Chick-Fil-A Gets Plucked

actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American Great, You're a great American Again The buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember no welcome the buck Sexton Show. Everybody another day, another eachman inquiry. The inquisition continues on, Oh my, it is going to be the case. It seems that Adam Schiff will tell us the same story more or less every day. Now he'll tell us the same thing day in and day

out as we are. Then I suppose going to just cave and say anything, We'll do anything, Just please stop this serious tone about the threat to our democracy from Trump's phone call to Zelenski. That didn't change anything, no investigation. Ukrainians got the money for the aid and the weapons that Trump would give them that Obama Wooden's But here we are going through this nonsense yet again. I would note that there was a lot of what we've seen before. Today.

You had witnesses including Pence Vice and Pence's aid a SIGNFOS State Department, Jennifer Williams, and also Lieutenant Colonel Vinmanton, hero of the hashtag resistance right now, Oh, isn't that a surprise too? Exactly nobody, but he is out there giving a lot of his opinions. She's giving her opinions a little bit. She seems like she is not someone who wanted to be caught up in this, but is going to answer questions. He definitely, Vinman wants to be there.

He's part of this thing. He got this running, he got this in motion, so we already know what we're dealing with here, which is also why he's very it's very very touchy about making sure that, for example, he's always referred to as Lieutenant Colonel Vinmanton, and even if inadvertently, for example, Devin Nunez just refercs him as mister Vinman,

must correct him right away. Also showing up in full dress uniform for his testimony, there's a lot of theatrics around mister Vinman right now, and I would just remind you that many of the same journos and Democrat members of Congress who will try to use Vinman's service in the military as a shield for many criticism for what he is trying to do now, which has nothing to do with his military service. He was at the National Security Council, a body comprised of advisors to the president,

mostly civilians. That's not his military service. He's there as an advisory a member of an advisor committee to the president, and in that capacity he absolutely can be criticized. But many of the Democrats and the members of Congress who want you to feel that Vinman is beyond criticism, how

how dare you critique his motives or motivations? Did they feel that way about the ambush by hashtag resistance Obama voting deep staters like Sally Yates setting up General Flynn and then trying to get him not just fined which they did, and ruined which they did, but sent to prison, which they are still rooting for. So when is military service a shield against all criticism? Oh, when it's a

Democrat trying to take down the president. But if it's somebody else, if it's somebody who's in Trump's good graces, somebody who is trying to help implement the Trump agenda, then military services no shield whatsoever. So I'm just glad we established the double standards right up front. Let's be very clear about those double standards. And also a well I'll get into that in a moment. The backstory that

we keep getting from these different individuals. Vinmn, for example, even when often talked about how proud he was of his dad and leaving the Soviet Union, and that's all fine, I just don't care, it doesn't matter. But you'll notice that this is a recurring theme. Look at how honorable and decent and wonderful these public servants are. Public servants who have made it quite clear they objected to President

Trump's decision making on Ukraine. They didn't like that. For example, as Vinman said, he didn't use the talking points that he was supposed to. Oh, how dare you not use the talking points on the phone call that a bunch of I used to prepare talking points the CIA for you know, we would look at talking points for different senior officials. I mean, this is not a This is not an unusual activity. And guess what. Plenty of times you know the CI director you write up talking points,

He's like me, thanks, Who cares? Doesn't really matter. It's there for the benefit of the decision maker, for the person who is actually in the exchange, in the for ay, trying to accomplish a goal. You're just there in an advisory role. But the backstory of DMan very important. The backstory of these other officials that have come forward, the ones who are clearly trying to advance the narrative of inappropriate behavior that the president engaged in. Isn't that interesting?

Inappropriate is a very subjective way to talk about this, isn't it. I mean, I thought it was inappropriate for President Obama, for example, to in a desperate attempt to salvage some foreign policy legacy for himself, for his administration and therefore for the handoff to Hillary Clinton to run

the Democratic Parties foreign policy going forward. I thought it was wildly inappropriate for Obama to send pallets of cash, actual pallets of cash, to the terrorist regime in Tehran, all in an effort to try to curry favor with them to get an Iran nuclear deal done that was all about legacy for Obama and as we know, didn't even last into the Trump administration. I thought that was inappropriate.

I'm not saying Obama couldn't do it, although maybe he should have gotten the Senate to ratify it as a treaty so that the next president couldn't just say see you later. But I think I don't think it's inappropriate. I don't think a lot of things are inappropriate. I don't care what an NSC detail thinks about the president's conduct. I just don't care. I don't have to care. I don't care, especially given that, why doesn't someone ask Viniman?

Maybe they will later on in his testimony, but why doesn't someone point out that there's no credit being given by these deep state elements to Trump for doing what Obama would not do and what was so necessary sending the Javelin missiles, which was a major It is a provocation to the Russian government, but one that if you want to help the Ukrainians you're going to have to

do if you're serious about it. But the backstory about vin Men that we have to hear have to be told that he also was advising Zelenski at one point about how to interact with our government and the Trump administration and perhaps to even ignore some aspects of the Trump administration's requests. Is that not a bit of a problem for people? Which team are you're playing for? When you're doing that, you don't advise a foreign government about how to do an end run on your own government

that you work for? Is request from a spirit of that? That's you know, you don't tell a foreign government, hey, nullify whatever the commander in chief is asking of you. Don't worry about that. That came across in testimony today. I wonder how much focused the media you'll put on that. But my favorite moment, I mean, this is the best thing that has happened so far in all this testimony.

My favorite moment came when Devin Newness is asking for a very important information about the chain of transmission of information from VINMIN to anybody else who was involved in this. Please begin that, producer, Mark, what as you know the intelligence community has? I haven't teen different agencies? What agency

was this individual from? If I could interject here, we don't want to use these proceedings, it's our time, but we need to protect the whistle blower, if please stop, I want to make sure that there's no effort to out the whistle blower through the use of these proceedings. If the witness as a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle blower, that is

not the purpose that we are here for. And I want to advise the witness accordingly, mister Vinman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistle blower rank. Remember at Lieutenant Colonel Viman. Please ooh, clap back at Devin Newness. How dare you? I mean, he's obviously not trying to be disrespectful. I understand he's entitled to have his rank said, but you know, just maybe maybe slow your role a little bit. You're speaking too,

They're speaking to Congress. They understand what they're dealing with. Here a few problems with this. Adam Schiff keeps saying that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity. That is a lie. That is not true. The whistleblower, and

we could all read the statute. The whistleblower, at the discretion of the Inspector General of the Intelligence community can remain anonymous unless the Inspector General decides that it's probably going to come out anyway, or the Inspector General decides to pass it along to the Department of Justice because it could be involved in a criminal prosecution. Someone explained this to me. If what the president did is so terrible, then shouldn't it be referred to the Department of Justice

for possible prosecution? Or they won't do that because of course the Attorney General was appointed by this president. But they don't get to make that determination politically. They should make it based on what the facts of the case may be. Whistleblower is not entitled to ironclad anonymity. That's just not accurate. They keep pretending that that's the story. People repeating this and saying this just not true. Plus,

we've all already heard this name. We all we've all been told by reputable in so far as they go media outlets who this guy is. So now we are to sit around and say we don't know. This is Soviet style suppression of information in the public domain because people are running a scam, because Schiff is running a

massive scam. But it gets so that's one part of this, But it gets a bit worse there's a special right now that Adam Schiff has created for someone to just say that they are not going to answer a question. They're under oath in front of Congress, not antwer question, not that they're not playing the fifth, they're not claiming

that there is an exemption for classified information. They're not going to answer the question because maybe sort of kind of it could lead to some people understanding who the whistleblower is. That's a new one that gives the witness, I would note a lot of discretion. Well, can you tell us what you had for breakfast last week? No, because got to protect the whistle blower's identity. How are you going to challenge him on that subjective judgment of

the witness? Now answer what he wants, don't answer what he wants. Is fine. This is why Schiff is disgusting and this is a farce. But we have to go through this farce together. But it gets better. Continue on with the questioning from Congressman Newness. Please, Lieutenant Colonel Benman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistleblower was. I do not know who the whistleblower is. That is how is it possible for you

to name these people and then out the whistleblower. Per the advice of my counsel, I've been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community. This is Are you aware that this is the Intelligence Committee that's conducting an impeachment hearing? Of course, I am. Wouldn't the appropriate place for you to come to to testify

would be the Intelligence Committee about someone within the intelligence community. Frank, Remember, per the advice of my counsel and the instructions from the chairman, I've been advised not to provide any specifics on who I've spoken to withinside the intelligence community. What I can offer is that these were properly cleared individuals,

or was a properly cleared individual with a need to known. Well, this is I mean, you can really you can plead the fifth, but you're here to answer questions, and you're here under subpoena, so you can either answer the question or you can plead the fifth And then Adam Shift jumps in and says, no, no no, there's a special Shift rule where you don't plead the fifth or which, by the way, the reason they don't want that is because

of the optics of it. Why are you pleading the fifth about who you talk to you with regard to official government business when you're discussing with the House Intelligence Committee. Why what is what is the justification for that? Exactly, you're worried about self incrimination. You didn't do anything wrong, so why would you plead the fifth? There is no

reason to plead the fifth. There's also no reason for him if he is telling the truth that Vinman does not know the whistleblower, then there's no basis for him to withhold information about who he spoke to because he's gonna say, well, theoretically that could be the whistle blower. Here's reality. We all know that he is the one who talked to the whistleblower. We just have to get the proof. We just have to get it one hundred percent because otherwise the shady Democrats will lie about it.

So what is the likeliest scenario here? The likely scenario is that Vinman told Charmela about the call, and then these guys, you know, worked together and cooked up a whole scheme. But then he's like, well, I don't know if I'm going to be the one that raises the complaint let's give you plausible deniability about whether or not I'm the one who's bringing this complaint as the whistleblower. That's possible. Otherwise, why is he not discussing who he

told about the call? I mean, he claims that it was a person with a need to know. He's just he's just making a subjective determination there. Why would somebody not on that phone call in the intelligence community have a need to know about a presidential action? The president's conduct is not reviewable under whistleblower's statutes by subordinate employees inside the federal bureaucracy, So how can anyone have a need to know about that? My friends, you see exactly

what this is. The Democrats are just twisting and contorting the law and regulations in bad faith in order to this narrative alive as long as possible that there was just a honorable public servant who couldn't stand the inappropriateness presidential phone call with another head of state that led to no action and no consequence whatsoever. But they've got to just keep this going in the media today, You're gonna CNN, Oh my gosh, those whistleblowers were so I mean,

rather witnesses were so believable. The best of this country on display today against evil fascist Donald Trump. Worse than a hitler, Donald Trump. We know exactly where this is going. It's appalling, sometimes even a little bit amusing because it's so absurd. But we're going to be subjected to this continuously. And if you thought that today was boring, just wait

till they bring out the next round of witnesses. About two weeks after that July tenth meeting, President Trump and President Silinsky had their second call, the now infamous j twenty fifth call. Colonel Ventman, what was your real time reaction to hearing that call? Without hesitation? I knew that I had to report this to the White House Council. I had concerns, and it was my duty to report my concerns to the proper, proper people in the chain

of command. And what was your concern It was inappropriate. It was improper for the president to requested to demand an investigation into a political opponent, opponent, especially a foreign power, where there's at best dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial investigation, and that this would have significant implications if it became public knowledge and it would be perceived as a partisan play, it would undermine all Ukraine policy,

and it would mine our next discurity. Those are all opinions that have nothing to do with breaking any law, folks. All right, So we just heard from Lieutenant Colonel Vinman a second ago there, and I was just getting into how absurd this whole thing is. He's talking about how the president's phone call was improper. Okay, says him, says you, Vinman, I say here, and I keep saying this, what is

improper about the president at when? When? When corruption is a major issue, a consensus, interagency consensus issue for foreign policy in Ukraine? What is improper about asking your counterpart as the president United States to look into corruption including and they keep saying this, this debunked conspiracy theory about the about Ukraine interfering in the election, and the debunked

conspiracy theories of the of the right. I have to wonder what was the right wing somehow able to take over Politico because here's the story that they published in twenty seventeen. Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. KIV officials are scrambling to make amends with the President elect after quietly working to boost Clinton. Oh wait, but I thought it's a debunked conspiracy. This hasn't been retracted. No one said this is false. But this is Politico, a favorite

left wing website and magazine on politics. I'm confused. If we had real journalists, there are some, but overwhelmingly we don't. If we had a real journalism profession in this country, we would have answers to the question already. Did Democrat operatives Alexandra Chalupa's name keeps coming up? There are others as well. Did Democrat operatives try to get information about Paul manif than the Trump campaign chairman, from the Ukrainians to use as dirt on him. We need a hard

and fast answer to that question. The Libs don't want us to have one, because here's the problem. As much as they will try to do the usual double standard dance of oh but mana for it's so bad and he went to prison. Yeah, but guess what, folks, That would be foreign interference in the election, wouldn't it, And in fact, it would be the party in power using foreign relations as a tool of partisan politics against a challenging a challenger presidential campaign. A little more from this

political piece. Since I'm feeling frisky today, let's do it. Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet block country had taken a shot there on Russia stuff. Ukrainian government officials try to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly

questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election, and they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors. A Politico investigation found end quote is that who's responsible in conservative circles for that conspiracy? Is that really Giuliani's fault? The political report of this in

twenty seventeen is John Solomon's fault? At Politico actually competitor of the Hill where John was publishing his stories and where I used to work, is it? I'm just wondering, did they make that happen or Oh, have you seen any effort whatsoever to follow up on this to get more information? Why don't we have people under oath to defying about this? Because here's the for me, at least even more interesting component the story here says that Ukrainian officials,

in an effort to curry favor with Hillary Clinton. Keep

in mind, everybody thought Hillary was going to win. So if you're a foreign government that's used to a whole lot of corruption like Ukraine is, and you know that the incoming administration in twenty sixteen into twenty seventeen would be in a position to really help or really hurt you, would it perhaps be a smart play if you thought, because remember what the consensus was, ninety seven percent to three percent, or whatever the New York Times had on

election day. If you were ninety seven percent sure in your mind that Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president of the United States, and you needed the good graces of Hillary Clinton in order to fend off the Russians, wouldn't you perhaps be willing to buy some goodwill give a little information on a admittedly sketchy fellow like Paul Manafort. Now I also will point out that I think that the standard the Democrats have set up of you can't have information from a foreigner, which they

don't abide by in any sense. Christopher Steal is a foreigner. The dossier was based on foreign sources, So I mean, they're total frauds on that to begin with. But I'm somebody who believes that if information is relevant to a presidential campaign, information is relevant to a presidential campaign. I think that this new way if a British tabloid newspaper were to break a major story about a presidential candidate, or are we supposed to say, up, can't see it,

foreign source, it's idiocy. This is a this is not a standard that you could really apply. But the Liberals have convinced themselves this is a real standard. But if you're the Ukrainian government, wouldn't you or some people within the Ukrainian government, wouldn't you think, hey, let's let's help seal the deal here for seal the deal here for Hillary, and maybe pass along information that looks bad for Trump.

Why do the Democrats so desperately not want confirmation of this because it would blow an enormous hole in their whole scam. And the scam is to pretend that only Republicans do this sort of thing. The scam is to pretend that they would never leverage foreign sources of information in a presidential campaign. Oh my god, foreign interference in

our election. Oh no, the political story continues. Quote. A Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump top

campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia. According to people with direct knowledge of the situation, the Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's vote to the east Russia. My friends, this is part of the This is Politico, which is a major site, left wing, a major site telling the American public in twenty seventeen that Democrat collusion with Ukrainian sources was part

of the genesis of the whole Russia collusion narrative. Where why do we believe that this is not true or what what reason we have to believe? And keep in mind, all of the senior Ukraine policy people at the time, could people like Vin men and the various ambassadors who have come forward, not Solomon because they hate him because he's kind of pro Trump. He's a Trump appointee. But the other ambassadors that came forward last week, the guy with the big bow tie, I think it was Kent,

was his ambassador Kent. They could theoretically be implicated in this too. They're the ones say, oh, my gosh, Trump asked for an investigation of Ukraine. It's the most horrible thing ever. But was it at least feasible? Is it plausible that they would have at least been aware of this effort? That makes perfect sense, And no one yet has been able to find a reason why it's not true to dig up dirt on metaphor who was operating

in Ukraine. All these things line up. None of this sounds like it's crazy, like it doesn't make sense, and it's been reported on and no one's been able to prove otherwise. But doesn't it seem like perhaps some of those senior Obama era Ukraine policy officials, the interagency consensus as it was at the time, maybe some of them knew that there were Ukrainian officials and some Democrat operatives

stomping around trying to find dirt on Trump. What would happen if we found out now that some of the very same people who are claiming it was a horrible crime against humanity or whatever they're saying. It's not even

a crime. It's inappropriate, improper for the President to ask for an investigation of exactly what Politico is talking about here, which is the origins of the Russia collusion lie which the Democrats ran with for over two years, the origins of it as it pertains to Ukraine, and also whether there was corruption going on in Ukraine that involved the Biden family. There was a whole bunch of stuff that

the President mentioned in that phone call. What would we think of these brave, selfless, nonpartisan public servants if it turned out that when information was coming from the Ukrainians it was that was bad for Trump. That's fine, it's just when Trump wants information from his Ukrainian counterpart that could be theoretically bad for a Democrat unacceptable. Can't have that. And now let's also put our thinking caps on for

a moment here. This report is in Politico is all about whether there or Ukrainian or Ukrainian government officials trying to give damaging information on Manifort to Democrats, Hillary people, Obama people in order to take down the Trump administration. Do we believe then that it is it feasible. I

can't prove this. Is it feasible that those individuals weren't, meaning the Democrats who would have been in receipt of this information on Maniford and perhaps other Russia Trump connection conspiracies, that they wouldn't have been requesting actively seeking that information, because, my friends, there, what we would have is Democrats actively seeking foreign interference in the very election that they claim

was stolen. Because of foreign interference in the election, all of their credibility, all of this stuff would just come crashing down around them. The impeachment proceeding would have to come to a screeching halt, or at least for anybody with an IQ over ten, they'd realize it should come

to a screeching halt. But here we are pretending like we don't have this information and hearing from all of these different so called witnesses who have an ax to grind against the president, who are sharing their thoughts and feelings about something, and I simply just don't care what their thoughts and feelings are with any of this. Nor does the law a nor should a Congress that took

its job and its powers with any seriousness. But the Democrats in this Congress are so desperate because the president is doing so well on what matters that they feel they have to throw some wrench into the gears. They have to try some desperate ploy to shift the narrative to damage this president politically, because otherwise he's going to cruise to reelection and they know it. That's what all of this is really about today. Don't lose sight of

that for one second. You've described this as a demand, this favorite that the president asked. What is it about the relationship between the President Nited States and the President of Ukraine that leads you to conclude that when the President Nited States asked a favor like this, it's really a demand, Chairman. The culture I come from the military culture. When a senior asks you to do something, even if it's play and pleasant, it's it's not. It's not to

be taken as a request. It's to be taken as an order. In this case, the power disparity between the two leaders. My impression is that in order to get the White House meeting, President Zelinski would have to deliver these investigations. Does Vinman think he's in sociology class here? It's you all of a sudden, you know, a gender studies professor, waxing philosophical on on power disparity. What the heck is this? Well, I come from military culture. Okay,

that's great. We understand You've made that very clear of him, and we get it. Zelenski doesn't come from the United States or military culture and is certainly not a subordinate officer to President Trump. So if you're going to play the whole, you know, did you order the code read? Meaning Trump orders Zelenski to do the code read here? There has to be a chain of command. There is no chain of command. Zelenski could very easily have come back a deret. You later said, you know what, I asked.

My guys already looked at that. There's just nothing to see there, I mean. And that's that. You know, there are all these extra legal rights that the libs are creating in this there's so much smoke screen, and you have people like Schiff who are just the most dishonest human beings you could find anywhere, and they keep creating these acts like the right to anonymity for the whistleblower that is not a statutory right, but they're pretending that it is, and the media is going along with it.

No efforts in the media right now to find out who the whistle blower is. You might ask Buck, why were there some initial efforts, because remember Shift said that then whistle blower had to testify. So they were going to do the whole thing that they always do, where they construct this narrative of the selfless, heroic public servant with no politics whatsoever. What they've done with vin Men and Kent, then the other ambassadors that nobody remembers from

last week, Ivanovitch, just gonna know how to say her name. Oh, the heroic public servants. Okay, they were going to do that for the whistleblower, but then they realized, oh, whistleblower's got some political baggage here. Even the Inspector General noted that there was the belief or there was reason to

believe that he had political bias. Well, if it's clear this is all just a political hit job from inside the bureaucracy, because there are a lot of feckless federal bureaucrats who hate Trump everything he stands, will do anything to stop him. That's nothing new. Doesn't that undermine the whole case. This is about the sectuary of our democracy and undermining our national security for personal benefit, and all these other gaseous phrases we hear from Democrats. You don't

give a crap about any of this. Well, I leave that to your I leave that to your analytic capabilities. My friends, I think we all know the answer here and then you had Jennifer Williams. Here's what she had to say. It played twenty four. On July twenty fifth, along with several of my colleagues, I listened to a call between President Trump and president's Lenski, the content of

which has since been publicly reported. Prior to July twenty fifth, I had participated in roughly a dozen other presidential phone calls. During my closed store deposition, members of the committee asked about my personal views and whether I had any concerns about the July twenty fifth call. As I testified then, I found the July twenty fifth phone call unusual because, in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what it appeared to be a domestic

political matter. After the July twenty fifth call, I provided an update in the Vice President's Daily Briefing book indicating that President Trump had a call that day with President's Lensky. A hard copy of the memorandum transcribing the call was also included in the book. I do not know whether the Vice President reviewed my update or the transcript. I did not discuss the July twenty fifth call with Vice President or any of my colleagues in the Office of

the Vice President or the NSC. A little unusual, that's what this woman. I don't think she's hashtag resistance, by the way, which is why she's just like, yeah, this is what I heard, like a little unusual. Okay, you're going to appeach the president because he had a phone call. I was a little unusual enough it happened. Think about this, folks. So much depends on getting this right, because if there are four more years of this president, we will not

recognize our United States of America. We must win. Now. We already know Donald Trump and as allies will do anything they can to hold on to power. But their playbook is not going to work on me. We all

know climate change his existential threat to us all. The first thing I'll do as president is re during the Paris climbing to Chord, which I helped put together bring all almost two hundred nations to Washington, DC to make them keep the commitment to in fact up the ante on climate change and get to zero met zero emissions by twenty fifteen, by thirty thirty five. Make sure that fifty percent of that is already done. Ladies and gentlemen,

beating Donald Trump's not going to be easy. The first thing the next president is going to have to deal with is inherited a divided nation, a world in disarray. You know, we need a leader who on day one has the proven ability to unite this country, to bring people together. That's what I've done my whole career. Existential threat after existential threat from the Democrats. Isn't it to astonishing? Climate change is an existential threat. Trump is an existential threat. Basically,

vote for Democrats or we're all gonna die. Is the d n c's mantra. Vote for Democrats or the world is going to end. Not an exaggeration, This is not hyperbole. This is what they are offering you. Unless you vote against Trump, everybody's gonna die. I don't find that unifying. Call me strength, I don't find that compelling. I don't find it honest or helpful. I find it insane. But here I am I'm the crazy one. I'm a New

York City. I think ninety percent of Manhattan, the island i'm currently on, voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election. I guess nine out of ten people here think that I'm the crazy one. What does that say? Climate change an existential threat? We will not recognize the United States? Mayor Pete says he's an existential threat to this country will no longer be America if President Trump wins. Maybe

they should just come down. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to just take a step back, take a deep breath,

and try not to be so utterly crazy. But that brings me to what I start to think is a real threat to this country, at least a threat to the unity of this country, to our future as a political entity where we can solve disputes through the process about what should be happening in this country, about what government is doing and what rights people have, to solve it through good faith and understand that ultimately, even if we don't get everything we want, this country is the richest, freest,

most prosperous political entity ever to have existed. In the history of the world, and therefore we can handle some disputes, including disputes that don't end up going our way. If that changes, then it's not clear to me that we will be able to recognize our country all that much longer. But this scorched earth politics what exactly the Attorney General bar was talking about over the weekend. The ends justify

the means, stop at nothing. You want to do good, and therefore the people who oppose what you're trying to do must be bad. That mentality has completely overtaken the left and the Democratic Party and the socialists therein, and it's getting more and more troubling. They no longer are happy even to have legal victories or cultural victories. They

expect legal victory in the culture war. They expect cultural victory in the same and then they want to go around and force people to bend the knee, and if they won't do that, then they plan to just throw them on the ground and baying at the survivors, so to speak. That's where we are now, my friends, that's

what we face from the opposition. And yet another example of this is Chick fil A. Now I am because of my genetic issue with Celiac disease, not somebody who can speak very well about how good Chick fil a is because I can basically eat nothing. I can have their waffle fries, which are just okay, I'm just gonna say it. As French fries go, they are just producer mark. You like the waffle fries, That's the only thing, of

course I do. I like everything about Chick fil A. I mean, people tell me that the chicken sandwiches are like amazing, They're like addictive, and the spicy chicken sandwich is a die f. I can't touch any of it basics like I mean, they have grilled chicken nuggets. Now, I've had the that's what I do when I'm stuck in an airport. And I have supported Chick fil A because I like the way I like their customer service.

I like the way that they treat their employees, that they close on Sunday, they do all these things that they're a Christian values company. The third largest fast food company in the United States. I was unaware of that, by the way, after McDonald's, and I believe Starbucks is number two now in terms of if you count Starbucks as fast food. Yeah, yeah, but the chicken nuggets, the grilled chick Look, no one really wants grilled chicken nuggets.

It's like diet food, right, So I you know, I understand that that's not a fair way for me to judge. The chicken nuggets are okay. But Chick fil A is obviously a very very successful business model. But it has come under a lot of scrutiny in recent years because it is a traditional Christian values company, and as a traditional Christian values company, there is some conflict with the LGBTQ community, with the woke left, with the social justice warriors.

There are our problems that they have with this. And so here is what Chick fil A decided to do. After years of being a staunch supporter not just of Catholic I mean sorry, Christian rather values, but also Christian charities, Chick fil A is cutting off donations to the Salvation Army. They're getting rid of donations to the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes because of their stands on

same sex marriage. So because those organizations, and remember those organizations do not discriminate against anyone, they provide services, relief assistants, help food, shelter, advice everything to people irrespective of religious belief of gender, ethnicity, you know, you name anything, right. They do not discriminate as a sexual orientation. But the organization does support and it's I believe the Salvation Armies officers so to speak, are or think they're ministers or deacons.

I mean they are. I believe that's there. That's a standard for them, and they espouse traditional marriage beliefs. The charity is now getting money cut off to it Salvation Army, which I think, well, I'll get into their their statement that they have put out as a result. But you know these people that are always going to ring in the bell and they want the money on the street and Christmas time they raising all this money. They really they do a lot of good for a lot of people.

GLAD which is a it is the gay and lesbian I forget what the rest of the but GLAD is an LGBTQ advocacy organization, a very very powerful one, very well funded, a lot of a lot of sway in media world and in corporate America in general. GLAD in response in response to what Chick fil A did here which I and I keep in mind, there was also a controversy recently with Ellie Goulding, who I don't even know who. I know she's a singer. I don't even know what her songs are, but you know, I'm out

of the loop these days. She wouldn't perform at the halftime ceremony of a I think it was an NFL game on Thanksgiving because there there was raising money I think for the Salvation Army, if if memory serves, and so she wanted them to make a statement of support or to make a donation to a pro LGBTQ charity. I mean, it's just tough to keep up with all

this stuff anyway. So there's been a bit of controversy right now generated by the left by these different social justice warriors and people trying to outdo one another on their wokeness. A bit of controversy with regard to the Salvation Army. Remember an organization that just helps people, A charity, A charity that just helps people. They're going after that

and glad. The LGBT Advocacy Organization responded officially to Chick fil A bending the knee to the LGBT community by cutting off the Salvation Army because the Salvation Army is for traditional marriage as a policy matter, Glad responded in this way quote In addition to refraining from financially supporting anti lgbt Q organizations, Chick fil A still lacks policies to ensure safe workplaces for lgbt LGBTQ employees and should unequivocally speak out against the l anti LGBTQ reputation that

their brand represents. Ah See, this is the problem with bending the need to wokeness. They do not take it as a gesture of good faith. They do not take it as conciliation. They see it as weakness, and then they expect more. Now you've conceded that you're a bigot, so you better listen to everything they say going forward, or else are going to keep calling you a bigot, which you've already admitted to you by changing your behavior

based on what they say you should do. Have the executives at Chick fil A who came up with this decision to cut off the Salvation Army of all things, have they learned nothing in have they seen nothing in recent years? Let's be very clear about this. The lgbt activist community, there are LGBTQ people I know who are very active Christians, and they have a different view of

this matter. Many of them do, I should say, but the LGBT community of activist groups and the tremendous influence they have in culture and media and in corporate America now, they do not accept, they will not accept any organization that still advocates for traditional marriage. They expect those organizations to be attacked and destroyed, including it. It's just a matter of time before this becomes even more overt religious organizations.

One of the problems that they will run into, however, with this is that when they try to get the Catholic Church to abandon its traditional marriage, dance and other Christian denominations. Although these days there's so many Christian denominations, and you know some of them. I look at it, and I mean, seriously, it looks like some kind of a like youth rock concert where everyone's just like having a great time and no one's actually talking about morality

or ethics or Jesus or the gospel. But that's a whole another conversation for another day. I mean, if you want to go to a rock concert, just go to a rock concert. I don't know. I mean, that's how I but then again, I grew up Catholic, so we have a lot of incense and you know, singing and

other things. But what you see happening here is the move toward ostracizing and eventually actively condemning any traditional marriage advocacy anywhere as the equivalent of being a racist, for example, you know that this is it's no longer going to be Oh, those are your religious beliefs. You believe that this is a covenant between a man and woman and God. And so as long as that's not official state policy, you can still to know. If you even speak that allowed,

you will be punished. The state will be brought down on your head, the culture will be brought down on your head, the media will come after you, even if you are a charity that has saved millions of people from deprivation, despair, and perhaps even worse during their darkest times. Here is how the Salvation Army responded to this move by Chick fil A to drop them as a partner,

a corporate partner that sponsors some of what they do. Quote, We're sad to learn that a corporate partner has felt it necessary to divert funding to other hunger education and homelessness organizations areas in which the Salvation Army, as the largest social services provider in the world, is already fully committed. The Salvation Army said in a statement, quote, we serve more than twenty three million individuals a year, including those

in the LGBTQ plus community. In fact, we believe we are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ population. They are helping twenty three million people a year. But because the organization and its leadership and its Christian roots still adhere to adhere to a policy preference, really a religious and an ethical preference, or marriage as it was traditionally known until the oberg Felt decision the Supreme Court in this country. You know, between a man and a

woman that chair. All the good stuff they do doesn't really matter. They have to not just be punished, but they have to. This organization now needs to be humiliated. It needs to be treated like it's a pariah organization. We are not going to last very long as a country going forward. If we have to know the politics of every restaurant owner when we go into a restaurant, if we have to know you know, I had a friend recently tell me that she has she knows people.

She's obviously conservative, so she's cool, but she knows people who won't go to soul Cycle, which is one of these bicycle cycling classes into it, won't go to Soule

Cycle anymore because the owner has supported Trump. I mean, if this is the way that the society is going to go, if we're going to accept the hyper politicization, politicization of everything, extend no grace, no forgiveness, and no sense of kindness and decency to each other, irrespective of political differences, we are heading for very dark and dangerous times as a country. Forget about climate change. That's pull, it's a distraction. It's nonsense. It's not going to do

anything to you. I promise you. I mean, I know you already know this, but I promise you. You know, in ten years they'll still be saying, well, we are wrong about ten years ago, but now it's really gonna

be bad. I mean, this is just, this is just there's there's a part of people's brains that like to think about how it's all going to end and the terribleness, and it's just it's it excites the brain to think about the end, and then it excites the socialist to think that they can take over all aspects of the economy and day to day life based upon this hyperventilating fairy tale. They tell each other about how the world is going to end unless we stop using certain light

bulbs and take shorter shower. This is absurd, But this is a This is a bad day when an organization that is as successful as Chick fil A bends the knee, and when a group that you would think should at least get some extension of faith, of good faith and people treat it with a little bit of just respect for the good that it does is being trashed because they have a different view of marriage. This is not going to end well unless we start to turn the

situation around. All right, team, there's a lot going on right now in Hong Kong. We haven't updated you on the story in a while. It is getting particularly violent. The standoff is getting worse. We want to bring in our friend Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China. You see him all the time on Fox News. Also hear him on the John Bachelor's Show. Gordon, thanks so much for joining us. Tell us what is going on right now in Hong Kong. Yeah, at this moment, there

are two things of importance. One of them is that there was a standoff at Hong Kong Polytechnic University where they're about six protesters in the university buildings and they were completely surrounded by police. Was a siege. About eighty or so escape, there's maybe a hundred left. The others surrendered.

Those who were eighteen or above were arrested. Those below eighteen, they were merely photographed, their Hong Kong identity card numbers taken and they were let go at least for the moment. The other development is extremely troubling, and I think it's because siege imping. The Chinese ruler believes he has the advantage because the siege at Hong Kong Polytechnic is winding down, and that is there was an attack on Albert Hoe,

a leading pro democracy figure. There was an attempt to burn down the premises of the Epic Times, a newspaper, and it seems like we were starting to see thug rule in Hong Kong. And this was related, of course to China, because China for the most part controls the political activities of thugs. In the territory are now, what do you think the response from the Chinese government is going to be in the day's ahead. It feels like

there's been an escalation the violence I feel. I remember a few days ago there was video of a policeman in Hong Kong shooting a protester at at effectively point blank range in the chest. So there's been there's been real violence. Do you think that what prevents Xi Jinping from just saying do what you gotta do, lock it

down and start really essentially go the Tienamen Square route. Well, I think that they police have pretty much orders to do whatever they want, which is the reason why eight days ago, in that incident you mentioned, a Hong Kong traffic cop told the revolver on a protester who was obviously unarmed, shot him in the torso. And this wasn't an open place where the officer could have retreated. There was no threat at all to his life, the no

threat of all to property damage, nothing. And so we have seen a much more aggressive attitude on the part of the police, and indeed, in this Hong Kong Polytechnic standoff, some of the tactics of the police have really been horrific. There's this video going around showing a protester lying completely prone on the ground Hong Kong policeman stomping on his head. Also, people who are trying to surrender from Hong Kong Polytechnic

were met with robert bullets and with tear gas. So I think the police essentially can do what they want now. I think what prevents China from formally deploying the People's Armed Police or the People's Liberation Army is that they know that the protesters will fight them, and that not only the protesters will take casualties, but so will China's forces,

and the casualties will be high on both sides. I think that's the deterrent right now with siege and pain, is there any real effort to negotiate between the two sides. Who's in charge of that? You know? Whatever happened to carry lamb and how are the how are those processes playing out if they're playing out at all. Yeah, dialogue

between the two sides is completely broken down. First of all, it is difficult to negotiate with protesters because there's so many different types of protesters right now, Nobody speaks for the movement. Nobody wants to speak for the movement. On the other side, Carrie Lamb speaks for nobody, but cijin Ping,

she is not making decisions. China has completely taken over the Hong Kong government as it's taken over the Hong Kong Police Force, so talking to her is not really a productive and also cijan Ping doesn't want to talk. He wants to settle this with harsh measures, as we have seen over the last several months. Now, what do you think that the outcome here is going to be? Gordon? I mean, how does this It feels like it's gone on for so many months at this point, where does

his head and how does it end? Yeah? Well, first of all, protests have gone on since April, and they've been going on continuously since June, so we're now in our sixth month. I don't know where this ends, of course, but there's several outcomes, some of which I think most people don't expect. One of them is that the protesters just outlast China because China itself is fragile, and I think that sig Ping, the Chinese ruler, is certainly going to be held to account for these hardline policies that

have triggered the unrest. So there are any number of things that could happen, but one of them is and I think the most likely, is just continued standoff in Hong Kong. And every time that the protests look like they're going to peter rat I'm sure Beijing is going to do something to enrage people, just as it did a couple days ago by declaring that the Hong Kong courts have no jurisdiction to interpret the Basic Law, which

is Hong Kong's mini constitution as they call it. Possible off ramp you could see for Hijan Ping to de escalate the situation without without losing a lot of face. Is there something feasible or if he were to say, okay, we're going to reevaluate this and essentially call off the dogs that you know, it would just look like he's weak and there could be real ramifications. I mean, is there an off ramp? You know, there probably is an

off ramp. I don't think it'll be taken, but we do know that some of the senior officials in the Hong Kong government privately do not like what's going on, and sometimes they murmur things in public. So it's possible, not likely, but it's possible that you could see senior Hong Kong government officials try to reach out to the various parts of the protest movement. For a number of reasons, I don't think that they will, and I don't think the protesters will talk to them at this point. So

no likely off ramps in the immediate future. To the degree that we can tell, and we're speaking to Gordon changing everybody author of the coming collapse of China, Gordon, to the degree that that we can tell, or that you can tell, what is sentiment in mainland China among just you know, the general Chinese population about what's going on in Hong Kong. Is there are there pockets of support for this that could turn into something beyond just

what we see in Hong Kong. Essentially, is is this going to maybe get a little bit of a wind in the sales of some of the pro freedom folks inside of China or is that just a fantasy at this point? That's a great question, Buck. I think their pockets of support for the Hong Kong protesters inside mainland China, mostly in Goandong Province, which surrounds Hong Kong um. But also I think that people in China by and large do not sympathize with people from Hong Kong, never have,

probably won't in our lifetimes. But that's not to say that protests can't spread into the mainland, because people in China got their own grievances, especially related to the economy, which is in serious trouble book. So it's not growing at the six point zero percent pace that they claim for the third quarter. It's more like one percent, maybe even negative, and that is causing and will cause a lot of loss to people who are not accustomed to

losing money. So, as Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania points out, Chinese regimes unravel from the outside in Hong Kong is on the periphery of China, and you could see the same dynamic occur as we've seen in the past throughout China's imperial period. So Hong Kong could be a ticking point that has real ramifications for their regime.

How that play out, well, I think it would play out this way, and that is I would like to think, and here I'm hoping, probably more than assessing, but I would hope to think that Americans would see that they have common cause with the protesters in Hong Kong because the same power that is encroaching on their autonomy China

is also attacking our democracy. And I don't think the American political establishment is there yet, but you're starting to see many voices, especially in the Senate and even some in the House, that are starting to think that we need to be much more supportive of people in Hong Kong. There is the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act

of twenty nineteen. It passed the House. It probably will pass the Senate, both with veto proof majorities, and that could be the start of a more robust response to China. But I think that we need to stand with the kids in Hong Kong argually, because that's our fight. What what do you think the Trump administration should do? And how how would you assess how Trump has handled this

so far? Well? I think Trump has handled this in the way that the American foreign policy establishment has wanted him to, which is to speak up about it, but not to do too much, and also to talk to the Chinese behind the scenes, at which I'm sure has occurred. Trump I thought The President made a really really good comments at his You and General Assembly speech in September. He's talked about it in August. He's also spoke about

it in October. I think we're going to hear more from the President on this, largely because this is something that's becoming unavoidable as we're seeing more and more scenes of what's happening. And I think that, as as I said, as I hope more people will see this as our fight as well. So I do see reaganesque comments coming from President Trump, especially as time progresses. Have you seen

a change? I mean, you're somebody that operates in the same echelon as a lot of the folks who are experts on China that go on TV, and I mean you know those folks, you know what they write. Have you seen a change in sentiment among the Chinese foreign policy and a US Chinese foreign policy intelligencia, specifically about the trade war, because I mean I remember in the early days of this, it was going to be fire and brimstone, and it was crazy, and now we just

don't hear a lot about it. Gordon, why aren't we hearing so much about the trade war? Well? I think that President Trump has won many of the arguments on the trade bar when what we call a trade war, I should say, because this is really a broader economic war, and indeed it's even a more comprehensive struggle than that.

But put that aside for the moment. People were saying, you know, in twenty eighteen, Oh, China's got all the copper upper hand, It's got all the cards, it's got more political will, and people has started to look at the relationship between China and the United States have seen that. No, when you look at objective factors, the US has almost

all the high cards. And as a question of political will, that's still up in the air because you have President Trump, who has actually, I think played the Chinese very well right now. He's taken a strong hand and he has pushed the Chinese in ways that they probably thought were not possible. So I think that's good in terms of the way China watchers look at this, it's become inescapable how bad China has behaved. And so we're starting to see,

I think, a new consensus. And if you want to think about any one example in the last week, it's that New York Times revelation of four hundred and three pages of Communist Party documents on the treatment of the Leakers and Cossacks in the northwestern part of China what China call, said John and what the local inhabitants call Chinese occupied East Turk of stand Gordon, changing everybody. Gordon, thanks so much for making the time. We appreciate your expertise.

Thank you so much. Buck. We got an update for you on the Epstein situation. I don't even know. It's not really an investigations. It's a lot of things all tied together. You have the guards who the two guards who apparently fell asleep in the Manhattan Correctional Facility here in New York City and Epstein. Then Epstein killed himself while they were asleep, and they altered the logs somehow to cover up what had happened. And we're supposed to

believe it's all a coincidence. I just we're being told that they fell asleep, it was an accident. Highest proof. I mean, if there was one time in the careers of these two guards not to fall asleep, it was

this time, and they fell asleep. I bit strikes me as a little coincidental that this happened with this particular prisoner who might have had and now we'll never really know information in his head about pedophilia and some of the most powerful people, wealthy people, influential people in the world. It's it's just very coincidental, and I really liked I

saw a clip from Tucker Carlson's show recently. It was an old clip where he points out that when you upset the state, the big s state, if you're Roger Stone, they send squat teams in your house to humiliate you and they tip off Sea and remember that one see and I was like, we're just got lucky. What a bunch of liars. As the place is such a dis grace, it's disgusting. But you know, they humiliated roger Stone, this n armed people. They could have just called and said,

turn yourself in tomorrow, you're underrest. One hundred percent chance that Roger Stone would have said, all right, I'll be in court tomorrow or I'd rather I'll be in the station house or whatever it is tomorrow. But no, No, they send people in at six am with guns and guns and more guns to terrify him and create a spectacle.

But Epstein was allowed to turn himself in. Epstein the first time around was given the most pampered treatment of anybody you've ever heard of in prison, and he was trafficking. And I believe over thirty four victims have been identified, young girls. How can anyone look at that part of our system and not say, there's really something wrong here.

Why are we supposed to always be We're supposed to be quiet and believe this system is good and fair, And there's no only, by the way, when the system is crushing Republicans all the time, and then the system is great. But we see what goes on here with Epstein, and and we're told, well, no, you have to believe it. You have to think that they knew what they were doing here somehow. And if you ask too many questions about who in power influenced this whole process, then you

are a conspiracy theorist. No, I don't think so. I don't think that's the case at all. I'm still wondering when there'll be more information, more evidence out there about Epstein. By the way, the British Royal Prince Andrew, right, that's

the one, the second son of Queen Elizabeth. He his pr director or whatever the guy's title was resigned before the BBC interview, so clearly he knew that this was not going to go well, and yet he did that interview anyway, and then you, I mean, it's it's still pretty stunning to me that there's not more curiosity among journalists with so many of these pieces out there. And I'm telling you it's because they're they really they know.

There's a there's a sense that they know that digging too deep with the Epstein thing could lead to places that a lot of lib journals just don't want to go. Forget about all the underage victims for the lib journals, that's not that's not worth the risk here if it could really damage one political party a whole lot. All right, welcome back. I know, team, we've talked about the impeachment stuff for quite a bit today. I don't want to

spend too much time on it. We've I just there's a there's a couple couple of things I wanted to throw in the mix, and then we'll move on to some other stuff too that I did not get to before. One is the the clear theatrics of this Vinman fellow. I mean, he really is auditioning for an MSNBC contributor role. I don't think there's any doubt about it. Here is what he said. He's testifying about this in front of Congress, and and you know, break out the world's smallest violin

for this guy. Play it please, Dad. I'm sitting here today in the US capital talking to our elected professionals. Is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth. Oh why are we even hearing about this? Why is he's bringing up his father? Who's talking about? What is? This is ridiculous. We can't know

who the whistleblower is. This guy's gonna tell us about, you know, his life story and his family history, and break out the handkerchiefs for all the tears and the whole thing. And oh, you know, mister president, I don't dance you know his Jack Ryan moment. And how dare are you coming here and bark it me like some kind of junkyard dog. I am the President of the United States. Sorry, mister President, I don't dance the old Potomac two step Jack. It's the best scene in that movie. Man,

It's great. There's that clear present danger, so much better than the Jack Ryan Amazon show. Somebody should really find the Jack Ryan Amazon people and be like, you need to talk to Buck Sexty. I'll help you. See your third season doesn't doesn't stink because right now your your second season's garbage anyway, So yeah, we we. When I talked to you about the theatrics and stuff from Vinman, I mean, I'm I'm just referring to what exactly was going on here, which is Vinman is like, oh, you know,

look at me, I'm speaking the truth about this. In some ways, Vinman was really the origin of this whole thing, right He's he clearly told somebody who concocted the whole whistleblower scheme. But you know, Vinman was one who was like, I'm so troubled by this because he was upset that there would be a lack of bipartisan consensus on on Ukraine policy. And also, I do think it's worth pointing out as we go through this, who really cares that much about Ukraine in this country? I mean, let's be

real here for a second. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, but this is not a core national security interests of the United States. It's just not. But you know, all Ukraine policy if we get it wrong there, I mean Obama got every foreign policy question wrong for all years, wrong on everything wrong and maybe wrong on Syria wrong, and a rock wrong in Afghanistan wrong. Just

go through a country? Was anyone? Oh my gosh, Obama's foreign policy decision making is not within the interagency consensus. Who cares? You know, we're all supposed to care. We're all supposed to think that this is um, it's great. Any let's go, let's switch into oh wait, no, no, there's one more, there's one more. My man, my man, jacketless. Jim Jordan. He he had a moment where he got to expose once again that they're someone's lying and I

think we almost lying. But someone's lying about the whistle blower and knowing the identity of it. Because here's that would play play Jim Jordan, please, mister Jordan on call readout. Certainly after the first call, there were probably a half a dozen or more people that I read out. Those are people with the proper clearance and that the need to know in this case because of the sensitivity of the call, and mister Eisenberg told me not to speak

to anybody else. I only read out outside of the NFC two individuals, two individuals das Kent and one other person. And you're not willing to tell us who that other individual is. Mister Chairman. Point of order, Mister chairman. Mister chairman, point of order, gentle wis suspend counsel. Uh. Mister Chairman, I would ask you to enforce the rule with regard to the disclosure with regard to the intelligence songs. UM. Thank you, counsel. You know, as I indicated before this committee,

will not be used to out the whistle blower. Um that same Chairman, don't lose you are recognized again, mister Jordan. Mister Chairman, I don't see how this is outing the whistleblower. That the witness has testified in his deposition that he doesn't know who the whistle blower is. You have said, even though no one believes you, you have said you don't know who the whistle blower is. So how is this outing the whistle blower to find out who this

individual is? Jordan, this is your time for questioning. You can use it and we like, but your question should be addressed to the one liked, and your questions should not be addressed to trying to out the whistle blower. Okay, okay, Notice how Chiff can't answer that question. Chief is ruling on this. They're giving this witness some kind of special immunity from answering a question based on the premise that it could be outing a whistle blower that they say

they don't even know who the whistle blower is. Now we're not idiots. Clearly, what they are trying to do is just create a fig leaf, create a facade of not knowing that what happened here was the what was was Vinman was all a Homer Cash who brought up Biden. We got to protect Biden. Biden, who's going to bring back the establishment and he'll be great for this country. And he talked one of Biden's little buddies in the in the deep state, reportedly this fellow Eric Charmela, but

we don't know officially. And then the whistleblower must be the person that was told about the call. And then he came up with this idea of well, I'll use the you know, the interagency process and go to the Inspector General and maintain anonymity through it and through it, and that way we can talk about this and not worry about leaking classified information, etc. Etc. Obviously, that's why they won't tell us who he told about the phone call and the claim that this person had a need

to know. I would I mean, I can't know, because I don't know who the person was, but I would almost certainly tell you that is false, almost certainly tell you that that is a lie. Now, need to know is always there's a bit of discretion and gray area. Well, who really has a need to know? You've got to have the clearance. That's the legal groundwork for this right. You can't tell someone something classified unless they have a

clearance for that level of information. But beyond that, need to know is always a but I'm telling you, in reality, I gotta haven't need to know. He's like an anti Trumper, and Vinman knew that he could all spun up about this and that they would come up with some some scheme to use this as a grounds for impeaching the president. I mean impeaching the presence they're gonna do it on

this people are out of their minds. All right, I'll I just there was some some left in the cutting room floor from before that I wanted to get to here on the stuff. But let's talk about democrats and they're crazy. Uh oh wait, wait wait, wait, wait, hold on, there's one more thing. Speaking of those who talk to us like we're idiots and like we can't figure anything

else out. CNN hired Andy McCabe, the former acting FBI director who was at the center of all these shenanigans with you know, Comey and the special Counsel and getting all the Russia collusion nonsense laundered through the f behind the DJ to make it seem like it was legitimate. McCabe lied under oath multiple times. He lied about leaking, leaking that not only he was guilty of, but also that he was blaming subordinates for that's the kind of guy he is. How dare you leaked information that I

actually secretly leaked myself. You're lucky I don't fire you for doing the thing that I actually did. That's who Andy McCabe is. So before they do the whole Oh, he's America's last best boy scout. He's amazing enough about that, but CNN hired him right away because if your hashtag resistance, you know, you can go to CNN and they'll pay you and they'll take care of you. And you know

that's what goes on over there. But here's what McCabe says about the folks in the federal bureaucracy and the way that they It's just never about politics, he tells us play at twenty police. We don't know in the FBI. We don't ask each other our political beliefs, we don't talk about political issues. I think there is, of course no deep state. There is no resistance within the bureaucracy

across the government agencies pushing against this president. But what there is in that bureaucracy are thousands and thousands of men and women who are committed to the rule of law. And we now have an administration that frequently finds itself bumping up against those laws that we rely on to govern this country. And so when people across government stand up for those rules and point out those transgressions, we

see how they're treated by this president and by his administration. Nice, sanctimonious monologue going here, what are the laws that he brushed up against? By the way, what are those laws? Laws like the one that Sally Yates said that was being violated when she refused a lawful order from the President, and the Supreme Court had to say actually acting at Trinity General, maybe learn, maybe learn what the statute says before you decide you're not going to do something because

you don't like it. Who's really lawless? The people who and it must have been a small circle and it was Obama pointees most likely folks who leaked highly classified information about General Flynt's phone called the Washington Post and an effort to take him down. That's a felony. So who are those Those are those people who are just trying to do their best to obey the rule of law and the thousands and thousands of men of women. What about Annie McCabe, Why would he lie under oath

to the Inspector General of the FBI. I thought Annie McCabe apparently brushes up against the law. Isn't that weird? He has problems staying with the law. As the f BE Eye director, I am FPI agent. You've never seen a point break, have you? I have not, dude, you're totally missing out. Keanu Reeves better. A Rourke sounded a little bit alike. I prefer Jack Bower. It's probably a better show. So anyway, you got deep state McCabe telling you there is no deep state. What a surprise. By

the way, he's gotta get criminally prosecuted, folks. He lied, he lied under oath. They're gonna go after. They're gonna writ to Roger Stone, they gotta go after McCabe. You know, when it comes to criminal law, forget about the whole cultural wokeness social justice stuff for a second. I mean, you know, do we have to live under the rules that they make? Well, that's really hard because they change your rules all the time. We can't allow that with criminal law. The law is gonna be the law. That's

the way this is gonna have to go. But I love CNN brings on CNN on McCabe to talk about the absence of the deep state. Is just like CNN this past weekend bringing on Dan Rather, the original king of fake news, for using falsified documents to try to throw a presidential election. They use him to talk about truth and accuracy in the media. These people have neither a sense of shame nor a sense of irony. His inability to say words sometimes worries me tremendously. He is

having trouble word finding. When he said to United Esh instead of United States. These aren't words he signed slips of the tongue. These are words. He can't find them. And this is happening over and over again. Comedians joke about it, but it's not a joking matter. I think there is a neurological issue that is not being addressed. And if he had an MRI of his head over there, I would be very pleased, because I think he needs CNN puts on air here, this is a this is amazing.

You really cannot make this stuff up. CNN puts on air a doctor, doctor David Shiner, who was apparently Obama's former doctor I see here on our sheet, who is giving life once again to the theory that Trump is insane. I mean, actually, like not of sound mind is either senile or suffering from dementia, has gone crazy. You know, they even tried they tried this against Reagan too, by the way, you'll remember that that was what they were

saying about Reagan. But now they're saying it about Trump. Uh, at what point do you think they feel silly running the playbook so many times in a way that's so obvious what they're doing right there there there once again, here we are with all maybe we got to remove Trump with the twenty fifth amendments. You know, they're they're

starting this whole thing again based on slurred words. If slurred words are going to be taken as evidence for a doctor to diagnose from a far which is by the way, not a smart thing to do on national TV, on a cable news network, If slurring words gonna be a problem, what do they think of Joe Biden? Well, that's gurgling, gurgen. But you know, I just want to know why don't they have somebody on CNN diagnosing Joe Biden's mental health forgets where he is, says really stupid

things that no one can believe. How dumb it is what he said. I mean, you know, confuses things that are not close together. I mean, really, not only Trump, but CNN's unbiased only idiots really believe that. Now there's a mentality among the CNN audience that I'm familiar with, where they they like to think that the people they're watching are the smart, good people, and therefore are the real journalists. So they know that there is really no

Santa Claus that CNN is a partisan organization. It is a wing of the Democratic Party now and it does Democrat left wing bidding all the time, all day long on air. But they still like to cling to that pleasant fiction that maybe they really are just journalists over there. So the CNN audience will never, will never flee from them because they're doing what they want them to do. They're they're playing out this this myth in real time. But CNN is the real, honest, good place where the

journalist stuff happens. But you know, this, this whole impeachment for us, unfortunately, is going to Oh wait, we got Senator Patrick Lahey here talking about how there's witness intimidation with the tweet. Is that what this is? This is this is going to be amazing. Play clib ten place if you will. If I could ask you, how do you think the impeachment and choired testimonies aren't going well? You know, the Closed Doors had Republicans and Democrats there.

I think some of the Republicans thought they could pull the press by claiming we want to be in that room. Well, of course there are Republicans in that room, and I think it stopped the theatrics go down. This is a very serious thing. Where the things the ambassador, she said the other day, and then had the president tweet to try to intimidate her. I was a prosecutor for eight years. I know an intimidation. What did you think when she

said that she felt threatened by that call? When I was a prosecutor, I would have thought I would have called that witness tam Park procuter or I don't know a witness. These politicians, you know, they really some of them would just they'd be doing all of us such a favor if they would, uh, you know, give it up, go spend time with their families, you know, go help

out in their commune. And he's volunteer, do stuff where you don't have cameras on you all the time, or urban mumbling for fifty years, rum mumble for another fifty years, or no serious legal analyst with any intelligence whatsoever really thinks that it was witness intimidation for the president to tweet out that this person is bad at her job. That's an opinion. If the president no longer has First Amendment rights because someone is going to testify against him.

I'd like to know how they're going to actually enforce these rules, but there are there is no universal applicability

of the rules Democrats are always applying against Trump. It's never okay the standard we've created for him is now going to be the standard, because it's either so in violation of legal and constitutional norms that it would be it would be preposterous, or even beyond that, they just have no chance of of realistically speaking, they have they have no chance of using it as a means to test their own side. They just won't do it anyway. I find uh yeah, Patrick said her Patrick leahy Man.

Democratic parties not sending us their best, that's for sure. Or maybe this is their best. The people who are the most morally pliable, dishonest and just they're relentless, stop at nothing pursuit of power. I suppose the Democrats have stacked their stacked their roster with people who fall into that category, and maybe that makes them happen. Colin Kaepernick is making headlines again. So this guy from the people that I know, and I have brothers who know a

lot about football. I don't know that much about football. I'm pretty sure Mark you know about what is the Kaepernick situation here? Just bring everybody up to speed from what is this guy doing now? Like what happened this recently? So last week around Tuesday, the NFL said they were going to give him a workout, and a lot of people think that it was something part of some sort

of settlement with between him in the league. So Saturday was supposed to the workout at the Falcons facility that's the old team in Atlanta for those people who are not two up on football, and they couldn't agree on Basically, Kaepernick wanted his own film crew there, but the NFL was just going to use the Falcons film crew and then distribute it to everybody, all thirty two NFL teams. Kaepernick didn't like that. He wanted an independent film crew

and he wanted it open to the media. So he ended up doing his own his own workout an hour later than the NFL's mandated workout at a high school, open to the media and all that. What do you think is I mean, was this just for the spectacle? Why? Why? I think it's just two parties that can't agree on anything two that wanted to one up each other. I mean, does this Does anyone really even think that this guy would come back in the league, And I mean he was wasn't here. I don't think he wants to come

back in the league at this point. I think this is all a spectacle. I just I don't even understand how this guy is managing to still be in the news cycle that he is. And I mean, I know he's woken and social justice and he's created this whole your character of you know that that the TV that the TV viewing audience I suppose is interested in. And he's now something of a martyr for social justice because he took a knee, did wear pigs in cop uniform.

So I haven't forgotten about that one. But here we could we could hear from it. We have. We've got a Kaepernick clip somewhere along here. Where are you go? Let's hear what this gentleman does? He gonn play it. I've been ready for three years. I've been denied for three years. We all know why I came out here,

showed it today in front of everybody. We have nothing to hide, So we're waiting for the thirty two owners, thirty two teams, Roger Goodell, all of them to stop running, Stop running from the truth, stop running from the people. We're out here, We're ready to play, We're ready to go anywhere. My agent, Jeff Nally, is ready to talk to any team. I interview with any team at any time. I've been ready. I'm staying ready, and I'll continue to be ready. What if he's just not good enough? Does

that ever? Does that ever a factor into the car? What if he's gotten a little older, a little slower, and he's actually just not good enough and he's a prima donna and would be a big pain in the neck for any team to deal with. Isn't that possible, Producer Mark, Yeah, He's not a good enough NFL player to be warranting that kind of distraction in the locker room. If he was Tom Brady, if he was Aaron Rodgers, a player to that level, a Hall of Fame type player,

any owner would sign him because winning is everything. But Kaepernick isn't that great of a quarterback to have the distraction that it would be at this point in the locker room, and the potential that you have half the locker room that won't agree with him, and half that will agree with him, and that'll fracture a locker room, which kills the season. And wasn't there a player recently who was like a troublemaker and someone signed him and they had to get rid of him right away? I

forget what this will? Oh? Antonio Brown? Yes, yeah, yeah, what happened with him? Well, the Patriots are a different animal. You didn't. You know, Belichick keeps a very tight ship and Antonio Brown's a little bit of a mental case, but he's a great player. But they released him immediately because he wasn't conforming to Patriot standards, right. So he came in and he was like, I'm gonna do it my way and they were like you're out. Yes, And

now there are also rape allegations against him. Well that's a that's that's the other reason nobody has signed him since. Ah yeah, okay, well there you go, if you like. I knew there's something going on there. Oh, but we we got to switch gears here because I promised we talked about this um at the top of the show. Fart Gate, Dun Dun dune. It's a thing. It was blowing up on social media last night. It was shaking the room even I know it was explosive. This was

MSNBC's Chris Matthews talking to Eric Swalwell. Is this childish? Is it worthy of the Bucks Act and Show to discuss this? I don't know, but it was a big news story last night. I don't make the rules. This is how the exchange went audio on my friends taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help him cheat an election. It's so childish. I know, it's so dumb. Oh man. Yeah, it came across loud and clear though we all know

what that was. We all know what it was. And then you had the you know, amateur detectives, the various sleuths online who were all taking to taking to social media to indicate what they whether it was whoever whoever smelt it, dealt it, or whoever denied it supplied it.

I swell, well, if you look at the video, he kind of pauses for a second, and so people initially were suggesting that that was the that was the moment of recognition that he just let it, He just let one rip, He just let a let a stinky sneeze go on air and then people were saying, but no, it might have been Chris Matthews that did this, because Chris Matthews was deadline and I don't know, you get the lav mic the lav mic would it pick up

that ambient noise? But that was on a national TV hit, And I can tell you that some things, you know,

some things do happen when you're doing live TV. I'll never forget once Judge Ni Piro, who's who's great, a lot of fun, but she had me on her show and she was wearing a dress and I was wearing a suit, and under the lights on that show, I'm telling you, it was like one hundred and five degrees and I started sweating and sweating and sweating, and every time they would go away from me to her or a clip, I could see in the monitor and I would just take flop sweat off my forehead and just

fling it across the room because it looked like I was in the midst of some kind of panic attack. I was actually just really hot, because it's really hot on those lights, so stuff can happen. But Swallowell is not gonna live this one down for a while. I will say that noise was really a perfect SoundBite encapsulation of his abandoned primary campaign. So there's that producer, Mark, Do you have a theory on whoever supplied it, denied it, or whoever smelt it dealt it? Just by his face?

It was him, you think, so right? I've made that face before many times. Yeah. Have you ever done it in like a quiet room with a lot of people in it? You know where I've been tappened to me. I've been told by friends it can happen sometimes in the gym. Oh that's bad because but also you figure, so I'm told that if you're in the gym, people

are gonna have headphones on. But let's say you're in the gym and everybody has headphones on, and you think you're safe, and then you you were to just relax and let it, let you know, let nature have its take its course there, and you engaged in your own

aerosol bombing of your athletic facility. And then you see perhaps see a beautiful uh you know, woman in her in her late twenties or early thirties working out near you who does not have headphones on because she prefers to just listen to the music coming over the PA system. Then you have to think in your head, well, she's a psychopath, did well, but did she did she here or not? And that can that can be troublesome for some people. I'm told some people just working out, you

know you can't help it. I will say, I can't control your yoga instructors. And it is known that once you kind of get the you get that energy flow going, gotta let it all flow, and that can mean stuff happens in there. So we see, we're all adults here. It's nature. It's no big deal. It happens. It happens. But neither mean nor producer Mark. We are very gentlemanly in the freedom hudding here. So this is this is not This is not some zoo. We don't allow things

to get crazy and uncouth. We're too close together those quarters in here, so we gotta we gotta keep it clean, all right. Roll calls coming up like soft butter on warm toast. Time to spread some freedom coast to coast. It's time for roll call Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton or Team Bucket, iHeartMedia dot Com. There we go. Now, let's get to it, shall we. Chris buck Shield Time a man. I hear you and the others say the

rot in the FBI is limited to the top. I used to think so too, but I'm having serious doubts. Any organization that relies on handwritten notes and refuses to record interviews except wire taps and secret recordings, of course, as the norm is suspicious. An organization that made its bones going after the mafia with tangential crimes like tax evasion has embraced the win in any way necessary. That is their mentality. I'm not defending criminals, but this approach,

where did I just lost it? This approach has changed the character of the FBI. It's no longer about criminal intent. They'll go after people for a lying or any number of tactics to secure a conviction. I'm not saying this is always unwarranted, but I believe this core attitude is so pervasive it corrupted the entire organization and corrupt and political top officials. You're looking at the beginning of something terrifying, Chris.

I do think, unfortunately, especially at that level the FBI, or rather at the FBI level, so federal crimes, there is a common mentality of we want to put wins up on the board. You gotta get collars, as we send the MYPD, you gotta get convictions against people, and that that mentality of putting points on the board can influence decision making about things that can have a really big effect on people's lives. So yeah, here we go. Let's see what we have here, Christian um, Men at

Work are definitely Aussies. They were my favorite band of the eighties. Yes, the Buck is right even when he doubts himself, because the Bucks should not doubt himself, that is for sure. Um Robert rights Men at Work as an Australian band and their best song is down Under. Oh yeah, that's right. So there's who could it be knocking at my door? And then there's also I come from a letting down Under. That's why I thought Men at Work was ausy because they're definitely ausy. And something

something about a vegemite sandwich that's in there too. Can you hear? Can you hear the thunder? Come on? Producer Mark segment me, babe, let's do it. You gotta h should call me babe, you know what I mean? I mean, I know we're close, but this is rock star. I'm in the Rockstar mode I'm trying to give, you know, trying to get the crowd of one fired up in here. All right, fair enough, didn't you take the harassing course of the company gave. That's a fair point, Julia writes

book Awesome, Awesome Show. Yesterday, a friend of mine, who also indulges in the Buck Sexton Show said that Netflix's War Machine with Brad Pitt was based on General McCrystal and his staff's Shenanigan's Shields High. Is that true? I didn't know about that, and thank you so much, Juliet, thank you for listening. I haven't seen Brad pitt War Machine.

I'm really behind my show is because I have to go home after the Bucks Exton show every day and write for hours and hours to put out this book on Crushing Commies that I'm going to be releasing for all of you probably in January or February. Yeah, it's coming soon. So I don't have a ton of time for the shows because right now I got in the

queue the Americans, Peaky Blinder's latest season. There's some other stuff that I want to see that i've although I will say at night, I've been watching this Netflix series on World War two. It's like World War two in color. It's pretty good. It's pretty good. It's they do a good job. They do some of the major events. I mean, I know all the stories already, and I've learned very little new stuff, but pretty good. Little bit. We'll enjoy

it a little bit. I don't know what it is watching like World War two movies before you go to sleep, and actually it's as crazy as it is. I don't know what I like watching the old footage and stuff. It just kind of like zones me out, and then you know, I can, like I can go to sleep easily. So sometimes I watch, you know, the most cataclysmic battles of all history, and I'm like, oh, okay, now it's now. Now I know everything will be okay in the world, So I guess I can go to sleep. Here we go.

Michael writes buck Willow was a great movie, directed by Ron Howard and story by George Lucas. It is one of Valcomer's top three roles doc Holiday, being number one, of course in Tombstone. Back in the eighties when kids movies were a little dark. It deserves a rewatch Shields high. Michael, I don't know about willow Man. It has some cool sequences in it. I will give you that, but I'm sorry to me it is very much right out of the Lord of the Rings universe. So you gotta see,

you gotta see. Let's see what we get here, Michelle, Right, Buck, I got some great responses and private messages for thanking me for referring you, and you need have some new members of Team Buck and then let's see what we have here. I continue making clips with you. Thank you for your work. Continue to fund on. Thank you, Michelle. Please continue posting clips and spreading the word about the show.

The single most helpful thing you can do for us here in the Freedom Hunt is that tell people about what we've got going on here, Tell them about this show, tell them to watch this show. Here we go skip. I'm dismayed to suggest the lack of effective law enforcement in the major sanctuary cities is not a new occurrence

and will tragically devolve into a similar outcome. California in the mid eighteen hundreds, as a result of the gold Rush, collapsed into veritable lawlessness in which the police were either totally ineffective or unwilling to enforce law and order. This set the scene for statewide vigilante retaliation on the part of disgruntled citizens. There were many labels creatively describing these

loosely organized groups. One was called the Safety Committee. Law enforcement in my town is in a downward spiral, and outraged citizens are demanding chain to the town council voted recently to create a safety committee with an emphasis on volunteer neighborhood watch. Perhaps a necessary solution as our police are proven to be ineffective, but as a slippery slope vigilante violence shields high, we'll skip. I don't know what

town that is, but I hope everything's okay. Man, Thank you for thank you for writing in and sorry about the difficulties that you are facing. Ronnie chick fil A caving to the LGBT. Uh can you check this out? Yeah, Ronnie, we talked about on the show. So I'm a step ahead. The buck delivers boom m. Somebody also wrote here Gina higin Buck slapshot stars Paul Newman and a few other seventy stars you may or may not recognize. Excellent hockey

flick pre Mighty Ducks enjoy shields High. Clearly we've got another vote for mighty ducks here. Yeah, and that's bad on me not realizing it was Paul Newman will slap shop. No, No, I mean I don't see it, so I can't. I can't, can't hit you on that one. Um William writes, are you available to chat? Um? I don't know, probably not. Thanks for writing that message. I don't know. I don't know what that means. Well, that's another Bucks bad. A technology that's if somebody's on your page that can click

that probably accidentally. Okay, as if you're a business, Oh, because I'm a business, that's true. I'm I'm a business of Buck helped spread that business. Tell people about it. iTunes every day three o'clock Eastern. Download that show. Listen to a best podcast out there. All right, Team Shields High