Illegal, Unprecedented Spying

decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again. This is the Buck Sexton Show for CIA analysts. I can speak for three hours without a phone call. Try doing that some No, you think you're turning down on yesterday, there was spying into your campaign? I kind of yes, I am. I think what he said was absolutely true. There was

absolutely spying into my campaign. I'll go a step further in my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again. And I think his answer was actually a very accurate one. Welcome to the Buck Saxton show, Trump laying it down. There is there any doubt? Of course there was spying. Of course, that's what the people in the deep State and Christopher Steele and the you know,

that's what it is. That's what happened. Are we really going to argue about this? Apparently we are the media's are you can't You can't say that, you know. It was one thing when they were being crazy about this before, but we have known now for then they were just lying. But at least it was there was a plausible deniability, like maybe they because we didn't yet have the facts.

We didn't know about the FISA, we didn't know about the human sources, we didn't know about all the different tools of the federal government used to spy on American citizens tied to President Trump and to use the efforts to spy on those Americans tied to Trump as the basis of this narrative that Trump is a Russian spy himself.

What's happened here is that just the Attorney general who who you know, Bill Barr, who has real gravitas and knows what he's doing and knows this game and knows what the Democrats are trying to pull here is just calling it what it is, and they're all freaking out. You know. They they were lying to us back in the day about how there was no spying, and now they're trying to just lie to our faces when we know there was fine. But here's what they used to

sound like. Play seven. There is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign. Is baseless claims of spies. It's so called spy issue. First of all, there's absolutely no evidence there was a spy, So it's really a fake issue. This this phony bologny story about a spy in the campaign. To call them a conspiracy theory is to give them too much credit, just fake facts. All the other people who've seen the intelligence in your own

party are saying, there's just no there there. I'm wondering what it will take for you, Congressman Zalden to say he's full of it. What is it going to take for CNN Aaron Burnett there and others to say, oh, sorry, are bad, we were wrong, wrong, wrong, Well they were lying, lying, lying, Actually there weren't just wrong. I think a lot of them knew I'm certainly Adam Schiff knew. He's on the

House Intelligence Committee. These are people that have clearances. They knew speaking of people with clearances who were lying people at the very highest level of the intelligence community. Someone explained to me, Grumble Grumble Clapper aka James James Clapper, how he's supposed to be able to get away with saying stuff like this? Still play eight? But is the

FBI spying on Trump's campaign? No, they were not. They were spying on a term I don't particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing, trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage and influence? So why doesn't like what they do? So why doesn't he like that? He should be happy? Though bold? Why doesn't he like that he should be happy with what they did try to keep the Russians

out of the campaign? Does anyone believe this is anyone that's other than joy Behar Is anyone that's stupid to think that that's what was going on here? If if they were doing this for the benefit of the Trump campaign, wouldn't they have told the Trump campaign that there were efforts at Russian penetration and asset cultivation within the Trump campaign. They explicitly did not do that. No, instead, they found the on the flimsiest pretext possible. I mean, to go

after Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. Remember those were names that eighteen months ago people were saying they were traders. People were saying they sold out their country. And now that we know what really happened, these guys didn't do anything. I mean, you know, they're a little a little out of their depth, maybe a little clownish, but no ill intent. They're not unpatriotic, They're they're not doing anything wrong to a I mean, what a terrible thing to say about somebody.

I mean, being called a trader by people who really mean a trader when you are not in the least, when you're a patriot and have done nothing wrong. You know, it's like being called a you know, a rapist or a murderer or a molester. I mean, it's a terribly damaging thing, one of the worst things you can be called.

And it was said about them all the time, and even people like Maria Bouccina, who was a Russian national that was initially smeared by the press as being a honey trap because of a joke that she made over text message of somebody saying that she was trading sex for access. Total lie. Do you think the press ever really apologized for that. No, of course not. She was Russian, so she was really scary. And also so what if her reputation and life maybe were ruined by the media's recklessness.

You know, the mainstream media and their feverish pursuit of the Russia collusion delusion took the attitude of you know, if you've got to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet of bs, go for it. That's what they did. Now they're saying there was no spying. I mean, what's next. They never wanted to get Trump in the first place. Oh, that's what's gonna be interesting. They're gonna try to rewrite the history. It's gonna happen. You're gonna hear people say this. It was never really about Russia

Trump collusion. It was just about looking into obstruction of justice and also the Russian interference in the election. They're going to try to exercise that whole The president of the United States is a Russian asset. Was working for the Kremlin doing Putin's bidding. This completely insane stuff that

was being said all the time. There were people who were being called Russian agents in the Trump administration that you could you would have to struggle hard to find something to say in public on MSNBC or CNN that was more on its face moronic, but it was being said by people who take themselves very seriously are paid for their opinions and expertise. James Clapper on the Views View, where are the really important conversations happened with Joy pay Huh?

You know? The View is a place where you'd think that James Ever might let his hair down a little bit. No, No, not trying to be funny with that, because I know, you know Clapper, I'm not he He's follicularly challenged whatever. That's not what I was going for. But Clapper saying that there was no spying by the FBI, How could he say this? And now you start to get into what did they know and when did they know it?

It is I worked in the intelligence community. I sat in on meetings with and briefed the people who are the very very top all the way for the president. But you know, the DNI, the CIA director, I've I've run briefings for them, I've been of the room with them. Let me tell you something right now, there is absolutely no way that there could have been anybody under surveillance in the Trump administration orbit without the Director of National

Intelligence James Clapper knowing it. It's just it's just not feasible. We know that there was spying. Now we should start to look back from the spying and say who knew about this when it was happening, who signed off on this,

What was their explanation for this at the time. What we're going to find out, by the way, and this is the real terror from the Democrats and they're going to try to do everything that can cover this up, was that the dossier was about eighty percent of the justification for all of us that a foreign national paid by the DNC to go collect rumors, unsourced rumors from Russian subsources, put them in a raw intelligence document, private

intelligence document, not government and just spew all this stuff onto a page, not analyze or verify any of it, and then you can take that and use that for the top of the spying apparatus of the United States government. Against a presidential campaign. This is crazy. What has happened here is crazy. This is the amount Vesuvius eruption of

political scandals. And meanwhile, you know, all the villagers around us are burning and their houses are on fire, and the Democrats are like, what's the big deal, what's the big deal. We're beyond guessing about whether they were spying. Now, it's how far did it go? Who signed off on it, Did they break the law or were they just unethical? Lindsey Graham gets it played four. There's no doubt they were spying on Trump's people in campaign. The question was

it lawful? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows you to follow around people you think are working with a foreign government. Counterintelligence investigation, by very definition, is surveilling people that you think are spying. So the question was it lawful? If the warrant was based on the dicier, that wasn't lawful.

And I don't know why they did not tell Trump about people on his campaign working NATA Russia if they really believe that their stories, the Democrats, the leftist media, and one part of this that I'm really hoping we get to is speaking of collusion, the degree of collusion between the so called serious journos of places like CNN and you know, other other news outlets that say they're just doing journalism the way that they worked hand in

glove with not just former intelligence agency officials, but the former chiefs most recent chiefs of the intelligence agencies who would have been working specifically on the very issue of Russia Trump collusion while they were in office, and then using those allegations, laundering them through the press to give them the veneer of credibility. How much of that happened? You know? How many conversations did say Clapper and Jake Tapper?

Clapper and Tapper sounds like a really bad cop buddy comedy. How much did they talk about this? How is it that CNN managed to break the story of the briefing of the dossier by Comey to Trump right after it happened. Oh, that's right, because they needed somebody to create a news

item out of something that was unsourced. And then BuzzFeed, which we know from the conversations between the very conversation between BuzzFeed editor in chief Ben Smith and none other than fake Jake Tapper that they wanted to report on the existence of the dossier without letting people see the dossier. That was the game, That was what it was going to be. Then BuzzFeed let the cat out of the bag. So they're BuzzFeed cats, cat videos. Let the cat out of the bag, and we all got to see that

this document was completely ridiculous. James Comey sat down with the President the United States and said, you should know that this is out there. I mean, this is the equivalent of the FBI director sitting down with the President United States and saying, hey, you see all these comments from internet trolls that are on this post about you. Some of them are saying some pretty crazy stuff. We thought you should see this. What these people are supposed

to be professionals. They're supposed to be neutral purveyors of sensitive information so that the government can make the best decisions possible. And what we had here were a bunch of clowns, partisan clowns, blinded by their own egos and political allegiances, and a media that was just up to its neck in advocacy for Hillary and doing everything they

could to take down and destroy the president. And it went so far as to be a conspiracy to weaponize the intelligence apparatus of the United States government against a presidential campaign in an election year, and we've had no accountability for this, really whatsoever, yet, no real reckoning. The reason they don't want people to use the term spying is because it will start to sink in the Obama administration, his appointees and oh, speaking of when did he know

and what did he know? You're gonna tell me that Obama didn't know about this. That's an unserious position. So Obama's appointees, with Obama knowing at least some of what was going on, and not calling this into question, we're

spying on a presidential campaign. And then once they couldn't get their way and find what they thought they would find, they decided to cover their tracks by concocting a story of obstruction and then doing everything they could to fill the air waves and fill the newsrooms with all these rumors about these nefarious plots with Putin and Trump and doing his bidding, and this was all propaganda. It was just a giant web of lies. You cannot trust these

people anymore. If you ever did, please stop believing them. They made traffic in fact sometimes, but it's only so that they can piggyback the propaganda. On top of it, there was spying. Do not let them gas light you do not let them pretend that it didn't happen. It happened. They spied on the Trump campaign. They threw everything they could at President Trump to take him down. He came out on top. But that's not enough. Now we've got

to find out what they did in detail. The American people need to know, and we need to know before we vote on the next presidential election. And I think Bill Barr is going to get us there. The Democrats, the reckoning is coming. We'll be right back. He is the opposite of Sessions, who has been who was recused. He's embedded. He is completely immersed now with the Trump team. He shouldn't have been confirmed. Once he was confirmed, he should have accused himself. He has no business being on

this case. I won't accept anything about this investigation until we hear from Bomba. I mean, the Democrats weren't going to be happy no matter who Trump appointed the attorney general role, because if you have an adult in that role who refuses to go along with the left wing game anymore. Here of oh yeah, all this Russia collusion stuff. This was on the up and up. This seemed legit. If you don't say that, if you're not part of the part of the team, so to speak, team take

down Trump, they're gonna have a problem with you. That's where we are. This is why all the Democrats are. They're attacking far As though you know, it's his fault that there was no Russia collusion. It's Bar's fault that Mueller didn't bring obstruction or collusion charges. Did not say that there should be those charges conspiracy not collusion. But you know what I mean, this is all they've got. Now, go after the guy who is doing everything he can

to respect the process. But the cardinal sin here, the thing that they will refuse to forgive is that Bar won't back down from obvious objective reality, which is that there was spying. Of course, there was spying. There are a whole New York Times articles referring to the FISA stuff as spying. You know, when it benefited the left to make this thing seem as nefarious as possible. Lots of stories about carter Page spying for the Russians, spying on carter Page to see if he was spying for

the Russians. George Papadopoulos, maybe tied to Wiki leaks, maybe involved with Russian spies. Who knows all that was used all the time. Now that there's nothing that they can point to to justify all this, they oh, spying, Well, that wasn't spying. It was It was more like a check in using the most sophisticated intelligence collection apparatus in the world and doing so as an end ron on any Fourth Amendment protection in the name of national security. Yeah,

it's called spying. Use the spy word, folks. Do not let them try to push you off this because it conveys the gravity and the seriousness of what happened here, which is that the Democrats tried a soft coup against the president of the United States. That's what they did. You cannot trust these people. You should not listen to these people, but you should watch them very closely, because here's a promise. If we don't hold them accountable for this,

they would try this again. That may just say, how very very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails yesterday and today. He is Attorney General of the United States of America, not the attorney general of Donald Trump. Not even really true what she's saying there. I mean, the a journey general works for the president. So but yes, he is first and foremost was to work for the

American people, and that's what he's doing. This is the This is the way that the Democrat panic manifests itself. This is a straight up exercise in controlling the narrative. There was spying. There's no serious argument otherwise. It is very clear that what's happening here is Democrats trying to normalize or dismiss this by saying, oh, don't don't use that word, don't use the S word, the spying word. How is how is bar going off the rails? You know?

In what way? Has there been any violation of the trust put in Bar? Or just has there been a violation of common sense? Nadler and Pelosi are are spewing this garbage, and these people are a joke, an absolute joke. But unfortunate they've got a lot of power and the media is backing them up on this stuff. Play clip three. Republican conspiracy theory nonsense, It says, show games. Look at this imaginary conspiracy versus the fact that the Russians interfered

with our elections. I'm very concerned about the statements made by the Attorney General Barr. I think that they undermine our constitution, they undermine the role of the Attorney General. I don't trust Bar. I trust Muller. Okay, oh, okay, she doesn't trust bar, she trust Muller. Muller is part of the redaction team going through the report right now. Mueller has not objected to anything that Barr has done.

Muller is involved in all of this. But I mean, Nancy Pelosi is she looks she's just she has no ethical core whatsoever, just so we'll say whatever she has to say that benefits her side. She'll say anything, She'll say anything. And that guy Nadler saying, look at this imaginary conspiracy versus the fact that the Russians interfered in

our elections. You want to talk about an exaggeration. The Russian interference in the election was an eye dropper of water into an ocean of media and social media in the twenty sixteen fight, Yeah, did something happen, Sure did it matter? No serious person thinks that it mattered. But the imaginary conspiracy here is supposed to be the spying. The spying is a matter of record, it is a matter of fact. We've spent two years waiting for the spying to be justified, and now that they cannot justify

the spying, they're saying it wasn't spying. Oh wow, that's quite a walk back, isn't it. That's that's astonishing. And they also, i think, have been thrown into a little bit of a disarray because unless they get something really good on the obstruction, they know, they know that impeachment is likely to blow back on them. That it's not a politically intelligent thing for them to do, which is all they really care about, to pursuit and exercise, the pursuit,

acquisition and exercise of power. That is, that is the the the central soul of the Democrat left. That's all. That's the most important thing of all. What they have to do to get there. You know what the results are once they get it, that's all secondary. They need to be in power. They have to be the ones who are in charge here. That's what mobilizes them, that's what makes them tick, and that's why on impeachment Pelosi is now saying, well, maybe we gotta steps back a

little bit. Maybe we've got to think a little more about the long term ramifications here play too. The fact is is that this president has engaged in activities that are unethical American in terms of taking babies out of the arms of their moms, on patriotic, I mean, in every way, he is unfit to be president of the United States. Does that make it? Is that an impeachable offense? Well, it depends on what we see in the report. Depends

on the report. They're still clinging to this He's unethical, Unamerican, unpatriotical. What can Pelosi fill in some specifics here? Is what is Unamerican about Donald Trump? I mean, that's a real that's a real stretch. I'd like to know what did he do that's Unamerican? What did he do that's unpatriotic? You know, the previous president Obama, he was the one to run around bowing and apologizing and America is really

not that great. And Michelle Obama saige you never you know, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country when her husband became the commander in chief. What is a what does Trump do that's un patriotic? I would like to know what that you know, does she just pick word that mean bad? Nancy Pelosi finds words that are bad and then just says them about Trump in every way he's unfit. I mean that's interesting because I think right now he would crush, absolutely

crush any Democrat who ran against him. Bernie Sanders might be able to win one or two states that Hillary lost, that's it now, not one of the big ones. And that's assuming that the media can run enough cover and defense for a socialist, which I don't even I don't even know if the media has that kind of juice anymore. I don't know if they're really in a place to shape the narrative so that a democratic socialist can can

run and win. We're gonna see. I think we're gonna find out, because I do think it's gonna be you're ask me right now, I think the candidate's gonna be Bernie. I don't think you're gonna have some Democrat come out of this pack. I think there's a lot of feeling out there that it should have been Burnie in twenty sixteen. He's raising a lot of money, he's got the name recognition. They go back to Biden. There's why why would any

person vote for Biden over Trump? Because if he's a more normal return to politics or something, it does not make any sense to me, any sense at all. But we'll see Democrats do a lot of things that don't make sense to me. It doesn't mean that's not going to happen. Oh, team, we have oh so much more coming your way. I want to talk to you about Medicare for all, Bernie's plan, and some other stuff coming up. It's obviously a good question whether you trust Bill Barr

or not. He was a confirmed unanimously his attorney general way back in Bush forty one. He's an honorable man. He's not over there trying to cover anything up. He's going to send us a Muller report that is as open as possible, and when I say as possible, pretty confident he's not going to throw innocent people who were in charge under the bus and run their reputation or

reveal classified information. This effort to undermine Bar before this report comes out is so transparent, and it's gone into overdrive with the Yeah, there was spying debate that we've we've been thrown into now, which is not a debate. It's just a do you admit reality or not there was spying? Do you admit what happened or do you not admit what happened? And you look Mitch McConnell, aka Cocaine Mitch. Any of you don't know why they call

him that. You just gotta If you google Cocaine Mitch on YouTube or something, or that's not googling, but you'll see it'll come up. It was from an ad run by an opponent of his. I forget the guy's name where he started to claiming Cocaine Mitch and it just stuck as a wacko crazy nickname. But but you don't mess with Cocaine Mitch. The guy knows what he's doing and he understands the game here, which is they're trying to do everything that they can to undermine bar in

this process, who's already been the Attorney general. He has all the credentials, all the background to be in this role. And what you're seeing is that Democrats have there's no good faith here. They they always want their guy or their gal in this role because they know that leftists will side with leftists and then they'll have the whole left wing ecosystem of media and academia and you know, the DNC and all the rest of it saying oh no, no, that was the right decision. Of course, that was the

right decision. There was no politics involved there. It don't be silly, don't be silly. You know, everything that Barr has said is legitimate. Here here's Senator Jerry Moran, who's just saying, of course he should look into spine. Of course, Bar It's not just that it's a good idea. He has a mandate. He has a mandate to look into spine. He must know if the government was abusing its power.

Here play six. Those who are critics of the president, those who are perhaps critics of the Attorney general, are over emphasizing the word spying. What he was talking about was the efforts that commenced this investigation. Were they based upon legal authority? And the question is did that occur. That's very a very valid request of an attorney general to find out what the facts are. It's not even a request, it's an obligation. He must find this out. He must find this out. Of a note. You know,

before we second hour, we got some big things. We have to get to the Julianus Sane arrest today. Julian mbuddy from a couple of years ago. We had a long chat. I'll tell you about that. The Julianus Sange arrest. Also a Greg Craig got arrested, the White House counsel for Obama in the beginning of the first Obama term. He's now facing a serious felony indictment. And you know they're they're feeding him to the lions. But I'll get into why that is. More updates on the border total mass,

the meeting's lying about it. We'll just we'll get into that because we should. We have to. And then the latest on Rashida to leave and ilhan Omar. And they're the way they're defending themselves when people point out the bad or stupid or reckless things that they say, Oh, here's a guess it has to do with racism, right. That's that's where they take the conversation. But Bernie Sanders put it out yesterday his medicure for rule the millionaires.

The billionaire is gonna pay for it. Mitch McConnell understands that is a bad idea. I like I like Mitch when he's getting getting feisty, getting a little frisky. I like that, Mitch McConnell. And here's what he said about Bernie's Medicare for all planned play eleven not as long

as I'm a jority. Later, it'd ought to be called Medicare for none, because, as the setup piece pointed out, one hundred and eighty million Americans would lose the private health insurance they many of them negotiated for at work. Medicare itself that the current recipients have been pay into all these years would be completely drained by adding all these additional people. If you want to turn America into

a socialist country, this is the first step. That coupled, of course, with a Green New Deal, which would eliminate a whole lot of jobs. I think what we're seeing here is full socialism on display, and the democratic primaries

for president full socialism on display. Absolutely correct. That is what is going on here, pushing to get us closer and closer to a truly socialist society where you have the government making far too many decisions, the government deciding who gets what and when, how much wealth you're allowed to have, how much of your wealth or your earnings

goes to somebody else or some government program. And Bernie Sanders is saying that he would be willing to use this just came out yesterday to get this thing through. He's going to use budget reconciliation. This is one place where I get very frustrated with the Republicans because Republicans still kind of like to play nice. Republicans will say, oh, but you know, the Senate, we don't want to we don't want to rock the boat too much, and there's

all this institutions and blah blah, all that stuff. Democrats are like, we want this, We're gonna do it. We want this. We're going to find a way to get around the Senate sixty vote requirement right now and just do it with a slim fifty vote majority. So you know, people are saying that Senators don't believe that this kind of legislation could go through under reconciliation. But you know, Sanders doesn't care what's supposed to happen. He just cares

what he can do. The raw exercise of power is all Democrats feel they need to get what they want. It doesn't matter what they trample in the process, it doesn't matter what previous norms are shattered, and this is going to be one of those one of those moments. What was the first thing? What Obama had all the votes he needed both houses of Congress. What was the

first thing he did? Healthcare? Because he knew that we'd never be able to get rid of it, and that's where we are right now, and that it would just put us on a pathway to socialize medicine, which is exactly where we are. And I was saying this at the time along with many, many, many of my conservative brothers and sisters, and we were right, but we were told that we were fear mongering, and we were wrong.

And now we're back here at the moment when we're being told that medicare for all is what the Democrat Party is going to run on in twenty twenty, that they're going to ram it down our throats no matter what, that they're going to destroy the private health insurance market. You're not going to have private insurers anymore, and you're gonna have your healthcare is going to be whatever the heck the Democrat controlled statists say at it a Democrat

controlled state, who are statists say it will be? That's going to be your healthcare plan that should be that should be troubling. You know, I'm somebody who you know I want And this is where I started maybe sound a little radically. I want more profit motive and healthcare. I want people spending money to give better care and better delivery. You know, I want the healthcare providers to

compete vigorously for your business. You know, last time I went to a hospital, it was just such a such a lesson, and I waited for must have been in the emergency room, must have waited for four or five hours. Doctor came in, spent thirty seconds with me, and said, oh, I gotta go do something else, and left me again.

I actually didn't even get seen. I left the hospital without getting to see a doctor because I was just so drained and frustrated and figured, you know, whatever stomach bug I had would just it would pass, and you know, I guess I'd be okay and whatever. And I was. But it was a rough day. And I waited for four or five hours in there, and you know what happened after that? They sent me a bill. Who wants to guess how much the hospital bill was waiting for

five hours in an er? You know, the most you know, uncomfortable depressing place and madgeble, I mean, you know, short of being in like a you know, a in the morgue or something. I mean, it's just, you know, it's a lot of people and a lot of pain and a lot of suffering, and you know, it's not a place you want to spend a lot of time. I'm glad there are emergency rooms obviously, but I just it's not somewhere you will like to wait around. A lot of people are sick. You don't want to get sick.

My hypochondriac side's coming out. But what do you think the bill was for the non provision of services based upon the blood pressure and blood pressure reading and weight that they took on me when when they first brought me in, so they had a nurse take my blood pressure,

in my weight and oh, in my temperature. What do you think the bill was that they've sent me that I'm gonna have to pay out a pocket because it comes it was twelve hundred dollars, that's right, twelve hundred dollars to not help me, not do anything, not see me. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. And if I don't pay it all they're gonna send collection agency after me and all the sudden. You know, that's not good enough.

Our healthcare should be better than it is. It's not going to be better because a bunch of government bureaucrats sit on boards and committees and try to come up with, you know, cost saving measures because we're blowing the budget out. That's what Medicare for all will be. It will be a disaster. Your healthcare will get worse, the economy will be slowed. There'll be less innovation, less cures, less new medicine. This is what the Democrats want, you know, that's just

take it back to the Soviet Union. Let's just have glass factories that make glass that breaks before you can get off the assembly line. That's a great idea. That's the economic theory they want to apply to our healthcare system this country. It's just it's just so idiotic. But that the left has lost its mind. Our two coming up.

Wikilaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service, and it's encouraged its followers to find jobs at the CIA in order to obtain intelligence. It's time to all out wikilis for what it really is a non state hostile intelligence service, often embedded by

state actors like Russia. This precedent means that any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the United States for having published truthful information about the United States various charges involving his role in Russian metaling in our election. He should face charges here, without presuming what the outcome will be, Justice should come to Julian Assange. Justice, it seems is coming to Julian Assange arrested today. The Ecuadorian embassy has

pushed him out, allowed British police to come in. I wonder if they went there, like, excuse me, sir, hello, can you please oh no, oh, would you please come with us? Oh yes, oh no, no, rito yes. Actually the cops from them like a stuff together, a loud put out of well, all of a suddenly the cops are Scottish. I don't know, We're running all over the place,

but they've arrested Assange. And now, according to the indictment, which we've seen from the Eastern District of Virginia, where they often handle espionage related cases or federal government related cases, you have a charge of essentially conspiring to hack into a computer. Now there's so this is all related to the Chelsea Manning situation. This is a Chelsea Manning related case and they're not charging him, and this is very notable.

And I know people have all this passion about Assange, and you know, I have a lot of different feelings about what the you know, there's so many layers here. I can't just give you the Do I think Assange is a dirtbag? Yeah? I think he's a dirtbag. Do I think that he does the bidding of some people in Moscow? Yes, I think that that's probably true. Have I seen direct evidence of it yet? No, I have not, so I'm open. I'm open to counter arguments to be sure.

Has he published a lot of information that has had a tremendous impact, including on say, the Arab Spring, and yes, yes he has. Have I ever seen Julian Assange or do I know? Could I point you to Julian Assange releasing information that endangered the life of any particular source. I can't give you chapter and verse on that, So you know, I try to be very honest to the

facts as they are around this guy. I interviewed Asange what now, two years ago at some length on a podcast, not on this show, on the Stansbury Investor Hour, which to this day I wonder what that did to you know, what malwaares on my computer, in my IP system and

everything else. Because of that, Connecting to one of the most surveiled men on the planet inside the Ecuadorian Embassy using your own personal IP address probably not the wisest thing I've ever done, but you know, I wanted to talk to the guy, so you know, he's very sanctimonious.

He does think that he's incredibly important. I do think Pam Anderson has been his girlfriend, which is an interesting kind of nineties throwback side note, And there's all this stuff about his cat too, and how he's kind of a dirty, smelly, nasty guy inside the Ecuadorian Embassy. There's only so much PlayStation I guess you can do before you just start to like let it go and give up. You know, I will say, usually as I'm in a beard phase these days, Asange's beard, Beard game, Beard game,

kind of weak. Beard game looked like the guy's been sleeping on a park bench, maybe used to get some of the beard oil or beard wax whatever going on. But you know, I look at that. I look at this whole list to get into the substance of this. You know, has he endangered a source? Not that I not that I could point you too. Does he have an ax to grind against the United States? Yeah? I think so. Is he doing the work of hostile foreign

powers with what he's engaged in the past. Yeah. Do I think that he really engaged in whistleblowing by getting Chelsea Manning to release all that classified information? Well, you know, war is messy and bad things happen. I'm not sure there was no policy chains that came out of that. So there's a lot of complain I'm just telling you

there's a lot of complexity here. You know. You look, conservatives, some of your favorite conservatives were having this guy on and because as soon as he was involved with the release of the DNC emails from Hillary from during the Hillary campaign and the Podesta emails, as soon as that was on the table, now a lot of conservatives like, wow,

this radical transparency thought can be pretty cool. But the moment that people found out about his role in the release of classified information through Chelsea Manning, he was a trader people. I saw all these people saying he should be drone striked and all this stuff. Well, this is why there. You know, he's there's a lot of interesting stuff. He's a very interesting character, and what he's done raises a lot of questions. I mean, here's some of and a lot of you will disagree with me on this.

I mean, I think that what he did by releasing the classified information, I think it was reckless. I don't think it had some great effect or impact. But I also think that a lot of journalists in this country release information that is classified, and that it is reckless to do so. And I think they do so often out of spite, you know. I think they do so because the administration that's in power is one they don't like, and they're just looking to create a bad news cycle

for it. But here's where I start to have some conflicting feelings about all this. You know, Julian Assange is not an American citizen, So his obligation to protect classified US government information, I don't believe that it really exists, because I certainly wouldn't want to be held to the standard of well, I said something or publish something that the Iranian government, let's say, claims is classified and Therefore, you know, America to be a good member of the

international community has to hand me over to Iran. I'm not an Iranian citizen. I don't answer to them. Now in the case of Assange, because he's an ass maybe the Aussies are like, go get him America. They probably are, because the Asses are a very good ally. But I think that raises some interesting questions, you know, I think

that that creates an obligation. You know, one of my big problems with among many radical Islam is that it expects, it expects, the expects nonbelievers to obey when it comes to things like not showing images of the prophet Muhammad. And you know, that's a level beyond what you get in most other faith traditions, where nonbelievers have to live

by the code of those who believe. If you're not an American citizen, I do not believe you have any obligation to protect American national security information because I would not be expected him. I used to work for thus CIA, and I would not want to be held to the standard that I could be handed over to some foreign

government because I messed with their national security information. Right so or now, in my role as a as a media person, not really a journalist, but as a person who does break stories and does do frontline coverage on different issues. I wouldn't want some government to be able to demand my extradition. So you know, I know that my my Asange analysis for some of you is probably unsatisfying in the sense that I'm not always terrible and

always great. But I would just note a lot of the people who today I'm not going to name any names, a lot of conservatives who today are going to tell you this is great, Assange needs to go down, and he's a bad guy and all this stuff. They were people who not long ago, and I mean a couple of years ago, we're saying that Asange was providing a really necessary service, and they were interviewing him on their shows, and so people have gone back and forth on this guy.

Now with that in mind, the way that this plays out with the Democrats, I find fascinating because Democrats are angry at this guy, have a beef with this guy because of what he did at Hillary, right, it is his anti Hillary record. That is why all of a sudden you have a lot of Democrats cheering for him

to get prosecuted in this country. You have Democrats who are coming out and celebrating this, and it's because they're bitter because of the role that he played in really exposing what we already knew was the case, which is that the election or the nomination I should say, was

stolen from Bernie Senters. It was Bernie should have beaten Hillary in a fair contest without the Democrat apparatus just pushing her forward, and without all the behind the scenes collusion between various hillary Bots that we don't even know about, I think Bernie would have won. And what Asane did was just to really expose that. I mean, there's nothing else that anybody particularly remembers about this. I think there might have been some off about how Chelsea Clinton's a

brat whoa big surprise, you know. I mean, there's some not flattering stuff in there. But the only real bombshell, if you could say there was a bombshell, was that the Democrat National Committee had already picked the candidate for the Democrat Party. There was no need for a primary.

It was gonna be Hillary. So Assan showed us that, really a sossage, gave us, you know, more of that and some proof of that, and people liked it, and the Democrats obviously hated it, and the Hillary establishment media and national security apparatus types are never going to forgive Assange for what he did there. So he's upset both sides, and he's done things that both sides either like or hate. And obviously his ties to Chelsea Manning makes him a

sort of progressive hero of some kind. But to undermine and this is where you know, my national security background

and feelings comes into play. I mean, to undermine confidential and secret plomacy and discussions, even if you're not naming names necessarily, but that's that's really dangerous and counterproductive stuff, you see, if you believe and this is where I have my My biggest objections to Assange are that he I think he does do the bidding of and I know this is a phrase that has been polluted by Democrats saying Trump does this, but I really do believe

that Assange does the bidding of the Russians, and so you know, I have that issue with him. And also I think America is overall and on balance, an incredible force for good in the world, and for people to try and unfairly target just America for embarrassment for the sake of just embarrassing it. That I got, I've got

a problem with that. I haven't an issue with that that there needs to be able to be I mean a lot of the Wiki leaks cables, a vast majority of it was like, okay, doing what we do, fighting a war, having diplomacy behind the scenes. Yeah, you've got to deal with some unsavory care chacters in the world

of diplomacy. Welcome to the world. I think that in a lot of ways, what we saw in the wiki leagues cables, which you know, I remember people who had clearances are being told don't look at the wiki leagues cables online. I was like, so, the people who are legally allowed to see this stuff and their actual jobs shouldn't look at it on the internet. That was That was a weird one. But you know the reality of Assange is that you always are picking a side, folks,

and this is what's true of journalism as well. You're always picking a side, and I think I think Assange often sides with the bad guys. So I have an issue with that. As to the specifics of the of the charges here, you know, they're going after them on on essentially conspiracy to hack because they don't want to make it about publishing secrets. Why because our own journalists published secrets in this country, and the DOJ has a

policy but a law. There is no statute that protects the New York Times, There is no statute that protects the Washington Post from criminal penalty for publishing classified information. We just don't do it. We don't force some First Amendment standoff with them by threatening that or by taking action. Although the Obama administration came very close listing James Rose in a Fox News as a co conspirator in an

espionage case. And you know, the Obama administration was horrific on press freedom, which they now pretend, Oh no, we shtood up to Obama Police, a bunch of whimps in the mainstream media. As you know, they did stand to Obama worth of dam But they're going on this conspiracy to hack into a government computer charge because that's one pretty easy to prove and two not specifically about the publishing. So they've just decided that they're going to get this guy.

And you know, I people are blaming the Trump administration for this. I think that there are a lot of Hillary people who are still in the government apparatus, who maybe Trump's you know, Trump's people have to sign often, and I get it, but I think a lot of the Hillary people want to see this guy go down too. I think this has turned into the political establishment in DC wants to finally get a sage and you know, they're gonna put him away for five years in a

federal federal prison. You know, see how he likes that, and they're going to turn him into a free speech martyr in the process. I would just note that's what a lot of people are gonna take from this. So scummy guy had an impact. A lot more to talk about here, but we'll continue to follow it. I'll be right back. Well, they finally got one. They finally federal government decided to take action against a Democrat for false statements and for failure to register as a foreign agent

and all the rest of it. Greg Craig, who is formerly White House counsel for President Barack Obama in his first year, was indicted earlier today. At a lot of big indictments lately, Anadi indictment, Julia Sans indictment, Greg Craig indictment, but two counts of making false and misleading statements to investigators,

including Special Counsel Robert Muller's team. And this is because, guess what, with all the Russia Russia Russia collusion nonsense, all the stuff you hear, it turns out that there are Democrats who were involved with Ukrainian oligarchs and trying to do shady overseas political dealings and all the rest of it. Greg craig was working on behalf of Russia

backed former President of Ukraine Victor Jennakovich. Oh, you mean that people who are politically connected in DC, that swamp creatures, will just go where the money is and they'll be unethical in the process. But it's not about trying to overturn in an election or do Putin's bidding. They'll just they're just guns for hire, They're just political mercenaries. You mean that this isn't actually a Republican or Trump specific thing. Oh,

that's right, that's right. And he concealed material facts and made false statements to Muller and the DOJ National Security Division about the Foreign Agents Registration Act. So this is tied to a Farah prosecution, but it's not technically Farah it's lying about Farah. And this guy was writing some kind of essentially a study, publishing a document and was saying that he only got was a report, saying that he only got twelve thousand dollars for it, when his

law firm has actually paid millions. Scadden received four million dollars for his services under this, not twelve not twelve thousand, four million. That's a big difference, very big difference. This just this shows you a few things. One is that you know, swamp creatures going to swamp. People that have access and can trade on that access for money tend

to do so. And this is no different. People that want to make a lot of money and are unscrupulous will go work overseas and try to you know, hide it. And in this case, he was hiding it because the report was meant to provide cover for Yanikovich in the international community. So it was better if it didn't look like Greg Craig was totally paid off to put forward

this report, right, So it was a credibility issue. So on top of just the lying about the funds and lying about this, they just were this this guy was paying to sell his credibility. Craig, who was Obama's White House counsel. That's right. Oh, there are people tied to Obama who are shady and do bad things. Yeah, of course there are. Um and uh, you know, this is this is one of these times where you see that,

you know, people can be corrupted for money. But then I got one other frustration, and this is just for me. You know, they're all gonna say, now, oh see, they'll they'll prosecute democrats too. Ah. Sorry, this is a sacrificial lamb case here. This is putting. This is putting a guy you know, in the cross areas who's not looking at that much time, whose conduct was pretty egregious for what it was, and Tie It's just like it's just what Manafort did, same kind of stuff, except minus the

tax violations. I'm not going to believe that we have, you know, an equal justice system for Democrats and Republicans in politically high profile cases until Andy McCabe and some others a DJ and FBI get prosecuted, until Andy McCabe gets prosecuted for lying under oath. Sorry, this doesn't cut it for me. This is just this is just trying to do a distraction move. For the most part, has returned a thirty six count indictment against a turning Michael Abanati.

This indictment is now the operative charging document in the case. The indictment substantially broadens the criminal conduct that was charged in the criminal complaint that was unsealed on March twenty fifth. The charges now being alleged against mister Abnati can be broken down into four general categories. First, wire fraud related to the theft of millions of dollars from five clients.

Second tax fraud including failing to file income tax returns for himself and his law firm, Third bank fraud, and fourth bankruptcy fraud. Michael Avenati is having a bad day. That's very clear. This guy is facing now thirty six count indictment and these are the kind of charges you know. I know Abanati thinks he's a clever guy, thinks that he's going to appeal to public sentiment and the fact that he's a Trump fighter, you know, that was that

was his big appeal before. Oh he's willing to stand with the porn star and be the creepy poorn lawyer that he was. But it was bad for Trump. So not only did Democrats not ask any tough questions about him. They elevated him. They pretend like it's not just like they pretend that there was no spying when we all know there were spying in the Trump campaign. This is this is not up for debate. This is not up

for discussion. They pretend now, Democrats in the left like there weren't real discussions, and I know there were because I'm here in the swamp and I talked to Democrats a lot. There were discussions about whether Avenati was going to be a dark horse political candidate for the presidency for the Democrats in twenty twenty. That was real that they want to tell you now that it wasn't there. We never would have done that. Yeah, right, it was real. That's just now that this guy has been exposed as

just the worst, slimiest, most disgraceful. I mean, producer Mike is telling me that it was on the cover of Politico. Yeah, man, Politico has on our heads right on the front cover that he was going to be in the twenty twenty candidate. So they were all in on him. This is this

is astonishing, This is astonishing. You know, the Politico would take the position that this guy based on what, by the way, because he says mean things about Trump and and and don't don't let them say, oh, it's only because of what's happened now, we could they couldn't have known that Michael Avanatti was so scummy. And that's really the word for he's scummy. Sky's an unethical, nasty, you know, vindictive, ambulance chaser, that's who this is. And the Democrats were like, yeah,

let's make him our champion. What does this tell you about them? Mother? For all they're talking about old Trump is so immoral and we don't like Trump because he doesn't use the nice language, and that's but then they want to stand behind Michael Avonati or even have a conversation about this guy as though he's someone that should be taken seriously really on any matter. It's appalling. I mean, the stupidity here is hard to overstate. But they went

for it. They they were they were all about Avenati and you know, trying to find some way to elevate him at Trump's expense. It was it should have been known that he wasn't anyone to put any stock in because he was the guy. You gotta remember, it's not

just a Stormy Daniels thing. Avanati represented Sweatnick, Julie Sweatnick, the third accuser against Brett Kavanaugh now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, thankfully, and Sweatnick's allegations were so transparently and obviously false and preposterous that any ethical lawyer would have would have refused to take that and write out a sworn statement and take that public. But Avenati's not ethical, not an ethical guy obviously. Oh what is the extent of his corruption?

I mean, how much of a scummy individual is he? This is from the indictment today as well, play clip twenty. Mister Avanati conducted committed wire fraud in relation to funds more than twelve million dollars in total, that he received and held in trust on behalf of his clients. While mister Avanatti was entitled to attorney's feast for the settlements he negotiated, the indictment alleges that he nevertheless stole millions

of dollars that rightfully belonged to his clients. There are five separate client victims in four cases in which money was stolen, including a paraplegic man who agreed to a multimillion dollars settlement, but has received only a fraction of the money, despite the fact that mister Avenatti received the full settlement amount over four years ago. That's right, everybody.

Michael Avenatti, one time Democrat hopeful for the presidency, the great anti Trump champion of the looney progressive Left, was stealing money from a paraplegic client of his as his lawyer. Avenati was robbing the guy in a wheelchair that he was supposed to represent and has a sacred legal duty to protect and assist. Nope, just stole the money. Just just stole the money from him. And are these are counts, by the way, These are the kinds of allegations where

it either is or it isn't. You know, we're talking about, you know, failure to file income taxes and uh and you know, stealing and money laundering and why or fraud and all these different things. That's the kind of stuff that gets you in a whole lot of trouble. And they either have the records or they don't. I'm sure Abnadi's gonna come up with, you know, some version of the of the uh, the kind of OJ defense here where it's like, oh, they're just getting me because it

has nothing to do with the case. But they're just going after me because of Trump. You know, that's what he's gonna say. You know, just like with oj was, oh yeah, I killed two people. But you know, racism, Avanadi is gonna be I I stole from a guy in a wheelchair who was my client. But Trump, I don't think that's gonna be enough. I don't think that's gonna work for this guy. But as fast as you can see, Democrats pretend like nothing ever happened, you know,

pretend like Michael Avenati was not. I mean, and not just in the political system, but the media, as though the media hadn't already with the Russia collusion nonsense, covered itself in an absolute just intellectual bile. I mean, just the media has ruined itself in a way that I'm hoping it will never recover from just over Russia. But

they put this guy Abanati on TV. I mean there was a time when Michael when CNN was the Avenati channel, I mean, he was on there it felt like ten times a day, all because they were just wanting to have somebody who was going to talk about how disgusting Donald Trump was, how terrible he was and how he slept with a porn star. And let's just talk more about the porn star and Donald Trump's sleeping with the porn star. That's all it was. We're supposed to treat

these places as as legitimate news organizations and news organizations. Now, now you can tell me, Buck, that was a real story. Okay, it wasn't that biggest story. Wasn't that interesting? And more than that, maybe they should have asked some questions about this guy who obviously has very sketchy relationships with his clients and has a history now that he's going to have to explain well before a hopefully a federal federal jury. That's where this is all heading. But this guy was

a hero of the resistance. And you know, you see this with a lot of these resistance heroes, whether it's that guy Schneiderman up in New York who is a left wing me too anti Trump resistance here, Oh he's actually a woman abuser and a scum. You know, you

see this. You saw this with Anthony Wiener. Oh, big firebrand leftist type, love to go on TV and mix it up and try to bash conservatives and fight with the right, and oh it turns out that you know, he's chasing around teenage girls and sending you know, elicit lewed photos to them, and now as a convicted sex offender. Right, But he was on MSNBC all the time. They loved putting,

they'd loved putting the Wiener on MSNBC. And now you've got Avannati, who, granted it is not guilty of that kind of conduct or thing that is in that realm, but the kind of unethical behavior talking about here, I mean, rip off your clients as a lawyer, doesn't get much worse than that. So we'll see what ends up happening. I know he's claiming that he's going to beat this. I wonder if that's going to be the case. I wouldn't want to represent have ANADI. I'll tell you that much.

By any measure, four thousand arrest in a day, one hundred thousand in a month, that's the population of the city of Albany, New York. That suddenly shows up on our southern border in one month is a crisis. And it's a crisis because it overwhelms our border patrol and

our immigration officials ability to deal with it. And it's a crisis because you have to absorb that population somehow into southern border towns, and so it overwhelms the humanitarian effort on our southern border, it overwhelms our DHS personnel, and frankly, it all emanates from the crisis that's been going on for some time in Central America. Oh there's a crisis. Huh. That's j Johnson, Obama's former DHS secretary, a guy very, very respected on the left, and he's saying,

looked by any measure, there's a crisis. Wait, but we were told what last month, month before that, no crisis, there's no crisis. What purpose Let's really think about this for a moment. What purpose is the media is supposed to serve? According to the media, right, not the real purpose that they serve is pushing a left wing agenda and trying to enrich themselves and grow their power and influence. And I'll do it under this guise of quote journalism.

But what what are they saying that they do? Oh, that's right. They provide the necessary information to the public for us to understand what's going on in our country and in our world and become more informed and therefore better citizens. Of this they would say democracy. Many of

you would correct them and say republic. But you know what I mean, right, They give us the necessary information to be involved and educated citizens there, and that should that should filter all the way up to our elected representatives. That's what they say. So how is it that they could get this so wrong? How is it possible that in good faith they could miss something by this much? Last twenty four hours you have headlines like this for the New York Times, the US immigration system may have

reached a breaking point? How did we go from reach a breaking point now? And you know, you go back in time and it was, oh, no, only people, the only people who are worried about this are are bad people who don't want Central Americans here and because they're mean, they're heartless, they want to just separate children and etc. Etc. You know Vox today where you know they just I don't know how they managed to get so many bitter beta mails working for one organization, but Vox does a

great job of it. Border the migration crisis and the Trump administration's response explained they had a piece just a few hours ago. So it's a crisis. Everyone now says it's a crisis. Why did it take them all this time to get to this point. Well, I'll tell you this, I think that not only were they denying the reality of it because they didn't want it to be true.

I think that for some of these newsrooms, for some of these organizations and publications, they wanted to give more time for to reach this critical mass because now the storyline that they're pushing isn't oh my gosh, what's going on here? What are we going to do to fix this and stop this? It's well, we're totally overwhelmed. So we're just gonna have to just bring in more and more and more. We can't stop this now. Now now it's our you know, the horses have already left the

you know, the barn doors were opened. The horses have already run out, so to speak. I messed up that metaphor, or you get what I'm saying. They it's already done. It's a fat accompla. So we might as well just accelerate this process and bring an even more just allow a mass migration from Central America into this country under with illegal crossings happening every day and under false pretenses.

It is a false pretense that all these families showing up the border are fleeing violence in their home countries. That is a lie. It's a lie because the violence under asylum systems that we're trying to deal with is violence that a specifically target against people because of either their ethnicity, their religion, or their political opposition to the state. It's not I live in a country where there's violence.

I live in Washington, d C. Am I an asylum seeker if I want to go to Canada because there are parts of DC that are violent. My part of DC isn't that violent, but there are parts of DC where there are shootings and stabbings and bad things happen. So can I say, do I get to go claim a silent you know, forget Canada. Can I claim a silent Monaco? Because I live in America and there's violence in America. Now, I know you're probably thinking, Buck, this

is absurd, but that's exactly right. It is absurd. The positions that are being taken here by the left, by the Democrats and their media lackeys, are absurd. They're just simply not intellectually defensible, and yet here we are the other thing that they're doing. And this just drives me just this drives me insane. This is all about racism

for them. That's that's what the argument turns into. You don't want mass illegal immigration into this country in violation of laws that Democrats aren't changing either, would I would note you know, Democrats won't vote for open borders. They just want open borders. And if you try to stand against this and speak about what's really going on, this is what they say. They say about you. What they say about Stephen Miller, the president's senior advisor, who is

an immigration architect of sorts, architect of immigration policy. Here's what the media says about him. Play thirteen. We have a white nationalist president who's a threat to American democracy. It's the language of white nationalist European splinterer, hard right crazy town parties, and we haven't heard in our politics in a long time. It's going to be Stephen Miller, and his sort of white nationalist tendencies are really obvious.

He can't even dress that up. Stephen Miller, immigration hardliner, immigration hardliner, Stephen Miller, the dark lord of antimmigration, Stephen Miller. I don't think it's a stretch for a lot of Americans out there to wonder whether or not the president is secretly considering himself a white nationalist. That was the senior White House correspondent for CNN saying he thinks the president secretly is a white nationalist. Just for anybody who

says do they can't call us fake news. That's still unfair. No, they are fake news. CNN's a joke. Maybe it won't always be, maybe it'll get its bearings and start to be a news organization again. Now CNN is a propaganda organ of the Democratic Party full stop. But all that stuff, they said, they're white nationalist. Trump's a white nationalist. Steve Miller's a white nationalist. This is how the left. This

is how the left debates. You know, they won't get into the substance on this because what they're doing is they're they're allowing the country to slowly dissolve. Our sovereignty is eroding every day. That's just reality. But they don't want to face that. So what they do is say, oh, well, if you have a problem with this, you're you're a white nationalist. You're a bad person. That's what they tell you.

There's a lot allowed to it, a lot you can get away with in debate if you have no ethics and no no real argument to make, and unfortunately that's what we face when we're arguing with lives. I know that there's something else that has been on your mind and on a lot of folks minds, and that is some comments and some backlash now to Congresswoman Elon Omar, after some comments surface this week in which and I want to play it, she said something about the nine

to eleven attacks. I want to talk about your reaction to the backlash and your reaction to the comment in two pieces. So here's that remark. Congresswoman Care was founded after nine eleven because they recognize that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose

access to our civil liberties. And it's that phrase people did something that is being picked up on by some of the congresswoman's critics, including for example, the cover of the New York Post, which I will ask you about in a second, But on these remarks themselves, some people did something as a reference to nine to eleven, do you think she should have rethought her words? Do you

worry about the appropriateness of that? They do this all the time to us, especially women of color, they do that, they take our words out of context because they're afraid because we speak truth, we speak truths of power. My sister Lahan Omar, she was she was talking about was uplifting people. Okay, so you've heard it. That's enough of the looney the looney bin over at MSNBC there. But I just wanted to give the uh, you know, give

the context of this. That was Rashida to leave another one of these new members of the Democrat majority House of Representatives who has some ideas that are that are problematic when it comes to well when it comes to Israel specifically, but a whole lot of things. And she went on to say that it was a pure racist act to call out Ilhan Omar for and they played the audio there too, so you got to hear for yourself. You know, you know, some people did something with nine

to eleven um. That's you know, let's let's just put it this way. I understand you can make this case that oh well, she was trying to just move past it quickly and not get bogged down too that. You know, there's there are ways you could try to explain away any bad comments. But you know, if we were talking about World War two and we were talking about the Holocaust and someone said, yeah, okay, so you know, some people did some very bad thing or she didn't even

say that. If you just said some people did some things in the death camps, people would rightly look at you like you were nuts. You know, what do you mean some people did something in the death camps? Like some it was one of the worst atrocities in the history of humanity? What why would you refer to that

as some people did something? And as a native New Yorker and an American and a human being to refer to the murder of nearly three thousand people over the course of an hour or so, including many of them burned alive, jumping out of buildings to escape the flames, crushed in debris, terrified to refer to that as some people did something. Yeah, you're gonna get hit for that. You're gonna get hit for that. Omar, you're good to

get hit for that. Talib people are going to rightly get upset at that, because it's a very disrespectful way to talk about an event that changed many lives. Changed my life, changed the lives of a lot of you. Listening to this who served in the military or served in the government trying to track down those pieces of you know what, who attacked us on that day. So it was a big deal. It was a big It wasn't some people did something. But you know, this is

the victim mentality. Oh omar At talking about CARE and look, CARE are often terror apologists. They are let's just say what it is. CARE the Council and Arab Islam or American Islamic relations rather is often downplaying terror and does this whole whiny Oh, but the real threat is Islamophobia all the time. You know. The real threat is that people are going to think that Islam isn't a religion of peace. Well, that's a whole other conversation. I do

not respect CARE as an organization. I do not think that. And don't even get me started with some of the other connections that it's had in the past. Will be

here all night. But for her to just sort to dismiss nine to eleven and say, the real problem is that people looked at some individuals wearing hit jobs in the months after nine to eleven a little bit strangely, I'm not saying that's not a problem, but it's nowhere near in the same stratosphere of problem as three thousand Americans, including a lot of Muslims by the way, killed on nine to eleven. I think that's a much, much bigger deal. But what's the go to. What does the progressive left

do when cornered with their own foolishness. Well, you know what they do. They make it about, Oh it's racist, Oh it's it's policing quote women of color, and the way that they speak about these matters, and this is

the way. There's a whole generation now it's really my contemporaries who are just beginning to you know, start their long, I'm sure decades long careers in the Congress of these progressive, woke social justice warrior types, who don't you know, Pelosi and Biden, you know, they they give lip service to all that social justice stuff because it's useful for them,

but they don't they're not true believers. You know. Joe Biden is a white dude who likes to play a lot of golf and you know, puts on this air of being a man of the people, but really really likes to spend time around the fancy and the connected. But to leave and Omar and Ocazio Cortez and you know, a whole bunch of other young Democrat members of Congress.

They're true believers in this stuff. I mean they they think that social justice, wokeness and intersectionality and the obsession that the left has with the politics of oppression and victimology, that that's not just for them a posture. They really think this stuff is. They think that this is real.

They want to fight against it, and they know that their most effective weapon is to run around calling everybody racist, calling everybody an islamophobe, and just try to use fear instead of argument and persuasion so that no one will stand in their way. And here's to leave talking about Trump's travel ban, which people still they still say it's a Muslim ban. It bans something like, population wise, twelve percent of the Muslim world. I mean, it's a tiny,

tiny fraction, and there are all kinds of loopholes. And but here's what she says about that plate twenty two. The fact that even the Muslim band being present, currently in existence, it shows to so many people like somehow, as being of Muslim faith, expressing your freedom of religion in this country, that somehow that you're less than and they need to see leadership from Congress members. They say, we don't agree with this president, we don't agree with

this on American policy. And that's what we're doing by introducing this bill and pushing forward and using it to educate American people that this directly this No matter what the courts are saying, I'm telling you, this was intended to directly impact people's right to express themselves through other faith and in many ways also feel make people feel less than because they're Muslim faith. So was it intended to make all the North Korean Muslims, of which there

are none, feel less than? Or what about the Venezuela and Muslims of which there are some but not very many? Were they were they supposed to feel badly about? What about the rest of the people of Venezuela and North Korea? Was this an attack on their Islamic nous or lack of lack of Islamic credentials. I'm just wondering. I'm just wondering. What about all the Muslim countries that are not included

in the band? Oh? What about the fact that the countries in the band were specifically singled out by the Obama administration as countries that have a particular problem with terrorism? Is that what was Obama being islamophobic and racist? Or I I just would like some clarity from the left on this. I'd them to explain what it is exactly that they're they're referring to when they call it a Muslim ban, because it clearly doesn't ban all Muslims. It

only bans some Muslims. So, and it's based on national origin, not based on religious persuasions. So in fact, if you are an Iranian, an Iranian Christian, or an Iranian Jew, you would also be covered by this. Is it something we should ignore that many of the most troubled places in the world when it comes to political violence and instability, happen to be Muslim majority countries. Are Are we supposed to pretend that's not the case? No, you know, we're

supposed to do. We are supposed to let Omar and to Leib and Okazio Cortez just browbeat all the rest of us into agreeing to whatever they want politically culturally, because to oppose them is to be sexist, racist, bigoted, and islamophobic. That's the real plan, that's their pitch and unfortunately, because of the brainwashing of the millennials that are you know, my generation, this stuff works. Alexa. What is the CIA?

The Central Intelligence Agency, the civilian foreign intelligence service of the US government, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence. Do you work for the CIA, Alexa? Do you work for the CIA? No? I'm not employed by them. I'm made by Amazon. Alright, alright, alright, So that was one of my That was one of my favorite. Uh, that's one of my favorite Alex Jones moments there, man, Alexa,

do you work for the CIA? No? I do not work for the CIA. So here's here's why I'm bringing this up right now. Other than you know, anytime we could talk about mister Jones's greatest hits is entertaining. There is reason to be concerned about these open mics that people have all over the place. I've been worried about this for some time. I have Sirie on my iPhone.

I turn Siri off. Why would I turn Syria off? Well, because for me, the idea that I would have a microphone that is actively monitoring and therefore recording everything that I say, and that that recording device is one in trusting that information to a third party, and two already linked up to all of my personal information and data and connected to the Internet. That strikes me as a little bit terrifying. And this is where we start to see that we do live in a kind of digital panopticon.

I don't know how many of you know what a panopticon, so let me explain that for a second. It's an English philosopher named Jeremy Bentham came up with this idea in the eighteenth century of a building where you are essentially there's one central guard tower surrounded with all these

cells that are open. And because the cells are all open and you have no privacy and there's a guard tower, everyone will behave because there's you never know if someone's looking at you, right, so you never know when you're being watched versus when other people are being watched. So therefore you have to assume all the time you're being watched. We do live in a kind of digital panopticon. Now, now, I think in many ways that's good for human behavior.

I think that the enormous increases we've had in safety in America for example, are largely attributable to technology, most specifically the proliferation of cellular phones and geolocation on those phones, and just the all the tracking and everything that's possible as a result of these computers, which is what we are carrying. We are carrying computers around with us all the time that are tracking our moves, that are storing our communications. But I've never been comfortable with this thing

of sirie. You know, when I'm sitting around that I'm like talking. I don't know, maybe I'm talking a little bit about T. Swift's greatest hits and it's like playing Taylor's swift? Are you ready for it? When that happens? Not that that has ever happened to me, obviously, Right that happens a producer, Mike, I'm not the T. Swift fan, But when that happens, he's going to punch me for that.

I just got to say that. You know, you got to remember that that information that you're speaking openly all the time about is going through an electronic device, and there is some analysis of it. Well turns out that it's not just and this is the big story today on Bloomberg. It's not just the algorithms and machine learning that has applied to what you're saying in earshot of

your Alexa. The reality is that a lot of what you're saying, or at least a lot of what you're saying, could be listen to buy an actual, live human being who works for Amazon. That's disconcerting, folks. I would not want that to be the case. I think that this is where we see the the privacy need should be

re established in ways that that are urgent. They have this article or they talk about how there are you know, there's tens of millions of people around the world who use these smart speakers, and they'll say, you know, play Kenny G. You know do do do Do Do Do do do? Do you know? Kenny G? Right, that sounds just like Kenny G. I will have you know, and then it comes on and people think they're all cool. So when I'm like, hey, Alexa, drop down the Murphy bed,

turn the lights low, and let the cats stevens Perrum. Yeah, maybe I look like a smooth operator. Smooth, but that means that all the times when I'm talking about other things, Alexa is also hearing that. And there are cases now of people that work for Amazon, who have heard what they think might be a crime in progress, or that they might have even heard a sexual assault or a child being abused or you know something, and you know, what are the legal ramifications of this? When do they

take action? How do they know what's really going on? What are the expectations we should have of a company that is essentially now Remember, I understand this is not Amazon's fault per se, because people are bringing these devices into their homes. They know that they're open, open microphones. But everyone should be very uncomfortable with the idea of an open microphone in their home. I'm uncomfortable enough with the smartphones that we currently have and the fact that

we know they can be turned on remotely. There was that I think it was in Skype or was it in FaceTime, where there was a way that you could conference in people and you could turn on the video feature on their phone even if they didn't want it. I mean, this is all very real, and it's just it's a reminder that there are always going to be tradeoffs with technology. Sometimes the tradeoffs are are very minimal on the downside, but there's always some kind of a tradeoff.

You know, whoever used to make buggy whips. Is pretty bummed out now that people are making car engines. But when you're talking about the surveillance realm and the self surveillance that we are doing now, the people, you know, the Founding Fathers, and I like to remind everybody of this, the Founding Fathers were concerned about general warrants. A general warrant required an actual agent of the British government to go in and look through your stuff and you know,

rifle through your papers and your personal effects. And that really upset the colonials, right. That got the our forefathers in quite a their breaches got into a twist, if you will. But now what you have, our government agencies and government and private agencies as well have far more access and information about us than anybody would have thought possible. And the Founding Fathers were concerned about the intrusion into our private lives when it required an actual human being. Right.

This is why we have the amendments that we do. This is why we have individual protections for individual liberty. The ability of the government to intrude into your life now is so much magnified from what it was in the late in late eighteenth century. And because it's convenience though, and because it's associated with what is new and what is hip and what is you know, creates wealth, we

don't always think about the other end of it. So I'm just telling you I am not a I love technology, I'm not a luddite, but I am somebody who doesn't want open microphones. I mean, here's a perfect example. Whenever I'm recording at home, I don't leave. Even though I've got some devices set up where I can do radio, I can connect radio live if I want to from my home. The Freedom hut is is sometimes mobile, but I always unplugged. I always told the engineers, I want

to know how to unplug the microphone. So it is from an engineering and electricity standpoint, impossible for this mic to be on because I don't want to trust that, oh the program is off. Oh maybe the program's on now. Now maybe everything I'm doing in my home is being recorded on a device. I'm just not okay with it. So this story has been a long time in coming. But you know, people should have known this, really, the fact that this is collecting and collecting what you say

all the time and sifting through it algorithmically. If they're sifting through it algorithmically, it means that there is some digital storage of what you're saying. And if there's digital storage of it, then human beings can hear two folks. I don't even want to know how this is being applied in some other countries where we have no expected where there is no expectation of privacy, there are no First Amendment rights. But perhaps that'll be a conversation for

another time. Team, Let's talk about a very special day today coming up in just a moment. It's a very special day to day, folks. No, I don't have a family birthday to give a shout out to, but it's not quite as cool as that, so maybe now I'm disappointing you. But it is National Pet Day, which is one of these things where people come up with a national day for something. There's like National Banana slug Day, National where birkenstocks even though they're outdated since nineteen ninety

eight day. I mean, there's all kinds of weird days that we are supposed to celebrate now, but National Pet Day is kind of a fun one because we all get to post photos of our little free fluffy fluffy friends, I mean national pet. Now that's assuming I know some of you are like Buck. There's a little bit of pet bigotry going on here with you. Because maybe my pet's not fluffy, Maybe it has gales, maybe it has slime, maybe it has fangs and poison that it can inject

via them. And if the answer to any of those is, or if the reality of any of those is that yes, that's what you have, I am very curious as to some of the decisions you've made up. I always wonder why anyone would have a pet tarantula, for example, I always remember that from home alone, did terrified ever since I would not allow somebody. You know, there are most pets that I would allow in my home, even as a visitor. Pet tarantula, it's not coming to the house. Sorry,

not doing it. Tarantulas or the enemy snakes. I also hate snakes. I don't understand, and I think that lizard brains aren't big enough to form emotional attachments. Some people have gotten mad at me. They say my pet turtle was very loving. I don't think you can snuggle a turtle ps salmonella. So there's that. But let me talk to you about the dogs that I had growing or in my family at least we had a Boston Terrier growing up who was endurable and her name was Dixie.

Very very cute dog. Boston Terrors to those of you who want a compact dog with a tremendous amount of energy and spunk, but really sweet and a great temperament. Boston Terrors are really really good. So people that have young families in particular, and if you don't have a big house in a big yard, I think Boston Terror is a great choice. Now my parents, my family up in New York. They have a French bulldog named Tulula who is very French. One minute she wants to give

you a kiss. Son's a cheek was the tongue because she thinks you're also fantastic. The next minute she cannot be found anywhere, actually doesn't want to talk to you. She will not respond to your phone callio text message because she is French. She's she can be a little kois sometimes, so you know, occasionally she wants snuggles and then she doesn't want snuggles, and you know then you just want those little French bulldogs snuggles all the more.

But she's a lot of fun. My older brother has a pom Rain and that he now again a small dog. But if you live in a city, small dogs make a lot of sense. People that have these large dogs, you know, I mean, you don't want a Rhodesian ridge back if you're living in a four hundred square foot studio in Murray Hill. I'm just saying, folks, it's not a good idea. I see people that do this, and I go, you know, you got to think about the breed that you're going to be bringing into your home.

I'm not bringing up the pit bull thing because I know people are so and that's like bringing up vaccines. People are very passionate on both sides of that discussion. I've known some lovely pit bulls. I also think that animals that are much more powerful and have more powerful jaws, you have a smaller margin for error if they're not. You know, someone's Chihuahua is a biter. It's very different

than someone's eighty pound pit is a biter. But I know people get mad they say pit bulls are wonderful pets. I've I've missed. I've you know, I've known pit bulls. So and then there's the other thing that I always find so interesting about the pet world, and this is make me want to get a dog, really about And my dream dog is an English bulldog. No, I want an English bulldog. I'm gonna get one one day. I already have ten different names picked out for him or her.

I'm not sure which I'm gonna go with. But that the for the four legged animals, obviously the most popular dogs, then cats. I think that's right, isn't it. Yeah, thirty six percent of us households own a dog, thirty percent own a cat. Now that's of I think that must be of people that have a pet, thirty per thirty six. So basically a third of pet owners have dogs, a third of pet owners have cats, and then it's broken

down between the rest. But you know what, the John, what's the most popular four legged pet that's not a dog or a cat? Hamlin close, very good, guess it's actually ferrets. It's actually a ferret. Nope, John, Actually, I'm looking at the stats right now. I lied turns out that it's you're right. Look at that job. You're right, it is a hamster. Ferrets are number five on the list, after hamsters and guinea pigs, so I've never ceased to impress John amazing stuff. Roll call is up next, Team Buck,

It's time for roll call. All right, let's get to some roll call. I feel like it's been so long. It's been a full twenty four hours since the roll call time, and that's just too long. Facebook dot Com slash buck Sexton to send your thoughts here to the Freedom Hunt, to the Buck Sexton Show. I always love to hear from you, and even when the messages that come in have far too many links in them, a little pet peeve of mine, guys, I want to I

want to hear from you. Want eight links, so write me, don't link spam me, but even the link spamming, I appreciate the effort, although don't do it. Some of your thoughts Sean Right's afternoon, Buck. I read that Congress is thinking of giving themselves a pay raise again. How about the state that represents them have to vote for pay raises and or reductions? Could you use your swampy connections

to see if this can really become a reality. Shielty Shan an original real news fan Wow real News from back in the day. Sean that is going on eight years ago. Isn't that pretty astonishing turn of events. Eight years ago was when we or I think that's right, launched the Real News Show on the Blaze, and that was a great show. I still think that Glennbeck doesn't get enough credit to this day for what he did

for conservative media in this country. He set up a place where people like me who had no previous media training could go and get world class media training. I mean, have really top executives running a company where you also had a lot of freedom to maneuver, a lot of ability to try you try your hand to different things.

I mean when I was the Blaze, I was doing radio, I was doing podcast, I was doing writing for the website, wrote an ebook, and did TV every day, all different kinds of t panel shows, hosting shows, quick hits as a guest. So the Real News was a part of that whole effort. And I still think that when you look at who came out of the Blaze, either as an employee or I know, the Blaze, people say that the Blaze is still round Buck, I know, but it's different now it's merged with CRTV and now it's the

Blaze Media. But the original days of the Blaze TV, which was GBTV. You had all of your favorite conservatives really aged, not all of them, to say, Buck, what about so and so? But a big chunk of your favorite conservatives age twenty five to four, maybe now more like thirty to forty. We're all going through the Blaze in different ways a different times. So I'm glad that some of you have stuck with me all this time. TJ writes, Buck, have you looked much into the firing

of Palmer Lucky, the Oculus founder from Facebook? Supposedly it was performance Base, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise, and in fact was likely because of his support for Trump, plus a lot of other shady, possibly illegal stuff by Facebook. Blake Harris is the author of the book The History of the Future that chronicles this story, and was on Beck's radio show podcast yesterday talking about it. You should see if you can get him on your

show or on Rising to discuss ps. His book has skyrocketed up the bestseller's list since his appearance on Beck's show. That's really interesting, TJ. I don't know anything about this, so I'll have to look into a little bit. Oculus, huh. I always think of oculus and confuse it with We're not confuse it with But I think of the show Silicon Valley where they have the guy who says octopus when he means oculus, and he has a whole Yeah, he has. There's I can't explain it other than that, David,

that was a weird anecdote, I know. But if you watch Silicon Valley, you're like, I know what he's talking about, David rod Shield's I buck ted Lu's obvious misrepresentation of what Cannis Owens right after he played the clip said was jaw dropping. Lou wants people to think that what made Hitler amaniac was the nationalist part of national socialism, probably because he knows his own party is currently infested with anti Semitic socialists who want global power without borders.

Sounds familiar, Well, David, I you know, I know that the Democrats really do believe because they've been they've been brainwashed into thinking this, and they've been told this by many, many people, that national socialism had nothing to do with socialism.

This is where I would tell you to check out the book The Nazi War on Cancer, and there are there is a lot of a lot of different programs put in place by the National Socialists that would now you have to put put aside the you know, the racial, genocidal, all those components of it for a moment. I'm just saying there are other programs within the Nazi state that were very clearly socialists. That's why they're called the National Socialists. So they can try as much as they want to

remove that component. But the Nazi Party, the National Socialists were in fact collectivists. They were socialists. They were making war on the Lutheran Church in Germany. They were fighting with communists, not because they hate communism so much, but because communists and National Socialists were fighting over the same recruits. They're fighting over the same groups of people in the streets, so to speak. And that's so they were rivals. They

were not ideological opposites. That's not the same thing. And one of the shortcomings even for devoted, devoted socialists, one of the shortcomings of and this is the reason why you have the Communist Internationale, and one of the things they realized was going to be problematic is that people, even if they have a unifying global ideology, they like the idea of belonging to a nation. People think of themselves.

Sure they want to be socialists, but they want to be you know, Dutch socialists and German socialists and Spanish socialists, etc. They don't necessarily just want to be part of this world workers movement, because we need a greater sense of identity than that. Karen rights. Some of the new ads, especially during the podcast, are uninteresting, but they pay the bills so I can live with them. Karen, thank you so much. That's right. Hashtag commerce, hashtag capitalism very important.

It's what keeps being on the air. It's also where I'll tell you that whenever I give you guys a commercial with a slash buck at the end of it to use promo code buck, please do check out that product if you have a chance. You know, if you're not already a subscribe to Black Rifle under my code, which is very important, or if you haven't yet thought about giving the Leadership Institute or tried First Leaf Wine Club or any of these different those of you who

have do background need background checks for your business. Our friends in Global Verification has been a great partner. Whenever you try their services and they know that you learned about it on this show, you are voting for the continued growth and success of the Buck Saxon Show. It's very straightforward, it's very easy. So this show is obviously free for all of you across the country every day. But our sponsors are are what keeps the radio electrified.

It is what keeps the lights on in the Freedom Hunt, and I'm very upfront about that. These are partners for the show. And whenever you can show your support for what we do here trying their products, checking out their services, it really does. It means a lot. And every single one of you counts. I mean they they count up how many of you go in and even if you don't buy something, if you go to the site, you go to the u r L and show some interest

in the product, that helps. Although bonding is better if you can capitalism, baby, I'm all about it, Corey. Right, just a quick shout out to expand upon what James wrote in about I'm also a podcast listener and there's also a lot of these ads. Thanks heaven, Thank Heavens for the fast forward seek button. You know, Corey, We're

gonna try to find a happy medium here. I'm gonna talk to my team and see if we can get some stuff set up so that we you know, we're in a place now where yeah, we need to have ADS, but I want, I obviously want the user experience to be optimal. Oh, Bruce, whenever it starts out like this, you know, I got trouble. It's not often I disagree with you, but I honestly do not believe Mitch McConnell deserves credit for holding off Garland or his support of

Judge Kavanaugh. That is simply what he was elected to do, besides do nothing, or the opposite would have been political suicide. Picking Kavanaugh was not one of the present's finest moments. There were far more conservative picks just saying, mm, you know, Bruce, I'm gonna, I'm gonna. I'll see your disagreement and raise you a disagreement. I think that you know, Mitch McConnell has been willing on and I'm not some big Mitch McConnell fan bookshexterns are fantastic radio or host, and I

wanted him to always be the best own radio. I think Mitch McConnell, you know, in some ways, really typifies the Republican establishment and does occasionally have some rhino tendencies depends on the topic. But on the issue of conservative judges, man, he's been a beast. He has been getting those nominations through. He's he was willing to fight fire with fire and refuse to allow Democrats to continue their obstruction. So it's

all real stuff. They're folks, That's that's all real m. I I mean, look, Bruce, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled the mine on this one. And I see what you're saying. We just have different standards for what's worthy of applause. Your point is that's what he's supposed to do, So that's the way it should be. And my sense of it is these days, if you're a politician and you just meet the bare minimum standard of what we want from you, that puts you in a

kind of class by yourself. Brian. Hold on a second, Brian, here you go, hey, brother, great ran on taxes tonight. I gave up trying to figure out a long time ago and simply pay a company to do it for me and tell me where to sign. That said, My wife and I finally purchased a home last year for a young family. Congratulations, Brian. Oh, Unfortunately, we had to pull from our four O one K to help with a down payment. Oh, the irs charge just more than

ten thousand dollars over last year's taxes for it. Just when I think I'm getting out of debt, they pull me back in. It's just so gosh darn intentionally confusing to retain the ability to get you on anything, praying for a flat tax on assets. I leave you with a quote from Einstein. The hardest thing in the world is to understand income taxes. It's a legit quote. Come on, dude, No, really, no, it's not. No, it's not. That's like Abraham Lincoln says,

don't believe everything that you hear on the internet. You know, I don't. I don't buy that one. But Brian, I hear you on the taxes man, it's out of control. People need to get a grip and stop allowing for us to all get ripped off by the government the way that we do. And look, it's corruption. I mean, that's why the tax code is the way it is because of corruption. This is very, very straightforward. Katie writes Buck. I love your passion, Katie. I love your love of

passion when you're really feeling it. Lately, your voice gets gruff. It makes me nervous for anyone next in the studio. But I know you're being real. I was wondering if the Chicago pd can sue Smolette for the cost of his fraudulent case. Don't I have standing as a taxpayer to sue the DNC and just Department for the twenty six million dollars spent on the Russian investigation. I want

my money back, Katie. I hear you in principle, but your share of the Russian investigation would probably be, you know, less than a penny, and same with mine, because there's a lot of his paying taxes. But I hear what you're saying, and I do think that Smolette should be forced to pay back the money that he costs the city of Chicago. But I'm I think Smilllette might get off totally, totally scott free in this whole thing, which

is appalling. All right, Team Tomorrow Freestyle Friday, looking forward to it. I'll talk to you then, Shields High