speaking
Speaker 1: to Amber athe over at the Daily Caller. She's the
Speaker 1: White House correspondent, so she's in the White House all
Speaker 1: the time and falling up with all these people. Jim
Speaker 1: Shujo from c Yeah, whom I've had. I've had my
Speaker 1: own interactions with in person and in cyberspace. He had
Speaker 1: a little dispute today. Why don't you just tell us
Speaker 1: what happened. Yeah, so, Jim Shudo, he is a former
Speaker 1: Obama official. He's now a CNN anchor. Quite a transition.
Speaker 1: He has been claiming basically for the past year. This
Speaker 1: was just the most recent of many claims that Republicans
Speaker 1: were the first to fund the Steel dossier, which if
Speaker 1: you know the timeline of this, you know it's simply
Speaker 1: not true. The Washington Free Beacon, of course, paid for
Speaker 1: standard opposition research from Fusion GPS. Months later, after they
Speaker 1: stopped paying the DNC and Clinton, the Clinton campaign took
Speaker 1: up a new contract with Fusion GPS to compile this
Speaker 1: dossier about Trump's connections to Russia. They hired Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: to look into that. It was totally separate from anything
Speaker 1: that the Free Beacon was doing with Fusion GPS. It's
Speaker 1: pretty cut and dry. Shudo, of course, keeps claiming that
Speaker 1: Republicans started the dossier. It's I guess it's some kind
Speaker 1: of way to absolve Democrats as creating this very much
Speaker 1: unverified document. He made the claim again today. I pointed
Speaker 1: it out on Twitter, and he refuses to address the
Speaker 1: fact that the claim is not accurate. Instead, he responds
Speaker 1: in this condescending manner, quoting what he said from the transcript,
Speaker 1: as if that somehow makes what he said any more factual.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to be on this. I'm still working
Speaker 1: reaching out the CNN and talking to people who know
Speaker 1: the dossier inside and out, just try to get a
Speaker 1: correction on this claim. But based on how long I've
Speaker 1: been pushing him on this, it seems more and more unlikely. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well he is. He excels in smarm by the way
Speaker 1: he likes to Yeah, I will. I will tell you
Speaker 1: he's a smarmy fellow, and he's one of these people
Speaker 1: also that that will occasionally do the reach out to
Speaker 1: me personally be like, you know, for your own good,
Speaker 1: I think you should tone it down on X or Y,
Speaker 1: And I'm always like, for your own good, don't talk
Speaker 1: to me clown show. So yeah, Well, one person responded
Speaker 1: to him and said something like, sue her. She's defaming you,
Speaker 1: and I might try it. Sue me because I know
Speaker 1: I'm right. Yeah, I know exactly. CNN fake news, unabashed, unabashedly,
Speaker 1: so they revel in it. They fake news is the
Speaker 1: water in which they swim, and the water is warm.
Speaker 1: One thing for you know, if everybody in the media
Speaker 1: gets things wrong, sometimes I get things wrong. I try
Speaker 1: to correct them and apologize when I make mistakes. This
Speaker 1: is just so intentional and it's repetitive that it's become
Speaker 1: delicious at this point. Yep. No interest in correcting the record.
Speaker 1: Absolutely the case. Well, I just wanted to get that
Speaker 1: on the record, Amber Athy, everybody of the Daily Caller,
Speaker 1: Amber Gray work, come back talk to us soon. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much. Buck. You're probably familiar with AARP. You or
Speaker 1: someone you know might already be a member, But did
Speaker 1: you know that the AARP is really a left wing organization.
Speaker 1: The AARP font tooth and nail for a government run
Speaker 1: healthcare system, and they stood again, ends tax cuts for
Speaker 1: middle class Americans. So forget about the AARP, but get
Speaker 1: all the benefits you get from the AIRP with a
Speaker 1: better organization. I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC? Will you see?
Speaker 1: AMAC is all about the things that you're all about,
Speaker 1: border protection, limited government, limited taxation. It is the conservative
Speaker 1: alternative to the AAARP. And over one point five million
Speaker 1: Americans have already joined AMAC, and that number is growing.
Speaker 1: If you're a conservative, you're eligible and you want all
Speaker 1: the benefits of AARP without the liberal nonsense. Stand with
Speaker 1: AMAC as they fight the good fight by becoming a
Speaker 1: member today. The benefits are great, but the cause is
Speaker 1: even greater. Tell your family, tell your friends, join us
Speaker 1: right now at AMAC dot us slash buck that's AMAC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck AMAC. Better for you, Better for America. Oh,
Speaker 1: the media pretends that they aren't a bunch of anti
Speaker 1: Trump lunatics. We know this, right, We know the mainstream
Speaker 1: media is still clings desperately to this fiction that they're
Speaker 1: just they're just like reporters telling the truth, man, Like
Speaker 1: do you just speaking truth to power? They gain even
Speaker 1: know like we ever mean false? You could say fake news.
Speaker 1: They're lying, this is not true, and the ruse is
Speaker 1: wearing very thin. You know, this is not going to
Speaker 1: continue all that much longer. I think people have gotten
Speaker 1: too wise to this. You know, if you want liberal news,
Speaker 1: you should watch liberal news. If you want conservative news,
Speaker 1: you should watch conservative news. Everybody's facts have to be
Speaker 1: accurate or else they have no credibility. The issue should
Speaker 1: not be about whether you know. To be objective is
Speaker 1: not the same thing as to be factual. That's where
Speaker 1: that's where the illusion lies here. To be objective is
Speaker 1: not really feasible in the news business because of all
Speaker 1: the decisions that are made around editorial and narrative. Right
Speaker 1: to be objective is not something that you can you
Speaker 1: can really say with a straight phase. For the most part,
Speaker 1: there are some people that I think do a pretty
Speaker 1: good job of presenting narratives that try to be objective
Speaker 1: the events happening in the new cycle, but very few
Speaker 1: that all said, CNN is not in that category, right,
Speaker 1: CNN is the hashtag resistance, and they're not even as
Speaker 1: good at being the resistance as MSNBC, So really they're
Speaker 1: the runner up resistance channel. How they're just even a
Speaker 1: little bit crazier. But there was quite an exchange caught
Speaker 1: today over at over at the White House on the
Speaker 1: White House lawn where for those of you who you
Speaker 1: catch it sometimes on TV, they have almost these little
Speaker 1: stalls set up with canopies over them where the different
Speaker 1: reporters will do their hits at the White House. You know,
Speaker 1: it really is set up so you have the White
Speaker 1: House as the backdrop, and you have your White House reporters.
Speaker 1: They're set up. But I've been over there a bunch
Speaker 1: of times, and you you see people coming and going
Speaker 1: out there in the lawn, and sometimes you have a
Speaker 1: little exchange with them. Right. Well, here's an exchange that
Speaker 1: was a bit a bit spicier than the average one.
Speaker 1: This was Jim Acosta, Jim Shooko and miss Kelly and
Speaker 1: Conway getting into it. Play fifteen. Can you promise that
Speaker 1: the president will tell the truth tonight? Will he tell
Speaker 1: the truth? Yes? Jim? And can you promise that you will?
Speaker 1: I will the whole ship and nothing about the truths
Speaker 1: to help you? God? Am I last mentioned God? Now? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, Jim minutes to cheap make sure that goes viral. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is why, By the way, this is why I'm
Speaker 1: one of the only people around here who even gives
Speaker 1: you the time a day. Can you can you and
Speaker 1: let me leybe, just let me get back in your face,
Speaker 1: because you're such a smart ass most of the time,
Speaker 1: and I know you want this to go viral. A
Speaker 1: lot of these people don't like you, But let me
Speaker 1: just be respectful to the media bit large as I
Speaker 1: always am. I explained that that was alternative information, additional facts,
Speaker 1: and I explained it many times. And don't you put
Speaker 1: it back in my face. For all the corrections that
Speaker 1: your network needs to issue, I was on your network
Speaker 1: twenty five or twenty six times in twenty eighteen. I'm
Speaker 1: one of the last people here who even bother to
Speaker 1: go on. And the disrespect that you showed to me personally,
Speaker 1: I'll just look pass. No, Jim Acosta is a smug schmuck.
Speaker 1: He just is. I mean, he should be an embarrassment
Speaker 1: to CNN. Meanwhile, he's more valuable to CNN than ever before.
Speaker 1: What does that tell you about that network? Um? Why
Speaker 1: does he By the way, I think I thought Jim
Speaker 1: Shuto was in that clip. I may I maybe it
Speaker 1: may have just been Jim Acosta a Shooto in there
Speaker 1: as well. Uh maybe not maybe not. No, he wasn't there.
Speaker 1: That wouldn't make sense. I'm sorry, I got, I got
Speaker 1: my Jim's pardon me, I retract. See, unlike CNN when
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, I'll say it. Jim Shuto wasn't there as well.
Speaker 1: It was just Jim Acosta. I got my gym's messed up.
Speaker 1: I got, I got Shooto on the mind because we're
Speaker 1: talking to Amber about him before. But you know, Acosta
Speaker 1: is just act acting like a punk here. I mean,
Speaker 1: can you imagine for a moment the backlash that would
Speaker 1: happen if you had a major network reporter or a
Speaker 1: multi millionaire network reporter who said, is President Obama going
Speaker 1: to tell the truth tonight? It's President Obama not going
Speaker 1: to be a liar to night. That's not a question,
Speaker 1: that's an attack. We're not a bunch of infants. We
Speaker 1: understand what shoot sorry, what Acosta is trying that they're interchangeable.
Speaker 1: Really what Acosta is trying to do here, and the
Speaker 1: fact that Kelly Anne stands her ground there and tears
Speaker 1: back into him is just great. You know, this is
Speaker 1: for all of the unfinished business of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: and there's a lot there's a lot of things that
Speaker 1: have not been accomplished yet. Although the wall is still
Speaker 1: a live issue. Man, he's you got to give the
Speaker 1: president credit for fighting on this one. He's and taking
Speaker 1: a lot of pressure. He's not backing down one inch.
Speaker 1: And I'm really looking forward to seeing to hearing and
Speaker 1: seeing what he has to say tonight on this issue.
Speaker 1: But the fact of the matter is that their willingness,
Speaker 1: the the Trump Administration's willingness from Trump on down to
Speaker 1: fight back against the media is a you know, we
Speaker 1: often are told about, oh, you know, the standard that
Speaker 1: Trump set here or there that we're going to have
Speaker 1: to live with later. And sometimes that's true. You know,
Speaker 1: when when a Democrat comes along and you know, he's
Speaker 1: a guy who's you know, had seven wives and you know,
Speaker 1: has a has a fondness for, you know, spending time
Speaker 1: with exotic dancers, it's going to be tough for Republicans
Speaker 1: to say, well, that persons not of the character that
Speaker 1: we want in the White House. Right, so there are
Speaker 1: something some precedents that have been set here that aren't
Speaker 1: going to be that easy for us to live with
Speaker 1: or won't be great going down the line. But we
Speaker 1: make a judgment call about that, and the judgment is
Speaker 1: that overall, it is more valuable to have Trump pushing
Speaker 1: for his agenda and to have Trump in the White
Speaker 1: House than the backlash that we deal with, both from
Speaker 1: the media in a dated a sense and then down
Speaker 1: the line in our inability without looking hypocritical, to criticize
Speaker 1: a future Democrat politician for some personal failings. But the
Speaker 1: fight against the media is I think I think this
Speaker 1: has changed the game. I don't think it's ever going
Speaker 1: to go back to the way that it was. I
Speaker 1: think that Trump has has, you know, kicked the hornet's
Speaker 1: nest here in a good way, meaning that now we
Speaker 1: really see how they respond, how they react, and because
Speaker 1: of the Internet and because of our ability to draw
Speaker 1: upon these conversations down the line and know what the
Speaker 1: media was saying now, just like we know what they
Speaker 1: said about Obama. You know, Yes, Trump has played a
Speaker 1: very large role in exposing how left wing, how progressive,
Speaker 1: what a bunch of activists the mainstream media are. He's
Speaker 1: he's been essential in this process. It's really among immigration
Speaker 1: and him fighting in the media are my two favorite
Speaker 1: things about Trump. The two best things about this presidency. Trade,
Speaker 1: we'll see, you know, I don't know. We got to
Speaker 1: see how it works out with China. That's I'm on
Speaker 1: the fence on that one. But immigration and fighting back
Speaker 1: in the media, the President's been incredible. And then also
Speaker 1: our ability. Now I mean you, as as a listener
Speaker 1: to the show, know that we have access to what
Speaker 1: the media was saying before in a way that twenty
Speaker 1: years ago we just didn't. So they could say, you know,
Speaker 1: they could pretend that they were just as hard on
Speaker 1: this president as they were on the last president and
Speaker 1: vice versa, based upon their short and petty political needs,
Speaker 1: whereas now we go, no, no, that's not what you
Speaker 1: You know, the last time this similar thing happened, this
Speaker 1: is how you responded, you know, when Obama was I've
Speaker 1: got a part in a phone, I'm gonna talk action,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do things. When Obama was running around in
Speaker 1: unconstitutional fashion, acting in authoritarian mode, the press was making
Speaker 1: excuses when up now with the national emergency that may
Speaker 1: be declared here pretty soon and just a matter of
Speaker 1: moments or a matter of hours, I should say, it
Speaker 1: depends on when you're listening to this, right could be
Speaker 1: the next day that's in his statutory authority. But they're
Speaker 1: saying that he's being some crazy authoritarian with that, you know,
Speaker 1: they say that he's way he's way out of line
Speaker 1: and on this issue. And I just have to say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. I remember what the media was
Speaker 1: like when Obama was in power, and I remember what
Speaker 1: they're and now I see what they're like with Trump,
Speaker 1: and that really matters. And then you add to that
Speaker 1: just how many journalists are tweeting and retweeting left wing
Speaker 1: activist propaganda and agit prop from the move on dot
Speaker 1: orgs and the Daily Cos and the huff Post and
Speaker 1: all these just these giant piles of steamy liberal crap
Speaker 1: lousiness on the internet, and and and then those journalists
Speaker 1: turned out to say, oh, no, I don't have an opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm just, you know, just the facts, man, And I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I don't think so. So I really
Speaker 1: like that that Kelly Anne, you know, called out Jimmy Acosta.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that the more that Jimmy Acosta
Speaker 1: gets called out, the more his fans think that what
Speaker 1: he's doing is really journalism and support him, and the
Speaker 1: more valuable he becomes in Zucker's war against against Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, I told you I have a friend who
Speaker 1: was there when Jeff Zucker and his assistant. She was
Speaker 1: on the phone and she said, if Trump wants to
Speaker 1: go to war with CNN, CNN's gonna go to war
Speaker 1: with Trump. That was during the election. That was during
Speaker 1: the primary. I think memory serves it might have been
Speaker 1: during the general. I forget now, but I spoke to
Speaker 1: a person who was there. So that's why when when
Speaker 1: you know, uh, smug Tapper and clownish Acosta and and
Speaker 1: and bro Cuomo and the whole squad of overpaid mediocrities
Speaker 1: over there, when they get all high and mighty about
Speaker 1: how their journals, I'm like, you guys, are you guys
Speaker 1: are just living in a big lie. You're just all
Speaker 1: part of a big falsehood. And people who are smart
Speaker 1: and paying attention have caught on. As you can tell
Speaker 1: IM there you have it. You can tell. That's something
Speaker 1: that gets me a bit fired up. We have more
Speaker 1: like you know what we could talk about about healthcare
Speaker 1: for a moment here and the latest from my hometown.
Speaker 1: You know, I just I leave New York and things
Speaker 1: take a turn for the worse. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: because I'm not there, but I'm not saying it's not
Speaker 1: this guy, Deblasio, Kaiser, Phil Halm, Deblasio, Warren Wilhelm. Don't
Speaker 1: ever forget it. That was his name forever. He changed
Speaker 1: it in his twenties, because who's gonna vote for varn
Speaker 1: Phil Harem couldn't talk. Yeah, Hey, Billy Deblasio, he's promised
Speaker 1: healthcare for all. Let's talk about it. From this moment
Speaker 1: on in New York City, everyone is guaranteed the right
Speaker 1: to healthcare. Everyone guaranteed the right to healthcare. That's right.
Speaker 1: They're saying that that's the mayor of New York City, who,
Speaker 1: at least, I'm happy to say. You know, you never
Speaker 1: hear about him thinking he's going to run for president.
Speaker 1: Are terrible governor in the state of New York. Nobody
Speaker 1: thinks I should run for president. But my name is Cuomo,
Speaker 1: and therefore I assume that people will vote for me.
Speaker 1: And if I yell and look angry whenever I give
Speaker 1: a public pronouncement, I assume that the fear that I
Speaker 1: inspire in listeners will force them to vote for me.
Speaker 1: He thinks he's gonna run, de Blasio does not think
Speaker 1: he's going to run, at least from what I see
Speaker 1: so far. But he now is stepping into the national
Speaker 1: healthcare discussion because I know it's for New York it's
Speaker 1: New York City only, but New York City has eight
Speaker 1: million people, and this is now going to be one
Speaker 1: of these experiments that we get to see how it functions,
Speaker 1: how does it work out. The superliberal mayor here saying
Speaker 1: that there's going to be a new plan, a new
Speaker 1: plan in place where New York City is going to
Speaker 1: make sure that six hundred thousand New Yorkers who don't
Speaker 1: have insurance will get insurance through Metro Plus, which is
Speaker 1: the city's public health insurance options. So essentially you're going
Speaker 1: to have a microcosm here of what a public option
Speaker 1: would look like, which you know, liberals love this idea.
Speaker 1: It's that, oh, i'll just have the I'll pay into
Speaker 1: a government insurance program, or more likely, the government's going
Speaker 1: to pay for my insurance in the government insurance program.
Speaker 1: And that's how they you know, that's how they plan
Speaker 1: to sell this thing, and that's how they're going to
Speaker 1: do it. But he's also including illegal immigrants in this
Speaker 1: that's right now you're going to have a city that's
Speaker 1: saying we're going to take money from people who are
Speaker 1: paying taxes and we're going to use that money to
Speaker 1: give healthcare away to people who are illegals in the country.
Speaker 1: And I just want to know before we there's so
Speaker 1: much here that's problematic. But what about somebody now who
Speaker 1: shows up from afford country and says that they want
Speaker 1: to have a million dollar heart operation in New York
Speaker 1: in New York City? Should the taxpayers pick that up?
Speaker 1: So that should the people paying? Should my parents, should
Speaker 1: my siblings who live in New York City? Should they
Speaker 1: all be picking up the tab for anyone from anywhere
Speaker 1: in the world who shows up and says I can't
Speaker 1: afford I can afford a plane ticket in New York,
Speaker 1: but I can't afford a heart transplant. By the way,
Speaker 1: heart transplant costs is about a million dollars. That's what
Speaker 1: it actually costs to do that. It might even be
Speaker 1: a little more. So do we have a moral obligation
Speaker 1: to pay a million dollars for a foreigner's heart surgery?
Speaker 1: I just want to add how many of them? And
Speaker 1: do we have an obligation to give medical treatment to
Speaker 1: anyone who shows up in New York City and have
Speaker 1: the City of New York pick it up. I just
Speaker 1: want to know the extent of this. And once you
Speaker 1: add illegal immigrants into this equation, what you're really saying
Speaker 1: is that now you are going to have a city
Speaker 1: government that is confiscating money from people via taxation and
Speaker 1: redistributing it to people who under the same idea of
Speaker 1: rule of law that they're taking the money from you
Speaker 1: in the City of New York. They're ignoring the rule
Speaker 1: of law when it comes to the illegal status of
Speaker 1: these individuals and giving them goods to be here. You
Speaker 1: want to talk about making our problem at the border worse,
Speaker 1: you want to talk about incentivizing illegal immigration, This is
Speaker 1: a fantastic way of doing it. All that ends up
Speaker 1: happening here is words going to get out instantaneously really
Speaker 1: within the illegal Immeran community. I mean, we're talking about
Speaker 1: you can get on you know, Facebook or we chat
Speaker 1: or whatever. I don't know what the preferred social media
Speaker 1: platform is for folks in Mexico and Central America, but
Speaker 1: they're it's going to be. You know, if you can
Speaker 1: get to New York City, you get you get healthcare
Speaker 1: paid for now, openly City New York's going to openly
Speaker 1: pay for your healthcare. Um, you know, I just also
Speaker 1: want to know how much how much healthcare we're going
Speaker 1: to give to illegals? I mean, is it full spectrum? Well,
Speaker 1: what does this really mean? Oh? And the the plan
Speaker 1: I would know, And this is where the Libs always
Speaker 1: run into big problems. It's going to cost one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars. One hundred million dollars, which is just coming
Speaker 1: from the taxpayers of New York City. I mean, Deblasio
Speaker 1: hasn't been able to destroy New York entirely yet, but
Speaker 1: I think he's now now he's starting to feel his
Speaker 1: stuff a little bit more and he's going to take
Speaker 1: more aggressive action here. One hundred million dollars annually. Now,
Speaker 1: let's understand that six hundred thousand New Yorkers do not have,
Speaker 1: you know, health insurance currently. They're saying they're going to
Speaker 1: cover one hundred million New Yorkers annually under this program
Speaker 1: and give them healthcare. I'm sorry, they're gonna spend one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars annually, you know, and that's what the
Speaker 1: cost will be. Well, if you do the math on this,
Speaker 1: it can you're talking about what a couple, Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: I should I shouldn't have done this on air. In
Speaker 1: real time, you're talking about spending one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: bucks per person for healthcare. No way, right, Because if
Speaker 1: it were a million New Yorkers and it's one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars, you're talking about one hundred bucks a person. Well,
Speaker 1: it's six hundred thousand New Yorkers, so you know it's
Speaker 1: gonna be how they gonna how are they going to
Speaker 1: manage to do this? They think it's gonna cost one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty dollars a person for health insurance. That's
Speaker 1: that's just a fantasy. It'll be way more expensive than
Speaker 1: that to give people comprehensive health insurance coverage, including illegals.
Speaker 1: By the way, how many illegals are there? They don't
Speaker 1: even know. They say the number six hundred thousand that
Speaker 1: don't have insurance, maybe the numbers a million. It's gonna
Speaker 1: you think giving a million people health insurance is gonna
Speaker 1: cost one hundred million dollars. Let me know what that
Speaker 1: health plan is where people are only gonna cost you
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars a year. Please, But it's good New
Speaker 1: York will do this. It's a shame because it's gonna
Speaker 1: start to really destroy my hometown. But New York will
Speaker 1: do this. It will be the Libs in charge. The
Speaker 1: Libs will own this. The Libs will fail, and at
Speaker 1: least the rest of the country can say, hey, you
Speaker 1: know what, the Canarian the coal mine is build the
Speaker 1: Blasio's healthcare plan. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping
Speaker 1: it real, It's time for roll call I Love of
Speaker 1: the Funky Tunes. Yeah, Brandon, do you like jazz? You're
Speaker 1: a music guy, you're a DJ. Do you like Do
Speaker 1: you like jazz? Where are you on this? I do?
Speaker 1: I've actually gone into a jazz club or two in
Speaker 1: my day. I was watching a TV show, Cameramot. It
Speaker 1: was recently, but they just there was this line. It
Speaker 1: was I think it was The Office. There's this line
Speaker 1: It's like, it's like jazz, like, why can't you just
Speaker 1: play the right notes? Which I thought it was pretty funny. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not somebody who listens too much jazz.
Speaker 1: I know some of the I know some of the classics,
Speaker 1: although if you see if you start to include Ella
Speaker 1: Fitzgerald and Nina Simone and some of those artists into jazz.
Speaker 1: I love that stuff, right, That's more my style. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: see see I always say, is that jazz? Because if
Speaker 1: we're qualifying that, I think the jazz that people usually
Speaker 1: think of though, is more of the like just portline
Speaker 1: mus Zach kind of stuff. Like you know, you kind
Speaker 1: of hear it somewhere and you're like, uh, this is
Speaker 1: a little too free form for me. You know, it
Speaker 1: needs to have some semblance of melody and and it
Speaker 1: needs to make some effort to be pleasant to listen to.
Speaker 1: I think that's my That's where I draw the line, Brandon,
Speaker 1: you're not a beat? Nick would I'm not a beat Nick.
Speaker 1: By the way, how is the Guns and Roses podcast going?
Speaker 1: It's going quite well. Actually, I think iHeartRadio is going
Speaker 1: to promote it. Uh this coming year, we'll look at that.
Speaker 1: I know, I'm just doing it on my own. They
Speaker 1: noticed it, and uh and yeah, it's just growing. What's
Speaker 1: coming up on the next episode of the of the
Speaker 1: Guns and Roses podcast. Well, I just interviewed I just
Speaker 1: put it out today our former manager Doug Goldstein. He
Speaker 1: was with gin R for seventeen years. A really nice guy.
Speaker 1: He's working with opioid addiction now, so we'll talk about
Speaker 1: anything from just fun stuff with axel too, you know, uh, oh,
Speaker 1: the opioid crisis just like you do here. Oh, if
Speaker 1: he's really interested in combating the opioid crisis, you know,
Speaker 1: let me give me put him in touch with me
Speaker 1: so we can get him on on rising. I would
Speaker 1: love And I'm gonna him in this show too, because
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm I'm all about letting people know what's
Speaker 1: what's really going on there because there's a need for
Speaker 1: decisive policy action for sure. Yeah. No, he's he's in
Speaker 1: the travel the country. He works for something called Matthews
Speaker 1: Hope Dot Org from a family who lost their son
Speaker 1: too too soon. And you know, it all relates back
Speaker 1: to all these years I thought he was fired. It
Speaker 1: just turns out he just wanted to be a family
Speaker 1: man and didn't want to travel with the band anymore.
Speaker 1: And he's devoted his life to, you know, helping others,
Speaker 1: and that's all stems from Guns n' Roses. That's my hook,
Speaker 1: you know. I just this is just anecdotal, but I
Speaker 1: can't think of a time when I've heard of somebody
Speaker 1: who made the decision to step away from something professionally
Speaker 1: to focus more on their family, and they regretted it.
Speaker 1: I gotta say I haven't. I'm not saying it never happens.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that that tends not to be what
Speaker 1: I hear say with him, he doesn't regret it at all. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's probably something that I should keep in mind. Um, oh,
Speaker 1: that's really interesting, man. You know, if I were to
Speaker 1: ask you, I had a thought the other day. You
Speaker 1: know what the greatest um, you know what the greatest
Speaker 1: rock song of the eighties and nineties is do you
Speaker 1: do you have? Do you have a horse in that race?
Speaker 1: Or is it just too hard for you? I can
Speaker 1: kind of compartmentalize and not say g n R. It's
Speaker 1: got to be the song in the movie that just
Speaker 1: won the Golden Globe. But he mean rhpsody. Really, that's
Speaker 1: just perfection that that song is different. I was I
Speaker 1: was thinking about whether see it's maybe this is a
Speaker 1: better a better way to set up this comparison, uh,
Speaker 1: Death Leopard or a CDC just all in a CDC.
Speaker 1: Kidding me to pour some sugar on me is a
Speaker 1: great song, and not just for your young ladies who
Speaker 1: are paying for college, one dollar at a time, we'll
Speaker 1: have either one of you guys heard Axel Rose Bohemian
Speaker 1: Rhapsody with Queen No, that sounds pretty That combination right
Speaker 1: there could be your greatest rock song. It was the
Speaker 1: Freddie Mercury tribute they did back in the day. He's
Speaker 1: sang with a Elton John. You gotta see that. You
Speaker 1: have any Have any of you seen recent photos of
Speaker 1: Axel Rose looking like a homeless bag lady, because those
Speaker 1: are interesting. We're all gonna look like that someday. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess. I don't know. Yeah, if we do botox
Speaker 1: and eat che steaks all night long. So it's just,
Speaker 1: you know, when you have someone like that, I just
Speaker 1: picture him with like the long blonde hair and like
Speaker 1: right after he's been on some bender and destroyed a
Speaker 1: hotel room. And now I feel like, I feel like
Speaker 1: he probably wants to wear a snuggie a lot, you know,
Speaker 1: And I need to correct myself. It was seventy five
Speaker 1: the song Bohemian City came out, so I'd have to
Speaker 1: think about it. Maybe it is a sweet Child or
Speaker 1: something like that of the quintessential song, But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think does FM radio ruined def Leopard for me
Speaker 1: because they're the band that they play six times an hour. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess def Leopards pretty awesome. There's even some good
Speaker 1: stuff that, like, you know, if you put it in there,
Speaker 1: I mean, it isn't photograph of def Leppard song. I
Speaker 1: get into some of the deep tracks, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not just pour some sugar on me. Guy ACDC is
Speaker 1: probably and Back in Black I think is probably a
Speaker 1: better rock I'm really thinking more rock anthems too. But
Speaker 1: I think there's a case you made that Sweet Child
Speaker 1: of Mind is the greatest rock song of the eighties
Speaker 1: and nineties. I really do. I think you can. I
Speaker 1: think obviously people can argue this till they're blue in
Speaker 1: the face, but Sweet Child of Mind is definitely in
Speaker 1: the running for just you know rock song that is
Speaker 1: number one for me. Producer Mike, do you do you
Speaker 1: have a pick um? That's a good question. I'm a
Speaker 1: big guns Rosas fan too, so I think it's something
Speaker 1: that's better than Sweet Child on mine. You know what's
Speaker 1: funny about Aerosmith. You gotta respect Aerosmith because he's been
Speaker 1: in the game so long and and does have a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of really good songs. That said, though,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's one Aerosmith song that is like
Speaker 1: the anthem that we will remember forever Aerosmith. We celebrate
Speaker 1: the whole catalog, right, Kenny g I celebrate his whole catal, Oh,
Speaker 1: Michael Bolden, Rather I celebrate the fholl catalog. Um. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't really about Journey Don't stop believing. That's a
Speaker 1: good one. That's a good one, and it's good fun. Fact,
Speaker 1: the only Arrowsmith song to ever go number one, uh
Speaker 1: is the one from Armageddon. Don't want Him as a thing,
Speaker 1: which might be that might be the worst song in
Speaker 1: my opinion, But and you know, you know what I
Speaker 1: gotta say about Journey Don't stop Believing is Mike, you
Speaker 1: just brought that up, and all of a sudden, I'm
Speaker 1: transported to every New England college bar I went to
Speaker 1: in college where you know, it was like two am,
Speaker 1: and you know, uh, you know, sin Cindy, what's her face?
Speaker 1: You know? Was it wasn't wasn't leaving the bar with me.
Speaker 1: But I was there with my buddies and we were gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, pours them out. We're gonna drink some beer
Speaker 1: and uh yeah, yeah, lad, it's it's it's it's the ultimate,
Speaker 1: like almost last call song and was the ultimate last
Speaker 1: It takes me to the sopranos, that's alright, it takes
Speaker 1: me to less. Uh. Let's talking about speaking of last call,
Speaker 1: last scene, last song and the sopranos. You know, haven't
Speaker 1: I haven't even seen all the sopranos. Oh man, you
Speaker 1: gotta get on that. I just I just ruined the
Speaker 1: finale for you by it. That's all right, that's I've
Speaker 1: already forget heard about how it how it ends. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but yeah, all right, you know what, guys, I gotta
Speaker 1: I'm actually gonna hit it this this this way. Well,
Speaker 1: we won't give an anxiety attack to our our affiliates
Speaker 1: who have to make sure that we stay on the
Speaker 1: clock here. So let me go into a quick break.
Speaker 1: We come back, we will do roll call. We got
Speaker 1: a little sidetracked here with our with our freedom Hot
Speaker 1: team to talk about some some music. I've got a
Speaker 1: little nostalgic for the eighties and the nineties. But we'll
Speaker 1: come back and do role call. So I'll stay right there.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call,
Speaker 1: all right. No, messing about right to roll call this time, Julie, Hey,
Speaker 1: buck love the show. Don't sweat it about being forty
Speaker 1: almost forty and not married or with a family yet.
Speaker 1: I'll be thirty nine soon, my husband will be forty three,
Speaker 1: and we're expecting our fourth kid. We move to be
Speaker 1: closer to his work, but now he works from where
Speaker 1: we move from. We're happy where we live and have
Speaker 1: started our six year old on a great school, so
Speaker 1: he commutes. You can make it work for your family
Speaker 1: when you have one. On the political thank you, Julie.
Speaker 1: On the political front, the left will implode because they
Speaker 1: have stood for everything to be inclusive and cannot stand
Speaker 1: for anything without offending someone. They have lost control of
Speaker 1: the monster they created. The right will implode simply because
Speaker 1: we cannot unite Boo and Ginsburg is seriously not in
Speaker 1: good health. She's old. Thanks for the great analysis, Julie.
Speaker 1: You know, Julie, I think you're right that I think
Speaker 1: you're right that the left will eventually implode. But you
Speaker 1: have to remember that they might get themselves into hour
Speaker 1: and then be able to do a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: damage when they implode, right, So they just because eventually
Speaker 1: their ideology is doomed to self contradiction and failure. It
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that we can ignore it because in the meantime,
Speaker 1: well what is you know, where does that really take us? Right? Like?
Speaker 1: Where where are we now? In terms of left wing
Speaker 1: control and a progressive backlash to Trumpism? That could set
Speaker 1: the country back in a whole bunch of ways. So
Speaker 1: I hear you, but it's not enough to say we
Speaker 1: had The left is gonna The left is gonna consume itself.
Speaker 1: It will eventually, but they might consume us in the meantime.
Speaker 1: And that's why we have to be on guard and
Speaker 1: have to have to fight back against this. William rights,
Speaker 1: all the snowflakes in America are going to hate socialism
Speaker 1: for three reasons. First, they'll have to work at a
Speaker 1: job they'll hate for years. Secondly, they won't be able
Speaker 1: to make any money to save up for that tesla
Speaker 1: or home they want to own so bad. And thirdly,
Speaker 1: nobody else is going to care what they think about
Speaker 1: the first two big disappointments in their lives. They'll have
Speaker 1: to work at this making these tesla nobody else okay,
Speaker 1: And then he writes who gives a rats behind about
Speaker 1: the worthless federal workers who are minus their non essential
Speaker 1: paycheck right now. Most of them are hypocrites without a
Speaker 1: paycheck for a reality check, Wow, William Williams, that's rough,
Speaker 1: Like William, there there are some really good, really good
Speaker 1: people in the federal workforce, lots of them, and they're
Speaker 1: not getting a paycheck right now. So I can't I
Speaker 1: can't hop on board or who gives a rats? And
Speaker 1: he didn't write behind about the federal workers here. A
Speaker 1: lot of them are doing really essential job that we
Speaker 1: want them to be doing. You know, Border patrol is
Speaker 1: showing up without pay and doing their job. For example,
Speaker 1: at least some of border patrol is so Coast Guard.
Speaker 1: You know that there are others that are working with
Speaker 1: out pay. I'm not saying that means that this isn't
Speaker 1: a fight we should have and that Trump is wrong
Speaker 1: to have this fight. I'm just saying, and let's not
Speaker 1: let's not take this too Far's it's not the fault
Speaker 1: of the fifteen percent of non essential federal workers that
Speaker 1: they work for agencies that did not get covered. But
Speaker 1: I hear you on the general snowflake ism of American
Speaker 1: left wingers and socialists. So there's that, Eric, Right, Democrats
Speaker 1: quick find the doctor and send him to nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: six to tell Congress not to give the president emergency powers. Yeah. Eric,
Speaker 1: as we have discussed, and as our main man, Andy
Speaker 1: McCarthy made very clear, they have given the Congress has
Speaker 1: given president the authority to do this. He has the authority.
Speaker 1: People who are saying otherwise do not believe in the
Speaker 1: plain language of clear law. Kyle rights. Also, the notorious
Speaker 1: RBG will pull a weekend at Bernie before she steps
Speaker 1: down under Trump, or she'll resign a few months before
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election and give Democrats AMMO to make
Speaker 1: Senate Republicans look hypocritical for taking up any nominee. Allah
Speaker 1: Americ Garland. Okay, I gotta tell you this is RBG
Speaker 1: thing that some liberals are saying. It's just getting weird.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a tweet today from a and this
Speaker 1: is not a rando, not some random person. This is
Speaker 1: a here you go, some guy named Roger Simon on
Speaker 1: Twitter who has a considerable following. He's got thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of followers, and I think he works in politics
Speaker 1: and some capacity, or maybe he's a journalist. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but he put this out there, and this tweak had
Speaker 1: a lot of attention. Quote, if it were possible, would
Speaker 1: you subtract one day off your life and add it
Speaker 1: to Ruth Bader Ginsberg's life for one extra day of
Speaker 1: good health. If just ten thousand people did this, it
Speaker 1: would add twenty seven productive years to her life. That's
Speaker 1: just weird. It's just creepy, you know. It's just a
Speaker 1: strange thing to do. It's not something that a normal person.
Speaker 1: And I don't mean take a year off. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously it's a it's a ridiculous premise, but even to
Speaker 1: think this way, you would take a day off your
Speaker 1: life or some stranger because she's on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: because we need to add years to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's life,
Speaker 1: because she's so necessary for the future of the republic
Speaker 1: and turning it into a you know, socialist they think paradise.
Speaker 1: I say, hell escape, I mean that that's really what
Speaker 1: they've got here. It's just it's just a bizarre thing
Speaker 1: to do, a bizarre thing to say. And there is
Speaker 1: a cult around Ruth Bader Ginsburg that is that is
Speaker 1: truly weird. It the only way to say it is
Speaker 1: just that it's it's strange. I mean, it does not
Speaker 1: make sense for people to be as invested in a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice that they've never met, such that they
Speaker 1: would even, you know, give days off their lives for
Speaker 1: this such a there's such a bunch of weirdos that
Speaker 1: Ruth bider Ginsburg texts, Dan writes, Hey Buck, seventeen year
Speaker 1: restaurant professional. As a chef, cast iron for a good steak,
Speaker 1: all caps. If it's an inch and a half plus,
Speaker 1: I usually sear it hard on one side, flip it
Speaker 1: and throw it right in the oven for the perfect
Speaker 1: medium rare. But I prefer it's seared and basically mooing myself,
Speaker 1: shields and forks high. Dan Well, Dan, thanks to hear
Speaker 1: from an actual chef and an expert on this one.
Speaker 1: You know the reverse sears. I reverse seared a filet
Speaker 1: mignon Mali Bianchile parfe. I did a little filet mignon
Speaker 1: for myself last night. Chef Buck, you know, do I
Speaker 1: sit here at home by myself and wear a little
Speaker 1: like chef hat. Maybe can neither confirm nor deny, but
Speaker 1: I did make myself a filet a filet last filet mignon,
Speaker 1: and it was perfect. I mean, I absolutely crushed it.
Speaker 1: And one thing I'll say is that really especially with
Speaker 1: the filet, because you don't season all of it, at
Speaker 1: least I don't. I mean people usual don't season to
Speaker 1: really go hard with the pepper and the salt on
Speaker 1: the tops that you're searing to create that crust and
Speaker 1: to have a real flavorful crust that you cut into.
Speaker 1: That makes a big difference. And I did the reverse
Speaker 1: sear method once again just to kind of perfect it.
Speaker 1: I did it with that big steak. Worked out really well,
Speaker 1: and then I did the reverse here on the filet mignon,
Speaker 1: and all reverse here means it's oven first, then seer
Speaker 1: on the stovetop. And Chef Dan is obviously right. Get
Speaker 1: a cast iron I should get, you know what, we
Speaker 1: should get Lodge, which makes cast iron pans. Producer Mike,
Speaker 1: let's make a note of this. Let's see if they
Speaker 1: want to do a promotion on the show, because I'm
Speaker 1: basically giving them free press all the time anyway, because
Speaker 1: it's one of the best pieces of kitchen equipment I've
Speaker 1: ever bought. So there you have it. See here Aaron Rights,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck thanks so much for your show. I especially
Speaker 1: like the Shields High episodes. I learned a lot from
Speaker 1: them and from your show in general. Shield's High, Well, Aaron,
Speaker 1: thank you Shield's High. I enjoyed that, I mean the podcast,
Speaker 1: and I will bring it back at some point. It's
Speaker 1: just it's a tremendous amount of time and effort, and
Speaker 1: I wish I could do more. That's all I can
Speaker 1: tell you. I wish I wish I had more that
Speaker 1: I could do with it. Ryan writes, Hey Buck, great show. Occasionally,
Speaker 1: to punish myself, I listened to the pod Save America podcast.
Speaker 1: Jon Favreau and company are pretty deranged. I think they're
Speaker 1: stupid and moronic, or they think it's stupid and moronic
Speaker 1: rather to think the wall would work. Just think about that,
Speaker 1: they say it. Also, listening to the malice and profanity
Speaker 1: that show is draining by itself makes me appreciate the
Speaker 1: HUT when I switch back. Thank you, Ryan. I am
Speaker 1: smarter than those guys and nicer than those guys and
Speaker 1: could take any of them. So there's that. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining team. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Shield Tie.
Speaker 1: We got a new year, so if you want to
Speaker 1: do things the smart way when it comes to hiring,
Speaker 1: you got to start off strong by making you go
Speaker 1: to zip recruiter dot com slash buck to hire the
Speaker 1: right people. Unlike other job site, zip recruiter finds quality
Speaker 1: candidates for you. It's powerful matching technology scans thousands of
Speaker 1: resumes to identify people with the right skills, education, and
Speaker 1: experience and actively invites them to apply to your job
Speaker 1: so you get qualified candidates fast. That's why zipp recruiter
Speaker 1: is rated number one by employers in the US and
Speaker 1: this rating comes from hiring sites on trust Pilot with
Speaker 1: over a thousand reviews. Right now, my listeners can try
Speaker 1: zipp recruiter for free at this exclusive web address, zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck. If you love this show, team,
Speaker 1: show your support and support for zip recruiter by going
Speaker 1: to zip recoiter dot com slash buck. Again, that's zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck. Because zip recruiter is simply
Speaker 1: the smartest way to hire