Crazy Pelosi Strikes Again

is to decode what really matters with passionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Let you're a great American Again the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, welcome to the bar Sex and Show everybody. Thank you so much for being here. Coming to you live from Los Angeles. I wanted to say, Sonny, Los Angeles, but LA, you have let me down with the weather in the last

couple of days. I don't know what to say other than that, you know, a couple of days ago, I was on a rooftop getting sun, feeling like I was one of these cool LA people. And now it's very, very cloudy. There was hail yesterday. It was a big hill storm here. People getting pelted it's no fun. We had some big things breaking just as I get on the air today. The biggest one, of course, is this indictment. I want to spend some time on this. We'll return

to the feud between Trump and Pelosi. What it means going forward for the big I fight, Oh I the impeachment word. And then is Buddha Judge? Is he the one poised to leap to the front of the Democrat pack? I'm starting to think so. Betto is pretty much toast. Wait why am I toast? Bettos pretty much not gonna make it happen. Boota Judge, however, he is more formidable than these other Democrat clowns. And in an environment where a political experience at a national level doesn't seem to

really matter all that much anymore. Look at our current president. Can a mayor from the Midwest with an interesting and, let's be honest, very strong resume, can he be the real Democrat contender? I will tell you this, I find Buddha Judge more concerning than Joe Biden. I am very I don't care what the polls say, very confident that Trump will be able to defeat Joe Biden because Joe Biden. I don't mean this in a mean way. It's just not a winner. He's just not a winner. It's just

not going to happen. Bernie is kind of the wild card. You know, who knows what's gonna happen with Bernie. He Bernie Sanders might win an if and this is a giant if you had a massive cyclical economic recession in the six months or twelve months before, basically, if it started let's say this fall, then I think Bernie socialism as much as you. I think, oh no, that people wouldn't want higher taxes. Socialism is appealing to people when

they feel scared. Socialism becomes the warm security blanket that the government offers you. Oh, we're going to make sure it's those rich people. They're the reason, you see the economy has gotten bad. They're the reason that things for you aren't working out. We're going to take from them and give, give, give to you. When people get scared, they want to believe in the tooth fairy. They want to believe in Santa Clause, and Santa only takes from

the rich people. They say, so, what's the big deal, But we'll get there first. Let's do this a sane story here. I'm at a little surprised that this is the direction the Department of Justice is going in right now, because it's going to open up. It is opening up right now as we speak. I mean, this just broke on the major sites late this afternoon that the Justice Department has hit Julian Assange with eighteen additional charges, I believe, most of which carry a penalty of up to ten

years in prison. Now, Asange, I'm assuming, let's start with this, He's going to fight this. This guy's gonna fight I cannot think of a world in which Louian Osange is taking a plea deal. He's too much of a and whatever you think of him, and I think, and I spent a solid hour or interviewing him for a podcast a couple of years ago, he has a very a

very high self regard. I mean, he really has a kind of messianic complex about information and about transparency and governments wanting to keep secrets from the people and the reason just like with so many different conspiracy theorists. And I'm not saying Osange is a conspiracy theorist, but what they say is powerful because it taps into something that there is people who say a grain of truth. I would often say, no, there's a there's a foundation of truth.

It's what they build on top of that that can be so misleading or false or destructive. But it's more than just a grain of truth. Right. You can't do much with a grain of anything. But if you have a foundation of truth and then you build lies on top of it, you have something that can be both

very effective as propaganda but also very misleading governments. And I used to work as you know it says that at the top of the show every day, Buck Sexton, former ci by It's former NYPD Intelligence Division analyst, is what it should really say. Some of you have said,

wait a second, YPD. I was in the MYPD Intelligence Division, which was a civilian contract unit that was doing counter terrorism K essentially running counter terrorism cases in the New York City area, in helping the MYPD with that, working with the YPD on that we were MYPD employees. But conversation for another time, back to Assange. Here's the problem. They're going to say that what Asange has done here is well, they're going to say, first and they already

are saying this, that he's not a journalist. And this is an argument that I've had to have with many people. What is a journalist? Now? You can think, as I do, that Assange for all of his self deluded narcissism. You can think that Assange is a good guy and a warrior for truth. Or you can think that he's a slimy guy who does Russia's bidding. And you want to get to the bottom of what happened in Sweden, whatever

that stuff's all about. These I think the charge there was called sex by surprise, I mean that I think that's what the which is a thing in Sweden. I don't know anything about the truth of that case or not. Those are purely allegations, and he is he should be entitled to at least illegal, if not media presumption of innocence on those matters. There's not really a presumption of innocence when it comes to the publishing of classified information, and in the sense that there's no dispute in the

facts about whether that happened. Assange admits that. So now the issue is does he fall under the Espionage Act? And if he falls under the Espion, which is a law, as people often point out from the early twentieth century, at a time when it is often forgotten now, at a time when the First Amendment was under a very real assault. You have people who will often say, oh, it's like yelling fire in a crowded theater, and they

think that that's an argument ender. Well, they forget that that was in reference to a Supreme Court That was a Supreme Court justice making that reference about handing out pamphlets that were opposed to the First World War, a socialist handing out anti war pamphlets, which anybody now would recognize as protected speech. But he was saying, well, that's like yelling fire in a crowd. At the there was

active speech suppression. People often forget now that there was a series of laws passed in the early eighteen hundreds called the Alien and Sedition Acts. You know what sedition was whatever the United States government at the time decided it was, including for people publishing newspapers. Also, at that time you had newspapers that were known to be supportive of different candidates, known to be supportive of different political

ideologies and parties. I would say that newspaper because we borrowed from the British system, where it's also you're now a Labor Party, a Tory sorry, a Labor Party paper, a Tory paper, a conservative Marxist, they're open about that. In this country we have this facade of journalism is a subjective thing, which is a lie, does not exist.

There are objective facts. There's no objective journalism. People should be honest about what they think, who they are, what they believe, and they present you facts as such, because without facts, you have no credibility, no matter who you are. But at the earliest days of our republic, there were efforts, there were laws passed by the Congress that were in direct contravention to the First Amendment, and people were threatened with imprisonment. I believe some people were sent for short

periods of time to prison. John Adams made to look so good by Paul Giamati in that HBO series. John Adams was a proponent of this can't have really dangerous thoughts about you know, the US and the War of eighteen twelve was looming, and they didn't know that at the time, but you know, you had the problems with Britain, and you had the debts and impressment of our sailors on the open seas, and all this stuff going on, you can't have people saying crazy stuff. That's edition really

and is its edition now? To say that there aren't thirty seven genders? You might be laughing, but I'm in California. I'm pretty sure we could find people who think that it is sedition to say there aren't thirty seven genders? Why not forty? Why not a nice even number? Why make it thirty seven? Hard? I think Harvard University is one that listed at thirty seven on the application. Julius Songs accused it violing the Espionage Act. Okay, let's work

through this together. What has he done? He took information that was classified, and he claims through his organization that they never and this is the big dispute is going to be, did they endanger sources? Because that's the one place where even like journalists are supposed to protect their sources. But keep in mind journalists, then that's kind of a handshake agreement. There's no legal legal protection really for sources,

certainly not at the federal level. And the Obama administration showed that they would throw journalists in prison if they did not reveal their sources. So there's no real source protection for journalists. That's just a you know, scout's honor thing. But we all understand that endangering sources is very real from a national security perspective. It's it is legally protected,

as it should be. But we've gotten used to a left wing press corps in this country that overwhelmingly takes it upon themselves to publish whatever classified information they want whenever they want, over the objections, often of the national security agencies, the United States Military. They think they're the arbiters of it. The New York Times, the Washington Post, they make the decisions as to what is in America's

national security interest. Now they don't have any legal protection for those and by the letter of the law, and I love when journalists argue with me on this because they're always wrong and they're so ignorant. By the letter of law, there is no particular protection for journalists for publishing classified information. In fact, the New York Times publishing classified information, which it has done many, many times, The

Washington Post, many other outlets now too. The Intercept loves intercepts. It give them something classified, they'll want to publish it, right, I mean, I mean, don't do that. But I'm saying if one were to do that. You know, they love publishing classified information. There are many others that have published classified information right and they assume that the DJ policy will hold that you don't. You don't go after the journalists,

You only go after the person who passes along the information. Now, for I have long argued that that's a distinction that is perhaps a clean one for legal purposes, but the moral distinction there is much hazier. That journalists who do some of the things that we have seen journalists do

in this country are betraying their country. They can think it's transparency, but it is a betrayal of the country to take information that you know to be harmful, for it to be aired out publicly, and just to do it. But how do we then balance that out in a society where we know that the government will often hide stuff from us. Well, right now we're seeing this. They don't. They keep saying sources and methods about the fives of

warrants used in the Russia collusion hoax. They keep yelling, you know, sources and methods whenever they need to cover up something that Komi or Brannan or any of these people did. We try to get that information the government claimed secrecy. We're trying to fight through that. So the government does overclassify, hide things, and use secrecy as a means of evading accountability, because that is always what the

federal bureaucracy wants to do. Federal bureaucracies want to evade accountability, and they will abuse the power that they have to that end. So we have this difficult balancing act. Right, we have this First Events supposed to protect the free press,

also protect freedom of speech as a general proposition. The free speech rights of the first of the New York Times and their First Amendment protections are no different from yours, and don't never forget that they don't have any special protection. The Department of Justice may have said, well, if you're a government employee, we're going to hold you to a different standard than someone who works in the New York Times.

But this is going to be messy, my friends, bringing of charges against Julian Assange in this way, not just for the hacking. I think they could have gotten him. I think they probably had a decent line at getting

him on those and that's a universally applicable law. We're going to have the federal government now adjudicating who is a journalist and who gets the protections handed to journalists, not by the Constitution per se, but by the Department of Justice, just deciding who and who to prosecutor who not to. I know that you may be saying, well, Buck, that's probably the best way, but that gives the government

a lot of power. Think about what it means for the government to adjudicate who's a journalist and who's not under a Bernie Sanders administration. Think about what it means the federal government to determine who's a journalist and who's not under an Ocasio Cortez heaven forbid administration. You think they're going to be fair minded about it. They're trying to kick us off of social media platforms. They're trying to kick us off of Facebook and Twitter, and they

want us gone. Half the country is not allowed to hold the beliefs that it does. So this is this is important. Whatever you think of Assange, this matters. We have a lot more on this, and also the Pelosi Trump fight, and it's going to be a busy day here in the Freedom hud. Friends. We will be right back. Ah. This is this is so typical. We've got New York Times here on the front page talking about how the assans the superseding indictment. Remember they already charged him. He's

right now in British custody. I'm assuming there's some negotiation going on behind the scenes about whether they were going to have to give the Brits some kind of guarantees that, for example, I don't think anyone thinks the death penalty is on the table, but the death penalty couldn't be on the table. But now he's got these additional counts and the superseding indictment, it looks like the Brits are

going to hand him over to US. And New York Times is saying, this rage's major First Amenment issues, and here's where you're going to see Trump's arrangement syndrome come

into play. They're going to act like this administration when it comes to press freedom, is this horrible tyrant, and that what Trump is doing is destroying First Amendment protection for journalists, and the media is going to rally behind a Sane even though many of you will recall it was a Sane that they hated not long ago because of what he did or his role in the release of the DNC emails that prevented Queen Hillary, Yes, Queen Hillary,

Queen Hillary from becoming the next press of the United States. So all of these people that were at one point very very angry with Julian Asange and the press right because he played for the wrong team on that one. He all of a sudden wasn't helpful to them. They loved as Songe when it came to Chelsea Manning and the release of classified American classified information about the US

Warrener Rock in Afghanistan. They thought he was great then, but then they hated him because he released the Bernie Sanders DNC, which was just telling us we already knew that they were in the tankment. Everybody knew they were in the tank for Hillary. Of course they were in the tank for Hillary. The whole system was in the tank for Hillary. But we had proof when those emails came out. Not a single email was fabricated. By the way, It isn't noteworthy noteworthy point of accuracy. But then you

get to what's going to happen now. The press sees this as an opportunity to get on their soap boxes and unite and lock arms about how terrible Trump is on the First Amendment. They are going to hope that we all forget that. It was the Obama administration that listed James Rosen from Fox News as an unindicted co conspirator in a classified league investigation. It was the Obama

administration that pulled the Associated Press's phone records. It was the Obama administration that prosecuted a journalist for not revealing a source for a book, or threatened to prosecute him. They're going to put him in prison. I spoke to that journalist. But the facts aren't going to get in the way of the narrative. My friends. They're going to start saying Trump is the biggest threat to the First

Amendment ever. That's what they're going to say, even though he's not even as big a threat as the last guy to hold the office of the presidency was. But they're gonna hope you forget that. We'll be back. He's holding the line for America. Buck sex in his back. Big fight brewing over the Espionage Act and this Julian Assan's indictment. I just wanted to want to close the loop on this one, because this is this is going to set up a whole New Line. Every everything is

about Trump all the time, right. I mean, we're going to talk to my friend, and I wish that wasn't the case, but that's what the media does. We're going to talk to my friend, Tyler Merritt, great guy, CEO of nine Line Apparel, spec Ops veteran, he was one of those elite combat helicopter pilots. He was an APACHE pilot and flue with different Special Operations units. He's going to join us to talk about the Eddie Gallagher case and also John Walker Lynde being released later on the show.

But as you see with the Eddie Gallagher case, the Navy seal that people are accusing of war crimes before they even have access to the information, before they've heard his defense, they're just saying, oh, you must be guilty of war crimes. Because you know, they like to take the most negative anti American view possible, and much of our leftist press they think that that gives them some kind of moral high ground. That's something they like to do.

But you know the fact that matters. The press does have often has an anti American or far left bias that runs contrary to the interests of what you think you'd see from normal Americans. But when you add Trump into the mix, anything that can be used as some kind of rhetorical ideological weapon against Trump will be used as such. Anything out there that they can do to make Trump the problem and use it to that is part of the obsession they. I was going to say

they can't help it. I don't know if that's quite true, but it's almost like they can't help themselves. They're so unbelievably and completely wrapped up in their hashtag resistance mania. And with this Julian Assan situation, you will see people completely abandoned. They are previous criticisms of Assange. They're oh journalists who but a year ago, but a few months ago, maybe even we're saying he's a stooge for the FSB, which is the Federal nayaslas bisi pleas nesti, which is

the Russian domestic intelligence service. Say that one five times real fast. It's fun. It's anything federal naya, it's fun to say. Right Russian words. I know about five Russian words, that's three of them. The other words are yet and those Dania. So I know I miss commy bear too. I just thought about that some of you are like Buck Commy Beart, Yeah, I know there's a possibility it might happen. But back to Asange, they're going to forget about all the criticisms they had of him in the past.

They're going to abandon the line of argument that he's not really a journalist because he was doing the bidding of a he was operating as a foreign a non state foreign intelligence service. That's been the knock on Assange for a while, and there were some in the journal community that in the context of Russia collusion, DNC, the hacking, they were willing to go along with that. Now they're gonna just he's going to be the ultimate free speech martyr,

not because they cared that much about free speech. I assure you this. If the Obama administration had decided to bring these charges against Assange, there would have been much

more muted Yeah, some people would write some medatorials. I'm not going to say there'd be nothing much more muted criticism of the administration's decision, because ultimately, journalists care first and foremost about having their ideas in power, having the people they like and support, making decisions that affect the rest of the country. And the rest of the world. That is why they are activists more than they are journalists.

They're seeking an outcome. They're not just providing information for the sake of informing the public. That's a lie. That's why journalism, speaking of foundations before, contemporary American journalism is built upon a fraudulent foundation that they're unbiased, they're nonpartisan, and they don't have an agenda. They absolutely have an agenda.

You know, I tell you I have an agenda. My agenda is to support conservative values and beliefs, to explain what's going on around you know, around the country and around the world, and to do so honestly and in a way that brings both information and some entertainment value. And you can listen to me, and then if you want to go listen to some COMI podcasts somewhere from somebody, you can do that and decide who's right. But I make a compelling casty. I'm honest about it, or at

least I hope it's a compelling case. But I tell you where I'm coming from. I don't sit here and say, well, I have no opinions, and now let me give you one hundred opinions in a row, but I have no opinions. I don't pull the Anderson Cooper, the Jake Tapper. I don't even think MSNBC thinks that they're journalists. But oh no, we're just objective, Joy, ABC News. We're just objective journalists. Man, Yeah,

sure you are. Go go walk around any newsroom that's not Fox News or the Wall Street journal in the country with a maga hat on and see what people say and how they look at you. Oh yeah, we're objective. Like we're all a bunch of idiots. The mainstream media does think that everyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot, So I guess it's not surprising at all.

But there will be a massive shift in the tone and in the respect for and everything around Assange because this is going to become another line of attack going into the election cycle that Donald Trump is now they've been saying he's a threat to journalism like a bunch of little babies. I wish we had some of the bed Stelters destroyed. The first to bebbed by sag that I have a huge dweeb and I should have my own cable douche show. But I do because it look

like jib zeppu. You know, that's not really to a normal person, Trump making fun of Brian Stelter is not a threat to the First Amendment. It's kind of funny. It's not actually eliminating any of our rights to free speech and free expression. It is, in fact responding to the First Amendment. With the First Amendment, it is speech against speech, which is what we want the marketplace of ideas.

You know, when Trump calls some Democrat stupid, or calls some Democrat or Republican low energy or low iq or whatever it is, that's not a threat against that person. And that is just the president of the United States, who granted has a very big bully pulpit, but it really is matched on the other side by the media, and he's using his First Amendment rights. That's always so funny to me too, this claim that Trump is such

a threat to our democracy a much bigger threat. And having been in a country where the press, just recently being in China, where the press do the bidding of the government explicitly, I mean, you have state controlled media.

We're supposed to be so worried after eight years of ninety percent of journalists essentially giving Barack Obama carte blanche to do whatever he wanted, and you know, just just write trying to write the most flowery sonnets about Obama's genius and poise and coolness and all this other stuff. How much doth the press love Obama? Let me count the ways? Right, That's what it was for eight years. That is far more dangerous to your freedoms, far more

dangerous to your rights than what then the dynamic. Forget about the reality of Trump or second, and just think of the dynamic right now, you know, forget about the tweets and all that, the specifics of whether you like them or not. You have a president who has the entirety of the media in opposition to him, and we're supposed to be so where that is so worrisome, not at all that you could you could argue that that's actually a pretty good balance in some ways, meaning that

you have a check on the president's ability. And I would argue that with Trump, which you have, is the first time that it feels like an even playing field in the messaging war. And that's why the journalists and the left hate him so much. We've got we've just been led to believe that the left should always have a platform, information platform based information dominance in American politics and news, and it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that this is this is

how they can say. Other Wise intelligent or at least reasonably intelligent journalist will say the press is in biased. Look at Fox News, like, are you a moron? That's one channel versus the dozens and dozens of news channels out there that offer completely and utterly left of centered, a far left perspective on what's going on in America every day. And then your answer is there's one channel that doesn't do that. I know some of you yelling

me buck One America News. I love Pisobic, high five Pisobic, But you know, the One America is working on it, working on it. Not quite at the ratings yet from a understand of Fox. But I get your messages. Some of you are like, fuck, you gotta give One America more love. I like some of the One America folks. I don't really know the moll Tommy Larron came from there,

my buddy Tommy Larren. She's originally so I gotta give One America credit for finding her, Just like those of you that have been a little critical of my former employer. You know, I am always and forever thankful to Glenn Beck for bringing me into the business man. He got me started in media. He gave me my start. You got it. You always have a there's a defference in a respect to those that give you your first break,

and for me that that's Glenn Beck. But back to the war over the First Amendment that we're about to see a play out. I wanted to tell you this all today because in the days ahead, you know, I want to get I want to get in front of this because I can see it playing out right now. I can see how they're going to position all of this, and that Trump is a tyrant storyline is just going

to get magnified. And the Assan's trial, assuming that he is transferred into US custody, is going to be an opportunity not really to fight out the First Amendment, because they'll whenever happens in the Assan's trial, they will cast aside the next time around they either like or don't like someone. Democrats don't base decisions about violation of law anymore at these high levels when there's politics involved in a case, it's do they like the person or not?

What do they want to have happen? What the laws are in place don't really matter. You know, did Hillary violent the Espionage Act? Yes? She did. Do Democrats care? No, of course they think that that doesn't matter, doesn't doesn't cut the mustard. By the way, why do people say that is Mark is one able to cut mustard? That I don't think so? No, you know, wouldn't you cut like the bree or the saucy song or something that was kind of bougier sounding that I meant it to be.

But you know, I don't think you cut the mustard. But they are willing to push aside the law whenever it suits their interests, and that's what they'll that's what they'll push aside the law in this case if they want to. But I think we'll have to see the specifics of the evidence against Assange. I then there's one other thing that I'm perhaps out on my own on this one. I know a lot of a lot of journalists, or I shouldn't say journalist, A lot of national security

people disagree with me on this. I don't really understand how it is that we can make the case that somebody who is not a US citizen and not on US soil has an obligation to protect the government secrets of the United States. And this is this is I'm on my own on this one. Not a lot of people make this case, but I've, as somebody who used to work in the secret world and now work in the open world, I've I've wondered about this for quite some time. If I violate state secrets from the Chinese,

let's which I'm not. I was not over there. Just before anyone gets any ideas, I was not doing anything other than you know, learning and being a tourist. But if I were to violate the Chinese government's state secrets laws, would the United States be obligated to hand me over? What if I just talk to some dissidents as a journalist and the Chinese government said, you know that that's

not acceptable. Why should And in this case, he's an Aussie citizen, and I know people are going to say, well buck, the Australian government is willing to give him over and they'll play ball in this right, But should they should they because they're the Aussies and they're close friends and allies, they will and they have, or they're they're willing to not make a fuss about it, I think.

But this opens up a very interesting, whole separate part of the analysis here, which is, do I, as an American citizen, do I have an obligation to protect the secrets of any country that is not America? I would argue to you, and maybe this is just an intellectual exercise, though I don't think it is. Think of my China example. But I would argue to you the answers, No, I only have an obligation to protect American government information as

an American citizen. I don't have an obligation to protect Russian or Chinese. And put aside the fact that I'm an X spy, I mean, I mean just as an American, and I think that should be the case across the board. So don't we have to apply that logic to Assange as well? Why is he on the hacking thing? Look, you can't hack. I understand that there are laws against hacking in Australia, In Great Britain, I mean that's a crime, right stealing as a crime, you can't do certain things.

But publishing classified according to the United States, is that only because the Australia and the British recognize those classifications as valid too. Maybe. I mean, you know, there's there's some intricacies here, to be sure, But I just think we all need to be very clear that I do not I feel I feel no moral obligation as an American to protect the secrets of a government that is not my government. So don't we have to think a

little bit about what that really means. If we have a whistleblower in this country who publishes all kinds of embarrassing stuff about the Russian government but name sources, and the Russians say, look, it's not the embarrassing information that we oppose, it's the naming of our sources and putting them in danger. So so hand that guy over to an uncle Vlad and company, because we got to handle

this the old Russian way. Would we hand that person over assuming they were not working, by the way, for the United States government, They just did this on their own. They did this for themselves. For whatever reason, We're going to hand them over. I would be curious to know what some of the folks out there would think about this one. But as you can tell, this is this is a case that we're going to hear about for quite some time, and it brings up a lot of things.

But we've also got Pelosi and Trump squaring off. They're really making the case, folks, that it's Trump who's the political big mean meaning they just want to They just want to get things done. Democrats just want to They just want to be friends. No, they don't. We all know this, But at some level, I think the Democrat based, the left wing base enjoys the bald face lie from prominent Democrats about how they want to reach across the aisle.

They want to do infrastructure. It's it's gaslighting, you know, it's it's meant to be brazen. It's it's meant to be an insult. Pelosi pretending she wants to work with Donald Trump is an insult, not just a Trump, but to all of us too. We know, we know that's a joke. I love more on this though, coming up, team stay with me when I'm not where. I think

we all to pull the trigger on that. The fact that the matter is all that we've seen in recent days, people refusing to testify, people tending to listen to this White House when they'll have to all these things bother me tremendously, but I did not want to rush to adjustment on anything. I believe in going through the steps. I think, you know, many members are just at that point of what is the next step for me? The

next step the camel that broke the straw. The straw that broke the camel's back was having another witness not show up to a committee after they're supposed to. But for other members, they're all looking at what that step will be. But I think there is truly a feeling that this is becoming not just obstruction but a cover up of what happened. Oh, it's obstruction of obstruction. You see, obstruction of obstruction. They're coming up with new legal theories

all the time. Here. Trump is the worst president in the history of the world. He's destroying the country. He can be impeached one hundred times over. But we're not sure if we should impeach him yet. We really want to play the process out. These people are such idiots. Oh, Congress, you guys are fun. I mean, there's a million reasons to impeach the present. We must, our constituents demand. The

country needs the impeachment of Donald Trump. But we got to slow this down a little bit, you know, just you know, kick it back to neutral, relax little see if maybe impeachment's the way to go. Which is it? Folks, can't be both. It can't be both. Trump can't literally be worse than Hitler, as the Democrats seem to think, but not necessarily be worthy of impeachment. It cannot be both things. You know, they're they're anti Trump. Hysteria goes

beyond the courage. They would need to do something about it, that much is for sure. Another one want to see that they've already got the conclusion, but they want to see the process play out. The suspect is already guilty, but we want to see a trial first. That is how Craft's approach impeachment, and that is why they are clowns. We got more on me. She's a mess, luckless face it. She doesn't understand it, and they sort of feel she's

disintegrating before the RUSS. You know, she's a mess. Luckless face it, she doesn't understand it, and they sort of feel she's disintegrating before the RUSS. She does not understand it. They want to have her understand and it before we it's finished. Its signed as you know, Mexico has approved the deal, Canada has approved the deal, and they're waiting to get a signal for her. Now I would say this, the farmers should start talking to the Democrats in the House.

The Senate's ready to approve it, the Republican Senate, but the Democrat House is not. Pelosi does not understand, all right, So you get a team. Welcome back to the Bucks Accent show. That was Trump today. He was at a meeting where he was talking about the sixteen billion dollars in federal aid that's going to the farmers who have

been hits, particularly in the Midwest. You know, the Chinese are very strategically trying to that's right, involve them, involve themselves in the American election process by making sure that they target parts of the country with their trade policy that they think will be politically damaging for Trump. So they're very aware of this. There's all kinds of ways

that you could talk about foreign interference in elections. Christopher Steele a foreigner relying on foreign sources Russians to create the Steel dossier to feed to the journalists and the FBI. THEO you need to a miracle, I give you the FBI. That's all foreign interference. The election too. But now you've got Trump standing before the American people to talk about the sixteen billion dollars in federal aid. And look, this

is this is smart politics for them. I know. People say, oh, it's not free market, Well, you know, it's not free market to the Chinese are engaging in all this tariffs and jacking up the prices on us and stuff they've been doing for a long time, the intellectual property, theft, all of it. That's not free market. That's not obeying that's not obeying the rules of the marketplace and then letting the best man win. They're cheating. No one denies, at least no one of this country who knows anything

denies that they're cheating. But the consensus opinion from the so called smart set had been for a very long time. Now we just sit back and take it. When it comes to the Chinese, we have no means of fighting back. We're the biggest economy in the world, the most powerful military in the world, the most culturally influential country in the world. But China can do whatever it wants to us in terms of trade, and we just sit and say, well,

maybe they'll stop one day. I don't think so. But you had President Trump decide that he was going to turn this discussion about Look, he understands what are the people really want to hear about. I mean, he's having this meeting, you know, to talk about the sixteen billion dollars in federal aid. I get it right, He's you gotta make his case for the American people about why there needs to be some patience in dealing with this trade ward. Trade war is not going anywhere, and the

markets are starting to price this in, you know. So the Trump administration saying, all right, we're gonna we're gonna try to batten down the hatches a bit and prepare for a longer haul here. And I think that much of that is just the Chinese trying to wait this out. Much much better deal for the Chinese going to come from Buddha Judge or Sanders or Biden or whomever administration. So why not wait a little bit. They've got enough, They've got enough in the tank to deal with this

for a year. So Trump says, all right, we're gonna get the sixteen billion dollars. We're gonna try to offset some of the pain that growers in Midwestern states are going to have as a result of this, and you've got some stocks and bonds taken a hit today. I don't know how much any of you care about that, but that did happen. But that's not really where the

political fight is right now. As much as as much as the economic conditions here are on everyone's minds, what really seems to be capturing our imaginations at this moment is that the Democrats are simultaneously telling the American people that the president is as a criminal, that the president should be impeached, that the president cannot even finish out the eighteen months that he has left in office. They are dead set on finding some process to prematurely end

his administration. That's what they want to do. And even if they don't get to the eventual goal along the way, if they can do damage the administration, well, and that's a benefit to them too. So they feel like this is win win. They feel like there's no matter what happens here, they're happy with the outcome of using the

process as some kind of weapon against Trump. But it's one thing to do that, and as gross and irresponsible as I see that to be, it's another thing to do that, which is what democrats have been up to for quite a while. Now. We've all known. I've been saying it, You've been saying it. We're aware, we know what the game plan is here. But they do this and then they turn around and get mad at Trump, or at least pretend that, oh, I'm so mad at Trump.

They pretend to be upset at him because he's not being more bipartisan, because he's not going to take it lying down, because he's not accepting of this status quo where Democrats can go in front of the microphones and say, the press the United States is a crazy person, needs to be removed from office, all these things. You know, it needs to be impeached, although they're not sure they're going to do it, but he needs to be impeacher.

Just not sure they're going to do it. And then walk up to him and say, hey, mister press, and let's let's talk about a couple of trillion dollars of infrastructure spending. Let's really work together on this, let's let's really see eye to eye on this issue. I'm sorry, that's not the way the world works. Some of you may recall one of my favorite, one of my favorite Chaney moments. That's right, Dick Cheney. Cheney, remember at leased to do that, kind of like the penguin. That was

John Stewart who popularized that. It says nothing like Cheney, but that just became a thing that they did, kind of like Halloa, Hillary, does it sound like her? No? But do you know who I'm talking about? Yes, you do. I'm still running. She might, she might. I know, you say, she's not tactically running, but I think in her heart

of hearts, Hillary thinks she's still She's still running. But I remember when Cheney, the press was all, oh, good heavens, there was all this pearl clutching and oh the press got the vapors that were so upset when Vice President Cheney had some very choice words for the shrouner from Vermont, ley Ers Chalulenge kind of like gurgling Gurgan from Shion and pretty much the shame guy. But pad Laye from

from Vermont said some terror. I forget what it was, but you know, he basically, you know, Chaney is like a war criminal who is horrible or something like that. He said something really nasty about Chaney. I don't remember what it was, so leave that part of it out. But Cheney um responded to him outside of a committee here and remember something where where lay had said those things with in in New York City. We referred to it as you know, a New York goodbye, go something

something yourself to Lahy. And I think that sometimes such words are very much called for. I think that sometimes that is the way to deal with people. I think that Democrats do need to be called on their stuff, and harsh language is sometimes called for. It depends on the setting. He wasn't in fun of little kids or anything. And Trump isn't going to sit around and have Nancy Pelosi and these other Democrats do the whole impeachment circuit going on seeing at an MSNBC and then sit down

with them and act like everything's cool. Are we really supposed to blame him for that? Are we really to take it as some terrible offense? Nancy Pelosi certainly thinks, so play the latest from crazy Nancy. The President again stormed out, I think what first, pound the table, walk out the door. Next time, have the TV cameras in there. While I have my say, that didn't work for him either. And now this time, another temper tantrum. Again. I pray

for the President of the United States. I wish that his family, or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country. An intervention, she prays for him. What a classic Democrat politician tactic here, you know, what a what a backhanded slap at the President United States. Oh, she praised for him. She wants there to be an intervention because she cares so much about President Trump. You see, she just thinks that he's unwell.

She wants people to step in to help him. Of course not she's playing into the Trump derangement craziness, that the president is crazy. They won't stop. They bring, you know, on these different cable networks that hey, Trump, they'll bring psychiatrists and psychologists and pet therapists and you know whatever

life coaches. They'll bring them on it. Oh, you know, I think the president really has had some kind of a you know, some kind of an aneurysm or something, and he just doesn't you know, it's just like just lunacy. And they won't stop. They won't stop. The President United States is presiding over the best economy that this country has seen, really in my lifetime. I mean, you could argue that the dot com boom was you know, was as hot, but that obviously that the air got let

out of that bubble pretty quickly. This is probably the best economy that the American people have enjoyed in my lifetime in many ways. I mean, at least looking at the numbers, best best unemployment statsin's nineteen sixty nine. I'm not that old, although I do have the bearing of an older man. Nonetheless, they still want to tell people who watch these cable networks on the left and who believe that these different newsrooms are not full of leftist

activists posing as journalists. They want them to believe that the president is crazy, is crazy. All evidence of the contrary be damned. The president is insane. And that's Nancy Pelosi going out. That's why I like it that the President responds and just says that, you know, actually think Nancy's a little crazy. You gotta you gotta fight fire with fire. You've got to be willing to look these people in the eye and say I'm not going to be held back by some sense of deference and good

faith that is not shared on the other side. Democrats are deeply personally disrespectful to this president in a way that might affect the two major parties for a long time after Trump isn't an office. They have been telling us now for years that the president is crazy, and yet the country's doing well, and they don't seem to be able to square this. In fact, I think it drives them crazy that he's been as successful as he's been, despite the fact that they keep telling us that he's

actually nuts. And they're journalists who have built careers on either on one of two storylines. The president has to be removed from office because he's a crazy person, or the president colluded with Russia, and they go back and forth on this. Some of them believe both things are true. This is a mass psychosis, and this is along the lines of climate change is going to end the world in ten years. Donald Trump is a threat to the Republic.

When you have these leftist echo chambers in the media throughout the media that keep feeding this, to feeding people this, and they have an economic incentive to do so. It keeps their ratings at least where they are. I mean, you look at CNN's ratings, their way down, but still makes a lot of money it's a legacy institution that can rest on its laurels. Unfortunately, but you look at

the way that they package all the different stories. They take everything and try to twist it into an anti Trump moment, and that is that becomes a self reinforcing cycle. This becomes a closed circuit. You know, everything everything cycles back to Trump is bad. Everything cycles back to Trump is the worst. And this is not This is not normal. When I mean, this is not healthy. She's saying that there should be an intervention for Donald Trump. I'm here

to tell you that Democrats need an intervention. Trump broke them psychologically. How many people do you know in your life think about this who have cut off friends, maybe even cut off family members because they voted for Trump. Who think that someone wearing a Maga hat is some kind of horrible offense. And you know, maybe if you get punched or slapped or something for wearing one, you know you were asking for it. How many people I know people who feel that way and they think that

Trump is crazy. Only one side can be right on this one. You know. There are the people that have convinced themselves that Trump is a trader, is a lunatic, you know, is all these things and have no skepticism about the narratives that they've been fed by the left wing press. And the people that run the left wing press and own the left wing media are overwhelmingly not just Hillary partisans, but people who viewed the elevation of Hillary Clinton into the presidency as a crowning moment in

their media life cycle. You know, this was this was something that they've been wetting them in. The Boomers who run these left wing places would have felt like Hillary was eight years of glory, would have been the best years of their careers, of their media entities, and that was robbed from them. It broke them psychologically. They can't seem to pick themselves up. They can't get passed the loss of the twenty sixteen election. And so Trump is right to recognize this for what it is and not

just keep doing. You know, if Mitt Romney were in office, and I know some things about Mit, I like some things I don't. If Mit we're in office, he'd keep extending his hand and get it slapped away. Trump doesn't want to keep extending his hand to get it slapped away. He wants to slap back. I think that's the right move. I think that's the right move. All right, team, We've we've got a whole much more coming up, so stare

right there. We'll be back. They've been unwilling and unable to sit down and solve any real problems, whether it's the crisis at the border, whether it's infrastructure or anything else. It's very hard to have a meeting where you accuse the president of the United States of a crime and then an hour later show up and act as if nothing's happened. The idea of that is insane. How many how many times do we have to have a redo

before the Democrats accept the results? The bottom line is there was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and it's time for them to actually do some real work. They don't want to do any real work. Democrats wanted to dig in with exactly what they have, especially right now, because they can't. They can't give the president to win in their minds, and which means any bipartisan action of

any kind. Right because if they do something with President Trump, then how do they come back and tell us that he's Hitler? You're working with Hitler? Oh no, of course not. So they won't do anything with Trump that's off the table, and they don't know what to offer from their side because they don't know who their candidate's going to be and how wacky far left that candidate is going to

end up. So what have they got hashtag resistance? You know, I'll say this, when when they were running against Obama in the first you know, in the early stages of the there was a focus on things like Obamacare and how it was bad and how that was not a good thing. There's a focus on how the economy was weak.

There were Republicans were making a case about the mismanagement of government by the chief executive at that time, President Barack Obama, And there were policy issues that were at the and the size of the debt and the Tea Party, and there were issues that were being discussed with Democrats. Right now, it's it's just all orange man bad. Trump is hitler. Trump is a criminal. He didn't colude with Russia,

but let's just say he coluded with Russia. There's no evidence that he committed a crime, but let's just say there's evidence he committed a crime. I mean, this is what we're up against, this is what we have to deal with now. And there are enormous media entities and just interests in general. Billions of dollars of money is at stake here for people who have built entire enterprises

on destroying Trump switching power to the Democrats. I mean, there's a lot at stake here for the people that are trying to tell you that, oh no, they're the honest arbiters of what's happening. They're they're the ones that are just just bringing you the facts, you know, facts first,

apples and bananas and all this stuff. I don't think so there's not going to be no one, no serious person thinks that there's going to be any bipartisan bipartisan action from not on anything meaningful what do you now in the election? But so the pretense and the Democrats that they're reaching out, yeah, they reach out after they say, you know, imagine if I showed up at your dinner party and I said, well, you know, I think you're a criminal and that this, uh, the car in the

front driveway is stolen. But I do like the suffle you've made. I don't think you'd say, well, he's a really polite fellow. I appreciate the compliment about the suffle. This is what Democrats you're doing to Trump. This is not normal. They're not criticizing his policies and saying, but we can work on this stuff. They're saying he's a crazy person and he should be removed from office, and then they're going to sit down with him and think that he's going to treat them in a normal way.

Really asks the or, it really forces you to ask the question, who's crazy in this one? I gotta say, I think it's crazy, Nancy. I'm just crazy like a fox back. He's holding the line for America buck sex in his back. Why is it that the Democrats don't ever have people like Justin Amash on their side? Why?

I'm just wondering, when was the last time you can remember a Democrat elected official during the Obama years coming out and taking a deeply anti Obama stance, not opposing him on a matter of policy, but but criticizing Obama personally on some matter. Doesn't happen? And yet now I see and I haven't yet talked about it on the show, so I wanted to get to it today that Justin

Amash has tweeted up. Mueller's report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian investigation, the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interest at risk. I mean, one, I think he's wrong and this is just not this is an incorrect take. I don't think it's a very smart take, and much better lawyers than justin Amash have

looked at this and said, sorry, there's nothing here. The president did not How can you impede an investigation that was not impeded? How can you impede an investigation that was not impeded and you could have very easily impeded it at any point in time. And then on top of that, not to be labor the word here, but how can you impede an investigation that was premised on

a falsehood to begin with? Is an investigation of something that did not happen worthy of protection from the executive branch officials that or from an executive branch official that has the whole government to run. I guess Democrats say the answer is yes. They really just can't handle it. They really cannot handle being out of power. This is this is just a denialism that keeps just rearing its ugly head over and over again. You know, they have

not gotten past twenty sixteen. You know what, folks, if we win in twenty twenty, if Trump gets re elected, I do think that there's going to be some I can't begin to tell you. I can't predict what it will be, or there will be ramifications that will shock many of us. I think you might finally have some of those Hollywood starlets. I mean here, I am coming to you from Los Angeles. You might finally have some of them moved to Canada or moved to New Zealand

or wherever it may be. Go back to Amash here for a second. Why does he want to pile on? Why would he want to help the Democrats at this stage too? Is he too self involved or too stupid? And I have to ask, I don't know, you know, too self righteous to see that this has all been a get Trump operation from the start, that the Muller probe was conducted in bad faith by anti Trump Democrat partisans. Oh Muller used to be Republican. Yeah, I guess what

Amash is a Republican. Look at some of the people that hate Trump more than anyone Republicans, at least by party affiliation, although you have had a lot of people like the Comies of the world say, well, you know, no, I'm an independent. Independent is what a former Republican who doesn't want to look like a turncoat right away calls himself when he switched over to being a team being

on team Democrat, I'm an independent. Yeah, doesn't work for me, you know, on the rooftop here when people are sitting around talking about how Trump is destroying the country in Los Angeles a lot too much at A lot of that are on you. Let me tell you, I gotta get these people a little bit of a different perspective. I don't know if they're ready for it yet, though, I can't imagine, because when they've been to people have been told so many times that this is the worst

president ever. And you try to explain to them that that is that is a a completely unjustifiable and an hysterical point of view. They then they don't assume that maybe you're worth listening to. They think that you must be deranged. And I've come across this a few times. I try not to engage too much with the far left, you know, la hipster crowd on this stuff. But I've I've made the I've made some very early in roads.

But I guess Justin Amash wants to make some in roads too, And that's why is he auditioning for a job at CNN. Is that what this is? When was the last time a Democrat broke ranks to do something for the Republican Party on a really, really important issue where the stakes were high and it wasn't in the Democratic Party's interest for that to happen. Here's an example,

Joe Mansion in West Virginia voting yes on Kavanaugh. That was helpful for the Democrats because if Mansion had not done that, all the polling in West Virginia showed that he was going to get crushed for the reelect, so they let him break ranks. Democrats are okay with head fakes that help the Democrat Party, or they're okay with a small term sellout for big for big time gain, right, or a small time sellout for big time gain, but on a critical issue. And when was the last time

they have a situation like John McCain on healthcare. Oh yeah, we're right there, We're at the we're at the one yard line. Oh no, our team's going to intentionally fumble it. Someone on our team is going to hand it to the other side. There are a few things that you have to, if not admire, at least are instructive to pay attention to when it comes to Democrats, and one

of them is their party discipline. As much as I'd like to say that I can believe this analysis that Nancy Pelosi has lost control of the Democratic Party, that the radicals now run it, and that's true to an extent. It's true from a messaging perspective, But when it comes to the exercise of raw power, Democrats march in lockstep. And if I'm wrong, by the way, tell me I'm show me, show me where you've had the Democrat that has I mean, look look at Obamacare. Every Democrat voted

for it. Not a single Republican voted for it. Every Democrat not one defection on a massive mess of a healthcare law that has now put us on a path towards single pair, which we all knew from the beginning of this at Oh, it won't do that. It's Mitt Romney's plan from Massachusetts. Thanks Mitt. Mitt Romney's plan started

with the Heritage Foundation you hear all these things. Now, now they're pushing for single pair for you know, universal universal healthcare paid for by the government, and we all know where that leads to. Right, you're going to run

a business. The business is going to say, well, I could pay a lot of money for private health insurance, or I could just tell these people, get you get your government health insurance, go get your Obamacare, you go pay for the plan that's on the exchange in your state of We all know where that's going to lead. It's not gonna leave to do a free market, that's for sure. But the free market in healthcare is something that's at this point. It's it's like a it's like

a fantasy. But Amash just, I know that was a little that was a little sour. I agree I should have. I need to tone it down a little bit. It's true. We're so far from a free market healthcare. Don't even get me started. I could spend three hours of talking even all the deficiencies in the healthcare system and how our medicine is not nearly as good as we think it is. It's way too expensive. The incentive structure for a lot of healthcare professionals is not in line with

their patients. It's there's a lot of stuff. I got a lot of thoughts on this one. But I've also got a thoughts on Justin Amash sitting around talking about how the president is. The president broke the law and now he's now he's a hero to the left. I

hope it's worth it too him. You know what I think this is, this is a guy that on a few issues, you know, he skews a little libertarian on a few issues, he gets some attention to think on drones and on privacy, and he's one of these guys and he hasn't been in the spotlight much, and this is a way to do it. It is always a temptation for somebody on the right to sell out and go to the left, because they'll make it really cozy

for you at first. You know, maybe you'll even get a contributorship at a network, Maybe you'll get a nice little fat book deal, you put on the board of a company, if you're really lucky that they make it seem like defecting is good for you. But then once they've used you, I mean, they'll never really respect you. If you were fighting for conservative causes, No matter how much you've abandoned them, they'll never really think you're part of the team. But our side doesn't learn. We have

we have defectors. We have people that want to get that one or two lines of oh sweet sweet stuff in the New York Times about them. And I think that's what's going on here with mister Amash, Congressman Amash.

It's just it's just so disappointing, man. I mean, come on, you really think that after all the President's been through this two year long investigation, all the lies, all the efforts to lie to the files a cord which they clearly did, to do obscure the origins of the dossier, to work with the media with part of pro Hillary partisans in the media and in the deep state of the FBI and the dj to concoct this whole massive

narrative of lies. After all of that, the real problem is Trump not obstructing justice, but like thinking about it, or, as Nancy Pelosi formulates it, now, the cover up of the non obstruction, of the non collusion. That's where we are, folks. Democrats think that the president should no longer be the president because of the cover up of the non obstruction

of the non collusion. I don't know what they're going to pile on top of this, but it'll probably be the obstruction of the cover up, I'm sorry, the obstruction of the non cover up of the non obstruction of the non collusion. I think I've got them all together now. And then throwing the emolument's clause in the twenty fifth Amendment, and just these people are insane. They're always trying to find some new way to get some new excuse or

why he's not really the president. I mean, why not just live in reality for a little bit and put forward one of your candidates make the case to us all that Trump should not be the president. If it's so obvious that he broke the law and should be impeached, then it should be obvious enough a case to make the American people that he shouldn't be president again. You know what they're terrifying of, and this is what you know. I think they'll be Democrats who are broken psychologically if

Trump gets re elected. But a lot we're broken the first time around, and it's not like they all went away. What does it mean for the Democratic Party if Trump

wins reelection? And what I mean by that is, how do they get taken seriously when they've told us all this stuff, Oh, the worst president ever, and he's this monster orange man bad, he's basically Hitler, He's worse than Stalin all the things that they've been saying, and then he gets reelected, he beats whatever candidate, whatever, whatever, whoever it is that they put forward after this ruckus primary season.

What will that mean about their ability to with the American people and the power of the stories that they tell, their credibility as a political party. I mean, think about that. I'm hoping they're not going to try to blame it on Russia again, although maybe they'll blame it on the Chinese. If you're an enterprising foreign government, you know, or hostile intelligence service, you know that all you have to do is do something to mess up the next election, and

that'll really drive a divide. I mean, and I mean something minor. You don't have to hack into voting machines or anything. Just create some fake Facebook accounts and make some noise online, and then the losing party can point at that and say, see the other side cheated. And we know that if the Democrats are the ones that lose. They don't have the media running endless stories on it, and people want to give themselves pull. It serves for

all their Facebook sock puppet reporting. What a joke? What a joke? Oh man, Facebook dot com, slashbuck sex and if you want to send me some thoughts, that's a great way to do it. We are going to be joined in the next hour. I got a couple of guests joining. I wanted to bring in some voices today, and I maybe trying to bring in some voices tomorrow too. We've got our friend Inez Felcher Bernie Sanders has a pretty radical anti charter school proposal that he's rolled out.

The burn doesn't like charter schools, don't want him. No charters not allowed. And then you also have my friend Tyler Merritt, CEO of Nineline Apparel, Specops veteran who's Apache pilot.

They'll be joining in the next hour as well to talk about both the Eddie Gallagher case, this Navy seal that the press is trying to just railroad, just trying to just send him, to send him off in the prison and you know, bury the key somewhere, and also the latest on the release of John Walker Lynd American Taliban. You will call he has been called in the past. So we got that and more team and we will

be right back. When I'm asking a lot of voters about you, they say, if you win the nomination, you're going to be on stage with pres In Trump, not just on these primary debate stages, but on stage in a general election. He's gonna be tough. He's gonna take punches at you rhetorically. Are you ready for that? Yeah, I mean, look what he's gonna do. And I got a fair amount of familiarity with bullies. I'm gay, I'm

from Indiana. I get it is. He's going to try to get your attention, and he's going to try to get under your skin. He's going to try to distract us. And the challenge in confronting Trump is that there are certain things that he does that you have to respond to, just morally. When he lies, you got to correct the lie, which will keep you busy because he does it so often. When he does something wrong, you got to point to it.

But it can't be about him. Any energy that ghost his way, including energy the ghost is way in the form of criticism, turns into a kind of food. He just devours it and gets bigger. And what we've got to learn is how to kind of stiff harm him. Uh So, it's it's almost like a sort of crazy uncle management, crazy uncle management mayor Pete Buddha Judge says about Donald Trump. Now, let me tell you what I

see happening here with Buddha Judge. I was always, I always was filled with a kind of disdain for the Beto O'Rourke mania because the guy was just such a just there's such an emptiness, I mean based on on what should we elect this guy to anything? Really not

really clear what he stands for. All that was clear was that he was a somewhat you know, visually appealing to middle age Democrat women guy who you know, gave semi inspiring but sacharin speeches about America sometimes and was essentially up against Ted Cruze, who the left absolutely hates because Ted is very smart and very effective for servitism.

And that's that was it. But I recognize that there's this lane, there's this celebrity worship lane that can be cleared out by the Democrat apparatus for a certain kind of candidate. And so while I've been saying that Beto is opously. They're not even asking for opposition research on the money anymore. That just came out. I think yesterday no one even's taking the time to try to slap down the Aurora candidacy because everyone thinks that this is

this is pretty much he's toast. But Mayor Pete Buddha Judge, on the other hand, seems to have fit into that young progressive has a kind of telegenic media savvy quality that they're they're they're starting to elevate this guy, and he is moving his way up the ranks. Um, I don't think that he's I don't think that he's going to be the nominee. I will say that, but who knows at this point, right, I mean, it's you still have Biden and Bernie in the number one, number two slot.

But if anyone at this point you think is gonna have a breakout, it's not gonna be. We talked about Kamala Harris yesterday. I just don't think she has the political skills at the national level. I just don't think she has it. You know, I would see as a default candidate they'd fall back on who's a little younger than Bernie or Biden. I would see Booker before, I'd see Kamala Harris right now. And you know, I am Spartacus. That's gonna stay with that guy for quite a while.

But Buddha Judge is at least from a resume perspective. And I'm not somebody who thinks, you know, mid Romney had a great resume right at Harvard Business School and all this money and everything, and he got crushed by Obama. And Obama had a great resume too, with the whole Harvard Law school thing. I mean this is people get very into all these labels and the resume. But Booda

Judge served in Afghanistan. He's a veteran. There's there's some there, there's some there there for this guy, and you're gonna see it. It's gonna happen pretty soon. Here this next i'd say sixteen to ninety day period. Here we go classic journalist stuff. This next sixteen to ninety days will be critical for a mayor p Booha judge. But if you're going to see a Democrat who has that breakout, I think you're gonna see it pretty soon, and it's

gonna be vudu judgment. We'll see how he does in the debates, And first debates are in June, right, so they're coming up very soon. He's going to be on that stage. And if he comes across like not a total lunatic and somebody who's a fighter, he's gonna be top three, if he's not already there on the pole. So we're gonna keep an eye on this guy. He stole Beto's lunch, but he's now having a bit of a feast. Why do you steal my lunch? So mean?

May repeat? Why are you so mean to Betto? Buck Sexton mission to coding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence, mag No mistake, America. You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. The CIA analysts got some good news for all of you, got some good news to share. It's not great news, so I'm not trying to get you that excited. Maybe I should oversell a little bit the best news. Et No, it's it's fine.

The news is fine. You know that I liked the Jesse Smollette case mostly because we hear in the Freedom Hunt. Knew along that he was lying, and that's why we kept doing those updates of the crazy lies that he

was telling. Right, the two Nigerian brothers caught on video buying the rope and the Maga hats and then pouring bleach on him and him having a sandwich in his hand when he went back to the apartment later, and it's two am, and it's Chicago, and this is Maga Country and all this stuff that said, and those of us who live in a reality based universe where like that, that did not happen. So it's interesting that he's telling everybody that happened, because it did. It did not happen.

So you end up finding yourself in a position where you say, okay, So, given that that did not happen, what should be the consequences for Jesse Smollett. And since everybody in law enforcement knew that he had filed false reports and that this is a crime, there was a sense that maybe there will be some kind of punishment

for him, and then he evaded all punishment. Right then, he had the attorney general for whatever it is, the Northern District of Illinois or something, the state attorney general or the prosecutor that was assigned to the case. I can't remember what a specific title is Kim Fox I

believe was her name. Just make the whole thing go away, and to seal the records of the case right away so that people couldn't look and see what overwhelming evidence of Jesse Smollett's mendaciousness was already in the hands of prosecutors, and that if this was not filing a false report, then nothing in fact could qualify as filing a false report. It could not have been more obvious than he was

that he was guilty. I mean, this guy was the this is the filing the false police report level of guilt that you can't make it up, right, I mean you can't. You can't think of a situation where this guy would be more obvious in the way that he made this whole thing up. But anyway, the good news I have to give to you today, because you know this is gonna be fun, is that an Illinois judge has ordered that Jesse Smollet's criminal case file will be unsealed.

Oh yes, this is going to be good stuff. This is exciting because then we now we get to return to what we knew before was an overwhelming mountain of evidence that he lied and there were some people I would know who after Smollett gave his little, his smug statement of how he would never do this, he walked into that court room and he never would do this, and other people who said, see, you know, the system is the system. He got to you know, he innocent

until proven guilty. There are a lot of people that were being really disenject us on this matter, and I have to say, I am pleased. I am pleased that now they are going to have to answer to the evidence. Now jose Smallt's not being charged, which is still a complete outrage, but at least now we can sift through how they had everything on him. And this goes to show you that if you're if you are a politically

connected person, and you are a protected person. In this case, Jesse Smallett is both a minority and part of the LGBT community, so that gives him a kind of from the perspective of intersectional leftist politics, that's a double protection, right. He's in two categories of oppression, so he's even more invulnerable to criticism and to the rules that we would want to apply to everyone, regardless of their race, sexual orientation,

or anything else. You know, Smallett gets a special he gets to get out of jail free cards on this one. And yet now we'll finally be able to get some of the evidence and see it, and that will be fun.

I also wanted to talk to you about something else that's been coming up a lot this week, and that is the fight over this Alabama law, which I've talked about on the show, but just just want to revisit something that is it's applicable to the abortion debate right now, but it's often the case when the left and the right debate any issue, and that is we know what

their arguments are. I can make and maybe some day be kind of although if people tuned in and didn't know what I was doing, they would probably tune out right away. But whenever anyone wants, if they want me to make the argument from the left, I can do it. And I know and not just because I do a show with somebody who is very progressive every morning at the Hill. But I mean I can tell you what

they're going to say. They can't tell you what we say, or at least they're not willing to repeat the case as we would make it publicly. They always have to pretend that we say things that we don't say on an abortion. This is certainly the case. Here's an example of it from ilhan Omar. When she's not being an anti Semite, she likes to get up and misrepresent, well slander the religious crimean community in this country that does not believe an abortion, and then go on to just

misstate the whole case play it. I rise today to defy the horrifying attacks happening against women's reproductive rights all across this country. Religious fundamentalists are currently trying to manipulate state laws in order to impose their beliefs on an entire society, all with complete disregard for voices and the rights of American women. Their recent efforts, like those in Alabama in Georgia are only the latest in a long

history of efforts to criminalize women's women for simply existing. Okay, there you go, to criminalize women for existing. This is such a astoundingly dishonest and stupid formulation of the pro life argument that I have to wonder is ilan Omar just ignorant of the truth or I can't tell you it's it's not clear. There's a part of me that wants to believe that she knows better, but is just

being a demagogue to criminalize being women. That's not what's happening here, because, first of all, as we know, not all women are pregnant at any given time, not all woman will ever become pregnant, and a choice is made in the whole pregnancy thing. Not to take it too far into those details, but the argument over life is very simple and at its core, and that is it's about a life. This is about another human being that, through the miracle of a pregnancy, is going to be

brought into this world. And does that other human being, because it is another life, have rights. Democrats can use all these words, they can talk about criminalizing women and criminalizing bodies and reproductive rights, and these are all these are all obscuring. Is that is a tiny baby in a mother's womb. Is that a life or not? That

is everything because everything else flows from that. It's not clear to me if they just don't understand this argument or they're afraid to engage in the argument because they know they're wrong. Ilhan Omar, I'm not sure which side of that she falls on. Either. We've got ins Felcher joining us in a moment to talk about Bernie Standers and charter schools, and then we'll discuss Eddie Gallagher's case and John Walker Lynn's release with Tyler Merritt. That's coming up.

Thood Marshall's core belief was pretty simple, not complicated. He believed that it is and I quote, the right of all of our children, whatever their race, to an equal stought in life and to an equal opportunity to reach their full potential as citizens. End of quote. I agree with what Thirdgood Marshall said, and in my view, the only way to accomplish that goal is to guarantee every person in our country a quality education as a fundamental

human right, regardless of their income. Charter schools could be feeling the burn, my friends, Bernie Sanders going even further than some of his Democrat colleagues by saying that he wants to halt all new funding for charter schools, have a whole review of current charter schools. This will have a disreportioned impact on a lot of minority students, by the way, So what is going on here? What is the truth of charter schools as it stands? Right now?

In this country, we have Inez Felcher Stepman with us now. She is a senior contributor at The Federalist or the Federalist also as it's sometimes known by those of us who can't speak English. She knows school stuff very very well. She's an education expert. Also an old friend of mine in as great to have you great. By the way, the Federalist is also known as the Federalist Society online by a bunch of leftists who can't tell the difference

between those two organizations. So oh good, good to know. I think I caught some of that on the Twitter this week, but I stayed out of that one. I figured the leftist baby will start using the Google to learn the difference. But tell me what is Sanders? Let's start with this. What is Bernie who wants free college? So in that sense he's at least willing to change it up at the university level, have other people pay

for the student's educations in the future. What's his deal with charter schools in this He put out this plan last week where he called for as you mentioned in the beginning of moratorium on charter funding, he also called for a total ban on for profit charter schools. That would be charter schools that contract with a for profit provider. So that's not really clear how that would even happen. Because there's a relatively small amount of general money that

goes to charter schools. Theoretically one could cut that off, although I don't know why you'd want to cut off the one part of federal investment in education that actually has shown some results, but theoretically can cut that off

in terms of a moratorium. I mean, he doesn't seem to understand or perhaps you know, as the good socialists that he is, he doesn't actually care that most American education decisions are actually made on the state level, So it's not really clear how he would implement that kind of moratorium. Nevertheless, that's what he's calling for. So he wants a moratorium. Why, I mean, what's the what's the reason that he and leftists like him give for this?

And then I'm sure there's a a more more cynical but more true reason as to why they want to cut off this funny So work us through both of those, sure, So I think I think with Bernie, the general argument would be that charter schools quote drained funds from public schools because they provide parents with an alternative and some

parents take advantage of that alternative. In fact, not only are there three million kids over three million kid attending charter schools today in the United States, there's another million kids who are waiting desperately on wait lists trying to get into charter schools. So Bernie Sanders sets this is

a bad thing. He thinks that everybody should go to their assigned public school even if it's not working for them, which is a case, especially in some low income areas that have high percentages of at risk students or minority students, and that's why there are more minority students than the general population who are on golden charter schools. Charter schools have moved into urban areas with schools that are struggling and have attempted to meet that need in providing alternative

to parents. So perversely, Bernie Standers has argued that because charters disproportionately serve poor kids and minority students, that this is quote unquote segregation. Right. I'm sure that's what the KKK that was on the bullet points for the first KKK meeting was provide better options to minority students in

urban areas. But nevertheless, that's one of the arguments he's making against us unbelievably, he says the charter schools perpetuates so schools that in the case there's something like a Success Academy in Harlem in New York, which is a pretty well known charter school, you had almost entirely young black students. There are also some Hispanic students there, but almost entirely young black students who are dramatically outperforming their peers across all races at the state level. And what

there's some kind of objection to this from Bernie Sanders. Yeah, according to Bernie Sanders, because some of those schools, like Success Academy have higher percentages of state black or Hispanic students than the state average, for example, which is not a good comparison, by the way, because what they should be doing is looking at the particular neighborhood in which the charter school is and what public school, what traditional

public school those kids would have been attending, and oftentimes those public schools are as if not more segregated than the charter schools which they're attending. Yeah, it's a very perverse kind of logic that he's using. He's saying these schools are going in and serving a need, and they're serving that need disproportionately for the students that are have the worst options in our current system, which also correlates with them being a minority student. And he says because

of that, charter schools are perpetuating segregation. There is no more segregated system than the system that is based on

neighborhoods or zip code. So I would argue that the traditional public school is the one that is perpetuating segregation, and that charter schools are merely offering in most cases better alternative to parents to schools that aren't working, and those parents are disproportionately minority and lower income, because those are the folks who can't afford to pick up and just move to a more expensive area where the school might be better. What do charter schools do that upsets

left us so much? Why is Bernie Sanders against it? Well, another big reapons against that this charter school tends not to although some charter schools are, but the vast majority

of charter schools tend not to be unionized. Right, so the staff of charter schools tend not to be unionized, and that is a big no no for certain parts of the left, and they also have more operational freedoms, and in exchange, they deliver results that are in a way that they're more accountable to parents, right because because parents actually choose charter schools as opposed to being forced to send their kid to a particular zoned neighborhood school,

those parents then have that choice if they're not happy with the education that their children are receiving, to take their dollars and go down the street or go across town and find somewhere that works better for their kid. And that is really threatening to the education establishment. They like having all the REGs, you know, they like accountability

by you know, form and paperwork. What they don't want is accountability directly to parents to know that they are not really offering the kind of education that's going to make their children into or citizens into you know, successful adults after graduation from high school. So they don't want that kind of accountability because I think they know that they will not staff up as well as they like to pretend. What should the policy be of the Trump

administration when it comes to charter schools? And how I mean it always seems to me like conservatives have a more compelling argument on education than they make in the public square, and going into an election cycle, I'd like to hear not just Trump, but people across the Republican Party saying, you know, charter schools that disproportionately benefit minority students,

help them accelerate and exceed and do very well. That seems like something that we should promote, and we should force leftists to say, no, it's teachers unions that we want to protect. But you know, what should the policy be, how should they make this case? So what's unfortunate, as we've seen one of the rare areas of bipartisan overlap

or agreements disappear in the Trump era. Right, So, it used to be that Republicans and Democrats actually both supported to some extent charter schools, although they've always been members of both parties that were against them, but there was some some bipartisan work. We have a lot of mayors, Democratic mayors in large cities who support charter schools, right, build a Lazio's predecessor supported charter schools. Build the Blasio

does not. Unfortunately, what we've seen in the Trump era is that in fact, Democratic support for any kind of school choice they always were a little, you know, scared for the most part of a private school choice that allows students to attend private schools as well. The charter schools seemed to be for a while something that Republicans and Democrats could agree on because, as you say, it

was serving some of the media students successfully. Charter schools were successfully serving a population that had been left behind by the traditional public school system, and so there was a certain lot of support there. But unfortunately, what we've seen is particularly white Democrats have turned again charter schools. So there's some really interesting polling out there, but shows that Bernie is on the wrong part of this issue

from Democrats who are either Hispanic or African Americans. So Democratic voters or Hispanic and African American actually support charter schools at pretty solid majorities. But white voters, white Democratic voters have seen their support for charter schools dropped from about the same, you know, little over fifty percent all the way down to twenty seven percent in the last few years. And I think that's because it's literally the

Orange Man Bad effect. They've associated school choice and charter schools with Trump. Therefore they were against it even when they were in favor of it, you know, just a few years ago when those polls were taken. So I think we're seeing the bottom fall out. But it's interesting to me that Bernie's view is tracking white Democratic voters. He's not been doing as well in the polls for a variety of reasons with minority Democratic voters, and this position of his is not going to help him there

because the majority of minority crap support charter school. Inez Felcher, Statman, everybody, lady who knows a thing or two about education, Senior contributor at the Federals and as thanks so much for joining. We'll talk to you soon. Thanks for hatting, but that's always good to be in the Freedom Hut team. We'll be right back. Some big stories out there involving not just national security, but specifically of enemy combatants and war crimes and what's going on with those who serve, how

are they being treated by this country? A couple of stories coming together here. Also a possible situation unveiling right now that could change the way people view the Trump administration, and it's pardon powers. We've got a lot of things to work through here. We're joined by our friend Tyler Merritt to work through them all. He is the CEO

of nine Line Apparel. Nineline has in the past been a fantastic sponsor here on the show, but Tyler is a veteran of the special operations community himself and a good friend of mine, as well as being a stalwart patriot and a great all around dude. Tyler, thank you so much for giving us your time. No, thank you so much for having me on. All right, man, let's let's start. So we got two very different stories but both getting a lot of attention in military community, national

security community. Let's start. Let's start with Eddie Gallagher. So this guy's a Navy seal who is accused of war crimes, at least in the press. Can you give us some of the background on this story to tell us what we need to know? And then why is it that No, all of a sudden, this has risen all the way up to the President having discussions and the possibility of a pardon, and people are really fired off about this. What's happening? Sure? So, kind of like the Mulla Reports,

several hundred pages. Most people don't read it. They just like to look at the headlines and then very similar situation occurred. New York Times reporter decided to release this story about Eddie Gallagher, the murderer, a guy who likes to go oversee and snipe young women with this sniper rifle, and he likes to stab children. And that's the story

that was pushed out. Fast forward to a few months later, where I actually had the opportunity to watch a lot of video that was held by the Navy, this exculpatory evidence that we talked about last time, and it shows very clearly that Eddie Gallagher did not commit any type of murder. He attempted to provide first age for this isis combatant, this fighter who had received wounds from from bombs that we dropped. We killed forty individuals. He was one that was left alive and he eventually died to

come to those wounds. Fast forward a year plus later, and there were a few inappropriate pictures that were taken after this individuals died, and that's what was published that this Navy seal committed murder, no substantiated evidence, no corroborative evidence, and he finds himself in prison for almost eight months until people became very outspoken. The President became aware, and he ordered his release from prison while he defended himself

so he could have access to counsel. Well, since then he was put in conditions that were commensurate with prison conditions. He wasn't allowed to speak with his attorney without a command representatives president, and then they would take the phone away because it was a phone used by the military and they needed it. So that is extremely embarrassing to say that this individual has presumed guilty and then giving no actual rights to adequate counsel. And then take it

one step further. The Navy has admitted to putting tracking software on files that were released to the Defense counsel, and when that defense counsel pushed it on to other entities in the Air Force and other military entities, that track software went into those computers all the way up to the President of the United States. Attorney has malware that allows the Navy to access all files on that computer,

which is wildly illegal. So you have an individual been put in prison for the better part of a year, presumed guilty, condemned widely by the leftist media, to include my favorite two time failed presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, saying that the possibility of Trump pardoning this individual as atrocious, and I would say to everyone who's listening to learn the facts, to learn that the president has been given the information and this is a big embarrassment in the Navy.

As the commander in chief, I think it's a wise decision to put an end to this madness. Who is against Eddie Gallagher? I mean you mentioned these leftists, but why do they believe, I mean, based on what do they think that this, this decorated navy seal is a heinous work from I mean, this is this is what they're spreading around them and I see some of this on social media. What makes them believe? It's very easy

to pass judgment on individuals that you don't understand. So there is a prejudice and there's a lack of understanding. So what had occurred is that Eddie Gallagher took pictures with him and a substuon makes next to the deceased, with the caption that was sent out saying something to the effect I got them with my hunting manif by Bully Eagle allegedly, And this is what sparked the controversy. And what people don't understand, well, that's not right, you

know that that's not condoned within UCMJ. It's not murder. It's something that requires tunitive action if it's true, but you don't go to prison for it. So the jumping to the conclusion that this individual committed murder based on the circumstantial evidence at best, there's no civilian court system in the world where this would have occurred. It's only in the outdated UCMG actions. And if he sound guilty, he will go to prison for the rest of his life.

The mandatory minimum sentience is life in prison. So this twenty year Navy sealed decorated war hero could go to prison for the rest of his life for a crime that he wholehearted did not commit. Yet a isis Taliban fighter, piece of you know what is released from prison after

seven I wanted to get to that. Next, we're speaking of Tyler Matt Everybody's CEO of nine Line Apparel and Special Operations veteran Tyler John Walker Lenz getting out getting out a few years early, seventeen years into a twenty year sentence for betraying his country. Somebody who was out there on the battlefield tracking down all manner of bad guys. What does it say to you, what do you take from an American who was willing to take up arms on the other side of that battlefield from you and

your brothers over there in Afghanistan. Yeah, so there's a mandatory minimum sentence for a hero like Eddie Gallagher to go to jail for committing murder overseas on Talivin fighter, which he couldn't do. I would hope I would have hoped that there was a mandatory minimum sentence for any American who decides to take up arms against America. And I know that he stated that he didn't actively participate. He just carried weapons and grenades and helped them with propaganda.

And guess what, everything that you just stated that is aiding a foreign enemy that's attempting to murder us. So you should go in jail and rotten jail for the rest of your life, no questions asked. I don't even know why this is a debate, because you're you're not setting the right precedent. You join the Navy, become a seal, potentially go to prison for the rest of your life based on speculatory evidence, or join isis I worry about it? You'll be in prison for maybe twenty years get out

for good behavior. What kind of an example are we trying to set. It's it's the fact that this is both happening this week, these two stories. And I know that we have a higher expectation, of course of those who fight on our side than on any side, but

particularly for something like the Taliban and al Qaeda. And people need to understand that at the time that John walker Lynde, John walker Lynde went and spent time in Bin Laden's guesthouse, I mean this, he was there when it was al Qaeda and the Taliban in a synergistic relationship as one. So this isn't some oh it's a native insurgency fighting against which is also not true even now.

But he was there when when al Qaeda was deeply in match and meshed in this group, and after nine to eleven, that he would have been fighting with them is just is just utterly appalling me. WHI I got Eddie Gallagher people in the press. I mean, I think it's fair to say, uh, Tyler, that there are people in the press who want to see Eddie Gallagher, if not swinging from the gallows rod in prison forever without knowing the full fat. Yeah, it's much easier to just

jump on the bandwagon. And when the New York Times and some other media outlets are are putting out false narratives, Navy seal kills children, Navy seal kills women, that's what they read, that's what they start talking about. Then they start jumping to how can they set the example, how can they be the standard bearer and stand up for those poor innocent children of Iraq. Well, this is the seventeen year old military's mail who we tracked. He was.

I mean, you were in the CIA. You understand that. You know there's devices that people carry stupidly, and we track them and then we drop bombs on them. And that's what occurred this day. And then afterwards the chaos of Mosul. Eddie comes along and sees that this individual is being drugged from a humdi by Iraqi forces. And he walks through and says, I got this, and he starts providing. First date, that's what occurred, then pictures. Then

pick four a week context before we'll let you go. Tyler, it is moral Dale on Monday, and you're a veteran. I know that your company nine Line Apparel employs a lot of veterans. I know it's not Veterans Day when we think of Memorial Day. Obviously, these are two things that are inextrincably and forever linked those who lost their lives in battle as well as those who served. What do you just want to say to everybody out there? What should what should be on their minds as we

go into a long weekend. We're look, people are supposed to take time off re lack to be with family, enjoy themselves. But if you're going to reflect on Monday, what should they be reflecting on? Hey, listen, a lot of people get upset and they say, hey, this is Memorial Day, not Veterans Day. Don't thank me, thank the people that laid down their lives for all of us. And I think you can have a great time. You can have a barbecue, you have your friends over drinks

and alcohol. At some point, take a moment, take a second, get everyone to bow their heads or enter into any type of moment of silence, and just remember those who've paid the ultimate sacrifice. And if you don't know of someone, do a simple Google research, because there's a lot of unsound heroes out there. I'm sure from your local town, your local community, that should be honored and should be remembered.

So I just ask and implore you to do little brow research, have fun, but pay some homage to those who who are no longer with us. Tyler Mares, CEO, Tyler Merritt's CEO of nine Line Apparel, Tyler, my friend, thank you so much for joining us, and thank you for your service, sir, Thank you all right, team, we'll do some roll call when we come back. Ain't no party like a team Buck party, because a Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up to eleven.

It's time for a role call Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. That is how you get in on this role call action, my friends, please do let's get to it, Adam Bucks. Since every one of the president's decrees are taken to court, why not sign like three hundred of them with minor, non impacting language and keep all the

parties and judges so busy that it gets through shields high. Well, Adam, what you're referring to here, and I don't know if this could really work, but you're saying, essentially, why don't we go Olynsky in response to Olynsky height tactics, and you know that's not what Trump did. But what Trump did do to become president was just to sign that no, I'm not playing by their rules anymore. I'm not playing by the O. Republicans have to be good, honorable people

with no skeletons in the closet. Democrats get to be Hillary Clinton. Democrats get to be the Clintons, or they get to have their political career launched in the living room of a admitted domestic terrorists like Bill Aires. Oh that's right, Barack Obama. Democrats can get away with all kinds of things because they don't really profess to have principles. They're just vessels for the achievement of or the achieving of power, whereas Republicans, it's all you know, this republic.

You always hear us being accused of hypocrisy by the left when we're just imperfect. But we do try to have principles. We do state and defend those principles. Doesn't mean that we always live up to them. Democrats, The funny hypocrisy from them is that they don't pretend to have any principles to live up to. Most of the time, it all depends on how useful they are to the cause.

And that's how you see so many of these horrifically immoral or amoral or both democrats out there who keep getting put into positions of authority in power despite the fact that they don't even deny the behavior that would be such an egregious offense to so many normal human beings. So yep, that's what I got for you on that, my friend, whether we could do this thing with the court saying, I don't know, it's an interesting idea. You

raise an interesting point by bringing it up. K Rights, Hey Buck, thanks for telling us about your trip to China. I lived in Shanghai, so it was fun getting your take on the food. I thought everything was terrible. One thing I think is mentioned worthy is that people don't realize you have to register with the police everywhere you go. Hotels will do this for you. But definitely maybe appreciate the US even more. Love your show Original Saturday Squad.

K Yeah, kay, I acted under the impression because it's real that my burner phone, I had a Chinese cell phone when I was over there, that everything I said and did was certainly being recorded, and some of it might have been actively monitored. And I don't think I'm some big deal, but to be an XCIA and current national media figure of whatever kind I am, that gets you high enough on the Chinese security services radar that it's very likely you're going to be monitored. I mean,

I look your cell phone. Keep in mind, your cell phone and everything you do on it is already stored in this country. It's just a question of whether there's active access to it and perhaps even monitoring of it. You know, without a court order. There's no court orders in China. They want to look at it, they look at it. They want to hear in real time, They hear in real time. There you have no individual rights. So that was a reminder. Look this country. And I

know I keep saying it, my friends. If you're having a tough day, if you're tired, if you're beaten down, if things haven't been going your way recently, just remember this. If you're listening to this in America and you're an American, this is the greatest country in the world. We are all so lucky to be living here at this time. And I know that doesn't make all the pain and all the frustration go away, not by any stretch of

the imagination. But at least I'm telling you. You know, you spend some time in a smog filled traffic jam of twenty million people where all the food is in brown sauce and nobody seems to have much of a sense of humor, you start to appreciate America. You start to appreciate America a lot of brown sauce, which usually has soy sauce, which is not good, Okay, not good for me because Celiac disease. Those who don't know, the number two ingredient in soy sauce is not soy, it's wheat.

Soy sauce is effectively wheat sauce, which which is poisoning someone like me. But I digress. I know some of you are like Buck, Celiac disease in your red beard are not that interesting? Well, it's interesting to me, Stephen writes Buck. What happened? The ihear radio podcasts haven't been able to download for days? Stephen, We've had some problem with the platform. Hey, at least I'm an America in see. I gotta tell myself that we had some problem with

the plot. We tried to upload it. It It didn't go. Hopefully it's uploaded now. I'm sorry if things have gotten delayed. It frustrates nobody more than it frustrates me when we don't have that podcast up and running right away. Mike. Right, Hey, Buck, glad to have you Backbud, Glad you made it back from China. We're not hearing about you being arrested for some kind of social act. Pretty harsh. All Aquaman thought was that it was pretty decent retelling of the story.

If you understand the different kingdoms, it would have made more sense to you. But as far as following the comic book line for an old comic book fan, they told the story pretty good, Mike. Maybe they told the story good, but the movie stunk. I'm sticking to my guns on that one. Or am I trident as it were? All right, Teane, that's gonna be it. Tomorrow from La I'll be with you live. Of course, I will talk to you then, have a fantastic evening. Shields High