End The Whistle Blower Scam

with actionable intelligence. Mag No mistake, American, You're a great American Again the Buck Sexton Show begins, He's a great guy. No, Welcome to buck Sexton Show. Everybody, Happy Veterans Day. First and foremost, take a moment to thank the veterans in your life, Thank someone for their service, and for all of you veterans listening, thank you so much for being the brave patriots you are and being a part of the greatest, most powerful, most just military in the history

of the world. So we got impeachment weeks starting now. This is when all of a sudden things start to happen out in the open. You'll see Democrats engaged in all kinds of grandstanding. It'll be wall to wall coverage by a lot of the news networks. The people who are at the top of the news hierarchy in many ways are having a Watergate tingle here. Oh water Gate is this is when journalism can reassert itself. You see. Trump has been a challenge, a direct challenge and affront

really in their eyes, to the journalistic establishment. In fact, I would argue that that's one of the finding characteristics of his presidency, his willingness to call them fake news, to say what they really are, and not to back down when they claim, Oh, it's basically violent. Oh how could he say these things about us? It's terrible. Well, it turns out the president of the United States can't

be bullied by the media or can't be persuaded. He can't be bought off quite as easily as other Republicans in the past, that's for sure. I'm not saying opinion doesn't matter to him. The media. Sometimes I worry this president does read a little too much from say Maggie Haberman in the New York Times. I think he cares more than he should, but he cares a lot less

than any of his predecessors. That is for sure. But the journalistic establishment sees this as an opportunity to reassert its role in American life, which for decades we've been told is to speak truth to power, to unearth that which the corrupt, the oppressive want to hide. That's what journalism has told us. It is all about for my entire life, and I'm sure for the lives of some of you listening who are quite a bit older than me.

That's what they've been teaching people in journalism schools. This is what they say about themselves un ironically, mind you, on TV on a regular basis. Now is their chance to get no small degree of revenge against this president who has challenged their sense of who they are their professions, yes, but also their role in American society and their role

in our day to day lives. Journalists are enraged at this president because he has pointed out that there is no special sect of our fellow Americans who are the honest, the just, the true journalists. They don't exist. There's part there are partisans, there are activists. There are people who do everything that they can in order to push certain agendas. But if they can get rid of this president like they got rid of Reagan, which I would. I'm sorry Nixon.

They wish they could have gotten rid of Reagan as they pushed Nixon out. Not that Nixon didn't give them plenty to work with. The certainly did, but that would be a restoration in their minds to the old order, the way things are supposed to be. And so I just want to prepare you for those of you who are going to be watching some of the mainstream coverage or just it'll come up on your computer screens or

on your smartphones as you're scanning through the news. Hopefully you just listen to this show and drown out much of that worthless noise, but if you do see it, I want you to be prepared for dishonesty on a level that will be truly mind blowing for activism and partisanship from people who are telling you, as they are trying to persuade you to go against a Republican president, that they are not doing this because if any animus

against the president or against the Republican Party or Conservatism, they're doing this out of love of country, because Trump has violated the Constitution. And then you could do what I do and say what part of the Constitution. Exactly has he violated? Can you just point to what he has violated the Constitution? If they're going to use the most broad designations possible. Oh, he has failed to faithfully

conduct his office responsibilities. Like how with a conversation that I have not heard a single credible lawyer say was a criminal act? Not one? How exactly are as the president of the United States violating the Constitution. They won't have a good answer. They will just they will yell at you, though, they will make it clear that you're a bad person if you don't agree with them, like those lunatics who are screaming in my face last week as I was on the way to a social event.

They will yell, they will scream, they will shriek. His Democrats are very, very angry. In fact, there's some polling that I will get too later in the show proves the Democrats really have lost their minds. I mean, this is now far too commonplace. People that identify with that ideology and with the culture the Democratic Party don't have the tap the brakes mode anymore. They can't do it,

can't pull it off that they can't chill out. They are too frenzied around all of this stuff, perhaps because they have Democrat candidates for the presidency telling them that the world is going to end in ten years unless we listen to Alexandria Occasio Cortez and institute the Green New Deal. Only dishonest or stupid people can believe that. But there are a lot of dishonest people and unfortunately

even more stupid people. But one thing you will not hear a lot of this week, as we enter the open phase, never there's still stuff going on behind closed doors. There's still lots of conspiring and machinations, all sorts of underhanded, politically motivated stuff the Democrats are going to try to do to conjure up. I mean, this is really an act of political alchemy what they're doing here with this

phone call with Ukraine. I will find a way. We'll come up with some way to convince people that something that they know instinctively and right away is not terrible. We'll make them believe that it's terrible. We just have to find the right way to present this, find the

right words. One thing you will not hear is a fulsome discussion of the whistle blower reported by numerous outlets as Eric Scharamela, and I'm seeing now some people are still running around saying that to use his name out loud is a crime and a violation of the whistle blower statute. My friends, this is now the desperate straits the left finds itself in when they will openly advocate for the criminalization of common knowledge. That's where we are.

Things that are known publicly to anyone with access to the Internet who cares to know them can now be considered criminal on the left, including journalists who are going along with this and acting like, yeah, sure, maybe there is some crime here. The same journalists who will out intelligence programs and individuals recklessly. The same journalists who think that making America look bad in a time of war is always a patriotic duty, doesn't matter if it results

in greater attacks against US soldiers. You know, they make those kinds of decisions all the time. No problem, But the whistle blower's identity is sacrosanct, at least for now. Why can't we just get confirmation of this? Journals, why don't you care to know? How can anyone pretend that this is not important? Here is a piece by James

Freeman over the Wall Street Journal. In the fifty days since news consumers were told that a federal whistleblower was expressing his disapproval of a presidential phone call, CBS News has aired or published more than a hundred stories on President Donald Trump and Ukraine. Counting stories from local affiliates, the number rises above two hundred, but CBS hasn't come close to the wall to wall coverage offered by rival

ABC News. A search of ABC stories about mister Trump in Ukraine yields six hundred and eighty seven results for the last fifty days. More than three hundred of the ABC stories specifically include the term whistleblower, and roughly all the stories are derived from the original allegations formulated by the unnamed government employee in consultation with the office of

Representative Adam Schiff. Mister Schiff publicly denied that such consultation had occurred, but later acknowledged the fact as his falsehood was exposed. Usually, news organizations like ABC and CBS at least pretend to spend their days trying to report previously non public information, but they recently decided not to report

the name of the federal whistleblower. Ironically the entire impeachment case jes on an assumed political motivation by mister Trump for comments on a phone call that we're not illegal yet. By maintaining a blackout on the identity of the whistleblower, news outlets are impeding the public's ability to learn the possible political motivations of his accuser. That James Freeman nails it here in the Wall Seet Journal That is exactly correct. And they have to at least get to the point

where these hearings are up and running and going. They have to at least get to the point where we are seeing people on TV from the Democratic Party able to give their speeches about how Trump is horrible, and Trump is this, and Trump is that. All of those things have to occur, right, this is this is what's

really going on here. And if at that point we are all able to talk about the name of this whistle blower, well, at least at least, then they will have launched the ship, so to speak, Come what may. But the suppression of the whistleblower's identity is appalling, and it just shows us that journalism in America today is broken. Although I would actually argue, we've just found out the truth about it. It It hasn't ever been anything other than what it is. Now, it's just more clear what it

is because of Trump. It's more clear what we're dealing with, because the President of the United States has turned journalists into lunatics and some kind of a frothy rage. They have lost their minds. They hate this guy, and they will defame and profane their professions in order to take

him down. Doesn't matter what they have to do. But how can journalists pretend to be honest brokers of the truth, or how can they pretend that they are investigating and trying to get us the information we need when they are actively engaged in a campaign of information suppression by not referring to the alleged whistleblower, all of these news outlets we're happy to print allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, for example,

without any verification, without any journalistic standards beyond some person came out and said something, that's it. They ran with those Oh, we're going to pretend now that whistleblower protection law is going to stop journalists from the same journalist who would out any classified or covert action program the US government's running anywhere in the world if they felt the need to do it, which just as their whim they decide, Yeah, the public has a right to know.

How often have you heard that the public has a right to know? And it's not just the mainstream outlets either, it's not just the big journalistic edifices that still I don't know why people we can't get past this era where people believe that these journals are, these big institutions are somehow to be trusted, even when they keep betraying that trust. How many times can you get burned by the partisanship of the Washington Post in the New York Times?

How much fake news? How many false stories before one cancels a subscription and says, I'm no longer going to go to these people for my narrative of what is happening in America and around the world. I don't have an answer to that, but I do find it trembling. This is where we are still to this day. But YouTube YouTube now apparently also feels that there should not be a mention of the whistleblower's name. That's considered a

violation of community standards. According to a one journalist named Tim Poole, a violation of community standards that have to do with conspiring for criminal activity and possible harm against a person. That's right, my friends, the most powerful media companies in the country are refusing to report on the name of the single individual who is most newsworthy in America right now. They refuse to report on his name. They refuse to try to dig up more facts and

background information. Why they pretend it's because of concern of harm? Would that stop them in other instances if this were a whistleblower against President Obama or a Democrat president. Does any even think that all of this bombast about the whistleblower statue would be emanating from the newsrooms across the country.

I don't think so. It's because the so called whistleblower, because he's not even really a whistleblower, folks, he's so called whistleblower, is necessary to the anti Trump movement right now. And there is nothing, nothing, that is more important to the left than that. That is the single The goal is to defeat Trump. Everything else falls into a distant, distant second place. Doesn't matter what this does the journalistic

standards and ethics. You'll also notice the number of news reports on Project Veritas and what happened at ABC News. Just so we're keeping score here, so we're clear. NBC News clearly clearly shut down at the top level from the top people there, shut down coverage of Harvey Weinstein's sexual serial sexual predation because he was a super powerful liberal Democrat, friends with the Clinton's, friends with the Obamas,

and they didn't want to touch it. So there's your truth to power at NBC and ABC didn't want to report on serial pedophile and near billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who has connections to some of the most powerful people in the world because his close connections were to people like the British Royal families, Prince Andrew, and Bill Clinton himself when Hillary also was still thinking about running for president. By the way, we still trust them, though, Do you

trust them? I certainly hope not. This man from the first day he went into office, he wanted to have an alternative foreign policy where Jared Kushner wanted a special back channel communication to Russia that no one would know about. Now he's got Giuliani running a back channel improper foreign policy to get dirt on his political officials. You throw in an obstruction of Congress. You throw an obstruction of

justice from Muller. This is just an a lawless administration that knows no restraint, and we're supposed to be publicly say oh, we're gonna listen. I'm gonna listen. And there could be some unbelievable thing that the president brings up, but no, there is clearly obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. That'll be about is that incoherent blather from Representative Steve Cohen there Democrat of course, given

what he's saying about President Trump. That goes out saying Representative Steve Cohen, he's saying this stuff about the president and you're thinking, wait, what he's jumping around? You know this thing he did and obstructing this and obstructing data. I'm sure the President engaged an unprecedented cooperation with the Muller probe, which was completely based on faulty premisses and lies and collusion between the meeting, the Democratic Party, and

foreign sources. By the way, not just Christopher Steele, the people who relied on for the information in that insane dossier, which I went back and read some more of over the week. In the fact that anyone took the dossier seriously is a testament to the stupidity of some of the most powerful people in the intelligence apparatus and the federal bureaucracy. The dumbest rise to the top of the federal bureaucracy many times. Make no mistake about it. I've

seen it myself. You have predicted though, that the president's not gonna last much longer, that he's gonna resign or yeah. I think there's an overwhelming cascade of of evidence, and so this week will be the starting of that waterfall. It's one thing when things are behind closed doors and you're doing an investigation. It's another thing when it's open theater and you can actually see the rank lawlessness of what's gone on and the lack of constitutionality in the

process with the president. And I think I think it's not just a Ukrainian call. There will be other elements of this story that unfold where people will say, Okay, wait a minute. There's a combination of incompetence, there's a combination of a destruction of the executive branch of the United States in addition to the lawlessness and traitorous like behavior. So traitors like behavior. Oh, there's no question. I mean, you're if you're a strong word anything, Well, what word

would you use. You're you're on the phone with the president of the Ukraine and you're strong arming him to have him go after your political opponent. Okay, that is you're become a traitor to the Constitution and a traitor to the laws of the United States. Trader, just the word a lot mooch trader. Isn't that interesting? This from a man who even at the time of Trump's greatest victory, which is the election, I mean that was such a

moment of shock for many people across the country. I know not that many of you listening to this, but at a time when a lot of people were trying to curry favorite the president, the degree of sycophancy from Scaramucci was a sight to behold. And I saw it myself. This was a guy who'd go on TV, you know, the president's super genius. He's a Christian billionaire, super genius. You know, like Kanye says, the president everything he does, he's playing five D chess, twelve D chess. The President

understands the will the American people. I mean, he would go I remember this guy because I sat on some panels with him. I did some shows with this this fellow of the mooch. As at first, all where did this guy come from? Well, I am I listening about anything? What does he know about any of this stuff? I don't.

I mean, look, the president's biggest the president's biggest weakness other than perhaps a bit of messaging and discipline sometimes, but is the people that he has put in positions of a Look at all these people are turning on him. Tillerson and Kelly and those are some of the better ones. You've got Mooch and I'm a Rosa and you've got Cohed and I mean these are He's made a lot of bad a lot of bad choices in that regard. I don't know what else to say other than he

should have picked different people for these roles. But the Mooch saying that he's a traitor, I mean, that's You're going to hear a lot of that now, just use the words bash him, go after this president with the most terrible allegations possible. That's going to be the choice. That's going to be the decision that they make. And then I also bring you Senator Chuck Schumer, though, who has to deal with the reality of what's going to

happen in the Senate. You see, this is going to be the great moment for the Democrats right now, when they can say whatever they want to say on the floor of the House, they can push whatever stories they want to push, and they don't have to worry about the votes because they have the votes. The truth, however, is that there's something different going on in the Senate, where we fortunately have a Republican majority and would need

two thirds. The founders knew what they were doing with this, would need two thirds in the Senate to vote for removal from office. And so also because they don't have a majority, the Senate procedures will be set not by the Democrats but by the Republicans. So all the stuff you're seeing right now with shape from the behind closed doors and the lack of honesty and truth and fairness

going on back there, this is so classic. They're a railroading Trump where they have the majority, and then in the Senate, where they know they're going to have to deal with a whole different situation, they're going to plead for how oh, come on? This is the Senate. We need to be fair here, so give us some give the Democrats some concessions. Don't don't just steamroll the Democrat argument here the Democrat point of view, I mean the arguments.

Just get rid of Trump, there's nothing beyond that. But don't steamroll us just because you have the majority. That's only something that happens in the House. Here's Senator Schumer, for example, trying to appear as though he's the reasonable man in the situation. Play for McConnell is the majority leader,

so it's his prerogative to set up rules. In the past, there's always been consultation with the minority leader, and I hope he will consult with us and we can get some fair bipartisan rules, like was done in the last impeachment situation with Bill Clinton. They initially came to an initial agreement that passed a hundred to nothing. They had some disputes later and it passed in a more divided way. But I am ready to sit down with Leader McConnell and try to come up with fair rules. There's no

reason why we shouldn't be able to do that. So the Democrats are the minority there, but they want fair rules, fair rules. Does anyone think that their fair rules going

on in the House? If you read as I did over the weekend, some of the transcripts from these witnesses, the transcripts from these witnesses that have testified behind closed doors to the Democrat Intelligence Committee run by Schiff, every time they ask a question about hey, was there you know, did you collude or did you have any conversations or did you have any any back and forth with this or that Democrat asking the witnesses, or anytime they start to get closer to a question that all of a

sudden is blah blah blah blah blay. Can't talk, can't talk, No, no, no, don't answer it, don't answer. The Democrats just shout it down. They just shout it down. And there's no judge there, you see. So it's like imagine a courtroom where there's no judge, and anytime a witness that is presented by the prosecution is about to get questioned by the defense, the prosecutors gonna can't here, can't and start yelling and screaming like a bunch of children. I'm not exaggerating. That's

what they do in the House Intelligence Committee. That is what they are doing behind closed doors right now. They are saying, oh, sorry, can't you know, can't talk, can't answer that question. Fair process, fair process, my foot I was angry. I don't know why my foot was when I came out of my mouth. But all right, But this is this reminds me very much of the quote from Frank Herbert's Children of Doone. Some of you who

know I'm talking about. When I am weaker than you, I ask for freedom because that is according to your principles. When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. Well, this is what the Democrats are doing. I tweeted this out last night. When Democrats don't have the votes, they ask for fairness because that is according to conservative principles. When Democrats do have the votes, they take away fairness because

that is according to Democrat principles. It's exactly what's happening here in the House. It's there where the highway deal with it. Elections have consequences. In the Senate. Now you're having Schumer and in the vanguard here. If they oh, whoa hold on, Let's let's establish fair rules. Let's all agree, let's all be civilized about this. You know. Yeah, because Democrats don't have the majority and they don't have the votes. These people, these leftists, couldn't be any more transparent, but

unfortunately they don't really care. We have reached such polarized times that there's very little that a Democrat politician can do now that would turn any of his or her supporters against him, as long as it was geared toward the destruction of President Trump, As long as that's the overall plan, I would say, you know, Nicky Haley has a book coming out, and in her book there are some things that is that are I think troubling dreamed. And by the way, I don't know Nicky Haley. I've

actually never interviewed her. These days, there are few and fewer of those officials that I've never had a chance to talk. But I've never interviewed Nikki Haley. I've heard that she's a straight shooter. I can't really speak to it beyond that she has this book coming out. However, I also all these public officials writing books, I find it a little not just repetitive and boring, because these books are almost always a waste of everyone's time they've

written for these officials. It strikes me as a waste of time for most people. But there are a couple of sometimes there'll be a couple of interesting things in it. And here you have, first of all, Nicky Haley, during an interview in advance of the book coming out, saying that, look, there's nothing in the trans Well, let's hear from her play clip twenty five. You're an impeach a president for asking for a favor that didn't happen and giving money and it wasn't with help. I don't know what you

would impeach him on. And look, Nora, impeachment is like the death penalty for a public official. When you look at the transcript, there's nothing in that transcript that warrants the death penalty for the president. And I think that, to be clear, it was not a complete transcript. There are still things that are missing from it. And in that he does say I would like you to do us a favor, though the Ukrainians never did the investigation and the president released the funds. I mean, when you

look at those there's just nothing impeachable there. And more than that, I think the biggest thing that bothers me is the American people should decide this. Why do we have a bunch of people in Congress making this decision? The transcript is incomplete. You'll hear this. This is another one of these things that journalists will say, and they think it's smart, They think that they're all I'm really

up on things. Perhaps they should read through the transcripts of the testimony behind closed doors as I have, or you have these various witnesses, former ambassadors, NSC officials, etc. Brought forward by Adam Schiff For the sole purpose of trying to trash President Trump. And when Vinman right who The more we learn about him, the more clear it seems that he had a at least a policy acts

to grind against the Trump administration. But but Vinman said, when asked directly, well, maybe they didn't you know, the company was named Barisma. They had that. That might have been left out of the transcript, that one word. But that's we all know what company was talking about. That doesn't really matter is the rest of the transcript. Actor he was asked this the guy who was supposed to be bolstering this whistleblower's complaint because he also had concerns

about it. He was asked, and guess what he said, Yeah, it was it was accurate. Oh okay, well look at that. So what's this, Oh, there's there's another transcript out there.

There's something that's see They say this, this is a dodge because when you look at it and you say that the transcript does not support impeachment, they go, well, but what about all this other stuff that also kind of happened that we don't like and buzzword buzzword and the and the in transcripts, not even a direct transcript. I mean, my friends, this is this is actually a conspiracy level stuff. Now they've asked the people that heard

the phone call, is this transcript representative? You know? Was there was there anything did you remember being said that was left off of the transcript that would alter the meaning? And the answers No, answers, No, there's nothing that was like left off that would have all you know? So why do we keep hearing I keep bearing this from journalists? Oh it's not an exact transcript. Oh okay, this would be like saying, you know, yeah, the the defendant here

signed a sworn confession. But there are like at least two or three misspellings in this confession, So therefore it is an inaccurate document, isn't it because there are misspellings, and misspellings are inaccurate. So now I can go around reporting on the inaccurate document that this individual signed for

his confession, the inaccurate confession. That's how propaganda works, you see, takeout contexts, take out nuance, take out understanding that we all have of the world, the English language, what words mean, and then just oh, of course the transcript is not verbatim. Maybe that's thegether way, that the transcript is not verbatim. Okay, they might have left out an the or you know here or there. Does anyone really think there's there's not some other allegation that is not can you know that?

The whole crux of the case is that the President said, hey, can you you know, find out some answers about the twenty sixteen CrowdStrike thing and also look into the Biden situation with with Barisma, because you know, I heard bad stuff was going on there. That's it. That was the you know, unless they're going to allege that there's some and they're already saying it was a quick broke quote.

So why Why would the specific verbiage make any difference in the context if they've said that it's already there. It's just garbage, friends, it's garbage, but it's it's gonna get so gross this week. I'm here to prepare you for this. What do you for those of you that care to follow some of this political stuff that's going on in DC. I mean I think that I mean, there's a presidency at stakes, so it's hard to ignore

it entirely. But I think most of the American people look at this and just say, I mean, you got you gotta be kidding me. I mean, this is really what we're gonna be spending our time doing. This is is really the way that the media is gonna focus all there the answers. Yes, that is how they're going to focus all their energy. But it's going to get It's going to get quite quite nasty, that much is for sure.

I'm the one to raise the issue from my phone call with the God sol in the day before where he described some some type of something that Ukraine handed do before President Trump would release the funding. And when I brought up that scenario, President Trump immediately and I've described as adamantly and family denied it. And yet here we are, we're going to be told that the facts aren't the facts, that the president clearly violated the law.

They won't tell us what the laws that has been violated, but they know there's a there, No, there's a crime in there somewhere. That's the way they've always approached us president. We know he's a criminal, we just can't tell you what law he's broken. Yet that's an interesting approach, very very Soviet in feel, and I suppose that shouldn't be surprising given the way that the left is embracing the suppression of common knowledge and public information like the whistleblower's name.

That YouTube is taking down videos now with that is stunning. I've also heard that Facebook perhaps is I can't remember which platforms now are okay and which ones aren't with it, but there are definitely some social media platforms where you cannot even if you're referring to someone else's reporting. I mean, it really is Voldemort from the Harry Potter series, which I haven't read, and I think people reference too much

in pop culture, particularly in the media. But you know, it's he who shall not be named, and the fact of the matter is that he has been named, and we do have the public does have a right to know, an interest in knowing exactly what is going on here,

and journalists have abandoned their posts. Journalists have decided that it doesn't matter what the damage is that's done to the country in this process, because the president's such a bad man that even if they have to lie, cheat and steel to get him out office, they'll be doing their patriotic duty in the process. Oh I mentioned Nicki Haley before I wanted to get back to this. She talked about some of the people around the president who are not helpful to him, and she said John Kelley

and Rex Tillerson, both of them. She does not have a nice words to say about Rex Tillerson, which is unsurprising. Here's what she said though, about undermining a president played twenty four. Instead of saying that to me, they should have been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan. It should have been go tell the president what your differences are and

quit if you don't like what he's doing. But to undermine a present he's really a very dangerous thing, and it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what the American people want, and it was offensive. There are people all across the government, it seems, who think that the president is not really the president, including very senior officials who worked for him. I just am waiting for the president to make one decision. I hear all the time about how these people need to Oh, he's he's

so scary and terrible. Anything we have to do to stop I just need one instance of the president making a decision that is a catastrophically bad decision. One decision, I'd like one. They said that about the trade war, they were wrong. They said that about Syria, they were wrong. They've said that about tax cuts that I mean good on the list. They've said that about trying to secure

the border, about building a wall, they were wrong. Where is this catastrophically bad decision making except in the personnelity puts around him who tell us that he's such a bad decision making. The whistle blower and the president's right to zent a defense. That is the piece by my man Andy McCarthy, who is of course at Nashal Review also Fox News contributor. He joins us now to tell us what's going on? Andy? How are you doing, my friend?

I'm doing great, Buck, how are you? I'm good? All right, So let let's get into this because I've been talking about this for a while. There's there's a concept here of the right to confront your accuser, and then there's the actual specific law of when you have a legal right to confront the accuser. Can you just kind of walk us through here the differentiation between, you know, whether the whistleblower, as a function of law, needs to test five versus whether in a fair process set up of

the Congress, the whistleblower would in fact testify. Yeah, I think the latter, you could say, for sure, Bucket a fair process, he could be called to testify. This so much legal confusion about all this, and people are throwing a lot of half baked ideas around, not least the

idea of whistleblower itself. I've tried to point out that this fellow who's been identified elsewhere, if that is the guy we're talking about, he's been called a whistleblower, and maybe in some sort of descriptive, non legal sense, he's a whistleblower like a common usage sense of that term, but under the only sense that matters, the statutory sense. He's not a whistleblower because the statute that they're relying on relates to intelligence activities that are under the jurisdiction

of the Director of National Intelligence. This guy is not reporting on intelligence activity. He's reporting on the president's activities, specifically the conduct of foreign policy with a counterpart in Ukraine, a foreign national or a foreign government. That is not what's covered in that statute. So he's not a whistleblower, even though the Trump intelligence community decided to treat him

as one in an abundance of caution. So he doesn't even qualify for whistleblower status and under the law, and even if he did, the whistleblower protections that would be afforded to him would be against reprisals. Other than the Inspector General of the intelligence community. No one is required to give the whistleblower anonymity, and even the Inspector General is not required to give it to him under all circumstances.

For example, if you will refer a matter to a prosecutor for trial, the expectation is that the whistleblower could become a witness, where he would have to be public. So you know, the whole idea of him being a whistleblower and entitled to anonymity is bogus. And then we get to this whole business of you know, confrontation clause and should he be required to testify? The confrontation clause only gives a defendant in a criminal prosecution, and impeachment

is not a criminal prosecution. But even if it applied, you would only get the right to confront the witnesses that the prosecutor chooses to call in the trial. So if you analogize the Democrats to a prosecutor in a criminal case, if they don't call the witness, the whistleblower so called, as a witness, then you wouldn't have a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause right to call him or to

cross examine him at the trial. And finally, that's why I've argued that what they should be talking about here is not the president's confrontation rights. It's his right to present a defense, and in any proceeding that's not a kangaroo court, you always get that is the president being afforded any right to a defense. From what you're seeing so far, not at this stage. And that's because I think Bogus Lee the Democrats are equating, at least when

it's convenient to them to do it. They are equating this phase, this intelligence committee phase run by Adam Schiff,

of their investigation. They're equating that to a grand jury. Now, in a grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, because the only thing that grand jury has did or decide is the limited question of whether there's probable cause that a crime got committed, such that the prosecutor should be able to get an indictment, and then you bring the case to a trial court, where the defendant would get to

present his defense and have all those rights, etc. The reason I say that Schiff is only doing that grand jury analogy when it's convenient for him is that the tradeoff for prosecutors is, yes, in the grand jury you get to give the grand jury is only your version of events, and you can muzzle the defense's version of events, but it's all got to be done in secret so that you don't prejudice the defendant. And what Schiff is trying to do here is have the best of both worlds.

It's a leaky grand jury, right. He wants to exactly right. He wants to muzzle the exculpatory evidence, muzzle the president's defense, but he wants to take what he thinks of the best witnesses to him and go public with it. Which is why I think that people who are describing this as a show trial are exactly right about that. Now, this point that was made, I don't know if you saw it on the view Andy, that it could be a crime to speak the name of the alleged whistleblower.

How do people with legal degrees say this stuff on TV? I just want to know. Well, I don't know. I mean, I spent twenty years in courtrooms with people with legal degree saying kinds of crazy stuff. I gotta tell you. Sometimes that comes with the territory. But I find though that when they're talking on television what went on in the courtroom seems modestum. That is just, you know, it's nonsense.

There's no legal prescription against mentioning the whistle blower. And in fact, if the whistle blower was blowing a whistle on a Democrat, the media would not only report the name, they would lecture you about the public's right to know and how that takes precedence of and needs to secrecy and all that stuff. So it always with these guys depends on whose ox is being bored. So now you

know it's a Republican president. So the whistle blower is, you know, one of humanity's great hero their their situational ethics are highly flexible, acrobatic. Even I would say, I would ask Andy, what are you expecting this week now that the stuff's coming out in the open? Give us your your preview where you think, you know, where are they going to take this space and everything that that

shift and the Democrats have been doing so far. And also what do you think Republicans response should be in the Congress? Yeah, I think this part for the Democrats standpoint book that this three or four days of hearings, whatever it's going to be this week, is going to be pretty scripted. They've picked out the handful of witnesses that they think are best for them to bruise up

President Trump. They're essentially going to deny the Republicans the right to call witnesses that would put these things in context. So what the Republicans want to show is that if the President was demanding investigations of the Bidens and investigations of corruption, it was because Ukraine has pervasively corrupt. There's reason to believe good faith, reason to believe the Bidens

were engaged in corrupt self dealing. And what the Republicans also want to show is there's a twenty sixteen election component of a Ukraine component in what would be what we would think of as the bar Durham investigation into the origins of the Trump Russia investigation. What I mean by that is there's a lot of reporting that the Obama administration leaned on Ukraine to do things like investigate

Paul Manafort, who was temporarily Trump's campaign chairman. And there's also evidence that Ukrainian officials colluded with the Clinton campaign. And that's just not me. That's not just me saying that a Ukrainian court has found that to be the case.

So I think the Republicans want to bring all of this out in order to place in context exactly what President Trump was asking of President Zalinsky of Ukraine, and naturally, the Democrats want to keep all of that out and then suggest that you Trump was simply doing nothing other than demanding an investigation of his political rival for potential

violations of Ukrainian law. And they want to, of course, then make the argument that, you know, the federal government, the American federal government exists to protect us from foreign regimes. We shouldn't have a president encouraging a foreign regime to

investigate an American citizen for violations of Ukrainian law. Now, Andy, I want to ask you because because you know Politico, for example, reporter this recently, according to Giuliani, Ukrainian officials conspired with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to help boost the Democratic nominee's campaign and damage Trump's candidacy. No evidence has emerged to support that idea. That's Politico, which was the rival of The Hill where I used

to work for full disclosure right. And then you go back to January of twenty seventeen, also in Politico, not retracted or amended the following Ukrainian Africa to sabotage Trump backfire. keV officials are scrambling to make amends with the President elect after quietly working to boost Clinton. And it goes on to talk about how Ukrainian officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness

for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aid in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. They helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump at his advisors, according to Politico, So which Politico do we believe? Andy? And a more serious question is this denied? Is this not

what happened? Because if this is what happened, then everybody that's running around screaming treason for Trump asking a country to investigate what seemed to me to be quite a corrupt arrangement needs to explain why it was okay for the Obama administration to do that to try to help Hillary during the election. Yeah, Buck, I think what we need to watch very carefully here is if you listen to the thing that Adam Schiff says and the way

they are being reported in the media. What he's now saying is that what Trump was looking for was an investigation into what he calls a refuted conspiracy theory about Ukraine being connected somehow to CrowdStrike, which is the outfit

that looked at the server exactly right. So what Schiff is trying to do is miniaturize this into saying what Trump was asking for was an investigation into whether the Ukrainians had something to do with the DNC server, And that may be a conspiracy theory that doesn't have much in the way of legs, but the story of Ukraine's connection to the Obama administration's investigation of the Trump campaign in twenty sixteen has a lot more to it than

the server and crab strike. So I think what we should do is like sort of carefully watch Shift and watch the way he is parsing that end of it, because you know, obviously, again there is a whole angle involving the Obama administration leaning on the Ukrainians to investigate Manafort, and a Ukrainian legislator and the head of the Ukrainian so called anti corruption police leaking information to the media that was harmful to Maniford with the intention of trying

to help the Clinton campaign. I mean, that's that's out there, and that's the reason the Republicans have asked for these witnesses that are connected to those things is precisely because they want to put all that out in public and

try to put the president's comments in contact. So there is there is a serious possibility here based on reporting from news organizations that didn't realize then that this would be helpful to Republicans, perhaps now that there was outreach from the Obama administration to go after a Trump campaign, Trump campaign chairman at the time, right, which would certainly look a lot like asking for foreign interference in an election.

Whether or not Manta Fort was dirty, Yeah, and Buck, I would underscore a Ukrainian court has found that the Ukrainian legislator and the head of the anti corruption police colluded with an American campaign named with a Clinton campaign in order to interfere in the American election. They've they've found that, So you know, this is not something we're pulling out of the sky. And what's going on in real quick before let you go back to the rest of your life. What's going on here with the delayed

report on Fi's abuse. Now I'm hearing you know, I heard it was I heard it was going to be Halloween, and I heard it was going to before Thanksgiving. Now it's like I'm here and hopefully before the next election. Practically, well, what's going on any ideas well? I think I still think it's going to be. I hope it's before Thanksgiving, but I think it'll be. It'll be reasonably soon. And

I think buck that all that's going on here. I've heard some theories that are out there that, you know, maybe he's dragging his feet because he doesn't want to step on whatever Dorham is doing. That's the latest theory. My own theory for what it's worth is that Horowitz is indicated to Congress into the Justice Department, that he's done, and that they are in the final rushes of putting the report out. And my sense of it is that the sheer bulk of this report, remember the Clinton emails

one was like five or six hundred pages. This is going to be a bigger report than that, maybe hundreds of pages longer. And they have to do a line by line with every intelligence agency that has equity in terms of anything that's designated as classified information, and Bar's got to do a view about, you know, what stays

classified and what gets unclassified. And I just think that that's a complicated process to get through with a document that's going to turn out to be very, very long, and the real deal, by the way, I've been reading about him, and it seems like he is the guy that we would want looking into this. You're talking Durham, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Durham's a terrific guy. He's an excellent prosecutor. I happen to know him personally. I haven't worked with him, but

I know him and think very well of him. Judge Mukasey, the former age of the Bush administration, who did not only work with him but picked him to do the investigation involving the CIA interrogations, thinks the world of him,

which goes a long way in my book. But he's done these kinds of investigations buck for administrations of both parties, going back to the Clinton administration, and everybody says that, you know, he's a very scrupulous guy who you won't hear from because he doesn't talk to the media and he puts his nose to the grindstone and gets a job done. He's not fast, if that's what people are looking for, that are going to get that, but he's

thorough all right. Andy McCarthy, everybody check out his latest on nationalview dot com, The Whistleblower and the President's right to present a defense, and he thanks so much for your time. We'll talk to you soon. My pleasure. But and he's the best, isn't he. It's always so fun to have Andy McCarthy on. As good as any legal endless you'll find anywhere, and honest about it all. The poll that I mentioned before about how Democrats are crazy,

it's a real poll. Axio supported on it today. Here's what he got. More than seventy percent of Democrats say politics is making them increasingly angry about America, leaving them feeling like strangers in their own land. According to a Axios on HBO pole the big picture, Americans a whole are just playing mad and feeling like strangers their own land. Republicans fifty seven percent are angry, compared to seventy four percent of Democrats. Seventy one percent of Democrats say they

feel like a strand of their own win folks. Seven out of ten people in this survey who are Democrats are saying, by the way, five out of ten republican. But you know there's always gonna be some angry people. Life is frustrating and difficult. But seven out of ten Democrats, according to this poll, are angry right now because of politics, specifically because of politics. So when I tell you that there's a mass delusion, there's a mass hysteria. The Democrats

have lost it. The numbers back me up. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of nowhere. The numbers suggest what I'm saying is true. Because here's the thing, it is true. I think we understand that Democrats have gone crazy. They have been broken in the Trump era and have no interest in trying to set things right in any way other that there were rather in any way that does not involve the removal of his president from office and from power. That that much is very clear at

this point in time. The Danka kids, all they want to do is become Americans. They came here when they were little. They weren't they didn't cross the border themselves, their parents brought them. And so many of them are in our armed forces. So many of them are going to college and trying to make a good life for themselves. There's broad consensus Democrats, Independence, Republicans that these DACA ought to pass, and I hope the courts will uphold that. Oh,

my friends, so much dishonesty around the immigration debate. It's one of the most difficult conversations to have with liberals these days because they've just been told so much that is not true, and they are so insistent on it being true. We have a couple of very important dynamics happening, or immigration issues I should say, occurred right right now.

I want us to do with the border, which I'll get into in a moment, and the reasonably I shouldn't say the securing of the border, but the more effective efforts at securing the border compared to where we were some months ago. Well, first I want to talk about DACA Deferred Action for childhood arrivals. This is going to get heard by the Supreme Court, I believe tomorrow, and there should be a decision made by the court sometime in June of twenty twenty. So we're not going to

get a final ruling on this for a while. But there are some very important issues at stake here, and every news report you read about this is just going to be kids who are great, who are aspiring for the American dream, who they're all valedictorians, they all want to serve the military. All they do is just be amazing all the time. And big, bad, mean Republicans are supporting the administration, which is saying that the DACA program

needs to end. There is before I get into DACA itself, because this is what they're going to skip pass right away. There's a rule of law issue that is very much at stake here, and that is the really the prime issue, the primary concern that I have about this, because the Obama administration very explicitly, you will remember this, they said

that they wanted comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama re upon his power and as the chief executive of the United States government, he said, as an executive order to just declare that there would no longer be enforcement of duly pass congressionist congressional statutes about illegal act illegal presence in America under immigration law. President Obama just said, look, Congress isn't doing what I want Congress to do, So I'm just going to do what I want to do. And

I don't care about that what message that sends. I don't care about the rule of law and the effects on the rule of law as a result of this. So Obama just said, you know, we will do this thing where you don't depoor dreamers. He made a decision as commander in chief, as the president of the United States at the time President Trump comes into office and says, Okay, put aside for a moment. Put aside for a moment.

Whether you like the idea of DACA or not, the Trump administration is arguing something very straightforward here, what are what one president can do via executive authority can be well, you know, it's one policy issue can be undone via executive authority, especially because this the entirety of the DACA argument as it was offered up at the time, was that it was just a prosecutorial prioritization maneuver that also allowed them to allow the people on aer DOCA buy

executive fiat. This was just conjured out of thin air. To work, they register, they're allowed to work and a lot of the United States, and they have to renew their DOCTA protection. So it created this process where you will to stand the country even though they're actually in the country illegally. And the Trump administration came in and said, okay, well, we don't want to do this because this is an extra league or illegal program. This was not passed by Congress.

This is not the way it's supposed to be. And at a minimum, you would think that the Trump administration would have the same discretion to not prosecute. The Trump administration would have the have that discretion and be in a position to prosecute or in this sense remove the prohibition on prosecution. That's all, by the way. I don't think that people even if the DOCCA program ended, I think that they'd be a very low prioritization for deportation anyway.

And I do think that this is why there's such a focus on DOCA, that these are the people who are the they have the most sympathetic cases for being in the country illegally. But then there should also be an understanding, well, if we're not going to just enforce the law as is, there should be a quid pro quo.

Dare I say that DOCA if the Republicans were to go along with DOCA for the Democrats, but if it meant real, meaningful border security and reform of immigration laws, that that's a bargaining chip that could be used instead. What happened was at court no surprise. I'm sure it was an Obama point deal though I don't know that, but I'm guessing it was an Obama pointee with the ruling said sorry, under the administrative Procedure Act. This is

arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the president cannot undo what a president before him did because the judge says so. Now, there are some who would argue that that this isn't even really in the purview of a federal judge to review. That's one argument. Then there's also how is it possible that, you know, can one president not end the war that

another president starts under the Administrative Procedure Act. I mean, this is when you start to see a lawlessness from these institutions that are supposed to be upholding the rule of law. This is where you see an abandoning of principle and of following legal text and its replacement with the whims of people who happen to be on the judiciary. It's absurd. Here you had the founder of scotus blog tweeted this out. I thought this was great. Scotus blog

is a Supreme Court blog. All they do is cover Supreme Court stuff. He wrote, this is an enormously important, stupid case. Enormously important for the individuals involved in immigration policy, but stupid because if Barack Obama can create the program real, Donald Trump can withdraw it. Yeah, this is very straightforward. This is not complicated stuff. What one president can decide to do, another president can decide not to do if

it is within presidential discretion. Right, If one person is allowed to walk into a store and say I want to buy, you know, strawberry ice cream or chocolate ice cream, I'm gonna go at the you know, or vanilla, I'm gonna go at strawberry, another person can walk into the store if they have that same consumer discretion and say I'm gonna get the you know, the Rocky Road ice

cream or the strawberry or whatever it is. Right, you have a problem if the same choice cannot be made by the same people in the same given the same authority under the law. So what's the answer here? Like, oh, hashtag resistance. Judge doesn't like it. Taking away DOCTA status is mean administrative procedure Act. You've got to be kidding me. But what that means is that this is just because this is because I say so in legal ease from

a judge. Why can't you do this? Yeah, violation the administrant because there's not enough notice here under come on, this is entirely nonsensical stuff, but there are very major there are major implications here, major implications for rule of law. And it's also just a reminder of the length the judiciary has been willing to go to in order to undermine President Trump and in the process, undermine the very federal judiciary itself. The lengths have been extreme. And then

you have just the border overall. Right now, you have a seventy five percent decrease in illegal border crossings since May, and this is attributable to Trump administration policies. The Trump administration has taken some important steps that have been very helpful in trying to stop this situation from continuing on. You had one hundred and thirty just just to give you some numbers of what's going on the border, one hundred and thirty two thousand arrests at our southern border

back in May. Those are illegal crossings. People caught. Thirty two thousand are caught. How many got a cross about that? And then also it's down to thirty six thousand in October. What are some of the moves. Let's take a little stock here. Because I was ry much involved in trying to publicize what was going on at the border. I spend time at a couple of border sectors with border patrol, trying to get the word out, a lot of appearances on Tucker carl Carlston's show, wrote a couple of articles

in The Hill dot com. One of them actually got shared by the official Trump and White House Twitter accounts about the scams going on at our southern border with the immigration So what has changed? What has been the shift here? We have a few things. One, Mexico, at the behest of the Trump administration, has decided to step

up immigration enforcement. So the Mexican government, with pressure from the Trump administration, has said that there has actually put more of its own national Guard troops at its border with Central American countries and then stopped the inflow into Mexico, which is obviously very helpful because the inflow of Mexico becomes the inflow of the United States. Mexico is also agreed to have fifty five thousand migrants remain in Mexico.

And guess what turns out that people who are told you can apply for ASSY in the United States, but you have to wait in Mexico while you do it, some of that are going all the way back to Central America. Now, there are two ways that this will be described the media. Well, first of all, this and that program is facing legal challenges. So you have all the different open borders advocates, the Democrat Party of course leading the charge, all these different open borders advocates who

are saying, oh, no, you can't work out. The United States does not have the sovereign right to work out in agreement with Mexico where they keep asylum seekers in Mexico waiting for their day in court in the United States.

They want to fight that because we all understand what the incentive is here, the incentive all along will show up at the southern border, claim that you're fleeing gang violence, read practically from a script about what you have to say to get into the country, to pass that first credible fear test. And then once in the United States, you're good. Yeah, you're home free. Don't worry about it. You're out of custody. They're never They're not gonna find

you again. You're not going to show up for your hearing. If you do show up, you gotta show up a few times before they can even take any action against you. You can fight against your actual extradition even when you lose your asylum appeal. I mean, it's impossible. You're gonna be good. It's all you gotta do is get into the country and get out of attention, and you're good

to go. And that was the whole game. Turns out, when people are told, hey, guess what you gotta wait in Mexico, they go, oh, the scam isn't gonna work anymore. Got to go back to Central America. Better to go back to the country that they, many of whom would claim was a threat to their very lives, than to just wait a few months maybe in Mexico for their asylum. Hearing that seems to be a strange choice, although it's not a strange choice if you aren't really fleeing gang violence.

You're just an economic migrant and you were trying to find a way to game the system to get into America, which is what a vast majority of these Central American migrants would doing, as told to me by border patrol, and as I was able to find when we would hear the in some cases the actual arrests going on of these Central American migrants when they're telling the stories two border patrol when I was there, So that's another thing.

And then They have instituted a policy where if you pass through Mexico and don't first try to get asylum in Mexico if you're from Central America, then you cannot

claim a sign the United States. Essentially, you cannot go jurisdiction shopping or nation state shopping as an assy lee if you're really claiming asylum, if you're under mortal threat, if you're oppressed and fleeing tyranny, the first country that isn't going to tyrannize and threaten you is the one that you should be asking for asylum, and you don't. You don't get to say, well, I just wanted to I want the best, richest, biggest welfare benefit country in

the Western hemisphere. You're not allowed to do that anymore to the Trump administration. Of course, the Libs are very upset about about that. And then one other thing here not getting a lot of attention. I remember there's some so called, well, I don't know, conservatives, some of them are never Trumpers. We're very upset about the declaration of a state of emergency that Trump made. Who are all of our civil rights being trampled on because of the

Trump declaration of emergency? Well, it turns out that by the end of twenty twenty, the Trump administration is hoping to have constructed four hundred and fifty miles because of the declaration of emergency and the moving of funds within the federal budget to the border construction border wall construction, they're hoping to have four hundred and fifty miles of

border wall by the end of twenty twenty. If Trump gets close to five hundred miles of new wall, not just upgraded fence, new fence, new wall, whatever we're calling it, those build a wall chants are going to be very loud going into what I think will be his reelection.

People said he would never do it, never happened, can't happen. Well, if they really are are on track, if this is correct, this is reporting the Wall Street Journal to put up four hundred and fifty miles a wall by the end of this year, by the end of next year, I think you'd have to consider that a promise kept, or at least close to it. Promise kept it, promise in progress on something that critics of the Trump administration we're

saying along absolutely impossible. There's no way that he'll be able to pull that off, so we will continue to watch the border and the administration's response to it. I'm worried that we're running out of time. Every time the scientists reanalyze the data, it's worse than they thought. So when they thought we had this much time to do something, it turns out when they reanalyze the data, it's this much time, and that it's this much time. We've got

to be moving on every front. This is our only planet, and I think of the responsibility that we have to future generations. We didn't We didn't inherit this earth from our grandparents. We're borrowing it from our grandchildren, and we have a responsibility to believe them the earth that is sustainable, an earth that will support life. And I don't know about you, but I refuse and reject and absolutely will

not accept the choice of the choice. Sorry, I refuse to accept the choice of leaving a planet that is diminished and dying to the next generation. I refuse to choose that. And because we refuse to choose that, then we what we have no choice to do is to act to do exactly what they say. What Warren says, what AOC says, that's your There's no choice here. You must do what they say because the planet is at stake. These people are nuts, folks. This is crazy. This is crazy.

What's amazing is when you speak to people who think they're very sophisticated, very very educated, wealthy area died across the country and the liberal enclaves, they look at you like your nuts if you don't think the world is going to end in ten years unless we listen to complete and income poops in the Democratic Party who don't know a thing about a thing, and let them run the entire economy and let them transform the global economy

without our basic understanding of how economics works. And just how much crazy er can it get? How much more bonkers can the Democratic Party be before there is some kind of reckoning, some kind of awakening about what is really going on? How to take down a charter school. This is a story that I find, I find and if you reating fascinating and well worth it. For those of you that want to, we'll put the story up.

It's from the Atlantic dot Com. John McCord is the author of the piece, and it tells a story, a story that people should know because it deals very much with social justice rhetoric. And wokeness and whiteness and all these different concepts that are constantly being used and leveraged and alleged on the left, depending on what we're talking about.

There's a charter school in Brooklyn called Ascend. In fact, it's now a network of fifteen schools, but it was founded ten years ago by a man named Stephen Wilson.

And Stephen Wilson who you would think would be celebrated by the left because as he founded a charter school that has done what so many public schools across the country cannot figure out how to do, which is to take young, predominantly minority, Black and Latino children who are from underprivileged backgrounds and make them exceptional students doing well, getting good grades, beating the national or the estate average on the test scores success like Success Academy here in

New York another place that's been made controversial because the left really doesn't like success that goes outside the public school model, because public school is actually a form of socialism and central planning runs it and it is it is a mediocrity factory and a jobs program. I mean, that's what the national level public school system is. And to call it a mediocrity factory might be generous, probably

is very generous. Actually, a charter schools sometimes do what we're told is so hard to do, which is to find a way to inspire and promote learning among underprivileged minority children. You would think the left, which talks all the time about diversity and inclusion and equity and multiculturalism, You would think the left would say, oh my gosh, this is great. How do we how can we do this, how can we find a way to replicate this success? But no, they want to shut it down. They want

to shut down these charter schools when they can. They want to make sure that people don't believe that these different philosophies when it comes education, are more effective than the one size fits all approach of the bland intellectual gruel that has served up to our children courtesy of the Department of Education across the country. But this innovative educator, Steven Wilson put up a blog post that I have read. I have read the piece by John McCarter. The blog

post from this past summer written by Steve Wilson. They found Stephen Wilson, the founder of Ascend Charter School, and then also the change dot org petition from friends of Ascend, they say, asking for this guy to get in trouble. By the way, he has been fired or removed from his position by the board of the very charter school system that he founded that was so successful for so many young, underprivileged minority children. He's been kicked out. Why

has he been kicked out? Because he wrote a blog piece, the Promise of Intellectual Joy, that is really worth reading, by the way, I mean, it's only about eight pages long, and I was impressed impressed with his willingness to look at some of the educational missteps in this country's past, and how there has been for now over a hundred years, a debate that has been raging back and forth where

people in the educational establishment. Now I'm not really talking about university level, really talking about grammar school and high school, but there have been these moments in time when or periods of time when the educational establishment was saying, oh, let's not we don't need a liberal education. We don't need an education that tries to inspire the mind, promotes a joy and love of learning. Let's just teach people

how to keep themselves clean. You know, how to do the basics of living day to day, of you know, computational arithmetic for buying things in the store. Let's teach them these these basic life skills essentially at the expense of teaching them about the life of the mind. And that these movements have popped up at different times, and it popped up, for example, in the early twentieth century.

This is all this promise of intellectual joy piece written by this esteemed educator that when there was a big surge of immigrants into the country, for example, that the educational establishment public schools in this country, was pushing for effectively dumbing down the teaching so that you're not learning the life of the mind, you're not learning about the promise of intellectual joy and trying to give that to everyone as a gift for the rest of their lives.

You're teaching them how to be cogs in this state machine, how to you know, be able to more or less function day to day in a way that they're not too much of a drain on the state. A tremendously

condescending approach to education. Now, Stephen Wilson is taking the approach that this is wrong, that this should not be done, and here's some of how John mcquarter describes this this debate, Wilson's decries how the pushback against traditional education with its rote learning and Ltrinell range of perspective, has often entailed the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, toward a gauzy student focused approach that de emphasizes the authority

of the teacher, or most disturbing disturbingly, the learning of facts. Wilson's problem is with people such as Rousseau and John Dewey, and even Dwight D. Eisenhower, who espoused what Wilson considers anti intellectual ideas about how and what children should learn. Wilson observed in his blog post, this is where he gets into trouble, folks. This is where they come after him. Wilson observed in his blog post that liberal education is

under fresh attack, this time as whiteness. The petition states this claim equates a liberal education with whiteness, the very opposite of Wilson's argument. The underlying message here, say the petition writers, is that a liberal education is whiteness. Whiteness is therefore intellectual, and any challenged to a liberal education is a challenge to whiteness. So any challenge to whiteness

is anti intellectual. Even following the rather tortuous logic here, Wilson gives no indication of thinking that all challenges to something as vast as white hegemony qualify as anti intellectualism. Elsewhere, Wilson criticizes the idea that focus on a text is a kind of white supremacy. That's right, my friends, focusing on the words in a text when you're teaching literature or English language that is decried in some places in

the educational system now as white supremacy. The words focus on the words, that's white supremacy, oh says who says people in the educational establishment. Quote. That may sound bizarre, but at a conference about white supremacy, culture and education convened by the New York City Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza, attendees were shown a slow explained that white supremacist thinking includes quote, worship of the written word and even objectivity

end quote. Educational conference at the highest level here in the public school system in New York City that is making the claim and instructing other educators to propagate this claim that objectivity and the written word itself can be a form of white supremacy. And if you're wondering what the heck is going on, you are not alone. But it doesn't matter what he says. It doesn't matter what

he really wrote. The petition quotes Wilson's concern and then with no argumentation whatsoever, flags him as protecting white supremacy culture and a paternalistic orientation toward the work of social justice reform. Now, my friends, here's the real here's the real problem. Here's why this guy Wilson had to lose his job after doing more for minority children in New York City than any of these social justice activists on

the change dot org petition. The problem is that he pointed out that there is a movement underway right now, as there has been at different times in the past, to teach differently to minority children, to teach in a

way that is more culturally sensitive and culturally inclusive. And so that means making choices, making distinctions that go away from trying to inspire everybody with the same ideas and ideals and great literature and great learning, and teaching differently to minority children in order to give them something that they will be more act to take to and to

handle well in the classroom. Now they think the social justice left thinks that doing this, teaching differently to minority children in the public school is something that should be promoted and celebrated. And that's why they're also attacking a culture of objectivity and words on the page meaning what they mean as a form of whiteness. And this is all it's I mean, I have the documents in front of me, this is all in the petition, and that

this is white, toxic patriarchal masculinity in the classroom. Right. You know, learn read poems from the great poets and read what they say, not reinterpreted, and write your own poem that has the same title, but you know, is more culturally in line with what you wish the poem said. You know, that's anathemaa that's no longer acceptable. And there have been other times in history when in the public school system in this country people have argued that certain groups, immigrants,

the poor, minorities, should be taught differently. And the promise of intellectual joy that Wilson is trying to advocate for is that all people, all children, have the same intellectual inheritance, which is that we should all be striving for greater

knowledge and understanding. The roots of a liberal education are to give you a joy of learning and understanding and the process of wrestling with thoughts and coming to conclusions, and understanding reason and understanding logic and thinking about your place in the world. That is everybody's inheritance, irrespective of skin color, irrespective of socioeconomic background. And the children should all be given the best that we can in terms of the life of the mind and the promise of

intellectual joy. But this runs afoul of the social justice activists who want to say that this is you know, all all the authors that are being taught in this classroom, classroom, it's all old white, old dead white males. It doesn't matter if the book is a time you know, is timeless or incredibly well written, or deals with the historical period that all human beings should be you know, very

familiar with. In fact, if you were really wondering the lengths that this this social justice group was willing to go to to get Steven Wilson, founder of the Ascend Charter school system fired. Remember that when he specifically quote when he specifically cites the great African American writers and intellectuals from American history. He cites Martin Luther King, he cites Frederick Douglass, he cites James bald He says, you know this and their timelessness and their role in you know,

the ur educational system. People understanding the greatness of their thoughts, their writing. His citation of great African American authors and writers of the past, and the need to make sure that they are representing the classroom because of their intellectual worth, because of their greatness. That has taken as further evidence of his transgression by the social justice left. I bring

you this quote. The author asked, what would they make of Frederick Douglas's fourth of July speak, Martin speech, Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail, or James Baldwin's letter to his nephew my dungeon shook in the fire next time. The author concludes this point by stating, it is hard to imagine a more destructive message to teachers and their students. This tool will surely become to see as another wrong turn on the way to equal opportunity. These statements, this

is from the petition to get this guy fired. Okay, these statements represent a commitment to protecting white supremacy culture and paternalistic orientation toward the work of social justice reform. This is from the petition that got this guy fired from the fifteen school char charter school network that he built from the ground up. This is why I got fired. He was citing great African American intellectual and literary heroes from from within America, from within our own, our own tradition,

and they viewed that as another transgression. How dare you use great black, great Black authors to make the case that young Black and Latino children have heroes from within their own ellectual tradition that are promoting the same virtues and greatness and life of the mind that other other

authors are. And therefore the case that the social justice left that you have to dumb things down, or you have to do a different course, slow, different coursework based more on inclusion and equity and all these other things, that that's not necessary. In fact, that's the wrong path. This guy's a liberal, folks, It's clear from where he's writing. This guy's a liberal leftist. But he understands education. He understands the need to inspire the mind of all people.

He takes the very basis of what we would think is is our need for equality and equity. That we are all God's children, that we were all equivalent in terms of our our moral worth, and we all should be treated equally as human beings, and our ability to grow and the life of the mind to grow within us should all also be treated equal as human beings. The social justice left does not see it that way. They want different approaches based on who different people are.

And this guy's fighting down when he points out how absurd that is and how it has failed historically, and how there have been other times when people thought that they were doing a favor to the new immigrants, they thought they were doing a favor to the poor, to people in urban ghettos, to people, you know, by changing curriculum to make it so that it was you know, less of a challenge, or that it was more represent editive of of you know, inclusiveness and diversity in terms

of the reading list or whatever it may be. And that that wasn't a good idea that we've tried to experiments fell in the past. The left has to crush this guy. There's one more point here about all of this. I thought was so I mean, this was fascinating stuff, and we'll we'll put it up on Facebook dot com. So Buck slash buck sex since you guys can see it. Chriser Mark, please remember remind me to make sure we

do that. Mcquarter, who, by the way, is an African American writer who's the guy who wrote the piece breaking all this down. Mcquarter says at the end that what you see from this petition is that it's not It's not that they, the people writing this petition, this change our petition to get this guy fired. It's not that they think calling someone white supremacists is just a a tool that is useful for blunt force politics, which it

certainly is. But he says that it's clear from reading this petition that they viewed calling someone a white supremacist as in and of itself all that is necessary for someone's destruction. That essentially they believe the argument, once you've called someone a white supremacist, they must be that and must be treated as such without any argument, without any

underpinning justification. Terrifying in the implications. But this is where the social justice left has gone, destroying good people who do good things for minority communities while pretending to be caring about the very minority communities that were helped by the other guy. All right, team, So as we discuss today is Veterans Day, and I want to bring on we have many good friends who are veterans who are frequent guests here in the show. Our friend Brandon Webb

joins us now. He is the founder of softwarep dot com, which also owns Great Club and they have a show inside the Team Roman he's gonna tell us about also Brandon as a former Navy seal himself. Brandon, Happy Veterans Day, man, Thank you for your service. What are your what are your thoughts? Just start with your opening thoughts today is it's a day to actually appreciate those who have served, you know, I mean my thoughts and thank for having

me on the show. I appreciate it. My thoughts are you know this is a data to acknowledge, you know, veterans have served. But in the larger picture, you know, I think your audience would appreciate the fact now more than either, more than more than ever. We need to really think about, you know, what we're doing abroad and and do we really have a well thought out form

policy strategy in place? Because you know, you and I both lost friends since nine to eleven, and you know, I hate to look at what we're doing in Afghanistan now, almost twenty years in, and you know, I think we just have to really hold hold our politicians accountable and make sure that we're we're putting forth America's best and brightest to a cause that we can get behind in the country. And I mean, do you think we should get out get out of Afghanistan brand that I know

you served there? Yeah, I mean, honestly, the mission when I was over there was very clear after nine to eleven. You know, I deployed in two thousand and one, two thousand and two, it was killed a bunch of bad guys and wipe out the training camps, which we did, And personally, I think we probably would have been better off packing up and leaving in two thousand and three. And I just look at, you know, the the amount of billions of dollars pumped into that country, and really,

what are we gonna have to show for it? And you know, ideally, if we look at it, if we pulled out tomorrow, the Taliban it's back in power. So it's just one of those things. Um, you know, not going a tangent when you look at Syria, right, I think Trump made the right call by pulling troops out of Syria because we don't really want to get into a proxy war with Russia and Iran, and so you think series the right move. Do you feel like the

administration by large? I mean, well, when you talk to veterans about about how Trump is doing as commander in chief,

what's the what's the overriding sentiment did you pick up? Yeah, I mean it's a good question, right, I think largely the sentiment that I hear among my fellow veterans that that Trump has been a pretty good commander in chief, like in the form of really respecting the troops, which I served under the Clinton administration when I first joined the Navy, and it was well known amongst all military service members that there was kind of a disdain of

sorts for men and women in uniform and that's just not good for morale. Right, Yeah, that is clearly that is part of the case. Brandon tell us about Inside the team Room, the show that you guys have launched over at soft Rup. So the first team Room show we did was back in twoy twelve, when we launched softwap dot com, it actually featured Chris Kyle Americ, who

was the American Sniper at the time. Him and I had two books out together, my Being the Red Circle and his Being America Sniper, and that showed it extremely well. We since pulled it down out of respect to the for the family, but the series has carried on. So we just launched a new series on dot com called

Inside the Team Room Navy Seal Snipers. Um. It features myself Charlie Melton, who worked with me as an instructor at the Sniper program, and it really goes into like areas of conversation that you just don't find on typical

television or cable programming. And that's what I think really makes the show special is you know, Charlie can you know, talk about the struggles of transitioning from active duty to civilian life, but also you know the time he shot someone at sixty yards with a fifty cal sniper rifle, So that you know, the stories are engaging and um, you know, I think people are really going to enjoy the show going to find it at soft reap dot com.

We put the first three episodes on YouTube on our YouTube channel for free, um but our you know, we have a military version of Netflix on software so people can can sign up for monthly and access the video the rest of the series. There Former Navy seal and softwarep dot com founder Brandon Webb, Brandon, my friend. Great to have you on the show. Have you Veterans Day to you and we'll talk soon. Thanks brother, and keep up with a good work, Team Bucking. It's time for

roll call. All right, let's get into some of our emails, our Facebook posts, Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton. If you want to send in a note there and if you want to do stuff on the on the email and we'll kick at old school way to do that is to write to us at Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. Carl says Buck Carl here just saying you sound like the guy off Princess Bride, you know that mel Brooks played, or the witch that yells. You know,

it's the inflection of the tone that's hilarious. When do I sound like the Princess? Oh? Want to do Bernie? Bernie said this, I don't know, I don't know who we're talking about here. Well as far as Joe Biden goes he needs about four or five years of previgin what and producer Mark Huey, Dewey Louis and Scrooge McDuck. Okay, thank you, Carl. I don't even know what's going on here, Carl.

I appreciate you running in all right, Benny, Benny and the Jets, Hey Buck, how many more slanted, biased, non attributable, false, misleading quote news articles we'll it take before Conservatives on Capitol Hill began using a Lensky's tactic of ridicule as a most potent weapon. If a conservative has asked to comment on a story from the New York Time Times, they respond every time they didn't read it, nor do they comment on anything that from a particular fraudulent source.

Will be the American people. Bob whoa shields high? Benny, Yeah, I don't know, man, I don't know where the meat we're fighting. We're fighting the anti we're in the media, fighting the anti media war. That seems to be what's going on here. Karen about Christine Blasi Forge right, she can't remember where or when that party was, but she claims Brett having assaulted her. But she remembers she only had one beer. When my alcoholic clients say one beer,

they mean a forty ounce bottle. Well, Karen, as you know, I think that the Blasi Ford was a political hit, and I think that she was probably just delusional but definitely incorrect and possibly lying intentionally. But that's that's where I am on this. Let's see here, lo right, So listen to your show because your version of the day's events. I really like the roll call structure of interaction with your listeners opinions. Taking call some people in the middle

of the the show is what everybody else does. It gets old. I really like everything you're doing to expand your media company. Kudos to producer Mark. Oh, you know, we appreciate producer Mark. We just don't want him to, you know, get a big head or anything, you know, because now we're doing all this cool new stuff and producer Marcus, you know, running the cool new stuff. Don't worry, my head could never get as big as yours. That is a that

is a literally true statements. My cranium is giant. I'm in literally n figured to lay here you go, but producer Marcus here to make sure that the buckster's feet stayed on the ground. Here in the Freedom Hut not floating up into the sky. I don't worry about that. We have Dixie right. Hey, Buck, just wondering you've seen heard the new ad for the Hartford Insurance Company. The Buck starts here. I have not. I have not, but I will um, I will check it out. John rights Buck.

Trump is the ultimate capitalist as such, just the fact that he is. He is a direct to the government swamp and bureaucrat blah blah. Wait what hold on? Trump is the ultimate capitalist as such, just the fact that he is is a direct there we go to the government swamp and every beer kind of Washington, DC. That's one of the reasons they hate him so much for as long as they do. John m Yeah, John, I do think that that is that you're onto something here with that Trump is a threat to the swamp. They

recognize that, and so they act accordingly. So there you go, Jacob. I love that you have an official email. Now I'm doing my best to get out the word about Team Buck and recommending the podcast to all my friends. Go Team Buck with your shielder on at Jake in upstate New York. Jake, thank you, man, I really mean it. Those of you that can please tell tell your folks, tell your conservative friends to listen to the Buck Sexton Show.

It is the single most helpful thing you can do is to get somebody that you know who doesn't already listen to the show to listen. That is a game changer for us here. All right, now we'll go over to the Facebook side of things. We got Jonathan rights Buck, Producer Mark, don't go knocking out libs. The cameras mightier than the progressive mouth pointed their way and they melt like the witch from OZ. That is all. Thank you, Jonathan, don't worry. We are we are not violent, violent types

in here. But and Producer Mark, was you say if anybody were to be disrespectful to missus, Producer Mark, there would be hell to pay, which I back one hundred percent. I mean that's different. That's not just me being violent. No, No, that's you just yeah, standing my ground, standing your grampan to man. Yeah, that's right, totally. But Jonathan, I know he doesn't want us to give any any liberals a knuckle sandwich. Remember when people say give you a knuckle sandwich,

that's you know, old old timey stole, old times. Yes, yeah, Well, I don't want to give anyone knuckle sandwich unless they start really deserve it. Yeah, Julia Rights, buck great show has always I agree with you. You have to go with your instincts first. No, mouthguard might as a word avenger shirt and crocs while you're at it. Good teeth are for TV people anyway, Shields high. Thank you, Julia. I think I think that's helpful. I'll take it ill,

I'll roll with it. So yes, indeed, Um, the mouthguard I have not. I have not yet been able to get that thing to do what I want to do. So um, but I'm working. I'm working on all the things, working all the stuff. Amanda Rights, thanks for the book recommendations. Also Endgame. The new Marvel movie stunk. I was so mad that I spent all my time watching it. Um. Yeah, she's right, isn't she? Mark No, she is very very wrong, just saying another one. Put another one on the board

for the bucks. That's like two and the rest of them are with me. So the ones who know know what's up. I know what. I watched her the weekend. It was it was Oh, can I recommend it? I watched The King on Netflix. It was pretty well done. It's about Henry the Fifth Battle of a Juan Carl. It's pretty good. But and the battle sequence they did, I feel like, was hyper realistic, which was an interesting way to go for that period. They did not. It

wasn't a lot of these battles. They have a guy who you know, was standing in the battlefield and he's like cutting down people left and right, and it's all very choreographed and you know he's like yeah, yeah, and you can see him and every This battle was just like a man I mean, dudes rolling around the mud, stabbing each other in the eyes with you know, sharpened sticks, crushing each other, horses fall on top of people. I

mean that it was. It was a little a little bit like the best episode of Game of Thrones probably ever, which was the Battle of the Bastards, where you had that fight sequence, but that was stylized. But it was it was pretty well done. I thought this was a not a very stylized battle sequence at all, and it was. It was good. The movie itself, though, I feel like drags a little bit, all a slow in some places,

but a Netflix movie was pretty good. But yeah, if you want to see some about Henry the Fifth and John Falstaff doing their thing. I thought it was it was a it was a solid enough effort. I watched it over the course of the weekend. Lauren Rights, Hey Bock, I just started watching your show on Pluto TV using our Roku. A couple of comments. The audio volume between your show and the commercials significant. The commercials are too loud,

your show is too soft. There's a okay and more complaints about commercial Well, we love our sponsors, but Lauren, we will pass this onto producer Mark and he can see if he can work some of that Producer Mark magic to do all the things, make all the things happen. James Dune Dune Dune, I side with producer Mark. I support the Mets shields tire from w g Y New York. So James is also miserable. Yeah, the Mets not so good. They are usually laughing stock of baseball. How can they

be the case? The New York is such a big sports make so much. Yeah, well they have ownership that refuses to spend money on the team. But they love when we spend money, you know, buying merchandise and tickets and food and all that stuff. But they won't spend it on players. Yeah, it's not good. That's that's not a recipe for success. I feel like it is not not in baseball where there's no salary cap. M what's

the best? What are like the mega teams? Well, the Yankees they're the ultimate team, the Red Sox, the Dodgers, most of the ones, the kind of the marquee names. It's not like a team. It's not. You know, Golden State Warriors were a joke ten years ago or fifteen years ago. Now they're like the team. Well now they're not anymore this year. They have a lot of players injured. But well, okay, well I was class I see, I almost dropped some sports knowledge. Almost didn't let me get

it was very close. Yeah, I knew more about sports back in the nineties than I do now. But now I have to just read all the time so I can tell team Buck what's going You still think the Knicks are a good team? Are they not a good team? Oh? My god, they're the worst team in basketball. That's really that. That's another How is that possible? They got the biggest basketball market in the country here, Yes, New York City loves basketball. Well, another ownership problem is that the Dolans,

I've hurt. He's a joke. I knew somebody used to work for them and said that it was amazing to work for a sports franchise with the people who owned the franchise didn't care about sports. See if he was like to the Knicks like he is to the Rangers, the Knicks would be good. He just leaves the Rangers alone, lets the hockey people do the hockey things. Doesn't do that with basketball. I see, Yeah, Cody Rights, Hey Buck, you're looked up Porter Stansbury before Wikipedia. Yeah, Cody, Porter's

my man. Porter's a friend of mine. He's great. So I know all about Porter. Let's see what else we have here, Gina, hey Buck, Robin and Prince of Thieves is okay. But it's not just he has no English accent. He starts off with one badly, in my opinion, in the first twenty minutes or so, it's completely gone. Is that really true? But I will say Alan Rickman is a badass Sheriff of Nottingham. I'll cut jall hot out

with a spoon shield tie. Gina, you may be right about about the performance that what's his name turned in for Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. I don't remember. I just remember him walking around like I am Robin Hood. I do not have an accent. Everyone else's like, O, who's that Robin Hood? Is he trying to steal bread from the sheriff and give it to the pool people. It looks like that. You know. Everyone else has got like a real serious accent. He's like, I am Robin Hood.

I have no accent. I didn't think that was cool. Yeah, if everyone else has an accent, you need an accent. They're walking around. I'm like, oh boy, he's so good with the bower de row. Look at him. He takes the bowie, shoots the arrow realm like right straight on dunk in the blinds. I sound just like the guy dunk in the assistant that he has. Thank you, Robin Nood, you gave me a bit of bread. It's the ninety

so we think it old. British people talk like this a little bit unless they're the Queen than they sound fancy. I do love a nice British accent. Yeah exactly, I probably be fake one at bars. You'd be helpful here in New York City. All right, that's gonna be it today for the buck Sexton Show team. It has been fantastic as always. I hope you agree. Spread the word far and wide. Post the links that we share on

Facebook and on Twitter. Please to your own page if you don't mind, so some of your friends, some of your folks can see it. That would be a big help. We are trying to grow the show. Kind of a fantastic Veterans Day, all of you please say thank you to a veteran and we'll talk tomorrow. Shields High,