Don't Be A Quid Pro Schmo

Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody. Last night I was taking a break from working on the book that I'm I'm tentatively calling Crushed the Commies, but I don't think that's actually going to be the title. But you'll find out the title eventually. It's coming out. I got a draft to drafts, gotta be in full draft before Christmas. I was writing, taking a moment to think about life

in the world. I turn on the TV. I don't know, maybe it was seven o'clock, eight o'clock at night and seven o'clock at night, I guess it was. And this hearing had been going on still for what was it eleven plus hours sitting there. I was like, oh, who thought that this was a good idea? I mean, this is absurd, asking a million questions about an unimportant event that didn't even happen, that nobody should care about. And liberals have somehow convinced themselves this is where Trump's supporters

are going to flee him. This is where independence will come over to their side, and maybe even Republican senators will vote to remove him from office, these people who have completely lost their minds. Was there? Did you order the quid pro quo? Remember that with Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, United States Marine Corps, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Remember that guy, the whole moment where he's asked, did you order the code? Read?

And that's the build up in the whole movies that it's a very watchable movie, even though it's really not that interesting if you think about the storyline. But anyway, it's okay, I've watched it many times. Did you order the quid pro quote? That is the question that I suppose we're dealing with now. Even though before we get into the thick of this, before we get down into the weeds, let's keep in mind. What have I been

telling you all along. I don't care if there was a quid pro quo investigating the twenty sixteen election Ukraine, Shenanigans, Biden and Bresma, is all legitimate for the president to request. I do not care. I don't know how. There is no statutory infringement here. If they don't like how the President of the United States uses his powers and his constitutional authority, that's what elections are for. That's not what impeachment is for. There is no abuse here. Just because

they don't like the thing that he asked about. That's not an abuse, right. But here we are being told that this is the moment that it all turns around. This is the incident that we look at and we think to ourselves, Oh my gosh, I simply can't handle

supporting this president anymore because of what I think. Maybe an ambassador said to another ambassador who heard from a guy who worked at the NSC, who talked to his brother, who talked to a lawyer who talked to the whistleblower that Trump wanted an investigation of Barisma and Hunter Biden. Oh no, so what I see I see here? And I ask from the beginning of You know, we can argue about whether there was a quid pro quot and how it's even possible to be upset over a quid

pro quo when nothing happened. The aid was not was not taken away from Ukraine, they got the money, and there was no investigation started of the bidens. So what are we talking about even with but that that goes deeper, that really plays the game from their side of the field, and I don't particularly want to do that. Notice how they've gone back to quid pro quot because bribery didn't work.

That was what they were trying, bribery, and before that it was an abuse of power, and before that it was a campaign finance violation, and after that it was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act according to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. I don't know changing it every day. If you have a real case to make against somebody, you don't change the charge every day. Well, today this

is pulling better, so we'll just say this thing. Tomorrow that one might be pulling better, so we'll say that thing. You have more testimony today, Ambassador Sonlon. I was watching it this morning. The guy actually kind of reminds me of the insurance salesman from Groundhog Day, Ned Ryerson. Oh hey, buddy, he bought whole life blah beady blah health insurance from me, remember from Groundhog Day? Or Bill Murray hugs the guy ned Ryerson. Anyway, it's Almond just kind of reminds me

of that actor. Very good comedic actor, by the way. That guy was fantastic in that role. So all right, we got this solon, Let's dig in this together, because folks, and this is it's wall to wall. The journals are all fired up about this. They think this really matters

so much they really want to talk about it. It's okay, So I think it's going to go on for like another twelve hours today, I mean, was endless yesterday, and then we'll get into some other components of this narrative also some other things talking about there's a Democratic debate tonight. I don't know if anyone wow, I don't know if anybody really cares, But there's a Democrat debate tonight. Mayor

Pete is surging. Maybe Mayor Pete is the Democrat savior that they have been waiting for, at least in terms of their primary campaign. May Or Pete's way up in New Hampshire, way up in highways. I'm just putting it. I've been telling you along, it's not gonna be Biden, just like I've been telling you along, doesn't matter if there's a quid pro quo, stick with the buckster, I don't. We don't have to do a lot of corrections here on this show. Oh I was way Sam tonight. I

was way off. So Sondlin, let's get to what he has to say. This is all about whether the storyline today they want you to take away from this. I'm gonna distill down for you, and this is, I hope why one of the reasons why I listened to this show. I will distill down for you everything that is said over you know that has that has been said today and was said yesterday, over the course of Lord knows how many hours of testimony into the very simple narratives.

The Democrats are then going to try to force free, try to ram down the throats of the American public to bring about the outcome of at least a change in public opinion that will politically disadvantage Trump going into reelection and maybe in their while this dreams perhaps get some Republicans in the Senate to start to go along with the possibility of removal, but I don't think. I mean,

that's just it's just not going to happen. I think the Democrats have never really even thought about what the implications would be if they removed Trump in that manner, after the leveraging and the manipulation of the deep state, and all the dishonesty not just from the media, but from very senior Obama appointees trying to get an investigation and successfully getting investigation of the president going based on lies, based on the abuse of power that was seen there.

If they managed to remove Trump from office, I would lose all faith in the American political system, and a lot of us who really do believe in this country in the constitution, would very quickly understand this place to be under direct threat, that the institutions that we have grown up with and that have we have defended, in some cases, for many of you defended with your lives by serving the armed forces, that they are corrupted and

perhaps corrupted beyond repair. Democrats are so shrill, they shriek so loudly with their hatred of Trump They don't seem to understand what the implications would be of getting what they want if they really remove this president based on this based on a phone call that a lot of people heard, and we'll get into this didn't think was a big deal, and based on a policy dispute that didn't lead to anything. And I mean, what they really believe that will just go that that things will return

to normal after that. I think that's one of the fundamental fallacies that the left indulges for itself, is that they that they'll be able to pretend this whole Trump thing never happened. And we're going to go back to a point where the elite media, the Libs, the Democrats could just sort of pat people on the heads and say this is the way this system is, this is the way the system in our government works. And a lot of Republicans, of course going along with them, don't.

There's a lot of machine GOP that needs to be swept away. But then that brings me to the storyline today. The one thing they're trying to get everybody to believe or to hear so many times that it will influence and affect their judgment, and that will change minds about the President of the United States. Did everybody know Mulvaney and Pompeo and well, at least everybody in the Trump's inner circle and Trump's inner circle, because we had a lot of testimony as from senior NFC guys. I will

say it's Vulker and this other guy, Morrison. They're square away dudes. They kind of remind me of some of the individuals that I worked with at the CIA in terms of their demeanor, in terms of their approach to their jobs, in that they were really spot on, They really know their brief They I thought they were impressive under that pressure, and you weren't really aware of what their politics were. I even though I forget the name,

but the aide depends yesterday. I don't think that she showed up as a We know who the partisans are, right, we know who the partisans are in this whole process. I mean Vinman and I love seeing yesterday. You know you had on Twitter Rob O'Neill, who's a Fox contributor guy I know a bit and has has never been shy on the Twitter, just saying all you need to know about Vinman. You found out when he insisted on

being called lieutenant colonel. People, people who serve, they don't flex like that because they don't have to unless they're trying to prove something, trying to do something a little weird. So I thought that was that was a noteworthy incident. But we know who the partisans are, and we know who the people are heard just showing up and telling

what they know about this. And the fact that Adam Schiff provides presides over all of this tells you really all you have to know about the legitimacy and the decency and the fairness of the proceeding, which is that there is none. But okay, you're supposed to believe that Mulvaney knew that Pompeio knew that everybody knew that the President had drawn a line in the sand about an

investigate getting dirt on his political opponents. That's what they we say, which I would note is a distortion, an intentional distortion of what has even said in the phone call. On the phone call in question, can you find out about what happened here? I've heard bad things. Is not the same as manufacture lies about my opponents so that

I can feed them to the press. That is what the Democrats did, by the way, with the dossier paid for by the DNC, using foreign sources, running into the fires accord, corrupting the top of the DOG and the FBI under Obama. So they already know all about that, They know how to do that. That's not what happened here. They keep saying, get dirt on your political opponent. Is there dirt? Are they are? They taking it as already established that there must be. So the only reason you'd

ask for dirt is if there is dirt. So I guess the Biden situation Ukraine is perhaps shadier than they've been willing to admit up to this point. That's an interesting, an interesting admission that I don't think they intended. They keep saying this though, I'll get dirt on the opponent, there's nothing wrong and I will not veer from this. Nothing will change my mind about this, because it's so

obvious when you think about it. There's nothing wrong with requesting a look from a foreign counterpart at what happened in the twenty sixteen election. There are active DJ investigations right now about that matter. The Democrats all they could talk about for over two years was that, but they had they were in control of that and they knew it. They had Weissman, their little attack guy going after Trump with all those little Democrats. So they were fine with

investigations then. But now the shoe is on the other foot. Now the other side maybe gets to take a look under the hood and see what's going on. H okay, But we're told that there was a quid pro quo, that the president's top advisors all knew about this, and that is Sonlin's position, Except there's one problem with that. As he is saying this, don't looks Sonlin is a You know, this is another example. Maybe we shouldn't a point ambassadors based on how much money they're raised for presidents.

But that is what ends up happening. This guy who was ambassador to EU, he's a hotelier and you know, he is a Trump pointe who raised money for Trump. So Trump doesn't appoint the best people. Never gonna change my mind on that. Trump Trump does not have the best people. I don't hear him say that anymore because he doesn't. He does not have good instincts about human beings. It's just real good instincts about politics, good instincts about

fighting back against the opposition. But when it comes to picking the best people, I mean, I'm sitting here in my White House Press Secretary Trumpster, you're missing out. But here's the problem with Sonlin's point of view on all this. Please, producer, Mark, would you play twenty six from this morning's hearing. Do you have any reason to doubt Ambassador Taylor's testimony, which

he said was based on his meticulous contemporaneous notes. President Trump never told me directly that the AID was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Juliani was that the barissima in two thousand and sixteen elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The AID was my own personal you know guests, based again on your analogy two plus two equals for so you didn't talk to President Trump. When Ambassador Taylor says that that's

what you told him, is that your testimony here? My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections. So you never heard those specific words, correct, right, but never heard those words. So the president draws, we are to believe just follows through just applot logic. Forget about it Akham's razor, my man, just go to it this way, the President draws this line in the sand, you must do these investigations. You must.

But nobody has ever told this in a meaningful and straightforward way. Nobody his policy chain of command seems to remember the President saying that this must happen or else. Maybe he said he wanted them investigate me. It was important. Maybe, but you know the whole thing, here's the quid pro quo. Nobody remembers being told us. And somehow the investigations didn't happen, and there were no consequences from the investigations not happening.

So if this was a quid pro quote, it was the worst one anyone has ever come up within history. And this is why you can't believe the narrative that they're trying to feed you on this one. You can't believe the story they're telling you. Don't be a quid pro quot, Schmo. Don't listen to the fake news on this. The Democrats fake outrage that President Trump used his own

channel to communicate with Ukraine. Or remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that our first president George Washington directed his own diplomatic channels to secure a treaty with Great Britain. If my Democratic colleagues were around in seventeen ninety four, they'd probably want to impeach him too. Yep, probably would. This is something that has left out of the feverish media coverage. Oh my gosh, Trump and the abuse of power and all over. Really, Oliver sat Biden,

they're going to do this guy. I think he's seventy eight years old today, by the way, and not going to be there their primary victor. But the president can appoint people to act on his behalf and foreign policy. Presidents have done this, as Devin Nun has pointed out. But you don't hear that. There's always this talk of the unofficial channels. Rudy Giuliani is skulking around in corners and just you knowing, wringing his hands and just how can I, how can I undermine policy? He's a policy

emissary of the President of the United States. The President's allowed to do that. Presidents allowed to conduct secret diplomacy, is allowed to have people doing diplomacy in his behalf present is allowed to do this. Folks. Media doesn't want to tell you that ah, but as predictable as night follows day the better On CNN Witness implicates Trump, Oh my gosh, implicates him in what ask that question? What is the crime? What is there an anti quid pro

quos statute? Because all foreign policy is based on quid pro quos all the time. Their entire case hinges on whether or not the public understands the request. It's not it wasn't a demand, it wasn't enforced. The request for a look from a foreign counterpart into issues of concern to this country, including twenty sixteen and whether there was corruption going on in Ukraine and whether that corruption directly touched on the Biden relationship in Ukraine. Is that a

legitimate request or not. I'm here to tell you it is a legitimate request. Do not listen to what they are trying to feed you. Oh my gosh, getting dirt on his opponent? Is that what he said? Did Trump say, Hey, can you guys just give me give me something? Just makes have one of your guys rite up a memo about how Hunter Biden took a duffel bag full of cash under the table to tell his dad not the you know, to get the prosecutor fired or whatever it was. Oh,

he said, I've heard bad things. Can you look it? Can you look into this and get us some answers on the situation now in a crowd strike, the Ukrainian server situation that is perhaps not as strong a case, that's not territory that is quite as valid for this, But the twenty sixteen election in Ukraine over all is very valid, my friends. And I will get into why I'm gonna pose this question to you, and I will

return to it in a moment. But and byron Yorke, who is just he's just this understated, steady hand in writing about this and covering this issue. Who just he lets his writing, He lets his thoughts do the talking for him. He's not a lot of bluster. He's not running around calling people out. He's just like, what about this? How about that? Anyone want to take a look at this? And he's very, very consistently I think, insightful on these matters of not just impeachment, but Russia collusion and all

the rest of it. I mean, there's a whole crew Andy McCarthy, Byron York, Molly Hemingway, I mean, these people have been correct on this all along. Which I think should matter, and ones CNN and MSNBC keep putting these people on TV or are like, oh my gosh, any day now the walls are closing in on no false, it's not true. It wasn't happening, but it was I suppose good for ratings, good for ratings at the time.

But I would want to take you to a piece that Byron has written where he goes through what if Trump is right about Ukraine? They just hold that thought for him because I have to get a little more of this testimony today on what they're saying, Oh qui pro quo They're back to this now because sounds shady, And I do think that the White House and the Republicans have made a rhetorical mistake by saying there was

no qui pro quote. Mick mulvaney was actually right, but it was counter the narrative the White House was putting out at the time. He was right when he said the quit pro quos happened all the time in form I mean the way he said it wasn't excellent. But the truth is that Mick mulvaney was more on target here because quit pro quos aren't something that foreign policy doesn't just have it's a it's not a bug, it's a feature. It is central to how you do this.

So if the President has a valid a valid request, or a valid national interest, or just an valid interest for it for the administration of the in the executive branch of the United States government, he is allowed. There's nothing improper with him asking about that matter. There's nothing improper with him requesting more information or even an investigation from a counterpart about that. You you must remember this

because they want you to. They want you to forget all about that aspect of this debate and just skip right too. Well, if he conditioned aid for the you know, for the Ukrainians based on whether they would look into his political rivals. Did did President Trump make Hunter Biden take fifty thousand dollars a month while daddy was running foreign policy in Ukraine? No? He did not. Is that a legitimately shady and perhaps even corrupt arrangement? Yes, it is.

Have far less credible and serious things been investigated ferociously by Democrats over the course of the two year Special Counsel, as well as you know, everything else they throw to this president. Of course, of course, look at the way they went after the Stormy Daniel hush money hush money payments, which they were trying to say might have been a non criminal campaign finance violation. That that's what they're gonna

go with. It's it's it's mind boggling. There is plenty of reason to look into whether there was a corrupt situation between the Bidens and Barisma in Ukraine. It is just reality. Everyone can pretend like, no big deal, it's not illegal. Well it's a big deal because it is unethical. It was gross. That's established. What happened was gross. Hunter Biden is an imbecile. He was getting paid fifty grand a month because of who daddy was, because daddy had

a lot of power in your name. The daddy in this case, Joe Biden, was acting on behalf of the Obama administration, who was your president and my president at the time. He was acting on behalf of the American people, carrying that weight, carrying that power. And there was at least the appearance of corruption. So why can't we look into this and find out if there was more than that?

How could we know if there was something explicitly illegal, Yes, a quid pro quo of corruption unless we asked our counterparts and found out more about what was happening here. They just wave all of this away. I tell you, there's nothing to see here. Everything is fine. Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, never have an error in judgment like that.

You know, Hunter Biden, the drug addict who got kicked out of the Naval Reserves as a public affairs officer within six months of getting his commission because of who his dad was for failing a drug test for I believe it was crack cocaine. That guy would never have an error of judgment that would implicate the Vice president of the United States. No, of course not. How stupid do they think we really are? Unfortunately quite stupid, it seems,

because at least today they believe they're winning. They're cheering, they think they finally got Trump. They're finally going to hammer this whole thing until we give up and Trump is in real trouble. Here is part of what Solomon said this morning. Play twenty three producer Mark Everyone was

in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was in armed Via email On July nineteenth, days before the presidential call, as I communicated to the team, I told President Zolenski in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump on July nineteenth, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated,

had breakfast with Rudy this morning. That's Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani teeing up call with your mac monday that senior Advisor Andre yourmack must have helped. Most important is for Zolensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues if there are any. None of that is illegitimate to me at all, assuming if that's all true, which still seems a little bit hazy. But I'm not even arguing with the truth of it

as a necessary defense of Trump. I'm just saying, even if all that is true, Yeah, Ukraine's like the most corrupt country on planet Earth. The son of the vice president is getting fifty thousand dollars a month. There are prosecutors getting fired who are supposed to be rooting out corruption.

There's all kinds of shenanigans which I will get into of Ukrainian government officials publicly, and this is on the record speaking out against Trump during the election, but no investigations all of a sudden, Democrats, you know, investigations are kryptonite. The Democrats are vampires, and investigations are the sunlight coming out catching on fire. What's wrong with finding out what happened here? I thought they love finding out what happened.

We just went through a two and a half year long special counsel debacle that in the end told us, you know, maybe some stuff happened with the obstruction of the investigation, but really the investigation never needed to happen because there was no Trump Russia collusion. Oh, that investigation

was totally legitimate, totally necessary. Though it is not what a baudism to look at these issues and say, hold on a second, when you have this other concern, when there was another situation like this, did you apply the principle equally? Are democrats applying principles and rule of law and expectations of government officials equally to both sides? If someone says, yes, there are moron, that's where we are. Clearly.

The principle, the regulation, the interpretation, the ethical expectation is changing every day depending on who well, is this going to affect the Democrats? It's going to affect a Republican. Is Trump the person that's going to get in trouble because of this? Or is somebody that we like as Democrats going to get in trouble because of this? And

that's all the matter. Ambassador Taylor in a WhatsApp message to Ambassador Sonland Taylor, as I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign, Sonland, Bill, I believe you're incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelenski promised during his campaign.

I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I can recommend you give Lisa Kenna or s a call to discuss them directly. Thanks. What what so? As the Ambassador Solan saying no qui, the President has said no quid pro quos. If a bunch of little confused bureaucrats running around in circles worried about you know who's in charge of of their portfolio, and who as the directear of the president, and who's

pushing most effectively on foreign counterparts. I know how all these like State Department people talk, you know, circle the loop and circle back and close the loop, and you know all this stuff, all this bureaucrats they speak and all the time. If they were confused about the president's intentions, that's on them. And if Rudy Giuliani was running around throwing elbows and that ruffled some feathers, and maybe some people got confused about what he wanted, or maybe Rudy

went a little rogue. I like Rudy, but that's on him. Otherwise, I need someone to explain to me how something that would need to be as clear for it to have any impact as a quid pro quo, you do this or else. We have all these people talking about this, but there was no real establishment of what was supposed to be done, and there never wasn't or else. And even if those things were true, I said here and I tell you fine, he's a president of the United States.

Keep hearing people say, well, you know, the president was going against the interagency consensus. The president wasn't wasn't conducting the foreign policy of the United States. No, he he is when the President says, this is the foreign policy of the the United States, it is the foreign policy of the United States. That's what the Libs and the deep Staters and the mainstream media don't I believe. I just asked him an open ended question, mister chairman, what do

you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want? And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood, and he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing, I want no quid pro quote. Tell lives Lenski to do the right thing, something to that effect. I want nothing, tells Lenski to do the right thing. That that's what the president. You know. I know this president is mercurial and his mind a lot

and everything else. But maybe there was just some confusion about what was real here. Maybe there was some confusion about whether the president what the president's real intentions were. Here is one of the problems we run into Democrats. And you see this not just in this impeachment mess, but you see it in a new legal jurisprudence that democrats apply to this president and only to this president, where it no longer matters if what he did is

strictly speaking, within his power or legal or constitutional. They decide because they can see into his heart, they understand his intentions, they know who he really is on the inside. They decide that it is de facto illegitimate because Trump is doing it. Perfect example of this would be with the so called Muslim ban. Turn out, the Supreme Court said, yeah, you can. You're allowed to ban people from these countries

that your president. The statute that Congress wrote that says you can do this, and you can just do it. It's up to the president's discretion. They don't think this president is allowed to have presidential discretion because they don't accept that he's really the president. That's what is also playing out through this whole debate over what was going

on in Ukraine and what he said. And you see, even if the president is legally speaking a lot which he is allowed to tell a foreign counterpart, Hey, can you look into this issue? I want answers that is the sum total of what action occurred. Can you look into the following thing twenty sixteen, You know Burisma and Ukraine and the Bidens. He is completely legally entitled to do that. There is no legal prohibition against any of this. That.

Oh yeah, it would be bad for Joe Biden if it turned out that they found real corruption involving his son or something. Doesn't mean that Trump doesn't have that authority anymore. Oh but they just take it. The left and the Libs take it to a special place where because Donald Trump is the one making the request, it is inherently illegitimate because he is bad. He is evil, Orange Man, bad and evil. That's all. Everything else is just trying to, you know, put more more adornments and

babbles on the tree, so to speak. And I'm just trying to add meat to the bone. I haven't used the word babbles in a long time. I don't know where that came from. All right, team, let's go deep down the rabbit hole here for a second together. What if Trump was right about Ukraine. This is an analysis that Byron Or has put out from the Washington Examiner, and it just lays out what I have, what is essentially an argument or at least information data points that

bolsters what I've been saying all along to you. Which is that looking into the Bidens and Ukraine and Barisma is an entirely legitimate exercise. In fact, it would be legitimate from my perspective, to have the Department of Justice look into those matters. Which if Trump really wanted to just go after Biden as aggressively as possible, he could do, right, he could say, you know, look, I need the attorney the Attorney general. People would say, oh, would ever publicly

do this? I mean, tell the Attorney General. I want, I want answers about what happened in Ukraine, look into it. Open the investigation. There is no special immunity from investigation for Senator for issues that touch upon Senator Joe Biden or his family. There's certainly no immunity for investigation as far as Libs are concerned. When it comes to Trump, they claim there's immunity from prosecution, right, and that's what's been said now as well by the White House. We'll

see if that's true. They would love to bring charges

against him. But let's just go over some of the facts. Yesterday, I read to you from that Politico article and that political article, and that was at a time when there was a belief that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to be the president, and Obama's foreign policy apparatus was tightly enmeshed in situations going on in Ukraine and his ambassadors, his appointees, Obama's we're running foreign policy in that country, and political did this story though, on how there were

people at the Ukraine embassy, employees of the Ukrainian government who were trying to be helpful to their American and in this case under a Democrat administration counterparts, to give information damaging that is damaging to President Trump, specifically information about Paul Manafort and his dealings in Ukraine. But that, my friends, would be for an interference in an election,

wouldn't it. This is what we've always been told that even if, for example, nothing was exchange in a meeting between Donald Trump Junior and Jared Kushner and all the rest at Trump Tower, just sitting down and listening to somebody who said they had information about Hillary Clinton that they said that was treason at one point, which is insane, by the way, These people are nuts. But I got to put that aside for a moment. So the political

story still stands. There were journalists at that time who were willing to look into this and find out that there were Ukrainian government officials that seem to want to help Hillary, and we should know about that. We should also know if those Democrat appointees in the State Department apparatus were perhaps even not just happy to try to get that information. But we're giving them instructions, collection requirements, if you will, saying hey, go get this for me,

Go get that for me. First up Byron new York's piece here government Minister's attack. During the summer of twenty sixteen, candidate Trump was under constant criticism for being insufficiently critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin. From Ukraine's perspective, Trump's Crimea statements were linked to the presence of Paul Manafort in the Trump campaign. First hired in March of twenty sixteen to organize delegate support, Manaport was promoted to campaign chairman

in June. Trump's comments on Crimea set off a strong reaction in Ukraine. Some high ranking members of the Ukrainian government took to social media in an attempt to influence as best they could the US presidential race. Arzin Avakov, at that time, the Interior Minister, tweeted that Trump was a quote clown, and added that the Republican candidate was quote an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism. That's the Interior minister of Ukraine. Oh yeah, yeah, that

seems like somebody has something to say. On Facebook, Avakov wrote, the shameless statement of you President candidate Donald Trump on the possible recognition of crimea as Russia is a diagnosis of a dangerous outcast. He is dangerous both for Ukraine and the US to the same extent, an outcast bowing down to Putin's dictatorship cannot be the guaranteur of democratic freedoms in the US and the world. Avacov suggested Manaphort was responsible for Trump's position. Where will Manafort take Trump,

Avacov asked. He completed the post by adding a photo of a mural in Vilnius portraying Trump and Putin in a passionate kiss, which is popular in hashtag resistant circles around the world. End quote here from this Byron York

piece in the Washington Examiner. Okay that no, remember what we're establishing here is the context the environment in twenty sixteen in Ukraine and Kiev, which everyone says, now I used to be Kiev, right, But ever now all the cool kids say Kiev, just like no one says the Ukraine now ever knows it's just Ukraine was in Kiev at the embassy there. What were the sentiments like of the government before Zelenski came in? Right? What what was

going on in this Ukrainian regime at the time. And the answer is that you had very, very top figures who were decidedly openly anti Trump and worried about Trump. And not just they didn't like him, but they were worried about a Trump presidency because I mean the recognition, for example, of Crimea's legitimate, that would be an enormous slap in the face to Ukraine. They would completely freak out about that. And so you start thinking, we'll hold

on a second. Explain to me, then, the lengths that these different Ukrainian politicians and ministers and officials would be willing to go to to prevent an American president from winning a US election that could result in a cutoff of the aid that we've all been told is so near and dear to the Ukrainians and fighting against the Russians, a friendly voice for Putin and recognition of Crimea none of those things, by the way, I ended up being true,

which also makes one think how much of the perception of these Ukrainian officials was driven by Democrat Obama administration appointees and employees in Ukraine, Americans who were telling the Ukrainians, if Trump wins, you guys are screwed. I'm just I'm just putting we're working through this together. Okay. So there's

clearly motive. And we already have one individual here, the Interior minister not sting, you know, not a coffee boy that no one's ever heard of, Okay, the Interior Minister of Ukraine saying that Trump is a huge danger and it's terrible and he's awful. M interesting back to this Byron York piece. At about the same time, a former prime minister arsny yat sen Yuk it's a fun name to say, made the case that Trump's statement on Crimea

and Putin made his campaign fair game for Ukrainians. Trump's comments quote go beyond any form of domestic political campaigning. Yet Saniok, Yet, Saniok wrote, an official candidate for the United States presidential election, has challenged the very values of the free world, civilized world order. And international law. This guy's a former Prime minister of Ukraine. Let's be like, I imagine if you know, George W. Bush is writing that about somebody and they're like, oh, but there was

no anti sentiment from the government. M strange, isn't it. What about Donald Trump? Oh? Sorry, what Donald Trump said about crimea today? Yet, Sanioch wrote, might tamarrow extend to some other part of the world, in Europe, Asia or the Americas? And that makes it worrisome for everyone, for everyone, including apparently perhaps employees of the Ukraine embassy, or rather employees of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry working with and interacting

with Americans at the embassy in Kieth. Perhaps we wouldn't really know, though, would we, unless we had a full accounting of this, unless there was an investigation of this. Number two here environs list. The ambassador takes a position at about the same time as a government minister and a former top official. We're taking to social media. Ukraine's ambassador to the US, Valerie Chalie, wrote an op ed

published in The Hill. He used much more temperate language, but he said that Trump's statements on I have raised serious concerns in Kiev and beyond Ukraine, and they were in sharp contrast to the Republican Party platform, and they were in contrast to bipartisan support for sanctions against Russia. So the acting or the actual ambassador from Ukraine to the United States wrote or op ed at the Hill or I used to work saying, yeah, Trump's really bad

on this stuff. Guys, We're really worried. M But I mean we think that Ukraine in the government, there no one working for it, tried to help Hillary. Right, That's that's the premise we're told, and anybody it's a debunk conspiracy theory to say otherwise. Okay. Then he goes into Leshenko and the black Ledger. He is a member of former member or I think still a member of parliament.

This is Leshenko now and quote. A few weeks after Trump's statements about Crimea in August of twenty sixteen, Leshenko took on a new task. On August twenty eighth, the Financial Times publish a story Ukraine's leaders campaign against pro Putin Trump, which began for years. Sarah Leshenko, a top Ukrainian anti corruption campaigner, worked to expose kleptocracy under former president Victor Yannakovich. Now he is focusing on a new

perceived pro Russian threat to Ukraine US presidential candidate Donald Trump. Okay, how many more powerful government and anti corruption and anti Russian figures in the Ukrainian government apparatus do we have to find who are openly deeply opposed to Trump winning the presidency in twenty sixteen because of his Ukraine policy, before we think well, maybe maybe Ukrainians did kind of want to help out Hillary a little bit. I'd be a little be a little strange, right, And then we

get to the mysterious Alexandra Chalupa. The Trump Ukraine bruhaha has shed light on the activities of a woman named Alexander Chalupa, who worked in the Clinton White House and later with Democratic National Committee. Chalupa's parents emigrated the US from Ukraine, and she maintained strong ties to the US American sorry to the American Ukrainian diaspora, and the US

Embassy in Ukraine. This was, according to a twenty seventeen January twenty seventeen article in Politico, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. Politico reported in twenty fourteen Chalupa had a client or that. In twenty fourteen, Chalupa had a client interested in the Ukrainian crisis. As part of that, she began looking into Manifort's activities in Ukraine. Julupa developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalist,

government officials, in private intelligence operatives. When Trump was leading the Republican presidential nominating contest, Chalupa began focusing her research on him. In March of twenty sixteen, Chalupa went to the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington and shared her concerns with

Ambassador Chali and one of his deputies. Not long after, Chalupa spoke again with the DNC and, according to Politico, with the d n c's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to interview arrange an interview in which President Poroshenko would discuss Manaforts ties to Yannikovich. The embassy said no, but was helpful. According to Chalupa, my friends, this is

a lot of evidence. It's a lot of evidence of anti Trump feelings in Ukraine from the previous Ukrainian government and involving the previous administration in this country's political appointees and even some d nc APO researchers were any was any of this investigator has an even looked into any of this What really happened here? Here's a problem for Democrats.

I am quite confident that if there was a real look into all of this, we would find out that Democrat channels somehow got information from Ukrainian counterparts about Paul Manafort, who then became the single biggest target other than Trump, of course, but the single biggest criminal target of the entire Russia collusion probe. A lot of these people really hated Manafort, and people knew early on who the Manafort was going to be in a lot of trouble, which

also why the Trump campaign fired him. That's a whole other thing. So what would it mean though, for this whole narrative about foreign interference and you know, getting involved in our elections if it turns out the Democrats themselves were taking a thing of value, as they call it, information about the opposing political campaign's campaign chairman from a foreign government, getting oppo research from a foreign government, and

then pretending like nothing ever happened. And then what would we think about all of the things they've said about Wiki leagues and Russia and Russian interference was Ukraine, And by Ukraine I mean was the previous Ukrainian administration which was clearly terrified of Trump's reported fondness for Putin in Russia, which as we know, was not even an accurate way to describe a situation, but or describe what has happened certainly since he came into office. But was that Ukrainian

government trying to help Hillary win the election? Did the Democrats invite that help and did they know about it? I can't tell you yet the answer is one hundred percent yes, But I can tell you it certainly looks more than likely that would be the case. And if that is the case, all of this stuff that they I mean, we would have to go back and look again and everything that they have said about Russia collusion

and all the rest of it. And ultimately it would mean that Trump's request to look into twenty sixteen and corruption and Barisma and the bidens, because that was all swirling around at this time in twenty sixteen, that would have been one hundred percent acceptable, legitimate, and beyond any reasonable doubt, the exercise of presidential power in a way that is of benefit not just to the President, but

to the United States as a whole. So they're going to have to do everything they can to suppress this. They're going to have to do everything they can to make sure that we can't even investigate where all these data points I show you, we think that they're not going to find out anything. I think that what are the Democrats things going to happen? The way won the Senate can call witnesses, can subpoena people. When they put Alexandra Chaloupa under oath, when they put Hunter Biden under oath,

you reap what you sew. Democrats, it doesn't matter because right now you have a kangaroo court headed by little shifty chef where we don't have lawyers, we don't have witnesses, we don't have anything. And yet I just got to watch and the Republicans are absolutely killing it. They are doing so well because it's a scam. It's a big scam.

They're doing something that the founders never thought possible, and the founders didn't want, and they're using this impeachment hoax for their own political gain to try and damage the Republican Party and damage the president. But it's had the opposite effect, because you've seen the polls and we're now the highest. I'm the highest I've ever been in the polls. You don't hear that on television because the news that

the Democrats are the same. But that's the story. I certainly think the President is right that it's a scam. But I want to bring in my friend David Harsani. He is a senior writer at National Review. Has got great takes on this short form and long form. David, appreciate you coming back on the program. Always a pleasure, I think for having all. I mean, what are your takeaway? You know, Salmon today, everyone on the left, all the Democrats making a huge deal about this, which I want

your your overall. So what of where we are right now in this impeachment mess? Well, I mean, I guess I'm of two minds. One is that it's very hard for me to get excited about anything that's going on because I think everyone understands that Trump asked the Ukrainian president to look into Biden's son. And if you think that that's an impeachable offense, you're for it. If if you don't, you're not. I don't think anything we're gonna

hear is gonna change that basic story, right. The thing is, people ask me, do you think it's impeachable offense, and answer, of course is yes. Anything that the House wants to impeach for is an impeachable fence if they feel like it didn't have the votes. The thing is a thing. A lot of Republicans feel like there are two sets of rules that we're living by, one for Democrats and one for them, and that Democrats have been trying to impeach this president from day one, so they're trying to

overturn the election. I don't like the word coup, but that's what people feel rightly so in many ways, so I think a lot of this is just political trying to weaken the president for twenty twenties not going to be removed, and it's kind of like we're just spinning our wheels of wasting our time. And yet there are so many people that I see over at some of the cable that works, for example, who like to invoke the Founding Fathers. Nancy Pelosi is practically in tears when

she talks about how Solomon occasion this is. Do you think that for most of the Democrat audience that all this theater is intended for. Are they just happy and sort of eating the popcorn while they watch people skewer Trump on TV? Or do you think that they really

believe that this is a fair process. I mean, I know I'm asking to kind of like assess mass opinion in a way, but but I'm just I'm just curious myself because I see this and I'm like, I don't I don't think it's possible to be an intelligent person and hear about how the president should be impeached starting right after the election, and then have all these different

reasons why he should be impeached all along. But now this time around with Adam Schiff running this ridiculous like you know, make it up as you go along political process. Now this is all solemn and serious. All that other stuff was supposed to be forgotten. I just don't think it's possible. Fuck. I will speak for the people. I think that anyone with two praint cells does not believe that this is some sort of defense of a constitution.

There is no constitutional imperative to impeache someone. Sure you can do it, but you know you have the same people who are who are doing everything, the counter to corrode the First Amendment, the Second, the fourth, the fifth to tenth telling me that they're protecting the Constitution by by impeaching Donald Trump. I hate to break this to everyone.

I'm not a big Donald Trump fan, but he has done He's not done anything worse, and he's probably been far better in protecting the Constitution than the presidents that have come before him. Whether he did it on purpose or not, I don't really care that much, you know. So you know, an Adam Schiff I think is the president's greatest friend. I mean, yeah, sometimes it's a criminal proceeding and sometimes you know, it's not a criminal proceeding, depending on what they want to do and when they

want to do it. It's all just so arbitrary that it just looks ridiculous. I mean, you watch I'm embarrassed to watch it, but not for the reasons Democrats think, and just embarrassed by the entire process. Just does seem like a sham. I mean, I you know, you've got these people who still cling to and you know, you know my feelings about Jake Tapper, her Sani. I mean, people like that. Though Don Lemon went on TV last night and said that, you know, he's not a liberal

partisan democrat. I actually laughed. I mean, I don't mean I thought it was amusing. I laughed out loud as the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, you know, Jake Tapper, Oh, this is the process and the I mean, are these people do they realize how clownish this is and how absurd they are, or or you know, I just kind of wonder they think the audience expects them to go through this. Why not just say, well, yeah, you know, we don't like Trump, but we don't want

to get rid of him. I mean, everybody knows, right, No, no one thinks that this is about anything other than attacking Trump. Yeah, I mean, listen, the corruption of the media. And I don't say that as as a means of saying, oh, oh look they're biased. I mean it's corrupt because it's it's it's not biased, it's just half truth or non truth. And CNN yesterday I saw the media guy with his name Brian skeltering about finding the truth and digging for

the truth. And you know, CNN, I can, off the top of my head come up with ten mistakes they made during this Russia conspiracy hoax stuff that was like brutal, and it all skewed in the same direction, and it changed and had a huge effect and changed the way people thought about the presidency, especially on their left. They think it's all legitimate. Still, that's a that's a serious corruption I think of of media. And you know, sometimes I want to write listen, I don't want to when

I'm tweeting. I want to write lol over stuff, but because I'm literally laughing out loud at what they're saying. But you know, that's a bit of a cliche these days. I think, well, but I think that that is really the rational response to a lot of a lot of what we were seeing right now. It's just I mean, you know Adam Schiff saying, for example, he doesn't know the identity of the whistleblower. I mean that is that is just this absolutely this I uh, you know, I

worked in a newspaper, you know, the reported things. If we would always want there is zero reason for journalists not to mention the name of the whistle blower. It's zero. They should be searching for that name. If the if the if this was a democratic uh administer stration, and Obama there was a whistle that they would be at, that name would be all over the place all the time. Everything he'd done since the second grade would be known.

I've seen, I've seen. I've seen some you know, conservative leading journalists, by the way, and some outlets too, who all of a suddenly we can't say, you know, Eric Sharamella is reportedly the whistleblower. I look at them, I'm like, first of all, the anonymity thing for the whistleblower is is a fiction that's not even true. Even I believe the Washington Post gave three pinocchios to shift on this thing. There is no statutory anonymity that has to be enforced

by everybody. Maybe if people say that you could go to maybe you'll go to prison for outing the whistleblower. They've got. These are the people that used to used to want to publish the Pentagon papers, published the Wiki League's trove of classified documents. I mean, I mean, I look around. I mean, I really think I think that CNN and ABC News, for reasons that are even outside of this discussion we could talk about and Emison, I think these places are an absurdity. Now, I really do.

Here's the thing if you think is a publication that you're not sure that that's the whistleblower, right, that's one thing. If you're not publishing it because you don't want to out a whistle blower, that's ridiculous. As you just lay it out. It's not illegal because you know, Busfeed just put the whole dossier online for people to read. It's not you know, it's ridiculous. More information, something that's positive and something we want in a democracy, and that's what

the media is supposed to be giving us. Now. I want everyone to go read your stuff, because I read your stuff, which is why I have you on the show, not just because I like you. Nancy Pelosi is already attacking the legitimacy of the twenty twenty election. That's up on nationalview dot com right now. Tell me about this one. Well, I mean she said yesterday, you know, Donald Trump tweeted something, but he had put you know, he didn't quote her exactly,

so everyone dismissed what he said. But what Nancy Pelosi said was we need to impeach Donald Trump. And I said, I guess remove him or the twenty twenty election is in danger. The integrity of the election is in danger. She's already preemptively told us that Donald Trump runs and way that the election will be, you know, not legitimate, so legitimate. So every present election they loses a legitimate in some way, of course, but now we're preemptively saying

it's going to be illegitimate. And I still don't understand why it's corroding public trust and elections, which is what Democrats have been doing for a pretty long time in various ways. And I think it's it's it's a dangerous thing to do, though not not that they'll care, But so that's what it's about. I mean, I mean a

few things. First of all, we all know the name of the whistleblower, and we know the Democrats are playing games by clinging to the fig leaf that we don't know, and the journals are running around playing dumb and it does just prove what a dishonest sham this whole thing isn't also what a joke I think mainstream journalism is.

But but I gotta tell you, David, I think it's going to be kind of hilarious when this Ukraine impeachment thing kind of fizzles and then the House Democrats just go ahead and impeach Donald Trump anyway, based on a laundry list of like we just really don't like him, that's what's gonna happen. Yeah, you can have the obstruction of justice is that you can put whatever you want. Did nothing that really makes me laugh out loud. Yeah, man,

that's great. These congressmen talk about the Ukraine and like their voice cracks with emotion about how we're leaving our friends and allies, you know, stranded, and the Russians are coming and all of that stuff. They could not care less about Ukraine. They didn't care about Ukraine when Obama wasn't giving them lethal weaponry, when Obama was allowing them to the Russians to shoot down airplanes at you know, in the Crimea and all of that stuff. It's an

absolutely it's an absolute joke. It doesn't make anything right or wrong that's happening now, but it does show that just the massive double standard and hypocrisy that's at work here. Well. Also, I think it's fascinating we have to keep hearing about the risk that Trump ran by delaying the aid that was delivered, because man, those Ukrainians really need those javelin missiles and I sit here, I just want to bang

my head against wall. I'm like, right, the things that Obama wouldn't give them and took away from Poland and check Republic and things like that, Right, I mean this idea that Obama was tougher on Russia. I listen. I think that it's a complicated issue. But the idea that Obama was somehow tough on Russia and that Trump has given Putin away, you know, given Europe to Putin is is just only someone who's very silly or very you know, just ridiculous would say something I mean in Russia as well,

like maybe a trillion dollar economy. I mean, this is not this is not the Soviet Union all over again too. I think that Russia looms so large in the minds of so many people now as this threat that's you know, check your closet and look under your bed before you go to sleep at night. I think Putin's a bad guy.

I've been talking about, reading about and involved in, and going back to even my days in the government, like, I've been very aware of the bad stuff that a former KGB thug has been doing, stretching back to the fighting in Czechia. I mean, there's a lot of stuff, but it's not like Russia's about to invade us tomorrow and overturn our elections. Of all these things we hear all the time, and I just think that they do

the public a disservice by creating what is a true hysteria. Now, I mean they really democrats now really believe that Russia is a mortal adversary United States. That's actually not true. No, I mean we have different geopolitical Yeah, of course we have oppositional stuff with them, but right aims and stuff like, I mean, no one, no, no, no serious person wants to go to war with Russia over anything right now, right.

I mean, it's it's it's kind of a dangerous rhetoric that even when a Democrat becomes president is never going to follow through on. It's just it's just not reality. And I do love the history that created where I you know, my my parents you know, defected to run away from the Soviet Union. But I get called like a Russian mole all the time, uh, you know, simply

because I don't, you know, I defend Donald Trump. It's just such a ridiculous position to put people in and the whole debate has been sort of co opted by ridiculous people like Max Boot or whatever, you know, who are just so over the top and so silly. We're gonna keep talking to to David. David Hole on one sec. Will come right back. All right, team, We've got David Harsani. Check out his piece. Nancy Pelosi is already attacking the legitimacy of the twenty twenty election. It's up on National

view dot com. Now, m David, where where do you think? I also, I want to ask you about the the Democrat election. I'm sorry, the democrat um? What do you call it? When they argue with each other? Debate? Thank you? Oh that's happening tonight. That's not getting much attention. But first, just this impeachment thing. Where where do you see it heading at this point? Because I really just believe, I mean, I think the president I would bet a large sum of money and I should find a place where I

could probably do that. They're gonna peach the president, doesn't matter what anyone says. Yeah, I mean I can't. I can't imagine them backing out of that now and what that would cause within their you know, the ranks of democratic activists and party activists and stuff. So I just

don't see how they don't move forward on that. So I think they'll impeach and I'm almost one hundred percent sure he won't be moved, and it's going to run for president and nothing really will change, and there might be a slight I think there might be a slight backlash to all of this, and we'll see about that. But unless there's some new big piece of evidence that shows some kind of criminal wrongdoing, I just don't think

this change as much at all. I meanwhile, we have gridlock, which is my favorite form of government, so I'm pretty good with that. Yeah, it's amazing, isn't that while we're fighting about a phone call, an action that was not taken, that did not result in anything because there was no action in a country I don't eat what five thousand miles away or something. I don't even I don't even know what as the crow flies, tistancy Ukraine is, and meanwhile, the country is at a time of relative peace, an

economy that is booming, on employment is super low. It's pretty amazing. What do you think about it? In that way? When you think about economic growth from twenty ten till now, it's been pretty great right on almost every way you can measure. It's not perfect, obviously, and that those are

the years of gridlock. Nothing is getting done in Washington except for some good Trump stuff like rolling back regulations and cutting some taxes, which I think helped this economy despite what liberals tell you, and is is something that that does you know, Trump has a Trump has less you know, headspace to make the economy growing, yet he's still done and gets no credit for it, and that presidents get too much credit for the economy. But I

think Trump has been relatively good. Imagine if he didn't you know, engage in trade wars and stuff. But I don't want to argue about that right now. Yeah, No, I look, I think that by the way, my theory is that Trump maybe, if he needs to do in the election year, he said, let's just put this whole trade war thing on hold for a while. I think that whether that's you know, short term long term, I think that that would actually have a stimulative effect on

the economy. I agree with that, though I do think that the whole standing up to China thing is something that really endears him to many of his most you know, passionate supporters, But then again, most people will be there from no matter what he does. That's a good point.

But I will say that, you know, we had Gordon Chang on and what was it yesterday and he says that it's amazing how the consensus has flipped now, at least, not not on whether the trade war is the right thing or not, or good for the economy or not, but the consensus about China is a problem. Everybody now is saying, oh, yeah, China actually was doing really bad

stuff at administrations before Trump weren't doing anything about it. Yeah, I think, I mean, I think I can agree that China was doing bad stuff, but I'm generally, you know, very I know you're a free trade but you're a consistent fellow. But I will admit that, you know, it hasn't really had the negative effect. It seems to me, at least that I thought it would. So I think that's that's something I need to concede. Um, we we have to, we gotta. I know, David, you probably have

a life you have to leave. We're gonna keep you because we're going to ask you about the elect I keep saying election. I'm sorry about the debate, the debate that is going to happen tonight, and also a little bit of what you see coming up in conservative circles about capitalism. I don't know if it's if it's a capitalism or a heart that we're talking about here, or a capitalism that that brings out the best in people, but there would be some There's been some interesting discussions

going on there. We're talking to David Harsani. Everybody National Review dot com check out his piece. Nancy Pelosi is already attacking the legitimacy of the twenty twenty election. And we're back in just a second here, all right, So it's kind of Harsagny pelooza today all the buck Sextit show. But we haven't talked to David Harsani in awhile he's

National Review senior writer. I want to get your take, and then I'll just tell the audience what I'm what I'm thinking after we let you go and enjoy your coffee and hang out the rest of the day. What are you expecting here for the Democrat debate tonight? I mean, the big story as I see it right now, is all of a sudden, Buddha Judge is like, it's like a thing. Bouddha Judge is actually getting some traction in places where people have to pay attention. Yeah, I think so.

But I think that that's also because a manifestation of concern within the Democratic Party about their candidates. They're looking for someone a little more moderate. Who isn't you know over seventy I guess, or isn't you know? It doesn't have all the faults of a long history. But the thing is, no one really knows Mayor Pete very well. And I think once you start pointing out his problems, his city is not in great shape. His city, you know, there have been a lot of problems there with race

and other stuff. So a really high murder rate. But you know, I have a we're on a great station out in Indiana, and I talked to some folks when I was out there recently for a visit, and I gotta tell you, I was like shocked to hear that South Bend, Indiana has a really high murder rate per capita, right right, and the Pats some shootings where you know, police shootings that are problematic, et cetera, et cetera. Now, those are things Democrat Democratic voters care about. So I'm

not sure that this kind of popularity will last. But maybe he will withstand it and be wonderful and move forward. I don't know. We'll see about that. I tend to think he's overrated. I find him to be a sanctimonious and annoying but you know, I don't really have my pulse on me. Well, I think you're right about the sanctimonious thing. Especially when he's lecturing people on theology. I find that that really can't take it. I can't, I

can't take any handle it. He is really smug on that stuff, and a lot of time, no, he's getting way beyond is knowledge based on that stuff. But I wanted to sort of touch on how it seems that the Democratic Party now more than ever, and this is mostly through the prism of Warren and Berney's candidacies, but it seems like there's just not just an open embrace of socialism, but trashing capitalism in the most cynical and ignorant way is really popular among the Democrats these days.

It is, and unfortunately, I think it's getting to be popular among some conservatives as well. I think what you have is you know, so much success people have been afforded, so many freedoms and so many great things, that maybe new generations don't put that success into the context it's supposed to be in. And so I worry about that.

Though I have to say I'm slightly heartened that the Democratic Party sort of moved away from a Warren pretty quick quickly once she embraced, you know, really big socialistic plans. I think that there's still, I hope, at least a moderate center that doesn't want to fully you know, embrace that those sorts of ideas collectivist ideas or socialistic ideas, um. But unfortunately, I think when you look at polling, young people are always more open to those ideas, and that's

that's that's you know. I think there are a bunch of reasons I won't get into, but I think that that's incredibly dangerous for us moving forward. Maybe the most dangerous I've been saying. And you know, of course, you should always be what one should always be careful with predictions that rely the predictions of a political nature where you're certain. But I've just I just cannot fathom a future in which Joe Biden is actually the audience is sick of me saying is I'm like, it's not going

to be Biden again? Are you do you do you really do you think it could be Biden? I mean, am I am? I am? I talking crazy talk. Let me ask you this. When Donald Trump was writing initially, did you think he could win? No? No, absolutely not. I was sure he would not win. I mean, I've had to admit that many times. So me too, until the last moment, until I saw that, until I saw at New York Times page with the little you know, lever going up. But when he won Florida, it was

like the entire world all of a sudden change. But yeah, everything changed forever. But um, but here's the thing that I think a similar thing can happen here where you have a bunch of you have a right left divide and people are sort of knocking each other out and if no one else sort of an outside or candidate, And I doubt there's anything like that available Michael Bloomberg whatever. I don't think that he has that kind of appeal.

I think I just don't see why the Democrats wouldn't land on what they think is the surest bet to win which would be Joe Biden. I think they overrate him as a politician because before Obama saved him, I mean, he was the Delaware senator. He wasn't He's lost time. How many times says he run for president two or three times. He's never been successful. I think he got like like two or three percent of the voting when

he ran before. I mean he was I remember going to see him speak in DC maybe in two thousand and seven or two thousand and eight, you know, and and that, and he was the he was there with like cous he was like in Cucinach territory. It was like, oh, he's one of the kind of also ran joke presidential candidates, right.

I mean he Obama picked him too, because he has been around for a long time, and you know, he has a sort of are of white working you know that he appeals to the white working class, regular normal Joe and all of that stuff. But he's not a particular He's never been a particularly good politicians. He said a politician, he said crazy things throughout his entire career. And no, we might not care about that anymore. But it's it's it's it's it's a fact. So um, I

don't know. I think that he might win, but I don't know that. I don't know that he's a shoe in. I mean a lot of people think, you know, the Democrats are just going to roll over Trump. I just don't. I can't say that. After the last election, I just don't believe that it's true anymore. But I don't know why. Who do you think? Who do you think could win? Other than Biden. I feel like I still think that

they're gonna they'll go with Warren. I think that they'll excuse her ridiculous lack of policy math, and I think that Elizabeth Warren gives them. They feel like it's a cross between. You get a little bit of Biden, a little bit of Burnie, and a little bit of Hillary all in one package. She really really hurt herself, right, just fully jumping all in on the Medicare for all

with a plan and everything else. It's like Obama. I don't know if people remember, but he was he was in for he was in for socialized medicine right initially, right, I think, and then he you know, he was able to you know, massage those things and change his mind and this and that. But once you have plans on the book, and once you've taken this stand and you've even explained how you're gonna pay for it, et cetera. Just seems like a really hard position to to sort

of moderate yourself on. And do you are you gonna watch the whole thing, by the way, And also do you think that the debate at this stage even doesn't matter? I am one hundred percent not going to watch the debate at all. I would at all. I'm done. I've seen how many debates have they had her? I mean, they still have ten candidates up there. It's a waste of time, isn't it. I think it's too much. I mean I have to because I got to do the show, and you know, I watch it so that my audience

doesn't have to. But like if I were to my own devices, no, I already know what all these people think about everything, because I've seen them for hours and hours and hours, and I've read the transcripts after I've watched it. It's annoying. Since the second debate, I'm like, I'm never watching and them sitting here and I will probably end up watching some of it. But here's the thing,

I don't think these debates matter that much. The last big moment of the only really big moment was Tulsi taking out Kamala Harris, right, and I don't know that there'll be another moment like that. So why do you think they hate Tulsa so much? By the way, because you know she has some she's very left wing, but conservatives like myself are kind of like I kind of like Tulsie. Even though I think she's bad on a lot of policy issues. She doesn't strike me as a

as an odious person. Why the why does the liberal establishment really, even not just the farm, Why do they hate her so much? That's a good question. I mean, I think that she is compelling in a way, and you know, her foreign policy views seemed not far removed from what they used to be during the Bush administration on the left and so on. So I don't really understand why they're so you know, so the I hate

her so much? My only thought is that they don't think she has a chance, and they feel like she's hurt people's chances. Who whoever it is that she's just playing spoiler maybe yeah, yeah, she's just not mean enough. She's a Russian asset, so yeah, I really think it's that she doesn't She doesn't view her her role in politics as trying to find I like to storm the Republican castle overrun it in Bayonett all the survivors like that's That's another thing. She doesn't have orthodox views, right,

she was a little more socially conservative. She's willing to say maybe we should impeach the president initially. She's willing to say things I think that the great against the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party. So maybe it's something like that. I don't know. I find her appealing in many ways. She's smart and telegenic and you know, and I think that she thinks through her beliefs and all of that.

She's a I mean, you know, she serves everything. It seems to me like she would be the kind of candidate that I that you should be excited about if they're in your party. I would think so too. But every time I defend Tulsi, people say that, you know, I just like Tulsi because I remember her visiting a side and stuff like that, and to me, you know, it's hard to get over that stuff, no matter what

her excuses were. So so for that reason, I don't really like her, but I think her realist torn policy and stuff like that is actually pretty popular these days, so I don't really get it. Yep, all right, everybody, David Harsany, David, thanks for giving us so much time. Man. Check out his latest National Review dot com and we'll

talk to you soon anytime. Thank you for The House is going to do what the House is going to do, and when they get through, as you all know, it comes over here, displaces all the business and we'll be on it until her senators decide it's time to reach a conclusion. I will repeat what I've said in the past. It's inconceivable to me that it'd be sixty seven votes to remove the president from office. Inconceivable to me too. But Cocaine Mitch, don't plays, you know, Cocaine Mitch is

gonna be the one that oversees that whole thing. I am a little bit frustrated though, and some others have started to point this out as well. Why is it the case that the Senate Republicans aren't you know, Senate Republican of a majority that for example, runs the uh, you know, senatece Luck Committee on Intelligence. Why aren't they calling witnesses. You know, you gotta if the Democrats are going to abuse the process, you have to use the

process to beat them back. You know, you gotta fight fire with fire here, and you know, having Devin Nunez say, oh, but you know, we want to enter into the record that these are the witnesses we'd want to have. I get it. I mean, I'm not saying he shouldn't do that, but that's not sufficient. Obviously, where's the Senate on this?

Where are the where's the testimony under oath from Chloopa and Hunter Biden and other DNC tied officials, other people that might have some interesting things to say about all this stuff. Just just wondering when that's going to happen. I think Republicans, unfortunately, still don't really fully comprehend. A lot of elected Republicans don't really fully comprehend the nature of the left and what they're willing to do. I

think they see it, but they haven't really absorbed. They haven't really internalized the lengths that the Democrat left will go to to destroy them and the games that they are willing to play in that whole process. But we shall have to see. By the way Trump had some things to say about Ambassador Kent that I wanted to play. Would you, producer, Bark, would you play fourteen please? I don't know Vinman. I never heard of him. I don't know any of these people other than I have seen

one or two a couple of times. They're ambassadors. But these are names that are taught, like Taylor, like Kent with a nice boat tie, wonderful boat time. Maybe I'll get work for myself someday. I don't know who Kent is. I don't know who Taylor is yet. Yesterday Vinman said that he was the President's senior. We didn't do much Vinman today because that was yesterday, and we had Sonlon this morning, and you know, this is the you know, impeachment marathon that we're stuck in the middle of. But

Vinman had some Vinman did not do well yesterday. I didn't. I wanted to just return to this for a moment to give you my sense of what happened here. Vinman was not a strong witness for the Democrat, cause he was trying to be. He's clearly a partisan. But when Vinman was up there there were some moments that did

not look good for him. And one of the most important had to do with Well, first of all, there's a lot of sanctimonious stuff, like here is Colonel Vinman claiming that he is not a never Trump or play sixteen. Lieutenant Colonel. By the way, the day after you appeared for your deposition, Lieutenant Colonel President I called you a never trumper. Colonel Vinman, would you call yourself a never

Trumper representative? I'd call myself never partisan, never partisan. Interesting, he's a registered Democrat, by the way, Is that a surprise to you public records guys? A registered Democrat? That a surprise to anybody? Oh no, you mean you kind of knew this guy's a Democrat all along? Oh wow, isn't that crazy? Not just just crazy? Some other stuff

that came up about mister Vinman. Jim Jordan, for example, pointed out that there were people, some very squared away, very seasoned national security experts, who felt, like this Vinman guy, there were some issues there. Fifteen. Please, your boss had concerns about your judgment. Your former boss, doctor Hill had concerns about your judgment. Your colleagues had concerns about your judgment. And your colleagues felt that there were times when you

leaked information. Any idea why they have those impressions, Colonel Denman, Yes, Representative Jordan. I guess I'll start by reading doctor Hill's own words, as she she attested to in my last evaluation that was dated middle of July, right before she left. Alex is a top one percent military officer and the best army officer I've worked with in my fifteen years of government service. It's like, I'm amazing, I'm a never part I'm never part of in call me lieutenant, colonel

or else. This guy MM did not did not do himself a lot, a lot of favors in the in the presentation that the Democrats were trying to put on yesterday, and the worst part for him was actually, I don't I don't even know if we have this clip. I'll just tell you what happened. When he was asked about who he talked to who he talked to after the phone call between Trump and Zelenski, he said, oh, well, I didn't tell my EMI. I didn't tell my superior

because I was so busy. And then Jim Jordan pushed him more and got him to admit, well, you didn't talk to your superior officer. But you did go to see a lawyer, and I see lawyer who believes it brother, And you also did go to see a person that the Democrats claim we can't know who it is because we're all supposed to pretend we're a bunch of idiots

and don't know that. The other person he told is the whistleblower, and the whistleblower's name, from what we are told is Eric Charamela, who was working at the NSC and who loves Biden and is a leftist and hates Trump. This is like the reality of the world that we're in. But it is to be denied, it is to be obscure, to be pushed aside in favor of this nonsense. It's just bizarro crazy town stuff that we were supposed just pretend we don't know what we know. I'm sorry, I

don't I don't want to do that. I'm not okay with that. So that's why I tell you about the things that I do. I though there's some very strong witnesses that appeared for Trump and this whole thing, like Ambassador Vulker, for example. Just would you please play clip two here. At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. I was not on the July twenty fifth phone call between President Trump and President Zelinski.

I was not made aware of any reference to Vice President Biden or his son by President Trump until the transcript of that call was released on September twenty fifth. So here you have a guy who is what the envoy for Ukraine or special envoard for Ukraine, some form of an ambassador, a lot of ambassadorial titles floating around these days. He is not he is not aware of this situation. How is it possible that this guy's working so closely on this and it's so clear, and Solomon

saying today everybody was in the loop. Apparently Vulker wasn't in the loop. And how seriously can we take the demand that supposedly exists from the president to do a thing if people that would have had to know about the demand to help push it didn't even know about it. It's it's just all a big circle, folks. It's just nonsense. This Democrat impeachment thing is a self looking ice cream cone. And make all these accusations, Oh, they're got all spun up,

and then it kind of falls apart. The media goes, oh my gosh, look at this thing. It's a sham. It's a scam, and really it's a travesty because we all have the whole country has to waste so much time on this one, and I just wish there were other things were the discussion. Oh well, I haven't even talked to you about what I think about the Democrats tonight. What I think is going to happen with the Democrat debate. Although Harsani and I on to trash the whole notion

of the need to watch it, I'll watch it. I'll watch it so you don't have to. That's one of the promises that I make here for you in the Freedom Hunt. You don't have to waste your time. So I'll tell you what happened, all right, So the Democrat debate tonight, buck style telling you about what I think is really going on here, because the buck never stops. Here's what we got. You had to qualify for this one.

Candidates had to receive at least three percent in four DNC approved poles donations from at least one hundred and sixty five thousand supporters. BLAHBLI blah blah blah. All right, here's what we got for the candidates. Klobashar Booker, Buddha Judge, Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris, Yang, Gabbert Stier. Castro didn't get the required numbers that as we know, Petro o'rourks like totally is not running for

president anymore. He was born to do it. So I guess he's been unborned because he is not going to be president. And I just don't know. Uh, let's see who we have here. Uh, you're gonna have to be a big night, I think, or rather they're going to try to make this a big night the media to make this an interesting story. Um, they want to push for Buddha Judge. A lot of them want to push for Booda Judge, Um, Andrew Yang. I gotta say, you know, I like Yang, I like Gabbert. You all know that

I'm honest with you about it. I tell you who my if I had to hear producer Mark. Actually, let's get you onto this one. If you if you have to vote forget about I ask you who the worst was. And you're good on that because you said to Blasio, which might have even better than my answer, which was better because I think the Blasio is the worst, still

the worst, not even the race. Still totally agree. But if you had to vote for one of these candidates that I named, if you have to, I'm making sure gun into your head, who is it, I'd say Andrew Yang. I like it. I want to. I want to say I'm a member of the Yang gang. You know, he's interesting. I would probably, I probably, at the end of the day say say Gabbert, but I want Yang to be his veep. Again, I'm not voting for a Democrat. I'm just saying, if we, if we, if we had to,

and on this list, I think the worst. For me, we do best and worst here, I think the worst. It's actually not easy. I go the worst is um Kamala Harris. I think Kamala Harris is the worst because the media tried so hard to just make Kamala Harris a big political thing and it's just not happening. Whore do you go? See? I want to say Bernie Sanders just because you and Larry David has ruined him. For me,

I can't take him seriously at all. True. Yeah, like he could just say I love puppies, and I can't take him seriously because a free puppy program, everybody's gonna get a puppy, and you know what's gonna happen. They're gonna get the puppies and they're gonna share them with other people. It's gonna be communal puppies. You know what. I take it back. If he does that, well, actually that's actually a great plan. That's a platform that I could get be here too, because I want a puppy.

I just don't want to have to take care of it all the time. So if it was a communal puppy, that would be. But you're getting married soon, you know what happens, baby or puppy. Gotta make your pick, dude, puppy, Yeah, puppy can't talk back to me. Yeah, that's true, Kloba shar I gotta say. I think, is you know, just an interesting candidate for the Democrats because she's from the Midwest and female. And Booker he's just in this still

because the media likes him. I mean, he just the media likes Corey Booker, and so Corey Booker gets to continue to be running for president even though I don't think anybody believes he's gonna win anything, including the primary. Joe Biden still still in the mix here, former Vice President Joe Biden. Wouldn't we call him Senator Joe Biden?

Former Vice President Joe Biden. I list him here and well anyway, So I don't think it's gonna be a whole lot of change tonight from what you're used to seeing. I'll have a bunch of Democrats who come out and say blah blah blah, socialism, more spending, big government, free stuff, free stuff, free college, free healthcare. Trump is hitler. Country is gonna go to hell. Climate change is gonna kill all of us unless you vote for Democrats. That's it, really, I mean, I now I feel like you don't even

do I even have to watch the debate. We've established already what the main thrust will be. I do think that the most damaging politically, the most damaging position the Democrats hold now for general election purposes. And we'll see how much this gets attention to the people. Don't talk about immigration as much right now as they had been. The border crisis has died down a little bit, oh some a fascinating thing happened. I think it was in AFP as Jan's France Press or agents France Press. I

don't know. However, you were supposed to say that AFP did this story on a UN analysis of all the children that were in custody at our southern border. And it was a horrifying moment, right because, oh my gosh, Trump, kids in cages, all this really bad stuff. And it turned out that the analysis the UN did was from the kids quote in cages from the Obama administration twenty fifteen. Whoops. But you would think, hold on a second, why is that now no longer a story? It's an analysis of

what had happened because AFP pulled it. So they put out a story based on an analysis, you an analysis of children being held to the southern border in detention as they're being processed to be let into this country by the way which they all were let into the country. And because it turns out that it didn't happen while Trump was president, it's no longer a story. It would be hard to find in some ways a more pure distillation of mainstream media bias. Bad thing happens under Trump story,

run with it? Oh, same bad thing happened, but happen under Obama before Trump is president. Pull the story deleted, Pretend it never happened on the internet. It's it was a stunning a stunning situation. Honestly, anyway, it is. It is what it is, My friends, here we go study in un child attention. Let's see if I make sure I think I got the right. I hate I hate being wrong. I'm so rarely wrong, though. Let's see what we get here. Oh it was it was Reuters. I'm sorry,

it was a Router's story. I think I said AFP. It's Reuters. My bad. November eighteen story headline, US has world's highest rate of children in detention. UN study is withdrawn. The United Nations issued a statement on November nineteenth thing the number was not current, but was for the year twenty fifteen. No replacement story will be issued. Router's one of the biggest news organizations in the world. Oh, it's not. It's not a story anymore because it happened when Obama

was president. That pretty much describes for you the way the media approaches everything. It's only a story. A bad thing happens. If it's while Trump is president, it's a story. If while Obama, if it was while Obama is president, is no longer a story, and they wonder why we all cheer and laugh when they call it fake when Trump calls it fake news, because they are a bunch of fakers, a bunch of frauds hacks. I will I will continue on this. I will continue beating this drum

until the day I die. If I, you know, stop doing media tomorrow and I was just running a hot dog stand somewhere, probably leading a very nice life of a humble but striving capitalist and enjoying myself, I would still anybody who would listen to be ranting and raving about how fraudulent the news media has become and what a bunch of totally partisan hacks they are. And the worst part is they run around, you know, strutting about and acting like they're so brave when they speak truth

to power. It's complete nonsense. Yes, indeed, you know it's not nonsense, though, Roll call, for which it is now. Time 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 roll call, Roll Call, Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com or Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton. Let's get to emails because we've been new emails yesterday. Gary, Gary kicks off a noise. Buck and producer Mark, you are absolutely the best. Thank you so

much for adding email. I'm one of the twelve people that have never used Facebook. Regarding President Swallwell's gastric indiscri Russian Micro has an excellent short ten minute podcast episode that is one percent related and reveals the source of the name of a popular host on the view. Huh okay, I don't know what that's all about, but thank you my friend for writing again and saying nice things about

me and producer Mark Gina. Hey Buck, somebody needs to take a picture of both Fox News and CNN just how CNN words and captions breaking news Sonlan ties Trump, Pence, Pompeo to Ukraine pressure campaign totally false. Yeah, Look, there's a lot of headline writing that goes on that is not objective. Headlines are tough because you got to grab somebody, and so to write purely objective headlines is never going

to be really something that happens. But there are I think there are limits of it, and yeah, but yeah, you'll see the headlines. All you have to do anytime you want. It's just if you have on your computer. Just go to the Fox News dot com site and go to CNN dot com and just see the way that CNN talks about the way Fox talks about it. I mean the different different points of view watching the same thing. Steve Hey Bucks Shields High from the Live, Free or Die State of New Hampshire. I'm a real

news longtime supporter of Team Buck. I just posted to Jack Ryan TV series the post below you ask I delivered see the post below season two. Really, that's your narrative. You're trying to sell to the fans that social justice winers are going to save a country like Venezuela. Who

does your research? Maybe if you want season three to be something appealing to your true fans rather than appealing to woke snowflakes, you might want to get advice from former CI analyst Buck Sex and provide more sound direction. I love Krasinski in the role, but season two was tough to watch. All right, man, Shields, Hi, thank you so much, Steve. I don't know if that's gonna get Netflix or whatever to or Amazon rather to put me in the role, but I'm sorry, not in the role

to take Krasinski. That guy's very tall, very handsome, but to help with the writing behind the scenes would be good. Steve. Wait, no, we already did, Steve Robert Um Okay, nope, that was a link. And hey, Buck, I just want to tell you how much I enjoy your podcast, which I started downloading years ago when I first saw your commentary on Fox News. You are so knowledgeable for one so young, insightful, and have a soothing voice. Your impressions are hilarious. I

will miss your Betto and your Bernie is perfect. Your Warren is rapidly improving. But I wish you would do Amy klobischar who should be easy to do with her nasally voice. Regarding impressions, have you seen Tom Shalou play Shifty Shift on Greg Gutfeld Show on Saturday Night. Shalu is perfect for that part. I like to watch the star Millennial on our side. At least Stephanick stand up

to Shifty at the idiotic impeachment inquisitions. I've been impressed with Stephanick ever since he was the one who got sanctioned and sank to comy to admit he did not advise Congress of the existing Trump investigation, et cetera. Et Finally, about the debate over the tech issues with your podcast. Yes, the problem was really bad a few months ago. Keep up the high quality program and I'd be thrilled to hear Shields High again. What was the name of the

history show? And I can't forget producer Mark. I like to hear the banner between you guys. Thanks for providing your email. Thanks for the feedback, best regards, Annam. All right, well, thank you so much, appreciate it. James, hold on, it's got a load. Why is the internet here so slow? All right, that's a very long email. Enough time for that one right now, kent On Vinman, He started to say office of before he was cut off. There's only so many in the IC Office of what. Thanks Shields

High On, Vinman. Yeah, I don't know. I guess that if you're telling me that happened, then I believe that that could have that could have happened. All right, now we're gonna switch to switch to the Facebook in box, which is always fun. And Edward right, Men at Work is much better as a movie than Young Guns. Oh, I see Edward taking producer Mark's part in this dispute. Oh, that will be remembered, blocked, and reported. Sir. Let's see who else we got in here. TJ. Buck. I'm not

making excuses for Trump. There's no doubt he needs to do what he can to get this spending under control. But how much of this out of control spending is bureaucratic protest against him? Do you think? I don't mean to be conspiratorial, but I can't help but think that an overwhelming majority of the federal government workers are Democrats who are taking their own liberties to maximize their allowable spending every month. And unfortunately, short of shutting down the government,

there's not much Trump cant to cut this deep state spending. Huh. Interesting. I mean, presidents can only do so much with the budget and with spending. That's true. How much are we gonna blame Trump for this one? I don't know, but let's be careful about never blaming Trump for anything, right. I Mean, that's why I think sometimes I just have to remind you guys he picks really bad people, because

I think it's important for us to establish it. There are some things that we just need to be honest that Trump is failing on or that he's not doing a good job of We can't always say, well it's really hard. Yeah, well he took the job that was going to be a really hard job. You know. He did say they were going to build a wall, which they are now gearing up. It seems in this last year of his first term to really build wall, hundreds of miles of wall, so that would be very interesting.

And by the way he builds, he builds hundreds of miles of wall, he wins re election, no question in my mind, no question, not even not even close. Carl shields high as always excellent work on the show. I recommended the show to a friend recently and now he's a daily listener. Thank you, Carl. I think of people. The more people that hear about the show and give it a listen to them, or people are going to keep listening every day to the show. We're very confident

of that. A critique I'm surprised has not been aimed at Bernie is must have been nice not waiting for the necessary diagnosis treatment of his recent heart attack. No lines, no delays, no waiting list, top notch congressional care, and he thinks when we add three hundred million more Americans. This is going to improve quality and access. That's nuts. Well, you're right about if we do medicare for all of all of a sudden, everybody is put into the same system.

By the way, it will never be everybody in the same system, because there'll always be people that have enough resources to pay for a private, private sector or a private market healthcare. And that's that's the case in can it's the case in the UK. We're always here. But oh, government healthcare, government healthcare. You had a lot of the people who can afford it pay for private healthcare outside

the government sector. Why do we think they do that because they like throwing away money or because the government healthcare is crappy? Huh. I don't know. That's a real thinker. I gotta think on that one a little bit. Let's see here, Rick Buck, listen to a podcast here in Idaho near the Canadian border. As a FedEx corrier wanted away in on recent arcle in the Times, I received a raise as soon as the Trump TAC cut went into effect and over a billion was added to fund

our pension. Aircraft and trucks were replaced with more efficient ones, free efficient ones all public knowledge hashtag fake news. Also, men at work come from a landown under where women glow and men plunder. Love the show, don't take calls. Told my daughter about you. She says, you look like Eric Foreman from that seventies show. Just watched Load of Weapon with Emilio Estevez better than the Ducks. Oh yeah, Boomer sooner, watch Far and Away, okay history, Shield's I

blocked and reported, there we go. That's gonna be for the show today. Team always always an honor of privilege, Shield's high