Confused & Conflicted: Disastrous Day For Mueller

mistake American Ready, you're a great American again. This is the buck Sexton Show. Former CIA analysts. Remember, I can speak to three hours without a phone call. Try doing that sometime. Set. He had a very good day today, the Republican Party, our country. There was no defense of what Robert Mueller was trying to defend. In all fairness, Sir Robert Mueller, whether his performance was a bad one or a good one, I think everybody understands that. I

think everybody understands what's going on. There was no defense to this ridiculous hoax, this witch hunt that's been going on for a long time, pretty much from the time I came down on the escalator with our first lady, and it's a disgrace what happened. But I think today proved a lot to everybody. In fact, some of my biggest opponents wrote things today that I wouldn't have believed they would have written, and I appreciate that they did.

That this has been a very bad thing for our country, and despite everything we've been through, it's been an incredible two and a half years for our country. Welcome to the buck Sex and show my friends, it's a good day for America, A good day. I've been waiting for this one, and I did not really expect it to be quite as good as it was. I thought that there would be at least more of a of a competency on display on Capitol Hill when you had Bob

Muller there, Saint Muller. Let's just do a quick review that you won't get from the rest of the media. They were singing Christmas carols about this guy. Remember that producer Mike Christmas, we wish you a Muller Christmas. Big celebrities, you know, famous Hollywood people. Sat Muller was going to deliver America from the scourge of Trumpism. And also recall that just like they did with James Comey, who we were told was an unimpeachable beloved by his fellow FBI agents,

super government superhero. Turned out he's a sanctimonious jerk and a lanky, unself aware weirdo. Now we were told that Muller was the sharpest of prosecutors, the smartest, the best of the best, the most ethical, and then today it's like they made mister Magoo appear on the witness stand. All of a sudden, Mueller seemed to be the guy at the end of a Scooby Doo episode. Who if it wasn't for you, kid, I would have gotten away with it. Because he didn't know anything. He didn't know

what was going on. He said stuff that was jaw dropping, jaw dropping. Doesn't know what fusion GPS is? What? Whoo? Who? Who? What? What? Mike? You got something for me there? What was that you wanted? Laughing? Oh, Mikea's It is truly true. It is a mix of I was laughing was it was comical, and I was laughing because it was pathetic. It was insane today's folks, it was insane, It really was. I thought that they'd be able to pull it together more than the Democrats

and pull it together more than they did. Let what is this single biggest takeaway, the number one thing that I want you to remember from today's entire fiasco on For those of you who I watched it, and a lot of you I'm sure it didn't watch it. So let me just tell you what the most important thing for you to know is. This is what came out

of all of this. What we saw, beyond any doubt, tells us that Muller was just a figurehead who was giving a degree of swamp gravitas to this sham of an investigation, while his deputies, who were Democrat partisans, ran this whole thing day to day as the absurd witch hunt that it was. They called it the Muller Report because it would have been too obvious if they called it what it was, which is the Weissman and Company Report. All those Democrats, all those left wing anti trumpers that

Mueller hired. It wasn't that Mueller was the one calling the shots. Really they were the ones. They were the ones who were involved in the day to day. Muller was just there so that Democrats in the media could bleat like sheep. And how Mueller is a Republican, and Muller has an impeccable record, and Mueller served as country and so you can't criticize him. Muller was a cover story, I think. For giving him the benefit of the doubt, we have to say that Muller was really a fig leaf.

That's why he was and he was mine to do it. He was willing to do it because he does not like this president. He's an establishment figure. He is, as it came out today, a friend of Komi's. So while I would like to feel some degree of sympathy for mister McGoo muller, I can't. And I'm a nice guy. Anybody who works in this businessill tell you I'm actually really not probably too nice, I know, and too humble.

Maybe not too humble, but definitely too nice. But I can't feel bad for mister McGoo muller because he had no problem threatening, bankrupting, ruining, imprisoning people all along in this whole sham of an investigation for the most minor of crimes, in what he had to know was a politically motivated investigation, all based on a lie. He ruined people or allowed them to be ruined in his name, which is just as bad. I heard one of the

congressmen I can't even remember which one say that. Well, what we really need to know here is that Muller took a that he was trying to be fair minded here, that he acted with restraint was what one of the Democrat members of Congress acted with restraint. This guy sent thirty dudes with long guns and tactical gear into Roger Stone's house at five o'clock in the morning to make sure that he didn't get any ideas when he was

in his silk pajamas. I mean, let's not completely deny reality, and just remember that the Libs were in a total frenzy over how they said Attorney General Barr, who compared bars performance under scrutiny and on the press to Muller. Let me ask everybody this. You're accused of murder in a small town in the South where there was a guy driving away from the quickie mart, and you only got one phone call, and it's going to be to your cousin, a tough talking Italian American from Queens in

New York City. Do you want that cousin in this case, perhaps named Vinnie, to be of the skills of say Bill Barr, or of Bob Mueller. I think all of you would want Barr defending you if your life was on the line in a court. I really do. If you're facing the chair, I think you want to have Barr and not Mueller, because Muller seemed like he had

no idea what was going on today. Really, but they were in such a frenzy because they said that Barr didn't have enough time to read through the report before he gave his prescott. How could he know? How could

he have known that? It turns out that Mueller definitely didn't write the report and maybe didn't even really read it all that closely two years, tens of millions of dollars, and this is where we are now, this is this is the the moments where we got backstage and we saw who was behind the Wizard of Oz and it was not impressive, unimpressive at all, Just like with Comy. Remember Comy was gonna Comey, was gonna take down Trump, and then we found out that he was sanct a

sanctimonious clown. Avenati was gonna take down Trump. And now he's facing two serious federal indictments, including one in which he is alleged to have stolen millions of dollars from a paraplegic client. Avenati was talked about as a possible presidential contender to defeat Trump. This is how desperate libs are for some anti Trump figure to emerge. And then Muller was the greatest anti Trump figure of all. Certainly not the clown show they're presenting in these democratic debates.

They got to do a lot better than this. But now we see that Muller is not who we were led to believe. Wow, maybe we shouldn't believe the mainstream corporate leftist media anymore. I know, if you listen to this show, you probably already know that what a what a what a disaster it was today. I mean, Mueller, for one, had had a whole bunch of moments. You just said to yourself, how exactly, how exactly did this guy get into this position? Play listen? I mean he

was confused a lot. Play clip five. The president committed the crime of instruction. You could not publicly state that in your report or here today. Can you repeat the question, sir? You're gonna have to repeat that for me. Individual is in fact obligated to provide what's being demanded by the regulation or statute? Meaning you don't have any wiggle room, right, I'd have to look more closely at the statute. I just read it to you, and where are you reading

from on that I'm reading for my question? Then? Could you repeat it? Okay? Is that correct on the screen? And can you repeat the question? And now that I have the language on the screen, is it correct? What was the question? Fine? Can you read the last question? What last question was? I got it accurate? Attorney number two in the Inspector General's support and Struck both worked on your team, didn't they? Can ask they both worked on your team, didn't they? I know I heard Struck?

Who else are you calling about Attorney number two identified in the Inspector General's report? Okay? And the question was I heard? I watched this. I mean I was hearing all the questions. Is the audio better sitting in my living room than it was in the committee room? I don't think so. I suppose that's possible. That was actually pre Berrara, a coomy protege. By the way, That tells you all you have to know about that guy. Now, a CNN analyst, former US attorney for eight or US

Attorney for for the Southern District of New York. He went on CNN and said that the real problem here was that the questions were too fast and unclear. That's how desperate that this is. CNN's like top top dog on air analysts. You know, this is their their number one legal guy other than Jeffrey Tuban, who's just like, I didn't even know what to say about that guy. You want to know what the wrong legal analysis is, watch Jeffrey Tuban on CNN. He is very consistent in

how incorrect he is. But the whole thing was just it was a mess, and I think there was some disbelief. I wasn't ready for the other side to look this incompetent and oh yes, by the way, the Mullaprobe is the other side. This was not This was not a good faith effort. We're past that now, folks. We've been passed it for a while. But after today, it's crazy town to think that this was not just a get Trump effort. I haven't even gotten into some of the

better moment. We got to get into some of the better moments with the with the Republican members of Congress. They did bring out some interesting, interesting questions. But wow, not a good day for mister mcgumuller. I gotta tell you did not look good for from at all. And I thought he was a legal and FBI superhero here to rid us of the scourge of Trumpism. Turns out that they used him, or maybe he allowed himself to

be used. But he was just a front, a facade meant to give some degree of establishment sanctioned credibility to an effort to overturn the results of the twenty sixteen election using the apparatus of the government itself. It's a good thing for Democrats. It's National Tequila Day because I think they're gonna need it. We'll be right back, Director Mueller. Can you state with confidence that the Steel dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign with regard to the

steel That's beyond my purview. No, it is exactly your purview, Director Muller. And here's why. Only one of two things is possible. Right. Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find, or Russians lied to Steel. Now, if Russians were lying to Steele to

undermine our confidence in our duly elected president. That would seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia's interference. But you weren't interested in whether not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele. And if Steel was lying, then you should have charged him with lying,

like you charged a variety unto other people. But you say nothing about this in your report, nothing about the Steel dossier, the basis of this whole thing. Folks, Without the Steel dossier, you don't have the fires are warrants, you don't have Carter Page. I mean, you could argue maybe based on the Papadopoulos FBI investigation, but that wasn't gonna that wasn't gonna cut the mustard, as they say, does anyone actually cut mustard? That phrase makes no s

does it. I just realized this is that A Yeah, not in the sense that you're from Philly. You're probably a mustard guy. Yeah, I'm in New York. Yeah, and one of those fancy guys. All right, back to business. So Gates, Gates is right. The dossier isn't covered in this really at all. And you got to say to yourself, hmm, Muller can't talk about that now. Hopefully it'll come out of the Inspector General report. Um. But this is an important reminder. The Steel dossier may in fact itself have

been Russian disinformation. And the Steel dossier and the process by which the Clinton campaign contracted, through a law firm on behalf of the DNC, to use a foreigner to go get information from foreign subsources, in this case Russians, and to not just tell the press that information, but to run that information back through our own intelligence community. That is the only foreign interference in the election that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been

on behalf of a willing and witting campaign. The Democrats colluded with a foreigner to try to destroy Trump, and not only did they go to the press with it, they went to our own intelligence community and to deep state elements therein and use them to do their dirty work. Representative Ratcliffe today he got in on that action. I was like, oh, look at Ratcliffe. High five for him. You know, he was good. Yeah, I thoughts too. He stuck the landing it was pretty solid. Play play Cliff three.

Which DJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal criminal conduct is not conclusively determined. Where does that language come from? Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can you let me make it easier there? Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was

not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined. I cannot, but this is unique. Okay, well you can't. Time is short, I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it. You can't find it because I'll tell you why it doesn't exist. Not exonerated is not a standard that we use. Not only did they try and ambush Trump and create this whole hoax to go after him, but they're so shameless

in their anti Trump zeal. The Democrats are so desperate to find some way to destroy this president that they have come up with it an entirely new and only applicable to Trump. Mind you, standard of jurisprudence that only applies in this situation, and that means that Trump could never could never escape the taint of this whole thing, and that was always the point, that was always the purpose. Is it really surprising you have Democrats here in New York State who are who want to change the law

just so they can get Trump's tax returns. They'll do anything, they'll destroy the law as much as they need to in order to get after this president. And the fact that Trump is still standing and still doing a great job must drive them even more insane, if that is possible for Libs at this point, which is an open question. So how bad a day was it for the Democrats? The Russia collusion narrative, the anti Trump forces and all

the rest of them. How bad was it? Well, Democrats had to call a little impromptu oh my gosh, how do we put out this fire press conference late in the day. It happened right before we went on air. We have some of that for you. Year. Adam Schiff aka Shifty Shift, he had things to say like this play twenty two today. The director outlined in powerful words, how Russia intervened massively in our election systematically, in a

sweeping fashion. How during the course of that intervention they made multiple approaches to the Trump campaign, and far from shunning that foreign involvement in our election, the Trump campaign welcomed it, made full use of it, put it into its communications and messaging strategy, and then lied about it, light about it to cover it up, light about it to obstruct the investigation into that very attack on our democracy. Yeah, we've been hearing that for months there, shifty Schiff. None

of that was new. But thanks for showing up and giving us the usual talking points. Here are some key things he leaves out. There were approaches made to the Trump campaign, none of which were acted on. Nothing there was there was no collusion, There was no working together and his into their messaging strategy. Oh you mean like reporting on what was dumped by wiki leaks on the

internet like the rest of the world did. I mean, but Schiff has the really the the the the warm human connection of a of the you know, with the with the eyes of a mako shark and the ethics of a rattlesnake. I mean, that's really what you're dealing with with Adam Schiff. So that should not be surprising at all. Oh, Nancy Pelosi, he's a pad Why Uh? She had a she had an interesting day to day I'm sure thinking that it was going to be a

big victory lap and you know MSNBC. I mean the way CNN, I really think that they're trying to set some kind of Guinness World record for how many legal analysts they can put on TV. At the same time, it looked like at it like they must have had about sixteen to them in a row. I don't know what producer thinks that that's a good look and a cool idea, but CNN's ratings seemed to suggest that maybe it's not the brilliant strategy they think it is. But

here's what Pelosi, that's your hat. Here's what she had to say. Twenty three. The President likes to have his poster that said the Muller reports took this many days, because this much money, this, that, and the other. But we have a corresponding, competitive, contradictory chart. Muller investigation by the numbers, forty million dollars recovered for the US government. Remember he said how much it would cost less than that.

Thirty seven people and entities charged with crimes, twenty five ongoing criminal cases referred, seven convicted, including five top Trump campaign officials. And then he had no collision. Know this event, ten instances of obstruction, Yes, no exoneration. I mean it's it's like Nancy is desperate to spoon feed the ridiculous talking points to the left, the left wing media, in advance of their primetime show. She's like, plays stay odd message.

Here's what you have to say, Matt al Tapper, here's what you have to do. The thirties my favorite of all these. I mean, they're just they're just juicing the numbers. My favorite is thirty seven people and entities charged with crimes. Why isn't it just people? Oh, that's right, because what is it? Fifteen of that thirty seven, I think almost what is it? Almost half are Russians who are named in an indictment, who will never set foot in the

US court. But I'm sure they're terrified. I'm sure. Oh, the long arm of Muller's justice is coming for them, if Muller can put down the sippy cup and the blankie and you know, have enough concentration in order to go after them. I mean, the whole thing was just absurd. It really was. Thirty seven people and entities charged twenty five ongoing criminal cases. Referred that that doesn't mean anything. And when you look at what the charges have been, and this is what they always leave out of it.

The charges all have nothing to do with Russian collusion. The charges all have nothing to do with the the heart of the of this whole theory, the whole case. But you know that they seem to think that if you get someone who's lying about what they had for breakfast last week, that's a win for the Justice Department. Oh sure, it is about absolutely absolutely. I'm trying to find where the where Muller. Oh, here's here's a little important point. They obstruction is what they're trying to hang

their hat on. Now. It's oh, but there was obstruction, ten counts of obstruction. It turns out that that's a problem for them because to obstruct, you generally have to obstruct. That did not happen here. Play clip seven. And you can't confirm you're no longer special counsel. Correct, I am no longer special counsel At any time with the investigation. Was your investigation curtailed or stopped or handed No, were you or your team provide any questions Members of Congress

of the Majority ahead of your hearing today? No, So, the whole theory. Now for the Democrats of why they should maybe I thought after today they'd have to they'd have to be crazy to go for impeachment. But then again I keep saying they're crazy, So maybe what I'm telling you is, of course they're going to impeach. But the whole theory now rests on obstruction. Yet when mother talks about the ten acts of obstruction, it never actually happened.

There was no obstruction. If the President of the United States had wanted to shut this thing down, he could have just actually shut it down, and then there'd be a fight over whether or not he's constitutionally allowed to do that. And I think a lot of people would say, based on the hoax that this whole thing was, you cannot obstruct an illegitimate investigation. But they're now, I mean,

I know you're running in these these circles. Here're like, wait a second, what how can he obstruct an investigation that he did not obstruct, and that if he had obstructed or at least stopped, he would have been justified in doing because the whole thing was a farce, And people say, oh, buck, but what about the Russian interference? There was no need for a special counsel to investigate Russian interference. The Department of Justice could have done that

like a normal federal investigation. There's no need, there's no need for a special chain of command. The whole reason, the whole rationale for the Muller involvement in this form are being the figurehead, as we know for a bunch of angry Democrats to try to get at Trump was because the White House was implicated, and now they try to walk away from that. Oh no, but look about look at the Russian interference the election. By the way, has anything changed since then? Has there been any accounting

for what happened in the now? Of course not, my friends, It's just all spasms of rage, seething fury from the left at Trump for winning the twenty sixteen election and then trying to find legal rationalizations for that and some legal panacea for what ails the left. It's not Russian collusion, it's not obstruction. You know what we saw today ails the left. You know what really is their ultimate problem?

Donald Trump is president of the United States. So the report did not conclude that he did not commit instruction justice? Is that correct? That is correct? And what about total exoneration. Did you actually totally exonerate the president? The finding indicates that the president, uh was not that the president was

not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed. In fact, you were talking about incidents quote in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels un to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right? That's correct? This is the new standard, folks. What does the left say? How does the left present these issues? Now? You have to be proven, not just beyond a reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt if you're charged, if you're not charged.

The standard is that you have to have beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of evidence that they were not even able to find. This is from the Muller Report. All right, let me just and I think this is in many ways the single most important line other than there was no finding of collusion or conspirator, which was the basis of this whole thing. That was all lie,

didn't exist, it was all farce. But if you want to get a real sense of the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of the entire Muller probe, there is a line from the report that says the following quote. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. How can Why are you including that in an investigative report about what are alleged to be very serious crimes that change the course of a presidential election and with it

world history. Well, just because there's not stuff that we could show you, it doesn't mean we can tell you definitively that that stuff doesn't exist. Imagine that. Imagine that someone's accused of being a rapist and the attorney general, well, I'm not the attorney general the district. That would be quite a case. The district attorney walks out on the steps of the courthouse in whatever town. They say, So, it turns out there's absolutely zero evidence that we can

present that, you know, John Doe here is a rapist. However, do not take the inability that we have to present evidence of this guy being a rapist now as definitive proof that he is not a rapist. That is what they did to Trump two years, forty million dollars or whatever it is, and the presentation of countless witnesses and documents and everything, and they weren't able to prove it, and now their line is, well, just because we couldn't

prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why do we even have a justice system, then, why not just have a blind allegation system where you just get to say whatever you want about somebody and then they should suffer consequences even without the presentation of any evidence. The Democratic Party is willing to throw centuries. They've done it with Kavanaugh, and now they've done it with Trump, and they will

do it again. They will throw centuries of Anglo Saxon, English, American common law and jurisprudence in the incinerator if it means that they can get their way politically tomorrow. They don't care. They will the hope or the stuff that our entire system is based on. I mean, the rule of law is really one of the areas where we are most distinct, where we separate ourselves from so many

other societies all over the world. System we have to protect individuals from the state and from the unfair, unjust allegations or accusations of their fellow citizens. He's one of the things that really does distinguish us from all these other countries and Democrats will they will tear the whole thing down. They will just rip all. They will kick at the load bearing walls of Western civilization. They don't care. That's how much they hate Trump. And that's what we

have seen today. This is also why they've had this absolutely pathetic press conference they just held right right before I came on air, right before what was it like five fifty pm Eastern? The Democrats have this conference they hold where they get one after another. You know, you get Nadler and Schiff and Pelosi and me, and they're just you know, they're acting like they're on the Rachel Maddow Show, one after another, trying to make the case to the audience. So no, no, it's where Trump still

is a you know, Trump is still really bad. He's still colluded in an obstruction and obstruction Uh no, no, fair minded person. You know, there's there's what. There's what you can take the law and expand it to include if you're willing to just not use any reason or

or a good judgment. No fair minded person thinks, Oh, President Trump's reaction to a political hit and all the lies that went into that against him, his reaction to that unfair attack should be enough to destroy people always talking about Nixon and oh, Nixon and water getting to cover up. Nixon was trying to cover up doing bad stuff. The stuff wasn't even like that bad, but it was bad. It wasn't that bad, but he was trying to cover

up stuff he did that was wrong. Trump didn't do anything wrong, and the Democrats come to you and say, oh, but he would like to have if he had been able to cover up not doing anything wrong. This is what crazy people think. This is Trump's arrangement syndrome. This

is a massed illusion. This is only possible in an era of social media, echo chambers and sound bite television and all the things that have allowed the narrative on the left to become so deeply entrenched in the minds of a majority of the Democratic Party at this point, I mean a true majority of them. I mean the president was not exculpated for what he did. Okay, well guess what. He also wasn't charged with anything. Well, they say, oh, but they're big, they're big. Moment that I was supposed

to be. Muller saying to Ted Lou Congressman Lou of California that the reason he did not charge was because of the Office of Legal Council opinion. Turns out that's not even not even what lou or rather, that's not even Mueller said. He said, you know, there you go. That's that's what it is. That's what's going on, folks, Just lies and lies and lies. Democrats trying to clean clean up the mess that they made today. They wanted this, remember that they wanted it. They wanted they're gonna get it,

and they got it. Let's have Mueller up there. Let's create this whole circus. We'll capitalize on this one. I love it. I saw a headline on or rather a thing on CNN that ninety House Democrats, ninety House Democrats, um still want to impeach the present. They want to move to impeach. These people are nuts. They want to impeach the after today they they bell of belly, they belly flop in the shallow end of the pool, and then they want to tell us all that they're actually

Olympic divers. I mean, this is just it's beyond comprehension. You know, they're trying so hard to make this about something that it's not. But you know, this is this is the problem. They've They've all tied their careers, the Democrats have tied their credibility to and they this has been a credibility self immolation for two years. There's no turning back now, there's no walking it back. Now they

are what they are. Man. I gotta say it was kind of it was kind of cathartic today to watch this though what it would a preposterous joke, this whole investigation was. And who's been more correct in the substance Trump saying this was a witch hunt than it was unfair and it was Democrats or the Democrats saying this is about protecting our democracy. Yeah, I don't think so.

Who had the best day to day? We know Muller had a bad day, that's for sure, But who had a really strong showing for muller time on Capitol Hill. I've got some ideas for you. I think Jim Jordan, you could argue, had the single most effective day of anybody on Capitol Hill, although Ratcliffe also had had some really good stuff that I didn't even know Congress and Ratcliffe very well before, but I think he did a

great job. But Jim Jordan more or less put the whole Russia collusion delusion in a half nelson and made it cry uncle like that wrestling terminology. I don't know if you know this. Not only does Jim Jordan not wear suit jackets in public, it's a real thing. But he was a champion state level wrestler back in the day. But here's what Jim Jordan with a with a body

slam of the collusion delusion. What's interesting. You can charge thirteen Russians no one's ever heard of, no one's ever seen, no one's ever going to hear of him, no one's ever going to see him. If you can charge them. You can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements. But the guy who launches every the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him. I think that's amazing. Certain, I'm

not certain I agree with your characterizations. Well, I'm reading from your report. Miffson told Papadopolis. Papadopolis tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI. The FBI opens the investigation July thirty one, twenty sixteen, And here we are three years later, July of twenty nineteen. The country's been put through this, and the central figure who launches at all lies to us, and you guys don't hunt him down and interview him again, and you don't charge him with

the crime. Yeah, why is that? M Give it some thought. What are the chances, folks, that if this investigation was really into anybody, anybody who might have colluded with the Russians or been involved in this, not a single not a single person identifiable as a Democrat was caught up in any of this. What are the chances? Oh, okay, let's look. Hillary Clinton can violate the Espionage Act over a hundred times, her staff can help cover it up and lie about and do whatever they want, and you know,

no one gets charged. We're supposed to believe that only Republicans make minor misstatements of fact under oath. It seems only Republican Democrats never do that. They commit huge crimes and get away with them, but they don't do the lying under oath about little things. Who believes this? No one believes this. It's all a double standard. That's what we are seeing here. This is what and you know, it's just time that we stop pretending that this is

a coincidence. Or that this just happens because it's the way that it is not true. Oh, you want some more evidence of Buck's theorem on this one, that the left gets it easy and the right gets it rough. Why hasn't Andy McCabe of the FBI been criminally charged yet? Anyone want to tell me that huh Andy McCabe lied, according to the FBI's own inspector General, at least twice under oath. Where are the criminal charges against him? Does

anyone want to offer up an explanation? The FBI's own inspector General says that the FBI Acting director lied under oath about leaks about matters of importance to a major investigation. And he hasn't been charged with squat if sued, hasn't in charge with anything. You know, you got know this? Where where are the Democrats that just happened to say the wrong thing the wrong time? Oh it didn't happen,

did it? Christopher Steele? They ever put him under oath and really go through every go through everything that he had to say, Well, we all know what's going on here, and it's disgusting, it's disgusted. Just allow yourself to know what you know it's unsettling. It is unsettling to think that the Democrats could be this partisan, this lacking in ethics. But that's what we are dealing with. So we need to accept what the truth is here and act based

upon that truth. Here's what. By the way, Jim Jordan also talked about the need speaking of Jim Jordan's body slams they need to investigate the investigators. Here's the good news. The president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a ten month investigation. James Cummy when we deposed him a year ago, told us at that point they had nothing. You do a twenty two month investigation. At the end of that twenty two months, you find no conspiracy. And

what's the Democrats want to do? They want to keep investigating, they want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action. Maybe better course of action is to figure out how the false accusation started. Maybe it's to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Nipson was lying to the FBI. And here's the good news. Here's the good news. That's exactly what Bill Barr's doing, and thank goodness for that. That's exactly what the Attorney General and John Durham are do.

They're going to find out why we went through this three years time year in Naga and get to the bottom. I would like us to get to the bottom. I'd like to know what's going on here. And I think a lot of the American people who care about this investigation, which is probably dwindling, is probably getting smaller day by day. We're all just sick of this crap. The Democrats have put us through. The sore loser I'm ready for her, whoa Hillary. They won't give it up, and so we

all have to just deal with it. We all have to get dragged through their lack of psychological stability, the left's unwillingness to accept what has happened to this day. That is where we are, that is what is going on. We need answers here. I think the Inspector General report, I'm gonna tell you this right now, my prediction. We

can replay this later. I'm gonna sound very prescient. I have a feeling the Inspector General report is not is not going to result in some Hallelujah moment of justice for Trump and everything else, because they're going to try to protect the institution of the FBI, So they're gonna pull up, They're gonna pull the punches at the end, but oh, there's going to be some stuff and then Inspector General report that makes this whole thing look even

dirtier than it is, and we'll watch the Democrats just make fools of themselves trying to explain it all on TV. Good news for them is they don't have any integrity to protect. In fact is we are living in this twenty first century new type of asymmetrical media warfare that we're in. It. You have a propaganda machine on the right, and let's what it is is a full fledged propaganda machine on the right that the Democrats haven't figured out

how to come back very well. And I think they took the trunk day, meaning they said, oh, yeah, you're good at TV spectacles, We're gonna make a TV spectacle. I mean, it's Chuck Todd, a moron. I know, he's paid a lot of money and he's famous for reasons that I couldn't tell you. Some TV executives must really like him. At NBC, I could not explain to you

what the Chuck Todd skill set is. He's, as far as I can tell, completely replaceable with about ten thousand other local news anchors who are libs across the country. I cannot tell you what Chuck Todd's particulars. He's been around the game a long time. I've never heard him say anything insightful, never heard him say anything partically interesting. In fact, it's just a lot of boilerplate lib nonsense.

But I think that's fascinating, the lack of self awareness on a day like today, when the media was made to look like a bunch of complete buffoons, for Chuck Todd to then come out and say, oh, the right has a propaganda machine and the left hasn't you know, Or rather he would say, you know, the Democrats and the real the good people, the real journalists, we haven't figured out how to combat that. The right has a propaganda machine. The left has a stranglehold on ninety percent

of journalism in this country, ninety percent of it. At least, the left has a stranglehold on about ninety percent of the federal bureaucracy. Based on donations in the twenty sixteen campaign season to Hillary Clinton and based on my time working for the federal government when there were just libs a plenty, all over the place. Except the only place where you're like, oh, I can talk about how I love America and want to want to wave a flag, you know, on the fourth of July outside of my

house and not feel weird is around people from the military. Everybody, like in the civil service or whatever. I mean, they might be cool with it, but a lot of them are. Allot of them are driving to work in a prius nice kind of you know, vomit green color with a Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren bumper sticker on, you know, because that's the ticket that they would really love to see. I mean, you get a lot of that in the federal government. Think about it's people that go work for

the federal government tend to be risk averse. I'm not saying everybody, please don't send me a message about your amazing patriot. You know cousin who's who's in the FBI and is a Republican and you know, serve four tours in Iraq. Yeah, I love that guy too. I mean, I'm not talking about him this and I know people like the federal government. I'm speaking about the general mass. You know, this is like talking about college campuses. Yeah, college campuses are full of libs. That's no question that

professors are libs. Most of the student body or libs. That doesn't mean I'm not demeaning the amazing conservatives who are standing up for themselves and their beliefs on campus across the country. Of course not. They're awesome, right, But is it wrong to say that campuses are libs are liberal just because there are some conservatives. No, we have to speak in some generalities here or else we can't have a conversation about it at all. Back to the

point about Chuck Todd and the propaganda apparatus. It's so much larger on the left, but he thinks it's a problem on the right. He blames. He's blaming conservatives and blaming in a Fox News and Talk radio which you're listening to right now, Well, hello talk radio. Hey, listen to Buck Sexton's propaganda machine on the Buck Sexton Show, convincing you to love America and actually used your brain.

We could probably do that, like the top of the show replaced the intro we've got right now, but hey, welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. The propaganda Machine. This is where I always tell you that propaganda acquired I just think it's a fun historical tidbit. Many of you have heard me say it before, but I love you, give me a little leeway. You had. Until the twentieth century, propaganda really wasn't a necessarily a negative thing at all.

It started with the Catholic Church, and the propaganda defeated the propagation of the faith, and it was supposed to be a commission within the Vatican to make sure that the proper Catholic faith was being spread all over the world. And then later on, in really the First World War and with the beginning of mass media and radio in particular,

propaganda took on this negative, negative term. But I think that anybody you know propaganda, if it's just the continuation of ideas, with the spread of ideas and the hope that people will adopt them, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing at all. I am a propagandist for America and for conservatism and for Judeo Christian values because I think that they are right, and I tell you that I think they are right, and I think everybody should adopt them, and that would make us a better world,

a better country, a better world, you name it. But the left has to come up with some explanation for the dumpster fire that was the ambush of Trump over the last two years, as evident from everything that we saw today. I mean, what a what a what an abject to buckle this whole thing was, I will tell you, And I hate admitting when I don't nail something. I hate admitting it because I usually nailed things. I didn't

think today would be as bad. On last night, on on Brett Bear's show, I said, I said that it would be as much about what wasn't said as what was said, which was true. But I think that's a pretty obvious point. You know, I graved myself not in a curve. I know when I say I know when I say insightful things on TV and when I'm like just another just another you know, uh schmo with a

side part on air. And but the thing I did say is it was well, was that, you know, Muller didn't do so well and that last press conference he gave the one before today, So keep that in mind. I knew that it it was possible. I did not think it would be the the utter implosion that it was today. I did not think that that was the case because I figured the Democrats would have to have a better,

a better plan than this. I mean, they were leaking that they were running through uh you know, they were running through scenarios, they were doing mock Muller testimony stuff. It's just just amazing, it really really is it really is that this is, this is where we are. So now they blame uh, now they blame a Probably it's Republicans fault that Muller couldn't make this sound credible. It's Republicans fault that because it's our propaganda machine. How how

pathetic is that? And I also noticed that there was there's this effort to say that you can't, you can't come out and criticize that. Muller seemed like a dottering, dottering old fool. What was the thing that Kim Jong unseid about Trump? Again? He called them this before they quote fell in love? What did he call them? A heard? I think right? A Dtaard Doddard. One of the rare times I learned a word from the news cycle and

international relations. I did not know the word dotard until Kim Jong unused it, at least in translation to talk about Donald Trump. But if you said that Muller was looking like he had lost a step, like he wasn't really with it, like he didn't know what's going on. There's Oh, Muller is a patriot and he's amazing. He's fantastic. He's a great man. He served his country in the military and everything I said, you know what, that's how could I do anything other than respect the man's service

in Vietnam. It's fantastic, the service need in Vietnam, it's brave. A lot of people wouldn't do it, didn't do it. A lot of people in politics on both sides no interest in serving. So yeah, of course I'm not talking about that though, And if we're gonna play that game, why is it that that Muller is beyond reproach and criticism as a person because he served in the uniform.

But but our our friend, General General Flynn, who served over thirty years in the United States military, he should get fed to the wolves because he misremembered something that he said to some FBI agents who he thought were on his team when he was in the White House. And it was all a set up by Sally Yates and a bunch of other left wing hacks. Oh, Flynn is. Flynn is are an agent of Russia and he's a trader because because he lied about something that wasn't illegal,

that nobody should really care about. Blah blah blah. That's what they say. You'll have no standards whatsoever. You know, you can trash Flynn all day long, even though he served for thirty years. But if you if you trash Muller, you're a girl going after his service. These are just the games they play. They hope they scare you off the truth with it. But the other one is and I've seen the same journalist, the same jour knows, the same leftist activist pretending to be object active sources of

news that are out there that we're saying. I have been saying that Trump is crazy, I mean actually not of sound mind, having some kind of men or not just a mental breakdown. But they'll say that he is a scenile, that he's he's an insane person. If you point out that it did look like Muller was brought out of a retirement community to give this at you know, no offense or retirement communities. But it did seem like this guy wasn't exactly at his freshest and best for

the most explosive political investigation of my lifetime. Oh, disrespectful, how could you? And everything goes okay, so Trump, you know, seventy three year old Trump's state of mind and or i should say, mental faculties. That's open season for the left all the time. That's no problem. But you make the same case based on actual evidence about Muller, and you're a bad person who's being disrespectful of his service, disrespectful of his age. Sorry, I'm just not going to

let them play that game. We need one standard by which we evaluate any issue of importance in public life. We need one standard. No more double standards. We need one rule of law that applies equally to both sides, left and right, Democrat and Republican. No more of this kid, gloves for Hillary and broken glass all over the gloves for anybody around Trump. All right? That, No, that cannot stand anymore. This pole society's apart. You want to talk

about undermining institutions. One of the favorite complaints of the left. Double standards undermine all our institutions. And we saw that today. A lot of conservatives in particular, would say that the rise in Islamophobia is a result lot of hate, but a fear, a legitimate fear. They say of quote unquote Johnnie terrorism, whether it's Forthood or San Bernardino or the recent truck attack in New York, what do you say

to them? I would say, our country should be more fearful of of of white man across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country. We should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men. White people are the problem. Ilhanomar says, that's what she said. I'm not we played the audio. White man are the problem. White men are

the threat. Now I thought I thought that was a racist thing to say, right, it's a stupid thing to say. But if she's gonna say it, and now we're going to give in the realm of let's have a discussion about this, okay, Ilhanomar, let's talk. I assume this is in reference. I know it's in reference to the recent report the FBI says that most of their extremist investigations terrorism investigations are of white nationalists or white supremacists or

whatever that may be. I actually know something about this because unlike ninety five percent of people in the media, I worked in counter terrorism and had to day in and day out look at cases, deal with cases. This is that That was my life for years. So let

me explain something to missus ilhan Omar. If she's going to talk about the threat, engaging the threat and who we should be concerned about and who we should profile or devote resources too, then you have to you have to look at the numbers, and by the numbers, let's have a discussion about jihadism versus white nationalism. Let's go. Let's let's break this down for a moment. The US

population is roughly sixty to sixty five percent white. Of that population, it's roughly, let's say, thirty percent mail, thirty percent of America is white males. And you have all of the terror attacks that they talk about, and you know, you add all these numbers together and it's roughly equivalent to the number of jeehottest terror murders in the United States, assuming that you forget all about nine to eleven and the incineration and murder of three thousand people all in

one day. So just cut that part of it out and assuming you forget about the hundreds and hundreds of thwarted jeehottest terror attacks that have occurred or that would have occurred since nine eleven, killing untold thousands more, including blowing up a plane on Christmas Day over Detroit for Rucal Delmatalad, the underwear bomber, blowing up Times Square when I was working at the Intelligence Division, you know, look at all these major attacks where they just barely avoided

a mass casualty situation or the and that's not even including the guys that get picked up while they're trying to buy the mosives are by the weapons. But even going beyond all of that for a moment, there's about one percent of America is Muslim American about one percent, So you're looking at maybe we'll even say it's two percent. Let's say it's five, five, four or five million people. Let's say half of them are about half of them are male. So you're looking at about two or three

million Muslim Americans versus who are males. Right, and I know not all terrorists are mail, but let's just for the purpose of our discussion, versus about thirty to forty

million white American males. And you have roughly equivalent numbers of casualties and dead from extremism minus nine to eleven, which I think is a massive concession that we should not make because it takes out of the discussion all the resources in effort of thing us what ilhan by ilhan omar logic, Muslim American males are a fifteen x roughly terror threat to White American males based on the numbers. So is this the game that she wants to play?

Does she really want to you know, where does this stop and start? If she wants to open this up? Do we get to walk through this store? Do we get to actually have this discussion or not? Here you have a member of Congress who says things like white men are scary and we should pay more attention to the threat from white men. I think we're allowed to make a counter argument here that one that's a stupid

and nasty way to speak about anybody. And two, if we're really going to break this down demographically, okay, let's do that. Then let's look at the white American male population and the Muslim American male population and tell me which one has been a greater threat of extremism and terrorist violence by the numbers. I mean, you know, I don't know how many times I have to off the top turnbuckle crush the libs on this one. I've done it. I used to do it all the time at CNN.

They all always get smoked on this because they're so desperate to believe, for whatever reason, that white Christian males in America are the real threat, whatever that means to them. They but they are invested in this Vox and HuffPo and all these different liberal websites. They really want to believe that the real threat or white Christian males. I believe the real threat are people who are radicalized. I believe that the real threat within the Muslim community are

radical Islamists geehotists, so a subset. I don't think that one person from any community, based on being in that community, should be concerned a greater threat. We're looking for specific radicalization, but if we're looking for radicalization by the numbers, it is still much more likely to exist within the American Islamic community than the white male community. So let's just be honest about that, all right, everybody, I got a special treat for you today. It's been a while since

we have heard from our friend Kevin william Sin. But fortunately he has a brand new book out, so we have an excuse to force him to come hang out with us. The book is the smallest minority independent thinking in the age of mob politics. Kevin, of course, is roving correspondent from National Review. Mister Kevin Williams, and good to have you back, sir. Good to be here, Bucky. Now, I wasn't going to do at the book to selling him, because I guess I'll hang out with you from that.

I appreciate it. So tell me what the book's all about. The book is about the way Ian Ranch social media has contributed to the destruction of our democrats political discourse. I'm making everyone a representative of Lauren Shrow rather than an individual and citizen. Okay, give me a little bit. So that's that's that's a thing. Um. I mean, look, but it says, so, you know, I want to have

you heard the I've been talking about all week. People probably say of this, but the noval ravocant Joe Rogan discussion, because I think that he you know, they Joe had him on his podcast recently, and I've listened to this thing.

Joe Robin a lot, he's funny. Yeah, well, well, I'll just the basic thesis that Neval has is that in the digital information agent which we now live, these massive journalistic establishments they don't really serve the purpose that they pretend to, and so they have actually become massive activism organizations, and so that has been magnified through social media into

the warring factions that you're talking about. Yeah, I think maybe there's a slightly different way I would talk about that, which is that people go to news media and social media for different things and they get them confused. So no one goes to Twitter really to learn about what's going on in the world. No one goes to Twitter for reporting or original perspectives or anything like that. People go to Twitter and to a lesser extent, Facebook for

emotional validation. They want people to pay attention to them, to make them feel important and to say we're in the white hats and these other guys are in the black hats, and we're the good guys, and they're the villains, and we're nice and they're munch of Nazis. So the problem, of course, is that kind of emotional, emotionally driven ad hominem view of the world is not very useful for discussion to beginning information, but it's very useful for building

very large audiences. So if you're someone who wants to get as many people to pay attention to you as possible, and you're not too picky about how it gets done, it's a very strong temptation to go out there and engage in this kind of emotion. Heart first, facts be damned, ad hominem. I mean the discourse, which is really why

you see only that on social media. And I think that you're right that some of the major media organizations in New York Times, some of the other newspapers have grown I think a little envious of that and adopted some of that tone, which is why you have such a bad op ed page, for instance, the New York Times, and such a bad auth ed page, and a lot of other newspapers where they really want to try to

vampire off that same energy. I don't think it really works for him, because if you're Paul Krugman, you still got to write a seven hundred work column. You can't just tweet something, and it's a different kind of feel

as a different kind of format. Well, and also you're somebody that that dealt with the the insanity of this yourself and in a very particular way at somebody who was hired by the Atlantic, and then do we let let go or consciously uncoupled or however it went from the Atlantic because really they're they're they're little emotionally fragile readership freaked out. I think that's an honest assessment of

what happened. You know, there's an interesting thing about that, And partly it was that, But these things are always a little more complicated than that. And it wasn't really so much the social media campaign that got me fired over there, that was kind of a pretext. It was really an internal staff thing. And here's I'll have a little piece an excerpt from the book in the New York Post this weekend that it gets into some of this the purpose of these mob campaigns. It's not just

to get people like me fired. It's to bend these institutions to the will of these left coming idea looks. And so you know, there's nothing you accomplished by it to be fired from the Atlantic. Right. So I'm a professional writer. I get started by the Atlantic. I wrote an essay about in the Wall Street journalist goes on,

you know, I just change venues. But if you are someone who's a Starbucks manager in Philadelphia, or a programmer at Google, or someone else who's not involved in the politics and writing and controversy business, you see these people being made examples of around you, and you'll learn from those examples and you never say anything that's non conforming or non approved to start with. And that's what this

is really all about. You know, getting James to More fired at Google wasn't about this, you know, pinhead monkey James to More that no one really cares about all that much. It's about the mobs thing. Look, we can make Google do what we want, and that's the important takeaway from it. What would you like to see change in this whole phenomena? I mean, I actually saw last night Josh Holly, who is very involved now in the social media bias that exists. What are conservatives supposed to

do now? I mean, because it's clearly biased and as you point out, there's yeah, well there there are a couple of things, and not as conservatives, but as citizens. One is to understand what you're going to social media for and what it's there to do, and I think that if you understand what it actually is, you probably might want to tend to use it less because it's kind of embarrassing thing to be involved in some ways.

I mean, some writers instead use it from marketing, and some other people use it from marketing, and that's great, but really it's not a very effective way to communicate if you have any sort of substantive ideas. So I think that while you want to be involved in all forms and all media to the extent that you can, conservatives should moderate our hopes for what can be accomplished through things like social media simply because their ideas are

a little more complex. And you know, we need people who understand things like supply and demand and why prices work the way they work in the constitution, which you're not going to get from tweets, not how it's going to happen. So you play in that field if you need to play in that sandbox, if you think it's useful to you culturally or from a publicity point of view. But I wouldn't have real high hopes for or moving

any sort of substantive intellectual content through it. We're speaking of Kevin Williamson Roving correspondent from National Review, author of the new book The Smallest Minority, Independent Thinking in the Age of Mob Politics. I mean, I will say this, Kevin.

I've noticed that social media is a very it's the immediate feedback mechanisms of it in political discourse can be interesting insofar as you see that pushing for one team is the single most effective thing, or trashing the other team that's the single most effective thing you can do trying to have any any interesting exchange of ideas or god forbid, say that something about the other side's approach to an issue or idea might be worth examining, perhaps

even appropriating. That gets not just ignored but shouted down. People get angry about this. That nuance effectively is suspect. Yeah. Remember, it's always far worse to be aherretic in an anf adelt right. It's always the people on your own side, if you disagree with them a little bit, who will always be the most energetic in coming after you. For instance, I've i write this article probably every six months that Republicans need to get over the idea that tax cuts

pay for themselves. I really just don't know. There's not any good evidence that they do, and every time I write that, there's just this new one normal freak out. And it's not so much about the contents, it's about aren't you supposed to be on our side? Oh? Why won't you go along with the game? Or wrote this thing earlier in the week or last week about the sender her own stuff and eleanor Mer. Not that I'm a fan of Eleanor Lmer, but it's sort of a you know, it's an ugly thing to do, and there's

some legitimate criticism there, I think to make. And the woundedness of the responses to that is we're supposed to hate her. Why can't you hate her with us? We hate I just hate her better than you do, for better reasons, Yeah, I have to say. I mean, this is why it's it's so hard right now to find

even legitimate debate on television. One of my complaints is that anywhere you go that's supposed to be a political exchange of ideas in a media forum is overwhelmingly the old WWF model of here's Hulk Hogan and here's the jobber who's wearing a little Neon mankini and no one's ever heard of before the guy looks like he could bench press about seventy five pounds, and he's going to get crushed. That's what if you see on TV, just

in different versions of different venues. Yeah, you know, Margaret Hoover has recently turned to rest a firing Line, which is the title that's very important to us over here at National Review. But you can't imagine trying to put the original firing Line, which is two hours long of two guys having a serious conversation on the area's even on PBS, you know, even on NPR or something like that.

So the culture I think has changed in a way that makes it very difficult to have those sorts of conversations. But the other thing is that people involved in my business, people who are writers, people who want to talk about more serious issues, are really guilty of the original sin of American intellectuals, which is too want to be popular in that way. You know, if you are Paul Krugman,

having a Nobel prize is not enough. You want to be celebrated and to lead people and to speak for them and to act as attribute for them the way a politician does. And there are a lot of people, I mean, this is a particular problem for conservative talk show hosts who are essentially campaign managers for Republican campaigns and who are so closely and so tightly identified with the politics that they can't afford to engage in an

honest conversation. And that's a real problem. Is there any ray of hope you offer us in the smallest minority, Kevin, or is the minority just going to get smaller? One is the people eventually learn to hold in contempt that which is contemptible, and this is contemptible, and people eventually learned. But the other thing is that a lot of what's driving this hysteria right now on social media is boredom, and it's being used as entertainment, and it's entertainment value

is not going to last forever. We will move on to the next thing. You know, there used to be a time in the history when people got hysterical about sports rivalries. Here times in the history where people had you know, there was a riot apparently after the writer Spring was first performed because people cared about series of the count of us Stravinsky reference. Look at you, yeah,

Ostravinsky refinence right there. You know, we're pretty high minded over here, and I think that eventually people's interests move on from this and they go onto something else, and we're having these silly conversations about I don't know, Batman movies or something. Well, Kevin Williamson is one of the best writers on the scene, folks. So I say, you give the smallest minority independent thinking in the age of mob politics a shot. I'm gonna do the same, Kevin.

Thank you so much. Appreciate you making the time and good luck on the book. Thank you, Buck. I appreciate it all. Right, team, we got more coming up in a big hour three in facts making social media and the bias they're in. We've got some new project Veritas Audio to share with you. Stick around for that. Senior Selfare Engineerfrengineer. My name is Greg Coopola. I'm a senior

Selfare Engineer. I work on artific intelligence and the Google Assistant. Yeah, I mean overall, I'm very concerned to see big tech and the big media merge basically with a political party, with the Democrat Party. And I have a PhD. I have five years of experience at Google, and I just know how algorithms are. They don't write themselves, We write

them to do we want them to do. I look at Search, and I look at Google News, and I see what it's doing, and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it's not manipulated, it's not political, and I'm just so sure that's not true. I think as the election started to ramp up, of the angle that the Democrats and the media took was that anyone who liked Donald Trump was a racist, even in Nazi and I got picked up everywhere. Well, I think we're

just at a really important point in human history. I think for a while we had tech that was politically neutral. Now we have tech that really, first of all, is taking sides in a political contest. So that's a Google engineer hat tip to a project very tass for giving for having the audio up here and getting this interview done with this a senior Google engineer who is saying much of what I've been telling you here on the show.

And I hear from people that I know in Silicon Valley, people that I know who work in the tech space. And one part of this that I do believe is important to keep to keep in the mix is that one reason why Republicans and people voted for Trump. Can't get that energized over the very, very ineffectual and minimal in the grand scheme of things, Russian interference in the election.

When our main communication systems now the primary methods of day to day communication for most of us in the political sphere, the digital world, this is where most news is happening, most communication is going on, are effectively subsidiaries of the Democratic Party, but pretend to be neutral. It'd be one thing if Google said Google is all about pushing left wing ideas in a left wing agenda. At least then I could I could say, all right, there's an honesty to that, and you can either use their

products or not. You can either accept what they say or not. But what Google and these other companies have been saying four years, Google, Facebook, Twitter, And I actually think that Jack Dorsey's not quite as I don't think that he's as much of the problem. It's just the rest of the company. These entire corporate cultures are full of these left wing evangelist types, these these left wing zealots.

But they've been telling us for years. Their publicition has been that they do not have political bias, they do not take political positions on any of this, and that they are just really trying to regulate safety and give the best products. Think that's a lie. They're lying to us. They've been lying to us systematically for years. Think about

what an effect that has. I mean, I've heard I can't remember where it was, but that there was about a at least as early as or as recently as the two thousands, the Democrats media advantage was guessed to be about a ten point polling advantage for them overall, meaning that if we if we had a truly nonpartisan journalist cadre in America, if it really was the case that journalist we're not on pushing for one side, a lot of Democrats would lose so badly that they would

know longer even be competitive in races that are considered now to be either close or slightly leaning toward the Democrats. You know, it's worth like five or ten percentage points in major, certainly national level political races, because what do you do, how do you know about any of these people? And think about this when when you want to know about, oh,

who's this politician? Maybe you watch it on TV? Okay, but how much of that do you really see on any given day, how much does any one politician come up? But when you do a Google search on somebody, you know, if you do a Google search on Donald Trump or on Josh Holly, whom I actually met for the first time last night over at Fox. If you look for one of these individuals, the information that pops up initially

on them is what you're overwhelmingly going to read. And whoever determines what that what that first spate of articles may be that person, has tremendous influence on your perceptions of that individual. This is this is a really big deal. And I do think that there's some somewhat of a disconnect because the left is more tech leaning than the right generally. I just this is why Silicon Valley is

a very far left place. Why. It's an interesting discussion in and of itself, But I think it's because one you are, well, it's it's a little bit like universities, and there's a self selection that goes on. All you need is, you know, some proportion of a web company, an internet company, to have some libs, and then they're going to just bring in more libs and then push out the rest of the nonlibs and all of a sudden you have a political monoculture, as James Daymore called

it at Google. But this this is a huge issue, and I think that those who believe because I was asked about this on on Brett bear Show on Fox last night, or Brett brought up these investigations to the different the different social media giants whether or not their monopolies, whether they need to be broken up or not. I think the answer is quite obviously yes, they do need to be looked at, and I think they probably should be broken up. I think that it is a it

is a monopoly situation with Google. These companies in many ways are more powerful than any other company that came before. They be said, oh Buck, Standard Oil and everything. I mean, does Standard Oil still have a monopoly? Folks? Does anyone think that Standard oil is still going to be it was still going to be the powerhouse in the fossil of course, in global competition everything else. Google has the

ability right now to completely squelch any other company. To determine what companies can get ad revenue for their business can affect in shape perceptions in ways that look it's it's a replacement for what the traditional media ecosystem in this country was which would take us back to the Walter Cronkite days. Oh, Walter Cronkite's you know what was he the all the you know what's the and that's the way it is, right as the Cronkite. I don't know,

I was too I'm too young for that stuff. But they used to be able to convince people, the mainstream media convinced people that they were just telling the facts, they had no bias. That was a lie. Always the media has always leaned left. We know the media leans left. It was never true. It was never obviously the case, or it was rather obviously the case. The media had a political agenda, but they've always pretended that that's not

the case. So I mean, here we are now, this this is the new mainstream media, folks, And I do think that they need to be they need to be looked at. And you know, why is it that if someone explained to me why Sinclair Media, for example, can engage in a voluntary transaction of a merger with Tribune Media without the FCC and all the stuff getting involved. Oh but but Google can do whatever the heck it wants.

You know, face what can do whatever it wants, TV and radio have all these stupid rules in place that we know favor the incumbents, and the incumbents are almost all Libs. Oh but the Internet, now that it's lib dominated, no rules for them. No, sorry, I don't think so.

You're a publisher, or you're a platform. Pick Google. One of our major themes here on The Buck Saxton Show is that there are a lot of crazy libs out there, or maybe a better way of putting it is that libs are kind of crazy, that their ideology has jumped the shark, that they they've lost they've lost touch with reality.

They they've gone quite a bit nutso and with that, I turn you to this obsession they have that is sure to be a political loser, is not based on the science, and it's just an American darn it, getting us to stop eating meat. This was a story recently on CNN the Communews Network to help save the planet, cut back to a hamburger and a half per week. I mean a hamburger and a half. That is not

nearly enough. First of all, I'm sure that they do that whole whimpy thing and Mark you know what I'm talking about where they say that your protein intake is supposed to be about the size of a deck of cards. That's no one eats a hamburger that's the size of a deck of cards. Maybe four decks of cards. If you're at Whitecastle, you can do that, but then you eat like ten of them. Well, yeah, exactly right. And so if I eat ten decks of cards worth of meat,

that's kind of the same thing. But the libs are obsessed with this, you know. Ultimately, I think they really just do want to control people. That they want to be in a position to tell you what to do because they know better than you. That's really the purpose

of this. But here's the story in scene, and Americas will need to cut their average consumption of beef by about forty percent and Europeans by twenty two percent because we are European and we don't eat as much of as a red meat because we have so much bread and breathe and vary us fromage. Really, neither're gonna stinky cheese us like that, by the way. I mean, I'm

sure stinky cheese is probably bad for your arteries. For the world to continue to feed the ten billion people expect to live on this planet, in twenty fifty, according

to a new report from the World Resources Institute. I bet there's a lot of tofu served at their Christmas party, which would obviously be called a holiday party, and they're saying that it's creating the We need to create a sustainable food future, and eating less beef is only one suggestion in the five hundred and sixty eight page report. Is what they say, nine point eight nine point eight billion people will live on the planet by twenty fifty.

That's up from seven billion in twenty ten. Demand for food it is projected to outpaced population growth, increasing by more than fifty percent as people's incomes in the developing world are expected to increase. According to the report, the demand for meat and dairy is expected to rise even faster by seventy percent. The global demand for ruminant meat, meaning beef, sheep, and goat, is expected to be even higher at eighty eight percent. First of all, goat, when

well prepared, can be pretty good. I've probably eaten more goat than mutton. Even though people think of goat, I think is a little bit more of a rarity. And ruminant meat. I'd never heard that before. I kind of like that Okay, So here's where this is another example of the Libs being crazy. What's the soul what of all this other than the fact that telling people not

to eat meat is a political loser. But on climate change, the Democrats would rather be political losers, meaning that they're willing to sacrifice some degree of short term power in the hopes that they can propagandize this. They can frighten enough people, and once they've frightened all of those people to get to vote, so they'll vote for them and give them the power to come back climate change. Then

they can worry about all the rest of it. Then we can be in some place where they have total control. But telling people not to eat meat as a political loser, you know what else is a loser in general? Not

knowing history. See, there was this fellow Mouthis who in the nineteenth century was sure that we were going to run out of food and that there would be Now it wouldn't be, and we wouldn't run out of food in the sense that there would be no food, but that our ability to produce enough food to sustain the growing global population would be so threatened and so insuff that there would eventually be mass starvation and die off, or limitations depending on if there was disruptions to existing

food supply or limitations on global population growth because we simply can't produce enough food to feed all of these people. Well, it turns out that that was complete and utter unscientific nonsense. Why was it nonsense? Oh, that's right, because what we now know is that technology, involving a lot of fossil fuels, by the way, has made it so much more efficient, so much easier to produce food, and to refrigerate food, and to move it around, and to have higher crop

yields and all of these wonderful things. Libs never learned their history, though, because now we're at a point where global population growth is exploding, life expectancy is longer than ever before, and we have to worry constantly about too much food. Too much food is a much greater global health risk than too little food, obesity, heart disease, type two diabetes. What we really should be concerned about is how we all convince our bodies, because look, there's been

a lot of engineering of this too. It is true that companies jamming food with all this sugar and which which does become addictive and it is addictive. This is a form of slow poisoning of all of us. Right, we've there was a time when if you could get a little bit of sugar, that would be a good thing. But we're we're well beyond that time now because there's sugar in everything. It's all over the place. It's in ketchup, it's in salad dressing, it's in cereals. It's everywhere, right,

it's everywhere you turn. And we're going to have more advanced technology than we've had in the next ten years, the next twenty years. They're already creating beef that is in beef, but they say a similar caloric density, nutrient density, and is much more sustainable. I've eaten some of this, by the way, Mark, I'll be honest, Beyond meats pretty good. I think I said that on the show. It's pretty good. I don't remember you saying that. Oh yeah, it's actually

oh okay, maybe I just tweeted about it. But I had a Beyond Meat burger. It is gluten free, and it was it was pretty tasty, you know. I mean, obviously you don't just go with it, oh natural raal right, you don't just have a naked beyond meat burger. You gotta slap some mayo on there, a little bit of Swiss cheese, maybe some bacon. That's right. I like to put bacon on top of my vegan technologically advanced not meat burger. But this is just crazy, folks. They're wrong.

I guarantee you they're wrong. Does anyone really think that the massive food companies and all the different places that are incentivized around the world to come up with new ways to grow food, to create food. I mean, look, you're talking to a guy who just had crickets in his guacamoli, and I'm sure that if you looked at at how easy and in some of you're like gross. But no, it's true. Crickets are delicious, delicious. You just throw a little bit of I'll do them sweet or savory.

Producer Mark, I'll have I'll have hazelnut crickets, barbecue crickets, creole crickets, you name it. Not crickets. Never happening, dude, I'm gonna bring some Producer Mark, We're gonna have to have some crickets that we bring in for you on the show. We're gonna hear the crunch. Zero chance really. Oh man, if you guys, I think if we have like a go fund me for crickets for Mark, maybe we'll actually get up to do this. But I'm telling you they're not that bad anyway. There's a lot of

ways to create this protein. I think there's different insect larva. Now you guys are all turning. Everybody was with me until I started talking about crickets and insect larva. Now I sound like a total lunatic, which might might in fact be the case. But this is what I mean, these groups and seeing and of course seeing it. Why does seeing in print this, let's just work through that for a second, or why do they post it on their website? Because this goes to the whole lib catastrophis

global warming nonsense. They want to believe that we're all going to starve to death or the planet's going to overheat unless government is able to intervene in everything, including what you eat. Eat less meat because meat creates climate change. Now it's eat less meat because they won't be able to create enough meat. Well, which is it? Do we not have enough meat? Or if we eat too much meat? Is the world going to going to collapse? They see it's all. It sounds stupid as I'm saying it, because

it is stupid. It makes no sense. But if you're looking for sense with libs these days, you're going to be on shaky ground. Indeed, you're going to be in a difficult position. So I'm going to keep eating meat, that's for sure. I'm never listening to this is as well. Moral of the story. Keep eating meat. I'll be back teams. Sometimes there is justice in this world, and sometimes things just get a little weird. What the heck are you

talking about? Buck? You might be thinking that, hopefully not so much that you're like, all right, this is where the podcast ends. But no, really. So I was on the train today. Unlike all swamp dwelling Northeastern Ascella Corridor creatures, I was on that train. I was trying to do some work, but I stepped on the train. I'm somebody who I'll give you some tips for the amtrack if you want to do work and you're on the cheap train, not the Ascella. I don't take the Assella because I'm

not fancy. I'm not boogie enough for the Assella, at least not on my own dime. So I step on the train and I'm saying to myself, all right, I'm gonna go to the cafe car because the cafe cars have old school four person tables. So I go to get to one of those tables and I see there's a woman who is sitting with a bunch of bags next to her on one side, and I just go, okay, well, I'm gonna sit on the other. It's a very full train, and I go to sit down and she goes, I'm sorry,

I'm sitting there. And I look at her and I'm like, aren't you sitting where you're sitting because this is the other this is the other row, which has room for at least two people that's across from this table. And she goes, oh no, I mean my boyfriend is sitting there. And I go, okay, all right, you know that's I get it. Like if I were traveling with a significant other, I would want to have them sitting next to me,

and I respect that. So I went and I found, you know, a nearby table, same situation, sitting across from from somebody. And let me return to that story in a moment. But sure enough, we get thirty minutes into this train ride. Thirty minutes into it, there's no boyfriend, Mark, there's no boyfriend, there's there's nobody. There's no one sitting across shocked and in fact, she puts like a like kind of a bag, you know, over there and everything.

But at the Baltimore stop, we have a new arrival, somebody who comes on that train, and I hear this exchange. She walks over and she says to the seat denier. We'll call her the seat denier because she did nyed me the open seat. And for those you're saying, oh, buck, no, she was. This was not like I was going to hit on her, and she no, please, this is not

like that. I just wanted the empty seat. The seat denier says, I guess no one's sitting there when she's asked if someone can sit there, So she just straight up lied to me. But then I looked with glee, with glee as the new arrival on that Northeast Regional Amtrak train proceeded to pull out just big smelly tupperware thing after smelly tupperware thing, and then put her phone up to her ear and was a super loud cell

phone talker. And I just looked back and I was like, justice, That's what happens when you lie to well intentioned people. You get the smelly food, loud talker sitting next to you. Oh what was Buck like on the train? The way he always is, earbuds in laptop, out working to save America. So Mark, see there is justice in this world. Those two people deserve of each other. I think they really do deserve each other. And then the other part of the story was that I'd believe it or not. This

was a one two punch. I sit down at the other table, links to the guy, and this was a really quick one. But this guy looks at me as I sit down across from him, and he goes, he goes, You're not a beautiful woman. I was hoping a beautiful woman would sit across from me. And I looked at him and I said, yeah, sorry, I guess I'm a little disappointing, and he goes, yes, disappointing. Indeed, I'm like, what is this. It's like the high school cafeteria and

I'm not allowed to sit anywhere anyway. Oh the crazy life and times of an Amtrak traveler. And I was near the cafe car too. Why can't the food on Amtrak not be disgusting? That's a conversation for another day. Rock and roll, fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Alrighty Facebook dot com slash Bucks Sexton for the roll call. Thank you so much for hanging out with me here this week. I feel like I feel like it's Friday, because well,

I don't know why I feel like it's Friday. It turns out it's not. It's only Wednesday. All right, let's get chew it, shall we. That's my way of stalling while I actually pull up. I've got going on here. All right, here we go, Kyle rights Buck. I thought it was cute how all the Democrats coordinator to say the line no one is above the law at the end of their questioning of Muller. I wish someone would have yelled except for bleach bit each time they said it.

I'm sorry I wasted my time watching that. I bet they're exactly zero people nationwide who change their mind one or the other, which at the end of the day probably works out in Trump's favor. Attention Democrats, this horse has been beaten enough. Huh yeah, I think that that's probably true, although, as I've been saying it is, it was not a good day for the Mullers beyond reproach.

And he's like a superhero patriot of unbelievable proportions. Nah, really not so much, all right, Diane, Hey, buck about the gray in your beard, you're too young for that. I believe there's a product especially for beards by Grecian formula. Give that a try. Once you hit fifty, you can go natural. I think your beard is very nice, especially since you keep it trimmed. I don't know, Mark, am i too. I'm almost forty. I think I'm allowed to have a couple of gray hairs almost at forty, right,

is that? I mean? It depends on genetics. Yeah, it's exactly, thank you. Hey, depends on genetics. Is your dad graying? My dad has like a silver mane of fantastic to care. So it looks like that's what you'll get. Yeah, exactly. Well, I think it goes by your grandfather. He had great hair too, all right, so you know where you're getting. That's a good call, all right, he thanks Diane. Doug Mueller is using an interrogation tactic taught to active duties

during survival school. It's a way of delaying, stall and confusing and distracting an interrogator. Watch how he does it to Republicans more often than not, repeating a question, stumbling over words, very clearly distracting. Also, he does what is known as getting back to a safe place. Every question in his mind should get him back to his report, which is safety for him. It's quite a display back to a safe place. Interesting, Doug, thanks for sharing some

of the interrogation tactics knowledge. I do appreciate it. Alrighty Rich, I can't really see what he's writing here. J K Bok. I'm listening to yesterday's podcast asked for and you're joining me for a twelve mile ruck run this morning. Oh wow, twelve mile ruck march this morning. That's that's still very far. I just recently read nineteen eighty four. I had the realization when you were talking about transgenderism that this is actual two plus two equals five scenario. It was a

little scary to figure this out. Well, that's that's very much correct. That is the case, and true power in the hands of the state. Ultimate power in the hands of the state is when they can force you to deny objective reality, because once they can do that, then they can make you do anything, and you don't have the intellectual means to fight back, Right, you don't have

the ability. If they can make you believe things that aren't true, or in fact, they can force you to say things you know are not true, how are you ever going to hold them accountable. You sacrifice whatever credibility, whatever honesty you have in this process. Right, That's why they want you to bend the knee is also at the end of nineteen eighty four the most terrifying part of that entire novel, which, as I've said, is one of the certainly one of the ten greatest novels written

in the twentieth century. I think that's without question some people would probably put in the top five. But the part at the end where there's the denunciation of the female that the main character isn't that the protagonist is in love with. That's when he's truly broken, when he's saying, you know, she's the one who did the bad thing. Sorry if I spoil it for you, but you should have already read nineteen eighty four, and if you haven't,

go back and read Animal farm again. You might have been assigned it in school, but animal farm that you read as an adult is a different experience, and animal farm that you will read I'm sorry as a kid is a different experience than you'll read it as an adult. So we go. James from w G y up in New York, love you, Buck, keep up the good word. Thank you, James, and a shout out to everybody in w G y Land. Here I am a fellow native

New Yorker addressing you across this great state. New York is a fantastic state, and really it's got so much here, you know, really, it's almost like we we got Long Island to add it into the bargain, which is should be its own state as well. But New York is a is a great state. And people always said that about all states, but it's not it's not always true. I'm not going to start trashing some states out there, but there's some states that are a little you know,

a little May, a little May Brian. Here we go, Hey, Buck, you're right about Corey Booker. He's a joker. Reminds me of an eleventh grade over zealous kid constantly acting in drama class. He has no concept of the real world. Not there's anything wrong with that. Took a stab at sharing your podcast on Instagram and Facebook to my mostly liberal Massachusetts friend base. Guess what I got like one like due to tech shadow blocking. As I believe most of my good friends and family would like my post

if they actually saw the subject of tonight's podcast. You're right on Chinese influence in Ecuador was down there not long ago, training their Coastguard on systems in Guayaquil, which is in Ecuador, which is where I was. China has built all the commercial residential infrastructure down there, as the cars are all Chinese, and they just built a massive

deep water port for shipping. Ironically, the Coastguard and ecuadors in charge of defending the Galapagos the number one enemy of the Galapagos the Chinese factory fish processing ships who are raping this sacred area. Double edged sword, my friend

Shield's high. Well, Brian, that's the when I talk about Chinese mercantilism, and I have a discussion with all of you here on air about what the Chinese are doing around the world that's using their financial influence to buy themselves essentially the ability to hillage the natural resources of different countries, so they give them financial you know, they all they have. You remember, they don't have to pay

off all the people of the country. They just have to pay off the ruling party, the regime, the ruling class. So they get the government fat and happy. They get the developers, the you know, the top echelon, and these third world countries feel like, oh, the Chinese are, you know, fattening our bank accounts, and then they will just come in and take whatever they want, you know, strip mining and you name it. However they want to do it, that's what they're going to do. And that's the Chinese

model all over the world. They do not care. And this is also why ultimately the debate over climate change and environmentalism in this country is an exercise in futility. Even if the left forget about whether the left is correct in the science or not, which I think they are not correct, But it's an exercise in futility because you're never going to get the Indians and the Chinese to do what you want them to do, and they're going to be billions going forward, billions of Indians and Chinese.

Just take those two countries. Never mind all the other countries of the developing world that are absolutely not going to slow down their growth and use far more expensive, far less efficient technology. It's just not going to happen. I mean, they could pretend, but alrighty, let's see here in right, Hey, Buck, just trying to figure out the best way to communicate with you. Hope you got this well, Ian, I did got this so and you found out a way to communicate with me. It's pretty easy. You can.

You can always send me messages via Facebook. And we're gonna I'm not even gonna say the email thing anymore because we never It's like the homework that I forget to do every night for a year. It's gonna get done, but I'm just not gonna say I'm gonna do it anymore. Tia Rights, Hey Buck, I guess you're frustrated with the whole border thing. I get it, many of us are. But I've yet to hear you encourage your listeners to write to the representatives, let them know we expect them

to support Trump. Well, t I, first of all, I've seen nothing. There's nothing that I would disagree with there. I certainly think that people should, especially if because most Republican members of Congress are on board with Trump. I mean, Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. There's no

question about that. So if you have a representative who is not necessarily on board with all things Trump, then I would say, you know, worth writing a letter perhaps and trying to say, hey, can you back to the the present. Remember the problem right now is the Democrats have a majority in the House. So that's not gonna it's not going to change anything. There's there's not going to be any real movement on boarder issues. This is why there

was a lot. Look, Trump outsource some of his domestic policy. Folks, we live in the real world. We are not libs. We live in the real world. We are not liberals. Trump outsourced some of his domestic policy agenda to Paul Ryan in the House, which was a really, really bad idea. This is what happened. So the two years where they could have gotten a lot done on the domestic policy front,

especially an immigration, were somewhat wasted because Trump. Now you could say that Trump expected that Paul Ryan would, as a career legislator, would know how to execute but he didn't. He didn't, And the buck stops with Trump. We've got to figure out a way to work that into things. The buck stops with Trump, although that doesn't really express the sentiment that I want. Michelle right, it's Buck, great

to see you back. I hear a lot of talk about things agarding Trump, but the thing that concerns me the most is the information that is popping up concerning the long history between Trump and Epstein. Now do not believe Trump has ever been involved with under a girls or has sexually assaulted anyone. I'm a strong supporter of his since he came forward questioning Obama's qualifications for being president. Obama had begun dismantling the country the second he walked

in the Oval office. What is true and what is not? The stories are coming up and might be enough true or not to take him down. What, as an expert in analysis, do you think will happen? Many thanks and happy you've come back. Shield's Eye Michelle, Well, Michelle, thank you for the kind words. I can't tell you exactly what's going to happen with Epstein, although I am a skeptic that Epstein will be punished the way that he

should for what he has done. Andy mccarthury wrote a very compelling piece about the double jeopardy protections that Epstein probably has based on the agreement, the initial agreement that Acosta, who did step down and should have stepped down, gave him. I think there are a lot of very powerful people that want the Epstein thing to go away on both sides of the aisle that said is there. Do I

ever have a moment of doubt? Do I ever think to myself, Donald Trump knew that Epstein had all these underage girls around him, or even worse, Donald Trump was in any way involved with that. I have never had a moment of doubt about this present when it comes to any of that, And and that's just from my gut feeling. That's what, in my heart of hearts, how I feel about this. There's also no evidence to suggest that he knew about that. Trump knew about any of

this or was involved in any of this. And in fact, Trump is the only person we've heard about, the only prominent individual who was willing to do something to take Epstein to task by kicking him out of marl Lago and essentially calling him a dirt bag that's going to be at for today. Team always a privilege and a pleasure. I'm up here in NYC. I'll be up here for the rest of the week. I will talk to you all tomorrow, same time, same place, From the Freedom Hunt over and out and shields Hi