Shutdown Countdown

Shutdown blame game. FISA mystery - Release the memo! Buck interviews Andy McCarthy and Kim Strassel.

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
us or you were with the terrorists. If you got

(00:21):
healthcare all it, then you can keep your plan. If
you are satisfied with is not peasant of the United States,
take it to a bank. Together, we will make America
great again. It's what you've been waiting for all day.
The buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck toll

(00:43):
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, Welcome everybody to the Buck
Sexton Show. Honor and a privilege to have you here
with me. I may have actually gotten this one wrong.

(01:06):
We'll have to see about the shutdown. I had assumed
up to this point that they would prefer to not
make a decision, to decide, to not decide something that
most politicians, most of the folks in Congress, have turned
into an art form unto itself, to delay, to defer,

(01:29):
to deflect, to find some explanation for why they don't
need to or can't do their jobs, but they really
want to. We are now just hours away that count
down to shut down, the shutdown show down the political
media has gotta love this, right. It creates so much trauma.

(01:49):
It's almost like the the super Bowl of congressional activity.
Right now, at the end of the day, it's in
and of itself, not quite as catastrophic as many would
lead you to believe. It is kind of funny, though.
I've seen throughout the day different reporters and folks that

(02:10):
are part of the d C media ecosystem who went asked,
all the will the post office still be open? They're like, ah,
you know, it's a have to check on that one.
A lot of a lot of Wikipedia going on today
about the shutdown. Hey, look, I'm not gonna pretend that
I'm some shutdown expert, but a lot of folks out
there are realizing, like, what does it even really? What

(02:31):
does it even mean if the government shuts down? The
truth is that be temporary and much of the government,
or a vast majority of the government just continues on
as is, and the parts of the government that don't
will anybody will get their back pay when the government
comes back online and all the rest of it. But

(02:52):
you know, I did see some push back from the
Republicans today to all this that would seem like they're
getting a little more effective calling it the Schumer shutdown. Yeah,
the Schumer shutdown. At least they're making some some headway
and understanding that this is largely, uh largely an issue

(03:14):
of what the public believes. But some of my favorite
points about all this as we go into I'm on
area right now, and this could theoretically change as I'm
on air right there might be some last minute something.
I think it could still happen, right, I mean, unlikely,
but I would be very pleased if I could bring
to you though, They've got a four week extension of

(03:36):
the government budgets, which just means we're gonna have this
conversation again in four weeks, right, pretty much. Maybe they
would just decide to extend it even further beyond that,
but they don't want to take tough votes. They don't
want to get into all this. A few points of this.
The hypocrisy of the Democrats on this whole thing is

(03:58):
absolutely breathtaking. It's amazing. It was not long ago. It
was not long ago that the Democrats were very opposed
to the notion of a shutdown. Remember, do we have
something from the Obama administration on how much they hated shutdowns. Well,

(04:19):
we got Paul Ryan talking about what they said. Here
here we go, Paul Ryan, let it rip. If we
do have a government shutdown that the Democrats insist on,
troops don't get paid. They're holding our military hostage. Children's
health insurance drives up in seven states were out of
money for their children's health insurance. The medical device tax
kicks in, so anybody getting a medical procedure that involves
a device, it's gonna pay a whole lot more for

(04:41):
that procedure. Those are things that are going to happen
if the Senate Democrats continue to insist on shutting down
the government. Senator Schumer said this very technic, this very
strategy a few years ago was governmental chaos. Nancy Plosi
called it Legislative Parson, this is exactly what they're doing.
And it's completely unnecessary to w old the government hostage
for something that's completely unrelated. And by the way, those

(05:03):
DOCA negotiations are underway. There are good faith, bipartisan negotiations
underway on DOCCA right now that have been occurring for
some time, and that deadline is not until March. So
what they're simply trying to do is hold all of
government hostage our troops, kids health insurance for a completely
unrelated issue. And I think it's shameful. I've been saying

(05:24):
this all week. Democrats don't want a clean funding bill,
meaning that there's no negotiation over any external issue. They
want to shut down the government on behalf of a
legal aliens. Isn't it also interesting as we sit here

(05:44):
and have our discussion, as we tend to do that,
I say the term illegal aliens, and I can tell
and this has even happened with some friends of mine,
even some conservatives. Oh no, buck, we're we're talking about
dreamers here. We're not talking about legal aliens. Oh but
you see, dreamers is a made up term, right. Dreamers

(06:06):
is not actually a deferred action for child that arrivals.
If you want to say DOCA covered individuals, that's fine,
But dreamers is a sales term. It's a marketing term.
The real legal terminology is in fact a legal alien,
because people who are in the country without legal status
are illegal aliens. So the Democrats in the minority, without

(06:31):
control of the House or the Senate, are willing to
bring a portion of the government to a halt to
prevent troops from getting paid on time and to shut
down different monuments. And it's not even clear, by the way,
it is very complicated in terms of what the shutdown
mechanics are. It's not clear what would would not be

(06:52):
shut down because if it happens, then the government has
to make decisions about, well, how much money do we
have to keep certain things going that that's a part
of all of this. Some officers, I think federal courts
have enough money for a few weeks to keep going.
So even if the government technically shuts down, federal courts
are funded for for weeks before there's a shortfall there. Uh,

(07:17):
there are some other government agencies where they would pair
things back, but all keep going. But you know they
all border patrols still active, and the FBI doesn't stop
doing what it's doing. The I R s maybe put
on hold for a few days, all because of data though,
all because of the Democrats need desire fixation on getting

(07:42):
an amnesty for a group of illegal aliens in the country. Look,
I I understand that there there is an emotional appeal.
I understand what the argument is, but it shouldn't be
at the expense of the rest of the United states,
and if it were so, it's a great idea. I
also wonder why was it that when the Obama administration

(08:04):
had the House and the Senate majorities in both, they
did nothing on this. They like to keep this issue
alive without having to take decisive action on it at
a congressional level. That's why they wanted to do it
through the executive branch. That's why they wanted Obama to
just keep signing things that he doesn't you know, he
didn't care, especially in his second term. Congressionally, it is

(08:28):
a non starter to give a massive amnesty. That's why
they don't want to do it. People say, oh, they'd
love to sign their names to it. Maybe they would.
Right now they get a lot of good press, including
a lot of Republicans. But once we once we figure
out what I've been telling you all week, which is
that it's millions, it's millions of people, it's not eight
hundred thousand, there would be quite a change in opinions

(08:50):
about this. And if they're on the record voting for it,
then we could have a throw the bums out movement.
Fascinating that there's not even a DOCCA bill to vote on,
so they want to shut down the government, and they
don't even have the alternative in place. They just want
to shut down the government favor of DOCCA. That's what

(09:11):
this is all about. The Democrats want to do this.
They are shutting down the government while screaming the Republicans
are forcing them shutdown the government. You can't make this
stuff up, Mulvanny pointed out earlier today. He's done a
good job. I think mulvanny is a very competent, very
competent government official. He was saying, they don't even have

(09:31):
a bill in place. There's no DOCCA bill to vote on,
and there's no emergency in terms of the timing on DOCTA.
DOCTA does not expire until March five, so there's absolutely
no reason to tie these two things together, right, And
you got Warren Davidson making making the case saying that, look,
it's about DOCCA versus troops, and we know where the

(09:54):
Democrats don on this. The administration will will treat them
as they should be treated and be prioritize the right way. Um.
In fact, in the in the very short term, this
may help us solve the problem, because I think the
reality is in less when will the Senate and get
the sixty votes when they have to. And it's hard
for me to imagine that Democrats are really going to

(10:16):
prioritize eight hundred thousand people whose families brought them here
illegally over our troops. And yet here we are, it
looks like that's going to happen. Democrats will in fact
prioritize eight hundred thousand illegals over the troops. Um, it's
freestyle Friday, everybody, which means I'd love to take a

(10:37):
whole bunch of calls if you want to call in
eight four four eight to five eight four four nine Buck,
And because it's Friday. If you are so inclined hit
it action, you could ask yourself pushing lucky movie this

(10:58):
spot of quote Friday's action movie quote Fridays eight four bucks.
See if you can bring it to the action movie
quote master, can you defeat me on air in real time?
Let's see what you got. Also, your thoughts about the

(11:19):
government shutdown, It looks like it's gonna happen. Take that
at any other ideas you have, We'll be back right
a half this break. Fake news better running high because
the Buck Sexton Show is back. So Bernie Sanders. Bernie, Hey,

(11:42):
Bernie was asked just a little uh while ago, earlier today,
I was asked about the shutdown. But before we get
to what Bernie said Earli day, let me remind you
all of what the uh distinguished gentleman from Vermont had
to say about government shutdowns back in have to remember

(12:05):
that whole mid term election happened in twelve uh and
the re election of Barack Obama and all that stuff.
There was a shutdown talk then, and Bernie Sanders and
on shutdowns, had the following to say, Republican friends in
the House are trying to annul the election that took

(12:26):
place last November. Some of them were shocked that Obama
one and that he won by five million votes. They
haven't gotten over it. And what they are saying to
the American people tonight is we can now bring the
government to a shutdown, throw some eight hundred thousand hard

(12:47):
working Americans out on the street, and we are gonna
get our way no matter what. So what's changed between
then and now, Bernie, Well, let's first ask you what
are you? What? What is what is the difference? Bernie Sanders,
And here's what he said when asked today Bernie Sanders

(13:08):
back in two thousand and thirteen of the group that
was trying to figure out a way to force the
debate on Obamacare repeal. What they're saying the American people
tonight is maybe we have lost the presidential election, maybe
we've lost seats in the Senate, in the House. This
is Sanders talking that to thats thirteen. It doesn't matter.
We can now bring the government to a shutdown. Throw
some eight hundred thousand hard working Americans out on the street.
We're going to get our way no matter what. This

(13:29):
is exactly what the accused of Republicans of doing back
in There was absolutely no reason to have to insert
a DOCTA discussion, immigration discussion into the funding bill today.
Senator your response, all right, that doesn't sound like I'm
not I don't recall saying anything like that. Ah, he
does not recall saying it. He does not recall saying

(13:52):
it at all. Apparently, Well, that's an easy way to
get around the what's changed, Bernie, I don't know. I
don't remember, and and here we are now. It looks
like much has changed at all to me. Oh, remember
when Paul Ryan mentioned the legislative arsonists. Courtesy of Nancy Pelosi.
That's what she said. Shutting down the government is an

(14:13):
act of legislative arson she said. There are lots of
excuses that they use, but for many of them, I
call them legislative arsonists. They're there to burn down. I
think Or and Hatch had a fantastic response to Pelosi today,
although it wasn't specifically to Pelosi, but I'm going to

(14:36):
use it as a response that are so often played
around here. I don't mind them maybe in bills or
lesser and important in nature, but to do it on
the chip bill, my gosh, it's just it's incredible to me.
Better President, this is the greatest country in the world,

(15:00):
and we do have some really stupid people representing it
from time to time. Yes we do. I like it
from more on Atch, we have some stupid people representing
the country from time to time. That is That is
a true statement, no question about it. There are some
people out there who have a whole lot of authority
because they've won elections, and they are not impressive, and

(15:25):
this is not going to be a situation that is
good for the American people. If there's a shotdown it's
not going to be catastrophic. As I said, It's not
some huge deal. But it just goes to show you
that the Democrat Party is ideologically driven to the extent
that it is not in any way held back by

(15:45):
its prior statements, by the arguments of the past, by
any of that right. And another example of this that
will come to mind is when they got rid of
the filibuster for for judicial nominees and then they were
all upset at the Philip Busser for judicial nominees was
gone when they lost control of government, and we're saying
that it was terrible, and they that they would do

(16:07):
that for Supreme Court justices. Is Republicans doing that is terrible.
This is what we're up against, folks. I wish I
could say that there was uh some silver lining to
all this, other than Democrats have made it very clear
that their priority is legal immigrants. Now this this is

(16:27):
so important to them because they know that they went
on this, they went on everything else. This is zero
sum for the Democrat Party. If they get a mass amnesty,
you will never have Republican majorities. Again, it's just a
question of when the numbers really kick in. But the
Republican Party will become a shell. It will become a

(16:49):
an opposition party to the ruling Democrats, and one that
is really just a formality. It's not actually gonna have power.
It's not gonna have any authority because it won't have
the votes, or it will change and become something else.
The Republican Party will be just a version of the
Democrat Party and will be arguing over how best to

(17:10):
put government in charge of more and more of our lives. Right,
it won't be government should do less, should take less
of our money. It'll just be an issue of who
does a better job as a state is who does
a better job running things for all of us, for
all of you. So um, I want to talk to

(17:32):
you about the UH the memo, and later on the
show we will be joined by Andy McCarthy and National Review,
and also we will have Kim Strass of the Wall
Street Journal, two excellent writers, political analysts, just just great minds,
and we'll have them weighing in on the shutdown. The

(17:54):
UH memo that is supposed to be smoking gun level,
that's what we're told about us abuse. We'll be getting
into that in just a few moments here, h and
then also just to hear from all of you with
your thoughts on on what's going on, what's all the latest.
Oh and I will mention later on the show, we'll
talk a bit about the March for Life today. I

(18:16):
would feel remiss if I did not spend some time
on that too, So eight four or four buck, I
would love to chat with some of you folks out there.
What do you think about what's going on here? It's
a shame that the shutdown showdown becomes such an all
encompassing political discussion. There's some other interesting dynamics that we

(18:36):
could get it. Actually know what I will I want
to I want to discuss more of the immigration enforcement
side of things, because that doesn't really change regardless of
how they shut down goes or does not. I should
note that producer Quinn is telling me that there is
right now, it is likely that there will there You're
going to get a deal, that's what they're saying that

(18:56):
or well what's he saying now? Okay, what should be
great for the country. And also because then I would
have been right all along saying they're just gonna get
a deal and this is all nonsense, This is all
political theater. Now I'm starting to a man. I shouldn't
have doubted myself as I'm sitting here thinking, I'm like,
what are they going to get out of this? They're
not going to get it. There's no DOCCA built to

(19:16):
vote on, so DOCCA is not even It's not even
possible to avoid a shut down with DOCA right now.
So this was just the Democrats trying to get the
base all fired up. But it was much ado about nothing.
It was sound and fury signifying nothing. For you Shakespeare
fans out there, eight four four eight four four n
eight to five. Shut down, showdown or shut down theater.

(19:42):
You tell me he's holding the line for America. Buck
sex in his back Ye long and details of the meetings.

(20:19):
We discussed all of the major outstanding issues. We made
some progress, but we still have a good number of disagreements.
The discussions will continue. Discussions will continue. That was from
earlier today. Trump invited Schumer to talk to him. Mano amana,
I bet that was an interesting discussion. With two New

(20:42):
Yorkers with very very healthy egos squaring off on a
negotiation like this would have been quite interesting. I think
they have been able to sit in that discussion eight
four four buck. If you want to call in, let's
take Dan in Mansfield, Ohio. Hey, Dan, how are you doing? Man?

(21:04):
I'm all right, okay, keep up the good work. Thank you.
I'm trying. Okay. I'm a sixty two year old deplorable
and proud of it. Nice word. Hey. And I think
Bernie Sanders has played too many Beatles records backwards in
his time. He's a he's you know, he's his own guy.
That Bertie Burn is an interesting character. I will say that, yeah, yes, hey,

(21:28):
I get the point. Get off your solar people and gone.
But yeah, everything that they're saying the Democrats is just
complete falsehood. And they're writing people really hard and trying
to get them to believe all this crap. And I
make a suggest to any of the listeners out there,
get with your local tea party or somebody and get
a punk pocket constitution, stick in your pocket, read it,

(21:48):
market make notes in it, and the next time some
liberal comes up, just whip that baby on and say
tell me where it says that. I had a guy
come in my shop one day and he was raving
and raving about separate to church and State. I said, really,
it's in the Constitution. He goes, Oh, he's in the Constitution.
So I pulled it out and still here, or show it.
Tell me. The guy hasn't been back since. So you

(22:10):
can shut him down pretty easy if you If you
bring out the truth, because the truth will always prevail,
sometimes you gotta bust out the Constitution. Oh yeah, absolutely,
that's what I'm saying. Everybody should have a pocket Constitution
on hand. I have an app that is the Constitution
on my phone, so it's the same idea. Yeah, the
Constitution app. Because I'm cool. That's what all the cool
kids have. I'm not a cool kid. I'm a sixty

(22:33):
old guy. Yeah, I like the U kick at old school. Though.
The pocket Constitution doesn't have to be digital. Yeah, I
want to. I want to give a shout out to
my American Government teacher back in the early seventies who
instilled in me um, the American government, in the system,
and pride in my country. All right, Well, shout out

(22:53):
to that guy, and Dan, shout out to you. High five, buddy,
have a great weekend. Thank you. Let's take jams in Georgia. Hey, James,
how you doing a buck? I'm all right, it's been
a long week, but I'm good. How about you outstanding.
I've been in a lot worse places, doing a lot
worse things, so I ain't complaining Tonight we go. I um,

(23:16):
I'm a marine from the veterans from the Gulf War
air And what really bothers me, I think most is
that I don't understand why the riots in the Constitution
are given to folks that are not United States citizens.
Be as a Nited States citizen, you go to another country,

(23:37):
you break their laws, you go by their laws that
you can scream you're United States citizen all you want to. Yeah,
I would notice that you don't see these movements, James,
And I'm sorry. I don't mean to talk what you
were saying. I said. And unless you've got some serious
pool and you break balls in another country, you're in
a hole. When we were ever sees, you're off base.

(23:59):
You better by by their laws or you're stuck. It's
all about politics in this country, as you know, my friend.
The problem James is that the Democrat Party has become
the Amnesty party because it benefits them, because they know
that there are a lot of votes, a lot of
votes tied to it. And so it's but with that
amnesty comes an endorsement, a day facto endorsement of lawlessness.

(24:24):
And so this is a deeply cynical maneuver. They keep
saying that, Okay, we need amnesty for the Dreamers, but
they want amnesty for all eleven million illegals. The Dreamers
are just the beginning of it. Right, They're not gonna
They're never gonna say that there shouldn't be amnesty for everybody.
So what's with the what's the with the pretense that
this is just about people brought here when they were kids.

(24:44):
This isn't this about all illegals. This is just step one.
But the plan is to get eleven million of them
to be permanent residents. Fully, you know, they have all
the full rights of any other American except maybe voting
until the Democrats control Congress in the White House and
then we'll be voting to well, guess what do you

(25:06):
remember how Texas were created? Yeah? Okay, the Mexican government
invited invited American settlers to come into settle Texas. Who
owns Texas? The United States? There we Joe, all right,

(25:29):
and James, thank you for your service, and thank you
very much. For your call, buddy, I do appreciate it. Uh,
let's take Oh we got Dr Rick in Maryland, A
Dr Rick, Hey Buck, I really would love to get
the clarity of your thought and you know from your
analyst background. Um, you know, I maybe I shouldn't, but

(25:51):
I watched a lot of YouTubers and I think there's
a there's a possibility of a lot of tinfall hat
theories out there, but it looks like some the stuff
is actually coming to, uh, you know, to happen in
terms of FISA and all the indictments and stuff. And
I just you know, to get some clarity the Q
and on all this stuff. I mean, do you have

(26:13):
any thoughts on that or what might be actually true?
I have a I have a lot of thoughts on it, um,
and I don't as that may not surprise you. Uh.
The the issue for me right now, and we're gonna
talk to both Anie McCarthy and Kim Strassel uh from
the Wall Street Journal about this later on in the show.

(26:34):
But the issue for me right now is I feel
like we've been a little burned by Republican members of
Congress saying that the oh gosh, you know that this
we've got the smoking gun. Now we're finally gonna get
to the truth about the real collusion, which was against Trump,
not Trump and Russia coluding together. But I do think

(26:54):
it's very possible that we're going to see some unsavory
stuff in this uh, in this memo. But can I
just dr Rick, I'm gonna I'm gonna put that on
a hole because that's a topic for the next hour
and also for our guests coming off. So I don't
want to get to ahead of myself. I just need
you to keep listening. Basically, how about that. Um I
listened all three hours. There we go. You're a good

(27:16):
man with excellent taste in radio. Thank you, doctor, and
he's a doctor everybody see. Thank you very much, sir,
Shield tie and have a great weekend. Larry in Johnsville, Ohio. Whatout, Larry?
Hello Buck, enjoy your shoe. I'm sorry, I'm not a doctor. Larry.
You're awesome in your own way, buddy. Thank you for
calling in. I said you are awesome in your own way.

(27:40):
Thank you for calling in. Okay, this government shut down.
I'd like to be in a little mouse and in
the office of the old office. When Trump and hum, yeah,
me too. I'll bet if I was Trump, I would
have held that by the page memo, just kind of

(28:02):
flashed it in front of him. And how bad do
you want this disclosed? Now? If you don't want to
disclosed in entirety, then get your butt back to Congress
and get your Democratic buddies to vote on this bill.

(28:24):
I like, with your heads out on this, Larry. At
least Larry is ready to play hardball. You know, larrys
not messing around. I got one of the quick point.
If I was Trump, this is a radical idea. I
would do an in run around this immigration problem. I

(28:48):
would get the Secretary of State in the ambassador to
Mexico and sit down and make a wrong list of
the bad inages of Mexico becoming part of New Mexico

(29:10):
or the fifty for fifty first state. I would also
make it a long list of the disadvantages. Number one,
there will be no money transfers from the people in
the United States, is sending money remittances, which are estimated

(29:32):
to be about twenty billion dollars a year of remittances,
meeting people in this country sending money back to Mexico.
That would just be one there there. Standard of living
in Mexico would greatly increase with minimum wage factory being

(30:00):
able to go to Mexico and build answer. I think
the advantages to the Mexican government would far out out

(30:21):
way the other side. No, I hear you, Larry. It's
a very interesting idea, and I appreciate the call, and
I appreciate the thought. Thank you very much, sir. Eight
four to five, eight four buck. We're gonna talk about that.
Uh fis an abuse memo the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Was it in fact weaponized against the Trump campaign? Looks

(30:44):
more and more clear that it was, which is a
big deal, everybody, the big deal. Roll a new quick break.
Here we come back. We'll start to talk about that.
And also whatever else you got on your mind, let
me know and stay it. If you want a window

(31:17):
into the future of the immigration situation in this country
and how it will be treated, especially if you do
have a an amnesty for a seven thousand that will
grow much larger than that. I want to play for
you a pretty pretty stark It's it's chilling, I think.

(31:41):
Clip from the California Attorney General Javier B. Serra, who
is talking about a new law in California. Now, this
is gonna this is not like I'm not gonna sound
like like the world on fire audio in terms of like,
oh my gosh. But just stay with me through this
for a second. Play play part one of this where
he explains this new long California go. There are new
laws in place in California now in with the advent

(32:05):
of I mentioned two of them, specifically A B A
four fifty and SP fifty four. A B four fifty
in particular deals with the workplace, uh in particular, and
how we go about treating the information about the workplace

(32:25):
and employees at the workplace by employers such that we
try to protect the privacy interests of people who work there,
and that we're not sharing information in ways that would
violate the rights the privacy rights of those individuals and
the ability of folks to work free of of coercion
and free of fear at the workplace. And so what

(32:47):
we're trying to just make sure is that employers are
aware that this is there is a new law in place.
And you know, the the admonition that's out there for
anyone is ignorance of the law is no excuse if
you violated. Let me tell you what he's really talking about.

(33:08):
This is the state attorney general for the biggest state
by population in the country, which also has by far
the largest illegal alien population in the country. He's when
he says privacy rights, he means immigration status. And what
California has done is they have, under the guise of
privacy rights, set up a byzantine set of laws and

(33:32):
procedures with real sanctions attached them for employers. So that
if you think that you were supposed to check someone's
immigration status or share someone's immigration status with authorities, and
and and you are in any way in violation of
these California statutes, you're in big trouble. In fact, he says,

(33:54):
what kind of trouble play play part two. And it's
important that employers in California and stand what these new
laws are because ignorance of the law does not let
you escape punishment. And we want our our employers, who
are working really hard to keep our economy going and
employ more folks, to understand what these new laws are.

(34:14):
And I just wanted to make sure, given these swirling
rumors about what might be going on, to just be
aware of what their rights and their responsibilities are. So
is not to say if you find their employers who
have violated ATTY is your office. Are you guys ready
to go out? Are you going to prosecute If there

(34:36):
are violators of California lay out there. Uh, law enforcement
will investigate and prosecuting authorities could be the local prosecuting
authorities or could be the Attorney General's office will prosecute
those who violate the law. He has a lot of

(34:58):
gall my friend. He's saying that this is about privacy rights,
it's about illegal immigrants, it's about illegal aliens, people who
are literally in violation of federal law. And what California
has done now because of a sanctuary state, is they
have passed statutes where if you in any way and

(35:18):
they've tried to make it. I read through the law
last night and I was like, this is crazy. If
you check someone's immigration status and you don't have and
you're not doing exactly the way that you're supposed to
at the time you're supposed to, it's a violation. You know,
you can get big fines and you can get prosecuted
for it. Violent member privacy. When people talk about privacy rights,

(35:41):
if you tap somebody's phone. Yeah, no one's you know,
no one's dead because of her something. Right, But if
you tap somebody's phone, that's a felony. You can go
to prison for that. Privacy rights. If somebody puts a
camera on your home, violence your privacy rights that way,
and they're found that's a felony, they're gonna go to
prison for that. So so privacy rights is not some
oh who cares kind of a designation for this. What

(36:04):
California is doing is they have they're creating the a
quote right to privacy for illegal aliens to be in
the country illegally. They're trying to create state laws that
do everything possible to protect the violation of federal law
that is an illegal alien. It's amazing when you think

(36:26):
about this. They're there, they are threatening employers here. They
are specifically trying to make it harder for employers to
comply because now it's okay, well, if I pass along
information i'm not supposed to, or if I in any
way I know it sounds like buck, how complicated could
this be? Can this be very complicated? They're they're intentionally

(36:49):
making it difficult and complicated so that you will just
as an employer in California be like, look, I'm gonna
stay away from this. I don't want to get in
trouble with the state of California. They don't want to
that there passing laws in California so that employers won't
be helpful to the federal government when it comes to
enforcing federal criminal law. That is what they are doing.

(37:14):
That's how lawless that state has become. How this hasn't
gotten more attention on When I initially saw this, I
was I actually couldn't believe it. I went and read
sp whatever it was. I mean, I actually went and
read the statute last night and read it over a
couple of times. I thought, oh, so this is what
it has come to. Now. California is so invested in

(37:38):
immigration violations and is so hell bent on doing everything
that can two foster uh an environment for even more
legal immigration. I would note that they're threatening employers who
would like to be helpful to the federal government in
enforcing the law. And you got, you know, employees of

(37:59):
the state or the ay in various parts of California
who are saying that they'll go to prison over the
issue of legal immigration. I mean, I just want to
ask these people. Does everyone get to stay? Is it
when someone shows up tomorrow and they're not allowed to
be here and they start crying because they don't want
to go home, do they get to stay? Because I
think the answer has to be yes or else. This

(38:20):
is there's no principle involved here. This is just about
power politics. He's back with you now because when it

(38:42):
comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Welcome back to the buck Sex and Show. There's a
last minute effort. I'm I'm seeing here two fund the government.
What that means? Who knows? We know the demo crats
are gathering behind closed doors. I think at eight thirty

(39:04):
is the plan. They're going to gather behind closed doors
and try and find some I don't know what they
think they're gonna find because they don't even have a
DOCTA bill yet. So they're gonna called together a bill
and force Republicans in the in the middle of the night.
No way, no way. It doesn't doesn't seem like, uh,
this is going anywhere. But to shut down city, my friends,

(39:27):
is okay. We're We're all gonna be okay. I mean,
it's hopefully something that the American people will punish the
Democrat Party for in time, because they should be punished
for it. They lost that. You know, they just lost
a big election a year ago, House, Senate, White House.
And yet they think they can just make these unilateral

(39:49):
partisan demands because people, This is I don't want to
put you, I don't want to overstate this, but Democrats
are essentially saying, we think enough of the American people
are either two ideologically rigid or too dumb to realize
that we're the ones who are shutting down the government,
and hence Republicans will get the blame. That's really a

(40:13):
part of this, That's really what's going on here. So
I just want to note that that no matter what
the Democrats say, no matter what rationalizations they come up with,
if this were such an important issue to them, they
wouldn't have waited and done it in this way. And

(40:35):
yet the situation is, as I'm telling you, it looks
like last minute talks but still no deal. I wonder
how long the shutdown will go. I think there's like
a billion dollars of productivity lost a day under a shutdown.
Something like that. Um, the stock market didn't get particularly
hammered today because of it, though, people realize that this

(40:57):
will all it will all really be okay, and it
is bring up. I think that if the government runs
pretty okay with only essential personnel, maybe we need to
look at more of the whole non essentially non essential
personnel thing. And they're making some cuts, you know, I mean,
maybe the Department of Education doesn't really need to be
what it is right now. It's just just just an idea.

(41:19):
I'm just putting that out there. But there's the other
big story. And I was seeing and hearing and reading
some people who believe that today we might even get
a little bit more of the validation, the affirmation of

(41:41):
what's really included in this FISA memo. I just want
to play for you what what some of the members
of Congress out there who have access and who know
are saying about this. For example, here's Representative Matt Gets.
The allegations cantained in this important intelligence document go to

(42:02):
the very foundations of our democracy and they require an
immediate release to the public. In my opinion, I am
calling on our leadership to immediately hold a vote on
the floor of the House to make public the key
contents of this intelligence memo regarding the FBI, the Department
of Justice, and President Trump. Critical allegations, and I cannot
stress how important they are. In the Judiciary Committee would

(42:25):
likely find the contents of this memo very interesting, very revealing,
and and just essential to the way our government interacts
with the duly elected president of the United States. This
is no small measure. It is just as important as
keeping the government open through the weekend, and we need
to have a vote on it immediately. Every Democrat on
the Intelligence Committee voted against making this information available to

(42:46):
members of Congress. Every Republican voted for it. So I
think that when it comes to who's print protecting transparency,
it's the Republicans. We want this information available for the
American people. I really hope that we don't have some
Republican members of Congress here who are using this to
get on TV and do a little grandstanding and fundraising.

(43:08):
And I'm not accusing them of doing that. I just
I hope they realized that if they after all this
stuff they're saying, if the hashtag released the memo, movement
gets its way, If those of us who believe that
this memo on fights abuse should become a public publicly

(43:29):
available document. If that happens, and then it's just yeah,
you know, there's like one percent of fights a request
involved some level of disparity with what blah blah blah.
But you know, if it's not mac smack you in
the face, clear, that's something occurred here that was really problematic,

(43:50):
that there wasn't true mouthfeasance. This is gonna become a
boy cried wolf scenario on the Republican side. You know,
Democrats are already guilty of that. They're not just crying
what they'd wolf wolf wolf for all year with Trump
and Russia. But that doesn't mean that Republicans should see
their credibility and start doing the same thing by overstating.

(44:13):
I'm sure the memo says some things about civil liberties
and security and privacy that are all really interesting, But
does it make it clear that senior members of d
O Jerry FBI were conspiring to undermine the Trump campaign,
to help Hillary Clinton, and to abuse their powers in

(44:36):
that process, Because that's what is being alleged. That's what
people are saying. Here's Representative Raoul Labrador. What's interesting is
that this morning the Democrats decided to vote against releasing
this memo, that's number one. Number two. When I was
in the in the room, and I've heard from other
members of Congress when they were in the room, there

(44:57):
were no Democrats who actually came down to look at
this memo. So they were so interested in the Russia
collusion story until their Russa collusion story actually started started unraveling.
So now that we have some information that is being
provided to every member of the House, they are unwilling
to release it or to even look at it. I
think what what the American people will find is that

(45:20):
they're going to be shocked by this memo. Why the
harness and split in releasing a memo? Let's just play
this out a little bit. If there's really nothing to
see here, if it's not a big deal, if it's
a who cares situation, then what's the problem with releasing it.

(45:44):
Republicans want to release it. And in fact, given what
the Republicans have said about this, given the storyline this
week about how important, how potent this memo would be,
I would think it's in Democrat interests say yeah, you know,
what's sure, share that memo. Put it out there. See,
you guys are a bunch of clowns. There's nothing in there.

(46:05):
It would make Republicans look really bad, but they're voting
against releasing it, and they're trying to drag their feet
and stall. Why now, somebody was really to pin me
down and and asked me to guess. My sense of
it is that it probably is bad for Democrats, but

(46:26):
not as bad as we were being told it is
by Republicans. That would be my guess right now, just
because you know, you've had Devin Nunez member with the
whole unmasking situation. We heard some things about and then
never really you know, it didn't go where it where
it was initially indicated it was gonna go. We didn't

(46:47):
get that aha moment that we were told we would get.
And so I'm a little bit skeptical that this is
going to be quite as as profound as we are
being led to believe by members of Congress. But here
the basic storyline is quite clear. At this point, you
had a bunch of very powerful pro Hillary d O

(47:09):
J and FBI folks who figure Hillary is a shoe
in for the election. But why not to borrow a
phrase from one of them, take out a little insurance
use the powers that they have to do spying under
the FISA law and create a pretext and use the

(47:31):
dossier as a pretext for it. So legally they're covered.
Most likely right there. No, no one's going to prison
over this, no matter how bad it looks politically. I
think it's very unlikely and it's gonna go to prison.
As I've talked to you about before on the show. Uh,
they would be abusing their discretion to help out Hillary.

(47:52):
The upside of that would have been that if they
got something that was remember the Kissel Jack Flynn conversation
leaked the media, I mean illegal classified leaks occurred, all
of them anti Trump, none of them pro Trump, none
of them anti Hillary. I would note as well. So
there is a cabal. There is some crew, there's some

(48:12):
group inside DJ and FBI that are playing games, including
crossing the line into criminality to hurt Trump. That's established.
That's a fact. So you figure that these these folks,
the cabal we will call them, or the deep state,
same idea, the deep state cabal. There you go. They

(48:34):
figure if they get something good enough, they can completely
deep six the Trump campaign, right, they can take it out,
finish finish it off before the election even happens, And
even if they don't get anything, there's a chance that
nothing ever happens, and no one's all the wiser because

(48:57):
Hillary will win, and and you know who's gonna raise
an issue, then they're not gonna be in a position
to raise the raise the issue. D o J the
first thing Hillary was gonna do if she won. Well,
I mean, she probably keeps a lot of the Obama
pointees a d o J. But anybody who was even
a little bit disloyal to Hillary was gonna get ousted

(49:19):
from d o J. Right. She was gonna just get
rid of anyone in the Justice apparatus who could be
a problem for make sure she had loyalists everywhere. You're
gonna have Hillary loyalists if she wins, and there's just
never it's just never gonna come out. Just like with
her with her email server, everyone says, now, oh, why
would she be so reckless and so dumb if you

(49:41):
don't have a couple of real fluke situations there, you know,
with the whole couture for hacking, and it was never
gonna come out that she had this server. We were
never gonna know about it, and Trump's victory has to
be viewed from the perspective of the FBI, da J
people as a fluke as well. It was just too

(50:01):
tempting two try and uh run some kind of in
anti Trump pro Hillary operation and used discretion from within
the national security apparatus, specifically a d O G N
FBI to do it. Does anyone doubt by the way
you see some of these very senior Obama pointees Clapper

(50:25):
Brennan call me, I know, co me is not necessarily
just in you know, it's you know what I mean?
Though a lot of pro Sally Yates are a lot
of very clearly pro Clandon, pro Obama people have been
exposed from the top echelon of the national security apparatus.

(50:45):
So why is it in any way surprising that some
of them may have said, you know what, we might
be able to do something really helpful for Hillary here
and do it in a way that worst worst case scenario,
we get fired, they'll be They'll be here, are still left.
That's what I don't think a lot of people are
prepared for here. Even if it is a smoking gun situation. Look,

(51:06):
if it is what people are being led to believe
it is right, this memo, they'll release the memo movement.
That's what everyone's talking about today. If it shows, if
it shows that the dossier was the basis for this
whole Russia collusion thing, in a whole or in large
part or substantially, it means that the media the Democrat

(51:27):
Party are in for a very rough couple of years here.
But for the individuals that may have engaged in the conduct,
I'm telling you, the worst thing that happens is they
get fired, they step down from the d O, J
n FBI jobs. They're not going to jail. It's not
gonna happen because they would have known exactly what to do,

(51:47):
so that on a worst case basis, they're unethical but
not necessarily illegal, and they will be lionized on the left.
They'll get big book advance. It's hashtag resistance tattooed on
one arm, travel around, go to all the different universities
and colleges and everything, and talk about how they were

(52:08):
standing up and fighting against Trump. Look, i mean, Chelsea
Man who's running for Senate as a Democrat for Havn's sakes, right,
I mean, come on you really, that's what I wanted
them to be prepared for. You don't think that the
Democrats if this all gets exposed, and you know what
the other storyline will be. This is really it's gonna
give you an digestion before the weekend. But I have

(52:29):
to tell you, if the memo is the bombshell, if
it's you know, senior FBI Guy one speaking to senior
FBI d o J Guy two and three, and and
they're saying, we gotta take Trump down, we gotta finish
off his campaign, we gotta you know, what really happens
with all this the Mullark probe continues. The left will say, Okay,

(52:53):
they only did that because they were they had other
reason to believe that the Russia probe was necessary, that
the Russia uh collusion was going on. So now we've
really got to get to the bottom of this. They're
not going to abandon the narrative. That's what I think
is so disappointing. If you really play this out, even
if fines it was abused. Yeah, look, they're gonna take

(53:15):
a big hit and they don't want people to know this,
and it would be an enormous scandal. And I get
all this, but the media will pivot because they are
shameless and they are liars. They will pivot immediately to Okay, well,
those people messed up. But the reason they messed up
wasn't because their partisan hacks with no ethics, but because
they knew of the Russia collusion with Trump and they

(53:37):
had to do something about it. So now we have
to really find that collusion. I know it makes my
head explode to but think about it. You know, I'm
telling you that's the way it's gonna go. From the
media perspective. People in government, they're gonna get they're they're
gonna get fired if this is what happened. But eight
four or four to five, what do you think about

(53:57):
this memo situation? My friends released the memo isn't gonna happen.
Got a lot more will be right back. I'm Senator
Donnelly's now indicated to hev voting for it. So it
sounds like there are some some Democrats, especially Democrats and

(54:18):
in some red states the President Trump Carrey, who are
taking a longer look at this and as the day
goes on understanding what's at stake here. Well, what's at
stake here is the government shutdown. As you already know,
and Democrats seemed to really want to push it to
that and state that's the outcome that I think we're
gonna get here. Uh. Steve in Mississippi, what's up, Steve? Hello, sir, Steve, buddy,

(54:54):
We're not We're not hearing you, all right, I guess
we gotta move on. John in Atlanta, Welcome to freedom?
What sir? Hey Buck podcast opinion checking in. Oh good,
talk to you. Thank you. That's what I say every
time I call you guy by the way, podcast, And
I know I recognized the voice. So what's in your
mind today? A couple of observations in a movie quote,

(55:15):
if you want one, whatever you want, buddy, all right? Well,
first off, have you seen some of the insanity coming
from the transgender movement where they say not everyone who
has a period as a woman. Have you ever heard
him say stuff like that? Yeah? I have heard them
say stuff like that. I used to think they were
crazy until I heard Corey Booker, and now I kind

(55:35):
of believe them. H m hm, what else on your mind?
I thought that was funny. Okay, here's the observation. So
Trump allegedly says s whole Um Cotton, Tom Conton, he
didn't say it, and Tom Conton's an honorable man, Dick Durbin,
who's a worm, that he did it. So he says

(55:58):
s whole and the world goes crazy. Trump's are racist
and everything. Two days later, Chuck Schumer says, we have
to fix Dockas so these people aren't thrown to the wolves.
Who are the wolves? Obviously Mexican people. Right, No, that's
not what he meant. Come on, when he says throwing

(56:18):
to the wolves, he meant that in the rhetorical sense
of like they you know, like they're being screwed over,
and I he didn't. He wasn't referring to Yeah, but
he's going to know. What I'm saying is using their
logic against them. Yeah, but it wasn't he meant it
as a as a phrase. It wasn't. All right, John,
I'm but thank you, John, I'm I'm gonna, I'm gonna

(56:38):
I'm gonna call it today. I'll get you back another
time when we're a little more in sync with what
the what's going on here? All right? Well, I might
have thin I might have Greek food tonight. That sounds
like fun. What do you think get a euro on
the way home. I lived in Greece for a month
over summer. Was it six weeks? It's a fun place

(56:59):
because the good just thinking out loud here, folks. The
weekend is I got Friday show weekend itis right now.
I need to everybody's working for the weekend, especially the
Freedom Hund right now, my friends, um do give us
a ring eight four or four eight to five. We've
got Andy McCarthy coming up in a little bit. We're
talking to the man himself about what he thinks about

(57:22):
this whole release the memo situation, and also some other
cases that are making their way through the courts or
one case will be retried in the court shortly. We've
got Kim Strasso coming up later this hour, shall be
joining us to talk about the shutdown, because it's just
the shutdown is taking up all the oxygen in the
room right now, and there's not really much the way

(57:45):
of other stories out there. Although I did see something
about how Trump Trump wanted he once said that he
wanted all sharks to die. That's a story that I saw.
I'm just telling you, and Trump wanted all sharks to die,
and you know I don't I don't put sharks in
that category. But I do put mosquitoes in that category,

(58:05):
and I know they're like a necessary part of the ecosystem.
But that's where we are now as a as a country.
People are doing stories about which animals Trump doesn't like.
We'll get into some more stuff in just a few

(58:28):
other shows. Just talking to you in the Freedom Hud.
We have a mission. We fight for the truth in
a team effort and buck us back with our next play.
I'm not prepared to say it was intentional collusion. I've
not seen any evidence of that. Do you have evidence
that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and

(58:51):
Russia during the campaign. Not at this time, I've seen
no evidence. Have you seen any evidence that this dirt
emails were ever given to the Trump campaign? Not so far,
not so far that you hadn't seen evidence of collusion,
any evidence to you of money laundering by the Trump organization.

(59:11):
He did not provide evidence. We did not include any
evidence in our report that had anything that had any
reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and
the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in
our report. I understand that, but doesn't exist, not to
my knowledge. So that's a whole bunch of different folks

(59:36):
may get it pretty clear they got nothing when it
comes to collusion. And here we are grinding on into
year two. We've got a big investigation going. I think
I saw that from a reporter at NPR. So take
that for what it's worth. That a single session in
front of the Mueller Council, you know, special counsel when

(01:00:00):
you are being questioned, costs like thirty dollars with a
legal team. That's the estimate. So it's not like this
is all happening and people aren't really being put through
the wringer, and that this is just something that goes
along and you know, in the end we'll get to
the truth. They've already brought charges against people for very
much mickey mouse level crimes and crimes that in some

(01:00:26):
cases would never have occurred had it not been for
the investigation. Process crimes, um, and I really don't need
to be like, I don't like getting lectured about how
well tell the truth. You know, process crimes are real crimes.
Right when we all still remember that Hillary Clinton was
its was obviously kept out of the kind of jeopardy

(01:00:50):
that Mueller is trying to put all these other Trump
people into so yeah, we're just it's gonna keep on
grinding on. I was bose, I look, I hope this
memo really, I hope this memo nails it and we
get to the truth and we can all just the
story is getting to be tedious on top of destructive.

(01:01:12):
It is now becoming a tedious story. And when the
when the media feels so desperate that they'll run around
with like, oh no it wasn't it wasn't Carter Page,
it was Papadopoulos. That's how it all got started. No, no, no, oh,
I was in the intelligence community for a little bit,
as those of you listen to the show, No and

(01:01:33):
that you would get an FBI investigation of a presidential
campaign based on what some guy that was low level
uh said to somebody in a bar about something he
heard somewhere. It's not how it works. It's not how
it works. That would that would be much much bigger deal.

(01:01:53):
Let's take uh Jason in Mississippi Gulfport. Hey, Jason, Hey there, sir, Hey, sir, yes, sir.
Let's main Can you hear me now? Yes we can.
My main talking point is a backpedal, a tidbit to

(01:02:13):
where you mentioned the Californian laws that will prosecute employers
for releasing what they would consider private information about the employees.
But isn't it's still a valid disruption of the law
to employee people under a illegitimate immigration status. Wouldn't they

(01:02:37):
be harboring harboring say a fugitive of the state, or
more or less something along those lines. Yeah, it's it's
a violation of it's a violation of law to employ
in the legal alien. Yes, but it's a violation of
federal law, not state law. But wouldn't that be a
contradiction between the federal and state level? Well, what do

(01:02:58):
you mean by contradiction? Well, do you have a law
that says, if you break it, we will find you
for releasing the public information? You have another law of
saying you employed a illegal alien, we will now punish
you for that. So, uh, for the lack of the
better you're you're condemned either way. You go, Well, but

(01:03:20):
you see that the way that they're structuring the law
in California has to do with, uh, the notification procedures, right, So,
and what they're really just trying to do is scare people,
because I read through the statute, I'm like, wait, what
is this even saying? There's a specific portion of the
statute that that talks about when you can even inquire

(01:03:44):
about somebody's immigration status. So what they're trying to do
is make it so that for an employer in California
right now, if you say, hey, wait a second, guys,
I'm worried there's a crackdown coming. Everyone here's everyone here
is legal, right if you're out of the cycle of
when they're you're supposed to ask if there hasn't been
a specific federal request for their status, or if you've
already checked their status and you go to recheck it,

(01:04:07):
that was one of them too. So if they provided you,
let's say, with a fake Social Security card and when
California can get a driver's license, either you're illegal. If
they provided you with fake documents and you wanted to
check them again, I believe that could be a violation
of this California statute. So they're just trying to put
roadblocks up and and use threats to prevent people from

(01:04:27):
understanding what the immigration status is of of individuals and
their employed. Do you see what I'm saying? So it's
that's a separate issue from the enforcement of federal immigration
laws as it pertains to an illegal alien in the country. Right,
Immigrations and Customs enforcement has to come and take a
legal alien and deport them. There's no state agency that

(01:04:48):
does that. So this is where you get into the
differences between state and local law enforcement and federal law enforcement.
Does that make and now, now, I mean if it's confusing,
it's that's one I find it confusing. Do you mean
that the separation between the federal level and the state
level allow each one to operate autonomously. Well, remember that

(01:05:09):
the courts upheld the courts upheld that the Obama administration
could prevent the state, in this case Arizona from helping
in the enforcement of immigration laws. And so now California
is passing laws to prevent to prevent the state from helping. Right, So,
Arizona wanted to help federal immigration enforcement, and the Obama

(01:05:32):
administration said, no, you're not allowed to do that. That's
only our thing, and the courts actually sided with them,
which was annoying in California, they're passing laws. The President
hasn't corrected that issue. Yeah, in California, they're passing laws
that say it's illegal for you to try and help
UH immigration enforcement under these circumstances. That does that kind

(01:05:54):
of make sense? I know, it's it's it's one of
those laws that have is there for one purpose, and
one purpose only is to other a condemned people that
want to do the right thing and fix the US
as as an upcoming and moving area. But we'll get
penalized or were penalized for it too. Yeah, I mean

(01:06:18):
it is. It's it's a law that is passed in
bad faith, at least in the perspective of federal law
and the rule of law in this country. But Jason,
thank you very much for calling in Richard Mississippi. You're
up next, sir. What's going on? Yeah? Buck, damn what
I've never heard you so down about what's going on.

(01:06:39):
You don't think Devin Noons when he went and read
all the stuff find out what we're going on, and
the Democrats have packed them so viciously, you don't think
he started building the case right then? That's a fair point.
I mean you could say that he got the ball moving. Sure. Well.
I firmly believe that the mayor people want to know

(01:07:01):
what was done. I'm hoping, Richard, that it's I'm hoping
that it's bombshell, smoking gun, you know, political nuclear explosion,
so to speak. I'm hoping it's big stuff. I'm just saying,
if it's not, there's gonna be there's gonna be a
cost to that, because we've been led to believe it's
really big. I hope it is. I think it could be.

(01:07:22):
I believe is a very smart man. And when they
started attacking him, he just quietly, if you noticed, he
just quietly went away and started building a case. And
when he had the case, that's when he came back.
He surfaced again with the goods. Look, I hope you're

(01:07:44):
right and to release the memo. Movement gets its way, Richard,
have a great week. Week, and my friend, and thank
you for your your input into what's going on here.
I appreciate it. We're gonna be rolling to a break
here shortly. We have Kim Strassel of the Wall Street
Journal who will be joining us. Kim is always a
great guest, very very insightful. We got a lot to

(01:08:04):
say on all of this stuff, and I guess I
won't spend much more time on how Trump doesn't like sharks,
but I kind of understand that. I just I'm going
back to that for a second. No sharks a little scary.
I know there a lot of pro shark people out there.
They're beautiful animals that you know are necessary for the
world or whatever. But you're seeing a shark up close

(01:08:25):
a little scary. I haven't seen one, but I'm told
they're scary. Kim Strassle of The Journal coming up, and
then Andy McCarthy of Nash Review right after that, and
we'll talk about the March for Life and we'll close
it up. So stay with me, all right. So it's

(01:08:50):
the Shutdown Showdown. As we've been saying, we are in
the final hours here, and I wanted to get a
sense of the political dynamics from somebody who can speak
with expertise, eloquence and insight into just that. We have
Kim Strassel with us now Wall Street Journal columnist, remember
the editorial board there, and just writes great stuff. Kim,

(01:09:11):
thank you so much for joining us, Thank you Buck
and for such a nice introduction, but but of course
absolutely earned. So tell me this, Kim, what are democrats?
What do they think they're doing here? They think they're winning,
and um, you know, maybe they are. It's a big bet.
Look what they're betting is that if they shut this down,

(01:09:36):
the Republicans take the blame, because, as you and I
both know, is a general rule of thumb that Republicans
always get blamed for shutdowns, whether they are in the
White House out of the White House, uh, in Congress
out of Congress. Um. So they had an opportunity here.
They could either go into this mid term here and
try to give some things to their constituents by working

(01:09:58):
with this present or they could when the resistance movement
try to blame Republicans first shutdown. Add that to a
general campaign theme going on that is that this is
a chaotic Republican Congress that can't accomplish anything, and then
try to beat on that all the way until they
get majorities in the House and the Senate. So even

(01:10:19):
though anybody paying attention and and looking at the facts
honestly can tell that there's nothing about the offers thus
far on the table, about the cr that Democrats object to,
they're just not getting an additional thing they want. They
are in the minority now as a political party. But
because you need sixty votes in the Senate to get
any budgetary measure through. They are holding this whole thing up.

(01:10:43):
Makes me think, why do we need sixty votes for
budgetary measures? I mean, whose idea is this? Kim? I
feel like I think maybe we should rethink this one. Yeah.
I mean, look, let's look at this. The Democrats do
not object to anything that's in the CR. Okay, the
CR impact contains things that Democrats view as their own priorities,
like the funding for children's healthcare. Uh. Democrats are demanding

(01:11:05):
something which is immigration reform that Republicans have said that
they're going to do anyway. Uh. We still have six
weeks until the DOCCA deadline. UM. And by the way,
there isn't even a DOCTA bill to vote on. And
I think all of that shows very clearly that this
is about politics. They don't really have any policy objections. Now,

(01:11:28):
I give the Republicans some credit. I think they have
been better about getting their message out uh and and saying, look,
we passed this through the House. It's going to be
the Democrats who do this via a filibuster. Um. But
a lot of Americans don't understand that process. And the
press corps we saw today with the press briefing that

(01:11:49):
you had with McK mulvaney. Um that the Democrats are
intent on making this Trump's fault. And I guess they
just assumed that enough of the American public either won't
be paying close enough attention or is not familiar enough
with the congressional procedures here, that somehow Democrats will will
come out on on top of this despite everything else. Um,

(01:12:10):
we're speaking of Kim Strass and everybody Wall Street Journal columnists.
You should go to a w s J dot com
Wall Streetjournal dot com to read her latest. Uh. And
she's got the dossier rehab campaign up there, which I
want to talk to Kim about right now. Kim, Uh,
what's going on with the dossier? You're you're following this
very closely. I feel like there's no reasonable explanation out

(01:12:32):
there for why the American public should not, in short order,
not in six months, not in a year, weeks, if
not a week, be able to see at least a
redacted version of what this FISA involved memo is all about.
That we've been told about by members of Congress. This
week is a bomb show. Yeah, there is absolutely no reason,

(01:12:54):
in fact, more than that I would. I would make
the case that is imperative that they do see it
because we have been doing this now for eighteen months
with Republicans claiming that there is a conspiracy within the FBI,
that they misbehaved, they abused their power. Uh, and we've
had some evidence that that was the case, and then
Democrats on the other side saying no, no, there's a

(01:13:16):
Trump Russia collusion. Well, there is a very simple way
to get closer to the bottom of this, and that's
just open it up and let's see what the FBI
really had. Did they believe in the sources that were
behind the dossier? Did they even check them, did any
of it ever check out? What did they represent to
affise a court or misrepresent to affise a court? Was

(01:13:37):
this a legitimate spying operation on the Trump campaign, Because
that's a pretty big thing and they better have had
some really solid reasons for doing it. Kim, What are
you hearing from your sources or perhaps from your colleagues,
and just based on their assessment of what their sources
are telling them over the journal about is it really

(01:13:59):
are we convinced it a bombshell? Right? Whether it gets
released in part or an hole. That's another component of
this which we're just talking about. But have you heard
from people who have who know I mean, well, what's
your confidence level that this is going to be information
that we are gonna say, Wow, we really need to
know this versus oh, you know, here's a lot of
the congressional stuff. It's a it's a big promise and

(01:14:21):
not a lot of follow through. I am absolutely convinced
that what Devin Newness, the head of the House Intelligence Committee,
has said, is accurate in that he has basically said
that what is in here is highly disturbing, uh and
it will show abuse of the FISA law, and which
is the and the part of the law in FIS

(01:14:42):
I should say that allows the US government under very
close restrictions to spy on U. S citizens. And so
if he says there's abuse there, then there is. Because
Devin Newness, he takes a lot of incoming from different people.
But I would point out that he has yet to
be wrong on anything that he is alleged. She's been

(01:15:03):
proved correct on all of it, the unmasking and everything else.
I get a little bit more nervous when you see
the congressman running out and popping off to say there
will be people in handcuffs. UM. I don't know if
it potentially rises to that level, and I think they
ought to be careful about suggesting that. Um, But there

(01:15:24):
is no question that there was abuse in America. Needs
to see what it was. Kim Strassl of the Walster Journal,
everybody go check out our latest at WSJA dot com. Kim,
have a great weekend. Rest up. We're gonna need you
back on the airwave soon when we get the actual
memo released, alright or sooner. Thanks, Kim, have a good one.

(01:15:45):
You know this is this is not complicated in terms
of the American public's uh not just right, But I mean,
I would say there's a there's an obligation that the
government has to finally come clean with what's been happening here.
When you think about how much time is being wasted,

(01:16:06):
not just by the media, you could argue maybe that's
a good thing right there, just because if they weren't
wasting time on this over at CNN and MSNBC, they'd
find some other subject to dive into and escalate and
make a huge deal of. But you could argue that
this need that there's an obligation here that superseds anything

(01:16:27):
else that I can think of. Oh, the secrecy of
of a of a particular fins A warrant fine redact
the bare minimum to protect sources and methods. But we
need to see this, we really really do. They got
Annie McCarthy joining in just a few minutes here to
uh follow up with a bit more on that, as
well as some other cases that are making their way
through the courts. So team, I'll be right back. So

(01:16:51):
we are expecting something big at some point to uh
to drop here in the whole Russia collusion, fusion gp
US extravaganza, all this talk about a memo about FIESA.
But where are we right now with what we know
and what's a realistic expectation about what we could find

(01:17:12):
out based upon this memo that has not yet been
redacted and released. We've got Andy McCarthy online to help
us think about all that stuff. Andy's a bestselling author,
contributing editor National Review, former assistant U S attorney. And
you're great to have you, great to be with you.
So well, what do you make of all this? There's
a lot of a lot of hubbub, a lot of

(01:17:32):
chatter a lot of rument out there about this memo
that talks about fies abuse, and we don't know much
more than that. But what what are you what are
you working from in terms of your your assumptions and
analysis about this right now? Well, I think Buck that
we're what we're seeing is an unfolding process that will

(01:17:53):
eventually result in the public being informed about exactly what
happened with a Stasi A. So I think I've looked
into in the last couple of days. Um, the power
that Congress has two disclosed classified information, which is something

(01:18:15):
of a um A sort of an untested area. There
are you know, court precedents and rules that suggest, uh,
you know, some of them suggest that this is a
complete planary responsibility of the executive branch, that no one
other than the president really has this power. And then
there are other cases that cut in the other direction,

(01:18:37):
and there are congressional procedures and some congressional precedent for
at least putting a lot of pressure on the executive branch,
if not necessarily directing the executive branch uh to disclose information.
So bottom line is, um, what would have to happen
is the committee would have to recommend that some classified information.

(01:19:03):
And here specifically, what we're talking about was, how, if
at all, was this dossier, which is a Clinton campaign
UH opposition research project, how was it used UH in
an affidavit or an application to the FISI court to
get permission to do electronic surveillance on people connected to

(01:19:26):
the Trump Cane campaign at least Carter Page and maybe
other people as well. And I think what would have
to happen is the committee would have to recommend that
that would then go to the full House UH to
vote on it, and then it would be referred to
the President as basically UH something along the lines of

(01:19:48):
a stern request, if not a demand, that that the
information be released. And at that point, I don't know
why Trump wouldn't release it, because it's actually in his
interest to do it. Are there any procedural ways that
that you're aware of any that Democrats on a strictly
partisan basis could prevent the release of this via this

(01:20:09):
mechanism you're talking about with Congress, Yeah, I don't think
they have the numbers to do it. Buck, I think
that if the Republicans stick together on this, they shouldn't
have the votes to do it. And frankly, you know,
I think it looks really bad for the Democrats. Not
that I'm you know, who am I to be given
them advice, but it seems to me it's not a

(01:20:34):
credible position to take to say, um, you guys are
just trying to distract attention from the all important business
of Trump's collusion with Russia, because what's the what's the
downside of having more information? You know, if it turns
out that what the republic this is just a bunch
of saber rattling that the Republicans have been doing and

(01:20:57):
there's really nothing to this idea that the dossier was
used in a FISA warrant, than a lot of Republicans
are going to have egg on their face, and that's
going to make the collusion narratives seem more powerful rather
than less. So I just don't really see that they
have a good political opposition to this. Andy, what we're
speaking to, Andy McCarthy, everybody of natural review, what could

(01:21:20):
be realistic in terms of sanctions outcome? Where would this go?
Assuming it is what it has this and we're talking
about this memo. Everybody that members of Congress have been
speaking out saying who they have seen it, they say
that it is, you know, jaw dropping. I've even seen
I think one member of Congress said, you know, people
will be fired over this, Maybe people will go to

(01:21:42):
jail over this. What realistically speaking, Andy, even if they
use the dossier as the basis for a FISA warrant,
what could happen? Well, but it really depends on exactly
what they did and what percentage of it um accounts

(01:22:04):
for the application that they made. So, for example, in
normal wire tap litigation, you know, in every criminal case
that involves wire taps, as you know, there are always
motions to suppress the wire tap, and it is sometimes
alleged that the government misled the court in um seeking

(01:22:26):
the wire tap in the information that was presented. And
the normal formula that applies when that happens is the court,
for purposes of argument, discounts the information that is alleged
to have been misleading and then looks at the rest
of the warrant as if that information didn't exist, and

(01:22:46):
if there's enough information in the rest of the warrant
such that the warrant would have been granted anyway, Um,
you know, the government gets a stern talking to if
it really did give misleading information, But it's not the
end of the world, right, Um. The real problem happens
when and I think this is a twofold problem. Number one,
did they use information that they didn't verify and represent

(01:23:09):
it to be something that it wasn't. Namely, did they
present this partisan opposition research as if it was refined
American intelligence reporting, So that would be a big problem.
And secondly, does the dossier make up of the presentation
that they made in applying for surveillance? Is it you

(01:23:31):
know two or is it some place in between. I
think the more important it was to the granting of
the surveillance, the bigger the problem it is. Let's say, though,
I mean, what is the smoking gun scenario? Because people
keep saying I they you know, and you get a
lot of oh my, sources are saying this, and sources

(01:23:51):
are saying that. But how could this memo be a
smoking gun when it comes to let's say, showing F E,
I and d O J collusion against the Trump campaign?
I mean, what would that realistically? I know you haven't
seen it, Andy, and I'm pushing here a bit, but
what could that look like? Because it sounds to me
like if they know, they know what they're doing. They probably,

(01:24:14):
especially when you talk about a formulation and percentages, they
might have been operating within their discretion even if they
were abusing it. Well, uh, we already know if they
didn't verify it, that they're outside of their normal procedures, right, So,
you know, if they used a pretext in order for

(01:24:36):
the incumbent Democratic administration to spy on the rival Republican campaign,
that's a Watergate type abuse of power. So it would
be a very very serious matter. Now, obviously the political
people who were in control at the time are no
longer in office, but at a minimum, it would be

(01:24:58):
a big problem for people in the Justice Department and
in the FBI who are who are still there, Um,
if you know, if they if such a thing actually happened,
And in terms of the collusion narrative in general, book,
I think if it contributes to the idea that the

(01:25:18):
whole collusion storyline was really a result of this dossier
and not much else. Um, that won't end Muller's investigation,
but it would really, you know, I think, put a
big dent in it, and it would probably move people
to ask at this point, you know, if you don't

(01:25:38):
have anything on Trump, then say so. And if you
want to go after Manafort and all these other guys
that find but like the president shouldn't be governing under
a cloud if that, if it's not warranted, So you think,
I mean, that really gets to it there? Any there's
the possibility that and I know we're basings off a
memo that has not been released and that people are
reporting on second or third or fifteen hand at this point,

(01:26:01):
right they haven't seen it, but they've hurt somebody, hurt somebody.
But it's very clear there's a storyline out there that
this memo shows abusifies against Trump, And you think, if
that's true, it could it could really take the take
the punch out of the Muller investigation, and it might
not shut it down tomorrow, but all of a sudden,
it's going to be like, what's really going on here? Guys? Yeah,

(01:26:23):
I think but that if it turns out that that
people objectively make a judgment that that what really drove
this narrative is this dosia, that this dossier is really
responsible for this whole idea that Trump had some kind
of an espionage conspiracy with the with the Russians, because

(01:26:44):
the clearest statement of that is the dossier, at least
that we know of. Um. I think that that's a
big problem from all his investigation. And as you say,
it doesn't end it. It doesn't mean that like it's
illegitimate for him to have charged Manifold or anything like that,
but it will create in the public mind, I think
among people of goodwill if this happened, a real, real

(01:27:07):
questions about the legitimacy of the investigation. How confident confident
are you in Mueller as a as a public servant?
And do you know him right? I know you knew Comy,
but do you know Mueller too? I'm not. I don't
know him intimately, but sure I've I've spoken to him
over the years, and I know him a little bit
well at least we could say maybe by reputation. Then
are you confident that if if it were really the case,

(01:27:30):
if it were clear to Muller that the fusion GPS
DOSCI was the basis for this, that he would take
the appropriate steps to wind this thing down more quickly.
Or do you think that the pressure is so great
on him at this point that he almost it's almost
like it's gone beyond his control. Well, Buck, let's not
forget You and me don't know, but he does, right,
I mean he does. We don't know, but he knows.

(01:27:55):
So if he hasn't shut down the investigation already, I
don't see how the fact that we might know something
suddenly that he has known for a long time is
going to change his behavior in any way. Right, Yeah,
that's a good point. I mean, I'm just I'm trying
to get a sense as to whether has this taken
on a life of its own, even beyond what the

(01:28:15):
facts are of the case thus far. You know, just
does he feel like he has to continue on just
because that's the expectation from so many people. I mean,
I just don't know what. Mother. Let me just say
two things about that, though, Buck. One is, let's look
at what he's done already, which is, he hasn't brought
any charges that are suggestive of Trump collusion with Russia, right,

(01:28:38):
for all the hullabalu, there's been none of that. And secondly,
his mandate is not to make a criminal case against Trump,
although he's got the power to do that if there,
if there were such a case. His mandate is to
get to the bottom of what Russia is doing to
threaten our elections and our institutions, and there is a
lot of evidence that they're trying to do at So

(01:29:00):
it's not like he's got nothing to do besides criminal
cases and he can. We hold you through the break
for one second here to talk to you about the
Menendez retry. Guys. I wanted to ask Andy about this,
and we went all along on Mullark because I'm just
fascinated by this whole situation, as I'm sure many of
you are. Andy, hold there for one second and we'll
be right back. All right, everybody, Welcome back, Andy, thank

(01:29:20):
you for staying with us. Uh. The Menendez case, the
Senator Menende's case, d o j I see here says
that they will in fact retry it. What can we
make of this? Well, it's interesting, you know, Buck, I
think that the Supreme Court has made these cases very,
very tough to win. Um. With the with the McDonald

(01:29:41):
case that they decided was it was it two Junes ago?
I think, um, they've they've made these corruption cases very
difficult on the government. On the other hand, it seemed
to be following the case that there was a lot
of evidence that he then if you couldn't convict Menendez

(01:30:02):
of bribery. That he had a big problem with whether
whether he truthfully, whether he filed truthful disclosure statements. And
I was a little bit surprised that he beat He
didn't really beat the whole case because it was a
hung jury, but I was a little bit surprised at
that he didn't go down on those camps. It looked
like the jury kind of looked at the case as

(01:30:23):
an all or nothing thing and didn't either convict or
quit him on individual comps. And if I were the government,
I would probably want to take another shot at at
least that part of the case. And one more thing
for you from the legal side, Andy, the Supreme Court
is going to be looking at what's going on with
the Trump travel band. You got any thoughts on that.

(01:30:47):
I think that the Court buck is more likely to
tell him to go to the Ninth Circuit first. I
think if I were the Supreme Court, that's what I'd
be inclined to do. Um, this is a pretty blatantly
lawless move by the district judge in California. I mean,
to tell a president that he can't reverse an executive order,
I mean, that's that's like, on its face, preposterous. So

(01:31:09):
I think if I were the Supreme Court, I'd tell
him to go and tell it to the Ninth Circuit.
And I think even in the Ninth Circuit, Trump's got
a chance of winning. What do you think about impeaching
some judges, Andy, you know, to get a little a
little bit of accountability from the bench. Well, you know, Buck,
I think that impeachment needs to be brought back across
the board the longer time goes on. And as you know,

(01:31:30):
I wrote a book about this subject a couple of
years ago. I think it's ingenious of Madison and the
other Framers to have noted and observed that we had
to have if you wanted to get good government, you
needed to have impeachment as a as a potential remedy,
because it's it's the only sanction that that's severe enough

(01:31:51):
to keep people on the straight and narrow. And there's
really not much else too. You know, the judges are
not accountable to the public. So if you can't if
you can't reach them this way, you can't reach them anyway.
So you think it's I mean, this judge what he did.
You don't need a law degree. You don't even really
need to be that up on current events to know
that what this guy's doing out in California with the

(01:32:13):
decision to overrule the president on an issue that's clearly
presidential prerogative. If judges are just going to keep doing this,
they pose their own threat to the system. Really, and
I think that you know, as you say, impeachment as
a process we have for a reason, I feel like
people have this. We've been sold this bill of goods
about a judiciary that cannot be touched and cannot be

(01:32:33):
held accountable ever, ever, ever, And that's not the way
it's supposed to be. No, it's not. And you know
the other thing about it, Buck is it's an amazing
system where we give such power to the judiciary when
you know, as Hamilton's noted, and as the Framers noted,
they don't have anything but judgment. They don't control the purse,
they don't control the sword. Um, so it's their own

(01:32:56):
what what they have to go on is their own legitimates. See,
that's what makes us accept their judgments, this idea that
we all have internalized that there really is an objective
law out there and they really are doing the best
they can to apply it to these very controversial fact patterns,
and if they lose that, and if we don't have
legitimacy in the courts, then you don't have the rule

(01:33:18):
of law anymore. So it's it's really important that it
gets repaired. What are you working on next day? Andy?
Where should people, I mean National Review to read your writing?
But what can they expect? What's the next McCarthy opus.
Tomorrow at my weekend column at National Review, we're going
to talk about collusion three point oh, which is the
the latest narrative which has to do with whether, uh,

(01:33:41):
the Russians used the National Rifle Association to approach the
Trump campaign. Everybody follow Andy McCarthy Andrew McCarthy on Twitter
and check out as latest in Naturalview. Andy, have a
great weekend. Thanks for making a little extra time for us.
Come back soon, Thanks so much. Alright, team, we're gonna
roll into a break here. I feel like I haven't

(01:34:05):
yet had a chance to speak about the March for Life,
and I have been meeting to so we will talk
about that on the other side of this break. That's
something that I know. It's late on a Friday, maybe
it's a usually a time when we talk about lighter
subject matter, but the March for Life is something that

(01:34:26):
we definitely should spend some time discussing, and I was
very pleased. I watched live as the President gave his
speech to the attendees to the marchers, and it was
very good thing. Also want to hear from all of
you eight four four n eight to five eight four
four eight four Buck and uh you can send me

(01:34:47):
your message on Facebook, Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton.
This weekend, I'm working on that Fall Constantinople podcast, Everybody
for Shields High. So I hope many of you listening,
even if you're not usually a podcast listener, I'm telling
you it's great. I listen to podcasts all the time.
In fact, I listen to history podcasts, even some that
are not particularly good in terms of the presentation, but

(01:35:08):
the information is good and I like to uh maximize
my time and the usage of my time, so I
listen to podcasts. Ms. Mom even convinced me to get
those little earbuds now that are bluetooth, So I'm like
one of the hip cool kids. Now I have Bluetooth
your things whatever, those yeah, those things that go in
your ears that that make the music. But I listen

(01:35:29):
to podcasts all the time. You should check it out
go on iTunes, or you could also listen on stitcher.
Um you can listen to the I Heart app. If
you've got some apps in your phone, you should definitely
have the iHeart app. So Fallow Contents and Nople coming
up on this Monday, we will talk about the March
for Life on the other side of this break, Stay
with me. The March for Life is a movement born

(01:35:53):
out of love. You love your families, you love your neighbors,
you love our nation, and you love every child born
and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred,
that every child is a precious gift from God. President

(01:36:13):
Trump today speaking to the March for Life in Washington,
d c Um. God bless all those folks down there
who were taking the time to actually do something that
I am sure they will always be very proud of
and that really does matter. Um. Before I get into

(01:36:36):
more of just there their message and the importance of
what they were doing to me, it's it is very
noteworthy that the president of the United States, this is
the first president of the United States, President Trump who
spoke at the March for Life, and for all of

(01:36:57):
the things that you know, people have said about Trump
up to this point, for all the stories the media
has been running about how you know they disapprove of Well,
that's a very gentle way of saying it, but I
don't want to go too far down those rabbit holes.
In fact, the matter is, the President recognized a very

(01:37:17):
important movement today n DC. You know, I was asked
recently by a fellow commentator who is not a conservative.
He said, you know what, what is the right really
even believe anymore? And now this could be a very
complicated discussion, and there's a I have a lot of answers.

(01:37:39):
There's a lot of things that and a lot of
you would immediately jump to a limited government and rule
of law and the constitution and all of that is
is true, but he meant more in terms of specific policies.
But the first thing that came to mind, because it
really is the biggest single differentiator between the Democrat Party
and the Republican Party, between the right and the left

(01:38:02):
politically speaking in this country, is the issue of life
and the treatment of the unborn and respecting the lives
of the unborn, as as human beings. It is one
aspect of the national political discussion where I still believe

(01:38:23):
it's just a matter of time before people look back
at the the current laws because of Roe v. Wade,
and look back at the decades after Row and think,
how was that possible? How did we as a country
ever allow this abortion on demand and millions and millions

(01:38:48):
of these procedures done, lives stamped out before they could
ever truly come into the world beyond their mother's wombs.
How could we ever have allowed this as a country
that in so many ways is the shining light for
the rest of the world. I do believe there will

(01:39:10):
be a reckoning. I think it is just a matter
of time. But there will come a point at which
we will finally understand and I don't know how will
ever really be able to I mean, we'll understand that
this is wrong, what's going on right now in the country,
and I don't know how will ever really come to
grips with it. Because once you have a once you

(01:39:34):
achieve moral clarity on the issue of life, there is
not a middle ground. There's not some halfway. And I
think that the march for life and the media is
I often beat up on the media. But the media's
refusal to cover it and to give it the kind

(01:39:55):
of respect and what's because they honestly they despise this
entire movement um much of the media. I mean, you
go to left wing media places like the New York Times,
Washington Post, they feel like there is something deeply regressive
in people who just want babies to be born. There

(01:40:19):
are few things that the Republican Party can point to
and say we are still despite everything, we are correct
on that, and this is one of them. And as
a born and raised Catholic, a baptized Catholic, I can
also say, for all the troubles of Catholic Church has had,

(01:40:40):
still right on this one. I'm still on the right
side of history, despite the fact that the laws in
this country currently say otherwise. So I wanted to take
a moment to just say thank you to all the
men and women who were down in d c Um.

(01:41:00):
I think it's a sign that it's it's that's still
a time in this country where people believe that they
can do good things, and there is so much that
we could do, so much more that we can do
to respect and protect life in this country, and so

(01:41:21):
the movement is very very very important UM on a
policy side of this, because you can't completely separate the two.
It's not just about the morality and the ethics and
taking a brave stand. You have to get the Republicans
to defund planned parenthood if nothing else. What we've seen
from the current situation of DACA is that Democrats will

(01:41:43):
march in lockstep with each other. Republicans could take a
page from the Democrat playbook on that. Yeah, it's just
a frustration that Democrats are so solidified and so unified
on this UM and Republicans, I I just wish they

(01:42:06):
would have the same courage of their convictions when it
comes to the legislative side of this, because whatever they
could do, and I agree with with those who say
even putting in place restrictions is not enough. But restrictions
for example on late term abortions, or restrictions at different

(01:42:29):
weeks of gestation for the fetus, which is just another
word for a baby. Whatever we could do, whatever lives
could be saved in the interm is better than the alternative.
And I I think this is the one issue as
well where it's quite clear that those of us who
work in uh, conservative media, those of us on the

(01:42:54):
right who are activists who are doing whatever we can
to get the word out. You know, citizen activist, citizen
journalists everywhere who are pushing the truth on this. It's
all worth it. This is one of those where you
don't have it doesn't matter at the at the end
of the day, if you can achieve the policy goals

(01:43:16):
that you want in the short term, it doesn't really matter.
If you can get it exactly the way that it
should be. Every life counts and every life saved is
something that we should all be very pleased and very
proud of. And it's it's important, It is very very important.
One thing I wanted to note that there was actually
a policy part of Trump speech today at the march.

(01:43:38):
Here's what the President said about reversing an Obama era policy.
I have also just reversed the previous administration's policy that
restricted state's efforts to direct medicaid funding away from abortion
facilities that violate the law. So the President isn't just

(01:44:04):
rhetorically invested in the pro life movement. The President has
taken actions that are benefiting the pro life movement. And
we could just use the shorthand as well just benefiting life,
which is what is so very very critical about all this.
Usually in the in the latter part of the show,
especially on a Friday, I wouldn't get into so heavy

(01:44:25):
and heavier topic, but it's such an important one, and
you know, the March for life. I I hope that
I can be a part of it one day. I'm
up here in New York City and I've got obligations
here in town, but that is a march that I
would be very proud to be a part of. So
that's I wanted to say a few words about it.
I am going to close out the show probably here

(01:44:48):
in a few minutes with some suggestions that I had
received on Netflix Netflix shows the weekend, I'm looking to
put some new stuff in the queue. I'm gonna wait
until Monday for a Team Team Buck roll call, because um,
I want to see what you all think about some
of the changes that I'm planning on making, some minor changes.

(01:45:11):
It's on the changes of planning on making to the
Shields High podcasts. So that will be out on Monday,
and I think roll call will be a very effective
way to get into what you think about that. Monday night,
assuming a lot of you can get a chance to
listen to it. So that is my plan for that.
But by all means also we will start pulling from
the official Team Buck email account. It's official Team Buck

(01:45:33):
at gmail dot com. Let us know your thoughts there,
and don't forget if you would like to buy a
T shirt. We are still selling Team Buck gear on
buck sexton dot com. So with that, when we come back,
it's gonna have some closing thoughts for you. Stay right there, well, team,
It's been quite a week here in the Hut, so

(01:45:55):
I have to say it is I'm looking forward to
having some some down time because I am getting the
sense that next week is going to be quite a
crazy one. That is my uh, it's my very obvious,
very obvious guestimate of what to expect. A couple of things.

(01:46:15):
One is that I really had I think I had
said here on the show recently of that I was
going to go see a movie, and you know, I
just always back off the seat movies because I so
much rather be at home and have my sweatpants and
be able to pause it, you know, throw some chicken
nugs in the in the microwave, people just ruin movies.

(01:46:39):
But you know, Ms Molly's back from a work trip
this weekend and if she wants to see a movie,
I told her, I'm willing to do it. But for me,
that's that is a that is a rarity. And movies
are at like I don't know, I wanted to say
a decade low or something. It's the people are not
going to movies quite the same way because the home
viewing experience is good. I think the movie the movie

(01:47:01):
theater business is you know. I mean, I don't mean
this from I don't know if it's true from economic perspective,
but I think the whole notion of going to see
the movies and paying ten or twelve bucks is uh,
that is going away. I think it's twenty bucks in
New York. Now. I go to the movie so seldom
that I'm stuck in like dollars when it comes to
it comes to the movies. The one thing I wanted

(01:47:22):
to see was the Churchill movie, So I'm hoping that
maybe they put that out on iTunes sooner rather than later.
Um and and also I'm gonna start I asked last
night on Netflix, I try to start watching a show
called Godless, the same title I believe as an end
culture book that I read some years ago. The End

(01:47:43):
Culture book way better than this TV show. The TV
show it's got some social justice, feminism Western stuff going
on that's just not not particularly entertaining viewing, at least
not for me. I'm I watched it, and I'm like,
this is not cool. I don't need to be watching

(01:48:06):
a show about eighteen seventies New Mexico roughly circa eighteen
seventies New Mexico. And you know you've got, you know,
the strong female characters who can gunfight just as well
as all the men folks. I'm like, all right, you know,
I get it right, but enough enough. It's just not
a very good show. And my biggest problem with it

(01:48:27):
is that they got a bunch of British actors playing
these Americans. One of the British actors I know from
the show down to n Abbey, don't judge. I used
to watch Downton Abbey, but one of the British actors
is Lady Mary. So I'm used to being like, have
have I interrupted? Oh, I've just walked into the room
and should I go oh? And now she's all like

(01:48:49):
you know, I got a rifle and I'm gonna I'm
gonna shoot the first darned son of a gun steps
on in my property. And I'm like, no, lady, Mary
is not this is not working. And then, as as
if that wasn't enough to get me upset, We've got
plenty of American actors. You got Christian Bale in this movie. Uh,

(01:49:11):
I forget what it's called. What's the called the movie
that's out right now, I don't know it's it's a
it's another Western, which I probably won't go see. But
Christian Bale is a British guy and I think he
might actually be Welsh play he's the Batman actor for
those of you who don't know, which I'm sure all
of you know that. But then you got in the

(01:49:31):
Godless show, the Little and not something you can be
like Buck, you you're really man. Card is in serious
jeopardy right now. But the the movie I was gonna say,
Almost Famous, which is a very overrated movie, but that's
different Love actually, which is this British movie that yeah, yeah,
your thumbs up. Really gosh, Quinn is giving it a

(01:49:53):
thumbs up and I am I am not seeing it
as a thumbs up movie. Man, I've been I've been
forced by areas women in my life. My sister likes
the movie. You know, I've been forced to watch you know,
I've had girlfriends who like this movie. Everyone likes this
movie was female. But there's a little blond kid who's
like my heart spoken las I can you know, convince

(01:50:15):
this gale that she's loved my life right? And he's
like seven or something, and I know it's supposed to
be cute, but it's really kind of trite. And he
learns to play the drums and those you even seen
the movie, know what. He's like, This little blond kid,
a little British accent. He's in Godless as well, and
he's supposed to be like a smooth talking, you know
deputy deputy sheriff was good with all the you know

(01:50:37):
people people poo you know, spinner and handguns around and
I'm just like, come on, man, you know, can can
we get an American to play the role. We don't
need to be importing people from London to pretend to
be our cowboys. You've got plenty of people here that
would step into the cowboy roll and do quite well.
So I asked last night on Netflix. I crowdsourced my

(01:51:00):
Netflix que for the weekend, so when I'm not working
on the fall Acount Constantinople, I'll have something to do.
And sure enough, I have settled on a show called
I think it's called Long Meire. Do you know Long Meire?
Have you heard of this one? This is it? No, no,

(01:51:20):
no long. I think it's called Long Meyre. Wait, I
should probably go back to my Twitter here and see
what the what the recommendations were. But there's some good
stuff that I have not yet seen that I am
hoping to get a chance to see that is on Netflix.
I did think The Punisher was very, very, uh, disappointing

(01:51:41):
because I like the Daredevil series, so I'm somebody who
should be kind of in there in their target audience here,
I'm somebody who should be I should be excited about.
I think his name is John Burnthal, the actor, you know.
I think that he does a good job. And the

(01:52:02):
Punisher thing, though, they just they pushed this whole storyline
about how it's uh, you know, the PTSD and all
this other stuff, and I'm just like, guys, this is
supposed to be superhero comic book it's not supposed to
be a they always make it political, which for me
just kind of kind of ruins it. Oh, justified as
a show that was recommended to me that I haven't seen,

(01:52:24):
that I will check out, although I don't know if
that's on Netflix, but I've heard that that's very very good. Um,
so we've got those. I've got some options for some
view in this weekend. I'm gonna try to take Saturday
off from politics in the news cycle. I'm going to
try and do something other than read the newspapers and

(01:52:44):
web the newspapers. I don't read newspapers, but you know
what I mean, websites and all that stuff. I'm hoping
to get something else going over the weekend, because if
you allow yourself, especially in this business, you end up
just spending all your time thinking about what the next
he legislation is going to be. And sure enough, that's
not a not a good way to not a good

(01:53:05):
way to go through. Oh, Ozark was the show everybody
was telling me about Ozark, So that's maybe one that
I'll have to give a shot too. I'll check out
Ozark alright. I'm gonna close it up their team for
this edition of the Buck Sexton Show. The Freedom Hut
is gonna shut down for just a few days. I'm
gonna be releasing the follow concepts and open podcast Monday,

(01:53:29):
so do subscribe to that on iTunes please. UM love
to see those numbers keep going up. We're also gonna
do a few episodes next week. Some of them will
be a little shorter. I think we're gonna do some
after action deep dives into parts of the battle that
didn't talk about on the official or the first show.
So we got a lot coming and uh with that,

(01:53:49):
I'm just gonna say, have a great weekend everybody, and
shields high.