Hero Dog Unites America

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You are entering the freedom hunt. America falls in love
with a military super dog. A new witness emerges in
the whole Ukraine gate fiasco. What happened to the whistleblower?

(00:22):
By the way Trump and maximum immunity claims, Sean Spicer
gets voted through California fires and utility company nonsense, China
has smart toilets, and Trump Turnbury not really a thing.
We got that and much more coming up on The
Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
the mission or mission is to decode what really matters

(00:44):
with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great
American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember no,
Welcome to the Bucks. Back to the show, everybody, thank
you so much for being here. We have some things

(01:05):
to get to today, although I do I promise that
we're going to probably jump around more than usual because
there's not that one dominating news story that Everburn's also
focused on. I did want to take a moment just
to say that the Internet was a flame alight. The
Internet was on fire with all these photos of now

(01:29):
they said they I've seen the name. I don't want
to say the name because people are saying the name
might not be officially the name, and but a dog
that is credited with helping to chase down Abu Baker
al Baghdaddy has taken the hearts, has won the hearts
of the American people. There's a photo of that K nine,

(01:51):
that K nine hero that's making the rounds all over
the place, and it's one of these moments where I
have to say, the American people love dogs so much,
and I'm one of the American people who loves dogs
so much that I'm not sure that it's rational. But
I'm also sure that I don't care. Dogs are a gift.
They're fantastic. Reminds me I probably need to get one,

(02:13):
even though as a guy who lives solo, it's not
that easy to take care of them. I also believe
that it's likely that there will be a surge in
ownership of Belgian Malinois and Dutch shepherds. Those are the
two dogs that I think these days are most often

(02:33):
now I'm not a canine handler, so any of you
listening who know more about this, by all means let
me know. But I've met plenty of people in the
special operations community out in the field. Who those tend
to be the dog breeds that they have. There's also
German shepherds, obviously, but a lot of Belgian Malonois, a
lot of Dutch shepherds, And I mean those things when
you see them and they're well trained, they're like fur

(02:54):
rockets with teeth, and they're incredibly good at what they do,
tracking down bad guys, getting into tight space, is moving
very quickly through buildings, tackling and grabbing the bad guys,
even when they're armed. I think there's gonna be a
spike in ownership of those dogs. I'm a little concerned
that people at somebody who spent way too much of

(03:16):
his childhood reading through the American Kennel Club book and
learning all the different dog breeds and reading about their temperaments.
If you get a bells in Malanma, you better know
what you're doing with a dog because they require a
firm hand, a master who establishes himself or herself as
the alpha, and they are working dogs. I'm I'm just

(03:37):
putting that X. I feel like people out I'm like, oh,
look at this dog. They're amazing. There there can be
fantastic animals, no question about it. But you're not getting
a pug, you know, where the pug gets a little
out a lot and you're like, oh, little simy pug,
Like this is a This is an animal that has
a purpose, is bred for a purpose, and that purpose
is to work to assist military law enforcement, to track

(04:02):
and to hunt down perpetrators. So there was a little
bit more fall it also yesterday from the media efforts
to take away from what is clearly a big Trump
national security victory. I know we spent a lot of
times yesterday, so I won't get into it for very long.
But one of my favorites was when there was this
concern over why would President Trump not inform like Nancy

(04:26):
Pelosi or Adam Schiff about the raid before it happened?
And the truth is why, really, I'd put it in
the other direction. Why would he? I know people would
say that it's custom, but they keep saying the president's
a trader, So I think there's a degree of ill
will there that we'd have to recognize on both sides.

(04:46):
But here's his answer. I mean, President Trump never want
to back away from the media trying to corner him.
Here's his answer to why they didn't tell Democrat leadership
about the effort to the successful, hugely important raid against
Abu Baker al Baghdatti playclip too please. Well, I guess
the only thing is they were talking about why didn't

(05:08):
I give the information to Adam Schiff and his committee?
And the answerance because I think Adam Schiff is the
biggest leaker in Washington. You know that, I know that
we all know that. I do think a lot of
people would agree that Adam Schiff is a huge leaker
and a very dishonest and dishonorable guy. And of course
the media went apoplectic over this thing. They were still

(05:30):
so very very upset. How dare the president, the commander
in chief make this decision without getting the thumbs up
from not that she had to give a thumbs up,
but but informing Nancy Pelosi beforehand. And then there was
the continued shock that I think that some of the

(05:51):
country had a lot of us expect nothing more than
this from the Washington Post, but there was a degree
of shock from some quarters over Wapouan Post saying that well,
the whole Austere scholar obituary for Abu Baker all back Daddy,
he was an Austere scholar, they claimed in the headline.

(06:14):
It turns out his chief propaganda guy for the Islamic
State was also taken out. So clearly the Special Operations
community has a problem with Austere scholars. Our guys and
jaysok are our seals and Delta and rangers. They really
don't like Austere scholars in Syria. That's what we've found
out in the last few days. But Kelly on Conway,

(06:38):
who I think would accurately describe as fierce, she's fierce
when she wants to be. She pointed out that would
WAPPO make such an error if it were about I mean,
I said this too, and this is the obvious way
to illustrate the point. But it was funny to hear
a senior White House advisor get into it as well,

(06:59):
that if somebody from the White House haven't forbid passed
away from natural causes, would the obituary in the Washington
Post make any effort whatsoever to be fair, to be favorable,
even to be respectful. No, of course, not play us seventeen.
I just want to say this last thing on behalf
of the president in the White House. This obituary was

(07:21):
a disgrace. And I would ask the Washington Post close
your eyes and pretend that al bag Daddy worked in
the Trump White House and then go rewrite true obituary.
I bet you wouldn't be as kind. Wow, al bag
daddy worked in the White House. That would be a
bigger a bigger problem for the bigger issue. Perhaps a

(07:42):
bit of exaggeration, but it feels like not nearly enough.
And now we move on today because they lost the
battle to make this a problem about Trump's Oh no,
there's one more thing where we keep hearing about how
well he almost jeopardized the mission his pullout decision from Syria.

(08:03):
We keep hearing that that Trump was was so reckless
that this could have gone very bad, all because of Trump,
even though I thought, isn't he the commander chief doesn't
even get credit if the economy is terrible, doesn't they
get the president and get credit for it or blame
for it? And the same thing if it goes really
well in a way that's not really directly linked to

(08:26):
any one particular person. The answers, of course, we know
this is the case. Presidents get more credit and more
blamed than they are due. That's just the way. Things
are true of generals of armies too, by the way,
more credit than they deserve, more blame than they deserve,
depending on the circumstances. But in this issue, on this issue,
there are so many people in the media who have

(08:47):
really no understanding whatsoever of the military that or how
the military operates or functions. What will the military is
capable of that this this line I was seeing even
from some conservatives of oh, we would never be able
to do the strike we did if Trump had had
his way. Well, here's what. First of all, Trump did
get his way, and that's where the strike happened. But

(09:08):
here's General Mark Milly responding about the operational capabilities of
the United States military to pull off something like the
Abu Baker Bagh Daddy ray play sixteen. Can you explain
how difficult this operation would have been if you didn't
have troops or bass on the ground in Syria and
in Iraq. Well, we do have video photos. Who are

(09:30):
not prepared at this time to release those. They're going
through a declassification process. I think what you'll see here
in the coming days is we'll set up some operational
and taxi level preefings by Central command, and you'll be
provided some video and photos, etc. Of that been to
carry out this operation if he didn't have troops on
the ground. From an operational standpoint, the United States military

(09:54):
can strike any target anywhere, anytime. I want to put
that at the top of the show, just as a reminder, like,
just have that as part of our opening. General Milliye
is saying, from an operational standpoint, we can hit anyone anywhere, anytime. Yeah, America.
So that was a good answer to the question, I think,
and hopefully we'll silence a little bit of the bad

(10:16):
faith criticism that's out there. Oh, speaking of bad faith criticism,
Chuck Schumer noted counter terrorism expert also wanted to job,
we're going to get to this Ukraine testimony and more
people opining over what a transcript means that we've already
seen and discussed at nauseum what the transcript says. But

(10:39):
oh gosh, well someone else's opinion on this, Like we're
really supposed to care. But here's what Chuck Schumer noted,
counterterrorism expert, have you on the sarcasm there thinks about
the defeat of ISIS play fourteen? Please, we still need
a plan for the enduring defeat of isis not gone.

(11:02):
We must include details on how we will deal with
escape prisoners. Nobody knows. These are evil people that want
to hurt us, and they can escape from the prisons,
and Lord knows where they'll go, but we know a
good chunk of them will want to do damage to
our homeland. So far, the administration unfortunately has articulated no

(11:25):
coherent plan. Its top official, Secretary Pompeio, Secretary Espert, unable
to find time to even brief Congress. You all likely
could because they have nothing real to say, no plan.
What was the coherent plan, Chuck Schumer? When President Obama
was running things and about a half a million people

(11:48):
died in Syria, a massive terrorist group took over hundreds
and hundreds of miles of territory and was enslaving, mutilating,
and murdering at ill and engaging in external plotting, inspiring
attacks against European allies and against the American homeland. What
was the Obaba administration coherent plan? Oh? I remember, don't

(12:12):
do stupid stuff, and we're supposed to think that was smart.
That was a brilliant strategic slogan, don't do stupid and
they didn't say stuff. By the way, it's almost like
everything now is just turned partisan for the Democrats, and
so nothing else really matters. You do start to get
that sense, don't you, Speaking of which the impeachment proceedings,

(12:36):
and yet another person coming forward to tell us what
we've already the facts that we already know, but to
give another spin on it. Oh, there's a bit of
a trouble bubbling up over this one. Who exactly is
this official? Former National Security Aid Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.

(13:00):
We will get into what he says about how old
now the walls are closing in on Trump. Now Trump
has gone too far. Now it's all, oh, no, no,
none of that is true. None of that is true.
But they never grow tired of this. The inmates and
the Democratic Party took over the asylum a long time ago.
They do the same thing and expect the different result

(13:20):
and don't think that it's crazy. And so here we
are talking more about this phone call with President Trump
and the leader of Ukraine. We will get into this
in a second. The New York Times headline is supposed
to send shivers down the spines of people throughout the
Trump's supporting world official who heard Trump's Ukraine call reported

(13:43):
his concerns. This is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vinmann, And now
is where we have to start this by saying, yes,
he served honorably, Yes he's a Purple Heart recipient, and
we thank him for his military service. That does not
mean and the media knows this, but this is a
very dishonest game they like to play that his opinion

(14:05):
about what is a clearly political matter holds any more
weight than yours, or mind or anybody else's. That he
has expertise in Ukraine policy does not matter. This is
a question of whether or not the President of the
United States did anything illegal in his phone call, and
the answer is most decidedly no. And then beyond that,

(14:27):
to the president of the United States do anything that
was unbecoming of the commander in chief? And the answer
to that is the voters decide. I don't care what
Lieutenant Colonel Vinman thinks about the phone call. It does
not sway me one bit. But it is supposed to.

(14:47):
He quote plans to tell about the way I read
his testimony this morning. I keep wondering this testimony gets
leaked out from all these people that are speaking behind
closed doors, almost like this has all been orchestrated by
Democrat and this is a sham and a scam. In fact,
I believe this morning I saw Congressman Mark Meadows sharing
on Twitter that this may be moved from the Judiciary

(15:10):
Committee to the Intel Committee. It's ano they're going to
shift committees, I mean the shifty shift. They're just going
to play as many games as they can to control
the process. And in fact, one reason why they haven't
established a vote on the impeachment process. Yesterday they were
saying Nancy Pelosi was about to do it. Today they're saying,
oh no, Pelosi says there is no impeachment process vote

(15:33):
that's gonna happen. I mean is that they're not really
sure because it has none of this has anything to
do with what is fair or ethical or decent. This
is all about what maximizes political benefit for Democrats and
helps them the most in twenty twenty against Donald Trump.
Everything else is not a secondary, a non consideration. They

(15:55):
simply and truly do not care. And so now we
have the details of this, and much has been made
of VINMN, according to the New York Times, trying to
give advice to the Ukrainians about how to deal with

(16:17):
the United States government, and people have looked at this
and said, what the heck is that all about. You
should never be helping a foreign government figure out what
America is trying to do, especially if you're a senior
American government official. But this is now a repetition of

(16:38):
what we've already been told, which is that people don't
like Trump's Ukraine. People that had set up a Ukraine
policy on the previous administration, and those who have been
working for the National Security apparatus for many years on
this issue didn't like some of the most President Trump
was it was making. It's from the New York Times.
Quoteman will testify that he watched with alarm as outside

(17:02):
influencers began pushing a false narrative about Ukraine that was
countered to the consensus view of American national security officials
and harmful to United States interests. End quote, guess what,
Lieutenant COLONL. Vineman, I don't care that you think that
that's like your opinion, man, doesn't matter. You're allowed to

(17:23):
share it, sure, but this is not a high crime
or misdemeanor issue. This is a you don't like what
the president was doing issue, and Democrats have so conflated
these two things that they really believe if they're very upset,
I mean, if they're like really really really upset about something,
then it doesn't really matter if it's not actually a crime,

(17:47):
because they're angry enough about it that it should be
a crime. And I think that's, in summary form, what
this whole impeachment thing is all about. They hate Trump
so much that their hatred self must be evidence of
the high crimes and misdemeanors constitutionally mandated. But it's not.
Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show team. So continuing

(18:07):
on with this theme of the latest, oh my gosh,
this new addition to the whistle blower. Wait, whatever happened
to the whistle blower? Why is it that the whistle
blower is not going to testify now? Just the written
statement No, no testimony from the whistle blower. Huh, Because
I remember in the early days of this when it

(18:28):
was all about truth and justice in the American way
according to Congressman Shift, I remember that it was of
course necessary for the whistleblower to testify. But then they
figured out the whistle Blower had coordinated with Adam Shift
before the complaint was made public, and that sort of
look kind of bad, almost like this was motivated by

(18:51):
partisanship and has nothing to do with actual crimes or
misdemeanors as reference in the constant, or high crimes and
misdemeaners as reference the Constitution, or just i'm crimes, which
was initially alleged as well. Remember that I haven't forgotten.
This is the game they like to play. Oh, they
throw out some criminal charge, and everybody who knows anything
about the law or can just read a legal text goes,

(19:13):
that's not true. That's not a criminal. You can't charge
the president with a campaign finance violation because he was
using the pressure of his office to get an outcome
that would benefit him politically. Because any president who uses
the pressure of his office with a foreign counterpart would
be getting on a major policy, you should be getting

(19:34):
some kind of benefit politically. Doing anything smart for the
president should not be illegal, which is effectively what that
interpretation of the law would mean. Up, the president just
signed this treaty going to help him at re election time,
clearly getting a foreign benefit from that counterpart or a
benefit from that foreign counterpart. This is absurd. That was

(19:56):
the legal theory. Notice that you see this recurring in
mal luments, stretching that beyond comprehension. Oh, diplomats have bought
cheeseburgers a Trump hotel. They must own Trump's foreign policy.
This is absurd. But this is really the case. They
make the usage of the Logan Act, the Logan Act
in order to have that interview with General Flynn entrapman

(20:20):
interview with the FBI. No one thought seriously they were
going to bring a Logan Act charge. But see they
use the pretense of a legal concern in order to
bring in the apparatus of the state, and then poke
around and the process becomes the punishment. Democrats excel at
this and they hate that it would be used in
the other direction. Oh no, you're not allowed to investigate.

(20:43):
Even if there's a legitimate pretext for the investigation, or
rather a legitimate basis for the investigation, You're not allowed
to do that. We have more here. This is all
about Colonel Vinman's policy concerns. Again, I simply do not
care what his policy concerns are. I don't even find
them particularly interesting. He wants to do things one way.

(21:05):
Trump wants to do things another way. Trump's the commander
in chief. The NSC staff is not there to subvert
the will or the policy directives of the President of
the United States. I know they think they are. I
know the State Department thinks they are. I know all
these people that sit in boring Beijewald government offices all
across the DC metropolitan area believe that they are supposed

(21:28):
to thwart the will of the president because they know better.
But that's not true. That's not how our system works.
That is not why they are sitting in those chairs.
And yet here we are New York Times continues. Colonel
Vineman was concerned, oh no, after he learned that the

(21:48):
White House Budget Office had taken the unusual step of
withholding the three ninety one million dollars package of security
systons for Ukraine that have been approved by Congress. They
got the money, folks, nothing happened. They keep on saying this, like,
oh my gosh, Ukraine, they were left on the front
lines without any without any bullets, without these security assistance

(22:10):
went through. And the Ukrainians during this whole ruckus that
we're talking about here, didn't even know that there was
a hold a review placed on that security assistance. So
how could you have been using the security aid to
force them to do something that would be illicit? And
I'm not even agreeing that it is a listit necessarily

(22:31):
I think there's a legitimate basis to investigate what the
Bidens were doing in Ukraine. I'm sorry, I know that
makes me a crazy person, even on the right. For
some people these days, I don't care. You know, is
this a little bit like cancel culture? Some conservatives have
figured out that the only way to begin to bring
things back to normalcies to say you're going to cancel.

(22:51):
We're gonna cancel, You're gonna have these crazy rules. You
have to live by these crazy rules. And if investigations
that are at least able to appear legitimate are going
to be a tool that Democrats throw at Republicans all
the time. If Republicans have an even more legitimate basis
for an investigation that just happens to negatively affects some

(23:14):
Democrat politicians, guess what too bad? Or we can just
allow one side to weaponize the law and have no
response to it whatsoever, which has been the reality. I mean,
we can go back to the Romney school of fighting
against the left. Just keep getting smacked around and say, well,
but I'm really ethical when I'm getting slapped around, I'm

(23:36):
really a nice person while they are running roughshot over
the Constitution and taking away the rights of the people
that I said I would protect in my elected office.
But whoops, No, I don't want to be mean. Quote.
At least one previous witnesses testified that mister Trump directed
the aid be frozen until he could secure a commitment

(23:56):
from Zelenski to announce an investigation of the bidens. While
Colonel Vineman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials,
some of whom have already testified. He was in a
unique position because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his
family when he was a child. He's fluent in Ukrainian
and Russian. Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how

(24:16):
to deal with mister Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.
Giuliani's an American working at the behests of the president.
I know that Libs and Democrats hate this, don't like this,
reject this doesn't change anything. Julian is an American and
he's the president's personal lawyer. He is working on a

(24:40):
directive from the President of the United States, and we're
at the direction of the President of the United States,
and this guy is helping the Ukrainians to deal with him. Now,
I'm not throwing around people have been talking about about
dual loyalty because I don't care where a person grew
up or where they're from. That that is irrelevant to me.

(25:02):
Why would you be assisting a foreign counterpart in a
process of handling and negotiating with an American interlocutor who
was working for the President of the United States. Well,
what kind of authority does want to have to do that?
And why would one do that? I think we all know.
And this is why when they say it's unfair to

(25:25):
call this person a never trumper, he has a policy
dispute with the President of United States. He was very,
very worried about the directive to start an investigation of Biden. Oh,
can we just keep two things in mind here as
we continue to get hammered with this This really just
an endless propaganda narrative. The AID was not cut off.
The investigation of Biden didn't as far as we know,

(25:46):
did not even happen, did not even start. So what
are we also worked up about here? Again? You know,
this reminds me of how people say, oh, Trump obstructed
the Russia collusion investigation, except he could have shut it
down any day he wanted to. So he didn't shut it.
He didn't obstruct it. Oh, but he wanted he said
he wanted to obstruct it. This is pathetic, and we

(26:11):
keep running back to this over and over again. We're
going to punish the president of the United States for
thought crime against liberal pieties. I don't think so. Look,
this is not going to change anything. This is not
going to shift any public support I think for or
against the president. I believe that there's there are two

(26:34):
forces that are pushing the Democrats into this, or that
make the Democrats think that they have to do this.
One of them is that their base is insane, has
really lost its mind. I mean, the left wing base
is completely crazy and they demand this. So there are
some Democrats in Congress are saying, look, we got we

(26:55):
got to help out those in crazy town here who
need to see some action or else they're going to
flip out it. So that's one part of it. So
they're just playcating the craziest elements the Occasio Cortes wing
of the Democratic Party. That's one aspect, and the other
is I do think there are some Democrats who in
Congress who have convinced themselves that Trump is such an

(27:15):
existential threat to the United States. Whatever they think that
even means, I don't even know how they could. But
the nuclear war that he hasn't started, he hasn't started
any war unlike his predecessors. What exactly is this grand
threat that Trump poses to the Republic saying mean things
to smug, overpaid, whiney journalists for the media establishment. That's

(27:40):
a massive threat to this country. I don't think so.
I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. But I
do believe there are members of Congress who think that
anything that they have to do to harm this president's
reelection prospects is justified, and even if that means manipulating
this impeachment process so that it makes a mockery of

(28:01):
the House of Representatives, which I already think they've already managed.
That they have dramatically undermined any public confidence that Congress
is a place where serious people gather to do serious things.
It's impeachment so far as a sham, it's a clown show.
It's ridiculous, And yet here we are, Here we are,

(28:24):
It's gonna just push on. It looks now like they
won't get the consensus opinion, which who knows what that
even is. But the media and the Democrats are all
saying to each other that looks like this will extend
into the new year. That also, though, means that if
the Senate gets dragged into this, then you will have
Democrat senators who should be out there on the campaign

(28:44):
trail for the primary, you know klobaschar and Warren and
Booker and you know good on the list, who might
all of a sudden have some duties in the Senate
having to do with an impeachment trial. Now, I don't
know if they think that that's a good trade off,
but I would guess it's so Democrats haven't even figured
out what the strategy is here yet. They just know
they feel like they've got something, and like a terrier

(29:07):
with a bone, they're just not going to let it go.
They're just gonna keep shaking and shaking and hope that
something happens. That's pretty much the Democrats strategy just keep shaking,
just keep doing crazy stuff, and see if they can
finally break through the great Wall of trumps Um. I
don't think they're going to get there, but they're going
to keep trying, folks, because their policy proposals certainly aren't

(29:30):
going to get it done, and the candidates they're putting
forward aren't going to get it done. So impeachment is
their X factor. I can understand why the President doesn't
want these witnesses come forward. What I find harder to
understand is why the Republican members of this body, in
this House don't want these witnesses to come forward. Where
is their duty to this institution, Where is their duty

(29:52):
to the constitution? Where is their respect for the rule
of law? Where's that shift's respect for the rule of law? Well,
we know that was tossed out, tossed out the window
a long time ago. Doesn't really matter, does it. Of course,
now you're going to have a response to this democrat

(30:13):
weaponization of a process that no one even really knows.
They're making it up as they go along, acting like
it's a legal process, mind you, when it's just clearly
a political process. They can figure out whatever the whatever
they want to do on any given day and then
just institute that. But I would note that there's a
I do have a real concern about something it comes

(30:35):
up as a result of this. Of course, the president
has no choice and would be foolish if he were
to just go along with all this stuff. So he
has no choice but to fight against and his legal
team in the White House these efforts to going into
an election, in your mind, you try to use Congress
as some bat with which to beat down the chances

(31:01):
of a reelection for President Trump. So they should fight
it at every stage, and they should make this as
difficult as possible because there's no good faith in the process,
So that should be responded to in turn. Now there's
also the concern, though about what the president's lawyers are
asserting as a result of this. The Wall Street Journal

(31:23):
has a piece here, Trump Attorney, a Trump Attorney's assert
immunity from a broad sweep of laws. And when you
look over the documents and the filings that Trump's legal
team has put together in response to this concerted effort
from Democrats to destroy his presidency, you have a lot

(31:48):
of a very broad swath of documents that are all
more or less saying the same thing, which is that
Trump is quote immune to civil law suits, judicial orders,
criminal investigations, or congressional probes. The journal rights here. Those

(32:09):
arguments have become even more aggressive as mister Trump faces
numerous legal threats, including a possible impeachment in Congress, a
New York state prosecute who are prosecutor who has subpoened
his tax records as part of a criminal probe? And
a welter of civil lawsuits. They are trying lawfare against
this president personally. It's not the administration. They're going after

(32:33):
the President United States personally, but this in response, now,
lawyers will often take a maximalist position on behalf of
their clients. You know, if you go into a divorce proceeding,
your lawyer is probably going to say, well, my client
deserves full custody of the kids and all the merrill
assets and should get spousals aboard, doesn't matter what the

(32:56):
real and you start the negotiation from there. For obvious reasons.
In this context, when you have all these different entities
that are trying to personally legally attack the president, that says,
while he's the president, I can understand why his lawyers
are saying you don't need essentially, you don't even have
standing for this, You don't even have the grounds to
bring this lawsuit against the president, that he has a

(33:18):
de facto immunity from all of this stuff while he's president.
That said, that then does result in some of what
we've already seen, which is people saying or lawyers on
behalf of the president making the claim that he could
in fact shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not get prosecuted.

(33:41):
This has now become a point of legal contention amongst
some and you even had Mayor Bill de Blasio who said, no,
we would arrest him in New York City even if
and can you imagine that, by the way, what happens
What happens if I just if we're theoretically playing out
this circumstances at the President United States were to shoot somebody,

(34:03):
and then the local police, which is really just an
extension of state police powers, but you know, local police
here in New York wanted to make an arrest. Would
Secret Service if the Secret Service was told the President
was under threat from local I mean, this starts to
get crazy, right, it turns into a Tom Clancy novel
or something or that scene at the end of the
movie The Siege, which I actually think is an underrated

(34:24):
movie for what it is, with Denzel Washington and Annette Benning,
where you have US military and FBI agents all drawing
down on each other because the rogue Bruce willis, who's
a rogue colonel I think, not a general is doing
bad stuff and the FBI wants to arrest him, and
then he tells his guys and they all they all
have that standoff at the end. But I have to say,

(34:47):
I think it's it's fascinating to see the legal back
end forth here over whether or not a president can
in fact be indicted for anything. The President's position right
now is nope, he cannot. We will be made to
revisit this, my friends. This is not going to go away.
He was a sick and depraved man and now he's dead.

(35:15):
He's dead. He's dead as a doornail. There are a
lot of ways that one could describe the death of
Baghdaddy and who Abubakar al Baghdaddy was. That it really turned,
It really turns into a competition to find the most
the most clear put down of who this individual was.

(35:40):
Language that really conveys what a disgrace and what a
dehumanizing and evil piece of You know, you want to
go to the profane. I'll just say it. You want
to start dropping curses when you're talking about a guy
like this. I get that, And that's the normal feeling
that all of us would have somebody who would do this,
somebody who would keep sex slave, somebody who would murder
men and women, children, have the Mexican you to have
them tortured. All these the most horrible things imaginable. And

(36:03):
by the way back, Daddy would have done it to
millions of people if he could have remembered that. You know,
albib Baker, albug Daddy, if he had a nuke to
set off a New York City, he would do it tomorrow. Well,
he won't be doing anything tomorrow except burning in hell.
But there aren't. Some people who, as we've been discussing,
were distracted from this obvious truth of Albibaker al Baghdaddy

(36:27):
because to them, the bigger concern, the bigger enemy than
the Islamic State is clearly Donald Trump. And this is
a malady that has been on the left for a
long time. Right, the bigger concern than al Qaeda was
George Bush for a lot of liberals in America for
a long time. I remember I was in the CIA
during the Bush administration, and a lot of people were
much more worried about Bush than they were about Sam.

(36:49):
They were about the Taliban, al Qaeda, you name it.
The real enemy was Bush, or the real worry was
was Bush and his foreign policy. And this is from
me of something that we have seen from the Trump
administration that I think is very important. There are a

(37:09):
lot of things about Trump that will last long after
he's out of office, hopefully in twenty twenty four. But
one of my favorites is that he has managed to
expose the media and liberals and Democrats in a way
that nobody else had before, because they dropped the pretense

(37:31):
that they often hide behind. They drop from behind their
hiding places and oh, I'm just an objective journalist, or oh,
I'm just a government a faithful government servant who would
never ever try to take politics into my own hands,
use the power that I'm given to execute a very
specific mission of the federal government, and do something else

(37:52):
with that. Oh never, good heavens. And then we had
Comy and Clapper and Brennan and you struck and pay
age and you know, just go down the whole list.
N CNN just making a mockery of itself on the
Washington Post, The New York Times, fall stories, fake stories,
having a fire journalists because they write fake stuff about
the president, burning sources to write something nasty about the president,

(38:16):
some minor news item somewhere. I mean, just just no integrity,
no ethics, just just throwing it all out the window
because resistance is all that matters. And that's been very illuminating,
that's been really worthwhile for us as a country. We
will not forget it. I will not forget it. I mean.
The two greatest clarifiers of media bias in the last decade,

(38:39):
in my opinion, our Twitter, because now we have journalists
who at eight o'clock in the morning go like ha
ha ha lol, Donald Trump is a moron, and then
at eight o'clock at night are on TV. Tonight Donald
Trump destroyed the Constitution. Again. I'm just an objective journalist here,
just telling you the objective truth. Don't don't pay attention
to my haha. Trump is a more on tweet. They

(39:02):
do this all the time. So that's one part of it,
but the others also just the Trump himself. The existence
of Trump has I think heightened that that phenomenon on
Twitter and elsewhere. They just can't help themselves. They hate
this guy so much that they make errors. They get
so angry about Trump that they're not as conniving, they're

(39:24):
not as tactically sound in their propaganda as they were
in the past. And I think that's been very useful.
The one part of that that I have to say
is surprising, and this is what has made me get
in this frame of mind, is what he has shown
us about many conservatives too. You see in the early

(39:45):
days of Never Trump and there were people who were
posted Trump during the primary, and I understand why, and
I had my concerns about Trump during the primary too,
did not have any concerns. As soon as he was
the nominee. He was my guy, full stop. But there
have been there has been this movement of never Trumpers

(40:08):
who initially for about the first two years of the
Trump presidency, we're holding themselves up as the true idealists
of the conservative movement. They were the real right wing,
true believers in a sense, because they were adhering to
the principles that everybody else had abandoned because of this

(40:31):
reality TV barbarian who had taken over the Republican Party.
That was the basic narrative. But what we've really seen
or that many of the not all of them, I'm
not gonna put them on it, but many of the
loudest voices in that category have in fact now made
common cause with Democrats, vote for Democrats, want Democrat policies

(40:54):
to get through, have switched teams, are the definition politically
of a turncoat, and no longer clinging to the fiction
that they're the true conservatives. So in a sense, Trump
has brought out the truth of many people who were
formerly leading voices of the conservative establishment, people like Bill Crystal,

(41:21):
people like Max Boots, people who I used to have
on this show sometimes as guests, some of whom I'm
still reasonably friendly with, so I will try to refrain
from bringing up their names on air just out of
personal loyalty. But I always tell you that my personal
loyalties do interfere with my analysis, as in, my friends

(41:41):
are off limits for my show, and that's just a
point of honor that I maintain. You can disagree with
that some people would, but that's just I'm honest with
you about it. But an amazing example of this, a stark, wow,
punch you in the face kind of example of exactly
what I'm talking about. Max Boot who is not a

(42:03):
friend of mine, who wears a fedora un ironically in
his main photos on Twitter and stuff, which just it's
it's pretty stunning. And he's a surly fellow, and I
think also increasingly an emotionally unwell fellow. But I can't
prove that. I'm just basically on my limited dealings with

(42:26):
him and what I see on TV. But he wrote
a column of The Washington Post, which also has just
made a complete fool of itself in this bag Daddy
process in which he wrote this is in a column quote.
The assertion that Bagdaddy died as a coward was in
any case contradicted by the fact that, rather than be captured,

(42:47):
he blew himself up end quote. So in a column
in the second large or third largest newspaper in the country.
I think the Washington Post is the third largest, deal
I don't know, it's close to it, probably the second
most esteemed liberal newspaper after the New York Times. But
in a column that he had to know was going
to be read by a fair amount of people. Max Boot,

(43:11):
driven by his ferocious trump hatred and obvious narcissism and
hurt feelings that no longer being particularly important, not the
way that he thought he used to be. He no
longer has a political party around him that he feels
he can direct, he has an important place in There
is a selfishness that has been exposed for many, not all,

(43:34):
many never Trumpers who have gone so far in their
anti trumpism that they actively work to assist the other side.
And now they can't hide from that anymore, and they
also make fools of themselves. They can't hide from that either.
Why would anyone think it appropriate, even for a moment,

(43:55):
to suggest that Bagdaddy suicide himself and three of his
own children with a suicide vest means that he's not
a coward who would think that first of all? And
then who would write that out? Who would think that

(44:15):
they should write it out and then submitted under their
own name to a newspaper and not understand what the
consequences of that would be. The buffoonery here from Boot
is stunning, except you have to understand this is an
emotional an emotional response for him, because anything that is

(44:39):
good for a Trump, he feels like it's bad for him.
It's all personal. A lot of never Trumpers, it's all personal.
They're not important anymore. They got used to being important
within a certain set of the American right. They got
used to being celebrated and everyone listening to them at everybody,
and then all of a sudden when people started to
question either some of their ideas or question their inability

(45:02):
to see what many of the rest of us scene
about Trump, which is not that Trump is perfect. I
don't think Trump is perfect at all. I think that
Trump has made plenty of mistakes. I think he's got
plenty of personality flaws that are pretty shocking at times.
I don't sit here telling you that he's beyond reproach
at all. In fact, I think it's important we should
criticize Trump more on the let's say trillion dollars deficit

(45:23):
we're running this year. On some of you right and say, buck,
you can't criticize him on this, or he's trying to
build a wall, or he's not trying hard enough. But
that's a long way criticizing somebody for not doing well enough.
I mean, this is a difference between a coach who's
trying to encourage his player on the field versus people
in the stands. We're saying, you stink, get out the game.

(45:46):
That's what never Trump became really from the beginning. And
then we find out not only are the yelling at Trump,
you stink, get out of the game, but they were
secretly rooting for the other side the whole time. Wow,
I don't think we should listen to them anymore about
game strategy if that's going to be their approach. Boot

(46:07):
had to walk this back, by the way, But he's
such a surly and smug fellow. We talked about immigration
once when I was on Rising, and he just didn't
know what he was talking about. He came on TV
figures I've written, I've written some books that were well
reviewed on the history of warfare, and therefore I know
about immigration. And so he came on TV and said

(46:28):
some stupid things like walls don't work, and everybody knows
that false. That's not true. Walls do work, and anybody
who knows anything about the boarder knows the walls work.
So there's that. He did have to add this little
little note to his piece quoted. An earlier version of
this column included a sentence questioning whether Trump was right
to call back Daddy a coward because he blew himself up.

(46:49):
The line was removed because it unintentionally conveyed the impression
that I considered back Daddy courageous. Well, that is kind
of what he said when he says someone's not a
coward because they blew himself up. I mean kind of
saying that they're not a coward. So I don't know
what else to say about that other than trump. De

(47:10):
arrangement syndrome is a powerful drug, and some people take
way too much of it, and we see the results
of it now. So we have I think, greater clarity
in many ways about who is who in the political
discussion right now than we've ever had before because they
can't help themselves. Trump is the great clarifier in that sense. Sure,

(47:31):
they'll always talk about how he polarizes things and he
makes it more difficult to have certain civil conversations with
the other side. Yeah, but he also lets us know
who really wants what and who stands for what in
the political debate in this country. And I think that
in itself is especially worthwhile. Oh, I don't think it's
aggressive at all. I would be surprised if he made
those comments in a negative way, but I don't think

(47:53):
the response would be if he actually said that, if
he actually meant that, I said what I do and
that I mean. So now we've got to another moment
in the media's life cycle here where they're using a
former using the words of a former Trump official to
bash the president. And here's what I believe is that issue. Here, Kelly,

(48:17):
who's a retired Marine Corps general, said during the Sea
Island Summit, which was hosted by the Washington Examine or CIANA,
here's a very nice place. Kelly said that if he
if he had stayed on his chief of staff, Trump
wouldn't be in the midst of the current impeachment inquiry,
saying that certain White House advisors could have prevented it.
And quote, here's the quote from Kelly. I said, whatever

(48:38):
you do. And we're still in the process of trying
to find someone to take my place. I said, whatever
you do, don't hire a yes man, someone who won't
tell you the truth. Don't do that, because if you do,
I believe you will be impeached. Okay, well, maybe Kelly
said it, maybe he didn't. President Trump seems to think

(48:59):
that that wasn't. Keep in mind, people have been talking
about how Trump was going to be impeached from the
day he took office because of the ferocious hatred the
left has for him. So it's not a tough thing
to say. That's not analysis that would be that should
be surprising to anybody. Do I think that the presidents

(49:19):
I saw me for but where I criticized the president?
Do I think the president's choices of senior advisors and
staff around him have been almost inexplicably bad, Yes, yes
I do. There's there is no justification, there's no rational
way to explain many of the choices that Trump made

(49:41):
about who to put around him and who to put
in positions of real authority. Scaramucci on a Rosa, I mean,
it really was a little bit like he said, or
like he decided that he was staffing up a reality
TV show again, like he was picking people for the
Apprentice White House. That's real. Let's let's be clear, let's
be on about that. Um. There were a lot of

(50:02):
people that were brought in that had to be shown
the door rather quickly. And they never should have been
brought in. So that's one area. And by the way,
that does fall on the president. I mean, he's got
a lot of authority and these are important decisions to make,
and to make such poor ones reflects badly on his

(50:23):
judgment as a as a commander in chief. I think
that there's no way around that. I think we need
to be honest about that. So I'm telling you that's
that's what I think about where the president is on
all of it. On the upside though, they give you
a happy thing. So that's a that's a place where
I say Trump, you know, Trump gets a he gets

(50:45):
a C minus on appointees and seeing your advisors really
C minus. It's gotten a little bit better, but it's
because he's went through a lot of the really bad choices.
But here is on the upside of things, the president is.
And whether you're pro Trump or not, if you are
a conservative, you have to be pleased with what is

(51:08):
going on right now in the federal judiciary. Here is
President Trump. Play clip one. Please, I want to thank
you President Obama for giving me one hundred and forty
two open judges. How you allowed that to happen is
beyond me. It's beyond me. Thank you, President Obama very much.
Everybody in this room, thanks you. Now he's been a

(51:28):
little funny there, but this is a real point that
he's making. The hashtag resistance has relied so much on
federal judges who are activists, appointed largely by Obama but
also by Clinton and sometimes by Republicans too. You'll notice
Democrats never seem to slip up on this. Who is
the Democrat Supreme Court appointee you know, from a Democrat

(51:50):
administration that turned out to be really republican? Doesn't happen. Meanwhile,
you go back and look at Reagan and George H. W. Bush,
something to be they're putting in there into the federal
in the Supreme Court turn out to be leftists, activists
and judges robes. Never happens the other way. I'm not
making it up. Think about it. Who is it? You know?

(52:13):
So to Mayor liberal, Kagan liberal, Ginsburg liberal. They're all liberals,
liberals and in lockstep with liberalism. I mean, never disappoint
the party, faithful of the Democrats. Really not anything important,
I should say. On some more minor stuff, procedural things.

(52:35):
People have a different view, but anyway, the judiciary, not
just Kavanaugh and Gorsich, but the judiciary at the federal
and district court level, or at the district court level,
I should say, an appeals court that being changed in
the way that it is right now, and the kind
of judges that Trump is picking. This is where his

(52:55):
outsourcing decisions a bit to people who know more and
and he can trust on which judges to pick, has
been a good move in the federalist society, etc. So
on the upside, Spicy gets through very important news item
for you here, the show Dancing with the Stars has

(53:16):
Sean Spicer on as a contestant. You remember Sean Spicer.
He was White House Press Secretary for a short time
and was perhaps best known well was was in a
pop culture since, best known for the Melissa McCarthy send
up of him, impersonation of him, and also because he

(53:36):
was the one who came out and saying that the
inauguration was the biggest and most attendant inauguration ever and
that was a that was a bad look. It just
it didn't didn't come come off well at all. But
I'm glad to see that he's he's a he's a nice,
nice dude. I've bumped into him a few times at

(53:57):
the Trump Hotel in DC, where it's really the GOP
clubhouse where a lot of people hang out. I hear
they might be selling it, by the way, which is
kind of a bummer, because if you want to have
really overpriced drinks in a space that plays Musaic twenty
four to seven, Trump Hotel is definitely the lobby. There's
definitely the place you want to do it. The I
don't know if it's flombade bacon or like flamed bait whatever.

(54:20):
They take a blowtorch to the bacon there and they
have these hanging bacon strips and I'm telling you it
is amazing. I mean, they do. They do bacon right
at Trump Hotel. So I give credit where it's due,
always one of the mantras of this show. But for
you know, our pop culture correspondent here as producer Mark

(54:42):
and producer Mark, I do have to ask you, first
of all, have you ever seen have you ever seen
Dancing with the Stars, because I have not. I've seen clips.
I've seen clips too. Have you ever actually watched the show?
I think watches. It's pretty popular show apparently. Yeah, I
think my main man. Tucker Carlson was on at one point. So,
I mean, like they came asking the buckster, But I

(55:02):
would have you ever ballroom dance? I don't think of course,
I took some ball on dancing growing up. I had
Debbie tomp Balls to go to my friend as an escort.
Oh so you were going to escort? This is what
you're saying to a Debbie tomp Ball. We were sixteen.
But I would just point out that that spicy is
my understanding the worst in terms of actual dancing skill.

(55:24):
My dancing skills, by the way, I don't know. I
don't even know if America could handle these funky moves.
But spicy true true, don't that's a that's an accurate thing.
Then I don't know if they can handle it. I
don't think I can vocalize the face I just made. Yeah, yeah,
we do need to get a camera for you get
as our producer, Mark, Well, we'll work on that. But
so what I want to know is are people pushing

(55:46):
him through as a joke or they pushing him through
out of some kind of Trump solidarity. At this point,
it's got to be for the humor, right, They gotta
you know this is like when you used to have,
remember your student council elections. There was always a candidate
at my school growing up who would run who was
like the kid who basically lived in the tension, and
all the teachers thought was just like, you know, a

(56:09):
class clown, cut up, bad kid who did bad Not
bad kid, but you know the kid who was always
misbehaving and getting into trouble. You're describing me, Oh really,
definitely the class you were that kid. Oh yeah, not
in attention all the time, but I was a clown. Yeah,
that's surprises nobody. Um, yeah, you got away with it though,
right I did. Yeah, So I just I would think
that this is a little bit like that where they're

(56:30):
they're voting for him specifically, as it's almost like a
protest vote against Dancing with the Stars. It's like that
guy on American Idol, I forget his name that got
through because he was hilarious. Was that the the the
the William Hung. Yes, yeah, he became a star. Sang
he sang in his I remember this back then? He
sang Yang by Mary Ricky Martin. Yeah, that was fantastic

(56:54):
but terrible, And then you know he put it on
an album by the way, Yeah, no, I heard it.
Look you gotta pan idol credit. I was just the
Nashville of the weekend, Love you Nashville, and there was
there were the people to I was like, who are
the biggest country music stars? I asked, Nashville locals? Actually
a radio host, I asked, U uh, Clay Travis what
he what he thought about it? And and he named

(57:15):
all these different I said, Oh, Carrie Underwood's really carry
Underwoods like a big deal in Nashville. Yeah, because she's
married to the former captain of the Nashville Predators. Is
that a thing? I didn't know that. But she's still
a big deal form her music come on. Oh of
course for her music as well, but she's also like
over here. She was always my favorite. I like Kelly Clarkson,

(57:36):
but I don't know, I feel like she didn't reach
her true attend I saw Carrie at the garden once,
like Justin Guarini had his day. Remember that guy I
used in the movie From Kelly to Justin. They made
a movie after the first season American Idol. Oh, it
was so bad. I didn't see it. I saw previews,
but man, it was so bad. But hey, you gotta

(57:58):
grab that money while you can. You know, I think
the only season I watched was when Clay Aikin and
up stutter. I used to watch a Kanto with my parents.
It was like a bonding experience of this show. We
could in the early days. In the early days of
that show, it was a phenomenon. It was. It was amazing.
And some of the people they had come in and
the whole Simon callick, Oh, I'm a British guy and

(58:18):
I'm I'm just like a little mean, but you'll still
love me anyway, like that whole thing. You know now
the voice is actually really big. Oh is that the one? Yeah,
that's like that's the one with the chairs that they
spin around in. And then the stars coached them a
little too theatrical for me. I'm an original guy, you know.
I said it was popular. That doesn't mean I know
I'm not as I'm not as into it. By the way,

(58:39):
did you see the Have you seen? Um? What's it called?
You've seen Breaking Bad? Out? Of course I have not
seen the movie yet, so Breaking Bad Um has a
movie that's out right now, which I did watch and
I got oh wait. Producer Nick tells me that Justin
is now little sat from the Doctor Pepper Ads. Did

(59:02):
you know that Justin Guarini has made a comeback from
Doctor Pepper ads? I don't drink Doctor Pepper. Well. What
I wanted to tell y'all also is that the new
movie elm el Camino, Yes, is terrible, so boring. I
haven't seen anything. I have to watch it just because
you really like just an episode, a long episode of

(59:26):
Breaking Bad. It's not really a movie. It's like if
they added one more episode two Breaking Bad, but with
episode no it ended perfectly like why did they do this?
Why do they have to at least make it a
spinoff so I can ignore it. It's very sad, but
I've got a lot going. I mean, I've got a
book to write, but which is you know that's a problem.

(59:46):
But I'm watching The Americans right now and also checking
out a fair amount of Oh I will be watching
Peeky Blinders. Did you see the spin off of Breaking Bad?
At Better? So? I thought it was a little boring. Really,
I saw the first season. I didn't want to be
on the first season. Season after season one gets so
much better. It really. I have not seen the most
recent season because it's not on Netflix or any because

(01:00:08):
I think my man dave Reeboy told me that he
also really liked Better Call Saul. I loved it, the
thing with the brother and it can't go outside and
all that. Don't know. I just was like, what is this?
It gets so much better right day on. I'm gonna
watch based on producer Mark's recommendation here and if it's terrible,
we're gonna make fun a producer Mark. Course. Yeah. But anyway,
so so Sean Spicer, he got through, and I guess

(01:00:33):
I'm gonna have to watch an episode of this show
now now that now that the because the Spicy phenomenon
is turning into its own things. I'm sure they put
clips out on ABC. Just watch. I've seen a couple
of the small, but I want to see that. I
gotta watch the Who show. I don't even know how
this works. Like it's a professional dancer with the not
professional dance. Yes, I believe, so I could see the
professional dancers. That'll be kind of fun. I appreciate the technique.

(01:00:54):
What you yeah, that's it? Yeah. So anyways, Spicy, I
guess we gotta do it? Should we should we join
the vote for Spicy train. I don't know, maybe could happen.
I have also started to perhaps be more candid talking
about what I describe and what I believe to be
the elephant in the room about my campaign. What is

(01:01:14):
that electability? What are your electability? You know? Essentially, is
America ready for a woman and a woman of color
to be president of the United States? America was ready
for a black man to be president United State, and
this conversation happened for him. There is a lack of
ability or a difficult a difficulty in imagining that someone

(01:01:37):
who we have never seen can do a job that
has been done, you know, forty five times by someone
who is not that person. I gotta tell you, I
really don't like this analysis, this view of things that
Kamala Harris is offering up. And we've heard it many

(01:01:58):
times before. We heard it from Hillary. Is the country
ready for a woman? In this case with Kamala Harris,
is this is the country ready for a president who
is a minority woman? The answer is yes, Okay, we're
ready for it. The American people aren't. I know, Democrats
have all convinced themselves that we're so racist and closed

(01:02:20):
minded and unless we agree with them on everything, then
we're okay. But if we're if we have any other
thoughts about anything, oh, we're such terrible people. These Americans
are so awful, So much racism in this country. When
every American I know, every person that I know, regardless
of political affiliation, if you said, hey, there's a candidate,
the candidate shares all of your ideas on all major

(01:02:42):
policy issues, and it's just really inspiring and great. But
the candidate has fill in any demographic profile you want
and any gender you want. I guarantee you that anybody
that you do in your life, you'd be like, yeah,
on who cares great, doesn't matter, you know, white, black, Hispanic, Asian,

(01:03:08):
you know, pick something out, you know, male, female, whatever
it may be, if you like the person as a person,
if you think they're a compelling politician, if you agree
with them on policy. The vast I'm not saying, of
course they're stupid racist everywhere in every country all over
the world, not saying it doesn't exist, but the vast, vast,
vast majority of Americans of voters, you know, I would say, yeah,

(01:03:34):
ninety nine out of one hundred, maybe maybe nine out
of ten. If you want to give yourself a little leeway.
We have noe, no problem voting for a woman, no
problem voting for minority, And we just went through eight
years of a president who was a minority, and it's
almost like we're supposed to pretend that, you know that
that didn't have any meaning. It did. Country is still
just as racist as it was. Come on, It's just,

(01:03:58):
you know, it's such a self serving narrative, and especially
in this case with Gamala Harris, it is such a
self serving narrative because she's dramatically underperforming because people just
here's the thing, and I see this among deat I'm
not speaking about this as a Republican. What my feeling,
you know, my least favorite candidate, it's Betto because he's

(01:04:22):
just like, it's like he just reads the comments on
the Huffington Post and he's just like, yo, I just
want to like comment and I just gonna tell everybody
that I'm gonna take all your guns. And America's like
super racist. But I'm not racist, but America is like
so racist, So Betto is the worst. But from what
I see from Democrats, people I know and follow and

(01:04:45):
interact with, they're all really unimpressed with Kamala Harris. They
really do not like the campaign that she has run.
So is that who's Is that the fault of sexism
or racism or is it the fault of Kamala Harris
for not doing a good job? The same thing with Hillary?

(01:05:06):
You know, which is it was it a big reason
to vote for Hillary that she's a woman, or was
it a big hindrance to her winning the election that
she's a woman? Oh well, it depends on whether she
wins or not. I guess right, And that's the way
the analysis always goes. Well, it depends on whatever's most
politically useful for her at any point in time. I
just I find it. I honestly and truly find this.

(01:05:28):
It's so boring, it's so typical. She has not run
a she has not run a campaign in this case
with Kamala Harris. By way, Tulsi Gabbert is outperforming Kamala Harris.
Tulsi Gabbert is also I believe qualifies a minority female

(01:05:49):
unless I'm misunderstanding something, And she doesn't complain about this,
so I think the complaints are just a way of
self justifying a weak campaign. But on the on the
other side of political correctness these days. You do have
Dave Chappelle with his most recent special, The Name of It,

(01:06:11):
I'm actually forgetting, but it was do you remember the
name producer? Mark? No, I don't remember that. Whatever, it's good,
go watch it if you haven't seen it. Look, there's
some stuff that's edgy, there's some stuff that you might
even be a little uncomfortable with. Exactly, it's comedy, deal
with it. He's got to push the boundaries a little
Bit's why comedy is so bad right now. In general,
nothing is allowed to be funny. No one's allowed to

(01:06:32):
make a joke. You're at to laugh either, oh can't laugh?
But what about a fuck? I'm doing a bad own
Prussian and I'm just like, hey, I just want to know, like,
am I the single biggest hypocrite in the race? And
then Bernie's like, no, you don't have the biggest. I'm
the biggest. I got three houses, I'm a millionaire. Why
are you doing? But I just like really don't understand
why the American people then just don't like open their

(01:06:55):
hearts to better. Uh. I was I even saying, oh, yeah,
so you can make fun of politicians, that's okay. There
are very few other people you can make fun of
and get away with it. And one of my big
frustrations is that I wish that I could do different
fun accents here on the show, but I can. Basically
can I can reliably and without fear of dramatically negative consequence,

(01:07:19):
do accents of public figures and people from America, you know,
parts of America, and European majority or European countries, and
maybe like Australia and some you know, the English speaking
countries outside of America. That's it. Can't do accents from
different parts of the world. Can't do you know, any

(01:07:42):
any sketch. You look at Robin Williams wouldn't have even
had a comedy career if you were alive today, because
he wouldn't been able to do any things that he
did that made him famous. Not allowed. Can't no jokes,
no Asian accents, no South Asian accents, East Asian accents.
I don't. I don't think i'd be able to. You
can't do a Latino accent. You can't do any of

(01:08:03):
these acts, you know all, to do any accents because
I'm making make doing an accent is terrible. Oh, it's awful. Okay,
I seem unless you know, like I said, I can
do Bernie, you can do better. I can do Russian,
I can do Italian. And those are some places. You know.
I make fun of Irish people all day, but that's
an English people. That's about it. But Dave Chappelle was

(01:08:24):
asked about comedy and political correctness, and I just I
particularly enjoyed his response, would you please play clip eleven?
Producer mark anolitical recorrectness has his face his place. Excuse me.
We all want to live in a polite society. We
just have the kind of work on the levels and
coming to an agreement of what that actually looks like.
I personally am not afraid of other people's freedom of expression.

(01:08:46):
I don't use it as a weapon. It just makes
me feel better. And I'm sorry if I heard anybody,
et cetera, et cetera. Yah yaha, Yeah, everything I'm supposed
to say. I like that. I want to start doing that.
You know, every time, for example, the left puts for
ord a veteran to criticize, to tear down President Trump,
or be part of the soft coup effort to destroy

(01:09:07):
the president, I want to say, you know, YadA da YadA.
Of course, respect the service and all that, all the
things I'm supposed to say. Now, can we talk about
the issue? You know, like, now, can we can we
just assume the things that that, you know, we'll now
have to have to say to establish that we're a
good person before we talk about the issue. And I
think the same thing is is kind of true with
comedy now too. You know, it's like, okay, yeah, so

(01:09:28):
I make some jokes. I don't want to offend anybody,
YadA YadA, YadA, Like, you know, can we just all
be adults about this? Unfortunately the answer is no. But
I want the I want the YadA YadA YadA right
where I can just say, hey, you know, all the
stuff that you already knew about me, blah blah, YadA YadA,
I hate all the terrorists, but let's talk about this
issue or blah blah blah. You know, I believe in

(01:09:50):
the Constitution, and I'm a strong supporter of the United
States military, but I disagree with this particular general on
this thing or whatever it is. Welcome back to my team.
We haven't talked about the story yet. I haven't really
been paying very close attention to it, but it has
been getting a lot of headlines. You have a Democrat

(01:10:10):
member of Congress who has resigned due to a I
guess we could just call it a sex scan. Well,
there's a lot of a lot of moving parts, a
lot of stuff going on here. We have Tiana Lowe,
commentary writer for the Washington Examiner, joining us now to
tell us what Exachie went on here. Tiana, great to
have you back, Hi Buck, thanks for having it all right, So,
so who is this now soon to be former member

(01:10:33):
of Congress and what the heck happened? So Katie Hill
was representing a formerly a very Republican district of Los
Angeles County out Usine Valley, and then she's a diehard
progressive pro Medicare for all that she amounted to a
part of Trump's or the supposed new wave of twenty eighteen.

(01:10:57):
Now red State, the conservative news site. They wrote a
story over a week ago that showed foes and text
messages indicating that Hale had had one affair with her
female campaign staffer and then another affair with an actual

(01:11:20):
staffer in her congressional office. Hale, who is openly bisexual,
apparently engaged the campaign staffer another, a twenty two year
old woman in a thruffle with her husband like a
polyamorous three way relationship now on its face, you know,
if they want to do polyamory. I don't think that

(01:11:40):
her voters would have a problem with that. The issue
is that, you know, a twenty two year old in
a relationship with someone more than a decade her senior
who was also her boss, is a bit problematic. And
especially the texts that were released by Red State indicated
that the that the campaign staffer abused in the relationship

(01:12:02):
and called Hill toxic. And the photos, brother, do we
know where the photos came from? And and I saw
some conservatives you were saying that they felt like the
photos should not have been published or what can you
tell us about that? And what do you think about that?
I mean, I agree whoever leaked the photos does belong

(01:12:22):
in jail because it violates revenge porn statutes in most states,
including California. And it's possible that it was the ex
husband who she's now going through divorced with. You know,
the photos should not have been leaked. However, it is
of national interest if she was having a relationship with
two of her subordinates, one of which violated House ethics

(01:12:46):
rules that were passed just last year. You know, the
House agreed that you that members of Congress are not
allowed to have relationships with the subordinates, and for obvious reasons.
I mean, this is one where the Meto movement was
very necessary. We do have to understand that there are
an abusive power that has involved when you have the
power to hire and fire people. And this is a
part of the reason why conservatives cared about both Clinton

(01:13:08):
and Monica Lewinsky. Um, but those are two separate issues,
and now that the story is out there, yes, resigning
was the right thing to do. Did you notice a
slowness from many of the major outlets to cover because
I know you've been writing about this from the beginning.
Was there a sense that you had that this was
just getting less attention than it would have had the

(01:13:30):
party affiliation of Katie O Congressman Katie Hill been different.
Or do you think that they that this story grew
naturally as more information came out, and that the complaints
that I've seen from some of our somewhat fellow conservatives
out there that this was being suppressed or perhaps a
little bit ahead of ahead of where things were. Oh,

(01:13:50):
this absolutely was slow walks. You know, it took a
week for the story to gain traction. If this were
Dan Crenshaw, there were photos of him nude rushing the
hair of one of his campaign staffers, this would be
primetime News, twenty four hour pearl clutching. Again. I'm not
saying that revenge porn is good or acceptable, or that

(01:14:13):
you know that we should be focusing on the lasciviousness
of the story. But the fact is that, you know,
the mainstream media I had no time, had no problem
salivating over the fact that I believe it was a
Republican Congressman Joe Burton's much to resigned after his ex
paralm war were attempting to extort him with nude photos
and wound up. I believe she released them, and that

(01:14:35):
was the mainstream media story, and no one was calling
him a victim when clearly he was. Do you think
that there's also a problem at the left? Now we're
talking to Tiana Low, everybody, she's a commentary writer at
the Washington Examinery. You can also follow her on Twitter
at Tiana Low. Do you think there's a there's an
issue that the left runs into, or how do you
think they handle? It was clearly there's an issue. How

(01:14:56):
do you think they handle and the problems complexities that
come up for them in dealing with women in power
in workplace situations in the era of Me too, which
has so clearly up to this point been almost entirely
about men abusing positions of power. What do you think
are some of the problems they run into and the

(01:15:17):
application of the me too standard? Well, again, this is
you know, the me too movement isn't about just exerting
third wave feminism, because women are capable of being aggressors,
women are capable of lanning. It's about looking at power
structures and caring of an evidence. And the fact is
that the evidence here was ample and showing that she

(01:15:38):
I mean again, so he'll denies the affair with the
staffer who works for her in Congress or looked for
her in Congress, and she's besign, But the evidence indicates
that she had not one, but two affairs where she
had the power to hire and fire people. And I mean,
when it's two, it's clearly a pattern. And yes, she
should absolutely be held up to account, much as I'll

(01:16:00):
Frank and Law. Are you so resigning was the right move? Yes?
Huh yeah, there we go. So do you think there's
anything that comes after this though? Is there anything else
we should be looking out for any any changes in
the way Congress will handle this stuff going forward? Well,
I think in the way that the media jumped to
a turn out all their actually bag Daddy was courageous

(01:16:24):
for blowing himself up in front of his three children
and killing them in the black. Oh we talked about
Max earlier in the show. He's a lunatic. But keep going.
I think I think just in the way Max Boot realized,
Oh wait, no one else agrees with me because this
story is insane. Like the last twenty four hours, we've
gotten a bunch of sympathetic coverage of Hill and whatnot,
and I think everyone in the rest of the country

(01:16:45):
realizes this isn't about a feminist, and this isn't an
attack on a feminist. This is in me too story
and there's no reason why Hill should be given special treatment.
I think that that much is finally apparent. Now I
know you're a California name. I want to switch gears
for a second. Well, we we're talking about a California
congresswoman too. But do you have an opinion on the

(01:17:08):
the the debate over one whether the fires, because you're
right now, there's all this news footage, right because big
fires gets people to click on things. That's just the
simple reality. A lot of news footage, a lot of
coverage of this. They've got a couple of bad fires
going in Los Angeles area, I believe, and up in
Sonoma County too. Do you have an opinion on why
this is happening or whether there's state's mismanagement to where

(01:17:29):
anything else plays a role in this. Yes, so obviously
climate change is a factor, but a big one does
have to do with how so and so there are
two factors involved in the state and county governance. So
the state government is probably the most to blame because
they don't do controlled for us fires. They don't spend

(01:17:49):
enough money, you know, I mean, La County one and
four out of every ten Angelinos on medical Medicaid medicare,
yet they don't they aren't willing to spend enough mone
me on you know, patrolling the actual safety and preemptively
doing controlled burns. But then also there is apparently an
issue when and I don't know the semantics of it. Bucks.

(01:18:11):
I'm not going to get into too much detail, but
it looks like there's a little bit of corruption between
pg and E, the energy company that is right now
having to do blackout, little blackout. It looks like there
is a little bit of corruption between PGINI and Governor
Gavin K. Newsom, Like I think that PGINI donated to
Newsom's campaign, and uh, I mean, it's everything out there

(01:18:31):
is quite corrupt. I would certainly blame more than anyone
the state government. At what point does the at what
point do is there a critical mass of Californians that
just recognize that, apart from politics, their state government is
a disaster and there needs to be some change. Are
they close to that or is that never going to happen?

(01:18:53):
What you know, because I mean if you look at
this from even from the East coast, I'm here in
New York where we have you know, may or more
on the Blasio running things. But yeah, if we see California,
we see all this stuff going on, We're like, why
can't anybody understand that some of this at least is
the result of crappy government decisions? Do Californias just think
that this is the way it asked to be, or
is there a sense that they're going to cross the
tipping point? I mean, California, the supposedly most progressive country

(01:19:17):
in the States, has a Genie coefficient closer to a
South American country than any rent state. You know, the
income inequality is terrible. The racial divisions are from a
city perspective or not great. An issue there is that
the California State Republican Party has basically given up. If

(01:19:38):
you compare how the Republican Party in Texas treats minorities
in those outreach and how they perform quite well versus California,
you know, the difference is astounding. So it will take both,
I think a collapse, I mean the next ressession. The
debt problem in California is good, prove monumental, but it's

(01:20:00):
you look at. It will take the state government having
a week up call in terms of like the exodus
in the state that's happening right now, and then also
the California Republican Party rebuilding and storming out good candidates.
All Right, we'll have to wait for that. It might
be a while. Yeah, Tiana Loo everybody Washington examin or
check out. Well, what's your next piece going to be on?
Or have you not decided yet? I haven't decided yet

(01:20:25):
keeping tabs on this Ukraine thing. So we'll see. All right,
We'll go to Watchington Examiner dot com. Look for Tiana
Low follow on social media Twitter and Facebook and stuff. Gianna,
thanks for joining, Thank you buck. Let's talk about Medicare
for All for a moment, shall we? Oh? Yes, primary
policy idea of the Democrats right now, the single biggest

(01:20:47):
debate in the country over a true policy issue. And
there is a bipartisan group that has just looked at
Medicare for all and guess what, folks, It is too
much money. The only ways I mean, if you're just
looking at this as a pure function of the numbers,

(01:21:08):
the only ways to get anything close to funding for
Medicare for all, And that's assuming you don't have spikes
and usage, because now people just show up like, oh,
I'll go to the doctor. I'll go to the doctor.
Who cares? Would be if you instituted crippling taxes on everybody?
This is what this piece today is Medicare for All

(01:21:31):
study funding Medicare for All with tax and the riches impossible,
according to this study is a bipartisan budget watchdog report
that was just released, and here are some of the
most worthwhile findings. Quote. There's not enough annual income available
among higher earners to finance the full cost of Medicare

(01:21:53):
for All on a static basis. Even increasing the top
two income tax rates blind to individuals making over two
hundred thousand dollars a year and couples making over four
hundred three per year to one hundred percent would not
raise thirty trillion dollars over a decade. An accompanying chart

(01:22:13):
in the study lists the tax the rich funding option
as impossible. The options for financing Medicare for All without
increasing taxes are similarly immoderate. The CRFB says the federal
government would need to cut the non health federal spending
by eighty percent in order to pay for Medicare for

(01:22:35):
All without increasing taxes. This would require get ready for it,
it's gonna be fun, cutting Social Security benefits from approximately
eighteen thousand dollars to about thirty six hundred dollars each year,
and cut troop numbers wait for it, from one point
three million to two hundred and seventy thousand, so truly

(01:23:00):
slash and burn the military down to numbers that would
be unrecognizable to America for the last couple hundred years,
and make social security benefits far less for people. And
this is just there's only so many ways you can
try to move these numbers around. You can try to

(01:23:23):
rebalance them, cut here, slash there, tinker around the edges.
And then you might say, well, what about modern monetary
theory buck that I say, oh, they looked at that
as well. Quote deficit financing Medicare for all would be
far more damaging to the economy, according to report, assuming

(01:23:46):
that such a massive increase in the debt would not
royal financial markets or lead to high inflation, we estimate
that one one hundred and eight percent of GDP increase
in the federal debt would shrink the size of the
economy by roughly five percent in twenty thirty, the equivalent
of a forty five hundred dollars reduction in per person income,

(01:24:09):
and far more than that in the following years. You
can't pay for this with the rich, and you can't
pay for this without massive tax increases. And if you
try to pay for it by just adding to our
already out of controlled debt. Guess what you're going to creter.

(01:24:30):
You're going to create the economy. And that's assuming that
there's not just a crisis that comes up that would
make everybody much poorer and worse off and all the
rest of it. But you know, I remember I was
at I was a politicon talk with people, and they
these democrats on stage with me. They think you're crazy,
or they think I'm crazy because I look at this

(01:24:53):
and I see the numbers, and I say, this is
not a good idea. There is a faith based component
in medicare for all. Remember a lot of people who
are big time statists tend to be a lot of
them tend to be atheists or people of no particular faith.

(01:25:14):
And the state, then is what it would be in
loco dais in place of God. The state is in
place of God. The state plays the role of God
in many people's lives, and therefore they have no problem
with the state growing all the time and becoming a
more prominent part of everyone's lives and having more power,

(01:25:34):
because that's just going to be better for all of us.
But there's a deep ideological need that many people have
who are supporting this Medicare for All proposal to remove
any market based incentives, any individual choice from this equation
and make it all about just the government writing at checks.

(01:25:56):
The government's writing at checks. And to this, I also
just want to say health it's a very personal thing
for all of us. We all make decisions that affect
our health. I mean, you know, I know, for example,
I should eat less chocolate and like not drink tequila
and mescal during the week, but like, sometimes I want
some chocolate, you know, sometimes you know you want you
don't want any decide salad, you want to order a franchise.

(01:26:16):
We're all making decisions all the time about our health
that affect our health, I should say, And it's really
more about habits than I know, that's silly to say
any eating any one thing, but it's about habits that
we have. But we also have to understand that the
choices that we make about which doctors to see about
are about how we're going to try and maintain a

(01:26:36):
certain level of health. Those are going to affect us
no matter what the government does or sets And I
think this is where there needs to be a bigger
discussion about how people how do people stay healthy In America,
We're always talking about previousing conditions and people with terrible diseases,
and that's not where most healthcare spending is. Preseasing conditions
actually a very small part of healthcare spending. I mean,

(01:27:00):
put aside whether the people are covered or not. I
just mean that that's a very very small segment of
the population, a true pre existing condition that would have
been uninsurable before Obamacare. Most healthcare spending is lifestyle disease related,
most of it, or old age, and those are things
that require an approach of people educating themselves, making smart choices,

(01:27:27):
making a decision, and a different approach from the medical
community about how to encourage healthy behaviors earlier and younger.
And you know this is it's just such a bigger
issue than Oh, the Governm's gonna write the check for everything.
Everything's gonna be fine, you know what I mean. If
the government is going to be writing the check for
your treatments because you have you know, cirrhosis of the

(01:27:48):
liver for example. You know that, Okay, someone's writing the checks,
but it would have been much better to figure out
how to stop that from happening. Stop the drinking that
led to that perhaps this is just it's more of
a philosophical discussion. But medicare for all. It's not going
to solve all the problems, is what I'm saying. You
all know that I find the border to be one
of the most important issues facing the country. I think
it's fascinating and I think it's one of the areas

(01:28:08):
that we see the greatest amount of obvious dishonesty from
the mainstream media in their coverage of it. And that
then brings me to a story that I saw it.
I thought, why isn't this getting more attention? And you know,
and it's because the media is completely invested in the
Russia Ukraine. Trump is a trader, Trump needs to be impeached.

(01:28:29):
All that that just dominant. That takes all the oxygen
out of the room. But this story is important. This
story matters in a way that I think people should
be much more aware of, much more cognizant of. And
it has to do with the Trump administration at the border,
testing or getting ready to test. It's I think they've

(01:28:51):
started to do it, but they're keeping it pretty close
hold right now. How it's working. Rapid Asylum Review, which
would mean that now border patrol and this is going
to change the process, and oh, we know there's going
to be all these lawsuits. But here's the basics of it,
the whole scam that and it was a scam. The

(01:29:11):
scam that has been run by predominantly Central American but
not entirely Central American illegal immigrants in the United States,
illegal aliens in the United States is based on exploiting
the inability of the system to process people in a
timely enough fashion, so that what ends up happening is

(01:29:33):
they're releasing the interior of the United States and released
with the promise that they will come, that they will
come back and show up further hearings. And as we know,
once you're in the United States, you established more roots
and then you have, you know, all these lawyers that
are free that will come and pro bono represent you
against the immigration courts, and they're all these so it

(01:29:54):
makes it very unlikely, very hard than any of these
people who are coming in this we're going to be deported.
So it became a big backed or scam to get
in the United States. Say you're fleeing violence in a
Central American country, Well, I mean all these Central American
countries were talking about have very high per capita homicide rates,
so anyone therefore could claim they're fleeing violence. And if
anyone could claim they're fleeing violence, well THENI minus would

(01:30:16):
just allowed the entire country of Honduras do just come
to America, and I bet a lot of them would
if they thought they could. So we've seen this scampling,
and the Democrats lied about this, and the media lied
about this. There's oh, they're just there's no one lying,
and there's no one who's scamming the system. Of course
there were. You had thirty year old saying that they

(01:30:36):
were seventeen, so they could come in as an unaccompanied minor.
You good people renting children's they could pose as family units,
you god, people who were reading from a script that
they had been taught by the cartels, so they could
get past the initial screening at the southern border. Get
all this stuff going on, and the Trump administration at
every turn has been stymied, has been has been slowed

(01:31:00):
down by Democrats and leftists who are open borders but
won't admit that their open borders. It's a very important
thing that we must all keep in mind. Here they
just want any new shows up gets to stay, especially
from a third world, especially if you're non English speaking,
you show up America, you should get to stay. That
is a widespread belief on the left. And they'll say, oh,

(01:31:21):
but we're all a nation of immigrants, and we're all yeah, right,
legal immigrants. I'm not supposed to be a nation of
people who come and breaking the law. And also the
nation of immigrants thing, are we talking about pre ye,
post welfare state, Great Society programs nineteen sixties, all that
stuff we're talking about before that or after that? Because
there's a pretty there's some pretty big distinctions in there

(01:31:42):
about the incentives for coming to this country. But the
Trauma administration was having a lot of problem in this
whole situation because the process was over The processes were overwhelmed.
People knew that they were exploiting that and they were
taking vantage. All right, So then we get to, well

(01:32:02):
what can be done about it? And they tried this
remain in Mexico program, Well, that would that would deal
with the incentive in this way, if you're not if
you come to the board. At first of all, they're
illegally crossing because another way they're trying to limit this
was to say that you have to wait at a
portive entry. They can only process so many people that
are port of entry every day. So then the illegal
aliens would just cross illegally New America, but then claim

(01:32:23):
defensive asylum secondary asylum and say, oh, no, I want
asylum even though I came into your country illegally. And
then they get into this process where they stay in
America and they're never going to leave. So to deal
with that, we'd say, okay, you're gonna claim defensive asm.
What if we keep you in Mexico while you're waiting
for your asylum hearings. A lot of them are a
lot of them all of a sudden stop showing up

(01:32:45):
because that's not what they are. That's not what they want.
They want to be released in the interier of the
United States. They want to be on US soil and
then try to game the system so they can stay.
So if you keep them on Mexican soil while they're
waiting to get their asylum hearing, that's a big removal
of incentive. Oh and the liberals fought against this and
their lawsuits and judges and you know, federal judges. Oh

(01:33:06):
you can't do that. Why can't they do that? Oh,
you can't do that because we say so. Still waiting
for a ninth Circuit judge to overturn Trump's killing of
Baghdaddy under the Administrative Procedure Act unconstitutional. The killing of Baghdaddy.
I'm sure there's a lib somewhere who's gonna say it,
who's gonna try to put that through. I'm kidding, but

(01:33:28):
only kind of. But the other the story that I
thought was so interesting that just came out in the
last few days is that they're now testing the administration
is testing rapid asylum review. Rapid asylum review. Huh So
what this would be is a change in the process

(01:33:48):
where instead of just doing a very preliminary credible fear
screening by border patrol, border patrol would do a more
extensive credible fear screening to see if somebody should even
be let into the country to begin the asylum process.
They probably as able to ask for some supporting documentation

(01:34:09):
or some details of this credible fear ie people being told, Hey,
just the cartels telling these illegal aliens just say that
you're fleeing gang violence, and you know, if you go home,
you'll be killed, then you'll be let into America. Well,
if you have somebody there who's obviously Spanish speaking, who
can say, all right, which gang was it, what threats
did you receive? Did you file up police report? Why

(01:34:31):
are they targeting you and not other people? Any you know,
very straightforward questions. I think we all know what would happen.
There wouldn't be answers to this because it's a scam,
but they think that they might be able to through
this program begin to process asylum applications in this way
within ten days. So now you would stay in border

(01:34:53):
patrol custody, not be released in the interior of the
United States, and get it done within ten days, whether
or not you even can begin the ASI lem review
process because under law, you have to establish the credible
fear standards. So this is now saying, well, they're gonna
put a little more, a little more teeth into the
credible fear standard and make this something that's a real standard.

(01:35:14):
This could be a game changer the southern border. The
crossing is already down, but this could be a game changer.
You know, it's going to be fascinating to watch all
of these Democrats and open border activists and media virtue
signalers who are going to say this is terrible. They're
not getting their due process. Why is in a due process?

(01:35:34):
Why should lawyers show up and tell these people what
to say so that they can try to game the
system and stay in America. They should be able to
answer straightforward questions about whether or not that why they
say they have a credible fear standard, or why they
meet that credible fear standard. Folks, the game looks like
it may be up soon here, and I think we

(01:35:56):
all need to remember that there were many people, many
prominent people, millionaires, the media, and others, who were willing
to just go along with the lies in this because
it made them feel like they were good people. And
that's what the Democrats wanted, That's what the left wanted. Oh,
we're also open minded, we have open hearts about all
this stuff. No one's lying, we've just taken people. Well,

(01:36:16):
does everyone get to say no? Not everyone gets to
say just everyone who comes and lies to border patrol
about credible fear. Just every family unit that shows up
explicitly to exploit a law meant to prevent the exploitation
of children through trafficking. But now with families, they realize
that we can't separate the kids, so they keep showing up.
The good faith and good will of the American people

(01:36:39):
was being taken advantage of by a lot of people
that are Southern border, and I I understand many of them
are poor and desperate, and I get that it doesn't
make them bad people, but it doesn't mean that we
have to continue policies that encourage that exploitation. A Trump
administration right now is trying to shut that down. Give
them process, and I think that that's a good thing.
We shall see if it works. Get ready for all

(01:36:59):
the challenge. Hey, Team Buck, It's time for roll call.
Team Bucket. Iheartbe dot com or Facebook dot com, slash
Buck Saxon if you want to be a part of

(01:37:20):
the roll call action. We have Paul writing in first
here and he writes hey Buck, hopeball as well in
the Freedom Hut. It's okay. It's okay. Brucer Mark is
not particularly grumpy today, so that's a good thing. I
was listening to Friday's show and wanted to update you

(01:37:40):
on your prediction about a Hollywood mainstreaming the idea about polygamy.
Poly amorousness or PolyAm or whatever you call it. There
are at least two shows about this topic that have
appeared on TV, Big Love, which ran from twenty sixteen
to twenty eleven on HBO, and Sister Wives, which started

(01:38:01):
in twenty ten and is still producing new episodes on TLC.
The list of entertainment to deal with a topic on
streaming services an alternative tech is too large to get into.
It's kind of scary. There's always Love, Love, Love the
show Love the hair Shield Saw Paul, Paul, you have
great taste in radio shows as well as hair so

(01:38:21):
thank you so much for that. Um. Yeah, but Big
Love is about polygamy, which is I guess a little
different than polyamorous or poly is the is the noun polyamorer.
I don't know what you proiser, Mark, do you know?
I mean you're about to get married, so I mean,
I'm assuming you know this is not not an area
that it's really across your radar all that much. Oh,

(01:38:44):
I didn't tell you I'm getting married to different I
could say you're getting married to a few people that
would that would make sense. Um, that's gotta be expensive, right.
Peoples can play about kids can you imagine having multiple wives? Oh,
that'd be terrible expensive. You know, why would I want
to get nagged by more than one one? How is it? Well?
How how many times can you go through the boring
details of your day before it turns into a violation

(01:39:05):
of the Geneva Convention? Yeah? Do you just do it?
Like in a group about your day and then asking shit?
Everybody down, like you got a blackboard behind you and
a pointerre like, and then I had lunch and then
I did this and then you know, but really they
don't want to they don't care about They just want
to tell you about their day exactly. So that's you
gotta get through that fast. And then you got to
sit there and then she said this about me, and

(01:39:26):
I'm so upset about this. I'm like, then she said this,
and then she said this other thing. See I voted
that for a long time working nights. Now that we're
during the day, I get that again. Yeah, there we go, Thanks, Buck,
That's what I'm here for, James great first name, Hey Buck.
I will never vote for a socialist or any of
the far left totalitarian controllers. Uh Nazis are far left too. Um,

(01:39:52):
I'll stick to the right of center where our wives
founders placed us. And there we go. James A. Boston,
Thank you, James Austin. Let's see here. Brandon Buck, one
of the main characters, was part of a terrorist group.
It was also part of a of a polyamorous group
in the show Caprica Battlestar Galactica prequel from Brandon, I

(01:40:18):
didn't I don't know, you know, I'm gonna say it.
I couldn't get through Battlestar Galactica. I got. I thought
the graphics and stuff were too cheesy. I got, I
got bored. And I know people say it's an amazing
show and it's like life changing if you watch it.
I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. I couldn't
get excited about Battlestar Galactic I I really, I really
did try. Uh don take this ball and run, run run.

(01:40:42):
What an inspiration for our world. This president has confirmed
we have extinguished a demonically driven individual. How can anyone
our immediately try to spin this blah blah? There we go,
Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Bruce Book, you and your
produced your sufferer from only knowing well the happenings during

(01:41:02):
your lifetimes in sports, movies and music, no one can
match Wilt Chamberlain. He averaged fifty points per game for
one season and one scored one hundred points in the game.
The NBA even changed the court layout because of him.
I believe they widened the lane so there was more
room for penetration towards the goal without an automatic block

(01:41:23):
by Wilt the stilt Bruce in New Orleans, probably listening down,
hopefully down on our wonderful New Orleans radio station which
people can listen on, which is a lot of fun.
What do you have? What you got to say something? Well,
I was beat about and shouldn't you know the station? Yeah?
Of course I know the station. It's a wonderful station,

(01:41:43):
of course. Yeah, don't worry about it. Uh done. Add
Charlie Daniels band to your playlist. I don't know what
that is. Who is that? I don't know. It sounds
like a band. Yeah, sounds like a music recommendation. Yeah,
there we go. Maureen hey Buck and producer Mark you

(01:42:08):
men of mystery. She wrote it not me about the
whole polyamory thing. You were sometimes conflating all the variations
of such lifestyles. So here's some clarity for your listeners.
Polygamy is one man with more than one wife, you know,
I know. Polyandry is one woman with more than one husband. Oh,
I didn't know that, and they are only with her

(01:42:29):
and nobody else. Wait, polyander is one woman with more
than one husband and there with her and nobody else.
That's a thing. I don't even know. I don't even
know that was a thing. Did you know that was
a thing. I hadn't even heard of that. Learning new stuff,
all right. Polyamory, however, is a total sexual free for all.

(01:42:50):
It's one man and one woman in a relationship together,
often married, but they're free to be with any man
and woman they want to be with as many partners
of either gender as they want. It's a total free
for all, both sides of a very non monogamous pairing.
That's polyamory. It's sad. I know about the stuff, but
I'm a psychotherapist, so I just know about things. By
the way. I'm grateful. That's why she knew what polyandry.

(01:43:10):
I never that was like some that's some textbooks. That's
some textbook level stuff. Yeah, that's like with the dusty
books behind the doc You know what I mean that
you're like, what is in there? Polyandry's in those books?
I don't even know what that is. By the way,
I'm so grateful for your podcast, as you often get,
but you often get preempted for stupid sports. I love football,
but not if it hears if it interferes with hearing
your voice. So the podcast assures me I'll never have

(01:43:31):
to miss a broadcast. I saw it on Pluto TV once,
but it's not as convenient as your podcast sometimes, so
you do keep many of a safe and warm listening to.
You're simply the best Maureen in California. Well, thank you
so much, Maureen. And yes, remember, folks, if you're ever
unable to listen on your local radio station, you can
always listen to the podcast. So that's why I ask

(01:43:52):
that you please subscribe, even if you're not somebody listens
to a lot of podcasts, Please do subscribe the podcast
of the Buck Sexton Show. And that way, when ever
you want to listen to any day, it'll be on
your phone. Subscribe on iTunes or on the iHeart app,
and also download Pluto TV and you can watch this show.
Channel two forty eight, the first the best channel there's

(01:44:12):
a lot of stuff on there though, just so I'm
saying it's a worthwhile after you to download in general.
But the first channel two forty eight on Pluto is
where we do our show, and Jesse Kelly also shows
up and does his show, and we're gonna have other
people joining in the action in the weeks and months ahead,
which is gonna be fantastic. That's gonna be our show.
We gotta go because producer Mark's got important things to do,
but we will talk to you all tomorrow. Shield's Hot

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Host

Buck Sexton

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Hero Dog Unites America