A Massacre Of Mormons In Mexico

That and more coming up. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins, Remember the nimpd buck Sexton. Welcome to the buck Sex and the Show. Everybody, Thank you so much for being here. We have a

lot to get to today. As is our custom, I did want to start off though, with an absolutely gut punch, a gut punching, heart wrenching, really horrific story that I think, unfortunately is a harbinger of some further violence and instability on our southern border to come. Here's where it stands right now. Cartel gunmen have killed at least nine US citizens, including six children, who were in the Mexican border state of Sonora. This is not far from the US Mexico

border with Arizona where this attack took place. Ranita Maria LeBaron died along with her six month old twins and her two other children aged ten and twelve. Christina at Langford Johnson, Donna Langford and two of Donna's children, aged three and eleven, were also killed. The victims here belonged to the LeBaron family. They are US citizens, dual citizens with Mexico who live who live in a Mormon breakaway

community in this part of northern rural northern Mexico. The stories, the details that we have so far about this coordinated ambush are horrific, beyond imagining. There were children who died as these cars were on fire. They were strapped in the vehicles unable to escape. Children were reportedly executed while trying to run away from this three suv convoy after

it had been attacked. There's also some early reports and indications that some of the women who were captured, they believe members of the family may have been captured or being held. We're sexually assaulted in this whole process too, as vicious and awful in ambush as you could imagine murdering children. A lot of people are going to see this and say, wait a second, you mean that Mexico is in a really bad place. This will be something of a surprise to them, not people who watch and

listen to this show. However, you will recall that we have done in recent weeks stories on what happened in Kuliya Khan, Mexico, where you had cartel gunman on behalf of Chapo Guzman's son O video shut down essentially an entire city, a major city in Mexico, and have the national government back off. You know, when the national government backs off of a gunfight with the bad guys, with

the thugs, you're in a very bad place. I've also been telling you now for the last two years that Mexico has the highest murder rate that it has had in history. Right now, that Mexico is seeing more violence internally than at any time since they have been counting homicides. How much of this do you see getting attention in the news media. There are reasons for that, my friends, This is not an oversight, This is not an accident. And I will get into why this doesn't fit the

narrative for the mainstream meeting in a second. But going back into this, this ambush of women and children, defenseless women and children in a convoy on a dirt road, I do not believe. And this is now assessment. This is not reporting. This is not based on anything other than me looking through the details. But I used to do this quite a bit at the CIA and then at the NYPD Intelligence Division, look at the early signs

to try to understand what the indicators are. People who are saying that this is an accident, meaning they thought that they were attacking a rival cartel, I don't believe that. I could be wrong. I don't believe it. People who are referring to this as being caught in the crossfire, well, that suggests that there were people on the other side firing and this convoy somehow got in the middle, which

there's no evidence to support that either. I think there's a real effort here and some people from some people in our media, in the US media, to find an explanation for this that's not The cartels basically run Mexico, that the cartels are now more powerful than any politician, more powerful than the central government in a day to day way, and that they're just covering this up, and that Lopez Obrador has been with his hugs not bullets policy that's actually a thing, by the way, trying to

find ways to do development and to not go to war with the cartels. The cartels have gone to war with Mexico, and what they show us now is that they have no problem engaging in the worst atrocities, not just against cartel rivals and innocent Mexicans, to the tune of tens of thousands of people a year, about thirty

to thirty five thousand murders in Mexico every year. That's a lot for a country that's less than half the size of the United States and has about double our murder rate, perhaps even more like two and a half times. So there's a big problem here. But that the cartel would do this, this could be something of a turning point. You would think that perhaps this would get attention. These were Americans. These were at least nine perhaps more killed

and perhaps more captured. Now and who knows what's going on. Unthinkable, unthinkable, atrocities in captivity. But these are our people. These are Americans. Yes, they're dual citizens, they're American citizens too, and they are down there in Mexico and they were just slaughter by cartels. Now I appreciate that President Trump has taken the position

he has on this. He says that a wonderful family, this was on Twitter this morning, A wonderful family and friends from Utah got caught between two vicious drug cartels who were shooting at each other, with the result being many great American people killed, including young children, and some missing. If Mexico needs a request help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing and able to get

involved and do the job quickly and effectively. The great new president of Mexico has made this a big issue. But that cartels have become so large and powerful. You need sometimes an army to defeat an army. So the President is saying here himself that they were caught in the crossfire. I can't understand how that would work though. And if they're caught on the crossfire, why would children

running away from the convoy be specifically executed. They couldn't be concerned about these kids ide and cartel gunmen from Afar and those are that's already in the reporting. So I think that in the initial assessment here there are mistakes that are being made. I'll update this as we find out, as we find out more. That seemed to me to be a first take on the issue, unless the other eyewitness accounts that we're hearing about are incorrect.

It's also noteworthy that Mexican authorities were not particularly helpful in this, and that family members of those who had been murdered had to swarm the hills around this attack site themselves looking for survivors. So the Mexican government does not have this well in hand. They will also, of course not invite in at least not openly direct American kinnetic Assistant show. We say, at least not something that they'll talk about publicly. We have a real problem here.

Even if let's assume for a moment that the initial reporting about this being a caught in the crossfire moment is true, well, then that would mean that the cartels are still willing to execute women and children in the midst of a gun battle with their opponents knowing that this is going to be I mean even in Mexico. This incident was going to get a lot of attention. They don't care. They're not worried about the bad press. Particularly there's been so many there have been so many

murders and so many atrocities in Mexico. They have police convoys that are ambushed with I think it was recently nine officers in one instance murdered by cartel gunmen. Why does this come as a surprise to so many Americans? Why does this come as a surprise to people in

this country. Well, we are led to believe by the press, by the Democratic Party, by the open borders movement here, that Mexico is not a security concern for us, when if you look at the amount of heroine that is pouring into this country as well as opioids, the number of people that are dying from those heroin and opioid overdoses, and who controls that trade, it is almost entirely the Mexican drug cartels. Mexican drug cartels are poisoning American city.

Thousands and thousands of people now are dying every year, over seventy thousand in one of our particularly bad recent years. And I know that the press likes to beat up on pharmaceutical companies, and there were some pharmer companies that engaged in unethical practices for which they have now been financially annihilated, and perhaps they will also be further criminal

sanction against individuals involved, including doctors prescribing drugs. But keep in mind that the way our laws work in this country right now, if someone sells opioids to a person who overdoses, they don't get charged with just selling a controlled substance. They are charged with manslaughter or murder. They

are held responsible for that homicide. So, based on that very same legal approach, which is a day to day reality here in America, the drug cartels a response, well, for killing thousands and thousands of Americans every year, who knows how many. It's very tough to actually get this data. I've asked around for it. I even asked somebody, a contact of the DA say, well, it's hard to know where the drugs come from. So we know most of

the drugs come from Mexico. We know about sixty to seventy thousand people are dying from these drug overdoses every year. We know Big Pharma has been put on notice, and doctors know They risk not just their license, but their freedom for decades if they overprescribe on purpose or illicitly

prescribe these drugs. So what is the most likely scenario here, Let's put all of us together, that the drug cartels that are now multibillion dollars international criminal syndicates are responsible for poisoning our cities and causing just unimaginable social destruction. And yet we are told that Mexico is not a

national security concern for us. We're told that the fact that there's a country right next door that has organized crime more powerful than the central government and can even outgun them in a major city is not something that we need to be worried about. Those syndicates. By the way, those cartels, they have connections, They have tentacles that stretch into every major US city and in fact a lot

of mid size and small US cities too. Sometimes they try to keep a low profile here because thank god, our law enforcement has not yet been outgunned by cartels, and they still have to operate with some degree of discretion and fear of law enforcement in America. Not so in Mexico. And trust me, the history of that country. It's corruption its inability to have durable institutions that will

root out corruption. That all indicates to me that what's going on there right now there are people going all the way up the chain of the Mexican government who are not who are either not willing to fight against the cartels or are on the cartel's payroll. The hotels have something on them. The cartels have threatened their family, The cartels are in some way exerting leverage on them. How is this not one of the biggest stories in

the country. I ask you that question. How is it possible that we have seventy thousand or so Americans dying every year, overwhelmingly from poison being poured into our cities by our neighbor to the south, by the organized crime groups there that are killing Americans on our side and killing tens of thousands of Mexicans, people who are just caught on the crossfire day in and day out. Why

can't they get control of this. Why aren't there law enforcement and judicial systems strong enough to finally root this out? These are questions that we should ask much more than we do, and it's also something that I think should get a whole lot more attention at not just in our media, but also from our own government. We've heard a lot about how we need to treat the opioid epidemic by putting more facilities in place. That's all well and good, but how about stopping the poison from entering

our cities. People are not growing heroin in their backyard in Vermont or in Utah. It's coming in from south of our border, and it's being grown in Mexico. There's been an enormous shift. Heroin used to be overwhelmingly from Afghanistan. It was a big cash crop for the Taliban. UN estimates back even a decade ago or that over ninety percent of the world's heroin market was grown in essentially

southern and eastern Afghanistan. Now about ninety percent of the heroin and opioids coming into this country that are on the street illegally are coming from Mexico and they are made in or grown in Mexico. Oh, but the fact that we have a porous border, the fact that we have millions and millions of illegal aliens in the country who, yes, a very small percentage of whom are involved directly in

the cartel trade. But there's still a percentage of them who are, and that percentage, by the way, is responsible for thousands and thousands of US deaths. You can read Sam Canone as his book Dreamland. He goes into this in details. An LA Time Supporter's not a conservative's a liberal.

The cartels made inroads into US cities at just the same time that there was this surge in prescription painkillers, and they capitalized on it and murdered countless Americans in the process, addicted people and put them in a position where the likelihood of an overdose was overwhelming. Mexico's a big problem. How much time, I ask you this, have you heard the media wailing about the Kurds in the last few weeks versus how much time have you heard

them talking about the gunfight in Kuliya Khan. How much do you think they'll spend on this mass assassination, of this ambush and slaughter of nine Americans? The numbers probably going to grow in Mexico. What's a bigger threat? Who? Who has killed more Americans in the last thirty days? Cartels in Mexico, which are right on our border and can come and go as they please, largely across our border,

or isis in Syria. Who should we be more concerned about A lot of people giving weighty speeches about the threat of ertiwan, What about the threat of the Sinaloa cartel, which one's more likely to be a problem for you in your community wherever you are in the country, by the way, from coastal California to Appalachia, north and south everything in between. The cartels have tentacles all over the place. People in your town, your city are dying because of

what they do. Where's the media focus on this? Where's the CNN, the MSNBC town hall on cartels in the opioid epidemic? Oh? You mean that, It's almost like it doesn't fit the narrative. None of us are surprised here in the Freedom hud are we just an update on this ambush as I was taking a moment here to

look at the numbers. Nine killed, seven injured. Children are now in the United States and they were part of this this Mormon sect that had left the United States decades ago and settled in Mexico because of a schism over the practice of polygamy. This group also just as a as a side note of the history of it involved at one point to George Romney. Mitt Romney's father lived in in this part of Mexico as as a member of this member of this sect. I believe he

was born there. So they're also had There's some additional numbers here. Last last year I said thirty to thirty five thousands, thirty three thousand murders in Mexico last year twenty nineteen. So far, he's going to break that thought. We had about thirty five thousand murders in this country of Mexico, and the authorities are just hoping that they don't have to. I think they just don't want to lift the lid off and see what's what's underneath here

in terms of the cartels. They don't want to deal with it. They're just hoping it goes away. But it's not going to go away. This is a powder keg. This could go at any point. We also now know the name of the worst blower. The whistleblower needs to come before Congress as a material witness because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs. I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name. Why is the

whistleblower's name sacrosanct? Who said that that's the case? Who? Who? And where? Show me the statute or show me the regulation that claims that an internal federal government, federal agency whistleblower who decides to blow the whistle on something that's not even within the purview of his or her agency has a guarantee of anonymity for as long as that person wants it. Huh does an anybody want to explain

that one to me? But the problem here, and we're going to keep running in circles around this, is that the process is largely whatever the Democrats decide, because they're in the majority of the House. Whatever they decide the process is, that's what it will be. So they'll make it as fair as unfair as they want and claim that they have the power for this process to be what it is. And Republicans are right to point out some of the glaring imbalances and all this, but it's

not going to change anything. Ultimately, it's going to continue to be more or less what it is, which is a get Trump, destroy Trump, do what you can see just they're really just in a lot of ways shaking the tree to see what falls out. I mean, they don't even know what the end result of this whole impeachment process will be. They just know that it's bad for the president, and as we know from dealing with the left, anything that is bad for the president must

be good. That's their approach, that's how they see all of this. Rand Paul also went a little further here, and this is something and I'm just noting that a lot of what you're here now from the administration, from officials defending it, is where the buckster was in the beginning, which is we already know Hunter Biden is what he did is unethical and gross. We already know that this was pay to play. It might not have been illegal,

but the appearance of corruption is clearly there. That's that's in the facts, which also means that the basis for an investigation is there, Which means that the president of the United States asking a foreign counterpart to look into something is completely within his purview. Is it bare knuckle politics? Yeah? Is Trump allowed to do that in response to what they're doing to him? Yes, in my opinion, sure, people disagree with me. You know what they can do vote

against him. That's what this is. All a political question. Democrats are trying to morphit into some legalistic process. But it's not a legal process. It's not legal. It's not a criminal justice proceeding. But people got all into this quid pro quote and all the stuff. I'm like, look, I don't even see what's wrong with it. You can go back, go to tape, listen to earlier week we got him the episodes on iTunes on the iHeart Up,

which you can subscribe to. But go back, listen to what I was saying when the first thing, when this broke. You'll see, yes, look, I don't understand what the big problem is here. And some conservatives that I really like, we're very worried about it at first, but I know this game before I know how, I know how the Russia collusion hoax was run. They get all frenzied, they get all fired up about how this is the worst

thing that anyone's ever done. It's worse than Nixon. And then when you look at it and you deal with the facts, you say, but hold on a second, why exactly is this worse than Nixon? Why is this worse than Watergate? It's always important to take a breath when liberals tell you that the republic is about to sink and we're all doomed. That's when it's worthwhile the step outside gets some fresh air and think, do I trust these people? The answer is no. So since I don't

trust them, should to listen to them about this? The answer is also no. Rant Paul understands that the Hunter Biden thing. Democrats are sensitive about it because it looks gross. There's no question about a play club five. If you would hunter Biden made fifty thousand dollars a month. That's the definition of corruption. We know he got it only

because of his family connections. And I say to my colleagues, if shifty Shift will not let Hunter Biden come, and if you will not bring the whistleblower for every Republican in Congress should take a walk and say this is a farce. I think that at some point Republican nullification of the process, or at least refusal to behave or to behave maybe to be a part of the process.

That's what this is heading to. I do think at some point Republicans should probably just say we're not gonna We're not gonna do this, We're not gonna show up what are they gonna They're gonna send a sergeant in arms to arrest all the Republicans for not wanting to sit through Adam shifts bizarre inquisition Hunter Biden, which we all have to goes back to the Democrat debate where Anderson Cooper's like whatever his question was, it's basically, you know, hey,

I'm going to ask you about Ukraine, Joe Biden, but I'm also going to make sure that there's no evidence against you and there's no evidence you didn't anything wrong, And now I'm gonna ask my question. Well, I mean that all depends on what the meaning of wrong is, because to me, it is quite clearly wrong for someone to get fifty thousand dollars a month when their fathers on board. Because remember, even if see this is if you really think this through, you understand why the Democrats

are so sensitive about this. Let's say for a second that what Hunter and Joe Biden have told us all along is true, which is a leap I will have you know that I'm not willing to make. But but let's just say that they made this or they did not discuss anything Ukraine related, and that Hunter never even promised the Ukrainians who were sending him these big checks every month that he was going to be their guy with the administration, with the Obama administration. And let's assume

that Joe Biden's telling the truth. And remember, I'm not I don't believe it this is true, but I just even if we go to that level where we say everything had told us so far as true, the Ukrainian company Bisma was paying Hunter Biden to be on the board as an insurance policy. Right's something that we know the left, the Democrats know about. Remember the discussion about the insurance policy in Andy McCabe's office, off what if Trump gets elected. Yeah, they try to pretend that we're

not going to remember that, but we do remember. So the insurance policy is an issue here. The way that you can see this is that if Hunter Biden's on the board of Barisma, wouldn't that even without anyone being told anything in Ukraine, which is very dependent on US eight at this point in time, the Obama aministration is heavily engaged in Ukraine as a foreign policy issue, wouldn't you know, just without being told Let's not get too

crazy with this Bearismo investigation. And if you were the person making the decisions or the group making decisions about who's on the Barizma board. You would know that too, that it doesn't matter. Right, Why why is it a problem for somebody in you know? Why is nepotism an issue in general? You know? Why is it a problem in government for a father? You know, if if Trump were too And you guys know that I disagree with the nepotism that this administration engages in. I just I do.

I think it's wrong. And people can tell me all day that the best people are the people he trusts and they're around him. But let's be honest about this. First second, folks, look at a lot of the decisions Trump has made about who to put around him, you know, like the mooch, we're gonna this isn't This is an area where you know, if you're not willing to criticize the president, I gotta say, I think it's starting to come pretty close to where are you willing to criticize

this president? And I'm a big supporter, as you know, that's that's that's a different thing supporting somebody and saying everything I do is brilliant is not this? That's not those are not equivalent. But why is nepotism an issue in the first place. Well, because if I'm the president of the United States, let's make it President Buck, which would be amazing, by the way, but it's not gonna happen. I like getting sleep and relaxing and going for walks

anonymously in New York. Let's say that there was President Buck and I had a son who was great, and I want to make my son's secretary of State. How could anybody have confidence that I wasn't picking my son Because whether I ever tell anybody or not where, whether I ever write it down or make it a quid pro quo or make it official or not, the fact of the matter is that I have a personal relationship to that person, and that will affect my decision making.

The same is true about Drew Biden on the board of Barisma. When his dad is running policy in that country. There doesn't have to be a discussion about it. The point is that it makes it look like nobody could touch Burisma because Hunter Biden's there, so there, so the people are saying, oh, but there's no there's no smoking gun, we have no it doesn't matter. We've already established that this was gross. We've already established that this is wrong.

You never should have done it. Of course, it's why did Joe Biden say to him, I hope you know what you're doing. I mean, Joe Biden's kind of a moron, but he's smart enough to figure out that having his song on the board of a company when he's running Obama administration policy in that country is a problem. Doesn't look good. Media has no interest in this whatsoever, and they're certain by the way that there's no further investigation needed.

I mean, we've had the Mullard probe, We've had every media organization in the country that's anti Trump, which is ninety percent of them digging into Russia collusion as though their lives depended on it. Same thing, over and over, same witnesses, the same storyline, everything. But in the case of Breeze. But with Hunter Biden, we know everything. We need to know. Nothing to see here, Move on or

else you're a conspiracy theorist. Sorry, not going to play the game the way they want me to, because I know what the other side's really all about. I know what matters to them. Let's also, though, talk about this. Javanovich testimony. The good news here, folks, is I read the Javanov testimony. It's already been I don't know if they've I think they leaked it or maybe it's out officially. I can't keep up with all the shenanigans going home

with this committee. But I read the Yevanovich testimony, and let me tell you it is. It is not exactly riveting stuff. All these State Department people have the same you know, I've just been doing all the best I can for US foreign policy, and I'm a selfless public servant and i have no politics, and right, we get it, Okay, fine, some of them are some of them aren't. You know, it's like any large organization. There are go to the university of some big school, and you know they'll be

brilliant people, though they'll be idiots there. That's like the State Department. That's like the CIA, that's like the FBI. You know, you got a mix. But Yevanovich's testimony. There are a few things that are worth noting from this, which I'll tell you, but just just in case you happen to flip on the TV and you see Shifty Shift trying to lie to you about it. I want to I want to give you some of what really happens or what really is clear from the testimony, and

more importantly, I mean on the process. We have a problem here though, because the Democrats can set and are setting the process. It's deeply unfair, but they're allowed to make it deeply unfair. You know what the check is on the unfair process. The Democrats in this House impeachment inquiry are doing you, the voter. That's why this is political ambassadory. Ivanovitch had a well earned reputation as a fighter of corruption, and she was working with Ukraine to

get Ukraine to fight corruption. And so what does this irregular back channel, sanctioned by the president do. It seeks to remove someone fighting corruption in Ukraine by employing a vicious smear campaign in which the state department at the highest levels that acknowledged had no merit whatsoever. That smear campaign, orchestrated by this irregular channel was successful in removing a US ambassador and taring her reputation. Of course, see the

President's comments about the ambassador in the call record. All right, some notes of caution here. What does he see Ivanovitch? I think he's Conna. I can never get these names right. I was saying Yavanovitch, Ivanovitch, tomato, tomato. You know, I'm trying to get it right. So of course it's tomato, by the way, not tomato. What are we on, like faulty towers? Ridiculous? Do you even know? You don't even know what faulty towers is? Do you producing? This is

just like? Nah? I just old I just old manned myself here, didn't I You have no idea? Next Thingain, I'll be talking you about Mash. I at least know what Mash was. Well, that's good. I have a clue. But the other thing, no clue, no clue. Yeah, So a few things about this one my notes of caution here. Do I think that it's possible that perhaps the presidence personal layer Rue Giuliani might have been a bit over zealous,

and you know, I know the mayor. I like the mayor, so I would have a very hard time without heart evidence just be ever speaking ill of them. What does it possible theoretically that maybe he had some bad information on this ambassador and there was a smear campaign against her that was not meant to be a smear campaign, but they really thought she was working against Trump administration wishes in some way, I could say, I don't know, right,

we're working with very imperfect information here. But but a few things that I would note the State Department. Careers to the State Department are politically in line with the Oberlin Women's and Gender Studies Faculty Lounge. Okay, they are politically in line with the far left of America. Three I'd say, I'd say two out of three or three out of four, right, so you're looking at a healthy majority.

Aren't even just democrat their leftists, they're internationalists. I've spent a lot of time and a lot of people dated somebody a long time ago from the State Department. I know the State Department, Okay, not not super well. I didn't work there, but I know enough about it, having interacted with it and being around that enough to know that there's a and there were back in the day a lot of actual When I say commies, I mean communists.

There were Communist penetrations of the State Department at a very high level. And to this day people pretend that that did not happen. Don't even get me started on an Alger Hiss and the pumpkin papers and everything else that's real. Though, read Witness Whittaker Chambers fantastic, fantastic book. Really one of the people that got National Review up and running, along with William F. Buckley. You should read

Whitaker Chambers Witness. The left still pretends that there weren't commy infiltrations of this country, and specifically of the highest levels of the United States government, because the Left always has a little bit of a soft spot for commies. Now that's but I'm just giving you the numbers. I don't know if she is an anti Trumper or not. I would just note that it's very possible that she was so based on what you usually see for people

that work for the State Department. That's one aspect of this. Also, that Adam Schiff is telling you nothing but the most the most praising or praise worthy sweeping statements of how wonderful is That just puts me a little bit on edge. And the Obama administration has great fighters of corruption in Ukraine. Play clip nine if you would please. Ambassador Ivanovitch had a well earned reputation as a fighter of corruption, and she was working with Ukraine to get Ukraine to fight corruption.

And so what does this irregular back channel sanctioned by the president do. It seeks to remove someone fighting corruption in Ukraine? Right, But he is he saying that she was being removed because she was fighting corruption Ukraine or she being removed because it was believed that she was opposed to President Trump or did not like President Trump at some level. I mean, is now the storyline that President Trump wants Ukraine corruption? That's new, that would be

a new addition into this whole thing. Keep in mind that the Democrats do not allow House Minority Republicans or the House Republicans or in the minority to pull their own witnesses. They're not allowed to ask questions, so they're just there to watch the show, so to speak. So that then the Democrats can do whatever they want in the show and pretend that this is bipartisan, but it

is clearly not bipartisan. Democrats also have threatened, I believe, to withhold pay of State Department officials who show up and want there to be a State Department lawyer present with them during this testimony. Why would the State Department have a lawyer present with them? Well, to protect executive branch equities in all of this to make sure that the executive branch, which is a coequal branch with the Congress,

is not having its prerogatives run roughshod over. I don't know if that's really the way you'd say that, but you know what I mean. But no, you're not allowed to or else they'll hold your pay. I think I read that today, which seemed just absolutely outrageous. I think that the whistleblower gave a lot of false information, and

you have to see who the whistleblower is. Once I released the transcript, which was almost immediately, the whistleblower's report was very wrong because, as you know, the whistleblower covered mostly my transcript, myall Michael with the President of Ukraine. So once I released that call, I released a very detailed version of that call. All of a sudden, the whistleblowers report was incorrect, and the whistleblower seems to have disappeared. And I also wonder what happened to the second whistle

blower and what happened to the informant. The President has targeted some of the folks who have testified, including Lieutenant Colonel Vinman. He has called for unmasking the name or revealing the identity of the whistle blower, which is protected by the law. How much do you take this seriously and how much do you think it's actually a sort

of concrete threat to these proceedings. So we know that the whistle blower's identity is no longer relevant because everything he said has now been corroborated by other witnesses, and the White House's release they're called transcript the summarized version of it. We don't need to have a whistable over tell us what was on that phone call, because American

people already know. In addition, the Trump's President Trump's attacks on Colonel Vinman or a very unfortunate ten Colonel Vinman served in Iraq, he shut his blood, he had got a prople heart. He is an American hero, and he told his story to Congress. He should not be attacked. So there's a lot of very important things going on here from the Democrat side with this whole impeachment effort. I want to just walk it through a little bit

of it. Yeah, I can never remember the Ambassadory Ivanovitch, I think is why I'm supposed to say it, right, Ambassador Yvanovitch, there was there were no bombshells. She gave the usual I'm a sort of State Department, long time bureaucrat. Here's what I think, blah blah. They shouldn't have fired me, and maybe they shouldn't know. I can't you know, the administration if if they have any evidence or real proof that she was working against Trump, we should We should

see that at some point. We have not seen that yet. But I would note that this desire to protect the whistleblower's identity at all costs. Hold on a second, why can't the whistle blower testify behind closed doors because Republicans and Congress can't be trusted with the identity. Now, keep in mind there's already reports circling all over the place about the name of somebody who is a reportedly a CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC. Who is

the person behind this? I can neither confirm nor deny. I don't know the name is swirling around. But until we have confirmation of this from the government, we don't

really know what we're dealing with. But let's understand also what the president here would be A person working for the federal government going forward, any person working for the federal government could, upon learning of any meeting that the president has, including a highly classified discussion that the president has, file a complaint through allies in Congress, and then use that complaint as the basis for a make it up

as you go along impeachment inquiry. That's an entirely political exercise, and that is meant to defame the president while in office and also perhaps even set the stage for not just a Senate trial, but removal from office of the President of the United States, thwarting the will of the American people as evidence in the twenty sixteen election, and showing us that the deep state really runs things. That's

the precedent that would be set here. Think about this, Why did we have all these hearings about Benghazi, for example, with the Obama administration when what they really should have done, apparently is have one person from within the There are

plenty of them, by the way. I've spoken to people who were involved in Benghazi who would have loved the opportunity to talk about the terrible malfeasance by the Hillary Clinton State Department, the lack of action by the White House under President Obama during the hours the thirteen hours I believe it was of that assault and gun battle. But instead of just having hearings, we could find out what happened, and hearings of the the American people were allowed

to see. I suppose they should have just had one person who really didn't like President Obama go meet with Republicans in the Congress and say that Obama was guilty of dereliction of duty. Oh, but that person's a whistleblower. See, so nobody can know who it is, what their politics are,

what their motivations may be. Keep that identity secret. Then convene a congressional majority, a congressional group like the House permanenc left Committee on Intelligence that just goes and subpoenas every Obama administration official they want to, threatens to hold people in contempt. Doesn't allow Democrats. I mean, that's that's what could have happened. I suppose if Republicans were willing to just go scorched earth and just just play really dirty.

I mean, the Democrats are playing here, that's what this is. You'll notice that now they're saying, well, we know it's in the transcripts, so we don't need to hear from the whistleblower more. Well, then why did we hear from a whistle blower in the first place. Whistle blower wasn't even there when the call was had, and there was supposed to be a second witness, where's that second witness? And what is that witness really going to tell us? These are all the questions we were not supposed We're

not supposed to get answers to anymore. We're supposed to just believe Ted lou and Adam Schiff and various other Democrat hyperpartisans who represent incredibly blue districts, and all they have to do to get reelected, and they know it is constantly prove their Trump hatred. That's all they have to do. That's all that has to happen. So that

makes it a pretty straightforward proposition for them. I've been telling you this, I'm seeing others have been catching on, and I would be writing some articles about this, but I'm writing the book. The book's coming along. I'm in a chapter right now about college for all. I'm going to be writing about modern monetary theory soon, and I'm just the buckster is is a little overworked and under

slept lately. So I'm trying. I'm trying, but this show is obviously priority number one, So this show will always be awesome. But I can't write as much for the Hill in other places as I have been in the past, because I got to write the book that all said my defense of the basic right just a right of fairness, never mind just a right of law to confront your accusers.

Where is the willingness to stand up for this. There's a reason why that's not something that's just kind of thrown in there at the very you know, at the very end. Now this goes back to English common law. If someone is going to accuse you of a serious crime, you should have the right or your lawyers, your defense team, the people that are representing your side of the story should have the right to question that individual story and yes,

character and trustworthiness and all the rest of it. That's an essential component of justice. Otherwise people have first of all, as much less likely that we'll get to the truth of an accusation. And also think about the incentive then to just lob bombs at somebody from safe quarters and know that you're never going to receive incoming yourself. You're just going to be able to say whatever you want about a person and you can lie about it as

you see fit. That's a problem, folks. That's a problem, and that's what they're doing right now to President Trump. It's disgusting. And yet the media seems to have no problem with this whatsoever. The process is whatever the Democrats say it is, unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that we have to say the process is okay. It also goes to show you that there's nothing fair minded about any

of this. Right, if the Democrats were serious, if they had a real case, wouldn't they make more of a show of Sure Republicans can cross examine, Sure Republicans are going to get an equal say in how these hearings are conducted, They're going to be able to ask questions of witnesses to all these things. No, they're not going to do any of that. They have to cheat, They have to stack the deck in their favor because they

don't have a strong case and they know it. And they also have to protect the identity of the whistleblower because if we found out who this person was, for sure, I think we already kind of know, And if it's the person that's being reported as the whistle blower, then yeah, it's a Democrat hack part is in working inside the intelligence community, who saw an opportunity here to work with his buddies and defend Joe Biden in the process, to work with Adam shift in the Democrats and try to

take down a president that he obviously hates in a way that only the same shrill lunatics who basically cry even though they're adults when a baseball player puts on a maga hat, that same mentality, those same individuals, Yeah, they do work for the federal government. Sometimes, the kind of people who would boo the Commander in chief the same day or than twenty four hours of arrayed the commander in chief order to take out Abubakhara bug Daddy

to boo him. Those same lunatics work for the federal government. A lot of them, not a few of them. Mostly the federal government is full of trump paters, because people who go to work for the federal leviathan who want jobs where the minimum is all that is ever expected or required of you, and where you cannot be fired, and where all you do and I know this because I was one is complained about how underpaid you are,

when in fact you're overpaid. That's going to be a place where you find a lot of Democrats, a lot of leftists, and so it's unsurprising that some of them come forward and try to take out the President of the United States politically in this way, which reminds me also of the anonymous book. This is going to be interesting. You remember the anonymous op ed writer who claimed that the steady state was doing everything possible to try and

stop the president from getting his way. Ah, we must stop President Trump from being able to do what he wants to do as president because he's so crazy, and so we pull papers away from him. The steady state, well, really deep state, anonymous op ed author said, we frustrate his will for the benefit of the American people, and then they make fun of us when we say so, there is a deep state, right. We understand this because that's what this person is describing. What this person is

laying out for us is the deep state. That's what it is. But they don't like to think of it that but they don't like to hear about it in those terms. Isn't that interesting? So this person is coming out with a book. I believe it hits mid November, and the book will be I'm sure, one large collection of look at how crazy and stupid Trump is behind closed doors ps vote Democrat the end, that's what the book will be. How can we judge the authenticity of

the author? How can we judge their motivations, their truthfulness when we don't know who the person is. Democrats are normalizing cowardice in a way that's fascinating to watch. Oh, we can have a whistleblower, but the whistleblower can't come forward. Really, we have men and women in uniform across the country and around the world risking their lives every day out

of love for this country. You're gonna tell me this whistle blower, such a patriot, can't take the heat, the heat of being on the speaker's tour, getting paid one d one hundred thousand dollars to speak look at Combe. Oh yeah, he's he's suffered a terrible amount for his opposition to the president. If by suffering you mean getting a book deal, being on TV all the time, getting paid to give speeches all over the country about how awful Trump is. There's no bravery here. This whistleblower is

not brave, and there's no bravery in writing this. Anonymous book, which we're told the person's going to give some degree of the money, I think to charity or something. But that's until they decided to come forward, and then they start collecting the big paychecks for giving the anti Trump speeches as the author of anonymous all across the country.

This is appalling. Why can't this person come forward? I think it's because we would recognize that one, he or she is not nearly I believe it's he, he is not nearly as senior as he would want us to believe. And two probably find out that this person has a background just like the whistleblower. Reportedly of Democrats support an

anti trumpism. So this would be like, you know, I could go back to work for the federal government and the next time we have a Heaven forbid, but we might have a Biden or a Warrant or a Buddha judge administration. All of a sudden, I'm a whistleblower. And people say, wait a second. This guy has been a Republican, he's been a right winger his whole life. Maybe his opinion on this isn't just so objective. Well, of course, of course it's not objective. It's the opinion of somebody

that is opposed to the administration. That's exactly what we have here. The issue with the anonymous book right now, the issue with the anonymous book is that they are going to look into The Justice Department is looking into whether or not there was a binding nondisclosure agreement signed here, especially if the person had access to classified information. You're going to see a lot of people that I think

are gonna have trouble here. If this person was senior and had access to classified information, which is you would have to be if you're a senior enough in this White House, there is a review process for writing a book of the stature about your work. It does not matter if you think you are a patriot. It does not matter if you think that you are saving the democracy or the republic or whatever they're calling it today. You have a legal obligation to submit that for review.

And I am pretty sure, although I can't speak to it quite yet, we'll have to find out what the final facts are. I'm quite sure that this person did not submit this for review and so therefore would be

in violation of their secrecy agreement. Now, violation of the secrecy agreement itself without spilling classified information is punishable only by seizure of the profits of the book, and so the profits of the book that are going to go to charity, I'm not sure the White House would care to seize those, assuming that it's really just going to charity.

But then there's the issue of, well, if you're going to have a court proceeding here, guess what you have to find out who in fact is the author of this book, Hatchet or Hashette Hachett. However you say Hatchet, I think it's one of the publishers. A Chet is saying that they have no legal obligation to the federal governments, so they're not going to yet, but they have legal obligation to a federal judge, who may say, guess what, we have to know who this author is because we

have to know if they signed a classified NDA. This is the process we have, This is the way the law works. Get ready for it now, because at this fight, if the White House pursues this fight, you will see people who are alleged legal experts going on TV pretending that this is not very straightforward, when it is. The federal government has a legitimate interest in preventing the disclosure

of classified and sensitive information. If you go work for the federal government, you sign something a contract that is legally binding that says that for books about your work in the government, you will submit them for prepublication review. If you are unwilling to do that, you are in breach of contract to the federal government. How can we know if this person is in breach of contract to the federal government or not if we don't know who the person is? Oh, there we go. That's when a

federal judge gets to say who is this person? Federal judges deal with classified all the time. They can deal this inclosed proceedings. But we get to know, or rather the federal government gets to know. Just remember that now, because I think you're going to see, Oh but the first amendment in the you know, whatever is Trump is bad. And then you're gonna hear people legal experts go on TV make jackasses of themselves because anything for hashtag resistance.

We should probably some of these predictions, we should mark them down because I just am always right, and I mean it's fun to always be right. I mean sometimes producer Mark is like, you're occasionally wrong. I don't have to tell him see this is where you're wrong, producer, Mark.

But I'm basically always right, and this is one where assuming they pursue this, you will see people making arguments that are completely ridiculous on TV about how that there's no legal basis to find out who the author of this book is. There absolutely is a federal government basis to find out who the author of this book is. And they're going to try to hide this from us too.

Why the person is not as senior as they pretend to be in the op ed doesn't have the access that they're letting people believe that he or she believed. We'll see he does, and probably has a history of being kind of a if not a wishywashy Republican, a

straight up stealth Democrat. We'll see. But one of the reasons we wanted mister Eisenberg to come in is to find out what his role was, what the role of others was, and why a transcript that plainly did not belong in a classified system that is meant for some of the most secret of intelligence activities, that is, covert action activities. Why would a call record that the president would have the country believe was perfect, Why would it be hidden in this classified system. So clearly the White

House does not want him to testify. They do not want the American people to know why mister Eisenberger others made that decision. And I think we can infer that the reason they don't want the public to hear from mister Eisenberg is that it would tend to corroborate allegations against the president anything. Where Adam Shift says you should infer you probably want to do the opposite, because he's lying to you. Think about the way that this is

being constructed. Why would the transcript of the Zelenski Trump phone call be removed to a classified server? Why would that happen? First of all, any conversation between the president and another head of state is going to be considered sensitive and classified. Okay, that's so start with that. But why would it be removed specifically to a server would

be even more secure. Oh you mean, why would they try to prevent the leak of a conversation between the president and a counterpart that was basically leaked that they that as soon as possible, there was this effort to try to get it out into public view. Oh gee, I don't know. Maybe because they understood that the second there was an opening for people who hated the president try to take this and turn it into something that it wasn't. They would do it, But shifty shift never

stops being shifty. Let's talk about how journalism, big journos, how do they really do what they do? How does this business work, this business of informing the public but also shaping perception of fitting propaganda in certain ways so that it is more easily disseminated, making sure that narratives take hold in the public mind that are in line with what the activist intentions of most journalisms actually are. Right, That's all the part of how do they do it?

And how do we have evidence or do we have evidence of them doing it? Project Veritas strikes again, And I've got to tell you this is a pretty interesting one. You may have seen the memes out there now, there's a lot of them. Some of them are pretty pretty funny about how it has become a cultural phenomenon right now to just blurt out or write in an unexpected place that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself. This is a this is a meme. Now, this is a thing that's happening.

You'll see this in different places, and people will try to find more and more creative ways to put this out there. Here. I'll actually give a shout out to Michael Knowles over at the Daily Wire. He had one today that was that was particularly funny. It was on this day six hundred and eight years ago Khalil Sultan, the Timorhood ruler of Transaxania, died at the age of twenty seven. Shortly thereafter, his wife committed suicide, which distinguishes

her from Jeffrey Epstein, who did not kill himself. That's the that's the kind of stuff that you are are seeing, uh these days. That's the that's the the memes, the meme creation. Because there are a lot of people who are are looking at the Epstein case and are saying, well, hold on a minute, here, hold on a second. Why is it that doctor Boden, who was paid by Epstein's brother to look into this, But I don't believe that he would light his credibility on fire for no reason.

Who's involved in some of the highest level autopsies of any in terms of the cases that he's dealt with of anyone. Why would he say it is highly highly, highly unlikely that he's never seen. And I think it was forty years of medical examination, an autopsy, the circumstances that Epstein died under, and that being a suicide. So we're supposed to believe that the highest Let's just add

up the coincidences. Here, the highest profile prisoner at the time in the United States Bureau of Prisons custody was able to commit suicide weeks after an alleged other suicide attempt. He was able to commit suicide with two guards falling asleep while he was committing suicide, two guards with cameras malfunctioning near the cells, and the medical report shows breakages of around his throat that are more consistent with being

strangled than killing one's self. There's a lot of Oh, and he was the first prisoner, I believe, in the history of the Manhattan Correctional Facility to commit suicide when held in similar circumstances in a cell that was specifically designed to prevent suicide. And oh, by the way, doctor Boden hasn't seen this in forty years of examining dead bodies and homicide situations. That's I mean, look, that's all possible. Crazy stuff happens. It's a lot though, right, Am I

missing something? That's a lot of lots, a lot of coincidences. It's a lot of coincidences. But let's put that aside for a moment. So I don't plan on just sitting here on the show and yelling Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself at random, although I know people will be doing that on their shows, because I'm not sure. I think that it's still very much an open question what happened to Epstein. But here's what I don't think is an

open question. And this brings me back to or rather, here's what I am certain of, and this brings me back to Project faretas there's a lot about Epstein that is being suppressed, still actively suppressed by people who were around around Epstein, knew what was going on, and there was a conspiracy of silence that ran all the way through the media because of the people that Epstein was involved with, and that there was pressure brought to bear

to shut these stories down, no question about that, And that there are people right now who pretend to be brave, who pretend to be the journals out there who are doing the hard work of speaking truth to power. I do not know many journals at all who speak truth

to power. I know a lot of journals who do powers bidding, who do what they think their audience wants to see and what their paymasters in the executive suite want to see, and what their peer group in the elite echelon of opinion and tastemakers in American media want to see. That's what they report on, and if it fits into those categories, that's what they'll do. But if it's going to rock the boat too much, particularly, they'll

sell out their audience. Usually journalis long before they'll sell out the executives who signed their paychecks or the people that they socialize with after hours. We've seen this with Harvey Weinstein, with Matt Lauer, with numerous high level cases of people who were serial abusers of women at organizations that give a lot of lip service to being all about women's empowerment and feminists, and it turned out that no, they were much more concerned with powerful people, their relationships

and the bottom line, their financial interests. That it brings me this project very toss video about Jeffrey Epstein's case and what Amy Roeboch, who is an ABC News anchor, I mean I never. I'm always amazed that there are there are still millions of people who watch ABC, many more than watch cable news. By the way, ABC News has a much bigger audience for its one new show than any cable news show does. I just can't imagine watching this water down, worthless news broadcast that it's not

really opinion, it's not really news. It's just kind of like, I don't know. To me, it's it's like CBSCA News with Dan rather, these are these are old models that I'm amazed they still have any audience at all. But put that aside for a moment here, So I never. I don't even know who Amy Roebock was, but I'm sure she's got millions of people that watch her, even though I work in news and I don't even know who she is. But there's an important, an important reality

keep in mind, and that is reducer. Mark has to remind me of this sometimes when I'm in the Freedom Hunt in the language is getting a little salty. What is that when you have microphones and cameras around you. Yeah, if you're not on air, you can let it loose a little bit sometimes, and there's a different presentation that we all have when we are presenting in front of

an audience versus when we're just talking off mike. But you gotta always assume that maybe it's being recorded and maybe it will you know, for those who don't remember, What'll Do It Live? We'll Do It Live. One of the greatest moments, and I really think one of the greatest bods in TV history. It's amazing, and I like I like Bill O'Reilly. I think he's a great TV talent. It's just one of the funniest things. It's just one of the funniest things I've ever seen, and it's just

really funny. So no disrespect ment to the big man. I just think that that clip is pretty hilarious. But you gott always remember that people are recording these things, and you know that there's the possibility that it will leak. And this one day Amy Roeboch talked was talking kind of off mike, or rather not thinking this would air about how well, let me let's just let her to This is about the Epstein case. Here is what a big time ABC News anchor had to say when she

didn't think people were listening play it. I've had the story of three years I've had this interview with for Jinny Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, who's Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story. Then the Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview

Kate will that that also quashed the story. And then and then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in because of the planes. She told me everything, she had, pictures, she had, everything, She wasn't hiding for twelve years. We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had, Clinton, we have everything. I tried for three years to get it on to no avail, and now it's all coming out and it's like these new relevant revelations and I freaking had all of it.

I'm so pissed right now, Like every day, I get more and more pissed because I'm just like, oh my god, it was what we had was unreal. Other women backing it up, Hey yep, Bright Edwards the attorney three years ago saying like like we there will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known. And I had it all three years ago. Now, the good news for Amy Robock is that she actually comes out of its looking

pretty good. The people who don't look good are the executives at ABC who and she just ran down all the stuff here. And this is why, you know what I've been saying that there was a conspiracy of silence around Epstein. Of course there was. They're very powerful people, very powerful Democrats by the way. You notice Dershowitz, Clanton, the royal family in the UK, which I'm not think they're not Democrats, but what the heck is going on there?

Who is Epstein? Well, that's why you break a major national news store and you tell, you tell people who Epstein is? Right? What you what? Here's what's clear about this? And you see this, You constantly see this happening in major news rooms. You saw this with NBC with Matt Lauer. By the way, they haven't brought in an independent investigator yet to look at what was really happening at NBC News with Matt Lauer, who had the sketchy button installed

under his desk for security reasons. I love this like we're all a bunch of morons. Yeah, sure, because that was going to save him. If somebody came into the office to harming he has a button on his desk, he'd hit the lock the door. We know what that button was all about, all right, and we know that they know that it was installed in his office. And I've been hearing shady rumors about Matt Low and I'm just a little dude in media that no one even

pays attention to in the mainstream. I had known stuff about him for years. I mean heard rumors, I should say, and the rumors turn out to be true. I didn't know the names and stuff, but I knew that he was doing stuff with young women while he's a married guy. At his place, and people who work for him, they won't bring an independent investigator because they'll find out is that the NBC executive some of them knew about it

and didn't do anything about it. I'd also like to know what years was Jeff Zucker, a senior executive at NBC, because I'm prettyure Matt Lauer was there when Jeff Zucker was at the same time. I just think that would be an interesting thing for someone to look into. What a surprise, But they didn't do what they should have done. They weren't acting ethically because of the money involved and because of the powerful relationships involved, and for ABC News too.

Does anyone think for a second that what Roebox says here is untrue that when you look at the pressure of the royal family saying the note Kate and Will interviews. By the way, Americans, I beg you, all right, I love I love my fellow Americans more than any people in the world. Stop giving a crap about the royal family. It's worthless. It doesn't matter. It's weird, okay, we need to not I don't know what I mean, like the Billbergs, you know, the Illuminati and the Queen of England and

forget about all that stuff. I just mean, what is this? Why do we care? It's not a fairy tale. It's kind of weird. We are anti We fought a war about not having the deal with monarchy. I don't really want the monarchy to invade our space because of media, all right. I think the monarchy thing is bizarre. I think they're a bunch of entitled brats. I don't get it.

I don't get it. And i'd say about any country, although we only seem to have this fascination with the British royal family, Like the doesn't even even know there's a Danish I think there's a Danish king. There's a Swedish king that these places all have. But they're like they're like socialist kings, now, you know what I mean. They show up, they their their palaces have lots of Ikea furniture. It's a little bit of a different vibe.

But Kate and Will, they're going to deny that, you know, access to the royal family, and the royal family I'm sure threatened to sue. Look, I mean, I'm a guy, okay, I've seen I've seen a lot of photos of a lot of people. And you know, if you're a guy, you've spent left time on social media, you always can kind of tell when someone's holding your girlfriend a little too close, or somebody's trying to And I'm just gonna

say it. You see that photo that Prince Andrew has with one of the one of the victims, who's when she was a very young girl, I think fifteen or sixteen at the time. I mean, he's holding a way where if that were my daughter, I would lose my mind that that old British dude. I mean, because you can just you look at the photo. There's something sketchy going on. There's something sketchy going on. So they had this stuff. There was proof. ABC had evidence. Roebock is saying,

we had the girls. She's gonna come forward. She had photos, she had everything, she had names, manifests of flights would have proven that these guys would fly. They didn't want to rom with this story. This isn't this is an incredible story. They still haven't figured out how this guy made all of his money, by the way, they still haven't really and they and everyone's reporting on Epstein. I mean, now I started to get into this Epstein zone where

I lose my mind. Everyone reports on Epstein about how he had surveillance equipment and it was all set up so that they could blackmail, that he could blackmail people. Who was he blackmailing? No names? No names, wait, wait, we have no No one has been accused, or rather, no one has been brought into this because of the the blackmail that Epstein was supposedly preparing to use or using against them. No one has been indicted who was in epstein enabler or somebody else that Epstein was inflicting

upon these these young girls. No charges. The statutes on that stuff would be very lengthy. I mean, I'd have to look at the specifics, but I mean trafficking and underaged girls. And I think the statute you're look if there might not be any statute of limitations depends on what they're talking about, state or federal. So no charge, nothing, nearly Epstein's dead case closed. That's what we're supposed to

accept from this. When you have ABC News making it quite clear that the ABC brass was ABC News brass was like, Nope, not touching this. And my friends, these are people, these are all they're all incredibly well paid. We're talking about millionaires with tremendous connections. But unfortunately a lot of the people who are in that category in this country in the media are cowards. They really on this will sound like a cliche. They want to be

invited to the fancy parties in the Hamptons. They don't want to rock the boat. They want to be considered among the elite. They want to be welcome at parties. They're not looking to speak truth to power, they just want to be near power. They're sycophants. They're not patriots. They're not truthtellers. An ABC News just showed us exactly a rather robot is telling us exactly what ABC News is all about. Young girls are being trafficked and violated

by this Epstein maniac. Nobody wanted to do anything about it. Rich, multi millionaire media celebrities knew about this. Executives knew about this, didn't do anything. I hope you're all enjoying the Buck Sexton Show today. Thank you for hanging out with me. If you want to watch on Pluto TV channel two forty eight, right, producer Mark, that's how you like to watch on the Pluto TV. Yes, all day on my television at home is Buck Sexton and Jesse Kelly. That's right.

He's just got bucks. He's responsible for just upping our numbers over here. But checkout Pluto TV app if you haven't already downloaded, watch it wherever you want on your phone, so easy. It's a great way to check out what's going on. The Freedom Huder in the Jesse Kelly world, So thank you very much for that. Is Aunt Becky really going to prison for forty five years? All right? For those who don't know, Aunt Becky's better known as

Laurie Laughlin. That's her real name. She was the much beloved and in her day quite lovely aunt on the show Full House. Who was the girlfriend or white? I think she was the girlfriend of right, wasn't the wife of John? Eventually she was the wife? Yeah, eventually they got married, right, But originally Aunt Becky was the girlfriend on the show Full House, which was just a beloved I watched her growing up. I mean I grew up watching Candice Cameron and what was the other one's name?

I don't even remember now, Kirk Kirk Cameron. That's the right show, right, or is that? Yeah? No? Is Kirk Cameron full House? No? No, no, I got I've got my shows. Whatever, doesn't Who cares? He was on one of those shows where people are nice to each other, and there's like a like an intact family or close to it, where people are being nice to each other. You think of Bob Sackett. No, No, that's the dad. Yeah, No, I think I think he's in I think he's the

older brother. Anyway, the neither here nor there full house aunt Becky. I'd kind of a crushed it at Becky back in the day. She had great hair, which I respect. And here's the problem for him, Becky now and her and her husband Massimo Giannouli, which is a great name for a fashion designer, which is what he is, a Massimo. So they bribed some coaches at USC, using that this is all Operation Varsity Blues, right, this has became a

big story. I was like, oh my gosh. They bribed some coaches to say that their daughters were on the crew team. Their daughters were not on the crew team, or rather there were crew recruits. And having been someone who actually rote crew in college, I can tell you that those girls are not on the crew team. Okay, I'm just gonna put that out there. I've seen photos. They're not ladies who rowe. You know, they row. But I digress. So they bribe these coaches and this is

still a big store. Why is the big story Because they're facing now additional federal prosecution. They want to take it to a jury. They're going to fight this all the way. But if they get convicted. If Massimo and aunt Becky get convicted on all I'm gonna keep calling me aunt Becky because that's how I know of her. But that's Laurie Laughlin, the actress. If they get convicted on all accounts, they could get forty five years in federal prison. All right, forty five years. Now, the way

the guidelines work, they wouldn't get forty five years. But I'm gonna tell you something. If they take this to a jury and the jury says, sorry, you broke the law. And technically, even though the money laundering statutes you violated are meant to go after drug kingpins and people doing really bad things, not people bribing their kids into college, you did break the law and it is kind of what you did, and you know, that's kind of where it is. They could go to prison for a few years.

I mean, I would not be surprised if Aunt aunt Becky, I mean I had to look at the specifics of the charges. But if she asistant takes it to a jury, uh, you know, and they and they find them guilty on some of these counts, they're going to prison for a while. And remember in federal in a federal system, you'd serve the whole time. So whatever the judge says you get, that's what you get, and you serve it. There's no parole. I would note that Felicity Huffman from Desperate Housewives has

already served her time. She got fourteen days but was released after twelve because there was a weekend or something, so she wasn't exactly wasn't exactly shawshank, you know, she was. She was able to get out. It was okay. It wasn't that bad. She you know. It also reminds me of the Vandem movie. I think it's death Warrant where they get this guy. If you think about this, this

is an idea. They send an undercover police officer into like the scariest prison ever to go after the guy who's the meanest, badest, scariest guy in the prison as an inmate. I'm like, who woulds? Who would? But he does many good fly kick he has many spinning kick vandam yes, who would sign up for that? I gotta tell you, I think that's that's a bit of a stretch. Producer Razuto, who's watching this, he's probably he's probably almost as much of a Van damn aficionado as I am.

So anyway, we have where was I? We have law? I mean Huffman, not Laughlin. Hufflin has pleaded guilty, she got to twelve days, but Laurie Laughlin's taken this all the way. Now, why why are the fens making such a big deal in to this? This is clearly federal overreach. I've been saying that from the beginning. Bribing your way into college. I mean, this should not even be a criminal really a criminal offense. If it is a criminal offense, it should be you pay a very large you should

pay a large fine. Remember, there's already been consequences for this. The daughters had to leave USC, and no offense to USC. But it's not usually the kind of place you think of when people are bribing to get their kids in. I'm not trying to be school snobby here, but it's not Stanford. But anyway, they they bribe their kids to get them into USC. I'm sorry, they bribed the administered, they brought the coaches to get their kids in the USC. But the kids have had to withdraw and you obviously

suffered some humiliation. Laughlin has already been cut from I think Netflix, a Netflix series, as well as the Fuller House, which I've heard is terrible, which is the spinoff or addition to the original Full House. So there are bad things that have happened to these people already because of

their decision to bribe bribe these officials. And this is where I want to just point out that unfortunately, envy is very powerful politics, and prosecutors are often politicians, and finding a very well to do, attractive white female celebrity like this and making an example of her in this way in our current environment is attractive politics to a lot of people, particularly on the left. This is where

the federal overreach component gets really scary. When you see people that are being made an example of because of who they are, not what they did. We should all be worried about that. I can tell you from friends who have worked in US attorney's offices across the country. There is always a there's a premium put on prosecutions of corruption of public officials, which I understand keeping trust in the system or whatever, but you know, they sometimes

look where they did to Bligoevich. I mean, sometimes they go after these guys really really aggressively because of it looks good, right, politician speaking truth to power. There's that

speaking truth to power again. But also for white collar crimes, there are people who believe that it is an issue of fairness that someone who is engaged in insider training and makes you a million dollars illicitly should serve a really stiff prison sentence along the lines of somebody who went into a convenience store with a gun and stole a thousand dollars. I think that's crazy, but there are

people who will make that argument. There are people who will say that they're that part of the racial injustice in our system is that there are certain crimes that are disproportionately committed by non by people who are either well white or Asian, and that those crimes are more lightly punished, and there's a racial component of that. I mean to that, I just say, well, that's because stealing money through a stock fraud is far less of a of an imminent social harm and risk and risk to

life and limb than threatening somebody with a gun. I don't care what someone's skin color is. If they threatened somebody with a gun, that's a really serious crime. I don't care what someone's skin color is if they are engaged in medicare fraud, Yeah, they should be punished. But I'm not worried to guy engaged in medicare fraud is going to get out of prison and kill somebody, right, So this is but there there is this argument you'll

see for especially for the criminal justice reform type. Some of them will say that, you know, we need to really punish. There's this impetus to really punish non violent crimes,

especially if they affect the elites. Right, So I think that there's some of that mentality at work here with Yeah, people cheating to get their kids into school, and you know, this for me also forces a whole discussion about I mean, I think that the way that people get into school in a whole variety of context is really gross and bad and wrong. And now is where everyone starts booing. I mean, I think that athletic recruiting for colleges overwhelmingly

is strange and bizarre. I think that Title nine shouldn't exist the way that it does for women's and men's athletics teams, as though we're supposed to assume that women want to play sports at the same levels as men in schools, and we have to allocate funds the exact same way. I think that that's bizarre. I think it's wrong. I think that people getting into schools because their parents went there legacy is a problem. It's just financial issue

because legacy donations are very important to these schools. But I think it's gross. I should say I think affirmative action is wrong. I think it's discrimination by race. And if you want to stop discriminating by race, the best way to do it is to stop discriminating by race. So there's a lot of complexity in the college admissions world,

and then there's also just the advancement office. Right. This is remember that where they described this in the initial Varsity Blues, which is what they call this whole college admissions thing. You can go in the front door, which is normal admissions. The backdoor is write a huge check. The side door is right, a small check to somebody who can insert you in the process, coaches, etc. Who can get you into the school in this way that is,

you know, not in keeping with the rules. I mean to this, I just say so, it's not a bribe that sends you to federal prison if you give it to the administrators. But it is a bribe that'll get you sent to federal prison if you give it to a coach. People could say, oh, but buck, the admission spots are a thing of value, and that thing of value is to be allocated by the administration of the school,

not by any individual coaching. To that, I say, well, that's not even really true, because coaches do get to pick people as they see fit for their teams and get through the admission process. That's why they have the value they do. And so, in what way is paying off a coach a federal crime? Gross unseemly sure a

federal crime. I spoke to some DOJ contacts when I was in DC when this case first broke, and they were like, yeah, this is this is way because remember that's this is being handled by the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. Guess what. I'm sure there's a lot of libs, but they they agreed. I mean, my friends in DC and the Department of Justice they agreed that there's a lot of overreach and there's some there's kind

of some headhunting going on here. I mean, there's some going for scalps, there's some trying to make a political point here. But yeah, privilege and wealth and access. We're going to really stick it to those people. Forty five years in federal prison for Aunt Becky. I know it's not going to be, but the fact that she even faces that, I mean, when they look at the charges, it'll be enough for senator prison for forty five years.

Who is who is egregiously harmed in this process? Isn't it enough that the students have been that her daughters have been expelled, humiliated, She's lost a lot of money from her career. You know, Have her do some I mean, I agree with Bill McGurn in the Wall Street Journal. Have her do some community service, pay a pretty hefty fine, and go about her life. You sent to prison for this insane But you know, another part of this is that the incentive for the federal government to have you

plead guilty way too high. And they'd say, but but you're getting a benefit. That's why you plead guilty, because you get the benefit. But our systems shouldn't really be what it is right now, where it's apt what the federal government says about you. By the way, this comes into play with General Flynn as well, where they forced to plea I think really illicitly by hiding things that were exculpatory, but they forced to plea, and now they say, sorry,

you took the plea. It doesn't matter how we got you to take it. That's the position of the federal government with General Flynn right now. But it's not in the interests of justice to say, accept our allegation of guilt against you as true and you'll live to fight another day. Fight against our allegation of you as truth, and we will annihilate your life and send you a prison for decades. That's not justice. I know, it's the system we have right now, but that's not the same

thing as justice. So you know, free Aunt Becky, that's what I say, Free Aunt Becky. And there, well, I was Felicity. Huffin's already out. I never watched Desperate Housewives, so I don't have I don't get it excited about that one. I can't really pretend that I care all that much. But I don't know Aunt Becky. I grew up with Becky. Man. Come on, all they need those one? Maybe this is the game they're playing. Maybe this is all they need on that jury is one millennial or

gen X or y person. I guess that'd be the right age who grew up watching Full House and and Becky's gonna walk. That's what I think. The truth is what I what. I send that Becky to prison? Of course not, I'm not a monster. Tell everything they're gonna do. Like, if you're gonna take people's guns away, wait till you get elected, then take the guns of time. If you're gonna take that guns away, don't tell them ahead of time. Gotta make sure you get elected and then you can

fool them, you can bamboozle them. Joy beiha. A woman makes millions of dollars doing TV. Folks. I don't know what to say other than what a country we live in. I'm pretty sure Mark how I talked about how Beto's out of the By the way, did I get to

this at all? Oh see, That's why I was thinking about this, because like, oh, I was just really feel like I was leaning into my my better own personation about how this country is so racist and so terrible, and I felt like I was getting Bettos cadence down where he would just accept whatever you said about him and his privilege and how he's like super rich and white and that's like terrible and he's really should be ashamed of it, And I was so excited. I was like,

this guy's got all He's out. He bailed on Friday, Man, Beto is done zo. I didn't even get to talk about it because the way he announced it over the weekend, I guess he was hoping people like me wouldn't spend a whole day just making fun of how terrible his campaign was. But there was something particularly, is hubristic a word? Let's assume it is, because I want to say it full of hubrists. I think hubristics should be a word. If it's not, I'll do like a I'll like the

bush thing, misunderestimate him, make it up. But there was a lot of hubrists coming from Beto O'Rourke all along, not just the Vanity Fair cover based on what why was he on the cover of Vanity Fair? There was a hero worship of him from the left because he was willing to be the guy who was supposed to well take Texas from Ted Cruz and turn the state blue. The most expensive senate race terms of dollars in in history,

more more money for better o'rouric the most expensive senate campaign. Ever, he lost, and then they wanted him to be president the United States, and this guy would go around saying, yeah, I think we're just gonna take your guns, and I just think that when the law changes, like we'll take all of your guns, and if you don't like that, well then like clearly you're like bad and we're just going to take the guns anyway, not understanding the constitutional

as well as logistical hurdles of just seizing firearms from people because you have a really weak argument about how it will make them safer. But you're Beto O'Rourke and you're on the cover of Vanity Fair but taking guns and so that's what the joy behar there is a more savvy observer of politics than Betto is, because she at least understands that Betto's problems that he started telling

us what he really thinks. He was taking the most far left wing position on issue after issue, but specifically on guns. He was saying what Democrats think to themselves but don't say aloud, not understanding that there's a reason they don't say that alloud. There are reasons why they don't just let it rip and tell Republicans what they're really planning to do in this whole process. So Beto is no longer running for president, which makes me a

little bit sad. We've lost the Blasio, We've lost beto've we're about to lose. I think we're about to lose. When did Castro already stop? I think he might have already stopped. If he hasn't, it's ridiculous that he hasn't. Tom Styre is not gonna stop. He's a billionaire, so he can just waste money on whatever he wants. He's wasting money annoying the American people with his climate change lunacy.

But yeah, I'd say that there's some stuff here. There's some things, some things to look at going forward about how it is that Democrats were even in any way, at any point in time, we willing to get behind this guy Bette Aroor. It's like, yeah, I agree, you should make me president because I just think that I'm terrible because I'm rich and I'm a white guy, and I've so much privilege and I'm just drowning in my privilege all the time. But because I admit it, you

should make me president. Nope, not gonna happen. As Tucker calls him Betteau. This is a president who is trying to divide us up based on the color of our skin, where we were born, our sexual orientation, or our religion. Who is really doing the dividing in this country? Trump or the Democratic Party. I think it's an important question. I think it's something that we have to ask here. Who is really in charge of making sure that the

American people do not unify around our shared americanness? In fact, who has an entire ideology devoted to the study of oppression, not just between one dominant group and all the other groups, although that's certainly a part of it, but the oppression among oppressed groups, intersectionality, which is central to the left thesis of how America works these is So, I just want to know which side of the aisle is really obsessed with all this stuff. Who cares about identity politics.

By the way, producer Marcus told me that I cannot scratch my beard where I'm doing the show, which has become a habit of mind because you can actually hear it, which is it's like this rustling sound, this rustling sound of manly beard being shifted around. Well deepened sonorous words

are being spoken, he's producing marks about to vomit. But the point here is that Bernie Sanders is talking about how Trump divides us all the time, and Trump is a is a racist, and I keep coming back to I wish they would give me the examples of Trump being a racist, and I would also you know that that are real examples of him being a racist, not the lie about what he said. They lied about what

he said. Charltt's well, they lied. And I even saw some I remember, and I've not forgotten who they were. There were some conservatives who came after me because I was like, why are they all pretending? Like he said? But he didn't say, oh, books are there good people on both sides? No, of course there aren't good people on both sides when you're talking about neo Nazis on one side. Trump didn't say that. There's a T and script.

A lot of focus on transcripts these days. There's a transcript, to be sure, but calling out the president for being racist. And yet here we have a president who has gotten Criminal Justice Reformed pass, which disproportionately has positive impact on minority particularly black and Latino communities. It gets no credit for whatsoever. None a president of the United States, who I think that there's a certain respect that a lot. I mean, at least some of the minorities that I've

talked to you about their support for Trump. I can

speak to that because I know a number. I know a lot of minorities personally who are Trump supporters, whether they're Black, Asian, Latino, and they appreciate that when Trump speaks to those communities, he's speaking about how he wants prosperity for them, how he wants people in any community, including minority communities in this country, to be in the best spot possible, to have the most prosperous future, make the most money, be the most successful they can be.

I think there's a level of respect there. It's Democrats who often take this position of, well, we need a bigger welfare state, we need more government handouts for people, and if you oppose that, you must be racist. Well, what are the implications that the Democrats are making there?

The Trump position to me seems to be to have a lot of faith in the black and Latino and other minority communities in this country that without the government in their way, without the government creating reverse incentives for them to do what is best for them to pursue their own dreams that with the government out of the way and with lower taxes, with more jobs, those communities

will thrive. Those communities will the ingenuity and the skills and the intelligence and the work ethic within minority communities will be in even better position without the government doing these. So Trump's positions, let us, let us make it easier for minority communities across the country to become wealthier, more prosperous, have more, you know, economic security and freedom. And the Democrat position to me always seems to be, well, we need you know, we need more, we need more handouts.

And if you oppose handouts, there's something you're greedy and you're probably racist. So I talk to minorities who appreciate that. Trump's position is that he speaks to minority communities as as people that are striving for the same things as everybody else and have the same abilities and the same dreams and the same aspirations as everybody else, and is not pandering Democrats, especially white liberal democrats like Peto O'Rourke.

All they do is pander, constantly, pander, constantly talking about how even if you were to look at specific troubled minority communities, like the poor areas of Baltimore, like the South Side of Chicago. I believe the West Side actually has some violence to it, but the South Side of Chicago, and try to have a conversation about what could be done there to make those communities less and have less

violence and be in better shape economically. Instead of having that very worthwhile, sophisticated and respectful discussion, the Beato Arourics of the world just say, it's because of systemic racism. That's why there's all this violence in Baltimore. It's because of systemic racism. And when you would point to other places, you'd say, well, why is it that there are other minority communities across the country where there's almost no violence.

Is there not systemic racism there? Or is Can we look at specific communities and try to address criminal justice, law enforcement issues, economic issues and do so on a plane of respect for everybody? There No Democrats, it's white liberal Democrats have one move when it comes to talking to minority communities, a least when they're trying to get them to vote for them, and that is pandering a

lot of pandering. So I think it's and by the way, Bernie Sanders resonance with minority communities is a big question mark so far continues to be not as much as Pete Buddha judge who I mean, as African American support, as I understand it is almost zero in this primary. So it's interesting that Bernie Sanders, he's probably trying to you know, establish them bonafit is with the minority community, minority communities across the country by attacking Trump on this

issue of race. But you know, Ilhan Omar, for example, also says that Trump is doing He's the one who's dividing. He's the one who's separating us by race play a fourteen place. The current occupant of the White House likes to talk about making American degree, But every action and virtually ever we warn out of his mouth is an attack on the very values and ideals that make this country a peakin of hope for me and the people

around the world. Every action Trump's take, a Trump takes, she says, is an attack on the ideals of this count really, so it was if we had a real journalist in this country, they'd probably ask, okay, so was criminal justice reform meant to help the disproportionately incarcerated minority community. Was that was that an attack on our values? I you know, she says every action. I'm just I'm asking her based on the words that she uses here. So

was that an attack on our values? Huh? Is always touting the Black and Hispanic unemployment rate which is at record lows, and the pride that President Trump has when he speaks of that issue, the sense of accomplishment and joy he has for those communities. Is that antithetical to her? Because there's all these things that you can talk about with President Trump, you'd say, well, hold on a second.

But she says that it's all against our values. She doesn't even pick issues here or there, just like Bernie Sanders says he's dividing us by race. At what point is this not exaggeration or even overstatement? At what point is this just propaganda? Is this just lies, lies meant not just to smear the president, but to smear any of his supporters, to make it seem politically I'm sorry, to make it seem socially, never mind politically unpalatable, unacceptable

to support this man. This is why they keep throwing out these allegations of racism. This is why they keep telling us that President Trump is more or less a white nationalist, because they're hoping that, even though there's no basis for these charges, that there's no real way to prove any of this or even to make a fair minded case about it, people will just hear the charge and be scared to support the man. The show ain't

over yet, folks keeping it. It's time for roll call. Indeed, it is roll call time everybody, which is exciting for all of us. We've got a lot of stuff coming in here now and let's see. Oh wait, nope, First, I gotta got to Facebook because we got to load up the emails. I gotta figure out how to do this a little bit better. All right, inbox your Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton to be in on the Facebook roll call, Teenbucket, iHeartMedia dot com if you want

to just send us thoughts elsewhere. Let's see. We have Tom who rights. Hey, Buck, I was just listening to the podcast of yesterday's show, and I'm surprised you missed an important key detail about the Fox News poll when you're reporting on it. Don't feel bad at Glenn and Rush also missed it. The poll is absolute garbage. To be more specific, the breakdown a poll was forty five percent Democrat, thirty nine percent Republican, and sixteen percent independent.

The breakdown for the country is thirty nine or thirty one percent Democrat, twenty nine percent Republican, and thirty nine percent independent. The polsters oversampled Democrats by six percent over Republicans and by whopping fourteen percent over their average breakdown for the country. They also undersampled independence by an insanely huge amount. With this level of crappy polling, they can

get any results they want. It's actually surprising they only got forty nine percent to approve removing President Trump from office. This does not speak well for the Democrats, either with impeachment or next November. And yes, I intentionally did not capitalize Democrats to take care of Tom. Yeah. Tom, Well, you're crunching the numbers on this. But I kind of got there just by my gut. I got there just by figuring out that there's no way that what they

are trying to tell us is true. And it's just not surprising that there's a lot of nonsense going I remember, poles are a way of shaping perception. And shaping perception, especially popularity on any specific issue, is a very powerful tool. So do we think that the people that are in positions to shape those things? Are they angels beyond reproach or do they sometimes, maybe perhaps just a little bit, decide that they're going to stack the deck for one

side or another. I think we all know that answer. Bride in hold on a second, Buck, I've got a way of circumventing the attempts for Democrats to hide behind children, decorated veterans, and bad arguments. Simply get the person you're speaking with, degree with the so called protected person, then kindly inform them that your argument is now against their stance. The protected person isn't okay. This is kind of complicated. Also help you out, Like soft butter and warm toast,

time to spread some freedom. Coast to coast. Toast is the United States, and the butter is freedom. You spread that stuff everywhere. It's also a good analogy because your roll call participants are from everywhere. Thank you so much, Brian. I appreciate your writing him a man, it was great, too great to get your stuff in the roll call here. Richard hi Buck love your show. You explain everything and seem to analyze events the way that I would. Thank

you for your service. I heard Don Junior say Mitt Romney was his favorite Democrat. Ha ha, Richard, thanks for writing him, man, thank you for your kind words. I think we'll have Don Junior on the show sometime this week, so I've been in contact with him. It is very likely we'll have mister Don Junior on. So there is that we got. Bradly, He writes Buck, I'm a new listener. Yes, someone told someone to listen to the show. See it can happen. It can happen. It can be a day

to day thing. People just say, oh, yeah, you hear about the Bucks Action show. I love the Bucks actual show. It's amazing. Oh you're listening. Yeah, I should listen to other people. But Bucks way funnier and smarter. That's all it takes. It's really easy. Just tell us about Oh where do you get it? All iTunes? Wherever you listen to podcasts, how do you find it? Type in the Buck sex and show. It'll come up. There's only one Buck Sexingers doing a podcast right now at least, so

that's the good news. Sonia Bradley. Sorry, I got excited I get excited about new podcast listeners. I love you old podcast listeners too. Don't worry you guys are you guys are awesome? You guys are a fan. Hey Buck, I'm a new listener. Sorry, we already said that, and really enjoy what I'm hearing from you. You've become my primary podcast only after only a couple of weeks. Yes, my question for you is why is no one talking about the possibility of weaponizing a program like Medicare for All.

I'm sure our voter registrations are accessible. Could you foresee a situation where registered Republicans are given lower priority to rationed during ration care from behind enemy lines in California? Brad Um, I mean, Brad, you know, never say never, but that does seem a little bit extreme to me.

Medicare for All as a function of you know, there will be tears within it, and there will definitely be rationing that occurs, and then how that rationing is doled out will become a fight for sure, and people will then be arguing with each other over the over the way the government deploys the resources that are scared made scarce by government intervention. Intervention in the healthcare marketplace. So but I don't I don't think we're going to see

anything with Republican registration used to deny people care. I can't say I see that being because there's there are still The good news is there's still a lot of Republicans and they would be pretty upset understandably about that. So I don't think we need to worry about that one quite yet. Hold on, wait a second. We gotta go to and that's that's when I have to take a moment here, Michael Rites, can you tell me more

about yourself? Where are you located? I'm located in New York City, So that's where I'm located, New York, New York, Randy. Hold on a second here, hey, buck Love the show shields high. So Elizabeth Warren released the cause for her Medicare for All no private medical insurance plan and so she won't have to raise taxes in the middle class

by one penny. She previously thought that her DNA tests would show that she was one one and twenty fourth native American, proved that she was part cheric Key, so she has already proven that she has no concept of math. Why would we believe her now? Just saying Randy, Well, Randy, I agree with you on that, my man. She is not someone whose judgment I particularly respect or care to hear. Skip, my man. Skip the new Netflix The King was excellent.

Brought tears watching the battle. Really, I might have a check that one out. You know what else, I gotta check out this little teaser for the show later this week. Because I'm a former CIA and with a cooler name than Jack Ryan buck Sexton the Jack Ryan Show on Amazon. I'm hearing some troubling things, friends. I'm hearing that there is a bit of social justice nonsense going on. I'm hearing that they're rewriting stuff to appeal to the left

wing set in Hollywood. I don't like it, and I'm gonna have to take it to task, I think because CIA analysts should be depicted a certain way in the media as people of above average reading ability who dress in semi slovenly fashioned, drink a lot of coffee, and go to a lot of meetings. So I'm gonna make sure we keep it real with the CIA analyst. That's gonna be it for today's show. We have a fantastic show coming your way tomorrow and every day this week because you know how we roll shields high