How Dems Shred All Norms

American Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, thank you for being here with me. It's a bit of a cold and dreary Monday in New York City, hopefully a little more charming wherever you are across the country and around the world. But the good news is when it's not beautiful and sunny outside, there is no better place to be than in the Freedom Hunt. Here with producer Mark, who even on the darkest days, is a ray of

sunshine for all of us. So let's get to what when I wanted to begin are a deep dive into all things that matter today. With and that is the Attorney General speaking over the weekend. Now we have all of this focus on the impeachment proceedings and more witnesses this week. Vin Minn is going to be one of them. There are a few other witnesses I believe, in aid

to Vice President Pence will speak. And there is a clear idea from the Democrats on the left of what's supposed to happen here, which is that the steady drum beat of witness witness witness polls that are negative for the president, witnesses that are negative for the president, that

this will shape opinion over time. Even if you don't view this, or you haven't viewed this from the beginning as a worthwhile exercise, you feel like they're trying to make this allegation against the president seemed much more damaging than it really is. They're hyping this whole thing up. Even if you feel that way, certainly I do, and then some even stronger, even more strongly than I've described there. The media understands that part of the effect of propaganda

is to shift opinion through repetition. One of the things that they can accomplish is just by saying day in and day out. The president's going to be the president should be impeached. He's going to be impeached. The public is against the president. People start to even subconsciously say to themselves, Wow, I guess there really is a means

for there really is a necessity for impeachment here. And remember, they're not going to convince you and me, or at least those of you who like me are very supportive

of the president despite understanding his flaws. What they're hoping is that they can just edge up enough of the opposition to the president from the roughly forty percent of liberals who will believe anything about Trump, will do anything to get rid of Trump, to get it just above that you keep saying these polls the fifty one percent mark.

They're hoping that if they can manage that accomplishment, then there'll be enough of a ground swell to get rid of this president, and perhaps not through the removal proceeding by the Senate after a Senate trial, but that he will go into reelection wounded in the court of public opinion. He will go into reelection with a newly emboldened left wing opposition against him and a somewhat chasten demoralized Trump support. That is the purpose of all of this. That's what

they have been saying all along. But I wanted to take a step back from this for a minute, because part of the justification of the impeachment proceeding part whatever, now it's now it's full impeachment. It was an inquiry whatever they're calling this now now the impeachment investigation is that the president has been so terrible that he has

shredded the constitution. This is what you often here. He has been shredding the norms that really hold this country politically, culturally, legally together, and that there's really a they're making an argument that it is the totality of all things Trump that is impeachable. It's not even just any one specific act, of course, it can't be. They keep changing what that specific act would be with every passing week, with each passing day. In some cases, Molluman's clause, Russia collusion, quid

pro quo, twenty fifth Amendment. Just go down the list of all these different things that they say they're going to either use or will be the justification for using as a means of getting rid of the president. It's a it's a cycle it's a rotation. It's this, it's that, it's this, it's that, and now you're seeing that. To hold all this together to be the overarching theme for the series of narratives about Trump being reckless and destroying the country is that he is destroying the norms. He

is shredding the rule of law. And what I really liked is that this week at Attorney General bar who you know is effective because the left hates him. This is a guy who's a very yeah, pretty uh laid back, i'd say, in his demeanor, a lawyer's lawyer. Was in the specifically in the part of the Dutch Department before where the lawyers who evaluate what is what is department policy, what is constitutional, what is not. So he's a brilliant lawyer.

They keep saying he's a hatchetman for Trump, even though he had already been Attorney general and there was no one saying he was a hatchetman them. Then he's a brilliant lawyer. Though he spoke at the Federalist Society of the weekend and it was a brilliant speech. I know a lot of you aren't another time to watch the

whole hour and thirty minutes or so of it. But I would tell you could just jump to the latter portion, last thirty minutes or so, where he really gets into the meat of what's going on right now, of the way the resistance is waging its campaign against the president, and how it is they who are trashing the rule of law. They're the ones who are discarding norms and

engaging in a scorched earth campaign against the president. And this one we had a couple moments here, But first he gets into the tactics of a left and then he will get into who really who are the left these days? When I use that term, we get to the phrase, But first, let's start with the tactical approach. This was a brilliant amation from a fantastic lawyer who knows what the president is up against, who's on the front lines as the attorney general of the judicial overreach

that is a tool against the president. They're pretty open about the hashtag resistance judiciary. Here's the Attorney General saying for himself, please play clip two. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on

an entirely new character. Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called the resistance, and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration. The fact of the matter is that in waging a scorched earth, no holds barred war of resistance against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic

shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law. Every American needs to hear that speech. A lot of them will disagree say that Barr is just a tool of Trump. This is the crux of what we are seeing right now with impeachment, with the Democrat and the lefts war on this president, abusing the bureaucracy, weaponizing the intelligence community, usurping executive authority through the judicial branch. This is what they are doing, and it is in fact, very much

out of the Saul Olinsky playbook. This goes back to the community, the origins of community organizers and doing things that, while not explicitly illegal, are meant to use the system against itself to shut it down. We'll get into universal injunctions, which the Attorney General speaks about at some length in just a few minutes. That's one of the primary methods

of sabotage used against this administration. Judges have been essential in this process to the left, and they've been acting in bad faith, and their decisions are appalling, and they do violence to the rule of law while saying they are protecting the rule of law. But the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law is what the left has completely embraced in the era of Trump. And they accuse us, they accuse our side of doing that.

They're the ones who say that this president is a fascist, this president's an authoritarian. Meanwhile, there are six hundred judges on the federal bench from what bar sent him his speech. If you count them all up, you know all the different judges, circuit judges, and feder judges across the country. Any one of them has been able to shut down administration policy at any point in time. It's appalling what

they have been doing. How could anyone have faith at the rule of law is universally applicable to all people in this country, that the justice system isn't just now a series of excuses used by the left to get what they want when they want it, that's what the system has delivered. Or to undermine the system and say that it's biased, it's unfair. The ideology of intersectionality, the Marxism underlying all of this on the left is a constant excuse for, well, the very system itself is imbalanced.

One day, it's we have to do whatever the system says when they like it. When the election happen. When Obama wins the election, it's election, elections have consequences. When Trump wins the election, it's let's get rid of the electoral college, let's add seats to the next president who's a Democrat, so that they can stack the Supreme Court. That all of a sudden, institutions don't matter. And they keep doing this, and they seem to think that we

don't recognize, but we do recognize. We understand that they want what they want. But perhaps even more important in some ways than when Barre illustrated the processes by which the left is undermining the processes of government, the ways in which they are duplicitous when they talk about institutions and rule of law. How it's not serious, it's not rooted in principle, it's completely the system a la carte. Some days they want to order this, some days they

want to order that. It doesn't matter what they did the day before. Barr also understands why liberals feel this way. What is it about the left wing mentality? And this is true, This is the primary psychological emotional motivation that the left has for so many of the policies, really for the majority of the primary issues that you look at today that this country faces. Why does the left

take the approach that it does. What is their governing philosophy, or rather, what is their philosophy of life that makes them want to leverage the government so that it can control every aspect of life? Why do they want this? Why does the left think this way? Well, the Attorney General in his speech nailed it. Please play Prus marclip three. In any age, the so called progresses treat politics as

a religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified, because by definition they are virtuous people pursuing a end. They are willing to use any means necessary. To gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of the collateral consequences and the

systemic implications. They never ask whether the action they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct equally applicable to all sides. When the left has power, it must be utilized in service of this mission of the daification of man through government. Government will make us better than we would otherwise be. But whatever power is used to that end is inherently justified. But when people that don't agree with their government ends are in power, then

that same mentality goes in reverse. It's no longer justifiable to use government, say to protect individual freedoms to do less. Now it must be the case that anything is justified against that cause. If they can do anything they want, because they know that if they have the power of government, they will make a utopia here in this country. Then when people who disagree with them are in power, they must do in their own mind whatever they have to in order to rest power away from those people to

create the utopia that they have been promising. It is one of the best summations of left wing thought left wing ideology I have ever come across. It is devastating in its truth, and it is necessary for all people, even leftists who will discount it, to hear because it is what we face right now in this country, and not just turning for a moment to the specifics of how the process is used against the President of the United States and the ways that this is done in

bad faith. I mentioned universal injunctions when I was in DC.

Spoke to some senior Department of Justice people about this behind closed doors on more than one occasion, and this has become a major frustration of the administration, that this is really a perversion of the role of the courts, and that not only should the courts not be doing this as a general rule, there's a a clear change in the attitude of left wing judges appointed by left wing politicians who think that just because they don't like a thing, they have the right to stop it from

happening and find the flimsiest legal rationale, the flimsiest the Administrative Procedure Act, or some other such utter nonsense not intended for the purpose that the left is using it. Here is the Attorney General speaking about those universal injunction pay twenty two. The court's indulgence of such claims, even if they are ultimately rejected, represents a serious intrusion on

the president's constitutional prerogatives. The impact of these judicial intrusions on the executive responsibility have been hugely magnified by another judicial innovation, the nationwide injunction, first used in nineteen sixty three and sparingly since then until recently. These court orders enjoined enforcement of a policy not just as to the parties before the court, but nationwide against everybody. Now, since President Trump has taken office, district courts have issued over

forty nationwide injunctions against the government. By comparison, during President Obama's first two years, district courts had issued two nationwide in junctions, both of which immediately vacated by the Ninth Circuit. It is no exaggeration to say that virtually every major policy of the Trump administration has been subjected to immediate

freezing by the lower courts. No other president has been subjected to such sustained efforts to debilitate his agenda sabotage by judges in the name of the very system that they are using for the sabotage. It's appalling a twenty x increase in universal injunctions from federal judges from Obama to Trump of the same period. Does anyone think that that's an accident? You might say, well, then why is

it that this happens in this way? Because the Left go back to the justification for all of their actions that he gave the day offication, the deification of the state and the people in it through government power. How can you compete with that? We'll come back team. So, so, as I was saying about universal injunctions, the basis for this is flimsy enough as it is, because initially you would think that it would just enjoy the two parties

in court. But what ends up happening is someone brings they go jurisdiction shopping, usually it is the Ninth Circuit, and for pure reasons of policy difference, they will bring this suit in a federal court, and any federal judge can just say, I forbid the Trump administration from doing this thing anywhere in the federal jurisdiction of the United States, and until an appeals court comes along, until it makes its way up the chain. That is the way the

system works right now. The only way to go around it, the only to deal with it, would be if Trump did do something that would start to kick a little bit at the load bearing walls of the very separation of powers that we have and say, well, we're just going to ignore the court. That could happen. Some might argue even that that's a necessary thing to happen on some of these issues, but that would clearly create a standoff, and people would start to ask, well, who which branch

of government is correct in this one? The decisions that are being made by the way these injunctions against Trump are wrong. That's one thing about it that's so interesting is that they make their way up to higher levels in the courts, and overwhelmingly the Trump administration is victorious on this. You see this with the travel ban. I remember the travel ban. That was what Sally Yates, the hashtag resistance Obama appointee interm Attorney General, refused to enforce.

She was so that the Trump administration was violating the Constitution that she disobeyed a direct order from the commander in chief as the acting attorney general had to be fired. Turns out Trump administration was correct on the merits that they're completely within their rights under executive power to have a temporary withdrawal of permission to come to the United States for aliens from countries that are harboring or have terrorist issues. Turns out Trump was right. Do we ever

hear about how well? Why did wait a second, how could the acting Attorney general be so wrong? How could she be so ignorant of the law that she would disobey a direct order? And turns out the order's lawful because she's hashtag resistance. She's also the same person who was involved in the pretext of setting up General Flynn, sending over FBI agents pretending like their colleagues and just work through a quick issue and then maybe you lie to us. They changed the three O two the record

of that FBI meeting after the fact. Lisa Page, in fact, was the one who changed it. We remember what she thought about Trump and people who voted for Trump, people who worked for Trump. We're told that's all a coincidence. Though nothing to see there. Oh, that was all a completely legitimate law enforcement effort. Universal injunctions are the hijacking of the judiciary for anti Trump ends. That's what has

happened in this country. It has slowed down Trump's agenda for people who are upset and I saw the headline today that would drudge that there were less deportations under

Trump than they were under Obama. Will keep in mind that Obama not only did not have the judiciary taking away his powers as president United States because there are some left wing judges who don't like him, they in fact would sit by and let him exceed his authority as commander in chief, exceed his executive powers as he did.

When finally the I believe it was the Fifth Circuit Court had to say, no, you can't just use prosecutorial discretion effectively enforcement prioritization another way of saying it, to not only let people stay in the country who are in violation of law. This is the whole Dreamer thing. This is DACA right deferred action for childhood arrivals. Not only is that, by the way, an abuse of executive discretion, but to say DAPPA now the parents as well. Well,

what if the president just says dreamers. If President Obama had said dreamers, the parents of dreamers and anybody who knows somebody who's either a dreamer or a parent of a dreamer, you know, their associates, they all get to stay in the country. That's just mass amnesty the executive feat would that be okay? I assure you there are a lot of left wing federal judges who would say, yes,

whatever you want to do because they like it. It doesn't matter what the law means, what the system would produce. If people who are dispassionate about the outcome looked at it, they want a certain outcome, they will justify a certain outcome. The ends justify the means. That is the approach of the American left always. But to add insult to injury, Obama does this. The Fifth Circuit says, no, you can't

do Dappa as well. You can't give people work permits and confer all these rights just because you feel like it in contravention of congressional intent, which is there are immigration laws they have written that are supposed to matter. You can't just wipe that all away. It's an enormous

actual abuse of executive discretion. Obama himself had said he did not have the authority to do this as a means of trying to pressure Congress to do something, and then they didn't, as is their right, and then Obama goes, yeah, I'll just do it anyway. Was anyone calling him a fascist in the paper, was anyone saying he was an authoritarian. He was wiping away the laws of this country because he felt like it, because it was the right thing to do. That's what he say is the right thing

to do. And then to bring this full circle, an act of discretion by one executive is countermanded. The Trump presidency begins. Trump looks at this and says, all right, we're going to have to have some kind of a

negotiation over immigration here. But I'm not going to continue this policy of my predecessor, where he decided that under his discretion as the president of the United States, there would not there would be a top down order through the executive branch that these dreamers as they are called, these young illegal aliens not all that young now, but that they wouldn't be prosecuted. Trump goes, well, no, we're not going to continue with this official policy of the government.

And what do you know. A judge in California goes, nope, sorry, what Obama half done? You cannot undo. How could any person justify this? How could anyone who calls themselves a lawyer, a legal scholar, a judge, somebody who is steeped in these issues, you would think would really know what the implications are of this kind of emotion based recklessness when it comes to the law. You would think that a

judge would know better. But of course judges don't know better because they're getting what they want in the process, slowing it down. As a result, President Trump, because of federal judges in the state of California, or one federal judge in the state of California in particular, President Trump has had to continue for three years the policy of his predecessor on immigration that was rooted entirely in executive discretion.

No Act of Congress, no statute whatsoever, was an abuse of that discretion in the first place, And now judges say that Trump can undo it because of the Administrative Procedures Act. You must be kidding me. This is why I tweeted out after Baghdaddy was killed himself with our operators Special Forces operators or Delta Force operators right on his trail, I said, oh, I'll just give it a matter of a matter of hours before the Ninth Circuit

overturns Baghdaddy's killing under the Administrative Procedure Act. I mean, obviously, I'm making a joke. But this is farcical. This is preposterous that people are being taught, and I know they are in law schools that what's going on right now is respecting the process and the law. They're destroying the law. They're destroying what's supposed to be applicable to both sides. Power that one side has in a certain circumstance the other side is supposed to have. There is no good

faith anymore in the way they approach this administration. And I think going forward you'll see this with any administration. It is just political total war. Whatever they have to do to get what they want, however they have to push, whatever construct they have to come up with. The media will magnify their lies, their shoddy analysis and say, oh no, this is what's great. Trump a Trump is a racist.

Trump is an authoritarian. He's a fascist. Forget about the fact that it is in fact the left that is willing to destroy this system in order to tear down the president of the United States. And it comes from even before Trump. The case that he felt was the single greatest usurpation of executive authority was Bumtian, which had to do with the detainment of an all unlawful combatant

during a time of war. In the Global War on Terror, when the courts came into rule, the federal judiciary system decided that the President of the United States has to confer the same internal due process and legal rights to an unlawful combatant in a time of war as they

would for somebody who was detained inside this country. Well, is there any area of the law where the president is supposed to have a greater degree of leeway and discretion to include mistakes and collateral damage than in repulsing

foreign adversaries, foreign invasion, foreign attackers. If you go back to the vision of the founders, this is why one of the reasons for an executive branch, which initially was going to be really almost an errand boy of the legislature, if you go back to the before the Constitutional Convention.

But one of the reasons for this creation was specifically because they knew that if you get if all of a sudden the British invaded, as they did again, you need somebody who can give orders that will be executed to repulse that invasion and to defend the very political community that the Constitution is meant to protect. An auld and now the courts are coming and saying no, you

can't do that. In fact, the courts tried to create in the whole mess over the so called Muslim band, a universal right around the world to get into a US court to challenge, as a foreigner with no rights or ties whatsoever to the United States, to challenge your exclusion from the country based on executive authority. I mean, I know that, you know, it's easier to sit around and yell about the swamp and the swamp rats and drain the swamp and Maga and the wall and everything else.

And look, I'm all for the cultural aspects and the communication aspects of the Trump vision because we have to win elections. So I'm not putting all that down. I'm just saying what is happening here, What is happening in the judiciary, and with a left wing that views itself as inherently justified in taking any act, this has ramifications even beyond the Trump administration. And this is really really important. They are corrupting, They are undermining some of the most

powerful institutions in our government. They are imbalancing the balance of powers intentionally, so they are proving to any American who's willing to open his or her eyes that they do not approach these issues with good faith. They do not care what the collateral damages to the system. And as they do this, they claim they are saving the system in the error of Trump. The left is willing to burn down the village of this American experiment in

order to save it. That is what they may not recognize it as such, that is what they are doing. There is no person who could look at the way that they have been leveraging, specifically the judiciary as a weapon as a club to batter this Trump administration with, and not say, how are we supposed to have faith

in this institution going forward? This is also why it looms so large in the mind to the left, the prospect of not being able to count on a left of center Supreme Court, of not being able to count on an ultimate judicial body that will give them the most important policy and cultural and political victories that they've been wanting for decades. Many leftists feel like they can't live in America, or that's not the case. The least

they'll say that openly. If they can't have a left of center court, a bunch of dictators in robes deciding what will be in America irrespective of what the law actually says. Then they no longer respect the law. This goes back to progressives, as the Attorney General said, treating politics as a religion, with the holy mission to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image according to an abstract ideal

of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified, because by definition they are a virtuous people pursuing deific ends. For the left, the utopia they seek is the only justification for any means. We are seeing that play out in real time in this country, including in the weaponization of impeachment as an explicitly partisan tool. Why are we going to use the impeachment mechanism against this president? Why are the leftist? Why are Nanci Pelosi walking around saying

things that they must know to be untrue. They're not that stupid. They know what they're saying is a lie. Because anything to defeat Trump is inherently justified. Anything to her his chances at reelection, or even to remove him from office has to be justified. My friends, This kind of absolutism is the wellspring of totalitarianism. Do not forget it. I think that what you're going to see in the next weeks to come is this president will be impeached,

and he should be impeached. And he should be impeached because he has used his office to obstruct justice. He should be impeached because he is in violation of the Emolument's clause of the Constitution, and where he is very blatantly, i mean really incredibly used his office to make more money for his family. And lastly, of course he should be in peach because he has used national security aid to Ukraine in order to try to undermine a potential

political opponent. And those are roll grounds for impeachment. Why have this whole sham of an investigation. If somebody like Bernie Sanders, who's a sitting senator and who therefore will be called upon as this goes along, to cast a vote in favor of removing the president United States, we really have to sit around and pretend that the Democrats haven't already made up their mind here. People like Nancy Pelosi look at us and say, wait, we don't know

if it's going to be impeachment or not. No, they're going to impeach this president, and if they could remove him, make no mistake about it, if they happen to have the two thirds votes required in the Senate, by the way, I'm sure they'll be complaints about that, and they will start to say it should just be a bare majority, right, just a basic majority in the Senate should be enough, because then the Democrats would feel like they could probably

pressure one or two, maybe three Republicans switch. They'll be complaining about that part of the system. Because they complained about any part of this. It doesn't give them what they want. But if they're going to tell us that Trump is already guilty, why have this political trial? It's all sham, folks, welcome back team. So what exactly do the Democrats say, this whole impeachment thing is is about how's it's going to go? You know, what's their position

on this? Nancy Pelosi was saying some bonkers stuff over the weekend, which I guess not surprising, is Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi's out there saying that the president has the right to defend himself and this impeachment inquiry if he wants to, and people would say, well, why would he, why would he do that. Here's Nancy telling us all that, you know, maybe the president has some super secret things somewhere that he just wants to present us. I can't

believe this woman, speak of the House, folks. But here we are play six. That vote has not taken place to proceed necessarily with impeachment. But do you think you'll go through all of this and not vote to impeach the president? That remains with the facts of the president has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this, which we haven't seen. His trans transcript of a phone call is tucked away in a high high at least

sensitive compartmentalized intelligence server, so we can't see that. If he has information that is exculptatory that means X taking away cult the blame, then we look forward to seeing him. It's like maybe he's got some you know, magic genie in a bottle somewhere. It's gonna just like make him innocent of everything. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, do anyone does anyone who's a serious even being listener and say, yeah, yeah,

they're not going to impeach the president. Sure, there's a there's a possible future in which they're gonna say, wow, you mean Trump is and it's into all the horrible things we've been saying about him for three years now. She speaks to us all like we're idiots, folks. She really does. No one holds her accountable for it. Would

you ever vote to not impeach a president? Well, you know, maybe he is going to be defending us against an invasion of space aliens and at that point we'll have to just rally around our presence, So maybe we want impeach him then, I mean, that's more or less what she's saying. This is absurd. But she can't she can't give away the whole game here, can't tell us what's really going to happen, which is that all of this pretense that there's they're presenting information to get to the

bottom of this, to get to the facts. We already know the facts. We already know what was said of the phone call. They already released the transcript. So what I saw today a poll that said that seventy percent of people seventy percent of people in the poll think that the president's conversation was wrong. I don't think it was wrong. I think it was unwise because he would he should know that there are deep state elements that have access to his conversations that could twist it and

do exactly what we have seen happen right now. I think he should have been more careful, But then again, I'm sure some of you would come back to me with, well, Buck, how careful can he be when they're willing to twist his words and lie about him and break the law in some cases to leak about this president or some of his advisors and what they've done. They're willing to do anything, as the Attorney General said, They're willing to justify whatever it is that they think they have to do.

They believe it's inherently justified if it's anti Trump. So how careful could he be? That's another point of view on this, although I think the President probably could be a little bit more cautious in how he speaks about things and what he says. But this then leads us to where they really want to take it. This week, the oh the president should testify in his defense. Chuck Schumer, for example, hopping on this bandwagon. Here's what he said,

play ten. Donald Trump doesn't agree with what he's hearing, doesn't like what he's hearing, he shouldn't tweet, he should come to the committee and testify under oath, and he should allow all those around him to come to the

committee and testify under oath. I would just respond to Schumer, how dare you really you think that your ridiculous little committee of partisan hacks should be able to pull the presence of the United States in a coequal branch of government and harangue him and mock him and try to entrap him, perhaps in perjury. Now, President Trump did tweet about this and said that he would think about it, and I'm here to say that it would be wrong

for the president to do this on many levels. It would be wrong from the perspective of the lack of respect that it would show for the separation of powers. What's to prevent the next administration, the administration after that, from having just a bare majority in the House of Representatives get to pull the President of United States in and use it as an opportunity to grandstand and assault the President of the United States verbally in front of

the whole country for partisan ends. That's the precedent that we should have set here. This is absurd, But these people are absurd. These Democrats who keep saying these things about Trump and who keep making claims about their willingness to respect the system. They are lieing. They are lying about this. We know what they're going to do, we know how they feel. We are all smart enough to figure this out if we just spend a moment thinking

about it. And yet here they have. Here you have a Senator Chuck Schumer telling us that the president should Could you imagine for a moment. I mean, this was just like the old playbook, though, isn't it. They They've got these these routines they go through to try to undermine the president. Remember, originally it was they wanted him to testify to Muller, that sham of a probe run by Weissman, now an MSNBC analyst, folks gee, I wonder

what his politics are. They were going to let Weissman and his Democrat attack dogs go after the President of the United States under oath, try to provoke a crisis, a moment perhaps that they would seize on as lying under oath. Keep in mind that when it's a lie and not a lie is something that's always up for interpretation. For Democrats, Bill Clinton, did he lie in the oath. Of course he did. But they say that that wasn't a crime lie, that was just like a personal lie. Huh.

There we go. He ends justify the means whatever they want they get. There's no real rules that apply. You're gonna have the president testify to them all approbe And now they want to have the President subject himself to Democrats in Congress being able to pull him apart in

public and make all kinds of accusations. And then if the President responds by the way, it would also undermine, in my view, would undermine the Congress because this president, if he did do this, it would be quite a spectacle. And I worry because this president's a fighter. I worry

about his judgment on these issues. Sometimes you do get the sense that if left to his own devices, perhaps he would have testified or would have subjected himself, I should say, to questioning the Mullet probe and left to his own judgment and his own devices, I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure that he wouldn't subject himself to this congressional impeachment inquiry. The whole thing, isn't it. It's just a fraud. It's just such a frauds, such

a waste of everybody's time. And all these people who are saying that they want they think the president should be removed from office. Maybe the president should be removed from office. We'll find out in less than a year. It's called an election. There's anybody who believes in our system of government has good faith in the fact that you should be abled. You should be willing as an American to concede power to the other side when they

duly win an election. Anyone who believes in that should think that the deference here, if there's any question about the president's conduct and whether it even could be construed as worthy of being removed from office, the deference should be given to the next election. The deference should be that the system we have is all about the will of the people ultimately, and that is evidence through the election process. That's what the president has the awesome powers

that he does. It's because the people give that power to him through our system of government, and to take it away from him based on partisan whim and narrative and these lies, It's just what do the Democrats really think what happened after that? I always wonder about that too, If they did manage to remove the president and Vice President Pence all of a sudden became the president of

the United States going into a reelection. Do they think that we want to have more lectures from the left about the need to respect our democracy and the system, and they really think that the Trump movement would go away, that the suspicion that many of us have that the political system is rigged by a class of elites who are much more bumbling fools than they are intellectual superiors. Do we think that that would go away? Or would it actually get worse? Would that sentiment be proven to

be true and it would actually just harden. We would become even further entrenched in our opinions of this, We would be even more separated, more polarized, a word the media loves to use. I think we all know it would just get worse. I think we all know that it would by no means damp in the frenzy right

now if you had this president removed from office. If anything, I think it would create a massive schism, not just a polarization of ideas, but a schism in this country and the belief that this is now still the country that was left to us by the founding fathers, that we still have a system that functions the way it

claims to. It starts to get scary when you think about the removal of a president under these circumstances, with such a mountain of evidence that they've been trying to remove from from the very beginning, that he is not allowed to be president. Because they say so, people think this will improve the situation. They're delusional. But the Left is very delusional these days. That's one of the reasons why. That's why it's so troubling. They have no self awareness whatsoever.

Nancy Pelosi, for example, had this to say about how Trump is mean and he insults people. Play clip five. But the president and perhaps some of the White House have to know that the words of the president weigh a ton. They are very significant, and he should not frivolously throw out insults. But that's what he does. I think part of it is his own insecurity as an impostor. I think he knows full well that he's in that office way over his head, and so he has to

diminish everyone else. Classic Nancy Pelosi moment. The President shouldn't insult people because he's a big dumb, stupid face who shouldn't be the president. Wow. Okay, Nancy, people should really listen to you. You're giving them really fair minded advice on all of this. But notice how she used the word impostor. I often speak to you about how the Democrats have not accepted the twenty sixteen election, and I

mean that they have not accepted that they lost. Trump won, and that their rejection of him as a legitimate president is in fact a rejection of this system that we have. They can't claim to love the system, to want to protect it, to want to hold it close and keep it safe in the warm at night, and be upending it, throwing it out in the dead of night because they don't like what the system gave them in twenty sixteen. That's exactly what they're doing. Impostor. That's quite a word

to use. That's the Speaker of the House, my friends, the most powerful elected Democrat in the country, and she is saying that the President of the United States is not legitimately the president. Those are her words, and it's not the first time this has been said. They have called him a traitor, they have called him a rapist, they have called him a racist, they've called him a

white nationals and now they call him an impostor. If somebody really was an impostor, should you respect the office that they hold and the way that they conduct, the way that they use those powers while in office. Of course not, it's all illegitimate. Well, if Trump really is an impostor, and therefore everything that he has done and seeks to do is I jimate, doesn't that then justify any action whatsoever that the Left is willing to take in order to stop him, to slow him down, to

make things harder. Ah, It's almost like what Attorney General Barr said about the true nature of the left and their willingness to go scorched earth, stop at nothing to obstruct this president. The Democrats themselves tell us this on a regular basis. They tell us what they think of as president, and therefore they also are telling us what they are willing to do to stop him. The answer that is absolutely anything. Twenty fourth of September, it was

when I called for a fuller expansion inquiry. What's going on? But to proceed with the inquiry, and that kind of changed our communication until that day in the room when I said, all Rose, mister President, with you lead to Putin, whether it's giving them a strong or foothold in the Middle East, by what you did with Turkey and Syria. Well, what you did by withholding a grant was holding a

to military assistance. Voted to buy Congress to Ukraine to the benefit of Putin Lemon thousand more than like thirteen thousand by now Ukrainians have died at the hands of the Russians. They needed that military aid. And with his disparaging remarks about NATO and questioning our commitment to NATO, that's to Putin's advantage. So we do have, shall we say, a candid relationship. Nancy Pelosi can't be that stupid. I mean, I don't think she's very bright. I think she's cunning.

She's not wise, she's not in intellectual, but she's cunning. She does whatever she has to do to get what she wants and has been doing it for a long enough time that she's pretty good at it. Everything for the benefit of Putin. They really needed that military Really, where was wimpy Commander in Chief Obama on helping the Ukrainians when it came to Putin. Oh, let's just send them blankets. Let's send them, you know, sippy cups. No,

they needed weapons. They needed weapons. Obama wouldn't give the weapons Trump. Would you think the Putin liked that? Do you think that that was? Someone explained this to me. Oh and in Syria, where Trump decided to let the battlefield commanders make the decisions necessary to defeat ices. That's why I got wrapped up so quickly. The speed of the air campaign, very underreported in the media, by the way, against the Islamic State, dramatically accelerated because of President Trump.

Obama didn't want to deal with the risk and the collateral damage, but that also included when Trump was in charge, blowing up a couple of hundred Russians in the desert? Was that doing Putin's bidding? Was it doing Putin's bidding? When Trump put more sanctions on Russia than even Obama did. I want to know what exactly does Nancy Pelosi think are the outer limits of her ability to just make

crap up all for the benefit of Putin. These people are grotesque in their mendacity or mendaciousness, one of those words is right. These people will lie to you. They will come up with narratives that serve a function in politics that aren't rooted in truth or reality, and they will run with it, and they will tell you that

they're doing it for your benefit. The fact that Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful Democrat in the country tells you really everything you have to know about the Democratic Party. They are and justify the means, say what you have to say when you have to say it. There is no principle of fair play, There is no approach of good faith. It is all just how do we win and make the other side lose so then we can make them do whatever we want. No rules, no constitutional

protections for them. Whatever we say the law is, that is what it shall be. That's Nancy Pelosi's Democrat Party for you. Of course, the New York Times has to attack the single biggest policy maneuver of the Trump administration so far, which is the tax cut, and they're trying to help. Now there's a difficulty that Democrats face going into this reelection. By the way, Mayor Pete Boodha Judge

is now leading substantially in Iowa. My understanding is he has a huge ground game set up in Iowa, more than anybody else, and it makes some sense he's from neighboring Indiana. He is somebody who appeals to Midwesterners because he's from the Midwest. And if he can win in Iowa, then the storyline becomes, here's this young guy who's got

an impressive resume and he's not old like Biden. And here's this young guy who if he's a front runner for our if he wins Iowa, maybe he should be the frontrunner overall, and you might have this mash a

massive shift in support that would result afterwards. Right that that's his path to, if not outright victory in the primary, eventually certainly being a very powerful vice presidential candidate, because remember, Democrats have to there are certain states that this is all going to come down to, in places like Michigan and Wisconsin and Iowa. Those are places that Democrats need help if they're going to try to defeat Trump in

the election. Assuming that Trump is allowed to get to the election before without being removed by these Democrat partisans hyperpartisans, perhaps I should say, but yeah, mayor Pete, who knew apparently the Beto approach of being the most woke woke person ever didn't work, and may repeats path of relative moderation. Hey, I'm gonna stop lecturing people about their Christian faith when it seems that his grasp may or Pete's grasp of

the Gospel is tenuous. But he's gonna stop doing that and just start to sound a little more like he sounds like he might be more reasol. His policies are not. But he's a left wing guy. Medicare for all. I mean, he's a left wing candidate. But he's got some substantial support that seems to be building, particularly in Iowa. I'm expecting somebody other than Biden is going to win that primary. So we got to start thinking of who that's gonna be. Hello,

we'll talk about her later. Oh, she's still thinking about it. You know, she is still thinking about it. I'm thinking about you, America. Does it sound like Hillary Clinton? No? But did you know who I was talking about? Yes? So, But back to the necessity among those in the media to come up with an alternate view of the economic situation.

Right now, they're churning out this machinery of Democrats support from the various newsrooms, the various major media outlets in the country, to say that the tax cuts didn't work, really they didn't work the way they were supposed to, and it really was just a giveaway to the rich, and the usual class warfare stuff all has to come out now, the usual Marxist tinged Marxist sounding rhetoric about giveaways for the rich and the Republicans of the Party

of fat Cats. They've got all these liberal billionaires running around Silicon Valley run by liberals, Hollywood run by liberals, Wall Street run by liberals, but it's always the billionaire fat cats that are Republican that get all this attention, and people want to throw under the bus in one way or another. So what we have now is the New York Times writing this piece about FedEx. They use FedEx as a prime example of exactly how this didn't work, of how its tax bill, how FedEx cut its tax

bill to zero. Now keep in mind that GE very famously went for a while and paid no federal income tax. But GE wasn't vilified for doing that because became a left wing company with very close ties, I believe under Immolt to President Obama. So GE was left and essentially had become largely a financial services company that happened to also make some stuff and have engineering and create lightbulbs

and machinery and other things. But GE capital became a huge part of the business, which is why GE is now just in shambles as a great American a great American corporation. That's a story for another day. How FedEx cut its tax bill to zero dollars, the company, like much of corporate America, has not made good on its promised investment surge from President Trump's twenty seventeen tax cut. Now there's a reason that they're running with this story.

They're using this as the pointy end of the spear, the thin end of the wedge for the narrative. The Democrats will need this primary that this economy right now that we are in that is low inflation, low unemployment, super high stock market, lots of economic growth. I mean that this is bad somehow there or not what it

should be. If only you put Democrats in charge, If you just hand it over one fifth of the economy entirely to the Democrats central planners, to the socialists who now run the Democrat Party, if you will just be willing to do that, then we would all have an end to economic anxiety. Then we wouldn't have to worry about going bankrupt from health concerns. We'd all have better, we'd all have good housing and good jobs and goodness

and good that. The more they talk about this, the more it reminds me of how in the Soviet Constitution, I mean this, in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, there were very explicit promises made about everyone having a job, everyone having food, everyone having clothing and a place to live, and even I believe, two weeks of paid vacation every year. I mean, the Soviet Constitution was like, it's going to be great. Everyone's gonna have everything they need. That was

the promise. Oh, that's right, what is it? The bring us back here to my friend, Attorney General bar the deification of the state, the state and place of God. That's right. The Soviet Union is going to give you everything. It's a very large country, very rich and natural resources.

Everyone's gonna work for the common good. How would this not work, they were saying, And we know not only did not work, but it led to tremendous evils and misery and slavery and despair, unimaginable levels of violence and oppression and torture and totalitarianism. But it was all supposed to be given everybody everything they need. Now, we are not the Soviet Union, and I'm not pretending we are.

But when you start hearing people promise that everything will be provided for you and you have to do nothing in response. All you through is vote for them or put them in power, you should be very very skeptical. And I would argue you should be very concerned really that this is a sign that things are going to go quite awry. But so they use FedEx and they say, see, here's a company that isn't paying taxes the way that

it's supposed to. That FedEx is another one of these corporations that promises to invest in American workers and all this stuff, and they haven't done the way. They haven't done things the way that we would want them to if we were running those corporations as Democrat government officials. Right, Well, it turns out FedEx isn't going to take this lying down. They put out a statement and it was a doozy from Frederick W. Smith, the chairman and CEO of FedEx Corporation.

Here's what he put out as an official statement quote. The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect story on the front page of the Sunday, November seventeenth edition concerning FedEx and are billions of dollars of tax payments and billions of dollars of investments in the US economy.

Pertinent to this outrageous distortion of the truth is the fact that, unlike FedEx, the New York Times paid zero federal income tax in twenty seventeen on earnings of one hundred and eleven million dollars and only thirty million dollars in twenty eighteen, eighteen percent of their pre tax book income.

Also in twenty eighteen, the New York Times cut their capital investments nearly and a half to fifty seven million, which equates to a rounding error when compared to the six billion dollars of capital that FedEx invested in the US economy during that same year. I hereby challenge A. G. Salzburger, publisher of The New York Times and the Business section editor, to a public debate in Washington, DC with me and

the FedEx corporate Vice president of tax. The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners. I look forward to hearing promptly from mister Salzburger and scheduling this open event to bring further public awareness of the facts related to these important issues. Wow,

first of all, I think it's a fantastic idea. Of course, the New York Times Salsburg, I mean, Salisburger is not an impressive guy. New York Times will never Not only would The New York Times not send their publisher who inherited the company, but side don't their publisher to do this. They won't even send any of their experts, any of their columnists, any of their editors for this debate. I

can almost guarantee it. I mean, I'm guessing I'm looking into the future here, but you'll see they won't send anything. Would this would be quite worthwhile for the public to see, wouldn't it If The New York Times is going to call out FedEx on its front page for profiting and effectively lying about what it would do so that it would get the tax cuts, that it would do the stock buybacks to push up the stock price to help the executives and help the shareholders and not help the

common man, and not put the investments in and class warfare. Baby, this is how they do it. If The New York Times is going to write that piece on its front page, then why shouldn't The New York Times be willing to meet the chairman of FedEx. I mean, this is not some random internet roll. The chairman of FedEx and CEO to a public debate on what's really gone on here. I'll tell you why they are scared, and they are a right to be scared, because he would mop the

floor with them. The New York Times wouldn't even exist if it was not for ideologically driven left wing billionaire like Carlos, Billionaires like Carlo Slim and other very connected individuals. The New York Times was going out of business, my friends. And the New York Times has a tremendous legacy advantage because it's been around for long enough that it's brand alone is worth a lot of money. But the people running it today are benefiting for what was done decades

and decades before them. FedEx, on the other hand, shows us not just what the difference is between a company that is employing a lot of people, and that is operating as a free market entity. That's not essentially an artistic endeavor. The New York Times is for a lot of liberals a largely artistic endeavor. They support it the way you support your local philharmonic. FedEx has to deliver

in every sense. And so here is a company that the left has always been a little bit uncomfortable with, doesn't really like because FedEx took what had been for a long time a government function. In fact, one of the explanations for why government needs certain power, certain authority, certain funding. Oh we need we need roads, we needed

a post office. Well, let me ask you if you were going to send your aunt Ethel her brooch from the Revolutionary War era, and you have to get it there overnight before she goes and gives her big speech to the Rotary Club. Are you going to take aunt Ethel's brooch to the post office? Are you going to take it to Federal Express? I think we all know the answer. Federal Express. I'm not saying it's perfect, but

it's pretty amazing what it's able to do. It's stunning that you can pick the time of delivery, and that I believe I actually looked at this once because I FedEx something to myself that was very important, valuable, and then I got a little worried. I think they have an either ninety seven or ninety nine percent successful delivery rate, meaning not that they lose things, meaning that they get it there when they say they're going to get it there.

I think it's ninety seven or ninety nine percent of the time. That's pretty impressive considering what they do. And this is where the free market has shown you that it can do something that the government had been the sole provider of for a long time, and in fact do it much better than the government can, and create jobs in the process and productivity and give a service.

So they so FedEx is a perfect target for them because they really don't like it, AH privatizing the postal service essentially, that's or giving a private alternative the postal service. And they say that they don't they haven't hired up, they haven't spent enough money the way they said they would. Well, let's gives a private company and it's now paying less than taxes. Keep in mind, corporations don't pay taxes. People

pay taxes. So all that FedEx having a lower tax rate means that there's less money going to the government from FedEx, which means FedEx has more money to pay people and to invest in things than it would have otherwise. All those people that is paying, by the way, are paying taxes. So you tax the company, and then the people that get paid by the company they pay taxes to the government too. This is also where we get

to the onerous tax burden. The Democrats not only defend today but want to expand dramatically because they think they'll be better stewards of the money that you have that you make, then you will be They know more than

you do. I would love to see this debate between the chairman of FedEx and anybody from the New York Times, because what it would show is is that once again the central planners don't know what they're talking about, are rooted in faulty assumptions, and people that believe in and rely on free markets are the ones who are actually pushing us forward and doing good things for this country

that everybody benefits from. And saying that the conditions on our board, the mass expansions attention camps qualifies as a concentration camp. Everybody thought it was nuts right, until we realize this week that Stephen Miller is a no joke, die hard whiten rationalist. This is what our policy has become, and in order for us to rectify and to begin to heal as a country, he has got to go. I feel duty bound to note that that Miller's defenders.

I think Miller himself would say, I'm Jewish myself. I come from a Jewish family, and it's offensive for you to invoke that word, particularly as as regards someone who is Jewish. Well, I'm sure that's also the way in which he's weaponized his identity, right, Like you know, they say, and there's this, there's the color of your skin and the and the identity you are born with does not

absolve you of moral wrong. The perst brick looking person to advance horrifically in humane immigration policy would be someone that looks like me, or someone that looks like someone in this audience, right, because that's what provides the cover

for these incredibly damaging and dangerous policies. So I'm not here to weaponize my identity, and I don't think any public servant should weaponize their identity in order to advance white nationalist ideas period punto, I don't care who you are, that's who would be in charge if the Democrats had their way. But the people like Ocazio Cortez, people that share the thoughts of Okazio Cortez and Chris Hayes and MSNBC,

just just remember that I just played. There's so much there's so much crazy and wrong and what she said that I don't even have time for it today. But just remember the people that want to tell FedEx how to run its business. It's the Ocazio Corteses of the Democratic Party, as if they have any idea team. I have not forgotten anything from the fight over Justice Kabanaw's nomination.

It's seared into my brain. It was one of the most import for me, at least for my politics today, one of the most important periods, if of post nine to eleven American history, that I could point to to tell us why things are there, way are these days and where it's all going. And I particularly remember the

media's role on all of this. I remember we were living in an alternate universe where the word credible all of a sudden meant the opposite of credible, where evidence was merely an accusation without any foundation or underpinning of fact to it whatsoever. And people were willing in the media to pretend to be or perhaps to just embrace the reality of being so stupid that it was almost

almost unimaginable. I mean, they were willing to say, no, no, we in the mainstream media are too dumb to understand what's going on here, because then we can just move past the obviousness of what's really going on with particularly Christine Blasi Ford, doctor Ford. As we were all told we had to refer to Christine Blasi Ford. They would say, and I remember this, why would she lie? A This was a refrain, This was a talking point. Why would

she lie? And people like me and you go back and listen to the shows from the summer of a twenty eighteen if you want, and it'll be quite clear. Why would she lie? Because she's going to be a hero to the left, because she deeply, personally, ideologically believes in abortion and the need to keep that legal for all nine months of her pregnancy in all fifty states. She got the opportunity to be a hero to left wing women, to boomer feminists for all eternity, to get book,

deals and speeches, and why would she lie? She had every incentive to lie under the circumstances of who she was and what was going on then, and the media pretended like they couldn't figure that out, like we wouldn't all know right away. We didn't know at the time that she would be a share a heroine part of me, not a hero heroin to the left, buck, how did you know? Everybody knew, but the media was all over.

She has no reason to lie, That's what they're all saying. Again, Just like when Pelosi talks this about impeachment proceeding, they speak to us as though they really believe we are all idiots. And I don't know if they're so dumb they believe that, or I just I don't know what we're how we're supposed to react. I hope the American people are not so stupid as to listen to Nancy Pelosi,

But clearly I might give us too much credit. Here's doctor Christine blasi Ford accepting the ACLUS Current Age Award

play twenty one. It's really great when women step up for other women, and it's really great when men show up for women, cheering celebrating her And remember, they're not just celebrating her, They're celebrating her specifically because she was part of the ugliest smear campaign I have ever seen in American politics, the nastiest, most underhanded, most dishonest thing I have ever seen in my adult life go on

in American politics. It was It still makes me want to throw up to this day, accusing someone of attempted really what was attempted rape? In her telling of the story in front of tens of millions of Americans with his wife and children watching, all of his friends, all of his colleagues, everybody he knew, and it was all a lie. It was all a lie. How could you do that to somebody bearing false witness in that way? I don't know how she sleeps at night, except maybe

she's so looney that she believes what she said. That is possible. I've always thought that was possible. So in that sense, she wasn't knowingly lying, but the story none the less was a lie. But they are celebrating her specifically for that, for the ritualized, televised torture and humiliation session of a very good, very decent, and very impressive man. But there is and has been for a long time. A bitterness and a vitriol that is at the heart

of the leftist feminist movement. There is a kind of man hatred that emanates from it. That's there's no question about it. A desire to bring men who are viewed as the white heterosexual, normative, white heterosexual patriarchal figures members of the patriarchy, to bring them low, to destroy them, to humiliate and degrade them. They deserve it. You see Christine Blasi Forward getting awards from people now who could have seen this coming, anybody who wasn't an idiot. I

saw it coming, You saw it coming. None of this is a surprise, my friends, not in the least, but the media was willing to pretend that it would be. And that tells you so much about who they are and what they really stand for. Appalling stuff. I was speaking of feminism. Charlie's Angels has had a remake now, a remake that is staff with actresses, and one of them is from the Twilight movie. And then I don't know what the which I don't think I saw that. Maybe I saw the first one, and the others I

have not. The others, I don't know who they are, but they Elizabeth Banks remade this movie. She's a pretty well known actress for the the a cappella movies that she made, Pitch Perfect and Show. She made those movies. Those movies did very well. But then they try to do a remake of Charlie's Angels, which why even would think that that would be? You know, this is what we have to spend what one hundred million dollars on

or fifty million dollars or whatever it is. And you just look at this and you look at the script, and that a feminist, a feminist twist on Charlie's Angels, which is really a show about or a show slash movie about very very beautiful women doing daring things. But really the fact that they're all very very beautiful is really important in this whole process. So there's an inherent objectification of women. You would think that would be as a result of this, and which is of course the

norm in Hollywood. They pretend that it's not, but still, I mean, if you want, you know, beautiful women still sell tickets to things. I mean, beautiful women are still the reason a lot of people want to go see things. And we can say, oh, that's superficial, but there are some biological realities that we all still have to live with, at least for the time being, until they try to

rewrite all the biological realities on the left. No person would really think that this was a good idea for a movie, right, I mean, this is just you hear about this and you say, oh, it's kind of like the feminist Ghostbusters that they made. Oh let's have a Ghostbusters but with all women, and it's sort of a girl a girl power take on Ghostbusters. It was the worst movie. I've watched about fifteen minutes of it. I mean, I think you could argue it might have been the

worst movie ever made. That's a tough for its budget and expectations. You have to make that relative, right, I mean LEPrecon five, LEPrecon in the Hood was probably a worst movie. I did watch that movie, much to my everlasting shame, as well as LEPrecon in Space. There was a LEPrecon in Space movie. They made a lot of those LEPrecon movies. I'm the LEPrecon. I could still you know, I'm part Irish, so I could still do the I'm

the Lepreca. I remember when Mike Myers did his whole thing in Wayne's World two with the flashlight in his face. He's like, I'm the Leprecai by the flashlight. It was kind of scary actually, because I'm a LEPrecon guy. Fun fact, that's actually Warwick Davis, who played the lead character in the movie Willow, which was really a cheap rip off of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which I know people say, oh, Willow was its own book and stuff, but I mean, come on, it's kind of It's kind

of like poor man's Lord of the Rings. But yeah, Warwick Davis was in that movie, and then he played the Leprecons later on, or played the LEPrecon I should say later on. But nobody really thinks that Charlie Danel is gonna be a good movie, right. I mean, you ask a normal person, just like you gotta, you know, you ask a normal person. Do you think that is gonna be? No? It made like eight million dollars domestically. It's bombing in China, it's bombing in the United States.

A terrible movie. What do you think the director? And now the woke media journals out there are saying, is the reason for this tremendous flop that's going to cost a studio millions and millions and millions of dollars just up in smoke. What do you think the reason that it was a bad idea that people don't want to watch a feminist remake of Charlie's Angels, That Charlie's Angels really is rooted in what would be considered I think patriarchal,

patriarchal notions of women in beauty and everything goes. So a girl powered Charlie's Angels is probably gonna flop. And what do you think that's? Oh, that's sexism, sexism. That's right, that's why it's not doing well. It's a movie which I would note is the same thing they said about the horrifically bad Ghostbusters movie, which is almost worth watching because you think, to yourself, wow, are there different standards for a lot of female comedians than male comedians? As

in the female comedians cast in that movie. Are they able to be famous in their profession and rich without actually being any good at what they do? It's a fair question to ask if you see that movie, say, do female comedians have to even be funny in the current environment or they just have to be female and comedians and take the right political stances. Sometimes that movie was so unfunny that it was painful. I'm not going to see Charlie's Angels. I didn't even see the last one,

which had Cameron Diaz back in her heyday. Although really Cameron Diaz's best role was as the romantic lead in the movie The Mask with Jim Carrey. What happened to Jim Carrey? That guy got super unfunny and really annoying very fast, didn't he as he got older? Cameron Diaz and Lucy lou And I'm forgetting who the third one was. Maybe it's Drew Barrymore. It's kind of a kind of

surprise anyway. Sexism is the reason that this movie is bombing. See, this is the problem we have with with wokeness in Hollywood. They had these built in excuses, so even when the market speaks, they will ignore it. Even when the market tells them. People just don't want to see this movie, which is completely unsurprising. There's some rationalization for why it

has done so poorly. One the one the only way that you can understand how Hollywood makes such bad movies and take such huge financial risks behind them is that they're so there is such an ideological tilt to the left that it blinds them that they are unable to be objective about these things sometimes and they assume that there must be a much broader support for these ideas as shown to us through film, then there will be, and that's why they're willing to risk so much money

on what are just obviously bad ideas. But that again, in this piece I read about it, they said that the Jumanji remake made a lot of money, So I guess maybe they figure they just also roll the dice with remakes sometimes on these franchises and people will just go see it if they want to go see it,

And I don't know, I have to. There's a little bit of I get pulled in the is this all just about social justice and wokeness that they make these bad decisions or they just Hollywood executives are risk averse and lazy And it could be a combination of both.

Oh and speaking of using sexism as a response as a justification for failure in the realm of whether it's art or politics, as we know, I talked to about it last week, Hillary Clinton, who still claims that there was some sexism at work with not winning the presidency, not her terribleness as a candidate, utter lack of likability, utter lack of authenticity. That's not the reason that Chet went the presidency. No, it's because everyone is just so sexist.

Bill Maher had this to say about Hillary play club bait please. This week, Hillary Clinton said she did you know she got more votes? Okay? Anybody else? Well, someone needs to put some XANX in her hot sauce, because listen, here's your quote. She said, I say never never, never say never. I will certainly tell you I'm under enormous pressure from many, many people to think about it. Yes, those are called Trump supporters. I first of all, I noticed I don't even know who was on the panel there.

I couldn't tell from the voice. But that this is another story we talked before about Trump is an impostor. Here's somebody who's on a political show who assumes a political expert saying that Hillary one. They'll say this openly, they'll say that Hillary one. And we're supposed to just accept us. Oh we have oh, Stacy Abrams somebody else who just pretends that the current governor of Georgia is an impostor that that she really won. And oh, by the way, the system is right. Would you play a

clip twenty please? Electoral college is racist and classist. We have to remember the electoral college was not designed because people were worried about Idaho not having enough volks. We didn't know about Idaho. What we did know we didn't. But what we did know was that in the South. The populations in the South had equal or roughly equal

populations to the North. However, because black people were not considered human or citizens, they wanted their bodies to count for the purposes of the population count, but not their humanity, and the electoral college was designed to give Southern states the ability to count the bodies of slaves, but not have to allow them to cast votes, and thus the

electoral college was born as a compromise. The other challenge was in the North, a lot of them didn't want immigrants making decisions, and they didn't believe that immigrants and that those who are not considered well educated should be making decisions about who the executive of our nation should be. So it was a combination of racism and classism. Both of those things should be flung to the far regions

of history and the electoral college needs to go. So stay Abrams has essentially no understanding of the system of federalism that we have in this country and the states and the way that the states play into our system of God. I mean, let's just and she was going to be the governor of a state, and she thinks she won that election. But let's just put all that aside for a moment. Classism, sexism, racism, Democrats lose. Pick

one of those three. That's the reason Hillary Clinton loses, sexism or Russia Trump chief, but Stacey Abrahams loses he cheated and also sexism, racism, etc. Etc. Over time, these bad faith criticisms have an impact. People start to think, well, maybe I guess there could be some truth to this. Is that really what's going on. Let's certainly just back to Hillary Clinton if I can for a moment. I disagree with mister Bill Maher here that the people who

want Hillary to run are Republicans. I think there are a lot of Democrats who want Hillary to run because they say Trump's an impostor, they say he didn't really win the election. How can you set right what wrong was done in twenty sixteen better than having the rightful, quote unquote President of the United States from twenty sixteen finally take her place in the Oval office. The best

repudiation of Trump that they could really have. I think even more so if you were just talking about this, forget about what is possible and just talk about what would be the ultimate victory for the left. Hillary beating Trump would be the thing that would make them happier than I think anything else. So I don't discount what she says here, even though she is kind of crazy. I don't discount that there are people telling her run,

and I don't think there are Republicans. I think that there are a lot of very powerful Democrats who want her to get back in It was a convenient place to stay there. I mean, I mean, I've gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one could have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do, but at a time I felt it was that it was the honorable and right thing to do. And I admit fully that that that my judgment was

probably colored by my tendency to be too honorable. But that's just the way it is. Wow, Prince Andrew of the Royal family, which I'm one of these people who says modern, industrialized and rule of law countries shouldn't have royal families, you know, I don't. I don't understand why

this is complicated, but it is for some people. Prince Andrew, second son of Queen Elizabeth, of the Royal family here talking about why is it that he not only hung out with Epstein and was officially accused of having sex with a girl who was being sex trafficked by the girl on a sworn AFFI David now a woman, of course, but was a girl at the time, and why did

he not? So those allegations are already out there. And there is a photo which I've mentioned to you, of Andrew holding Virginia Giffrey, I believe is how you say her name now? I think it was I forget her name from before she was married, but when she was fourteen or fifteen years old, and he's holding her around the waist very closely. And this is not his daughter, this is not a relative. What is going on here? The photo itself is suspicious, to say the least suspicious.

He's a middle aged guy at the time. You know, he's not He's not twenty hanging out with a with a sixteen year old. It's not like, oh, maybe they were high school friends or peers or something. Oh no, he's like fifty and she's fourteen. So you just their mere presence today, I'm not even talking about having any relations. Just their mere presence together is strange, right, as suspicious.

So he is now trying to explain in this BBC interview, which has been pretty much by every analysis I've read. I've seen some clips of it, didn't watch the whole things. I don't think I really have to, because I get it what's going on with this guy. They've called it nuclear explosion level bad, and he makes claims in it

that are just not credible to people watching. Like he says, first of all, that his honor led him to go and break off his friendship with Epstein over the course of a few days, staying at his home here in New York City, after Epstein had already been convicted of sex crimes involving underage girls. You don't think, You don't think a phone call or a text message can get

that one done. You gotta go spend a few days at his house when he's a convicted sex offender and you are not just some guy, you are part of the royal family for whatever that means. Does anyone cared to explain that one? And he wouldn't care to have a h M. That's a strange claim for our British royal to make. And then he went on to say that none of this even sounds like him, that he it's not like him to go partying and be around,

you know, young women in this way. And he made these claims in his interview, and then people started producing photos of him or no, it does seem like he likes to be around attractive women and women who are considerably younger than So why lie about that, not even talking about underage girls or relations sexual relations with them in violation of law just in general? Why hold yourself up as somebody that you are not. Why would you use this? This is his come clean moment, isn't it?

This is his This is the time in which you would want to be as as honest as possible if honesty was in your favor. But I think we all know that this did not look good for him, perhaps because honesty is not in his favor Jeffrey Epstein, he admits, was it's a bad idea that he was friends with him. Well, he was quite close with him. This guy also shows

us that aristocracies are not sending us their best. You could say that this guy is deeply unimpressive and that I just I can't imagine anyone coming away from this thinking anything other than this was a disaster for him, a disaster for him because the truth is not on his side. And then it brings me to something else here.

And I'm just going to continue to bring this up as I can, because you know, I don't have the time and the resources to you know, I'm not a I'm not running a major newsroom with a thousand reporters or something, so I can't assign anyone to do this. But I just refuse to believe the following. Rather, let me walk you through my thinking and then I'll tell

you what I refused to believe. There's another report out today that Epstein had set up peepole cameras to catch people in intimate moments at his various super high end properties, where we know for a fact there was the trafficking of underage girls as sex slaves. So he was taking video of people. He had set this up. It was elaborate. Why is it that we haven't heard any new names of any individuals who were involved in this? And here's another question, are we really to believe that Epstein had

set up a very elaborate blackmail operation? There are substantial reporting another report today in the New York Post about this, one of the women that he was trafficking, saying, look, he was, he had cameras and all these in all these places. Why have we found out nothing? But why is there no evidence? Did he not Was he sending up cameras and wasn't record anything? Because that would seem completely counterintuitive. I don't believe that for a second. That

makes no sense. So he was recording people? Is there evidence of people being recorded? Have we seen any of this? So we have no additional names from the ones that have already been named, and we have no presentation or no reporting law from law enforcement side of any evidence that they have come across that shows people engaged in in illicit acts with underaged girls, which would seem to be the whole purpose of Epstein's blackmail network in the

first place. At what point does this start to feel like something not credible is going on here in the process of getting the answers. It didn't get me started on like the hyoid bone, And at what point is it? Does it seem like maybe nobody really wants to get these answers. We just had Prince Andrew give his whole Hey, I didn't do anything wrong. Okay, well he didn't convince He certainly didn't convince me with the interview. Based on what I've read from the transcript and the clips that

I've seen, some very strange things this guy said. Does anyone want to dig into this story a bit more? Well, I really do believe that some of the people who are are implicated, and we know one of them was President of the United States for eight years and a Democrat. Okay, people that are implicated as at least being very close to Epstein and should have known about Epstein. I think

that there's just a fear even among people. Maybe they haven't maybe some journalists haven't found this stuff yet, but they don't even really want to find it because of what it would mean, what it would mean for people that they perhaps have idolized or I thought were necessary

for a cause or necessary for political victory. Keep in mind that, yeah, I mean, Hillary Clinton is probably not going to run for president again, but the Clinton name is still very much a political dynasty, and Chelsea Clinton is I'm the same guy who told you Blasi Ford was going to be getting awards and stuff, and here we are. Chelsea Clinton is going to run for office and she's probably going to win, not necessarily the presidency,

but she'll be a senator from New York. She just pick a state to be senator from that blue state, no problem. She's boring, she's unimpressive, never had to actually have a real job in her life, but she will be. So there's a desire, a recognition among journalists, recognition among the institutional left to protect the Clinton name. Could that be factoring into why we don't get any more information

about the Epstein situation. That certainly seems plausible too. We know he's on him, not just pulling him in out of nowhere. We know he was on the plane a whole bunch of times. We know the he was hanging out there were friends Epstein and Bill Clinton. Is that why because there's just there's such a lack of it seems of interest from the mainstream media from these huge

news organizations with tremendous resources to get answers here. Everything we've been told, this guy committed suicide in prison under shady circumstances. That was a huge black eye for the Bureau of Prisons at a minimum, I mean, depending on I who we talked to. Also, there's other stuff that maybe was involved here, perhaps Epstein was I've never thought that he was killed. I do think that there is a plausible way to get to maybe this guy was

allowed to kill himself, so to speak. There's plenty of evidence you could point to. It says Okay, Well, he's the first person in the history of the Manhattan Correctional Facility in New York that was able to successfull commit suicide of these circumstances. It's been around for forty years, folks. First one, there's people that right now, people are held every day. First guy just happened to be this guy. It's a big coincidence, a lot of big coincidence. We're

being asked. I'm telling you they didn't touch the story for how many years initially, So it would really be the media's willingness to just not pay any attention to this whole situation would be in keeping with what they've done in the past. Something is up here. I have ideas, I do not have proof, but there's something going on. Continue to pay attention to this. You're gonna have to

read a little bit between the between the lines. You have to pay attention to the subtleties and the subtext because there are a lot of very powerful people who do not want to get to the bottom of what was really going on here. We know ABC News was willing to skip past this because of access to the royal family. Now we see one of these royal family guys. How do you think ABC News should feel about this? Hey, Team Bucket, it's time for roll Call Facebook dot com,

Flash buck Sexton or Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com and also, of course, please spread the word about Channel two forty eight on Pluto TV, a free app you can download. If you're listening to this podcast or this as a radio show, you can watch what's going on here in the Freedom Huts. See the clips that I talk about. See me and producer Mark Eli's hear him. You can't really see him, you have We're working on that. I'm doing our thing here in the Freedom Hunt Channel two

forty eight, the first on Pluto TV. And also I'm getting notes from people saying that someone told them about the podcast and they now listen to it and it's their favorite podcast. Let's keep that going, shall we? Please? Please make that happen. Tell somebody about the show this week. It is a huge compliment and help to us here

in the show we put out every day. Tell them they can listen to the podcast anytime they want iTunes, iHeartRadio, app, you name it, wherever you listen to podcasts The Buck Section Show. All right, staycy. I read the daily up first email from Pluto TV. There were some spelling ears. Thanks and shield side all right, Stacy, I'll make sure that we we get some more proofreading. Go in there.

Let's see here, John, hold on a second. Whoa, John, This is like a thousand words, so I can't read this on air right now, but I will read it when I can. Adam Buck disagree on Amelio Estevez and his best movie. I would put Men at Work in the top spot. Shields High. Adam, I appreciate your opinion despite the fact that it is wrong. Young Guns is clearly better than Men at Work. I don't. I would put this out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of fact. Facts. First, my friend, I don't

even remember I saw Men at Work. I don't even remember. It isn't like garbage men who come upon some plot to get rid of, like toxic waste or something. Producer Mark, did you see it? No? Well, isn't his best movie, well, other than The Mighty Ducks, Right, I mean Breakfast Club. I was willing, I was getting ready to make fun of your addition into this and actually, and now I have to respect that the Breakfast Club might in fact be I mean, it's number two behind the Mighty Ducks trilogy.

But right, well, we've already established that you're wrong the Mighty Ducks. But I'm just trying. You've never even seen it, so you can't call me wrong on that, all right, that's technically true? Yeah, but yeah, no, I think The Breakfast Club would have to be in the in the very top Young Guns a very entertaining movie though. But Men at Work is also the name of it is I think an Australian band. Who could it be knocking

at my door? Yeah? It sounds like a band, right, are they Australian or am I thinking of like, I don't know, I don't know. No, they're not Australian. That's tough to tell. Those Brits, those Aussies when they sing, all of a sudden, the fancy accent disappears. Oh when you sing, you actually sound like an American. Isn't that crazy how that happens like that? It's very rare that singers have an accent. No, they don't. You know, when

you sing sound because this is the way. If you're going to make the sounds that we make with our mouths, you speak American. I'm trying to say, we do it the right way. Yeah. Well, we just told like this all the time because it sounds so cool. It does sound cool. You can't deny that it sounds cool. I know. It's such a huge advantage. People in this business who were like, oh, I've got a British accent, so now go on television never will think would USA is so small?

Does it work the same way the other way around? If we go to London with an American accent, Nope, they make fun of us. They're like, hey, my name is Bob and I'm from Chicago. That's how they always do American accents in the UK. It's totally true. They think we all sound like that kind of like a almost like a Midwestern meets New York accent. Yes, like with their mouths really tight and talking like this. Because I have a lot of British friends, so I know

that's what they do. They make fun of us. Whatever. Seventeen seventy six, boom, all, I gotta say, let's see Richard wrights buck. So Virginia is going to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which expired something like thirty years ago, but the Dems say they're going to change the deadline,

so there is no deadline. How is the DEM's gonna say that states can't resend their amendment as four states have, but it's gonna take the ra ignoring or take up the ear ignoring the seven year Richard, I don't know what. I don't even know what this is, man, I got to look this up. I'm out up on the Equal Rights Amendment and Virginia stuff. So I'm sorry, I got nothing for for once, I have nothing to really add into the scenario here. Um Michael says, ask producer Mark

about the movie slap Shot. I've never even heard of this movie. You've never seen slap Shot. No, it's the best hockey movie other than The Mighty Ducks ever made. Is it funny or is it it's hilarious? Yeah? Who's in it? The Handsome Burton? No no, it's the Handsome Brothers, the kids from Umbop? No, no no, no, the Handsome Brothers are the main characters. I don't think that's that's their actual names in real life. Oh yeah, okay, I was like,

it's based on a minor league hockey team. But it is hilarious because I would argue that the song Umbop is the most annoying song that has ever been a successful song in America, even more annoying than the Venga Boys, The Venga Bus Is Coming and the Macarena. I think I think Umbop might be the mos some annoying song ever recorded in America. I like him, Bup. I don't even know what to say to you right now. Well, what's wrong with him? Bop? I just you know, folks,

he's under a lot of pressure. He's getting a couple of weeks, so we're just gonna let him. He's gonna let him have it. Have you ever heard of pregnancy brain. I have white wedding brain, A new thing that there, there we go. He's saying, a team that's gonna be it for the show today. I hope you've enjoyed it as much as we've enjoyed doing it. I'll talk to you tomorrow and every day this week. Oh that's right, Shields high,