Barr Crushes Foolish Democrats

more gone up on the Buck Sexton Show. This is the bus Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Magnom mistake, you're a great American Again, The Buck Sexton Show begins an he's a great guy. No, welcome to the Buck Sex and Show. Everybody. Quite a show today here in

the swamp in Washington, DC. Case you didn't know what the swamp is, I know you all do, but I guess technically, for accuracy's sake, I should refer to it as Washington, d C. Where I am coming to you right now with this show, doing it doing it live, Well, we'll do it live from DC. And he had the Attorney General getting all kinds of heat, as we knew he would from the Democrats, the desperate Democrats looking for something, anything to latch onto in their Trump deranged fantasy of

Russia collusion and obstruction. And you know, if they if they had one really decent candidate, if they had one really decent can to date for the presidency, maybe they'd be a little bit less reliant on trying to jam these narratives into the brains of the American people. But it's just not going to work. It's just not going

to work. In fact, if anything, I think today was a victory thanks to the efforts of Attorney General bar a victory for those of us who want answers about what was done to Trump, not what Trump did, what was done to Trump. The Democrats today on the committee up on Capitol Hill came after bar with everything they had. They did everything that they could to make him look like he was a pro Trump partisan, that he was not ethical back and they failed. For any honest observer,

they failed. And it was worse than that for the Democrats because if you watch some of the hearing, which I know you have lives and jobs and families, so you didn't but I had to. And when you were watching the hearings, what you saw were Democrats who were also unnerved by the fact that Bar's not backing down. Bar is not backing down from any of what he has said in the past. He's not going to get pushed into irrelevancy. He's not going to bend the knee

to the Democrats and their little media lackeys. He knows what went on here. He knows what happened when they tried to push him, for example, on the spying on a presidential campaign, which absolutely happened, and he has said, oh, I'll look into whether it was legit, but they spied, And just keep repeating that to yourself whenever you need a little bit of a sanity check when you're surrounded by Democrat lefties who think that Trump was taken orders

from putin. The Obama administration allowed, and increasingly looks like ordered from the top spying on the Trump presidential campaign using the United States intelligence community. This is the biggest political scandal of my lifetime. There's no question about it. And the word spying applies. Barr said today when pushed on this, that he thought it was quote a good English word and notes all the faux outrage because the press uses it routinely. They've used it tons of times.

They didn't mind the use of the word spying when they thought that it was leading to a conclusion that the president of the United States committed treason essentially and cheated in an election. Then they thought spine because it added to the gravity, it added to the seriousness of the charges. Right then they thought, oh, absolutely, we'll use

the term spying. But now that we know that there was no crime, now that we know that Trump was the guy that they set up, And I like the word spy because of the connotation, because, oh, spying is serious. Oh yes, spying is very serious. And that's why this, I think sent a shiver up some spines, not just on Capitol Hill today, but here in the center of the swamp where some of the federal bureaucracies like the

Department of Justice, like the FBI are located. When Barr, when asked about this said quote, many people seem to assume the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a fis a warrant. I'd like to find out if that is in fact true. What if the spying was even more extreme, more wide ranging, more intrusive than we have been led to believe. You and

I both know that is almost certainly the case. Does anyone really think that there'll be some justification for this? Does anybody really think that there'll be information that can be pulled together in order to make it seem like this was legitimate, adequately predicated spying. Of course not, of course not. So Barr is going to use the word spying. He is going to find out the extent of the

spying against Trump and his campaign and his associates. He's not going to apologize for this nonsense, sniveling, sanctimonious letter that was clearly dropped by Mueller the night before this hearing in order to make things more difficult for Bar. He's not going to back away and say, yeah, I was supposed what he's supposed to dance to Muther's tune on the release of this information. Who's the Attorney General? Mueller or Barr? Who's been confirmed by the Senate Mueller?

Or are is Mueller all of a sudden the Senior Justice Department? Is he the attorney General? I just I would like some clarity on that from all the people saying that, well, you know, Barr didn't do things exactly as Muller would have wanted with the release. All that the all the Special Counsel has for his mandate in terms of the process is handing the report. That's it.

That's what he gets to do. Barr then gets to determine whether it gets released at all, how much of it gets released, and he invited Muller to be a part of that process. He invited Muller to do what he could to make sure that they were all on board Mullard. Mullard said, no, Smuller's a little hack known this all along. Muller is the part is And these are terms you'll hear apply to Bar, but they're actually projecting Smuller. They knew exactly who they were getting. They

knew exactly Komey's buddy. Anyone who's buddies with Komey is suspect, by the way, And I really mean that mccomi is a weirdo, a sanctimonious weirdo. And then there's another thing that might have gotten a bit of attention today. It might have gotten some people all of a sudden focused on this. There are active leak investigations going on. Attorney General bar confirmed that multiple leaks or investigations into leaks of classified information. I think that there's a new sheriff

in town and his name is Bill Barr. And Democrats don't realize what they're really in for. When this Inspector General report comes out, when we have more information about

what happened here, we're going to see. In my this is my prediction, we're going to see that the Obama administration not only refused to tell Trump about the alleged Russian penetration of efforts into his campaign, which is a huge red flag, but was complicit all along trying to destroy the Trump campaign and use the intelligence community and and FISA and the FBI to do it object disgrace, the dirtiest of politics from the Democrats. No surprise, We've

got more coming up. Stay with me. My question was why did you say you were not aware of concerns when weeks before your testimony, mister Muller and expressed concerns too. That's a fairly simple, Well, I answered a question, and the question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing frustration over the accuracy relating to findings. I don't know what that refers to at all. I talked directly to Bob Muller, not members of his team. Bar was a

boss today on Capitol Hill. It was just the Varsity against the jv today. It was a guy who why he's there, knows what he's doing, knows the law, against a bunch of just little, a little quizzling leftist political hacks. The Democrats trying to undermine this man, catch him in something, show him up, make him look bad. That's all this

is about. They know they're not going to get anything real, they know they're not going to be able to unearth something that all of a sudden will change the narrative here. They're just looking to take shots at him. They're just looking to try to get him in a moment where he looks bad. And it didn't happen at all. Democrats look pathetic today, pathetic going after him and this whole thing with Muller's letter, which as we know, Oh why

was the Mueller letter released last night? How did this happen? Folks? Oh? Is does anyone want to claim this is a coincidence? Is anybody that's stupid to think, well, Mazie Horono. Is that stupid? We'll talk about her later. Is anybody other than maze Horrono? That's stupid that they would think that this wasn't leaked to maximize the embarrassment to the Attorney General right before he goes on Capitol Hill, and keep on. He shouldn't be embarrassed at all. Mueller should be embarrassed.

Muller is a little prima donna, a whiny, little self righteous, sanctimonious bureaucrat. Happens to a lot of people. It's been decades working for the federal bureaucracy. I'm just telling you it happens to a lot of them. They might start off as just good, honorable patriots, and there are a lot of good and honorable patriots in the federal bureaucracy still. But the people that rise up the ranks and they

become institutionalist. First, the bureau becomes a single most important thing in the government, not the will of the American people, not the rule of law. The institutionalists, as we know, hate Trump. They have a seething, a seething rage toward the President of the United States. And I think Muller is in that category too. Mueller thinks that these institutions he served all of his life are so important and Trump Trump says mean things about them, and Trump therefore

is a threat. This letter leaked. I thought Mueller didn't leak everybody. I thought Muller was just a tight ship. Oh you mean that he plays political games. You mean that this is the usual Potomac two step, the Potomac two step check. You'll keep this card in your pocket, and one day you'll need a favor. See who gets that reference. Yeah, that's right, that's right. Movie quotes when you don't expect them. I agree with the Newt new to Loot agree with Newt on the letter league here

play twelve. I assume somebody wanted to leak it to maximize the embarrassment to bar and to set up the questions for the hearings in the next two days. You know, look, the deep state in Washington has played these games for the whole history of the country. This is not something new Muller could at any point have decided he wanted to refute it. And as I understand the actual key sentences,

the distortion is by the news media. Yeah, Mueller's upset because the media didn't pick up the narrative that he wanted them to. That's not his job. That's not the thing that he was assigned to do. That's not his call. That would be like Mueller calling up to complain about the content the Bucks extent show. Sorry, Mueller special counsel doesn't get to make that decision. I do Mueller's whininess here, though,

I'm glad this has been exposed. I'm glad that he was snitty, a very good word to use from the Attorney general here. I'm glad that that has been aired out for the American people so that we know who we were really dealing with all along. Mueller was a headhunter. Mueller was going for scalps from this administration. That was the purpose that he set himself to, not justice, not

the sanctity of our democracy. Crap, total crap. And now they realize they have a formidable adversary, an adversary who does stand for justice, who does stand for sanity, common sense, respect for the rule of law, an attorney general Bar And that's why they spent so much of today just trying to find some way to make Bar look bad. But even slimy Sydney Bloomenthal, of course went after bar

and here's how that went for in place seventeen. Recall about whether you gave information to somebody in the White House about an ongoing criminal investigation in the Southern District, New York, or the Eastern District, New York, or the Eastern District of Virginia, or the Department of Justice. Yeah, I mean, I just don't recall providing any substantive information about a case. Is there anything that would refresh your recollection if I probably looked over a list of cases

and thought about it, But I don't recall. You know what those investigations are. We've discussed them at your confirmation here in correct. I think you're twelve or eighteen cases, right. You don't know what those investigations are, right generally, But I know I can't remember each of them. Let me ask you one last time. You can't recall whether you have discussed those cases with anyone in the White House,

including the President United States. My recollection is I have not discussed those that you don't recall for sure, I can say very surely I did not discuss the substance of it. Will you recuse yourself from those investigations. No, yes, there it is no shut up Blumenthalia clown. I love this guy. Man is badgering him. He's you know or did you you know they's talking about over a dozen cases. Did you ever mention any of this to the president? Ever?

And he's like, I mean not in substance, but you know, I mean, I'm an attorney general. You know your clowney Andy, you know, Blumenthal thinks he's got him. Or will you recuse yourself? Oh you mean, will I Jeff Sessions myself? No, boom mic drop, deal with it. That's what they're up against now with Barr. They think that this is gonna be Jeff Sessions two or they're hoping it'll be Jeff

Sessions two point zero. You know, they can scare him into recusing himself and not standing up for the rule of law because in this instance, my friends, when you're talking about the Russia collusion fiasco, this this conspiracy theory made into a massive federal investigation to take down a president. That's what happened here. And when you're looking at that and you talk about somebody who is defending the rule of law, defending justice and the resumption of innocence and

the integrity of the legal process we have. When you're talking about someone who does those things, they are by definition on the side of President Trump in this case. You cannot stand for justice in this whole mess. You cannot stand for the rule of law and not seem to be defending President Trump because President Trump is the wronged party here. And that's what the Democrats and their little media allies can't seem to wrap their very tiny

brains around that. The reason that Barr looks so wrong to them and evil and bad and all this stuff is because by standing for rationality and reason and truth and fairness, he inherently seems like he's doing Trump's bidding to them, because all they have done is pervert those things, to undermine the process, to weaponize the intelligence community in the DOJ in an effort to get Trump. So anyone who stands in the way of their weaponization to them

looks like the president's lackey. But in reality, the person who is standing in their way is doing what any attorney general should do. Because the Democrats have lost their minds and have abandoned any sense of fairness or decency in this process because they are that psychotically devoted to the destruction of President Trump. Maybe, look, we're almost at the end of the first term here. It's all been fine, meaning that the Trump presidency has worked out really well.

It's been a good presidency. Hasn't been perfect, hasn't delivered all of his promises. We talk about that a lot, and we'll continue to talk about that, but it's been good. It's done a good job. It's way better than Hillary would have been. Economy strong, country feels like it's run by somebody that has a normal sense of what normal human beings want, and the left just hates him for it.

They just hate him. I mean all of this. They can dress it up in whatever language they want, they can try and make it seem like it's something else, but they hate Trump. And because Bar is an obstacle to their pathological Trump hatred, now they hate bar too. And I just love Bars. No, I'm not gonna recuse myself. Please. He's too slick, he's too smart, he's too ethical, he's too honest for them, and they hate him because of it.

Man A bar Bar did a great job today, and it is a reminder that you know, Trump hasn't always had the best people. But with this guy, he's got the best people. When it comes to the Attorney General, that's for sure. We'll be right back. Remember when the left called the Green New Deal bold, or how about their bold defensive anti semitism in the House. I think they're mistaking bold for something else, because the way I define bold is the taste of freedom I get every

morning with my Black Rifle Coffee. Black Rifle delivers the best roast or coffee right to your door, and Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things easy. Just pick your blend and the amount you want, and Black Rifle ships your coffee right to your door every month, hassle free, no lines, no running out, just great coffee ship right to your door every month, hassle free. Plus, when you join their Coffee Club, you'll receive discounts and offers not available to

other customers. When you drink Black Rifle Coffee, you're supporting a company that gives back to veteran and first responder causes, and serves coffee and culture to those who truly love America. For a bold cup of America's best coffee, visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash buck and get twenty percent off your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck for twenty percent off. I think the bar should resign. He missed characterised the

Mulla report. He should resign, and the interests of the department should step down. Dale Bar really should resign. The bar summary as misleading as this, allowing the White House to create this false narrative and misleads American people again, and then he does a press conference misleading American people. He should have never been confirmed and certainly not confirmed unless he committed to recusing himself from an investigation in which he had an obvious bias, went to Congress and

lied and misrepresented Robert Muller's own viewpoints. Did the Attorney General lie to Congress? I think his statement is deliberately false and misleading, And yes, most people would consider that to be a lie. Lies, lies, lies, misrepresentation. Oh, he's so bad, he's so terrible. They never give you any specifics. They never tell you what did he lie about, what did he misrepresent? What did he say that was untrue?

They've got nothing, They've got absolutely nothing, and they cling to this though, I mean, this is the central narrative. Undermine Bar, attack Bar because on the merits, not only is Bar beyond any reasonable criticism with anything he's done, but the overall story here does not change. There were no charges against the President United States about collusion or about obstruction. Didn't happen. Muller report. Muller took his best shot at Trump and it wasn't enough because it wasn't there.

They don't have it. So now they're attacking Bar and they're freaking out. Oh but they did take a moment to stop and attack Lindsey Graham on this thing, too, placlabate. You have to have specific intent to obstruct justice if there's no underlying reluctant to do this. We rarely do. But the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that Muller found there was no collusion. That is not correct.

I'm sorry, Lindsey Graham, but your defensiveness is showing. To talk about everything that went into it and the next breath is storted is a stunning, stunning mischaracterization of what the whole exercise is, especially about reveals what I talked about before, that he's sitting there today not as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but as a human shield for Donald Trump, and it would appear again we try

to offer just a gavel to gavel coverage. But that phrase, or the lack of it, it's absence from federal code. This no collusion mantra. This is so important. I mean, Brian Williams is not a smart guy. He's an actor. He's an actor playing a smart news anchor on TV, and he's a decent actor. But also he's a fabricator. He got so used to playing other, playing somebody else on TV that he actually thought he was somebody else and you know, there he was killing Bin Laden with

Seal Team six and oh wait, no he wasn't. But this attack on bar an attack on anybody who And Lindsey Graham in this case, for saying no collusion, as though we're the ones, as though it's the folks that believed all along that Trump was being set up as he was, that this is an ambush, as it was, we're the problem here. They were the ones that insisted on this term collusion. They were the ones that kept on accusing the President of Russia. Collusion became shorthand for

working with the Russians to cheat in the election. Now, I've said on this show many times that they are intentionally avoiding the term conspiracy so that when the time comes and here we are, when there are no criminal charges because there was no conspiracy, they will say, well, but collusion is the collusion is a willingness to work with somebody else, or collusion is whatever they say it is. This takes us back to how democrats and leftists want to pick the words we have to use, want to

choose our language in these debates. For us, they chose collusion very intentionally, and now we see why they made us use the word collusion. And now they go, ha ha, there's there's no real crime. Although there is collusion when it comes to companies and price fixing that can be but you know, haha, there's no collusion. Why are they're saying there's no collusion because it's not really a thing. Well, they're the ones that insisted on this. That was the narrative.

The narrative was collusion. It's not the Russia Trump conspiracy. It was Russia Trump collusion for two years. And now they act like it's on us. And now they put people like Maxine Waters forward, who you know, just all she does is yell about how everybody should be impeached all the time. Who casts a vote for Maxine Waters and feels good about themselves for doing it? I just I really am curious. I mean, we're gonna talk about Mazie Horono come up in a moment. Maizie Horono is

the dumbest person in the entire United States Congress. Maxine Water is pretty close, though. Maxine Waters gives her some some real competition. And look, there are a lot of very dumb members of Congress, but Maxie Waters right up there, and she's taking this opportunity Capitol Hill, grandstanding today, a lot of cameras everywhere to say that not all I mean, you know, she's the one who says, you know, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.

President Trump should impeached. Oh it's not just President Trump who should be impeached for what? Who knows, who cares, doesn't even matter, Just impeach you, that's her position. But that Bill Barr himself should be impeached and removed from office play clib six. I think that Barr should resign, and if he does not resign, he should be facing

impeachment proceedings. Also, he has abdicated on his responsibility. He has lied, He has used the very words coming right out of the president's mouth, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion, and made a decision that despite what the Special Counsel put into that report about a ruction of justice, he said, he made the decision that he had not obstructive justice. It is outrageous and he needs to go. What did he lie about? Can they just tell me how, bar Lie?

Just once, just once, I'd like to know, what do you lie about? There is no collusion, folks, Okay, there is no crime of working with the Russians to the election. It didn't it didn't happen. So what are we talking about now? That the tortured logic and the violence done to language that Democrats are engaging in here just goes to show you there's no intellectual honesty, no decency, or integrity that they approach this issue with at all. It's

just all politics, pure and simple. Who is the dumbest member of Congress. It's a tough competition. There are some real doozies. I mean there are some. There are some straight up dumb asses in Congress. Let's be honest about it, folks. We're friends. We can talk about this, right, we don't have to hold back. There are some dumb asses. I don't know what it is about a beautiful, incredible state like Hawaii that the people of Hawaii can't do better

than than Mazie Harrono. But I would offer you you that she edges out, she edges out the the the dumbest members of Congress just a little bit. She's number one. I think she's number one. She is a level of stupidity that should never be in a position of authority. And the fact that she's in the not just the in the in the Congress, that she's a senator. She's not just one of the hundreds of members of the House, but she's one of the one hundred US senators. Hawaii,

I love you. Your state's amazing, It's gorgeous. I probably want to live there. But what are you doing with Mazie Harona? Come on, I know those you listen to the show like Buck, I didn't vote for her, but still, come on, Hawaii, get your game together. I mean, this is what manager Harona was saying today too. Just further embarrassed. We're gonna We're gonna do a little bit of an amazing session. Here. Here's what she said to bar Policlip fourteen.

You called a press conference to once again try to clear Donald Trump before anyone had a chance to read the Special Consol's report and come to their own conclusions. But when we read the report, we knew Robert Mueller's concerns were valid and that your version of events was false. You used every advantage of your office to create the

impression that the President was cleared of misconduct. You selectively quoted fragments from the Special Consol's report, taking some of the most important statements out of context and ignoring the rest. You put the power and authority of the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice behind a public relations effort. She's a clown and a moron, and she's debasing her office with this statement that you'll note has has no substance to a substance to it whatsoever.

He tried to clear Trump by releasing the entire report, which he did not have to do. He could have kept the entire reports secret, would have been completely He would have been completely within his power and authorities. Attorney generals say, Nope, the report's not going public, thank you. He released the whole thing with what less than five percent of it redacted. Oh and as to the redacted report, what two members of two Democrats in the Congress have

actually read it. It's like they didn't even take the time. They didn't even care because they know there's nothing. There's nothing in those redactions that'll change anything. This is just all political theater for them. This is for the Democrats, this is an opportunity to try to score cheap points. And that's what she was doing there. She said Muller quote, Muller's concerns were valid, and your version of events was false.

It was false. That's interesting because Muller never claimed that anything that the General Barr said was incorrect or untrue. Producer might just told me zero zero goose egg, not a zilch. Democrats have read the unredacted MULA report. Two Republicans have. They care so much about it that they don't care at all. I guess the Democrats, um, you know, they're they're not going to look into those secret sections because there's nothing in those secret sections to help their case.

But Mazie Horrono says that the version of events that bar presented was false. Someone please tell Mazie Horono to go read a book, go read something, Go read the Maula report. How about that version of events was false? Bill Barr is a top mind. Mazie Horrono, I think would have would have difficulty trying to, you know, order off a menu with numbers off of it if her staff didn't put it in front of her. And here we are listening to her trash this man, trash him,

trash his integrity. What a joke, an unfunny one at that. Bill Barr is like my legal spirit animal up there. Man, He's just answering all their questions. Knows this stuff backwards and forwards, and they're so seething men. They wish they had ab Jeff Sessions. I'm not gonna addsway headed questions today. You know they like that, They like dealing with Sessions. I don't mean to be mean about the guy, but you know they don't like dealing with Barry. This guy

was ready and then some for this man. The Trump administration is lucky to have him in this role. But heron no, not enough for her to go out from one time decide that she needs to try to score more cheap political points. Play fifteen. You are no different from Rudy Giuliani or kellyank Hanway or any of the other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the grifter and lawyer who sits in the oble office. You once turned down a job offer from Donald Trump to

represent him as his private attorney. At your confirmation hearing, you told Senator Feinstein that, quote the job of attorney general is not the same as representing and quote the president. So you know the difference. But you've chosen to be the president's lawyer and aside with him over the interests of the American people. To start with, you should never

have been involved in supervising the Robert Mueller investigation. You wrote a nineteen page unsolicited memo which you admit was not based on any facts, attacking the premise of half of the investigation. And you also should have insisted that Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein recused himself. He wasn't just a witness to some of the President's obstructive behavior. We now know he was in frequent personal contact with the president. A subject of the investigation. You should have left it

two career officials. Rosenstein is a career official, you moron. Herono is an idiot, an idiot, and she's speaking to a better person, a more honorable, smarter, better person, and trying to tear him down because her constituents, the people that vote for Maisie Herono, are a bunch of loons who still believe that the president United States should be prosecuted, should be out of office, duced down. There a bunch of babies, a bunch of babies. You lost. Hillary was horrible. Hello,

Hillary was a travesty of a candidate. Deal with it. Instead, what they try to do, find some way to justify the loss, to try to come up with a way to undermine the victory of the president. You know, justify that that this didn't really happen. You see it. He cheated, he cheated. They say, oh, yeah, sure he did. What are they gonna say the next time around? Man, I just I just hope Trump cleans whatever whatever silly COMI the Democrats put up for their you know, their next candidate.

Oh Trump just cleans his or her clock, I really do. I hope he just runs the table like like Reagan in his second term. Just uh, it would be amazing, wouldn't it. Look, here's here's how you know that heronos a joke. She's saying that that Rosenstein, Rosenstein. You know he's a problem now. But but if if before Barr came along, they had replaced Rosenstein or they had moved him aside, guess what that would have been catastrophic anyone who did not try to take down the president. And

I think Rosenstein wanted to. He was gonna wear a wire. But because he didn't succeed, he's unaccepted to them. Just just one more. They mean. Herono is so insane that she actually goes to the point of telling telling bar that he needs to play Clip twenty one. You got to hear this. But now we know more about your deep involvement and trying to cover up for Donald Trump. Being Attorney General of the United States is a sacred trust.

You have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign. I have some questions for you, dumbest human being in the United States Congress. It's Mazie Herono. She wins first prize, number one, top of the top of the chart. Baby going double platinum. Stupid Mazie Herono should resign. Sky was Attorney General under a different administration. He's work in the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the absolute best of the best the DJ has and he's going to resign.

Why what did he do? Because she doesn't like him, because he's being them, He's beating the Democrats. He's smarter than they are. He knows the system better than they do. They don't like it. They've gotten used to some novices that Trump has put in positions that honestly weren't very weren't very wise. Bill Barr's not in that category at all. They don't know how to handle him. So what do

they do? They attack like the little slimy cowards they are calling into question Bill Barr's heronor should be ashamed of herself, But she's too stupid to know that she should be ashamed. I offered Bob Mueller the opportunity to review that letter before it went out, and he declined. On Thursday morning, I received a letter from Bob, the letter that's just been put into the record, and I called Bob and said, you know, what's the issue? Here?

Are you? And I asked him if he was suggesting that the March twenty fourth letter was inaccurate, and he said no, but that the press reporting had been inaccurate and that the press was reading too much into it. And I asked him, you know, specifically, what his concern was, and he said that his concern focused on his explanation of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction, and he wanted more put out on that issue. But he was very clear with me that he was not

suggesting that we had misrepresented his report. There you have the Attorney General explaining this really quite strange circumstance of the special Counsel, Bob Muller complaining but not really complaining, not really clear what he wanted. What is going on here, folks? We got Andy McCarthy in the house to answer this in a whole lot more. Annie McCarthy Course of National View, also a Fox News contributor and a former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York for a

couple of decades. Andy, Great to have you, that's great to be with you. What do you make of this? Look, we got a lot to talk about today from the hearing and bar and what comes next. But first on this Muller, as as Bar called that kind of snitty email, What the heck is a special counsel doing here? Andy? To me, it looks like Muller's just being kind of

a whiny little punk, you know. I think worse even than the letter buck is the fact that they leaked at the night before what they had to know was going to be very combative, difficult testimony today in the

Senate and tomorrow in the House. So, you know, for those people who aren't in the kind of business that we used to be in in law enforcement and intelligence, when you're getting people suited up to testify the next day and somebody drops a stink bomb in the middle of your your prep like that, it is a It's not a good experience. So I think it's really an

excusable thing to do. It. Also, I think brings to the floor something that we've talked about before, and that is that it looks like we have a difference in philosophy of what a prosecutor's supposed to do and what a prosecutor's job is. Mallar, I think I'm surprised to see seems to be of a view that a prosecutor's job is to script a narrative and pepper it with

the occasional process crime indictment. And Barr is kind of old school and thinks the prosecutor's job is to decide is there enough evidence to charge or is there not? And if there's not, you're supposed to shut up. That's you know, when I was a prosecutor for twenty years, that that was the way I always heard it. But what is Maller's objection? This is what you know? It's not that it's inaccurate, right, so that that there's nothing there's no point of fact that Bob Barr, Bill Barr.

I gotta make sure I don't do that that Bill Barr got wrong. Well, then what is Muller talking about? What is this? Oh? That the context and this and that that didn't feel like it's so right? I mean, is Muller you know, it sounds like he feels like he didn't get a fair shot doing an open call for like an acting part or something. I mean, it just seems like, what are you talking about, dude? Yeah, Well,

that's precisely it. What he consumed himself with, and I think what his staff was consumed with was writing a narrative about collusion and obstruction that the press could pick up on, and perhaps leaving a trail with a narrative that Congress might be able to pick up on and impeach the president with. What they were not content to do, which is what they were there for, is the job of prosecutors, which is, you know, was there enough evidence

to charge or was there not? And what I thought buck was the most amazing and presumptuous thing about all of this is that Muller did not do the job he was retained to do. This basically came to him mainly as an obstruction case. He was brought on the week that the FBI opened an obstruction investigation and the president had fired Komey. It was pretty clear already by

then that there was no there there on collusion. So this was teed up for Muller when he took the case as an obstruction case, and the only thing we arguably needed him for. I don't think we needed a special counsel, but for those who did, really the main question for him to answer was was there enough evidence to charge on obstruction or was there not? He wouldn't

do the job that he was retained to do. He got criticized in the press, so that when it was found out that he hadn't made a decision, that's what got him all in a snit, you know, the fact that he was being criticized in the media for not making the one decision that he was needed to make. And then what he wants to do Buck is tell

everybody else how to do their job. So I always it always drives me nuts with people who don't do their own job to then tell the Attorney General how he's supposed to handle the responsibilities that are actually imposed on him, not on the special Council in the regulations. As Barr said today, once Muller turned in his report, he's done, and it's up to the Attorney General to decide whether the report gets released, how much of the report gets released, and the form that that release takes.

And it's amazing to see Barr get criticized the way he has been, when in point of fact, usually when somebody doesn't get charged, the public and the Congress don't get any information. And here Bar basically bent the rules to put out what I think is like something like ninety five of a four hundred and forty eight page report against somebody who wasn't charged, right. I mean the objection, and this came up a lot today in the hearing. The objection is about what bar has done just seemed

to be just un serious. I mean, this idea that he two weeks before he released all the information, he didn't do what Mueller wanted him to do. It's not Mueller's call, and there's nothing he'd be right, I'm as far as Mueller's concerned. What the regulations provide is that the special Counsel gives a confidential report to the Attorney General,

and then the special counsel is done. The special Council is aligne prosecutor, you know, And what I mean by that is an inferior officer or a subordinate official in the executive branch. He doesn't get to tell the Attorney General what to do, and the and the regulations make clear that it's up to the Attorney General to decide what, if any of the report gets put out and how

much of it. So, you know, I just think that, as you say, a lot of this is much ado about nothing, especially when we now have the report and we can read it for ourselves and what's the any I saw you were speaking to Anni McCarthy, everybody Fox News and National Review. You're heard of Muller as a diva, which I appreciated by the way that I got a chuckle out of that one. But I think I see where you're going with it. And you know, what does

this tell us about Mueller overall? I mean that he's that he's writting this snitty letter that I think is is just kind of intellectually indefensible about how the media know? Why is he so concerned with the media coverage of this? I thought Muller was the steely eyed professional, no politics here, just the facts, ma'am. I mean all that stuff that seems like a joke to me now, Andy, I mean

it has for quite some time. But I feel like, well, you know, what do you take from what Muller has done here and what should we take in terms of who is really running this investigation against the president? Well, I think it's the tactics of somebody who, Let's put it this way, when Roger Stone was arrested, they sent so many law enforcement vehicles to arrest this, uh, you know, nearly seventy year old man in his bathrobe that CNN

almost couldn't find any place to park. You know, I mean, this is this is this is a game that's been played from the beginning. And what I have complained about from the beginning is that the entire exercise was designed

to craft a narrative, not to bring charges. So for example, if you look at the George Papadopolis case, uh, you know what that should have been was a half a paragraph, you know, honor, about such and such a date he told a lie to the FBI to wit and then you know that he should about the time of the meeting, you cite the statute in and you're done. Instead, he accompanies that with a fourteen page narrative statement that has a lot of it's almost collusion. It feels like collusion.

Lots of Russians around, who knows what's going on here? And then you flip to the end and it's a process crime. And he did the same thing of Stone, and he did the same thing with Mike Flynn. All of it has been about a long narrative, most of which buck. If these cases were actually tried in court, the court would have struck most of his factual recitations as surplusage because they didn't have anything to do with the charges that were brought, or they barely had anything

to do. So the whole exercise that we had seen up until the time we saw his report was all about telling this grand narrative at peppered occasionally with some teeny tiny process charges. And why anybody thought his four hundred and forty eight page report was going to be any different from the way he had handled these indictments when it was the same people doing the same thing,

writing the same charges, is beyond me. So he simply did a bigger version in the report of what he did all along, which was he tended to the narratives and there was very little reason to have a prosecutor here. And I just we're going to go to a quick break everybody, but we'll bring Andy backing the side of Andy real quick. The thing that the left and the Democrats have really latched onto here is, oh, well, well

he couldn't bring charges against the president. Well then what was all of this really You know, first of all, is that even really true in a sense that couldn't he have written we would we recommend charges and leave it up to the OLC And the Department of Justice, whether or not they act on that. I mean, is there anything stopping him from writing that in his report. No,

that's exactly what would happened. But if he was taking the position that there was no reason for me to recommend charges because there's Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department guidance that says a sitting president can't be charged, then why did he take the case at all. He should have just handed the investigative file back and said, there's nothing for me to do here because the president

can't be charged. But that's not how it works. First of all, the rule is not that the prosecute that the president can never be charged. He can't be charged while he is in office. So you still have to do the investigation, and you still have to determine whether the charges can be filed or not. The guidance is not a reason not to do the investigation. And the decision he was called on to make was not the

application of the OLC guidance. The decision he was called to make was was there enough evidence to charge or was there not. If he decided that there was enough evidence to charge, then it would be up to the Justice Department to decide whether to invoke the guidance and direct the prosecute and not to return the charges. But the case still has to be investigated. And again, it's not that the president can never be charged, it's just that he can't be charged while he's in office. So

the investigation still has to be done. It was on Mueller to do it, and he's trying to make up excuses for why he didn't do what he was retained to do. Is there any you know what? We're going to come back with Annie McCarthy, your Natural Review and Fox News contributor, Annie McCarthy, the man you want to hear from all this stuff. We're going to come back in just a moment. Team stay with me or We're back with Annie McCarthy of National Review and and Fox

News contributor and somebody who's really been critical. His voice has been critical on this issue, not just because the President says so, it's been true. Andy, the is there a we're talking about ulla right before we're in a break. Is there a good faith defense of Mueller's hole? You know, we were kind of maybe thinking charges, but then didn't do charges because there's a bunch of reasons but the main reason is the Office of Legal Counsel the deal.

Jay says, we couldn't charge him. Is there a good faith argument that I'm missing or is this just smearing the president? Basically, no, it's not. It's not a good faith There is no good faith argument. I mean, here, well, let me tease out what I think is the only relevant piece of this buck. And I still don't think it does the trick. But let's let's bend over backwards

and see if we can't help here, right. Um, the idea behind the guidance is that, um, if you charge a sitting president, it is catastrophic for the country because the president has to govern under a cloud, and he's got to govern with these big distractions of trying to defend himself from a criminal case. So the idea is that you know, something that's serious, you know, we don't. We don't want to burden the president with that under

the circumstances. And what he took that to mean was that, in evaluating the evidence he had to bring to bear with each call that he had to make the need for having you know, absolutely serious, super duper. I'm sure there's enough evidence here to charge and he was not ready to make that call because of the hesitancy that the guidance provided him, not saying that he couldn't charge or could charge, but that he just raised it to a different specter of seriousness. I mean, the argument is

so obtuse, it's actually difficult to articulate. And when you get to the bottom line, Barr asked him, he testified, and this is not the first time he's testified for this. Barr asked him three times when they met, whether when he told them that he was not going to make a decision about obstruction. He was asked three times, is

that because of the OLC guidance? And he told the Attorney General no, according to the Attorney General testimony, So he didn't return the charges because, however he wants to dress it up, he couldn't bring himself to say that there was evidence that you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an obstruction crime. Here again important to underscore here, that doesn't mean the conduct was good.

That doesn't mean that the public, in evaluating the conduct, might come away saying, Okay, maybe not a crime, but this is not really what I want out of my president. It's not no one is saying that this is not something that, as Bar said today, we're going to have.

We're gonna have an election in eighteen months. And if people look at this and they want to go yuck, I, you know, no matter how good the policy is, this is not the guy I want in the White House, then the president is going to have to live with that. So no one is endorsing this conduct. But the point simply is a prosecutor's job is to decide, as he put as Bar put it today, the binary choice there

is enough evidence to charge or there's not. And ordinarily, if there's not enough evidence to charge, you shut up. Because the idea is, we don't want the Justice Department tanking people who are presumed innocent under the Constitution, unless you're going to formally charge them, in which case they get all the protections of the Constitution to defend themselves. They get they get, you know, assistance to counsel, they get the right to confront witnesses, they get a right

to put on a defense. What we don't want the Justice Department doing is saying, all right, we're not going to charge you, and then they smear you with all the evidence and then how do you confront that? How do you know? What do you do in that circumstance. So that's the point, and he is Bill Is Bill Barr the best guy that really Trump could have in this role right now? Because I had to say, I thought the way he handled that hearing today, they couldn't lay a glove on him. Yeah, I think he'd be

the best guy under any circumstances. Buck. I mean, the thing to remember with Barr is number one, he's done this job before. Number Two, he's I think he's very scrupulous, but he's smart, and he's savvy, and he knows Washington. And most importantly for these purposes, he knows two things

that not all attorneys general. No. I mean, first of all, as far as the law is concerned, he was before he was the attorney general under the first President Bush, he was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Those are the lawyers, lawyers in the Justice Department who make policies, the best lawyers in the government going that job. And secondly, before he was a prosecutor, before he was a lawyer, he worked at the CIA, so he understands

the counterintelligence mission of the Justice Department. I think in a way that is unique among at least in recent times, the attorney generals we've had served, and we've had a number of very good attorneys general. I just don't think they've got that. Yeah, So he is. He is the man, the man for this job at this time. Annie McCarthy is the man for this interview in this topic at this time though, Annie McCarthy, everybody, Fox News and Natural Review.

Andy always illuminating, my friend. Thank you for making the time for us. Thanks so much, Buck, I have a good one, All right, team, we'll be right back. Investigation into the Trump campaign began on July thirty first, twenty sixteen, after a foreign government contact at the FBI about comments made by George Papadopolis. Is that accurate or were there

other precipitating events that helped lead to this. That is the account that has been given in the past as to how it got Cohen, you've previously said that you think it's possible that the Federal Bureau of Investigation improperly spied on the Trump campaign. I assume that's a reference to the FISA warrant for Carter Page. Is that what you have in mind? Or there are other circumstances that

you've got in mind. There many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I'd like to find out whether that is in fact true. This is the biggest single moment, in my opinion, of the entire show trial they put on today for the Attorney General on Capitol Hill. But this is the most important thing that we all need to be aware of and be prepared to get some answers about. And that is what started

the whole Russia collusion fiasco. What was the true origin of it? We had, as you who listened to the show, no George Papadopolis on for an hour last week telling us about his story and how this just doesn't add up that they would start an FBI full field investigation based upon the kind of contacts that Papadopopolis had and how those contacts came to be, Who who originated them, Who came up with this as an idea that should that should receive government resources and attention. You know, when

did all this happen? How did all this happen? And that we got into this mess of the Russia collusion, delusion because of Papadopolis and Carter Page, and that is what the biggest media outlets in the country were feeding the American people. I mean, that's what we were being told. That is absolute bullcrap. It's just bullcrap. There's no way, there's no way that that alone was enough to get

all of this going. And there is absolutely no way that the conversations that Papadopoulos was having with different individuals somehow just magically made their way onto the radar of the FBI and American intelligence services, and they really took this as some kind of a national security threat worthy of a counterintelligence investigation. It just doesn't add up. It does not add up. And that's why there's such a frenzy,

an absolute frenzy to undermine the attorney General. They've got a formidable I mean, we were just talking to Andy about this. They've got a formidable opponent the left, the damns, the anti Trump radicals, formidable opponent in Bill Barr. This guy is a legal superstar. He understands these laws better than all of the members of Congress. He understands the dj better than all the members of Congress who were

questioning him. Today, including the Republicans. By the way, I mean, he's as sound and adept a legal mind as you will find anywhere. And so what do they do what the left always does, cry, whine, complain, and attack, attack, attack attack. That's where bro Cuomo comes in. Hey, you got a law degree. Where's bro Cuomo's law degree from? You know, I got on the back of a crack a jackbox Cuomo style. He said things like this about one of the most esteemed and skilled lawyers to hold

the attorney general position in my lifetime. This is how CNN's newest star anchor, despite their thirty percent drop in ratings recently. That's right, twenty six I think was the official number. Here's how bro Cuomo talks about actual legal mind and not make believe legal mind Bill Barr PLI clip five. But it shows that this ag has been an agent for the president more than for the American people or a political hack. You just want to be that blunt about it, a political hack, a kinder word,

would be a mercenary for the president. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand why William Barr got this job, how he auditioned for it, how he conducted himself during the hearings, and how he conducted himself at the initial press conference with the letter and the second press conference. He tried to shape the narrative. Everything that we had been reporting about this letter and the ag trying to shape the narrative has turned out to be true.

Cuomo and Lemon are morons, So start with that. Also. I love Lemon saying a kinder word than Hack would be a mercenary. I don't know if that's kinder. I don't know if Lemon knows what a mercenary is, but I wouldn't say that that's a kinder word. But the things that they're saying about about Bill Barr, No, there's no meat on the bone here. They don't explain what justifies these comments, these assessments of Barr. They just know that Barr isn't going to bow to the public pressure.

That Bar doesn't care what the New York Times editorial page says about him, doesn't care what the you know, the network CNN and MSNBC, and you know what they're saying about him night after night on TV. He knows what happened here. Bar is not a fool. He's been in this game for decades. The Democrat left got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They thought they could override the will of the American people with a deep state media coup to get rid of Trump, and

it failed. And now they're bitter about it. They're angry about it. They don't think that this is something that should be allowed to stand. They want to get another shot. They want to use the Attorney General for the State of New York, or they want to use some spinoff

investigation from Muller. If you want to talk about an agent for somebody or a partisan hack, look no further than Bob Oh He's such a saint Muller with his I don't like the way that the press was reporting on the letter that Barr wrote about my very important report that I wrote so that Congress can impeach the president. Mueller's a hack, Mueller's an agent for the Democrats. Muller might as well be walking around with a Hillary twenty sixteen button on his shirt. As far as I'm concerned,

he has showed us this. He has shown us he's not a man of character in this situation, that he is not a man of integrity and honor and I can point to why, unlike bro Cuomo and Don Lemon Monsieur Don Lemon, I can cite chapter and verse what Mueller. First of all, what we were just talking about. Muller doesn't make a decision, that's his job. Why didn't he make a decision because he would have lost on the

merits folks, better to leave it open. You know. This is like the guy that's going to try out for the varsity team and then says, oh, no, I'm not going to try out, and then just goes around telling everybody I would have made the team, but I didn't try. That's what Mueller's doing here with impeaching, with the prosecuting the president. Well, I would have prosecuted the president, but I didn't go for it, So now he leaves it to Congress. It's a slimy, underhanded tactic. Okay, that's being

an agent for the other side. That's being a political hack. Threatening George Papadopoulos's wife, telling George Popadopoulos's wife that she should leave George because what he's going to get too weeks in a minimum security country club prison for lying about a non crime, sending a swat team that looks like it's ready to take on, you know, the Sinaloa cartel on their home turf, sending them in to go

get Roger Stone. They could have called Roger Stone at his home and said, hey, Roger, take off the silk pajamas, throw on a pinstripe suit. We'll see you in half an hour, please come down. Guaranteed Roger Stone would have turned himself in, no foss, no muss, It would have showed up. No serious person believes otherwise you're gonna send a pre dawn raid to his home. Oh and CNN

just happened to be there. I wonder does Muller get a check send to him from CNN for all the good work he's done for them, or does they have to wait a little bit, Let let the heat die down. Talk about being a political hack, please, Andrew Weissman of the Muller team is a political hack. Genie Rie of the Muller Team's a political hack, and Mueller's the biggest hack of all. Go back and look at what happened at the FBI with the anthrax investigation on mother's watch,

destroyed an innocent person. Mother's not a good guy, folks, And we're seeing a lot of this at the very top reaches the very most important positions in the national security apparatus of this country, people who should not have had the power they had. Komi Muller, McCabe, Brennan Clapper, Sally Yates, Lauretta Lynch. These are not good people, They're not ethical people. They were playing dirty political games, using their positions in power and really hurting people along the way.

And where is the accountability for all this? Where is any sense that this would not happen again? I can't tell you we've reached that yet, despite the fact that they were not able to finish off this presidency with the Muller probe, which was a disaster from the start. I knew it. I said it on the show. Never should have been allowed to happen from day one. Jeff Sessions was wrong not to fight harder on this one. Jeff Sessions was wrong to get steamrolled by the deep

state left in the media, and he did. And I think Jeff's a good guy and an honest guy, but he was not ready for this street fight and he got got. We are up against very determined political enemies that do not play fair, that do not care about the rules. They have been able to use processes to slow down this president, to harm this president those around him. I want payback. I want retribution and I want people that abused government power to pay the price for the games,

the games that they thought they'd get away with. Also they could help Hillary win. What a disgrace. We'll be right back. I got a piece that just broke that I want to tell you all about, one that I'm sure is going to get a lot of attention and perhaps put some Democrats on edge. Nellie Or's high honey emails to d o J about Russia collusion should alarm

us all. The author is my colleague and boss over at The Hill, John Solomon, who was an investigative journalists who also is executive vice president for Digital at Hill TV, where I work on this show Morning in Rising rather in the Morning, John, thanks so much for joining. I tell us about the high honey emails you write about here on the Hill dot com. What did Nellie Or

get herself into? Yeah, this is going to be an interesting development because if you remember about eight nine months ago, she testified on Capitol Hill and when she was asked in her testimony, why we're working for Fusion GPS. That's the Christopher Steele firm. That's the Hillary Clinton firm, the DNC firm that did all of the Russia dirt digging on Donald Trump, assembled it into the dossier. He just

spread it around Washington and got the investigation started. While you were working for that firm, did you share any of your Russia research with anyone beside your husband, the Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Orb, Christopher Steel or Fusion And she answered no. And now we have pretty clear evidence that she sent a total of three hundred and thirty nine pages worth of email and research to DJ email accounts, sometimes to her husband, other times to three

of his colleagues in the International Criminal Prosecution Division. So she was spreading around things like the discovery of the Paul Manafort ledger in Ukraine that obviously was dirt that would stick to Manafort and Trump. She sent articles that highlighted Carter Page going to Moscow and giving the famous speech there and then suggesting he had a connection to gas problem. As you know, that became a big part

of the feisal warm. She then sent around articles about the Russian ambassador Sergey Kissiak attending in the audience that Donald Trump gave a foreign policy speech. Well, it was that attendance that ultimately led Jeff Sessions to have to recuse himself from the Russian investigation because he was in the audience and the same audience with the ambassador Kissiac. So all of this, she's using her marital privilege, her marital backdoor with Bruce Or to get this information into

the Justice Department. And I think it raises two questions. One a question of conflict of interest. Should a spouse on the payroll of a political candidate be allowed to use her husband's connections to flow information into the Justice Department? And two? Did she give accurate testimony? Was that answer she gave accurate in light of the emails that we found. You got three hundred and thirty nine pages of emails. It's a lot of stuff she was sending, very partisan,

very edgy, very anti Trump. And I think there are some members of Congress, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan among them, that are now raising questions about the actor of her testimony. In fact, I'd keep an eye out tonight to see if they make a decision on sending a referral to the Justice Department. On this matter. So Nellie or may have lied under owe to Congress. Effectively, she may have

committed the crime that is. That is the concern that these emails clearly raised, and she deserves the benefit of doubt and ton investigations done. But when you look at the volume of what she was sending and what she was sending, it's clearly the sort of Russia research that

Fusion GPS was doing. In fact, she identified her her testimony very specific people she was researching to Oligarch's name, dry Posca and ronat Osmet Both of their names show up in the research that was sent to the Justice Department. She talks about how she was trying to find any connection between Donald Trump and organized crime, any article she found, any think tank stuff she found that even remotely connected down Trump to Russia. It was being sent to the

Justice Department. So when you take her own words and you're then compared to the emails, it looks like the very thing she was researching for Fusion GPS he was sending to the Justice Department. And that's something that she did not acknowledge in her testimony. Effects she emphatically stated no when asked if she shared it outside of Fusion GPS. So I would expect people like medals in Jordan on these oversight committees to make a decision soon on whether

they asked the Justice Department to investigator testimony. And do we have any sense of whether these DOJ officials took specific action based on any other things she sent or do we know if they responded to either other people in DJ about it or to her directly. Do we just have any visibility of that yet? Great question. Well, there are a series of emails that have really caught the Congressional Investigator's attention. Keep in mind Congress didn't have

access to these emails. They only came out under FOYA just a few weeks ago through Judicial Watch, and I think their significance is only being discovered now. But in March and April, some of the prosecutors in the Justice Department, specifically those based on my earlier reporting, who are working on a very specific Russian oligarch targeting program, there was an effort to recruit Russian oligarchs to find out what they knew about Pewton and what they knew about Trump

and other other things. Those oligarcs included too that Nellie was researching Oligdara Poska and Renat ashmed it. For some reason, Bruce Or's colleagues, he's the Associate Deputy Ury General, pretty high ranking in the Justice Department. They asked for permission in the National Crime Division to reach out to his wife and get some information. And they start sending emails. You're such an expert, we want to talk to Ennis. I think we could benefit from both of us can

benefit from the contact. So there's not only Nellie Or flowing her information or outbound to the Justice Department. At some point the Justice Department comes in and ask for her help. Now what they asked for is highly redacted, so we can't see the full amount. But what I've been told from my reporting is it specifically dealt with the Russian oliguard program. So you got a Hillary Clinton paid researcher now working on the Justice Department on a

program that has an intersection with Donald Trump. It's why those conflict alarm bells are going off in some members minds. Nellie Or's high honey emails to DJ about Russia collusion should alarm us. All that is the piece. It is up on the Hill dot Com right now. Also checkout Hill dot TV in the mornings. Sure you'll see not just me, but also John in the near future talking about this piece. John Solomon, everybody, John, thanks so much.

Thanks Buck, appreciate the attention to the story team. We'll be back in just a moment. You are now entering to the Freedom Hottle Operation Center. All the programs must be cavs strictly need to know Team Buck is cleared and ready for the Buck brief. A lot of the policies that we've put in plays has kind of helped lead the devastation in Venezuela, and we've sort of set

the stage for where we are arriving today. This particular bullying and the use of sanctions to eventually intervene and make chee change really does not help the people of countries like Venezuela, and it certainly does not help and it's not in the interest of the United States. Ilaan Omar Democrat member of Congress isn't anti Semite. We know that it's not one or two statements, it's lots of statements.

She just takes Israel the task all the time, and by Israel, I mean the Jewish people and Democrats try to run cover for her because she's protected. Why she protected, She's a female, minority, Muslim, three things. You add them all together, and if you're left wing, if she a Republican, by the way, she would get scorched by the media. It wouldn't matter that she's she's African, she's Muslim, she's female,

that wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter. But because she's a Democrat, then all those things become her shield, they become her protection, and they are her protection for the Democrat left because her most important contribution to the Democrat cause is as somebody who is bringing together different victim classes that the intersectional left will use as a club to attack other people. Right, they will bludgeon people with having ilhan Omar call them out,

say they're racists, say they're Islamophobic. You know that that's they like that. They like that ability that she's going to have. But the good news is I have the ability to say that she seems like an ignor Ramist, not quite as as ignorant as Occasio Quartez, but in ignoramus who's also an anti semit dident and has this streak of anti Americanism. Well, let me just start with

the ignorant part of this. As the situation in Venezuela continues to be very tense as we're on air tonight, and I think it's important that everyone understand that Venezuela is not really our fight. Keep saying this. We cover it here because it's important enough as a news story, and it's interesting that the dynamics for Venezuela are are interesting for us to understand. Well, of course, what happens when you have too much control of an economy in

the hands of the state. And but you know, I was on Kennedy's show on Fox Business last night talking to her about what I think about Venezuela, and this is what this is just a quick review of that playlip one. Remember we're talking about a narco state here as well. Some of the top officials, I mean, the number three, four and five guys I believe in the Venezuelan government on the Maduro side are sanctioned narco traffickers by the Treasury Department. You got a bunch of cocaine

kingpins run around with people starving. Their money is becoming basically worthless, and now they're telling people to shoot on unarmed protesters in the streets. Guess what, They're not going to play an ice anytime soon. They don't care what we tell them, with the international community tells them. So I just think that this this just turns into force on force Kennedy, and we'll see who wins in the end.

I'm just hoping the US doesn't get pulled into a military situation here, because as bad as it is, it's still not our fight. It's still not our fight. And people say, what happens buck if they take some Americans hostage or something, Well, you know, if we got to go in and save Americans, we got to go in and save Americans. But that doesn't mean we go in and then set up camp. Doesn't mean we go in

and patrol the streets. Say that this is going to be a place that the United States is going to take under it, you know, it's going to militarily intervening. And I have to say I'm a little bit surprised at some of the rhetor are coming out of the administration right now all this. I mean, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on this point about military action in Venezuela said this play three. President has been Crystal Claire and

incredibly consistent. Military action is possible. If that's what's required, that's what the United States will do. We're trying to do everything we can to avoid violence. We've asked all the parties involved not to engage in that kind of activity. We'd prefer a peaceful transition of government there where Maduro

leaves at a new election is held. But the President has made claire in the event that there comes a moment, and we'll all have to make decisions about when that moment is, and the President will ultimately have to make that decision. He's prepared to do that if that's what's required. I'm hoping that's just a warning that's put on the table.

I mean, this is like before you interrogate somebody, you know, you put the six shooter on the table and the old cop movies and say, all right, we're gonna have a conversation here, and you're not really planning on using that six shooter, but you're just letting them know that it's there. I think Pompeo's just letting the Venezuelan thug regime of Majuro know, you guys better not try anything crazy and if that's wood he's that's where he's gonna stop,

then that's fine. This is the only place where I have a word where I have real a sense that there needs to be caution for administration. Other than that, I think they're handling Venezuela very well. That brings me back to ilhan Omar, who's on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. So this isn't just some random number of Congress This is somebody who, at least in theory, could have a

powerful voice in US foreign policy. And as I mentioned, she's both ignorant and exposes her own biases and prejudices in a regular basis. To her comments about how Venezuela is having the terrible trials and tribulations that are currently has because of US policy, I would say to that, like, what what's the US put? What do the United States do to destroy the economy of a country that has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, which Venezuela does.

What do the US do to hyper inflate the currency of a country that until about fifteen years ago was one of the wealthier South American countries per capita? And what did we do exactly? The answer is she doesn't have an answer because she just now she's talking about the sanctions of things that we've put in place because Maduro is seizing power. Really, every day he's in office is a seizure of power because he's not a legitimate office holder. But it's our fault. It's on us that

this is the case. And this blame America first attitude, which the left is, this is where you're going to find it. You find the blame America first on the left is deeply unsettling but pervasive. They have a lot of this. And then I'll just on ilhan Omar on what she likes and uh and doesn't like. You know, she obviously doesn't like the state of Israel, but she also for somebody that fled real oppression and misery in

an entirely Islamic country, Somalia. She's somebody who you think would be have a little more gratitude about America, have a little more of a sense that, you know, this country is pretty incredible and pretty special, and maybe doesn't We don't always need to. It's not fair, it's not wise, it's it's not just to always try to undermine this country. You think that maybe that would be more of her.

But that's not her approach. That's not her approach. She takes this left wing Chomskyite view of every problem anywhere in the world is somehow the result of US foreign policy missteps. It's it's bumbling. But this is this is where we are. Just one other quick thing that came up in Venezuela. Whatever happened to the people in Venezuelas in their ability to fight back against the government. Why is it that the military is so in military support

for the regime. It's so very, very important. And why aren't you seeing maduro thugs getting ambushed in the streets when they open up on people with volleys of live fire as they have. Well, here's an exchange with an MSNBC report that may illuminate some of that play clip two. With the help of Russia and other outside forces, Maduro is hanging on, and not only hanging on, but he

appears to still control the military. You have to understand in Venezuela, gun ownership is not something that is open to everybody. So if the military have the guns, they have the power. And as long as Nicholas Madoudo controls the military, he controls the country. Just a reminder for us all the Second Amendment is in this country ultimately

a check against government tyranny. That is why it exists. Yes, it also gives you the ability to defend yourself in your home, but it was written into the Constitution as a check against government tyranny. In Venezuela right now, the situation would be very different if you had an armed populace that could fight back. But if you have a disarmed population, which is what is the case in Venezuela, there is no reasonable means for them to try and

fight back against military rule on the streets. They're not just going to go out there and challenge the military in street fights where one side has machine guns and the other side has rocks and bottles. That's not going to work. So there is a you know, this is why that the lessons of Venezuela are important for us to understand in this country and to remember you don't want the government control of the entirety the economy. Social justice is not a smart way to run an economy.

And oh, by the way, when they want to take your guns, you got a problem. Don't let them. Department of Homeland Security is looking to expand on a program that I just launched, or they will be testing DNA at the US Mexico border to establish that these are in fact family units that are showing up, that these are not children who are being rented. As we know has happened, that has been a problem that has faced immigrations and Customs enforcement and border patrol. We know that

there have been instances of this. We know there's massive fraud occurring at the border. And now the Trump administration and their efforts to try and come up with ways that within the executive and law enforcement authority they have, they're coming up with ways to at least lean up the mess that is currently our southern border, if not control it entirely, make it slightly less catastrophic. And here's

what CNAs reporting today on this. They'll start this DNA testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling. The rapid DNA testing, as it's known, involves a cheek swab and ken on average, provide results in about ninety minutes. According to a senior ICE official. The pilot program will run for two to three days, and this is the

Trump administration trying to crack down on this practice. No, I think this is where you see that there will be there will be challenges I think to this. I mean the Democrats will come up with some way to say that this is this is bad, that we should be we should not be supportive of this, we should find this unconstitutional or whatever. I mean, There'll be some crazy challenge to because ultimately Democrats do not want enforcement

to get better. The results of all this, for those of you are wondering, they've got to create some kind of a database. No, the results of all this will be destroyed. And if there's a case where the child is accompanied by an uncle, a grandparent, etc. Then they have to have legal documentation with them to prove that they are in fact a family unit. And they're also, I think, going to prosecute people that try to scan

the system, which they should be doing. They should be prosecuting people who try to scan the system scan the system because they're violating our laws. And you and I don't get to violate the laws with impunity. If you or I were to lie to federal law enforcement, we wouldn't be told, oh, well you have a good reason for that lie, and we understand that things are tough right now, and so we're going to let you go. No, this is where the law either applies or it doesn't.

And I think that at the at the southern border right now, the Trump administration has had enough. They recognize that this is a massive scam, that this needs to stop, and they have to start putting disincentives in place. They need to disincentivize people from continuing. And even just I think the value of some prosecutions for fraud at the border will make people think twice about all the other frauds they're engaged in, lying about their age, lying about

their circumstance. You know, I've heard people who will say, in the context of the Mueller probe, for example, where any lie of any kind, even if the very very small lie and doesn't really matter and there's no criminal conduct at issue, any lie is to be treated severely. You know, any lie is a huge problem. And then when I say, well, what about what's going on at our southern border, you know, it doesn't that make the

system break down? They want to pretend that well, we can and expect people that are fleeing persecution we can't expect people that are coming from such difficult circumstances to tell the truth, really, and so now is there an exception for my life is tough, So I'm gonna lie

to federal law enforcement officials I've been told. I think we actually even had a former assistant US attorney on this show to discuss this that if they prosecuted immigration violators or people that lie at the border in order to get into this country, that is all that our federal courts would be doing because their lives being told

all the time. So in a sense, they've they've overwhelmed the system, including the system's ability to maintain the basic integrity of the truth that is the very foundation of everything that's going on. If you can lie to border patrol, if you can lie to customs enforcement, then how can they do their jobs. If you're just really going to rely on them to be able to know who's telling the truth and who's not without there being any penalty line,

then the whole system starts to collapse. So this DNA swab issue will be helpful. This This isn't going to fix everything. That's not going to make all the problems go away, but one thing that I want you to keep an eye out for is there'll be some crazy objection to this. There will be some you know group that decides, you know what we are, We're going to

challenge this in court. We find this to be you know, an unacceptable I don't know what their illegal grounds will be, but they'll they'll just say that this is, you know, discriminatory, a disparate impact, will come up with some crazy legal

theory to say that this shouldn't be happening. And that just goes to my overall thesis that Democrats oppose enforcement of the law that can punish illegal aliens and anything that will take away the magnet for illegal aliens, anything that will make them less likely, less inclined to break our laws and come across our southern border. Democrats oppose is a knee jerk reaction from them. They will not relent.

They will not be partners in trying and they will not relent on this, and they will not be our partners in finding a way to shut down this migration issue. They just won't do it. They because they benefit from it. As we know, they view this as as votes. You know, I just saw this past a couple of days, some imagery, some photos of hundreds of people crossing, hundreds of people crossing at a time. This is happening every day, my friends.

This problem continues on and really gets worse because the larger the number of people through any one part of the immigration system, the larger the number that get into the country, the bigger the prize, so to speak, politically, the bigger the prize for those who will push for amnesty.

So for Democrat purposes, that's the single that's everything. This means that they will be in power, and that's why they're willing to throw the rest of immigration system under the bus, because ultimately they think they'll sort it out once they destroy the Republican Party. Immigration is a means to destroy the Republican Party. That's why Democrats love it so illegal immigration, that's why they love it so much. And that's also why the urgency from the Trump administration

is so necessary. I'm glad that they see this for what it is now. I wish that there had been a greater focus on this earlier on in Trump's term. I'm not gonna just skip over that. But the president's doing what he can now. Is it too late? I don't know. My friends will keep covering it here. I don't know if it's too late. Sovereignty is eroding every day. Sports Illustrated now has a model in a burkini? Can

the swimsuit issue truly get woke? That is the piece in the Washington Post here about the first ever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue with a burkini in it. And let me just say that, you know, this is I might get myself into little trouble here, but that's okay. A burkini is a version of a bikini that is covering a woman's skin all the way up to her wrists and down to her ankles. It is somewhat form fitted, but you also often wear some kind of a shawl

or something on top of it. So look, it's not sexy, okay, And I'm sorry. I know that we're supposed to say, oh, all cultures have the same have the same good things, and that's the same degree of worthy attributes and the same kinds of drawbacks. It's just not true. It's just not true. The bikini is a wonderful invention of modern times and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, which I don't

think people particularly care or talk about it anymore. But there was a time, you know, when I was growing up in the nineties, man, the swimsuit issue came out and people love and by people, I mean all my high school friends in me. We thought it was amazing. The celebration of female beauty is something that I think

our society shouldn't shy away from. And I also think that if we're going to live in a country where we have free speech as well as the melting pot approach that we're supposed to have to new cultures and immigrants and everything else, then we got to say things like I'm just not okay with them. Barkini. Now when I say I'm not okay with it, if someone wants to wear it, that's their call. I don't you know.

People can dress however they want to dress. I just am not going to be made to celebrate what I think looks ridiculous on a beach, which is a woman wearing coverage from her neck all the way down to her feet like she's in some kind of a wetsuit, and being told look and wet suits are necessary for things, right, I'm but and being told that it's this is sexy that this is. This is similar to Kathy Ireland back

in the day in the nine Remember that Kathy Island. Guys, you know what I'm talking about, Uh, you know, in a sports illustrated spread in a bikini. No, this is not sexy. And and also the whole Islamic covering of women is not based in liberation. The leftists all try to contort reality here because they really really don't want

to be seen as as critical of Islam. They really don't want to be seen as as ever being unfavorable to what they view as a non white religion of oppressed people, even though Islam is soon to be the biggest religion in the world based on current trends. So it's not an oppressed faith, it's not a faith tradition that is cringing in fear and corners of the world. In fact, Islam tends to make other religions cringing fear if we're going to talk about religious conflict. But that's

perhaps conversation for another time. But the whole notion of Islamic covering of women has to do with the oppression of women and all also this idea that women who allow themselves to be shown in public and to express their femininity and their beauty invite bad things to happen to them from men. This is true, and Islamic societies all throughout the Middle East that men can't be expected to behave themselves and not do terrible things if women are going to walk around in a short skirt or

this is this is commonplace teaching. Many moms, and people make all kinds of excuses for this than everything else. But if you're looking for the motherload of oppression of women in motherload's a good term. I guess a motherload of oppression of women in any part of the world, Islam is number one by far. And this idea that we're going to celebrate the burkini as somehow equivalent to the bikini, no, I'm not going to play this game.

I opt out of this. It's not sexy, it's not exciting, it's not stylish, and I think that to borrow from a Oriana Falacci on this one, I don't like it when people tell me that anyone has to wear a medieval rag or else. And that's true of the hijab in many cases, and it's certainly true of the Barkinian plenty of places. Hey, team Buck, it's time for roll call. Does anybody have a recommendation for a really good Spotify

workout playlist? I've been listening to the same workout music way too much lately because I've actually been reasonably consistent about getting the gym. So if you have a good Spotify send me a link to your Spotify workout playlist on Facebook. Those of you who don't know what Spotify is, think of it like what people used to do with CDs now they do with an app. I don't know. I used to make fun of Spotify, and then I started using it, and then I found it was pretty

pretty handy. Facebook dot Com slash Buck Sexton for all of your roll call needs, And with that, I say we just get right to it. Philip Rights Shields time Buck, Time for a buck deep dive into Venezuela. I heard your guests from Heritage last night, Duck your question about US military intervention. Tucker's Republican guests last night all but advocated our intervention, and with John Bolton advising the President, I'm very concerned that once again we will add to

our long list of military interventionist failures abroad. In the name of doing something. We don't even know who Juan Guido is or what his policies will bring. Bring us a deep dive on the issue, Philip, I like the idea of a deep dive on it. Let me say this as to where I think this all goes. The more likely scenario, in my mind, than an intervention upfront, meaning now, would be an intervention after the fact of

some kind. We would rather just see if Guido can win this on his own, although we are giving some assistance and help. I think that the call for US action will get louder if, in fact Maduro wins, which is a very real possibility. So in terms of US military intervention, we shouldn't do it. It's not our fight, it's not our problem. And I hope that there's not a hawkishness that wins the day in this White House, because I know that some of the advisors around Trump

are very pro US intervention. As a general matter, they're pro US intervention. I do think that this situation venezue Venezuela illustrates, however, that just because we don't intervene doesn't mean that nobody intervenes. In fact, it is often the case that, or let me step back, The absence of US intervention in a foreign country is not like It's not like there's a ban on other countries intervening too.

We seem to think that foreign policy that the US does not, even when the US does not engage in a certain foreign policy act, that other countries won't have the same kind of impetus, the same decision making processes. And it is often true that where the US does not intervene, there is a foreign power vacuum that will be filled by someone else. So that's something that I think we all need to remember. The absence of US

intervention is not sovereignty respected. For whatever the situation is, the absence of US intervention often turns into Chinese Russia. Now that doesn't mean the US should intervene all the time. It just means we should be aware of that. Adam writes Buck. When it comes to the elites, why can we not exploit the not in my backyard, every human being has and forced them to live with the policies

they push. When it's close to home, they will change their tune shields high, Adam, I agree with you in principle. I just don't know how we would execute this plan in fact. So yeah, I think that at any time that somebody's advocating something that they themselves would reject, they would not accept living under the rules that they're pushing for the rest of us, or they don't take action that is commensurate with the degree of fervor that they're

pushing the plans and all the rest of us. But climate change is a great example of this, but there are many others as well that should be an indicator, that should be a red flag to you. I you know, here's something that and I'm not trying to get into

the vax discussion. I know there's a lot of news coverage right now because of the outbreaks of measles across the country, but I would say this one of the reasons why because people say, well, Buck, you don't you don't just take scientific consensus on climate change as fact, but you do take that as fact on the overwhelming safety and usefulness of the primary vaccines that we're all

recommended to take and be given as children. And I say, well, yes, but everyone that's ever And I'm just saying this to illustrate the point about consistency. So I'm not trying to get into a whole vaccination discussion here, so you can please please don't send me vacstruth dot net slash. I get it. It's fine, thanks, I've got it covered. But the truth is that the people that are advocating for vaccination as the standard, they have been vaccinated, they get

their kids vaccinated. They put their money where their mouth is. And that's a very different thing than what you see with the climate change crowd, where they're telling all of us, you know, don't don't fly in any kind of aircraft, and they're flying private. You know, they're telling all of us keep your carbon footprints small. But their house is twenty times the energy usage of a normal house and they don't. And they say the world's going to end

unless we stop this. So that that hypocrisy is very instructive and it's something that nobody should should just gloss over or ignore. Michael writes Buck. So now the left calls one crazy racist in Pittsburgh the neo Nazis in Pittsburgh.

It's a subtle change, but it makes a big difference, you know, Michael, I see, I see this time and again where one of the favorite tactics of the left is, or really of the mainstream media acting on behalf of the left, is when they claim that a single incident or a single individual is representative of a larger hole, and when they choose to actively exaggerate the threat or the degree of support for and I mean this whole,

this white nationalist scourge that we keep hearing about. I mean, this is like five hundred guys spread out across the country who are losers. There's there is no white nationalist scourge. There is no white nationalist uprising that's waiting to happen. White nationalist terror is not what's keeping people in law enforcement up at night. I mean, I'll tell you this.

And I just have this conversation recently with a friend of mine who's still on the he's still on the Intel side, he's the he's on the DHS side, I can tell you that. And he was very um disconcerted by the internal bureaucratic frenzy for analysis, papers and information on the white nationalist terror threat. And this is becoming

a something that within the government. Now you're you're hearing from all different to all different parts of the you know, intel community, and at least the ones that deal domestically that we all have to be worried about white nationalism.

He just says that there's obviously a politically motivated appetite for this right now, and Democrats want to just create as much that the idea of being you create as many think papers as possible on a very limited white nationalist pool, a very very minimal white nationalist threat in this country. And then you say, but look at all these papers on white nationalism. This must be a really big deal. You know. This is like stocking the pond with fish and then saying, WHOA, where'd all these fish

come from. There's a lot of fish in this pond. Must be more, you know. That's what they're doing with white nationalist analysis. And there are no comparisons that anybody should really draw between the Islamic jihattiest threat and white nationalists. There are no white nationalist states, there are no major transnational white nationalist terror organizations. There is not a fifteen hundred year history of white nationalist ideological, ideologically based violence.

I mean, this is all. This is all just the media trying to create a boogeyman that they're comfortable opposing because some of the other boogie men issues out there the media doesn't want to talk about. I mean, they always find that in a radical Islam is something that they want to downplay. Russia they've overplayed, They've made people terrified about Russia, even though Russia is not nearly the national security challenge and threat that they pretend it is.

And they've as a result, largely underplayed the threat from China, which is are no question, our biggest national security challenge, the biggest economic challenge, all the above. Let's see here, Joe sah Right, buck, it's time to remind the libtards in NYC, in New York State about how petty these sobs are with their hatred of President Trump. We all cried and prayed for the thousands killed and injured in New York City on nine eleven, two thousand and one.

We contribute to the nine to eleven Fund. Perhaps the next time the liberals get hit will just kick back and think, well, you reap what you sow. We will never set foot in New York State again. Joseph, Joseph, you know, look, I think I'm picking up that you're very angry about what they're doing to Trump in New

York State. But I wouldn't. I wouldn't connect these things to nine to eleven and the sense of unity we had after that about I think I know what you're trying to say, but I'm I wouldn't draw the same kinds of comparisons, Keith Rights. How can Trump be an anti Semite when he stood up for Israel every time? Keith, That's a very good point, isn't it. Son in laws, son of laws, and Jew, daughters of Jew stand up for Israel, close friends with Net and Yahoo. He's an

anti semit h. That's weird, isn't it? Very very weird? Ryan Rights? Hey, buddy Genghis Khan apologist in the house watch out ever talk to a Mongolian. Their perspective on Genghis is fascinating. Not only do their chests swell with pride, they credit him with their current democratic traditions. They'll point out that Genghis signed a rough equivalent of the Magna Carta nine years before King John. He outlined four basic democratic principles such as equality under the law, religious tolerance,

and representation through things like the Wise Men's Counsel. Maybe I'm going native on Mongolian civic websites, but I think it's interesting the Mongolians love democracy and perceived Genghis Khan as a founding father of all that. Who are we to complain? I bet I could make a lefty's brain explode with this kind of nuance. Ryan. There are Genghis Khan revisionists and even apologists out there, and they look

Gega with Geanghas did was incredible. What Genghis did was create the most dominant military machine in its time, really of all time, and change human history in ways that I think we in the West are still very limited

in the education we get on this. You know, if you're if you've got a carpet in your home somewhere, if you've got which I'm sure a lot of you do, if you ever use the post office, if these are all things that you can credit to the Mongols, yep, the spread of these things and the usage of these things among many many other traditions and inventions. Team, that's going to be it for today's show. I hope you thought it was as fantastic as I did. Excited to

talk to you tomorrow. As always, no matter what comes our way, shields high