All Episodes

February 21, 2018 • 115 mins

Florida students protest and demand gun control. Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Buck interviews Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist and lawyer Margot Cleveland, adjunct professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Mr garbutsch Off, tear down this wall. Either you're with
us or you were with the terrorists. If you got
healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
are satisfied with is not when the President of the
United States take it to a bank. Together, we will
make America great again. You'll never sharender. It's what you've

(00:35):
been waiting for all day. The Buck Sexton Show. Join
the conversation called Buck Toll free at eight four four
nine hundred Buck. That's eight four four nine hundred to
eight to five The future of talk radio. Buck Sexton,
My friends and I stared down the barrel of an

(00:56):
Air fifteen the way you have not. We have seen
this weapon of war mow down people we know and
love the way you have not. How dare you tell
us we don't know what we're talking about. Never again
should a student be silent, fight unshot. Never again should
anyone fear going to school. The time for change wasn't now.

(01:17):
The time for change was years ago. Are you for
taking steps to save us? Or are you for taking
n r A blood money? We are not letting the
United States be run by that terrorist organization. Welcome to
Buck Sex and Show. Everybody you just heard of. There
a number of students getting together, Uh, students, teachers, coaches,

(01:40):
counselors getting together at schools across the country from what
I understand, but particularly those who were involved directly in
Florida speaking out there. There's now a broader movement to
involve other schools. There's talk about a a walkout, UM
that may maybe occurring. This is from this is expected

(02:04):
to be occurring perhaps later on. UM. You have students
that are gathering together saying that it's time to change
our gun laws. Will you address this a bit yesterday?
And there's something going on here, It's not normal to
expect that there would be so much vitriol. Let's understand this.

(02:28):
I get it. You have students that are traumatized. Specifically,
we're talking now about those who are actually at the
high school in Parkland when this mash shooting happen. And
I understand that there's psychological trauma to be dealt with,
that the community needs to come together, that these students
deserve our support. I think I hear that there's also

(02:51):
similar efforts to get students activated in their political activism
across the country. It makes me think, Okay, so this
is now turning into a movement, or they're trying to
turn it into a movement. M hmm. What is so
different about this time and this incident from others? I'm

(03:12):
asking the questions I don't necessarily have the answers. What
is it about this incident specifically that makes the students
that are speaking up and and being given considerable air
time by the national news media. What is it that
makes them so angry, specifically towards the n r A.

(03:35):
The n r A is the focus of so much
of the anger here, the National Rifle Association. I remember
being a high school student and I would not have
pretended to know much at all about the n r
A or what it does. Um. We're also seeing a
very clear effort in the media to create an in

(03:57):
vulnerability for the speech of students that were either at
that school or just now. Any student who comes forward
and wants to speak on behalf of those students, he's
also going to be given this the same invulnerability for
their comments and statements. It doesn't have to be accurate,
doesn't have to be true, doesn't have to make sense

(04:19):
because it comes from a place of victimhood, because they've
been victimized because a group of students were murdered in
cold blood by a psychopath. And I haven't really heard
enough of that word used, and I think I'd like
to return later in the show into why I use
it and what some of the real implications are for

(04:42):
our understanding of this mass slaughter. When we use terms
like psychopaths, we should also use terms like evil and
understand how it applies in this case. I don't mean
in a general sense. I mean in as scientific a
way as possible, evil as a term used by the
those who spend their lives trying to understand the psychological

(05:03):
processes of the brain, can't come up with a coherent
or rational explanation for why an individual acts the way
he or she does, and is left with nothing more
on a clinical level. Then the diagnosis a diagnosis of
evil that I think is far and away the most

(05:27):
accurate description of Nicholas Cruz and what occurred on that day,
And I can return to more specificity on that in
a moment. But the the I or the fury of
these students is directed towards the National Rifle Association as
the bad guy here. The National Rifle Association that the

(05:52):
students are young, that they can't vote, that they don't
have a background, or even a baseline. For get about
a background, No one to expect you have to have
a PhD and gun studies to have an opinion here.
But it is usually a necessity and a national level
policy discussion to have a baseline of knowledge about the issue.

(06:15):
Right if I were running around and I were sixteen
years old, and I said that I wanted us to
have a much lower tax rate, and somebody asked me, well,
do you know what the top tax rate is right now?
And I said, I have no idea. People would be
less likely to take my policy proposal seriously in this

(06:38):
instant instance, though, because they have suffered a tragedy, or
because a community a school has suffered a tragedy, we
are to listen without responding. And that's actually not how
policy discussion works. It's not how the First Amendment worked,
It's not how we could arrive at any constructive solutions
to this problem. Nobody really wants to be lectured by

(07:03):
a group of kids that seem very angry at an
organization that has nothing to do with what just happened.
It is not the fault of the n r A.
I would note that if you're going to blame the
n r A, you might as well blame the manufacture
of the rifle and claim that they are the ones
responsible for this. The seller of the gun, even though

(07:25):
he did it completely legally, he must be responsible for this.
The person that manufactured the rounds, use the actual ammunition,
they're they're responsible for this. No, no no, no, no. You
cannot erode moral culpability here in the name of some
political agenda. The only person responsible for the heinous acts

(07:46):
in Florida last week is Nicholas Cruz. There are people
who could have done more to stop it. There is
certainly a discussion that we are having now about what
should have been done to stop it. But I'm not
seeing a lot of reasonable, good faith discussion in the

(08:08):
national media about what should result from this in terms
of law changes to law. Now, what I'm seeing is
the vilification of an organization that just represents law abiding
gun owners, of whom there are, as you know, tens
of millions, let's say, roughly sixty million in the country.

(08:30):
It's a pretty fair estament. Over three d million firearms
in private hands in the United States is also the estimate,
you got sixty million people, You've got a handful of
terrible school shootings. It seems to me like we're now
supposed to just sit back and allow the left because

(08:54):
we know that there is a hand behind this. We
know that the media is part of this construct and
part of this narrative that asked dispersions to cast blamee
on sixty million long binding gun owners here and much
of the intelligentsias such as it is, and the left
is coming out with the same stuff they've said in

(09:15):
the past. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. But
they think that by emotionalizing the moment, by making this
a time of emotional blackmail, listen to the sobbing children
on this policy issue, or else you're a bad person,
then the ideas and arguments that have failed in the

(09:35):
past will get through because we'll all be scared because
we don't want to be bad people, because we are caring,
because we are considerate, because we do want our kids
to be safe. We want all kids to be safe.
Notice how the issue somehow becomes a separation between those
who want to stop child uh stop the shootings in school,

(09:57):
school shootings and those who don't There's no such thing
as a constituency that doesn't want to stop school shootings.
So why is that the tone that this takes almost
automatically after one of these events. After one of these instances,
we're hearing that students are planning more protests and walkouts

(10:20):
from class. Well, I'd like to know what the specific
demands are here, But I would also note that this
is not how policy is made. Yeah, that they are
allowed to raise whatever objections they want, right, they have
first moment rights to we we know this, But what
the media is doing is very underhanded and what many

(10:40):
of the supporters of the narrative that's being presented, which
is that the n r A is the problem here.
Forget about dealing with mental health, forget about background, forget
about all that the n r A is the problem.
They want to they want to take down and take
a part of the National Rifle Association. And there's just
no way that there aren't elements of the left, adults
with money and funding and connections who are tied into this.

(11:05):
I just don't see how it. At a minimum, you've
got the major broadcast networks other than Fox that are
just running with this as though they are a political
action committee, CNN, MSNBC another. So right then and there,
I can tell you that they're giving a lot more
airtime to young people on this issue than they would
young people on other issues. As I said, you do

(11:26):
not tend to hear a lot of interviews of the
families of those killed by illegal aliens in this country
on CNN. CNN anchors do not ask the children of
those killed by illegal aliens on TV as they are crying,
what do you think about illegally? Should we have fewer
illegal aliens in the country? Crying child who lost his
dad to a drunk driver, a legal alien who has

(11:50):
been deported you know, fifteen times or whatever the number is. No,
they don't do that because they're forming narratives, and they
don't like that one, this one. They like the notion
that the n RA is behind a mass slaughter of
children at a school of school shooting. It is deceptive,
it's disgusting, it's unfair, and yet that's the plan. They

(12:12):
figure that if they are able to create an environment
of fear, then the arguments don't really matter anymore. This
is where the Left actually excels at promoting a a
an approach to an issue, a feeling, a sensibility around it,
where it's not about the specific issues or the arguments,

(12:33):
it's just about, Oh, I don't want to be I
don't want to be on the wrong side of that.
To bar from Obama, you don't want to be on
the wrong side of history, as he used to constantly say. So,
now all of a sudden, we're seeing the first breaches
in the wall. We're seeing the breaks in the day.
You're seeing people that are saying, hold on, maybe you know, okay, fine,

(12:53):
this time we will do something. The administration sounds like
they're they're going to do something. Is it because we
have come up with new ideas? Maybe there are some
that I haven't really heard much of before, and we'll
talk about them. But is it really just another instance
of the left creating an environment of moral blackmail. You

(13:13):
better be with us on this, you better do what
we say on this issue, or you're a bad person,
or you don't care about children getting shot. That is
the underlying message of the left right now. And whether
you know or not that their policy are that the
an assault rifle band or background check expanse or any

(13:34):
of this is useless. Is irrelevant because you don't want
to be a bad person. You don't want to be
on the wrong side of history. This is what they're
trying to do right now. They've tried it in the past.
It has failed, will it fail this time on the
issue of guns. It's worked on other things. You look
at the context for discussion of any number of issues.
I mean, you look at what the left did by

(13:55):
weaponizing discussions of race and racism for political per is
over the course of decades, very effective for them. It
finally started to they finally kind of overplayed their hand
in the last you could argue ten or fifteen years
maybe where it didn't have the same accusations of racism,
didn't have the same punch as they used to. Now

(14:16):
there are other things that are career enders for people
that are just weaponized politics, right, accusations in place of argument.
They're trying to do that on guns right now. It's
not about having a an exchange of ideas about a
second amendment about the right to bear arms. No, it's

(14:37):
are you a good person or do you want do
you want children to not be shot in school? Yes
or no? If the answer is yes, you don't want
the new shot in school. Then you have to do.
Then you have to give the left it's gun control agenda.
You have to cave. You have to give in no
questions asked, Well, I'm not I'm not playing that game.
I'm not going along with that. I want policy that's

(14:59):
based on reason and argument and sound logic. And no,
I'm not going to be cowed into silence because people
have suffered a personal tragedy or we're near a tragedy
in the case of many of these students, that that
gives you sympathy. It does not give you a greater

(15:21):
understanding and wisdom about national level policy than other people.
It just doesn't. And I think the media is shameless
exploitation of tragedy involving miners, tragedy involving children. Here is
just yet another reason why we should we should always
maintain a healthy disrespect and disdain for the mainstream media.

(15:46):
I'll be uh, I want to know what you think
about all this. We're gonna get into the specifics that
are out there. Eight four four eight to five eight
four four buck bump stock band, what do you think
a R fifteen band? If you're under third, what do
you think improving background checks, whatever that means. You know,
we can go down this whole list. We'll talk about

(16:07):
some of them. I want to know what you think
as well, so light up the lines will be right back.
I was talking about how we should have not ostracized him.
You didn't know this case, Okay, we did. We know
that they're baby, that they are mental health issues. And

(16:29):
I am not a psychologist, but we need to pay
attention to the fact that this isn't just a mental
health issue. About we stopped blaming the victims for something
that was the shooter's fault. I don't think anyone's blaming

(16:50):
the victims. I don't really know what that young woman
who's been given a national media platform is referring to.
But you'll notice from the tone of some of the
students that they are angry and they are expressing. Some
of them the ones that I'm seeing that are getting airtime.
I remember. This reminds me of after nine eleven. A

(17:10):
lot of people that we're affected by nine eleven. I
remember being at school finding out whether I was in college,
finding out whether or not my uncle made it out
of one of the towers. I didn't know for the
first few hours a friend of mine, a young woman
I had known since I was in the fourth grade,
found out that day that her sister died. And I

(17:31):
was there at the school, you know, when when the
news came down. Um, But I also remember that there
were people who decided that it was time to start
cutting campaign commercials for the Democrat Party and for John
Kerry and saying, you know, see, it was Bush's fault.
And then when you'd say, well hold on a second,
well hold on whoa, It's like, oh, how dare you?

(17:52):
You know, they remember that the whole And I'll due
credit to Ann Coulter for being the one who's willing
to say hold on, these these aren't v nine eleven widows.
These are four widows of nine eleven. There's a lot
of other a lot of other widows and widowers and
you know, children lost their parents. It's you know, we're
not hearing from them, We're just hearing from the four
and the representative of the whole group. Always be careful

(18:13):
about this. You know, media is very slippery on this
issue when it comes to exploiting tragedy for political ends.
There are the producers and the bookers on these shows
at CNN MSNBC. They are making decisions based upon who's
going to give them the most anti Trump, anti n

(18:34):
R A shout fast, so then they're sanctimonious, ignorant anchors
can go, oh will you don't feel like the children's
tragedy deserves to be heard? And the whole thing, we
know how the game is played, we know how they're
doing this, and this is what they're up to. By
the way, I mentioned before they I stumbled for a
second because I want to make sure I had the

(18:55):
right date. And seeing there's a plan, there are plans
going forward for a major march akin to in terms
of size, the Women's March. It will be an anti
uh anti gun march. I don't know what if they
have an official name yet, a gun control legislation March
or you know whatever they're gonna call it for march,

(19:16):
a march on March. And there are others as well,
And they've got tens of thousand people signing petitions and
this is now becoming a point of political mobilization and
action for the Democrat left. You're also seeing stuff like
a billboard in Louisville, Kentucky that somebody vandalized with huge
writing it says kill the n r A. So there's

(19:39):
something wrong here, my friends. We are going to dig
into it together and we'll talk more about what's happening.
Right after this break. He's holding the line for America.

(20:00):
Buck Sexton is back, and I think that it's really
important that we come together now since adults are not
doing it for us. I remember the first time I
heard about Sandy Hook. I remember talking about Virginia attacks.
That will be different because the people who are deeply
affected by the shooting, the people who saw it, are
the people speaking out. Because we keep telling them that
if they accept this blood money there against the children,

(20:24):
they say, that's topper. Gun laws do not decrease gun violence.
We call we could just play all day news clips
of teenagers, kids who are telling us what gun control
policy should be, saying things about gun laws that are

(20:44):
not true. I couldn't believe yes or seeing at CBS
left up the tweet about how it's easier to get
an a R fifteen than to buy cold medicine. That's
not just fake news, it's malicious news. They're really trying
to turn up the heat on this problem, turn up
the heat on the debate make this nasty, Make it

(21:06):
not a problem that we have to solve as a country,
as a as a nation. Make it a US versus them.
You heard it, and that young woman she said, you know,
it's either you're with the children or you're against them.
With them or against them. This is a this is
a repeat. You'll hear more and more of that. You
either want to stop child murder in school or you don't,

(21:29):
That's what they'll say. But there's no one who wants
kids to get shot in school, no one. So what
are they talking about? Why do they have to be
so inflammatory? Here's something to keep in mind, my friends,
as we go forward and continue to cover this. How
is it that the passions on this issue are even

(21:50):
more elevated right now with greater distance from the actual
event than they were in the first forty eight hours.
Why are the kids that are speaking about this becoming
more aggressive? Why are we seeing signs kill the n
r A in Louisville Now? Why are we hearing these
refrains like you're with the children or you're against them.

(22:11):
You either want to stop child murder in school or
you don't. Now days after the event, I just think
it stands to reason that if this were based on
the emotions of the moment, you would hear the most
over the top inflammatory rhetoric and these accusations at the

(22:33):
n r A. You'd hear it more in the beginning,
and then it would turn into a policy debate. But no,
actually you're hearing this stuff now. It's getting worse. The anger,
the rage from one side of the political spectrum to
the other over guns is escalating as we have distance
from the event. That doesn't make sense, doesn't make sense

(22:57):
unless unless there is a guiding hand behind this, unless
there's more going on here than just spontaneous student protests
over gun control and gun violence. I'm not saying that
these kids don't believe it. I'm sure they do. But
then again, there's a reason why we don't let sixteen

(23:18):
year olds vote on national policy issues. There's a reason
why they don't get to pick our representatives, and there
there's a basis for all of that. You know, the voting.
It should be sixteen, maybe it should be twelve. Do
we have five year old voting? We have journalists who
seemed to think that it was respectable and responsible to

(23:40):
use their children as props as anti Trump attacked vessels.
You know, my daughter came up to me and said,
why does Donald Trump hate women? Mommy? And she's only three.
I don't think that your daughter said that at three,
but a lot of journalists were doing that. Those of
you who are paying close attention to the the commentary
at during the election, we'll remember that was a trend

(24:02):
for a while. There's a trend going on here, but
it seems that it's getting angrier as we get further
from the event. And I don't believe it's because of inaction.
In fact, I think that the Trump administration has shown
I know they have shown quite a willingness to discuss

(24:22):
these issues and look at them. Here's the President himself.
Safety is a top priority for my administration. That is
why when governors from across the nation visit the White
House next week, we will be discussing at great length
what the federal and state governments can do to keep

(24:44):
our students safe. This includes implementing common sense security measures
and addressing mental health issues, including better coordination between federal
and state law enforcement to take swift action and when
there are warning signs. President is taking this issue very seriously.

(25:05):
He's listening to what's being said. He's going over the
proposals that are out there now. He says, state and
federal and local, we're working on it. We are. He's
not saying there's nothing. I'm not going to hear it.
Everything is fine. And yet you turn on the news
and you'll hear students who are being elevated into the

(25:25):
national discussion, who are saying stuff like to the president.
And I think that it's really important that we come
to the president. The ball is in your cordinal. You
are either with us or you are against us. If
you are against us, then that means you are signing
our death certificates. You are letting more children die every day.

(25:47):
There is no middle ground here. You are either with
us and helping children survive, helping children feel safe to
go to school, or you are against us. We are
very confident because unlike every other you get the idea
that was a seventeen year old. Mr. President. You're with us,
you're against you, you're signing children's debt certificates. If you
don't ban a R fifteen, that's really that's what we're

(26:11):
supposed to take away from this. That's quite a lot
of culpability, A lot of blame that's put on the
president for something that he has nothing to do with.
Keep in mind that Congress would have to pass the
legislation first, and yet it's all put at the feet
of Trump. You see, this is what's really happening here. Everyone.

(26:31):
Do we think that there would be quite the same tone,
quite the same approach if you had a Democrat president? Now,
of course not. This issue of guns is now being
tied into the issue of hashtag resistance. Gun control is
now being hijacked by the left, by the institutional left,
the money, the movers and shakers, the sauros Is, the MSNBC's,

(26:53):
the CNNs, and the rest of them, in order to
mobilize progressive elements of our society against the Trump administration.
In yet another way, it's yet another front of the
never Trump, anti Trump war. It immediately becomes about the president.
And that's why there's so much fury behind this movement

(27:15):
and this effort right now. That's what's different from the
school shooting versus other school shootings. And and you have
a president who's willing to say, we should actually address
this in whatever way we can, let's talk about it,
and they're saying Oh no, you're the blood is on
the president's hands. There's a particular anger right now. There's

(27:38):
a particular rage about gun control because Donald Trump is president.
That's what's going on here in the background. I'm not
saying that that's what's got all these students fired up.
Some of them or I'm sure being told things by adults.
Others are being are being encouraged to whatever their initial

(27:59):
impulse is about this, and a lot of them are
I'm sure the ones from the school. Keep in mind,
I'm talking about in general, because this is now a movement.
This is beyond the school. So now we've gotta listen
to kids that are marching that didn't even go to
the school. Now, all kids have a special say in this,
as long as they're pro gun control. They're not just
mobilizing for the school, They're mobilizing for all schools. This
is now going to turn into a student movement of sorts. Ah.

(28:25):
Now it all starts to fit together, doesn't it. It's
about a whole lot more than one school shooting and
the government's response to it. You are seeing the apparatus
of the left in action and mobilizing through the exploitation

(28:46):
of a terrible event in which seventeen young people were
murdered in school by a classmate who was a psychopath,
who was evil. And yet I'm hearing so much about
how the n r A is murder. The n r
A is guilty of murder. Trump is going to have
blood in his hands if he doesn't do what the
kids are demanding. This is not how sound policy has

(29:09):
made and this is not how adults have discussions. It's
how the left wants the discussion to go though, and
we will see more and more of their fingerprints all
over this. Keep in mind as we go along here,
as we expose what's really happening, they will say the
nastiest things. They'll say that you are either with the
children or against them. You either want to stop child
murder or you don't care. You're complicit in child murder

(29:32):
if you don't do what they say. I mean, this
is ideological hostage taking. It's a disgrace, and it's really
what's going on. All right, I want to hear from
you eight four four, eight to five. We will take
some calls right after this break. All right, every single

(30:06):
line is lit here in the Freedom Hut. So let's
rack and stack and take some calls. But first I
just wanted to note that I got a piece of
information from one of our own here in the hut. Brandon,
who's running the board today, told me something, just to
give you a sense of how far and wide the
tentacles of a tragedy like this go, Brandon, tell him,
tell them what you told me. I unfortunately know one
of the teachers that was killed in the in the shooting.

(30:28):
When the name started to come out, Um, I hadn't
spoken to Scott Beagle since high school. Went to high
school with him, Long Island, dix Hills High School, Half
holl Hills High School, East Long Name. Uh, so he
was your classmate. He was my classmate plenty classes. I
hadn't spoken to him since, so, I mean, it's an acquaintment.
He was your high school class man and he but
I remember him being such a sweet and nice kid.

(30:48):
So I remember as soon as I saw his face
and name, I know that I know. And he was
one of the He was one of the heroes of
the incident, right. He was one of the ones who
ran to open the door to to save some kids.
He was the geology teacher who opened his unlocked door
to let more students in, and before he can relock it,
that's when he got shot. And they're saying that his
body blocked the door from more casualties. So he's a hero,

(31:13):
and uh, I don't know if you want me to say.
His wife apparently gave a little brief statement because Scott jokingly,
I guess, said something that if he was ever killed
in any of these situations, so by the quote, you'll
he never believed that would have happened. Promise me, if
this ever happens to me, you will tell them the truth,
tell them what a jerk I am, and don't talk
about the hero stuff. So of course his wife, he

(31:34):
was saying that as a joke to his wife, thinking
that this would never happen to him. So when his
wife spoke, she still read that she did. Yes, yes,
all right, Brandon, thank you for sharing that that you
know that personal connection with all this. All right, let's
get into your call, folks. We've got every line lit,
like I said, so we got a lot to go
to here. Vincent in Greensboro, North Carolina, Hey, Vincent, Hi, Bud,

(31:57):
I'm sorry to hear, but loss of his friend there,
that's Uh, horrible to hear. Um. I just couldn't help.
But I've been listening to this topic now for days
on just about every radio show there is, and I
don't remember any time where somebody screamed and yelled for

(32:18):
what they wanted when they were a kid, and they
just got what they wanted because they demanded it. Um.
But I feel like this's just a program because these protesters,
like a lot of the protesters we've seen in the
last couple of years, to me, just looked like bankrolled
protesters that really are uh dupes. Uh, they're pretty much

(32:42):
A lot of them will say whatever they're told, maybe
some of them believe it. Do you think some of
this anti gun stuff, whether a current or what we're
going to see, is AstroTurf. It's not. This is not
the grassroots exactly, because I don't I don't remember meeting
too many people who agree with that. Somebody you say, oh, well, yeah,
there's guns are dangerous, blah blah blah, but a lot

(33:04):
of people will never flat out say there they want
to give up their their firearms. It is a god
given right to hone one uh not just because it's
written down in the Constitution. Of the Bill of Rights,
and uh, uh, well, Vincent, I appreciate you sharing thoughts
and thank you for calling in, Sir, Shields High. Let's

(33:25):
take Uh, we've got a lot of calls coming from
North Carolina. We got a whole bunch of North Carolina
calls here. Well, it's all right, we'll take one more
and then we'll take it up and I'll take it
up to Boston. We gotta get lots of different geographical
regions in North Carolina is very very heavy on the
lines right now. Um, we love you North Carolina. Mike
in North Carolina, Hey, buddy, Hey Buck, I totally agree

(33:47):
with everything Vincent said on the ellin of rules. Um,
so let me get took it. Um. She said that
people wouldn't be killed with a knife. Me and Lissashi killed. Well,
he defeated thirty men by so um taking the swords
away from Japan. Uh. During the that time, spawn ningas
and so the assassination was ran rapid. And to get

(34:11):
to the last bit about Japan, Tojo said, Uh, the
reason we have our Second Amendment rfle a rifle behind
every blade of grass, right, thank you, yes, sir, that's
why they couldn't invade America. Yeah, yeah, Mike, thanks for
calling it from North Carolina, Man Shields. Hi John, and
also Greensboro, North Carolina. Hey John, how are you doing, Buck,

(34:34):
I'm good. Thank you for a call that was calling
about the gun control also, yeah, of course, man, that's
the that's the issue. Do your issue of the hour,
go for it. We all need to hear the word control,
because that's what it's all about. We never hear all
of this left is crying when any other person, child,
adult is killed any other way. We just had a

(34:56):
child killed by a drunk illegal alien last week, and
we're to sail in North Carolina. I'm still waiting for
a politician to cry over that child. John. I'm just
I'm gonna guess you haven't seen anyone, anyone in the
family of that child killed interviewed on CNN and a
national news broadcast on the issue of legal aliens. Yeah,
no alcohol band, no eagle alien band, no, no, no

(35:18):
kind of band, and no tears. Yeah. I mean the
politicization of this, of this by the left, I mean,
to use child victims in a sense as as issues
or as as politicized policy weapons. It's just so tasteless.
But that's what they're doing exactly. And then the other

(35:39):
thing is, let's talk about making the school safety. I
have to barcode with my fingerprints in and out of
work every time I go into parking lot. If I
go into where our truck drivers come like to use
the restroom, I got a barcode to get back in
the building. It works fine. Oh, we got about six
hundred people working here Tilton the times a day. It works,

(36:01):
in and out, in and out, in and out. And
then we could have some the concealed carry holders taking
additional course and carry the faculty carry on campus. And
I would also add, you know, if you get to
concealed carry older's you also got have people, you know,
it could be kind of a package training we do
individuals that also understand more about de escalating physical confrontations.

(36:25):
In general, you get more teachers that are also trained
as first responders. I mean, I I think I think
there's a whole lot of ways that we could consider
trying to make school look. Schools among the softest of
soft targets, right, They're they're wide open generally speaking to
the to the public. Uh, you've got you know, kids
that can't defend themselves. Especially you're talking about an armed

(36:45):
to sound active shooter situation. So yeah, I think it
makes a lot of sense to talk about, especially in
areas where you think that. I mean, look, this isn't
just this isn't a school with with thirty students. There
is a school with almost three thousand, right, I mean
this is a really big institution and one armed guard
on the premises one for three thousand. My college had

(37:05):
sixteen hundred students, had its own police department, if we
want to go, had its own on campus, and they
were all armed officers and they were all deputized under
Massachusetts state law. Uh, they were armed. And I think
we had for a campus of sixteen hundred six officers
on any given time, you know. So they just by
way of comparison, they got three thousand kids and they

(37:27):
only had one one officer. And John, thank you for
calling in from Greensborough. H one more Kenny and Boston Kenny.
We got about a minute, but I want to get
you in before we get going with some other stuff.
You're go ahead, right, how you doing? Um? I'm seeing
a parallel being revealed between this Sparkland gun control movement
and the Me Too movement in the sense that they

(37:49):
both have a they want to call this non political
and then engage in politics, and then they want to
forbid any questioning or uh, going after the victims at
all in any you know anything. You have to just
listen to them and were they wanted as as a
with a me too movement, and accusation becomes tantamount to

(38:10):
a conviction. And all of that shows me that I
think that's all that's the Me too movement is largely
being orchestrated by the left. Yeah, I see the parallel
to Kenny. It's in a student observation. Thank you very
much for calling him my friend. We gotta roll into
a break coming up here. I know today was Tuesday,
but I kind of had a case of the Mondays.
I didn't really sleep that well last night. It just

(38:32):
felt like how many get my day started at? So
much work to do? Oh that's right, I got a
whole cupboard full of Black Rifle coffee. Black Rifle is
the world's premium, small batch groas to order Conservative coffee company,
and the stuff is delicious and it is the way
to kick start your day. I have coffee first thing
in the morning. And then usually in the early afternoon.

(38:53):
So I'm hitting Black Rifle twice. You could say I'm
doing a Black Rifle Coffee double tap, and it is
absolutely what I'd recommend for all of you to go
check them out, vote with your dollar, fuel the revolution,
and visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash Buck, Black
Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck. When you go to
the website, make sure you use the coupon code Buck

(39:14):
one five that's Buck fifteen, and I get you fifteen
percent off Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck coupon
code Buck fifteen. Support veterans, support the Freedom Hut, and
support a fantastic coffee company. Black Rifle. He's back with

(39:42):
you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth,
the fuck never stops. After the deadly shooting in Las Vegas,
I directed Attorney General to clarify wha there's certain bub
stock devices like the one used in Las Vegas are
illegal undercurrent law. That process began in December, and just

(40:06):
a few moments ago I signed a memorandum directing the
Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that
turn legal weapons into machine guns. Welcome back to the
buck Sex and show everybody. In the last hour, we
talked about the student protests and the growing movement to

(40:30):
call for gun control in the aftermath of the park Land,
Florida school shooting. And now we just had President Trump
talking today about what he's willing to do in response,
or what he's willing to consider. At least we are
looking at, or I should say, the federal government is
now looking at the issue of an a R fifteen ban,

(40:54):
which I don't think we'll ever go through. UM. Today,
in fact, the Florida state legislature voted out a proposal
to ban a OUR fifteens, and sure enough the media
was there and taking photos of children from the Parkland
High School that were in attendance. Douglas, I forget the
school where the shooting occurred. Marjorie Stoneman. Douglas and the

(41:17):
kids were very upset about the bill not going through.
But this is the process now we have. This is
the way laws are actually made. It is not based
upon whoever has the most passion in the moment. It
is based upon a yeah, democratic legislator, democratically elected legislature
taking action or not. So they did not pass an

(41:41):
air fifteen band in Florida. They're now turning to state
and they say local bands if they can't get a
federal band. This is also what brings me to the
There are very well connected and financed adults who are
pushing this agenda and using children as props to get
what they want. That has happening right now. There is

(42:02):
no way that all of a sudden, here we are,
days after the event. You have these policies that are
just agreed upon at the grassroots student level, that are
all of a sudden now mobilized and getting a lot
of national level press. Do we really think a lot
of high school kids generally know the difference between state

(42:24):
and local firearms laws and where the federal ban would
end and the local band would begin, etcetera, etcetera. I
don't think so. This is being fed to some students,
or rather the agenda is being promoted through students as
vessels for the message, because the students are not to

(42:45):
be contradicted publicly because they are victims. That's the game
that the Democrats play. It's disgraceful they are using traumatized
children as props in a political fight. But here we are.
That is what they are doing. You're also noticing that
many of the journalists out there that are pushing the

(43:06):
different politicians, Democrats, etcetera, that are pushing for action just
expose that they do not particularly view the Second Amendment
is really a part of the constitution. They just don't
think that that it counts the same way as other stuff.
And that's how you get people like uh Well as
a finance reporter, usually at CNBC, but he he has

(43:28):
an idea for how we could handle the gun problem.
The scariest part of these conversations with so many of
them said, you know what, I like the idea. There's
part of us that actually would like to do something
like this, but we are scared about two things. Part
of it is we're scared about the the economic potential
boycott that could happen, both from the n r A
and gun owners who say, you know what, if JP

(43:50):
Morgan does this, we're we're not going to use their cards.
The other thing that's even more nerve racking, though, is
a lot of them said, you know what, I don't
want to put my employees in harm's way. I actually
think that there could be an incident if we were
to do this. I don't want to bring attention out
to ourselves. And that's a very very scary thing, you know.
Now he was talking about banks not working with or

(44:13):
refusing to work with companies who sell guns, and as
if that's not enough, Keep in mind now that would
be imagine if if you had this with any other
constitutionally protected right, you know, using that you had that
kind of discrimination going on by major institutions that are
tremendously fed federally regulated. And don't even get me started

(44:36):
on it. Uh you know, where to banks and in
the and the federal government begin as a whole other question.
But also notice how it's not enough merely to just
say that he thinks that there would be issues with
a effectively a financial system boycott of firearms manufacturers and

(44:57):
gun sellers, cutting them off um the financial markets because
of their constitution constitutionally protected right to bear because people
want to bear arms, and because they to do so,
they need to be able to sell them. Look at this,
they want to regulate out of existence the Second Amendment.
We see them say this, we see this get support,
and then they turn and say, oh no, no no, we
just want common sense. Remember that was the Obama line,

(45:19):
common sense gun reform. Then you say, well, it's not
common sense because it won't work. So that's nonsensical. What
you're talking about doesn't make sense. Oh well, in that case,
you just want dead children. You're a bad person. Do
what I say, or else I'll tell everybody you just
don't care about dead children. That's that's the way the
Democrats are advancing the advancing the ball on this one

(45:40):
of my friends, that's what they are doing. And it
is very troubling, very troubling. Indeed, it's not going away
because this is now a movement. This is instead of
the Women's March, You're going to have the gun control March.
This will be the manifestation of the resistance hashtag resist
since anti Trump left, using children as the vanguard, so

(46:05):
that anyone who contradicts them on a policy level, who
makes the counter argument, I'm not saying to do it
in a mean way. I'm not saying call the kids.
You know you're I'm not gonna call. Remember, we're going
way beyond just the kids who are at the Marjorie
Douglas School. Now, now we're talking about just kids in
general at schools. They're gonna be organized for this purpose. Thousands,
perhaps tens of thousands of students across the country doing

(46:27):
walkouts and marches and rallies, but they're all going to
be put under this rubric of well, well, they're the
next victims unless we take action. Don't you want to
prevent them from being victims? Aren't you anti gun violence
in schools? Oh? I guess I am, Well, then you
better do what we say. Ban the a R fifteen
nationally banned the air fifteen at the state level, which

(46:48):
I would know other states have done. I live in
New York State. In fact, here, the way that it's
ended up being implemented they've created because they haven't been
semi on the rifles because they can't get that through.
So now you just have New York State compliant a
R variants, which if you've seen, are not particularly pleasing
to the eye, but function the same way in air

(47:09):
fifteen does just no collapsing stock, uh, no carrying handle.
I think maybe they mandated some changes to the real system.
I don't know, but there's there's some a R compliant
New York State a R compliant guns that are being sold,
that have been sold, and in Connecticut they banned, They

(47:31):
banned air fifteen, said you have to turn them in.
They just went with confiscation, and it's estimated that there
are over a hundred thousand I think now technically illegal
a rs in the state of Connecticut, just because because
there's you know, the sheriffs aren't gonna go and kicking
indoors I guess and taking firearms from people that they
legally purchased and they're legally allowed to have a gun.

(47:53):
But in Connecticut they said, well, we're gonna you have
to turn it in now, and a lot of people
didn't turn the men. So there's that. Ah, this is
where this whole discussion is going. Just understand the politics
beyond it now. I know we've got a lot We
took some calls in the last hour on guns and
gun control and this issue. Um, we're going to continue

(48:14):
talking to this yere on the show. I don't want
to spend too much of our time tonight on this
because we're gonna be back on it tomorrow and this
is now front and center. It has replaced immigration. I
thought at this point in February, team we'll be talking
immigration immigration. Nope, we have moved to gun control now.
And so this will be a continuing theme here on
the show. So if you don't get a chance to
talk to us about it today, if you're calling in

(48:34):
or you've been waiting on hold, I know a lot
of you have. I promise there'll be lots of opportunities
going forward because this is now a focus of the
left and we have to engage on this to make
sure that bad policy does not result. Um. But coming
up in this hour, I just want to give you
a sense where we're going a little more on the

(48:55):
the Russian troll factory and what's real and it's not
with all that, and what's serious analysis and what's hysterical hyperbole.
Then we will talk about the latest casualty of the
Mueller investigation. A lawyer who had nothing to do with
anything but said the wrong thing to Mueller. Whoops. Now

(49:17):
he's facing federal felony. He's a citizen of the Netherlands.
By the way, I think this is interesting in the US.
US extends federal law to pretty much everybody it can
all over the world. It's it's an interesting thing. Um.
You know, this is where you start to see other
countries come on, right, But Us' is like Oh no,
we're gonna this is when you start to make laws

(49:37):
about meddling and meddling elections and just wait till that
blows back on us. Trust me. But this lawyer who
is now stand is taking a plea deal and also
one of Manaforts associates. So we've got some upbates in
mull investigation. But I think in some way his most
interesting coming up this hour and it will be later on.

(49:58):
We have a guest joining as a lawyer to talk
about uh. And I see now some of the networks
I had planned this interview all day. I see some
of the networks have actually run interviews on this in
the last hour or so. What if the fix was
in against General Flynn. What if they actually knew that
he wasn't intentionally lying or doing anything that was a crime,

(50:20):
but they decided that it was essential to get Flynn
in order to create the appearance of legitimacy for the
rest of the Muller probe of Trump's people and all
the rest of it. Right, what if they stacked the
deck to go after General Flynn. What if they were
going for his scalp and they cheated to do it.
I mean the prosecutors can't prove that yet, but there

(50:43):
is an argument that we may in fact find out
whether or not that happened, and there's some reason to
believe that it did. There's some reason to believe that
it did. We are going to look at that later
on in this hour because Flynn maybe withdrawing there's there's
some word out that Flynn maybe withdrawing his guilty plea.

(51:04):
Why would he do that? Well, there's a judge that's involved,
the very important judge, a judge who was one of
the few who has held the status and yes, even
the deep staters to account in the past, Judge Emmitt Sullivan.
He is saying that the FBI has to produce information
here about the Flynn guilty plea, all of the information.

(51:26):
Perhaps that will be very interesting because I have a
feeling and we will talk about why that this may
uncover that Flynn got the flip side of Hillary Clinton justice.
You see, with Hillary and her top aids, it was
how do we bend the law, how do we bend
over backwards to do everything we can to make sure

(51:48):
that there's zero legal jeopardy here. We have seen not
just the converse of that process, the the flip side
of that goin but with the same actors involved, Peter Struck,
James Comey, Deputy Director McKay, but the same people involved.

(52:13):
We see how they do the one trial or the
one case. We see how they do the other case.
You know which of these things is not like the other? Oh? Well,
one involves a Republican president. One involves the hope, the
singular hope of the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton. Hmm. Looks
like they were treated quite differently. We will get into

(52:33):
that later on this hour. You will definitely want to
hear that, and then we'll talk also about the some
of the specific gun policies. I haven't gone to yet.
I wanted to hold off because we've got Sean Davis
from the Federalist joining us in the third hour, and
then we'll just kind of freestyle it and talk about
whatever comes to mind. So a lot more coming with
all of that. First, let me tell you, my friends,
I take information security very seriously, and I also think

(52:55):
it's critical to have the best information you can at
all times. That's why I'm all about Global Verification Network.
They are a dual certified veteran owned background investigation and
vetting company, in fact, the only company of its kind
that qualifies in that way. They're veteran owned and operated.
Go to my g VN dot com to check out

(53:17):
what these guys do. They are headquartered in Chicago and
they are risk mitigation experts. If you are going to
hire someone, if you're going to rent somebody a property
that you own, or just engage with a major client,
any business transaction, you want to know who's on the
other side of that transaction. You want to know is
that someone you can trust? Is this somebody that you
can exchange financial and commercial interests with? Global Verification Network

(53:42):
can be the difference between between big success and failure
on this one, my friends, check them out my g
VN dot com, my g VN dot com or call
eight seven seven six nine five seven nine eight seven
seven six nine five one one seven nine. You can

(54:11):
imagine my surprise when you have so many in the
media and in the Democrat Party and even some Republicans,
a lot of Republicans actually, who are treating the indictment
of thirteen Russians tied to social media campaign a tiny
one in terms of the budget, an inconsequential one in

(54:32):
terms of what it did, and you can imagine my surprise. However,
when over at MSNBC I hear some analysis that is
actually quite sound, is actually right on the mark. Here's
what Adrian Chen, a journalist, had to say about what

(54:54):
went on with the whole Russia interference situation. Essentially, it's
so fial media marketing campaign with ninety people, a couple
of million dollars a few million dollars behind it, um,
run by people who have, you know, a bare grasp
of the English language and not a full understanding of
who they're targeting, what they're targeting. Um. I think if

(55:15):
you think about that in terms of just a normal
marketing campaign, that's not going to be a very good
bang for your book. There's not a lot of people saying, well,
let's let's hold back. You know, maybe it's not all
of that big of a deal. Maybe it's not all
that big of a deal. You know. He makes some
really really worthwhile points in there too, about how it

(55:35):
is the case that people were able to tell generally
who these troll accounts were and what was going on
because in a lot of them the grasp of English
wasn't even very good. Well, voll Trump, he is best though,
love hug and kisses Kremlin. I mean, come on, it's
just wasn't going to be that effective no matter what.

(55:58):
It was minuscule when compared to the massive media echo
chambers on both sides when it comes to the election,
it's just complete nonsense. But here we we got a
guy who's want to say, look at maybe people shouldn't
shouldn't just totally freak out about this, And yeah, that's
all I'm trying to say about this too. We shouldn't

(56:19):
freak out about It's not that big a deal. People
want to make it a big deal because Hillary lost.
But you see, this is what it brings us back
to the point about how they were willing to overlook
it when they thought Hillary was gonna win, because that
was their their actual judgment at the time. Not that
big a deal, don't rock the boat. Hillary is gonna win.
We'll forget all about this. That was their real feeling

(56:41):
about it. If you don't believe me, just remember this.
There's President Obama said, there is no serious person out
there who would suggest somehow that you could even you
could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so
decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence

(57:03):
that has happened in the past or that there are
instances in which that will happen this time. And so, uh,
I'd invite Mr Trump to stop lining and go try
to make his case to get votes, and if he
got the most votes, then it would be my expectation
of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and

(57:25):
pledge to work with him to make sure the American
people benefit from an effective government. What Obama said there
is all true. Actually, hey, look, I give credit. I
give credit where it's due. Some people are just you know,
raw raw whatever they think. You know, the conservative populace
movement wants to hear. Right now, I just tell you

(57:46):
what I think in any given moment, and what Obama
said there is true. It being very very hard for
any one person reging election, be very hard to reg
an election period. It would be I mean, if you,
for example, we're to make sure that there was no
voter I D in place in a whole lot of states,
and you know, I mean that that would at least
make it easier. I'm not saying you could, but it

(58:07):
make it easier. But nonetheless, it would be very hard
to do alright, realistically, and they knew this, and they
knew it before and they know it now. But they're
just so self indulgent when it comes to their anti
Trump rage that they'll justify anything with it. And that's

(58:27):
why this whole troll factory. So, I mean, it's funny,
you know. I was just explaining to a Miss Molly
a little bit about this, and she's one of the
great things about our relationship. But she's not somebody who's political.
You know, she's she's up on what goes on in
the world, but she's not. It's just she's got other
things in her mind. It's great and I don't go
home and have to you know, oh, did you read
the latest piece in the Weekly Standard. I'm like, no, no,

(58:48):
it's not it's not how it goes. I was explaining
this to her and she's kind of like, wait, what,
how many people? How much money? What? And I was like, yeah, exactly.
It's a it's a kind of what situation like this
is not what they're trying to make it into. And
that's what is so so exasperating. That's a good word

(59:08):
for EXASPERA gosh, it's so tired of it. But we
gotta keep fighting Fox, gotta get the shield high because
they're they're gonna push on this. This is all about remember,
all about impeachment and long term all about it. That's
why they are clinging to the narrative because if they
are able to they don't. They're not going to get
removal unless they win the Senate and the House. But

(59:30):
even if all they can manage is to, let's say,
take the House, which I think is unlikely, but that's
what they're hoping, they'll they'll impeach to the president on
this issue even without a Muller. A Muller never mind
a smoking gun with anything. I mean, I didn't even
mention it yet I gotta talk about it. Right after this,
this latest guy that Muller got, everyone just like, what

(59:51):
is what is this? Why are we even so he
he was I have to look, I have to give
you the details. It's so insignifican again and so nonsensical
in the broader scope of what Mueller is supposed to
be looking for here with Russia collusion, that you're forced
to sit around you say to yourself, what are we
even spending our tax dollars on here? With he's some

(01:00:13):
Dutch lawyer who said something that no one cares about.
The FBI is now facing prison time. Is crazy. He's

(01:00:33):
back with you now because when it comes to the
fight for truth, the fuck never stops. When you return
an indictment that no one is ever going to be
tried on, um, you do it because you're trying to
craft a narrative or make a statement. And I think
what happened with Mueller's case is the original collusion angle

(01:00:55):
that they were proceeding on, which is that the Russians
hacked the election and that Trump may have been or
Trump people may have been complicit in the hacking, is
something that a they don't have evidence of and be
even if they hadn't, they couldn't prove in court. That's
a big hole in a collusion case. What Mueller probably

(01:01:17):
wanted to do was put to rest any claim that
Russia hadn't actually uh interfered with our election, and I
think this indictment is an attempt to do that, But
it's far afield from what the original collusion allegation was.
As our friend Annie McCarthy, who was just laying out
some of his thoughts on Fox News about the Muller
and Diamond from last week. Very important that we all

(01:01:42):
understand they're creating a narrative with all this that Mueller
is actually bringing a federal case against thirteen Russians, really
as part of the news cycle. That's what this is about.
This is it's a news story. It's not actually a
federal prosecution is not going to go anywhere. The mean anything,
never going to get these guys. And as I've said

(01:02:06):
to you also, I think there's a whole bunch of
other problems with information warfare as a charge that a
federal prosecutor, effectively federal prosecutor is is levying against another
country and what that means for our country. And do
we ever meddle? I don't know. I think maybe sometimes

(01:02:29):
it might have happened somewhere just saying the meddling. But
you have the Mueller probe continuing on. As we discussed
last week, there was there were the indictments, and then
today you have two more bits of information add into
all this. One you have a colleague of Paul Manaforts

(01:02:51):
Gates who has been flipped, we are told who has
been flipped and is going to testify against Maniport and
they're gonna be They're gonna try to nail them on
some fraud stuff and some wire fraud, bank stuff, you know,
just things that have nothing to do with Russia collusion. Nothing.
But I've I've said this along you those of you

(01:03:14):
who have been listening to the show for a while
and now over a year on air here in National syndication,
those have been listening to me for a while now.
I have been very consistent on this point. This is
going to grind along, and it's gonna chop up the
lives of a whole bunch of folks that have nothing
to do with conspiring with the Kremlin to mess with

(01:03:35):
a U. S election. But the left just wants they
just want to feed bodies into the system that they
just want scalps. They want people to be punished so
that there is some sense of wrongdoing from the Trump camp,
right just because if if anyone goes to pre it
doesn't matter. What for if it's tax evasion, which may

(01:03:55):
very well be involved in the Menaphort charge, well then
they're bad people that around Trump. Keep Menaphort got canned
during the campaign. It's not Trump's fault. If Manaford was
doing shady stuff in Ukraine beforehand and whatever. And as
we all know, the Trump campaign was a little bit
of an improvisation. I could say that an improvisation. And

(01:04:19):
some of the people that were affiliated with an associate
with the Trump campaign. And this also goes to a
lot of the never Trump sentiment. You know, all the
in the political world, the so called best and brightest
and most connected, we're not going to work for Trump.
At the beginning. I know because I know a lot
of those folks. They were running over to the Rubio
and Cruise campaigns and Jeb Bush, although Jeb Jeb exclamation

(01:04:43):
point fizzled out pretty quickly. But it was Rubio and
Cruz that were attracting the political high rollers so to speak,
in the in the early days, not Trump. And that's
why Trump put such a premium on loyalty, because he
he was really able to see, you know, who's who's
with me? You know, it wasn't just who's with me
because you think I'm gonna win, Who's with me because
they believe? But that meant that there were other people

(01:05:03):
who were just opportunists, and Manafort was one of them,
right manaforts Like yeah, sure, Donald, like I'll come and
ride this way for a while with you. Why not,
you know? And if I'll do it for some shady Ukrainians,
I'll do it for you, right who cares well? Now?
Manaforts in a in some trouble. Innocent until proven guilty,
but it looks like he's in a rough spot. Then

(01:05:24):
you get this other guy today, and I have to
read this to you, so I get to make sure
I get all the specifics clear. The son in law,
according the Washington Post, here son in law of Russian
Uh well, here's what the opening paragraph is. The Dutch
son in law of one of Russia's wealthiest men pleaded
guilty Tuesday and Federal court in Washington to making false

(01:05:44):
statements in Special Counsel Mueller's probe of Russian interference in
the US presidential election. Alex van der Zwan was charged
with line to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates.
Who's that who served as a top official on President
Trump's campaign and a longtime business partner of former campaign

(01:06:06):
chairman Paul Manafort. Based in London, Venders Juan worked for
the law firms Scatting Arts, very famous, very high end
uh law firm well known here in New York City.
A lot of my law school buddies wanted to go
work there, which worked with Maniford and Gates when they
served as political consultants in Ukraine. Uh So, this guy

(01:06:27):
is thirty three years old and he's pleaded guilty to
a felony. We don't know what his punishment's going to be.
He could serve up to six months in prison. But
now he's a convicted film which I would know what
means that at least under US law. I mean he's
a Dutch citizen. Under US law, he could uh not
practice law anymore as it convicted flans. I don't know

(01:06:49):
how that affects him in Europe, but who knows. But
here's the thing he talked about when he last spoke
to Gates, and he was off by like a month.
And they're saying that, you know, that's a big deal.
It's an ice facing a federal criminal charge. What does
this vendor's wound guy have to do with anything? Who knows?
But Mueller's just he's just out taking people down. You

(01:07:14):
you know, say what you will about this. You can't
look at this and not think, how does the Mueller?
How do Mueller's tactics compared to the FBI's tactics with
Hillary's emails. Just always keep that in the back of
your mind and I think you'll understand what's really work here.
Speaking of which Flynn, was Flynn ambushed? Did they stack

(01:07:34):
the deck? Did they cheat to get Flynn's scalp. We'll
talk about that in just a few minutes. So there's
been a lot of reporting on Russia collusion last few days.
There's this whole indictment of the thirteen guys tied to
the troll factories and the sock puppet maneuvers, all the
stuff you've seen on Facebook, what we've been talking about

(01:07:55):
here on the show. But there's something else that's happening
in the legal world right now that touches on these
investigations over Russian interference and theoretical collusion and all this
other stuff that has to do with the status of
General Michael Flynn's plea plea do you? So, let's bring
on somebody who has particular inside in this. We have

(01:08:17):
Margot Cleveland with us. She is a senior contribute to
the Federalist and a lawyer who served nearly twenty five
years as a career law clerk for federal Apple appellate
judge and and AGC professor in the College of Business
at University of Notre Dame. And you are involved in
this case, Margot, Well, I'm involved in the sense that
I've been researching it after I started seeing the media

(01:08:38):
just ignore all of these problems that have been coming out,
and when I dug into it more, I realized that
there is a huge issue of whether or not in
the plea agreement there was information with help from Flynn.
Hold On, let me just tell everybody what the title
of Margot's pieces here, It's how a plea re per

(01:09:00):
soul from Michael Flynn could uncover more federal corruption. Margot,
I read your whole piece. It's really interesting, I think
very important. I'm somebody who it's very agitated about the
possibility of federal overreach and prosecutorial misconduct, and this seems
like it's at least possible right now and trending towards

(01:09:21):
likely that there's something going on here with this. Can
you walk us through what's what what may in fact
be the case with this Flynn plea deal, and why
you're seeing it that way? Okay, sure, So after he
put guilty. Within a week, the judge who accepted his
guilty plea was taken off the case and a new

(01:09:42):
judge was given the case, which by itself, that was
pretty mysterious. Usually if there's a procusal, it would happen
before they accept a plea deal. So that was the
first thing that kind of came out as weird. And then, um,
it was last week there was a ending order that
was entered in the case and it was the first
time I took a look at it, and it required

(01:10:05):
the government to turn over any exculpatory evidence to Flynn.
And at that point it was actually a revised standing order.
The judge had done it back in December, I think
it was. And when I looked at a little bit more,
I thought, you know what, if there is this evidence
that's not out there, this judge has given the green

(01:10:25):
light that this is the basis to withhold the guilty play,
I'm sorry to withdraw a guilty plate. Now whether or
not the government withheld evidence, I don't know. We'd have
to wait to see what comes out. But you've got
to keep in mind who the players are in the
Flynn case. So we had that FBI duel the ones
who were texting back and forth, and one of those

(01:10:47):
was the individual who had actually interviewed Flynn, which is
what he was charged with line to the FBI on
So you look at that, and he originally, the FBI
agent had originally said he didn't think Flynn was lying.
Mure set he didn't think Flynn was lying. But then
Flynn gets indicted on this. So can you how could

(01:11:10):
that be possible? Margot? I mean, you've got how could
some FBI d o J officials think that someone did
not lie and then that person is charged with lying
for the circumstances under review. That just seems you know,
how much faith can we put in the process when
one FBI guy goes, no, there's no lie and another says, yeah,
I think there's a lie, right, And and that's the

(01:11:30):
part that's really concerning, that you have those statements and
then he gets charged. Now it could be that they
had more evidence that contradicted something he said in the
interview that came out later, or that showed that he
really didn't forget the scenario that was that was some
of the testimony, that he didn't recall something, or the inconsistent,

(01:11:54):
see would be something that maybe he forgot, so who knows,
maybe they discovered something else. But when you look at
all the players that were involved in this, they've got
all of this stuff coming out that is throwing questions
about their credibility. And if this comes forward, now the
government has to turn over the savidence. And it sounds

(01:12:17):
like that Flynn took the plea deal before he was
given some of this exculpatory evidence. So again we don't
know yet what this evidence is. But the judge who said,
on this case, excuse me, who is currently honest? Judge Sullivan? Right,
Judge Sullivan. Yeah, he's He's a very interesting guy with
some of his previous decisions too. He is not friendly

(01:12:39):
to the government playing games with this exactly. He is
the judge who when he discovered the withholding of evidence
in Steven's in the in the Senator to Steven's case
in Alaska, right, exactly exactly, he was irate. He ordered
an investigation. He did not tolerate it. So if there

(01:13:00):
is nothing, I will absolutely trust Sullivan. So if Sullivan
comes out and it clears it, I have no concerns
about the flint component of it is it is it
a settled matter? And we're speaking to Margot Cleveland. Everyone
senior contribute to the federalist and she's a lawyer, Margot,
is it a federal is a federalist? Sorry? Is it

(01:13:21):
settled law that you if you take a plea deal
exculpatory evidence that it's found later does not matter? How
does that work? So essentially forever listening, if they the
Feds come to me and say you're looking at five years,
or you plead guilty today and you'll get a six
month suspended sentence, and if it came out you know
two weeks after that that the Feds actually knew I

(01:13:44):
was innocent all along. Does that matter? It depends on
where you are. This is an issue that is not
resolved in the court yet. And that was one of
the things that I found interesting about Judge Fullisan standing order.
But the lower courts are actually is split on this.
The Supreme Court has never said whether or not withholding

(01:14:05):
exculpatory evidence in a plea case will result in the
plea being thrown out. If it's withheld and you go
to trial, you get a new trial. But in a
plea case, the courts have different views but this is
where it's key Judge Sullivan. Sullivan's view is that you

(01:14:26):
must turn this evidence over, and if you don't, that
is a basis for a plea to be withdrawn. He
is a district court judge in d C. And there
are at least two, if not three, district court cases
in d C that have held that. And again that's
one of the key points that I was trying to
make in this in this article, trying to take the

(01:14:47):
kind of mushy legal stuff and make it pretty clear
that in his court, if they withheld material exculpatory evidence,
it would be a basis to withdraw a plea. So
if it does get with drawn, we're going to know
there's some problems there. But if it does get withdrawn,
I mean, Margot, I know you're you're you're a lawyer's
you're keeping it right on the straight and error here,

(01:15:08):
But I'm gonna come out and say, if they withdraw
the plea, it's because Flynn was getting hosed and this
was a setup. That's what that means to me. You
don't have to agree with that, but that's how I see, right,
and I don't think that's necessarily the case. Flynn might
have planned for valid reasons, maybe he knew he did
something wrong, or he might have planed for invalid reasons
that he was concerned about what it would do to

(01:15:31):
his family and the long process, So it could have
gone one way or the other from a personal standpoint.
And then how how often does it defend in the
federal case change a guilty plea unless there's new information
that would change the status of their I mean, just
how I've never heard of that happening. Well, it actually

(01:15:52):
happens where they try to do it a lot, and
and usually it's not these high profile cases. But from
my perspective, the bigger issue if he would draw us
the plea is that the evidence was withheld. So you
can kind of look at it two ways. There's the
Flynn matter of him personally, and then there's a matter

(01:16:13):
of what does this say about the prosecutors involved in
the case. And I think the second issue is the
one that has broader ramifications. Obviously to Flynn it matters,
but the broader ramifications if he is able to withdraw
the plea is that this process was corrupted. That's what

(01:16:33):
That's what I mean. It would seem to me pretty
clear that we're dealing with a bunch of prosecutorial headhunters here,
which is not a good thing when you're talking about
an open ended, massive special counsel investigation. Oh. Absolutely, And
and just to clarify, what I mean is Flynn could
have done something wrong, whether or not the prosecutors were
good or bad. But the problem of the plea going

(01:16:54):
through in this context is it is showing that there
would be broader corruption if this providence was withheld. And
I do want to make one more point here that
this is really tying into the whole Phis A Court process,
which really triggered my interest in this when I read
the House memo that came out and then the Grassly

(01:17:16):
Grand memo. The process of the five A Court was
completely abused from what they said in those memos, and
I wrote a couple of articles on that that you
can take a look at it the federalists. But this
all is going to a broader problem with how the
Department of Justice is handling things, or I should say,
select individuals. And to me that shocking because I've known

(01:17:39):
some U S. Attorney's assistants, attorneys who have the most integrity,
and to me, this is what is the most disturbing
about it. But when we saw from the Ted Stevens thing,
for example, Senators Ted Stevens, if that doesn't happen, by
the way, we probably don't have Obamacare. For everybody listening,
a bunch of federal prosecutors knew that he had expeltatory
evidence and they hit it. It was terrible exactly. They

(01:18:00):
literally were like, oh, we know this guy is innocent,
let's nail him anyway because he's got in our next
to his name and he's a senator from Alaska. That's
what happened there. Margot Cleveland, everybody check out her piece
how a plea reversal from Michael Flynn could uncover more
federal corruption. It is really compelling reading. It's up on
the Federalist dot com. Margot, please stay with it and
if you have updates, we would love to have you
back to explain what's going on here. Okay, great, sounds wonderful,

(01:18:23):
Thanks so much, Thanks so much, Margot. Alright, team, we're
gonna roll into a break. We come back. We are
going to talk with our friend Sean Davis about what's
going on with the various fixes that are or whether
the fixes or not, the various actions that people are
talking about on guns in the as a result of
the tragedy and Florida. We'll get into that more. Stay

(01:18:44):
with me, Welcome back everyone. So we have been talking
a lot about guns here in the Freedom Hunt because
of what happened in Florida. This is the center of
the national policy discussion right now. It's not immigration, it's
not even Russia right now. It is in fact, guns,
the Second Amendment, gun control, what to do about school shootings.

(01:19:05):
So there are proposals now on the table. Unlike in
some previous shootings, there are at least real ideas that
are being forward and not by everyone, but by some,
and therefore we should spend some time looking at them
and judging them on their merits. And to help us
do that now we have Sean Davis. He is co
founder of The Federalist. The Federalist dot com is one
of my favorite commentary sites. You guys should all be

(01:19:27):
quite familiar with it. Shawn's the co founder and he
joins us now. Sean, thank you so much, Thank you
for having me. Can you just let's let's work through
what are some of the the biggest takeaways in terms
of policy from the horrible tragedy in Florida. I mean,
I can throw some of your way Sean also, if
there's any I'm leaving out, but I just wanted to

(01:19:48):
start with, what do you think about age restrictions for
buying an A R. I'm seeing that get a lot
of play. I think they're utterly silly, devoid of information
on who's responsible for the bulk of mass shootings, and
just you know, fundamentally at odds with what we know

(01:20:10):
about how criminals work and about how human nature works.
For example, rost out that at the New York Times said,
you know what, because all these shooters are young men,
we shouldn't let anyone under thirty by an a R fifteen,
which number one. It's just it's so silly. There's so
many other guns out there that are are more powerful,
have a bigger range, better terminal ballistics, and yet d

(01:20:35):
a R has captured UH gun controllers imagination for some reason.
And then the other issues, looking at the actual data
of who commits mass shootings in the US, you would think,
looking at news coverage that it's always alienated young men, teenagers,
early twenties, and that's just not the case. In fact,
the majority fifty five percent of mass students in this

(01:20:56):
country are committed by middle aged men. Men between the
ages of thirty and fifty is the majority of mass
shootings in the US. So these age based restrictions, they
are their wild attempts to try to come up with
some way, somehow to ban this gun or that gun,
but they're just not rooted in the reality of what's happening.

(01:21:17):
I think that's the You've made a number of points
and everybody should keep in mind, but the the the
one that sticks out the most for me is that
this would not go to the heart of the problem
because you're not even necessarily going to legally never mind
their illegal possession of weapons, which we know is always
also an issue that comes in here, but too legally
possessed weapons. People in the age range of mass shooters,

(01:21:39):
there will be plenty of them that will be able
to get them. As you said, so people over thirty
are engaged in plenty of mass shootings too, So that
wouldn't stop the problem. Okay, So that one doesn't seem
like it that that falls in that category for me, Shaun.
If people say, well, how big a deal is it?
I would also point out that there's no way it
would stop at just the a R fifteen because the

(01:22:00):
you ban or you you have an age based restriction
for the a R. People would rightfully say, well, it's
not really that different from a lot of other rifles,
and then bam, you'd have a list of like fifty
to rifles minimum right there. There's no saving a gun
controller um, because you know, once you get grant the
principle that it's okay to band this gun or that

(01:22:21):
gun or this calibra, that caliber, there's no limiting principle
on it. Um. And I guess we've talked about this before.
My big complaint with this debate is it's not actually
about guns. It's not about gun control. What we are
having is a debate with guns is proxies about human nature.
In the nature of man. There are people on one

(01:22:41):
side of the debate who thinks that if you congest
regulate these tools have the right mix of laws, you
can regulate out of the heart of man an inclination
or ability to do evil. And then on the other
side you have people who say, you know what, people
have been murdering each other for the entirety of human history. Uh,
you know, going back to the very beginning, and the

(01:23:03):
most wicked, devastating tool of death that has ever been
devised is the wicked human heart. And rather than pretending
like we can just put these things under lock and
key and then bad people won't want to do bad things,
maybe we should give good people the ability to defend
themselves against the bad people. The whole debate, I would

(01:23:24):
I would agree with with everything that you just deserted.
I would also add to it that I think that
guns becomes also an ideological proxy battleground for the cultural
left and the right that it's just a way of showing,
you know, the people and Blue strongholds coastal areas and
Democrats strongholds of the country, they don't like people who
own guns. They actually they think that people who own

(01:23:45):
guns are roobs and hillbillies and their gross and so
this is one of the reasons why it becomes such
an emotional issue for them, because it's a way of throwing,
you know, throwing some stuff at the other guys. No,
I think that's exactly right. It's it's a cultural chivalist
um and in fact, in a lot of quarters, especially
in media, you know, we mock people on the left
for not knowing the slightest thing about guns and just

(01:24:06):
messing up in embarrassingly bad ways, basic stuff like at
one point USA Today said a hot new accessory creation
the chains I knew you're gonna go with the chainsaw
on the rail system. That's my favorite too. How can
I not go after the chainsaw? Theyonet so, but they
that ignorance is almost a badge of a badge of courage.
It signifies that they are not going to solely themselves, um,

(01:24:29):
but by getting into the mud with these icky, knuckle
dragging buck tooth hillbilly gun clingers, and you know they're
they are so much more high minded they don't even
need to learn about I've said this and I'm so
happy that someone someone agrees with me. Sean, I've been
saying that it is viewed as an issue where it's
the only issue I know of in journalism where to

(01:24:51):
be wrong is actually to score points among your own
because it shows your disdain for the issue. It's like
it's the equivalent of if a of the announcer ever
brings somebody on TV and doesn't have their name right,
that's like the most one oh one thing ever, and
you can assume that a lot of times they would
only do it because I don't even care to know
this person's name with the gun with the anti gun

(01:25:12):
crowd in journalism, they didn't even care to know the
difference between automatic and a semi automatic because it doesn't
matter because they're all bad. That's actually the mentality they have.
It is, it is, and they'll get mad at you
if you nitpick them on stuff like that, like, oh,
because I didn't know this was a Ruger versus a Rimington's,
and I can't regulate guns that when it's actually no.

(01:25:33):
The last time you tried this, you regulated guns by
feature and you put stupid features on there that had
absolutely nothing to do with anything, and then patted yourselves
on the back for having done a real good job.
And in fact, one of the people who backed that
fault weapons ban, Carolyne McCarthy New York, was asked on
National TV about one of those cosmetics features that was

(01:25:55):
listed and banned in the law, and it was with
Tucker Carlson. He said, okay, you you banned a barrel
for out what's the barrel shroud? And she himmed in
hod it was appeared she had no idea what it was.
And finally she said, oh, it's the shoulder thing that
goes up. Like, you can't have people with that level
of knowledge writing into law specific definitions that banned this

(01:26:15):
thing or that thing. You actually have to know what
you're doing, just as you wouldn't want a mechanic who
didn't know the difference between a ranch and a screwdriver
taking apart your engine. It's just dumb. And also let
me that these bands they put in place, people can
get arrested for this stuff. I think that's often lost here.
It's not like we're no longer offering this product at
your local CDs or something. If they put a magazine

(01:26:36):
ban in place in a certain state, they will arrest
people for that there. And in looking back again at
the nineties four law, they had things on there like,
you know, if it has a bayonet lug, not even
a beyonet, a bayonet lug, it's ban. Or if it
has a muzzle break or a collapsible stock, well, you
know what people did to get around it is they
would pen and weld the stock, and then they would

(01:26:57):
pen and weld level device under the barrel cut off
suddenly it's compliance. The gun functionally was no difference than
it was before. I want to ask you. We're speaking
to Sean Davis of The Federalist, Everybody's co founder of
the Federalist. You can check out his latest on the website.
UM one that that is getting a lot of attention.
And then I think is a is a good faith
effort and at least worthy of discussion. Well, I guess

(01:27:19):
they're all worthy discussion, but worthy of perhaps further investigation.
Is David French in National Review. Although he said it's
not his idea, he's forwarding the proposal for a temporary
restraining order for the purchase of firearms. What say you,
Sean Davis, and correct me if I'm wrong. He was
talking about related to mental health. Correct, yes, sorry, So

(01:27:42):
I should have explained it. So it's a it's a
it's a temporary straining order based on a mental health
adjudication to prevent somebody for a period of time for
forgetting a gun. They'd have to go in front of
a cord. There obviously be some So this was essentially
a version of a much because it's very hard to
get somebody adjudicated mentally incompetent, which is a good thing
because we actually don't want people to be able to

(01:28:02):
be locked away unless there's very good reason. But this
would be to say, hey, look, the same way that
you can't have a gun because of a domestic violence
conviction in the past, or if you've ever been the order,
have you ever been under a protective order? I believe
there's also some restrictions in some states. UH in this case,
if the people around you think you're nuts, you can
go before a judge that they can say, all right,

(01:28:23):
you for this period of time, no gun for you.
You know, I like David French a lot. I know
where he's coming from. UM. In principle, I don't have
a problem with his idea. I think that's fine. In practice,
I have lots of concerns because it's there's just so
many things that go into the details of that. You know,
what's going to re required, what's the evidentiary standard, what's

(01:28:45):
your ability UM to go and argue your own case
in court. If it turns out a bunch of co
workers or neighbors who are mad at you, UM have decided,
you know, they don't like these gun humps, so they're
gonna get this guy's guns taken away, but assuming it
could all be done in a good faith way where
you can mitigate or eliminate the the chances of chicanery

(01:29:06):
or revenge based targeting of gun owners. I don't have
a problem with it. I think that I think it's
totally fair what I wish we would do, however, rather
than everyone trying to come up with clever new laws
to put on the books, I really do wish we
would enforce the laws that we have now, because what
we had in Florida was a kid who told me
envisited thirty nine times he had put on YouTube that

(01:29:27):
he wanted to shoot up at school. All his classmates
knew it, the FBI knew it, and they did nothing.
So what on earth is a new law going to
do when you have a regime which we saw in
Florida where all of the warning signs were there, everyone
knew this guy was a ticking time bomb and nobody
didn't think about it. Jean, is there anything that you
think that really was there anything that's at the top
of your list before we let you go, that you

(01:29:47):
think should be done here in response to the shooting? Yeah? Absolutely,
I think, um, knowing what we do about each cowards
to love targeting defense with people who can't shoot back, um,
knowing what we do about that. Maybe we should stop
making our schools completely defenseless and soft targets. Maybe we
should give teachers and employees and administrators who are already
licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe

(01:30:09):
they've gone through extra training. You're already trusting these people
with your children all day long. It's about time we
give people who are already trained and licensed to do
this stuff the right to protect the children under their
charge while they're at school. Let's stop broadcasting to these
evil cowards so they can go into these gun free
zones and turn them into free fire zones and start

(01:30:30):
sending the message that if you set foot on this
campus with a gun intent on doing harm, we're going
to put you down. Sean Davis, co founder of the Federalists.
Check out the Federalist dot com for more of their writing. Sean,
always appreciate you make the time. My friend talks soon.
It's a pleasure, sir. Thank you say we're gonnaroll into
a quick break. Will be right back. So I see
that Jay Law was initially reported, and for those who

(01:30:53):
are not into this kind of stuff, I'm assuming that
a very small percentage of this audience subs ribs to
People magazine or reads US weekly. My only connection to
pop culture is Miss Molly. She keeps me informed, so
I don't say things like, you know, who are who
are the Kardashians again or whatever. She makes sure that
I know what's going on in the world other than

(01:31:15):
politics and national security and political philosophy and whatnot. But
it turns out that Jay law Jennifer Lawrence, actress of
many films, is not taking a break from acting for
the I initially thought she was, and I came on,
I was gonna say, oh no, because you know, truth
be told him kind of a jailaw fan. You know,

(01:31:36):
I appreciate, I celebrate her whole catalog. I think it's
it's got a nice, nice body of work. Um. And
yet here we are being told in advance that we
can expect there to be some politics coming out of
Miss ms Lawrence the next year because activism to celebrities,
they never do activism. That's not at least I never

(01:32:00):
hear about. Maybe that's a better way to put it.
I never hear about activism that isn't in the realm
of progressive virtue signaling. Why can't we have more celebrities
whose activism is I want to, you know, raise lots
of money for charter schools in the inner city. I
want to raise lots of money for uh A specific

(01:32:22):
cancer research program or whatever it is, all these good things.
I mean, you know, I'd like to see more really
big name celebrities out there that are are raising money
for you know, St. Jude's. Why is it that we
always have these celebrities that are global warming I got
to go to international summits and talk about global warming,
or you know, it's it's always a transgender rights global warming,

(01:32:45):
just something that's in the progressive vanguard. I would have
so much more respect for what they're doing if they
leverage their celebrity for something that was just clearly of
public benefit and not some form of brand enhancement for themselves.
Because when you do things like you know, Leonardo DiCaprio

(01:33:05):
with this whole climate change thing. The guy's literally flying
around the world on his private jet to go to
climate change meetings. You know, talk about this and they're
not to be mean, but I mean, I don't even
think the guy. I think it's unlikely the guy has
like a tenth grade reading level, and yet he's gonna
lecture the whole world on the most among the most
complicated scientific issues facing the international community today. Although I

(01:33:31):
don't think it's really I don't think the answer is
that complative. The answer is we don't really have to
do anything, and it's gonna be fine. But I know
people yell at me for that. Don't use the paper bags, buck,
don't use them. Why what's gonna happen? The earth will mouth? Uh? Anyway,
So Jay Law is gonna be doing activism next year.
I saw that today. She's good. I mean, I like

(01:33:54):
Jay Law. Not not quite as good as Jessica Biel,
but she's close. You know, they're they're in a similar
similar category. Um, And I'm gonna switch out to George
Clooney before I get myself into trouble. And George Clooney
is also talking about doing more politics. Now they're saying
maybe even Clooney twenty. Now here's the thing about that,

(01:34:17):
And just this is not a knock on the Trump presidency.
It's just a statement of reality. Until now, when a
well known celebrity said he or she was thinking about
running for the presidency. It was an understandable reaction for
a lot of us to just say, oh, that's a

(01:34:40):
version of brand enhancement, right, this is a lot of
free press, and you know, they'll get their name out there.
But remember, if we're gonna be honest about it. When
Donald Trump was first running in this twenty six cycle,
a lot of people said that about Trump. A lot
of people. I remember that White House corp White House
or was it the White House cor Respondence dinner where

(01:35:01):
Obama made a Trump joke or was it the other Yeah,
I think like the Smith dinner. I forget what it's called. Anyway,
they made a joke about Trump, you know what I'm
talking about. Yeah, they made he made some joke about Trump.
Obama did, and Trump was just like, oh really, it
was the correspondence dinner. Yeah, that's right. And and Trump
was just like, oh really, oh really. And then later

(01:35:22):
when he started to run, people were like, this is
all a publicity stunt. Well, clearly it wasn't. Because he's
now the president of the United States. That just means
that when you've got a celebrity, now whether it's Clooney
or Oprah or any of them. You are in a
position where you gotta at least look at it on
the merits and say, okay, maybe maybe what would George

(01:35:46):
Clooney be a formidable political candidate? I'm not sure, but
I can't say definitely not because the guy looks like
a political candidate, which unfortunately means a lot these days
because of our mass media environment. It's all chain so much,
hasn't it. You know, did anybody in like eighteen eighty
know what the president even looked like or sounded like.

(01:36:06):
I mean a few people did, but for the most part,
you voted for a platform. You have some rough idea
of what you know this guy or that guy stood for.
Maybe you heard him at a speech, you know. I
mean back in the day, the presidents were like doing
their own dry cleaning, and it was a very different,
very different environment. Now it's all about mass media. Now
it's all about the propaganda involved here, and uh, well,

(01:36:30):
it's propagand if you think it's a bad thing, it's
just public relations. If you think it's a good thing,
but you have celebrities that are gonna increasingly get an
apolot there's no question about it. They're gonna get into politics.
That's gonna be a result of Trump's success, just a
side effect, you could say, of a reality TV star

(01:36:51):
what she was, who is now the commander in chief
and the leader of the free world. I don't think
that j Law is gonna go quite in that direction,
but I'd be I'd be torn, you know, there's a
part of me that would be like, come on, Jay Law,
we can make you a conservative. Yet, although I'm sure,
I'm sure her politics are very progressive and annoying, and
I'm okay with some level of that. I'm all right

(01:37:11):
with people that have their own beliefs and thoughts but
aren't too aggressive about mixing the platform they have for
one thing, in this case, acting with their political political
prescriptions for the rest of us. But we know that's
not how it goes That's not how it goes down.
They always they always try to, oh I'm at the oscars,

(01:37:32):
let me make my political speech now, right, It's not
like they're generally separating these things out. So we'll see
Jane Law, Clooney, probably some others out there are going
to get into the game too. We'll see where all
this ghost team. Um, we're gonna talk to you about
stress in a moment. Got some thoughts on it. Stay
with me. I like to share a little bit of

(01:37:54):
wisdom that I've acquired in my thirty six years on
this earth. A lot of you were like, yeah, whipper snapper,
double that number and then listen to your wisdom. But nonetheless,
I think that I have picked up some things. Maybe
I'm sharing it for my my younger millennials, my not
yet gray bearded millennial listeners, and some others. But one
of the things that I've I've come to understand as

(01:38:15):
I get older, is that it is on you as
an individual to figure out what works for you in
terms of managing stress. I don't think there's nearly enough
that is talked about. There's nearly enough talk in our
society about this specific issue. And when you look at
any number of ailments out there, you see that stress

(01:38:38):
is a direct contributor and in some cases, I would
I would argue the root cause of some of the
problems that you see out there. I mean, stress obviously goes.
Cardiac events are related to stress, and heart heart disease
and UH and cancer are still you know, the two

(01:38:58):
big lethal diseases that we have to worry about in
this country, but stresses in everyday life, and it's really
important to get a sense of how you can manage
it yourself. I just I'm thinking about it because the
average American, according to this study that was linked up
on the Drudge Report today, the average American has sixty
bad days a year according to the survey, which means

(01:39:21):
you spend two months a year thinking that you're having
a bad day. So it's it's more than just having
a case of the mondays, because that would be fifty two, right,
So it's so you get you're averaging over we the
American people are averaging over one bad day each week.
And eighty percent of those twenty four hour periods that

(01:39:45):
are ranked in this survey as stressful are from work
related stress, which I would have assumed. There's other stuff
too that are that are cited in the study illness,
financial worries, feeling unclean or disheveled. Now, I've had some
days where I felt unclean or disheveled in the office
that ruined my day in my previous career before media,

(01:40:06):
but I have to tell you that those were self
induced um, I had no one to blame but myself
for wearing the same clothing to the office the next day.
The headache that I may or may not have been
nursing was the result of active decision making on my part.
And while I may have been in throbbing and lingering
pain for the day at the office, in my earlier days,

(01:40:30):
sometimes it was worth it. I'm just saying there were
times when it was. It was an even trade off, right.
It's like misery at work, keeping the waste paper basket
close and still worth it, still worth it. Not anymore
now I'm like, oh my gosh, somebody, somebody tries to
get me to drink more than two glasses of anything.
I'm like, oh god, come on, what's going on here.

(01:40:50):
I know I'm a I'm a lightweight, but it is
what it is. You got you gotta understand who you are.
You know, know thyself to thine own self be true,
said the buffoon halona Us in Hamlet. People always think
Hamlets said it. No, you know who you know who
corrected us as a country on that one share from Clueless.
That's why we all know that line now, see very

(01:41:10):
important movie. So anyway, so you get sixty seven per
cent of an individual's uh se percent rather of an
intervitor's dissatisfaction or any given day was related to sleep.
You gotta get enough sleep. This is you know. My
parents told me this growing up all the time, and
they were totally right. And I would stay up super

(01:41:31):
late and then I have to get up. And I
remember going and going into my high school and just
feeling day after day like I was in some zombie
state of about to fall over any minute. Its because
I didn't getenough of sleep. I go to bed, like
to two o'clock in the morning. Mom's listening, She's like, really,
you're up that late. Yeah. Sometimes I would just stay up.
Parents are go to bed, like watch TV, watch HBO

(01:41:51):
at two am. There was some interesting stuff on HBO
a two am. So anyway, I would stay up super late.
It's really really bad for you. We all have this us.
We all have our our achilles heel, whether it's financial,
whether it's just dealing with workplace situations, or any number
of things. How you manage it is one of the
most important things in life. It really is, I mean

(01:42:15):
not important on an existential being, a virtuous, worthwhile person level.
But important on a how you're taking care of yourself,
and I finally taken care of yourself. It is so
very very important. I used to think certain things were
maybe a little frivolous or oh no, no, no, You've
got to find what whether if you gotta get some

(01:42:36):
outdoors time to paint, if you gotta watch birds, if
you The main thing they talk about in here is
actually getting to the gym, which I know all of
us are like, uh gosh, I mean I have the
same thing. I'm like, I gotta go to the gym.
I feel like a hamster on a wheel, a hamster
that you know shouldn't have eaten so many bacon cheeseburgers
this week that all said, I've never left the him,

(01:43:00):
and I always trying to remind myself of this. It's
like one of the struggles that I have day day
to day. I've never gone to the gym and left
the gym, been like I wish I hadn't done that,
And yet and yet every day I'm like, I'm kind
of tired. I got a lot of I got a
radio show to get ready for. I don't think I
really want to do this. Probably the most important single
stress relief you can do and and in fact, ah,

(01:43:22):
sleeping is is critical, right, Sleeping is really really really essential.
And that means also if you have to take catchup
naps the next day, twenty minute naps. They've done a
lot of study on it, really really important. You don't
have to call it a CS tho. We don't have
to make this some big cultural event, you know, it
doesn't necessarily have to involve uz uzo and like lying
out in the sun by the beach, although that sounds

(01:43:43):
really nice actually now, but like it doesn't have to be.
I'm thinking of Greek he has to the only place
I've ever really spent much time where they had that.
But um, the other thing that you should keep in
mind is that for people actually who are older now,
they are finding more and more that weight bearing exercise
is critical, really good for your for your sense of

(01:44:05):
well being, really good for your physical and for your
mental health. I think that we haven't yet made this
switch as a culture because people think of weight training
generally as some guy who like has no knack who's
in the gym and is trying to lift some giant thing.
But it doesn't have to be heavyweights. But it's just
resistance training for older people. And so anybody fifty five

(01:44:26):
and above, resistance training means you're gonna be you know,
limber and spry and energetic and on it longer. And
the research on all this is very compelling. So and
it also is really helpful for dealing with stress people.
And this survey also said they have a drink when
they're really stressed. You know, sometimes sometimes you've got to

(01:44:47):
sit back and have a a glass of whatever your
favorite is. You know, it's all about it's all about moderation.
I believe the ancient Greeks referred to it as metron,
a state of perfect balance. They tried to achieve this
in all things physically, philosophically. Oh yes, sometimes you just
bring ancient Greece into a conversation because and I think

(01:45:07):
I just did that. But it is important to achieve balance.
So I'm just saying, we're all stressed folks. We've all
got our stuff, family, stress, work, stress, everything else. If
you've got less than sixty rough days a year, you're
doing well. According to this study, most folks have about
sixty bad days a year, and regardless of whether it's
a hundred bad days, or ten bad days. How you

(01:45:29):
deal with them is just critical because I'm telling you know,
because constructive ways of relieving stress means you'll have fewer
bad days. I don't care what the sign says in that,
I just know that that's true. So some some free
Graybeard millennial life wisdom on the show today. We are
going to run into a quick break and we'll be

(01:45:51):
right back. Well. I tend not to talk about the
weather here on the show because you've got a lot
of other radio stations that do that. But I'm just
gonna gloat for us second that it is uh so
gorgeous right now in New York City. I think it's
in the high sixties right now. I mean it is.
It is crazy warm in this town, which for this

(01:46:12):
time of year feels is very very very unexpected. I'm
hoping that wherever you're listening across the country, you also
maybe took the chance to go outside and see if
you could enjoy a little white zin. You know, yeah,
at sixties six degrees here in New York, so you know,
across the country, I'm assuming it's got to be pretty warming.

(01:46:33):
Some places, I think, oh yeah, we're getting crushed with
like a winter storm in a couple of days. That
sounds about right. Yeah, that's what I thought. I was
all happy for a moment here. I was gonna maybe
go up to the roof of my building tonight. And
it also makes me want to make snarky remarks about
global warming. One of the problems that I've always had,
Never mind the inaccuracies around the previous predictions and all

(01:46:56):
the hysteria of people who are just so deeply, deeply
concerned earned with global warming, I'm still flabbergasted. Fun word
that we should throw around more that when you ask
somebody of the stature of say Melinda Gates of the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the richest people in the
world or in the top two or three. I think

(01:47:17):
sometimes depending on how what kind of day Bezos is having,
he may be number one, but among the very richest
people in the world. And you ask Bill and the
Lindia Gates with their biggest concern is and they're trying
to deal with h diseases like malaria and others, and
sure enough you'll find out that it is it is
climate change that is their number one concern. Speaking to

(01:47:39):
a friend of mine about this, earlier today. I just
couldn't believe it, he said there, and I'm like, wow,
people at that level, with that access to expertise and
knowledge and information, and sure enough, but it would be nice.
Or the reason I bring this up is that much
of the country would be in great shape if it

(01:48:00):
got an average of two or three degrees a year warmer.
And people say all the seas would rise. We got
a lot of land will be all right. Land has
been shifting continuously, as we know, over time, and there
is no such thing as a perfect temperature. There's no
such thing as global homeostasis. To bring back a word

(01:48:21):
from anatomy class, which is your body trying to maintain
an equilibrium homeostasis. It's fun to throw it out there sometimes, like, hey,
how are you feeling? I hit my homeostasis today. Oh really,
as a matter of fact, I did. Anyway, it's warm here.
It's not global warming, but it will be fine with
me if it were. Uh. So there you have it,

(01:48:43):
all right, Let's get to some Let's get some roll call. Please,
Team Buck, it's time for roll call. I love our
voiceover guy. His voice is awesome roll call. So let's
get it going here. Uh, Daniel writes in with the following, Hey, Buck,

(01:49:03):
are there going to be more episodes of Shields High?
The fourth step fourth episode was the last one I
listened to back in January. I've been itching to hear more, Daniel.
The answer is yes. The problem is there's just not
enough Buck to go around these days. I'm I'm running ragged,
as they say, trying to keep up with all my
various responsibilities and obligations. And Shields High as a labor

(01:49:23):
of love. I just put it out there because I
like it and and you have asked for it, and
that's why we It's a it's an additional product that
we've done here in the Freedom Hunt, and it's just
out there for people to listen to and folks to
enjoy and who believe in the brand. I'm actually gonna
be speaking to a friend this week, someone I work with,
about whether we might be able to find an even

(01:49:45):
better home for it on buck Sexton dot com, and
the idea being that then I could also add links
and reading material and make it a really more fully
interactive experienced photos and or really paintings, not photos of paintings. Right,
there's no photo graphs that I know of in the
fifteenth century at least. Uh no photographs back then, and

(01:50:06):
uh yeah, So thank you for your your question about it,
and I know I'm I really enjoy doing it too.
But as you can imagine, it takes up quite a
bit of time. And the more you guys spread it
around we look at the numbers, the more folks listen
to it and and share it and interest there is
the easier days for me to ask the bosses here
to let me devote time and resources to it. Glenn,

(01:50:27):
Glenn is the next up at bad Here Netflix, Amazon
suggestion Longmire is great, but have you tried Justified? Timothy
Oliphant is the star, although the co star, Walton Googin's
his character Boyd, is great. I think it is on
Amazon Prime. Yes, I can tell you, Glenn, I have

(01:50:47):
tried Justified. I got a few episodes in and did
not finish it for reasons that I cannot think of
right now. I probably just got distracted with something else. Um,
but I've heard very good things and what I saw
was very good, so I'll probably go back and check
it out again. It had a great pilot, which is
so essential both in getting a show made from a

(01:51:08):
production standpoint, and then in drawing people in to listen
to it. Uh. Next we get Michael here with oh,
but thank you, I would not for the for the suggestion.
Miss Molly and I are are going back and forth
now between the marvelous Mrs Mazel, which I highly recommend, Brandon,
uh and Mike. But Mike's not here right now in
the room. Have you seen it? No, I'm telling you

(01:51:31):
that you have Netflix right yeah. Oh no, it's on
Amazon Prime. Do you have Amazon Prime? No? See, that's
the thing I would recommend the marvelous Mrs Mazel to
any of you are listening. It's Uh, it's fun for me,
especially because a lot of it is filmed in and
around places I know in New York City. Ah. Then
there's also Ozark, which I'm liking more than I thought

(01:51:52):
I would. If you liked Breaking Bad, as I said,
you have to check out Ozark. I really should get
like Netflix to sponsor the show. I'm like a Netflix fiend,
old books, Netflix and take out food. That's pretty much
the center of my fun wheelhouse. That's that's what gets
me going. Oh and coffee, of course, black rifle coffee.
I feel like garths sometimes in Wayne's World, when he's

(01:52:13):
got the spot, he's got all the sponsor gear on. Yeah,
that's right. We were in bed. You need copeat sponsors.
He's covered in reebok And that's one of the great
Waynes World is a great movie too. Um, but I
do drink black rifle. I love it, and I love coffee.
Next up here is James. Um. I've been solving New
York Times styled cross words for about four decades. One

(01:52:35):
of the most frequently used abbreviations uh in the grades
is n r A. Clueing comes off as Second Amendment defenders,
Warren Lapierre's organization, peace loving Group, etcetera. I've practically written
in n r A over three to five written in
pardon me, over three to five thousand times in the grids.

(01:52:55):
That's that seems like a lot. So my question to
you is can I expect to see n r A
reclude or use less often in the puzzles? Why can't
the New York Times be more likely more like the
daily twenty square inches of decency of plumb, thought, provoking, ingenuity, etcetera. Uh,
great job on your show, Buck and shields high, James,
I have a confession to make. I have never done

(01:53:17):
a crossword puzzle in a newspaper I think. Ever, it's
actually just not something I've ever done. So I have
no knowledge, background, or insight to offer on this whatsoever.
I'm just not a crossword puzzle guy. I did play
some chess growing up, so I enjoyed chess, and I'm
better at chess than I let on. I always downplay,

(01:53:38):
like I can barely play because I like to hustle people.
You could call me a chess shark. That means that
you know I wear like a shiny leather, shiny leather
vest and a pocket protector at the same time. Yeah,
what's up, chess shark? Uh? But anyway, I was I
was thinking of one of those those jackets that people

(01:53:58):
used to wear and like the seventies that are I
don't know, I is it vinyl. I don't know if
it's whatever it is. I was trying to, like, like
with the wide collar and the big chain and everything
with leisures. Yeah, like a leaser, So I got a
leaser shoe. Well, lease your suit while I'm playing chess.
So therefore I also wear my pocket protector because I
don't want to get ink stains in my shirt pocket. Yeah.

(01:54:19):
Next up we have uh Jen who is Oh? Jen
is asking me if I can do an interview for
her international TV news outlet. Well, um, I don't know, Jen.
I just saw this now, so let me get back
to you in a few minutes. I don't even know
what this is, what this is talking about. I'll have
to check this. Sometimes this happens, folks. Producers reach out

(01:54:41):
to you on Facebook and they're like, hey, you want
to come to The BBC tends to do that. So
whenever I see the BBC writing me on Facebook, it's like, hey,
they missed Sexton. Just wondering perhaps you could give us
five minutes of your time to come on the radio
show later. We're hoping you can give this a former
Central Intelligence age see Perspective on the following I'm all

(01:55:04):
BBC emails are read in my head in that voice.
That's how I just assume that's how they go. So, oh,
here we go. Paul Paul's writing into chied me a
little bit. That's okay, Paul, remember the team you can.
I want friendly and constructive criticism to just not all
caps profane criticism. But Paul writes in in very very

(01:55:26):
friendly manner. Change the narrative, Buck, quit talking about the
Russian collusion, and start talking about the Trump economic success. Paul.
I certainly try to do that, and I will keep
trying to do that. So let's just say that I
appreciate the helpful reminder. Without my friends, Freedom Hunt is
closing up for the day. Thank you, as always for

(01:55:47):
being here until next time, which is tomorrow. Shields High
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

New Heights with Jason and Travis Kelce

New Heights with Jason and Travis Kelce

Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce from the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce from the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about their games and share unique perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. Plus, entertaining stories from a combined 21 years in the league, off-field interests, and engaging conversations with special guests. Watch and listen to new episodes every Wednesday during the NFL season & check us out on Instagram, Twitter and Tiktok for all the best moments from the show.

Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.

Math & Magic: Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing with Bob Pittman

Math & Magic: Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing with Bob Pittman

How do the smartest marketers and business entrepreneurs cut through the noise? And how do they manage to do it again and again? It's a combination of math—the strategy and analytics—and magic, the creative spark. Join iHeartMedia Chairman and CEO Bob Pittman as he analyzes the Math and Magic of marketing—sitting down with today's most gifted disruptors and compelling storytellers.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.