A Criminal Without A Crime?

veterans of the United States Special Forces. These guys are amazing. Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things so easy. Just pick your blending amount you want and they'll ship the coffee right to your door. Check this out for yourself. They offer three, six and twelve month prepaid and pay as you go subscriptions. The best tasting, most energizing coffee imaginable, and they help veteran first responder causes. Black Rifle Coffee

is the gift that keeps on giving. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck for fifteen percent off. You are entering the Freedom Hunch, an epic throwdown in the Oval Office with President Trump, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer over the wall and the possible shutdown. Looks like maybe Republicans are growing a bit of a backbone here. We've 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 with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, you want to say, Here's what I want to say. We have a lot of disagreements here. The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of pinocchios because they say you constantly misstake how much of the wall is built and how much

is there. But that's not the point here. We have a disagreement about the wall, Washington, whether it's effective or or not on board of security, but on the wall. We do not want to shut down the government. You have called twenty times to shut down the government. Who say I want to shut down the government, We don't. We want to come to an agreement. If we can't come to an agreement. We have solutions that will pass the House and send it right now, and we'll not

shut down the government. And that's what we're urging you to do. Not threatened to shut down the government because you let me just finish, because you can't pitch it down. You give me say something, mister President, you just say my way, or will shut down the government. We have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do a cr that will not shut down the government. We urge you to take it. If it's not good border security, I will very welcome to the Buck Saxon Show. Oh man,

it was good stuff today of the Oval Office. This is the Trump that we signed up for. This is the Trump that I want to see, the Trump that makes the case in front of the American people and holds the Libs feet to the fire so to speak, I mean makes them make the case publicly. And you could tell Pelosi and Schumer, oh, they wanted no part of what President Trump was bringing today because they know

that Trump is better at this than they are. You know, without a completely in the tank for her press corps, Pelosi is exposed. She knows that, you know, Pelosi never asked to take tough questions from anybody. Pelosi doesn't have to really explain herself in any meaningful way. She just just treated like the queen all the time. And you know, Chuck Schumer same thing, treated like the King of the Democrats. And Trump was just saying, look, you know, I'm sorry,

we gotta have a wall here. I mean this, This whole debate, this whole discussion over a wall and whether we should have one or not, gets gets compleatly lost with the pensial efforts of the media to obscure what's really going on. And the dumbest talking point that I've heard on almost any subject is walls don't work. Of course, walls work. Walls work in the San Diego sector of the border. Walls have worked for as long as human beings have been building things. A wall is a barrier.

To say that a wall does not work is like saying a lock does not work. How many of you have a lock on your door, on your front door, maybe on more than just that, maybe you're you know, all over your house, But how many of you have a lock. If I came to you and I said, a lock on your front door is stupid. I could get into your house. I could break through your window. Why do you lock your front door? Would you say, yeah,

you're right, no more locks. No if I said locks don't work, because I could just you know, pick the lock, or I could kick the door, and you say locks don't work. No. Charity is never about what's perfect. Security is about trying to lessen the chance of something bad happened, or a lessen an occasion from arising the idea that a wall is supposed to stop everybody. No one says that, but let's just make it a little bit harder than Hey, I got to the border, I'm gonna walk across now.

People say, well, buck, there's border patrol. Okay, fine, Yeah, that's why it's not just a wall. I appreciate when they say that, because they're really making the argument for me. Yes, we do have border patrol. We do have either some surveillance capability, and there are efforts to police and patrol the border of effectively, although they're not enough. A wall makes those efforts more successful, makes it harder for people

to just continue to come into the country. And either the Democrats are just they are absolutely making it up as they go along on this thing. They're saying they'll give one point five billion. That's what they always get for board and security, ay, a pace for some things here and there, pays for some government employees and some other things, you know. And the Republican plan it's like, look, give us five billion and we'll get started building this wall.

You know, it's now or never for a wall, folks. I mean, you remember Trump at all these different rallies. You remember what he was saying. He was you know, the proposal was not I'll get you give me sixty senators and I'll get a wall. You know, the president we can go into a government shutdown, they can decide not to immediately fund all aspects of eighty five percent the government gets fund. I mean, that's there's so much propaganda around this. It's not even a government shutdown. It's

a partial government furlough. And it's really just a fragment of the government. So this is not catastrophic. But you know, it makes the point the Republicans they've got the lame ducks. I shouldn't they're looking at trying to get something done here. And you know that that Democrats the way they the

way they fight this. You know, the way the way they're presenting this is that they say, uh, that that they don't want to spend the money, and that it doesn't work, and all these things are just are just nonsense. Five billion dollars, that's what they think is is so

unexactly five billion dollars. I mean, when you look at how much money we've been spending overseas in recent years for things that do not benefit the American people nearly as much as actual border security would, you're telling we're gonna have five billion dollars for this. It is nonsense.

But they know this is just about the politics. This is about who is going to as it always is with the shutdowns, who is going to get the blame, and Pelosi, Pelosi and Shuber wanting to be very clear that they're, you know, they're going to blame the president for this shutdown. Play seventeen. The bottom line is simple. The President made clear that he wants a shutdown his position. If he sticks to his position for a five billion dollars wall, he will get no wall, and he will

get a shutdown. Let's see, Chucky, Let's see what he's got. Here's Pelosi. By the way, on. She calls it in this clip the Trump shutdown, which I think is just you know, because she does. I think she still stings that. Remember Trump said the Schumer shutdown, and that kind of stuck people. Remember, oh, yeah, the Schumer shutdown. When when Schumer's going to shut down the government and then he backed off of it, right or he backed off after the short shutdown? Play clip at twelve. Some wall has

been reinforced by our military. Military has done a fantastic job. So the wall would get built. But we may not. We may not have an agreement today. We probably won't, but we have an agreement on other things that are really good. Nancy, would you like to say something, well, thank you, mister President's the opportunity to meet with you so that we can work together in a bipartisan way

to meet the needs of the American people. I think American people recognize that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is not worth anything, and that you should not have a Trump shutdown. You have the Trump Trump down. You have a White House, you have the Senate, you have the House of Representatives, you have the vote. You should pass it. Trump. You could tell he got a little exasperate or there too, where Nancy says that Trump shutdown,

He's like, you gotta be you gotta be kidding me. Really, But now Trump has said that if there is a shutdown, I think he just doesn't like that she's taken his taking his style there a little bit because he got the whole Schumer shutdown thing going. But Trump is saying, yeah, he's he's he's down to do this. In fact, he's saying, just straight up, I'm gonna do this. I'm gonna shut down the government if you do not give me the wall play eleven. Oh we don't have eleven. Oh we

already played it. Yeah, Well, he says, I'm proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. People in this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. Trump has drawn a line of the sand here. He's either doing it or he's not doing it, and I don't know how he backs off it. At this point, they're either giving him the money or he's gonna have to shut down the government. You know, the Democrats are fundamentally unserious

about this, and that's why I like this approach. I want this out there. I want them to have to explain themselves because otherwise what happens is, you know, they all do this behind closed doors thing. They all have this discussion that we don't get to see, we don't know what's happening, and then no one gets any blame. And when there's no blame because you don't know who's

responsible for what, there can't be any accountability. And if there's no accountability within the slimy politicians get away with saying whatever they want, and when it comes time for reelection, you know, they'll just they'll change it up and start saying, oh, you know, I was a stalwart on the boarder. I was never gonna get know. They just make it up as they go along. It's just all a big bachanall of self interest on Capitol Hell for the most part anyway.

And that's what's really going on. So I would like this to be out there for us to see. I want Trump to be making this case in front of the American people. You know who doesn't want it, Nancy Pelosi to play fourteen. They're here to have a conversation careful way. So I don't think we should have the debate and trying to press on this. But the fact is the Senate of the House, Republicans could bring up this bill if they had the vote immediately and set

the tone for what you want. If we thought we were going to get it passed in the Senate, Nancy, we would do it immediately, would get it passed very easily. In the House, we would, Nancy, I'd have it passed in two seconds. It doesn't matter though, because we can't get a pass in the center because we need ten Democrat volks. Let us have our conversation now. Depressing you know, it just doesn't make any sense. I don't understand what

what what Nancy Pelosi even things she's saying here. There's some problem with as Trump says, transparency, with with finding out you know, why are Democrats so opposed to this? There's the Secure Fence Act was voted on big bipartisan majorities two thousand and six. Has really that much changed. This just used to be an area where the country was at least our elected leadership was pretending to be

in wide agreement. But then Republicans, a lot of them sold out the donor class, a lot of them became kind of infected with this uh you know, ultra free market, free movement of people, libertarian, you know, mumbo jumbo, and they started believing this stuff. They started believing, you know, hey, it doesn't really matter the more of the merrier. You know, we don't really need a secure border. We don't need any border. Really. There are someone who say they're on

the right who believe this. And then for the Democrats, they just realize, oh, this is this is ball game for us. This means everything else that they want will be made possible through continued illegal immigration and through the amnesty of the illegal aliens already of the country. And they know that they only have to win this fight and then they'll win all the others. That's why this is so important to them, and that's why they're willing

to make arguments. They aren't even really arguments. It's just kind of you know, whining and accusations and oh it's so racist and xenophobic, and this is what they say. I have to deal with watching different pundits go on TV. I mean, this part of my job is knowing what all these clowns are saying all the time. And I heard, at least I've heard at least three people in the last couple of days say some variation of you know,

experts agree that a wall won't work. And I sit here and I say to myself, well, I've been told by the head of Border Patrol, by senior ice officials, by former border patrol officials, of course a wall will work. So who are these wall experts who don't actually work in border security and don't know what they're talking You know, where is the where is the expert consensus so to speak, that we shouldn't have a wall. It just appears in

media reports. You know, they ask somebody from like the you know, the Center for Migrant Rights AKA, like you know, a George Soros. I don't think that's probably a real place. So I'm just I tried to make that up off top of my head. But you know, some George Soros funded outfit somewhere that's saying, yay, you know it just all the experts agree a wall doesn't work. That's just

this is buffoonish. He's buffoonish. If you're if you're trying to get you know, from point A to point B and there's a ten foot wall with patrol on one side of it, are you more or less likely to get from A to B. It's all about the numbers, all about the percentages. And the Liberals know this. They know this, but they're being so they're being so dishonest on it. Here here's where I am on this, though I got more on this. This is really important. I

gotta tell you. I had been very cynical as you listen to the show, no cynical about whether Republicans will hold the line on this one. And Trump hasn't done it yet, but he said we're gonna get a wall, and he after today's performance, I don't understand. I don't even know how it's possible that the president of the United States could walk away from this issue and not fight it, fight it out to the to the max.

I mean, just just absolutely all in on this issue and then make Democrats defend the fact that you know that they were the ones that refused to budge on this. They refused to allow there to be this spending. And look, it's it's just the fact that we need a supermajority in the Senator else they won't let anything get through on the on this budgetary matter. They won't let anything happen and I would note that there's nothing constitutional about this.

There's there's nothing written that says you need sixty senators to be able to do anything worthwhile in the Senate. This is this is all these different career as politicians in Capitol Hill. They set the system up so they can evade accountability. They set the system up so they can all tell their constituents their state or their district, oh, sure,

I really want to do this thing for you. But then when push comes to shove, they don't get caught holding the bag because they don't want to do that thing, but they don't want to come out and say it. We need to push. Now is the time Trump can win this fight and change the whole conversation going into twenty twenty. He can change it now, and he cannot. He cannot sell out his base on this one. We

will remember remember I as a Trump voter. I will remember he said they got to give him the money or we're going into a shut Look, if the shutdown happens, then it's a huge disaster for Republicans and they get you know, well, then we'll have a talk. But they got to at least have the fight or else or else. The world's kind of words coming to us from them, from the president of this issue just have no meaning anymore. All Right, we got more coming, team. I'll be right back.

His presentation to the press today. So when I said let's have this conversation, they said, oh, you want to keep it from the public. No, we don't want to contradict the president again and again in front of the public. But if that's what he wants, and that's what we have to do. I mean, what he was saying was

just not factual. You get a little bit of crazy Nancy here saying the reason she doesn't want the discussion about the shutdown and immigration, all that stuff that happened, the reason she doesn't want that to be out in the open is for the president's own good Oh yeah, that's right. She cares so much about making sure that President Trump doesn't look bad. That's why she doesn't want to. Do you think Nancy Pelosi can even keep a straight face?

Well she while she says this stuff. Do you think Nancy Pelosi is even able to make the case with any seriousness that she is in fact it has the best has the best interests of the president at a heart. Here, I don't think anybody really believes. I don't think Nancy Pelosi believes that. I really don't. I think that if you were to spend just a couple of seconds thinking

about it, you're like, yeah, buy that Nancy. Thanks though, So it's a nice idea, But no, no, she doesn't want this to be something that the American people get to see for themselves. She does not want people to be in a position to evaluate the arguments of both sides, because what is the Democrat argument here? Really, we won't spend money to build a wall. I mean, they'll think of the things that the federal government does, spend all kinds of money on your money, by the way, and

your children, really your grandchildren's money. This would this would be low. Even if the wall didn't work nearly as well as I and many others like me think it will. If it had one tenth of the effect, it would be not even close to the most wasteful expenditures the government's made in the last five years, and not even close. I remember the Obama administration. Administration spent a trillion dollars on stimulus. Anybody remember anything we got from the stimulus

prob A trillion dollars anything that was worthwhile. I don't even think the Obama administration remembers anything that was worthwhile this presentation to the press today. So when I said let's have this conversation, they said, oh, you want to keep it from the public. No, we don't want to contradict the president again and again in front of the public. But if that's what he wants, and that's what we

had to do. I mean, what he was saying was just not Actually, you got a little bit of crazy Nancy here saying the reason she doesn't want the discussion about the shutdown and immigration, all that stuff that happened, the reason she doesn't want that to be out in the open is for the president's own good Oh yeah, that's right. She cares so much about making sure that President Trump doesn't look bad. That's why she doesn't want to. Do you think Nancy Pelosi can even keep a straight

face while she while she says this stuff. Do you think Nancy Pelosi is even able to make the case with any seriousness that she is in fact it has the best has the best interests of the president at heart here. I don't think anybody really believes I don't think Nancy Pelosi believes that. I really don't. I think that if you were to spend just a couple of seconds thinking about it, you're like, yeah, buy that Nancy.

Thanks though, So it's a nice idea, But no, no, she doesn't want this to be something that the American people get to see for themselves. She does not want people to be in a position to evaluate the arguments of both sides, because what is the Democrat argument here? Really, we won't spend money to build a wall. I mean, they'll think of the things that the federal government does, spend all kinds of money on your money, by the way,

and your children, really, your grandchildren's money. Would this would be low Even if the wall didn't work nearly as well as I and many others like me think it will, if it had one tenth of the effect, it would be not even close to the most wasteful expenditures the government's made in the last five years, not even close. I remember the Obama inistration administration spent a trillion dollars on stimulus. Anybody remember anything we got from the stimulus

a trillion dollars, anything that was worthwhile. I don't even think the Obama administration remembers anything that was worthwhile. The last time, Chuck, you shut it no, no, no, and then you won't wait any time quickly. And I don't want to do what you did twenty times have called for. I will shut down the government if I don't get my wool, none of us. If you want to know something you said you want to put that on, set it,

I'll take it. Okay, good, you know what, I'll say, yes, if we don't get what we want one way or the other, whether it's through you, through military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government absolute enough, and I am proud and I'll disagree. I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mental I will

be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down and I'm going to shut it down for border But we believe you shouldn't shut it down. Thank you very much, everybody boo oom, Mike drop courtesy of El Presidente himself, mister Donald Trump, we got somebody who can show additional lights on this throwdown in the Oval Office today, Our main man, Sagar and Jetty is

back in the house. He is the White House correspondent for the Daily Caller. He is there when all this wonderful, incredible, jaw dropping stuff goes on in the Oval Office and the West Wing. You name. It's good to have you back, Hey, thanks for having me Buck, So were you in the room for this throwdown? This was quite a scene. Now, the way it works is only a select group of reporters, whoever is assigned to that day. You don't know what's

going to happen. They're the ones that get to go, but we get to watch them all kind of come back in to our workspace. And there was just like a feeling of absolute disbelief. Nobody ever gets to see this type of thing play out in front of the cameras. But it's actually pretty amazing. You know. People were saying, oh my gosh, I can't believe that the president do

this in front of TV. I mean, this is how it usually works, right, But instead of reading about it in Tomorrow's Washington Post, with you know, people saying, oh, well, it was a heated Oval Office meeting, we just got to see it all for ourselves, which was great. Yeah. I don't understand this argument. I mean the fact that Pelosi made it, I think is in a sense it's great. You know that she's saying, we don't want to have a debate in front of the press. Why not, You're

about to be speaking for the House. He's the president. Why can't we hear what you think on this? Why does it have to be behind closed doors and then filtered through you know, CNN, MSNBC in the New York Times? Correct Buck, I mean you and as the President said it pretty exactly right. I think where he said it's called transparency. Nancy, I mean, if you really can't, if you can't debate these things in front of the press,

I mean, what are people particularly afraid of here? She actually said afterwards that the reason that she didn't want the press to be in there, it's because she felt bad correcting the president's facts and his misstatements. It was pretty striking. It was pretty striking to see how how how much they kind of uh were a big cowed by the President whenever he went after them in front of the in the Oval. Well, I also think that those are those are two politicians who, in particular are

just not used to it. I mean they're not used to hostile treatment from the press for sure. I mean the press is always coddling and trying to take care of them and make sure that they look they look as good as possible. And I think the president. I watched the thing and I thought, wow, the Democrats really don't I mean, Nancy Pelosi kept harping on how you know he doesn't have the votes in the House. It's like, well, Nancy, why is that your argument for why this can't get done?

You know, let's see if he has the votes in the House. You're right, And actually the House top has already come out and said, sure, we'll put a vote on the floor right now. If the president's argument on this is we have to negotiate with the Democrats because things gott again in order to get past the billerbuster proof majority, and there was just a major disconnect there.

There's there's arguments that you know, Chuck shoot was saying, well, the President says everything on the border is fine, So why don't we just keep Why don't we just keep the current levels of funding for border security where they are, which is, you know, particularly interesting given how many legal limurants that we're apprehending at the border. We're at a record number for November twenty eighteen, and we just went through this whole caravan or are going through this whole

caravan crisis. Yeah, you know. I also want to ask you about the situation of the Chief of Staff. I feel like I feel like the media is always more interested in this than the American people are. I don't really care all that much the Chief of Staff is, but there is a lot of skull duggery around this now, and there are people saying, oh, you know, nick Ers wouldn't take the job. Why wouldn't he take the job? I don't know. Maybe the guy wants to write a novel.

Who the heck knows I would. What can you tell us about where this stands and just your general sense of the White House right now on the morale inside. Yeah, sure so, I mean, yes, the Chief and the President have clashed in the past. They are leaving, as you said. I'm not myself also a great fan of Palace injury.

But what I can tell you is that there are a couple of candidates that people are looking at, and the President wants to make a change, to move towards are to move towards dealing with the Democrats, knowing that he's going to have them in power in the House of Representatives, so he wants somebody who's more politically inclined and has a little bit more politically political experience. So to the people that are really at the top of his list is Mark Meadows. I know that Chris Christie

is also being considered. His name is being tossed around there, and he's also looking at people like Ambassador Leightheiser is a US trade representative at Steven Mnuchin and the few others. But really the President has made a final decision and John Kelly is sticking around in his job until January second, at the very least, so he's got a little bit of time. Did you see that Piers Morgan has thrown his hat in the ring for Chief of Staff of

the United States right White House? I know, I thought I was hilarious. Is the column title? One? Mister President, you've already hired the hired me once again we are compelling preach. I gotta tell you if I'm if I'm Alma Rosa, I view this as my opportunity to get back on the reality show. You know, this is the episode where they bring back somebody that got voted off

the island. If I'm Alma Rosa, I say that I want to make amends and then I want to come back and I'll be the best chief of staff ever because even if the President doesn't take it seriously, and who knows, with this president, like maybe he would embrace her with open arms. I have no idea it would get her. It would get her in the news for a day or two. It would be kind of funny for us all to think about. But oh I would

love it. Would the dark horse chief of staff candidate that I'm going to start pushing is Alma Rosa next time or next time I have a chance. And I gotta ask you this. The different folks that you talk to you in around the White House, we're hearing so much this week. I mean, they make it sound the media narrative yesterday was overwhelmingly animo. Now Trump's gonna get thrown in the slammer. Do you get that h or

you know, they're gonna bring charges against them whatever. Do you get the sense that the people are really worried? You know, you know, you can kind of pick that up. No, they're no, they're they're so desensitized to this at the moment to all of this talk. I mean, how many times do we have to hear it's Muller time, or it's this time, or it's that time, and you know,

Trump is really in danger this at this point. Yes, I mean, the President does spend a certain amount of his time thinking about any sense of certain aunt, certain amount of time tweeting about it. But there's no sense within the White House that an impending shoe is dropping, and it's not. You know, you see kind of like a frothing at the mouth and in a lot of the people who are in our media whenever anything happens with respect to the Muller case. And that's just not

that's just not how it's received within the inside. There's just so much else that's going on there. Do you have it, By the way, do you have any kind of any prediction about about who's going to get the big job within the White House or are you totally agnostic. I don't. I don't. I don't think the president one knows right now, I don't. I mean, what happens if he taps you on the shoulder when you're walking past the oval and he's like, hey, Sager, I like your work.

You should talk you snap too, and you say, yes, sir, there you go. That is the right answer, Sager. When the when the commander in chief says, you know, jump, you say how high? Uh? Sager and Jetty everybody. You'll see him on Fox News, You'll see him at the Daily Caller where he's the White House correspondence. Soager Man always you to talk to you, see you soon. Hey, thanks for having me, Buz. All right, team, we'll be back in a moment. If you've looked at snippy dot

com in the past and left, look again. Thousands of my listeners have joined snippy dot com and are expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy's an unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and community. And you know, the guy who was the head of Google was down there today where any of you convinced by that testimony that Google's not engaged in left wing bias in the search engine has a huge impact on what

you see when you see it all right. Snippy dot com is the beginning of the conservative revolution in social media, where we don't have to worry about what the left wingers in Silicon Valley want us to see. Snippy dot com it's totally free to join. It's open to everyone. So join us at snippy dot com and let your opinion matter. No shadow banning and no suppression of conservative

thought ever. Now, with an updated user interface and exciting new features, also available in the Apple App Store and now available for Android, Snippy is your new alternative social media. There's a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time. Trump knows that he's facing some pretty strong criminal liability when he

leaves office one way or another. And you know, even if you're sitting President Camp indicted, he's got to know his future looks like it's behind bars unless he cuts some sort of deal with the prosecutors. That's right, my friends, The left can't beat Trump and politics so they're trying to beat him with the law by destroying the law in the process, by weaponizing it, by bastardizing it, polluting it. And these are people that are being treated as as

some kind of expert panel here. I mean, you got Adam Schiff and George and Georgetown law professor saying that the Trump is going to go to prison. You know, all we've seen so far from the prosecution and the special counsel and the people have gone down are the most heavy handed, one sided prosecutorial tactics imaginable. And what you've really been treated to, unfortunately, is a front seat view, a front seat to the most politicized and disgraceful series

of investigatory tactics and prosecutions imaginable. Really, I mean, this stuff is all so clearly based in Trump derangement syndrome. And you get this when you look back at what they've been saying, oh along here, I mean, you know, they keep telling us that there's going to be collusion, They're gonna be collusion, and then when we have a new revelation, it's never collusion somehow, it's always something else.

It's always you know, oh, well, this guy didn't base taxes, or this guy did this thing, or this guy did that thing. And I'm telling you, if you're a prominent especially with international business ties, you're a prominent person in business, and they start doing things like going through all your communications and all of your taxes, and if you were tied to a political campaign, all your communications with that campaign, and they were trying to find something to prosecute you for,

I assure you they could do it. They could do it. Now, keep in mind, in the case of Trump, they haven't been able to even say what the charge is yet. They're just telling you that he's a criminal all the time because they know that ultimately this is a This is a political investigation, not really a criminal investigation. But calling someone a criminal repeatedly these has political consequences. So it's useful for them, even though in a sense it

undermines the very argument. Can we just hear what Trump did? It's criminal? Notice how they'll go to this Cohen plea deal and I know we're getting the Cohen. We're gonna find out how long he goes to prison. This week. He's gonna get like four or five years in federal prison.

It's a pretty long time but no notice how when they discuss this, they say, oh, well, Cohen already pleaded to this, so it's on record, right, There are two important parts that Cohen pleaded to this payoff for Stormy Daniels,

Stephanie Clifford. You know, I guess former porn star. I don't think she still does it, but I don't know former porn star Stephanie Clifford Stormy Daniels or is it also the other one mcdougaut, And I can't remember which one they're talking about with the specific pal, but it was one of these women that Trump paid off. Yeah, they got Cohen to say that he was a part of this and that Trump directed him to do it.

He has nothing to lose by saying that. And there's no way that Trump can prove his innocence on it, because remember, he's trying to prove that he didn't tell

him something, not that he did tell him something. So how do you do that, Because even if you have a record of the discussions, even if you have a record of all the actual transactions and emails around this whole payoff situation, all that you need is Michael Cohen and said, yeah, well, you know, I was walking into the bathroom and he saw him in a way and he said, hey, you pay off that lady with the money, and I'm not gonna pay you because I want to

violate FCC regulations or FEC regulations, whatever sounds the scene. You know, that's all he has to do. You can't can't prove that Trump didn't say that, so that this is what I'm saying, is that doesn't prove anything that has said this. And the President is right insofar as it's not even a criminal act. It's not even a crime to have paid this woman off because it's something that any person under those circumstances might do and could legally do. You know, the very simple concept here is,

you know, is a haircut a campaign expense? Well, you could say, Buck, if you don't get a haircut, the swoop is going to be out of control. And President Buck is not going to happen if he's got a crazy swoop. He's got to have a tame swoop. And I said, well, yes, you're correct. There are benefits that you could say come from the personal grooming of a haircut. But if you get a haircut every month and you keep getting a haircut, during the campaign. You know, guess what,

it's not a campaign expenditure. And if somebody is saying they're gonna go public with a story about how you had an affair years ago and you pay them off, guess what, it's not qualified as an expenditure that has to be listed. And now people can say, yes it is, Well, guess what this would this need to be litigated and adjudicated. This has to go through the courts. We don't take this as a as a fate at home police here. We don't take this as something that's already been decided,

that's already done. Why would we do that. But the way they've structured this look at I was really thinking of this today. It reminds me a bit of how they came after Kavanaugh. I really mean this. You'll notice how Kavanaugh, especially the initial allegation, it was all set up in a way that it was non falsifiable, and you know, they got her on They wanted her on the record in front of Congress, you know, without members of Congress harshly cross examining her, without really testing around

in the facts. They just wanted to get her on the record and get her out of there. And it was all just a takedown effort. Right. Well, what they've done with Cohen is get him on the record. Trump has no official means of responding in court because it's just a plea deal that somebody else did. Right, There's no there's no challenge that Trump can level against this.

But it then creates a document, a federal court document that has you know, Trump implicated in a crime that is only a crime because they had Cohen on all these other things that he didn't challenge this. We did. We've seen this by the way, we saw this with John Edwards, where there was you know, they and look they took him to court over this and the payoff the mistress. And guess what, Jerry said, No, it's not

a crime. John Edwards did not go to jail, and his thing was way more sortid and messed up than situation we're talking about here. Because whether you believe him or not, the President says he didn't even have the affair. I will just say that that strikes me his although you know, although look this president, I think we all can agree is if we're being honest, he's got more than just you know the everyman. I for the ladies. He's definitely uh, you know, he's he's he's a playboy,

There's no question about that. But why does a Stephanie keep getting your name, you know whatever, Stormy Daniels, that's the way everyone knows her. Why does the Stormy Daniels just have complete proof of some of their liaisons together? Why, you know, in the in the era of text messages and email and and you know, she doesn't have any as far as I know, there's no actual proof that she has produced of this affair other than they Oh there's a photo of them at events. Again, I'm sure

they knew each other. And look, maybe the president, you know, even got a you know, got a little kind of a little fresh with her at some point before he was the president. But did this affair really happen? I think, you know, probably, but you know, it's not proven, and he doesn't he says no. So you know, you have to Nick dwaland account as well. But the real as you hear is just that they're running around calling the president a criminal. And that's the whole point of this.

He's a criminal, he's a crimin. He's a racist, he's a racist. They just repeat these things these slanders against the president of the United States because they know that just the mere repetition does damage. Just saying this stuff over and over again brings people to the conclusion that, oh, gosh, there must be something wrong with this president. There must be And when I see people, not you, not me, but remember, they're trying to win over a certain portion

of the electorate. They're trying to get those undecideds and the you know they're trying to get. It's all about suppressing the base and encouraging those in the middle, and encouraging your own base. And they think that by calling the president a criminal, they can accomplish that. By the way, you got of another. I mean, I had a guy on Rising earlier this week who, as I mentioned you, he had worked with Colomby as a former US attorney, And I mean, it's just it was just crazy to

I mean, I was sitting there. I was like, I don't even know what to say to this guy. He's like, here's here's what I think happened, and went on this long, long tirade about how you know Russia collusion worked, and I said, you can't, none of this has any proof. You're just coming up with this whole theory. There's proof for not a single thing that he said, but he had this really elaborate theory about you know, they one of the emails at a certain time released and so

this is just this is creative writing. That's what I said the guy, this is a creative writing exercise. You used to be a prosecutor, I said. He Actually, I didn't say this something. This just came out. I don't like to, you know, get saucy with my guests when they leave. But I kind of just muttered to myself and the mic was still on, and apparently he heard it, and I was like, that guy was a federal prosecutor. That's terrifying. So yeah, I mean it is terrifying that

I think somebody who is so hyper parted. Look look at James Coleby, Look at the people who are making these decisions. We're supposed to believe that they're just on the straight and narrow and honest, nonpartisan observers of truth, defenders of democracy. Come on, here's another former Obama administration US attorney on what should happen to Trump pay for a play for It could be that President Trump procured the presidency by fraud. When immigrants procure their citizenship by fraud,

we strip them of their citizenship. When a president procures his presidency by fraud, should we consider doing the same. That's what this whole charade is about. They want payback for Hillary. They want payback for all the all the self righteous, self indulgent lib boomers. Sorry, but lib boomers are the worst. At least, millennials don't have life experience

that they should be able to fall back on. All these lib boomers, all of Hillary's contemporaries, and all these people that were ready for Hillary, and the women watching in the pink hats and all this stuff. They have not forgotten the hurt feelings, the tears, the deep sense of falling into the abyss after Hillary to not win the twenty sixteen election, and it's not enough for them.

They're not satisfied with merely winning the next election. They want to erase Trump's victory and rewrite, in Soviet style in the history books that Hillary really won. They essentially want to strip Trump of the title. They don't want there to just be another title about. They want to strip Trump of the title and retroactively give it to Hillary and then gives, you know, and then have somebody else run against the President Pence in twenty twenty. That's

what That's the only acceptable outcome to them. These people are hyperpartisans, they are loons. They're destroying any faith in the political process. They're destroying faith in the law too, which is even more dangerous in many ways. I have more on this and a bunch of other stories. Two teams stare it there introducing a new conservative alternative to liberal based email services, ipatriots dot Us. Ipatriots dot us is a new email service where privacy and protection are

in your hands. My friends. Ipatriots is secure and includes more of what you want with all out all the ads and the spam. Plus you get thirty gigs of cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and so much more. Ipatriots dot us has premium anti virus, anti spam and encryption. Okay, you need to check this out of yourself. Ipatriot dot us is compatible with most mobile devices iPhone, iPad, at, Android, Windows Mobile, BlackBerry. It works on any Windows or Mac computer.

Show your a patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us now, choose your membership program and input your desired Ipatriots email address. During checkout, enter promo code buck for ten percent savings during your first year of membership. Again, enter promo code buck for ten percent off during your first year of membership at ipatriots dot us. Go check it out. Now, this is a man who came in and said, I'm bigger than the House. I'm bigger than the intelligence community.

I'm bigger than checks and balances, I'm biger than the judicial community. I'm bigger than the free press. And he's going to pay for that the rest of his life. I think the American people would support impeachment. Donald Trump will be must be impeached. Donald Trump is a criminal enterprise. It certainly looks like they are the kind of offenses that would call for impeachment hearings. You have this memorable

phrase of individual number one. You know it's going to go down, I think in the history books, along with some of those memorable Watergate phrases. When the evidence becomes so clear to likely have a criminal sitting in the Oval office, what is the Congress left to do at that point? A criminal for whom they cannot even identify a single crime, nor provide one piece of evidence that the crime that they cannot identify was committed by him. This is Stalinist tactics. That is what they are doing.

That is what they are engaged in. It's a disgrace, you know, I don't know what happened. The old school civil liberties guys. They're just not around the acluse a joke, a cluse, Southern Property Law Center. They're just extensions of media matters now, I mean, they are left wing loon factories. But the Dirsh doesn't even like Trump. I asked him once, I said, do you ever speak the President? The Durst looked like he was gonna spit in my face. He

was not happy with me for asking that question. Okay, the Drsh on the payments, the storm of Daniels said, this is a play five. It is absolutely textbook extortion, and there ought to be a prosecution of any person, man or woman who approaches any candidate or anybody else and says, unless you pay me money, I'm going to reveal a sex act that occurred. That is absolute classic extortion.

And it's shocking that the Special Council looking into this, who has a broad mandate, he described it very broadly, isn't looking into the extortion to these payments had to be reported. They had to be reported after the election. The reporting time was after the election, so it couldn't have impacted the election. So the absurd notion that he won the presidency by fraud and should be stripped of the pregnancy reflects incredible ignorance about the timing here and

how these statutes operate. This is a guy who's just speaking about the law, and look, I'm on some huge dursh Fano. We got into a throwdown once on CNN about gun control. I like the Durst. When he's right and he's on the law and on criminal justice, he's at least knowledgeable and honest about the law. There's so

few voices these days. I mean, people just don't throw all of their principles out there, through all of their expertise, on a bonfire in order to tell the Libs and the left and the media what they want to hear on this stuff, which is the Trump is a criminal. How is it someone explaining that Stormy Daniels did not commit extortion. I've been wondering about this, and I didn't go to law school, but it seems like extortion to me,

you know. David Letterman for those of you were David Letterman fans, which if you were, we got to have a talk. But you know, David Letterman was having an affairs. All came out, you know, with a much much younger woman, the whole thing. I mean, you know, these people, a lot of these big celebrity types are pretty disgusting. But he's got this affair with a younger woman and he the husband finds out and the husband, I forget the specifics of it, but the husband basically says, you know,

I've got this screenplay. I want you to buy it for me for ten million dollars, which nobody gets a screenplay. This is absurd, right, ten million dollars and it's about a famous comedian on Late I TV. He's having a fair with one of his staffers. That guy, by the way, went to prison, prison for years. How is that different from what Stormy Daniels and Avanadi Because she hired a lawyer to create this this this veneer, this facade of a legal proceeding, and Stormy Daniels is treated with with

all this you know respect by the media. I mean, let me just say that, to have intimate relations with somebody and then use that and look, there's a whole we're assuming that Trump had the relations and you know, there's a whole bunch of steps that we're going but to have it's in relation to somebody and then use that for personal financial gain and the threat of ruining somebody, I mean, it is It is disgusting. It's a disgusting thing to do to anybody. It's a it's a horror.

I mean, this is a horrifyingly you know, I imagine if of a man, you know, taped a woman in some kind of a sex act and then threatened, threatened to release it unless she gave him money, that guy would go to prison, and rightfully so and he should. Right But Stormy Daniel says, I'll tell everybody about our sexual affair unless you pay me X dollars. How is that not criminal? And as Dershwood, he's a criminal defense attorney for decade, He's saying, look, it's a crime. Have

they even looked into this? Have they even looked into who leaked Flynn's phone conversation with ambassador kids are the act? It's amazing the only crimes they care about involve Trump associates and ways of trying to make it seem like Trump had something to do with them. Those the only crimes they care about. These people are destroying the criminal

justice system. If we had any sense of equal justice, everything called me's done would, in fact, from the standpoint of Mueller, would have called me right now lined up for a whole series of felony charges. But it tells you what a one sided political witch hunt Mueller's engaged in, that all of these things go on and somehow it

never quite becomes important. But going after General Flynn after his thirty five years of risking his life for America, that's okay, even though nothing Flynn has been accused of is comparable to what coming now has admitted. Any great minds think alike Newt and Buck linked up on this one. I mean producer Mike always, you know, producer Mike knows where my head's out on this stuff, and he's like, hey,

I think I heard somebody I got a clip. But yeah, this is the notion of equal justice is just it's a farce. With this whole Muller probe, It's ridiculous. How is it possible that given all the people they're interviewing, all the stuff, that not a single Democrat of any kind yet has been has been prosecuted. You know, a Podesta, you know the Podesta group, you know, and nothing, none of the anti Trump leaks, felony leaks, you know, they're

not getting prosecuted. And these people aren't gett prosecutor. It's it's only people that are tied to Trump that have the the doj I of Surron looking right at them all the time. And you know, there's there's just no effort to look at what was going on here to get this whole thing going. I mean, the dj fought to prevent disclosure of the fact that the DNC funded the dossier which they used to do the fis of

warrants and get this whole FBI investigation going. I there should be such embarrassment from the so called elites in charge of stuff. There should be such a sense of letting the American people down and our outrage. It would be righteous if directed in the right directions. But it's not. We're being told all the time that the real enemy is you know, General Flynn for lying, I mean, I had I had to correct. I mentioned that easy federal

prosecutor guy who was on rising. He said General Flynn having this, you know, conversation, Like, dude, that the conversation was completely fine. There's nothing wrong with the conversation you have with Kiselak, And if you wanted to talk about sanctions, that's fine too. A man, I'm you know, it really just troubles me because what you see is the other the other side, the other side has such a will to power, has such a desire for crushing their ideological

enemies that they they're just utterly ruthless. And you know, conservatives, we walk around a lot and we're kind of play this, you know, who can be who's the purest and the best, and who can recite the most of the Constitution from memory all the time, and don't always think about, you know, who's going to win this brawl that's happening here. And we're we're you know, people are getting taken off the battlefield by the other side. I mean, we're taking losses here.

They're going after Trump, they're going after his people. And this is not a this is not a fair game they're playing. And by the way, speaking of not a

fair game, I mean there's there's comey out there. I one thing that I've taken from this whole debacle of the post Trump hysteria that left is engaged is I'm glad people will never think of these government bureaucracy directors in quite the same way, because you know, when I was in the CIA, it was still very much the case that we assume enough you were the if you were the FBI director, the CIA director, you know, you were thought of as somebody of real gravitas, and you

were a defender of national security. You are a nonpartisan, you are a professional. Whether whether this was warranted or not, that was really the perception on the outside, and I always knew on the inside that that wasn't really the case, certainly at the AGE, certainly at the CIA. I mean, son looks some directors are more politically minded than others. But you know, but even more than that, these people are not necessarily in pressI if some of them are

very impressive, some of them are very unimpressive. It depends on who we're talking about. And the fact that Komey was the FBI director. I mean, this guy I would not trust to teach my kid third grade social studies. I mean, he's just not somebody who I would want anyone emulating or taking advice from I mean, he is so just smart me. I remember, this is a guy who sat across from people for decades and you know, was he was the deciding voice in a lot of

instances of memory. He was a US attorney in New York State. He was the one that wanted to go after Martha Stewart. It was Komy. He was the one that was like, yeah, she's got to go to prison. She didn't inside her trade, she didn't do anything wrong, but she lied about getting a phone call because she was scared, and they decided to send it to prison for it. And Nikomi was the one pushing for that. So, you know, don't don't let this whole COOMEI the seven

foot tall boy scout thing fool you. He is very and first of all, I think he's very oviously, very ambitious, is why he wanted to stay on his FBI director. But I think he you know, Coomy's got a senate runner, Yeah, maybe even something bigger in his sights. Don't think he doesn't. This guy's a megalomaniac pretending to be this humble public servant. He's scary. But here's what Nude. Nude has been very

good on this stuff. Play nine. If Comey had been a witness being interviewed by Mueller and he'd had two hundred and forty five I can't remembers, I suspect they would keep him in there for a thousand hours until he finally remembered. This is nonsense. Any person with a reasonable sense of judgment knows that they were breaking the law for the purpose of trying to defeat Donald Trump, and then when the Trump won anyway, they went on

breaking the law, including illegally leaking things. As a historian, it's hard to explain how unique it is to have the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation this deeply engaged, this dishonest, this patently fraudulent. I mean, nobody believes he didn't know two hundred and forty five times. And I think that it is a really sad commentary on how

sick the system has gotten. Yep, everything, my friends, when it comes to government power, prosecutorial power, law enforcement, police power, everything rests on some sense of good faith and judgment. Here's here's an example of what I mean. A prosecutor can decline charges whenever he or she wants so. In a sense prosecutors could I mean, yes, prosecutors can be removed.

I understand that, but you know, there's nothing to stop them from just saying, all right, you know we are not going to charge this person just because we really don't want to. They can do it prosecutor. Prosecutors have a tremendous man discretion police when they show up but they see a crime. I mean, police can say yeah, I didn't I didn't see you know, I don't think we need to make this arrest. They might face consequences to that later on, but that's always in the discretion.

So when people discard all good faith in roles where they have government power, the system starts to break down. And that's what has happened in an effort to destroy Trump. People know they do not act in good faith. The FBI, the CIA, there was no good faith in their actions with regard to Trump. This was about pursuing an ideological vendetta, and they managed so far to largely get away with it.

Not entirely. There have been some they've taken some losses on this by Peter King says the same thing about Comey's memory, which I read this transco over the weekend Yeah, Apparently all you have to do is just say yeah, I don't remember it. If for Komey, that'll fly, that's just fine. Play eight. To me, it's hard to believe that Jim Comey I would have forgotten all those different details. I'm on the Intelligence Committee. Jim called me, testified before

us any number of times. I never recall him not being able to answer a question. Yeah, Komey was very shaky on the details on the facts and figures when it came time to speak for that on the record session with members of Congress last week. Very shaky indeed, and I'm jaking on things that are I mean, he should be embarrassed by them, except he knows the answers.

He just wasn't giving the answers because he didn't want to, and because he knows that no one's going to press charges against the former FBI director who's trying to take Trump down for just saying I don't know. As far as I recall, that's all I remember. I'm his first dispense with a completely illegitimate issue, which is the fantasy dreamed up by some conservatives that Google and other online platforms have an anti conservative bias, as I've said repeatedly,

no credible evidence supports this right wing conspiracy theory. I have little doubt that my Republican colleagues will spend much of that time. There is anything a laundry list of anecdotes and that of context statements made by Google employees as supposed evidence of anti conservative bias, but none of that will actually make it true. Democrats really don't want people to catch on to just how biased these social media platforms are. There are many reasons for this, but

you've got a sense of it. Today you have the CEO of Google, one of the most powerful cash flow positive wealthy corporations in the world, which, by the way, is working to create a special censorship friendly Internet for China. So you've got Google employees. You don't want to work on anything that has a US military application to it,

you know, I can't have any part of that. They're not a bunch of war mongers here for the American war machine, but they will work on making sure that people in China are remain enslaved by the state, at least mentally and intellectually not able to enjoy freedom. Google apparently is cool with that. There's a lot of money to be made in China, I understand, but you have

this hearing that on Capitol Hill. I mean, there were there were some of the interesting stuff that you'd expect where you have members of Congress who kind of sound like for those of us who are roughly my age or maybe even ten or fifteen years old than me, you know, when one of the one of our grandparents back in the nineties should be like, hey do I work to VHSH machine? Hey, hey, do I get the

VCR to rewind? You know? And it was always like the VCR was this really difficult thing that we had to help them struggle through, although I will admit that there were many times where I could not figure out how to get the time, how to get the clock to change on the VCR. But you had people today who were talking about technology, and these are the individuals who write our laws when it comes to technology, right, these are the people that we are counting on to

know something about this. And sure enough, they sound like a bunch of people that couldn't even be bothered to read through the executive summaries that their taxpayer funded congressional staffs put together for them. But anyway, he had Sundar Peach, I who is the CEO of Google. Remember Google is owned by Alphabet now, so here about Alphabet the company as well. But you know, there was a big story.

You know, you got this guy who's sang, for example, that conservatives are gonna that was you know, Nadler, who says all kinds of annoying stuff. But they're gonna say that, you know, conservatives wine about this. It's not true. Conservatives aren't being shout out in Meanwhile, I think it was just yesterday that Gavin McGinnis is a guy that I did Red Eye with a bunch of times back in the day. And look, I'm not going to pretend that

Gavin is not a provocateur. He certainly is. He's a guy who likes to likes to get people a little fired up. He understands the effect that he has sometimes on conversation. And look, he's actually he's a good writer, and he's smart, and he's he's always been very nice to me when I've seen him, and I know he has this this affiliation of this group which I don't know that much about the background of it, to be fair, they called the Proud Boys, who turns out are not

considered an extremist group by the FBI. That was fake news, but that doesn't mean they're not acting like a bunch of jerks. Again, I don't know much about them. I didn't even know there were a thing until a few months ago, and they formed I believe in support of Gavin McGinnis's ideas. Gavin McGinnis has distanced himself from the Proud Boys. You know, I don't. I don't have time to follow up on all. You know, go deep into all these things all the time. My point, you're just

being Gavin McGinnis. Yes, he's controversial. He is somebody who says things that up. That's the left, and whether you like him or not, it should be concerning that he gets demonetized because what they're doing is, you know, they started out with Alex Jones, who very few people I know are willing to defend publicly, and now they've got Gavin McInnis, who you know, more people. Look my old boss Glenn who is a big free speech proponent, Glenn

beck As. I understand that Glenn has come out and said that this is this is really troubling that, you know, Gavin one got fired as part of the new merger between Blaze TV or the Blaze Media and CRTV. And also now Gavin's kicked off of YouTube and he's been he's been banned from numerous platforms. And you know, people would say, oh, block this is one case, but yeah,

where's the equivalent case on the left? Where do we have a case of a really prominent democrat who or not even that promise, just you know, somebody who's a public figure, that's a Democrat who lost their platform, who was demonetized or completely booted off of a major social media platform. You know, one of the great examples of this is look at Lewis Farrakon still on Twitter. Someone explained to me, how is it conceivable what Lewis Farrakon

should still be on Twitter? But you can't have you know, you can't have Prager University stay on YouTube without getting videos blocked. You can't have prag your university on Facebook without getting videos blocked. I need someone to make these make these consistently anti conservative tendencies appear like they're not somehow intentional. I mean, I've seen it myself with some of the way that they treat any organization that is

supportive of guns or gun rights. You know, that's all of a sudden very that that becomes very very testy, very difficult that oh, you know, gun rights, how could

some buddy, Um. You know, the truth is that there's a bias because there's tremendous social pressure on these different people like preach I I mean these different social media you know, important guys who yes, they want these really successful companies, but they're so rich and so powerful as companies that they think that they're a little bit untouchable, meaning that no, you know, nobody can you know, those different ways of saying someone's untouchable, right, but meaning that

nobody can stop them from what they're doing. Really, and they get social pressure. I mean people from within their social circle are always telling them, you know, you gotta stop. There's such there's so much hate. We can't allow hate speech. And then you find out, well where are you drawn the line on hate speech? And and you know, this is where there's also this this legal issue that you know, because you get other people that say, oh, it's a

First Amendment, they can they can do whatever they want. Well, that's not true. Government regulates each in a lot of different ways. The government's not supposed to regulate content of speech, but that doesn't mean that content of speech can't get you in trouble in some way. Obviously, you know. I means, as James Comey said recently, any conversation could be illegal theoretically.

And this platform versus publisher distinction meanings that they either act as a neutral party in this and they don't police content, or if they are policing content, they're publishers, and that means they're responsible for whatever goes up on their platforms. Big problem. So you gotta keep watching what goes on with these execs that go down on Capitol Hill, and we gotta keep the pressure on here to stop the social media bias. Omaha Steaks is America's original butcher

since nineteen seventeen. Right now, Omaha Stakes is giving an amazing limited time offer to my listeners. When you go to Omaha Steaks dot com and entercode buck into search bar, you'll get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package. It's originally one hundred and ninety five dollars, now only

forty nine nine. Order now and you'll get four handcut top sirloins, two savory premium pork chops, four chicken fried steaks, four Omaha Steaks Burgers, four snappy Coobasa sausages, all beef meatballs, four perfectly brown potatoes O Greta, four made from scratch caramel apple Tartlet's plus get four more burgers free. Omaha Steakes is a fifth generation family owned company with over one hundred years of experience. Again, get this limited time

package for only forty nine ninety nine. When you go to Omaha Steaks dot com, type Buck in the search bar and add the family Gift Package to your card. Go to Omaha Steaks dot com type Buck in the search bar to send the Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package today. In a secret recording case, a federal judge has ruled in favor of James O'Keefe and Project Very Toss. This is a case with big First Amendment implications. It is a win for free speech. It is a win for

government transparency. Why haven't you heard much about it yet? Why isn't it leading some major news broadcasts. Oh, that's right because it involved a conservative investigative journalist and his outfit, and we know the left can't have that. James o'keith, however, is with us now to explain just what's going on. He's the founder of Project Veritas. James, thanks for joining us. Great to be with you. Thank you all right, can you just give us a little bit of a backstore

here on this case. It has to do with your right as a citizen and as a journalist to surreptitiously tape government officials. Right, tell us what's going on here. Well, this was a situation where there's twelve states in the United States that prohibit two party consent or prohibit recording people without their permission. One of those states is Massachusetts. That means that if you're recording someone, you need their

permission to record them. Well, federal judge ruled yesterday this is pretty historic, the court said, And we sued the state of Massachusetts in federal cord taken us two years. But the judge ruled that's secretly recording government officials and police officers is a quote, basic vital and wealth sta most liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment unquote. And there's a forty four page order that this judge had issued. And remember this was not The New York Times. It

wasn't the Washington Post. It was Project and Veritas that fought the law. And we have overturned a state law prohibiting recording people public officials without their permission. Pretty historic stuff. I mean, just just so everyone's clear the the position then, and you said, there are a number of states where this is the case, but the position of the state of Massachusetts had been that. Let's say, James, you know, I was visiting the O'Keefe residence and things got things

got a little rowdy, and we're having a party. The police show up, and you know, all of a sudden, you think the police are engaging in uh, you know, abusive behavior, and you pull out your phone to you know, in this in this analogy or in this storyline. I'm you know, I'm getting beat up by the cops. You pull out your phone, you record this. They could stop

that and arrest you previously under Massachusetts law. Yes, there about eleven I believe eleven previous felony complaints or issues brought by the state in the last in recent time, so you could go to jail. I mean, this is we you know, Project gretas listeners are. I'm sure you're aware of what we do. I mean, we're constantly in court facing people who try to shut us down, silence us with using law fair using the state as a weapon,

using these lawsuits as a weapons. This is a very this is a very significant case because it's never before, as far as I know, has a judge ever said that recording someone is a fundamental First Amendment right now.

Other other courts have said that sort of hidden camera technology, as long as you're in the room with someone, you always have to be next to them when you're recording them, but you could always write down what they say, and you could always you know, they say the hidden cameras the extension of a pencil or it's the same thing

as remembering what they say. So this judgment is I think it allows us to go to some of these other states like any California, Pennsylvania, which make it a crime to record people in thirty eight states, in the District of Columbius Legal and New York it's legal, but a lot of these other places it isn't. So this is a pretty huge, huge victory for the First Amendment. And to your point, you would think that these journalists would be shouting from the rooftops about how great this is.

But I think they're a little contemptuous of the fact that I James o'keeith, was the one to achieve this judgment. Is there are there any of the major networks that have reached out on this one specifically James. I mean, our people are are people from any part of the of the media spectrum saying hey, you had a boy, No, because their hatred for me and Project burtas outweighs whatever marginal appreciation they have for the First Amendment. Well, what

did you? Uh? What was what was the organization? Again? That was the Center for Medical Progress? Isn't that right? That was exposing planned parenthood and they were sued. Weren't they under our some version of surreptitious taping and you know, illegal, and they wanted to go after them in California. I mean, I'm forgetting the details, but I am feeling you're familiar with them. Well, it was David Delight and a friend of mine. I didn't I've been working with Lylan David

for some time. That particular investigation. David did California's the penal Code, which is Statute six thirty two California Penal Code prohibits. It's a misdemeanor to record people without their permission, right, But you know, we would make the argument, and I've made it before in federal court in California, that the recording government officials and people who receive taxpayer dollars, vice presidents of planned parenthood is a fundamental constitutional right as

long as you're with the person. It's not like we're bugging people's homes. We're not filling them in their bedrooms. We're filling people doing public duties in public. And it's a really you know, I think that people think that hidden cameras it's unethical. I mean, it's not an invastion of privacy. We're not invading these people's privacy. We're simply trying to report on what people say and do in public, who are public figures. And that's what the federal judge

in Massachusetts said. He said, the fundamental rights to record someone. And the reason why, by the way, Buck, it's so fundamental is because the people that I'm dealing with a there's so much venality in their behavior that the types of people who would say I never said that if I just wrote down what they said, they would call me a liar. So it's doubly important that we have the right to capture what people tell us in these investigations.

Otherwise we're giving the culprits a way out. We're allowing them to say I never said that, when indeed they did. And this is not about journalism. Ethics are privacy Because the media loved it. When that guy Sterling who owned the basketball team, remember him, the guy in California was recorded on his bed by his lover, No one cared about privacy, even though was recorded on a bedroom they were laying in bed together. So this is not about ethics or privacy. But this is really about is it's

about power. People don't want these people recorded. They don't want the government corruption exposed. That's what this is, in the final analysis, really about. And just just one more for you, James. The Time magazine cover going to journalists, what was your what was your take on this? Oh? This is the person of Yeah. I mean, it's just at this point it's become a mockery. It's become a sham. I don't. I think the only people that take it

seriously are journalists themselves. Journalists are so full of hubrious they're so they have no introspection. They're so it's gone so to their heads. And I know this because I'm I'm fighting in the trenches every day doing my work, getting attacked and maligned by them. I just think that they live in their own little bubble and and they're they're holding onto whatever last legacy they have. Time Magazine is a shell of its former self and it's become

a mockery. But they all talk to each other on Twitter with their blue check marks, and they make them feel good about themselves. But I think it's it's it's stupid. I think it's it's kind of irrelevant. And the only people who care our journalists. I know you can't tell us what at least ahead of time, but can you give us a time frame or when is the next

project very toss bombshell going to drop? Well, we had a huge fall as you you know, we did seven or eight different states and senators lying in deep state. I think a big theme right now is Silicon Valley with Google and Facebook and Twitter. We did a Twitter expose a year ago showing them engineers admitting to shadow banning. I think that's going to be a big theme over the next you know mcch happening today with the Google CEO being being cross examined in Congress. So that's one

major theme. I can't even talk about it. What I can do on your show here is if you, if you see something, say something. If you're an insider, let's pull a reverse George Orwell on these guys and let's let's let's have them fear us. And if you're and I'm not saying that you need to go public, but I'm saying, send us a message of Project veritas dot com,

go to our website. I'll meet we could confidentially become a source for us, because that's how we produce a lot of these stories, as we have insiders come to us with information and we corroborate it. So I would say Silicon Valley is a big one coming up. Absolutely, It's one that I try to cover a lot here on the show because this is this is the new mainstream media dominance, and people need to understand that it comes from Silicon Valley, not from the news networks. James o'keith,

everybody project very tassed. You can get a project verytass dot com. As he mentioned, James, I appreciate your work and your time. Man, thanks for calling in. Thank you. All right, team, we have more coming up here. I'm going to talk to you about Netflix shows in just a little bit. But now you've probably heard of snippy dot com. It's a new social media site. Well, if you've looked at snippy dot com and left, you need

to look again. Thousands of my listeners have joined snippy dot com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snipy is an unbiased social media plat form. It's all about conversation and community, and Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, it guarantees its users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators. Snippy dot com is a place where everyone is free to express

their thoughts and share their opinions. It is totally free to join and open to everyone. So join us at snippy dot com and let your opinion matter. No shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever. All right, you need to check this out. They've got every you can need, politics, sports, current events, fashion, food, whatever you

want to talk about. And now snappy dot com has an updated user interface and exciting new features, also available in the Apple App Store and now available for Android. Snippy is your new alternative social media. There's a petition on campus to remove the name of Clarence Thomas Spring Courts Justice from a building here. What's your thought on the petition? I honestly think he should be removed. We should probably just take his name off the building. It's

not that big of a deal. I agree that should get removed. What's your thought on the petition? I agree, I don't think he represents the student body. I would sign it. Um. I think I'll probably sign the petition. And is there anything that you would point to as something that he's done that would warrant that? Oh? No, Um, do you mind if I get back to you. Is there anything that comes to mind that he's done that you would point to as something that you think disqualifies him.

I don't know. I've done most much research on this. I just saw a Facebook petition about it, and that's kind of the extent of it. He is a historical figure, though, so is Hitler. Okay, is there anything that Justice Thomas has done that you would point to and say that's why we shouldn't have him I mean not in particular. I think, I guess just well, I don't know what he did. I mean, I don't really know anything about him.

I don't really know that. Yes, that look, this is such a liberal community, and um to degrade that in any way is not really the scat way for things and isn't the liberal viewpoint though, like open mindedness and tolerance. Guess, but I think that's this way to twist the concept of liberalism. So all right, that's that's all from Campus Reform.

That's Cabot Phillips, the interviewer doing campus reform does. Will just point out how wacko looney tunes like the various college campuses across the country are when it comes to professor's student body, all these different people, and how they have taken this incredibly left wing point of view that was from the Savannah College of Art and Design. That's that's what scatt is. I gotta say, I'm a big Savannah fan. You know, Nine Line Apparel and and Black

Rifle Coffee both have stores in Savannah. So I've been down there to visit and hang out with all those guys. And Savannah's a great, great town to see for a weekend. I really enjoy it anyway back to campus or form what they're doing here. I understand that there's a part of me that always feels this way too. And they used to do these segments on on my favorite cable news channel where they would ask people on the beach, you know who's like the first president that I'll go, oh, dude,

like auto knows like Abraham Lincoln the first president. And we're all like, oh, you're such an iom. You know. That's that's the whole that's the whole stick, you know, go around and ask people. You know, so, what do we celebrated on the fourth of July? Are we celebrating how we should be thankful for things? To be like? Yeah, for the July is about giving thanks man, like, I'm thankful for being out here on the beach. Would zinc oxide on my nose? Uh? You know. So there's a

limited there's a limited utility. It's one way to put it for those kinds of segments as a means of illuminating anything worthwhile other than just for our own amusement. I don't think the com many shows do this too. They do the man on the street stuff and they ask questions. And one of the one of the most common bits is when they'll ask people to weigh in on an event that hasn't happened yet or hasn't happened at all, but they know what they're supposed to say.

And this is a kind of variation on that in a sense, because you can tell from from these different students, many of them. You would think that students in college would probably have some grasp of who is sitting Supreme Court justices. But I've heard the statistics. I can't cite them from memory of how many people in this country can actually name all nine Supreme Court justices without looking

it up. And it's a very very small number, you know, it's a it's a less than one percent kind of number. But that said, Clarence Thomas is very well known, and he's somebody that they're saying that they should remove his name from a building, or that he shouldn't have his name on a building, and they don't know why I And so the the initial level of reaction you get to this this kind of a man on the street, of a man on the street sounds sounds so gender normative.

The man on the street interview is these kids don't know anything and they're just a bunch of liberals living in a cocoon. And then that's all, sure, that's all fine and true due to an extent. But what's what I find really interested is how conservatism needs to understand that for liberals, it's enough just that they have the impulse to say and feel the way the left wants

them to. Liberals don't really care. And you know, so this is this is a little bit of a counterintuitive taker, but liberals don't really care when you walk around the campus and people say, oh, I don't like Clarence Thomas. Why, oh I don't know, I don't even know who he is. I just well, all liberals care about is do they know they're not supposed to like him? And do they know that they should oppose him and everything that he

stands for every facet of their lives. So if it if the outcome is what the left wants, they don't care about the process. If the process is knowledge or if it's related to having knowledge, here that's really irrelevant

to the left. In fact, I think the left prefers that they see on campuses young people who will who are already able to vote and who will soon be out in their adult lives as yeah, working in companies and working you know, at businesses and stuff, but also as activists, and if they're really far left, as MSNBC anchors and so, you know, they just want the end product to be that you you know what the the

cultural expectation of you is as a liberal. You know, so when when I ask and another great example this is climate change. When I ask somebody do you believe in climate change? It is really a cultural signaling. If I ask somebody that, as a liberal, I'm expecting them to just say yes and leave it there. And then it's it's almost like they've gotten the other part of a secret handshake, right Clarence Thomas another one, you know, do you believe in? Do you believe there should be

dark money in politics? Nobody knows what does that even mean? People to talk about it, don't know what it means. But you know, then they'll say, oh no, well, well, as a liberally, I don't want you know, do you want do you want to get the money out of politics?

There's a phrase you'll hear Liberals say it's an idiotic phrase, but they'll say it all the time, and they just know, well, as a liberal, I'm supposed to, you know, like a hamster hitting a pedal to get the treat I'm supposed to do this, I'm supposed to say this, And that is the approach on a lot of these issues. And because they've created the social currency on pretty much all

college campuses. I mean, I know there's a few conservative campuses across the country and people I have friends who have attended them, and I know they exist, but ninety five percent of college campuses are overwhelmingly, i mean just

liberal dominated enclaves. And so you know, when when you look at the when you look at what's happening on these campuses and the way kids respond to a question like what do you think of Clarence Thomas, and they all say, or overwhelmingly they'll say, you know, he's bad. We shouldn't have him here because we're tolerant. That's all the left wants. They view that as victory. They don't they don't care that people can get to the why, because if they can get to the why on that issue,

they can get to the why on other issues. So understand that we have a problem here. We are losing, We are losing people in this ongoing battle for having people think about there, especially you know, young people, college kids, have them think about why they hold the ideas they do. The left just wants to process them in an almost machine like way to respond to certain things the way the left tells them to. I believe in climate I don't like conservatives. I don't like Justice Thomas. I don't

like Justice Scalia or his legacy. You know, you get on the whole list. Think of all the issues that the left can encapsulate down to a very very small phrase, slogan, even a couple of words. That's what they're doing. They're trying to mobilize people for their own cause, and the way they get them to do it is by perpetuating the perception that by holding these beliefs, you're one of the good people, the cool people, the smart people. So yeah,

I get it. We can make fun of these kids on campuses and they don't know anything in hahaha, But these know nothings are going to be voters soon. They're going to be people that are supporting the left irrespective of their lack of knowledge. So we have to combat this by making people more knowledgeable on campuses some very important news that I wanted to share with you all the official statistics. I shouldn't do that because now you're

actually expecting something important. This isn't portant at all, some official statistics when it comes to Netflix shows, as in

what are the top shows on Netflix? See one thing I do like about the digital era we are in now, apart from all the big brother surveillance and the tech platforms acting like left wing propaganda platforms, and you know, apart from all that, at least there's real there's real numbers, meaning that you know, you know who's downloading, you know who's watching, and you don't have to play this guessing game anymore. I'm amazed at how shall we say, easy,

too easy to fudge. The numbers are for traditional TV, for example, for radio, for different media platforms out there, and I think that there are a lot of people played a lot of games over the years. But with digital stuff, you can know. And so that's why you got the top ten Netflix series by stream as of November, the end of November twenty eighteen, and this is remarkable. Uh, Brandon, what do you think is the number one most streamed show on Netflix? Here's a hint. It is not a

new show or even a recent show. I feel like I saw the article or do you want me to lie to you? And then damn it, man, you've already seen this one. Where's producer Mike. I think he's going through his Friends DVDs because he doesn't have it on Netflix by right as a Friends? Oh no, you're wrong, Oh because I read the article about them spending one hundred million dollars. Are high falutin fancy, man, you call me right now. You're you're actually you're you're very close. Uh?

Friends is number three? All right? I think it's I think it's remarkable that even that Netflix is spending billions of dollars on content, billions of dollars. A show about people in their twenties dating and not doing a lot of work and hang out in a coffee shop from the nineties is the number three most stream show on Netflix. But You're Okay the number one show, though, is also it's not quite as old as Friends, it is not on air. What is the most stream show on Netflix? Dj? Brandon?

Is it like breaking bad or something that's not a bad? Guess, I gotta gave you credit for you know least least making it making a go of it. It's the Office the most, which I like. I completely respect this decision that the public has made, I think because the thing what the Office is that it's in short chunks. The writing, especially for the first five or six seasons, the writing is just hilarious and brilliant and you can watch You know the problem I have with movies now, I don't

know if you're the same thing. I never have over two hours to sit in one place and watch something, and I don't like watching a movie and not finishing it. So I'm just much more likely to watch a show. I mean, yeah, before I go to sleep. But I'm done with all my work. Do I have thirty minutes to watch an episode of the Office or any show for that matter that I want? Yeah? I do. So That's why I think the on demand and streaming habits

of people are changing to accommodate that. I mean, dude, Brendan, what was the last the last time you watched a full two hour length movie that you had never seen before? I think yesterday. We've been We've discussed before. I'm a horror weirdo, so I watched a lot of horror stuff. But other than that, I mean, I've never seen Lord of the Rings, but see you don't You wouldn't rather watch American horror story in thirty second chunks than watch a full two hour long movie. Yeah, no, I would.

I know it's commitment and I'm not going to say I always sit down and to do it. I'm usually maybe doing something. Are you a fan of the Strain? Speaking of horror, I actually like that on Hulu even though there was there was some there was some, you know, criticisms of it that I would offer. But did you like the Strain? Haven't seen it yet? But you should watch Into the Dark. It's a new monthly series on Hulu that's every month is a different horror about the holiday,

like Thanksgiving, Halloween, Christmas. And it's good. Yeah, only three episodes in only an hour, I guess only now, Okay, I'll check it out. So the Office Spell the Way on Netflix number one most stream show. The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is number two. I don't even know what that means or is. It's a more adult version of Sabrina the Teenage which based on the comics. However, and I will say this to you buck, Are you serious? Yeah?

And I watched it because again, horror, even if it's four kids, they push real left on that show about certain topics even though it's about you know, which horror has to be commie now. I mean, you know they can't Ark and Harror story the same thing. Yeah. I saw that. There's a whole abortion storyline the first season and the whole thing. Grey's Anatomy is number four. House of Cards number five, the British The Great British Baking

Shows number six, Who Knew? Marvel's Daredevil number seven, and Narcos number eight. I think Narcos should be way. I think Narcos is one of the best shows ever. I put in the top ten, and they just canceled Daredevil, which I'm upset about. I'm upset about that too. I actually like Dared a lot. And The Haunting of Hillhouse is number nine, which I find bizarre because I don't think that's a good shown. It's just me. It was, man, Yeah, it was kind of man. I'm glad it. See you've

got the horror expert here, DJ Brandon. He knows it wasn't really that good, So folks, I hope I saved you some time. The Office and Friends are worth having on in the background, but Narcos and Daredevil you have not seen them. Highly recommend roll calls up next. The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call, indeed, roll call from the Swamp. It is time to get into all of the latest insights, thoughts, quips, analytic additions, keeping me honest, all that good stuff that comes to

us courtesy of roll call. And man, it's just so nice. This was the first morning in a week I've woken up and not felt like I had some weird foreign objects stuck in the glands around my throat. So you know, life is good. Life is good. The Holidays coming up. It's gonna be a good week on Radio two, folks, John writes Buck the Christmas tree was chosen based on the size of the chimney. After it dried out, it

was removed from the home trunk first. To clean the chimney with its dead branches, you dropped a chain tied to a rope. Just so you know, John, I have never heard this before, and my thought was that, based on what I had been told before and what I've read, that the Christmas tree is a tradition that we borrowed from pagan rituals in Europe, where there would be either a burning of what a coniferous tree, the fir tree

that the Christmas tree actually is. So I've never heard this theory before that that's used to clean the chimney. But it is definitely interesting to me that that is a theory that you have raised. So I'll I'll take your word for it, pending further review. Sounds a little weird to me, but interesting for sure. Mike. Right, Hey, Buck, you're talking about the Stormy Daniels payoff. What about the

seventeen million dollars Congress has paid out for sexual conduct payoffs. Well, you know, Mike, what we have here with the Cohen payoff situation is, once again we're being told, as we've been told all along in the Russia Collusion Special Council probe, right, the investigating of the investigation of Donald Trump, which is what this is. This is the investigation of Donald Trump

by his political enemies. That's what's going on. And the people who have been telling us that this is all about getting to the truth, getting to justice are also the ones who are now telling us that we need to understand that the crimes that are being uncovered don't deal with bad conduct or even necessarily criminal conduct. The crimes are in the process of how non criminal conduct is hand. Let me give it a little bit of

a deeper details here on this one. For example, lying is the most obvious case we have where they're lying not about conduct that was criminal, to protect themselves. But we are supposed to believe that it's just a coincidence that these individuals who are put through the hellish, emotionally and financially draining experience of having to face the special counsel, that they're lying for no apparent reason. They're just lying

because they're liars and lying is bad. And so that process crime gets wedged into all of this, and we don't have much further in terms of explanation. Okay, so that's one part of this. And then on the Stormy Daniel's payoff, we're supposed to be so outraged because this payoff, which was a completely legal payoff to make, was not reported to election authorities properly. Well, I gotta tell you something.

The notion that election authorities are somehow these virtuous and why institutions, these these bodies that look at our election and it's you know, this is crazy. What I mean is that they can change the election law with a simple Act of Congress whenever they feel like, any time they feel like, because there's no underlying moral distinction that's being made here, right, they're not saying this is the this is the mallem in say versus maem mallem prohibitum

distinction them we talk about here on the show. Mallem in say is don't kill people. You don't need the law to tell you don't kill people. And even if you didn't know there was a law that says don't kill people, I could morally and with clarity, reason you through why you don't just kill people? Or don't steal? Why should you not steal? We could? Why should you have to only be able to give, you know, twenty one hundred dollars to a political candidate because Congress says,

so that's malim prohibitim. There's an arbitrariness to it and a lack of moral foundation in the rule that we are essentially trusting in this case the system and the elites who run it to make good decisions about where they're drawing the lines. But on election stuff, this is about as hazy and gray area and overly complicated as any area of law can get. And it's really just we're supposed to believe it's bad because they say so.

You know, what you have not seen in the investigation of Donald Trump and his associates is any talk of or I shouldn't say any talk any proof of There's lots of talk of it of what would be a crime that is truly appalling, a crime for which anybody would demand there is punishment and that that's what justice requires.

You know. There's nothing about about stealing from people, about attacking people, about hurting people, about you know, it's always this stuff about how if you know Trump didn't report this properly, or you know, maybe he's hiding his taxes. You know, it's paperwork crimes. They're going after Trump on paperwork crimes primarily. And you know people would say, oh, buck well, paperwork crime could be stealing somebody's house. Yeah, but I mean the crime is just the paperwork's not

done properly. Where the crime is that the testimony was not given accurately. But there's no underlying crimes. And I know this is getting kind of philosophical about what does the law really prohibit? In what is the law? But I think that's where we are now because as we saw with Hillary, and it's not a what about is if it's true she broke laws, but they told us that was okay. They found they found a rationalization for

Hillary breaking the laws okay. And with Trump they're trying to find a rationalization for how he did break the laws. That's what we're seeing play out in real time, and that's why people like me, I'm so little f that this has been a fair process and will continue to be and I'm sure it will continue to be an unfair process. Rito Rites, welcome back. Glad your voice box didn't crap out. You're absolutely right, sank Toakomy is exactly the term for his insufferable self. Does he truly think

we don't know what he did? Or is he delusional? Doesn't matter, it's maddening. Merry Christmas. All my people are getting black Rifle coffee. We'll really thank you so much, and remember Black Riflecoffee dot com. Slash Buck make sure that that's where you go so that they know that you're part of Team Buck and the show gets credit, but you know you'll get a good discount. And I really do. I have coffee around stacked up next to my desk, and I think Black Rifle does a great job.

And the guys who run the company or they're just they're they're great dudes and dudets, they're ladies worked there two So definitely check it out. And as for Sanktakomy, Yeah, Sanctakomey is somebody who should give us all a little bit of Paul when we think about how the government functions, who's in charge of it. And this is why this

takes us really the roots of our conservatism. In many ways, we understand that individuals, that human beings, are driven by a whole range of emotions and feelings and beliefs and self interest. And so that's why we have limitations on government authority. That's why we want checks and balances. That's why we have so many clearly spelled out processes in

place that are meant to protect you, the individual. It's not really about protecting the Government's about protecting you the individual, from the government, because historically we know that tyranny comes from governments that are unrestrained and that are not rooted in a respect for and a protection of natural law,

so philosophical there too. Dale. Hey, Buck, glad your voice is back at I'm currently reading The Charm School by Nelson Demill, which is a Cold War era novel that takes place in the Soviet Union, involves army intelligence and the CIA. I know this as well before your time the agency, but I was curious if you've previously read the book and your thoughts aren't I if so, Shields High Dale, Dale, I've never read any of Demill's books. I will tell you that, I gotta be honest, never

read anything Demill is written, so I really can't. I just know the name, but I really can't speak at all to his writing in general or in specific terms, so I'm sure it's great. I haven't read that much in the way of espionage thrillers. I tended to read more books about the history of intelligence and intelligence agencies, so I'm not really your go to for espionage thriller book recommendations. Richard writes, Buck, could you ask this snippy

dot com people to simplify their site? Seems like advanced trigonometry trying to post and like and add followers. Richard I will pass along your comment to the folks that I know to deal with customer service there, and just understand that it's a new it's a new social media site, and that means that they're gonna look, they're gonna be working out some things as they go, but unlike a lot of the other sites out there, they're not engaged

in the shenanigans. And look, it's important that we as conservatives send a message to these social media really monopolies, I mean, these social media juggernauts and let them know that there will be consequences for their continued clear politicization, because that's what they're doing. They are politicizing social media in general. I mean they're politicizing the social media platforms in a way that are meant to help the left.

I mean, that's that's what's going on. That's what we're seeing happening, and I just think we should all be very very clear about that. We have next up here rights Tia. Tia says, Hey, again, I've never seen Titanic. I've watched a documentary about the Titanic and that had me sobbing. I didn't dare watch the movie. Well, I guess you're one of the very very few is not seeing Titanic. But you're not missing much because I'm pretty

sure you know how it ends. All right, team, we got a fantastic show already in the works for you tomorrow. Please do tell some folks about this podcast. Remember, if you're ever out out of radio station range, you can, or you just don't have the time to listen live, you can listen to this pot and listen to the show in full on podcasts absolutely anytime you want. Just go on iTunes, you go on the iHeart app and listen to the Buck Saxon Show at your leisure on demand.

It's a great way to do it. And with that until tomorrow, Shields High Oma Stakes are fantastic and right now Omaha Stakes is giving an amazing limited time off to my listeners. When you get to Omaha Steaks dot com and enter promo code Buck into the search bar, you will get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package originally one hundred and ninety five dollars, now

only forty nine ninety nine. Order now and you'll get four can cut age to Tendators, Top Surloins, two Savory Premium Port jobs, four Chicken fried stakes, four Omaha Steaks burgers, four snappy Cobasta sausages, all beef meatballs, and four perfectly brown potatoes. Oh Granta, Plus, you'll get four more burgers free and four perfectly brown potatoes. Oh grattaw you throw

that all the mix. It's delicious. Omah Steaks is a fifth generation family owned company with over one hundred years of experience delivering perfectly aged beef handcut by master Butcher's in Omaha. Omaha Steaks dot com tight buck in the search bar and add the family Gift Package to your card. Omaha Steakes dot com tight buck in the search bar to send the Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package today